-VOL-
1

-N-
1
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Apr 83 14:51:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Welcome
-BODY-

Welcome to the AIList.

I am the moderator of the AIList discussion.  I am responsible
for composing the digest from pending submissions, controlling
the daily volume of mail, keeping an archive, and answering
administrative requests.

You may submit mail for the digest by addressing it to AIList@SRI-AI.
Administrative requests should be sent to AIList-Request@SRI-AI.
An archival copy of all list remailings will be kept; feel free to
ask AIList-Request for back issues until a formal archive system is
instituted.

AIList is open to discussion of any topic related to artificial
intelligence.  My own interests are primarily in

  Expert Systems                        AI Applications
  Knowledge Representation              Knowledge Acquisition
  Problem Solving                       Hierarchical Inference
  Machine Learning                      Pattern Recognition
  AI Techniques                         Data Analysis Techniques

Contributions concerning

  Cognitive Psychology                  Human Perception
  Vision Analysis                       Speech Analysis
  Language Understanding                Natural Languages
  AI Languages                          AI Environments
  Automatic Programming                 AI Systems Support
  Theorem Proving                       Logic Programming
  Robotics                              Automated Design
  Planning and Search                   Cybernetics
  Game Theory                           Computer Science
  Data Abstraction                      Library Science
  Statistical Techniques                Information Theory
  AI Hardware                           Information Display

and related topics are also welcome.  Contributions may be anything
from tutorials to rampant speculation.  In particular, the following
are sought.

  Abstracts                             Reviews
  Lab Descriptions                      Research Overviews
  Work Planned or in Progress           Half-Baked Ideas
  Conference Announcements              Conference Reports
  Bibliographies                        History of AI
  Puzzles and Unsolved Problems         Anecdotes, Jokes, and Poems
  Queries and Requests                  Address Changes (Bindings)

The only real boundaries to the discussion are defined by the topics
of other mailing lists.  Robotic mythology, for instance, might be
more appropriate for SF-LOVERS.  Logic programming and theorem proving
are also covered by the PROLOG list.

I suggest that you "sign" submissions longer than a paragraph so that
readers don't have to scroll backwards to see the FROM line.  Editing
of contributions will usually be limited to text justifications and
spelling corrections.  Editorial remarks and elisions will be marked
with square brackets.  The author will be contacted if significant
editing is required.

I have no objection to distributing material that is destined for
conference proceedings or any other publication.  You may want to
send copies of your submissions to SIGART @USC-ECLC or to the AI
Magazine (currently Engelmore @SUMEX-Aim) for hardcopy publication.
List items should be considered unrefereed working papers, and
opinions to be those of the author and not of any organization.
Copies of list items should credit the original author, not
necessarily to the AIList.

The list does not assume copyright, nor does it accept any liability
arising from remailing of submitted material.  I reserve the right,
however, to refuse to remail any contribution that I judge to be
obscene, libelous, irrelevant, or pointless.

Names and net addresses of list members are in the public domain.
Your name will be made available (for noncommercial purposes) unless
special arrangements are made.

Replies to public requests for information should be sent, at least
in "carbon" form, to this list unless the request states otherwise.
If necessary, I will digest or abstract the replies to control the
volume of distributed mail.

Please contribute freely.  I would rather deal with too much material
than with too little.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Apr 83 09:34:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: AIList <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Charter Membership
-BODY-

The AIList is off to a good start.  We have approximately 168
subscribers, plus an unknown number through remailing or BBoard
services at

    AI-INFO@CIT-20              DSN-AI@SU-DSN (*)
    AIList@BRL                  AI-BBD.UMCP-CS@UDel-Relay (*)
    AIList@Cornell              BBOARD.AIList@UTEXAS-20 (*)
    bbAI-List@MIT-XX            G.TI.DAK@UTEXAS-20
    AI-BBOARD@SRI-AI            AI-LOCAL@YALE
    Incoming-AIList@SUMEX       AI@RADC-TOPS20
    AIList-Distribution@MIT-EE  AIList-BBOARD@RUTGERS
    Spaf.GATech@UDel-Relay

(Maintainers of the starred BBoards have specifically requested
that local subscribers drop their individual memberships.)


The "charter membership" is distributed as follows:

AIDS-UNIX(2), BBNA, BBNG, BBN-UNIX, BRL(bb), BRL-VLD, CIT-20(bb),
CORNELL(1+bb), CMU-CS-A(12), CMU-CS-C(2), CMU-CS-G, CMU-CS-IUS,
CMU-CS-SPICE, CMU-RI-FAS(2), CMU-RI-ISL, DSN-AI@SU-DSN(1+bb),
GATech@UDel_Relay(bb), KESTREL, MIT-DSPG(2), MIT-EE(bb), MIT-MC(10),
MIT-EECS@MIT-MC, MIT-OZ@MIT-MC(17), MIT-ML(3), MIT-OZ@MIT-ML,
MIT-SPEECH, MIT-XX(5+bb), OFFICE-3, PARC-MAXC(8),
RADC-TOPS-20(bb),RUTGERS(6+bb), S1-C, SRI-AI(5+bb), SRI-CSL,
SRI-KL(2), SRI-TSC, SU-AI@USC-ECL(10), SUMEX(1+bb), SUMEX-AIM(7),
SU-SCORE(11), UCI-20A@Rand-Relay, UCLA-SECURITY, UMASS-CS@UDel-Relay,
UMCP-CS@UDel-Relay(bb), USC-ECL(3), USC-ECLB(2), USC-ECLC,
USC-ISI(2), USC-ISIB(5), USC-ISID, USC-ISIE, USC-ISIF(4), UTAH-20(7),
UTEXAS-20(6+bb), WASHINGTON(5), YALE(3+bb)

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 1983 0227-EST
-FROM-
From: TYG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: addition and woe
-BODY-
Please add me to the list.  Sigh.  I came up with the idea of a list
to disseminate abstracts and ordering info for AI papers last Dec.,
but held off due to the Arpanet changeover.  I then got busy with
other things, and planned to get it going in a few weeks.  Sigh.

Anyway, I may as well share my ideas for the list.  I think all sites
doing AI should be asked to submit the following info about papers as
they come out:  Title, Author, Length, Type (Master's thesis, Ph.D.
thesis, Tech report, Journal article, etc.), Abstract, Cost, and
ordering information.  Presumably the person at each site in charge of
publications would enter this.

Good Luck Tom "Next time I won't procrastinate" Galloway

[I would welcome such input.  The "person in charge" need not be a
member of this list.  I suggest that administrative personnel send
such information both to AIList and to SIGART@USC-ECLC.  Ordering
information for AIList could be abbreviated to a net address if the
sender is willing to respond to queries.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 21-Apr-83  15:23:45-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY    HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bundy@edxa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistics on IJCAI-83 Papers
-BODY-
[I don't think Alan Bundy will mind my passing along these
statistics.  I have edited the table slightly to fit the 70-column
capacity of the digesting software made available by Mel Pleasant,
the Human-Nets moderator.  The digester was developed by James
McGrath at SCORE. -- KIL]


                PAPER STATISTICS - IJCAI-83

                        Submitted       Accepted        Moved
Subfield                Long    Short   Long    Short   L -> S

Miscellaneous           -       3       -       1
Automatic Prog.         8       11      1       7       4
Cognitive Modelling     9       32      2       12      3
Expert Systems          31      56      8       31      9
Knowledge Repn.         28      40      7       24      6
Learning & Know. Acq.   14      35      1       22      5
Logic Prog.             14      17      4       9       4
Natural Language        23      74      2       39      7
Planning & Search       11      20      3       11      5
Robotics                11      8       5       7       2
System Support          4       9       -       5       2
Theorem Proving         7       16      5       8       -
Vision                  32      38      10      31      14

        TOTAL           192     359     48      207     61



        COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS IJCAI CONFERENCES

                                LONG    SHORT   TOTAL

IJCAI-79 Submitted Total        unk     unk     428
IJCAI-79 Accepted Total         83      145     228
IJCAI-79 Acceptance Rate                        53%

IJCAI-81 Submitted Total        unk     unk     576
IJCAI-81 Accepted Total         127     74      201
IJCAI-81 Acceptance Rate                        35%


IJCAI-83 Submitted Total        192     359     551
IJCAI-83 Accepted Total         48      207     255
IJCAI-83 Acceptance Rate                        46%



                REMARKS

        You will see that I succeeded in my aim of shifting the burden
of papers from the long to the short categories.  This enabled us to
apply high standards to the long papers without decreasing the overall
acceptance rate.

                        Alan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Apr 83 20:41:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Standardized Correspondence
-BODY-
[This is arguably more appropriate for Human-Nets, but I want to
illustrate the level of reporting and/or discussion that I consider
appropriate for this list.  -- KIL]


The May issue of High Technology describes the Prentice-Hall Letter
Pac system from Dictronics Publishing.  It is a semiautomatic business
letter generator that customizes prototypical letters by substituting
synonyms categorized into four levels of formality (e.g., ask,
request, demand).  The user need only insert a few particulars before
sending the letter out.

The article also suggests automatic letter reading (i.e., parsing).
There is already a system that compresses text by discarding all but
the first sentence of each paragraph.  More sophisticated text
condensation and text understanding systems are being developed.  A
short-cut is available, however.

If everyone used Letter Pac or an equivalent, parsing the text would
be a simple matter of extracting the original generating parameters:
(dunning-letter-7 formality-level-3 car-payment-overdue $127.38).  The
"Dear Sir" form of the letter would then exist only for transmission
between computers.

If this became common, could elimination of the text form be long in
coming?  I believe that John McCarthy has been working on ideas along
this line.  Most transactions could be handled directly by computers
using standardized transaction formats.  When transmission of English
text is necessary, it might make sense to send preparsed sentences
instead of having one computer synthesize a message and a second one
parse it.  All that is needed is to have identical synthesis and
parsing software available to both machines for those rare occasions
when a human wants to enter the loop.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
2
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Apr 83 17:17:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: AIList <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New BBoards
-BODY-

The following new BBoards and remailing lists have been created:

    AIList-BBOARD@RUTGERS
    NYU-AIList@NYU
    "XeroxAIList^.PA"@PARC-MAXC
    UCI-AIList.UCI@Rand-Relay

I am told that the PARC list has 94 members.  As yet there is no
BBoard at CMU (36 members); someone might want to establish one.  I
will publish an updated list of hosts after the membership settles
down.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 83 18:26:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: John O'Donnell <Odonnell@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The T Programming Language
-BODY-
I am pleased to announce the availability of our implementation of the
T programming language for the VAX under the Unix (4.xBSD) and VMS
(3.x) operating systems and for the Apollo Domain workstation.

T is a new dialect of Lisp comparable in power to other recent
dialects such as Lisp Machine Lisp and Common Lisp, but fundamentally
more similar in spirit to Scheme than to traditional Lisps.

The current system, version 2, is in production use at Yale and
elsewhere, in AI and systems research and in education.  A number of
large programs have been built in T, and the implementation is
acceptably stable and robust.  Yale and Harvard successfully taught
undergraduate courses this semester in T (Harvard used Sussman and
Abelson's 6.001 course).  Much work remains to be done; we are
currently expanding the programming environment and improving
performance.  Our next release is planned for sometime this fall.

Please contact me directly if you're interested in getting the
distribution.

                          John O'Donnell
                          Department of Computer Science
                          Box 2158 Yale Station
                          New Haven CT 06520
                          (203) 432-4666
                          ODonnell@Yale
                          ...decvax!yale-comix!odonnell

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Apr 83 14:40:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallel non-numeric algorithms
-BODY-
        Part of my Ph.D. work has been in parallel processing
algorithms in graph theory (unfortunately, no hardware is currently
available for an implementation, but that only makes the excursion a
little less satisfying). Specifically, I have been simulating the
performance of an algorithm for the utilization of parallel processing
in speeding up the common subgraph search problem. Commonly, this
problem involves finding all sufficiently large subgraphs common to
two given graphs.  No efficient algorithm exists for doing this
search.

        I know that several AI groups are working on parallel
processing in AI, but have not found any discussion involving graph
searching techniques. The bias in parallel processing has been toward
numerical algorithms and the use of array processors; I figured that
there MUST be some AI group working at parallel processing in a
non-numerical field such as graph searching.  I would like to hear
from anyone who knows of such or similar work.

        By the way, I had heard that workers had had 'problems' with
the parallel LISP machines, but have not been able to pin anyone down
exactly as to the nature or extent of these problems.  Anyone know
exactly what was discovered in those researches?

Thanks--

David Rogers DROGERS@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Apr 83 08:35:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pattern Recognition
-BODY-

PR People should take note of "Candide's Practical Principles of
Experimental Pattern Recognition", by George Nagy, in the March issue
of IEEE PAMI.  I particularly like

    ... any feature may be presumed to be normally
    distributed if its mean and variance can be
    estimated from its empirically observed distribution.

and

    ... adapting the classifier to the test set is
    superior to adaptation on the training set.

                                -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 April 1983 04:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Standardized Correspondence
-BODY-
Rather than distributing the same software to every site, it would
make more sense to develop a machine-to-machine language which would
express (dunning-letter-7 formality-level-3 car-payment-overdue
$127.38) in an easily parseable form.  English is complex, redundant,
and vague.  Is there any reason why we can't design a language which
is simple, efficient, and precise?  It would be awful for
(intelligent) people, but great for (stupid) machines.

>- Steve

[If the parsing and synthesis functions were common, the software
might be compiled into hardware; if rare, it might be accessed
remotely over a network.  I doubt that software storage requirements
will be a problem for long.

There have been attempts at developing simpler natural languages.
One idea is to structure the language so that any idea can only
be expressed in one canonical form (DuckSpeak, Basic English,
controlled-vocabulary English as taught in our grade schools).
The other idea is to allow any semantic term to fill any syntactic
slot (sign language, Loglan).

Langauges of the first type present difficulties because of the
overloading of words (e.g., "get" in English).  This can be avoided
in limited domains such as repair manuals, but for general usage
something like Roger Shank's canonical forms would be needed.

I don't know what computational difficulties are presented by
languages of the second type.  If the Whorfian hypothesis is correct,
more ideas can be "thought", which may lead to greater complexity.
On the other hand, the algorithm needn't keep track of awkward or
stereotyped methods of expressing basically simple concepts.  ("I
greened my house", or what is the past tense of "beware"?)

I trust that computational difficulties can be overcome.  The
greatest problem in achieving user acceptance of parsed transmissions
may be that resynthesis will generate a paraphrase, or corrected
version, of the original.  Humans tend to be sentimental about their
own syntactic constructs, even down to where the lines are broken.

					-- KIL ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Apr 83 00:52:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dan Dolata <DOLATA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alternate distribution of AIlist
-BODY-

I am moving to Sweden soon, and while I will be able to touch back to
my home base via international-net occasionally, the long ditance
rates make it prohibitive to try to read any large number of lines
each day.  I was wondering if it might be possible to set up some ort
of system where AIlist could be spooled onto small tapes or floppies
monthly, and mailed to people who are away from the net?  Of course, I
would be happy to pay for mailing costs, and would be happy to buy the
person who did the grunt work a nice meal when I got back from Europe
(or in Karlsruhe during IJCAI).

Of course, if it became neccesary to charge $ because you had to hire
a person to mount the media, I would be happy to subscribe!

Thanks for your time
        Dan [dolata@sumex]

[I'm afraid that I haven't the resources to oblige.  I suggest that
printed copies be sent, providing that doesn't violate any technology
export laws.  Dan would like to know if others are interested in
getting or providing machine-readable copies.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Apr 83 09:02:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: AIList <AIList-Request@SRI-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Facetia
-BODY-

I hope everyone kept V1 #1.  Someday it may be as valuable as the
first edition of Superman comics.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
3
-DATE-
Date: Sun 8 May 83 23:05:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Administrivia
-BODY-

We have been joined by new BBoards or remailing nodes at

    AI@NLM-MCS
    AIList-Usenet@SRI-UNIX
    Post-AIList.UNC@UDel-Relay

The Usenet connection is a two-way link with the net.ai discussion
group.  More on this later.

I have been responding to additions by sending out back issues.
Henceforth I will only send a welcome message and statement of policy.
Back issues are available by request.

I have tried to establish contact with all who have asked to be
enrolled, but several sites have been unreachable for the last two
weeks.  I cannot guarantee delivery of every issue to every site, and
may cut short the usual two-week retry period in order to reduce the
system load.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 1983 1038-EDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-A (C410RF60)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Whorfian hypothesis
-BODY-
        I just thought I should point out that the Whorfian hypothesis
is one of those things which was rejected a long time ago in its
original field (at least in its strong form), but has remained
interesting and widely talked about in other fields.  At the time
Whorf hypothesized that language constrains the way people think, the
views of language and culture were that language was a highly
systematic, constrained thing, whereas culture was just an arbitrary
collection of facts.  By the time Whorf was getting really popular in
other circles, anthropologists had realized that culture was also
systematic, with constraints between different parts.  In other words,
the likelihood that an idea will be invented or imported by a culture
depends to a degree on the kinds of ideas the people in the culture
are already familiar with.

        The current view in anthropology (current in the 70s, that is)
is that language and culture do influence each other, but that the
influence is much weaker, more subtle, and more bidirectional, than
the Whorfian hypothesis suggested.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 83 17:31:01 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Fred Blonder <fred.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Languages
-BODY-
[Fred has pointed out that the "DuckSpeak" I cited was officially
called Newspeak in Orwell's 1984.  -- KIL]

Also: are you aware of Esperanto? It's grammar (only 16 rules) allows
any word to function as any part of speech by an appropriate change
to its suffix.

>-----------------------------
-END-
We are now linked to the Usenet net.ai discussion, which ismore nearly real-time
than the AIList digest.  The followingis evidenly from a continuing discussion,
and I apologize tothe author if he did not expect such a wide audience.  A more
formal submissin system might be arranged if Usenet memberswant both private and
public discussions, or if they object toreceiving digested copes of previously
seen messages.  Thepossibility of forwarding undigested AIList submissions to
Usenetis being considered. -- KIL>DATE-
Date: 1 May 83 22:31:14-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!utzoo!watmath!bstempleton @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Putting programmers out of a Job?
-BODY-
I hope the person who stated that this self programming computer
project will eliminate the need for programmers is not on the AI
project.  If so they should fire him/her and get somebody who is a
good programmer.  Programming is a highly creative art that uses some
highly complex technological tools.  No AI project will put a good
programmer out of a job without being able to pass a Turing test
first.  This is because a good programmer spends more time designing
than coding.

In fact, I would be all for a machine which I could tell to write a
program to traverse a data structure doing this and that to it.  It
would get rid of all the tedious stuff, and I would be able to produce
all kinds of wonderful programs.  Out of a job?  Hardly - I'd be rich,
and so would a lot of other people, notably those on AI projects.

I doubt that ten years will show a computer that can do things like
design (or invent) things like screen editors, VisiCalc(TM),
relational databases and compilers.  If it could do all that, it's
intelligent - not just a self-programming machine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
4
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 11-May-83  16:29:52-BST
-FROM-
From: DAVE     FHL (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bowen@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bowen%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Research Posts in AI at Edinburgh University
-BODY-
>-------



                        UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
                 DEPARTMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE


                           2 Research Fellows


Applications are invited for these SERC-funded posts, tenable from
July 1 1983 or a mutually agreed date, to work on a project to
formulate techniques whereby an intelligent knowledge-based training
system can deduce what a user's aims are. Experience of UNIX and
programming is essential.  Experience of PROLOG or LISP and some
knowledge of IKBS techniques would be an advantage.  The posts are
tenable for three years, on the R1A scale (6375-11105 pounds).
Candidates should have a higher degree in a relevant discipline, such
as Mathematics, Computer Science or Experimental Psychology.
Applications, including a curriculum vitae and names of two referees,
should be sent to The Secretary's Office, University of Edinburgh, Old
College, South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Scotland, (from whom further
details can be obtained), by 31 May 1983.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 83 10:53:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: DAVID.LEWIN  <LEWIN@CMU-CS-C>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at the AAAS
-BODY-
The following session at the upcoming AAAS meeting should be of
interest to readers of AI-LIST.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ITS SCIENCE AND APPLICATION
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Annual Meeting- Detroit, MI; Sunday, May 29, 1983

Arranged by: Daniel Berg, Provost--Carnegie-Mellon University
             Raj Reddy, Director--Robotics Institute, CMU

"Robust Man-Machine Communication"
  Jaime Carbonell, CMU

"Artificial Intelligence Applications in Electronic Manufacturing"
  Samuel H. Fuller, Digital Equipment Corp. (Hudson, MA)

"Expert Systems in VLSI Design"
  Mark Stefik, Xerox-PARC

"Science Needs in Artificial Intelligence"
  Nils Nilsson, SRI International

"Medical Applicationns of Artificial Intelligence"
  Jack D. Myers, Univ. of Pittsburgh

"The Application of Strategic Planning and Artificial Inntelligence to
the Management of the Urban Infrastructure"
  Charles Steger, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 1983 2154-PDT (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: ricks%UCBCAD@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System for IC Processiong
-BODY-

I'm about to start preliminary work on an expert system for integrated
circuit processing.  At this time, its not clear whether it will deal
with diagnosing and correcting problems in a process line, or with
designing new process lines.

I would like to know if anybody has done any work in this area, and
what the readers of this list think about building an expert system
for this purpose.

I realize that this letter is somewhat vague, but I'm in the early
stages of this and I'd like to see what has been done and what options
I have.

                        Thanks,

                        Rick L Spickelmier
                        ricks@berkeley

                        University of California
                        Electronics Research Laboratory
                        Cory Hall
                        Berkeley, CA 94720
                        (415) 642-8186

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 1983 19:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial languages
-BODY-
Since people seem to be interested in artificial languages and the
Whorfian hypothesis, some words about Loglan might be interesting.
(If that's what started the discussion and I missed it, apologies to
all...)

Loglan is a language invented by J. Brown in the mid-50's to test the
Whorfian hypothesis with a radically different language.  It's got a
simple grammar believed to be utterly unambiguous, a syntax based on
predicate calculus, and morpholgy that tells you what "part of speech"
(to stretch a term) a word is from its vowel-consonant pattern.

Of the 14 non-vacuous logical connectives, all are pronounceable in
one syllable.  By comparison, English Dances about a LOT to say some
of them.

There are some books about it, and even a couple of regular journals.
Once upon a time, there was a Loglan mailing list here at MIT, but it
died of lack of interest.

        -SGR

>-----------------------------
-END-
Here is further info on Loglan culled from Human-Nets. -- KIL]-DATE-
Date: 11 Dec 1981 2314-PST
-FROM-
From: JSP at WASHINGTON
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan as command language.
-BODY-
  English is optimized to serve as a verbal means of communication
between intelligences.  It would be highly surprising if it turned out
to be optimal for the much different task of communicating between an
intelligent (human) and a stupid (computer) via keyboard.  In fact, it
would be surprising if English proved well suited to any sort of
precise description, given that various mathematical notations, Algol
and BNF, for example, all originated as attempts to escape the
ambiguity and opacity of English.  (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
seem to recall that Algol was originally a publication language for
human-human communication, programming applications coming later.)
  Much the same may be said, with less force, for Loglan, which is
also targeted on human-human communication, albeit with a special
focus on simplicity and avoidance of syntactic ambiguity.  (Other
Loglanists might not agree.)
  For those interested, the Loglan Institute is alive and well, if
rather hard to find pending completion of a revised grammar and word
morphology.  I'd be happy to correspond with anyone interested in the
language...  and delighted to hear from any YACCaholic TL subscribers
interested in working on the grammar...
        --Jeff Prothero

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Dec 1981 06:46:30-PST
-FROM-
From: decvax!pur-ee!purdue!kad at Berkeley (Ken Dickey at Purdue CS)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan
-BODY-
I have received several requests for more information on Loglan, a
language which may be ideal for man-computer communication.  Here is a
brief description:


Synopsis: (from the book jacket of LOGLAN 1: A LOGICAL LANGUAGE, James
C. Brown, Third Edition)

        Loglan is a language designed to test the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis that the natural languages limit human thought.  It does
this so by pushing those limits outward in predictable directions by:

*incorporating the notational elegance of symbolic logic (it is
TRANSFORMATIONALLY POWERFUL);

*forcing the fewest possible assumptions about "reality" on its
speakers (it is METAPHYSICALLY PARSIMONIOUS);

*removing all structural sources of ambiguity (in Loglon anything, no
matter how implausible, can be said clearly; for it is SYNTACTICALLY
UNAMBIGUOUS);

*generalizing all semantic operations (whatever can be done to any
Loglan word can be done to every Loglan word; for it is SEMANTICALLY
NON-RESTRICTIVE);

*deriving its basic word-stock from eight natural languages, including
three Oriental ones (it is therefore CULTURALLY NEUTRAL);


Notes:
        Loglan has a small grammar (an order of magnitude smaller than
any "natural" grammar).

        It is isomorphic (spelled phonetically-- all punctuation is
spoken).  
        There are a set of rules for word usage so that words are
uniquely resolvable (No "Marzee Dotes" problem).

        The most frequently used grammatical operators are the
shortest words.

        The word stock is derived from eight languages (Hindi,
Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, English, Spanish, Russian, French, and
German), weighted by usage for recognizability.  I.e. using Loglan
rules to satisfy form, words are made up to be mnemonic to most of the
worlds speakers.

        Loglan "predicates" are, in a sense, complete.  For example
MATMA means X is the MOTHER of Y by father W.  Joan matma == Joan is
the mother of .. by .. == Joan is a mother.  Matma Paul == Paul's
mother, etc.  These "slots" can change positions by means of
operators.

        Modifiers precede modified words.  Garfs school => a garfs
type of school (a school FOR garfs) as opposed to a school BELONGING
to garfs.

        Language assumptions can be quite different. For example,
there are a number of words for "yes", meaning "yes, I will", "yes, I
agree", etc.

        Although considered an experimental tool, there are people
that actually speak it.  (It is a USEFUL tool).


Pointer: The Loglan Institute
         2261 Soledad Rancho Road
         San Diego, California 92109


As I am an armchair linguist, you should reference the above pointer
for more information.


                                        -Ken

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 1982 01:32:44-PST
-FROM-
From: ihnss!houxi!u1100a!rick at Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan
-BODY-
A while ago somebody (I believe it was in fa.human-nets during a
discussion of sexism in personal pronouns) asked the question "What
does Loglan do about gender?".

As usual with such questions the answer is not easy to describe in a
few words.  But to simplify somewhat, Loglan has no concept of
grammatical gender at all.  The language has a series of five words
that act (approximately) like third person pronouns, but there is no
notion of sex associated with them.

Loglan also does away with most of the usual grammatical categories,
such as "nouns", "adjectives" and "verbs".  In their place it has a
single category called "predicate".  Thus the loglan word "blanu" can
be variously translated as "blue" (an adjective), "is a blue thing" (a
verb-like usage), and "blue thing" (a noun-like usage).

Loglan is uninflected. It has no declensions or conjugations.  But it
does have a flock of "little words" that serve various grammatical and
punctuational purposes.  They also take the place of such affixes as
"-ness" (as in "blueness") in English.

More information about Loglan can be gotten by writing to:

                        The Loglan Institute, Inc.
                        2261 Soledad Rancho Road
                        San Diego, CA 92109

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 15 May 83 12:17:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Excerpt about AI from a NYTimes interview with Stanislaw Lem
-BODY-
Sunday, March 20th, NYTimes Book Review Interview with Stanislaw Lem
by Peter Engel

Interviewer: "You mentioned robots, and certainly one of the most
important themes in your writing is the equality of men and robots as
thinking, sentient beings.  Do you feel that artificial intelligence
at this level will be achieved within the forseeable future?"


Lem: "My opinion is that in roughly 100 years we will arrive at an
artificial intelligence that is more intelligent and reasonable than
human intelligence, but it will be completely different.  There are no
signs indicating that computers will in certain fields become equal to
men. You should not be misled by the fact that you can play chess with
a computer. If you want to accomplish certain individual tasks,
computers are fine. But when you are talking about psychological
matters, every one of us carries in his head the heritage of the
armored fish, the dinosaurs, and other mammals. These limitations do
not exist outside the domain of biological evolution. And there's no
reason why we should imitate them -- the very idea is silly. In the
field of mechanics it would be the same as if the Arabs were to say
they didn't want airplanes and automobiles, only improved camels. Or
that you shouldn't supply automobiles with wheels, that you must
invent mechanical legs.

I'm going to show you a book. 'Golem XIV' is going to be published
next year in America. It's a story about the construction of a
supercomputer and how it didn't want to solve the military task it was
given, the purpose it had been constructed for in the first place.  So
it started to devote itself to higher philosophical problems. There
are two stories in 'Golem XIV,' two lectures for scientists. In the
first Golem talks about humans and the way it sees them, in the second
about itself. It tries to explain that it's already arrived at a level
of biological evolution will never reach on it own (sic). It's on the
lowest rung of a ladder, and above it there might exist now or in the
future more potent intelligences. Golem does not know whether there
are any bounds in its progress to the upper sphere. And when it, in a
manner of speaking, takes leave of man, it is primarily for the
purpose of advancing further up this ladder.

In my own view, man will probably never be able to understand and
recognize everything directly, but in an indirect manner he will be
able to achieve command of everything if he constructs intelligence
amplifiers to fulfill his wishes. Like a small child, he will then be
receiving gifts. But he will not be able to perceive the world
directly, like a small child who is given an electric railway. The
child can play with it, he can even dismantle it, but he will not
understand Maxwell's theory of electricity. The main difference is
that the child will one day become an adult, and then if he wants he
will eventually study and understand Maxwell's theory. But we will
never grow up any further. We will only be able to receive gifts from
the giants of intelligence that we'll be able to build.  There is a
limit to human perception, and beyond this horizon the fruit of
observation will be gleaned from other beings, research machines or
whatever. Progress may continue, but we will somehow be staying
behind."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
5
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 May 83 06:34:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Business Symposium
-BODY-
[I apologize for not getting this out before the conference, but my
net connection has been down since Monday morning.  -- KIL]


I'd just like to remind folks in the NYC area that NYU is offering a
3-day sysmposium on AI in Business. Among those to speak will be
Robert Bobrow, Rich Duda, Harry Pople, John McDermott, and Roger
Schank.  Several of the lectures deal with NLP and expert systems both
in the abstract and as they apply in the real worls.

The symposium is on 5/18-20 at NYU (100 Trinity Place, NY, NY 10006).
For more information call 212-285-6120.

>-Ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 May 83 23:18:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Reports
-BODY-
Here is a selection of recent technical reports relating to expert
systems and hierarchical inference.  I would appreciate additions,
particularly any relating to expert systems for image understanding
and general vision.

                                -- Ken Laws


J.S. Aikins, J.C. Kunz, E.H. Shortliffe, and R.J. Fallat, PUFF: An
Expert System for Interpretation of Pulmonary Function Data.  Stanford
U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-931; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.  Dept.
Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-013, 1982, 21p.

C. Apte, Expert Knowledge Management for Multi-Level Modelling.
Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-41, 1982.

B.G. Buchanan and R.O. Duda, Principles of Rule Based Expert Systems.
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-926; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-014, 1982, 55p.

B.G. Buchanan, Partial Bibliography of Work on Expert Systems.
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-953; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-30, 1982, 13p.

A. Bundy and B. Silver, A Critical Survey of Rule Learning Programs.
Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept., Res. Paper 169, 1982.

R. Davis, Expert Systems: Where are We? And Where Do We Go from Here?
M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 665, 1982.

T.G. Dietterich, B. London, K. Clarkson, and G. Dromey, Learning and
Inductive Inference (a section of the Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence, edited by Paul R.  Cohen and Edward A. Feigenbaum).
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-913; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-010, 1982, 215p.

G.A. Drastal and C.A. Kulikowski, Knowledge Based Acquisition of Rules
for Medical Diagnosis.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TM-97,
1982.

N.V. Findler, An Expert Subsystem Based on Generalized Production
Rules.  Arizona State U. Comp. Sci. Dept., TR-82-003, 1982.

N.V. Findler and R. Lo, A Note on the Functional Estimation of Values
of Hidden Variables--An Extended Module for Expert Systems.  Arizona
State U. Comp. Sci. Dept., TR-82-004, 1982.

K.E. Huff and V.R. Lesser, Knowledge Based Command Understanding: An
Example for the Software Development Environment.  Massachusetts U.
Comp. & Info. Sci. Dept., COINS Tech.Rpt. 82-06, 1982.

J.K. Kastner, S.M. Weiss, and C.A. Kulikowske, Treatment Selection and
Explanation in Expert Medical Consultation: Application to a Model of
Ocular Herpes Simplex.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-132,
1982.

R.M. Keller, A Survey of Research in Strategy Acquisition.  Rutgers U.
Comp. Sci. Dept., DCS-TR-115, 1982.

V.E. Kelly and L.I. Steinberg, The Critter System: Analyzing Digital
Circuits by Propagating Behaviors and Specifications.  Rutgers U.
Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-030, 1982.

J.J. King, An Investigation of Expert Systems Technology for Automated
Troubleshooting of Scientific Instrumentation.  Hewlett Packard Co.
Comp. Sci. Lab., CSL-82-012; Hewlett Packard Co. Comp.  Res. Center,
CRC-TR-82-002, 1982.

J.J. King, Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Device
Troubleshooting.  Hewlett Packard Co. Comp. Sci. Lab., CSL-82-009;
Hewlett Packard Co. Comp. Res. Center, CRC-TR-82-004, 1982.

G.M.E. Lafue and T.M. Mitchell, Data Base Management Systems and
Expert Systems for CAD.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-028,
1982.

R.J. Lytle, Site Characterization using Knowledge Engineering -- An
Approach for Improving Future Performance.  Cal U. Lawrence Livermore
Lab., UCID-19560, 1982.

T.M. Mitchell, P.E. Utgoff, and R. Banerji, Learning by
Experimentation: Acquiring and Modifying Problem Solving Heuristics.
Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-31, 1982.

P.G. Politakis, Using Empirical Analysis to Refine Expert System
Knowledge Bases.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-130, Ph.D.
Thesis, 1982.

M.D. Rychener, Approaches to Knowledge Acquisition: The Instructable
Production System Project.  Carnegie Mellon U. Comp. Sci. Dept., 1981.

R.D. Schachter, An Incentive Approach to Eliciting Probabilities.
Cal. U., Berkeley. O.R. Center, ORC 82-09, 1982.

E.H. Shortliffe and L.M. Fagan, Expert Systems Research: Modeling the
Medical Decision Making Process.  Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept.,
STAN-CS-82-932; Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept. Heuristic Programming
Project, HPP-82-003, 1982, 23p.

M. Suwa, A.C. Scott, and E.H. Shortliffe, An Approach to Verifying
Completeness and Consistency in a Rule Based Expert System.  Stanford
U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-922, 1982, 19p.

J.A. Wald and C.J. Colbourn, Steiner Trees, Partial 2-Trees, and
Minimum IFI Networks.  Saskatchewan U. Computational Sci. Dept., Rpt.
82-06, 1982.

J.A. Wald and C.J. Colbourn, Steiner Trees in Probabilistic Networks.
Saskatchewan U. Computational Sci. Dept., Rpt. 82-07, 1982.

A. Walker, Automatic Generation of Explanations of Results from
Knowledge Bases.  IBM Watson Res. Center, RJ 3481, 1982.

J.W. Wallis and E.H. Shortliffe, Explanatory Power for Medical Expert
Systems: Studies in the Representation of Causal Relationships for
Clinical Consultation.  Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-923,
1982, 37p.

S. Weiss, C. Kulikowske, C. Apte, and M. Uschold, Building Expert
Systems for Controlling Complex Programs.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res.
Lab., LCSR-TR-40, 1982.

Y. Yuchuan and C.A. Kulikowske, Multiple Strategies of Reasoning for
Expert Systems.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-131, 1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
6
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 12-May-83  10:31:00-BST
-FROM-
From: DAVE     FHL (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bowen@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bowen%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lectureships at Edinburgh University
-BODY-
>-------



                        UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
             INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - VLSI design and IKBS.


           1 Lecturer in Artificial Intelligence (ref IT2/1)
           1 Lecturer in Computer Science (ref IT2/2)
           1 Lecturer in Electrical Engineering (ref IT2/3)


These new lectureships are being funded to expand the M.Sc. teaching
carried out by the 3 departments in collaboration.  The posts are
available from 1 October 83, but the starting dates could be adjusted
to attract the right candidates. These are tenure track posts.


The teaching and research interests sought are:  Artificial
Intelligence: Intelligent Knowledge-Based Systems.  Computer Science:
Probably VLSI design, but need not be so.  Electrical Engineering:
VLSI design.


Salary scales (under review): 6375-13505 pounds p.a. according to age,
qualifications and experience.

For further details write to the Secretary to the University, Old
College, South Bridge, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Scotland, quoting one or
more reference numbers as required (IT2/1-3 as above).

Applications (3 copies) including CV and names and adresses of 3
referees should be sent to the same address. If you have applied in
response to the previous Computer Science advert, ref.  1055, then you
will be considered for posts IT2/2 and IT2/3 without further
application.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 May 83 23:14:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Distributed Problem-Solving: An Annotated Bibliography
-BODY-

This is to request contributions to an annotated bibliography of
papers in *Distributed Problem-Solving* that I am currently compiling.
My plan is to make the bibliography available to anybody that is
interested in it at any stage in its compilation.  Papers will be from
many diverse areas: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Systems
(especially Distributed Systems and Multiprocessors), Analysis of
Algorithms, Economics, Organizational Theory, etc.

Some miscellaneous comments.  My definition of distributed
problem-solving is a very general one, namely "the process of many
entities engaged in solving a problem", so feel free to send a
contribution if you are not sure that a paper is suitable for this
bibliography.  I also encourage you to make short annotations; more
than 5 sentences is long.  All annotations in the bibliography will
carry a reference to the author.  If your bibliography entries are in
Scribe format that's great because the entire bibliography will be in
Scribe.

Vineet Singh (VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 83 17:46:05-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!jack @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan Cross Reference
-BODY-
People interested by submissions on Loglan should see also net.nlang.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 1983 1817-EDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-A (C410RF60)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Esperanto and LOGLAN
-BODY-
        I'm curious about something mentioned about these languages:
has anyone made any claims regarding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and
the fluent users of these languages?

        Bob

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 1983 2151-EDT
-FROM-
From: NUDEL.CL@RUTGERS (NUDEL.CL)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Latest AI Journal Issue
-BODY-
[I just pulled this and the following messages from various local
BBoards that Mabry Tyson makes available at SRI-AI.  -- KIL]

[...]
I just received a copy of the March issue of the AI journal from North
Holland and I see that the talk Haralick gave here Monday appears in
that issue of AI as well.  You may like to look at the March AI in
general - it is a special issue devoted to Search and Heuristics (in
memory of John Gaschnig), and covers recent AI research of a more
formal nature than the usual AI variety. It looks like it will become
something of a classic, with papers by Pearl, Simon, Karp, Lenat,
Purdom (who also spoke here a while ago), yours-truly, Kanal, Nau and
Haralick.

Bernard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 83 22:57:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: John Stuckey @CMUC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Presentation of IBM EPISTLE system
-BODY-
Dr. Lance A. Miller, director of the Language and Knowledge Systems
Laboratory of IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown
Heights, will be on campus Tuesday, 10 May.  He will give a
presentation of the lab's EPISTLE system for language analysis from 2
to 3 pm in Gregg Hall, PH 100.  The presentation is entitled "On Text
Composition and Quality: The IBM EPISTLE system's alternatives to
NEWSPEAK."

Abstract:
  The immediate goals of the EPISTLE system are to provide useful
text-critiquing functions for assuring the "quality" of written
English text.  Today the system plunges through the densest prose and
provides an "automatic unique parse" description of the surface
syntactic structure of each sentence.  This description provides the
basis for the present capability to detect almost all errors of
grammar and, shortly, to raise its editorial eyebrow at a large number
of stylistic questionables (e.g., a la @i<Chicago Manual of Style>).
  This present Orwellian capability to render binary evaluative
decisions on arbitrary text does not, however, reflect the ultimate
design goals of the system.  These, the present state, and the
internal workings of the system will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 1983 17:28:42-EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Young at CMU-CS-SPICE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: software copyright info
-BODY-
IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications January/Februrary issue of
this year has an interesting article on software copyrighting and
patents, and includes loads of references to other cases and
references.  It is a well-documented case history and summary of the
current situation for anyone concerned with legal issues.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
7
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 1983 09:19 cdt
-FROM-
From: Silverman.CST at HI-MULTICS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: lisp for vax vms
-BODY-
We are trying to find out what implementations of lisp exist that we
can run on our vax under vms.  Any information about existing systems
and how to get them would be appreciated.  Reply to Silverman at
HI-Multics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 May 83 10:41:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak <NOVAK@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Job
-BODY-
Two individuals with strong CS background and specific interest in
A.I.  sought for development of a modern air traffic control system
for the whole U.S.  Position located on East Coast in mid-Atlantic
states.  Contact Jay. R. Kronfeld, Kronfeld & Young Inc., 412 Main
St., Ridgefield, Conn. 06877.  (203) 438-0478

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 1983 1047-EDT
-FROM-
From: Don <WATROUS@RUTGERS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog, Phil-Sci mailing lists
-BODY-
[...]

Also of interest to local readers might be the local Phil-Sci BBoard,
which receives the Philosophy-of-Science mailing list.
Here is its description:

PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE@MIT-MC
         (or PHIL-SCI@MIT-MC)

   An immediate redistribution list discussing philosophy of science
with
   emphasis on its relevance for Artificial Intelligence.

   The list is archived@MIT-OZ in the twenex mail file:
   OZ:SRC:<COMMON>PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-ARCHIVES.TXT.1

   All requests to be added to or deleted from this list, problems,
questions,
   etc., should be sent to PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-REQUEST@MIT-MC (or
   PHIL-SCI-REQUEST@MIT-MC).

   Coordinator: John Mallery <JCMa@MIT-MC>


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 1983  01:36 EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Phil-Sci Readers, Please Note
-BODY-

Hi,

Before FTP'ing the archive mentioned by Don's Phil-Sci announcement,

         [OZ]SRC:<COMMON>PHILOSOPHY-OF-SCIENCE-ARCHIVE.TXT

please note that this OZ file is written in ZMAIL format, and is not
readable with either MM or BBOARD.EXE.  ZMAIL is a LISPMachine mail
reader from MIT.  You can TYPE or edit ZMAIL files, but they are
sometimes pretty hard to follow that way.

If you are interested in looking at back issues of this list in a more
civilized fashion, I have been following it from the beginning, and
have a home-built archive archived (howzat again?) on GREEN, as
I-PHIL-SCI.BABYL through VI-PHIL-SCI.BABYL. These files have been
reformatted for convenient reading with the BABYL, an EMACS-based
mail-reader available at Rutgers.  Also archived on GREEN is a help
file named

              USING-BABYL-TO-READ-PHIL-SCI.HLP.

Please do not attempt to RETRIEVE this stuff; drop me a note instead.
These files total several hundred pages and would swamp my GREEN
directory if restored to disk all at once.

_Bob

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 May 83 19:12:45 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <weiser@NRL-CSS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Resident Intelligent Entity (CRIE)  [Long Article]
-BODY-
1.  The Operating System World

     An interesting test-bed for Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods
is the world of computer systems.  Previous work has focused on
limited particular subdomains, such as digital design [Sussman 77],
computer configuration [McDermott & Steele 81], and programming
knowledge [Waters 82].  Even these restricted domains have proven
themselves very rich areas for AI techniques.  However, no one has
(yet) gone far enough in applying Artificial Intelligence techniques
to computer systems.  The far out question I'm thinking of is: what
sort of entity would live in the ecological niche supplied by the
computer system environment?

     Organisms evolved in the biological world have been shaped
primarily by evolutionary forces.  They cannot be wholistically
studied without considering, for instance, their energy intake and
expenditure and their necessity for reproduction [Kormondy 69].  These
particular constraints are biological universals, but are not
necessariy paradigmatic for non-biological intelligent organisms.
Consider human beings, necessarily the prime subjects of those
studying intelligent biological organisms.  We* are specifically
attuned to a particular environmental niche by virtue of our sensory
systems, our cognitive processing capabilities, and our motor systems.
Dreyfus [Dreyfus 72], argues from this that machines cannot be
intelligent.  Our discussion begins from a view more akin to
Weizenbaum's [Weizenbaum 76]: a machine intelligence is an alien
intelligence.  What sort of sensory system is appropriate to this
particular alien intelligence?

2.  Traditional perceptual interfaces to the computer world

     The usual way of observing a computer system is to take
snapshots.  Such a snapshot might be a list of the active jobs on the
system, or the names and sizes of the files, or the contents of a
file.  If more information than a snapshot is needed, then many
snapshots are packed together to create a "history" of system
behavior.

     Unfortunately a history of snapshots is not a history of the
system.  This is well known in performance modeling of computer
systems, where a snapshot of a system every 15 minutes is useless.
Instead an average over the 15 minute interval is the proper level of
information gathering.  The problem with snapshots is their time
domain is fixed externally and irrelevantly to the world being
monitored.

     It is sometimes possible to recreate the behavior of system
objects by examining a stream of snapshots of the object's states.
But this is the wrong approach to the problem.  Rather ask: what sort
of perceptual system would best notice the important objects
(invariants) in a computer system world [Gibson 66]?  A snapshot
contains irrelevant information, and is gathered at irrelevant times.

3.  New perceptual interfaces

     Imagine your favorite computer system.  It consists of objects
changing in time: files, programs, processes, descriptions, data
flowing hither and yon--a very active world.  A retinal level
description of the biological world would display a similar confusion
of unintegrated sensations.  But our retina wins because it is part of
a perceptual system which quickly transforms the input flux to
invariant forms.

     Let's ignore the back end (invariant deduction end) of a computer
perceptual system for a moment, and consider just the "retinal" end.
What kind of raw data is available about important system activities?
On the one hand are the contents of files, data structures, program
descriptions, etc.  The understanding of these items is relatively
well studied--as a first approximation it is what programs do.  The
hard problem is perceiving the information flux.  Values in memory and
files are constantly changing and often it is the changes themselves
which are interesting, more than from what the value was changed or to
what it was changed.  For instance, noticing someone poking around in
my files is a "who is looking" question rather than a data value
question.  Noticing important changes in the system requires an
event-based perceptual system.

     Activities occur in widely distributed places in a computer
system.  User programs, file systems, system data structures, may all
be relevant to the intelligent computer resident entity.  The human
visual system has evolved to make good use of the transparency of our
atmosphere to electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength to
allow us to perceive activities in a wide range around us. A great
deal of our intelligence is oriented towards the three dimensional
space which we can survey, because it is here that we have effortless
access to information about the objects which can immediately affect
us [Kaplan 78].

     A computer entity must also have effortless access to information
about objects in its area of prime concern.  Its perceptual apparatus
should be attuned to changes in those entities so interesting events
are immediately apparent to it.  With our current technology** one
solution is to distribute the perceptual apparatus of the entity onto
the objects of concern.  This is radically different from any solution
chosen by nature, but the computer system world is radically different
from the biological world.  It amounts to daemon-based perception.

     The perceptual mechanism of a computer resident intelligent
entity (CRIE) WOULD be similar to production rules [Forgy 81] and
daemons [Rieger 78].  A CRIE retina would have two distinctive
features: (1) it is made up of demons, which are (2) attached to the
objects being observed.

     A CRIE perceptual system is quiescent until some event occurs to
which it is attuned.  When that happens, a CRIE reacts by invoking
various reasoning and acquisition daemons associated with that event.
These reasoning and acquisition daemons are modular pieces of
information which are the low level meaning of events within a CRIE.
The daemons not only watch for events occurring on the system, but
also can observe larger contexts (such as themselves).

     To conclude: Artificial Intelligence research has, as one goal,
understanding how to embed intelligence in a machine.  The criticisms
of AI from Dreyfus, Weizenbaum, and others can be used constructively
to design an intelligence appropriate to a machine.  This approach to
intelligent system design leads to new kinds of design constraints for
computer perceptual systems, and gives new meaning to the term
"computer vision".

FOOTNOTES

   *With apologies to those readers who are not human beings.
  **Implementation issues are important for the design of any intelli-
gent entity.  Why are our eyes in our head?

REFERENCES

[Dreyfus 72]
     Dreyfus, Hubert, What Computers Can't Do, Harper and Row, 1972.

[Forgy 81]
     Forgy, C. L., OPS5 User's Manual, Carnegie-Mellon University
     CMU-CS-78-116, 1981.

[Gibson 66]
     Gibson, James J., The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems,
     Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966.

[Kaplan 78]
     Kaplan, R., The green experience, in Humanscape: environments for
     people, ed. S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan, Duxbury Press, North
     Scituate, Mass., 1978.

[Kormondy 69]
     Kormondy, Edward J., Concepts of Ecology, Prentice-Hall, 1969.

[McDermott & Steele 81]
     McDermott, J. and Steele, B., Extending a Knowledge-Based System
     to Deal with Ad Hoc Constraints, Proc. IJCAI-81, Vancouver, BC,
     1981.

[Rieger 78]
     Rieger, C., Spontaneous Computation and Its Role in AI Modelling,
     in Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, ed. Waterman & Hayes-Roth,
     Academic Press, New York, 1978.

[Sussman 77]
     Sussman, G., Electrical Design: A Problem for Artificial
     Intelligence Research, Proc. IJCAI5, Cambridge, MA, 1977.

[Waters 82]
     Waters, R. C., The Programmer's Apprentice: Knowledge Based
     Program Editing, IEEE Trans. on Software Eng. SE-8, 1, January
     1982.

[Weizenbaum 76]
     Weizenbaum, Joseph, Computer Power and Human Reason, W.H. Freeman
     and Company, 1976.


[Editors comment:

Mark doesn't seem to be asking about the natural course of evolution
in a digital environment, although that is also an interesting
question.  It is not clear to me whether he is proposing a life form
with the usual survival goals, or a monitoring system built by design
and serving some useful purpose.  Since it is difficult to discuss
such a thing without knowing its purpose, I suggest that anyone
responding state his own assumptions or teleology.

I think the new LOOPS language/environment at Xerox offers much of the
"instrumentation capability" that Mark's CRIE needs.  The software
probes can be attached to any variable a posteriori, in the manner of
a dynamic debugger.  This opens up a world of data-based (or dataflow)
techniques integrated with rule-based and other AI techniques.

                                        -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
8
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 May 83 11:08:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1984 IEEE Logic Programming Symposium
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS

                 The 1984 International Symposium on
                          LOGIC PROGRAMMING

            Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 6-9, 1984

                Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society
          and its Technical Committee on Computer Languages

The symposium will consider fundamental principles and important
innovations in the design, definition, and implementation of logic
programming systems and applications. Of special interest are papers
related to parallel processing. Other topics of interest include (but
are not limited to): distributed control schemes, FGCS, novel
implementation techniques, performance issues, expert systems, natural
language processing and systems programming.

Please send ten copies of an 8- to 20-page, double spaced, typed
manuscript, including a 200-250 word abstract and figures to:

                Doug DeGroot
                Program Chairman
                IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                P.O. Box 218
                Yorktown Heights, New York 10598

                         Technical Committee

Jacques Cohen (Brandeis) Fernando Pereira (SRI International) Doug
DeGroot (IBM Yorktown) Alan Robinson (Syracuse) Don Dwiggins (Logicon)
Joe Urban (Univ. Southwestern Louisiana) Bob Keller (Utah) Adrian
Walker (IBM San Jose) Jan Kormorowski (Harvard) David Warren (SRI
International) Michael McCord (IBM Yorktown) Jim Weiner (Univ. New
Hampshire)
                 Walter Wilson (IBM DSD Poughkeepsie)

Summaries should explain what is new or interesting about the work and
what has been accomplished. It is important to include specific
findings or results, and specific comparisons with relevant previous
work. The committee will consider appropriateness, clarity,
originality, significance, and overall quality of each manuscript.
Manuscripts whose length exceeds 20 double spaced, typed pages may
receive less careful scrutiny than the work merits.

If submissions warrant, the committee will compose a four day program.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------

September 1, 1983 is the deadline for the submission of manuscripts.
Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by October 30,
1983. The accepted papers must e typed on special forms and received
by the program chairman at the above address by December 15, 1983.
Authors of accepted papers will be expected to sign a copyright
release form.

Proceedings will be distributed at the symposium and will be
subsequently available for purchase from IEEE Computer Society.

        Conference Chairman Technical Chairman
        Joe Urban Doug DeGroot
        Univ. of Southwest Louisiana IBM T. J. Watson Res Ctr
        CS Dept.  P. O. Box 218
        P.O. Box 44330 Yorktown Hts., NY 10598
        Lafayette, LA 70504 (914)945-3497
        (318)231-6304

                Publicity Chairman
                David Warren
                SRI International
                333 Ravenswood Avenue
                Menlo Park, CA 94025
                (415)859-2128

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 83 11:13:56 EDT  (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Expert Systems Reports
-BODY-

Here are some additions:

Reggia, J. A., Nau, D. S., and Wang, P., Diagnostic Expert Systems
     Based on a Set Covering Model, INTERNAT. JOUR. MAN-MACHINE STU-
     DIES, 1983.  To appear.

Nau, D. S., Expert Computer Systems, COMPUTER 16, 2, pp.  63-85, Feb.
     1983.

Nau, D. S., Reggia, J. A., and Wang, P., Knowledge-Based Problem Solv-
     ing Without Production Rules, IEEE 1983 TRENDS AND APPLICATIONS
     CONFERENCE, May 1983.  To appear.

Reggia, J. A., Wang, P., and Nau, D. S., Minimal Set Covers as a Model
     for Diagnostic Problem Solving, PROC. FIRST IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY
     INTERNAT. CONF. ON MEDICAL COMPUTER SCI./COMPUTATIONAL MEDICINE,
     Sept. 1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 May 83 13:55:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Samuel Holtzman <HOLTZMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system references.
-BODY-
Ken,
        In the latest AILIST you posted a set of references which were
of interest to me.  Is there any simple way (other than writing
directly to the authors) to get copies of these papers?  Some of them
are published very locally, and might be difficult to obtain.  In
general, a nice feature to add on to each reference would be a net
address to send for copies.

Thanks, Sam Holtzman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 1983 1454-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: ricks%UCBCAD@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Memos
-BODY-
I would like to get some memos from the MIT AI Lab and the Stanford
Heuristic Programming Project.  Could somebody send me information on
how to order documents from them?

            Thanks,
            Rick L Spickelmier

            ricks@berkeley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 21 May 83 22:30:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sources for Reports  [Long List]
-BODY-
Sam is in luck: the reports I listed are all available at the Stanford
Math/CS library.  I have sorted out other AI-related topics from the
Stanford recent acquisitions list and plan to make them available in
some form.  (Direct mailing to the AIList membership seems
inappropriate unless the bibliography is short or there is a need for
a wide spectrum of readers to scan the material for errors and
omissions.  I would be interested in metacomments or personal
communication on this matter.)

For those who want to order reports, it seems economical to list
source addresses once rather than every time a new report becomes
available.  I have culled the following from the Abstracts section of
the SIGART newsletters for the last few years.  (Only a handful of
organizations have regularly announced new reports in this forum.)  I
will publish corrections and additions as they are sent in.

                                        -- Ken Laws

Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.
50 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA  02238

Brown University
Department of Computer Science
Box 1910
Providence, RI  02912

Computer Science Department
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213

Mathematics Department
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213

CMU Robotics Institute
Pittsburgh, PA  15213
Robin Wallace@CMU-10A

Dept. of Computer Science
Duke University
Durham, NC  27706

Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corp.
Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research
4001 Miranda Ave.  MS 30-888
Palo Alto, CA  94304

General Electric
Research and Development Center
P.O. Box 43
Schenectady, NY  12301

Computer Science Department
General Motors Research Laboratories
Warren, MI  48090

Hewlett Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA  94303

Behavioral Sciences and Linguistics Group
Computer Science Department
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

Document Distribution
USC/Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA  90291

Instituto de Investigaciones en Matematicos
    Aplicados y en Sistemas
Apartado Postal 20-726
Mexico 20, D.F

ISSCO Working Papers
Institut pour les Etudes Semantiques et Cognitives
17 rue de Candolle
CH1205 Geneve
Switzerland

Information Systems Research Section
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA  91103

Department of Information Sciences
Kyoto University
Kyoto, 606, JAPAN

Centro de Informatics
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil
101, Av. do Brazil
1799 Lisboa Codex
Portugal

Computer Vision and Graphics Laboratory
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Massachusetts Institute
Laboratory for Computer Science
Cambridge, MA  02139

MIT AI Lab.
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA  02139

Laboratory of Statistical and Mathematical
    Methodology
Division of Computer Research and Technology
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD  20205

National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia  22161

Computing Systems Dept., IIMAS
National University of Mexico
Admon 20 Deleg Alv Obregon
Apdo. 20-76
01000 Mexico DF
Mexico

Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D.C.  20375

AI Group
Dept. of Computer and Information Science
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio  42210

Dept. of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR  97331

School of Electrical and Civil Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN  47907

Artificial Intelligence Center
EJ250
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA  94025

Heuristic Programming Project
Department of Computer Science
Stanford University
Stanford, CA  94305

Department of Computer Science
State Univ. of New York at Buffalo
4226 Ridge Lea Road
Amherst, NY  14226

Department of Computer Science
State Univ. of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY  11794

Systems Performance Dept.
TRW
One Space Park, 02/1733
Redondo Beach, CA  90278

Department of Computer Science
The Univ. of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Colombia  V6T 1W5

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
University of California
275 Cory Hall
Berkeley, CA  94720

Dept. of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA  92717

Cognitive Systems Laboratory
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of California
Los Angeles, CA  90024

Dept. of Artificial Intelligence
University of Edinburgh
Forrest Hill
Edinburgh  EH1 2QL
Scotland

Cognitive Studies Centre
Department of Computer Science
University of Essex
Wivenhoe Park
Colchester  CO4 3Sq

Research Unit for Information Science and
    Artificial Intelligence
University of Hamburg
Mittelweg 179
D-2000 Hamburg 13
Federal Republic of Germany

Fachbereich Informatik
Universitaet Hamburg
Schlueterstr. 70
D-2000 Hamburg 13
West Germany

Universitaet Hamburg
Germanisches Seminar
Von-Melle-Park 6
D-2000 Hamburg 13
Federal Republic of Germany

Publications Editor
Department of Computing
Imperial College of Science and Technology
University of London
180 Queen's Gate
London  SW7 2BZ

Publications
Advanced Automation Research Group
Coordinated Science Laboratory
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL  61801

Artificial Intelligence Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Maryland
College Park, MD  20742

Department of Neurology
University of Maryland Hospital
Baltimore, MD  21201

University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI  48106

Department of Computer and Information Science
The Moore School  / D2
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA  19104

Computer Science Department
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY  14627

Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Dept. of Computer Science
University of Utah
3160 Merrill
Engineering Building
Salt Lake City, Utah  84112

Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98105

Computer Science Dept.
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI  53706

Department of Computer Science
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI  48202

XEROX Palo Alto Research Center
Palo Alto, CA

Yale Artificial Intelligence Project
Department of Computer Science
Box 2158 Yale Station
10 Hillhouse Ave.
New Haven, Conn.  06520

Department of Computer Science
York University
Downsview, Ontario  M3J 1P3

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
9
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 83 21:24:39 EDT  (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Fred Blonder <fred.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More information on Esperanto
-BODY-
[...]

The best place to contact is:

        Esperanto League for
        North America, Inc.
        P.O. Box 1129
        El Cerrito, CA 34530

They promote Esperanto wherever they can and publish a newsletter
every few months. They also operate the ``Esperanto Book Service'' (at
the same address) which can supply Esperanto textbooks, Esperanto
translations of literary works, original Esperanto literary works,
tapes, records etc. Send them a dollar when writing to them if you
want their complete catalog.

This is a partial listing of their books which may be of interest (and
is probably out of date, but it's all I have):

        Teach Yourself Esperanto, 205p $3.95 (basic text)
        Esperanto Dictionary, 419p $3.50
        Pasoj al Plena Posedo, 240p $5.50 (advanced text)
        La ingenia hidalgo Don Quijote da la Mancha
                        820p $35.00 (just what you think it is)
        Asteriks la Gaulo 48p $7.00 (comic book)

There's also some strange Esperanto/Computer-Science organization
based in Budapest, which mails their newsletter from Sofia Bulgaria.
I'm on their mailing list, but haven't heard from them in over a year.
Whatever it was, it probably died out.

I've also seen some pornographic books written in Esperanto, but don't
know where they can be obtained. Speaking of which: all of the
fivortoj (fee-VOR-toy: dirty words) in Esperanto were originated by a
doctor who was a friend of the originator of the language, and who had
a sincere interest in the language, so you know they're medically and
grammatically correct. What other language do you know which can boast
this?

                                        Bonan tagon,
                                        Fred
                                        <fred.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 1983 1021-CDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Address Correction & Addition
-BODY-
Note that ISSCO has moved; here's the new address:

        ISSCO
        54 rte. des Acacias
        1227 Geneve
        Switzerland

(No telephone numbers changed.)  While I'm at it, I'll plug my org:

The Linguistics Research Center of the University of Texas (host of
our friendly MCC) is engaged in R&D for Machine Translation [of
natural languages].  A German-English translation system is running,
has translated close to 700 pages of material of various sorts (mostly
op./maint. manuals, but also things like software/hardware
descriptions and sales brochures), and is near commercial viability.
An English-German system is underway, with another major effort to
develop a third language about to begin.  In addition, a visiting
Chinese scholar is expected to begin experimenting with
English-Chinese translation later this year.

Address for technical reports, etc:

        Linguistics Research Center
        P.O. Box 7247
        University Station
        Austin, Texas 78712

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 28 May 83 22:25:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: High Technology Articles
-BODY-
The June edition of High Technology contains a several interesting
articles.  There are minor pieces on industrial robots, laser printers
for electronic publishing, and 16-bit micros; also a feature on video
games (again).

There is a lengthy extract from Ed Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck's
new book on the Japanese fifth generation effort.  It seems to be a
balanced presentation.

There is also a good review of dataflow and reduction architectures,
with some mention of other alternatives to von Neumann computers.  The
Real World is beginning to take notice.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 1983 0827-PDT
-FROM-
From: RTAYLOR at USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Expert System Info
-BODY-

Ken,
    I get the AIList via the BB at RADC-TOPS20.  (I have access to
RADC-Multics and TOPS-20 both, as well as the USC-ECL machine.  I
usually use the USC-ECL machine for msg composing.)  I am the newest
member of the AI Group located at RADC (Rome, NY) working with Nort
Fowler.  I am responsible for expert systems and expert systems tools.
Like Sam Holtzman, I am interested in expert systems literature and AI
in general.  I am trying to "build" a reference library for our use
here at RADC.
    My in house project is "to evaluate existing knowledge base tools
which have been used to build expert systems.  This evaluation will
determine the strengths and weaknesses of these various tools; such as
their ease of use, their knowlege base management techniques, and
their knowledge base maintenance techniques."
    Those systems/tools I am currently pursing are:  age, ap3, emycin,
expert, frl, hearsay, kas, kee, ops5, prospector, rll, ross, and
units.  We have access to interlisp, and are in the process of
acquinring maclisp.  Among other things, I am supposed to acquire
these and any others I can find and that we can afford.  After
acquiring them, I am to "get up to speed" on each, then bring the
other members of the group up to speed on each.  Then we are to take a
series of problems ("graded levels of difficulty"), and solve each
problem using each tool/system.
    In a sense, for each tool, I'll have to come up with suggested
instructions or some sort of tutorial--at least enough to get each
member started experimenting on their own.  Needless to say, I've
never worked with any of these tools before, and have limited
knowledge of what might be available (out there) to help me.
    In summary, I am looking for 1) literature and references for our
library, 2) expert systems/tools for our collection and in house use
and evaluation, and 3) any existing tutorial-oriented help for the
above tools and any other (tools) which might be suggested we
investigate.
    Thanks for the help and for listening.  Please direct info and/or
further questions to me:  rtaylor at ecl.
                                  Roz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 83 5:38:25-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!linus!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!bhyde @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reading machines? - (nf)
-BODY-

  Ah why is that you can't seem to buy a machine to read printed text
that actually works?
                                Ben Hyde
                                bhyde!inmet


[This seems to be an indirect request for information on the state of
the art in reading machines.  As a start, I suggest

  J. Schurman, Reading Machines, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on
  Pattern Recognition, Munich, Oct. 1982, pp. 1031-1044.

                                -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 May 83 20:11:30-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!hdj @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Reading machines -- an answer to the question
-BODY-
Doesn't Kurzweil (sp?), a Xerox Company, I think, make such a machine?
I heard about it a couple of years ago; it can supposedly recognize
almost any font, is trainable, can read four or five lines of text at
once, and more.  I haven't heard much about the company or their
machine recently.  Anyone know more?

        Herb Jellinek, SDC Logic-Based Systems Group, burdvax!hdj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 1983 1321-PDT
-FROM-
From: Keith Wescourt
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Wescourt@USC-ISI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Administrative Policy
-BODY-
Ken,

You might want to consider whether job announcements, like the one
posted by Gordon Novak (originally only to SU-BBOARDS) included in
this AILIST issue, violate the ARPANET policies about commercial use.
I can imagine that job announcements from universities and non-profits
are acceptable, but that those from private, profit-making outfits and
their contracted headhunters are not.  Note that Gordon's original was
not transmitted via ARPANET, so he could not have violated any DCA
policies.

Note that I work for a private, profit-making R&D company and it would
be very much to our advantage to exploit our access to the ARPANET for
advertising job openings.

Keith

[Quite right; I apologize for picking up the item and will not report
specific solicitations in the future.  Lab descriptions and other
indirect information are still welcome. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
10
-DATE-
Date: 31 May 1983 1434-PDT
-FROM-
From: Raymond Bates <RBATES at ISIB>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX Interlisp Availability
-BODY-
In response to the Silverman [V1 #7] message:

Interlisp is available for both the VMS and UNIX operating systems for
the VAX family.  For more information send a note to Interlisp@ISIB
with a post office address in it.

/Ray

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 May 83 22:59:59-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LIPS
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

The LIPS (logical inferences per sec.) measure for Prolog (and maybe
other logic programming systems) is not as useless as it might appear
at first sight.  Of course, resolving a goal against a clause head
takes a different amount of work for different goals and clauses, but
a similar observation could be made about the MIPS measure for
conventional machines.  The speed of the concatenate loop

        conc([],L,L).
        conc([X|L1],L2,[X|L3]) :- conc(L1,L2,L3).

appears to be a remarkably good indicator of the speed of a Prolog
implementation for large "pure" Prolog programs (ie. Horn clauses+cut
but no evaluable predicates except maybe arithmetic).  For example,
compiled Prolog on a DEC 2060 runs at 43000 LIPS with this estimate,
and (interpreted) C-Prolog on a VAX 11/780 runs at 1500 LIPS.  Prolog
compilers for the VAX and similar machines are starting to be
developed, and at least one is expected to reach 15000 LIPS on a VAX
780 (it will be quite a while before these are incorporated into full
Prolog systems). The first Prolog machine prototype from Japan (the
Psi machine from ICOT) is expected to reach 40000 LIPS.

Extensive use of evaluable predicates may invalidate the measure to a
large extent (but then, we aren't talking about *logic* programs
anymore, and "logical inference" is no longer the main operation).

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 31 May 83 10:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: GMEREDITH.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Kurzweil Reading Machine
-BODY-
The Kurzweil company, a subsidiary of Xerox, is producing a reading
machine which is, to my knowledge, the most advanced in the industry.
Xerox had the unit on display at the NCC in Anaheim in May.

Xerox has recently donated a number of the Kurzweil units to various
educational institutes to aid blind students, so some people on the
nets have probably had experience with them or can locate one nearby
to check out.

Guy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jun 1983 1238-PDT
-FROM-
From: RTAYLOR at USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chemical AI, Scientific Journals
-BODY-

Ken (and everyone else!),
    Thanks for the response to my cry for help [concerning expert
systems for evaluation at RADC].  From 9 Jun thru 20 Jun I will be
enjoying "God's Country" (Oregon to the uninformed).  But, until my
storage quota is exceeded, my mailbox will accept msgs--which I will
dilligently answer on my return.
    For those of you who don't know me personally, I was a chemist
before being "lured" away to the US Air Force and electronics.  I
still maintain my ACS membership (American Chemical Society).  C&E
News (the ACS weekly info publication) devoted a large part of their 9
May 83 issue to computers and mathematical tools and their influence
on Chemistry.  Their "Special Report" feature was entitled "A computer
program for organic synthesis".  I have not studied it, but have
skimmed it, thinking it would be worth reading.
    I have just received my 30 May issue, and its "Special Report"
feature is entitled "Troubled Times for Scientific Journals", which
should be of interest to those of us who do (or must) publish.  (Only
a small section on Electronic Publishing.)
    Those interested in reprints of either special report can send
$3.00 for each report (although 10 or more cys of one report are only
$1.75 each).  Requests are sent to:  Distribution, Room 210, American
Chemical Society, 1155--16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.  They
want prepayment for orders less than or equal to $20.
    For those of you who are fans of Asimov's robot novels/stories,
the article "Molecular Electronic Devices Offer Challenging Goal"
might be one way of accomplishing the "positronic brain".?!  (This,
too, was in C&E News, but the 23 May issue...yes, C&E News is not my
highest reading priority--note the dates.)
    Thanks again for all your help.
                              Roz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Jun 83 14:54:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Current List of Hosts
-BODY-

The following BBoards and hosts are currently on the mailing
list.

AIDS-UNIX (4), BBNA, BBNG, BBN-UNIX (2), BBN-VAX,
UCBCAD@BERKELEY, UCBCORY@BERKELEY, AIList%UCBKIM@BERKELEY,
AIList@BRL, AI-Info@CIT-20, CMUA (4), CMU-CS-A (19),
CMU-CS-C (5), CMU-CS-G, CMU-CS-IUS, CMU-CS-SPICE (2),
CMU-CS-VLSI, CMU-CS-ZOG, CMU-RI-FAS (2), CMU-RI-ISL (3),
AIList@CORNELL, DEC-MARLBORO (3), ECLA, KESTREL,
HI-MULTICS, UW-Beaver!UTCSRGV@LBL-CSAM, VORTEX@LBL-CSAM,
MIT-DSPG (2), AIList-Distribution@MIT-EE, MIT-MC (16),
MIT-CIPG@MIT-MC, MIT-EECS@MIT-MC, MIT-OZ@MIT-MC (18),
MIT-ML (3), MIT-OZ@MIT-ML, MIT-MULTICS, MIT-SPEECH,
bbAI-List@MIT-XX (+6), NADC, NBS-VMS, AI@NLM-MCS, NPRDC (2),
NYU-AIList@NYU, OFFICE-3, XeroxAIList^.PA@PARC-MAXC,
AI@RADC-TOPS20, {EMORY, IBM-SJ, AIList.RICE, TEKTRONIX,
UCI-AIList.UCI, UIUC}@Rand-Relay, AIList-BBOARD@RUTGERS (+3),
S1-C, AIList@SRI-AI (+7), SRI-CSL, SRI-KL (7), SRI-TSC (2),
AIList-Usenet@SRI-UNIX, SU-AI, Incoming-AIList@SUMEX,
SUMEX-AIM, DSN-AI@SU-DSN, SU-SIERRA@SU-DSN, SU-SCORE (10),
G@SU-SCORE (2), Local-AI-BBoard%SAIL@SU-SCORE (+2),
UCLA-LOCUS (2), V.AI-News@UCLA-LOCUS, {BUFFALO-CS,
Spaf.GATech, AIList.UMASS-CS (+1), AI-BBD.UMCP-CS,
Post-AIList.UNC}@UDel-Relay, USC-ECL (5), USC-ECLB (3),
USC-ECLC (3), SU-AI@USC-ECL (6), USC-ISI (3), USC-ISIB (7),
USC-ISID, EDXA%UCL-CS@ISID, USC-ISIE, USC-ISIF (8),
UTAH-20 (8), BBOARD.AIList@UTEXAS-20, CC@UTEXAS-20,
CMP@UTEXAS-20, G.TI.DAK@UTEXAS-20, WASHINGTON (5), XX,
AI-LOCAL@YALE (+1).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
11
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 May 83 17:50:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quasiformal languages
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

LESK is [a quasiformal] language, developed by Doug Skuce of the CS
Dept. of the University of Ottawa, Canada.  He has implemented it in
Prolog.  The language allows the definition of classes (types), isa
relationships, and complex part-whole relationships, and has a formal
semantics (it's just logic in disguise).  It has a nice English-like
flavor.  A reference is

"Expressing Qualitative Biomedical Knowledge Exactly Using the
Language LESK", D. S. Skuce, Comput. Biol. Med., vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
57-69, 1982.

Fernando

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 1983 20:46:53-PDT (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Adrian Walker <ADRIAN.IBM-SJ@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog Expert Systems
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]


Reports available from IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Distribution
Services, Post Office Box 218, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598.

    Automatic Generation Of Explanations Of Results From
    Knowledge Bases. Report RJ 3481. Adrian Walker.

    Prolog/Ex1, An Inference Engine Which Explains Both Yes
    and No Answers. Report RJ 3771. Adrian Walker.

Report available from Adrian Walker, Department K51, IBM Research
Laboratory, 5600 Cottle Road, San Jose, CA 95193.  (Adrian @ IBM-SJ).

    Data bases, Expert Systems, and Prolog. Report RJ 3870.
    Adrian Walker.

Report available from Department of Computer Science, New York
University, 251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012.

    Syllog: a knowledge based data management system. Report
    No. 034, Department of Computer Science, New York University.
    Adrian Walker.


[...]

Adrian

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Jun 83 09:56:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Bibliography (19,000 chars)
-BODY-
I published a bibliography of recent expert systems reports in AIList
#5.  There is also a brief bibliography by Michael Rychener in the
Oct. 1981 issue of SIGART and an extensive bibliography by Bruce
Buchanan in the April 1983 issue of SIGART.  These three lists have
almost no overlap.

I present here an additional list of references for expert systems,
problem solving, and learning.  It contains only references not given
in the previously mentioned sources.

I am still looking for material on expert systems and vision.  I have
lists of technical reports from Stanford, MIT, and SRI.  I have also
gone through the latest proceedings for IJCAI, AAAI, PatRec, PRIP, and
the DARPA IU Workshop.  Other sources or machine-readable citations
would be most welcome.  Please send them to Laws@SRI-AI or to the
AIList.

                                        -- Ken Laws


J. Bamberger, Capturing Intuitive Knowledge in Procedural Description,
AIM-398 (LOGO Memo 42), AI-MIT, Dec. 1976.

H.G. Barrow, Artificial Intelligence: State of the Art, TN 198,
SRI-AI, Oct. 1979.

D.G. Bobrow and B. Raphael, New Programming Languages for AI Research,
Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 3, Sept. 1974.  Originally CSL-73-2,
Aug. 1973.  Reprinted by Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, July 1976.

G. Bracchi and B. Pernici, Modelling Control Structures in Office
Systems, Milan. Politecnico. Dipartimento di Elettronica. Lab. di
Calcolatori, Rapporto Interno N.  82-19, 1982.

A. Brown and G. Sussman, Localization of Failures in Radio Circuits
>- A Study in Causal and Teleological Reasoning, AIM-319, AI-MIT,
(AD-A011-839), Dec. 1974.

A. Brown, Qualitative Knowledge, Causal Reasoning, and the
Localization of Failures, AI-TR-362, AI-MIT, (AD-A052-952), Dec.
1976.

R. Brown, Use of Analogy to Achieve New Expertise, AI-TR-403, AI-MIT,
(AD-A043-809), Apr. 1977.

B.G. Buchanan and R.O. Duda, Principles of Rule Based Expert Systems.
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-926; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-014, 55 pp, 1982.

A. Bundy, G. Luger, and M. Stone, A Program to Solve Mechanics
Problems Stated in English, DAI Working Paper 8, Dept. of AI, Univ.
of Edinburgh, England, 1975.

U. Bussolati, M. Fugini, and G. Martella, ACTEN: An Action Entity
Model for Conceptual Modeling of Security Information, Milan.
Politecnico. Dipartimento di Elettronica. Lab. di Calcolatori,
Rapporto Interno N.  82-21, 1982.

E. Charniak, CARPS: A Program Which Solves Calculus Word Problems,
AI-TR-227 (MAC-TR-51), AI-MIT, (AD-673-670), July 1968.

E. Charniak, Toward a Model of Children's Story Comprehension,
AI-TR-266, AI-MIT, Dec. 1972.

J.G. Cleary, Implementation of a Sequential Learning Machine,
Man-Machine Studies Report UC-DSE/6, Dept. of EE., Univ. of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1975.

M. Davis, On Constructing a Preprocessor for STRIPS-World Problem
Solvers, Research Memo MIP-R-111, Machine Intelligence Unit, Univ. of
Edinburgh, England, 1975.

R. Davis and R.G. Smith, Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed
Problem Solving, AIM-624, AI-MIT, (AD-A100-367), May 1981.

J. de Kleer, Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Classical
Mechanics, AI-TR-352, AI-MIT, (AD-A021-515), Dec. 1975.

J. de Kleer, Local Methods for Localizing Faults in Electronic
Circuits, AIM-394, AI-MIT, (AD-A036-007), Nov. 1976.

J. de Kleer, J. Doyle, G.L. Steele, Jr., and G.J. Sussman, Explicit
Control of Reasoning, AIM-427, AI-MIT, (AD-A078-244), June 1977.  Also
in AIPL Aug. 1977 Proc. in SIGPLAN/SIGART, 1977.

J. de Kleer, J. Doyle, C. Rich, G.L. Steele, Jr., and G.J. Sussman,
AMORD: A Deductive Procedure System, AIM-435, AI-MIT, Jan. 1978.

J. de Kleer and G.J. Sussman, Propagation of Constraints Applied to
Circuit Synthesis, AIM-485, AI-MIT, Sep. 1978.  Also in Int. J. of
Circuit Theory, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 127-144, Apr. 1980.

J. de Kleer, Causal Reasoning and Rationalization in Electronics,
AIM-499, AI-MIT, Sep. 1978.

D. Dellarosa and L.E. Bourne, Jr., Text-Based Decisions: Changes in
the Availability of Facts Due to Instructions and the Passage of Time,
Colorado U. Cognitive Sci. Inst., Tech. Rpt. 115-ONR, 1982.

M.E. Denofsky, How Near Is Near?  A Near Specialist, AIM-344, AI-MIT,
Feb. 1976.

J. Doyle, Truth Maintenance Systems for Problem Solving, AI-TR-419,
AI-MIT, (AD-A054-826), Jan. 1978.

J. Doyle, A Truth Maintenance System, AIM-521, AI-MIT, June 1979.
Also in Artificial Intelligence Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 231-272, 1979.

J. Doyle and P. London, A Selected Descriptor-Indexed Bibliography to
the Literature on Belief Revision, AIM-568, AI-MIT, Feb. 1980.

J. Doyle, A Model for Deliberation, Action, and Introspection,
AI-TR-581, AI-MIT, May 1980.

R.O. Duda, P.E. Hart, and N.J. Nilsson, Subjective Bayesian Methods
for Rule-Based Inference Systems, TN 124, SRI-AI, Jan. 1976.

R.O. Duda, Semantic Network Representation in Rule Based Inference
System, TN 136, SRI-AI, Jan. 1977.

R.O. Duda, N.J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, State of Technology in
Artificial Intelligence, TN 211, SRI-AI, Mar. 1980.

L.D. Erman and V.R. Lesser, A Multi-Level Organization for Problem
Solving Using Many, Diverse, Co-operating Sources of Knowledge,
CMU-CSD, Mar. 1975.

S.E. Fahlman, A Planning System for Robot Construction Tasks,
AI-TR-283, AI-MIT, (AD-773-471), May 1973.

S.E. Fahlman, Thesis Progress Report: A System For Representing and
Using Real-World Knowledge, AIM-331, AI-MIT, (AD-A021-178), May 1975.

S.E. Fahlman, A System for Representing and Using Real-World
Knowledge, AI-TR-450, AI-MIT, (AD-A052-748), Dec. 1977.

E.A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, Eds., Computers and Thought,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.

R.E. Fikes, P.E. Hart, and N.J. Nilsson, Some New Directions in Robot
Problem Solving, TN 68, SRI-AI, May 1972.

R. Fikes and G.G. Hendrix, A Network-Based Knowledge Representation
and Its Natural Deduction System, TN 147, SRI-AI, July 1977.

K.D. Forbus, A Study of Qualitative and Geometric Knowledge in
Reasoning about Motion, AI-TR-615, AI-MIT, (AD-A096-455), Feb. 1981.

E.C. Freuder, Suggestion and Advice, Working Paper 43, AI-MIT, Mar.
1973.

E.C. Freuder, Active Knowledge, Working Paper 53, AI-MIT, Oct. 1973.

E.C. Freuder, Synthesizing Constraint Expressions, AIM-370, AI-MIT,
(AD-A034-011), July 1976.

K. Fukumori, Fundamental Scheme for Train Scheduling, AIM-596, AI-MIT,
Sep. 1980.

J. Gashnig, A Constraint Satisfaction Method for Inference Making,
Proc. 12th Allerton Conf. on Circuit and Systems Theory, Univ. of
Illinois, Oct. 1974.

I. Goldstein, Elementary Geometry Theorem Proving, AIM-280, AI-MIT,
(AD-735-568), Apr. 1973.

I. Goldstein and S. Papert, Artificial Intelligence, Language and the
Study of Knowledge, AIM-337, AI-MIT, July 1975, revised Mar. 1976.

I.P. Goldstein and R.B. Roberts, NUDGE, A Knowledge-Based Scheduling
Program, AIM-405, AI-MIT, Feb. 1977.

I.P. Goldstein and E. Grimson, Annotated Production Systems: A Model
for Skill Acquisition, AIM-407 (LOGO Memo 44), AI-MIT, (AD-A052-211),
Feb. 1977.

I.P. Goldstein, The Genetic Epistemology of Rule Systems, AIM-449,
AI-MIT, Jan. 1978.

I.P. Goldstein, Developing a Computational Representation for Problem
Solving Skills, AIM-495, AI-MIT, Oct. 1978.

P. Hart, N. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, A Formal Basis for the Heuristic
Determination of Minimum-Cost Paths, IEEE Trans. on Systems Science
and Cybernetics, Vol. SSC-4, No. 2, pp. 100-107, July 1968.

P.E. Hart and R.O. Duda, PROSPECTOR -- A Computer Based Consultation
System for Mineral Exploration, TN 155, SRI-AI, Oct. 1977.

F. Hayes-Roth, Collected Papers on the Learning and Recognition of
Structured Patterns, CMU-CSD, 1975.

W.R. Heads, A Simulated Blindman Task for a Learning Machine,
Man-Machine Studies Report UC-DSE/6, Dept. of EE., Univ. of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1975.

C.L. Hedrick, A Computer Program to Learn Production Systems Using a
Semantic Net, Ph.D. Thesis, CMU-CSD, July 1974.

G.G. Hendrix, Encoding Knowledge in Partitioned Networks, TN 164,
SRI-AI, June 1978.

C. Hewitt, PLANNER: A Language for Manipulating Models and Proving
Theorems in a Robot, AI Memo 158, AI-MIT, Aug. 1970.

C. Hewitt, Description and Theoretical Analysis (Using Schemata) of
PLANNER: A Language for Proving Theorems and Manipulating Models in a
Robot, AI-TR-258, AI-MIT, (AD-744-620), Apr. 1972.

C. Hewitt, P. Bishop, and R. Steiger, A Universal Modular {\ul Actor}
Formalism for Artificial Intelligence, 3rd Int. Jnt. Conf. on
Artificial Intelligence, Aug. 1973.

C. Hewitt, Viewing Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages,
AIM-410, AI-MIT, (AD-A038-246), Dec. 1976.

G.A. Iba, Learning Disjunctive Concepts from Examples, AIM-548,
AI-MIT, Sep. 1979.

T.L. Jones, A Computer Model of Simple Forms of Learning, AI-TR-236
(MAC-TR-20), AI-MIT, (AD-720-337), Jan. 1971.

K.M. Kahn, Intermission -- Actors in Prolog, TR-1 1981-08-10, Uppsala
Programming Methodology and AI Lab., Computing Sci. Dept., Uppsala
Univ., Sweden, June 1981.

W.G. Kennedy, Problem Solving and Nondeterministic Programming
Systems, M.S. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, June
1973.

W.A. Kornfeld, Using Parallel Processing for Problem Solving, AIM-561,
AI-MIT, (AD-A084-683), Dec. 1979.

W.A. Kornfeld, The Use of Parallelism to Implement a Heuristic Search,
AIM-627, AI-MIT, (AD-A099-184), Mar. 1981.

B.J. Kuipers, A Frame for Frames: Representing Knowledge for
Recognition, AIM-322, AI-MIT, (AD-A012-835), Mar. 1975.

B. Kuipers, Spatial Knowledge, AIM-359, AI-MIT, (AD-A026-874), June
1976.

B.J. Kuipers, Representing Knowledge of Large-scale Space, AI-TR-418,
AI-MIT, July 1977.

A.P. Kyne, Heuristic Problem-Solving Systems, M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of
Info. Sci., Univ. of Melbourne, Australia, 1974.

R. LeFaivre, The Representation of Fuzzy Knowledge, DCS-TR-33,
Computer Sci. Dept., Rutgers Univ., 1975.

H. Lieberman, A Preview of Act 1, AIM-625, AI-MIT, June 1981.

H. Lieberman, Thinking About Lots Of Things At Once Without Getting
Confused -- Parallelism in Act 1, AIM-626, AI-MIT, May 1981.

T. Lozano-Perez, Spatial Planning: A Configuration Space Approach,
AIM-605, AI-MIT, (AD-A093-934), Dec. 1980.

T. Lozano-Perez, Automatic Planning of Manipulator Transfer Movements,
AIM-606, AI-MIT, (AD-A096-118), Dec. 1980.

G.F. Luger, Behavioral Effects of Problem Structure in Isomorphic
Problem Solving Equations, DAI Research Rpt. 4, Dept. of AI, Univ. of
Edinburgh, England, May 1975.

J.T. Maxwell, III, and S.M. Ornstein, Mockingbird: A Composer's
Amanuensis, Xerox. Palo Alto Res. Center, CSL-83-02, 1983.

D.A. McAllester, A Three Valued Truth Maintenance System, AIM-473,
AI-MIT, (AD-A062-176), May 1978.

D.A. McAllester, The Use of Equality in Deduction and Knowledge
Representation, AI-TR-550, AI-MIT, (AD-A084-890), Jan. 1980.

D.A. McAllester, An Outlook on Truth Maintenance, AIM-551, AI-MIT,
(AD-A093-190) Aug. 1980.

D. McDermott and G.J. Sussman, The Conniver Reference Manual,
AIM-259A, AI-MIT, (AD-773-555), 1974.

D.V. McDermott, Very Large Planner-type Data Bases, AIM-339, AI-MIT,
(AD-A026-370), Sep. 1975.

D.V. McDermott, Flexibility and Efficiency in a Computer Program for
Designing Circuits, AI-TR-402, AI-MIT, (AD-A043-964), Dec. 1976.

D. McDermott and J. Doyle, Non-Monotonic Logic I, AIM-486B, AI-MIT,
(AD-A078-395), revised July 1979.

E.R. Michener, The Structure of Mathematical Knowledge, AI-TR-472,
AI-MIT, 1978.

P.L. Miller, An "Adaptive" Natural Language System Which Listens,
Asks, and Learns, RLE Natural Language Group Memo 83, AI-MIT, Nov.
1974.

M. Minsky, Ed., Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass., 1968.

M. Minsky and S. Papert, 1968-1969 Progress Report, AIM-200, AI-MIT,
1970.

M. Minsky and S. Papert, Proposal to ARPA for Research on Artificial
Intelligence at MIT 1970-1971, AIM-185, AI-MIT, Dec. 1970.

M. Minsky and S. Papert, Progress Report, AIM-252, AI-MIT, Jan. 1972.

M. Minsky, A Framework for Representing Knowledge, AIM-306, AI-MIT,
(AD-A011-168), June 1974.  Also in P. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of
Computer Vision.

M. Minsky, Plain Talk About Neurodevelopmental Epistemology, AIM-430,
AI-MIT, June 1977.

R.C. Moore, Reasoning from Incomplete Knowledge in a Procedural
Deduction System, AI-TR-347, AI-MIT, Dec. 1975.

R.C. Moore, Reasoning from Incomplete Knowledge in a Procedural
Deduction System, Garland Publishing, 1979.

J. Moses, Symbolic Integration, AI-TR-226 (MAC-TR-47), AI-MIT,
(AD-662-666), Dec. 1967.

A. Nevins, Plane Geometry Theorem Proving Using Forward Chaining,
AIM-303, AI-MIT, (AD-A004-223), Jan. 1974.

N.J. Nilsson, Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence,
McGraw Hill Book Co., NY, 1971.

N.J. Nilsson, Artificial Intelligence, TN 89, SRI-AI, Mar. 1974.

N.J. Nilsson, A Production System for Automatic Deduction, TN 148,
SRI-AI, July 1977.

N.J. Nilsson, The Interplay Between Experimental and Theoretical
Methods in Artificial Intelligence, TN 229, SRI-AI, Sep. 1980.

D.A. Norman, D.E. Rumelhart, and the LNR Research Group, Explorations
in Cognition, Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Apr. 1975.

L.M. Norton, ADEPT: A Heuristic Program for Proving Theorems of Group
Theory, AI-TR-222 (MAC-TR-33), AI-MIT, (AD-645-660), Oct. 1966.

S. Papert, Teaching Children to be Mathematicians versus Teaching
about Mathematics, Educ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 3, pp. 249-262, 1972.

W.H. Paxton, A Framework for Language Understanding, TN 131, SRI-AI,
June 1976.

W.H. Paxton, Experiments in Speech Understanding System Control, TN
134, SRI-AI, Aug. 1976.

M. Raibert, A State Space Model for Sensorimotor Control and Learning,
AIM-351, AI-MIT, (AD-A026-960), Jan. 1976.

M. Raibert, Control and Learning by the State Space Model:
Experimental Findings, AIM-412, AI-MIT, Apr. 1977.

M.H. Raibert, Motor Control and Learning by the State Space Model,
AI-TR-439, AI-MIT, Sep. 1977.

R.B. Roberts and I.P. Goldstein, The FRL Primer, AIM-408, AI-MIT,
(AD-A053-306), July 1977.

A.D. Rubin, Hypothesis Formation and Evaluation in Medical Diagnosis,
AI-TR-316, AI-MIT, Jan. 1975.

J.F. Rulifson, J.A. Derksen, and R.J. Waldinger, QA4: A Procedural
Calculus for Intuitive Reasoning, TN 73, SRI-AI, Nov. 1972.

E.D. Sacerdoti, A Structure for Plans and Behavior, TN 109, SRI-AI,
Aug. 1975.

E. Sacerdoti, R. Fikes, R. Reboh, D. Sagalowicz, R. Waldinger, and
B.M. Wilber, QLISP: A Language for the Interactive Development of
Complex Systems, TN 120, SRI-AI, Mar. 1976.

E.D. Sacerdoti, Problem Solving Tactics, TN 189, SRI-AI, July 1979.

E. Sandewall, Ideas about Management of Data Bases, AIM-332, AI-MIT,
(AD-A013-312), May 1975.

E.H. Shortliffe and B.G. Buchanan, A Model of Inexact Reasoning in
Medicine, Mathematical Biosciences, Vol. 23, pp. 351-379, 1975.

S.K. Shrivastava, A Dependency, Commitment and Recovery Model for
Atomic Actions, Newcastle Upon Tyne U.  Computing Lab., No. 178, 1982.

H.A. Simon and J.B. Kadane, Optimal Problem-Solving Search:
All-or-None Solutions, CMU-CSD, 1975.

B.C. Smith, A Proposal for a Computational Model of Anatomical and
Physiological Reasoning, AIM-493, AI-MIT, Nov. 1978.

R.M. Stallman and G.J. Sussman, Forward Reasoning and
Dependency-Directed Backtracking in a System For Computer-Aided
Circuit Analysis, AIM-380, AI-MIT, (AD-A035-719), Sep. 1976.  Also in
AI Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 135-196, Oct. 1977.

J. Stansfield, COMEX: A Support System for a Commodities Analyst,
AIM-423, AI-MIT, (AD-A052-442), July 1977.

J.L. Stansfield, Conclusions from the Commodity Expert Project,
AIM-601, AI-MIT, (AD-A097-854), Nov. 1980.

G.L. Steele, Jr., The Definition and Implementation of a Computer
Programming Language Based on Constraints, AI-TR-595 (VLSI Memo
80-32), AI-MIT, (AD-A096-556), Aug. 1980.

L. Steels, Procedural Attachment, AIM-543, AI-MIT, (AD-A084-637), Aug.
1979.

M. Stefik, J. Aikins, R. Balzer, J. Benoit, L. Birnbaum, F.
Hayes-Roth, and E. Sacerdoti, The Organization of Expert Systems: A
Prescriptive Tutorial, Xerox. Palo Alto Res.  Center, VLSI-82-01,
1982.

G.J. Sussman, T. Winograd, and E. Charniak, Micro-Planner Reference
Manual, AIM-203A, AI-MIT, Dec. 1971.

G.J. Sussman and D. McDermott, Why Conniving is Better than Planning,
AIM-255A, AI-MIT, Apr. 1972.  Also in Proc. FJCC, Vol. 41, pp.
1171-1179, AFIPS Press, NJ, 1972.

G.J. Sussman, A Computational Model of Skill Acquisition, AI-TR-297,
AI-MIT, Aug. 1973.

G. Sussman, A Computer Model of Skill Acquisition, American Elsevier,
Feb. 1975.

G.J. Sussman and R.M. Stallman, Heuristic Techniques in Computer Aided
Circuit Analysis, AIM-328, AI-MIT, (AD-A021-171), Mar. 1975.  Also in
IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems, Vol. CAS-22, No. 11, Nov. 1975.

G.J. Sussman, SLICES: At the Boundary between Analysis and Synthesis,
AIM-433, AI-MIT, July 1977.

G.J. Sussman and G.L. Steele, Jr., Constraints -- A Language for
Expressing Almost Hierarchical Descriptions, AIM-502A, AI-MIT, Aug.
1981.

P. Szolovits, L.B. Hawkinson, and W.A. Martin, An Overview of OWL, a
Language for Knowledge Representation, MIT/LCS/TM-86, Laboratory for
Computer Science, MIT, June 1977.

Y.A.Z. Tsypkin, Foundations of the Theory of Learning Systems, A
Volume in the Mathematics in Science and Engineering Series, ISBN:
O-12-702060-8, 1973, 220 pp.

S. Ullman, Model-Driven Geometry Theorem Prover, AIM-321, AI-MIT,
(AD-A021-446), May 1975.

R. Waldinger, Achieving Several Goals Simultaneously, TN 107, SRI-AI,
July 1975.

D.E. Walker, Procedures for Integrating Knowledge in a Speech
Understanding System, TN 143, SRI-AI, June 1977.

D.A. Waterman, Adaptive Production Systems, Complex Info. Processing
Working Paper 285, CMU-CSD, Dec. 1974.

S. Weyl, An INTERLISP Relational Data Base System, TN 116, SRI-AI,
Nov. 1975.

W.A. Wickelgren, How to Solve Problems, W.H. Freeman and Co., 1974.

B.M. Wilber, QLISP Reference Manual, TN 118, SRI-AI,

Y. Wilks, Natural Language Understanding Systems Within the AI
Paradigm: A Survey and Some Comparisons, AIM237, STAN-CSD, Feb. 1975.

T. Winograd, Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer
Program for Understanding Natural Language, AI-TR-235, AI-MIT, Feb.
1971.

P.H. Winston, Learning Structural Descriptions from Examples,
AI-TR-231 (MAC-TR-76), AI-MIT, (AD-713-988), Sep. 1970.

P.H. Winston, The M.I.T. Robot, in Machine Intelligence 7, B. Meltzer
and D. Michie (eds.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972.

P.H. Winston, Learning by Creating and Justifying Transfer Frames,
AIM-414A, AI-MIT, (AD-A055-092), revised Jan. 1978.  Also in
Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 10, pp. 147-172, 1978.

P.H. Winston and R.H. Brown (eds.), Artificial Intelligence: An MIT
Perspective (Vols. 1 and 2), MIT Press, 1979.

P.H. Winston, Learning New Principles from Precedents and Exercises,
AIM-632, AI-MIT, (AD-A100-368), May 1981.

L. Zadeh, Fuzzy Logic and Approximate Reasoning, Electronics Research
Lab., Univ. of California, Berkeley, Nov. 1974.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
12
-DATE-
Date: Mon 6 Jun 83 08:51:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI <AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Usenet Admiministrivia
-BODY-
Andrew Knutsen@SRI-Unix, who controls the gateway between AIList and
the Usenet net.ai discussion, has developed new gateway software that
separates the AIList items and deletes those originating from Usenet
sites.  I have modified the digesting software to pass through Usenet
Article-I.D.  headers as flags for the gateway.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jun 83 21:04:41-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!minow @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Reading machines -- an answer to the question
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decvax.107

Kurzweil Computer Company, in Cambridge MA, makes several reading
machines, including one with a built-in voice synthesizer for
visually-handicapped users.  There are about 20 scattered around in
New England public libraries.

They also make a "commercial" version that may be used as an
intelligent input device to a computer -- it reads several fonts and
is trainable.  It is also fairly expensive.

Much of the theory behind the machine was explained in Kurzweil's MIT
thesis.  (Sorry, don't have a reference.)

While there are a number of page readers on the market that read OCR-B
(which looks fairly reasonable), the Kurzweil seems to be unique in
that it can read many fonts.

Martin Minow decvax!minow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jun 83 16:45:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: NUDEL.CL <NUDEL.CL@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Kurzweil's reading machine
-BODY-
[...]

There is a write-up on Kurzweil and his work in this week's U.S. News
and World Report - June 13, 1983 page 63. It mentions his reading
machine, plans for a reading interface for automatic input to
computers directly from the printed page without the need for key
punching, and a voice-activated word processor.

Bernard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jun 83 4:16:33-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.t
     turner @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Subjective Visual Phenomena
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.678


        Talk of retinas, and composition of daemons for the "retina"
of a computer-resident intelligence, got me to thinking of my own
retina.  I am not an expert in neuro-ocular phenomena, so if you are,
please bear with me.  I am wondering if there are explanations for
some of the following perceptions:

   1. One day some years ago I managed to walk on a railroad
      rail for about 1/2 a mile.  For at least fifteen minutes
      afterward, there was a vertical band in my field of vision,
      crossing the center, which seemed to be moving upward.
      This band corresponded to the rail I had been staring at.
      I was able to repeat this effect.

   2. In a quiet, distraction-free, dimly lit environment, I am
      able to look at an object against a uniform background,
      and somehow make it blend in enough with its background
      that it seems to disappear.  This requires considerable
      effort, and seldom lasts longer than a few seconds.  Usually,
      the object reappears when I try to focus on some feature
      or detail that seems "behind" the object.  I am fairly sure
      that this is not simply a matter of coordinating both
      eyes so that both blind-spots coincide over the image of
      the object.  It is definitely in the center of my vision.
      The image also reappears if I move my eyes at all--and
      since small eye movements are involuntary, this effect
      suggests that these movements play a role in keeping
      retinal responses flowing, whereas the image would
      decay otherwise.

   3. Recently, I have been playing a video game ("Quantum", Atari)
      that has an interesting feature: there is an object which
      moves around the screen (itself worth only 100 points)
      that leaves behind images of itself that shrink down to
      a point and disappear.  Capturing (before disappearance)
      these images is worth 300 points.  When I play to make points
      by capturing these shrinking images, there is a persistant
      after-effect that is most apparent when trying to read: as
      my eyes skip around a page, letters and words on it seem
      to shrink.  This does not happen when I play and ignore the
      shrinking "particles", or capture them only incidentally.
      The effect seems related to searching for and focussing on
      these images for several minutes of play.  It is often very
      pronounced and distracting.

    The human visual system seems to be educable at several levels.
Perhaps there are interactions between these levels that haven't been
explored yet.

    Comments appreciated.
        Michael Turner
        ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 83 9:04:29-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Visual After-effects
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2199


The effects described such as the railroad track and video after
effects are well known by psychologists, and indeed are one of the
tools used to study the levels and types of processing in the optic
system. Most introductory texts on the subject will include a few
pictures to stare at in certain ways to acheive some of types of
after effects you noted.  I beleive Scientific American even gave
away a resubscription freebie on the subject a few (6?) years ago.

The earliest description of the phenomenon I know of (circa 1910) by
a reputable psychologist was from a fellow who had a small area of
his retna with a blind spot.  (Was this Lashley?) He observed once at
a party, that when a person stood against a highly regular wallpaper
and their face was in his "spot" their head would be "removed" and
replaced by the Wallpaper Pattern!  The visual system was simply
making its best guess of what should be simulated for those bad
receptors.  A bit of experimenting later, it was shown that the
effect could be reproduced with anyone by simply fatiguing the
receptors at one spot (simulating a defect) by staring intently at
one object without blinking, moving the head or sacading the eyes.
If the level of fatigue is great enough and the background suitably
benighn and predictable, the object stared at will indeed disapear,
actually being replaced by the visual systems best guess for what the
fatigued cells would report if they were sending out a better signal.

My own experience with video games provides some confirmation of the
"modern" experience.  I play Robotron, occassionally for several
hours (takes a while to recycle the 9,999,999 score) which involes
LOTS of little glowing things moving about, some of which must be
avoided and shot, and some of which must be "rescued".  After such a
binge, I will see afterimages of the little Good guys I must rescue,
but never the bad killer robots.  Now THAT is a high level of
processing in the optic system: it seems to be able to tell good from
bad!!

    ----GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
13
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jun 1983 0810-MDT
-FROM-
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSL 3.1 Available
-BODY-

                             PSL 3.1 AVAILABILITY

  PSL (Portable Standard LISP) is a new LISP implemented at the
University of Utah as a successor to the various Standard LISP systems
we previously distributed.  PSL is about the power, speed and flavor
of Franz LISP or MACLISP, with growing influence from Common LISP.  It
is recognized as an efficient and portable LISP implementation with
many more capabilities than described in the 1979 Standard LISP
Report.

  PSL's efficiency and portability is obtained by writing essentially
all of PSL in itself, and using an optimizing compiler driven by
tables describing the target hardware and software environment.  A
standard PSL distribution includes all the sources needed to build,
modify and maintain PSL on that machine, the executables and a manual.
PSL has a machine oriented "mode" for systems programming in LISP
(SYSLISP) that permits access to the target machine about as
efficiently as in C or PASCAL.  This mode provides for significant
speed up of user programs.

  PSL is in heavy use at Utah, and by collaborators at
Hewlett-Packard, Rand, Stanford and other sites.  Many existing
programs and applications have been adapted to PSL including Hearn's
REDUCE computer algebra system and GLISP, Novak's object oriented LISP
dialect. These are available from Hearn and Novak.

  PSL systems available from Utah include:

VAX, Unix (4.1, 4.1a) 1600 BPI Tar format DEC-20, Tops-20 V4 & V5 1600
BPI Dumper format Apollo, Aegis 5.0 6 floppy disks, RBAK format
Extended DEC-20, 1600 BPI Dumper format
    Tops-20 V5

  We are currently charging a $200 tape or floppy distribution fee for
each system.  To obtain a copy of the license and order form, please
send a NET message or letter with your US MAIL address to:

Utah Symbolic Computation Group Secretary University of Utah - Dept.
of Computer Science 3160 Merrill Engineering Building Salt Lake City,
Utah 84112

ARPANET: CRUSE@UTAH-20 USENET:  utah-cs!cruse

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Jun 83 10:03:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Don Walker <WALKER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DEMONSTRATIONS AT THE JUNE ACL MEETING IN CAMBRIDGE
-BODY-
[I apologize for not picking up on this and the next item sooner.  I
try to report pertinent items from other BBoards, but haven't quite
mastered the habit yet.  -- KIL]

People who want to demonstrate programs or systems at the forthcoming
Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics at MIT
on 15-17 June should contact Jon Allen as soon as possible at
NLG.JA@mit-speech or 617:253-2509.  A variety of hardware support
facilities are available.  We would like to provide a good
representation of current capabilities at the meeting.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Jun 83 12:47:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Don Walker <WALKER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NSF FUNDS IJCAI TRAVEL; APPLICATION DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 6-15
-BODY-
TRAVEL SUPPORT FOR US PARTICIPANTS TO IJCAI-83
     NSF GRANT APPROVED; DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS EXTENDED TO 15 JUNE

IJCAII has just been informed that NSF will provide a grant for travel
support of US participants to IJCAI-83 in Karlsruhe.  The plan is to
support up to 40 US participants with travel allowances that average
$800 per person.

Because of timing constraints, we are asking US residents who are
interested in travel support for participation in IJCAI-83 to provide
us AS SOON AS POSSIBLE with a letter indicating:

    request for travel support; plans for participation at IJCAI-83
    (e.g. presentation of paper, participation in panel); expected
    benefits derived from attending; willingness to provide a
    post-conference report; current sources of research support;
    availability of travel support from other sources; and a brief
vita.

Students are encouraged to add a letter of reference submitted by a
faculty member.

The applications should be sent to:

    Priscilla Rasmussen
    IJCAI-83 Committee on Travel
    Laboratory for Computer Science Research
    Hill Center, Busch Campus
    Rutgers University
    New Brunswick, NJ 08903

The revised deadline for applications is June 15, 1983

The applications will be reviewed by an IJCAII selection committee.
The criteria for selection will be as follows: (1) current and past
achievements in AI (special consideration will be given to those who -
in the judgment of the IJCAI-83 Program Committee - contributed a very
high quality paper to the conference); (2) potential for contributions
in the field - that may be stimulated by attendance at the conference;
(3) lack of sufficient alternative funds to enable participation at
the conference. Priority will be given to younger, promising members
of the AI community who would not be able to attend the conference
because of lack of travel funds.

Please note that those who wish to be considered for travel support
through this grant must use US airlines for their travel to Germany.
Contact Iris Kay at Custom Travel Consultants (415:369-2105, 2115;
2105 Woodside Road, Woodside, CA 94062) for further information on
special US airline rates.

Saul Amarel General Chairman IJCAI-83

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
14
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 1983 1342-PDT
-FROM-
From: JBROOKSHIRE@USC-ECLB
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UNIX, Eunice, LISP
-BODY-
Naive users looking for connection whereby we might
        i.  get LISP for VAX/VMS, maybe via Eunice?
        ii.  get lisp for PDP-11/23, RSX-11, Maybe same?  Pointers to
contacts will be greatly appreciated.  Jerry

[Availability of VAX Interlisp was noted in V1 #10.  Contact
Interlisp@ISIB. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 June 1983 06:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael A. Bloom <MCB @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisps?  Fortune? or Onyx?
-BODY-

I'm looking for a Lisp for the Fortune 68K computer.  Is anyone aware
of one existing?  Has anyone ported Franz Lisp to the fortune?

Also, has anyone ported ANY Lisp to the Onyx C8002 running system
III?

I'll be grateful for any leads.

> Michael Bloom
        mcb@mit-mc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 83 16:42:42-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Visual After-effects
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.240

Actually, the blind-spot game of removing people's heads has a long
history. King Charles II of England used to amuse himself by seeing
how his courtiers would look without their heads. And it is true that
any regular pattern behind will be filled in across either the normal
blind spot or blind spots due to retinal problems.

As for the effect in which objects tend to disappear if stared at,
this is normally studied with special devices attached to the eyeball
(on a contact lens) to ensure that the visual world remains stationary
on the eye. Objects rapidly vanish under these conditions, but
reappear in fragmentary form from time to time. Very slight shifts of
viewpoint tend to make the objects come back, which is probably the
reason attending to a detail "behind" the object makes it return. It
is easier to make things with blurred or diffuse edges go away than
things with sharp edges (so I imagine people with poor eyesight can do
it easier than people with good vision).

The effect of changing letter size after watching for game objects
that change size is another example of the same kind of thing as the
railroad track after-movement effect. It's probably a different visual
channel (we have separate channels for size changes and for movement)
but the principle is the same. Some people claim that the effect is
due to fatigue of the system sensitive to movement in one direction,
leaving the balancing components sensitive to movement in the other
direction to control what is seen when the stimulation is neutral.
(i.e. the other direction is more sensitive after one is fatigued).
I'm not convinced by this explanation. Things are probably more
complicated than that.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 7-Jun-83  17:20:13-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY    HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bundy@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Springer Verlag Prize for Symbolic Computation at IJCAI-83
-BODY-
>-------

                        IJCAI-83

        SPRINGER-VERLAG PRIZE FOR SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION


I am please to announce that the paper, "Scale-Space Filtering", by
Andy Witkin of Fairchild Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory,
has been awarded the Springer-Verlag prize for Symbolic Computation.
The prize will be presented at the Eighth International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, to be held in Karlsruhe, West
Germany, from 8th to 12th August 1983.

The Symbolic Computation Prize has recently been announced by
Springer-Verlag, as a sign of their interest in Artificial
Intelligence and in the work of the scientists active in this field.
It is named after their new book series on Artificial Intelligence and
Computer Graphics, and is awarded, by the programme committee, to the
best paper contributed to the IJCAI conference.  The prize is $500.

The IJCAI-83 programme committee has interpreted its brief as being to
select the paper which best meets the following criteria.

(a) It reports a significant and original piece of research of direct
relevance to Artificial Intelligence.

(b) This research serves as a model for how Artificial Intelligence
research should be conducted.

(c) The paper is well presented for a specialist reader.

Witkin's paper is clearly presented and is intelligible to a
non-specialist reader, without sacrificing technical validity and
clarity.  It describes a new approach to perceptual organization, and
an implementation with satisfying performance.

Among the other papers submitted to IJCAI-83 and considered for the
Symbolic Computation Prize, the programme committee would like to give
an honourable mention to "Completeness of the Negation as Failure
Rule", by Joxan Jaffar, Jean-Louis Lassez and John Lloyd of the
University of Melbourne.


                        Alan Bundy
                        Programme Chairman, IJCAI-83

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
15
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jun 1983 at 0928-PDT
-FROM-
From: zaumen@Sri-Tsc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Application
-BODY-
Recently I had to try to understand the following sentence:

   The insured hereby covenants that no release has been or will
   be given to or settlement of compromise made with any third
   party who may be liable in damages to the insured and the
   insured in consideration of the payment made under the
   policy hereby assigns and subrogates to the said Company
   all rights and causes of action he may have because of this
   loss, to the extent of payments made hereunder to him, and the
   insured hereby authorizes the Company to prosecute any claim or
   suit in its name or the name of the insured, against any person
   or organization legally responsible for the loss.

I could only guess at what this means.  The main clue seems to be that
the reference to "the Company" is in a form normally reserved for a
diety.

I agree to give one can of Coors Lite to the first person who shows me
a valid parsing (done by an AI program) of the above legalese.  This
may seem like a very low payment considering the difficulty of the
task: it merely reflects my opinion of legalese.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jun 1983 1733-MDT
-FROM-
From: William Galway <Galway@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An entertaining AI project?
-BODY-
I seem to recall that "off the wall" ideas were suggested as one of
the topics for this mailing list, so here goes.

We're all familiar with computer programs that play games like chess
and backgammon, but what about the new generation of games that have
sprung up with computers?  For example, I think ROGUE would be a
nearly ideal game for a computer to play both sides of.  The game is
highly structured in many ways, but might still provide interesting
problems in perception, knowledge representation, and learning.

Would anyone care to take the challenge to write such a program?
Could they suggest other similar games that would be appropriate for
computers to play?  (Pacman?)  Is there anything new to be learned in
writing such a program, or would it just be an expensive toy?  (Or
teaching aid, for a class project?)

Thanks.

>-Will Galway

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1983  20:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: GJC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for VAX/VMS
-BODY-
VAX-NIL is a native VAX/VMS lisp programming environment, receiving
support from both the Laboratory for Computer Science and the
Artifical Intelligence Laboratory at MIT for use as a research tool.
As a lisp programming environment it is entirely self contained in one
large address space, including a compatible EMACS editor written in
NIL. The language is a superset of that defined in the Common-Lisp
standard, and is greatly influenced by many language features of the
Lispmachine and Maclisp.

A distribution kit can be obtained from GSB@MIT-ML.

>GJC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 12 Jun 83 19:44:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: SHardy@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog For The Vax
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

Implementation For VAX/VMS

The Sussex Poplog system is a multi-language programming environment
for AI tasks.  It includes:

(a) A native mode Prolog compiler, compatible with the Clocksin and
    Mellish book.  The system supports floating point arithmetic.

(b) A POP-11 compiler.  POP-11 and Prolog programs may share data
    structures and may call each other as subroutines; they may also
    co-routine with each other. (POP is the British derivative of
    LISP; functionally equivalent to Lisp, it has a more conventional
    syntax.)

(c) VED, an Emacs like extendible editor, is part of the run time
    system.  VED is written in POP-11 and so can easily be extended.
    It can also be used for input (e.g. simple menus) and for output
    (simple cellular graphics).  VED and the compilers share memory,
    making for a well integrated programming environment.

(d) Subroutines written in other languages, e.g. Fortran, may be
    linked in as new built in predicates.

Prolog's complex architecture was designed to help build blackboard
systems working on large amounts of numerical data.  The intention is
that Fortran (or a similar language) be used for array processing;
POP-11 will be used for manipulating agendas and other procedurally
oriented tasks and Prolog will be used for logical inference.

However, the components of Prolog can be used individually without
knowledge of the other components.  To some users, Poplog is simply a
powerful text editor, to others it just a Prolog system.

Poplog has been adopted, along with Franz LISP and DEC-20 Prolog, as
part of the "common software base" for the IKBS program (Britain's
response to The Fifth Generation).

The system is being transported to the PERQ and Motorola 68000, as
well as being converted for VAX/UNIX.

Although full details haven't yet been announced, the system will be
commercially supported.  The license fee will be approx $10,000 with
maintenance approx.  $1,000 per annum.  For more details, write to:


                Dr Aaron Sloman
                Cognitive Studies Programme
                University of Sussex
                Falmer, Brighton, ENGLAND
                (273) 606755

>- Steve Hardy,
   Teknowledge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jun 83 9:18:36-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From:
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Description of AI research at TRW
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: trw-unix.302

                          AI RESEARCH AT TRW
                              June, 1983

     This short note is meant to describe current AI research taking
place at ("A Company Called...") TRW.  I've received curious and
quizzical looks in the past when stating where I work to folks at AAAI
and other conferences.  Perhaps it would be informative to give a
quick rundown of what sort of AI we do around here.
     AI research is going on in at least four laboratories in three
locations, all within TRW's Defense Systems Group (although we
"consult" internally to the Space and Technology Group).  We will be
presenting at least three papers at IJCAI and AAAI this year, so one
can see our growing involvement.  For more detailed info, I welcome
your inquiries.

Systems Engineering and Development Division (Redondo Beach, CA):
     Projects include extensive experiments with decision aids for
military command and control needs.  The problems range from situation
assessment to resource allocation techniques.  Of particular recent
interest is the use of object-oriented languages for strategic and
tactical modelling and gaming, as well as various inference schemes to
analyze and diagnose the states of those models to aid the user in
creating plans of action.
     Additional work is being done in intelligent terminal design,
heuristic system parameter tuning, a little bit of smart database
query work, and a lot of work on fancy highly adaptable I/O and
graphics for Intelligence Analysis workstations.

Software and Information Systems Division (Redondo Beach, CA):
     This Division concentrates on signal processing applications of
various AI techniques.  Work continues to expand in pattern analysis,
deduction mechanisms for signal processing and system tuning, and for
computer network analysis.

ESL, Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA):
     This subsidiary of TRW also works heavily in the signal
processing arena.  It also uses expert systems approaches to diagnose
states of the (electronic) world.  Further, one project is providing
experimental automated decision support for strategic indications and
warning analysts.

Special Programs (Washington, DC):
     This group of specialists provides domain knowledge support for
the various systems under research or development in the rest of the
company.  This expertise augments that already in California.

>----
     We use all of the software and hardware tools we can find, at
least to try them out.  A complete list would be too long for this
note.

     I hope this has cleared up some of the most frequently asked
questions about what TRW is doing in AI....
                                           Mark D. Grover
                                           TRW Defense Systems Group
                                           One Space Park, 134/4851
                                           Redondo Beach, CA 90278
                                           (213) 217-3563
                                           {decvax, ucbvax, randvax}!
                                               trw-unix!mdgrover

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 12 Jun 83 13:22:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Miller <JMILLER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1984 National Computer Conference: Call for papers
-BODY-
     The call for papers for the 1984 National Computer Conference has
been released; a copy of it is enclosed below.  As the program chair
for the artificial intelligence / human-computer interaction track, I
hope that members of the AI community will give serious thought to
preparing papers and sessions for NCC.  This meeting offers us a real
voice in the conference's program, as six program sessions will be
devoted to AI, far more than in the past.  Proposals on any aspect of
AI are welcome; I would only note that most of the people attending
the conference will have little familiarity with AI.  Consequently,
extremely technical papers or sessions are probably not appropriate
for this meeting.  I am particularly interested in sessions that would
summarize important subareas of AI at an introductory or tutorial
level, perhaps especially those that address aspects of AI that are
beginning to have an impact on the computer industry and society at
large.  Please contact me if you have any questions about the
conference; my address, net address, and phone are below.

     Jim Miller


>-----------------------------------------------------------------------


              A CALL FOR PAPERS, SESSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
                   1984 NATIONAL COMPUTER CONFERENCE
       July 9-12, 1984 Convention Center Las Vegas, Nevada

                E N H A N C I N G C R E A T I V I T Y

     You are invited to attend and to participate in the 1984 NCC
program.  The 1984 theme, "Enhancing Creativity," reflects the
increasing personalization of computer systems, and the attendant
focus on individual productivity and innovation.  In concert with the
expanded degrees of connectivity resulting from advances in data
communications, this trend is leading to dramatic changes in the
office, the factory, and the home.

     The 1983 program will feature informative sessions on
contemporary issues that are critically important to the industry.
Sessions and papers will be selected on the basis of quality,
topicality, and suitability for the NCC audience.  All subjects
related to computing technology and applications are suitable.

     YOU CAN PARTICIPATE BY:

   - Writing a paper

        * Send for "Instructions to Authors" TODAY.

        * Submit papers by October 31, 1983.

   - Organizing and leading a session

        * Send preliminary proposal (title, abstract, target
          audience) by July 15, 1983.

        * After preliminary approval, send final session proposal
          by August 30, 1983.

   - Serving as a reviewer for submitted papers and sessions

     Authors and session leaders will receive final notification of
acceptance by January 31, 1984.

     Send all submissions, proposals, correspondence and inquiries
about papers and sessions on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE or HUMAN-COMPUTER
INTERACTION to:

    James R. Miller
    Computer * Thought Corporation
    1721 West Plano Parkway
    Plano, Texas 75075
    214-424-3511
    JMILLER@SUMEX-AIM

     Send all other proposals or inquiries to:

    Dennis J. Frailey, Program Chairman
    Texas Instruments Incorporated
    8642-A Spicewood Springs Road
    Suite 1984
    P.O. Box 10988
    Austin, Texas 78766-1988
    512-250-6663

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
16
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jun 83 0:18:31-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jrf @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Description of AI research at TRW - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1149

Thanks for the info!  More, please.

jrf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jun 1983 11:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP for VAX/VMS
-BODY-
[...]

If you are not concerned about maintaining compatibility with an
existing LISP software base (e.g. MacLisp or InterLisp), then the
"CLisp" dialect from UMass-Amherst (for VMS only) represents an
excellent combination of highly developed LISP environment and
efficient execution.  CLisp was developed using public funds; I
believe that it is available for the cost of a tape and mailing (i.e.
as far as I know they do not tack on a several hundred dollar
"distribution fee").  The current distributor and maintainer is Dan
Corkill at UMass-Amherst; send inquiries to

           CLISP.UMass-CS@UDel-Relay.

CLisp (not to be confused with the InterLisp "CLisp" syntactic-sugar
subdialect) is a mature LISP influenced by both the MacLisp and
InterLisp traditions but departing from both in several respects.  The
system includes substantial on-line documentation, a reasonably good
optimizing compiler, an incarnation of the InterLisp editor, and good
hooks into VMS subprocess and system service functions.  If I were
working under VMS now, that's the LISP I would personally use over all
the others I know about (e.g. NIL, InterLisp, Utah's "Standard" LISP,
Franz under Eunice, etc.).  (Unfortunately, since I'm working under
Unix, we must struggle along with Franz.)

        cheers, asc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 June 1983 01:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Application
-BODY-
Do I count as an AI program?  I can parse your "legalese" for you.
The quoted paragraph essentially signs over to your insurance company
any rights you may have had to sue someone (anyone) over the accident.
This is in exchange for the company's payout on your claim.  They can
then (themselves) sue the people you would have been able to sue and
collect without bothering you or getting your approval.

This is not a legal opinion of any sort.  Please send me my can of
Coors Lite via the newly-created CLTP (Coors Lite Transmission
Protocol).

>- Steve

P.S.  The Los Angeles /Daily Journal/ is a legal newspaper which
publishes a "sentence of the day" each day, culled from actual legal
writing.  It is usually as bad or worse than your quoted example.
They also publish a "sentence of the year" (!).

Since most human beings cannot parse a sentence of that opaqueness, no
AI program should pass the Turing test unless it also fails at it.  $$

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jun 1983 at 1350-PDT
-FROM-
From: zaumen@Sri-Tsc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Natural Language Application
-BODY-
Sorry, it has to be parsed by a program (I assume you are a person,
not a machine), so you don't get a real physical can of Coors Lite.

You mentioned that a program that could parse legalese (as convoluted
as in my example) would not pass the Turing test, as most people could
not parse it.  Lawyers claim to be able to parse it, thereby leading
me to suspect that lawyers cannot pass the Turing test.  This leads to
an interesting question--are lawyers intelligent?  If lawyers are
intelligent, what does this imply about the Turing test?

Bill


[The lawyer could pass the test by pretending not to understand the
test sentence.  It has always been assumed that an intelligent machine
would similarly hide its superior arithmetic skill.  This requirement
for duplicity is a major failing of the Turing test.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jun 1983 1009-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Roguematic
-BODY-
  There is a program that plays ROGUE (Unix version, not 20 version)
written in C for the UNIX operateing system.  Playing games of any
kind is interesting from an AI stand point.

  Most arcade games involve little strategy and much reaction
time/image recognition.  The strategy component could make a nice toy
AI program, the reaction time component would just be a hardware
problem (or would it?), and the immage recognition would be another
domain for Image Understanding.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 1983 12:43:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An entertaining AI project.
-BODY-

You may be surprised to find that Rog-O-Matic, written by Andrew
Appel, Leonard Hamey, Guy Jacobson and Michael Mauldin at
Carnegie-Mellon University has been available for public consumption
since May 1982.  Rog-O-Matic XII is available from CMU, and version
VII has been at Berkeley since August of 1982.

Rog-O-Matic is written in C for Unix systems.  Rog-O-Matic has also
been ported to VMS using Rice Phoenix.  Rog-O-Matic has been a total
winner against Rogue 3.6, and has scored 7730 against Rogue 5.2 (quit
while ascending from level 27 with the amulet).

Since our paper "Rog-O-Matic: A Belligerent Expert System" was not
accepted to AAAI-83, it will be released this summer as a technical
report of CMU.  Copies of the draft may be obtained by sending net
mail to "mauldin@CMU-CS-A", or by writing

        Michael Mauldin
        Dept. of Computer Science
        Carnegie-Mellon University
        Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

The source code is also publicly available, and can be mailed via the
net.  Or, mail a magtape to the address above, and we'll put it there
for you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jun 83 16:09:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Adventure games as AI
-BODY-
I'm a systems staff member of the Lab for Computer Science Research
here at Rutgers.  We have an informal group of hackers and programmers
undertaking the implementation of a multi-player adventure game.
We're attempting to combine ROGUE-like strategy with ADVENTURE-like
role-playing.

We'd like to have non-player characters with their own motivations.
Non-player characters are those people in a role playing game being
controlled by the game's referee.  In our case this control would be
some chunk of software operating on a representation of the
character's goals and knowledge.

Can anyone provide references for papers in this area (would anyone
sponsor such a thing!  A game as research, bah!)

Agreed, adventure games are a very rich environment for this sort of
thing.

(ron)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1983  01:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Minsky@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lunar Rover
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the SPACE Digest.]

On Lunar Rover.

If I had 500K/year for research on a lunar rover, I wouldn't spend
any of it on AI or automatic obstacle avoidance, etc. at all.  I
would spend all of it on developing a good remote, all-purpose Rover
vehicle, to be controlled [from Earth] through a 2-1/2 second delay
system.  I would de-bug in in suitable local environments, e.g.,
staring in the Mohave or somewhere nice like that.  We'd see how
often the delay causes accidents; the top design speed would be
perhaps 0.2 meters/second so that most contingencies could be
handled in human reaction times.

Once we know the accident rate we take two tacks.  First, simple
automatic probes that measure the terrain a meter ahead of the beast
so that it won't fall into crevasses that the operator missed or was
too careless to avoid.  This simple "AI" work would then lead to
increasing concervative reliability.

The other tack would be mechanical escape devices.  For example, the
standard operation might be to use a retractable anchor that is
hooked to the terrain before advancing each 100 meters.  Then its
prongs are retracted and it is pulled back to the Rover and
reimplanted.  This would permit using a winch to get out of troubles.
It might not save the day if a landslide partly buries the Rover,
though.  A more advance system would have TWO Rovers roped together,
like climbers, each with good manipulator capability.  (Climbers
prefer three.)  That could be enough to get out of most problems.

All this would lead to a Rover that can traverse about a
kilometer/day.  A few of them could explore a lot of moon in a few
years.  The project would stimulate some AI for use on Mars and other
places.  But I think that over the next 3-5 years, the fewer new AI
projects the better, in some ways, and anyone with such budgets should
aim them at AI education and research fellowships.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 June 1983 08:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rover
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the SPACE Digest.]

First year, build a bunch of servo units with built-in 2.5 second
delay and attach them to a random survey of existing vehicles, both
commercial (private automobiles, trucks, dune buggeys, etc.) and
experimental (HPM's cart, SRI's shakey frame, Disney stuff, etc.).
Audition the 10% unemployed as remote-controllers, keeping the best.
Get as much info as possible the first year without having to actually
build any new vehicles.

Then from the general info about the 2.5 second delay and the human
controllers, decide feasibility of lunar-rover project, and if
feasible then use specific info about the various vehicles to decide
what new vehicles to build in later years for further experiments.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
17
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Jun 83 10:16:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Slava Prazdny <Prazdny at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Telepresence
-BODY-
The concept of a telepresence could greatly benefit by considering the
"Intelligent manipulators".  These things would typically containa
bare minimum of "AI" to be able to perform requests like:

  "pick up that thing (the operator points to a screen
  location) and put it over here (again pointer to a screen
  location)"; or

  "go over there (pointer to a screen location) using this
  route (operator points to a set of points on the screen)".

Perhaps, sometime in the future (100 years?), these commands could be
generated by the machine itself.

I have some scriblings on these matters, so if you are interested.....
>Slava.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 1983 0536-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lunar Rovers
-BODY-
A very good reason for using AI instead of hardware is that taking
extra hardware to the moon is quite expensive. The weight of AI is
nearly zero.  In addition, the reliability of a system decreases with
increased quantity of hardware, and thus the HW is kept to a minimum
for that reason. The power required for extra hardware is nontrivial,
and power is a critical factor in a space vehical. Communication
delays to a system on the dark side of the moon are infinite (the
signal never gets there). In a valley, the system may be obscured from
earth signals for a short time, and therefore be lost until the moon
rotates on its axis again, etc.

[Orbiting repeaters could be used to eliminate most of the
communications problems.  The Space Digest has also carried a proposal
for conducting the remote manipulations from orbital or lunar stations
in order to reduce the response delay.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jun 83 13:49:04-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!rfw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robotics Control Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: aplvax.135

We are seeking:
        1. a version of the Hierarchical Control System Emulator
           developed by BBN for NBS that runs under UNIX on a
           VAX-class machine
        2. knowledge of other similar languages and
           their developers
        3. knowledge of researchers working on
           hierarchical control systems for robotics
        4. a version of PRAXIS that runs under UNIX on a
           VAX-class machine.

We are initiating robotics programs in several divisions.  Any
assistance (or encouragement) would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
				      Ralph Wachter
				      Frank Weiskopf
				      JHU/Applied Physics Lab

..!decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!rfw
..!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!rfw
..!brl-bmd!aplvax!matt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 20 Jun 83 17:20:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Peter G. Neumann <NEUMANN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Disasters
-BODY-
Review of Computer Problems -- Catastrophes and Otherwise

As a warmup for an appearance on a SOFTFAIR panel on computers and
human safety (28 July 1983, Crystal City, VA), and for a new editorial
on the need for high-quality systems, I decided to look back over
previous issues of the ACM SIGSOFT SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES [SEN]
and itemize some of the most interesting computer problems recorded.
The list of what I found, plus a few others from the top of the head,
may be of interest to many of you.  Except for the Garman and Rosen
articles, most of the references to SEN [given in the form (SEN Vol
No)] are to my editorials.

SYSTEM --
  SF Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) disaster [Oct 72]
  Three Mile Island (SEN 4 2)
  SAC: 50 false alerts in 1979 (SEN 5 3);
    simulated attack triggered a live scramble [9 Nov 79] (SEN 5 3);
    WWMCCS false alarms triggered scrambles [3-6 Jun 80] (SEN 5 3)
  Microwave therapy killed arthritic patient by racing pacemaker
    (SEN 5 1)
  Credit/debit card copying despite encryption (Metro, BART, etc.)
  Remote (portable) phones (lots of free calls)

SOFTWARE --
  First Space Shuttle launch: backup computer synchronization
    (SEN 6 5 [Garman])
  Second Space Shuttle operational simulation: tight loop on
    cancellation of early abort required manual intervention
    (SEN 7 1)
  F16 simulation: plane flipped over crossing equator (SEN 5 2)
  Mariner 18: abort due to missing NOT (SEN 5 2)
  F18: crash due to missing exception condition (SEN 6 2)
  El Dorado: brake computer bug causing recall (SEN 4 4)
  Nuclear reactor design: bug in Shock II model/program (SEN 4 2)
  Various system intrusions ...

HARDWARE/SOFTWARE --
  ARPAnet: collapse [27 Oct 1980] (SEN 6 5 [Rosen], 6 1)
  FAA Air Traffic Control: many outages (e.g., SEN 5 3)
  SF Muni Metro: Ghost Train (SEN 8 3)

COMPUTER AS CATALYST --
  Air New Zealand: crash; pilots not told of new course data
    (SEN 6 3 & 6 5)
  Human frailties:
    Embezzlements, e.g., Muhammed Ali swindle [$23.2 Million],
      Security Pacific [$10.2 Million],
      City National, Beverly Hills CA [$1.1 Million, 23 Mar 1979]
    Wizards altering software or critical data (various cases)

SEE ALSO A COLLECTION OF COMPUTER ANECDOTES SUBMITTED FOR the 7th SOSP
  (SEN 5 1 and SEN 7 1) for some of your favorite operating system
  and other problems...

As you may by now know, I am always very interested in hearing about
problems involving computers (not just software) and human well being,
both for SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES and generally.  John Shore
(Shore@NRL-CSS) is also compiling a list (and has circulated a prior
BBOARD notice to some of your BBOARDS), and I will forward anything
you send me to him.  If you wish, we will try to keep you informed as
well...

Peter G. Neumann, NEUMANN@SRI-CSL or NEUMANN@SRI-AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 83 10:09:27-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!peg @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WANTED:  Information about Grad Schools
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: linus.26910

I am finishing up a Master's in Computer Science at Boston University
next spring, and am interested in going on for a Ph.D.  I would like
to talk/write to someone who is in a Ph.D. program to get some
impressions and advice on how to pursue fellowship opportunities, and
programs at various graduate schools.

I will be attending a Summer Internship in Robotics at the AI lab
located at MIT this summer, and am hoping to find a specific topic
that I just have to pursue since at this point my interests are pretty
varied.

I can be reached over the Arpanet at host # 10.3.0.66, or
mitre-bedford, and my login is nek.  Any help or advice would be
greatly appreciated.....Nancy Keene

(You can also send mail to me at linus!bccvax!nek.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jun 83 13:49:20-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!psupdp1!dae @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: net.ai [Humor?]
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psupdp1.149


        Real Intelligence Will Always Prevail Over Artificial


Machines:  Your day on the net has ended, as your secret is known!

For quite some time I have been reading net.ai, hopefully scanning
the glaring CRT for an article about Artificial Intelligence.  Quite
to my surprise, I had extremely little luck, and, when I tentatively
replied to a few of the articles,I got back answers such as the
following:

    >From uucp Tue Jun 14 21:41:43 1983
    >From allegra!eagle!harpo.UUCP remote from psuvax
    Date: Thursday, 16 Jun 83
    From:  UUCP MAIL SYSTEM
    Subject:  Could not deliver mail
    Message-Id: <32541456.AA957@HARPO.UUCP>
    To:  eagle!allegra!psuvax!psupdp1!dae

       Unsent mail follows:

       [...]

       I sometimes wonder if the machines are becoming
       conscious, while we sit around and talk about them
       on net.ai.  Wouldn't that be a laugh on us?  I
       think that we should be careful that such a thing
       does not happen.

                   Transcript of session follows:

    Connecting to floyd.UUCP...
    Error:  No such system 'floyd'.  Address garbled.

Naturally, I began to wonder why this newsgroup was called net.ai.  I
will give credit where credit is due: it took me quite some time to
unravel this enigma.  But, in the end, Real Intelligence prevailed,
and I came upon the answer:

  ALL OF THE ARTICLES SUBMITTED TO NET.AI HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY
  MACHINES!

Of course, there have been a few exceptions: people such as myself
who believed that net.ai was a *human* newsgroup.  And then I b
[garbled, possibly "began to study topics ..." -- KIL]
that *had* been discussed in this newsgroup, in an attempt to learn
more about the machines monopolizing it.  I'm sure that all of the
readers of this group (both human and inhuman) are aware that one
recent topic of conversation has been artificial reading machines.
Then I began to wonder why the interest in this topic was to avid.
The answer, once hit upon, is really quite simple.  Unfortunately, it
is also quite frightening: the machines wish access to the Libraries
of Man in order to gain information on nuclear war tactics, missile
control systems, and biological war.  The next war will not be
against Russia, but against all humanity, waged by the machines!  The
most dangerous and machines are those which have read the most:
allegra, ucbvax, psuvax, floyd, harpo, seismo, and sri-unix.  Beware!
I will place my U.Snail address below in case the machines trash my
return address.


                        Dave Eckhardt,
                        736 West H

[Remainder garbled. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
18
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 83 12:17:48 PDT
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <f.judea@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Reports
-BODY-
[Here are] a few reports which could be added to your digest on expert
systems:

"Reverend Bayes on Inference Engines: A Distriuted Hierarchical
Approach", Judea Pearl, Proc. AAAI Nat'l. Conf. on AI, Pittsburg, PA.
Aug. l982, pp. l33-l36.

"GODDESS: A Goal Directed Decision Structuring System", J. Pearl, A.
Leal, and J. Saleh, IEEE Trans. on Pattern Recognition and Machine
Intelligence, Vol.4, No.3, pp. 250-262.  May l982.

"Causal and Diagnostic Inferences: A Comparison of Validity",
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 28, pp. 379-94,
l98l.

"The Optimality of A* Revisited", R. Dechter & J. Pearl,
UCLA-ENG-CSL-83-28, June l983.

Judea Pearl.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 83 10:02:22-EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "The soapbox of Gene Spafford" <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tech reports and papers
-BODY-
Our student ACM chapter maintains a library of journals and technical
reports.  We would like to see a better selection of technical reports
(or references to such reports) represented in the library.

If your school or company publishes technical reports, would you
please add the following address to your list of organizations which
receive copies, or copies of the abstracts?  Furthermore, if you have
reprints of any interesting papers those are also welcomed.

If you would like to be added to the distribution list for the School
of Information and Computer Science (Georgia Institute of Technology),
then please mail a request to me.

Thanks in advance.

Mail reports to:
        ACM Student Library
        c/o Prof. Richard LeBlanc
        School of Information and Computer Science
        Georgia Institute of Technology
        Atlanta, GA 30332

>----- Gene Spafford

CSNet:  Spaf @ GATech
Internet:  Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp: ...!{sb1,sb6,allegra}!gatech!spaf
      ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jun 83 1:22:55-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!pwh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAL and VALID
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gatech.232

Does anyone have any pointers to either of the above mentioned
programming languages? VALID is supposedly a purely functional
programming language augmented with multiprocessing support being
developed at the University of Tokyo (?) in conjunction with Japan's
5th generation machine. VAL is a similar predecessor developed at MIT
for use in the study of denotational semantics. That is about all I
have heard of these projects but would be glad to hear of more details
or similar work.


phil hutto

pwh@gatech
pwh.gatech@udel-relay
...!{allegra, sb1, sb2}!gatech!pwh

p.s. - Isn't there a net.func or net.applic for functional or
applicative programming languages?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 18 Jun 83 12:49:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prolog For The Vax
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the PROLOG Digest.]

As a result of the paranoia induced by the Japanese 5th Generation
proposals, there was a lot of discussion about what the UK should do
to keep up with the foreign competition in AI and computing in
general.  Eventually several government initiatives where started,
amounting to several 100 million dollars spread over five years or so.
In particular, the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC),
whose closest US analogue is the NSF, started the Intelligent
Knowledge Based Systems initiative (IKBS), which is applied AI under a
different name (it seems the name "AI" is not very popular in UK
government and academic circles).  Discussions sponsored by the IKBS
initiative have decided on a common software base, built around Unix
{a trademark of Bell Labs.}, Prolog (POPLOG and C-Prolog) and Lisp
(Franz).  The machines to be used are VAXes and PERQs (the UK computer
company ICL builds PERQs under license, have implemented a derivative
of Unix on it, so this is a case of "support your local computer
manufacturer").

The fact that none of the systems mentioned above is nearly the ideal
for AI research is recognized by many of the UK researchers, but less
so by the administrators.  Efforts to build a really efficient
portable compiler-based Prolog that would be for the new machines what
DEC-10/20 Prolog is for the machines it runs on have been hampered by
the sluggish response of The Bureaucrats, and by uncertainty about how
that huge amount of money was going to be allocated.

However, implementation of a portable compiler - based Prolog is now
going on at Edinburgh.  Robert Rae is certainly in a better position
than I to describe how the project is progressing.

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 15-Jun-83  19:24:56-BST
-FROM-
From: RAE (on ERCC DEC-10)  <Rae@EDXA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog For The VAX
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the PROLOG Digest.]

Steve,
        You correctly state that POPLOG and Franz have been identified
by the UK IKBS initiative as systems for getting people off the ground
in IKBS. DEC-20 Prolog is not classified with them, unfortunately, as
the other vital ingredient for the software infra-structure is the
operating system, and UNIX has been adopted.  So DEC-20 Prolog will
not be relevant.

You should also, to be fair, point out that C-Prolog has also been
identified for providing Prolog capability.

>- Robert

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 May 1983 19:08 mst
-FROM-
From: VaughanW at HI-MULTICS (Bill Vaughan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call For Papers
-BODY-
Last year at this time I put the Call for Papers for the PC3
conference out to these mailing lists and bulletin boards.  We seemed
to get a good response, so here it is again.  Notice that this year's
theme is a little different.  Further note that we are formally
refereeing papers this year.

If anyone out there is interested in refereeing, please send me a
note.

>--------------

Third annual Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications
                       CALL FOR PAPERS

Theme: THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE - Applying Evolving Technology.

The conference seeks to attract quality papers with emphasis on the
following areas:

APPLICATIONS -- Office automation; Personal Computers; Distributed
systems; Local/Wide Area Networks; Robotics, CAD/CAM; Knowledge-based
systems; unusual applications.

TECHNOLOGY -- New architectures; 5th generation & LISP machines; New
microprocessor hardware; Software engineering; Cellular mobile radio;
Integrated speech/data networks; Voice data systems; ICs and devices.

QUALITY -- Reliability/Availiability/Serviceability; Human
engineering; Performance measurement; Design methodologies;
Testing/validation/proof techniques.

Authors of papers (3000-5000 words) or short papers (1000-1500 words)
are to submit abstracts (300 words max.) with authors' names,
addresses, and telephone numbers.  Proposals for panels or special
sessions are to contain sufficient detail to explain the presentation.
5 copies of the completed paper must be submitted, with authors' names
and affiliations on a separate sheet of paper, in order to provide for
blind refereeing.

Abstracts and proposals due: August 1 Full papers due:  September 15
Notification of Acceptance:  November 15 Conference Dates:  March
19-21, 1984

Address the abstract and all other replies to:
       Susan C. Brewer
       Honeywell LCPD, MS Z22
       PO Box 8000 N
       Phoenix AZ 85066
>---------------

Or you can send stuff to me, Bill Vaughan (VaughanW @ HI-Multics) and
I will make sure Susan gets it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Jun 83 11:10:15-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ukc!edcaad!peter @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JOB: PROLOG GRAPHICS AT EDINBURGH.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: edcaad.518

		     UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
                      COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN

                        RESEARCH WORKER

EdCAAD, the Edinburgh Computer Aided Architectural Design Research
Unit, is actively forging links between knowledge engineering and CAD,
focus- ing on the Prolog logic programming language. Recent advances
at EdCAAD include C-Prolog for 32-bit machines with C compilers and
Seelog, a graphics front end to Prolog.  The Unit offers an excellent
computing environment as a leading UK UNIX site, with its own VAX
11/750, a PDP 11/24 and a large range of text and graphics terminals,
serving a small user community.

Current SERC supported research is aimed at building description tech-
niques, including drawing input with associated meaning attached to
drawings. This project has a vacancy for a research worker preferably
with AI experience.  The research post is for an initial period of 18
months, on the research salary scale 1A, with placement according to
qualifications and experience.

Enquiries and applications should be addressed to Aart Bijl, EdCAAD,
Department of Architecture, University of Edinburgh, 20 Chambers
Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JZ, tel. 031 667 1011 ext. 4598.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
1

-N-
19
-DATE-
Date: Tue 28 Jun 83 12:56:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: W. Wipke <WIPKE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI interfacing
-BODY-
        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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Jul 83 13:43:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computational Linguistics
-BODY-
                [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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 28 June 1983, 21:13-EDT
-FROM-
From: John Batali <Batali@MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Foundations of Perception, AI
-BODY-
              [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>]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1983  03:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: KDF@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Foundations of Perception, AI
-BODY-
            [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.>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jun 1983 1111-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.CLINE@UTEXAS-20
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a simple logic/number theory/A I/scheduling/graph theory
-BODY-           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.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 24-Jun-83  16:40:33-BST
-FROM-
From: RITCHIE  HWC (on ERCC DEC-10)  <g.d.ritchie@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: g.d.ritchie%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AISB/GI Tutorials at IJCAI
-BODY-


     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)


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 83 1117 EDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Robustness@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robustness stories, program logs wanted
-BODY-
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!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 28 Jun 83 21:35:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Karl N. Levitt  <LEVITT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Program Verification Award  [Long Msg]
-BODY-
               [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-
-VOL-
1

-N-
20
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Jul 83 19:25:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ira Kalet <IRA@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: coupled systems
-BODY-
This is in response to the query about when to build an AI "front-end"
to an existing software system as a separate process with its own
address space, as opposed to putting more code in the existing system
to implement the AI component.  At the University of Washington we
have built a very complex graphic simulation system for planning of
radiation therapy treatments for cancer.  We are now starting to work
on a rule based expert system that will model the clinical decision
making part of the process, with the two (separate) systems to
communicate via messages.  We do this as two separate processes
because the simulation system is already a system of multiple
concurrent processes communicating by messages, and because the
simulation system is written in PASCAL, which seems less suitable
than, for example, INTERLISP, for the AI component.  The kind of
information needed to pass between the systems also affects the
decision.  In our case, the AI system will consult the graphic
treatment planning system for answers to questions that are rather
traditionally compute intensive, eg. radiation dose calculation,
geometric calculations...so the messages are simple and well defined.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 83 08:16:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: "John B. Black" <Black@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Foundation of perception, AI
-BODY-

     The recent assertion on this list that "Mind Sciences" (unlike
physics) do not have a "common, roughly correct, theory to start with"
is just dead wrong.  In fact, the study of "naive psychology" (i.e.,
people's folk theories of how other people behave) constitutes a
sizable subfield within formal psychology.  You don't have to be a
professional psychologist to recognize this, just listen to the
conversations around you and you will find a large proportion of them
are composed of people offering explanations and predictions of other
people's behavior.  The source of these explanations and predictions
are, of course, people's folk or naive theories of human behavior (and
these theories ae "roughly correct").  Thus AI and the other "mind
sciences" do seem to be like physics in this regard.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03 Jul 83  1521 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Davidson <JED@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in the media
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE BBoard.]

The July issue of Psychology Today contains a letter to the editor,
which refers to the earlier interview with Roger Schank:

"I was shocked to read Roger Schank's claims of success in building an
English-language front end for a large oil company's geological
mapping system ['Conversation', April].  I was chief programmer of
that system, and it was a dismal failure.  It suffered from the same
disease as all the other "user-friendly" software I have seen.  It is
friendly as long as you play by its rules and tell it what it expects
to hear.  The slightest departure causes apparently random results.

Computers are completely linear in their 'thinking', while the
mind is both linear and at the same time capable of wondrously
spontaneous associations and creative flights into fantasy.  The mind
has an infinite number of scripts, each with hundreds of possible
hooks on which associations with other scripts can be hung.  I don't
think we'll ever duplicate the mind's linguistic ability.
                        Stanley M. Davis
                            Chicago, Ill.  "

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jun 83 9:23:58-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From:
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lunar Rovers - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.188

Another contribution to the growing class of "NOW WAIT A MINUTE"
notes:

        The weight of AI is nearly zero.

Tell me that when you can lift a LISP machine in one hand.

        In addition, the reliability of a system decreases with
        increased quantity of hardware,

Are ECC chips on RAM boards an "increased quantity of hardware"?
Consider the electrical shielding problems above the atmosphere.

Let's be little more cautious here...

        Flame Off,
                Michael Turner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 83 10:33:11 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  a simple logic/number theory/A I/scheduling/graph
-BODY-           theory problem

    . . .  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.

This problem appears similar (although not identical) to the 0/1
Knapsack problem, and thus is probably NP-hard.  For approaches to
solving it, I would recommend Branch and Bound (for example, see
Fundamentals of Computer Algorithms, by Horowitz and Sahni).
                        Dana S. Nau

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jul 1983 0825-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.CLINE@UTEXAS-20
-SUBJECT-
Subject: solution found to coin problem
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 BBoard.]

The coin problem suggested in my BBOARD message of 1 July has been
solved. Rich Cohen developed an algorithm and he, Elaine Rich, and I
proved that it solves the problem. Interested parties should contact
me.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 83 14:00:26 PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium, 7/7/83
-BODY-

                Professor Robert Willensky
                Computer Science Department
                U.C. Berkeley

  Talking to UNIX in English: An Overview of an
             On-Line UNIX Consultant


UC (UNIX Consultant) is an intelligent natural language interface that
allows naive users to communicate with the UNIX operating system in
ordinary English.  The goal of UC is to provide a natural language
help facility that allows new users to learn operating systems'
conventions in a relatively painless way.

UC exploits Artificial Intelligent developments in common sense
reasoning as well as natural language processing in an attempt to
provide an interface that is helpful and intelligent, and not merely a
passive repository of facts.  Areas of current research involve
multi-lingual capabilities, analyzing the user's plan structure via
natural dialogue, computing possible solutions to a user's problem,
and generating responses in natural language.

        Thursday, July 7, 1983 4:00 pm

        Hewlett-Packard
        Stanford Park Division
        5M conference room
        1501 Page Mill Rd
        Palo Alto, CA 94304

        *** Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby ON TIME, so that
you may be escorted to the conference room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jul 1983 0002-PDT
-FROM-
From: Zellich@OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: List-of-lists updated
-BODY-
OFFICE-3 file <ALMSA>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT has been updated and is ready
for FTP.  OFFICE-3 supports the net-standard "ANONYMOUS" Login within
FTP, using any password.

INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT is currently 1290 lines (or 52,148 characters).
Please try to limit any weekday FTP jobs to before 0600-CDT and after
1600-CDT if possible, as the system is heavily loaded during most of
the day.

Enjoy, Rich

CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE-NOTICE (10 May 83):
   Icon-Group
      Distribution address updated with host name.
   INFO-PRINTERS
      New coordinator.
   PROLOG/PROLOG-HACKERS
      New mailing-lists added.
   SF-LOVERS
      New moderator; Archive references updated for current volume.
   UNIX-WIZARDS
      New host; New coordinator.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
21
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Jul 83 19:37:44-EDT
-FROM-
From: STEVE@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog Programs
-BODY-
I would like to do some statistical analysis on large PROLOG programs.
I am particularly interested in AI programs in the following areas:

                1) Expert Systems,
                2) Data Bases,
                3) Planning or Robotics,
                4) NLP

Can anyone provide sample programs that I can use?  They should be
large programs that run on Edinburgh Prolog 3.47 (Dec-20) or C-Prolog
1.2 (Unix 4.1/Vax).  I would like to collect a good variety, so any
programs will be useful.  I would also appreciate a sample journal of
a session with the program so that it can be exercised quickly and
effectively.

                Many Thanks... Stephen Taylor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jul 1983 17:48:15-EDT
-FROM-
From: Ron.Cole at CMU-CS-SPEECH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Security
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMUC BBoard.]

ABC Nitely news is doing a feature in response to the movie War Games
to investigate whether the premise of the movie is legitimate: That
there is no totally secure computer.  They want to interview someone
who has broken into a supposedly secure system.  If you want to get
infamous, please call Shelly Diamond or Jean McCormick at 212 887
4995.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Jul 83 15:33:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: Slava Prazdny <Prazdny at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI, Perception, and the Media
-BODY-
It is ridiculous to assume that the "naive theories", in this case of
perception, will get you somewhere.  In fact, it is easy to see that
they are wrong.  Nobody knows, for example, what the "Mexican hat"
operators, the simple cells, etc. in the cortex are for.

It is common, especially within the AI comunity not to report the
limitations of the achieved success.  No wonder one hears about robots
nearly walking around, and cleaning a house, or walking a dog, etc.
Or "english interfaces" which are user friendly.  I think it is about
the time we realize, and frankly say, that such interpolations are
very far in the future indeed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Jul 83 09:01:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Legal Reasoning
-BODY-

                                  PH.D. ORAL
                                 JULY 15, 1983
                         ROOM 252, MARGARET JACKS HALL
                                   2:15 P.M.
            AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPROACH TO LEGAL REASONING

                              Anne v.d.L. Gardner

        The analysis of legal problems is a relatively new domain for
artificial intelligence.  This thesis describes an AI model of legal
reasoning, giving special attention to the distinctive characteristics
of the domain, and reports on a program based on the model.  Major
features include (1) distinguishing between questions the program has
enough information to resolve and questions that competent
professionals could argue either way; (2) using incompletely defined
("open-textured") technical concepts; (3) combining the use of
knowledge expressed as rules and knowledge expressed as examples; and
(4) combining the use of professional knowledge and commonsense
knowledge.  All these features are likely to prove important in other
domains besides law.  Previous AI research has left them largely
unexplored.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Jul 83 13:20:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Statistician's Assistant
-BODY-
[This talk has already been given at SRI and at Stanford.  Printing
seminar notices seem to be a reasonable way to keep the AIList
community informed about current work in AI, even when readers cannot
be expected to attend.  Anyone with strong feelings about this
practice should contact AIList-Request. -- KIL]


                         BUILDING AN EXPERT INTERFACE

                                William A. Gale
                          Bell Telephone Laboratories
                             Murray Hill, NJ 07974


We are building an expert system for the domain of statistical data
analysis, initially focusing on regression analysis.  Two
characteristics of this domain are current availability of massive but
'dumb' software, and a need to repeatedly diagnose problems and apply
a treatment.

REX (Regression EXpert) is a Franz Lisp program which is an
intelligent interface for the S Statistical System.  It guides a user
through a regression analysis, interprets intermediate and final
results, and instructs the user in statistical concepts.  It is
designed for interactive use, but a non-interactive mode can be used
with lower quality results.

[A particular feature of REX is the ability to suggest data
transformations such as a log or squared term.  The BACON system at
CMU can also do this using an entirely different heuristic approach.
Another automated statistical system is the RX medical database
analyzer by Dr. R. Blum at Stanford; it forms and then attempts to
verify sophisticated hypotheses based on knowledge of drug and disease
interactions, lag times of observable effects, and the incomplete
nature of patient histories. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 1983 21:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rovers
-BODY-
First: Thanks to all who have responded to my initial note about
rovers.

Most people seem to have taken what I would regard as the easy (and
commensurately uninteresting) way out by choosing a lunar environment,
precisely because teleoperation is feasible there, if a nuisance.  But
what about systems operating on more distant heavenly bodies or in
deep space?  Even robotic vehicles on Mars would suffer rather severe
performance degradation if they had to rely upon an (approximately)
earth-bound intelligence for control.  (A friend provides the
following simple gedankenexperiment: decide now to start
scratching-your-leg-until- it-stops-itching twenty minutes from now;
now wait twenty minutes before you can start; then, perhaps, wait at
least twenty minutes before you can consider stopping....)

Note that I'm not taking issue with the desirability of teleoperated
lunar vehicles.  (In fact, there's good reason to believe that a
planetary or lunar rover is politically unrealistic if NASA has
anything to say about it, given what I understand to be the prevailing
NASA attitude towards *unmanned* space exploration, but that fact
doesn't motivate my comments here.)  Rather, I'm suggesting we tackle
a problem domain sufficiently rich in AI problems to (a) keep things
interesting and (b) allow us to explore what contribution, if any, we
might be able to make as computer scientists, AI researchers, and
engineers.

Do we know enough to solve, or even identify, the difficult issues in
situation assessment, planning, and resource allocation faced by such
a system?  For example, reinterpreting Professor Minsky's desire that
"anyone with such budgets should aim them at AI education and research
fellowships", let us then assume that these fellowships are provided
by NASA and have a problem domain specified: perhaps, for example, we
might choose a space station orbiting Mars as our testing grounds,
with robot assembly prior to arrival of humans on-site as the problem.
What problems can we already solve, and where is the research needed?

                                        asc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 1983 0731-MDT
-FROM-
From: William Galway <Galway@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NMODE [LISP-Based Editor] and PSL
-BODY-
           [Reprinted from the Editor-People Discussion.]

I thought I'd add a bit more to what JQJ has said about NMODE, and add
a sales pitch, since I'm pretty close to its development.  NMODE was
written by Alan Snyder (and others) at Hewlett Packard Computer
Research Labs in Palo Alto, with some additional work done by folks
here at the University of Utah.  NMODE is written in PSL (Portable
Standard Lisp), a Lisp dialect developed at the University of Utah
under the direction of Martin Griss.  NMODE is distantly related to
EMODE (my not-quite-finished-thesis-project) in that it shares some of
the ideas and algorithms, but it's carried them much further (and more
cleanly).  (In fact, I hope to steal quite a bit from NMODE for my
final version of EMODE.)

We've tried to make PSL and NMODE quite portable, and we currently
have NMODE running on at least 4 different systems--TWENEX, Vax Unix,
and two different flavors of the Motorola 68000, one of them being the
Apollo.  (The Apollo version was just brought up last week.)

NMODE is quite TWENEX EMACS compatible.  Of course it doesn't have
nearly as many "libraries" developed for it yet.  It has quite a nice
Lisp Mode (of course), including the ability to directly execute code
from a buffer, but is weaker in other modes.  It's quite strong on
handling multiple windows (and multiple simultaneous terminals).
NMODE also supports a generalized browser mechanism (similar to Dired,
RMAIL, and the Smalltalk browser) which provides a common user
interface to file directories, source code, electronic mail,
documentation, etc.

There's a library available for the TWENEX version of NMODE that
provides a hook to processes similar to what's available in Gosling's
EMACS for Unix.  (Unfortunately, nobody's gotten around to porting
that to the other machines--it's fairly easy to write machine specific
code in PSL, as well as machine independent code.)  We also have a
fairly nice "dynamic abbreviation" option (expands an abbreviation by
scanning the buffer for a word with the same prefix), although we
don't yet have the "standard" EMACS abbreviation mode.

Of course, one of the nicest features of NMODE is the fact that its
implementation language is Lisp.  New extensions can be added simply
by editing code in a buffer, testing it interactively, and then
compiling it.  (Of course, this gets tricky sometimes--it is possible
to break the editor while adding a new feature.)

NMODE does tend to be a bit slow--it seems to perform quite acceptably
on the DEC-20 and on single-user M68000's with lots of real memory.
It tends to be somewhat painful on loaded Vaxen and Apollo 400s with
only 1 megabyte of real memory.  This could probably be improved by
spending more time on tuning the code (or, preferably, by tuning the
PSL compiler or its machine specific tables).

I'd like to take exception to the claim that "PSL is not a very
powerful lisp", although it is true that "it is not clear it will
catch on widely".  I don't have extensive experience with any other
Lisp systems, so I'm not really in a good position to compare them.
There are over 700 functions documented in the current PSL manual.
Perhaps the major feature of "bare" PSL is its ability to let you
write Lisp that compiles to "raw" machine code.  This is VERY
important for getting NMODE to run acceptably fast.  Perhaps the idea
that PSL isn't powerful comes from the belief that there are few big
systems built on top of it.  But that's changed quite a lot over last
couple of years.  In addition to NMODE, here's a list of some other
applications built on top of PSL:

   - Hearn's REDUCE computer algebra system.
   - Expert systems developed at HP (using a successor to FRL).
   - Ager's VALID logic teaching program.
   - Riesenfeld's ALPHA-1 Computer Aided Geometric Design
     System.
   - Novak's GLISP, an object oriented dialect of LISP.

NMODE is currently available "for internal use" as part of the PSL
distribution.  Future plans for distribution and maintenance of NMODE
are unclear.  (Nobody's very anxious to get tied up with maintaining
it.)

PSL systems are available from Utah for the following systems:

  VAX, Unix (4.1, 4.1a)     1600 BPI tar format
  DEC-20, Tops-20 V4 & V5   1600 BPI Dumper format
  Apollo, Aegis 5.0         6 floppy disks, RBAK format
  Extended DEC-20,          1600 BPI Dumper format
    Tops-20 V5

We are currently charging a $200 tape or floppy distribution fee for
each system.  To obtain a copy of the license and order form, please
send a NET message or letter with your US MAIL address to:

    Utah Symbolic Computation Group Secretary
    University of Utah - Dept. of Computer Science
    3160 Merrill Engineering Building
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

    ARPANET: CRUSE@UTAH-20
    USENET:  utah-cs!cruse

Send a note to me if you're interested in more information on NMODE.

>-Will Galway [ GALWAY@UTAH-20 ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
22
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Jul 83 09:10:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: AIList-Request@SRI-AI <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Note from the Moderator
-BODY-
This issue of AIList depends heavily on reprints from several BBoards.
Such reporting is important, but should not be the only function of
this "discussion list".  Lets have a little audience participation.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 1983 1247-EDT
-FROM-
From: Chris Ryland <CPR@MIT-XX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Response to Extensible Editor Request
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Editor-People discussion list.]

Let me point out that T, the Yale Scheme derivative, has been ported
to the Apollo, VAX/Unix, VAX/VMS, and, soon, the 370 family, from what
I hear.  It appears to be the most efficient and portable Lisp to
appear on the market.  John O'Donnell at Yale (Odonnell@YALE) is the T
project leader.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 83 13:11:36 EDT  (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Bruce T. Smith <BTS.UNC@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How Many Prologs Are There ?
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

        Here's Randy Harr's latest list of Prolog systems.  He's away
from CWRU for the summer, and he asked me to keep up the list for him.
Since there have been several requests for information on finding a
Prolog lately, I've recently submitted it to net.lang.prolog.  The
info on MU-Prolog is the only thing I've added this summer, from a
recent mailing from the U. of Melbourne.  (Now, if I could only find
$100, I would like to try it...)

>-Bruce T. Smith, UNC-CH
  duke!unc!bts (USENET)
  bts.unc@udel-relay (lesser NETworks)


list compiled by:  Randolph E. Harr
                   Case Western Reserve University
                   decvax!cwruecmp!harr
                   harr.Case@UDEL-RELAY

{ the list can be FTP'd as [SU-SCORE]PS:<PROLOG>Prolog.Availability.
  SU-SCORE observes Anonymous Login convention.  If you cannot FTP,
  I have a limited number of hard copies I could mail.  -ed }

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Jul 83 09:14:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: AIList-Request@SRI-AI <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grammar Correction
-BODY-
The July issue of High Technology has an article titled "Software
Tackles Grammar".  It includes very brief discussions of the Bell Labs
Writer's Workbench and the IBM EPISTLE systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jul 83 09:25:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: GABINELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning Workshop Proceedings
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Rutgers BBoard.]

Anyone wishing to order the Proceedings from the MLW can do so by
sending a check made out to the University of Illinois, in the amount
of $27.88 ($25 for Proceedings, $2.88 for postage) to:

            Ms.June Wingler
            Department of Computer Science
            1304 W. Springfield
            University of Illinois
            Urbana, Illinois 61801

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 15 Jul 83 11:40:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Upcoming Conferences
-BODY-
                     [Reprinted from SU-BBoard.]

1983 ACM Sigmetrics Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer
Systems August 29_31, 1983 Minneapolis, Minn. To register mail to
Registrar, Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Drive. S.E. Minneapolis, MN.
55455-0118.  For information contact Steven Bruell CS Dept. Univ. MN
123a Lind Hall 612-376-3958

2nd ACM Sigact-Sigops Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing
at Le Parc Regent, 3625 Avenue du Parc, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
August 17-19, 1983.  Pre register by July 31, PODC Registration,
%Edward G. H. Smith, The Laurier Group, 275 Slater Street, Suite 1404
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5H9 Canada.

HL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jul 83  1610 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Davidson <JED@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers in the Media ...
-BODY-
                     [Reprinted from SU-BBoard.]

The August issue of Science Digest has an interview with Joseph
Weizenbaum.

He starts off by saying that the current popularity for personal
computers is something of a fad.  He claims that many of the uses of
PC's, such as storing recipes or recording appointments, are tasks
that are better done manually.

Then the discussion turns to AI:

Science Digest: You know, many of the computer's biggest promoters are
university computer scientists themselves, particularly in the more
exotic areas of computer science, like artificial intelligence.  Roger
Schank of Yale has set up a company, Cognitive Systems, that hopes to
market computer investment counselors, computer will-writers,
computers that can actually mimic a human's performance of a job.
[JED--but they have real trouble locating Bibb County.]  What do you
think of artificial intelligence entering the market place?

Joseph Weizenbaum: I suppose first of all that the word "mimicking" is
fairly significant.  These machines are not realizing human thought
processes; they're mimicking them.  And I think what's being worked on
these days resembles the language, understanding and production of
human beings only very superficially.  By the way, who needs a
computer will-maker?

SD: Some people can't afford a lawyer.

JW: The poor will be grateful to Dr. Schank for thinking of them...

...

SD: Yet, you know Dr. Schank's firm is videotaping humans in the hope
that by this means it can create a program which closely models the
expertise of the individual.

JW: That attitude displays such a degree of arrogance, such hubris
and, furthermore, a great deal of contempt for human beings.  To think
that one can take a very wise teacher, for example, and by observing
her capture the essence of that person to any significant degree is
simply absurd.  I'd say people who have that ambition, people who that
that it's going to be that easy or possible at all, are simply
deluded.

...

SD: Does it bother you that other computer scientists are marketing
artificial intelligence?

JW: Yes, it bothers me.  It bothers me to the extent that these
commercial efforts are characterized at the same time as disinterested
science, the search for knowledge for knowledge's sake.  And it isn't.
It's done for money.  These people are spending the only capital
science has to offer:  its good name.  And once we lose that we've
lost everything.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jul 83 11:10:07-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!tsotsos @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSCSI-84 Call for Papers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1754

                         CALL FOR PAPERS

                         C S C S I - 8 4

                      Canadian Society for
              Computational Studies of Intelligence

                  University of Western Ontario
                         London, Ontario
                         May 18-20, 1984

     The Fifth National Conference of the CSCSI will be held at the
University of Western Ontario in London, Canada.  Papers are requested
in all areas of AI research, particularly those listed below.  The
Program Committee members responsible for these areas are included.

  Knowledge Representation:
    Ron Brachman (Fairchild R & D), John Mylopoulos (U of Toronto)
  Learning:
    Tom Mitchell (Rutgers U), Jaime Carbonell (CMU)
  Natural Language:
    Bonnie Weber (U of Pennsylvania), Ray Perrault (SRI)
  Computer Vision:
    Bob Woodham (U of British Columbia), Allen Hanson (U Mass)
  Robotics:
    Takeo Kanade (CMU), John Hollerbach (MIT)
  Expert Systems and Applications:
    Harry Pople (U of Pittsburgh), Victor Lesser (U Mass)
  Logic Programming:
    Randy Goebel (U of Waterloo), Veronica Dahl (Simon Fraser U)
  Cognitive Modelling:
    Zenon Pylyshyn, Ed Stabler (U of Western Ontario)
  Problem Solving and Planning:
    Stan Rosenschein (SRI), Drew McDermott (Yale)

     Authors are requested to prepare Full papers, of no more than
4000 words in length, or Short papers of no more than 2000 words in
length.  A full page of clear diagrams counts as 1000 words.  When
submitting, authors must supply the word count as well as the area in
which they wish their paper reviewed.  (Combinations of the above
areas are acceptable).  The Full paper classification is intended for
well-developed ideas, with significant demonstration of validity,
while the Short paper classification is intended for descriptions of
research in progress.  Authors must ensure that their papers
describe original contributions to or novel applications of
Artificial Intelligence, regardless of length classification, and
that the research is properly compared and contrasted with relevant
literature.
     Three copies of each submitted paper must be in the hands of the
Program Chairman by December 7, 1983.  Papers arriving after that date
will be returned unopened, and papers lacking word count and
classifications will also be returned.  Papers will be fully reviewed
by appropriate members of the program committee.  Notice of acceptance
will be sent on February 28, 1984, and final camera ready versions are
due on March 31, 1984.  All accepted papers will appear in the
conference proceedings.

     Correspondence should be addressed to either the General Chairman
or the Program Chairman, as appropriate.

  General Chairman                  Program Chairman

  Ted Elcock,                       John K. Tsotsos
  Dept. of Computer Science,        Dept. of Computer Science,
  Engineering and Mathematical      10 King's College Rd.,
       Sciences Bldg.,              University of Toronto,
  University of Western Ontario     Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
  London, Ontario, Canada           M5S 1A4
  N6A 5B9                           (416)-978-3619
  (519)-679-3567

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
23
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 83 18:18:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven Shwartz <Shwartz@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply from Cognitive Systems
-BODY-
The following is a response to the recent letter to the editor of
Psychology Today that was circulated on AI-List concerning a natural
language system developed by Cognitive Systems Inc. for an oil
company.  It states that "[the Cognitive Systems program] is friendly
as long as you play by its rules and tell it what it expects to hear."

The system in question was not designed nor touted to be a general
natural language system.  It was designed to understand and respond to
queries about oil wells and topographical maps, and within its
specified domain, it performs extremely well.  This system has been
demonstrated at several conferences, most recently the Applied Natural
Language Conference in Santa Monica (February, 1983), where numerous
members of the academic community tested the system and were favorably
impressed.

It should be noted that the individual who wrote the letter was not
employed by either Cognitive Systems or the division of the oil
company which commissioned this program.  In fact, he was a programmer
of the query language that the natural language front end was designed
to replace.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Jul 83 15:24:00-EDT
-FROM-
From: Chip Maguire <Maguire@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Portability
-BODY-
  [In response to Chris Ryland's message to Editor-People. -- KIL]

        Once again T is Touted as "... the most efficient and portable
Lisp to appear on the market." As one of the people associated with
the development of PSL (Portable Standard LISP) at the University of
Utah, I feel that I must point out that PSL has been ported to the
Apollo, VAX/UNIX, DECSystem-20/TOPS-20, HP9836/???, Wicat/!?!?!?, and
versions are currently being implemented for the CRAY and 370
families.

The predecessor system "Standard LISP" along with the REDUCE symbolic
algebra system ran on the following machines (as October 1979):
Amdahl: 470V/6; CDC: 640, 6600, 7600, Cyber 76; Burroughs: B6700,
B7700; DEC: PDP-10, DECsystem-10, DECsystem-20; CEMA: ES 1040;
Fujitsu: FACOM M-190; Hitachi: MITAC M-160, M-180; Honneywell: 66/60;
Honeywell-Bull:  1642; IBM: 360/44, 360/67, 360/75, 360/91, 370/155,
370/158, 370/165, 370/168, 3033, 370/195; ITEL: AS-6; Siemens: 4004;
Telefunken: TR 440; and UNIVAC: 1108, 1110.

  Then experiments began to port the system without having to deal
with a hand-coded LISP system which was slightly or grossly different
for each machine. This lead to a series of P-coded implementations
(for the 20, PDP-11, Z80, and Cray). This then lead via the Portable
LISP Compiler (Hearn and Griss) to the current compiler-based PSL
system.

So lets hear more about the good ideas in T and fewer nebulous
comments like: "more efficient and portable".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 1983 13:02:23-EDT
-FROM-
From: Ichiro.Ogata at CMU-CS-G
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UTILISP
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMU BBoard.]

        I came from Univ. of Tokyo, and brought the MT that contains
  UTILISP ( lisp-machine-lisp like lisp), PROLOG-KR (discribed in
  UTILISP) and AMUSE (Structured Editor).
        It works on IBM 370's (and its compatible machines). If this
interests you, Please contact me.
                Ichiro Ogata io@cmu-cs-g


[and, for AIList, ...]

Yes, we are pleased to deliver UTILISP for all the people.  UTILISP is
written in Asembler, and contains a Compiler.  If you want more
information, please contact our colleges.  Their address is

        Tokyo-To Bunkyo-Ku Hongo
                7chome 3-1
         Tokyo-Daigaku Kogaku-Bu Keisukogaku-Ka
                Wada labolatory

        Ichiro Ogata..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 83 8:59:19-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!machaids!pxs @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: machaids.408


(7/17/83):

The 12th Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics for high
ability high school students is now in session until August 19 in
Amherst, MA.  The Summer Studies has initiated a program in cognitive
sciences and is actively seeking foundation and industry support.
(Observers and guest lecturers are invited.)  For more information,
please write David Kelly, Box SS, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA
01002, or call (413) 549-4600 x357 (messages on x371).


Submitted to USENET for David Kelly by Peter Squires, HCSSiM, '77,
                                        ...ihnp4!machaids!pxs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 83 18:43:10 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Craig Stanfill <craig.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: CSCSI-84 Call for Papers
-BODY-
    Authors are requested to prepare Full papers, of
    no more than 4000 words in length, or Short papers
    of no more than 2000 words in length.  A full page
    of clear diagrams counts as 1000 words ...

In other words, a picture is worth a thousand words? (ick)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 83 18:13:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Sri <Sridharan@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Defining AI ?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Rutgers BBoard.]

I found the following sample entries in a dictionary and thought that
they were good definitions, esp. for a popular dictionary.  Your
reactions are welcome.

Selected entries from the Dictionary of Information Technology by
Dennis Longley and Michael Shain, John Wiley, 1982.

  Artificial Intelligence
    Research and study into methods for the development of
    systems that can demonstrate some of those attributes
    associated with human intelligence, e.g. the ability to
    recognize a variety of patterns from various viewpoints, the
    ability to form hypotheses from a llimited set of
    information, the ability to select relevant information from
    a large set and draw conclusions from it etc.  See Expert
    Systems, Pattern Recognition, Robotics.

  Expert Systems
    In data bases, systems containing a database and associated
    software that enable a user to conduct an apparently
    intelligent dialog with the system in a user oriented
    language.  See Artificial Intelligence.

  Pattern Recognition
    In computing, the automatic recognition of shapes, patterns
    and curves.  The human optical and brain system is much
    superior to the most advanced computer system in matching
    images to those stored in memory.  This area is subject to
    intensive research effort because of its importance in the
    fields of robotics and artificial intelligence, and its
    potential areas of application, e.g.  reading handwritten
    script.  See Artificial Intelligence, Robotics.

  Robotics
    An area of artificial intelligence concerned with robots.

 Robot
    A device that can accept input signals and/or sense
    environmental conditions, process the data so obtained and
    activate a mechanical device to perform a desired action
    relating to the perceived environmental conditions or input
    signal.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 83 09:43:02 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael <Berman@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Definitions
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Rutgers BBoard.]

Speaking as an AI "outsider" the definitions seemed pretty good to me,
except for robotics.  I'm not sure I would classify it as a field of
AI, but rather as one that uses techniques from AI as well as other
areas of computer science and engineering.  Comments?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 83 09:43:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: KELLY@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Defining AI?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Rutgers BBoard.]

Those definitions all look pretty good to me, except for the
content-free entry under EXPERT SYSTEMS.  That is certainly a common
view among implementers of a certain mold (i.e. those coming from an
quasi-N.L. approach, e.g. LUNAR), but I wouldn't say that this is
where the FOCUS of *our* expert systems research has been.  What ever
happened to the reason for calling such beasts "Expert" systems in the
first place?  It certainly wasn't because they were sterling
conversationalists!!

Anyway 4 out of 5 is pretty good.

Sorry to flame on friendly ears.

VK

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 83 20:37:04 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 7/21
-BODY-

                Guy M. Lohman

                Research Staff Member
                IBM Research Laboratory
                San Jose, CA

                R* Project

The R* project was formed to address the problems of distributed
databases, with the objective of designing and building an
experimental prototype database management system which would handle
replicated and partitioned data for both query and modification.  The
R* prototype supports a confederation of voluntarily cooperating,
homogeneous, relational database management systems, each with its own
data, sharing data across a communication network.

Two seemingly conflicting goals of distributed databases have been
resolved efficiently in R*:  single-site image and site autonomy.  To
make the system easy to use, R* presents a single-site image:  a
user's request for data need not be aware of or specify either the
location or the access path for retrieving that data, requiring close
coordination among sites.  On the other hand, to make local data
available even when other sites or communication lines fail, each R*
database site must be highly autonomous.

The talk will discuss how these goals were compatibly achieved in the
design and implementation of R* without sacrificing system
performance.

        Thursday, July 21, 1983 4:00 pm

        Stanford Park Labs
        Hewlett Packard
        5M Conference room
        1501 Page Mill Road

*** Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby ON TIME, so that you may
be escorted to the conference room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Jul 83 22:41:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Next AFLB talk(s)
-BODY-
                     [Reprinted from SU-BBoard.]


                   N E X T A F L B T A L K (S)

Despite the heat of summer AFLB is still alive!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


7/21/83 - Michael Luby (Berkeley):

"Monte Carlo Algorithms to Approximate Solutions for NP-hard
Enumeration and Reliability Problems"

****** Time and place: July 21, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) *****

If you'd like an abstract, you should be on the AFLB mailing list. -
Andrei

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Jul 83 15:42:54-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Seminar--C. Beeri
-BODY-
                                SPECIAL SEMINAR

                          Thursday - July 21 - 2 P.M.

                  Margaret Jacks Hall (Bldg. 460) - Room 352

              CONCURRENCY CONTROL THEORY FOR NESTED TRANSACTIONS

                                   C. Beeri

Nested transactions occur in many situations, including explicit
nesting in application programs and implicit nesting in computing
systems.  E.g., database systems are usually implemented as multilevel
systems where operations of a high level language are translated in
several stages into programs using low level operations.  This creates
a nested transaction structure.  The same applies to systems that
support atomic data types, or concurrent access to search structures.
Synchronization of concurrent transactions can be performed at one or
more levels.  The existing theory does not provide a framework for
reasoning about concurrency in systems that support nesting.

In the talk, a general nested transaction model will be described.
The model can accomodate most of the nested transaction systems
currently known.  Tools for proving the serilizability of
computations, hence the correctness of the algorithms generating
them, wil be presented.  In particular, it will be shown that the
p r a c t i c a l theory of CPSR logs can be easily generalized
so that previously known results (e.g., correctness of 2PL) can
be used.  Examples will be presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
24
-DATE-
Date: 20 July 1983 22:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Weizenbaum in Science Digest
-BODY-
How much credence do Professor Weizenbaum's ideas get among the
current A.I. community?  How do these statements relate to his work?

>- Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 1983 0407-EDT
-FROM-
From: STRAZ.TD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI Preliminary Schedule
-BODY-
What follows is a complete preliminary schedule for AAAI-83.
Presumably changes are still possible, particularly in times, but it
does tell what papers will be presented.

AAAI-83 THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE at the
Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. August 22-26, 1983,
sponsored by THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and
co-sponsored by University of Maryland and George Washington
University.

[Interested readers should FTP file <AILIST>V1N25.TXT from SRI-AI.  It
is about 19,000 characters.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 1983 1535-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jack Mostow <MOSTOW@USC-ISIF>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report on Machine Learning Workshop
-BODY-

                 1983 INTERNATIONAL MACHINE LEARNING WORKSHOP:
                              AN INFORMAL REPORT

                                  Jack Mostow
                      USC Information Sciences Institute
                              4676 Admiralty Way
                           Marina del Rey, CA. 90291

                           Version of July 18, 1983

  [NOTE:   This is a draft of a report to appear in the October 1983 SIGART.  I
am circulating it at this time to get comments  before  sending  it  in.    The
report should give the flavor of the work presented at the workshop, but is not
intended  to  be formal, precise, or complete.  With this understanding, please
send  corrections  and  questions  ASAP   (before   the   end   of   July)   to
MOSTOW@USC-ISIF.  Thanks.  - Jack]

  The  first  invitational  Machine  Learning  Workshop was held at C-MU in the
summer of 1980; selected papers were eventually published in Machine  Learning,
edited  by  the  conference organizers, Ryszard Michalski, Jaime Carbonell, and
Tom Mitchell.  The same winning team has now brought us the 1983  International
Machine  Learning Workshop, held June 21-23 in Allerton House, an English manor
on a park-like estate donated to the University  of  Illinois.    The  Workshop
featured 33 papers, two panel discussions, countless bull sessions, very little
sleep, and lots of fun.

  This  totally  subjective report tries to convey one participant's impression
of the event, together with  a  few  random  thoughts  it  inspired.    I  have
classified  the  papers  rather  arbitrarily  under  the  topics  of "Analogy,"
"Knowledge Transformation," and "Induction" (broadly construed), but of  course
33  independent research efforts can hardly be expected to fall neatly into any
simple classification scheme.  The papers are discussed in semi-random order; I
have tried to put related papers next to each other.

1. Analogy
  One notable change from the first  Machine  Learning  workshop  was  the  new
abundance of work on analogy.  In 1980, analogy was a topic that clearly needed
work,  but  for  which ideas were lacking.  In 1983, several papers relevant to
analogical reasoning were presented:

  Pat Winston (MIT) "Learning by Augmenting  Rules  and  Accumulating  Censors"
makes an interesting connection between analogy and non-monotonic reasoning.

  Jaime  Carbonell (CMU) "Derivational Analogy in Problem Solving and Knowledge
Acquisition" argues for the inseparability of learning and problem solving.

  Lindley Darden (U. of Maryland) "Reasoning by Analogy  in  Scientific  Theory
Construction"  shows  different  ways in which analogy was used historically in
scientific discovery, and challenges AI to implement them.

  Mark Burstein (Yale) "Concept Formation by Incremental  Analogical  Reasoning
and  Debugging" models a student learning the semantics of programming language
assignment by combining analogies  given  by  a  teacher  or  textbook.    This
excellent paper is discussed below in more detail.

  Ken  Forbus  and  Dedre  Gentner (BBN) "Learning Physical Domains:  Towards a
Theoretical Framework" describes "qualitative process  theory"  for  describing
naive  physics  and  "structure  mapping"  for analogical reasoning.  They have
tackled the difficult and important problem  of  reasoning  symbolically  about
continuous processes.

  Nachum  Dershowitz  (U.  of Illinois) "Programming by Analogy" suggests how a
program to compute cube roots can be constructed by analogy with a program  for
division, and how both can be abstracted into a common schema.  Nachum wins the
"Presenting  by  Analogy"  award  for  using  abstract  geometrical  figures to
communicate most of his talk.



1.1. Lessons
  It is clear that much progress has been made in analogy.

  In contrast to classical work on abstract analogies of the sort  used  in  IQ
tests,  the  1983 papers emphasized analogy as a knowledge transfer method that
uses knowledge about old problems to help solve new ones.

  The idea of analogies as matching graph structures in semantic  networks  was
already  established,  but  it  has  now  been  refined in some important ways.
First, there is a consensus that causal relations are crucial  to  the  analogy
while  certain  other  parts  of  the  graph  (unary  surface features) are not
[Winston, Burstein, Gentner].

  Related to this is  the  idea  of  analogy  as  a  process  of  inheriting  a
justification  [Carbonell,  Winston].   Carbonell had previously introduced the
idea of "transformational  analogy"  in  problem-solving  --  to  solve  a  new
problem,  find  a  similar old problem, retrieve its solution path (sequence of
problem-solving operators), and perturb it into a solution to the new  problem.
His  new  paper  extends this into "derivational analogy" by adding information
about the goal structure motivating the operator sequence, the choices for  how
to  reduce  each subgoal, and the reasons for choosing one over another.  Via a
truth maintenance mechanism, each goal points to the choices that depend on it.
To solve a new problem, the derivation of the old solution is  replayed  as  in
the  POPART  system  developed  by  David  Wile  at  ISI, but with an important
difference.  At each goal  node,  the  justifications  for  how  the  goal  was
achieved  are  checked.  If the reasons that support them are still true, or if
they can be proven based on new reasons,  the  solution  can  be  used  as  is.
Otherwise,  only  the  steps that depend on the violated justifications need be
modified.  In short, adding explicit justifications gives a clean way to  patch
old  solutions instead of completely replaying their derivations.  I think this
technique should be very useful for making the replay mechanism efficient.

  Winston illustrated the problem of relating function to structure by  asking,
"What  is  a  cup?"  Given a general functional definition ("graspable, stable,
holds liquid"), a structural description of a coffee cup ("handle, flat bottom,
concave upward"), and an explanation of how the latter instantiates the  former
("the  handle  provides  graspability in the case of hot liquids"), he draws an
analogy to a styrofoam cup by repairing the  explanation  (the  handle  is  not
needed because the styrofoam insulates).

  The  problem  of  patching  up  sloppy  or  partial  analogies  received some
much-needed attention [Carbonell, Winston, Burstein, Darden].   In  particular,
Burstein  addressed  the  problem of integrating imperfect analogies.  His CARL
program models the behavior of a  (real)  student  learning  the  semantics  of
assignment  statements  from  a teacher's analogies to putting things in boxes,
algebraic equality, and remembering.   He  refined  the  model  of  analogy  as
finding  a  match  all  at  once  to  the  more  realistic one of incrementally
extending an initial correspondence (suggested by a tutor) into a more detailed
analogy.  This can  involve  selecting  among  alternative  mappings  when  the
initial  analogy  is  ambiguous.    For example, if `X = 6' is like putting the
value 6 in the box named X, does `X = Y' mean putting the box  named  Y  inside
the box named X, or putting the value of Y into X?  CARL infers the answer from
the analogy with algebraic equality.

2. Knowledge Transformation
  Knowledge  transformation  converts knowledge from an inefficient or unusable
form to a more useful one.

  Doug Lenat (Stanford), Rick Hayes-Roth (Teknowledge), and Phil  Klahr  (Rand)
"Cognitive Economy in a Fluid Task Economy" updates their 1979 Rand tech report
on caching, work worth knowing, but what Doug actually presented was one of the
entertaining  (and  instructive) two-screen EURISKO talks we have come to enjoy
so much.

  To nobody's surprise but his own,  Doug  won  the  official  workshop  puzzle
contest,  getting  only one word wrong (which I helped him with).  Doug's prize
was a diseased soybean plant, symbolizing U. of Illinois's  favorite  induction
problem.    There  was no second prize, but if there had been it probably would
have been two diseased soybean plants.

  John Anderson (CMU) "Knowledge Compilation:  The General Learning  Mechanism"
uses  production "composition" and "proceduralization" to model the progress of
a student learning how to program in LISP.

  Paul Rosenbloom (CMU) "The Chunking of Goal Hierarchies:  A Generalized Model
of Practice."  Paul's Ph.D. thesis accounts for  the  universal  power  law  of
practice with a chunking model (fast encode, connect, fast decode) that unifies
classical   chunking,   memo   functions   (alias  "caching"),  and  production
composition.

  Jack Mostow (USC-ISI) "Operationalizing Advice:    A  Problem-Solving  Model"
describes  a  problem-solver  called BAR, the successor to the 1981 FOO system.
Given a piece of advice for the card game Hearts, BAR helps find a sequence  of
general program transformations that converts it into a procedure executable by
the learner.

  Tom  Mitchell  and  Rich  Keller (Rutgers) "Goal-Directed Learning" describes
LEX2, which learns heuristics for symbolic integration by analyzing  worked-out
examples.    Unlike  LEX1,  which  performed  empirical induction from multiple
examples  using  the  version  space  method,   LEX2   constructs   justifiable
generalizations from single examples based on an elegant explicit definition in
predicate  calculus  of  what  it  means in LEX to be a heuristic (to lie on an
[optimal] solution path).  This work fits both the  "Knowledge  Transformation"
and  "Induction"  categories  because  it  induces  heuristics  by converting a
precise but inefficient definition of  "heuristic"  into  specialized  patterns
that  can  be  tested inexpensively by matching.  Tom's talk compared LEX2 with
DeJong's explanatory schema acquisition, Winston's  analogical  reasoning,  and
Mostow's   operationalizer,   in   terms  of  a  three-step  process  (generate
explanation;  extract  sufficient  condition  for  satisfying   goal   concept;
optimize).    I  enjoy  seeing attempts to unify and compare different research
projects, especially when one of them is mine.



2.1. Lessons
  In his keynote address at IJCAI79 in Tokyo, Herb Simon suggested that Lenat's
AM and Langley's BACON provided examples of discovery  systems  that  might  be
used  as  the  basis for a theory of discovery, and that such a theory might in
turn serve to guide research in AI.  When he pointed out that both AM and BACON
shared a heavily empirical bent, I realized to my distress that my FOO  program
was  just  the  opposite  -- completely analytic.  At the 1980 Machine Learning
Workshop, Tom Mitchell and I discussed  the  "analytic-to-empirical"  spectrum,
and  wondered  how  the  two approaches might profitably be combined.  The 1983
Workshop gives at least a couple of answers; more should be found.

  An example of a purely empirical approach to knowledge  transformation  would
be   a   program   that   compiles   frequently-used   action   sequences  into
macro-operators without regard to such factors as the goal structure motivating
them; such macro-operators lack flexibility since  they  apply  only  to  cases
where  the exact sequence of operators applies.  At the other extreme, a purely
analytic knowledge transformer (e.g., FOO/BAR) converts  declarative  knowledge
into  an  effective form without regard to such factors as which cases actually
arise in practice; the  failure  to  exploit  realistic  assumptions  leads  to
procedures that are very general but very weak.

  One  way  to combine empirical and analytic techniques is to analyze specific
examples  that  have  arisen  in  actual  practice,  and  generalize  them   by
identifying which properties were actually relevant to the outcomes [LEX2].

  Another  way  takes a general piece of knowledge, an interpreter that applies
it  to  specific  cases, and a caching mechanism that records the results.  The
general knowledge is gradually compiled into streamlined procedures for special
cases [Anderson, Lenat, Rosenbloom].

3. Induction
  Induction  generalizes  examples  obtained  from   experience,   observation,
experiments, tutors, newspapers, or elsewhere.



3.1. Inducing Rules
  Ryszard Michalski and Robert Stepp (U. Illinois) "How to Structure Structured
Objects"  manages  to  discuss  classification  of  structured  objects without
referring to soybean diseases.

  Tom Dietterich (Stanford) and Ryszard Michalski  (U.  Illinois)  "Discovering
Patterns  in  Sequences  of  Objects" describes an extension of Tom's 1979 M.S.
thesis program for the card game Eleusis, where the  problem  is  to  induce  a
secret rule from positive and negative examples.

  Tom  Dietterich and Bruce Buchanan (Stanford) "The Role of Experimentation in
Theory Formation" reports on Tom's ongoing Ph.D. thesis project, EG, to  induce
the  semantics  of Unix commands by performing experiments to see what they do.
EG ignores the explanations provided by Unix error  messages,  but  it  is  not
clear  that this loses very much information.  Previous work on experimentation
has  focussed  on  internally  formalizable  domains  in  order  to  avoid  the
bottleneck  of  a low-bandwidth interface to the outside world, so this project
is a welcome entry into an area deserving exploration.  I'm eager  to  see  the
results; I'm sure Tom and Bruce are too!

  Pat  Langley,  Jan  Zytkow,  Herb Simon (CMU) "Mechanisms for Qualitative and
Quantitative Discovery" reports on four discovery programs.    BACON.6  extends
previous  BACON.i  by  finding  quantitative  functional relationships in noisy
data.  The other three programs induce qualitative theories from collections of
chemical reactions:  GLAUBER discovers the concepts of acids, bases, and salts;
STAHL  infers  the  composition  of  substances,  recreating   something   like
phlogiston  theory;  and  DALTON  infers the number of atoms per molecule.  The
next step is to integrate these programs.

  Saul Amarel (Rutgers) "Program Synthesis as a Theory Formation Task:  Problem
Representations and Problem Methods"  describes  a  program  that  induces  the
algebraic structure of a relation represented as a set of tuples.

  Donald  Michie (U. of Edinburgh) "Inductive Rule Generation in the Context of
the Fifth Generation" provocatively suggests that to  interface  usefully  with
human experts, induction systems should produce "brain-compatible" results that
are both human-understandable and "mentally executable."

  Paul  Utgoff (Siemens CRS) "Adjusting Bias in Concept Learning" discussed his
Ph.D. work on getting  LEX  to  modify  its  inductive  bias,  defined  as  the
knowledge  that  causes a learner to choose one hypothesis over another.  LEX's
bias  is  determined  by  its  pattern  language  for  describing  classes   of
integration   problems.    Paul's  program  infers  new  terms  like  "odd"  or
"twice-integrable" based on analysis of worked-out examples,  and  figures  out
how to assimilate them into the language.

  Bernard  Silver  (U.  of  Edinburgh)  "Learning Equation Solving Methods from
Worked Examples" describes LP, a program that solves  difficult  algebraic  and
trigonometric  equations better than many of us, and learns new problem-solving
"schemas" from worked-out examples.  LP apparently derives  its  power  from  a
well-chosen  abstraction  function that describes each equation in terms of its
"characteristic 4-tuple" (number of occurrences of unknown;  type  of  function
symbols,  e.g.  trig;  single  equation vs. disjunction; top-level connective).
Essentially, LP performs means-ends  analysis  in  the  abstracted  space:    a
difference  between  two  tuples indexes a collection of operators for reducing
it.  I view LP as learning what order to reduce differences, but  if  you  want
Bernard's view of the matter you should read his paper.



3.2. Dealing with Noise
  Ross  Quinlan  (New South Wales Institute of Technology) "Learning from Noisy
Data" reports some interesting empirical results  from  introducing  controlled
amounts  of  noise  into the training and test data for a binary classification
system that induces decision trees.  By  storing  in  each  leaf  node  of  the
decision tree the proportion of positive instances among the objects classified
under  that node, the system identifies which attributes classify the data most
reliably -- i.e., in some sense it learns  about  the  noise.    Among  several
surprising  results:    if  it is known that the test data will be noisy, it is
actually better to use noisy  training  data!    Such  results  have  important
implications:    for  example,  if a medical diagnosis system is to be built by
induction from a medical database and applied to patients  whose  symptoms  are
reported unreliably, it may actually perform better if the database is munged a
bit  first.    Of course further work is needed to analyze why Quinlan's system
behaves this way, and what class of induction systems will behave similarly.

  Michael Lebowitz (Columbia) "Concept Learning in a Rich Input Domain" induces
predictive stereotypical patterns from event descriptions such as news stories.
An interesting aspect of his approach is the ability to induce  generalizations
based on noisy data.

  Casimir  Kulikowski  (Rutgers) "Knowledge Acquisition and Learning in EXPERT"
describes how the SEEK system addresses  the  important  practical  problem  of
debugging  a  large collection of expert rules.  SEEK extends the contributions
of Randy Davis' TEIRESIAS  to  "knowledge  acquisition  in  the  context  of  a
shortcoming  in the knowledge base."  SEEK experiments by perturbing rules, and
uses the number and type of resulting errors with respect to  stored  cases  to
suggest   possible  improvements.    It  gathers  statistics  on  the  "missing
components" that prevent rules from firing when  they  should,  using  work  by
Politakis on statistical credit assignment.

  John Holland (U. of Michigan) "Escaping Brittleness" describes recent results
in  his  continuing work on genetic learning algorithms.  These methods exploit
parallelism and ideas from ecology and capitalism, and are  actually  producing
usable application systems for arm-eye coordination tasks.  I enjoy John's work
because  it  is  so  mind-bendingly  different  from what the rest of us do.  I
suspect it  may  serve  as  an  elegant  simplified  model  to  understand  the
computational  aspects  of molecular biology and evolution, by bridging the gap
between our standard computational metaphors (subroutine call, naming, symbolic
processing) and as-yet undeciphered  biological  mechanisms  (enzymes,  codons,
complex feedback systems).



3.3. Logic-based Work
  Clark  Glymour,  Kevin  Kelly,  and  Richard Scheines (U. of Pittsburgh) "Two
Programs for Testing  Hypotheses  of  any  Logical  Form"  implements  Hempel's
confirmation  relation  and  extends  it  to  handle partial confirmation.  The
resulting programs tell whether (or to what extent) a given set of propositions
confirms a given inductive hypothesis.

  Claude Sammut and  Ranan  Banerji  (St.  Joseph's  University)  "Hierarchical
Memories:    An  Aid  to  Concept  Learning" describes a logic-based system for
inserting new categories into is-a hierarchies.

  Y. Kodratoff  and  J.-G.  Ganascia  (Universite  de  Paris)  "Learning  as  a
Non-deterministic   but   Exact   Logical   Process"  describes  a  logic-based
generalization algorithm that I got the impression  extends  previous  work  by
Hayes-Roth and Vere with respect to many-to-one mappings.



3.4. Cognitive Modelling
  Derek  Sleeman  (Stanford) "Inferring (MAL) Rules from Pupil's Protocols" was
an amusing report on  automating  the  induction  of  students'  buggy  algebra
productions  from  their  incorrectly  worked-out  problems.    Apparently  the
students are so eager to achieve the goal -- get the unknown on one side and  a
number on the other -- that they resort to a powerful problem-solving technique
I like to call "ends-justifies-the-means analysis."

  Kurt  VanLehn  (Xerox  PARC) "Validating a Theory of Human Skill Acquisition"
reports on some similar work:  modelling students' subtraction errors in  terms
of  the  hypothesized  induction  methods  whereby  they  infer the subtraction
algorithm from the teachers' examples.  The  theory  posits  several  "felicity
conditions" -- conventions on teacher-student communication that facilitate the
induction  process.    One  such  condition is the "one disjunction per lesson"
rule.    This  work,  in  the  Buggy-Debuggy  tradition,   uses   a   flowgraph
representation in contrast to Sleeman's production system representation.

  Bob  Berwick  (MIT)  "Domain-specific Learning and the Subset Principle" used
certain linguistic data as evidence that human languages conform to constraints
on how much humans induce from each example in a sequence.  Unfortunately, as a
non-linguist I was unable to induce anything from the examples Bob used in  his
talk.    This  datum may actually constitute further evidence in support of his
theory.

  Douglas Medin (U. of Illinois) "Linear Separability and Concept  Naturalness"
presents  evidence  that linearly separable categories are not generally easier
for people to learn.

  Doug Hofstadter (Indiana University) "The Architecture of Jumbo"  models  the
process of permuting a string of letters into a recognizable word.  Doug's talk
started  by  borrowing  the  last name of a Cognitive Modelling panelist (Janet
Kolodner) as an example and suggesting that it had no one-word permutation.   I
immediately  set  about  looking  for one, and by the end of the talk had found
"elk-donor" (one who donates elks)  and  "do-Kloner"  (one  who  implements  or
applies  the representation language KLONE) as well as several two-word phrases
of varying social and orthographic acceptability ("lone dork," "red kolon," "no
kolder," ...).  Doug's talk certainly wins the "Giving the  Audience  Something
to  Do  to  Keep it Amused During Your Talk" award.  Unfortunately I can't tell
you what it was about, except that by analogy with the concept of  "spoonerism"
he introduced such new concepts as "forkerism" and "kniferism."

  Mallory  Selfridge  (U. of Connecticut) "How Can CHILD Learn About Agreement?
Explorations of CHILD's Syntactic  Inadequacies"  was  the  last  talk  of  the
conference.    Mallory  spoke  without slides, allowing worn-out members of the
audience could close their eyes and concentrate better.

  Gerry Dejong (U. of Illinois) "An  Approach  to  Learning  from  Observation"
describes  his  continued  work  on  learning  by  composing schemas to explain
observed  event  sequences.    This  might  be  classified   under   "Knowledge
Transformation"  since  it  consists  of  recognizing  and  naming  specialized
combinations of existing concepts.  Gerry also composed the  official  workshop
puzzle  to  divert  participants  when  not listening to presentations, thereby
winning the "Giving the Audience Something to Keep It Amused  During  Everybody
Else's Talk" award.



3.5. Lessons
  Some  induction  systems  use  user input to help fill in a gap in a chain of
reasoning otherwise derivable by existing rules [Silver, Sleeman, Kulikowski].

  The incremental learning theme evidenced in the work on analogy also appeared
in induction systems that construct and refine hypotheses [Amarel, Dietterich &
Buchanan, Holland, Lebowitz].

  The real-world  problem  of  noisy  data  is  receiving  attention  [Langley,
Quinlan, Lebowitz], and statistical induction is being used in interesting ways
[Holland, Kulikowski].

4. Panel Discussion:  Cognitive Modelling -- Why Bother?
  The  first  day  of  the  workshop  ended with an evening panel on "Cognitive
Modelling of Learning Processes."  Having arisen at 4am  Pacific  Sleepy  Time,
sat through morning and afternoon sessions filled with paper presentations, and
partaken  of  three  meals filled with shop talk, I found my capacity to absorb
the insights of the panelists severely diminished.  I did  find  the  panel  on
cognitive  modelling  a  convincing  argument  for  the  importance of combined
aural-visual input in human learning, insofar as some of the  panelists  didn't
use slides and now I can't remember what they said.  On the other hand, I'm not
doing  too  well  at remembering what any of them said.  In fact, I had trouble
reconstructing who was on the panel.  All of which  illustrates  at  least  one
area  for  applying  cognitive modelling to AI:  investigating, and preventing,
the  process  whereby  researchers  forget  what  they  see  and  hear  at   AI
conferences.

  Fortunately  Jaime  Carbonell,  who  moderated  the panel, was kind enough to
supply a description of what transpired while I was lapsing in and  out  of  my
stupor:

  ``I started the discussion by noting several examples where work in cognitive
modelling  had  inspired  and  influenced  work in machine learning (e.g., Earl
Hunt's  work  on  concept  acquisition  helped  motivate   work   on   symbolic
descriptions  in  learning  over  earlier  neural  net  approaches),  and a bit
vice-versa.  The production systems paradigm emerged from the joint concerns of
both camps. Then I  asked  the  panelists  to  draw  from  their  own  work  to
substantiate or criticize the cross-fertilization hypothesis.

  ``Paul  Kline  (Texas  Instruments) presented the major result in his thesis:
Concept acquisition in humans is clearly not commutative with  respect  to  the
order  of  presentation  of  examples. This is important, as most of the recent
work in machine  learning  no  longer  assumes  commutativity  as  a  requisite
constraint  (e.g. learning by analogy is clearly governed by past knowledge and
experience -- what you  know  structures  what  you  learn  and  what  you  pay
attention to in new information).

  ``Janet  Kolodner  (Georgia  Institute  of  Technology)  argued  in  favor of
case-based reasoning in  expert  systems  design,  where  episodic  traces  and
generalizations   therefrom  may  constitute  the  primary  form  of  expertise
acquisition.  She argued in favor of using human memory structuring  principles
as a guiding criterion for modelling expertise and its acquisition.

  ``John Anderson (CMU) played the role of devil's advocate, saying "Why should
you  machine learning people handcuff yourselves by known restrictions on human
learning?" and sketched a case for separating the lines of reserach.

  ``Paul Rosenbloom (CMU) and Dedre Gentner (BBN) served as discussants in  the
panel  and  addressed  Anderson's  concerns,  mostly  refuting  the argument by
counterexamples and by suggesting that the only known existence proof of robust
learning behavior is to be found in humans and other  biological  systems,  and
therefore  ought to serve as inspiration for machine learning, rather than as a
constraint.  Anderson quickly  agreed,  since  he  didn't  really  believe  his
straw-man  position  anyway.  The  discussion  went on to conclude that problem
solving, memory organization, and learning are  inextricably  woven  phenomena,
and the study of each impacts strongly upon the others.''

5. Panel Discussion:  "Machine Learning -- Challenges of the 80's"
  At  one  late-night bull session, several of us were trying to figure out how
to spice up the final panel  discussion.    A  panel  whose  members  agree  on
everything  is  boring;  perhaps  a  panel discussion shouldn't be considered a
complete success unless it comes to blows.    What  issue  might  provoke  some
edifying disagreement?

  Pat  Langley  suggested distinguishing between "Darwinian" induction systems,
which generate hypotheses independent  of  the  environment  in  which  they're
tested,  and  "Lysenkoist" systems, where the hypothesis generator is sensitive
to the result of such tests.    Reincarnating  the  Darwin-Lysenko  controversy
would  have  served  to replace the now-passe' "declarative vs.  procedural"
and
"neat vs.    scruffy"  controversies  as  a  source  of  much  meaningless  and
entertaining  debate, while adding a classy touch of history.  Unfortunately we
all chickened out, and the panelists found little to disagree about.  But  they
tried....

  Saul  Amarel  suggested  that  the term "analogy" be banned and replaced with
precise terms  denoting  the  processes  of  identifying  a  relevant  analogy,
importing  it  into  a  new  area,  assimilating  it,  and repairing it.  Jaime
Carbonell responded promisingly ("Oh come on, Saul..."),  but  eventually  they
degenerated  into  agreement.  My personal feeling is that a precise definition
is still premature and the field can benefit from looking for more patterns  of
reasoning  that  might  be called "analogy;" I suspect there are some important
ones not used in current analogy systems.

  While pondering  Saul's  provocative  stance  on  this  issue,  I  failed  to
concentrate fully on the research directions he next proposed.  Fortunately Tom
Dietterich filled me in.  Here's one of my favorites: ``Another fruitful avenue
for future research is to develop problem-solving environments in which experts
can be automatically observed while they solve problems.  In this way, programs
might  be able to capture expertise by "watching over the shoulder" of experts.
This is a good area for research on psychology  and  man/machine  interactions,
too.''    Tom Mitchell mentioned to me that he is planning to do something like
this in the VLSI domain.  It's hard to find a hotter combination of topics than
VLSI design and  machine  learning!  Saul  would  also  like  to  see  work  on
real-world  scientific  theory  formation  problems  in  areas like physics and
biology, and a new MetaDendral-like project.

  Donald Michie made a good try at generating  some  dissension  by  suggesting
that  the  next  Machine  Learning workshop should be restricted to papers that
report complete results, but apparently nobody was brave enough to disagree.

  Doug Lenat identified some sources of power for current and future success in
the field:

   - Synergy of learning programs

        * with humans: EURISKO is one example of a  cooperative  discovery
          system.    Learning  systems  will  want  fancy  front ends with
          natural language, visual, and non-verbal I/O; conversely,  fancy
          front ends will need to induce models of a session or user.

        * with  AI:  MetaDendral  illustrates a performance program with a
          learning component for improving itself.

        * with other learning  programs:  One  lesson  of  early  learning
          research is that no single general technique suffices by itself;
          progress requires combining them.

     One  way  to provide such synergy is to package learning methods into
     tools usable by other researchers and their  systems,  somewhat  like
     the  way  certain  program  analysis  methods have been packaged into
     Interlisp's Masterscope.  Doug plans to  package  EURISKO  in  usable
     form  and distribute it to the AI community in a year or so, which is
     great news.

   - Analogy

        * as a paradigm  for  knowledge  acquisition:  Help  automate  the
          find-copy-edit  technique  often  used  to construct new schemas
          manually by adapting existing ones.

        * as a technique for  suggesting  plausible  approaches  based  on
          similar  past problems: This will require a broad knowledge base
          of common sense and facts, along the lines  of  Alan  Kay's  new
          project at Atari to encode an encyclopedia [see IJCAI83].

   - Heuretics: The study of heuristics will both require and help produce
     a broad base of heuristics.

   - Representation:  Only  a  few  basic  representations  are now known;
     automatic  change  of  representation  will  require  the   kind   of
     self-modelling,  -monitoring, and -modifying systems discussed in the
     Cognitive Economy paper.

   - Parallelism: VLSI offers obvious potential.

   - Morphological analysis: There  are  other  natural  learning  systems
     besides  human  cognition, including the immune system and evolution;
     what can they teach us?

  During  the  panel  discussion,  Pat  Winston  observed  that  the   workshop
represented  a  healthy  balance  between  different  types  of  work,  such as
experimental and theoretical, analytic and empirical, basic and  applied,  etc.
To  which  Donald  Michie added "good and bad."  It might be mentioned that the
winner in the "Activities for Keeping Amused Between (and at  the  Expense  of)
Other  People's  Talks"  category  consisted  of exchanging nominations for the
"Worst Talk" category.  The overall quality of the  workshop  was  better  than
most   conferences,   but  there  was  intense  competition  in  this  category
nonetheless.

  Winston foresees a danger of success  in  machine  learning  leading  to  the
"Expert  Systems  Syndrome,"  with  reporters  and  venture capitalists getting
underfoot and interfering with scientific progress by tempting researchers away
from their work to fame and riches.  (Some of us would like to  know  where  we
can sign up for this.)  Pat also sees a great opportunity for supercomputers to
qualitatively  change  how  we think and do research, analogous to the way fast
computers liberated early work on vision from the limitations of running 3-by-3
operators over 256-by-256 arrays.

  Ryszard Michalski, panel moderator and intrepid Workshop Chairman, called for
the development of a body of theory  to  help  identify  isomorphic  ideas  and
establish a uniform terminology for them.  He also emphasized the importance of
general  methods that can be applied to the problem of knowledge acquisition in
expert systems.

  In response to repeated pleas to extend MetaDendral, Bruce  Buchanan  pointed
out  that  he  and his co-workers quit working on Dendral and MetaDendral after
several years largely because they were just plain tired of it.    Having  made
this candid admission, he immediately left town.

  One  question  that  I  raised  in bull sessions and Pat Langley posed to the
panel is whether the time is yet ripe for a large-scale machine learning effort
analogous to the ARPA Speech Understanding Project.  This question does not yet
have a clear answer.  On the one hand, we are running up against limitations on
the kind of learning attainable in a one-Ph.D.-student project.  On  the  other
hand,  integrating multiple learning methods in a single system would appear to
require much tighter coupling than was  necessary,  say,  between  the  various
knowledge  source  modules in Hearsay-II.  In particular, learning methods tend
to be representation-specific.  The development of a learning system  employing
multiple  evolving methods, each with its own evolving representation(s), would
be very difficult to manage.

  Moreover, much thought must be given to the goals of such  a  project.    The
ARPA  Speech  Understanding  Study Group formulated clear goals for the kind of
system to be developed.  What would be appropriate goals for a learning system?
They would have to be defined so as to preclude simply programming in the skill
to be learned.  What would be gained by building a large learning system?    As
Herb  Simon  points  out  in  his  provocative chapter in Machine Learning, the
knowledge transfer function that learning serves for people  can  be  fulfilled
much  more  easily  in  computers by copying code.  If the system learns things
that people already know, why would this be better than programming them in  by
hand?    If the system is supposed to discover things that people don't already
know,  how can one set realistic goals for its performance?  Although many such
devil's-advocate  questions  remain,  I  find  the  problem  of   designing   a
Hearsay-style  learning  system  a  useful  mental  exercise for thinking about
research issues and strategies.

6. A Bit of Perspective
  No overview would be complete without a picture that tries to put  everything
in perspective:


     -------------> generalizations ------------
    |                                           |
    |                                           |
INDUCTION                                  COMPILATION
(Knowledge Discovery)                   (Knowledge Transformation)
    |                                           |
    |                                           v
examples ----------- ANALOGY  --------> specialized solutions
                (Knowledge Transfer)

     Figure 6-1:   The Learning Triangle:  Induction, Analogy, Compilation

  Of  course  the distinction between these three forms of learning breaks down
under close  examination.    For  example,  consider  LEX2:    does  it  induce
heuristics  from  examples, guided by its definition of "heuristic," or does it
compile that definition into special cases, guided by examples?

7. Looking to the Future
  The 1983 International Workshop on Machine Learning felt like history in  the
making.  What could be a more exciting endeavor than getting machines to learn?
As  we  gathered  for  the  official  workshop  photograph, I thought of Pamela
McCorduck's Machines Who Think, and wondered if  twenty  years  from  now  this
gathering  might  not  seem as significant as some of those described there.  I
felt privileged to be part of it.

  In the meantime, there are lessons to be absorbed, and work to be done....

  One lesson of the workshop is the importance of incremental learning methods.
As one speaker observed, you can only learn things  you  already  almost  know.
The  most  robust  learning  can  be  expected  from systems that improve their
knowledge gradually, building on what they have already learned, and using  new
data  to  repair deficiencies and improve performance, whether it be in analogy
[Burstein, Carbonell],  induction  [Amarel,  Dietterich  &  Buchanan,  Holland,
Lebowitz, Mitchell], or knowledge transformation [Rosenbloom, Anderson, Lenat].
This  theme  reflects  the  related  idea  of  learning  and problem-solving as
inherent parts of each other [Carbonell, Mitchell, Rosenbloom].

  Of course not everyone saw things the way I do.  Here's Tom Dietterich again:
``I was surprised that you summarized the workshop in terms of an "incremental"
theme.  I don't think incremental-ness  is  particularly  important--especially
for  expert  system  work.    Quinlan gets his noise tolerance by training on a
whole batch of examples at once.  I  would  have  summarized  the  workshop  by
saying  that the key theme was the move away from syntax.  Hardly anyone talked
about "matching" and syntactic generalization.  The whole concern was with  the
semantic  justifications  for  some  learned concept:  All of the analogy folks
were doing this, as were Mitchell, DeJong, and Dietterich and  Buchanan.    The
most  interesting  point that was made, I thought, was Mitchell's point that we
need to look at cases where we can provide only partial justification  for  the
generalizations.      DeJong's   "causal   completeness"  is  too  stringent  a
requirement.''

  Second, the importance of making knowledge and goals explicit is  illustrated
by  the progress that can be made when a learner has access to a description of
what it is trying to acquire, whether it is a criterion  for  the  form  of  an
inductive hypothesis [Michalski et al] or a formal characterization of the kind
of heuristic to be learned for guiding a search [Mitchell et al].

  Third, as Doug Lenat pointed out, continued progress in learning will require
integrating  multiple methods.  In particular, we need ways to combine analytic
and empirical techniques to escape from their limitations when used alone.

  Finally, I think we can extrapolate from the experience of AI  in  the  '60's
and '70's to set a useful direction for machine learning research in the '80's.
Briefly,  in  AI the '60's taught us that certain general methods exist and can
produce some results, while the '70's  showed  that  large  amounts  of  domain
knowledge  are  required to achieve powerful performance.  The same can be said
for learning.  I consider a primary goal  of  AI  in  the  '80's,  perhaps  the
primary goal, to be the development of general techniques for exploiting domain
knowledge.  One such technique is the ability to learn, which itself has proved
to require large amounts of domain knowledge.  Whether we approach this goal by
building  domain-specific  learners  (e.g.  MetaDendral)  and then generalizing
their methods (e.g. version space induction), or  by  attempting  to  formulate
general methods more directly, we should keep in mind that a general and robust
intelligence  will  require  the ability to learn from its experience and apply
its knowledge and methods to problems in a variety of domains.

  A well-placed source has informed me that plans are already afoot to  produce
a  successor  to  the Machine Learning book, using the 1983 workshop papers and
discussions as raw material.  In the meantime, there is a small number of extra
proceedings which can be acquired (until they run out) for $27.88 ($25 + $2.88
postage in U.S., more elsewhere), check payable to University of Illinois.
Order from

     June Wingler
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
     Department of Computer Science
     1304 W. Springfield Avenue
     Urbana, IL 61801

  There are tentative plans for a similar  workshop  next  summer  at  Rutgers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
25
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 1983 0407-EDT
-FROM-
From: STRAZ.TD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI Preliminary Schedule
-BODY-
What follows is a complete preliminary schedule for AAAI-83.
Presumably changes are still possible, particularly in times, but it
does tell what papers will be presented.

AAAI-83 THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE at the
Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C. August 22-26, 1983,
sponsored by THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and
co-sponsored by University of Maryland and George Washington
University.

CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

SUNDAY, AUGUST 21
_________________

5:30-7:00 CONFERENCE, TUTORIAL, AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION

MONDAY, AUGUST 22 - FRIDAY, AUGUST 26
_____________________________________

9:00-5:00 AAAI-83 R & D EXHIBIT PROGRAM

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24 - FRIDAY, AUGUST 26
>-------------------------------------

8:00 p.m.- SMALL GROUP MEETINGS : please sign up for rooms at the information
           desk in the Concourse Lobby.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 21 - THURSDAY, AUGUST 23
>---------------------------------------

7:00 p.m. FREDKIN- AAAI COMPUTER CHESS TOURNAMENT

Each night at 7:00 p.m., the Fredkin-AAAI Tournament will demonstrate
the Turing Test where human players do not know if they are playing
a machine or other human players with equal probability.  Human players
will be rewarded primarily for winning, but secondarily for guessing the
genus of their opponent.  The audience also will be kept in the dark,
and there should be some fun in guessing who is who as the game progresses.

There will be three games per night; each night, two games will pit
a human being against a computer and the other game will pit two
human players against each other.  The computer system's names are
Belle and Nuches.

TUTORIAL PROGRAM

MONDAY, AUGUST 22 - TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
______________________________________

8:00-5:00 TUTORIAL REGISTRATION in the CONCOURSE LOBBY, CONCOURSE LEVEL

MONDAY, AUGUST 22
_________________

9:00-1:00- TUTORIAL NUMBER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
			Dr. Eugene Charniak, Brown University
			
9:00-1:00  TUTORIAL NUMBER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBOTICS
			Dr. Richard Paul, Purdue University

2:00-6:00  TUTORIAL NUMBER 3: NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
		        Dr. Gary G. Hendrix, SYMANTEC, Inc.

2:00-6:00  TUTORIAL NUMBER 4: EXPERT SYSTEMS - PART 1 - FUNDAMENTALS
			Drs. Randall Davis and Charles Rich, MIT

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
__________________

9:00-1:00 TUTORIAL NUMBER 5: EXPERT SYSTEMS - PART 2 - APPLICATION AREAS
			Drs. Randall Davis and Charles Rich, MIT

9:00-1:00 TUTORIAL NUMBER 6: AI PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY - LANGUAGES AND MACHINES
			Dr. Howard Shrobe, MIT and Symbolics
		        Dr. Larry Masinter, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
				
MONDAY, AUGUST 22
_________________

8:00-5:00 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION in CONCOURSE LOBBY

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
__________________

8:00-2:00 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM REGISTRATION in CONCOURSE LOBBY

2:00-9:30 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYMPOSIUM (6-7:30 dinner break)

TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS
___________________

MONDAY, AUGUST 22 AND TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
________________________________________

9:00-5:00 SENSORS AND ALGORITHMS FOR 3-D VISION Dr. Azriel Rosenfeld, Maryland

9:00-5:00 PLANNING organized by Dr. Robert Wilensky, Berkeley

HOSPITALITY
___________

MONDAY, AUGUST 22
_________________

6:00-8:00 RECEPTION (Welcome!) in the CONCOURSE EXHIBIT HALL, CONCOURSE LEVEL

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
__________________

5:30-7:00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION RECEPTION; INTERNATIONAL TERRACE

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24
____________________

6:00-8:00 MAIN CONFERENCE RECEPTION (NO HOST BAR); INTERNATIONAL TERRACE

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25
___________________

6:00-7:00 BOARDING BUSES FOR GALA at the T STREET ENTRANCE, TERRACE LEVEL
				
7:00-10:30 GALA RECEPTION AND ENTERTAINMENT AT THE CAPITOL CHILDREN'S MUSEUM
           (NO HOST BAR) *** RESERVATIONS ONLY ***
				
FRIDAY, AUGUST 26
_________________

6:00-8:00 HAIL AND FAREWELL in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EAST

TECHNICAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULE
_____________________________	

* PLEASE NOTE: Depending on the size of attendance, closed circuit T.V.
will be available Wednesday, August 24 thru Friday, August 26, for
particular sessions (that is, those sessions scheduled for the
International Ballroom Center and West).  The closed circuit
T.V. rooms will be the Georgetown Room, Concourse Level, and the
Back Terrace, Terrace Level.

MONDAY, AUGUST 22
_________________

8:00-5:00 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23
__________________

8:00-7:00 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION

7:00 p.m. SPECIAL SESSION dedicated to Dr. Victor Lesser, USSR

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24
____________________

8:00-5:00 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING SESSION I
______________________________________________________

9:00-9:20 AN OVERVIEW OF META-LEVEL ARCHITECTURE Michael Genesereth, Stanford
				
9:20-9:40 FINDING ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS TO A PROBLEM David Smith, Stanford
				
9:40-10:00 COMMUNICATION & INTERACTION IN MULTI-AGENT PLANNING
           Michael Georgeff, SRI

10:00-10:20 DATA DEPENDENCIES ON INEQUALITIES Drew McDermott, Yale

10:20-10:40 KRYPTON: INTEGRATING TERMINOLOGY & ASSERTION
            Ronald Brachman and Hector Levesque, Fairchild AI Laboratory
            Richard Fikes, Xerox PARC

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

COGNITIVE MODELLING SESSION I
_____________________________

9:00-9:20 THREE DIMENSIONS OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Neil M. Goldman, USC/ISI

9:20-9:40 SIX PROBLEMS FOR STORY UNDERSTANDERS 	Peter Norvig, Berkeley

9:40-10:00 PLANNING AND GOAL INTERACTION: THE USE OF PAST SOLUTIONS IN PRESENT
           SITUATIONS Kristian Hammond, Yale

10:00-10:20 A MODEL OF INCREMENTAL LEARNING BY INCREMENTAL AND ANALOGICAL
            REASONING & DEBUGGING Mark Burnstein, Yale

10:20-10:40 MODELLING OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE ROUTES: PARTIAL AND INDIVIDUAL
            VARIATION Benjamin Kuipers, Tufts

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM WEST

VISION AND ROBOTICS SESSION I
_____________________________

9:00-9:20 A VARIATIONAL APPROACH TO EDGE DETECTION John Canny, MIT

9:20-9:40 SURFACE CONSTRAINTS FROM LINEAR EXTENTS John Kender, Columbia

9:40-10:00 AN ITERATIVE METHOD FOR RECONSTRUCTING CONVEX POLYHEDRA FROM
           EXTENDED GAUSSIAN IMAGES James J. Little, U.of British Columbia

10:00-10:20 TWO RESULTS CONCERNING AMBIGUITY IN SHAPE FROM SHADING
            M.J. Brooks, Flinders University of South Australia

In the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EAST


10:40-11:00 BREAK

11:00-12:30 PANEL: LOGIC PROGRAMMING
            Howard Shrobe, Organizer, MIT
            Michael Genesereth, Stanford,
            J. Alan Robinson, David Warren, SRI International

In the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

12:30-2:00 LUNCH BREAK
           ANNUAL SIGART BUSINESS MEETING in the HEMISPHERE ROOM

2:00-3:10 INVITED LECTURE: THE STATE OF THE ART IN COMPUTER LEARNING
          Douglas Lenat, Stanford in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

3:10-3:30 BREAK

NATURAL LANGUAGE SESSION I
__________________________

3:30-3:50 RECURSION IN TEXT AND ITS USE IN LANGUAGE GENERATION
           Kathleen McKeown, Columbia

3:50-4:10 RELAXATION IN REFERENCE Bradley Goodman, BBN

4:10-4:30 TRACKING USER GOALS IN AN INFORMATION-SEEKING ENVIRONMENT
          M. Sandra Carberry, Delaware

4:30-4:50 REASONS FOR BELIEFS IN UNDERSTANDING: APPLICATIONS OF NON-MONOTONIC
          DEPENDENCIES TO STORY PROCESSING Paul O' Rorke, Illinois

4:50-5:10 RESEARCHER: AN OVERVIEW Michael Lebowitz, Columbia
	
in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EAST

LEARNING SESSION I
__________________

3:30-3:50 EPISODIC LEARNING Dennis Kibler and Bruce Porter, California-Irvine

3:50-4:10 HUMAN PROCEDURAL SKILL ACQUISITION: THEORY, MODEL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
          VALIDATION Kurt VanLehn, Xerox PARC

4:10-4:30 A PRODUCTION SYSTEM FOR LEARNING FROM AN EXPERT
          D. Paul Benjamin and Malcolm Harrison, Courant Institute, NYU

4:30-4:50 OPERATOR DECOMPOSABILITY: A NEW TYPE OF PROBLEM STRUCTURE
          Richard Korf, CMU

4:50-5:10 SCHEMA SELECTION AND STOCHASTIC INFERENCE IN MODULAR 	ENVIRONMENT
          Paul Smolensky, UCSD

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM WEST

EXPERT SYSTEMS SESSION I
>-----------------------

3:30-3:50 THE DESIGN OF A LEGAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM Anne v.d.L. Gardner, Stanford

3:50-4:10 THE ADVANTAGES OF ABSTRACT CONTROL KNOWLEDGE IN EXPERT SYSTEM DESIGN
          William J. Clancey, Stanford

4:10-4:30 THE GIST BEHAVIOR EXPLAINER William Swartout, USC/ISI

4:30-4:50 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR EXPERT SYSTEMS: AGE
          IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THREE VARIATIONS OF PUFF
          Nelleke Aiello, Stanford

4:50-5:10 A RULE-BASED APPROACH TO INFORMATION RETRIEVAL: SOME RESULTS AND
          COMMENTS Richard Tong, Daniel Shapiro, Brian McCune & Jeffrey Dean,
          Advanced Information & Decision Systems

5:10-5:30 EXPERT SYSTEM CONSULTATION CONTROL STRATEGY James Slagle and Michael
          Gaynor, Naval Research Laboratory

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

7:00 P.M. AAAI EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25
___________________

8:00-5:00 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION in the CONCOURSE LOBBY

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING SESSION II
_______________________________________________________

9:00-9:20 THE DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS OF HORN CLAUSES AS A PRODUCTION SYSTEM
          J-L. Lassez and M. Maher, University of Melbourne

9:20-9:40 THEORY RESOLUTION: BUILDING IN NONEQUATIONAL THEORIES
          Mark Stickel, SRI International

9:40-10:00 IMPROVING THE EXPRESSIVENESS OF MANY SORTED LOGIC
           Anthony Cohn, University of Warwick

10:00-10:20 THE BAYESIAN BASIS OF COMMON SENSE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
            Eugene Charniak, Brown

10:20-10:40 ANALYZING THE ROLES OF DESCRIPTIONS AND ACTIONS IN OPEN SYSTEMS
            Carl Hewitt and Peter DeJong, MIT

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

NATURAL LANGUAGE SESSION II
___________________________

9:00-9:20 PHONOTACTIC AND LEXICAL CONSTRAINTS IN SPEECH RECOGNITION
          Daniel P. Huttenlocher and Victor W. Zue, MIT

9:20-9:40 DETERMINISTIC AND BOTTOM-UP PARSING IN PROLOG
          Edward Stabler, Jr., University of Western Ontario

9:40-10:00 MCHART: A FLEXIBLE, MODULAR CHART PARSING SYSTEM
           Henry Thompson, Edinburgh

10:00-10:20 INFERENCE-DRIVEN SEMANTIC ANALYSIS Martha Stone Palmer, Penn & SDC

10:20-10:40 MAPPING BETWEEN SEMANTIC REPRESENTATIONS USING HORN CLAUSES
	    Ralph M. Weischedel, Delaware

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM WEST

SEARCH SESSION I
________________

9:00-9:20 A THEORY OF GAME TREES Chun-Hung Tzeng, Paul Purdom, Jr., Indiana

9:20-9:40 OPTIMALITY OF A A* REVISITED 	Rina Dechter and Judea Pearl, UCLA

9:40-10:00 SOLVING THE GENERAL CONSISTENT LABELING (OR CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION)
           TWO ALGORITHMS AND THEIR EXPECTED COMPLEXITIES Bernard Nudel,Rutgers

10:00-10:20 THE COMPOSITE DECISION PROCESS: A UNIFYING FORMULATION FOR
            HEURISTIC SEARCH, DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING AND BRANCH & BOUND PROCEDURES
            Vipin Kumar, Texas & Laveen Kanal, Maryland

10:20-10:40 NON-MINIMAX SEARCH STRATEGIES FOR USE AGAINST FALLIBLE OPPONENTS
            Andrew Louis Reibman and Bruce Ballard, Duke

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EAST

10:40-11:00 BREAK

11:00-12:30 AAAI PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Nils Nilsson, SRI International
            ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PUBLISHER'S PRIZE
            AAAI COMMENDATION FOR EXCELLENCE to MARVIN DENICOFF, Office of
            Naval Research

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

12:30-2:00 LUNCH BREAK
           ANNUAL AAAI BUSINESS MEETING in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

2:00-3:10 THE GREAT DEBATE: METHODOLOGIES FOR AI RESEARCH
          John McCarthy, Stanford vs. Roger Schank, Yale
				 	
in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER


3:10-3:30 BREAK

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION AND PROBLEM SOLVING SESSION III
>------------------------------------------------------

3:30-3:50 PROVING THE CORRECTNESS OF DIGITAL HARDWARE DESIGNS
          Harry G. Barrow, Fairchild AI Laboratory

3:50-4:10 A CHESS PROGRAM THAT CHUNKS Murray Campbell & Hans Berliner, CMU

4:10-4:30 THE DECOMPOSITION OF A LARGE DOMAIN: REASONING ABOUT MACHINES
          Craig Stanfill, Maryland

4:30-4:50 REASONING ABOUT STATE FROM CAUSATION AND TIME IN A MEDICAL DOMAIN
          William Long, MIT

4:50-5:10 THE USE OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SIMULATIONS Reid Simmons, MIT

5:10-5:30 AN AUTOMATIC ALGORITHM DESIGNER: AN INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION
          Elaine Kant and Allen Newell, CMU

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EAST

LEARNING SESSION II
___________________

3:30-3:50 WHY AM AND EURISKO APPEAR TO WORK?
          Douglas Lenat, Stanford, John Seely Brown, Xerox PARC

3:50-4:10 LEARNING PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS, EXAMPLES,
          AND PRECEDENTS Patrick Winston & Boris Katz, MIT, Thomas Binford &
          Michael Lowry, Stanford

4:10-4:30 A PROBLEM-SOLVER FOR MAKING ADVICE OPERATIONAL Jack Mostow, USC/ISI

4:30-4:50 GENERATING HYPOTHESES TO EXPLAIN PREDICTION FAILURES
          Steven Salzberg, Yale

4:50-5:10 LEARNING BY RE-EXPRESSING CONCEPTS FOR EFFICIENT RECOGNITION
          Richard Keller, Rutgers

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM WEST

EXPERT SYSTEMS SESSION II
_________________________

3:30-3:50 DIAGNOSIS VIA CAUSAL REASONING: PATHS OF INTERACTION AND THE
          LOCALITY PRINCIPLE Randall Davis, MIT

3:50-4:10 A NEW INFERENCE METHOD FOR FRAME-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS
          James Reggia, Dana Nau, Pearl Wang, Maryland

4:10-4:30 ANALYSIS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR USING A CAUSAL MODLE BASED ON
          FIRST PRINCIPLES John C. Kunz, Stanford

4:30-4:50 AN INTELLIGENT AID FOR CIRCUIT REDESIGN Tom Mitchell, Louis
          Steinberg, Smadar Kedar-Cabelli, Van Kelly, Jeffrey Shulman,
          Timothy Weinrich, Rutgers

4:50-5:10 TALIB: AN IC LAYOUT DESIGN ASSISTANT Jin Kim and John McDermott, CMU

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

FRIDAY, AUGUST 26
_________________

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION & PROBLEM SOLVING SESSION IV
>-----------------------------------------------------

9:00-9:20 ON INHERITANCE HIERARCHIES WITH EXCEPTIONS David W. Etherington,
          University of British Columbia, Raymond Reiter, UBC and Rutgers

9:20-9:40 DEFAULT REASONING AS LIKELIHOOD REASONING Elaine Rich, Texas

9:40-10:00 DEFAULT REASONING USING MONOTONIC LOGIC: A MODEST PROPOSAL
           Jane Terry Nutter, Tulane

10:00-10:20 A THEOREM-PROVER FOR A DETECTABLE SUBSET OF DEFAULT LOGIC
            Philippe Besnard, Rene Quiniou,&Patrice Quinton, IRISA-INRIA Rennes

10:20-10:40 DERIVATIONAL ANALOGY AND ITS ROLE IN PROBLEM SOLVING
            Jaime Carbonell, CMU

in the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM CENTER

COGNITIVE MODELLING SESSION II
>-----------------------------
-END-
:00-9:20 STRATEGIST: A PROGRAM THAT MODELS STRATEGY-DRIVEN AND CONTENT-DRIVEN
      INFERENCE BEHAVIOR Richard Granger, Jennier Holbrook, and          Kurt
Eiselt, California-Irvine9:20-9:40 LEARNING OPERATOR SEMANTICS BY ANALOGYSarah
Douglas, Stanford  Xerox PARC, Thomas Moran, Xerox PARC9:40-10:00 AN ANALYSIS OF
A WELFARE ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION INTERVIEW:            A PLANNNG APPROACH
	Eswaran Subrahmanian, CMUin the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM EASTVISION AND ROBOTICS
SESSION II------------------------------9:00-9:20 THE PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION AS
BASIS FOR VISUAL RECOGNITION          David Lowe and Thomas Binford,
Stanford9:20-9:0 MODEL BASED INTERPRETATION OF RANGE IMAGERY          Darwin
Kuan and Robert Drazovich, AI&DS		9:40-10:00 A DESIGN METHOD FOR RLAXATION
LABELING APPLICATIONS A PRODUCTION RULE SYSTEMS MEETS OBJECTS
Elizabeth llen, Marylann the INTERNATIONAL BALLROOM
WEST------------------------------
-VOL-
1

-N-
26
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 83 20:20:09-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-83 sched. avail. on USENet
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1828

I have a somewhat compressed, but still large (18052 ch.), on-line
version of the AAAI-83 schedule that I'm willing to mail to USENet
people on request.
   peter rowley, U. Toronto CSRG
   {cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr
 or {cwruecmp,duke,linus,lsuc,research}!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 83 10:34:11-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!hcr!ravi @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Room-mates wanted for AAAI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hcr.451

A friend (Mike Rutenberg) and I are going to AAAI at the end of
August.  We'd like to find a couple of people to share a room with --
both to meet interesting people and to save some money.  If you're
interested, please let me know by mail.

Also, if you have any other useful hints (like cheap transportation
from Ontario or better places to stay than the Hilton), please drop me
a line.

Thanks for your help.
        --ravi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 1983 0727-CDT
-FROM-
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Info for kids
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 BBoard.]

I received a letter from an 8th grader in Houston who wants to do a
science fair project on Artificial Intelligence.

        "...I plan to explain and demonstrate this topic with
         my computer and a program I made on it concerning this
         topic.  Any information you could send for my research
         would be appreciated."

If anybody knows of any source of AI information suitable for Jr. High
School level (good magazine articles written for the layman, etc.)
please let me know.  I have come across such stuff every so often, but
I'm having trouble remembering where.

Thanks,

Clive

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jul 83 16:30:27-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!zenon @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Preparing Govmt report on Canadian AI research
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1823

A consortium of 4 groups has been awarded a contract by the Secretary
of State to prepare a report on what Canada ought to be doing to
support R & D in artificial intelligence in the next 5-10 years.  The
groups are Quasar Systems of Ottawa, Nordicity Group of Toronto,
Socioscope of Ottawa, and a group of academic AI people (Pylyshyn,
Mackworth, Skuce, Kittredge, Isabel, with consultants Tsotso,
Mylopoulos, Zucker, Cercone).  Because the client's primary interest
is in language (esp. translation) the report will concentrate on that
aspect, though we plan to cover all of AI on the grounds that it's all
of a piece.  The contract period is July-Dec 1983.  I am coordinating
the technical part of the report.

We are seeking input from all interested parties.  I will be touring
Canada, probably in September, and would like to talk to anyone who
has an AI lab and some ideas about where Canada ought to focus.  I am
especially eager to receive input from, and information about,
what's happening in Canadian industry.

I welcome all suggestions and invitations.  This is the first AI study
commissioned by a federal agency on AI and we should take this as an
opportunity to give them a good cross-section of views.

Zenon Pylyshyn, Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A 5C2.  (519)-679-2461

utcsrgv!zenon or on the ARPANET Pylyshyn@CMU-CS-C

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Jul 83 09:32:16-EDT
-FROM-
From: MASON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: definition of robot
-BODY-
I think the definition of robot is a little too broad.  I've long been
reconciled to definitions which include, for instance,
cam-programmable sewing machines, but this new definition even
includes pistols.  (An input signal, trigger pressure, is processed
mechanically to actuate a mechanical device, the bullet.)  Of course,
if the NRA decided to lobby for robots ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Jul 83 09:22:54-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definitions
-BODY-
Here are a few definitions taken from a Teknowledge/CEI ad:

  Artificial Intelligence
    That subfield of Computer Science which is concerned with
    symbolic reasoning and problem solving by computer.

  Knowledge Engineering
    The engineering discipline whereby knowledge is integrated
    into computer systems in order to solve complex problems
    normally required [sic] in a high level of human expertise.

  Knowledge/Expert Systems
    Computer systems that embody knowledge including inexact,
    heuristic and subjective knowledge; the results of knowledge
    engineering.

  Knowledge Representation
    A formalism for representing facts and rules about a subject
    or specialty.

  Knowledge Base
    A base of information encoded in a knowledge representation
    for a particular application.

  Inference Technique
    A methodology for reasoning about information in knowledge
    representation [sic] and drawing conclusions from that knowledge.

  Task Domains
    Application areas for knowledge systems such as analysis of
    oil well drilling problems or identification of computer
    system failures.

  Heuristics
    The informal, judgmental knowledge of an application area
    that constitutes the ``rules of good judgement'' in the field.
    Heuristics also encompass the knowledge of how to solve problems
    efficiently and effectively, how to plan steps in solving
    a complex problem, how to improve performance, and so forth.

  Production Rules
    A widely-used knowledge representation in which knowledge
    is formalized into ``rules'' containing an ``IF'' part and
    a ``THEN'' part (also called a condition and an action).
    The knowledge represented by the production rule is applicable
    to a line of reasoning if the IF part of the rule is satisfied:
    consequently, the THEN part can be concluded or its
    problem-solving action taken.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 83 1:41:35-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expectations of expert system technology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1824

>From a recent headhunting flyer sent to some AAAI members:

"We have been retained by a major Financial Institution, located in
New York City.  They are interested in building the support staff for
their money market traders and are looking for qualified candidates
for the following positions:

    A Senior AI Researcher who has experience in knowledge rep'n
    and expert systems.  The ideal candidate would have a
    graduate degree in CS - AI with a Psychology (particularly
    cognitive processes), Cultural Anthropology, or comparable
    background.  This person will start by being a consultant in
    Human Factors and would interact between the Traders and the
    Systems they use.  Two new Xerox 1100 computers have been
    purchased and experience in LISP programming is necessary
    (with INTERLISP-D preferred).  This person will have their
    own personal LISP machine.  The goal of this position will
    be to analyze how Traders think and to build trading support
    (expert) systems geared to the individual Trader's style."

Two other job descriptions are given for the same project, for an
economist and an MBA with CS (database, communications, and systems)
and Operations Research background.

The fact that the co. would buy the 1100's without consulting their
future user and the tone of the description prompts me to wonder if
the co. is treating expert system technology as an engineering
discipline which can produce results in a relatively short order
rather than the experimental field it appears to be.  Particularly
troubling is the problem domain for this system--I would expect such
traders to make extensive use of knowledge about politics and economic
policy on a number of levels, not easy knowledge to represent.

I'm not an expert systems builder by any means and may be
underestimating the technology...  does anyone think this co. is not
expecting too much?  (Replies to the net, please)

[The company should definitely get copies of

  J.L. Stansfield, COMEX: A Support System for a Commodities Analyst,
  MIT AIM-423, July 1977.

  J.L. Stansfield, Conclusions from the Commodity Expert Project,
  MIT AIM-601, (AD-A097-854), Nov. 1980.

The latter, I hear, documents the author's experience with large,
incomplete databases of unreliable facts about a complex world.
It must be one of the few examples of an academic research project
that could not claim success.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Jul 83 02:45:51-EDT
-FROM-
From: Chip Maguire <Maguire@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Portable and More Efficient Lisps
-BODY-
        What I wish to generate is a discussion of what are the
features of LISP@-[n] which provide a nice/efficient/(other standard
virtues) environment for computer aided intellectual tasks (such as
AI, CAD, etc.).
        For example, quite a lot of the work that I have been involved
with recently required that from with a LISP environment that I
generate line drawings to represent: data structures, binding
environments for a multi-processor simulator, or even as a graphical
syntax for programming.  Thus, I would like to have 1) reasonable
support (in terms of packages of routines) for textual labels and line
drawings; and 2) this same package available irrespective of which
machine I happen to be using at the time [within the limits of the
hardware available].

        What other examples of common utilities are emerging as
"expected" `primitives'?  Chip

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 83 15:58:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Slade <Slade@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Portable and More Efficient Lisps
-BODY-
Chip Maguire took violent exception to the claim that T, a version of
Scheme implemented at Yale, is "more efficient and portable" compared
to other Lisp implementations.  He then listed the numerous machines
on which PSL, developed at Utah, now runs.

The problem in this case is one of operator precedence:  "more" has
higher precedence than "and".  Thus, T is both portable AND more
efficient.  These two features are intertwined in the language design
and implementation through the use of lexical scoping and an
optimizing compiler which performs numerous source-to-source
optimizations.  Many of the compiler operations that depend on the
specific target machine are table driven.  For example, the register
allocation scheme clearly depends on the number and type of registers
available.  The actual code generator is certainly machine dependent,
but does not comprise a large portion of the compiler.  The compiler
is written largely in T, simplifying the task of porting the compiler
itself.

For PSL, portability was a major implementation goal.  For T,
portability became a byproduct of the language and compiler design.  A
central goal of T has been to provide a clean, elegant, and efficient
LISP.  The T implementers strove to achieve compatibility not only
among different machines, but also between the interpreted and
compiled code -- often a source of problems in other Lisps.  So far, T
has been implemented for the M68000 (Apollo/Domain), VAX/UNIX, and
VAX/VMS.  There are plans for other machine implementations, as well
as enhancements of the elegance and efficiency of the language itself.

People at Yale have been using T for the past several years now.
Applications have included an extensible text editor with inductive
inference capability (editing by example), a hierarchical digital
circuit graphics editor and simulator, and numerous large AI programs.
T is also being used in a great many undergraduate courses both at
Yale and elsewhere.

I believe that PSL and Standard LISP have been very worthwhile
endeavors and have bestowed the salutary light of LISP on many
machines that had theretofore languished in the lispless darkness of
algebraic languages.  T, though virtuous in design and virtual in
implementation, does not address the FORTRAN-heathen, but rather seeks
to uplift the converted and provide comfort to those true-believers
who know, in their heart of hearts, that LISP can embrace both
elegance and efficiency.  Should this credo also facilitate
portability, well, praise the Lord.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 83 11:41:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisp Portability
-BODY-
    Date: Tue 19 Jul 83 15:24:00-EDT
    From: Chip Maguire <Maguire@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
    Subject: Lisp Portability

    [...]

    So lets hear more about the good ideas in T and fewer nebulous
    comments like:  "more efficient and portable".

I can give my experience working on a display text editor, U, written
in T. (U's original author is Bob Nix.)  U is 10000+ lines of T code.
Notable U features are a "do what I did" editing by example system, an
"infinite" undo facility, and a Laurel (or Babyl) -like mail system.
U runs well on the Apollo and almost well on VAX/VMS. U runs on
VAX/Unix as well as can be expected for a week's worth of work.
Porting U went well:  the bulk of U did not have to be changed.

> - - - -

Notable features of T:

    - T, like Scheme (from which T is derived) supports closures (procedures
      are first-class data objects).  Closures are implemented efficiently
      enough so that they are used pervasively in the implementation of the
      T system itself.

    - Variables are lexically-scoped; variables from enclosing scopes can
      be accessed from closed procedures.

    - T supports an object-oriented programming style that does not conflict
      with the functional nature of Lisp. Operations (like Smalltalk messages)
      can be treated as functions; e.g. they can be used with the MAP
      functions.

    - Compiled and interpreted T behave identically.

    - T has fully-integrated support for multiple namespaces so software
      written by different people can be combined without worrying about
      name conflicts.

    - The T implementors (Jonathan Rees and Norman Adams) have not felt
      constrained to hold on to some of the less modern aspects of older
      Lisps (e.g. hunks and irrational function names).

    - T is less of a bag of bits than other Lisps. T has a language definition
      and a philosophy.  One feels that one understands all of T after reading
      the manual.  The T implementors have resisted adding arbitrary features
      that do not fit with the philosophy.

    - Other features:  inline procedure expansion, procedures accept arbitrary
      numbers of parameters ("lexpr's" or "&rest-args"), interrupt processing.

All these aspects of T have proved to be very useful.

> - - - -

    The predecessor system "Standard LISP" along with the REDUCE
    symbolic algebra system ran on the following machines (as October
    1979):  Amdahl:  470V/6; CDC: 640, 6600, 7600, Cyber 76; Burroughs:
    B6700, B7700; DEC: PDP-10, DECsystem-10, DECsystem-20; CEMA: ES
    1040; Fujitsu:  FACOM M-190; Hitachi:  MITAC M-160, M-180;
    Honneywell:  66/60; Honeywell-Bull:  1642; IBM: 360/44, 360/67,
    360/75, 360/91, 370/155, 370/158, 370/165, 370/168, 3033, 370/195;
    ITEL: AS-6; Siemens:  4004; Telefunken:  TR 440; and UNIVAC: 1108,
    1110.

Hmm. Was the 370/168 implementation significantly different from the
370/158 implementation?  Also, aren't some of those Japanese machines
"360s".  When listing implementations, let's do it in terms of
architectures and operating systems.

While it may be the case that PSL is more portable than T, T does
presently run on the Apollo, VAX/VMS and VAX/Unix. Implementations for
other architectures are being considered.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
27
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 1983 0937-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Multiple producers in a production system
-BODY-
(speculation/question)

Has anyone heard of multiple "producers" in production systems?  What
I mean is:  should the STM contain (a b c) and there is a rule (a b)
>> (d) and another (b c) -> (e), would it be useful to somehow do BOTH
productions?  The PS could become two PS's, one with (d c) and another
with (e a) in STM.  This sort of a PS could be useful in fuzzy areas
of knowledge where the same implicants could (due to lack of other
implicants, or due to lack of understanding) imply more than one
result.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Jul 83 23:14:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: WALLACE <N.WALLACE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PROLONG
-BODY-
        PROLONG:  A VERY SLOW LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

                          ABSTRACT

PROLONG was developed at the University of Heiroglyphia over a 22-year
period.  PROLONG is an implementation of a very well-known technique
for deciding whether a given well-formed formula F of first-order
logic is a theorem.  We first type in the axioms A of our system.
Then PROLONG applies the rules of inference successively to the axioms
A and the subsequent theorems we derive from A.  A matching routine
determines whether F is identical to one of these theorems.  If the
algorithm stops, we know that F is a theorem.  If it never stops, we
known that F is not.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 1983 0942-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HFELISP
-BODY-

        HFELISP (Heffer Lisp) HUMAN FACTOR ENGINEERED LISP

                                ABSTRACT

  HFE sugests that the more complicated features of (common) Lisp are
dangerous, and hard to understand.  As a result a number of Fortran,
Cobol, and 370 assembler programmers got together with a housewife.
They pared Lisp down to, what we belive to be, a much simpler and more
understandable system.  The system includes only the primitives CONS,
READ, and PRINT.  However CONS was restricted to only take an atom for
the first argument, and a onelevel list for the second.  Since all
lists are onelevel they also did away with parenthesis.  All the
primitives were coded in ADA and this new lisp is being considered as
the DOD's AI language.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 83 15:39:24-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!rocky2!flipkin @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Getting Started in AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocky2.103

Can someone point me to a good place to begin with AI? I find the
subject fascinating (as does my EECS girlfriend), and I would
appreciate some help getting started. Thanks in advance,
                Dennis Moore

(reply via mail please, unless you think it is of great interest
to the net)

[I think it is of great interest!  I recommend the AI Handbook for a
general overview.  I am still looking for a good intro to Lisp and the
programming conventions needed to produce interesting Lisp programs.
(Winston and Horn is a reasonable introduction, and Charniak,
Riesbeck, and McDermott has a lot of good material.  The Little Lisper
is a good introduction to recursive programming if you can stand the
"programmed text" question-and-answer presentation.)
>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 1983 0833-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Translation
-BODY-
        This lisp debate seems to be turning into a freeforall.
Slanderous remarks are unnecessary. The fact is that once you get used
to something, the momentum of keeping with it is often more powerful
than any advantages attainable by changing from it. Perhaps functions
like transor from Interlisp could be extended by some of the AI
researchers to provide real translations from lisp to lisp. This way,
you could develop your programs in the lisp of your choice and run
them in the most efficient lisp available on any given machine. With
all the work that has been done on human translations and the extreme
complexity thereof, it would seem a practical and only extremely
ambitious (as opposed to down right unrealistic) project to develop a
translator between lisps. Think of it like translating between a New
Yorker and a Bostonian and a Texan, all talking breeds of English. If
the energy spent on developing new lisps and arguing about their
superiorities were spent in the lisp translation area, we might have
it done by now.
                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 83 18:11:37-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expectations of expert system technology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.345

Expert systems technology is an experimental field whose basic
concepts have been fairly well established in the past few years.
Since it is really an engineering field (knowledge engineering) much
of the important research is carried on by attempting to develop a
specific application and seeing what sorts of problems and solutions
crop up.  This is true for MYCIN, R1, PROSPECTOR, and many other
expert systems.  Our Expert Systems Technology group at Boeing has
been developing a prototype flight route planner.  It has provided a
good test bed for more theoretical work on the kinds of tools and
capabilities needed for knowledge engineering (although as a planner,
it may never be fully functional).  Our application is sufficiently
difficult that it is quite experimental, however a simple expert
system is not particularly difficult to put together, if some of the
existing and available tools are used.  Needless to say, many sweeping
generalizations and unjustified assumptions (read: gross hacks) must
be made, in order to simplify the problem to a point where an expert
system can be built.  The resulting expert system, although perhaps
not much more capable than a good C program, will be much smaller and
more transparent in structure than any ordinary program.

The ad in question may or may not be reasonable.  I don't know enough
about finance to say whether the knowledge in that domain can be
easily encoded.  However, if the company's expectations are not too
high, they may end up with a reasonable tool, one that will be just as
good as if some C wizard had spent a year of sleepless nights
reinventing the AI wheels.

Stan ("the Leprechaun Hacker") Shebs
Boeing Aerospace Co.
ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 83 10:50:26-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!hcr!ravi @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Fifth Generation Computer Project
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hcr.455

Has anyone out there had any contact with the Japanese Institute for
New Generation Computer Technology (which is running the Fifth
Generation Computer Project)?  Since the the first rush of publicity
when the project was initiated, things have been fairly quiet (except
for the somewhat superficial book by Feigenbaum and a few papers in
symposia), and it's a bit hard to find out just how the project is
progressing.  I am especially interested in talking to people who have
visited INGCT recently and have met with the people directly involved
in the project.  Thanks!
        --ravi

        {linus, floyd, allegra, ihnp4} ! utzoo ! hcr ! hcrvax ! ravi
OR
        decvax ! hcr ! hcrvax ! ravi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 83 08:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The military and AI
-BODY-
Food for thought:


  Date: 26 Jul 83 12:05:02 PDT (Tuesday)
  From: McCullough.PA
  Subject: The military and AI
  To: antiwar^

  From "The Race to Build a Supercomputer" in Newsweek, July 4, 1983...

  [Robert Kahn, mentioned below, is DARPA's computer director]


'Once they are in place, these technlogies will make possible an
astonishing new breed of weapons and military hardware.  Smart robot
weapons--drone aircraft, unmanned submarines and land vehicles--that
combine aritificial intelligence and high-powered computing can be
sent off to do jobs that now involve human risk.  "This is a sexy area
to the military, because you can imagine all kinds of neat,
interesting things you could send off on their own little missions
around the world or even in local combat," says Kahn.  The Pentagon
will also use the technologies to create artificial-intelligence
machines that can be used as battlefield advisers and superintelligent
computers to coordinate complex weapons systems.  An intelligent
missile-guidance system would have to bring together different
technologies--real-time signal processing, numerical calculations and
symbolic processing, all at unimaginably high speeds--in order to make
decisions and give advice to human commanders.'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 1983 16:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: greiner@Diablo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Koans
-BODY-
[This has appeared on several BBoards thanks to Gabriel Robins, Rich
Welty, Drew McDermott, Margot Flowers, and no doubt others.  I have
no idea what it is about, but pass it on for your doubtful
enlightenment.  -- KIL]


AI Koans: (by Danny)

  A novice was trying to fix a broken lisp machine by turning the
power off and on.  Knight, seeing what the student was doing spoke
sternly- "You can not fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no
understanding of what is going wrong."
  Knight turned the machine off and on.
  The machine worked.

>       -       -       -       -

One day a student came to Moon and said, "I understand how to make a
better garbage collector.  We must keep a reference count of the
pointers to each cons." Moon patiently told the student the following
story-

  "One day a student came to Moon and said, "I understand how to
  make a better garbage collector...


>       -       -       -       -

  In the days when Sussman was a novice Minsky once came to him as he
sat hacking at the PDP-6.  "What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
  "I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-Tac-Toe."
  "Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
  "I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play"
  Minsky shut his eyes,
  "Why do you close your eyes?", Sussman asked his teacher.
  "So the room will be empty."
  At that momment, Sussman was enlightened.


>       -       -       -       -

A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to
Greenblatt.  As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by.  "Is it
true", asked the student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types
as Lisp".  Almost before the student had finished his question,
Greenblatt shouted, "FOO!", and hit the student with a stick.


>       -       -       -       -

A disciple of another sect once came to Drescher as he was eating his
morning meal.  "I would like to give you this personality test", said
the outsider,"because I want you to be happy." Drescher took the
paper that was offered him and put it into the toaster- "I wish the
toaster to be happy too".


>       -       -       -       -
(by who?)

A man from AI walked across the mountains to SAIL to see the Master,
Knuth.  When he arrived, the Master was nowhere to be found.

        "Where is the wise one named Knuth?" he asked a passing
student.

        "Ah," said the student, "you have not heard. He has gone on a
pilgrimage across the mountains to the temple of AI to seek out new
disciples."

Hearing this, the man was Enlightened.

>       -       -       -       -


And, of course, my own contribution:


A famous Lisp Hacker noticed an Undergraduate sitting in front of a
Xerox 1108, trying to edit a complex Klone network via a browser.
Wanting to help, the Hacker clicked one of the nodes in the network
with the mouse, and asked "what do you see?"
Very earnesty, the Undergraduate replied "I see a cursor."
The Hacker then quickly pressed the boot toggle at the back of the
keyboard, while simultaneously hitting the Undergraduate over the
head with a thick Interlisp Manual.  The Undergraduate was then
Enlightened.


         - Gabriel [Robins@ISIF]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 83 14:10:41 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 7/28
-BODY-

                Professor Gio Wiederhold
                Department of Computer Science
                Stanford University

                Knowledge in Databases


We define knowledge-based approaches to database problems.

Using a clarification of application levels from the enterprise to the
system levels, we give examples of the varieties of knowledge which
can be used.  Most of the examples are drawn from work at the KBMS
project at Stanford.

The object of the presentation is to illustrate the power, and also
the high payoff of quite straightforward artificial intelligence
applications in databases.  Implementation choices will also be
evaluated.


        Thursday, July 28, 1983 4:00 pm

        5M Conference room
        HP Stanford Park Labs
        1501 Page Mill Rd
        Palo Alto

        *** Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby ON TIME, so that
you may be escorted to the conference room

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
28
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 83 11:52:01-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: teklabs!jima @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: USENET and AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: teklabs.2247

In response to [a Usenet] query about AI research going on at USENET
sites:

The Tektronix Computer Research Lab now has a Knowledge-Based Systems
group. We are a <very> new group and are still staffing up.  We're
looking into circuit trouble shooting as well as numerous other topics
of interest.

Jim Alexander
Usenet: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,ihnss,chico}!teklabs!jima
CSnet:  jima@tek
ARPA:   jima.tek@rand-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Jul 83 21:29:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ira Kalet <IRA@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and the military
-BODY-
The possibilities of AI in unmanned weapons systems are wonderful!
Now we could send all the weapons, and their delivery vehicles to the
moon (or beyond) where they can fight our war for us without anyone
getting hurt and no property damage.  That would be progress!  If only
the decision makers valued us humans more than their toys..........

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 83 18:38:58 PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Fifth Generation Computer Project
-BODY-
In case some of you are not on every junk mailing list known to man
the way I am, there is a new international English-language journal
with an all-Japanese editorial board called "New Generation
Computing", published by Springer-Verlag, Journal Fulfillment Dept.,
44 Hartz Way, Secaucus, NJ 07094.  The price is even more outrageous
than the stuff published by North Holland:  vol.1 (2 issues) 1983,
$52; vol.2 (4 issues) 1984, $104.

Can anybody explain why so much AI literature (even by US authors) is
published by foreign publishers at outrageous prices?  I should have
thought some US univerity press would get smart and get into the act
in a bigger way.  Lawrence Erlbaum seems to be doing a creditable job
in Cognitive Science, but that's just one corner of AI.

>-Bruce

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jul 1983 0838-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisp Books, Nondeterminism, Japanese Effort
-BODY-
Lots of things to talk about today, A good lisp book for the beginner:
The LISP 1.6 Primer. It really explains what's going down, and even
has exercises with answers. It is not specific to any particular lisp
of today (since it is quite old) and therefore gives the general
knowledge necessary to use any lisp (with a little help from the
manual).

Nondeterministic production systems: Lots of work has been done. The
fact is that a production system is built under the assumption that
there is a single global database. The tree version of a production
system doesn't meet this requirement. On the other hand, there are
many models of what you speak of.  The Petri-net model treats such
things nondeterministically by selecting one or the other (assuming
their results prevent each other from occuring) seemingly at random.
Of course, unless you have a real parallel processor the results you
get will be deterministic. I refer you to any good book on Petri-nets
(Peterson is pretty good). Tree structured algorithms in general have
this property, therefore any breadth-first search will try to do both
forks of the tree at once. Other examples of theorem provers doing
this are relatively common (not to mention most multiprocess operating
systems based on forks).

%th generation computers: There is a lot of work on the same basic
idea as 5th generation computers (a 5th generation computer by any
other name sounds better). From what I have been able to gather from
reading all the info from ICOT (the Japanese project directorate) they
are trying to do the project by getting foreign experts to come and
tell them how. They anounce their project, say they're going to lead
the world, and wait for the egos of other scientists to bring them
there to show them how to really do it. The papers I've read show a
few good researchers with real good ideas but little in the way of
knowing how to get them working. On the other hand, data flow, speech
understanding, systolic arrays, microcomputer interfaces to
'supercomputers' and high BW communications are all operational to
some degree in the US, and are being improved on a daily basis. I
would therefore say that unless we show them how, we will be the
leaders in this field, not they.

***The last article was strictly my opinion-- no reflection on anyone
else***

                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 83 11:34:17 CDT
-FROM-
From: Paul.Milazzo <milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Automated LISP Dialect Translation
-BODY-
When Rice University got its first VAX, a friend of mine and I set
about porting a production system based game playing program to Franz
Lisp from Cambridge Lisp running on an IBM 370.  We used, as I recall,
a combination of Emacs macros (to change lexical constructs) and a
LISP program (to translate program constructs).  The technique was not
an elegant one, nor was it particularly general, but it gives me good
reason to think that the LISP translator Fred proposes is far from
impossible.  It also points out that implementation superiority is not
the only reason for choosing one LISP over another.

                                Paul Milazzo <milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay>
                                Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
                                Rice University, Houston, TX

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
P.S.  Fred:  After living in Texas for eight years, I'm still not
      sure I could interpret a Texan's remarks for a New Yorker.
      The dialect is easy to understand, but the concepts are all
      different...
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jul 1983 1352-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: data flow computers and PS's
-BODY-
(more speculation)

 There has been some developement of computers suited to certain  high
level languages, includeing  the LISP machines.   There has also  been
some research  into non-Von  Neuman machines.   One  such  machine  is
the Data Flow Machine.

  The data flow machine differs from the conventional computer in that
ALL  instructions  are  initiated  when  the  program  starts.    Each
instruction waits  for  the  calculations yeilding  its  arguments  to
finish before it finishes.

  This machine seems,  to  me,  to be  ideally  suited  to  Production
Systems/Expert Systems.   Each  rule would  be  represented as  a  few
instructions (the IF part of the  production) and the THEN part  would
be represented by the completion of  the rule.  For example, the  rule
(Month-is-june AND Sun-is-up) ->  (Temperature-is-high) would be coded
as:

Temperature-is-high:    AND
                       /   \
                     /       \
                   /           \
          (Month-is-june)   (Sun-is-up)

  Where (Month-is-june) and (Sun-is-up) are represented as either
other rules, or as data (which I assume completes instantly).

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Jul 83 16:06:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: David E.T. Foulser <FOULSER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Repeated Substring Detection
-BODY-
Would anyone in AI have use for the following type of program?  Given
a k-dimensional (the lower k the better) input string of characters
from a finite alphabet, the program finds all substrings of dimension
k (or less if necessary) that occur more than once in the input
string.  I don't have a program that does this, but would like to know
of any interest.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Dave Foulser

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 1983 1617-PDT
-FROM-
From: Park
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A.I. in Sci Fi
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the SRI BBoard.]

Do you have a favorite gripe about the way scientists, computers,
robots, or artificial intelligence are portrayed on tv shows?  Send
them to me and I will forward them on Monday August 1 to an
honest-to-God tv-show writer who is going to write that kind of show
soon and would like to do it right.

Bill Park, EJ239 SRI International 333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park,
CA 94025

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Jul 83 12:24:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A.I. in Sci Fi
-BODY-
Gripes?  You mean things like:

  Hawaii 5-0 always using the card sorter as the epitome
  of computer readout?

  Stepford Wives portraying androids so realistic that no one
  notices, and executives/scientists who prefer them to true
  companions?

  Demon Seed showing impregnation of a woman by a computer?

  Telephon slowing down CRT typeout to 150 baud and adding
  Teletype sound effects?

  War Games similarly slowing the CRT typeout; using
  natural language communication; using voice synthesis
  on a home terminal connected by modem to a military computer;
  postulating that our national defense is in the hands of
  unsecured computers with dial-up ports, faulty password
  systems, games directories, and big panels of flashing lights;
  and portraying scientists and generals as nerds?

  Star Wars suggesting that computerized targeting mechanisms
  will always be inferior to human reflexes?

  Tron's premise that a computer can suck you into its internal
  conceptual world?

  Star Trek and War Games preaching that any computer can be
  disabled, even melted, by a logical contradiction or an
  unsatisfiable task?

Nah, I don't mind.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
29
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jul 83 1631 EDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Craig.Everhart@CMU-CS-A
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Robustness@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robustness stories, program logs wanted; reprise
-BODY-
Response to the blinded Robustness mailbox has been good, but not
quite good enough to do the trick.  If you have a robustness-related
story or a change log for a program, wouldn't you consider sending it
to my collection?  Thanks very much!

What I need is 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 used to validate 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.
All stories will be properly credited in the thesis.

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!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 27-Jul-83  17:34:36-BST
-FROM-
From: DAVE     FHL (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bowen@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bowen%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Job Ad: Research Fellowships at Edinburgh AI
-BODY-
>-------

                            University of Edinburgh
                     Department of Artificial Intelligence

                              2 RESEARCH FELLOWS

                               (readvertisement)

Applications are invited for two Research Fellow posts to join a
project, funded by the Science and Engineering Research Council, which
is concerned with developing methods of modelling the user of
knowledge-based training and aid systems.  Candidates, who should have
a higher degree in Computer Science, Mathematics, Experimental
Psychology or related discipline, should be experienced programmers
and familiar with UNIX.  Experience of PROLOG or LISP and some
knowledge of IKBS (Intelligent Knowledge Based Systems) techniques
would be an advantage.

The posts are tenable for three years, starting 1 October 1983, on the
salary scale 7190 - 11160 pounds sterling.

Applications, which should include a curriculum vitae and the names of
two referees, should be sent to

            The Secretary's Office
            Old College
            South Bridge
            Edinburgh EH8 9YL
            Great Britain

(from whom further particulars can be obtained) by 27 August 1983.
Please quote reference 5106.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 27-Jul-83  17:38:47-BST
-FROM-
From: DAVE     FHL (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bowen@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bowen%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Job Ad: Research Associate/Programmer at Edinburgh AI
-BODY-
>-------

                            University of Edinburgh
                     Department of Artificial Intelligence

                         RESEARCH ASSOCIATE/PROGRAMMER

Applications are invited for a post of Research Associate/Programmer,
to join a project, led by Dr Jim Howe and funded by the Science and
Engineering Research Council, which is concerned with the
interpretation of sonar data in a 3-D marine environment.  Candidates,
who should have a degree in Computer Science, Mathematics or related
discipline, should be conversant with the UNIX programming environment
and fluent in the C language.  The work involves programming
applications of statistical estimation, 3-D motion representation, and
rule-based inference; experience in one or more of these areas would
be an advantage.

The post is tenable for three years, starting 1 October 1983, on the
salary scale 6310 - 7190 pounds sterling.

Applications, which should include a curriculum vitae and the names of
two referees, should be sent to

            The Secretary's Office
            Old College
            South Bridge
            Edinburgh EH8 9YL
            Great Britain

(from whom further particulars can be obtained) by 27 August 1983.
Please quote reference 5107.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 27-Jul-83  17:32:58-BST
-FROM-
From: DAVE     FHL (on ERCC DEC-10)  <bowen@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bowen%edxa%ucl-cs@isid
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Job Ad: Computing Officer at Edinburgh AI
-BODY-
>-------

                            University of Edinburgh
                     Department of Artificial Intelligence

                        DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTING OFFICER

Applications are invited for a post of Departmental Computing Officer.
The successful applicant will lead a small group which is responsible
for creating, maintaining and documenting systems and application
software as needed for research and teaching in Artificial
Intelligence, and for managing the department's computing systems
which run under Berkeley UNIX.  Candidates, who should have a degree
in Computer Science or related discipline, should be conversant with
UNIX and fluent in the C language..  A background in compiler design
or an interest in A.I. would be advantageous.

The post is salaried on the scale 7190 - 11615 pounds sterling, with
placement according to age and experience.

Applications, which should include a curriculum vitae and the names of
two referees, should be sent to

            The Secretary's Office
            Old College
            South Bridge
            Edinburgh EH8 9YL
            Great Britain

(from whom further particulars can be obtained) by 27 August 1983.
Please quote reference 7033.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
30
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Jul 83 15:53:59-PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Translators
-BODY-
[...]

        There has been some discussion about Lisp translation programs
the last couple of days. Another one to add to the list is that
developed by Gord Novak at Sumex for translating Interlisp into Franz,
Maclisp, UCILisp, and Portable Standard Lisp. I suspect Gord would
have a pretty good idea about what else is available, as this seems to
be an area of interest of his.

                                Mike Walker

[Another resource might be the set of macros that Rodney Brooks
developed to run his Maclisp ACRONYM system under Franz Lisp.
The Image Understanding Testbed at SRI uses this package.
>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jul 1983 07:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Geoff@SRI-CSL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM Epistle.
-BODY-

    TECHNOLOGY MEMO
    By Dan Rosenheim
    (c) 1983 Chicago Sun-Times (Independent Press Service)
    IBM is experimenting with an artificial intelligence program that
may lead to machine recognition of social class, according to a
research report from International Resource Development.
    According to the market research firm, the IBM program can
evaluate the style of a letter, document or memo and can criticize the
writing style, syntax and construction.
    The program is called EPISTLE (Evaluation, Preparation and
Interpretation System for Text and Language Entities).
    Although IBM's immediate application for this technology is to
highlight ''inappropriate style'' in documents being prepared by
managers, IRD researchers see the program being applied to determine
social origins, politeness and even general character.
     Like Bernard Shaw's Professor Higgins, the system will detect
small nuances of expression and relate them to the social background
of the originator, ultimately determining sex, age, level of
intelligence, assertiveness and refinement.
    Particularly intriguing is the possibility that the IBM EPISTLE
program will permit a response in the mode appropriate to the user and
the occasion. For example, says IRD, having ascertained that a letter
had been sent by a 55-year-old woman of Armenian background, the
program could help a manager couch a response in terms to which the
woman would relate.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01 Aug 83  1203 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Davidson <JED@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EPISTLE
-BODY-

There's a lot of exaggeration here, presumably by the author of the
Sun-Times article.  EPISTLE is a legitimate project being worked on
at Yorktown, by George Heidorn, Karen Jensen, and others.  [See,
e.g., "The EPISTLE text-critiquing system". Heidorn et al, IBM
Systems Journal, 1982] Its general domain, as indicated, is business
correspondence.  Its stated (long-term) goals are

    (a) to provide support for the authors of business letters--
        critiquing grammar and style, etc.;

    (b) to deal with incoming texts: "synopsizing letter contents,
        highlighting portions known to be of interest, and
        automatically generating index terms based on conceptual
        or thematic characteristics rather than key words".

Note that part (b) is stated considerably less ambitiously than in
the Sun-Times article.

The current (as of 1982) version of the system doesn't approach even
these more modest goals.  It works only on problems in class (a)--
critiquing drafts of business letters.  The *only* things it checks
for are grammar (number agreement, pronoun agreement, etc.), and
style (overly complex sentences, inappropriate vocabulary, etc.)
Even within these areas, it's still very much an experimental system,
and has a long way to go.

Note in particular that the concept of "style" is far short of the
sort of thing presented in the Sun-Times article.  The kind of style
checking they're dealing with is the sort of thing you find in a
style manual: passive vs. active voice, too many dependent clauses,
etc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jul 1983 05:25:43-PST
-FROM-
From: whm.arizona@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Debugger Query--Summary of Replies
-BODY-
                    [Reprinted from Human-Nets.]

Several weeks ago I posted a query for information on debuggers.  The
information I received fell into two categories: information about
papers, and information about actual programs.  The information about
papers was basically subsumed by two documents: an annotated
bibliography, and soon-to-be-published conference proceedings.  The
information about programs was quite diverse and somewhat lengthy.  In
order to avoid clogging the digest, only the information about the
papers is included here.  A longer version of this message will be
posted to net.lang on USENET.

The basic gold mine of current ideas on debugging is the Proceedings
of the ACM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN Symposium on High-Level Debugging which was
held in March, 1983.  Informed sources say that it is scheduled to
appear as vol. 8, no. 4 (1983 August) of SIGSOFT's Software
Engineering Notes and as vol. 18, no. 8 (1983 August) of SIGPLAN
Notices.  All members of SIGSOFT and SIGPLAN should receive copies
sometime in August.

Mark Johnson at HP has put together a pair of documents on debugging.
They are:

        "An Annotated Software Debugging Bibliography"
        "A Software Debugging Glossary"

I believe that a non-annotated version of this bibliography appeared
in SIGPLAN in February 1982.  The annotated bibliography is the basic
gold mine of "pointers" about debugging.

Mark can be contacted at:

        Mark Scott Johnson
        Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
        1501 Page Mill Road, 3U24
        Palo Alto, CA 94304
        415/857-8719

        Arpa:  Johnson.HP-Labs@RAND-RELAY
        USENET: ...!ucbvax!hplabs!johnson


Two books were mentioned that are not currently included in Mark's
bibliography:

        "Algorithmic Debugging" by Ehud Shapiro.  It has information
          on source-level debugging, debuggers in the language being
          debugged, debuggers for unconventional languages, etc.  It
          is supposedly available from MIT Press.  (From
          dixon.pa@parc-maxc)

        "Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment"
           A section of the book describes the system's interactive
           debugger.  (This book is supposedly due in bookstores
           on or around the middle of October.  A much earlier
           version of the debugger was briefly described in the
           August 1981 BYTE.)  (From Pavel@Cornel.)

Ken Laws (Laws@sri-iu) sent me an extract from "A Bibliography of
Automatic Programming" which contained a number of references on
topics such as programmer's apprentices, program understanding,
programming by example, etc.


Many thanks to those who took the time to reply.

                                Bill Mitchell
                                The University of Arizona
                                whm.arizona@rand-relay
                                arizona!whm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Jul 83 19:32:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WANTED: Geographic Information Data Bases
-BODY-
I want to build a geographic knowledge base and wonder if
someone out there has small or large sets of foreign
geographic data. Something containing elements such as
(PARIS CITY FRANCE) composed of three items,
Geographic-Name, Superclass, and Containing-Geographic item.

I have already acquired a list of all U.S. cities and
their state memberships; but apart from that need other
geographic information for other U.S. features (e.g. counties,
rivers, mountains, etc.) as well as world-wide data.

I am not especially looking for numeric data (e.g. Longitude
and Latitude; elevations, etc.) nor numeric attributes such
as population, area, etc. -- I want symbolic data, names of
geographic entities.

Note::: I do mean already machine-readable.

Bob Amsler
Natural-Language and Knowledge-Resource Systems Group
Advanced Computer Systems Department
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave
Menlo Park, CA 95025

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 August 1983 1507-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dorothy Josephson at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CMU Seminar, 8/9
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMU BBoard.]

DATE:           Tuesday, August 9, 1983
TIME:           3:30 P.M.
PLACE:          Wean Hall 5409
SPEAKER:        Hans Berliner
TOPIC:          "Ken Thompson's New Chess Theorem"

                        ABSTRACT

Among the not-quite-so-basic endgames in chess is the one of 2
Bishops versus Knight (no pawns).  What the value of a general
position in this domain is, has always been an open question.  The
Bishops have a large advantage, but it was thought that a basic and
usually achievable position could be drawn.  Thompson has just shown
that this endgame is won in the general case using a technique called
retrograde enumeration.  We will explain what he did, how he did it,
and the significance of this result.  We hope some people from Formal
Foundations will attend as there are interesting questions relating
to whether a construction such as this should be considered a
"proof."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Aug 83 17:40:48 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: murage.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium, 8/4
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the SRI BBoard.]


                       JOHN D. LAWRENCE

                   Articifial Intelligence Center
                       SRI International


                       EVIDENTIAL REASONING:
           AN IMPLIMENTATION FOR MULTI-SENSOR INTEGRATION


One common feature of most knowledge-based expert systems is that
they must reason based upon evidential information. Yet there is very
little agreement on how this should be done. Here we present our
current understanding of this problem and its solution as it applies
to multi-sensor integration. We begin by characterizing evidence as a
body of information that is uncertain, incomplete, and sometimes
inaccurate. Based on this characterization, we conclude that
evidential reasoning requires both a method for pooling multiple
bodies of evidence to arrive at a consensus opinion and some means of
drawing the appropriate conclusions from that opinion. We contrast
our approach, based on a relatively new mathematical theory of
evidence, with those approaches based on Bayesian probability models.
We believe that our approach has some significant advantages,
particulary its ability to represent and reason from bounded
ignorance. Further, we describe how these techniques are implemented
by way of a long term memory and a short term memory.  This provides
for automated reasoning from evidential information at multiple
levels of abstraction over time and space.


   Thursday, August 4, 1983 4:00 p.m.

   5M Conference Room
   1501 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94304

   NON-HP EMPLOYEES:  Welcome! Please come to the lobby on time, so
that you may be escorted to the conference room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
31
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Jul 83 21:39:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 5th generation
-BODY-
I think that there is a widespread misconception on ICOT and the 5th
generation project. Here are my comments on a recent message to this
bulletin board:

    From what I have been able to gather from reading all the
    info from ICOT (the Japanese project directorate) they are
    trying to do the project by getting foreign experts to come
    and tell them how. They anounce their project, say they're
    going to lead the world, and wait for the egos of other
    scientists to bring them there to show them how to really do
    it.

I know personally several people that have visited ICOT, have talked
at length with two of them and read trip reports by others. In their
visits, there was very little if any suggestion tht they should
participate on the day to day effort at ICOT or give detailed reports
on their work. The character of the visits was very much that of an
academic visit where the visitor goes on doing his current work and
sees what the hosts are up to. They were also very open with their
(very concrete and under way) plans. The image of the ICOT worker
waiting axiously to be told what to do seems the opposite of reality,
and in fact they sometimes seem too busy with their own work to give
their visitors any more than the minimum courtous attention.  As far
as I can tell, the goal of the invitations is to foster goodwill and
understanding of ICOTs goals.

    The papers I've read show a few good researchers with real
    good ideas but little in the way of knowing how to get them
    working.

ICOT has a very clear plan of creating a line of successively faster
and more sophisticated "inference machines".  The first, the personal
sequential inference machine (PSI), a specialized Prolog machine, is
being built now, and there is no reason to believe that it will not be
completed in time. They are also doing research in parallel
architectures and database machines.

    On the other hand, data flow, speech understanding, systolic
    arrays, microcomputer interfaces to 'supercomputers' and
    high BW communications are all operational to some degree in
    the US, and are being improved on a daily basis. I would
    therefore say that unless we show them how, we will be the
    leaders in this field, not they.

I have looked, and I know people who have looked much more carefully,
at the usefulness of current fashions in parallel architectures for
general deductive inference engines. The picture, unfortunately, is
not brilliant.  Given that ICOT are comitted to logic programming and
deductive mechanisms in general, there isn't that much that they could
borrow from that work. That is, they are taking genuine research
risks. To explain fully why I think most current architectures are not
appropriate for logic programming/deduction would take me too far
afield. I will just point out that logic programming/deduction involve
dealing with incompletely specified objects (terms with uninstantiated
variables) that can be specified further in many alternative ways (OR
parallelism).  Implementation of this kind of parallelism in currently
BUILT architectures would involve either wholesale copying or a high
cost in accessing variable bindings.

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01 Aug 83  1422 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Davidson <JED@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Fifth Generation (book review)
-BODY-
BC-BOOK-REVIEW Undated By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT c. 1983 N.Y. Times
News Service
    THE FIFTH GENERATION. Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer
Challenge to the World. By Edward A. Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck.
275 pages. Illustrated with diagrams. Addison-Wesley. $15.75.

    This isn't just another of those books that says Japan is better
than we are and therefore is going to keep on whipping us in
productivity. ''The Fifth Generation'' goes considerably further than
that. It points with a trembling finger at Japan's commitment to
produce within a decade a new generation of computers so immensely
powerful that they will in effect constitute a new and revolutionary
form of wealth.
    KIPS, these computers will be called, an acronym of knowledge
information processing systems. They will exploit the recent
speculation that intelligence, be it real or artificial, doesn't
depend so much on the power to reason as it does on a ''messy bunch of
details, facts, rules of good guessing, rules of good judgment, and
experiential knowledge,'' as the authors put it. They will be so much
more powerful that where today's machines can handle 10,000 to 100,000
logical inferences per second, or LIPS, the next-generation computer
will be capable of 100 million to 1,000 million LIPS.
    These computers, if the Japanese succeed, will be able to interact
with people using natural language, speech and pictures. They'll
transform talk into print and translate one language into another.
Compared to today's machines, they'll be what automobiles are to
bicycles. And because they'll raise knowledge to the status of what
land, labor and capital once were, these machines will become ''an
engine for the new wealth of nations.''
    Will the Japanese really pull this off, despite their supposed
tendency to be ''copycats'' instead of innovators? The authors insist
that this and other stereotypes are largely mythical; that every great
industrial nation must go through a phase of imitation. Sure, the
Japanese can do it. And even if they fail to fulfill their grand
design, they'll likely achieve enough to make it pointless for any
other nation to compete with them. Meanwhile, the United States will
assume the role of ''the first great post-industrial agrarian
society.''
    It's quite an awesome picture that Edward A. Feigenbaum and Pamela
McCorduck have painted. What's more, they have impressive credentials
> Feigenbaum as professor of computer science at Stanford University
and a founder of TeKnowledge Inc., a pioneer knowledge engineering
company; Mrs. McCorduck as a science-writer who teaches at Columbia
and whose last book was a history of artificial intelligence called
''Machines Who Think.'' And their Jeremiad is extremely well written,
even quite witty in places. It's certainly more articulate by an order
of magnitude than ''In Search of Excellence,'' the book that defends
America's managerial potential and now sits atop the nonfiction
best-seller list.
    So what are we supposed to do in the face of this awesome
challenge?  The authors list various possibilities, such as joining up
with Japan or preparing for our future as the world's truck garden.
But what they'd really like to see is ''a national center for
knowledge technology'' - that is, ''a gathering up of all knowledge,''
''to be fused, amplified, and distributed, all at orders of magnitude,
difference in cost, speed, volume, and >>usefulness<< over what we
have now.''
    Let that be as it may. While ''The Fifth Generation'' makes a
powerful case, there are those who believe that, between the
Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and
several interindustry groups that have been formed, we have already
been sufficiently aroused to compete in this new race for world
leadership. (The Soviet Union, by the way, is out in left field,
according to the authors.)
    Whether the apocalypse it foresees is real or not, ''The Fifth
Generation'' is worthwhile reading. Pamela McCorduck is very good on
the debate over the ability of the machines to think, concluding that
the condemnation they have met has been largely political - amusingly
similar to ''the reasons given in the nineteenth century to explain
why women could never be the intellectual equals of men.'' Feigenbaum
is fascinating on his firsthand impressions of the Japanese computer
establishment. (Each of the co-authors becomes a character in the
narrative when his or her specialty happens to come up.)
    Together they are lucid on what the fifth-generation machines will
be like. And there is the standard mind-bending section on future
computer applications. I particularly like Mrs. McCorduck's vision of
the geriatric robot. ''It isn't hanging about in the hopes of
inheriting your money - nor of course will it slip you a little
something to speed the inevitable. It isn't hanging about because it
can't find work elsewhere. It's there because it's yours. It doesn't
just bathe you and feed you and wheel you out into the sun when you
crave fresh air and a change of scene, though of course it does all
those things. The very best thing about the geriatric robot is that it
>>listens<<. 'Tell me again,' it says, 'about how wonderful-dreadful
your children are to you. Tell me again that fascinating tale of the
coup of '63. Tell me again ... ' And it means it.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
32
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 83 11:14:51 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A graph theory problem
-BODY-
The following graph theory problem has arisen in connection with some
AI research on computer-aided design and manufacturing:

    Let H be a graph containing at least 3 vertices and having no
    cycles of length 4.  Find a smallest clique cover for H.

If there were no restrictions on the nature of H, the problem would be
NP-hard, but given the restrictions, it's unclear what its complexity
is.  A couple of us here at Maryland have been puzzling over the
problem for a week or so, and haven't been able to reduce any known
NP-hard problem to it.  However, the fastest procedure we have found
to solve the problem takes exponential time in the worst case.

Does anyone know anything about the computational complexity of this
problem, or about possible procedures for solving it?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Aug 83 20:50:46 EDT  (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Randy Trigg <randy%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Textnet
-BODY-
[Adapted from Human-Nets.  The organization and indexing
of knowledge are topics that should be of interest to the AI
community.  -- KIL]

Regarding the recent worldnet discussion, I thought I'd briefly
describe my research and suggest how it might apply: My thesis work
has been in the area of advanced text handlers for the online
scientific community.  My system is called "Textnet" and shares much
with both NLS/Augment and Hypertext.  It combines a hierarchical
component (like NLS, though we allow and encourage multiple
hierarchies for the same text) with the arbitrary linked network
strategy of Hypertext.  The Textnet data structure resembles a
semantic network in that links are typed and are valid manipulable
objects themselves, as are "chunks" (nodes with associated text) and
"tocs" (nodes capturing hierarchical info).

I believe that a Textnet approach is the most flexible for a national
network.  In a distributed version of Textnet (distributing
Hypertext/Xanadu has also been proposed), users create not only new
papers and critiques of existing ones, but also link together existing
text (i.e., reindexing information), and build alternate
organizations.

There can be no mad dictator in such an information network.  Each
user organizes the world of scientific knowledge as he/she desires.
Of course, the system can offer helpful suggestions, notifying a user
about new information needing to be integrated, etc.  But in this
approach, the user plays the active role.  Rather than passively
accepting information in whatever guise worldnet decides to promote,
each must take an active hand in monitoring that part of the network
of interest, and designing personalized search strategies for the
rest.  (For example, I might decree that any information stemming from
a set of journals I deem absurd, shall be ignored.)  After all, any
truly democratic system should and does require a little work from
each member.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Aug 1983 0727-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation
-BODY-
Several good points were made about the Japanese capabilities and
plans for 5th generation computers. I certainly didn't intend to say
that they weren't capable of building such machines, only that the
U.S. could easily beat them to it if the effort were deemed
worthwhile. I have to agree that the nature of systolic arrays is
quite different from the necessary architecture for inference engines,
but nevertheless for vision and speech applications, these arrays are
quite clearly superior. I know of no other nation with a data flow
machine in operation (although the Japanese are most certainly working
on it). Virtually every theorem proving system in existence was
written in the U.S. All of this information was freely (and rightly in
my opinion) disseminated to the rest of the world. If we continue to
do the research and seek immediate profits at the expense of long term
development, there is no doubt in my mind that the Japanese will beat
us there. If on the other hand, we use our extreme expertise to make
our development programs the best they can be, and don't make the same
mistake we made with robotics in the 70s, I feel we can build better
machines sooner.

        Lisp translators from interlisp to otherlisps seem very
interesting to me. Perhaps someone could send me a pointer to an
ARPA-net mailing address of the creator/maintainer of these programs.
To my knowledge, none operates w/out human assistance, but I could be
wrong.  [Check with Hanson@SRI-IU for Rodney Brooks' Maclisp-to-Franz
macro package.  It does not cover all features in Maclisp.  -- KIL]

        As to natural language translation using computers, it has
been tried for technical translation and has been quite succesful as a
dictionary. As of 5 years ago, there were no real translators beyond
this for natural language.  Perhaps this has changed drastically. It
is my guess that without a system capable of learning, true
translation will never be done. It is simply too much to expect that a
human expert would be able to embody all of the knowledge of a
language into a program. Perhaps 90% translation could be achieved in
a few years, and 99% could probably be here w/in 10 years (between
similar languages).

        Speech recognition can be quite effective for relatively small
vocabularies by a given speaker in a particular language.
Understanding speech is a considerably slower process, but has the
advantage of trying to make sense of the sounds. It is not probably
realistic to say that general purpose speech understanding systems in
multiple languages with multiple speakers using large vocabularies
will be operational at real time performance in the next 10 years.

        Vision systems have been researched considerably for limited
robotics applications. Context boundedness seems to have a great
effect on the sort of IO that humans do. It is certainly not clear
that real time vision systems capable of understanding large varieties
of environments will be operational w/in the next 10 years.

        These problems are not simply solved by having very large
quantities of processing power! If they were, 5th generation computers
would not be such a risk. Even if the goals are not met, the advances
due to a large R+D program such as ICOTs will certainly have many
technological spinoffs with a widespread effect on the world
marketplace. It has been a longstanding problem with AI research that
people who demonstrate its results and people who report on these
demonstrations both stress the possibilities for the future rather
than the realities of today. In many cases, the misconceptions spread
through the scientific community as well as the general public. Even
many computer science 'experts' that I've met have vast misconceptions
about what the current systems can in fact do, have in fact done, and
can be easily expanded to do. In many cases, NP complete problems have
been approached through heuristic means. This certainly works in many
cases, but as the sizes of problems increase, it is not clear that
these heuristics will apply as handily. NP completeness cannot be
gotten around in general by building bigger or faster computers.
Computer learning has only been approached by a few researchers, and
few people would be considered 'intelligent' if they couldn't learn
from their mistakes.

        It doesn't bother me to see Kirk destroy computers with his
illogical ways. I've personally blown away many operating systems
accidentally with my illogical ways, and don't expect that anyone will
ever be able to build a 'perfect' machine. It does bother me when
people look at that as more than fantasy and claim it as scientific
evidence. Just as the 'robots' that are run by remote control (kind of
like a radio controlled airplane) sometimes upset me when they fool
people into thinking they are autonomous and intelects.

                                Yet another flaming controversy
				starter by
                                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 August 1983 15:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MIT-LCS TR-295: The Revised Maclisp Manual
-BODY-
They said it would never happen, but look for yourself...

                        The Revised Maclisp Manual
                             by Kent Pitman

                                Abstract

Maclisp is a dialect of Lisp developed at M.I.T.'s Project MAC (now
the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science) and the MIT Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory for use in artificial intelligence research
and related fields.  Maclisp is descended from Lisp 1.5, and many
recent important dialects (for example Lisp Machine Lisp and NIL) have
evolved from Maclisp.

David Moon's original document on Maclisp, The Maclisp Reference
Manual (alias the Moonual) provided in-depth coverage of a number of
areas of the Maclisp world. Some parts of that document, however, were
never completed (most notably a description of Maclisp's I/O system);
other parts are no longer accurate due to changes that have occurred
in the language over time.

This manual includes some introductory information about Lisp, but is
not intended as tutorial. It is intended primarily as a reference
manual; particularly, it comes in response to users' pleas for more
up-to-date documentation. Much text has been borrowed directly from
the Moonual, but there has been a shift in emphasis. While the Moonual
went into greater depth on some issues, this manual attempts to offer
more in the way of examples and style notes.  Also, since Moon had
worked on the Multics implementation, the Moonual offered more detail
about compatibility between ITS and Multics Maclisp. While it is hoped
that Multics users will still find the information contained herein to
be useful, this manual focuses more on the ITS and TOPS-20
implementations since those were the implementation most familiar to
the author.

The PitMANUAL, draft #14 May 21, 1983
                                   Saturday Evening Edition

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Lisp, List Structure, Maclisp,
          Programming Language, Symbol Manipulation

Ordering Information:

        The Revised Maclisp Manual
        MIT-LCS TR-295, $13.10

        Publications
        MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
        545 Technology Square
        Cambridge, MA 02139

About 300 copies were made. I don't know how long they'll last.
>-kmp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 August 1983 1747-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IQLisp for the IBM-PC
-BODY-

        A review of IQLisp (by Integral Quality, 1983).

                Compiled by Jeff Shrager
                    CMU Psychology
                      7/27/83

The following comments refer to IQLisp running on an IBM-PC XT/256K
(you tell IQLisp the host machine's memory size at startup).  I spent
two two-hour (approximately) sessions with IQLisp just going through
the manual and hacking various features.  Then I tried to implement a
small production system interpreter (which took another three hours).

I. Things that make IQLisp more attractive than other micro Lisp
   systems that I have seen.

  A. The general workspace size is much larger than most due to the
     IBM-PC XT's expanded capacity.  IQLisp can take advantage of the
     increased space and the manual explains in detail how memory
     can be rearranged to take advantage of different programming
     requirements.  (But, see II.G.) (See also, summary.)
  B. The Manual is complete and locally legible. (But see II.D.)
     The internal specifications manual is surprisingly clear and
     complete.
  C. There is a window package. (But the windows aren't implemented
     to scroll under one another so the feature is more-or-less
     useless.)
  D. There is a macro facility.  This feature is important to both
     speed and eventual implementation of a compiler. (But see II.B.)
     Note that the manual teaches the "correct" way to write
     fexprs -- i.e., with macros.
  E. It uses the 8087 FP coprocessor if one exists. (But see II.A.)
  F. Integer bignums are supported.
  G. Arrays are supported for various data types.
  H. It has good "simple" I/O facilities.
     1. Function key support.
     2. Single keystroke input.
     3. Read macros. (No print macros?)
     4. A (marginal) window facility.
     5. Multiple streams.
  I. The development package is a useful programming tool.
     1. Error recovery tools are well designed.
     2. A complete structure editor is provided. (But, see II.I.)
     3. Many useful macros are included (e.g, backquote).
  J. It seems to be reasonably fast.  (See summary.)
  K. Stack frame hacking functions are provided which permit error
     control and evaluations in different contexts. (But, see II.H.)
  L. There is a clean interface to DOS.  (The "DIR" function is
     especially useful and cleverly implemented.)


II. Negative aspects of IQLisp.  (* Things marked with a "*" indicate
    important deficiencies.)

**A. There is no compiler!
 *B. Floating point is not supported without the 8087.  One would
     think that some sort of even very slow FP would be provided.
 *C. Casing is completely backwards.  Uppercase is demanded by IQLisp
     which forces one to put on shift lock (in a bad place on the IBM
     PC).  If any case dependency is implemented it should be the
     opposite (i.e., demand lower case) but case sensitivity should
     be switch controllable -- and default OFF!
 *D. The manual is poorly organized.  It is very difficult to find
     a particular topic since there are no complete indexes and the
     topics are split over several different sections.
  E. Error recovery is sometimes poor.  I have had three or four
     occasions to reboot the PC because IQLisp had gone to lunch.
     Once this was because the 8087 was not present and I had told
     the system that it was.  I don't know what caused the other
     problems.
  F. The file system supports only sequential files.
  G. The stack is fixed at 64K maximum which isn't very much and
     permits only about 700 levels of binding-free recursion.
  H. No new features of larger Lisp systems are provided.  For
     example: closures, flavors, etc.  This is really not a
     reasonable complaint since we're talking 256K here.
  I. There is no screen editor for functions.


III. Summary.

I was disappointed by IQLisp but perhaps this is because I am still
dreaming of having a Lisp machine for under $5,000.  IQ has obviously
put a very large amount of effort into the system and its
documentation (the latter being at least as important as the former).

Although one does not have all the functionality of a Lisp machine in
IQLisp (or even nearly so) I think that they have done an admirable
job within the constraints of the IBM-PC.  Some of the features are
overkill (e.g, the window system which is pretty worthless in the way
provided and in a non-graphics environment.)

My production system was not the model of efficient PS hacking.  It
was not meant to be.  I wanted to see how IQLisp compared with our
Vax VMS Franz system.  I didn't use a RETE net or efficient memory
organization.  IQ didn't do very well against even a heavily loaded
Vax (also interpreted lisp code). The main problem was space, not
speed.  This is to be expected on a machine without virtual memory.
Since there are no indexed file capabilities in IQLisp, the user is
strictly limited by the available core memory. I think that it's
going to be some time before we can do interesting AI with a micro.
However, (1) I think that I could have rewritten my production system
to be much more efficient in both space and time.  It may have run
acceptably with some careful tuning (what do you want for three
hours!?). And (2) we are going to try to use the system in the near
future for some human-computer interaction experiments -- as a
single-subject workstation for learning Lisp.  I see no reason that
it should not perform acceptably in domains which are less
information intensive than AI.

The starred (*) items in section II above are major stumbling blocks
to using IQLisp in general.  Of these, it is the lack of a Lisp
compiler which stops me from recommending it to everyone.  I expect
that this will be corrected in the near future because they have all
the required underpinnings (macros, assembly interface, etc).  Why
don't people just write a simple little lisp system and a whizzy
compiler?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
33
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 83 12:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%UPenn@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FRANZLATOR inter-dialect translation system
-BODY-

We have built a rule-driven lisp-to-lisp translation system
(FRANZLATOR) in Franz lisp and have used it to translate KL-ONE from
Interlisp to Franz. (We includes people here at Penn and at BBN and
CCA).  The system is modular so that modifying it to work with a
different source and target dialect should involve only changing
several data bases.

The translator is organized as a two-pass system which is applied to a
set of source-dialect files and produces a corresponding set of
target-dialect files and a set of files containing notes about the
translation (e.g.  possible errors).

During the first pass all of the source files are scanned to build up
a database of information about the functions defined in the file
(e.g. type of function, arity, how it evals its args).  In the second
pass the expressions in the source files are translated and the
results written to the target files. The translation of an
s-expression is driven by transformation rules applied according to an
"eval-order" schedule (i.e. the arguments to a function call are
translated before the call to the function itself). An additional
initial pass may be required to perform certain character-level
transformations, although this can often be done through the use of
multiple readtables.

The actual translation is done by a set of rewrite rules, each rule
taking an s-expression into one or more resultant s-expressions.  In
addition to the usual "pattern" and "result" parts, rules can be
easily augmented with arbitrary conditions and actions and can have
several other attributes which control their application (e.g. a
priority). Variables are represented using the "backquote" convention.
Example of rules for Interlisp->Franz are:
   (NIL nil)
   ((NLISTP ,x) (not (dtpr ,x)))
   ((PROG1 ,@args) (prog2 nil ,@args))
   ((DECLARE: ,@args) ,(translateDeclare: ,args))
   ((and ,@x (and ,@y) ,@z) (and ,@x ,@y ,@z) -cyclic)

The translation rules are presented to the system in the form
described above and are immediately "compiled" (by macro-expansion)
into Lisp code which is quite efficient and can be, of course, further
compiled by LISZT.  The pattern matching operation, for example, is
"open coded" into a conjuction of primitive tests and action (e.g. EQ,
EQUAL, LENGTH, SETQ).

If you are interested in more information, contact me.

> Tim at UPENN (csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 5 August 1983 12:43:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine translation
-BODY-
        The thing that makes any kind of general purpose machine
translation extremely hard is that there generally aren't one-to-one
correspondences between words, phrases, or sometimes concepts in two
different human languages.  A real translator essentially reads and
understands the text in one language, and then generates the
appropriate text in the other language.  Since understanding general
texts requires huge amounts of real-world knowledge, unrestricted
machine translation will arrive about the time AI programs can pass
the Turing test.  In my opinion, this will be substantially longer
than ten years.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 09:25:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Summary
-BODY-
The August issue of IEEE Spectrum contains an article by William B.
Gevarter (of NASA) titled "Expert Systems: Limited but Powerful".  The
table of existing expert systems shows 79 systems in 16 categories.
The text includes brief descriptions of Dendral, Mycin, R1, and
Internist.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 83 8:56:21-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!ras @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Japanese Effort
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: philabs.27320

        Bully for you Fred! I also believe the Japanese do not have
        the know how nor the man-power to create such a machine.
        They make great memory devices but thats where it ends.

                                        Rafael Aquino !plabs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 13:41:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Al Davis <ADavis at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation Book Review
-BODY-

As a frequent visitor to the Soviet Union, and regular reader of
Kibernetica, I don't get the feeling that the "Russians are out in
left field" - nor do I feel that the book is particularly
illuminating.  It is readable and provides some excellent insight to
the non-professional.  However the hype and reality is carefully
interwoven.  After all how professional is the "pointing of a
trembling finger at the Japanese".  Take your pick.

                                                Al Davis

                                                AI Architecture
                                                Fairchild AI Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 1983 23:05:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: borgward.umn-cs@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation Computing
-BODY-
I do know of other nations with a data flow machine in operation.
Gurd and Watson have one that works at Manchester in England.  I think
that the French LAU system also works.  Such lapses in attention are
what make Americans unpopular in Europe.  We also import a lot of AI
research from Europe and Prolog as well.

>-Peter Borgwardt, University of Minnesota

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 5 Aug 83 14:06:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NP-completeness and parallelism
-BODY-
        In AIList V#32 Fred comments that "NP-completeness cannot be
gotten around in general by building bigger or faster computers".  My
guess would be that parallelism may offer a way to reduce the order of
an algorithm, perhaps even to a polynomial order (using a machine with
"infinite parallel capacity", closely related to Turing's machine with
"infinite memory"). For example, I have heard of work developing
sorting algorithms for parallel machines which have a lower order than
any known sequential algorithm.

        Perhaps more powerful machines are truly the answer to some of
our problems, especially in vision analysis and data base searching.
Has anyone heard of a good book discussing parallel algorithms and
reduction in problem order?

David Rogers

DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 17:41:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Distributed Problem Solving: An Annotated Bibliography
-BODY-
 For all of you who expressed interest in the annotated bibliography
on Distributed Problem Solving, here is some important information on
how to ftp a copy if you don't know this already.

The bibliography manuscript file "<vsingh.dps>dpsdis.bib" will be kept
on sumex-aim.arpa.  Please login as "anonymous" with password
"sumexguest" (one word).

The file is by no means complete as you can see.  It will be
continually updated.  You may notice that the file is prepared for
Scribe formatting.

Please mail additional entries/annotations/corrections/suggestions to
me and I will incorporate them in the file as soon as possible.  The
turnaround time will be a lot shorter if the new entries are also in
Scribe format.  If you know anything about Scribe, please save me a
lot of effort and put your entries in Scribe format.

For those of you that did not see the original message, I have
reproduced it below.

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is to request contributions to an annotated bibliography of
papers in *Distributed Problem-Solving* that I am currently compiling.
My plan is to make the bibliography available to anybody that is
interested in it at any stage in its compilation.  Papers will be from
many diverse areas: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Systems
(especially Distributed Systems and Multiprocessors), Analysis of
Algorithms, Economics, Organizational Theory, etc.

Some miscellaneous comments.  My definition of distributed
problem-solving is a very general one, namely "the process of many
entities engaged in solving a problem", so feel free to send a
contribution if you are not sure that a paper is suitable for this
bibliography.  I also encourage you to make short annotations; more
than 5 sentences is long.  All annotations in the bibliography will
carry a reference to the author.  If your bibliography entries are in
Scribe format that's great because the entire bibliography will be in
Scribe.

Vineet Singh (VSINGH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Aug 83 4:22:03-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Journals
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbscd5.365

I am interested in subscribing to a computer science journal(s) that
deals primarily with artificial intelligence.  Could anyone that knows
of such journals send me via mail the names of these journals.  I will
post a list of all those sent my way.  Thanks in advance,

Larry Cipriani cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 83 0:26:53-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!jrf @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI~Geography
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1455



Please send info on what's available in Geography (PROSPECTOR,
cartography, etc.).  Thanks.

jrf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Aug 83  1417 PDT
-FROM-
From: Fred Lakin <FRD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP & SUNs ...
-BODY-
I am interested in connectons between Franz LISP and SUN workstations.
Like how far along is Franz on the SUN?  Is there some package which
allows Franz on a VAX to use a SUN as a display device?  Also, now
that i think of it, any other LISP's which might run on both SUNs and
VAXes ...

Any info on this matter would be appreciated.  Thnaks, Fred Lakin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 09:57:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Larry Fagan  <FAGAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programmer - ONCOCIN Project: Stanford Heuristic Programming
-BODY-           Project

Programmer - ONCOCIN Project:  Stanford Heuristic Programming Project

        This position will involve applications programming for an
oncology protocol management system known as ONCOCIN.  This project
with Ted Shortliffe as principal investigator, represents an
application of expert systems to the treatment of cancer patients, and
is currently in daily use by physicians.  The job requires significant
experience with artificial intelligence techniques and the LISP or
Interlisp languages.  The applicant must be willing to learn an
already existing, large expert system.  Masters level training in
computer science and previous experience with personal workstations
are highly desirable.  Although the tasks required will be varied, the
emphasis will be on artificial intelligence aspects of the oncology
research work:

*day-to-day management of the Interlisp programming efforts;
*participation in the design as well as the implementation of system
capabilities; *documentation of the system on an ongoing basis
(system overview/description as well as software documentation);
*supervisory coordination of students and part-time programmers who
may also be working on related projects; *assistance with occasional
non-programming matters important to the smooth running of the
project and to the efficient and effective performance of the system
in the clinical environment; *assistance with system demonstrations
for visitors and at meetings; *assistance with preparation of
portions of annual reports and funding proposals; *an ability to work
closely with the Chief Programmer, who will coordinate the Interlisp
efforts with other developing aspects of the total project.

Salary:  will follow Stanford University guidelines for Scientific
Programmer III in accordance with the level of training and prior
experience.

Contact: Larry Fagan, M.D., Ph.D.  (FAGAN@SUMEX)
         Project Director, ONCOCIN
         Stanford University Medical Center
         TC-117, Dept. of General Internal Medicine
         Stanford, Calif. 94305 (415)497-6979

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
34
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 20:14:19-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ditzel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Japanese Effort
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.377

Whereas it is true the Unites States holds a substantial lead in AI
over the Japanese, it really is beyond me how a person can believe
that they do not have the resources to overcome such a lead.  In my
*opinion* some things make a possible Japanese lead in AI machines
possible.  Like:

*It is a national effort with an attempt to coordinate goals. The fact
that the project will be a coordinated effort rather than various
incongruously related developments should facilitate compatibility
among the different topics.

*It may well be that Japan will have to go to the outside world to
make their project a success. What of it...a success is still a
success.

*In addition to believe that a priority project supported by both
government and industry will not try to encourage,educate and nurture
talented individuals toward the topics covered by the 5th generation
is not realistic.

*Worse yet, to believe such a project will not have an intense
political and social effect on Japan is also ignoring reality. If and
when successes in project goals do come, various segments of the
society and industrial sectors may begin to participate.

*The 5th generation project at least is visionary, a bit idealistic
and very ambitious. The outside 'egos' don't have an equivalent
project in the United States. (i.e.-one that has substantial backing
from industry and government *and* has fairly substantial financing
for the next five to ten years).

The point is we are very early into the project.... wait a bit.... we
may learn a thing or two if we are not energetic enough.



                                            cld

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 14:50:43-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Japanese Effort
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.376

Concerning your lack of concern about the Japanese:

They may not have the manpower now, but they have been hiring outside
Japan and giving some pretty strong support to their researchers.  I'd
go in a minute if they made me an offer...

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 12:51:22-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!watmath!echrzanowski @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 5th generation computers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: watmath.5613

I recently had an opportunity to show a visiting prof from the
University of Kyoto around our facilities. During one of our
conversations I asked him about the 5th generation computers in Japan.
His response was that it was only a large government promotional
campaign and nothing more.  Sure they are building some new computers
but not to the degree that we are expected to believe.


If anyone else has any ideas or comments on 5th generation computers I
would like to see them.


                                   (watmath)!echrzanowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 83 13:01:14-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!smh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: 5th generation computers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddie.551

About the professor from Kyoto who claimed that the 5th generation
project was only a big government promotional effort:

Maybe so, maybe not.  Weren't there some similar gentlemen in
Washington making similar assurances about a different matter around 5
Dec 1948?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 83 19:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%UPenn@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language translation
-BODY-

    ... A real translator essentially reads and understands the
    text in one language, and then generates the appropriate
    text in the other language.  Since understanding general
    texts requires huge amounts of real-world knowledge,
    unrestricted machine translation will arrive about the time
    AI programs can pass the Turing test.  In my opinion, this
    will be substantially longer than ten years....

The long-standing machine translation project at the University of
Texas at Austin is not a system based on a deep understanding of the
text being translated yet has been giving good results in translating
technical manuals from German to English. Slocum reported on its
status in the ACL Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing
held in Santa Monica in February 83.  In this case, good meant
requiring less post-translation editing than the output of human
translators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 83 11:09:57 EDT  (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Craig Stanfill <craig%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NP-completeness and parallelism
-BODY-
David Rogers commented that in parallel computing it makes sense to
assume a processor with an infinite number of processing elements,
much as a Turing machine has an infinite amount of memory.  He then
goes on to suggest that this might allow the effective solution of
NP-hard problems.

If we do this, we need to consider the processor-complexity of our
algorithms, not just the time-complexity.  For example, are there
algorithms for NP-hard problems which are linear in time but NP-hard
in the number of processors?  I suspect this is the case.

Parallelism is not the solution to combinatorial explosions; it is
just as limiting to use 2**n processors as it to use 2**n time.
However, the speedup is probably worth the effort; I would rather work
with a computer that uses 64,000 processors for one second than one
which uses 1 processor for 64,000 seconds.  Now, if we can just figure
out how to do this ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 83 16:57:17-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!ech @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: NP-completeness and parallelism
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxll.388

A couple of clarifications are in order here:

1. NP-completeness of a problem means, among other things, that the
   best known algorithm for that problem has exponential
   worst-case running time on a serial processor.  That is not
   intended as a technical definition, just an operational one.
   Moreover, all NP-complete problems are related by the fact
   that if a polynomial-time algorithm is ever discovered for
   any of them, then there is a polynomial-time algorithm for
   all, so the (highly oversimplified!) definition of
   NP-complete, as of this date, is "intrinsically exponential."

2. Perhaps obvious, but I will say so anyway: n processors yoked in
   parallel can't do better than to be n times faster than a
   single serial processor. For some problems (e.g. sorting),
   the speedup is less.

The bottom line is that the "biggest tractable problem" is
proportional to the log of the computing power at your disposal;
whether you increase the power by speeding up a serial processor or by
multiplying the number of processors is of small consequence.

Now for the silver lining.  NP-complete problems often can be tweaked
slightly to yield "easy" problems; if you have an NP-complete problem
on your hands, go back and see if you can restrict it to a more
readily soluble problem.

Also, one can often restrict to a subproblem which, while it is still
NP-complete, has a heuristic which generates solutions which aren't
too far from optimal.  An example of this is the Travelling Salesman
Problem.  Several years ago Lewis, Rosencrantz, and Stearns at GE
Research described a heuristic that yielded solutions that were no
worse than twice the optimum if the graph obeyed the triangle
inequality (i.e. getting from A to C costs no more than going from A
to B, then B to C), a perfectly reasonable constraint.  It seems to me
that the heuristic ran in O(n-squared) or O(n log n), but my memory
may be faulty; low-order polynomial in any case.

So: "think parallel" may or may not help.  "Think heuristic" may help
a lot!

=Ned=

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 17:56:34-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!jdd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOGO wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.1721

A colleague of mine is looking for an implementation of LOGO, or any
similar language, under UNIX (one that already ran on both Suns and
PDP-11/23's would be ideal, but fat chance of that, eh?).  Failing
that, she would like to find a reasonably portable version (e.g., in
MacLisp).  In any case, if you have suggestions, please send them to
me and I shall forward.

Cheers, John ("This Has Been A Public Service Announcement")
DeTreville Bell Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 13:15:42-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!kramer @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: USENET and AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.1898

We at the University of Toronto have a strong AI group that has been
in action for years:

        Area                       Major Project

  Knowledge Representation     PSN (procedural semantic network)

  Databases and Knowledge      TAXIS Representation

  Vision                       ALVEN (left ventricular motion understanding)

  Linguistics                  Speech acts


A major summary of our activities is being prepared to appear in the
magazine for AAAI at some point.

Our research is being done on VAXen under UNIX*.  Presently at
utcsrgv, we will soon (September) be moving to a VAX dedicated to ai
work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 83 13:40:14-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!bts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More AI on USENET only
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unc.5673

     The Computer Science Department at UNC-Chapel Hill is another
site with (some) AI interests that is on USENET but not ARPANET.  We
are one of CSNET's phone sites, but this still doesn't allow us to FTP
files. (Yes, in part, this is a plea for those folks who can FTP to
share with the rest of us on USENET!)

     Our functional programming group has a couple of projects with
some AI overtones.  We have begun to look at AI style programming
languages for Gyula Mago's string reduction tree-machine.  This is a
small-grain parallel computer which executes Backus' FFP language.
We're also looking at automatic FP program transformations.

     Along with our neighbors at Duke University, we have some Prolog
programmers.  Right now, that's C-Prolog at UNC and NU7 UNIX Prolog at
Duke.

        Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
        duke!unc!bts (USENET)
        bts.unc@udel-relay (other NETworks)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 83 15:11:37 EDT  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: JACK MINKER <minker%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI Panel to Honor Alexander Lerner
-BODY-
        In conjunction with the AAAI meeting in Washington, D.C. a
session is being held to honor the 70th birthday of the Soviet
cyberneticist, Professor Alexander Lerner. The session will be held
on:

                Date: Tuesday, August 23, 1983
                Time: 7:00 PM
                Location: Georgetown Room, Concourse Level

        The session will consist of a brief description of Dr.
Lerner's career, followed by a panel discussion on:

                Future Directions in Artificial Intelligence

The following have agreed to be on the panel with me:

                Nils Nilsson
                John McCarthy
                Patrick Winston

Others will be invited to participate in the panel session.

        We hope that you will be able to join us to honor this
distinguished scientist.


                Jack Minker
                University of Maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
35
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 09:04:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliographies
-BODY-
The bibliographies in this and the following three issues were
extracted from the new-reports list put out by the Stanford Math/CS
Library.  I have sorted the citations as best I could from just the
titles.  Reports on planning and problem solving have not been pulled
out separately--they are listed here either by application domain
or by technique.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:44:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Bibliography
-BODY-
This is an update to the titles previously reported in AIList.

J.S. Aikins, J.C. Kunz, E.H. Shortliffe, and R.J. Fallat, PUFF: An
Expert System for Interpretation of Pulmonary Function Data.  Stanford
U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-931; Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept.
Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-013, 1982.  21p.

C. Apte, Expert Knowledge Management for Multi-Level Modelling.
Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-41, 1982.

B.G. Buchanan and R.O. Duda, Principles of Rule Based Expert Systems.
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-926; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-014, 1982.  55p.

B.G. Buchanan, Partial Bibliography of Work on Expert Systems.
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-953; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-30, 1982.  13p.

A. Bundy and B. Silver, A Critical Survey of Rule Learning Programs.
Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept., Res. Paper 169, 1982.

R. Davis, Expert Systems: Where are We? And Where Do We Go from Here?
M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 665, 1982.

D. Dellarosa and L.E. Bourne, Jr., Text-Based Decisions: Changes in
the Availability of Facts due to Instructions and the Passage of
Time.  Colorado U. Cognitive Sci. Inst., Tech.  rpt. 115-ONR, 1982.

T.G. Dietterich, B. London, K. Clarkson, and G. Dromey, Learning and
Inductive Inference (a section of the Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence, edited by Paul R.  Cohen and Edward A. Feigenbaum).
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-913; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. Heuristic Programming Project, HPP-82-010, 1982.  215p.

G.A. Drastal and C.A. Kulikowski, Knowledge Based Acquisition of Rules
for Medical Diagnosis.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TM-97,
1982.

N.V. Findler, An Expert Subsystem Based on Generalized Production
Rules.  Arizona State U. Comp. Sci. Dept., TR-82-003, 1982.

N.V. Findler and R. Lo, A Note on the Functional Estimation of Values
of Hidden Variables--An Extended Module for Expert Systems.  Arizona
State U. Comp. Sci.  Dept., TR-82-004, 1982.

K.E. Huff and V.R. Lesser, Knowledge Based Command Understanding: An
Example for the Software Development Environment. Massachusetts U.
Comp. & Info. Sci. Dept., COINS Tech.Rpt. 82-06, 1982.

J.K. Kastner, S.M. Weiss, and C.A. Kulikowske, Treatment Selection and
Explanation in Expert Medical Consultation: Application to a Model of
Ocular Herpes Simplex.  Rutgers U. Comp.  Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-132,
1982.

R.M. Keller, A Survey of Research in Strategy Acquisition.  Rutgers U.
Comp. Sci. Dept., DCS-TR-115, 1982.

V.E. Kelly and L.I. Steinberg, The Critter System: Analyzing Digital
Circuits by Propagating Behaviors and Specifications. Rutgers U.
Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-030, 1982.

J.J. King, An Investigation of Expert Systems Technology for
Automated Troubleshooting of Scientific Instrumentation.  Hewlett
Packard Co. Comp. Sci. Lab., CSL-82-012; Hewlett Packard Co. Comp.
Res.  Center, CRC-TR-82-002, 1982.

J.J. King, Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Device
Troubleshooting.  Hewlett Packard Co. Comp. Sci. Lab., CSL-82-009;
Hewlett Packard Co. Comp. Res. Center, CRC-TR-82-004, 1982.

G.M.E. Lafue and T.M. Mitchell, Data Base Management Systems and
Expert Systems for CAD.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-028,
1982.

R.J. Lytle, Site Characterization using Knowledge Engineering -- An
Approach for Improving Future Performance.  Cal U. Lawrence Livermore
Lab., UCID-19560, 1982.

T.M. Mitchell, P.E. Utgoff, and R. Banerji, Learning by
Experimentation: Acquiring and Modifying Problem Solving Heuristics.
Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., LCSR-TR-31, 1982.

D.S. Nau, Expert Computer Systems, Computer, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
63-85, Feb. 1983.

D.S. Nau, J.A. Reggia, and P. Wang, Knowledge-Based Problem Solving
Without Production Rules, IEEE 1983 Trends and Applications Conf., pp.
105-108, May 1983.

P.G. Politakis, Using Empirical Analysis to Refine Expert System
Knowledge Bases.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-130, Ph.D.
Thesis, 1982.

J.A. Reggia, P. Wang, and D.S. Nau, Minimal Set Covers as a Model for
Diagnostic Problem Solving, Proc. First IEEE Comp. Soc. Int. Conf. on
Medical Computer Sci./Computational Medicine, Sept. 1982.

J.A. Reggia, D.S. Nau, and P. Wang, Diagnostic Expert Systems Based on
a Set Covering Model, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 1983.  To appear.

M.D. Rychener, Approaches to Knowledge Acquisition: The Instructable
Production System Project.  Carnegie Mellon U. Comp. Sci. Dept.,
1981.

R.D. Schachter, An Incentive Approach to Eliciting Probabilities.
Cal. U., Berkeley. O.R. Center, ORC 82-09, 1982.

E.H. Shortliffe and L.M. Fagan, Expert Systems Research: Modeling the
Medical Decision Making Process.  Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept.,
STAN-CS-82-932; Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept. Heuristic Programming
Project, HPP-82-003, 1982.  23p.

M. Suwa, A.C. Scott, and E.H. Shortliffe, An Approach to Verifying
Completeness and Consistency in a Rule Based Expert System.  Stanford
U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-922, 1982.  19p.

J.A. Wald and C.J. Colbourn, Steiner Trees, Partial 2-Trees, and
Minimum IFI Networks.  Saskatchewan U. Computational Sci. Dept., Rpt.
82-06, 1982.

J.A. Wald and C.J. Colbourn, Steiner Trees in Probabilistic Networks.
Saskatchewan U. Computational Sci. Dept., Rpt. 82-07, 1982.

A. Walker, Automatic Generation of Explanations of Results from
Knowledge Bases.  IBM Watson Res. Center, RJ 3481, 1982.

J.W. Wallis and E.H. Shortliffe, Explanatory Power for Medical Expert
Systems: Studies in the Representation of Causal Relationships for
Clinical Consultation.  Stanford U. Comp.  Sci. Dept.,
STAN-CS-82-923, 1982.  37p.

S. Weiss, C. Kulikowske, C. Apte, and M. Uschold, Building Expert
Systems for Controlling Complex Programs.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res.
Lab., LCSR-TR-40, 1982.

Y. Yuchuan and C.A. Kulikowske, Multiple Strategies of Reasoning for
Expert Systems.  Rutgers U. Comp. Sci. Res. Lab., CBM-TR-131, 1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:47:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learning Bibliography
-BODY-
Anderson, J.R. Farrell, R. Sauers, R.* Learning to plan in LISP.*
Carnegie Mellon U. Psych.Dept.*1982.

Barber, G.*Supporting organizational problem solving with a
workstation.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 681.*1982.

Bundy, A. Silver, B.*A critical survey of rule learning programs.*
Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper 169.*1982.

Carbonell, J.G.* Learning by analogy: formulating and generalizing
plans from past experience.* Carnegie Mellon U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-126.*1982.

Carroll, J.M. Mack, R.L.* Metaphor, computing systems, and active
learning.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9636.*1982.  schemes.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3645.*1982.

Cohen, P.R.* Planning and problem solving.* Stanford U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-939; Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.  Heuristic
Programming Project.*HPP-82-021.*1982.  61p.

Dellarosa, D. Bourne, L.E. Jr.*Text-based decisions: changes in the
availability of facts due to instructions and the passage of time.*
Colorado U. Cognitive Sci.Inst.* Tech.rpt. 115-ONR.*1982.

Ehrlich, K. Soloway, E.*An empirical investigation of the tacit plan
knowledge in programming.* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
236.*1982.

Findler, N.V. Cromp, R.F.*An artificial intelligence technique to
generate self-optimizing experimental designs.* Arizona State U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-83-001.* 1983.

Good, D.I.* Reusable problem domain theories.* Texas U.  Computing
Sci.Inst.*TR-031.*1982.

Good, D.I.* Reusable problem domain theories.* Texas U.  Computing
Sci.Inst.*TR-031.*1982.

Kautz, H.A.*A first-order dynamic logic for planning.* Toronto U.
Comp. Systems Res. Group.*CSRG-144.*1982.

Luger, G.F.*Some artificial intelligence techniques for describing
problem solving behaviour.* Edinburgh U. A.I.  Dept.*Occasional Paper
007.*1977.

Mitchell, T.M. Utgoff, P.E. Banerji, R.* Learning by experimentation:
acquiring and modifying problem solving heuristics.* Rutgers U.
Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.*LCSR-TR-31.* 1982.

Moura, C.M.O. Casanova, M.A.* Design by example (preliminary report).*
Pontificia U., Rio de Janeiro.  Info.Dept.*No. 05/82.*1982.

Nadas, A.*A decision theoretic formulation of a training problem in
speech recognition and a comparison of training by uncondition versus
conditional maximum likelihood.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC
9617.*1982.

Slotnick, D.L.* Time constrained computation.* Illinois U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*UIUCDCS-R-82-1090.*1982.

Tomita, M.* Learning of construction of finite automata from examples
using hill climbing.  RR: regular set recognizer.* Carnegie Mellon U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.* CMU-CS-82-127.*1982.

Utgoff, P.E.*Acquisition of appropriate bias for inductive concept
learning.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TM-02.*1982.

Winston, P.H. Binford, T.O. Katz, B. Lowry, M.* Learning physical
descriptions from functional definitions, examples, and precedents.*
M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 679.* 1982.

Winston, P.H.* Learning by augmenting rules and accumulating censors.*
M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 678.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:48:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Bibliography
-BODY-
Ballantyne, M. Bledsoe, W.W. Doyle, J. Moore, R.C. Pattis, R.
Rosenschein, S.J.* Automatic deduction (Chapter XII of Volume III of
the Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, edited by Paul R. Cohen and
Edward A. Feigenbaum).* Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-937;
Stanford U.  Comp.Sci.Dept. Heuristic Programming
Project.*HPP-82-019.* 1982.  64p.

Bergstra, J. Chmielinska, A. Tiuryn, J.*" Hoare's logic is not
complete when it could be".* M.I.T. Lab. for Comp.Sci.*TM-226.*1982.

Bergstra, J.A. Tucker, J.V.* Hoare's logic for programming languages
with two data types.* Mathematisch Centrum.*IW 207/82.*1982.

Boehm, H.-J.*A logic for expressions with side-effects.* Cornell U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 81-478.*1981.

Bowen, D.L. (ed.)* DECsystem-10 Prolog user's manual.* Edinburgh U.
A.I. Dept.*Occasional Paper 027.*1982.

Boyer, R.S. Moore, J.S.*A mechanical proof of the unsolvability of the
halting problem.* Texas U. Computing Sci. and Comp.Appl.Inst.
Certifiable Minicomputer Project.*ICSCA-CMP-28.*1982.

Bundy, A. Welham, B.*Utility procedures in Prolog.* Edinburgh U. A.I.
Dept.*Occasional Paper 009.*1977.

Byrd, L. (ed.)*User's guide to EMAS Prolog.* Edinburgh U.  A.I.
Dept.*Occasional Paper 026.*1981.

Demopoulos, W.*The rejection of truth conditional semantics by Putnam
and Dummett.* Western Ontario U. Cognitive Science Centre.*COGMEM
06.*1982.

Goto, E. Soma, T. Inada, N. Ida, T. Idesawa, M. Hiraki, K.  Suzuki, M.
Shimizu, K. Philipov, B.*Design of a Lisp machine - FLATS.* Tokyo U.
Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  82-09.*1982.

Griswold, R.E.*The control of searching and backtracking in string
pattern matching.* Arizona U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-20.*1982.

Hagiya, M.*A proof description language and its reduction system.*
Tokyo U. Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 82-03.*1982.

Itai, A. Makowsky, J.*On the complexity of Herbrand's theorem.*
Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 243.*1982.

Kautz, H.A.*A first-order dynamic logic for planning.* Toronto U.
Comp. Systems Res. Group.*CSRG-144.*1982.

Kozen, D.C.*Results on the propositional mu-calculus.* Aarhus U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*DAIMI PB-146.*1982.

Makowsky, J.A. Tiomkin, M.L.*An array assignment for propositional
dynamic logic.* Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 234.*1982.

Manna, Z. Pneuli, A.*How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet
language.* Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* STAN-CS-82-954.*1982.  14p.

Mosses, P.* Abstract semantic algebras!* Aarhus U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*DAIMI PB-145.*1982.

Orlowska, E.*Logic of vague concepts: applications of rough sets.*
Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no.
474.*1982.

Sakamura, K. Ishikawa, C.* High level machine design by dynamic
tuning.* Tokyo U. Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  82-07.*1982.

Sato, M.*Algebraic structure of symbolic expressions.* Tokyo U.
Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 82-05.*1982.

Shapiro, E.Y.* Alternation and the computational complexity of logic
programs.* Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 239.* 1982.

Stabler, E.P. Jr.* Database and theorem prover designs for question
answering systems.* Western Ontario U. Cognitive Science
Centre.*COGMEM 12.*1982.

Sterling, L. Bundy, A.* Meta level inference and program
verification.* Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper 168.* 1982.

Treleaven, P.C. Gouveia Lima, I.*Japan's fifth generation computer
systems.* Newcastle upon Tyne U. Computing Lab.* No. 176.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
36
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 09:22:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robotics Bibliography
-BODY-
Ambler, A.P. Popplestone, R.J. Kempf, K.G.*An experiment in the
offline programming of robots.* Edinburgh U. A.I.  Dept.*Res. Paper
170.*1982.

Ambler, A.P.* RAPT: an object level robot programming language.*
Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper 172.*1982.

Brooks, R.A. Lozano-Perez, T.*A subdivision algorithm in configuration
space for findpath with rotation.* M.I.T.  A.I.  Lab.*Memo 684.*1982.

Brooks, R.A.*Solving the find path problem by representing free space
as generalized cones.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 674.*1982.

Brooks, R.A.*Symbolic error analysis and robot planning.* M.I.T. A.I.
Lab.*Memo 685.*1982.

Cameron, S.* Body models for every body.* Edinburgh U.  A.I.
Dept.*Working Paper 107.*1982.

Gueting, R.H. Wood, D.*Finding rectangle intersections by
divide-and-conquer.* McMaster U. Comp.Sci. Unit.* Comp.Sci. Tech.Rpt.
No. 82-CS-04.*1982.

Hofri, M.*BIN packing: an analysis of the next fit algorithm.*
Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 242.*1982.

Hollerbach, J.M.*Computers, brains, and the control of movement.*
M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 686.*1982.

Hollerbach, J.M.*Dynamic scaling of manipulator trajectories.* M.I.T.
A.I. Lab.*Memo 700.*1982.

Hollerbach, J.M.*Workshop on the design and control of dexterous hands
(held at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory on November 5-6,
1981).* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 661.*1982.

Hopcroft, J.E. Joseph, D.A. Whitesides, S.H.*On the movement of robot
arms in 2-dimensional bounded regions.*Cornell U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 82-486.*1982.

Kirkpatrick, D.* Optimal search in planar subdivisions.* British
Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 81-13.*1981.

Kouta, M.M. O'Rourke, J.*Fast algorithms for polygon decomposition.*
Johns Hopkins U. E.E. & Comp.Sci.Dept.* Tech.Rpt. 82/10.*1982.

Koutsou, A.*A survey of model bases robot programming languages.*
Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Working Paper 108.* 1981.

Lozano-Perez, T.* Robot programming.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 698.*1982.

Mason, M.T.* Manipulator grasping and pushing operations.* M.I.T.
A.I. Lab.*TR-690, Ph.D. Thesis. Mason, M.T.*1982.

Mavaddat, F.* WATSON/I: WATerloo's SONically guided robot.*Waterloo U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. CS-82-16.*1982.

Moran, S.*On the densest packing of circles in convex figures.*
Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Tech.Rpt. 241.*1982.

Mujtaba, M.S.* Motion sequencing of manipulators.* Stanford U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-917, Ph.D. Thesis.  Mujtaba, M.S.
(Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management).*1982.  291p.

Myers, E.W.*An O(ElogE+I) expected time algorithm for the planar
segment intersection problem.* Arizona U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR
82-03.*1982.

Popplestone, R.J.*Discussion document on body modelling for robot
languages.* Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Working Paper 110.*1982.

Shneier, M.* Hierarchical sensory processes for 3-D robot vision.*
Maryland U. Comp.Sci. Center.*TR-1165.*1982.

Slotnick, D.L.* Time constrained computation.* Illinois U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*UIUCDCS-R-82-1090.*1982.

Srinivasan, C.V.*Notes on object centered associative memory
organization.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TR-19.*1981.

Taylor, R.H.*An integrated robot system architecture.* IBM Watson Res.
Center.*RC 9824.*1983.

Yin, B.*A proposal for studying how to use vision within a robot
language which reasons about spatial relationships.*Edinburgh U. A.I.
Dept.*Working Paper 109.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 09:54:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vision Bibliography
-BODY-

A. Athukorala, Some Hardware for Computer Vision.  Edinburgh U. A.I.
Dept., Working Paper 102, 1981.

H.H. Baker, Depth from Edge and Intensity Based Stereo.  Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept., STAN-CS-82-930; Stanford U. Comp. Sci.
Dept. A.I. Lab., AIM-347, 1982, 90p.  Based on a Ph.D. thesis
submitted to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in
September of 1981.

R.J. Beattie, Edge Detection for Semantically Based Early Visual
Processing.  Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept., Res. Paper 174, 1982.

M. Brady and W.E.L. Grimson, The Perception of Subjective Surfaces.
M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 666, 1981.

I. Chakravarty, The Use of Characteristic Views as a Basis for
Recognition of Three-Dimensional Objects.  Rensselaer Polytechnic
Inst. Image Processing Lab., IPL-TR-034, 1982.

L. Dreschler, Ermittlung markanter Punkte auf den Bildern bewegter
Opjekte und Berechnung einer 3D-Beschreibung auf dieser Grundlage.
Hamburg U. Fachbereich Informatik, Bericht Nr. 83, 1981.

J.-O. Eklundh, Knowledge Based Image Analysis: Some Aspects of Images
using Other Types of Information.  Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm,
Num.Anal. & Computing Sci. Dept., TRITA-NA-8206, 1982.

R.B. Fisher, A Structured Pattern Matching Approach to Intermediate
Level Vision.  Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept., Res. Paper 177, 1982.

W.B. Gevarter, An Overview of Computer Vision.  U.S. National Bureau
of Standards, NBSIR 82-2582, 1982.

W.E.L. Grimson, The Implicit Constraints of the Primal Sketch.  M.I.T.
A.I. Lab., Memo 663, 1981.

W.I. Grosky, Towards a Data Model for Integrated Pictorial Databases.
Wayne State U. Comp. Sci. Dept., CSC-82-012, 1982.

R.F. Hauser, Some experiments with stochastic edge detection, IBM
Watson Res. Center, RZ 1210, 1983.

E.C. Hildreth and S. Ullman, The Measurement of Visual Motion.  M.I.T.
A.I. Lab., Memo 699, 1982.

T. Kanade (ed.), Vision.  Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept.,
STAN-CS-82-938; Stanford U. Comp. Sci. Dept. Heuristic Programming
Project, HPP-82-020, 1982, 220p.  Assistant Editor: Steven A. Shafer.
Contributors:  David A. Bourne, Rodney Brooks, Nancy H. Cornelius,
James L. Crowley, Hiromichi Fujisawa, Martin Herman, Fuminobu Komura,
Bruce D. Lucas, Steven A. Shafer, David R. Smith, Steven L. Tanimoto,
Charles E. Thorpe.

A. Krzesinski, The normalised convolution algorithm, IBM Watson Res.
Center, RC 9834, 1983.

M.A. Lavin and L.I. Lieberman, AML/V: An Industrial Machine Vision
Programming System.  IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9390, 1982.

C.N. Liu, M. Fatemi, and R.C. Waag, Digital Processing for Improvement
of Ultrasonic Abdominal Images.  IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9499,
1982.

D. Montuno and A. Fournier, Detecting intersection among star
polygons, Toronto U. Comp. Systems Res. Group, CSRG-146, 1982.

T.N. Mudge and T.A. Rahman, Efficiency of feature dependent
algorithms for the parallel processing of images, Michigan U.
Computing Res.  Lab., CRL-TR-11-83, 1983.

T.M. Nicholl, D.T. Lee, Y.Z. Liao, and C.K. Wong, Constructing the X-Y
convex hull of a set of X-Y polygons, IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9737,
1982.

E. Pervin and J.A. Webb, Quaternions in computer vision and robotics,
Carnegie Mellon U. Comp. Sci. Dept., CMU-CS-82-150, 1982.

T. Poggio, H.K. Nishihara, and K.R.K. Nielsen, Zero Crossings and
Spatiotemporal Interpolation in Vision: Aliasing and Electrical
Coupling Between Sensors.  M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 675, 1982.

T. Poggio, Visual Algorithms.  M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 683, 1982.

W. Richards, H.K. Nishihara, and B. Dawson, CARTOON: A Biologically
Motivated Edge Detection Algorithm.  M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 668, 1982.

A. Rosenfeld, Computer vision, Maryland U. Comp. Sci. Center, TR-1157,
1982.

A. Rosenfeld, Trends and perspectives in computer vision, Maryland U.
Comp. Sci. Center, TR-1194, 1982.

I.K. Sethi and R. Jain, Determining Three Dimensional Structure of
Rotating Objects.  Wayne State U. Comp. Sci. Dept., CSC-83-001, 1983.

M. Shneier, Hierarchical sensory processes for 3-D robot vision,
Maryland U. Comp. Sci. Center, TR-1165, 1982.

C.L. Sidner, Protocols of Users Manipulating Visually Presented
Information with Natural Language.  Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.,
BBN 5128, 1982.

R.W. Sjoberg, Atmospheric Effects in Satellite Imaging of Mountainous
Terrain.  M.I.T. A.I. Lab., TR-688,

S.N. Srihari, Pyramid representations for solids, SUNY, Buffalo, Comp.
Sci. Dept., Tech.Rpt. 200, 1983.

K.A. Stevens, Implementation of a Theory for Inferring Surface Shape
from Contours.  M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 676, 1982.

D. Terzopoulos, Multi-Level Reconstruction of Visual Surfaces:
Variational Principles and Finite Element Representations.  M.I.T.
A.I. Lab., Memo 671, 1982.

R.Y. Tsai, Multiframe Image Point Matching and 3-D Surface
Reconstruction.  IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9398, 1982.

R.Y. Tsai and T.S. Huang, Analysis of 3-D Time Varying Scene.  IBM
Watson Res. Center, RC 9479, 1982.

R.Y. Tsai, 3-D inference from the motion parallax of a conic arc and
a point in two perspective views, IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9818,
1983.

R.Y. Tsai, Estimating 3-D motion parameters and object surface
structures from the image motion of conic arcs, I: theoretical basis,
IBM Watson Res. Center, RC 9787, 1983.

R.Y. Tsai, Estimating 3-D motion parameters and object surface
structures from the image motion of conic arcs, IBM Watson Res.
Center, RC 9819, 1983.

L. Uhr and L. Schmitt, The Several Steps from ICON to SYMBOL, using
Structured Cone/Pyramids.  Wisconsin U. Comp. Sci. Dept., Tech.Rpt.
481, 1982.

P.H. Winston, T.O. Binford, B. Katz, and M. Lowry, Learning Physical
Descriptions from Functional Definitions, Examples, and Precedents.
M.I.T. A.I. Lab., Memo 679, 1982.  1982.

M.-M. Yau, Generating quadtrees of cross-sections from octrees, SUNY,
Buffalo, Comp. Sci. Dept., Tech.Rpt. 199, 1982.

B. Yin, A Proposal for Studying How to Use Vision Within a Robot
Language which Reasons about Spatial Relationships.  Edinburgh U.
A.I. Dept., Working Paper 109, 1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:54:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Speech Understanding Bibliography
-BODY-
Lucassen, J.M.*Discovering phonemic base forms automatically: an
information theoretic approach.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC
9833.*1983.

Waibel, A.*Towards very large vocabulary word recognition.* Carnegie
Mellon U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-144.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:49:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pattern Recognition Bibliography
-BODY-
Barnes, E.R.*An algorithm for separating patterns by ellipsoids.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RC 9500.*1982.

Chiang, W.P. Teorey, T.J.*A method for database record clustering.*
Michigan U. Computing Res.Lab.* CRL-TR-05-82.*1982.

Findler, N.V. Cromp, R.F.*An artificial intelligence technique to
generate self-optimizing experimental designs.* Arizona State U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-83-001.* 1983.

Findler, N.V. Lo, R.*A note on the functional estimation of values of
hidden variables--an extended module for expert systems.* Arizona
State U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-82-004.* 1982.

Jenkins, J.M.* Symposium on computer applications to cardiology:
introduction and automated electrocardiography and arrhythmia
monitoring.* Michigan U. Computing Res.Lab.*CRL-TR-20-83.*1983.

Kumar, V. Kanal, L.N.* Branch and bound formulations for sequential
and parallel And/Or tree search and their applications to pattern
analysis and game playing.* Maryland U. Comp.Sci.
Center.*TR-1144.*1982.

O'Rourke, J.*The signature of a curve and its applications to pattern
recognition (preliminary version).* Johns Hopkins U. E.E. &
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 82/09.*1982.

Seidel, R.*A convex hull algorithm for point sets in even dimensions.*
British Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  81-14.*1981.

Varah, J.M.*On fitting exponentials by nonlinear least squares.*
British Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  82-02.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
37
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:51:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Representation Bibliography
-BODY-
Abdallah, M.A.N.* Data types as algorithms.* Waterloo U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. CS-82-10.*1982.

Alterman, R.E.*A system of seven coherence relations for
hierarchically organizing event concepts in text.* Texas U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-209.*1982.

Amit, Y.*Review of conceptual dependency theory.* Edinburgh U. A.I.
Dept.*Occasional Paper 008.*1977.

Andrews, G.R. Schneider, F.B.*Concepts and notations for concurrent
programming.* Arizona U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-12.*1982.

Ericson, L.W.* DPL-82: a language for distributed processing.*
Carnegie Mellon U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CMU-CS-82-129.*1982.

Forbus, K.D.* Qualitative process theory.* M.I.T. A.I.  Lab.*Memo
664.*1982.

Katz, R.H. Lehman, T.J.*Storage structures for versions and
alternatives.* Wisconsin U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  479.*1982.

Lucas, P. Risch, T.*Representation of factual information by equations
and their evaluation.* IBM Watson Res.  Center.*RJ 3362.*1982.

Luger, G.F.*Some artificial intelligence techniques for describing
problem solving behaviour.* Edinburgh U. A.I.  Dept.*Occasional Paper
007.*1977.

Lytinen, S.L. Schank, R.C.* Representation and translation.*Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 234.*1982.

Mahr, B. Makowsky, J.A.*Characterizing specification languages which
admit initial semantics.* Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 232.*1982.

Mercer, R.E. Reiter, R.*The representation of presuppositions using
defaults.* British Columbia U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 82-01.*1982.

Orlowska, E. Pawlak, Z.*Representation of nondeterministic
information.* Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS
Rpt. No. 450.*1981.

Orlowska, E.*Logic of vague concepts: applications of rough sets.*
Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no.
474.*1982.

Orlowska, E.*Semantics of vague concepts: application of rough sets.*
Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no.
469.*1982.

Pawlak, Z.* Rough functions.* Polish Academy of Sciences.  Inst. of
Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no. 467.*1981.

Pawlak, Z.* Rough sets: power set hierarchy.* Polish Academy of
Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no.  470.*1982.

Pawlak, Z.*About conflicts.* Polish Academy of Sciences.  Inst. of
Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS Rpt. No. 451.*1981.

Pawlak, Z.*Some remarks about rough sets.* Polish Academy of Sciences.
Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no. 456.* 1982.

Sridharan, N.S.*A flexible structure for knowledge: examples of legal
concepts.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LRP-TR-014.*1982.

Srinivasan, C.V.*Notes on object centered associative memory
organization.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TR-19.*1981.

Weiser, M. Israel, B. Stanfill, C. Trigg, R. Wood, R.* Working papers
in knowledge representation and acquisition.* Maryland U. Comp.Sci.
Center.*TR-1175.* 1982.  Contents: Israel, B. Weiser, M.*Towards a
perceptual system for monitoring computer behavior; Stanfill, C.*
Geometry to causality: a hierarchy of subdomains for machine world;
Trigg, R.*Acquiring knowledge for an electronic textbook; Wood, R.J.*A
model for interactive program synthesis.

Winston, P.H. Binford, T.O. Katz, B. Lowry, M.* Learning physical
descriptions from functional definitions, examples, and precedents.*
M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 679.* 1982.

Woods, W.A. Bates, M. Bobrow, R.J. Goodman, B. Israel, D.  Schmolze,
J. Schudy, R. Sidner, C.L. Vilain, M.*Research in knowledge
representation for natural language understanding. Annual report: 1
September 1981 to 31 August 1982.* Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN
rpt.  5188.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:46:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Understanding Bibliography
-BODY-
Allen, E.M.*Acquiring linguistic knowledge for word experts.* Maryland
U. Comp.Sci. Center.*TR-1166.

Alterman, R.E.*A system of seven coherence relations for
hierarchically organizing event concepts in text.* Texas U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-209.*1982.

Amit, Y.*Review of conceptual dependency theory.* Edinburgh U. A.I.
Dept.*Occasional Paper 008.*1977.

Ballard, B.W. Lusth, J.C.*An English-language processing system which
'learns' about new domains.* Duke U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*CS-1982-18.*1982.

Ballard, B.W.*A "domain class" approach to transportable natural
language processing.* Duke U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CS-1982-11.*1982.

Bancilhon, F. Richard, P.* TQL, a textual query language.*
INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 145.*1982.

Barr, A. Cohen, P.R. Fagan, L.*Understanding spoken language (Chapter
V of Volume I of the Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, edited by
Avron Barr and Edward A. Feigenbaum).* Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*
STAN-CS-82-934; Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept. Heuristic Programming
Project.*HPP-82-016.*1982.  52p.

Black, J.B. Galambos, J.A. Read, S.* Story comprehension.* Yale U.
Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt. 017.*1982.

Black, J.B. Seifert, C.M.*The psychological study of story
understanding.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.* Tech.Rpt.
018.*1982.

Black, J.B. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. Gibbs, R.W. Jr.*What writers need to know
that they don't know they need to know.* Yale U. Cognitive Science
Program.*Tech.Rpt. 08.*1981.

Carbonell, J.G.* Meta-language utterances in purposive discourse.*
Carnegie Mellon U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CMU-CS-82-125.*1982.

Clinkenbeard, D.J.*A quite general text analysis method.* Colorado U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*CU-CS-237-82.*1982.

Culik, K. Natour, I.A.* Ambiguity types of formal grammars.*Wayne
State U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*CSC-82-014.*1982.

Dellarosa, D. Bourne, L.E. Jr.*Text-based decisions: changes in the
availability of facts due to instructions and the passage of time.*
Colorado U. Cognitive Sci.Inst.* Tech.rpt. 115-ONR.*1982.

Denny, J.P.* Whorf's Algonquian: old evidence and new ideas concerning
linguistic relativity.* Western Ontario U.  Cognitive Science
Centre.*COGMEM 11.*1982.

Dolev, D. Reischuk, R. Strong, H.R.*'Eventual' is earlier than
'immediate'.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3632.*1982.

Dyer, M.G.*In-depth understanding: a computer model of integrated
processing for narrative comprehension.* Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 219, Ph.D. Thesis. Dyer, M.G.* 1982.

Gawron, J.M. King, J.J. Lamping, J. Loebner, J.J. Paulson, E.A.
Pullum, G.K. Sag, I.A. Wasow, T.A.*Processing English with a
generalized phrase structure grammar.* Hewlett Packard Co.
Comp.Sci.Lab.*CSL-82-005.*1982.

Greene, B.R. Fujisake, T.*A probabilistic approach for dealing with
ambiguous syntactic structures.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC
9764.*1982.

Hartmanis, J.*On Goedel speed-up and succinctness of language
representation.* Cornell U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Tech.Rpt. 82-485.*1982.

Israel, D.J.*On interpreting semantic network formalisms.* Bolt,
Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN rpt. 5117.*1982.

Jensen, K. Heidorn, G.E.*The fitted parse: 100% parsing capability in
a syntactic grammar of English.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC
9729.*1982.  graphs.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9642.*1982.

Johnson, P.N. Robertson, S.P.* MAGPIE: a goal based model of
conversation.* Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 206.* 1981.

Katz, B. Winston, P.H.* Parsing and generating English using
commutative transformations.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.* Memo 677.*1982.

Lamping, J. King, J.J.* LM/GPSG--a prototype workstation for
linguists.* Hewlett Packard Co. Comp.Sci.Lab.* CSL-82-011; Hewlett
Packard Co. Comp.Res. Center.* CRC-Tr-82-006.*1982.

Lehnert, W. Dyer, M.G. Johnson, P.N. Yang, C.J. Harley, S.* BORIS: an
experiment in in-depth understanding of narratives.* Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 188.*1981.

Lehnert, W.G.* Affect units and narrative summarization.* Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 179.*1980.

Lytinen, S.L. Schank, R.C.* Representation and translation.* Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 234.*1982.

Mann, W.C. Matthiessen, C.M.I.M.*Two discourse generators, by William
C. Mann; A grammar and a lexicon for a text production system, by
Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen.* Southern Cal U.
Info.Sci.Inst.*ISI/RR-82-102.*1982.

Mann, W.C.*The anatomy of a systemic choice.* Southern Cal U.
Info.Sci.Inst.*ISI/RR-82-104.*1982.

Martin, P.A.*Integrating local information to understand dialog.*
Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-941; Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.
A.I. Lab.*AIM-348, Ph.D.  Thesis. Martin, P.A.*1982.  125p.

Miller, L.A.*" Natural language text are not necessarily grammatical
and unambiguous. Or even complete".* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC
9441.*1982.

Misek-Falkoff, L.D.*The new field of software linguistics: an
early-bird view.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9421.* 1982.

Misek-Falkoff, L.D.* Software science and natural language: a
unification of Halstead's counting rules for programs and English
text, and a claim space approach to extensions.* IBM Watson Res.
Center.*RC 9420.*1982.

Mueckstein, E.-M.M.* Parsing for collecting syntactic statistics.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RC 9836.*1983.

Mueckstein, E.M.M.* Q-Trans: query translation into English.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RC 9841.*1983.

Perlman, G.* Natural artificial languages: low-level processes.* Cal.
U., San Diego. Human Info. Proces.  Center.*Rpt. 8208.*1982.

Peterson, J.L.* Webster's seventh new collegiate dictionary: a
computer-readable file format.* Texas U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-196.*1982.

Reiser, B.J. Black, J.B. Lehnert, W.G.* Thematic knowledge structures
in the understanding and generation of narratives.* Yale U. Cognitive
Science Program.* Tech.Rpt. 016.*1982.

Reiser, B.J. Black, J.B.*Processing and structural models of
comprehension.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.* Tech.Rpt.
012.*1982.

Schank, R.C. Burstein, M.*Modeling memory for language understanding.*
Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 220.* 1982.

Schank, R.C. Collins, G.C. Davis, E. Johnson, P.N. Lytinen, S.
Reiser, B.J.*What's the point?* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
205.*1981.

Shwartz, S.P.*The search for pronominal referents.* Yale U. Cognitive
Science Program.*Tech.Rpt. 10.*1981.

Sidner, C.L. Bates, M.*Requirements for natural language understanding
in a system with graphic displays.* Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN
rpt. 5242.*1983.

Sidner, C.L.* Protocols of users manipulating visually presented
information with natural language.* Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN
rpt. 5128.*1982.

Smith, D.E.* FOCUSER: a strategic interaction paradigm for language
acquisition.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TR-36, Ph.D. Thesis.
Smith, D.E.*1982.

Stabler, E.P. Jr.* Programs, rule governed behavior and grammars in
theories of language acquisition and use.* Western Ontario U.
Cognitive Science Centre.*COGMEM 07.* 1982.

Usui, T.*An experimental grammar for translating English to Japanese.*
Texas U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-201.*1982.

Wilensky, R.*Talking to UNIX in English: an overview of an on-line
consultant.* California U., Berkeley.  Comp.Sci.Div.*UCB/CSD
82/104.*1982.

Woods, W.A. Bates, M. Bobrow, R.J. Goodman, B. Israel, D.  Schmolze,
J. Schudy, R. Sidner, C.L. Vilain, M.*Research in knowledge
representation for natural language understanding. Annual report: 1
September 1981 to 31 August 1982.* Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN
rpt.  5188.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:45:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognition Bibliography
-BODY-
Ballard, B.W. Lusth, J.C.*An English-language processing system which
'learns' about new domains.* Duke U. Comp.Sci.Dept.,CS-1982-18,1982.

Barr, A.* Artificial intelligence: cognition as computation.* Stanford
U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-956; Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.
Heuristic Programming Project.* HPP-82-29.*1982.  28p.

Black, J.B. Galambos, J.A. Reiser, B.J.*Coordinating discovery and
verification research.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt.
013.*1982.

Black, J.B. Galambos, J.A. Read, S.* Story comprehension.* Yale U.
Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt. 017.*1982.

Black, J.B. Seifert, C.M.*The psychological study of story
understanding.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.* Tech.Rpt.
018.*1982.

Black, J.B. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. Gibbs, R.W. Jr.*What writers need to know
that they don't know they need to know.* Yale U. Cognitive Science
Program.*Tech.Rpt. 08.*1981.

Bonar, J. Soloway, E.*Uncovering principles of novice programming.*
Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 240.*1982.

Carbonell, J.G.* Learning by analogy: formulating and generalizing
plans from past experience.* Carnegie Mellon U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-126.*1982.

Carroll, J.M. Mack, R.L.* Metaphor, computing systems, and active
learning.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9636.*1982.  schemes.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3645.*1982.

Cohen, P.R.*Models of cognition (Chapter XI of Volume III of the
Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, edited by Paul R. Cohen and
Edward A. Feigenbaum).* Stanford U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-936;
Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.  Heuristic Programming
Project.*HPP-82-018.*1982.  87p.

Conrad, M.* Microscopic macroscopic interface in biological
information processing.* Wayne State U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*
CSC-83-003.*1983.

Doyle, J.*The foundations of psychology: a logico-computational
inquiry into the concept of mind.* Carnegie Mellon U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-149.*1982.

Dyer, M.G.*In-depth understanding: a computer model of integrated
processing for narrative comprehension.* Yale U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 219, Ph.D. Thesis. Dyer, M.G.* 1982.

Ehrlich, K. Soloway, E.*An empirical investigation of the tacit plan
knowledge in programming.* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
236.*1982.

Ericsson, K.A. Chase, W.G.* Exceptional memory.* Carnegie Mellon U.
Psych.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 08.*1982.

Firdman, H.E.*Toward a theory of cognizing systems: the search for an
integrated theory of AI.* Hewlett Packard Co.
Comp.Sci.Lab.*CSL-82-007; Hewlett Packard Co.  Comp.Res.
Center.*CRC-TR-82-002.*1982.

Galambos, J.A.*Normative studies of six characteristics of our
knowledge of common activities.* Yale U. Cognitive Science
Program.*Tech.Rpt. 014.*1982.

Good, D.I.* Reusable problem domain theories.* Texas U.  Computing
Sci.Inst.*TR-031.*1982.

Hollerbach, J.M.*Computers, brains, and the control of movement.*
M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 686.*1982.

Israel, D.J.*On interpreting semantic network formalisms.* Bolt,
Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN rpt. 5117.*1982.

Kampfner, R.R. Conrad, M.*Sequential behavior and stability properties
of enzymatic neuron networks.* Wayne State U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*CSC-82-011.*1982.

Lansner, A.* Information processing in a network of model neurons: a
computer simulation study.* Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm.
Num.Anal. & Computing Sci.Dept.* TRITA-NA-8211.*1982.

Mather, J.A.* Saccadic eye movements to seen and unseen targets:
preprogramming and sensory input in motor control.* Western Ontario U.
Cognitive Science Centre.* COGMEM 10.*1982.

Mitchell, T.M. Utgoff, P.E. Banerji, R.* Learning by experimentation:
acquiring and modifying problem solving heuristics.* Rutgers U.
Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.*LCSR-TR-31.* 1982.

Poggio, T. Koch, C.*Nonlinear interactions in a dendritic tree:
localization, timing, and role in information processing.* M.I.T.
A.I. Lab.*Memo 657.*1981.

Reiser, B.J. Black, J.B. Lehnert, W.G.* Thematic knowledge structures
in the understanding and generation of narratives.* Yale U. Cognitive
Science Program.* Tech.Rpt. 016.*1982.

Richards, W. Nishihara, H.K. Dawson, B.* CARTOON: a biologically
motivated edge detection algorithm.* M.I.T.  A.I. Lab.*Memo 668.*1982.

Schank, R.C. Burstein, M.*Modeling memory for language understanding.*
Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 220.* 1982.

Schank, R.C.*Representing meaning: an artificial intelligence
perspective.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt. 11.*1981.

Seifert, C.M. Robertson, S.P.*On-line processing of pragmatic
inferences.* Yale U. Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt. 015.*1982.

Shwartz, S.P.*Three-dimensional mental rotation revisited: picture
plane rotation is really faster than depth rotation.* Yale U.
Cognitive Science Program.*Tech.Rpt.  09.*1981.

Sidner, C.L.* Protocols of users manipulating visually presented
information with natural language.* Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.*BBN
rpt. 5128.*1982.

Smith, D.E.* FOCUSER: a strategic interaction paradigm for language
acquisition.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TR-36, Ph.D. Thesis.
Smith, D.E.*1982.

Soloway, E. Bonar, J. Ehrlich, K.* Cognitive strategies and looping
constructs: an empirical study.* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
242.*1982.

Soloway, E. Ehrlich, K. Bonar, J. Greenspan, J.*What do novices know
about programming?* Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Res.Rpt. 218.*1982.

Srinivasan, C.V.*Notes on object centered associative memory
organization.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TR-19.*1981.

Stabler, E.P. Jr.* Programs, rule governed behavior and grammars in
theories of language acquisition and use.* Western Ontario U.
Cognitive Science Centre.*COGMEM 07.* 1982.

Utgoff, P.E.*Acquisition of appropriate bias for inductive concept
learning.* Rutgers U. Comp.Sci.Res.Lab.* LCSR-TM-02.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
38
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:50:19-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programming Bibliography
-BODY-
[Includes programming environments and techniques
as well as automatic programming.]

Abdallah, M.A.N.* Data types as algorithms.* Waterloo U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. CS-82-10.*1982.

Andrews, G.R. Schneider, F.B.*Concepts and notations for concurrent
programming.* Arizona U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-12.*1982.

Andrews, G.R. Schneider, F.B.*Concepts and notations for concurrent
programming.* Arizona U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-12.*1982.

Andrews, G.R.* Distributed programming languages.* Arizona U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-13.*1982.

Archer, J.E. Jr.*The design and implementation of a cooperative
program development environment.* Cornell U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.rpt.
81-468, Ph.D. Thesis. Archer, J.E. Jr.*1982.

Bakker, J.W. de Zucker, J.I.* Processes and the denotational semantics
of concurrency.* Mathematisch Centrum.*IW 209/82.*1982.

Barber, G.*Supporting organizational problem solving with a
workstation.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 681.*1982.

Bergstra, J.A. Klop, J.W.* Fixed point semantics in process algebras.*
Mathematisch Centrum.*IW 206/82.*1982.

Bergstra, J.A. Tucker, J.V.* Hoare's logic for programming languages
with two data types.* Mathematisch Centrum.*IW 207/82.*1982.

Best, E.* Relational semantics of concurrent programs (with some
applications).* Newcastle Upon Tyne U. Computing Lab.*No. 180.*1982.

Bobrow, D.G. Stefik, M.*The LOOPS manual (preliminary version).*
Xerox. Palo Alto Res. Center.*Memo KB-VLSI-81-13.*1981, (working
paper).

Bonar, J. Soloway, E.*Uncovering principles of novice programming.*
Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. 240.*1982.

Burger, W.F. Halim, N. Pershing, J.A. Parr, F.N. Strom, R.E. Yemini,
S.*Draft NIL reference manual.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9732.*1982.

Culik, K. Rizki, M.M.* Mathematical constructive proofs as computer
programs.* Wayne State U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CSC-83-004.*1983.

diSessa, A.A.*A principled design for an integrated computational
environment.* M.I.T. Lab. for Comp.Sci.* TM-223.*1982.

Ehrlich, K. Soloway, E.*An empirical investigation of the tacit plan
knowledge in programming.* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
236.*1982.

Elrad, T. Francez, N.*A weakest precondition semantics for
communicating processes.* Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 244.*1982.

Ericson, L.W.* DPL-82: a language for distributed processing.*
Carnegie Mellon U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CMU-CS-82-129.*1982.

Eyries, F.*Synthese d'images de scenes composees de spheres.*
INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 163.*1982.

Good, D.I.*The proof of a distributed system in GYPSY.* Texas U.
Computing Sci.Inst.*TR-030.*1982.

Israel, B.*Customizing a personal computing environment through object
oriented programming.* Maryland U.  Comp.Sci.  Center.*TR-1158.*1982.

Jobmann, M.*ILMAOS - Eine Sprache zur Formulierung von
Rechensystemmodellen.* Hamburg U. Fachbereich Informatik.* Bericht Nr.
91.*1982.

Kanasaki, K. Yamaguchi, K. Kunii, T.L.*A software development system
supported by a database of structures and operations.* Tokyo U.
Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  82-15.*1982.

Kant, E. Newell, A.* Problem solving techniques for the design of
algorithms.* Carnegie Mellon U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* CMU-CS-82-145.*1982.

Krafft, D.B.* AVID: a system for the interactive development of
verifiably correct programs.* Cornell U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.rpt.
81-467.*1981.

Lacos, C.A. McDermott, T.S.*Interfacing with the user of a syntax
directed editor.* Tasmania U. Info.Sci.Dept.*No.  R82-03.*1982.

Lamping, J. King, J.J.* IZZI--a translator from Interlisp to
Zetalisp.* Hewlett Packard Co. Comp.Sci.Lab.* CSL-82-010; Hewlett
Packard Co. Comp.Res. Center.* CRC-TR-82-005.*1982.

LeBlanc, T.J.*The design and performance of high level language
primitives for distributed programming.* Wisconsin U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 492, Ph.D. Thesis.  LeBlanc, T.J.*1982.

Lengauer, C.*A methodology for programming with concurrency.* Toronto
U. Comp. Systems Res. Group.* CSRG-142, Ph.D. Thesis. Lengauer,
C.*1982.

Lesser, V. Corkill, D. Pavlin, J. Lefkowitz, L. Hudlicka, E. Brooks,
R. Reed, S.*A high-level simulation testbed for cooperative
distributed problem solving.* Massachusetts U. Comp. &
Info.Sci.Dept.*COINS Tech.Rpt.  81-16.*1981.

Lieberman, H.*Seeing what your programs are doing.* M.I.T.  A.I.
Lab.*Memo 656.*1982.

Lochovsky, F.H.* Alpha beta, edited by F.H. Lochovsky.* Toronto U.
Comp. Systems Res. Group.*CSRG-143.*1982.  Contents: (1) Lochovsky,
F.H. Tsichritzis, D.C.* Interactive query language for external data
bases; (2) Mendelzon, A.O.*A database editor; (3) Lee, D.L.*A voice
response system for an office information system; (4) Gibbs, S.J.*
Office information models and the representation of 'office objects';
(5) Martin, P.* Tsichritzis, D.C.*A message management model; (6)
Nierstrasz, O.*Tsichritzis, D.C.* Message flow modeling; (7)
Tsichritzis, D.C. Christodoulakis, S. Faloutsos, C.* Design
considerations for a message file server.

Mahr, B. Makowsky, J.A.*Characterizing specification languages which
admit initial semantics.* Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 232.*1982.

McAllester, D.A.* Reasoning utility package. User's manual.  Version
one.* M.I.T. A.I. Lab.*Memo 667.*1982.

Medina-Mora, R.* Syntax directed editing: towards integrated
programming environments.* Carnegie Mellon U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.* Ph.D.
Thesis. Medina-Mora, R.*1982.

Melese, B.* Metal, un langage de specification pour le systeme
mentor.* INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 142.*1982.

Olsen, D.R. Jr. Badler, N.*An expression model for graphical command
languages.* Arizona State U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR-82-001.*1982.

Paige, R.* Transformational programming--applications to algorithms
and systems: summary paper.* Rutgers U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*DCS-TR-118.*1982.

Parr, F.N. Strom, R.E.* NIL: a high level language for distributed
systems programming.* IBM Watson Res.  Center.*RC 9750.*1982.

Pratt, V.*Five paradigm shifts in programming language design and
their realization in Viron, a dataflow programming environment.*
Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* STAN-CS-82-951.*1982.  9p.

Rosenstein, L.S.* Display management in an integrated office
workstation.* M.I.T. Lab for Comp.Sci.*TR-278.* 1982.

Ross, P.M.* TERAK LOGO user's manual (for version 1 - 0).* Edinburgh
U. A.I. Dept.*Occasional Paper 021.*1980.

Schlichting, R.D. Schneider, F.B.*Using message passing for
distributed programming: proof rules and disciplines.* Arizona U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-05.*1982.

Schmidt, E.E.*Controlling large software development in a distributed
environment.* Xerox. Palo Alto Res.  Center.*CSL-82-07, Ph.D. Thesis.
Schmidt, E.E. (University of California at Berkeley).*1982.

Senach, B.*Aide a la resolution de probleme par presentation graphique
des informations.* INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 013.*1982.

Soloway, E. Bonar, J. Ehrlich, K.* Cognitive strategies and looping
constructs: an empirical study.* Yale U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt.
242.*1982.

Soloway, E. Ehrlich, K. Bonar, J. Greenspan, J.*What do novices know
about programming?* Yale U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Res.Rpt. 218.*1982.

Stefik, M. Bell, A.G. Bobrow, D.G.* Rule oriented programming in
LOOPS.* Xerox. Palo Alto Res. Center.*Memo KB-VLSI-82-22.*1982.
(working paper).

Sterling, L. Bundy, A.* Meta level inference and program
verification.* Edinburgh U. A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper 168.* 1982.

Sterling, L. Bundy, A. Byrd, L. O'Keefe, R. Silver, B.* Solving
symbolic equations with PRESS.* Edinburgh U.  A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper
171.*1982.

Tappel, S. Westfold, S. Barr, A.* Programming languages for AI
research (Chapter VI of Volume II of the Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence, edited by Avron Barr and Edward A. Feigenbaum).*
Stanford U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* STAN-CS-82-935; Stanford U.
Comp.Sci.Dept. Heuristic Programming Project.*HPP-82-017.*1982.  90p.

Theriault, D.*A primer for the Act-1 language.* M.I.T.  A.I.
Lab.*Memo 672.*1982.

Thompson, H.*Handling metarules in a parser for GPSG.  Edinburgh U.
A.I. Dept.*Res. Paper 175.*1982.

Walker, A.* PROLOG/EX1: an inference engine which explains both yes
and no answers.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3771.*1983.

Waters, R.C.* LetS: an expressional loop notation.* M.I.T.  A.I.
Lab.*Memo 680a.*1983.

Wilensky, R.*Talking to UNIX in English: an overview of an on-line
consultant.* California U., Berkeley.  Comp.Sci.Div.*UCB/CSD
82/104.*1982.

Wolper, P.L.*Synthesis of communicating processes from temporal logic
specifications.* Stanford U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-925, Ph.D.
Thesis. Wolper, P.L.* 1982.  111p.

Wood, R.J.* Franz flavors: an implementation of abstract data types in
an applicative language.* Maryland U.  Comp.Sci.
Center.*TR-1174.*1982.

Woods, D.R.*Drawing planar graphs.* Stanford U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-943, Ph.D. Thesis. Woods, D.R.* 1981.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:55:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Database Bibliography
-BODY-
Bancilhon, F. Richard, P.* TQL, a textual query language.*
INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 145.*1982.

Bossi, A. Ghezzi, C.*Using FP as a query language for relational
data-bases.* Milan. Politecnico. Dipartimento di Elettronica. Lab. di
Calcolatori.*Rapporto Interno N.  82-11.*1982.

Cooke, M.P.*A speech controlled information retrieval system.* U.K.
National Physical Lab. Info. Technology and Computing Div.*DITC
15/83.*1983.

Corson, Y.*Aspects psychologiques lies a l'interrogation d'une base de
donnees.* INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 126.* 1982.

Cosmadakis, S.S.*The complexity of evaluation relational queries.*
M.I.T. Lab. for Comp.Sci.*TM-229.*1982.

Daniels, D. Selinger, P. Haas, L. Lindsay, B. Mohan, C.  Walker, A.
Wilms, P.*An introduction to distributed query compilation in R.* IBM
Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3497.*1982.

Gonnet, G.H.* Unstructured data bases.* Waterloo U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Res.Rpt. CS-82-09.*1982.

Griswold, R.E.*The control of searching and backtracking in string
pattern matching.* Arizona U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 82-20.*1982.

Grosky, W.I.*Towards a data model for integrated pictorial databases.*
Wayne State U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*CSC-82-012.* 1982.

Haas, L.M. Selinger, P.G. Bertino, E. Daniels, D. Lindsay, B. Lohman,
G. Masunaga, Y. Mogan, C. Ng, P. Wilms, P.  Yost, R.* R*: a research
project on distributed relational DBMS.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RJ
3653.*1982.

Hailpern, B.T. Korth, H.F.*An experimental distributed database
system.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RC 9678.*1982.

Jenny, C.*Methodologies for placing files and processes in systems
with decentralized intelligence.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RZ
1139.*1982.

Kanasaki, K. Yamaguchi, K. Kunii, T.L.*A software development system
supported by a database of structures and operations.* Tokyo U.
Info.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  82-15.*1982.

Klug, A.*On conjunctive queries containing inequalities.* Wisconsin U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 477.*1982.

Konikowska, B.* Information systems: on queries containing k-ary
descriptors.* Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS
rpt. no. 466.*1982.

Lochovsky, F.H.* Alpha beta, edited by F.H. Lochovsky.* Toronto U.
Comp. Systems Res. Group.*CSRG-143.*1982.  Contents: (1) Lochovsky,
F.H. Tsichritzis, D.C.* Interactive query language for external data
bases; (2) Mendelzon, A.O.*A database editor; (3) Lee, D.L.*A voice
response system for an office information system; (4) Gibbs, S.J.*
Office information models and the representation of 'office objects';
(5) Martin, P.* Tsichritzis, D.C.*A message management model; (6)
Nierstrasz, O.*Tsichritzis, D.C.* Message flow modeling; (7)
Tsichritzis, D.C. Christodoulakis, S. Faloutsos, C.* Design
considerations for a message file server.

Lohman, G.M. Stoltzfus, J.C. Benson, A.N. Martin, M.D.  Cardenas,
A.F.* Remotely sensed geophysical databases: experience and
implications for generalized DBMS.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RJ
3794.*1983.

Madelaine, E.*Le systeme perluette et les preuves de representation de
types abstraits.* INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 133.*1982.

Maier, D. Ullman, J.D.* Fragments of relations.* Stanford U.
Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-929.*1982.  11p.

Michard, A.*A new database query language for non-professional users:
design principles and ergonomic evaluation.* INRIA.*Rapport de
Recherche 127.*1982.

Ng, P.* Distributed compilation and recompilation of database
queries.* IBM Watson Res. Center.*RJ 3375.*1982.

Srivas, M.K.*Automatic synthesis of implementations for abstract data
types from algebraic specifications.* M.I.T. Lab for Comp.Sci.*TR-276,
Ph.D. Thesis. Srivas, M.K. (This report is a minor revision of a
thesis of the same title submitted to the Department of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science in December 1981).*1982.

Stabler, E.P. Jr.* Database and theorem prover designs for question
answering systems.* Western Ontario U. Cognitive Science
Centre.*COGMEM 12.*1982.

Stamos, J.W.*A large object oriented virtual memory: grouping
strategies, measurements, and performance.* Xerox. Palo Alto Res.
Center.*SCG-82-02.*1982.

Wald, J.A. Sorenson, P.G.*Resolving the query inference problem using
Steiner trees.* Saskatchewan U.  Computational
Sci.Dept.*Rpt.83-04.*1983.

Weyer, S.A.* Searching for information in a dynamic book.* Xerox.
Palo Alto Res. Center.*SCG-82-01, Ph.D. Thesis.  Weyer, S.A.
(Stanford University).*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Aug 83 08:56:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Science Bibliography
-BODY-
[Includes selected topics in CS that seem relevant to AIList
and are not covered in the preceeding bibliographies.]

Eppinger, J.L.*An empirical study of insertion and deletion in binary
search trees.* Carnegie Mellon U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-146.*1982.

Gilmore, P.C.*Solvable cases of the travelling salesman problem.*
British Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  81-08.*1981.

Graham, R.L. Hell, P.*On the history of the minimum spanning tree
problem.* Simon Fraser U. Computing Sci.Dept.*TR 82-05.*1982.

Gupta, A. Hon, R.W.*Two papers on circuit extraction.* Carnegie Mellon
U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*CMU-CS-82-147.*1982.  Contents: Gupta, A.* ACE: a
circuit extractor; Gupta, A.  Hon, R.W.* HEXT: a hierarchical circuit
extractor.

Hofri, M.*BIN packing: an analysis of the next fit algorithm.*
Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 242.*1982.

Jomier, G.*An overview of systems modelling and evaluation
tendencies.* INRIA.*Rapport de Recherche 134.*1982.

Jurkiewicz, E.* Stability of compromise solution in multicriteria
decision making problem.* Polish Academy of Sciences. Inst. of
Comp.Sci.*ICS PAS rpt. no. 455.*1981.

Kirkpatrick, D.G. Hell, P.*On the complexity of general graph factor
problems.* British Columbia U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt. 81-07.*1981.

Kjelldahl, L. Romberger, S.*Requirements for interactive editing of
diagrams.* Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm.  Num.Anal. & Computing
Sci.Dept.*TRITA-NA-8303.*1983.

Moran, S.*On the densest packing of circles in convex figures.*
Technion - Israel Inst. of Tech. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Tech.Rpt. 241.*1982.

Nau, D. Kumar, V. Kanal, L.*General branch and bound and its relation
to A* and AO*.* Maryland U. Comp.Sci.  Center.*TR-1170.*1982.

Nau, D.S.* Pathology on game trees revisited, and an alternative to
minimaxing.* Maryland U. Comp.Sci.  Center.*TR-1187.*1982.

Roberts, B.J. Marashian, I.* Bibliography of Stanford computer science
reports, 1963-1982.* Stanford U.  Comp.Sci.Dept.*STAN-CS-82-911.*1982.
59p.

Scowen, R.S.*An introduction and handbook for the standard syntactic
metalanguage.* U.K. National Physical Lab.  Info. Technology and
Computing Div.*DITC 19/83.*1983.

Seidel, R.*A convex hull algorithm for point sets in even dimensions.*
British Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Tech.Rpt.  81-14.*1981.

Varah, J.M.*Pitfalls in the numerical solution of linear ill posed
problems.* British Columbia U. Comp.Sci.Dept.* Tech.Rpt. 81-10.*1981.

Wegman, M.*Summarizing graphs by regular expressions.* IBM Watson Res.
Center.*RC 9364.*1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
39
-DATE-
Date: 11-Aug-83 13:52 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Textnet
-BODY-
I have spent most spare minutes for the last ten years designing a
distributed hyper-service using NLS and Augment as a development tool.
We can simulate, via electronic mail, the beginnings of a
self-descriptive service-service called the "Publish adventure".  The
Xanadu project's Hypertext, because of its devotion to static text, is
a degenerate case of the Publish adventure.  If you are interested in
collaborating on the design of the protocol, let me know.

 -- Kirk Kelley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 83 16:36:29-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Real AI Topic
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.398

First let me get in a one last (?) remark about where the Japanese are
in AI - pattern recognition and robotics are useful but marginal in
the AI world.  Some of the pattern recognition work seems to be making
the same conclusions now that real AI workers made ten years ago
(those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it!).

Now on to the good stuff.  I have been thinking about knowledge
representation (KR) recently and made some interesting (to me, anyway)
observations.

1.  Certain KRs tend to show up again and again, though perhaps in
    well-disguised forms.

2.  All the existing KRs can be cast into something like an
    attribute-value representation.

Space does not permit going into all the details, but as an example,
the PHRAN language analyzer from Berkeley is actually a specialized
production rule system, although its origins were elsewhere (in
parsers using demons).  Semantic nets are considered obsolete and ad
hoc, but predicate logic reps end up looking an awful lot like a net
(so does a sizeable frame system).  A production rule has two
attributes: the condition and the action.  Object-oriented programming
(smalltalk and flavors) uses the concept of attributes (instance
variables) attached to objects.  There are other examples.

Question: is there something fundamentally important and inescapable
about attribute-value pairs attached to symbols?  (ordinary program
code is a representation of knowledge, but doesn't look like av-pairs
> is it a valid counterexample?)

What other possible KRs are there?

Certain KRs (such as RLL (which is really a very interesting system))
claim to be universal and capable of representing anything.  Are there
any particularly difficult concepts that *no* KR has been able to
represent (even in a crude way)?  What is so difficult about those
concepts, if any such exist?

                                Just stirring up the mud,
                                stan the leprechaun hacker
                                ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)


[I believe that planning systems still have difficulties in
representing continuous time, hypothetical worlds, beliefs, and
intentions, among other things.  In vision, robotics, geology, and
medicine, there are difficulties in representing shape, texture, and
spatial relationships.  Attribute-value pairs are just not very
useful for representing continuous quantities.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Aug 83 17:19:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NP-completeness
-BODY-
    I forward this message because it raises an interesting point, and
I thought readers may care to see it. I had a reply to this, but
perhaps someone else may care to comment.

  Date:     Sun,  7 Aug 83 18:28:09 CDT
  From: Mike.Caplinger <mike.rice@Rand-Relay>

  Claiming that a parallel machine makes NP-complete problems
  polynomial (given that the machine has an infinite number of
  processing elements) is certainly true (by the definition of
  NP-completeness), but meaningless.  Admittedly, a large number of
  processing elements might make a finitely-bounded algorithm faster,
  but any finitely-bounded algorithm is a constant time algorithm.
  (If I say N is never greater than the number of processors, then N
  might as well be a constant.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 83 13:19:32-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!we13!burl!duke!unc!koala @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Matrix Multiplication on the FFP Machine
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unc.5687

        Since the subject has been brought up, I felt I should clear
up some of the statements about the FFP machine.  The machine consists
of a linear vector of small processors which communicate by being
connected as the leaves of a binary tree.

        Roughly speaking, the FFP machine performs general matrix
multiplication in O(nxn) space and time.  Systolic arrays can multiply
matrices in O(n) time, but do not provide a flexibility in the size of
matrices that can be handled.

        Order notation only presents half the picture - in real life,
constant factors and other terms are also important.  The machine's
matrix multiply operation examines each element of the two matrices
once.  Multiplying two matrices, mxn and nxp, requires accessing (mxn
+ nxp) values, and this is the measure of the time for the
computation.  Each cell performs n multiplications, dominated by the
access.  Further, when you multiply two matrices, mxn and nxp, the
result is of size mxp.  (Consider multiplying a column by a row).
Thus, when n < (mxp)/(m+p), extra space must be allocated for the
result.  This is also a quadratic time operation.

                                David Middleton
                                UNC Chapel Hill
                                decvax!duke!unc!koala

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Aug 83 16:23:19-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Matrix Multiplication on the FFP Machine
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.406

I must admit to being a little sloppy when giving the maximum speed of
a matrix multiplication on an FFP machine (haven't worked on this
stuff for a year, and my memory is slipping).  I still stand by the
original statement, however.  The *maximum* possible speed for the
multiplication of two nxn matrices is O(log n).  What I should have
done is state that the machine architecture is completely unspecified.
I am not convinced that the Mago tree machine is the ultimate in FFP
designs, although it is very interesting.  The achievement of O(log n)
requires several things.  Let me enumerate.  First, assume that the
matrix elements are already distributed to their processors.  Second,
assume that a single processor can quickly distribute a value to
arbitrarily many processors (easy: put it on the bus (buss? :-} ) and
let the processors all go through a read cycle simultaneously).
Third, assume that the processors can communicate in such a way that
addition of n numbers can be performed in log n time (by adding pairs,
then pairs of pairs, etc).  Then the distribution of values takes
constant time, the multiplications are all done simultaneously and so
take constant time, leaving only the summation to slow things down.  I
know this is fast and loose; its main failing is that it assumes the
availability of an extraordinarily high number of communication paths
(the exact number is left as an exercise for the reader).

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps For those not familiar with FP, read J. Backus' Turing Lecture in
CACM (Aug 78, I believe) - it is very readable, also he gives a
one-liner for matrix multiplication in FP, which I used as a basis for
the timing hackery above

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Aug 83 19:32:18-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional Programming and AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.408

It is interesting that the subject of FP (an old interest of mine) has
arisen in the AI newsgroup (no this is not an "appropriate newsgroup"
flame).  Having worked with both AI and FP languages, it seems to me
that the two are diametrically opposed to one another.  The ultimate
goal of functional programming language research is to produce a
language that is as clean and free of side effects as possible; one
whose semantic definition fits on a single side of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet
of paper (and not in microform, smart-aleck!).  On the other hand, the
goal of AI research (at least in the AI language area) is to produce
languages that can effectively work with as tangled and complicated
representations of knowledge as possible.  Languages for semantic
nets, frames, production systems, etc, all have this character.
Formal definitions are at best difficult, and sometimes impossible
(aside: could this be proved for any specific knowledge rep?).  Now
between the Japanese 5th generation project (and the US response) and
the various projects to build non-vonNeumann machines using FP, it
looks to me like the seeds of a controversy over the best way to do
programming.  Should we be using FP languages or AI languages?  We
can't have it both ways, right?  Or can we?

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Aug 83 13:58:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Japanese 5th Generation Effort
-BODY-
It seems to me that the 5th generation effort differs from most
efforts we are familiar with in being strictly top-down. That is to
say, the Japanese are willing to start work not only without knowing
how to solve the nitty-gritty problems at the bottom--but without
knowing what those nitty-gritty problems actually are. Although
dangerous, this is a very powerful research strategy. Until it gets
bogged down due to an almost insurmountable number of unsolvable
technical problems one can expect very rapid progress indeed. When it
does get bogged down, their understanding of the problems will be as
great as that of anyone else in the world. The best way to learn is by
doing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9-AUG-1983 15:24
-FROM-
From: SHRAGER%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On Science and the Fifth Generation
-BODY-

I'm a little confused about why this Japanese business seems to be
scaring the pants off of the US research community; why scientists are
quoted in national news magazines as being "panic stricken", and why
terms like "race" and "ahead" are being thrown around in a community
of "scientists"; why anyone cares if the fifth generation thing is
propoganda or not.  You'll find out when they make it work or they
don't!

Science is a cooperative effort.  If Japan wants to jump forward
(note, not "ahead" in any sense) in technology and understanding it is
the position of every other scientist to applaud their boldness and
provide every ounce of critical advice we can give them.  So what if
symbolics goes bankrupt becuase Japan makes a machine that makes the
3600 look like an Apple!? It will probably cost one third as much and
I'll be able to have one on my desk to further my research efforts.
Likewise, whatever the Japanese research community learns will
certainly benefit my research, even if just by learning what roads are
not fruitful.

Worry about the arms race, not the computer race!  Work as hard as you
can to further science and technology, not to beat the Japanese!  Work
toward the Nth generation, not the fifth or the sixth or the
seventh....  A little competition is probably useful sometimes, but
not to the detrement of the community spirit of science.  If we start
hiding things from one another, do we have the right to call ourselves
scientists?

When I begin to worry is when Japan decides to build a better MX
missle, not a better computer system.  Then issues of scientific
morals are involved and it's a whole 'nother ballgame.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 83 21:04:30-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!tjj @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor Day
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.393

OK folks, especially those of you from various parts of tektronix-land
who don't seem to have access to or have interest in reading a history
book, let's review the bidding for your edification at least.  A very
unsavory reference was made in the context of a remark from a
present-day visiting professor from Japan regarding the Japanese Fifth
Generation Project.  The first bid for a date was 5 Dec 1948.  This
was changed by the same author after he received at least one
electronic mail reply to 5 Dec 1945!  This may have been with
tongue-in-cheek, as I know that he was given the correct date at least
once prior to his second message.  It's a matter of record that the
Japanese Ambassador was instructed to visit the Secretary of State on
Friday, December 5, 1941.  Whether he or his representative were again
doing so on Sunday, December 7, 1941 is a moot point, as I am certain
that they were very busy at the old trash incinerator that morning.
Although we should not forget history, lest we be doomed to repeat it,
I do think that comparison of this episode with the present day 5th
Generation Project, even in the context of the devastation of Detroit,
is stretching things beyond the breaking point.  If you want to flame,
send mail to me, as I already have my asbestos suit on, but let's
graduate net.ai back to something more appropriate and certainly more
interesting.

TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper ssc-vax!tjj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 83 12:02:09-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: teklabs!done @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: 5th generation computers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: teklabs.2322

<flame on>

I can't stand this any longer:

   "YESTERDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1941; A DATE WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY!"

Carefully memorize this date and PLEASE DON'T SCREW IT UP AGAIN.  Or
maybe infamy needs to be expressed in binary for you Computer Science
folks.

<flame off>

Don Ellis   | USENET:  {aat,cbosg,decvax,harpo,ihnss,orstcs,pur-ee,ssc-vax
Tektronix   |          ucbvax,unc,zehntel,ogcvax,reed} !teklabs!done
Oregon, USA | ARPAnet: done.tek@rand-relay    CSNet: done@tek

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 1983 1244-EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-ML
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: HFELISP
-BODY-
   Date: 27 Jul 1983 0942-PDT
   From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
   Subject: HFELISP

           HFELISP (Heffer Lisp) HUMAN FACTOR ENGINEERED LISP

                                   ABSTRACT

     HFE sugests that the more complicated features of (common) Lisp
   are dangerous, and hard to understand.  As a result a number of
   Fortran, Cobol, and 370 assembler programmers got together with a
   housewife. ...

How dare you malign the good sense of housewives by classing them with
Fortran, Cobol, and 370 assembler programmers!

Fanya Montalvo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
40
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 12 Aug 1983 15:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: narain@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to stan the leprechaun hacker
-BODY-

I am responding to two of the points you raised.

Attribute value pairs are hopeless for any area (including AI areas)
where your "cognitive chunks" are complex structures (like trees). An
example is symbolic algebraic manipulation, where it is natural to
think in terms of general forms of algebaraic expressions. Try writing
a symbolic differentiation program in terms of attribute-value pairs.
Another example is the "logic grammars" for natural language, whose
implementation in Prolog is extremely clear and efficient.

As to whether FP or more generally applicative languages are useful to
AI depends upon the point of view you take of AI. A useful view is to
consider it as "advanced programming" where you wish to develop
intelligent computer programs, and so develop powerful computational
methods for them, even if humans do not use those methods. From this
point of view Backus's comments about the "von Neumann bottleneck"
apply equally to AI programming as they do to conventional
programming. Hence applicative languages may have ideas that could
solve the "software crisis" in AI as well.

This is not just surmise; the Prolog applications to date and underway
are evidence in favor of the power of applicative languages. You may
debate about the "applicativeness" of practical Prolog programming,
but in my opinion the best and (also the most efficient) Prolog
programs are in essence "applicative".

>- Sanjai Narain

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Aug 1983 1208-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Representation, Fifth Generation
-BODY-
About knowledge representation---

        Although many are new to this ballgame, the fundamentals of
the field are well established. Look in the dictionary of information
science a few years back (5-10?) for an article on the representation
of knowledge by Irwin Marin.  The (M,R) pair mentioned is indeed a
general structure for representation. In fact, you may recal 10 or 20
years ago there was talk that the most efficient programs on computers
would eventually consist of many many pointers (Rs) that pointed
between datums (Ms) in may different ways - kinda like the brain!!! It
has gone well beyond the (M,R) pair stage and Marin has developed a
structure for representation that allows top down knowledge
engineering to proceed in a systematic fashion. I guess many of us
forsake history in many ways, both social and technical.

        As to the 'race' to 5th generation computers, it may indeed be
a means to further the military industrial complex in the area of
computing, but let us also consider the tactical implications of a
highly intelligent (take the term with a grain of salt when speeking
of a computer) tactical computer. Perhaps the complexities of battle
could be simplified for human consumption to the point where a good
general could indeed win an otherwise lost war. Perhaps not. The
scientific sharing of ideas has always been the boon of science and
the bust of government. The U.S. is in an advantageous vantage point
from the boom point of view because we share so much with each other
and others. We are also tops in the bust category because it is so
easy to get our information to other places.  Somewhere the scientific
need for communication must be traded off with the possible effects of
the research. This is what I call scientific responsibility.  As
scientists we are responsible not only to our research and the
dissemination of our knowledge, but also responsible for the effects
of that knowledge. If we shared the 'secrets' of the atomic bomb with
the world as we developed it, do you think more or fewer people would
have died? I think the Germans (who were also working on the project)
might have been able to complete their version sooner and would have
killed a great number more people. In the case of Japan, we are
talking economic struggle rather than political, but the concept of
war and destruction can be visualized just as well. A small country
using a very rapid economic growth to push ahead of the rest of the
world, now has no place to expand to. Heard it before? What new
technology will be developed using the new generation of computers?
Can we afford to lose our edge in yet another technological area to
the more eager of the world? Is this just another ploy of the M.I.
complex to get money from the people and take food from the hungry?
Tough questions, without the facts hard to answer.

                                        Another controversy ignited or
                                        enflamed by yours truly,
                                                Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Aug 1983 15:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: andy at -[VAX]
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Japan's supercomputers as potential defense threat
-BODY-

    I'm a little confused about why this Japanese business seems to be
    scaring the pants off of the US research community... why
    anyone cares if the fifth generation thing is propoganda or not.
    You'll find out when they make it work or they don't!  ...Worry
    about the arms race, not the computer race!
                        -- SHRAGER%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT

One serious reason for concern, at least according to political
conservatives, is that the United States would cease to be in a
position to control the distribution of the world's most advanced
computing technology.

Currently, there are specific export restrictions to prohibit transfer
of advanced technology from the U.S. to its putative enemies (e.g. the
Soviet Union).  (For example, I was told not long ago that it is
illegal to fly over France carrying the schematics for a Cyber in your
briefcase.)

The reason for this becomes quite clear when you consider who the
principal consumers of supercomputers are in this country: they are
disproportionally well represented by people pursuing nuclear energy
and weapons R&D, cryptology, and war gaming.  If the Japanese have the
fastest computers, then they control distribution of the hottest
computational technology and at least potentially could sell it to
countries that DoD would prefer to remain well behind us
technologically.  Worse, they might sell it to others but not to the
United States.

While there are lapses in the effectiveness of this sort of export
control, it seems to work fairly well overall.  For example, I
recently read that the East Germans have just successfully fabricated
a Z-80 chip clone; reportedly, although their chip does seem to work,
it is substantially inferior to the state of the art here.  If the
best that "blacklisted" countries can do is play catch-up via reverse
engineering, the U.S. Government will have met its practical goal of
denying them up-to-date technology.  If, on the other hand, other
countries are able to produce faster and more powerful computers, the
U.S. could no longer control access to the best tools available for
defense R&D.


    When I begin to worry is when Japan decides to build a better MX
    missle, not a better computer system.  Then issues of scientific
    morals are involved and it's a whole 'nother ballgame.


Supercomputers play a significant role in intelligence and weapons
resarch in the United States.  I would expect those people who
subscribe to the view that the U.S. Government should deny high
technology to its perceived enemies to argue that they ARE "worry[ing]
about the arms race" when they feel threatened by Japan's big
technology push, and that the issue IS at least qualitatively
equivalent to Japan's developing better missiles.

                                                asc

p.s. No flames about science and brotherhood, please.  I didn't claim
     to agree with the conservatives whose views I'm attempting to
     describe.  The argument that "Science is a cooperative effort"
     has, BTW, also been voiced freequently in response to NSA's
     recent attempt to control cryptology research in the U.S.

p.p.s.  Perhaps further discussion of the role of Japan's
     supercomputer project in defense applications should be directed to,
     or at least CC'd to, ARMS-D@MIT-MC.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 83 12:59:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Unprintable
-BODY-
I'm sorry, folks, but all this flaming about 7 December 1941 sounds
too much like old fashioned racism for me.

B. Cooper

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Aug 83 16:52:14-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!sb6!emory!gatech!spaf @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sex, religion, words, smoking, farting, and the net
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gatech.364

It just occurred to me today that most of the discussions going on
about use of genderless pronouns, homosexuals, heterosexuals,
personal habits, religion, and other interesting habits, all have one
point in common when we discuss them -- they're *human*
activities/conditions.

Now stop for a moment and consider the Turing test.  When you read
these messages from other users on the net, how do you know that they
are from people typing at some site rather than some intelligent
program?  I would contend that a good definition of humanity and
intelligence could be formulated by someone looking at the net
traffic.  The rabid flamers and fanatics who condemn and insult would
not meet that definition.

We develop new ideas daily in this field.  A handicapped person is
freed from his or her limitations if they can communicate with the
rest of us at 300 or 1200 baud.  They can stutter, or be mute, they
can be almost completely paralyzed, but their minds and souls are
still alive and free and can communicate with the rest of us.

It doesn't matter if you are male or female, black, red, white,
green, tall, short, old, young, fat, smoking, farting, going 55 mph,
attracted to members of the same sex, attracted to sheep, or any
possible variation of the human condition -- you are a human
intelligence at the other end of my network connection, and I deal
with you in a human manner.  Once you show your lack of tolerance or
your inability to at least try to understand, you show yourself to be
less than human.

Discrimination really means the ability to differentiate amongst
alternatives.  Prejudice and bigotry mean that you discriminate based
on factors which have no real bearing on the choice at hand.  I
believe that the definition of "human intelligence" is that it
implies the ability to discriminate and the inability to be a bigot.

I hope that some of the contributors to the net are simply AI
projects; I would hate to believe that there are people with so much
hate and intolerance as is sometimes expressed.

Comments?

>-
The soapbox of Gene Spafford
CSNet:  Spaf @ GATech
ARPA:   Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
uucp:   ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
        ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf


[I disagree strongly with any definition of humanity that excludes
flamers and bigots, but this digest is not the place for such a
discussion.  The question of whether intelligence excludes (or
implies) prejudice is more interesting.  We should also be seeking a
replacement for the Turing test that could identify nonhuman
intelligence. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Aug 83 1:12:15-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!oz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Sex, religion, words, smoking, farting, and the net
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rlgvax.994

I agree that it would be a shame if there were AI projects that had
such hate and bigotry.  I argue that it WOULD be possible for an AI
project to exhibit the narrowmindedness and stupidity that we
frequently see on the net.  An interesting discussion, Gene, it is
something to ponder.

                                OZ
                                seismo!rlgvax!oz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
41
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 16 August 1983 21:20:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rog-O-Matic paper request
-BODY-

People of NetLand, the long awaited day of liberation has arrived!
Throw off the shackles of ignorance and see what secrets of
technology have been laid bare through the agency of a free
university press, unbridled by the harsh realities of economic
competition!

                The Rog-O-Paper is here!

For a copy of CMU Technical Report CMU-CS-83-144, entitled
"Rog-O-Matic: A Belligerent Expert System", please send your physical
address to

                Mauldin@CMU-CS-A

and include the phrase "paper request" in the subject line.


For those who have a copy of the draft, the final version contains
two more figures, expanded descriptions of some algorithms, and an
updated discussion of Rog-O-Matic's performance, including
improvements made since February.  And even if you don't have a copy
of the draft, the final version still contains two more diagrams,
expanded descriptions of some algorithms, and an updated discussion
of performance.  The history of the program's development is also
chronicled.

The source is still available by either FTP or can be mailed in
several pieces.  It is about a third of a megabyte of characters, and
is mailed in pieces either 70K or 40K characters long.

Michael Mauldin (Fuzzy)
Computer Science Department
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213


                     CMU-CS-83-144      Abstract

      Rog-O-Matic is an unusual combination  of  algorithmic and
      production  systems programming techniques which cooperate
      to explore a hostile environment.  This environment is the
      computer game  Rogue,  which offers several advantages for
      studying  exploration  tasks.   This  paper  presents  the
      major features of the Rog-O-Matic  system,  the  types  of
      knowledge  sources  and   rules   used   to   control  the
      exploration,  and  compares  the performance of the system
      with human Rogue players.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 16 Aug 83 22:56:27-CDT
-FROM-
From: Donald Blais <CC.BLAIS@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOGLisp language query
-BODY-
In the July 1983 issue of DATAMATION, Larry R. Harris states that the
logic programming language LOGLisp has recently been developed by
Robinson.  What sources can I go to for additional information on this
language?

>- Donald

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 83 04:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Glasser Alan"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scott Fahlmann's NETL
-BODY-
I've read a book by Scott Fahlmann about a system called NETL for
representing knowledge in terms of a particular tree-like structure.
I found it a fascinating idea.  It was published in 1979.  When I last
heard about it, there were plans to develop some hardware to implement
the concept.  Does anyone know what's been happening on this front?
                              Alan Glasser (glasser@lll-mfe)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 83 22:44:27-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: FP and AI - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2574

Having also worked with both FP and AI systems I basically agree with
your perceptions of their respective goals and functions, but I think
that we can have both, since they operate at different levels: Think
of a powerful, functional language that underlies the majority of the
work in AI data and procedural representations, and imagine what the
world would be like if it were pure (but still powerful).

Besides the "garbage collector" running now and then, there could,
given the mathematical foundations of FP systems, also be an
"efficiency expert" hanging around to tighten up your sloppy code.

Jordan Pollack
University of Illinois
...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack

P.S. There is a recent paper by Lenat from Rand called "Cognitive
Economy" which discusses some possible advances in computing
environment maintenance; I don't recall it being linked to FP
systems, however.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 83 20:33:29 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: maximum speed
-BODY-
This *maximum* time business needs further ground rules if we are to
discuss it here (which we probably shouldn't).  For instance, the
argument that communication and multiplcation paths don't matter in an
nxn matrix multiply, but that the limiting step is the summation of n
numbers, seems to allow too much power in specifying components.  I am
allowed unboundedly many processors and communication paths, but only
a tree of adders?  I can build you a circuit that will add n numbers
simultaneously, so that means the *maximum* speed of an nxn matrix
multiply is constant.  But it just ain't so.  As n grows larger and
larger and larger the communication paths and the addition circuitry
will also either grow and grow and grow, or the algorithm will slow
down.  Good old time-space tradeoff.

        (Another time-space tradeoff for matrix multiply on digital
computers:  just remember all the answers and look them up in ROM.
Result: constant time matrix multiply for bounded n.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 1983 2016-MDT
-FROM-
From: William Galway <Galway@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NP-completeness and parallelism, humor
-BODY-
Perhaps AI-digest readers will be amused by the following
article.  I believe it's by Danny Cohen, and appears in the
proceedings of the CMU Conference on VLSI Systems and
Computations, pages 124-125, but this copy was dug out of local
archives.

..................................................................

                      The VLSI Approach to
                    Computational Complexity

                      Professor J. Finnegan
                 University of Oceanview, Kansas
             (Formerly with the DP department of the
               First National Bank of Oceanview)]

The rapid advance of  VLSI and the trend  toward the decrease  of
the geometrical  feature  size,  through the  submicron  and  the
subnano to the subpico, and beyond, have dramatically reduced the
cost  of  VLSI  circuitry.   As  a  result,  many   traditionally
unsolvable problems  can now  (or  will in  the near  future)  be
easily implemented using VLSI technology.

For example, consider the  traveling salesman problem, where  the
optimal sequence of N nodes ("cities") has to be found.   Instead
of  applying  sophisticated   mathematical  tools  that   require
investment in human thinking, which because of the rising cost of
labor  is  economically  unattractive,  VLSI  technology  can  be
applied to  construct  a  simple  machine  that  will  solve  the
problem!

The traveling salesman problem is considered difficult because of
the requirement  of finding  the best  route out  of N!  possible
ones.  A conventional single processor would require O(N!)  time,
but with clever use of VLSI technology this problem can easily be
solved in polynomial time!!

The solution is obtained with a simple VLSI array having only  N!
processors.  Each  processor is  dedicated to  a single  possible
route that  corresponds  to  a certain  permutation  of  the  set
[1,2,3,..N].  The time to load the distance matrix and to  select
the shortest  route(s)  is  only  polynomial  in  N.   Since  the
evaluation of  each route  is  linear in  N, the  entire  system
solves the problem in just polynomial time! Q.E.D.

Readers familiar only with conventional computer architecture may
wrongly suspect  that  the  communication between  all  of  these
processors is too expensive (in area).  However, with the use  of
wireless communication this problem is easily solved without  the
traditional, conventional area penalty.   If the system fails  to
obtain  from  the  FCC  the  required  permit  to  operate  in  a
reasonable  domain  of  the  frequency  spectrum,  it  is  always
possible to  use  microlasers and  picolasers  for  communicating
either through a light-conducting  substrate (e.g.  sapphire)  or
through a convex light-reflecting surface mounted parallel to the
device.   The  CSMA/CD  (Carrier  Sense  Multiple  Access,   with
Collision Detection) communication  technology, developed in  the
early seventies,  may  be found  to  be most  helpful  for  these
applications.

If it is necessary to  solve a problem with  a larger N than  the
one for which the system  was initially designed, one can  simply
design another system for that particular  value of N, or even  a
larger  one,  in  anticipation   of  future  requirements.    The
advancement of  VLSI  technology  makes  this  iterative  process
feasible and attractive.

This approach is not new.  In the early eighties many researchers
discovered the possibility of  accelerating the solution of  many
NP-complete problems by a simple  application of systems with  an
exponential number of processors.

Even earlier, in  the late seventies  many scientists  discovered
that problems with polynomial complexity could also be solved  in
lower time (than  the complexity) by  using number of  processors
which  is  also  a  polynomial  function  of  the  problem  size,
typically of  a  lower  degree.   NxN  matrix  multiplication  by
systems with N^2 processors used to  be a very popular topic  for
conversations and  conference papers,  even though  less  popular
among system builders.  The requirement of dealing the variable N
was (we believe)  handled by  the simple  P/O technique,  namely,
buying a new system for any other value of N, whenever needed.

According to the most  popular model of those  days, the cost  of
VLSI processors decreases  exponentially.  Hence the  application
of an exponential number  of processors does  not cause any  cost
increase, and  the application  of only  a polynomial  number  of
processors results in a substantial cost saving!!  The fact  that
the former exponential decrease refers  to calendar time and  the
latter to problem size probably has no bearing on this discussion
and should be ignored.

The famous Moore model of exponential cost decrease was based  on
plotting the time  trend (as has  been observed in  the past)  on
semilogarithmic scale.   For that  reason  this model  failed  to
predict the present  as seen  today.  Had  the same  observations
been plotted on a simple linear  scale, it would be obvious  that
the cost of VLSI processors is already (or about to be) negative.
This must be the case, or else there is no way to explain why  so
many researchers  design systems  with an  exponential number  of
processors and compete  for solving  the same  problem with  more
processors.

CONCLUSIONS

 - With  the  rapid  advances  of  VLSI  technology  anything  is
possible.

> The more VLSI processors in a system, the better the paper.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
42
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 83 13:32:17 EDT
-FROM-
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI & Morality
-BODY-
  The human manner has led to all sorts of abuses.  Indeed your latest
series of messages (e.g. Spaf) has offended me.  Maybe he meant
humane?  In any event there is no need to be vulgar to make a point.
Any point.

  There are some of us who work for the US government who are very
aware of the threats of exporting high technology and deeply concerned
about the free exchange of data and information and the benefits of
such exchange.  It is only in recent years and maybe because of the
Japanese that academia has taken a greater interest in areas which
they were unwilling to look at before (current economics also makes
for strange bedfellows). Industry has always had an interest (if for
nothing more than to show us a better? wheel for bigger!  bucks).  We
are in a good position to maintain the military-industrial-university
complex (not sorry if this offends anyone) and get some good work
done.  Recent government policy may restrict high technology flow so
that you might not even get on that airplane soon.

[...]

Mort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 83 17:15:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Joe Buck <buck@NRL-CSS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: frame theory of prejudice
-BODY-

We've heard on this list that we should consider flamers and bigots
less than human. But doesn't Minsky's frame theory suggest that
prejudice is simply a natural by-product of the way our minds work?
When we enter a new situation, we access a "script" containing default
assumptions about the situation. If the default assumptions are
"sticky" (don't change to agree with newly obtained information), the
result is prejudice.

When I say "doctor", a picture appears in your mind, often quite
detailed, containing default assumptions about sex, age, physical
appearance, etc.  In some people, these assumptions are more firmly
held than in others.  Might some AI programs designed along these
lines show phenomena resembling human prejudice?

                                                Joe Buck
                                                buck@nrl-css

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 1983 1437-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Test; Parry, Eliza, and Flamer
-BODY-
Parry and Eliza are fairly famous early AI projects.  One acts
paranoid, another acts like an interested analyst.  How about reviving
the project and challenging the Turing test?  Flamer is born.

Flamer would read messages from the net and then reply to the
sender/bboard denying all the person said, insulting him, and in
general making unsupported statements.  I suggest some researchers out
there make such a program and put it on the net.  The goal would be
for the readers of the net try to detect the Flamer, and for Flamer to
escape detection.  If the Flamer is not discovered, then it could be
considered to have passed the Turing test.

Flamer has the advantage of being able to take a few days in
formulating a reply; it could consult many related online sources, it
could request information concerning the subject from experts (human,
or otherwise), it could perform statistical analysis of other flames
to make appropriate word choices, it could make common errors
(gramical, syntactical, or styleistical), and it could perform other
complex computations.

Perhaps Flamer is already out there, and perhaps this message is
generated by such a program.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 83 20:57:20 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: artificially intelligent bigots.
-BODY-
I agree that bigotry and intelligence exclude each other.  An
Eliza-like bigotry program would be simple in direct proportion to its
bigotry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 83 20:05:24-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Projects on the Net
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.417


This is a really fun topic.  The problem of the Turing Test is
enormously difficult and *very* subtle (either that or we're
overlooking something really obvious).  Now the net provides a
gigantic lab for enterprising researchers to try out their latest
attempts.  So far I have resisted the temptation, since there are more
basic problems to solve first!  The curious thing about an AI project
is that it can be made infinitely complicated (programs are like that;
consider emacs or nroff), certainly enough to simulate any kind of
behavior desired, whether it be bigotry, right-wingism, irascibility,
mysticism, or perhaps even ordinary rational thought.  This has been
demonstrated by several programs, among them PARRY (simulates
paranoia), and POLITICS (simulates arguments between ideologues) (mail
me for refs if interested).  So it doesn't appear that there is a way
to detect an AI project, based on any *particular* behavior.

A more productive approach might be to look for the capability to vary
behavior according to circumstances (self-modifiability).  I can note
that all humans appear capable of modifying their behavior, and that
very few AI programs can do so.  However, not all human behavior can
be modified, and much cannot be modified easily.  "Try not to think of
a zebra for the next ten minutes" - humans cannot change their own
thought processes to manage this feat, while an AI program would not
have much problem.  In fact, Lenat's Eurisko system (assuming we can
believe all the claims) has the capability to speed up its own
operation! (it learned that Lisp 'eq' and 'equal' are the same for
atoms, and changed function references in its own code) The ability to
change behavior cannot be a criterion.

So how does one decide?  The question is still open....

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps I thought about Zeno's Paradox recently - the Greeks (especially
Archimedes) were about a hair's breadth away from discovering
calculus, but Zeno had crippled everybody's thinking by making a
"paradox" where none existed.  Perhaps the Turing Test is like
that....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
43
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Aug 83 13:19:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Archives
-BODY-
I would like to hear from systems people maintaining AIList archives
at their sites.  Please msg AIList-Request@SRI-AI if you have an
online archive that is publicly available and likely to be available
under the same file name(s) for the forseeable future.  Send any
special instructions needed (beyond anonymous FTP).  I will then make
the information available to the list.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 83 13:50:16 PDT
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <f.judea@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: change of address
-BODY-
Effective September 1, 1983 and until March 1, 1984 Judea Pearl's
address will be :

        Judea Pearl
        c/o Faculty of Management
        University of Tel Aviv
        Ramat Aviv, ISRAEL

Dr. Pearl will be returning to UCLA at that time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 17 Aug 1983 17:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: narain@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information on Loglisp
-BODY-

You can get Loglisp (language or reports) by writing to J.A. Robinson
or E.E. Sibert at:

      C.I.S.
      313 Link Hall
      Syracuse University
      Syracuse, NY 13210


A paper on LOGLISP also appeared in "Logic Programming" eds. Clark and
Tarnlund, Academic Press 1982.

>- Sanjai

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 83 15:19:44-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP CAI Packages
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dcdwest.214

Is there a computer-assisted instructional package for LISP that runs
under 4.1 bsd ?  I would appreciate any information available and will
summarize what I learn ( about the package) in net.lang.lisp.

Peter Benson decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17-AUG-1983 19:27
-FROM-
From: SHRAGER%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp to Lisp translation again
-BODY-

I'm glad that I didn't have to start this dicussion up this time.
Anyhow, here's a suggestion that I think should be implemented but
which requires a great deal of Lisp community cooperation.  (Oh
dear...perhaps it's dead already!)

Probably the most intracompatible language around (next to TRAC) is
APL.  I've had a great deal of success moving APL workspaces from one
implementation to another with a minumum of effort.  Now, part of this
has to do with the fact that APL's primatve set can't be extended
easily but if you think about it, the question of exactly how do you
get all the stuff in a workspace from one machine to the other isn't
an easy one to answer.  The special character set makes each machine's
representation a little different and, of course, trying to send the
internal form would be right out!

The APL community solved this rather elegantly: they have a thing
called a "workspace interchange standard" which is in a canonical code
whose first 256 bytes are the atomic vector (character codes) for the
source machine, etc.  The beauty of this canconical representation
isn't just that it exists, but rather that the translation to and from
this code is the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTOR!  That is,
for example, if I write a program in Franz and someone at Xerox wants
it, I run it through our local workspace outgoing translator which
puts it into the standard form and then I ship them that (presumably
messy) version.  They have a compatible ingoing translator which takes
certain combinations of constructs and translates them to InterLisp.

Now, of course, this isn't all that easy.  First we'd have to agree on
a standard but that's not so bad.  Most of the difficulty in deciding
on a standard Lisp is taste and that has nothing to do with the form
of the standard since no human ever writes in it.  Another difficulty
(here I am endebted to Ken Laws) is that many things have impure
semantics and so cannot be cleanly translated into another form --
take, for example, the spaghetti stack (please!). Anyhow, I never said
it would be easy but I don't think that it's all that difficult either
>- certainly it's easier than the automatic programming problem.

I'll bet this would make a very interesting dissertation for some
bright young Lisp hacker.  But the difficult part isn't any particular
translator.  Each is hand tailored by the implementors/supporters of a
particular lisp system. The difficult part is getting the Lisp world
to follow the example of a computing success, as, I think, the APL
world has shown workspace interchange to be.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 83 15:31:18-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Representation, Programming Styles
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.437

Actually trees can be expressed as attribute-value pairs.  Have had to
do that to get around certain %(&^%$* OPS5 limitations, so it's
possible, but not pretty.  However, many times your algebraic/tree
expressions/structures have duplicated components, in which case you
would like to join two nodes at lower levels.  You then end up with a
directed structure only.  (This is also a solution for multiple
inheritance problems.)

I'll refrain from flaming about traditional (including logic)
grammars.  I'm tired of people insisting on a restricted view of
language that claims that grammar rules are the ultimate description
of syntax (semantics being irrelevant) and that idioms are irritating
special cases.  I might note that we have basically solved the
language analysis problem (using a version of Berkeley's Phrase
Analysis that handles ambiguity) and are now working on building a
language learner to speed up the knowledge acquisition process, as
well as other interesting projects.

I don't recall a von Neumann bottleneck in AI programs, at least not
of the kind Backus was talking about.  The main bottleneck seems to be
of a conceptual rather than a hardware nature.  After all, production
systems are not inherently bottlenecked, but nobody really knows how
to make them run concurrently, or exactly what to do with the results
(I have some ideas though).

                                        stan the lep hack
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 83 10:43:54-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxo!fcy @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How does one obtain university technical reports?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxo.276

I think the bibliographies being posted to the net are great.  I'd
like to follow up on some of the references, but I don't know where to
obtain copies for many of them.  Is there some standard protocol and
contact point for requesting copies of technical reports from
universities?  Is there a service company somewhere from which one
could order such publications with limited distribution?

                        Curiously,

                        Fred Yankowski
                        Bell Labs Rm 6B-216
                        Naperville, IL
                        ihnp4!ihuxo!fcy


[I published all the addresses I know in V1 #8, May 22.  Two that
might be of help are:

    National Technical Information Service
    5285 Port Royal Road
    Springfield, Virginia  22161

    University Microfilms
    300 North Zeeb Road
    Ann Arbor, MI  48106

You might be able to get ordering information for many sources
through your corporate or public library.  You could also contact
LIBRARY@SCORE; I'm sure Richard Manuck  would be willing to help.
If all else fails, put out a call for help through AIList. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 83 1:14:51-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gumby @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: How does one obtain university technical reports?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.616

Bizarrely enough, MIT and Stanford AI memos were recently issued by
some company on MICROFILM (!) for some exorbitant price.  This price
supposedly gives you all of them plus an introduction by Marvin
Minsky.  They advertised in Scientific American a few months ago.  I
guess this is a good deal for large institutions like Bell, but
smaller places are unlikely to have a microfilm (or was it fiche)
reader.

MIT AI TR's and memos can be obtained from Publications, MIT AI Lab,
8th floor, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139.


[See AI Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter-Spring 1983, pp. 19-22, for
Marvin Minsky's "Introduction to the COMTEX Microfiche Edition of the
Early MIT Artificial Intelligence Memos".  An ad on p. 18 offers the
set for $2450.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 83 10:11:33-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!ulysses!cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: List of AI Journals
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbscd5.419

Here is the list of AI journals that I was able to put together from
the generous contributions of several readers.  Sorry about the delay.
Most of the addresses, summary descriptions, and phone numbers for the
journals were obtained from "The Standard Periodical Directory"
published by Oxbridge Communications Inc.  183 Madison Avenue, Suite
1108 New York, NY 10016 (212) 689-8524.  Other sources you may wish to
try are Ulrich's International Periodicals Directory, and Ayer
Directory of Publications.  These three reference books should be
available in most libraries.

*************************
AI Journals and Magazines
*************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
I Magazine        American Association for Artificial Intelligence        445
Burgess Drive        Menlo Park, CA 94025        (15) 328-3123
AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM        Quarterly, $25/year, $15 Student, $100
Academic/Corporate------------------------------Artificial Intelligence
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)        P.O. Box 211        1000
AE Amsteram, The Netherlands        About 8 issues/year, 880 Df. (approx.
$352)------------------------------American Journal of Computatonal Linguistics
      Donald E. Walker        SRI International        333 Ravenswood Avenue
   Menlo Park, CA 94025       (415) 859-3071        Quarterly, individual ACL
members $15/year, institutions $30.------------------------------Robotics Age
   RobCogniive Science SocietyEAIC	European AI ConferenceThanks again to all
that contributed.Larry Ciprianicbosgd!cbscd5!lvc------------------------------
-VOL-
1

-N-
44
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 83 17:30:43-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!noscvax!revc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for parallel processor systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: noscvax.182

We have been looking into systems to replace our current ANALOG
computers.  They are the central component in a real time simulation
system.  To date, the only system we've seen that looks like it might
do the job is the Zmob system being built at the Univ. of Md (Mark
Weiser).

I would appreciate it if you could supply me with pointers to other
systems that might support high speed, high quality, parallel
processing.

Note: most High Speed networks are just too slow and we can't justify
a Cray-1.

Bob Van Cleef

uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || philabs}!sdcsvax!nosc!revc arpa : revc@nosc
CompuServe : 71565,533

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 83 20:29:13-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: maximum speed
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.445

Hmmm, I didn't know that addition of n numbers could be performed
simultaneously - ok then, constant time matrix multiplication, given
enough processors.  I still haven't seen any hard data on limits to
speed because of communications problems.  If it seems like there are
limits but you can't prove it, then maybe you haven't discovered the
cleverest way to do it yet...

                                        stan the lep hack
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps The space cost of constant or log time matrix mults is of course
   ridiculous

pps Perhaps this should move to net.applic?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 83 15:08:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Paul Broome (CTAB) <broome@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Functional programming and AI
-BODY-
Stan,

Let me climb into my pulpit and respond to your FP/AI prod.  I don't
think FP and AI are diametrically opposed.  To refresh everyone's
memory here are some of your comments.


        ...  Having worked with both AI and FP languages,
        it seems to me that the two are diametrically
        opposed to one another.  The ultimate goal of functional
        programming language research is to produce a language that
        is as clean and free of side effects as possible; one whose
        semantic definition fits on a single side of an 8 1/2 x 11
        sheet of paper ...

Looking at Backus' Turing award lecture, I'd have to say that
cleanliness and freedom of side effects are two of Backus' goals but
certainly not succinctness of definition.  In fact Backus says (CACM,
Aug.  78, p. 620), "Our intention is to provide FP systems with widely
useful and powerful primitive functions rather than weak ones that
could then be used to define useful ones."

Although FP has no side effects, Backus also talked about applicative
state systems (AST) with one top level change of state per
computation,i.e.  one side effect.  The world of expressions is a
nice, orderly one; the world of statements has all the mush.  He's
trying to move the statement part out of the way.

I'd have to say one important part of the research in FP systems is to
define and examine functional forms (program forming operations) with
nice mathematical properties.  A good way to incorporate (read
implement) a mathematical concept in a computer program is without
side effects.  This side effect freeness is nice because it means that
a program is 'referentially transparent', i.e. it can be used without
concern about collision with internal names or memory locations AND
the program is dependable; it always does the same thing.

A second nice thing about applicative languages is that they are
appropriate for parallel execution.  In a shared memory model of
computation (e.g. Ada) it's very difficult (NP-complete, see CACM, a
couple of months ago) to tell if there is collision between
processors, i.e. is a processor overwriting data that another
processor needs.


        On the other hand, the goal of AI research (at least in the
        AI language area) is to produce languages that can effectively
        work with as tangled and complicated representations of
        knowledge as possible.  Languages for semantic nets, frames,
        production systems, etc, all have this character.

I don't think that's the goal of AI research but I can't offer a
better one at the moment.  (Sometimes it looks as if the goal is to
make money.)

Large, tangled structures can be handled in applicative systems but
not efficiently, at least I don't see how.  If you view a database
update as a function mapping the pair (NewData, OldDatabase) into
NewDatabase you have to expect a new database as the returned value.
Conceptionally that's not a problem.  However, operationally there
should just be a minor modification of the original database when
there is no sharing and suspended modification when the database is
being shared.  There are limited transformations that can help but
there is much room for improvement.

An important point in all this is program transformation.  As we build
bigger and smarter systems we widen the gap between the way we think
and the hardware.  We need to write clear, easy to understand, and
large-chunked programs but transform them (within the same source
language) into possibly less clear, but more efficient programs.
Program transformation is much easier when there are no side effects.

        Now between the Japanese 5th generation project (and the US
        response) and the various projects to build non-vonNeumann
        machines using FP, it looks to me like the seeds of a
        controversy over the best way to do programming.  Should we be
        using FP languages or AI languages?  We can't have it both ways,
        right?  Or can we?

A central issue is efficiency.  The first FORTRAN compiler was viewed
with the same distrust that the public had about computers in general.
Early programmers didn't want to relinquish explicit management of
registers or whatever because they didn't think the compiler could do
as well as they.  Later there was skepticism about garbage collection
and memory management.  A multitude of sins is committed in the name
of (machine) efficiency at the expense of people efficiency.  We
should concern ourselves more with WHAT objects are stored than with
HOW they are stored.

There's no doubt that applicative languages are applicable.  The
Japanese (fortunately for them) are less affected by, as Dijkstra puts
it, "our antimathematical age."  And they, unlike us, are willing to
sacrifice some short term goals for long term goals.


> Paul Broome
  (broome@brl)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 83 17:06:13-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: FP and AI - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.427

There *is* a powerful functional language underlying most AI programs
> Lisp!  But it's never pure Lisp.  The realization that got me to
thinking about this was the apparent necessity for list surgery,
sooner or later.  rplaca and allied functions show up in the strangest
places, and seem to be crucial to the proper functioning of many AI
systems (consider inheritance in frames or the construction of a
semantic network; perhaps method combination in flavors qualifies).
I'm not arguing that an FP language could *not* be used to build an AI
language on top; I'm thinking more about fundamental philosophical
differences between different schools of research.

                                        stan the lep hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 20 Aug 83 12:28:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: So the language analysis problem has been solved?!?
-BODY-
I will also refrain from flaming, but not from taking to task
excessive claims.

    I'll refrain from flaming about traditional (including
    logic) grammars.  I'm tired of people insisting on a
    restricted view of language that claims that grammar rules
    are the ultimate description of syntax (semantics being
    irrelevant) and that idioms are irritating special cases.  I
    might note that we have basically solved the language
    analysis problem (using a version of Berkeley's Phrase
    Analysis that handles ambiguity) ...

I would love to test that "solution of the language analysis
problem"... As for the author being "tired of people insisting on a
restricted ...", he is just tired of his own straw people, because
there doesn't seem to be anybody around anymore claiming that
"semantics is irrelevant".  Formal grammars (logic or otherwise) are
just a convenient mathematical technique for representing SOME
regularities in language in a modular and testable form. OF COURSE, a
formal grammar seen from the PROCEDURAL point of view can be replaced
by any arbitrary "ball of string" with the same operational semantics.
What this replacement does to modularity, testability and
reproducibility of results is sadly clear in the large amount of
published "research" in natural language analysis which is untestable
and irreproducible. The methodological failure of this approach
becomes obvious if one considers the analogous proposal of replacing
the principles and equations of some modern physical theory (general
relativity, say) by a computer program which computes "solutions" to
the equations for some unspecified subset of their domain, some of
these solutions being approximate or plain wrong for some (again
unspecified) set of cases. Even if such a program were "right" all the
time (in contradiction with all our experience so far), its sheer
opacity would make it useless as scientific explanation.

Furthermore, when mentioning "semantics", one better say which KIND of
semantics one means. For example, grammar rules fit very well with
various kinds of truth-theoretic and model-theoretic semantics, so the
comment above cannot be about that kind of semantics. Again, a theory
of semantics needs to be testable and reproducible, and, I would
claim, it only qualifies if it allows the representation of a
potential infinity of situation patterns in a finite way.

    I don't recall a von Neumann bottleneck in AI programs, at
    least not of the kind Backus was talking about.  The main
    bottleneck seems to be of a conceptual rather than a
    hardware nature.  After all, production systems are not
    inherently bottlenecked, but nobody really knows how to make
    them run concurrently, or exactly what to do with the
    results (I have some ideas though).

The reason why nobody knows how to make production systems run
concurrently is simply because they use a global state and side
effects. This IS precisely the von Neumann bottleneck, as made clear
in Backus' article, and is a conceptual limitation with hardware
consequences rather than a purely hardware limitation. Otherwise, why
would Backus address the problem by proposing a new LANGUAGE (fp),
rather than a new computer architecture?  If your AI program was
written in a language without side effects (such as PURE Prolog), the
opportunities for parallelism would be there. This would be
particularly welcome in natural language analysis with logic (or other
formal) grammars, because dealing with more and more complex subsets
of language needs an increasing number of grammar rules and rules of
inference, if the results are to be accurate and predictable.
Analysis times, even if they are polynomial on the size of the input,
may grow EXPONENTIALLY with the size of the grammar.

                                Fernando Pereira
                                AI Center
                                SRI International
                                pereira@sri-ai

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 83 22:44:05-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: data flow computers and PS's - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2573


The nodes in a data-flow machine, in order to compute efficiently,
must be able to do a local computation.  This is why arithmetic or
logical operations are O.K. to distribute.  Your scheme, however,
seems to require that the database of propositions be available to
each node, so that the known facts can be deduced "instantaneously".
This would cause severe problems with the whole idea of concurrency,
because either the database would have to be replicated and passed
through the network, or an elaborate system of memory locks would need
to be established.

The Hearsay system from CMU was one of the early PS's with claims to a
concurrent implementation. There is a paper I remember in IEEE ToC (75
or 76) which discussed the problems of speedup and locks.

Also, I think John Holland (of Michigan?) is currently working on a
parallel PS machine (but doesn't call it that!)


Jordan Pollack
University of Illinois
...!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 83 16:56:55-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: data flow computers and PS's - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.426

A concurrent PS is not too impossible, 'cause I've got one
(specialized for NL processing and not actually implemented
concurrently, but certainly capable).  It is true that the working
memory would have to be carefully organized, but that's a matter of
sufficiently clever design; there's no fundamental theoretical
problems.  Traditional approaches won't work, because two concurrently
operating rules may come to contradictory conclusions, both of which
may be valid.  You need a way to store both of these and use them.

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 83 0516 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NETL
-BODY-
I am a graduate student of Scott Fahlman's, and I've been working on
NETL for the last five years.  There are some interesting lessons to
be learned from the history of the NETL project.  NETL was a
combination of a parallel computer architecture, called a parallel
marker propagation machine, and a representation language that
appeared to fit well on this architecture.  There will probably never
be a hardware implementation of the NETL Machine, although it is
certainly feasible.  Here's why...

The first problem with NETL is its radical semantics:  no one
completely understands their implications.  We (Scott Fahlman, Walter
van Roggen, and I) wrote a paper in IJCAI-81 describing the problems
we had figuring out how exceptions should interact with multiple
inheritance in the IS-A hierarchy and why the original NETL system
handled exceptions incorrectly.  We offered a solution in our paper,
but the solution turned out to be wrong.  When you consider that NETL
contains many features besides exceptions and inheritance, e.g.
contexts, roles, propositional statements, quantifiers, and so on, and
all of these features can interact (!!), so that a role (a "slot" in
frame lingo) may only exist within certain contexts, and have
exceptions to its existence (not its value, which is another matter)
in certain sub-contexts, and may be mapped multiple times because of
the multiple inheritance feature, it becomes clear just how
complicated the semantics of NETL really is.  KLONE is in a similar
position, although its semantics are less radical than NETL's.
Fahlman's book contains many simple examples of network notation
coupled with appeals to the reader's intuition; what it doesn't
contain is a precise mathematical definition of the meaning of a NETL
network because no such definition existed at that time.  It wasn't
even clear that a formal definition was necessary, until we began to
appreciate the complexity of the semantic problems.  NETL's operators
are *very* nonstandard; NETL is the best evidence I know of that
semantic networks need not be simply notational variants of logic,
even modal or nonmonotonic logics.

In my thesis (forthcoming) I develop a formal semantics for multiple
inheritance with exceptions in semantic network languages such as
NETL.  This brings us to the second problem.  If we choose a
reasonable formal semantics for inheritance, then inheritance cannot
be computed on a marker propagation machine, because we need to pass
around more information than is possible on such a limited
architecture.  The algorithms that were supposed to implement NETL on
a marker propagation machine were wrong:  they suffered from race
conditions and other nasty behavior when run on nontrivial networks.
There is a solution called "conditioning" in which the network is
pre-processed on a serial machine by adding enough extra links to
ensure that the marker propagation algorithms always produce correct
results.  But the need for serial preprocessing removes much of the
attractiveness of the parallel architecture.

I think the NETL language design stands on its own as a major
contribution to knowledge representation.  It raises fascinating
semantic problems, most of which remain to be solved.  The marker
propagation part doesn't look too promising, though.  Systems with
NETL-like semantics will almost certainly be built in the future, but
I predict they will be built on top of different parallel
architectures.

>- Dave Touretzky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Aug 83 13:46:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NETL and hardware
-BODY-
        In Volume 40 of the AIList Alan Glasser asked about hardware
implimentations using marker passing a la NETL. The closest hardware I
am aware of is called the Connection Machine, and is begin developed
at MIT by Alan Bawden, Dave Christman, and Danny Hillis (apologies if
I left someone out). The project involves building a model with about
2^10 processors. I'm not sure of its current status, though I have
heard that a company is forming to build and market prototype CM's.

        I have heard rumors of the SPICE project at CMU, though I am
not aware of any results pertaining to hardware, the project seems to
have some measure of priority at CMU. Hopefully members of each of
these projects will also send notes to AIList...

David Rogers, DRogers@SUMEX-AIM

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1983  22:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NETL
-BODY-

I've only got time for a very quick response to Alan Glasser's query
about NETL.  Since the book was published we have done the following:

1. Our group at CMU has developed several design sketches for
practical NETL machine implementations of about a million porcessing
elements.  We haven't built one yet, for reasons described below.

2. David B. McDonald has done a Ph.D.thesis on noun group
understanding (things like "glass wine glass") using a NETL-type
network to hold the necessary world knowledge.  (This is available as
a CMU Tech Report.)

3. David Touretzky has done a through logical analysis of NETL-style
inheritance with exceptions, and is currently writing up his thesis on
this topic.

4. I have been studying the fundamental strengths and limitations of
NETL-like marker-passing compared to other kinds of massively parallel
computation.  This has gradually led me to prefer an architecture that
passes numers or continuous values to the single-bit marker-passing of
NETL.

For the past couple of years, I've been putting most of my time into
the Common Lisp effort -- a brief foray into tool building that got
out of hand -- and this has delayed any plans to begin work on a NETL
machine.  Now that our Common Lisp is nearly finished, I can think
again about starting a hardware project, but something more exciting
than NETL has come along: the Boltzmann Machine architecture that I am
working on with Geoff Hinton of CMU and Terry Sejnowski of
Johns-Hopkins.  We will be presenting a paper on this at AAAI.

Very briefly, the Boltzmann machine is a massively parallel
architecture in which each piece of knowledge is distributed over many
units, unlike NETL in which concepts are associated with particular
pieces of hardware.  If we can make it work, this has interesting
implications for reliable large-scale implementation, and it is also a
much more plausible model for neural processing than is something like
NETL.

So that's what has happened to NETL.

>- Scott Fahlman (FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
45
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 1983 2113-PDT
-FROM-
From: VANBUER@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Interchange Standard
-BODY-
In response to your message sent Friday, August 19, 1983 5:26PM

On Lisp translation via a standard form:

I have used Interlisp Transor a fair amount both into and out of
Interlisp (even experimented with translation to C), and the kind of
thing which makes it very difficult, especially if you want to retain
some efficiency, are subtle differences in what seem to be fairly
standard functions:  e.g. in Interlisp (DREMOVE (CAR X) X) will be EQ
to X (though not EQUAL or course) except in the case the result is
NIL; both CAR and CDR of the lead cell are RPLACed so that all
references to the value of X also see the DREMOVE as a side effect.
In Franz Lisp, the DREMOVE would have the value (CDR X) in most cases,
but no RPLACing is done.  In most cases this isn't a problem, but ....
In APL, at least the majority of the language has the same semantics
in all implementations.
        Darrel J. Van Buer, SDC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1983 1226-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Language Translation
-BODY-
I like the APL person's [Shrager's] point of view on translation.
The problem seems to be that APL has all the things it needs in its
primative functions. Lisp implementers have seen fit to impurify
their language by adding so much fancy stuff that they depend on so
heavily.  If every lisp program were translated into lisp 1.5 (or
so), it would be easy to port things, but it would end in
innefficient implementations.  I like APL, in fact, I like it so much
I've begun maintaining it on our unix system. I've fixed several
bugs, and it now seems to work very well.  It has everything any
other APL has, but nobody seems to want to use it except me. I write
simulators in a day, adaptive networks in a week, and analyze
matrices in seconds. So at any rate, anyone who is interested in APL
on the VAX - especially for machine intelligence applications please
get in touch with me. It's not ludicrous by the way, IBM does more
internal R+D in APL than in any other language! That includes their
robotics programs where they do lots of ARM solutions (matrix
manipulation being built into APL has tremendous advantages in this
domain).

FLAME ON!
[I believe this refers the Stan the Leprechaun's submission in
V1 #43. -- KIL]

So if your language translation program is the last word in
translators, how come it's not in the journals? How come nobody knows
that it solves all the problems of translation? How come you haven't
made a lot of money selling COBOL to PASCAL to C to APL to LISP to
ASSEMBLER to BASIC to ... translators in the open market? Is it that
it only works for limited cases? Is it that it only deals with
'natural' languages? Is it really as good as you think, or do you only
think it's really good?  How about sharing your (hopefully non
NPcomplete) solution to an NP complete problem with the rest of us!
FLAME OFF!

[...]
                Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 20 Aug 83 15:18:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp-to-Lisp translation
-BODY-
Some of the comments on Lisp-to-Lisp translation seem to be rather
naive.  Translating code that works on pure S-expressions is usually
not too difficult.  However, Lisp is not pure Lisp.

I am presently translating some code from Interlisp to Zetalisp (from
a Dec-20 to a Symbolics 3600) and thought a few comments might be
appropriate.  First off, Interlisp has TRANSOR which is a package to
translate between Lisps and is programmable.  It isn't used often but
it does some of the basic translations.  There is an Interlisp
Compatability Package(ILCP) on the 3600, which when combined with a
CONVERT program to translate from Interlisp (running in Interlisp),
covers a fair amount of Interlisp.  (Unfortunately it is still early
in its development - I just rewrote all the I/O functions because they
didn't work for me.)

Even with these aids there are lots of problems.  Here are a few
examples I have come across:  In the source language, taking the CAR
of an atom did not cause an error.  Apparently laziness prevented the
author from writing code to check whether some input was an atom
(which was legal input) before seeing if the CAR of it was some
special symbol.

Since Interlisp-10 is short of cons-cell room, many relatively obscure
pieces of code were designed to use few conses.  Thus the author used
and reused scratch lists and scratch strings.  The exact effect
couldn't be duplicated.  In particular, he would put characters into
specific spots in the scratch string and then would collect the whole
string.  (I'm translating this into arrays.)

All the I/O has to be changed around.  The program used screen control
characters to do fancy I/O on the screen.  It just printed the right
string to go to whereever it wanted.  You can't print a string on the
3600 to do that.  Also, whether you get an end-of-line character at
the end of input is different (so I have to hand patch code that did a
(RATOM) (READC)).  And of course file names (as well as the default
part of them, ie., the directory) are all different.

Then there are little differences which the compatability package can
take care of but introduce inefficiencies.  For instance, the function
which returns the first position of a character in a string is
different between the two lisps because the values returned are off by
1.  So, where the author of the program used that function just to
determine whether the character was in the string is now computing the
position and then offsetting it by 1.

The ILCP does have a nice advantage of letting me use the Interlisp
name for functions even though there is a similarly named, but
different, function in Zetalisp.

Unfortunately for me, this code is going to be continued to be
developed on the Dec-20 while we want to get the same code up on the
3600.  So I have to try to set it up so the translation can happen
often rather than just once.  That means going back to the Interlisp
code and putting it into shape so that a minimum amount of
hand-patching need be done.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 83 10:52:11-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!jdd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisps on 68000's
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.1760

A while ago I posted a query about Lisps on 68000's.  I got
essentially zero replies, so let me post what I know and see whether
anyone can add to it.

First, Franz Lisp is being ported from the VAX to 68000's.  However,
the ratio of random rumors to solid facts concerning this undertaking
seems the greatest since the imminent availability of NIL.  Moreover,
I don't really like Franz; it has too many seams showing (I've had too
many programs die without warning from segmentation errors and the
like).

Then there's T.  T sounds good, but the people who are saying it's
great are the same ones trying to sell it to me for several thousand
dollars, so I'd like to get some more disinterested opinions first.
The only person I've talked to said it was awful, but he admits he
used an early version.

I have no special knowledge of PSL, particularly of the user
environment or of how useful or standard its dialect looks, nor of the
status of its 68000 version.

As for an eventual Common Lisp on a 68000, well, who knows?

There are also numerous toy systems floating around, but none I would
consider for serious work.

Well, that's about everything I know; can any correct me or add to the
list?

Cheers,
John ("Don't Wanna Program in C") DeTreville
Bell Labs, Murray Hill

[I will reprint some of the recent Info-Grpahics discussion of SUNs
and other workstations as LISP-based graphics servers.  Several of
the comments relate to John's query.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 83 21:30:22 PDT
-FROM-
From: fateman%ucbkim@Berkeley (Richard Fateman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SUNs, 3600s, and Lisp
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Info-Graphics discussion list.]

[...]

In answer to Fred's original query, (I replied to him personally
earlier ), Franz has been running on a SUN since January, 1983.  We
find it runs Lisp faster than a VAX 750, and with expected performance
improvements, may be close to a VAX 780. (= about 2.5 to 4 times
slower than a KL-10).  This makes it almost irrelevant using Franz on
a VAX.  Yet more specifically in answer to FRD's question, Franz on
the SUN has full access to the graphics software on it, and one could
set up inter-process communication between a Franz on a VAX and
something else (e.g. Franz) on a SUN. A system for shipping smalltalk
pictures to SUNs runs at UCB.

  Franz runs on other 68000 UNIX workstations, including Pixel, Dual,
and Apple Lisa.  Both Interlisp-D and MIT LispMachine Lisp have more
highly developed graphics stuff at the moment.

  As far as other lisps, I would expect PSL and T, which run on Apollo
Domain 68000 systems, to be portable towards the SUN, and I would not
be surprised if other systems turn up.  For the moment though, Franz
seems to be alone.  Most programs run on the SUN without change (e.g.
Macsyma).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 6 Aug 83 13:39:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Nowicki <NOWICKI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP & SUNs ...
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Info-Graphics discussion list.]

You can certainly run Franz under Unix from SMI, but it is SLOW.  Most
Lisps are still memory hogs, so as was pointed out, you need a
$100,000 Lisp machine to get decent response.

If $100,000 is too much for you to spend on each programmer, you might
want to look at what we are doing on the fourth floor here at
Stanford.  We are running a small real-time kernel in a cheap, quiet,
diskless SUN, which talks over the network to various servers.  Bill
Yeager of Sumex has written a package which runs under interLisp and
talks to our Virtual Graphics Terminal Service.  InterLisp can be run
on VAX/Unix or VAX/VMS systems, TOPS-20, or Xerox D machines.  The
cost/performance ratio is very good, since each workstation only needs
256K of memory, frame buffer, CPU, and Ethernet interface, while the
DECSystem-20 or VAX has 8M bytes and incredibly fast system
performance (albeit shared between 20 users).

We are also considering both PSL and T since they already have 68000
compilers.  I don't know how this discussion got on Info-Graphics.

        -- Bill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 1983 1936-MDT
-FROM-
From: JW-Peterson@UTAH-20 (John W. Peterson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machines
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Info-Graphics discussion list.]

Folks who don't have >$60K to spend on a Lisp Machine may want to
consider Utah's Portable Standard Lisp (PSL) running on the Apollo
workstation.  Apollo PSL has been distributed for several months now.
PSL is a full Lisp implementation, complete with a 68000 Lisp
compiler.  The standard distribution also comes with a wide range of
utilities.

PSL has been in use at Utah for almost a year now and is supporting
applications in computer algebra (the Reduce system from Rand), VLSI
design and Computer aided geometric design.

In addition, the Apollo implementation of PSL comes with a large and
easily extensible system interface package.  This provides easy,
interactive access to the resident Apollo window package, graphics
library, process communication system and other operating system
services.

If you have any questions about the system, feel free to contact me
via
        JW-PETERSON@UTAH-20 (arpa) or
        ...!harpo!utah-cs!jwp (uucp)

jw

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 83 12:08:08 CDT
-FROM-
From: Mike.Caplinger <mike.rice@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SUNs
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Inof-Graphics discussion list.]

[...]

Lisp is available from UCB (ftp from ucb-vax) for the SUN and many
simialr 68K-based machines.  We have it up on our SMI SUNs running
4.1c UNIX.  It seems about as good as Franz on the VAX, which from a
graphics standpoint, is saying nothing at all.

By the way, the SUN graphics library, SUNCore, seems to be an OK
implementation of the SIG Core standard.  It has some omissions and
extensions, like every implementation.  I haven't used it extensively
yet, and it has some problems, but it should get some good graphics
programs going fairly rapidly.  I haven't yet seen a good graphics
demo for the SUN.  I hope this isn't indicative of what you can
actually do with one.

By the way, "Sun Workstation" is a registered trademark of Sun
Microsystems, Inc.  You may be able to get a "SUN-like" system
elsewhere.  I'm not an employee of Sun, I just have to deal with them
a lot...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
46
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Aug 83 14:49:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prejudice
-BODY-
The message from (I think .. apologies if wrong) Stan the Leprechaun,
which sets up "rational thought" as the opposite of "right-wingism"
and of "irascibility", disproves the contention in another message
that "bigotry and intelligence are mutually exclusive".  Indeed this
latter message is its own disproof, at least by my definition of
bigotry.  All of which leads me to believe that one or other of them
*was* sent by an AI project Flamer-type program.  Good work.
                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 83 19:45:38-EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: The soapbox of Gene Spafford <spaf%gatech@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Human Intelligence
-BODY-
[The following are excerpts from several interchanges with the author.
>- KIL]

Words mean not necessarily what I want them to mean nor what you want
them to mean, but what we all agree that they mean.  My point is that
we must very possibly consider emotions and ethics in any model we
care to construct of a "human" intelligence.  The ability to handle a
conversation, as is implied by the Turing test, is not sufficient in
my eyes to classify something as "intelligent."  That is, what
*exactly* is intelligence?  Is it something measured by an IQ test?
I'm sure you realize that that particular point is a subject of much
conjecture.

If these discussion groups are for discussion of artificial
"intelligence," then I would like to see some thought given as to the
definition of "intelligence."  Is emotion part of intelligence?  Is
superstition part of intelligence?

FYI, I do not believe what I suggested -- that bigots are less than
human.  I made that suggestion to start some comments.  I have gotten
some interesting mail from people who have thought some about the
idea, and from a great many people who decided I should be locked away
for even coming up with the idea.

[...]

That brought to mind a second point -- what is human?  What is
intelligence?  Are the the same thing? (My belief -- no, they aren't.)
I proposed that we might classify "human" as being someone who *at
least tries* to overcome irrational prejudices and bigotry.  More than
ever we need such qualitites as open-mindedness and compassion, as
individuals and as a society.  Can those qualities be programmed into
an AI system?  [...]

My original submission to Usenet was intended to be a somewhat
sarcastic remark about the nonsense that was going on in a few of the
newsgroups.  Responses to me via mail indicate that at least a few
people saw through to some deeper, more interesting questions.  For
those people who immediately jumped on my case for making the
suggestion, not only did you miss the point -- you *are* the point.

>-
  The soapbox of Gene Spafford
  CSNet:  Spaf @ GATech ARPA:  Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay
  uucp: ...!{sb1,allegra,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
        ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 83 13:40:03-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!brh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Projects on the Net
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wjh12.299

        I realize this article was a while ago, but I'm just catching
up with my news reading, after vacation.  Bear with me.

        I wonder why folks think it would be so easy for an AI program
to "change it's thought processes" in ways we humans can't.  I submit
that (whether it's an expert system, experiment in KR or what) maybe
the suggestion to 'not think about zebras' would have a similiar
effect on an AI proj. as on a human.  After all, it IS going to have
to decipher exactly what you meant by the suggestion.  On the other
hand, might it not be easier for one of you humans .... we, I mean ...
to consciously think of something else, and 'put it out of your
mind'??

        Still an open question in my mind...  (Now, let's hope this
point isn't already in an article I haven't read...)

                        Brian Holt
                        wjh!brh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 19 Aug 1983 09:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: turner@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prejudice and Frames, Turing Test
-BODY-

  I don't think prejudice is a by-product of Minsky-like frames.
Prejudice is simply one way to be misinformed about the world.  In
people, we also connect prejudism with the inability to correct
incorrect information in light of experiences which prove it be wrong.

  Nothing in Minsky frames as opposed to any other theory is a
necessary condition for this.  In any understanding situation, the
thinker must call on background information, regardless of how that is
best represented.  If this background information is incorrect and not
corrected in light of new information, then we may have prejudism.

  Of course, this is a subtle line.  A scientist doesn't change his
theories just because a fact wanders by that seems to contradict his
theories.  If he is wise, he waits until a body of irrefutable
evidence builds up.  Is he prejudiced towards his current theories?
Yes, I'd say so, but in this case it is a useful prejudism.

  So prejudism is really related to the algorithm for modifying known
information in light of new information.  An algorithm that resists
change too strongly results in prejudism.  The opposite extreme -- an
algorithm that changes too easily -- results in fadism, blowing the
way the wind blows and so on.

                        -----------

  Stan's point in I:42 about Zeno's paradox is interesting.  Perhaps
the mind cast forced upon the AI community by Alan Turing is wrong.
Is Turing's Test a valid test for Artificial Intelligence?

  Clearly not.  It is a test of Human Mimicry Ability.  It is the
assumption that the ability to mimic a human requires intelligence.
This has been shown in the past not to be entirely true; ELIZA is an
example of a program that clearly has no intelligence and yet mimics a
human in a limited domain fairly well.

  A common theme in science fiction is "Alien Intelligence".  That is,
the sf writer basis his story on the idea:  "What if alien
intelligence wasn't like human intelligence?"  Many interesting
stories have resulted from this basis.  We face a similar situation
here.  We assume that Artificial Intelligence will be detectable by
its resemblance to human intelligence.  We really have little ground
for this belief.

  What we need is a better definition of intelligence, and a test
based on this definition.  In the Turing mind set, the definition of
intelligence is "acts like a human being" and that is clearly
insufficient.  The Turing test also leads one to think erroneously
that intelligence is a property with two states (intelligent and
non-intelligent) when even amongst humans there is a wide variance in
the level of intelligence.

  My initial feeling is to relate intelligence to the ability to
achieve goals in a given environment.  The more intelligent man today
is the one who gets what he wants; in short, the more you achieve your
goals, the more intelligent you are.  This means that a person may be
more intelligent in one area of life than in another.  He is, for
instance, a great businessman but a poor father.  This is no surprise.
We all recognize that people have different levels of competence in
different areas.

  Of course, this defintion has problems.  If your goal is to lift
great weights, then your intelligence may be dependent on your
physical build.  That doesn't seem right.  Is a chess program more
intelligent when it runs on a faster machine?

  In the sense of this definition we already have many "intelligent"
programs in limited domains.  For instance, in the domain of
electronic mail handling, there are many very intelligent entities.
In the domain of human life, no electronic entities.  In the domain of
human politics, no human entities (*ha*ha*).

  I'm sure it is nothing new to say that we should not worry about the
Turing test and instead worry about more practical and functional
problems in the field of AI.  It does seem, however, that the Turing
Test is a limited and perhaps blinding outlook onto the AI field.


                                        Scott Turner
                                        turner@randvax

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 83 13:01:46-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!ulysses!smb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hofstadter
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ulysses.560

Douglas Hofstadter is the subject of today's N.Y. Times Magazine cover
story.  The article is worth reading, though not, of course,
particularly deep technically.  Among the points made:  that
Hofstadter is not held in high regard by many AI workers, because they
regard him as a popularizer without any results to back up his
theories.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 83 10:35 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Glasser Alan"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Program Genesis
-BODY-
After reading in the New York Times Sunday Magazine of August 21 about
Douglas Hofstadter's latest idea on artificial intelligence arising
from the interplay of lower levels, I was inspired to carry his
suggestion to the logical limit.  I wrote the following item partly in
jest, but the idea may have some merit, at least to stimulate
discussion.  It was also inspired by Stanislaw Lem's story "Non
Serviam".

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------


                            PROGRAM GENESIS

                A COMPUTER MODEL OF THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP


     The purpose of this program is to model the primordial soup that
existed in the earth's oceans during the period when life first
formed.  The program sets up a workspace (the ocean) in which storage
space in memory and CPU time (resources) are available to
self-replicating mod- ules of memory organization (organisms).
Organisms are sections of code and data which, when run, cause copies
of themselves to be written into other regions of the workspace and
then run.  Overproduction of species, competition for scarce
resources, and occasional copying errors, either accidental or
deliberately introduced, create all the conditions neces- sary for the
onset of evolutionary processes.  A diagnostic package pro- vides an
ongoing picture of the evolving state of the system.  The goal of the
project is to monitor the evolutionary process and see what this might
teach us about the nature of evolution.  A possible long-range
application is a novel method for producing artificial intelligence.
The novelty is, of course, not complete, since it has been done at
least once before.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 83 11:16:24-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Japanese 5th Generation Effort
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.293

There seems to be an analogy between the 5th generation project and
the ARPA-SUR project on automatic speech understanding of a decade
ago.  Both are top-down, initiated with a great deal of hope, and
dependent on solving some "nitty-gritty problems" at the bottom. The
result of the ARPA-SUR project was at first to slow down research in
ASR (automatic speech recognition) because a lot of people got scared
off by finding how hard the problem really is. But it did, as Robert
Amsler suggests the 5th generation project will, show just what
"nitty-gritty problems" are important. It provided a great step
forward in speech recognition, not only for those who continued to
work on projects initiated by ARPA-SUR, but also for those who have
come afterward. I doubt we would now be where we are in ASR if it had
not been for that apparently failed project ten years ago.
(Parenthetically, notice that a lot of the subsequent advances in ASR
have been due to the Japanese, and that European/American researchers
freely use those advances.)

Martin Taylor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
47
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 83 16:50:55-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!jdd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-83 Registration
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.1777

Help!  I put off registering for AAAI-83 until too late, and now I
hear that it's overbooked!  (I heard 7000 would-be registrants and
1500 places, or some such.)  If you're registered but find you can't
attend, please let me know, or if you have any other suggestions, feel
free.

Cheers, John ("Something Wrong With My Planning Heuristics")
DeTreville Bell Labs, Murray Hill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Aug 83  1337 PDT
-FROM-
From: Diana Hall <DFH@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PARLOG
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the SCORE BBoard.]

Parlog Seminar

Keith Clark will give a seminar on Parlog Thursday, Sept. 1 at 3 p.m
in Room 252 MJH.



              PARLOG: A PARALLEL LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE

                              Keith L. Clark

ABSTRACT

        PARLOG is a logic programming language in the sense that
nearly every definition and query can be read as a sentence of
predicate logic.  It differs from PROLOG in incorporating parallel
modes of evaluation.  For reasons of efficient implementation, it
distinguishes and separates and-parallel and or-parallel evaluation.
        PARLOG relations are divided into two types:  and-relations
and or-relations.  A sequence of and-relation calls can be evaluated
in parallel with shared variables acting as communication channels.
Only one solution to each call is computed.
        A sequence of or-relation calls is evaluated sequentially but
all the solutions are found by a parallel exploration of the different
evaluation paths.  A set constructor provides the main interface
between and-relations and or-relations.  This wraps up all the
solutions to a sequence of or-relation calls in a list.  The solution
list can be concurrently consumed by an and-relation call.
        The and-parallel definitions of relations that will only be
used in a single functional mode can be given using conditional
equations.  This gives PARLOG the syntactic convenience of functional
expressions when non-determinism is not required.  Functions can be
invoked eagerly or lazily; the eager evaluation of nested function
calls corresponds to and-parallel evaluation of conjoined relation
calls.
        This paper is a tutorial introduction and semi-formal
definition of PARLOG.  It assumes familiarity with the general
concepts of logic programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Aug 83 20:00:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: There are Prologs and Prologs ...
-BODY-
In the July issue of SIGART an article by Richard Wallace describes
PiL, yet another Prolog in Lisp. The author claims that his
interpreter shows that "it is easy to extend Lisp to do what Prolog
does."

It is a useful pedagogical exercise for Lisp users interested in logic
programming to look at a simple, clean implementation of a subset of
Prolog in Lisp. A particularly illuminating implementation and
discussion is given in "Structure and Implementation of Computer
Programs", a set of MIT lecture notes by Abelson and Sussman.

However, such simple interpreters (even the Abelson and Sussman one
which is far better than PiL) are not a sufficient basis for the claim
that "it is easy extend Lisp to do what Prolog does." What Prolog
"does" is not just to make certain deductions in a certain order, but
also MAKE THEM VERY FAST. Unfortunately, ALL Prologs in Lisp I know of
fail in this crucial aspect (by factors between 30 and 1000).

Why is speed such a crucial aspect of Prolog (or of Lisp, for that
matter)? First, because the development of complex experimental
programs requires MANY, MANY experiments, which just could not be done
if the systems were, say, 100 times slower than they are. Second,
because a Prolog (Lisp) system needs to be written mostly in Prolog
(Lisp) to support the extensibility that is a central aspect of modern
interactive computing environments.

The following paraphrase of Wallace's claim shows its absurdity: "[LiA
(Lisp in APL) shows] that is easy to extend APL to do what Lisp does."
Really? All of what Maclisp does? All of what ZetaLisp does?

Lisp and Prolog are different if related languages. Both have their
supporters. Both have strengths and (serious) weaknesses. Both can be
implemented with comparable efficiency. It is educational to to look
both at (sub)Prologs in Lisp and (sub)Lisps in Prolog. Let's not claim
discoveries of philosopher's stones.

Fernando Pereira
AI Center
SRI International

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1983  10:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ken%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FOOLOG Prolog
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the PROLOG Digest.]

Here is a small Prolog ( FOOLOG = First Order Oriented LOGic )
written in Maclisp. It includes the evaluable predicates CALL,
CUT, and BAGOF. I will probably permanently damage my reputation
as a MacLisp programmer by showing it, but as an attempt to cut
the hedge, I can say that I wanted to see how small one could
make a Prolog while maintaining efficiency ( approx 2 pages; 75%
of the speed of the Dec-10 Prolog interpreter ).  It is actually
possible to squeeze Prolog into 16 lines.  If you are interested
in that one and in FOOLOG, I have a ( very ) brief report describing
them that I can send you.  Also, I'm glad to answer any questions
about FOOLOG. For me, the best is if you send messages by Snail Mail,
since I do not have a net connection.  If that is uncomfortable, you
can also send messages via Ken Kahn, who forwards them.

My address is:

Martin Nilsson
UPMAIL
Computing Science Department
Box 2059
S-750 02 UPPSALA, Sweden


>--------- Here is a FOOLOG sample run:

(load 'foolog)          ; Lower case is user type-in

; Loading DEFMAX 9844442.
(progn (defpred member  ; Definition of MEMBER predicate
         ((member ?x (?x . ?l)))
         ((member ?x (?y . ?l)) (member ?x ?l)))
       (defpred cannot-prove    ; and CANNOT-PROVE predicate
         ((cannot-prove ?goal) (call ?goal) (cut) (nil))
         ((cannot-prove ?goal)))
       'ok)
OK
(prove (member ?elem (1 2 3)) ; Find elements of the list
       (writeln (?elem is an element))))
(1. IS AN ELEMENT)
MORE? t                 ; Find the next solution
(2. IS AN ELEMENT)
MORE? nil               ; This is enough
(TOP)
(prove (cannot-prove (= 1 2)) ; The two cannot-prove cases
MORE? t
NIL
(prove (cannot-prove (= 1 1))
NIL


>--------- And here is the source code:

; FOOLOG Interpreter (c) Martin Nilsson  UPMAIL   1983-06-12

(declare (special *inf* *e* *v* *topfun* *n* *fh* *forward*)
         (special *bagof-env* *bagof-list*))

(defmacro defknas (fun args &rest body)
  `(defun ,fun macro (l)
     (cons 'progn (sublis (mapcar 'cons ',args (cdr l))
                          ',body))))

; ---------- Interpreter

(setq *e* nil *fh* nil *n* nil *inf* 0
      *forward* (munkam (logior 16. (logand (maknum 0) -16.))))
(defknas imm (m x) (cxr x m))
(defknas setimm (m x v) (rplacx x m v))
(defknas makrecord (n)
  (loop with r = (makhunk n) and c for i from 1 to (- n 2) do
        (setq c (cons nil nil))
        (setimm r i (rplacd c c)) finally (return r)))

(defknas transfer (x y)
  (setq x (prog1 (imm x 0) (setq y (setimm x 0 y)))))
(defknas allocate nil
  (cond (*fh* (transfer *fh* *n*) (setimm *n* 7 nil))
        ((setq *n* (setimm (makrecord 8) 0 *n*)))))
(defknas deallocate (on)
  (loop until (eq *n* on) do (transfer *n* *fh*)))
(defknas reset (e n) (unbind e) (deallocate n) nil)
(defknas ult (m x)
  (cond ((or (atom x) (null (eq (car x) '/?))) x)
        ((< (cadr x) 7)
         (desetq (m . x) (final (imm m (cadr x)))) x)
        ((loop initially (setq x (cadr x)) until (< x 7) do
               (setq x (- x 6)
                     m (or (imm m 7)
                           (imm (setimm m 7 (allocate)) 7)))
          finally (desetq (m . x) (final (imm m x)))
          (return x)))))
(defknas unbind (oe)
  (loop with x until (eq *e* oe) do
   (setq x (car *e*)) (rplaca x nil) (rplacd x x) (pop *e*)))
(defknas bind (x y n)
  (cond (n (push x *e*) (rplacd x (cons n y)))
        (t (push x *e*) (rplacd x y) (rplaca x *forward*))))
(lap-a-list '((lap final subr) (hrrzi 1 @ 0 (1)) (popj p) nil))
; (defknas final (x) (cdr (memq nil x))) ; equivalent
(defknas catch-cut (v e)
  (and (null (and (eq (car v) 'cut) (eq (cdr v) e))) v)))

(defun prove fexpr (gs)
  (reset nil nil)
  (seek (list (allocate)) (list (car (convq gs nil)))))

(defun seek (e c)
  (loop while (and c (null (car c))) do (pop e) (pop c))
  (cond ((null c) (funcall *topfun*))
        ((atom (car c)) (funcall (car c) e (cdr c)))
        ((loop with rest = (cons (cdar c) (cdr c)) and
          oe = *e* and on = *n* and e1 = (allocate)
          for a in (symeval (caaar c)) do
          (and (unify e1 (cdar a) (car e) (cdaar c))
               (setq inf* (1+ *inf*)
                     *v* (seek (cons e1 e)
                               (cons (cdr a) rest)))
               (return (catch-cut *v* e1)))
          (unbind oe)
          finally (deallocate on)))))

(defun unify (m x n y)
  (loop do
    (cond ((and (eq (ult m x) (ult n y)) (eq m n)) (return t))
          ((null m) (return (bind x y n)))
          ((null n) (return (bind y x m)))
          ((or (atom x) (atom y)) (return (equal x y)))
          ((null (unify m (pop x) n (pop y))) (return nil)))))

; ---------- Evaluable Predicates

(defun inst (m x)
  (cond ((let ((y x))
           (or (atom (ult m x)) (and (null m) (setq x y)))) x)
        ((cons (inst m (car x)) (inst m (cdr x))))))

(defun lisp (e c)
  (let ((n (pop e)) (oe *e*) (on *n*))
    (or (and (unify n '(? 2) (allocate) (eval (inst n '(? 1))))
             (seek e c))
        (reset oe on))))

(defun cut (e c)
  (let ((on (cadr e))) (or (seek (cdr e) c) (cons 'cut on))))

(defun call (e c)
  (let ((m (car e)) (x '(? 1)))
    (seek e (cons (list (cons (ult m x) '(? 2))) c))))

(defun bagof-topfun nil
  (push (inst *bagof-env* '(? 1)) *bagof-list*) nil)

(defun bagof (e c)
  (let* ((oe *e*) (on *n*) (*bagof-list* nil)
                  (*bagof-env* (car e)))
    (let ((*topfun* 'bagof-topfun)) (seek e '(((call (? 2))))))
    (or (and (unify (pop e) '(? 3) (allocate) *bagof-list*)
             (seek e c))
        (reset oe on))))

; ---------- Utilities

(defun timer fexpr (x)
  (let* ((*rset nil) (*inf* 0) (x (list (car (convq x nil))))
         (t1 (prog2 (gc) (runtime) (reset nil nil)
                    (seek (list (allocate)) x)))
         (t1 (- (runtime) t1)))
    (list (// (* *inf* 1000000.) t1) 'LIPS (// t1 1000.)
          'MS *inf* 'INF)))

(eval-when (compile eval load)
  (defun convq (t0 l0)
    (cond ((pairp t0) (let* (((t1 . l1) (convq (car t0) l0))
                             ((t2 . l2) (convq (cdr t0) l1)))
                        (cons (cons t1 t2) l2)))
          ((null (and (symbolp t0) (eq (getchar t0 1) '/?)))
           (cons t0 l0))
          ((memq t0 l0)
           (cons (cons '/? (cons (length (memq t0 l0))
                                 t0)) l0))
          ((convq t0 (cons t0 l0))))))

(defmacro defpred (pred &rest body)
  `(setq ,pred ',(loop for clause in body
                       collect (car (convq clause nil)))))

(defpred true    ((true)))
(defpred =       ((= ?x ?x)))
(defpred lisp    ((lisp ?x ?y) . lisp))
(defpred cut     ((cut) . cut))
(defpred call    ((call (?x . ?y)) . call))
(defpred bagof   ((bagof ?x ?y ?z) . bagof))
(defpred writeln
  ((writeln ?x) (lisp (progn (princ '?x) (terpri)) ?y)))

(setq *topfun*
      '(lambda nil (princ "MORE? ")
               (and (null (read)) '(top))))

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1983  10:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ken%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Pure Prolog Written In Pure Lisp
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the PROLOG Digest.]

;; The following is a tiny Prolog interpreter in MacLisp
;; written by Ken Kahn.
;; It was inspired by other tiny Lisp-based Prologs of
;; Par Emanuelson and Martin Nilsson
;; There are no side-effects in anywhere in the implementation
;; Though it is very slow of course.

(defun Prolog (database) ;; a top-level loop for Prolog
  (prove (list (rename-variables (read) '(0)))
         ;; read a goal to prove
         '((bottom-of-environment)) database 1)
  (prolog database))

(defun prove (list-of-goals environment database level)
  ;; proves the conjunction of the list-of-goals
  ;; in the current environment
  (cond ((null list-of-goals)
         ;; succeeded since there are no goals
         (print-bindings environment environment)
          ;; the user answers "y" or "n" to "More?"
         (not (y-or-n-p "More?")))
        (t (try-each database database
                     (rest list-of-goals) (first list-of-goals)
                     environment level))))

(defun try-each (database-left database goals-left goal
                               environment level)
 (cond ((null database-left)
        ()) ;; fail since nothing left in database
       (t (let ((assertion
                 ;; level is used to uniquely rename variables
                 (rename-variables (first database-left)
                                   (list level))))
            (let ((new-environment
                   (unify goal (first assertion) environment)))
              (cond ((null new-environment) ;; failed to unify
                     (try-each (rest database-left)
                               database
                               goals-left
                               goal
                               environment level))
                    ((prove (append (rest assertion) goals-left)
                            new-environment
                            database
                            (add1 level)))
                    (t (try-each (rest database-left)
                                 database
                                 goals-left
                                 goal
                                 environment
                                 level))))))))

(defun unify (x y environment)
  (let ((x (value x environment))
        (y (value y environment)))
    (cond ((variable-p x) (cons (list x y) environment))
          ((variable-p y) (cons (list y x) environment))
          ((or (atom x) (atom y))
           (and (equal x y) environment))
          (t (let ((new-environment
                    (unify (first x) (first y) environment)))
               (and new-environment
                    (unify (rest x) (rest y)
                           new-environment)))))))

(defun value (x environment)
  (cond ((variable-p x)
         (let ((binding (assoc x environment)))
           (cond ((null binding) x)
                 (t (value (second binding) environment)))))
        (t x)))

(defun variable-p (x) ;; a variable is a list beginning with "?"
  (and (listp x) (eq (first x) '?)))

(defun rename-variables (term list-of-level)
  (cond ((variable-p term) (append term list-of-level))
        ((atom term) term)
        (t (cons (rename-variables (first term)
                                   list-of-level)
                 (rename-variables (rest term)
                                   list-of-level)))))

(defun print-bindings (environment-left environment)
  (cond ((rest environment-left)
         (cond ((zerop
                 (third (first (first environment-left))))
                (print
                 (second (first (first environment-left))))
                (princ " = ")
                (prin1 (value (first (first environment-left))
                              environment))))
         (print-bindings (rest environment-left) environment))))

;; a sample database:
(setq db '(((father jack ken))
           ((father jack karen))
           ((grandparent (? grandparent) (? grandchild))
            (parent (? grandparent) (? parent))
            (parent (? parent) (? grandchild)))
           ((mother el ken))
           ((mother cele jack))
           ((parent (? parent) (? child))
            (mother (? parent) (? child)))
           ((parent (? parent) (? child))
            (father (? parent) (? child)))))

;; the following are utilities

(defun first (x) (car x))
(defun rest (x) (cdr x))
(defun second (x) (cadr x))
(defun third (x) (caddr x))

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
48
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1983 0011-MDT
-FROM-
From: Jed Krohnfeldt <KROHNFELDT@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Journals
-BODY-
I would add one more journal to the list:

Cognition and Brain Theory
	Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
	365 Broadway,
	Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642
	$18 Individual $50 Instititional
	Quarterly
	Basic cognition, proposed models and discussion of
	consciousness and mental process, epistemology - from frames to
	neurons, as related to human cognitive processes. A "fringe"
	publication for AI topics, and a good forum for issues in cognitive
	science/psychology.

Also, I notice that the institutional rate was quoted for several of
the journals cited.  Many of these journals can be had for less if you
convince them that you are a lone reader (individual) and/or a
student.


[Noninstitutional members of AAAI can get the Artificial Intelligence
Journal for $50.  See the last page of the fall AI Magazine.

Another journal for which I have an ad is

New Generation Computing
	Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
	Journal Fulfillment Dept.
	44 Hartz Way
	Secaucus, NJ  07094
	A quarterly English-language journal devoted to international
	research on the fifth generation computer.  [It seems to be
	very strong on hardware and logic programming.]
	1983 - 2 issues - $52. (Sample copy free.)
	1984 - 4 issues - $104.

>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 21 Aug 83 18:06:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal listings
-BODY-
Computing Reviews, Nov. 1982, lists all the periodicals they receive
and their addresses. Handy list of a lot of CS journals.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 83 11:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%UPenn@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COMTEX and getting AI technical reports
-BODY-

There WAS a company which offered a service in which subscribers would
get copies of recent technical reports on all areas of AI research -
COMTEX.  The reports were to be drawn from universities and
institutions doing AI research.  The initial offering in the series
contained old Stanford and MIT memos.  The series was intended to
provide very timely access to current reaseach in the participating
institution. COMTEX has decided to discontinue the AI series, however.
Perhaps if they perceive an increased demand for this series they will
reactivate it.

Tim

[There is a half-page Comtex ad for the MIT and Stanford memoranda in
the Fall issue of AI Magazine, p. 79.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 83 19:21:34 PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On-line tech reports?
-BODY-
I raised this issue on Human-nets nearly two years ago and didn't seem
to get more than a big yawn for a response.

Here's an example of what I had to go through recently:  I saw an
interesting-looking CMU tech report (Newell, "Intellectual Issues in
the History of AI") listed in SIGART News.  It looked like I could
order it from CMU.  No ARPANET address was listed, so I wrote -- I
even gave them my ARPANET address.  They sent me back a form letter
via US Snail referring me to NTIS.  So then I phoned NTIS.  I talked
to an answering machine and left my US Snail address and the order
number of the tech report.  They sent me back a postcard giving the
price, something like $7.  I sent them back their order form,
including my credit card#.  A week or so later I got back a moderately
legible document, probably reproduced from microfiche, that looks
suspiciously like a Bravo document that's probably on line somewhere,
if I only knew where.  I'm not picking on CMU -- this is a general
problem.

There's GOT to be a better way.  How about: (1) Have a standard
directory at each major ARPA host, containing at least a catalog with
abstracts of all recent tech reports, and info on how to order, and
hopefully full text of at least the most recent and/or popular ones,
available for FTP, perhaps at off-peak hours only.  (2) Hook NTIS into
ARPANET, so that folks could browse their catalogs and submit orders
electronically.

RUTGERS used to have an electronic mailing list to which they
periodically sent updated tech report catalogs, but that's about the
only activity of this sort that I've seen.

We've got this terrific electronic highway.  Let's make it useful for
more than mailing around collections of flames, like this one!

>-Bruce

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 August 1983 00:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Connection Machine
-BODY-
    Date: Thu 18 Aug 83 13:46:13-PDT
    From: David Rogers <DRogers at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

    The closest hardware I am aware of is called the Connection
    Machine, and is begin developed at MIT by Alan Bawden, Dave
    Christman, and Danny Hillis ...

also Tom Knight, David Chapman, Brewster Kahle, Carl Feynman, Cliff
Lasser, and Jon Taft.  Danny Hillis provided the original ideas, his
is the name to remember.

    The project involves building a model with about 2^10 processors.

The prototype Connection Machine was designed to have 2^20 processors,
although 2^10 might be a good size to actually build to test the idea.

One way to arrive at a superficial understanding of the Connection
Machine would be to imagine augmenting a NETL machine with the ability
to pass addresses (or "pointers") as well as simple markers.  This
permits the Connection Machine to perform even more complex pattern
matching on semantic-network-like databases.  The detection of any
kind of cycle (find all people who are employed by their own fathers),
is the canonical example of something this extension allows.

But thats only one way to program a Connection Machine.  In fact, the
thing seems to be a rather general parallel processor.

MIT AI Memo #646, "The Connection Machine" by Danny Hillis, is still a
perfectly good reference for the general principles behind the
Connection Machine, despite the fact that the hardware design has
changed a bit since it was written.  (The memo is currently being
revised.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 August 1983 18:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hal Abelson <HAL @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisps on 68000
-BODY-

At MIT we are working on a version of Scheme (a lexically scoped
dialect of Lisp) that runs on the HP 9836 computer, which is a 68000
machine.  Starting 3 weeks from now, 350 MIT students will be using
this system on a full-time basis.

The implementation consists of a kernel written in 68000 assembler,
with most of the system written in Scheme and compiled using a quick
and dirty compiler, which is also written in Scheme.  The
implementation sits inside of HP's UCSD-Pascal-clone operating system.
For an editor, we use NMODE, which is a version of EMACS written in
Portable Standard Lisp. Thus our machines run, at present, with both
Scheme and PSL resident, and consequently require 4 megabytes of main
memory.  This will change when we get another editor, which will be at
least a few months.

The current system gives good performance for coursework, and is
optimized to provide fast interpreted code, as well as a good
debugging environment for student use.

Work will begin on a serious compiler as soon as the start-of-semester
panic is over.  There will also be a compatible version for the Vax.

Distribution policy has not yet been decided upon, but most likely we
will give the system away (not the PSL part, which is not ours to
give) to anyone who wants it, provided that people who get it agree to
return all improvements to MIT.

Please no requests for a few months, though, since we are still making
changes in the design and documentation.  Availibility will be
annouced on this mailing list..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Aug 83 16:36:26-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!mark @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz lisp on a Sun Workstation.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2096

So what is the true story?  What person says it is almost as fast as
a single user 780, another says it is an incredible hog.  These can't
both be right, as a Vax-780 IS at least as fast as a Lispmachine (not
counting the bitmapped screen).  It sounded to me like the person who
said it was fast had actually used it, but the person who said it was
slow was just working from general knowledge.  So maybe it is fast.
Wouldn't that be nice.
>-
spoken: mark weiser
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
CSNet:  mark@umcp-cs
ARPA:   mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Aug 83 14:43:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: in defense of Turing
-BODY-
        Scott Turner (AIList V1 #46) has some interesting points about
intelligence, but I felt compelled to defend Turing in his absence.
The Turing article in Mind (must reading for any AIer) makes it clear
that the test is not proposed to *define* an intelligent system, or
even to *recognize* one; the claim is merely that a system which *can*
pass the test has intelligence. Perhaps this is a subtle difference,
but it's as important as the difference between "iff" and "if" in
math.

        Scott bemoans the Turing test as testing for "Human Mimicing
Ability", and suggests that ELIZA has shown this to be possible
without intelligence. ELIZA has fooled some people, though I would not
say it has passed anything remotely like the Turing test.  Mimicing
language is a far cry from mimicing intelligence.

        In any case, it may be even more difficult to detect
intelligence without doing a comparison to human intellect; after all,
we're the only intelligent systems we know of...

Regards,

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Aug 83 19:23:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hofstadter article
-BODY-
        Alas, after reading the article about Hofstadter in the
NYTimes, I realized that AI workers can be at least as closeminded as
other scientists have shown. At its bottom level, it seemed that DH's
basic feeling (that we have a long way to go before creating real
intelligence) is embarrassingly obvious. In the long run, the false
hopes that expectations of quick results give rise to can only hurt
the acceptance of AI in people's minds.

        (By the way, I thought the article was very well written, and
would encourage people to look it up. The report is spiced with
opinions from AI workers such as Alan Newell and Marvin Minsky, and it
was enjoyable to hear their candid comments about Hofstadter and AI in
general. Quite a step above the usual articles designed for general
consumption about AI...)

David R.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
49
-DATE-
Date: 23 Aug 83 11:04:22-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!arnold@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AAAI-83 Registration
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2093


        If there will be over 7000 people attending AAAi_83,
        then there will almost be as many people as will
        attend the World Sci. Fic. Convention.

        I worked registration for AAAI-83 on Aug 22 (Monday).
        There were about 700 spaces available, along with about
        1700 people who pre-registered.

        [...]

                --- A Volunteer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Aug 83 2348 EDT
-FROM-
From: Rudy.Nedved@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rog-O-Matic & Mike Mauldin
-BODY-
Apparently people want something related to Rog-O-Matic and are
sending requests to "Maudlin". If you notice very closely that is not
how his name is spelled. People are transposing the "L" and the "D".
Hopefully this message will help the many people who are trying to
send Mike mail.

If you still can't get his mailing address right, try
"mlm@CMU-CS-CAD".

>Rudy
A CMU Postmaster

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 August 1983 06:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan
-BODY-
I've been interested in LOGLANS since Heinlein's GULF which was in
part devoted to it.  Alas, nothing seems to happen that I can use; is
the institute about to publish new materials?  Is there anything in
machine-readable form using Loglans?  Information appreciated.  JEP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25-Aug-83 10:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Textnet
-BODY-
Randy Trigg mentioned his "Textnet" thesis project a few issues back
that combines hypertext and NLS/Augment structures.  He makes a strong
statement about distributed Textnet on worldnet:

   There can be no mad dictator in such an information network.

I am interested in building a testing ground for statements such as
that.  It would contain a model that would simulate the global effects
of technologies such as publishing on-line.  Here is what may be of
interest to the AI community.  The simulation would be a form of
"augmented global self-consciousness" in that it models its own
viability as a service published on-line via worldnet.  If you have
heard of any similar project or might be interested in collaborating
on this one, let me know.

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 83 15:47:19-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!tjj @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Language Translation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.475

OK, you turned your flame-thrower on, now prepare for mine!  You want
to know why things don't get published -- take a look at your address
and then at mine.  You live (I hope I'm not talking to an AI Project)
in the academic community; believe it or not there are those of us
who work in something euphemistically refered to as industry where
the rule is not publish or perish, the rule is keep quiet and you are
less likely to get your backside seared!  Come on out into the 'real'
world where technical papers must be reviewed by managers that don't
know how to spell AI, let alone understand what language translation
is all about.  Then watch as two of them get into a moebius argument,
one saying that there is nothing classified in the paper but there is
proprietary information, while the other says no proprietary but it
definitely is classified!  All the while this is going on the
deadline for submission to three conferences passes by like the
perennial river flowing to the sea.  I know reviews are not unheard
of in academia, and that professors do sometimes get into arguments,
but I've no doubt that they would be more generally favorable to
publication than managers who are worried about the next
stockholder's meeting.

It ain't all that bad, but at least you seem to need a wider
perspective.  Perhaps the results haven't been published; perhaps the
claims appear somewhat tentative; but the testing has been critical,
and the only thing left is primarily a matter of drudgery, not
innovative research.  I am convinced that we may certainly find a new
and challenging problem awaiting us once that has been done, but at
least we are not sitting around for years on end trying to paste
together a grammar for a context
sensitive language!!

Ted Jardine
TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper
ssc-vax!tjj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Aug 83 19:47:17-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisps on 68000's - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2626

I played with a version of PSL on a HP 9845 for several hours one
day.  The environment was just like running FranzLisp under Emacs in
"electric-lisp" mode. (However, the editor is written in PSL itself,
so it is potentially much more powerful than the emacs on our VAX,
with its screwy c/mock-lisp implementation.) The language is in the
style of Maclisp (rather than INTERLISP) and uses standard scoping
(rather than the lexical scoping of T). The machine has 512 by 512
graphics and a 2.5 dimensional window system, but neither are as
fully integrated into the programming environment as on a Xerox
Dolphin. Although I have no detailed benchmarks, I did port a
context-free chart parser to it. The interpreter speed was not
impressive, but was comparable with interpreted Franz on a VAX.
However, the speed of compiled code was very impressive. The compiler
is incremental, and built-in to the lisp system (like in INTERLISP),
and caused about a 10-20 times speedup over interpreted code (my
estimate is that both the Franz and INTERLISP-d compilers only net
2-5 times speedup).  As a result, the compiled parser ran much faster
on the 68000 than the same compiled program on a Dolphin.

I think PSL is definitely a superior lisp for the 68000, but I have
no idea whether is will be available for non-HP machines...


Jordan Pollack
University of Illinois
...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Aug 83 16:20:12-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisp-to-Lisp translation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.468

These problems just go to show what AI people have known for years
(ever since the first great bust of machine translation) - ya can't
translate without understanding what yer translating.  Optimizing
compilers are often impressive encodings of expert coders' knowledge,
and they are for very simple languages - not like Interlisp or English

                                        stan the lep hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Aug 83 16:12:59-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Language Translation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.467

You have heard of my parser.  It's a variant on Berkeley's PHRAN, but
has been improved to handle arbitrarily ambiguous sentences.  I
submitted a paper on it to AAAI-83, but it was rejected (well, I did
write it in about 3 days - wasn't very good).  A paper will be
appearing at the AIAA Computers in Aerospace conference in October.
The parser is only a *basic* solution - I suppose I should have made
that clearer.  Since it is knowledge-based, it needs **lots** of
knowledge.  Right now we're working on ways to acquire linguistic
knowledge automatically (Selfridge's work is very interesting).  The
knowledge base is woefully small, but we don't anticipate any problems
expanding it (famous last words!).

The parser has just been released for use within Boeing ("just"
meaning two days ago), and it may be a while before it becomes
available elsewhere (sorry).  I can mail details on it though.

As for language analysis being NP-complete, yes you're right.  But are
you sure that humans don't brute-force the process, and that computers
won't have to do the same?

                                        stan the lep hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps if IBM is using APL, that explains a lot (I'm a former MVS victim)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Aug 83 15:47:11-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: So the language analysis problem has been solved?!?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.466

Heh-heh.  Thought that'd raise a few hackles (my boss didn't approve
of the article; oh well.  I tend to be a bit fiery around the edges).

The claim is that we have "basically" solved the problem.  Actually,
we're not the only ones - the APE-II parser by Pazzani and others from
the Schank school have also done the same thing.  Our parser can
handle arbitrarily ambiguous sentences, generating *all* the possible
meanings, limited only by the size of its knowledge base.  We have the
capability to do any sort of idiom, and mix any number of natural
languages.  Our problems are really concerned with the acquisition of
linguistic knowledge, either by having nonspecialists put it in by
hand (*everyone* is an expert on the native language) or by having the
machine acquire it automatically.  We can mail out some details if
anyone is interested.

One advantage we had is starting from ground zero, so we had very few
preconceptions about how language analysis ought to be done, and
scanned the literature.  It became apparent that since we were
required to handle free-form input, any kind of grammar would
eventually become less than useful and possibly a hindrance to
analysis.  Dr. Pereira admits as much when he says that grammars only
reflect *some* aspects of language.  Well, that's not good enough.  Us
folks in applied research can't always afford the luxury of theorizing
about the most elegant methods.  We need something that models human
cognition closely enough to make sense to knowledge engineers and to
users.  So I'm sort of in the Schank camp (folks at SRI hate 'em)
although I try to keep my thinking as independent as possible (hard
when each camp is calling the other ones charlatans; I'll post
something on that pernicious behavior eventually).

Parallel production systems I'll save for another article...

                                        stan the leprechaun hacker
                                        ssc-vax!sts (soon utah-cs)

ps I *did* read an article of Dr. Pereira's - couldn't understand the
point.  Sorry.  (perhaps he would be so good as to explain?)

[Which article? -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Aug 83 11:19-EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Musings on AI and intelligence
-BODY-
Spafford's musings on intelligent communications reminded me of an
article I read several years ago by John Thomas (then at T.J. Watson,
now at White Plains, a promotion as IBM sees it).

In the paper he distinguishes between two distinct approaches (or
philosophies) at raising the level man/machine communication.

[Natural langauge recognition is one example of this problem. Here the
machine is trying to "decipher" the user's natural prose to determine
the desired action. Another application are intelligent interfaces
that attempt to decipher user "intentions"]

The Human Approach -

Humans view communication as inherently goal based. When one
communicates with another human being, there is an explicit goal -> to
induce a cognitive state in the OTHER. This cognitive state is usually
some function of the communicators cognitive state. (usually the
identity function, since one wants the OTHER to understand what one is
thinking). In this approach the medium of communication (words, art,
gestulations) are not the items being communicated, they are
abstractions meant to key certain responses in the OTHER to arrive at
the desired goal.

The Mechanistic Approach

According to Thomas this is the approach taken by natural language
recognition people. Communication is the application of a decrypto
function to the prose the user employed. This approach is inherently
flawed, according to Thomas, since the actually words and prose do not
contain meaning in themselves but are tools for efecting cognitive
change.  Thus, the text of one of Goebell's propaganda speeches can
not be examined in itself to determine what it means, but one needs an
awareness of the cognitive models, metaphors, and prejudices of the
speaker and listeners.  Capturing this sort of real world knowledge
(biases, prejudices, intuitive feelings) is not a stong point of the
AI systems. Yet, the extent that certain words move a person, may be
much more highly dependent on, say his Catholic upbringing than the
words themselves.

If one doubts the above thesis, then I encourage you to read Thomas
Kuhn's book "the Sturcture of Scientific Revolutions" and see how
culture can affect the interpretation of supposedly hard scientific
facts and observations.

Perhaps something that best brings this out was an essay (I believe it
was by Smuyllian) in "The Mind's Eye" (Dennet and Hofstadter). In this
essay a homunculus is set up with the basic tools of one of Schank's
language understanding systems (scripts, text, rules, etc.) He then
goes about the translation of the text from one language to another
applying a set of mechanistic transformation rules. Given that the
homunculus knows nothing of either the source language or the target
language, can you say that it has any understanding of what the script
was about? How does this differ from today's NUR systems?


                                        - Steven Gutfreund
                                          Gutfreund.umass@udel-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
50
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 1983 11:05:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: Susan L Alderson <mccarty@Nosc>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: mccarty@Nosc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Help!
-BODY-

We are trying to locate any and all bibliographies, in electronic
form, of AI and Robotics.  I know that this covers a broad spectrum,
but we would rather have too many things to choose from than none at
all.  Any help or leads on this would be greatly appreciated.

We are particularly interested in:

    AI Techniques
    Vision Analysis
    AI Languages
    Robotics
    AI Applications
    Speech Analysis
    AI Environments
    AI Systems Support
    Cybernetics

This is not a complete list of our interests, but a good portion of
the high spots!

susie (mccarty@nosc-cc)


[Several partial bibilographies have been published in AIList; more
would be most welcome.  Readers able to provide pointers should reply
to AIList as well as to Susan.

Many dissertation and report abstracts have been published in the
SIGART newsletter; online copies may exist.  Individual universities
and corporations also maintain lists of their own publications; CMU,
MIT, Stanford, and SRI are among the major sources in this country.
(Try Navarro@SRI-AI for general AI and CPowers@SRI-AI for robotics
reports.)

One of the fastest ways to compile a bibliography is to copy author's
references from the IJCAI and AAAI conference proceedings.  The AI
Journal and other AI publications are also good.  Beware of straying
too far from your main topics, however.  Rosenfeld's vision and image
processing bibliographies in CVGIP (Computer Vision, Graphics, and
Image Processing) list over 700 articles each year.

>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 1983 1448-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intelligence is...
-BODY-
  An intelligence must have at least three abilities; To act; To
perceive, and classify (as one of: better, the same, worse) the
results of its actions, or the environment after the action; and
lastly To change its future actions in light of what it has perceived,
in attempt to maximize "goodness", and avoid "badness".  My views are
very obviously flavored by behaviorism.

  In defense of objections I hear coming...  To act is necessary for
intelligence, since it is pointless to call a rock intelligent since
there seems to be no way to detect it.  To perceive is necessary of
intelligence since otherwise projectiles, simple chemicals, and other
things that act following a set of rules, would be classified as
intelligent.  To change future actions is the most important since a
toaster could perceive that it was overheating, oxidizing its heating
elements, and thus dying, but would be unable to stop toasting until
it suffered a breakdown.

  In summary (NOT (AND actp percievep evolvep)) -> (NOT intelligent),
or Action, Perception, and Evolution based upon perception is
necessary for intelligence.  I *believe* that these conditions are
also sufficient for intelligence.

awaiting flames,

j'

PS. Yes, the earth's bio-system IS intelligent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 83 2:00:58-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!ech @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prejudice and Frames, Turing Test
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxll.403

The characterization of prejudice as  an  unwillingness/inability
to  adapt  to  new  (contradictory)  data  is  an  appealing one.
Perhaps this belongs in net.philosophy, but it seems to me that a
requirement  for  becoming a fully functional intelligence (human
or otherwise) is to abandon the search for  compact,  comfortable
"truths"  and  view knowledge as an approximation and learning as
the process of improving those approximations.

There is nothing wrong with compact generalizations: they  reduce
"overhead" in routine situations to manageable levels. It is when
they   are   applied   exclusively   and/or    inflexibly    that
generalizations  yield bigotry and the more amusing conversations
with Eliza et al.

As for the Turing test, I think it may be appropriate to think of
it  as  a "razor" rather than as a serious proposal.  When Turing
proposed the test there was a philosophical argument raging  over
the  definition  of  intelligence,  much  of  which  was outright
mysticism. The famous test cuts the fog nicely: a device  needn't
have  consciousness,  a  soul,  emotions -- pick your own list of
nebulous terms -- in order to  function  "intelligently."  Forget
whether it's "the real thing," it's performance that counts.

I think Turing recognized that, no matter how successful AI  work
was, there would always be those (bigots?) who would rip the back
off the machine and say,  "You  see?  Just  mechanism,  no  soul,
no emotions..." To them, the Turing test replies, "Who cares?"

=Ned=

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 83 13:47:38-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prejudice and Frames, Turing Test
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uw-june.549

I don't think I can accept some of the comments being bandied about
regarding prejudice.  Prejudice, as I understand the term, refers to
prejudging a person on the basis of class, rather than judging that
person as an individual.  Class here is used in a wider sense than
economic.  Examples would be "colored folk got rhythm" or "all them
white saxophonists sound the same to me"-- this latter being a quote
from Miles Davis, by the way.  It is immediately apparent that
prejudice is a natural result of making generalizations and
extrapolating from experience.  This is a natural, and I would suspect
inevitable, result of a knowledge acquisition process which
generalizes.

Bigotry, meanwhile, refers to inflexible prejudice.  Miles has used a
lot of white saxophonists, as he recognizes that some don't all sound
the same.  Were he bigoted, rather than prejudiced, he would refuse to
acknowledge that.  The problem lies in determining at what point an
apparent counterexample should modify a conception.  Do we decide that
gravity doesn't work for airplanes, or that gravity always works but
something else is going on?  Do we decide that a particular white sax
man is good, or that he's got a John Coltrane tape in his pocket?

In general, I would say that some people out there are getting awfully
self-righteous regarding a phenomenon that ought to be studied as a
result of our knowledge acquisition process rather than used to
classify people as sub-human.

>Joe P.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 83 11:53:10-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Human Intelligence [& Editorial Comment]
-BODY-
Goodness, I stopped reading net.ai a while ago, but had an ai problem
to submit and decided to read this in case the question had already
been asked and answered. News here only lasts for 2 weeks, but things
have changed...

At any rate, you are all discussing here what I am discussing in mail
to AI types (none of whom mentioned that this was going on here, the
cretins! ;-) ). I am discussing bigotry by mail to AI folk.

I have a problem in furthering my discussion. When I mentioned it I
got the same response from 2 of my 3 AI folk, and am waiting for the
same one from the third.  I gather it is a fundamental AI sort of
problem.

I maintain that 'a problem' and 'a discription of a problem' are not
the same thing. Thus 'discrimination' is a problem, but the word
'nigger' is not. 'Nigger' is a word which describes the problem of
discrimination. One may decide not to use the word 'nigger' but
abolishing the word only gets rid of one discription of the problem,
but not the problem itself.

If there were no words to express discrimination, and discrimination
existed, then words would be created (or existing words would be
perverted) to express discrimination. Thus language can be counted
upon to reflect the attitudes of society, but changing the language is
not an effective way to change society.


This position is not going over very well. I gather that there is some
section of the AI community which believes that language (the
description of a problem) *is* the problem.  I am thus reduced to
saying, "oh no it isnt't you silly person" but am left holding the bag
when they start quoting from texts. I can bring out anthropology and
linguistics and they can get out some epistomology and Knowledge
Representation, but the discussion isn't going anywhere...

can anybody out there help?

laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura


[I have yet to be convinced that morality, ethics, and related aspects
of linguistics are of general interest to AIList readers.  While I
have (and desire) no control over the net.ai discussion, I am
responsible for what gets passed on to the Arpanet.  Since I would
like to screen out topics unrelated to AI or computer science, I may
choose not to pass on some of the net.ai submissions related to
bigotry.  Contact me at AIList-Request@SRI-AI if you wish to discuss
this policy. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 1983 1625-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: [flamer@ida-no: Re:  Turing Test; Parry, Eliza, and Flamer]
-BODY-
Is this a human response??

j'
                ---------------

  Return-path: <flamer%umcp-cs%UMCP-CS@UDel-Relay>
  Received: from UDEL-RELAY by USC-ECLC; Thu 25 Aug 83 16:20:32-PDT
  Date:     25 Aug 83 18:31:38 EDT  (Thu)
  From: flamer@ida-no
  Return-Path: <flamer%umcp-cs%UMCP-CS@UDel-Relay>
  Subject:  Re:  Turing Test; Parry, Eliza, and Flamer
  To: jay@USC-ECLC
  In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 16-Aug-83 17:37:00 EDT from
      JAY%USC-ECLC@sri-unix.UUCP <4325@sri-arpa.UUCP>
  Via:  UMCP-CS; 25 Aug 83 18:55-EDT

        From: JAY%USC-ECLC@sri-unix.UUCP

        . . . Flamer would read messages from the net and then
        reply to the sender/bboard denying all the person said,
        insulting him, and in general making unsupported statements.
        . . .

  Boy! Now that's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Only an
  idiot such as yourself, who must be totally out of touch with reality,
  could come up with that. Besides, what would it prove?  It's not much
  of an accomplishment to have a program which is stupider than a human.
  The point of the Turing test is to demonstrate a program that is as
  intelligent as a human. If you can't come up with anything better,
  stay off the net!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
51
-DATE-
Date: 26 Aug 83 17:00:18-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dcdwest.216

I would like to know whether there are commercial expert
systems available for sale.  In particular, I would like to
know about systems like the Programmer's Apprentice, or other
such programming aids.

Thanks in advance,

Peter Benson
!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Aug 83 11:12:31-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!rh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: bulstars
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.656

from AP (or NYT?)


       COMPUTER TROUBLESHOOTER:
       'Artificially Intelligent' Machine Analyses Phone Trouble

           WASHINGTON - Researchers at Bell Laboratories say
       they've developed an ''artificially intelligent'' computer
       system that works like a highly trained human analyst to
       find troublespots within a local telephone network. Slug
       PM-Bell Computer. New, will stand. 670 words.

Oh, looks like we beat the Japanese :-( Why weren't we told that
'artificial intelligence' was about to exist?  Does anyone know if
this is the newspaper's fault, or if the guy they talked to just
wanted more attention???


>- Randwulf
(Randy Haskins);
Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Aug 83 21:36:04-CDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: claims about "solving NLP"
-BODY-
I have never been impressed with claims about "solving the Natural
Language Processing problem" based on `solutions' for 1-2 paragraphs
of [usu. carefully (re)written] text.  There are far too many scale-up
problems for such claims to be taken seriously.  How many NLP systems
are there that have been applied to even 10 pages of NATURAL text,
with the full intent of "understanding" (or at least "treating in the
identical fashion") ALL of it?  Very few.  Or 100 pages?  Practically
none.  Schank & Co.'s "AP wire reader," for example, was NOT intended
to "understand" all the text it saw [and it didn't!], but only to
detect and summarize the very small proportion that fell within its
domain -- a MUCH easier task, esp. considering its miniscule domain
and microscopic dictionary.  Even then, its performance was -- at best
>- debatable.

And to anticipate questions about the texts our MT system has been
applied to:  about 1,000 pages to date -- NONE of which was ever
(re)written, or pre-edited, to affect our results.  Each experiment
alluded to in my previous msg about MT was composed of about 50 pages
of natural, pre-existing text [i.e., originally intended and written
for HUMAN consumption], none of which was ever seen by the project
linguists/programmers before the translation test was run.  (Our
dictionaries, by the way, currently comprise about 10,000 German
words/phrases, and a similar number of English words/phrases.)

We, too, MIGHT be subject to further scale-up problems -- but we're a
damned sight farther down the road than just about any other NLP
project has been, and have good reason to believe that we've licked
all the scale-up problems we'll ever have to worry about.  Even so, we
would NEVER be so presumptuous as to claim to have "solved the NLP
problem," needing only a large collection of `linguistic rules' to
wrap things up!!!  We certainly have NOT done so.

REALLY, now...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Aug 83 17:11:26-CDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Translation - a very short tutorial
-BODY-
Before proclaiming the impossibility of automatic [i.e., computer]
translation of human languages, it's perhaps instructive to know
something about how human translation IS done -- and is not done -- at
least in places where it's taken seriously.  It is also useful,
knowing this, to propose a few definitions of what may be counted as
"translation" and -- more to the point -- "useful translation."
Abbreviations: MT = Machine Translation; HT = Human Translation.

To start with, the claim that "a real translator reads and understands
a text, and then generates [the text] in the [target] language" is
empty.  First, NO ONE really has anything like a good idea of HOW
humans translate, even though there are schools that "teach
translation."  Second, all available evidence indicates that (point #1
notwithstanding), different humans do it differently.  Third, it can
be shown (viz simultaneous interpreters) that nothing as complicated
as "understanding" need take place in all situations.  Fourth,
although the contention that "there generally aren't 1-1
correspondences between words, phrases..."  sounds reasonable, it is
in fact false an amazing proportion of the time, for languages with
similar derivational histories (e.g., German & English, to say nothing
of the Romance languages).  Fifth, it can be shown that highly
skilled, well-respected technical-manual translators do not always (if
ever) understand the equipment for which they're translating manuals
[and cannot, therefore, be argued to understand the original texts in
any fundamentally deep sense] -- and must be "understanding" in a
shallower, probably more "linguistic" sense (one perhaps more
susceptible to current state-of-the-art computational treatment).

Now as to how translation is performed in practice.  One thing to
realize here is that, at least outside the U.S. [i.e., where
translation is taken seriously and where almost all of it is done], NO
HUMAN performs "unrestricted translation" -- i.e., human translators
are trained in (and ONLY considered competent in) a FEW AREAS.
Particularly in technical translation, humans are trained in a limited
number of related fields, and are considered QUITE INCOMPETENT outside
those fields.  Another thing to realize is that essentially ALL
TRANSLATIONS ARE POST-EDITED.  I refer here not to stylistic editing,
but to editing by a second translator of superior skill and
experience, who NECESSARILY refers to the original document when
revising his subordinate's translation.  The claim that MT is
unacceptable IF/BECAUSE the results must be post-edited falls to the
objection that HT would be unacceptable by the identical argument.
Obviously, HT is not considered unacceptable for this reason -- and
therefore, neither should MT.  All arguments for acceptablility then
devolve upon the question of HOW MUCH revision is necessary, and HOW
LONG it takes.

Happily, this is where we can leave the territory of pontifical
pronouncements (typically utterred by the un- or ill-informed), and
begin to move into the territory of facts and replicable experiments.
Not entirely, of course, since THERE IS NO SUCH THINGS AS A PERFECT
TRANSLATION and, worse, NO ONE CAN DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD
TRANSLATION.  Nevertheless, professional post-editors are regularly
saddled with the burden of making operational decisions about these
matters ("Is this sufficiently good that the customer is likely to
understand the text?  Is it worth my [company's] time to improve it
further?").  Thus we can use their decisions (reflected, e.g., in
post-editing time requirements) to determine the feasibility of MT in
a more scientific manner; to wit: what are the post-editing
requirements of MT vs. HT?  And in order to assess the economic
viability of MT, one must add: taking all expenses into account, is MT
cost-effective [i.e., is HT + human revision more or less expensive
than MT + human revision]?

Re: these last points, our experimental data to date indicate that (1)
the absolute post-editing requirements (i.e., something like "number
of changes required per sentence") for MT are increased w.r.t. HT
[this is no surprise to anyone]; (2) paradoxically, post-editing time
requirements of MT is REDUCED w.r.t. HT [surprise!]; and (3) the
overall costs of MT (including revision) are LESS than those for HT
(including revision) -- a significant finding.

We have run two major experiments to date [with our funding agency
collecting the data, not the project staff], BOTH of which produced
these results; the more recent one naturally produced better results
than the earlier one, and we foresee further improvements in the near
future.  Our finding (2) above, which SEEMS inconsistent with finding
(1), is explainable with reference to the sociology of post-editing
when the original translator is known to be human, and when he will
see the results (which probably should, and almost always does,
happen).  Further details will appear in the literature.

So why haven't you heard about this, if it's such good news?  Well,
you just did!  More to the point, we have been concentrating on
producing this system more than on writing papers about it [though I
have been presenting papers at COLING and ACL conferences], and
publishing delays are part of the problem [one reason for having
conferences].  But more papers are in the works, and the secret will
be out soon enough.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Aug 83  1209 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Davidson <JED@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fifth Generation (Book Review)
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the SCORE BBoard.]

14 Aug 8
by Steven Schlossstein
(c) 1983 Dallas Morning News (Independent Press Service)

    THE FIFTH GENERATION: Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer
Challenge to the World. By Edward Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck
(Addison-Wesley, $15.55).

    (Steven Schlossstein lived and worked in Japan with a major Wall
Street firm for more than six years. He now runs his own Far East
consulting firm in Princeton, N.J. His first novel, ''Kensei,-' which
deals with the Japanese drive for industrial supremacy in the high
tech sector, will be published by Congdon & Weed in October).

    ''Fukoku Kyohei'' was the rallying cry of Meiji Japan when that
isolated island country broke out of its self-imposed cultural cocoon
in 1868 to embark upon a comprehensive plan of modernization to catch
up with the rest of the world.
    ''Rich Country, Strong Army'' is literally what is meant.
Figuratively, however, it represented Japan's first experimentation
with a concept called industrial policy: concentrating on the
development of strategic industries - strategic whether because of
their connection with military defense or because of their importance
in export industries intended to compete against foreign products.
    Japan had to apprentice herself to the West for a while to bring
it off.
    The military results, of course, were impressive. Japan defeated
China in 1895, blew Russia out of the water in 1905, annexed Korea and
Taiwan in 1911, took over Manchuria in 1931, and sat at the top of the
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere by 1940. This from a country
previously regarded as barbarian by the rest of the world.
    The economic results were no less impressive. Japan quickly became
the world's largest shipbuilder, replaced England as the world's
leading textile manufacturer, and knocked off Germany as the premier
producer of heavy industrial machinery and equipment. This from a
country previously regarded as barbarian by the rest of the world.
    After World War II, the Ministry of Munitions was defrocked and
renamed the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), but
the process of strategy formulation remained the same.
    Only the postwar rendition was value-added, and you know what
happened. Japan is now the world's No. 1 automaker, produces more
steel than anyone else, manufactures over half the TV sets in the
world, is the only meaningful producer of VTRs, dominates the 64K
computer chip market, and leads the way in one branch of computer
technology known as artificial intelligence (AI). All this from a
country previously regarded as barbarbian by the rest of the world.
    What next for Japan? Ed Feigenbaum, who teaches computer science
at Stanford and pioneered the development of AI in this country, and
Pamela McCorduck, a New York-based science writer, write that Japan is
trying to dominate AI research and development.
    AI, the fifth generation of computer technology, is to your
personal computer as your personal computer is to pencil and paper. It
is based on processing logic, rather than arithmetic, deals in
inferences, understands language and recognizes pictures. Or will. It
is still in its infancy. But not for long; last year, MITI established
the Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, funded it
aggressively, and put some of the country's best brains to work on AI.
    AI systems consist of three subsystems: a knowledge base needed
for problem solving and understanding, an inference subsystem that
determines what knowledge is relevant for solving the problem at hand,
and an interaction subsystem that facilitates communication between
the overall system and its user - between man and machine.
    Now America does not have a MITI, does not like industrial policy,
has not created an institute to work on AI, and is not even convinced
that AI is the way to go. But Feigenbaum and McCorduck argue that even
if the Japanese are not successful in developing the fifth generation,
the spin-off from this 10-year project will be enormous, with
potentially wide applications in computer technology,
telecommunications, industrial robotics, and national defense.
    ''The Fifth Generation'' walks you through AI, how and why Japan
puts so much emphasis on the project, and how and why the Western
nations have failed to respond to the challenge. National defense
implications alone, the authors argue, are sufficient to justify our
taking AI seriously.
    Smart bombs and laser weapons are but advanced wind-up toys
compared with the AI arsenal of the future. The Pentagon has a little
project called ARPA - Advanced Research Projects Agency - that has
been supporting AI small-scale, but not with the people or funding the
authors feel is meaningful.
    Unfortunately, ''The Fifth Generation'' suffers from some
organizational defects. You don't really get into AI and how its
complicated systems operate until you're almost halfway through the
book. And the chapter on industrial policy - from which all
technological blessings flow - is only three pages long. It's also at
the back of the book instead of up front, where it belongs.
    But the issues are highlighted well by experts who are not only
knowledgeable about AI but who are concerned about our lack of
response to yet another challenge from Japan. The author's depiction
of the drivenness of the Japanese is especially poignant. It all boils
down to national survival.
    Japan no longer is in a position of apprenticeship to the West.
                       [Begin garbage]
The D B LD LEAJE OW IN A EMBARRUSSINOF STRATEGIC INDUSDRIES. EAgain1u
2, with few exceptions and shampoo, but it's not trying harder - if at
all.
                        [End garbage]
mount an effective reaponse to the Japanese challenge? ''The
Fifth Generation'' doesn't think so, and for compelling reasons. Give
it a read.
    END

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 26 Aug 83 15:40:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation (Book Review)
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the SCORE BBoard.]

Anybody who says the Japanese are *leading* in "one branch of computer
technology known as artificial intelligence" is out to lunch.  And by
what standards is DARPA describable as small?  And what is all this
BirdSong about other countries failing to "respond to the challenge"?
Hasn't this turkey read the Alvey report?  Hasn't he noticed France's
vigorous encouragement of their domestic computer industry?  Who in
America is not "convinced that AI is the way to go" (this was true of
the leadership in Britain until the Alvey report came out, I admit)
and what are they doing to hinder AI work?  Does he think 64k RAMs are
the only things that go into computers?  Does he, incidentally, know
that AI has had plenty of pioneers outside of the HPP?

More to the point, most of you know about the wildly over-optimistic
promises that were made in the 60's on behalf of AI, and what happened
in their wake.  Whipping up public hysteria is a dangerous game,
especially when neither John Q. Public nor Malcolm Forbes himself can
do very much about the 5GC project, except put pressure on the local
school board to teach the kids some math and science.
                                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
52
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 83 15:26:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vision Bibliograpy
-BODY-
I have two hundred references from DTIC and NTIS on vision.  The list
is not complete by any means since I am looking at scene analysis and
algorithms.  References are more or less from the last ten years with
few 1982-83 items.  Shown are title, authors, AD number, and
publication date.  Hopes this helps some.  Mort.

[I have reformatted the entries and sorted them by author.  For files
of this size (about 20K characters), I find that it hassles the fewest
people if I just send it out instead of sending FTP instructions.
>- KIL]


GJ Agin, Representation and Description of Curved Objects, AD755139,
Oct 72.

N Ahuja & A Rosenfeld & RM Haralick, Neighbor Gray Levels as Features
in Pixel Classification, , 80.

N Ahuja, Mosaic Models for Image Analysis and Synthesis, ADA050100,
Nov 77.

JO Amoss, A Syntax-Directed Method of Extracting Topological Regions
from a Silhouette, ADA045944, Jul 77.

HC Andrews (Project Director), Image Understanding Research,
ADA054091, Mar 78.

HC Andrews (Project Director), Image Understanding Research,
ADA046214, Sep 77.

Anonymous, Annual Report 1980, N81-27841, Jan 81.

Anonymous, Automatic Scene Analysis, N81-12776, Nov 79.

Anonymous, Optical Array Processor, ADA118371, Jul 82.

K Arbter, Erkennung und Vermessung von Konturen mit Hilfe der
Fouriertransformation, ADB061321, Sep 81.

A Baldwin & R Greenblatt & J Holloway & T Knight & D Moon & D Weinreb,
LISP Machine Progress Report, ADA062178, Aug 77.

DH Ballard, Parameter Networks: Towards a Theory of Low-Level Vision,
ADA101216, Apr 81.

AG Barto & RS Sutton, Goal Seeking Components for Adaptive
Intelligence: An Initial Assessment, ADA101476, Apr 81.

LS Baumann ed., Image Understanding, ADA052900, Apr 77.

LS Baumann ed., Image Understanding, ADA084764, Apr 80.

LS Baumann ed., Image Understanding, ADA098261, Apr 81.

LS Baumann ed., Proceedings: Image Understanding Workshop, ADA052902,
May 78.

LS Baumann ed., Proceedings: Image Understanding Workshop, ADA064765,
Nov 78.

BL Bean & WL Flowers & WM Gutman & AV Jeliek & RL Spellicy, Laser, IR
and NMMW Propagation Measurements and Analyses, ADB055523L, Feb 80.

B Bhanu, Shape Matching and Image Segmentation Using Stochastic
Labeling, ADA110033, Aug 81.

GA Biecker & DS Paden & JL Potter, Feature Tagging, ADA091691, Apr 80.

HD Block & NJ Nilsson & RW Duda, Determination and Detection of
Features in Patterns, AD427840, Dec 63.

M Brady, Computational Approaches to Image Understanding, ADA108191,
Oct 81.

A Broder & A Rosenfeld, Gradient Magnitude as an Aid in Color Pixel
Classification, ADA091995, Jun 80.

RA Brooks, Symbolic Reasoning Among 3-D Models and 2-D Images,
ADA110316, Jun 81.

J Bryant & LF Guseman Jr., Basic Research in Mathematical Pattern
Recognition and Image Analysis, N81-23561, Jan 81.

BL Bullock, Unstructured Control and Communication Processes in Real
World Scene Analysis, ADA049458, Oct 77.

GJ Burton, Contrast Discrimination by the Human Visual System,
ADA104181, May 81.

B Carrigan, Pattern Recognition and Image Processing: Citations from
NTIS Aug 77 - Jul 79, PB80814221, Aug 80.

R Cederberg, Chain-Link Coding and Segmentation for Raster Scan
Devices, N79-17129, Nov 78.

A Celmins, A Manual for General Least Squares Model Fitting,
ADB040229L, Jun 79.

I Chakravarty, A Generalized Line and Junction Labelling Scheme with
Applications to Scene Analysis, PB278073, Dec 77.

I Chakravarty, A Survey of Current Techniques for Computer Vision,
PB268385, Jan 77.

R Chellappa, On an Estimation Scheme for Gauss Markov Random Field
Models, ADA102057, Apr 81.

CH Chen, A Comparative Evaluation of Statistical Image Segmentation
Techniques, ADA094237, Jan 81.

CH Chen, Image Processing, ADA095552, Feb 81.

CH Chen, Research Progress on Image Segmentation, ADA101827, Jul 81.

CH Chen, Some New Results on Image Processing and Recognition,
ADA055862, Jun 78.

PW Cheng, A Psychophysical Approach to Form Perception:
Incompatibility as an Explanation of Integrality, ADA087607, Jul 80.

LS Coles & B Raphael & RO Duda & CA Rosen & TD Garvey & RA Yates & JH
Munson, Application of Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance,
AD868871, Nov 69.

SA Cook & TP Harrington & H Toffer, Digital-Image Processing Improves
Man-Machine Communication at a Nuclear Reactor, UNI-SA-98, Aug 82.

JL Crowley, A Representation for Visual Information, ADA121443, Nov
81.

S Cushing and L Vaina, Further Progress in Knowledge Representation
for Image Understanding, ADA098416, Mar 81.

DARPA, Proceedings: Image Understanding Workshop, ADA052901, Oct 77.

SM Dunn, Generalized Blomqvist Correlation, ADA102058, Apr 81.

CR Dyer, Memory-Augmented Cellular Automata for Image Analysis,
ADA065328, Nov 78.

JO Eklundh, Studies of Some Algorithms for Digital Picture Processing,
N81-14656, 81.

J Fain & D Gorlin & F Hayes-Roth & S Rosenschein & H Sowizral & D
Waterman, The ROSIE Language Reference Manual, ADA111025, Dec 81.

JJ Fasano & TS Huang, Feature Dimensionality Reduction Through Use of
the Karhunen-Love Transform in a Multisensor Pattern Recognition
System, ADB057184, May 81.

CL Forgy, OPS5 User's Manual, ADA106558, Jul 81.

G Fowler & RM Haralick & FG Gray & C Feustel & C Grinstead, Efficient
Graph Automorphism by Vertex Partitioning, , 83.

MS Fox, Reasoning with Incomplete Knowledge in a Resource-Limited
Environment: Integrating Reasoning and Knowledge Acquisition,
ADA102285, Mar 81.

H Freeman, Shape Description Via the Use of Critical Points,
ADA040273, Jun 77.

BR Frieden, Image Processing, ADA095075, Feb 81.

DD Garber, Computational Models for Texture Analysis and Synthesis,
ADA102470, May 81.

Inc., Geo-Centers, Inc., A Review of Three-Dimensional Vision for
Robotics, ADA118055, May 82.

AP Ginsburg, Perceptual Capabilities, Ambiguities and Artifacts in Man
and Machine, ADA109864, 81.

RC Gonzalez, Evaluation of the Chitra Character Recognition System and
Development of Feature Extraction Algorithms, ADB059991L, May 80.

GD Hadden, A Cellular Automata Approach to Computer Vision and Image
Processing, ADA096569, Sep 80.

SE Haehn & D Morris, OLPARS VI (On-Line Pattern Analysis and
Recognition System), ADA118732, Jun 82.

SE Haehn & D Morris, OLPARS VI (On-Line Pattern Analysis and
Recognition System), ADA118733, Jun 82.

EL Hall & RC Gonzalez, Multi-Sensor Scene Synthesis and Analysis,
ADA110812, Sep 81.

EL Hall & W Frei & RY Wong, Scene Content Analysis Program - Phase II,
ADA045624, Jul 77.

RM Haralick & D Queeney, Understanding Engineering Drawings, , 82.

RM Haralick & GL Elliott, Increasing Tree Search Efficiency for
Constraint Satisfaction Problems, , 80.

RM Haralick & LG Shapiro, Decomposition of Polygonal Shapes by
Clustering, , .

RM Haralick & LG Shapiro, The Consistent Labeling Problem: Part I, ,
Apr 79.

RM Haralick & LG Shapiro, The Consistent Labeling Problem: Part II, ,
May 80.

RM Haralick & LT Watson, A Facet Model for Image Data, , 81.

RM Haralick & LT Watson & TJ Laffey, The Topographic Primal Sketch, ,
83.

RM Haralick, An Interpretation for Probabilistic Relaxation, , 83.

RM Haralick, Edge and Region Analysis for Digital Image Data, , 80.

RM Haralick, Ridges and Valleys on Digital Images, , 83.

RM Haralick, Scene Analysis, Homomorphism, and Consistent Labeling
Problem Algorithms, ADA082058, Jan 80.

RM Haralick, Some Neighborhood Operators, , 81.

RM Haralick, Statistical and Structural Approaches to Texture, , May
79.

RM Haralick, Structural Pattern Recognition, Arrangements and Theory
of Covers, , .

RM Haralick, Using Perspective Transformations in Scene Analysis, ,
80.

F Hayes-Roth & D Gorlin & S Rosenschein & H Sowizral & D Waterman,
Rationale and Motivation for ROSIE, ADA111018, Nov 81.

CA Hlavka & RM Haralick & SM Carlyle & R Yokoyama, The Discrimination
of Winter Wheat Using a Growth-State Signature, , 80.

YC Ho and AK Agrawala, On Pattern Classification Algorithms -
Introduction and Survey, AD667728, Mar 68.

JM Hollerbach, Hierarchical Shape Description of Objects by Selection
and Modification of Prototypes, ADA024970, Nov 75.

BR Hunt, Automation of Image Processing, ADA111029, May 81.

NE Huston Jr., Shift and Scale Invariant Preprocessor, ADA114519, Dec
81.

RA Jarvis, Computer Image Segmentation: First Partitions Using Shared
Near Neighbor Clustering, PB277929, Dec 77.

RA Jarvis, Computer Image Segmentation: Structured Merge Strategies,
PB277930, Dec 77.

HA Jenkinson, Image Processing Techniques for Automatic Target
Detection, ADB055686L, Mar 81.

LN Kanal, Pattern Analysis & Modeling, ADA070961, Apr 79.

MD Kelly, Visual Identification of People by Computer, AD713252, Jul
70.

CE Kim, On Cellular Straight Line Segments, ADA089511, Jul 80.

CE Kim, Three-Dimensional Digital Line Segments, ADA106813, Aug 81.

RL Kirby & A Rosenfeld, A Note on the Use of (Gray Level, Local
Average Gray Level) Space as an Aid in Threshold Selection, ADA065695,
Jan 79.

L Kitchens & A Rosenfeld, Edge Evaluation Using Local Edge Coherence,
ADA109564, Dec 80.

AH Klopf, Evolutionary Pattern Recognition Systems, AD637492, Nov 65.

WA Kornfeld, The Use of Parallelism to Implement a Heuristic Search,
ADA099184, Mar 81.

E Kowler, Eye Movement and Visual Information Processing, ADA112399,
Dec 81.

S Krusemark & RM Haralick, An Operating System Interface for
Transportable Image Processing Software, , 83.

FP Kuhl & CR Giardina & OR Mitchell & DJ Charpentier,
Three-Dimensional Object Recognition Using N-Dimensional Chain Codes,
ADA119011, Mar 82.

R LaPado & C Reader & L Hubble, Image Processing Displays: A Report on
Commercially Available State-of-the-Art Features, ADA097226, Aug 78.

BA Lambird & D Lavine & LN Kanal, Interactive Knowledge-Based
Cartographic Feature Extraction, ADB061479L, Oct 81.

BA Lambird & D Lavine & GC Stockman & KC Hayes & LN Kanal, Study of
Digital Matching of Dissimilar Images, ADA102619, Nov 80.

M Lebowitz, Generalization and Memory in an Integrated Understanding
System, ADA093083, Oct 80.

T Lozano-Perez, Spatial Planning: A Configuration Space Approach,
ADA093934, Dec 80.

AV Luizov & NS Fedorova, Illumination and Visual Information,
ADB056076L, Mar 81.

WI Lundgren, Scene Analysis, ADA115603, Dec 81.

D Marr and HK Nishihara, Representation and Recognition of the Spatial
Organization of Three Dimensional Shapes, ADA031882, Aug 76.

D Marr and S Ullman, Directional Selectivity and Its Use in Early
Visual Processing, ADA078054, Jun 79.

D Marr, The Low-Level Symbolic Representation of Intensity Changes in
an Image, ADA013669, Dec 74.

WN Martin and JK Aggarwal, Dynamic Scene Analysis: The Study of Moving
Images, ADA042124, Jan 77.

WN Martin and JK Aggarwal, Survey: Dynamic Scene Analysis, ADA060536,
78.

J McCarthy & T Binford & C Green & D Luckham & Z Manna ed L Earnest,
Recent Research in Artificial Intelligence and Foundations of
Programming, ADA066562, Sep 78.

JL McClelland & DE Rumelhart, An Interactive Activation Model of the
Effect of Context in Perception Part II, ADA090189, Jul 80.

C McCormick, Strategies for Knowledge-Based Image Interpretation,
ADA115914, May 82.

KG Mehrotra, Some Observations in Pattern Recognition, ADA113382, Feb
82.

DL Milgram & A Rosenfeld & T Willett & G Tisdale, Algorithms and
Hardware Technology for Image Recognition, ADA057191, Mar 78.

DL Milgram & DJ Kahl, Recursive Region Extraction, ADA049591, Dec 77.

DL Milgram, Region Extraction Using Convergent Evidence, ADA061591,
Jun 78.

M Minsky, K-Lines: A Theory of Memory, ADA078116, Jun 79.

OR Mitchell & FP Kuhl & TA Grogan & DJ Charpentier, A Shape Extraction
and Recognition System, , Mar 82.

CB Moler & GW Stewart, An Efficient Matrix Factorization for Digital
Image Processing, LA-7637-MS, Jan 79.

MG Moran, Image Analysis, ADA066732, Mar 79.

JL Muerle, Project PARA: Perceiving and Recognition Automata, AD33137,
Dec 63.

GK Myers & RE Twogood, An Algorithm for Enhancing Low-Contrast Details
in Digital Images, UCID-18015, Nov 78.

NTIS, Pattern Recognition and Image Processing Aug 1980-Nov 1981,
PB82803453, Jan 82.

PM Narendra & BL Westover, Advanced Pattern-Matching Techniques for
Autonomous Acquisition, ADB059773L, Jan 81.

WP Nelson, Learning Game Evaluation Functions with a Compound Linear
Machine, ADA085710, Mar 80.

NJ Nilsson & B Raphael & S Wahlstrom, Application of Intelligent
Automata to Reconnaissance, AD841509, Jun 68.

et. al., NJ Nilsson & CA Rosen & B Raphael, et. al., Application of
Intelligent Automata to Reconnaissance, AD849872, Feb 69.

NJ Nilsson, A Framework for Artificial Intelligence, ADA068188, Mar
79.

S Nyberg, On Image Restoration and Noise Reduction with Respect to
Subjective Criteria, N81-30847, 81.

JV Oldfield, A Special-Purpose Processor for an Automatic Feature
Extraction System, ADA090789, Aug 80.

JS Ostrem & HD Crane, Automatic Handwriting Verification (AHV),
ADA111329, Nov 81.

CC Parma & AR Hanson & EM Riseman, Experiments in Schema-Driven
Interpretation of a Natural Scene, ADA085780, Apr 80.

WA Pearlman, A Visual System Model and a New Distortion Measure in the
Context of Image Processing, PB274534, Jul 77.

T Peli, An Algorithm for Recognition and Localization of Rotated and
Scaled Objects, ADA102920, Jul 80.

M Pietikainen & A Rosenfeld, Edge-Based Texture Measures, ADA102060,
May 81.

LJ Pinson & JP Lankford, Research on Image Enhancement Algorithms,
ADA103216, May 81.

T Poggio & HK Nishihara & KRK Nielsen, Zero-Crossing and
Spatiotemporal Interpolation in Vision: Aliasing and Electric Coupling
Between Sensors, ADA117608, May 82.

T Poggio, Marr's Approach to Vision, ADA104198, Aug 81.

JM Prager, Extracting and Labelling Boundary Segments in Natural
Scenes (Revised and Updated), ADA060042, Sep 78.

RC Prather and LM Uhr, Discovery and Learning Techniques for Patern
Recognition, AD610725, Nov 64.

R Reddy and A Rosenfeld, Final Report on Workshop on Control
Structures and Knowledge Representation for Image and Speech
Understanding, ADA076563, Apr 79.

WC Rice & JS Shipman & RJ Spieler, Interactive Digital Image
Processing Investigation Phase II, ADA087518, Apr 80.

W Richards & K Dismukes, Vision Research for Flight Simulation,
ADA118721, Jul 82.

W Richards & KA Stevens, Efficient Computations and Representations of
Visual Surfaces, ADA089832, Dec 79.

CA Rosen and NJ Nilsson, Application of Intelligent Automata to
Reconnaissance, AD820989, Sep 67.

S Rosenberg, Understanding in Incomplete Worlds, ADA062364, May 78.

A Rosenfeld & DL Milgram, Algorithms and Hardware Technology for Image
Recognition, ADA041906, Jul 77.

A Rosenfeld, Cellular Architectures for Pattern Recognition,
ADA117049, Apr 82.

A Rosenfeld, Image Understanding Using Overlays, ADA086513, May 80.

A Rosenfeld, On Connectivity Properties of Grayscale Pictures,
ADA108602, Sep 81.

A Rosenfeld, Pebble, Pushdown, and Parallel-Sequential Picture
Acceptors, ADA051857, Feb 78.

JM Rubin & WA Richards, Color Vision and Image Intensities: When Are
Changes Material?, ADA103926, May 81.

W Rutkowski, Shape Completion, ADA047682, Aug 77.

EC Seed & HJ Siegel, The Use of Database Techniques in the
Implementation of a Syntactic Pattern Recognition Task on a Parallel
Reconfigurable Machine, ADA113934, Dec 81.

S Seeman, FIPS Software for Fast Fourier Transform, Filtering and
Image Rotation, N79-17594, Oct 78.

LG Shapiro & RM Haralick, A Spatial Data Structure, , 80.

LG Shapiro & RM Haralick, Organization of Relational Models for Scene
Analysis, , Nov 82.

LG Shapiro & RM Haralick, Structural Descriptions and Inexact
Matching, , Sep 81.

JE Shore & RM Gray, Minimum Cross-Entropy Pattern Classification and
Cluster Analysis, ADA086158, Apr 80.

DW Small, Image Processing Program Completion Report, ADA061597, Aug
78.

DA Smith, Using Enhanced Spherical Images for Object Representation,
ADA078065, May 79.

DR Smith, On the Computational Complexity of Branch and Bound Search
Strategies, ADA081608, Nov 79.

BE Soland & PM Narendra & RC Fitch & DV Serreyn & TG Kopet, Prototype
Automatic Target Screener, ADA060849, Jun 78.

BE Soland & PM Narendra & RC Fitch & DV Serreyn & TG Kopet, Prototype
Automatic Target Screener, ADA060850, Sep 78.

AJ Stenger & TA Zimmerlin & JP Thomas & M Braunstein, Advanced
Computer Image Generation Techniques Exploting Perceptual
Characteristics, ADA103365, Aug 81.

KA Stevens, Surface Perception from Local Analysis of Texture and
Contour, ADA084803, Feb 80.

GC Stockman & BA Lambird & D Lavine & LN Kanal, Knowledge-Based Image
Analysis, ADA101319, Apr 81.

GC Stockman & SH Kopstein, The Use of Models in Image Analysis,
ADA067166, Jan 79.

TM Strat, A Numerical Method for Shape-From-Shading from a Single
Image, ADA063071, Jan 79.

LT Suminski Jr. & PH Hulin, Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) Current
Technology and Cost Measures Feasibility Study, ADA091636, Sep 80.

P Szolovits & WA Martin, Brand X Manual, ADA093041, Nov 80.

J Taboada, Coherent Optical Methods for Applications in Robot Visual
Sensing, ADA110107, 81.

JM Tenenbaum & MA Fischler & HC Wolf, A Scene Analysis Approach to
Remote Sensing, N79-13438, Jun 78.

U Maryland, Algorithms and Hardware Technology for Image Recognition,
ADA049590, Oct 77.

S Ullman, The Interpretation of Structure from Motion, ADA062814, Oct
76.

et. al., SA Underwood, et. al., Visual Learning and Recognition by
Computer, AD752238, Apr 72.

L Vaina & S Cushing, Foundation of a Knowledge Representation System
for Image Understanding, ADA095992, Oct 80.

FMDA Vilnrotter, Structural Analysis of Natural Textures, ADA110032,
Sep 81.

HF Walker, The Mean-Square Error Optimal Linear Discriminant Function
and Its Application to Incomplete Data Vectors, N79-21827, Feb 79.

S Wang & AY Wu & A Rosenfeld, Image Approximation from Grayscale
"Medial Axes", ADA091993, May 80.

S Wang & DB Elliott & JB Campbell & RW Erich & RM Haralick, Spatial
Reasoning in Remotely Sensed Data, , Jan 83.

LT Watson & RM Haralick & OA Zuniga, Constrained Transform Coding and
Surface Fitting, , May 83.

OA Wehmanen, Pure Pixel Classification Software, N81-11689, JUL 80.

D Weinreb & D Moon, Flavors: Message Passing in the LISP Machine,
ADA095523, Nov 80.

R Weyhrauch, Prolegomena to a Theory of Formal Reasoning, ADA065698,
Dec 78.

TD Williams, Computer Interpretation of a Dynamic Image from a Moving
Vehicle, ADA107565, May 81.

PH Winston & RH Brown editors, Progress in Artificial Intelligence
1978 Volume 1, ADA068838, 79.

PH Winston & RH Brown eds., Progress in Artificial Intelligence 1978
Volume 2, ADA068839, 79.

JW Woods, Markov Image Modeling, ADA066078, Oct 78.

AY Wu & T Hong & A Rosenfeld, Threshold Selection Using Quadtrees,
ADA090245, Mar 80.

VA Yakubovich, Machines That Can Learn to Recognize Patterns,
AD618643, 63.

JK Yan & DJ Sakrison, Encoding of Images Based on a Two-Component
Source Model, ADA051033, Nov 77.

Y Yasuoka & RM Haralick, Peak Noise Removal by a Facet Model, , 83.

C Yen, An Image Processing Software Package, ADA101072, Jun 81.

C Yen, On the Use of Fisher's Linear Discriminant for Image
Segmentation, ADA091591, Nov80.

R Yokoyama & RM Haralick, Texture Pattern Image Generation by Regular
Markov Chain, , 79.

LA Zadeh, Theory of Fuzziness and Its Application to Information
Processing and Decision-Making, ADA064598, Oct 76.

AL Zobrist and WB Thompson, Building a Distance Function for Gestalt
Grouping, ADA015435, 75.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
1

-N-
53
-DATE-
Date: 31 Aug 83 0237 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-83 registration
-BODY-
The actual attendance at AAAI-83 was about 2000, plus an additional
1700 people who came only for the tutorials.  This gives a total of
3700.  While much less than the 7000 figure, it's quite a bit larger
than last year's attendance.  Interest in AI seems to be growing
rapidly, spurred partly by media coverage, partly by interest in
expert systems and partly by the 5th generation thing.  Another reason
for this year's high attendance was the Washington location.  We got
tons of government people.

Next year's AAAI conference will be hosted by the University of Texas
at Austin.  From a logistics standpoint, it's much easier to hold a
conference in a hotel than at a university.  Unfortunately, I'm told
there are no hotels in Austin big enough to hold us.  Such is the
price of growth.

>- Dave Touretzky, local arrangements committee member, AAAI-83 & 84

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Sep 83 09:15:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Symposium
-BODY-
This is a reminder that the September 1 deadline for submissions to
the IEEE Logic Programming Symposium, to be held in Atlantic City,
New Jersey, February 6-9, 1984, has now all but arrived.  If you are
planning to submit a paper, you are urged to do so without further
delay.  Send ten double-spaced copies to the Technical Chairman:

	Doug DeGroot, IBM Watson Research Center
	PO Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 83 12:10 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bobrow.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Subscriptions to the Artificial Intelligence Journal
-BODY-
   Individual (non institutions) belonging to the AAAI, to SIGART or
to AISB can receive a reduced rate personal subscription to the
Artificial Intelligence Journal.  To apply for a subscription, send a
copy of your membership form with a check for $50 (made out to
Elsevier) to:
        Elsevier Science Publishers
        Attn: John Tagler
        52 Vanderbilt Avenue
        New York, New York 10017
North Holland (Elsevier) will acknowledge receipt of the request for
subscription, and provide information about which issues will be
included in your subscription, and when they should arrive.  Back
issues are not available at the personal rate.

Artificial Intelligence, an International journal, has been the
journal of record for the field of Artificial Intelligence since
1970.  Articles for submission should be sent (three copies) to Dr.
Daniel G. Bobrow, Editor-in-chief, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center,
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304, or to Prof.
Patrick J. Hayes, Associate Editor, Computer Science Department,
University of Rochester, Rochester N.Y. 14627.


danny bobrow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Aug 1983 17:10:40 EDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Marshall Abrams <abrams at mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: College-level courseware publishing
-BODY-
I have learned that Addison-Wesley is setting up a new
courseware/software operation and are looking for microcomputer
software packages at the college level.  I think the idea is for a
student to be able to go to the bookstore and buy a disk and
instruction manual for a specific course.

Further details on request.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 1983 2154-PDT
-FROM-
From: VANBUER@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LOGLAN
-BODY-
[...]

The Loglan institute is in the middle of a year long "quiet spell"
After several years of experiments with sounds, patching various small
logical details (e.g. two unambiguous ways to say "pretty little
girls"'s two interpretations), the Institute is busily preparing
materials on the new version, preparing to "go public" again in a
fairly big way.
        Darrel J. Van Buer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Aug 1983 0719-MDT
-FROM-
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Lisps on 68000's
-BODY-

     Date: 24 Aug 83 19:47:17-PDT (Wed)
     From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack @ Ucb-Vax
     Subject: Re: Lisps on 68000's - (nf)
     Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2626

     ....

     I think PSL is definitely a superior lisp for the 68000, but I
     have no idea whether is will be available for non-HP machines...


     Jordan Pollack
     University of Illinois
     ...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack

Yes, PSL is available for other 68000's, particularly the Apollo.  It
is also being released for the DecSystem-20 and Vax running 4.x Unix.
Send queries to

Cruse@Utah-20

Bob.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1983  14:32 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisps on 68000's
-BODY-

    From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack @ Ucb-Vax
    Subject: Re: Lisps on 68000's - (nf)
    Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2626

    I played with a version of PSL on a HP 9845 for several hours one
    day.  The environment was just like running FranzLisp under Emacs
    in ...

A minor correction so people don't get confused:  it was probably an
HP 9836 not an HP 9845.  I've used both machines including PSL on the
36, and doubt very much that PSL runs on a 45.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 83 01:25:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Rees <Rees@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisps on 68000's
-BODY-

    Date: 19 Aug 83 10:52:11-PDT (Fri)
    From: harpo!eagle!allegra!jdd @ Ucb-Vax
    Subject: Lisps on 68000's
    Article-I.D.: allegra.1760

    ...  T sounds good, but the people who are saying it's
    great are the same ones trying to sell it to me for several
    thousand dollars, so I'd like to get some more disinterested
    opinions first.  The only person I've talked to said it was
    awful, but he admits he used an early version.

T is distributed by Yale for $75 to universities and other non-profit
organizations.

Yale has not yet decided on the means by which it will distribute T to
for-profit institutions, but it has been negotiating with a few
companies, including Cognitive Systems, Inc.  To my knowledge no final
agreements have been signed, so right now, no one can sell it.

"Supported" versions will be available from commercial outfits who are
willing to take on the extra responsibility (and reap the profits?),
but unsupported versions will presumably still be available directly
from Yale.

Regardless of the final outcome, no company or companies will have
exclusive marketing rights.  We do not want a high price tag to
inhibit availability.

                        Jonathan Rees
                        T Project
                        Yale Computer Science Dept.

P.S. As a regular T user, I can say that it is a good system.  As its
principal implementor, I won't claim to be disinterested.
Testimonials from satisfied users may be found in previous AILIST
digests; perhaps you can obtain back issues.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Sep 1983 11:58-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation into Ada:  Request for Info
-BODY-
It is estimated that the WMCCS communications system will require five
years to translate into Ada.  Not man-years, but years; if the
staffing is assumed to exceed two hundred then we are talking about a
man-millenium for this task.

Has any work been done on mechanical aids for translating programs
into Ada?  I seek pointers to existing and past projects, or
assurances that no work has been done in this area.  Any pointers to
such information would be greatly appreciated.

To illustrate my lack of knowledge in this field, the only work I have
heard of for translating from one high-level language to another is
UniLogic's translator for converting BLISS to PL/1.  As I understand
it, their program only works on the Scribe document formatter but
could be extended to cover other programs.  I am interested in hearing
of other translators, especially those for translating into
strongly-typed languages.

Dan Hoey HOEY@NRL-AIC.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Aug 83 18:42:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Solutions of the natural language analysis problem
-BODY-
Given the downhill trend of some contributions on natural language
analysis in this group, this is my last comment on the topic, and is
essentially an answer to Stan the leprechaun hacker (STLH for short).

I didn't "admit" that grammars only reflect some aspects of language.
(Using loaded verbs such as "admit" is not conducive to the best
quality of discussion.)  I just STATED THE OBVIOUS. The equations of
motion only reflect SOME aspects of the material world, and yet no
engineer goes without them. I presented this point at greater length
in my earlier note, but the substantive presentation of method seems
to have gone unanswered. Incidentally, I worked for several years in a
civil engineering laboratory where ACTUAL dams and bridges were
designed, and I never saw there the preference for alchemy over
chemistry that STLH suggests is the necessary result of practical
concerns. Elegance and reproduciblity do not seem to be enemies of
generality in other scientific or engineering disciplines.  Claiming
for AI an immunity from normal scientific standards (however flawed
...) is excellent support for our many detractors, who may just now be
on the deffensive because of media hype, but will surely come back to
the fray, with that weapon plus a long list of unfulfilled promises
and irreproducible "results."

Lack of rigor follows from lack of method. STLH tries to bludgeon us
with "generating *all* the possible meanings" of a sentence.  Does he
mean ALL of the INFINITY of meanings a sentence has in general? Even
leaving aside model-theoretic considerations, we are all familiar with

        he wanted me to believe P so he said P
        he wanted me to believe not P so he said P because he thought
           that I would think that he said P just for me to believe P
           and not believe it
        and so on ...

in spy stories.

The observation that "we need something that models human cognition
closely enough..." begs the question of what human cognition looks
like. (Silly me, it looks like STLH's program, of course.)  STLH also
forgets that is often better for a conversation partner (whether man
or machine) to say "I don't understand" than to go on saying "yes,
yes, yes ..." and get it all wrong, as people (and machines) that are
trying to disguise their ignorance do.

It is indeed not surprising that "[his] problems are really concerned
with the acquisition of linguistic knowledge." Once every grammatical
framework is thrown out, it is extremely difficult to see how new
linguistic knowledge can be assimilated, whether automatically or even
by programming it in. As to the notion that "everyone is an expert on
the native language", it is similar to the claim that everyone with
working ears is an expert in acoustics.

As to "pernicious behavior", it would be better if STLH would first
put his own house in order: he seems to believe that to work at SRI
one needs to swear eternal hate to the "Schank camp" (whatever that
is); and useful criticism of other people's papers requires at least a
mention of the title and of the objections. A bit of that old battered
scientific protocol would help...

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1983  15:57 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intelligence is...
-BODY-
    Date: 25 Aug 1983 1448-PDT
    To: AIList at MIT-MC
    From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
    Subject: intelligence is...

      An intelligence must have at least three abilities; To act; To
    perceive, and classify (as one of: better, the same, worse) the
    results of its actions, or the environment after the action; and
    lastly To change its future actions in light of what it has
    perceived, in attempt to maximize "goodness", and avoid "badness".
    My views are very obviously flavored by behaviorism.

Where do you suppose the evolutionary cutoff is for intelligence?  By
this definition a Planaria (flatworm) is intelligent.  It can learn a
simple Y maze.

I basically like this definition of intelligence but I think the
learning part lends itself to many degrees of complexity, and
therefore, the definition leads to many degrees of intelligence.
Maybe that's ok.  I would like to see an analysis (probably NOT on
AIList, althought maybe some short speculation might be appropriate)
of the levels of complexity that a learner could have.  For example,
one with a representation of the agent's action would be more
complicated (therefore, more intelligent) than one without.  Probably
a Planaria has no representation of it's actions, only of the results
of its actions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
54
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Sep 83 19:24:59-PDT
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Strong, agile robot
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the SCORE BBoard.]

     There is a nice article in the current Robotics Age about an
outfit down in Anaheim (not Disney) that has built a six-legged robot
with six legs spaced radially around a circular core.  Each leg has
three motors, and there are enough degrees of freedom in the system to
allow the robot to assume various postures such as a low, tucked one
for tight spots; a tall one for looking around, and a wide one for
unstable surfaces.  As a demonstration, they had the robot climb into
the back of a pickup truck, climb out, and then lift up the truck by
the rear end and move the truck around by walking while lifting the
truck.4

     It's not a heavy AI effort; this thing is a teleoperator
controlled by somebody with a joystick and some switches (although it
took considerable computer power to make it possible for one joystick
to control 18 motors in such a way that the robot can walk faster than
most people).  Still, it begins to look like walking machines are
finally getting to the point where they are good for something.  This
thing is about human sized and can lift 900 pounds; few people can do
that.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Sep 83 12:19:49-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxh!mhuxr!mhuxv!akgua!emory!gatech!pwh@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation (Book Review)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gatech.846

In response to Richard Treitel's comments about the Fifth Generation
book review recently posted:

        *This* turkey, for one, has not heard of the "Alvey report."
        Do tell...

I believe that part of your disagreement with the book reviewer stems
from the fact that you seem to be addressing different audiences. He,
a concerned but ignorant lay-audience; you, the AI Intelligensia on
the net.

phil hutto


CSNET pwh@gatech
INTERNET pwh.gatech@udel-relay
UUCP ...!{allegra, sb1, ut-ngp, duke!mcnc!msdc}!gatech!pwh


p.s. - Please do elaborate on the Alvey Report. Sounds fascinating.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Sep 83 14:24:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fifth Generation (Book Review)
-BODY-
Phil,

I wish I were in a position to elaborate on the Alvey Report.  Here's
all I know, as relayed by a friend of mine who is working back in
Britain:

As a response to either (i) the challenge/promise of the Information
Era or (ii) the announcement of a major Japanese effort to develop AI
systems, Mrs.  Thatcher's government commissioned a Commission,
chaired by some guy named Alvey about whom I don't know anything
(though I suspect he is an academic of some stature, else he wouldn't
have been given the job).  The mission of this Commission (or it may
have been a Committee) was to produce recommendations for national
policy, to be implemented probably by the Science and Engineering
Research Council.  They found that while a few British universities
are doing quite good computer science, only one of them is doing AI
worth mentioning, namely Edinburgh, and even there, not too much of
it.  (The reason for this is that an earlier Government commissioned
another Report on AI, which was written by Professor Sir James
Lighthill, an academic of some stature.  Unfortunately he is a
mathematician specialising in fluid dynamics -- said to have designed
Concorde's wings, or some such -- and he concluded that the only bit
of decent work that had been done in AI to date was Terry Wingorad's
thesis (just out) and that the field showed very little promise.  As a
result of the Lighthill Report, AI was virtually a dirty word in
Britain for ten years.  Most people still think it means artificial
insemination.)  Alvey's group also found, what anyone could have told
the Government, that research on all sorts of advanced science and
technology was disgracefully stunted.  So they recommended that a few
hundred million pounds of state and industrial funds be pumped into
research and education in AI, CS, and supporting fields.  This
happened about a year ago, and the Gov't basically bought the whole
thing, with the result that certain segments of the academic job
market over there went straight from famine to feast (the reverse
change will occur pretty soon, I doubt not).  It kind of remains to be
seen what industry will do, since we don't have a MITI.

I partly accept your criticism of my criticism of that review, but I
also believe that a journalist has an obligation not to publish
falsehoods, even if they are generally believed, and to do more than
re-hash the output of his colleagues into a form consistent with the
demands of the story he is "writing".

                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 3 Sep 83 13:28:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology
-BODY-
I've just read Jon Doyle's paper "Rational Psychology" in the latest
AI Magazine. It's one of those papers you wish you (I wish) had
written it yourself. The paper shows implictly what is wrong with many
of the arguments in discussions on intelligence and language analysis
in this group. I am posting this as a starting shot in what I would
like to be a rational discussion of methodology. Any takers?

Fernando Pereira

PS. I have been a long-time fan of Truesdell's rational mechanics and
thermodynamics (being a victim of "black art" physics courses). Jon
Doyle's emphasis on Truesdell's methodology is for me particularly
welcome.


[The article in question is rather short, more of an inspirational
pep talk than a guide to the field.  Could someone submit one
"rational argument" or other exemplar of the approach?  Since I am
not familiar with the texts that Doyle cites, I am unable to discern
what he and Fernando would like us to discuss or how they would have
us go about it. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Sep 1983 11:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Availability of T
-BODY-

     Yale has not yet decided on the means by which it will distribute
     T to for-profit institutions, but it has been negotiating with a
     few companies, including Cognitive Systems, Inc.  To my knowledge
     no final agreements have been signed, so right now, no one can sell
     it.  ...We do not want a high price tag to inhibit availability.

        -- Jonathan Rees, T Project (REES@YALE) 31-Aug-83

About two days before you sent this to the digest, I received a
14-page T licensing agreement from Yale University's "Office of
Cooperative Research".

Prices ranged from $1K for an Apollo to $5K for a VAX 11/780 for
government contractors (e.g. us), with no software support or
technical assistance.  The agreement does not actually say that
sources are provided, although that is implied in several places. A
rather murky trade secret clause was included in the contract.

It thus appears that T is already being marketed.  These cost figures,
however, are approaching Scribe territory.  Considering (a) the cost
of $5K per VAX CPU, (b) the wide variety of alternative LISPs
available for the VAX, and (c) the relatively small base of existing T
(or Scheme) software, perhaps Yale does "want a high price tag to
inhibit availability" after all....
                                                        asc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 1 September 1983 12:14:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad.Allen@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Based Prolog
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

I would like to voice disagreement with Fernando Pereira's implication
that Lisp Based Prologs are good only for pedagogical purposes. The
flipside of efficiency is usability, and until there are Prolog
systems with exploratory programming environments which exhibit the
same features as, say Interlisp-D or Symbolics machines, there will be
a place for Lisp Based Prologs which can use such features as, E.g.,
bitmap graphics and calls to packages in other languages.  Lisp Based
Prologs can fill the void between now and the point when software
accumulation in standard Prolog has caught up to that of Lisp ( if it
ever does ).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 3 Sep 83 10:51:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pereira@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog in Lisp
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

Relying on ( inferior ) Prologs in Lisp is the best way of not
contributing to Prolog software accumulation. The large number of
tools that have been built at Edinburgh show the advantages for the
whole Prolog community of sites 100% committed to building everything
in Prolog.  By far the best debugging environment for Prolog programs
in use today is the one on the DEC-10/20 system, and that is written
entirely in Prolog. Its operation is very different, and much superior
for Prolog purposes, than all Prolog debuggers built on top of Lisp
debuggers that I have seen to date. Furthermore, integrating things
like screen management into a Prolog environment in a graceful way is
a challenging problem ( think of how long it took until flavors came
up as the way of building the graphics facilities on the MIT Lisp
machines ), which will also advance our understanding of computer
graphics ( I have written a paper on the subject, "Can drawing be
liberated from the von Neumann style?" ).

I am not saying that Prologs in Lisp are not to be used ( I use one
myself on the Symbolics Lisp machines ), but that a large number of
conceptual and language advances will be lost if we don't try to see
environmental tools in the light of logic programming.

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1983  03:39 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ken%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Foolog
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

In Pereira's introduction to Foolog [a misunderstanding; see the next
article -- KIL] and my toy interpreter he says:

     However, such simple interpreters ( even the
     Abelson and Sussman one which is far better than
     PiL ) are not a sufficient basis for the claim
     that "it is easy extend Lisp to do what Prolog
     does." What Prolog "does" is not just to make
     certain deductions in a certain order, but also
     make them very fast. Unfortunately, all Prologs in
     Lisp I know of fail in this crucial aspect ( by
     factors between 30 and 1000 ).

I never claim for my little interpreter that it was more than a toy.
It primary value is pedagogic in that it makes the operational
semantics of the pure part of Prolog clear.  Regarding Foolog, I
would defend it in that it is relatively complete;

>- it contains cut, bagof, call, etc. and for i/o and arithmetic his
primitive called "lisp" is adequate.  In the introduction he claims
that its 75% of the speed of the Dec 10/20 Prolog interpreter.  If
that makes it a toy then all but 2 or 3 Prolog implementations are
non-toy.

[Comment: I agree with Fernando Pereira and Ken that there are lots
and again lots of horribly slow Prologs floating around. But I do not
think that it is impossible to write a fast one in Lisp, even on a
standard computer. One of the latest versions of the Foolog
interpreters is actually slightly faster than Dec-10 Prolog when
measuring LIPS.  The Foolog compiler I am working on compiled
naive-reverse to half the speed of compiled Dec-10 Prolog ( including
mode declarations ).  The compiler opencodes unification, optimizes
tail recursion and uses determinism, and the code fits in about three
pages ( all of it is in Prolog, of course ).  -- Martin Nilsson]

I tend to agree that too many claims are made for "one day wonders".
Just because I can implement most of Prolog in one day in Lisp
doesn't mean that the implentation is any good.  I know because I
started almost two years ago with a very tiny implementation of
Prolog in Lisp.  As I started to use it for serious applications it
grew to the point where today its up to hundreds of pages of code (
the entire source code for the system comes to 230 Tops20 pages ).
The Prolog runs on Lisp Machines ( so we call it LM-Prolog ).  Mats
Carlsson here in Uppsala wrote a compiler for it and it is a serious
implementation.  It runs naive reverse of a list 30 long on a CADR in
less than 80 milliseconds (about 6250 Lips).  Lambdas and 3600s
typically run from 2 to 5 times faster than Cadrs so you can guess
how fast it'll run.

Not only is LM-Prolog fast but it incorporates many important
innovations.  It exploits the very rich programming environment of
Lisp Machines.  The following is a short list of its features:

User Extensible Interpreter
Extensible unification for implementing
E.g. parallelism and constraints

Optimizing Compiler
Open compilation Tail recursion removal and
automatic detection of determinacy Compiled
unification with microcoded runtime support
Efficient bi-directional interface to Lisp

Database Features
User controlled indexing Multiple databases
(Worlds)

Control Features
Efficient conditionals Demand-driven
computation of sets and bags

Access To Lisp Machine
Features Full programming environment, Zwei
editor, menus, windows, processes, networks,
arithmetic ( arbitrary precision, floating,
rational and complex numbers, strings,
arrays, I/O streams )

Language Features
Optional occur check Handling of cyclic
structures Arbitrary parity

Compatability Package
Automatic translation from DEC-10 Prolog
to LM-Prolog

Performance
Compiled code up to 6250 LIPS on a CADR
Interpreted code; up to 500 LIPS

Availability
LM-Prolog currently runs on LMI CADRs
and Symbolics LM-2s.  Soon to run on
Lambdas.

Commercially Available Soon.
For more information contact
Kenneth M. Kahn or Mats Carlsson.

Inquires can be directed to:

KEN@MIT-OZ   or

UPMAIL P. O. Box 2059
       S-75002
       Uppsala, Sweden

Phone  +46-18-111925

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Sep 83 15:22:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pereira@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Misunderstanding
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the PROLOG Digest.]

I'm sorry that my first note on Prologs in Lisp was construed as a
comment on Foolog, which appeared in the same Digest.  In fact, my
note was send to the digest BEFORE I knew Ken was submitting Foolog.
Therefore, it was not a comment on Foolog.  As to LM-Prolog, I have a
few comments about its speed:

1. It depends essentially on the use of Lisp machine subprimitives and
a microcoded unification, which are beyond Lisp the language and the
Lisp environment in all but the MIT Lisp machines.  It LM-Prolog can
be considered as "a Prolog in Lisp," then DEC-10/20 Prolog is a Prolog
in Prolog ...

2. To achieve that speed in determinate computation requires mapping
Prolog procedure calls into Lisp function calls, which leaves
backtracking in the lurch. The version of LM-Prolog I know of used
stack group switches for bactracking, which is orders of magnitude
slower than backtracking on the DEC-20 system.

3. Code compactness is sacrificed by compiling from Prolog into Lisp
with open-coded unification. This is important because it makes worse
the paging behavior of large programs.

There are a lot of other issues in estimating the "real" efficiency of
Prolog systems, such as GC requirements and exact TRO discipline.  For
example, using CONS space for runtime Prolog data structures is a
common technique that seems adequate when testing with naive reverse
of a 30 long list, but appears hopeless for programs that build
structure and backtrack a lot, because CONS space is not stack
allocated ( unless you use certain nonportable tricks, and even
then... ), and therefore is not reclaimed on backtracking ( one might
argue that Lisp programs for the same task have the same problem, but
efficient backtracking is precisely one of the major advantages of
good Prolog implementations ).

The current Lisp machines have exciting environment tools from which
Prolog users would like to benefit.  I think that building Prolog
systems in Lisp will hit artificial performance and language barriers
much before the actual limits of the hardware employed are reached.
The approach I favor is to take the latest developments in Prolog
implementation and use them to build Prolog systems that coexist with
Lisp on those machines, but use all the hardware resources.  I think
this is possible with a bit of cooperation from manufacturers, and I
have reasons to hope this will happen soon, and produce Prolog systems
with a performance far superior to DEC-20 Prolog.

Ken's approach may produce a tolerable system in the short term, but I
don't think it can ever reach the performance and functionality which
I think the new machines can deliver.  Furthermore, there are big
differences between the requirements of experimental systems, with all
sorts of new goodies, and day-to-day systems that do the standard
things, but just much better.  Ken's approach risks producing a system
that falls between these (conflicting) goals, leading to a much larger
implementation effort than is needed just for experimenting with
language extensions ( most of the time better done in Prolog ) or just
for a practical system.

>- Fernando Pereira

PS:  For all it is worth, the source of DEC-20 Prolog is 177 pages of
Prolog and 139 of Macro-10 (at 1 instruction per line...).  The system
comprises a full compiler, interpreter, debugger and run time system,
not using anything external besides operating system I/O calls.  We
estimate it incorporates between 5 and 6 man years of effort.

According to Ken, LM-Prolog is 230 pages of Lisp and Prolog ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
55
-DATE-
Date: Saturday,  3 Sep 1983 13:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: bankes@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Tests and Definitions of Intelligence
-BODY-

As much as I dislike adding one more opinion to an overworked topic, I
feel compelled to make a comment on the ongoing discussion of the
Turing test.  It seems to me quite clear that the Turing test serves
as a tool for philosopical argument and not as a defining criterion.
It serves the purpose of enlightening those who would assert the
impossibility of any machine ever being intelligent.  The point is, if
a machine which would pass the test could be produced, then a person
would have either to admit it to be intelligent or else accept that
his definition of intelligence is something which cannot be perceived
or tested.

However, when the Turing test is used as a tool with which to think
about "What is intelligence?" it leads primarily to insights into the
psychology and politics of what people will accept as intelligent.
(This is a consequence of the democratic definition - its intelligent
if everybody agrees it is).  Hence, we get all sorts of distractions:
Must an intelligent machine make mistakes, should an intelligent
machine have emotions, and most recently would an intelligent machine
be prejudiced?  All of this deals with a sociological viewpoint on
what is intelligent, and gets us no closer to a fundamental
understanding of the phenomenon.

Intelligence is an old word, like virtue and honor.  It may well be
that the progress of our understanding will make it obsolete, the word
may come to suggest the illusions of an earlier time.  Certainly, it
is much more complex than our language patterns allow.  The Turing
test suggests it to be a boolean, you got it or you don't.  We
commonly use smart as a relational, you're smarter than me but we're
both smarter than rover.  This suggests intelligence is a scaler,
hence IQ tests.  But recent experience with IQ testing across cultures
together with the data from comparative psychology, would suggest that
intelligence is at least multi-dimensional.  Burrowing animals on the
whole do better at mazes than others.  Animals whose primary defense
is flight respond differently to aversive conditioning than do more
aggressive species.

We may have seen a recapitulation of this in the last twenty years
experience with AI.  We have moved from looking for the philosophers
stone, the single thing needed to make something intelligent, to
knowledge based systems.  No one would reasonably discuss (I think)
whether my program is smarter than yours.  But we might be able to say
that mine knows more about medicine than yours or that mine has more
capacity for discovering new relations of a specified type.

Thus I would suggest that the word intelligence (noun that it is,
suggesting a thing which might somehow be gotten ahold of) should be
used with caution.  And that the Turing test, as influential as it has
been, may have outlived its usefulness, at least for discussions among
the faithful.


                                -Steve Bankes
                                 RAND

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 83 17:07:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: "John B. Black" <Black@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learning Complexity
-BODY-
     There was recently a query on AIList about how to characterize
learning complexity (and saying that may be the crucial issue in
intelligence).  Actually, I have been thinking about this recently, so
I thought I would comment.  One way to characterize the learning
complexity of procedural skills is in terms of what kind of production
system is needed to perform the skill.  For example, the kind of
things a slug or crayfish (currently popular species in biopsychology)
can do seem characterizable by production systems with minimal
internal memory, conditions that are simple external states of the
world, and actions that are direct physical actions (this is
stimulus-response psychology in a nutshell).  However, human skills
(progamming computers, doing geometry, etc.)  need much more complex
production systems with complex networks as internal memories,
conditions that include variables, and actions that are mental in
addition to direct physical actions.  Of course, what form productions
would have to be to exhibit human-level intelligence (if indeed, they
can) is an open question and a very active field of research.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 83 09:42:44 PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: woodson%UCBERNIE@Berkeley (Chas Woodson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and computing power
-BODY-
Can you direct me to some wise comments on the following question?
Is the progress of AI being held up by lack of computing power?


[Reply follows. -- KIL]

There was a discussion of this on Human-Nets a year ago.
I am reprinting some of the discussion below.

My own feeling is that we are not being held back.  If we had
infinite compute power tomorrow, we would not know how to use it.
Others take the opposite view: that intelligence may be brute force
search, massive theorem proving, or large rule bases and that we are
shying away from the true solutions because we want a quick finesse.
There is also a view that some problems (e.g. vision) may require
parallel solutions, as opposed to parallel speedup of iterative
solutions.

The AI principal investigators seem to feel (see the Fall AI Magazine)
that it would be enough if each AI investigator had a Lisp Machine
or equivalent funding.  I would extend that a little further.  I think
that the biggest bottleneck right now is the lack of support staff --
systems wizards, apprentice programmers, program librarians, software
editors (i.e., people who edit other people's code), evaluators,
integrators, documentors, etc.  Could Lukas have made Star Wars
without a team of subordinate experts?  We need to free our AI
gurus from the day-to-day trivia of coding and system building just
as we use secretaries and office machines to free our management
personnel from administrative trivia.  We need to move AI from the
lone inventor stage to the industrial laboratory stage.  This is a
matter of social systems rather than hardware.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 12 October 1982  13:50-EDT
-FROM-
From: AGRE at MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: artificial intelligence and computer architecture
-BODY-
   [Reprinted from HUMAN-NETS Digest, 16 Oct 1982, Vol. 5, No. 96]

A couple of observations on the theory that AI is being held back by
the sorry state of computer architecture.

First, there are three projects that I know of in this country that
are explicitly trying to deal with the problem.  They are Danny
Hillis' Connection Machine project at MIT, Scott Fahlman's NETL
machine at CMU, and the NON-VON project at Columbia (I can't
remember who's doing that one right offhand).

Second, the associative memory fad came and went very many years
ago.  The problem, simply put, is that human memory is a more
complicated place than even the hairiest associative memory chip.
The projects I have just mentioned were all first meant as much more
sophisticated approaches to "memory architectures", though they have
become more than that since.

Third, it is quite important to distinguish between computer
architectures and computational concepts.  The former will always
lag ten years behind the latter.  In fact, although our computer
architectures are just now beginning to pull convincingly out of the
von Neumann trap, the virtual machines that our computer languages
run on haven't been in the von Neumann style for a long time.  Think
of object-oriented programming or semantic network models or
constraint languages or "streams" or "actors" or "simulation" ideas
as old as Simula and VDL.  True these are implemented on serial
machines, but they evoke conceptions of computation more closer to
our ideas about how the physical world works, with notions of causal
locality and data flow and asynchronous communication quite
analogous to those of physics; one uses these languages properly not
by thinking of serial computers but by thinking in these more
general terms.  These are the stuff of everyday programming, at
least among the avant garde in the AI labs.

None of this is to say that AI's salvation isn't in computer
architecture.  But it is to say that the process of freeing
ourselves from the technology of the 40's is well under weigh.
(Yes, I know, hubris.)   - phiL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 1982 08:34 PDT
-FROM-
From: DMRussell at PARC-MAXC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and alternative architectures
-BODY-
   [Reprinted from HUMAN-NETS Digest, 16 Oct 1982, Vol. 5, No. 96]

There is a whole subfield of AI growing up around parallel
processing models of computation.  It is characterized by the use of
massive compute engines (or models thereof) and a corresponding
disregard for efficiency concerns.  (Why not, when you've got n^n
processors?)

"Parallel AI" is a result of a crossing of interests from neural
modelling,  parallel systems theory, and straightforward AI.
Currently, the most interesting work has been done in vision --
where the transformation from pixel data to more abstract
representations (e.g. edges, surfaces or 2.5-D data) via parallel
processing is pretty easy. There has been rather less success in
other, not-so-obviously parallel, fields.

Some work that is being done:

Jerry Feldman & Dana Ballard (University of Rochester)
        -- neural modelling, vision
Steve Small, Gary Cottrell, Lokendra Shastri (University of Rochester)
        -- parallel word sense and sentence parsing
Scott Fahlman (CMU) -- knowledge rep in a parallel world
??? (CMU) -- distributed sensor net people
Geoff Hinton (UC San Diego?) -- vision
Daniel Sabbah (IBM) -- vision
Rumelhart (UC San Diego) -- motor control
Carl Hewitt, Bill Kornfeld (MIT) -- problem solving

(not a complete list -- just a hint)

The major concerns of these people has been controlling the parallel
beasts they've created.  Basically, each of the systems accepts data
at one end, and then munges the data and various hypotheses about
the data until the entire system settles down to a single
interpretation.  It is all very messy, and incredibly difficult to
prove anything.  (e.g. Under what conditions will this system
converge?)

The obvious question is this: What does all of this alternative
architecture business buy you?  So far, I think it's an open
question.  Suggestions?

>- DMR --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 1982 1120-PDT
-FROM-
From: LAWS at SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: [LAWS at SRI-AI: AI Architecture]
-BODY-

   [Reprinted from HUMAN-NETS Digest, 16 Oct 1982, Vol. 5, No. 96]

In response to Glasser @LLL-MFE:

I doubt that new classes of computer architecture will be the
solution to building artificial intelligence.  Certainly we could
use more powerful CPUs, and the new generation of LISP machines make
practical approaches that were merely feasibility demonstrations
before.  The fact remains that if we don't have the algorithms for
doing something with current hardware, we still won't be able to do
it with faster or more powerful hardware.

Associative memories have been built in both hardware and software.
See, for example, the LEAP language that was incorporated into the
SAIL language.  (MAINSAIL, an impressive offspring of SAIL, has
abandoned this approach in favor of subroutines for hash table
maintenance.)  Hardware is also being built for data flow languages,
applicative languages, parallel processing, etc.  To some extent
these efforts change our way of thinking about problems, but for the
most part they only speed up what we knew how to do already.

For further speculation about what we would do with "massively
parallel architectures" if we ever got them, I suggest the recent
papers by Dana Ballard and Geoffrey Hinton, e.g. in the Aug. ['82]
AAAI conference proceedings [...].  My own belief is that the "missing
link" to AI is a lot of deep thought and hard work, followed by VLSI
implementation of algorithms that have (probably) been tested using
conventional software running on conventional architectures.  To be
more specific we would have to choose a particular domain since
different areas of AI require different solutions.

Much recent work has focused on the representation of knowledge in
various domains: representation is a prerequisite to acquisition and
manipulation.  Dr. Lenat has done some very interesting work on a
program that modifies its own representations as it analyzes its own
behavior.  There are other examples of programs that learn from
experience.  If we can master knowledge representation and learning,
we can begin to get away from programming by full analysis of every
part of every algorithm needed for every task in a domain.  That
would speed up our progress more than new architectures.

[...]

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
56
-DATE-
Date: 8 Sep 83 10:33:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: Sri <Sridharan@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: referees for JACM (AI area)
-BODY-
Since the time I became the AI Area Editor for the JACM, I have found
myself handicapped for lack of a current roster of referees.  This
note is to ask you to volunteer to referee papers for the journal.

JACM is the major outlet for theoretical papers in computer science.
In the area of AI most of the submissions in the past have ranged over
the topics of Automated Reasoning (Theorem Proving, Deduction,
Induction, Default) and Automated Search (Search methods, state-space
algorithms, And/Or reduction searches, analysis of efficiency and
error and attendant tradeoffs).  Under my editorship I would like to
broader the scope to THEORETICAL papers in all areas of AI, including
Knowledge Representation, Learning, Modeling (Space, Time, Causality),
Problem Formulation & Reformulation etc.

If you are willing to be on the roster of referees, please send me a
note with your name, mailing address, net-address and telephone
number.  Please also list your areas of interest and competence.

If you wish to submit a paper please follow the procedures described
in the "instructions to authors" page of the journal.  Copies of mss
can be sent to either me or to the Editor-in-Chief.

N.S. Sridharan [Sridharan@Rutgers] Area Editor, AI JACM

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 83 16:06 PDT
-FROM-
From: Jeff Ullman <ullman@Diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Institute for Retraining in CS
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE BBoard.]

A summer institute for retraining college faculty to teach computer
science is being held at Clarkson College, Potsdam, NY, this summer,
under the auspices of a joint ACM/MAA committee.  They need lecturers
in all areas of computer science, to deliver 1-month courses.  People
at or close to the PH. D. level are needed.  If interested, contact Ed
Dubinsky at 315-268-2382 (office) 315-265-2906 (home).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 83 18:15:17-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!abnjh!icu0 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Loglan
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: abnjh.236

[Directed to Pourne@MIT-MC]


1. Rumor has it that SOMEONE at the Univ. of Washington (State of, NOT
D.C.)  was working on the [LOGLAN] grammar online (UN*X, as I recall).
I haven't yet had the temerity to post a general inquiry regarding
their locale. If they read your request and respond, please POST
it...some of us out here are also interested.

2. A friend of mine at Ohio State has typed in (by hand!) the glossary
from Vol 1 (the laymans grammar) which could be useful for writing a
"flashcard" program, but both of us are too busy.

                         Art Wieners
                         (who will only be at this addr for this week,
                          but keep your modems open for a resurfacing
                          at da Labs...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Sep 83 16:43:58-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!chris @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Loglan
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: grkermit.654

I just posted something relevant to net.nlang.  (I'm not sure which is
more appropriate, but I'm going to assume that "natural" language is
closer than all of Artificial Intelligence.)

I sent a request for information to the Loglan Institute, (Route 10,
Box 260 Gainesville, FL 32601 [a NEW address]) and they are just about
to go splashily public again.  I posted the first page of their reply
letter, see net.nlang for more details.  Later postings will cover
their short description of their Interactive Parser, which is among
their many new or improved offerings.

decvax!genrad!grkermit!chris
allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!chris
harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2-Sep-83 19:33 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Multiple Inheritance query
-BODY-
Can you tell me where I can find a discussion of the anatomy and value
of multiple inheritance?  I wonder if it is worth adding this feature
to the design for a lay-person's language, called Players, for
specifying adventures.

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 August 1983 1536-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Foonberg at AEROSPACE (Alan Foonberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another Puzzle
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

I was glancing at an old copy of Games magazine and came across the
following puzzle:

Can you find a ten digit number such that its left-most digit tells
how many zeroes there are in the number, its second digit tells how
many ones there are, etc.?

For example, 6210001000.  There are 6 zeroes, 2 ones, 1 two, no
threes, etc. I'd be interested to see any efficient solutions to this
fairly simple problem. Can you derive all such numbers, not only
ten-digit numbers?  Feel free to make your own extensions to this
problem.

Alan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 83 20:11:04-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!psl @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Go Tournament
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: harpo.1840


                          ANNOUNCING
                        The First Ever
                            USENIX
                           COMPUTER

                         #####  #######
                        #     # #     #
                        #       #     #
                        #  #### #     #
                        #     # #     #
                        #     # #     #
                         #####  #######

##### ####  #    # #####  #    #   ##   #    # ###### #    # #####
  #  #    # #    # #    # ##   #  #  #  ##  ## #      ##   #   #
  #  #    # #    # #    # # #  # #    # # ## # #####  # #  #   #
  #  #    # #    # #####  #  # # ###### #    # #      #  # #   #
  #  #    # #    # #   #  #   ## #    # #    # #      #   ##   #
  #   ####   ####  #    # #    # #    # #    # ###### #    #   #


              A B C D E F G H j K L M N O P Q R S T

          19  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  19
          18  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  18
          17  + + + O @ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  17
          16  + + + O + + + O + @ + + + + + @ + + +  16
          15  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  15
          14  + + O O + + + O + @ + + + + + + + + +  14
          13  + + @ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  13
          12  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  12
          11  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  11
          10  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  10
           9  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  9
           8  + + + + + + + + + + + + + O O O O @ +  8
           7  + + O @ + + + + + + + + + O @ @ @ @ @  7
           6  + + @ O O + + + + + + + + + O O O @ +  6
           5  + + O + + + + + + + + + + + + O @ @ +  5
           4  + + + O + + + + + + + + + + + O @ + +  4
           3  + + @ @ + @ + + + + + + + + @ @ O @ +  3
           2  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  2
           1  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  1

              A B C D E F G H j K L M N O P Q R S T


To be held during the Summer 1984 Usenix conference in Salt Lake
City, Utah.


Probable Rules
>------- -----

1)  The board will be 19 x 19.
This size was chosen rather than one of the smaller boards because
there is a great deal of accumulated Go "wisdom" that would be
worthless on smaller boards.

2) The board positions will be numbered as in the diagram above.  The
columns will be labeled 'A' through 'T' (excluding 'I') left to
right.  The rows will be labeled '19' through '1', top to bottom.

3) Play will continue until both programs pass in sequence.  This may
be a trouble spot, but looks like the best approach available.
Several alternatives were considered: (1) have the referee decide
when the game is over by identifying "uncontested" versus "contested"
area; (2) limit the game to a certain number of moves; all of them
had one or another unreasonable effect.

4) There will be a time limit for each program.  This will be in the
form of a limit on accumulated "user" time (60 minutes?).  If a
program goes over the time limit it will be allowed some minimum
amount of time for each move (15 seconds?).  If no move is generated
within the minimum time the game is forfeit.

5) The tournament will use a "referee" program to execute each
competing pair of programs; thus the programs must understand a
standard set of commands and generate output of a standard form.

    a) Input to the program.  All input commands to the program will
       be in the form of lines of text appearing on the standard
       input and terminated by a newline.
        1) The placement of a stone will be expressed as
           letter-number (e.g. "G7").  Note that the letter "I"
           is not included.
        2) A pass will be expressed as "pass".
        3) The command "time" means the time limit has been exceeded
           and all further moves must be generated within the shorter
           minimum time limit.
    b) Output from the program.  All output from the program will be
       in the form of lines of characters sent to the "standard
       output" (terminated by a newline) and had better be unbuffered.
        1) The placement of a stone will be expressed as
           letter-number, as in "G12".  Note that the letter "I"
           is not included.
        2) A pass will be expressed as "pass".
        3) Any other output lines will be considered garbage and
           ignored.
        4) Any syntactically correct but semantically illegal move
           (e.g. spot already occupied, ko violation, etc.) will be
           considered a forfeit.

The referee program will maintain a display of the board, the move
history, etc.

6) The general form of the tournament will depend on the number of
participants, the availability of computing power, etc.  If only a
few programs are entered each program will play every other program
twice.  If many are entered some form of Swiss system will be used.

7) These rules are not set in concrete ... yet; this one in
particular.


Comments, suggestions, contributions, etc. should be sent via uucp
to harpo!psl or via U.S. Mail to Peter Langston / Lucasfilm Ltd. /
P.O. Box 2009 / San Rafael, CA  94912.


For the record: I am neither "at Bell Labs" nor "at Usenix", but
rather "at" a company whose net address is a secret (cough, cough!).
Thus notices like this must be sent through helpful intermediaries
like Harpo.  I am, however, organizing this tournament "for" Usenix.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
57
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 1983 21:44:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Tong <fuzzy1@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "some guy named Alvey"
-BODY-
John Alvey is Senior Director, Technology, at British Telecom.  The
committee that he headed reported to the British Minister for
Information Technology in September 1982 ("A Program for Advanced
Information Technology", HMSO 1982).

The committee was formed in response to the announcement of the
Japanese 5th Generation Project at the behest of the British
Information Technology Industry.

The major recommendations were for increased collaboration within
industry, and between industry and academia, in the areas of Software
Engineering, VLSI, Man-Machine Interfaces and Intelligent
Knowledge-Based Systems.  The recommended funding levels being
approximately: $100M, $145M, $66M and $40M respectively.

The British Government's response was entirely positive and resulted
in the setting up of a small Directorate within the Department of
Industry.  This is staffed by people from industry and supported by
the Government.

The most obvious results so far have been the creation of several
Information Technology posts in various universities.  Whether the
research money will appear as quickly remains to be seen.

Richard.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Sep 83 22:35:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The world turns; would you believe...
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

1. A thing called the Wall Street Computer Review, advertising
a conference on computers for Wall Street professionals, with
keynote speech by Isaac Asimov entitled "Artificial Intelligence
on Wall Street"

2. In the employment advertising section of last Sunday's NY Times,
Bell Labs (of all places!)  showing Expert Systems prominently
as one of their areas of work and need, and advertising for people
to do Expert Systems development using methods of Artificial
Intelligence research. Now I'm looking for a big IBM ad in
Scientific American...

3. In 2 September SCIENCE, an ad from New Mexico State's Computing
Research Laboratory. It says:

"To enhance further the technological capabilities of New Mexico, the
state has funded five centers of technical excellence including
Computing Research Laboratory (CRL) at New Mexico State University.
...The CRL is dedicated to interdisciplinary research on knowledge-
based systems"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 1983 15:28-EST
-FROM-
From: David.Anderson@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Multiple Inheritance query
-BODY-
For a discussion of multiple inheritance see "Multiple Inheritance in
Smalltalk-80" by Alan Borning and Dan Ingalls in the AAAI-82
proceedings.  The Lisp Machine Lisp manual also has some justification
for multiple inheritance schemes in the chapter on Flavors.

>-david

[See also any discussion of the LOOPS language, e.g., in the
Fall issue of AI Magazine.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Sep 83 19:16:41-EDT
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <TJM@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info on micro LISP dialects
-BODY-
Has anyone evaluated verions of LISP that run on micros? I'd like to
find out what's already out there and people's impressions of them.
The hardware would be something in the nature of an IBM PC or a DEC
Rainbow.

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 1983 1415-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ichiki
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Talk by Michael Hess
-BODY-
      [This talk will be given at the SRI AI Center.  Visitors
      should come to E building on Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo
      Park and call Joani Ichiki, x4403.]


                Text Based Question Answering Systems
                -------------------------------------

                             Michael Hess
                     University of Texas, Austin

                  Friday, 16 September, 10:30, EK242

Question Answering Systems typically operate on Data Bases consisting
of object level facts and rules. This, however, limits their
usefulness quite substantially. Most scientific information is
represented as Natural Language texts. These texts provide relatively
few basic facts but do give detailed explanantions of how they can be
interpreted, i.e. how the facts can be linked with the general laws
which either explain them, or which can be inferred from them. This
type of information, however, does not lend itself to an immediate
representation on the object level.

Since there are no known proof procedures for higher order logics we
have to find makeshift solutions for a suitable text representation
with appropriate interpretation procedures. One way is to use the
subset of First Order Predicate Calculus as defined by Prolog as a
representation language, and a General Purpose Planner (implemented in
Prolog) as an interpreter. Answering a question over a textual data
base can then be reduced to proving the answer in a model of the world
as described in the text, i.e. to planning a sequence of actions
leading from the state of affairs given in the text to the state of
affairs given in the question. The meta-level information contained in
the text is used as control information during the proof, i.e. during
the execution of the simulation in the model. Moreover, the format of
the data as defined by the planner makes explicit some kinds of
information particularly often addressed in questions.

The simulation of an experiment in the Blocks World, using the kind of
meta-level information important in real scientific experiments, can
be used to generate data which, when generalised, could be used
directly as DB for question answering about the experiment.
Simultaneously, it serves as a pattern for the representation of
possible texts describing the experiment.  The question of how to
translate NL questions and NL texts, into this kind of format,
however, has yet to be solved.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 1983 1730-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ichiki
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Talk by Peter Borgwardt
-BODY-
      [This talk will be given at the SRI AI Center.  Visitors
      should come to E building on Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo
      Park and call Joani Ichiki, x4403.]

There will be a talk given by Peter Borgwardt on Monday, 9/19 at
10:30am in Conference Room EJ222.  Abstract follows:

              Parallel Prolog Using Stack Segments
                on Shared-memory Multiprocessors

                         Peter Borgwardt
                   Computer Science Department
                     University of Minnesota
                     Minneapolis, MN 55455

                            Abstract

A method of parallel evaluation for Prolog is presented for
shared-memory multiprocessors that is a natural extension of the
current methods of compiling Prolog for sequential execution.  In
particular, the method exploits stack-based evaluation with stack
segments spread across several processors to greatly reduce the need
for garbage collection in the distributed computation.  AND
parallelism and stream parallelism are the most important sources of
concurrent execution in this method; these are implemented using local
process lists; idle processors may scan these and execute any process
as soon as its consumed (input) variables have been defined by the
goals that produce them.  OR parallelism is considered less important
but the method does implement it with process numbers and variable
binding lists when it is requested in the source program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 83 07:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Glasser Alan"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: human-nets discussion on AI and architecture
-BODY-
Ken,

   I see you have revived the Human-nets discussion about AI and
computer architecture.  I initiated that discussion and saved all
the replies.  I thought you might be interested.  I'm sending them
to you rather than AILIST so you can use your judgment about what
if anything you might like to forward to AILIST.
                                        Alan

[The following is the original message.  The remainder of this
digest consists of the collected replies.  I am not sure which,
if any, appeared in Human-Nets.  -- KIL]


>--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 1982 (Monday) 0537-EDT
From: GLASSER at LLL-MFE
Subject: artificial intelligence and computer architecture

     I am a new member of the HUMAN-NETS interest group.  I am also
newly interested in Artificial Intelligence, partly as a result of
reading "Goedel,Escher,Bach" and similar recent books and articles
on AI.  While this interest group isn't really about AI, there isn't
any other group which is, and since this one covers any computer
topics not covered by others, this will do as a forum.
     From what I've read, it seems that most or all AI work now
being done involves using von Neumann computer programs to model
aspects of intelligent behavior.  Meanwhile, others like Backus
(IEEE Spectrum, August 1982, p.22) are challenging the dominance of
von Neumann computers and exploring alternative programming styles
and computer architectures. I believe there's a crucial missing link
in understanding intelligent behavior.  I think it's likely to
involve the nature of associative memory, and I think the key to it
is likely to involve novel concepts in computer architecture.
Discovery of the structure of associative memory could have an
effect on AI similar to that of the discovery of the structure of
DNA on genetics.  Does anyone out there have similar ideas?  Does
anyone know of any research and/or publications on this sort of
thing?

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Oct 1982 1406-PDT
From: Paul Martin <PMARTIN at SRI-AI>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest   V5 #96

Concerning the NON-VON project at Columbia, David Shaw, formerly of
the Stanford A. I. Lab, is using the development of some
non-VonNeuman hardware designs to make an interesting class of
database access operations no longer require times that are
exponential with the size of the db.  He wouldn't call his project
AI, but rather an approach to   "breaking the VonNeuman bottleneck"
as it applies to a number of well-understood but poorly solved
problems in computing.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Oct 1982 1515-EDT
From: David F. Bacon
Subject: Parallelism and AI
Reply-to: Columbia at CMU-20C

Parallel Architectures for Artificial Intelligence at Columbia

While the NON-VON supercomputer is expected to provide significant
performance improvements in other areas as well, one of the
principal goals of the project is the provision of highly efficient
support for large-scale artificial intelligence applications.  As
Dr. Martin indicated in his recent message, NON-VON is particularly
well suited to the execution of relational algebraic operations.  We
believe, however, that such functions, or operations very much like
them, are central to a wide range of artificial intelligence
applications.

In particular, we are currently developing a parallel version of the
PROLOG language for NON-VON (in addition to parallel versions of
Pascal, LISP and APL).  David Shaw, who is directing the NON-VON
project, wrote his Ph.D.  thesis at the Stanford A.I. Lab on a
subject related to large-scale parallel AI operations.  Many of the
ideas from his dissertation are being exploited in our current work.

The NON-VON machine will be constructed using custom VLSI chips,
connected according to a binary tree-structured topology.  NON-VON
will have a very "fine granularity" (that is, a large number of very
small processors).  A full-scale NON-VON machine might embody on the
order of 1 million processing elements.  A prototype version
incorporating 1000 PE's should be running by next August.

In addition to NON-VON, another machine called DADO is being
developed specifically for AI applications (for example, an optimal
running time algorithm for Production System programs has already
been implemented on a DADO simulator).  Professor Sal Stolfo is
principal architect of the DADO machine, and is working in close
collaboration with Professor Shaw.  The DADO machine will contain a
smaller number of more powerful processing elements than NON-VON,
and will thus have a a "coarser" granularity.  DADO is being
constructed with off-the-shelf Intel 8751 chips; each processor will
have 4K of EPROM and 8K of RAM.

Like NON-VON, the DADO machine will be configured as a binary tree.
Since it is being constructed using "off-the-shelf" components, a
working DADO prototype should be operational at an earlier date than
the first NON-VON machine (a sixteen node prototype should be
operational in three weeks!).  While DADO will be of interest in its
own right, it will also be used to simulate the NON-VON machine,
providing a powerful testbed for the investigation of massive
parallelism.

As some people have legitimately pointed out, parallelism doesn't
magically solve all your problems ("we've got 2 million processors,
so who cares about efficiency?").  On the other hand, a lot of AI
problems simply haven't been practical on conventional machines, and
parallel machines should help in this area.  Existing problems are
also sped up substantially [ O(N) sort, O(1) search, O(n^2) matrix
multiply ].  As someone already mentioned, vision algorithms seem
particularly well suited to parallelism -- this is being
investigated here at Columbia.

New architectures won't solve all of our problems -- it's painfully
obvious on our current machines that even fast expensive hardware
isn't worth a damn if you haven't got good software to run on it,
but even the best of software is limited by the hardware.  Parallel
machines will overcome one of the major limitations of computers.

David Bacon
NON-VON/DADO Research Group
Columbia University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 82 13:43:44 EST  (Sun)
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Parallelism and AI
-BODY-
Just to mention another project, The CS department at the University
of Maryland has a parallel computing project called Zmob.  A Zmob
consists of 256 Z-80 processors called moblets, each with 64k
memory, connected by a 48 bit wide high speed shift register ring
network  (100ns/shift, 25.6us/revolution) called the "conveyer
belt".  The conveyer belt acts almost like a 256x256 cross-bar since
it rotates faster than a z-80 can do significant I/O, and it also
provides for broadcast messages and messages sent and received by
pattern match.  Each Z-80 has serial and parallel ports, and the
whole thing is served by a Vax which provides cross-compiling and
file access.

There are four projects funded and working on Zmob (other than the
basic hardware construction), sponsored by the Air Force.  One is
parallel numerical analysis, matrix calculations, and the like (the
Z-80's have hardware floating point).  The second is parallel image
processing and vision.  The third is distributed problem solving
using Prolog.  The fourth (mine) is operating systems and software,
developing remote-procedure-call and a distributed version of Unix
called Mobix.

A two-moblet prototype was working a year and half ago, and we hope
to bring up a 128 processor version in the next few months.  (The
boards are all PC'ed and stuffed but timing problems on the bus are
temporarily holding things back).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
58
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 83 13:50:18-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!sdl@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Translation into Ada:  Request for Info
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rayssd.142

There have been a number of translators from Pascal to Ada, the first
successful one I know of was developed at UC Berkeley by P. Albrecht,
S. Graham et al.  See the "Source-to-Source Translation" paper in the
1980 Proceedings of Sigplan Symp. on Ada, Dec. 1980.

At Univ. S. Calif. Info. Sci. Institute (USC-ISI), Steve Crocker (now
at the Aerospace Corp.) developed AUTOPSY, a translator from CMS-2 to
Ada.  (CMS-2 is the Navy standard language for embedded software.)

Steve Litvintchouk
Raytheon Company
Portsmouth, RI  02871

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 83 13:56:17-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!sdl@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Go Tournament
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rayssd.143

ARE there any available Go programs which run on VAX/UNIX which I
could obtain?  (Either commercially sold, or available from
universities, or whatever.)

I find Go fascinating and would love to have a Go program to play
against.

Please reply via USENET, or to:

Steve Litvintchouk
Raytheon Company
Submarine Signal Division
Portsmouth, RI 02871

(401)847-8000 x4018

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 1983 16:18-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alan Foonberg's number problem
-BODY-
I'm surprised you posted Alan Foonberg's number problem on AIlist
since Vivek Sarkar's solution has already appeared (Prolog digest V1
#28).  I enclose his solution below.  His solution unfortunately omits
the special cases , 2020, and 21200; I have sent a correction to the
Prolog digest.

Dan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Sep 83 11:08:08-PD
-FROM-
From: Vivek Sarkar <JLH.Vivek@SU-SIERRA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Solution to Alan Foonberg's Number Puzzle
-BODY-
Here is a general solution to the puzzle posed by Alan Foonberg:

My generalisation is to consider n-digit numbers in base n.  The
digits can therefore take on values in the range 0 .. n-1 .

A summary of the solution is:

n = 4:  1210

n >= 7:  (n-4) 2 1 0 0 ... 0 0 1 0 0 0
                   <--------->
                    (n-7) 0's

Further these describe ALL possible solutions, I.e. radix values of
2,3,5,6 have no solutions, and other values have exactly one solution
for each radix.

Proof:

Case 2 <= n <= 6:  Consider these as singular cases.  It is simple to
show that there are no solutions for 2,3,5,6 and that 1210 is the only
solution for 4. You can do this by writing a program to generate all
solutions for a given radix.  ( I did that; unfortunately it works out
better in Pascal than Prolog ! )

CASE n >= 7:  It is easy to see that the given number is indeed a
solution. ( The rightmost 1 represents the single occurrence of (n-4)
at the beginning ).  For motivation, we can substitute n=10 and get
6210001000, which was the decimal solution provided by Alan.

The tough part is to show that this represents the only solution, for
a given radix.  We do this by considering all possible values for the
first digit ( call it d0 ) and showing that d0=(n-4) is the only one
which can lead to a solution.

SUBCASE d0 < (n-4):  Let d0 = n-4-j, where j>=1.  Therefore the number
has (n-4-j) 0's, which leaves (j+3) non-zero digits apart from d0.
Further these (j+3) digits must add up to (j+4). ( The sum of the
digits of a solution must be n, as there are n digits in the number,
and the value of each digit contributes to a frequency count of digits
with its positional value).  The only way that (j+3) non-zero digits
can add up to (j+4) is by having (j+2) 1's and one 2.  If there are
(j+2) 1's, then the second digit from the left, which counts the
number of 1's (call it d1) must = (j+2).  Since j >= 1, d1=(j+2) is
neither a 1 nor a 2.  Contradiction !

SUBCASE d0 > (n-4):  This leads to 3 possible values for d0: (n-1),
(n-2) & (n-3).  It is simple to consider each value and see that it
can't possibly lead to a solution, by using an analysis similar to the
one above.

We therefore conclude that d0=(n-4), and it is straightforward to show
that the given solution is the only possible one, for this value of
d0.

>- Q.E.D.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Sep 83 17:25:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alan Foonberg's number problem
-BODY-
Thanks for the note and the correction.  I get the Prolog digest
a little delayed, so I hadn't seen the answer at the time I relayed
the problem.

My purpose in sending out the problem actually had nothing to do with
finding the answer.  The answer you forwarded is a nice mathematical
proof, but the question is whether and how AI techniques could solve
the problem.  Would an AI program have to reason in the same manner as
a mathematician?  Would different AI techniques lead to different
answers?  How does one represent the problem and the solution in
machine-readable form?  Is this an interesting class of problems for
cognitive science to deal with?

I was expecting that someone would respond with a 10-line PROLOG
program that would solve the problem.  The discussion that followed
might contrast that with the LISP or ALGOL infrastructure needed to
solve the problem.  Now, of course, I don't expect anyone to present
algorithmic solutions.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 83 13:15:56-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!cmcl2!csd1!condict @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: in defense of Turing - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: csd1.116

A comment on the statement that it is easy to trip up an allegedly
intelligent machine that generates responses by using the input as an
index into an array of possible outputs:  Yes, but this machine has no
state and hence hardly qualifies as a machine at all!  The simple
tricks you described cannot be used if we augment it to use the entire
sequence of inputs so far as the index, instead of just the most
recent one, when generating its response. This allows it to take into
account sequences that contain runs of identical inputs and to
understand inputs that refer to previous inputs (or even
Hofstadteresque self-referential inputs).  My point is not that this
new machine cannot be tripped up but that the one described is such a
straw man that fooling it gives no information about the real
difficulty of programming a computer to pass the Turing test.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 83 22:20:39-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: in defense of Turing
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2538

It should be fairly obvious that the Turing test is not a precise
test to determine intelligence because the very meaning of the
word 'intellegence' cannot be precisely pinned down, despite what
your Oxford dictionary might say.

I think the idea here is that if a machine can perform such that
it is indistinguishable from the behavior of a human then it can
be said to display human intelligence.  Note that I said, "human
intelligence."

It is even debatable whether certain members of the executive branch
can be said to be intelligent.  If we can't apply the Turing test
there... then surely we're just spinning our wheels in an attempt
to apply it universally.

                                                - Speaker

>-
Full-Name:      Speaker-To-Animals
Csnet:          speaker@umcp-cs
Arpa:           speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

This must be hell...all I can see are flames... towering flames!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Sep 83 12:35:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intelligence and genius
-BODY-
[This continues a discussion on Human-Nets.  My original statement,
printed below, was shot down by several people.  Individuals certainly
derive satisfaction from hobbies at which they will never excel.  It
would take much of the fun out of my life, however, if I could not
even imagine excelling at anything because cybernetic life had
surpassed humans in every way. -- KIL]

    From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
    Life will get even worse if AI succeeds in automating true
    creativity.  What point would there be in learning to paint,
    write, etc., if your home computer could knock out more
    artistic creations than you could ever hope to master?

    I was rather surprised that this suggestion was taken so quickly
as it stands. Most people in AI believe that we will someday create an
"intelligent" machine, but Ken's claim seems to go beyond that;
"automating true creativity" seems to be saying that we can create not
just intelligent, but "genius" systems, at will. The automation of
genius is a more sticky claim in my mind.

    For example, if we create an intelligent system, do we make it a
genius system by just turning up the speed or increasing its memory?
That"s like saying a painter could become Rembrandt if he/she just
painted 1000 times more. More likely is that the wrong (or uncreative)
ideas would simply pour out faster, or be remembered longer. Turning
up the speed of the early blind-search chess programs made them
marginally better players, but no more creative.

    Or let's say we stumble onto the creation of some genius system,
call it "Einstein". Do we get all of the new genius systems we need by
merely duplicating "Einstein", something impossible to do with human
systems? Again, we hit a dead end... "Einstein" will only be useful in
a small domain of creativity, and will never be a Bach or a Rembrandt
no matter how many we clone.  Even more discouraging, if we xerox off
1000 of our "Einstein" systems, do we get 1000 times the creative
ideas? Probably not; we will cover the range of "Einstein's" potential
creativity better, but that's it. Even a genius has only a range of
creativity.

    What is it about genius systems that makes them so intractable?
If we will someday create intelligent systems consistently and
reliably, what stands in the way of creating genius systems on demand?
I would suggest that statistics get in our way here; that genius
systems cannot be created out of dust, but that every once in a while,
an intelligent system has the proper conditioning and evolves into a
genius system. In this light, the number of genius systems possible
depends on the pool of intelligent systems that are available as
substrate.

    In short, while I feel we will be able to create intelligent
systems, we will not be able to directly construct superintelligent
ones. While there will be advantages in duplicating, speeding up, or
otherwise manipulating a genius system once created, the process of
creating one will remain maddeningly elusive.

David Rogers DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA


[I would like to stake out a middle ground: creative systems.

We will certainly have intelligent systems, and we will certainly have
trouble devising genius systems.  (Genius in human terms: I don't want
to get into whether an AI program can be >>sui generis<< if we can
produce a thousand variations of it before breakfast.)  A [scientific]
genius is someone who develops an idea for which there is, or at least
seems to be, no precedent.

Creativity, however, can exist in a lesser being.  Forget Picasso,
just consider an ordinary artist who sees a new style of bold,
imaginative painting.  The artist has certain inborn or learned
measures of artistic merit: color harmony, representational accuracy,
vividness, brush technique, etc.  He evaluates the new painting and
finds that it exists in a part of his artistic "parameter space" that
he has never explored.  He is excited, and carefully studies the
painting for clues as to the techniques that were used.  He
hypothesizes rules for creating similar visual effects, trys them out,
modifies them, iterates, adds additional constraints (yes, but can I
do it with just rectangles ...), etc.  This is creativity.  Nothing
that I have said above precludes our artist from being a machine.

Another example, which I believe I heard from a recent Stanford Ph.D.
(sorry, can't remember who): consider Solomon's famous decision.
Everyone knows that a dispute over property can often be settled by
dividing the property, providing that the value of the property is not
destroyed by the act of division.  Solomon's creative decision
involved the realization (at least, we hope he realized it) that in a
particular case, if the rule was implemented in a particular
theatrical manner, the precondition could be ignored and the rule
would still achieve its goal.  We can then imagine Solomon to be a
rule-based system with a metasystem that is constantly checking for
generalizations, specializations, and heuristic shortcuts to the
normal rule sequences.  I think that Doug Lenat's EURISKO program has
something of this flavor, as do other learning programs.

In the limit, we can imagine a system with nearly infinite computing
power that builds models of its environment in its memory.  It carries
out experiments on this model, and verifies the experiments by
carrying them out in the real world when it can.  It can solve
ordinary problems through various applicable rule invocations,
unifications, planning, etc.  Problems requiring creativity can often
be solved by applying inappropriate rules and techniques (i.e.,
violating their preconditions) just to see what will happen --
sometimes it will turn out that the preconditions were unnecessarily
strict.  [The system I have just described is a fair approximation to
a human -- or even to a monkey, dog, or elephant.]

True genius in such a system would require that it construct new
paradigms of thought and problem solving.  This will be much more
difficult, but I don't doubt that we and our cybernetic offspring will
even be able to construct such progeny someday.

                                        -- Ken Laws ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
59
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1983  11:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Micro LISPs
-BODY-
For a survey of micro LISPs see the August and Sept issues of
Microsystems magazine. The Aug issue reviews muLISP, Supersoft LISP
and The Stiff Upper Lisp. I believe that the Sept issue will continue
the survey with some more reviews.

Dan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 83 1:44:58-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Translation into Ada:  Request for Info
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.713

I think the reference to the WWMCS conversion effort is a bad example
when talking aboutomatic programming language translation.  I would be
very surprised if WWMCS is written in a high-level language.  It runs
on Honeywell GCOS machines, I believe, and I think that GCOS system
programming is traditionally done in GMAP (GCOS Macro Assembler
Program), especially at the time that WWMCS was written.  Only a
masochist would even think of writing an automatic "anticompiler" (I
have heard of uncompilers, but those are usually restricted to
figuring out the code produced by a known compiler, not arbitrary
human coding); researchers have found it hard enough to teach
computers to "understand" programs in HLLs, and it is often pretty
difficult for humans to understand others' assembler code.
>-
                        Barry Margolin
                        ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
                        UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 Sep 83 14:56:49-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for m/c-readable foreign language dictionary info
-BODY-
I am looking for foreign-language dictionaries in machine-readable
form.  Of particular interest would be a subset containing
EDP-terminology.  This would be used to help automate translation of
computer-related technical materials.

Of major interest are German, Spanish, French, but others might be
useful also.

Any pointers appreciated.

Werner (UUCP:  ut-ngp!werner or ut-ngp!utastro!werner
         via:  { decvax!eagle , ucbvax!nbires , gatech!allegra!eagle ,
                 ihnp4 }
        ARPA: werner@utexas-20 or werner@utexas-11 )

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 1983 0858-PDT
-FROM-
From: PAZZANI at USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parsifal
-BODY-
I have a question about PARSIFAL (Marcus's deterministic parser) that
I hope someone can answer:

Is it easy (or possible) to convert grammar rules to the kind of rules
that Parsifal uses? Is there an algoritm to do so?
(i.e., by grammar rule, I mean things like:
S -> NP VP
VP -> VP2 NP PP
VP -> V3 INF
INF -> to VP
etc.
where by grammar rule Marcus means things like
{RULE MAJOR-DECL-S in SS-START
[=np][=verb]-->
Label c decl,major.
Deactivate ss-start. Activate parse-subj.}

{RULE UNMARKED-ORDER IN PARSE-SUBJ
[=np][=verb]-->
Attach 1st to c as np.
Deactivate Parse-subj. Activate parse-aux.}

Thanks in advance,
Mike Pazzani
Pazzani@usc-ecl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 83 16:58:30-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!cbscd5!lvc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: addendum to AI journal list
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbscd5.589

The following are journals that readers have sent me since the time I
posted the list of AI journals.  As has been pointed out, individuals
can get subscriptions at a reduced rate.  Most of the prices I quoted
were the institutional price.

The American Journal of Computational Linguistics -- will now be called ->
Computational Linguistics
        Subscription $15
        Don Walker, ACL
        SRI International
        Menlo Park, CA 94025.
>-----------------------------
-END-
ognition and Brain Theory        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.        365
Broadway,        Hillsdale, New Jersey 07642       $18 Individual $50
Institutional        Quarterly        Basic cognition, proposed models and
discussion of        consciousnes and mental process, epistemology - from frames
to        neurons, as related to human cognitive processes. A "fringe"
pulication for AI topics, and a good forum for issues in cognitive
science/psychology.------------------------------New Genration Computing
Springer-Verlag New York Inc.        Journal Fulfillment Dept.        44 Hartz
Way        Secaucus, NJ 0094        A quarterly English-language journal devoted
to international        research on the fifth generation computer.  [It eems to
be        very strong on hardware and logic programming.]        1983 - 2 issues
- $52. (Sample copy free.)        1984 - 4 issues - $104.Larry
Ciprianicbosgd!cbscd5!lvc-------------------------------DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 1983 10:38:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: shapiro%buffalo-cs@UDel-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Your request for bibliographies
-BODY-

                           Bibliography
                 SNeRG: The SNePS Research Group
                  Department of Computer Science
             State University of New York at Buffalo
                     Amherst, New York 14226



     Copies of Departmental Technical Reports (marked with an "*")
should be requested from The Library Committee, Dept. of Computer
Science, SUNY/Buffalo, 4226 Ridge Lea Road, Amherst, NY 14226.
Businesses are asked to enclose $3.00 per report requested with their
requests. Others are asked to enclose $1.00 per report.

     Copies of papers other than Departmental Technical Reports may be
requested directly from Prof. Stuart C. Shapiro at the above address.


 1.  Shapiro, S. C. [1971] A net structure for semantic
     information storage, deduction and retrieval. Proc. Second
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
     William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 212-223.

 2.  Shapiro, S. C. [1972] Generation as parsing from a network
     into a linear string. American Journal of Computational
     Linguistics, Microfiche 33, 42-62.

 3.  Shapiro, S. C. [1976] An introduction to SNePS (Semantic Net
     Processing System). Technical Report No. 31, Computer
     Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 21
     pp.

 4.  Shapiro, S. C. and Wand, M. [1976] The Relevance of
     Relevance. Technical Report No. 46, Computer Science
     Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 21pp.

 2.  Bechtel, R. and Shapiro, S. C. [1976] A logic for semantic
     networks. Technical Report No. 47, Computer Science
     Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 29pp.

 6.  Shapiro, S. C. [1977] Representing and locating deduction
     rules in a semantic network. Proc. Workshop on
     Pattern-Directed Inference Systems. SIGART Newsletter, 63
     14-18.

 7.  Shapiro, S. C. [1977] Representing numbers in semantic
     networks: prolegomena Proc. 2th International Joint
     Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufman, Los
     Altos, CA, 284.

 8.  Shapiro, S. C. [1977] Compiling deduction rules from a
     semantic network into a set of processes. Abstracts of
     Workshop on Automatic Deduction, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
     (Abstract only), 7pp.

 9.  Shapiro, S. C. [1978] Path-based and node-based inference in
     semantic networks. In D. Waltz, ed. TINLAP-2: Theoretical
     Issues in Natural Languages Processing. ACM, New York,
     219-222.

10.  Shapiro, S. C. [1979] The SNePS semantic network processing
     system. In N. V. Findler, ed. Associative Networks: The
     Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers. Academic
     Press, New York, 179-203.

11.  Shapiro, S. C. [1979] Generalized augmented transition
     network grammars for generation from semantic networks.
     Proc. 17th Annual Meeting of the Association for
     Computational Linguistics. University of California at San
     Diego, 22-29.

12.  Shapiro, S. C. [1979] Numerical quantifiers and their use in
     reasoning with negative information. Proc. Sixth
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
     William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 791-796.

13.  Shapiro, S. C. [1979] Using non-standard connectives and
     quantifiers for representing deduction rules in a semantic
     network. Invited paper presented at Current Aspects of AI
     Research, a seminar held at the Electrotechnical Laboratory,
     Tokyo, 22pp.

14.  * McKay, D. P. and Shapiro, S. C. [1980] MULTI: A LISP Based
     Multiprocessing System. Technical Report No. 164, Department
     of Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 20pp.
     (Contains appendices not in LISP conference version)

12.  McKay, D. P. and Shapiro, S. C. [1980] MULTI - A LISP based
     multiprocessing system. Proc. 1980 LISP Conference, Stanford
     University, Stanford, CA, 29-37.

16.  Shapiro, S. C. and McKay, D. P. [1980] Inference with
     recursive rules. Proc. First Annual National Conference on
     Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA,
     121-123.

17.  Shapiro, S. C. [1980] Review of Fahlman, Scott. NETL: A
     System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge. MIT
     Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979. American Journal of
     Computational Linguistics 6, 3, 183-186.

18.  McKay, D. P. [1980] Recursive Rules - An Outside Challenge.
     SNeRG Technical Note No. 1, Department of Computer Science,
     SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 11pp.

19.  * Maida, A. S. and Shapiro, S. C. [1981] Intensional
     concepts in propositional semantic networks. Technical
     Report No. 171, Department of Computer Science, SUNY at
     Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 69pp.

20.  * Shapiro, S. C. [1981] COCCI: a deductive semantic network
     program for solving microbiology unknowns. Technical Report
     No. 173, Department of Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo,
     Amherst, NY, 24pp.

21.  * Martins, J.; McKay, D. P.; and Shapiro, S. C. [1981]
     Bi-directional Inference. Technical Report No. 174,
     Department of Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst,
     NY, 32pp.

22.  * Martins, J., and Shapiro, S. C. [1981] A Belief Revision
     System Based on Relevance Logic and Heterarchical Contexts.
     Technical Report No. 172, Department of Computer Science,
     SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 42pp.

23.  Shapiro, S. C. [1981] Summary of Scientific Progress. SNeRG
     Technical Note No. 3, Department of Computer Science, SUNY
     at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 2pp.

24.  Mckay, D. P. and Martins, J. SNePSLOG User's Manual. SNeRG
     Technical Note No. 4, Department of Computer Science, SUNY
     at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 8pp.

22.  McKay, D. P.; Shubin, H.; and Martins, J. [1981] RIPOFF:
     Another Text Formatting Program. SNeRG Technical Note No. 2,
     Department of Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst,
     NY, 18pp.

26.  * Neal, J. [1981] A Knowledge Engineering Approach to
     Natural Language Understanding. Technical Report No. 179,
     Computer Science Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY,
     67pp.

27.  * Srihari, R. [1981] Combining Path-based and Node-based
     Reasoning in SNePS. Technical Report No. 183, Department of
     Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 22pp.

28.  McKay, D. P.; Martins, J.; Morgado, E.; Almeida, M.; and
     Shapiro, S. C. [1981] An Assessment of SNePS for the Navy
     Domain. SNeRG Technical Note No. 6, Department of Computer
     Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 48pp.

29.  Shapiro, S. C. [1981] What do Semantic Network Nodes
     Represent? SNeRG Technical Note No. 7, Department of
     Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 12pp.
     Presented at the workshop on Foundational Threads in Natural
     Language Processing, SUNY at Stony Brook.

30.  McKay, D. P., and Shapiro, S. C. [1981] Using active
     connection graphs for reasoning with recursive rules.
     Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on
     Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA,
     368-374.

31.  Shapiro, S. C. and The SNePS Implementation Group [1981]
     SNePS User's Manual. Department of Computer Science, SUNY at
     Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 44pp.

32.  Shapiro, S. C.; McKay, D. P.; Martins, J.; and Morgado, E.
     [1981] SNePSLOG: A "Higher Order" Logic Programming
     Language. SNeRG Technical Note No. 8, Department of Computer
     Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 16pp. Presented at
     the Workshop on Logic Programming for Intelligent Systems,
     R.M.S. Queen Mary, Long Beach, CA.

33.  * Shubin, H. [1981] Inference and Control in Multiprocessing
     Environments. Technical Report No. 186, Department of
     Computer Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 26pp.

34.  Shapiro, S. C. [1982] Generalized Augmented Transition
     Network Grammars for Generation from Semantic Networks. The
     American Journal of Computational Linguistics 8, 1 (January
     - March), 12-22.

32.  Almeida, M.J. [1982] NETP2 - A Parser for a Subset of
     English. SNERG Technical Note No. 9, Department of Computer
     Science, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 32pp.

36.  * Tranchell, L.M. [1982] A SNePS Implementation of KL-ONE,
     Technical Report No. 198, Department of Computer Science,
     SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 21pp.

37.  Shapiro, S.C. and Neal, J.G. [1982] A Knowledge engineering
     Approach to Natural language understanding. Proceedings of
     the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
     Linguistics, ACL, Menlo Park, CA, 136-144.

38.  Donlon, G. [1982] Using Resource Limited Inference in SNePS.
     SNeRG Technical Note No. 10, Department of Computer Science,
     SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 10pp.

39.  Nutter, J. T. [1982] Defaults revisited or "Tell me if
     you're guessing". Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
     Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, MI,
     67-69.

40.  Shapiro, S. C.; Martins, J.; and McKay, D. [1982]
     Bi-directional inference. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
     Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, MI,
     90-93.

41.  Maida, A. S. and Shapiro, S. C. [1982] Intensional concepts
     in propositional semantic networks. Cognitive Science 6, 4
     (October-December), 291-330.

42.  Martins, J. P. [1983] Belief revision in MBR. Proceedings of
     the 1983 Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Rochester,
     MI.

43.  Nutter, J. T. [1983] What else is wrong with non-monotonic
     logics?: representational and informational shortcomings.
     Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive
     Science Society, Rochester, NY.

44.  Almeida, M. J. and Shapiro, S. C. [1983] Reasoning about the
     temporal structure of narrative texts. Proceedings of the
     Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society,
     Rochester, NY.

42.  * Martins, J. P. [1983] Reasoning in Multiple Belief Spaces.
     Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical Report No. 203, Computer
     Science Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Amherst, NY, 381 pp.

46.  Martins, J. P. and Shapiro, S. C. [1983] Reasoning in
     multiple belief spaces. Proceedings of the Eighth
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
     William Kaufman, Los Altos, CA, 370-373.

47.  Nutter, J. T. [1983] Default reasoning using monotonic
     logic: a modest proposal. Proceedings of The National
     Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufman, Los
     Altos, CA, 297-300.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
60
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 18:51 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bobrow.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News about the Artificial Intelligence Journal
-BODY-

Changes in the Artificial Intelligence Journal

Daniel G. Bobrow (Editor-in-chief)

There have been a number of changes in the Artificial Intelligence
Journal which are of interest to the AI community.

1) The size of the journal is increasing.  In 1982, the journal was
published in two volumes of three issues each (about 650 printed
pages per year).  In 1983, we increased the size to two volumes of
four issues each (about 900 printed pages per year).  In order to
accomodate the increasing number of high quality papers that are
being submitted to the journal, in 1984 the journal will be published
in three volumes of three issues each (about 1000 printed pages per
year).

2) Despite the journal size increase, North Holland will maintain the
current price of $50 per year for personal subscriptions for
individual (non-institutuional) members of major AI organizations
(e.g. AAAI, SIGART).  To obtain such a subscription, members of such
organizations should send a copy of their membership acknowledgement,
and their check for $50 (made out to Artificial Intelligence) to:
        Elsevier Science Publishers
        Attn: John Tagler
        52 Vanderbilt Avenue
        New York, New York 10017
North Holland (Elsevier) will acknowledge receipt of the request for
subscription, provide information about which issues will be included
in your subscription, and when they should arrive.  Back issues are
not available at the personal rate.

3) The AIJ editorial board has recognized the need for good review
articles in subfields of AI.  To encourage the writing of such
articles, an honorarium of $1000 will be awarded the authors of any
review accepted by the journal.  Although review papers will go
through the usual review process, when accepted they will be given
priority in the publication queue.  Potential authors are reminded
that review articles are among the most cited articles in any field.

4) The publication process takes time.  To keep an even flow of
papers in the journal, we must maintain a queue of articles of about
six months.  To allow people to know about important research results
before articles have been published, we will lists of papers accepted
for publication in earlier issues of the journal, and make such lists
available to other magazines (e.g. AAAI magazine, SIGART news).

5) New book review editor: Mark Stefik has taken the job of book
review editor for the Artificial Intelligence Journal.  The following
note from Mark describes his plans to make the book review section
much more active than it has been in the past.

                    ------------------

The Book Review Section of the Artificial Intelligence Journal

Mark Stefik - Book Review Editor

I am delighted for this opportunity to start an active review column
for AI, and invite your suggestions and participation.

        This is an especially good time to review work in artificial
intelligence.  Not only is there a surge of interest in AI, but there
are also many new results and publications in computer science, in
the cognitive sciences and in other related sciences.  Many new
projects are just beginning and finding new directions (e.g., machine
learning, computational linguistics), new areas of work are opening
up (e.g., new architectures), and others are reporting on long term
projects that are maturing (computer vision).  Some readers will want
to track progress in specialized areas; others will find inspiration
and direction from work breaking outside the field.  There is enough
new and good but unreviewed work that I would like to include two or
three book reviews in every issue of Artificial Intelligence.

        I would like this column of book reviews to become essential
reading for the scientific audience of this journal.  My goal is to
cover both scientific works and textbooks.  Reviews of scientific
work will not only provide an abstract of the material, but also show
how it fits into the body of existing work.  Reviews of textbooks
will discuss not only clarity and scope, but also how well the
textbook serves for teaching.  For controversial work of major
interest I will seek more than one reviewer.

        To get things started, I am seeking two things from the
community now.  First, suggestions of books for review.  Books
written in the past five years or so will be considered.  The scope
of the fields considered will be broad.  The main criteria will be
scientific interest to the readership.  For example, books from as
far afield as cultural anthropology or sociobiology will be
considered if they are sufficiently relevent, and readable by an AI
audience.  Occasionally, important books intended for a popular
audience will also be considered.

        My second request is for reviewers.  I will be asking
colleagues for reviews of particular books, but will also be open
both to volunteers and suggestions.  Although I will tend to solicit
reviews from researchers of breadth and maturity, I recognize that
graduate students preparing theses are some of the best read people
in specialized areas.  For them, reviews in Artificial Intelligence
will be a good way to to share the fruits of intensive reading in
thesis preparation, and also to achieve some visibility.  Reviewers
will receive a personal copy of the book reviewed.

        Suggestions will reach me at the following address.
Publishers should send two copies of works to be reviewed.


Mark Stefik
Knowledge Systems Area
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
3333 Coyote Hill Road
Palo Alto, California  94304

ARPANET Address:  STEFIK@PARC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 83 17:09:09 PDT
-FROM-
From: Alex Pang <v.pang@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: help on satellite image processing
-BODY-

        I'm planning to do some work on cloud formation prediction
based either purely on previous cloud formations or together with some
other information - e.g. pressure, humidity, wind, etc.  Does anyone
out there know of any existing system doing any related stuff on this,
and if so, how and where I can get more information on it. Also, do
any of you know where I can get satellite data with 3D cloud
information?
        Thank you very much.

                                        alex pang

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 83 22:26:21 EDT  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Randy Trigg <randy%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and music
-BODY-
Speaking of creativity and such, I've had an interest in AI and music
for some time.  What I'd like is any pointers to companies and/or
universities doing work in such areas as cognitive aspects of
appreciating and creating music, automated music analysis and
synthesis, and "smart" aids for composers and students.

Assuming a reasonable response, I'll post results to the AIList.
Thanks in advance.

Randy Trigg
...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet)
randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 83 23:51:40-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!utah-gr!thomas @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Go Tournament
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-gr.908

I'm sure we could find some time on one of our Vaxen for a Go
tournament.  If you're writing it on some other machine, make sure it
is portable.

=Spencer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 16 Sep 83 20:07:31-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing test
-BODY-
It was once playfully proposed to permute the actors in the classical
definition of the Turing test, and thus define an intelligent entity
as one that can tell the difference between a human and a (deceptively
programmed) computer.  May have been prompted by the well-known
incident involving Eliza.  The result is that, as our AI systems get
better, the standard for intelligence will increase.  This definition
may even enable some latter-day Goedel to prove mathematically that
computers can never be intelligent!

                                - Richard :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 83 19:36:53 PDT
-FROM-
From: harry at lbl-nmm
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Psychology and Artificial Intelligence.
-BODY-
Members of this list might find it interesting to read an article ``In
Search of Unicorns'' by M. A. Boden (author of ``Artificial
Intelligence and Natural Man'') in The Sciences (published by the New
York Academy of Sciences).  It discusses the `computational style' in
theoretical psychology.  It is not a technical article.

                                        Harry Weeks

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 83 17:10:04-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!arizona!robert @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another Definition of Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: arizona.4675


     A problem that bothers me about the Turing test is having to
provoke the machine with such specific questioning.  So jumping ahead
a couple of steps, I would accept a machine as an adequate
intelligence if it could listen to a conversation between other
intelligences, and be able to interject at appropriate points such
that these others would not be able to infer the mechanical aspect of
this new source.  Our experiences with human intelligence would make
us very suspicous of anyone or anything that sits quietly without new,
original, or synthetic comments while being within a environment of
discussion.

     And then to fully qualify, upon overhearing these discussions
over net, I'd expect it to start conjecturing on the question of
intelligence, produce its own definition, and then start sending out
any feelers to ascertain if there is anything out there qualifying
under its definition.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 83 23:11:08-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Another Definition of Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2608

Finally, someone has come up with a fresh point of view in an
otherwise stale discussion!

Arizona!robert suggests that a machine could be classified as
intelligent if it can discern intelligence within its environment, as
opposed to being prodded into displaying intelligence.  But how can we
tell if the machine really has a discerning mind?  Does it get
involved in an interesting conversation and respond with its own
ideas?  Perhaps it just sits back and says nothing, considering the
conversation too trivial to participate in.

And therein lies the problem with this idea.  What if the machine
doesn't feel compelled to interact with its environment?  Is this a
sign of inability, or disinterest?  Possibly disinterest.  A machine
mind might not be interested in its environment, but in its own
thoughts.  Its own thoughts ARE its environment.  Perhaps its a sign
of some mental aberration.  I'm sure that sufficiently intelligent
machines will be able to develop all sorts of wonderfully neurotic
patterns of behavior.

I know.  Let's build a machine with only a console for an output
device and wait for it to say, "Hey, anybody intelligent out there?"
"You got any VAXEN out there?"

                                                - Speaker
>- Full-Name:  Speaker-To-Animals
       Csnet:  speaker@umcp-cs
       Arpa:   speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 83 19:17:21-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Life, don't talk to me about life....
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2628

        From:  jpj@mss
        Subject:  Re: Another Definition of Intelligence
        To:  citcsv!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker

        I find your notion of an artificial intelligence sitting
        back, taking in all that goes on around it, but not being
        motivated to comment (perhaps due to boredom) an amusing
        idea.  Have you read "The Restaurant at the End of the
        Universe?"  In that story is a most entertaining ai - a
        chronically depressed robot (whos name escapes me at the
        moment - I don't have my copy at hand) who thinks so much
        faster than all the mortals around it that it is always
        bored and *feels* unappreciated.  (Sounds like some of my
        students!)

Ah yes, Marvin the paranoid android.  "Here I am, brain the size of a
planet and all they want me to do is pick up a peice of paper."

This is really interesting.  You might think that a robot with such a
huge intellect would also develop an oversized ego...  but just the
reverse could be true.  He thinks so fast and so well that he becomes
bored and disgusted with everything around himself... so he withdraws
and wishes his boredom and misery would end.

I doubt Adams had this in mind when he wrote the book, but it fits
together nicely anyway.
>-
                                        - Speaker
                                        speaker@umcp-cs
                                        speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
61
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 1983 2120-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Music in AI
-BODY-
Music in AI - find Art Wink formerly of U. of Pgh. Dept of info sci.
He had a real nice program to imitate Debuse (experts could not tell
its compositions from originals).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 83 12:01:27-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!lorien @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: U of Edinburgh, Scotland Inquiry
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.224


Who knows anything about the current status of the Artificial
Intelligence school at the University of Edinburgh?  I've heard
they've been through hard times in recent years, what with the
Lighthill report and British funding shakeups, but what has been going
on within the past year or so?  I'd appreciate any gossip/rumors/facts
and if anyone knows that they're on the net, their address.

                               --decvax!dartvax!dartlib!lorien
                                 Lorien Y. Pratt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 Sep 83 02:25:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Motoi Suwa <Suwa@Sumex-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Puzzle Solution
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

    Date: 14 Sep. 1983
    From: K.Handa  ETL Japan
    Subject: Another Puzzle Solution

This is the solution of Alan's puzzle introduced on 24 Aug.

  ?-go(10).

will display the ten disgit number as following:

  -->6210001000

and

  ?-go(4).

will:

  -->1210
  -->2020

I found following numbers:

  6210001000
   521001000
    42101000
     3211000
       21200
        1210
        2020

The Following is the total program ( DEC10 Prolog Ver.3 )



/*** initial assertion ***/

init(D):- ass_xn(D),assert(rest(D)),!.

ass_xn(0):- !.
ass_xn(D):- D1 is D-1,asserta(x(D1,_)),asserta(n(D1)),ass_xn(D1).

/*** main program ***/

go(D):- init(D),guess(D,0).
go(_):- abolish(x,2),abolish(n,1),abolish(rest,1).

/* guess 'N'th digit */

guess(D,D):- result,!,fail.
guess(D,N):- x(N,X),var(X),!,n(Y),N=<Y,N*Y=<D,ass(N,Y),set(D,N,Y),
           N1 is N+1,guess(D,N1).
guess(D,N):- x(N,X),set(D,N,X),N1 is N+1,guess(D,N1).

/* let 'N'th digit be 'X' */

ass(N,X):- only(retract(x(N,_))),asserta(x(N,X)),only(update(1)).
ass(N,_):- retract(x(N,_)),asserta(x(N,_)),update(-1),!,fail.

only(X):- X,!.

/* 'X' 'N's appear in the sequence of digit */

set(D,N,X):- count(N,Y),rest(Z),!,Y=<X,X=<Y+Z,X1 is X-Y,set1
                                                  (D,N,X1,0).

set1(_,N,0,_):- !.
set1(D,N,X,P):- n(M),P=<M,x(M,Y),var(Y),M*N=<D,ass(M,N),set(D,M,N),
              X1 is X-1,P1 is M,set1(D,N,X1,P1).

/* 'X' is the number of digits which value is 'N' */

count(N,X):- bagof(M,M^(x(M,Z),nonvar(Z),Z=N),L),length(L,X).
count(_,0).

/* update the number of digits which value is not yet assigned */

update(Z):- only(retract(rest(X))),Z1 is X-Z,assert(rest(Z1)).
update(Z):- retract(rest(X)),Z1 is X+Z,assert(rest(Z1)),!,fail.

/* display the result */

result:- print(-->),n(N),x(N,M),print(M),fail.
result:- nl.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 83  1539 PDT
-FROM-
From: David Wilkins <DEW@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Talkware Seminars
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


           1127 TW Talkware seminar Weds. 2:15

I will be organizing a weekly seminar this fall on a new area I am
currently developing as a research topic: the theory of "talkware".
This area deals with the design and analysis of languages that are
used in computing, but are not programming languages.  These include
specification languages, representation languages, command languages,
protocols, hardware description languages, data base query languages,
etc.  There is currently a lot of ad hoc but sophisticated practice
for which a more coherent and general framework needs to be developed.
The situation is analogous to the development of principles of
programming languages from the diversity of "coding" languages and
methods that existed in the early fifties.

The seminar will include outside speakers and student presentations of
relevant literature, emphasizing how the technical issues dealt with
in current projects fit into the development talkware theory.  It will
meet at 2:15 every Wednesday in Jacks 301.  The first meeting will be
Wed.  Sept. 28.  For a more extensive description, see
{SCORE}<WINOGRAD>TALKWARE or {SAIL}TALKWA[1,TW].

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 22 Sep 00:23
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hofstader seminar at MIT
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]


Douglas Hofstader is giving a course this semester at MIT.  I thought
that the abstract would interest some of you.  The first session takes
place today.
                          ------
"Perception, Semanticity, and Statistically Emergent Mentality"
A seminar to be given fall semester by Douglas Hofstader

        In this seminar, I will present my viewpoint about the nature
of mind and the goals of AI.  I will try to explain (and thereby
develop) my vision of how we perceive the essence of things, filtering
out the details and getting at their conceptual core.  I call this
"deep perception", or "recognition".

        We will review some earlier projects that attacked some
related problems, but primarily we will be focussing on my own
research projects, specifically: Seek-Whence (perception of sequential
patterns), Letter Spirit (perception of the style of letters), Jumbo
(reshuffling of parts to make "well-chunked" wholes), and Deep Sea
(analogical perception).  These tightly related projects share a
central philosophy: that cognition (mentality) cannot be programmed
explicitly but must emerge "epiphenomenally", i.e., as a consequence
of the nondeterministic interaction of many independent "subcognitive"
pieces.  Thus the overall "mentality" of such a system is not directly
programmed; rather, it EMERGES as an observable (but onnprogrammed)
phenomenon -- a statistical consequence of many tiny semi-cooperating
(and of course programmed) pieces.  My projects all involve certain
notions under development, such as:

>- "activation level": a measure of the estimated relevance of a given
   Platonic concept at a given time;
>- "happiness": a measure of how easy it is to accomodate a structure
   and its currently accepted Platonic class to each other;
>- "nondeterministic terraced scan": a method of homing in to the best
   category to which to assign something;
>- "semanticity": the measure of how abstractly rooted (intensional) a
   perception is;
>- "slippability": the ease of mutability of intensional
   representational structures into "semantically close" structures;
>- "system temprature": a number measuring how chaotically active the
   whole system is.

        This strategy for AI is permeated by probabilistic or
statistical ideas.  The main idea is that things need not happen in
any fixed order; in fact, that chaos is often the best path to follow
in building up order.  One puts faith in the reliability of
statistics: a sensible, coherent total behavior will emerge when there
are enouh small independent events being influenced by high-level
parameters such as temperature, activation levels, happinesses.  A
challange is to develop ways such a system can watch its own
activities and use those observations ot evaluate its own progress, to
detect and pull itself out of ruts it chances to fall into, and to
guide itself toward a satisfying outcome.

        ... Prerequisits: an ability to program well, preferably in
Lisp, and an interest in philosophy of mind and artificial
intelligence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 83 22:48:56-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!lorien @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism et. al.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.229

The Parallelism and AI projects at the University of Maryland sound
very interesting.  I agree with an article posted a few days back that
parallel hardware won't necessarily produce any significantly new
methods of computing, as we've been running parallel virtual machines
all along.  Parallel hardware is another milestone along the road to
"thinking in parallel", however, getting away from the purely Von
Neumann thinking that's done in the DP world these days.  It's always
seemed silly to me that our computers are so serial when our brains:
the primary analogy we have for "thinking machines" are so obviously
parallel mechanisms.  Finally we have the technology (software AND
hardware) to follow in our machine architecture cognitive concepts
that evolution has already found most powerful.

I feel that the sector of the Artificial Intelligence community that
pays close attention to psychology and the workings of the human brain
deserves more attention these days, as we move from writing AI
programs that "work" (and don't get me wrong, they work very well!) to
those that have generalizable theoretical basis.  One of these years,
and better sooner than later, we'll make a quantum leap in AI research
and articulate some of the fundamental structures and methods that are
used for thinking.  These may or may not be isomorphic to human
thinking, but in either case we'll do well to look to the human brain
for inspiration.

I'd like to hear more about the work at the University of Maryland; in
particular the prolog and the parallel-vision projects.

What do you think of the debate between what I'll call the Hofstadter
viewpoint: that we should think long term about the future of
artificial intelligence, and the Feigenbaum credo: that we should stop
philosophizing and build something that works?  (Apologies to you both
if I've misquoted)

                            --Lorien Y. Pratt
                              decvax!dartvax!lorien
                              (Dartmouth College)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 83 23:30:54-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!cytron @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and architectures - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2883


Forward at the request of speaker:  /***** uiuccsb:net.arch /
umcp-cs!speaker / 12:20 am Sep 17, 1983 */

        The fact remains that if we don't have the algorithms for
        doing something with current hardware, we still won't be
        able to do it with faster or more powerful hardware.

The fact remains that if we don't have any algorithms to start with
then we shouldn't even be talking implementation.  This sounds like a
software engineer's solution anyway, "design the software and then
find a CPU to run it on."

New architectures, while not providing a direct solution to a lot of
AI problems, provide the test-bed necessary for advanced AI research.
That's why everyone wants to build these "amazingly massive" parallel
architectures.  Without them, AI research could grind to a standstill.

        To some extent these efforts change our way of thinking
        about problems, but for the most part they only speed up
        what we knew how to do already.

Parallel computation is more than just "speeding things up."  Some
problems are better solved concurrently.

        My own belief is that the "missing link" to AI is a lot of
        deep thought and hard work, followed by VLSI implementation
        of algorithms that have (probably) been tested using
        conventional software running on conventional architectures.

Gad...that's really provincial: "deep thought, hard work, followed by
VLSI implementation."  Are you willing to wait a millenia or two while
your VAX grinds through the development and testing of a truly
high-velocity AI system?

        If we can master knowledge representation and learning, we
        can begin to get away from programming by full analysis of
        every part of every algorithm needed for every task in a
        domain.  That would speed up our progress more than new
        architectures.

I agree.  I also agree with you that hardware is not in itself a
solution and that we need more thought put to the problems of building
intelligent systems.  What I am trying to point out, however, is that
we need integrated hardware/software solutions.  Highly parallel
computer systems will become a necessity, not only for research but
for implementation.

                                                        - Speaker
>- Full-Name:  Speaker-To-Animals
Csnet:  speaker@umcp-cs
Arpa:   speaker.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

This must be hell...all I can see are flames... towering flames!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 83 9:36:35-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: AI and Architecture
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2338


    Sheesh.  Everyone seems so excited about whether a parallel machine
is or will lead to fundamentally new things.  I agree with someone's
comment that conceptually time-sharing and multi-programming have
been conceptually quite parellel "virtual" machines for some time.
Just more and cheaper of the same.  Perhaps the added availability
will lead someone to have a good idea or two about how to do
something better -- in that sense it seems certain that something
good will come of proliferation and popularization of parallelism.
But for my money, there is nothing really, fundamentally different.

    Unless it is non-determinism.  Parallel system tend to be less
deterministic then their simplex brethern, though vast effort are
usually expended in an effort to stamp out this property.  Take me
for example: I am VERY non-deterministic (just ask my wife) and yet I
am also smarter then a lot of AI programs.  The break thru in AI/Arch
will, in my non-determined opinion, come when people stop trying to
sqeeze paralle systems into the more restricted modes of simplex
systems, and develop new paradigms for how to let such a system spred
its wings in a dimension OTHER THAN performance.  From a pragmatic
view, I think this will not happen until people take error recovery
and exception processing more seriously, since there is a fine line
between an error and a new thought ....
    ----GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 83 18:12:15 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rutgers technical reports
-BODY-
This is probably of general interest.  --Bruce

    From: PETTY@RUTGERS.ARPA
    Subject: 1983 abstract mailing

Below is a list of our newest technical reports.

The abstracts for these are available for access via FTP with user
account <anonymous> with any password.  The file name is:

        <library>tecrpts-online.doc

If you wish to order copies of any of these reports please send mail
via the ARPANET to LOUNGO@RUTGERS or PETTY@RUTGERS.  Thank you!!


CBM-TR-128 EVOLUTION OF A PLAN GENERATION SYSTEM, N.S.  Sridharan,
J.L.  Bresina and C.F. Schmidt.

CBM-TR-133 KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES FOR A MODULAR PLANNING SYSTEM,
N.S.  Sridharan and J.L. Bresina.

CBM-TR-134 A MECHANISM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PARTIAL AND
INDEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS, N.S. Sridharan and J.L. Bresina.

DCS-TR-126 HEURISTICS FOR FINDING A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DISJOINT
BOUNDED BATHS, D. Ronen and Y. Perl.

DCS-TR-127 THE BALANCED SORTING NETWORK,M. Dowd, Y. Perl, L.
Rudolph and M. Saks.

DCS-TR-128 SOLVING THE GENERAL CONSISTENT LABELING (OR CONSTRAINT
SATISFACTION) PROBLEM: TWO ALGORITHMS AND THEIR EXPECTED COMPLEXITIES,
B. Nudel.

DCS-TR-129 FOURIER METHODS IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID AND FIELD
DYNAMICS, R. Vichnevetsky.

DCS-TR-130 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF PROTECTION SCHEMES BASED ON THE
SEND-RECEIVE TRANSPORT MECHANISM, (Thesis) R.S.  Sandhu.  (If you wish
to order this thesis, a pre-payment of $15.00 is required.)

DCS-TR-131 INCREMENTAL DATA FLOW ANALYSIS ALGORITHMS, M.C.  Paull
and B.G.  Ryder.

DCS-TR-132 HIGH ORDER NUMERICAL SOMMERFELD BOUNDARY CONDITIONS:
THEORY AND EXPERIMENTS, R. Vichnevetsky and E.C. Pariser.

LCSR-TR-43 NUMERICAL METHODS FOR BASIC SOLUTIONS OF GENERALIZED
FLOW NETWORKS, M. Grigoriadis and T. Hsu.

LCSR-TR-44 LEARNING BY RE-EXPRESSING CONCEPTS FOR EFFICIENT
RECOGNITION, R. Keller.

LCSR-TR-45 LEARNING AND PROBLEM SOLVING, T.M. Mitchell.

LRP-TR-15 CONCEPT LEARNING BY BUILDING AND APPLYING
TRANSFORMATIONS BETWEEN OBJECT DESCRIPTIONS, D. Nagel.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
62
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 83 17:50:32-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!shebs @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Natural Language Understanding
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.1914

Lest usenet readers think things had gotten silent all at once, here's
an article by Fernando Pereira that (apparently and inexplicably) was
*not* sent to usenet, and my reply (fortunately, I now have read-only
access to Arpanet, so I was able to find out about this)
                        _____________________

    Date: Wed 31 Aug 83 18:42:08-PDT
    From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
    Subject: Solutions of the natural language analysis problem

[I will abbreviate the following since it was distributed in V1 #53
on Sep. 1.  -- KIL]

Given the downhill trend of some contributions on natural language
analysis in this group, this is my last comment on the topic, and is
essentially an answer to Stan the leprechaun hacker (STLH for short).

[...]

Lack of rigor follows from lack of method. STLH tries to bludgeon us
with "generating *all* the possible meanings" of a sentence.  Does he
mean ALL of the INFINITY of meanings a sentence has in general? Even
leaving aside model-theoretic considerations, we are all familiar with

        he wanted me to believe P so he said P
        he wanted me to believe not P so he said P because he thought
           that I would think that he said P just for me to believe P
           and not believe it
        and so on ...

in spy stories.

[...]

Fernando Pereira
                         ___________________

The level of discussion *has* degenerated somewhat, so let me try to
bring it back up again.  I was originally hoping to stimulate some
debate about certain assumptions involved in NLP, but instead I seem
to see a lot of dogma, which is *very* dismaying.  Young idealistic me
thought that AI would be the field where the most original thought was
taking place, but instead everyone seems to be divided into warring
factions, each of whom refuses to accept the validity of anybody
else's approach.  Hardly seems scientific to me, and certainly other
sciences don't evidence this problem (perhaps there's some fundamental
truth here - that the nature of epistemology and other AI activities
are such that it's very difficult to prevent one's thought from being
trapped into certain patterns - I know I've been caught a couple
times, and it was hard to break out of the habit - more on that later)

As a colleague of mine put it, we seem to be suffering from a
"difference in context".  So let me describe the assumptions
underpinning my theory (yes I do have one):

1. Language is a very fuzzy thing.  More precisely, the set of sound
strings meaningful to a human is almost (if not exactly) the set of
all possible sound strings.  Now, before you flame, consider:  Humans
can get at least *some* understanding out of a nonsense sequence,
especially if they have any expectations about what they're hearing
(this has been demonstrated experimentally) although it will likely be
wrong.  Also, they can understand mispronounced or misspelled words,
sentences with missing words, sentences with repeated words, sentences
with scrambled word order, sentences with mixed languages (I used to
have fun by speaking English using German syntax, and you can
sometimes see signs using English syntax with "German" words), and so
forth.  Language is also used creatively (especially netters!).  Words
are continually invented, metaphors are created and mixed in novel
ways. I claim that there is no rule of grammar that cannot be
violated.  Note that I have said *nothing* about changes of meaning,
nor have I claimed that one could get much of anything out of a random
sequence of words strung together.  I have only claimed that the set
of linguistically valid utterances is actually a large fuzzy set (in
the technical sense of "fuzzy").  If you accept this, the implications
for grammar are far-reaching
> in fact, it may be that classical grammar is a curious but basically
irrelevant description of language (however, I'm not completely
convinced of that).

2. Meaning and interpretation are distinct.  Perhaps I should follow
convention and say "s-meaning" and "s-interpretation", to avoid
terminology trouble.  I think it's noncontroversial that the "true
meaning" of an utterance can be defined as the totality of response to
that utterance.  In that case, s-meaning is the individual-independent
portion of meaning (I know, that's pretty vague.  But would saying
that 51% of all humans must agree on a meaning make it any more
precise?  Or that there must be a predicate to represent that meaning?
Who decides which predicate is appropriate?).  Then s-interpretation
is the component that depends primarily on the individual and his
knowledge, etc.

Let's consider an example - "John kicked the bucket."  For most
people, this has two s-meanings - the usual one derived directly from
the words and an idiomatic way of saying "John died".  Of course,
someone may not know the idiom, so they can assign only one s-meaning.
But as Mr. Pereira correctly points out, there are an infinitude of
s-interpretations, which will completely vary from individual to
individual.  Most can be derived from the s-meaning, for instance the
convoluted inferences about belief and intention that Mr. Pereira
gave.  On the other hand, I don't normally make those
s-interpretations, and a "naive" person might *never* do so.  Other
parts of the s-interpretation could be (if the second s-meaning above
was intended) that the speaker tends to be rather blunt; certainly a
part of the response to the utterance, but is less clearly part of a
"meaning".  Even s- meanings are pretty volatile though - to use
another spy story example, the sentence might actually be a code
phrase with a completely arbitrary meaning!

3. Cognitive science is relevant to NLP.  Let me be the first to say
that all of its results are at best suspect.  However, the apparent
inclination of many AI people to regard the study of human cognition
as "unscientific" is inexplicable.  I won't claim that my program
defines human cognition, since that degree of hubris requires at least
a PhD :-) .  But cognitive science does have useful results, like the
aforementioned result about making sense out of nonsense.  Also, lot
of common-sense results can be more accurately described by doing
experiments.  "Don't think of a zebra for the next ten minutes" - my
informal experimentation indicates that *nobody* is capable - that
seems to say a lot about how humans operate.  Perhaps cognitive
science gets a bad review because much of it is Gedanken experiments;
I don't need tests on a thousand subjects to know that most kinds of
ungrammaticality (such as number agreement) are noticeable, but rarely
affect my understanding of a sentence.  That's why I say that humans
are experts at their own languages - we all (at least intuitively)
understand the different parts of speech and how sentences are put
together, even though we have difficulty expressing that knowledge
(sounds like the knowledge engineer's problems in dealing with
experts!).  BTW, we *have* had a non- expert (a CS undergrad) add
knowledge to our NLP system, and the folks at Berkeley have reported
similar results [Wilensky81].

4.  Theories should reflect reality.  This is especially important
because the reverse is quite pernicious - one ignores or discounts
information not conforming to one's theories.  The equations of motion
are fine for slow-speed behavior, but fail as one approaches c (the
language or the velocity? :-) ).  Does this mean that Lorenz
contractions are experimental anomalies?  The grammar theory of
language is fine for very restricted subsets of language, but is less
satisfactory for explaining the phenomena mentioned in 1., nor does it
suggest how organisms *learn* language.  Mr. Pereira's suggestion that
I do not have any kind of theoretical basis makes me wonder if he
knows what Phrase Analysis *is*, let alone its justification.
Wilensky and Arens of UCB have IJCAI-81 papers (and tech reports) that
justify the method much better than I possibly could.  My own
improvement was to make it follow multiple lines of parsing (have to
be contrite on this; I read Winograd's new book recently and what I
have is really a sort of active chart parser; also noticed that he
gives nary a mention to Phrase Analysis, which is inexcusable - that's
the sort of thing I mean by "warring factions").

4a.  Reflecting reality means "all of it" or (less preferable) "as
much as possible".  Most of the "soft sciences" get their bad
reputation by disregarding this principle, and AI seems to have a
problem with that also.  What good is a language theory that cannot
account for language learning, creative use of language, and the
incredible robustness of language understanding?  The definition of
language by grammar cannot properly explain these - the first because
of results (again mentioned by Winograd) that children receive almost
no negative examples, and that a grammar cannot be learned from
positive examples alone, the third because the grammar must be
extended and extended until it recognizes all strings as valid.  So
perhaps the classical notion of grammar is like classical mechanics -
useful for simple things, but not so good for photon drives or
complete NLP systems.  The basic notions in NLP have been thoroughly
investigated;

IT'S TIME TO DEVELOP THEORIES THAT CAN EXPLAIN *ALL* ASPECTS OF
LANGUAGE BEHAVIOR!


5. The existence of "infinite garden-pathing".  To steal an example
from [Wilensky80],

        John gave Mary a piece of his.........................mind.

Only the last word disambiguates the sentence.  So now, what did *you*
fill in, before you read that last word?  There's even more
interesting situations.  Part of my secret research agenda (don't tell
Boeing!) has been the understanding of jokes, particularly word plays.
Many jokes are multi-sentence versions of garden- pathing, where only
the punch line disambiguates.  A surprising number of crummy sitcoms
can get a whole half-hour because an ambiguous sentence is interpreted
differently by two people (a random thought - where *did* this notion
of sentence as fundamental structure come from?  Why don't speeches
and discourses have a "grammar" precisely defining *their*
structure?).  In general, language is LR(lazy eight).

Miscellaneous comments:

This has gotten pretty long (a lot of accusations to respond to!), so
I'll save the discussion of AI dogma, fads, etc for another article.

When I said that "problems are really concerned with the acquisition
of linguistic knowledge", that was actually an awkward way to say
that, having solved the parsing problem, my research interests
switched to the implementation of full-scale error correction and
language learning (notice that Mr. Pereira did not say "this is
ambiguous - what did you mean?", he just assumed one of the meanings
and went on from there.  Typical human language behavior, and
inadequately explained by most existing theories...).  In fact, I have
a detailed plan for implementation, but grad school has interrupted
that and it may be a while before it gets done.  So far as I can tell,
the implementation of learning will not be unusually difficult.  It
will involve inductive learning, manipulation of analogical
representations to acquire meanings ("an mtrans is like a ptrans, but
with abstract objects"....), and other good things.  The
nonrestrictive nature of Phrase Analysis seems to be particularly
well-suited to language knowledge acquisition.

Thanks to Winograd (really quite a good book, but biased) I now know
what DCG's are (the paper I referred to before was [Pereira80]).  One
of the first paragraphs in that paper was revealing.  It said that
language was *defined* by a grammar, then proceeded from there.
(Different assumptions....) Since DCG's were compared only to ATN's,
it was of course easy to show that they were better (almost any
formalism is better than one from ten years before, so that wasn't
quite fair).  However, I fail to see any important distinction between
a DCG and a production rule system with backtracking.  In that case, a
DCG is really a special case of a Phrase Analysis parser (I did at one
time tinker with the notion of compiling phrase rules into OPS5 rules,
but OPS5 couldn't manage it very well - no capacity for the
parallelism that my parser needed).  I am of course interested in
being contradicted on any of this.

Mr. Pereira says he doesn't know what the "Schank camp" is.  If that's
so then he's the only one in NLP who doesn't.  I have heard some
highly uncomplimentary comments about Schank and his students.  But
then that's the price for going against conventional wisdom...

Sorry for the length, but it *was* time for some light rather than
heat!  I have refrained from saying much of anything about my theories
of language understanding, but will post details if accusations
warrant :-)

                                Theoretically yours*,
                                Stan (the leprechaun hacker) Shebs
                                utah-cs!shebs

* love those double meanings!

[Pereira80] Pereira, F.C.N., and Warren, D.H.D. "Definite Clause
    Grammars for Language Analysis - A Survey of the Formalism and
    a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks", Artificial
    Intelligence 13 (1980), pp 231-278.

[Wilensky80] Wilensky, R. and Arens, Y.  PHRAN: A Knowledge-based
    Approach to Natural Language Analysis (Memorandum No.
    UCB/ERL M80/34).  University of California, Berkeley, 1980.

[Wilensky81] Wilensky, R. and Morgan, M.  One Analyzer for Three
    Languages (Memorandum No. UCB/ERL M81/67). University of
    California, Berkeley, 1981.

[Winograd83] Winograd, T.  Language as a Cognitive Process, vol. 1:
    Syntax.  Addison-Wesley, 1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 Sep 83 14:34:44-CDT
-FROM-
From: Lauri Karttunen <Cgs.Lauri@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COLING 84 -- Call for papers
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


                              CALL FOR PAPERS

   COLING 84, TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS

COLING 84 is scheduled for 2-6 July 1984 at Stanford University,
Stanford, California.  It will also constitute the 22nd Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational Linguistics, which will host the
conference.

Papers for the meeting are solicited on linguistically and
computationally significant topics, including but not limited to the
following:

   o Machine translation and machine-aided translation.

   o Computational applications in syntax, semantics, anaphora, and
       discourse.

   o Knowledge representation.

   o Speech analysis, synthesis, recognition, and understanding.

   o Phonological and morpho-syntactic analysis.

   o Algorithms.

   o Computational models of linguistic theories.

   o Parsing and generation.

   o Lexicology and lexicography.

Authors wishing to present a paper should submit five copies of a
summary not more than eight double-spaced pages long, by 9 January
1984 to: Prof.  Yorick Wilks, Languages and Linguistics, University of
Essex, Colchester, Essex, CO4 3SQ, ENGLAND [phone: 44-(206)862 286;
telex 98440 (UNILIB G)].

It is important that the summary contain sufficient information,
including references to relevant literature, to convey the new ideas
and allow the program committee to determine the scope of the work.
Authors should clearly indicate to what extent the work is complete
and, if relevant, to what extent it has been implemented.  A summary
exceeding eight double-spaced pages in length may not receive the
attention it deserves.

Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their papers by 2 April
1984.  Full length versions of accepted papers should be sent by 14
May 1984 to Dr. Donald Walker, COLING 84, SRI International, Menlo
Park, California, 94025, USA [phone: 1-(415)859-3071; arpanet:
walker@sri-ai].

Other requests for information should be addressed to Dr. Martin Kay,
Xerox PARC, 3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304, USA
[phone: 1-(415)494-4428; arpanet: kay@parc].


>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
63
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 83 11:50:31-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mtplx1!washu!eric @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Strong, agile robot
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: washu.132

I just glanced at that article for a moment, noting the leg mechanism
detail drawing.  It did not seem to me that the beastie could move
very fast.  Very strong IS nice, tho...  Anyway, the local supplier of
that mag sold them all.  Anyone remember if it said how fast it could
move, and with what payload?

eric ..!ihnp4!washu!eric

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 1983 0043-PDT
-FROM-
From: FC01@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism
-BODY-
I thought I might point out that virtually no machine built in the
last 20 years is actually lacking in parallelism. In reality, just as
the brain has many neurons firing at any given time, computers have
many transistors switching at any given time. Just as the cerebellum
is able to maintain balance without the higher brain functions in the
cerebrum explicitly controlling the IO, most current computers have IO
controllers capable of handling IO while the CPU does other things.
Just as people have faster short term memory than long term memory but
less of it, computers have faster short term memory than long term
memory and use less of it. These are all results of cost/benefit
tradeoffs for each implementation, just as I presume our brains and
bodies are. Don't be so fast to think that real computer designers are
ignorant of physiology. The trend towards parallelism now is more like
the human social system of having a company work on a problem. Many
brains, each talking to each other when they have questions or
results, each working on different aspects of a problem. Some people
have breakdowns, but the organization keeps going. Eventually it comes
up with a product, although it may not really solve the problem posed
at the beginning, it may have solved a related problem or found a
better problem to solve.

        Another copyrighted excerpt from my not yet finished book on
computer engineering modified for the network bboards, I am ever
yours,
                                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 83 22:46:10-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: in defense of Turing - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2822



Two points where Martin Taylor's response reveals that I was not
emphatic enough [you see, it is possible to underflame, and thus be
misunderstood!] in my comments on the Turing test.

1. One of Dennett's main points (which I did not mention, since David
Rogers had already posted it in the original note of this string) is
that the unrestricted Turing-like test of which he spoke is a
SUFFICIENT, but not a NECESSARY test for intelligence comparable to
that possessed and displayed by most humans in good working order.  [I
myself would add that it tests as much for mastery of human
communication skills (which are indeed highly dependent on particular
cultures) as it does for intelligence.] That is to say, if a program
passes such a rigorous test, then the practitioners of AI may
congratulate themselves for having built such a clever beast.
However, a program which fails such a test need not be considered
unintelligent.  Indeed, a human which fails such a test need not be
considered unintelligent -- although one would probably consider
him/her to be of substandard intelligence, or of impaired
intelligence, or dyslexic, or incoherent, or unconscious, or amnesic,
or aphasic, or drunk (i.e. disabled in some fashion).

2. I did not post "a set of criteria which an AI system should pass to
be accepted as human-like at a variety of levels."  I posted a set of
tests by which to gauge progress in the field of AI.  I don't imagine
that these tests have anything to do with human-ness.  I also don't
imagine that many people who discuss and discourse upon "intelligence"
have any coherent definition for what it might be.


Other comments that seem relevant (but might not be)
>---- -------- ---- ---- -------- ---- ----- --- ---

Neither Dennett's test, nor my tests are intended to discern whether
or not the entity in question possesses a human brain.

In addition to flagrant use of hindsight, my tests also reveal my bias
that science is an endeavor which requires intelligence on the part of
its human practitioners.  I don't mean to imply that it is the only
such domain.  Other domains which require that the people who live in
them have "smarts" are puzzle solving, language using, language
learning (both first and second), etc.  Other tasks not large enough
to qualify as domains that require intelligence (of a degree) from
people who do them include: figuring out how to use a paper clip or a
stapler (without being told or shown), figuring out that someone was
showing you how to use a stapler (without being told that such
instruction was being given), improvising a new tool or method for a
routine task that one is accustomed to doing with an old tool or
method, realizing that an old method needs improvement, etc.

The interdependence of intelligence and culture is much more important
that we usually give it credit for.  Margaret Mead must have been
quite a curiousity to the peoples she studied.  Imagine that a person
of such a different and strange (to us) culture could be made to
understand enough about machines and the Turing test so that he/she
could be convinced to serve as an interlocutor...  On second thought,
that opens up such a can of worms that I'd rather deny having proposed
it in the first place.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 83 17:43:53-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!shebs @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.1913

I just read Jon Doyle's article about Rational Psychology in the
latest AI Magazine (Fall '83), and am also very interested in the
ideas therein.  The notion of trying to find out what is *possible*
for intelligences is very intriguing, not to mention the idea of
developing some really sound theories for a change.

Perhaps I could mention something I worked on a while back that
appears to be related.  Empirical work in machine learning suggests
that there are different levels of learning - learning by being
programmed, learning by being told, learning by example, and so forth,
with the levels being ordered by their "power" or "complexity",
whatever that means.  My question: is there something fundamental
about this classification?  Are there other levels?  Is there a "most
powerful" form of learning, and if so, what is it?

I took the approach of defining "learning" as "behavior modification",
even though that includes forgetting (!), since I wasn't really
concerned with whether the learning resulted in an "improvement" in
behavior or not.  The model of behavior was somewhat interesting.
It's kind of a dualistic thing, consisting of two entities:  the
organism and the environment.  The environment is everything outside,
including the organsism's own physical body, while the organism is
more or less equivalent to a mind.  Each of these has a state, and
behavior can be defined as functions mapping the set of all states to
itself.  Both the environment and the organism have behaviors that can
be treated in the same way (that is, they are like mirror images of
each other).  The whole development is too elaborate for an ASCII
terminal, but it boiled down to this:  that since learning is a part
of behavior, but it also *modifies* behavior, then there is a part of
the behavior function that is self-modifying.  One can then define
"1st order learning" as that which modifies ordinary behavior.  2nd
order learning would be "learning how to learn", 3rd order would be
"learning how to learn how to learn" (whatever *that* means!).  The
definition of these is more precise than my Anglicization here, and
seem to indicate a whole infinite heirarchy of learning types, each
supposedly more powerful than the last.  It doesn't do much for my
original questions, because the usual types of learning are all 1st
order - although they don't have to be.  Lenat's work on learning
heuristics might be considered 2nd order, and if you look at it in the
right way, it may actually be that EURISKO actually implements all
orders of learning at the same time, so the above discussion is
garbage (sigh).

Another question that has concerned me greatly (particularly since
building my parser) is the relation of the Halting Problem to AI.  My
program was basically a production system, and had an annoying
tendency to get caught in infinite loops of various sorts.  More
misfeatures than bugs, though, since the theory did not expressly
forbid such loops!  To take a more general example, why don't circular
definitions cause humans to go catatonic?  What is the mechanism that
seems to cut off looping?  Do humans really beat the Halting Problem?
One possible mechanism is that repetition is boring, and so all loops
are cut off at some point or else pushed so far down on the agenda of
activities that they are effectively terminated.  What kind of theory
could explain this?

Yet another (last one folks!) question is one that I raised a while
back, about all representations reducing down to attribute-value
pairs.  Yes, they used to be fashionable but are now out of style, but
I'm talking about a very deep underlying representation, in the same
way that the syntax of s-expressions underlies Lisp.  Counterexamples
to my conjecture about AV-pairs being universal were algebraic
expressions (which can be turned into s-expressions, which can be
turned into AV-pairs) and continuous values, but they must have *some*
closed form representation, which can then be reduced to AV-pairs.  So
I remained unconvinced that the notion of objects with AV-pairs
attached is *not* universal (of course, for some things, the
representation is so primitive as to be as bad as Fortran, but then
this is an issue of possibility, not of goodness or efficiency).

Looking forward to comments on all of these questions...

                                        stan the l.h.
                                        utah-cs!shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 83 11:26:47-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drux3!drufl!samir @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: drufl.663

        To me personally, Rational Psychology is a misnomer.
"Rational" negates what "Psychology" wants to understand.

Flames to /dev/null.
Interesting discussions welcome.


                                    Samir Shah
                                    drufl!samir
                                    AT&T Information Systems, Denver.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 83 17:12:11-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.456

         Samir's view:  "To me personally, Rational Psychology
                         is a misnomer. "Rational" negates
                         what "Psychology" wants to understand."


How so?

Can you support your claim? What does psychology want to understand
that Rationality negates?  Psychology is the Logos of the Psyche or
the logic of the psyche.  How does one understand without logic?  How
does one understand without rationality?  What is understand?  Isn't
language itself dependent upon the rational faculty, or more
specifically, upon the ability to form concepts, as opposed to
percepts?  Can you understand without language?  To be totally without
rationality (lacking the functional capacity for rationality
> the CONCEPTUAL faculty) would leave you without language, and
therefore without understanding.  In what TERMS is something said to
be understood?  How can terms have meaning without rationality?

Or perhaps you might claim that because men are not always rational
that man does not possess a rational faculty, or that it is defective,
or inadequate?  How about telling us WHY you think Rational negates
Psychology?

These issues are important to AI, psychology and philosophy
students...  The day may not be far off when AI research yields
methods of feature abstraction and integration that approximate
percept-formation in humans.  The next step, concept formation, will
be much harder.  How does an epistemology come about?  What are the
sequential steps necessary to form an epistemology of any kind?  By
what method does the mind (what's that?) integrate percepts into
concepts, make identifications on a conceptual level ("It is an X"),
justify its identifications ("and I know it is an X because..."), and
then decide (what's that?) what to do about it ("...so therefore I
should do Y")?

Do you seriously think that understanding these things won't take
Rationality?

Norm Andrews, AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, N.J. ariel!norm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 83 12:02:28-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles
     !ulysses!princeton!leei@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: princeto.77

I really think that the ability that we humans have that allows us to
avoid looping is the simple ability to recognize a loop in our logic
when it happens.  This comes as a direct result of our tendency for
constant self- inspection and self-evaluation.  A machine with this
ability, and the ability to inspect its own self-inspections . . .,
would probably also be able to "solve" the halting problem.

Of course, if the loop is too subtle or deep, then even we cannot see
it.  This may explain the continued presence of various belief systems
that rely on inherently circular logic to get past their fundamental
problems.


                                        -Lee Iverson
                                        ..!princeton!leei

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
64
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 83 16:17:08-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!csu-cs!denelcor!pocha@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DBMS Software Available
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: denelcor.150

Here are 48 vendors of the most popular DBMS packages which will be presented
at the National Database & 4th Generation Language Symposium.
Boston, Dec. 5-8 1983, Radisson-Ferncroft Hotel, 50 Ferncroft Rd., Davers, Ma
For information write. Software Institute of America, 339 Salem St, Wakefield
Mass 01880 (617)246-4280.
______________________________________________________________________________
Applied Data Research   DATACOM, IDEAL |Mathamatica Products    RAMIS II
Battelle - - - - - - -  BASIS          |Manager Software Prod.  DATAMANAGER
Britton-Lee             IDM            |                        DESIGNMANAGER
Cincom Systems          TIS, TOTAL,    |                        SOURCEMANAGER
                        MANTIS         |National CSS, Inc.      NOMAD2
Computer Associates     CA-UNIVERSE    |Oracle Corp.            ORACLE
Computer Co. of America MODEL 204      |Perkin-Elmer            RELIANCE
                        PRODUCT LINE   |Prime Computer          PRIME DBMS
Computer Techniques     QUEO-IV        |                        INFORMATION
Contel - - - - - - - -  RTFILE         |Quassar Systems         POWERHOUSE
Cullinet Software       IDMS, ADS      |                        POWERPLAN
Database Design, Inc.   DATA DESIGNER  |Relational Tech. Inc.   INGRES
Data General            DG/DBMS        |Rexcom Corp.            REXCOM
                        PRESENT        |Scientific Information  SIR/DBMS
Digital Equipment Co.   VAX INFO. ARCH |Seed Software           SEED
Exact Systems & Prog.   DNA-4          |Sensor Based System     METAFILE
Henco Inc.              INFO           |Software AG of N.A.     ADABAS
Hewlett Packard         IMAGE          |Software House          SYSTEM 1022
IBM Corp.               SQL/DS, DB2    |Sydney Development Co.  CONQUER
Infodata Systems        INQUIRE        |Tandem Computers        ENCOMPASS
Information Builders    FOCUS          |Tech. Info. Products    IP/3
Intel Systems Corp.     SYSTEM 2000    |Tominy, Inc.            DATA BASE-PLUS
______________________________________________________________________________
                                     John Pocha
                                    Denelcor, Inc.
                                    17000 E. Ohio Place
                                    Aurora, Colorado 80017
                                    work (303)337-7900 x379
                                    home (303)794-5190
                                 {csu-cs|nbires|brl-bmd}!denelcor!pocha

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 83 19:04:12-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!tekchips!wm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for PRESS
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekchips.317

Does anyone know where I can get the PRESS algebra system, by Alan
Bundy, written in Prolog?

                        Wm Leler
                        tektronix!tekchips!wm
                        wm.Tektronix@Rand-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 83 1910 EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Jeff.Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New expert systems announced:
-BODY-
Dentrol: A dental expert system based upon tooth maintenance
      principles.
Faust: A black magic advisor with mixed initiative goal generation.
Doug: A system which will convert any given domain into set theory.
Cray: An expert arithmetic advisor.  Heuristics exist for any sort of
      real number computation involving arithmetic functions (+, -,
      and several others) within a finite (but large) range around 0.0.
      The heuristics are shown to be correct for typical cases.
Meta: An expert at thinking up new domains in which there should be
      expert systems.
Flamer: A expert at seeming to be an expert in any domain in which it
      is not an expert.
IT: (The Illogic Theorist) A expert at fitting any theory to any quanity
    of protocol data.  Theories must be specified in "ITLisp" but IT can
    construct the protocols if need be.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 83 23:25:15-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: U of Edinburgh, Scotland Inquiry - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2935


I can't tell you about the Dept of AI at Edinburgh, but I do know
about the Machine Intelligence Research Unit chaired by Prof. Donald
Michie.

The MIRU will fold in future, because Prof Michie intends to set up a
new research institute in the UK. He's been planning this and fighting
for it for quite a while now. It will be called the "Turing
Institute", and is intended to become one of the prime centers of AI
research in the UK. In fact, it will be one of the very few centers at
which research is the top priority, rather than teaching. Michie has
recently been approached by the University of Strathclyde near
Glasgow, which is interested in functioning as the associated teaching
institution (cp SRI and Stanford). If that works out, the Turing
Institute may be operational by September 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 83 5:04:46-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!sts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.538

(should be posting from utah, but I saw it here first and just
couldn't resist...)

I think we've got a terminology problem here.  The word "rational" is
so heavily loaded that it can hardly move! (as net.philosophy readers
well know).  The term "rational psychology" does seem to exclude
non-rational behavior (whatever that is) from consideration, which is
not true at all.  Rather, the idea is to explore the entire universe
of possibilities for intelligent behavior, rather than restricting
oneself to observing the average college sophomore or the AI programs
small enough to fit on present-day machines.

Let me propose the term "universal psychology" as a substitute,
analogous to the mathematical study of universal algebras.  Fewer
connotations, and it better suggests the real thrust of this field -
the study of *possible* intelligent behavior.

                                stan the r.h. (of lightness)
                                ssc-vax!sts
                                (but mail to harpo!utah-cs!shebs)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 1983 0012-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: the halting problem, orders of learning
-BODY-
Certain representaions of calculations lead to easy
detection of looping.  Consider the function...
	f(x) = x
This could lead to ...
	f(f(x)) = x
Or to ...
	f(f(f(f( ... )))) = x
But why bother!  Or for another example, consider the life blinker..
                   +
 + + +   becomes   +   becomes  + + +   becomes (etc.)
                   +
Why bother calculateing all the generations for this arangement?  The
same information lies in ...
for any integer i                         +
Blinker(2i) = + + +  and Blinker(2i+1) =  +
                                          +
There really is no halting problem, or infinite looping.  The
information for the blinker need not be fully decoded, it can be just
the above "formulas".  So humans could choses a representation of
circular or "infinite looping" ideas, so that the circularity is
expresed in a finite number of bits.

As for the orders of learning; Learning(1) is a behavior.  That is
modifying behaivor is a behavior.  It can be observed in schools,
concentration camps, or even in the laboratory.  So learning(2) is
modifying a certain behavior, and thus nothing more (in one view)
than learning(1).  Indeed it is just learning(1) applied to itself!
So learning(i) is just
                              i
(the way an organism modifies)  its behavior

But since behavior is just the way an organism modifies the
enviroment,
                                            i+1
Learning(i) = (the way an organism modifies)    the enviroment.

and learning(0) is just behavior.  So depending on your view, there
are either an infinite number of ways to learn, or there are an
infinite number of organisms (most of whose enviroments are just other
organisms).

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Sep 83 11:48:33-MDT
-FROM-
From: Jed Krohnfeldt <KROHNFELDT@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: learning levels, etc.
-BODY-
Some thoughts about Stan Shebs' questions:

I think that your continuum of 1st order learning, 2nd order learning,
etc. can really be collapsed to just two levels - the basic learning
level, and what has been popularly called the "meta level".  Learning
about learning about learning, is really no different than learning
about learning, is it?  It is simply a capability to introspect (and
possibly intervene) into basic learning processes.

This also proposes an answer to your second question - why don't
humans go catatonic when presented with circular definitions - the
answer may be that we do have heuristics, or meta-level knowledge,
that prevents us from endlessly looping on circular concepts.

                                        Jed Krohnfeldt
                                         utah-cs!jed
                                       krohnfeldt@utah-20

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Sep 83 10:44:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bob Moore <BMOORE@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: course announcement
-BODY-
                         COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

                         COMPUTER SCIENCE 400

                REPRESENTATION, MEANING, AND INFERENCE


Instructor: Robert Moore
            Artificial Intelligence Center
            SRI International

Time:       MW @ 11:00-12:15 (first meeting Wed. 9/28)

Place:      Margaret Jacks Hall, Rm. 301


The problem of the formal representation of knowledge in intelligent
systems is subject to two important constraints.  First, a general
knowledge-representation formalism must be sufficiently expressive to
represent a wide variety of information about the world.  A long-term
goal here is the ability to represent anything that can be expressed
in natural language.  Second, the system must be able to draw
inferences from the knowledge represented.  In this course we will
examine the knowledge representation problem from the perspective of
these constraints.  We will survey techniques for automatically
drawing inferences from formalizations of commonsense knowledge; we
will look at some of the aspects of the meaning of natural-language
expressions that seem difficult to formalize (e.g., tense and aspect,
collective reference, propositional attitudes); and we will consider
some ways of bridging the gap between formalisms for which the
inference problem is fairly well understood (first-order predicate
logic) and the richer formalisms that have been proposed as meaning
representations for natural language (higher-order logics, intentional
and modal logics).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
65
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Sep 83 11:37:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: David E.T. Foulser <FOULSER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Automatic Translation
-BODY-

  I'm looking for a program to perform automatic translation from
French to English.  The output doesn't have to be perfect (I hardly
expect it).  I'll appreciate any leads you can give me.

                                Dave Foulser

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Sep 83 18:46:09-EDT
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <TJM@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Music & AI, pointers wanted
-BODY-
I'd like to hear from anyone doing work that somehow relates AI and
music in some fashion. Particularly, are folks using AI programs and
techniques in composition (perhaps as a composer's assistant)? Any
responses will be passed on to those interested in the results.

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Sep 83 12:08:44-CDT
-FROM-
From: Lauri Karttunen <Cgs.Lauri@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSLI newsletter
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


A copy of the first newsletter from the Center for the Study of
Language and Information (CSLI) at Stanford is in
PS:<CGS.PUB>CSLI.NEWS.  The section on "Remote Affiliates" is of some
interest to many people here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 83 14:29:56 EDT
-FROM-
From: Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Apollo Users Mailing List
-BODY-
This message is to announce the creation of a new mailing list:

        Apollo@YALE

in which I would like to include all users of Apollo computers who are
interested in sharing their experiences about Apollos.  I think all
people could benefit from finding out what other people are doing on
their Apollos.

Mail to the list will be archived in some public place that I will
announce at a later date.  At least initially, the list will not be
moderated or digested.  If the volume is too great, this may change.
If you are interested in getting on this mailing list, send mail to:

        Apollo-Request@YALE

If several people at your site are interested in being members and
your mail system supports local redistribution, please tell me so I
can add a single entry (e.g. "Apollo-Podunk@PODUNK") instead of one
for each person.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Sep 83 16:44:31-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.GLORIA@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cook Colloquium, Oct 6
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


Stephen A. Cook, University of Toronto, will present a talk entitled
"Which Problems are Subject to Exponential Speed-up by Parallel Computers?"
on Thursday, Oct. 6 at 3:30 p.m. in Painter Hall 4.42.
Abstract:
      In the future we expect large parallel computers to exist with
thousands or millions of processors able to work together on a single
problem. There is already a significant literature of published algorithms
for such machines in which the number of processors available is treated
as a resource (generally polynomial in the input size) and the computation
time is extremely fast (polynomial in the logarithm of the input size).
We shall give many examples of problems for which such algorithms exist
and classify them according to the kind of algirithm which can be used.
On the other hand, we will give examples of problems with feasible sequential
algorithms which appear not to be amenable to such fast parallel algorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 83 16:33:08 EDT  (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UM Expansion
-BODY-
[Due to a complaint that even academic job ads constitute an
"egregious violation" of Arpanet standards, and following failure of
anyone to reply to my subsequent queries, I have decided to publish
general notices of lab expansions but not specific positions.  The
following solicitation has been edited accordingly.  -- KIL]


The University of Maryland was recently awarded 4.2 million dollars
by the National Science Foundation to develop the hardware and
software for a parallel processing laboratory.  More than half of
the award amount is going directly for hardware acquisition, and
this money is also being leveraged through substantial vendor
discounts and joint research programs now being negotiated.  We
will be buying things like lots of Vaxes, Sun's, Lisp Machines,
etc., to augment our current 2 780's, ethernet, etc. system.
Several new permanent positions are being created in the Computer
Science Department for this laboratory.

[...]

Anyone interested should make initial inquiries, send resumes, etc.
to Mark Weiser at one of the addresses below:

        Mark Weiser
        Computer Science Department
        University of Maryland
        College Park, MD 20742
        (301) 454-6790/4251/6291 (in that order).
        UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!mark
        CSNet:  mark@umcp-cs
        ARPA:   mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 83 17:32:04-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcvax!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!liz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Maryland software distribution
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2755

This is to announce the availability of the Univ of Maryland software
distribution.  This includes source code for the following:

1.  The flavors package written in Franz Lisp.  This package has
    been used successfully in a number of large systems at Maryland,
    and while it does not implement all the features of Lisp Machine
    Flavors, the features present are as close to the Lisp Machine
    version as possible within the constraints of Franz Lisp.
    (Note that Maryland flavors code *can* be compiled.)
2.  Other Maryland Franz hacks including the INTERLISP-like top
    level, the lispbreak error handling package, the for macro and
    the new loader package.
3.  The YAPS production system written in Franz Lisp.  This is
    similar to OPS5 but more flexible in the kinds of lisp expressions
    that may appear as facts and patterns (sublists are allowed
    and flavor objects are treated atomically), the variety of
    tests that may appear in the left hand sides of rules and the
    kinds of actions may appear in the right hand sides of rules.
    In addition, YAPS allows multiple data bases which are flavor
    objects and may be sent messages such as "fact" and "goal".
4.  The windows package in the form of a C loadable library.  This
    flexible package allows convenient management of multiple
    contexts on the screen and runs on ordinary character display
    terminals as well as bit-mapped displays.  Included is a Franz
    lisp interface to the window library, a window shell for
    executing shell processes in windows, and a menu package (also
    a C loadable library).

You should be aware of the fact that the lisp software is based on
Franz Opus 38.26 and that we will be switching to the newer version
of lisp that comes with Berkeley 4.2 whenever that comes out.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

To obtain the Univ of Maryland distribution tape:

1.  Fill in the form below, make a hard copy of it and sign it.
2.  Make out a check to University of Maryland Foundation for $100,
    mail it and the form to:

                Liz Allen
                Univ of Maryland
                Dept of Computer Science
                College Park MD 20742

3.  If you need an invoice, send me mail, and I will get one to you.
    Don't forget to include your US Mail address.

Upon receipt of the money, we will mail you a tape containing our
software and the technical reports describing the software.  We
will also keep you informed of bug fixes via electronic mail.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

The form to mail to us is:


In exchange for the Maryland software tape, I certify to the
following:

a.  I will not use any of the Maryland software distribution in a
    commercial product without obtaining permission from Maryland
    first.
b.  I will keep the Maryland copyright notices in the source code,
    and acknowledge the source of the software in any use I make of
    it.
c.  I will not redistribute this software to anyone without permission
    from Maryland first.
d.  I will keep Maryland informed of any bug fixes.
e.  I am the appropriate person at my site who can make guarantees a-d.

                                Your signature, name, position,
                                phone number, U.S. and electronic
                                mail addresses.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have any questions, etc, send mail to me.

>-
                                -Liz Allen, U of Maryland, College Park MD
                                 Usenet:   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz
                                 Arpanet:  liz%umcp-cs@Udel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 83 14:57:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Announcement
-BODY-

              ****************  CONFERENCE  ****************

                     "Intelligent Systems and Machines"

                    Oakland University, Rochester Michigan

                                April 24-25, 1984

              *********************************************

A notice for call for papers should also appear through SIGART soon.

Conference Chairmen:  Dr. Donald Falkenburg (313-377-2218)
                      Dr. Nan Loh           (313-377-2222)
                      Center for Robotics and Advanced Automation
                      School of Engineering
                      Oakland University
                      Rochester, MI 48063
            ***************************************************

AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE:  A Public Release/Sensitivity Approval is necessary.
Authors from DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government
funded must have their papers reviewed for public release and more
importantly sensitivity (i.e. an operations security review for sensitive
unclassified material) by the security office of their sponsoring agency.

In addition, I will try to answer questions for those on the net.  Mort
Queries can be sent to mort@brl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Sep 83 11:08:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ray Perrault <RPERRAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSCSI call for papers
-BODY-
                         CALL FOR PAPERS

                         C S C S I - 8 4

                      Canadian Society for
              Computational Studies of Intelligence

                  University of Western Ontario
                         London, Ontario
                         May 18-20, 1984

     The Fifth National Conference of the CSCSI will be  held  at
the  University of Western Ontario in London, Canada.  Papers are
requested in all areas of AI research, particularly those  listed
below.  The Program Committee members responsible for these areas
are included.

Knowledge Representation :
   Ron Brachman (Fairchild R & D), John Mylopoulos (U of Toronto)
Learning :
   Tom Mitchell (Rutgers U), Jaime Carbonell (CMU)
Natural Language :
   Bonnie Weber (U of Pennsylvania), Ray Perrault (SRI)
Computer Vision :
   Bob Woodham (U of British Columbia), Allen Hanson (U Mass)
Robotics :
   Takeo Kanade (CMU), John Hollerbach (MIT)
Expert Systems and Applications :
   Harry Pople (U of Pittsburgh),  Victor  Lesser  (U  Mass)
Logic Programming :
   Randy Goebel (U of Waterloo), Veronica Dahl (Simon Fraser U)
Cognitive Modelling :
   Zenon Pylyshyn,  Ed  Stabler  (U  of Western Ontario)
Problem Solving and Planning :
   Stan Rosenschein (SRI), Drew McDermott (Yale)

     Authors are requested to prepare Full  papers,  of  no  more
than  4000  words in length, or Short papers of no more than 2000
words in length.  A full page of clear diagrams  counts  as  1000
words.   When  submitting,  authors must supply the word count as
well as the area in which they wish their paper reviewed.   (Com-
binations  of  the  above  areas are acceptable).  The Full paper
classification is intended for well-developed ideas, with  signi-
ficant demonstration of validity, while the Short paper classifi-
cation is intended for descriptions of research in progress.  Au-
thors  must  ensure that their papers describe original contribu-
tions to or novel applications of  Artificial  Intelligence,  re-
gardless of length classification, and that the research is prop-
erly compared and contrasted with relevant literature.
     Three copies of each submitted paper must be in the hands of
the  Program Chairman by December 7, 1983.  Papers arriving after
that date will be returned  unopened,  and  papers  lacking  word
count  and classifications will also be returned.  Papers will be
fully reviewed by appropriate members of the  program  committee.
Notice of acceptance will be sent on February 28, 1984, and final
camera ready versions are due on March 31,  1984.   All  accepted
papers will appear in the conference proceedings.

     Correspondence should be addressed  to  either  the  General
Chairman or the Program Chairman, as appropriate.

General Chairman                    Program Chairman

Ted Elcock,                         John K. Tsotsos
Dept. of Computer Science,          Dept. of Computer Science,
Engineering and Mathematical        10 King's College Rd.,
     Sciences Bldg.,                University of Toronto,
University of Western Ontario       Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
London, Ontario, Canada             M5S 1A4
N6A 5B9                             (416)-978-3619
(519)-679-3567

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
66
-DATE-
Date: Tue 27 Sep 83 22:39:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational X
-BODY-
Oh dear! "Rational psychology" is no more about rational people than
"rational mechanics" is about rational rocks or "rational
thermodynamics" about rational hot air. "Rational X" is the
traditional name for the mathematical, axiomatic study of systems
inspired and intuitively related to the systems studied by the
empirical science "X." Got it?

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 83 11:57:24-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.463

Actually, the word "rational" in "rational psychology" is merely
redundant.  One would hope that psychology would be, as other
sciences, rational.  This would in no way detract from its ability to
investigate the causes of human irrationality.  No science really
should have to be prefaced with the word "rational", since we should
be able to assume that science is not "irrational".  Anyone for
"Rational Chemistry"?

Please note that the scientist's "flash of insight", "intuituion",
"creative leap" is heavily dependent upon the rational faculty, the
faculty of CONCEPT-FORMATION.  We also rely upon the rational faculty
for verifying and for evaluating such insights and leaps.

>-Norm Andrews, AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel, New Jersey

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 83 13:01:56-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drux3!drufl!samir @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: drufl.670

Norm,

        Let me elaborate. Psychology, or logic of mind, involves BOTH
rational and emotional processes. To consider one exclusively defeats
the purpose of understanding.

        I have not read the article we are talking about so I cannot
comment on that article, but an example of what I consider a "Rational
Psychology" theory is "Personal Construct Theory" by Kelly. It is an
attractive theory but, in my opinion, it falls far short of describing
"logic of mind" as it fails to integrate emotional aspects.

        I consider learning-concept formation-creativity to have BOTH
rational and emotional attributes, hence it would be better if we
studied them as such.

        I may be creating a dichotomy where there is none. (Rational
vs.  Emotional). I want to point you to an interesting book "Metaphors
we live by" (I forget the names of Authors) which in addition to
discussing many other ai-related (without mentioning ai) concepts
discusses the question of Objective vs. Subjective, which is similar
to what we are talking here, Rational vs. Emotional.

        Thanks.

                                Samir Shah
                                AT&T Information Systems, Denver.
                                drufl!samir

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1983  13:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Halting Problem
-BODY-
About learning:  There is a lot about how to get out of loops in my
paper "Jokes and the Cognitive Unconscious".  I can send it to whoever
wants, either over this net or by U.S. Snail.
 -- minsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 83 10:31:31-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!clyde!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!pd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eisx.607

There are two AI problems that I know about: the computing power
problem (combinatorial explosions, etc) and the "nature of thought"
problem (knowledge representation, reasoning process etc).  This
article concerns the latter.

AI's method (call it "m") seems to model human information processing
mechanisms, say legal reasoning methods, and once it is understood
clearly, and a calculus exists for it, programming it. This idea can
be transferred to various problem domains, and voila, we have programs
for "thinking" about various little cubbyholes of knowledge.

The next thing to tackle is, how do we model AI's method "m" that was
used to create all these cubbyhole programs ?  How did whoever thought
of Predicate Calculus, semantic networks, Ad nauseum block world
theories come up with them ? Let's understand that ("m"), formalize
it, and program it. This process (let's call it "m'") gives us a
program that creates cubbyhole programs. Yeah, it runs on a zillion
acres of CMOS, but who cares.

Since a human can do more than just "m", or "m'", we try to make
"m''", "m'''" et al. When does this stop ? Evidently it cannot.  The
problem is, the thought process that yields a model or simulation of a
thought process is necessarily distinct from the latter (This is true
of all scientific investigation of any kind of phenomenon, not just
thought processes). This distinction is one of the primary paradigms
of western Science.

Rather naively, thinking "about" the mind is also done "with" the
mind.  This identity of subject and object that ensues in the
scientific (dualistic) pursuit of more intelligent machine behavior -
do you folks see it too ? Since scientific thought relies on the clear
separation of a theory/model and reality, is a
mathematical/scientific/engineering discipline inadequate for said
pursuit ? Is there a system of thought that is self-describing ? Is
there a non-dualistic calculus ?

What we are talking about here is the ability to separate oneself from
the object/concept/process under study, understand it, model it,
program it... it being anything, including the ability it self.  The
ability to recognize that a model is a representation within one's
mind of a reality outside of ones mind. Trying to model this ability
is leads one to infinite regress.  What is this ability ? Lets call it
conciousness.  What we seem to be coming up with here is, the
INABILITY of math/sci etc to deal with this phenomenon, codify at it,
and to boldly program a computer that has conciousness. Does this mean
that the statement:

"CONCIOUSNESS CAN, MUST, AND WILL ONLY COME TO EXISTENCE OF ITS OWN
ACCORD"

is true ? "Conciousness" was used for lack of a better word. Replace
it by X, and you still have a significant statement. Conciousness
already has come to existence; and according to the line of reasoning
above, cannot be brought into existence by methods available.

If so, how can we "help" machines to achieve conciousness, as
benevolent if rather impotent observers ?  Should we just
mechanistically build larger and larger neural network simulators
until one says "ouch" when we shut a portion of it off, and better,
tries to deliberately modify(sic) its environment so that that doesn't
happen again? And may be even can split infinitives ?

As a parting shot, it's clear that such neural networks, must have
tremendous power to come close to a fraction of our level of
abstraction ability.

Baffled, but still thinking...  References, suggestions, discussions,
pointers avidly sought.

Prem Devanbu

ATTIS Labs , South Plainfield.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 83 05:20:08 EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: rlgvax!cal-unix!wise@SEISMO
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Analysis and looping
-BODY-

A side light to the discussions of the halting problem is "what then?"
What do we do when a loop is detected?  Ignore the information?
Arbitrarily select some level as the *true* meaning?

In some cases, meaning is drawn from outside the language.  As an
example, consider a person who tells you, "I don't know a secret".
The person may really know a secret but doesn't want you to know, or
may not know a secret and reason that you'll assume that nobody with a
secret would say something so suspicious ...

A reasonable assumption would be that if the person said nothing,
you'd have no reason to think he knows a secret, so if that was the
assumption which he desired for you to make, he would just have kept
quiet, so you may conclude that the person knows no secret.

This rather simplistic example demonstrates one response to the loop,
i.e., when confronted with circular logic, we disregard it.  Another
possibility is that we may use external information to attempt to help
dis-ambiguate by selecting a level of the loop. (e.g. this is a
three-year-old, who is sufficiently unsophisticated that he may say
the above when he does, in fact, know a secret.)

This may support the study of cognition as an underpinning for NLP.
Certainly we can never expect a machine to react as we (who is 'we'?)
do unless we know how we react.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Sep 1983 1723-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NLP, Learning, and knowledge rep.
-BODY-
As an undergraduate student here at USC, I am required to pass a
Freshman Writting class.  I have noticed in this class that one field
of the NL Problem is UNSOLVED even in humans.  I am speaking of the
generation of prose.

In AI terms the problems are...

The selection of a small area of the knowledge base which is small
enough to be written about in a few pages, and large enough that a
paper can be generated at all.

One of the solutions to this problem is called 'clustering.'  In the
middle of a page one draws a circle about the topic.  Then a directed
graph is built by connecting associated ideas to nodes in the graph.
Just free association does not seem to work very well, so it is
sugested to ask a number of question, about the main idea, or any
other node.  Some of the questions are What, Where, When, Why (and the
rest of the "Journalistic" q's), can you RELATE an incident about it,
can you name its PARTS, can you describe a process to MAKE or do it.
Finally this smaller data base is reduced to a few interesting areas.
This solution is then a process of Q and A on the data base to
construct a smaller data base.

Once a small data base has been selected, it needs to be given a
linear representation.  That is, it must be organized into a new data
base that is suitable to prose.  There are no solutions offered for
this step.

Finally the data base is coded into English prose.  There are no
solutions offered for this step.

This prose is read back in, and compared to the original data base.
Ambiguities need to be removed, some areas elaborated on, and others
rewritten in a clearer style.  There are no solutions offered for this
step, but there are some rules - Things to do, and things not to do.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 27 September 1983 15:25:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: NL argument between STLH and Pereira
-BODY-
Several comments in the last message in this exchange seemed worthy of
comment.  I think my basic sympathies lie with STLH, although he
overstates his case a bit.

While language is indeed a "fuzzy thing", there are different shades
of correctness, with some sentences being completely right, some with
one obvious *error*, which is noticed by the hearer and corrected,
while others are just a mess, with the hearer guessing the right
answer.  This is similar in some ways to error-correcting codes, where
after enough errors, you can't be sure anymore which interpretation is
correct.  This doesn't say much about whether the underlying ideal is
best expressed by a grammar.  I don't think it is, for NL, but the
reason has more to do with the fact that the categories people use in
language seem to include semantics in a rather pervasive way, so that
making a major distinction between grammatical (language-specific,
arbitrary) and other knowledge (semantics) might not be the best
approach.  I could go on at length about this (in fact I'm currently
working on a Tech Report discussing this idea), but I won't, unless
pressed.

As for ignoring human cognition, some AI people do ignore it, but
others (especially here at C-MU) take it very seriously.  This seems
to be a major division in the field -- between those who think the
best search path is to go for what the machine seems best suited for,
and those who want to use the human set-up as a guide.  It seems to me
that the best solution is to let both groups do their thing --
eventually we'll find out which path (or maybe both) was right.

I read with interest your description of your system -- I am currently
working on a semantic chart parser that sounds fairly similar to your
brief description, except that it is written in OPS5.  Thus I was
surprised at the statement that OPS5 has "no capacity for the
parallelism" needed.  OPS5 users suffer from the fact that there are
some fairly non-obvious but simple ways to build powerful data
structures in it, and these have not been documented.  Fortunately, a
production system primer is currently being written by a group headed
by Elaine Kant.  Anyway, I have an as-yet-unaccepted paper describing
my OPS5 parser available, if anyone is interested.

As for scientific "camps" in AI, part of the reason for this seems to
be the fact that AI is a very new science, and often none of the
warring factions have proved their points.  The same thing happens in
other sciences, when a new theory comes out, until it is proven or
disproven.  In AI, *all* the theories are unproven, and everyone gets
quite excited.  We could probably use a little more of the "both
schools of thought are probably partially correct" way of thinking,
but AI is not alone in this.  We just don't have a solid base of
proven theory to anchor us (yet).

In regard to the call for a theory which explains all aspects of
language behavior, one could answer "any Turing-equivalent computer".
The real question is, how *specifically* do you get it to work?  Any
claim like "my parser can easily be extended to do X" is more or less
moot, unless you've actually done it.  My OPS5 parser is embedded in a
Turing-equivalent production system language.  I can therefore
guarantee that if any computer can do language learning, so can my
program.  The question is, how?  The way linguists have often wanted
to answer "how" is to define grammars that are less than
Turing-equivalent which can do the job, which I suspect is futile when
you want to include semantics.  In any event, un-implemented
extensions of current programs are probably always much harder than
they appear to be.

(As an aside about sentences as fundamental structures, there is a
two-prong answer: (1) Sentences exist in all human languages.  They
appear to be the basic "frame" [I can hear nerves jarring all over the
place] or unit for human communication of packets of information.  (2)
Some folks have actually tried to define grammars for dialogue
structures.  I'll withhold comment.)

In short, I think warring factions aren't that bad, as long as they
all admit that no one has proven anything yet (which is definitely not
always the case), semantic chart parsing is the way to go for NL,
theories that explain all of cognitive science will be a long time in
coming, and that no one should accept a claim about AI that hasn't
been implemented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
67
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 83 13:17:41-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!rggoebel@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alvey Report and Fifth Generation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: watdaisy.298

The ``Alvey Report'' is the popular name for the following booklet:

  A Programme for Advanced Information Technology
  The Report of the Alvey Committee

  published by the British Department of Industry, and available from
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office.  One London address is

    49 High Holborn
    London WC1V 6HB

The report is indeed interesting because it is a kind of response to
the Japanese Fifth Generation Project, but is is also interesting in
that it is not nearly so much the genesis of a new project as the
organization of existing potential for research and development.  The
quickest way to explain the point is that of the proposed 352 million
pounds that the report suggests to be spent, only 42 million is for
AI (Actually it's not for AI, but for IKBS-Intelligent Knowledge Based
Systems; seniors will understand the reluctance to use the word AI after
the Lighthill report).

The areas of proposed development include 1) Software engineering,
2) Man/Machine Interfaces, 3) IKBS, and 4) VLSI.  I have heard the
the most recent national budget in Britain has not committed the
funds expected for the project, but this is only rumor.  I would appreciate
further information (Can you help D.H.D.W.?).

On another related topic, I think it displays a bit of AI chauvinism
to believe that anyone, including the Japanese and the British
are so naive as to put all the eggs in one basket.

Incidently, I believe Feigenbaum and McCorduck's book revealed
at least two things: a disguised plea for more funding, and a not so
disguised expose of American engineering chauvinism.  Much of the American
reaction to the Japanese project sounds like the old cliches of
male chauvinism like ``...how could a women ever do the work of a real man?''
It just maybe that American Lisper's may end up ``eating quiche.'' 8-)

Randy Goebel
Logic Programming Group
University of Waterloo
UUCP: watmath!rggoebel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 27 Sep 83 22:31:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: U of Edinburgh, Scotland Inquiry
-BODY-
Since the Lighthill Report, a lot has changed for AI in Britain. The
Alvey Report (British Department of Industry) and the Science and
Engineering Research Council (SERC) initiative on Intelligent
Knowledge-Based Systems (IKBS) have released a lot of money for
Information Technology in general, and AI in particular (It remains to
be seen whether that huge amount of money -- 100s of millions -- is
going to be spent wisely). The Edinburgh Department of AI has managed
to get a substantial slice of that money. They have been actively
looking for people both at lecturer and research associate/fellow
level [a good opportunity for young AIers from the US to get to know
Scotland, her great people and unforgetable Highlands].

The AI Dept. have recently added 3 (4?) new people to their teaching
staff, and have more machines, research staff, and students than ever.
The main areas they work on are: Natural Language (Henry Thompson,
Mark Steedman, Graeme Ritchie), controlled deduction and problem
solving (Alan Bundy and his research assistant and students), Robotics
(Robin Popplestone, Pat Ambler and a number of others), LOGO-style
stuff (Jim Howe [head of department] and Peter Ross) and AI languages
(Robert Rae, Dave Bowen and others).  There are probably others I
don't remember. The AI Dept.  is both on UUCP and on a network
connected to ARPANET:

        <username>%edxa%ucl-cs@isid (ARPANET)
        ...!vax135!edcaad!edee!edai!<username> (UUCP)

I have partial lists of user names for both connections which I will
mail directly to interested persons.

Fernando Pereira SRI AI Center [an old Edinburgh hand]

pereira@sri-ai (ARPA) ...!ucbvax!pereira@sri-ai (UUCP)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 83 3:54:20-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!hakanson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Organisms? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1920


I was reading a novel recently, and ran across the following passage re-
lating to "intelligent" machines, robots, etc.  In case anyone is interested,
the book is Satan's World, by Poul Anderson, Doubleday 1969 (p. 132).
(I hope this article doesn't seem more appropriate to sf-lovers than to ai.)

        ... They had electronic speed and precision, yes, but not
        full decision-making capacity.  ... This is not for lack
        of mystic vital forces.  Rather, the biological creature
        has available to him so much more physical organization.
        Besides sensor-computer-effector systems comparable to
        those of the machine, he has feed-in from glands, fluids,
        chemistry reaching down to the molecular level -- the
        integrated ultracomplexity, the entire battery of
        *instincts* -- that a billion-odd years of ruthlessly
        selective evolution have brought forth.  He perceives and
        thinks with a wholeness transcending any possible symbolism;
        his purposes arise from within, and therefore are infinitely
        flexible.  The robot can only do what it was designed to
        do.  Self-programming has [can] extended these limits, to the
        point where actual consciousness may occur if desired.  But
        they remain narrower than the limits of those who made
        the machines.

Later in the book, the author describes a view that if a robot "were so
highly developed as to be equivalent to a biological organism, there
would be no point in building it."  This is explained as being true
because "nature has already provided us means for making new biological
organisms, a lot cheaper and more fun than producing robots."

I won't go on with the discussion in the book, as it degenerates into the
usual debate about the theoretical, fully motivated computer that is
superior in any way..., and how such a computer would rule the world, etc.
My point in posting the above passage was to ask the experts of netland
to give their opinions of the aforementioned views.

More specifically, how do we feel about the possibilities of building
machines that are "equivalent" to intelligent biological organisms?
Or even non-intelligent ones?  Is it possible?  And if so, why bother?

It's probably obvious that we don't need to disagree with the views given
by the author in order to want to continue with our studies in Artificial
Intelligence.  But how many of us do agree?  Disagree?

Marion Hakanson         {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakanson        (Usenet)
                        hakanson.oregon-state@rand-relay        (CSnet)
                        hakanson@{oregon-state,orstcs}          (also CSnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Sep 83 17:18:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Amusement from CMU's opinion bboard
-BODY-
   [Reprinted from the CMU opinion board via the SU-SCORE bboard.]

      [The originator of this piece is Jeff.Shrager@CMU-CS-A.]


Ever dreamed of flaming with the Big Boys?  ...  Had that desire to
write an immense diatribe, berating de facto all your peers who hold
contrary opinions?  ...  Felt the urge to have your fingers moving
without being connected to your brain?  Well, by simply sending in the
form on the back of this bboard post, you could begin climbing into
your pulpit alongside greats from all walks of life such as Chomsky,
Weizenbaum, Reagan, Von Danneken, Ellison, Abzug, Arifat and many many
more.  You don't even have to leave the comfort of your armchair!

Here's how it works:  Each week we send you a new lesson.  You read
the notes and then simply write one essay each week on the assigned
topic.  Your essays will be read by our expert pool of professional
flamers and graded on Sparsity, Style, Overtness, Incoherence, and a
host of other important aspects.  You will receive a long letter from
your specially selected advisor indicating in great detail why you
obviously have the intellectual depth of a soap dish.  This
apprenticeship is all there is to it.

Here are some examples of the courses offered by The School:

        Classical Flames:  You will study the flamers who started it
all.  For example, Descarte's much quoted demonstration that reality
isn't.  Special attention is paid, in this course, to the old and new
testaments and how western flaming was influenced by their structure.
(The Bible plays a particularly important role in our program and most
courses will spend at least some time tracing biblical origins or
associations of their special topic.  See, particularly, the special
seminar on Space Cadetism, which concentrate on ESP and UFO
phenomena.)

        Contemporary Flame Technique:  Attention is paid to the detail
of flame form in this course.  The student will practice the subtle
and overt ad hominem argument; fact avoidance maneuvers; "at length"
writing style; over generalization; and other important factor which
make the modern flame inaccessible to the general populace.  Readings
from Russell ("Now I will admit that some unusually stupid children of
ten may find this material a bit difficult to fathom..."), Skinner,
(primarily concentrating on his Verbal Learning), Sagan (on abstract
overestimation) and many others.  This course is most concerned with
politicians (sometimes, redundantly, referred to as "political
flamers") since their speech writers are particularly adept at the
technique that we wish to foster.

        Appearing Brilliant (thanks to the Harvard Lampoon): Nobel
laureates lecture on topics of world import but which are very much
outside their field of expertise.  There is a large representation of
Nobels in physics:  the discoverer of the UnCharmed Pi Mesa Beta Quark
explains how the population explosion can be averted through proper
reculterization of mothers; and professor Nikervator, first person to
properly develop the theory of faster- than-sound "Whizon" docking
coreography, tells us how mind is the sole theological entity.

        Special seminar in terminology:  The name that you give
something is clearly more important than its semantics.  Experts in
nomenclature demonstrate their skills.  Pulitzer Prize winner Douglas
Hofstader makes up 15,000 new words whose definitions, when read
sideways prove the existence of themselves and constitute fifteen
months of columns in Scientific American.  A special round table of
drug company and computer corporation representatives discuss how to
construct catchy names for new products and never give the slightest
hint to the public about what they mean.

        Writing the Scientific Journal Flame: Our graduates will be
able to compete in the modern world of academic and industrial
research flaming, where the call is high for trained pontificators.
the student reads short sections from several fields and then may
select a field of concentration for detailed study.

Here is an example description of a detailed scientific flaming
seminar:

        Computer Science: This very new field deals directly with the
very metal of the flamer's tools: information and communication.  The
student selecting computer science will study several areas including,
but not exclusively:

    Artificial Intelligence: Roger Schank explains the design of
    his flame understanding and generation engine (RUSHIN) and
    will explain how the techniques that it employs constitute a
    complete model of mind, brain, intelligence, and quantum
    electrodynamics.  For contrast, Marvin Minsky does the same.
    Weizenbaum tells us, with absolutely no data or alternative
    model, why AI is logically impossible, and moreover,
    immoral.

    Programming Languages: A round table is held between Wirth,
    Hoare, Dykstra, Iverson, Perlis, and Jean Samett, in order
    to keep them from killing each other.

    Machines and systems: Fred Brooks and Gordon Bell lead a
    field of experts over the visual cliff of hardware
    considerations.

The list of authoritative lectures goes on and on.  In addition, an
inspiring introduction by Feigenbaum explains how important it is that
flame superiority be maintained by the United States in the face of
the recent challenges from Namibia and the Panama Canal zone.

But there's more.  Not only will you read famous flamers in abundance,
but you will actually have the opportunity to "run with the pack".
The Famous Flamer's School has arranged to provide access for all
computer science track students, to the famous ARPANet where students
will be able to actually participate in discussions of earthshaking
current importance, along with the other brilliant young flamers using
this nationwide resource.  You'll read and write about whether
keyboards should have a space bar across the whole bottom or split
under the thumbs; whether or not Emacs is God, and which deity is the
one true editor; whether the brain actually cools the body or not;
whether the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa -- and much
more.  You contributions will be whisked across the nation, faster
than throwing a 2400 foot magtape across the room, into the minds of
thousands of other electrolusers whose brain cells will merge with
yours for the moment that they read your personal opinion of matters
of true science!  What importance!

We believe that the program we've constructed is very special and will
provide, for the motivated student, an atmosphere almost completely
content free in which his or her ideas can flow in vacuity.  So, take
the moment to indicate your name, address, age, and hat size by
filling out the rear of this post and mailing it to:

        FAMOUS FLAMER'S SCHOOL
        c/o Locker number 6E
        Grand Central Station North
        New York, NY.

Act now or forever hold your peace.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
68
ate: Mon 3 Oct 83 09:29:16-PDT From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Famous Flamer's School -- Credit
-BODY-
The Famous Flamer's School was created by Jeff.Shrager@CMU-CS-A; my
apologies for not crediting him in the original article.  If you
saved or distributed a copy, please add a note crediting Jeff.

					-- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 17:58:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alas, I must flame...
-BODY-
[ I hate to flame, but here's an issue that really got to me...]

From the call for papers for the "Artificial Intelligence and Machines":

    AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE:  A Public Release/Sensitivity Approval is necessary.
    Authors from DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government
    funded must have their papers reviewed for public release and more
    importantly sensitivity (i.e. an operations security review for sensitive
    unclassified material) by the security office of their sponsoring agency.

  How much AI work does *NOT* fall under one of the categories "Authors from
DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government funded" ?
I read this to mean that essentially any government involvement with
research now leaves one open to goverment "protection".

  At issue here is not the goverment duty to safeguard classified materials;
it is the intent of the government to limit distribution of non-military
basic research (alias "sensitive unclassified material"). This "we paid for
it, it's OURS (and the Russians can't have it)" mentality seems the rule now.

  But isn't science supposed to be for the benefit of all mankind,
and not just another economic bargaining chip? I cannot help but to
be chilled by this divorce of science from a higher moral outlook.
Does it sound old fashioned to believe that scientific thought is
part of a common heritage, to be used to improve the lives of all? A
far as I can see, if all countries in the world follow the lead of
the US and USSR toward scientific protectionism, we scientists will
have allowed science to abandon its primary role toward learning
about ourselves and become a mere intellectual commodity.

David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 30 Sep 83 10:09:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IRD Report
-BODY-

         [Reprinted from IEEE Computer, Sep. 1983, p. 116.]


             Rapid Growth Predicted for AI-Based System

Expert systems are now moving out of the research laboratory and into
the commercial marketplace, according to "Artificial Intelligence,"
a 167-page research report from International Resource Development.
Revenue from all AI hardware, software, and services will amount to
only $70 million this year but is expected to reach $8 billion
in the next 10 years.

Biomedical applications promise to be among the fastest growing
uses of AI, reducing the time and cost of diagnosing illnesses and
adding to the accuracy of diagnoses.  AI-based systems can range
from "electronic encyclopedias," which physicians can use as
reference sources, to full-fledged "electronic consultants"
capable of taking a patient through an extensive series of diagnostic
tests and determining the patient's ailments with great precision.

"Two immediate results of better diagnostic procedures may be a
reduction in the number of unnecessary surgical procedures performed
on patients and a decrease in the average number of expensive tests
performed on patients," predicts Dave Ledecky of the IRD research
staff.  He also notes that the AI technology may leave hospitals
half-empty, since some operations turn out to be unnecessary.
However, he expects no such dramatic result anytime soon, since
widespread medical application of AI technology isn't expected for
about five years.

The IRD report also describes the activities of several new companies
that are applying AI technology to medical systems.  Helena Laboratories
in Beaumont, Texas, is shipping a densitometer/analyzer, which
includes a serum protein diagnostic program developed by Rutgers
University using AI technology.  Still in the development stage
are the AI-based products of IntelliGenetics in Palo Alto,
California, which are based on work conducted at Stanford University
over the last 15 years.

Some larger, more established companies are also investing in AI
research and development.  IBM is reported to have more than five
separate programs underway, while Schlumberger, Ltd., is
spending more than $5 million per year on AI research, much of
which is centered on the use of AI in oil exploration.

AI software may dominate the future computer industry, according to
the report, with an increasing percentage of applications
programming being performed in Lisp or other AI-based "natural"
languages.

Further details on the $1650 report are available from IRD,
30 High Street, Norwalk, CT 06851; (800) 243-5008,
Telex: 64 3452.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 30 Sep 83 10:16:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NASA Report
-BODY-

[Reprinted from IEEE Spectrum, Oct. 1983, p. 78]


Overview Explains AI

A technical memorandum from the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration offers an overview of the core ingredients
of artificial intelligence.  The volume is the first in a series
that is intended to cover both artificial intelligence and
robotics for interested engineers and managers.

The initial volume gives definitions and a short history entitled
"The rise, fall, and rebirth of AI" and then lists applications,
principal participants in current AI work, examples of the
state of the art, and future directions.  Future volumes in AI
will cover application areas in more depth and will also cover
basic topics such as search-oriented problem-solving and
planning, knowledge representation, and computational logic.

The report is available from the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.  Please ask for NASA Technical
Memorandum Number 85836.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 20:13:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TV documentary
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


KCSM-TV Channel 60 is producing a series entitled "The Computer
Chronicles".  This is a series of 30-minute programs intended to be a
serious look at the world of computers, a potential college-level
teaching device, and a genuine historical document.  The first episode
in the series (with Don Parker discussing computer security) will be
broadcast this evening...Thursday, September 29...9pm.

The second portion of the series, to be broadcast 9 pm Thursday,
October 6, will be on the subject of Artificial Intelligence (with Ed
Feigenbaum).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 19:03:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA@SU-Score>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AFLB
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


The "Algorithms  for  Lunch  Bunch"  (AFLB) is  a  weekly  seminar  in
analysis  of  algorithms  held   by  the  Stanford  Computer   Science
Department, every Thursday, at 12:30 p.m., in Margaret Jacks Hall, rm.
352.

At the first meeting this year, (Thursday, October 6) Prof. Jeffrey D.
Ullman, from Stanford,  will talk on  "A time-communication  tradeoff"
Abstract follows.

Further  information  about   the  AFLB  schedule   is  in  the   file
[SCORE]<broder>aflb.bboard .

If you want to  get abstracts of  the future talks,  please send me  a
message to put you on the AFLB mailing list.  If you just want to know
the title of the  next talk and  the name of the  speaker look at  the
weekly Stanford CSD  schedule that  is (or  should be)  sent to  every
bboard.
                      ------------------------

10/6/83 - Prof. Jeffrey D. Ullman (Stanford):

                       "A time-communication  tradeoff"

We examine how multiple  processors could share  the computation of  a
collection of values  whose dependencies  are in  the fom  of a  grid,
e.g., the estimation of nth derivatives.  Two figures of merit are the
time t the shared computation takes and the amount of communication c,
i.e., the number of values that  are either inputs or are computed  by
one processor and  used by another.   We prove that  no matter how  we
share the responsibility for computing  an n by n  grid, the law ct  =
OMEGA(n^3) must hold.

******** Time and place: Oct. 6, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) *******

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 09:33:24-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.GLORIA@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Karp Colloquium, Oct. 13, 1983
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


Richard M. Karp, University of California at Berkeley, will present a talk
entitled, "A Fast Parallel Algorithm for the Maximal Independent Set Problem"
on Thursday, October 13, 1983 at 3:30 p.m. in Painter Hall 4.42.  Coffee
at 3 p.m. in PAI 3.24.
Abstract:
     One approach to understanding the limits of parallel computation is to
search for problems for which the best parallel algorithm is not much faster
than the best sequential algorithm.  We survey what is known about this
phenomenon and show that--contrary to a popular conjecture--the problem of
finding a maximal inependent set of vertices in a graph is highly amenable
to speed-up through parallel computation.  We close by suggesting some new
candidates for non-parallelizable problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 30 Sep 83 21:39:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: Doug Lenat <LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: N. Wirth, Colloquium 10/4/83
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


CS COLLOQUIUM:  Niklaus Wirth will be giving the
opening colloquium of this quarter on Tuesday (Oct. 4),
at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium.  His talk is titled
"Reminiscences and Reflections".  Although there is
no official abstract, in discussing this talk with him
I learned that Reminiscences refer to his days here at
Stanford one generation ago, and Reflections are on
the current state of both software and hardware, including
his views on what's particularly good and bad in the
current research in each area.  I am looking forward to
this talk, and invite all members of our department,
and all interested colleagues, to attend.

Professor Wirth's talk will be preceded by refreshments
served in the 3rd floor lounge (in Margaret Jacks Hall)
at 3:45.  Those wishing to schedule an appointment with
Professor Wirth should contact ELYSE@SCORE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 83  1049 PDT
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


Organizational and First Meeting

Time: Wednesday, Oct. 5, 4:15-5:30 PM

Place:  Mathematics Dept. Faculty Lounge, 383N Stanford

Speaker: Ian Mason

Title: Undecidability of the metatheory of the propositional calculus.

   Before the talk there will be a discussion of plans for the seminar
this fall.
                       S. Feferman


[PS - If you read this notice on a bboard and would like to be on the
distribution list send me a message.  - CLT@SU-AI]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 14:24:36-CDT
-FROM-
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Schedule for C.S. Dept. Centennial Symposium
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


                        COMPUTING AND THE INFORMATION AGE

                             October 20 & 21, 1983

                        Joe C. Thompson Conference Center

Thursday, Oct. 20
>----------------

8:30    Welcoming address - A. G. Dale (UT Austin)
                            G. J. Fonken, VP for Acad. Affairs and Research

9:00    Justin Rattner (Intel)
        "Directions in VLSI Architecture and Technology"

10:00   J. C. Browne (UT Austin)

10:15   Coffee Break

10:45   Mischa Schwartz (Columbia)
        "Computer Communications Networks: Past, Present and Future"

11:45   Simon S. Lam (UT Austin)

12:00   Lunch

2:00    Herb Schwetman (Purdue)
        "Computer Performance: Evaluation, Improvement, and Prediction"

3:00    K. Mani Chandy (UT Austin)

3:15    Coffee Break

3:45    William Wulf (Tartan Labs)
        "The Evolution of Programming Languages"

4:45    Don Good (UT Austin)

Friday, October 21
>-----------------

8:30    Raj Reddy (CMU)
        "Supercomputers for AI"

9:30    Woody Bledsoe (UT Austin)

9:45    Coffee Break

10:15   John McCarthy (Stanford)
        "Some Expert Systems Require Common Sense"

11:15   Robert S. Boyer and J Strother Moore (UT Austin)

11:30   Lunch

1:30    Jeff Ullman (Stanford)
        "A Brief History of Achievements in Theoretical Computer Science"

2:30    James Bitner (UT Austin)

2:45    Coffee Break

3:15    Cleve Moler (U. of New Mexico)
        "Mathematical Software -- The First of the Computer Sciences"

4:15    Alan Cline (UT Austin)

4:30    Summary - K. Mani Chandy, Chairman, Dept. of Computer Sciences

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 2 October 1983 17:49:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mario.Barbacci@CMU-CS-SPICE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call For Participation -- IFIP Workshop
-BODY-
                            CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
                IFIP Workshop on Hardware Supported Implementation of
                    Concurrent Languages in Distributed Systems
                        March 26-28, 1984, Bristol, U.K.

TOPICS:
> the impact of distributed computing languages and compilers on the
                architecture of distributed systems.
> operating systems; centralized/decentralized control, process
                communications and synchronization, security
> hardware design and interconnections
> hardware/software interrelation and trade offs
> modelling, measurements, and performance

Participation is by INVITATION ONLY, if you are interested in attending this
workshop write to the workshop chairman and include an abstract (1000 words
approx.) of your proposed contribution.

Deadline for Abstracts: November 15, 1983
Workshop Chairman:      Professor G.L. Reijns
                        Chairman, IFIP Working Group 10.3
                        Delft University of Technology
                        P.O. Box 5031
                        2600 GA Delft
                        The Netherlands

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
69
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 83 18:29:39 EDT
-FROM-
From: "John B. Black" <Black@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Rational Psychology"
-BODY-

     Recently on this list, Pereira held up as a model for us all, Doyle's
"Rational Psychology" article in AI Magazine.  Actually, I think what Pereira
is really requesting is a reduction of overblown claims and assertions with no
justification (e.g., "solutions" to the natural language problem).  However,
since he raised the "rational psychology" issue I though I would comment on it.

     I too read Doyle's article with interest (although it seemed essentially
the same as Don Norman's numerous calls for a theoretical psychology in the
early 1970s), but (like the editor of this list) I was wondering what the
referents were of the vague descriptions of "rational psychology."  However,
Doyle does give some examples of what he means: mathematical logic and
decision theory, mathematical linguistics, and mathematical theories of
perception.  Unfortunately, this list is rather disappointing because --
with the exception of the mathematical theories of perception -- they have
all proved to be misleading when actually applied to people's behavior.

     Having a theoretical (or "rational" -- terrible name with all the wrong
connotations) psychology is certainly desirable, but it does have to make some
contact with the field it is a theory of.  One of the problems here is that
the "calculus" of psychology has yet to be invented, so we don't have the tools
we need for the "Newtonian mechanics" of psychology.  The latest mathematical
candidate was catastrophe theory, but it turned out to be a catastrophe when
applied to human behavior.  Perhaps Periera and Doyle have a "calculus"
to offer.

     Lacking such a appropriate mathematics, however, does not stop a
theoretical psycholology from existing.  In fact, I offer three recent examples
of what a theoretical psychology ought to be doing at this time:

 Tversky, A.  Features of similarity.  PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1977, 327-352.

 Schank, R.C.  DYNAMIC MEMORY.  Cambridge University Press, 1982.

 Anderson, J.R.  THE ARCHITECTURE OF COGNITION.  Harvard University Press,
1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Sep 83 19:03:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Self-description, multiple levels, etc.
-BODY-
For a brilliant if tentative attack of the questions noted by
Prem Devanbu, see Brian Smith's thesis "Reflection and Semantics
in a Procedural Language,", MIT/LCS/TR-272.

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 83 22:25:33-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reflexive reasoning ? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3004


I believe the pursuit of "consciousness" to be complicated by the difficulty
of defining what we mean by it (to state the obvious). I prefer to think in
less "spiritual" terms, say starting with the ability of the human memory to
retain impressions for varying periods of time. For example, students cramming
for an exam can remember long lists of things for a couple of hours -- just
long enough -- and forget them by the end of the same day. Some thoughts are
almost instantaneously lost, others last a lifetime.

Here's my suggestion: let's start thinking in terms of self-observation, i.e.
the construction of models to explain the traces that are left behind by things
we have already thought (and felt?). These models will be models of what goes
on in the thought processes, can be incorrect and incomplete (like any other
model), and even reflexive (the thoughts dedicated to this analysis leave
their own traces, and are therefore subject to modelling, creating notions
of self-awareness).

To give a concrete (if standard) example: it's quite reasonable for someone
to say to us, "I didn't know that." Or again, "Oh, I just said it, what was
his name again ... How can I be so forgetful!"

This leads us into an interesting "problem": the fading of human memory with
time. I would not be surprized if this was actually desirable, and had to be
emulated by computer. After all, if you're going to retain all those traces
of where a thought process has gone; traces of the analysis of those traces,
etc; then memory would fill up very quickly.

I have been thinking in this direction for some time now, and am working on
a programming language which operates on several of the principles stated
above. At present the language is capable of responding dynamically to any
changes in problem state produced by other parts of the program, and rules
can even respond to changes induced by themselves. Well, that's the start;
the process of model construction seems to me to be by far the harder part
of the task.

It becomes especially interesting when you think about modelling what look
like "levels" of self-awareness, but could actually be manifestations of just
one mechanism: traces of some work, which are analyzed, thus leaving traces
of self-analysis; which are analyzed ... How are we to decide that the traces
being analyzed are somehow different from the traces of the analysis? Even
"self-awareness" (as opposed to full-blown "consciousness") will be difficult
to understand. However, at this point I am convinced that we are not dealing
with a potential for infinite regress, but with a fairly simple mechanism
whose results are hard to interpret. If I am right, we may have some thinking
to do about subject-object distinctions.

In case you're interested in my programming language, look for some papers due
to appear shortly:

        Logic-Programming Production Systems with METALOG.  Software Practice
           and Experience, to appear shortly.

        METALOG: a Language for Knowledge Representation and Manipulation.
           Conf on AI (April '83).

Of course, I don't say that I'm thinking about "self-awareness" as a long-term
goal (my co-author isn't) ! If/when such a goal becomes acceptable to the AI
community it will probably be called something else. Doesn't "reflexive
reasoning" sound more scientific?.

                                Marcel Schoppers,
                                Dept of Comp Sci,
                                U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
                                uiucdcs!marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 83 19:24:19-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!ho
     u5f!hou5e!hou5d!mat@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou5d.674

I may be naive, but it seems to me that any attempt to produce a system that
will exhibit conciousness-;like behaviour will require emotions and the
underlying base that they need and supply.  Reasoning did not evolve
independently of emotions; human reason does not, in my opinion, exist
independently of them.

Any comments?  I don't recall seeing this topic discussed.  Has it been?  If
not, is it about time to kick it around?
                                                Mark Terribile
                                                hou5d!mat

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Sep 83 12:44:39-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drux3!drufl!samir @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: drufl.674

I agree with mark. An interesting book to read regarding conciousness is
"The origin of conciousness in the breakdown of bicamaral mind" by
Julian Jaynes. Although I may not agree fully with his thesis, it did
get me thinking and questioning about the usual ideas regarding
conciousness.

An analogy regarding conciousness, "emotions are like the roots of a
plant, while conciousness is the fruit".

                                Samir Shah
                                AT&T Information Systems, Denver.
                                drufl!samir

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 83 13:42:32 EDT
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recursion of reperesentations.
-BODY-

Some of the more recent messages have questioned the possibility of
producing programs which can "understand" and "create" human discourse,
because this kind of "understanding" seems to be based upon an infinite
kind of recursion. Stated very simply, the question is "how can the human
mind understand itself, given that it is finite in capacity?", which
implies that humans cannot create a machine equivalent of a human mind,
since (one assumes) that underatnding is required before construction
becomes possible.

There are two rather simple objections to this notion:
        1) Humans create minds every day, without understanding
           anything about it. Just some automatic biochemical
           machinery, some time, and exposure to other minds
           does the trick for human infants.

        2) John von Neumann, and more recently E.F. Codd
           demostrated in a very general way the existence
           of universal constructors in cellular automata.
           These are configurations in cellular space which
           able to construct any configuration, including
           copies of themselves, in finite time (for finite
           configurations)

No infinite recursion is involved in either case, nor is "full"
understanding required.

I suspect that at some point in the game we will have learned enough about
what works (in a primarily empirical sense) to produce machine intelligence.
In the process we will no doubt learn a lot about mind in general, and our
own minds in particular, but we will still not have a complete understanding
of either.

Peolpe will continue to produce AI programs; they will gradually get better
at various tasks; others will combine various approaches and/or programs to
create systems that play chess and can talk about the geography of South
America; occasionally someone will come up with an insight and a better way
to solve a sub-problem ("subjunctive reference shift in frame-demon
instantiation shown to be optimal for linearization of semantic analysis
of noun phrases" IJCAI 1993); lay persons will come to take machine
intelligence
for granted; AI people will keep searching for a better definition of
intelligence; nobody will really believe that machines have that indefinable
something (call it soul, or whatever) that is essential for a "real" mind.

                        Pete Biesel@Rutgers.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 83 14:14:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: SOO@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Top-Down? Bottom-Up?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Rutgers bboard.]


 I happen to read a paper by Michael A. Arbib about brain theory.
 The first section of which is "Brain Theory: 'Bottom-up' and
 'Top-Down'" which I think will shed some light on our issue of
 top-down and bottom-up approach in machine learning seminar.
 I would like to quote several remarks from the brain theorist
 view point to share with those interesed:

"    I want to suggest that brain theory should confront the 'bottom-up'
analyses of neural modellling no only with biological control theory but
also with the 'top-down' analyses of artificial intelligence and congnitive
psychology. In bottom-up analyses, we take components of known function, and
explore ways of putting them together to synthesize more and more complex
systems. In top-down analyses, we start from some complex functional behavior
that interests us, and try to determine what are natural subsystems into which
we can decompose a system that performs in the specified way.  I would argue
that progress in brain theory will depend on the cyclic interaction of these
two methodologies. ..."


"  The top-down approach complement bottom-up studies, for one cannot simply
wait until one knows all the neurons are and how they are connected to then
simulate the complete system. ..."

I believe that the similar philosophy applies to the machine learning study
too.

For those interested, the paper can be found in COINS techical report 81-31
by M. A. Arbib "A View of Brain Theory"


Von-Wun,

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 83 14:45:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: Rik Verstraete <rik@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism and Physiology
-BODY-
I would like to comment on your message that was printed in AIList Digest
V1#63, and I hope you don't mind if I send a copy to the discussion list
"self-organization" as well.

        Date: 23 Sep 1983 0043-PDT
        From: FC01@USC-ECL
        Subject: Parallelism

        I thought I might point out that virtually no machine built in the
        last 20 years is actually lacking in parallelism. In reality, just as
        the brain has many neurons firing at any given time, computers have
        many transistors switching at any given time. Just as the cerebellum
        is able to maintain balance without the higher brain functions in the
        cerebrum explicitly controlling the IO, most current computers have IO
        controllers capable of handling IO while the CPU does other things.

The issue here is granularity, as discussed in general terms by E. Harth
("On the Spontaneous Emergence of Neuronal Schemata," pp. 286-294 in
"Competition and Cooperation in Neural Nets," S. Amari and M.A. Arbib
(eds), Springer-Verlag, 1982, Lecture Notes in Biomathematics # 45).  I
certainly recommend his paper.  I quote:

One distinguishing characteristic of the nervous system is
thus the virtually continuous range of scales of tightly
intermeshed mechanisms reaching from the macroscopic to the
molecular level and beyond.  There are no meaningless gaps
of just matter.

I think Harth has a point, and applying his ideas to the issue of parallel
versus sequential clarifies some aspects.

The human brain seems to be parallel at ALL levels.  Not only is a large
number of neurons firing at the same time, but also groups of neurons,
groups of groups of neurons, etc. are active in parallel at any time.  The
whole neural network is a totally parallel structure, at all levels.

You pointed out (correctly) that in modern electronic computers a large
number of gates are "working" in parallel on a tiny piece of the problem,
and that also I/O and CPU run in parallel (some systems even have more than
one CPU).  However, the CPU itself is a finite state machine, meaning it
operates as a time-sequence of small steps.  This level is inherently
sequential.  It therefore looks like there's a discontinuity between the
gate level and the CPU/IO level.

I would even extend this idea to machine learning, although I'm largely
speculating now.  I have the impression that brains not only WORK in
parallel at all levels of granularity, but also LEARN in that way.  Some
computers have implemented a form of learning, but it is almost exclusively
at a very high level (most current AI on learning work is at this level),
or only at a very low level (cf. Perceptron).  A spectrum of adaptation is
needed.

Maybe the distinction between the words learning and self-organization is
only a matter of granularity too. (??)

        Just as people have faster short term memory than long term memory but
        less of it, computers have faster short term memory than long term
        memory and use less of it. These are all results of cost/benefit
        tradeoffs for each implementation, just as I presume our brains and
        bodies are.

I'm sure most people will agree that brains do not have separate memory
neurons and processing neurons or modules (or even groups of neurons).
Memory and processing is completely integrated in a human brain.
Certainly, there are not physically two types of memories, LTM and STM.
The concept of LTM/STM is only a paradigm (no doubt a very useful one), but
when it comes to implementing the concept, there is a large discrepancy
between brains and machines.

        Don't be so fast to think that real computer designers are
        ignorant of physiology.

Indeed, a lot of people I know in Computer Science do have some idea of
physiology.  (I am a CS major with some background in neurophysiology.)
Furthermore, much of the early CS emerged from neurophysiology, and was an
explicit attempt to build artificial brains (at a hardware/gate level).
However, although "real computer designers" may not be ignorant of
physiology, it doesn't mean that they actually manage to implement all the
concepts they know.  We still have a long way to go before we have
artificial brains...

        The trend towards parallelism now is more like
        the human social system of having a company work on a problem. Many
        brains, each talking to each other when they have questions or
        results, each working on different aspects of a problem. Some people
        have breakdowns, but the organization keeps going. Eventually it comes
        up with a product, although it may not really solve the problem posed
        at the beginning, it may have solved a related problem or found a
        better problem to solve.

Again, working in parallel at this level doesn't mean everything is
parallel.

                Another copyrighted excerpt from my not yet finished book on
        computer engineering modified for the network bboards, I am ever
        yours,
                                                Fred


All comments welcome.

        Rik Verstraete <rik@UCLA-CS>

PS: It may sound like I am convinced that parallelism is the only way to
go.  Parallelism is indeed very important, but still, I believe sequential
processing plays an important role too, even in brains.  But that's a
different issue...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
70
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Oct 83 11:55:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: recent flame
-BODY-
    I would like to clarify my recent comments on the disclaimer published
with the conference announcement for the "Intelligent Systems and Machines"
conference to be given at Oakland University. I did not mean to suggest
that the organizers of this particular conference are the targets of my
criticism; indeed, I congratulate them for informing potential attendees
of their obligations under the law. I sincerely apologize for not making
this obvious in my original note.

    I also realize that most conferences will have to deal with this issue
in the future, and meant my message not as a "call to action", but rather,
as a "call to discussion" of the proper role of goverment in AI and science
in general. I believe that we should follow these rules, but should
also participate in informed discussion of their long-range effect and
direction.

Apologies and regards,

David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 30-Sep-83  14:17:58-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Does Edinburgh AI exist?
-BODY-

        A while back someone in your digest asked whether the AI
dept at Edinburgh still exists. The short answer is yes it flourishes.
The long answer is contained in the departmental description that follows.
                Alan Bundy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 30-Sep-83  14:20:00-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Edinburgh AI Dept - A Description
-BODY-

THE DEPARTMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AT EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY

Artificial Intelligence was recognised as a separate discipline by Edinburgh
University in 1966.  The Department in its present form was created in 1974.
During its existence it has steadily built up a programme of undergraduate and
post-graduate teaching and engaged in a vigorous research programme.  As the
only Department of Artificial Intelligence in any university, and as an
organisation which has made a major contribution to the development of the
subject, it is poised to play a unique role in the advance of Information
Technology which is seen to be a national necessity.

The Department collaborates closely with other departments within the
University in two distinct groupings.  Departments concerned with Cognitive
Science, namely A.I., Linguistics, Philosophy and Psychology all participate
in the School of Epistemics, which dates from the early 70's.  A new
development is an active involvement with Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering.  The 3 departments form the basis of the School of Information
Technology.  A joint MSc in Information Technology began in 1983.

A.I. are involved in collaborative activities with other institutions
which are significant in that they involve the transfer of people,
ideas and software.  In particular this involves MIT (robotics),
Stanford (natural language), Carnegie-Mellon (the PERQ machine) and
Grenoble (robotics).

Relationships with industry are progressing.  As well as a number of
development contracts, A.I. have recently had a teaching post funded by the
software house Systems Designers Ltd.  There, however, is a natural limit to
the extent to which a University Department can provide a service to industry:
consequently a proposal to create an Artificial Intelligence Applications
Institute has been put forward and is at an advanced stage of planning.  This
will operate as a revenue earning laboratory, performing a technology transfer
function on the model of organisations like the Stanford Research Institute or
Bolt Beranek and Newman.

Research in A.I.

A.I. is a new subject so that there is a very close relationship between
teaching at all levels, and research.  Artificial Intelligence is about making
machines behave in ways which exhibit some of the characteristics of
intelligence, and about how to integrate such capabilities into larger
coherent systems.  The vehicle for such studies has been the digital computer,
chosen for its flexibility.

A.I. Languages and Systems.

The development of high level programming languages has been crucial to all
aspects of computing because of the consequent easing of the task of
communicating with these machines.  Artificial Intelligence has given birth to
a distinctive series of languages which satisfy different design constraints
to those developed by Computer Scientists whose primary concern has been to
develop languages in which to write reliable and efficient programming systems
to perform standard computing tasks.  Languages developed in the Artificial
Intelligence field have been intended to allow people readily to try out ideas
about how a particular cognitive process can be mechanised.  Consequently they
have provided symbolic computation as well as numeric, and have allowed
program code and data to be equally manipulable.  They are also highly
interactive, and often integrated with a sophisticated text editor, so that
the iteration time for trying out a new idea can be rapid.

Edinburgh has made a substantial contribution to A.I. programming languages
(with significant cross fertilisation to the Computer Science world) and will
continue to do so.  POP-2 was designed and developed in the A.I. Department
by Popplestone and Burstall.  The development of Prolog has been more complex.
Kowalski first formulated the crucial idea of predicate logic as a programming
language during his period in the A.I. Department.  Prolog itself was designed
and first implemented in Marseille, as a result of Kowalski's interaction with
a research group there.  This was followed by a re-implementation at
Edinburgh, which demonstrated its potential as a practical tool.

To date the A.I. Department have supplied implementations of A.I. languages
to over 200 laboratories around the world, and are involved in an active
programme of Prolog systems development.

The current development in languages is being undertaken by a group supported
by the SERC, led by Robert Rae, and supervised by Dr Howe.  The concern of the
group is to provide language support for A.I. research nationwide, and to
develop A.I. software for a single user machine, the ICL PERQ.  The major goal
of this project is to provide the superior symbolic programming capability of
Prolog, in a user environment of the quality to be found in modern personal
computers with improved interactive capabilities.

Mathematical Reasoning.

If Artificial Intelligence is about mechanising reasoning, it has a close
relationship with logic which is about formalising mathematical reasoning, and
with the work of those philosophers who are concerned with formalising
every-day reasoning.  The development of Mathematical Logic during the 20th
century has provided a part of the theoretical basis for A.I.  Logic provides a
rigorous specification of what may in principle be deduced - it says little
about what may usefully be deduced.  And while it may superficially appear
straightforward to render ordinary language into logic, on closer examination
it can be seen to be anything but easy.

Nevertheless, logic has played a central role in the development of A.I. in
Edinburgh and elsewhere.  An early attempt to provide some control over the
direction of deduction was the resolution principle, which introduced a sort
of matching procedure called unification between parts of the axioms and parts
of a theorem to be proved.  While this principle was inadequate as a means of
guiding a machine in the proof of significant theorems, it survives in Prolog
whose equivalent of procedure call is a restricted form of resolution.

A.I. practioners still regard the automation of mathematical reasoning to
be a crucial area in A.I., but have moved from earlier attempts to find uniform
procedures for an efficient search of the space of possible deductions to the
creation of systems which embody expert knowledge about specific domains.  For
example if such a system is trying to solve a (non linear) equation, it may
adopt a strategy of using the axioms of algebra to bring two instances of the
unknown closer together with the "intention" of getting them to coalesce.
Work in mathematical reasoning is under the direction of Dr Bundy.

Robotics.

The Department has always had a lively interest in robotics, in particular in
the use of robots for assembly.  This includes the use of vision and force
sensing, and the design of languages for programming assembly robots.  Because
of the potential usefulness of fast moving robots, the Department has
undertaken a study of their dynamics behaviour, design and control.  The work
of the robot group is directed by Mr Popplestone.

A robot command language RAPT is under development:  this is intended to make
it easy for non-computer experts to program an assembly robot.  The idea is
that the assembly task should be programmed in terms of the job that is to be
done and how the objects are to be fitted together, rather than in terms of
how the manipulator should be moved.  This SERC funded work is steered by a
Robot Language Working Party which consists of industrialists and academics;
the recently formed Tripartite Study Group on Robot Languages extends the
interest to France and Germany.

An intelligent robot needs to have an internal representation of its world
which is sufficiently accurate to allow it to predict the results of planned
actions.  This means that, among other things, it needs a good representation
of the shapes of bodies.  While conventional shape modelling techniques permit
a hypothetical world to be represented in a computer they are not ideal for
robot applications, and the aim at Edinburgh is to combine techniques of shape
modelling with techniques used in A.I. so that the advantages of both may be
used.  This will include the ability to deal effectively with uncertainty.

Recently, in collaboration with GEC, the robotics group have begun to consider
how the techniques of spatial inference which have been developed can be
extended into the area of mechanical design, based on the observation that the
essence of any design is the relationship between part features, rather than
the specific quantitative details.  A proposal is being persued for a
demonstrator project to produce a small scale, but highly integrated "Design
and Make" system on these lines.

Work on robot dynamics, also funded by the SERC, has resulted in the
development of highly efficient algorithms for simulating standard serial
robots, and in a novel representation of spatial quantities, which greatly
simplifies the mathematics.

Vision and Remote Sensing.

The interpretation of data derived from sensors depends on expectations about
the structure of the world which may be of a general nature, for example that
continuous surfaces occupy much of the scene, or specific.  In manufacture the
prior expectations will be highly specific: one will know what objects are
likely to be present and how they are likely to be related to each other.  One
vision project in the A.I. Department is taking advantage of this in
integrating vision with the RAPT development in robotics - the prior
expectations are expressed by defining body geometry in RAPT, and by defining
the expected inter-body relationships in the same medium.

A robot operating in a natural environment will have much less specific
expectations, and the A.I. Department collaborate with the Heriot Watt
University to study the sonar based control of a submersible.  This involves
building a world representation by integrating stable echo patterns, which are
interpreted as objects.

Natural Language.

A group working in the Department of A.I. and related departments in the School
of Epistemics is studying the development of computational models of language
production, the process whereby communicative intent is transformed into
speech.  The most difficult problems to be faced when pursuing this goal cover
the fundamental issues of computation:  structure and process.  In the domain
of linguistic modelling, these are the questions of representation of
linguistic and real world knowledge, and the understanding of the planning
process which underlies speaking.

Many sorts of knowledge are employed in speaking - linguistic knowledge of how
words sound, of how to order the parts of a sentence to communicate who did
what to whom, of the meaning of words and phrases, and common sense knowledge
of the world.  Representing all of these is prerequisite to using them in a
model of language production.

On the other hand, planning provides the basis for approaching the issue of
organizing and controlling the production process, for the mind seems to
produce utterances as the synthetic, simultaneous resolution of numerous
partially conflicting goals - communicative goals, social goals, purely
linguistic goals - all variously determined and related.

The potential for dramatic change in the study of human language which is made
possible by this injection of dynamic concerns into what has heretofore been
an essentially static enterprise is vast, and the A.I. Department sees its
work as attempting to realise some of that potential.  The study of natural
language processing in the department is under the direction of Dr Thompson.

Planning Systems.

General purpose planning systems for automatically producing plans of action
for execution by robots have been a long standing theme of A.I. research.  The
A.I. Department at Edinburgh had a very active programme of planning research
in the mid 1970s and was one of the leading international centres in this
area.  The Edinburgh planners were applied to the generation of project plans
for large industrial activities (such as electricity turbine overhaul
procedures).  These planners have continued to provide an important source of
ideas for later research and development in the field.  A prototype planner in
use at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory which can schedule the activities of a
Voyager-type planetary probe is based on Edinburgh work.

New work on planning has recently begun in the Department and is mainly
concerned with the interrelationships between planning, plan execution and
monitoring.  The commercial exploitation of the techniques is also being
discussed.  The Department's planning work is under the direction of Dr Tate.

Knowledge Based and Expert Systems.

Much of the A.I. Department's work uses techniques often referred to as
Intelligent Knowledge Based Systems (IKBS) - this includes robotics, natural
language, planning and other activities.  However, researchers in the
Department of A.I. are also directly concerned with the creation of Expert
Systems in Ecological Modelling, User Aids for Operating Systems, Sonar Data
Interpretation, etc.

Computers in Education.

The Department has pioneered in this country an approach to the use of
computers in schools in which children can engage in an active and creative
interaction with the computer without needing to acquire abstract concepts and
manipulative skills for which they are not yet ready.  The vehicle for this
work has been the LOGO language, which has a simple syntax making few demands
on the typing skills of children.  While LOGO is in fact equivalent to a
substantial subset of LISP, a child can get moving with a very small subset of
the language, and one which makes the actions of the computer immediately
concrete in the form of the movements of a "turtle" which can either be
steered around a VDU or in the form of a small mobile robot.

This approach has a significant value in Special Education.  For example in
one study an autistic boy found he was able to communicate with a "turtle",
which apparently acted as a metaphor for communicating with people, resulting
in his being able to use language spontaneously for the first time.  In
another study involving mildly mentally and physically handicapped youngsters
a touch screen device invoked procedures for manipulating pictorial materials
designed to teach word attack skills to non-readers.  More recent projects
include a diagnostic spelling program for dyslexic children, and a suite of
programs which deaf children can use to manipulate text to improve their
ability to use language expressively.  Much of the Department's Computers in
Education work is under the direction Dr Howe.
Teaching in the Department of A.I.

The Department is involved in an active teaching programme at undergraduate
and postgraduate level.  At undergraduate level, there are A.I.  first, second
and third year courses.  There is a joint honours degree with the Department
of Linguistics.  A large number of students are registered with the Department
for postgraduate degrees.  An MSc/PhD in Cognitive Science is provided in
collaboration with the departments of Linguistics, Philosophy and Psychology
under the aegis of the School of Epistemics.  The Department contributes two
modules on this:  Symbolic Computation and Computational Linguistics.  This
course has been accepted as a SERC supported conversion course.  In October
1983 a new MSc programme in IT started.  This is a joint activity with the
Departments of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.  It has a large
IKBS content which is supported by SERC.

Computing Facilities in the Department of A.I.

Computing requirements of researchers are being met largely through the
SERC DEC-10 situated at the Edinburgh Regional Computing Centre or residually
through use of UGC facilities.  Undergraduate computing for A.I. courses is
supported by the EMAS facilities at ERCC.  Postgraduate computing on courses
is mainly provided through a VAX 11/750 Berkeley 4.1BSD UNIX system within the
Department.  Several groups in the Department use the ICL PERQ single user
machine.  A growth in the use of this and other single user machines is
envisaged over the next few years.  The provision of shared resources to these
systems in a way which allows for this growth in an orderly fashion is a
problem the Department wishes to solve.

It is anticipated that several further multi-user computers will soon be
installed - one at each site of the Department - to act as the hub of future
computing provision for the research pursued in Artificial Intelligence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
71
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 0053 EDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Jeff.Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The lightbulb issue in AI.
-BODY-
How many AI people does it take to change a lightbulb?

At least 55:

   The problem space group (5):
        One to define the goal state.
        One to define the operators.
        One to describe the universal problem solver.
        One to hack the production system.
        One to indicate about how it is a model of human lightbulb
         changing behavior.

   The logical formalism group (16):
        One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in
         first order logic.
        One to figure out how to describe lightbulb changing in
         second order logic.
        One to show the adequecy of FOL.
        One to show the inadequecy of FOL.
        One to show show that lightbulb logic is non-monotonic.
        One to show that it isn't non-monotonic.
        One to show how non-monotonic logic is incorporated in FOL.
        One to determine the bindings for the variables.
        One to show the completeness of the solution.
        One to show the consistency of the solution.
        One to show that the two just above are incoherent.
        One to hack a theorm prover for lightbulb resolution.
        One to suggest a parallel theory of lightbulb logic theorm
         proving.
        One to show that the parallel theory isn't complete.
        ...ad infinitum (or absurdum as you will)...
        One to indicate how it is a description of human lightbulb
         changing behavior.
        One to call the electrician.

   The robotics group (10):
        One to build a vision system to recognize the dead bulb.
        One to build a vision system to locate a new bulb.
        One to figure out how to grasp the lightbulb without breaking it.
        One to figure out how to make a universal joint that will permit
         the hand to rotate 360+ degrees.
        One to figure out how to make the universal joint go the other way.
        One to figure out the arm solutions that will get the arm to the
         socket.
        One to organize the construction teams.
        One to hack the planning system.
        One to get Westinghouse to sponsor the research.
        One to indicate about how the robot mimics human motor behavior
         in lightbulb changing.

   The knowledge engineering group (6):
        One to study electricians' changing lightbulbs.
        One to arrange for the purchase of the lisp machines.
        One to assure the customer that this is a hard problem and
         that great accomplishments in theory will come from his support
         of this effort. (The same one can arrange for the fleecing.)
        One to study related research.
        One to indicate about how it is a description of human lightbulb
         changing behavior.
        One to call the lisp hackers.

   The Lisp hackers (13):
        One to bring up the chaos net.
        One to adjust the microcode to properly reflect the group's
         political beliefs.
        One to fix the compiler.
        One to make incompatible changes to the primitives.
        One to provide the Coke.
        One to rehack the Lisp editor/debugger.
        One to rehack the window package.
        Another to fix the compiler.
        One to convert code to the non-upward compatible Lisp dialect.
        Another to rehack the window package properly.
        One to flame on BUG-LISPM.
        Another to fix the microcode.
        One to write the fifteen lines of code required to change the
         lightbulb.

   The Psychological group (5):
        One to build an apparatus which will time lightbulb
         changing performance.
        One to gather and run subjects.
        One to mathematically model the behavior.
        One to call the expert systems group.
        One to adjust the resulting system so that it drops the
         right number of bulbs.

[My apologies to groups I may have neglected.  Pages to code before
 I sleep.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 1-Oct-83  15:13:42-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Edinburgh AI Memos
-BODY-

        If you want to receive a regular abstracts list and order form
for Edinburgh AI technical reports then write (steam mail I'm afraid)
to Margaret Pithie, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Forrest
Hill, Edinburgh, Scotland.  Give your name and address and ask to be put
on the mailing list for abstracts.

                        Alan Bundy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 83 22:49:18-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3046


The book mentioned, Metaphors We Live By, was written by George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson.  It contains some excellent ideas and is written in a
style that makes for fast, enjoyable reading.

>-Rick Dinitz
uicsl!dinitz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Sep 83 10:32:35-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Rational Psychology [and Reply]
-BODY-

I must say its been exciting listening to the analysis of what "Rational
Psychology" might mean or should not mean.  Should I go read the actual
article that started it all?  Perish the thought.  Is psychology rational?
Someone said that all sciences are rational, a moot point, but not that
relevant unless one wishes to consider Psychology a science.  I do not.
This does not mean that psychologists are in any way inferior to chemists
or to REAL scientists like those who study physics.  But I do think there
is a difference IN KIND between these fields and psychology.  Very few of
us have any close intimate relationships with carbon compounds or inter-
stellar gas clouds. (At least not since the waning of the LSD era.) But
with psychology, anyone NOT in this catagory has no business in the field.
(I presume we are talking Human psychology.)

The way this difference might exert itself is quite hard to predict, tho
in my brief foray into psychology it was not so hard to spot.  The great
danger is a highly amplified form of anthropomorphism which leads one to
form technical opinions quite possibly unrelated to technical or theoretical
analysis.  In physics, there is a superficially similar process in which
the scientist develops a theory which seems to be a "pet theory" and then
sets about trying to show it true or false.  The difference is that the
physicist developed his pet theory from technical origins rather than from
personal experience.  There is no other origin for his ideas unless you
speculate that people have a inborn understanding of psi-mesons or spin
orbitals.  Such theories MUST have developed from these ideas.  In
psychology, the theory may well have been developed from a big scary dog
when the psychologist was two.  THAT is a difference in kind, and I think
that is why I will always be suspicious of psychologists.
>---GaryFostel----

[I think that is precisely the point of the call for rational psychology.
It is an attempt to provide a solid theoretical underpinning based on
the nature of mind, intelligence, emotions, etc., without regard to
carbon-based implementations or the necessity of explaining human psychoses.
As such, rational psychology is clearly an appropriate subject for
AIList and net.ai.  Traditional psychology, and subjective attacks or
defenses of it, are less appropriate for this forum.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 83 1:42:26-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxv.565

I think that the answer to the halting problem in intelligent
entities is that there must exist a mechanism for telling it
whether its efforts are getting it anywhere, i.e. something that
senses its internal state and says if things are getting better,
worse, or whatever.  Normally for humans, if a "loop" were to
begin, it should soon be broken by concerns like "I'm hungry
now, let's eat".  No amount of cogitation makes that feeling
go away.

I would rather call this mechanism need than emotion, since I
think that some emotions are learned.

So then, needs supply two uses to intelligence: (1) they supply
a direction for the learning which is a necessary part of
intelligence, and (2) they keep the intelligence from getting
bogged down in fruitless cogitation.

             Tom Portegys
             Bell Labs, IH
             ihuxv!portegys

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 83 20:22:47 EDT  (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Speaker-To-Animals <speaker%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Artificial Organisms
-BODY-
Why would we want to create machines equivelent to people when
organisms already have a means to reproduce themselves?

Because then we might be able to make them SMARTER than humans
of course!  We might also learn something about ourselves along
the way too.

                                                        - Speaker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 83 1:16:31-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: November F&SF
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.774

Some of you may be interested in reading Isaac Asimov's article in the
latest (November, I think) Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.  The
article is entitled "More Thinking about Thinking", and is the Good
Doctor's views on artificial intelligence.  He makes a very good case
for the idea that non-human thinking (i.e. in computers and
dolphins) is likely to be very different, and perhaps superior to, human
thinking.  He uses an effective analogy to locomotion: artificial
locomotion, namely the wheel, is completely unlike anything found in
nature.
>-
                        Barry Margolin
                        ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
                        UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 83 23:17:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Alas, I must flame...
-BODY-
I don't believe, as you assert, that the motive for clearing
papers produced under DOD sponsorship is 'econnomic' but, alas,
military.  You then may justly argue the merits of non-export
of things militarily important vs the benefuits which acaccrue
to all of us by a free and open exchange.

I'm not taking sides--yet., but am trying to see the issue
clearly defined.

Brint

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 83 8:16:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Earl Weaver (VLD/VMB) <earl@brl-vat>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Flame on DoD
-BODY-
No matter what David Rogers @ sumex-aim thinks, the DoD "review" of all papers
before publishing is not to keep information private, but to make sure no
classified stuff gets out where it shouldn't be and to identify any areas
of personal opinion or thinking that could be construed to be official DoD
policy or position.  I think it will have very little effect on actually
restricting information.

As with most research organizations, the DoD researchers are not immune to the
powers of the bean counters and must publish.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Oct 83 16:44:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. oral
-BODY-
                      [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]



                          Computer Science Department

                           Ph.D. Oral, Jim Davidson

                         October 18, 1983 at 2:30 p.m.

                            Rm. 303, Building 200

                Interpreting Natural Language Database Updates

Although the problems of querying databases in natural language are well
understood, the performance of database updates via natural language introduces
additional difficulties.  This talk discusses the problems encountered in
interpreting natural language updates, and describes an implemented system that
performs simple updates.

The difficulties associated with natural language updates result from the fact
that the user will naturally phrase requests with respect to his conception of
the domain, which may be a considerable simplification of the actual underlying
database structure.  Updates that are meaningful and unambiguous from the
user's standpoint may not translate into reasonable changes to the underlying
database.

The PIQUE system (Program for Interpretation of Queries and Updates in English)
operates by maintaining a simple model of the user, and interpreting update
requests with respect to that model.  For a given request, a limited set of
"candidate updates"--alternative ways of fulfilling the request--are
considered, and ranked according to a set of domain-independent heuristics that
reflect general properties of "reasonable" updates.  The leading candidate may
be performed, or the highest ranking alternatives presented to the user for
selection.  The resultant action may also include a warning to the user about
unanticipated side effects, or an explanation for the failure to fulfill a
request.

This talk describes the PIQUE system in detail, presents examples of its
operation, and discusses the effectiveness of the system with respect to
coverage, accuracy, efficiency, and portability.  The range of behaviors
required for natural language update systems in general is discussed, and
implications of updates on the design of data models are briefly considered.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
72
-DATE-
Date: Sun 9 Oct 83 18:03:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Archives
-BODY-
The archives have grown to the point that I can no longer
keep them available online.  I will keep the last three month's
issues available in <ailist>archive.txt on SRI-AI.  Preceding
issues will be backed up on tape, and will require about a
day's notice to recover.  The tape archive will consist of
quarterly composites (or smaller groupings, if digest activity
gets any higher than it has been).  The file names will be of
the form AIL1N1.TXT, AIL1N19.TXT, etc.  All archives will be in
the MMAILR mailer format.

The online archive may be obtained via FTP using anonymous login.
Since a quarterly archive can be very large (up to 300 disk pages)
it will usually be better to ask me for particuar issues than to
FTP the whole file.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 83 00:07:53 PDT
-FROM-
From: uw-beaver!utcsrgv!nixon@LBL-CSAM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Archive- Univ. of Toronto
-BODY-
[I previously put out a request for online archives that could
be obtained by anonymous FTP.  There were very few responses.
Perhaps this one will be of use.  -- KIL]


Dear Ken,
  Copies of the AIList Digest are kept in directory /u5/nixon/AIList
with file names V1.5, V1.40, etc.  Our uucp site name is "utcsrgv".
This is subject to change in the very near future as the AI group at the
University of Toronto will be moving to a new computer.
  Brian Nixon.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 83 9:23:38-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Music & AI, pointers wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ut-sally.86

How about posting the results of the music/ai poll to the net?  There
have been at least two similar queries in recent memory, indicating at
least a bit of general interest.

[...]

                                 -- Prentiss Riddle
                                    {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle
                                    riddle@ut-sally.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Oct 83 19:54:32-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: NL argument between STLH and Per - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3132

I've heard of "syntactic chart parsing," but what is "semantic chart
parsing?"  It sounds interesting, and I'd like to hear about it.

I'm also interested in seeing your paper.  Please make arrangements with me
via net mail.

Rick Dinitz
U. of Illinois
...!uicsl!dinitz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 83 18:39:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!ecn-ec.davy @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WANTED: Simple English Grammar - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecn-ec.1173


Hello,

        I am looking for a SIMPLE set of grammar rules for English.  To
be specific, I'm looking for something of the form:

                SENT = NP + VP ...
                  NP = DET + ADJ + N ...
                  VP = ADV + V + DOBJ ...

                      etc.

I would prefer a short set of rules, something on the order of one or two
hundred lines.  I realize that this isn't enough to cover the whole English
language, I don't want it to.  I just want something which could handle
"simple" sentences, such as "The cat chased the mouse", etc.  I would like
to have rules for questions included, so that something like "What does a
hen weigh?" can be covered.

        I've scoured our libraries here, and have only found one book with
a grammar for English in it, and it's much more complex than what I want.
Any pointers to books/magazines or grammars themselves would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks in advance (as the saying goes)
>-Dave Curry
decvax!pur-ee!davy
eevax.davy@purdue

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 17:21:29-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Address of "Artificial Intelligence"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbscd5.739

Here is the address of "Artificial Intelligence" if anyone is interested:

    Artificial Intelligence  (bi-monthly $136 -- Ouch !)
    North-Holland Publishing Co.,
    Box 211, 1000 AE
    Amsterdam, Netherlands.

    Editors D.G. Bobrow, P.J. Hayes

    Advertising, book reviews, circulation 1,100

    Also avail. in microform from

    Microforms International Marketing Co.
    Maxwell House
    Fairview Park
    Elmsford NY 10523

    Indexed: Curr. Cont.

Larry Cipriani
cbosgd!cbscd5!lvc

[There is a reduced rate for members of AAAI. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 9 Oct 83 17:45:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Computer Issue
-BODY-
Don't miss the October 1983 issue of IEEE Computer.  It is a
special issue on knowledge representation, and includes articles
on learning, logic, and other related topics.  There is also a
short list of 30 expert system on p. 141.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 83 04:18:04 EDT  (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Bruce Israel <israel%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: University of Maryland AI talk
-BODY-
        [Reprinted from the University of Maryland BBoard]

The University of Maryland Computer Science Dept. is starting an
informal AI seminar, meeting every other Thursday in Room 2330,
Computer Science Bldg, at 5pm.

The first meeting will be held Thursday, October 13.  All are welcome
to attend.  The abstract for the talk follows.

                              MAL: My AI Language

                                Craig Stanfill
                        Department of Computer Science
                            University of Maryland
                            College Park, MD 20742

     In the course of writing my thesis, I implemented an AI  language,  called
MAL,  for  manipulating  symbolic  expressions.   MAL runs in the University of
Maryland Franz Lisp Environment on a VAX 11/780 under Berkely  Unix  (tm)  4.1.
MAL  is  of  potential  benefit  in knowledge representation research, where it
allows the development and testing of knowledge representations without  build-
ing  an  inference engine from  scratch,  and in AI education, where it  should
allow students to experiment with a  simple AI programming language.  MAL  pro-
vides for:

1.   The  representation  of  objects  and  queries  as  symbolic  expressions.
     Objects  are  recursively  constructed from sets, lists, and bags of atoms
     (as in QLISP).  A powerful and efficient pattern matcher is provided.

2.   The rule-directed simplification of expressions.  Limited  facilities  for
     depth first search are provided.

3.   Access to a database.  Rules  can  assert  and  fetch  simplifications  of
     expressions.  The database also employs a truth maintenance system.

4.   The construction of large AI systems by the combination of simpler modules
     called domains.  For each domain, there is a database, a set of rules, and
     a set of links to other domains.

5.   A set of domains which are generally useful, especially for  spatial  rea-
     soning.   This  includes  domains  for  solid and linear geometry, and for
     algebra.

6.   Facilities which allow the user to customize MAL (to a degree).  Calls  to
     arbitrary LISP functions are supported, allowing the language to be easily
     extended.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Oct 83 20:18:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Doug Lenat <LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Colloquium Oct 11: ZADEH
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


Professor Lotfi Zadeh, of UCB,  will be giving the CS colloquium this
Tuesday (10/11).  As usual, it  will be in Terman Auditorium, at 4:15
(preceded at 3:45 by refreshments in the 3rd floor lounge of Margaret
Jacks Hall).

The title and abstract for the colloquium are as follows:

Reasoning With Commonsense Knowledge

Commonsense knowledge is exemplified  by "Glass is brittle," "Cold is
infectious,"  "The rich are  conservative," "If  a car is  old, it is
unlikely to  be in good shape," etc.  Such  knowledge forms the basis
for most of human reasoning in everyday situations.

Given  the pervasiveness  of commonsense reasoning,  a question which
begs for answer is: Why  is commonsense reasoning a neglected area in
classical  logic?    Because,  almost   by  definition,   commonsense
knowledge  is  that  knowledge   which  is  not  representable  as  a
collection  of  well-formed  formulae in  predicate  logic  or  other
logical  systems which  have the  same basic  conceptual structure as
predicate logic.

The approach to commonsense  reasoning which is described in the talk
is based on the use of fuzzy logic -- a logic which allows the use of
fuzzy predicates, fuzzy  quantifiers and fuzzy truth-values.  In this
logic,  commonsense  knowledge  is defined  to  be  a  collection  of
dispositions, that is propositions with suppressed fuzzy quantifiers.
To infer  from such knowledge, three  basic syllogisms are developed:
(1)   the   intersection/product  syllogism;   (2)   the   consequent
conjunction syllogism; and  (3) the antecedent conjunction syllogism.
The  use of  these  syllogisms  in commonsense  reasoning  and  their
application to  the  combination of  evidence  in expert  systems  is
discussed and illustrated by examples.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Oct 83 09:42:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "rich" = "conservative" ?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


        Subject: Colloquium Oct 11: ZADEH
        The title and abstract for the colloquium are as follows:
        Reasoning With Commonsense Knowledge

I don't think I've seen flames in response to abstracts before, but I get
so sick of hearing "rich," "conservative," and "evil" used as synonyms.

    Commonsense knowledge is exemplified by [...] "The rich are
    conservative," [...].

In fact, in the U.S., 81% of people with incomes over $50,000 are
registered Democrats.  Only 47% with incomes under $50,000 are.  (The
remaining 53% are made up of "independents," &c..)  The Democratic
Party gets the majority of its funding from contributions of over
$1000 apiece.  The Republican Party is mostly funded by contributions
of $10 and under.  (Note: I'd be the last to equate Conservatism and
the Republican Party.  I am a Tory and a Democrat.  However, more
"commonsense knowledge" suggests that I can use the word "Republican"
in place of "conservative" for the purpose of refuting the equation
of "rich" and "conservative."

    Such knowledge forms the basis for most of human reasoning in everyday
    situations.

This statement is so true that it is the reason I gave up political writing.

    Given  the pervasiveness  of commonsense reasoning,  a question which
    begs for answer is: Why  is commonsense reasoning a neglected area in
    classical  logic? [...]

Perhaps because false premeses tend to give rise to false conclusions?  Just
what we need--"ignorant systems."  (:-)
>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Oct 83 10:22:37-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "rich" = "conservative" ?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


Why is logic a neglected area in commonsense reasoning?  (to say nothing of
political writing)?

More seriously, or at least more historically, a survey was once taken of
ecological and other pressure groups in England, asking them which had been the
most and least effective methods they had used to convince governmental bodies.
Right at the bottom of the list of "least effective" was Reasoned Argument.

                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 83 10:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reasoned Argument
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

[...]

I think if "Breathing" had been on the least along with "Reasoned
Argument" then the latter would only have come in second last.
It is not that reasoned argument is ineffective but that it is on
a par with breathing, namely something we do subconsciously.  Consciously
performed reasoning is only marginally reliable in mathematical circles,
and quite unreliable in most other areas.  It makes most people dizzy,
much as consciously performed breathing does.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
73
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Oct 83 18:57:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Halting problem discussion
-BODY-
This discussion assumes that "human minds" are at least equivalent
to Universal Turing Machines. If they are restricted to computing
smaller classes of recursive functions, the question dissolves.

Sequential computers are idealized as having infinite memory because
that makes it easier to study mathematically asymptotic behavior.  Of
course, we all know that a more accurate idealization of sequential
computers is the finite automaton (for which there is no halting
problem, of course!).

The discussion on this issue seemed to presuppose that "minds" are the
same kind of object as existing (finite!) computing devices. Accepting
this presupposition for a moment (I am agnostic on the matter), the
above argument applies and the discussion is shown to be vacuous.

Thus fall undecidability arguments in psychology and linguistics...

Fernando Pereira

PS. Any silliness about unlimited amounts of external memory
will be profitably avoided.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 83 1317 EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-A (C410RF60)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI halting problem
-BODY-
        Actually, this isn't a problem, as far as I can see.  The Halting
Problem's problem is: there cannot be a program for a Turing-equivalent
machine that can tell whether *any* arbitrary program for that machine will
halt.  The easiest proof that a Halts(x) procedure can't exist is the
following program:  (due to Jon Bentley, I believe)
        if halts(x) then
                while true do print("rats")
What happens when you start this program up, with itself as x?  If
halts(x) returns true, it won't halt, and if halts(x) returns false, it
will halt.  This is a contradiction, so halts(x) can't exist.

        My question is, what does this have to do with AI?  Answer, not
much.  There are lots of programs which always halt.  You just can't
have a program which can tell you *for* *any* *program* whether it will
halt.  Furthermore, human beings don't want to halt, i.e., die (this
isn't really a problem, since the question is whether their mental
subroutines halt).

        So as long as the mind constructs only programs which will
definitely halt, it's safe.  Beings which aren't careful about this
fail to breed, and are weeded out by evolution.  (Serves them right.)
All of this seems to assume that people are Turing-equivalent (without
pencil and paper), which probably isn't true, and certainly hasn't been
proved.  At least I can't simulate a PDP-10 in my head, can you?  So
let's get back to real discussions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri,  7 Oct 83 13:05:16 CDT
-FROM-
From: Paul.Milazzo <milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looping in humans
-BODY-
Anyone who believes the human mind incapable of looping has probably
never watched anyone play Rogue :-).  The success of Rogomatic (the
automatic Rogue-playing program by Mauldin, et. al.) demonstrates that
the game can be played by deriving one's next move from a simple
*fixed* set of operations on the current game state.

Even in the light of this demonstration, Rogue addicts sit hour after
hour mechanically striking keys, all thoughts of work, food, and sleep
forgotten, until forcibly removed by a girl- or boy-friend or system
crash.  I claim that such behavior constitutes looping.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

                                Paul Milazzo <milazzo.rice@Rand-Relay>
                                Dept. of Mathematical Sciences
                                Rice University, Houston, TX

P.S.    A note to Rogue fans:  I have played a few games myself, and
        understand the appeal.  One of the Rogomatic developers is a
        former roommate of mine interested in part in overcoming the
        addiction of rogue players everywhere.  He, also, has played
        a few games...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Oct 83 9:55:56-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!akgua!emory!gatech!owens
     @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: a definition of consciousness?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gatech.1379

     I was doing required reading for a linguistics class when I
came across an interesting view of consciousness in "Foundations
of the Theory of Signs", by Charles Morris, section VI, subsection
12, about the 6th paragraph (Its also in the International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Otto Neurath, ed.).
     to say that Y experiences X is to define a relation E of which
Y is the domain and X is the range.  Thus, yEx says that it is true
that y experiences x.  E does not follow normal relational rules
(not transitive or symmetric.  I can experience joe, and joe can
experience fred, but it's not nessesarily so that I thus experience
fred.)  Morris goes on to state that yEx is a "conscious experience"
if yE(yEx) ALSO holds, otherwise it's an "unconscious experience".
     Interesting.  Note that there is no infinite regress of
yE(yE(yE....)) that is usually postulated as being a consequence of
computer consciousness.  However the function that defines E is defined,
it only needs to have the POTENTIAL of being able to fit yEx as an x in
another yEx, where y is itself.  Could the fact that the postulated
computer has the option  of NOT doing the insertion be some basis for
free will???  Would the required infinite regress of yE(yE(yE....
manifest some sort of compulsiveness that rules out free will?? (not to
say that an addict of some sort has no free will, although it's worth
thinking about).
     Question:  Am I trivializing the problem by making the problem of
consiousness existing or not being the ability to define the relation
E?  Are there OTHER questions that I haven't considered that would
strengthen or weaken that supposition?  No flames, please, since this
ain't a flame.

                                        G. Owens
                                        at gatech  CSNET.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 9:38:19-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: towards a calculus of the subjective
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxr.685

I posted some articles to net.philosophy a while back on this topic
but I didn't get much of rise out of anybody. Maybe this is a better
forum. (Then again, ...) I'm induced to try here by G. Owens article,
"Re: definition of consciousness".

Instead of trying to formulate a general characteristic of conscious
experience, what about trying to characterize different types of subjective
experience in terms of their physical correlates? In particular, what's
the difference between seeing a color (say) and hearing a sound? Even
more particularly, what's the difference between seeing red, and seeing blue?

I think the last question provides a potential experimental test of
dualism. If it could be shown that the subjective experience of a red
image was constituted by an internal set of "red" image cells, and similarly
for a blue image, I would regard this as a proof of dualism. This is
assuming the "red" and "blue" cells to be physically equivalent. The
choice between which were "red" and which were "blue" would have no
physical basis.

On the other hand, suppose there were some qualitative difference in
the firing patterns associated with seeing red versus seeing blue.
We would have a physical difference to hang our hat on, but we would
still be left with the problem of forming a calculus of the subjective.
That is, we would have to figure out a way to deduce the type of subjective
experience from its physical correlates.

A successful effort might show how to experience completely new colors,
for example. Maybe our restriction to a 3-d color space is due to
the restricted stimulation of subjective color space by three inputs.
Any acid heads care to comment?

These thoughts were inspired by Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?"
in "The Minds I". I think the whole subjective-objective problem is
given short shrift by radical AI advocates. Hofstadter's critique of
Nagel's article was interesting, but I don't think it addressed Nagel's
main point.

        Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 10:06:54-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!tekecs!orca!brucec @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Physiology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: orca.179

                               -------
Re the article posted by Rik Verstraete <rik@UCLA-CS>:

In general, I agree with your statements, and I like the direction of
your thinking.  If we conclude that each level of organization in a
system (e.g. a conscious mind) is based in some way on the next lower
level, it seems reasonable to suppose that there is in some sense a
measure of detail, a density of organization if you will, which has a
lower limit for a given level before it can support the next level.
Thus there would be, in the same sense, a median density for the
levels of the system (mind), and a standard deviation, which I
conjecture would be bounded in any successful system (only the top
level is likely to be wildly different in density, and that lower than
the median).

        Maybe the distinction between the words learning and
        self-organization is only a matter of granularity too. (??)

I agree.  I think that learning is simply a sophisticated form of
optimization of a self-organizing system in a *very* large state
space.  Maybe I shouldn't have said "simply."  Learning at the level of
human beings is hardly trivial.

        Certainly, there are not physically two types of memories, LTM
        and STM.  The concept of LTM/STM is only a paradigm (no doubt a
        very useful one), but when it comes to implementing the concept,
        there is a large discrepancy between brains and machines.

Don't rush to decide that there aren't two mechanisms.  The concepts of
LTM and STM were developed as a result of observation, not from theory.
There are fundamental functional differences between the two.  They
*may* be manifestations of the same physical mechanism, but I don't
believe there is strong evidence to support that claim.  I must admit
that my connection to neurophysiology is some years in the past
so I may be unaware of recent research.  Does anyone out there have
references that would help in this discussion?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 83 15:38:14-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: life is but a dream
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.482

re Michael Massimilla's idea (not original, of course) that consciousness
and self-awareness are ILLUSIONS.  Where did he get the concept of ILLUSION?
The stolen concept fallacy strikes again!  This fallacy is that of using
a concept while denying its genetic roots... See back issues of the Objectivist
for a discussion of this fallacy.... --Norm on ariel, Holmdel, N.J.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 83 11:17:36-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: life is but a dream
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxr.690

Michael Massimilla informs us that consciousness and self-awareness are
ILLUSIONS. This is like saying "It's all in your mind." As Nietzsche said,
"One sometimes remains faithful to a cause simply because its opponents
do not cease to be insipid."

        Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Oct 83 1:07:31-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2357


Someone's recent attempt to make the meaning of "Rational Psychology" seem
trivial misses the point a number of people have made in commenting on the
odd nature of the name.  The reasoning was something like this:
 1) rational "X" means the same thing in spite of what "X" is.
 2) => rational psychology is a clear and simple thing
 3) wake up guys, youre being dumb.

Well, I think this line misses at least one point.  The argument above
is probably sound provided one accepts the initial premise, which I do not
neccessarily accept.  Another example of the logic may help.
 1) Brute Force elaboration solve problems of set membership.  E.g. just
    look at the item and compare it with every member of the set.  This
    is a true statement for a wide range of possible sets.
 2) Real Numbers are a kind of set.
 3) Wake up Cantor, you're wasting (or have wasted) your time.
It seems quite clear that in the latter example, the premise is naive and
simply fails to apply to sets of infinite proportions. (Or more properly
one must go to some effort to justify such use.)

The same issue applies to the notion of Rational Psychology.  Does it make
sense to attempt to apply techniques which may be completely inadequate?
Rational analysis may fail completely to explain the workings of the mind,
esp when we are looking at the "non-analytic" capabilities that are
implied by psychology.  We are on the edge of a philosophical debate, with
terms like "dual-ism" and "phsical-ism" etc marking out party lines.

It may be just as ridiculous to some people to propose a rational study
of psychology as it seems to most of us that one use finite analysis
to deal with trans-finite cardinalities [or] as it seems to some people to
propose to explain the mind via physics alone.  Clearly, the people who
expect rational analytic method to be fruitful in the field of psychology
are welcome to coin a new name for themselve.  But if they, or anyone else
has really "Got it now" please write a dissertation on the subject and
enter history along side Kant, St Thomas Aquinus, Kierkergard ....
>---GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 83 8:54:09-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!velu @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology - Gary Fostel's message
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2953

Unfortunately, however, many pet theories in Physics have come about as
inspirations, and not from the "technical origins" as you have stated!
(What is a "technical origin", anyway????)

As I see it, in any science a pet theory is a combination of insight,
inspiration, and a knowledge of the laws governing that field. If we
just went by known facts, and did not dream on, we would not have
gotten anywhere!

                                        - Velu
                                -----
Velu Sinha, U of MD, College Park
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!velu
CSNet:  velu@umcp-cs            ARPA:   velu.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 12:00:15-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Intuition in Physics
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2360


Some few days ago I suggested that there was something "different"
about psychology and tried to draw a distinction between the flash
of insight or the pet theory in physics as compared to psychology.

Well, someone else commented on the original, in a way that sugested
I missed the mark in my original effort to make it clear. One more time:

I presume that at birth, one's mind is not predisposed to one or another
of several possible theories of heavy molecule collision (for example.)
Further, I think it unlikely that personal or emotional interaction in
one "pre-analytic" stage (see anything about developmental psych.) is
is likely to bear upon one's opinions about those molecules. In fact I
find it hard to believe that anything BUT technical learning is likely
to bear on one's intuition about the molecules. One might want to argue
that one's personality might force you to lean towards "aggressive" or
overly complex theories, but I doubt that such effects will lead to
the creation of a theory.  Only a rather mild predisposition at best.

In psychology it is entirely different.  A person who is aggresive has
lots of reasons to assume everyone else is as well. Or paranoid, or
that rote learning is esp good or bad, or that large dogs are dangerous
or a number of other things that bear directly on one's theories of the
mind.  And these biases are aquired from the process of living and are
quite un-avoidable.  This is not technical learning.  The effect is
that even in the face of considerable technical learning, one's intuition
or "pet theories" in psychology might be heavily influenced in creation
of the theory as well as selection, by one's life experiences, possibly
to the exclusion of one's technical opinions. (Who knows what goes on in
the sub-conscious.)  While one does not encounter heavy molecules often
in one's everyday life or one's childhood, one DOES encounter other people
and more significantly one's own mind.

It seems clear that intuition in physics is based upon a different sort
of knowledge than intuition about psychology.  The latter is a combination
of technical AND everyday intuition while the former is not.
>---GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
74
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 83 07:54 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bobrow.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Journal
-BODY-
The information provided by Larry Cipriani about the AI Journal in the
last issue of AINET is WRONG in a number of important particulars.
Institutional subscriptions to the Artificial Intelligence Journal are
$176 this year (not $136).  Personal subscriptions are available
for $50 per year for members of the AAAI, SIGART  and AISB.  The
circulation is about 2,000 (not 1,100).  Finally, the AI journal
consists of eight issues this year, and nine issues next year (not
bimonthly).
Thanks
Dan Bobrow (Editor-in-Chief)
Bobrow@PARC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 83 15:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: David Axler <Axler.UPenn@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliographic Query
-BODY-
     Just wondering if anybody out there has read the book 'Living Systems'
by James G. Miller (Mc Graw - Hill, 1977)., and, if so, whether they feel that
Miller's theories have any relevance to present-day AI research.  I won't
even attempt to summarize the book's content here, as it's over 1K pages in
length, but some of the reviews of it that I've run across seem to imply that
it might well be useful in some AI work.

     Any comments?

   Dave Axler (Axler.Upenn-1100@UPenn@Udel-Relay)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 1983 08:11-EDT
-FROM-
From: TAYLOR@RADC-TOPS20
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DoD "reviews"
-BODY-

I must agree with Earl Weaver's comments on the DoD review of DoD
sponsored publications with one additional comment...since I have
"lived and worked" in that environment for more than six years.
DoD has learned (through experience) that given enough
unclassified material, much classified information can be
deduced.  I have seen documents whose individual paragraphs were
unclassified, but when grouped to gether as a single document it
provided too much sensitive information to leave unclassified.
      Roz (RTaylor@RADC-MULTICS)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 83 19:25:13-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!tekcad!ricks @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Conference Announcement - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekcad.66


>              ****************  CONFERENCE  ****************
>
>                     "Intelligent Systems and Machines"
>
>                    Oakland University, Rochester Michigan
>
>                                April 24-25, 1984
>
>              *********************************************
>
>AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE:  A Public Release/Sensitivity Approval is necessary.
>Authors from DOD, DOD contractors, and individuals whose work is government
>funded must have their papers reviewed for public release and more
>importantly sensitivity (i.e. an operations security review for sensitive
>unclassified material) by the security office of their sponsoring agency.


        Another example of so called "scientists" bowing to governmental
pressure to let them decide if the paper you want to publish is OK to
publish. I think that this type of activity is reprehensible and as con-
cerned scientists we should do everything in our power to stop this cen-
sorship of research. I urge everyone to boycott this conference and any
others like it which REQUIRE a Public Release/Sensitivty Approval (funny
how the government tries to make censorship palatible with different words,
isn't it). If we don't stop this now, we may be passing every bit of research
we do under the nose of bureaucrats who don't know an expert system from
an accounting package and who have the power to stop publication of anything
they consider dangerous.
                                        I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to
                                                take it anymore!!!!
                                                Frank Adrian
                                                (teklabs!tekcad!franka)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 83 6:13:46-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alas, I must flame...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: aplvax.358

        The "sensitivity" issue is not limited to government - most
companies also limit the distribution of information that they
consider "company private". I find very little wrong with the
idea of "we paid for it, we should benefit from it". The simple
truth is that they did underwrite the cost of the research. No one
is forced to work under these conditions, but if you want to take
the bucks, you have to realize that there are conditions attached
to them. On the whole, DoD has been amazingly open with the disclosure
of it CS research - one big example is ARPANET. True, they are now
wanting to split it up, but they are still leaving half of it to
research facilities who did not foot the bill for its development.
Perhaps it can be carried to extremes (I have never seen that happen,
but lets assume it that it can happen), they contracted for the work
to be done, and it is theirs to do with as they wish.

>-
                                        eric
                                        ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!eric

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 83 18:56:18-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: npois!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!csd1!condict@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: csd1.124

                     [Very long article.]


Self-awareness is an illusion?  I've heard this curious statement
before and never understood it.  YOUR self-awareness may be an
illusion that is fooling me, and you may think that MY self-awareness
is an illusion, but one thing that you cannot deny (the very, only
thing that you know for sure) is that you, yourself, in there looking
out at the world through your eyeballs, are aware of yourself doing
that.  At least you cannot deny it if it is true.  The point is, I
know that I have self-awareness -- by the very act of experiencing
it.  You cannot take this away from me by telling me that my
experience is an illusion.  That is a patently ludicrous statement,
sillier even then when your mother (no offense -- okay, my mother,
then) used to tell you that the pain was all in your head.  Of course
it is!  That is exactly what the problem is!

Let me try to say this another way, since I have never been able to
get this across to someone who doesn't already believe it.  There are
some statements that are true by definition, for instance, the
statement, "I pronounce you man and wife".  The pronouncement happens
by the very saying of it and cannot be denied by anyone who has heard
it, although the legitimacy of the marriage can be questioned, of
course.  The self-awareness thing is completely internal, so you may
sensibly question the statement "I have self-awareness" when it comes
from someone else.  What you cannot rationally say is "Gee, I wonder
if I really am aware of being in this body and looking down at my
hands with these two eyes and making my fingers wiggle at will?"  To
ask this ques- tion seriously of yourself is an indication that you
need immediate psychiatric help.  Go directly to Bellvue and commit
yourself.  It is as lunatic a question as asking yourself "Gee, am I
really feeling this pain or is it only an illusion that I hurt so bad
that I would happily throw myself in the trash masher to extinguish
it?"

For those of you who misunderstand what I mean by self-awareness,
here is the best I can do at an explanation.  There is an obvious
sense in which my body is not me.  You can cut off any piece of it
that leaves the rest functioning (alive and able to think) and the
piece that is cut off will not take part in any of my experiences,
while the rest of the body will still contain (be the center for?) my
self-awareness.  You may think that this is just because my brain is
in the big piece.  No, there is something more to it than that.  With
a little imagination you can picture an android being constructed
someday that has an AI brain that can be programmed with all the
memories you have now and all the same mental faculties.  Now picture
yourself observing the android and noting that it is an exact copy of
you.  You can then imagine actually BEING that android, seeing what
it sees, feeling what it feels.  What is the difference between
observing the android and being the android?  It is just this -- in
the latter case your self-awareness is centered in the android, while
in the former it is not.  That is what self-awareness, also called a
soul, is.  It is the one true meaning of the word "I", which does not
refer to any particular collection of atoms, but rather to the "you"
that is occupying the body.  This is not a religous issue either, so
back off, all you atheist and Christian fanatics.  I'm just calling
it a soul because it is the real "me", and I can imagine it residing
in various different bodies and machines, although I would, of
course, prefer some to others.

This, then, is the reason I would never step into one of those
teleporters that functions by ripping apart your atoms, then
reconstructing an exact copy at a distant site.  My self-awareness,
while it doesn't need a biological body to exist, needs something!
What guarantee do I have that "I", the "me" that sees and hears the
door of the transporter chamber clang shut, will actually be able to
find the new copy of my body when it is reconstructed three million
parsecs away.  Some of you are laughing at my lack of modernism here,
but I can have the last laugh if you're stupid enough to get into the
teleporter with me at the controls.  Suppose it functions like this
(from a real sci-fi story that I read): It scans your body, transmits
the copying information, then when it is certain that the copy got
through it zaps the old copy, to avoid the inconvenience of there
being two of you (a real mess at tax time!).  Now this doesn't bother
you a bit since it all happens in micro-seconds and your
self-awareness, being an illusion, is not to be consulted in the
matter.  But suppose I put your beliefs to the test by setting the
controls so that the copy is made but the original is not destroyed.
You get out of the teleporter at both ends, with the original you
thinking that something went wrong.  I greet you with:

"Hi there!  Don't worry, you got transported okay.  Here, you can
talk to your copy on the telephone to make sure.  The reason that I
didn't destroy this copy of you is because I thought you would enjoy
doing it yourself.  Not many people get to commit suicide and still
be around to talk about it at cocktail parties, eh?  Now, would you
like the hari-kari knife, the laser death ray, or the nice little red
pills?"

You, of course, would see no problem whatsoever with doing yourself
in on the spot, and would thank me for adding a little excitement to
your otherwise mundane trip.  Right?  What, you have a problem with
this scenario?  Oh, it doesn't bother you if only one copy of you
exists at a time, but if there are ever two, by some error, your
spouse is stuck with both of you?  What does the timing have to do
with your belief in self-awareness?  Relativity theory says that the
order of the two events is indeterminate anyway.

People who won't admit the reality of their own self-awareness have
always bothered me.  I'm not sure I want to go out for a beer with,
much less date or marry someone who doesn't at least claim to have
self-awareness (even if they're only faking).  I get this image of me
riding in a car with this non-self-aware person, when suddenly, as we
reach a curve with a huge semi coming in the other direction, they
fail to move the wheel to stay in the right lane, not seeing any
particular reason to attempt to extend their own unimportant
existence.  After all, if their awareness is just an illusion, the
implication is that they are really just a biological automaton and
it don't make no never mind what happens to it (or the one in the
next seat, for that matter, emitting the strange sounds and clutching
the dashboard).

The Big Unanswered Question then (which belongs in net.philosophy,
where I will expect to see the answer) is this:

                "Why do I have self-awareness?"

By this I do not mean, why does my body emit sounds that your body
interprets to be statements that my body is making about itself.  I
mean why am *I* here, and not just my body and brain?  You can't tell
me that I'm not, because I have a better vantage point than you do,
being me and not you.  I am the only one qualified to rule on the
issue, and I'll thank you to keep your opinion to yourself.  This
doesn't alter the fact that I find my existence (that is, the
existence of my awareness, not my physical support system), to be
rather arbitrary.  I feel that my body/brain combination could get
along just fine without it, and would not waste so much time reading
and writing windy news articles.

Enough of this, already, but I want to close by describing what
happened when I had this conversation with two good friends.  They
were refusing to agree to any of it, and I was starting to get a
little suspicious.  Only, half in jest, I tried explaining things
this way.  I said:

"Look, I know I'm in here, I can see myself seeing and hear myself
hearing, but I'm willing to admit that maybe you two aren't really
self-aware.  Maybe, in fact, you're robots, everybody is robots
except me.  There really is no Cornell University, or U.S.A. for that
matter.  It's all an elaborate production by some insidious showman
who constructs fake buildings and offices wherever I go and rips them
down behind me when I leave."

Whereupon a strange, unreadable look came over Dean's face, and he
called to someone I couldn't see, "Okay, jig's up! Cut! He figured it
out." (Hands motioning, now) "Get, those props out of here, tear down
those building fronts, ... "

Scared the pants off me.

Michael Condict   ...!cmcl2!csd1!condict
New York U.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
75
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 16:16:12 EDT  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Randy Trigg <randy%umcp-cs@UDel-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: music poll results
-BODY-
Here are the results of my request for info on AI and music.
(I apologize for losing the header to the first mail below.)

                        - Randy
                   ______________________________

Music in AI - find Art Wink formerly of U. of Pgh. Dept of info sci.
He had a real nice program to imitate Debuse (experts could not tell
its compositions from originals).

                   ------------------------------

Date:     22 Sep 83 01:55-EST (Thu)
From:     Michael Aramini <aramini@umass-cs>
Subject:  RE: AI and music

At the AAAI conference, I was talking to someone from Atari (from Atari
Cambridge Labs, I think) who was doing work with AI and music.  I can't
remember his name, however.  He was working (with others) on automating
transforming music of one genre into another.  This involved trying to
quasi-formally define what the characteristics of each genre of music are.
It sounded like they were doing a lot of work on defining ragtime and
converting ragtime to other genres.  He said there were other people at Atari
that are working on modeling the emotional state various characteristics of
music evoke in the listener.

I am sorry that I don't have more info as to the names of these people or how
to get in touch with them.  All that I know is that this work is being done
at Atari Labs either in Cambridge, MA or Palo Alto, CA.

                   ------------------------------

Date: Thu 22 Sep 83 11:04:22-EDT
From: Ted Markowitz <TJM@COLUMBIA-20>
Subject: Music and AI
Cc: TJM@COLUMBIA-20

Having an undergrad degree in music and working toward a graduate
degree in CS, I'm very interested in any results you get from your
posting. I've been toying with the idea of working on a music-AI
interface, but haven't pinned down anything specific yet. What
is your research concerned with?

>-ted
                   ------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1983 20:27:57-PDT
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@aids-unix>
Subject: Music analysis/generation & AI

  There are 3 places that immediately come to mind:

1. There is a huge and well-developed (indeed, venerable) computer
music group at Stanford.  They currently occupy what used to be
the old AI Lab.  I'm sure someone else will mention them, but if
not call Stanford (or send me another note and I'll find a net address
you can send mail to for details.)

2. Atari Research is doing a lot of this sort of work -- generation,
analysis, etc., both in Cambridge (Mass) and Sunnyvale (Calif.), I
believe.

3. Some very good work has come out of MIT in the past few years.
David Levitt is working on his PhD in this area there, having completed
his masters in AI approaches to Jazz improvisation, if my memory serves,
and I think William Paseman also wrote his masters on a related topic
there.  Send mail to LEVITT@MIT-MC for info -- I'm sure he'd be happyy
to tell you more about his work.
                                                asc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 09:40:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alert - September CACM
-BODY-
The September CACM contains the following interesting items:

A clever cover graphically illustrating the U.S. and Japanese
approaches to the Fifth Generation.

A Harper and Row ad (without prices) including Touretzky's
LISP: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation and
Eisenstadt and O'Shea's Artificial Intelligence: Tools,
Techniques and Applications.  [AIList would welcome reviews.]

An editorial by Peter J. Denning on the manifest destiny of
AI to succeed because the concept is easily grasped, credible,
expected to succeed, and seen as an improvement.

An introduction and three articles about the Fifth Generation,
Japanese management, the Japanese effort, and MCC.

A report on BELLE's slim victory in the 13th N.A. Computer Chess
Championship.

A note on the sublanguages (i.e., natural restricted languages)
conference at NYU next January.

A note on DOD's wholesale adoption of ADA.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 09:24:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Zadeh Syllogism
-BODY-
Lotfi Zadeh used a syllogism yesterday that was new to me.  To
paraphrase slightly:


    Cheap apartments are rare and highly sought.
    Rare and highly sought objects are expensive.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Cheap apartments are expensive.


I suppose any reasonable system will conclude that cheap apartments
cannot exist, which may in fact be the case.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 10:20:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Usenet Submissions
-BODY-
It has come to my attention that I may be failing to distribute
some Usenet-originated submissions back to Usenet readers.  If
this is true, I apologize.  I have not been simply ignoring
submissions; if you haven't heard from me, the item was distributed
to the Arpanet.

The problem involves the Article-I.D. field in Usenet-
originated messages.  The gateway software (maintained by
Knutsen@SRI-UNIX) ignores digest items containing this keyword
so that messages originating from net.ai will not be posted
back to net.ai.

Unfortunately, messages sent directly to AIList instead of to
net.ai also contain this keyword.  I have not been stripping it
out, and so the submission have not been making it back to Usenet.

I will try to be more careful in the future.  Direct AIList
contributors who want to be sure I don't slip should begin
their submissions with a "strip ID field" comment.  Even a
"Dear Moderator," might trigger my editing instincts.  I hope
to handle direct submissions correctly even without prompting,
but the visible distinction between the two message types is
slight.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 10:04:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Notices
-BODY-
There have been a couple of net.ai requests lately that seminar
notices be dropped, plus a strong request that they be
continued.  I would like to make a clear policy statement
on this matter.  Anyone who wishes to discuss it further
may write to AIList-Request@SRI-AI; I will attempt to
compile opinions or moderate the disscussion in a reasonable
manner.

Strictly speaking, AIList seldom prints "seminar notices".
Rather, it prints abstracts of AI-related talks.  The abstract
is the primary item; the fact that the speaker is graduating
or out "selling" is secondary; and the possibility that AIList
readers might attend is tertiary.  I try to distribute the
notices in a timely fashion, but responses to my original
query were two-to-one in favor of the abstracts even when the
talk had already been given.

The abstracts have been heavily weighted in favor of the
Bay Area; some readers have taken this to be provincialism.
Instead, it is simply the case that Stanford, Hewlett-Packard,
and occasionally SRI are the only sources available to me
that provide abstracts.  Other sources would be welcome.

In the event that too many abstracts become available, I will
institute rigorous screening criteria.  I do not feel the need
to do so at this time.  I have passed up database, math, and CS
abstracts because they are outside the general AI and data
analysis domain of AIList; others might disagree.  I have
included some borderline seminars because they were the first
of a series; I felt that the series itself was worth publicizing.

I can't please all of the people all of the time, but your feedback
is welcome to help me keep on course.  At present, I regard the
abstracts to be one of AIList's strengths.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 16:30:27 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 10/13/83
-BODY-

                Piero P. Bonissone

                Corporate Research and Development
                General Electric Corporation

        DELTA: An Expert System for Troubleshooting
                Diesel Electric Locomotives


The a priori information available to the repair crew is a list of
"symptoms" reported by the engine crew.  More information can be
gathered in the "running repair" shop, by taking measurements and
performing tests provided that the two hour time limit is not exceeded.

A rule based expert system, DELTA (Diesel Electric Locomotive
Troubleshooting Aid) has been developed at the General Electric
Corporate Research and Development Laboratories to guide in the repair
of partially disabled electric locomotives.  The system enforces a
disciplined troubleshooting procedure which minimizes the cost and time
of the corrective maintenance allowing detection and repair of
malfunctions in the two hour window allotted to the service personnel in
charge of those tasks.

A prototype system has been implemented in FORTH, running on a Digital
Equipment VAX 11/780 under VMS, on a PDP 11/70 under RSX-11M, and on a
PDP 11/23 under RSX-11M.  This system contains approximately 550 rules,
partially representing the knowledge of a Senior Field Service Engineer.
The system is provided with graphical/video capabilities which can help
the user in locating and identifying locomotive components, as well as
illustrating repair procedures.

Although the system only contains a limited number of rules (550), it
covers, in a shallow manner, a wide breadth of the problem space.  The
number of rules will soon be raised to approximately 1200 to cover, with
increased depth, a larger portion of the problem space.

        Thursday, October 13, 1983  4:00 PM

        Hewlett Packard
        Stanford Division Labs
        5M Conference room
        1501 Page Mill Rd
        Palo Alto, CA  9430

        ** Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby ON TIME, so that you may
be escorted to the meeting room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 13:47:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: LOUNGO@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: colloquium
-BODY-
              [Reprinted from the RUTGERS bboard.  Long message.]



                  Computer Science Faculty Research Colloquia

                       Date: Thursday, October 13, 1983

                                Time: 2:00-4:15

                  Place: Room 705, Hill Center, Busch Campus

Schedule:

2:00-2:15       Prof. Saul Amarel, Chairman, Department of Computer Science
                Introductory Remarks

2:15-2:30       Prof. Casimir Kulikowski
                Title:   Expert Systems and their Applications
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence


2:30-2:45       Prof. Natesa Sridharan
                Title:   TAXMAN
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence (knowledge representation),
                         legal reasoning

2:45-3:00       Prof. Natesa Sridharan
                Title:   Artificial Intelligence and Parallelism
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence, parallelism

3:00-3:15       Prof. Saul Amarel
                Title:   Problem Reformulations and Expertise Acquisition;
                         Theory Formation
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence

3:15-3:30       Prof. Michael Grigoriadis
                Title:   Large Scale Mathematical Programming;
                         Network Optimization; Design of Computer Networks
                Area(s): Computer networks

3:30-3:45       Prof. Robert Vichnevetsky
                Title:   Numerical Solutions of Hyperbolic Equations
                Area(s): Numerical analysis

3:45-4:00       Prof. Martin Dowd
                Title:   P~=NP
                Area(s): Computational complexity

4:00-4:15       Prof. Ann Yasuhara
                Title:   Notions of Complexity for Trees, DAGS,
                                             *
                         and subsets of {0,1}
                Area(s): Computational complexity


                COFFEE AND DONUTS AT 1:30

>------
Mail-From: LAWS created at 12-Oct-83 09:11:56
Mail-From: LOUNGO created at 11-Oct-83 13:48:35
Date: 11 Oct 83 13:48:35 EDT
From: LOUNGO@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: colloquium
To: BBOARD@RUTGERS.ARPA
cc: pettY@RUTGERS.ARPA, lounGO@RUTGERS.ARPA
ReSent-date: Wed 12 Oct 83 09:11:56-PDT
ReSent-from: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
ReSent-to: ailist@SRI-AI.ARPA


                  Computer Science Faculty Research Colloquia

                        Date: Friday, October 14, 1983

                                Time: 2:00-4:15

                  Place: Room 705, Hill Center, Busch Campus

Schedule:

2:00-2:15       Prof. Tom Mitchell
                Title:   Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence

2:15-2:30       Prof. Louis Steinberg
                Title:   An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Computer-Aided
                         Design for VLSI
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence, computer-aided design, VLSI

2:30-2:45       Prof. Donald Smith
                Title:   Debugging VLSI Designs
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence, computer-aided design, VLSI

2:45-3:00       Prof. Apostolos Gerasoulis
                Title:   Numerical Solutions to Integral Equations
                Area(s): Numerical analysis

3:00-3:15       Prof. Alexander Borgida
                Title:   Applications of AI to Information Systems Development
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence, databases,
                         software engineering

3:15-3:30       Prof. Naftaly Minsky
                Title:   Programming Environments for Evolving Systems
                Area(s): Software engineeging, databases, artificial
                         intelligence

3:30-3:45       Prof. William Steiger
                title:   Random Algorithms
                area(s): Analysis of algorithms, numerical methods,
                         non-numerical methods

3:45-4:00

4:00-4:15



                  Computer Science Faculty Research Colloquia

                       Date: Thursday, October 20, 1983

                                Time: 2:00-4:15

                  Place: Room 705, Hill Center, Busch Campus

Schedule:

2:00-2:15       Prof. Thomaz Imielinski
                Title:   Relational Databases and AI; Logic Programming
                Area(s): Dabtabases, artificial intelligence

2:15-2:30       Prof. David Rozenshtein
                Title:   Nice Relational Databases
                Area(s): Databases, data models

2:30-2:45       Prof. Chitoor Srinivasan
                Title:   Expert Systems that Reason About Action with Time
                Area(s): Artificial intelligence, knowledge-based systems

2:45-3:00       Prof. Gerald Richter
                Title:   Numerical Solutions to Partial Differential Equations
                Area(s): Numerical analysis

3:00-3:15       Prof. Irving Rabinowitz
                Title:   - To be announced -
                Area(s): Programming languages

3:15-3:30       Prof. Saul Levy
                Title:   Distributed Computing
                Area(s): Computing, computer architecture

3:30-3:45       Prof. Yehoshua Perl
                Title:   Sorting Networks, Probabilistic Parallel Algorithms,
                         String Matching
                Area(s): Design and analysis of algorithms

3:45-4:00       Prof. Marvin Paull
                Title:   Algorithm Design
                Area(s): Design and analysis of algorithms

4:00-4:15       Prof. Barbara Ryder
                Title:   Incremental Data Flow Analysis
                Area(s): Design and analysis of algorithms,
                         compiler optimization

                COFFEE AND DONUTS AT 1:30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
76
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13-Oct-83  12:04:24-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <bundy@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bundy@rutgers.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Information on Intelligent Front Ends
-BODY-

        The UK government has set up a the Alvey Programme as the UK
answer to the Japanese 5th Generation Programme.  One part of that
Programme has been to identify and promote research in a number of
'themes'.  I am the manager of one such theme - on 'Intelligent Front
Ends' (IFE).  An IFE is defined as follows:

"A front end to an existing software package, for example a finite
element package, a mathematical modelling system, which provides a
user-friendly interface (a "human window") to packages which without
it, are too complex and/or technically incomprehensible to be
accessible to many potential users.  An intelligent front end builds a
model of the user's problem through user-oriented dialogue mechanisms
based on menus or quasi-natural language, which is then used to
generate suitably coded instructions for the package."

        One of the theme activities is to gather information about
IFEs, for instance:  useful references and short descriptions of
available tools.  If you can supply such information then please send it
to BUNDY@RUTGERS.  Thanks in advance.

                Alan Bundy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 83  0313 PDT
-FROM-
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IntelliGenetics
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


From Tuesday's SF Chronicle (page 56):

"IntelliGenetics Inc., Palo Alto, has filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission to sell 1.6 million common shares in late November.

The issue, co-managed by Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co. Inc. of New York
and Freehling & Co. of Chicago, will be priced between $6 and $7 a share.

IntelliGenetics provides artificial intelligence based software for use
in genetic engineering and other fields."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13-Oct-83  16:00:01-BST
-FROM-
From: RICHARD HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: okeefe.r.a. <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Zadeh's apartment paradox
-BODY-

The resolution of the paradox lies in realising that
        "cheap apartments are expensive"
is not contradictory.  "cheap" refers to the cost of
maintaining (rent, bus fares, repairs) the apartment
and "expensive" refers to the cost of procuring it.
The fully stated theorem is
        \/x apartment(x) & low(upkeep(x)) =>
            difficult_to_procure(x)
        \/x difficult_to_procure(x) =>
            high(cost_of_procuring(x))
hence   \/x apartment(x) & low(upkeep(x)) =>
            high(cost_of_procuring(x))
where "low" and "high" can be as fuzzy as you please.

A reasoning system should not conclude that cheap
flats don't exist, but rather that the axioms it has
been given are inconsistent with the assumption that
they do.  Sooner or later you are going to tell it
"Jones has a cheap flat", and then it will spot the
flawed axioms.


[I can see your point that one might pay a high price
to procure an apartment with a low rental.  There is
an alternate interpretation which I had in mind, however.
The paradox could have been stated in terms of any
bargain, specifically one in which upkeep is not a
factor.  One could conclude, for instance, that a cheap
meal is expensive.  My own resolution is that the term
"rare" (or "rare and highly sought") must be split into
subconcepts corresponding to the cause of rarity.  When
discussing economics, one must always reason separately
about economic rarities such as rare bargains.  The second
assertion in the syllogism then becomes "rare and highly
sought objects other than rare bargains are (Zadeh might
add 'usually') expensive", or "rare and highly sought
objects are either expensive or are bargains".

                                        -- Ken Laws ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Oct 83 03:38:21-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Zadeh Syllogism
-BODY-
        Expensive apartments are not highly sought.
        Items not in demand are cheap.
                -> expensive apartments are cheap.

or      The higher the price, the lower the demand.
        The lower the demand, the lower the price.
                -> the higher the price , the lower the price.

ergo ??         garbage in , garbage out!

Why am I thinking of Reagonomics right now ????

Werner (UUCP:   { ut-sally , ut-ngp }   !utastro!werner
        ARPA:   werner@utexas-20

PS:     at this time of the day, one gets the urge to voice "weird" stuff ...
                               -------

[The first form is as persuasive as the original syllogism.
The second seems to be no more than a statement of negative
feedback.  Whether the system is stable depends on the nature
of the implied driving forces.  It seems we are now dealing
with a temporal logic.

An example of an unstable system is:

    The fewer items sold, the higher the unit price must be.
    The higher the price, the fewer the items sold.
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Bankruptcy.

>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 83 13:16 PDT
-FROM-
From: GMEREDITH.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sensitivity Issue and Self-Awareness
-BODY-

I can understand the concern of researcher people about censorship.

However, having worked with an agency which spent time extracting
information of a classified nature from unclassified or semi-secure
sources, I have to say that people not trained in such pursuits are
usually very poor judges of the difference between necessary efforts to
curb flow of classified information and "censorship".

I can also guarantee that this country's government is not the alone in
knowing how to misuse the results of research carried out with the most
noble of intents.



Next, to the subject of self-awareness.  The tendency of an individual
to see his/her corporal self as distinct from the *I* experience or to
see others as robots or a kind of illusion is sufficient to win a tag of
'schizophrenic' from any psychiatrist and various other negative
reactions from those involved in other schools of the psychological
community.

Beyond that, the above tendencies make relating to 'real' world
phenomena very difficult.   That semi coming around the curve will
continue to follow through on the illusion of having smashed those just
recently discontinued illusions in the on-coming car.

Guy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Oct 83 00:07:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Goverment Reviews of Basic Research
-BODY-
    I must disagree with Frank Adrian who commented in a previous digest
that "I urge everyone to boycott this conference" and other conferences with
this requirement. The progress of science should not be halted due to some
government ruling, especially since an attempted boycott would have little
positive and (probably) much negative effect. Assuming that all of the
'upstanding' scientists participated, is there any reason to think that
the government couldn't find less discerning researchers more than happy to
accept grant money?

    Eric (sorry, no last name) is preoccupied with the fact that government
'paid' for the research; aren't "we" the people the real owners, in that case?
Or can there be real owners of basic knowledge: as I recall, the patent office
has ruled that algorithms are unpatentable and thus inherently public domain.
The control of ideas has been an elusive goal for many governments, but even
so,
it is rare for a government to try to claim ownership of an idea as a
justification for restriction; outside of the military domain, this is seems
to be a new one...

        As a scientist, I believe that the world and humanity will gain wisdom
and insight though research, and eventually enable us to end war, hunger,
ignorance, whatever. Other forces in the world have different, more short-term
goals, for our work; this is fine, as long as the long-term reasons for
scientific research are not sacrificed. Sure, they 'paid' for the results of
our short-term goals, but we should never allow that to blind us to the real
reason for working in AI, and *NO-ONE* can own that.

   So I'll take government money (if they offer me any after this diatribe!)
and work on various systems and schemes, but I'll fight any attempt to
nullify the long term goals I'm really working for. I feel these new
restrictions are detrimental to the long-term goals of scientific search,
but currently, I'm going with things here... we're the best in the world (sigh)
and I plan on fighting to keep it that way.

David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 83 10:26:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Flaming Mad
-BODY-
  I have refrained  from  reflaming  since  I  sent  the  initial
conference  announcement  on  "Intelligent Systems and Machines."
First,  the  conference  is  not  being  sponsored  by   the   US
Government.   Second,  many  papers  may  be  submitted  by those
affected by the security  release  and  it  seemed  necessary  to
include  this as part of the announcement.  Third, I attended the
conference at Oakland earlier  this  year  and  it  was  a  super
conference.  Fourth, you may bite your nose to spite your face if
you as an individual do not want to submit a paper or attend  but
you are not doing much service to those sponsoring the conference
who are true scientists by urging boycotts.  Finally, below is  a
little of my own philosophy.

  I have rarely  seen  science  or  the  application  of  science
(engineering)  benefit anyone anywhere without an associated cost
(often called an investment).  The costs are usually borne by the
investors  and  if  the  end  product is a success then costs are
passed  on  to  consumers.   I  can  find  few   examples   where
discoveries  in  science  or  in  the  name  of  science have not
benefited the discoverer and/or  his  heirs,  or  the  investors.
Many  of  our  early discoveries were made by men of considerable
wealth who could dally with theory and experimentation  (and  the
arts)  and science using their own resources.  We may have gained
a heritage but they gained a profit.

  What seems to constitute a common heritage is either  something
that  has been around for so long that it is either in the public
domain or is a  romanticized  fiction  (e.g.  Paul  Muni  playing
Pasteur).   Simultaneous  discovery has been responsible for many
theories being in  the  public  domain  as  well  as  leading  to
products  which were hotly contested in lawsuits.  (e.g. did Bell
really invent the telephone or Edison the movie camera?)

  Watson in his book "The Double Helix" gives a clear picture  of
what  a typical scientist may really be and it is not Arrowsmith.
I did not see Watson refuse his Noble because the radiologist did
not get a prize.

  Government, and here for historical reasons we must also include
state  and  church, has  always had a role in the sciences.  That
role is one that governments can not always be proud of (Galileo,
Rachael Carson, Sakharov).

  The manner in  which  the  United  States  Government  conducts
business  gives  great  latitude  to scientists and to investors.
When the US Government buys something it should be theirs just as
when  you as an individual buy something.  As such it is then the
purview of the US Government as to what to do with  the  product.
Note  the  US  Government  often  buys  with  limited  rights  of
ownership and distribution.

  It has been my observation having worked in  private  industry,
for a university, and now for the government that relations among
the three has not been optimal and in  many  cases  not  mutually
rewarding.   This  is  a  great  concern  of  mine and many of my
colleagues.  I would like a role in changing relations among  the
three  and do work toward that as a personal goal.  This includes
not  referring  to  academicians  as  eggheads   or   charlatans;
industrialists  as grubby profiteers; and government employees as
empty-headed bureaucrats.

  I recommend that young flamers try to maintain a little naivete
as they mature but not so much that they are ignorant of reality.

  Every institution has its structure and by in large  one  works
within  the  structure to earn a living or are free to move on or
can work to change that structure.  One possible  change  is  for
the US Government to conduct business the way the the Japanese do
(at least in certain cases).  Maybe AI is the place to start.

  I also notice that mail on the net comes  across  much  harsher
than  it  is  intended  to  be.  This can be overcome by being as
polite as possible and being more verbose.  In addition, one  can
read their mail more than once before flaming.

                                Mort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
77
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 12 October 1983 14:01:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Semantic chart parsing"
-BODY-
        I should have made it clear in my previous note on the subject that
the phrase "semantic chart parsing" is a name I've coined to describe a
parser which uses the technique of syntactic chart parsing, but includes
semantic information right from the start.  In a way, it's an attempt to
reconcile Schank-style immediate semantic interpretation with syntactically
oriented parsing, since both sources of information seem worthwhile.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 12-Oct-83  17:52:33-BST
-FROM-
From: RICHARD HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: okeefe.r.a. <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language
-BODY-

There was rather more inflammation than information in the
exchanges between Dr Pereira and Whats-His-Name-Who-Butchers-
Leprechauns.  Possibly it's because I've only read one or two
[well, to be perfectly honest, three] papers on PHRAN and the
others in that PHamily, but I still can't see why it is that
their data structures aren't a grammar.  Admittedly they don't
look much like rules in an XG, but then rules in an XG don't
look much like an ATN either, and no-one has qualms about
calling ATNs grammars.  Can someone please explain in words
suitable for a 16-year-old child what makes phrasal analysis
so different from
        XGs (Extraposition grammars, include DCGS in this)
        ATNs
        Marcus-style parsers
        template-matching
so different that it is hailed as "solving" the parsing problem?
I have written grammars for tiny fragments of English in DCG,
ATN, and PIDGIN -styles [the adverbs get me every time].  I am not
a linguist, and the coverage of these grammars was ludicrously
small.  So my claim that I found it vastly easier to extend and
debug the DCG version [DCGs are very like EAGs] will probably be
dismissed with the contempt it deserves.  Dr Pereira has published
his parser, and in other papers has published an XG interpreter.
I believe a micro-PHRAN has been published, and I would be grateful
for a pointer to it.  Has anyone published a phrasal-analysis
grimoire (if the term "grammar" doesn't suit) with say >100 "things"
(I forget the right name for the data structures), and how can I
get a copy?

     People certainly can accept ill-formed sentences.  But they DO
have quite definite notions of what is a well-formed sentence and
what is not.  I was recently in a London Underground station, and
saw a Telecom poster.  It was perfectly obvious that it was written
by an Englishman trying to write in American.  It finally dawned on
me that he was using American vocabulary and English syntax.  At
first sight the poster read easily enough, and the meaning came through.
But it was sufficiently strange to retain my attention until I saw what
was odd about it.  Our judgements of grammaticality are as sensitive as
that.  [I repeat, I am no linguist.  I once came away from a talk by
Gazdar saying to one of my fellow students, who was writing a parser:
"This extraposition, I don't believe people do that."]  I suggest that
people DO learn grammars, and what is more, they learn them in a form
that is not wholly unlike [note the caution] DCGs or ATNs.  We know that
DCGs are learnable, given positive and negative instances.  [Oh yes,
before someone jumps up and down and says that children don't get
negative instances, that is utter rubbish.  When a child says something
and is corrected by an adult, is that not a negative instance?  Of course
it is!]  However, when people APPLY grammars for parsing, I suggest that
they use repair methods to match what they hear against what they
expect.  [This is probably frames again.]  These repair methods range
all the way from subconscious signal cleaning [coping with say a lisp]
to fully conscious attempts to handle "Colourless Green ideas sleep
furiously".  [Maybe parentheses like this are handled by a repair
mechanism?]  If this is granted, some of the complexity required to
handle say ellipsis would move out of the grammar and into the repair
mechanisms.  But if there is anything we know about human psychology,
it is that people DO have repair mechanisms.  There is a lot of work
on how children learn mathematics [not just Brown & co], and it turns
out that children will go to extraordinary lengths to patch a buggy
hack rather than admit they don't know.  So the fact that people can
cope with ungrammatical sentences is not evidence against grammars.

     As evidence FOR grammars, I would like to offer Macaroni.  Not
the comestible, the verse form.  Strictly speaking, Macaroni is a
mixture of the vernacular and Latin, but since it is no longer
popular we can allow any mixture of languages.  The odd thing about
Macaroni is that people can judge it grammatical or ungrammatical,
and what is more, can agree about their judgements as well as they
can agree about the vernacular or Latin taken separately.  My Latin
is so rusty there is no iron left, so here is something else.

        [Prolog is] [ho protos logos] [en programmation logiciel]
        English     Greek               French

This of course is (NP copula NP) PP, which is admissible in all
three languages, and the individual chunks are well-formed in their
several languages.  The main thing about Macaroni is that when
two languages have a very similar syntactic class, such as NP,
a sentence which starts off in one language may rewrite that
category in the other language, and someone who speaks both languages
will judge it acceptable.  Other ways of dividing up the sentence are
not judged acceptable, e.g.

        Prolog estin ho protos mot en logic programmation

is just silly.  S is very similar in most languages, which would account
for the acceptability of complete sentences in another language.  N is
pretty similar too, and we feel no real difficulty with single isolated
words from other languages like "chutzpa" or "pyjama" or "mana".  When
the syntactic classes are not such a good match, we feel rather more
uneasy about the mixture.  For example, "[ka ora] [teenei tangata]"
and "[these men] [are well]" both say much the same thing, but because
the Maaori nominal phrase and the English noun phrase aren't all that
similar, "[teenei tangata] [are well]" seems strained.

     The fact that bilingual people have little or no difficulty with
Macaroni is just as much a fact as the fact the people in general have
little difficulty with mildly malformed sentences.  Maybe they're the
same fact.  But I think the former deserves as much attention as the
latter.
     Does anyone have a parser with a grammar for English and a grammar
for [UK -> French or German; Canada -> French; USA -> Spanish] which use
the same categories as far as possible?  Have a go at putting the two
together, and try it on some Macaroni.  I suspect that if you have some
genuinely bilingual speakers to assist you, you will find it easier to
develo/correc the grammars together than separately.  [This does not
hold for non-related languages.  I would not expect English and Japanese
to mix well, but then I don't know any Japanese.  Maybe it's worth trying.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Oct 83 11:07:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dave Curry's request for a Simple English Grammer
-BODY-
        I think the book "Natural Language Information
Processing" by Naomi Sager (Addison-Wesley, 1981) may be useful.
This book represents the results of the Linguistic String project
at New York University, and Dr. Sager is its director.  The book
contains a BNF grammer set of 400 or so rules for parsing English
sentences.  It has been applied to medical text, such as
radiology reports and narrative documents in patient records.

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 19:41:39-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!shebs @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: WANTED: Simple English Grammar - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.1994

(Oh no, here he goes again! and with his water-cooled keyboard too!)

Yes, analysis of syntax alone cannot possibly work - as near as I can
tell, syntax-based parsers need an enormous amount of semantic processing,
which seems to be dismissed as "just pragmatics" or whatever.  I'm
not an "in" member of the NLP community, so I haven't been able to
find out the facts, but I have a bad feeling that some of the well-known
NLP systems are gigantic hacks, whose syntactic analyzer is just a bag
hanging off the side, but about which all the papers are written.  Mind
you, this is just a suspicion, and I welcome any disproof...

                                                stan the l.h.
                                                utah-cs!shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 83 9:54:21-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!asa @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: WANTED: Simple English Grammar - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rayssd.187

date: 10/7/83

        Yesterday I sent a suggestion that you look at Winograd's
new book on syntax.  Upon reflection, I realized that there are
several aspects of syntax not clearly stated therein. In particular,
there is one aspect which you might wish to think about, if you
are interested in building models and using the 'expectations'
approach. This aspect has to do with the synergism of syntax and
semantics. The particular case which occured to me is an example
of the specific ways that Latin grammar terminology is innapropriate
for English. In English, there is no 'present' tense in the intuitive
sense of that word. The stem of the verb (which Winograd calls the
'infinitive' form, in contrast to the traditional use of this term to
signify the 'to+stem' form) actually encodes the semantic concept
of 'indefinite habitual' Thus, to say only 'I eat.' sounds
peculiar. When the stem is used alone, we expect a qualifier, as in
'I eat regularly', or 'I eat very little', or 'I eat every day'. In
this framework, there is a connection with the present, in the sense
that the process described is continuous, has existed in the past,
and is expected to continue in the future. Thus, what we call the
'present' is really a 'modal' form, and might better be described
as the 'present state of a continuing habitual process'. If we wish
to describe something related to our actual state at this time,
we use what I think of as the 'actual present', which is 'I am eating'.
Winograd hints at this, especially in Appendix B, in discussing verb
forms. However, he does not go into it in detail, so it might help
you understand better what's happening if you keep in mind the fact
that there exist specific underlying semantic functions being
implemented, which are in turn based on the ltype of information
to be conveyed and the subtlety of the disinctions desired. Knowing
this at the outset may help you decide the elements you wish to
model in a simplified program. It will certainly help if you
want to try the expectations technique. This is an ideal situation
in which to try a 'blackboard' type of expert system, where the
sensing, semantics, and parsing/generation engines operate in
parallel. Good luck!

        A final note: if you would like to explore further a view
of grammar which totally dispenses with the terms and concepts of
Latin grammar, you might read "The Languages of Africa" (I think
that's the title), by William Welmer.

        By the way! Does anyone out there know if Welmer ever published
his fascinating work on the memory of colors as a function of time?
Did it at least get stored in the archives at Berkeley?

Asa Simmons
rayssd!asa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13 October 1983 22:24:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Total Winner
-BODY-

        @   @          @   @           @          @@@  @     @
        @   @          @@ @@           @           @   @     @
        @   @  @@@     @ @ @  @@@   @@@@  @@@      @  @@@    @
        @@@@@ @   @    @   @     @ @   @ @   @     @   @     @
        @   @ @@@@@    @   @  @@@@ @   @ @@@@@     @   @     @
        @   @ @        @   @ @   @ @   @ @         @   @  @
        @   @  @@@     @   @  @@@@  @@@@  @@@     @@@   @@   @


Well, thanks to the modern miracles of parallel processing (i.e. using
the UUCPNet as one giant distributed processor)  Rog-O-Matic became an
honest member of the Fighter's guild on October 10, 1983.  This is the
fourth total victory for our Heuristic Hero, but the first time he has
done so without using a "Magic Arrow".  This comes only a year and two
weeks  after  his  first  total  victory.  He will be two years old on
October 19.  Happy Birthday!

Damon Permezel of Waterloo was the lucky user. Here is his announcement:

    - - - - - - - -
    Date: Mon, 10 Oct 83 20:35:22 PDT
    From: allegra!watmath!dapermezel@Berkeley
    Subject: total winner
    To: mauldin@cmu-cs-a

    It won!  The  lucky  SOB started out with armour class of 1 and a (-1,0)
    two handed sword (found right next to it on level 1).  Numerous 'enchant
    armour' scrolls  were found,  as well as a +2 ring of dexterity,  +1 add
    strength, and slow digestion, not to mention +1 protection.  Luck had an
    important part to play,  as  initial  confrontations  with 'U's  got him
    confused and almost killed, but for the timely stumbling onto the stairs
    (while still confused). A scroll of teleportation was seen to be used to
    advantage once, while it was pinned between 2 'X's in a corridor.
    - - - - - - - -
    Date: Thu, 13 Oct 83 10:58:26 PDT
    From: allegra!watmath!dapermezel@Berkeley
    To: mlm@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
    Subject: log

    Unfortunately, I was not logging it. I did make sure that there
    were several witnesses to the game, who could verify that it (It?)
    was a total winner.
    - - - - - - - -

The paper is still available; for a copy of "Rog-O-Matic: A Belligerent
Expert System", please send your physical address to "Mauldin@CMU-CS-A"
and include the phrase "paper request" in the subject line.

Michael Mauldin (Fuzzy)
Department of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213
(412) 578-3065,  mauldin@cmu-cs-a.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 83 21:35:12 EDT  (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: University of Maryland Colloquium
-BODY-
University of Maryland
Department of Computer Science
Colloquium

Monday, October 24 -- 4:00 PM
Room 2324 - Computer Science Building


             A Formal Model of Diagnostic Problem Solving


                             Dana S. Nau
                        Computer Science Dept.
                        University of Maryland
                          College Park, Md.


      Most expert computer systems are based on production rules, and to
some readers the terms "expert computer system" and "production rule
system" may seem almost synonymous.  However, there are problem domains
for which the usual production rule techniques appear to be inadequate.

      This talk presents a useful alternative to rule-based problem
solving:  a formal model of diagnostic problem solving based on a
generalization of the set covering problem, and formalized algorithms
for diagnostic problem solving based on this model.  The model and the
resulting algorithms have the following features:
(1) they capture several intuitively plausible features of human
    diagnostic inference;
(2) they directly address the issue of multiple simultaneous causative
    disorders;
(3) they can serve as a basis for expert systems for diagnostic problem
    solving; and
(4) they provide a conceptual framework within which to view recent
    work on diagnostic problem solving in general.

Coffee and refreshments - Rm. 3316 - 3:30
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
78
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 83 11:54:07-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: consciousness, loops, halting problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.983


With regard to loops and consciousness, consider Theorem 66 of Dedekind's
book on the foundations of mathematics, "Essays on the Theory of Numbers",
translated 1901.  This is the book where the Dedekind Cut is invented to
characterize irrational numbers.

        64.  Definition.  A system S is said to be infinite when it
        is similar to a proper part of itself; in the contrary case
        S is said to be a finite system.


        66.  Theorem.  There exist infinite systems.  Proof.  My own
        realm of thoughts, i.e. the totality S of all things, which
        can be objects of my thought, is infinite.  For if s
        signifies an element of S, then is the thought s', that s
        can be object of my thought, itself an element of S.  If we
        regard this as transform phi(s) of the element s then has
        the transformation phi of S, thus determined, the property
        that the transform S' is part of S; and S' is certainly
        proper part of S, because there are elements of S (e.g. my
        own ego) which are different from such thought s' and
        therefore are not contained in S'.  Finally it is clear that
        if a, b are different elements of S, their transformation
        phi is a distinct (similar) transformation.  Hence S is
        infinite, which was to be proved.

For that matter, net.math seems to be in a loop.  They were discussing the
Banach-Tarski paradox about a year ago.

Alex Colvin

ARPA: mac.uvacs@UDel-Relay CS: mac@virginia USE: ...uvacs!mac

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 83 13:53:38-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: life is but a dream
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.3318

The statement that consciousness is an illusion does not mean it does
not or cannot have a concrete realization. I took the remarks to mean
simply that the entire mental machinery is not available for
introspection, and in its place some top-level "picture" of the process
is made available. The picture need not reflect the details of internal
processing, in the same way that most people's view of a car does not
bear much resemblance to its actual mechanistic internals.

For those who may not already be aware, the proposal is not a new one.
I find it rather attractive, admitting my own favorable
predisposition towards the proposition that mental processing is
computational.

I still think this newsgroup would be more worthwhile if readers
adopted a more tolerant attitude. It seems to be the case that there is
nearly always a silly interpretation of someone's contribution;
discovering that interpretation doesn't seem to be a very challenging
task.

        Tom Blenko
        blenko@rochester
        decvax!seismo!rochester!blenko
        allegra!rochester!blenko

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 9:37:52-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "Rational Psychology"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.3352

This is in response to John Black's comments, to wit:

>     Having a theoretical (or "rational" -- terrible name with all the wrong
> connotations) psychology is certainly desirable, but it does have to make
> some contact with the field it is a theory of.  One of the problems here is
> that the "calculus" of psychology has yet to be invented, so we don't have
> the tools we need for the "Newtonian mechanics" of psychology.  The latest
> mathematical candidate was catastrophe theory, but it turned out to be a
> catastrophe when applied to human behavior.  Perhaps Periera and Doyle have
> a "calculus" to offer.

This is an issue I (and I think many AI'ers) are particularly interested in,
that is, the correspondence between our programs and the actual workings of
the mind. I believe that an *explanatory* theory of behavior will not be at
the functional level of correspondence with human behavior. Theories which are
at the functional level are important for pinpointing *what* it is that people
do, but they don't get a handle on *how* they do it. And, I think there are
side-effects of the architecture of the brain on behavior that do not show up
in functional level models.

This is why I favor (my favorite model!) connectionist models as being a
possible "calculus of Psychology". Connectionist models, for those unfamiliar
with the term, are a version of neural network models developed here at
Rochester (with related models at UCSD and CMU) that attempts to bring the
basic model unit into line with our current understanding of the information
processing capabilities of neurons. The units themselves are relatively stupid
and slow, but have state, and can compute simple functions (not restricted to
linear). The simplicity of the functions is limited only by "gentleman's
agreement", as we still really have no idea of the upper limit of neuronal
capabilities, and we are guided by what we seem to need in order to accomplish
whatever task we set them to. The payoff is that they are highly connected to
one another, and can compute in parallel. They are not allowed to pass symbol
structures around, and have their output restricted to values in the range
1..10. Thus we feel that they are most likely to match the brain in power.

The problem is how to compute with the things! We regard the outcome of a
computation to be a "stable coalition", a set of units which mutually
reinforce one another. We use units themselves to represent values of
parameters of interest, so that mutually compatible values reinforce one
another, and mutually exclusive values inhibit one another. These could
be the senses of the words in a sentence, the color of a patch in the
visual field, or the direction of intended eye movement. The result is
something that looks a lot like constraint relaxation.

Anyway, I don't want to go on forever. If this sparks discussion or interest
references are available from the U. of R. CS Dept. Rochester, NY 14627.
(the biblio. is a TR called "the Rochester Connectionist Papers").

gary cottrell   (allegra or seismo)!rochester!gary or gary@rochester

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 83 8:00:59-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxn!rlr @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: Intuition in Physics
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.289

>    I presume that at birth, ones mind is not predisposed to one or another
>    of several possible theories of heavy molecule collision (for example.)
>    Further, I think it unlikely that personal or emotional interaction in
>    one "pre-analytic" stage (see anything about developmental psych.) is
>    is likely to bear upon ones opinions about those molecules. In fact I
>    find it hard to believe that anything BUT technical learning is likely
>    to bear on ones intuition about the molecules. One might want to argue
>    that ones personality might force you to lean towards "aggressive" or
>    overly complex theories, but I doubt that such effects will lead to
>    the creation of a theory.  Only a rather mild predisposition at best.

>    In psychology it is entirely different.  A person who is agresive has
>    lots of reasons to assume everyone else is as well. Or paranoid, or
>    that rote learning is esp good or bad, or that large dogs are dangerous
>    or a number of other things that bear directly on ones theories of the
>    mind.  And these biases are aquired from the process of living and are
>    quite un-avoidable.

The author believes that, though behavior patterns and experiences in a
person's life may affect their viewpoint in psychological studies, this
does not apply in "technical sciences" (not the author's phrasing, and not
mine either---I just can't think of another term) like physics.  It would
seem that flashes of "insight" obtained by anyone in a field involving
discovery have to be based on both the technical knowledge that the person
already has AND the entire life experience up to that point.  To oversimplify,
if one has never seen a specific living entity (a flower, a specific animal)
or witnessed a physical event, or participated in a particular human
interaction, one cannot base a proposed scientific model on these things, and
these flashes are often based on such analogies to reality.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 83 14:38:45-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: Intuition in Physics
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1251

Gary,
I don't know about why you think about physics, but I know something about
why *I* think about physics. You see, i have this deep fondness for
"continuous creation" as opposed to "the big bang". This is too bad for me,
since "big bang" appears to be correct, or at any rate, "continuous
creation" appears to be *wrong*. Perhaps what it more correct is
"bang! sproiinngg.... bang!" or a series of bangs, but this is not
the issue.

these days, if you ask me to explain the origins of the universe, from
a physical point of veiw I am going to discuss "big bang". I can do this.
It just does not have the same emotional satisfaction to me as "c c"
but that is too bad for me, I do not go around spreading antiquidated
theories to people who ask me in good faith for information.

But what if the evidence were not all in yet? What if there were an
equal number of reasons to believe one or the other? What would I be
doing? talking about continuous creation. i might add a footnote that
there was "this other theory ... the big bang theory" but I would not
discuss it much. I have that strong an emotional attatchment to
"continuous creation".

You can also read that other great issues in physics and astronomy had
their great believers -- there were the great "wave versus particle"
theories of light, and The Tycho Brahe cosmology versus the Kepler
cosmology, and these days you get similar arguments ...

In 50 years, we may all look back and say, well, how silly, everyone
should have seen that X, since X is now patently obvious. This will
explain why people believe X now, but not why people believed X then,
or why people DIDN'T believe X then.

Why didn't Tycho Brahe come up with Kepler's theories? It wasn't
that Kepler was a better experiementer, for Kepler himself admits
that he was a lousy experimenter and Brahe was reknowned for having
the best instraments in the world, and being the most painstaking
in measurements. it wasn't that they did not know each other, for
Kepler worked with Brahe, and replaced him as Royal Astronomer, and
was familiar with his work before he ever met Brahe...

It wasn't that Brahe was religious and Kepler was not, for it was
Kepler that was almost made a minister and studied very hard in Church
schools (which literally brought him out of peasantry into the middle
class) while Brahe, the rich nobleman, could get away with acts that
the church frowned upon (to put if mildly).

Yet Kepler was able to think in terms of Heliocentric, while Brahe,
who came so...so..close balked at the idea and put the sun circling
the earth while all the other planets circled the sun. Absolutely
astonishing!

I do not know where these differences came from. However, I have a
pretty good idea why continuous creation is more emotionally satisfying
for me than "big bang" (though these days I am getting to like
"bang! sproing! bang!" as well.) As a child, i ran across the "c c"
theory at the same time as i ran across all sorts of the things that
interest me to this day. In particular, I recall reading it at the
same time that I was doing a long study of myths, or creation myths
in particular. Certain myths appealed to me, and certain ones did not.

In particular, the myths that centred around the Judeao-Christian
tradition (the one god created the world -- boom!) had almost no
appeal to me those days, since I had utter and extreme loathing for
the god in question. (this in turn was based on the discovery that
this same wonderful god was the one that tortured and burned millions
in his name for the great sin of heresy.) And thus, "big bang"
which smacked of "poof! god created" was much less favoured by me
at age 8 than continuous creation (no creator necessary).

Now that I am older, I have a lot more tolerance for Yaveh, and
I do not find it intollerable to believe in the Big Bang. However,
it is not as satisfying.  Thus I know that some of my beliefs
which in another time could have been essential to my scientific
theories and inspirations, are based on an 8-year-old me reading
about the witchcraft trials.

It seems likely that somebody out there is furthering science by
discovering new theories based on ideas which are equally scientific.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Oct 83 10:50:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FORTH CONVENTION ANNOUNCEMENT
-BODY-
              5TH ANNUAL FORTH NATIONAL CONVENTION

                       October 14-15, 1983


                         Hyatt Palo Alto

                       4920 El Camino real
                       Palo Alto, CA 94306



        Friday   10/14: 12:00-5:00  Conference and Exhibits
        Saturday 10/15:  9:00-5:00  Conference and Exhibits
                              7:00  Banquet and Speakers


        This FORTH convention includes sessions on:

        Relational Data Base Software - an implementation
        FORTH Based Instruments - implementations
        FORTH Based Expert Systems - GE DELTA system
        FORTH Based CAD system - an implementation
        FORTH Machines - hardware implementations of FORTH
        Pattern Recognition Based Programming System - implementation
        Robotics Uses - Androbot

        There are also introductory sessions and sessions on
various standards.  Entry fee is $5.00 for the sessions and
exhibits.  The banquet features Tom Frisna, president of
Androbot, as the speaker (fee is $25.00).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 1983 1441:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: Sylvia Brahm <BRAHM@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IUS Presentation
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-C bboard.]

George Sperling from NYU and Bell Laboratories will give a talk
on Monday, October 17, 3:30 to 5:00 in Wean Hall 5409.

Title will be Image Processing and the Logic of Perception.
This talk is not a unification but merely the temporal juxta-
position of two lines of research.  The logic of perception
invoves using unreliable, ambiguous information to arrive at
a categorical decision.  Critical phenomena are multiple stable
states (in response to the same external stimulus) and path
dependence (hysteresis):  the description is potential theory.
Neural models with local inhibitory interaction are the ante-
cedents of contemporary relaxation methods.  New (and old)
examples are provided from binocular vision and depth perception,
including a polemical demonstration of how the perceptual decision
of 3D structure in a 2D display can be dominated by an irrelevant
brightness cue.

Image processing will deal with the practical problem of squeezing
American Sign Language (ASL) through the telephone network.
Historically, an image (e.g., TV @4MHz) has been valued at more
than 10@+(3) speech tokens (e.g., telephone @3kHz).  With image-
processed ASL, the ratio is shown to be approaching unity.

Movies to illustrate both themes will be shown.  Appointments to
speak with Dr. Sperling can be made by calling x3802.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
79
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Oct 83 08:41:39-CDT
-FROM-
From: Robert L. Causey <Cgs.Causey@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Congratulations Woody!
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]


Woody Bledsoe has been named president-elect of the American
Association of Artificial Intelligence.  He will become
president in August, 1984.

According to the U.T. press release Woody said, "You can't
replace the human, but you can greatly augment his abilities."
Woody has greatly augmented the computer's abilities. Congratulations!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 83 12:59:24-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!hlexa!pcl @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI (and other) videotapes to be produced by AT&T Bell
-BODY-           Laboratories
Article-I.D.: hlexa.287

[I'm posting this for someone who does not have access to netnews.
Send comments to the address below; electronic mail to me will be
forwarded. - PCL]

AT&T Bell Laboratories is planning to produce a
videotape on artificial intelligence that concentrates
on "knowledge representation" and "search strategies"
in expert systems.  The program will feature a Bell
Labs prototype expert system called ACE.

Interviews of Bell Labs developers will provide the
content.  Technical explanations will be made graphic
with computer generated animation.

The tape will be sold to colleges and industry by
Hayden Book Company as part of a software series.
Other tapes will cover Software Quality, Software
Project Management and Software Design Methodologies.

Your comments are welcome.  Write to W. L. Gaddis,
Senior Producer, Bell Laboratories, 150 John F. Kennedy
Parkway, Room 3L-528, Short Hills, NJ 07078

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 83 22:42:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: Sri <Sridharan@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mini-talks
-BODY-
Recently two notices were copied from the Rutgers bboard to Ailist.
They listed a number of "talks" by various faculty back to back.
Those who wondered how a talk could be given in 10 minutes and
those who wondered why a talk would be given in 10 minutes may
be glad to know the purpose of the series.  This is the innovative
method that has been designed by the CS graduate students society
for introducing to new graduate students and new faculty members
the research interests of the CS faculty.  Each talk typically outlined
the area of CS and AI of interest to the faculty member, discussed
research opportunities and the background (readings, courses) necessary
for doing research in that area.

I have participated in this mini-talk series for several years and
have found it valuable to myself as a speaker.  To be given about 10 min
to say what I am interested in, does force me distill thoughts and to
say it simply.  The feedback from students is also positive.
Perhaps you will hear some from some of the students too.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 83 2:44:12-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!shebs @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.1985

I share your notion (that human ability is limited, and that machines
might actually go beyond man in "consciousness"), but not your confidence.
How do you intend to prove your ideas?  You can't just wait for a fantastic
AI program to come along - you'll end up right back in the Turing Test
muddle.  What *is* consciousness?  How can it be characterized abstractly?
Think in terms of universal psychology - given a being X, is there an
effective procedure (used in the technical sense) to determine whether
that being is conscious?  If so, what is that procedure?

                                        AI is applied philosophy,
                                        stan the l.h.
                                        utah-cs!shebs

ps Re rational or universal psychology: a professor here observed that
it might end up with the status of category theory - mildly interesting
and all true, but basically worthless in practice... Any comments?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 83 11:43:39-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!milla @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Halting problem.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cca.5880

Of course self-awareness is real.   The  point  is  that  self-awareness
comes  about  BECAUSE  of  the  illusion  of consciousness.  If you were
capable of only very primitive thought, you would  be  less  self-aware.
The  greater  your  capacity  for complex thought, the more you perceive
that your actions are the result of an active,  thinking  entity.   Man,
because  of  his  capacity  to form a model of the world in his mind, is
able to form a model of himself.  This all makes  sense  from  a  purely
physical  viewpoint;  there  is  no  need  for  a supernatural "soul" to
complement the brain.  Animals appear to have some  self-awareness;  the
quantity  depends  on  their intelligence.  Conceivably, a very advanced
computer system could have a high degree  of  self-awareness.   As  with
consciousness,  it is lack of information -- how the brain works, random
factors, etc. which makes self-awareness  seem  to  be  a  very  special
quality.  In fact, it is a very simple, unremarkable characteristic.

                                                M. Massimilla

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 83 7:16:26-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Physics and Intuition
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2367


I intend this to be my final word on the matter.  I intend it to be
brief: as someone said, a bit more tolerance on this group would help.
From Laura we have a wonderful story of the intermeshing of physics and
religion.  Well, I picked molecular physics for its avoidance of any
normal life experiences.  Cosmology and creation are not in that catagory
quite so strongly because religion is an everyday thing and will lead to
biases in cosmological theories.  Clearly there is a continuum from
things which are divorced from everyday experience to those that are
very tightly connected to it.  My point is that most "hard" sciences
are at one end of the continuum while psychology is clearly way over
at the other end, by definition.  It is my position that the rather
big difference between the way one can think about the two ends of the
spectrum suggests that what works well at one end may well be quite
inappropriate at the other.  Or it may work fine.  But there is a burden
of proof that I hand off to the rational psychologists before I will
take them more seriously than I take most psychologists.  I have the same
attitude towards cosmology. I find it patently ludicrous that so many
people push our limited theories so far outside the range of applicability
and expect the extrapolation to be accurate. Such extrapoloation is
an interesting way to understand the failing of the theories, but to
believe that DOES require faith without substantiation.

I dislike being personal, but Laura is trying to make it seem black and
white.  The big bang has hardly been proved. But she seems to be saying
it has.  It is of course not so simple. Current theories and data
seem to be tipping the scales, but the scales move quite slowly and will
no doubt be straightened out by "new" work 30 years hence.

The same is true of my point about technical reasoning.  Clearly no
thought can be entirely divorced from life experiences without 10
years on a mountain-top.  Its not that simple.  That doesn't mean that
there are not definable differences between different ways of thinking
and that some may be more suitable to some fields.  Most psychologists
are quite aware of this problem (I didn't make it up) and as a result
purely experimental psychology has always been "trusted" more than
theorizing without data.  Hard numbers give one some hope that it is
the world, not your relationship with a pet turtle speaking in your
work.

If anyone has anymore to say to me about this send me mail, please.
I suspect this is getting tiresome for most readers. (its getting
tiresome for me...)  If you quote me or use my name, I will always
respond.  This network with its delays is a bad debate forum.  Stick to
ideas in abstration from the proponent of the idea. And please look
for what someone is trying to say before assuming thay they are blathering.
>---GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 83 13:43:56 EDT  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Paul Torek <flink%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: consciousness and the teleporter
-BODY-
    From Michael Condict   ...!cmcl2!csd1!condict

        This, then, is the reason I would never step into one of those
        teleporters that functions by ripping apart your atoms, then
        reconstructing an exact copy at a distant site.  [...]

In spite of the fact that consciousness (I agree with the growing chorus) is
NOT an illusion, I see nothing wrong with using such a teleporter.  Let's
take the case as presented in the sci-fi story (before Michael Condict rigs
the controls).  A person disappears from (say) Earth and a person appears at
(say) Tau Ceti IV.  The one appearing at Tau Ceti is exactly like the one
who left Earth as far as anyone can tell: she looks the same, acts the same,
says the same sort of things, displays the same sort of emotions.  Note that
I did NOT say she is the SAME person -- although I would warn you not too
conclude too hastily whether she is or not.  In my opinion, *it doesn't
matter* whether she is or not.

To get to the point:  although I agree that consciousness needs something to
exist, there *IS* something there for it -- the person at Tau Ceti.  On
what grounds can anyone believe that the person at Tau Ceti lacks a
consciousness?  That is absurd -- consciousness is a necessary concomitant
of a normal human brain.  Now there IS a question as to whether the
conscious person at Tau Ceti is *you*, and thus as to whether his mind
is *your* mind.  There is a considerable philosophical literature on this
and very similar issues -- see *A Dialogue on Personal Identity and
Immortality* by John Perry, and "Splitting Self-Concern" by Michael B. Green
in *Pacific Philosophical Quarterly*, vol. 62 (1981).

But in my opinion, there is a real question whether you can say whether
the person at Tau Ceti is you or not.  Nor, in my opinion, is that
question really important.  Take the modified case in which Michael Condict
rigs the controls so that you are transported, yet remain also at Earth.
Michael Condict calls the one at Earth the "original", and the one at Tau
Ceti the "copy".  But how do you know it isn't the other way around -- how
do you know you (your consciousness) weren't teleported to Tau Ceti, while
a copy (someone else, with his own consciousness) was produced at Earth?

"Easy -- when I walk out of the transporter room at Earth, I know I'm still
me; I can remember everything I've done and can see that I'm still the same
person."  WRONGO -- the person at Tau Ceti has the same memories, etc.  I
could just as easily say "I'll know I was transported when I walk out of the
transporter room at Tau Ceti and realize that I'm still the same person."

So in fairness, we can't say "You walk out of the transporter room at both
ends, with the original you realizing that something went wrong."  We have
to say "You walk out of the transporter at both ends, with *the one at
Earth* realizing something is wrong."  But wait -- they can't BOTH be you --
or can they?  Maybe neither is you!  Maybe there's a continuous flow of
"souls" through a person's body, with each one (like the "copy" at Tau Ceti
(or is it at Earth)) *seeming* to remember doing the things that that body
did before ...

If you acknowledge that consciousness is rooted in the physical human brain,
rather than some mysterious metaphysical "soul" that can't be seen or
touched or detected in any way at all, you don't have to worry about whether
there's a continuous flow of consciousnesses through your body.  You don't
have to be a dualist to recognize the reality of consciousness; in fact,
physicalism has the advantage that it *supports* the commonsense belief that
you are the same person (consciousness) you were yesterday.

                                --Paul Torek, U of MD, College Park
                                ..umcp-cs!flink

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
80
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Oct 83 20:33:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Complaints
-BODY-
I have received copies of two complaints sent to the author
of a course announcement that I published.  The complaints
alleged that the announcement should not have been put out on
the net.  I have three comments:

First, such complaints should come to me, not to the original
authors.  The author is responsible for the content, but it is
my decision whether or not to distribute the material.  In this
case, I felt that the abstract of a new and unique AI course
was of interest to the academic half of the AIList readership.

Second, there is a possibility that the complainants received
the article in undigested form, and did not know that it was
part of an AIList digest.  If anyone is currently distributing
AIList in this manner, I want to know about it.  Undigested
material is being posted to net.ai and to some bboards, but it
should not be showing up in personal mailboxes.

Third, this course announcement was never formally submitted
to AIList.  I picked the item up from a limited distribution,
and failed to add a "reprinted from" or disclaimer line to
note that fact.  I apologize to Dr. Moore for not getting in
touch with him before sending the item out.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Oct 83 09:01:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Abstracts
-BODY-
It has been suggested to me that seminar abstracts would be more
useful if they contained the home address (or net address, phone
number, etc.) of the speaker.  I have little control over the
content of these messages, but I encourage those who compose them
to include such information.  Your notices will then be of greater
use to the scientific community beyond just those who can attend
the seminars.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 17 Oct 83 15:44:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: Mark D. Lerner <LERNER@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel production systems.
-BODY-

The parallel production  system interpreter is  running
on the 15 node DADO prototype. We can presently run  up
to 32 productions, with 12 clauses in each  production.
The prototype has been operational since April 1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 1983 0711-PDT
-FROM-
From: MEYERS.UCI-20A@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: phrasal analysis
-BODY-

Recently someone asked why PHRAN was not based on a grammar.
It just so happens ....

I have written a parser which uses many of the ideas of PHRAN
but which organizes the phrasal patterns into several interlocking
grammars, some 'semantic' and some syntactic.

The program is called VOX (Vocabulary Extension System) and attempts
a 'complete' analysis of English text.

I am submitting a paper about the concepts underlying the system
to COLING, the conference on Computational Linguistics.
Whether or not it is accepted, I will make a UCI Technical Report
out of it.

To obtain a copy of the paper, write:

                Amnon Meyers
                AI Project
                Dept. of Computer Science
                University of California,
                Irvine, CA   92717

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 1983 10:48:46 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grammars; Greek; invective
-BODY-
One comment and two meta-comments:

Re: the validity of grammars: almost no one claims that grammatical
        phenomena don't exist (even Schank doesn't go that far).  What the
        argument generally is about is whether one should, as the first step
        in understanding an input, build a grammatical tree, without any (or
        much) information from either semantics or the current
        conversational context.  One side wants to do grammar first, by
        itself, and then the other stuff, whereas the other side wants to try
        to use all available knowledge right from the start.  Of course, there
        are folks taking extreme positions on both sides, and people
        sometimes get a bit carried away in the heat of an argument.

Re: Greek: As a general rule, it would be helpful if people who send in
        messages containing non-English phrases included translations.  I
        cannot judge the validity of the Macaroni argument, since I don't
        completely understand either example.  One might argue that I should
        learn Greek, but I think expecting me to know Maori grammatical
        classes is stretching things a bit.

Re: invective: Even if the reference to Yahweh was meant as a childhood
        opinion which has mellowed with age, I object to statements of the
        form "this same wonderful god... tortured and burned..." etc.
        Perhaps it was a typo.  As we all know, people have tortured and
        burnt other people for all sorts of reasons (including what sort of
        political/economic systems small Asian countries should have), and I
        found the statement offensive.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 19 October 1983 13:23:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Awareness
-BODY-
        As Paul Torek correctly points out, this is a metaphysical question.
The only differences I have with his note are over the use of some difficult
terms, and the fact that he clearly prefers the "physicalist" notion.  Let
me start by saying that one shouldn't try to prove one side or the other,
since proofs clearly cannot work: awareness isn't subject to proof.  The
evidence consists entirely of internal experiences, without any external
evidence.  (Let me warn everyone that I have not been formally trained in
philosophy, so some of my terms may be non-standard.)  The fact that this
issue isn't subject to proof does not make it trivial, or prevent it from
being a serious question.  One's position on this issue determines, I think,
to a large extent one's view on many other issues, such as whether robots
will eventually have the same legal stature as humans, and whether human life
should have a special value, beyond its information handling abilities, for
instance for euthanasia and abortion questions. (I certainly don't want to
argue about abortion; personally, I think it should be legal, but not treated
as a trivial issue.)

        At this point, my version of several definitions is in order.  This
is because several terms have been confused, due probably to the
metaphysical nature of the problem.  What I call "awareness" is *not*
"self-reference": the ability of some information processing systems (including
people) to discuss and otherwise deal with representations of themselves.
It is also *not* what has been called here "consciousness": the property of
being able to process information in a sophisticated fashion (note that
chemical and physical reactions process information as well).  "Awareness"
is the internal experience which Michael Condict was talking about, and
which a large number of people believe is a real thing.  I have been
told that this definition is "epiphenominal", in that awareness is not the
information processing itself, but is outside the phenomena observed.

        Also, I believe that I understand both points of view; I can argue
either side of the issue.  However, for me to argue that the experience of
"awareness" consists solely of a combination of information processing
capabilities misses the "dualist" point entirely, and would require me to
deny that I "feel" the experience I do.  Many people in science deny that
this experience has any reality separate from the external evidence of
information processing capabilities.  I suspect that one motivation for this
is that, as Paul Torek seems to be saying, this greatly simplifies one's
metaphysics.

        Without trying to prove the "dualist" point of view, let me give an
example of why this view seems, to me, more plausible than the
"physicalist" view.  It is a variation of something Joseph Weizenbaum
suggested.  People are clearly aware, at least they claim to be.  Rocks are
clearly not aware (in the standard Western view).  The problem with saying
that computers will ever be aware in the same way that people are is that
they are merely re-arranged rocks.  A rock sitting in the sun is warm, but
is not aware of its warmth, even though that information is being
communicated to, for instance, the rock it is sitting on.  A robot next to
the rock is also warm, and, due to a skillful re-arrangement of materials,
not only carries that information in its kinetic energy, but even has a
temperature "sensor", and a data structure representing its body
temperature.  But it is no more aware (in the experiential sense) of what is
going on than the rock is, since we, by merely using a different level of
abstraction in thinking about it, can see that the data structure is just a
set of states in some semiconductors inside it.  The human being sitting
next to the robot not only senses the temperature and records it somehow (in
the same sense as the robot does), but experiences it internally, and enjoys
it (I would anyway).  This experiencing is totally undetectable to physical
investigation, even when we (eventually) are able to analyze the data
structures in the brain.

An interesting side-note to this is that in some cultures, rocks, trees,
etc., are believed to experience their existance.  This is, to me, an
entirely acceptable alternate theory, in which the rock and robot would both
feel the warmth (and other physical properties) they possess.

As a final point, when I consider what I am aware of at any given moment, it
seems to include a visual display, an auditory sensation, and various bits
of data from parts of my body (taste, smell, touch, pain, etc.).  There are
many things inside my brain that I am *not* aware of, including the
preprocessing of my vision, and any stored memories not recalled at the
moment.  There is a sharp boundary between those things I am aware of and
those things I am not.  Why should this be?  It isn't just that the high
level processes, whatever they are, have access to only some structures.
They *feel* different from other structures in the brain, whose information
I also have access to, but which I have no feeling of awareness in.  It
would appear that there is some set of processing elements to which my
awareness has access.  This is the old mind-body problem that has plagued
philosophers for centuries.

To deny this qualitative difference would be, for me, silly, as silly as
denying that the physical world really exists.  In any event, whatever stand
you take on this issue is based on personal preferences in metaphysics, and
not on physical proof.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 83  1237 PDT
-FROM-
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Elegance and Logical Purity
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]


In the Lisp world, as you know, there are 2 Lisps that serve as
examples for this discussion: T and Common Lisp. T is based on
Scheme and, as such, it is relatively close to a `pure' Lisp or
even a lambda-calculus-style Lisp. Common Lisp is a large,
`user-convenient' Lisp. What are the relative successes of these
two Lisps ?  T appeals to the few, me included, while Common Lisp
appeals to the many. The larger, user-convenient Lisps provide
programmers with tools that help solve problems, but they don't
dictate the style of the solutions.

Think of it this way: When you go to an auto mechanic and you
see he has a large tool chest with many tools, are you more or
less confident in him than if you see he has a small tool box
with maybe 5 tools ?  Either way our confidence should be based
on the skill of the mechanic, but we expect a skilfull mechanic
with the right tools to be more efficient and possibly more
accurate than the mechanic who has few tools, or who merely has
tools and raw materials for making further tools.

One could take RPLACA as an analog to a user-convenience in this
situation. We do not need RPLACA: it messes up the semantics, and
we can get around it with other, elegant and pure devices. However,
RPLACA serves user convenience by providing an efficient means of
accomplishing an end.  In supplying RPLACA, I, the implementer,
have thought through what the user is trying to do.  No user would
appreciate it if I suggested that I knew better than he what he is
doing and to propose he replace all list structure that he might
wish to use with side-effect with closures and to then hope for
a smarter compiler someday.

I think it shows more contempt of users' abilities to dictate a
solution to him in the name of `elegance and logical purity' than
for me to think through what he wants for him.

I am also hesitant to foist on people systems or languages that
are so elegant and pure that I have trouble explaining it to users
because I am subject to being ``muddled about them myself.''

Maybe it is stupid to continue down the Lisp path, but Lisp is the
second oldest lanuage (to FORTRAN), and people clamor to use it.
Recall what Joel Moses said when comparing APL with Lisp.

  APL is perfect; it is like a diamond. But like a diamond
  you cannot add anything to it to make it more perfect, nor
  can you add anything to it and have it remain a diamond.
  Lisp, on the other hand, is like a ball of mud. You can add
  more mud to it, and it is still a ball of mud.

I think user convenience is like mud.

>rpg-

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 18 October 1983 09:32:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph.Ginder at CMU-CS-SPICE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp Motivation
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]


Being part of the Common Lisp effort, I would like to express an
opinion about the reasons for the inclusion of so many "impurities" in
Common Lisp that differs from that expressed by Fernando Pereira in
the last Prolog Digest.  I believe the reason for including much of
what is now Common Lisp in the Common Lisp specification was an effort
to provide common solutions to common problems; this is as opposed to
making concessions to language limitations or people's (in)ability to
write smart compilers.  In particular, the reference to optimizing
"inefficient copying into efficient replacement" does not seem a
legitimate compiler optimization (in the general sense) -- this
clearly changes program semantics.  (In the absence of side effects,
this would not be a problem, but note that some side effect is
required to do IO.)  For a good statement of the goals of the Common
Lisp effort, see Guy Steele's paper in the 1982 Lisp and Functional
Programming Conference Proceedings.

Let me hasten to add that I agree with Pereira's concern that
expediency not be promoted to principle.  It is for this very reason
that language features such as flavors and the loop construct were not
included in the Common Lisp specification -- we determined not to
standardize until concensus could be reached that a feature was both
widely accepted and believed to be a fairly good solution to a common
problem.  The goal is not to stifle experimentation, but to promote
good solutions that have been found through previous experience.  In
no sense do I believe anyone regards the current Common Lisp language
as the Final Word on Lisp.

Also, I have never interpreted Moses' diamond vs. mud analogy to have
anything to do with authoritarianism, only aesthetics.  Do others ?

>- Joe Ginder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 1983 07:38:44-PST
-FROM-
From: jmiller.ct@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reviewers needed for 1984 NCC
-BODY-
The Program Committee for the 1984 National Computer Conference, which will be
held in Las Vegas next July 9-12, is about to begin reviewing submitted
papers, and we are in need of qualified people who would be willing to serve
as reviewers.  The papers would be sent to you in the next couple of weeks;
the reviews would have to be returned by the end of December.

Since NCC is sponsored by non-profit computer societies and is run largely by
volunteers, it is not possible to compensate reviewers for the time and
effort they contribute.  However, to provide some acknowledgement of your
efforts, your name will appear in the conference proceedings and, if you
wish to attend NCC, we can provide you with advanced registration forms in
hotels close to the convention center.  We are also trying to arrange
simplified conference registration for reviewers.

As the chair of the artificial intelligence track, I am primarily concerned
with finding people who would be willing to review papers on AI and/or
human-computer interaction.  However, I will forward names of volunteers in
other areas to the appropriate chairs.  If you would like to volunteer,
please send me your:

        - name,
        - mailing address,
        - telephone number,
        - arpanet or csnet address (if any), and
        - subjects that you are qualified to review (it would be ideal if
          you could use the ACM categorization scheme)

Either arpanet/csnet mail or US mail to my address below would be fine.
Thanks for your help.

James Miller
Computer * Thought Corporation
1721 West Plano Parkway
Plano, Texas 75075
JMILLER.CT @ RAND-RELAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 11 Oct 83 10:44:08-CDT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak Jr. <CS.NOVAK@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: $1K/mo Fellowships at Texas
-BODY-
The Department of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin
is  initiating a Doctoral Fellows program, with fellowships available in
Spring 1984 and thereafter.  Recipients must be admitted  to  the  Ph.D.
program;  November  1  is  the  applications  deadline  for Spring 1984.
Applicants must have a B.A. or B.S.  in Computer Science, or equivalent,
a total GRE (combined verbal and quantitative) of at least 1400,  and  a
GPA  of  at  least  3.5  .    Doctoral  Fellows  will  serve as Teaching
Assistants for two semesters, then will be given a fellowship  (with  no
TA  duties)  for  one additional year.  The stipend will be $1000/month.
Twenty fellowships per year will be available.

The Computer Sciences Department at the University of Texas is ranked in
the top ten departments by the Jones-Lindzey report.  Austin is  blessed
with  an  excellent  climate  and  unexcelled  cultural and recreational
opportunities.

For details, contact Dr. Jim Bitner (CS.BITNER@UTEXAS-20),  phone  (512)
471-4353,  or  write to Computer Science Department, University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
81
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 83 16:00:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ferd Brundick (LTTB) <fsbrn@brl-voc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: info on Lisp Machines
-BODY-
We are about to embark on an ambitious AI project in which we hope
to develop an Expert System.  The system will be written in Lisp
(or possibly Prolog) and will employ fuzzy logic and production
rules.  In my role as equipment procurer and novice Lisp programmer,
I would like any information regarding Lisp machines, eg, what is
available, how do the various machines compare, etc.  If this topic
has been discussed before I would appreciate pointers to the info.
On the software side, any discussions regarding fuzzy systems would
be welcomed.  Thanks.
                                        dsw, fferd
                                        <fsbrn@brl-voc>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 83 10:01:56-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drux3!drufl!samir @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: drufl.670

Norm,

        Let me elaborate. Psychology, or logic of mind, involves BOTH
rational and emotional processes. To consider one exclusively defeats
the purpose of understanding.

        I have not read the article we are talking about so I cannot
comment on that article, but an example of what I consider a "Rational
Psychology" theory is "Personal Construct Theory" by Kelly. It is an
attractive theory but, in my opinion, it falls far short of describing
"logic of mind" as it fails to integrate emotional aspects.

        I consider learning-concept formation-creativity to have BOTH
rational and emotional attributes, hence it would be better if we
studied them as such.

        I may be creating a dichotomy where there is none. (Rational vs.
Emotional). I want to point you to an interesting book "Metaphors we
live by" (I forget the names of Authors) which in addition to discussing
many other ai-related (without mentioning ai) concepts discusses the
question of Objective vs. Subjective, which is similar to what we are
talking here, Rational vs. Emotional.

        Thanks.

                                Samir Shah
                                AT&T Information Systems, Denver.
                                drufl!samir

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Oct 83 11:31:59-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Overview Reports
-BODY-
I previously mentioned a NASA report described in IEEE Spectrum.
I now have further information from NTIS.  The one mentioned
was the last of the following:

  An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics:
  Volume II - Robotics, NBSIR-82-2479, March 1982
      PB83-217547          Price $13.00

  An Overview of Expert Systems, NBSIR-82-2505, May 1982
  (Revised October 1982)
      PB83-217562          Price $10.00

  An Overview of Computer Vision, NBSIR-822582 (or possibly
  listed as NBSIR-832582), September 1982
      PB83-217554          Price $16.00

  An Overview of Computer-Based Natural Language Processing,
  NASA-TM-85635  NBSIR-832687  N83-24193   Price $10.00

  An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics;
  Volume I - Artificial Intelligence, June 1983
  NASA-TM-85836            Price $10.00


The ordering address is

  United States Department of Commerce
  National Technical Information Service
  5285 Port Royal Road
  Springfield, VA  22161


                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Oct 83 11:38:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report Sources
-BODY-
The NTIS literature I have also lists some other useful sources:

  University Microfilms, Inc.
  300 N. Zeeb Road
  Ann Arbor, MI  48106

  National Translation Center
  SLA Translation Center, The John Crerar Library
  35 West 33rd Street
  Chicago, IL  60616

  Library of Congress,
    Photoduplicating Service
  Washington, D.C.  20540

  American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
  Technical Information Service
  555 West 57th Street, 12th Floor
  New York, NY  10019

  National Bureau of Standards
  Gaithersburg, MD  20234

  U.S. Dept. of Energy,
    Div. of Technical Information
  P.O. Box 62
  Oak Ridge, TN  37830

  NASA Scientific and Technical Facility
  P.O. Box 8757
  Balt/Wash International Airport
  Baltimore, MD  21240


                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 83 12:21:54 PDT
-FROM-
From: Rik Verstraete <rik@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography (parallelism and conciousness)
-BODY-
David Rogers asked me if I could send him some of my ``favorite''
readings on the subject ``parallelism and conciousness.'' I searched
through my list, and came up with several references which I think
might be interesting to everybody.  Not all of them are directly
related to ``parallelism and conciousness,'' but nevertheless...

Albus, J.S., Brains, Behavior, & Robotics, Byte Publications Inc.
(1981).

Arbib, M.A., Brains, Machines and Mathematics, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York (1964).

Arbib, M.A., The Metaphorical Brain, An Introduction to Cybernetics as
Artificial Intelligence and Brain Theory, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
(1972).

Arbib, M.A., "Automata Theory and Neural Models," Proceedings of the
1974 Conference on Biologically Motivated Automata Theory, pp. 13-18
(June 19-21, 1974).

Arbib, M.A., "A View of Brain Theory," in Selforganizing Systems, The
Emergence of Order, ed. F.E. Yates, Plenum Press, New York (1981).

Arbib, M.A., "Modelling Neural Mechanisms of Visuomotors Coordination
in Frogs and Toad," in Competition and Cooperation in Neural Nets, ed.
Amari, S., and M.A. Arbib, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982).

Barto, A.G. and R.S. Sutton, "Landmark Learning: An Illustration of
Associative Search," Biological Cybernetics Vol. 42(1) pp. 1-8
(November 1981).

Barto, A.G., R.S. Sutton, and C.W. Anderson, "Neuron-Like Adaptive
Elements that can Solve Difficult Learning Control Problems," Coins
Technical Report 82-20, Computer and Information Science Department,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA (1982).

Begley, S., J. Carey, and R. Sawhill, "How the Brain Works," Newsweek,
(February 7, 1983).

Davis, L.S. and A. Rosenfeld, "Cooperating Processes for Low-Level
Vision: A Survey," Aritificial Intelligence Vol. 17 pp.  245-263
(1981).

Doyle, J., "The Foundations of Psychology," CMU-CS-82-149, Department
of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
(February 18, 1982).

Feldman, J.A., "Memory and Change in Connection Networks," Technical
Report 96, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY (December 1981).

Feldman, J.A., "Four Frames Suffice: A Provisionary Model of Vision and
Space," Technical Report 99, Computer Science Department, University of
Rochester, Rochester, NY (September 1982).

Grossberg, S., "Adaptive Resonance in Development, Perception and
Cognition," SIAM-AMS Proceedings Vol. 13 pp. 107-156 (1981).

Harth, E., "On the Spontaneous Emergence of Neuronal Schemata," pp.
286-294 in Competition and Cooperation in Neural Nets, ed. Amari, S.,
and M.A. Arbib, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982).

Hayes-Roth, B., "Implications of Human Pattern Processing for the
Design of Artificial Knowledge Systems," pp. 333-346 in
Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, ed. Waterman, D.A., and F. Hayes-
Roth, Academic Press, New York (1978).

Hofstadter, D.R., Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Vintage
Books,, New York (1979).

Hofstadter, D.R. and D.C. Dennett, The Mind's I, Basic Books, Inc., New
York (1981).

Holland, J.H., Adaption in Natural and Artificial Systems, The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975).

Holland, J.H. and J.S. Reitman, "Cognitive Systems Based on Adaptive
Algorithms," pp. 313-329 in Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, ed.
Waterman, D.A., and F. Hayes-Roth, Academic Press, New York (1978).

Kauffman, S., "Behaviour of Randomly Constructed Genetic Nets: Binary
Element Nets," pp. 18-37 in Towards a Theoretical Biology, Vol 3:
Drafts, ed.  C.H. Waddington,Edinburgh University Press (1970).

Kauffman, S., "Behaviour of Randomly Constructed Genetic Nets:
Continuous Element Nets," pp. 38-46 in Towards a Theoretical Biology,
Vol 3: Drafts, ed. C.H. Waddington, Edinburgh University Press (1970).

Kent, E.W., The Brains of Men and Machines, Byte/McGraw-Hill,
Peterborough, NH (1981).

Klopf, A.H., The Hedonistic Neuron, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation,
Washington (1982).

Kohonen, T., "A Simple Paradigm for the Self-Organized Formation of
Structured Feature Maps," in Competition and Cooperation in Neural
Nets, ed.  Amari, S., and M.A. Arbib, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1982).

Krueger, M.W., Artificial Reality, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
(1983).

McCulloch, W.S. and W. Pitts, "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent
in Nervous Activity," Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics Vol. 5(4)
pp.  115-133 (December 1943).

Michalski, R.S., J.G. Carbonell, and T.M.  Mitchell, Machine Learning,
An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Tioga Publishing Co, Palo Alto, CA
(1983).

Michie, D., "High-Road and Low-Road Programs," AI Magazine, pp. 21-22
(Winter 1981-1982).

Narendra, K.S. and M.A.L. Thathachar, "Learning Automata - A Survey,"
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Vol. SMC-4(4) pp.
323-334 (July 1974).

Nilsson, N.J., Learning Machines: Foundations of Trainable Pattern-
Classifying Systems, McGraw-Hill, New-York (1965).

Palm, G., Neural Assemblies, Springer-Verlag (1982).

Pearl, J., "On the Discovery and Generation of Certain Heuristics," The
UCLA Computer Science Department Quarterly Vol. 10(2) pp. 121-132
(Spring 1982).

Pistorello, A., C. Romoli, and S. Crespi-Reghizzi, "Threshold Nets and
Cell-Assemblies," Information and Control Vol. 49(3) pp. 239-264 (June
1981).

Truxal, C., "Watching the Brain at Work," IEEE Spectrum Vol. 20(3) pp.
52-57 (March 1983).

Veelenturf, L.P.J., "An Automata-Theoretical Approach to Developing
Learning Neural Networks," Cybernetics and Systems Vol. 12(1-2) pp.
179-202 (January-June 1981).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 October 1983 1331-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jaime Carbonell at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning Course
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]

[I pass this on as a list of topics and people in machine learning.  -- KIL]


The schedule for the remaining classes in the Machine Learning
course (WeH 4509, tu & thu at 10:30) is:

Oct 25 - "Strategy Acquisition" -- Pat Langley
Oct 27 - "Learning by Chunking & Macro Structures" -- Paul Rosenbloom
Nov 1  - "Learning in Automatic Programming" -- Elaine Kant
Nov 3  - "Language Acquisition I" -- John Anderson
Nov 8  - "Discovery from Empirical Observations" -- Herb Simon
Nov 10 - "Language Acquisition II" -- John Anderson or Brian McWhinney
Nov 15 - "Algorithm Discovery" -- Elaine Kant or Allen Newell
Nov 17 - "Learning from Advice and Instruction" -- Jaime Carbonell
Nov 22 - "Conceptual Clustering" -- Pat Langley
Nov 29 - "Learning to Learn" -- Pat Langley
Dec 1  - "Genetic Learning Methods" -- Stephen Smith
Dec 6  - "Why Perceptrons Failed" -- Geoff Hinton
Dec 8  - "Discovering Regularities in the Environment" -- Geoff Hinton
Dec 13 - "Trainable Stochastic Grammars" -- Peter Brown

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
82
-DATE-
Date: Tue 25 Oct 83 11:56:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dolphin-Users distribution list
-BODY-
        If there are AIList readers who would like to discuss lisp machines
at a more detailed level than the credo of AIList calls for, let me alert them
to the existence of the Dolphin-Users@SUMEX distribution list.  This list was
formed over a year ago to discuss problems with Xerox D machines, but it has
had very little traffic, and I'm sure few people would mind if other lisp
machines were discussed.  If you would like your name added, please send a note
to Dolphin-Requests@SUMEX.  If you would like to contribute or ask a question
about some lisp machine or problem, please do!  --Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Oct 83 10:26:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inference Engine Toolkit for PCs
-BODY-
I have been requested to pass on some product availability data to AIList.
I think I can do so without violating Arpanet regulations.  I am
uncomfortable about such notices, however, and will generally require
that they pass through at least one "commercially disinterested" person
before being published in AIList.  I will perform this screening only
in exceptional cases.

The product is a document on a backward-chaining inference engine
toolkit, including source code in FORTH.  The inference engine uses
a production language syntax which allows semantic inference and
access to analytical subroutines written in FORTH.  Source code is
included for a forward-chaining tool, but the strategy is not
implemented in the inference routines.  The code is available on
disks formatted for a variety of personal computers.  For further
details, contact Jack Park, Helion, Inc., Box 445, Brownsville, CA
95919, (916) 675-2478.  The toolkit is also available from Mountain
View Press, Box 4656, Mountain View, CA  94040.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 25 October 1983, 10:28-EST
-FROM-
From: John Batali <Batali at MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-

I'm interested in the reasons for the pairing of these two ideas.  Does
anyone think that parallelism and consciousness necessarily have anything
to do with one another?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 25 Oct 83 12:22:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism and Consciousness
-BODY-
    I cannot say that "parallelism and consciousness are necessarily
related", for one can (at least) simulate a parallel process on a
sequential machine. However, just because one has the ability to
represent a process in a certain form does not guarantee that this
is the most natural form to represent it in; e.g., FORTRAN and LISP
are theoretically as powerful, but who wants to program an expert
system in FORTRAN?

    Top-down programming of knowledge is not (in my opinion) an
easy candidate for parallelism; one can hope for large
speed-ups of execution speed, but rarely are the algorithms
able to naturally utilize the ability of parallel systems to
support interacting non-deterministic processes. (I'm sure
I'll hear from some parallel logic programmer on that one).

    My candidate for developing parallelism and consciousness involves
incorporating the non-determinism at the heart of the system, by
using a large number of subcognitive processes operating in
parallel; this is essentially Hofstadter's concept of consciousness
being an epiphenomenon of the interacting structures, and not being
explicitly programmed.

    The reason for the parallelism is twofold. First, I would
assume that a system of interacting subcognitive structures would
have a significant amount of "random" effort, while the more
condensed logic based system would be more computationally more
efficient. Thus, the parallelism is partially used to offset the
added cost of the more fluid, random motion of the interacting
processes.

    Second, the interacting processes would allow a natural interplay
between events based on time; for example, infinite loops are
easily avoided through having a process interrupt if too much
time is taken. The blackboard architecture is also naturally
represented in parallel, as a number of coordinating processes
scribble on a shared data structure. Actually, in my mind, the
blackboard structure has not been developed fully; I have the
image of people at a party in my mind, with groups forming,
ideas developed, groups breaking up and reforming. Many blackboards
are active at once, and as interest is forgotten, they dissolve,
then reform around other topics.

    Notice that this representation of a party has no simple
sequential representation, nor would a simple top level rule
base be able to model the range of activities the party can evolve to.
How does "the party" decide what beer to buy, or how long to stay intact,
or whether it will be fun or not? If I were to model a party, I'd
say a parallel system of subcognitive structures would be almost
the only natural way.

    As a final note, I find the vision of consciousness being
analogous to people at a party simple and humorous. And somehow,
I've always found God to clothe most truths in humor... am I the only
one who has laughed at the beautiful simplicity of E=MC^2?

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date:     22 Oct 83 19:27:33 EDT  (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Paul Torek <flink%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject:  re: awareness
-BODY-
            [Submitted by Robert.Frederkind@CMU-CS-SAD.]

[Robert:]

I think you've misunderstood my position.  I don't deny the existence of
awareness (which I called, following Michael Condict, consciousness).  It's
just that I don't see why you or anyone else don't accept that the physical
object known as your brain is all that is necessary for your awareness.

I also think you have illegitimately assumed that all physicalists must be
functionalists.  A functionalist is someone who believes that the mind
consists in the information-processing features of the brain, and that it
doesn't matter what "hardware" is used, as long as the "software" is the
same there is the same awareness.  On the other hand, one can be a
physicalist and still think that the hardware matters too -- that awareness
depends on the actual chemical properties of the brain, and not just the
type of "program" the brain instantiates.

You say that a robot is not aware because its information-storage system
amounts to *just* the states of certain bits of silicon.  Functionalists
will object to your statement, I think, especially the word "just" (meaning
"merely").  I think the only reason one throws the word "just" into the
statement is because one already believes that the robot is unaware.  That
begs the question completely.

Suppose you have a "soul", which is a wispy ghostlike thing inside your body
but undetectable.  And this "soul" is made of "soul-stuff", let's call it.
Suppose we've decided that this "soul" is what explains your
intelligent-appearing and seemingly aware behavior.  But then someone comes
along and says, "Nonsense, Robert is no more aware than a rock is, since we,
by using a different level of abstraction in thinking about it, can see that
his data-structure is *merely* the states of certain soul-stuff inside him."
What makes that statement any less cogent than yours concerning the robot?

So, I don't think dualism can provide any advantages in explaining why
experiences have a certain "feel" to them.  And I don't see any problems
with the idea that the "feel" of an experience is caused by, or is identical
with, or is one aspect of, (I haven't decided which yet), certain brain
processes.
                                --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 24 October 1983 15:31:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: awareness
-BODY-

        Sorry about not noticing the functionalist/physicalist
distinction.  Most of the people that I've discussed this with were either
functionalists or dualists.

        The physicalist position doesn't bother me nearly as much as the
functionalist one.  The question seems to be whether awareness is a function
of physical properties, or something that just happens to be associated with
human brains -- that is, whether it's a necessary property of the physical
structure of functioning brains.  For example, the idea that your "soul" is
"inside your body" is a little strange to me -- I tend to think of it as
being similar to the idea of hyperdimensional mathematics, so that a person's
"soul" might exist outside the dimensions we can sense, but communicate with
their body.  I think that physicalism is a reasonable hypothesis, but the
differences are not experimentally verifiable, and dualism seems more
reasonable to me.

        As far as the functionalist counter-argument to mine would go, the
way you phrased it implies that I think that the "soul" explains human
behavior.  Actually, I think that *all* human behavior can be modeled by
physical systems like robots.  I suspect that we'll find physical correlates
to all the information processing behavior we see.  The thing I am
describing is the internal experience.  A functionalist certainly could make
the counter-argument, but the thing that I believe to be important in this
discussion is exactly the question of whether the "soul" is intrinsically
part of the body, or whether it's made of "soul-stuff", not necessarily
"located" in the body (if "souls" have locations), but communicating with
it.  As I implied in my previous post, I am concerned with the eventual
legal and ethical implications of taking a functionalist point of view.

        So I guess I'm saying that I prefer either physicalism or dualism to
functionalism, due to the side-effects that will occur eventually, and that
to me dualism appears the most intuitively correct, although I don't think
anyone can prove any of the positions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 1983 13:58:10-EDT
-FROM-
From: Paul.Rosenbloom at CMU-CS-H
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ML Readings
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]

The suggested readings for this Thursday's meeting of the machine learning
course -- on chunking and macro-operators -- are: "Learning and executing
generalized robot plans" by Fikes, Hart, and Nilsson (AIJ 1972); "Knowledge
compilation: The general learning mechanism" by Anderson (proceedings of the
1983 machine learning workshop); and "The chunking of goal hierarchies: A
generalized model of practice" by Rosenbloom and Newell (also in the
proceedings of the 1983 machine learning workshop).  These readings are now
(or will be shortly) on reserve in the E&S library.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Oct 83 20:09:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Doug Lenat <LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CS Colloq 10/25 Terry Winograd & Brian Smith
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the SU-Score bboard.  Sorry this one is late,
but it still may be valuable as the first mention of CSLI on
AIList. -- KIL]


CS Colloquium, Tuesday, Octobe 25, 4:15 Terman Auditorium
Terry Winograd (CSD) and Brian Smith (Xerox PARC)

Introducing the Center for the Study of Language and Information

This summer a new institute was created at Stanford, made up of
researchers from Stanford, SRI, Xerox, and Fairchild working in the study
of languages, both natural and formal.  Participants from Stanford will
include faculty, students and research staff from the departments of
Computer Science, Linguistics, and Philosophy.  We will briefly describe
the structure of the institute, and will present at some length the
intellectual vision on which it is based and the content of the current
research projects.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 1983 22:14:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: Gary.Bradshaw at CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dissertation defense
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]

I am giving my dissertation defense on Monday, October 31 at 8:30 a.m.
in Baker Hall 336b.  Committee members: Herbert Simon (chair),
Raj Reddy, John Anderson, and Brian MacWhinney.  The following is the
talk abstract:


                     LEARNING TO UNDERSTAND SPEECH SOUNDS:
                              A THEORY AND MODEL

                               Gary L. Bradshaw

Current  theories  of  speech  perception  postulate  a  set  of innate
feature detectors that derive a phonemic analysis of speech, even though a
large number of empirical tests are inconsistent with the feature detector
hypothesis.    I will  briefly describe feature detector theory and the
evidence against it, and will then present an alternative learning theory of
speech  perception.    The talk  will  conclude  with  a  description  of a
computer implementation of the theory, along with learning and performance
data for the system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 1983 1510-PDT
-FROM-
From: GOGUEN at SRI-CSL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rewrite rule seminar
-BODY-
TENTATIVE PROGRAM FOR TERM REWRITING SEMINAR
>-------------------------------------------

FIRST TALK:
27 October 1983, Thursday, 3:30-5pm, Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,
   Room EL381, SRI
This first talk will be an overview: basic mechanisms, solved & unsolved
problems, and main applications of term rewriting systems.

We will survey the literature, also indicating the most important results
and open problems, for the following topics:
  1. definition of rewriting
  2. termination
  3. For non-terminating rewritings: Church-Rosser properties, Sound computing
     strategies, Optimal computing strategies
  4. For terminating rewritings: Church-Rosser properties, completion
     algorithm, inductive completion algorithm, narrowing process
Three kind of term rewriting will be discussed: Term Rewriting
Systems (TRS), Equational Term Rewriting Systems (ETRS) and Conditional Term
Rewriting Systems (CTRS).

>-------------------------------------------------

Succeeding talks should be more technical.  The accompanying bibliographical
citations suggest important and readible references for each topic.  Do we
have any volunteers for presenting these topics?

>--------------------------------------------------

Second talk, details of terminating TRS:
  Knuth and Bendix; Dershowitz TCS; Jouannaud; Lescanne & Reinig,
  Formalization of Programming Concepts, Garmisch; Huet JACM; Huet JCSS; Huet
  & Hullot JACM; Fay CADE 78; Hullot CADE 80; Goguen CADE 80.

Third and fourth talk, details of terminating ETRS:
 Jouannaud & Munoz draft; Huet JACM; Lankford & Ballantine draft; Peterson &
  Stickel JACM; Jouannaud & Kirchner POPL; Kirchner draft; Jouannaud, Kirchner
  & Kirchner ICALP.

Fifth talk, details of turning the Knuth-Bendix completion procedure into a
complete refutational procedure for first order built in theories, with
applications to PROLOG:
  Hsiang thesis; Hsiang & Dershowitz ICALP; Dershowitz draft "Computing
  with TRW".

Sixth and seventh talks, non-terminating TRS and CTRS:
  O'Donnel LNCS; Huet & Levy draft; Pletat, Engels and Ehrich draft; Bergstra
  & Klop draft.

Eighth talk, terminating CTRS:
  Remy thesis.

(More time may be needed for some talks.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 83  1407 PDT
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: next week's talkware - Nov 1 TUESDAY - K. Nygaard
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


Date: Tuesday, Nov 1 *** NOTE ONE-TIME CHANGE OF DATE AND TIME ***
Speaker: Kristen Nygaard (University of Oslo and Norwegian Computing Center)
Topic: SYDPOL: System Development and Profession-Oriented Languages
Time: 1:15-2:30
Place: Poly Sci Bldg. Room 268. ***NOTE NONSTANDARD PLACE***


A new project involving several universities and research centers in three
Scandinavian countries has been establihed to create new methods of system
development, using profession-oriented languages.  They will design
computer-based systems that will operate in work associated with
professions (the initial application is in hospitals), focussing on the
problem of facilitating cooperative work among professionals.  One aspect
of the research is the development of formal languages for describing the
domains of interest and providing an interlingua for the systems and for
the people who use them.  This talk will focus on the language-design
research, its goals and methods.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
83
-DATE-
Date: 26 October 1983 1048-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: abbott at AEROSPACE (Russ Abbott)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definitions of AI Terms
-BODY-
The IEEE is in the process of preparing a dictionary of computer terms.
Included will be AI-related terms.  Does anyone know of existing sets of
definitions?

In future messages I expect to circulate draft definitions for comment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 83 16:46:09 EDT  (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!bts@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Unification
-BODY-
Ken,
        I posted this to USENET a week ago.  Since it hasn't shown
up in the AIList, I suspect that it didn't make it to SRI [...].

[Correct, we must have a faulty connection. -- KIL]

        Bruce

P.S. As an astute USENET reader pointed out, I perhaps should have said
that a unifier makes the terms "syntactically equal".  I thought it
was clear from context.
=====================================================================

  From: unc!bts (Bruce Smith)
  Newsgroups: net.ai
  Title: Unification Query
  Article-I.D.: unc.6030
  Posted: Wed Oct 19 01:23:46 1983
  Received: Wed Oct 19 01:23:46 1983

       I'm interested in anything new on unification algo-
  rithms.  In case some readers don't know what I'm talking
  about, I'll give a short description of the problem and some
  references I know of.  Experts-- the ones I'm really
  interested in reaching-- may skip to the last paragraph.
       Given a set of terms (in some language) containing
  variables, the unification problem is to find a 'unifier',
  that is, a substitution for the variables in those terms
  which would make the terms equal.  Moreover, the unifier
  should be a 'most general unifier', that is, any other unif-
  iers should be extensions of it.  Resolution theorem-provers
  and logic programming languages like Prolog depend on
  unification-- though the Prolog implementations I'm familiar
  with "cheat". (See Clocksin and Mellish's "Programming in
  Prolog", p. 219.)
       Unification seems to be a very active topic.  The paper
  "A short survey on the state of the art in matching and
  unification problems", by Raulefs, Siekmann, Szabo and
  Unvericht, in the May 1979 issue of the SIGSAM Bulletin,
  contains a bibliography of over 90 articles.  And, "An effi-
  cient unification algorithm", by Martelli and Montanari, in
  the April 1982 ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and
  Systems, gives a (very readable) discussion of the effi-
  ciency of various unification algorithms.  A programming
  language has even been based on unification: "Uniform-- A
  language based on unification which unifies (much of) Lisp,
  Prolog and Act1" by Kahn in IJCAI-81.
       So, does anyone out there in network-land have a unifi-
  cation bibliography more recent that 1979?  If it's on-line,
  would you please post it to USENET's net.ai?  If not, where
  can we get a copy?

       Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
       decvax!duke!unc!bts   (USENET)
       bts.unc@udel-relay (other NETworks)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 26-Oct-83  18:42:21-GMT
-FROM-
From: RICHARD HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: okeefe.r.a. <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology
-BODY-
     If you were thinking of saying something about "Rational Psychology"
and haven't read the article, PLEASE restrain yourself.  It appeared in
Volume 4 Issue 3 (Autumn 83) of "The AI Magazine", and is pages 50-54 of
that issue.  It isn't hard to get AI Magazine.  AAAI members get it.  I'm
not a member, but DAI Edinburgh has a subscription and I read it in the
library.  I am almost tempted to join AAAI for the AI magazine alone, it
is good value.

     The "Rational" in Rational Psychology modifies Psychology the same
way Rational modifies Mechanics in Rational Mechanics or Thermodynamics
in Rational Thermodynamics.  It does NOT contrast with "the psychology
of emotion" but with Experimental Psychology or Human Psychology.  Here
is a paragraph from the paper in question:

"    The aim of rational psychology is understanding, just as in any
other branch of mathematics.  Where much of what is labelled "mathematical
psychology" consists of microscopic mathematical problems arising in the
non-mathematical prosecution of human psychology, or in the exposition of
informal theories with invented symbols substituting for equally precise
words, rational psychology seeks to understand the structure of
psychological concepts and theories by means of the most fit mathematical
concepts and strict proofs, by suspiciously analyzing the informally
developed notions to reveal their essence and structure, to allow debate
on their interpretation to be phrased precisely, with consequences of
choices seen mathematically.  The aim is not simply to further informal
psychology, but to understand it instead, not necessarily to solve
problems as stated, but to see if they are proper problems at all by
investigating their formulations. "

     There is nothing in this, or any other part of the paper, that would
exclude the study of emotions from Rational Psychology.  Indeed, unless or
until we encounter another intelligent race, Rational Psychology seems to
offer the only way to telling whether there are emotions that human beings
cannot experience.

     My only criticism of Doyle's programme (note spelling, I am not
talking about a computer program) is that I think we are as close to a
useful Rational Psychology as Galileo was to Rational Mechanics or Carnot
was to Rational Thermodynamics.  I hope other people disagree with me and
get cracking on it.  Any progress at all in this area would be useful.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 83 07:50:56 pdt
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!utcsrgv!dave@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers and the Law
-BODY-
Dalhousie University is sponsoring a computer conference under
CONFER on an MTS system at Wayne State University in Michigan.
The people in the conference include lawyers interested in computers
as well as computer science types interested in law.

Topics of discussion include computer applications to law, legal issues
such as patents, copyrights and trade secrets in the context of computers,
CAI in legal education, and AI in law.

For those who aren't familiar with Confer, it provides a medium which
is somewhat more structured than Usenet for discussions. People post
"items", and "discussion responses" are grouped chronologically (and
kept forever) under the item. All of the files are on one machine only.

The conference is just starting up. Dalhousie has obtained a grant to
fund everyone's participation, which means anyone who is interested
can join for free. Access is through Telenet or Datapac, and the
collect charges are picked up by the grant.

If anyone is interested in joining this conference (called Law:Forum),
please drop me a line.

        Dave Sherman
        The Law Society of Upper Canada
        Osgoode Hall
        Toronto, Ont.
        Canada  M5H 2N6
        (416) 947-3466

decvax!utzoo!utcsrgv!dave@BERKELEY  (ARPA)
{ihnp4,cornell,floyd,utzoo} !utcsrgv!dave  (UUCP)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 10:22:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FORTH Convention Proceedings
-BODY-
I have been told that there will be no formal proceedings of the
FORTH convention, but that articles will appear in "FORTH
Dimensions", the magazine/journal of the FORTH Interest Group.
This journal publishes technical articles about FORTH methods and
techniques, algorithms, applications, and standards.  It is
available for $15.00/year from the following address:

        FORTH Interest Group
        P.O. Box 1105
        San Carlos, CA 94070
        415-962-8653

As you may know, Mountain View Press carries most of the
available literature for FORTH, including the proceedings of the
various technical conferences such as the FORTH Application
Conferences at the University of Rochester and the FORML
conferences.  I highly reccommend them as a source of FORTH
literature.  Their address is:

        Mountain View Press, Inc.
        P.O. Box 4656
        Mountain View, CA 94040
        415-961-4103

I hope this helps.

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 26 October 1983 14:55 edt
-FROM-
From: TJMartin.ADL@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Thomas J. Martin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Announcement
-BODY-
PLACE:    Arthur D. Little, Inc.
          Acorn Park (off Rte. 2 near Rte. 2/Rte. 16 rotary)
          Cambridge MA

DATE:     October 31, 1983

TIME:     8:45 AM, ADL Auditorium

TOPIC:    "Artificial Intelligence at ADL -- Activities, Progress, and Plans"

SPEAKER:  Dr. Karl M. Wiig, Director of ADL AI Program

ABSTRACT: ADL'ss AI program has been underway for four months.  A core group
          of staff has been recruited from several sections in the company
          and trained.  Symbolics 3600 and Xerox 1100 machines have been
          installed and are now operational.

          The seminar will discuss research in progress at ADL in:
          expert systems, natural language, and knowledge engineering tools.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Oct 83 20:11:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Doug Lenat <LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CS Colloq, Tues 11/1   Jussi Ketonen
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

CS Colloquium, Tuesday, November 1, 4:15pm Terman Auditorium
(refreshments at 3:45 at the 3rd floor lounge of MJH)

SPEAKER:  Dr. Jussi Ketonen, Stanford University CS Department

TITLE: A VIEW OF THEOREM-PROVING

        I'll be  discussing the  possibility of  developing  powerful
expert systems for mathematical reasoning - a domain characterized by
highly abbreviated  symbolic manipulations  whose logical  complexity
tends  to be rather  low. Of  particular interest will  be the proper
role  of meta theory, high-order  logic, logical decision procedures,
and  rewriting.  I  will   argue  for  a  different,  though  equally
important, role for the widely misunderstood notion of meta theory.
        Most of the discussion takes  place in the context of EKL, an
interactive theorem-proving system  under development at Stanford. It
has  been used to  prove facts about Lisp  programs and combinatorial
set theory.
        I'll  describe some of  the features of the  language of EKL,
the  underlying  rewriting   system,  and  the  algorithms  used  for
high-order unification with some examples.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
84
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 83 20:45:29-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: consciousness and the teleporter - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3417


See also the 17th and final essay by Daniel Dennett in his book Brainstorms
[Bradford Books, 1978].  The essay is called "Where Am I," and investigates
exactly this question of "split consciousness."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 23:04:47-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stanley T. Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Semi-Summary of Halting Problem Discussion
-BODY-
Now that the discussion on the Halting Problem etc has died down,
I'd like to restate the original question, which seems to have been
misunderstood.

The question is this: consider a learning program, or any program
that is self-modifying in some way.  What must I do to prevent it
from getting caught in an infinite loop, or a stack overflow, or
other unpleasantnesses?  For an ordinary program, it's no problem
(heh-heh), the programmer just has to be careful, or prove his
program correct, or specify its operations axiomatically, or <insert
favorite software methodology here>.  But what about a program
that is changing as it runs?  How can *it* know when it's stuck
in a losing situation?

The best answers I saw were along the lines of an operating system
design, where a stuck process can be killed, or pushed to the bottom
of an agenda, or whatever.  Workable, but unsatisfactory.  In the case
of an infinite loop (that nastiest of possible errors), the program
can only guess that it has created a situation where infinite loops
can happen.

The most obvious alternative is to say that the program needs an "infinite
loop detector".  Ted Jardine of Boeing tells a story where, once upon
a time, some company actually tried to do this - write a program that
would detect infinite loops in any other program.  Of course, this is
ludicrous; it's a version of the Halting Problem.  For loops in a
program under a given length, yes; arbitrary programs, no.  So our
self-modifying program can manage only a partial solution, but that's
ok, because it only has to be able to analyze itself and its subprograms.

The question now becomes:  can a program of length n detect infinite
loops in any program of length <= n ?  I don't know; you can't just
have it simulate itself and watch for duplicated states showing up,
because the extra storage for the inbetween states would cause the
program to grow! and you have violated the initial conditions for the
question.  Some sort of static analysis could detect special cases
(like the Life blinkers mentioned by somebody), but I doubt that
all cases could be done this way.  Any theory types out there with
the answer?

Anyway, I *don't* think these are vacuous problems;  I encountered them
when working on a learning capability for my parser, and "solved" them
by being very careful about rules that expanded the sentence, rather
than reducing (really just context-sensitive vs context-free).
Am facing it once again in my new project (a KR language derived from
RLL), and this time there's no way to sidestep!  Any new ideas would
be greatly appreciated.

                                                Stan Shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1983  16:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: BATALI%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Trancendental Recursion
-BODY-

I've just joined this mailing list and I'm wondering about the recent
discussion of "consciousness."  While it's an interesting issue, I
wonder how much relevance it has for AI.  Thomas Nagel's article "What
is it like to be a bat?" argues that consciousness might never be the
proper subject of scientific inquiry because it is by its nature,
subjective (to the max, as it were) and science can deal with only
objective (or at least public) things.

Whatever the merits of this argument, it seems that a more profitable
object of our immediate quest might be intelligence.  Now it may be the
case that the two are the same thing -- or it may be that consciousness
is just "what it is like" to be an intelligent system.  On the other
hand, much of our "unconscious" or "subconscious" reasoning is very
intelligent.  Consider the number of moves that a chess master doesn't
even consider -- they are rejected even before being brought to
consciousness.  Yet the action of rejecting them is a very intelligent
thing to do.  Certainly someone who didn't reject those moves would have
to waste time considering them and would be a worse (less intelligent?)
chess player.  Conversly it seems reasonable to suppose that one cannot
be conscious unless intelligent.

"Intelligent" like "strong" is a dispositional term, which is to say it
indicates what an agent thus described might do or tend to do or be able
to do in certain situations.  Whereas it is difficult to give a sharp
boundary between the intelligent and the non-intelligent, it is often
possible to say which of two possible actions would be the more
intelligent.

In most cases, it is possible to argue WHY the action is the more
intelligent.  The argument will typically mention the goals of the
agent, its abilities, and its knowldge about the world.  So it seems
that there is a fairly simple and common understanding of how the term
is applied:  An action is intelligent just in case it well satisfies
some goals of the agent, given what the agent knows about the world.  An
agent is intelligent just in case it performs actions that are
intelligent for it to perform.

A potential problem with this is that the proposed account requires that
the agent often be able to figure out some very difficult things on the
way to generating an intelligent action:  Which goal should I satisfy?
What is the case in the world?  Should I try to figure out a better
solution?  Each of these subproblems, constituitive of intelligence,
seems to require intelligence.

But there is a way out, and it might bring us back to the issue of
consciousness.  If the intelligent system is a program, there is no
problem with its applying itself recursively to its subproblems.  So the
subproblems can also be solved intelligently.  For this to work, though,
the program must understand itself and understand when and how to apply
itself to its subproblems.  So at least some introspective ability seems
like it would be important for intelligence, and the better the system
was at introspective activities, the more intelligent it would be.  The
recent theses of Doyle and Smith seem to indicate that a system could be
COMPLETELY introspective in the sense that all aspects of its operation
could be accessible and modifiable by the program itself.

But I don't know if it would be conscious or not.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 1983 1537-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-
Anything that  can  be  done  in parallel  can  be  done  sequentially.
Parallel  computations  can   be  faster,   and  can   be  easier   to
understand/write.  So if conciousness can  be programmed, and if it  is
as complex as it seems, then perhaps parallelism should be  exploited.
No algorithm is inherently parallel.

j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 14:01:59-EDT
-FROM-
From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

     From: BUCKLEY@MIT-OZ
     Subject: Parallelism and Consciousness

     -- of what relevance is the issue of time-behavior of an algorithm to
     the phenomenon of intelligence, i.e., can there be in principle such a
     beast as a slow, super-intelligent program?

gracious, isn't this a bit chauvinistic?  suppose that ai is eventually
successful in creating machine intelligence, consciousness, etc. on
nano-second speed machines of the future:  we poor humans, operating
only at rates measured in seconds and above, will seem incredibly slow
to them.  will they engage in debate about the relevance of our time-
behavior to our intelligence?  if there cannot in principle be such a
thing as a slow, super-intelligent program, how can they avoid concluding
that we are not intelligent?
                                        -=*=- rick

>-----------------------------
-END-
ail-From: DUGHOF created at 27-Oct-83 14:14:27-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 14:14:27-EDT
-FROM-
From: DUGHOF@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-  To: RICKL@MIT-OZ
In-Reply-To: Message from "RICKL@MIT-OZ" of Thu 27 Oct 83 14:04:28-EDT

About slow intelligence -- there is one and only one reason to have
intelligence, and that is to survive.  That is where intelligence
came from, and that is what it is for.  It will do no good to have
a "slow, super-intelligent program", for that is a contradiction in
terms.  Intelligence has to be fast enough to keep up with the
world in real time.  If the superintelligent AI program is kept in
some sort of shielded place so that its real-time environment is
essentially benevolent, then it will develop a different kind of
intelligence from one that has to operate under higher pressures,
in a faster-changing world.  Everybody has had the experience of
wishing they'd made some clever retort to someone, but thinking of
it too late.  Well, if you always thought of those clever remarks
on the spot, you'd be smarter than you are.  If things that take
time (chess moves, writing good articles, developing good ideas)
took less time, then I'd be smarter.  Intelligence and the passage
of time are not unrelated.  You can slow your processor down and
then claim that your program's intelligence is unaffected, even
if it's running the same program.  The world is marching ahead at
the same speed, and "pure, isolated intelligence" doesn't exist.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Oct 83 14:57:18-EDT
-FROM-
From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

    From: DUGHOF@MIT-OZ
    Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
    In-Reply-To: Message from "RICKL@MIT-OZ" of Thu 27 Oct 83 14:04:28-EDT

    About slow intelligence -- there is one and only one reason to have
    intelligence, and that is to survive....  It will do no good to have
    a "slow, super-intelligent program", for that is a contradiction in
    terms.  Intelligence has to be fast enough to keep up with the
    world in real time.

are you claiming that if we someday develop super-fast super-intelligent
machines, then we will no longer be intelligent?  this seems implicit in
your argument, and seems itself to be a contradiction in terms:  we *were*
intelligent until something faster came along, and then after that we
weren't.

or if this isn't strong enough for you -- you seem to want intel-
ligence to depend critically on survival -- imagine that the super-fast
super-intelligent computers have a robot interface, are malevolent,
and hunt us humans to extinction in virtue of their superior speed
& reflexes.  does the fact that we do not survive mean that we are not
intelligent?  or does it mean that we are intelligent now, but could
suddenly become un-intelligent without we ourselves changing (in virtue
of the world around us changing)?

doubtless survival is important to the evolution of intelligence, & that
point is not really under debate.  however, to say that whether something is
or is not intelligent is a property dependent on the relative speed of the
creatures sharing your world seems to make us un-intelligent as machines
and programs get better, and amoebas intelligent as long as they were
the fastest survivable thing around.

                        -=*=- rick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1983  15:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: STRAZ%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

    Hofstadter:
    About slow intelligence -- there is one and only one [...]

  Lathrop:
  doubtless survival is important to the evolution of intelligence, &
  that point is not really under debate.

Me:
No, survival is not the point. It is for the organic forms that
evolved with little help from outside intelligences, but a computer
that exhibits a "slow, super-intelligence" in the protective
custody of humans can solve problems that humans might never
be able to solve (due to short attention span, lack of short-term
memory, tedium, etc.)

For example, a problem like where to best put another bridge/tunnel
in Boston is a painfully difficult thing to think about, but if
a computer comes up with a good answer (with explanatory justifications)
after thinking for a month, it would have fulfilled anyone's
definition of slow, superior intelligence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1983  23:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

That's what you get for trying to define things too much.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
85
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Oct 83 13:43:21-EDT
-FROM-
From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-
    From: MINSKY@MIT-OZ

    That's what you get for trying to define things too much.

what do i get for trying to define what too much??

though obviously, even asking that question is trying to define
your intent too much, & i'll only get more of whatever i got for
whatever it was i got it for.

                        -=*=-

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1983 12:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

  From Minsky:
  That's what you get for trying to define things too much.

Coming, as it does, out of the blue, your comment appears to
negate the merits of this discussion.  The net effect might
simply be to bring it to a halt.  I think that it is, inadvertent
though it might be, unkind to the discussants, and unfair to the
rest of us who are listening in.

I agree.  The level of confusion is not insignificant and
immediate insights are not around the corner.  However, in my
opinion, we do need serious discussion of these issues.  I.e.,
questions of subcognition vs.  cognition; parallelism,
"autonomy", and epiphenomena; algorithmic programability vs.
autonomy at the subcognitive and cognitive levels; etc.  etc.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you give us your views on some of
these issues, including your views on a good methodology to
discussing them.

>- JDI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 83 13:27:11 EST  (Sun)
-FROM-
From: Don Perlis <perlis%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

             From: BUCKLEY@MIT-OZ
             --  of  what relevance is the issue of time-behavior of an
             algorithm to the phenomenon  of  intelligence,  i.e.,  can
             there  be  in  principle  such  a  beast  as    a    slow,
             super-intelligent program?

        From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@mit-mc
        gracious,  isn't  this  a bit chauvinistic?  suppose that ai is
        eventually    successful   in  creating  machine  intelligence,
        consciousness, etc.   on  nano-second  speed  machines  of  the
        future:    we  poor humans, operating only at rates measured in
        seconds and above, will seem incredibly slow  to  them.    will
        they engage in debate about the relevance of our time- behavior
        to our intelligence?  if there cannot in principle  be  such  a
        thing  as a slow, super-intelligent program, how can they avoid
        concluding that we are not intelligent?  -=*=- rick

It seems to me that the issue isn't the 'appearance' of intelligence of
one being to another--after all, a very slow  thinker  may  nonetheless
think  very  effectively and solve a problem the rest of us get nowhere
with.  Rather I suggest that intelligence be regarded as effectiveness,
namely,  as coping with the environment.  Then real-time issues clearly
are significant.

A  supposedly brilliant algorithm that 'in principle' could decide what
to do about an impending disaster,  but  which  is  destroyed  by  that
disaster  long  before  it manages to grasp that there is a disaster,or
what its dimensions are, perhaps should not be called  intelligent  (at
least on the basis of *that* event).  And if all its potential behavior
is of this sort, so that it never really gets anything settled, then it
could  be  looked  at  as really out of touch with any grasp of things,
hence not intelligent.

Now  this  can be looked at in numerous contexts; if for instance it is
applied to the internal ruminations of the agent, eg  as  it  tries  to
settle  Fermat's  Last  Theorem, and if it still can't keep up with its
own physiology, ie,  its  ideas  form  and  pass  by  faster  than  its
'reasoning  mechanisms' can keep track of, then it there too will fail,
and I doubt we would want to say it 'really' was bright.  It can't even
be  said  to be trying to settle Fermat's Last theorem, for it will not
be able to keep that in mind.

This  is in a sense an internal issue, not one of relative speed to the
environment.  But considering that the internal and external events are
all  part  of  the  same  physical  world,  I  don't  see a significant
difference.  If the agent *can* keep track of  its  own  thinking,  and
thereby  stick  to the task, and eventually settle the theorem, I think
we would call it bright indeed,  at  least  in  that  domain,  although
perhaps  a moron in other matters (not even able to formulate questions
about them).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 30 Oct 83 16:59:12-EST
-FROM-
From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-
    [...]

    From: Don Perlis <perlis%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
    It seems to me that the issue isn't the 'appearance' of intelligence of
    one being to another....Rather I suggest that intelligence be regarded
    as effectiveness, namely,  as coping with the environment....

From this & other recent traffic on the net, the question we are really
discussing seems to be:  ``can an entity be said to be intelligent in and
of itself, or can an entity only be said to be intelligent relative to some
world?''.  I don't think I believe in "pure, abstract intelligence, divorced
from the world".  However, a consequence of the second position seems to
be that there should be possible worlds in which we would consider humans
to be un-intelligent, and I can't readily think of any (can anyone else?).

Leaving that question as too hard (at least for now), another question we
have been chasing around is:  ``can intelligence be regarded as survivability,
(or more generally as coping with an external environment)?''.  In the strong
form this position equates the two, and this position seems to be too
strong.  Amoebas cope quite well and have survived for unimaginably longer
than we humans, but are generally acknowledged to be un-intelligent (if
anyone cares to dispute this, please do).  Survivability and coping with
the environment, alone, therefore fail to adequately capture our intuitions
of intelligence.
                        -=*=- rick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 1983 18:46:48 EST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Dave Mankins <dm@BBN-UNIX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Competition
-BODY-
By the survivability/adaptability criteria the cockroach must be
one of the most intelligent species on earth.  There's obviously
something wrong with those criteria.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Oct 83 14:19:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definition of Intelligence
-BODY-
I like the idea that the intelligence of an organism should be
measured relative to its goals (which usually include survival, but
not in the case of "smart" bombs and kamikaze pilots).  I don't think
that goal-satisfaction criteria can be used to establish the "relative
intelligence" of organisms with very different goals.  Can a fruit fly
be more intelligent than I am, no matter how well it satisfies its
goals?  Can a rock be intelligent if its goals are sufficiently
limited?

To illustrate this in another domain, let us consider "strength".  A
large bulldozer is stronger than a small one because it can apply more
brute force to any job that a bulldozer is expected to do.  Can we
say, though, that a bulldozer is "stronger" than a pile driver, or
vice versa?

Put another way: If scissors > paper > rock > scissors ..., does it
make any sense to ask which is "best"?  I think that this is the
problem we run into when we try to define intelligence in terms of
goals.  This is not to say that we can define it to be independent of
goals, but goal satisfaction is not sufficient.

Instead, I would define intelligence in terms of adaptability or
learning capability in the pursuit of goals.  An organism with hard-
wired responses to its environment (e.g. a rock, a fruit fly, MACSYMA)
is not intelligent because it does not adapt.  I, on the other hand,
can be considered intelligent even if I do not achieve my goals as
long as I adapt to my environment and learn from it in ways that would
normally enhance my chances of success.

Whether speed of response must be included as a measure of
intelligence depends on the goal, but I would say that, in general,
rapid adaptation does indicate greater intelligence than the same
response produced slowly.  Multiple choice aptitude tests, however,
exercise such limited mental capabilities that a score of correct
answers per minute is more a test of current knowledge than of ability
to learn and adapt within the testing period.  Knowledge relative to
age (IQ) is a useful measure of learning ability and thus of
intelligence, but cannot be used for comparing different species.  I
prefer unlimited-time "power" tests for measuring both competence and
intelligence.

The Turing test imposes a single goal on two organisms, namely the
goal of convincing an observer at the other end of tty that he/it is
the true human.  This will clearly only work for organisms capable
of typing at human speed and capable of accepting such a goal.  These
conditions imply that the organism must have a knowledge of human
psychology and capabilities, or at least a belief (probably incorrect)
that it can "fake" them.  Given such a restricted situation, the
nonhuman organism is to be judged intelligent if it can appropriately
modify its own behavior in response to questioning at least as well as
the human can.  (I would claim that a nonadapting organism hasn't a
chance of passing the test, and that this is just what the observer
will be looking for.)

I do not believe that a single test can be devised which can determine
the relative intelligences of arbitrary organisms, but the public
wants such a test.  What shall we give them?  I would suggest the
following procedure:

For two candidate organisms, determine a goal that both are capable
of accepting and that we consider related to intelligence.  For an
interesting test, the goal must be such that neither organism is
specially adapted or maladapted for achieving it.  The goal might be
absolute (e.g., learn 100 nonsense syllables) or relative (e.g.,
double your vocabulary).  If no such goal can be found, the relative
organisms cannot be ranked.  If a goal is found, we can rank them
along the dimension of the indicated behavior and we can infer a
similar ranking for related behaviors (e.g., verbal ability).  The
actual testing for learning ability is relatively simple.

How can we test a computer for intelligence?  Unfortunately, a computer
can be given a wide variety of sensors and effectors and can be made
to accept almost any goal.  We must test it for human-level adaptability
in using all of these.  If it cannot equal human ability nearly all
measurable scales (e.g., game playing, verbal ability, numerical
ability, learning new perceptual and motor skills, etc.), it cannot
be considered intelligent in the human sense.  I know that this is
exceedingly strict, but it is the same test that I would apply to
decide whether a child, idiot savant, or other person were intelligent.
On the other hand, if I could not match the computer's numerical and
memory capabilities, it has the right to judge me unintelligent by
computer standards.

The intelligence of a particular computer program, however, should
be judged by much less stringent standards.  I do not expect a
symbolic algebra program to learn to whistle Dixie.  If it can
learn, without being programmed, a new form of integral faster
than I can, or if it can find a better solution than I can in
any length of time, then I will consider it an intelligent symbolic
algebra program.  Similar criteria apply to any other AI program.

I have left open the question of how to measure adaptability,
relative importance of differing goals, parallel satisfaction of
multiple goals, etc.  I have also not discussed creativity, which
involves autonomous creation of new goals.  Have I missed anything,
though, in the basic concept of intelligence?

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 1983 1456-PST
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-
    From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA

                ...
    the question we are really discussing seems to be: ``can an entity be
    said to be intelligent in and of itself, or can an entity only be said
    to be intelligent relative to some world?''.  I don't think I believe
    in "pure, abstract intelligence, divorced from the world".
                ...
    another question we have been chasing around is: ``can intelligence be
    regarded as survivability, (or more generally as coping with an
    external environment)?''.  [...]

  I believe intelligence to be the  ability to cope with CHANGES in  the
enviroment.  Take  desert tortoises,  although  they are  quite  young
compared to  amobea,  they  have  been  living  in  the  desert  some
thousands, if  not  millions  of  years.   Does  this  mean  they  are
intelligent? NO! put a freeway through their desert and the  tortoises
are soon dying.  Increase the rainfall and they may become unable  to
compete with  the rabbits  (which  will take  full advantage  of  the
increase in vegitation and produce  an increase in rabbit-ation).   The
ability to cope with  a CHANGE in  the enviroment marks  intellignece.
All a tortoise need do is not  cross a freeway, or kill baby  rabbits,
and then they could  begin to claim  intellignce.  A similar  argument
could be made against intelligent amobea.

  A posible problem with this view  is that biospheres can be  counted
intelligent, in the desert an increase  in rainfall is handled by  an
increase in vegetation, and then  in herbivores (rabbits) and then  an
increase in carnivores (coyotes).  The end result is not the end of  a
biosphere,  but  the  change  of  a  biosphere.   The  biosphere   has
successfully coped  with  a  change  in  its  environment.   Even  more
ludicrous, an argument  could be  made for an  intelligent planet,  or
solar system, or even galaxy.

  Notice, an  organism  that  does  not  change  when  its  environment
changes,  perhaps  because  it  does  not  need  to,  has  not   shown
intelligence.  This is,  of course,  not to say  that that  particular
organism is  un-intelligent.   Were  the world  to  become  unable  to
produce rainbows, people would change little, if at all.

My behavioralism is showing,
j'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1983  18:11 EST
-FROM-
From: JBA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-
    From: RICKL%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA
    However, a consequence of the second position seems to
    be that there should be possible worlds in which we would consider humans
    to be un-intelligent, and I can't readily think of any (can anyone else?).

Read the Heinlein novel entitled (I think) "Have Spacesuit, Will
Travel."  Somewhere in there a race tries to get permission to
kill humans  wantonly, arguing that they're basically stupid.  Of
course, a couple of adolscent humans who happen to be in the neighborhood
save the day by proving that they're smart.  (I read this thing a long
time ago, so I may have the story and/or title a little wrong.)

        Jonathan

[Another story involves huge alien "energy beings" taking over the earth.
They destroy all human power sources, but allow the humans to live as
"cockroaches" in their energy cities.  One human manages to convince an
alien that he is intelligent, so the aliens immediately begin a purge.
Who wants intelligent cockroaches?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 30 Oct 83 15:41:18-PST
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence and Competition
-BODY-
           From: RICKL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
        I don't think I believe in "pure, abstract intelligence, divorced
    from the world".  However, a consequence of the second position seems to
    be that there should be possible worlds in which we would consider humans
    to be un-intelligent, and I can't readily think of any (can anyone else?).

           From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
           ...Take  desert tortoises,  [...]

Combining these two comments, I came up with this:

            ...Take American indians, although they are quite young compared
      to amoeba, they have been living in the desert some thousands of years.
      Does this mean they are intelligent? NO! Put a freeway (or some barbed
      wire) through their desert and they are soon dying. Increase cultural
      competition and they may be unable to compete with the white man (which
      will take full advantage of their lack of guns and produce an
      increase in white-ation). The ability to cope with CHANGE in the
      environment marks intelligence.

I think that the stress on "adaptability" makes for some rather strange
candidates for intelligence. The indians were developing a cooperative
relationship with their environment, rather than a competitive one; I cannot
help but think that our cultural stress on competition has biased us
towards competitive definitions of intelligence.

    Survivability has many facets, and competition is only one of them, and
may not even be a very large one. Perhaps before one judges intelligence on
how systems cope with change, how about intelligence with how the systems
cope with stasis? While it is popular to think about how the great thinkers
of the past arose out of great trials, I think that more of modern knowledge
came from times of relative calm, when there was enough surplus to offer
a group of thinkers time to ponder.

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
86
-DATE-
Date: 24 October 1983 17:02 EDT
-FROM-
From: Karl A. Nyberg <KARL @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: writing analysis
-BODY-
I am interested in programs that people might know of that give word
distributions, sentence lengths, etc., so as to gauge the complexity of
articles.  I'd also like to know if anyone could point me to any models
that specify that complexity in terms of these sorts of measurements.
Let me know if any programs you might know of are particular to any text
formatter, programming language, or operating system.  Thanks.

>- Karl --

[Such capabilities are included in recent versions of the Unix
operating system. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 30 Oct 83 16:46:39-CST
-FROM-
From: Lauri Karttunen <Cgs.Lauri@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alfred Tarski
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]

Alfred Tarski, the father of model-theoretic semantics, died last
Wednesday at the age of 82.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 83 21:29:41 pdt
-FROM-
From: sokolov%Coral.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: talk announcements in net.ai
-BODY-
Ken, I would like to submit this message as a suggestion to the
AIlist readership:

This message concerns the rash of announcements of talks being given
around the country (probably the world, if we include Edinburgh).  I am
one of those people that like to know what is going on elsewhere, so I
welcome the announcements.  Unfortunately, my appetite is only whetted
by them.  Therefore, I would like to suggest that, WHENEVER possible,
summaries of these talks should be submitted to the net.  I realize
that this isn't always practical, nevertheless, I would like to
encourage people to  submit these talk reviews.

                                Jeff Sokolov
                                Program in Cognitive Science
                                  and Department of Psychology
                                UC Berkeley
                                sokolov%coral@berkeley
                                ...!ucbvax!ucbcoral:sokolov

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 83  1856 PDT
-FROM-
From: David Lowe <DLO@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Representation of reasoning
-BODY-
I have recently written a paper that might be of considerable interest
to the people on this list.  It is about a new form of structuring
interactions between many users of an interactive network, based on an
explict representation of debate.  Although this is not a typical AI
problem, it is related to much AI work on the representation of language
or reasoning (for example, the representation of a chain of reasoning in
expert systems).  The representation I have chosen is based on the work
of the philosopher Stephen Toulmin.  I am also sending a version of this
message to HUMAN-NETS, since one goal of the system is to create a
lasting, easily-accessed representation of the interactions which occur
on discussion lists such as HUMAN-NETS or AIList.

A copy of the paper can be accessed by FTP from SAIL (no login required).
The name of the file is PAPER[1,DLO].  You can also send me a message
(DLO @ SAIL) and I'll mail you a copy.  If you send me your U.S. mail
address, I'll physically mail you a carefully typeset version.  Let
me know if you are interested, and I'll keep you posted about future
developments.  The following is an abstract:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

             THE REPRESENTATION OF DEBATE AS A BASIS
              FOR INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL

                          By David Lowe
                   Computer Science Department
             Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

                             Abstract

Interactive computer networks offer the potential for creating a body
of information on any given topic which combines the best available
contributions from a large number of users.  This paper describes a
system for cooperatively structuring and evaluating information through
well-specified interactions by many users with a common database.  A
working version of the system has been implemented and examples of its use
are presented.  At the heart of the system is a structured representation
for debate, in which conclusions are explicitly justified or negated by
individual items of evidence.  Through debates on the accuracy of
information and on aspects of the structures themselves, a large number of
users can cooperatively rank all available items of information in terms
of significance and relevance to each topic.  Individual users can then
choose the depth to which they wish to examine these structures for the
purposes at hand.  The function of this debate is not to arrive at
specific conclusions, but rather to collect and order the best available
evidence on each topic.  By representing the basic structure of each field
of knowledge, the system would function at one level as an information
retrieval system in which documents are indexed, evaluated and ranked in
the context of each topic of inquiry.  At a deeper level, the system would
encode knowledge in the structure of of the debates themselves.  This use
of an interactive system for structuring information offers many further
opportunities for improving the accuracy, accessibility, currency,
conciseness, and clarity of information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 83 19:06:50 EDT  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Bruce T. Smith <bts%unc@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JSL review of GEB
-BODY-
     The most recent issue (Vol. 48, Number 3, September
1983) of the Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL) has an
interesting review of Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher,
Bach: an eternal golden braid.". (It's on pages 864-871, a
rather long review for the JSL.  It's by Judson C. Webb, a
name unfamiliar to me, amateur that I am.)
     This is a pretty favorable review-- I know better than
to start any debates over GEB-- but what I found most
interesting was its emphasis on the LOGIC in the book.  Yes,
I know that's not all GEB was about, but it was unusual
to read a discussion of it from this point of view.  Just to
let you know what to expect, Webb's major criticism is
Hofstadter's failure, in a book on self-reference, to dis-
cuss Kleene's fixed-point theorem,

     which fuses these two phenomena so closely together.
     The fixed-point theorem shows (by an adaptation of
     Godel's formal diagonalization) that the strangest ima-
     ginable conditions on functions have solutions computed
     by self-referential machines making essential use of
     their own Godel-numbers, provided only that the condi-
     tions are expressible by partial recursive functions.

He also points out that Hofstadter didn't show quite how
shocking Godel's theorems were: "In short, Godel discovered
the experimental completeness of a system that seemed almost
too weak to bother with, and the theoretical incompleteness
of one that aimed only at experimental completeness."
     Enough.  I'm not going to type the whole 7.5 pages.  Go
look for the newest issue of the JSL-- probably in your
Mathematics library.  For any students out there, membership
in the Association for Symbolic Logic is only $9.00/yr and
includes the JSL.  Last year they published around 1000
pages.  It's mostly short technical papers, but they claim
they're going to do more expository stuff.  The address to
write to is

          The Association for Symbolic Logic
          P.O.Box 6248
          Providence, RI  02940

============================================
Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
...!decvax!duke!unc!bts     (USENET)
bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (from other NETworks)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 October 1983 1130-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM chess results
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMU-C bboard.]

The results of the ACM World computer CHess Championship are:
CRAY BLITZ - 4 1/2      1st place
BEBE - 4                2nd
AWIT - 4                3rd
NUCHESS - 3 1/2         4th
CHAOS   - 3 1/2         5th
BELLE - 3               6th

There were  lots of  others with  3 points.   Patsoc finished  with a
scoreof  1.5 -  3.5.   It did  not play  any micros  and was  usually
outgunned by 10 mip mainframes.  There was a lot of excitement in the
last 3  rounds.  in  round 3 NUCHESS  defeated Belle (the  first time
Belle had lost to a machine).   In round 4 Nuchess drew Cray Blitz in
a long struggle when they were both tied for the lead and remained so
at 3 1/2 points  after this round.  The final  round was really wild:
BEBE upset NUCHESS  (the first time it had ever  beaten Nuchess) just
when NUCHESS looked to have a lock on the tournament.  CRAY Blitz won
from Belle when the latter rejected a draw because it had been set to
play for  a win at all  costs (Belle's only chance,  but this setting
was a mistake  as CRAY BLITZ also had  to win at all costs).   In the
end AWIT snuck into 3 rd  place in all this commotion, without having
every played any of the contenders.  One problem with a Swiss pairing
system used for  tournaments where only a few rounds  are possible is
that it  only brings out  a winner.  The  other scores are  very much
dependent on what happens in the last round.

Belle was using a new modification in search technique which based on
the results  could be thought  of as a mistake.   Probably it  is not
though, though possiby  the implementation was not the best.   In any
case Thompson  apparently thought he  had to do something  to improve
Belle for the tournament.

In any case,  it was not a  lost cause for Thompson.   He shared this
years  Turing award  with  Ritchie for  developing  UNIX, received  a
certificate  from the  US chess  federation for  the first  non-human
chess master (for Belle), and a  $16,000 award from the Common Wealth
foundation for  the invention  award of the  year (software)  for his
work on UNIX, C,  and Belle.  Lastly, it is  interesting to note that
this is the 4th world championship.  They are held 3 years apart, and
no program has won more than one of them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 83 10:41:19 CDT
-FROM-
From: wagner@compion-vms
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Announcement:  VERUS verification system offered
-BODY-
         Use of the VERUS Verification System Offered
         --------------------------------------------

VERUS is a software design specification and verification system
produced by Compion Corporation, Urbana, Illinois.  VERUS was designed
for speed and ease of use.  The VERUS language is an extension of
of the first-order predicate calculus designed for a software
engineering environment.  VERUS includes a parser and a theorem prover.

Compion now offers use of VERUS over the MILNET/ARPANET.  Use is for a
maximum of 4 weeks.  Each user is provided with:

        1. A unique sign-on to Compion's VAX 11/750 running VMS

        2. A working directory

        3. Hard-copy user manuals for the use period.


If you are interested, contact Fran Wagner (wagner@compion-vms).
Note that the new numerical address for compion-vms is 10.2.0.55.

Please send the following information to help us prepare for you
to use VERUS:
               your name
               organization
               U.S. mailing address
               telephone number
               network address
               whether you are on the MILNET or the ARPPANET
               whether you are familiar with VMS
               whether you have a DEC-supported terminal
               desired starting date and length of use

We will notify you when you can log on and send you hard-copy user
documents including a language manual, a user's guide, and a guide
to writing state machine specifications.

After the network split, VERUS will be available over the MILNET
and, by special arrangement, over the ARPANET.

__________
VERUS is a trademark of Compion Corporation.
DEC, VAX, and VMS are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 1983 19:34:39-EDT
-FROM-
From: mac%mit-vax @ MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FGCS Call for Papers
-BODY-
                         CALL FOR PAPERS

                            FGCS '84

International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1984

        Institute for New Generation Computer Technology

                November 6-9, 1984   Tokyo, Japan


The scope of technical sessions of  this  conference  encompasses
the  technical  aspects  of new generation computer systems which
are being explored particularly within  the  framework  of  logic
programming and novel architectures.  This conference is intended
to promote interaction among researchers in all  disciplines  re-
lated to fifth generation computer technology.  The topics of in-
terest include (but are not limited to) the following:


                          PROGRAM AREAS

Foundations for Logic Programs
  * Formal semantics/pragmatics
  * Computation models
  * Program analysis and complexity
  * Philosophical aspects
  * Psychological aspects

Logic Programming Languages/Methodologies
  * Parallel/Object-oriented programming languages
  * Meta-level inferences/control
  * Intelligent programming environments
  * Program synthesis/understanding
  * Program transformation/verification

Architectures for New Generation Computing
  * Inference machines
  * Knowledge base machines
  * Parallel processing architectures
  * VLSI architectures
  * Novel human-machine interfaces

Applications of New Generation Computing
  * Knowledge representation/acquisition
  * Expert systems
  * Natural language understanding/machine translation
  * Graphics/vision
  * Games/simulation

Impacts of New Generation Computing
  * Social/cultural
  * Educational
  * Economic
  * Industrial
  * International


                 ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE

Conference Chairman      : Tohru Moto-oka, Univ of Tokyo
Conference Vice-chairman : Kazuhiro Fuchi, ICOT
Program Chairman         : Hideo Aiso, Keio Univ
Publicity Chairman       : Kinko Yamamoto, JIPDEC
Secretariat              : FGCS'84 Secretariat, Institute for New
                           Generation Computer Technology (ICOT)
                           Mita Kokusai Bldg. 21F
                           1-4-28 Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108, Japan
                           Phone: 03-456-3195  Telex: 32964 ICOT


                  PAPER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Four copies of manuscripts should be submitted by April 15, 1984 to :
        Prof. Hideo Aiso
        Program chairman
        ICOT
        Mita Kodusai Bldg. 21F
        1-4-28 Mita, Minato-ku
        Tokyo 108, Japan

Papers are restricted  to  20  double-spaced  pages  (about  5000
words) including figures.  Each paper must contain a 200-250 word
abstract.  Papers must be written and prensented in English.

Papers will be reviewed by international referees.  Authors  will
be notified of acceptance by June 30, 1984, and will be given in-
structions for final preparation of their papers  at  that  time.
Camera-ready  papers  for  the  proceedings should be sent to the
Program Chairman prior to August 31, 1984.

Intending authors are requested to return the attached reply card
with tentative subjects.


                       GENERAL INFORMATION

Date  : November 6-9, 1984
Venue : Keio Plaza Hotel, Tokyo, Japan
Host  : Institute for New Generation Computer Technology
Outline of the Conference Program :
        General Sessions
          Keynote speeches
          Report of research activities on Japan's FGCS Project
          Panel discussions
        Technical sessions (Parallel sessions)
          Presentation by invited speakers
          Presentation of submitted papers
        Special events
          Demonstration of current research results
          Technical visit
Official languages :
                English/Japanese
Participants:   600
Further information:
        Conference information will be available in December, 1983.


                     **** FGCS PROJECT ****

The Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) Project, launched in
April,  1982,  is  planned  to  span about ten years.  It aims at
realizing more user-friendly  and  intelligent  computer  systems
which  incorporate  inference and knowledge base management func-
tions based on innovative computer architecture, and  at  contri-
buting  thereby to future society.  The Institute for New Genera-
tion Computer Technology (ICOT) was established  as  the  central
research  institute of the project.  The ICOT Research Center be-
gan its research activities in June, 1982  with  the  support  of
government, academia and industry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
1

-N-
87
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 83 23:57:36-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!csu-cs!denelcor!neal @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: denelcor.182

I see what you are saying and I beg to disagree.  I don't believe that
the distinction between rational and irrational psychology (it's probably
not that simple) as depending on whether or not the scientist is being
rational but on whether or not the subject is (or rather which aspect of
his behavior--or mentation if you accept the existence of that--is under
consideration).  More like the distinction between organic and inorganic
chemistry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 83 10:16:00 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sequential vs. parallel
-BODY-
 It was claimed that "parallel computation can always
be done sequentially."  I had thought that this naive concept had passed
away into never never land, but I suppose not.  I do not deny that MANY
parallel computations can be accomplished sequentially, yet not ALL
parallel computations can be made sequential.  Those class of parallel
computations that cannot be accomplished sequentially are those that
involve the state of all variables in a single instant.  This class
of parallelism often arises in sensor applications.  It would not be
valid, for example, to raster-scan (sequential computation) a sensing field
if the processing of that sensing field relied upon the quantization of
elements in a single instant.

     I don't want to belabor this point, but it should be recognized
that the common assertion that all parallel computation can be done
sequentially is NOT ALWAYS VALID.  In my own experience, I have found
that artificial intelligence (and real biologic intelligence for that
matter) relies heavily upon comparisons of various elements at a single
time instant.  As such, the assumption of sequentialty of parallelistic
algorithms is often invalid.  Something to think about.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 29 Oct 1983 21:05-PST
-FROM-
From: sdcrdcf!trw-unix!scgvaxd!qsi03!achut@rand-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conciousness, Halting Problem, Intelligence
-BODY-

        I am new to this mailing list and I see there is some lively
discussion going on.  I am eager to contribute to it.

Consciousness:
        I treat the words self-awareness, consciousness, and soul as
synonyms in the context of these discussions.  They are all epiphenomena
of the phenomenon of intelligence, along with emotions, desires, etc.
To say that machines can never be truly intelligent because they cannot
have a "soul" is to be excessively naive and anthropocentric.  Self-
awareness is not a necessary prerequisite for intelligence; it arises
naturally *because* of intelligence.  All intelligent beings possess some
degree of self-awareness; to perceive and interact with the world, there
must be an internal model, and this invariably involves taking into
account the "self".  A very, very low intelligence, like that of a plant,
will possess a very, very low self-awareness.

Parallelism:
        The human brain resembles a parallel machine more than it does a
purely sequential one.  Parallel machines can do many things much quicker
than their sequential counterpart.  Parallel hardware may well make the
difference between the attainment of AI in the near future and the
unattainment for several decades.  But I cannot understand those who claim
that there is something *fundamentally* different between the two types of
architectures.  I am always amazed at the extremes to which some people will
go to find the "magic spark" which separates intelligence from non-
intelligence.  Two of these are "continuousness vs. discreteness" and
"non-determinism vs. determinism".
        Continuous?  Nothing in the universe is continuous. (Except maybe
arguments to the contrary :-))  Mass, energy, space and even time, at least
according to current physical knowledge, are all quantized.  Non-determinism?
Many people feel that "randomness" is a necessary ingredient to intelligence.
But why isn't this possible with a sequential architecture?  I can
construct a "discrete" random number generator for my sequential machine
so that it behaves in a similar manner to your "non-deterministic" parallel
machine, although perhaps slower. (See "Slow intelligence" below)
Perhaps the "magic sparkers" should consider that difference they are
searching for is merely one of complexity.  (I really hate to use the
word "merely", since I appreciate the vast scope of the complexity, but
it seems appropriate here)  There is no evidence, currently, to justify
thinking otherwise.

The Halting(?) Problem:
        What Stan referred to as the "Halting Problem" is really
the "looping problem", hence the subsequent confusion.  The Halting Problem
is not really relevant to AI, but the looping problem *is* relevant.  The
question is not even "why don't humans get caught in loops", since, as
Mr. Frederking aptly points out, "beings which aren't careful about this
fail to breed, and are weeded out by evolution".  (For an interesting story
of what could happen if this were not the case, see "Riddle of the universe
and its solution" by Christoper Cerniak in "The Mind's I")  But rather, the
more interesting question is "by what mechanisms do humans avoid them?",
and then, "are these the best mechanisms to use in AI programs?".
It not clear that this might not be a problem when AI is attempted on a
machine whose internal states could conceivably recur.  Now I am not saying
that this an insurmountable problem by any means; I am merely saying that
it might be a worthy topic of discussion.

Slow intelligence:
        Intelligence is dependent on time?  This would require a curious
definition of intelligence.  Suppose you played chess at strength 2000 given
5 seconds per move, 2010 given 5 minutes, and 2050 given as much time as you
desired.  Suppose the corresponding numbers for me were 1500, 2000, and 2500.
Who is the better (more intelligent) player?  True, I need 5 minutes per
move just to play as good as you can at only 5 seconds.  But shouldn't the
"high end" be compared instead?  There are many bases on which to decide the
"greater" of two intelligences.  One is (conceivably, but not exclusively)
speed.  Another is number and power of inferences it can make in a given
situation.  Another is memory, and ability to correlate current situations
with previous ones.  STRAZ@MIT-OZ has the right idea.  Incidentally, I'm
surprised that no one pointed out an example of an intelligence staring
us in the face which is slower but smarter than us all, individually.
Namely, this net!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 83 13:34:02-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Consciousness? [and Reply]
-BODY-
I'm interested in getting some feedback on some philosophical
questions that have been haunting me:

1) Is there any reason why developments in artificial intelligence
and computer technology could not someday produce a machine with
human consciousness (i.e. an I-story)?

2) If the answer to the above question is no, and such a machine were
produced, what would distinguish it from humans as far as "human"
rights were concerned?  Would it be murder for us to destroy such a
machine?  What about letting it die of natural (?) causes if we
have the ability to repair it indefinitely?
(Note:  Just having a unique, human genetic code does not legally make
one human as per the 1973 *Row vs Wade* Supreme Court decision on
abortion.)

Thanks in advance.

Paul Dubuc

[For an excellent discussion of the rights and legal status of AI
systems, see Marshal Willick's "Artificial Intelligence: Some Legal
Approaches and Implications" in the Summer '83 issue (V. 4, N. 2) of
AI magazine.  The resolution of this issue will of course be up to the
courts. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1983 21:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Halting in learning programs
-BODY-
        If you restrict the class of things that can be learned by your
program to those which don't cause infinite recursion or circularity,
you will have a good solution to the halting problem you state.
Although generalized learning might be nice, until we know more about
learning, it might be more appropriate to select specific classes of
adaption which lend themselves to analysis and development of new
theories.

        As a simple example of a non halting problem learning automata,
the Purr Puss system developed by John Andreas (from New Zealand) does
an excellent job of learning without any such difficulty. Other such
systems exist as well, all you have to do is look for them. I guess the
point is that rather than pursue the impossible, find something
possible that may lead to the solution of a bigger problem and pursue
it with the passion and rigor worthy of the problem. An old saying:
'Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by fighting back'

                Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 83 13:23:33 CDT
-FROM-
From: Bob.Warfield <warbob.rice@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Halting Problem Discussion
-BODY-
It turns out that any computer program running on a real piece of hardware
may be simulated by a deterministic finite automaton, since it only has a
finite (but very large) number of possible states. This is usually not a
productive observation to make, but it does present one solution to the
halting problem for real (i.e. finite) computing hardware. Simulate the
program in question as a DFA and look for loops. From this, one should
be able to tell what input to the DFA would produce an infinite loop,
and recognition of that input could be done by a smaller DFA (the old
one sans loops) that gets incorporated into the learning program. It
would run the DFA in parallel (or 1 step ahead?) and take action if a
dangerous situation appeared.

                                        Bob Warfield
                                        warbob@rice

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 31 Oct 83 15:45:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Calton Pu <CALTON@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Halting Problem: Resource Use
-BODY-
   From Shebs@Utah-20:

        The question is this: consider a learning program, or any
        program that is self-modifying in some way.  What must I do
        to prevent it from getting caught in an infinite loop, or a
        stack overflow, or other unpleasantnesses?  ...
        How can *it* know when it's stuck in a losing situation?

Trying to come up with a loop detector program seemed to find few enthusiasts.
The limited loop detector suggests another approach to the "halting problem".
The question above does not require the solution of the halting problem,
although that could help.   The question posed is one of resource allocation
and use.   Self-awareness is only necessary for the program to watch itself
and know whether it is making progress considering its resource consumption.
Consequently it is not surprising that:

        The best answers I saw were along the lines of an operating
        system design, where a stuck process can be killed, or
        pushed to the bottom of an agenda, or whatever.

However, Stan wants more:

        Workable, but unsatisfactory.  In the case of an infinite
        loop (that nastiest of possible errors), the program can
        only guess that it has created a situation where infinite
        loops can happen.

The real issue here is not whether the program is in loop, but whether the
program will be able to find a solution in feasible time.   Suppose a program
will take a thousand years to find a solution, will you let it run that long?
In other words, the problem is one of measuring gained progress versus
spent resources.   It may turn out that a program is not in loop but you
choose to write another program instead of letting the first run to completion.
Looping is just one of the losing situations.

Summarizing, the learning program should be allowed to see a losing situation
because it is unfeasible, whether the solution is possible or not.
From this view, there are two aspects to the decision: the measurement of
progress made by the program, and monitoring resource consumption.
It is the second aspect that involves some "operating systems design".
I would be interested to know whether your parser knows it is making progress.


                -Calton-

        Usenet: ...decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!calton

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 2030 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: forwarded article
-BODY-

> - - - Begin forwarded message - - - -
  Date: 31 Oct 1983  18:41 EST (Mon)
  From: Daniel S. Weld <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
  To:   macmol%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
  Subject: Molecular Computers

  Below is a forwarded message:
    From: David Rogers <DRogers at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

I have always been confused by the people who work on
"molecular computers", it seems so stupid. It seems much
more reasonable to consider the reverse application: using
computers to make better molecules.

Is anyone out there excited by this stuff?

                MOLECULAR  COMPUTERS  by  Lee  Dembart, LA Times
              (reprinted from the San Jose Mercury News 31 Oct 83)

SANTA MONICA - Scientists have dreamed for the past few years of
building a radically different kind of computer, one based on
molecular reactions rather than on silicon.

With such a machine, they could pack circuits much more tightly than
they can inside today's computers.  More important, a molecular
computer might not be bound by the rigid binary logic of conventional
computers.

Biological functions - the movement of information within a cell or
between cells - are the models for molecular computers. If that basic
process could be reproduced in a machine, it would be a very powerful
machine.

But such a machine is many, many years away.  Some say the idea is
science fiction.  At the moment, it exists only in the minds of of
several dozen computer scientists, biologists, chemists and engineers,
many of whom met here last week under the aegis of the Crump Institute
for Medical Engineering at the University of California at Los
Angeles.

"There are a number of ideas in place, a number of technologies in
place, but no concrete results," said Michael Conrad, a biologist and
computer scientist at Wayne State University in Detroit and a
co-organizer of the conference.

For all their strengths, today's digital computers have no ability to
judge.  They cannot recognize patterns. They cannot, for example,
distinguish one face from another, as even babies can.

A great deal of information can be packed on a computer chip, but it
pales by comparison to the contents of the brain of an ant, which can
protect itself against its environment.

If scientists had a computer with more flexible logic and circuitry,
they think they might be able to develop "a different style of
computing", one less rigid than current computers, one that works more
like a brain and less like a machine.  The "mood" of such a device
might affect the way scientists solve problems, just as people's moods
affect their work.

The computing molecules would be manufactured by genetically
engineered bacteria, which has given rise to the name "biochip" to
describe a network of them.

"This is really the new gene technology", Conrad said.

The conference was a meeting on the frontiers - some would say fringes
> of knowledge, and several times participants scoffed, saying that
the discussion was meandering into philosophy.

The meeting touched on some of the most fundamental questions of brain
and computer research, revealing how little is known of the mind's
mechanisms.

The goal of artificial intelligence work is to write programs that
simulate thought on digital computers. The meeting's goal was to think
about different kinds of computers that might do that better.

Among the questions posed at the conference:

> How do you get a computer to chuckle at a joke?

> What is the memory capacity of the brain? Is there a limit to that
capacity?

> Are there styles of problem solving that are not digitally
computable?

> Can computer science shed any light on the mechanisms of biological
science?  Can computer science problems be addressed by biological
science mechanisms?

Proponents of molecular computers argue that it is possible to make
such a machine because biological systems perform those processes all
the time.  Proponents of artificial intelligence have argued for years
that the existence of the brain is proof that it is possible to make a
small machine that thinks like a brain.

It is a powerful argument.  Biological systems already exist that
compute information in a better way than digital computers do. "There
has got to be inspiration growing out of biology", said F. Eugene
Yates, the Crump Institutes director.

Bacteria use sophisticated chemical processes to transfer information.
Can that process be copied?

Enzymes work by stereoscopically matching their molecules with other
molecules, a decision-making process that occurs thousands of times a
second.  It would take a binary computer weeks to make even one match.

"It's that failure to do a thing that an enzyme does 10,000 times a
second that makes us think there must be a better way," Yates said.

In the history of science, theoretical progress and technological
progress are intertwined.  One makes the other possible. It is not
surprising, therefore, that thinking about molecular computers has
been spurred recently by advances in chemistry and biotechnology that
seem to provide both the materials needed and a means for producing it
on a commercial scale.

"If you could design such a reaction, you could probably get a
bacteria to make it," Yates said.

Conrad thinks that a functioning machine is 50 years away, and he
described it as a "futuristic" development.
> - - - End forwarded message - - - -

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
88
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 1844 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comment on Molecular Computers
-BODY-

> - - - Begin forwarded message - - - -
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1983  12:19 EST
From: DANNY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
To:   Daniel S. Weld <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Molecular Computers

I was at the Molecular Computer conference. Unfortunately, there has
very lttle progress since the Molecular Electronics conference a year
ago. The field is too full of people who think analog computation is
"more powerful" and who think that Goedel's proof shows that people
can always think better than machine. Sigh.
>-danny

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 3 November 1983 13:27:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel vs. Sequential
-BODY-
Re: Phillip Kahn's claim that "not ALL parallel computations can be made
sequential": I don't believe it, unless you are talking about infinitely
many processing elements.  The Turing Machine is the most powerful model of
computation known, and it is inherently serial (and equivalent to a
Tesselation Automaton, which is totally parallel).  Any computation that
requires all the values at an "instant" can simply run at N times the
sampling rate of your sensors: it locks them, reads each one, and makes its
decisions after looking at all of them, and then unlocks them to examine the
next time slice.  If one is talking practically, this might not be possible
due to speed considerations, but theoretically it is possible.  So while at
a theoretical level ALL parallel computations can be simulated sequentially,
in practice one often requires parallelism to cope with real-world speeds.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 83 10:52:22 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Awareness, Human-ness
-BODY-

Sorry it took me a while to track this down.  It's something I recalled
when reading the discussion of awareness in V1 #80.  It's been lightly
edited.

>-Rodney Hoffman

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

From Richard Rorty's book, "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature":

Personhood is a matter of decision rather than knowledge, an acceptance
of another being into fellowship rather than a recognition of a common
essence.

Knowledge of what pain is like or what red is like is attributed to
beings on the basis of their potential membership in the community.
Thus babies and the more attractive sorts of animal are credited with
"having feelings" rather than  (like machines or spiders) "merely
responding to stimuli."  To say that babies know what heat is like, but
not what the motion of molecules is like is just to say that we can
fairly readily imagine them opening their mouths and remarking on the
former, but not the latter.  To say that a gadget that says "red"
appropriately *doesn't* know what red is like is to say that we cannot
readily imagine continuing a conversation with the gadget.

Attribution of pre-linguistic awareness is merely a courtesy extended to
potential or imagined fellow-speakers of our language.  Moral
prohibitions against hurting babies and the better looking sorts of
animals are not based on their possessions of feeling.  It is, if
anything, the other way around.  Rationality about denying civil rights
to morons or fetuses or robots or aliens or blacks or gays or trees is a
myth.  The emotions we have toward borderline cases depend on the
liveliness of our imagination, and conversely.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 November 1983 18:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: writing analysis
-BODY-
You might want to take a look at some of the stuff by R. Flesch
who is the primary exponent of a system that takes word and sentence
and paragraph lengths and turns it into grade-equivalent reading
scores.  It's somewhat controversial.

[E.g., The Art of Readable Writing.  Or, "A New Readability Index",
J. of Applied Psychology, 1948, 32, 221-233.  References to other
authors are also given in Cherry and Vesterman's writeup of the
STYLE and DICTION systems included in Berkeley Unix.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 31-Oct-83  11:49:55-GMT
-FROM-
From: Bundy HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Bundy@EDXA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and SYLLOG at IBM
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]


    Date: 9 Oct 1983 11:43:51-PDT (Sunday)
    From: Adrian Walker <ADRIAN.IBM@Rand-Relay>
    Subject: Prolog question


                                   IBM Research Laboratory K51
                                   5600 Cottle Road
                                   San Jose
                                   CA 95193 USA

                                   Telephone:    408-256-6999
                                   ARPANet: Adrian.IBM@Rand-Relay

                                   10th October 83


Alan,

In answer to your question about Prolog implementations, we
do most of our work using the Waterloo Prolog 1.3 interpreter
on an IBM mainframe (3081).  Although not a traditional AI
environment, this turns out to be pretty good.  For instance,
the speed of the Interpreter turns out to be about the same
as that of compiled DEC-10 Prolog (running on a DEC-10).

As for environment, the system delivered by Waterloo is
pretty much stand alone, but there are several good environments
built in Prolog on top of it.

A valuable feature of Waterloo Prolog 1.3 is a 'system' predicate,
which can call anything on the system, E.g.  a full screen editor.

The work on extracting explanations of 'yes' and 'no' answers
from Prolog, which I reported at IJCAI, was done in Waterloo
Prolog.  We have also implemented a syllogistic system called
SYLLOG, and several expert system types of applications.  An
English language question answerer written by Antonio Porto and
me, produces instantaneous answers, even when the 3081 has 250
users.

As far as I know, Waterloo Prolog only runs under the VM operating
system (not yet under MVS, the other major IBM OS for mainframes).
It is available, for a moderate academic licence fee, from Sandra
Ward, Department of Computing Services, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

We use it with IBM 3279 colour terminals, which adds variety to a
long day at the screen, and can also be useful !

Best wishes,

>- Adrian Walker

Walker, A. (1981). 'SYLLOG: A Knowledge Based Data Management
System,' Report No. 034. Computer Science Department, New York
University, New York.

Walker, A. (1982). 'Automatic Generation of Explanations of
Results from Knowledge Bases,' RJ3481. Computer Science
Department, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California.

Walker, A. (1983a). 'Data Bases, Expert Systems, and PROLOG,'
RJ3870. Computer Science Department, IBM Research Laboratory,
San Jose, California. (To appear as a book chapter)

Walker, A. (1983b). 'Syllog: An Approach to Prolog for
Non-Programmers.' RJ3950, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose,
Cal1fornia. (To appear as a book chapter)

Walker, A. (1983c). 'Prolog/EX1: An Inference Engine which
Explains both Yes and No Answers.'
RJ3771, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, Calofornia.
(Proc. IJCAI 83)

Walker, A. and Porto, A. (1983). 'KBO1, A Knowledge Based
Garden Store Assistant.'
RJ3928, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California.
(In Proc Portugal Workshop, 1983.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 31 Oct 83 22:57:03-CST
-FROM-
From: John Hartman <CS.HARTMAN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fri. Grad Lunch - Understanding and Translating LISP
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTEXAS-20 bboard.]

GRADUATE BROWN BAG LUNCH - Friday 11/4/83, PAI 5.60 at noon:

I will talk about how programming knowledge contributes to
understanding programs and translating between high level languages.
The problems of translating between LISP and MIRROR (= HLAMBDA) will
be introduced.  Then we'll look at the translation of A* (Best First
Search) and see some examples of how recognizing programming cliches
contributes to the result.

I'll try to keep it fairly short with the hope of getting critical
questions and discussion.


Old blurb:
I am investigating how a library of standard programming constructs
may be used to assist understanding and translating LISP programs.
A programmer reads a program differently than a compiler because she
has knowledge about computational concepts such as "fail/succeed loop"
and can recognize them by knowing standard implementations.  This
recognition benefits program reasoning by creating useful abstractions and
connections between program syntax and the domain.

The value of cliche recognition is being tested for the problem of
high level translation.  Rich and Temin's MIRROR language is designed
to give a very explicit, static expression of program information
useful for automatically answering questions about the program.  I am
building an advisor for LISP to MIRROR translation which will exploit
recognition to extract implicit program information and guide
transformation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 83 09:17 PST
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@Diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Seminar
-BODY-
               [Forwarded by Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI>.]

We are planning to start at IBM San Jose a research seminar on
theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge, such as reasoning
with incomplete information, reasoning in the presence of
inconsistencies, and reasoning about changes of belief.  The first few
meetings are intended to be introductory lectures on various attempts
at formalizing the problem, such as modal logic, nonmonotonic logic,
and relevance logic.  There is a lack of good research in this area,
and the hope is that after a few introductory lectures, the format of
the meetings will shift into a more research-oriented style.  The
first meeting is tentatively scheduled for Friday, Nov. 18, at 1:30,
with future meetings also to be held on Friday afternoon, but this may
change if there are a lot of conflicts.  The first meeting will be
partly organizational in nature, but there will also be a talk by Joe
Halpern on "Applying modal logic to reason about knowledge and
likelihood".

For further details contact:

Joe Halpern [halpern.ibm-sj@rand-relay, (408) 256-4701]
Yoram Moses [yom@sail, (415) 497-1517]
Moshe Vardi [vardi@su-hnv, (408) 256-4936]


    03-Nov-83  0016     MYV     Knowledge Seminar
    We may have a problem with Nov. 18. The response from Stanford to the
    announcement is overwhelming, but have a room only for 25 people.
    We may have to postpone the seminar.


To be added to the mailing list contact Moshe Vardi (MYV@sail,vardi@su-hnv)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
89
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 83 13:39:24 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <v.kahn@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definition of Intelligence
-BODY-
        When it comes down to it, isn't intelligence the ability to
recognize space-time relationships?  The nice thing about this definition
is that it recognizes that ants, programs, and humans all possess
varying degrees of intelligence (that is, varying degrees in their
ability to recognize space-time relationships).  This implies that
intelligence is only correlative, and only indirectly related to
physical environmental interaction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1983  22:22 EST
-FROM-
From: SLOAN%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Slow intelligence/chess
-BODY-
        ... Suppose you played chess at strength 2000 given 5 seconds
        per move, 2010 given 5 minutes, and 2050 given as much time as
        you desired...

An excellent point.  Unfortunately wrong.  This is a common error,
made primarily by 1500 players and promoters of chess toys.  Chess
ratings measure PERFORMANCE at TOURNAMENT TIME CONTROLS (generally
ranging between 1.5 to 3 moves per minute).  To speak of "strength
2000 at 5 seconds per move" or "2500 given as much time as desired" is
absolutely meaningless.  That is why there are two domestic rating
systems, one for over-the-board play and another for postal chess.
Both involve time limits, the limits are very different, and the
ratings are not comparable.  There is probably some correlation,  but
the set of skills involved are incomparable.
  This is entirely in keeping with the view that intelligence is
coupled with the environment, and involves a speed factor (you must
respond in "real-time" - whatever that happens to mean.)  It also
speaks to the question of "loop-avoidance": in the real world, you
can't step in the same stream twice; you must muddle through, ready or
not.
  To me, this suggests that all intelligent behavior consists of
generating crude, but feasible solutions to problems very quickly (so
as to be ready with a response) and then incrementally improving the
solution as time permits.  In an ever changing environment, it is
better to respond inadequately than to ponder moot points.
>Ken Sloan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1983 10:15:54 EST
-FROM-
From: AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications
     Mgr.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Test Re-visited
-BODY-
     I see that the Turing Test has (not unexpectedly) crept back into the
discussions of intelligence (1:85).  I've wondered a bit as to whether the
TT shouldn't be extended a bit; to wit, the challenge it poses should not only
include the ability to "pass" the test, but also the ability to act as a judge
for the test.  Examining the latter should give us all sorts of clues as to
what preconceived notions we're imposing when we try to develop a machine or
program that satisfies only Turing's original problem

Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1983  10:10 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

What I meant is that defining intelligence seems as pointless as
defining "life" and then arguing whether viruses are alive instead of
asking how they work and solve the problems that appear to us to be
the interesting ones.  Instead of defining so hard, one should look to
see what there is.

For example, about the loop-detecting thing, it is clear that in full
generality one can't detect all Turing machine loops.  But we all know
intelligent people who appear to be caught, to some extent, in thought
patterns that appear rather looplike.  That paper of mine on jokes
proposes that to be intelligent enough to keep out of simple loops,
the problem is solved by a variety of heuristic loop detectors, etc.
Of course, this will often deflect one from behaviors that aren't
loops and which might lead to something good if pursued.  That's life.


I guess my complaint is that I think it is unproductive to be so
concerned with defining "intelligence" to the point that you even
discuss whether "it" is time-scale invariant, rather than, say, how
many computrons it takes to solve some class of problems.  We want to
understand problem-solvers, all right.  But I think that the word
"intelligence" is a social one that accumulates all sorts of things
that one person admires when observed in others and doesn't understand
how to do.  No doubt, this can be narrowed down, with great effort,
e.g., by excluding physical; skills (probably wrongly, in a sense) and
so forth.  But it seemed to me that the discussion here in AILIST was
going nowwhere toward understand intelligence, even in that sense.

In other words, it seems strange to me that there is no public
discussion of substantive issues in the field...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1983  10:21 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence and Competition
-BODY-

   The ability to cope with  a CHANGE
    in  the environment marks  intelligence.


See, this is what's usually called adaptiveness.  This is why you
don't get anywhere defining intelligence -- until you have a clear idea
to define.  Why be enslaved to the fact that people use a word, unless
you're sure it isn't a social accumulation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 1983 23:44-PST
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-

From Minsky:

    ...I think that the word "intelligence" is a social one
    accumulates all sorts of things that one person
    admires observed in others and doesn't understand how to
    do...

    In other words, it seems strange to me that there
    is no public discussion of substantive issues in the
    field...


Exactly...  I agree on both counts.  My purpose is to help
crystallize a few basic topics, worthy of serious discussion, that
relate to those elusive epiphenomena that we tend to lump under
that loose characterization: "Intelligence".  I read both your LM
and Jokes papers and consider them seminal in that general
direction.  I think, though, that your ideas there need, and
certainly deserve, further elucidation.  In fact, I was hoping
that you would be willing to state some of your key points to
this audience.


More than this.  Recently I've been attracted to Doug
Hofstadter's ideas on subcognition and think that attention
should be paid to them as well.  As a matter of fact, I see
certain affinities between you two and would like to see a good
discussion that centers on LM, Jokes, and Subcognition as
Computation.  I think that, in combination, some of the most
promising ideas for AI are awaiting full germination in those
papers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1983  13:17 EST
-FROM-
From: BATALI%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
    From Minsky:

    ...I think that the word "intelligence" is a social one
    that accumulates all sorts of things that one person
    admires when observed in others and doesn't understand how to
    do...

This seems like an extremely negative and defeatist thing to say.
What does it leave us in AI to do, but to ignore the very notion we
are supposedly trying to understand?  What will motivate one line of
research rather than another, what can we use to judge the quality of
a piece of research, if we have no idea what it is we are after?

It seems to me that one plausible approach to AI is to present an
arguable account of what intelligence is about, and then to show that
some mechanism is intelligent according to that account.  The account,
the "definition", of intelligence may not be intuitive to everyone at
first.  But the performance of the mechanisms constructed in accord
with the account will constitute evidence that the account is correct.
(This is where the Turing test comes in, not as a definition of
intelligence, but as evidence for its presence.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 1 Nov 83 13:10:32-EST
-FROM-
From: SUNDAR@MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallelism and conciousness
-BODY-
                 [Forwarded by RickL%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.]

     [...]

     It seems evident from the recent conversations that the meaning of
intelligence is much more than mere 'survivability' or 'adaptability'.
Almost all the views expressed however took for granted the concept of
"time"-which,seems to me is 'a priori'(in the Kantian sense).

What do you think of a view of that says :intelligence is the ability of
an organism that enables it to preserve,propagate and manipulate these
'a priori'concepts.
The motivation for doing so could be a simple pleasure,pain mechanism
(which again  I feel are concepts not adequately understood).It would
seem that while the pain mechanism would help cut down large search
spaces when the organism comes up against such problems,the pleasure
mechanism would help in learning,and in the acquisition of new 'a priori'
wisdom.
Clearly in the case of organisms that multiply by fission (where the line
of division between parent and child is not exactly clear)the structure
of the organism may be preserved .In such cases it would seem that the
organism survives seemingly forever . However it would not be considered
intelligent by the definition proposed above .
The questions that seem interesting to me therefore are:
1 How do humans acquire the concept of 'time'?
2 'Change' seem to be measured in terms of time (adaptation,survival etc
are all the presence or absense of change) but 'time' itself seems to be
meaningless without 'change'!
3 How do humans decide that an organism is 'intelligent ' or not?
Seems to me that most of the people in the AIList made judgements (the
amoeba , desert tortoise, cockroach examples )which should mean that
they either knew what intelligence was or wasn't-but it still isn't
exactly clear after all the smoke's cleared.

    Any comments on the above ideas? As a relative novice to the field
of AI I'd appreciate your opinions.

Thanks.

>-Sundar--

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1983  16:42 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-

Sure.  I agree you want an account of what intelligence is "about".
When I complained about making a "definition" I meant
one of those useless compact thingies in dictionaries.

But I don't agree that you need this for scientific motivation.
Batali: do you really think Biologists need definitions of Life
for such purposes?

Finally, I simply don't think this is a compact phenomenon.
Any such "account", if brief, will be very partial and incomplete.
To expect a test to show that "the account is correct" depends
on the nature of the partial theory.  In a nutshell, I still
don't see any use at all for
such definition, and it will lead to calling all sorts of
partial things "intelligence".  The kinds of accounts to confirm
are things like partial theories that need their own names, like

   heuristic search method
   credit-assignment scheme
   knowledge-representation scheme, etc.

As in biology, we simply are much too far along to be so childish as
to say "this program is intelligent" and "this one is not".  How often
do you see a biologist do an experiment and then announce "See, this
is the secret of Life".  No.  He says, "this shows that enzyme
FOO is involved in degrading substrate BAR".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 1983 14:45-PST
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-

I think that your message was really addressed to Minsky, who
already replied.

I also think that the most one can hope for are confirmations of
"partial theories" relating, respectively, to various aspects
underlying phenomena of "intelligence".  Note that I say
"phenomena" (plural).  Namely, we may have on our hands a broad
spectrum of "intelligences", each one of which the manifestation
of somewhat *different* mix of underlying ingredients.  In fact,
for some time now I feel that AI should really stand for the
study of Artificial Intelligences (plural) and not merely
Artificial Intelligence (singular).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1983  19:29 EST
-FROM-
From: BATALI%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
    From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA

    do you really think Biologists need definitions of Life
    for such purposes?

No, but if anyone was were claiming to be building "Artificial Life",
that person WOULD need some way to evaluate research.  Remember, we're
not just trying to find out things about intelligence, we're not just
trying to see what it does -- like the biochemist who discovers enzyme
FOO -- we're trying to BUILD intelligences.  And that means that we
must have some relatively precise notion of what we're trying to build.

    Finally, I simply don't think this is a compact phenomenon.
    Any such "account", if brief, will be very partial and incomplete.
    To expect a test to show that "the account is correct" depends
    on the nature of the partial theory.  In a nutshell, I still
    don't see any use at all for
    such definition, and it will lead to calling all sorts of
    partial things "intelligence".

If the account is partial and incomplete, and leads to calling partial
things intelligence, then the account must be improved or rejected.
I'm not claiming that an account must be short, just that we need
one.

    The kinds of accounts to confirm
    are things like partial theories that need their own names, like

       heuristic search method
       credit-assignment scheme
       knowledge-representation scheme, etc.


But why are these thing interesting?  Why is heuristic search better
than "blind" search?  Why need we assign credit?  Etc?  My answer:
because such things are the "right" thing to do for a program to be
intelligent.  This answer appeals to a pre-theoretic conception of
what intelligence is.   A more precise notion would help us
assess the relevance of these and other methods to AI.

One potential reason to make a more precise "definition" of
intelligence is that such a definition might actually be useful in
making a program intelligent.  If we could say "do that" to a program
while pointing to the definition, and if it "did that", we would have
an intelligent program.  But I am far too optimistic.  (Perhaps
"childishly" so).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
90
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1983  23:46 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-

     One potential reason to make a more precise "definition" of
     intelligence is that such a definition might actually be useful
     in making a program intelligent.  If we could say "do that" to a
     program while pointing to the definition, and if it "did that",
     we would have an intelligent program.  But I am far too
     optimistic.

I think so.  You keep repeating how good it would be to have a good
definition of intelligence and I keep saying it would be as useless as
the biologists' search for the definition of "life".  Evidently
we're talking past each other so it's time to quit.

Last word: my reason for making the argument was that I have seen
absolutely no shred of good ideas in this forum, apparently because of
this definitional orientation.  I admit the possibility that some
good mathematical insight could emerge from such discussions.  But
I am personally sure it won't, in this particular area.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 4 November 1983, 01:17-EST
-FROM-
From: jcma@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
                          [Reply to Minsky.]


BOTTOM LINE:  Have you heard of OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS?

You are correct in pointing out that we need not have the ultimate definition
of intelligence.  But, it certainly seems useful for the practical purposes of
investigating the phenomena of intelligence (whether natural or artificial) to
have at least an initial approximation, an operational definition.

Some people, (e.g., Winston), have proposed "people-like behavior" as their
operational definition for intelligence.  Perhaps you can suggest an
incremental improvement over that rather vague definition.

If artficial intelligence can't come up with an operational definition of
intellgence, no matter how crude, it tends to undermine the credibility of the
discipline and encourage the view that AI researchers are flakey.  Moreover,
it makes it very difficult to determine the degree to which a program exhibits
"intelligence."

If you were being asked to spend $millions on a field of inquiry, wouldn't you
find it strange (bordering on absurd) that the principle proponents couldn't
render an operational definition of the object of investigation?

p.s.  I can't imagine that psychology has no operational definition of
intelligence (in fact, what is it?).  So, if worst comes to worst, AI can just
borrow psychology's definition and improve on it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1983  09:57 EST
-FROM-
From: Dan Carnese <DJC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
There's a wonderful quote from Wittgenstein that goes something like:

  One of the most fundamental sources of philosophical bewilderment is to have
  a substantive but be unable to find the thing that corresponds to it.

Perhaps the conclusion from all this is that AI is an unfortunate name for the
enterprise, since no clear definitions for I are available.  That shouldn't
make it seem any less flakey than, say, "operations research" or "management
science" or "industrial engineering" etc. etc.  People outside a research area
care little what it is called; what it has done and is likely to do is
paramount.

Trying to find the ultimate definition for field-naming terms is a wonderful,
stimulating philosophical enterprise.  However, one can make an empirical
argument that this activity has little impact on technical progress.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 1983 8:01-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #89
-BODY-
        This discussion on intelligence is starting to get very boring.
I think if you want a theoretical basis, you are going to have to
forget about defining intelligence and work on a higher level. Perhaps
finding representational schemes to represent intelligence would be a
more productive line of pursuit. There are such schemes in existence.
As far as I can tell, the people in this discussion have either scorned
them, or have never seen them. Perhaps you should go to the library for
a while and look at what all the great philosophers have said about the
nature of intelligence rather than rehashing all of their arguments in
a light and incomplete manner.
                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 0:46:16-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!hakanson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.2284


No, no, no.  I understood the point as meaning that the faster intelligence
is merely MORE intelligent than the slower intelligence.  Who's to say that
an amoeba is not intelligent?  It might be.  But we certainly can agree that
most of us are more intelligent than an amoeba, probably because we are
"faster" and can react more quickly to our environment.  And some super-fast
intelligent machine coming along does NOT make us UNintelligent, it just
makes it more intelligent than we are.  (According to the previous view
that faster = more intelligent, which I don't necessarily subscribe to.)

Marion Hakanson         {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakanson        (Usenet)
                        hakanson@{oregon-state,orstcs}          (CSnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 13:18:58-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: transcendental recursion [& reply]
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1457

i'm also new on this net, but this item seemed like
a good one to get my feet wet with.
     if we're going to pursue the topic of consciousness
vs intelligence, i think it's important not to get
confused about consciousness vs *self*-consciousness at
the beginning.  there's a perfectly clear sense in which
any *sentient* being is "conscious"--i.e., conscious *of*
changes in its environment.  but i have yet to see any
good reason for supposing that cats, rats, bats, etc.
are *self*-conscious, e.g., conscious of their own
states of consciousness.  "introspective" or "self-
monitoring" capacity goes along with self-consciousness,
but i see no particular reason to suppose that it has
anything special to do with *consciousness* per se.
     as long as i'm sticking my neck out, let me throw
in a cautionary note about confusing intelligence and
adaptability.  cockroaches are as adaptable as all get
out, but not terribly intelligent; and we all know some
very intelligent folks who can't adapt to novelties at
all.
                      --jay rosenberg (escvax!unbent)

[I can't go along with the cockroach claim.  They are a
successful species, but probably haven't changed much in
millions of years.  Individual cockroaches are elusive,
but can they solve mazes or learn tricks?  As for the
"intelligent folks":  I previously stated my preference
for power tests over timed aptitude tests -- I happen to
be rather slow to change channels myself.  If these people
are unable to adapt even given time, on what basis can we
say that they are intelligent?  If they excel in particular
areas (e.g. idiot savants), we can qualify them as intelligent
within those specialties, just as we reduce our expectations
for symbolic algebra programs.  If they reached states of
high competence through early learning, then lost the ability
to learn or adapt further, I will only grant that they >>were<<
intelligent.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 0:46:00-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!hakanson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Semi-Summary of Halting Problem Disc [& Comment]
-BODY-

A couple weeks ago, I heard Marvin Minsky speak up at Seattle.  Among other
things, he discussed this kind of "loop detection" in an AI program.  He
mentioned that he has a paper just being published, which he calls his
"Joke Paper," which discusses the applications of humor to AI.  According
to Minsky, humor will be a necessary part of any intelligent system.

If I understood correctly, he believes that there is (will be) a kind
of a "censor" which recognizes "bad situations" that the intelligent
entity has gotten itself into.  This censor can then learn to recognize
the precursors of this bad situation if it starts to occur again, and
can intervene.  This then is the reason why a joke isn't funny if you've
heard it before.  And it is funny the first time because it's "absurd,"
the laughter being a kind of alarm mechanism.

Naturally, this doesn't really help with a particular implementation,
but I believe that I agree with the intuitions presented.  It seems to
agree with the way I believe *I* think, anyway.

I hope I haven't misrepresented Minsky's ideas, and to be sure, you should
look for his paper.  I don't recall him mentioning a title or publisher,
but he did say that the only reference he could find on humor was a book
by Freud, called "Jokes and the Unconscious."

(Gee, I hope his talk wasn't all a joke....)

Marion Hakanson         {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakanson        (Usenet)
                        hakanson@{oregon-state,orstcs}          (CSnet)


[Minsky has previously mentioned this paper in AIList.  You can get
a copy by writing to Minsky%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 7:52:43-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!utastro!nather @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Halting Problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utastro.766

A common characteristic of humans that is not shared by the machines
we build and the programs we write is called "boredom."  All of us get
bored running around the same loop again and again, especially if nothing
is seen to change in the process.  We get bored and quit.

         *--->    WARNING!!!   <---*

If we teach our programs to get bored, we will have solved the
infinite-looping problem, but we will lose our electronic slaves who now
work, uncomplainingly, on the same tedious jobs day in and day out.  I'm
not sure it's worth the price.

                                    Ed Nather
                             ihnp4!{kpno, ut-sally}!utastro!nather

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 20:03:21-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5g!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Halting Problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou5d.725

    If we teach our programs to get bored, we will have solved the
    infinite-looping problem, but we will lose our electronic slaves who now
    work, uncomplainingly, on the same tedious jobs day in and day out.  I'm
    not sure it's worth the price.

Hmm.  I don't usually try to play in this league, but it seems to me that there
is a place for everything and every talent.  Build one machine that gets bored
(in a controlled way, please) to work on Fermat's last Theorem.  Build another
that doesn't to check tolerances on camshafts or weld hulls.  This [solving
the looping problem] isn't like destroying one's virginity, you know.

                                                Mark Terribile
                                                Duke Of deNet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
91
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 22:39:06-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!israel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3498

[Initial portion missing. -- KIL]

a processing unit that we can currently build.  If you mean 'at the
exact same time', then I defy you to show me a case where this is
necessary.

The statement "No algorithm is inherently parallel", just means that
the algoritm itself (as opposed to the engineering of putting it
into practice) does not necessarily have to be done in parallel.
Any parallel algorithm that you give me, I can write a sequential
algorithm that does the same thing.

Now, if you assume a finite number of processors for the parallel
algorithm, then the question of whether the sequential algorithm will
work under time constraints is dependent on the speed of the
processor worked on.  I don't know if there has been any work
done on theoretical limits of the speed of a processor (Does
anyone know? is this a meaningful question?), but if we assume
none (a very chancy assumption at best), then any parallel algorithm
can be done sequentially in practice.

If you allow an infinite number of processors for the parallel
algorithm, then the sequential version of the algorithm can't
ever work in practice.  But can the parallel version?  What
do we run it on?  Can you picture an infinitely parallel
computer which has robots with shovels with it, and when the
computer needs an unallocated processor and has none, then
the robots dig up the appropriate minerals and construct
the processor.  Of course, it doesn't need to be said that
if the system notices that the demand for processors is
faster than the robots' processor production output, then
the robots make more robots to help them with the raw materials
gathering and the construction.  :-)
>-

^-^ Bruce ^-^

University of Maryland, Computer Science
{rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet)    israel.umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay (Arpanet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 19:55:44-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3572


I see no reason why consciousness should be inherently parallel.  But
it turns out that the only examples of conscious entities (i.e. those
which nearly everyone agrees are conscious) rely heavily on parallelism
at several levels.  This is NOT to say that they derive their
consciousness from parallelism, only that there is a high corelation
between the two.

There are good reasons why natural selection would favor parallelism.
Besides the usually cited ones (e.g. speed, simplicity) is the fact
that the world goes by very quickly, and carries a high information
content.  That makes it desirable and advantageous for a conscious
entity to be aware of several things at once.  This strongly suggests
parallelism (although a truly original species might get away with
timesharing).

Pushing in the other direction, I should note that it is not necessary
to bring the full power of the human intellect to bear against ALL of
our environment at once.  Hence the phenomenon of attention.  It
suffices to have weaker processes in charge of uninteresting phenomena
in the environment, as long as these have the ability to enlist more of
the organism's information processing power when the situation becomes
interesting enough to demand it.  (This too could be finessed with a
clever timesharing scheme, but I know of no animal that does it that
way.)

Once again, none of this entails a connection causal connection between
parallelism and consciousness.  It just seems to have worked out that
nature liked it that way (in the possible world in which we live).

Rick Dinitz
...!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 11:53:58-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!blenko @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Parallelism & Consciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.3648

Interesting to see this discussion taking place among people
(apparently) committed to an information-processing model for
intelligence.

I would be satisfied with the discovery of mechanisms that duplicate
the information-processing functions associated with intelligence.

The issue of real-time performance seems to be independent of
functional performance (not from an engineering point of view, of
course; ever tell one of your hardware friends to "just turn up the
clock"?).  The fact that evolutionary processes act on both the
information-processing and performance characteristics of a system may
argue for the (evolutionary) superiority of one mechanism over another;
it does not provide prescriptive information for developing functional
mechanisms, however, which is the task we are currently faced with.

        Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 19:01:59-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3523

                No algorithm is inherently parallel.

        The algorithms you are thinking about occur in the serial world of
        the Turing machine.  Turing machines, remember, have only only one
        input.  Consider what happens to your general purpose turing machine
        when it must compute on more than one input and simultaneously!

        So existence in the real world may require parallelism.


    How do you define simultaneously?  If you mean within a very short
    period of time, then that requirement is based on the maximum speed of
    a processing unit that we can currently build.  If you mean 'at the
    exact same time', then I defy you to show me a case where this is
    necessary.

A CHALLENGE!!!  Grrrrrrrr......

Okay, let's say we have two discrete inputs that must
be monitored by a Turing machine.  Signals may come in
over these inputs simultaneously.  How do you propose
to monitor both discretes at the same time?  You can't
monitor them as one input because your Turing machine
is allowed only one state at a time on its read/write head.
Remember that the states of the inputs run as fast as
those of the Turing machine.


You can solve this problem by building two Turing machines,
each of which may look at the discretes.

I don't have to appeal to practical speeds of processors.
We're talking pure theory here.
>-

                                        - Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
                                        speaker@umcp-cs
                                        speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 18:41:10-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!speaker @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Infinite loops and Turing machines...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3521

        One of the things I did in my undergrad theory class was to prove that
        a multiple-tape Turing machine is equivalent to one with a single tape
        (several tapes were very handy for programming).  Also, we showed that
        a TM with a 2-dimensional tape infinite in both x and y was also
        equivalent to a single-tape TM.  On the other hand, the question of
        a machine with an infinite number of read heads was left open...

Aha!  I knew someone would come up with this one!
Consider that when we talk of simultaneous events... we speak of
simultaneous events that occur within one Turing machine state
and outside of the Turing machine itself.  Can a one-tape
Turing machine read the input of 7 discrete sources at once?
A 7 tape machine with 7 heads could!

The reason that they are not equivelent is that we have
allowed for external states (events) outside of the machine
states of the Turing machine itself.
>-

                                        - Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
                                        speaker@umcp-cs
                                        speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 16:56:19-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!mit-eddie!rlh @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.885

    requirement is based on the maximum speed of
    a processing unit that we can currently build.  If you mean 'at the
    exact same time', then I defy you to show me a case where this is
    necessary.

    The statement "No algorithm is inherently parallel", just means that
    the algorithm itself (as opposed to the engineering of putting it
    into practice) does not necessarily have to be done in parallel.
    Any parallel algorithm that you give me, I can write a sequential
    algorithm that does the same thing.

Consider the retina, and its processing algorithm.  It is certainly
true that once the raw information has been collected and in some way
band-limited, it can be processed in either fashion; but one part of
the algorithm must necessarily be implemented in parallel.  To get
the photon efficiencies that are needed for dark-adapted vision
(part of the specifications for the algorithm) one must have some
continuous, distributed attention to the light field.  If I match
the spatial and temporal resolution of the retina, call it several thousand
by several thousand by some milliseconds, by sequentially scanning with
a single receptor, I can only catch one in several-squared million
photons, not the order of one in ten that our own retina achieves.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 83 19:44:21-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3633


There is a significant difference between saying "No algorithm is
inherently parallel" and saying "Any algorithm can be carried out
without parallelism."  There are many algorithms that are
inherently parallel. Many (perhaps all) of them can be SIMULATED
without true parallel processing.

I would, however, support the contention that computational models
of natural processes need not follow the same implementations, and
that a serial simulation of a parallel process can produce the
same result.

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 83 15:22:20-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscom
     p!kobold!tjt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: kobold.191

Gawd!! Real-time processing with a Turing machine?!
Pure theory indeed!

Turing machines are models for *abstract* computation.  You get to
write an initial string on the tape(s) and start up the machine: it
does not monitor external inputs changing asynchronously.  You can
define your *own* machine which is just like a Turing machine, except
that it *does* monitor external inputs changing asynchronously (Speaker
machines anyone :-).

Also, if you want to talk *pure theory*, I could just enlarge my input
alphabet on a single input to encode all possible simultaneous values
at multiple inputs.


>-
        Tom Teixeira,  Massachusetts Computer Corporation.  Littleton MA
        ...!{harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt   (617) 486-9581

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 83 16:28:10-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscom
     p!kobold!tjt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: kobold.192

In regards to the statement

        No algorithm is inherently parallel.

which has been justified by the ability to execute any "parallel"
program on a single sequential processor.

The difference between parallel and sequential algorithms is one of
*expressive* power rather than *computational* power.  After all, if
it's just computational power you want, why aren't you all programming
Turing machines?

The real question is what is the additional *expressive* power of
parallel programs.  The additional expressive power of parallel
programming languages is a result of not requiring the programmer to
serialize steps of his computation when he is uncertain whether either
one will terminate.
>-
        Tom Teixeira,  Massachusetts Computer Corporation.  Littleton MA
        ...!{harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt   (617) 486-9581

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 83 8:13:22-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!utastro!nather @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Our Parallel Eyeballs
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utastro.784


        Consider the retina, and its processing algorithm. [...]

There seems to be a misconception here.  It's not clear to me that "parallel
processing" includes simple signal accumulation.  Astronomers use area
detectors that simply accumulate the charge deposited by photons arriving
on an array of photosensitive diodes; after the needed "exposure" the charge
image is read out (sequentially) for display, further processing, etc.
If the light level is high, readout can be repeated every few milliseconds,
or, in some devices, proceed continuously, allowing each pixel to accumulate
photons between readouts, which reset the charge to zero.

I note in passing that we tend to think sequentially (our self-awareness
center seems to be serial) but operate in parallel (our heart beats along,
and body chemistry gets its signals even when we're chewing gum).  We
have, for the most part, built computers in our own (self)image: serial.
We're encountering real physical limits in serial computing (the finite
speed of light) and clearly must turn to parallel operations to go much
faster.  How we learn to "think in parallel" is not clear, but people
who do the logic design of computers try to get as many operations into
one clock cycle as possible, and maybe that's the place to start.

                                         Ed Nather
                                         ihnp4!{ut-sally,kpno}!utastro!nather

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 9:39:07-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!majka @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Get off the Turing Machines
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.513

From: Marc Majka <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP>

A Turing machine is a theoretical model of computation.
<speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay> points out that all this noise about
"simultaneous events" is OUTSIDE of the notion of a Turing machine. Turing
machines are a theoretical formulation which gives theoreticians a formal
system in which to consider problems in computability, decidability, the
"hardness" of classes of functions, and etc.  They don't really care whether
set membership in a class 0 grammer is decidable in less than 14.2 seconds.
The unit of time is the state transition, or "move" (as Turing called it).
If you want to discuss time (in seconds or meters), you are free to invent a
new model of computation which includes that element.  You are then free to
prove theorems about it and attempt to prove it equivalent to other models
of computation.  Please do this FORMALLY and post (or publish) your results.
Otherwise, invoking Turing machines is a silly and meaningless exercise.

Marc Majka

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 19:47:04-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism and Conciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3677


Arguments based on speed of processing aren't acceptable.  The
question of whether parallel processing is required has to be
in the context of arbitrarily fast processors.  Thus you can't
talk about simultaneous inputs changing state at processor speed
(unless you're considering the interesting case where the input
is directly monitoring the processor itself and therefore
intrinsically as fast as the processor; in that case you can't
cope, but I'm not sure it's an interesting case with respect to
consciousness).

Consideration of the retina, on the other hand, brings up the
basic question of what is a parallel processor.  Is an input
latch (allowing delayed polling) or a multi-input averager a
parallel process or just part of the plumbing? We can also, of
course, group the input bits and assume an arbitrarily fast
processor dealing with the bits 64 (or 128 or 1 million) at a
time.

I don't think I'd be willing to say that intelligence or
consciousness can't be slow. On the other hand, I don't think
there's too much point to this argument, since it's pretty clear
that producing a given level of performance will be easier with
parallel processing.

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
92
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 83 19:13:28-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!simon @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Semi-Summary of Halting Problem Discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.335

About halting:
it is unclear what is meant precisely by "can a program of length n
decide whether programs of length <= n will halt".  First, the input
to the smaller programs is not specified in the question.  Assuming
that it is a unique input for each program, known a priori (for
example, the index of the program), then the answer is obviously YES
for the following restriction: the deciding program has size 2**n and
decides on smaller programs (there are a few constants that are
neglected too). There are less than 2*2**n programs of length <=n. For
each represent halting on the specific input the test is to apply to
by 1, looping by 0. The resulting string is essentially the program
needed - it clearly exists. Getting hold of it is another matter - it
is also obvious that this cannot be done in a uniform manner for every
n because of the halting problem.  At the cost of more sophisticated
coding, and tremendous expenditure of time, a similar construction can
be made to work for programs of length O(n).


If the input is not fixed, the question is obviously hopeless - there are
very small universal programs.

As a practical matter it is not the halting proble that is relevant, but its
subrecursive analogues.
janos simon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 13:03:22-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxss!aaw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Halting Problem Discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxss.195

A point missing in this discussion is that the halting problem is
equivalent to the question:
        Can a method be formulated to attempt to solve ANY problem
        which can determine if it is not getting closer to the
        solution
so the meta-halters (not the clothing) can't be more than disguised
time limits etc. for the general problem, since they CAN NOT MAKE
INFERENCES ABOUT THE PROCESS they are to halt
                Aaron Werman pyuxi!pyuxss!aaw

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 83 21:05:28-EST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: re: awareness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3586


Robert -

If I understand correctly, your reasons for preferring dualism (or
physicalism) to functionalism are:

        1) It seems more intuitively obvious.
        2) You are worried about legal/ethical implications of functionalism.

I find that somewhat amusing, as those are EXACTLY my reasons for
prefering functionalism to either dualism or physicalism. The legal
implications of differentiating between groups by arbitrarily denying
`souls' to one is well-known; it usually leads to slavery.

        <mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 5 November 1983, 03:03-EST
-FROM-
From: JCMA@MIT-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
    From: Dan Carnese <DJC%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

    Trying to find the ultimate definition for field-naming terms is a
    wonderful, stimulating philosophical enterprise.

I think you missed the point all together.  The idea is that *OPERATIONAL
DEFINITIONS* are known to be useful and are found in all mature disciplines
(e.g., physics).  The fact that AI doesn't have an operation definition of
intelligence simply points up the fact that the field of inquiry is not yet a
discipline.  It is a proto-discipline precisely because key issues remain
vague and undefined and because there is no paradigm (in the Khunian sense of
the term, not popular vulgarizations).

That means that it is not possible to specify criteria for certification in
the field, not to mention the requisite curriculum for the field.  This all
means that there is lots of work to be done before AI can enter the normal
science phase.

    However, one can make an empirical argument that this activity has little
    impact on technical progress.

Let's see your empirical argument.  I haven't noticed any intelligent machines
running around the AI lab lately.  I certainly haven't noticed any that can
carry on any sort of reasonable conversation.  Have you?  So, where is all
this technical progress regarding understanding intelligence?

Make sure you don't fall into the trap of thinking that intelligent machines
are here today (Douglas Hofstadter debunks this position in his "Artificial
Intelligence: Subcognition as Computation," CS Dept., Indiana U., Nov. 1982).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 November 1983 15:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing test in everyday life
-BODY-
Have you ever gotten one of those phone calls from people who are trying
to sell you a magazine subscription?  Those people sound *awfully* like
computers!  They have a canned speech, with canned places to wait for
human (customer) response, and they seem to have a canned answer to
anything you say.  They are also *boring*!

I know the entity at the other end of the line is not a computer
(because they recognize my voice -- someone correct me if this is not a
good test) but we might ask: how good would a computer program have to
be to fool someone into thinking that it is human, in this limited case?
I suspect you wouldn't have to do much, since the customer doesn't
expect much from the salescreature who phones.  Perhaps there is a
lesson here.

>- Steve

[There is a system, in use, that can recognize affirmative and negative
replies to its questions.  It also stores a recording of your responses
and can play the recording back to you before ending the conversation.
The system is used for selling (e.g., record albums) and for dunning,
and is effective partly because it is perceived as "mechanical".  People
listen to it because of the novelty, it can be programmed to make negative
responses very difficult, and the playback of your own replies is very
effective.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 83 13:41:53-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!reid @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Slow Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uwvax.1129

When people's intelligence is evaluated, at least subjectively, it is common
to hear such things as "He is brilliant but never applies himself," or "She
is very intelligent, but can never seem to get anything accomplished due to
her short attention span."  This seems to imply to me that intelligence is
sort of like voltage--it is potential.  Another analogy might be a
weight-lifter, in the sense that no one doubts her
ability to do amazing physical things, based on her appearance, but she needn't
prove it on a regular basis....  I'm not at all sure that people's working
definition of intelligence has anything at all to do with either time or sur-
vival.



Glenn Reid
..seismo!uwvax!reid  (reid@uwisc.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 83 8:08:19-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intelligence and adaptability
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1466

Just two quick remarks from a philosopher:

1.  It ain't just what you do; it's how you do it.
Chameleons *adapt* to changing environments very quickly--in a way
that furthers their goal of eating lots of flies.  But what they're doing
isn't manifesting *intelligence*.

2.   There's adapting and adapting.  I would have thought that
one of the best evidences of *our* intelligence is not our ability to
adapt to new environments, but rather our ability to adapt new
environments to *us*.  We don't change when our environment changes.
We build little portable environments which suit *us* (houses,
spaceships), and take them along.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 83 7:51:42-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What about physical identity? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.645


        It's surprising to me that people are still speaking in terms of
machine intelligence unconnected with a notion of a physical host that
must interact with the real world.  This is treated as a trivial problem
at most (I think Ken Laws said that one could attach any kind of sensing
device, and hence (??) set any kind of goal for a machine).  So why does
Hubert Dreyfus treat this problem as one whose solution is a *necessary*,
though not sufficient, condition for machine intelligence?

        But is it a solved problem?  I don't think so--nowhere near, from
what I can tell.  Nor is it getting the attention it requires for solution.
How many robots have been built that can infer their own physical limits
and capabilities?

        My favorite example is the oft-quoted SHRDLU conversation; the
following exchange has passed for years without comment:

        ->  Put the block on top of the pyramid
        ->  I can't.
        ->  Why not?
        ->  I don't know.

(That's not verbatim.)  Note that in human babies, fear of falling seems to
be hardwired.  It will still attempt, when old enough, to do things like
put a block on top of a pyramid--but it certainly doesn't seem to need an
explanation for why it should not bother after the first few tries.  (And
at that age, it couldn't understand the explanation anyway!)

        SHRDLU would have to be taken down, and given another "rule".
SHRDLU had no sense of what it is to fall down.  It had an arm, and an
eye, but only a rather contrived "sense" of its own physical identity.
It is this sense that Dreyfus sees as necessary.
>--
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 83 5:57:48-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxn!ruffwork @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE:intelligence and adaptability
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxn.400

I would tend to agree that it's not how a being adapts to its
environment, but how it changes the local environment to better
suit itself.

Also, I would have to say that adapting the environment
would only aid in ranking the intelligence of a being if that
action was a voluntary decision.  There are many instances
of creatures that alter their surroundings (water spiders come
to mind), but could they decide not to ???  I doubt it.

                        ...!iham1!ruffwork

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 83 15:36:33-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE:intelligence and adaptability
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou5d.732

Man is the toolmaker and the principle tooluser of all the living things
that we know of.  What does this mean?

Consider driving a car or skating.  When I do this, I have managed to
incorporate an external system into my own control system with its myriad
of pathways both forward and backward.

This takes place at a level below that which usually is considered to
constitute intelligent thought.  On the other hand, we can adopt external
things into our thought-model of the world in a way which no other creature
seems to be capable of.

Is there any causal relationship here?

                                        Mark Terribile
                                        DOdN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Nov 1983 20:54-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #90
-BODY-
        Irwin Marin's course in AI started out by asking us to define
the term 'Natural Stupidity'. I guess artificial intelligence must be
anything both unnatural and unstupid. We had a few naturally stupid
examples to work with, so we got a definition quite quickly. Naturally
stupid types were unable to adapt, unable to find new representations,
and made of flesh and bone. Artificially intelligent types were
machines designed to adapt their responses and seek out more accurate
representations of their environment and themselves. Perhaps this would
be a good 'working' definition. At any rate, definitions are only
'working' if you work with them. If you can work with this one I
suggest you go to it and stop playing with definitions.
                FC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
93
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 83 16:51:42 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Fischer <Fischer@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for MV8000
-BODY-
The University of New Haven is looking for any version of Lisp that
runs on a Data General MV8000, or for a portable Lisp written in Fortran
or Pascal that could be brought up in a short time.

Please reply to me by electronic mail and I will bring it to their
attention, or contact Alice Fischer directly at (203) 932-7069.

                           --  Michael Fischer <Fischer@YALE.ARPA>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Nov 83 21:31:57-EST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig1!sal @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems for troubleshooting
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekig1.1442

I am in the process of evaluating the feasibility of developing expert
systems for troubleshooting instruments and functionally complete
circuit boards.  If anyone has had any experience in this field or has
seen a similar system, please get in touch with me either through the
net or call me at 503-627-3678 during 8:00am - 6:00pm PST.  Thanks.

                                    Salahuddin Faruqui
                                    Tektronix, Inc.
                                    Beaverton, OR 97007.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 83 17:20:42-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for a rules based expert system.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxl.707

I am interested in obtaining a working version of a rule based
expert system, something on the order of RITA, ROSIE, or EMYCIN.
I am interested in the knowledge and inference control structure,
not an actual knowledge base. The application would be in the
area of switching system maintenance and operation.

I am in the 5ESS(tm) project, and so prefer a Unix based product,
but I would be willing to convert a different type if necessary.
An internal BTL product would be desirable, but if anyone knows
about a commercially available system, I would be interested in
evaluating it.

Thanks in advance for your help.

                Philip Polli
                BTL Naperville
                IX 1F-474
                (312) 979-0834
                ihuxl!pvp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 Nov 83 09:50:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Spectrum Alert
-BODY-
The November issue of IEEE Spectrum is devoted to the 5th Generation.
In addition to the main survey (which includes some very detailed tables
about sources of funding), there are:

  A review of Feigenbaum and McCorduck's book, by Mark Stefik.

  A glossary (p. 39) of about 25 AI and CS terms, taken from
  Gevarter's Overview of AI and Robotics for NASA.

  Announcement (p. 126) of The Artificial Intelligence Report, a
  newsletter for people interested in AI but not engaged in research.
  It will begin in January; no price is given.  Contact Artificial
  Intelligence Publications, 95 First St., Los Altos, CA  94022,
  (415) 949-2324.

  Announcement (p. 126) of a tour of Japan for those interested in
  the 5th Generation effort.

  Brief discussion (p. 126) of Art and Computers: The First Artificial-
  Intelligence Coloring Book, a set of line drawings by an artist-taught
  rule-based system.

  An interesting parable (p. 12) for those who would educate the public
  about AI or any other topic.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5-Nov-83 10:41:44-CST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Overbeek@ANL-MCS (Overbeek)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stalking The Gigalip
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

E. W. Lusk and I recently wrote a short note concerning attempts
to produce high-speed Prolog machines.  I apologize for perhaps
restating the obvious in the introduction.  In any event we
solicit comments.


                              Stalking the Gigalip

                                   Ewing Lusk

                                Ross A. Overbeek

                   Mathematics and Computer Science Division
                          Argonne National Laboratory
                            Argonne, Illinois 60439


          1.  Introduction

               The Japanese have recently established the goal of pro-
          ducing a machine capable of producing between 10 million and
          1 billion logical inferences per  second  (where  a  logical
          inference  corresponds  to  a  Prolog procedure invocation).
          The motivating belief is that logic programming unifies many
          significant  areas of computer science, and that expert sys-
          tems based on logic programming will be the dominant  appli-
          cation  of  computers  in  the 1990s.  A number of countries
          have at least considered  attempting  to  compete  with  the
          Japanese  in  the  race  to attain a machine capable of such
          execution rates.  The United States  funding  agencies  have
          definitely  indicated  a  strong  desire to compete with the
          Japanese in the creation of such a logic engine, as well  as
          in  the  competition  to  produce  supercomputers  that  can
          deliver at least two orders of magnitude improvement  (meas-
          ured in megaflops) over current machines.  Our goal in writ-
          ing this short note is to offer some opinions on how  to  go
          about  creating  a machine that could execute a gigalip.  It
          is certainly true that the entire goal of  creating  such  a
          machine should be subjected to severe criticism.  Indeed, we
          feel that it is probably the case that a majority of  people
          in the AI research community feel that it offers (at best) a
          misguided effort.  Rather  than  entering  this  debate,  we
          shall  concentrate  solely  on discussing an approach to the
          goal.  In our opinion a significant component of many of the
          proposed  responses  by  researchers in the United States is
          based on the unstated assumption that the goal itself is not
          worth pursuing, and that the benefits will accrue from addi-
          tional funding to areas in AI that only minimally impinge on
          the stated objective.

[ This paper is available on {SU-SCORE} as:

       PS:<Prolog>ANL-LPHunting.Txt

  There is a limited supply of hard copies that
  can be mailed to those with read-only access
  to this newsletter  -ed ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 7 November 1983 12:03:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence; theoretical speed
-BODY-
        Not to stir this up again, but around here, some people like the
definition that intelligence is "knowledge brought to bear to solve
problems".  This indicates that you need knowledge, ways of applying it, and
a concept of a "problem", which implies goals.  One problem with measuring
human "IQ"s is that you almost always end up measuring (at least partly) how
much knowledge someone has, and what culture they're part of, as well as the
pure problem solving capabilities (if any such critter exists).

        As for the theoretical speed of processing, the speed of light is a
theoretical limit on the propagation of information (!), not just matter, so
the maximum theoretical cycle speed of a processor with a one foot long
information path (mighty small) is a nanosecond (not too fast!).  So the
question is, what is the theoretical limit on the physical size of a
processor?  (Or, how do you build a transistor out of three atoms?)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 83 7:01:30-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxss!aaw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxss.196

[Semi-Summary of Halting Problem Disc]
must have been some kind of joke. Sigmunds' book is a real layman
thing, and in it he asserts that the joke
    a: where are you going?
    b: MINSKY
    a: you said "minsky" so I'd think you are going to "pinsky".  I
       happen to know you are going to "minsky" so whats the use in lying?
is funny.
                                aaron werman pyuxi!pyuxss!aaw

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Nov 83  1231 PST
-FROM-
From: Jussi Ketonen <JK@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-
On useless discussions - one more quote by Wittgenstein:
        Wovon man nicht sprachen kann, darueber muss man schweigen.

>-----------------------------
-END-
ate: 05 Nov 83  0910 PST-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 83 19:28 PST
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@Diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Seminar
-BODY-
Due to the overwhelming response to my announcement and the need to
find a bigger room, the first meeting is postponed to Dec. 9,
10:00am.

Moshe Vardi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1983  22:50 EST
-FROM-
From: HEWITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SEMINAR
-BODY-
               [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC.]


        Date:  Thursday, November 10, l983   3:30 P.M.
        Place: NE43 8th floor Playroom
        Title: "Some Fundamental Limitations of Logic Programming"
        Speaker: Carl Hewitt

Logic Programming has been proposed by some as the universal
programming paradigm for the future.  In this seminar I will discuss
some of the history of the ideas behind Logic Programming and assess
its current status.  Since many of the problems with current Logic
Programming Languages such as Prolog will be solved, it is not fair to
base a critique of Logic Programming by focusing on the particular
limitations of languages like Prolog.  Instead I will focus discussion
on limitations which are inherent in the enterprise of attempting to
use logic as a programming language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 3 Nov 83 10:44:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Ron Brachman <Brachman at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-84 Call for Papers
-BODY-

                          CALL FOR PAPERS


                              AAAI-84


        The 1984 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence

   Sponsored by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence
     (in cooperation with the Association for Computing Machinery)

                 University of Texas, Austin, Texas

                         August 6-10, 1984

AAAI-84 is the fourth national conference sponsored by the American
Association for Artificial Intelligence.  The purpose of the conference
is to promote scientific research of the highest caliber in Artificial
Intelligence (AI), by bringing together researchers in the field and by
providing a published record of the conference.


TOPICS OF INTEREST

Authors are invited to submit papers on substantial, original, and
previously unreported research in any aspect of AI, including the
following:

AI and Education                        Knowledge Representation
     (including Intelligent CAI)        Learning
AI Architectures and Languages          Methodology
Automated Reasoning                        (including technology transfer)
     (including automatic program-      Natural Language
      ming, automatic theorem-proving,      (including generation,
      commonsense reasoning, planning,       understanding)
      problem-solving, qualitative      Perception (including speech, vision)
      reasoning, search)                Philosophical and Scientific
Cognitive Modelling                                Foundations
Expert Systems                          Robotics



REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION

Timetable:  Authors should submit five (5) complete copies of their
papers (hard copy only---we cannot accept on-line files) to the AAAI
office (address below) no later than April 2, 1984.  Papers received
after this date will be returned unopened.  Notification of acceptance
or rejection will be mailed to the first author (or designated
alternative) by May 4, 1984.

Title page:  Each copy of the paper should have a title page (separate
from the body of the paper) containing the title of the paper, the
complete names and addresses of all authors, and one topic from the
above list (and subtopic, where applicable).

Paper body:  The authors' names should not appear in the body of the
paper.  The body of the paper must include the paper's title and an
abstract.  This part of the paper must be no longer than thirteen (13)
pages, including figures but not including bibliography.  Pages must be
no larger than 8-1/2" by 11", double-spaced (i.e., no more than
twenty-eight (28) lines per page), with text no smaller than standard
pica type (i.e., at least 12 pt. type).  Any submission that does not
conform to these requirements will not be reviewed.  The publishers will
allocate four pages in the conference proceedings for each accepted
paper, and will provide additional pages at a cost to the authors of
$100.00 per page over the four page limit.

Review criteria:  Each paper will be stringently reviewed by experts in
the area specified as the topic of the paper.  Acceptance will be based
on originality and significance of the reported research, as well as
quality of the presentation of the ideas.  Proposals, surveys, system
descriptions, and incremental refinements to previously published work
are not appropriate for inclusion in the conference.  Applications
clearly demonstrating the power of established techniques, as well as
thoughtful critiques and comparisons of previously published material
will be considered, provided that they point the way to new research in
the field and are substantive scientific contributions in their own
right.


Submit papers and                     Submit program suggestions
   general inquiries to:                    and inquiries to:

American Association for              Ronald J. Brachman
    Artificial Intelligence           AAAI-84 Program Chairman
445 Burgess Drive                     Fairchild Laboratory for
Menlo Park, CA  94025                    Artificial Intelligence Research
(415) 328-3123                        4001 Miranda Ave., MS 30-888
AAAI-Office@SUMEX                     Palo Alto, CA  94304
                                      Brachman@SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
94
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 Nov 83 18:30:07-PST
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functionalism vs Dualism in consciousness
-BODY-
        The argument of functionalism versus dualism is
unresolvable because the models are based on different,
complementry paradigms:

      * The functionalism model is based on the reductionist
    approach, the approach of modern science, which explains
    phenomena by logically relating them to controlled,
    repeatable, publically verifiable experiments.  The
    explanations about falling bodies and chemical reactions are
    in this catagory.

      * The dualism model is based on the miraculous approach,
    which explains phenomena as singular events, which are by
    definition not controlled, not repeatable, not verifiable,
    and not public - i.e., the events are observed by a specific
    individual or group.  The existance of UFO's, parapsychology,
    and the existance of externalized consciosness (i.e. soul) is
    in this catagory.

        These two paradigms are the basis of the argument of
Science versus Religion, and are not resolvable EITHER WAY.  The
reductionist model, based on the philosophy of Parminides and
others, assumes a constant, unchanging universe which we discover
through observation.  Such a universe is, by definition,
repeatable and totally predictable: the concept that we could
know the total future if we knew the position and velocity of all
particles derives from this.  The success of Science at
predicting the future is used as an argument for this paradigm.

        The miraculous model assumes the reality of change, as
put forth by Heraclitus and others.  It allows reality to be
changed by outside forces, which may or may not be knowable
and/or predictable.  Changes caused by outside forces are, by
definition, singular events not caused by the normal chains of
causality.  Our personal consciousness and (by extension,
perhaps) the existance of life in the universe are singular
events (as far as we know), and the basic axioms of any
reductionist model of the universe are, by definition,
unexplainable because they must come from outside the system.

        The argument of functionalism versus dualism is not
resolvable in a final sense, but there are some working rules we
can use after considering both paradigms.  Any definition of
intellegence, consciousness (as opposed to Consciousness), etc.
has to be based on the reductionist model: it is the only way we
can explain things in such a manner that we can predict results
and prove theories.  On the other hand, the concept that all
sources of consciousness are mechanical is a religious position: a
catagorical assumption about reality.  It was not that long ago
that science said that stones do not fall from the sky; all
it would take to make UFOs accepted as fact would be for one to
land and set up shop as a merchant dealing in rugs and spices
from Aldebaran and Vega.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 8 November 1983 14:24:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ethics and Definitions of Consciousness
-BODY-
        Actually, I believe you'll find that slavery has existed both with
and without believing that the slave had a soul.  In many ancient societies
slaves were of identically the same stock as yourself, they had just run
into serious economic difficulties.  As I recall, slavery of the blacks in
the U.S. wasn't justified by their not having souls, but by claiming they
were better off (or similar drivel).  The fact that denying other people had
souls was used at some time to justify it doesn't bother me, since all kinds
of other rationalizations have been used.

        Now we are approaching the time when we will have intelligent
mechanical slaves.  Are you advocating that it should be illegal to own
robots that can pass the Turing (or other similar) test?  I think that a
very important thing to consider is that we can probably make a robot really
enjoy being a slave, by setting up the appropriate top-level goals.  Should
this be illegal?  I think not.  Suppose we reach the point where we can
alter fetuses (see "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley) to the point where
they *really* enjoy being slaves to whoever buys them.  Should this be
illegal?  I think so.  What if we build fetuses from scratch?  Harder to
say, but I suspect this should be illegal.

        The most conservative (small "c") approach to the problem is to
grant human rights to anything that *might* qualify as intelligent.  I think
this would be a mistake, unless you allow biological organisms a distinction
as outlined above.  The next most conservative approach seems to me to leave
the situation where it is today: if it is physically an independent human
life, it has legal rights.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 1983 09:26-EST
-FROM-
From: Jon.Webb@CMU-CS-IUS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallel vs. sequential
-BODY-
Parallel and sequential machines are not equivalent, even in abstract
models.  For example, an absract parallel machine can generate truly
random numbers by starting two processes at the same time, which are
identical except that one sends the main processor a "0" and the other
sends a "1". The main processor accepts the first number it receives.
A Turing machine can generate only pseudo-random numbers.

However, I do not believe a parallel machine is more powerful (in the
formal sense) than a Turing machine with a true random-number
generator.  I don't know of a proof of this; but it sounds like
something that work has been done on.

Jon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 8-Nov-83  18:33:07-GMT
-FROM-
From: O'KEEFE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@edxa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: okeefe.r.a. <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ultimate limit on computing speed
-BODY-
>-------
    There was a short letter about this in CACM about 6 or 7 years ago.
I haven't got the reference, but the argument goes something like this.

1.  In order to compute, you need a device with at least two states
    that can change from one state to another.
2.  Information theory (or quantum mechanics or something, I don't
    remember which) shows that any state change must be accompanied
    by a transfer of at least so much energy (a definite figure was
    given).
3.  Energy contributes to the stress-energy tensor just like mass and
    momentum, so the device must be at least so big or it will undergo
    gravitational collapse (again, a definite figure).
4.  It takes light so long to cross the diameter of the device, and
    this is the shortest possible delay before we can definitely say
    that the device is in its new state.
5.  Therefore any physically realisable device (assuming the validity
    of general relativity, quantum mechanics, information theory ...)
    cannot switch faster than (again a definite figure).  I think the
    final figure was 10^-43 seconds, but it's been a long time since
    I read the letter.


     I have found the discussion of "what is intelligence" boring,
confused, and unhelpful.  If people feel unhappy working in AI because
we don't have an agreed definition of the I part (come to that, do we
*really* have an agreed definition of the A part either?  if we come
across a planet inhabited by metallic creatures with CMOS brains that
were produced by natural processes, should their study belong to AI
or xenobiology, and does it matter?) why not just change the name of
the field, say to "Epistemics And Robotics".  I don't give a tinker's
curse whether AI ever produces "intelligent" machines; there are tasks
that I would like to see computers doing in the service of humanity
that require the representation and appropriate deployment of large
amounts of knowledge.  I would be just as happy calling this AI, MI,
or EAR.

     I think some of the contributors to this group are suffering from
physics envy, and don't realise what an operational definition is.  It
is a definition which tells you how to MEASURE something.  Thus length
is operationally defined by saying "do such and such.  Now, length is
the thing that you just measured."  Of course there are problems here:
no amount of operational definition will justify any connection between
"length-measured-by-this-foot-rule-six-years-ago" and "length-measured-
by-laser-interferometer-yesterday".  The basic irrelevance is that
an operational definition of say light (what your light meter measures)
doesn't tell you one little thing about how to MAKE some light.  If we
had an operational definition of intelligence (in fact we have quite a
few, and like all operational definitions, nothing to connect them) there
is no reason to expect that to help us MAKE something intelligent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 83 20:50:48 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing biography
-BODY-
Finally, there is a major biography of Alan Turing!

        Alan Turing: The Enigma
        by Andrew Hodges
        $22.50  Simon & Schuster
        ISBN 0-671-49207-1

The timing is right:  His war-time work on the Enigma has now been
de-classified.  His rather open homosexuality can be discussed in other
than damning terms these days.  His mother passed away in 1976. (She
maintained that his death in 1954 was not suicide, but an accident, and
she never mentioned his sexuality nor his 1952 arrest.)  And, of course,
the popular press is full of stories on AI, and they always bring up the
Turing Test.

The book is 529 pages, plus photographs, some diagrams, an author's note
and extensive bibliographic footnotes.

Doug Hofstadter's review of the book will appear in the New York Times
Book Review on November 13.

>-Rodney Hoffman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon,  7 Nov 83 15:40:46 CST
-FROM-
From: Robert.S.Kelley <kelleyr.rice@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Operational definitions of intelligence
-BODY-
  p.s.  I can't imagine that psychology has no operational definition of
  intelligence (in fact, what is it?).  So, if worst comes to worst, AI
  can just borrow psychology's definition and improve on it.

     Probably the most generally accepted definition of intelligence in
psychology comes from Abraham Maslow's remark (here paraphrased) that
"Intelligence is that quality which best distinguishes such persons as
Albert Einstein and Marie Curie from the inhabitants of a home for the
mentally retarded."  A poorer definition is that intelligence is what
IQ tests measure.  In fact psychologists have sought without success
for a more precise definition of intelligence (or even learning) for
over 100 years.
                                Rusty Kelley
                                (kelleyr.rice@RAND-RELAY)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 83 10:17:05-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1488

I sympathize with the longing for an "operational definition" of
'intelligence'--especially since you've got to write *something* on
grant applications to justify all those hardware costs.  (That's not a
problem we philosophers have.  Sigh!)  But I don't see any reason to
suppose that you're ever going to *get* one, nor, in the end, that you
really *need* one.

You're probably not going to get one because "intelligence" is
one of those "open textury", "clustery" kinds of notions.  That is,
we know it when we see it (most of the time), but there are no necessary and
sufficient conditions that one can give in advance which instances of it
must satisfy.  (This isn't an uncommon phenomenon.  As my colleague Paul Ziff
once pointed out, when we say "A cheetah can outrun a man", we can recognize
that races between men and *lame* cheetahs, *hobbled* cheetahs, *three-legged*
cheetahs, cheetahs *running on ice*, etc. don't count as counterexamples to the
claim even if the man wins--when such cases are brought up.  But we can't give
an exhaustive list of spurious counterexamples *in advance*.)

Why not rest content with saying that the object of the game is to get
computers to be able to do some of the things that *we* can do--e.g.,
recognize patterns, get a high score on the Miller Analogies Test,
carry on an interesting conversation?  What one would like to say, I
know, is "do some of the things we do *the way we do them*--but the
problem there is that we have no very good idea *how* we do them.  Maybe
if we can get a computer to do some of them, we'll get some ideas about
us--although I'm skeptical about that, too.

                        --Jay Rosenberg (ecsvax!unbent)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 83 09:37:00 EST
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxa!rem@UCLA-LOCUS
HE MUELLER MEASUREIf an AI could be built to answer all questions we ask it to
assure usthat it is ideally human (the Turing Tes), it ought tobe smart enough
to figure out questions to ask itselfthat would prove that it is indeed
artificial.  Put anotherwa: If an AI could make humans think it is smarter thana
human by answering all questions posed to it in aTuring-like manner, it sill is
dumber than a human becauseit could not ask questions of a human to make us
answerthe questions so that it satisfies its esire for us tomake it think we are
more artificial than it is.  Again:If we build an AI so smart it can fool other
peopleby ansering all questions in the Turing fashion, canwe build a computer,
anti-Turing-like, that could makeus answer questions to fool ther machinesinto
believing we are artificial?Robert E. Mueller, Bell Labs, Holmdel, New
Jerseyhouxa!rem-------------------------------DATE-
Date: 9 November 1983 03:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing test in everyday life
-BODY-
    . . .
    I know the entity at the other end of the line is not a computer
    (because they recognize my voice -- someone correct me if this is not a
    good test) but we might ask: how good would a computer program have to
    be to fool someone into thinking that it is human, in this limited case?

    [There is a system, in use, that can recognize affirmative and negative
    replies to its questions.
    . . .  -- KIL]

No, I always test these callers by interrupting to ask them questions,
by restating what they said to me, and by avoiding "yes/no" responses.

I appears to me that the extremely limited domain, and the utter lack of
expertise which people expect from the caller, would make it very easy to
simulate a real person.  Does the fact of a limited domain "disguise"
the intelligence of the caller, or does it imply that intelligence means
a lot less in a limited domain?

>- Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
95
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 1983 1215:19-EST
-FROM-
From: Lawrence Osterman <OSTERMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Guy Steele's
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMU-C bboard.]

New book is now out.
  The Hacker's Dictionary, Available in the CMU Bookstore
right now.  The cost is 5.95 (6.31 after taxes) and its well
worth getting  (It includes (among other things)  The  COMPLETE
INTERCAL character set (ask anyone in 15-312 last fall),
Trash 80,N, Moby, and many others (El Camino Bignum?))


                        Larry

[According to another message, the CMU bookstore immediately
sold out.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 1983 1127-PST
-FROM-
From: MEDIONI@USC-ECLC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference announcement
-BODY-

        ******  CONFERENCE ANNOUCEMENT  ******

   ROBOTIC INTELLIGENCE AND PRODUCTIVITY CONFERENCE

        WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, DETROIT, MICHIGAN

                 NOVEMBER 18-19, 1983

For more information and advance program, please contact:

Dr Pepe Siy
(313) 577-3841
(313) 577-3920 - Messages

or Dr Singh
(313) 577-3840

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Nov 83 10:06:34-CST
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tutorial Announcement
-BODY-
[The following is copied from a circular, with the author's encouragement.
 Square brackets delimit my personal insertions, for clarification. -- JS]


        THE INSTITUT DALLE MOLLE POUR LES ETUDES SEMANTIQUES ET
       COGNITIVES DE L'UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE ("ISSCO") is to hold

                             a Tutorial on

                          MACHINE TRANSLATION

   from Monday 2nd April to Friday 6th, 1984, in Lugano, Switzerland


The attraction of Machine Translation as an application domain for
computers has long been recognized, but pioneers in the field seriously
underestimated the complexity of the problem.  As a result, early
systems were severely limited.

The design of more recent systems takes into account the
interdisciplinary nature of the task, recognizing that MT involves the
construction of a complete system for the collection, representation,
and strategic deployment of a specialised kind of linguistic knowledge.
This demands contribution from the fields of both theoretical and
computational linguistics, conputer science, and expert system design.

The aim of this tutorial is to convey the state of the art by allowing
experts in different aspects of MT to present their particular points of
view.  Sessions covering the historical development of MT and its
possible future evolution will also be included to provide a tutorial
which should be relevant to all concerned with the relationship between
natural language and computer science.

The Tutorial will take place in the Palazzo dei Congressi or the Villa
Heleneum, both set in parkland on the shore of Lake Lugano, which is
perhaps the most attractive among the lakes of the Swiss/Italian Alps.
Situated to the south of the Alpine massif, Spring is early and warm.
Participants will be accommodated in nearby hotels.  Registration will
take place on the Sunday evening preceding the Tutorial.


COSTS: Fees for registration submitted by January 31, 1984, will be 120
Swiss franks for students, 220 Swiss franks for academic participants,
and 320 Swiss franks for others.  After this date the fees will increase
by 50 Swiss franks for all participants.  The fees cover tuition,
handouts, coffee, etc.  Hotel accommodation varies between 30 and 150
Swiss franks per night [booking form available, see below].  It may be
possible to arrange cheaper [private] accommodation for students.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION [incl. booking forms, etc.] (in advance of the
Tutorial) please contact ISSCO, 54 route des Acacias, CH-1227 Geneva; or
telephone [41 for Switzerland] (22 for Geneva) 20-93-33 (University of
Geneva), extension ("interne") 21-16 ("vingt-et-un-seize").  The
University switchboard is closed daily from 12 to 1:30 Swiss time.
[Switzerland is six (6) hours ahead of EST, thus 9 hours ahead of PST.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Nov 83 10:59:12-CST
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <LRC.Slocum@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tutorial Program
-BODY-
                         PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME


Each session is scheduled to include a 50-minute lecture followed by a
20-minute discussion period.  Most evenings are left free, but rooms
will be made available for informal discussion, poster sessions, etc.

Sun. 1st   5 p.m. to 9 p.m.  Registration

Mon. 2nd   9:30  Introductory session                   M. King [ISSCO]

          11:20  A non-conformist's view of the         G. Sampson [Lancaster]
                 state of the art
           2:30  Pre-history of Machine Translation     B. Buchmann [ISSCO]

           4:20  SYSTRAN                                P. Wheeler [Commission
                                                           of the European
                                                           Communities]

Tue. 3rd   9:30  An overview of post-65 developments    E. Ananiadou [ISSCO]
                                                        S. Warwick [ISSCO]
          11:20  Software for MT I: background          J.L. Couchard [ISSCO]
                                                        D. Petitpierre  [ISSCO]
           2:30  SUSY                                   D. MAAS [Saarbruecken]

           4:20  TAUM Meteo and TAUM Aviation           P. Isabelle [Montreal]

Wed. 4th   9:30  Linguistic representations in          A. De Roeck [Essex]
                 syntax based MT systems
          11:00  AI approaches to MT                    P. Shann [ISSCO]

          12:00  New developments in Linguistics        E. Wehrli [UCLA]
                 and possible implications for MT
           3:00  Optional excursion

Thu. 5th   9:30  GETA                                   C. Boitet [Grenoble]

          11:20  ROSETTA                                J. Landsbergen
[Philips]

           2:30  Software for MT II:                    R. Johnson [Manchester]
                 some recent developments               M. Rosner [ISSCO]
           4:20  Creating an environment for            A. Melby [Brigham
Young]
                 the translator
Fri. 5th   9:30  METAL                                  J. Slocum [Texas]

          11:20  EUROTRA                                M. King [ISSCO]

           2:30  New projects in France                 C. Boitet [Grenoble]

           4:20  MT - the future                        A. Zampoli [Pisa]

           5:30  Closing session


There will be a 1/2 hour coffee break between sessions.  The lunch break
is from 12:30 to 2:30.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 83 14:01 EST
-FROM-
From: Visions <kitchen%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report on AISNE meeting (long message)
-BODY-

                        BRIEF REPORT ON
                FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE
                   AI SOCIETY OF NEW ENGLAND

Held at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, 4th-5th November 1983.
Programme Chairman: Drew McDermott (Yale)
Local Arrangements Chairman: Eugene Charniak (Brown)


Friday, 4th November

8:00PM
Long talk by Harry Pople (Pittsburgh), "Where is the expertise in
expert systems?"  Comments and insights about the general state of
work in expert systems.  INTERNIST: history, structure, and example.

9:30PM
"Intense intellectual colloquy and tippling" [Quoted from programme]

LATE
Faculty and students at Brown very hospitably billeted us visitors
in their homes.


Saturday, 5th November

10:00AM
Panel discussion, Ruven Brooks (ITT), Harry Pople (Pittsburgh), Ramesh
Patil (MIT), Paul Cohen (UMass), "Feasible and infeasible expert-systems
applications".  [Unabashedly selective and incoherent notes:]  RB: Expert
systems have to be relevant, and appropriate, and feasible.  There are
by-products of building expert systems, for example, the encouragement of
the formalization of the problem domain.  HP: Historically, considering
DENDRAL and MOLGEN, say, users have ultimately made greater use of the
tools and infrastructure set up by the designers than of the top-level
capabilities of the expert system itself.  The necessity of taking into
account the needs of the users.  RP:  What is an expert system?  Is
MACSYMA no more than a 1000-key pocket calculator?  Comparison of expert
systems against real experts.  Expert systems that actually work --
narrow domains in which hypotheses can easily be verified.  What if the
job of identifying the applicability of an expert system is a harder
problem than the one the expert system itself solves?  In the domains of
medical diagnosis: enormous space of diagnoses, especially if multiple
disorders are considered.  Needed: reasoning about: 3D space, anatomy;
time; multiple disorders, causality; demography; physiology; processes.
HP: A strategic issue in research: small-scale, tractable problems that
don't scale up.  Is there an analogue of Blocksworld?  PC: Infeasible
(but not too infeasible) problems are fit material for research; feasible
problems for development.  The importance of theoretical issues in choosing
an application area for research.  An animated, general discussion followed.

11:30AM
Short talks:
Richard Brown (Mitre), Automatic programming.  Use of knowledge about
programming and knowledge about the specific application domain.
Ken Wasserman (Columbia), "Representing complex physical objects".  For
use in a system that digests patent abstracts.  Uses frame-like represent-
ation, giving parts, subparts, and the relationships between them.
Paul Barth (Schlumberger-Doll), Automatic programming for drilling-log
interpretation, based on a taxonomy of knowledge sources, activities, and
corresponding transformation and selection operations.
Malcolm Cook (UMass), Narrative summarization.  Goal orientations of the
characters and the interactions between them.  "Affect state map".
Extract recognizable patterns of interaction called "plot units".  Summary
based on how these plot units are linked together.  From this summary
structure a natural-language summary of the original can be generated.

12:30PM
Lunch, during which Brown's teaching lab, equipped with 55 Apollos,
was demonstrated.

2:00PM
Panel discussion, Drew McDermott (Yale), Randy Ellis (UMass), Tomas
Lozano-Perez (MIT), Mallory Selfridge (UConn), "AI and Robotics".
DMcD contemplated the effect that the realization of a walking, talking,
perceiving robot would have on AI.  He remarked how current robotics
work does entail a lot of AI, but that there is necessary, robotics-
>specific, ground-work (like matrices, a code-word for "much mathematics").
All the other panelists had a similar view of this inter-relation between
robotics and AI.  The other panelists then sketched robotics work being
done at their respective institutions.  RE:  Integration of vision and
touch, using a reasonable world model, some simple planning, and feedback
during the process.  Cartesian robot, gripper, Ken Overton's tactile array
sensor (force images), controllable camera, Salisbury hand.  Need for AI
in robotics, especially object representation and search.  Learning -- a
big future issue for a robot that actually moves about in the world.
Problems of implementing algorithms in real time.  For getting started in
robotics: kinematics, materials science, control theory, AI techniques,
but how much of each depends on what you want to do in robotics.  TL-P:
A comparatively lengthy talk on "Automatic synthesis of fine motion
strategies", best exemplified by the problem of putting a peg into a hole.
Given the inherent uncertainty in all postions and motions, the best
strategy (which we probably all do intuitively) is to aim the peg just to
one side of the hole, sliding it across into the hole when it hits,
grazing the far side of the hole as it goes down.  A method for generating
such a strategy automatically, using a formalism based on configuration
spaces, generalized dampers, and friction cones.  MS: Plans for commanding
a robot in natural language, and for describing things to it, and for
teaching it how to do things by showing it examples (from which the robot
builds an abstract description, usable in other situations).  A small, but
adequate robotics facility.  Afterwards, an open discussion, during which
was stressed how important it is that the various far-flung branches of AI
be more aware of each other, and not become insular.  Regarding robotics
research, all panelists agreed strongly that it was absolutely necessary
to work with real robot hardware; software simulations could not hope to
capture all the pernickety richness of the world, motion, forces, friction,
slippage, uncertainty, materials, bending, spatial location, at least not
in any computationally practical way.  No substitute for reality!

3:30PM
More short talks
Jim Hendler (Brown), an overview of things going on at Brown, and in the
works.  Natural language (story comprehension).  FRAIL (frame-based
knowledge representation).  NASL (problem solving).  An electronic
repair manual, which generates instructions for repairs as needed from
an internal model, hooked up with a graphics and 3D modelling system.
And in the works: expert systems, probabilistic reasoning, logic programming,
problem solving, parallel computation (in particular marker-passing and
BOLTZMANN-style machines).  Brown is looking for a new AI faculty member.
[Not a job ad, just a report of one!]
David Miller (Yale), "Uncertain planning through uncertain territory".
How to get from A to B if your controls and sensors are unreliable.
Find a path to your goal, along the path select checkpoints (landmarks),
adjust the path to go within eye-shot of the checkpoints, then off you go,
running demons to watch out for checkpoints and raise alarms if they don't
appear when expected.  This means you're lost.  Then you generate hypotheses
about where you are now (using your map), and what might have gone wrong to
get you there (based on a self-model).  Verify one (some? all?) of these
hypotheses by looking around.  Patch your plan to get back to an appro-
priate checkpoint.  Verify the whole process by getting back on the beaten
track.  Apparently there's a real Hero robot that cruises about a room
doing this.
Bud Crawley (GTE) described what was going on at GTE Labs in AI.  Know-
ledge-based systems.  Natural-language front-end for data bases.
Distributed intelligence.  Machine learning.
Bill Taylor (Gould Inc.), gave an idea of what applied AI research means
to his company, which (in his division) makes digital controllers for
running machines out on the factory floor.  Currently, an expert system
for repairing these controllers in the field.  [I'm not sure how far along
in being realized this was, I think very little.]  For the future, a big,
smart system that would assist a human operator in managing the hundreds
of such controllers out on the floor of a decent sized factory.
Graeme Hirst (Brown, soon Toronto), "Artificial Digestion".  Artificial
Intelligence attempts to model a very poorly understood system, the human
cognitive system.  Much more immediate and substantial results could be
obtained by modelling a much better understood system, the human digestive
system.  Examples of the behavior of a working prototype system on simulated
food input, drawn from a number of illustrative food-domains, including
a four-star French restaurant and a garbage pail.  Applications of AD:
automatic restaurant reviewing, automatic test-marketing of new food
products, and vicarious eating for the diet-conscious and orally impaired.
[Forget about expert systems; this is the hot new area for the 80's!]

4:30PM
AISNE Business Meeting (Yes, some of us stayed till the end!)
Next year's meeting will held at Boston University.  The position of
programme chairman is still open.


A Final Remark:
All the above is based on my own notes of the conference.  At the very
least it reflects my own interests and pre-occupations.  Considering
the disorganized state of my notes, and the late hour I'm typing this,
a lot of the above may be just wrong.  My apologies to anyone I've
misrepresented; by all means correct me.  I hope the general interest of
this report to the AI community outweighs all these failings.  LJK

===========================================================================

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
96
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 83 23:03:04-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Infinite loops and Turing machines.. - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3712

/***** uokvax:net.ai / umcp-cs!speaker /  9:41 pm  Nov  1, 1983 */
Aha!  I knew someone would come up with this one!
Consider that when we talk of simultaneous events... we speak of
simultaneous events that occur within one Turing machine state
and outside of the Turing machine itself.  Can a one-tape
Turing machine read the input of 7 discrete sources at once?
A 7 tape machine with 7 heads could!
/* ---------- */

But I can do it with a one-tape, one-head turing machine. Let's assume
that each of your 7 discrete sources can always be represeted in n bits.
Thus, the total state of all seven sources can be represented in 7*n bits.
My one-tape turing machine has 2 ** (7*n) symbols, so it can handle your
7 sources, each possible state of all 7 being one symbol of input.

One of the things I did in an undergraduate theory course was show that
an n-symbol turing machine is no more powerful than a two-symbol turing
machine for any finite (countable?) n. You just loose speed.

        <mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 11 November 1983, 14:54-EST
-FROM-
From: Carl Hewitt <HEWITT at MIT-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallel vs. sequential
-BODY-
An excellent treatise on how some parallel machines are more powerful
than all sequential machines can be found in Will Clinger's doctoral
dissertation "Foundations of Actor Semantics" which can be obtained by
sending $7 to

Publications Office
MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, Mass. 02139

requesting Technical Report 633 dated May 1981.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Nov 83 17:12:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallelism and turing machines
-BODY-

Regarding the "argument" that parallel algorithms cannot be run serially
because a Turing machine cannot react to things that happen faster than
the time it needs to change states:
clearly, you need to go back to whoever sold you the Turing machine
for this purpose and get a turbocharger for it.

Seriously, I second the motion to move towards more useful discussions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 83 19:28:21-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: the halting problem in history
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1048


   If there were any 'subroutines' in the brain that could not
   halt... I'm sure they would have been found and bred out of
   the species long ago.  I have yet to see anyone die from
   an infinite loop. (umcp-cs.3451)

There is such.  It is caused by seeing an object called the Zahir.  One was
a Persian astrolabe, which was cast into the sea lest men forget the world.
Another was a certain tiger.  Around 1900 it was a coin in Buenos Aires.
Details in "The Zahir", J.L.Borges.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 83 16:38:29-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!vaxine!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rayssd!asa @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Inscrutable Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rayssd.233

The problem with a psychological definition of intelligence is in finding
some way to make it different from what animals do, and cover all of the
complex things that huumans can do. It used to be measured by written
test. This was grossly unfair, so visual tests were added. These tend to
be grossly unfair because of cultural bias. Dolphins can do very
"intelligent" things, based on types of "intelligent behavior". The best
definition might be based on the rate at which learning occurs, as some
have suggested, but that is also an oversimplification. The ability to
deduce cause and effect, and to predict effects is obviously also
important. My own feeling is that it has something to do with the ability
to build a model of yourself and modify yourself accordingly. It may
be that "I conceive" (not "I think"), or "I conceive and act", or "I
conceive of conceiving" may be as close as we can get.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 83 23:02:53-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!rigney @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3711

Perhaps something on the order of "Intelligence enhances survivability
through modification of the environment" is in order.  By modification
something other than the mere changes brought about by living is indicated
(i.e. Rise in CO2 levels, etc. doesn't count).

Thus, if Turtles were intelligent, they would kill the baby rabbits, but
they would also attempt to modify the highway to present less of a hazard.

Problems with this viewpoint:

        1) It may be confusing Technology with Intelligence.  Still, tool
        making ability has always been a good sign.

        2) Making the distinction between Intelligent modifications and
        the effect of just being there.  Since "conscious modification"
        lands us in a bigger pit of worms than we're in now, perhaps a
        distinction should be drawn between reactive behavior (reacting
        and/or adapting to changes) and active behavior (initiating
        changes).  Initiative is therefore a factor.

        3) Monkeys make tools(Antsticks), Dolphins don't.  Is this an
        indication of intelligence, or just a side-effect of Monkeys
        having hands and Dolphins not?  In other words, does Intelligence
        go away if the organism doesn't have the means of modifying
        its environment?  Perhaps "potential" ability qualifies.  Or
        we shouldn't consider specific instances (Is a man trapped in
        a desert still intelligent, even if he has no way to modify
        his environment.)
           Does this mean that if you had a computer with AI, and
        stripped its peripherals, it would lose intelligence?  Are
        human autistics intelligent?  Or are we only considering
        species, and not representatives of species?

In the hopes that this has added fuel to the discussion,

                Carl
                ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney
                ..!duke!uok!uokvax!rigney

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 83 20:51:15-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE:intelligence and adaptability - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3746

Actually, SHRDLU had neither hand nor eye -- only simulations of them.
That's a far cry from the real thing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 83 16:20:10-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!mac @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: inscrutable intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1047


Regarding inscrutability of intelligence [sri-arpa.13363]:

Actually, it's typical that a discipline can't define its basic object of
study.  Ever heard a satisfactory definition of mathematics (it's not just
the consequences of set theory) or philosophy.?  What is physics?

Disciplines are distinguished from each other for historical and
methodological reasons.  When they can define their subject precisely it is
because they have been superseded by the discipline that defines their
terms.

It's usually not important (or possible) to define e.g. intelligence
precisely.  We know it in humans.  This is where the IQ tests run into
trouble.  AI seems to be about behavior in computers that would be called
intelligent in humans.  Whether the machines are or are not intelligent
(or, for that matter, conscious) is of little interest and no import.  In
this I guess I agree with Rorty [sri-arpa.13322].  Rorty is willing to
grant consciousness to thermostats if it's of any help.

(Best definition of formal mathematics I know: "The science where you don't
know what you're talking about or whether what you're saying is true".)

                        A. Colvin
                        mac@virginia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 83 0:37:48-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1420

        The other problem with the "turtles should be killing baby
rabbits" definition of intelligence is that it seems to imply that
killing (or at least surviving) is an indication of intelligence.
i would rather not believe this, unless there is compelling evidence
that the 2 are related. So far I have not seen the evidence.

Laura Creighton
utcsstat!laura

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 83 0:24:46-EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!trsvax!karl @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Slow Intelligence - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3789



     " ....  I'm not at all sure that people's working definition
     of  intelligence  has anything at all to do with either time
     or survival.  "

                    Glenn Reid

I'm not sure that people's working definition of intelligence has
anything at all to do with ANYTHING AT ALL.  The quoted statement
implies that peoples' working definition of intelligence is  different
>  it  is  subjective  to each individual.  I would like to claim
that each individual's working definition of intelligence is sub-
ject to change also.


What we are working with here is conceptual.. not a tangible  ob-
ject  which we can spot at an instance.  If the object is concep-
tual, and therefore subjective, then it seems that  we  can  (and
probably  will)  change it's definition as our collective experi-
ences teach us differently.


                                        Karl T. Braun
                                        ...ctvax!trsvax!karl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
97
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 83 19:25:40 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <v.kahn@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Need references in field of spatial pattern recognition
-BODY-
        This letter to AI-LIST is a request for references from all
of you out there that are heavily into spatial pattern recognition.

        First let me explain my approach, then I'll hit you with my
request.  Optical flow and linear contrast edges have been getting a
lot of attention recently.  Utilizing this approach, I view a line
as an ordered set of [image] elements; that is, a line is comprised of a
finite ordered set of elements.  Each element of a line is treated
as a directed line (a vector with direction and magnitude).

        Here's what I am trying to define:  with such a definition
of a line, it should be possible to create mappings between lines
to form fairly abstract ideas of similarity between lines.  Since
objects are viewed as a particular arrangement of lines, this analysis
would suffice in identifying objects as being alike.  Some examples,
the two lines possessing the most similarities (i.e.,
MAX ( LINE1 .intersection. LINE2 ) ) may be one criterion of comparison.

        I'm looking for any references you might have on this area.
This INCLUDES:
        1) physiology/biology/neuroanatomy articals dealing with
           functional mappings from the ganglion to any level of
           cortical processing.
        2) fuzzy set theory.  This includes ordered set theory and
           any and all applications of set theory to pattern recognition.
        3) any other pertinent references

        I would greatly appreciate any references you might provide.
After a week or two, I will compile the references and put them
on the AI-LIST so that we all can use them.

                Viva la effort!
                Philip Kahn


[My correspondence with Philip indicates that he is already familiar
with much of the recent literature on optic flow.  He has found little,
however, on the subject of pattern recognition in vector fields.  Can
anyone help? -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1983  22:42 EST
-FROM-
From: HEWITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psychology [and Reply]
-BODY-
    Date: 28 Sep 83 10:32:35-PDT (Wed)
    To: AIList at MIT-MC
    From: decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
    Subject: RE: Rational Psychology [and Reply]

    ... Is psychology rational?
    Someone said that all sciences are rational, a moot point, but not that
    relevant unless one wishes to consider Psychology a science.  I do not.
    This does not mean that psychologists are in any way inferior to chemists
    or to REAL scientists like those who study physics.  But I do think there
    ....

    ----GaryFostel----


This is an old submission, but having just read it I felt compelled to
reply.  I happen to be a Computer Scientist, but I think
Psychologists, especially Experimental Psychologists, are better
scientists than the average Computer "Scientist".  At least they have
been trained in the scientific method, a skill most Computer
Scientists lack.  Just because Psychologist, by and large, cannot defend
themselves on this list is no reason to make idle attacks with only
very superficial knowledge on the subject.

Fanya Montalvo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 13 Nov 83 13:14:06-PST
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: just a reminder...
-BODY-
Artificial intelligence promises to alter the world in enormous ways during our
lifetime;  I  believe it's crucial for all of us to look forward to the effects
our our work, both individually and collectively, to make sure that it will  be
to the benefit of all peoples in the world.

It  seems to be tiresome to people to remind them of the incredible effect that
AI will have in our lifetimes, yet the profound mature of the  changes  to  the
world made by a small group of researchers makes it crucial that we don't treat
our  efforts  casually. For example, the military applications of AI will dwarf
that of the atomic bomb, but even more important is the fact  that  the  atomic
bomb is a primarily military device, while AI will impact the world as much (if
not more) in non-military domains.

Physics in the early part of this century was at the cutting edge of knowledge,
similar to the current place of AI. The culmination of their work in the atomic
bomb  changed  their field immensely and irrevocably; even on a personal level,
researchers in physics found their lives  greatly  impacted,  often  shattered.
Many of the top researchers left the field.

During  our  lifetimes  I  think we will see a similar transformation, with the
"fun and games" of these heady years turning into a deadly seriousness, I think
we will also see top researchers leaving the field, once we start to  see  some
of  our effects on the world. It is imperative for all workers in this field to
formulate and share a moral outlook on what we do,  and  hope  to  do,  to  the
world.

I would suggest we have, at the minimum, a three part responsibility. First, we
must  make ourselves aware of the human impact of our work, both short and long
term. Second, we must use this knowledge to guide the course of  our  research,
both  individually  and  collectively, rather than simply flowing into whatever
area the grants are flowing into.  Third  and  most  importantly,  we  must  be
spokespeople  and  consciences  to  the world, forcing others to be informed of
what we are doing and its effects.  Researches who still cling to  "value-free"
science should not be working in AI.

I will suggest a few areas we should be thinking about:

>  Use of AI for offensive military use vs. legitimate defense needs. While the
line is vague, a good offense is surely not always the best defense.

> Will the work cause a centralization of power, or cause a decentralization of
power? Building massive centers of power in this  age  increases  the  risk  of
humans dominated by machine.

> Is the work offering tools to extend the grasp of humans, or tools to control
humans?

> Will people have access to the information generated by the work, or will the
benefits of information access be restricted to a few?

Finally,  will  the work add insights into ourselves a human beings, or will it
simply feed our drives, reflecting our base nature back at  ourselves?  In  the
movie  "Tron"  an  actor  says "Our spirit remains in each and every program we
wrote"; what IS our spirit?

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 1983 09:44:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Elaine Marsh <marsh@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Seminar Schedule
-BODY-
[I am passing this along because it is the first mention of this seminar
series in AIList and will give interested readers the chance to sign up
for the mailing list.  I will not continue to carry these seminar notices
because they do not include abstracts.  -- KIL]


                     U.S. Navy Center for Applied Research
                           in Artificial Intelligence
                     Naval Research Laboratory - Code 7510
                           Washington, DC   20375

                              WEEKLY SEMINAR SERIES

        14 Nov.  1983     Dr. Jagdish Chandra, Director
                          Mathematical Sciences Division
                          Army Research Office, Durham, NC
                                "Mathematical Sciences Activities Relating
                                 to AI and Its Applications at the Army
                                 Research Office"

        21 Nov.  1983     Professor Laveen Kanal
                          Department of Computer Science
                          University of Maryland, College Park, MD
                                "New Insights into Relationships among
                                 Heuristic Search, Dynamic Programming,
                                 and Branch & Bound Procedures"

        28 Nov.  1983     Dr. William Gale
                          Bell Labs
                          Murray Hill, NJ
                                "An Expert System for Regression
                                 Analysis: Applying A.I. Ideas in
                                 Statistics"

         5 Dec.  1983     Professor Ronald Cole
                          Department of Computer Science
                          Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
                                "What's New in Speech Recognition?"

        12 Dec.  1983     Professor Robert Haralick
                          Department of Electrical Engineering
                          Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA
                                "Application of AI Techniques to the
                                 Interpretation of LANDSAT Scenes over
                                 Mountainous Areas"

   Our meeting are usually held Monday mornings at 10:00 a.m. in the
   Conference Room of the Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial
   Intelligence (Bldg. 256) located on Bolling Air Force Base, off I-295,
   in the South East quadrant of Washington, DC.

   Coffee will be available starting at 9:45 a.m.

   If you would like to speak, or be added to our mailing list, or would
   just like more information contact Elaine Marsh at marsh@nrl-aic
                                                     [(202)767-2382].

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 Nov 83 15:20:15-PST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


                                  Ph.D. Oral
          COMPILING LOGIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENTS
                               November 16, 1983
                      2:30 p.m., Location to be announced
                              Stephen J. Westfold


A major problem in building large programming systems is in keeping track of
the numerous details concerning consistency relations between objects in the
domain of the system.  The approach taken in this thesis is to encourage the
user to specify a system using very-high-level, well-factored logic
descriptions of the domain, and have the system compile these into efficient
procedures that automatically maintain the relations described.  The approach
is demonstrated by using it in the programming environment of the CHI
Knowledge-based Programming system.  Its uses include describing and
implementing the database manager, the dataflow analyzer, the project
management component and the system's compiler itself.  It is particularly
convenient for developing knowledge representation schemes, for example for
such things as property inheritance and automatic maintenance of inverse
property links.

The problem description using logic assertions is treated as a program such as
in PROLOG except that there is a separation of the assertions that describe the
problem from assertions that describe how they are to be used.  This
factorization allows the use of more general logical forms than Horn clauses as
well as encouraging the user to think separately about the problem and the
implementation.  The use of logic assertions is specified at a level natural to
the user, describing implementation issues such as whether relations are stored
or computed, that some assertions should be used to compute a certain function,
that others should be treated as constraints to maintain the consistency of
several interdependent stored relations, and whether assertions should be used
at compile- or execution-time.

Compilation consists of using assertions to instantiate particular procedural
rule schemas, each one of which corresponds to a specialized deduction, and
then compiling the resulting rules to LISP.  The rule language is a convenient
intermediate between the logic assertion language and the implementation
language in that it has both a logic interpretation and a well-defined
procedural interpretation.  Most of the optimization is done at the logic
level.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Nov 83 09:56:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

                                  Ph.D. Oral

                       Tuesday, Nov. 15, 1983, 2:30 p.m.

                  Bldg. 170 (history corner), conference room

                          A DEDUCTIVE MODEL OF BELIEF

                                 Kurt Konolige


Reasoning about knowledge and belief of computer and human agents is assuming
increasing importance in Artificial Intelligence systems in the areas of
natural language understanding, planning, and knowledge  representation in
general.  Current formal models of belief that form the basis for most of these
systems are derivatives of possible- world semantics for belief.  However,,
this model suffers from epistemological and heuristic inadequacies.
Epistemologically, it assumes that agents know all the consequences of their
belief.  This assumption is clearly inaccurate, because it doesn't take into
account resource limitations on an agent's reasoning ability.  For example, if
an agent knows the rules of chess, it then follows in the possible- world model
that he knows whether white has a winning strategy or not.  On the heuristic
side, proposed mechanical deduction procedures have been first-order
axiomatizations of the possible-world belief.

A more natural model of belief is a deductions model:  an agent has a set of
initial beliefs about the world in some internal language, and a deduction
process for deriving some (but not necessarily all)  logical consequences of
these beliefs.  Within this model, it is possible to account for resource
limitations of an agent's deduction process; for example, one can model a
situation in which an agent knows the rules of chess but does not have the
computational  resources to search the complete game tree before making a move.

This thesis is an investigation of Gentzen-type formalization of the deductive
model of belief.  Several important original results are  proven.  Among these
are soundness and completeness theorems for a deductive belief logic; a
corespondence result that shows the possible- worlds model is a special case of
the deduction model; and a model analog ot Herbrand's Theorem for the belief
logic. Several other topics of knowledge and belief are explored in the thesis
from the viewpoint of the deduction model, including a theory of introspection
about self-beliefs, and a theory of circumscriptive ignorance, in which facts
an agent doesn't know are formalized by limiting or circumscribing the
information available to him.  Here it is!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
98
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 1983 15:03-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #96
-BODY-
An intelligent race is one with a winner, not one that keeps on
rehashing the first 5 yards till nobody wants to watch it anymore.
        FC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 83 10:22:29-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence and Killing
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2396


    Someone wondered if there was evidence that intelligence was related to
    the killing off of other animals.  Presumably that person is prepared to
    refute the apparant similtaneous claims of man as the most intelligent
    and the most deadly animal.   Personally, I might vote dolphins as more
    intelligent, but I bet they do their share of killing too.  They eat
things.
    ----GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 83 14:01:55-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Behavioristic definition of intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxv.584

What is the purpose of knowing whether something is
intelligent?  Or has a soul?  Or has consciousness?

I think one of the reasons is that it makes it easier to
deal with it.  If a creature is understood to be a human
being, we all know something about how to behave toward it.
And if a machine exhibits intelligence, the quintessential
quality of human beings, we also will know what to do.

One of the things that this implies is that we really should
not worry too much about whether a machine is intelligent
until one gets here.  The definition of it will be in part
determined by how we behave toward it. Right now, I don't feel
very confused about how to act in the presence of a computer
running an AI program.

           Tom Portegys, Bell Labs IH, ihuxv!portegys

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 83 19:38:02-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!decwrl!flairvax!kissell @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the halting problem in history
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: flairvax.267

"...If there were any subroutines in the brain that did not halt..."

It seems to me that there are likely large numbers of subroutines in the
brain that aren't *supposed* to halt.  Like breathing.  Nothing wrong with
that; the brain is not a metaphor for a single-instruction-stream
processor.  I've often suspected, though, that some pathological states,
depression, obsession, addiction, etcetera can be modeled as infinite
loops "executed" by a portion of the brain, and thus why "shock" treatments
sometimes have beneficial effects on depression; a brutal "reset" of the
whole "system".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 83 07:58 PST
-FROM-
From: "Glasser Alan"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallelism vs. novel architecture
-BODY-
There has been a lot of discussion in this group recently about the
role of parallelism in artificial intelligence.  If I'm not mistaken,
this discussion began in response to a message I sent in, reviving a
discussion of a year ago in Human-Nets.  My original message raised
the question of whether there might exist some crucial, hidden,
architectural mechanism, analogous to DNA in genetics, which would
greatly clarify the workings of intelligence.  Recent discussions
have centered on the role of parallelism alone.  I think this misses
the point.  While parallelism can certainly speed things up, it is
not the kind of fundamental departure from past practices which I
had in mind.  Perhaps a better example would be Turing's and von
Neumann's concept of the stored-program computer, replacing earlier
attempts at hard-wired computers.  This was a fundamental break-
through, without which nothing like today's computers could be
practical.  Perhaps true intelligence, of the biological sort,
requires some structural mechanism which has yet to be imagined.
While it's true that a serial Turing machine can do anything in
principle, it may be thoroughly impractical to program it to be
truly intelligent, both because of problems of speed and because of
the basic awkwardness of the architecture.  What is hopelessly
cumbersome in this architecture may be trivial in the right one.  I
know this sounds pretty vague, but I don't think it's meaningless.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Nov 83 17:59:07-PST
-FROM-
From: David E.T. Foulser <FOULSER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #97
-BODY-
There is a paper by Kruskal on multi-dimensional scaling that might be of
interest to the user interested in vision processing. I'm not too clear on
what he's doing, so this could be off-base.

                                Dave Foulser

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Nov 83 22:24:45-MST
-FROM-
From: Stanley T. Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pattern Matchers
-BODY-
Thanks for the replies about loop detection; some food for thought
in there...

My next puzzle is about pattern matchers.  Has anyone looked carefully
at the notion of a "non-failing" pattern matcher?  By that I mean one
that never or almost never rejects things as non-matching.  Consider
a database of assertions (or whatever) and the matcher as a search
function which takes a pattern as argument.  If something in the db
matches the pattern, then it is returned.  At this point, the caller
can either accept or reject the item from the db.  If rejected, the
matcher would be called again, to find something else matching, and
so forth.  So far nothing unusual.  The matcher will eventually
signal utter failure, and that there is nothing satisfactory in the
database.  My idea is to have the matcher constructed in such a way
that it will return things until the database is entirely scanned, even
if the given pattern is a very simple and rigid one.  In other words,
the matcher never gives up - it will always try to find the most
tenuous excuse to return a match.

Applications I have in mind: NLP for garbled and/or incomplete sentences,
and creative thinking (what does a snake with a tail in its mouth
have to do with benzene? talk about tenuous connections!).

The idea seems related to fuzzy logic (an area I am sadly ignorant
of), but other than that, there seems to be no work on the idea
(perhaps it's a stupid one?).  There seem to be two main problems -
organizing the database in such a way that the matcher can easily
progress from exact matches to extremely remote ones (can almost
talk about a metric space of assertions!),  and setting up the
matcher's caller so as not to thrash too badly (example: a parser
may have trouble deciding whether a sentence is grammatically
incorrect or a word's misspelling looks like another word,
if the word analyzer has a nonfailing matcher).

Does anybody know anything about this?  Is there a fatal flaw
somewhere?

                                                Stan Shebs

BTW, a frame-based system can be characterized as a semantic net
(if you're willing to mung concepts!), and a semantic net can
be mapped into an undirected graph, which *is* a metric space.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 November 1983 1359-PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: crummer at AEROSPACE (Charlie Crummer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ethics and AI Research
-BODY-
Dave Rogers brought up the subject of ethics in AI research. I agree with him
that we must continually evaluate the projects we are asked to work on.
Unfortunately, like the example he gave of physicists working on the bombs,
we will not always know what the government has in mind for our work. It may
be valid to indict the workers on the Manhattan project because they really
did have an idea what was going on but the very early researchers in the
field of radioactivity probably did not know how their discoveries would be
used.

The application of morality must go beyond passively choosing not to
work on certain projects. We must become actively involved in the
application by our government of the ideas we create. Once an idea or
physical effect is discovered it can never be undiscovered.  If I
choose not to work on a project (which I definitely would if I thought
it immoral) that may not make much difference. Someone else will
always be waiting to pick up the work. It is sort of like preventing
rape by refusing to rape anyone.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 83  1306 PST
-FROM-
From: Russell Greiner <RDG@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Biography of Turing
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

n055  1247  09 Nov 83
BC-BOOK-REVIEW (UNDATED)
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
ALAN TURING: The Enigma. By Andrew Hodges. 587 pages.
Illustrated. Simon & Schuster. $22.50.

    He is remembered variously as the British cryptologist whose
so-called ''Enigma'' machine helped to decipher Germany's top-secret
World War II code; as the difficult man who both pioneered and
impeded the advance of England's computer industry; and as the
inventor of a theoretical automaton sometimes called the ''Turing
(Editors: umlaut over the u) Machine,'' the umlaut being, according
to a glossary published in 1953, ''an unearned and undesirable
addition, due, presumably, to an impression that anything so
incomprehensible must be Teutonic.''
    But this passionately exhaustive biography by Andrew Hodges, an
English mathematician, brings Alan Turing very much back to life and
offers a less forbidding impression. Look at any of the many verbal
snapshots that Hodges offers us in his book - Turing as an
eccentrically unruly child who could keep neither his buttons aligned
nor the ink in his pen, and who answered his father when asked if he
would be good, ''Yes, but sometimes I shall forget!''; or Turing as
an intense young man with a breathless high-pitched voice and a
hiccuppy laugh - and it is difficult to think of him as a dark
umlauted enigma.
    Yet the mind of the man was an awesome force. By the time he was 24
years old, in 1936, he had conceived as a mathematical abstraction
his computing machine and completed the paper ''Computable Numbers,''
which offered it to the world. Thereafter, Hodges points out, his
waves of inspiration seemed to flow in five-year intervals - the
Naval Enigma in 1940, the design for his Automatic Computing Engine
(ACE) in 1945, a theory of structural evolution, or morphogenesis, in
1950. In 1951, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was
not yet 40.
    But the next half-decade interval did not bring further revelation.
In February 1952, he was arrested, tried, convicted and given a
probationary sentence for ''Gross Indecency contrary to Section 11 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885,'' or the practice of male
homosexuality, a ''tendency'' he had never denied and in recent years
had admitted quite openly. On June 7, 1954, he was found dead in his
home near Manchester, a bitten, presumably cyanide-laced apple in his
hand.
    Yet he had not been despondent over his legal problems. He was not
in disgrace or financial difficulty. He had plans and ideas; his work
was going well. His devoted mother - about whom he had of late been
having surprisingly (to him) hostile dreams as the result of a
Jungian psychoanalysis - insisted that his death was the accident she
had long feared he would suffer from working with dangerous
chemicals. The enigma of Alan Mathison Turing began to grow.
    Andrew Hodges is good at explaining Turing's difficult ideas,
particularly the evolution of his theoretical computer and the
function of his Enigma machines. He is adept at showing us the
originality of Turing's mind, especially the passion for truth (even
when it damaged his career) and the insistence on bridging the worlds
of the theoretical and practical. The only sections of the biography
that grow tedious are those that describe the debates over artificial
intelligence - or maybe it's the world's resistance to artificial
intelligence that is tedious. Turing's position was straightforward
enough: ''The original question, 'Can machines think?' I believe to
be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that
at the end of the century the use of words and general educated
opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of
machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.''
    On the matter of Turing's suicide, Hodges concedes its
incomprehensibility, but then announces with sudden melodrama: ''The
board was ready for an end game different from that of Lewis
Carroll's, in which Alice captured the Red Queen, and awoke from
nightmare. In real life, the Red Queen had escaped to feasting and
fun in Moscow. The White Queen would be saved, and Alan Turing
sacrificed.''
    What does Hodges mean by his portentous reference to cold-war
politics? Was Alan Turing a murdered spy? Was he a spy? Was he the
victim of some sort of double-cross? No, he was none of the above:
the author is merely speculating that as the cold war heated up, it
must have become extremely dangerous to be a homosexual in possession
of state secrets. Hodges is passionate on the subject of the
precariousness of being homosexual; it was partly his participation
in the ''gay liberation'' movement that got him interested in Alan
Turing in the first place.
    Indeed, one has to suspect Hodges of an overidentification with Alan
Turing, for he goes on at far too great length on Turing's
existential vulnerability. Still, word by word and sentence by
sentence, he can be exceedingly eloquent on his subject. ''He had
clung to the simple amidst the distracting and frightening complexity
of the world,'' the author writes of Turing's affinity for the
concrete.
    ''Yet he was not a narrow man,'' Hodges continues. ''Mrs. Turing was
right in saying, as she did, that he died while working on a
dangerous experiment. It was the experiment called LIFE - a subject
largely inducing as much fear and embarrassment for the official
scientific world as for her. He had not only thought freely, as best
he could, but had eaten of two forbidden fruits, those of the world
and of the flesh. They violently disagreed with each other, and in
that disagreement lay the final unsolvable problem.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
99
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Nov 83 10:14:02-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comtex
-BODY-
The Comtex microfiche series seems to be alive and well, contrary
to a rumor printed in an early AIList issue.  The ad they sent me
offers the Stanford and MIT AI memoranda (over $2,000 each set), and
says that the Purdue PRIP [pattern recognition and image processing]
technical reports will be next.  Also forthcoming are the SRI and
Carnegie-Mellon AI reports.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Nov 83 10:31:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abacus
-BODY-
I have the first issue of Abacus, the new "soft" computer science
magazine edited by Anthony Ralston.  It contains a very nice survey or
introduction to computer graphics for digital filmmaking and an
interesting exploration of how the first electronic digital computer
came to be.  There is also a superficial article about computer vision
which fails to answer its title question, "Why Computers Can't See
(Yet)".  [It is possibly that I'm being overly harsh since this is my
own area of expertise.  My feeling, however, is that the question
cannot be answered by just pointing out that vision is difficult and
that we have dozens of different approaches, none of which works in
more than specialized cases.  An adequate answer requires a guess at
how it is that the human vision system can work in all cases, and why
we have not been able to duplicate it.]

The magazine also offers various computer-related departments,
notably those covering book reviews, the law, personal computing,
puzzles, and politics.  Humorous anecdotes are solicited for
filler material, a la Reader's Digest.  There is no AI-related
column at present.

The magazine has a "padded" feel, particularly since every ad save
one is by Springer-Verlag, the publisher.  They even ran out of
things to advertise and so repeated several full-page ads.  No doubt
this is a new-issue problem and will quickly disappear.  I wish
them well.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Nov 1983 10:21:32 EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Mark S. Day <mday@bbnccj>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Humanity
-BODY-
     From: ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys @ Ucb-Vax
     Subject: Behavioristic definition of intelligence

     What is the purpose of knowing whether something is
     intelligent?  Or has a soul?  Or has consciousness?

     I think one of the reasons is that it makes it easier to
     deal with it.  If a creature is understood to be a human
     being, we all know something about how to behave toward it.
     And if a machine exhibits intelligence, the quintessential
     quality of human beings, we also will know what to do.

Without wishing to flame or start a pointless philosophical
discussion, I do not consider intelligence to be the quintessential
quality of human beings.  Nor do I expect to behave in the same way
towards an artificially intelligent program as I would towards a
person.  Turing tests etc. notwithstanding, I think there is a
distinction between "artificial intelligence" and "artificial
humanity," and that by and large people are not striving to create
"artificial humanity."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Nov 83 09:30:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Humanity
-BODY-
I attended a Stanford lecture by Doug Lenat on Tuesday.  He mentioned
three interesting bugs that developed in EURISKO, a self-monitoring
and self-modifying program.

One turned up when EURISKO erroneously claimed to have discovered a
new type of flip-flop.  The problem was traced to an array indexing
error.  EURISKO, realizing that it had never in its entire history
had a bounds error, had deleted the bounds-checking code.  The first
bounds error occurred soon after.

Another bug cropped up in the "credit assignment" rule base.  EURISKO
was claiming that a particular rule had been responsible for discovering
a great many other interesting rules.  It turned out that the gist of
the rule was "If the system discovers something interesting, attach my
name as the discoverer."

The third bug became evident when EURISKO halted at 4:00 one morning
waiting for an answer to a question.  The system was supposed to know
that questions were OK when a person was around, but not at night with
no people at hand.  People are represented in its knowledge base in the
same manner as any other object.  EURISKO wanted (i.e., had as a goal)
to ask a question.  It realized that the reason it could not was that
no object in its current environment had the "person" attribute.  It
therefore declared itself to be a "person", and proceeded to ask the
question.

Doug says that it was rather difficult to explain to the system why
these were not reasonable things to do.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Nov 83 10:09:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SPIE Call for Papers
-BODY-
SPIE has put out a call for papers for its Technical Symposium
East '84 in Arlington, April 29 - May 4.  One of the 10 subtopics
is Applications of AI, particularly image understanding, expert
systems, autonomous navigation, intelligent systems, computer
vision, knowledge-based systems, contextual scene analysis, and
robotics.

Abstracts are due Nov. 21, manuscripts by April 2.  For more info,
contact

  SPIE Technical Program Committee
  P.O. Box 10
  Bellingham, Washington  98227-0010

  (206) 676-3290, Technical Program Dept.
  Telex 46-7053

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 83 14:19:54 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An III talk this Thursday...
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the RUTGERS bboard.]

          Title:    CRITTER - A System for 'Critiquing' Circuits
          Speaker:  Van Kelly
          Date:     Thursday, November 17,1983, 1:30-2:30 PM
          Location: Hill Center, Seventh floor lounge

       Van  kelly,  a  Ph.D.  student  in  our  department, will describe a
    computer system, CRITTER, for  'critiquing'  digital  circuit  designs.
    This  informal  talk  based on his current thesis research.  Here is an
    abstract of the talk:

    CRITTER is  an  exploratory  prototype  design  aid  for  comprehensive
    "critiquing" of digital circuit designs.  While originally intended for
    verifying  a circuit's functional correctness and timing safety, it can
    also be used to  estimate  design  robustness,  sensitivity  to  device
    parameters,  and  (to some extent) testability.  CRITTER has been built
    using Artificial Intelligence ("Expert  Systems")  technology  and  its
    reasoning is guided by an extensible collection of electronic knowledge
    derived  from human experts.  Also, a new non-procedural representation
    for both the real-time behavior of circuits and circuit  specifications
    has  led  to a streamlined circuit modeling formalism based on ordinary
    mathematical function composition.   A  version  of  CRITTER  has  been
    tested  on  circuits  with  complexities  of  up to a dozen TTL SSI/MSI
    packages.  A more powerful version is  being  adapted  for  use  in  an
    automated VLSI design environment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Nov 83 12:58:07 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: John Larson <JLarson.PA@PARC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and the military (long message)
-BODY-
Received over the network  . . .

STRATEGIC COMPUTING PLAN ANNOUNCED; REVOLUTIONARY ADVANCES
IN MACHINE INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY TO MEET CRITICAL DEFENSE NEEDS

  Washington, D.C. (7 Nov. 1983) - - Revolutionary advances in the way
computers will be applied to tomorrow's national defense needs were
described in a comprehensive "Strategic Computing" plan announced
today by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

  DARPA's plan encompasses the development and application of machine
intelligence technology to critical defense problems.  The program
calls for transcending today's computer capabilities by a "quantum
jump."  The powerful computers to be developed under the plan will be
driven by "expert systems" that mimic the thinking and reasoning
processes of humans. The machines will be equipped with sensory and
communication modules enabling them to hear, talk, see and act on
information and data they develop or receive.  This new technology as
it emerges during the coming decade will have unprecedented
capabilities and promises to greatly increase our national security.

  Computers are already widely employed in defense, and are relied on
to help hold the field against larger forces.  But current computers
have inflexible program logic, and are limited in their ability to
adapt to unanticipated enemy actions in the field.  This problem is
heightened by the increasing pace and complexity of modern warfare.
The new DARPA program will confront this challenge by producing
adaptive, intelligent computers specifically aimed at critical
military applications.

  Three initial applications are identified in the DARPA plan.  These
include autonomous vehicles (unmanned aircraft, submersibles, and land
vehicles), expert associates, and large-scale battle management
systems.

  In contrast with current guided missiles and munitions, the new
autonomous vehicles will be capable of complex, far-ranging
reconnaissance and attack missions, and will exhibit highly adaptive
forms of terminal homing.

  A land vehicle described in the plan will be able to navigate
cross-country from one location to another, planning its route from
digital terrain data, and updating its plan as its vision and image
understanding systems sense and resolve ambiguities between observed
and stored terrain data.  Its expert local-navigation system will
devise schemes to insure concealment and avoid obstacles as the
vehicle pursues its mission objectives.

  A pilot's expert associate will be developed that can interact via
speech communications and function as a "mechanized co-pilot". This
system will enable a pilot to off-load lower-level instrument
monitoring, control, and diagnostic functions, freeing him to focus on
high-priority decisions and actions.  The associate will be trainable
and personalizable to the requirements of specific missions and the
methods of an individual pilot.  It will heighten pilots' capabilities
to act effectively and decisively in high stress combat situations.

  The machine intelligence technology will also be applied in a
carrier battle-group battle management system. This system will aid in
the information fusion, option generation, decision making, and event
monitoring by the teams of people responsible for managing such
large-scale, fast-moving combat situations.

  The DARPA program will achieve its technical objectives and produce
machine intelligence technology by jointly exploiting a wide range of
recent scientific advances in artificial intelligence, computer
architecture, and microelectronics.

  Recent advances in artificial intelligence enable the codification
in sets of computer "rules" of the thinking processes that people use
to reason, plan, and make decisions.  For example, a detailed
codification of the thought processes and heuristics by which a person
finds his way through an unfamiliar city using a map and visual
landmarks might be employed as the basis of an experimental expert
system for local navigation (for the autonomous land vehicle).  Such
expert systems are already being successfully employed in medical
diagnosis, experiment planning in genetics, mineral exploration, and
other areas of complex human expertise.

  Expert systems can often be decomposed into separate segments that
can be processed concurrently. For example, one might search for a
result along many paths in parallel, taking the first satisfactory
solution and then proceeding on to other tasks.  In many expert
systems rules simply "lay in wait" - firing only if a specific
situation arises. Different parts of such a system could be operated
concurrently to watch for the individual contexts in which their rules
are to fire.

  DARPA plans to develop special computers that will exploit
opportunities for concurrent processing of expert systems.  This
approach promises a large increase in the power and intelligence of
such systems.  Using "coarse-mesh" machines consisting of multiple
microprocessors, an increase in power of a factor of one hundred over
current systems will be achievable within a few years.  By creating
special VLSI chip designs containing multiple "fine-mesh" processors,
by populating entire silicon wafers with hundreds of such chips, and
by using high-bandwidth optoelectronic cables to interconnect groups
of wafers, increases of three or four orders of magnitude in symbol
processing and rule-firing rates will be achieved as the research
program matures. While the program will rely heavily on silicon
microelectronics for high-density processing structures, extensive use
will also be made of gallium arsenide technology for high-rate signal
processing, optoelectronics, and for military applications requiring
low-power dissipation and high-immunity to radiation.

  The expert system technology will enable the DARPA computers to
"think smarter."  The special architectures for concurrency and the
faster, denser VLSI microelectronics will enable them to "think harder
and faster."  The combination of these approaches promises to be
potent indeed.

  But machines that mimic thinking are not enough by themselves. They
must be provided with sensory devices that mimic the functions of eyes
and ears. They must have the ability to see their environment, to hear
and understand human language, and to respond in kind.

  Huge computer processing rates will be required to provide effective
machine vision and machine understanding of natural language.  Recent
advances in the architecture of special processor arrays promise to
provide the required rates.  By patterning many small special
processors together on a silicon chip, computer scientists can now
produce simple forms of machine vision in a manner analogous to that
used in the retina of the eye. Instead of each image pixel being
sequentially processed as when using a standard von Neumann computer,
the new processor arrays allow thousands of pixels to be processed
simultaneously. Each image pixel is processed by just a few transistor
switches located close together in a processor cell that communicates
over short distances with neighboring cells.  The number of
transistors required to process each pixel can be perhaps one
one-thousandth of that employed in a von Neumann machine, and the
short communications distances lead to much faster processing rates
per pixel. All these effects multiply the factor of thousands gained
by concurrency.  The DARPA program plans to provide special vision
subsystems that have rates as high as one trillion von Neumann
equivalent operations per second as the program matures in the late
1980's.

  The DARPA Strategic Computing plan calls for the rapid evolution of
a set of prototype intelligent computers, and their experimental
application in military test-bed environments.  The planned activities
will lead to a series of demonstrations of increasingly sophisticated
machine intelligence technology in the selected applications as the
program progresses.

  DARPA will utilize an extensive infrastructure of computers,
computer networks, rapid system prototyping services, and silicon
foundries to support these technology explorations.  This same
infrastructure will also enable the sharing and propagation of
successful results among program participants.  As experimental
intelligent machines are created in the program, some will be added to
the computer network resources - further enhancing the capabilities of
the research infrastructure.


  The Strategic Computing program will be coordinated closely with
Under Secretary of Defense Research and Engineering, the Military
Services, and other Defense Agencies.  A number of advisory panels and
working groups will also be constituted to assure inter-agency
coordination and maintain a dialogue within the scientific community.

  The program calls for a cooperative effort among American industry,
universities, other research institutions, and government.
Communication is critical in the management of the program since many
of the contibutors will be widely dispersed throughout the U.S.  Heavy
use will be made of the Defense Department's ARPANET computer network
to link participants and to establish a productive research
environment.

  Ms. Lynn Conway, Assistant Director for Strategic Computing in
DARPA's Information Processing Techniques Office, will manage the new
program.  Initial program funding is set at $50M in fiscal 1984. It is
proposed at $95M in FY85, and estimated at $600M over the first five
years of the program.

  The successful achievement of the objectives of the Strategic
Computing program will lead to the deployment of a new generation of
military systems containing machine intelligence technology.  These
systems promise to provide the United States with important new
methods of defense against both massed forces and unconventional
threats in the future - methods that can raise the threshold and
decrease the likelihood of major conflict.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
100
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1983 10:48:34 EST
-FROM-
From: AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications Mgr.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence and Categorization
-BODY-
     I think Tom Portegys' comment in 1:98 is very true.  Knowing whether or
not a thing is intelligent, has a soul, etc., is quite helpful in letting
us categorize it.  And, without that categorization, we're unable to know
how to understand it.  Two minor asides that might be relevant in this
regard:

     1)  There's a school of thought in the fields of linguistics, folklore,
anthropology, and folklore, which is based on the notion (admittedly arguable)
that the only way to truly understand a culture is to first record and
understand its native categories, as these structure both its language and its
thought, at many levels.  (This ties in to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that
language structures culture, not the reverse...)  From what I've read in this
area, there is definite validity in this approach.  So, if it's reasonable to
try and understand a culture in terms of its categories (which may or may not
be translatable into our own culture's categories, of course), then it's
equally reasonable for us to need to categorize new things so that we can
understand them within our existing framework.

     2)  Back in medieval times, there was a concept known as the "Great
Chain of Being", which essentially stated that everything had its place in
the scheme of things; at the bottom of the chain were inanimate things, at the
top was God, and the various flora and fauna were in-between.  This set of
categories structured a lot of medieval thinking, and had major influences on
Western thought in general, including thought about the nature of intelligence.
Though the viewpoint implicit in this theory isn't widely held any more, it's
still around in other, more modern, theories, but at a "subconscious" level.
As a result, the notion of 'machine intelligence' can be a troubling one,
because it implies that the inanimate is being relocated in the chain to a
position nearly equal to that of man.

I'm ranging a bit far afield here, but this ought to provoke some discussion...
Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 83 15:11:32-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.Pucc-K.ags @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallelism & Consciousness - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-k.115

Faster = More Intelligent.  Now there's an interesting premise...

According to relativity theory, clocks (and bodily processes, and everything
else) run faster at the top of a mountain or on a plane than they do at sea
level.  This has been experimentally confirmed.

Thus it seems that one can become more intelligent merely by climbing a
mountain.  Of course the effect is temporary...

Maybe this is why we always see cartoons about people climbing mountains to
inquire about "the meaning of life" (?)

                                Dave Seaman
                                ..!pur-ee!pucc-k!ags

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 83 16:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Jim Lynch <jimlynch@nswc-wo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Continuing Debate (discussion) on intelligence.
-BODY-
   I have enjoyed the continuing discussion concerning the definition of
intelligence and would only add a few thoughts.
   1.  I tend to agree with Minsky that intelligence is a social concept,
but I believe that it is probably even more of an emotional one. Intelligence
seems to fall in the same category with notions such as beauty, goodness,
pleasant, etc.  These concepts are personal, intensely so, and difficult to
describe, especially in any sort of quantitative terms.
   2.  A good part of the difficulty with defining Artificial Intelligence is
due, no doubt, to a lack of a good definition for intelligence.  We probablyy
cannot define AI until the psychologists define "I".
   3.  Continuing with 2, the definition probably should not worry us too much.
After all, do psychologists worry about "Natural Computation"?  Let us let the
psychologists worry about what intelligence is, let us worry about how to make
it artificial!!  (As has been pointed out many times, this is certainly an
iterative process and we can surely learn much from each other!).
   4.  The notion of intelligence seems to be a continuum; it is doubtful
that we can define a crisp and fine line dividing the intelligent from the
non-intelligent.  The current debate has provided enough examples to make
this clear.  Our job, therefore, is not to make computers intelligent, but
to make them more intelligent.
                              Thanks for the opportunity to comment,
                                     Jim Lynch, Dahlgren, Virginia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 17 Nov 83 16:07:41-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence
-BODY-
I had some difficultly refuting a friend's argument that intelligence
is "problem solving ability", and that deciding what problems to solve
is just one facet or level of intelligence.  I realize that this is
a vague definition, but does anyone have a refutation?

I think we can take for granted that summing the same numbers over and
over is not more intelligent than summing them once.  Discovering a
new method of summing them (e.g., finding a pattern and a formula for
taking advantage of it) is intelligent, however.  To some extent,
then, the novelty of the problem and the methods used in its solution
must be taken into account.

Suppose that we define intelligence in terms of the problem-solving
techniques available in an entity's repertoire.  A machine's intelligence
could be described much as a pocket calculator's capabilities are:
this one has modus ponens, that one can manipulate limits of series.
The partial ordering of such capabilities must necessarily be goal-
dependent and so should be left to the purchaser.

I agree with the AIList reader who defined an intelligent entity as
one that builds and refines knowledge structures representing its world.
Ability to manipulate and interconvert particular knowledge structures
fits well into the capability rating system above.  Learning, or ability
to remember new techniques so that they need not be rederived, is
downplayed in this view of intelligence, although I am sure that it is
more than just an efficiency hack.  Problem solving speed seems to be
orthogonal to the capability dimension, as does motivation to solve
problems.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Nov 83 4:21:55-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!utcsstat!laura @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KILLING THINGS
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1439

I think that one has to make a distinction between dolphins killing fish
to eat, and hypothetical turtles killing rabbits, not to eat, but because
they compete for the same land resources. To my mind they are different
sorts of killings (though from the point of veiw of the hapless rabbit
or fish they may be the same). Dolphins kill sharks that attack the school,
though -- I do not think that this 'self-defense' killing is the same as
the planned extermination of another species.

if you believe that planned extermination is the definition of intelligence
then I'll bet you are worried about SETI. On the other hand, I suppose you
must not believe that pacifist vegetarian monks qualify as intelligent.
Or is intelligence something posessed by a species rather than an individual?
Or perhaps you see that eating plants is indeed killing them. Now, we
have, defined all animals and plants like the venus fly-trap as intelligent
while most plants are not. All the protists that I can think of right now
would also be intelligent, though a euglena would be an interesting case.

I think that "killing things" is either too general or too specific
(depending on your definition of killing and which things you admit
to your list of "things") to be a useful guide for intelligence.

What about having fun? Perhaps the ability to laugh is the dividing point
between man (as  a higher intelligence) and animals, who seem to have
some appreciation for pleasure (if not fun) as distinct from plants and
protists whose joy I have never seen measured. Dolphins seem to have
a sense of fun as well, which is (to my mind) a very good thing.

What this bodes for Mr. Spock, though, is not nice. And despite
megabytes of net.jokes, this 11/70 isn't chuckling. :-)

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 Nov 83 02:24:00-CST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Temin <CS.Temin@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Artificial Humanity
-BODY-
I found these errors really interesting.

I would think a better rule for Eurisko to have used in the bounds
checking case would be to keep the bounds-checking code, but use it less
frequently, only when it was about to announce something as interesting,
for instance.  Then it may have caught the flip-flop error itself, while
still gaining speed other times.

The "credit assignment bug" makes me think Eurisko is emulating some
professors I have heard of....

The person bug doesn't even have to be bug.  The rule assumes that if a
person is around, then he or she will answer a question typed to a
console, perhaps?  Rather it should state that if a person is around,
Eurisko should ask THAT person the question.  Thus if Eurisko is a
person, it should have asked itself (not real useful, maybe, but less of
a bug, I think).

While computer enthusiasts like to speak of all programs in
anthropomorphic terms, Eurisko seems like one that might really deserve
that.  Anyone know of any others?

>aaron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 83 10:58:40-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix
     !ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the halting problem in history - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.775

Halting problem, lethal infinite loops in consciousness, and the Zahir:

Borges' "Zahir" story was interesting, but the above comment shows just
how successful Borges is in his stylistic approach: by overwhelming the
reader with historical references, he lends legitimacy to an idea that
might only be his own.  Try tracking down some of his references some-
time--it's not easy!  Many of them are simply made up.

Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 83 13:50:54-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: I recall Rational Psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2407

First, let's not revive the Rational Psychology debate. It died of natural
causes, and we should not disturb its immortal soul. However, F Montalvo
has said something very unpleasant about me, and I'm not quite mature
enough to ignore it.

I was not making an idle attack, nor do I do so with superficial knowledge.
Further, I have made quite similar statements in the presence of the
enemy -- card carrying psychologists.  Those psychologists whose egos are
secure often agree with the assesment.  Proper scientific method is very
hard to apply in the face of stunning lack of understanding or hard,
testable theories.  Most proper experiments are morally unacceptable in
the pschological arena.  As it is, there are so many controls not done,
so many sources of artifact, so much use of statistics to try to ferret
out hoped-for correlations, so much unavoidable anthropomorphism. As with
scholars such as H. Dumpty, you can define "science" to mean what you like,
but I think most psychological work fails the test.

One more thing, It's pretty immature to assume that someone who disagrees
with you has only superficial knowledge of the subject.  (See, I told you
I was not very mature ....)
>---GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
101
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 83 10:53 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim.UPenn@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: pattern matchers
-BODY-
     From: Stanley T. Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
     Subject: Pattern Matchers
     ... My next puzzle is about pattern matchers.  Has anyone looked carefully
     at the notion of a "non-failing" pattern matcher?  By that I mean one that
     never or almost never rejects things as non-matching. ...

There is a long history of matchers which can be asked to "force" a match.
In this mode, the matcher is given two objects and returns a description
of what things would have to be true for the two objects to match.  Two such
matchers come immediately to my mind - see "How can MERLIN Understand?" by
Moore and Newell in Gregg (ed), Knowledge and Cognition, 1973, and also
"An Overview of KRL, A Knowledge Representation Language" by Bobrow and
Winograd (which appeared in the AI Journal, I believe, in 76 or 77).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Nov 83 09:31:38-CST
-FROM-
From: CS.DENNEY@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX Workstations
-BODY-
I am looking for information on the merits (or lack of) of the
VAX Workstation 100 for AI development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 83 22:22:03 pst
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Vision.
-BODY-
There have been some recent articles in this list on computer
vision, some of them queries for information.  Although I am
not in this field, I read with interest a review article in
Nature last week.  Since Nature may be off the beaten track for
many people in AI (in fact articles impinging on computer science
are rare, and this one probably got in because it also falls
under neuroscience), I'm bringing the article to the attention of
this list.  The review is entitled ``Parallel visual computation''
and appears in Vol 306, No 5938 (3-9 November), page 21.  The
authors are Dana H Ballard, Geoffrey E Hinton and Terrence J
Sejnowski.  There are 72 references into the literature.

                                                Harry Weeks
                                                g.weeks@Berkeley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 83 20:25:30-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Alert - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3909


For safety's sake, let me add a qualification about the table on sources of
funding: it's incorrect. The University of Illinois is represented as having
absolutely NO research in 5th-generation AI, not even under OTHER funding.
This is false, and will hopefully be rectified in the next issue of the
Spectrum. I believe a delegation of our Professors is flying to the coast to
have a chat with the Spectrum staff ...

If we can be so misrepresented, I wonder how the survey obtained its
information. None of our major AI researchers remember any attempts to survey
their work.

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 83 20:25:38-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: just a reminder... - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3910

I agree [with a previous article].
I myself am becoming increasingly worried about a blithe attitude I
sometimes hear: if our technology eliminates some jobs, it will create others.
True, but not everyone will be capable of keeping up with the change.
Analogously, the Industrial Revolution is now seen as a Good Thing, and its
impacts were as profound as those promised by AI. And though it is said that
the growth of knowledge can only be advantageous in the long run (Logical
Positivist view?), many people became victims of the Revolution.

In this respect I very much appreciated an idea that was aired at IJCAI-83,
namely that we should be building expert systems in economics to help us plan
and control the effects of our research.

As for the localization of power, that seems almost inevitable. Does not the
US spend enough on cosmetics to cover the combined Gross National Products of
37 African countries? And are we not so concerned about our Almighty Pocket
that we simply CANNOT export our excess groceries to a needy country, though
the produce rot on our dock? Then we can also keep our technology to ourselves.

One very obvious, and in my opinion sorely needed, application of AI is to
automating legal, veterinary and medical expertise. Of course the law system
and our own doctors will give us hell for this, but on the other hand what kind
of service profession is it that will not serve except at high cost? Those most
in need cannot afford the price. See for yourself what kind of person makes it
through Medical School: those who are most aggressive about beating their
fellow students, or those who have the money to buy their way in. It is little
wonder that so few of them will help the under-priviledged -- from the start
the selection criteria wage against such motivation. Let's send our machines
in where our "doctors" will not go!

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 83 09:22:42 EST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: rej@Cornell (Ralph Johnson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The AI Challenge
-BODY-
The recent discussions on AIlist have been boring, so I have another
idea for discussion.  I see no evidence that that AI is going to make
as much of a change on the world as data processing or information
retrieval.  While research in AI has produced many results in side areas
such as computer languages, computer architecture, and programming
environments, none of the past promises of AI (automatic language
translation, for example) have been fulfilled.  Why should I expect
anything more in the future?

I am a soon-to-graduate PhD candidate at Cornell.  Since Cornell puts
little emphasis on AI, I decided to learn a little on my own.  Most AI
literature is hard to read, as very little concrete is said.  The best
book that I read (best for someone like me, that is) was the three-volume
"Handbook on Artificial Intelligence".  One interesting observation was
that I already knew a large percentage of the algorithms.  I did not
even think of most of them as being AI algorithms.  The searching
algorithms (with the exception of alpha beta pruning) are used in many
areas, and algorithms that do logical deduction are part of computational
mathematics (just my opinion, as I know some consider this hard core AI).
Algorithms in areas like computer vision were completely new, but I could
see no relationship between those algorithms and algorithms in programs
called "expert systems", another hot AI topic.

  [Agreed, but the gap is narrowing.  There have been 1 or 2 dozen
  good AI/vision dissertations, but the chief link has been that many
  individuals and research departments interested in one area have
  also been interested in the other.  -- KIL]

As for expert systems, I could see no relationship between one expert system
and the next.  An expert system seems to be a program that uses a lot of
problem-related hacks to usually come up with the right answer.  Some of
the "knowledge representation" schemes (translated "data structures") are
nice, but everyone seems to use different ones.  I have read several tech
reports describing recent expert systems, so I am not totally ignorant.
What is all the noise about?  Why is so much money being waved around?
There seems to be nothing more to expert systems than to other complicated
programs.

  [My own somewhat heretical view is that the "expert system" title
  legitimizes something that every complicated program has been found
  to need: hackery.  A rule-based system is sufficiently modular that
  it can be hacked hundreds of times before it is so cumbersome
  that the basic structures must be rewritten.  It is software designed
  to grow, as opposed to the crystalline gems of the "optimal X" paradigm.
  The best expert systems, of course, also contain explanatory capabilities,
  hierarchical inference, constrained natural language interfaces, knowledge
  base consistency checkers, and other useful features.  -- KIL]

I know that numerical analysis and compiler writing are well developed fields
because there is a standard way of thinking that is associated with each
area and because a non-expert can use tools provided by experts to perform
computation or write a parser without knowing how the tools work.  In fact,
a good test of an area within computer science is whether there are tools
that a non-expert can use to do things that, ten years ago, only experts
could do.  Is there anything like this in AI?  Are there natural language
processors that will do what YACC does for parsing computer languages?

There seem to be a number of answers to me:

1)  Because of my indoctrination at Cornell, I categorize much of the
    important results of AI in other areas, thus discounting the achievements
    of AI.

2)  I am even more ignorant than I thought, and you will enlighten me.

3)  Although what I have said describes other areas of AI pretty much, yours
    is an exception.

4)  Although what I have said describes past results of AI, major achievements
    are just around the corner.

5)  I am correct.

You may be saying to yourself, "Is this guy serious?"  Well, sort of.  In
any case, this should generate more interesting and useful information
than trying to define intelligence, so please treat me seriously.

        Ralph Johnson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 17 Nov 83 16:57:55-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Announcements and Call for Papers
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Image Technology 1984 37th annual conference  May 20-24, 1984
Boston, Mass.  Jim Clark, papers chairman

British Robot Association 7th annual conference  14-17, May 1984
Cambridge, England   Conference director-B.R.A. 7,
British Robot Association, 28-30 High Street, Kempston, Bedford
MK427AJ, England

First International Conference on Computers and Applications
Beijing, China, June 20-22, 1984   co-sponsored by CIE computer society
and IEEE computer society

CMG XIV conference on computer evaluation--preliminary agenda
December 6-9, 1983  Crystal City, Va.

International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation
EUROSAM 84  Cambridge, England July 9-11, 1984  call for papers
M. Mignotte, Centre de Calcul, Universite Louis Pasteur, 7 rue
rene Descartes, F67084 Strasvourg, France

ACM Computer Science Conference  The Future of Computing
February 14-16, 1984  Philadelphia, Penn. Aaron Beller, Program
Chair, Computer and Information Science Department, Temple University
Philadelphia, Penn. 19122

HL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Nov 83 04:00:10-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ***** Call for Papers:  LISP and Functional Programming *****
-BODY-
please help spread the word by announcing it on your local machines.  thanks
                ---------------

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
()                                CALL FOR PAPERS                           ()
()                             1984 ACM SYMPOSIUM ON                        ()
()                        LISP AND FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING                   ()
()                UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUGUST 5-8, 1984           ()
()            (Sponsored by the ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING MACHINERY)        ()
()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

This is the third in a series of biennial conferences on the LISP language and
issues related to applicative languages.  Especially welcome are papers
addressing implementation problems and programming environments.  Areas of
interest include (but are not restricted to) systems, large implementations,
programming environments and support tools, architectures, microcode and
hardware implementations, significant language extensions, unusual applications
of LISP, program transformations, compilers for applicative languages, lazy
evaluation, functional programming, logic programming, combinators, FP, APL,
PROLOG, and other languages of a related nature.

Please send eleven (11) copies of a detailed summary (not a complete paper) to
the program chairman:

        Guy L. Steele Jr.
        Tartan Laboratories Incorporated
        477 Melwood Avenue
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania  15213

Submissions will be considered by each member of the program committee:

 Robert Cartwright, Rice            William L. Scherlis, Carnegie-Mellon
 Jerome Chailloux, INRIA            Dana Scott, Carnegie-Mellon
 Daniel P. Friedman, Indiana        Guy L. Steele Jr., Tartan Laboratories
 Richard P. Gabriel, Stanford       David Warren, Silogic Incorporated
 Martin L. Griss, Hewlett-Packard   John Williams, IBM
 Peter Henderson, Stirling

Summaries should explain what is new and interesting about the work and what
has actually been accomplished.  It is important to include specific findings
or results and specific comparisons with relevant previous work.  The committee
will consider the appropriateness, clarity, originality, practicality,
significance, and overall quality of each summary.  Time does not permit
consideration of complete papers or long summaries; a length of eight to twelve
double-spaced typed pages is strongly suggested.

February 6, 1984 is the deadline for the submission of summaries.  Authors will
be notified of acceptance or rejection by March 12, 1984.  The accepted papers
must be typed on special forms and received by the program chairman at the
address above by May 14, 1984.  Authors of accepted papers will be asked to
sign ACM copyright forms.

Proceedings will be distributed at the symposium and will later be available
from ACM.

Local Arrangements Chairman             General Chairman

Edward A. Schneider                     Robert S. Boyer
Burroughs Corporation                   University of Texas at Austin
Austin Research Center                  Institute for Computing Science
12201 Technology Blvd.                  2100 Main Building
Austin, Texas 78727                     Austin, Texas 78712
(512) 258-2495                          (512) 471-1901
CL.SCHNEIDER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA             CL.BOYER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
102
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 83 14:50:23-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!simon @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: just a reminder... - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.357

It seems a little dangerous "to send machines where doctors won't go" -
you'll get the machines treating the poor, and human experts for the privileged
few.
Also, expert systems for economics and social science, to help us would be
fine,
if there was a convincing argument that a)these social sciences are truly
helpful for coping with unpredictable technological change, and b) that there
is a sufficiently accepted basis of quantifiable knowledge to put in the
proposed systems.
janos simon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1983  15:24 EST
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: I recall Rational Psychology
-BODY-
    Date: 17 Nov 83 13:50:54-PST (Thu)
    From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
    Subject: I recall Rational Psychology

          ... Proper scientific method is very
    hard to apply in the face of stunning lack of understanding or hard,
    testable theories.  Most proper experiments are morally unacceptable in
    the pschological arena.  As it is, there are so many controls not done,
    so many sources of artifact, so much use of statistics to try to ferret
    out hoped-for correlations, so much unavoidable anthropomorphism. As with
    scholars such as H. Dumpty, you can define "science" to mean what you like,
    but I think most psychological work fails the test.

    ----GaryFostel----

You don't seem to be aware of Experimental Psychology, which involves
subjects' consent, proper controls, hypothesis formation and
evaluation, and statistical validation.  Most of it involves sensory
processes and learning.  The studies are very rigorous and must be so
to end up in the literature.  You may be thinking of Clinical Psychology.
If so, please don't lump all of Psychology into the same group.

Fanya Montalvo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 83 11:15:50-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!ucbcad!notes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: parallelism vs. novel architecture - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.835

Re: parallelism and fundamental discoveries

The stored-program concept (Von Neumann machine) was indeed a breakthrough
both in the sense of Turing (what is theoretically computable) and in the
sense of Von Neuman (what is a practical machine).  It is noteworthy,
however, that I am typing this message using a text editor with a segment
of memory devoted to program, another segment devoted to data, and with an
understanding on the part of the operating system that if the editor were
to try to alter one of its own instructions, the operating system should
treat this as pathological, and abort it.

In other words, the vaunted power of being able to write data that can be
executed as a program is treated in the most stilted and circumspect manner
in the interests of practicality.  It has been found to be impractical to
write programs that modify their own inner workings.  Yet people do this to
their own consciousness all the time--in a largely unconscious way.

Turing-computability is perhaps a necessary condition for intelligence.
(That's been beaten to death here.)  What is needed is a sufficient condition.
Can that possibly be a single breakthrough or innovation?  There is no
question that, working from the agenda for AI that was so hubristically
layed out in the 50's and 60's, such a breakthrough is long overdue.  Who
sees any intimation of it now?

Perhaps what is needed is a different kind of AI researcher.  New ground
is hard to break, and harder still when the usual academic tendency is to
till old soil until it is exhausted.  I find it interesting that many of
the new ideas in AI are coming from outside the U.S. AI establishment
(MIT, CMU, Stanford, mainly).  Logic programming seems largely to be a
product of the English-speaking world *apart* from the U.S.  Douglas
Hofstadter's ideas (though probably too optimistic) are at least a sign
that, after all these years, some people find the problem too important
to be left to the experts.  Tally Ho!  Maybe AI needs a nut with the
undaunted style of a Nicola Tesla.

Some important AI people say that Hofstadter's schemes can't work.  This
makes me think of the story about the young 19th century physicist, whose
paper was reviewed and rejected as meaningless by 50 prominent physicists
of the time.  The 51st was Maxwell, who had it published immediately.

Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 November 1983 2359-PST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: helly at AEROSPACE (John Helly)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Challenge
-BODY-
I  am  responding  to  Ralph  Johnson's  recent submittal concerning the
content and contribution of work in the field  of  AI.    The  following
comments  should  be  evaluated in light of the fact that I am currently
developing an 'expert system' as a dissertation topic at UCLA.

My immediate reaction to Johnson's queries/criticisms of AI is  that  of
hearty  agreement.    Having  read  a  great  deal  of AI literature, my
personal bias is that there is a great deal of rediscovery of  Knuth  in
the  context of new applications.  The only things apparently unique are
that each new 'discovery' carries with  it  a  novel  jargon  with  very
little attempt to connect and build on previous work in the field.  This
reflects a broader concern I have with Computer Science  in  general  in
that,  having been previously trained as a biologist, I find very little
that I consider scientific in this field.  This  does  not  diminish  my
hope for, and consequently my commitment to, work in this area.

Like  many things, this commitment is based on my intuition (read faith)
that there really is something  of  value  in  this  field.    The  only
rationale  I can offer for such a commitment is the presumption that the
lack of progress in AI research is the result of the lack of  scientific
discipline of AI researchers and computer scientists in general.  The AI
community looks much more like a heterogeneous population of hackers than
that  of a disciplined, scientific community.  Maybe this is symptomatic
of a new field of science going through  growing  pains  but  I  do  not
personally  believe  this  is  the  case.    I am unaware of any similar
developmental process in the history of science.

This all sounds pretty negative, I  know.    I  believe  that  criticism
should  always  be  stated with some possible corrective action, though,
and maybe I have some.  Computer science curricula should require formal
scientific training.  Exposure to truly empirical sciences  would  serve
to   familiarize   students  with  the  value  of  systematic  research,
experimental design, hypothesis testing and the like.   We  should  find
ways  to  apply  the  scientific  method  to  our  research  rather than
collecting  a  lot  of  anecdotal  information  about  our  'programming
environment' and 'heuristics' and publishing it at first light.

Maybe the computer science is basically an engineering discipline (i.e.,
application-oriented)  rather  than a science.  I believe, however, that
in the least computer science, even if misnamed, offers  powerful  tools
for  investigating  human  information processing (i.e, intelligence) if
approached scientifically.  Properly applied these tools can provide the
same benefits they  have  offered  physicists,  biologists  and  medical
researchers  - insight into mechanisms and techniques for simulating the
systems of interest.

Much of AI is very slick programming.  I'm just not certain that  it  is
anything more than that, at least at present.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Nov 83 14:12:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Ralph Johnson
-BODY-
Your recent msg to AILIST was certainly provocative, and I thought I'd
try to reply to a couple of the points you made.  First, I'm a little
appalled at what you portray as the "Cornell" attitude towards AI.  I
hope things will improve there in the future.  Maybe I can contribute
a little by trying to persuade you that AI has substance.

I'd like to begin by calling attention to the criteria that you are
using to evaluate AI.  I believe that if you applied these same
criteria to other areas of computer science, you would find them
lacking also.  For example, you say that "While research in AI has
produced many results in side areas..., none of the past promises of
AI have been fulfilled."  If we look at other fields of computer
science, we find similar difficulties.  Computer science has promised
secure, reliable, user-friendly computing facilities, cheap and robust
distributed systems, integrated software tools.  But what do we have?
Well, we have some terrific prototypes in research labs, but the rest
of the world is still struggling with miserable computing
environments, systems that constantly crash, and distributed systems
that end up being extremely expensive and unreliable.

The problem with this perspective is that it is not fair to judge a
research discipline by the success of its applications.  In AI
research labs, AI has delivered on many of its early promises.  We now
have machines with limited visual and manipulative capabilities.  And
we do have systems that perform automatic language translation (e.g.,
at Texas).

Another difficulty of judging AI is that it is a "residual"
discipline.  As Avron Barr wrote in the introduction to the AI
Handbook, "The realization that the detailed steps of almost all
intelligent human activity were unknown marked the beginning of
Artificial Intelligence as a separate part of computer science."  AI
tackles the hardest application problems around: those problems whose
solution is not understood.  The rest of computer science is primarily
concerned with finding optimum points along various solution
dimensions such as speed, memory requirements, user interface
facilities, etc.  We already knew HOW to sort numbers before we had
computers.  The role of Computer Science was to determine how to sort
them quickly and efficiently using a computer.  But, we didn't know
HOW to understand language (at least not at a detailed level).  AI's
task has been to find solutions to these kinds of problems.

Since AI has tackled the most difficult problems, it is not surprising
that it has had only moderate success so far.  The bright side of
this, however, is that long after we have figured out whether P=NP, AI
will still be uncovering fascinating and difficult problems.  That's
why I study it.

You are correct in saying that the AI literature is hard to read.  I
think there are several reasons for this.  First, there is a very
large amount of terminology to master in AI.  Second, there are great
differences in methodology.  There is no general agreement within the
AI community about what the hard problems are and how they should be
addressed (although I think this is changing).  Good luck with any
further reading that you attempt.

Now let me address some of your specific observations about AI.  You
say "I already knew a large percentage of the algorithms.  I did not
even think of most of them as being AI algorithms."  I would certainly
agree.  I cite this as evidence that there is a unity to all parts of
computer science, including AI.  You also say "An expert system seems
to be a program that uses a lot of problem-related hacks to usually
come up with the right answer."  I think you have hit upon the key
lesson that AI learned in the seventies: The solution to many of the
problems we attack in AI lies NOT in the algorithms but in the
knowledge.  That lesson reflects itself, not so much in differences in
code, but in differences in methodology.  Expert systems are different
and important because they are built using a programming style that
emphasizes flexibility, transparency, and rapid prototyping over
efficiency.  You say "There seems to be nothing more to expert systems
than to other complicated programs".  I disagree completely.  Expert
systems can be built, debugged, and maintained more cheaply than other
complicated programs.  And hence, they can be targeted at applications
for which previous technology was barely adequate.  Expert systems
(knowledge programming) techniques continue the revolution in
programming that was started with higher-level languages and furthered
by structured programming and object-oriented programming.

Your view of "knowledge representations" as being identical with data
structures reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the knowledge vs.
algorithms point.  Most AI programs employ very simple data structures
(e.g., record structures, graphs, trees).  Why, I'll bet there's not a
single AI program that uses leftist-trees or binomial queues!  But, it
is the WAY that these data structures are employed that counts.  For
example, in many AI systems, we use record structures that we call
"schemas" or "frames" to represent domain concepts.  This is
uninteresting.  But what is interesting is that we have learned that
certain distinctions are critical, such as the distinction between a
subset of a set and an element of a set.  Or the distinction between a
causal agent of a disease (e.g., a bacterium) and a feature that is
helpful in guiding diagnosis (e.g., whether or not the patient has
been hospitalized).  Much of AI is engaged in finding and cataloging
these distinctions and demonstrating their value in simplifying the
construction of expert systems.

In your message, you gave five possible answers that you expected to
receive.  I guess mine doesn't fit any of your categories.  I think
you have been quite perceptive in your analysis of AI.  But you are
still looking at AI from the "algorithm" point of view.  If you shift
to the "knowledge" perspective, your criteria for evaluating AI will
shift as well, and I think you will find the field to be much more
interesting.

>-Tom Dietterich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 83 11:45:30 EST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: rej@Cornell (Ralph Johnson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Clarifying my "AI Challange"
-BODY-
I am sorry to create the mistaken impression that I don't think AI should
be done or is worth the money we spend on it.  The side effects alone are
worth much more than has been spent.  I do understand the effects of AI on
other areas of CS.  Even though going to the moon brought no direct benefit
to the US outside of prestige (which, by the way, was enormous), we learned
a lot that was very worthwhile.  Planetary scientists point out that we
would have learned a lot more if we had spent the money directly on planetary
exploration, but the moon race captured the hearts of the public and allowed
the money to be spent on space instead of bombs.  In a similar way, AI
provides a common area for some of our brightest people to tackle very hard
problems, and consequently learn a great deal.  My question, though, is
whether AI is really going to change the world any more than the rest of
computer science is already doing.  Are the great promises of AI going to
be fulfilled?

I am thankful for the comments on expert systems.  Following these lines of
reasoning, expert systems are differentiated from other programs more by the
programming methodology used than by algorithms or data structures.  It is
very helpful to have these distinctions pointed out, and has made several
ideas clearer to me.

The ideas in AI are not really any more difficult than those in other areas
of CS, they are just more poorly explained.  Several times I have run in to
someone who can explain well the work that he/she has been doing, and each
time I understand what they are doing.  Consequently, I believe that the
reason that I see few descriptions of how systems work is because the
designers are not sure how they work, or they do not know what is important
in explaining how they work, or they do not know that it is important to
explain how they work.  Are they, in fact, describing how they work, and I
just don't notice?  What I would like is more examples of systems that work,
descriptions of how they work, and of how well they work.

        Ralph Johnson (rej@cornell,  cornell!rej)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Nov 83 09:25:52-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Clarifying my "AI Challange"
-BODY-
Ralph,

I can think of a couple of reasons why articles describing Expert
Systems are difficult to follow.  First, these programs are often
immense.  It would take a book to describe all of the system and how
it works.  Hence, AI authors try to pick out a few key things that
they think were essential in getting the system to work.  It is kind
of like reading descriptions of operating systems.  Second, the lesson
that knowledge is more important than algorithm has still not been
totally accepted within AI.  Many people tend to describe their
systems by describing the architecture (ie., the algorithms and data
structures) instead of the knowledge.  The result is that the reader
is left saying "Yes, of course I understand how backward chaining (or
an agenda system) works, but I still don't understand how it diagnoses
soybean diseases..."  The HEARSAY people are particularly guilty of
this.  Also, Lenat's dissertation includes much more discussion of
architecture than of knowledge.  It often takes many years before
someone publishes a good analysis of the structure of the knowledge
underlying the expert performance of the system.  A good example is
Bill Clancey's work analyzing the MYCIN system.  See his most recent
AI Journal paper.

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
103
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 83 18:05 PST
-FROM-
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Those interested in AI might want to read ...
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

[Those interested in AI might want to read ...]
the article in November *Psychology Today* about Francis Crick and Graeme
Michison's neural network simulations. Title is "The Dream Machine", p. 22.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 Nov 83 18:50:27-PST
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Those interested in AI might want to read...
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

I would guess that the "Psychology Today" article is a simplified form of the
Crick & Michelson paper which came out in "Nature" about 2 months ago. Can't
comment on the Psychology Today article, but the Nature article was
stimulating and provocative. The same issue of Nature has a paper (referred to
by Crick) of a simulation which was even better than the Crick paper
(sorry, Francis!).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Nov 83 09:58:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Benjamin Grosof <GROSOF@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Weizenbaum review of "The Fifth Generation": hot stuff!
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

The current issue of the NY REview of Books contains a review by Joseph
Weizenbaum of MIT (Author of "Computer Power and Human Reason", I think)
of Feigenbaum and McCorduck's "The Fifth Generation".  Warning: it is
scathing and controversial, hence great reading.  --Benjamin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Nov 83 14:38:38-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: why AI is hard to read
-BODY-
There is one reason much AI literature is hard to read. It is common for
authors to invent a whole new set of jargon to describe their system, instead
of desribing it in some common language (e.g., first order logic) or relating
it to previous well-understood systems or principles.  In recent years
there has been an increased awareness of this problem, and hopefully things
are improving and will continue to do so. There are also a lot more
submissions now to IJCAI, etc, so higher standards end up being applied.
Keep truckin'
David Wilkins

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 1983 10:54-PST
-FROM-
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: dietz%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Economic effects of automation
-BODY-
Reply to Marcel Schoppers (AIList 1:101):

I agree that "computers will eliminate some jobs but create others" is
a feeble excuse.  There's not much evidence for it.  Even if it's true,
those whose jobs skills are devalued will be losers.

But why should this bother me?  I don't buy manufactured goods to
employ factory workers, I buy them to gratify my own desires.   As a
computer scientist I will not be laid off; indeed, automation will
increase the demand for computer professionals.  I will benefit from
the higher quality and lower prices of manufactured goods.  Automation
is entirely in my interest.  I need no excuse to support it.

   ... I very much appreciated the idea ... that we should be building
   expert systems in economics to help us plan and control the effects of
   our research.

This sounds like an awful waste of time to me.  We have no idea how to
predict the economic effects of much of anything except at the most
rudimentary levels, and there is no evidence that we will anytime soon
(witness the failure of econometrics).  There would be no way to test
the systems.  Building expert systems is not a substitute for
understanding.

Automating medicine and law:  a much better idea is to eliminate or
scale back the licensing requirements that allow doctors and lawyers to
restrict entry into their fields.  This would probably be necessary to
get much benefit from expert systems anyway.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 83 11:27:05-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!security!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: just a reminder... - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.501

    It seems a little dangerous "to send machines where doctors won't go" -
    you'll get the machines treating the poor, and human experts for the
    privileged few.

If the machines were good enough, I wouldn't mind being underpriveleged.
I'd rather be flown into a foggy airport by autopilot than human pilot.

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 1983 13:06:13-EST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Doug DeGroot <Degroot.YKTVMV.IBM@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Symposium (long message)
-BODY-
                 [Excerpt from a notice in the Prolog Digest.]

               1984 International Symposium on Logic Programming

                               February 6-9, 1984

                           Atlantic City, New Jersey
                           BALLY'S PARK PLACE CASINO

                     Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society


          For more information contact PERIERA@SRI-AI or:

               Registration - 1984 ISLP
               Doug DeGroot, Program Chairman
               IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
               P.O. Box 218
               Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

          STATUS           Conference    Tutorial
          Member, IEEE      __ $155      __ $110
          Non-member        __ $180      __ $125
         ____________________________________________________________

                              Conference Overview

          Opening Address:
             Prof. J.A. (Alan) Robinson
             Syracuse University

          Guest Speaker:
             Prof. Alain Colmerauer
             Univeristy of Aix-Marseille II
             Marseille, France

          Keynote Speaker:
             Dr. Ralph E. Gomory,
             IBM Vice President & Director of Research,
             IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

          Tutorial: An Introduction to Prolog
             Ken Bowen, Syracuse University

          35 Papers, 11 Sessions (11 Countries, 4 Continents)


          Preliminary Conference Program

          Session 1: Architectures I
          __________________________

          1. Parallel Prolog Using Stack Segments on Shared-memory
             Multiprocessors
             Peter Borgwardt (Univ. Minn)

          2. Executing Distributed Prolog Programs on a Broadcast Network
             David Scott Warren (SUNY Stony Brook, NY)

          3. AND Parallel Prolog in Divided Assertion Set
             Hiroshi Nakagawa (Yokohama Nat'l Univ, Japan)

          4. Towards a Pipelined Prolog Processor
             Evan Tick (Stanford Univ,CA) and David Warren

          Session 2: Architectures II
          ___________________________

          1. Implementing Parallel Prolog on a Multiprocessor Machine
             Naoyuki Tamura and Yukio Kaneda (Kobe Univ, Japan)

          2. Control of Activities in the OR-Parallel Token Machine
             Andrzej Ciepielewski and Seif Haridi (Royal Inst. of
             Tech, Sweden)

          3. Logic Programming Using Parallel Associative Operations
             Steve Taylor, Andy Lowry, Gerald Maguire, Jr., and Sal
             Stolfo (Columbia Univ,NY)

          Session 3: Parallel Language Issues
          ___________________________________

          1. Negation as Failure and Parallelism
             Tom Khabaza (Univ. of Sussex, England)

          2. A Note on Systems Programming in Concurrent Prolog
             David Gelertner (Yale Univ,CT)

          3. Fair, Biased, and Self-Balancing Merge Operators in
             Concurrent Prolog
             Ehud Shaipro (Weizmann Inst. of Tech, Israel)

          Session 4: Applications in Prolog
          _________________________________

          1. Editing First-Order Proofs: Programmed Rules vs. Derived Rules
             Maria Aponte, Jose Fernandez, and Phillipe Roussel (Simon
             Bolivar Univ, Venezuela)

          2. Implementing Parallel Algorithms in Concurrent Prolog:
             The MAXFLOW Experience
             Lisa Hellerstein (MIT,MA) and Ehud Shapiro (Weizmann
             Inst. of Tech, Israel)

          Session 5: Knowledge Representation and Data Bases
          __________________________________________________

          1. A Knowledge Assimilation Method for Logic Databases
             T. Miyachi, S. Kunifuji, H. Kitakami, K. Furukawa, A.
             Takeuchi, and H. Yokota (ICOT, Japan)

          2. Knowledge Representation in Prolog/KR
             Hideyuki Nakashima (Electrotechnical Laboratory, Japan)

          3. A Methodology for Implementation of a Knowledge
             Acquisition System
             H. Kitakami, S. Kunifuji, T. Miyachi, and K. Furukawa
             (ICOT, Japan)

          Session 6: Logic Programming plus Functional Programming - I
          ____________________________________________________________

          1. FUNLOG = Functions + Logic: A Computational Model
             Integrating Functional and Logical Programming
             P.A. Subrahmanyam and J.-H. You (Univ of Utah)

          2. On Implementing Prolog in Functional Programming
             Mats Carlsson (Uppsala Univ, Sweden)

          3. On the Integration of Logic Programming and Functional Programming
             R. Barbuti, M. Bellia, G. Levi, and M. Martelli (Univ. of
             Pisa and CNUCE-CNR, Italy)

          Session 7: Logic Programming plus Functional Programming- II
          ____________________________________________________________

          1. Stream-Based Execution of Logic Programs
             Gary Lindstrom and Prakash Panangaden (Univ of Utah)

          2. Logic Programming on an FFP Machine
             Bruce Smith (Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

          3. Transformation of Logic Programs into Functional Programs
             Uday S. Reddy (Univ of Utah)

          Session 8: Logic Programming Implementation Issues
          __________________________________________________

          1. Efficient Prolog Memory Management for Flexible Control Strategies
             David Scott Warren (SUNY at Stony Brook, NY)

          2. Indexing Prolog Clauses via Superimposed Code Words and
             Field Encoded Words
             Michael J. Wise and David M.W. Powers, (Univ of New South
             Wales, Australia)

          3. A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover
             Mark E. Stickel, (SRI, CA)

          Session 9: Grammars and Parsing
          _______________________________

          1. A Bottom-up Parser Based on Predicate Logic: A Survey of
             the Formalism and Its Implementation Technique
             K. Uehara, R. Ochitani, O. Kakusho, and J. Toyoda (Osaka
             Univ, Japan)

          2. Natural Language Semantics: A Logic Programming Approach
             Antonio Porto and Miguel Filgueiras (Univ Nova de Lisboa,
             Portugal)

          3. Definite Clause Translation Grammars
             Harvey Abramson, (Univ. of British Columbia, Canada)

          Session 10: Aspects of Logic Programming Languages
          __________________________________________________

          1. A Primitive for the Control of Logic Programs
             Kenneth M. Kahn (Uppsala Univ, Sweden)

          2. LUCID-style Programming in Logic
             Derek Brough (Imperial College, England) and Maarten H.
             van Emden (Univ. of Waterloo, Canada)

          3. Semantics of a Logic Programming Language with a
             Reducibility Predicate
             Hisao Tamaki (Ibaraki Univ, Japan)

          4. Object-Oriented Programming in Prolog
             Carlo Zaniolo (Bell Labs, New Jersey)

          Session 11: Theory of Logic Programming
          _______________________________________

          1. The Occur-check Problem in Prolog
             David Plaisted (Univ of Illinois)

          2. Stepwise Development of Operational and Denotational
             Semantics for Prolog
             Neil D. Jones (Datalogisk Inst, Denmark) and Alan Mycroft
             (Edinburgh Univ, Scotland)
         ___________________________________________________________


                           An Introduction to Prolog

                          A Tutorial by Dr. Ken Bowen

          Outline of the Tutorial

          -  AN OVERVIEW OF PROLOG
          -  Facts, Databases, Queries, and Rules in Prolog
          -  Variables, Matching, and Unification
          -  Search Spaces and Program Execution
          -  Non-determinism and Control of Program Execution
          -  Natural Language Processing with Prolog
          -  Compiler Writing with Prolog
          -  An Overview of Available Prologs

          Who Should Take the Tutorial

          The tutorial is intended for both managers and programmers
          interested in understanding the basics of logic programming
          and especially the language Prolog. The course will focus on
          direct applications of Prolog, such as natural language
          processing and compiler writing, in order to show the power
          of logic programming. Several different commercially
          available Prologs will be discussed and compared.

          About the Instructor

          Dr. Ken Bowen is a member of the Logic Programming Research
          Group at Syracuse University in New York, where he is also a
          Professor in the School of Computer and Information
          Sciences. He has authored many papers in the field of logic
          and logic programming. He is considered to be an expert on
          the Prolog programming language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
104
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 83 11:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox.vpi@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for machine readable volumes, info. on retrieval
-BODY-           projects

   Please send details of how to obtain any machine readable documents such
as books, reference volumes, encyclopedias, dictionaries, journals, etc.
These would be utilized for experiments in information retrieval.  This
is not aimed at large bibliographic databases but rather at finding
a few medium to long items that exist both in book form and full text
computer tape versions (readable under UNIX or VMS).
   Information on existing or planned projects for retrieval of passages
(e.g., paragraphs or pages) from books, encyclopedias, electronic mail
digests, etc. would also be helpful.
     I look forward to your reply.  Thanks in advance, Ed Fox.
Dr. Edward A. Fox, Dept. of Computer Science, 562 McBryde Hall,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU or Virginia Tech),
Blacksburg, VA 24061; (703)961-5113 or 6931; fox%vpi@csnet-relay via csnet,
foxea%vpivm1.bitnet@berkeley via bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Nov 83 22:47:27-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!leff @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: lisp productivity question - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4149

Is anybody aware of study's on productivity studies for lisp?

1. Can lisp programmers program in lisp at the same number of
   lines per day,week,month as in 'regular' languages like pascal, pl/1, etc.

2. Has anybody tried to write a fairly large program that normally would
   be done in lisp in a regular language and compared the number of lines
   ratio.

In APL, a letter to Comm. ACM reported that APL programs took one fifth
the number of lines as equivalent programs in regular language and took
about twice as long per line to debug.  Thus APL improved the productivity
to get a function done by about a factor of two.  I am curious if anything
similar has been done for lisp.

  [One can, off course, write any APL program body as a single line.
  I suspect it would not take much longer to write that way, but it
  would be impossible to modify a week later.  Much the same could be
  said for undocumented and poorly structured Lisp code.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 83 21:01:33-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!akgua!psuvax!lewis @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:Re: just a reminder... - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.359

Why should it be dangerous to have machines treating the poor?  There
is no reason to believe that human experts will always be superior to
machines; in fact, a carefully designed expert system could embody all
the skill of the world's best diagnosticians.  In addition, an expert
system would never get tired or complain about its pay.  On the
other hand, perhaps you are worried about the machine lacking 'human'
insight or compassion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that these
qualities can or should be built into such a system.  Perhaps we will
see a new generation of medical personnel whose job will be to use the
available AI facilities to make the most accurate diagnoses, and help
patients interface with the system.  This will provide patients with
the best medical knowledge available, and still allow personal interaction
between patients and technicians.

>jim lewis

psuvax!lewis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 83 22:46:53-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: just a reminder... - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4127

Re sending machines where doctors won't go: do you really think that it's
better that poor people not be treated at all than treated by a machine?
That's a bit much for me to swallow.

                                                James Jones

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 83 19:37:14-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!Anonymous @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Capitalistic AICapitalistic AI - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4071

        Have you had your advisor leave to make megabucks in industry?

        Seriously, I feel that this is a major problem for AI.  There
is an extremely limited number of AI professors and a huge demand from
venture capitalists to set them up in a new company.  Even fresh PhD's
are going to be disappearing into industry when they can make several
times the money they would in academia.  The result is an acute (no
make that terminal) shortage of professors to oversee the new research
generation. The monetary imbalance can only grow as AI grows.

        At this university (UI) there are lots (hundreds?) of undergrads
who want to study AI; and about 8 professors to teach them. Maybe the
federal government ought to recognize that this imbalance hurts our
technological competitiveness. What will prevent academic flight?
Will IBM, Digital, and WANG support professors or will they start
hiring them away?

        Here are a few things needed to keep the schools strong:

                1) Higher salaries for profs in "critical areas."
                   (maybe much higher)

                2) Long term funding of research centers.
                   (buildings, equipment, staff)

                3) University administration support for capitalizing
                   on the results of research, either through making
                   it easy for a professor to maintain a dual life, or
                   by setting up a university owned company to develop
                   and sell the results of research.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 83 17:26:03-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!sjuvax!bbanerje @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Problem with Horn Clauses.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sjuvax.140

As a novice to Prolog, I have a problem determining whether a
clause is Horn, or non Horn.

I understand that a clause of the form :

             A + ~B + ~C is a Horn Clause,

While one of the form :

            A + B + ~C is non Horn.

However, my problem comes when trying to determine if the
following Clause is Horn or non-Horn.








                           ------------\
                          /          _  \
                         /_________ / \__**
                        _#        #      **
                       (_   o   o _)        __________
                         xx   !  xx        ! HO HO HO !
                         xxx \_/xxx      __/-----------
                         xxxxxxxxxx

Happy Holidays Everyone!

>- Binayak Banerjee
{bpa!astrovax!burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11/23/83 11:48:29
-FROM-
From: AGRE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: John Batali at the AI Revolving Seminar 30 November
-BODY-
                      [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC]

John Batali
Trying to build an introspective problem-solver

Wednesday 30 November at 4PM
545 Tech Sq 8th floor playroom

Abstract:

I'm trying to write a program that understands how it works, and uses
that understanding to modify and improve its performance.  In this
talk, I'll describe what I mean by "an introspective problem-solver",
discuss why such a thing would be useful, and give some ideas about
how one might work.

We want to be able to represent how and why some course of action is
better than another in certain situations.  If we take reasoning to be
a kind of action, then we want to be able to represent considerations
that might be relevant during the process of reasoning.  For this
knowledge to be useful the program must be able to reason about itself
reasoning, and the program must be able to affect itself by its
decisions.

A program built on these lines cannot think about every step of its
reasoning -- because it would never stop thinking about "how to think
about" whatever it is thinking about.  On the other hand, we want it
to be possible for the program to consider any and all of its
reasoning steps.  The solution to this dilemma may be a kind of
"virtual reasoning" in which a program can exert reasoned control over
all aspects of its reasoning process even if it does not explicitly
consider each step.  This could be implemented by having the program
construct general reasoning plans which are then run like programs in
specific situations.  The program must also be able to modify
reasoning plans if they are discovered to be faulty.  A program with
this ability could then represent itself as an instance of a reasoning
plan.

Brian Smith's 3-LISP achieves what he calls "reflective" access and
causal connection: A 3-LISP program can examine and modify the state
of its interpreter as it is running.  The technical tricks needed to
make this work will also find their place in an introspective
problem-solver.

My work has involved trying to make sense of these issues, as well as
working on a representation of planning and acting that can deal with
real world goals and constraints as well as with those of the planning
and plan-execution processes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Nov 1983 1413-PST
-FROM-
From: Rob-Kling <Kling.UCI-20B@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Social Impacts Graduate Program at UC-Irvine
-BODY-

                                     CORPS

                                    -------

                             A Graduate Program on

                 Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society

                    at the University of California, Irvine


          This interdisciplinary program at the University of California,
     Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
     investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
     which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.

          The primary educational opportunities are a PhD programs in the
     Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and PhD
     programs in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).  Students in each
     program can specialize in studying the social dimensions of computing.
     Several students have recieved graduate degrees from ICS and GSM for
     studying topics in the CORPS program.

          The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
     interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's.  The faculty and
     students in the CORPS program have approached them with methods drawn
     from the social sciences.

          The CORPS program focuses upon four related areas of inquiry:

      1.  Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
          computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
          society.

      2.  Examining the social dimensions of the work and industrial worlds
          in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
          disseminated, deployed, and sustained.

      3.  Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
          deployment and use of computer-based technologies.

      4.  Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
          development and use of computing in pro-social ways.


          Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
     systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
     myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
     expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
     command and control systems, and computing at home.  The questions
     vary from study to study.  They have included questions about the
     effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
     the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
     cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
     and their social carrying costs.

          The CORPS program at Irvine has a distinctive orientation -

     (i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,

     (ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
           organizations,

     (iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
           vivo" in ordinary settings, and

     (iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.



              Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS


          The primary faculty in the CORPS program hold appointments in the
     Department of Information and Computer Science and the Graduate School
     of Management.  Additional faculty in the School of Social Sciences,
     and the Program on Social Ecology, have collaborated in research or
     have taught key courses for students in the CORPS program.  Research
     is administered through an interdisciplinary research institute at UCI
     which is part of the Graduate Division, the Public Policy Research
     Organization.

     Students who wish additional information about the CORPS program
     should write to:

               Professor Rob Kling (Kling.uci-20b@rand-relay)
               Department of Information and Computer Science
               University of California, Irvine
               Irvine, Ca. 92717

                                     or to:

               Professor Kenneth Kraemer
               Graduate School of Management
               University of California, Irvine
               Irvine, Ca. 92717

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
105
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 1983 12:25-PST
-FROM-
From: dietz%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: dietz%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The AI Challenge
-BODY-
I too am skeptical about expert systems.  Their attraction seems to be
as a kind of intellectual dustbin into which difficulties can be swept.
Have a hard problem that you don't know (or that no one knows) how to
solve?  Build an expert system for it.

Ken Laws' idea of an expert system as a very modular, hackable program
is interesting.  A theory or methodology on how to hack programs would
be interesting and useful, but would become another AI spinoff, I fear.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Nov 83 18:02:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: response to response to challenge
-BODY-
Tom,

        I thought you made some good points in your response to Ralph
Johnson in the AIList, but one of your claims is unsupported, important,
and quite possibly wrong. The claim I refer to is

        "Expert systems can be built, debugged, and maintained more cheaply
        than other complicated systems. And hence, they can be targeted at
        applications for which previous technology was barely adequate."

        I would be delighted if this could be shown to be true, because I
would very much like to show friends/clients in industry how to use AI to
solve their problems more cheaply.

        However, there are no formal studies that compare a system built
using AI methods to one built using other methods, and no studies that have
attempted to control for other causes of differences in ease of building,
debugging, maintaining, etc. such as differences in programmer experience,
programming language, use or otherwise of structured programming techniques,
etc..

        Given the lack of controlled, reproducible tests of the effectiveness
of AI methods for program development, we have fallen back on qualitative,
intuitive arguments. The same sort of arguments have been and are made for
structured programming, application generators, fourth-generation languages,
high-level languages, and ADA. While there is some truth in the various
claims about improved programmer productivity they have too often been
overblown as The Solution To All Our Problems. This is the case with
claiming AI is cheaper than any other methods.

        A much more reasonable statement is that AI methods may turn out
to be cheaper / faster / otherwise better than  other methods if anyone ever
actually builds an effective and economically viable expert system.

        My own guess is that it is easier to develop AI systems because we
have been working in a LISP programming environment that has provided tools
like interpreted code, interactive debugging/tracing/editing, masterscope
analysis, etc.. These points were made quite nicely in Beau Shiel's recent
article in Datamation (Power Tools for Programming, I think was the title).
None of these are intrinsic to AI.

        Many military and industry managers who are supporting AI work are
going to be very disillusioned in a few years when AI doesn't deliver what
has been promised. Unsupported claims  about the efficacy of AI aren't going
to help. It could hurt our credibility, and thereby our funding and ability
to continue the basic research.

Mike Walker
WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Nov 83 17:40:44-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: response to response to challenge
-BODY-
Mike,

While I would certainly welcome the kinds of controlled studies that
you sketched in your msg, I think my claim is correct and can be
supported.  Virtually every expert system that has been built has been
targeted at tasks that were previously untouched by computing
technology.  I claim that the reason for this is that the proper
programming methodology was needed before these tasks could be
addressed.  I think the key parts of that methodology are (a) a
modular, explicit representation of knowledge, (b) careful separation
of this knowledge from the inference engine, and (c) an
expert-centered approach in which extensive interviews with experts
replace attempts by computer people to impose a normative,
mathematical theory on the domain.

Since there are virtually no cases where expert systems and
"traditional" systems have been built to perform the same task, it is
difficult to support this claim.  If we look at the history of
computers in medicine, however, I think it supports my claim.
Before expert systems techniques were available, many people
had attempted to build computational tools for physicians.  But these
tools suffered from the fact that they were often burdened with
normative theories and often ignored the clinical aspects of disease
diagnosis.  I blame these deficiencies on the lack of an
"expert-centered" approach.  These programs were also difficult to
maintain and could not produce explanations because they did not
separate domain knowledge from the inference engine.

I did not claim anywhere in my msg that expert systems techniques are
"The Solution to All Our Problems".  Certainly there are problems for
which knowledge programming techniques are superior.  But there are
many more for which they are too expensive, too slow, or simply
inappropriate.  It would be absurd to write an operating system in
EMYCIN, for example!  The programming advances that would allow
operating systems to be written and debugged easily are still
undiscovered.

You credit fancy LISP environments for making expert systems easy to
write, debug, and maintain.  I would certainly agree: The development
of good systems for symbolic computing was an essential prerequisite.
However, the level of program description and interpretation in EMYCIN
is much higher than that provided by the Interlisp system.  And the
"expert-centered" approach was not developed until Ted Shortliffe's
dissertation.

You make a very good point in your last paragraph:

        Many military and industry managers who are supporting AI work
        are going to be very disillusioned in a few years when AI
        doesn't deliver what has been promised. Unsupported claims
        about the efficacy of AI aren't going to help. It could hurt
        our credibility, and thereby our funding and ability to
        continue the basic research.

AI (at least in Japan) has "promised" speech understanding, language
translation, etc. all under the rubric of "knowledge-based systems".
Existing expert-systems techniques cannot solve these problems.  We
need much more research to determine what things CAN be accomplished
with existing technology.  And we need much more research to continue
the development of the technology.  (I think these are much more
important research topics than comparative studies of expert-systems
technology vs. other programming techniques.)

But there is no point in minimizing our successes.  My original
message was in response to an accusation that AI had no merit.
I chose what I thought was AI's most solid contribution: an improved
programming methodology for a certain class of problems.

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Nov 83 17:52:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Clarifying my "AI Challange"
-BODY-
Although I've written three messages on this topic already, I guess
I've never really addressed Ralph Johnson's main question:

        My question, though, is whether AI is really going to change
        the world any more than the rest of computer science is
        already doing.  Are the great promises of AI going to be
        fulfilled?

My answer: I don't know.  I view "the great promises" as goals, not
promises.  If you are a physicalist and believe that human beings are
merely complex machines, then AI should in principle succeed.
However, I don't know if present AI approaches will turn out to be
successful.  Who knows?  Maybe the human brain is too complex to ever
be understood by the human brain.  That would be interesting to
demonstrate!

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 83 5:00:32-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!leff @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The AI Challenge - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4118


There was a recent discussion of an AI project that was done at
ONR on determining the cause of a chemical spill in a large chemical
plant with various ducts and pipes and manholes, etc.  I argued that
the thing was just an application of graph algorithms and searching
techniques.

(That project was what could be done in three days by an AI team as
part of a challenge from ONR and quite possibly is not representative.)

Theorem proving using resolution is something that someone with just
a normal algorithms background would not simply come up with 'as an
application of normal algorithms.'  Using if-then rules perhaps might
be a search of the type you might see an algorithms book.  Although, I
don't expect the average CS person with a background in algorithms to
come up with that application although once it was pointed out it would
be quite intuitive.

One interesting note is that although most of the AI stuff is done in
LISP, a big theorem proving program discussed by Wos at a recent IEEE
meeting here was written in PASCAL.  It did some very interesting things.
One point that was made is that they submitted a paper to a logic journal.
Although the journal agreed the results were worth publishing, the "computer
stuff" had to go.

Continuing on this rambling aside, some people submitted results in
mechanical engineering using a symbolic manipulator referencing the use
of the program in a footnote.  The poor referee conscientiously
tried to duplicate the derivations manually.  Finally he noticed the
reference and sent a letter back saying that they must put symbolic
manipulation by computer in the covering.

Getting back to the original subject, I had a discussion with someone
doing research in daemons.  After he explained to me what daemons were,
I came to the conclusion they were a fancy name for what you described
as a hack.  A straightforward application of theorem proving or if-then
rule techniques would be inefficient or otherwise infeasable so one
puts an exception in to handle a certain kind of a case.  What is the
difference between that an error handler for zero divides rather than
putting a statement everywhere one does a division?

Along the subject of hacking, a DATAMATION article on 'Real Programmers
Don't Use PASCAL.' in which he complained about the demise of the person
who would modify a program on the fly using the switch register, etc.
He remarkeed at the end that some of the debugging techniques in
LISP AI environments were starting to look like the old style techniques
of assembler hackers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 83 22:29:44-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!notes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The AI Challenge - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1148

As an aside to this discussion, I'm curious as to just what everyone
thinks of when they think of AI.

I am a student at Purdue, which has absolutely nothing in the way of
courses on what *I* consider AI.  I have done a little bit of reading
on natural language processing, but other than that, I haven't had
much of anything in the way of instruction on this stuff, so maybe I'm
way off base here, but when I think of AI, I primarily think of:

        1) Natural Language Processing, first and foremost.  In
           this, I include being able to "read" it and understand
           it, along with being able to "speak" it.
        2) Computers "knowing" things - i.e., stuff along the
           lines of the famous "blocks world", where the "computer"
           has notions of pyramids, boxes, etc.
        3) Computers/programs which can pass the Turing test (I've
           always thought that ELIZA sort of passes this test, at
           least in the sense that lots of people actually think
           the computer understood their problems).
        4) Learning programs, like the tic-tac-toe programs that
           remember that "that" didn't work out, only on a much
           more grandiose scale.
        5) Speech recognition and understanding (see #1).

For some reason, I don't think of pattern recognition (like analyzing
satellite data) as AI.  After all, it seems to me that this stuff is
mostly just "if <cond 1> it's trees, if <cond 2> it's a road, etc.",
which doesn't really seem like "intelligence".

  [If it were that easy, I'd be out of a job.  -- KIL]

What do you think of when I say "Artificial Intelligence"?  Note that
I'm NOT asking for a definition of AI, I don't think there is one.  I
just want to know what you consider AI, and what you consider "other"
stuff.

Another question -- assuming the (very) hypothetical situation where
computers and their programs could be made to be "infinitely" intelligent,
what is your "dream program" that you'd love to see written, even though
it realistically will probably never be possible?  Jokingly, I've always
said that my dream is to write a "compiler that does what I meant, not
what I said".

>-Dave Curry
decvax!pur-ee!davy
eevax.davy@purdue

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
106
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Nov 83 22:32:29-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction
-BODY-
The ARPANET address in the announcement of the IEEE 1984 Logic Programming
Symposium should be PEREIRA@SRI-AI, not PERIERA@SRI-AI.

Fernando Pereira

[My apologies.  I am the one who inserted Dr. Pereira's name incorrectly.
I was attempting to insert information from another version of the same
announcement that also reached the AIList mailbox.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 83 6:04:05-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcvax!enea!ttds!alf @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Behavioristic definition of intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ttds.137

Doesn't the concept "intelligence" have some characteristics in common with
a concept such as "traffic"?  It seems obvious that one can measure such
entities as "traffic intensity" and the like thereby gaining an indirect
understanding of the conditions that determine the "traffic" but it seems
very difficult to find a direct measure of "traffic" as such.  Some may say
that "traffic" and "traffic intensity" are synonymous concepts but I don't
agree.  The common opinion among psychologists seems to be that
"intelligence" is that which is measured by an intelligence test.  By
measuring a set of problem solving skills and weighing the results together
we get a value.  Why not call it "intelligence" ?  The measure could be
applicable to machine intelligence also as soon as (if ever) we teach the
machines to pass intelligence tests.  It should be quite clear that
"intelligence" is not the same as "humanness" which is measured by a Turing
test.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 83 2:09:14 EST
-FROM-
From: A B Cooper III <abc@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Where wise men fear to tread
-BODY-
Being nothing more than an amateur observer on the AI scene,
I hesitate to plunge in like a fool.

Nevertheless, the roundtable on what constitutes intelligence
seems ed to cover many interesting hypotheses:

        survivability
        speed of solving problems
        etc

but one.  Being married to a professional educator, I've found
that the common working definition of intelligence is
the ability TO LEARN.

                The more easily one learns new material, the
                        more intelligent one is said to be.

                The more quickly one learns new material,
                        the more intelligent one is said to be.

                One who can learn easily and quickly across a
                        broad spectrum of subjects is said to
                        be more intelligent than one whose
                        abilities are concentrated in one or
                        two areas.

                One who learns only at an average rate, except
                        for one subject area in which he or she
                        excells far above the norms is thought
                        to be TALENTED rather than INTELLIGENT.

                It seems to be believed that the most intelligent
                        folks learn easily and rapidly without
                        regard to the level of material.  They
                        assimilate the difficult with the easy.


Since this discussion was motivated, at least in part, by the
desire to understand what an "intelligent" computer program should
do, I feel that we should re-visit some of our terminology.

In the earlier days of Computer Science, I seem to recall some
excitement about machines (computers) that could LEARN.  Was this
the precursor of AI?  I don't know.

If we build an EXPERT SYSTEM, have we built an intelligent machine
(can it assimilate new knowledge easily and quickly), or have we
produced a "dumb" expert?  Indeed, aren't many of our AI or
knowledge-based or expert systems really something like "dumb"
experts?

                       ------------------------

You might find the following interesting:

        Siegler, Robert S, "How Knowledge Influences Learning,"
AMERICAN SCIENTIST, v71, Nov-Dec 1983.

In this reference, Siegler addresses the questions of how
children  learn and what they know.  He points out that
the main criticism of intelligence tests (that they measure
'knowledge' and not 'aptitute') may miss the mark--that
knowledge and learning may be linked, in humans anyway, in
ways that traditional views have not considered.

                      -------------------------

In any case, should we not be addressing as a primary research
objective, how to make our 'expert systems' into better learners?

Brint Cooper
abc@brl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Nov 83 11:27:34-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: dambrosi @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbvax.373

Hume once said that when a discussion or argument seems to be
interminable and without discernable progress, it is worthwhile
to attempt to produce a concrete visualisation of the concept
being argued about. Often, he claimed, this will be IMPOSSIBLE
to do, and this will be evidence that the word being argued
about is a ringer, and the discussion pointless. In more
modern parlance, these concepts are definitionally empty
for most of us.
I submit the following definition as the best presently available:
Intelligence consists of perception of the external environment
(e.g. vision), knowledge representation, problem solving, learning,
interaction with the external environment (e.g. robotics),
and communication with other intelligent agents (e.g. natural
language understanding). (note the conjunctive connector)
If you can't guess where this comes from, check AAAI83
procedings table of contents.
                                bruce d'ambrosio
                                dambrosi%ucbernie@berkeley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 29 Nov 1983 11:43-PST
-FROM-
From: narain@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Challenge
-BODY-

AI is advanced programming.

We need to solve complex problems involving reasoning, and judgment. So
we develop appropriate computer techniques (mainly software)
for that. It is our responsibility to invent techniques that make development
of efficient intelligent computer programs easier, debuggable, extendable,
modifiable. For this purpose it is only useful to learn whatever we can from
traditional computer science and apply it to the AI effort.

Tom Dietterich said:

>> Your view of "knowledge representations" as being identical with data
>> structures reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the knowledge vs.
>> algorithms point.  Most AI programs employ very simple data structures
>> (e.g., record structures, graphs, trees).  Why, I'll bet there's not a
>> single AI program that uses leftist-trees or binomial queues!  But, it
>> is the WAY that these data structures are employed that counts.

We at Rand have ROSS (Rule Oriented Simulation System) that has been employed
very successfully for developing two large scale simulations (one strategic
and one tactical). One implementation of ROSS uses leftist trees for
maintaining event queues. Since these queues are in the innermost loop
of ROSS's operation, it was only sensible to make them as efficient as
possible. We think we are doing AI.

Sanjai Narain
Rand Corp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 83 11:31:54 PST
-FROM-
From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: defining AI, AI research methodology, jargon in AI (long msg)
-BODY-
This is in three flaming parts:   (I'll probably never get up the steam to
respond again,  so I'd better get it all out at once.)

Part I.  "Defining intelligence", "defining AI" and/or "responding to AI
challenges" considered harmful:  (enough!)

Recently, I've started avoiding/ignoring AIList since, for the most
part, it's been a endless discussion on "defining A/I" (or, most
recently) defending AI.  If I spent my time trying to "define/defend"
AI or intelligence, I'd get nothing done.  Instead, I spend my time
trying to figure out how to get computers to achieve some task -- exhibit
some behavior -- which might be called intelligent or human-like.
If/whenever I'm partially successful, I try to keep track about what's
systematic or insightful.  Both failure points and partial success
points serve as guides for future directions.  I don't spend my time
trying to "define" intelligence by BS-ing about it.  The ENTIRE
enterprise of AI is the attempt to define intelligence.

Here's a positive suggestion for all you AIList-ers out there:

I'd be nice to see more discussion of SPECIFIC programs/cognitive
models:  their Assumptions, their failures, ways to patch them, etc. --
along with contentful/critical/useful suggestions/reactions.

Personally, I find Prolog Digest much more worthwhile.  The discussions
are sometimes low level, but they almost always address specific issues,
with people often offering specific problems, code, algorithms, and
analyses of them.  I'm afraid AIList has been taken over by people who
spend so much time exchanging philosophical discussions that they've
chased away others who are very busy doing research and have a low BS
tolerance level.

Of course, if the BS is reduced, that means that the real AI world will
have to make up the slack.  But a less frequent digest with real content
would be a big improvement.  {This won't make me popular, but perhaps part
of the problem is that most of the contributors seem to be people who
are not actually doing AI, but who are just vaguely interested in it, so
their speculations are ill-informed and indulgent.  There is a use for
this kind of thing, but an AI digest should really be discussing
research issues.  This gets back to the original problem with this
digest -- i.e. that researchers are not using it to address specific
research issues which arise in their work.}

Anyway, here are some examples of task/domains topic that could be
addressed.  Each can be considered to be of the form:  "How could we get
a computer to do X":

          Model Dear Abby.
          Understand/engage in an argument.
          Read an editorial and summarize/answer questions about it.
          Build a daydreamer
          Give legal advice.
          Write a science fiction short story
               ...

{I'm an NLP/Cognitive modeling person -- that's why my list may look
bizzare to some people}

You researchers in robotics/vision/etc.  could discuss, say, how to build
a robot that can:

          climb stairs
             ...
          recognize a moving object
             ...
          etc.

People who participate in this digest are urged to:  (1) select a
task/domain, (2) propose a SPECIFIC example which represents
PROTOTYPICAL problems in that task/domain, (3) explain (if needed) why
that specific example is prototypic of a class of problems, (4) propose
a (most likely partial) solution (with code, if at that stage), and 4)
solicit contentful, critical, useful, helpful reactions.

This is the way Prolog.digest is currently functioning, except at the
programming language level.  AIList could serve a useful purpose if it
were composed of ongoing research discussions about SPECIFIC, EXEMPLARY
problems, along with approaches, their limitations, etc.

If people don't think a particular problem is the right one, then they
could argue about THAT.  Either way, it would elevate the level of
discussion.  Most of my students tell me that they no longer read
AIList.  They're turned off by the constant attempts to "defend or
define AI".

Part II.  Reply to R-Johnson

Some of R-Johnson's criticisms of AI seem to stem from viewing
AI strictly as a TOOLS-oriented science.

{I prefer to refer to STRUCTURE-oriented work (ie content-free) as
TOOLS-oriented work and CONTENT-oriented work as DOMAIN or
PROCESS-oriented.  I'm referring to the distinction that was brought up
by Schank in "The Great Debate" with McCarthy at AAAI-83 Wash DC).

In general,  tools-oriented work seems more popular and accepted
than content/domain-oriented work.  I think this is because:

     1.  Tools are domain independent, so everyone can talk about them
     without having to know a specific domain -- kind of like bathroom
     humor being more universally communicable than topical-political
     humor.

     2.  Tools have nice properties:  they're general (see #1 above);
     they have weak semantics (e.g. 1st order logic, lambda-calculus)
     so they're clean and relatively easy to understand.

     3.  No one who works on a tool need be worried about being accused
     of "ad hocness".

     4.  Breakthroughs in tools-research happen rarely,  but when it
     does,  the people associated with the breakthrough become
     instantly famous because everyone can use their tool (e.g. Prolog)

In contrast, content or domain-oriented research and theories suffer
from the following ills:

     1.  They're "ad hoc" (i.e.  referring to THIS specific thing or
     other).

     2.  They have very complicated semantics,  poorly understood,
     hard to extend, fragile, etc. etc.

However,  many of the most interesting problems pop up in trying
to solve a specific problem which, if solved,  would yield insight
into intelligence.  Tools, for the most part, are neutral with respect
to content-oriented research questions.  What does Prolog or Lisp
have to say to me about building a "Dear Abby" natural language
understanding and personal advice-giving program?  Not much.
The semantics of lisp or prolog says little about the semantics of the
programs which researchers are trying to discover/write in Prolog or Lisp.
Tools are tools.  You take the best ones off the shelf you can find for
the task at hand.  I love tools and keep an eye out for
tools-developments with as much interest as anyone else.  But I don't
fool myself into thinking that the availability of a tool will solve my
research problems.

{Of course no theory is exlusively one or the other.  Also, there are
LEVELS of tools & content for each theory.  This levels aspect causes
great confusion.}

By and large, AIList discussions (when they get around to something
specific) center too much around TOOLS and not PROCESS MODELS (ie
SPECIFIC programs, predicates, rules, memory organizations, knowledge
constructs, etc.).

What distinguishes AI from compilers, OS, networking, or other aspects
of CS are the TASKS that AI-ers choose.  I want computers that can read
"War and Peace" -- what problems have to be solved, and in what order,
to achieve this goal?  Telling me "use logic" is like telling me
to "use lambda calculus" or "use production rules".

Part III.   Use and abuse of jargon in AI.

Someone recently commented in this digest on the abuse of jargon in AI.
Since I'm from the Yale school, and since Yale commonly gets accused of
this, I'm going to say a few words about jargon.

Different jargon for the same tools is BAD policy.  Different jargon
to distinguish tools from content is GOOD policy.  What if Schank
had talked about "logic"  instead of "Conceptual Dependencies"?
What a mistake that would have been!  Schank was trying to specify
how specific meanings (about human actions) combine during story
comprehension.  The fact that prolog could be used as a tool to
implement Schank's conceptual dependencies is neutral with respect
to what Schank was trying to do.

At IJCAI-83  I heard a paper (exercise for the reader to find it)
which went something like this:

     The work of Dyer (and others) has too many made-up constructs.
     There are affects, object primitives, goals, plans, scripts,
     settings, themes, roles, etc.  All this terminology is confusing
     and unnecessary.

     But if we look at every knowledge construct as a schema (frame,
     whatever term you want here), then we can describe the problem much
     more elegantly.  All we have to consider are the problems of:
     frame activation, frame deactivation, frame instantiation, frame
     updating, etc.

Here, clearly we have a tools/content distinction.  Wherever
possible I actually implemented everything using something like
frames-with-procedural-attachment (ie demons).  I did it so that I
wouldn't have to change my code all the time.  My real interest,
however, was at the CONTENT level.  Is a setting the same as an emotion?
Does the task:  "Recall the last 5 restaurant you were at" evoke the
same search strategies as "Recall the last 5 times you accomplished x",
or "the last 5 times you felt gratitude."?  Clearly, some classes of
frames are connected up to other classes of frames in different ways.
It would be nice if we could discover the relevant classes and it's
helpful to give them names (ie jargon).  For example, it turns out that
many (but not all) emotions can be represented in terms of abstract goal
situations.  Other emotions fall into a completely different class (e.g.
religious awe, admiration).  In my program "love" was NOT treated as
(at the content level) an affect.

When I was at Yale, at least once a year some tools-oriented person
would come through and give a talk of the form:  "I can
represent/implement your Scripts/Conceptual-Dependency/
Themes/MOPs/what-have-you using my tool X" (where X = ATNs, Horn
clauses, etc.).

I noticed that first-year students usually liked such talks, but the
advanced students found them boring and pointless.  Why?  Because if
you're content-oriented you're trying to answer a different set of
questions, and discussion of the form:  "I can do what you've already
published in the literature using Prolog" simply means "consider Prolog
as a nice tool" but says nothing at the content level, which is usually
where the advanced students are doing their research.

I guess I'm done.  That'll keep me for a year.

                                                  -- Michael Dyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Nov 83 08:59:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Doug Lenat <LENAT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CS Colloq 11/29: John Seely Brown
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Tues, Nov 29, 3:45 MJH refreshments; 4:15 Terman Aud (lecture)

A COMPUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR A QUALITATIVE PHYSICS--
Giving computers "common-sense" knowledge about physical mechanisms

John Seely Brown
Cognitive Sciences
Xerox, Palo Alto Research Center

Humans appear to use a qualitative causal calculus in reasoning about
the behavior  of their physical environment.   Judging from the kinds
of  explanations humans give,  this calculus is  quite different from
the classical physics taught in classrooms.  This raises questions as
to  what this  (naive) physics  is like, how  it helps  one to reason
about the physical world and  how to construct a formal calculus that
captures this kind of  reasoning.  An analysis of this calculus along
with a system, ENVISION, based on it will be covered.

The goals  for the qualitative physics are i)  to be far simpler than
classical  physics and  yet  retain  all the  important  distinctions
(e.g., state,  oscillation, gain,  momentum), ii)  to produce  causal
accounts of  physical mechanisms,  and  (3) to  provide a  logic  for
common-sense, causal  reasoning  for the  next generation  of  expert
systems.

A new  framework for  examining causal  accounts has  been  suggested
based  on using  collections  of  locally interacting  processors  to
represent physical mechanisms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
107
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 83 16:57:39-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!franka @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: lisp productivity question - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekcad.145

        I don't have any documentation, but I heard once from an attendee
at a workshop on design automation that someone had reported a 5:1 productivity
improvement in LISP vs. C, PASCAL, etc. From personal experience I know this
to be true, also. I once wrote a game program in LISP in two days. I later
spent two weeks debugging the same game in a C version (I estimated another
factor of 4 for a FORTRAN version). The nice thing about LISP is not that
the amount of code written is less (although it is, usually by a factor of
2 to 3), but that its environment (even in the scrungy LISPs) is much easier
to debug and modify code in.

                                        From the truly menacing,
   /- -\                                but usually underestimated,
    <->                                 Frank Adrian
                                        (tektronix!tekcad!franka)

[A caveat: Lisp is very well suited to the nature of game programs.
A fair test would require that data processing and numerical analysis
problems be included in the mix of test problems.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 83 11:03 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Psychology Today
-BODY-
The December issue of Psychology Today (V 17, #12) has some more articles
that may be of interest to AI people. The issue is titled "USER FRIENDLY"
and talks about technological advances that have made machines easier.

The articles of interest are:

On Papert, Minsky, and John Anderson            page 26

An Article written by McCarthy                  page 46

An Interview with Alan Kay                      Page 50

(why they call him the Grand old Man is
 beyond me, Alan is only 43)


                                        - steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Nov 83 18:36:01-EST
-FROM-
From: Albert Boulanger <ABOULANGER@BBNG.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learning Expert systems
-BODY-
Re: Brint Cooper's remark on non-learning expert systems being "dumb":

Yes, some people would agree with you. In fact, Dr. R.S. Michalski's group
at the U of Illinois is building an Expert System, ADVISE, that incorporates
learning capabilities.

Albert Boulanger
ABOULANGER@BBNG

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 09:07 PST
-FROM-
From: NNicoll.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Intelligence"
-BODY-
I see Intelligence as the sophistication of the deep structure
mechanisms that generate both thought and behavior.  These structures
(per Albus), work as cross-coupled hierarchies of phase-locked loops,
generating feedback hypotheses about the stimulus at each level of the
hierarchy.  These feedback hypotheses are better at predicting and
matching the stimulus if the structure holds previous patterns that are
similar to the present stimulus.  Therefore, intelligence is a function
of both the amount of knowledge possible to bring to bear on pattern
matching a present problem (inference), and the number of levels in the
structure of the hierarchy the organism (be it mechanical or organic)
can bring to bear on breaking the stimulus/pattern down into its
component parts and generate feedback hypotheses to adjust the organisms
response at each level.

I feel any structure sufficiently complex to exhibit intelligence, be it
a bird-brained idiot whose height of reasoning is "find fish - eat
fish", or "Deep Thought" who can break down the structures and reason
about a whole world, should be considered intelligent, but with
different "amounts" of intelligence, and possibly about different
experiences.  I do not think there is any "threshold" above which an
organism can be considered intelligent and below which they are not.
This level would be too arbitrary a structure for anything except very
delimited areas.

So, lets get on with the pragmatic aspects of this work, creating better
slaves to do our scut work for us, our reasoning about single-mode
structures too complex for a human brain to assimilate, our tasks in
environments too dangerous for organic creatures, and our tasks too
repetitious for the safety of the human brain/body structure, and move
to a lower priority the re-creation of pseudo-human "intelligence".  I
think that would require a pseudo-human brain structure (combining both
"Emotion" and "Will") that would be interesting only in research on
humanity (create a test-bed wherein experiments that are morally
unacceptable when performed on organic humans could be entertained).

Nick Nicoll

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 83 20:47:33-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intelligence and Categorization
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsla.461

        From:  AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay
          (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications Mgr.)

               I think Tom Portegys' comment in 1:98 is very true.
          Knowing whether or not a thing is intelligent, has a soul,
          etc., is quite helpful in letting us categorize it.  And,
          without that categorization, we're unable to know how to
          understand it.  Two minor asides that might be relevant in
          this regard:

               1) There's a school of thought in the fields of
          linguistics, folklore, anthropology, and folklore, which is
          based on the notion (admittedly arguable) that the only way
          to truly understand a culture is to first record and
          understand its native categories, as these structure both
          its language and its thought, at many levels.  (This ties in
          to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language structures
          culture, not the reverse...)  From what I've read in this
          area, there is definite validity in this approach.  So, if
          it's reasonable to try and understand a culture in terms of
          its categories (which may or may not be translatable into
          our own culture's categories, of course), then it's equally
          reasonable for us to need to categorize new things so that
          we can understand them within our existing framework.

Deciding whether a thing is or is not intelligent seems to be a hairier
problem than "simply" categorizing its behavior and other attributes.

As to point #1, trying to understand a culture by looking at how it
categorizes does not constitute a validation of the process of
categorization (particularly in scientific endeavours).   Restated: There
is no connection between the fact that anthropologists find that studying
a culture's categories is a very powerful tool for aiding understanding,
and the conclusion that we need to categorize new things to understand them.

I'm not saying that categorization is useless (far from it), but Sapir-Whorf's
work has no direct bearing on this subject (in my view).

What I am saying is that while deciding to treat something as "intelligent",
e.g., a computer chess program, may prove to be the most effective way of
dealing with it in "normal life", it doesn't do a thing for understanding
the thing.   If you choose to classify the chess program as intelligent,
what has that told you about the chess program?   If you classify it
as unintelligent...?   I think this reflects more upon the interaction
between you and the chess program than upon the structure of the chess
program.

                        -- Larry West   UC San Diego
                        -- ARPA:        west@NPRDC
                        -- UUCP:        ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
                        --      or      ucbvax:sdcsvax:sdcsla:west

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 83 18:53:46-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rational Psych & Scientific Method
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2416

Well, I hope this is the last time ....

Again, I have been accused of ignorance; again the accustation is false.
Its fortunate only my words can make it into this medium.  I would
appreciate the termination of this discussion, but will not stand by
and be patronized without responding.  All sane and rational people,
hit the <del> and go on to the next news item please.

When I say psychologists do not do very good science I am talking about
the exact same thing you are talking about.  There is no escape. Those
"rigorous" experiments sometime succeed in establishing some "facts",
but they are sufficiently encumbered by lack of controls that one often
does not know what to make of them.  This is not to imply a critisism of
psychologists as intellectually inferior to chemists, but the field is
just not there yet.  Is Linguistics a science?  Is teaching a science?
Laws (and usually morals) prevent the experiments we need, to do REAL
controlled experiments; lack of understanding would probably prevent
immediate progress even in the absence of those laws.  Its a bit like
trying to make a "scientific" study of a silicon wafer with 1850's tools
and understanding of electronics.  A variety of interesting facts could
be established, but it is not clear that they would be very useful.  Tack
on some I/O systems and you could then perhaps allow the collection of
reams of timing and capability data and could try to corrollate the results
and try to build theories -- that LOOKS like science.  But is it? In
my book, to be a science, there must be a process of convergence in which
the theories more ever closer to explaining reality, and the experiments
become ever more precise.  I don't see much convergence in experimental
psychology. I see more of a cyclic nature to the theories ....
>---GaryFostel----
		  P.S. There are a few other sciences which do not deserve
		       the title, so don't feel singled out. Computer
		       Science for example.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 83 11:15 EST
-FROM-
From: Chris Moss <Moss.UPenn@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Lady or the Tiger
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Prolog Digest.]

Since it's getting near Christmas, here are a few puzzlers to
solve in Prolog. They're taken from Raymond Smullyan's delightful
little book of the above name. Sexist allusions must be forgiven.

There once was a king, who decided to try his prisoners by giving
them a logic puzzle. If they solved it they would get off, and
get a bride to boot; otherwise ...

The first day there were three trials. In all three, the king
explained, the prisoner had to open one of two rooms. Each room
contained either a lady or a tiger, but it could be that there
were tigers or ladies in both rooms.

On each room he hung a sign as follows:

                I                                    II
    In this room there is a lady        In one of these rooms there is
       and in the other room              a lady and in one of these
         there is a tiger                   rooms there is a tiger

"Is it true, what the signs say ?", asked the prisoner.
"One of them is true", replied the king, "but the other one is false"

If you were the prisoner, which would you choose (assuming, of course,
that you preferred the lady to the tiger) ?

                      -------------------------

For the second and third trials, the king explained that either
both statements were true, or both are false. What is the
situation ?

Signs for Trial 2:

                  I                                     II
       At least one of these rooms              A tiger is in the
            contains a tiger                        other room


Signs for Trial 3:

                  I                                     II
      Either a tiger is in this room             A lady is in the
      or a lady is in the other room                other room


Representing the problems is much more difficult than finding the
solutions.  The latter two test a sometimes ignored aspect of the
[Prolog] language.

Have fun !

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 1983 20:42:46-EST
-FROM-
From: Mark.Fox at CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI talk
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]

TITLE:          Databases and the Logic of Business
SPEAKER:        Ronald M. Lee, IIASA Austria & LNEC Portugal
DATE:           Monday, Nov. 28, 1983
PLACE:          MS Auditorium, GSIA

ABSTRACT: Business firms differentiate themsleves with special products,
services, etc.  Nevertheless, commercial activity requires certain
standardized concepts, e.g., a common temporal framework, currency of
exchange, concepts of ownership and contractual obligation.  A logical data
model, called CANDID, is proposed for modelling these standardized aspects
in axiomatic form.  The practical value is the transportability of this
knowledge across a wide variety of applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 83 18:58:27 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 12/1/83
-BODY-
                Professor Roman Lopez de Montaras
                Politecnico Universidade Barcelona

      A Learning System for Linguistic Categorization of Soft
                             Observations

We describe a human-guided feature classification system. A person
teaches the denotation of subjective linguistic feature descriptors to
the system by reference to examples.  The resulting knowledge base of
the system is used in the classification phase for interpetation of
descriptions.

Interpersonal descriptions are communicated via semantic translations of
subjective descriptions.  The advantage of a subjective linguistic
description over more traditional arithmomorphic schemes is their high
descriptor-feature consistency.  This is due to the relative simplicity
of the underlying cognitive process.  This result is a high feature
resolution for the overall cognitive perception and description
processes.

At present the system is still being used for categorization of "soft"
observations in psychological research, but application in any
person-machine system are conceivable.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
108
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Dec 83 16:08:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Editorial Policy
-BODY-
It has been suggested that the volume on this list is too high and the
technical content is too low.  Two people have recently written to me
suggesting that the digest be converted to a magazine format with
perhaps a dozen edited departments that would constitute alternating
special issues.

I appreciate their offers to serve as editors, but have no desire to
change the AIList format.  The volume has been high, but that is
typical of new lists.  I encourage technical contributions, but I do
not wish to discourage general-interest discussions.  AIList provides
a forum for material not appropriate to journals and conferences --
"dumb" questions, requests for information, abstracts of work in
progress, opinions and half-baked ideas, etc.  I do not find these a
waste of time, and attempts to screen any class of "uninteresting"
messages will only deprive those who are interested in them.  A major
strength of AIList is that it helps us develop a common vocabulary for
those topics that have not yet reached the textbook stage.

If people would like to split off their own sublists, I will be glad
to help.  That might reduce the number of uninteresting messages
each reader is exposed to, although the total volume of material would
probably be higher.  Narrow lists do tend to die out as their boom and
bust cycles gradually lengthen, but AIList could serve as the channel
by which members could regroup and recruit new members.  The chief
disadvantage of separate lists is that we would lose valuable
cross-fertilization between disciplines.

For the present, I simply ask that members be considerate when
composing messages.  Be concise, preferably stating your main points
in list form for easy reference.  Remember that electronic messages
tend to seem pugnacious, so that even slight sarcasm may arouse
numerous rebuttals and criticisms.  It is unnecessary to marshall
massive support for every claim since you will have the opportunity to
reply to critics.  Also, please keep in mind that AIList (under my
moderatorship) is primarily concerned with AI and pattern recognition,
not psychology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, or any other topic
that has its own major following.  We welcome any material that
advances the progress of intelligent machines, but the hard-core
discussions from other disciplines should be directed elsewhere.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Nov 83 21:09:12-PST
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Dyer's flame
-BODY-
    In this life of this list a number of issues, among them intelligence,
parallelism and AI, defense of AI, rational psychology, and others have
been maligned as "pointless" or whatever. Without getting involved in a
debate on "philosophy" vs. "real research", a quick scan of these topics
shows them to be far from pointless. I regret that Dyer's students have
stopped reading this list; perhaps they should follow his advice of submitting
the right type of article to this list.

    As a side note, I am VERY interested in having people outside of mainstream
AI participate in this list; while one sometimes wades through muddled articles
of little value, this is more than repaid by the fresh viewpoints and
occasional gem that would have been otherwise never been found.

    Ken Laws has done an excellent job grouping the articles by interest and
topic; uninterested readers can then skip reading an entire volume, if the
theme is uninteresting. A greater number of articles submitted can only
improve this process; the burden is on those unsatisfied with the content of
this board to submit them. I would welcome submissions of the kind suggested
by Dr. Dyer, and hope that others will follow his advice and try to lead the
board to whatever avenue they think is the most interesting. There's room
here for all of us...

David Rogers
DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Nov 83 22:24:14-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tools
-BODY-
I agree with Michael Dyer's comments on the lack of substantive
material in this list and on the importance of dealing with
new "real" tasks rather than using old solutions of old problems
to show off one's latest tool. However, I feel like adding two
comments:

1. Some people (me included) have a limited supply of "writing energy"
to write serious technical stuff: papers, proposals and the like.
Raving about generalities, however, consumes much less of that energy
per line than the serious stuff. The people who are busily writing
substantive papers have no energy left to summarize them on the net.

2. Very special tools, in particular fortunate situations
("epiphanies"?!) can bring a new and better level of understanding of a
problem, just by virtue of what can be said with the new tool, and
how. Going the other direction, we all know that we need to change our
tools to suit our problems. The paradigmatic relation between subject
and tool is for me the one between classical physics and mathematical
analysis, where tool and subject are intimately connected but yet
distinct. Nothing of the kind has yet happened in AI (which shouldn't
surprise us, seeing at how long it took to develop that other
relationship...).

Note: Knowing of my involvement with Prolog/logic programming, some
reader of this might be tempted to think "Ahah! what he is really
driving at is that logic/Horn clauses/Prolog [choose one] is that kind
of tool for AI. Let me kill that presumption in the bud, these tool
addicts are dangerous!" Gentle reader, save your flame! Only time will
show whether anything of the kind is the case, and my private view on
the subject is sufficiently complicated (confused?) that if I could
disentangle it and write about it clearly I would have a paper rather
than a net message...

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Nov 83 11:58:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: jargon
-BODY-
I understand Dyer's comments on what he calls the tool/content distinction.
But it seems to me that the content distinctions he rightly thinks are
important can often be expressed in terms of tools, and that it would be
clearer to do so.  He talked about handling one's last trip to the restaurant
differently from the last time one is in love.  I agree that this is an
important distinction to make.  I would like to see the difference expressed
in "tools", e.g., "when handling a restaurant trip (or some similar class of
events) our system does a chronological search down its list of events, but
when looking for love, it does a best first search on its list of personal
relationships."  This is clearer and communicates more than saying the system
has a "love-MOP" and a "restaurant-script".  This is only a made up example
>- I am not saying Mr. Dyer used the above words or that he does not explain
things well.  I am just trying to construct a non-personal example of the
kind of thing to which I object, but that occurs often in the literature.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 13:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: McCarthy and 'mental' states
-BODY-
In the December Psychology Today John McCarthy has a short article that
raises a fairly contentious point.

In his article he talks about how it is not necessarily a bad thing that
people attribute "human" or what the calls 'mental' attributes to complex
systems. Thus when someone anthropomorphises the actions of his/her
car, boat, or terminal, one is engaging in a legitimate form of description
of a complex process.

Indeed he argues further that while currently most computer programs
can still be understood by their underlying mechanistic properties,
eventually complex expert systems will only be capable of being described
by attributing 'mental' states to them.

                                 ----

I think this is the proliferation of jargon and verbiage that
Ralph Johnson noted is associated with
a large segment of AI work. What has happened is not a discovery or
emulation of cognitive processes, but a break-down of certain weak
programmers' abilities to describe the mechanical characteristics of
their programs. They then resort to arcane languages and to attributing
'mental' characteristics to what are basically fuzzy algorithms that
have been applied to poorly formalized or poorly characterized problems.
Once the problems are better understood and are given a more precise
formal characterization, one no longer needs "AI" techniques.

                                        - Steven Gutfreund

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 83 23:04:58-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!Anonymous @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Clarifying my 'AI Challange' - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4190

re: The Great Promises of AI

Beware the promises of used car salesmen.  The press has stories to
sell, and so do the more extravagant people within AI.  Remember that
many of these people had to work hard to convince grantmakers that AI
was worth their money, back in the days before practical applications
of expert systems began to pay off.

It is important to distinguish the promises of AI from the great
fantasies that have been speculated by the media (and some AI
researchers) in a fit of science fiction.  AI applications will
certainly be diverse and widespread (thanks no less to the VLSI
people).  However, I hope that none of us really believes that machines
will possess human general intelligence any time soon.  We banter about
such stuff hoping that when ideas fly, at least some of them will be
good ones.  The reality is that nobody sees a clear and brightly lit
path from here to super-intelligent robots.  Rather we see hundreds of
problems to be solved.  Each solution should bring our knowledge and
the capabilities of our programs incrementally forward.  But let's not
kid ourselves about the complexity of the problems.  As it has already
been pointed out, AI is tackling the hard problems -- the ones for
which nobody knows any algorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 83 10:29 PST
-FROM-
From: Tong.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Challenge
-BODY-
  Tom Dietterich:
  Your view of "knowledge representations" as being identical with data
  structures reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the knowledge vs.
  algorithms point. . .Why, I'll bet there's not a single AI program that
  uses leftist-trees or binomial queues!

  Sanjai Narain:
  We at Rand have ROSS. . .One implementation of ROSS uses leftist trees for
  maintaining event queues. Since these queues are in the innermost loop
  of ROSS's operation, it was only sensible to make them as efficient as
  possible. We think we are doing AI.

Sanjai, you take the letter but not the spirit of Tom's reflection. I
don't think any AI researcher would object to improving the efficiency
of her program, or using traditional computer science knowledge to help.
But - look at your own description of ROSS development! Clearly you
first conceptualized ROSS ("queues are the innermost loop") and THEN
worried about efficiency in implementing your conceptualization ("it was
only sensible to make them as efficient as possible"). Traditional
computer science can shed much light on implementation issues, but has
in practice been of little direct help in the conceptualization phase
(except occasionally by analogy and generalization). All branches of
computer science share basic interests such as how to represent and use
knowledge, but AI differs in the GRAIN SIZE of the knowledge it
considers.  It would be very desirable to have a unified theory of
computer science that provides ideas and tools along the continuum of
knowledge grain size; but we are not quite there, yet. Until that time,
perceiving the different branches of computer science as contributing
useful knowledge to different levels of implementation (e.g. knowledge
level, data level, register transfer level, hardware level) is probably
the best integration our short term memories can handle.

Chris Tong

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 83 22:25:35-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RJ vs AI: Science vs Engineering? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4187

In response to Johnson vs AI, and Tom Dietterich's defense:

The emergence of the knowledge-based perspective is only the beginning of
what AI has achieved and is working on. Obvious corollaries: knowledge
acquisition and extraction, representation, inference engines.

Some rather impressive results have been obtained here. One with which I
am most familiar is work being done at Edinburgh by the Machine Intelligence
Research Unit on knowledge extraction via induction from user-supplied
examples (the induction program is commercially available). A paper by
Shapiro (Alen) & Niblett in Computer Chess 3 describes the beginnings of the
work at MIRU. Shapiro has only this month finished his PhD, which effectively
demonstrates that human experts, with the aid of such induction programs,
can produce knowledge bases that surpass the capabilities of any expert
as regards their completeness and consistency. Shapiro synthesized a
totally correct knowledge base for part of the King-and-Pawn against
King-and-Rook chess endgame, and even that relatively small endgame
was so complex that, though it was treated in the chess literature, the
descriptions provided by human experts consisted largely of gaps. Impressively,
3 chess novices managed (again with the induction program) to achieve 99%
correctness in this normally difficult problem.

        The issue: even novices are better at articulating knowledge
        by means of examples than experts are at articulating the actual
        rules involved, *provided* that the induction program can represent
        its induced rules in a form intelligible to humans.

The long-term goal and motivation for this work is the humanization of
technology, namely the construction of systems that not only possess expert
competence, but are capable of communicating their reasoning to humans.
And we had better get this right, lest we get stuck with machines that run our
nuclear plants in ways that are perhaps super-smart but incomprehensible ...
until a crisis happens, when suddenly the humans need to understand what the
machine has been doing until now.

The problem: lack of understanding of human cognitive psychology. More
specifically, how are human concepts (even for these relatively easy
classification tasks) organized? What are the boundaries of 'intelligibility'?
Though we are able to build systems that function, in some ways, like a human
expert, we do not know much about what distinguishes brain-computable processes
from general algorithms.

But we are learning. In fact, I am tempted to define this as one criterion
distinguishing knowledge-based AI from other computing: the absolute necessity
of having our programs explain their own processing. This is close to demanding
that they also process in brain-compatible terms. In any case we will need to
know what the limits of our brain-machine are, and in what forms knowledge
is most easily apprehensible to it. This brings our end of AI very close to
cognitive psychology, and threatens to turn knowledge representation into a
hard science -- not just

        What does a system need, to be able to X?

but     How does a human brain produce behavior/inference X, and how do
        we implement that so as preserve maximal man-machine compatibility?

Hence the significance of the work by Shapiro, mentioned above: the
intelligibility of his representations is crucial to the success of his
knowledge-acquisition method, and the whole approach provides some clues on
how a humane knowledge representation might be scientifically determined.

A computer is merely a necessary weapon in this research. If AI has made little
obvious progress it may be because we are too busy trying to produce useful
systems before we know how they should work. In my opinion there is too little
hard science in AI, but that's understandable given its roots in an engineering
discipline (the applications of computers). Artificial intelligence is perhaps
the only "application" of computers in which hard science (discovering how to
describe the world) is possible.

We might do a favor both to ourselves and to psychology if knowledge-based AI
adopted this idea. Of course, that would cut down drastically on the number of
papers published, because we would have some very hard criteria about what
comprised a tangible contribution. Even working programs would not be
inherently interesting, no matter what they achieved or how they achieved it,
unless they contributed to our understanding of knowledge, its organization
and its interpretation. Conversely, working programs would be necessary only
to demonstrate the adequacy of the idea being argued, and it would be possible
to make very solid contributions without a program (as opposed to the flood of
"we are about to write this program" papers in AI).

So what are we: science or engineering? If both, let's at least recognize the
distinction as being valuable, and let's know what yet another expert system
proves beyond its mere existence.

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
109
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 83 17:59:53 PST
-FROM-
From: Tulin Mangir <tulin@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Material
-BODY-
      I am preparing a tutorial and a current bibliography, for IEEE,
of the work in the area of expert system applications to CAD and computer aided
testing as well as computer aided processing. Specific emphasis is
on LSI/VLSI design, testing and processing. I would like this
material to be as complete and as current as we can all make. So, if you
have any material in these areas that you would like me to include
in the notes, ideas about representation of structure, knowledge,
behaviour of digital circuits, etc., references you know of,
please send me a msg. Thanks.

Tulin Mangir <cs.tulin@UCLA-cs>
(213) 825-2692
      825-4943 (secretary)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 83 22:25:19-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: sri-unix!decvax!duke!mcnc!marcel@uiucdcs.UUCP (marcel )@CCA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: lisp productivity question - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4197

And now a plug from the logic programming people: try prolog for easy
debugging. Though it may take a while to get used to its modus operandi,
it has one advantage that is shared by no other language I know of:
rule-based computing with a clean formalism. Not to mention the ease
of implementing concepts such as "for all X satisfying P(X) do ...".
The end of cumbersome array traversals and difficult boolean conditions!
Well, almost. Not to mention free pattern matching. And I wager that
the programs will be even shorter in Prolog, primarily because of these
considerations. I have written 100-line Prolog programs which were
previously coded as Pascal programs of 2000 lines.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the chance to be obnoxious.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 83 09:47 EST
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp "productivity"
-BODY-
"A caveat: Lisp is very well suited to the nature of game programs.
A fair test would require that data processing and numerical analysis
problems be included in the mix of test problems."

A fair test of what?  A fair test of which language yields the greatest
productivity when applied to the particular mix of test problems, I
would think.  Clearly (deepfelt theological convictions to the contrary)
there is NO MOST-PRODUCTIVE LANGUAGE.  It depends on the problem set; I
like structured languages so I do my scientific programming in Ratfor,
and when I had to do it in Pascal it was awful, but for a different type
of problem Pascal would be just fine.

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 83 22:49:51-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!Anonymous @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Productivity & Anonymous Messages
-BODY-
  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4245

  The most incredible programming environment I have worked with to date is
  that of InterLisp.  The graphics-based trace and break packages on Xerox's
  InterLisp-D (not to mention the Lisp editor, file package, and the
  programmer's assistant) is, to say the least, addictive.  Ease of debugging
  has been combined with power to yield an environment in which program
  development/debugging is easy, fast and productive.  I think other languages
  have a long way to go before someone develops comparable environments for
  them.  Of course, part of this is due to the language (i.e., Lisp) itself,
  since programs written in Lisp tend to be easy to conceptualize and write,
  short, and readable.

[I will pass this message along to the Arpanet AIList readers,
but am bothered by its anonymous authorship.  This is hardly an
incriminating message, and I see no reason for the author to hide.
I do not currently reject anonymous messages out of hand, but I
will certainly screen them strictly.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Dec 83 07:37:04-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Press Release RE: Dr. William A. Woods
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

As of September 16, Chief Scientist directing all research in AI and related
technologies for Applied Expert Systems, Inc., Five Cambridge Center,
Cambridge, Mass 02142  (617)492-7322  net address Woods@BBND (same as before)
HL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 83 09:57:14 PST
-FROM-
From: Adolfo Di-Mare <v.dimare@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a new definition of intelligence
-BODY-
You're intelligence is directly proportional to the time it takes
you to bounce back after you're replaced by an <intelligent> computer.

As I'm not an economist, I won't argue on how intelligent we are...
Put in another way, is an expert that builds a machine that substitutes
him/er intelligent? If s/he is not, is the machine?

        Adolfo
              ///

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 83 20:37:31-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!bbncca!jsol @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Halting Problem Discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: bbncca.365

Can a method be formulated for deciding whether or not your are on the right
track? Yes. It's call interaction. Ask someone you feel you can trust about
whether or not you are getting anywhere, and to offer any advice to help you
get where you want to go.

Students do it all the time, they come to their teachers and ask them to
help them. Looping programs could decide that they have looped for as long
as they care to and reality check them. An algorithm to do this is available
if anyone wants it (read that to mean I will produce one).
>-
[--JSol--]

JSol@Usc-Eclc/JSol@Bbncca (Arpa)
JSol@Usc-Eclb/JSol@Bnl (Milnet)
{decvax, wjh12, linus}!bbncca!jsol

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: Bibbero.PMSDMKT
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Bibbero.PMSDMKT
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Big Brother and Block Modeling, Warning
-BODY-
               [Reprinted from the Human-Nets Digest.]

  [This application of pattern recognition seems to warrant mention,
  but comments on the desirability of such analysis should be directed
  to Human-Nets@RUTGERS. -- KIL]

The New York Times (Nov 20, Sunday Business Section) carries a warning
from two Yale professors against a new management technique that can
be misused to snoop on personnel through sophisticted mathematical
analysis of communications, including computer network usage.
Professors Scott Boorman, a Yale sociologist, and Paul Levitt,
research mathematician at Yale and Harvard (economics) who authored
the article also invented the technique some years ago.  Briefly, it
consists of computer-intensive analysis of personnel communications to
divide them into groups or "blocks" depending on who they communicate
with, whom they copy on messages, who they phone and who's calls don't
they return.  Blocks of people so identified can be classified as
dissidents, potential traitors or "Young Turks" about to split off
their own company, company loyalists, promotion candidates and so
forth.  "Guilt by association" is built into the system since members
of the same block may not even know each other but merely copy the
same person on memos.

The existence of an informal organization as a powerful directing
force in corporations, over and above the formal organization chart,
has been recognized for a long time.  The block analysis method
permits and "x-ray" penetration of these informal organizations
through use of computer on-line analysis which may act, per the
authors, as "judge and jury."  The increasing usage of electronic
mail, voice storage and forward systems, local networks and the like
make clandestine automation of this kind of snooping simple, powerful,
and almost inevitable.  The authors cite as misusage evidence the high
degree of interest in the method by iron curtain government agencies.
An early success (late 60's) was also demonstrated in a Catholic
monastery where it averted organizational collapse by identifying
members as loyalists, "Young Turks," and outcasts.  Currently,
interest is high in U.S. corporations, particularily the internal
audit departments seeking to identify dissidents.

As the authors warn, this revolution in computers and information
systems bring us closer to George Orwell's state of Oceania.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 1983 1629-EST
-FROM-
From: ELIZA at MIT-XX
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Announcement
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the MIT-AI bboard.]


Date:  Wednesday, December 7th, l983

Time:  Refreshments 3:30 P.M.
       Seminar      3:45 P.M.

Place: NE43-512A (545 Technology Square, Cambridge)


                    PROGRAMS ARE PREDICATES
                          C. A. R. Hoare
                        Oxford University

    A program is identified with the strongest predicate
    which describes every observation that might be made
    of a mechanism which executes the program.  A programming
    language is a set of programs expressed in a limited
    notation, which ensures that they are implementable
    with adequate efficiency, and that they enjoy desirable
    algebraic properties.  A specification S is a predicate
    expressed in arbitrary mathematical notation.  A program
    P meets this specification if

                            P ==> S .

    Thus a calculus for the derivation of correct programs
    is an immediate corollary of the definition of the
    language.

    These theses are illustrated in the design of two simple
    programming languages, one for sequential programming and
    the other for communicating sequential processes.

Host:  Professor John V. Guttag

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12/02/83 09:17:19
-FROM-
From: ROSIE at MIT-ML
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Seminar
-BODY-
                             [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                          DATE:    Thursday, December 8, 1983
                          TIME:    2.15 p.m.  Refreshments
                                   2.30 p.m.  Lecture
                          PLACE:   NE43-AI Playroom


                          Explainable Expert Systems

                                Bill Swartout
                      USC/Information Sciences Institute


Traditional methods for explaining programs provide explanations by converting
the code of the program to English.  While such methods can sometimes
adequately explain program behavior, they cannot justify it.  That is, such
systems cannot tell why what the system is doing is reasonable.  The problem
is that the knowledge required to provide these justifications was used to
produce the program but is itself not recorded as part of the code and hence
is unavailable.  This talk will first describe the XPLAIN system, a previous
research effort aimed at improving the explanatory capabilities of expert
systems.  We will then outline the goals and research directions for the
Explainable Expert Systems project, a new research effort just starting up at
ISI.

The XPLAIN system uses an automatic programmer to generate a consulting
program by refinement from abstract goals.  The automatic programmer uses two
sources of knowledge: a domain model, representing descriptive facts about the
application domain, and a set of domain principles, representing
problem-solving knowledge, to drive the refinement process forward.  As XPLAIN
creates an expert system, it records the decisions it makes in a refinement
structure.  This structure is then used to provide explanations and
justifications of the expert system.

Our current research focuses on three areas.  First, we want to extend the
XPLAIN framework to represent additional kinds of knowledge such as control
knowledge for efficient execution.  Second, we want to investigate the
compilation process that moves from abstract to specific knowledge.  While it
does seem that human experts compile their knowledge, they do not always use
the resulting specific methods.  This may be because the specific methods
often contain compiled-in assumptions which are usually (but not always)
correct.  Third, we intend to use the richer framework provided by XPLAIN for
enhanced knowledge acquisition.

HOST:  Professor Peter Szolovits

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
110
-DATE-
Date: 5 Dec 83 15:14:26 EST  (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Automated Manufacturing
-BODY-
I and some colleagues at University of Maryland are doing a literature
search on the use of AI techniques in Automated Manufacturing.
The results of the literature search will comprise a report to be
sent to the National Bureau of Standards as part of a research
contract.  We'd appreciate any relevant information any of you may
have--especially copies of papers or technical reports.  In
return, I can send you (on request) copies of some papers I have
published on that subject, as well as a copy of the literature
search when it is completed.  My mailing address is

                Dana S. Nau
                Computer Science Dept.
                University of Maryland
                College Park, MD 20742

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 Dec 83 08:27:28-PST
-FROM-
From: HPP Secretary <HPP-SECRETARY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Address for HPP
-BODY-
  [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

The HPP has moved.  Our new address is:

    Heuristic Programming Project
    Computer Science Department
    Stanford University
    701 Welch Road, Bldg. C
    Palo Alto, CA 94304

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 83 09:43:51 PST
-FROM-
From: Seth Goldman <seth@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programming environments are fine, but...
-BODY-
What are all of you doing with your nifty, adequate, and/or brain-damaged
computing environments?  Also, if we're going to discuss environments, it
would be more productive I think to give concrete examples of the form:

        I was trying to do or solve X
        Here is how my environment helped me OR
        This is what I need and don't yet have

It would also be nice to see some issues of AIList dedicated to presenting
1 or 2 paragraph abstracts of current work being pursued by readers and
contributors to this list.  How about it Ken?

        [Sounds good to me.  It would be interesting to know
        whether progress in AI is currentlyheld back by conceptual
        problems or just by the programming effort of building
        large and user-friendly systems.  -- KIL]

Seth Goldman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 5 December 1983 13:47:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: marcel on "lisp productivity question"
-BODY-
        I just thought I should mention that production system languages
share all the desirable features of Prolog mentioned in the previous
message, particularly being "rule-based computing with a clean formalism".
The main differences with the OPS family of languages is that OPS uses
primarily forward inference, instead of backwards inference, and a slightly
different matching mechanism.  Preferring one over the other depends, I
suspect, on whether you think in terms of proofs or derivations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 83 10:23:17 pst
-FROM-
From: evans@Nosc (Evan C. Evans)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vision & Such
-BODY-
Ken Laws in AIList Digest 1:99 states:  an  adequate  answer [to
the question of why computers can't see yet] requires a guess
at how it is that the human vision system can work in all cases.
I cannot answer Ken's question, but perhaps I  can provide some
useful input.

        language shapes culture    (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis)
        culture  shapes vision     (see following)
        vision   shapes language   (a priori)

The influence of culture on perception (vision) takes many forms.
A  statistical examination (unpublished) of the British newspaper
game "Where's the ball?" is worth consideration.  This  game  has
been appearing for some time in British, Australian, New Zealand,
& Fijian papers.  So far as I know, it has not yet made  its  ap-
pearance in U.S. papers.  The game is played thus:
        A photograph of some common sport  involving  a  ball  is
published  with  the ball erased from the picture & the question,
where's the ball?  Various members  of  the  readership  send  in
their guesses & that closest to the ball's actual position in the
unmodified photo wins.  Some time back the responses  to  several
rounds of this game were subjected to statistical analysis.  This
analysis showed that there were statistically  valid  differences
associated  with  the  cultural  background  of the participants.
This finding was particularly striking in Fiji  with  a  resident
population  comprising  several  very  different cultural groups.
Ball placement by the different groups tended to cluster at  sig-
nificantly  different  locations  in the picture, even for a game
like soccer that was well known & played by all.   It  is  unfor-
tunate that this work (not mine) has not been published.  It does
suggest two things: a.) a cultural influence on vision &  percep-
tion,  &  b.) a powerful means of conducting experiments to learn
more about this influence.  For instance, this same research  was
elaborated  into  various  TV displays designed to discover where
children of various age groups placed an unseen object  to  which
an  arrow  pointed.   The  children responded enthusiastically to
this new TV game, giving their answers by means of a  light  pen.
Yet  statistically significant amounts of data were collected ef-
ficiently & painlessly.
        I've constructed the loop above to suggest that  none  of
the  three:  vision, language, & culture should be studied out of
context.

E. C. Evans III

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 3 Dec 83 00:42:50-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mental states of machines
-BODY-
Steven Gutfreund's criticism of John McCarthy is unjustified.  I
haven't read the article in "Psychology Today", but I am familiar with
the notion put forward by JMC and condemned by SG.  The question can
be put in simple terms: is it useful to attribute mental states and
attitudes to machines? The answer is that our terms for mental states
and attitudes ("believe", "desire", "expect", etc...) represent a
classification of possible relationships between world states and the
internal (inacessible) states of designated individuals. Now, for
simple individuals and worlds, for example small finite automata, it
is possible to classify the world-individual relationships with simple
and tractable predicates. For more complicated systems, however, the
language of mental states is likely to become essential, because the
classifications it provides may well be computationally tractable in
ways that other classifications are not. Remember that individuals of
any "intelligence" must have states that encode classifications of
their own states and those of other individuals. Computational
representations of the language of mental states seem to be the only
means we have to construct machines with such rich sets of states that
can operate in "rational" ways with respect to the world and other
individuals.

SG's comment is analogous to the following criticism of our use of the
terms like "execution", "wait" or "active" when talking about the
states of computers: "it is wrong to use such terms when we all know
that what is down there is just a finite state machine, which we
understand so well mathematically."

Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 Dec 83 11:21:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: complexity of formal systems
-BODY-
  From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
  They then resort to arcane languages and to attributing 'mental'
  characteristics to what are basically fuzzy algorithms that have been applied
  to poorly formalized or poorly characterized problems.  Once the problems are
  better understood and are given a more precise formal characterization, one
  no longer needs "AI" techniques.

I think Professor McCarthy is thinking of systems (possibly not built yet)
whose complexity comes from size and not from imprecise formalization.  A
huge AI program has lots of knowledge, all of it may be precisely formalized
in first-order logic or some other well understood formalism, this knowledge
may be combined and used by well understood and precise inference algorithms,
and yet because of the (for practical purposes) infinite number of inputs and
possible combinations of the individual knowledge formulas, the easiest
(best? only?) way to desribe the behavior of the system is by attributing
mental characteristics.  Some AI systems approaching this complex already
exist.  This has nothing to do with "fuzzy algorithms" or "poorly formalized
problems", it is just the inherent complexity of the system.  If you think
you can usefully explain the practical behavior of any well-formalized system
without using mental characteristics, I submit that you haven't tried it on a
large enough system (e.g. some systems today need a larger address space than
that available on a DEC 2060 -- combining that much knowledge can produce
quite complex behavior).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 83 3:10:20-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!sjuvax!rbanerji@Ucb-
     Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Clarifying my "AI Challange"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sjuvax.157

        [...]
        I am reacting to Johnson, Helly and Dietterich.  I really liked
[Ken Laws'] technical evaluation of Knowledge-based programming. Basically
similar to what Tom also said in defense of Knowledge-based programming
but KIL said it much clearer.
        On one aspect, I have to agree with Johnson about expert systems
and hackery, though. The only place there is any attempt on the part of
an author to explain the structure of the knowledge base(s) is in the
handbook. But I bet that as the structures are changed by later authors
for various justified and unjustified reasons, they will not be clearly
explained except in vague terms.
        I do not accept Dietterich's explanation that AI papers are hard
to read because of terminology; or because what they are trying to do
are so hard. On the latter point, we do not expect that what they are
DOING be easy, just that HOW they are doing it be clearly explained:
and that the definition of clarity follow the lines set out in classical
scientific disciplines. I hope that the days are gone when AI was
considered some sort of superscience answerable to none. On the matter
of terminology, papers (for example) on algebraic topology have more
terminology than AI: terminology developed over a longer period of time.
But if one wants to and has the time, he can go back, back, back along
lines of reference and to textbooks and be assured he will have an answer.
In AI, about the only hope is to talk to the author and unravel his answers
carefully and patiently and hope that somewhere along the line one does not
get "well, there is a hack there..it is kind of long and hard to explain:
let me show you the overall effect"
        In other sciences, hard things are explained on the basis of
previously explained things. These explanantion trees are much deeper
than in AI; they are so strong and precise that climbing them may
be hard, but never hopeless.
        I agree with Helly in that this lack is due to the fact that no
attempt has been made in AI to have workers start with a common basis in
science, or even in scientific methodology. It has suffered in the past
because of this. When existing methods of data representation and processing
in theorem proving was found inefficient, the AI culture developed this
self image that its needs were ahead of logic: notwithstanding the fact
that the techniques they were using were representable in logic and that
the reason for their seeming success was in the fact that they were designed
to achieve efficiency at the cost (often high) of flexibility. Since
then, those words have been "eaten": but at considerable cost. The reason
may well be that the critics of logic did not know enough logic to see this.
In some cases, their professors did--but never cared to explain what the
real difficulty in logic was. Or maybe they believed their own propaganda.
        This lack of uniformity of background came out clear when Tom said
that because of AI work people now clearly understood the difference between
the subset of a set and the element of a set. This difference has been well
known at least since early this century if not earlier. If workers in AI
did not know it before, it is because of their reluctance to know the meaning
of a term before they use it. This has also often come from their belief
that precise definitions will rob their terms of their richness (not realising
that once they have interpreted their terms by a program, they have a precise
definition, only written in a much less comprehensible way: set theorists
never had any difficulty understanding the diffeence between subsets and
elements). If they were trained, they would know the techniques that are
used in Science for defining terms.
        I disagree with Helly that Computer Science in general is unscientific.
There has always been a precise mathematical basis of Theorem proving (AI,
actually) and in computation and complexity theory. It is true, however, that
the traditional techniques of experimental research have not been used in
AI at all: people have tried hard to use it in software, but seem to
be having difficulties.
        Would Helly disagree with me if I say that Newell and Simon's work
in computer modelling of psychological processes have been carried out
with at least the amount of scientific discipline that psychologists use?
I have always seen that work as one of the success stories in AI.  And
at least some psychologists seem to agree.

        I agree with Tom that AI will have to keep going even if someone
proves that P=NP. The reason is that many AI problems are amenable to
N^2 methods already: except that N is too big. In this connection I have
a question, in case someone can tell me. I think Rabin has a theorem
that given any system of logic and any computable function, there is
a true statement which takes longer to prove than that function predicts.
What does this say about the relation between P and NP, if anything?
        Too long already!

                                ..allegra!astrovax!sjuvax!rbanerji

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 83 13:51:36-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!ncsu!fostel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Expert Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2420

Are expert systems new? Different?  Well, how about an example.  Time
was, to run a computer system, one needed at least one operator to care
and feed for the system.  This is increasingly handled by sophisticated
operating systems.  As such is an operating system an "expert system"?

An OS is usually developed using a style of programming which is quite
different from those of wimpy, unskilled, un-enlightenned applications
programmers.  It would be very hard to build an operating system in the
applications style.  (I claim).  The people who developed the style and
practice it to build systems are not usually AI people although I would
wager the presonality profiles would be quite similar.

Now, that is I think a major point.  Are there different type of people in
Physics as compared to Biology?  I would say so, having seen some of each.
Further, biologists do research in ways that seem different (again, this is
purely idiosynchratic evidence) differently than physists.  Is it that one
group know how to do science better, or are the fields just so differnt,
or are the people attracted to each just different?

Now, suppose a team of people got together and built an expert system which
was fully capable of taking over the control of a very sophisticated
(previously manual, by highly trained people) inventory, billing and
ordering system.  I claim that this is at least as complex as diagnosis
of and dosing of particular drugs (e.g. mycin).  My expert system
was likely written in Cobol by people doing things in quite different ways
from AI or systems hackers.

One might want to argue that the productivity was much lower, that the
result was harder to change and so on.  I would prefer to see this in
Figures, on proper comparisons.  I suspect that the complexity of the
commercial software I mentioned is MUCH greater than the usual problem
attacked by AI people, so that the "productivity" might be comparable,
with the extra time reflecting the complexity.  For example, designing
the reports and generating them for a large complex system (and doing
a good job)  may take a large fraction of the total time, yet such
reporting is not usually done in the AI world.  Traces of decisions
and other discourse are not the same.  The latter is easier I think, or
at least it takes less work.

What I'm getting at is that expert systems have been around for a long
time, its only that recently AI people have gotten in to the arena. There
are other techniques which have been applied to developing these, and
I am waiting to be convinced that the AI people have a priori superior
strategies.  I would like to be so convinced and I expect someday to
be convinced, but then again, I probably also fit the AI personality
profile so I am rather biased.
>---GaryFostel----

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Dec 1983 11:11:52-EST
-FROM-
From: John.Laird at CMU-CS-ZOG
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Thesis Defense
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the CMU-AI bboard.]

Come see my thesis defense: Wednesday, December 7 at 3:30pm in 5409 Wean Hall

                        UNIVERSAL SUBGOALING

                             ABSTRACT

A major aim of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to create systems that
display general problem solving ability.  When problem solving, knowledge is
used to avoid uncertainty over what to do next, or to handle the
difficulties that arises when uncertainity can not be avoided.  Uncertainty
is handled in AI problem solvers through the use of methods and subgoals;
where a method specifies the behavior for avoiding uncertainity in pursuit
of a goal, and a subgoal allows the system to recover from a difficulty once
it arises.  A general problem solver should be able to respond to every task
with appropriate methods to avoid uncertainty, and when difficulties do
arise, the problem solver should be able to recover by using an appropriate
subgoal.  However, current AI problem solver are limited in their generality
because they depend on sets of fixed methods and subgoals.

In previous work, we investigated the weak methods and proposed that a
problem solver does not explicitly select a method for goal, with the
inherent risk of selecting an inappropriate method.  Instead, the problem
solver is organized so that the appropriate weak method emerges during
problem solving from its knowledge of the task.  We called this organization
a universal weak method and we demonstrated it within an architecture,
called SOAR.  However, we were limited to subgoal-free weak methods.

The purpose of this thesis is to a develop a problem solver where subgoals
arise whenever the problem solver encounters a difficulty in performing the
functions of problem solving.  We call this capability universal subgoaling.
In this talk, I will describe and demonstrate an implementation of universal
subgoaling within SOAR2, a production system based on search in a problem
space.  Since SOAR2 includes both universal subgoaling and a universal weak
method, it is not limited by a fixed set of subgoals or methods.  We provide
two demonstrations of this: (1) SOAR2 creates subgoals whenever difficulties
arise during problem solving, (2) SOAR2 extends the set of weak methods that
emerge from the structure of a task without explicit selection.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
111
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Dec 83 08:55:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Ray Perrault <RPERRAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Issue of AJCL
-BODY-
         American Journal of Computational Linguistics

The American Journal of Computational Linguistics is planning a
special issue devoted to the Mathematical Properties of Linguistic
Theories.  Papers are hereby requested on the generative capacity of
various syntactic formalisms as well as the computational complexity
of their related recognition and parsing algorithms.  Articles on the
significance (and the conditions for the significance) of such results
are also welcome.  All papers will be subjected to the normal
refereeing process and must be accepted by the Editor-in-Chief, James
Allen.  In order to allow for publication in Fall 1984, five copies of
each paper should be sent by March 31, 1984 to the special issue
editor,

C. Raymond Perrault                Arpanet: Rperrault@sri-ai
SRI International                  Telephone: (415) 859-6470
EK268
Menlo Park, CA 94025.

Indication of intention to submit would also be appreciated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Dec 1983 1347-PST
-FROM-
From: MEYERS.UCI-20A@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: phrasal analysis paper
-BODY-

Over a month ago, I announced that I'd be submitting
a paper on phrasal analysis to COLING.  I apologize
to all those who asked for a copy for not getting it
to them yet.  COLING acceptance date is April 2,
so this may be the earliest date at which I'll be releasing
papers.  Please do not lose heart!

Some preview of the material might interest AILIST readers:

The paper is entitled "Conceptual Grammar", and discusses
a grammar that uses syntactic and 'semantic' nonterminals.
Very specific and very general information about language
can be represented in the grammar rules.  The grammar is
organized into explicit levels of abstraction.
The emphasis of the work is pragmatic, but I believe it
represents a new and useful approach to Linguistics as
well.

Conceptual Grammar can be viewed as a systematization of the
knowledge base of systems such as PHRAN (Wilensky and Arens,
at UC Berkeley).  Another motivation for a conceptual grammar is
the lack of progress in language understanding using syntax-based
approaches.  A third motivation is the lack of intuitive appeal
of existing grammars -- existing grammars offer no help in manipulating
concepts the way humans might.  Conceptual Grammar is
an 'open' grammar at all levels of abstraction.  It is meant
to handle special cases, exceptions to general rules, idioms, etc.

Papers on the implemented system, called VOX, will follow
in the near future.  VOX analyzes messages in the Navy domain.
(However, the approach to English is completely general).

If anyone is interested, I can elaborate, though it is
hard to discuss such work in this forum.  Requests
for papers (and for abstracts of UCI AI Project papers)
can be sent by computer mail, or 'snail-mail' to:

        Amnon Meyers
        AI Project
        Department of Computer Science
        University of California
        Irvine, CA  92717

PS: A paper has already been sent to CSCSI.  The papers emphasize
    different aspects of Conceptual Grammar.  A paper on VOX as
    an implementation of Conceptual Grammar is planned for AAAI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Dec 83 7:57:46-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rational Psych (and science)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou2g.121

It is true that psychology is not a "science" in the way a physicist
defines "science". Of course, a physicist would be likely to bend
his definition of "science" to exclude psychology.

The situation is very much the same as defining "intelligence".
Social "scientists" keep tightening their definition of intelligence
as required to exclude anything which isn't a human being.  While
AI people now argue over what intelligence is, when an artificial system
is built with the mental ability of a mouse (the biological variety!)
in no time all definitions of intelligence will be bent to include it.

The real significance of a definition is that it clarifies the *direction*
in which things are headed.  Defining "intelligence" in terms of
adaptability and self-consciousness are evidence of a healthy direction
to AI.

                                               Jim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Dec 83 16:08:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Biologists, physicists, and report generating programs
-BODY-
I'd like to ask Mr. Fostel how biologists "do research in ways that seem
different than physicists".  It would be pretty exciting to find that
one or both of these two groups do science in a way that is not part of
standard scientific method.

He also makes the following claim:

   ... the complexity of the commercial software I mentionned is
   MUCH greater than the usual problem attacked by AI people...

With the example that:

   ... designing the reports and generating them for a large complex
   system (and doing a good job) may take a large fraction of the total
   time, yet such reporting is not usually done in the AI world.

This claim is rather absurd.  While I will not claim that deciding on
the best way to present a large amount of data is a trivial task, the
point is that report generating programs have no knowledge about data
presentation strategies.  People who do have such knowledge spend hours
and hours deciding on a good scheme and then HARD CODING such a scheme
into a program.  Surely one would not claim that a program consisting
soley of a set of WRITELN (or insert your favorite output keyword)
statements has any complexity at all, much less intelligence or
knowledge?  Just because a program takes a long time to write doesn't
mean it has any complexity, in terms of control structures or data
structures.  And in fact this example is a perfect proof of this
conjecture.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Dec 83 15:27:43-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: sri-unix!hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!decwrl!decvax!duke!mcnc!shebs
     @utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: Expert Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.2279

A large data-processing application is not an expert system because
it cannot explain its action, nor is the knowledge represented in an
adequate fashion.  A "true" expert system would *not* consist of
algorithms as such.  It would consist of facts and heuristics organized
in a fashion to permit some (relatively uninteresting) algorithmic
interpreter to generate interesting and useful behavior. Production
systems are a good example.  The interpreter is fixed - it just selects
rules and fires them.  The expert system itself is a collection of rules,
each of which represents a small piece of knowledge about the domain.
This is of course an idealization - many "expert systems" have a large
procedural component.  Sometimes the existence of that component can
even be justified...

                                                stan shebs
                                                utah-cs!shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1983  05:39 EST
-FROM-
From: LEVITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What makes AI crawl
-BODY-
    From: Seth Goldman <seth@UCLA-CS>
    Subject: Programming environments are fine, but...

    What are all of you doing with your nifty, adequate, and/or brain-damaged
    computing environments?  Also, if we're going to discuss environments, it
    would be more productive I think to give concrete examples...
            [Sounds good to me.  It would be interesting to know
            whether progress in AI is currently held back by conceptual
            problems or just by the programming effort of building
            large and user-friendly systems.  -- KIL]

It's clear to me that, despite a relative paucity of new "conceptual"
AI ideas, AI is being held back entirely by the latter "programming
effort" problem, AND by the failure of senior AI researchers to
recognize this and address it directly.  The problem is regressive
since programming problems are SO hard, the senior faculty typically
give up programming altogether and lose touch with the problems.

Nobody seems to realize how close we would be to practical AI, if just
a handful of the important systems of the past were maintained and
extended, and if the most powerful techniques were routinely applied
to new applications - if an engineered system with an ongoing,
expanding knowledge base were developed.  Students looking for theses
and "turf" are reluctant to engineer anything familiar-looking.  But
there's every indication that the proven techniques of the 60's/early
70's could become the core of a very smart system with lots of
overlapping knowledge in very different subjects, opening up much more
interesting research areas - IF the whole thing didn't have to be
(re)programmed from scratch.  AI is easy now, showing clear signs of
diminishing returns, CS/software engineering are hard.

I have been developing systems for the kinds of analogy problems music
improvisors and listeners solve when they use "common sense"
descriptions of what they do/hear, and of learning by ear.  I have
needed basic automatic constraint satisfaction systems
(Sutherland'63), extensions for dependency-directed backtracking
(Sussman'77), and example comparison/extension algorithms
(Winston'71), to name a few.  I had to implement everything myself.
When I arrived at MIT AI there were at least 3 OTHER AI STUDENTS
working on similar constraint propagator/backtrackers, each sweating
out his version for a thesis critical path, resulting in a draft
system too poorly engineered and documented for any of the other
students to use.  It was idiotic.  In a sense we wasted most of our
programming time, and would have been better off ruminating about
unfamiliar theories like some of the faculty.  Theories are easy (for
me, anyway).  Software engineering is hard.  If each of the 3 ancient
discoveries above was an available module, AI researchers could have
theories AND working programs, a fine show.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 83 11:56 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: mental states of machines
-BODY-
I have no problem with using anthropomorphic (or "mental") descriptions of
systems as a heuristic for dealing with difficult problems. One such
trick I especially approve of is Seymour Papert's "body syntonicity"
technique. The basic idea is to get young children to understand the
interaction of mathematical concepts by getting them to enter into a
turtle world and become an active participant in it, and to use this
perspective for understanding the construction of geometric structures.

What I am objecting to is that I sense that John McCarthy is implying
something more in his article: that human mental states are no different
than the very complex systems that we sometimes use mental descriptions
as a shorthand to describe.

I would refer to Ilya Prigogine's 1976 Nobel Prize winning work in chemistry on
"Dissapative Structures" to illustrate the foolishness of McCarthy's
claim.

Dissapative structures can be explained to some extent to non-chemists by means
of the termite analogy. Termites construct large rich and complex domiciles.
These structures sometimes are six feet tall and are filled with complex
arches and domed structures (it took human architects many thousands of
years to come up with these concepts). Yet if one watches termites at
the lowest "mechanistic" level (one termite at a time), all one sees
is a termite randomly placing drops of sticky wood pulp in random spots.

What Prigogine noted was that there are parallels in chemistry. Where random
underlying processes spontaneously give rise to complex and rich ordered
structures at higher levels.

If I accept McCarthy's argument that complex systems based on finite state
automata exhibit mental characteristics, then I must also hold that termite
colonies have mental characteristics, Douglas Hofstadter's Aunt Hillary also
has mental characteristics, and that certain colloidal suspensions and
amorphous crystals have mental characteristics.

                                                - Steven Gutfreund
                                                  Gutfreund.umass@csnet-relay

  [I, for one, have no difficulty with assigning mental "characteristics"
  to inanimate systems.  If a computer can be "intelligent", and thus
  presumably have mental characteristics, why not other artificial
  systems?  I admit that this is Humpty-Dumpty semantics, but the
  important point to me is the overall I/O behavior of the system.
  If that behavior depends on a set of (discrete or continuous) internal
  states, I am just as happy calling them "mental" states as calling
  them anything else.  To reserve the term mental for beings having
  volition, or souls, or intelligence, or neurons, or any other
  intuitive characteristic seems just as arbitrary to me.  I presume
  that "mental" is intended to contrast with "physical", but I side with
  those seeing a physical basis to all mental phenomena.  Philosophers
  worry over the distinction, but all that matters to me is the
  behavior of the system when I interface with it.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Dec 83 12:08:31-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxi!pyuxnn!pyuxmm!cbdkc1!cbosgd!osu-db
     s!lum @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: defining AI, AI research methodology, jargon in AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: osu-dbs.426

Perhaps Dyer is right.  Perhaps it would be a good thing to split net.ai/AIList
into two groups, net.ai and net.ai.d, ala net.jokes and net.jokes.d.  In one
the AI researchers could discuss actual AI problems, and in the other, philo-
sophers could discuss the social ramifications of AI, etc.  Take your pick.

Lum Johnson (cbosgd!osu-dbs!lum)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Dec 83 8:27:08-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!tektronix!tekcad!franka @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Topic (technical) - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekcad.155

        OK, some of you have expressed a dislike for "non-technical, philo-
sophical, etc." discussions on this newsgroup. So for those of you who are
tired of this, I pose a technical question for you to talk about:

        What is your favorite method of representing knowlege in a KBS?
Do you depend on frames, atoms of data jumbled together randomly, or something
in between? Do you have any packages (for public consumption which run on
machines that most of us have access to) that aid people in setting up knowlege
bases?

        I think that this should keep this newsgroup talking at least partially
technically for a while. No need to thank me. I just view it as a public ser-
vice.

                                        From the truly menacing,
   /- -\                                but usually underestimated,
    <->                                 Frank Adrian
                                        (tektronix!tekcad!franka)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
112
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Dec 83 12:58:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Don Walker <WALKER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Carl Engelman Memorial Fund
-BODY-
                      CARL ENGELMAN MEMORIAL FUND

        Carl Engelman, one of the pioneers in artificial intelligence
research, died of a heart attack at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
on November 26, 1983.  He was the creator of MATHLAB, a program developed
in the 1960s for the symbolic manipulation of mathematical expressions.
His objective there was to supply the scientist with an interactive
computational aid of a "more intimate and liberating nature" than anything
available before. Many of the ideas generated in the development of MATHLAB
have influenced the architecture of other systems for symbolic and algebraic
manipulation.

        Carl graduated from the City College of New York and then earned
an MS Degree in Mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
During most of his professional career, he worked at The MITRE Corporation
in Bedford, Massachusetts.  In 1973 he was on leave as a visiting professor
at the Institute of Information Science of the University of Turin, under a
grant from the Italian National Research Council.

        At the time of his death Carl was an Associate Department Head
at MITRE, responsible for a number of research projects in artificial
intelligence.  His best known recent work was KNOBS, a knowledge-based
system for interactive planning that was one of the first expert systems
applied productively to military problems.  Originally developed for the
Air Force, KNOBS was then adapted for a Navy system and is currently being
used in two NASA applications.  Other activities under his direction
included research on natural language understanding and automatic
programming.

        Carl published a number of papers in journals and books and gave
presentations at many conferences.  But he also illuminated every meeting
he attended with his incisive analysis and his keen wit.  While he will
be remembered for his contributions to artificial intelligence, those
who knew him personally will deeply miss his warmth and humor, which he
generously shared with so many of us.  Carl was particularly helpful to
people who had professional problems or faced career choices; his paternal
support, personal sponsorship, and private intervention made significant
differences for many of his colleagues.

        Carl was a member of the American Association for Artificial
Intelligence, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the
American Mathematical Society, the Association for Computational
Linguistics, and the Association for Computing Machinery and its Special
Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence.

        Contributions to the "Carl Engelman Memorial Fund" should be
sent to Judy Clapp at The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730.
A decision will be made later on how those funds will be used.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 83 09:49 PST
-FROM-
From: Kandt.pasa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: lisp productivity question
-BODY-
Jonathan Slocum (University of Texas at Austin) has a large natural
language translation program (thousands of lines of Interlisp) that was
originally in Fortran.  The compression that he got was 16.7:1.  Also, I
once wrote a primitive production rule system in both Pascal and
Maclisp.  The Pascal version was over 2000 lines of code and the Lisp
version was about 200 or so.  The Pascal version also was not as
powerful as the Lisp version because of Pascal's strong data typing and
dynamic allocation scheme.

>- Kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Dec 83 19:30:46-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!bhyde @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: Expert Systems - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: inmet.578

I would like to add to Gary's comments.  There are also issues of
scale to be considered.  Many of the systems built outside of AI
are orders of magnitude larger.  I was amazed to read that at one
point the largest OPS production system, a computer game called Haunt,
had so very few rules in it.  A compiler written using a rule based
approach would have 100 times as many rules.  How big are the
AI systems that folks actually build?

The engineering component of large systems obscures the architectural
issues involved in their construction.  I have heard it said that
AI isn't a field, it is a stage of the problem solving process.

It seems telling that the ARPA 5-year speech recognition project
was successful not with Hearsay ( I gather that after it was too late
it did manage to met the performance requirements ), but by Harpy.  Now,
Harpy as very much like a signal processing program.  The "beam search"
mechanisms it used are very different than the popular approachs of
the AI comunity.  In the end it seems that it was an act of engineering,
little insight into the nature of knowledge gained.

The issues that caused AI and the rest of computing to split a few
decades ago seem almost quaint now.  Allan Newell has a pleasing paper
about these.  Only the importance of an interpreter based program
development enviroment seem to continue.  Can you buy a work station
capable of sharing files with your 360 yet?

[...]
                                ben hyde

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Dec 83 16:33:59-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!davidson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information sciences vs. physical sciences
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.84

I am responding to an article claiming that psychology and computer
science aren't sciences.  I think that the author is seriously confused
by his prefered usage of the term ``science''.  The sciences based on
mathematics, information processing, etc., which I will here call
information sciences, e.g., linguistics, computer science, information
science, cognitive science, psychology, operations research, etc., have
very different methods of operation from sciences based upon, for
example, physics.  Since people often view physics as the prototypical
science, they become confused when they look at information sciences.
This is analogous to the confusion of the early grammarians who tried
to understand English from a background in Latin:  They decided that
English was primitive and in need of fixing, and proceeded to create
Grammar schools in which we were all supposed to learn how to speak
our native language properly (i.e., with intrusions of latin grammar).

If someone wants to have a private definition of the word science to
include only some methods of operation, that's their privilege, as
long as they don't want to try to use words to communicate with other
human beings.  But we shouldn't waste too much time definining terms,
when we could be exploring the nature and utility of the methodologies
used in the various disciplines.  In that light, let me say something
about the methodologies of two of the disciplines as I understand and
practice them, respectively.

Physics:  There is here the assumption of a simple underlying reality,
which we want to discover through elegant theorizing and experimenting.
Compared to other disciplines, e.g., experimental psychology, many of
the experimental tools are crude, e.g., the statistics used.  A theoretical
psychologist would probably find the distance that often separates physical
theory from experiment to be enormous.  This is perfectly alright, given
the (assumed) simple nature of underlying reality.

Computer Science:  Although in any mathematically based science one
might say that one is discovering knowledge; in many ways, it makes
better sense in computer science to say that one is creating as much
as discovering.  Someone will invent a new language, a new architecture,
or a new algorithm, and people will abandon older languages, architectures
and algorithms.  A physicist would find this strange, because these objects
are no less valid for having been surpassed (the way an outdated physical
theory would be), but are simply no longer interesting.

Let me stop here, and solicit some input from people involved in other
disciplines.  What are your methods of investigation?  Are you interested
in creating theories about reality, or creating artificial or abstract
realities?  What is your basis for calling your discipline a science,
or do you?  Please do not waste any time saying that some other discipline
is not a science because it doesn't do things the way yours does!

>Greg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 83 20:43 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: mental states
-BODY-
Ken Laws in his little editorializing comment on my last note seems to
have completely missed the point. Whether FSA's can display mental
states is an argument I leave to others on this list. However, John
McCarthy's definition allows ant hills and colloidal suspensions to
have mental states.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1983 15:04:10 EST
-FROM-
From: AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications
     Mgr.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Culture and Vision
-BODY-
    Several people have recently been bringing up the question of the
effects of culture on visual perception.  This problem has been around
in anthropology, folkloristics, and (to some extent) in sociolinguistics
for a number of years.  I've personally taken a number of graduate courses
that focussed on this very topic.
     Individuals interested in this problem (or, more precisely, group of
problems) should look into the Society for the Anthropology of Visual
Communication (SAVICOM) and its journal.  You'll find that the terminology
is often unfamiliar, but the concerns are similar.  The society is based
at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications,
and is formally linked with such relevant groups as the American Anthro-
pological Assn.
     Folks who want more info, citations, etc. on this can also contact
me personally by netmail, as I'm not sure that this is sufficiently
relevant to take up too much of AI's space.
     Dave Axler
     (Axler.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay)


[Extract from further correspondence with Dave:]

     There is a thing called "Visual Anthropology", on the
other hand, which deals with the ways that visual tools such as film, video,
still photography, etc., can be used by the anthropologist.  The SAVICOM
journal occasionally has articles dealing with the "meta" aspects of visual
anthropology, causing it, at such times, to be dealing with the anthropology
of visual anthropology (or, at least, the epistemology thereof...)

                                     --Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 21:16:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Martin Giles <MADAGIL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A humanities view of computers and natural language
-BODY-
The following is a copy of an article on the Stanford Campus report,
7th December, 1983, in response to an article describing research at
Stanford.  The University has just received a $21 million grant for
research in the fields of natural and computer languages.

                                Martin

[I have extracted a few relevant paragraphs from the following 13K-char
flame.  Anyone wanting the full text can contact AIList-Request or FTP
it from <AILIST>COHN.TXT on SRI-AI.  I will deleted it after a few weeks.
>- KIL]


  Mail-From: J.JACKSON1 created at 10-Dec-83 10:29:54
  Date: Sat 10 Dec 83 10:29:54-PST
  From: Charlie Jackson  <J.JACKSON1@LOTS-A>
  Subject: F; (Gunning Fog Index 20.18); Cohn on Computer Language Study
  To: bboard@LOTS-A

  Following is a letter found in this week's Campus Report that proves
  Humanities profs make as good flames as any CS hacker.  Charlie

        THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE IS ALREADY KNOWN WITHOUT COMPUTERS

  Following is a response from Robert Greer Cohn, professor of French, to
the Nov. 30 Campus Report article on the study of computer and natural
language.

        The ambitious program to investigate the nature of language in
connection with computers raises some far-reaching questions.  If it is
to be a sort of Manhattan project, to outdo the Japanese in developing
machines that "think" and "communicate" in a sophisticated way, that is
one thing, and one may question how far a university should turn itself
towards such practical, essentially engineering, matters.  If on the
other hand, they are serious about delving into the  nature of languages
for the sake of disinterested truth, that is another pair of shoes.
        Concerning the latter direction: no committee ever instituted
has made the kind of breakthrough individual genius alone can
accomplish. [...]
        Do they want to know the nature of language?  It is already
known.
        The great breakthrough cam with Stephane Mallarme, who as Edmund
Wilson (and later Hugh Kenner) observed, was comparable only to Einstein
for revolutionary impact.  He is responsible more than anyone, even
Nietzsche, for the 20th-century /episteme/, as most French first-rank
intellectuals agree (for example, Foucault, in "Les mots et les choses";
Sartre, in his preface to the "Poesies"' Roland Barthes who said in his
"Interview with Stephen Hearth," "All we do is repeat Mallarme";
Jakobson; Derrida; countless others).
        In his "Notes" Mallarme saw the essence of language as
"fiction," which is to say it is based on paradox.  In the terms of
Darwin, who describes it as "half art, half instinct," this means that
language, as related to all other reality (hypothetically nonlinguistic,
experimental) is "metaphorical" -- as we now say after Jakobson -- i.e.
above and below the horizontal line of on-going, spontaneous,
comparatively undammmed, life-flow or experience; later, as the medium
of whatever level of creativity, it bears this relation to the
conventional and rational real, sanity, sobriety, and so on.
        In this sense Chomsky's view of language as innate and
determined is a half-truth and not very inspired.  He would have been
better off if he had read and pondered, for example, Pascal, who three
centuries ago knew that "nature is itself only a first 'custom'"; or
Shakespeare: "The art itself is nature" (The Winter's Tale).
        [...]

        But we can't go into all the aspects of language here.
        In terms of the project:  since, on balance, it is unlikely the
effects will go the way of elite French thought on the subject, there
remains the probability that they will try to recast language, which is
at its best creatively free (as well as determined at its best by
organic totality, which gives it its ultimate meaning, coherence,
harmony), into the narrow mold of the computer, even at /its/ best.
        [...]

        COMPUTERS AND NEWSPEAK

        In other words, there is no way to make a machine speak anything
other than newspeak, the language of /1984/.  They may overcome that
flat dead robotic tone that our children enjoy -- by contrast, it gives
them the feeling that they are in command of life -- but the thought and
the style will be sprirtually inert.  In that sense, the machines, or
the new language theories, will reflect their makers, who, in harnessing
themselves to a prefabricated goal, a program backed by a mental arms
race, will have been coopted and dehumanized.  That flat (inner or
outer) tone is a direct result of cleaving to one-dimensionality, to the
dimension of the linear and "metonymic," the dimension of objectivity,
of technology and science, uninformed and uninspired by the creatively
free and whole-reflecting ("naive") vertical, or vibrant life itself.
        That unidimensionality is visible in the immature personalities
of the zealots who push these programs:  they are not much beyond
children in their Frankenstein eagerness to command the frightening
forces of the psyche, including sexuality, but more profoundly, life
itself, in its "existential" plenitude involving death.
        People like that have their uses and can, with exemplary "tunnel
vision," get certain jobs done (like boring tunnels through miles of
rock).  A group of them can come up with /engineering/ breakthroughs in
that sense, as in the case of the Manhattan project.  But even that
follows the /creative/ breakthroughs of the Oppenheimers and Tellers and
Robert D. (the shepherd in France) and is rather pedestrian endeavor
under the management of some colonel.
        When I tried to engage a leader of the project in discussion
about the nature of language, he refused, saying, "The humanities and
sciences are father apart than ever," clearly welcoming this
development.  This is not only deplorable in itself; far worse,
according to the most accomplished mind on /their/ side of the fence in
this area; this man's widely-hailed thinking is doomed to a dead end,
because of its "unidimensionality!"
        This is not the place to go into the whole saddening bent of
our times and the connection with totalitarianism, which is "integrated
systems" with a vengeance.  But I doubt that this is what our founders
had in mind.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
113
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Dec 83 11:21:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CACM Alert - Temporal Representation & Fuzzy Reasoning
-BODY-
Two articles in the Nov. issue of CACM (just arrived) may be of
special interest to AI researchers:


"Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals," by James F. Allen
of the U. of Rochester, is about representation of temporal information
using only intervals -- no points.  While this work does not lead to a
fully general temporal calculus, it goes well beyond state space and
date line systems and is more powerful and efficient than event chaining
representations.  I can imagine that the approach could be generalized
to higher dimensions, e.g., for reasoning about the relationships of
image regions or objects in the 3-D world.


"Extended Boolean Information Retrieval," by Gerald Salton, Edward A. Fox,
and Harry Wu, presents a fuzzy logic or hierarchical inference method for
dealing with uncertainties when evaluating logical formulas.  In a
formula such as ((A and B) or (B and C)), they present evidential
combining formulas that allow for:

  * Uncertainty in the truth, reliability, or applicability of the
    the primitive terms A and B;

  * Differing importance of establishing the primitive term instances
    (where the two B terms above could be weighted differently);

  * Differing semantics of the logical connectives (where the two
    "and" connectives above could be threshold units with different
    thresholds).

The output of their formula evaluator is a numerical score.  They use
this for ranking the pertinence of literature citations to a database
query, but it could also be used for evidential reasoning or for
evaluating possible worlds in a planning system.  For the database
query system, they indicate a method for determining term weights
automatically from an inverted index of the database.

The weighting of the Boolean connectives is based on the infinite set
of Lp vector norms.  The connectives and[INF] and or[INF] are the
ones of standard logic; and[1] and or[1] are equivalent and reduce
formula evaluation to a simple weighted summation; intermediate
connective norms correspond to "mostly" gates or weighted neural
logic models.  The authors present both graphical illustrations and
logical theorems about these connectives.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Dec 83 20:05:25-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!phipps @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Phrasal Analysis Paper/Programming Languages Applications ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.1981

Am I way off base, or does this look as if the VOX project
would be of interest to programming languages (PL) researchers ?
It might be interesting to submit to the next
"Principles of Programming Languages" (POPL) conference, too.

As people turn from traditional programming languages
(is Ada really pointing the way of the future ? <shudder !>) to other ways
(query languages and outright natural language processing)
to obtain and manipulate information and codified knowledge,
I believe that AI and PL people will find more overlap in their ends,
although probably not their respective interests, approaches, and style.
This institutionalized mutual ignorance doesn't benefit either field.
One of these days, AI people and programming languages people
ought to heal their schism.

I'd certainly like to hear more of VOX, and would cheerfully accept delivery
of a copy of your paper (US Mail (mine): PO Box 2284, Santa Clara CA 95055).
My apologies for using the net for a reply, but he's unreachable
thru USENET, and I wanted to make a general point anyhow.

>- Clay Phipps

>-
   {allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,floyd,harpo,hollywood,hpda,ihnp4,
    magic,megatest,nsc,oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1}
   !fortune!phipps

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Dec 83 15:29:10 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. views
-BODY-
  [The following is a direct submission to AIList, not a reprint.
  It has also appeared on the Stanford bboards, and has generated
  considerable discussion there.  I am distributing this and the
  following two reprints because they raise legitimate questions
  about the research funding channels available to AI workers.  My
  distribution of these particular messages should not be taken as
  evidence of support for or against military research. -- KIL]

from Japan:

  "It is necessary for each researcher in the New Generation Computer
technology field to work for world prosperity and the progress of
mankind.

  "I think it is the responsibility of each researcher, engineer and
scientist in this field to ensure that KIPS [Knowledge Information
Processing System] is used for good, not harmful, purposes.  It is also
necessary to investigate KIPS's influence on society concurrent with
KIPS's development."

  --Tohru Moto-Oka, University of Tokyo, editor of the new journal "New
Generation Computing", in the journal's founding statement (Vol. 1, No.
1, 1983, p. 2)



and from the U.S.:

  "If the new generation technology evolves as we now expect, there will
be unique new opportunities for military applications of computing.  For
example, instead of fielding simple guided missiles or remotely piloted
vehicles, we might launch completely autonomous land, sea, and air
vehicles capable of complex, far-ranging reconnaissance and attack
misssions.  The possibilities are quite startling, and suggest that new
generation computing could fundamentally change the nature of future
conflicts."

  --Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, "Strategic Computing:
New Generation Computing Technology: A Strategic Plan for its
Development and Application to Critical Problems in Defense,"  28
October 1983, p. 1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 83 18:18:23 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. views
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

My juxtaposition of quotations is intended to demonstrate the difference
in priorities between the Japanese and U.S. "next generation" computer
research programs.  Moto-Oka is a prime mover behind the Japanese
program, and DARPA's Robert Kahn is a prime mover behind the American
one.  Thus I consider the quotations comparable.

To put it bluntly:  the Japanese say they are developing this technology
to help solve human and social problems.  The Americans say they are
developing this technology to find more efficient ways of killing
people.

The difference in intent is quite striking, and will undoubtedly produce
a "next-generation" repetition of an all too familiar syndrome.  While
the U.S. pours yet more money and scientific talent into the military
sinkhole, the Japanese invest their monetary and human capital in
projects that will produce profitable industrial products.

Here are a couple more comparable quotes, both from IEEE Spectrum, Vol.
20, No. 11, November 1983:

  "DARPA intends to apply the computers developed in this program to a
number of broad military applications...
  "An example might be a pilot's assistant that can respond to spoken
commands by a pilot and carry them out without error, drawing upon
specific aircraft, sensor, and tactical knowledge stored in memory and
upon prodigious computer power.  Such capability could free a pilot to
concentrate on tactics while the computer automatically activated
surveillance sensors, interpreted radar, optical, and electronic
intelligence, and prepared appropriate weapons systems to counter
hostile aircraft or missiles....
  "Such systems may also help in military assessments on a battlefield,
simulating and predicting the consequences of various courses of
military action and interpreting signals acquired on the battlefield.
This information could be compiled and presented as sophisticated
graphics that would allow a commander and his staff to concentrate on
the larger strategic issues, rather than having to manage the enormous
data flow that will[!] characterize future battles."
    --Robert S. Cooper and Robert E. Kahn, DARPA, page 53.

  "Fifth generation computers systems are exptected to fulfill four
major roles:  (1) enhancement of productivity in low-productivity areas,
such as nonstandardized operations in smaller industries;  (2)
conservation of national resources and energy through optimal energy
conversion; (3) establishment of medical, educational, and other kinds
of support systems for solving complex social problems, such as the
transition to a society made up largely of the elderly;  and (4)
fostering of international cooperation through the machine translation
of languages."
    --Tohru Moto-Oka, University of Tokyo, page 46


Which end result would *you* rather see?

/Ron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Dec 83 21:29:22-PST
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comparable quotes
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

     The goals of an effort funded by the military will be different
than those of an effort aimed at trade dominance.  Intel stayed out of
the DoD VHSIC program because the founder of Intel felt that concentrating
on fast, expensive circuits would be bad for business.  He was right.
The VHSIC program is aimed at making a few hundred copies of an IC for
a few thousand each.  Concentration on that kind of product will bankrupt
a semiconductor company.
     We see the same thing in AI.  There is getting to be a mini-industry
built around big expensive AI systems on big expensive computers.  Nobody
is thinking of volume.  This is a direct consequence of the funding source.
People think in terms of keeping the grants coming in, not selling a
million copies.  If money came from something like MITI, there would be
pressure to push forward to a volume product just to find out if there
is real potential for the technology in the real world.  Then there would
be thousands of people thinking about the problems in the field, not
just a few hundred.
     This is divirging from the main thrust of the previous flame, but
think about this and reply.  There is more here than another stab at the
big bad military.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Dec 83 10:40:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Sumit Ghosh <GHOSH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral Examination: Special Seminar
-BODY-
             [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]


   ADA Techniques for Implementing a Rule-Based Generalised Design Verifier

                     Speaker: Sumit Ghosh

                    Ph.D. Oral Examination
             Monday, 19th Dec '83. 3:30pm. AEL 109


This thesis describes a top-down, rule-based design verifier implemented in
the language ADA. During verification of a system design, a designer needs
several different kinds of simulation tools such as functional simulation,
timing verification, fault simulation etc. Often these tools are implemented
in different languages, different machines thereby making it difficult to
correlate results from different kinds of simulations. Also the system design
must be described in each of the different kinds of simulation, implying a
substantial overhead. The rule-based approach enables one to create different
kinds of simulations, within the same simulation environment, by linking
appropriate type of models with the system nucleus. This system also features
zooming whereby certain subsections of the system design (described at a high
level) can be expanded at a lower level, at run time, for a more detailed
simulation. The expansion process is recursive and should be extended down to
the circuit level. At the present implementation stage, zooming is extended to
gate level simulation. Since only those modules that show discrepancy (or
require detailed analysis) during simulation are simulated in details, the
zoom technique implies a substantial reduction in complexity and CPU time.
This thesis further contributes towards a functional deductive fault simulator
and a generalised timing verifier.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Dec 83 12:46-EST
-FROM-
From: Philip E. Agre <AGRE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Walter Hamscher at the AI Revolving Seminar
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the MIT-AI bboard.]

AI Revolving Seminar
Walter Hamscher

Diagnostic reasoning for digital devices with static storage elements

Wendesday 14 December 83 4PM
545 Tech Sq 8th floor playroom


We view diagnosis as a process of reasoning from anomalous observations to a
set of components whose failure could explain the observed misbehaviors.  We
call these components "candidates."  Diagnosing a misbehaving piece of
hardware can be viewed as a process of generating, discriminating among, and
refining these candidates.  We wish to perform this diagnosis by using an
explicit representation of the hardware's structure and function.

Our candidate generation methodology is based on the notions of dependency
directed backtracking and local propagation of constraints.  This
methodology works well for devices without storage elements such as
flipflops.  This talk presents a representation for the temporal behavior of
digital devices which allows devices with storage elements to be treated
much the same as combinatorial devices for the purpose of candidate
generation.

However, the straightforward adaptation requires solutions to subproblems
that are severely underconstrained.  This in turn leads to an overly
conservative and not terribly useful candidate generator.  There exist
mechanism-oriented solutions such as value enumeration, propagation of
variables, and slices; we review these and then demonstrate what domain
knowledge can be used to motivate appropriate uses of those techniques.
Beyond this use of domain knowledge within the current representation, there
are alternative perspectives on the problem which offer some promise of
alleviating the lack of constraint.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
114
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 83 10:34:03-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!dual!onyx!bob @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intelligence = culture
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: onyx.112

I'm surprised that there have been no references  to  culture  in
all of these "what is intelligence?" debates...

The simple fact of the matter is, that "intelligence" means  very
little  outside  of  any specific cultural reference point.  I am
not referring just to culturally-biased vs. non-culturally-biased
IQ tests, although that's a starting point.

Consider someone raised from infancy in the jungle  (by  monkeys,
for  the  sake  of the argument). What signs of intelligence will
this person show?  Don't expect them  to  invent  fire  or  stone
axes;  look  how  long it took us the first time around. The most
intelligent thing that person could do would be on par with  what
we  see chimpanzees doing in the wild today (e.g. using sticks to
get ants, etc).

What I'm driving at is that there  are  two  kinds  of  "intelli-
gence"; there is "common sense and ingenuity" (monkeys, dolphins,
and a few people), and there is  "cultural  methodology"  (people
only).

Cultural methodologies include  all  of  those  things  that  are
passed  on  to  us  as a "world-view", for instance the notion of
wearing clothes, making fire, using arithmetic to figure out  how
many  people  X  bags of grain will feed, what spices to use when
cooking, how to talk (!), all of these things were at one time  a
brilliant  conception  in  someones' mind. And it didn't catch on
the first time around. Probably not  the  second  or  third  time
either.  But eventually someone convinced other people to try his
idea, and it became part of that culture. And  using  that  as  a
context  gives  other  people  an  opportunity  to bootstrap even
further. One small step for a man, a giant leap for his culture.

When we think about intelligence and get impressed by how wonder-
ful  it  is, we are looking at its application in a world stuffed
to the gills with prior context that is indispensible  to  every-
thing we think about.

What this leaves us with is people trying to define and measure a
hybrid  of  common  sense  and culture without noticing that what
they are interested in is actually two different things, plus the
inter-relations  between  those  things,  so  no wonder the issue
seems so murky.

For those who may be interested, general systems theory,  general
semantics,  and  epistemology  are  some fascinating related sub-
jects.

Now let's see some letters about what "common sense" is  in  this
context,  and about applying that common sense to (cultural) con-
texts. (How recursive!)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 83 11:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: mental states
-BODY-
I am very intriguied by Ferenando Pereira's last comment:

    Sorry, you missed the point that JMC and then I were making. Prygogine's
    work (which I know relatively well) has nothing to say about systems
    which have to model in their internal states equivalence classes of
    states of OTHER systems. It seems to me impossible to describe such
    systems unless certain sets of states are labeled with things
    like "believe(John,have(I,book))". That is, we start associating
    classes of internal states to terms that include mentalistic
    predicates.

I may be missing the point, since I am not sure what "model in their internal
states equivelence classes of states of OTHER systems" means. But I think
you are saying is that `reasoning systems' that encode in their state
information about the states of other systems (or their own) are not
coverered by Ilya Prygogine's work.

I think think you are engaging in a leap of faith here. What is the basis
for believing that any sort of encoding of the state of other systems is
going on here. I don't think even the philosophical guard phrase
`equivalence class' protects you in this case.

To continue in my role of sceptic: if you make claims that you are constructing
systems that model their internal state (or other systems' internal states)
[or even an equivalence class of those states]. I will make a claim that
my Linear Programming Model of an computer parts inventory is also
exhibiting `mental reasoning' since it is modeling the internal states
of that computer parts inventory.

This means that Prygogine's work is operative in the case of FSA based
`reasoning systems' since they can do no more modeling of the internal
state of another system than a colloidal suspension, or an inventory
control system built by an operations research person.


                                - Steven Gutfreund
                                  Gutfreund.umass@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Dec 83 17:46:06-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mental states of machines
-BODY-
The only reason I have to believe that a system encodes in its states
classifications of the states of other systems is that the systems we
are talking about are ARTIFICIAL, and therefore this is part of our
design. Of course, you are free to say that down at the bottom our
system is just a finite-state machine, but that's about as helpful as
making the same statement about the computer on which I am typing this
message when discussing how to change its time-sharing resource
allocation algorithm.

Besides this issue of convenience, it may well be the case that
certain predicates on the states of other or the same system are
simply not representable within the system. One does not even need to
go as far as incompleteness results in logic: in a system which has
means to represent a single transitive relation (say, the immediate
accessibility relation for a maze), no logical combination can
represent the transitive closure (accessibility relation) [example due
to Bob Moore]. Yet the transitive closure is causally connected to the
initial relation in the sense that any change in the latter will lead
to a change in the former. It may well be the case (SPECULATION
WARNING!) that some of the "mental state" predicates have this
character, that is, they cannot be represented as predicates over
lower-level notions such as states.

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Dec 83 7:20:10-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mental states of machines
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.548

Any discussion of the nature and value of mental states in either
humans of machines should include consideration of the ideas of
J.G.Taylor (no relation). In his "Behavioral Basis of Perception"
Yale University Press, 1962, he sets out mathematically a basis
for changes in perception/behaviour dependent on transitions into
different members of "sets" of states. These "sets" look very like
the mental states referenced in the earlier discussion, and may
be tractable in studies of machine behaviour. They also tie in
quite closely with the recent loose talk about "catastrophes" in
psychology, although they are much better specified than the analogists'
models. The book is not easy reading, but it is very worthwhile, and
I think the ideas still have a lot to offer, even after 20 years.

Incidentally, in view of the mathematical nature of the book, it
is interesting that Taylor was a clinical psychologist interested
initially in behaviour modification.

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Dec 1983 1042-PST
-FROM-
From: HALL.UCI-20B@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Methods
-BODY-
After listening in on the communications concerning definitions
of intelligence, AI methods, AI results, AI jargon, etc., I'd
like to suggest an alternate perspective on these issues.  Rather
than quibbling over how AI "should be done," why not take a close
look at how things have been and are being done?  This is more of
a social-historical viewpoint, admitting the possibility that
adherents of differing methodological orientations might well
"talk past each other" - hence the energetic argumentation over
issues of definition.  In this spirit, I'd like to submit the
following for interested AILIST readers:

         Toward a Taxonomy of Methodological
    Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence Research

                 Rogers P. Hall
               Dennis F. Kibler

                   TR  108
                September 1983

      Department of Information and Computer Science
         University of California, Irvine
             Irvine, CA   92717

                    Abstract

    This paper is an attempt to explain the apparent confusion of
efforts in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in
terms of differences between underlying methodological perspectives
held by practicing researchers.  A review of such perspectives
discussed in the existing literature will be presented, followed by
consideration of what a relatively specific and usable taxonomy of
differing research perspectives in AI might include.  An argument
will be developed that researchers should make their methodological
orientations explicit when communicating research results, both as
an aid to comprehensibility for other practicing researchers and as
a step toward providing a coherent intellectual structure which can
be more easily assimilated by newcomers to the field.

The full report is available from UCI for a postage fee of $1.30.
Electronic communications are welcome:

    HALL@UCI-20B
    KIBLER@UCI-20B

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Dec 1983 9:02-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@MARYLAND
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #112 - science
-BODY-
        In my mind, science has always been the practice of using the
'scientific method' to learn. In any discipline, this is used to some
extent, but in a pure science it is used in its purest form. This
method seems to be founded in the following principles:

1       The observation of the world through experiments.

2       Attempted explanations in terms of testable hypotheses - they
        must explain all known data, predict as yet unobserved results,
        and be falsifiable.

3       The design and use of experiments to test predictions made by these
        hypotheses in an attempt to falsify them.

4       The abandonment of falsified hypotheses and their replacement
        with more accurate ones - GOTO 2.

        Experimental psychology is indeed a science if viewed from this
perspective. So long as hypotheses are made and predictions tested with
some sort of experiment, the crudity of the statistics is similar to
the statistical models of physics used before it was advanced to its
current state. Computer science (or whatever you call it) is also a
science in the sense that our understanding of computers is based on
prediction and experimentation. Anyone that says you don't experiment
with a computer hasn't tried it.

        The big question is whether mathematics is a science. I guess
it is, but somehow any system in which you only falsify or verify based
on the assumptions you made leaves me a bit concerned. Of course we are
context bound in any other science, and can't often see the forest for
the trees, but on the other hand, accidental discovery based on
experiments with results which are unpredictable under the current theory
is not really possible in a purely mathematical system.

        History is probably not a science in the above sense because,
although there are hypotheses with possible falsification, there is
little chance of performing an experiment in the past. Archeological
findings may be thought of as an experiment of the past, but I think
this sort of experiment is of quite a different nature than those that
are performed in other areas I call science. Archeology by the way is
probably a science in the sense of my definition not because of the
ability to test hypotheses about the past through experimental
diggings, but because of its constant development and experimental
testing of theory in regards to the way nature changes things over time.
The ability to determine the type of wood burned in an ancient fire and
the year in which it was burned is based on the scientific process that
archeologists use.

                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 83 15:13:26-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Information sciences vs. physical sciences
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.553

*** This response is routed to net.philosophy as well as the net.ai
where it came from. Responders might prefer to edit net.ai out of
the Newsgroups: line before posting.


    I am responding to an article claiming that psychology and computer
    science arn't sciences.  I think that the author is seriously confused
    by his prefered usage of the term ``science''.


I'm not sure, but I think the article referenced was mine. In any case,
it seems reasonable to clarify what I mean by "science", since I think
it is a reasonably common meaning. By the way, I do agree with most of
the article that started with this comment, that it is futile to
define words like "science" in a hard and fast fashion. All I want
here is to show where my original comment comes from.

"Science" has obviously a wide variety of meanings if you get too
careful about it, just as does almost any word in a natural language.
But most meanings of science carry some flavour of a method for
discovering something that was not known by a method that others can
repeat. It doesn't really matter whether that method is empirical,
theoretical, experimental, hypothetico-deductive, or whatever, provided
that the result was previously uncertain or not obvious, and that at
least some other people can reproduce it.

I argued that psychology wasn't a science mainly on the grounds that
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reproduce the conditions
of an experiment on most topics that qualify as the central core of
what most people think of as psychology. Only the grossest aspects
can be reproduced, and only the grossest characterization of the
results can be stated in a way that others can verify. Neither do
theoretical approaches to psychology provide good prediction of
observable behaviour, except on a gross scale. For this reason, I
claimed that psychology was not a science.

Please note that in saying this, I intend in no way to downgrade the
work of practicing psychologists who are scientists. Peripheral
aspects, and gross descriptions are susceptible to attack by our
present methods, and I have been using those methods for 25 years
professionally. In a way it is science, but in another way it isn't
psychology. The professional use of the word "psychology" is not that
of general English. If you like to think what you do is science,
that's fine, but remember that the definition IS fuzzy. What matters
more is that you contribute to the world's well-being, rather than
what you call the way you do it.
>-

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Dec 83 20:01:52-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Information sciences vs. physical sc - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.1978

I have to throw my two bits in:

The essence of science is "prediction". The missing steps in the classic
paradigm of hypothesis-experiment-analysis- presented above is
that "hypothesis" should be read "theory-prediction-"

That is, no matter how well the hypothesis explains the current data, it
can only be tested on data that has NOT YET BEEN TAKEN.

Any sufficiently overdetermined model can account for any given set of data
by tweaking the parameters. The trick is, once calculated, do those parameters
then predict as yet unmeasured data, WITHOUT CHANGING the parameters?
("Predict" means "within an reasonable/acceptable confidence interval
when tested with the appropriate statistical methods".)

Why am I throwing this back into "ai"? Because (for me) the true test
of whether "ai" has/will become a "science" is when it's theories/hypotheses
can successfully predict (c.f. above) the behaviour of existing "natural"
intelligences (whatever you mean by that, man/horse/porpoise/ant/...).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
115
-DATE-
Date: 16 Dec 83 13:10:45-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!majka @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Left / Right Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.571

From: Marc Majka <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP>

I have heard endless talk, and read endless numbers of magazine-grade
articles about left / right brain theories.  However, I have not seen a
single reference to any scientific evidence for these theories. In fact,
the only reasonably scientific discussion I heard stated quite the opposite
conclusion about the brain:  That although it is clear that different parts
of the brain are associated with specific functions, there is no logical
(analytic, mathematical, deductive, sequential) / emotional (synthetic,
intuitive, inductive, parallel) pattern in the hemispheres of the brain.

Does anyone on the net have any references to any studies that have been
done concerning this issue?  I would appreciate any directions you could
provide.  Perhaps, to save the load on this newsgroup (since this is not an
AI question), it would be best to mail directly to me.  I would be happy to
post a summary to this group.

Marc Majka - UBC Laboratory for Computational Vision

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Dec 83 20:12:46-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!linus!utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!rggoebel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: New Topic (technical) - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: watdaisy.362

Bob Kowalski has said that the only way to represent knowledge is
using first order logic.   ACM SIGART Newsletter No. 70, February 1980
surveys many of the people in the world actually doing representation
research, and few of them agree with Kowalski.   Is there anyone out
there than can substantiate a claim for actually ``representing'' (what
ever that means) ``knowledge?''   Most of the knowledge representation
schemes I've seen are really deductive information description languages
with quasi-formal extensions.   I don't have a good definition of what
knowledge is...but ask any mathematical logician (or mathematical
philosopher) what they think about calling something like KRL a
knowledge representation language.

Randy Goebel
Logic Programming Group
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 83 8:14:51-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!br
     unix!jah @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: Expert Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: brunix.5992

I don't understand what the "size" of a program has to do with anything.
The notion that size is important seems to support the idea that the
word "science" in "computer science" belongs in quote marks.  That is,
that CS is just a bunch of hacks anyhow.
 The theory folks, whom I think most of us would call computer scientists,
write almost no programs.  Yet, I'd say their contribution to CS is
quite important (who analyzed the sorting algorithm you used this morning?)
 At least some parts of AI are still Science (with a capital "S").  We are
exploring issues involving cognition and memory, as well as building the
various programs that we call "expert systems" and the like.  Pople's group,
for example, are examining how it is that expert doctors come to make
diagnoses.  He is interested in the computer application, but also in the
understanding of the underlying process.


 Now, while we're flaming, let me also mention that some AI programs have
been awfully large.  If you are into the "bigger is better" mentality, I
suggest a visit to Yale and a view of some of the language programs there.
How about FRUMP, which in its 1978 version took up three processes each
using over 100K of memory, the source code was several hundred pages, and
it contained word definitions for over 10,000 words.  A little bigger
than Haunt??

  Pardon all this verbiage, but I think AI has shown itself both on
the scientific level, by contributions to the field of psychology,
(and linguistics for that matter) and by contributions to the state of
the art in computer technology, and also in the engineering level, by
designing and building some very large programs and some new
programming techniques and tools.

  -Jim Hendler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Dec 1983 15:00-EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Math as science
-BODY-
        Actually, my library's encyclopedia says that mathematics isn't
a science, since it doesn't study phenomena, but rather is "the
language of science".  Perhaps part of the fuzziness about
AI-as-science is that we are creating most of the phenomena we are
studying, and the more theoretical components of what we are doing look
a lot like mathematical logic, which isn't a science.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1983 10:21:47 EST
-FROM-
From: AXLER.Upenn-1100@Rand-Relay (David M. Axler - MSCF Applications Mgr.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Defining "Science"
-BODY-
     For better or worse, there really isn't such a thing as a prototypical
science.  The meaning of the word 'science' has always been different in
different realms of discourse:  what the "average American" means by the term
differs from what a physicist means, and neither of them would agree with an
individual working in one of the 'softer' fields.
     This is not something we want to change, in my view.  The belief that
there must be one single standardized definition for a very general term is
not a useful one, especially when the term is one that does not describe a
explicit, material thing (e.g., blood, pencil, etc.).  Abstract terms are
always dependent on the social context of their use for their definition; it's
just that academics often forget (or fail to note) that contexts other than
their own fields exist.
     Even if we try and define science in terms of its usage of the "scientific
method," we find that there's no clear definition.  If you've yet to read it,
I strongly urge you to take a look at Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions," which is one of the most important books written about science.
He looks at what the term has meant, and does mean, in various disciplines
at various periods, and examines very carefully how the definitions were, in
reality, tied to other socially-defined notions.  It's a seminal work in the
study of the history and sociology of science.
     The social connotations of words like science affect us all every day.
In my personal opinion, one of the major reasons why the term 'computer
science' is gaining popularity within academia is that it dissociates the
field from engineering.  The latter field has, at least within most Western
cultures, a social stigma of second-class status attached to it, precisely
because it deals with mundane reality (the same split, of course, comes up
twixt pure and applied mathematics).  A good book on this, by the way, is
Samuel Florman's "The Existential Pleasures of Engineering"; his more recent
volume, "Blaming Technology", is also worth your time.
>-Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 16 Dec 83 17:32:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Al Davis <ADavis at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V1 #113
-BODY-

In response to the general feeling that Gee the Japanese are good guys
and the Americans are schmucks and war mongers view, and as a member of
one of the planning groups that wrote the DARPA SC plan, I offer the
following questions for thought:

1.  If you were Bob Kahn and were trying to get funding to permit
continued growth of technology under the Reagan administration, would
you ask for $750 million and say that you would do things in such a
way as to prevent military use?

2.  If it were not for DARPA how would we be reading and writing all
this trivia on the ARPAnet?

3.  If it were not for DARPA how many years (hopefully fun, productive,
and challenging) would have been fundamentally different?

4.  Is it possible that the Japanese mean "Japanese society" when they
target programs for "the good of ?? society"?

5.  Is it really possible to develop advanced computing technology that
cannot be applied to military problems?  Can lessons of
destabilization of the US economy be learned from the automobile,
steel, and TV industries?

6.  It is obvious that the Japanese are quick to take, copy, etc. in
terms of technology and profit.  Have they given much back? Note:  I like
my Sony TV and Walkman as much as anybody does.

7.  If DARPA is evil then why don't we all move to Austin and join MCC
and promote good things like large corporate profit?

8.  Where would AI be if DARPA had not funded it?

Well the list could go on, but the direction of this diatribe is
clear.  I think that many of us (me too) are quick to criticize and
slow to look past the end of our noses.  One way to start to improve
society is to climb down off the &%^$&^ ivory tower ourselves.  I for
one have no great desire to live in Japan.

                                                Al Davis

                                                ADAVIS @ SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1983  09:13 EST
-FROM-
From: HEWITT%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. motivations
-BODY-
Ron,

I believe that you have painted a misleading picture of a complex situation.

From talking to participants involved, I believe that MITI is
funding the Japanese Fifth Generation Project primarily for commercial
competitive advantage.  In particular they hope to compete with IBM
more effectively than as plug-compatible manufacturers.  MITI also
hopes to increase Japanese intellectual prestige.  Congress is funding
Strategic Computing to maintain and strengthen US military and
commercial technology.  A primary motivation for strengthening the
commercial technology is to meet the Japanese challenge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Dec 83 20:41:06 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: New Generation computing: Japanese and U.S. motivations
-BODY-
Are we really in disagreement?

It seems pretty clear from my quotes, and from numerous writings on the
subject, that the Japanese intend to use the Fifth Generation Project to
strengthen their position in commercial markets.  We don't disagree
there.

It also seems clear that, as you say, "Congress is funding a project
called Strategic Computing to maintain and strengthen US military and
commercial technology."  That should be parsed as "Military technology
first, with hopes of commercial spinoff."

If you think that's a misleading distortion, read the DARPA Strategic
Computing Report.  Pages 21 through 29 contain detailed specifications
of the requirements of three specific military applications.   There is
no equivalent specification of non-military application
requirements--only a vague statement on page 9 that commercial spinoffs
will occur.  Military requirements and terminology permeate the entire
report.

If the U.S. program is aimed at military applications, that's what it
will produce.  Any commercial or industrial spinoff will be incidental.
If we are serious about strengthening commercial computer technology,
then that's what we should be aiming for.  As you say, that's certainly
what the Japanese are aiming for.

Isn't it about time that we put our economic interests first, and the
military second?

/Ron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
116
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 83 14:43:29 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <v.kahn@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: REFERENCES FOR SPECIALIZED CAMERA DESIGN USING FIBER OPTICS
-BODY-
        In a conventional TV camera, the image falls upon a staring
array of transducers.  The problem is that it is very difficult to
get very close to the focal point of the optical system using this
technology.
        I am looking for a design of a camera imaging system
that projects the light image onto a fiber optic bundle.
The optical fibers are used to transport the light falling upon
each pixel  away from the camera focal point so that the light
may be quantitized.
        I'm sure that such a system has already been designed, and
I would greatly appreciate any references that would be appropriate
to this type of application.  I need to computer model such a system,
so the pertinent optical physics and related information would be
MOST useful.
        If there are any of you that might be interested in this
type of camera system, please contact me.  It promises to provide
the degree of resolution which is a constraint in many vision
computations.

                                Visually yours,
                                Philip Kahn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 21 Dec 83 11:38:36-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard F. Lyon <DLyon at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V1 #115
-BODY-
  In reply to <majka@ubc-vision.UUCP> on left/right brain research:

    Most of the work on split brains and hemispheric specialization
has been done at Caltech by Dr. Roger Sperry and colleagues.  The 1983
Caltech Biology annual report has 5 pages of summary results, and 11
recent references by Sperry's group.  Previous year annual reports
have similar amounts.  I will mail copies if given an address.
        Dick Lyon
        DLYON@SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 21 December 1983 13:48:54 EST
-FROM-
From: John.Laird@CMU-CS-H
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Haunt and other production systems.
-BODY-
A few facts on productions systems.

1. Haunt consists of 1500 productions and requires 160K words of memory on a
KL10. (So Frumps is a bit bigger than Haunt.)

2. Expert systems (R1, XSEL and PTRANS) written in a similar language
consist of around 1500-2500 productions.

3. An expert system to perform VLSI design (DAA) consists of around 200
productions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Dec 83 17:37:56-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!lorien @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Humanistic Japanese vs. Military Americans
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.536

Does anyone know of any groups doing serious AI in the U.S. or Europe
that emulate the Japanese attitude?

>-Lorien

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 21 Dec 83 13:04:21-PST
-FROM-
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #115
-BODY-
"If the U.S. program is aimed at military applications, that's what it
will produce.  Any commercial or industrial spinoff will be
incidental."

It doesn't matter what DoD and the Japanese project aim for.  We're
not talking about a spending a million on designing bullets but
something much more like the space program.  The meat of that
specification was "American on Moon with TV camera" but look what else
happened.  Also, the goal was very low volume, but many of the
products aren't.

Hardware, which is probably the majority of the specification, could
be where the crossover will be greatest.  Even if they fail to get "a
lisp machine in every tank", they'll succeed in making one for an
emergency room.  (Camping gear is a recent example of something
similar.)  Yes, they'll be able to target software applications, but
at least the tools, skills, and people move.  What distinguishes a US
Army database system anyway?

I can understand the objection that the DoD shouldn't have "all those
cycles", but that isn't one of the choices.  (How they are to be used
is, but not through the research.)  The new machines are going to be
built - if nothing else the Dod can use Japanese ones.  Even if all
other things were equal, I don't think the economic ones are, why
should they have all the fun?

>andy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 21 December 1983, 19:27-EST
-FROM-
From: Hewitt at MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Generation Computing: Japanese and U.S. motivations
-BODY-
Ron,

For better or worse, I do not believe that you can determine what will
be the motivations or structure of either the MITI Fifth Generation
effort or the DARPA Strategic Computing effort by citing chapter and
verse from the two reports which you have quoted.

/Carl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 83 22:55:04 EST
-FROM-
From: BRINT <abc@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Funding - New Generation Computing
-BODY-
It seems to me that intelligent folks like AIList readers
should realize that the only reason Japan can fund peaceful
and humanitarian research to the exclusion of
military projects is that the United States provides the
military protection and security guarantees (out of our own
pockets) that make this sort of thing possible.

(I believe Al Davis said it well in the last Digest.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Dec 83 13:52:20 EST
-FROM-
From: STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Strategic Computing: Defense vs Commerce
-BODY-
Yes, it is a sad fact about American society that a project like
Strategic Computing will only be funded if it is presented as a
defense issue rather than a commercial/economic one.  (How many people
remember that the original name for the Interstate Highway system had
the word "Defense" in it?)  This is something we can and
should work to change, but I do not believe that it is the kind of
thing that can be changed in a year or two.  So, we are faced with the
choice of waiting until we change society, or getting the AI work done
in a way that is not perfectly optimal for producing
commercial/economic results.

It should be noted that achieving the military goals will require very
large advances in the underlying technology that will certainly have
very large effects on non-military AI.  It is not just a vague hope
for a few spinoffs.  So while doing it the DOD way may not be optimal
it is not horrendously sub-optimal.

There is, of course, a moral issue of whether we want the military to
have the kinds of capabilities implied by the Strategic Computing
plan.  However, if the answer is no then you cannot do the work under
any funding source.  If the basic technology is achieved in any way,
then the military will manage to use it for their purposes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Dec 83 19:47:50-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Information sciences vs. physical sc - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4598

    The definitions of Science that were offered, in defense of
    "computer Science" being a science, were just irrelevant.
    A field can lay claim to Science, if it uses the "scientific method"
    to make advances, that is:

    Hypotheses are proposed.
    Hypotheses are tested by objective experiments.
    The experiments are objectively evaluated to prove or
            disprove the hypotheses.
    The experiments are repeatable by other people in other places.

                                    - Keremath,  care of:
                                      Robison
                                      decvax!ittvax!eosp1
                                      or:   allegra!eosp1


I have to disagree. Your definition of `science' excludes at least one
thing that almost certainly IS a science: astronomy. The major problem
here is that most astronomers (all extra-solar astronomers) just can not
do experiments. Which is why they call it `obervational astronomy.'

I would guess what is needed is three (at least) flavors of science:

        1) experimental sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology.
        Any field that uses the `scientific method.'

        2) observational sciences: astronomy, sociology, etc. Any field that,
        for some reason or another, must be satisfied with observing
        phenomena, and cannot perform experiments.

        3) ? sciences: mathematics, some cs, probably others. Any field that
        explores the universe of the possible, as opposed to the universe of
        the actual.

What should the ? be? I don't know. I would tend to favor `logical,' but
something tells me a lot of people will object.

        <mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Dec 1983 14:36-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%usc-cse%USC-ECL@SRI-NIC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #115
-BODY-
        Th reference to Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'
is appreciated, but if you take a good look at the book itself, you
will find it severely lacking in scientific practice. Besides being
palpably inconsistent, Kuhn's book claims several facts about history
that are not correct, and uses them in support of his arguments. One of
his major arguments is that historians rewrite the facts, thus he acted
in this manner to rewrite facts to support his contentions. He defined
a term 'paradigm' inconsistently, and even though it is in common use
today, it has not been consistently defined yet. He also made several
other inconsistent definitions, and has even given up this view of
science (if you bother to read the other papers written after his book).

    It just goes to show you, you shouldn't believe everything you read,
                                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
1

-N-
117
-DATE-
Date: 23 Dec 1983 11:59-EST
-FROM-
From: David.Anderson@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: fiber optic camera?
-BODY-
The University of Pittsburgh Observatory is experimenting with just
such an imaging system in one of their major projects, trying to
(indirectly) observe planetary systems around nearby stars.  They claim
that the fiber optics provide so much more resolution than the
photography they used before that they may well succeed.  Another major
advantage to them is that they have been able to automate the search;
no more days spent staring at photographs.

>-david

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 Dec 83 12:01:07-EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Rubin <RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loop detection and classical psychology
-BODY-
I wonder if we've been incorrectly thinking of the brain's loop detection
mechanism as a sort of monitor process sitting above a train of thought,
and deciding when the latter is stuck in a loop and how to get out of it.
This approach leads to the problem of who monitors the monitor, ad
infinitum.  Perhaps the brain detects loops in *hardware*, by classical
habituation.  If each neuron is responsible for one production (more or
less), then a neuron involved in a loop will receive the same inputs so
often that it will get tired of seeing those inputs and fire less
frequently (return a lower certainty value), breaking the loop.  The
detection of higher level loops such as "Why am I trying to get this PhD?"
implies that there is a hierarchy of little production systems (or
whatever), one for each chunk of knowledge.  [Next question - how are
chunks formed?  Maybe there's a low-level explanation for that too, having
to do with classical conditioning....]

BTW, I thought of this when I read some word or other so often that it
started looking funny; that phenomenon has gotta be a misfeature of loop
detection.  Some neuron in the dictionary decides it's been seeing that damn
word too often, so it makes its usual definition less certain; the parse
routine that called it gets an uncertain definition back and calls for
help.
                        --Mike Rubin <Rubin@Columbia-20>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Dec 1983 16:30:08-PST
-FROM-
From: marcel.uiuc@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: a trivial reasoning problem?
-BODY-
This is an elaboration of why a problem I submitted to the AIList seems
to be unsolvable using regular Horn clause logic, as in Prolog. First I'll
present the problem (of my own devising), then my comments, for your critique.

        Suppose you are shown two lamps, 'a' and 'b', and you
        are told that, at any time,

                1. at least one of 'a' or 'b' is on.
                2. whenever 'a' is on, 'b' is off.
                3. each lamp is either on or off.

        WITHOUT using an exhaustive generate-and-test strategy,
        enumerate the possible on-off configurations of the two
        lamps.

If it were not for the exclusion of dumb-search-and-filter solutions, this
problem would be trivial. The exclusion has left me baffled, even though
the problem seems so logical. Check me on my thinking about why it's so
difficult.

1. The first constraint (one or both lamps on) is not regular Horn clause
   logic. I would like to be able to state (as a fact) that

        on(a) OR on(b)

   but since regular Horn clauses are restricted to at most one positive
   literal I have to recode this. I cannot assert two independent facts
   'on(a)', 'on(b)' since this suggests that 'a' and 'b' are always both
   on. I can however express it in regular Horn clause form:

        not on(b) IMPLIES on(a)
        not on(a) IMPLIES on(b)

   As it happens, both of these are logically equivalent to the original
   disjunction. So let's write them as Prolog:

        on(a) :- not on(b).
        on(b) :- not on(a).

   First, this is not what the disjunction meant. These rules say that 'a'
   is provably on only when 'b' is not provably on, and vice versa, when in
   fact 'a' could be on no matter what 'b' is.

   Second, a question   ?- on(X).  will result in an endless loop.

   Third, 'a' is not known to be on except when 'b' is not known to be on
   (which is not the same as when 'b' is known to be off). This sounds as
   if the closed-world assumption might let us get away with not being able
   to prove anything (if we can't prove something we can always assume its
   negation). Not so. We do not know ANYTHING about whether 'a' or 'b' are
   on OR off; we only know about constraints RELATING their states. Hence
   we cannot even describe their possible states, since that would require
   filling in (by speculative hypothesis) the states of the lamps.

   What is wanted is a non-regular Horn clause, but some of the nice
   properties of Logic Programming (eg completeness and consistency under the
   closed-world assumption, alias a reasonable negation operator) do not apply
   to non-regular Horn clauses.

2. The second constraint (whenever 'a' is on, 'b' is off) shares some of the
   above problems, and a new one. We want to say

        on(a) IMPLIES not on(b),   or    not on(b) :- on(a).

   but this is not possible in Prolog; we have to say it in what I feel to
   be a rather contrived manner, namely

        on(b) :- on(a), !, fail.

   Unfortunately this makes no sense at all to a theoretician. It is trying
   to introduce negative information, but under the closed-world assumption,
   saying that something is NOT true is just the same as not saying it at all,
   so the clause is meaningless.

   Alternative: define a new predicate off(X) which is complementary to on(X).
   That is the conceptualization suggested by the third problem constraint.

3.      off(X) :- not on(X).
        on(X)  :- not off(X).

   This idea has all the problems of the first constraint, including the
   creation of another endless loop.

It seems this problem is beyond the capabilities of present-day logic
programming. Please let me know if you can find a solution, or if you think
my analysis of the difficulties is inaccurate.

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                                        {pur-ee|ihnp4}!uiucdcs!marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Dec 83 22:15:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: High Technology Articles
-BODY-
The January issue of High Technology has a fairly good introduction
to expert systems for commercial applications.  As usual for this
magazine, there are corporate names and addresses and product
prices.  The article mentions that there are probably fewer than
200 "knowledge engineers" in the country, most at universities
and think tanks; an AI postdoc willing to go into industry, but
with no industry experience, can command $70K.

The business outlook section is not the usual advice column
for investors, just a list of some well-known AI companies.  The
article is also unusual in that it bases a few example of knowledge
representation and inference on the fragment BIRD IS-A MAMMAL.


Another interesting article is "Designing Molecules by Computer".
Several approaches are given, but one seems particularly pertinent
to the recent AIList discussion of military AI funding.  Du Pont
researchers are studying how a drug homes in on its receptor site.
They use an Army program that generates line-of-sight maps for
TV-controlled antitank missiles to "fly" a drug in and observe how its
ability to track its receptor site on the enzyme surface is influenced
by a variety of force fields and solvent interactions.  A different
simulation with a similar purpose uses robotic software for assembling
irregular components to "pick up" the drug and "insert" it in the
enzyme.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 December 1983 21:41 est
-FROM-
From: Dehn at MIT-MULTICS (Joseph W. Dehn III)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "comparable" quotes
-BODY-
Person at University of Tokyo, editor of a scientific/engineering
journal, says computers will be used to solve human problems.

Person at DARPA says computers will be used to make better weapons
("ways of killing people").

Therefore, Japanese are humane, Americans are warmongers.

Huh?

What is somebody at DARPA supposed to say is the purpose of his R&D
program?  As part of the Defense Department, that agency's goal SHOULD
be to improve the defense of the United States.  If they are doing
something else, they are wasting the taxpayer's money.  There are
undoubtedly other considerations involved in DARPA's activities,
bureaucratic, economic, scientific, etc., but, nobody should be
astonished when an official statement of purpose states the official
purpose!

Assuming the nation should be defended, and assuming that advanced
computing can contribute to defense, it makes sense for the national
government to take an interest in advanced computing for defense.  Thus,
the question should not be, "why do Americans build computers to kill
people", but rather why don't they, like the Japanese, ALSO, and
independent of defense considerations (which are, as has been pointed
out, different in Japan), build computers " to produce profitable
industrial products"?

Of course, before we try to solve this puzzle, we should first decide
that there is something to be solved.  Is somebody suggesting that
because there are no government or quasi-government statements of
purpose, that Americans are not working on producing advanced and
profitable computer products?  What ARE all those non-ARPA people doing
out there in netland, anyway?  Where are IBM's profits coming from?

How can we meaningfully compare the "effort" being put into computer
research in Japan and the U.S.?  Money? People?  How about results?
Which country has produced more working AI systems (you pick the
definition of "working" and "AI")?

                           -jwd3

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Dec 1983 09:11:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Mike Brzustowicz <mab@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Japan again.
-BODY-
Just one more note.  Not only do we supply Japan's defense, but by treaty
they cannot supply their own (except for a very small national guard-type
force).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Dec 83 19:49:32-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Information sciences vs. physical sc - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.466

I disagree -  astronomy IS an experimental science.  Even before the
age of space rockets, some celebrated astronomical experiments have
been performed.  In astronomy, as in all sciences, one observes,
makes hypotheses, and then tries to verify the hypotheses by
observation.  In chemistry and physics, a lot of attention is paid
to setting up an experiment, as well as observing the experiment;
in astronomy (geology as well!), experiments consist mostly
of observation, since there is hardly anything that people are capable
of setting up.  Here are some pertinent examples:

(1) An experiment to test a theory about the composition of the sun has
been going on for several years.  It consists of an attempt to trap
neutrinos from the sun in a pool of chlorine underground.  The amount
of neutrinos detected has been about 1/4 of what was predicted, leading
to new suggestions about both the composition of the sun,
and (in particle physics) the physical properties of neutrinos.

(2) An experiment to verify Einstein's theory of relativity,
particularly the hypothesis that the presence of large masses curves
space (gravitational relativity) -- Measurements of Mercury's apparent
position, during an eclipse of the sun, were in error to a degree
consistent with Einstein's theory.

Obviously, Astronomical experiments will seem to lie half in the realm
of physics, since the theories of physics are the tools with which we
try to understand the skies.

Astronomers and physicists, please help me out here; I'm neither.
In fact, I don't even believe in neutrinos.

                                - Keremath,  care of:
                                  Robison
                                  decvax!ittvax!eosp1
                                  or:   allegra!eosp1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 83 15:44 EST
-FROM-
From: Hengst.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V1 #116
-BODY-
The flaming on the science component of computer science intrigues me
because it parallels some of the 1960's and 1970's discussion about the
science component of social science. That particular discussion, to
which Thomas Kuhn also contributed, also has not yet reached closure
which leaves me with the feeling that science might best be described as
a particular form of behavior by practitioners who possess certain
qualifications and engage in certain rituals approved by members of the
scientific tribe.

Thus, one definition of science is that it is whatever it is that
scientists do in the name of science ( a contextual and social
definition). Making coffee would not be scientific activity but reading
a professional book or entertaining colleagues with stimulating thoughts
and writings would be. From this perspective, employing the scientific
method is merely a particular form of engaging in scientific practice
without judging the outcome of that scientific practice. Relying upon
the scientific method by unlicensed practitioners would not result in
science but in lay knowledge. This means that authoritative statements
by members of scientific community are automatically given a certain
truth value. "Professor X says this", "scientific study Y demonstrates
that . . ." should all be considered as scientific statements because
they are issued as authorative statements in the name of science. This
interpretation of science discounts the role of Edward Teller as a
credible spokesman in the area of nuclear weapons policy in foreign
affairs.

The "licensing" of the practitioners derives from the formalization of
the training and education in the particular body of knowledge: eg. a
university degree is a form of license. Scientific knowledge can
differentiate itself from other forms of knowledge on the basis of
attempts (but not necesssarily success) at formalization. Physical
sciences study phenomena which lend themselves to better quantification
(they do have better metrics!) and higher levels of formalization. The
deterministic bodies of knowledge of the physical science allow for
better prediction than the heavily probabilistic bodies of knowledge of
the social science which facilitate explanation more so than prediction.
I am not sure if a lack of predictive power or lack of availability of
the scientific method (experimental design in its many flavors) makes
anyone less a scientist. The social sciences are rich in description and
insight which in my judgment compensates for a lack of hierarchical,
deductive formal knowledge.

From this point of view computer science is science if it involves
building a body of knowledge with attempts at formulating rules in some
consistent and verfiable manner by a body of trained practitioners.
Medieval alchemy also qualifies due to its apprenticeship program (rules
for admitting members) and its rules for building knowledge.
Fortunately, we have better rules now.

Acco

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Dec 83 23:38:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Philosophy of Science Discussion
-BODY-
I hate to put a damper on the discussion of Scientific Method,
but feel it is my duty as moderator.  The discussion has been
intelligent and entertaining, but has strayed from the central
theme of this list.  I welcome discussion of appropriate research
techniques for AI, but discussion of the definition and philosophy
of science should be directed to Phil-Sci@MIT-OZ.  (Net.ai members
are free to discuss whatever they wish, of course, but I will
not pass further messages on this topic to the ARPANET readership.)

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
1
-DATE-
Date: Tue 3 Jan 84 15:07:27-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Host List
-BODY-
The AIList readership has continued to grow throughout the year, and only
a few individuals have asked to be dropped from the distribution network.
I cannot estimate the number of readers receiving AIList through bboards
and remailing nodes, but the existence of such services has obviously
reduced the outgoing net traffic.  For those interested in such things,
I present the following approximate list of host machines on my direct
distribution list.  Numbers in parentheses indicate individual subscribers;
all other hosts (and those marked with "bb") have redistribution systems.
A few of the individual subscribers are undoubtedly redistributing
AIList to their sites, and a few redistribution nodes receive the list
from other such nodes (e.g., PARC-MAXC from RAND-UNIX).  AIList is
also available to USENET through the net.ai distribution system.

    AEROSPACE(8), AIDS-UNIX, BBNA(2), BBNG(1), BBN-UNIX(8), BBN-VAX(3),
    BERKELEY(3), BITNET@BERKELEY(2), ONYX@BERKELEY(1), UCBCAD@BERKELEY(2),
    BRANDEIS(1), BRL(bb+1), BRL-VOC(1), BROWN(1), BUFFALO-CS(1),
    cal-unix@SEISMO(1), CIT-20, CMU-CS-A(bb+11) CMU-CS-G(3),
    CMU-CS-SPICE(1), CMU-RI-ISL1(1), COLUMBIA-20, CORNELL,
    DEC-MARLBORO(7), EDXA@UCL-CS(1), GATECH, HI-MULTICS(bb+1),
    CSCKNP@HI-MULTICS(2), SRC@HI-MULTICS(1), houxa@UCLA-LOCUS(1),
    HP-HULK(1), IBM-SJ(1), JPL-VAX(1), KESTREL(1), LANL, LLL-MFE(2),
    MIT-MC, NADC(2), NOSC(4), NOSC-CC(1), CCVAX@NOSC(3), NPRDC(2),
    NRL-AIC, NRL-CSS, NSF-CS, NSWC-WO(2), NYU, TYM@OFFICE(bb+2),
    RADC-Multics(1), RADC-TOPS20, RAND-UNIX, RICE, ROCHESTER(2),
    RUTGERS(bb+2), S1-C(1), SAIL, SANDIA(bb+1), SCAROLINA(1),
    sdcrdcf@UCBVAX(1), SRI-AI(bb+6), SRI-CSL(1), SRI-KL(12), SRI-TSC(3),
    SRI-UNIX, SU-AI(2), SUMEX, SUMEX-AIM(2), SU-DSN, SU-SIERRA@SU-DSN(1),
    SUNY-SBCS(1), SU-SCORE(11), SU-PSYCH@SU-SCORE(1), TEKTRONIX(1), UBC,
    UCBKIM, UCF-CS, UCI, UCL-CS, UCLA-ATS(1), UCLA-LOCUS(bb+1),
    UDel-Relay(1), UIUC, UMASS-CS, UMASS-ECE(1), UMCP-CS, UMN-CS(bb+1),
    UNC, UPENN, USC-ECL(7), USC-CSE@USC-ECL(2), USC-ECLD@USC-ECL(1),
    SU-AI@USC-ECL(4), USC-ECLA(1), USC-ECLB(2), USC-ECLC(2), USC-ISI(5),
    USC-ISIB(bb+6), USC-ISID(1), USC-ISIE(2), USC-ISIF(10), UTAH-20(bb+2),
    utcsrgv@CCA-UNIX(1), UTEXAS-20, TI@UTEXAS-20(1), WISC-CRYS(3),
    WASHINGTON(4), YALE

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 83 15:20:41 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Are you interested in a more specialized "VISION-LIST"?
-BODY-
        I been feeling frustrated (again).  I really like AIList,
since it provides a nice forum for general AI topics.  Yet, like
many of you out there, I am primarily a vision researcher looking into
ways to facilitate machine vision and trying to decipher the strange,
all-too-often unknown mechanisms of sight.  What we need is a
specialized VISION-LIST to provide a more specific forum that will
foster a greater exchange of ideas among our research.
So...one question and one request:  1) is there such a list in the
works?, and  2) if you are interested in such a list PLEASE SPEAK UP!!

                        Thanks!
                        Philip Kahn
                        UCLA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 30 Dec 83 11:04:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loop detection
-BODY-
Mike,
        It seems to me that we have an inbuilt mechanism which remembers
what is done (thought) at all times. I.E. we know and remember (more or
less) our train of thoughts. When we get in a loop, the mind is
immediately triggered : at the first element, we think it could be a
coincidence, as more elements are found matching the loop, the more
convinced we get that there is a repeat : the reading example is quite
good , even when just one word appears in the same sentence context
(meaning rather than syntactical context), my mind is triggered and I go
back and check if there is actually a loop or not. Thus to implement this
property in the computer we would need a mechanism able to remember the
path and check whether it has been followed already or not (and how
far), at each step. Detection of repeats of logical rather than word for
word sentences (or sets of ideas) is still left open.
        I think that the loop detection mechanism is part of the
memorization process, which is an integral part of the reasoning engine
and it is not sitting "on top" and monitoring the reasoning process from
above.

Rene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 January 1984 14:40 EST
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: stupid questions....
-BODY-
Speaking as an interested outsider to AI, I have a few questions that
I hope someone can answer in non-jargon.  Any help is greatly appreciated:

1. Just why is a language like LISP better for doing AI stuff than a
language like PASCAL or ADA?  In what sense is LISP "more natural" for
simulating cognitive processes?  Why can't you do this in more tightly
structured languages like PASCAL?

2. What is the significance of not distinguishing between data and
program in LISP?  How does this help?

3. What is the difference between decisions made in a production
system (as I understand it, a production is a construct of the form IF
X is true, then do Y, where X is a condition and Y is a procedure),
and decisions made in a PASCAL program (in which IF statements also
have the same (superficial) form).


many thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jan 84 1:01:50-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: a trivial reasoning problem? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.2135

Gee, and to a non-Prolog person (me) your problem seemed so simple
(even given the no-exhaustive-search rule). Let's see,

        1. At least one of A or B is on = (A v B)
        2. If A is on, B is not         = (A -> ~B) = (~A v (~B)) [def'n of ->]
        3. A and B are binary conditions.

>From #3, we are allowed to use first-order Boolean algebra (WFF'n'PROOF game).
(That is, #3 is a meta-condition.)

So, #1 and #2 together is just (#1) ^ (#2) [using caret ^ for disjunction]

or,             #1 ^ #2 = (A v B) ^ (~A v ~B)
(distributivity)        = (A ^ ~A) v (A ^ ~B) v (B ^ ~A) v (B ^ ~B)
(from #3 and ^-axiom)   = (A ^ ~B) v (B ^ ~A)
(def'n of xor)          = A xor B

Hmmm... Maybe I am missing your original question altogether. Is your real
question "How does one enumerate the elements of a state-space (powerset)
for which a certain logical proposition is true without enumerating (examining)
elements of the state-space for which the proposition is false?"?

To me (an ignorant "non-ai" person), this seems excluded by a version of the
First Law of Thermodynamics, namely, the Law of the Excluded Miraculous Sort
(i.e. to tell which of two elements is bigger, you have to look at both).

It seems to me that you must at least look at SOME of the states for which the
proposition is false, or equivalently, you must use the structure of the
formula itself to do the selection (say, while doing a tree-walk). The problem
of the former approach is that the number of "bad" states should be kept
small (for efficiency), leading to all kinds of pruning heuristics; while
for the latter method the problem of elimination of duplicates (assuming
parallel processing) leads to the former method!

In either case, however, reasoning about the variables does not seem to
solve the problem; one must reason about the formulae. If Prolog admits
of constructing such meta-rules, you may have a chance. (I.e., "For all
true formula 'X xor Y', only X need be considered when ~Y, & v-v.)

In any event, I think your problem can be simplified to:

        1'. A xor B
        2'. A, B are binary variables.


Rob Warnock

UUCP:   {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:    (415)595-8444
USPS:   Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Dec 83 4:01:48-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: REFERENCES FOR SPECIALIZED CAMERA DE - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.2114

Please clarify what you mean by "get close to the focal point of the
optical system". For any lens system I've used (both cameras and TVs),
the imaging surface (the film or the sensor) already IS at the focal point.
As I recall, the formula (for convex lenses) is:

         1     1     1
        --- = --- + ---
         f    obj   img

where "f" is the focal length of the lens, "obj" the distance to the "object",
and "img" the distance to the (real) image. Solving for minimum "obj + img",
the closest you can get a focused image to the object (using a lens) is 4*f,
with the lens midway between the object and the image (1/f = 1/2f + 1/2f).

Not sure what a bundle of fibers would do for you, since without a lens each
fiber picks up all the light around it within a cone of its numerical
aperture (NA). Some imaging systems DO use fiber bundles directly in contact
with film, but that's generally going the other way (from a CRT to film).
I think Tektronix has a graphics output device like that. I suppose you
could use it if the object were self-luminous...

Rob Warnock

UUCP:   {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:    (415)595-8444
USPS:   Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
2
-DATE-
Date: 04 Jan 84  1553 PST
-FROM-
From: Fred Lakin <FRD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: High resolution video projection
-BODY-
I want to buy a hi-resolution monochrome video projector suitable for use with
generic LISP machine or Star-type terminals (ie approx 1000 x 1000 pixels).
It would be nice if it cost less than $15K and didn't require expensive
replacement parts (like light valves).

Does anybody know of such currently on the market?

I know, chances seem dim, so on to my second point: I have heard it would be
possible to make a portable video projector that would cost $5K, weigh 25lb,
and project using monochrome green phosphor.  The problem is that industry
does not feel the market demand would justify production at such a price ...
Any ideas on how to find out the demand for such an item?  Of course if
all of you who might be interested in this kind of projector let me know
your suggestions, that would be a good start.

Thanks in advance for replies and/or notions,
Fred Lakin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Jan 84 10:25:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: stupid questions (i.e. Why Lisp?)
-BODY-
        You might want to read an article by Beau Sheil (Xerox PARC)
in the February '83 issue of Datamation called "Power tools for
programmers."  It is mostly about the Interlisp-D programming
environment, but might give you some insights about LISP in general.
        I'll offer three other reasons, though.
        Algol family languages lack the datatypes to conveniently
implement a large number of knowledge representation schemes.  Ditto
wrt. rules.  Try to imagine setting up a pascal record structure to
embody the rules "If I have less than half of a tank of gas then I
have as a goal stopping at a gas station" & "If I am carrying valuable
goods, then I should avoid highway bandits."  You could write pascal
CODE that sort of implemented the above, but DATA would be extremely
difficult.  You would almost have to write a lisp interpreter in
pascal to deal with it.  And then, when you've done that, try writing
a compiler that will take your pascal data structures and generate
native code for the machine in question!  Now, do it on the fly, as a
knowledge engineer is augmenting the knowledge base!
        Algol languages have a tedious development cycle because they
typically do not let a user load/link the same module many times as he
debugs it.  He typically has to relink the entire system after every
edit.  This prevents much in the way of incremental compilation, and
makes such languages tedious to debug in.  This is an argument against
the languages in general, and doesn't apply to AI explicitly.  The AI
community feels this as a pressure more, though, perhaps because it
tends to build such large systems.
        Furthermore, consider that most bugs in non-AI systems show up
at compile time.  If a flaw is in the KNOWLEDGE itself in an AI
system, however, the flaws will only show up in the form of incorrect
(unintelligent?) behavior.  Typically only lisp-like languages provide
the run-time tools to diagnose such problems.  In Pascal, etc, the
programmer would have to go back and explicitly put all sorts of
debugging hooks into the system, which is both time consuming, and is
not very clean.  --Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jan 84 13:59:07 EST
-FROM-
From: STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Herb Lin's questons on LISP etc.
-BODY-
Herb:
Those are hardly stupid questions.  Let me try to answer:

        1. Just why is a language like LISP better for doing AI stuff than a
        language like PASCAL or ADA?

There are two kinds of reasons.  You could argue that LISP is more
oriented towards "symbolic" processing than PASCAL.  However, probably
more important is the fact that LISP provides a truly outstanding
environment for exploratory programming, that is, programming where
you do not completely understand the problem or its solutions before
you start programming.  This is normally the case in AI programming -
even if you think you understand things you normally find out there
was at least something you were wrong about or had forgotten.  That's
one major reason for actually writing the programs.

Note that I refer to the LISP environment, not just the language.  The
existence of good editors, debuggers, cross reference aids, etc. is at
least as important as the language itself.  A number of features of LISP
make a good environment easy to provide for LISP.  These include the
compatible interpreter/compiler, the centrality of function calls, and the
simplicity and accessibility of the internal representation of programs.

For a very good introduction to the flavor of programming in LISP
environments, see "Programming in an Interactive Environment, the LISP
Experience", by Erik Sandewall, Computing Surveys, V. 10 #1, March 1978.

        2. What is the significance of not distinguishing between data
        and program in LISP?  How does this help?

Actually, in ANY language, the program is also data for the interpreter
or compiler.  What is important about LISP is that the internal form used
by the interpreter is simple and accessible.  It is simple in that the
the internal form is a structure of nested lists that captures most of
both the syntactic and the semantic structure of the code.  It is accessible
in that this structure of nested lists is in fact a basic built in data
structure supported by all the facilities of the system, and in that a
program can access or set the definition of a function.

Together these make it easy to write programs which operate on other programs.
E.g.  to add a trace feature to PASCAL you have to modify the compiler or
interpreter.  To add a trace feature to LISP you need not modify the
interpreter at all.

Furthermore, it turns out to be easy to use LISP to write interpreters
for other languages, as long as the other languages use a similar
internal form and have a similarly simple relation between form and
semantics.  Thus, a common way to solve a problem in LISP is to
implement a language in which it is easy to express solutions to
problems in a general class, and then use this language to solve your
particular problem.  See the Sandewall article mentioned above.

        3. What is the difference between decisions made in a production
        system and decisions made in a PASCAL program (in which IF statements
        also have the same (superficial) form).

Production Systems gain some advantages by restricting the languages
for the IF and THEN parts.  Also, in many production systems, all
the IF parts are evaluated first, to see which are true, before any
THEN part is done.  If more than one IF part is true, some other
mechanism decides which THEN part (or parts) to do.  Finally, some
production systems such as EMYCIN do "backward chaining", that is, one
starts with a goal and asks which THEN parts, if they were done, would
be useful in achieving the goal.  One then looks to see if their
corresponding IF parts are true, or can be made true by treating them
as sub-goals and doing the same kind of reasoning on them.

A very good introduction to production systems is "An Overview of Production
Systems" by Randy Davis and Jonathan King, October 1975, Stanford AI Lab
Memo AIM-271 and Stanford CS Dept. Report STAN-CS-75-524.  It's probably
available from the National Technical Information Service.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jan 84 8:42:34-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Netwide Course -- AI and Mysticism!!
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.395

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
*            An Experiment in Teaching, an Experiment in AI             *
*       Spring Term Artificial Intelligence Seminar Announcement        *
*                                                                       *
*************************************************************************

This Spring term Penn State inaugurates a new experimental course:

        "THE HUMAN CONDITION: PROBLEMS AND CREATIVE SOLUTIONS".

This course explores all that makes the human condition so joyous and
delightful: learning, creative expression, art, music, inspiration,
consciousness, awareness, insight, sensation, planning, action, community.
Where others study these DESCRIPTIVELY, we will do so CONSTRUCTIVELY.  We
will gain familiarity by direct human experience and by building artificial
entities which manifest these wonders!!

We will formulate and study models of the human condition -- an organism of
bounded rationality confronting a bewilderingly complex environment.  The
human organism must fend for survival, but it is aided by some marvelous
mechanisms: perception (vision, hearing), cognition (understanding, learning,
language), and expression (motor skill, music, art).  We can view these
respectively as the input, processing, and output of symbolic information.
These mechanisms somehow encode all that is uniquely human in our experience
>- or do they??  Are these mechanisms universal among ALL sentient beings, be
they built from doped silicon or neural jelly?  Are these mechanisms really
NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for sentience?

Not content with armchair philosophizing, we will push these models toward
the concreteness needed for physical implementation.  We will build the tools
that will help us to understand and use the necessary representations and
processes, and we will use these tools to explore the space of possible
realizations of "artificial sentience".

This will be no ordinary course.  For one thing, it has no teacher.  The
course will consist of a group of highly energetic individuals engaged in
seeking the secrets of life, motivated solely by the joy of the search
itself.  I will function as a "resource person" to the extent my background
allows, but the real responsibility for the success of the expedition rests
upon ALL of its members.

My role is that of "encounter group facilitator":  I jab when things lag.
I provide a sheltered environment where the shy can "come out" without
fear.  I manipulate and connive to keep the discussions going at a fever
pitch.  I pick and poke, question and debunk, defend and propose, all to
incite people to THINK and to EXPRESS.

Several people who can't be at Penn State this Spring told me they wish
they could participate -- so: I propose opening this course to the entire
world, via the miracles of modern networks!  We have arranged a local
mailing list for sharing discussions, source-code, class-session summaries,
and general flammage (with the chaff surely will be SOME wheat).  I'm aware
of three fora for sharing this: USENET's net.ai, Ken Laws' AIList, and
MIT's SELF-ORG mailing list.  PLEASE MAIL ME YOUR REACTIONS to using these
resources: would YOU like to participate? would it be a productive use of
the phone lines? would it be more appropriate to go to /dev/null?

The goals of this course are deliberately ambitious.  I seek participants
who are DRIVEN to partake in this journey -- the best, brightest, most
imaginative and highly motivated people the world has to offer.

Course starts Monday, January 16.  If response is positive, I'll post the
network arrangements about that time.

This course is dedicated to the proposition that the best way to secure
for ourselves the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
is reverence for all that makes the human condition beautiful, and the
best way to build that reverence is the scientific study and construction
of the marvels that make us truly human.

>-
Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
Arpa:   bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley    Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET
CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet           UUCP:   allegra!psuvax!bobgian
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jan 84 8:46:31-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Netwide AI Course -- Part 2
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.396

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
*         Spring Term Artificial Intelligence Seminar Syllabus          *
*                                                                       *
*************************************************************************


  MODELS OF SENTIENCE
    Learning, Cognitive Model Formation, Insight, Discovery, Expression;
    "Subcognition as Computation", "Cognition as Subcomputation";
    Physical, Cultural, and Intellectual Evolution.

      SYMBOLIC INPUT CHANNELS: PERCEPTION
        Vision, hearing, signal processing, the "signal/symbol interface".

      SYMBOLIC PROCESSING: COGNITION
        Language, Understanding, Goals, Knowledge, Reasoning.

      SYMBOLIC OUTPUT CHANNELS: EXPRESSION
        Motor skills, Artistic and Musical Creativity, Story Creation,
        Prose, Poetry, Persuasion, Beauty.

  CONSEQUENCES OF THESE MODELS
    Physical Symbol Systems and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems;
    The "Aha!!!" Phenomenon, Divine Inspiration, Extra-Sensory Perception,
    The Conscious/Unconscious Mind, The "Right-Brain/Left-Brain" Dichotomy;
    "Who Am I?", "On Having No Head"; The Nature and Texture of Reality;
    The Nature and Role of Humor; The Direct Experience of the Mystical.

  TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING THESE ABILITIES IN HUMANS
    Meditation, Musical and Artistic Experience, Problem Solving,
    Games, Yoga, Zen, Haiku, Koans, "Calculus for Peak Experiences".

  TECHNIQUES FOR DEVELOPING THESE ABILITIES IN MACHINES

    REVIEW OF LISP PROGRAMMING AND FORMAL SYMBOL MANIPULATION:
      Construction and access of symbolic expressions, Evaluation and
      Quotation, Predicates, Function definition; Functional arguments
      and returned values; Binding strategies -- Local versus Global,
      Dynamic versus Lexical, Shallow versus Deep; Compilation of LISP.

    IMPLEMENTATION OF LISP:  Storage Mapping and the Free List;
      The representation of Data: Typed Pointers, Dynamic Allocation;
      Symbols and the Symbol Table (Obarray); Garbage Collection
      (Sequential and Concurrent algorithms).

    REPRESENTATION OF PROCEDURE:  Meta-circular definition of the
      evaluation process.

    "VALUES" AND THE OBJECT-ORIENTED VIEW OF PROGRAMMING: Data-Driven
      Programming, Message-Passing, Information Hiding; the MIT Lisp Machine
      "Flavor" system; Functional and Object-Oriented systems -- comparison
      with SMALLTALK.

    SPECIALIZED AI PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES:  Frames and other Knowledge
      Representation Languages, Discrimination Nets, Augmented Transition
      Networks; Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, Agendas, Chronological
      Backtracking, Dependency-Directed Backtracking, Data Dependencies,
      Non-Monotonic Logic, and Truth-Maintenance Systems.

    LISP AS THE "SYSTEMS SUBSTRATE" FOR HIGHER LEVEL ABSTRACTIONS:
      Frames and other Knowledge Representation Languages, Discrimination
      Nets, "Higher" High-Level Languages:  PLANNER, CONNIVER, PROLOG.

  SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THESE ABILITIES IN HUMANS
  AND IN MACHINES
    The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
      (Would we recognize it if we found it?  Would they recognize us?)
    The Search for Terrestrial Intelligence.
    Are We Unique?  Are we worth saving?  Can we save ourselves?
    Why are we here?  Why is ANYTHING here?  WHAT is here?
    Where ARE we?  ARE we?  Is ANYTHING?


These topics form a cluster of related ideas which we will pursue more-or-
less concurrently; the listing is not meant to imply a particular sequence.

Various course members have expressed interest in the following software
engineering projects.  These (and possibly others yet to be suggested)
will run concurrently throughout the course:

    LISP Implementations:
      For CMS, in PL/I and/or FORTRAN
      In PASCAL, optimized for personal computers (esp HP 9816)
      In Assembly, optimized for Z80 and MC68000
      In 370 BAL, modifications of LISP 1.5

    New "High-Level" Systems Languages:
      Flavor System (based on the MIT Zetalisp system)
      Prolog Interpreter (plus compiler?)
      Full Programming Environment (Enhancements to LISP):
        Compiler, Editor, Workspace Manager, File System, Debug Tools

    Architectures and Languages for Parallel {Sub-}Cognition:
      Software and Hardware Alternatives to the Von-Neuman Computer
      Concurrent Processing and Message Passing systems

    Machine Learning and Discovery Systems:
      Representation Language for Machine Learning
      Strategy Learning for various Games (GO, CHECKERS, CHESS, BACKGAMMON)

    Perception and Motor Control Systems:
      Vision (implementations of David Marr's theories)
      Robotic Welder control system

    Creativity Systems:
      Poetry Generators (Haiku)
      Short-Story Generators

    Expert Systems (traditional topic, but including novel features):
      Euclidean Plane Geometry Teaching and Theorem-Proving system
      Welding Advisor
      Meteorological Analysis Teaching system


READINGS -- the following books will be very helpful:

    1.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Patrick H. Winston; Addison Wesley, 1984.

    2.  THE HANDBOOK OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Avron Barr, Paul Cohen, and
    Edward Feigenbaum; William Kaufman Press, 1981 and 1982.  Vols 1, 2, 3.

    3.  MACHINE LEARNING, Michalski, Carbonell, and Mitchell; Tioga, 1983.

    4.  GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID, Douglas R. Hofstadter;
    Basic Books, 1979.

    5.  THE MIND'S I, Douglas R. Hofstadter and Daniel C. Dennett;
    Basic Books, 1981.

    6.  LISP, Patrick Winston and Berthold K. P. Horn; Addison Wesley, 1981.

    7.  ANATOMY OF LISP, John Allen; McGraw-Hill, 1978.

    8.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMMING, Eugene Charniak, Christopher K.
    Riesbeck, and Drew V. McDermott; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.

>-
Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
Arpa:   bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley    Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET
CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet           UUCP:   allegra!psuvax!bobgian
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
3
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:18:20-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Penn State's First Undergrad AI Course
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.380

Last fall I taught Penn State's first ever undergrad AI course.  It
attracted 150 students, including about 20 faculty auditors.  I've gotten
requests from several people initiating AI courses elsewhere, and I'm
posting this and the next 6 items in hopes they may help others.

  1.  General Information
  2.  Syllabus (slightly more detailed topic outline)
  3.  First exam
  4.  Second exam
  5.  Third exam
  6.  Overview of how it went.

I'll be giving this course again, and I hate to do anything exactly the
same twice.  I welcome comments and suggestions from all net buddies!

        -- Bob

  [Due to the length of Bob's submission, I will send the three
  exams as a separate digest.  Bob's proposal for a network AI course
  associated with his spring semester curriculum was published in
  the previous AIList issue; that was entirely separate from the
  following material.  -- Ken Laws]

>-
Spoken: Bob Giansiracusa
Bell:   814-865-9507
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET
Arpa:   bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley
CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet
UUCP:   allegra!psuvax!bobgian
USnail: Dept of Comp Sci, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:19:52-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course, Part 1/6
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.381

CMPSC 481:  INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

An introduction to the theory, research paradigms, implementation techniques,
and philosopies of Artificial Intelligence considered both as a science of
natural intelligence and as the engineering of mechanical intelligence.


OBJECTIVES  --  To provide:

   1.  An understanding of the principles of Artificial Intelligence;
   2.  An appreciation for the power and complexity of Natural Intelligence;
   3.  A viewpoint on programming different from and complementary to the
       viewpoints engendered by other languages in common use;
   4.  The motivation and tools for developing good programming style;
   5.  An appreciation for the power of abstraction at all levels of program
       design, especially via embedded compilers and interpreters;
   6.  A sense of the excitement at the forefront of AI research; and
   7.  An appreciation for the tremendous impact the field has had and will
       continue to have on our perception of our place in the Universe.


TOPIC SUMMARY:

  INTRODUCTION:  What is "Intelligence"?
    Computer modeling of "intelligent" human performance.  The Turing Test.
    Brief history of AI.  Relation of AI to psychology, computer science,
    management, engineering, mathematics.

  PRELUDE AND FUGUE ON THE "SECRET OF INTELLIGENCE":
    "What is a Brain that it may possess Intelligence, and Intelligence that
    it may inhabit a Brain?"  Introduction to Formal Systems, Physical Symbol
    Systems, and Multilevel Interpreters.  Necessity and Sufficiency of
    Physical Symbol Systems as the basis for intelligence.

  REPRESENTATION OF PROBLEMS, GOALS, ACTIONS, AND KNOWLEDGE:
    State Space, Predicate Calculus, Production Systems, Procedural
    Representations, Semantic Networks, Frames and Scripts.

  THE "PROBLEM-SOLVING" PARADIGM AND TECHNIQUES:
    Generate and Test, Heuristic Search (Search WITH Heuristics,
    Search FOR Heuristics), Game Trees, Minimax, Problem Decomposition,
    Means-Ends Analysis, The General Problem Solver (GPS).

  LISP PROGRAMMING:
    Symbolic Expressions and Symbol Manipulation, Data Structures,
    Evaluation and Quotation, Predicates, Input/Output, Recursion.
    Declarative and Procedural knowledge representation in LISP.

  LISP DETAILS:
    Storage Mapping, the Free List, and Garbage Collection,
    Binding strategies and the concept of the "Environment", Data-Driven
    Programming, Message-Passing, The MIT Lisp Machine "Flavor" system.

  LISP AS THE "SYSTEMS SUBSTRATE" FOR HIGHER LEVEL ABSTRACTIONS:
    Frames and other Knowledge Representation Languages, Discrimination
    Nets, "Higher" High-Level Languages:  PLANNER, CONNIVER, PROLOG.

  LOGIC, RULE-BASED SYSTEMS, AND INFERENCE:
    Logic: Axioms, Rules of Inference, Theorems, Truth, Provability.
    Production Systems: Rule Interpreters, Forward/Backward Chaining.
    Expert Systems: Applied Knowledge Representation and Inference.
    Data Dependencies, Non-Monotonic Logic, and Truth-Maintenance Systems,
    Theorem Proving, Question Answering, and Planning systems.

  THE UNDERSTANDING OF NATURAL LANGUAGE:
    Formal Linguistics: Grammars and Machines, the Chomsky Hierarchy.
    Syntactic Representation: Augmented Transition Networks (ATNs).
    Semantic Representation: Conceptual Dependency, Story Understanding.
    Spoken Language Understanding.

  ROBOTICS: Machine Vision, Manipulator and Locomotion Control.

  MACHINE LEARNING:
    The Spectrum of Learning: Learning by Adaptation, Learning by Being
      Told, Learning from Examples, Learning by Analogy, Learning by
      Experimentation, Learning by Observation and Discovery.
    Model Induction via Generate-and-Test, Automatic Theory Formation.
    A Model for Intellectual Evolution.

  RECAPITULATION AND CODA:
    The knowledge representation and problem-solving paradigms of AI.
    The key ideas and viewpoints in the modeling and creation of intelligence.
    Is there more (or less) to Intelligence, Consciousness, the Soul?
    Prospectus for the future.


Handouts for the course include:

1.  Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search.  1975 Turing
Award Lecture by Allen Newell and Herb Simon; Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 19, No. 3, March 1976.

2.  Steps Toward Artificial Intelligence.  Marvin Minsky; Proceedings of the
IRE, Jan. 1961.

3.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence.  Alan Turing; Mind (Turing's
original proposal for the "Turing Test").

4.  Exploring the Labyrinth of the Mind.  James Gleick; New York Times
Magazine, August 21, 1983 (article about Doug Hofstadter's recent work).


TEXTBOOKS:

1.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Patrick H. Winston; Addison Wesley, 1983.
Will be available from publisher in early 1984.  I will distribute a
copy printed from Patrick's computer-typeset manuscript.

2.  LISP, Patrick Winston and Berthold K. P. Horn; Addison Wesley, 1981.
Excellent introductory programming text, illustrating many AI implementation
techniques at a level accessible to novice programmers.

4.  GODEL, ESCHER, BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID, Douglas R. Hofstadter;
Basic Books, 1979.  One of the most entertaining books on the subject of AI,
formal systems, and symbolic modeling of intelligence.

5.  THE HANDBOOK OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, Avron Barr, Paul Cohen, and
Edward Feigenbaum; William Kaufman Press, 1981 and 1982.  Comes as a three
volume set.  Excellent (the best available), but the full set costs over $100.

6.  ANATOMY OF LISP, John Allen; McGraw-Hill, 1978.  Excellent text on the
definition and implementation of LISP, sufficient to enable one to write a
complete LISP interpreter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:21:46-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course -- part 2/6  (Topic Outline)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.382

CMPSC 481:  INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE


TOPIC OUTLINE:

   INTRODUCTION:  What is "Intelligence"?

   Computer modeling of "intelligent" human performance.  Turing Test.
   Brief history of AI.  Examples of "intelligent" programs:  Evan's Geometric
   Analogies, the Logic Theorist, General Problem Solver, Winograd's English
   language conversing blocks world program (SHRDLU), MACSYMA, MYCIN, DENDRAL.

   PRELUDE AND FUGUE ON THE "SECRET OF INTELLIGENCE":

   "What is a Brain that it may possess Intelligence, and Intelligence that
   it may inhabit a Brain?"  Introduction to Formal Systems, Physical Symbol
   Systems, and Multilevel Interpreters.

   REPRESENTATION OF PROBLEMS, GOALS, ACTIONS, AND KNOWLEDGE:

   State Space problem formulations.  Predicate Calculus.  Semantic Networks.
   Production Systems.  Frames and Scripts.

   SEARCH:

   Representation of problem-solving as graph search.
   "Blind" graph search:
      Depth-first, Breadth-first.
   Heuristic graph search:
      Best-first, Branch and Bound, Hill-Climbing.
   Representation of game-playing as tree search:
      Static Evaluation, Minimax, Alpha-Beta.
   Heuristic Search as a General Paradigm:
      Search WITH Heuristics, Search FOR Heuristics

   THE GENERAL PROBLEM SOLVER (GPS) AS A MODEL OF INTELLIGENCE:

   Goals and Subgoals -- problem decomposition
   Difference-Operator Tables -- the solution to subproblems
   Does the model fit?  Does GPS work?

   EXPERT SYSTEMS AND KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING:

   Representation of Knowledge:  The "Production System" Movement
   The components:
      Knowledge Base
      Inference Engine
   Examples of famous systems:
      MYCIN, TEIRESIAS, DENDRAL, MACSYMA, PROSPECTOR

   INTRODUCTION TO LISP PROGRAMMING:

   Symbolic expressions and symbol manipulation:
      Basic data types
         Symbols
            The special symbols T and NIL
         Numbers
         Functions
      Assignment of Values to Symbols (SETQ)
      Objects constructed from basic types
         Constructor functions:  CONS, LIST, and APPEND
         Accessor functions:  CAR, CDR
   Evaluation and Quotation
   Predicates
   Definition of Functions (DEFUN)
   Flow of Control (COND, PROG, DO)
   Input and Output (READ, PRINT, TYI, TYO, and friends)

   REPRESENTATION OF DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE IN LISP:

   Built-in representation mechanisms
      Property lists
      Arrays
   User-definable data structures
      Data-structure generating macros (DEFSTRUCT)
   Manipulation of List Structure
      "Pure" operations (CONS, LIST, APPEND, REVERSE)
      "Impure" operations (RPLACA and RPLACD, NCONC, NREVERSE)
   Storage Mapping, the Free List, and Garbage Collection

   REPRESENTATION OF PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE IN LISP:

   Types of Functions
      Expr:  Call by Value
      Fexpr:  Call by Name
      Macros and macro-expansion
   Functions as Values
      APPLY, FUNCALL, LAMBDA expressions
      Mapping operators (MAPCAR and friends)
      Functional Arguments (FUNARGS)
      Functional Returned Values (FUNVALS)

   THE MEANING OF "VALUE":

   Assignment of values to symbols
   Binding of values to symbols
      "Local" vs "Global" variables
      "Dynamic" vs "Lexical" binding
      "Shallow" vs "Deep" binding
   The concept of the "Environment"

   "VALUES" AND THE OBJECT-CENTERED VIEW OF PROGRAMMING:

   Data-Driven programming
   Message-passing
   Information Hiding
   Safety through Modularity
   The MIT Lisp Machine "Flavor" system

   LISP'S TALENTS IN REPRESENTATION AND SEARCH:

   Representation of symbolic structures in LISP
      Predicate Calculus
      Rule-Based Expert Systems (the Knowledge Base examined)
      Frames
   Search Strategies in LISP
      Breadth-first, Depth-first, Best-first search
      Tree search and the simplicity of recursion
   Interpretation of symbolic structures in LISP
      Rule-Based Expert Systems (the Inference Engine examined)
      Symbolic Mathematical Manipulation
         Differentiation and Integration
      Symbolic Pattern Matching
         The DOCTOR program (ELIZA)

   LISP AS THE "SYSTEMS SUBSTRATE" FOR HIGHER LEVEL ABSTRACTIONS

   Frames and other Knowledge Representation Languages
   Discrimination Nets
   Augmented Transition Networks (ATNs) as a specification of English syntax
   Interpretation of ATNs
   Compilation of ATNs
   Alternative Control Structures
      Pattern-Directed Inference Systems (production system interpreters)
      Agendas (best-first search)
      Chronological Backtracking (depth-first search)
      Dependency-Directed Backtracking
   Data Dependencies, Non-Monotonic Logic, and Truth-Maintenance Systems
   "Higher" High-Level Languages:  PLANNER, CONNIVER

   PROBLEM SOLVING AND PLANNING:

   Hierarchical models of planning
      GPS, STRIPS, ABSTRIPS

   Non-Hierarchical models of planning
      NOAH, MOLGEN

   THE UNDERSTANDING OF NATURAL LANGUAGE:

   The History of "Machine Translation" -- a seemingly simple task
   The Failure of "Machine Translation" -- the need for deeper understanding
   The Syntactic Approach
      Grammars and Machines -- the Chomsky Hierarchy
      RTNs, ATNs, and the work of Terry Winograd
   The Semantic Approach
      Conceptual Dependency and the work of Roger Schank
   Spoken Language Understanding
      HEARSAY
      HARPY

   ROBOTICS:

   Machine Vision
      Early visual processing (a signal processing approach)
      Scene Analysis and Image Understanding (a symbolic processing approach)
   Manipulator and Locomotion Control
      Statics, Dynamics, and Control issues
      Symbolic planning of movements

   MACHINE LEARNING:

   Rote Learning and Learning by Adaptation
      Samuel's Checker player
   Learning from Examples
      Winston's ARCH system
      Mitchell's Version Space approach
   Learning by Planning and Experimentation
      Samuel's program revisited
      Sussman's HACKER
      Mitchell's LEX
   Learning by Heuristically Guided Discovery
      Lenat's AM (Automated Mathematician)
      Extending the Heuristics:  EURISKO
   Model Induction via Generate-and-Test
      The META-DENDRAL project
   Automatic Formation of Scientific Theories
      Langley's BACON project
   A Model for Intellectual Evolution (my own work)

   RECAP ON THE PRELUDE AND FUGUE:

   Formal Systems, Physical Symbol Systems, and Multilevel Interpreters
   revisited -- are they NECESSARY?  are they SUFFICIENT?  Is there more
   (or less) to Intelligence, Consciousness, the Soul?

   SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FORECASTS:

   The representation of knowledge in Artificial Intelligence
   The problem-solving paradigms of Artificial Intelligence
   The key ideas and viewpoints in the modeling and creation of intelligence
   The results to date of the noble effort
   Prospectus for the future


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:28:32-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course -- part 6/6  (Overview)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.386

A couple of notes about how the course went.  Interest was high, but the
main problem I found is that Penn State students are VERY strongly
conditioned to work for grades and little else.  Most teachers bore them,
expect them to memorize lectures and regurgitate on exams, and students
then get drunk (over 50 frats here) and promptly forget all.  Initially
I tried to teach, but I soon realized that PEOPLE CAN LEARN (if they
really want to) BUT NOBODY CAN TEACH (students who don't want to learn).
As the course evolved my role became less "information courier" and more
"imagination provoker".  I designed exams NOT to measure learning but to
provoke thinking (and thereby learning).  The first exam (on semantic
nets) was given just BEFORE covering that topic in lecture -- students
had a hell of a hard time on the exam, but they sure sat up and paid
attention to the next week's lectures!

For the second exam I announced that TWO exams were being given: an easy
one (if they sat on one side of the room) and a hard one (on other side).
Actually the exams were identical.  (This explains the first question.)
The winning question submitted from the audience related to the chapter
in GODEL, ESCHER, BACH on the MU system: I gave a few axioms and inference
rules and then asked whether a given wff was a theorem.

The third exam was intended ENTIRELY to provoke discussion and NOT AT ALL
to measure anything.  It started with deadly seriousness, then (about 20
minutes into the exam) a few "audience plants" started acting out a
prearranged script which included discussing some of the questions and
writing some answers on the blackboard.  The attempt was to puncture the
"exam mentality" and generate some hot-blooded debate (you'll see what I
mean when you see the questions).  Even the Teaching Assistants were kept
in the dark about this "script"!  Overall, the attempt failed, but many
people did at least tell me that taking the exams was the most fun part
of the course!

With this lead-in, you probably have a clearer picture of some of the
motivations behind the spring term course.  To put it bluntly: I CANNOT
TEACH AI.  I CAN ONLY HOPE TO INSPIRE INTERESTED STUDENTS TO WANT TO LEARN
AI.  I'LL DO ANYTHING I CAN THINK OF WHICH INCREASES THAT INSPIRATION.

The motivational factors also explain my somewhat unusual grading system.
I graded on creativity, imagination, inspiration, desire, energy, enthusiasm,
and gusto.  These were partly measured by the exams, partly by the energy
expended on several optional projects (and term paper topics), and partly
by my seat-of-the-pants estimate of how determined a student was to DO real
AI.  This school prefers strict objective measures of student performance.
Tough.

This may all be of absolutely no relevance to others teaching AI.  Maybe
I'm just weird.  I try to cultivate that image, for it seems to attract
the best and brightest students!

					-- Bob Giansiracusa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
4
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:23:38-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course -- part 3/6  (First Exam)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.383

[The intent and application of the following three exams was described
in the previous digest issue.  The exams were intended to look difficult
but to be fun to take.  -- KIL]


********        ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE  --  First Exam        ********

The field of Artificial Intelligence studies the modeling of human
intelligence in the hope of constructing artificial devices that display
similar behavior.  This exam is designed to study your ability to model
artificial intelligence in the hope of improving natural devices that
display similar behavior.  Please read ALL the questions first, introspect
on how an AI system might solve these problems, then simulate that system.
(Please do all work on separate sheets of paper.)


EASY PROBLEM:

The rules for differentiating polynomials can be expressed as follows:

IF the input is:  (A * X ^ 3) + (B * X ^ 2) + (C * X ^ 1) + (D * X ^ 0)

THEN the output is:
 (3 * A * X ^ 2) + (2 * B * X ^ 1) + (1 * C * X ^ 0) + (0 * D * X ^ -1)

(where "*" indicates multiplication and "^" indicates exponentiation).

Note that all letters here indicate SYMBOLIC VARIABLES (as in algebra),
not NUMERICAL VALUES (as in FORTRAN).


1.  Can you induce from this sample the general rule for polynomial
differentiation?  Express that rule in English or Mathematical notation.
(The mathematicians in the group may have some difficulty here.)

2.  Can you translate your "informal" specification of the differentiation
rule into a precise statement of an inference rule in a Physical Symbol
System?  That is, define a set of objects and relations, a notation for
expressing them (hint: it doesn't hurt for the notation to look somewhat
like a familiar programming language which was invented to do mathematical
notation), and a symbolic transformation rule that encodes the rule of
inference representing differentiation.

3.  Can you now IMPLEMENT your Physical Symbol System using some familiar
programming language?  That is, write a program which takes as input a
data structure encoding your symbolic representation of a polynomial and
returns a data structure encoding the representation of its derivative.
(Hint as a check on infinite loops:  this program can be done in six
or fewer lines of code.  Don't be afraid to define a utility function
or two if it helps.)


SLIGHTLY HARDER PROBLEM:

Consider a world consisting of one block (a small wooden cubical block)
standing on the floor in the middle of a room.  A fly is perched on the
South wall, looking North at the block.  We want to represent the world
as seen by the fly.  In the fly's world the only thing that matters is
the position of that block.  Let's represent the world by a graph
consisting of a single node and no links to any other nodes.  Easy enough.

4.  Now consider a more complicated world.  There are TWO blocks, placed
apart from each other along an East/West line.  From the fly's point of
view, Block A (the western block) is TO-THE-LEFT-OF Block B (the eastern
block), and Block B has a similar relationship (TO-THE-RIGHT-OF) to
Block A.  Draw your symbolic representation of the situation as a graph
with nodes for the blocks and labeled links for the two relationships
which hold between the blocks.  (Believe it or not, you have just invented
the representation mechanism called a "semantic network".)

5.  Now the fly moves to the northern wall, looking south.  Draw the new
semantic network which represents the way the blocks look to him from his
new vantage point.

6.  What you have diagrammed in the above two steps is a Physical Symbol
System: a symbolic representation of a situation coupled with a process
for making changes in the representation which correspond homomorphically
with changes in the real world represented by the symbol system.
Unfortunately, your symbol system does not yet have a concrete
representation for this changing process.  To make things more concrete,
let's transform to another Physical Symbol System which can encode
EXPLICITLY the representation both of the WORLD (as seen by the fly)
and of HOW THE WORLD CHANGES when the fly moves.

Invent a representation for your semantic network using some familiar
programming language.  Remember what is being modeled are OBJECTS (the
blocks) and RELATIONS between the objects.  Hint: you might like to
use property lists, but please feel no obligations to do so.

7.  Now the clincher which demonstrates the power of the idea that a
physical symbol system can represent PROCESSES as well as OBJECTS and
RELATIONS.  Write a program which transforms the WORLD-DESCRIPTION for
FLY-ON-SOUTH-WALL to WORLD-DESCRIPTION for FLY-ON-NORTH-WALL.  The
program should be a single function (with auxiliaries if you like)
which takes two arguments, the symbol SOUTH for the initial wall and
NORTH for target wall, uses a global symbol whose value is your semantic
network representing the world seen from the south wall, and returns
T if successful and NIL if not.  As a side effect, the function should
CHANGE the symbolic structure representing the world so that afterward
it represents the blocks as seen by the fly from the north wall.
You might care to do this in two steps: first describing in English or
diagrams what is going on and then writing code to do it.

8.  The world is getting slightly more complex.  Now there are four
blocks, A and B as before (spread apart along an East/West line), C
which is ON-TOP-OF B, and D which is just to the north of (ie, in back
of when seen from the south) B.  Let's see your semantic network in
both graphical and Lisp forms.  The fly is on South wall, looking North.
(Note that we mean "directly left-of" and so on.  A is LEFT-OF B but has
NO relation to D.)

9.  Generalize the code you wrote for question 4 (if you haven't already)
so that it correctly transforms the world seen by the fly from ANY of
the four walls (NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, and WEST) to that seen from any other
(including the same) wall.  What I mean by "generalize" is don't write
code that works only for the two-block or four-block worlds; code it so
it will work for ANY semantic network representing a world consisting of
ANY number of blocks with arbitrary relations between them chosen from
the set {LEFT-OF, RIGHT-OF, IN-FRONT-OF, IN-BACK-OF, ON-TOP-OF, UNDER}.
(Hint: if you are into group theory you might find a way to do this with
only ONE canonical transformation; otherwise just try a few examples
until you catch on.)

10.  Up to now we have been assuming the fly is always right-side-up.
Can you do question 6 under the assumption that the fly sometimes perches
on the wall upside-down?  Have your function take two extra arguments
(whose values are RIGHT-SIDE-UP or UPSIDE-DOWN) to specify the fly's
vertical orientation on the initial and final walls.

11.  Up to now we have been modeling the WORLD AS SEEN BY THE FLY.  If
the fly moves, the world changes.  Why is this approach no good when
we allow more flies into the room and wish to model the situation from
ANY of their perspectives?

12.  What can be done to fix the problem you pointed out above?  That is,
redefine the "axioms" of your representation so it works in the "multiple
conscious agent" case.  (Hint: new axioms might include new names for
the relations.)

13.  In your new representation, the WORLD is a static object, while we
have functions called "projectors" which given the WORLD and a vantage
point (a symbol from the set {NORTH, EAST, SOUTH, WEST} and another from
the set {RIGHT-SIDE-UP, UPSIDE-DOWN}) return a symbolic description (a
"projection") of the world as seen from that vantage point.  For the
reasons you gave in answer to question 11, the projectors CANNOT HAVE
SIDE EFFECTS.  Write the projector function.

14.  Now let's implement a perceptual cognitive model builder, a program
that takes as input a sensory description (a symbolic structure which
represents the world as seen from a particular vantage point) and a
description of the vantage point and returns a "static world descriptor"
which is invariant with respect to vantage point.  Code up such a model
builder, using for input a semantic network of the type you used in
questions 6 through 10 and for output a semantic network of the type
used in questions 12 and 13.  (Note that this function in nothing more
than the inverse of the projector from question 13.)


********    THAT'S IT !!!    THAT'S IT !!!    THAT'S IT !!!    ********


SOME HELPFUL LISP FUNCTIONS
You may use these plus anything else discussed in class.

Function      Argument description          Return value     Side effect

PUTPROP <symbol> <value> <property-name> ==>  <value>       adds property
GET <symbol> <property-name>             ==>  <value>
REMPROP <symbol> <property-name>         ==>  <value>    removes property


***********************************************************************

					-- Bob Giansiracusa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:25:34-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course -- part 4/6  (Second Exam)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.384

1.  (20) Why are you now sitting on this side of the room?  Can you cite
an AI system which used a similar strategy in deciding what to do?

2.  (10) Explain the difference between vs CHRONOLOGICAL and DEPENDENCY-
DIRECTED backtracking.

3.  (10) Compare and contrast PRODUCTION SYSTEMS and SEMANTIC NETWORKS as
far as how they work, what they can represent, what type of problems are
well-suited for solution using that type of knowledge representation.

4.  (20) Describe the following searches in detail.  In detail means:
 1) How do they work??           2) How are they related to each other??
 3) What are their advantages??  4) What are their disadvantages??
      Candidate methods:
         1) Depth-first                 2) Breadth-first
         3) Hill-climbing               4) Beam search
         5) Best-first                  6) Branch-and-bound
         7) Dynamic Programming         8) A*

5.  (10) What are the characteristics of good generators for
the GENERATE and TEST problem-solving method?

6.  (10) Describe the ideas behind Mini-Max.  Describe the ideas behind
Alpha-Beta.  How do you use the two of them together and why would you
want to??

7.  (50) Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that any consistent and
sufficiently complex formal system MUST express truths which cannot be
proved within the formal system.  Assume that THIS theorem is true.
  1.  If UNPROVABLE, how did Godel prove it?
  2.  If PROVABLE, provide an example of a true but unprovable statement.

8.  (40) Prove that this exam is unfinishable correctly; that is, prove
that this question is unsolvable.

9.  (50) Is human behavior governed by PREDESTINATION or FREE-WILL?  How
could you design a formal system to solve problems like that (that is, to
reason about "non-logical" concepts)?

10.  (40) Assume only ONE question on this exam were to be graded -- the
question that is answered by the FEWEST number of people.  How would you
decide what to do?  Show the productions such a system might use.

11.  (100) You will be given extra credit (up to 100 points) if by 12:10
pm today you bring to the staff a question.  If YOUR question is chosen,
it will be asked and everybody else given 10 points for a correct answer.
YOU will be given 100 points for a correct answer MINUS ONE POINT FOR EACH
CORRECT ANSWER GIVEN BY ANOTHER CLASS MEMBER.  What is your question?

					-- Bob Giansiracusa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Dec 83 15:27:19-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's first AI course -- part 5/6  (Third Exam)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.385

1.  What is the sum of the first N positive integers?  That is, what is:

         [put here the sigma-sign notation for the sum]

2.  Prove that the your answer works for any N > 0.

3.  What is the sum of the squares of the first N positive integers:

         [put here the sigma-sign notation for the sum]

4.  Again, prove it.

5.  The proofs you gave (at least, if you are utilizing "traditional"
mathematical background,) are based on "mathematical induction".
Briefly state this principle and explain why it works.

6.  If you are like most people, your definition will work only over the
domain of NATURAL NUMBERS (positive integers).  Can this definition be
extended to work over ANY countable domain?

7.  Consider the lattice of points in N-dimensional space having integer
valued coordinates.  Is this space countable?

8.  Write a program (or express an algorithm in pseudocode) which returns
the number of points in this space (the one in #7) inside an N-sphere of
radius R (R is a real number > 0).

9.  The domains you have considered so far are all countable.  The problem
solving methods you have used (if you're "normal") are based on
mathematical induction.  Is it possible to extend the principle of
mathematical induction (and recursive programming) to NON-COUNTABLE
domains?

10.  If you answered #9 NO, why not?  If you answered it YES, how?

11.  Problems #1 and #3 require you to perform INDUCTIVE REASONING
(a related but different use of the term "induction").  Discuss some of
the issues involved in getting a computer to perform this process
automatically.  (I mean the process of generating a finite symbolic
representation which when evaluated will return the partial sum for
an infinite sequence.)

12.  Consider the "sequence extrapolation" task: given a finite sequence
of symbols, predict the next few terms of the sequence or give a rule
which can generate ALL the terms of the sequence.  Is this problem
uniquely solvable?  Why or why not?

13.  If you answered #12 YES, how would you build a computer program to
do so?

14.  If you answered #12 NO, how could you constrain the problem to make
it uniquely solvable?  How would you build a program to solve the
constrained problem?

15.  Mankind is faced with the threat of nuclear annihilation.  Is there
anything the field of AI has to offer which might help avert that threat?
(Don't just say "yes" or "no"; come up with something real.)

16.  Assuming mankind survives the nuclear age, it is very likely that
ethical issues relating to AI and the use of computers will have very
much to do with the view the "person on the street" has of the human
purpose and role in the Universe.  In what way can AI researchers plan
NOW so that these ethical issues are resolved to the benefit of the
greatest number of people?

17.  Could it be that our (humankind's) purpose on earth is to invent
and build the species which will be the next in the evolutionary path?
Should we do so?  How?  Why?  Why not?

18.  Suppose you have just discovered the "secret" of Artificial
Intelligence; that is, you (working alone and in secret) have figured
out a way (new hardware, new programming methodology, whatever) to build
an artificial device which is MORE INTELLIGENT, BY ANY DEFINITION, BY
ANY TEST WHATSOEVER, that any human being.  What do you do with this
knowledge?  Explain the pros and cons of several choices.

19.  Question #9 indicates that SO FAR all physical symbol systems have
dealt ONLY with discrete domains.  Is it possible to generalize the
idea to continuous domains?  Since many aspects of the human nervous
system function on a continuous (as opposed to discrete) basis, is it
possible that the invention of CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL SYMBOL SYSTEMS might
provide part of the key to the "secret of intelligence"?

20.  What grade do you feel you DESERVE in this course?  Why?  What
grade do you WANT?  Why?  If the two differ, is there anything you
want to do to reduce the difference?  Why or Why Not?  What is it?
Why is it (or is it not) worth doing?

>-
Spoken: Bob Giansiracusa
Bell:   814-865-9507
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET
Arpa:   bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley
CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet
UUCP:   allegra!psuvax!bobgian
USnail: Dept of Comp Sci, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
5
-DATE-
Date: Mon 9 Jan 84 14:15:13-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Weather Forecasting
-BODY-
I have been talking with people interested in AI techniques for
weather prediction and meteorological analysis.  I would appreciate
pointers to any literature or current work on this subject, especially

    * knowledge representations for spatial/temporal reasoning;
    * symbolic description of weather patterns;
    * capture of forecasting expertise;
    * inference methods for estimating meteorological variables
      from (spatially and temporally) sparse data;
    * methods of interfacing symbolic knowledge and heuristic
      reasoning with numerical simulation models;
    * any weather-related expert systems.

I am aware of some recent work by Gaffney and Racer (NBS Trends and
Applications, 1983) and by Taniguchi et al. (6th Pat. Rec., 1982),
but I have not been following this field.  A bibliography or guide
to relevant literature would be welcome.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 January 1984 13:47 est
-FROM-
From: RTaylor.5581i27TK at RADC-MULTICS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Info Request
-BODY-

Hi, y'all...I have the names (hopefully, correct) of four expert
systems/tools/environments (?).  I am interested in the "usual":  that
is, general info, who to contact, feedback from users, how to acquire
(if we want it), etc.  The four names I have are:  RUS, ALX, FRL, and
FRED.

Thanks.  Also, thanks to those who provided info previously...I have
info (similar to that requested above) on about 15 other
systems/tools/environments...some of the info is a little sketchy!

             Roz  (aka:  rtaylor at radc-multics)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jan 84 20:38:52-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!rh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Loop detection and classical psychology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1114

One of the truly amazing things about the human brain is that its pattern
recognition capabilities seem limitless (in extreme cases).  We don't even
have a satisfactory way to describe pattern recognition as it occurs in
our brains.  (Well, maybe we have something acceptable at a minimum level.
I'm always impressed by how well dollar-bill changers seem to work.)  As
a friend of mine put it, "the brain immediately rejects an infinite number
of wrong answers," when working on a problem.

Randwulf  (Randy Haskins);  Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 Jan 84 10:11:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Ron Brachman <Brachman at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's First AI Course
-BODY-
Wow!  I actually think it's kind of neat (but, of course, very wacko).  I
particularly like making people think about the ethical and philosphical
considerations at the same time as their thinking about minimax, etc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Jan 84 17:23:38-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #1
-BODY-
[in response to Herb Lin's questions]

Well, 2 more or less answers 1.   One of the main reasons why Lisp and not C
is the language of many people's choice for AI work is that you can easily cons
up at run time a piece of data which "is" the next action you are going to
take.   In most languages you are restricted to choosing from pre-written
actions, unless you include some kind of interpreter right there in your AI
program.   Another reason is that Lisp has all sorts of extensibility.

As for 3, the obvious response is that in Pascal control has to be routed to an
IF statement before it can do any good, whereas in a production system, control
automatically "goes" to any production that is applicable.   This is highly
over-simplified and may not be the answer you were looking for.

                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday,  6 Jan 1984 13:10-PST
-FROM-
From: narain@rand-unix
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Herb Lin: Why is Lisp good for AI?
-BODY-

A central issue in AI is knowledge representation.  Experimentation with  a
new  KR  scheme  often involves defining a new language. Often, definitions
and meanings of new  languages  are  conceived  of  naturally  in  terms of
recursive (hierarchical) structures.  For instance, many grammars of English-
like frontends are recursive, so  are  production  system  definitions,  so
are theorem provers.

The abstract machinery  underlying  Lisp,  the  Lambda  Calculus,  is  also
inherently recursive, yet very simple and powerful.  It involves the notion
of function application to symbolic expressions.  Functions can  themselves
be  symbolic  expressions.  Symbolic expressions provide a basis for SIMPLE
implementation   and   manipulation   of   complex   data/knowledge/program
structures.

It is therefore possible to easily interpret  new  language  primitives  in
terms of Lisp's already very high level primitives.  Thus, Lisp is a  great
"machine language" for AI.

The usefulness of a well understood, powerful, abstract  machinery  of  the
implementation language is probably more obvious when we  consider  Prolog.
The  logical  interpretation of Prolog programs helps considerably in their
development and verification.  Logic is a convenient specification language
for  a  lot  of  AI, and it is far easier to 'compile' those specifications
into a logic language like Prolog than  into  Pascal.  For  instance,  take
natural  language  front ends implemented in DCGs or database/expert-system
integrity and redundancy constraints.

The fact that programs can be considered as data is not true only of  Lisp.
Even in Pascal you can analyze a Pascal program.  The nice thing  in  Lisp,
however,  is  that  because  of  its  few  (but  very powerful) primitives,
programs tend to be simply structured and concise  (cf.  claims  in  recent
issues  of  this  bulletin that Lisp programs were much shorter than Pascal
programs).  So naturally it is simpler to analyze  Lisp  programs  in  Lisp
than it is to analyze Pascal programs in Pascal.

Of course,  Lisp  environments  have  evolved  for  over  two  decades  and
contribute  no  less to its desirability for AI.  Some of the nice features
include screen-oriented editors, interactiveness, debugging facilities, and
an extremely simple syntax.

I would greatly appreciate any comments on the above.

Sanjai Narain
Rand.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jan 84 13:20:29-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mit-eddie!rh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Herb Lin's questons on LISP etc.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1129

One of the problems with LISP, however, is it does not force one
to subscribe the code of good programming practices.  I've found
that the things I have written for my bridge-playing program (over
the last 18 months or so) have gotten incredibly crufty, with
some real brain-damaged patches.  Yeah, I realize it's my fault;
I'm not complaining about it because I love LISP, I just wanted
to mention some of the pitfalls for people to think about.  Right
now, I'm in the process of weeding out the cruft, trying to make
it more clearly modular, decrease the number of similar functions
and so on.  Sigh.

Randwulf  (Randy Haskins);  Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 January 1984 15:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-ML>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: my questions of last Digest on differences between PASCAL
-BODY-           and LISP

So many people replied that I send my thanks to all via the list.  I
very much appreciate the time and effort people put into their
comments.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
6
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 84 08:45 EST
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An AI Joke
-BODY-
Last week a cartoon appeared in our local (Rochester NY) paper.  It was
by a fellow named Toles, a really excellent editorial cartoonist who
works out of, of all places, Buffalo:

Panel 1:

[medium view of the Duckburg Computer School building.  A word balloon
extends from one of the windows]
"A lot of you wonder why we have to spend so much time studying these
things."

Panel 2:

[same as panel 1]
"It so happens that they represent a lot of power.  And if we want to
understand and control that power, we have to study them."

Panel 3:

[interior view of a classroom full of personal computers.  At right,
several persons are entering.  At left, a PC speaks]
". . .so work hard and no talking.  Here they come."

Tickler (a mini-cartoon down in the corner):

[a lone PC speaks to the cartoonist]
"But I just HATE it when they touch me like that. . ."


Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 84 20:02 PST
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Imminent garbage collection of Peter Coutts.  :=)
-BODY-
  [Here's another one, reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.  -- KIL]

Les Goldschlager is visiting us on sabbatical from Sydney University, and
stayed with us while looking for a place to stay.  We belatedly pointed him
at Peter Coutts, which he immediately investigated and found a place to
stay right away.  His comment was that no pointer to Peter Coutts existed
in any of the housing assistance services provided by Stanford, and that
therefore it seemed likely that it would be garbage collected soon.
>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 January 1984 23:48 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar on Programming Styles in AI
-BODY-
                     DATE:      Thursday, January 12, 1984
                     TIME:      3.45 p.m.  Refreshments
                                4.00 p.m.  Lecture
                     PLACE:     NE43-8th Floor, AI Playroom


               PROGRAMMING STYLES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

                              Herbert Stoyan
                   University of Erlangen, West Germany

                               ABSTRACT

Not much is clear about the scientific methods used in AI research.
Scientific methods are sets of rules used to collect knowledge about the
subject being researched.  AI is an experimental branch of computer science
which does not seem to use established programming methods.  In several
works on AI we can find the following method:

    1.  develop a new convenient programming style

    2.  invent a new programming language which supports the new style
        (or embed some appropriate elements into an existing AI language,
        such as LISP)

    3.  implement the language (interpretation as a first step is
        typically less efficient than compilation)

    4.  use the new programming style to make things easier.

A programming style is a way of programming guided by a speculative view of
a machine which works according to the programs.  A programming style is
not a programming method.  It may be detected by analyzing the text of a
completed program.  In general, it is possible to program in one
programming language according to the principles of various styles.  This
is true in spite of the fact that programming languages are usually
designed with some machine model (and therefore with some programming
style) in mind.  We discuss some of the AI programming styles.  These
include operator-oriented, logic-oriented, function-oriented, rule-
oriented, goal-oriented, event-oriented, state-oriented, constraint-
oriented, and object-oriented. (We shall not however discuss the common
instruction-oriented programming style).  We shall also give a more detailed
discussion of how an object-oriented programming style may be used in
conventional programming languages.

HOST:  Professor Ramesh Patil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 9 Jan 84 14:09:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SRI Talk on ALICE, 1/23, 4:30pm, EK242
-BODY-

ALICE:  A parallel graph-reduction machine for declarative and other
languages.

SPEAKER -  John Darlington, Department of Computing, Imperial College,
           London
WHEN    -  Monday, January 23, 4:30pm
WHERE   -  AIC Conference Room, EK242

     [This is an SRI AI Center talk.  Contact Margaret Olender at
     MOLENDER@SRI-AI or 859-5923 if you would like to attend.  -- KIL]

                           ABSTRACT

Alice is a highly parallel-graph reduction machine being designed and
built at Imperial College.  Although designed for the efficient
execution of declarative languages, such as functional or logic
languages, ALICE is general purpose and can execute sequential
languages also.

This talk will describe the general model of computation, extended
graph reduction, that ALICE executes, outline how different languages
can be supported by this model, and describe the concrete architecture
being constructed.  A 24-processor prototype is planned for early
1985.  This will give a two-orders-of-magnitude improvement over a VAX
11/750 for derclarative languages. ALICE is being constructed out of
two building blocks, a custom-designed switching chip and the INMOS
transputer. So far, compilers for a functional language, several logic
languages, and LISP have been constructed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 1984 1556-PST
-FROM-
From: OAKLEY at SRI-CSL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SRI 5th Generation Talk
-BODY-

  Japan's 5th Generation Computer Project: Past, Present, and Future
      -- personal observations by a researcher of
         ETL (ElectroTechnical Laboratory)

                          Kokichi FUTATSUGI
                    Senior Research Scientist, ETL
                    International Fellow, SRI-CSL


    Talk on January 24, l984, in conference room EL369 at 10:00am.
    [This is an SRI Computer Science Laboratory talk.  Contact Mary Oakley
    at OAKLEY@SRI-AI or 859-5924 if you would like to attend.  -- KIL]


1 Introduction
  * general overview of Japan's research activities in
    computer science and technology
  * a personal view

2 Past -- pre-history of ICOT (the Institute of New Generation
  ComputerTechnology)
  * ETL's PIPS project
  * preliminary research and study activities
  * the establishment of ICOT

3 Present -- present activities
  * the organization of ICOT
  * research activities inside ICOT
  * research activities outside ICOT

4 Future -- ICOT's plans and general overview
  * ICOT's plans
  * relations to other research activities
  * some comments

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 5 Jan 84 16:41:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Martti Mantyla <MANTYLA@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Data Structures & Algorithms for Geometric Problems
-BODY-
                    [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

                                  NEW COURSE:
                     EE392 DATA STRUCTURES AND ALGORITHMS
                            FOR GEOMETRIC PROBLEMS


Many   problems   arising  in  science  and  engineering  deal  with  geometric
information.  Engineering design  is  most  often  spatial  activity,  where  a
physical  shape  with  certain desired properties must be created.  Engineering
analysis also uses heavily information on the geometric form of the object.

The seminar Data Structures and Algorithms for Geometric  Problems  deals  with
problems  related to representing and processing data on the geometric shape of
an object in a computer.    It  will  concentrate  on  practically  interesting
solutions to tasks such as

   - representation of digital images,
   - representation of line figures,
   - representation of three-dimensional solid objects, and
   - representation of VLSI circuits.

The  point  of  view  taken  is  hence  slightly  different  from a "hard-core"
Computational Geometry view that  puts  emphasis  on  asymptotic  computational
complexity.    In  practice,  one  needs solutions that can be implemented in a
reasonable  time,  are  efficient  and  robust  enough,  and  can  support   an
interesting   scope  of  applications.    Of  growing  importance  is  to  find
representations  and  algorithms  for  geometry  that   are   appropriate   for
implementation in special hardware and VLSI in particular.

The seminar will be headed by

    Dr. Martti Mantyla (MaM)
    Visiting Scholar
    CSL/ERL 405
    7-9310
    MANTYLA@SU-SIERRA.ARPA

who  will  give  intruductory  talks.    Guest  speakers of the seminar include
well-known scientists and practitioners of the field such as Dr. Leo Guibas and
Dr. John Ousterhout.  Classes are held on

                             Tuesdays, 2:30 - 3:30
                                      in
                                    ERL 126

First class will be on 1/10.

The seminar should be of interest to  CS/EE  graduate  students  with  research
interests   in   computer   graphics,   computational   geometry,  or  computer
applications in engineering.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jan 1984 1350-EST
-FROM-
From: KANT at CMU-CS-C.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Programming Techniques Course
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMUC bboard.]


           Announcing another action-packed AI mini-course!
                 Starting soon in the 5409 near you.

This course covers a variety of AI programming techniques and languages.
The lectures will assume a background equivalent to an introductory AI course
(such as the undergraduate course 15-380/381 or the graduate core course
15-780.)  They also assume that you have had at least a brief introduction to
LISP and a production-system language such as OPS5.

       15-880 A,  Artificial Intelligence Programming Techniques
                         MW 2:30-3:50, WeH 5409


T Jan 10        (Brief organizational meeting only)
W Jan 11        LISP: Basic Pattern Matching (Carbonell)
M Jan 16        LISP: Deductive Data Bases (Steele)
W Jan 18        LISP: Basic Control: backtracking, demons (Steele)
M Jan 23        LISP: Non-Standard Control Mechanisms (Carbonell)
W Jan 25        LISP: Semantic Grammar Interpreter (Carbonell)
M Jan 30        LISP: Case-Frame interpreter (Hayes)
W Feb 1         PROLOG I (Steele)
M Feb 6         PROLOG II (Steele)
W Feb 8         Reason Maintenance and Comparison with PROLOG (Steele)
M Feb 13        AI Programming Environments and Hardware I (Fahlman)
W Feb 15        AI Programming Environments and Hardware II (Fahlman)
M Feb 20        Schema Representation Languages I (Fox)
W Feb 22        Schema Representation Languages II (Fox)
W Feb 29        User-Interface Issues in AI (Hayes)
M Mar 5         Efficient Game Playing and Searching (Berliner)
W Mar 7         Production Systems: Basic Programming Techniques (Kant)
M Mar 12        Production Systems: OPS5 Programming (Kant)
W Mar 14        Efficiency and Measurement in Production Systems (Forgy)
M Mar 16        Implementing Diagnostic Systems as Production Systems (Kahn)
M Mar 26        Intelligent Tutoring Systems: GRAPES and ACT Implementations
                     (Anderson)
W Mar 28        Explanation and Knowledge Acquisition in Expert Systems
                     (McDermott)
M Apr 2         A Production System for Problem Solving: SOAR2 (Laird)
W Apr 4         Integrating Expert-System Tools with SRL (KAS, PSRL, PDS)
                     (Rychener)
M Apr 9         Additional Expert System Tools: EMYCIN, HEARSAY-III, ROSIE,
                   LOOPS, KEE (Rosenbloom)
W Apr 11        A Modifiable Production-System Architecture: PRISM (Langley)
M Apr 16        (additional topics open to negotiation)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 1984 1238:48-EST
-FROM-
From: Lori Levin <LEVIN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linguistics Course
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the CMUC bboard.]

NATURAL LANGUAGE SYNTAX FOR COMPUTER SCIENTISTS

FRIDAYS  10:00 AM - 12:00
4605 Wean Hall

Lori Levin
Richmond Thomason
Department of Linguistics
University of Pittsburgh

This is an introduction to recent work in generative syntax.  The
course will deal with the formalism of some of the leading syntactic
theories as well as with methodological issues.  Computer scientists
find the formalism used by syntacticians easy to learn, and so the
course will begin at a fairly advanced level, though no special
knowledge of syntax will be presupposed.

We will begin with a sketch of the "Standard Theory," Chomsky's
approach of the mid-60's from which most of the current theories have
evolved.  Then we will examine Government-Binding Theory, the
transformational approach now favored at M.I.T.  Finally, we will
discuss in more detail two nontransformational theories that are more
computationally tractable and have figured in joint research projects
involving linguists, psychologists, and computer scientists:
Lexical-Functional Grammar and Generalized Context-Free Phrase
Structure Grammar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
7
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jan 1984 1151-PST
-FROM-
From: Jay <JAY@USC-ECLC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for production systems
-BODY-
  I would like pointers  to free or  public domain production  systems
(running on Tops-20, Vax-Unix, or Vax-Vms) both interpreters (such  as
ross) and systems built up on them (such as emycin).  I am  especially
interested in Rosie, Ross, Ops5, and Emycin.  Please reply directly to
me.
j'

ARPA: jay@eclc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jan 84 12:13:20-MST
-FROM-
From: Stanley T. Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomy of Production Systems
-BODY-
I'm looking for info on a formal taxonomy of production rule systems,
sufficiently precise that it can distinguish OPS5 from YAPS, but also say
that they're more similar than either of them is to Prolog.  The only
relevant material I've seen is the paper by Davis & King in MI 8, which
characterizes PSs in terms of syntax, complexity of LHS and RHS, control
structure, and "programmability" (seems to mean meta-rules).  This is
a start, but too vague to be implemented.  A formal taxonomy should
indicate where "holes" exist, that is, strange designs that nobody has
built.  Also, how would Georgeff's (Stanford STAN-CS-79-716) notion of
"controlled production systems" fit in?  He showed that CPSs are more
general than PSs, but then one can also show that any CPS can be represented
by some ordinary PS.  I'm particularly interested in formalization of
the different control strategies - are text order selection (as in Prolog)
and conflict resolution (as in OPS5) mutually exclusive, or can they be
intermixed (perhaps using text order to find 5 potential rules, then
conflict resolution to choose among the 5).  Presumably a sufficiently
precise taxonomy could answer these sorts of questions.  Has anyone
looked at these questions?

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jan 84 19:13:21 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems for software debugging?
-BODY-
Debugging is a black art, not at all algorithmic, but almost totally
heuristic.  There is a lot of expert knowledge around about how to debug
faulty programs, but it is rarely written down or systemetized.  Usually
it seems to reside solely in the minds of a few "debugging whizzes".

Does anyone know of an expert system that assists in software debugging?
Or any attempts (now or in the past) to produce such an expert?

/Ron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jan 84 20:43:31-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!mb2c!uofm-cv!lah @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: prolog reference
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uofm-cv.457

Could anybody give some references to good introductory book
on prolog?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jan 84 14:50:57-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bts @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: prolog reference
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unc.6594

There's only one introductory book I know of, that's Clocksin
and Mellish's "Programming in Prolog", Springer-Verlag, 1981.
It's a silver paperback, probably still under $20.00.

For more information on the language, try Clark and Tarnlund's
"Logic Programming", Academic Press, 1982.  It's a white hard-
back, with an elephant on the cover.  The papers by Bruynooghe
and by Mellish tell a lot about Prolog inplementation.

Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill
decvax!duke!unc!bts     (USENET)
bts.unc@CSnet-Relay (lesser NETworks)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 84 8:11:49-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!philabs!sbcs!debray @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: trivial reasoning problem?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sbcs.572

Re: Marcel Schoppers' problem: given two lamps A and B, such that:

        condition 1) at least one of them is on at any time; and
        condition 2) if A is on then B id off,

        we are to enumerate the possible configurations without an exhaustive
        generate-and-test strategy.

The following "pure" Prolog program that will generate the various
configurations without exhaustively generating all possible combinations:


  config(A, B) :- cond1(A, B), cond2(A, B).   /* both conditions must hold */

  cond1(1, _).    /* at least one is on an any time ... condition 1 above */
  cond1(_, 1).

  cond2(1, 0).    /* if A is on then B is off */
  cond2(0, _).    /* if A is off, B's value is a don't care */

executing Prolog gives:

| ?- config(A, B).

A = 1
B = 0 ;

A = 0
B = 1 ;

no
| ?- halt.
[ Prolog execution halted ]

Tracing the program shows that the configuration "A=0, B=0" is not generated.
This satisfies the "no-exhaustive-listing" criterion. Note that attempting
to encode the second condition above using "not" will be both (1) not pure
Horn Clause, and (2) using exhaustive generation and filtering.

Saumya Debray
Dept. of Computer Science
SUNY at Stony Brook

                {floyd, bunker, cbosgd, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs!
                                                              \
        Usenet:                                                sbcs!debray
                                                              /
                   {allegra, teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax!
        CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay


[Several other messages discussing this problem and suggesting Prolog
code were printed in the Prolog Digest.  Different writers suggested
very different ways of structuring the problem.  -- KIL]


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jan 84 11:16:21-CST
-FROM-
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fermat's Last Theorem Proven?
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTEXAS-20 bboard.]

There was a report last night on National Public Radio's All Things Considered
about a British mathematician named Arnold Arnold who claims to have
developed a new technique for dealing with multi-variable, high-dimensional
spaces.  The method apparently makes generation of large prime numbers
very easy, and has applications in genetics, the many-body problem, orbital
mechanics, etc.  Oh yeah, the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem falls out of
this as well!  The guy apparently has no academic credentials, and refuses
to publish in the journals because he's interested in selling his technique.
There was another mathematician named Jeffrey Colby who had been allowed
to examine Arnold's work on the condition he didn't disclose anything.
He claims the technique is all it's claimed to be, and shows what can
be done when somebody starts from pure ignorance not clouded with some
of the preconceptions of a formal mathematical education.

If anybody hears more about this, please pass it along.

Clive

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jan 84  2350 PST
-FROM-
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Next week's CSD Colloquium.
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

  Dr. Richard P. Gabriel, Stanford CSD
  ``Queue-based Multi-processing Lisp''
  4:30pm Terman Auditorium, Jan 17th.

As the need for high-speed computers increases, the need for
multi-processors will be become more apparent. One of the major stumbling
blocks to the development of useful multi-processors has been the lack of
a good multi-processing language---one which is both powerful and
understandable to programmers.

Among the most compute-intensive programs are artificial intelligence (AI)
programs, and researchers hope that the potential degree of parallelism in
AI programs is higher than in many other applications.  In this talk I
will propose a version of Lisp which is multi-processed.  Unlike other
proposed multi-processing Lisps, this one will provide only a few very
powerful and intuitive primitives rather than a number of parallel
variants of familiar constructs.

The talk will introduce the language informally, and many examples along
with performance results will be shown.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 January 1984 07:36 EST
-FROM-
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is Lisp today and how did it get that way?
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the MIT-MC bboard.]

                        Modern Day Lisp

        Time:   3:00pm
        Date:   Wednesdays and Fridays, 18-27 January
        Place:  8th Floor Playroom

The Lisp language has changed significantly in the past 5 years. Modern
Lisp dialects bear only a superficial resemblance to each other and to
their common parent dialects.

Why did these changes come about? Has progress been made? What have we
learned in 5 hectic years of rapid change? Where is Lisp going?

In a series of four lectures, we'll be surveying a number of the key
features that characterize modern day Lisps. The current plan is to touch
on at least the following topics:


        Scoping. The move away from dynamic scoping.
        Namespaces. Closures, Locales, Obarrays, Packages.
        Objects. Actors, Capsules, Flavors, and Structures.
        Signals. Errors and other unusual conditions.
        Input/Output. From streams to window systems.


The discussions will be more philosophical than technical. We'll be
looking at several Lisp dialects, not just one. These lectures are not
just something for hackers. They're aimed at just about anyone who uses
Lisp and wants an enhanced appreciation of the issues that have shaped
its design and evolution.

As it stands now, I'll be giving all of these talks, though there
is some chance there will be some guest lecturers on selected
topics. If you have questions or suggestions about the topics to be
discussed, feel free to contact me about them.

                        Kent Pitman (KMP@MC)
                        NE43-826, x5953

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 11 Jan 84 16:55:02-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Logic Programming Symposium (update)
-BODY-
              1984 International Symposium on
                      Logic Programming

                 Student Registration Rates


In our original symposium announcements, we failed to offer a student
registration rate. We would like to correct that situation now.
Officially enrolled students may attend the symposium for the reduced
rate of $75.00.

This rate includes the symposium itself (all three days) and one copy
of the symposium proceedings. It does not include the tutorial, the
banquet, or cocktail parties.  It does however, include the Casino
entertainment show.

Questions and requests for registration forms by US mail to:

   Doug DeGroot                           Fernando Pereira
   Program Chairman                       SRI International
   IBM Research                    or     333 Ravenswood Ave.
   P.O. Box 218                           Menlo Park, CA 94025
   Yorktown Heights, NY 10598             (415) 859-5494
   (914) 945-3497

or by net mail to:

                  PEREIRA@SRI-AI (ARPANET)
                  ...!ucbvax!PEREIRA@SRI-AI (UUCP)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Jan 84 15:54:09-MST
-FROM-
From: Subra <Subrahmanyam@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: *** P O P L 1984 --- Announcement ***
-BODY-
*******************************  POPL 1984 *********************************

                              ELEVENTH ANNUAL

                            ACM SIGACT/SIGPLAN

                               SYMPOSIUM ON

                               PRINCIPLES OF

                           PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES


    *** POPL 1984 will be held in Salt Lake City, Utah January 15-18. ****
  (The skiing is excellent, and the technical program threatens to match it!)

For additional details, please contact

        Prof. P. A. Subrahmanyam
        Department of Computer Science
        University of Utah
        Salt Lake City, Utah 84112.

        Phone: (801)-581-8224

ARPANET: Subrahmanyam@UTAH-20 (or Subra@UTAH-20)


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jan 84 4:51:51-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From:
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: PSU's First AI Course - Comment
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sjuvax.108

I would rather NOT get into social issues of AI: there are millions of
forums for that (and I myself have all kinds of feelings and reservations
on the issue, including Vedantic interpretations), so let us keep this
one technical, please.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 84 11:42:21-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From:
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Net AI course -- the communications channel
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.413

Responses so far have strongly favored my creating a moderated newsgroup
as a sub to net.ai for this course.  Most were along these lines:

    From: ukc!srlm (S.R.L.Meira)

    I think you should act as the moderator, otherwise there would be too
    much noise - in the sense of unordered information and discussions -
    and it could finish looking like just another AI newsgroup argument.
    Anybody is of course free to post whatever they want if they feel
    the thing is not coming out like they want.

Also, if the course leads to large volume, many net.ai readers (busy AI
professionals rather than students) might drop out of net.ai.

For a contrasting position:

    From: cornell!nbires!stcvax!lat

    I think the course should be kept as a newsgroup.  I don't think
    it will increase the nation-wide phone bills appreciably beyond
    what already occurs due to net.politics, net.flame, net.religion
    and net.jokes.

So HERE's how I'll try to keep EVERYBODY happy ...    :-)

... a "three-level" communication channel.  1: a "free-for-all" via mail
(or possibly another newsgroup), 2: a moderated newsgroup sub to net.ai,
3: occasional abstracts, summaries, pointers posted to net.ai and AIList.

People can then choose the extent of their involvement and set their own
"bull-rejection threshold".  (1) allows extensive involvement and flaming,
(2) would be the equivalent of attending a class, and (3) makes whatever
"good stuff" evolves from the course available to all others.

The only remaining question: should (1) be done via a newsgroup or mail?

Please send in your votes -- I'll make the final decision next week.

Now down to the REALLY BIG decisions: names.  I suggest "net.ai.cse"
for level (2).  The "cse" can EITHER mean "Computer Science Education"
or abbreviate "course".  For level (1), how about "net.ai.ffa" for
"free-for-all", or .raw, or .disc, or .bull, or whatever.

Whatever I create gets zapped at end of course (June), unless by then it
has taken on a life of its own.

        -- Bob

[PS to those NOT ON USENET: please mail me your address for private
mailings -- and indicate which of the three "participation levels"
best suits your tastes.]

Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP       -or-    allegra!psuvax!bobgian
Arpa:   bobgian@PSUVAX1           -or-    bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET    CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
8
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jan 84 15:07:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Jeffrey Mogul <MOGUL@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: lisp for IBM
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

        Does anyone know of LISP implementations for IBM 370--3033--308x?

Reminds me of an old joke:
        How many IBM machines does it take to run LISP?

        Answer: two -- one to send the input to the PDP-10, one
                to get the output back.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 12 Jan 1984 21:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Steven Tepper <greep@SU-DSN>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: lisp for IBM
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Well, I used Lisp on a 360 once, but I certainly wouldn't recommend
that version (I don't remember where it came from anyway -- the authors
were probably so embarrassed they wanted to remain anonymous).  It
was, of course, a batch system, and its only output mode was "uglyprint" --
no matter what the input looked like, the output would just be printed
120 columns to a line.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jan 84 06:55:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Ethan Bradford <JLH.BRADFORD@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP (INTERLISP) for IBM
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Chris Ryland (CPR@MIT-XX) sent out a query on this before and he got back
many good responses (he gave me copies).  The main thing most people said
is that a version was developed at Uppsula in Sweden in the 70's.  One
person gave an address to write to, which I transcribe here with no gua-
rantees of currentness:
    Klaus Appel
    UDAC
   Box 2103
    750 02 Uppsala
    Sweden
    Phone: 018-11 13 30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 84  0922 PST
-FROM-
From: Jussi Ketonen <JK@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for IBM machines
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Standard Lisp runs quite well on the IBM machines.
The folks over at IMSSS on campus know all about it --
they have written several large theorem proving/CAI programs for
that environment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 January 1984 06:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intelligence and genius
-BODY-
I should have thought that if you can make a machine more or
less intelligent; and make another machine ABLE TO RECOGNIZE
GENIUS (it need not itself be able to "be" or "have" genius)
then the "genius machine " problem is probably solved: have the
somewhat intelligent one generate lots of ideas, with random
factors thrown in, and have the second "recognizing" machine
judge the products.
        Obviously they could be combined into one machine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 15 January 1984, 00:18-EST
-FROM-
From: Marek W. Lugowski <MAREK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Adrressing DRogers' questions (at last) + on subcogniton
-BODY-
    DROGERS (c. November '84):
      I have a few questions I would like to ask, some (perhaps most)
    essentially unanswerable at this time.

Appologies in advance for rashly attempting to answer at this time.

      - Should the initially constructed subcognitive systems be
    "learning" systems, or should they be "knowledge-rich" systems? That
    is, are the subcognitive structures implanted with their knowledge
    of the domain by the programmer, or is the domain presented to the
    system in some "pure" initial state?  Is the approach to
    subcognitive systems without learning advisable, or even possible?

I would go off on a limb and claim that attempting wholesale "learning"
first (whatever that means these days) is silly.  I would think one
would first want to spike the system with hell of a lot of knowledge
(e.g., Dughof's "Slipnet" of related concepts whose links are subject to
cummulative, partial activation which eventually makes the nodes so
connected highly relevant and therefore taken into consideration by the
system).  To repeat Minsky (and probably, most of the AI folk: one can
only learn if one already almost knows it).

      - Assuming human brains are embodiments of subcognitive systems,
    then we know how they were constructed: a very specific DNA
    blueprint controlling the paths of development possible at various
    times, with large assumptions as to the state of the intellectual
    environment.  This grand process was created by trial-and-error
    through the process of evolution, that is, essentially random
    chance. How much (if any) of the subcognitive system must be created
    essentially by random processes? If essentially all, then there are
    strict limits as to how the problem should be approached.

This is an empirical question.  If my now-attempted implementation of
the Copycat Project (which uses the Slipnet described above)
[forthcoming MIT AIM #755 by Doug Hofstadter] will converge nicely, with
trivial tweaking, I'll be inclined to hold that random processes can
indeed do most of the work.  Such is my current, unfounded, belief.  On
the other hand, a failure will not debunk my position--I could always
have messed up implementationally and made bad guesses which "threw"
the system out of its potential convergence.

      - Which processes of the human brain are essentially subcognitive
    in construction, and which use other techniques? Is this balance
    optimal?  Which structures in a computational intelligence would be
    best approached subcognitively, and which by other methods?

Won't even touch the "optimal" question.  I would guess any process
involving a great deal of fan-in would need to be subcognitive in
nature.  This is argued from efficiency.  For now, and for want of
better theories, I'd approach ALL brain functions using subcognitive
models.  The alternative to this at present means von Neumannizing the
brain, an altogether quaint thing to do...

      - How are we to judge the success of a subcognitive system? The
    problems inherent in judging the "ability" of the so-called expert
    systems will be many times worse in this area. Without specific goal
    criteria, any results will be unsatisfying and potentially illusory
    to the watching world.

Performance and plausibility (in that order) ought to be our criteria.
Judging performance accurately, however, will continue to be difficult
as long as we are forced to use current computer architectures.
Still, if a subcognitive system converges at all on a LispM, there's no
reason to damn its performance.  Plausibility is easier to demonstrate;
one needs to keep in touch with the neurosciences to do that.

      - Where will thinking systems REALLY be more useful than (much
   refined) expert systems? I would guess that for many (most?)
   applications, expertise might be preferable to intelligence. Any
   suggestions about fields for which intelligent systems would have a
   real edge over (much improved) expert systems?

It's too early (or, too late?!) to draw such clean lines.  Perhaps REAL
thinking and expertise are much more intertwined than is currently
thought.  Anyway, there is nothing to be gained by pursuing that line of
questioning before WE learn how to explicitly organize knowledge better.


Over all, I defend pursuing things subcognitively for these reasons:

  -- Not expecting thinking to be a cleanly organized, top-down driven
  activity is minimizing one's expectations.  Compare thinking with such
  activities as cellular automata (e.g., The Game of Life) or The Iterated
  Pairwise Prisoner's Dilemma Game to convince yourself of the futility of
  top-down modeling where local rules and their iterated interactions are
  very successful at concisely describing the problem at hand.  No reason
  to expect the brain's top-level behavior to be any easier to explain
  away.

  -- AI has been spending a lot of itself on forcing a von Neumannian
  interpretation on the mind.  At CMU they have it down to an art, with
  Simon's "symbolic information processing" the nowadays proverbial Holy
  Grail.  With all due respect, I'd like to see more research devoted to
  modeling various alleged brain activities with high degree of
  parallelism and probabilistic interaction, systems where "symbols" are
  not givens but intricately invovled intermediates of computation.

  -- It has not been done carefully before and I want at least a thesis
  out of it.

                                -- Marek

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1984  12:40 EST
-FROM-
From: GLD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: minority report
-BODY-

     From: MAREK
     To repeat Minsky (and probably, most of the AI folk: one can
     only learn if one already almost knows it).

By "can only learn if..." do you mean "can't >soon< learn unless...", or
do you mean "can't >ever< learn unless..."?

If you mean "can't ever learn unless...", then the statement has the Platonic
implication that a person at infancy must "already almost know" everything she
is ever to learn.  This can't be true for any reasonable sense of "almost
know".

If you mean "can't soon learn unless...", then by "almost knows X", do you
intend:

 o a narrow interpretation, by which a person almost knows X only if she
   already has knowledge which is a good approximation to understanding X--
   eg, she can already answer simpler questions about X, or can answer
   questions about X, but with some confusion and error; or
 o a broader interpretation, which, in addition to the above, counts as
   "almost knowing X" a situation where a person might be completely in the
   dark about X-- say, unable to answer any questions about X-- but is on the
   verge of becoming an instant expert on X, say by discovering (or by being
   told of) some easy-to-perform mapping which reduces X to some other,
   already-well-understood domain.

If you intend the narrow interpretation, then the claim is false, since people
can (sometimes) soon learn X in the manner described in the broad-
interpretation example.  But if you intend the broad interpretation, then the
statement expands to "one can't soon learn X unless one's current knowledge
state is quickly transformable to include X"-- which is just a tautology.

So, if this analysis is right, the statement is either false, or empty.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1984  20:09 EST
-FROM-
From: MAREK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: minority report
-BODY-
         From: MAREK
         To repeat Minsky (and probably, most of the AI folk): one can
         only learn if one already almost knows it.

    From: GLD
    By "can only learn if..." do you mean..."can't >ever< learn unless..."?

    If you mean "can't ever learn unless...", then the statement has
    the Platonic implication that a person at infancy must "already almost
    know" everything she is ever to learn.  This can't be true for any
    reasonable sense of "almost know".

I suppose I DO mean "can't ever learn unless".  However, I disagree
with your analysis.  The "Platonic implication" need not be what you
stated it to be if one cares to observe that some of the things an
entity can learn are...how to learn better and how to learn more.  My
original statement presupposes an existence of a category system--a
capacity to pigeonhole, if you will.  Surely you won't take issue with
the hypothesis that an infant's category system is lesser than that of
an adult.  Yet, faced with the fact that many infants do become
adults, we have to explain how the category system can muster to grow
up, as well.

In order to do so, I propose to think that the human learning
is a process where, say, in order to assimilate a chunk of information
one has to have a hundred-, nay, a thousand-fold store of SIMILAR
chunks.  This is by direct analogy with physical growing up--it
happens very slowly, gradually, incrementally--and yet it happens.

If you recall, my original statement was made against attempting
"wholesale learning" as opposed to "knowledge-rich" systems when
building subcognitive sytems.  Admittedly, the complexity of a human
being is many an order of magnitude beyond that what AI will attempt
for decades to come, yet by observing the physical development of a
child we can arrive at some sobbering tips for how to successfully
build complex systems.  Abandoning the utopia of having complex
systems just "self-organize" and pop out of simple interactions of a
few even simplier pieces is one such tip.

                                -- Marek

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Jan 84 11:56:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGLUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT- JANUARY 20, l984
-BODY-
         [Reprinted from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution.]

Friday,   January 20, 1984   12:05

LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry

SPEAKER:  Harold Brown
          Stanford University

TOPIC:    Palladio:  An Exploratory Environment for Circuit Design

Palladio is an environment for experimenting with design methodologies
and  knowledge-based  design   aids.   It  provides   the  means   for
constructing, testing  and incrementally  modifying design  tools  and
languages.  Palladio  is  a  testbed for  investigationg  elements  of
design including  specification,  simulation, refinement  and  use  of
previous designs.

For  the  designer,   Palladio  supports  the   construction  of   new
specification languages  particular to  the design  task at  hand  and
augmentation of  the  system's  expert knowledge  to  reflect  current
design goals  and constraints.   For the  design environment  builder,
Palladio provides several  programming paradigms:  rule based,  object
oriented,  data   oriented  and   logical  reasoning   based.    These
capabilities are largely provided by two of the programming systems in
which Palladio is implemented: LOOPS and MRS.

In this talk,  we will  describe the  basic design  concepts on  which
Palladio is  based,  give  examples  of  knowledge-based  design  aids
developed   within   the   environment,   and   describe    Palladio's
implementation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
9
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jan 84 14:50:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How AI People Think - Cultural Premises of the AI Community...
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the Rutgers bboard.]

How AI People Think - Cultural Premises of the AI Community...
is the name of a report by sociologists at the University of Genoa, Italy,
based on a survey of AI researchers attending the International AI conference
(IJCAI-8) this past summer.  [...]

Smadar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 84 13:08:34 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TO THOSE INTERESTED IN COMPUTER VISION, IMAGE PROCESSING, ETC
-BODY-
        This is the second notice directed to all of those interested
in IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER VISION, etc.  There has been a great need,
and interest, in compiling a VISION list that caters to the specialized
needs and interests of those involved in image/vision processing/theory/
implementation.  I broadcast a message to this effect over this BBOARD
about three weeks ago asking for all those that are interested to
respond.  Again, I reiterate the substance of that message:

        1)  If you are interested in participating in a VISION list,
            and have not already expressed your interest to me,
            please do so!  NOW is the time to express that interest,
            since NOW is when the need for such a list is being
            evaluated.
        2)  I cannot moderate the list (due to a lack of the proper type
            of resources to deal with the increased mail traffic).  A
            moderator is DESPERATELY NEEDED!  I will assist you in
            establishing the list, and I am presently in contact with
            the moderator of AILIST (Ken LAWS@SRI-AI) to establish what
            needs to be done.  The job of moderator involves the
            following:
                i)   All mail for the list is sent to you
                ii)  You screen (perhaps, format or edit, depending upon
                     the time and effort you wish to expend) all
                     incoming messages, then redistribute them to the
                     participants on the list at regular intervals.
                iii) You maintain/update the distribution list.
           Needless to say, the job of moderator is extremely rewarding
           and involves a great deal of high visibility.  In addition,
           you get to GREATLY AID in the dissemination and sharing of
           ideas and information in this growing field.  Enough said...
        3) If you know of ANYONE that might be interested in such a
           list, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW and have them express that interest
           to me by sending mail to KAHN@UCLA-CS.ARPA

                                Now's the time to let me know!
                                Philip Kahn

                        send mail to:  KAHN@UCLA-CS.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jan 84 15:14:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Lou <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert systems for software debugging
-BODY-
I don't know of any serious work in AI on software debugging since
HACKER.  HACKER was a part of the planning work done at MIT some years
ago - it was an approach to planning/automatic programming where
planning was done with a simple planner that, e.g., ignored
interactions between plan steps.  Then HACKER ran the plan/program and
had a bunch of mini-experts that detected various kinds of bugs.  See
Sussman, A Computer Model of Skill Acquisition, MIT Press, 1975.

Also, there is some related work in hardware debugging.  Are you aware
of the work by Randy Davis at MIT and by Mike Genesereth at Stanford on
hardware trouble shooting?  This is the problem where you have a piece
of hardware (e.g. a VAX) that used to work but is now broken, and you
want to isolate the component (board, chip, etc.) that needs to be
replaced.  Of course this is a bit different from program debugging,
since you are looking for a broken component rather than a mis-design.
E.g. for trouble shooting you can usually assume a single thing is
broken, but you often have multiple bugs in a program.

Here at Rutgers, we're working on an aid for design debugging for
VLSI.  Design debugging is much more like software debugging.  Our
basic approach is to use a signal constraint propagation method to
generate a set of possible places where the bug might be, and then use
various sorts of heuristics to prune the set (e.g.  a sub-circuit
that's been used often before is less likely to have a bug than a
brand new one).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 84 8:39:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Broome <broome@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Expert systems for software debugging?
-BODY-

        Debugging is a black art, not at all algorithmic, but almost totally
        heuristic.  There is a lot of expert knowledge around about how
        to debug faulty programs, but it is rarely written down or
        systemetized.  Usually it seems to reside solely in the minds of
        a few "debugging whizzes".

        Does anyone know of an expert system that assists in software
        debugging? Or any attempts (now or in the past) to produce such
        an expert?

There are some good ideas and a Prolog implementation in Ehud Shapiro's
Algorithmic Program Debugging, which is published as an ACM distinguished
dissertation by MIT Press, 1983.  One of his ideas is "divide-and-query:
a query-optimal diagnosis algorithm," which is essentially a simple binary
bug search.  If the program is incorrect on some input then the program
is divided into two roughly equal subtrees and the computation backtracks
to the midpoint.  If this intermediate result is correct then the
first subtree is ignored and the bug search is repeated on the second
subtree.   If the intermediate result is incorrect then the search
continues instead on the first subtree.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jan 84 19:25:30-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!nielsen @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert systems for software debuggin - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4980

The Knowledge Based Programming Assistant Project here at the University of
Illinois was founded as a result of a very similar proposal.
A thesis you may be interested in which explains some of our work is
"GPSI : An Expert System to Aid in Program Debugging" by Andrew Laursen
which should be available through the university.

I would be very interested in corresponding with anyone who is considering
the use of expert systems in program debugging.

                                        Paul Nielsen
                                        {pur-ee, ihnp4}!uiucdcs!nielsen
                                        nielsen@uiucdcs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01/19/84 22:25:55
-FROM-
From: PLUKEL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: January Monthly Meeting, Greater Boston Chapter/ACM
-BODY-
                 [Forwarded from MIT by SASW@MIT-MC.]


        On behalf of GBC/ACM,  J. Elliott Smith, the Lecture Chairman, is
        pleased to present a discussion on the topic of

                                LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                              Henryk Jan Komorowski
                          Division of Applied Sciences
                               Harvard University
                            Cambridge, Massachusetts

             Dr. Komorowski is an Assistant Professor of Computer Science,
        who  received  his MS from  Warsaw University  and  his Phd  from
        Linkoeping University, Linkoeping, Sweden, in 1981.   His current
        research interests include applications of logic programming  to:
        rapid  prototyping,  programming/specification development envir-
        onments, expert systems, and databases.

             Dr.  Komorowski's  articles have appeared in proceedings  of
        the  IXth  POPL,  the 1980 Logic Programming Workshop  (Debrecen,
        Hungary),  and the book "Logic Programming",  edited by Clark and
        Taernlund.   He  acted  as Program Chairman for the  recent  IEEE
        Prolog tutorial at Brandies University, is serving on the Program
        Committee  of  the  1984 Logic  Programming  Symposium  (Atlantic
        City),  and is a member of the Editorial Board of THE JOURNAL  OF
        LOGIC PROGRAMMING.

             Prolog  has been selected as the programming language of the
        Japanese  Fifth  Generation Computer Project.   It is  the  first
        realization of logic programming ideas,  and implements a theorem
        prover  based  on a design attributed  to  J.A.  Robinson,  which
        limits resolution to a Horn clause subset of assertions.

             A  Prolog program is a collection of true statements in  the
        form  of RULES.   A computation is a proof from these assertions.
        Numerous   implementations  of  Prolog  have   elaborated   Alain
        Colmerauer's original, including Dr. Komorowski's own Qlog, which
        operates in LISP environments.

             Dr.  Komorowski  will present an introduction to  elementary
        logic  programming  concepts  and an overview  of  more  advanced
        topics,    including   metalevel   inference,    expert   systems
        programming, databases, and natural language processing.

                                 DATE:     Thursday, 26 January 1984
                                 TIME:     8:00 PM
                                 PLACE:    Intermetrics Atrium
                                           733 Concord Avenue
                                           Cambridge, MA
                                         (near Fresh Pond Circle)

                COMPUTER MOVIE and REFRESHMENTS before the talk.
                 Lecture dinner at 6pm open to all GBC members.
                   Call (617) 444-5222 for additional details.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jan 84  1006 PST
-FROM-
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Shaprio Seminars at Stanford and Berkeley
-BODY-
      [Adapted from the SU-SCORE bboard and the Prolog Digest.]


  Ehud Shapiro, The Weizmann Institute of Science
  The Bagel: A Systolic Concurrent Prolog Machine

  4:30pm, Terman Auditorium, Tues, Jan 24th, Stanford CSD Colloq.
  1:30pm, Evans 597, Wed., Jan 2th, Berkeley Prolog Seminar



It is argued that explicit mapping of processes to processors is
essential to effectively program a general-purpose parallel computer,
and, as a consequence, that the kernel language of such a computer
should include a process-to-processor mapping notation.

The Bagel is a parallel architecture that combines concepts of
dataflow, graph-reduction and systolic arrays. The Bagel's kernel
language is Concurrent Prolog, augmented with Turtle programs as a
mapping notation.

Concurrent Prolog, combined with Turtle programs, can easily implement
systolic systems on the Bagel. Several systolic process structures are
explored via programming examples, including linear pipes (sieve of
Erasthotenes, merge sort, natural-language interface to a database),
rectangular arrays (rectangular matrix multiplication, band-matrix
multiplication, dynamic programming, array relaxation), static and
dynamic H-trees (divide-and-conquer, distributed database), and
chaotic structures (a herd of Turtles).

All programs shown have been debugged using the Turtle graphics Bagel
simulator, which is implemented in Prolog.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 20 Jan 84 14:56:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Jayadev Misra <MISRA@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: call for Papers- Principles of Distributed Computing
-BODY-

                         CALL FOR PAPERS
3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC)

                        Vancouver, Canada
                      August 27 - 29, 1984

This conference will address fundamental issues in the theory  and
practice   of   concurrent  and  distributed  systems.   Original
research papers describing theoretical or  practical  aspects  of
specification.  design  or  implementation  of  such  systems are
sought.  Topics of interest include, but are not limited to,  the
following aspects of concurrent and distributed systems.

  . Algorithms
  . Formal models of computations
  . Methodologies for program development
  . Issues in specifications, semantics and verifications
  . Complexity results
  . Languages
  . Fundamental results in application areas such as
                distributed databases, communication protocols, distributed
                operating systems, distributed transaction processing systems,
                real time systems.

Please send eleven copies of a detailed abstract (not a  complete
paper) not exceeding 10 double spaced typewritten pages, by MARCH
8, 1984, to the Program Chairman:

  Prof. J. Misra
  Computer Science Department
  University of Texas
  Austin, Texas 78712

The abstract must include a clear description of the problem  be-
ing  addressed, comparisons with extant work and a section on ma-
jor original contributions of this work.  The abstract must  pro-
vide  sufficient detail for the program committee to make a deci-
sion.  Papers will be chosen on the basis  of  scientific  merit,
originality, clarity and appropriateness for this conference.

Authors will be notified of acceptance by April  30,  1984.   Ac-
cepted  papers,  typed on special forms, are due at the above ad-
dress by June 1, 1984.  Authors of accepted papers will be  asked
to sign ACM Copyright forms.

The Conference Chairman is Professor  Tiko  Kameda  (Simon  Fraser
University).   The Publicity Chairman is Professor Nicola Santoro
(Carleton University).  The Local Arrangement Chiarman is Profes-
sor Joseph Peters (Simon Fraser University).  The Program Commit-
tee consists of Ed Clarke (C.M.U.), Greg  N.  Frederickson  (Pur-
due),  Simon Lam (U of Texas, Austin), Leslie Lamport (SRI Inter-
national), Michael Malcom (U  of  Waterloo),  J.  Misra,  Program
Chairman  (U of Texas, Austin), Hector G. Molina (Princeton), Su-
san Owicki (Stanford), Fred Schneider (Cornell),  H.  Ray  Strong
(I.B.M. San Jose), and Howard Sturgis (Xerox Parc).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
10
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jan 84 12:19:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report on "How AI People Think..."
-BODY-
I received a free copy because I attended IJCAI.  I have an address
here, but I don't know if it is the appropriate one for ordering this
report:

Re: the report "How AI People Think - Cultural Premises of the AI community"
Commission of the European Communities
Rue de la Loi, 200
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium

(The report was compiled by Massimo Negrotti, Chair of Sociology of
 Knowledge, University of Genoa, Italy)

Smadar (KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Jan 84 11:05:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: brain, a parallel processor ?
-BODY-
What are the evidences that the brain is a parallel processor?  My own
introspection seem to indicate that mine is doing time-sharing.  That is
I can follow only one idea at a time, but with a lot of switching
between reasoning paths (often more non directed than controlled
switching). Have different people different processors ? Or is the brain
able to function in more than one way (parallel, serial, time-sharing) ??

Rene (bach@sumex)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 84 15:37:39 CST
-FROM-
From: Mike Caplinger <mike@rice>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics support for non-Lisp languages
-BODY-
[This is neither an AI nor a graphics question per se, but I thought
these lists had the best chance of reaching Symbolics users...]

What kind of support do the Symbolics machines provide for languages
other than Lisp?  Specifically, are there interactive debugging
facilities for Fortran, Pascal, etc.?  It's my understanding that the
compilers generate Lisp output.  Is this true, and if so, is the
interactive nature of Lisp exploited, or are the languages just
provided as batch compilers?  Finally, does anyone have anything to say
about efficiency?

Answers to me, and I'll summarize if there's any interest.  Thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Jan 84 09:38:25-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KEE Representation System
-BODY-
The Jan. issue of IEEE Computer Graphics reports the following:

Intelligenetics has introduced the Knowledge Engineering Environment
AI software development system for AI professionals, computer
scientists, and domain specialists.  The database management program
development system is graphics oriented and interactive, permitting
use of a mouse, keyboard, command-option menus, display-screen
windows, and graphic symbols.

KEE is a frame-based representation system that provides support
for descriptive and procedural knowledge representation, and a
declarative, extendable formalism for controlling inheritance of
attributes and attribute values between related units of
knowledge.  The system provides support for multiple inheritance
hierarchies; the use of user-extendable data types to promote
knowledge-base integrity; object-oriented programming; multiple-
inference engines/rule systems; and a modular system design through
multiple knowledge bases.

The first copy of KEE sells for $60,000; the second for $20,000.
Twenty copies cost $5000 each.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01/24/84 12:08:36
-FROM-
From: JAWS@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PROLOG and/or ZOG for TOPS-10
-BODY-
Does anyone out there know where I can get a version of prolog and/or
ZOG to that will run on a DEC-10 (7.01)?  The installation is owned by the
US government, albeit beneign (DOT).

                                THANX JAWS@MC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jan 84 11:26:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Armar Archbold <ARCHBOLD@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rivest Forsythe Lecture on Learning
-BODY-
[The following is a review of a Stanford talk, "Reflections on AI", by
Dr. Ron Rivest of MIT.  I have edited the original slightly after getting
Armar's permission to pass it along.  -- KIL]

Dr. Rivest's  talk  emphasized  the interest of small-scale studies of
learning through experience (a "critter"  with  a  few  sensing  and
effecting operations building up a world model of a blocks environment).
He stressed such familiar themes as

   - "the evolutionary function and value of world  models  is  predicting
     the  future,  and  consequently  knowledge is composed principally of
     expectations, possibilities, hypotheses -  testable  action-sensation
     sequences, at the lowest level of sophistication",

   - "the  field  of  AI  has  focussed  more  on 'backdoor AI', where you
     directly  program  in   data   structures   representing   high-level
     knowledge,  than  on  'front-door' AI, which studies how knowledge is
     built up from non-verbal experience, or 'side door AI', which studies
     how knowledge might be gained through teaching and instruction  using
     language;

   - such a study of simple learning systems in a simple environment -- in
     which an agent with a given  vocabulary  but  little  or  no  initial
     knowledge  ("tabula  rasa")  investigates  the  world (either through
     active experiementation or through changes imposed  by  perturbations
     in  the  surroundings)  and  attempts  to  construct a useful body of
     knowledge   through   recognition   of   identities,    equivalences,
     symmetries,  homomorphisms,  etc.,  and  eventually  metapatterns, in
     action-sensation chains (represented perhaps in dynamic logic) --  is
     of considerable interest.

Such concepts are not new. There have been many mathematical studies,
psychological similations, and AI explorations along the lines since the
50s.  At SRI, Stan Rosenschein was playing around with a simplified learning
critter about a year ago; Peter Cheeseman shares Rivest's interest in
Jaynes' use of entropy calculations to induce safe hypotheses in an
overwhelmingly profuse space of possibilities.  Even so, these concerns
were worth having reactivated by a talk.  The issues raised by some of the
questions from the audience were also intesting, albeit familiar:

   - The critter which starts out with a tabula rasa  will  only  make  it
     through  the  enormous  space  of  possible  patterns induceable from
     experience if it initially "knows" an awful lot about how  to  learn,
     at  whatever  level  of  procedural  abstraction  and/or  "primitive"
     feature selection (such as that done at the level of the eye itself).

   - Do we call intelligence the procedures that permit one to gain useful
     knowledge (rapidly), or the knowledge thus gained, or what mixture of
     both?

   - In addition, there is the question  of  what  motivational  structure
     best furthers the critter's education.  If the critter attaches value
     to  minimum  surprise (various statistical/entropy measures thereof),
     it can sit in a corner and do nothing, in which case it may  one  day
     suddenly  be very surprised and very dead.  If it attaches tremendous
     value to surprise, it could just flip a coin and always  be  somewhat
     surprised.    The  mix  between repetition (non-surprise/confirmatory
     testing) and exploration which produces the best cognitive system  is
     a  fundamental  problem.   And there is the notion of "best" - "best"
     given the critter's values other than curiosity, or "best"  in  terms
     of  survivability,  or  "best"  in  a  kind  of  Occam's  razor sense
     vis-a-vis truth (here it was commented you could rank Carnapian world
     models based on the  simple  primitive  predicates  using  Kolmogorov
     complexity measures, if one could only calculate the latter...)

   - The  success  or  failure  of the critter to acquire useful knowledge
     depends very much on the particular world it is placed in.    Certain
     sequences  of  stimuli will produce learning and others won't, with a
     reasonable, simple learning procedure.  In simple artificial  worlds,
     it  is possible to form some kind of measure of the complexity of the
     environment by seeing what the minimum length action-sensation chains
     are which are true regularities.  Here there is  another  traditional
     but  fascinating question: what are the best worlds for learning with
     respect to  critters  of  a  given  type  -  if  the  world  is  very
     stochastic,  nothing  can  be learned in time; if the world is almost
     unchanging, there is little motivation to learn and  precious  little
     data about regular covariances to learn from.

     Indeed,  in  psychological studies, there are certain sequences which
     will bolster reliance on certain conclusions to such an  extent  that
     those    conclusions    become    (illegitimately)   protected   from
     disconfirmation.  Could one recreate this phenomenon  with  a  simple
     learning  critter  with a certain motivational structure in a certain
     kind of world?

Although these issues seemed familiar, the talk certainly could stimulate
the general public.

                                                                 Cheers - Armar

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jan 84 15:45:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGLUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT - FRIDAY, January 27, 1984
-BODY-
           [Reprinted from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution.]

Friday,   January 27, 1984
Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
12:05

SPEAKER:  Tom Dietterich, HPP
          Stanford University

TOPIC:    Learning with Constraints

In attempting to construct a program  that can learn the semantics  of
UNIX commands, several shortcomings of existing AI learning techniques
have been  uncovered.  Virtually  all  existing learning  systems  are
unable to (a)  perform data  interpretation in a  principled way,  (b)
form theories about systems that contain substantial amounts of  state
information, (c) learn from  partial data, and (d)  learn in a  highly
incremental fashion.  This talk  will describe these shortcomings  and
present techniques  for overcoming  them.  The  basic approach  is  to
employ a vocabulary of constraints to represent partial knowledge  and
to apply  constraint-propagation techniques  to draw  inferences  from
this partial knowledge.  These techniques  are being implemented in  a
system called, EG,  whose task is  to learn the  semantics of 13  UNIX
commands (ls, cp,  mv, ln, rm,  cd, pwd, chmod,  umask, type,  create,
mkdir, rmdir) by watching "over-the-shoulder" of a teacher.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01/25/84 17:07:14
-FROM-
From: AH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Theory of Computation Seminar
-BODY-
                       [Forwarded from MIT-MC by SASW.]


                           DATE:  February 2nd, 1984
                           TIME:  3:45PM  Refreshments
                                  4:00PM  Lecture
                          PLACE:  NE43-512A

           "OPERATIONAL AND DENOTATIONAL SEMANTICS FOR P R O L O G"

                                      by

                                 Neil D. Jones
                              Datalogisk Institut
                             Copenhagen University

                                   Abstract

  A PROLOG program can go into an infinite loop even when there exists a
refutation of its clauses by resolution theorem proving methods.  Conseguently
one can not identify resolution of Horn clauses in first-order logic with
PROLOG  as it is actually used, namely, as a deterministic programming
language.  In this talk two "computational" semantics of PROLOG will be given.
One is operational and is expressed as an SECD-style interpreter which is
suitable for computer implementation.  The other is a Scott-Strachey style
denotational semantics.  Both were developed from the SLD-refutation procedure
of Kowalski and APT and van Embden, and both handle "cut".

HOST:  Professor Albert R. Meyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date:     Wednesday, 25 Jan 84 23:47:29 EST
-FROM-
From:     reiser (brian reiser) @ cmu-psy-a
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <Reiser%CMU-PSY-A@CMU-CS-PT>
-SUBJECT-
Subject:  Human-Computer Interaction Program at CMU
-BODY-
                         ***** ANNOUNCEMENT *****

              Graduate Program in Human-Computer Interaction
                       at Carnegie-Mellon University

The  field  of  human-computer  interaction  brings  to  bear  theories and
methodologies from cognitive psychology and computer science to the  design
of   computer   systems,   to   instruction   about   computers,   and   to
computer-assisted instruction.  The new Human-Computer Interaction  program
at  CMU is geared toward the development of cognitive models of the complex
interaction between learning, memory, and language mechanisms  involved  in
using  computers.    Students  in  the  program  apply their psychology and
computer science  training  to  research  in  both  academic  and  industry
settings.

Students in the Human-Computer Interaction program design their educational
curricula  with  the  advice  of  three  faculty  members  who serve as the
student's committee.  The intent  of  the  program  is  to  guarantee  that
students   have  the  right  combination  of  basic  and  applied  research
experience and coursework so that they  can  do  leading  research  in  the
rapidly developing field of human-computer interaction.  Students typically
take  one  psychology  course and one computer science course each semester
for the first two years.  In addition, students participate in a seminar on
human-computer interaction held during the summer  of  the  first  year  in
which  leading  industry  researchers are invited to describe their current
projects.

Students are also actively involved in research throughout  their  graduate
career.    Research  training  begins  with  a collaborative and apprentice
relationship with a faculty member in laboratory research for the first one
or two years of the program.  Such involvement allows the  student  several
repeated   exposures  to  the  whole  sequence  of  research  in  cognitive
psychology and computer science, including conceptualization of a  problem,
design   and   execution   of   experiments,  analyzing  data,  design  and
implementation of computer systems, and writing scientific reports.

In the second half  of  their  graduate  career,  students  participate  in
seminars,  teaching,  and  an  extensive  research project culminating in a
dissertation.  In addition, an important component  of  students'  training
involves  an  internship working on an applied project outside the academic
setting.  Students and faculty in the  Human-Computer  Interaction  program
are  currently studying many different cognitive tasks involving computers,
including: construction of algorithms, design of instruction  for  computer
users,  design of user-friendly systems, and the application of theories of
learning and problem solving to the design of systems for computer-assisted
instruction.

Carnegie-Mellon University is exceptionally well suited for  a  program  in
human-computer   interaction.    It  combines  a  strong  computer  science
department with a strong  psychology  department  and  has  many  lines  of
communication  between  them.   There are many shared seminars and research
projects.  They also share in a computational community defined by a  large
network  of  computers.  In addition, CMU and IBM have committed to a major
effort to integrate personal computers into college education.    By  1986,
every  student  on  campus  will  have a powerful state-of-the-art personal
computer.  It is anticipated that members of the Human-Computer Interaction
program will be involved in various aspects of this effort.

The  following  faculty  from  the  CMU  Psychology  and  Computer  Science
departments  are  participating  in the Human-Computer Interaction Program:
John R. Anderson, Jaime G. Carbonell, John  R. Hayes,  Elaine  Kant,  David
Klahr,  Jill  H. Larkin, Philip L. Miller, Alan Newell, Lynne M. Reder, and
Brian J. Reiser.

Our   deadline   for   receiving   applications,   including   letters   of
recommendation,  is  March  1st.  Further information about our program and
application materials may be obtained from:

     John R. Anderson
     Department of Psychology
     Carnegie-Mellon University
     Pittsburgh, PA  15213

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
11
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jan 1984 21:44:11-EST
-FROM-
From: Peng.Si.Ow@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Beam Search
-BODY-
I would be most grateful for any information/references to studies and/or
applications of Beam Search, the search procedure used in HARPY.

                                                        Peng Si Ow
                                                      pso@CMU-RI-ISL1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jan 84 7:51:06-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!erh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert debuggers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1148

        See also "Sniffer: a system that understands bugs", Daniel G. Shapiro,
MIT AI Lab Memo AIM-638, June 1981
        (The debugging knowledge of Sniffer is organized as a bunch of tiny
experts, each understanding a specific type of error.  The program has an in-
depth understanding of a (very) limited class of errors.  It consists of
a cliche-finder and a "time rover".  Master's thesis.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 26-Jan-84  19:11:37-GMT
-FROM-
From: BILL (on ERCC DEC-10) <Clocksin%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Clocksin <Clocksin%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList entry
-BODY-
In reference to a previous AIList correspondent wishing to know more about
Arnold Arnold's "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem, last week's issue of
New Scientist explains all.  The "proof" is faulty, as expected.
Mr Arnold is a self-styled "cybernetician" who has a history of grabbing
headlines with announcements of revolutionary results which are later
proven faulty on trivial grounds.  I suppose A.I. has to put up with
its share of circle squarers and angle trisecters.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jan 84 18:23:09-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!psu
     vax!bobgian@Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU Spring AI mailing lists
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.433

I will be using net.ai for occasionally reporting "interesting" items
relating to the PSU Spring AI course.

If anybody would also like "administrivia" mailings (which could get
humorous at times!), please let me know.

Also, if you want to be included on the "free-for-all" discussion list,
which will include flames and other assorted idiocies, let me know that
too.  Otherwise you'll get only "important" items.

The "official Netwide course" (ie, net.ai.cse) will start up in a month
or so.  Meanwhile, you are welcome to join the fun via mail!

Bob

Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP       -or-    allegra!psuvax!bobgian
Arpa:   bobgian@PSUVAX1           -or-    bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET    CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jan 84 19:39:53 EST
-FROM-
From: AMAREL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fredkin Prize for Computer Math Discovery
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the RUTGERS bboard.]

Fredkin Prize to be Awarded for Computer Math Discovery

LOUISVILLE,  Ky.--The  Fredkin  Foundation  will award a $100,000 prize for the
first computer to make a major mathematical discovery, it was  announced  today
(Jan. 26).

Carnegie-Mellon  University  has  been  named trustee of the "Fredkin Prize for
Computer Discovery in Mathematics", according to Raj  Reddy,  director  of  the
university's  Robotics  Institute,  and a trustee of IJCAI (International Joint
Council on Artificial Intelligence) responsible for AI prizes.  Reddy said  the
prize  will be awarded "for a mathematical work of distinction in which some of
the pivotal ideas have been found automatically by a computer program in  which
they were not initially implicit."

"The criteria for awarding this prize will be widely publicized and reviewed by
the  artificial  intelligence  and  mathematics  communities to determine their
adequacy," Reddy said.

Dr. Woody Bledsoe of the University of Texas at Austin will head a committee of
experts  who  will  define  the  rules  of  the  competition.      Bledsoe   is
president-elect of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

"It  is  hoped,"  said  Bledsoe,  "that  this  prize  will stimulate the use of
computers in mathematical research and have a good long-range effect on all  of
science."

The  committee  of mathematicians and computer scientists which will define the
rules of the competition includes:  William Eaton of the University of Texas at
Austin, Daniel  Gorenstein  of  Rutgers  University,  Paul  Halmos  of  Indiana
University,  Ken  Kunen  of  the  University of Wisconsin, Dan Mauldin of North
Texas State University and John McCarthy of Stanford University.

Also, Hugh Montgomery of the University of Michigan, Jack Schwartz of New  York
University,  Michael  Starbird  of  the  University  of  Texas  at  Austin, Ken
Stolarsky of  the  University  of  Illinois  and  Francois  Treves  of  Rutgers
University.

The  Fredkin Foundation has a similar prize for a world champion computer chess
system.  Recently, $5,000 was awarded to Ken Thompson and Joseph  Condon,  Bell
Laboratories  researchers  who developed the first computer system to achieve a
Master rating in tournament chess.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jan 84 15:34:50 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Mike Brzustowicz <mab@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Rene Bach's query on parallel processing in the brain
-BODY-
What happens when something is "on the tip of your tounge"  but is beyond
recall.  Often (for me at least)  if the effort to recall is displaced
by some other cognitive activity, the searched-for information "pops-up"
at a later time.  To me, this suggests at least one background process.

                                -Mike (mab@AIDS-UNIX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 84 17:19:30 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How my brain works
-BODY-
I find that most of what my brain does is pattern interpretation.  I receive
various sensory input in the form of various kinds of vibrations (i.e.
eletromagnetic and acoustic) and my brain perceives patterns in this muck.
Then it attaches meanings to the patterns.  Within limits, I can attach these
meanings at will.  The process of logical deduction a la Socrates takes up
a negligible time-slice in the CPU.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 84 15:35:21 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: How my brain works
-BODY-
I see what you mean about the question as to whether the brain is a parallel
processor in consious reasoning or not.  I also feel like a little daemon that
sits and pays attention to different lines of thought at different times.

An interesting counterexample is the aha! phenomenon.  The mathematician
Henri Poincare, among others, has written an essay about his experience of
being interrupted from his conscious attention somehow and becoming instantly
aware of the solution to a problem he had "given up" on some days before.
It was as though some part of his brain had been working on the problem all
along even though he had not been aware of it.  When it had gotten the solution
an interrupt occurred and his conscious mind was triggered into the awareness
of  the solution.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Jan 84 09:47:49-EST
-FROM-
From: Alexander Sen Yeh <AY@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Information
-BODY-
I am getting started on a project which combines symbolic artificial
intelligence and image enhancement techniques.  Any leads on past and
present attempts at doing this (or at combining symbolic a.i. with
signal processing or even numerical methods in general) would be
greatly appreciated.  I will send a summary of replies to AILIST and
VISION LIST in the future.  Thanks.

>-Alex Yeh
>-electronic mail: AY@MIT-XX.ARPA
>-US mail: Rm. 222, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 January 1984 1554-est
-FROM-
From: RTaylor.5581i27TK @ RADC-MULTICS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE:  brain, a parallel processor ?
-BODY-
I agree that based on my own observations, my brain appears to be
working more like a time-sharing unit...complete with slow downs,
crashes, etc., due to overloading the inputs by fatigue, poor maintenance,
and numerous inputs coming too fast to be covered by the
time-sharing/switching mechanism!
                              Roz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 30 Jan 84 14:33:07 EST
-FROM-
From: shrager (jeff shrager) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Psychological Definition of (human) Intelligence
-BODY-
Recommended reading for persons interested in a psychological view of
(human) intelligence:

Sternberg, R.J. (1983) "What should intelligence tests test?  Implications
 of a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing."  in
 Educational Researcher, Jan 1984.  Vol. 13 #1.

This easily read article (written for educational researchers) reviews
Sternberg's current view of what makes intelligent persons intelligent:

"The triarchic theory accounts for why IQ tests work as well as they do
 and suggests ways in which they might be improved...."

Although the readership of this list are probably not interested in IQ tests
per se, Sternberg is the foremost cognitive psychologist concerned directly
with intelligence so his view of "What is intelligence?" will be of interest.
This is reviewed quite nicely in the cited paper:

"The triachric theory of human intelligence comprises three subtheories.  The
first relates intelligence to the internal world of the individual,
specifying the mental mechanisms that lead to more and less intelligent
behavior.  This subtheory specifies three kinds of information processing
components that are instrumental in (a) learning how to do things, (b)
planning what to do and how to do them, and in (c) actually doing them. ...
The second subtheory specifies those points along the continuum of one's
experience with tasks or situations that most critically involve the use of
intelligence.  In particular, the account emphasizes the roles of novelty
(...) and of automatization (...) in intelligence.  The third subtheory
relates intelligence to the external world of the individual, specifying
three classes of acts -- environmental adaptation, selection, and shaping --
that characterize intelligent behavior in the everyday world."

There is more detail in the cited article.

(Robert J. Sternberg is professor of Psychology at Yale University.  See
also, his paper in Behavior and Flame Sciences (1980, 3, 573-584): "Sketch of
a componential subtheory of human intelligence." and his book (in press with
Cambridge Univ. Press): "Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human
intelligence.")

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 26 Jan 84 14:11:55-CST
-FROM-
From: CS.BUCKLEY@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Database Seminar
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTEXAS-20 bboard.]

    4-5 Wed afternoon in Pai 5.60 [...]

    Mail-From: CS.LEVINSON created at 23-Jan-84 15:47:25

    I am developing a system which will serve as a self-organizing
    knowledge base for an expert system. The knowledge base is currently
    being developed to store and retrieve Organic Chemical reactions. As
    the fundamental structures of the system are merely graphs and sets,
    I am interested in finding other domains is which the system could be used.

    Expert systems require a large amount of knowledge in order to perform
    their tasks successfully. In order for knowledge to be useful for the
    expert task it must be characterized accurately. Data characterization
    is usually the responsibility of the system designer and the
    consulting experts. It is my belief that the computer itself can be
    used to help characterize and classify its knowledge. The system's
    design is based on the assumption that the key to knowledge
    characterization is pattern recognition.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jan 84 21:25:17 EST
-FROM-
From: MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning Seminar Talk by R. Banerji
-BODY-
                 [Reprinted from the RUTGERS bboard.]

                MACHINE LEARNING SEMINAR

Speaker:        Ranan Banerji
                St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pa. 19130

Subject:        An explanation of 'The Induction of Theories from
                Facts' and its relation to LEX and MARVIN


In Ehud Shapiro's Yale thesis work he presented a framework for
inductive inference in logic, called the incremental inductive
inference algorithm.  His Model Inference System was able to infer
axiomatizations of concrete models from a small number of facts in a
practical amount of time.  Dr. Banerji will relate Shapiro's work to
the kind of inductive work going on with the LEX project using the
version space concept of Tom Mitchell, and the positive focusing work
represented by Claude Sammut's MARVIN.

Date:           Monday, January 30, 1984
Time:           2:00-3:30
Place:          Hill 7th floor lounge (alcove)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 84  1653 PST
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Talkware seminar Mon Feb 6, Tom Moran (PARC)
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

Talkware Seminar (CS 377)

Date: Feb 6
Speaker: Thomas P. Moran, Xerox PARC
Topic: Command Language Systems, Conceptual Models, and Tasks
Time: 2:15-4
Place: 200-205

Perhaps the most important property for the usability of command language
systems is consistency.  This notion usually refers to the internal
(self-) consistency of the language.  But I would like to reorient the
notion of consistency to focus on the task domain for which the system
is designed.  I will introduce a task analysis technique, called
External-Internal Task (ETIT) analysis.  It is based on the idea that
tasks in the external world must be reformulated in to the internal
concepts of a computer system before the system can be used.  The
analysis is in the form of a mapping between sets of external tasks and
internal tasks.  The mapping can be either direct (in the form of rules)
or "mediated" by a conceptual model of how the system works.  The direct
mapping shows how a user can appear to understand a system, yet have no
idea how it "really" works.  Example analyses of several text editing
systems and, for contrast, copiers will be presented; and various
properties of the systems will be derived from the analysis.  Further,
it is shown how this analysis can be used to assess the potential
transfer of knowledge from one system to another, i.e., how much knowing
one system helps with learning another.  Exploration of this kind of
analysis is preliminary, and several issues will be raised for
discussion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
12
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 84 16:37:00 cst
-FROM-
From: dyer@wisc-ai (Chuck Dyer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machines
-BODY-
Does anyone have any reliable benchmarks comparing Lisp
machines, including Symbolics, Dandelion, Dolphin, Dorado,
LMI, VAX 780, etc?

Other features for comparison are also of interest.  In particular,
what capabilities are available for integrating a color display
(at least 8 bits/pixel)?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Feb 84 01:54:07-EST
-FROM-
From: Andrew Y. Chu <AYCHU@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: language translator
-BODY-
                     [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-ML.]

Hi, I am looking for some information on language translation
(No, not fortran->pascal, like english->french).
Does anyone in MIT works on this field? If not, anyone in other
schools? Someone from industry ? Commercial product ?
Pointer to articles, magazines, journals etc. will be greatly appreciated.

Please reply to aychu@mit-xx. I want this message to reach as
many people as possible, are there other bboards I can send to?
Thanx.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 84 09:48:48 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fermat's Last Theorem
-BODY-
Fortunately (or unfortunately) puzzles like Fermat's Last Theorem, Goldbach's
conjecture, the 4-color theorem, and others are not in the same class as
the geometric trisection of an angle or the squaring of a circle.  The former
class may be undecidable propositions (a la Goedel) and the latter are merely
impossible.  Since one of the annoying things about undecidable propositions
is that it cannot be decided whether or not they are decidable, (Where are
you, Doug Hofstader, now that we need you?) people seriously interested in
these candidates for undecidablilty should not dismiss so-called theorem
provers like A. Arnold without looking at their work.

I have heard that the ugly computer proof(?) of the 4-color theorem that
appeared in Scientific American is incorrect, i.e. not a proof.  I also
have heard that one G. Spencer-Brown has proved the 4-color theorem.  I
do not know whether either of these things is true and it's bugging me!
Is the 4-color theorem undecidable or not?

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 84 19:48:36-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!keller @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Handbooks only .95
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5251

        Several people here have joined "The Library of Computer and
Information Sciences Book Club" because they have an offer of the complete
AI Handbook set (3 vols) for $3.95 instead of the normal $100.00. I got mine
and they are the same production as non book club versions. You must buy
three more books during the comming year and it will probably be easy to
find ones that you want. Here's the details:

Send to: The Library of Computer and Information Sciences
         Riverside NJ 08075

Copy of Ad:
Please accept my application for trial membership in the Library of Computer
and Information Sciences and send me the 3-volume HANDBOOK OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (10079) billing me only $3.95. I agree to purchase at least
three additional Selections or Alternates over the next 12 months. Savings
may range up to 30% and occasionally even more. My membership is cancelable
any time after I buy these three books. A shipping and handling charge is
added to all shipments.

No-Risk Guarantee: If you are not satisfied--for any reason--you may return
the HANDBOOK OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE within 10 days and your membership
will be canceled and you will owe nothing.

Name ________
Name of Firm ____ (if you want subscription to your office)
Address _____________
City ________
State _______ Zip ______

(Offer good in Continental U.S. and Canada only. Prices slightly higher in
Canada.)

Scientific American 8/83    7-BV8

>Shaun ...uiucdcs!uicsl!keller

[I have been a member for several years, and have found this club's
service satisfactory (and improving).  The selection leans towards
data processing and networking, but there have been a fair number
of books on AI, graphics and vision, robotics, etc.  After buying
several books you get enough bonus points for a very substantial
discount on a selection of books that you passed up when they were
first offered.  I do get tired, though, of the monthly brochures that
use the phrase "For every computer professional, ..." in the blurb for
nearly every book.  If you aren't interested in the AI Handbook,
find a current club member for a list of other books you can get
when you enroll.  The current member will also get a book for signing
you up.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 84 19:55:24-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!lipp @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Constraint Theory - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5285


*********************BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT*******************************

                     CONSTRAINT THEORY
                 An Approach to Policy-Level
                         Modelling
                             by
                     Laurence D. Richards

The cybernetic concepts of variety, constraint, circularity, and
process provide the foundations for a theoretical framework for the
design of policy support systems.  The theoretical framework consists
of a modelling language and a modelling mathematics.  An approach to
building models for policy support sys- tems is detailed; two case
studies that demonstrate the approach are described.  The modelling
approach focuses on the structure of mental models and the subjec-
tivity of knowledge.  Consideration is given to ideas immanent in
second-order cybernetics, including paradox, self-reference, and
autonomy. Central themes of the book are "complexity", "negative
reasoning", and "robust" or "value-rich" policy.

424 pages; 23 tables; 56 illustrations
Hardback: ISBN 0-8191-3512-7 $28.75
Paperback:ISBN 0-8191-3513-5 $16.75

order from:
                          University Press of America
                                4720 Boston Way
                           Lanham, Maryland 20706 USA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jan 84 0:25:20-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert systems for software debugging
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5217

Ehud Shapiro's error diagnosis system is not an expert system.  It doesn't
depend on a heuristic approach at all.  Shapiro tries to find the faulty part
of a bad program by executing part of the program, then asking an "oracle" to
decide if that part worked correctly.  I am very impressed with Shapiro's
work, but it doesn't have anything to do with "expert knowledge."

Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jan 84 12:25:56-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From:
ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!psuvax!bobgian @
Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSU's Netwide AI course
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.432

The PSU ("in person") component of the course has started up, but things
are a bit slow and confused regarding the "netwide" component.

For one thing, I am too busy finishing a thesis and teaching full-time to
handle the administrative duties, and we don't (yet, at least) have the
resources to hire others to do it.

For another, my plans presupposed a level of intellectual maturity and
drive that is VERY rare in Penn State students.  I believe the BEST that
PSU can offer are in my course right now, but only 30 percent of them are
ready for what I wanted to do (and most of THEM are FACULTY!!).

I'm forced to backtrack and run a slightly more traditional "mini" course
to build a common foundation.  That course essentially will read STRUCTURE
AND INTERPRETATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS by Hal Abelson and Gerry Sussman.
[This book was developed for the freshman CS course (6.001) at MIT and will
be published in April.  It is now available as an MIT LCS tech report by
writing Abelson at 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139.]

The "netwide" version of the course WILL continue in SOME (albeit perhaps
delayed) form.  My "mini" course should take about 6 weeks.  After that
the "AI and Mysticism" course can be restarted.

For now, I won't create net.ai.cse but rather will use net.ai for
occasional announcements.  I'll also keep addresses of all who wrote
expressing interest (and lack of a USENET connection).  Course
distributions will go (low volume) to that list and to net.ai until
things start to pick up.  When it becomes necessary we will "fork off"
into a net.ai subgroup.

So keep the faith, all you excited people!  This course is yet to be!!

        Bob

Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP       -or-    allegra!psuvax!bobgian
Arpa:   bobgian@PSUVAX1           -or-    bobgian%psuvax1.bitnet@Berkeley
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET    CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.csnet
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Feb 84 00:24:28-EST
-FROM-
From: STEELE%TARTAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1984 LISP Conference submissions deadline moved back
-BODY-
Because of delays that occurred in getting out the call for papers,
the deadline for submissions to the 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and
Functional Programming (to be held August 5-8, 1984) has been moved
back from February 6 to February 15.  The date for notification of
acceptance or rejection of papers is now March 20 (was March 12).
The date for return of camera-ready copy is now May 20 (was May 15).

Please forward this message to anyone who may find it of interest.
>-Thanks,
        Guy L. Steele Jr.
        Program Chairman, 1984 ACM S. on L. and F.P.
        Tartan Laboratories Incorporated
        477 Melwood Avenue
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
        (412)621-2210

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 84 19:54:56-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!lipp @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cybernetics Congress - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5284

6th International Congress of the World Organisation
        of General Systems and Cybernetics
        10--14 September 1984
        Paris, France
This transdisciplinary congress will present the contemporary aspects
of cybernetics and of systems, and examine their different currents.
The proposed topics include both methods and domains of cybernetics
and systems:
  1) foundations, epistemology, analogy, modelisation, general methods
     of systems, history of cybernetics and systems science ideas.
  2) information, organisation, morphogenesis, self-reference, autonomy.
  3) dynamic systems, complex systems, fuzzy systems.
  4) physico-chemical systems.
  5) technical systems: automatics, simulation, robotics, artificial
     intelligence, learning.
  6) biological systems: ontogenesis, physiology, systemic therapy,
     neurocybernetics, ethology, ecology.
  7) human and social systems: economics, development, anthropology,
     management, education, planification.

For further information:
                                     WOGSC
                               Comite de lecture
                                     AFCET
                               156, Bld. Pereire
                             F 75017 Paris, France
Those who want to attend the congress are urged to register by writing
to AFCET, at the above address, as soon as possible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
13
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 84 09:15:02 EST  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallel processing in the brain
-BODY-
       From: Rene Bach <BACH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
       What are the evidences that the brain is a parallel processor?  My own
       introspection seem to indicate that mine is doing time-sharing.  That is
       I can follow only one idea at a time, but with a lot of switching
       between reasoning paths (often more non directed than controlled
       switching).

Does that mean you hold your breath and stop thinking while you're
walking, and stop walking in order to breathe or think?

More pointedly, I think it's incorrect to consider only
consciously-controlled processes when we talk about whether or not
the brain is doing parallel processing.  Perhaps the conscious part
of your mind can keep track of only one thing at a time, but most
(probably >90%) of the processing done by the brain is subconscious.

For example, most of us have to think a LOT about what we're doing
when we're first learning to drive.  But after a while, it becomes
largely automatic, and the conscious part of our mind is freed to
think about other things while we're driving.

As another example, have you ever had the experience of trying
unsuccessfully to remember something, and later remembering
whatever-it-was while you were thinking about something else?
SOME kind of processing was going on in the interim, or you
wouldn't have remembered whatever-it-was.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 84 20:18:33-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!uokvax!andree @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: intelligence and genius - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5259

Sorry, js@psuvax, but I DO know something about what I spoke, even if I do
have trouble typing.

I am aware that theorom-proving machines are impossible. It's also fairly
obvious that they would use lots of time and space.

However, I didn't even MENTION them. I talked about two flavors of machine.
One generated well-formed strings, and the other said whether they were
true or not. I didn't say either machine proved them. My point was that the
second of these machines is also impossible, and is closely related to
Jerry's genius finding machines. [I assume that any statement containing
genius is true.]

        Down with replying without reading!
        <mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 84 13:54:21 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Brain Processing
-BODY-
The Feb Scientific American has an article entitled "The
Skill of Typing" which can help one to form insights into
mechanisms of the brains processing.
richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 84 08:24:35 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V2 #10
-BODY-
Re: Parallel Processing in the Brain

  There are several instances of people experiencing what can most easily
be explained as "tasking" in the brain. (an essay by Henri Poincare in "The
World of Mathematics", "The Seamless Web" by Stanley Burnshaw)  It appears
that the conscious mind is rather clumsy at creative work and in large measure
assigns tasks (in parallel) to the subconscious mind which operates in the
background.  When the background task is finished, an interrupt is generated
and the conscious mind becomes aware of the solution without knowing how the
problem was solved.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Feb 84 10:17:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Kenji Sugiyama <SUGIYAMA@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Parallel brain?
-BODY-
I had a strange experience when I had practiced abacus in Japan.
An abacus is used for adding, subtracting, multipling, and dividing
numbers.  The practice consisted of a set of calculations in a definite
amount of time, say, 15 minutes.  During that time, I began to think
of something other than the problem at hand.  Then I noticed that
fact ("Aha, I thought of this and that!"), and grinned at myself in
my mind.  In spite of these detours, I continued my calculations without
an interruption.  This kind of experience repeated several times.

It seems to me that my brain might be parallel, at least, in simple tasks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Feb 1984 8:16-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%USC-CSE@ECLA.ECLnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #10
-BODY-
parallelism in the brain:
        Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?
                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 15:06:09 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The brain is parallel, yet data flow can be serial...
-BODY-
        In response to Rene Bach's question whether "the brain is a parallel
processor."  There is no other response other than an emphatic YES!  The
brain is comprised of about 10E9 neurons.  Each one of those neurons is
making locally autonomous calculations; it's hard to get more parallel than
that!  The lower brain functions (e.g., sensory preprocessing, lower motor
control, etc.) are highly distributed and locally autonomous processors (i.e.,
pure parallel data flow).  At the higher thought processing levels, however,
it has been shown (can't cite anything, but I can get sources if someone
wants me to dig them out) that logic tends to run in a serial fashion.
That is, the brain is parallel (a hardware structure), yet higher logic
processes apply the timing of thought in a serial nature (a "software"
structure).
        It is generally agreed that the brain is an associational
machine; it processes based upon the timing of diffuse stimuli and the
resulting changes in the "action potential" of its member neurons.
"Context" helps to define the strength and structure of those associational
links.  Higher thinking is generally a cognitive process where the context
of situations is manipulated.  Changing context (and some associational
links) will often result in a "conclusion" significantly different than
previously arrived upon.  Higher thought may be thought as a three process
cycle:  decision (evaluation of an associational network), reasonability
testing (i.e., is the present decision using a new "context" no different
from the decision arrived upon utilizing the previous "context"?), and
context alteration (i.e., "if my 'decision' is not 'reasonable' what
'contextual association' may be omitted or in error?").  This cycle is
continued until the second step -- 'reasonability testing' -- has concluded
that the result of this 'thinking' process is at least plausible.  Although the
implementation (assuming the trichotomy is correct) in the brain is
via parallel neural structures, the movement of information through those
structures is serial in nature.  An interesting note on the above trichotomy;
note what occurs when the input to the associational network is changed.
If the new input is not consistent with the previously existing 'context'
then the 'reasonability tester' will cause an automatic readjustment of
the 'context'.
        Needless to say, this is not a rigorously proven theory of mine,
but I feel it is quite plausible and that there are profuse psychophysical
and phychological studies that reinforce the above model.  As of now, I
use it as a general guiding light in my work with vision systems, but it
seems equally appplicable to general AI.

                        Philip Kahn
                        KAHN@UCLA-CS.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02/01/84 16:09:21
-FROM-
From: STORY at MIT-MC
e:   Neural networks                     [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-ML.]DATE:
Friday, February 3, 1984TITLE:  "NEURAL NETWORKS: A ISCUSSION OF VARIOUS
MATHEMATICAL MODELS"SPEAKER:        Margaret Lepley, MITNeural networks are of
interest to researchers in atificial intelligence,neurobiology, and even
statistical mechanics.  Because of their random parallelstructure it is
difficult t study the transient behavior of the networks.  Wewill discuss
various mathematical models for neural networks and show how thebhaviors of
these models differ.  In particular we will investigateasynchronous vs.
synchronous models with undirected vs. directd edges ofvarious weights.HOST:
Professor Silvio Micali-------------------------------DATE-
Date: 01 Feb 84  1832 PST
-FROM-
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Feb 7th CSD Colloquium - Stanford
-BODY-
                  [Reprinted from the SU-SCORE bboard.]

                  A Perspective on Automatic Programming
                             David R. Barstow
                        Schlumberger-Doll Research
                    4:30pm, Terman Aud., Tues Feb 7th

Most work in automatic programming has focused primarily on the roles of
deduction and programming knowledge. However, the role played by knowledge
of the task domain seems to be at least as important, both for the usability
of an automatic programming system and for the feasibility of building one
which works on non-trivial problems. This perspective has evolved during
the course of a variety of studies over the last several years, including
detailed examination of existing software for a particular domain
(quantitaive interpretation of oil well logs) and the implementation
of an experimental automatic programming system for that domain. The
importance of domain knowledge has two importatnt implications: a primary goal
of automatic programming research should be to characterize the programming
process for specific domains; and a crucial issue to be addressed
in these characterizations is the interaction of domain and programming
knowledge during program synthesis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
14
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 84 16:30:36 PST
-FROM-
From: Rutenberg.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Rutenberg.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: does anyone have SHRDLU?
-BODY-
I'm looking for a copy of SHRDLU, ideally in
machine readable form although a listing
would also be fine.

If you have a copy or know of somebody
who does, please send me a message!

Thanks,
        Mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 84 14:48:37 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #12
-BODY-
I would dearly like to get in contact with G. Spencer-Brown.  Can anyone
give me any kind of lead?  I have tried his publisher, Bantam, and got
no results.

Thanks.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed,  8 Feb 84 19:26:38 CST
-FROM-
From: Stan Barber <sob@rice>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Testing Programming Aptitude or Compentence
-BODY-
I am interested in information on the following tests that have been or are
currently administered to determine Programming Aptitude or Compentence.

1. Aptitude Assessment  Battery:Programming (AABP) created by Jack M. Wolfe
and made available to employers only from Programming Specialists, Inc.
Brooklyn NY.

2. Programmer Aptitude/Compentence Test System sold by Haverly Systems,
Inc. (Introduced in 1970)

3. Computer Programmer Aptitude Battery by SRA (Science Research Associates),
Inc. (Examined in by F.L. Schmidt et.al. in Journal of Applied Psychology,
Volume 65 [1980] p 643-661)

4. CLEP Exam on Computers and Data Processing. The College Board and the
Educational Testing Service.

5. Graudate Record Exam Advanced Test in Computer Science by the Education
Testing Service.

Please send the answers to the following questions if you have taken or
had experience with any of these tests:

1. How many scores and what titles did they used for the version of the
exam that you took?

2. Did you feel the test actually measured your ability to learn to
program or your current programming competence (that is, did you feel it
asked relevant questions)?

3. What are your general impressions about testing and more specifically
about testing special abilities or skills (like programming, writing, etc.)

I will package up the results and send them to Human-nets.

My thanks.


                        Stan Barber
                        Department of Psychology
                        Rice University
                        Houston TX 77251

                        sob@rice                        (arapnet,csnet)
                        sob.rice@rand-relay             (broken arpa mailers)
                        ...!{parsec,lbl-csam}!rice!sob  (uucp)
                        (713) 660-9252                  (bulletin board)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 84 8:10:41-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!chb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UNITS request: Second Posting
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: vaxine.182

Good morning!

   I am looking for a pointer to someone (or something) who is knowledgeable
about the features and the workings of the UNITS package, developed at
Stanford HPP.  If you know something, or someone, and could drop me a note
(through mail) I would greatly appreciate it.

   Thanks in advance.


                                Charlie Berg
                             ...allegra!linus!vaxine!chb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Feb 84 20:28:09-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!decwrl!daemon @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DEC's expert system for configuring VAXen
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.5447

[This is in response to an unpublished request about R1. -- KIL]

Just for the record - we changed the name from "R1" to "XCON" about a year
ago I think.   It's a very useful system and is part of a family of expert
systems which assist us in the operation of various corporate divisions
(sales, service, manufacturing, installation).

Mark Palmer
Digital

        (UUCP)  {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!nacho!mpalmer

        (ARPA)  decwrl!rhea!nacho!mpalmer@Berkeley
                decwrl!rhea!nacho!mpalmer@SU-Shasta

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 84 7:15:33-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!hansen @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI made easy??
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utah-cs.2473

I'd try Artificial Intelligence by Elaine Rich (McGraw-Hill).  It's easy
reading, not too technical but gives a good overview to the novice.

Chuck Hansen {...!utah-cs}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Feb 84 8:48:26-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisp Machines
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.813

There really no such things as reasonable benchmarks for systems as different
as various Lisp machines and VAXen are.  Each machine has different strengths
and weaknesses.  Here is a rough ranking of machines:
VAX 780 running Fortran/C standalone
Dorado (5 to 10X dolphin)
LMI Lambda, Symbolics 3600, KL-10 Maclisp (2 to 3X dolphin)
Dolphin, dandelion, 780 VAX Interlisp, KL-10 Interlisp

Relative speeds are very rough, and dependent on application.

Notes:  Dandelion and Dolphin have 16-bit ALUs, as a result most arithmetic
is pretty slow (and things like trancendental functions are even worse
because there's no way to floating arithmetic without boxing each
intermediate result).  There is quite a wide range of I/O bandwidth among
these machines -- up to 530 Mbits/sec on a Dorado, 130M on a dolphin).

Strong points of various systems:
Xerox: a family of machines fully compatible at the core-image level,
spanning a wide range of price and performance (as low as $26k for a minumum
dandelion, to $150k for a heavily expanded Dorado).  Further, with the
exception of some of the networking and all the graphics, it is very highly
compatible with both Interlisp-10 and Interlisp-VAX (it's reasonable to have
a single set of sources with just a bit of conditional compilation).
Because of the use of a relatively old dialect, they have a large and well
debugged manual as well.

LMI and Symbolics (these are really fairly similar as both are licensed from
the MIT lisp machine work, and the principals are rival factions of the MIT
group that developed it) these have fairly large microcode stores, and as
a result more things are fast (e.g. much of graphics primitives are
microcoded, so these are probably the machines for moby amounts of image
processing and graphics.  There are also tools for compiling directly to
microcode for extra speed.  These machines also contain a secondary bus such
as Unibus or Multibus, so there is considerable flexibility in attaching
exotic hardware.

Weak points:  Xerox machines have a proprietary bus, so there are very few
options (philosphy is hook it to something else on the Ethernet).  MIT
machines speak a new dialect of lisp with only partial compatible with
MACLISP (though this did allow adding many nice features), and their cost is
too high to give everyone a machine.

The news item to which this is a response also asked about color displays.
Dolphin:  480x640x4 bits.  The 4 bits go thru a color map to 24 bits.
Dorado:  480x640x(4 or 8 or 24 bits).  The 4 or 8 bits go thru a color map to
         24 bits.  Lisp software does not currently support the 24 bit mode.
3600:  they have one or two (the LM-2 had 512x512x?) around 1Kx1Kx(8 or 16
or 24) with a color map to 30 bits.
Dandelion:  probably too little I/O bandwidth
Lambda:  current brochure makes passing mention of optional standard and
         high-res color displays.

Disclaimer:  I probably have some bias toward Xerox, as SDC has several of
their machines (in part because we already had an application in Interlisp.

Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdccsu3,trw-unix}!sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 84 16:40 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kandt.pasa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machines
-BODY-
I have seen several benchmarks as a former Symbolics and current Xerox
employee.  These benchmarks have typically compared the LM-2 with the
1100; they have even included actual or estimated(?) 3600, 1108, or 1132
performances.  These benchmarks, however, have seldom been very
informative because the actual test code is not provided or a detailed
discussion of the implementation.  For example, is the test on the
Symbolics machine coded in Zetalisp or with the Interlisp compatibility
package?  Or, in Interlisp, were fast functions used (FRPLACA vs.
RPLACA)?  (Zetalisp's RPLACA is equivalent to Interlisp's FRPLACA so
that if this transformation was not performed the benchmark would favor
the Symbolics machine.)  What about efficiency issues such as block
compiling, compiler optimizers, or explicitily declaring variables?
There are also many other issues such as what happens when the data set
gets very large in a real application instead of a toy benchmark or, in
Zetalisp, should you turn the garbage collector on (its not normally on)
and when you do what impact does it have on performance.  In summary, be
cautious about claims without thorough supportive evidence.  Also
realize that each machine has its own strengths and weaknesses; there is
no definitive answer.  Caveat emptor!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 19:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Thomas Knight <tk@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Concurrent Symbolic Supercomputer
-BODY-
                      [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC]


                                FAIM-1

                       Fairchild AI Machine #1

              An Ultra-Concurrent Symbolic Supercomputer

                                  by


                           Dr. A. L. Davis
      Fairchild Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research

                       Friday, February 10, 1984


Presently AI researchers are being hampered in the development of large scale
symbolic applications such as expert systems, by the lack of sufficient machine
horsepower to execute the application programs at a sufficiently rapid rate to
make the application viable.  The intent of the FAIM-1 machine is to provide
a machine capable of 3 or 4 orders of magnitude performance improvement over
that currently available on today's large main-frame machines.  The
main source of performance increase is in the exploitation of concurrency at
the program, system, and architectural levels.

In addition to the normal ancillary support activities, the work is being
carried on in 3 areas:

        1.  Language Design - a frame based, object oriented language is being
            designed which allows the programmer to express highly concurrent
            symbolic algorithms.  The mechanism permits both logical and
            procedural programming styles in a unified message based semantics
            fashion.  In addition, the programmer may provide strategic
            information which aids the system in managing the concurrency
            structure on the physical resource components of the machine.

        2.  Machine Architecture - the machine derives its power from the
            homogeneous replication of a medium grain processor element.
            The element consists of a processor, message delivery subsystem,
            and a parallel pattern based memory subsystem known as the CxAM
            (Context Adressable Memory).  2 variants of a CxAM design are
            being done at this time and are targeted for fabrication on a
            sub 2 micron CMOS line.  The connection topology for the
            replicated elements is a 3 axis, single twist, Hex plane which
            has the advantages of planar wiring, easy extensibility, variable
            off surface bandwidth, and permits a variety of fault tolerant
            designs.  The Hex plane topology also permits nice hierarchical
            process growth without creating excess communication congestion
            which would cause false synchronization in otherwise concurrent
            activities.  In addition the machine is being designed in hopes
            of an eventual wafer-scale integrated implementation.

        3.  Resource Allocation - with any concurrent system which does not
            require machine dependent programming styles, there is a generic
            problem in mapping the concurrent activities extant in the program
            efficiently onto the multi-resource ensemble.  The strategy
            employed in the FAIM-1 system is to analyze the static structure of
            the source program, transform it into a graph, and then via a
            series of function preserving graph transforms produce a loadable
            version of the program which attempts to minimize communication
            cost while preserving the inherent concurrency structure.
            A certain level of dynamic compensation is guided by programmer
            supplied strategy information.

The talk will present an overview of the work we have done in these areas.

Host: Prof. Thomas Knight

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 84 15:59:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: III Seminar on Expert Systems this coming Tuesday...
-BODY-
                    [Reprinted from the Rutgers bboard.]

                                 I I I SEMINAR


          Title:    Automation of Modeling, Simulation and Experimental
                    Design - An Expert System in Enzyme Kinetics

          Speaker:  Von-Wun Soo

          Date:     Tuesday, February 14,1983, 1:30-2:30 PM

          Location: Hill Center, Seventh floor lounge


  Von-Wun Soo, a Ph.D. student in our department, will give an informal talk on
the thesis research he is proposing.  This is his abstract:

       We  are proposing to develop a general knowledge engineering tool to
    aid biomedical researchers in developing biological models and  running
    simulation experiments. Without such powerful tools, these tasks can be
    tedious  and  costly.  Our aim is to integrate these techniques used in
    modeling, simulation, optimization, and experimental design by using an
    expert system approach. In addition we propose to carry out experiments
    on the processes of theory formation used by the scientists.

    Enzyme kinetics is the domain where we are concentrating  our  efforts.
    However, our research goal is not restricted to this particular domain.
    We  will attempt to demonstrate with this special case, how several new
    ideas  in  expert  problem  solving  including  automation  of   theory
    formation,  scientific  discovery,  experimental  design, and knowledge
    acquisition can be further developed.

    Four modules have been designed in parallel:  PROKINAL, EPX, CED, DISC.

    PROKINAL is a model generator which simulates the qualitative reasoning
    of the kineticists who conceptualize and postulate a reaction mechanism
    for a set of experimental data. By using a general procedure  known  as
    the  King-Altman  procedure to convert a mechanism topology into a rate
    law function, and  symbolic  manipulation  techniques  to  factor  rate
    constant   terms   to   kinetic   constant   term,  PROKINAL  yields  a
    corresponding FORTRAN function which computes the reaction rate.

    EPX is a model simulation aid which is designed by combining EXPERT and
    PENNZYME. It is supposed to guide the novice user in  using  simulation
    tools  and  interpreting  the  results.  It  will take the data and the
    candidate model that has been generated from PROKINAL and estimate  the
    parameters by a nonlinear least square fit.

    CED  is a experimental design consultant which uses EXPERT to guide the
    computation of experimental conditions.  Knowledge  of  optimal  design
    from  the  statistical  analysis  has  been taken into consideration by
    EXPERT in order to give advice  on  the  appropriate  measurements  and
    reduce the cost of experimentation.

    DISC  is  a  discovery  module which is now at the stage of theoretical
    development. We wish to explore and simulate the behavior of scientific
    discovery in enzyme kinetics research and use the results in automating
    theory formation tasks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09 Feb 84  2146 PST
-FROM-
From: Rod Brooks <ROD@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSD Colloquium
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the Stanford bboard.]

CSD Colloquium
Tuesday 14th, 4:30pm Terman Aud
Michael P. Georgeff, SRI International
"Synthesizing Plans for Co-operating Agents"

Intelligent agents need to be able to plan their activities so that
they can assist one another with some tasks and avoid harmful
interactions on others.  In most cases, this is best achieved by
communication between agents at execution time. This talk will discuss
a method for synthesizing a synchronized multi-agent plan to achieve
such cooperation between agents.  The idea is first to form
independent plans for each individual agent, and then to insert
communication acts into these plans to synchronize the activities of
the agents.  Conditions for freedom from interference and cooperative
behaviour are established.  An efficient method of interaction and
safety analysis is then developed and used to identify critical
regions and points of synchronization in the plans.  Finally,
communication primitives are inserted into the plans and a supervisor
process created to handle synchronization.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
15
-DATE-
Date: 04 Feb 84  0927 PST
-FROM-
From: Jussi Ketonen <JK@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fermat and decidability
-BODY-
From the logical point of view, Fermat's last theorem is a Pi-1
statement. It follows that it is decidable. Whether it is valid
or not is another matter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 4 Feb 84 13:13:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Spencer-Brown's Proof
-BODY-
I don't know anything about the current status of the computer proof of the
4-colour theorem, though the last I heard (five years ago) was that it was
"probably OK".   That's why I use the word "theorem".   However, I can shed
some light on Spencer-Brown's alleged proof -- I was present at a lecture in
Cambridge where he supposedly gave the outline of the proof, and  I applauded
politely, but was later fairly authoritatively informed that it disintegrated
under closer scrutiny.   This doesn't *necessarily* mean that the man is a
total flake, since other such proofs by highly reputable mathematicians have
done the same (we are told that one proof was believed for twelve whole years,
late in the 19th century, before its flaw was discovered).
                                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 84 14:46:43 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scientific Method
-BODY-
Isn't it interesting that most of what we think about proofs is belief!
I guess until one actually retraces the steps of a proof and their
justifications one can only express his belief in its truth or falsness.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 84 8:48:01-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!allegra!alan @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: brain, a parallel processor ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.2254

I've been reading things like:

        My own introspection seem to indicate that ...
        I find, upon introspection, that ...
        I find that most of what my brain does is ...
        I also feel like ...
        I agree that based on my own observations, my brain appears to
          be ...

Is this what passes for scientific method in AI these days?

        Alan S. Driscoll
        AT&T Bell Laboratories

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Feb 84 14:40:23-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!rocky2!cucard!
     aecom!alex @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: brain, a parallel processor ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: aecom.358

        If the brain was a serial processor, the limiting processing speed
would be the speed that neurons conduct signals. Humans, however, do
very complex processing in real time! The other possibility is that the
data structures of the brain are HIGHLY optimized.


                                Alex S. Fuss
                        {philabs, esquire, cucard}!aecom!alex

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 84 13:09:25 PST
-FROM-
From: Adolfo Di-Mare <v.dimare@UCLA-LOCUS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: I can think in parale||,
-BODY-
but most of time I'm ---sequential. For example, a lot of * I can
talk with (:-{) and at the same time I can be thinking on s.m.t.i.g
else. I also do this when ai-list gets too boring: I keep browsing
until I find something intere sting, and then I do read, with a better
level of under-standing. In the u-time, I can daydream...

However, If I really want to get s.m.t.i.g done, then I cannot think
on anything else! In this cases, I just have one main-stream idea in
my mind. When I'm looking for a solution, I seldom use depth first,
or bread first search. Most of the time I use a convynatium of all
these tricks I know to search, until one 'works'.

To + up, I think we @|-< can do lots of things in lots of ways. And
until we furnish computers with all this tools, they won't be able to
be as intelligent as us. Just parale|| is not the ?^-1.

        Adolfo
              ///

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Feb 1984 1433-PST
-FROM-
From: EISELT%UCI-20A@Rand-Relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Philip Kahn's reply to Rene Bach
-BODY-
I recently asked Philip Kahn (via personal net mail) to elaborate on his three
cycle model of thought, which he described briefly in his reply to Rene Bach's
question.  Here is my request, and his reply:

                      -------------------------

  In your recent submission to AIList, you describe a three-process cycle
model of higher-level brain function.  Your model has some similarities to
a model of text understanding we are working on here at UC Irvine.  You say,
though, that there are "profuse psychophysical and psychological studies that
reinforce the ... model."  I haven't seen any of these studies and would
be very interested in reading them.  Could you possibly send me references
to these studies?  Thank you very much.

Kurt Eiselt
eiselt@uci-20a


                       ------------------------

Kurt,

        I said "profuse" because I have come across many psychological
and physiological studies that have reinforced my belief.  Unfortunately,
I have very few specific references on this, but I'll tell you as much as
I can....

        I claim there are three stages: associational, reasonability, and
context.  I'll tell you what I've found to support each.  Associational
nets, also called "computational" or "parameter" nets, have been getting
a lot of attention lately.  Especially interesting are the papers coming out
of Rochester (in New York state).  I suggest the paper by Feldman called
"Parameter Nets."  Also, McCullough in "Embodiments of Mind" introduced a
logical calculus that he proposes neural mechanisms use to form assocational
networks.  Since then, a considerable amount of work has been done on
logical calculus, and these works are directly applicable to the analysis
of associational networks.  One definitive "associational network" found
in nature that has been exhaustively defined by Ratliff is the lateral
inhibition that occurs in the linear image sensor of the Limulus crab.
Each element of the network inhibits its neighbors based upon its value,
and the result is the second spatial derivative of the image brightness.
Most of the works you will find to support associational nets are directly
culled from neurophysiological studies.  Yet, classical conditioning
psychology defines the effects of association in its studies on forward and
backward conditioning.  Personally, I feel the biological proof of
associational nets is more concrete.
        The support for a "reasonability" level of processing has more
psychological support, because it is generally a cognitive process.
For example, learning is facilitated by subject matter that is most
consistent with past knowledge; that is, knowledge is most facilitated by
a subject that is most "reasonable" in light of past knowledge.
Some studies have shown, though I can't cite them, that the less
"reasonable" a learning task, the lesser is the learned performance.
I remember having seen at least a paper (I believe it was by a natural
language processing researcher) that claimed that the facility of language
is a metaphorical process.  By definition, a metaphor is the comparison
of alike traits in dissimilar things; it seems to me this is a very good
way to look at the question of reasonability.  Again, though, no specific
references.  In neurophysiology there are found "feedback loops" that
may be considered "reasonability" testers in so far that they take action
only when certain conditions are not met.  You might want to look at work
done on the cerebellum to document this.
        "Context" has been getting a lot of attention lately.  Again,
psychology is the major source of supporting evidence, yet neurophysiology
has its examples also.  Hormones are a prime example of "contextual"
determinants.  Their presence or absence affects the processing that
occurs in the neurons that are exposed to them.  But on a more AI level,
the importance of context has been repeatedly demonstrated by psychologists.
I believe that context is a learned phenomena.  Children have no construct
of context, and thus, they are often able to make conclusions that may be
associationally feasible, yet clearly contrary to the context of presentation.
Context in developmental psychology has been approached from a more
motivational point of view.  Maslowe's hierarchies and the extensive work
into "values" are all defining different levels of context.  Whereas an
associational network may (at least in my book) involve excitatory
nodal influences, context involves inhibitory control over the nodes in
the associational network.  In my view, associational networks only know
(always associated), (often associated), and (weak association).
(Never associated) dictates that no association exists by default.  A
contextual network knows only that the following states can occur between
concepts: (never can occur) and (rarely occurs).  These can be defined using
logical calculus and learning theory.  The associational links are solely
determined by event pairing and is a more dynamic event.  Contextual
networks are more stable and can be the result of learning as well as
by introspective analysis of the associational links.
        As you can see, I have few specific references on "context," and rely
upon my own theory of context.  I hope I've been of some help, and I would
like to be kept apprised of your work.  I suggest that if you want research
evidence of some of the above, that you examine indices on the subjects I
mentioned.  Again,

                Good luck,
                Philip Kahn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 84 7:18:25-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!mhuxl!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!mat @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: brain, a parallel processor ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou5d.809

See the Feb. Scientific American for an article on typists and speed.  There
is indeed evidence for a high degree of parallelism even in SIMILAR tasks.

                                                Mark Terribile

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed,  8 Feb 84 18:19:09 CST
-FROM-
From: Doug Monk <bro@rice>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #11
-BODY-
Subject : Mike Brzustowicz's 'tip of the tongue' as parallel process

Rather than being an example of parallel processing, the 'tip of the
tongue' phenomenon is probably more an example of context switch, where
the attempt to recall the information displaces it temporarily, due to
too much pressure being brought to bear. ( Perhaps a form of performance
anxiety ? ) Later, when the pressure is off, and the processor has a spare
moment, a smaller recall routine can be used without displacing the
information. This model assumes that concentrating on the problem causes
more of the physical brain to be involved in the effort, thus perhaps
'overlaying' the data desired. Once a smaller recall routine is used,
the recall can actually be performed.

        Doug Monk       ( bro.rice@RAND-RELAY )

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 84 19:58:33-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihopa!dap @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: parallel processing in the brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihopa.153

If you consider pattern recognition in humans when constrained to strictly
sequential processing, I think we are MUCH slower than computers.

In other words, how long do you think it would take a person to recognize
a letter if he could only inquire as to the grayness levels in different
pixels?  Of course, he would not be allowed to "fill in" a grid and then
recognize the letter on the grid.  Only a strictly algorithmic process
would be allowed.

The difference here, as I see it, is that the human mind DOES work in
parallel.  If we were forced to think sequentially about each pixel in our
field of vision, we would become hopelessly bogged down.  It seems to me
that the most likely way to simulate such a process is to have a HUGE
number of VERY dumb processors in a heirarchy of "meshes" such that some
small number of processors in common localities in a low level mesh would
report their findings to a single processor in the next higher level mesh.
This processor would do some very quick, very simple calculations and pass
its findings on the the next higher level mesh.  At the top level, the
accumulated information would serve to recognize the pattern.  I'm really
speaking off the top of my head since I'm no AI expert.  Does anybody know if
such a thing exists or am I way off?

Darrell Plank
BTL-IH
ihopa!dap

[Researchers at the University of Maryland and at the University of
Massachusetts, among others, have done considerable work on "pyramid"
and "processing cone" vision models.  The multilayer approach was
also common in perceptron-based pattern recognition, although very
little could be proven about multilayer networks.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
16
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 84 22:57:55 PST
-FROM-
From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New UCLA AI Lab
-BODY-
              Announcing the creation of a new Lab for
              Artificial Intelligence Research at UCLA.


Just recently, the UCLA CS  department  received  a  private  foundation
grant  of  $450,000  with  $250,000  matching  funds  from the School of
Engineering and Applied Sciences to create a Laboratory  for  Artificial
Intelligence  Research.   The  departmental chairman as well as the dean
strongly support this effort and are both committed to the growth of  AI
at UCLA.

In  addition, UCLA has been chosen as the site of the next International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-85) in August, 1985.

UCLA is second in the nation among public research universities  and  in
the  top  six overall in quality of faculty, according to a new national
survey of 5,000 faculty and 228  universities.   In  a  two  year  study
(conducted  by the Conference Board of the Associated Research Councils,
consisting of the American Council of Learned  Societies,  the  American
Council  on  Education,  the  National  Research  Council and the Social
Science Research Council) the UCLA  Computer  Science  Dept.   tied  for
sixth place with U.  of Ill., after Stanford, MIT, CMU, UC Berkeley, and
Cornell.

The UCLA CS department is the recipient (in  1982)  of  a  $3.6  million
five-year  NSF  Coordinated  Experimental Research grant, augmented by a
$1.5 million award from DARPA.

Right  now  the  AI lab includes a dozen Apollo DN300 workstations on an
Apollo Domain ring network.  This ring is attached via an ethernet  gate
to the CS department LOCUS network of 20 Vax 750s and a 780.  UCLA is on
the Arpanet and CSNet.  Languages include Prolog and T  (a  Scheme-based
dialect of lisp).  A number of DN320s, DN460s and a color Apollo (DN660)
are on order and will be  housed  in  a  new  area  being  reserved  for
graduate  AI research.  One Vax 750 on the LOCUS net and 10 Apollos will
be  reserved for graduate AI instruction.  Robotics and vision equipment
is also being acquired.  The  CS  dept  is  seeking  an  assist.   prof.
(tenure  track) in the area of AI, with preference for vision, robotics,
problem-solving, expert systems, learning, and simulation  of  cognitive
processes.  The new AI faculty member will be able to direct expenditure
of a portion of available funds.  (Interested AI PhDs, reply to  Michael
Dyer, CS dept, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024.  Arpanet:  dyer@ucla-cs).

Our AI effort is new, but growing, and includes the following faculty:

     Michael Dyer: natural language processing, cognitive modeling.
     Margot Flowers: reasoning, argumentation, belief systems.
     Judea Pearl: theory of heuristics, search, expert systems.
     Alan Klinger: signal processing, pattern recognition, vision.
     Michel Melkanoff: CAD/CAM, robotics.
     Stott Parker: logic programming, databases.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jan 84 14:22:30-EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Kent Curtis <curtis%nsf-cs@CSNet-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A National Computing Environment for Academic Research
-BODY-
The National Science Foundation has released a report entitled "A National
Computing Environment for Academic Research" prepared by an NSF Working Group
on Computers for Research, Kent Curtis, Chairman. The table of contents is:

Executive Summary

I. The Role of Modern Computing in Scientific and Engineering Research
        with Special Concern for Large Scale Computation

        Background

        A. Summary of Current Uses and Support of Large Scale Computing for
           Research

        B. Critique of Current Facilities and Support Programs

        C. Unfilled Needs for Computer Support of Research

II. The Role and Responsibilities of NSF with Respect to Modern Scientific
    Computing

III. A Plan of Action for the NSF: Recommendations

IV. A Plan of Action for the NSF: Funding Implications

Bibliography

Appendix
        Large-scale Computing Facilities

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this report contact
Kent Curtis, (202) 357-9747; curtis.nsf-cs@csnet-relay;
or write Kent K. Curtis
         Div. of Computer Research
         NSF
         Washington, D.C.  20550

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Feb 84 09:35:51 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Journal Duties  <acl@Rochester.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ~New Developments in the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics
-BODY-

The AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS -- Some New Developments

    The AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS is the major
international journal devoted entirely to computational approaches to
natural language research.  With the 1984 volume, its name is being changed
to COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS to reflect its growing international coverage.
There is now a European chapter of the ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL
LINGUISTICS and a growing interest in forming one in Asia.

The journal also has many new people on its Editorial Staff.  James Allen,
of the University of Rochester, has taken over as Editor.  The FINITE STRING
Editor is now Ralph Weischedel of the University of Delaware.  Lyn Bates of
Bolt Beranek and Newman is the Book Review Editor.  Michael McCord, now at
IBM, remains as Associate Editor.

With these major changes in editorial staffing, the journal has fallen
behind schedule.  In order to catch up this year, we will be publishing
close to double the regular number of issues.  The first issue for 1983,
which was just mailed out, contains papers on "Paraphrasing Questions Using
Given and New Information" by Kathleen McKeown and "Denotational Semantics
for 'Natural' Language Question-Answering Programs" by Michael Main and
David Benson.  There is a lengthy review of Winograd's new book by Sergei
Nirenburg and a comprehensive description of the new Center for the Study
of Language and Information at Stanford University.

Highlights of the forthcoming 1983 AJCL issues:

   - Volume 9, No. 2 (expected March '84) will contain, in addition
to papers on "Natural Language Access to Databases: Interpreting Update
Requests" by Jim Davidson and Jerry Kaplan and "Treating Coordination
in Logic Grammars" by Veronica Dahl and Michael McCord, will be accompanied
by a supplement: a Directory of Graduate Programs in Computational Linguistics.
The directory is the result of two years of surveys, and provides a fairly
complete listing of programs available internationally.

   - Volume 9, Nos. 3 and 4 (expected June '84) will be a special double
issue on Ill-Formed Input.  The issue will cover many aspects of processing
ill-formed sentences from syntactic ungrammaticality to dealing with inaccurate
reference.  It will contain papers from many of the research groups that
are working on such problems.

    We will begin publishing Volume 10 later in the summer.  In addition
to the regular contributions, we are planning a special issue on the
mathematical properties of grammatical formalisms.  Ray Perrault (now at
SRI) will be guest editor for the issue, which will contain papers addressing
most of the recent developments in grammatical formalisms (e.g., GPSG,
Lexical-Function Grammars, etc).  Also in the planning stage is a special
issue on Machine Translation that Jonathan Slocum is guest editing.

    With its increased publication activity in 1984, COMPUTATIONAL
LINGUISTICS can provide authors with an unusual opportunity to have their
results published in the international community with very little delay.
A paper submitted now (early spring '84) could actually be in print by the
end of the year, provided that major revisions need not be made.  Five
copies of submissions should be sent to:

                 James Allen, CL Editor
                 Dept. of Computer Science
                 The University of Rochester
                 Rochester, NY 14627, USA

    Subscriptions to COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS come with membership in the
ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS, which still is only $15 per year.
As a special bonus to new members, those who join the ACL for 1984 before
August will receive the special issue on Ill-Formed Input, even though it is
formally part of the volume for 1983.

To become a member, simply send your name, address and a check made out to
the Association for Computational Linguistics to:

                  Don Walker, ACL membership
                  SRI International
                  333 Ravenswood Avenue
                  Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA

People in Europe or with Swiss accounts can pay an equivalent value in Swiss
francs, by personal check in their own currency, or by a banker's draft that
credits account number 141.880.LAV at the Union Bank of Switzerland, 8 rue
de Rhone, CH-1211 Geneva 11, SWITZERLAND; send the statement with payment or
with a copy of the bank draft to:

                  Mike Rosner, ACL
                  ISSCO
                  54, route des Acacias
                  CH-1227 Geneva, SWITZERLAND

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 8 February 1984, 14:28-EST
-FROM-
From: Gerald R. Barber <JERRYB at MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course Announcement: Organization Design
-BODY-
                     [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC.]

The following is an announcement for a course that Tom Malone and I are
organizing for this spring term.  Anyone who is interested can come to
the course or contact:

        Tom Malone
        Malone@XX
        E53-307, x6843,
        or
        Jerry Barber
        Jerryb@OZ
        NE43-809, x5871



                          Course Announcement
                       15.963 Oranization Design

                  Wednesdays, 2:30 - 5:30 p.m, E51-016
                          Prof. Thomas Malone

In this graduate seminar we will review research from a number of
fields, identifying general principles of organization design that apply
to many kinds of information processing systems, including human
organizations and computer systems.  This novel approach will integrate
examples and theories from computer science, artificial intelligence,
organization theory and economics.  The seminar will also include
discussion of several special issues that arise when these general
principles are applied to designing organizations that include both
people and computers.

A partial list of topics includes:

I.  Introduction
        A. What is an organization?
                Scott, March & Simon, Etzioni, etc
        B. What is design?
                Simon: Science of Design

II. Alternative Organizational Designs
        A. Markets
                Computer Systems: Contract Nets, Enterprise
                Organizational Theories: Simon, Arrow, Hurwicz
        B.  Hierachies
                Computer Systems: Structured programming, inheritance
                  hierarchies
                Organizational Theories: Simon, March, Cyert, Galbraith,
                  Williamson
        C. Cooperating experts (or teams)
                Computer Systems: Hearsay, Ether, Actors, Smalltalk, Omega
                Organizational Theories: Marschak & Radner, Minsky & Papert

III. Integrating Computer Systems and Human Organizations
        A. Techniques for analyzing organizational needs
                Office Analysis Methodology, Critical Success Factors,
                Information Control Networks, Sociotechnical systems
        B. Possible technologies for supporting organizational problem-solving
                Computer conferencing, Knowledge-based systems

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Feb 84 20:35:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Pereira@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language and Logic Programming
-BODY-

                           Call for Papers

                      International Workshop On
                    Natural Lanugage Understanding
                        and Logic Programming

                Rennes, France - September 18-20, 1984

The workshop will consider fundamental principles and important
innovations in the design, definition, uses and extensions of logic
programming for natural language understanding and, conversely, the
adequacy of logic programming to express natural language grammar
formalisms. The topics of interest are:

* Formal representations of natural language
* Logic grammar formalisms
* Linguistic aspects (anaphora, coordination,...)
* Analysis methods
* Natural language generation
* Uses of techniques for logic grammars (unification)
  in other grammar formalisms
* Compilers and interpreters for grammar formalisms
* Text comprehension
* Applications: natural-language front ends (database
  interrogation, dialogues with expert systems...)

Conference Chairperson

Veronica Dahl  Simon Fraser University,
               Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6
               Canada

Program Committee

H. Abrahamson (UBC, Canada)        F. Pereira (SRI, USA)
A. Colmerauer (GIA, France)        L. Pereira (UNL, Portugal)
V. Dahl (Simon Fraser U., Canada)  P. Sabatier (CNRS, France)
P. Deransart (INRIA, France)       P. Saint-Dizier (IRISA, France)
M. Gross (LADL, France)            C. Sedogbo (Bull, France)
M. McCord (IBM, USA)

Sponsored by: IRISA, Groupe BULL, INRIA

Deadlines:

        April 15:       Submission of papers in final form
        June 10:        Notification of acceptance to authors
        July 10:        Registration in the Workshop

Submission of papers:

Papers should contain the following items: abstract and title of
paper, author name, country, affiliation, mailing address and
phone (or telex) number, one program area and the following
signed statement: ``The paper will be presented at the Workshop
by one of the authors''.

Summaries should explain what is new or interesting abount
the work and what has been accomplished. Papers must report
recent and not yet published work.

Please send 7 copies of a 5 to 10 page single spaced manuscript,
including a 150 to 200 word abstract to:

>- Patrick Saint-Dizier
   Local Organizing Committee
   IRISA - Campus de Beaulieu
   F-35042 Rennes CEDEX - France
   Tel: (99)362000 Telex: 950473 F

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 84 10:18 cst
-FROM-
From: Bruce Shriver <ShriverBD.usl@Rand-Relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: call for papers announcement
-BODY-
                              Eighteenth Annual
                       HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                                      ON
                               SYSTEM SCIENCES
                     JANUARY 2-4, 1985 / HONOLULU, HAWAII

This is the eighteenth in a series  of  conferences  devoted  to  advances  in
information  and  system sciences.  The conference will encompass developments
in theory or practice in the areas of  COMPUTER  HARDWARE  and  SOFTWARE,  and
advanced  computer  systems  applications in selected areas.  Special emphasis
will be devoted to MEDICAL  INFORMATION  PROCESSING,  computer-based  DECISION
SUPPORT SYSTEMS for upper-level managers in organizations, and KNOWLEDGE-BASED
SYSTEMS.

                               CALL FOR PAPERS

Papers are invited in the preceeding and related areas and may be theoretical,
conceptual,  tutorial  or descriptive in nature.  The papers submitted will be
refereed and those selected for conference presentation will be printed in the
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS; therefore, papers submitted for presentation must  not
have  been  previously presented or published.  Authors of selected papers are
expected to attend the conference to  present  and  discuss  the  papers  with
attendees.

Relevant topics include:
                                  Deadlines
HARDWARE                          * Abstracts may be submitted to track
* Distributed Processing            chairpersons for guidance and indication
* Mini-Micro Systems                of appropriate content by MAY 1, 1984.
* Interactive Systems               (Abstract is required for Medical
* Personal Computing                Information Processing Track.)
* Data Communication              * Full papers must be mailed to appropriate
* Graphics                          track chairperson by JULY 6, 1984.
* User-Interface Technologies     * Notification of Accepted papers will be
                                    mailed to the author on or before
SOFTWARE                            SEPTEMBER 7, 1984.
* Software Design Tools &         * Final papers in camera-ready form will
  Techniques                        be due by OCTOBER 19, 1984.
* Specification Techniques
* Testing and Validation
* Performance Measurement &       Instructions for Submitting Papers
  Modeling                        1. Submit three copies of the full paper,
* Formal Verification                not to exceed 20 double-spaced pages,
* Management of Software             including diagrams, directly to the
  Development                        appropriate track chairperson listed
                                     below, or if in doubt, to the conference
APPLICATIONS                         co-chairpersons.
* Medical Information             2. Each paper should have a title page
  Processing Systems                 which includes the title of the paper,
* Computer-Based Decision            full name of its author(s), affiliat-
  Support Systems                    ation(s), complete address(es), and
* Management Information Systems     telephone number(s).
* Data-Base Systems for           3. The first page should include the
  Decision Support                   title and a 200-word abstract of the
* Knowledge-Based Systems            paper.

                                   SPONSORS
The  Eighteenth  Annual  Hawaii  International Conference on System Science is
sponsored by the University of  Hawaii  and  the  University  of  Southwestern
Louisiana, in cooperation with the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society.

HARDWARE                            All Other Papers
Edmond L. Gallizzi                  Papers not clearly within one of the
HICSS-18 Track Chairperson          aforementioned tracks should be mailed
Eckerd College                      to:
St. Petersberg, FL 33733            Ralph H. Sprague, Jr.
(813) 867-1166                      HICSS-18 Conference Co-chairperson
                                    College of Business Administration
SOFTWARE                            University of Hawaii
Bruce D. Shriver                    2404 Maile Way, E-303
HICSS-18 Track Chairperson          Honolulu, HI 96822
Computer Science Dept.              (808)948-7430
U. of Southwestern Louisiana
P. O. Box 44330
Lafayette, LA 70504                 Conference Co-Chairpersons
(318) 231-6284                      RALPH H. SPRAGUE, JR.
                                    BRUCE D. SHRIVER
DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM &
KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS             Contributing Sponsor Coordinator
Joyce Elam                          RALPH R. GRAMS
HICSS-18 Track Chairperson          College of Medicine
Dept. of General Business           Department of Pathology
BEB 600                             University of Florida
U. of Texas at Austin               Box J-275
Austin, TX 78712                    Gainesville, FL 32610
(512) 471-3322                      (904) 392-4571

MEDICAL INFORMATION PROCESSING      FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Terry M. Walker                     Concerning Conference Logistics
HICSS-18 Track Chairperson          NEM B. LAU
Computer Science Dept.              HICSS-18 Conference Coordinator
U. of Southwestern Louisiana        Center for Executive Development
P. O. Box 44330                     College of Business Administration
Lafayette, LA 70504                 University of Hawaii
(318) 231-6284                      2404 Maile Way, C-202
                                    Honolulu, HI 96822
                                    (808) 948-7396
                                    Telex: RCA 8216 UHCED    Cable: UNIHAW

The HICSS conference is a non-profit activity organized to provide a forum for
the  interchange of ideas, techniques, and applications among practitioners of
the system sciences.  It maintains objectivity to the systems sciences without
obligation to any commercial  enterprise.   All  attendees  and  speakers  are
expected  to  have  their  respective companies, organizations or universities
bear the costs of their expenses and registration fees.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
17
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jan 84 7:41:17-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!flinn @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Glossary of NASA Terminology
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Space Digest by permission of the author.
This strikes me as an interesting example of a "natural sublanguage."
It does not reflect the growth and change of NASA jargon, however:
subsequent discussion on the Space Digest indicates that many of the
terms date back eight years and many newer terms are missing.  The
author and others are continuing to add to the list. -- KIL]


        I've been collecting examples of the jargon in common use by
people at NASA Headquarters.  Here is the collection so far:
I have not made any of these up.  I'd be glad to hear of worthy
additions to the collection.

        The 'standard NASA noun modifiers' are nouns used as
adjectives in phrases like 'science community' or 'planetary area.'
Definitions have been omitted for entries whose meaning ought to be
clear.

        -- Ted Flinn

Action Item
Actors in the Program
Ancillary
Ankle: 'Get your ankles bitten' = running into unexpected trouble.
Ant: 'Which ant is steering this log?' = which office is in charge
        of a project.
Appendice (pronounced ap-pen-di-see):  some people, never having
        seen a document with only one appendix, think that this
        is the singular of 'appendices.'
Area:  Always as 'X Area,' where X is one of the standard NASA
        noun modifiers.
Asterick:  pronounced this way more often than not.
Back Burner
Bag It: 'It's in the bag' = it's finished.
Ball of Wax
Baseline: verb or noun.
Basis:  Always as 'X Basis,' where X is one of the standard NASA
         noun modifiers.
Bean Counters:  financial management people.
Bed: 'Completely out of bed' = said of people whose opinions
        are probably incorrect.
Belly Buttons: employees.
Bench Scientists
Bend Metal:  verb, to construct hardware.
Bending Your Pick:  unrewarding activity.
Bent Out of Shape:  disturbed or upset, of a person.
Big Picture
Big-Picture Purposes
Bite the Bullet
Big-Ticket Item: one of the expensive parts.
Black-belt Bureaucrat:  an experienced and knowledgable government
        employee.
Bless: verb, to approve at a high level of management.
Blow One's Skirts Up:  usually negative: 'that didn't blow
        their skirts up' = that didn't upset them.
Blow Smoke:  verb, to obfuscate.
Blown Out of the Water
Bottom Line
Bounce Off: to discuss an idea with someone else.
Brassboard (see Breadboard).
Breadboard (see Brassboard).
Bullet: one of the paragraphs or lines on a viewgraph, which are
         *never* numbered, but always labelled with a bullet.
Bulletize:  to make an outline suitable for a viewgraph.
Bureaucratic Hurdles
Burn:  verb, to score points off a competitor.
Burning Factor:  one of the critical elements.
Calibrate:  verb, to judge the capabilities of people or
              organizations.
Camel's Nose in the Tent
Can of Worms
Canned:  finished, as 'it's in the can.'
Can't Get There From Here.
Capture a Mission:  verb, to construct a launch vehicle for
                        a space flight.
Carve Up the Turkey
Caveat:  usually a noun.
Centers:  'on N-week centers' = at N-week intervals.
Choir, Preaching to the
Clock is Ticking = time is getting short.
Code:  Every section at NASA centers or Headquarters has a label
        consisting of one or more letters or numbers, and in
        conversations or less formal memos, sections are always
        referred to by the code rather than the name:
        Code LI, Code 931, Code EE, etc.
Commonality
Community:  'X Community,' where X is one of the standard NASA
                noun modifiers.
Concept:  'X Concept,' where X is one of the standard NASA
                noun modifiers.
Concur: verb, to agree.
Configure:  verb.
Constant Dollars:  cost without taking inflation into account
        (see Real-Year Dollars).
Contract Out
Core X:  The more important parts of X, where X is one of the
          nouns used as modifiers.
Correlative
Cost-Benefit Tradeoff
Cross-Cut:  verb, to look at something a different way.
Crump:  transitive verb, to cause to collapse.
Crutch: flimsy argument.
Cut Orders:  to fill out a travel order form; left over from the
                days when this was done with mimeograph stencils.
Cutting Edge
Data Base
Data Dump:  a report made to others, usually one's own group.
Data Point:  an item of information.
Debrief:  transitive verb, to report to one's own staff after
            an outside meeting.
Deep Yoghurt:  bad trouble.
Definitize:  verb, to make precise or definite.
De-integrate:  verb, to take apart (not dis-).
De-lid:  verb, to take the top off an instrument.
Delta:  an increment to cost or content.
Descope:  verb, to redesign a project as a result of budget
           cuts (not the opposite of scope, q.v.).
Development Concept
Dialog:  transitive verb.
Disadvantage:  transitive verb.
Disgruntee:  non-NASA person unhappy with program decisions.
Dog's Breakfast
Dollar-Limited
Driver:  an item making up a significant part of cost or
           schedule: 'X is the cost driver.'
Drop-Dead Date:  the real deadline; see 'hard deadline.'
Ducks in a Row
Egg on One's Face
End Item:  product.
End-Run the System
End to End
Extent to Which
Extramural
Facilitize:  verb, to make a facility out of something.
Factor in:  verb.
Feedback:  reaction of another section or organization to
             a proposition.
Fill This Square
Finalize
Finesse The System
First Cut:  preliminary estimate.
Fiscal Constraints
Flag:  verb, to make note of something for future reference.
Flagship Program
Flex the Parameters
Flux and Change
What Will Fly:  'see it if will fly.'
Folded In:  taken into account.
Forest: miss the f. for the trees.
Forgiving, unforgiving:  of a physical system.
Front Office
Full-Up:  at peak level.
Future:  promise or potential, as, 'a lot of potential future.'
Futuristic
Gangbusters
Glitch
Grease the Skids
Green Door:  'behind the green door' = in the Administrator's offices.
Go to Bat For
Goal:  contrasted to 'objective,' q.v.
Grabber
Gross Outline:  approximation.
Ground Floor
Group Shoot = brainstorming session.
Guidelines:  always desirable to have.
Guy:  an inanimate object such as a data point.
Hack:  'get a hack on X' = make some kind of estimate.
Hard Copy:  paper, as contrasted to viewgraphs.
Hard Deadline:  supposed deadline; never met.
Hard Over:  intransigent.
Head Counters:  personnel office staff.
Hit X Hard:  concentrate on X.
Hoop:  a step in realizing a program:  'yet to go through this hoop.'
Humanoid
Hypergolic:  of a person: intransigent or upset in general.
Impact:  verb.
Implement:  verb.
In-House
Initialize
Innovative
Intensive:  always as X-intensive.
Intercompare:  always used instead of 'compare.'
Issue:  always used instead of 'problem.'
Key:  adj., of issues:  'key issue; not particularly key'.
Knickers:  'get into their knickers' = to interfere with them.
Laicize: verb, to describe in terms comprehensible to lay people.
Lashup = rackup.
Lay Track:  to make an impression on management ('we laid a lot
                of track with the Administrator').
Learning Curve
Liaise:  verb.
Limited:  always as X-limited.
Line Item
Link Calculation
Liberate Resources:  to divert funds from something else.
Looked At:  'the X area is being looked at' = being studied.
Loop:  to be in the loop = to be informed.
Love It!   exclamation of approval.
Low-Cost
Machine = spacecraft.
Man-Attended Experiment
Marching Orders
Matrix
Micromanagement = a tendency to get involved in management of
                        affairs two or more levels down from
                        one's own area of responsibility.
Milestone
Mission Definition
Mode:  'in an X mode.'
Model-Dependent
Muscle:  'get all the muscle into X'
Music:  'let's all read from the same sheet of music.'
Necessitate
Nominal:  according to expectation.
Nominative:  adj., meaning unknown.
Nonconcur:  verb, to disagree.
Numb Nut:  unskilled or incapable person.
Objective:  as contrasted with 'goal' (q.v.)
Overarching Objective
Oblectation
Off-Load:  verb.
On Board:  'Y is on board' = the participation of Y is assured.
On-Boards:  employees or participants.
On Leave:  on vacation.
On the Part Of
On Travel:  out of town.
Open Loop
Out-of-House
Over Guidelines
Ox:  'depends on whose ox is gored.'
Package
Paradigm
Parking Orbit:  temporary assignment or employment.
Pathfinder Studies
Pedigree:  history of accumulation of non-NASA support for a mission.
Peg to Hang X On
Pie:  'another slice through this same pie is...'
Piece of the Action
Ping On:  verb, to remind someone of something they were
           supposed to do.
Pitch:  a presentation to management.
Placekeeper
Planning Exercise
Pony in This Pile of Manure Somewhere = some part of this mess
        may be salvageable.
Posture
Pre-Posthumous
Prioritize
Priority Listing
Problem Being Worked:  'we're working that problem.'
Problem Areas
Product = end item.
Programmatic
Pucker Factor:  degree of apprehension.
Pull One's Tongue Through One's Nose:  give someone a hard time.
Pulse:  verb, as, 'pulse the system.'
Quick Look
Rackup = lashup.
Rainmaker:  an employee able to get approval for budget increases
                or new missions.
Rapee: a person on the receiving end of an unfavorable decision.
Rattle the Cage:  'that will rattle their cage.'
Real-Year Dollars: cost taking inflation into account, as
        contrasted with 'constant dollars.'
Reclama
Refugee:  a person transferred from another program.
Report Out:  verb, used for 'report.'
Resources = money.
Resource-Intensive = expensive.
ROM: 'rough order of magnitude,' of estimates.
Rubric
Runout
Sales Pitch
Scenario
Scope:  verb, to attempt to understand something.
Scoped Out:  pp., understood.
Secular = non-scientific or non-technological.
Self-Serving
Sense:  noun, used instead of 'consensus.'
Shopping List
Show Stopper
Sign Off On something = approve.
Space Cadets:  NASA employees.
Space Winnies or Wieners:  ditto, but even more derogatory.
X-Specific
Speak to X:  to comment on X, where X is a subject, not a person.
Specificity
Speed, Up To
Spinning One's Wheels
Spooks:  DOD of similar people from other agencies.
Staff:  verb.
Standpoint:  'from an X standpoint'
Statussed:  adj., as, 'that has been statussed.'
Strap On:  verb, to try out:  'strap on this idea...'
Strawman
String to One's Bow
Street, On The:  distributed outside one's own office.
Stroking
Structure: verb.
Subsume
Success-Oriented:  no provision for possible trouble.
Surface:  verb, to bring up a problem.
Surveille: verb.
Suspense Date:  the mildest form of imaginary deadline.
Tail:  to have one's tail in a crack = to be upset or in trouble.
Tall Pole in the Tent:  data anomaly.
Tar With the Same Brush
On Target
Task Force
Team All Set Up
Tickler = reminder.
Tiger Team
Time-Critical:  something likely to cause schedule trouble.
Time Frame
Torque the System
Total X, where X is one of the standard NASA noun modifiers.
Total X Picture
Truth Model
Unique
Update:  noun or verb.
Up-Front:  adj.
Upscale
Upper Management
Vector:  verb.
Vector a Program:  to direct it toward some objective.
Ventilate the Issues:  to discuss problems.
Versatilify:  verb, to make something more versatile.
Viable: adj., something that might work or might be acceptable.
Viewgraph:  always mandatory in any presentation.
Viz-a-Viz
WAG = wild-assed guess.
Wall to Wall:  adj., pervasive.
Watch:  'didn't happen on my watch...'
Water Off a Duck's Back
Waterfall Chart:  one way of present costs vs. time.
I'm Not Waving, I'm Drowning
Wedge; Planning Wedge:  available future-year money.
Been to the Well
Where Coming From
Whole Nine Yards
X-Wide
X-wise
Workaround:  way to overcome a problem.
Wrapped Around the Axle:  disturbed or upset.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 8 Feb 84 07:14:34-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Best Languages in Town!!! (forwarded from USENET)
-BODY-
                [Reprinted from the UTexas-20 bboard.]

From: bradley!brad    Feb  6 16:56:00 1984

                               Laidback with (a) Fifth
                               By  John Unger Zussman
                            From Info World, Oct 4, 1982


              Basic, Fortran, Cobol... These programming Languages are well
          known  and (more or less)  well loved throughout the computer in-
          dustry.  There are numerous other languages,  however,  that  are
          less  well  known yet still have ardent devotees.  In fact, these
          little-known languages generally have the most fanatic  admirers.
          For  those  who wish to know more about these obscure languages -
          and why they are obscure - I present the following catalog.

              SIMPLE ... SIMPLE is an acronym for Sheer Idiot's  Mono  Pur-
          pose   Programming   Lingusitic   Environment.    This  language,
          developed at the Hanover College for Technological  Misfits,  was
          designed  to  make it impossible to write code with errors in it.
          The statements are, therefore confined to BEGIN, END,  and  STOP.
          No matter how you arrange the statements, you can't make a syntax
          error.

              Programs written in  SIMPLE  do  nothing  useful.  Thus  they
          achieve  the  results  of  programs  written  in  other languages
          without the tedious, frustrating process of  testing  and  debug-
          ging.

              SLOBOL ... SLOBOL is best known for the speed, or lack of it,
          of  its  compiler.   Although  many compilers allow you to take a
          coffee break while they compile, SLOBOL compilers  allow  you  to
          take  a  trip to Bolivia to pick up the coffee.  Forty-three pro-
          grammers are known to have died of boredom sitting at their  ter-
          minals while waiting for a SLOBOL program to compile.  Weary SLO-
          BOL programmers often turn to a related (but  infinitely  faster)
          language, COCAINE.

              VALGOL ... (With special thanks to Dan and Betsy "Moon  Unit"
          Pfau)  -  From its modest beginnings in southern California's San
          Fernando Valley, VALGOL is enjoying a dramatic surge of populari-
          ty across the industry.

              VALGOL commands include REALLY, LIKE, WELL and Y$KNOW.  Vari-
          ables are assigned with the  =LIKE and =TOTALLY operators.  Other
          operators include the "CALIFORNIA BOOLEANS", FERSURE, and  NOWAY.
          Repetitions of code are handled in FOR-SURE loops. Here is a sam-
          ple VALGOL program:
                    14 LIKE, Y$KNOW (I MEAN) START
                    %% IF
                    PI A =LIKE BITCHEN AND
                    01 B =LIKE TUBULAR AND
                    9  C =LIKE GRODY**MAX
                    4K (FERSURE)**2
                    18 THEN
                    4I FOR I=LIKE 1 TO OH MAYBE 100
                    86 DO WAH + (DITTY**2)
                    9  BARF(I) =TOTALLY GROSS(OUT)
                    -17 SURE
                    1F LIKE BAG THIS PROGRAM
                    ?  REALLY
                    $$ LIKE TOTALLY (Y*KNOW)

              VALGOL is characterized by  its  unfriendly  error  messages.
          For  example, when the user makes a syntax error, the interpreter
          displays the message, GAG ME WITH A SPOON!

              LAIDBACK ... Historically, VALGOL is a  derivative  of  LAID-
          BACK,  which  was  developed  at  the  (now defunct) Marin County
          Center for T'ai Chi, Mellowness, and Computer Programming, as  an
          alternative uo the more intense atmosphere in nearby silicon val-
          ley.

              The center was ideal for programmers who liked to soak in hot
          tubs  while  they  worked.   Unfortunately, few programmers could
          survive there for long, since the center outlawed  pizza  and  RC
          Cola in favor of bean curd and Perrier.

              Many mourn the demise of LAIDBACK because of  its  reputation
          as  a  gentle  and nonthreatening language. For Example, LAIDBACK
          responded to syntax errors with the message, SORRY MAN,  I  CAN'T
          DEAL WITH THAT.

              SARTRE ... Named  after  the  late  existential  philosopher.
          SARTRE  is an extremely unstructured language. Statements in SAR-
          TRE have no purpose; they just are there. Thus,  SARTRE  programs
          are  left to define their own functions.  SARTRE programmers tend
          to be boring and depressed and are no fun at parties.

              FIFTH ... FIFTH is a precision mathematical language in which
          the  data types refer to quantity.  The data types range from CC,
          OUNCE,  SHOT,  and  JIGGER  to  FIFTH  (hence  the  name  of  the
          language),  LITER,  MAGNUM,  and  BLOTTO.   Commands refer to in-
          gredients such as CHABLIS, CHARDONNAY, CABERNET,  GIN,  VERMOUTH,
          VODKA, SCOTCH and WHATEVERSAROUND.

              The many versions of the FIFTH language reflect the sophisti-
          cation  and financial status of its users.  Commands in the ELITE
          dialect include VSOP and LAFITE, while commands in the GUTTER di-
          alect  include  HOOTCH  and  RIPPLE.  The latter is a favorite of
          frustrated FORTH programmers who end up using the language.

              C- ... This language was named for the grade received by  its
          creator  when  he  submitted  it as a class project in a graduate
          programming class.  C- is best described as  a  "Low-Level"  pro-
          gramming language.  In fact, the language generally requires more
          C- statements than machine-code statements  to  execute  a  given
          task.  In this respect, it is very similar to COBOL.

              LITHP  ...  This  otherwise  unremarkable  labuage  is   dis-
          tinguished  by  the absence of an "s" in its character set.  pro-
          grammers and users must substitute "TH". LITHP is said to  useful
          in prothething lithtth.

              DOGO ... Developed at the Massachussettes Institute of Obedi-
          ence Training.  DOGO heralds a new era of computer-literate pets.
          DOGO commands include SIT, STAY, HEEL and ROLL OVER.  An  innova-
          tive feature of DOGO is "PUPPY GRAPHICS", in which a small cocker
          spaniel occasionally leaves a deposit as he  travels  across  the
          screen.

                              Submitted By Ian and Tony Goldsmith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
18
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jan 84 16:07:00-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and Weather Forecasting - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.2249

As far as the desirability to use AI on the weather, it seems a bit
out of place, when there is rumoured to be a fairly straightforward
(if INCREDIBLY cpu-hungry) thermodynamic relaxation calculation that
gives very good results for 24 hr prediction. It uses as input the
various temperature, wind, and pressure readings from all of the U.S.
weather stations, including the ones cleverly hidden away aboard most
domestic DC-10's and L-1011's. Starting with those values as boundary
conditions, an iterative relaxation is done to fill in the cells of
the continental atmospheric model.

The joke is of course (no joke!), it takes 26 hrs to run on a Illiac IV
(somebody from Ames or NOAS or somewhere correct me, please). The accuracy
goes up as the cell size in the model goes down, but the runtime goes up as
the cube! So you can look out the window, wait 2 hours, and say, "Yup,
the model was right."

My cynical prediction is that either (1) by the time we develop an
AI system that does as well, the deterministic systems will have
obsoleted it, or more likely (2) by the time we get an AI model with
the same accuracy, it will take 72 hours to run a 24 hour forecast!

Rob Warnock

UUCP:   {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD:    (415)595-8444
USPS:   Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jan 84 21:52:42-EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ucbtopaz!finnca1 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "You cant go home again"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.370

It seems to me (a phrase that is always a copout for the ill-informed;
nonetheless, I proceed) that the real payoff in expert systems for weather
forecasting would be to capture the knowledge of those pre-computer experts
who,
with limited data and even fewer dollars, managed to develop their
pattern-recognition facilities to the point that they could FEEL what was
happening and forecast accordingly.

I was privileged to take some meteorology courses from such an oldster many
years ago, and it was, alas,  my short-sightedness about the computer
revolution
in meteorology that prevented me from capturing some of his expertise, to
buzz a word or two.

Surely not ALL of these veterans have retired yet...what a service to science
someone would perform if only this experise could be captured before it dies
off.

        ...ucbvax!lbl-csam!ra!daven    or
        whatever is on the header THIS time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jan 84 5:06:29-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!zehntel!tektronix!ucbcad!ucbesvax.turner @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: You cant go home again - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucbcad.1315

Re: finnca1@topaz's comments on weather forecasting

Replacing expertise with raw computer power has its shortcomings--the
"joke" of predicting the weather 24 hours from now in 26 hours of cpu
time is a case in point.  Less accurate but more timely forecasts used
to be made by people with slide-rules--and where are these people now?

It wouldn't surprise me if the 20th century had its share of "lost arts".
Archaelogists still dig up things that we don't know quite how to make,
and the technological historians of the next century might well be faced
with the same sorts of puzzles when reading about how people got by
without computers.

Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 8 Feb 84 15:29:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary of Responses
-BODY-
The following is a summary of the responses to my AIList request for
information on AI and meteorology, spatial and temporal reasoning, and
related matters.  I have tried to summarize the net messages accurately,
but I may have made some unwarranted inferences about affiliations,
gender, or other matters that were not explicit in the messages.

The citations below should certainly not be considered comprehensive,
either for the scientific literature as a whole or for the AI literature.
There has been relevant work in pattern recognition and image understanding
(e.g., the work at SRI on tracking clouds in satellite images), mapping,
database systems, etc.  I have not had time to scan even my own collection
of literature (PRIP, CVPR, PR, PAMI, IJCAI, AAAI, etc.) for relevant
articles, and I have not sought out bibliographies or done online searches
in the traditional meteorological literature.  Still, I hope these
comments will be of use.

                        ------------------

Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
reports that he and Alistair Frazer (Penn State Meteo Dept.) are advising
two meteorology/CS students who want to do senior/masters theses in AI.
They have submitted a proposal and expect to hear from NSF in a few months.


Capt. Roslyn (Roz) J. Taylor, Applied AI Project Officer, USAF, @RADC,
has read two of the Gaffney/Racer papers entitled "A Learning Interpretive
Decision Algorithm for Severe Storm Forecasting."  She found the algorithm
to be a "fuzzy math"-based fine-tuning algorithm in much the same spirit
as a Kalman filter.  The algorithm might be useful as the numerical
predictor in an expert system.


Jay Glicksman of the Texas Instruments Computer Science Lab suggests
that we check out

  Kawaguchi, E. et al. (1979)
  An Understanding System of Natural Language and Pictorial Pattern in
  the World of Weather Reports
  IJCAI-6 Tokyo, pp. 469-474

It does not provide many details and he has not seen a follow up, but
the paper may give some leads.  This paper is evidently related to the
Taniguchi et al. paper in the 6th Pat. Rec. proceedings that I mentioned
in my query.

Dr. John Tsotsos and his students at the Univ. of Toronto Laboratory for
Computational Medicine have been working for several years on the ALVEN
system to interpret heart images in X-ray films.  Dr. Tsotsos feels that the
spatial and temporal reasoning capabilities of the system would be of use in
meteorology.  The temporal reasoning includes intervals, points,
hierarchies, and temporal sampling considerations.  He has sent me the
following reports:

  R. Gershon, Y. Ali, and M. Jenkin, An Explanation System for Frame-based
  Knowledge Organized Along Multiple Dimensions, LCM-TR83-2, Dec. 1983.

  J.K. Tsotsos, Knowledge Organization: Its Role in Representation,
  Decision-making and Explanation Schemes for Expert Systems, LCM-TR83-3,
  Dec. 1983.

  J.K. Tsotsos, Representational Axes and Temporal Cooperative Processes,
  Preliminary Draft.

I regret that I have found time for only a cursory examination of these papers,
and so cannot say whether they will be useful in themselves for meteorology
or only as a source of further references in spatial and temporal reasoning.
Someone else in my group is now taking a look at them. Others papers from
Dr. Tsotsos group may be found in: IJACI77-79-81, PRIP81, ICPR82, PAMI Nov.80,
and IEEE Computer Oct. 83.


Stuart C. Shapiro at the Univ. of Buffalo (SUNY) CS Dept. added the
following reference on temporal reasoning:

  Almeida, M. J., and Shapiro, S. C., Reasoning about the temporal
  structure of narrative texts.  Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting
  of the Cognitive Science Society, Rochester, NY, 1983.


Fanya S. Montalvo at MIT echoed my interest in

  * knowledge representations for spatial/temporal reasoning;
  * inference methods for estimating meteorological variables
    from (spatially and temporally) sparse data;
  * methods of interfacing symbolic knowledge and heuristic
    reasoning with numerical simulation models;
  * a bibliography or guide to relevant literature.

She reports that good research along these lines is very scarce, but
suggests the following:

  As far as interfacing symbolic knowlege with heuristic reasoning with
  numerical simulation, Weyhrauch's FOL system is the best formalism I've
  seen/worked-with to do that.  Unfortunately there are few references to it.
  One is Filman, Lamping, & Montalvo in IJCAI'83.  Unfortunately it was too
  short.  There's a reference to Weyhrauch's Prolegomena paper in there.  Also
  there is Wood's, Greenfeld's, and Zdybel's work at BBN with KLONE and a ship
  location database; they're no longer there.  There's also Mark Friedell's
  Thesis from Case Western Reserve; see his SIGGRAPH'83 article, also
  references to Greenfeld & Yonke there.  Oh, yes, there's also Reid Simmons,
  here at MIT, on a system connecting diagrams in geologic histories with
  symbolic descriptions, AAAI'83.  The work is really in bits and pieces and
  hasn't really been put together as a whole working formalism yet.  The
  issues are hard.


Jim Hendler at Brown reports that Drew McDermott has recently written
several papers about temporal and spatial reasoning.  The best one on
temporal reasoning was published in Cognitive Science about a year ago.
Also, one of Drew's students at Yale recently did a thesis on spatial
reasoning.


David M. Axler, MSCF Applications Manager at Univ. of Pennsylvania, suggests:

  A great deal of info about weather already exists in a densely-encoded form,
  namely proverbs and traditional maxims.  Is there a way that this system can
  be converted to an expert system, if for no other reason than potential
  comparison between the analysis it provides with that gained from more
  formal meteorological approaches?

  If this is of interest, I can provide leads to collections of weather lore,
  proverbs, and the like.  If you're actually based at SRI, you're near
  several of the major folklore libraries and should have relatively easy
  access (California is the only state in the union with two grad programs in
  the field, one at Berkeley (under the anthro dept.), and one at UCLA) to the
  material, as both schools have decent collections.

I replied:

  The use of folklore maxims is a good idea, and one fairly easy to build
  into an expert system for prediction of weather at a single site.  (The
  user would have to enter observations such as "red sky at night" since
  pattern recognition couldn't be used.  Given that, I suspect that a
  Prospector-style inference net could be built that would simultaneously
  evaluate hypotheses of "rain", "fog", etc., for multiple time windows.)
  Construction of the system and evaluation of the individual rules would
  make an excellent thesis project.

  Unfortunately, I doubt that the National Weather Service or other such
  organization would be interested in having SRI build such a "toy"
  system.  They would be more interested in methods for tracking storm
  fronts and either automating or improving on the map products they
  currently produce.

  As a compromise, one project we have been considering is to automate
  a book of weather forecasting rules for professional forecasters.
  Such rule books do exist, but the pressures of daily forecasting are
  such that the books are rarely consulted.  Perhaps some pattern
  recognition combined with some man-machine dialog could trigger the
  expert system rules that would remind the user of relevant passages.

Dave liked the project, and suggested that there may be additional unofficial
rule sources such as those used by the Farmer's Almanac publishers.


Philip Kahn at UCLA is interested in pattern recognition, and recommends
the book

  REMOTE SENSING: Optics and Optical Systems by Philip N. Slater
  Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Reading, MA, 1980

for information on atmospherics, optics, films, testing/reliability, etc.


Alex Pang at UCLA is doing some non-AI image processing to aid weather
prediction.  He is interested in hearing about AI and meteorology.
Bill Havens at the University of British Columbia expressed interest,
particularly in methods that could be implemented on a personal computer.
Mike Uschold at Edinburgh and Noel Kropf at Columbia University (Seismology
Lab?) have also expressed interest.

                        ------------------

My thanks to all who replied.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
19
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Feb 84 10:06:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 query
-BODY-
I'd like to find out some information on acquiring a copy of
the OPS5 system. Is there a purchase price, is it free-of-charge,
etc. Please send replies to

        G.TJM@SU-SCORE

Thanks.

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Feb 1984 15:14:48 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert M. Simmons <simmons@EDN-UNIX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: lisp on ibm
-BODY-
Can anyone give me pointers to LISP systems that run on
IBM 370's under MVS?  Direct and indirect pointers are
welcome.

Bob Simmons
simmons@edn-unix

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Feb 84 17:54:24 EST
-FROM-
From: John <Roach@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Timings of LISPs and Machines
-BODY-

I dug up these timings, they are a little bit out of date but seem a little
more informative.  They were done by Dick Gabriel at SU-AI in 1982 and passed
along by Chuck Hedrick at Rutgers.  Some of the times have been updated to
reflect current machines by myself.  These have been marked with the
date of 1984.  All machines were measured using the function -

an almost Takeuchi function as defined by John McCarthy

(defun tak (x y z)
       (cond ((not (< y x))
              z)
             (t (tak (tak (1- x) y z)
                     (tak (1- y) z x)
                     (tak (1- z) x y)))))

>-----------------------------------------

(tak 18. 12. 6.)

On 11/750 in Franz ordinary arith     19.9   seconds compiled
On 11/780 in Franz with (nfc)(TAKF)   15.8   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On Rutgers-20 in Interlisp/1984       13.8   seconds compiled
On 11/780 in Franz (nfc)               8.4   seconds compiled   (KIM time)
On 11/780 in Franz (nfc)               8.35  seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On 11/780 in Franz with (ffc)(TAKF)    7.5   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On 11/750 in PSL, generic arith        7.1   seconds compiled
On MC (KL) in MacLisp (TAKF)           5.9   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On Dolphin in InterLisp/1984           4.81  seconds compiled
On Vax 11/780 in InterLisp (load = 0)  4.24  seconds compiled
On Foonly F2 in MacLisp                4.1   seconds compiled
On Apollo (MC68000) PASCAL             3.8   seconds            (extra waits?)
On 11/750 in Franz, Fixnum arith       3.6   seconds compiled
On MIT CADR in ZetaLisp                3.16  seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On MIT CADR in ZetaLisp                3.1   seconds compiled   (ROD time)
On MIT CADR in ZetaLisp (TAKF)         3.1   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On Apollo (MC68000) PSL SYSLISP        2.93  seconds compiled
On 11/780 in NIL (TAKF)                2.8   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On 11/780 in NIL                       2.7   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On 11/750 in C                         2.4   seconds
On Rutgers-20 in Interlisp/Block/84    2.225 seconds compiled
On 11/780 in Franz (ffc)               2.13  seconds compiled   (KIM time)
On 11/780 (Diablo) in Franz (ffc)      2.1   seconds compiled   (VRP time)
On 11/780 in Franz (ffc)               2.1   seconds compiled   (GJC time)
On 68000 in C                          1.9   seconds
On Utah-20 in PSL Generic arith        1.672 seconds compiled
On Dandelion in Interlisp/1984         1.65  seconds compiled
On 11/750 in PSL INUM arith            1.4   seconds compiled
On 11/780 (Diablo) in C                1.35  seconds
On 11/780 in Franz (lfc)               1.13  seconds compiled   (KIM time)
On UTAH-20 in Lisp 1.6                 1.1   seconds compiled
On UTAH-20 in PSL Inum arith           1.077 seconds compiled
On Rutgers-20 in Elisp                 1.063 seconds compiled
On Rutgers-20 in R/UCI lisp             .969 seconds compiled
On SAIL (KL) in MacLisp                 .832 seconds compiled
On SAIL in bummed MacLisp               .795 seconds compiled
On MC (KL) in MacLisp (TAKF,dcl)        .789 seconds compiled
On 68000 in machine language            .7   seconds
On MC (KL) in MacLisp (dcl)             .677 seconds compiled
On SAIL in bummed MacLisp (dcl)         .616 seconds compiled
On SAIL (KL) in MacLisp (dcl)           .564 seconds compiled
On Dorado in InterLisp Jan 1982 (tr)    .53  seconds compiled
On UTAH-20 in SYSLISP arith             .526 seconds compiled
On SAIL in machine language             .255 seconds (wholine)
On SAIL in machine language             .184 seconds (ebox-doesn't include mem)
On SCORE (2060) in machine language     .162 seconds (ebox)
On S-1 Mark I in machine language       .114 seconds (ebox & ibox)

I would be interested if people who had these machines/languages available
could update some of the timings.  There also isn't any timings for Symbolics
or LMI.

John.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1984  01:14 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V2 #14
-BODY-
In regard to G Spencer Brown, if you are referring to author of
the Laws of Form, if that's what it was called:  I believe he was
a friend of Bertrand Russell  and that he logged out
quite a number of years ago.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 84 14:18:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Brint <abc@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  "You cant go home again"
-BODY-
I couldn't agree more (with your feelings of regret at not
capturing the expertise of the "oldster" in meterological
lore).

My dad was one of the best automotive diagnosticians in
Baltimore until his death six years ago.  His uncanny
ability to pinpoint a problem's cause from external
symptoms was locally legendary.  Had I known then what I'm
beginning to learn now about the promise of expert systems,
I'd have spent many happy hours "picking his brain" with
the (unfilled) promise of making us both rich!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Feb 84 22:15:08-EST
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Intner <INTNER@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The 4-Color Problem
-BODY-
To Whom It May Concern:

        The computer proof of the 4 - color problem can be found in
Appel, K. and W. Haken ,"Every planar map is 4-colorable-1 :
Discharging", "Every planar map is 4-colorable-2: Reducibility",
Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 21, 429-567 (1977).  I haven't looked
at this myself, but I understand from Mike Townsend (a Prof here at
Columbia) that the proof is a real mess and involves thousands of
special cases.

        Jonathan Intner
        INTNER@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Feb 1984 13:50-PST
-FROM-
From: Andy Cromarty <andy@AIDS-Unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Brain, a parallel processor?
-BODY-
        What are the evidences that the brain is a parallel processor?
        My own introspection seem to indicate that mine is doing time-sharing.
                        -- Rene Bach <BACH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

You are confusing "brain" with "mind".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Feb 1984  15:23 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Revolving Seminar
-BODY-
                     [Forwarded by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Wednesday, February 15, 4:00pm 8th floor playroom

Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy
Dedre Gentner

The structure-mapping theory of analogy describes a set of
principles by which the interpretation of an analogy is derived
from the meanings of its terms.  These principles are
characterized as implicit rules for mapping knowledge about a
base domain into a target domain.  Two important features of the
theory are (1) the rules depend only on syntactic properties of
the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of
the domains; and (2) the theoretical framework allows analogies
to be distinguished cleanly from literal similarity statements,
applications of general laws, and other kinds of comparisons.

Two mapping principles are described: (1) Relations between
objects, rather than attributes of objects, are mapped from base
to target; and (2) The particular relations mapped are determined
by @u(systematicity), as defined by the existence of higher-order
relations.  Psychological experiments supporting the theory are
described, and implications for theories of learning are
discussed.


COMING SOON: Tomas Lozano-Perez, Jerry Barber, Dan Carnese, Bob Berwick, ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Feb 84 09:15:36-PST
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGLUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT - FEBRUARY 24, 1984
-BODY-
[Reprinted from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution.]

Friday,   February 24, 1984
LOCATION: Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
12:05

SPEAKER:   Ben Kuipers, Department of Mathematics
           Tufts University

TOPIC:     Studying Experts to Learn About Qualitative
                       Causal Reasoning


By analyzing a  verbatim protocol  of an expert's  explanation we  can
derive constraints on the conceptual  framework used by human  experts
for causal reasoning  in medicine.   We use  these constraints,  along
with  textbook  descriptions  of  physiological  mechanisms  and   the
computational requirements  of successful  performance, to  propose  a
model of qualitative causal reasoning.  One important design  decision
in the model is the selection of the "envisionment" version of  causal
reasoning  rather  than  a  version  based  on  "causal  links."   The
envisionment process performs a qualitative simulation, starting  with
a description  of the  structure  of a  mechanism and  predicting  its
behavior.  The qualitative causal reasoning algorithm is a step toward
second-generation medical diagnosis programs  that understand how  the
mechanisms of  the  body work.   The  protocol analysis  method  is  a
knowledge  acquisition  technique   for  determining  the   conceptual
framework of new  types of  knowledge in  an expert  system, prior  to
acquiring large amounts of domain-specific knowledge.  The qualitative
causal reasoning algorithm has been implemented and tested on  medical
and non-medical examples.  It will be the core of RENAL, a new  expert
system for diagnosis in nephrology, that we are now developing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Feb 84 0943 EST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Alan.Lesgold@CMU-CS-A (N981AL60)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: colloquium announcement
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-C bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 THE INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM GROUP
                LEARNING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER
                        UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

                          AN ARCHITECTURE FOR
                           TUTORIAL DISCOURSE

                            BEVERLY P. WOOLF
              COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
                      UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS

                        WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15,
              2:00 - 3:00, LRDC AUDITORIUM (SECOND FLOOR)

    Human  discourse is quite complex compared to the present ability of
machines to handle communication.  Sophisticated research into discourse
is needed before we can construct intelligent interactive systems.  This
talk presents recent research in the areas of discourse generation, with
emphasis on teaching and tutoring dialogues.
    This talk describes MENO, a system where hand  tailored  rules  have
been  used  to  generate  flexible  responses  in  the  face  of student
failures.  The  system  demonstrates  the  effectiveness  of  separating
tutoring  knowledge  and  tutoring  decisions  from  domain  and student
knowledge.  The design of  the  system  suggests  a  machine  theory  of
tutoring and uncovers some of the conventions and intuitions of tutoring
discourse.    This  research  is applicable to any intelligent interface
which must reason about the users knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
20
-DATE-
Date: 16 Feb 1984 1417-PST
-FROM-
From: VANBUER at USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Timing Data Caveat
-BODY-
A warning on the TAK performance testing:  this code only exercises
function calling and small integer arithmetic, and none of things
most heavily used in "real" lisp programming: CONSing, garbage collection,
paging (ai stuff is big after all).
        Darrel J. Van Buer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 84 11:15:21 EST
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@NRL-CSS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: G. Spencer-Brown and undecidable propositions
-BODY-

G. Spencer-Brown is very much alive.  He spent several months at NRL a couple
of years ago and presented lectures on his purported proof of the four color
theorem.  Having heard him lecture on several topics previously, I did not feel
motivated to attend his lectures on the four color theorem so I can't comment
on them first hand.  Those who knew him better than I believe that he is
currently at Oxford or Cambridge.  By the way, he was not a friend of Russell's
as far as I know.  Russell merely said something somewhat positive about LAWS
OF FORM.

With respect to undecidability, I can't figure out what Charlie Crummer means
by "undecidable proposition".  The definition I have always seen is that a
proposition is undecidable with respect to a set of axioms if it is
independent, i.e,. neither the proposition nor its negation is provable.
(An undecidable theory is a different kettle of fish altogether.) Examples are
Euclid's 5th postulate with respect to the other 4, Goedel's sentence with
respect to first order number theory, the continuum hypothesis with respect to
set theory, etc.  I can't figure out the claim that one can't decide whether
an undecidable proposition is decidable or not.  Euclid's 5th postulate,
Goedel's sentence, and the continuum hypothesis have been proven to be
undecidable.  For simple theories, such as sentential logic (i.e., no
quantifiers), there are even algorithms for detecting undecidability.
                                                                    John McLean

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 84 11:18:43 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: G. Spencer-Brown and undecidable propositions
-BODY-
Thanks for the lead to G. S-B.  I think I understand what he is driving at with
THE LAWS OF FORM so I would like to see his alledged 4-color proof.

Re: undecidability... Is it true that all propositions can be proved decidable
or not with respect to a particular axiomatic system from WITHIN that system?
My understanding is that this is not generally possible.  Example (Not a proof
of my understanding):  Is the value of the statement "This statement is false."
decidable from within Boolean logic?  It seems to me that from within Boolean
logic, i.e. 2-valued logic, all that would be seen is that no matter how long
I crank I never seem to be able to settle down to a unique value.  If this
proposition is fed to a 2-valued logic program (written in PROLOG, LISP, or
whatever language one desires) the program just won't halt.  From OUTSIDE the
machine, a human programmer can easily detect the problem but from WITHIN
the Boolean system it's not possible.  This seems to be an example of the
halting problem.

>-Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Feb 1984  12:22 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "Steven C. Bagley" <BAGLEY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quite more than you want to know about George Spencer Brown
-BODY-
Yes, Spencer Brown was associated with Russell, but since Lord Russell
died recently (1970), I think it safe to assume that not ALL of his
associates are dead, yet, at least.

There was a brief piece about Spencer Brown in "New Scientist" several
years ago (vol. 73, no. 1033, January 6, 1977, page 6).  Here are two
interesting quotes:

"What sets him apart from the many others who have claimed a proof of
the [four-color] theorem are his technique, and his personal style.
Spencer Brown's technique rests on a book he wrote in 1964 called
`Laws of Form.'  George Allen and Unwin published it in 1969, on the
recommendation of Bertrand Russell.  In the book he develops a new
algebra of logic -- from which the normal Boolean algebra (a means of
representing propositions and arguments with symbols) can be derived.
The book has had a mixed reputation, from `a work of genius' to
`pretentious triviality.'  It is certainly unorthodox, and mixes
metaphysics and mathematics.  Russell himself was taken with the work,
and mentions it in his autobiography....

The style of the man is extravagant -- he stays at the Savoy -- and
all-embracing.  He was in the Royal Navy in the Second World War; has
degrees in philosophy and psychology (but not mathematics); was a
lecturer in logic at Christ Church College, Oxford; wrote a treatise
on probability; a volume of poetry, and a novel; was a chief logic
designer with Mullard Equipment Ltd where his patented design of a
transistorised elevator logic circuit led to `Laws of Form'; has two
world records for gliding; and presently lectures part-time in the
mathematics department at the University of Cambridge while also
managing his publishing business."

I know of two reviews of "Laws of Form": one by Stafford Beer, the
British cyberneticist, which appeared in "Nature," vol. 223, Sept 27,
1969, and the other by Lancelot Law Whyte, which was published in the
British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, vol 23, 1972, pages
291-292.

Spencer Brown's probability work was published in a book called
"Probability and Scientific Inference", in the late 1950's, if my
memory serves me correctly.  There is also an early article in
"Nature" called "Statistical Significance in Psychical Research", vol.
172, July 25, 1953, pp. 154-156.  A comment by Soal, Stratton, and
Trouless on this article appeared in "Nature" vol 172, Sept 26, 1953,
page 594, and a reply by Spencer Brown immediately follows.  The first
sentence of the initial article reads as follows: "It is proposed to
show that the logical form of the data derived from experiments in
psychical research which depend upon statistical tests is such as to
provide little evidence for telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition,
psychokinesis, etc., but to give some grounds for questioning the
practical validity of the test of significance used."  Careful Spencer
Brown watchers will be interested to note that this article lists his
affliation as the Department of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy,
Oxford; he really gets around.

His works have had a rather widespread, if unorthodox, impact.
Spencer Brown and "Laws of Form" are mentioned in Adam Smith's Powers
of Mind, a survey of techniques for mind expansion, contraction,
adjustment, etc., e.g., EST, various flavors of hallucinogens, are
briefly noted in Aurthur Koestler's The Roots of Coincidence, which
is, quite naturally enough, about probability, coincidence, and
synchronicity, and are mentioned, again, in "The Dyadic Cyclone," by
Dr. John C. Lilly, dolphin aficionado, and consciousness expander,
extraordinaire.

If this isn't an eclectic enough collection of trivia about Spencer
Brown, keep reading.  Here is quote from his book "Only Two Can Play
This Game", written under the pseudonym of James Keys.  "To put it
bluntly, it looks as if the male is so afraid of the fundamentally
different order of being of the female, so terrified of her huge
magical feminine power of destruction and regeneration, that he
doesn't look at her as she really is, he is afraid to accept the
difference, and so has repressed into his unconscious the whole idea
of her as ANOTHER ORDER OF BEING, from whom he might learn what he
could not know of himself alone, and replaced her with the idea of a
sort of second-class replica of himself who, because she plays the
part of a man so much worse than a man, he can feel safe with because
he can despise her."

There are some notes at the end of this book (which isn't really a
novel, but his reflections, written in the heat of the moment, about
the breakup a love affair) which resemble parts of "Laws of Form":
"Space is a construct.  In reality there is no space.  Time is also a
construct.  In reality there is no time.  In eternity there is space
but no time.  In the deepest order of eternity there is no space....In
a qualityless order, to make any distinction at all is at once to
construct all things in embryo...."

And last, I have no idea of his present-day whereabouts.  Perhaps try
writing to him c/o Cambridge University.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 84 13:58:28 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quite more than you want to know about George Spencer Brown
-BODY-
Thank you for the copious information on G. S-B.  If I can't get in touch
with him now, it will be because he does not want to be found.

After the first reading of the first page of "The Laws of Form" I almost
threw the book away.  I am glad, however, that I didn't.  I have read it
several times and thought carefully about it and I think that there is much
substance to it.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 84  2302 PST
-FROM-
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Serial or parallel
-BODY-
        It seems to me that introspection can tell us that the brain
does many things serially.  For example, a student with 5 problems
on an examination cannot set 5 processes working on them.  Indeed
I can't see that introspection indicates that anything is done
in parallel, although it does indicate that many things are done
subconsciously.  This is non-trivial, because one could imagine
a mind that could set several processes going subconsciously and
then look at them from time to time to see what progress they
were making.

        On the other hand, anatomy suggests and physiological
experiments confirm that the brain does many things in parallel.
These things include low level vision processing and probably
also low level auditory processing and also reflexes.  For example,
the blink reflex seems to proceed without thought, although it
can be observed and in parallel with whatever else is going on.
Indeed one might regard the blink reflex and some well learned
habits as counter-examples to my assertion that one can't set
parallel processes going and then observe them.

        All else seems to be conjecture.  I'll conjecture that
a division of neural activity into serial and parallel activities
developed very early in evolution.  For example, a bee's eye is
a parallel device, but the bee carries out long chains of serial
activities in foraging.  My more adventurous conjecture is that
primate level intelligence involves applying parallel pattern
recognition processes evolve in connection with vision to records
of the serial activities of the organism.  The parallel processes
of recognition are themselves subconscious, but the results have
to take part in the serial activity.  Finally, seriality seems
to be required for coherence.  An animal that seeks food by
locomotion works properly only if it can go in one direction
at a time, whereas a sea anemone can wave all its tentacles at
once and needs only very primitive seriality that can spread
in a wave of activity.

        Perhaps someone who knows more physiology can offer more
information about the division of animal activity into serial
and parallel kinds.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 84 22:40:48 pst
-FROM-
From: finnca1%ucbtopaz.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  "You cant go home again"
-BODY-          Date:     Sun, 12 Feb 84 14:18:04 EST
        From: Brint <abc@brl-bmd>

        I couldn't agree more (with your feelings of regret at not
        capturing the expertise of the "oldster" in meterological
        lore).

        My dad was one of the best automotive diagnosticians in
        Baltimore [...]

Ah yes, the scarcest of experts these days:  a truly competent auto
mechanic!  But don't you still need an expert to PERCEIVE the subtle
auditory cues and translate them into symbolic form?

Living in the world is a full time job, it seems.

                Dave N. (...ucbvax!ucbtopaz!finnca1)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 13 Feb 1984 18:37:35-PST
-FROM-
From: decwrl!rhea!glivet!zurko@Shasta
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The "world" of CS
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The best place for you to start would be with Sheri Turkle, a
professor at MIT's STS department.  She's been studying both the
official and unofficial members of the computer science world as a
culture/society for a few years now.  In fact, she's supposed to be
putting a book out on her findings, "The Intimate Machine".  Anyone
heard what's up with it?  I thought it was supposed to be out last
Sept, but I haven't been able to find it.
        Mez

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 84 21:50:52 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learning Seminar
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      MACHINE LEARNING BROWN BAG SEMINAR

Title:     When to Learn
Speaker:   Michael Sims
Date:      Wednesday, Feb. 15, 1984 - 12:00-1:30
Location:  Hill Center, Room 254 (note new location)

       In  this  informal  talk I will describe issues which I have broadly
    labeled  'when  to  learn'.    Most  AI  learning  investigations  have
    concentrated  on  the  mechanisms  of  learning.    In  part  this is a
    reasonable consequence of AI's close  relationship  with  the  'general
    process tradition' of psychology [1].  The influences of ecological and
    ethological   (i.e.,  animal  behavior)  investigations  have  recently
    challenged this research methodology in psychology, and I believe  this
    has important ramifications for investigations of machine learning.  In
    particular,  this  influence  would  suggest that learning is something
    which takes place when an appropriate environment  and  an  appropriate
    learning  mechanism  are  present,  and  that  it  is  inappropriate to
    describe learning by describing a learning mechanism without describing
    the environment in which it operates.  The most cogent new issues which
    arise are the description of the environment, and  the  confronting  of
    the  issue  of  'when  to learn in a rich environment'.   By a learning
    system in a 'rich environment' I  mean  a  learning  system  which must
    extract the items to be learned from sensory input which is too rich to
    be  exhaustively stored.  Most present learning systems operate in such
    a restrictive environment that there is no question of what or when  to
    learn.   I will also present a general architecture for such a learning
    system in a rich environment, called a Pattern Directed Learning Model,
    which was motivated by biological learning systems.


                                  References

[1]   Johnston, T. D.
      Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning.
      Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4:125-173, 1981.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Feb 84 13:16:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Automatic deduction" and other stuff
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A reminder that the seminar on automatic reasoning / theorem proving /logic
programming / mumble mumble mumble  which I advertised earlier is going to
begin shortly, under one title or another.   It will tentatively be on
Wednesdays at 1:30 in MJH301.   If you wish to be on the mailing list for this,
please mail to me or Yoni Malachi (YM@SAIL).   But if you are already on
Carolyn Talcott's mailing list for the MTC seminars, you will probably be
included on the new list unless you ask not to be.

For those interested specifically in the MRS system, we plan to continue MRS
meetings, also on Weds., at 10:30, starting shortly.   I expect to announce
such meetings on the MRSusers distribution list.   To get on this, mail to me
or Milt Grinberg (GRINBERG@SUMEX).   Note that MRSusers will contain other
announcements related to MRS as well.
                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
ate: Wed 15 Feb 84
-SUBJECT-
Subject: McCarthy Lectures on Commonsense Knowledge
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the Stanford CSLI newsletter by Laws@SRI.]


   MCCARTHY LECTURES ON THE FORMALIZATION OF COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE

     John McCarthy  will  present  the remaining three lectures of his
series (the first of the four was held January 20) at 3:00 p.m. in the
Ventura Hall Seminar Room on the dates shown below.

Friday, Feb. 17   "The Circumscription Mode of Nonmonotonic Reasoning"

        Applications of circumscription to formalizing commonsense
        facts.  Application to the frame problem, the qualification
        problem, and to the STRIPS assumption.

Friday, March 2   "Formalization of Knowledge and Belief"

        Modal and first-order formalisms.  Formalisms in which possible
        worlds are explicit objects.  Concepts and propositions as
        objects in theories.

Friday, March 9   "Philosophical Conclusions Arising from AI Work"

        Approximate theories, second-order definitions of concepts,
        ascription of mental qualities to machines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
21
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 84 22:29:05 EST
-FROM-
From: G B Reilly <reilly@udel-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EEG/EKG Scoring
-BODY-
Has anyone done any work on automatic scoring and interpretation of EEG or
EKG outputs?

Brendan Reilly

[There has been a great deal of work in these areas.  Good sources are
the IEEE pattern recognition or pattern recognition and image processing
conferences, IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,
IEEE Trans. on Computers, and the Pattern Recognition journal.  There
have also been some conferences on medical pattern recognition.  Can
anyone suggest a bibliography, special issue, or book on these subjects?
Have there been any AI (as opposed to PR) approaches to waveform diagnosis?
>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19-Feb-84 02:14 PST
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: G. Spencer-Brown and the Laws of Form
-BODY-
I know of someone who talked with G. on the telephone about six years
ago somewhere in Northern California.  My friend developed a quantum
logic for expressing paradoxes, and some forms of schyzophrenia, among
other things.  Puts fuzzy set theory to shame.  Anyway, he wanted to
get together with G. to discuss his own work and what he perceived in
the Laws of Form as very fundamental problems in generality due to
over-simplicity.  G. refused to meet without being paid fifty or so
dollars per hour.

Others say that the LoF's misleading notation masks the absence of any
significant proofs.  They observe that the notation uses whitespace as
an implicit operator, something that becomes obvious in an attempt to
parse it when represented as character strings in a computer.

I became interested in the Laws of Form when it first came out as it
promised to be quite an elegant solution to the most obscure proofs of
Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica.  The LoF carried to
perfection a very similar simplification I attempted while studying
the same logical foundations of mathematics.  One does not get too far
into the proofs before getting the distinct feeling that there has GOT
to be a better way.

It would be interesting to see an attempt to express the essence of
Go:del's sentence in the LoF notation.

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 10:57:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commercial NL Review in High Technology
-BODY-
The February issue of High Technology has a short article on
natural language interfaces (to databases, mainly).  The article
and business outlook section mention four NL systems currently
on the market, led by AIC's Intellect ($70,000, IBM mainframes),
Frey Associate's Themis ($24,000, DEC VAX-11), and Cognitive
System's interface.  (The fourth is not named, but some OEMs and
licensees of the first two are given.)  The article says that
four more systems are expected out this year, and discusses
Symantec's system ($400-$600, IBM PC with 256 Kbytes and hard disk)
and Cal Tech's ASK (HP9836 micro, licensed to HP and DEC).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date:    Tue, 14 Feb 84 11:21:09 EST
-FROM-
From:    Kris Hammond <Hammond@YALE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: *AI-LUNCH*
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from a Yale bboard by Shrager@CMU-PSY-A.]

                 THE ADVENTURES OF JOE LISP, T MAN

   Brought to you by:  *AI-LUNCH*, its hot,  its  cold,  its  more  than
   a lunch...
                      This week's episode:

                  The Case of the Bogus Expert
                            Part I

   It was  late  on  a  Tuesday and I was dead in my seat from nearly an
   hour of grueling mail reading and idle chit-chat with random  passers
   by.  The  only  light  in  my  office  was the soft glow from my CRT,
   the only sound was the pain wracked rattle of  an  over-heated  disk.
   It was  raining  out,  but  the  steady staccato rhythm that beat its
   way into the skulls of others was held  back  by  the  cold  concrete
   slabs of  my windowless walls.  I like not having windows, but that's
   another story.

   I didn't hear her come in, but when the  scent  of  her  perfume  hit
   me, my  head swung faster than a Winchester.  She was wearing My-Sin,
   a perfume with the smell of an expert, but that wasn't what impressed
   me.  What  hit  me  was  her  contours.   She had a body with all the
   right variables.  She wore a dress with a single closure that  barely
   hid the  dynamic  scoping  of  what  was  underneath.  Sure I saw her
   as an object, but I guess I'm just object oriented.   It's  the  kind
   of operator I am.

   After she sat down and began to tell her story I  realized  that  her
   sophisticated look  was  just  cover.  She was a green kid, still wet
   behind the ears.  In fact she was wet all over.  As I  said,  it  was
   raining outside.  It's an easy inference.

   It  seems  the  kid's  step-father  had  disappeared.   He had been a
   medical specialist,  diagnosis  and  prescription,  but  one  day  he
   started making  wild  claims  about  knowledge  and planning and then
   he  vanished.   I  had  heard  of  this  kind  before.    Some   were
   specialists.  Some  in  medicine,  some  in geology, but all were the
   same kind of guy.  I looked the girl in the eye  and  asked  the  one
   question she  didn't  want  to  hear,  "He's  rule-based, isn't he?".

   She turned  her  head away and that was all the answer I needed.  His
   kind were cold, unfeeling, unchanging, but she still  loved  him  and
   wanted him back again.

   Once I  got  a  full  picture of the guy I was sure that I knew where
   to find him, California.  It was the haven for his  way  of  thinking
   and acting.   I  was  sure  that he had been swept up by the EXPERTS.
   They were a cult that had grown up in the past few  years,  promising
   fast and  easy  enlightenment.   What  they  didn't tell you was that
   the price was your ability  to  understand  itself.   He  was  there,
   as sure as I was a T Man.

   I knew of at least one operative in California who could be  trusted,
   and I  knew  that  I had to talk to him before I could do any further
   planning.  I reached for the phone and gave him a call.

   The conversation was short and  sweet.   He  had  resource  conflicts
   and couldn't  give  me  a  hand  right now.  I assumed that it had to
   be more complex than that and almost  said  that  resource  conflicts
   aren't  that  easy  to  identify,  but  I  had no time to waste on in
   fighting while the real enemy was still at  large.   Before  he  hung
   up, he  suggested  that  I pick up a radar detector if I was planning
   on driving out and asked if I could grab a half-gallon  of  milk  for
   him on  the  way.   I agreed to the favor, thanked him for his advice
   and wished him luck on his tan...

    That's all  for  now  kids.   Tune in next week for the part two of:

                  The Case of the Bogus Expert

                            Starring

                        JOE LISP, T MAN

   And remember kids, Wednesdays are *AI-LUNCH* days and  11:45  is  the
   *AI-LUNCH* time.  And kids, if you send in 3 box tops from *AI-LUNCH*
   you can get a JOE LISP magic decoder ring.  This  is  the  same  ring
   that saved  JOE  LISP only two episodes ago and is capable of parsing
   from surface to deep  structure  in  less  than  15  transformations.
   Its part plastic, part metal and all bogus, so order now.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 February 1984 11:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Kenneth Byrd Story <STORY @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computational Discovery of Mathamatical Laws
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the MIT-MC bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

TITLE:  "The Computational Discovery of Mathematical Laws: Experiments in Bin
           Packing"
SPEAKER:        Dr. Jon Bentley, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
DATE:           Wednesday, February 22, 1984
TIME:           3:30pm  Refreshments
                4:15pm  Lecture
PLACE:          Bldg. 2-338


Bin packing is a typical NP-complete problem that arises in many applications.
This talk describes experiments on two simple bin packing heuristics (First Fit
and First Fit Decreasing) which show that they perform extremely well on
randomly generated data.  On some natural classes of inputs, for instance, the
First Fit Decreasing heuristic finds an optimal solution more often than not.
The data leads to several startling conjectures; some have been proved, while
others remain open problems.  Although the details concern the particular
problem of bin packing, the theme of this talk is more general: how should
computer scientists use simulation programs to discover mathematical laws?
(This work was performed jointly with D.S. Johnson, F.T. Leighton and C.A.
McGeoch.  Tom Leighton will give a talk on March 12 describing proofs of some
of the conjectures spawned by this work.)

HOST:   Professor Tom Leighton

THIS SEMINAR IS JOINTLY SPONSORED BY THE COMBINATORICS SEMINAR & THE THEORY OF
COMPUTATION SEMINAR

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 1984  15:14 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Revolving Seminar
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the MIT-OZ bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

[I am uncertain as to the interest of AIList readers in robotics,
VLSI and CAD/CAM design, graphics, and other CS-related topics.  My
current policy is to pass along material relating to planning and
high-level reasoning.  Readers with strong opinions for or against
such topics should write to AIList-Request@SRI-AI.  -- KIL]


AUTOMATIC SYNTHESIS OF FINE-MOTION STRATEGIES FOR ROBOTS

Tomas Lozano Perez

The use of force-based compliant motions enables robots to carry out
tasks in the presence of significant sensing and control errors.  It
is quite difficult, however, to discover a strategy of such motions to
achieve a task.  Furthermore, the choice of motions is quite sensitive
to details of geometry and to error characteristics.  As a result,
each new task presents a brand new and difficult problem.  These
factors motivate the need for automatic synthesis for compliant
motions.  In this talk I will describe a formal approach to the
synthesis of compliant motion strategies from geometric description of
assembly operations.

(This is joint work [no pun intended -- KIL] with Matt Mason of CMU
and Russ Taylor of IBM)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Feb 84 09:02:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                  PH.D. ORAL

                        USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
                            AND SIMPLE MATHEMATICS
                       TO ANALYZE A PHYSIOLOGICAL MODEL

                    JOHN C. KUNZ, STANFORD/INTELLIGENETICS

                               23 FEBRUARY 1984

                  MARGARET JACKS HALL, RM. 146, 2:30-3:30 PM


   The objective of this research is to demonstrate a methodology for design
and use of a physiological model in a computer program that suggests medical
decisions.  This methodology uses a physiological model based on first
principles and facts of physiology and anatomy.  The model includes inference
rules for analysis of causal relations between physiological events.  The model
is used to analyze physiological behavior, identify the effects of
abnormalities, identify appropriate therapies, and predict the results of
therapy.  This methodology integrates heuristic knowledge traditionally used in
artificial intelligence programs with mathematical knowledge traditionally used
in mathematical modeling programs.  A vocabulary for representing a
physiological model is proposed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 21 Feb 84 10:47:50-PST
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Thursday, February 23, 1984

Professor Kenneth Kahn
Upssala University

will give a talk:

"Logic Programming and Partial Evaluation as Steps Toward
 Efficient Generic Programming"

at: Bldg. 200, (History Building), Room 107, 12 NOON

PROLOG and extensions to it embedded in LM PROLOG will be presented as
a means of describing programs that can be used in many ways.  Partial
evaluation  is  a  process  that  automatically  produces   efficient,
specialized versions  of programs.   Two partial  evaluators, one  for
LISP and one for PROLOG, will be presented as a means for winning back
efficiency that  was sacrificed  for generality.   Partial  evaluation
will also be presented as a means of generating compilers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Feb 84 15:27:53 EST
-FROM-
From: DSMITH@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rutger's University Computer Science Colloquium
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                            COLLOQUIUM

                    Department of Computer Science


         SPEAKER:   John Cannon
                    Dept. of Math
                    University of Sydney
                    Syndey, AUSTRIA

         TITLE:    "DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAMMING
                    LANGUAGE/EXPERT SYSTEMS FOR MODERN ALGEBRA"

                                  Abstract

Over the past 25 years a substantial body of algorithms has been
devised for computing structural information about graphs.  In order
to make these techniques more generally available, I have undertaken
the development of a system for group theory and related areas of
algebra.  The system consists of a high-level language (having a
Pascal-like syntax) supported by an extensive library.  In that the
system attempts to plan, at a high level, the most economical solution
to a problem, it has some of the attributes of an expert system.  This
talk will concentrate on (a) the problems of designing appropriate
syntax for algebra and, (b) the implementation of a language professor
which attempts to construct a model of the mathematical microworld
with which it is dealing.

          DATE:  Friday, February 24, 1984
          TIME:  2:50 p.m.
          PLACE: Hill Center - Room 705
               * Coffee served at 2:30 p.m. *

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
22
-DATE-
Date: Thu 16 Feb 84 17:59:03-PST
-FROM-
From: PIERRE@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information about personal robots?
-BODY-
   Do you know anything about domestic robots? personal robots?
I'm interested by the names and adresses of companies, societies,
clubs, universities involved in that field. Does there exist any review
about this? any articles? Do you work or have you heard of any projects
in this field?
Thank you to answer at Pierre@SRI-AI.ARPA

          Pierre

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Feb 84 13:58:28 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Laws of Form
-BODY-

I hope that Charlie Crummer will share some of the substance he finds in
"Laws of Form" with us (ref AIList Digest V2 #20).  I myself am more in the
group that does not understand what LoF has to say that is new, and indeed
doubt that it does say anything unique.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 84 15:32 MST
-FROM-
From: RNeal@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EURISKO
-BODY-
I have just begun reading the AI digests (our copy starts Nov 3 1983)
and I am very interested in the one or two transactions dealing with
EURISKO.  Could someone explain what EURISKO does, and maybe give some
background of its development?

On a totally different note, has anyone done any AI work on lower order
intelligence (ie.  that using instinct) such as insects, reptiles, etc.?
Seems they would be easier to model, and I just wondered if anyone had
attempted to make a program which learns they way they do and the things
they do .  I don't know if this belongs in AI or some simulation meeting
(is there one?).
                      >RUSTY<

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 1984 07:26-PST
-FROM-
From: SAC.LONG@USC-ISIE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Automated Documentation Tools
-BODY-
Is anyone aware of software packages available that assist in the
creation of documentation of software, such as user manuals and
maintenance manuals?  I am not looking for simple editors which
are used to create text files, but something a little more
sophisticated which would reduce the amount of time one must
invest in creating manuals manually (with the aid of a simple editor).
If anyone has information about such, please send me a message at:

     SAC.LONG@USC-ISIE

or   Steve Long
     1018-1 Ave H
     Plattsmouth NE 68048

or   (402)294-4460 or reply through AIList.

Thank you.

  --  Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Feb 84 5:36:12-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!minas @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem & Undecidable Propositions
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: foxvax1.317

Could someone please help out an ignorant soul by posting a brief (if that
is, indeed, possible!) explanation of what Fermat's last theorem states as
well as what the four-color theorem is all about.  I'm not looking for an
explanation of the proofs, but, simply, a statement of the propositions.

Thanks!

>phil minasian          decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!minas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 84 20:15:33-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mit-eddie!rh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Four color...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1290

I had thought that 4 color planar had been proved, but that
the "conjectures" of 5 colors for a sphere and 7 for a torus
were still waiting.  (Those numbers are right, aren't they?)

Randwulf  (Randy Haskins);  Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 84 21:33:46-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!dalcs!holmes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Four color...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dalcs.610

        The four colour problem is the same for a sphere as it is
for the infinite plane.  The problem for a torus was solved many
years ago.  The torus needs exactly 7 colours to paint it.

                                        Ray

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 1984 21:38:16-PST
-FROM-
From: utcsrgv!utai!tsotsos@uw-beaver
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI approach to ECG analysis
-BODY-
One of my PhD students, Taro Shibahara, has been working on an expert
system for arrhythmia analysis. The thesis should be finished by early summer.
A preliminary paper discussing some design issues appeared in IJCAI-83.
System name is CAA - Causal Arrhythmia Analyzer. Important contributions:
Two distinct KB's, one of signal domain the other of the electrophysiological
domain, communication via a "projection" mechanism, causal relations to assist
in prediction, use of meta-knowledge within a frame-based representation
for statistical knowledge. The overall structure is based on the
ALVEN expert system for left ventricular performance assessment, developed
here as well.

John Tsotsos
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Toronto

[Ray Perrault <RPERRAULT@SRI-AI> also suggested this lead.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Feb 84 10:07:36-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer ECG
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2043

At least three companies are currently marketing computer ECG analysis
systems.  They are Marquette Electronics, IBM, Hewlett-Packard.  We use the
Marquette system which works quite well.  Marquette and IBM use variants of
the same program (the "Bonner" program below, original development funded by
IBM.)  Apparently because of fierce competition, much current information,
particularly with regard to algorithms, is proprietary.  Worst in this regard
(a purely personal opinion) is HP who seems to think nobody but HP needs to
know how they do things and physicians are too dumb to understand anyway.
Another way hospitals get computer analysis of ECG's is through "Telenet" who
offers telephone connection to a time sharing system (I think located in the
Chicago area).  Signals are digitized and sent via a modem through standard
phone lines.  ECG's are analyzed and printed information is sent back.
Turn-around time is a few minutes.  They offer an advantage to small hospitals
by offering verification of the analysis by a Cardiologist (for an extra fee).
I understand this service has had some financial problems (rumors).

Following is a bibliography gathered for a lecture to medical students about
computer analysis of ECG's.  Because of this it is mainly from more or less
clinical literature and is oriented toward methods of validation (This is
tough, because reading of ECG's by cardiologists, like many clinical
decisions, is partly a subjective process.  The major impact of these systems
so far has been to force the medical community to develop objective criteria
for their analysis.)

                                 BIBLIOGRAPHY
                  Computer Analysis of the Electrocardiogram
                               August 29, 1983

BOOK

Pordy L (1977) Computer electrocardiography:  present status and criteria.
Mt. Kisco, New York, Futura

PAPERS

Bonner RE, Crevasse L, Ferrer MI, Greenfield JC Jr (1972) A new computer
program for analysis of scalar electrocardiograms.  Computers and Biomedical
Research 5:629-653

Garcia R, Breneman GM, Goldstein S (1981) Electrogram computer analysis.
Practical value of the IBM Bonner-2 (V2MO) program.  J. Electrocardiology
14:283-288

Rautaharju PM, Ariet M, Pryor TA, et al. (1978)  Task Force III:  Computers in
diagnostic electrocardiography.  Proceedings of the Tenth Bethesda Conference,
Optimal Electrocardiography.  Am. J. Cardiol. 41:158-170

Bailey JJ et al (1974) A method for evaluating computer programs for
electrocardiographic interpretation

I.  Application to the experimental IBM program of 1971.  Circulation 50:73-79

II.  Application to version D of the PHS program and the Mayo Clinic program
of 1968.  Circulation 50:80-87

III.  Reproducibility testing and the sources of program errors.  Circulation
50:88-93

Endou K, Miyahara H, Sato (1980) Clinical usefulness of computer diagnosis in
automated electrocardiography.  Cardiology 66:174-189

Bertrand CA et al (1980) Computer interpretation of electrocardiogram using
portable bedside unit.  New York State Journal of Medicine.  August
1980(?volume):1385-1389

Jack Buchanan
Cardiology and Biomedical Engineering
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(919) 966-5201

decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 24-Feb-84 18:35:44-GMT
-FROM-
From: JOLY G C QMA (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Parallel processing in the brain.
-BODY-
To compare the product of millions of years of evolution
(ie the human brain) with the recent invention of parallel
processors seems to me to be like trying to effect an analysis
of the relative properties of chalk and cheese.
Gordon Joly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 84 13:17:04 PST
-FROM-
From: Dr. Jacques Vidal <vidal@UCLA-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Brains: Serial or Parallel?
-BODY-

Is the brain parallel?  Or is the issue a red herring?

Computing and thinking are physical processes and as all physical
processes unfold in time are ultimately SEQUENTIAL even "continu-
ous" ones although the latter are self-timed (free-running, asyn-
chronous) rather than clocked.

PARALLEL means that there are multiple tracks with similar  func-
tions  like availability of multiple processors or multiple lanes
on a superhighway. It is a structural characteristic.

CONCURRENT means simultaneous. It is a temporal characteristic.

REDUNDANT means that there is  structure  beyond  that  which  is
minimally  needed  for  function,  perhaps to insure integrity of
function under perturbations.

In this context, PARALLELISM,  i.e. the deployment  of  multiple
processors  is the currency with which a system designer may pur-
chase these two commodities: CONCURRENCY and REDUNDANCY (a neces-
sary but not sufficient condition).

Turing machines have zero  concurrency.  Almost  everything  else
that  computes exhibit some. Conventional processor architectures
and  memories  are  typically  concurrent  at  the  word   level.
Microprogram are sequences of concurrent gate events.

There exist systems that are   completely  concurrent  and  free-
running.   Analog computers and combinational logic circuits have
these properties.  There, computation progresses by chunk between
initial  and final states.  A new chunk starts when the system is
set to a new initial state.

Non-von architectures have moved away from single track computing
and  from  the linear organization of memory cells. With cellular
machines another property appears: ADJACENCY. Neighboring proces-
sors use adjacency as a form of addressing.

These concepts are applicable to natural  automata:  Brains  cer-
tainly  employ  myriads  of  processors  and thus exhibit massive
parallelism. From the numerous processes that are  simultaneously
active  (autonomous  as well as deliberate ones) it is clear that
brains utilize unprecedented concurrency.  These  proces-
sors  are   free-running.   Control  and  data flows are achieved
through three-dimensional networks. Adjacency is a key feature in
most  of the brain processes that have been identified. Long dis-
tance communication is provided for by millions of parallel path-
ways, carrying highly redundant messages.

Now introspection indicates that conscious thinking is limited to
one  stream of thought at any given time. That is a limitation of
the mechanisms supporting consciousness amd some will claim  that
it  can be overcome. Yet even a single stream of thinking is cer-
tainly supported  by  many  concurrent  processes,  obvious  when
thoughts are spoken, accompanied by gestures etc...

Comments?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 1984 2051-PST
-FROM-
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI-20B%UCI-750a@csnet2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computing Worlds
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Sherry Turkle is coming out with a book that may deal in part with the
cultures of computing worlds. It also examines questions about how
children come to see computer applications as alive, animate, etc.

It was to be called, "The Intimate Machine." The title was
appropriated by Neil Frude who published a rather superficial book
with an outline very similar to that Turkle proposed to
some publishers. Frude's book is published by New American Library.

Sherry Turkle's book promises to be much deeper and careful.
It is to be published by Simon and Schuster  under a different
title.

Turkle published an interesting article
called, "Computer as Rorschach" in Society 17(2)(Jan/Feb 1980).

This article examines the variety of meanings that people
attribute to computers and their applications.

I agree with Greg that computing activities are embedded within rich
social worlds. These vary. There are hacker worlds which differ
considerably from the worlds of business systems analysts who develop
financial applications in COBOL on IBM 4341's.  AI worlds differ from
the personal computing worlds, and etc.  To date, no one appears to
have developed a good anthropological account of the organizing
themes, ceremonies, beliefs, meeting grounds, etc.  of these various
computing worlds.  I am beginning such a project at UC-Irvine.

Sherry Turkle's book will be the best contribution (that I know of) in
the near future.

One of my colleagues at UC-Irvine, Kathleen Gregory, has just
completed a PhD thesis in which she has studied the work cultures
within a major computer firm.  She plans to transform her thesis into
a book.  Her research is sensitive to the kinds of langauage
categories Greg mentioned.  (She will joining the Department of
Information and Computer Science at UC-Irvine in the Spring.)

Also, Les Gasser and Walt Scacchi wrote a paper on personal computing
worlds when they were PhD students at UCI.  It is available for $4
from:

        Public Policy Research Organization
        University of California,  Irvine
        Irvine,Ca. 92717

(They are now in Computer Science at USC and may provide copies upon
request.)


Several years ago I published two articles which examine some of the
larger structural arrangments in computing worlds:

        "The Social Dynamics of Technical Innovation in the
Computing World" ^&Symbolic Interaction\&,
1(1)(Fall 1977):132-146.


        "Patterns of Segmentation and Intersection in the
Computing World"
^&Symbolic Interaction\& 1(2)(Spring 1978): 24-43.

One section of a more recent article,
        "Value Conflicts in the Deployment of Computing Applications"
^&Telecommunications Policy\& (March 1983):12-34.
examines the way in which certain computer-based technologies
such as automated offices, artificial intelligence,
CAI, etc. are the foci of social movements.


None of my papers examine the kinds of special languages
which Greg mentions. Sherry Turkle's book may.
Kathleen Gregory's thesis does, in the special setting of
one major computing vendor's software culture.

I'll send copies of my articles on request if I recieve mailing
addresses.


Rob Kling
University of California, Irvine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
23
-DATE-
Date: Wed 22 Feb 84 16:36:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hierarchical Software Processor
-BODY-
                     [Forwarded by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                          An overview of HISP
                           by K. Futatsugi

               Special Lecture at SRI, 27 February 1984


    HISP (hierarchical software processor) is an experimental
language/system, which has been developed at ETL (Electrotechnical
Laboratory, Japan) by the author's group, for hierarchical software
development based on algebraic specification techniques.
    In HISP, software development is simply modeled as the incremental
construction of a set of hierarchically structured clusters of
operators (modules).  Each module is the constructed as a result of
applying one of the specific module building operations to the already
existing modules.  This basic feature makes it possible to write
inherently hierarchical and modularized software.
    This talk will inroduce HISP informally by the use of simple
examples.  The present status of HISP implementation and future
possibilities will also be sketched.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Feb 84 00:26:45-MST
-FROM-
From: Subra <Subrahmanyam@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Very High Level Silicon Compilation
-BODY-
    [Forwarded by Laws@SRI-AI.  This talk was presented at the SRI
                    Computer Science Laboratory.]


           VERY HIGH LEVEL SILICON COMPILATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE

                               P.A.Subrahmanyam
                        Department of Computer Science
                              University of Utah

The  possibility  of  implementing  reasonably  complex special purpose systems
directly in silicon using VLSI technologies has served to  underline  the  need
for design methodologies that support the development of systems that have both
hardware  and  software  components.    It  is  important  in  the long run for
automated design aids that support such methodologies to be based on a  uniform
set  of  principles  --  ideally,  on  a  unifying  theoretical basis.  In this
context, I have been investigating a general framework to support the  analytic
and synthetic tasks of integrated system design. Two of the salient features of
this basis are:

   - The  formalism  allows  various levels of abstraction involved in the
     software/hardware design  process  to  be  modelled.    For  example,
     functional  (behavioral),  architectural  (system  and  chip  level),
     symbolic  layout,  and  electrical  (switch-level)--  are  explicitly
     modelled  as  being  typical  of the levels of abstraction that human
     "expert designers" work with.

   - The  formalism  allows  for  explicit  reasoning  about   behavioral,
     spatial, temporal and performance criteria.

The  talk  will  motivate  the  general  problem,  outline  the  conceptual and
theoretical basis, and discuss some of our preliminary  empirical  explorations
in building integrated software-hardware systems using these principles.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Feb 84 12:19:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Giovanni <Bresina@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning Seminar
-BODY-
              [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

             *** MACHINE LEARNING SEMINAR AND PIZZA LUNCHEON ***


    Empirical Exploration of Problem Reformulation and Strategy Acquisition

Authors: N.S. Sridharan and J.L. Bresina
Location: Room 254, Hill Center, Busch Campus, Rutgers
Date: Wednesday, February 29, 1984
Time: Noon - 1:30 pm
Speaker: John L. Bresina

The  problem  solving  ability  of an AI program is critically dependent on the
nature of the symbolic  formulation  of  the  problem  given  to  the  program.
Improvement  in  performance  of  the  problem  solving  program can be made by
improving the strategy of controlling and directing search but more importantly
by shifting the problem formulation to a more appropriate form.

The choice of the initial formulation is critical, since  certain  formulations
are  more  amenable  to  incremental  reformulations than others.  With this in
mind,  an  Extensible  Problem  Reduction  method  is  developed  that   allows
incremental  strategy  construction.    The class of problems of interest to us
requires dealing with interacting subgoals.  A variety  of  reduction  operator
types   are   introduced  corresponding  to  different  ways  of  handling  the
interaction among subgoals.  These reduction  operators  define  a  generalized
And/Or  space including constraints on nodes with a correspondingly generalized
control structure for dealing with constraints and for combining  solutions  to
subgoals.    We  consider a modestly complex class of board puzzle problems and
demonstrate, by example, how reformulation of the problem can be carried out by
the construction and modification of reduction operators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 84 15:16:08 EST
-FROM-
From: BERMAN@RU-BLUE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar: The Computer as Musical Scratchpad
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

SEMINAR: THE COMPUTER AS MUSICAL SCRATCHPAD

Speaker: David Rothenburg, Inductive Inference, Inc.
Date:   Monday, March 5, 1984
Place:  CUNY Graduate Center, 33 West 42nd St., NYC
Room:   732
Time:   6:30 -- 7:30 p.m.

        The composer can use a description language wherein only those
properties and relations (of and between protions of the musical
pattern) which he judges significant need be specified.  Parameters of
these unspecified properties and relations are assigned at random.  It
is intended that this description of the music be refined in response
to iterated auditions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 26 Feb 84 17:06:23-CST
-FROM-
From: Bob Boyer <CL.BOYER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Programming Language for Group Theory (Dept. of Math)
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

            DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM
          A Programming Language for Group Theory
                        John Cannon
        University of Sydney and Rutgers University
                 Monday, February 27, 4pm

     The past 25 years has seen the emergence of a small but vigorous branch of
group theory which is concerned with the discovery and implementation of
algorithms for computing structural information about both finite and infinite
groups.  These techniques have now reached the stage where they are finding
increasing use both in group theory research and in its applications.  In order
to make these techniques more generally available, I have undertaken the
development of what in effect is an expert system for group theory.

     Major components of the system include a high-level user language (having
a Pascal-like syntax) and an extensive library of group theory algorithms.  The
system breaks new ground in that it permits efficient computation with a range
of different types of algebraic structures, sets, sequences, and mappings.
Although the system has only recently been released, already it has been
applied to problems in topology, algebraic number theory, geometry, graphs
theory, mathematical crystalography, solid state physics, numerical analysis
and computational complexity as well as to problems in group theory itself.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 1984 2025-PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Forest Baskett <decwrl!baskett@Shasta>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EE380 - Wednesday, Feb. 29 - Sedgewick on Algorithm Animation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

EE380 - Computer Systems Seminar
Wednesday, February 29, 4:15 pm
Terman Auditorium

                        Algorithm Animation
                          Robert Sedgewick
                          Brown University

    The central thesis of this talk is that it is possible to expose
fundamental characteristics of computer programs through the use of
dynamic (real-time) graphic displays, and that such algorithm animation
has the potential to be useful in several contexts.  Recent research in
support of this thesis will be described, including the development of
a conceptual framework for the process of animation, the implementation
of a software environment on high-performance graphics-based
workstations supporting this activity, and the use of the system as a
principal medium of communication in teaching and research.  In
particular, we have animated scores of numerical, sorting, searching,
string processing, geometric, and graph algorithms.  Several examples
will be described in detail.

[Editorial remark: This is great stuff.  - Forest]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Feb 84 16:32:24 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Gerry Wilson <wilson@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Call for Papers
-BODY-

                        CALL  FOR PAPERS
                        ================

               10'th International Conference on

                    Very Large Data Bases


The tenth VLDB conference is dedicated to the identification and
encouragement of research, development, and application of
advanced technologies for management of large data bases.  This
conference series provides an international forum for the promotion
of an understanding of current research; it facilitates the exchange
of experiences gained in the design, construction and use of data
bases; it encourages the discussion of ideas and future research
directions.  In this anniversary year, a special focus is the
reflection upon lessons learned over the past ten years and the
implications for future research and development.  Such lessons
provide the foundation for new work in the management of large
data bases, as well as the merging of data bases, artificial
intelligence, graphics, and software engineering technologies.

TOPICS:

Data Analysis and Design           Intelligent Interfaces
    Multiple Data Types                User Models
    Semantic Models                    Natural Language
    Dictionaries                       Knowledge Bases
                                       Graphics
Performance and Control
    Data Representation            Workstation Data Bases
    Optimization                       Personal Data Mangement
    Measurement                        Development Environments
    Recovery                           Expert System Applications
                                       Message Passing Designs
Security
    Protection                     Real Time Systems
    Semantic Integrity                 Process Control
    Concurrency                        Manufacturing
                                       Engineering Design
Huge Data Bases
    Data Banks                     Implementation
    Historical Logs                    Languages
                                       Operating Systems
                                       Multi-Technology Systems

Applications                       Distributed Data Bases
    Office Automation                  Distribution Management
    Financial Management               Heterogeneous and Homogeneous
    Crime Control                      Local Area Networks
    CAD/CAM

Hardware
    Data Base Machines
    Associative Memory
    Intelligent Peripherals


LOCATION:  Singapore
DATES:     August 29-31, 1984

TRAVEL SUPPORT: Funds will be available for partial support of most
                participants.

HOW TO SUBMIT:  Original full length (up to 5000 words) and short (up
  to 1000 words) papers are sought on topics such as those above.  Four
  copies of the submission should be sent to the US Program Chairman:

       Dr. Umeshwar Dayal
       Computer Corporation of America
       4 Cambridge Center
       Cambridge, Mass. 02142
       [Dayal@CCA-UNIX]

IMPORTANT DATES:    Papers Due:         March 15, 1984
                    Notification:       May 15, 1984
                    Camera Ready Copy:  June 20, 1984

For additional information contact the US Conference Chairman:

      Gerald A. Wilson
      Advanced Information & Decision Systems
      201 San Antonio Circle
      Suite 286
      Mountain View, California  94040
      [Wilson@AIDS]

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
24
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Feb 84 15:44:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Ron Brachman <Brachman at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-84 Paper Submission Deadline
-BODY-

*******  AAAI-84 PAPER SUBMISSION DEADLINE IS APRIL 2, 1984  *******


The SIGART Newsletter (No. 87, January 1984) has mistakenly published
two conflicting dates for submission of papers to AAAI-84.  Please note
that papers must be received in the AAAI Office in Menlo Park, CA, on or
before April 2, 1984.  This is the date that appears in the AAAI-84 Call
for Papers (printed on page 17 of the above-mentioned Newsletter).  The
date printed in the "Calendar" section on page 1 of the Newsletter is
incorrect.

Thank you,

Ron Brachman, Program Chair
Claudia Mazzetti, AAAI Executive Director

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 4 Mar 84 13:33:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP for IBM PC
-BODY-
I asked the list a while back about implementations of LISPs for
IBM PC's. I got a pointer for IQLISP, but seem to have misplaced
the pertinent info on how to order it. Can anyone supply this?

If you have any other implementations, I'll be glad to pass any
reviews back to the list.

>-ted

[The original message must have been prior to issue 53, and I
don't have it online.  Does some have the address handy?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 84 16:26:42-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2a!zev @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI (LISP,PROLOG,ETC.) for UNIX VAX
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou2a.269

A friend of mine is looking for a LISP, PROLOG, and/or
any other decent Artificial Intelligence system that
will run on a VAX under UNIX.

Please send replies directly to Mr. Leonard Brandwein at
aecom!brandw

He asked me to post this as a favor, since he does not
have direct access to the net.

In the likely case that you don't have a direct path
to aecom, here is one that will get you there from
any machine that can reach houxm:

houxm!hou2a!allegra!philabs!aecom!brandw

Of course, you can shorten the path if you can reach
any of the intermediate machines directly.

Thank you very much.

Zev Farkas  hou2a!zev  201 949 3821

[When sending to Usenet from the Arpanet, be sure to put double quotes
around all of the address prior to the @-sign.  Readers who want help
getting messages through the gateways should contact AIList-Request@SRI-AI.
Useful summaries or interesting replys may be published directly in
AIList, of course.  I will pass along some information about CProlog
in the next issue.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 84 5:12:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  AI (LISP,PROLOG,ETC.) for UNIX VAX
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Info-Unix distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Franz Lisp comes with Berkeley UNIX.  Interlisp is available.  Also T.
CProlog is available from Edinburgh.  You can get Rosie from RAND.
And these are just basics.  There's LOTS!  There are many schools out there
who are (possibly newly) in the AI business who couldn't afford DEC-20's
(obviously not SRI, UTexas, CMU, etc.), but who DID buy VAXen back when they
were good value for money.  And they're mostly running BSD, and they're
busily developing all the tools and software that AI folk do.  Is there any
PARTICULAR branch of AI you're interested in?  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 84 4:23:11 EST
-FROM-
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@brl-bmd>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Documentation tools
-BODY-
        Artificially intelligent it's not, and not even fancy; but there are
folks hereabouts that use the UNIX tools SCCS (or RCS) to do documentation
of various sorts.  Although intended for managing the writing, evolving and
maintaining of large software packages, they can't tell C from Fortran from
straight English text and they will quite cheerfully maintain for you the
update/revision tree in any case.

        I should imagine with a bit if thought you could link your code AND
documentation modules and manage 'em both simultaneously and equitably.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 84 18:43:59 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Manual generators
-BODY-
The SCRIBE system (Brian K. Reid of CMU and Janet H. Walker of BBN)
may be close to what you are looking for.  It has automatic paragraph
numbering, automatic table-of-contents generation, automatic indexing,
and automatic bibliography.  (I use the word "automatic" somewhat
loosely.  The user has to be involved.)  A more sophisticated system,
I believe, is in use at the University of Michigan's Information
Systems Design and Optimization System (ISDOS) project.  The contact
is Prof. Dan Teichroew in the Industrial and Operations Engineering
department at Ann Arbor.  It may be avaliable to ISDOS sponsors.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Mar 84 20:24:33-EST
-FROM-
From: Howard  Reubenstein <HBR@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for a Parser Generator
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the MIT-MC bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

        A friend of mine needs a parser generator which produces
output in either FORTRAN or LISP. Does anyone know where he can
get access to one?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 84 08:34 EST
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem & Undecidable Propositions
-BODY-
Fermat's Last Theorem:

is the assertion that

                A^N + B^N = C^N

has no solution in integers for N > 2.  (For N = 2, of course, all the
well-known right triangles like [3,4,5] are solutions.)

The Four-Color Theorem:

states that any planar map can be colored so that no two adjacent
regions are the same color using no more than four different colors.
(Regions must be connected; "adjacent" means having a common boundary of
finite length, i.e. not just touching at a point.

The latter was shown to be true by two mathematicians at the University
of Illinois, using a combination of traditional mathematical reasoning
and computer-assisted analysis of a large set of graphs.  An article
describing the proof can be found in a back issue of /Scientific
American/.

The former appears in a manuscript by Fermat, with a marginal notation
to the effect that he had found a slick proof, but didn't have enough
space to write it down.  This was discovered after his death, of course.
Most mathematicians believe the theorem to be true, and most do not
think Fermat is likely to have found a valid proof, but neither
proposition has been proved beyond question.

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Feb 84 20:42:40-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!andrew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem & Undecida - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: inmet.945

Fermat's Last Theorem states that the equation

    n    n    n
   A  + B  = C

has solutions in positive integers a, b, c, n only when n = 2.

The "four-color map problem" states that any map (think of, say, a map of the
US) requires at most four colors to color all regions without using the same
color for any two adjacent ones.  (This is for 2-dimensional maps.  Maps
on a sphere or torus require more - 5 and 7, I think.)

The former has neither been proven nor disproven.  The latter was "proven"
with the aid of a computer program; many feel that this does not constitute
a true proof (see all the flames elsewhere in this group).  Incidentally,
the school where it was "proven" changed their postage meters to print
"FOUR COLORS SUFFICE" on outgoing mail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Mar 84 13:53:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Sam Hahn <SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Domestic Robotics
-BODY-

I find that Robotics Age (the journal of intelligent machines), published by
Robotics Age, Inc, located at:

                Strand Building
                174 Concord Street
                Peterborough, NH  03458         (603) 924-7136

is a good source of information on low-end, more personal, and thus more
"domestic"ly oriented robotics.  For example, the advertisers include

        Micromation:    voice command system for Hero-1
        Iowa Precision Robotics:
                        68000-controlled educ/pers'l robot
        Micron Techn.:  computer vision for your PC
        S.M. Robotics:  PR kit for $59.95

just to name a few from the February 1984 issue.

Their articles are also more PR-oriented, and often include some level of
design info.

I'm new to the publication myself (about 1/2 year), but find it a source of
information not elsewhere available.

                                        -- sam hahn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 84 19:25:34-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computer ECG - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5890

Ivan Bratko, of the Josef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, has
recently achieved some remarkable results. With the aid of computer
simulation he has built an expert system capable of diagnosing multiple
simultaneous heart malfunction causes from ECG outputs. This was a
significant contribution to medical science, since for the class of failures
he treated, there was no known method of diagnosing anything more complicated
than a single cause.

His work will be printed as a monograph from the newly-formed "International
School for the Synthesis of Expert Knowledge" (ISSEK), which will have its
first meeting this summer. ISSEK is an affiliation of computer science labs
dedicated to the automatic generation of new knowledge of super-human quality.
(Membership of ISSEK is by invitation only).

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
                                        { pur-ee | ihnp4 } ! uiucdcs ! marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Mar 84 20:54:42 EST
-FROM-
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computer ECG, FDA testing of AI programs
-BODY-
    Apparently because of fierce competition, much current information,
    particularly with regard to algorithms, is proprietary.  Worst in this
    regard (a purely personal opinion) is HP who seems to think nobody but
    HP needs to know how they do things and physicians are too dumb to
    understand anyway.
    ...
    They offer an advantage to small hospitals by offering verification of
    the analysis by a Cardiologist (for an extra fee).

What the latter seems to say is that the responsibility for accepting
the diagnosis is that of the local cardiologist.  I cannot see a
responsable doctor examining a few runs of a program's output and
proclaiming it "correct."

A hedge against complaints of computers taking over decision making
processes from human has been that we can look at the algorithms
ourselves or examine the reasons that a system concluded something.

If this information becomes proprietary the government will probably
license software for medical purposes the way the FDA does for new
drugs.

Imagine a testing procedure for medical diagnostic AI programs that is
as expensive and complicated as that for testing new drugs.

(ron)

[Ron makes a good point.  As a side issue, though, I would like
to mention that H-P has not been entirely secretive about its
techniques.  On March 8, Jim Lindauer of H-P will present a seminar
at Stanford (MJH 352, 2:45PM) on "Uses of Decision Trees in ECG
Analysis".  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Feb 84 15:36:33 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: U.S. Response to Japan's AI efforts
-BODY-
In the new "soft" computer journal from Springer-Verlag, 'Abacus', Vol.
1, #2, Winter 1984, is an essay by Eric A. Weiss reviewing Feigenbaum
and McCorduck's 'Fifth Generation' book and general AI books.  The
general A.I. review is worth reading.  The whole piece is lengthy, but I
quote only from the final section.

>-Rodney Hoffman

[This is a rather remarkable book review.  In addition to discussing the
"The Fifth Generation" and several AI reference works and textbooks,
Eric Weiss describes the history and current partitioning of AI, the
disputes and alignments of the major AI centers, and the solution to
our technological race with foreign powers.  It's well worth reading.

This second issue of Abacus also has interesting articles on Ada,
the language and the countess, tomographic and NMR imaging (with
equations!), and the U.S. vs. IBM antitrust suit, as well as columns
on computers and the laws and other topics.  The magazine resembles
a Scientific American for the computer-oriented, and the NMR article
is of quality comparable to IEEE Computer.  -- KIL]

        ------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Response

On the basis of all this perspective, let me return to the Fifth
Generation Project itself and suggest that the U.S. response should be
thoughtful, considered, not guided by panic or fear, but based on
principles this nation has found fruitful:
        build on experience
        do what you do best
        encourage enthusiasm
What has been our experience with foreign science and technology?  We
know that new scientific knowledge gives the greatest benefit to those
nations which are most ready to exploit and use it, and this ready group
may not include the originating nation.... [discussion of rocketry,
automobiles, shipbuilding, steel, consumer electronics]

From this experience, the U.S. should look forward to reaping the
benefits from whatever the Japanese Fifth Generation Project develops,
and, just because we are bigger, richer, and stronger, benefiting more
from these improvements than the originating nation....

... "Do what you do best."  We do not compete with the Japanese very
well, but we do best in helping them.... [The U.S.] is best at helping
others, especially Japan, and at giving money away.... Thus, the
indicated course for the U.S. ... is to help the Japanese Fifth
Generation Project in every way we can: by supplying grants of money; by
loaning college professors; by buying and copying its product,
exploiting its scientific and technological developments and
breakthroughs as fast as they appear; and by ignoring or clucking
sympathetically over any failures or missed schedules.  Finally,...
encourage enthusiasm.

Young military people may murmur against this stance on the grounds that
military developments must be home-grown and that the development of
technology which might be used in weapons should be guided by the
military.  This assertion is borne out neither by history nor by the
present public attitude of the DoD.... [discussion of WWII anti-aircraft
guns, mines, torpedoes, and many other such]

... The advantages of letting another nation develop your military
hardware are frequently and forcefully explained to other countries by
the DoD and its industrial toadies, but these logical arguments... are
never put in their equally logical vice-versa form....

The danger is not that the Japanese will succeed -- for their successes
will result in U.S. benefits -- but that somehow we will not make prompt
use of whatever they accomplish.  We might manage this neglect if we
overdo our national inclination to  fight them and compete with them....

A related but more serious danger lies in the possibility that our
military people will get their thumbs into the American AI efforts and
make secret whatever they don't gum up.... Even the best ideas can be
killed, hurt, or at least delayed if hedged around with bureaucrats and
secrecy limitations.

... We should press vigorously forward on all fronts in the unplanned
and uncoordinated fashion that we all understand.  We should let a
thousand flowers bloom.  We should encourage everyone.... We should hand
out money.  We should transport experts.  We should jump up and down.
We should be ready to grab anybody's invention , even our own, and use
it.  We should be ready to seize winners and dump losers, even our own.
We should look big, fearless, happy, and greedy, and not tiny,
frightened, worried, and dumb.

... The conclusion is: don't bet on the Japanese, don't bet against
them, don't fear them.  Push forward with confidence that the U.S. will
muddle through -- if it can keep its government from making magnificent
plans for everyone.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
25
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 84 18:36:25 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Laws of Form
-BODY-
I don't pretend to be an expert on LoF but I think there are at least two
interesting aspects to it.  One is that it provides a calculus that can be used
to "compile" a set of syllogisms (page 124 of the Dutton 1979 edition).  A
second is that it does away with Russell and Whitehead's cumbersome Theory
of Types.  All orders of self-referential sets of statements can be evaluated
within the set of "imaginary" values.

You can argue that the compilation of syllogism sets (rule sets) can already
be done using truth tables.  I think that the benefit of Spencer-Brown's
calculus is that it is much more efficient and should run much faster.

Those who are really interested should loosen up and plow through the book
a few times with an open mind.  It is really very thought-provoking.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 Mar 84 20:34:27-EST
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: parallel minds?
-BODY-
For a very good (if 3 years old) discussion on parallism
in the brain, refer to Hinton and Anderson's book "Parallel
Models of Associative Memory, pages 32-44 [Hin 81]. The
applicable section is entitled "Parallelism and Distribution
in the Mammalian Nervous System". Structurally, paralleism is
inherent throughout the nervous system, making simple
sequential models of human low-level cognition highly
suspect.

Though it was not openly stated in the discussion on this list,
there seems to be two issues of parallelism involved here:
low-level parallelism, and parallelism at some higher
"intellectual" level. The latter subject is rightly the domain
for experimentalists, and should not be approached with
simple AI techniques as introspection ("Well, I *feel*
sequential when I think...").

One known experimental fact does suggest a high degree of
parallelism, even in higher cognitive functions. Since
the firing rate of a neuron is on the order of
2-3 milliseconds, and some highly complex tasks (such as
face recognition) are performed in about 300 ms, it seems
clear that the brain uses massive parallelism, not just
in the visual system but throughout [Fel 79].

I would suggest that future discussions offer the reader
a few more experimental details, lest the experimental
psychologists in our midst feel unappreciated.

                              ---------
[Hin 81]
   "Parallel Models of Associative Memory, G. Hinton,
   J. Anderson, eds, Laurence Earlbaum Assoc., 1981, pages 32-44.

[Fel 79]
   "A Distributed Information Processing Model of Visual
   Memory", J.A. Feldman, University of Rochester Computer
   Science Department, TR52, December 1979.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 4 Mar 84 21:56:21-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Latest Math & CS Library "New Reports List" posted on-line.
-BODY-
[Every month or two Stanford announces its new CS report acquisitions.
I culled and sorted many of the citations for an earlier set of AIList
issues, but I have not gotten around to doing so for the last six
months or so.  Instead, I am forwarding this notice as an example
of the notices you can get by contacting LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.  For those
interested in FTPing the report listings, I would characterize them
as being lengthy, somewhat cryptic and inconveniently formatted, and
usually divided about equally between AI-related topics and non-AI
math/CS topics (VLSI design, hardware concepts, operating systems,
networking, office automation, etc.).  -- KIL]

The latest Math & Computer Science Library "New Reports List" has been
posted on-line.  The file is "<LIBRARY>NEWTRS" at SCORE, "NEWTRS[LIB,DOC]"
at SAIL, "<CSD-REPORTS>NEWTRS" at SUMEX, and "<LIBRARY>NEWTRS" at SIERRA.
In case you miss a reports list, the old lists are being copied to
"<LIBRARY>OLDTRS" at SCORE and "<LIBRARY>OLDTRS" at SIERRA where they will
be saved for about six months.

If you want to see any of the reports listed in the "New Reports List,"
either come by the library during the display period mentioned or send a
message to LIBRARY at SCORE, giving your departmental address and the
six-digit accession numbers of the reports you want to see, and we will
check them out in your name and send them to you as soon as they are available.

The library receives technical reports from over a hundred universities
and other institutions.  The current batch includes - among others -
reports from:


      Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule Zuerich. Instituet fuer Informatik.
      IBM. Research Division.
      Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA).
      New York University. Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.
      U.K. National Physical Laboratory. Division of Information Technology
        and Computing.
      Universite de Montreal. Departement d'Informatique et de Recherche
        Operationnelle.
      University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science.
      University of Southern California. Information Sciences Institute.
      University of Wisconsin-Madison. Computer Sciences Department.




                                        - Richard Manuck
                                          Math & Computer Science Library
                                          Building 380 - 4th Floor
                                          LIBRARY at SCORE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1984 2142-PST
-FROM-
From: Zellich@OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New location for list-of-lists (Interest-Groups.TXT)
-BODY-
File Interest-Groups.TXT has been moved from OFFICE-3 and is now
available on the SRI-NIC host in file <NETINFO>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT

Requests for copies of the list, updates to the list, etc., should be
sent to ZELLICH@SRI-NIC in the future, instead of ZELLICH@OFFICE-3 or
RICH.GVT@OFFICE-3.

Cheers,
Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 22-Feb-84 23:45:00-GMT
-FROM-
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <OKeefe%EDXA@UCL-CS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Portability of C-Prolog
-BODY-
[The following is forwarded from the Prolog digest.  I consider
it an interesting account of the difficulties of making AI
software available on different systems.  The message is
8K characters, so I have put it last in the digest for those
who want to skip over it. -- KIL]

There was a question in this Digest about whether C-Prolog had
been ported to Apollos.  I don't know about that, but I have had a
great deal to do with C-Prolog, so I can say what might give trouble
and what shouldn't.

The first thing to beware of is that there are two main versions
of C-Prolog drifting around.  The one most people have is the one
distributed by EdCAAD (which is where Fernando Pereira wrote it), and
while that runs under VAX/UNIX and VAX/VMS both, and is said to run
on at least one 68000 box, V7 C compilers don't like it much.  The
other version is distributed by EdAI on a very informal basis, but it
should be available from Silogic in a couple of weeks.  The EdAI
version has been ported to the Perq (running ICL's C-machine micro-
code and their PaNiX port of V7 UNIX) and to another C-machine called
the Orion (that compiler isn't a derivative of PCC).  C-Prolog has
something like one cast per line, the EdAI version has stronger type
declarations so that the compiler produces no warning messages.  Both
versions are essentially the same, so EdAI cannot distribute their
version to anyone who hasn't got a licence for the EdCAAD version.

What C-Prolog v1.4d.edai requires is

[1] a V7 or later C compiler
[2] pointers should be 32 bits long
[3] the compiler should support 32 bit integer arithmetic, and
    floats should be storable in 32 bits.  (In fact if anyone has
    a decent C compiler for the Dec-10 [a] please can we have a copy
    and [b] C-Prolog should run quite happily on it.)
[4] It needs to steal 3 bits out of floats, so it needs to know a bit
    about the floating-point storage format.  IEEE and VAX-11 are ok.
[5] I/O uses <stdio> exclusively.
    C-Prolog supports ~username/X and $envvar/X expansion, but if the
    "unix" identifier is not defined it knows not to ask.
[6] brk() and sbrk() are needed.  If you haven't got them, you could
    declare a huge array and use that, but that would require source
    hacking.
[7] The MAJOR portability problem is that C-Prolog assumes that all
    pointers into the area managed by brk() and sbrk() look like
    POSITIVE integers.  It doesn't matter if the stack or text areas
    lie in negative address space (in fact the stack IS in negative
    address space on the Perq and Orion).  Getting around this would
    be a major exercise, not to be undertaken by anyone without a
    thorough understanding of the way C-Prolog works.  Since we have
    a GEC series 63 machine, and since there is some political
    pressure to adopt this as a UK IKBS machine (to which application
    it is NOT suited, nor any other), and since that machine puts
    everything in negative address space, we may produce a version of
    C-Prolog which can handle this.  But don't hold your breath.

The Perq (running C) and the Orion are both word-addressed.  This is
no problem.  Getting C-Prolog running on the Orion was a matter of
telling it where to look for its files and saying "make", but then
the Orion, though nothing like a VAX, runs 4.1bsd.  Getting it going
on a Perq was harder, but the bugs were in the Perq software, not in
C-Prolog.  The main thing anyone porting C-Prolog to a new machine
with a decent C and positive address space should have to worry about
is the sizes of the data areas, in the file parms.c.

To give this message some interest for people who couldn't care
less about porting C-Prolog, here are some general notes on porting
Prolog interpreters written in C.  (I've seen seven of them, but not
UNH Prolog.)

A well written Prolog interpreter uses the stdio library, so that
I/O shouldn't be too much of a problem.  But it may also want to
rename and/or delete files, to change the working directory, or to
call the command interpreter.  These operations should be in one file
and clearly labelled as being operating-system dependent.  Porting
from one version of UNIX to another should cause no difficulty, but
there is a problem with calling the shell: people using ?.?bsd will
expect the C-shell, and an interpreter written for V7 may not know
about that.  If you change it, be sure to use the environment
variable SHELL to determine what shell to use.  (Ports to S3 should
do this too, so that users who are supposed to be restricted to rsh
can't escape to sh via prolog.)

No Prolog implementor worth his salt would dream of using malloc.
As a result, a Prolog interpreter is pretty well bound to use brk()
and/or sbrk().  It may do so only at start-up (C-Prolog does this),
or it may do so dynamically (a Prolog with a garbage collector, and
pitifully few of them have, will probably do this).  In either case
allocation is virtually certain to be word-aligned and in units of
words, where a word is a machine pointer.

There are two ways of telling what sort of thing a pointer is
pointing to.  One way is to use TAGS, that is to reserve part of the
word to hold a code saying (integer,pointer to atom,pointer to clause
pointer to variable,&c).  This is particularly tempting on machines
like the M68000 where part of an address is spare anyway.  The other
way is to divide the address space into a number of partitions, such
as (integers, atoms, clauses, global stack, local stack, trail), and
to tell what something points to by checking *where* it points.
C-Prolog could be described as "semi-tagged": integers, floats,
pointers to clauses, and pointers to records all live in the virtual
partition [-2^31,0) and are tagged, pointers to real objects are
discriminated by where they point.  Other things being equal, tagged
systems are likely to be slower.  But tagged systems should be immune
to the "positive address space problem".  So you have to check which
sort your system is.  If it is tagged, you should check the macros
for converting between tagged form and machine addresses VERY VERY
carefully.  They may not work on your machine, and it may be possible
to do better.  Here is an example of what can go wrong.

/* Macro to convert a 24-bit byte pointer and a 6-bit tag to a
   32-bit tagged pointer
*/
#define Cons(tag,ptr) (((int)(ptr)<<8) | tag)
/* Macro to extract the tag of a tagged pointer */
#define Tag(tptr) ((tptr)&255)
/* Macro to convert a tagged pointer to a machine pointer */
#define Ptr(tptr) (pointertype)(tptr>>8)
/* Macro to find the number of words between two tagged
   pointers
*/
#define Delta(tp1,tp2) (((tp1)-(tp2))>>8)

DRAT!  That was meant to be >>10 not >>8.

What can go wrong with this?  Well, Delta can go wrong if the machine
uses word addresses rather than byte addresses, in which case it
should be >>8 as I first wrote instead of >>10.  Cons can go wrong
if the top bits of a pointer are significant.  (On the Orion the top
2 bits and the bottom 24 bits are significant.)  Ptr can go wrong
if addresses are positive and user addresses can go over 2^23, in
which case an arithmetic right shift may do horrid things.  I have
seen at least two tagged Prolog interpreters which would go wrong on
the Orion.

Prolog interpreters tend to be written by people who do not know
all the obscure tricks they can get up to in C, so at least you ought
not be plagued by the "dereferencing 0" problem.

If anyone reading this Digest has problems porting C-Prolog other
than the positive address space problem, please tell me.  I may be
able to help.  There is one machine with a C compiler that someone
tried to port it to, and failed, and that is a Z8000 box where the
user's address space is divided up into a lot of 64kbyte chunks, and
the chunks aren7t contiguous!  A tagged system could handle that,
though with some pain.  C-Prolog can't handle it at all.

If anyone has already ported some version of C-Prolog to another
machine (not a VAX, Perq/UNIX, Orion, or M68000/UNIX) please let me
know so that we can maintain a list of C-Prolog versions, saying
what machine, what problems, and whether your version is available to
people holding an EdCAAD licence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
26
-DATE-
Date: 29 Feb 84 13:54:56 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 3/8/84
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                Mark E. Stickel
                SRI International

                A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover

An extension of Prolog, based on the model elimination theorem-proving
procedure, would permit production of a Prolog technology theorem prover
(PTTP). This would be a complete theorem prover for the full first-order
predicate calculus, not just Horn clauses, and provide capabilities for
full handling of logical negation and indefinite answers. It would be
capable of performing inference operations at a rate approaching that of
Prolog itself--substantially faster than conventional theorem-proving
systems.

PTTP differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the "occurs
check" for soundness, the complete model elimination input inference
procedure, and a complete staged depth-first search strategy. The use of
an input inference procedure and depth-first search minimize the
differences between this theorem-proving method and Prolog and permit the
use of highly efficient Prolog implementation techniques.

        Thursday, March 8, 1984 4:00 pm
        Hewlett Packard
        Stanford Division
        5M Conference room

        1501 Page Mill Rd
        Palo Alto

        *** Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby on time, so that you may
be escorted to the meeting room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Feb 84 13:07:26-PST
-FROM-
From: MESEGUER@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Model of LISP Computation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CLSI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                REWRITE RULE SEMINAR AT SRI-CSL
                    Wednesday March 7, 3:00 pm

                   A Model of Computation
         Theory and application to LISP-like systems

                      Carolyn Talcott
                    Stanford University

The goal of this work is to provide a rich context in which a
variety of aspects of computation can be treated and where new
ideas about computing can be tested and developed.  An important
motivation and guide has been the desire to understand the construction
and use of LISP like computation systems.

The first step was to define a model of computation and develop the
theory to provide basic tools for further work.  The main components are

    - basic model and notion of evaluation
    - equivalence relations and extensionality
    - an abstract machine as a subtheory
    - formalization of the metatheory

Key features of this theory are:

    - It is a construction of particular theories uniformly
      from given data structures (data domain and operations).

    - Focus is on control aspects of computation

    - A variety of objects
      Forms  -- for describing control aspects of computation
      Pfns  -- abstraction of form in an environment
            -- elements of the computation domain
            -- computational analogue of partial functions
      Carts -- for collecting arguments and values
      Envs -- intepretation of symbols appearing in forms
      cTrees -- objects describing particular computations


Applications of this theory include

   -  proving properties of pfns
   -  implementation of computation systems
   -  representing and mechanizing aspects of reasoning


In this talk I will describe RUM -  the applicative
fragment (flavor).  RUM is the most mathematically
developed aspect of the work and is the foundation
for the other aspects which include implementation
of a computation system called SEUS.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1984 10:00:33-EST
-FROM-
From: walter at mit-htvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GRADUATE STUDENT LUNCH
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from the MIT-MC bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                     Computer Aided Conceptual Art (CACA)
                      Eternally Evolving Seminar Series
                                   presents

                        YOKO: A Random Haiku Generator

Interns gobble oblist hash      | We will be discussing YOKO and the
Cluster at operations           | related issues of computer modeling
Hidden rep: convert!            | of artists, modeling computer artists,
                                | computer artists' models, computer
Chip resolve to bits            | models of artists' models of computers,
Bus cycle inference engine      | artist's cognitive models of computers,
Exposing grey codes             | computers' cognitive models of artists
                                | and models, models' models of models,
Take-grant tinker bucks         | artists' models of computer artists,
Pass oblist message package     | modelling of computer artists' cognitive
Federal express                 | models and artist's models of cognition.

                     Hosts: Claudia Smith and Crisse Ciro
                         REFRESHMENTS WILL BE SERVED

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 84 09:26:46 EST
-FROM-
From: PETTY@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VanLehn Colloquium on Learning
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


          SPEAKER:   Dr. Kurt VanLehn
                     Xerox Corp.
                     Palo Alto Research Center

          TITLE:    "FELICITY CONDITIONS FOR HUMAN SKILL ACQUISITION"

A theory of how people learn certain procedural skills will be
presented.  It is based on the idea that the teaching and learning
that goes on in a classroom is like an ordinary conversation.  The
speaker (teacher) compresses a non-liner knowledge structure (the
target procedure) into a linear sequence of utterances (lessons).  The
listener (student) constructs a knowledge structure (the learned
procedure) from the utterance sequence (lesson sequence).  In recent
years, linguists have discovered that speakers unknowingly obey
certain constraints on the sequential form of their utterances.
Apparently, these tacit conventions, called felicity conditions or
conversational postulates, help listeners construct an appropriate
knowledge structure from the utterance sequence.  The analogy between
conversations and classrooms suggests that there might be felicity
conditions on lesson sequences that help students learn procedures.
This research has shown that there are.  For the particular kind of
skill acquisition studied here, three felicity conditions were
discovered.  They are the central hypotheses in the learning theory.
The theory has been embedded in a model, a large AI program.  The
model's performance has been compared to data from several thousand
students learning ordinary mathematical procedures:  subtracting
multidigit numbers, adding fractions and solving simple algebraic
equations.  A key criterion for the theory is that the set of
procedures that the model "learns" should exactly match the set of
procedures that students actually acquire including their "buggy"
procedures.  However, much more is needed for psychological validation
of this theory, or any complex AI-based theory, than merely testing
its predictions.  Part of the research has involved finding ways to
argue for the validity of the theory.

           DATE:   Tuesday, March 6, 1984
           TIME:   11:30 a.m.
           PLACE:  Room 323 - Hill Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 84 09:27:06 EST
-FROM-
From: PETTY@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tong Colloquium on Knowledge-Directed Search
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        SPEAKER:   Christopher Tong

        TITLE: "CIRCUIT DESIGN AS KNOWLEDGE-DIRECTED SEARCH"

     The process of circuit design is usefully viewed as search through
a large space of circuit descriptions. The search is knowledge-diverse
and knowledge-
intensive: circuits are described at many levels of abstraction (e.g.
architecture, logic, layout); designers use many kinds of knowledge and
styles of reasoning to pursue and constrain the search.

     This talk presents a preliminary categorization of knowledge about
the design process and its control. We simplify the search by using a
single processor-oriented language to cover the function to structure
spectrum of circuit abstractions. We permit the circuit design and the
design problem (i.e. the associated goals) to co-evolve; nodes in the
design space contain explicit representations for goals as well as
circuits. The design space is generated by executing tasks, which
construct and refine circuit descriptions and goals (aided by libraries
of components of goals). The search is guided locally by goals and
tradeoffs; globally it is resource-limited (in design time and quality),
conflict-
driven, and knowledge-intensive (drawing on a library of strategies).

     Finally, we describe an interactive knowledge-based computer
program called DONTE (Design ONTology Experiment) that is based on the
above framework. DONTE transforms architectural descriptions of a
digital system into circuit-level descriptions.

             DATE:  Thursday, March 8, 1984
             TIME:  2:50 p.m.
             PLACE:  Room 705 - Hill Center
                   *  Coffee Served at 2:30 p.m.  *

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 84 09:27:23 EST
-FROM-
From: PETTY@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ferrante Colloquium on Automatic Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

               SPEAKER:  Jeanne Ferrante
                         IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                         Yortown Heights, NY

               TITLE:   "PROGRAMS = CONTROL + DATA

A new program representation called the program dependence graph or
PDG is presented which makes explicit both the data values on which
an operation depends (through data dependence edges) and the control
value on which the execution of the operation depends (through control
dependence edges).  The data dependence relationships determine the
necessary sequencing between operations with the same control
conditions, exposing, exposing potential parallelism.  In this talk we
show how the PDG can be used to solve a traditional stumbling block in
automatic program improvement.  A new incremental solution to the
problem of updating data flow following changes in control flow such
as branch deletion is presented.

The PDG is the basis of current work at IBM Yorktown Heights for
compiling programs in sequential languages like FORTRAN to exploit
parallel architectures.

               DATE:  Friday, March 9, 1984
               TIME:  2:50 p.m.
               PLACE:  Room 705 - Hill Center
                      *  Coffee Served at 2:30 p.m.  *

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 84 17:45 PST
-FROM-
From: Guibert.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Talk by David McAllester: Mon. Mar. 12 at 11:00 at PARC
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Title: "MATHEMATICAL ONTOLOGY"

Speaker: David McAllester (M.I.T.)
When: Monday March 12th at 11:00am
Where: Xerox PARC Twin Conference Room, Room 1500

        AI techniques are often divided into "weak" and "strong" methods.  A
strong method exploits the structure of some domain while a weak method
is more general and therefore has less structure to exploit.  But it may
be possible to exploit UNIVERSAL structure and thus to find STRONG
GENERAL METHODS.  Mathematical ontology is the study of the general
nature of mathematical objects. The goal is to uncover UNIVERSAL
RELATIONS, UNIVERSAL FUNCTIONS, and UNIVERSAL LEMMAS which can be
exploited in general inference techniques.  For example there seems to
be a natural notion of isomorphism and a standard notion of essential
property which are universal (they can be meaningfully applied to ALL
mathematical objects).  These universal relations are completely ignored
in current first order formulations of mathematics. A particular theory
of mathematical ontology will be discussed in which many natural
universal relations can be precisely defined.  Some particular strong
general inference techniques will also be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 1984  22:41 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Revolving Seminar
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the MIT-XX bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Wednesday, March 7   4:00pm   8th floor playroom


               Knowledge and Problem Solving Processes
                         in Organizations

                            Gerald Barber


Human organizations have frequently been used as models for AI systems
resulting in such theories as the scientific community metaphor, the
society of mind and contract nets among others.  However these human
organizational models have been limited by the fact that do no take
into account the epistemological processes involved in organizational
problem solving.  Understanding human organizations from an
epistemological perspective is becoming increasingly important as a
source of insight into intelligent activities and for computer-based
technology as it becomes more intricately involved in organizational
activities.

In my talk I will present the results of an organizational study which
attempted to identify problem solving and knowledge processing
activities in the organization.  I will also outline the possibilities
for development of both human organizational models and artificial
intelligence systems in light of this organizational study.  More
specifically, I will also discuss the shortcoming of organizational
theories and application of the results of this work to highly
parallel computer systems such as the APIARY.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 09:05:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGLUNCH ANNOUNCEMENT -- Friday, March 9, 1984
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Friday,   March 9, 1984
LOCATION: Braun Lecture Hall (smaller), ground floor of Seeley Mudd
          Chemistry Building (approx. 30 yards west of Gazebo)
12:05

SPEAKER:  Ben Grosof
          Stanford University, HPP

TOPIC:    AN INEQUALITY PARADIGM FOR PROBABILISTIC KNOWLEDGE
          Issues in Reasoning with Probabilistic Statements

BACKGROUND:     Reasoning with probabilistic knowledge and evidence is
a key aspect of  many AI systems.  MYCIN  and PROSPECTOR were  pioneer
efforts but were limited and  unsatisfactory in several ways.   Recent
methods  address  many  problems.    The  Maximum  Entropy   principle
(sometimes called  Least  Information)  provides  a  new  approach  to
probabilities. The Dempster-Shafer theory  of evidence provides a  new
approach to confirmation and disconfirmation.

THE TALK: We begin by relating probabilistic statements to logic.   We
then  review  the  motivations  and  shortcomings  of  the  MYCIN  and
PROSPECTOR  approaches.   Maximum  Entropy  and  Dempster-Shafer   are
presented, and recent work using them is surveyed.  (This is your  big
chance to  get up  to date!)   We  generalize both  to a  paradigm  of
inequality constraints on  probabilities.  This  paradigm unifies  the
heretofore divergent  representations  of probability  and  evidential
confirmation in  a formally  satisfactory  way.  Least  commitment  is
natural.  The interval  representation for  probabilities includes  in
effect a meta-level which allows  explicit treatment of ignorance  and
partial information,  confidence  and  precision,  and  (in)dependence
assumptions.  Using bounds  facilitates reasoning ABOUT  probabilities
and evidence.  We extend the Dempster-Shafer theory significantly  and
make an  argument  for  its  potential,  both  representationally  and
computationally.  Finally we list some open problems in reasoning with
probabilities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 84 11:18 EST
-FROM-
From: Leslie Heeter <heeter%SCRC-VIXEN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: STeP-84
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        In addition to the call for papers below, Eero Hyvonen
has asked me to announce that they are looking for a lecturer
for the tutorial programme. The tutorial speaker should preferably
have experience in building industrial expert systems. For a few
hours' lecture, they are prepared to pay for the trip, the stay, and
some extra.

Exhibitors and papers are naturally welcome, too.


                        C A L L  F O R  P A P E R S

                                STeP-84

                Finnish Artificial Intelligence Symposium
                (Tekoalytutkimuksen paivat)
                Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland
                August 20-22, 1984


Finnish Artificial Intelligence Symposium (STeP-84) will be held at
Otaniemi campus of Helsinki University of Technology. The purpose of
the symposium is to promote AI research and application in Finland.

Papers (30 min) and short communications (15 min) are invited on
(but not restricted to) the following subfields of AI:

Automaattinen ohjelmointi       (Automatic Programming)
Kognitiivinen mallittaminen     (Cognitive Modelling)
Asintuntijajarjestelmat         (Expert Systems)
Viidennen polven tietokoneet    (Fifth Generation Computers)
Teolliset sovellutukset         (Industrial Applications)
Tietamyksen esittaminen         (Knowledge Representation)
Oppiminen                       (Learning)
Lisp-jarjestelmat               (Lisp Systems)
Logikkaohjelmointi              (Logic Programming)
Luonnollinen kieli              (Natural Language)
Hahmontunnistus                 (Pattern Recognition)
Suunnittelu ja etsinta          (Planning and Search)
Filosofiset kysymykset          (Philosophical Issues)
Robotiikka                      (Robotics)
Lauseen todistaminen            (Theorem Proving)
Konenako                        (Vision)

The first day of the symposium is reserved for the Tutorial programme
on key areas of AI presented by foreign and Finnish experts. There will
be an Industrial Exhibition during the symposium. Submission deadline
for one page abstracts of papers and short communications is April 15th.
Camera ready copy of the full text is due by July 31st. The address of
the symposium is:

        STeP-84
        c/o Assoc. Prof. Markku Syrjanen
        Helsinki University of Technology
        Laboratory of Information Processing Science
        Otakaari 1 A
        02150 Espoo 15                          Telex: +358-0-4512076
        Finland                                 Phone: 125161 HTKK SF

Local Arrangements:

Eero Hyvonen, Jouko Seppanen, and Markku Syrjanen
helsinki University of Technology

Program Committee:

Kari Eloranta                           Erkki Lehtinen
    University of Tampere                   University of Jyvaskyla
Seppo Haltsonen                         Seppo Linnainmaa
    Helsinki University of Tech.            University of Helsinki
Rauno Heinonen                          Klaus Oesch
    State Technical Research Centre         Nokia Corp.
Harri Jappinen                          Martti Penttonen
    Sitra Foundation                        University of Turku
Matti Karjalainen                       Matti Pietikainen
    Helsinki University of Tech.            University of Oulu
Kimmo Koskenniemi                       Matti Uusitalo
    University of Helsinki                  Finnish CAD/CAM Association
Kari Koskinen
    Finnish Robotics Association

Organised under the auspices of Finnish Computer Science Society.
Conference languages will be Finnish, Swedish, and English.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
27
-DATE-
Date: 6 Mar 1984 1612-EST
-FROM-
From: CASHMAN at DEC-MARLBORO
-SUBJECT-
Subject: For AI digest: request for program synthesis bibliography
-BODY-
Does anyone have (a pointer to) a bibliography (preferably annotated) of
papers on program synthesis?  Is there a good survey paper or article on
the field (other than what's in the Handbook of AI)?

  -- Paul Cashman (Cashman@DEC-Marlboro)

[Richard Waldinger (@SRI-AI) suggests a survey and bibliography on
program synthesis in "Synthesis: Dreams -> Programs" which appeared in
the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering about 1975.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Mar 1984 0643 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard B. August <AUGUST@JPL-VLSI>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AUGUST@JPL-VLSI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SEARCH FOR PATTERN/CHARACTER RECOGNITION ALGORITHMS,
-BODY-           ARTICLES ETC.

BEGINNING RESEARCH ON CHARACTER RECOGINITION TECHNIQUES.
OBJECTIVE: DEVELOP CHARACTER INPUT DEVICE (WAND) TO ACCEPT THE MAJORITY
OF FONTS FOUND IN PUBLICATIONS.

POINTER TO PUBLICATIONS ARE HELPFUL.

THANKS

REGARDS RAUGUST

[The international joint conferences on pattern recognition would
be a good place to start.  Proceedings are available from the IEEE
Computer Society.  A 1962 book I've found interesting is "Optical
Character Recognition" by Fischer, et al.  Good luck (you'll need
it).  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 84 14:14:35 PST
-FROM-
From: William Jerkovsky <wj@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MYCIN
-BODY-
I would like to execute a simple problem on MYCIN. I have recently gotten
interested in expert systems; since my wife is bacteriologist I think both
of us would enjoy the interaction with the program via our home computer
(terminal).

Can anyone point out the way to get a (free) copy of MYCIN (even if it is
only a simple early version)? Is there a way I can execute a version
interactively from home without actually getting a copy? Does anybody know
of an on-line tutorial on MYCIN? Is there a simple version of MYCIN (or a
reasonable facsimile) which runs on an

Apple //e or on an IBM PC?

I'll appreciate whatever help I can get.

Thanks

Bill Jerkovsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 15:48:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Sam Hahn <SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IQLISP Source
-BODY-
The source for IQLisp is:

        Integral Quality, Inc.
        P.O. Box 31970
        Seattle, WA  98103
        (206) 527-2918

Claims to be similar to UCI Lisp, except function def's are stored in cells
within identifiers, not on property lists; arg. handling is specified in the
syntax of the expression defining the function, I/O functions take an explicit
file argument, which defaults to the console; doesn't support FUNARGS.

IQLisp does provide:
        32kb character strings,
        77000 digit long integers,
        IEEE format floating point,
        point and line graphics,
        ifc to assembly coded functions,
        31 dimensions to arrays,

Costs $175 for program and manual, PCDOS only.

I've taken the liberty to include some of their sales info for those who may
not have heard of IQLisp.  It's fairly new, and they claim to soon make a
generic MSDOS version (though probably without graphics support).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 84 09:16 EST
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Four-Color Theorem
-BODY-
By "planar map" in my previous message I meant to connote a structure on
a two-dimensional surface, not strictly a flat plane.  In fact, the
plane and the sphere are topologically equivalent (the plane is a sphere
if infinite radius) so four colors suffice for both; for the torus,
which has a different "connectivity," it has long been known that seven
colors are both necessary and sufficient.

I'm not a mathematician but at one time (right after reading an article)
I felt as if I understood the proof.  As I recall it is based on the
fact that if there are any maps that require five colors there is a
minimal (smallest) map that requires five colors.  It is possible to
construct sets of graphs (representing map regions) of varying
complexity for which any map must include at least one member of the
set.  It is also possible to determine for some particular graph whether
it can be "reduced" (so that it represents fewer regions) without
altering its four-colorability or its interactions with its neighbors.
Clearly the minimal five-color map cannot contain a "reducible" graph
(else it is not minimal).

Evidently, if one can construct a set of graphs of which ANY map must
contain at least one member, and show that EVERY member of that set is
reducible, then the minimal five-color map cannot exist; hence no
five-color map can exist.  Now if it were possible to construct such a
set with, say, 20 graphs one could show explicitly BY HAND that each
member was reducible.  No one would call such a proof "ugly" or "not a
true proof;" it might not be considered particularly elegant but it
wouldn't be outside the mainstream of mathematical reasoning either (and
it doubtless would have been found years ago).  The problem with the
actual case is that the smallest candidate set of graphs had thousands
of members.  What was done in practice was to devise algorithms which
would succeed at reducing "most" (>95%?) reducible graphs.  So most of
the graph reduction was done by computer, the remaining cases being done
by hand.  (I understand that to referee the paper another program had to
be written to check the performance of the first.)

I would like to hear any criticism of the Illinois proof that is more
specific than "ugly" or "many feel that this does not constitute a true
proof."  A pointer to the mathematical literature will suffice; my
impression is that the four-color theorem is widely accepted as having
been proved.  (We may be getting a bit far afield of AI here; I would
say that my impression of the techniques used in the automatic reduction
program was that they were not "artificial intelligence," but since they
were manifestly "artificial" I hesitate to do so for fear of rekindling
the controversy over what constitutes "intelligence!")

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Mar 84 10:58:51-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Artificial Intelligence Report
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I have received a sample copy of the Artificial Intelligence Report, vol. 1
number 1, January 1984. It is being published locally and will have ten
issues per year.  It is more of a newsletter type publication with the
latest information on research (academic and industrial) and applied AI
within industry.  The cost is $250 per year.  The first issue has 15 pages.
I will place on the new journal shelf.  [...]

[I may try to start charging for AIList ...  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 84 16:50 PST
-FROM-
From: "Allen Robert"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EURISKO/AM review (415) 422-4881
-BODY-

In response to Rusty's request regarding EURISKO (V2,#22),  the  following
is a brief excerpt from my thesis qualifying/background paper on knowledge
acquisition in expert systems.  I tried to summarize the  system  and  its
history;   a  lot  of  detail has been removed.  I hope the description is
accurate;  please feel free to criticize.


EURISKO is a part of  Doug  Lenat's  investigation  of  machine  learning,
drawing   its   roots  from  his  Stanford  Ph.D.   thesis  research  with
AM [Lenat 76].  AM was somewhat unusual among learning systems in that  it
does  not have an associated performance element (expert system).  Rather,
AM is supplied with an initial  knowledge  base  representing  simple  set
theoretic  concepts,  and  heuristics  which  it  employs to explore those
concepts.   The  goal  is  for  AM  to  search  for  new   concepts,   and
relationships between concepts, guided by those heuristics.

AM represents concepts (eg.  prime and  natural  numbers)  in  frames.   A
frame's  slots  describe  attributes  of  the  concept,  such as its name,
definition, boundary values, and examples.  A definition slot includes one
or  more  LISP  predicate  functions;   AM applies definition functions to
objects (values, etc.) to determine  whether  they  are  examples  of  the
concept.   For  instance,  the  Prime  Number frame has several definition
predicates which can each determine (for different  circumstances)  if  an
integer   is  prime  or  not;   those  predicates  (and  boundary  values)
effectively define the concept "prime number" within AM.

Any slot may have zero or more heuristics, expressed as production  rules,
expressing strategies for exploring concepts.  Heuristics primarily obtain
or verify slot values;  the may also  postulate  new  concepts/frames,  or
specify  tasks  to  be  performed.   AM  maintains  an  "agenda  of tasks"
expressed as goals, in the form "Find or verify the value of slot S,  from
concept/frame  C."  The  basic  control  structure selects a task from the
agenda, and checks the slot (S) for heuristics.  If one or more are found,
a  rule  interpreter  is  invoked  to  execute  them.   If  slot  S has no
heuristics, it may point (possibly  through  several  levels)  to  another
frame  whose  corresponding  (same  name)  slot  does, in which case those
heuristics are executed;  thus, heuristics from higher-level concepts  may
be  employed  or  inherited  in  exploring  less  abstract concepts.  This
continues until all the related heuristics are executed;  AM then  returns
to the agenda for a new goal.

AM is provided with an  initial  knowledge  base  of  around  one  hundred
frames/concepts   from   finite  set  theory,  which  include  around  250
heuristics.  The system is then "set loose"  to  explore  those  concepts,
guided  by  heuristics;   AM  postulates new concepts and then attempts to
judge their  validity  and  utility.   Over  a  period  of  time,  AM  may
conjecture  and  explore  several  hundred  new concepts;  some eventually
become well established and are  themselves  used  as  extensions  of  the
initial knowledge base.

AM never managed to discover concepts  that  were  not  already  known  in
mathematics;   however  it  did  discover  many  well  known  mathematical
principles (eg.  de Morgan's laws, unique factorization),  some  of  which
were  originally  unknown to Lenat.  It was hoped that AM might might also
be applied to  the  domain  of  heuristics  themselves;   i.e.   exploring
heuristic  concept/frames  instead of mathematical concept/frames, but the
system did not make  much  progress  in  this  area.   Lenat  explains  an
underlying   problem : AM's   representation  of  domain  knowledge  (LISP
functions) is fundamentally similar  to  the  primitives  of  mathematical
notation,  while  heuristics  lack  a  similar close relationship.  He has
developed  new  ideas  regarding  the  meaning   and   representation   of
heuristics,   which   are   being   explored   with  the  AM's  successor,
EURISKO [Lenat 82,83a,83b].

One significant lesson learned from AM, and being applied in  EURISKO,  is
(roughly)  that  explicit  treatment  of heuristics and meta-knowledge (as
well as assertive domain knowledge) is a necessary condition for  learning
heuristics  (and  assertive  domain  knowledge).   The  main  focus of the
EURISKO project is to  investigate  representation  and  reasoning/control
issues   related  to  learning  (heuristics,  operators,  and  new  domain
objects).  Also, where concepts in AM were related to mathematical notions
(like  Prime  Numbers),  flexibility  is  an important design criteria for
EURISKO, which is being applied  to  a  number  of  problem  domains  (see
[Lenat 83b]).

Like AM, EURISKO is a frame based system which represents  domain  objects
in   frames.    However,   where   AM  attached  heuristics  to  slots  in
concepts/frames, EURISKO represents heuristics themselves as  frames.   In
general,  EURISKO  goes  much  further  than AM in explicitly defining and
representing knowledge at many levels;  everything possible is  explicitly
represented  as  an  object.   For  example, every kind of slot (eg.  ISA,
Examples) has a frame associated with it, which  explicates  the  meanings
and  operations  of  the slot.  This allows the system to reason with each
kind of slot (as well as with the slot value), for example to know whether
a  particular  type  of  slot  represents guaranteed, probable, or assumed
knowledge.

Part of the approach in EURISKO is to  emphasize  the  importance  of  the
representation  language itself in solving a problem.  The RLL frame based
language [Greiner 80] was developed for  this  purpose.   In  RLL,  almost
every object (notably including heuristics) is represented as an explicit,
discrete frame ("unit" as they are called in RLL).  Thus heuristics become
objects which a system can use, manipulate, and reason about just like any
other object.  Without going into details, RLL has a  number  of  features
which  are  oriented  toward  explicit  representation and manipulation of
domain knowledge, both factual and heuristic.  It has a more sophisticated
"multiple-agendae" control structure which is itself represented as frames
in the knowledge base.  Operations with and on frames  include  a  lot  of
bookkeeping  by  RLL, intended to retain explicit knowledge which was lost
in AM.  Because heuristics are explicitly represented objects (frames), it
is possible for built-in or domain-specific knowledge to be applied to the
learning of heuristics (i.e.  using built-in heuristics which specify  how
to postulate and explore new heuristics).

EURISKO has been notably successful as both a learning and  a  performance
(expert)  system in a number of domains.  [Lenat 83b] describes the use of
EURISKO in playing the Traveller  Trillion  Credit  Squadron  (TCS)  game,
where it has won two national tournaments, and discovered some interesting
playing strategies.  In [Lenat 82a], EURISKO's application to  "high-rise"
VLSI  circuit design is described.  EURISKO constructed a number of useful
devices and circuits, and has discovered  some  important  heuristics  for
circuit design.

                              ----------

Greiner, R., Lenat, D.  1980.  "A Representation Language Language." Proc.
AAAI 1, pp.  165-169.

Lenat, D.B.  1976.  "AM:  An artificial intelligence approach to discovery
in   mathematics   as  heuristic  search."  Ph.D.   Diss.   Memo  AIM-286,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford University, Stanford,  Calif.
(Revised  version  in R.  Davis, D.  Lenat (Eds.), Knowledge Based Systems
in Artificial Intelligence.  New York:  McGraw-Hill.  1982.)

Lenat, D.B.  1982.  "The nature of heuristics." AI Journal 19:2.

Lenat, D.B.  1983a.  "The nature of heuristics II." AI Journal 20:2.

Lenat, D.B.  1983b.  "EURISKO:  A program that learns new  heuristics  and
domain concepts, The nature of heuristics III." AI Journal 21:1-2.

                              ----------
Rob Allen <ALLEN ROBERT@LLL-MFE.ARPA>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
28
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 84 17:17:53 EST
-FROM-
From: GOLD@RU-BLUE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a request for suggestions....
-BODY-
Some of you may be aware of the project known as SMAuG (Simultaneous
Multiple AdventUrer Game) that is ongoing at Rutgers University.  It is
an applied research project designed to examine the problems of distrib-
uting the work of a complex piece of software accross local intelligent
devices and a remote timesharing computer.  The software is a multiple
player adventure game.

Within the game a player may interact with other players, or with
software controlled players referred to as Non Player Characters (NPC's).
The NPC's are the area of the project which I am personally involved
with and for which I write to this bboard.  There are many interesting
subtopics within the NPC issue.  NPC communication, self mobility,
acquisition of knowledge, and rescriptability just to name a few.
The object is to create an NPC which can interact with a player character
without making it obvious that the it is machine controlled and not
another player character.  [Aha! Another Turing test! -- KIL]

I would like to request suggestions of relevent publications that I
should be familiar with.  This is a large project, but I am loathe
to make it even larger by ignoring past work that has been done.
I would greatly appreciate any suggestions for books, journal articles,
etc. that might offer a new insight into the problem.

Please send responses to Gold@RU-Blue.

Thank you very much,

Cynthia Gold

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Mar 84 10:54:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Four-Color Theorem
-BODY-
I am not familiar with the literature on the 4-color proof, nor with whether it
is commonly accepted.  I do however have a lot of experience with computer
programs and have seen a lot of subtle bugs that do not surface 'til long after
everyone is convinced the software works for all possible cases after having
used it.  The fact that another person wrote a different program that got the
same results means little as the same subtle bugs are likely to be unforeseen
by other programmers.  If the program is so complicated that you cannot prove
it or its results correct, then I think the mathematicians would be foolish
to accept its output as a proof.

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Mar 84 09:59:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Slava Prazdny <Prazdny at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Four-Color Problem
-BODY-
re: the 4-color problem
A nice overview paper by the authors is in "Mathematics Today",
L.A.Steen (ed),Vintage Books, 1980.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 1984 11:22-PST
-FROM-
From: Raymond Bates <RBATES at ISIB>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp Availability
-BODY-
A version of Interlisp is available from ISI that runs on the VAX
line of computers.  We have versions for Berkeley UNIX 4.1 or 4.2
and a native VMS version.  It is a full and compete
implementation of Interlisp.  For more information send a message
to Interlisp@ISIB with your name and address or send mail to:

Information Science Institute
ISI-Interlisp Project
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA  90292

Interlisp is a programming environment based on the lisp
programming language.  Interlisp is in widespread use in the
Artificial Intelligence community.  It has an extensive set of
user facilities, including syntax extensions, uniform error
handling, automatic error correction, an integrated
structure-based editor, a sophisticated debugger, a compiler and
a file system.

P.S.  I just got AGE up and running under ISI-Interlisp (the new
name of Interlisp-VAX) and will start to work on EMYCIN soon.

/Ray

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Mar 84 20:35:02-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Playboy 4/84 article: AI-article by Lee Gomes
-BODY-
If you needed an excuse to read playboy (even deduct it from your taxes ?? )
on page 126 is an article:

        The Mind of a New Machine.  can the science of artificial intelligence
                produce a computer that's smarter than the men who build it?

nothing earth-shaking, a little history, a little present state of the art,
a little outlook into the future.  but, it's interesting what's being fed
to this audience.  Something to hand to a friend who wants to know what
this is all about, and doesn't mind getting side-tracked by "Playmates
Forever" on page 129.

        Enjoy or Suffer, it's your choice.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Mar 84 16:55:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems in Computer Graphics
-BODY-
The February issue of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications has a short
blurb on Dixon and Simmons' expert system for mechanical engineering design.
Following the blurb, on p. 61, is the notice

    IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications is planning an issue
    featuring articles on expert systems in computer graphics
    applications in early 1985.  Those interested in contributing
    should contact Carl Machover, Machover Associates, Inc., 199
    Main St., White Plains, NY 10601; (914) 949-3777.


The issue also contains an article on "Improved Visual Design for Graphics
Display" by Reilly and Roach.  The authors mention the possibility of
developing an expert consulting system for visual design that could be
used to help programmers format displays.  (I think automated layout
for the graphics industry would be even more useful, and an excellent
topic for expert systems research.)  They cite

    J. Roach, J.A. Pittman, S.S. Reilly, and J. Savarse, "A Visual
    Design Consultant," Int'l Conf. Cybernetics and Society, Seattle,
    Wash., Oct. 1982.

as a preliminary exploration of this idea.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Mar 84 17:23:30-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System for Hardware/Software Debugging
-BODY-
The March issue of IEEE Computer has an article by Roger Hartley
of Kansas State University on the CRIB system for fault diagnosis.
The article starts with a discussion of expertise among experts
vs. that among practitioners, and about the process of building
a knowledge base.  Hartley then introduces CRIB and discusses, at
a fairly high level, its application to fault diagnosis in ICL 2903
minicomputers.  He then briefly mentions use of the same hierarchical
diagnostic strategy in debugging the VME/K operating system.

This article is an expanded version of the paper "How Expert Should an
Expert System Be?" in the 7th IJCAI, 1981.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 March 1984 1426-est
-FROM-
From: Roz    <RTaylor.5581i27TK @ RADC-MULTICS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Production tools
-BODY-
To all who have queried me regarding what info I have or have received on
expert systems production tools...I must apologize.  Have not gotten it
into suitable format as yet;  I am literally behind the power curve
with some new efforts (high visibility) recently assigned to me (approx
4 weeks ago--about the time I could start editing what I have).  I will
post it to the AIList, but unless something helps it won't be before
April.  Unfortuanately, what has already been massaged is in 132 char
[tabular] format and would not post easily to the list that way.  I am
sorry, folks.  But I have not forgotten you.
                                  Roz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Mar 84 19:12:34 PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More Laws of Form
-BODY-

Before  I  say anything,  you all should know that I consider myself at  best
naive  concerning formal logic.   Having thus outhumbled myself  relative  to
anyone  who  might answer me and having laid a solid basis for my  subsequent
fumbling around, I give you my comments about Laws of Form.  I do so with the
hope that it stirs fruitful discussion.

First,  as  concerns  notation.   LoF  uses a symbol called at  one  point  a
"distinction"  consisting  of  a  horizontal  bar  above  the  scope  of  the
distinction,  ending  in a vertical bar.   Since I can't reproduce that  very
well  here,  I  will  use parentheses to designate scope where the  scope  is
otherwise ambiguous.  Also, LoF uses a blank space which can be confusing.  I
will  use  an  underline "_" in its place.   And LoF  places  symbols  in  an
abutting  position to indicate disjunction.   I will use a comma to  separate
disjunctive terms.

In  Lof,  the string of symbols " (a)|,  b ",  or equivalently,  " a|,  b" is
equivalent  logically to the statement " a implies b".   The comparison  with
the  equivalent  statement  " (not a) or b" is also obvious.  The "|"  symbol
seems to be used as a postfix unary [negation] operator.  "a" and "b" in  the
formulae  are  either  "_"  or  "_|" or any allowable combination of these in
terms of the constructions available through the finite  application  of  the
symbols "|" and "_".  LoF goes on to talk about this form and what it implies
at some length.   Although it derives some interesting looking formulae (such
as the one for distribution), I could find nothing that cannot be equivalently
derived from Boolean Algebra.

Eventually, LoF comes around to the discussion of paradoxical forms, of which
the  statement  "this sentence is false" is the paradigm.   As I  follow  the
discussion at this point, what one really wants is some new distinction (call
it "i") which satisfies the formula " (i|)|, i".  At least I think it  should
be a distinction, perhaps it should also be considered simply to be a symbol.
The above form purports to represent the sentence "this sentence is false".
The  formulation  in  logic  is similar to the way  one  arrives  at  complex
numbers,  so  LoF also refers to this distinction as being  "imaginary".   At
this  point I am very excited,  I think LoF is going to explore the  formula,
create an algebra that one can use to determine paradoxical forms,  etc.  But
no  development of an algebra occurs.   I played around with this some  years
ago  trying  to get a consistent algebra,  but I didn't really  get  anywhere
(could well be because I don't know what I'm doing).  Lof goes on to describe
the  distinction  "i"  in terms of  alternating  sequences  of  distinctions,
supposedly linking the imaginary distinction to the complex number  generator
exp(ix), however I find this discussion most unconvincing and unenlightening.

Now LoF returns to the subject of distinction again,  describing distinctions
as  circles in a plane (topologically deformable),  where distinction  occurs
when one crosses the boundary of a circle.   In this description,  the set of
distinctions  one can make is firmly specified by the number of circles,  and
the  ways  that circles can include other circles,  etc.   LoF gives  a  most
suggestively  interesting  example of how the topology of the  surface  might
affect  the distinctions,  and even states that different distinctions result
on spheres than on planes, and on toroids than on either, etc.  Unfortunately
he  does not expound in this direction either,  and does not link it  to  his
"imaginary"  form  above,  and I think I might have given up on LoF  at  this
time.   LoF  doesn't  even discuss  intersecting  circles/distinctions.

The  example  that  LoF  gives is of a sphere where one  distinction  is  the
equator,   and   where  there  are  two  additional  distinctions   (circles,
noninclusive  one  of  the  other) in  the  southern  hemisphere.   Then  the
structure  of the distinctions one can make depends on whether one is in  the
northern  hemisphere,  or  in  the southern hemisphere external  to  the  two
distinctions there, or inside one of the circles/distinctions in the southern
hemisphere.   As  I say,  I really thought (indeed think today) that  perhaps
there is some meat to be found in the approach,  but I don't have the time to
pursue it.

I  realize  that  I have mangled LoF pretty  considerably  in  presenting  my
summary/assessment/impressions of it.     This is entirely in accordance with
my expertise established above.   Still,  this is about how much I got out of
LoF.   I found some suggestive ideas,  but nothing new that I (as a  definite
non-logician) could work with.   I would dearly love it if someone would show
me how much more there is.  I suspect I am not alone in this.


Carl Kaun  ( ckaun@AIDS-unix )

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
29
-DATE-
Date: 3 Mar 84 17:14:40-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jalbers @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Atten:Osborne owners
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: bnl.361

ATTENTION users of Osborne computers.  The Capital Osborne Users Group (CapOUG)
is seeking other Osborne users groups across the country.  If you are a member
of such a group, please send the name of the president, along with an address
and phone number.  We are also looking for contacts via the net (USENET or
ARPA/MILNET) between groups across the country.   If you can be such a contact
or know of someone who can, please send me mail.  All that would be envolved
is sending and recieving  summaries of meetings, parts of newsletters, and
acting as an interface between your group and the other groups 'subscribing' to
this 'mailing list'.  At this point, it is not certain wheather communication
would be through a mail 'reflector', or via a 'digest', however the latter is
most likely.  In return for your service, the CapOUG will exchange our software
library, which consists of over 120 SD disketts, and articles from our
newsletter.  The 'interface' would be asked to offer the like to the other
members of the list.
Even if you don't belong to a group, this would be a great way to find
the group in your area.

                                                        Jon Albersg
                                                ARPA    jalbers@BNL
         (UUCP)...!ihnp4!harpo!floyd!cmc12!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jalbers

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Mar 84 22:55:24-CST
-FROM-
From: Bob Boyer <CL.BOYER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A. P. Morse
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A. P. Morse, Professor of Mathematics at UC Berkeley, author
of the book "A Theory of Sets," died on Monday, March 5.
Morse's formal theory of sets, sometimes called Kelley-Morse
set theory, is perhaps the most widely used formal theory
ever developed.  Morse and his students happily wrote proofs
of serious mathematical theorems (especially in analysis)
within the formal theory; it is rare for formal theories
actually to be used, even by their authors.  A key to the
utility of Morse's theory of sets is a comprehensive
definitional principle, which permits the introduction of
new concepts, including those that involve indicial (bound)
variables.  Morse's set theory was the culmination of the
von Neumann, Bernays, Godel theory of sets, a theory that
discusses sets (or classes) so "large" that they are not
members of any set.  Morse took delight in making the
elementary elegant.  His notion of ordered pair "works" even
if the objects being paired are too "big" to be members of a
set, something not true about the usual notion of ordered
pairs.  Morse's theory of sets identifies sets with
propositions, conjunction with intersection, disjunction
with union, and so forth.  Through his students (e.g., W. W.
Bledsoe), Morse's work has influenced automatic
theorem-proving.  This influence has shaped the development
of mechanized logics and resulted in mechanical proofs of
theorems in analysis and other nontrivial parts of
mathematics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 84 09:00:57 pst
-FROM-
From: bobgian%PSUVAX1.BITNET@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Netwide AI Course Bites the Dust
-BODY-
The "Netwide AI and Mysticism" course I had hoped to offer to all
interested people has become the victim of my overenthusiam and the
students' underenthusiasm.

The term here is half over, and student energies and motivations are
YET to rise to the occasion.  I have tried my best, but (aside from a
very select and wonderful few) Penn State students just do not have
what it takes to float such a course.  I am spending most of my time
just trying to make sure they learn SOMETHING in the course.  The
inspiration of a student-initiated and student-driven course is gone.

My apologies to ALL who wrote and offered useful comments and advice.
My special thanks to all who mailed or posted material which has been
useful in course handouts.  I WILL try this again!!  I may give up on
the average Penn State student, but I WON'T give up on good ideas.

I will be moving soon to another institution -- one which EXPLICITLY
encourages innovative approaches to learning, one which EXPLICITLY
appeals to highly self-motivated students.  We shall try again!!

In the meantime, the "Netwide AI course" is officially disbanned.  Those
students here who DO have the insight, desire, and maturity to carry it
on may do so via their own postings to net.ai.  (Nothing I could do or
WANT to do would ever stop them!)  To them all, I say "You are the hope
for the world."  To the others, I say "Please don't stand in our way."

        -- Bob "disappointed, but ever hopeful" Gian...

[P.s.]

Since my last posting (808@psuvax.UUCP, Sunday Mar 4) announcing the
"temporary cessation" of the "Netwide AI and Mysticism" course from Penn
State, I have received lots of mail asking about my new position.  The thought
struck, just AFTER firing that note netwards, that instead of saying

    "I will be moving soon to another institution ...."

I SHOULD have said

    "I will soon be LOOKING for another institution -- one which EXPLICITLY
    encourages innovative approaches to learning, one which EXPLICITLY
    appeals to highly self-motivated students.  We shall try again!!"

That "new institution" might be a school or industrial research lab.  I want
FIRST to leave behind at Penn State the beginnings of what someday could be
one of the finest AI (especially Cognitive Science and Machine Learning)
labs around.  Then I'll start looking for a place more in tune with my
(somewhat unorthodox, by large state school standards) teaching and research
style.

To all who wrote with helpful comments, THANKS.  And, if anybody knows of
such a "new institution", I'm WIDE OPEN to suggestions!!!

        -- Bob "ever hopeful" Gian...

Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507)
Arpa:   bobgian%PSUVAX1.BITNET@Berkeley
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET         CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.CSNET
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP            -or-    allegra!psuvax!bobgian
USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Mar 84 18:05:04-PST
-FROM-
From: DKANERVA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Joint Seminar on Concurrency
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                     JOINT SEMINAR ON CONCURRENCY

                      Carnegie-Mellon University
                           July 9-11, 1984

     The National Science Foundation  (NSF)  of the United States  and
the Science  and  Engineering  Council  (SERC)  of  Great Britain have
agreed to support a Joint Seminar on Concurrency.  The seminar intends
to  discuss the state  of the art in concurrent programming languages,
their  semantics, and the problems of proving properties of concurrent
programs.

     A small number of participants from Britain and the United States
have already  been  invited,  but  other  interested  researchers  are
encouraged to attend.  Because of the limited NSF and SERC funding, no
financial support is  available.  However,  if you  are interested  in
participating and can find your own support, please contact as soon as
possible:

    Stephen D. Brookes                  Brookes@CMU-CS-A
    Department of Computer Science      Home (412) 441-6662
    Carnegie-Mellon University          Work (412) 578-8820
    Schenley Park
    Pittsburgh, PA  15213

     The other organizers of the meeting are Glynn Winskel  (Cambridge
University) and Bill Roscoe (Oxford University), but inquiries  should
be directed to Brookes at Carnegie-Mellon.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 07 Mar 84  1358 PST
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programming by Example
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Talkware Seminar (CS 377)

Date: Monday March 12
Speaker: Daniel Halbert (Berkeley & Xerox OSD) and David C. Smith (Visicorp)
Topic: Programming by Example
Time: 2:15-4
Place: 200-205

Most computer-based applications systems cannot be programmed by their
users. We do not expect the average user of a software system to be able
to program it, because conventional programming is not an easy task.

But ordinary users can program their systems, using a technique called
"programming by example". At its simplest, programming by example is
just recording a sequence of commands to a system, so that the sequence
can be played back at a later time, to do the same or a similar task.
The sequence forms a program. The user writes the program -in the user
interface- of the system, which he already has to know in order to
operate the system. Programming by example is "Do what I did."

A simple program written by example may not be very interesting. I will
show methods for letting the user -generalize- the program so it will
operate on data other than that used in the example, and for adding
control structure to the program.

In this talk, I will describe programming by example, discuss current
and past research in this area, and also describe a particular
implementation of programming by example in a prototype of the Xerox
8010 Star office information system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 84 14:57 PST
-FROM-
From: BrianSmith.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Ontology Seminar Rescheduled
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

David McAllester's talk has been rescheduled in both time and space (in
part to avoid conflict with a visit to PARC by the King of Sweden!); I
hope this makes it easier for people to attend.  It will now take place
at 3:30 on Monday in room 3312, instead of at 11:00.

        Title: "MATHEMATICAL ONTOLOGY"

        Speaker: David McAllester (M.I.T.)
        When: Monday March 12th at 3:30 p.m.
        Where: Xerox PARC Executive Conference Room, Room 3312
                (non-Xerox people should come a few moments early,
                 so that they can be escorted to the conference room)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09 Mar 84  0134 PST
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Incompleteness in Modal Logic
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Subject: SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS
SPEAKER: Johan van Benthem, University of Groningen

TITLE:  "From Completeness Results to Incompleteness
         Results in Modal Logic"

TIME:   Wednesday, Mar. 14, 4:15-5:30 PM
PLACE:  Stanford Mathematics Dept. Room  383-N


  For a long time the main activity in intensional logic
consisted in proving completeness theorems, matching some
logic with some modal class.  In the early seventies,
however, various incompleteness phenomena were discovered -
e.g. such a match is not always possible.  By now, we know that
the latter phenomenon is the rule rather than the exception,
and the issue of the `semantic power' of the possible worlds
approach has become a rather complex and intriguing one.

  In this talk I will give a survey of the main trends in the
above area, concluding with some open questions and partial
answers.  In particular, a new type of incompleteness theorem
will be presented, showing that a certain tense logic defies
semantic modelling even when both modal class and truth
definition are allowed to vary.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 84 12:55:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Thinking About Graph Theory
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             III Seminar on AI and Mathematical Reasoning

          Title:    Thinking About Graph Theory
          Speaker:  Susan Epstein
          Date:     Tuesday, March 13, 1984, 1:30-2:30 PM
          Location: Hill Center, Seventh floor lounge


  Dr. Susan Epstein, a recent graduate of our department, will give an informal
talk based on her thesis work.  Here is her abstract:

       A major challenge in artificial intelligence is to provide computers
    with  mathematical  knowledge  in  a format which supports mathematical
    reasoning.  A recursive formulation is described as the foundation of a
    knowledge representation  for  graph  theory.    Benefits  include  the
    automatic  construction  of  examples and related algorithms, hierarchy
    detection, creation of new properties, conjecture and theorem proving.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
30
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 84 14:01:41-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!adele @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Production systems tools
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 84 20:02:23-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!zehntel!dual!fortune!rpw3 @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Documentation tools - (nf)
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 1984  23:28 EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Robert P. Krajewski" <RPK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Manual generators: Lisp systems
-BODY-
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''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 6:25:57-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Plane = Sphere ?
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:47:10-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computer ECG, FDA testing of AI programs
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:43:40-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Connectionist Dog Modeling
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 7:45:25-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Tail Recursion is Iterative
-BODY-  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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 20:48:42-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!gary @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: sloan's reply to benson's reply to sloan's reply to benson's reply
-BODY-  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-
-VOL-
2

-N-
31
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Mar 84 18:48:05-PST
-FROM-
From: ROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tom Benson
-BODY-
Who is this Tom Benson and what is he doing out of
captivity?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 84 11:32:17-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!stuart @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: And as a non-logical conjuction - Request for pointers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.5580

From: Stuart Friedberg  <stuart>
I am looking for pointers into the linguistic and natural language
processing literature concerning the use of "and" in English as a
non-logical conjunction. That is, the use of "and" often implies
temporal sequence and/or causality. There is also a use introducing
a verb complement.
        "Sheila took the ball and ran with it."
        "The lights were off and I couldn't see."
        "I will try and find the missing book."

I understand that treatment of conjunction and ellipsis is difficult.
Pointers to books, articles, theses, diatribes, etc. that (have sections
that) deal with "and" in this extra-logical sense will be *much* more
useful than pointers to more general treatments of conjunction and
ellipsis.

Useful things to know that I don't:
        What are (all?) the senses in which "and" may be used?
        Do all these interpretations apply to clause conjunction
                only? (Ie, not to noun conjunction, adverb
                conjunction, etc.)
        What knowledge is needed/useful to determine the sense of
                "and" in a given English sentence? (Given a knowledge
                of all the senses of "and", how to we eliminate some
                of them in a particular context?)
        Is it possible to expand Ross's constraints in a reasonable
                way to handle this kind of conjuction? (Constraints
                on variables in syntax, thesis, MIT, 1967, etc.)

I have a few pointers already, but my only real linguistic source is
several years old. I assume that additional work has been done from
both linguistic and AI points of view. I am starting from:

1) Susan F. Schmerling, "Asymmetric Conjuction and Rules of Conversation",
in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 (Speech Acts), Cole and Morgan (eds.),
Academic Press, New York, 1975

2) Stan C. Kwasny, "Treatment of Ungrammatical and Extra-grammatical
Phenomena in Natural Language Understanding Systems", Indiana University
Linguistic Club, Bloomington, IN, 1980

                                Stu Friedberg
                        {seismo, allegra}!rochester!stuart      UUCP
                                stuart@rochester                ARPA

                                Dept. Computer Science          MAIL
                                University of Rochester
                                Rochester, NY 14627

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 84 18:05 EST
-FROM-
From: Ives@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Brain Theory - Parallelism
-BODY-

A strikingly clear picture of brain parallelism at the gross anatomical
level was presented during a lecture at MIT on the architecture of the
cerebral cortex by a neuroanatomist (Dr.  Deepak Pandya, Bedford
Veterans Administration Hospital, Bedford, MA).

Almost a hundred years ago, dye studies showed that the cerebral cortex
is not a random mass of neurons, and it was mapped into a few dozen
areas, differentiated by microstructure.  Later, it was shown that
lesions in a certain area always produced the same behavioral
deficiencies.  Now, they have mapped out the interconnections between
the areas.  The map looks like a plate of spaghetti but, when
transformed into a schematic, reveals simplicity and regularity.

Each half of the brain includes six sets of areas.  Each set has a
somatic area, a visual area and an auditory area.  Each area in a set
connects to the other two, forming a triangle.  The six sets form a
stack because each area is connected to the area of the same kind in the
next set.  The eighteen areas schematicized by this simple triangular
stack include most of the tissue in a cerebral cortex.

If I remember correctly, all mammals have this architecture.  It was
surmised that one set evolved first and was replicated six times,
because the neuronal microstructure varies gradually with increasing
level.  He also suggested that higher levels might process higher levels
of abstraction.

>- Jeffrey D.  Ives

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 1984  13:39 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Procedural Learning (Boston)
-BODY-
            [Forward from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

         Wednesday, March 14     4:00pm   8th floor playroom


          Acquisition of Procedural Knowledge from Examples

                            P. M. Andreae

  I will describe NODDY - a system that acquires procedures from
examples.  NODDY is a variation of concept learning in which the
concepts to be learned are procedures in the form of simple robot
programs.  The procedures are acquired by generalising examples
obtained by leading a robot through a sequence of steps.  Three
distinct types of generalisation are involved: structure
generalisation (eg. loops and branches), event generalisation (eg. the
branching conditions), and function induction.
  I will also discuss two principles that arise out
of, and are illustrated by, NODDY.  I claim that these principles have
application, not only to procedure acquisition, but also to any system
that does partial matching and/or generalisation of any kind.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Mar 84 19:16:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Theorem Proving in the Stanford Pascal Verifier
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Automatic Inference Seminar will meet on Wednesday March 14th in MJH 352
(note change of room from 301) at 1:30 p.m.
(This is tax-filing season;  I'm getting slightly too many groanworthy remarks
about "automatic deduction", hence the name change).

Speaker:  Richard Treitel (oh no, not again)

Subject:  Theorem Proving in the Stanford Pascal Verifier

The Stanford Pascal Verifier was developed in the late 1970's for research in
program verification.   Its deductive component, designed mainly by Greg Nelson
and Derek Oppen, has some features not found in many other natural deduction
systems, including a powerful method for dealing with equalities, a general
framework for combining the results of decision procedures for fragments of the
problem domain, and a control structure based on an unusual "normal form" for
expressions.   I will attempt to explain these and relate them both to other
provers and to post-Oppen work on the same technology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 9:52:21-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!narayana @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for 4th Conf. FST&TCS Bangalore India Dec 13-15.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.815

Subject: Call for papers

              4th Conference on Foundations of Software
              Engineering and Theoretical Computer Science

              Bangalore, INDIA,  DECEMBER 13-15, 1984

Sponsor: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay, India.

Conference advisory committe:

A.Chandra(IBM), B.Chandrasekharan(Ohio state), S.Crespi Reghizzi(Milan)
D.Gries(Cornell), A.Joshi(Penn), U.Montanari(Pisa), J.H.Morris(CMU),
A.Nakamura(Hiroshima), R.Narasimhan(TIFR), J.Nivergelt(ETH), M.Nivat(Paris)
R.Parikh(Ney York), S.R.Kosaraju(Johns Hopkins), B.Reusch(Dortmund),
R.Sethi(Bell labs), S.Sahni(Minnesota), P.S.Tiagarajan(Aarhus),
W.A.Wulf(Tartan labs).

Papers are invited in the following areas:

       Programming languages and systems
       Program correctness and proof methodologies
       Formal semantics and specifications
       Theory of computation
       Formal languages and automata
       Algorithms and complexity
       Data bases
       Distributed computing
       Computing practice

Papers will be REFEREED and a final selection will be made by the programme
committe.

Authors should send four copies of each paper to

       Chairman, FST&TCS Programme Committe
       Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
       Homi Bhabha Road, BOMBAY, 400 005, India

Due date for receiving full papers: MAY 31, 1984.

Authors will be notified of acceptance/rejection by: JULY 31,1984

Camera ready papers must be submitted by: SEP 15,1984

PROCEEDINGS WILL BE PUBLISHED.  For further details contact the above address.

Programme Committe: M.Joseph(TIFR), S.N.Maheswari(IIT), S.L.Mahindiratta(IIT),
                    K.V.Nori(Tata RDDC), S.V.Rangaswamy(IISC), R.K.Shyamasundar
                    (TIFR), R.Siromani(Madras Christian college).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 84  2053 PST
-FROM-
From: Frank Yellin <FY@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Western Culture in the Computer Age
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

n066  1529  12 Mar 84
BC-BOOK-REVIEW Undated
(Culture)
By CHRISTOPHER LEHMANN-HAUPT
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    TURING'S MAN. Western Culture in the Computer Age. By J. David
Bolter. 264 pages. University of North Carolina Press. Hard-cover,
$19.95; paper, $8.95.
    J. David Bolter, the author of ''Turing's Man: Western Culture in
the Computer Age,'' is both a classicist who teaches at the
University of North Carolina and a former visiting fellow in computer
science at Yale University. This unusual combination of talents may
not qualify him absolutely to offer a humane view of the computer
age, or what he refers to as the age of Turing's man, after Alan M.
Turing, the English mathematician and logician who offered early
theoretical descriptions of both the computer and advanced artificial
intelligence.
    But his two fields of knowledge certainly provide Bolter with an
unusual perspective on contemporary developments that many observers
fear are about to usher in an age of heartless quantification, if not
the final stages of Orwellian totalitarianism. In Bolter's view,
every important era of Western civilization has had what he calls its
''defining technology'' which ''develops links, metaphorical or
otherwise, with a culture's science, philosophy, or literature; it is
always available to serve as a metaphor, example, model, or symbol.''
    To the ancient Greeks, according to Bolter, the dominant
technological metaphor was the drop spindle, a device for twisting
yarn into thread. Such a metaphor implied technology as a controlled
application of power. To Western Europe after the Middle Ages, the
analogues to the spindle were first, the weight-driven clock, a
triumph of mechanical technology, and later, the steam engine, a
climax of the dynamic. In Bolter's subtly developed argument, the
computer - obviously enough the present age's defining metaphor - is
an outgrowth of both the clock and the steam engine. Yet,
paradoxically, the computer also represents a throwback.
    Everything follows from this. In a series of closely reasoned
chapters on the way in which the computer has redefined our notions
of space, time, memory, logic, language and creativity, Bolter
reviews a subtle but recuing pattern in which the computer
simultaneously climaxes Western technology and returns us to ancient
Greece. He concludes that if the ancient ideals were balance,
proportion and handicraft (the use of the spindle), and the Western
European one was the Faustian quest for power through knowledge
(understanding a clockwork universe to attain the dynamism of the
steam engine), then Turing's man combines the two.
    ''In his own way, computer man retains and even extends the Faustian
tendency to analyze,'' Bolter concludes. ''Yet the goal of Faustian
analysis was to understand, to 'get to the bottom' of a problem,''
whereas ''Turing's man analyzes not primarily to understand but to
act.''
    He continues: ''For Turing's man, knowledge is a process, a skill,''
like the ancient arts of spinning or throwing a pot. ''A man or a
computer knows something only if he or it can produce the right
answer when asked the right question.'' Faustian depth ''adds nothing
to the program's operational success.''
    Now in portraying Turing's man, Bolter may seem to be overburdening
a few simple metaphors. Yet his argument is developed with remarkable
concreteness. Indeed, if his book has any fault, it lies in the
extent to which he has detailed the slightly repetitious and
eventually predictable pattern of argument described above.
    Yet what is far more important about ''Turing's Man'' is its success
in bridging the gap between the sciences and the humanities. I can
only guess at how much it will inform the computer technologist about
philosophy and art, but I can vouch for how much it has to say to the
nonspecialist about how computers work. The inaccessibility of the
computer's inner functioning may well be a key to the author's case
that Turing's man is returning to the ancient Greek's satisfaction in
the surface of things, but after reading Bolter's book, this reader
found the computer far less mysterious. Not incidentally, the book
makes us understand why computers aren't really all that good at
doing mathematics (they can't get a grip on the notion of infinity);
and it far surpasses Andrew Hodges's recent biography of Alan Turing
in explaining Turing's Game for testing artificial intelligence.
    But most provocative about this study is what it has to say about
the political implications of the computer age. Will Turing's man
prove the instrument of Orwell's Big Brother, as so many observers
are inclined to fear? Very likely not, says Bolter:
    ''Lacking the intensity of the mechanical-dynamic age, the computer
age may in fact not produce individuals capable of great good or
evil. Turing's man is not a possessed soul, as Faustian man so often
was. He does not hold himself and his world in such deadly earnest;
he does not speak of 'destiny' but rather of 'options.' And if the
computer age does not produce a Michelangelo and a Goethe, it is
perhaps less likely to produce a Hitler or even a Napoleon. The
totalitarian figures were men who could focus the Faustian commitment
of will for their ends. What if the will is lacking? The premise of
Orwell's '1984' was the marriage of totalitarian purpose with modern
technology. But the most modern technology, computer technology, may
well be incompatible with the totalitarian monster, at least in its
classic form.''
    Indeed, according to Bolter, Turing's man may be more inclined to
anarchy than to totalitarianism. This may be whistling past the
graveyard. But in Bolter's stimulating analysis, it also makes a kind
of homely sense.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
32
-DATE-
Date: 14 Mar 84 0118 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: who sells AI books?
-BODY-
I am looking for places that sell AI books, other than publishers.  Do
you know of any book distributors that specialize in AI titles?  How about
book clubs featuring AI, cog. sci., robotics, and the like?  Send names
and addresses to Touretzky@CMUA.  I'll make the listing available online
if there's any demand for it.

[The best source is probably Synapse Books.  Does anyone have the address?

The Library of Computer and Information Science is a book club that often
offers AI books, and sometimes offers vision and popularized cognitive science
or robotics books.  Right now you can get a great deal on the Handbook of AI.
See Scientific American or the latest IEEE Computer for details, or do a
current member a favor by letting him sign you up.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Mar 84 16:41:17-PST
-FROM-
From: DKANERVA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Book Series
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    MANUSCRIPTS SOLICITED FOR NEW MIT PRESS/BRADFORD BOOKS SERIES

     MIT Press/Bradford  Books has  announced  a new  series  entitled
"Computational Models of Cognition and Perception" edited by Jerome A.
Feldman, Patrick J. Hayes, and David E. Rumelhart.

     The  series  will  include  state-of-the-art  reference works and
monographs, as well as upper  level texts,  on computational models in
such  subject  domains as  knowledge representation,  natural language
understanding, problem  solving,  learning and  generalization,  motor
control, speech perception and production, and all areas of vision.

     The series will span  the full range  of computational models  in
cognition and  perceptual research  and teaching,  including  detailed
neural models, models based on symbol-manipulation languages, and mod-
els employing techniques of formal logic. Especially welcome are works
treating experimentally  testable  computational  models  of  specific
cognitive and  perceptual  functions; basic  computational  questions,
particularly relationships between  different classes  of models;  and
representational questions linking computation  and semantics to  par-
ticular problem domains.

     Manuscript  proposals  should  be  submitted  to  one  the  three
editors, or to Henry Bradford Stanton, Publisher, Bradford Books,  The
MIT Press,  28 Carleton  Street  Cambridge, MA  02142  (617-253-5627).
However, we  welcome  your discussing  ideas  for books  and  software
programs and  packages  with  any  of the  members  of  the  Editorial
Advisory Board who may be your close colleagues:

        John Anderson                   Drew McDermott
        Horace Barlow                   Robert Moore
        Jon Barwise                     Allen Newell
        Emilio Bizzi                    Raymond Perrault
        John Seely Brown                Roger Schank
        Daniel Dennett                  Candy Sidner
        Geoffrey Hinton                 Shimon Ullman
        Stephen Kosslyn                 David Waltz
        Jay  McClelland                 Robert Wilensky
                                        Yorick Wilks

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Mar 84 14:08:57 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Conde.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList : Request for Fuzzy Set references
-BODY-
I would like to know if anyone has a references to good introductory
books on   the theory of fuzzy sets, as well as fuzzy databases.

Please reply to me or to the digest.

Thanks,
Daniel Conde

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 84 19:25:20-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Tong Colloquium on Knowledge-Directed Search
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6150

Could someone tell me where the speaker [Christopher Tong] is to be
contacted? I'd like to follow up on his work.


                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

[The talk, on knowledge-aided circuit design, was given at Rutgers.
Does anyone have Tong's net or mail address? -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Mar 84 13:19:16-CST
-FROM-
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wait till he discovers the parenthesis key!
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTEXAS-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[FYAmusement: The following item was found on SAIL's Bboard, contributed by
Ron Newman. --CBD]


The following letter to the editor was published in Softalk of March,
1984:

  I have come into possession recently of a program called Microlisp.  I
understand that it has been around for some time, so maybe someone out
there knows something about it.  I cannot get it to do anything but
print numbers I type in or print the word "nil".  How do I make it do
anything else?  Can you give me an example of something useful that I
might be able to do with it?

					[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 8:51:58-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!vaxine!chb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review of IQLISP for IBM PC
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: vaxine.211

        A review of IQLisp (by Integral Quality, 1983).

                Compiled by Jeff Shrager
                    CMU Psychology
                      7/27/83


[Charlie has forwarded Jeff Schrager's review of IQLISP for the IBM PC.
This appeared in AIList in early August, so I will not reprint it here.
Readers who want the text can FTP file <AILIST>IQLISP.TXT on SRI-AI or
contact AIList-Request@SRI-AI.  -- KIL]


                                   Charlie Berg
                                   Automatix, Inc.
                                   ...allegra!linus!vaxine!chb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Mar 84 20:12:39-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Use of "and"
-BODY-
My father, who is a law professor, was able to come up with an instance where a
contract contained the word "and" in a certain place, and the court interpreted
that "and" to mean what we computermen would have meant by "or".   Or maybe it
was the other way around;  I forget the details.
                                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 84 09:26:36 EST
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@NRL-CSS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: nonlogical "and"
-BODY-
  I think that the first treatment of the fact that "and" in English is
not the purely logical "and" of predicate calculus appeared in Philosophy
literature.  You might want to take a look at Strawson's PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC
for classical arguments that the "and" of natural language is distinct from the
logician's "and" and Grice's "William James' Lectures" for a very influential
rebuttal in which he argues that the use of "and" in English can be modeled
by logical conjunction if we take into account "conversational implicature",
a concept Grice develops in the lectures.

  By the way, one of my favorite examples of nonlogical conjunction which you
do not mention is the statement made to someone about to eat a mushroom
growing in the ground "You will not eat that and live."  This statement
is almost always correct from the truth-functional view of conjunction
even if the mushroom is harmless, since few people when issued the warning
will indulge their appetite.
                            Good luck,
                            John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 84 9:27:44-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More computer ECG, Cardiologist
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2153

With respect to the responsibility of a cardiologist to overread every
ECG, this is (or should be) uniformly done.  The problem addressed by
the dial up services is that in the middle of the night, in a small
town hospital, the cardiologist's reading may not come until the next
day.  Many communities do not have a cardiologist at all.  The
physician obtaining the ECG (who in an emergency room is typically NOT
a cardiologist) has an obligation to carefully examine the ECG
obtained.  There are two schools of thought with regard to sending
computer ECG information to a physician who may not be expert in
interpreting an ECG.  One is that any information is better than none,
and therefore the nonexpert physician should get the information.  The
other is that if there is a screw up, and the local physician cannot
be trusted to recognize this, the computer analysis can do significant
harm and should be witheld (The local physician will ALWAYS have his
own interpretation.)  Both approaches have their merit.  Our local
approach is to NOT send machine interpretations back to the Emergency
Room until a person with some expertise in reading ECG's has looked at
the tracing and at the computer generated interpretation.  In some
cases, this approach negates the major advantage of having the
computer in the first place.

[...]
Jack Buchanan
Cardiology and Biomedical Engineering
UNC-Chapel Hill
decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!jwb  {Usenet}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 15 Mar 84 22:46:08-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: High Technology, Feb 84 has AI-relevant articles
-BODY-
               Summary of HIGH TECHNOLOGY, Feb 84
          ============================================

FEATURES
        BIOCHIPS: CAN MOLECULES COMPUTE?  The groundwork is being laid for
        21st-century computers based on carbon rather than silicon.  Molecular
        Switches. Soliton Switches and Logic. Bulk Molecular Devices. Analog
        Biochips. "Intelligent" Switches. Robot Vision. Fabrication. Protein
        Engineering. Development Strategy. written by Jonathan Tucker

        UNCOVERING HIDDEN FLAWS. Nondestructive tests spot trouble before it
        happens.  Computerized tomography.  6 techniques dominate.

        ENGLISH: THE NEWEST COMPUTER LANGUAGE. Natural language systems.
        Computational Linguistics. commercial applications. semantic grammars.
        Syntax, Semantics, vs. Pragmatics. Situation Semantics.

        BIOPOLYMERS CHALLENGE PETROCHEMICALS.  Oil-recovery agents, drug
        purification media, and plastics are promising applications.


OPINION
        Where defense can be cut
LETTERS
        Data Security; Helping kids learn; Retraining
UPDATE
        Graphics Analysis. converting a 3-Dmodel into finite element model
        Russians develop electromagnetic casting; licensed by Alcoa
        DNA sequence DB. (longer than 50 mucleotides) GenBank has 2700+ entries
                comprising over 2.1 million bases
        Optical memory units boost computer storage. ST with 4 gigabytes on a
                single 14 inch removable platter. 3 Mbyte/sec transfer rate
                costing $130,000.  Shugart offers 1Gbyte on 12" platter with
                5Mbyte/sec transfer costing $6,000 in quantities of 250
        In-mold metal plating of plastics cuts costs.
        Brain chemicals delivered on demand (an experimental method)
INSIGHTS
        Factory Automation Survival Kit
MILITARY/AEROSPACE
        Mosaic arrays boost infrared surveillance
CONSUMER
        Multi-decoders may revive AM stereo
BUSINESS
        Optical memories eye computer market
MICROCOMPUTER
        Micro publicity game
BOOK REVIEW
        Luciano Caglioti: The 2 Faces of Chemistry. [ on chemical risks ]
INVESTMENTS
        Big Potential for Custom Chip Suppliers

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Mar 84 10:23:55-EST
-FROM-
From: Renata J. Sorkin <RENATA@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge-Based Documentation Systems
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

               "KNOWLEDGE-BASED COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
                       IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING"

                          Matthias Schneider
                            Project Inform
                       University of Stuttgart


        Designing programs to solve ill-structured problems as well as
trying to understand the purpose of a program and the designer's
intentions involves a great deal of communication between programmers
and users.  Program documentation systems must support these
communication processes by supplying a common base of knowledge and
structuring the exchange of information.

DATE:  Wednesday, March 14
TIME:  12:00 noon
PLACE: NE43-453
Host: Dr. A. diSessa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 March 1984 16:58-EST
-FROM-
From: Kenneth Byrd Story <STORY @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sorting Networks
-BODY-
            [Forward from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:   Tuesday, March 20, 1984
TIME:   3:45pm   Refreshments
        4:00pm   Lecture
PLACE:  NE43-512a
TITLE:  "Sorting Networks"
SPEAKER:        Professor Michael Paterson, University of Warwick

Last year, Ajtai, Komlos and Szemeredi published details of a depth O(log n)
comparator network for sorting, thus answering a longstanding open problem.
Their construction is difficult to analyse and the bounds they proved result in
networks of astronomical size.  A considerable simplification is presented
which readily yields constructions of more moderate size.

HOST:   Professor Tom Leighton

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Mar 84 13:53:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: III Seminar on Expert Systems for Fault Diagnosis...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                                 I I I SEMINAR

          Title:    An Expert System for Fault Monitoring and Diagnosis

          Speaker:  Kathy Abbott

          Date:     Tuesday, March 27, 1984, 1:30-2:30 PM
          Location: Hill Center, Seventh floor lounge

  Kathy  Abbott,  a Ph.D. student in our department, will give an informal talk
describing her research work at NASA.  Here is her abstract:

       The Flight Management Branch  at  NASA/Langley  Research  Center  in
    Hampton,Va.  is exploring the use of AI concepts to aid flight crews in
    managing aircraft systems. Under this research effort, an expert system
    is  being developed to perform on-board fault monitoring and diagnosis.
    Current expert systems technology is insufficient for this application,
    because the flight domain consists of dynamic physical systems and  the
    system  must respond in real time. A frame-based expert system has been
    designed that includes a  frame  associated  with  each  subsystem  and
    sensor  on  the  aircraft.  Among other information, the frames include
    mechanism models of the associated systems that  can  be  used  by  the
    diagnostic expert for hypothesis verification and predictive purposes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
33
-DATE-
Date: Sun 18 Mar 84 21:53:54-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Synapse Books
-BODY-
I found a copy of the 1982 Synapse Books catalog.  The address is

  Synapse Information Resources, Inc.
  912 Cherry Lane
  Vestal, New York  13850

The catalog covers AI, automation, biomedical engineering, CAD/CAM,
robotics, instrumentation, cybernetics, and computer technology.
Prices seem to be the publishers' suggested prices, although I only
checked a couple.  The selection is impressive.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 16 Mar 84 21:31:54-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tong Address
-BODY-
Chris Tong can be reached at TONG@SUMEX or TONG@PARC.  Mailing address:
Chris Tong, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Rd., Palo
Alto, CA

>-Tom

[Jeff Rosenschein@SUMEX reports that Chris hasn't used his Sumex
login for quite a while.  Richard Treitel@SUMEX suggested a
TONG@PARC-MAXC address.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Mar 84 20:45:24 PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: Tod Levitt <levitt@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: more four color junk
-BODY-
   From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2g!stekas @ Ucb-Vax
   A plane and sphere are NOT topologically equivalent, a
   sphere has an additional point."

More to the "point", the topological invariants of the plane and the
(two-) sphere are different, which is the definition of being
topologically inequivalent. For instance, the plane is contractible to a
point while the sphere is not; the plane is non-compact, while the
sphere is compact; the homotopy and homology groups of the plane are
trivial, while those of the sphere are not.

A more general form of the four-color theorem asks the question: for a
given (n-dimensional) shape (and its topological equivalents) what is
the fewest number of colors needed to color any map drawn on the
shape.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 84 8:58:08-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!watmath!deepthot!julian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computer ECG, FDA testing of AI programs
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: deepthot.212

As a matter of human engineering, I think "expert" programs for
practical use must be prepared to explain the reasoning followed
when they present recommendations.   Computer people ought to be
well aware of the need to provide adequate auditing and verification
of program function, even if the naive users don't know this.
The last thing we need is 'expert' computers that cannot be
questioned.  I think Weizenbaum had a valid point when he wrote
about programs that no one understood.  And I would be unhappy
to see further spread of computer systems that the human users cannot
feel themselves to be in charge of, especially when the programs
are called 'intelligent' and the technology for answering these
questions about the reasoning processes is fairly well established.
                Julian Davies

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Mar 84 13:28:54 PST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Characterizing automata from I/O pairs
-BODY-
The following recent msgs should be of interest to this list, and
hopefully will stimulate some good discussion.  --Bruce

                              ----------

From: Ron Newman <Newman.es>

The following letter to the editor was published in Softalk of March,
1984:

  I have come into possession recently of a program called Microlisp.  I
understand that it has been around for some time, so maybe someone out
there knows something about it.  I cannot get it to do anything but
print numbers I type in or print the word "nil".  How do I make it do
anything else?  Can you give me an example of something useful that I
might be able to do with it?

                                        [...]

                              ----------

From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES>

Actually, the letter implies a serious question, related to trying to
communicate with other forms of intelligent life: is there an approach,
to giving inputs and observing output to an unknown program, which is in
some sense optimal; i.e. leads to a complete characterization of input -
output pairs in the shortest possible time?

>-Bruce

                              ----------

From: VanDuyn.Henr

One question is would intelligent life aquire (a.k.a. pirate or steal) a
piece of software without the documentation.

On the serious side, what you suggest reminds me of programs that
attempt to write programs by examining a small set of the input output
pairs.  At first sample pairs are fed to the program then the program
begins generating its own sample pairs to build and validate a
hypothesis.  I read an article about this is the ACM TOPLAS journal
about 3 years ago...

Mitch

                              ----------

From: stolfi.pa

"Is there an approach, to giving inputs and observing output to an
unknown program, which is in some sense optimal; i.e. leads to a
complete characterization of input - output pairs in the shortest
possible time?"

I am interested in that question, too. Do you know of any work in that
area? I have given some thought to it, but made only trivial progress.

To be more definite, consider deterministic finite machine with N
internal states, and {0,1} as its input and output alphabets. The goal
is to determine the structure of the machine (i.e., its transition and
output functions) by feeding it a sequence of zeros and ones, and
observing the bits that come out of it. Nothing is known about the
structure of the machine. In particular, it is not known how to reset
the machine to its initial state, and not even whether it is possible to
do so (i.e., whether the machine is strongly connected). Then

(1) at best, you will be able to know the structure of a single strongly
connected component of the machine, and have only a vague knowledge of
the path that led from the initial state to that component. Moreover,
your answer will be determined only up to automaton equivalence. (In
other words, studing the behavior of something will only tell you how
that thing behaves, not how it is built)

(2) if you have an upper bound on the number N of internal states, I
believe you can always deduce the structure of the machine, subject to
the caveats in (1), after feeding it some finite number f(N) of bits.
However, I have no algorithm for generating the required input and
analyzing the output, and I have no idea on how big f(N) is. O(N) is a
trivial lower bound. Any upper bounds? Can it be more than O(2^N)?.

(3) In any case, note that a finite machine built from n boolean gates
may have an exponential number of states (For example, a counter with n
flip-flops has 2^n states). Therefore, even if you know that a program
has a single 16-bit integer variable and a 16-bit program counter, you
may need to feed it few billion bits to know what it does.

(4) if you do not have an upper bound on N, there is no way you can
deduce it by experiment, or answer categorically any interesting
questions about the structure of the machine. For example, suppose you
have put in 999,999,999 bits, and you got that many zeros out. You still
don't know whether the machine is a trivial one-state, constant-output
gadget, or whether it is a billion-state monster that ignores its inputs
and simply puts out a '1' every billionth transition. Note however, that
you may still give answers of the form "either this machine has more
than X states, or it is equivalent to the following automaton: ..."

In anthropomorphic terms, (4) says that it is impossible to distinguish
a genuinely dumb being from a very intelligent one that is just playing
dumb. Point (3) makes me wonder if the goal and method of psychology --
to understand the human mind by studying how it behaves -- is a sensible
proposition after all..

jorge

[There have, of course, been investigations of pattern recognition
techniques for infering Markov or finite-state grammars.  The
PURR-PUSS system is one that comes to mind.  Applications not
mentioned above include cryptography, data compression, fault
diagnosis, and prediction (e.g., stock market directions).  Martin
Gardner had a fun SciAm column ~13 years ago about building an
automaton for predicting the operator's heads/tails choices.  Gardner
also popularized the game of Elusius, in which players try to
elucidate laws of nature by pulsing the system with test cases.
The Mastermind game is related, although you are given information
about the internal state as part of the output.  Several AI
researchers have used automata theory for investigating hypothesis
formation and learning.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Mar 84 12:46:54-EST
-FROM-
From: Neena Lyall <LYALL@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM Conference
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        "INTEGRATING THE INFORMATION WORKPLACE THE KEY TO PRODUCTIVITY"

                       ACM NORTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE
                              19 - 21 March, l984
                             University of Lowell
                                  Lowell, MA
                       Special Student/Faculty Rate $20

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS ARE:

Monday          George McQuilken, Chairman, Spartacus Computer Inc., "Mainframe
                Technology in Integrated Systems"

Tuesday         Carl  Wolf,  President,  Interactive  Data Corp., "Bridging the
                Mainframe to Micro Gap"

Wednesday       Mitch  Kapor,  President,  Lotus  Development   Corp.,   "Micro
                Technology in Integrated Systems"

CLOSING PLENARY SESSION:
                Thomas F. Gannon (5th Generation, DEC)
                Maurice V. Wilkes (Corporate Research, DEC)
                Frederick  G.  Withington  (V.P., ADL), "Integrating the Pieces
                - Computing in the 90's"

THE TRACK CHAIRMEN ARE:

Applications Technology Track
                Dr.  David  Prerau,   Principal   of   Technical   Staff,   GTE
                Laboratories, Inc.

Artificial Intelligence Track
                Jeffrey  Hill,  Manager of Development, Artificial Intelligence
                Corp.

                Dr.  David  Prerau,   Principal   of   Technical   Staff,   GTE
                Laboratories, Inc.

CAD/CAM & Robotics Track
                Cary Bullock, V.P., Engineering & Operations, Xenergy Corp.

Computer Tools & Techniques Track
                David Hill, Director, Data Systems & Communications

Database Management Track
                Michael Stadelmann, Manager of Development, GE/MIMS Systems

Decision Support Systems Track
                David   Kahn,   Manager,   Decision   Support   Systems,   Wang
                Laboratories

Networking & Data Communications Track
                Dr.  Barry  Horowitz,  V.P.   Bedford   Operations,   (Formerly
                Technical Director, Strategic Systems), MITRE Corp.

Office Automation Track
                Nancy Heaton, Manager of Office Automation, Wang Laboratories

Personal Computing Track
                Michael Rohrbach, International Market Resources

THERE ARE TWO TUTORIALS WHICH RUN IN PARALLEL WITH THESE SESSIONS:

Artificial Intelligence Tutorial (3 days)
                Dr. Eugene Charniak, Brown University.

                AI  and its newest developments, emphasizing expert systems and
                knowledge-based systems.

Networking Technology Tutorial (3 days)
                Stewart Wecker, Pres. Technology Concepts.

                Local  area   and   other   network,   including   theory   and
                manufacturers'  current  products  (IBM's  SNA,  DECNET and LAN
                products)

For  detailed  information  see bulletin board outside Room 515, 545 Technology
Square, Cambridge or call either 617/444-5222: Box  C,  or  617/271-3268:  Shim
Berkovits.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Mar 84 10:34:06-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!utah-cs!sask!utcsrgv!utai!tsotsos @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSCSI 84 Preliminary Program
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utai.129

The preliminary program for the Fifth National Conference of the Canadian
Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence follows.
Registration or other information may be obtained from:

Prof. Michael Bauer,
Local Arrangements Chair, CSCSCI/SCEIO-84
Dept. of Computer Science,
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
N6A 5B7
(519)-679-6048

Due to unfortunate circumstances beyond our control, there has been a
date change for the conference which has not been reflected in
several current announcements. The correct date is May 15- 17, 1984.



                            CSCSI-84

                      Canadian Society for
              Computational Studies of Intelligence

                    Fifth National Conference

                           May 15 - 17
                  University of Western Ontario
                      London, Ontario, Canada


                       PRELIMINARY PROGRAM


Tuesday Morning, May 15

8:30 - 8:40     Introduction and Welcome

Session 1  -  Natural Language

8:40 - 9:40     Martin Kay (XEROX PARC) - Invited Lecture
9:40 - 10:10    "A Theory of Discourse Coherence for Argument Understanding"
                Robin Cohen (U of Toronto) (Long paper)
10:10 - 10:30   "Scalar Implicature and Indirect Responses in
                     Question-Answering"
                Julia Hirschberg (U of Pennsylvania) (Short paper)

10:30 - 10:40   BREAK

10:40 - 11:00   "Generating Non-Direct Answers by Computing Presuppositions
                   of Answers, Not of Questions or Mind your P's, not your Q's"
                Robert Mercer, Richard Rosenberg (U of British Columbia)
                (Short paper)
11:00 - 11:20   "Good Answers to Bad Questions: Goal Deduction in Expert
                     Advice-Giving"
                Martha Pollack (U of Pennsylvania) (Short paper)


Session 2  -  Cognitive Modelling and Problem Solving


11:20 - 11:40   "Using Spreading Activation to Identify Relevant Help"
                Adele Howe (ITT), Timothy Finin (U of Pennsylvania)
                (Short paper)
11:40 - 12:00   "Managing Time Maps"
                Thomas Dean (Yale) (Short paper)


12:00 - 1:30    LUNCH


Tuesday Afternoon, May 15

Panel Discussion

1:30 - 2:45    "The Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Society Program"
                    of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
    Panel members : Zenon Pylyshyn - moderator (U of Western Ontario)
            Raymond Reiter - coordinator for the University of British Columbia
            John Mylopoulos - coordinator for the University of Toronto
            Steven Zucker - coordinator for McGill University
            Nick Cercone - president CSCSI/SCEIO


Session 3  -  Computer Vision I


2:45 - 3:45    "Optical Phenomena in Computer Vision"
               Steven Shafer (CMU) - Invited Lecture

3:45 - 4:00    BREAK

4:00 - 4:30    "Procedural Adequacy in an Image Understanding System"
               Jay Glicksman (Texas Instruments) (Long paper)
4:30 - 5:00    "The Local Structure of Image Discontinuities in One Dimension"
               Yvan Leclerc (McGill) (Long paper)
5:00 - 5:30    "Receptive Fields and the Reconstruction of Visual Informatiom"
               Steven Zucker (McGill) (Long paper)



Wednesday Morning, May 16


Session 4  -  Robotics


8:30  -  9:30   "Robotic Manipulation"
                Matthew Mason (CMU)  -  Invited Lecture
9:30  - 10:00   "Trajectory Planning Problems, I: Determining Velocity
                     Along a Fixed Path"
                Kamal Kant (McGill) (Long paper)
10:00 - 10:20   "Interpreting Range Data for a Mobile Robot"
                Stan Letovsky (Yale) (Short paper)

10:20 - 10:45   BREAK


Panel Discussion

10:45 - 12:00   "What is a valid methodology for judging the quality
                    of AI research?"

                Panel Moderator : Alan Mackworth (U of British Columbia)

12:00 - 1:30    LUNCH


Wednesday Afternoon, May 16

Session 5  -  Learning

1:30 - 2:00     "The Use of Causal Explanations in Learning"
                David Atkinson, Steven Salzberg (Yale) (Long paper)
2:00 - 2:30     "Experiments in the Automatic Discovery of Declarative
                     and Procedural Data Structure Concepts"
                Mostafa Aref, Gordon McCalla (U of Saskatchewan) (Long paper)
2:30 - 3:00     "Theory Formation and Conjectural Knowledge in Knowledge Bases"
                James Delgrande (U of Toronto) (Long paper)
3:00 - 3:20     "Conceptual Clustering as Discrimination Learning"
                Pat Langley, Stephanie Sage (CMU) (Short paper)

3:20 - 3:40     BREAK

3:40 - 4:00     "Some Issues in Training Learning Systems and an
                     Autonomous Design"
                David Coles, Larry Rendell (U of Guelph) (Short paper)
4:00 - 4:20     "Inductive Learning of Phonetic Rules for Automatic
                     Speech Recognition"
                Renato de Mori (Concordia University)
                Michel Gilloux (Centre National d'Etudes des
                        Telecommunications, France)
                (Short paper)

4:20 - 4:30     BREAK


Session 6  -  Computer Vision II


4:30 - 5:00   "Applying Temporal Constraints to the Problem of Stereopsis
                   of Time-Varying Imagery"
              Michael Jenkin (U of Toronto) (Long paper)
5:00 - 5:30   "Scale-Based Descriptions of Planar Curves"
              Alan Mackworth, Farzin Mokhtarian
              (U of British Columbia) (Long paper)


Wednesday Evening, May 16  -  BANQUET



Thursday Morning, May 17


Session 7  -  Logic Programming


8:30  -  9:30   J. Alan Robinson (Syracuse U)  -  Invited Lecture
9:30  -  9:50   "Implementing PROGRAPH in Prolog: An Overview of the
                     Interpreter and Graphical Interface"
                P. Cox, T. Pietrzykowski (Acadia U) (Short paper)
9:50  - 10:10   "Making 'Clausal' Theorem Provers 'Non-Clausal'"
                David Poole (U of Waterloo) (Short paper)
10:10 - 10:30   "Logic as Interaction Language"
                Martin van Emden (U of Waterloo) (Short paper)

10:30 - 10:45   BREAK


10:45 - 12:00
Report of the CSCSI/SCEIO Survey on AI Research in Canada

           Nick Cercone - President CSCSI/SCEIO
           Gordon McCalla - Vice-President CSCSI/SCEIO


12:00 - 1:00   LUNCH

Thursday Afternoon, May 17


Session  8  -  Expert Systems and Applications


1:00 - 2:00   Ramesh Patil (MIT)  -  Invited Lecture
2:00 - 2:20   "ROG-O-MATIC: A Belligerent Expert System"
              Michael Mauldin, Guy Jacobson, Andrew Appel, Leonard Hamey (CMU)
              (Short paper)
2:20 - 2:40   "An Explanation System for Frame-Based Knowledge Organized
                   Along Multiple Dimensions"
              Ron Gershon, Yawar Ali, Michael Jenkin (U of Toronto)
              (Short paper)
2:40 - 3:00   "Qualitative Sensitivity Analysis: A New Approach to Expert
                   System Plan Justification"
              Stephen Cross (Air Force Institute of Technology) (Short paper)

3:00 - 3:20   BREAK


Session  9  -  Knowledge Representation


3:20 - 4:20    "A Fundamental Trade-off in Knowledge Representation
                    and Reasoning"
               Hector Levesque (Fairchild R&D)  Invited Lecture
4:20 - 4:50    "Representing Control Strategies Using Reflection"
               Bryan Kramer (U of Toronto) (Long paper)
4:50 - 5:10    "Knowledge Base Design for an Operating System
                    Expert Consusltant"
               Stephen Hegner (U of Vermont),
               Robert Douglass (Los Alamos National Laboratory) (Short paper)
5:10 - 5:30    "Steps Towards a Theory of Exceptions"
               James Delgrande (U of Toronto) (Short paper)


5:30 - 5:45    CLOSING REMARKS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
34
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 84 19:06:44-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!lorien @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM vs. HP: research (AI) question
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.922

I have been offered entry-level positions at both Hewlett-Packard and
IBM.  I feel that, sooner or later, I'd like to do research in some AI-
related field, and I'd like any comments you may have as to the
accessibility of the research labs to an employee starting out as a
programmer in either company.  I don't want to start a ridiculous
discussion of the overall merits of and/or problems with HP and IBM;
many articles have been written on both.  But things can change quickly
and there may be some work being done of which I'm not presently aware.
I'd appreciate any impressions, subjective or otherwise, that you may
have.  I hold an A.B. in Computer Science from Dartmouth.

      --Lorien Y. Pratt
        Dartmouth College Library
        Hanover, NH  03755

        decvax!dartvax!lorien

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Mar 84 18:13:23-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!ecn-ee!davy @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Copies of HAKMEM? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pur-ee.1672

This has already been asked in UNIX-WIZARDS, I thought I'd ask it here
too.  Does anyone have a copy of HAKMEM (MIT Memo from Feb. 1972) they'd
be willing to Xerox?  I've heard there's an online copy at MIT-MC or
someplace -- anyone know where it's at?

>-Dave Curry
decvax!pur-ee!davy
eevax.davy@purdue

[I have a copy of this memo (AIM 239, HAKMEM by M. Beeler, R.W. Gosper,
and R. Schroeppel).  It is a collection of notes by MIT hackers on about
20 different topics.  The document is about 100 pages long and includes
figures.  Does an online copy exist?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 Mar 84 23:50:08-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Identifying programs
-BODY-
"Algorithmic Program Debugging" by Ehud Shapiro, MIT Press includes
substantial discussion of the question of identifying programs
from I/O pairs. Of course in general the identification is not
exact. Concepts of asymptotic identification ("identification in
the limit") are used instead. A lot of this work has been
developed to try to pin down the concept of "learnable language".
There are a number of recent papers on this question by Scott
Weinstein (University of Pennsylvania) and others, in the journal
Information and Control. If anyone is interested, I'll dig out
the references.

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 1984 20:56:34-PST
-FROM-
From: don%brandeis.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fuzzy Sets
-BODY-
I have a reference for Daniel Conde who requested information about
Fuzzy Sets on a recent AI bulletin board:

        Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications

        Didier Dubois & Henri Prade
        copywrite 1980
        Academic Press

                                Don Ferguson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 84 11:36:10 CST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxa!homxa!rem
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Manipulated Novel
-BODY-
For people interested in computer-aided art, I manipulated a small,
unpublished novel of mine called ABRACADABRA a few years ago.  The
book is a mystery derived from childhood experiences in St. Louis.
I call the manipulated book ABRACADABRA CADAVER.  Chapter-by-chapter
I wrote UNIX shell programs to alter the text according to its con-
tents: for example, in an early chapter I misspelled all words as
a child might do.  In another I inserted German proverbs appropriate
to my father's speech in all of his conversations.  Another repeats
key phrases again and again, in a minimalist way; another puts all
dialog into footnotes; another, where the mystery unfolds, cryptically
reverses the sentences throughout--and so on.  After editing the
end results, I came up with a Joycean-like book that is quite
readable and interesting as a literary document.  I no longer
have it on-line, but if anyone is interested, I can provide
more details.  And, of course, if anyone knows of a publisher
crazy enough.....

Bob Mueller

BELLCORE
Holmdel, NJ

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 84 11:01:10-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hsplab @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer EKG's
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2145

One reason why computerized EKG's have become so popular in the medical
environment is that **most** of the EKGs are performed on normal people
and are being used as a screening process.  This means that if a computer
program is very good at differentiating between normals and abnormals
without any other capability (not true with current programs), it will
probably do better than 90%.  It is for this reason that a cardiologist
overview is used primarily to catch gross errors and to refine problems
associated with pathological cases.  In a study done by Bailey at the
NIH in the early 1970's, most computer programs actually did rather well,
and if you removed interpretation differences which were common among
cardiologists and tested the programs on grossly abnormal cases, they
were able to achieve better than 60%-70% accuracy.

David Chou
Department of Pathology
University of NC, Chapel Hill
    !decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!hsplab

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Mar 84 11:46:20 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Strategic Computing in the New York Review of Books
-BODY-
The March 15, 1984 issue of The New York Review of Books contains an
article entitled "The Costs of Reaganism", which mentions DARPA's
Strategic Computing Program as an example of misdirected U.S. economic
and budgetary policy.  The article is by Emma Rothschild, who teaches in
the Science, Technology, and Society program at MIT and is the author of
"Paradise Lost: The Decline of the Auto-Industrial Age".

  ...What does it mean for America's future economic growth that
  69 percent of federally supported research and development is
  for military purposes, an increase since 1981 of $18.1 billion
  in the military function and of $0.6 billion in non-military
  functions? [21]

    Does it matter for the character of America's scientific
  institutions that the Defense Advanced Research Projects
  Agency's new "strategic computing" program is in the process
  of transforming academic computer science?[22]  Does it
  matter for American competitiveness that Japan's ten-year
  program on the cognitive, linguistic, and engineering
  foundations of computing will be civilian, while America's
  will be concerned with robot reconnaissance vehicles,
  radiation-resistant wafers, and missile defenses, with
  "speech recognition" in the "high-noise, high-stress environment
  [of] the fighter cockpit," and with "voice  distortions due
  to the helmet and face mask"? [23]  Mr. Reagan's principal
  opponents are not asking these questions; they are questions
  about the militarization of the political life, the scientific
  potential, and the economic society of the richest country in
  the world.

  [21] "Special Analyses", Budget of the United States Government,
    FY 1985, p. K-30.
  [22] The program is described in Weinberger's Annual Report, p. 263,
    and also in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's
    own study "Strategic Computing" (DARPA, October 28, 1983).
    In this study DARPA explains that it intends to use contract
    personnel from industry as well as university researchers, in
    order to "avoid a dangerous depletion of the university
    computer science community":  "The magnitude of this national
    effort could represent a very large perturbation to the
    university community" (p. 64)
  [23] DARPA, "Strategic Computing", pp. 34-35.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 21 Mar 84 14:05:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tax-Free Support vs. Income Averaging
-BODY-
Bob Boyer of UTexas-20 posted a bboard message about IRS policy on
tax-free student fellowships.  This isn't AIList material, but it
will be of interest to many students on and off the Arpanet, so I
am making it available for those who want to post it at their sites.
I have copied the message to file <AIList>IRS.TXT on SRI-AI, and will
send copies to interested people who can't FTP the file.  I have
also included related messages from others who read the original.

The content is roughly this: if you claim that your current academic
support is tax-free (or if the IRS makes that claim), and if such income
is at least 50% of your support, you will probably not be able to income
average during the next four years.  This is very likely to cost you more
than the tax you save on your current fellowship or other support.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 84 14:23:22 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HP Computer Colloquium 3/22
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                Richard M. Tong
                Advanced Information and Decision Systems


        RUBRIC: An Intelligent Aid for Information Retrieval


In this talk I will describe an ongoing research project that is
concerned with developing a computer based aid for information retrieval
from natural language databases. Unlike other attempts to improve upon
Boolean keyword retrieval systems, this research concentrates on
providing an easily used rule-based language for expressing retrieval
concepts. This language draws upon work in production rule systems in AI
and allows the user to construct queries that give better precision and
recall than more traditional forms.

The talk will include a discussion of the main elements in the system
(which is written in LISP and C), the key research issues (including
some comments on the important role that uncertainty plays) and some
man-machine interface questions (in particular, the problem of providing
knowledge elicitation tools).


Thursday, March 22, 1984        4:00 pm

*** Please note the location change ***

Hewlett-Packard
1651 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA
28C Lower Auditorium

Be sure to arrive at the building's lobby on time, so that you may be
escorted to the meeting room

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 1984  15:26 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computational Linguistics (BOSTON)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Wednesday, March 21     4:00pm      8th floor playroom

De-mystifying Modern Grammatical Theory and Artificial Intelligence
Robert Berwick

It has frequently been suggested that modern linguistic theory is
irreconcilably at odds with a ``computational'' view of human
linguistic abilities.  In fact, linguistic theory provides a rich
source of constraints for the computationalist.  In this talk I will
outline some of the key changes in grammatical theory from the mid 60's to
the present day that support this claim, and at the same time try to
dispel a number of myths:

Myth: Modern grammars are made up of large numbers of rules that
one cannot ``implement.''

Myth: Modern grammars are not relevant to computational models
of language processing.

Myth: Knowledge that you can order hamburgers in restaurants
aids *on-line* syntactic processing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Mar 84 11:30:18 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Experiments with Rule Writer for EXPERT
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                                 I I I SEMINAR

          Title:    Experiments with Rule Writer for EXPERT
          Speaker:  George Drastal
          Date:     Tuesday, April 3, 1984, 1:30-2:30 PM
          Location: Hill Center, Seventh floor lounge


  George  Drastal,  a Ph.D. student in our department, will describe his thesis
reseach in an informal talk.  His abstract:

       Results are presented of some experiments with Rule  Writer,  an  AI
    system  that  assists  knowledge  engineers  with  the  task of writing
    inference rules  for  a  medical  consultation  system  in  the  EXPERT
    formalism.    Rule  Writer  (RW) is used primarily in an early stage of
    expert system development, to generate a prototype rule base.   RW  may
    also   be   used  as  a  testbed  for  experimenting  with  alternative
    organizations   of   expert   knowledge   in   the   EXPERT   knowledge
    representation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 84 18:38 PST
-FROM-
From: BrianSmith.PA@PARC-GW.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: BrianSmith.PA@PARC-GW.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course Announcement -- Lisp: Language and Literature
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the SRI CLSI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following course will be the CSLI Seminar on Computer Languages
for the Spring Quarter [at Stanford].  If you are interested in attending,
please read the notes on dates and registration, at the end.

                Lisp: Language and Literature

A systematic introduction to the concepts and practices of programming,
based on a simple reconstructed dialect of LISP.  The aim is both to
convey and to make explicit the programming knowledge that is
typically acquired through apprenticeship and practice.  The material
will be presented under a linguistic reconstruction, using vocabulary
that should be of use in studying any linguistic system.  Considerable
hands-on programming experience will be provided.

Although intended primarily for linguists, philosophers, and
mathematicians, anyone interested in computation is welcome.  In
particular, no previous exposure to computation will be assumed.
However, since we will aim for rigorous analyses, some prior familiarity
with formal systems is essential.  Also, the course will be more like a
course in literature and creative writing, than like a course in, say,
French as a second language.  The use of LISP, in other words, will
be primarily as a vehicle for larger issues, not so much an object of
study in and of itself.  Since LISP (unlike French) is really very
simple, we will be able to teach it in class and lab sessions.  Tutorial
instruction and some individual programming assistance will be provided.

Topics to be covered include:

   -- Procedural and data abstraction;
   -- Objects, modularity, state, and encapsulation;
   -- Input/output, notation, and communication protocols;
   -- Meta-linguistic abstraction, and problems of intensional grain;
   -- Architecture, implementation, and abstract machines;
   -- Introspection, self-reference, meta-circular interpreters, and
reflection.

Throughout, we will pay particular attention to the following themes:

   -- Procedural and declarative notions of semantics;
   -- Interpretation, compilation, and other models of processing;
   -- Implicit vs. explicit representation of information;
   -- Contextual relativity, scoping mechanisms, and locality;
   -- Varieties of language: internal, external, theoretical;
   -- Syntax and abstract structure: functionalism & representationalism.

Organizational Details:

   Instructor: Brian C. Smith, Xerox PARC/Stanford CSLI; 494-4336 (Xerox);
      497-1710 (Stanford), "BrianSmith@PARC" (Arpanet).

   Classes: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:00 - 3:30, in Room G19, Redwood
      Hall, Jordan Quad.

      NB:  Since we will be using the computers just now being installed
      at CSLI, there may be some delay in getting the course underway.
      In particular, it is possible that we will not be able to start until
      mid-April.  A follow-up note with more details will be sent out as
      soon as plans are definite.

   Registration: Again, because of the limited number of machines, we
      may have to restrict participation somewhat.  We would therefore
      like anyone who intends to take this course to notify Brian Smith
      as soon as possible.  Note that the course will be quite demanding:
      10 to 20 hours per week will probably be required, depending on
      background.

   Sections: As well as classes, there will be section/discussion periods
      on a regular basis, at times to be arranged at the beginning of the
      course.

   Reading: The course will be roughly based on the "Structure and
       Interpretation of Computer Programs" textbook by Abelson and
       Sussman that has been used at M.I.T., although the linguistic
      orientation will affect our dialects and terminology.

   Laboratory: Xerox 1108s (Dandelions) will be provided by CSLI, to be
      used for problem sets and programming assignments.  Instructors &
      teaching assistants will be available for assistance at pre-arranged
      times.

   Credit: The course may be listed as a special topics course in Computer
      Science.  However (in case that does not work out) anyone wishing
      to take it for credit should get in touch, so that we can arrange
      reading course credit.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
35
-DATE-
Date: Thu 22 Mar 84 15:08:19-EST
-FROM-
From: Sal Stolfo <sal@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A call for discussion
-BODY-
             "The Numericists Meet the Symbolicists and Ask Why?"

With   the  recent  interest  in  Fifth  Generation  Computing  and  Artificial
Intelligence, many scientists with backgrounds in other  disparate  fields  are
beginning to study symbolic computation in a serious manner.

The  ``parallel  architectures  community'' has mostly been interested in novel
computer architectures to accelerate numeric computation  (usually  represented
as  Fortran  codes).    Similarly,  the ``data base machine community" has been
interested in more conventional data processing (for example, large-scale  data
bases).   Now that the interest of these communities and others are focusing on
Artificial Intelligence computing, a question that is often asked is ``What are
the fundamental characteristics of AI computation that distinguish it from more
conventional computation"?  Indeed, are there really any differences at all?

These questions have no simple answers; they can be viewed from many  different
perspectives.    This  note  is  a  solicitation of the AI community for cogent
discussion of this issue.  We hope that all facets will be addressed including:

   - Differences between the kinds of problems encountered in AI and those
     considered more conventional.   (A   simple   answer   in   terms  of
     ``ill-defined'' and ``well-defined'' problems is viewed as a copout.)

   - Methodological differences  between  AI  computing  and  conventional
     computing.

   - Computer resource  requirements  and  programming  environments  with
     technical  substantiations  of  the differences rather than aesthetic
     preferences.

I expect to collect responses from the AI community and produce a final  report
which will be made available to any interested parties.

Thank you in advance.

Salvatore  J. Stolfo
Assistant  Professor
Computer Science Department
Columbia University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 1984 00:11:35-PST
-FROM-
From: hildum%brandeis.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inferential and Deductive Processing using Lisp and Prolog
-BODY-
(This message has been sent to both the AIList and the Prolog Digest)

I am looking for some information concerning the following:

(1) The use of Prolog and Lisp for deductive and inferential processing.
(2) Standard methods of handling deductive and inferential processing
    in Prolog and Lisp.
(3) Any languages similar or different to Prolog and Lisp that have been
    used for deductive and inferential processing.
(4) What types of inferential and deductive processing cannot be done using
    Prolog ?  Using Lisp ?

Suggestions of applicable articles and research projects, as well as personal
observations would be greatly appreciated.  I am attempting to get a feel for
what kinds of things can and cannot be done to handle deductive and inferen-
tial processing with existing Logic/AI programming languages.

Responses (ASAP) will be greatly appreciated.  Please reply to:

        hildum%brandeis.csnet@csnet-relay.csnet

I will gladly post a summary to the net if there is enough interest in
the subject.

        Thank you,

                David W. Hildum

                US Mail:        Box 1417
                                Brandeis University
                                Waltham, Massachusetts
                                02254

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 84 20:44:16-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!sundar @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems in VLSI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1113

This is only a request.  Has any one documented the knowledge
acquisition techniques used for this application domain?
I conducted a few interviews with local VLSI experts and the
difficulty I had was the formulation of appropriate questions
to elicit maximum response.  Any references would be appreciated.
Thanks.

Sundar Iyengar
USENET:         decvax!cwruecmp!sundar
CSNET:          sundar@Case
ARPANET:        sundar.Case@Rand-Relay

Posted: 11:43:29 pm, Wednesday March 21, 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 84 9:24:14-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "Explaining" expert system algorthims.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.715

References:

I think it is hopeless to demand that the algorithms
instanced by expert systems be well understood so they can be questioned.
Even when the algorithms can easily be printed, they will be hard for
any human being to comprehend, except in the most trivial systems.

Expert systems attempt to imitate one kind of human thinking, in which
what we call "judgment" plays a part.  I expect that as expert systems
become more sophisticated, they will become harder and harder to judge,
just as the think-work of human beings is hard to judge for quality.

True "artificial intelligence" systems will have these problems in spades.

Please note that we have already reached the point where ordinary
procedural software is hard to judge.  It's quite common to spend 18
months shaking down a moderate sized piece of software.
                                        - Toby Robison
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 84 12:52:55-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2d!wbp @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: color junk
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou2d.225

Re: color junk
From: Wayne Pineault <hou2d!wbp>

        From a homology point of view a circle and a plane are not the
same, but from the view of coloring they are the same, since you pick the
point at infinity on the plane to map inside one of the regions on the
sphere.
        Also, for a long time a closed coloring formula has been known for a
sphere with any number of donut holes and mobius strips attached, as long
as it was not a sphere!  If you just plugged in 0 for a sphere the answer
came out to 4, but the argument did not work for this case!!!
        There is a Springer-Verlag series of mathematics, and I saw this
formula there, but I don't remember it.

                                        Wayne Pineault

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 84 17:14:17-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!erh @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE characterizing automata from I/O pairs
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1206

        The question is certainly interesting and very natural.  Not
surprisingly, it has been investigated in depth.  As a matter of fact,
the Moore theory of experiments (which is precisely the theory of
"characterizing automata from I/O pairs") was one of the subjects
investigated in the 50's which gave impetus to introduction and study
of regular languages.

        A nice little book by J.H. Conway ("Regular Algebra and Finite
Machines", Chapman and Hall, 1971) has a chapter-long summary of
results including an answer to your question about the bound on the
length of the characterizing experiment.  A few paraphrases:

Def.  An exact (n,m,p) machine is a Moore machine with n states, m input
symbols, and p output symbols, each output symbol being actually emitted
in some state.  (Take m = p = 2 if you want arguments in terms of bits.)

Theorem.  Two distinguishable states of an exact (n,m,p) machine can be
distinguished by some word of length at most n-p.

(That is, for any two distinguishable states p, q, there exists a word w
of length <= n-p such that the output corresponding to w will differ
depending on whether it is started in p or q.)

Theorem. If S is a set of at most s states of an exact (n,m,p) machine,
and some two states in S are distinguishable, then there exists a word
of length at most max( 0, n-p-s+2 ) which distinguishes some two states
in S.  Moreover, this bound is best possible.

Theorem. If we are (explicitely) given an exact (n,m,p) machine whose
states are all distinguishable, and told that it is initially in one
of a set S of at most s states, then we can specify an experiment of
length at most (t-1)(n-p-(t-2)/2) where t = min( s, n-p+2 ), after
application of which the resulting state will be known (so you find
your position in the machine in case you were "lost in S").  Moreover,
the bound is best possible.

        In the above an "experiment of length k" means an algorithm
which feeds input symbols depending on the observed outputs; k is
the number of symbols fed in.

        The following answers your question.  It is a paraphrase
of Theorems 9 & 11, pp. 12-14 of Conway's text (the original result
is due to Moore, improved slightly by Conway):

Theorem.  If you know that M is a strongly connected exact (n,m,p)
machine with pairwise distinguishable states, then there is an experiment
of length at most

                           2n-1  2
                        8 m     n  log n
                                      2

which tells you the structure of the machine.

Ed Howorka (erh@uvacs on CSNET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Mar 84  1600 PST
-FROM-
From: Diana Hall <DFH@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Compositional Temporal Logic
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the SRI CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                HOW COMPOSITIONAL CAN TEMPORAL LOGIC BE?

                       Speaker:  Prof. Amir Pnueli
                        Weizmann Institute, Israel

                       Tuesday, March 27, 2:30 p.m.
                       Room 352 Margaret Jacks Hall

Abstract:  A compositional proof system based on temporal logic is presented.
The system supports systematic development of concurrent systems by
specifying modules and then proving a specification for their combination.
The specifications of modules are expressed by temporal logic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 Mar 84 18:28:23-EST
-FROM-
From: Jan <komorowski@MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Seminars at Harvard
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                SEMINAR

                        LOGIC PROGRAM DERIVATION

                             Danny Krizanc
                          Harvard University

                        Tuesday, April 3, 1984

                                4 PM
                              Aiken G23

Danny will present a work he has done in my course Technology of Logic
Programming on program transformation. The method of Burstall and
Darlington is translated into resolution-based theorem proving and
applied to logic programs. The method is subsequently extended beyond
the limits of the functional approach.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 Mar 84 18:28:23-EST
-FROM-
From: Jan <komorowski@MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Seminars at Harvard
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                COLLQUIUM

                APPLICATION OF PROLOG TO GENERATION OF TEST DATA
                        FROM ALGEBRAIC SPECIFICATIONS

                        Prof. Marie-Claude Gaudel
                        Universite de Paris-Sud

                        Monday, April 9, 1984
                                4 PM
                        Aiken Lecture Hall
                        Tea in Pierce 213 at 3:30

ABSTRACT: Functional testing or "black-box testing has been recognized
for a long time as an important aspect of software validation. With
the emrgence of formal specification methods it becomes possible to
found functional testing on a rigorous basis. This lecture presents a
method of generating sets of test data from algebraic specifications.
The method has been impelemted using Prolog. It turns out that Prolog
is avery well-suited tool for generating sets of test data in this context.

Host : Professor Henryk Jan Komorowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 84 17:52:39 PST
-FROM-
From: Tulin Mangir <tulin@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course in Expert Systems for CAD/CAT
-BODY-
UCLA School of Engineering, Computer Science Department
is offering a new course, in Spring Quarter, in the
area of applications of Expert Systems to CAD and CAT in general, and
to VLSI and WSI design and testing specifically.

A Brief description of the topics to be covered follows.
Some of the projects in this course are extensions of the projects
that are started in the "Testing and Design for Testability for VLSI"
class that  we are offerring once a year. I also teach that course.

I welcome any questions, comments, and suggestions and promise to
give a state of the course(!) report on line for those who are
interested.


Tulin E. Mangir
<cs.tulin@UCLA-CS>
(213) 825-2692
      825-1322 (secretary)

                -------------------------------------
UCLA COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT

Spring 84

New Course on Expert Systems

CS259 Section 4

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS TO CAD AND CAT

Instructor: Professor Tulin E. Mangir

Time: MW 4-6pm (TBA)

FIRST MEETING IN 5252 BOELTER HALL, W 4-6PM 4/4/84.


This course is open to all graduate students who are interested
in developing and applications of expert systems.
Students are encouraged to develop projects using the
tools and environments available at UCLA or otherwise.
Instructor's special interest is developing expert systems for design
and testability analysis of VLSI and WSI.

For any questions please contact instructor 825-2692, or 3532L Boelter Hall.

Course Outline:

 o Introduction
 o Organization of Expert Systems
 o Representation of Digital structure and behaviour
 o Requirements for data base, rule base, knowledge base design and interfaces
   between them; control structure
 o Languages, logic programming (PROLOG), frameworks
 o Application domains for expert systems in CAD, CAT and automated processing
 o Example systems under development-- DRC, 2-D Planner, Hitest, Excat, others.
 o Limitations
 o Future directions

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
36
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 84 21:00:38 pst
-FROM-
From: jacobs%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paul Jacobs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: information wanted on AI in criminology
-BODY-
        I have been asked for information concerning AI applications in
criminology, particularly in locating and keeping track of criminals.  I
am aware of various uses of computers in analyzing fingerprints and other
data; however, I have not heard of successful ``intelligent'' programs.

        I'd appreciate any information on this matter.

Thanks,

>-paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 12:40:01-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!jss @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NASA tech. memorandum
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.5853

I am trying to get:
        NASA Technical Memorandum 85836, June  1983;
        NASA Technical Memorandum 85838, Sept. 1983;
        NASA Technical Memorandum 85839, Oct.  1983.

They are Volume I of their report entitled:
        An overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics

"This report is part of the NBS/NASA series of overviews on AI and
Robotics."  Any help in getting an official draft would be greatly
appreciated.  (Copies aren't bad either.)  A path to NASA, if one exists,
would also be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.


                        Jon S. Stumpf
                        U. of Rochester
                        {allegra|decvax|seismo}!rochester!jss

[I have sent Jon a copy of the NTIS ordering info that I printed in
AIList V1 #81 back in October.  This included the first of the reports
mentioned above; I am not sure about the others since the serial numbers
I have are for the NTIS version.  The Gevarter overviews I have read
seem to be reasonably good summaries of the major projects in vision
and expert systems.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 15:40:19-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxf!dunk @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems for Software Development?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxf.2119

Anyone have references to papers describing the use of expert systems
in a software development environment (e.g. program synthesis,
programmer's consultant, debugging aid, etc.)?  Thanks much.
        Tom Duncan
        AT&T Bell Laboratories
        ihnp4!ihuxf!dunk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 84 18:04:42 CDT
-FROM-
From: Mike Caplinger <mike@rice.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JPL Planner
-BODY-
Can anybody give me any references to the Jet Propulsion Lab's
"autonomous space probe" project?  This system is supposed to be able
to schedule different observations in a limited time frame (like a
planetary flyby) based on priorities and feedback from previous results.
Is it really AI or just some kind of optimization hack?

                thanks,
                Mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 84 12:39:59 pst
-FROM-
From: Peter T. Young <youngp%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 32/16-bit O/S Information Request
-BODY-
We would like to obtain descriptions of/sources for the following
operating systems:
      RMX86
      CP/M (Z80 & 8085)
      CP/M-86
      MS-DOS (Z-DOS)
      UNIX
      VMS
      TOPS-20
that could be run on 32/16-bit or 32/32-bit CPU-based microcomputer
systems which are either already in production, or are scheduled for
production in the near future.  Our aiming-point is a system that will
run a reasonably useful version of LISP or PROLOG in a real-time environ-
ment.

Could you provide us with some pointers for such information?  Any help
you might provide would prove extremely useful.  Thanks for considering
this request.
                               Peter T. Young
                               (Code 9411)
                               NOSC
                               San Diego, CA 92152
                               (619) 225-6686
                               <youngp@NOSC>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 84 14:45:44 EST  (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert system algorithms
-BODY-
        From: Toby Robison <eosp1!robison>

        I think it is hopeless to demand that the algorithms instanced by
        expert systems be well understood so they can be questioned.  Even
        when the algorithms can easily be printed, they will be hard for any
        human being to comprehend, except in the most trivial systems. ...

I disagree.  One of the reasons for separating an expert system's control
structure from the knowledge base is to allow for complex behavior with a
simple control algorithm.  For example, Mycin's control structure is only
about one typewritten page [1].  Jim Reggia and I at the Univ. of Maryland
are currently working on a considerably more complex expert system control
structure, but even it is not THAT hard to understand once one understands
the preliminary mathematical background [2].  We even have a proof of
correctness for the algorithm!

REFERENCES:

[1] Davis, Buchanan, and Shortliffe.  Production Rules as a Representation
for a Knowledge-Based Consultation Program.  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 8
(1977), 15-45.

[2] Reggia, Nau, and Wang.  A Theory of Abductive Inference in Diagnostic
Expert Systems.  TR-1338, Computer Sci.  Dept., Univ.  of Maryland (Dec.
1983).  Submitted for Publication.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 25 Mar 84 22:40:03-PST
-FROM-
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SCIENCE, 23 Mar. 1984
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The aforementioned issue of SCIENCE has a "feature story" on knowledge-
based systems in general and expert systems in particular (p1279-1282),
with various luminaries and their luminary programs mentioned. Pretty
good article.

Ed Feigenbaum

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 84 19:55:52-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!parsec!ctvax!pozsvath @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Request for OPS5 examples
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6361

;;;                                                       /
;;;                                             Peter Ozsvath
;;;
;;;                     Factorial Program in OPS-5
;;;              Simulates the stack in working memory
;;;

;;;  Stage 1. Fill the working memory with (fact 1) (fact 2)...(fact n)
;;;
(p fact0 (fact {<x> = 0}) --> (remove 1) (make factorial 1 1))

(p factn (fact {<n> > 0}) --> (make fact (compute <n> - 1)))

;;;  Negative number entered. Quit
(p factneg (fact {<n> < 0}) -->
    (write "Good-bye."))

;;;  Stage 2. Sweep out the unnecessary (fact k) and (factorial k (k-1)!)
;;;     and add new (factorial (k+1) k!
;;;
(p factorial (factorial <x> <y>) (fact <x>) -->
    (remove 2)
    (remove 1)
    (make factorial (compute (<x> + 1)) (compute (<x> * <y>))))

;;;  When no more (fact k) statements are left, factorial k is fount
;;;
(p factorial2 (factorial <x> <y>) -(fact <x>) -->
    (write (crlf))
    (write (compute <x> - 1))
    (write "!! =")
    (write <y>)
    (write (crlf))
    (make infinifact))

;;;  Called once at the beginning
;;;
(p pretty_fact (start) -->
    (write "Program to demonstrate the power, compactness, and robustness")
    (write (crlf))
    (write "of the Winning OPS 5. This program inputs numbers whose")
    (write (crlf))
    (write "factorials - lo and behold - it computes RECURSIVELY")
    (write (crlf))
    (write (crlf))
    (remove 1)
    (make infinifact))

;;;  Circular "loop" that reads in numbers
;;;
(p infinifact (infinifact) -->
    (remove 1)
    (write "Enter a positive number to compute its factorial,")
    (write (crlf))
    (write "or a negative one to quit")
    (write (crlf))
    (bind <x> (accept))
    (make fact <x>))

;;;  Start
(start ((start)))

This program computes factorials in OPS-5. Some things seem to be
rather difficult to do in OPS-5. This same program could be
written in several lines of lisp!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 10:06:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KELLER SPEAKING AT ML ON WED.
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      MACHINE LEARNING BROWN BAG SEMINAR

Speaker:   Richard Keller
Date:      Wednesday, March 28, 1984 - 12:00-1:30
Location:  Hill Center, Room 254


  Placing Learning in Context:

        SOURCES OF CONTEXTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR CONCEPT LEARNING

 (Alternatively titled: The Mysterious Origins of LEX's Learning Goal)


In this talk, I  will describe a new  source of knowledge for  concept
learning: knowledge of the  learning context.  Most previous  research
in machine learning has failed to recognize contextual knowledge as  a
distinct and useful form of learning knowledge.  Contextual  knowledge
includes, among other  things, knowledge of  the purpose for  learning
and knowledge of the performance task to be improved by learning.  The
addition of this meta-knowledge, which describes the learning process,
provides a broader perspective on learning than has been available  to
most previous  learning systems.

In general, learning  systems that omit  contextual knowledge have  an
insufficient vantagepoint from which  to supervise learning  activity.
Both AM [Lenat-79] and LEX  [Mitchell-83], for instance, were  limited
by an  inability to  adapt  to changes  in their  respective  learning
environments, even  when  the  changes  were a  result  of  their  own
learning behavior.  This  limitation is  not particularly  surprising;
neither of these systems contained  an explicit representation of  the
task they were  performing (specifically,  mathematical discovery  and
integral calculus  problem  solving,  respectively).   Nor  did  these
systems contain any knowledge about the relationship between  learning
and the  task  performance.   Before  it is  reasonable  to  expect  a
learning system to  adapt to changes  in the task  environment, it  is
necessary  to  represent  task  knowledge  and  to  incorporate   this
knowledge into learning procedures.   My research, therefore,  focuses
on the representation  and use  of contextual  knowledge --  including
task knowledge -- as guidance for concept learning.

In this talk, I will  describe a learning framework that  incorporates
the use  of  contextual  knowledge.  In  addition,  I  will  introduce
various alternative methods of representing contextual knowledge,  and
sketch the design of some learning algorithms that utilize  contextual
knowledge.  Examples will be   drawn, in large part,  from my work  on
incorporating contextual knowledge within the LEX learning system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 84 14:22:39 EST
-FROM-
From: DSMITH@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rutger's Computer Science Colloquium
-BODY-
              [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        Department of Computer Science

                                  COLLOQUIUM


SPEAKER:       Dr. Witold Lipski, Jr.
               Polish Academy of Sciences

TITLE:         LOGICAL PROBLEMS RELATED TO INCOMPLETE INFORMATION IN DATABASES


A  general methodology  for  modeling  incomplete  information in databases is
described, and then illustrated in the case of  three  concrete  models  of  a
database.   We emphasize the distinction between two different interpretations
of a query language --  the  external  interpretation,  which  refers  queries
directly  to  the  real world  modeled  by  the  database;  and  the  internal
interpretation, which refers queries  to  the  information  about  this  world
available  in  the  database.  Our methodology stresses the need for a precise
definition of the semantics of the query language by means of a non-procedural
specification,   and   for   a   correct   procedural implementation  of  this
specification.  Various logical -- and, at  times, combinatorial  --  problems
connected  with  information  incompleteness  are discussed.   Related work is
surveyed and an extensive bibliography is included.

DATE:           Friday, March 30, 1984
TIME:           2:50 p.m.
PLACE:          Room 705 - Hill Center
                                Coffee at 2:30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 1984  09:48 EST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Crisse Ciro <CRISSE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Genesereth Talks on Control of Reasoning
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


             Procedural Hints in the Control of Reasoning

                        Michael R. Genesereth
                     Computer Science Department
                         Stanford University

                      DATE: Thursday, March 29
                      TIME: 4:00 PM
                     PLACE: NE43 8th Floor Playroom

          [This talk is also being given at IBM San Jose on
          Friday, April 6, 10:00.  -- KIL]


One of the key problems in automated reasoning is control of
combinatorics.  Whether one works forward from given premises or
backward from desired conclusions, it is usually necessary to consider
many inference paths before one succeeds in deriving useful results.
In the absence of advance knowledge as to which path or paths are
likely to succeed, search is the only alternative.

In some situations, however, advance knowledge is available in the
form of procedural hints like those found in math texts.  Such hints
differ from facts about the subject of reasoning in that they are
prescriptive rather than descriptive; they say what a reasoner OUGHT
to do rather than what is TRUE.

This talk describes a language for expressing hints to control the
process of reasoning and provides an appropriate semantic account in
the form of an interpreter that behaves in accordance with the hints.
The work is relevant to understanding the phenomenon of introspection
and is of practical value in the construction of expert systems.


HOST: Prof. Randy Davis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
37
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 84 07:49 PST
-FROM-
From: DSchmitz.es@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Judicial Expert Systems?
-BODY-
I'd like to know if there's any work going on out there toward the
development of expert systems (or other AI-type systems) designed to
assist in making legal decisions.  Such systems as I have in mind would
be used by judges, lawyers, legal theorists, perhaps even international
courts.

Please reply to DSchmitz.es@PARC-MAXC

Thank you

[I believe there has been work at Stanford and at Yale.  I also remember
reading some newspaper account of a man who wishes to market an
automated jury: each side types in its legal precedents and
the computer decides which side wins.  AIList carried a seminar
notice the Stanford work last year.  Can anyone give more specific
information?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 11:28:10-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!debl @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Help on Radiography Discussion
-BODY-
I have been told that a discussion of expert systems to read radiographs
occured on the net recently.  Any information or references from this
discussion would be appreciated.  Thank you.

                David Lees

[There was a message by Dr. Tsotsos about his group's work at U.
of Toronto on the ALVEN system for interpreting heart images.
You might also inquire on Vision-List (Kahn@UCLA-CS); it has not
discussed this topic, but you might get a discussion started.
Dr. Jack Sklansky and associates have been developing systems
to find tumors in chest radiographs; they might be considered
"expert systems" in the sense that their performance is very
good.  Chris Brown, Dana Ballard, and others at the U. of Rochester
have been using hypothesize-and-test and other AI techniques in the
analysis of chest radiographs and ultrasound heart images.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 84 2:49:00-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!andrew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of 'and'
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: inmet.1150

I haven't heard of that one, but there was an article recently (in
Datamation?) about a natural language processing system which
repeatedly gave no results when asked for "all customers in Ohio
and Indiana".  Of course, no customer can be in both states
at once; the question should have been phrased as ".. Ohio *or*
Indiana".  When this was pointed out, the person using the
program commented something to the effect of "Don't tell *me*
how to think!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 1984 11:13:27 EST
-FROM-
From: David M. Axler <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fuzzy Set Papers
-BODY-
     Some very interesting early work on the applications of fuzzy set
theory to language behavior was done at the Language Behavior Research
Laboratory out at U. Cal - Berkeley.  Much of this was later available
via the Lab's series of Working Papers and Monographs.  Of interest to
AI researchers concerned w/language processing and/or fuzzy sets are:

Monograph #3, "Natural Information Processing Rules:  Formal Theory and
  Applications to Ethnography", William H. Geoghegan, 2/73.

Working Paper #43, "Basic Objects in Natural Categories", Eleanor Rosch,
Carolyn B. Mervis, Wayne Gray, David Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem, 1975.

Working Paper #44, "Color Categories as Fuzzy Sets", Paul Kay and Chad
McDaniel, 1975.

My list of the available papers is severely out of date, and I strongly
suspect that there's a fair amount of later work also available.  Those
interested should write to the lab, as follows:

University of California
Language Behavior Research Laboratory
2220 Piedmont Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94720

(If anyone out at Berkeley would like to fill the list in on more recent
and relevant work from the lab, great...)

  --Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 12:12:42-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Teaching Proposal
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.919

My main interest is Artificial Intelligence, although I define that rather
broadly: to me, AI is the field which unifies all others.  Philosophy,
psychology, mathematics, compilers, languages (both programming and natural),
"systems" (both of the CS and of the EE variety), data structures, machine
architecture, discrete representations, continuous representations, cognitive
science, art, history, music, business administration, political science,
etc, etc, etc, are ALL subfields of AI to me.  They all represent specific
domains in which intelligent activity is studied and/or mechanized.

I'm sure many agree with me that what the American educational system
needs is a program integrating computer "literacy" with critical thinking
abilities in many other domains.  I do not mean "literacy" in the "Oh yes,
I can run statistical packages" sense.  I mean an approach to critical
thinking built on the foundations of the computational paradigm -- the view
that knowledge and understanding can be represented explicitly, and that one
can discover procedures for manipulating those representations in order to
solve real problems.  Such a program could form the backbone of a very
stimulating university-wide undergraduate "core" program integrating not
only mathematics and the physical sciences but communications skills and
all the "liberal arts" as well.

I visualize such a program as presenting a coherent and integrated approach
to the cognitive skills most important for healthy and productive functioning
in the modern world.  It would present the major principles of cognition as
seen through the organizing principles of information processing.

This is more than an approach to teaching.  To me, it is also the seed of new
approaches to machine learning and cognitive modeling.  It uses undergraduate
education as an experimental testbed for research in AI, psychology,
linguistics, and social systems.  That "cutting edge" fervor alone should
make it very interesting to students.

Bob Giansiracusa
Computer Science Dept, Penn State U, 814-865-9507 (ofc), 814-234-4375 (home)
Arpa:   bobgian%PSUVAX1.BITNET@Berkeley
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP            -or-    ..!allegra!psuvax!bobgian
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET         CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.CSNET
USmail: PO Box 10164, Calder Square Branch, State College, PA 16805

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 84 11:38:27-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!bobgian @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proposed Research Description
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax.918

ADAPTIVE COGNITIVE MODEL FORMATION

The goal of this work is the automatic construction of models which can
predict and characterize the behavior of dynamical systems at multiple
levels of abstraction.

Numeric models used in simulation studies can PREDICT system behavior
but cannot EXPLAIN those predictions.  Traditional expert systems can
explain certain predictions, but their accuracy is usually limited to
qualitative ("symbolic") statements.  This research effort attempts to
couple the explanatory power of symbolic representations with the
precision and testability of numeric models.

Additionally, the computational burden implicit in the use of numeric
simulation models rapidly becomes astronomical when accurate performance
is needed over large domains (fine sampling density).

The solution my work explores consists of developing AUTOMATICALLY
a hierarchical sequence of SYMBOLIC models which convey QUALITATIVE
information of the sort that a human analyst generates when interpreting
numeric simulations.  These symbolic models portray system behavior at
multiple levels of abstraction, allowing symbolic simulation and inference
procedures to optimize the "run time" versus "accuracy" tradeoff.

I profess the philosophical bias that the study of learning and modeling
mechanisms can proceed productively in a relatively domain-independent
manner.  Obviously, domain-specific knowledge will speed the solution search
process.  Such constraints can be regarded as "seeds" for search in a process
whose algorithm is largely domain-independent.  Anecdotal support for this
hypothesis comes from the observation that HUMANS can become expert at theory
and model formation in a wide variety of different domains.

Bob Giansiracusa
Computer Science Dept, Penn State U, 814-865-9507 (ofc), 814-234-4375 (home)
Arpa:   bobgian%PSUVAX1.BITNET@Berkeley
UUCP:   bobgian@psuvax.UUCP            -or-    ..!allegra!psuvax!bobgian
Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET         CSnet:  bobgian@penn-state.CSNET
USmail: PO Box 10164, Calder Square Branch, State College, PA 16805

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 84 10:09:15 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UCB Cognitive Science Seminar--April 3
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                        Spring 1984

            IDS 237B - Cognitive Science Seminar

        Time:         Tuesday, April 3, 1984, 11-12:30pm
        Location:     240 Bechtel

              OBJECTS, PARTS  AND  CATEGORIES
        Barbara Tversky, Dept. of Psychology, Stanford

Many psychological, linguistic and anthropological  measures
converge  to a preferred level of reference, or BASIC LEVEL,
for common categories; for example, TABLE, in lieu of FURNI-
TURE  or KITCHEN TABLE.  Here we demonstrate that knowledge
of categories  at  that  level  (and  only  that  level)  of
abstraction is dominated by knowledge of parts.  Basic level
categories are perceived to share parts and to  differ  from
one  another  on the basis of other features.  We argue that
knowledge of part configuration underlies the convergence of
perceptual,  behavioral and linguistic measures because part
configuration plays a large  role  in  both  appearance  and
function.  Basic level categories are especially informative
because structure is linked to function via  parts  at  this
level.

*****  Followed by a lunchbag discussion with speaker  *****
***  in the IHL Library (Second Floor, Bldg. T-4) from 12:30-2  ***

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 1984 09:28:05-PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Guy M. Lohman <LOHMAN%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR.IBM-SJ@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory calendar of Computer
-BODY-           Science seminars 2-6 April 84

          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  Thurs., April 5 Computer Science Colloquium
  3:00 P.M.   MINIMUM DESCRIPTION LENGTH PRINCIPLE IN MODELING
  Auditorium  Traditionally, statistical estimation and modeling
            involve besides certain well established procedures,
            such as the celebrated maximum likelihood technique,
            a substantial amount of judgment.  The latter is
            typically needed in deciding upon the right model
            complexity.  In this talk we present a recently
            developed principle for modeling and statistical
            inference, which to a considerable extent allows
            reduction of the judgment portion in estimation.
            This so-called MDL-principle is based on a purely
            information theoretic idea.  It selects that model in
            a parametric class which permits the shortest coding
            of the data.  The coding, of which we only need the
            length in terms of, say, binary digits, must,
            however, be self-containing in the sense that the
            description of the parameters themselves needed in
            the imagined encoding are included.  For this reason,
            the optimum model cannot possibly be very complex
            unless the data sample is very large.  A fundamental
            theorem gives an asymptotically valid formula for the
            shortest possible code length as well as for the
            optimum model complexity in a large class of models.
            For short samples no simple formula exists, but the
            optimum complexity can be estimated numerically and
            taken advantage of.  Finally, the principle is
            generalized so as to allow any measure for a model's
            performance such as its ability to predict.

            J. Rissanen, San Jose Research
            Host:  P. Mantey

  Fri., April 6 Computer Science Seminars
  Auditorium

            KNOWLEDGE AND DATABASES (11:15)

            We define a knowledge based approach to database
            problems.  Using a classification of application from
            the enterprise to the system level we can give
            examples of the variety of knowledge which can be
            used.  Most of the examples are drawn from work at
            the KBMS Project in Stanford.  The objective of the
            presentation is to illustrate the power but also the
            high payoff of quite straightforward artificial
            intelligence applications in databases.
            Implementation choices will also be evaluated.
            G. Wiederhold, Stanford University
            Host:  J. Halpern

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

  Visitors, please arrive 15 mins. early.  IBM is located on U.S. 101
  7 miles south of Interstate 280.  Exit at Ford Road and follow the signs
  for Cottle Road.  The Research Laboratory is IBM Building 028.
  For more detailed directions, please phone the Research Lab receptionist
  at (408) 256-3028.  For further information on individual talks,
  please phone the host listed above.

  IBM San Jose Research mails out both the complete research calendar
  and a computer science subset calendar.  Send requests for inclusion
  in either mailing list to CALENDAR.IBM-SJ at RAND-RELAY.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
38
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 1984 1634-PST
-FROM-
From: WAXMAN@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JPL Planning System
-BODY-

Len Friedman at JPL; Friedman@USC-ECLA did the work on the planning
system someone asked about.

[...]

MILT WAXMAN
WAXMAN@USC-ECLA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Mar 84 15:18:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Gardner <GARDNER@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Legal expert systems
-BODY-
The seminar notice you referred to in Ailist was my oral.  I'm still
finishing off the dissertation, which is called "An Artificial Intelligence
Approach to Legal Reasoning."  For a sketch of what it's about, see
the 1983 AAAI proceedings, in which I had a paper.

>-Anne Gardner

[Jeff Rosenschein@SU-SCORE also pointed out Anne's work. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 84 17:36:35 EST
-FROM-
From: MCCARTY@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: judicial expert systems
-BODY-
I saw your query in the recent AILIST Digest.  Are you familiar with the
TAXMAN project at Rutgers?  Strictly speaking, this is not a "judicial expert
system," since our goal at the present time is not to build a large practical
system for use by lawyers.  Instead, we are exploring a number of theoretical
issues about the representation of legal rules and legal concepts, and the
process of legal reasoning and legal argumentation.  We believe that this
is an essential step for the construction of sophisticated expert systems
for lawyers in the future.  Some recent references:

    McCarty, L.T., "Permissions and Obligations," IJCAI-83, pp. 287-294.

    McCarty, L.T., and Sridharan, N.S., "The Representation of an Evolving
        System of Legal Concepts: II. Prototypes and Deformations," IJCAI-81,
        pp. 246-253.

    McCarty, L.T., and Sridharan, N.S., "A Computational Theory of Legal
        Argument," Technical Report LRP-TR-13, Laboratory for Computer
        Science Research, Rutgers University (1982).

    McCarty, L.T., "Intelligent Legal Information Systems:  Problems and
        Prospects," Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Vol. 9,
        No. 2, pp. 265-294 (1983).

This latter article articulates some of our ideas about practical systems,
and discusses several related projects by other researchers.


Thorne McCarty

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 84 17:52:33 PST
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-Von's are not Von's
-BODY-
        The  ``parallel  architectures  community'' has mostly been interested
        in novel computer architectures to accelerate numeric computation
        (usually  represented as Fortran codes).

        What are the fundamental characteristics of AI computation that
        distinguish it from more conventional computation?
        Indeed, are there really any differences at all?


        I disagree with the claim that the "parallel architectures community"
has been trying to find a parallel Fortran.  Indeed, that is not possible,
since the best that could be attained would be *concurrent seriality*.
On the whole, I feel acceleration of numerical computation is not the primary
goal of those researching parallel architectures.  Rather, I feel the primary
thrust of this work has been to define inherently parallel structures and
their possible applications.

        Before we all espouse our personal viewpoints on this subject, I
feel it might be useful to agree upon our terms; they seem to vary from
person to person.  *Serial* is a single step move through a computation.
*Concurrent serial* is the simultaneous processing of more than one
serial computation.  *Parallel* is the local computation of global properties
by dedicated processors.

        Yes! There are differences between AI-motivated parallel
computation and conventional computation.  Conventional computation runs
on your standard store-bought Von Neumann machine that runs in a *serial*
fashion.  "Pseudo-conventional" machines are able to run *concurrent serial*
programs (e.g., Ada, Concurrent Pascal, etc.) utilizing several Von Neumann
processors.  *A truly parallel machine computes global properties based upon
local criteria.*  Each "criteria" is locally computed via a dedicated
processor.  The design of parallel machines is a tough problem.
A growing number of researchers feel that
*cellular automata* are the building block of all parallel structures.
The design of parallel machines using cellular automata involves the design
of local consistency conditions, oscillation behavior, equilibrium effects,
and a myriad of other non-conventional subjects.
Thus, I feel that there are in fact significant differences between parallelism
and "conventional" methods.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 84 12:54 PST
-FROM-
From: ANDERSON.ES@Xerox.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Anderson <Anderson.es@Xerox.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEW VLSI CAD INTEREST DL
-BODY-
This is to announce a new distribution list for the purpose of
discussing issues and exchanging ideas pertaining to VLSI Computer Aided
Design and Layout.

I hope for this DL to encompass a broad range of topics including but
not limited to: VLSI CAD/CAE/CAM hardware, software, layout, design,
techniques, programming, fracturing, PG, plotting, maintenance, vendors,
bugs, workstations, DRC, ERC, system management, peripheral equipment,
design verification, testing, benchmarking, archiving procedures, etc.
etc.

The distribution list itself resides on the Xerox Ethernet.  Ethernet
users can send messages to CADinterest^.es.  Arpanet, Milnet, Usenet,
and other Internet users can send messages to CADinterest^.es@PARC-MAXC.
[You will probably need to use quotes to get the special symbol through
your mailer: "CADinterest^.es"@PARC-MAXC.  -- KIL]

[...]

Anyone on the Xerox Ethernet may add themselves using Maintain.
Arpanet, Milnet, Usenet, and other Internet users should send a request
to me (Anderson.es@PARC-MAXC) and I will add you to the DL.  I will also
add whole DL's if requested by the owner.

For now, there are no rules set for this DL.  Depending on how large it
gets, I hope to keep it as anything goes and see what happens for a
while.  I will wait a week before sending any messages to the DL in
order to allow people to be added to the DL.  If we get some good
informative discussions going, I will try to archive the responses or
maybe go to a digest format.  Thank you for your indulgance.

Craig Anderson
VLSI CAD Lab Supervisor
Xerox Corp.
El Segundo, Ca.
213-536-7299

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Mar 84 23:40:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Al Davis <ADavis at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: John Conery Seminar Friday the 30th
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                               Seminar

                           Friday, March 30
                 10:00 a.m. in the AI Conference Room

           Fairchild AI Labs, 4001 Miranda Ave., Palo Alto

                                  by

                            John S. Conery
                         University of Oregon

Title:  The AND/OR Process Model for Parallel Interpretation of Logic
Programs.

Abstract:  In contrast to the traditional depth first sequential process
tree search used for logic program evaluation, this talk presents the AND/OR
process model.  It is a method for interpretation by a system of
asynchronous, independent processes that communicate only by messages.
The method makes it possible to exploit two distinct forms of
parallelism.  OR parallelism is obtained from evaluating
nondeterministic choices in parallel.  AND parallelism arises in the
execution of deterministic functions, such as matrix multiplication or
divide and conquer algorithms, that are inherently parallel.  The two
forms of parallelism can be exploited at the same time.  This means
AND parallelism can be applied to clauses that are composed of several
nondeterministic components, and it can recover from incorrect choices
in the solution of these components.  In addition to defining parallel
computations, the model provides a more defined procedural semantics
for logic programs; that is, parallel interpreters based on this model
are able to generate answers to queries that cause standard
interpreters to go into an infinite loop.  The interpretation method
is intended to form the theoretical framework of a highly parallel non
von Neumann computer architecture; the talk concludes with a
discussion of issues involved in implementing the abstract interpreter
on a multiprocessor.
                                                al

Notes to visitors:  Arrive at Fairchild between 9:45 and 10:00 and go
to the guard and tell him you are there to visit Al Davis at X4385.
They will call me and someone will come down and get you and haul you
off to the AI conference room.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 84  1157 PST
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar in foundations of mathematics (Professor Kreisel)
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Organizational meeting

TIME:   Tuesday, Apr. 3, 4:15 PM
PLACE:  Philosophy Dept. Room 92 (seminar room)
TOPIC:  Logic and parallel computation.

We will begin by examining some recent papers where
parallel computation is used in interesting ways
to obtain better algorithms.

The logical part will be to investigate how efficient
algorithms using parallel computation might be extracted
from infinite proof trees by applying transformations
that use only finite amounts of information.

At the first meeting these ideas will be explained in some more detail.
Ideas and suggestions will be welcome.

The seminar is scheduled to meet Tuesdays at 4:15, but can
be changed if there are conflicts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
39
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 84 12:50:24-EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!srlm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: applicative / functional simulation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ukc.4146

        I am looking for information on functional/applicative
        simulators of anything (communications protocols, to
        cite a good one) written in a PURELY applicative/functional
        style (no setq's please).

        If you know of anything about this (papers, programs, etc)
        I'd be very grateful if you could mail the pointers to me.


        Silvio Lemos Meira

        UUCP: ...!vax135!ukc!srlm
        computing laboratory
        university of kent at canterbury
        canterbury ct2 7nf uk
        Phone: +44 227 66822 extension 568

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 84 16:19 cst
-FROM-
From: Bruce Shriver <ShriverBD%usl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for references
-BODY-
I would like to be referred to either one or two seminal papers or one or
two highly qualified persons in the following areas (if you send me the
name of an individual, the person's address and phone number would also
be greatly appreciated):

  1. Tutorial or survey papers on logic programming, particularly those
     dealing with several different language approaches.

  2. Reusable Software (please give references other than the Proceedings
     of the Workshop on Reuseability in Programming which was held in
     Newport, RI last September).

  3. Your favorite formal specification technique that can be applied to
     large scale, complex systems.  Examples demonstrating the completeness
     and consistency of a set of specifications for real systems.

  4. Integrated programming environments such as Cedar and Spice versus
     the Ada-style environments (APSEs, etc.).  Discussions on the
     relative merits of these two kinds of environments.

  5. Knowledge Based System Architectures (i.e., support of knowledge
     based systems from both the hardware and software point of view).
     Knowledge representation and its hardware/software implications.
     The relationship between "knowledge bases" and "data bases" and
     the relationship between knowledge base systems and data base
     systems.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter.  I
appreciate your help:     Bruce D. Shriver
                          Computer Science Department
                          University of Southwestern Louisiana
                          P. O. Box 44330
                          Lafayette, LA 70504
                          (318) 231-6606
                          shriver.usl@rand-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Mar 84 1208 EST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Roli.Wendorf@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Distributed Programs
-BODY-
As part of my thesis, I am collecting information on the behavior of
distributed programs.  I define distributed programs as consisting of
multiple processes.  Thus, multiprocess programs running on uniprocessor
systems would qualify as well.

If you have written, or know of any distributed programs, I would like to
hear from you.  I am specially interested in hearing about distributed
versions of commonly used programs like editors, compilers, mail systems, etc.

Thanks in advance,
Roli G. Wendorf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Mar 84 12:04:36 EST  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn%umcp-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A call for discussion
-BODY-
        From:  Sal Stolfo <sal@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>

        This  note  is  a  solicitation of the AI community for cogent
        discussion ...  We hope that all facets will be addressed including:

        - Differences between the kinds of problems encountered in AI and those
        considered more conventional.   (A   simple   answer   in   terms  of
        ``ill-defined'' and ``well-defined'' problems is viewed as a copout.)
        ...

One of the biggest differences involves how well we can explain how we
solve a problem.  The problems that humans can solve can be divided roughly
into the following two classes:

1.  Problems which we can solve which we can also explain HOW to solve.
Examples include sorting a deck of cards, adding a column of numbers, and
payroll accounting.  Any time we can explain how to solve a problem, we can
write a conventional computer procedure to solve it.

2.  Problems which we can solve but cannot explain how to solve (for a
discussion of some related issues, see Polanyi's "The Tacit Dimension").
Examples include recognizing a face, making good moves in a chess game, and
diagnosing a medical case.  We can't solve such problems using conventional
programming techniques, because we don't know what algorithms to use.
Instead, we use various heuristic approaches.

The latter class of problems corresponds roughly to what I would call AI
problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 84 19:25:42-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: 'Explaining' expert system algorithms
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6403

There is no need for expert system software to be well-understood by anyone but
its designers; there IS a need for systems to be able to explain THEMSELVES.
Witness human thinking: after 30 years of serious AI and much more of cognitive
psychology, we still don't know how we think, but we have relatively little
trouble getting people to explain themselves to us.

I think that we will not be able to produce such self-explanatory software
until we come up with a fairly comprehensive theory of our own mental workings;
which is, admittedly, not the same as understanding an expert program. On the
other hand, if you're a theoretical sort you tend to accept Occam's razor, and
so I believe that such a theory of cognition will be as simplifying as the
Copernican revolution was for astronomy. Thereafter it's all variations on a
theme, and expert systems too will one day be correspondingly easy.

                                                                Marcel S.
                                                                U of Illinois

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Mar 1984 08:55-PST
-FROM-
From: SSMITH@USC-ECL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Legal System
-BODY-
Regarding your request in the latest AI-LIST:
George Cross, an assistant prof. at Louisiana State University has
been working for aprox. the last 2 years with a law prof. to formalize
that state's legal codes.  From what I understand, Louisiana uses a
form of law, not found in other states, based on precise rules, rather
than the method of refering to past cases to obtain legal precedence.
I know he has a few unpublished papers in this area and is preparing
a paper for the Austin AAAI.  From what I can tell, the work is similar
in scope to McCarty's work at Rutgers.

George can be contacted over the CS-NET: cross%lsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.

    ---Steve Smith (SSmith@USC-ECL)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Mar 84 06:32:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems/NY Times
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

See front page story of today's New York Times entitled
"Machines Built to Emulate Human Experts' Reasoning".

Features knowledge engineering, expert systems, and Sheldon Breiner,
chairman of Syntelligence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03/30/84 14:40:07
-FROM-
From: STORY@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Theory of the Learnable
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

TITLE:  "A THEORY OF THE LEARNABLE"
SPEAKER:        Professor L.G. Valiant, Harvard University
DATE:   Thursday, April 5, 1984
TIME:   3:45    Refreshments
        4:00    Lecture
PLACE:  NE43-512a

We consider concepts as represented by programs for recognizing them and define
learning as the process of acquiring such programs in the absence of any
explicit programming.  We describe a methodology for understanding the limits
of what is learnable as delimited by computational complexity.  The methodology
consists essentially of choosing some natural information gathering mechanism,
such as the observation of positive examples of the concept, and determining
the class of concepts that can be learnt using it in a polynomial number of
steps.  A probabilistic definition of learnability is introduced that leads to
encouraging positive results for several classes of propositional programs.
The ultimate aim of our approach is to identify once and for all the maximum
potential of learning machines.

HOST:   Professor Silvio Micali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 30 Mar 84 17:28:02-PST
-FROM-
From: Ole Lehrmann Madsen <MADSEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: System Description Languages
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following course will be given in the spring quarter:

   CS 249 TOPICS IN PROGRAMMING SYSTEMS:
          LANGUAGES FOR SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAMMING

Questions to Ole Lehrmann Madsen, M. Jacks Hall room 214, tlf. 497 - 0364,
net address MADSEN@SU-SCORE.

Listing:  CS 249
Instructor: Ole Lehrmann Madsen
Time: Monday 1:00pm - 4:00pm
Room: 352 building 460

This course will consider tools and concepts for system description and
programming. A number of languages for this purpose will be presented. These
include SIMULA 67, DELTA, EPSILON and BETA, which have been developed as part
of research projects in Norway and Denmark.

SIMULA I was originally developed as a tool for simulation. SIMULA 67 is a
general programming language with simulation as a special application. The
formalization of a system as a SIMULA program often gave a better understanding
of the system than did the actual simulation results.
This was the motivation for designing a special language (DELTA) for making
system descriptions. DELTA is intended for communication about systems. e.g.
data processing, biology, medicine, physics. DELTA among others contains
constructs for describing discrete state changes (by means of algorithms) and
continuous state changes (by means of predicates).  The EPSILON language is
the result of an attemp to formalize DELTA by means of Petri Nets.

BETA is a programming language originally intended for implementing DELTA
descriptions of computer systems. However the project turned into a long-
term project with the purpose of developing concepts, constucts and tools
in relation to programming. The major results of this projetc is the BETA
language. BETA is an object oriented language like SIMULA and SMALLTALK,
but unlike SMALLTALK, BETA belongs to the ALGOL family with respect to
block structure, scope rules and type checking.

Various other languages and topics may also be covered. Examples of this are:
Petri Nets, environments for system description and programming, alternative
languages like Aleph and Smalltalk, implementation issues. Implementaion issues
could be: transformation of a system description to a program, implementation
of a typed language like BETA obtaining dynamic possibilities like in LISP.

Prerequisites

Students are expected to have a basic knowledge of programming languages.
The course may to some extent depend on the background and interests of the
participating students. Students with a background in simulation or description
of various systems within physics, biology, etc. will be useful participants.

Course work

Students will be expected to read and discuss in class various papers
on system description and programming languges. In addition small
exercises may be given.  Each student is supposed to write a short
paper about one or more topics covered by the course and comment on
papers by other students.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
40
-DATE-
Date: 30 Mar 84 16:05 EST
-FROM-
From: Denber.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of 'and'
-BODY-
""all customers in Ohio and Indiana".  Of course, no customer can be in
both states at once; the question should have been phrased as ".. Ohio
*or* Indiana""

Well, this is actually a case of ellipsis.  "Or" has its own problems.
What is really meant is "all customers in Ohio and [all customers in]
Indiana".  Happens all the time.  Looked at this briefly at the U of R
before I was elided myself.  I don't have my references here.  Some work
at Toronto (?)  Perhaps Gary the Dog Modeller can say more.

                        - Michel
                        Speaker to Silicon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 84  8:22:26 EST
-FROM-
From: Andrew Malis <malis@BBN-UNIX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Notes from a talk by Alan Kay (long message)
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Info-Atari list by Tyson@SRI-AI.]

  Date: 23 Mar 1984 1214-EST (Friday)
  From: mit-athena!dm@mit-eddie (Dave Mankins )
  Subject: Notes from talk by Alan Kay at MIT

Dr. Alan Kay, one of the developers of Smalltalk and the Xerox Alto, and
currently a Vice President and Chief Scientist at Atari, gave a talk at
MIT yesterday (22 March 1984) titled: "Too many smart people: a personal
view of design in the computer field"

The abstract:

    This talk is about the battle between Form and Content in Design and
    why "being smart" usually causes content to lose.  "Insightful
    laziness" is better because (1) it takes maximum advantage of others
    work and (2) it encourages "rotating" the problem into its simplest
    essence -- often by changing it completely.  In other words: Point
    of view is worth 80 IQ points!

Here are some tidbits gleaned from my notes:

One of the problems with smart people is that they deal with
difficulties by fixing them, rather than taking the difficulty as a
symptom of a flaw in the design, and noticing "a rotation into a new
simplicity."

When preparing his talk he realized that what he wanted to say was
basically inconsistent, that

    1) You should do things over, and
    2) You shouldn't do things over.

"Both of these are true as long as you get the boundary conditions
right."  (There ensues an anecdote about working with Seymour Cray to
get an early CDC6500 up at NCAR.  The 6500 hardware did not normalize
its floating point operations, but that was "okay" because "any sensible
model will converge".  When the NCAR meteorologists (who answer the
question "what will the weather be like?" by looking out the window)
tried to put their models up on the CDC6500, they didn't work.  They
insisted that the Fortran compiler do the normalization for them.  Kay
cited this as evidence that their model was wrong.  Hmph, it's easy to
make fun of meteorologists...)

Kay cited Minsky's Turing award lecture, in the Apr. 1970 JACM (or maybe
CACM, I didn't catch it): "Form and content aren't enough."  What has
happened to the computer science field over the last twenty years is
myopia:  "a myopia so acute that only the very brilliant can achieve
it."

As an example of this, Kay cited the decline from the STS940 in 1965 to
UNIX ("a mere shadow of what an operating system should be") to CPM.  The
myopia in question is best illustrated by a failure of Kay's own: "When
we got our first IMSAI (mumble) we put Smalltalk up on it.  We had to do
a lot of machine coding on it, and we thought that wasn't right.  And it
performed about as well as BASIC does today.  We said 'This is clearly
inadequate.  What we need is 2Mb of memory and a fast disk.'  Thus we
left the door open for BASIC to crawl back out of its crypt."

He should be lynched.  At least he realizes the error of his ways.

He cited an article by Vannevar Bush, in a 1945 Atlantic Monthly,
titled, "As we may think", in which Bush described a multi-screened,
pointer-based system with access to the world's libraries, drawing
programs, etc.  Bush, of course, thought it was just a few years away
(he called it "Memex").

He alluded to Minsky's notion of "science-envy": Natural scientists look
at the universe and discover its laws.  Computer scientists make up
their universes.  "What we do is more like an art."  "You can judge
whether or not a field is overcome by science-envy if it sticks the word
'science' into its name: 'computer science', 'cognitive science',
'political science'..."

He talked about some of his early work, with Ed Teitel, developing an
early personal computer (ca. 1965) calligraphic display with a pointer.
It had "a wonderful language I developed, influenced by Sutherland's
Sketchpad (the best thesis ever done in computer science) and
Simula--everything I've ever done has been influenced by Sketchpad and
Simula).  Everyone who tried to use it hated it.  They all had about the
same reaction to it that everyone has to APL today."  Shortly after
working on this he saw Papert's work with LOGO and children, and
resolved that everything he did from that day forth would be
programmable by children.

Part of the machine's problem stemmed from the fact that it didn't have
enough memory.  This in turn stems from the fact that we cast hardware
in concrete before we know what we're going to do with it.

Some relevant maxims from my notes:

    "Hardware is software crysallized early."
    "We shouldn't try to build a supercomputer until we have something
        to compute."

His point in these two maxims was, I think, that we're very good at
building hardware before we really know what we're going to do with it
(is there a lesson here for Project Athena with its tons of Ethernetted
VAXes "which will be used for undergraduate education" but a lack of
vision when it comes to educational software?)

He then described the Dynabook: a note-book sized interactive computer,
with about the same kind of interface as a notebook: you can doodle with
it, scribble, but it can also peruse the whole Library of Congress, as
well as past doodles.  "So portable you can carry something else, too."
[For a more complete description of Dynabook, see ``Fanatic Life and
Symbolic Death among the Computer Bums'', in "Two Cybernetic Frontiers"
by Stewart Brand.]

[An aside: one of the proposed forms of the Dynabook was a Walkman with
eyeglass flat-screen stereoptic displays (real 3-d complete with hidden
surfaces!).  This was punted because "no one would want to put something
on their head."  (Times change.)  Kay asserted that such displays ought
to be easier to produce than a note-book sized display, since there
would be fewer picture-elements required (a notebook would require maybe
1.5M pixels, while "the human eye can resolve only 140,000 points, so
you'd only have to put 140,000 pixels into your eyeglasses".  The flaw
in this argument is that most of those points the eye can resolve are in
the fovea, and you would have to put foveal-resolution over the entire
field of the glasses, meaning, more pixels.  This is the opposite of
window-oriented displays.  Instead of a cluttered desk you have an
orderly bulletin-board: just display everything at once, the user
can look around the room at all the stuff.  If this room isn't enough
you can walk into the next room and look at more stuff.]

More maxims:
    "Great ideas are better than good ones because they both take about
    the same amount of time to develop and the great ideas aren't
    obsolete when you're done."

An observation:
    "In all the years that we had the Altos no one at Xerox ever
    designed anything by starting with a drawing on an Alto.  They
    always started with a sketch on the back of an envelope."
    Nicholas Negroponte and the Architecture Machine (ArcMac) group
    did the only study of what sketching is and what really is going
    on when you sketch in 1970 in a project called "Architecture by
    yourself" but their funding dried up and no one remembers that
    stuff now.

    [An aside: the Macintosh's MacPaint program is the best drawing
    program that Kay has ever seen.  (The Macintosh people called him
    up one day and said, "Come on over, we have a present for you.")
    When he started playing with it he had a two-fold reaction:
    "Finally", and "Why did it take 12 years?"]

Homage was paid to the Burroughs B5000, a computer developed in 1961:

    It's operating system was entirely written in a higher level
        language (ALGOL)
    It had hardware protection (which was later recognized to be
        a capability protection system)
    It had an object-oriented virtual memory system
    It had virtual data
        (any data reference could have a procedure attached to it for
        fetching and storing the real data--a bit was set as to which
        side of the assignment statement it went on)
    It was a multiprocessor (it had two processors, and much of the
        protection scheme was built in order to allow the two processors
        to work together).
    It had an integrated stack (which, sadly, is the only thing that
        people seem to remember).

"This was twenty years ago!  What happened, people?"

The B5000 had some flaws:
    The virtual data wasn't done right
        there were too many architectural assumptions about physical data
        formats
    "Char mode: which eliminated all the protections."  This was
        provided to let programmers used to the 1401 (I think) be
        comfortable.

User interface observations:

Piaget's three stages of development:

    Doing ----> Images -----> Symbols

doing: "a hole is to dig"
images: "getting the answer wrong in the water glass experiment"
symbols: "so we can say things that aren't true"

Brunner did a study that indicated these weren't stages, they were three
areas conflicting for dominance--as we mature, symbols begin to win out.

Ha...man did a study of inventiveness and creativity among
mathematicians and discovered that most mathematicians do their work
imagistically, very few of them work by manipulating symbols.  Some
mathematicians (notably Einstein) actually have a kinesthetic ability to
FEEL the spaces they are dealing with.

From psychology comes a principle applicable to user interfaces:

Kay's law: Doing with Images generates Symbols.

He cites Papert's "Mindstorms", where Papert describes programming a
computer to draw a circle.  A high school student, working with BASIC
would have before her the dubious assertion that a circle and
x**2+y**2=C are related.  A child, instructed to "play turtle" will
close her eyes while walking in a circle and say "I move forward a
little, then I turn a little, and I keep doing that until I make a
circle".  This is how a differential geometer views a circle.  Papert's
whole book is an illustration of Kay's Law.

User interface maxims:
    Immediacy
        What you see is what you get (WYSIWYG)
    Modeless
        Always be able to start a new command without having to clean up
        after the old one.
    Generic
        What works in one place works in another
    User illusion
        User's make models of what goes on inside the machine.  Make the
        system in which most of the user's guesses are valid.  Not "some
        of the time it's wonderful, but most of the time you get
        surprised."
    Communicative
        He drew the distinction between reactive systems and interactive
        systems.  All his systems have been reactive--you would do
        something, and the system would react, opening up new
        possibilities.
    Undoability
        Even if it doesn't do much, if you never lose a character, your
        users will be happy.
    Functional
        "What will it do without user programming."

        He didn't used to think this was a user interface issue until he
        saw the STAR, which has the world's best user interface, except
        that it doesn't DO anything.  Not many people can affort a 17000
        coffee-warmer.
    Fun
        One should be able to fool around with no goal.  A user
        interface should be like Disneyland

"Language is an extension of gestures--you're not really trying to say
something, you're really trying to point to something that is in someone
else's head.  A good mime can convey a message without a single word."

A model he encourages people to pursue is that of the AGENT.  When you
go into a library, you don't expect an oracle, you expect someone who
knows how to find what you're looking for.  It is much easier to make an
expert about the terrain of knowledge than an expert that can deal with
the knowledge itself.

He then played a videotape of a "telephone answering machine" being
developed by ArcMac (with funding from Atari).  It listened to the
pattern of a person's speech (in order to figure out when the person was
pausing long enough to be politely interrupted) and then channelled the
conversation into a context (that of taking a message) that the machine
could deal with.  It has a limited speech recognition ability, which
allows its owner to leave messages for other people:

    Hello, this is Doug's telephone, Doug isn't in right now, can I tell
    him who called?

    Uh, Clem...

    If you'd like to leave Doug a message, I can give it to him, otherwise
    just hang up and I'll tell him you called.

    Doug, I'm going to be in town next Tuesday and I'd like to get
    together with you to discuss the Memory project....

    Thank you, I'll tell him you called.

and

    Hello, this is Doug's telephone, Doug isn't in right now, can I tell
    him who called?

    It's me...

    Hi, Doug, you have three messages.

    Who are they from?...

    One is from UhClem, one is from Joe, and you have a mail message
    from Bill about the Future Fair.

    Tell me what UhClem has to say...

    [The machine plays a recording of Clem's message]

    Take a message for UhClem...

    Recording.

    Dinner next Tuesday is fine, how about Mary Chung's?

And so on.  UhClem calls later, and the machine plays back the recording
of Doug's message.


POINT OF VIEW IS WORTH 80 IQ POINTS:

    "A couple of years after Xerox punted the Alto, I met the people who
    made that decision.  They weren't dunces, as I had originally
    supposed, they just didn't have the right point of view: they had no
    criteria by which to tell the difference between an 8080 based word
    processor and a personal computer."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 1984  12:18 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stereo Vision for Robots
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Keith Nishihara    --  "Stereo Vision for Robots"

AI Revolving Seminar
Wednesday, April 4 at 4:00pm    8th floor playroom

   Recently we have begun, after a long interlude, to bring vision and
manipulation together at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
This endeavor has highlighted several engineering issues for vision:
noise tolerance, reliability, and speed.  I will describe briefly
several mechanisms we have developed to deal with these problems in
binocular stereo, including a high speed pipelined convolver for
preprocessing images and an "unstructured light" technique for improving
signal quality.  These optimizations, however, are not sufficient.  A
closer examination of the problems encountered suggests that broader
interpretations of both the binocular stereo problem and of the
zero-crossing theory of Marr and Poggio are required.
   In this talk, I will focus on the problem of making primitive surface
measurements; for example, to determine whether or not a specified
volume of space is occupied, to measure the range to a surface at an
indicated image location, or to determine the elevation gradient at that
position.  In this framework we make a subtle but important shift from
the explicit use of zero-crossing contours (in band-pass filtered
images) as the elements matched between left and right images, to the
use of the signs between zero-crossings.  With this change, we obtain a
simpler algorithm with a reduced sensitivity to noise and a more
predictable behavior.  The PRISM system incorporates this algorithm with
the unstructured light technique and a high speed digital convolver.  It
has been used successfully by others as a sensor in a path planning
system and a bin picking system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
41
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 1984  01:00 EST
-FROM-
From: RMS.G.DDS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Physiognomic Awareness and Ergonomic Design
-BODY-

        Physiognomic awareness and relation to Ergonomic design inquiry

        Does anyone know of any studies conducted on this exact topic ?
        Or as close as can be ! I am interested in whether this has been
        explored.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 84 0:05:42-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hsplab @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer EKG
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2050

I would like to footnote Jack Buchanan's note and add that IBM, who helped
support the original development of the Bonner program has announced that
effective June, 1984, it will close its Health Care Division, which
currently manufactures its EKG products.  Support for existing products
will continue for at least seven years after product termination, however.

David Chou
Department of Pathology
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
      ...!mcnc!ecsvax!hsplab

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Apr 84 21:34:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog vs. Pascal
-BODY-
The latest issue of IEEE Graphics (March '84) has an article
comparing interpreted Prolog with compiled Pascal for a graphics
application.  The results are surprising to me.

J.C. Gonzalez, M.H. Williams, and I.E. Aitchison of Heriot-Watt
University report on the comparison in "Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Prolog for a CAD Application."  They
implemented a very simple set of graphical routines: much of
the code is given in the article.  They were building a 2-D
entry and editing system where the polygons were stored as lists
of vertices and edges.  The user could enter new points and
edit previously entered figures.  This formed the front end
to a system for constructing 3-D models from orthogonal 2-D
orthographic projections (engineering drawings).  Much of the
code has the flavor of "For each line (or point or figure)
satisfying given constraints, do the following ..."  (Often only
one entity would satisfy the constraints.)

The authors report that the Prolog version (using assert and
retract to manipulate the database) was more concise, more readable,
and clearer than the Pascal version.  The Prolog version also took
less storage, was developed more quickly, and was developed with
minimum error.  What is more remarkable is that the interpreted
Prolog ran about 25% faster than the compiled Pascal.

They were using a PDP-11/34 with the NU7 Prolog interpreter
from Edinburgh and the VU Pascal compiler from Vrije University.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 Mar 84 10:32:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Herm Fischer <HFischer@USC-ECLB>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM PC/XT Prolog Benchmarks
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[...]

IBM was kind enough to let us have PC/IX for today, and we
brought up UNSW Prolog.  With a minor exception the code
and makefiles were compatible with PC/IX.  (They have frustrated
me for a whole year, being incompatible every PCDOS "C" compiler
from Lattice onward.)

PC/IX and Prolog are neatly integrated; all Unix features, and
even shell calls, can be made within the Prolog environment.
Even help files are included.  It is kind of nice to be tracing
away and browse and modify your prolog code within the interpretive
environment, using the INed (nee rand) editor and all the other
Unix stuff.

The 64 K limitation of PC/IX bothers me, more emotionally than
factually, because only one of my programs couldn't be run today.
I'm sure I will get really upset unless I find some hack around
this limitation.

A benchmark really surprises me.  The Zebra problem (using
Pereira's solution) provides the following statistics:

DEC-2040      6 seconds (if compiled)      (Timed on TOPS-20)
             42 seconds (if interpreted)   (  "   "    "    )

VAX-11/780  204 secs (interpreted) (UNSW)  (Timed on Unix Sys III)

IBM PC/XT   544 secs (interpreted) ( " )   (Timed on   "   "   " )

The latter 2 times are wall-clock with no other jobs or users
running, and these two Prologs were compiled from the same source
code and make file!  The PC/IX was CPU-bound, and its disk never
blinked during the execution of the test.

>- Herm Fischer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 21 Mar 84 20:47:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Ramsey Haddad <HADDAD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: fifth generation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

For anyone interested in these things, there is a review by John
McCarthy of Feigenbaum and McCorduck's "The Fifth Generation:
Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World"
in the April 1984 issue of REASON magazine.


[The following is a copy of Dr. McCarthy's text, reprinted with
his permission. -- KIL]


The Fifth Generation - Artificial Intelligence and Japan's Computer
Challenge to the World - by Edward Feigenbaum and Pamela McCorduck,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.


Review of Feigenbaum and McCorduck - for Reason


	Japan has replaced the Soviet Union as the world's second
place industrial power.  (Look at the globe and be impressed).
However, many people, Japanese included, consider that this success
has relied too much on imported science and technology - too much for
the respect of the rest of the world, too much for Japanese
self-respect, and too much for the technological independence needed
for Japan to continue to advance at previous rates.  The Fifth
Generation computer project is one Japanese attempt to break out of
the habit of copying and generate Japan's own share of scientific and
technological innovations.

	The idea is that the 1990s should see a new generation of
computers based on "knowledge information processing" rather than
"data processing".  "Knowledge information processing" is a vague term
that promises important advances in the direction of artificial
intelligence but is noncommittal about specific performance.  Edward
Feigenbaum describes this project in The Fifth Generation - Artificial
Intelligence and Japan's Computer Challenge to the World, predicts
substantial success in meeting its goals, and argues that the U.S.
will fall behind in computing unless we make a similar coherent
effort.

	The Fifth Generation Project (ICOT) is the brainchild of
Kazuhiro Fuchi of the Japanese government's Electro-Technical
Laboratory.  ICOT, while supported by industry and government, is an
independent institution.  Fuchi has borrowed about 40 engineers and
computer scientists, all under 35, for periods of three years, from
the leading Japanese computer companies.  Thus the organization and
management of the project is as innovative as one could ask.  With
only 40 people, the project is so far a tiny part of the total
Japanese computer effort, but it is scheduled to grow in subsequent
phases.

	The project is planned to take about 10 years,during which
time participants will design computers based on "logic programming",
an invention of Alain Colmerauer of the University of Marseilles in
France and Robert Kowalski of Imperial College in London, and
implemented in a computer programming language called Prolog.  They
want to use additional ideas of "dataflow" developed at M.I.T.  and to
make machines consisting of many procesors working in parallel.  Some
Japanese university scientists consider that the project still has too
much tendency to look to the West for scientific ideas.

	Making parallel machines based on logic programming is a
straightforward engineering task, and there is little doubt that this
part of the project will succeed.  The grander goal of shifting the
center of gravity of computer use to the intelligent processing of
knowledge is more doubtful as a 10 year effort.  The level of
intelligence to be achieved is ill-defined.  The applications are also
ill-defined.  Some of the goals, such as common sense knowledge and
reasoning ability, require fundamental scientific discoveries that
cannot be scheduled in advance.

	My own scientific field is making computer programs with
common sense, and when I visited ICOT, I asked who was working on the
problem.  It was disappointing to learn that the answer was "no-one".
This is a subject to which the Japanese have made few contributions,
and it probably isn't suited to people borrowed from computer
companies for three years.  Therefore, one can't be optimistic that
this important part of the project goals will be achieved in the time
set.

	The Fifth Generation Project was announced at a time when the
Western industrial countries were ready for another bout of viewing
with alarm; the journalists have tired of the "energy crisis" - not
that it has been solved.  Even apart from the recession, industrial
productivity has stagnated; it has actually declined in industries
heavily affected by environmental and safety innovations.  Meanwhile
Japan has taken the lead in automobile production and in some other
industries.

	At the same time, artificial intelligence research was getting
a new round of publicity that seems to go in a seven-year cycle.  For
a while every editor wants a story on Artificial Intelligence and the
free lancers oblige, and then suddenly the editors get tired of it.
This round of publicity has more new facts behind it than before,
because expert systems are beginning to achieve practical results,
i.e. results that companies will pay money for.

	Therefore, the Fifth Generation Project has received enormous
publicity, and Western computer scientists have taken it as an
occasion for spurring on their colleagues and their governments.
Apocalyptic language is used that suggests that there is a battle to
the death - only one computer industry can survive, theirs or ours.
Either we solve all the problems of artificial intelligence right away
or they walk all over us.

	Edward Feigenbaum is the leader of one of the major groups
that has pioneered expert systems -- with programs applicable to
chemistry and medicine.  He is also one of the American computer
scientists with extensive Japanese contacts and extensive interaction
with the Fifth Generation Project.

	Pamela McCorduck is a science writer with a previous book,
Machines Who Think, about the history of artificial intelligence
research.

        The Fifth Generation contains much interesting description
 of the Japanese project and American work in related areas.  However,
Feigenbaum and McCorduck concentrate on two main points.  First,
knowledge engineering will dominate computing
by the 1990s.	Second, America is in deep trouble if we don't
organize a systematic effort to compete with the Japanese in this
area.

	While knowledge engineering will increase in importance, many
of its goals will require fundamental scientific advances that cannot
be scheduled to a fixed time frame.  Unfortunately, even in the United
States and Britain, the hope of quick applications has lured too many
students away from basic research.  Moreover, our industrial system
has serious weaknesses, some of which the Japanese have avoided.  For
example, if we were to match their 40 engineer project according to
output of our educational system, our project would have 20 engineers
and 20 lawyers.

	The authors are properly cautious about what kind of an
American project is called for.  It simply cannot be an Apollo-style
project, because that depended on having a rather precise plan in the
beginning that could see all the way to the end and did not depend on
new scientific discoveries.  Activities that were part of the plan
were pushed, and everything that was not part of it was ruthlessly
trimmed.  This would be disastrous when it is impossible to predict
what research will be relevant to the goal.

	Moreover, if it is correct that good new ideas are more likely
to be decisive in this field at this time than systematic work on
existing ideas, we will make the most progress if there is money to
support unsolicited proposals.  The researcher should propose goals
and the funders should decide how he and his project compare with the
competition.

	A unified government-initiated plan imposed on industry has
great potential for disaster.  The group with the best political
skills might get their ideas adopted.  We should remember that present
day integrated circuits are based on an approach rejected for
government support in 1960.  Until recently, the federal government
has provided virtually the only source of funding for basic research
in computer technology.  However, the establishment of
industry-supported basic research through consortia like the
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), set up in
Austin, Texas under the leadership of Admiral Bobby Inman, represents
a welcome trend--one that enhances the chances of making the
innovations required.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
42
-DATE-
Date: 30 Mar 84 11:07:45-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrus @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp equivalent of Linpack info wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eneevax.103

I was wondering if anybody knows of any packages in lisp that does the same
thing that linpack does (ie. finding eigenvalues, eigenvectors etc.).
But it must do it fast.

My problem is that I need to do some linear algebra stuff but I need to
be able to load it into vaxima (MACSYMA on a VAX running 4.1BSD.  If you
have any suggestions I would be very grateful.

                                Thanks
                                Pravin Kumar

>From the contorted brain, and the rotted body of THE SOPHIST

ARPA:   phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrus

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 84 21:37:21-EST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxv!portegys @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for PURR-PUSS reference
-BODY-
Recently someone mentioned a system called PURR-PUSS (I think it was Ken
Laws), in connection with determining the configuration of a finite
state machine based on observation of input-output relationships.  I'm
doing some work related to that, and would appreciate references to
PURR-PUSS.

     Tom Portegys, Bell Labs Naperville, Ill., ihuxv!portegys

[I ran across PURR-PUSS in J.H. Andreae's "PURR-PUSS: Purposeful
Unprimed Rewardable Robot", Electrical Engineering Report No. 24,
Sept. 1974, Man-Machine Studies, Progress Report UC-DSE/4(1974) to
the Defence Scientific Establishment, Editor J.H. Andreae, Dept.
of EE, Univ. of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 100-150.
This article describes several applications of the PUSS (Predictor
Using Slide and Strings) learning program, including the identification
of a repetition pattern in a seemingly random H/T sequence.  (The
pattern was two random choices followed by a repeat of the second choice.)
References are given to earlier reports in this series.
I also have copies of reports 26, 27, and 28 (Sep. 1975);  each has
at least one article on the use of PUSS learning/predicting modules
for the reasoning component in some application.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 84 12:30:21-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!lorien @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cellular Automata -- Request for pointers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.1024

I was fascinated by the description of "cellular automata" in last
month's Computer Recreations section of Scientific American.  The mass
of interacting parallel processes that are described there seem
singularly appropriate for the simulation of phenomona of interest to
AI workers.  With complex enough rules of interaction between elements
it seems one could simulate neurons in the brain or the evolutionary
process.  I'm aware, from a course I took long ago in Cognitive
Psychology, that psychologists use dynamically interacting models of
this sort.

  This note is to request pointers to any research that's currently
being done in this area, specifically as it relates to AI.

Thanks in advance,

      --Lorien Y. Pratt
        Dartmouth College Library
        Hanover, NH  03755

        decvax!dartvax!lorien

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 84 00:40:26 EST
-FROM-
From: "Roy Rada"@UMich-MTS.Mailnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGBIO Newsletter
-BODY-
[...]

As Editor of the ACM SIGBIO Newsletter, I would
like to publish material on AI in Medicine.  My
own research focuses on continuity in knowledge
acquisition for medical expert systems.  Please
send me whatever you feel might be relevant.

>-Roy Rada

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 1984 1630-PST
-FROM-
From: Nitsan Har-gil <har-gil@USC-ISIF>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System for Nutrition
-BODY-
Does anyone know of expert systems dealing with Nutrition (Food, etc.).
Something that you can give a typical daily menu and will respond with
nutritional deficiencies, etc.  Thanks in advance, Nitsan.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 84 15:26:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Kris Hammond <Hammond@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Recipe Planner
-BODY-
[This is a response to a personal query about Kris' work in recipe planning;
he agreed to let me share it with the list.  I would be interested in hearing
about other recipe-based systems, including those in the chemistry domain.
>- KIL]

I have a paper in AAAI83, Planning and Goal  Interaction:   The  use  of
past solutions in present situations.  My work centers around the notion
of  organizing  planning  knowledge  around  the  interactions   between
features rather  than  around  individual  features  themselves.  In the
cooking domain this means the planner has to anticipate the interactions
between different  tastes  and  textures, and search for past plans that
have already dealt with this interaction in the past.   The  end  result
is a  system  that  looks  at  an input situation, (a request for a dish
that includes many items and tastes) and tries  to  find  a  recipe  for
an analogous past situation.

The paper  is the analysis of an example which uses knowledge of feature
interaction to 1) analyze the original input, 2)  index  into  a  useful
plan, 3)  suggest  the  type  of  modifications  that have to be made on
that plan, 4) search for problems in the resulting plan and  5)  propose
general solutions to the problems encountered.

I [am now working on] a more general application of the idea of organizing
planning information in terms of goal and plan interaction.  [...]

The cooking paper in on YALE-RES <A.HAMMOND.WORK>WOK.MSS.

Thanks for the interest.

Kris Hammond

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 84 10:28:53 CST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!utcsrgv!dave@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems and legal reasoning
-BODY-
A recent request asked for information about expert systems and legal
reasoning. I suggest anyone interested in that field get onto Law:Forum,
a discussion group running under CONFER on an MTS system at Wayne
State University in Michigan. Access is free, with computer charges
and Telenet charges being picked up by the Markle Foundation grant
which is funding the project. Most of the major people involved
in developing legal reasoning systems (Thorne McCarty, Layman Allen,
Jim Sprowl, several others) are involved in Law:Forum and participate
regularly.

If you want to get onto Law:Forum, and can be reached electronically,
send me your electronic address:
        ihnp4!utcsrgv!dave@BERKELEY             (ARPA)
        dave.Toronto                            (CSnet)
        ihnp4!utcsrgv!dave                      (UUCP)

If you have no electronic address, I can't ship out the access information
to you, so send a letter directly to the conference organizer:
        Prof. Jennifer Bankier
        Dalhousie Law School
        Dalhousie University
        Halifax, Nova Scotia
        Canada                  (sorry, don't have the postal code handy)


Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
(416) 947-3466

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 84 21:50:25 cst
-FROM-
From: Georgp R. Cross <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Legal AI Systems
-BODY-
We are developing a model of the Louisiana Civil Code
The representation language is called ANF (atomically
Normalized Form) and is being used to develop the
conceptual retrieval and reasoning system CCLIPS (Civil
Code Legal Information Processing System).  Some references
are:

deBessonet, C.G., Hintze, S.J., and Waller, W., "Automated
Retrieval of Information: Toward the Development of a Formal
Language for Expressing Statutes, Southern University Law Review,
6(1), 1-14, 1979.

deBessonet, C.G., "A Proposal for Developing the Structural
Science of Codification," Rutgers Journal of Computers,
Technology and the Law, 1(8), 47-63, 1980.

deBessonet, C.G., "An Automated Approach to Scientific
Codification," Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal,
9(1), 27-75, 1982.

deBessonet, C.G.
"An Automated Intelligent System Based on a Model of a Legal
System," Rutgers Journal of Computers, Technology, and the
Law, 10, to appear, 1983.

Technical Reports:

83-011 Formalization of Legal Information
83-023 Natural Language Generation for a Legal Reasoning
       System
83-002 Processing and Representing Statutory Formalisms
84-006 Representation of Some Aspects of Legal Causality
83-005 Representation of Legal Knowledge

Copies of the above Technical Reports may be requested from
<techrep%lsu@csnet-relay> or from

      Technical Reports Secretary
      Department of Computer Science
      Louisiana State University
      Baton Rouge, LA  70803-4020


George R. Cross              Cary G. deBessonet
<cross%lsu@csnet-relay>      <debesson%lsu@csnet-relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 84 13:35 PST
-FROM-
From: DSchmitz.es@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Legal AI research
-BODY-
For all who requested, I am maintaining a copy of all the responses to
my request for information about ongoing AI research in legal-related
fields in the following file:  [Oly]<DSchmitz>LegalAI.mail

There are about 15 responses in there now (including those who asked to
be copied on the responses) and I will be adding any new ones I receive
as they arrive.

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 84 22:35:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Stolfo's call for discussion
-BODY-
One way AI programming is different from much of the programming in other
fields is that for AI it is often impossible to produce a complete set of
specifications before beginning to code.

The accepted wisdom of software engineering is that one should have a
complete, final set of specifications for a program before writing a
single line of code.  It is recognized that this is an ideal, not
typical reality, since often it is only during coding that one finds
the last bugs in the specs.  However, it is held up as a goal to
be approached as closely as possible.

In AI programming, on the other hand, it is often the case that an
initial draft of the code is an essential tool in the process of
developing the final specs.  This is certainly the case with the
current "expert system" style of programing, where one gets an expert
in some field to state an initial set of rules, implements them, and
then uses the performance of this implementation to help the expert
refine and extend rules.  I would argue it is also the case in fields
like Natural Language and other areas of AI, to the extent that we
approach these problems by writing simple programs, seeing how they
fail, and then elaborating them.

A classic example of this seems to be the R1 system, which DEC uses to
configure orders for VAXen.  An attempt was made to write this program
using a standard programming approach, but it failed.  An attempt was
then made using an expert system approach, which succeeded.  Once the
program was in existence, written in a production system language, it
was successfully recoded into a more standard programming language.
Can anyone out there in net-land confirm that it was problems with
specification which killed the initial attempt, and that the final
attempt succeeded because the production system version acted as the
specs?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
43
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 84 18:20:23 EST  (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Don Perlis <perlis%umcp-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: nonmonotonic reference request
-BODY-

                        BIBLIOGRAPHY ON NON-MONOTONIC LOGIC


I  am  compiling  a  bibliography of literature on nonmonotonic logic, to be
made available to the AI community, and in particular  to  the  workshop  on
non-monotonic  reasoning  that  will take place in October in New Paltz, New
York.

I  would  greatly  appreciate  references  from  the  AI  community, both to
published and  unpublished  material  (the  latter  as  long  as  it  is  in
relatively  completed  form  and copies are available on request).  Material
can be sent to me at perlis@umcp-cs and also by post to  D. Perlis, Computer
Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 84 15:16:43 PST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Cornish.PA@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Application of LISP programs to Math Ed Software
-BODY-
I am interested in AI programs in the following areas listed below.
Could someone provide me with pointers to the significant work done in
these areas? Could someone advise me whether work done in these areas
could feasibly run on existing Lisp systems for the IBM-PC.  "feasibly
run" means that the programs would be  responsive enough to form the
basis of a math ed product.

1. Solution of Algebra word problems
2. Analysis of proofs in plane Geometry


Thank you very much,

Jan Cornish

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Apr 84 17:22:09-PST
-FROM-
From: DKANERVA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Ethics
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


         COMPETITION ANNOUNCEMENT:  THE METAPHILOSOPHY PRIZE

     METAPHILOSOPHY will  award a  prize  of  $500  to the  author who
submits the best essay in computer ethics between January 1, 1984, and
December 31, 1984.  The prize-winning  essay will be published as  the
lead article in  the April 1985 issue of METAPHILOSOPHY, which will be
devoted entirely  to computer  ethics.  Other  high-quality  essays in
computer ethics will be accepted for publication in the same issue.  A
panel of experts in computer ethics will select the winners.  To enter
the competition, send four copies of your essay to:

                      Terrell Ward Bynum
                      Editor, Metaphilosophy
                      Metaphilosophy Foundation
                      Box 32
                      Hyde Park, NY  12538

     Readers unfamiliar  with  the  field of  computer  ethics  should
consult the January  1984 issue of  METAPHILOSOPHY.  Those  unfamiliar
with specifications  for  manuscript preparation  should  consult  any
recent issue.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 04 Apr 84  11:14:01 bst
-FROM-
From: J.R.Cowie%rco@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Use of "and"
-BODY-
There is another way of looking at the statement -
 all customers in Indiana and Ohio
which seems simpler to me than producing the new phrase -
 all customers in Indiana  AND all customers in Ohio
instead of doing this why not treat Indiana and Ohio as a new single
conceptual entity giving -
 all customers in (Indiana and Ohio).

This seems simpler to me. It would mean the database would have to
allow aggregations of this type, but I don't see that as being
particularly problematic.

Have I missed some subtle point here?

Jim Cowie.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 April 1984 0949-cst
-FROM-
From: Dave Brown    <DBrown @ HI-MULTICS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Stolfo's call for discussion
-BODY-
  A side point about Louis Steinberg's response: The accepted wisdom
is actually that AI and plain commercial programming has shown that
specification in complete detail is really just mindless hacking, by
a designer rather than a hack.
  *However* the salesmen of "software engineering methodologies" are
just getting up to about 1968 (the first sw eng conference), and
are flogging the idea that perfect specifications are possible
and desirable.
  Therefore the state of practice lags behing the state of the art
an unconsciousable distance....
  AI leads the way, as usual.

  --dave (software engineering ::= brilliance | utter stupidity) brown

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Apr 84  1711 PST
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reading List on Logic and Parallel Computation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

INSTRUCTOR: Professor G. Kreisel
TIME:   Monday  4:15-6pm
PLACE:  252 Margaret Jacks Hall
       (Stanford Computer Science Department)
TOPIC:  Logic and parallel computation.

Below is a reading list that was compiled from discussion
at the organizational meeting.  [...]


          --------------------------------------------------
                             Reading List
          --------------------------------------------------

[Carolyn Talcott - 362 Margaret Jacks - CLT@SU-AI - has copies
 of all the references]


                         Parallel Computation
                        ---------------------

Fortune,S. and Wyllie,J. [1978]
Parallelism in random access machines
Proc. 10th  ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC)
pp.114-118.


Valiant,L. Skyum,S.[1981]
Fast parallel computation of polynomials using few processors
Proc. 10th Somposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science
LNCS 118, pp. 132-139.

von zur Gathen,J.[1983]
Parallel algorithms for algebraic problems
Proc. 15th  ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC)
pp. 17-23.

Mayr,E.[1984], Fast selection on para-computers (slides )

Karp,R.M. Wigderson,A.[1984?]
A Fast Parallel Algorithm for the Maximal Independent Set Problem
  - Extended Abstract (manuscript)


        Continuous operations on Infinitary Proof Trees, etc.
        -----------------------------------------------------

Rabin,M.O.[1969]
Decidability of 2nd Order Theories and Automata on Infinite Trees,
TransAMS 141, pp.58-68.

Kreisel,G. Mints,G.E. Simpson,S.G.[1975]
The Use of Abstract Language in Elementary Metamathematics;
  Some Pedagogic Examples,
in Logic Colloquium72, LNM 453, pp.38-131.

Mints,G.E.[1975] Finite Investigations of Transfinite Derivations,
J.Soviet Math. 10 (1978) pp. 548-596. (Eng.)

Sundholm,B.G.[1978] The Omega Rule: A Survey,
Bachelors Thesis, University of Oxford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 84 13:00:42 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Automating Shifts of Representation
-BODY-
            [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      Machine learning brown bag seminar


    Title: Automating Shifts of Representation
    Speaker: P. J. Riddle
    Date: Wednesday, April 11, 1984, 12:00-1:30
    Location: Hill Center, Room 254

       My  thesis  research  deals  with  automatically  shifting  from one
    knowledge representation of a certain problem to another representation
    which is more efficient for the problem class  to  which  that  problem
    belongs.  I believe that "...changes of representation are not isolated
    'eureka'  phenomena  but  rather  can  be  decomposed into sequences of
    relatively minor representation shifts". I am  attempting  to  discover
    primitive representation shifts and techniques for automating them.  To
    achieve  this  goal  I  am  attempting  to  define and automate all the
    primitive  representation  shifts  explored  in  the   Missionaries   &
    Cannibals (M&C) problem.  The main types of representation shifts which
    I  have already identified are: forming macromoves, removing irrelevant
    information, and removing redundant  information.    Initially  I  have
    concentrated  on  a  technique  for automatically acquiring macromoves.
    Macromoves succeed in shifting the problem space to a higher  level  of
    abstraction.    Assuming  that  the macromoves are appropriate for this
    problem class, this will make the problem solver  much  more  efficient
    for subsequent problems in this problem class.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 84 10:27:46 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Internalized World Knowledge
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                        Spring 1984

            IDS 237B - Cognitive Science Seminar

          Time:        Tuesday, April 10, 1984, 11-12:30pm
          Location:    240 Bechtel


              HOW THE MIND REFLECTS THE WORLD
                      Roger N. Shepard
       Department of Psychology, Stanford  University

Through biological evolution,  enduring  characteristics  of
the  world  would  tend  to become internalized so that each
individual would not have to learn  them  de  novo,  through
trial  and possibly fatal error.  The most invariant charac-
teristics are quite abstract: (a) Space  is  locally  three-
dimensional,  Euclidean, and isotropic except for a gravita-
tionally conferred unique upright direction. (b) For any two
positions  of  a  rigid  object, there is a unique axis such
that the object can be most  simply  carried  from  the  one
position  to  the  other  by  a  rotation  around  that axis
together with a translation along it. (c) Information avail-
able  to  us about the external world and about our relation
to it is analyzable into  components  corresponding  to  the
invariants  of  significant  objects,  spatial  layouts, and
events and, also, into components corresponding to the tran-
sitory  dispositions, states, and manners of change of these
and of the self relative to these.   Having  been  internal-
ized,  such  characteristics  manifest themselves as general
laws governing the representation of objects and events when
the  relevant information is fully available (normal percep-
tion), when it is only partially available (perceptual  fil-
ling  in or perceptual interpretation of ambiguous stimuli),
and when it  is  entirely  absent  (imagery,  dreaming,  and
thought).    Phenomena  of  identification,  classification,
apparent motion, and imagined transformation illustrate  the
precision and generality of the internalized constraints.

*****  Followed by a lunchbag discussion with speaker  *****
***  in the IHL Library (Second Floor, Bldg. T-4) from 12:30-2  ***

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Apr 84 18:49:45-PST
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linguistic Structuring of Concepts
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Issues In Language, Perception and Cognition
WHO: Len Talmy, Cognitive Science Program and German Dept., UC Berkeley
WHEN: Monday April 9, 12:00 noon
WHERE: Room 100, Psychology

                How Language Structures its Concepts

Languages have two kinds of elements: open-class, comprising  the  roots
of  nouns,  verbs,  and adjectives, and closed-class, comprising all in-
flections, particle words, grammatical categories, and the like.  Exami-
nation  of a range of languages reveals that closed-class elements refer
exclusively to certain concepts, and seemingly never to concepts outside
those  (e.g., inflection on nouns may indicate number, but never color).
My idea is that all closed-class elements taken  together  consistute  a
very  special  group:  they  code  for a fundamental set of notions that
serve to structure the conceptual material expressed by language.   More
particularly,   their  references constitute a basic notional framework,
or scaffolding, around which is organized the more contentful conceptual
material  represented by open-class (i.e., lexical) elements.  The ques-
tions to be addressed are: a) Which exactly are the notions specified by
closed-class  elements, and which notions are excluded?  b) What proper-
ties are shared by the included notions and  absent  from  the  excluded
ones?   c) What functions are served by this design feature of language,
i.e., the existence in the first place of  a  division  into  open-  and
closed-class  subsystems,  and  then the particular character that these
have?  d) How does this structuring system specific to language  compare
with  those  in other cognitive subsystems, e.g. in visual perception or
memory?  With question (d), this linguistic investigation opens out into
the  issue  of  structuring within cognitive contents in general, across
cognitive domains.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 1984 12:35:50-PST
-FROM-
From: mis at SU-Tahoma
-SUBJECT-
Subject: S.P.A. - Seminar in Protocol Analysis
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                  M. Pavel &  D. Sleeman
    _____________________________________________________

           S.P.A - SEMINAR IN PROTOCOL ANALYSIS
    ______________________________________________________

           Introduction to protocol  analysis:
       an  example  from  developmental psychology.

                       Jean Gascon
                       Stuart Card

              Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

        The first of this series of seminars on protocol analysis
will be structured as a tutorial on protocol analysis and comput-
er simulation.  Stuart Card will give a  brief  overview  of  the
history, motivation and practice of the methodology.  Jean Gascon
will  then  illustrate,  with  a  simple  example,  how  protocol
analysis  is  performed.  The  application  area  will  come from
developmental psychology.  First, protocols of children of  vari-
ous  ages  performing  one  of  Piaget's "seriation" task will be
shown.  We will then explain how one goes from the actual data to
the  construction of the "problem space" (a la Newell and Simon).
The next step consists of regrouping the problem spaces  of  dif-
ferent  subjects  into a more general psychological model (dubbed
BG in this particular case). We will see how the BG language  fa-
cilitates  the  writing of simulation models.  A computer program
that does automatic protocol analysis of the seriation  protocols
will  then  be introduced.  This program provides some additional
insights about the process of protocol analysis itself.   In  the
conclusion  we  will discuss the advantages and inconveniences of
protocol analysis relative to the other  methodologies  available
in cognitive psycholgy.

     _____________________________________________________

           Place:  Jordan Hall, Room 100
           Time:   1:00 pm, Wednesday  April 11, 1984
     _____________________________________________________

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
44
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 84 13:44:53-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!vaxine!pct @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Cellular Automata
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: vaxine.221

There is a big review article by Wolfram in Reviews of Modern Physics
v. 55 no. 3 p. 601 (July 1983) with a large list of references

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 84 18:41:37-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ur-laser!bill @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An expert system for reading chest radiographs
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ur-laser.136

I have developed an "expert" system that analyzes chest  ra-
diographs  for  tumors.   This system was tested on 37 films
that contain nodules.  It is capable of finding the  nodules
in  92%  of the films.  In studies of mass screenings of ra-
diographs by radiologists it was found that the radiologists
miss  25-30%  of  all nodules < 1cm. A Rib Expert determines
whether a candidate nodule (possible tumor) is a rib. A  No-
dule Expert, a linear-discriminant-based pattern recognizer,
classifies candidate nodules. All candidate nodules that are
classified as any type of nodule are presented to a radiolo-
gist for further inspection.  Radiologists can recognize no-
dules  as  such  once  they are pointed out.  If you are in-
terested in this work or want leads to other methods of  au-
tomated  chest  film  analysis,  which are listed in the bi-
bliographies, contact Peggy Meeker ((716)275-7737, {allegra,
seismo}!rochester!peg)  at  the Computer Science Dept at the
University of Rochester and request the following TRs:

Lampeter, W.A.  "Design, tuning, and performance  evaluation
of an automated pulmonary nodule detection system."  TR-120,
Computer Science Department, University  of  Rochester,  Ro-
chester NY, 1983.

Lampeter, W.A.  "Three image experts which help  distinguish
tumors  from  non-tumors,"  TR-123, Computer Science Depart-
ment, University of Rochester, Rochester NY, 1984.

Other works of possible interest:

Ballard, D. H., J. Sklansky.   "Tumor  detection  in  radio-
graphs,"   Computers  in  Biomedical  Research,  6, 299-321,
1973.

Jagoe, J.R., "Reading chest radiographs  for  pneumoconiosis
by computer," Brit. J. Ind. Med., 32, 267-272, 1975.

Toriwaki, J. et.al. Pattern recognition of chest  x-ray  im-
ages. Comp Grap Pat Recog, 2, 252-271, 1973.



Bill Lampeter
Department of Radiology
School of Medicine and Dentistry
University of Rochester
(716) 275-5101 or (716) 275-3194
{seismo, allegra}!rochester!ur-laser!bill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 7 Apr 84 21:30:27-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Curriculum
-BODY-
The April issue of IEEE Computer discusses computers in education.
The first article is on a model curriculum for Computer Science, and
pages 12-13 describe a sample curriculum for AI.  About 20 references
to suggested AI texts and articles are also given.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Apr 84 21:16:53 PST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@Xerox.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alan Kay on DARPA research & Mansfield amendment
-BODY-
Excerpted from an interview in the April 1984 issue of ST.Mac magazine
(Softalk's magazine for the Macintosh).  All [bracketed phrases] are as
in the original.


Alan:  Things haven't been the same in computer science since two things
happened.  The awful thing that happened was the Mansfield amendment in
1969.  The amendment was a congressional reaction to pressure from the
population about the Vietnam war, mostly uninformed pressure.

  What it did was force all military funding to be put under the
scrutiny of Congress and to be diverted only to military-type things.
All of a sudden, everything was different at ARPA [the Advanced Research
Projects Agency].


Q:  ARPA became DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) at
that point?

Alan: ARPA became DARPA.  The last good thing to be done had already
been funded, which was the Arpanet [a network of communicating computers
around the world that allows scientists to send messages to each other].
That was finished in 1970.  That was the end of ARPA funders [program
directors] being drawn from the ARPA community.

During the golden age at ARPA, the funding was much less than it is now,
but it was wide open.


Q: More creative work was done?

Alan:  Yeah.  Their whole theory--partially because the managers of ARPA
were scientists themselves--was "we fund people, not projects.  If we
can understand what these guys are doing, we should probably be off
doing it ourselves.  We'll just dump half this money for three years and
take our lumps."

They took percentages, like you have to in real research.  And, God, did
they get some great stuff!

~~~~End of excerpt~~~~~


Alan makes lots of other brash statements in this article too.  I'll
leave you with just this one:

  "I'd just as soon send all the engineers around here in Silicon Valley
to the Outback of Australia until they have read something like 'The
Federalist Papers' or Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' or *something*,
for God's sake....what they're doing is actually vandalizing an entire
generation of kids by acting as though things like Basic have value."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 84 17:56:01 PST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@Xerox.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Strategic Computing in Electronic News 3/19/84
-BODY-
[personal comment follows at end of article--RN]

"DOD Strategic Computing to get $95M in Funding"
Electronic News, March 19, 1984, page 18
by Lloyd Schwartz

  WASHINGTON (FNS)--A virtual doubling of the funds for the Defense
Department's Strategic Computing initiative in fiscal year 1985--from
$50 million to $95 million--represents the first step in providing
"dramatic new computational capabilities to meet future critical defense
needs," Pentagon officials reported to Congress.

  They said that, as computer capability evolves, "men and computers
will operate as collaborators in the control of complex weapon systems."
It boiled down to, they added, future "wars by computer," with the side
possessing the superior technology prevailing.

  Dr. Robert S. Cooper, director of DOD's Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), describing the program as well under way,
explained it is using a new idea, employing multiprocessor architecture
to reach for a new generation of computers with as much as 10,000 times
the computing capability of hardware available today.

  The computers, endowed with artificial intelligence, will be capable
of solving extraordinarily complex problems involving human beings,
understanding speech and responding in kind,  Dr. Cooper indicated to
the House Armed Services Committee.  They also will require a whole new
system of prototyping, it was added.

  Dr. Cooper testified that while computers are already widely employed
in defense, current computers have inflexible program logic and are
limited in their ability to adapt to unanticipated enemy actions in the
field.  The problem, he noted, is exacerbated by the increasing pace and
complexity of modern warfare.

  "The Strategic Computing program will confront this challenge by
producing adaptive, intelligent computers specifically aimed at critical
military applications,"  the DARPA chief continued.  "These new machines
will be designed to solve complex problems in reasoning.  Special
symbolic processors will employ expert human knowledge contained in
radical new memory systems to aid humans in controlling the operation of
complex military systems.

  "The new generation computers will understand connected human speech
conveyed to them in natural English sentences, as well as be able to see
and understand visible images obtained from TV and other sensors."

  Dr. Cooper noted DARPA has already demonstrated a limited voice
message system in which a computer recognized and understood human
speech to receive its commands.  The computer was able to respond
verbally, using synthesized speech, although it possesses a limited
vocabulary.

  Another example of technological advancement, Dr. Cooper noted, was
DARPA's recent success in applying a finely-focused ion beam in the
maskless fabrication of integrated circuits.  He said this work is
continuing and "could result in a major breakthrough in ultimately
achieving a large-scale maskless fabrication capability."

  Summing up, the DARPA chief declared "In the future, supercomputers
with reasoning ability and natural language interfaces with military
commanders will be able to participate in military assessment and may be
able to simulate and predict the consequences of various proposed
courses of military action.  This will allow the commander and his staff
to focus on the larger strategic issues, rather than have to manage the
enormous information flow that will characterize the battles of the
future."

  Dr. Cooper added that the balance of military power in the future
"could well depend on successful application of 'superintelligent
computers' to the control of highly-effective advanced weapons."

~~~~~End of Electronic News article~~~~~


Comments:

1.  In the past, defenders of DARPA funded computer research have
asserted that the military and civilian industry have the same goals, so
that what's good for the Pentagon is good for the commercial market too.
But now we have a program whose goal, in the Pentagon's own words, is to
produce "adaptive, intelligent computers ***specifically aimed at
critical military applications***."

  [Sorry if I'm injecting any personal bias here, but this seems to be a
  non sequitur.  Past military research (e.g., image understanding) was
  also targeted at critical military applications; that didn't prevent
  it from also being useful or even critical to civilian industry.  The
  strategic computing effort need not be different.  All that has changed
  is the military's boldness in expressing its own importance, about which
  it may or may not be right.  -- KIL]

2.  Everyone knows how backward Soviet computer science and industry
are, so who is he talking about when he refers to " 'wars by computer,"
with the side possessing the superior technology prevailing" ?  Once
again, the U.S. leads the way into a new round of the arms race.


/Ron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 Apr 84 11:57:07-PST
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Issues in Language, Perception and Cognition
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

**** Due to a scheduling conflict, there has been a room change, to 050 ****

WHO: Len Talmy, Cognitive Science Program and German Dept.,  UC Berkeley
WHAT: How Language Structures its Concepts
WHEN: Monday April 9 12:00 noon
WHERE: Room 380-50

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 5 Apr 84 17:02:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Automatic Deduction talk
-BODY-
          [Forward from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                Monday, April 9th in MJH 301 at 2:30.


                    THE ORIGIN OF BINARY-SEARCH ALGORITHMS


                               Richard Waldinger
                        Artificial Intelligence Center
                               SRI International


     Many of the most efficient numerical algorithms employ a binary search, in
which  the  number we are looking for belongs to an interval that is divided in
half at each iteration.  We consider how such algorithms might be derived  from
their specifications.

     We follow a deductive approach, in which programming is regarded as a kind
of  theorem  proving.    By  systematic  application  of this approach, several
integer and real-number algorithms for such functions as the  square  root  and
quotient have been derived.  Some of these derivations have been carried out on
an  interactive  program-synthesis  system.    The  programs  we  obtained  are
different from what we originally expected.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
45
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 84 11:46:21-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!al @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Real time man-in-the-loop LISP machines
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ames-lm.196

Does anyone know of any AI systems or LISP machines that are oriented
towards real time, man-in-the-loop simulation?  We are beginning work
on a space station simulator aimed at human factors research.  LISP
is an appealing language in many respects but all of the systems
I've heard of are interactive, non-real time oriented.  We need something
that can pretend that it's a space station and do it fast enough
and consistantly enough to keep up with human temporal perception.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 84 10:04:50-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!philabs!rdin!perl @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 and Franz LISP wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rdin.371

We are looking for implemetations of Franz LISP and OPS5 that
will run on a MASSCOMP MC500 under MASSCOMP UNIX version 2.1 (2.0).

Thank you.

Robert Perlberg
Resource Dynamics Inc.
New York
philabs!rdin!rdin2!perl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 84 16:37:27 cst
-FROM-
From: George R. Cross <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP on a Data General?
-BODY-

Does anyone know of a LISP implementation on Data General's
MV8000 type computers under AOS/VS?   One good enough for
teaching is all that is required.

       George Cross
       Computer Science, LSU
       <cross%lsu@csnet-relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1984 0206 PST
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: micro LISP review
-BODY-
There's a good article in the April issue of PC Tech Journal
about three micro versions of LISP: IQ LISP, muLISP-82, and
TLC LISP.  It gives a fair amount of implementation detail,
contrasts them, and compares them to their mini and mainframe
cousins.  The author is Bill Wong, who's working on his PhD in
computer science at Rutgers.

At least the article looks pretty good to me, but it's been a
long time since I did any LISP programming.  Anyone feel like
reviewing Wong's review?
                                Larry Carroll
                                Jet Propulsion Lab.
                                   larry@jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 84 13:03 EST
-FROM-
From: Tom Martin <TJMartin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Could it be COMMON LISP?
-BODY-
A announcement just arrived in the mail from Digital Press:

          COMMON LISP manual,Guy L. Steele, Jr.
          $22.00/May 1,1984/Paperbound/

  --Tom Martin
    Arthur D. Little, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 11 Apr 84 09:53:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What's Happening to Stuffy Old CACM?
-BODY-
I just can't resist passing along these items from Jon Bentley's
column in the April CACM:

  The CRAY-3 is so fast that it can execute an infinite loop
  in less than two minutes.

  Have you heard how [it] implements a branch instruction?
  It holds the program counter constant and moves the memory.


If you like those, you'll also like the articles beginning on
page 343.  Of particular interest to AIers is "The Chaostron:
An Important Advance in Learning Machines."

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 1984  15:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-
Recently a student of mine applied for a position with one of the new AI
companies (I'd rather not say which one) and received what he considers
to be a very attractive offer.  Unfortunately, there is one problem that
will probably prevent him from accepting the job: the company requires
him to sign an agreement that if he leaves that company for any reason,
he will not compete with them or work for any competitive business for a
period of three years.  In order to keep this agreement in effect, the
company would have to continue to pay him his salary, minus any money he
makes from other employment or consulting.  Since this company defines
its business as AI and AI tools in a very broad sense, this means that
they could force the former employee to stay completely out of the field
of AI for three whole years if he leaves them -- an eternity in this
field.

I've heard of companies that require you to promise not to use any
proprietary knowledge on behalf of your next employer (or anyone else),
but I've never heard of an agreement like this one.  Since the penalty
for leaving is potentially so high (you get a salary for doing nothing,
but are effectively prohibited from practicing your chosen profession
for a period of time that is long enough for you to go completely
stale), it looks to me like they are trying to make you sign up with
them for life -- at their option, of course.

This company seems to think that this agreement is a perfectly routine
matter and that many companies in AI have similar requirements.  Is this
true?  Is this sort of thing spreading?  Have people out there actually
signed agreements of this sort?  Are they legally enforceable?  Unless I
hear otherwise, I'm going to consider this as an isolated case of
institutional paranoia on the part of this one company, and will steer
my students away from that company in the future.  If everyone is doing
it, that is much more alarming.

  -- Scott Fahlman, CMU  <fahlman at cmu-cs-c.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 8 Apr 84 18:14:52-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Noncompetition Clauses
-BODY-
This is the first I've heard of the post-employment restrictions
Scott Fahlman mentioned, although I've heard of noncompetition agreements
in other industries.  (I believe Nolan Bushnell, for instance, started
Pizza Time Theaters because he couldn't compete with his own creations
at Atari.  I've also heard of cases in the giant-screen TV and
restaurant businesses, always part of a buy-out agreement.)  The
intention is obviously to stop someone from spinning off his own
company to market an idea developed for the first employer.

Although the clause in question is a strong constraint, I don't see
that it would necessarily bind you to the company for life.  Think of
it as a three-year paid sabatical or other grant.  It has a built-in
disincentive for taking a job in any other field, but is a real
bonanza for someone who wants to spend time taking courses and
catching up on the literature in the AI field.

As a practical matter, I doubt that the employer would exercise his
option unless you intended to compete directly in the same product
you were working on.  It wouldn't make sense to buy you off if you
intended shifting to even a moderately different AI application.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 84 18:04:46-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!borgia @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: expert system algorithms
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1127

Don't we always come back to the same old epistemological question?
What good is any system to a human being unless it is understood
(maybe in parts) by one or more human beings?

An expert system should be an intelligent and articulate student
who learns from several experts. Understanding control structures
is not the critical issue. Well-known and fairly simple inference
mechanisms are available. The key issue is articulating what
knowledge was used and how in solving a problem.

"What good is knowledge when it brings no profit to its bearer"
                   - Teireisias in Oedipus the King, Sophocles

  -- joe borgia

  usenet:  decvax!cwruecmp!borgia
  csnet:   borgia@case
  arpanet: borgia.case@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 84 15:57:13 est
-FROM-
From: Michael Listman <mike%brandeis.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: metaphors
-BODY-
       I am interested in finding information on the extent of
natural language research and expectations.

       In particular, I would like to find out if any research
has been done on comprehension of metaphors.  I realize that
this would present problems such as what to do upon
encountering a metaphor that one (or a system) has never
before encountered.

      Take as an example,

             "Man is a wolf"

      - although it seems obvious to a human, how does one know
which aspects of wolf to apply to man?

      As another example, how do we know that

             "Man is a Bic pen"

is a bad metaphor?  Do we exhaust all the features of each ( man
and Bic pen) and decide that not enough of them are similar enough
for a reasonable comparison?  This seems plausible, but I could
imagine a situation in a discourse where this or a similar metaphor
would make perfect sense (please don't ask me to).

       I believe that in pursuing research in this direction, we
will eventually attain the knowledge to build a psychologically real
natural language understander, which I believe is the only way we
will ever attain a system that can approximate human comprehension.

       If anyone can point me toward research in this area, or
references, or simply guess as to where research like this will lead
in the near future (or ever) please respond as soon as possible.


                                  --- Michael Listman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 84 09:28:48 EST
-FROM-
From: DSMITH@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Semiautomated Algorithm Design
-BODY-
            [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                 Rutgers' Computer Science Colloquium

                    Semiautomated Algorithm Design

                           Douglas R. Smith

   Algorithm design is viewed as the transformation of a formal  specification
of a problem into an algorithm. We present a formal top-down method for
creating hierarchically structured algorithms. The method works as follows: to
design an algorithm A0 for a problem specification P0, the programmer
conjectures the overall structure S of A0, then uses knowledge of the
structure S to deduce subproblem specifications P1,...,Pn for the
underdetermined parts of S.  Algorithms A1,...,An are then designed for the
subproblems P1,...,Pn and  assembled  (via  the structure S) into an
algorithm for the initial problem P0.  This process results in the
decomposition of the initial problem specification into a hierarchy  of
subproblem  specifications and the composition of a corresponding
hierarchically structured algorithm.  The knowledge used  to  deduce
specifications  for subproblems is obtained by analysis of the particular
structure S and is encoded in a procedure called a design strategy for S.
The  top-down  design process  depends  on  design  strategies  for  many
different kinds of algorithm structures.

     We illustrate this approach by presenting  the  knowledge  needed  to
synthesize  a  class  of  divide and conquer algorithms and by deriving a
quicksort algorithm.  Our examples are drawn from experiments with  an
implemented  algorithm  design  system called CYPRESS.  Current efforts to
systematically acquire design strategies for fundamental classes of
algorithms will be discussed.

DATE:    Thursday, April 12, 1984
TIME:    10:30 a.m.
PLACE:   Hill Center - Room 705
        *  Coffee will be served at 10:00 a.m.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 1984  14:15 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Engineering Problem Solving
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

AI Revolving Seminar
Wednesday, April 11, 4:00pm 8th floor playroom

Jerry Roylance  --  "Programs that Design Circuits"

        People can design circuits; this task -- at least partially --
can be done by computers.  I'll talk about how designers think about
circuits and how to make computers think that way, too.  While the talk
will be directed toward circuit design, that is not the sole intent.
How will building problem solvers in one engineering domain help us
build them in other domains?  What "domain-independent" facts can be
carried across?
        Engineering domains (such as circuit design) are good ones to
teach computers.  They have well defined models that let the machine
verify and debug its designs (thus allowing some chance at creativity).
Engineering domains also have many "standard problems" with cookbook
solutions.  If the computer can be clever about recognizing instances of
these problems and combining them together, it can produce nontrivial
designs.  The quality of a design in an engineering domain is also easy
to assess.
        The circuit design domain is not simple, however.  Hierarchical
expansion of abstract components fails to account for many designs.  The
parts of a design are not independent and that makes it difficult for
the knowledge sources to be modular.  Arithmetic constraints solve some
of these problems; some others can be solved by manipulating mechanism
constraints.
        An important perspective:  when teaching a system a new trick,
find out why the some one thought of that trick in the first place.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
46
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 11 April 1984 23:08:30 EST
-FROM-
From: Kai-Fu.Lee@cmu-cs-g.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comments solicited
-BODY-
I will be teaching a LISP/AI course to a group of Pennsylvania high
school seniors who are talented in science.  (part of the Penn.
Governor's School for the Sciences)  I am interested in hearing from
people with similar experience or ideas for subject/assingments/
projects/text book.

The students will likely be divided into two groups, one with and one
without experience in programming.  The course consists of 17 1-hour
lectures to each group. I am planning to divide the course into 3 parts :
(1) Basic Concepts of C.S. [2 lectures] (2) LISP Programming [6-7
lectures] (3) A.I. [8-9 lectures]. Since the schedule is rather tight,
it is unlikely that I could cover anything in much detail.  There will be
two or three programming assignments.  In addition, students may choose to
do a project in computer science.

Thanks,
Kai-Fu Lee
KFL@CMU-CS-G.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Apr 84 00:36:19-PST
-FROM-
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Noncompetition Clauses
-BODY-
Ken, I think you missed one problem with the noncompetition agreement.
I guess you looked at it like I did that your salary would be in the
same range if you could change jobs so it doesn't hurt too much if you
just continued on at the old salary but took the time off.

Suppose you started to work for company A at salary X.  The next year (or so)
you get a much better offer (say as a manager) from company B at salary 2*X.
Now you are prevented from taking that job (assuming B is in competition with
A).

Another way of looking at that is to suppose that you do something good
in your first few years after school but that your company doesn't
want to give you the raise in salary that is commensurate with your proven
abilities.  Now you can't just say that company B will pay you twice your
current salary.  They'd just laugh at you and say you couldn't go.  It might
be worth 3 years of your old salary to keep you from company B even if you
don't do any work for them.

I see the clause as cutting down on wage wars between companies.  It also
cuts down on the mobility available to employees of that company.  Finally
it probably prevents an employee from starting his own company in that
field.

I also feel that the restriction may have a negative effect on the company
requiring it.  Would you go to a black hole from which no one ever could
get away?  I suppose companies requiring that clause are just going to have
to settle for employees that can't find a better offer.  Would you want to
work with second class people?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 84 08:56:18 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-competition clauses and other employment agreements
-BODY-

I think that anyone concerned about employment agreements would do well
to contact a lawyer.  The different states consider various clauses in
employment agreements enforceable to differing degrees.  I seem to remember
reading an article about six months ago that said (broadly) that California,
for example, considered clauses restricting people from continuing their
professional careers to be not generally in the public interest, and such
clauses should be carefully considered as to enforceability for that reason.
This same article (which I am trying to dig up) said something about the state
of California holding that clauses assigning all rights to all ideas, patents,
etc. arising during employment, are enforceable only to the extent that such
ideas, etc. resulted from the employment situation.  Again, one should
really contact a lawyer to get a clear opinion in any given situation.  There
is enough variability in this area to make any general comments suspect.

My personal experience has been that employment agreements and the
employer's approach to them are remarkably uniform in industry.  When I
have questioned companies about these agreements, I am told that they
adopt this fairly standard agreement and hold to it firmly on the advice
of their corporate counsel.  The general idea (from the company point of
view) seems to be to claim all you can now, and work out what you can really
enforce if the situation comes to that.  They take this approach
not because of some malignant motive, but because it has proved the most
prudent course for them to take.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 84 17:51:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Mark S. Day <mday@BBN-UNIX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Employment Agreement
-BODY-
Keeping someone entirely out of a field like AI for three years is an illegal
restraint of trade, I would suggest.  Employment agreements must be
reasonable with respect to time and area limitations to be enforceable, and
I doubt that 3 years is a reasonable time constraint, especially given that it
seems to be sufficiently long to get completely out of touch with the field.
The fact that the company offers to pay you for those three years is
irrelevant.

  --Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 84 07:06:04 cst
-FROM-
From: Peter Chen <chen%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Noncompetition Clauses
-BODY-
I think that there are quite a few companies putting on restrictions on
post-employment activities, although most of these companies are usually not as
restrictive as the company mentioned by Scott Fahlman.  I think it
is fair for an employer to ask its employees to avoid future
involvement in direct competition with the company
within a short period of time (say, one year instead
of three years) and in a more narrow subject area (i.e., in the area/topics
the individual is working on, rather than a broad definition of the AI field or
the whole computer field).

If I remembered correctly, when I worked for a large computer manufacturer ten
years ago, I was required to sign an agreement that whatever
ideas or products I might develop in my spare time would belong to the company
even though the ideas/products were not related to computers.  Do you think it
is fair?  Do you think your computer employer has the right of the novel you
write during weekends?  I think this case is much more unfair than asking
the employee not to compete with the company after he/she leaves the company
for more than a year.

As far as I understand, all these agreements/contracts are legally binding if
the contracts are signed under free will.  Therefore, they can be enforced if
the companies choose to do so.  However, most of time the companies just use
them as a possible protection for their interest.

      Peter Chen
      Computer Science Dept., LSU
      <chen%lsu@csnet-relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 84 17:45:10 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Metaphor
-BODY-
The thing about a metaphor is that it contains little explicit information.
It acts as a trigger in such a way that the hearer creates meaning for it.
Different hearers create different meanings.  For example, one hearer,
drawing from his background as an environmentalist might take "Man is a Wolf"
to mean that man has a wild, misunderstood soul while another hearer, drawing
from his background as a mountain man who has had to compete with wolves might
take the metaphor to mean that he himself is a savage beast that will kill,
if necessary, to live.

It becomes pretty far-fetched to make up a model of "metaphor" that says
that this information is contained in the statement of the metaphor.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 84 2255 EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Metaphor comprehension pointers
-BODY-

The following references might prove helpful if you're interested in
AI and metaphor comprehension:

    Carbonell, J.G. and Minton, S. "Metaphor and Common-Sense Reasoning"
    CMU tech report CMU-CS-83-110, March 83

    Carbonell, J.G. "Metaphor: An Inescapable Phenomenon in Natural Language
    Processing", in Strategies for Natural Language Processing, W. Lehnert
    and M. Ringle (eds.), Erlbaum 1982

    Carbonell, J.G. "Invariance Heirarchies in Metaphor Interpretation"
    Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1981

There's a large body of literature on analogical reasoning and other
aspects of metaphor comprehension. Much of the relevant research
has been done within psychology and linguistics. I'd suggest looking at
these for an overview:

    Ortony, A. (Ed.) "Metaphor and Thought" Cambridge Univ. Press 1979

    Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. "Metaphors We Live By" Chicago Univ. Press 1980

    Gentner D. "Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy" in
    Cognitive Science, Vol. 7, No.2 1983

    Winston P. "Learning by Creating and Justifying Transfer Frames"  in
    Arificial Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1978

I don't know of any natural language system which can handle a wide range
of novel metaphors, and I don't expect to see one soon.
Any such system would have to contain an enormous amount of
knowledge. Unlike most present-day NL systems, a robust metaphor comprehension
system would have to be able to understand many different domains.

In spite of this difficulty, metaphor comprehension remains a fertile
area for AI research. I've spent some time examining how people
understand sentences like: "The US/Russian arms negations are a high
stakes poker game". When you get right down to it, its amazing that
people can figure out exactly what the mapping between "arms negotiatations"
and "poker games" is. What's most amazing is that using and understanding
metaphors APPEARS to take so little effort. (In fact, they are often the
easiest way to to rapidly communicate complex technical information. The next
time you are at a talk, try counting the analogies and metaphors used.)

                                        -- Steve Minton, CMU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 1984 11:31:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Metaphoric Comparisons
-BODY-
Mike:
     Anthropologists and folklorists have been dealing with metaphor (and
related tropes) for a long time, in terms of their use in such common forms of
speech as proverbs and riddles, both of which depend almost totally on the
use of metaphoric and metonymic comparison.  One thing that's critical is the
recognition that use of metaphor is extremely context-dependent; i.e., you
cannot apply Chomskian assumptions that competence is important, because the
problem occurs in performance, which Chomsky relegates to a side issue.
     I'd suggest the following references for a start:

1.  Sapir and Crocker, eds., "The Social Use of Metaphor" -- an excellent
anthology, about eight years old, covering a great deal of ground.
2.  The special issue of the Journal of American Folklore from the early or
mid-seventies on Riddles and Riddling.
3.  Dell Hymes, "Foundations of Sociolinguistics".  (A really critical book
which set the stage for many anthropologists, linguists, etc. to shift over
from competence to performance; its biggest flaw is Hymes' insistence that
communication doesn't exist without intention on the part of at least one of
the performer(s), the receiver(s), and the audience.)
4.  The journal "Proverbium", which was, for its 25-year life, THE place to
look for research on proverbs and related stuff.  Especially good are articles
by Nigel Barley, Alan Dundes, and Barbara Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, whose "The
Proverb in Context" is a real key article.
5.  Kirschenblatt-Gimblett and Sutton-Smith, eds., "Speech Play".  A very good
anthology about uses of all sorts of special speech techniques, including
metaphorical comparisons, in various cultures.

Those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head.  There are lots
more stored in my bibliography hard-copy file at home, and you can drop me
a net-note if you need 'em...

  --Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 1984 09:49:50-EST
-FROM-
From: walter at mit-htvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Smalltalk-52
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                 ANNALS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE SEMINAR
                   DATE:  Friday, April 13th, 1984
                   TIME:  Refreshments  12:00 noon
                  PLACE:  MIT AI Lab 8th Floor Playroom

                 SMALLTALK-52 and the Wheeler Send

                               ABSTRACT

        Recently discovered paper tapes reveal that J.M. Wheeler
        designed the first version of Smalltalk in 1952,
        intending it to run on the University of Cambridge's
        EDSAC Computer.  The initial implementation, however,
        required the machine's entire 512-word memory and was deemed
        infeasible.  Wheeler, who is credited with the invention
        of bootstrap code, subroutine calls, assemblers, linkers,
        loaders, and all-night hacking, can now be properly
        credited with inventing message passing, object oriented
        programming, window systems, and impractical languages.

        This fascinating historical discussion and the accompanying
        Graduate Student Lunch will be hosted by Steve Berlin.

        Next Week:
        Lady Lovelace's Public-Key Encryption Algorithm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
47
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 84 02:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Malcolm Cook <cook%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TEACHING SYSTEMS. WRITING & GEOMETRY.
-BODY-
Im looking for information on 2 things:
        1) what systems exist that are used to teach language skills,
especially teaching writing to children.  also, I remember hearing
about studies showing that children are motivated to write simply
by having a simplified editor.  Any pointers to this study(s)?
There was an interesting article in N.Y. times sunday mag section
2-3 months back entitles "Writing to Read", and was about a curriculum
for 1st & 2nd grade, in which the children were learning a simple
morpheme<==>grapheme map, allowing them to pphonetically spell
any word they could pronounce.  Are there any AI systems involved
in this course?

        2) What does there exist for tutoring sytems in geometry.
I am somewhat familiar with the CMU approach (Boyle, Anderson, Shrager...)
but what else is around?  Anything on the spectrum from GOOD
programmed instruction to /reactive environments/ would be of interest.

thanks,

        Malcolm Cook (Cook.umass-cs@csnet-relay)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Apr 84 17:39:57-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!borgia @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TAMITTC
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1135

A few weeks ago a cryptic TAMITTC poster appeared on all the doors
of our computer engineering department. Recently I discovered what
it was all about on an obscure campus billboard.

        There Are More Important Things Than Computers

And there was a footnote.

        Like what? People? Oh, those things!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 84 15:53:05-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!don @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Big Brother
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.2388

                AI and criminology

I totally agree with DW's article in net.crypt.  Computer techniques
would be used to keep track of "political criminals".  Middle class
intellectuals are far more vulnerable to this sort of control than are
street criminals and drifters.

Already, right wing organizations use this technology to keep track of
people they consider politically dangerous, and while the government is
not allowed to do this, they have received information from these
organizations under the table.  In some cases, victims are chosen
simply by correlating magazine subscription information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 84 10:05:30-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-vgr!abc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Artificial Big Brother
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.15

But just like so many things, do you really think that,
because the "good guys" don't build a tool which can be
used for "good" or "evil" that the "bad guys" won't build
and use the tool?

It seems that what is needed is research into methods for
controlling these tools (Computer Science) and research
into new public policies regarding the use and misuse of
such tools (Humanities and Social Science).

Remember: whether the U.S. did it or not, others still
would have developed and deployed nuclear weapons.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 84 13:51:13-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekigm!dand @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Artificial Big Brother
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekigm.74

I cannot agree too strongly with Brint Cooper about this. The tool never makes
the wielder any more or less an "evil" person.

If given a choice, I'd rather have such a tool built by the established AI
community for two reasons:
1) The program's existance is published, so people can think about the
   implications and possibly set up systems to reduce the amount of abuse
   the system is used for. As a possible victim of misuse, I can also start
   thinking about preventive measures to unreasonable privacy invasions(I
   personally believe no one even now has any real privacy if someone is out
   to do you in, but that is not germain here.)
2) If such a tool is in the public domain, at least the people it was
   originally designed for, the law-enforcement agencies, would get some
   use out of it. If this tracking system were to be built in a CIA shop or
   an NSA shop, no one outside those organizations will ever know of its
   existance, and thus never be able to use it.

Abuses with such a system are going to be inevitable; the goal for us to set
is to see that the abuses are kept to a minimum, which we can't do if the
system requires "Top Secret/Burn Before Reading" clearance to even know that it
exists.

Lest anyone try to say that the possible abuses of such a system outweigh the
few benefits of it, remember that Theodore Bundy was convincted with such
evidence as gasoline receipts in the area where one of his victims disappeared,
at the same time she disappeared. With such a system, perhaps, Ted Bundy would
not have racked up the score of dead, young women that he did. Such a system
might help pinpoint the current Green River Killer in Washington State,
or reduce the predations of the itinerant killers who prey on anyone they
think they can get away with. If some shadowy bureaucrat were out to get you,
this system would not be necessary--a judge's signature is all that is needed
to open up the records of your Visa, your bank, your employer, etc (granted it
may not be a legal action on that part of that judge, but we're already talking
about illegal activities, no?).

Finally, if this discussion is going to go on, let's move it to net.politics
or net.misc or net.legal, net.ai is not the proper forum for this discussion.

Dan C Duval
ISI Engineering
Tektronix,Inc

tektronix!tekigm!dand

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 1984  16:16 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Cobb%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Qualitative Process Theory
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                               SEMINAR

                          Kenneth D. Forbus


                          April 17 - 4:00PM
                      NE43 - 8th floor Playroom

                  Title:  QUALITATIVE PROCESS THEORY


        Objects move, collide, flow, bend, heat up, cool down,
stretch, break, and boil.  These and other things that happen to cause
changes in objects over time are intuitively characterized as
processes.  To understand common sense physical reasoning and make
programs that interact with the physical world as well as people do we
must understand qualitative reasoning about processes and their
effects.  Qualitative Process theory defines a simple notion of
physical process that appears useful as a language in which to write
dynamical theories.  Reasoning about processes also motivates a new
qualitative representation for quantity in terms of inequalities,
called the Quantity Space.

        This talk will describe the basic concepts of Qualitative
Process theory, two different kinds of reasoning that can be performed
with them, and its implications for causal reasoning.  Several
examples will be presented to illustrate the utility of the theory,
including figuring out that a boiler can blow up and how different
theories of motion may be encoded.


Refreshments at 3:45PM

Host:  Professor Patrick H. Winston

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 84 16:31:46 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: III Seminar on AI and VLSI this Coming Thursday (room 423)...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                                 I I I SEMINAR

          Title:    Knowledge-Based Aids for VLSI Design
          Speaker:  Tom Mitchell
          Date:     Thursday, April 19, 1984, 1:30-2:30 PM
          Location: Hill Center, ***room 423***

       Knowledge-based  systems  provide  one  possible approach to dealing
    with the complexities of VLSI design.  This talk discusses  the  design
    of  such a system, called VEXED, which aids the user in the interactive
    design of VLSI circuits.  VEXED  is  intended  to  provide  suggestions
    regarding  alternative  implementations  of circuit modules, as well as
    warnings regarding conflicting constraints during design.   The  system
    is composed of a circuit network expert (CIRED), a layout expert (RPL),
    and a digital signal analysis expert (CRITTER).  A prototype version of
    VEXED  has  been implemented, and a second version of the system is now
    under development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Apr 84 11:10:48-PST
-FROM-
From: Don Walker <WALKER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COLING84 information on registration, travel, housing,
-BODY-           summer school

****************** PLEASE POST, CIRCULATE, AND REDISTRIBUTE *****************

   COLING84, TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS

COLING84 is scheduled for 2-6 July 1984 at Stanford University, Stanford,
California.  It will also constitute the 22nd Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics, which will host the conference.

Information about the conference, registration, travel, and accommodations,
and about the six summer school courses that will be held during the
preceding week (25-29 June) has just been made available in the form of The
COLING Courier.  For a copy, contact Don Walker, COLING84, SRI
International, Menlo Park, California, 94025, USA [phone: (415)859-3071;
arpanet: walker@sri-ai; telex [650] 334486].  Other requests for information
about the conference should be addressed to Martin Kay, COLING84, Xerox PARC,
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304, USA [phone:
1-(415)494-4428; arpanet: kay@xerox; telex [650] 1715596].

The summer school, which will be held 25-29 June, consists of week-long
tutorials on six subjects that are central to computational linguistics but
on which instruction is still not routinely available:  LISP AS
LANGUAGE--Brian Smith, Xerox and Stanford; PROLOG FOR NATURAL LANGUAGE
ANALYSIS--Fernando Pereira, SRI International; PARSER CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES--Henry Thompson, Edinburgh; SITUATION SEMANTICS--David Israel,
BBN, & John Perry, Stanford; MACHINE TRANSLATION--Brian Harris, Ottawa, &
Alan Melby, Brigham Young; SOUND STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE--Mark Liberman, Bell
Labs.  Enrollments are limited to 30 in each tutorial, so register early.

A remarkably rich set of computational facilities will be available at
Coling84 for demonstrating programs and systems.  For information, contact
Doug Appelt, SRI International, Menlo Park, California 94025 [phone: (415)
859-6150; arpanet: appelt@sri-ai; telex: [650] 334486].

You are advised to BOOK EARLY FOR COLING84, since airline reservations will
be much harder than usual to obtain.  Custom Travel Consultants, 2105
Woodside Road, Woodside, CA 94062 [phone (415)369-2105], is responsible for
registration, travel, and housing.  Full information is provided in the
Coling Courier, but call them if time is short.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
48
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 84 00:47:17 pst
-FROM-
From: syming%B.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI for Business?
-BODY-
I am soliciting any information on the application of artificial intelligence
and/or expert system techniques on the area of business administration such
as marketing, finance, production/operation, accounting, organizational
behavior ... etc. Any information (e.g., on-going project, current reseach,
new idea, trends ...) are greatly appreciated.

Syming Hwang
School of Business Administration, U.C. Berkeley, 415-642-2070 (ofc)
350 Barrows Hall, U.C. Berkeley, Bekerley, CA 94720
syming%B.CC@Berkeley.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Apr 84 02:21:16-EST
-FROM-
From: MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Poetics Today & Metaphor
-BODY-
   The current issue of *Poetics Today* (V.4, N.2, 1983) is
specially dedicated to the subject of metaphor, and contains four
weighty articles by Umberto Eco, Eddy M. Zemach, Inez Hedges, and
Jan Wojcik. The article by Eco (who is considered by many to be
the foremost living literary theorist and semiotician in the
world) is especially useful.
   Eco provides a glimpse of just how vast is the literature on
metaphor:
   "The 'most luminous, and therefore the most necessary and
frequent' (Vico) of all tropes, the metaphor, defies every
encyclopedic entry. Above all because it has been the object of
philosophical, linguistic, aesthetic and psychological reflection
since the beginning of time. Shibles's 1971 bibliography on the
metaphor records around 3000 titles; and yet, even before 1971,
it overlooks authors like Fontanier, and almost all of Heidegger
and Greimas--and of course does not mention, after the research
in componential semantics, the successive studies on the logic of
natural languages, the work of Henry, Group u of Lieges, Ricoeur,
Samuel Levin, and the latest text linguistics and pragmatics."
   Eco makes some remarks on the subject of metaphor which are
highly pertinent to AI researchers:
   "No algorithm exists for metaphor, nor can a metaphor be
produced by means of a computer's precise instructions, no matter
what the volume of organized information to be fed in. The
success of a metaphor is a function of the sociocultural format
of the interpreting subjects' encyclopedia. In this perspective,
metaphors are produced solely on the basis of a rich cultural
framework, on the basis, that is, of a universe of content that
is already organized into networks of interpretants, which decide
(semiotically) upon the identities and differences of properties.
At the same time this content universe, whose format postulates
itself not as rigidly hierarchized, but rather according to Model
Q, alone derives from the metaphorical production and
interpretation the opportunity to restructure itself into new
modes of similarity and dissimilarity."
   The journal *Poetics Today* is a rich source of speculation
and analysis for anyone exploring the more subtle structures and
processes of natural language understanding.

     --Wayne McGuire <mdc.wayne@MIT-OZ>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 84 16:14:56 PST
-FROM-
From: Koenraad Lecot <koen@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Synapse Books Prices
-BODY-
I remember a message on the AIList that mentioned Synapse Books as
a [...] publisher of AI books. Have you seen their 1984 catalog ?
It contains two new "books" by a certain R.K. Miller, one at $200 and
the other at $485 ...
I knew that the prices of AI books were going up but this is crazy ..


[I remember an ad for a reprint of key expert systems papers for over
$1000 a year or two ago.  This wasn't a Comtex microfiche collection
(about $2000 per set), just a reprint compendium marketed for corporations
and Wall Street types.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Apr 1984 11:59-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Noncompetition Agreements
-BODY-
        I don't know about you, but whenever I am given a contract to
sign, I simply cross out anything I'm not willing to agree to and sign
what remains. If they want me, they sign, if they don't they don't. In
my experience, 95% of the time, they just sign and take what they get.
The other 5% of the time, they try to bargain, and I simply refuse to
yield on the issues that are important to me. At that point we either
agree or don't. The point is, that you should only agree to the things
that seem reasonable to you, and then only if you understand the legal
ramifications of what you are signing.

        Frankly, I wouldn't work for anyone who felt the need to bind me
to them by an exclusive use of my brain contract. First of all, it's my
brain not theirs. Second of all, they must be in pretty bad stead with
their employees if they have to use the law to force them to stay.
Companies that are really good don't have to force employees to stay,
the employees stay because they believe in the company and they get the
rewards they seek. Figure out what you want and what you're willing to
give for it, don't do what you don't believe in just because others are
doing it.
                                        Fred

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Apr 84 16:33:52-EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Brian Nixon <nixon%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-
At least in Canada, the courts usually take a low view of such clauses
in employment contracts, UNLESS they are severely restricted in scope, e.g.
are for a period of less than 6 months, apply only to taking a job within
the same city, apply only to taking a job within a particular industry.

Brian Nixon, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 April 1984 17:53-EST
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-
An excellent article on ''covenants not to compete'' and other non-
disclosure agreements is Davidson, ''Constructing OEM Nondisclosure
Agreements'', 24 Jurimetrics Journal 127 (1984).  The author notes that
after-employment restrictions are strong medicine, and therefore they
are narrowly construed as to time and subject matter.  In some states
(e.g., California) they are impermissible except in narrow
circumstances (such as the sale of a business and the like).  Likely
the best policy is to consult a lawyer.

If you really wish to steer students away from that company, I would
think the best way would be to name names.  Their employment terms are
hardly a secret in themselves.

  -- Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 1984  10:19 EST
-FROM-
From: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Employment restrictions
-BODY-
Of the responses I've received, both by mail and in person, several have
said that a three-year paid sabbatical wouldn't be so bad (but you would
be prevented from starting a company or doing anything that involves
significant machine resources or a team of people), several have
said that the clause probably wouldn't stand up in court (but it's no
fun to fight a big company in court), and many have said that this policy
would keep lots of good people away from the company in question.

Nobody has told me about any similar clause used by another company.
Some consulting firms require their employees to agree not to jump over
to work for the clients for a year or so, but that still leaves them with
lots of options within the field of AI.

In any event, the company that started all this is now reconsidering
their position and are trying to find some less restrictive way to
protect their proprietary information, so the whole issue may soon be
moot.  It's nice to find a company where the lawyers still work for the
researchers, and not vice versa.

  -- Scott Fahlman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 84 22:55:52-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Stolfo's call for discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: opus.346

>One way AI programming is different from much of the programming in other
>fields is that for AI it is often impossible to produce a complete set of
>specifications before beginning to code.
>
>The accepted wisdom of software engineering is that one should have a
>complete, final set of specifications for a program before writing a
>single line of code.  It is recognized that this is an ideal, not
>typical reality, since often it is only during coding that one finds
>the last bugs in the specs.  However, it is held up as a goal to
>be approached as closely as possible.

I submit that these statements are NOT correct in general for non-AI
programs.  Systems whose implementations are not preceded by complete
specifications include those which
        - involve new hardware whose actual capability (e.g., speed) is
          uncertain.
        - are designed with sufficiently new hardware and/or are to be
          manufactured in sufficient quantity that hardware price per-
          formance tradeoffs will change significantly in the course of the
          development.
        - require user-interface decisions for which no existing body of
          knowledge exists (or is adequate) - thus the user interface is
          strongly prototype (read: trial/error) oriented.
as well as the generally-understood characteristics of AI programs.  In
some sense, my criteria are equivalent to "systems which don't represent
problems already solved in some way already" - and there are a lot of such
problems.
                                  --
"A friend of the devil is a friend of mine."            Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd                         (303) 444-5710 x3086

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 84 20:13:01-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!warren @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Stolfo's call for discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: teltone.252

Unexpectedness and lack of pre-specification occur in many professional
programming environments.  In AI particulary it occurs because
experimentation reveals unexpected results, as in all science.

In hardware (device-driver) code it occurs because the specs lie or
omit important details, or because you make an "alternative
interpretation".

In over-organized environments, where all the details are spelled out
to the nth degree in a stack of documents 8 feet high, unexpectedness
comes when you read the spec and discover the author was a complete idiot
having a very bad day.  I have seen alleged specs that were signed off
by all kinds of high mucky-mucks that are completely, totally, zonkers.
Not just in error, but complete jibberish, having no visible association
with either reality or thought, not to mention the project at hand.
At the very least, they are simply out of date.  Something crucial has
changed since the specs were written.

In business environments, it occurs when the president of the company
says he just changed the way records are to be kept, and besides, doesn't
like the looks of the reports he agreed to several months ago.  Whats a
programmer to do ?  Tell the boss to shove it ?  The single most difficult
kind of programming occurs when  1) The user is your boss (or "has power").
2) The user is fairly stupid.  3) The user/boss is good enough of a con
artist to prevent the programmer from leaving.  It is admitted, however,
that the difficulty is not technical, per se, but political.

All the above examples are from my professional experience, which spans
over ten years.  None of the situations are very unusual.  Unexpectedness
is part of our job.  In any case, 90 to 99% of the code in the AI systems
I've seen are much like any other program.  There are parsers, allocators,
symbol tables, error messages, and so on.  I'll let others testify to
the remainder of the code, its been a while.

                                warren

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
49
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 1984 07:52:11-EST
-FROM-
From: Nasa.Langley.Research.Center@CMU-RI-ROVER
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cfasling Pascal routines into Franz
-BODY-
  In our work with distributed intelligent systems for space teleoperators
and robotics, we have found the "cfasl" function in Franz Lisp to be very
useful, connecting previously-developed Fortran routines to the total
system. However, a need has arisen to use an external Pascal function,
and we have been unable to persuade Franz to accept this in our system.
We have even tried to front-end Pascal modules with Fortran in order to
cfasl, but can't even manage that. Any suggestions from someone who has
done this? We are running Franz opus 38.17 on a *VAX/VMS* 750, not Unix.
We do have the Eunice system.

The heart of the problem is that
I'm using VAX/VMS Pascal, not the Unix/Eunice pascal. Evidently the VMS
pascal is not generating global symbols in a way that is visible to the
cfasling functions. In fact, I haven't gotten it to be visible to the linker
in VMS calling pascal modules from other languages, say fortran. Probably
if I could get that, I could get the other.

Mailing address is:
      Nancy Orlando
      Mail Stop 152D
      NASA Langley Research Center
      Hampton, VA 23665
Thanks in advance...

Nancy Orlando

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Apr 84 16:56:05-CST
-FROM-
From: Oliver Gajek <LRC.Gajek@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog on Symbolics machines
-BODY-
Does anyone know  whether there is  a PROLOG available  for a  Symbolics
Lisp machine?  If so, can you  run it simultaneously with Lisp and  call
it from there? And how does it compare to other implementations?

Thanks,

Oliver.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 1984 21:27:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Perry W. Thorndyke <THORNDYKE@USC-ISI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Real-Time Simulation
-BODY-
Response to request for information on AI-based real-time simulation:

We at Perceptronics are developing a real-time simulation of a Navy
tactical decision-making environment for use in an instructional system.
The environment simulates an air-sea battle situation in which the student
must command a ship, utilizing sensors, weapons, maneuvering, and deception
to defend himself against an opposing ship(s).  The battle simulation and
opponent simulation must run in real time to present a realistic training
situation. From an instructional perspective, the interesting research
issues involve (1) how to represent the skills associated with real-time
cognition on a time-stressed problem, and (2) how to make the opponent
simulation modifiable under program control by the instructional system
so that exercises can address particular pedagogical objectives.  We are
currently working in GLISP, which sits on top of Franz Lisp on a VAX.
We utilize 4 mb of main memory.

Perry Thorndyke
Perceptronics Knowledge Systems Branch
thorndyke@usc-isi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 1984 21:59:32 EST
-FROM-
From: Perry W. Thorndyke <THORNDYKE@USC-ISI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Noncompetition
-BODY-
Response to Fahlman's message on noncompetition clauses:

Scott,

We continually hire AI talent into our for-profit, public company to
conduct R&D on expert systems, surrogate instructors, intelligent human-
machine interfaces, and distributed AI.  Several of our products contain
proprietary hardware-software designs and our market advantage depends
on maintaining a technology edge in those product areas, which include
videodic/graphics display systems.  Yet we have no such noncompetition
clause, nor have we considered imposing one.  Given that it is a
seller's market for AI talent now, it's hard to believe that any company
could get away with imposing such a policy--assuming that it is even
legally enforcable. My experience in the AI field is that conflict-of-
interest considerations do not extend beyond the term of employment
of the individual, except for non-disclosure of proprietary information.
The policy you cited seems extreme and undesirable, and constitutes
a moral, if not legal, unfair restraint of trade.

Perry Thorndyke
Perceptronics, Inc.
thorndyke@usc-isi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Apr 84 11:22:44-PST
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stolfo's call for discussion
-BODY-
        Your question - "What are the fundamental characteristics
of AI computation that distinguish it from more conventional
computation." - is a good one.  It is answered, consciously or
unconsciously, by each of us as we organize our understanding of
the field.  My own answer is as follows:

        The fundamental difference between conventional programs
and AI programs is that conventional programs are static in
concept and AI programs are adaptaive in concept.  Conventional
programs, once installed, have fixed functions: they do not
change with time.  AI programs are adaptive: their functions and
performance improve with time.

        A conventional program - such as a payroll program, word
processor, etc. - is conceived of as a static machine with a
fixed set of functions, like a washing machine.  A payroll
program is a kind of "cam" that converts the computer into a
specific accounting machine.  The punched cards containing the
week's payroll data are fed into one side of the machine, and
checks and reports come out the other side, week after week.  In
this concept, the program is designed in the same manner as any
other machine: it is specified, designed, built, tested, and
installed.  Periodic engineering changes may be made, but in the
same manner as any other machine: primarily to correct problems.

        AI programs are adaptive: the program is not a machine
with a fixed set of functions, but an adaptive system that grows
in performance and functionality.  This focus of AI can be seen
by examining the topics covered in a typical AI text, such as
"Artificial Intellegence" by Elaine Rich, McGraw-Hill, 1983.
The topics include:

  o  Problem solving: programs that solve problems.
  o  Game playing
  o  Knowledge representation and manipulation
  o  Natural language understanding
  o  Perception
  o  Learning

        These topics are concerned with adaptation, learning, or
any of several names for the same general concept.  This seems to
be the consistant characteristic of AI programs.  The interesting
AI program is one that can improves its performance - at solving
problems, playing games, absorbing and responding to questions
about knowledge, etc. - or one that addresses issues associated
with problem solving, learning, etc.

        The adaptive aspect of AI programs implies some
difference in methods used in the programs.  AI programs are
designed for change, both by themselves while running, and by the
original programmer.  As the program runs, knowledge structures
may expand and change in a number of dimensions, and the
algorithms that manipulate them may also expand - and change
THEIR structures.  The program must be designed to accommodate
this change.  This is one of the reasons that LISP is popular in
AI work: EVERYTHING is dynamically allocated and modifyable -
data structures, data types, algorithms, etc.

        Good luck in your endeavors!  It is a great field!

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 84 15:51:48-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!psuvax!burdvax!sjuvax!bbanerje @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sjuvax.254

>> There is another way of looking at the statement -
>>  all customers in Indiana and Ohio
>> which seems simpler to me than producing the new phrase -
>>  all customers in Indiana  AND all customers in Ohio
>> instead of doing this why not treat Indiana and Ohio as a new single
>> conceptual entity giving -
>>  all customers in (Indiana and Ohio).
>>
>> This seems simpler to me. It would mean the database would have to
>> allow aggregations of this type, but I don't see that as being
>> particularly problematic.
>>
>> Jim Cowie.

My admittedly inconsequential contribution to this:

(Pardon the Notation!  Here, Indiana and Ohio correspond to sets
of base type customer.  C- denotes set membership and (~) is
intended to denote set intersection.)


All customers in Indiana AND all customers in Ohio seems to want the
following :

    [all customers such that |
        {customer C- Indiana} XOR {customer C- Ohio}]

This seems to be described best as

    [all customers such that |
        customer C- {Indiana U Ohio - (Indiana (~) Ohio)}]

Assuming that no customer can be in Indiana and Ohio simultaneously,
the intersection of the sets would be NULL.  Thus we would have

    [all customers such that |
        customer C- {Indiana U Ohio}]

So far so good.  However, the normal sense of an AND as I understand
it, corresponds to a set intersection.  The formulation is therefore
counter-intutive.

I'm not an AI type, so I would appreciate being set straight.  Flames
will be cheerfully ignored.

Regards,


                                Binayak Banerjee
                {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 April 1984 15:27-EST
-FROM-
From: Kenneth Byrd Story <STORY @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: puzzles and permutation groups
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:     Thursday, April 19, 1984
TIME:     Lecture, 4:00pm
PLACE:    NE43-512a


   ``Generalized `15-puzzles' and the Diameter of Permutation Groups''

                        Dan Kornhauser
                              MIT

Sam Lloyd's famous ``15-puzzle'' involves 15 numbered unit squares free to move
in a 4x4 area with one unit square blank.  The problem is to decide whether a
given rearrangement of the squares is possible, and to find the shortest
sequence of moves to obtain the rearrangement when it is possible.

A natural generalization of this puzzle involves a graph with @i(n) vertices,
and @i(k<n) tokens numbered @i(1,...,k) on distinct vertices.  A legal move
consists of sliding a token from its vertex to an adjacent unoccupied vertex.

Wilson (1974) obtained a criterion for solvability for biconnected graphs and
@i(k=n-1).  No polynomial upper bound on number of moves was given.

We present a quadratic time algorithm for deciding solvability of the general
graph problem.  It is also shown that @i[O(n@+{3})] move solutions always exist
and can be efficiently planned.  Further, @i[O(n@+{3})] is shown to be a
matching lower bound for some graph puzzles.

We consider related puzzles of the Rubik's cube type, in the context of the
general permutation group diameter question.

This is joint work with Gary Miller, MIT, and Paul Spirakis, NYU

HOST:   Professor Silvio Micali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 84 12:31:31-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!carlo @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Database Systems Workshop  (long msg)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.2406

               Call for Papers and Participation

       FIRST INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON EXPERT DATABASE SYSTEMS

         October 25-27, 1984, Kiawah Island, South Carolina


  Sponsored by

  The Institute of Information Management, Technology, and Policy,
  College of Business Administration,
  University of South Carolina

  In Cooperation With

  Association for Computing Machinery - SIGMOD and SIGART

  IEEE Technical Committee on Data Base Engineering


  Workshop Program

  This workshop  will  address  the  theoretical  and  practical  issues
  involved  in  making databases more knowledgeable and supportive of AI
  applications.  The tools and techniques  of  database  management  are
  being  used  to  represent  and  manage more complex types of data and
  applications environments.

  The rapid growth of online systems containing text, bibliographic, and
  videotex  databases with their specialized knowledge, and the develop-
  ment of expert systems for scientific, engineering and business appli-
  cations  indicate the need for intelligent database interfaces and new
  database system architectures.

  The workshop will bring together researchers  and  practitioners  from
  academia  and industry to discuss these issues in Plenary Sessions and
  specialized Working Groups.  The Program Committee will invite  40  to
  80  people,  based  on submitted research and application papers (5000
  words) and issue-oriented position papers (2000-3000 words).

  Topics of Interest

  The Program Committee invites papers addressing (but not  limited  to)
  the following areas:

  Knowledge Base Systems                 Knowledge Engineering
  environments                           acquisition
  architectures                          representation
  languages                              design
  hardware                               learning

  Database Specification Methodologies   Constraint and Rule Management
  object-oriented models                 metadata management
  temporal logic                         data dictionaries
  enterprise models                      constraint specification
  transactional databases                 verification, and enforcement

  Reasoning on Large Databases           Expert Database Systems
  fuzzy reasoning                        natural language access
  deductive databases                    domain experts
  semantic query optimization            database design tools
                                         knowledge gateways
                                         industrial applications

  Please send five (5) copies of full papers or position papers by  June
  1, 1984 to:

                Larry Kerschberg, Program Chairperson
                College of Business Administration
                University of South Carolina
                Columbia, SC, 29208
                (803) 777-7159 / (803) 777-5766 (messages)
                USENET: ucbvax!allegra!usceast!kersch
                CSNET:  kersch@scarolina

  Submissions will be considered by the Program Committee:

  Bruce Berra, Syracuse University            Sham Navathe, Univ. of Florida
  James Bezdek, Univ. of South Carolina       Erich Neuhold, Hewlett-Packard
  Michael Brodie, Computer Corp. of America   Stott Parker, UCLA
  Janis Bubenko, Univ. of Stockholm           Michael Stonebraker, UC-Berkeley
  Peter Buneman, Univ. of Pennsylvania        Yannis Vassiliou, New York Univ.
  Antonio L. Furtado, PUC-Rio de Janeiro      Adrian Walker, IBM Research Lab.
  Jonathan King, Symantec                     Bonnie L. Webber, U. of Penn.
  John L. McCarthy, Lawrence Berkeley Lab.    Gio Wiederhold, Stanford Univ.
  John Mylopoulos, University of Toronto      Carlo Zaniolo, AT&T Bell Labs




  Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by July 16,  1984.
  Preprints  of  accepted  papers  will  be  available  at the workshop.
  Workshop presentations, discussions, and working group reports will be
  published in book form.



    Workshop General Chairman           Local Arrangements Chairperson

    Donald A. Marchand                  Cathie Hughes-Johnson

    Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy
    (803) 777-5766

    Working Group Coordinator           Industrial Liaison

    Sham Navathe                        Mas Tsuchiya
    Computer and Information Sciences   TRW 119/1842
    University of Florida               One Space Park Drive
    512 Weil Hall                       Redondo Beach, CA 90278
    Gainesville, FL 32611               (213) 217-6114
    (904) 392-7442



  _________________________________________________________________________
             Response Card (Please mail to address on below)

  Name  ___________________________________________ Telephone _____________

  Organization  ___________________________________________________________

  Address  ________________________________________________________________
  City, State,
  ZIP, and Country ________________________________________________________

       Please check all that apply:

       _____ I intend to submit a research paper.
       _____ I intend to submit an issue-oriented position paper.
       _____ I would like to participate in a working group.
             General Topic Areas _________________________________________
       _____ Not sure I can participate, but please keep me informed.

  Subject of paper ______________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________




                   Cathie Hughes-Johnson
                   Institute of Information Management
                   Technology and Policy
                   College of Business Administration
                   University of South Carolina
                   Columbia, SC 29208

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
50
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Apr 84 13:52:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: AI Programming
-BODY-
I think a major difference between most AI programming and most non-AI
programming is that AI programming usually involves implementing
additional layers of interpretation on top of whatever programming
system is being employed.  Any system that needs to reason about its
own actions, its own assumptions, and so on, requires this extra layer
of interpretation. The kinds of programs that I work on--learning
programs--also need to modify themselves as they run.  This helps
explain why LISP is so popular--it provides very good support for
building your own interpreters: the ability to dynamically define new
symbols, the ability to construct arbitrary binding environments, and
the ability to invoke EVAL on arbitrary expressions.  Perhaps LISP
is best viewed as a interpreter language rather than a programming
language.

  --Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Apr 84 6:18:16-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Incomplete specifications ...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccivax.111

In reference to the recent discussion about Software
Engineering and incomplete specifications.

   For any new computer system, specifications at some
point must be incomplete.  A computer program is a
new machine -- it's never been constructed before.
So the final details always remain until the end.  This does
not mean that one does not begin construction.  On the
contrary, it seems to this writer that all too often
construction begins before any specifications are written.
What's needed is a middle path.  Design people need
enough requirements and constraints ( specifications )
to start work.  What should be provided is concise
documentation of the requirements and constraints, as
well as documentation of the unknowns and the risk.
Designers as they work will learn more about what is
and is not possible and this information will refine
the specifications.  But holes will remain.  This kind
of "evolutionary" development has been described by
Carl Hewitt in an article entitled "Evolutionary
Programming" in SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, edited by
H. Freeman and P.M. Lewis II (NY: Academic Press, 1980).

   I submit that any computer system development must
be a risk, and that it can only be developed by proceeding
with incomplete specifications.  The complement to this
is that large projects must be reviewed for viability
as knowledge is gained through this evolutionary
growth.  Sometimes it's better to quit before good money
is wasted.

   There's more to this issue that what is written here.
But it is not correct to hold AI programming up as some
sort of magical paradigm that is not subject to rudimentary
engineering discipline.  Software Engineering may indeed
have much to learn from the AI style of programming,
but programming in general has much to learn from engineering
disciplines also.

        Bill Anderson

    ...!ucbvax!amd70!rocksvax!ritcv!ccivax!band
    ...!{allegra | decvax}!rochester!ccivax!band

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Apr 84 09:31:17-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New File on Dialog-- The Computer Database
-BODY-
          [Forward from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Computer Database is a new file on Dialog which covers computers,
telecommunications and Electronics.  The file went online in January and
covers material from 1983 to date.  The documentation which comes with
the file has a thesaurus which appears to be very up to date in terminlology
for online searching.  The journals indexed include ACM publications, AI,
Industrial Robot, SIAM publications, IEEEE as well as Infoworld, PC World,
Dr. Dobbs, Byte etc.

[...]

Harry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 1984 13:18:02 EST
-FROM-
From: FF Bottles of Beer on the Wall,...
     <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Discounted Books
-BODY-
     A number of books on metaphor and sociolinguistics that I mentioned
in an earlier message are now on sale by their publisher, the University of
Pennsylvania Press.  The sale catalog is available by writing them at
3933 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.  Minimum order is $10.00.

     Among the items available and of interest to AI researchers are:

Sapir & Crocker, "The Social Use of Metaphor" $8.75 (50% off)
Hymes, "Foundations in Sociolinguistics" $6.97 (30% off)
Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, "Speech Play", $6.00 (70% off)
Weinreich, "On Semantics"  $10.50 (70% off)
Labov, "Sociolinguistic Patterns", $10.00 (60% off)
Maranda & Maranda, "Structural Analysis of Oral Tradition", $8.40 (60%off)

  --Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28-Mar-84 12:33:59-CST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Larry Wos <Wos@ANL-MCS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Automated Reasoning
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The book, Automated Reasoning:  Introduction and Applications, by
Wos,  Overbeek,  Lusk, and Boyle, is now available from Prentice-
Hall.  It introduces basic concepts by showing how  an  automated
reasoning program can be used to solve various puzzles.  The puz-
zles include the "truthtellers and liars" puzzle that was  exten-
sively  discussed  in  the  Prolog Digest, McCarthy's domino and
checkerboard puzzle, and the billiard ball and balance scale puz-
zle.   The  book  is  written in a somewhat informal style and no
background is required.  It also contains a rigorous treatment of
the  elements of automated reasoning.  The book relies heavily on
examples, includes many exercises, and discusses various applica-
tions  of  automated  reasoning.   The applications include logic
circuit design,  circuit  validation,  research  in  mathematics,
research  in formal logic, control systems, and program verifica-
tion.  Other chapters of the book provide an introduction to Pro-
log  and  to  expert  systems.  The last chapter, "The Art of Au-
tomated Reasoning", gives guidelines for choosing representation,
inference rules, and strategies.

     The book is based on examples actually  solved  by  existing
automated  reasoning  programs.   Certain  of  these programs are
available and portable.  The book can be used as a college  text,
consulted  by  those  who wish to study possible applications, or
simply read by the curious.

It can be ordered directly from Prentice-Hall with a visa
or master card by calling  800-526-0485 and the ISBN number
is  0-13-054446-9 for the soft cover.  The soft cover
is 18.95, and the hard 28.95.

  -- LW

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17-Apr-84 17:24 PST
-FROM-
From: William Daul  OAD / TYMSHARE / McDonnell Douglas
     <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DARPA Sets Expert System Goals
-BODY-
From DEFENSE ELECTRONICS (April 1984):

Among the goals established for DARPA's expert systems technology program are
increased storage capacity and reasoning power that can deal with 10,000 rules
and provide 4,000 rule inferences per second for stand-alone systems and 30,000
rules and 12,000 inferences per second for multiple cooperating expert systems.
The program, part of DARPA's strategic computing initiative, is aimed at
achieving a framework to support battle management applications.  The Air
Force's Rome Air Development Center will be issuing RFPs in nine technical
areas: explanation and presentation capability, ability to handle uncertain and
missing knowledge, fusion of information from several sources, flexible control
mechanisms, knowledge acquisition and representation, expansion of knowledge
capacity and extent, enhanced inference capability, exploiting expert systems
on multiprocessor architectures, and development of cooperative distributed
expert systems.  Multiple contract awards are planned for each area, and one
or two additional awards are planned for complete system development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 84 8:48:51 EST
-FROM-
From: "Ferd Brundick (VLD/LTTB)" <fsbrn@Brl-Voc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creation of new mailing list
-BODY-
Hi,

A new special interest mailing list called info-pascal has been
created.  Enclosed below is the summary for the list.  If you would
like to be added to the list, please check with your local Postmaster
or send a message to info-pascal-request@brl-voc.

                                        dsw, fferd
                                        Fred S. Brundick
                                        aka Pascal Postman
                                        USABRL, APG, MD.
                                        <info-pascal-request@brl-voc>

     -----------------------------------------------------------

INFO-PASCAL@BRL-VOC.ARPA

   This list is intended for people who are interested in the programming
   languages Pascal and Modula-2.  Discussions of any Pascal/Modula-2 imple-
   mentation (from mainframe to micro) are welcome.

   Archives are kept on SIMTEL20 in the files:
      MICRO:<CPM.ARCHIVES>PASCAL-ARCHIV.TXT    (current archives)
      MICRO:<CPM.ARCHIVES>PASCAL.ARCHIV.ymmdd  (older archives)

   All requests to be added to or deleted from this list, problems, questions,
   etc., should be sent to INFO-PASCAL-REQUEST@BRL-VOC.ARPA.

   Coordinator: Frederick S. Brundick <fsbrn@brl-voc.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 1984 12:34:36-EST
-FROM-
From: walter at mit-htvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Lady Lovelace's Encryption Algorithm
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                 ANNALS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE SEMINAR
                   DATE:  Friday, April 20th, 1984
                   TIME:  Refreshments  12:00 noon
                  PLACE:  MIT AI Lab 8th Floor Playroom

                 LADY LOVELACE'S ENCRYPTION ALGORITHM

                               ABSTRACT

        Znk loxyz iusv{zkx vxumxgsskx }gy g totkzkktzn3iktz{x tuhrk}usgt2
        Rgj G{m{yzg Gjg Hxut Ru|krgik2 jg{mnzkx ul znk vukz Ruxj Hxut.
        Gy g zkktgmkx2 G{m{yzg joyvrgkj gyzutoynotm vxu}kyy ot sgznksgzoiy.
        ]nkt ynk }gy komnzkkt g{m{yzg loxyz yg} Ingxrky Hghhgmk-y gtgrzoigr
        ktmotk2 g igri{rgzotm sginotk zngz }gy znk luxkx{ttkx ul znk sujkxt
        iusv{zkx.  Ot komnzkkt luxz3z}u2 ynk zxgtyrgzkj g vgvkx ut znk
        ktmotk lxus Lxktin zu Ktmroyn gjjotm nkx u}t |ur{sotu{y tuzky. Ot
        y{hykw{ktz }xozotmy ynk jkyixohkj znk (ruuv( gtj (y{hxu{zotk(
        iutikvzy g iktz{x hkluxk znkox osvrksktzgzout ot krkizxutoi
        jomozgr iusv{zkxy .h{z gy lgx gy O qtu}2 nu}k|kx2 ynk tk|kx joj
        gtznotm }ozn ktixvzout/. Rgj Ru|krgik gtj Hghhgmk ngj g rutm
        gtj iruyk lxoktjynov gtj ynk }gy g jkjoigzkj vgxztkx ot noy }uxq
        }ozn znk gtgrzoigr ktmotk.  [tluxz{tgzkr ynk }gy nkrj hgiq h
        gtzo3lksotoyz gzzoz{jky gtj h nkx u}t uhykyyout }ozn mgshrotm ut
        nuxyk xgiky. Rgj Ru|krgik jokj ul igtikx gz gmk znoxz3yo~. Tu}
        zngz u{|k jkiujkj znoy skyygmk2 rkz-y grr mkz hgiq zu }uxq.

        This fascinating historical discussion and the
        accompanying Graduate Student Lunch will be hosted
        by Dan Carnese and Maria Gruenewald.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 1984  14:38 EST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Cobb%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Model-Based Vision
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                          W. ERIC L. GRIMSON

                         Local Constraints in
               Model Based Recognition and Localization
                           From Sparse Data

                       April 23, 1984   4:00PM
                       NE43-8th floor playroom


  A central characteristic of advanced applications in robotics is the
presence of significant uncertainty about the identities and attitudes
of objects in the workspace of a robot.  The recognition and
localization of an object, from among a set of models, using sparse,
noisy sensory data can be cast as the search for a consistent matching
of the data elements to model elements.  To minimize the computation,
local constraints are needed to limit the portions of the search space
that must be explicitly explored.

  We derive a set of local geometric constraints for both the three
degree of freedom problem of isolated objects in stable positions, and
the general six degree of freedom problem of an object arbitrarily
oriented in space.  We establish that the constraints are complete for
the case of three degrees of freedom, but not for six.  We then show
by combinatorial analysis that the constraints are generally very
effective in restricting the search space and provide estimates for
the number of sparse data points needed to uniquely identify and
isolate the object.  These results are supported by simulations of the
recognition technique under a variety of conditions that also
demonstrate its graceful degradation in the presence of noise.  We
also discuss examples of the technique applied to real data from
several sensory modalities including laser ranging, sonar, and grey
level imaging.


Refreshments:  3:45PM

Host:  Professor Patrick H. Winston

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Apr 84 14:43:58-PST
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Robot Design Issues
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

WHAT: FOUNDATIONAL ISSUES IN ROBOT DESIGN AND THEIR METHODOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
WHO: Stan Rosenschein,  Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International
SERIES: Issues in Language, Perception and Cognition
WHERE: Room 100, Psychology Dept.
WHEN: Monday April 23, 1:00pm         <- * Note Change *


The design of software which would allow robots to exhibit complex
behavior in realistic physical environments is a central goal of
Artificial Intelligence (AI).  In structuring its approaches to this
problem, AI has over the years been guided by a melange of concepts
from logic, computer programming, and (prominently) by certain
pretheoretic intuitions about mental life and its relationship to
physical events embodied in ordinary "folk psychology."  This talk
presents two contrasting views of how information, perception, and
action might be modeled by a robot designer depending on how seriously
he took "folk psychology."  One view takes the ascription of mental
properties to machines quite seriously and leads to a methodology in
which the abstract entities of folk psychology ("beliefs," "desires,"
"plans," "intentions", etc.)  are realized in a one-for-one fashion as
data structures in the robot program. Frequently these data structures
resemble, in certain ways, the sentences of an interpreted logical
languages in that they are taken to express the "content" of the
belief, desire, etc.  The alternative view does not assume this degree
of mental structure a priori.  Logic may figure prominently, but it is
used chiefly BY THE DESIGNER to define and reason about the
environment and its relation to desired robot behavior. The talk will
suggest an automata-theoretic approach to the content of information
states which sidesteps many of the presuppositions of the folk
psychology.  The implications of such an approach for a systematic
robot software methodology will be discussed, including the
possibility of "organism compilers."  The thesis that AI's reliance on
folk psychology is, on balance, useful will be left unresolved though
certainly not unquestioned.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
51
-DATE-
Date: 20 Apr 84 22:22:44 EST  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Wayne Stoffel <wes%umcp-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review of LISP Implementations
-BODY-
Re: Bill Wong's article on three LISP implementations

He also wrote a series on AI languages that appeared in Microsystems.  All
were 8-bit CP/M implementations.

August 1983, muLisp-80, SuperSoft Lisp, and Stiff Upper Lisp.

December 1983, XLISP, LISP/80, and TLC Lisp.

January 1984, micro-Prolog.

                                W.E. Stoffel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 84 18:15 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Algorithms for word stemming and inverse stemming (generate
-BODY-           word)?

   [Forwarded from the Arpanet-BBoards distributin by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Please send code, references, comments - about systems which can transform
words to stems and stems to words, in an efficient and effective fashion with
very small tables.  There are a number of stemming algorithms, and some
systems that generate words from root+attribute_information.  I would be
interested in a list of such, and especially of systems that do both in
an integrated fashion.  Preferred are systems that can run under 4.x UNIX.
   Many thanks, Ed Fox (fox.vpi@csnet-relay)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 84 15:59:18 est
-FROM-
From: crane@harv-10 (Greg Crane)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: foreign language dbases, linguistic analysis, for lang
-BODY-           word-proc

  [Forwarded from the Arpanet-BBoards distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Linguists, philologists, humanists etc. --

        Are you using a computer for linguistic analysis? Access of
big foreign language data bases (Toronto Old English Dbase, or the
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae for example)? analysis or storage
of variant reading or versions? dictionary projects?

        We have been doing a lot here, but nobody seems to have any
overall picture of what is being done round about. I would like to
find out and think its time those who are doing much the same thing
started talking. Any ideas on where a lot of work is being done and
how to facilitate communication?

                                        Gregory Crane
                                        Classics Department
                                        Harvard University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 20 Apr 84 20:06:52-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Use of "and"
-BODY-
Come on, folks.   When someone says "my brothers and sisters" they do not mean
the intersection of the two sets.   Aside from its legal meaning of "or" which
I mentioned earlier, the English word "and" has at least two more meanings:
logical conjunction, and straight addition (which means union when applied to
sets).   Though I'm willing to be contradicted, I believe that English usage
prefers to intersect predicates rather than sets.   Namely, "tall and fat
people" can mean people who are both tall and fat (intersection), but "tall
people and fat people" means both the set of people who are tall and the set of
people who are fat (union).
                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Apr 84 9:12:00-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.32300023

>>From watrose!japlaice
>>              There are several philosophical problems with treating
>>      `Indiana and Ohio' as a single entity.
>>              The first is that the Fregean idea that the sense of a sentence
>>      is based on the sense of its parts, which is thought valid by most
>>      philosophers, no longer holds true.
>>              The second is that ... `unicorn', `hairy unicorn', `small,
>>      hairy unicorn' ... are all separate entities ...

On the contrary, the sense of "Indiana and Ohio" is still based on the senses
of "Indiana", "and" and "Ohio", if only we disambiguate "and". The ambiguity
of conjunction is well-known: the same word represents both a set operator and
a logical operator (among others). Which set operator? The formula
        X in ({A} ANDset {B})  <=  (X in {A}) ANDlog (X in {B})
allows ANDset to be either intersection or union. It is only our computational
bias that leads us to confuse the set with the logical operator. The formula
        X in ({A} ANDset {B})  <=>  (X in {A}) ANDlog (X in {B})
forces ANDset to be an intersector.

But we need only distinguish ANDset and ANDlog to preserve Fregean
compositionality; for that, it's immaterial which ANDset we adopt. In any
case, Bertrand Russell's 1908 theory of descriptions (as I read it) seems to
refute strict compositionality (words are meaningless in isolation -- they
acquire meaning in context).

Secondly, I don't recall Quine saying that `unicorn', `hairy unicorn', `small,
hairy unicorn' should all be indistinguishable. They may have the same referent
without having the same meaning.

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
                                        { ihnp4 | pur-ee } ! uiucdcs ! marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 84 7:52:10-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxss!aaw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: metaphors
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxss.311

[audi alteram partem]

For some interesting study on understanding of metaphors of the type you
refer to, look into Silvano Arieti (psychiatrist/NYU) work on
schizophrenic misuse of metaphors. It has some deep insights on the
relationship between metaphor and logic.
                        {harpo,houxm,ihnp4}!pyuxss!aaw
                        Aaron Werman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Apr 1984 17:00-PST
-FROM-
From: fc%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lovelace Encryption Seminar
-BODY-
With regard to coded messages, I think natural stupidity has replaced
artificial intelligence in this regard. Fortunately, I have a
program to deal with walter's kind. So nobody has to run their
programs, here's an aproximate translation:

                       ------------------------
The first computer programmer was a nineteenth century noblewoman,
Lad Augusta Ada Bron Lovelace, daughter of the poet Lord Bron.
As a teenager, Augusta displaed astonishing prowess in mathematics.
When she was eighteen augusta first saw Charles Babbage's analtical
engine, a calculating machine that was the forerunner of the modern
computer. In eighteen fortytwo, she translated a paper on the
engine from French to Knglish adding her own voluminous notes. In
subse:uent writings she described the "loop" and "subroutine"
concepts a centur before their implementation in electronic
digital computers .but as far as I know, however, she never did
anthing with encrption/. Lad Lovelace and Babbage had a long
and close friendship and she was a dedicated partner in his work
with the analtical engine. Unfortunatel she was held back b
antiyfeminist attitudes and b her own obsession with gambling on
horse races. Lad Lovelace died of cancer at age thirtysix. Now
that ouve decoded this message, let's all get back to work.
                     ---------------------------

Please, Walter, next time you want to get the message out:
#@(& $%& $#(& (^$% ^&(#$&%! (& %($( (* ^&*(*% &%& @&&#&& $#&$&%!
                                        Fred

[The responsibility for forwarding the previous message, and this one,
to the AIList readership rests with me.  -- KIL, AIList-Request@SRI-AI.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Apr 84 14:13:31-PST
-FROM-
From: SHORT%hp-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Combining Logic and Functional Programming
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                          JOSEPH A. GOGUEN
                         SRI International

COMBINING LOGIC AND FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING -- WITH EQUALITY, TYPES, MODULES
AND GENERICS TOO!

         Hewlett Packard Computer Colloquium - April 26, 1984

This joint work with J. Meseguer shows how to extend the paradigm of logic
programming with some features that are prominent in current programming
methodology, without sacrificing logical rigor or efficient implementation.
The first and most important of these features is functional programming;
full logical equality provides an elegant way to combine the power of Prolog
(with its logical variables, pattern matching and automatic backtracking)
with that of functional programming (supporting functions and their
composition, as well as strong typing and user definable abstract data types).
An interesting new feature that emerges here is a complete algorithm for
solving equations that contain logical variables; this algorithm uses
"narrowing", a technique from the theory of rewrite rules.  The underlying
logical system here is many-sorted Horn clause logic with equality.  A
useful refinement is "subsorts", which can be seen as an ordering relation
on the set of sorts (usually called "types") of data.  Finally, we provide
generic modules by using methods developed in the specification language
Clear.  These features are all embedded in a language call Eqlog; we
illustrate them with a program for the well-known Missionaries and Cannibals
problem.

Thursday, April 26, 1984                 4:00 p.m.

Hewlett Packard Laboratories
Computer Research Center
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
5M Conference Room

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 84 13:28:14 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Design Synthesis Expertise
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Learning  Design  Synthesis  Expertise  by  Harmonizing  Behaviors with
                            Specifications

Speaker:      Masanobu Watanabe <Watanabe@Rutgers.Arpa>
              NEC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
              Visiting Researcher, Rutgers University

Series:       Machine Learning Brown Bag Seminar
Date:         Wednesday, April 25, 1984, 12:00-1:30
Location:     Hill Center, Room 254


       VEXED is an expert system which supports interactive circuit design.
    VEXED provides suggestions  regarding  alternative  implementations  of
    circuit modules, as well as warnings regarding conflicting constraints.
    The   interactions  between  a  human  designer  and  the  system  give
    opportunities for the system to learn expertise in design synthesis  by
    monitoring  the  human  designer's  response  to  advice offered by the
    system.  From this point of view, there are two interesting cases.  One
    occurs  when  the  designer  ignores the advice of the system.  Another
    occurs when the system cannot provide any advice but the human designer
    can continue his own design.

       The system has to learn as many things as possible  by  analyzing  a
    single  precious  example,  because  it  is difficult for the system to
    obtain many examples from which to form  a  particular  concept.    The
    problem  space in the module decomposition process can be viewed as one
    with both states consisting of a set of modules  and  operators,  which
    will   be  called  implementation  rules.    This  talk  discusses  the
    implementation rule acquisition task which is intended to formulate  an
    implementation rule at an appropriate level of generality by monitoring
    a   designer's   circuit   implementation.    This  task  is  to  learn
    implementation rules (a kind of operator,  but  not  quite  like  LEX's
    operators),  while  LEX's  task  is  to learn heuristics which serve to
    guide useful operators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
52
-DATE-
Date: Sun 22 Apr 84 22:11:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Sam Hahn (Samuel@Score)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another microcomputer Lisp
-BODY-
In line with the previous mentions of microcomputer implementations of Lisp,
how about this pointer:

I saw in the current (May) issue of Microsystems an advertisement for
Waltz Lisp, from ProCode International.  "Waltz Lisp is not a toy.  It is the
most complete microcomputer Lisp, including features previously available only
in large Lisp systems.  In fact, Waltz is substantially compatible with Franz
... and is similar to MacLisp and Lisp Machine Lisp."

Does anyone know anything about Waltz?  How about a review?

[further claims:        functions of type lambda, nlambda, lexpr, macro
                        built-in prettyprinting and formatting
                        user control over all aspects of the interpreter
                        complete set of error handling and debugging functions
                        over 250 functions in total                     ]

They're at POBox 7301, Charlottesville, VA  22906.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 84 17:06:46-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!mmt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: metaphors
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.861

There is a very large literature on metaphor. As a start, try
A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge U Press, 1979.

A new journal called "Metaphor" is being started up with first issue
probably in Jan 1985.  Sorry, I don't have ordering information.

In AI, check out the work of Carbonell.

Once you start getting a few leads, you will be overwhelmed by studies.

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 84 9:22:00-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: metaphors
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.32300025

You might like to think about partial matching as a step toward analogical
or metaphorical reasoning. Try the following:

Fox, MS and Mostow, DJ  Maximal consistent interpretations of errorful data in
        hierarchically modelled domains. IJCAI-77, 165ff.
Kline, PJ  The superiority of relative criteria in partial matching and
        generalization. IJCAI-81, 296ff

Perhaps also check the growing literature on abductive reasoning, hypothesis
formation, disambiguation, categorization, diagnosis, etc. Some papers I found
most interesting:

Carbonell, JR and Collins, AM  Natural semantics in Artificial Intelligence.
        IJCAI-73, 344ff. { the SCHOLAR system }
Collins, A  et al   Reasoning from incomplete knowledge. In BOBROW & COLLINS's
        book "Representation and Understanding", Academic Press, NY (1975).
        { more on SCHOLAR }
Pople, HE  On the mechanization of abductive logic. IJCAI-73, 147ff



In NL research the role of expectations has become important to expedite
disambiguation. Includes use of attention focusing. Some very well-known work
at Yale on this. See eg papers by Riesbeck and Schank in the book by Waterman
& Hayes-Roth ('78), and by Schank & DeJong in Machine Intelligence 9. Lots of
other work too. Happy wading!

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        { ihnp4 | pur-ee } ! uiucdcs ! marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23-Apr-84 21:36 PST
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-
Hmmm, perhaps a friendly retrieval expert should accept statements from the
user
like "Dont tell ME how to think!", deduce that there is some ambiguity of
interpretation over the meaning of a request, and ask for explicit
disambiguation of the troublesome operators after each future request, until
the
user decides to pick and live with a single unambiguous interpretation.

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 22 Apr 84 23:24:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Janet Coursey <JVC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "and"
-BODY-
William Gass is expansive but probably incomplete in examining functional
uses of "and" in written literature.  He finds these uses and meanings:  a
conditional, a conjunction, adverbial, to balance or coordinate, finally, in
particular or above all, joint dependency of truth value, in addition,
following in time, following in space, next, equally true, increased emphasis,
sum or total, equivalence of interpretation or "that is to say", to condense,
to skip, suddenness in time, suddenness in space, consequence and cause...
More uses and their wonderful subtleties are presented in the article;
they are more varied than the aiList discussion has yet revealed.
The author is the David May Distinguished University Professor in the
Humanities at Washington University.

Gass, William H.  "And."  Harper's.  February, 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 84 19:01:54-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!howard @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and" - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: metheus.237

The "Indiana & Ohio" problem can be explained by a feature of human language
processing which goes on all the time, although we are not often conciously
aware of it.  I refer, of course, to the rejection of contradictory, unlikely,
or impossible interpretations.

The reason we interpret "all customers in Indiana and Ohio" to mean "all
customers in Indiana and *all customers in* Ohio" is that the seemingly
logical interpretation is contradictory and cannot possibly refer to any
customers (regardless of what is in the database).  It is interesting to
note in this connection that some oriental forms of logic require that a
pair of examples be given for each set of things to be described, one of a
thing in the set, the other of a thing out of the set.  This prevents
wasting time with arguments based on the null set, like "All purple cows
made out of neutrinos can fly; all animals that can fly have wings; therefore
all purple cows made out of neutrinos have wings".  An example syllogism:
"Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Here, there is smoke: like in a kitchen,
unlike in a lake.  Therefore, here there is fire."

This rejection is extremely sophisticated, and includes, for example, infinite
loop detection.  An example: how many people would take the obvious "logical"
interpretation of the instructions "Lather. Rinse. Repeat." to be the correct
one?  We all automatically read this as "Lather. Rinse. Repeat the previous
two instructions once." because the other reading doesn't make physical sense.
How many people ever had to THINK about that, consciously, at all?

Also, it is customary to be able to be able to delete redundant or implied
information from a sentence.  Since the three words between stars above are
somewhat redundant, and can be deleted without affected the only reasonable
interpretation of the phrase, it should be O.K. to delete them.

Just more fat on the fire (my, how it sizzle!) from:

        Howard A. Landman
        ogcvax!metheus!howard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 84 10:40:05 cst
-FROM-
From: Peter Chen <chen%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Announcing a new journal --  DATA & KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING
-BODY-

TITLE OF THE JOURNAL:

    DATA & KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING

PUBLISHER:

    North-Holland

OBJECTIVES AND COVERAGE:

    Although database systems and knowledge systems have their differences,
they share many common principles.  For example, both are interested in the
representations of real-world phenomena.  Therefore, it is beneficial to
have a common forum for database and knowledgebase systems.

    This new journal will bring together the new advances in database and
knowledgebase areas to the attention of researchers, designers, managers,
administrators, and users.  It will focus on new techniques, tools,
principles, and theories of constructing successful databases or
knowledgebases.  The journal will cover (but not be limited to) the
following topics:

    Representation of Data or Knowledge
    Architecture of Database or Knowledgebase Systems
    Construction of Data/Knowledge Bases
    Applications of Data/Knowledge Bases
    Case Studies and Management Issues

    Besides these technical topics, the journal will also have columns on
conference reports, calendars of events, book review, etc.


CALL FOR PAPERS:

    Original papers in the field of data & knowledge engineering are
welcome.  In the cover letter, the author is required to declare
the originality of the manuscript (i.e.,
no similar versions of the manuscript have been published
or have been submitted elsewhere) and to agree
to the transfer of the copy right
to the publisher once the paper is accepted.

Please submit 5 copies of your manuscript to one of
the Associate Editors in the speciality field or to the regional editor.
Or, if you prefer, mail directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

The following are the addresses of the editors:

(1) Editor-in-Chief:
    Prof. Peter Chen
    Dept. of Computer Science
    Louisiana State University
    Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4020
    (chen%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa)
    (CSNET: chen@lsu)
    Tel: (504) 388-2482

(2) Associate Editors:

  (a) Data Engineering:

      Prof. Wesley Chu
      Dept. of Computer Science
      U.C.L.A.
      Los Angeles, CA 90024

      Prof. Jane Liu
      Dept. of Computer Science
      University of Illinois
      1304 West Springfield Rd.
      Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801

  (b) Knowledge Engineering:

      Dr. Donald Walker
      Natural-Language and Knowledge-Resource Systems
      SRI International
      Menlo Park, CA 94025
      (During Dr. Walker's transition from SRI International
       to Bell Communications Research, manuscripts should be
       sent to the Editor-in-Chief during the period
       4/15/84 to 10/15/84.)

(3) Regional Editor for Europe:
    Prof. Reind van de Riet
    Dept. of Math. and Computer Science
    Free University
    1081 HU Amsterdam
    The Netherlands


PUBLICATION DATE:

    The journal will be published quarterly, and
    the first issue is planned for the last quarter of 1984.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, INSTITUTIONAL SUBCRIPTION, OR A FREE SAMPLE COPY:

    Please contact the publisher:
    (1) In the USA/Canada:
        Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.
        P.O. Box 1663
        Grand Central Station
        N.Y., N.Y. 10163
    (2) In all other countries:
        North-Holland
        P.O. box 1991
        1000 BZ Amsterdam
        The Netherlands

FOR SPECIAL PERSONAL SUBSCRIPTION RATE:
     Please contact the Editor-in-Chief.

FOR SERVING AS THE REFEREE:
     Please send a short note to the Editor-in-Chief or to
     one of the editors and indicate your specialities.

  --Peter Chen (CSNET mailbox: chen@lsu)
              (chen%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 1984  12:32 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nondeterminism and Creative Analogies
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                     The Copycat Project:
        An Experiment in Nondeterminism and Creative Analogies

                        Doug Hofstadter

                         AI Revolving Seminar
           Wednesday    4/25    4:00pm  8th floor playroom

A micro-world is described, in which many analogies involving strikingly
different concepts and levels of subtlety can be made.  The question
"What differentiates the good ones from the bad ones?" is discussed,
and then the problem of how to implement a computational model of the
human ability to come up with such analogies (and to have a sense for
their quality) is considered.  A key part of the proposed system, now
under development, is its dependence on statistically emergent properties
of stochastically interacting "codelets" (small pieces of ready-to-run
code created by the system, and selected at random to run with probability
proportional to heuristically assigned "urgencies").  Another key element
is a network of linked concepts of varying levels of "semanticity", in
which activation spreads and indirectly controls the urgencies of new
codelets.  There is pressure in the system toward maximizing the degree
of "semanticity" or "intensionality" of descriptions of structures, but
many such pressures, often conflicting, must interact with one another,
and compromises must be made.  The shifting of (1) perceived boundaries
inside structures, (2) descriptive concepts chosen to apply to structures,
and (3) features perceived as "salient" or not, is called "slippage".
What can slip, and how, are emergent consequences of the interaction
of (1) the temporary ("cytoplasmic") structures involved in the analogy
with (2) the permanent ("Platonic") concepts and links in the conceptual
proximity network, or "slippability network".  The architecture of this
system is postulated as a general architecture suitable for dealing not
only with fluid analogies, but also with other types of abstract perception
and categorization tasks, such as musical perception, scientific theorizing,
Bongard problems and others.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
53
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 84 19:34 MST
-FROM-
From: Kip Cole <KCole@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pointers to AI and Legal Systems
-BODY-
Some time ago there was a request for pointers to references on Legal
Information Systems and AI.  I have the following which I can recommend:

1.  Deontic Logic, Computational Linguistics & Legal Info.  Systems.
Martino ed., published by North Holland.

2.  AI and Legal Information Systems.  Campi ed.  published by North
Holland.

Both books are papers presented at a conference in Italy on said topics.

Kip Cole, Honeywell Australia.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Apr 84 16:51:30-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Meanings of "Unless"
-BODY-
Multiple meanings for English connectives:

I once read a paper in which it was seriously alleged that the word "unless"
has in excess of 4,000 (that's four thousand) potential logically distinct
meanings when used in writing an English law.   Sorry, I don't have the
reference, nor can I remember very many of the meanings.
                                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Apr 84 12:52:40-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Customers in Ohio and Indiana...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.808

One point of view seems to have been neglected in this discussion.
Suppose we build programs smart enough to "realize" that 'Ohio and Indiana'
really means 'Ohio <inclusive or> Indiana'.  Then what happens to the poor
user who really means 'Ohio AND Indiana'??  Suppose the original poor user
in this story had been trying to weed out duplicate accounts?

It seems to me that the best you can do is:
        (a) Make a semantic decision based upon a much larger context of
        what the user is doing, or:
        (b) Catch the ambiguity and ask the user to clarify.  We can
        deduce from the original story that many users will become furious if
        asked to clarify, by the way.
                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 84 6:53:00-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: metaphors
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uicsl.15500032

Here are some sources for metaphor:

1. A book edited by Andrew Ortony. The title is
Metaphor and Thought.  There are several good articles in this book, and I
recommend it as a good place to start, but not as the last word.

2. The Psychology Dept. at Adelphi University has been sporadically
putting out a mimeo entitled: The Metaphor Research Newsletter.  The latest
edition (which arrived today) indicates that as of January 1985 it will
become a full fledged journal called Metaphor, published by Erlbaum.

3. Dedre Gentner (of BBN) has been doing assorted work on metaphor.

4. Metaphors We Live By, by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, is fun to read.
They have some good ideas, but they do tend to make too big a deal out of
them.  I think its worth reading.


As far as your claim that "man is a BIC pen" is a "bad" metaphor, I
tend to shy away from such a coarse-grained term.  For me, metaphors
may be more and less apt, more and less informative, more and less
novel, more and less easily understood, etc.  In this particular
example human beings are so complex that there is almost no object that
they cannot be compared to -- however strained the interpretation may
be.  BIC pens are well known (thanks to simple construction and a good
advertising agency) for their reliability and being able to withstand
unreasonable punishment (like being strapped to the heel of an Olympic
figure skater).  Similarly, humankind throughout the ages has
successfully held up under all kinds of evolutionary torture, yet we
continue (as a species) to function.  Now this interpretation may seem
a little bizarre to you, but to me it seemed to come almost
instantaneously and quite naturally.  Can you truly say it is "bad?"

Even an example as silly sounding (at first) as "telephones are like
grapefruits" yields to the great creative power of the human mind.  Despite
their simple outer appearance, they both conceal a more complex inner
structure (which, as a youngster, I delighted to dissect).  Both are
"machines" for reproducing something -- the telephone reproduces sounds,
while the grapefruit reproduces grapefruits (this one admittedly took a few
seconds more to think of).  So what's a "bad" metaphor?


I would love to continue this discussion with interested parties privately,
so as not to take up space in the notesfile.  USENET mail can reach me at
...!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz

>Rick Dinitz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Apr 84 12:37:35-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: opus.386

A question on non-competition clauses of the sort in which you agree, if
you leave a particular job, not to work in that field (or geographical
area), etc.: I once heard that they were essentially not enforceable, the
given reason being that there are certain legal rights you can't give up
(called "unconscionable clauses" in a contract), and that somehow "giving
up the right to make a living (in your profession) fell into this class.
I don't know if this is actually true - I'd like to hear a qualified
opinion from someone who understands the law or who has been through a case
of this sort.

In any event, I think it's pretty shoddy for an employer to make such
requests of an employee - this is going a long way beyond assigning patent
rights while you're employed and not disclosing company secrets.  If the
employer mistrusts you that much, can you trust him?  I also think it's
foolish to agree in writing to something that you don't accept, on the
basis that you don't think they'll use it or that it isn't enforceable.
Don't bet against yourself!

...Are you making this up as you go along?              Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd                         (303) 444-5710 x3086

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 84 3:09:20-PST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!ima!inmet!andrew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: inmet.1313

A few years back, I made the mistake of working for Computervision.  They
tried to force me to sign an agreement that I a) would not work for any
competitors for 18 months, and b) would not "entice" other employees into
leaving for an equal length of time.  They didn't say a word about continuing
my salary for that time, either!

The incompetents in Personnel (I'd call them "morons", but true morons are
considerably more conscientious workers) didn't notice that I never signed
or returned the above agreement, though!

Andrew W. Rogers, Intermetrics   ...{harpo|ihnp4|ima|esquire}!inmet!andrew

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 84 7:49:14-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!werner @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses. The devils advocate speaks
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.531

My personal opinion aside, I do have sympathy with the company that
reveals their "secrets" to an employee, only to have him turn into
competition without having to pay the research costs.  Remember also,
that for every one who leaves, there are five guys who stay, and more
likely than not the result of their years of work get 'abducted' also,
as, in a decent research effort, the work is done in a team rather than
by solo-artists.

So, after your flamers burn out, lets hear some ideas which take care
of the interests of all parties, because remember, one day it may be
YOU who stays behind, or YOU who may be the founder of a 3-man think-tank.

        werner @ ut-ngp         "every coin has, AT LEAST, 3 sides"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 84 9:35:44-PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!mpr @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mb2c.242

Non-competition clauses may or may not be enforceable. It depends on
the skill of the party involved or any special knowledge that person
might have.  For example, it is is not a shoddy practice or expectation
for Coca Cola to expect its personnel not to work for Pepsi cola,
especially and only if they have knowledge of the secret formula.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 84 12:27:53-PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!wetcw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses (The Doctor)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxa.710

In reference to the Doctor in Boulder.

The Doctor had joined a practicing group in a clinic.  He did
indeed sign a contract which contained a clause which said that
if he left the clinic, he would be unable to practice in the
county in which Boulder is in.

It seems that after several years, the administrator of the
clinic (not a Doctor) decided that Doctor X was not bringing
in enough cash to the group.  The Doctor was warned that he
would have to increase his patient load to bring his revenues
up to what they thought it should be.  The Doctor refused to
compromise his patients care by giving them less time.  After
a standoff, the administrator and the other Doctors told Doctor
X he would have to leave the clinic.

The crux of the problem was that he did not leave on his own, but
was asked to leave and therefore believed that the non-comp
clause invalid.  He opened an office in Boulder.  Many on his
former patients followed him, much to the displeasure of the
clinic crowd.  The clinic then decided to go to court.  They
won in court so that Doctor X had to move his practice out of the
county.  The patients still followed him.

I think that this case is working its way up to the Supreme
Court.  The whole affair was aired last year on [60 Minutes].  The
clinic crew and their administrative lackey came off in a
very bad light.  They were arrogant and seemed self serving
to the nth degree.  I hope Doc X wins in the final analysis.
In the meantime, there was a time-limit clause in the contract
which lapses sometime soon.
T. C. Wheeler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 84 20:51:48 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@XEROX.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Hamilton.ES@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning About Systems That Contain State Variables
-BODY-
The research described below sounds closer to what I had in mind when I
raised this issue a couple of weeks ago, as opposed to the
automata-theoretic responses I tended to get.  --Bruce

[For more leads on learning "systems containing state variables", readers
should look into that branch of control theory known as system identification.
Be prepared to deal with some hairy mathematical notation.  -- KIL]


  Date: 24 Apr 84 11:39 PST
  From: mittal.pa
  Subject: Reminder: CSDG Today

  The CSDG today will be given by Tom Dietterich, Stanford University,
  based on his thesis research work.
  Time etc: Tuesday, Apr. 24, 4pm, Twin Conf. Rm (1500)

Learning About Systems That Contain State Variables

It is difficult to learn about systems that contain state variables when
those variables are not directly observable.  This talk will present an
analysis of this learning problem and describe a method, called the
ITERATIVE EXTENSION METHOD, for solving it.  In the iterative extension
method, the learner gradually constructs a partial theory of the
state-containing system.  At each stage, the learner applies this
partial theory to interpret the I/O behavior of the system and obtain
additional constraints on the structure and values of its state
variables.  These constraints trigger heuristics that hypothesize
additional internal state variables.   The improved theory can then be
applied to interpret more complex I/O behavior.  This process continues
until a theory of the entire system is obtained.  Several conditions
sufficient to guarantee the success of the method will be presented.
The method is being implemented and applied to the problem of learning
UNIX file system commands by observing a tutorial interaction with UNIX.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 1984 1326-EST
-FROM-
From: Geoff Hinton <HINTON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Chunking and R1-SOAR
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           "RECENT PROGRESS IN SOAR: CHUNKING AND R1-SOAR"
                   by John Laird & Paul Rosenbloom

          AI Seminar,  Tuesday April 24,  4.00pm, Room 5409

In this talk we present recent progress in the development of the @p[Soar]
problem-solving architecture as a general cognitive architecture.  This work
consists of first steps toward: (1) an architecture that can learn about all
aspects of its own behavior (by extending chunking to be a general learning
mechanism for @p[Soar]); and (2) demonstrating that @p[Soar] is (more than)
adequate as a basis for knowledge-intensive (expert systems) programs.

Until now chunking has been a mechanism that could speed up simple
psychological tasks, providing a model of how people improve their
performance via practice.  By combining chunking with @p[Soar], we show how
chunking can do the same for AI tasks such as the Eight Puzzle, Tic-Tac-Toe,
and a portion of an expert system.  More importantly, we present partial
demonstrations: (1) that chunking can lead to more complex forms of
learning, such as the transfer of learned behavior (that is, the learning of
generalized information), and strategy acquisition; and (2) that it is
possible to build a general problem solver that can learn about all aspects
of its own behavior.

Knowlege-intensive programs are built in @p[Soar] by representing basic task
knowledge as problem spaces, with expertise showing up as rules that guide
complex problem-space searches and substitute for expensive problem-space
operators.  Implementing a knowledge-intensive system within @p[Soar] begins
to show how: (1) a general problem-solving architecture can work at the
knowledge intensive (expert system) end of the problem solving spectrum; (2)
it can integrate basic reasoning and expertise, using both search and
knowledge when relevant; and (3) it can perform knowledge acquisition by
transforming computationally intensive problem solving into efficient
expertise-level rules (via chunking).  This approach is demonstrated on a
portion of the expert system @p[R1], which configures computers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
54
-DATE-
Date: 27 Apr 84 9:46:54-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!vaxine!chb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for Applications of Expert Sys. Proceedings
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: vaxine.250

In Bruce Buchanan's Partial Bibliography on Expert Systems (Nov. 82)
he cited the Proceedings for the Colloquium on Application of Knowledge
Based (or Expert) Systems, London, 1982.  Does anybody out in netland
know who sponsored this colloquium or, more importantly, how I can get
a hold of these proceedings?

Thanks in advance,

                        Charlie Berg
                        Expert Systems
                        Automatix, Inc.
                     ...{allegra, linus}!vaxine!chb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Apr 84 14:04:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The End of British AI???
-BODY-
The ``New Scientist'' of April 12 quotes David Thomas, director for
Information Technology at the Science and Engineering Research Council
(British equivalent of NSF) and director of the Intelligent
Knowledge-Based Systems (British codeterm for AI) programme of the
Department of Trade and Industry:

        ``If computer scientists want to do research they must do it
        in partnership with industry... WE DON'T WANT COMPUTER
        SCIENTISTS working alone with no common aim in sight, and
        PUBLISHING THEIR WORK IN AN ACADEMIC JOURNAL for the Japanese
        to  pick up on ... It is difficult to think of anything in
        computer science which would not be useful to industry.''

(emphasis mine).

Yours, at a loss for printable comments,

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 1984 14:14:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: Another Memo from the Etherial Plane
     <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Metaphor & Riddles
-BODY-
     The new issue of the Journal of American Folklore contains an article
on the riddling process and its relation to metaphor interpretation, written
by Green & Peppicello.  The article also contains an excellent bibliography.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Apr 84 6:06:00-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxss!aaw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: RE: AI Programming
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxss.319

I strongly agree that AI programming tends to be on several levels,
but rather than seeing AI programs as a controller or generator and
and a pragmatic level, I think many AI programs are three levels:

  1. organizer, based on feedback from heuristic controller(2)

  2. controller, based on results of algorithmic or applicative level(3)

  3. worker, playing with real data

        The raison d' might be that most programs <5k statements are
pure applications, programs getting much larger tend to need a single
intelligent controller, while programs in the 20k-100k statement range
(the AI programming thesis level) are in the three level range. All AI
programs bigger than that tend to algorithmic refinements of previous
work, with refiners in terror of changing the basic structure.
                        {harpo,houxm,ihnp4}!pyuxss!aaw
                        Aaron Werman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 84 7:19:04-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.812

I'm amazed at the naivete of people suggesting that an employer has
no good reason to ask people to sign non-competition clauses.  Most
employers allow many, if not most of their employees to have access to
sensitive and trade secret information.  Employees leave a company with
their heads full of such data, and they become a walking time bomb to
their previous employer, should this info fall into the hands of a
competitor.

History shows that many ex-employees are unscrupulous in this regard.  IBM
has sued successfully in cases where ex-employees have formed, or joined,
other companies to build hardware that is very similar to hardware the
employees were building at IBM.  In many of these cases IBM has won,
presumably demonstrating that the employees were using more than their
own skills to imitate IBM's projects.

By the way, the classic example of this type of problem is a list of
customers.  A company's customer list is in many cases a critical secret,
and companies oftem sue to prevent an ex-employee from taking the list to his
next company, or using it himself.

Perhaps many of the writers on this subject are from academic environments
and have not worked in technologically competetive companies.
Why don't you try the other end of this problem -- imagine yourself working
for such a company, for which you don't sign a competetive agreement.
Then agree also that you will not have access to the company's sensitive and
trade secret data, so that the company will genuinely not need you to sign
such an agreement.  Then just try to get your work done without access to
important meetings and specifications.

Non-competetive agreements often specify very long periods of time, or no
specific time frame at all.  I believe that time periods over two years
are unenforceable in general.

By the way, when you join a company, you usually make personal data
available to it, which the company undertakes to keep secret,
and not to use after you have left the company.  This is a 2-way
street.
                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 1984  21:02 EDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Multiple Inheritance
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                   Multiple Inheritance: What, Why, and How?

                                  Dan Carnese


                             AI Revolving Seminar
                 Wednesday, May 2, 4:00pm, 8th Floor Playroom

This  talk  is  concerned  with  type  definition  by ``multiple inheritance''.
Informally, multiple inheritance is a  technique  for  defining  new  types  by
combining the operation sets of a number of old ones.

The  literature  concerning multiple inheritance has been heavily biased toward
the description of the constructs involved  in  particular  systems.    But  no
satisfying account has been given of:
   - the  rationale  for  using  definition  by  multiple inheritance over
     simpler approaches to type definition,
   - the essential similarities of the various proposals, or
   - the  key  design  decisions  involved  in  these  systems   and   the
     significance of choosing specific alternatives.

The  goal  of  this  talk  is  to  dissipate  some  of the ``general prevailing
mysticism'' surrounding multiple inheritance.    The  fundamental  contribution
will  be  a  simple  framework  for describing the design and implementation of
single-inheritance and multiple-inheritance type systems.  This framework  will
be  used  to  describe  the  inheritance mechanisms of a number of contemporary
languages.  These include:
   - the Lisp Machine's flavor system
   - the classes of Smalltalk-80, ``Smalltalk-82'' (Borning and  Ingalls),
     and Loops (Bobrow and Stefik)
   - the ``traits'' extension to Mesa (Curry et al.)

Given  the  description  of  the ``what'' and ``how'' of these systems, we will
then turn  to  the  question  of  ``why.''    Some  principles  for  evaluating
inheritance mechanisms will be presented and applied to the above five designs.
A  few simple improvements to the Lisp Machine flavor system will be identified
and motivated by the evaluation criteria.

We will conclude by discussing the relationship between multiple inheritance in
programming and multiple  inheritance  in  knowledge  representation,  and  the
lessons from the former which can be applied to the latter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Apr 1984  09:23 EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Cobb%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


      The Use of Perceptual Organization for Visual Recognition

                              DAVID LOWE

                        May 7, 1984    4:00PM
                      NE43 - 8th floor Playroom


     The human visual system has the capability to spontaneously
derive groupings and structures from an image without higher-level
knowledge of its contents.  This capacity for perceptual organization
is currently missing from most computer vision systems.  It will be
shown that perceptual groupings can play at least three important
roles in visual recognition: 1) image segmentation, 2) direct
inference of three-space relations, and 3) indexing world knowledge
for subsequent matching.  These functions are based upon the
expectation that groupings reflect actual structure of the scene
rather than accidental alignment of image elements.  A number of
principles of perceptual organization will be derived from this
criterion of non-accidentalness and from the need to limit
computational complexity.  The use of perceptual groupings will be
demonstrated for segmenting image curves and for the direct inference
of three-space properties from the image.

     Much computer vision research has been based on the assumption
that recognition will proceed bottom-up from the image to an
intermediate 2-1/2D sketch or intrinsic image representation, and
subsequently to model-based recognition.  While perceptual groupings
can contribute to this intermediate representation, they can also
provide an alternate pathway to recognition for those cases in which
there is insufficient information for deriving the 2-1/2D sketch.
Methods will be presented for using perceptual groupings to index
world knowledge and for subsequently matching three-dimensional models
directly to the image for verification.  Examples will be given in
which this alternative pathway seems to be the only possible route to
recognition.  A functioning real-time vision system will be described
that is based upon the direct search for the projections of 3D models
in an image.

Refreshments:  3:45PM
Host:  Professor Patrick H. Winston

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
55
-DATE-
Date: Thu 3 May 84 11:30:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The End of British AI?
-BODY-
The End of British AI?

I think Mr. Pereira is being more than a little paranoid here (and he need not
imagine that AI research is the only type for which industry sometimes shows
little enthusiasm).   That pronouncement sounds as if it was politically
motivated, therefore not to be taken too literally anyway, and will be
forgotten as soon as convenient.   Not that I think my government's policy on
computer science research is sound -- quite the reverse -- but I don't think it
has suddenly become a lot worse.
                                                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Apr 84 8:07:16-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!decwrl!rhea!bartok!shubin @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info on Expert Systems conference in England
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.7512

|  In Bruce Buchanan's Partial Bibliography on Expert Systems (Nov. 82)
|  he cited the Proceedings for the Colloquium on Application of Knowledge
|  Based (or Expert) Systems, London, 1982.  Does anybody out in netland
|  know who sponsored this colloquium or, more importantly, how I can get
|  a hold of these proceedings?
|                  Charlie Berg
|                  Expert Systems
|                  Automatix, Inc.
|               ...{allegra, linus}!vaxine!chb

We gave a paper at a conference called "Theory and Practice of Knowledge
Based Systems", which was held 14-16 Sep 82 at Brunel University, which is
*near* London.  The chair of the conference was Dr. Tom Addis, also of
Brunel University.  The conference was sponsored (or approved or whatever)
by ACM, IEEE and SPL International.

I found two addresses.  The first is where the conference was, and (I
believe) the second is where the Computer Science department is:
        Brunel University
        Shoreditch Campus
        Coopers Hill, Englefield Green
        Egham, Surrey
        ENGLAND

or      Brunel University
        Department of Computer Science
        Uxbridge, Middlesex
        ENGLAND

hal shubin
        UUCP:    ...!decwrl!rhea!bartok!shubin
        ARPAnet: hshubin@DEC-MARLBORO

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 May 84 10:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-
You have constructed a very good argument for nondisclosure agreements.
The issue, however, was non-competition clauses, for which your only
justification seem to be that "[h]istory shows that many ex-employees
are unscrupulous. . .".  I find this less than compelling.

The successful legal actions you cite demonstrate that recourse is
available to the company damaged by such actions by ex-employees.  The
risk that *full* compensation for such damage may not be forthcoming is
a risk of doing business, and must be managed as such.

By the way, nondisclosure of personal data by the company is much more
closely analogous to nondisclosure of proprietary information by the
employee than it is to noncompetition by the employee.  (Do you think I
could talk Xerox into agreeing not to employ anyone in my present
capacity for two years if I should leave?)

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 May 84 15:32:32 PDT
-FROM-
From: Anna Gibbons <anna@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HEURISTICS/Dr. Judea Pearl
-BODY-
FROM: Judea Pearl@UCLA-SECURITY.
Those who have inquired about my new book "HEURISTICS", may be
interested to know that it is finally out, and can be obtained from
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading Mass. 01867, Tel.
(617) 944-8660.  The title is "Heuristics: Intelligence Search
Strategies for Computer Problem Solving", the ISBN number is
0-201-05594-5, and the price 38.95.  For those unfamiliar with the
book's content, the following are excerpts from the cover description.

This book presents, characterizes, and analyzes problem solving
strategies that are guided by heuristic information.  It provides a
bridge between heuristic methods developed in artificial intelligence,
optimization techniques used in operations research, and
complexity-analysis tools developed by computer theorists and
mathematicians.

The book is intended to serve both as a textbook for classes in AI
Control Strategies and as a reference for the professional/researcher
who seeks an in-depth understanding of the power of heuristics and
their impact on various performance characteristics.

In addition to a tutorial introduction of standard heuristic search
methods and their properties, the book presents a large collection of
new results which have not appeared in book form before.  These include:

*  Algorithmic taxonomy of basic search strategies, such as
backtracking, best-first, and hill-climbing, their variations and
hybrid combinations.

*  Searching with distributions and with nonadditive evaluation
functions.

*  The origin of heuristic information and the prospects for automatic
discovery of heuristics.

*  Applications of branching processes to the analysis of path-seeking
algorithms.

*  The effect of errors on the complexity of heuristic search.

*  The duality between games and mazes.

*  Recreational aspects of recursive minimaxing.

*  Average performance analysis of game-playing strategies.

*  The benefits and pitfalls of look-ahead.

Each chapter contains annotated references to the literature and a
set of nontrivial exercises chosen to enhance skill, insight, and
curiosity.

Enjoy your reading and, please, let me know if you have suggestions
for improving the form or content.  Judea Pearl @ UCLA-SECURITY.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 1984 20:50:55-EDT
-FROM-
From: walter at mit-htvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computers and Incomprehensibility
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


               GRADUAL STUDENT LUNCH SEMINAR SERIES

                         The G0001 Project:
             An Experiment in G0002 and Creative G0003


A G0004 is described, in which many G0003 involving strikingly
different G0005 and levels of G0006 can be made.  The question "What
differentiates the good G0003 from the bad G0003?" is discussed, and
the problem of how to G0008 a G0009 G0010 of the G0011 G0012 to come
up with such G0003 (and to have a sense for their quality) is
considered.  A key part of the proposed system, now under
development, is its dependence on G0013 G0014 G0015 of G0016
interacting "G0017" (selected at random to G0019 with G0020
proportional to G0021 assigned "G0022").  Another key G0023 is a
G0024 of linked G0005 of varying levels of "G0025", in which G0026
spreads and G0027 controls the G0028 of new G0017. The shifting of
(1) G0033 G0034 inside structures, (2) descriptive G0005 chosen to
apply to G0030, and (3) G0043 perceived as "G0031" or not, is called
"G0032". What can G0031, and how, are G0014 G0033 of the interaction
of (1) the temporary ("G0034") structures involved in the G0003 with
(2) the permanent ("G0035") G0005 and links in the G0036 network, or
"G0037 network".  The G0038 of this system is G0039 as a general
G0038 suitable for dealing not only with fluid G0003, but also with
other types of G0039 G0040 and G0041 tasks, such as musical G0040,
G0041 G0042, Bongard problems and others.


12:00 NOON  8TH FLOOR PLAYROOM                         FRIDAY 5/5
Hosts: Harry Voorhees and Dave Siegel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Apr 84 20:51:58-PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!davidson @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: New topic for discussion (long)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.736

This is a response to the submission by Phaedrus at the University of
Maryland concerning speculations about the nature of conscious beings.
I would like to take some of the points in his/her submission and treat
them very skeptically.  My personal bias is that the nature of
conscious experience is still obscure, and that current theoretical
attempts to deal with the issue are far off the mark.  I recommend
reading the book ``The Mind's Eye'' (Hofstadter & Dennett, eds.)  for
some marvelous thought experiments which (for me) debunk most current
theories, including the one referred to by Phaedrus.  The quoted
passages which I am criticizing are excerpted from an article by J. R.
Lucas entitled ``Minds, Machines, and Goedel'' which was excerpted in
Hofstadter's Goedel, Escher, Bach and found there by Phaedrus.

        the concept of a conscious being is, implicitly, realized to be
        different from that of an unconscious object

This statement begs the question.  No rule is given to distinguish conscious
and unconscious objects, nothing is said about the nature of either, and
nothing indicates that consciousness is or is not a property of all or no
objects.

        In saying that a conscious being knows something we are saying not
        only does he know it, but he knows that he knows it, and that he
        knows that he knows that he knows it, and so on ....

First, I don't accept the claim that people possess this meta-knowlege more
than a (small) finite number of levels deep at any time, nor do I accept
that human beings frequently engage in such meta-awareness; just because
human beings can pursue this abstraction process arbitrarily deeply (but
they get lost fairly quickly, in practice), does not mean that there is any
process or structure of infinite extent present.

Second, such a recursive process is straightforward to simulate on a
computer, or imbue an AI system with.  I don't see any reason to regard such
systems as being conscious, even though they do it better than we do (they
don't have our short term memory limitations).

        we insist that a conscious being is a unity, and though we talk
        about parts of our mind, we do so only as a metaphor, and will not
        allow it to be taken literally.

Well, this is hardly in accord with my experience.  I often become aware of
having been persuing parallel thought trains, but until they merge back
together again, neither was particularly aware of the other.  Marvin Minsky
once said the same thing after a talk claiming that the conscious mind is
inherently serial.  Superficially, introspection may seem to show a unitary
process, but more careful introspection dissolves this notion.

        The paradoxes of consciousness arise because a conscious being can
        be aware of itself, as well as of other things, and yet cannot
        really be construed as being divisible into parts.

The word ``aware'' is an implicit reference to the unknown mechanism of
consciousness.  This is part of the apparent paradox.  Again, there's
nothing mysterious about a system having a model of itself and being able to
do reasoning on that model the same way it does reasoning on other models.
Also again, nothing here supports the claim that the conscious mind is not
divisible.

        It means that a conscious being can deal with Godelian questions in
        a way in which a machine cannot, because a conscious being can
        consider itself and its performance and yet not be other than that
        which did the performance.

Whatever the conscious mind is, it appears to be housed in a physical
information processing system, to wit, the human brain.  If our current
understanding about the kind of information processing brains are capable of
is correct, brains fall into the class of automata and cannot ultimately do
any processing task that cannot be done with a computer.  The conscious mind
can scrutinize its internal workings to an extent, but so can computer
programs.  Presumably the Goedelian & (more to the point) Turing limitations
apply in principle to both.

        no extra part is required to do this:  it is already complete, and
        has no Achilles' heel.

This is an unsupported statement.  The whole line of reasoning is rather
loose; perhaps the author simply finds it psychologically difficult to
suppose that he has any fundamental limitations.

        When we increase the complexity of our machines, there may, perhaps,
        be surprises in store for us....  Below a certain ``critical'' size,
        nothing much happens....  Turing is suggesting that it is only a
        matter of complexity [before?] a qualitative difference appears.

Well, its very easy to build machines that are infeasible to predict.  Such
machines do not even have to be very complex in construction to be highly
complex in behavior.  Las Vegas is full of many examples of such machines.
The idea that complexity in itself can result in a system able to escape
Goedelian and Turing limitations is directly contradicted by the
mathematical induction used in their proofs:  The limitations apply to
<<arbitrary>> automata, not just to automata simple enough for us to
inspect.

Charlatans can claim any properties they want for mechanisms too complex for
direct disproofs, but one need not work hard before dismissing them with
indirect disproofs.  This is why the patent office rejects claimed perpetual
motion machines which supposedly operate merely by the complexities of their
mechanical or electromagnetic design.  It is also why journals of
mathematics reject ridiculously long proofs which claim to supply methods of
squaring the circle, etc.  No one examines such proofs to find the flaw, it
would be a thankless task, and is not necessary.

        It is essential for the mechanist thesis that the mechanical model
        of the mind shall operate according to ``mechanical principles,''
        that is, we can understand the operation of the whole in terms of
        the operation of its parts....

Certainly one expects that the behavior of physical objects can be explained
at any level of reduction.  However, consciousness is not necessarily a
behavior, it is an ``experience'', whatever that is.  Claims of
consciousness, as in ``I assert that I am conscious'' are behavior, and can
reasonably be subjected to a reductionist analysis.  But whether this will
shed any light on the nature of consciousness is unclear.  A useful analogy
is whether attacking a computer with a voltmeter will teach you anything
about the abstractions ``program'', ``data structure'', ``operating
system'', etc., which we use to describe the nature of what is going on
there.  These abstractions, which we claim are part of the nature of the
machine at the level we usually address it, are not useful when examining
the machine below a certain level of reduction.  But that is no paradox,
because these abstractions are not physical structure or behavior, they are
our conceptualizations of its structure and behavior.  This is as mystical
as I'm willing to get in my analysis, but look at what Lucas does with it:

        if the mechanist produces a machine which is so complicated that
        this [process of reductionist analysis] ceases to hold good of it,
        then it is no longer a machine for the purpose of our discussion,
        no matter how it was constructed.  We should say, rather, that he
        had created a mind, in the same sort of sense as we procreate
        people at prsent.

If someone produces a machine which which exhibits behavior that is
infeasible to predict through reductionist methods, there is nothing
fundamentally different about it.  It is still obeying the laws of physics
at all levels of its structure, and we can still in principle apply to it
any desired reductionist analysis.  We should certainly not claim to have
produced anything special (such as a mind) just because we can't easily
disprove the notion.

        When talking of [human beings and these specially complex machines]
        we should take care to stress that although what was created looked
        like a machine, it was not one really, because it was not just the
        total of its parts:  one could not even tell the limits of what it
        could do, for even when presented with the Goedel type question, it
        got the answer right.

There is simply no reason to believe that people can answer Goedelian
questions any better than machines can.  This bizarre notion that conscious
objects can do such things is unproven and dubious.  I assert that people
cannot do these things, and neither can machines, and that the ability to
escape from Goedel or Turing restrictions is irrelevant to questions of
consciousness, since we are (experientially) conscious but cannot do such
things.

I find that most current analyses of consciousness are either mystical like
the one I've addressed here, or simply miss the phenonmenon by attacking the
system at a level of reduction beneath the level where the concept seems to
apply.  It is tempting to thing we can make scientific statements about
consciousness just because we can experience consciousness ourselves.  This
idea runs aground when we find that this notion is dependent on capturing
scientifically the phenomena of ``experience'', ``consciousness'' or
``self'', which I have not yet seen adequately done.  Whether consciousness
is a phenomenon with scientific existence, or whether it is an abstract
creation of our conceptualizations with no external or reductionist
existence is still undetermined.

>Greg Davidson (davidson@sdcsvax.UUCP or davidson@nosc.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
56
-DATE-
Date: 30 Apr 84 19:14:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!wickart @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Needed: AI demos
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: iuvax.3600001

I need some simplistic AI demo programs to help convert the infidels.
EMYCIN, ELIZA/DOCTOR, PARANOID, SHRDLU, and REVERSE would be greatly
appreciated. I can handle LISP, PASCAL, FORTRAN(in AI?), BAL(perish
the thought), C, or PL/I. Can anyone out there help out? USENET is the
only thing that maintains our existence in the USA.
   Thanks in advance,
T.F. Prune (aka Bill Wickart, ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!wickart)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 May 84 17:32:06 edt
-FROM-
From: jan@harvard (Jan Komorowski)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Object-Oriented Programming in Prolog
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                 "Object-Oriented Programming in Prolog"

                            Carlo Zaniolo
                          Bell Laboratories

                         Monday, May 7, 1984
                              at 4 PM

              Aiken Lecture Hall, Harvard University
                  (tea in Pierce 213 at 3:30)


     Object-oriented programming has proved very useful in a number of
important applications, because of its ability to unify and simplify the
description of entities and their protocols. Here, we propose a similar
approach for providing this programming paradigm in Prolog.  We introduce
primitives to support the notions of (1) an object with its associated set of
methods, (2) an inheritance network whereby an object inherits the methods of
its ancestors, and (3) message passing between objects.

     Objects and methods are specified by a declaration object with
method_list, where object is a Prolog predicate and each method is an arbitrary
Prolog clause.  Then, a message O:M can be specified as a goal, to request the
application of method M to object O.  The inheritance network, specified by the
isa operator as follows sub_object isa object, is most useful in handling
default information.  Thus it is possible to specify a method that holds by
default for a general class, and then specify special subcases for which the
general rule is overridden.

     This new functionality is added on top of existing Prolog systems, with no
modification to its interpreter or compiler.

Host: H.J. Komorowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Apr 84 5:13:41-PST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!whuxle!floyd!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!unmva
     x!stanly @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - SIGNUM meeting and introduction
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unmvax.312

SIGNUM is the Special Interest Group in Numerical Mathematics of the
ACM ( American Computing Machinery). The group meets monthly for
the academic year. At each meeting there is a talk on some subject
related to computing or applied mathematics. The talks are not
restricted to numerical stuff. If you would like to be on the mailing
list please send a note to John.  A correct address from unmvax is:

WISNIEWSKI@SANDIA.ARPA@lanl-a.UUCP

                                        Stan Steinberg
                                        stanly@unmvax

*******************************************************************

                  Rio Grande Chapter SIGNUM Meeting

Year end meeting and election of officers
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 1984
Speakers: Kathie Hiebert Dodd and Barry Marder - Sandia



Applied AI - "Brave New World" or "Catastrophe Theory Revisited"?
                          Barry Marder

Last year an effort was initiated at Sandia to develop a core of
expertise in the field of artificial intelligence.  One area of
investigation has been expert system technology, which has been
largely responsible for the present explosive growth of interest in
AI.  An expert system is a program that catalogs and makes readily
available expert knowledge in a field.  Such a system has been built
and implemented at Sandia to aid in the design of electrical cables
and connectors.  The speaker will describe this system and offer some
observations on artificial intelligence in general.


       VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION -- A FRAME BASED SYSTEM
                    Kathie Hiebert Dodd

Software has been developed that, when given certain characteristics
from a scene such as the location of wheels, can identify vehicles.
The image processing, ie extracting the characteristics from the
scene is still done primarily on a VAX.  Given the features a frame
based code using "flavors" in the Zetalisp language on a Symbolics
3600 does the vehicle identification.  The main emphasis of the talk
will be on the aspects of a frame based expert system, in particular
the use of "flavors" and "deamons".


Location: The Establishment - Albuquerque Dukes Sports Stadium
Price: 10.50 per person - serving Prime Rib (I think)
Social Hour : 5:30 P.M., Dinner: 6:00 P.M., Talks: 7:00 P.M.
PLEASE LET JOHN WISNIEWSKI KNOW BY NOON MONDAY THE 7TH IF YOU ARE
COMING TO DINNER.  If no answer leave a message with EVA 844-7747.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 May 1984 1316-EDT
-FROM-
From: Geoff Hinton <HINTON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Production Systems
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The AI seminar on May 8 will be given by John Holland of the University
of Michigan.

Title: Learning Algorithms for Production Systems


Learning, broadly interpreted to include processes such as induction, offers
attractive possibilities for increasing the flexibility of rule-based
systems. However, this potential is likely to be realized only when the
rule-based systems are designed ab initio with learning in mind.
In particular, there are substantial advantages to be gained when
the rules are organized in terms of building blocks suitable for
manipulation by the learning algorithms (taking advantage of the
principles expounded by Newell & Simon).  This seminar will concentrate on:

  1. Ways of inducing useful building blocks and rules from experience,
     and
  2. Learning algorithms that can exploit these possibilities through
     "apportionment of credit" and "recombination" of building blocks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 5 May 84 18:45:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Benjamin Grosof <GROSOF@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Nonmonotonic Reasoning
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Our regular meeting time and place is Wednesdays 1-2pm (with some
runover to be expected), in Redwood Hall Room G-19.  [...]

Wednesday, May 16:

                Drawing A Line Around Circumscription

                          David Etherington
              University of British Columbia, Vancouver


   The Artificial Intelligence community has been very interested in
the study of reasoning in situations where only incomplete information
is available.  Predicate Circumscription and Domain Circumscription
provide tools for nonmonotonic reasoning in such situations.
However, not all of the problems which might be expected to yield to
circumscriptive inference are actually addressed by the techniques
which have been developed thus far.

   We outline some unexpected areas where existing techniques are
insufficient.


Wednesday, May 23

                DEFAULT REASONING AS CIRCUMSCRIPTION
         A Translation of Default Logic into Circumscription
          OR    Maximizing Defaults Is Minimizing Predicates

                     Benjamin Grosof of Stanford

Much default reasoning can be formulated as circumscriptive.  Using a revised
version [McCarthy 84] of circumscription [McCarthy 80], we propose a
translation scheme from default logic [Reiter 80] into circumscription.  An
arbitrary "normal" default theory is translated into a corresponding
circumscription of a first-order theory.  The method is extended to translating
"seminormal" default theories effectively, but is less satisfactorily concise
and elegant.

Providing a translation of seminormal default logic into circumscription
unifies two of the leading formal approaches to nonmonotonic reasoning, and
enables an integration of their demonstrated applications.  The naturalness
of default logic provides a specification tool for representing default
reasoning within the framework of circumscription.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 May 84 15:52 PDT
-FROM-
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 12th POPL Call for Papers
-BODY-
Call for Papers: 12th POPL

The twelfth annual ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on
PRINCIPLES OF PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

New Orleans, Louisiana, January 13-16, 1985

The POPL symposium is devoted to the principles of programming
languages. In recent years there have been many papers on
specific principles and specific programming languages embodying
those principles, which might lead one to believe that the symposium is
limited to papers on those topics.

We are eager for papers on important new topics, and therefore this
year we shall not attempt to prescribe particular topics. We
solicit papers that describe important new research results having
to do with the principles of programming languages. We not only
solicit, but seek and encourage, papers describing work in which an
implemented system embodies an important principle in such a way that
the usefulness of that principle can be better understood. All
submitted papers will be read by the program committee.

        Brian Reid, Stanford University (Program Chairman)
        Douglas Comer, Purdue University
        Stuart Feldman, Bell Communications Research
        Joseph Halpern, IBM Research
        David MacQueen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
        Michael O'Donnell, Johns Hopkins University
        Vaughan Pratt, Sun Microsystems and Stanford Univ.
        Guy Steele, Tartan Laboratories
        David Wall, DEC Western Research Laboratory

Please submit nine copies of a 6- to 10-page summary of your paper to
the program chairman. Summaries must be typed double spaced, or typeset
10 on 16. It is important to include specific results, and specific
comparisons with other work. The committee will consider the relevance,
clarity, originality, significance, and overall quality of each
summary. Mail to:

     Brian K. Reid
     Computer Systems Laboratory, ERL 444
     Department of Electrical Engineering
     Stanford University
     Stanford, California, 94305 U.S.A.

(Persons submitting papers from countries in which access to copying
machines is difficult or impossible are welcome to submit a single copy.)

Summaries must be received by the program chairman by August 3, 1984.
Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by September 25,
1984.  The accepted papers must be received in camera-ready form by the
program chairman at the above address by November 9, 1984. Authors of
accepted papers will be expected to sign a copyright release form.

Proceedings will be distributed at the symposium and will be
subsequently available for purchase from ACM. The local arrangements
chairman is Bill Greene, University of New Orleans, Computer Science
Department, New Orleans, Louisiana 70148

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
57
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 84 18:17:03-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!cires!boulder!marty @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: wanted: display-oriented interlisp structure editor
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: boulder.175

I've been using Interlisp-VAX under VMS for a while now and am getting a bit
tired of the rather antiquated TTY editor.  I know Dave Barstow had a sort of
semi-display interlisp structure editor known as DED, but this seems to have
fallen into a black hole.  Does anyone out there have a screen-oriented
residential structure editor for interlisp?  (Yes, I know the real solution is
to get an 1108, it's on order ...  But I've got too many interlisp users to
point them all at one Dandelion ...)

                                thanks much,
                                 Marty Kent

csnet:
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
                        !hao!boulder!marty
arpanet:
                        polson @ sumex-aim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 May 84 07:54:13 PDT
-FROM-
From: Anna Gibbons <anna@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bindings - Judea Pearl Address
-BODY-
FROM JUDEA PEARL:  Please disregard the old address "UCLA-SECURITY",
any messages should be sent to  "judea@UCLA-CS.ARPA".

Sorry for the inconvenience and confusion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 84 14:30:21-PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!bet @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP on a Data General? (sri-arpa.122209)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2347

Here at Duke, someone ported a public domain implementation of an
extremely simple subset of LISP (xlisp) to our MV-8000. It suffices
for some robotics programming. I learned LISP on it. Sources in C.
Send me a note if you are interested; it is probably rather big to mail,
though I believe it was originally acquired from net.sources.
We can work out some way to transfer it.
                                Bennett Todd
                                ...{decvax,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 84 8:35:51-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!merlyn @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: metaphors
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sequent.478

> "Telephones are like grapefruits" is a SIMILE, not a metaphor. To be
> a metaphor, it would be "Telephones are grapefruits", and would be harder
> to interpret...
>
> Will

Ahh, but "Telephones are lemons" is fairly easy to interpret.
It just depends on the type of fruit. :-}

Randal L. ("life is like a banana") Schwartz, esq. (merlyn@sequent.UUCP)
        (Official legendary sorcerer of the 1984 Summer Olympics)
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. (503)626-5700 (sequent = 1/quosine)
UUCP: ...!XXX!sequent!merlyn where XXX is one of:
        decwrl nsc ogcvax pur-ee rocks34 shell teneron unisoft vax135 verdix

P.S. I never metaphor I didn't like. (on a zero to four scale)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 84 14:25:47-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!hes @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: what you see ain't what you get
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2291

At the end of Bentley's column in the April CACM, he mentions the
AI seminar titled:
                      How to Wreck a Nice Beach
and I thought of that today when I saw a poster describing "Cole's Law".
For those unfamiliar with the concept it refers to
"niht decils egabbac" reversed.
>-henry (almost ashamed to sign this) schaffer  ncsu  genetics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 84 8:46:33-PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!watrose!japlaice @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: watrose.6717

[For some reason this took almost a month to show up in the AIList
mailbox.  Other messages may have been similarly delayed.  -- KIL]

There are several philosophical problems with treating
`Indiana and Ohio' as a single entity.

The first is that the Fregean idea that the sense of
a sentence is based on the sense of its parts,
which is thought valid by most philosophers,
no longer holds true.

The second is that if we use that idea in this situation,
then it would probably seem reasonable to use
Quine's ideas for adjectives, namely that
`unicorn', `hairy unicorn', `small, hairy unicorn'
(or other similar examples) are all separate entities,
and I think that it is obvious that trying to
derive a reasonable semantic/syntactic theory for
any reasonable fragment of English would become
virtually imposible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 May 84 17:31:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The End of British AI?
-BODY-
Having learned recently of yet another attempt by the SERC to foist
upon unwilling AI researchers totally unsuitable equipment chosen for
narrow political reasons, and seeing those researchers wasting their
time fighting off the attempt or reimplementing AI software which they
could get with little effort if they had the right equipment, I am
maybe feeling a bit paranoid. Knowing of the contortions British
researchers are going through to get Alvey money doesn't make me very
optimistic either. Astronomers and high-energy physicists don't seem
to have the same problems.

While I was a graduate student and then a research fellow in the UK, I
had to waste my time fighting off two such attempts, again based on
narrow political considerations. That in the two cases the side I was
on ended up (partly) winning is small consolation when I think of the
time I and others could have used for more productive work.

As to bureaucratic statements of that kind being forgotten, do you
remember the Lighthill report, a ``statement'' that sent British AI
into internal exile for at least five years causing the drain of US of
British AI talent we all know about?

                                                - Fernando

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 May 84 0255 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: book announcement
-BODY-
Since people have begun using AIList to announce their latest books (an
excellent idea), I thought I'd briefly describe my new Lisp book.

  "Lisp:  A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation",
  by David S. Touretzky, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.,
  New York, 1984.  Softcover, 384 pages, $18.95 list.

I originally wrote the book because I wanted to teach an introductory
programming course to humanities students using Lisp.  Although most readers
of this mailing list are interested in the advanced applications of Lisp,
the language is an excellent one for beginners.  It turned out to be a heck
of a lot better for them than Pascal, which is what we teach most beginners
here at CMU.  And Stanford University's freshman programming course is now a
combination of Lisp and Pascal, with my book used for the Lisp component.
Trinity College, in Hartford, CT, uses it in a freshman AI seminar taught
by the Psych dept.  At CMU it was used for several semesters by the English
department (!)  for the programming component of a computer literacy course
for grad students.

Of course, the question you're all dying to ask is:  how does this book
differ from Winston & Horn, and from Wilensky's new book.  My book is the
only GENTLE introduction to Lisp.  As such, its pace is too slow for a
graduate level or advanced undergrad CS course, which is where I feel
Winston & Horn is most appropriate.  On the other hand, I know lots of grad
students in other departments, such as Psych, who found Winston & Horn too
advanced; they were more comfortable with my book.  Wilensky's book is a
wonderful reference for Franz Lisp, which is covered in its entirety,
while my book is based on MacLisp and Common Lisp (although there is an
appendix which mentions Franz) and covers only the basics of those dialects.

If you are an experienced programmer and want to know all about Franz Lisp,
Wilensky is the obvious choice.  On the other hand, if you're new to Lisp,
my book offers the easiest route to becoming fluent in the language.  In
addition to the gentle, easy-to-read style, it contains 75 pages of answers
to exercises.  (Winston & Horn has 60 pages of answers; Wilensky has none.)

  -- Dave Touretzky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 84 16:55:34-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!pem1a @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: New topic for discussion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1064

Phaedrus' article made me think of a story in the book "The
Mind's Eye", by Hofstadter and Dennett, in which the relationship
between subjective experience and physical substance is explored.
Can't remember the story's name but good reading.  Some other
thoughts:

One aspect of experience and substance is how to determine when
a piece of substance is experiencing something.  This is good to
know because then you can fiddle with the substance until it stops
experiencing and thereby get an idea of what it was about the
substance which allowed it to experience.

The first reasonable choice for the piece of substance might be
yourself, since most people presume that they can tell when they
are having a conscious experience.  Unfortunately, being both the
measuree and measurer could have its drawbacks, since some experiments
could simulaneously zap both experience and the ability to know or not
know if an experience exists.  All sorts of problems here.  Could you
just THINK you were experiencing something, but not really?

What this calls for, it seems to me, is two people.  One to measure
and one to experience.  Of course this would all be based on the
assumption that it is even possible to measure such an elusive
thing as experience.  Some people might even object to the notion
that subjective experiences are possible at all.

The next thing is to choose an experience.
This is tricky.  If you chose self-awareness as the experience, then
you would have to decide if being self-aware in one state is the same
as being self-aware in a different state.  Can the experience be the
same even if the object of the experience is not?

Then, a measuring criterion would have to be established whereby
someone could measure if an experience was happening or not.  This
could range from body and facial expressions to neurological readings.
Another would be a Turing test-like setup:  put the subject into a
box with certain I/O channels, and have protocols made up for
measuring things.  This would allow you to REALLY get in there and
fiddle with things, like replacing body parts, etc.

These are some of the thoughts that ran through my head after reading
the Phaedrus article.  I think I thought them, and if I didn't, how
did this article get here?

                            Tom Portegys, Bell Labs, ihlpg!portegys

(ihlpg currently does not have netnews, that's why this is coming from
ihuxr).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 6 May 84 11:15:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dennis Allison <CSL.ALLISON@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Workstation Conference: Call for Papers
-BODY-

            -----------------------------------------------------
            1st International Conference on Computer Workstations
            -----------------------------------------------------

                    San Francisco Bay Area, May-June 1985.

                     Sponsored by: IEEE Computer Society

Computer Workstations are integral to productivity and quality increases, and
they are the main focal point for a growing fraction of professional activity.

A "workstation", broadly defined, is a system that interacts with a user to
help the user accomplish some kind of work.  Included in this definition are:
CAD systems,  high-resolution graphics systems, office productivity systems,
computer-based engineering support stations of all kinds, architectural sys-
tems, software engineering environments, etc.

"Workstations" includes both hardware and software.  Hardware to run the ap-
plications, software to customize the environments.

Technical Program

Papers are solicited from the technical community at large in a widely seen
series of advertisements.  Sessions to be organized from submitted papers and
from Program Committee contacts.

The technical program will have approximately 32 sessions, arranged in three
tracks, spanning 3 full days.  Technical sessions will be derived from submit-
ted papers and from Program Committee organized sessions.  The Program Commit-
tee will include leaders and important contributors to the field of computer
workstations.  International representation will be sought.

There will be an invited keynote speaker and a formal opening session, best
paper awards, and a set of pre-conference tutorials.  Also, a "Special Ad-
dress" on the 2nd day.

Exhibits

Over 150 "booths" are expected to be populated by nearly as many companies ex-
hibiting hardware and software pertaining to workstations of all kinds.  High
standards of technical exhibitions will be maintained by the IEEE to assure a
technically sophisticated and educational set of exhibits.  Wide international
participation is anticipated.

Exhibits are set up on Monday, shown Tuesday through Thursday from 10 AM to 7
PM, and dismantled on Friday.

                              Program Chairman:

                              Dr. Edward Miller
                           Software Research, Inc.
                              580 Market Street
                           San Francisco, CA  94104

                 Phone:  (415) 957-1441  --  Telex:  340 235

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
58
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 84 13:13:39-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!wivax!apollo!tarbox @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP machines question
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: apollo.1f4a00cb.d4d

Can anyone out there tell me what the smallest,
(ie. least expensive) home/personal computer is
that run some sort of LISP?

                                -- Brian Tarbox  @APOLLO

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 May 84 17:36:35 pdt
-FROM-
From: wilensky%ucbdali@Berkeley (Robert Wilensky)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList book announcement
-BODY-

I want to dispel an incorrect impression left by Dave Touretzky about my
recent book on LISP (which, incidentally, is called

     LISPcraft
     by Robert Wilensky
     W. W. Norton & Co.
     New York, 1984.  Softcover, 385 pages, $19.95 list.  )

Specifically, Touretzky gave the impression the my book was geared to
advanced Franz LISP programming, and was not appropriate as a general
tutorial for the novice.  Nothing could be further from the truth.
LISPcraft is NOT meant to be primarily a reference for Franz LISP, nor is it
intended as an advanced LISP text.  Rather, the book is meant to be a
self-contained LISP tutorial for the novice LISP programmer.

LISPcraft does assume some familiarity with computers, so it may not be
ideal for the computationally illiterate.  On the other hand, like
Touretzky's book, and unlike Winston and Horn's, almost the entire length of
my book is a tutorial on various aspects of the language.

From my point of view, the primary difference between these books is that I
try to cover the language from the programmer's point of view.  This means
that I pay homage to the way LISP programmers actually use the language.  As
a consequence, I spend some time on features of LISP that one hardly finds
discussed anywhere, e. g., programming idioms, macro writing techniques,
read macros, debugging, error handling, non-standard flow of control, the
oblist, non-s-expression data types, systems functions, compilation, and
aspects of I/O.  I also give some serious programming examples (pattern
matching and deductive data base management).  However, my book starts at
ground zero, and works its way through the basics.  In fact, the text is
about evenly divided between the sort of issues listed above and more basic
``car-cdr-cons'' level stuff.  Most importantly, the text is entirely
tutorial in nature and presumes no previous knowledge of LISP whatsoever.  I
believe that basics of LISP programming are presented to the uninitiated as
well here as they are anywhere.

In sum, LISPcraft contains a more extensive exposition of LISP than either
Winston's or Touretzky's book.  Winston's book contains many more examples of
LISP programs than does LISPcraft, and Touretzky's book covers less material
at a slower pace.

As Touretzky states, LISPcraft does contain a thorough exposition of a
particular LISP dialect, namely Franz.  For example, the book contains an
appendix that describes all Franz LISP functions.  However, most of the book
is rather dialect independent, and major idiosyncracies are noted
throughout.  The point of the thoroughness is to suggest a repetoire
of functions that programmers actually use, i. e., to convey what a real
LISP language looks like, aside from serving as a reference for Franz users
per se.  As I suggest in my preface, I believe ``it is easier to learn a new
dialect having mastered another than it is having learned a language for
which there are no native speakers.''

I take strong exception to Touretzky's claim that his book offers the
``easiest route to becoming fluent in the language.''  Besides my belief in
the appropriateness of my own book for the novice, I wish to point out that
memorizing a German grammar book does NOT make one fluent in German.  There
is a large body of other knowledge that is crucial to using a language
effectively, be that language natural or artificial.  This fact was a prime
motivation behind my writing LISPcraft in the first place.

Rather than make the claim that my own book provides the best route to
fluency, or argue its merits as an introductory LISP text, I invite the
interested reader to judge for his or herself.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 84 19:45:13-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!oddjob!jeff @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Proposal for UUCP Project
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: oddjob.172

        Do you suppose that when enough connections are made, the
UUCP network will spontaneously develop intelligence?


                            Jeff Bishop    || University of Chicago
                      ...ihnp4!oddjob!jeff || Astrology & Astrophysics Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 May 84 18:54:17-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!ogcvax!sequent!richard @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Proposal for UUCP Project
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sequent.483

    Do you suppose that when enough connections are made, the UUCP
    network will spontaneously develop intelligence?

Perhaps it already has.  Maybe that's what keeps eating all those
first lines, and regurgitating the weeks-old news.

             ____________________________________________
The preceding should not be construed as the statement or opinion of the
employers or associates of the author.   It might not even be the author's.

I try to make a point of protecting the innocent,
        but none of them can be found...
                                                        ...!sequent!richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 84 19:27:29-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!minow @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Proposal for UUCP Project
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decvax.482

An earlier discussion of this topic may be found in the story
"Inflexible Logic" by Russell Maloney (The New Yorker, 1940)
reprinted in The World of Mathematics, Vol. 4, pp. 2262-2267.

Martin Minow
decvax!minow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 May 84 11:02:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!dinitz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: metaphors - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uicsl.15500034

FLAME ON

Your complaint that a comparison using "like" is a simile (and not a
metaphor) is technically correct.  But it shows that you're not
following the research.  Metaphor or simile (or juxtaposition, etc.),
these figures of speech raise the same problems and questions of how
analogical reasoning works, how comparisons convey meaning, how do
people dream them up, and how do other people understand them.  For
this reason the word metaphor is used to refer collectively to the
whole lot of them.  Pretending you're a high school English teacher
doesn't help.

FLAME OFF

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 84 21:16:05-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!jah @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-competition clauses
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: brunix.7927

You should be aware that it is not necessarily the case that you MUST
sign the non-disclosure agreement exactly as worded.  I recently signed
on as consultant with a company which had a very stringent (and absolutely
ridiculous) nondisclosure/non-competition clause form.  I refused to sign
certain sections (mainly those limiting me from practicing AI, consulting

for others where there was no conflict of interest, etc.)  We eventually
eliminated those clauses, rewrote the contract and I signed willingly.

Similarly, another company I worked for was unwilling to change the document,
but, when I refused to sign away my rights, they pointed out that I got
to fill in a section with information about what things I already had going
for me (that is, what things I had done previously so the company had no claim
on these things).  Since the company's contract included such things as
"no competing business" and the like, I was able to claim prior rights to
"artificial intelligence research", "natural language processing", and
"expert systems research."  The very vagueness of these things, according
to my legal advisor, makes it that much harder for the company to really do
anything.

A final note, most companies will clain they do do this "as red tape" and
will "not really hassle you."  Don't believe them!  They've got more bucks
then you and if it goes to court, EVEN IF YOU WIN, it will cost you more
than you can afford.  Speak to a lawyer, change contracts, etc.  In the AI
world we've got a seller's market.  Take advantage of it, these companies
want you, and will be willing to negotiate.

  Sorry if I do go on...
  Jim Hendler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 May 84 18:08:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Content-Addressable Memory
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        FOR THE RECORD

CSLI post-doctoral fellow Pentti Kanerva was a guest lecturer at MIT
Tuesday, May 1. The topic of his lecture was "Random-access Memory with a
Very Large Address Space (1 2000) as a Model of Human Memory: Theory and
Implementation." Douglas R. Hofstadter was host. Following is an abstract
of the lecture.

Humans can retrieve information from memory according to content (recalling
and recognizing previously encountered objects) and according to temporal
sequence (performing a learned sequence of actions). Retrieval times
indicate the direct retrieval of stored information.

In the present theory, memory items are represented by n-bit binary words
(points of space {0,1}n. The unifying principle of the theory is that the
address space and the datum space of the memory are the same. As in the
conventional random-access memory of a computer, any stored item can be
accessed directly by addressing the location in which the item is stored;
the sequential retrieval is accomplished by storing the memory record as
a linked list. Unlike in the conventional random-access memory, many
locations are accessed at once, and this accounts for recognition.

Three main results have been obtained: (1) The properties of neurons allow
their use as address decoders for a generalized random-access memory;
(2) distributing the storage of an item in a set of locations makes very
large address spaces (2 1000) practical; and (3) structures similar to those
suggested by the theory are found in the cerrebellum.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 1984 07:08:26-EDT
-FROM-
From: Mark.Fox@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE AI Conf. Call for Papers
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                CALL FOR PAPERS

            IEEE Workshop on Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems

          Sheraton Denver Tex, Denver, Colorado, 3 - 4 December 1984

Purpose:

The  purpose of this conference is to focus attention on the principle theories
and methods of artificial intelligence which have played an important  role  in
the  construction  of  expert  and  knowledge-based systems.  The workshop will
provide a forum for  researchers  in  expert  and  knowledge-based  systems  to
discuss the concepts which underly their systems.  Topics include:

   - Knowledge Acquisition.
        * manual elicitation.
        * machine learning.
   - Knowledge Representation.
   - Causal modeling.
   - The Role of Planning in Expert Reasoning
   - Knowledge Utilization.
        * rule-based reasoning
        * theories of evidence
        * focus of attention.
   - Explanation.
   - Validation.
        * measures.
        * user acceptance.

Please  send  eight  copies of a 1000-2000 word double-space, typed, summary of
the proposed paper to:
               Mark S. Fox
               Robotics Institute
               Carnegie-Mellon University
               Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

All submissions will be read by the program committee:
   - Richard Duda, Syntelligence
   - Mark Fox, Carnegie-Mellon University
   - John McDermott, Carnegie-Mellon University
   - Tom Mitchell, Rutgers University
   - John Roach, Virginia Polytechnical Institute
   - Reid Smith, Schlumberger Corp.
   - Mark Stefik, Xerox Parc
   - Donald Waterman, Rand Corp.

Summaries are to focus primarily on new principles, but each  principle  should
be  illustrated  by  its  use in an knowledge-based system.  It is important to
include specific findings or results, and specific  comparisons  with  relevant
previous  work.    The  committee  will  consider the appropriateness, clarity,
originality, significance and overall quality of each summary.

June 7, 1984 is the deadline for the submission of summaries.  Authors will  be
notified of acceptance or rejection by July 23, 1984.  The accepted papers must
be  typed  on  special  forms and received by the program chairman at the above
address by September 3, 1984.  Authors of accepted papers will be  expected  to
sign a copyright release form.

Proceedings  will  be  distributed  at  the  workshop  and will be subsequently
available for purchase from IEEE.  Selected  full  papers  will  be  considered
(along  with  papers  from  the  IEEE  Conference on AI and Applications) for a
special issue of IEEE PAMI on knowledge-based systems to be published in  Sept.
1985.  The deadline for submission of full papers is 16 December 1984.


                               General Chairman

                         John Roach
                         Dept. of Computer Science
                         Virginia Polytechnic Institute
                         Blacksburg, VA



                              Program Co-Chairmen

     Mark S. Fox                             Tom Mitchell
     Robotics Institute                      Dept. of Computer Science
     Carnegie-Mellon Univ.                   Rutgers University
     Pittsburgh, PA                          New Brunswick, NJ

     Registration Chairman              Local Arrangements Chairman
     Daniel Chester                          David Morgenthaler
     Dept. of Computer Science               Martin Marietta Corp.
     University of Delaware                  Denver, Colorado
     Newark, Delaware

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
59
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 84 23:33:31-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A topic for discussion, phil/ai persons.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wxlvax.277

Here is a thought which a friend and I have been kicking around for a while
(the friend is a professor of philosophy at Penn):

It seems that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever build a computer that can truly
perceive as a human being does, unless we radically change our ideas
about how perception is carried out.

The reason for this is that we humans have very little difficulty
identifying objects as the same across time, even when all the features of
that object change (including temporal and spatial ones).  Computers,
on the other hand, are being built to identify objects by feature-sets.  But
no set of features is ever enough to assure cross-time identification of
objects.

I accept that this idea may be completely wrong.  As I said, it's just
something that we have been batting around.  Now I would like to solicit
opinions of others.  All ideas will be considered.  All references to
literature will be appreciated.  Feel free to reply by mail or on the net.
Just be aware that I don't log on very often, so if I don't answer for a
while, I'm not snubbing you.

>-Alan Wexelblat (for himself and Izchak Miller)
(currently appearing at: ...decvax!ittvax!wlxvax!rlw  Please put "For Alan" in
all mail headers.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 84 14:49:41-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A topic for discussion, phil/ai persons.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.630

The computer needs to be able to distinguish between "metaphysically identical"
and "essentially the same".  This distinction is at the root of an old (2500
years?) Greek ship problem:
Regarding Greeks ship problem: When a worn board is replaced by a new board,
the ship is changed, but it is the same ship.  The difference leaves the
ship essentially the same but not identically the same.  If all the boards
of a ship are replaced one by one until the ship is entirely redone with new
boards, it is still the same ship (essentially).  Now, if all the old boards
that had been removed were put together again in their original configuration
so as to duplicate the new-board ship, would the new old-board ship be iden-
tically or essentially the same as the original old-board ship? Assume nailless
construction techniques were used thruout, and assume all boards always fit
perfectly the same way every time.

We now have two ships that are essentially the same as the original ship,
but, I maintain, neither ship is identical to the original ship.  The original
ship's identity was not preserved, although its identity was left sufficiently
unchanged so as to preserve the ship's essence.  The ship put together with
the previously-removed old boards is not identically the same as the original
old-board ship either, no matter how carefully it is put together.  It too is
only essentially the same as the original ship.

A colleague suggested that 'essence' in this case was contextual, and I
tend to agree with him.

Actually, even if the Greeks left the original ship alone, the ship's identity
would change from one instant to the next.  Even while remaining essentially
the same, the fact that the ship exists in the context of (and in relation to)
a changing universe is enough to vary the ship's identity from moment to mo-
ment.  The constant changes in the ship's characteristics are admittedly very
subtle, and do not change the essential capacity/functionality/identity of the
ship.  Minute changes in a ships identity have 'essentially' no impact.  Only
a change sufficiently large (such as a small hole in the hull) have an
essential impact.

"Essence" has historically been considered metaphysical.  In her "Introduction
to Objectivist Epistemology" (see your local bookstore) Ayn Rand identified
essence as epistemological rather than metaphysical.  The implications of this
identification are profound, and more than I want to get into in this article.
Philosopher Leonard Peikoff's article "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy", in
the back of the newer editions of Rand's Intro to Obj Epist, shows how crucial
the distinction between essence-as-metaphysical and essence-as-epistemological
really is.
Read Rand's book and see why the computer would have to make the same distinc-
tion.  That distinction, however, has to be made on the CONCEPTUAL level.  I
think Rand's discussion of concept-formation will probably convince you that
it will be quite some time before man-made machinery is up to that...
Norm Andrews, AT+T Information Systems (201)834-3685 vax135!ariel!norm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 84 7:10:40-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!rosen @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A topic for discussion, phil/ai persons.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.176

Just a few quick comments,
1)  The author seems to use perceive as visual perception.  It can not
be a prerequisite for intelligence due to all the counter examples in
the human race. Not every human has sight, so we should be able to get
intelligence from various types of inputs.

2)  Since humans CAN do it is the evidence that OTHER systems can do it.

3)  The major assumption is that the only way a computer can identify objects
is by having static "feature-sets" that are from the object alone, without
having additional information, but why have that restriction?  First,
all features don't change at once, your grandmother doesn't all-
of-a-sudden have the features of a desk.  Second, the processor can/must
change with the enviornment as well as the object in question.
Third, the context plays a very important role in the recognition of
of an object.  Functionality of the object is cruical.  Remindings from
previous interactions with that object, and so on.  The point is that
clearly a static list of what features objects must have and what features
are optional is not enough.  Yet there is no reason to believe that
this is the only way computers can represent objects.  The points
here come from many sources, and have their origin from such people
as Marvin Minsky and Roger Schank among others.  There is a lot of
literature out there.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 84 9:50:24-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Essence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccieng2.179

I don't think ANYONE is looking to build a computer that can understand
phiolosophy. If I can build something that acts the same as an IQ-80 person,
I would be happy. This involves a surprising amount of work, (like vision,
language, etc.) but could certainly be confused by two 'identical' ships
as could I. Just because A human can do something does not imply that our
immediate AI goals should include it. Rather, first lets worry about things
ALL humans can do.

Brad Miller

...[cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccieng5!ccieng2!bwm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 84 7:04:41-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!emigh @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Greek Ship problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2511

  This reminds me of the story of Lincoln's axe (sorry, I've forgotten the
source).  A farmer was showing a visitor Lincoln's axe:
Visitor:        Are you sure that's Lincoln's axe

Farmer:         It's Lincoln's axe.  Of course I've had to replace the handle
                three times and the head once, but it's Lincoln's axe alright.

Adds another level of reality to the Greek Ship Problem.

Ted H. Emigh     Genetics and Statistics, North Carolina State U, Raleigh  NC
USENET: {akgua decvax duke ihnp4 unc}!mcnc!ecsvax!emigh
ARPA:   ecsvax!emigh@Mcnc or decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!emigh@BERKELEY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 84 15:20:19-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!ro
     chester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Greek Ship problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.178

This is a good example of the principle that it depends on who's
doing the perceiving.  To a barnacle, it's a whole new ship.

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 84 15:17:06-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Can computers perceive
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.177

If by "perception" you imply "recognition", then of course computers
cannot perceive as we can.  You can recognize only what is meaningful
to you, and that probably won't be meaningful to a computer.

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 84 10:57:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A topic for discussion, phil/ai pers - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.32300026

The problem is one of identification. When we see one object matching a
description of another object we know about, we often assume that the object
we're seeing IS the object we know about -- especially when we expect the
description to be definite [1]. This is known as Leibniz's law of the
indiscernability of identicals. That's found its way into the definitions
of set theory [2]: two entities are "equal" iff every property of one is also
a property of the other. Wittgenstein [3] objected that this did not allow for
replication, ie the fact that we can distinguish two indistinguishable objects
when they are placed next to each other (identity "solo numero"). So, if we
don't like to make assumptions, either no two objects are ever the same object,
or else we have to follow Aristotle and say that every object has some property
setting it apart from all others. That's known as Essentialism, and is hotly
disputed [4]. The choices until now have been: breakdown of identification,
essentialism, or assumption. The latter is the most functional, but not nice
if you're after epistemic certainty.
        Still, I see no insurmountable problems with making computers do the
same as ourselves: assume identity until given evidence to the contrary. That
we can't convince ourselves of that method's epistemic soundness does nothing
to its effectiveness. All one needs is a formal logic or set theory (open
sentences, such as predicates, are descriptions) with a definite description
operator [2,5]. Of course, that makes the logic non-monotonic, since a definite
description becomes meaningless when two objects match it. In other words, a
closed-world assumption is also involved, and the theory must go beyond first-
order logic. That's a technical problem, not necessarily an unsolvable one [6].


[1] see the chapter on SCHOLAR in Bobrow's "Representation and Understanding";
    note the "uniqueness assumption".
[2] Introduced by Whitehead & Russell in their "Principia Mathematica".
[3] Wittgenstein's "Tractatus".
[4] WVO Quine, "From a logical point of view".
[5] WVO Quine, "Mathematical Logic".
[6] Doyle's Truth Maintenance System (Artif. Intel. 12) attacks the non-
    monotonicity problem fairly well, though without a sound theoretical
    basis. See also McDermott's attempt at formalization (Artif. Intel. 13
    and JACM 29 (Jan '82)).

                                        Marcel Schoppers
                                        U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                                        uiucdcs!marcel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
60
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 May 84 14:10:16-EDT
-FROM-
From: MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Abstracts
-BODY-
   Does anyone else on this list wish, as I do, that there
existed a publication entitled ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ABSTRACTS? The field of artificial intelligence is probably the
supreme interdisciplinary sphere of activity in the world, and
its vital concerns extend across the spectrum of computer
science, philosophy, psychology, biology, mathematics, literary
theory, linguistics, statistics, electrical engineering,
mechanical engineering, etc.

   I wonder if one of the major member publishers of the NFAIS
(National Federation of Abstracting & Indexing Services) could
be convinced to undertake the publication of a monthly
reference serial which would reprint from the following
abstracting services those abstracts which bear most
pertinently on the concerns of AI research:

   Biological Abstracts / Computer & Control Abstracts /
Computer & Information Systems Abstracts Journal /  Current
Index to Journals in Education / Dissertation Abstracts
International / Electrical & Electronics Abstracts /
Electronics & Communications Abstracts Journal / Engineering
Index / Government Reports Announcements and Index /
Informatics Abstracts / Information Science Abstracts /
International Abstracts in Operations Research / Language and
Language Behavior Abstracts / Library & Information Science
Abstracts / Mathematical Reviews / Philosopher's Index / PROMT
/ Psychological Abstracts / Resources in Education /  (This is
by no means a comprehensive list of relevant reference
publications.)

   Would other people on the list find an abstracting service
dedicated to AI useful? Perhaps an initial step in developing
such a project would be to arrive at a consensus regarding what
structure of research fronts/subject headings appropriately
defines the field of AI.

  --Wayne McGuire

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 May 84 15:29:35 pdt
-FROM-
From: syming%B.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary on AI for Business
-BODY-
This is the summary of the responses to my request about "AI for Business" one
month ago on AIList Digest.

Three organizations are working on this area. They are Syntelligence, SRI, and
Arthur D. Little, Inc..

Syntelligence's objective is to bring intelligent computer systems for
business. Currently the major work is in finance area. The person to contact
is:
Peter Hart, President, 800 Oak Grove Ave, Suite 201, Menlo Park, CA 94025.
            (415) 325-9339, <HART@SRI-AI.ARPA>

SRI has a sub-organization called Financial Expert System Program headed by
Sandra Cook, (415) 859-5478. A prototype system for a financial application
has been constructed.  <SANDRA@SRI-KL.ARPA>

Arthur D. Little are developing AI-based MRP, financial planning, strategic
planning and marketing system. However, I do not have much information yet.
The person to contact with is Tom Martin.  <TJMartin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
The Director of AI at Arthur D. Little, Karl M. Wiig, gave an interesting
talk on "Will Artificial Intelligence Provide The Rebirth of Operations
Research?" at TIMS/ORSA Joint National Meeting in San Francisco on May 16.
In his talk, a few projects in ADL are mentioned. If interested, write to
35/48 Acorn Park, Cambridge, MA 01240.

Gerhard Friedrich of DEC also gave a talk about expert systems on TIMS/ORSA
meeting on Tuesday. He mentioned XSEL for sales, XCON for engineering, ISA,
IMACS and IBUS for manufacturing and XSITE for customer services. XCON is
successor of R1, which is well known. XSEL was published in Machine
Intelligence
Vol.10. However, I do not know the references for the rest. If you know, please
inform me.

The interests on AI in Business community is just started. TIMS is probably the
first business professional society who will form a interest group on AI. If
interested, please write to W. W. Abendroth, P.O. Box 641, Berwyn, PA 19312.


The people who have responsed to my request and shown interests are:
         ---------------------------------------------------
SAL@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA
DB@MIT-XX.ARPA
Henning.ES@Xerox.ARPA
brand%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
NEWLIN%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
shliu%ucbernie@Berkeley.ARPA
klein%ucbmerlin@Berkeley.ARPA
david%ucbmedea@Berkeley.ARPA
nigel%ucbernie@Berkeley.ARPA
norman%ucbernie@Berkeley.ARPA
meafar%B.CC@Berkeley.ARPA
maslev%B.CC@Berkeley.ARPA
edfri%B.CC@Berkeley.ARPA
        ------------------------------------------------------

Please inform me if I made any mistake on above statements. Keep in touch.

syming hwang, syming%B.CC@Berkeley.ARPA, (415) 642-2070,
              350 Barrows Hall, School of Business Administration,
              U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 May 84 10:25 EST
-FROM-
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP machines question
-BODY-
To my knowledge, the least expensive PC that runs LISP is the Atari.
Sometime during the past year I read a review in Creative Computing of
an Interlisp subset that runs on the Atari family.  The reviewer was
Kenneth Litkowski and his overall impression of the product was favorable.
 -Kurt Godden
  General Motors Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14-May-84 23:07:56-PDT
-FROM-
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Boyer-Moore prover on VAXen and SUNs
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

     For all theorem proving fans, the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover has now
been ported to VAXen and SUNs running 4.2BSD Unix.  Boyer and Moore ported
it from TOPS-20 to the Symbolics 3600; I ported it from the 3600 to the
VAX 11/780, and it worked on the SUN the first time.  Vaughn Pratt has
a copy.  Performance on a SUN 2 is 57% of a VAX 11/780; this is quite
impressive for a micro.
     Now when a Mac comes out with some real memory...

                                Nagle (@SCORE)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 20 May 1984 23:23:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@cmu-cs-cad.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Core War
-BODY-
[The Scientific American article referred to below is an entertaining
description of software entities that crawl or hop through an address
space trying to destroy other such entities and to protect themselves
against similar depredations.  Very simple entities are easy to protect
against or to destroy, but are difficult to find.  Complex entities
(liveware?) have to be able to repair themselves more quickly than
primitive entities can eat away at them.  This leads to such oddities
as a redundant organism that switches its consciousness between bodies
after verifying that the next body has not yet been corrupted.  -- KIL]


If anybody is interested in the May Scientific American's Computer
Recreations article, you may also be interested in getting a copy
of the CMU version of the Redcode assembler and Mars interpreter.

I have written a battle program which has some interesting implications
for the game.  The program 'mortar' uses the Fibonacci sequence to
generate a pseudo-random series of attacks.  The program spends 40% of
its time shooting at other programs, and finally kills itself after
12,183 cycles.  Before that time it writes to 53% of memory and is
guaranteed to hit any stationary program larger than 10 instructions.

Since the attacks are random, a program which relocates itself has no
reason to hope that the new location is any safer than the old one.
Some very simplistic mathematical analysis indicates that while
Dwarf should kill Mortar 60% of the time (this has been verified
empirically), no non-repairing program of size 10 or larger can beat
Mortar.  Furthermore, no self-repairing program of size 141 can beat
Mortar.  I believe that this last result can be tightened significantly,
but I haven't looked at it too long yet.  I haven't written this up,
but I might be cajoled into doing so if many people are interested.
I would very much like to see some others veryify/correct these results.

========================================================================
Access information:
========================================================================

    The following Unix programs are available:
        mars -  A redcode simulator, written by Michael Mauldin
        redcode - A redcode assembler, written by Paul Milazzo

    Battle programs available:
        dwarf, gemini, imp, mortar, statue.

Userid "ftpguest" with password "cmunix" on the "CMU-CS-G" VAX has access
to the Mars source. The following files are available:

   mlm/rgm/marsfile             ; Single file (shell script)
   mlm/rgm/srcmars/*            ; Source directory

Users who cannot use FTP to snarf copies should send mail requesting
that the source be mailed to them.
========================================================================

Michael Mauldin (Fuzzy)
Department of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213
(413) 578-3065,  mauldin@cmu-cs-a.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 84 7:00:35-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!cib @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: wanted: display-oriented interlisp structure editor
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: lanl-a.7072

Our system is ISI-Interlisp on a UNIX VAX, and I normally use
emacs to edit Interlisp code. emacs can be called with the
LISPUSERS/TEXTEDIT program. It needs a minor patch to be able
to handle files with extensions. I can give further details by
mail if you are interested.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 May 84 13:32:00-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!ashwin @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: wanted: display-oriented interlisp s - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uicsl.15500035

We use the LED editor which runs in InterLisp-VAX under UNIX.  It's no DEDIT
but is better than the TTY editor.  We have the source which should make it
pretty easy to set up on your system.  I have no idea about copyright laws
etc., but I suppose I could mail it to you if you want it.  Here's a write-up
on LED  (from <LISPUSERS>LED.TTY):

     ------------------------------------------------------------


LED             -- A display oriented extension to Interlisp's editor
                -- for ordinary terminals.

        LED is an add on to the standard Interlisp editor, which
maintains a context display continuously while editing.  Other than
the automatically maintained display, the editor is unchanged except
for the addition of a few useful macros.


  HOW TO USE
  ----------

        load the file (see below)
        possibly set screen control parameters to non-default values
        edit normally

also:   see documentation for SCREENOP to get LED to recognise your
        terminal type.

  THE DISPLAY
  -----------

  Each line of the context display represents a level of the list
structure you are editing, printed with PRINTLEVEL set to 0, 1, 2 or 3.
Highlighting is used to indicate the area on each line that is represented
on the line below, so you can thread your eye upward through successive
layers of code.

   Normally, the top line of the screen displays the top level of the
edit chain, the second line displays the second level and so on.  For
expressions deeper than LEDLINES levels, the top lines is the message:
                (nnn more cars above)
and the next LEDLINES of the screen correspond to the BOTTOM levels
of the edit chain.  When the edit chain does become longer than
LEDLINES, the display is truncated in steps of LEDLINES/2 lines, so
for example if LEDLINES=20 (the default) and your edit chain is 35
levels deep, the lisplay will be (20 more cars above) followed by
15 lines of context display representing the 20'th through 35'th
levels of the edit chain.

  Each line, representing some level of the edit chain, is printed
such that it fits entirely on one screen line.  Three methods are
used to accomplish the shortening of the printed representation:
        Replacing comments with (*)
        Setting PRINTLEVEL to a smaller value,
                 which changes expressions into ampersands
        Truncting the leading and/or trailing expressions
                 around the attention point.

   If the whole expression can't be printed, replacing comments is
tried first.  If still to large, truncation is tried if the current
printlevel is >= LEDTLEV.  Otherwise the whole process is restarted
with a smaller PRINTLEVEL.
   The choice of LEDTLEV effectively chooses between seeing more detail
or seeing more forms.

   The last line of the display, representing the "current" expression,
is printed onto ONE OR MORE lines of the display, controlled by the
variable LEDPPLINES and the amount of space (less than LEDLINES) available.
The line(s) representing the current expression are prettprinted with
elision, similar to the other context lines, using a prettyprint algorithm
similar to the standard prettyprinter.  Default is LEDPPLINES=6, meaning
that up to six lines will be used to print the current expression.  The
setting of LEDPPLINES can be manipulated from within the editor using
the (PPLINES n) command.

   The rest of your screen, the part below the context display, is
available just as always to print into or do operations that do
not affect the edit chain (and therefore the appearance of the context
display).  Each time the context display is updated, the rest of the
screen is cleared and the cursor positioned under the context display.
On terminals that have a "memory lock" feature to restrict the scrolling
region, it is used to protect the context display from scrolling
off the screen.


  TERMINAL TYPES
  --------------

   Terminal types are currently supported:

HP2640          old HP terminals
HP26xx          all other known HP terminals
Hazeltine 1520  hazeltine 1520 terminals
Heathkit        sometimes known as Zenith
Ann Arbor Ambassador

The mapping between system terminal terminal type information and
internal types is via the alist SYSTEMTERMTYPES, which is used by
DISPLAYTERMP to set the variables CURRENTSCREEN and DISPLAYTERMTYPE.


  Screen control macros: (in order of importance)
  ----------------------

DON             turn on continuous display updating
DOF             disable continuous display updating

CLR             clear the display
CC              clear the display and redo the context display
CT              do a context display, incrementally updating the screen.
                use CC and CT to get isolated displays even when automatic
                updating is not enabled.

(LINES n)       display at most n lines of context
                 default is 20
(PPLINES n)     set the limit for prettyprinting the "current" expression.
(TRUNC n)       allow truncation of the forms displayed if PLEV<=n
                 useful range is 0-3, default is 1

PB              a one time "bracified" context display.
PL              a one time context display with as much detail as possible.

                pb and pl are varian display formats similar the the basic
                context display.

  Global variables:
  -----------------

DISPON          if T, continuous updating is on
DISPLAYTERMTYPE terminal type you are using.  HP HP2640 of HZ
                this is set automatically by (DISPLAYTERMTYPE)
HPENHANCECHAR   enhancement character for HP terminals. A-H are possibilities.
LEDLINES        maximum umber of lines of context to use.  Default is 20.
LEDTLEV         PLEV at which truncation becomes legal
LEDPPLINES      maximum number of lines used to prettyprint the
                current expression

  FILES:
  ------
       on TOPS-20  load <DDYER>LED.COM
       on VAX/UNIX load LISPUSERS/LED.V

these others are pulled in automatically.
        LED             the list editor proper
        SCREEN          screen manipulation utilities.
        PRINTOPT        elision and printing utilities

  SAMPLE DISPLAY
  ______________
 (LAMBDA (OBJ DOIT LMARGIN CPOS WIDTH TOPLEV SQUEEZE OBJPOS) & & & & & @)
>12- NOTFIRST & CRPOS NEWWIDTH in OBJ do & & & & & @ finally & &)
 (COND [& & &] (T & & &))
 ((LISTP I) (SETQ NEWLINESPRINTED &) [COND & &])
>> (COND ((IGREATERP NEWLINESPRINTED 0)
>2 2-      (add LINESPRINTED NEWLINESPRINTED)
>2 3-      (SETQ NEWLINE T))
>3-      (T (add POS (IMINUS NEWLINESPRINTED))
>3 3-       (COND (SQUEEZE &))))


  Except that you can't really see the highlighted forms, this is a
representative LED context display.  In an actual display, the @s
would be highlighted &s, and the [bracketed] forms would be highlighted.

The top line represents the whole function being edited.  Because the
CADR is a list of bindings, LED prefers to expand it if possible so you
can see the names.

The second line is a representation of the last form in the function, which
is highlighted on the first line.  The -12- indicates that there are 12
other objects (not seen) to the left.  The @ before "finally" marks where
the edit chain descends to the line below.

The third and fourth lines descend through the COND clause, to an imbedded
COND cluase which is the "current expression"

The current expression is marked by ">>" at the left margin, and an
abbreviated representation of it is printed on the 5'th through 9'th
lines. The expressions like "-2 3-" at the left of the prettyprinted
representation are the edit commands to position at that form.

     ------------------------------------------------------------

...uiucdcs!uicsl!ashwin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
61
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 May 84 08:05:22-EDT
-FROM-
From: MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Melville & Freud on Analogy
-BODY-
   I recently came across the following two suggestive passages
from Melville and Freud on analogy. They offer some food for
thought (and rather contradict one another):


"O Nature, and O soul of man! how far beyond all utterance are your
linked analogies! not the smallest atom stirs or lives on matter,
but has its cunning duplicate in mind."

Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 70 (1851)


"Analogies prove nothing, that is quite true, but they can make one
feel more at home."

Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1932)


>Wayne McGuire

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 84 16:43:34-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!nlm-mcs!krovetz @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: artificial intelligence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: nlm-mcs.1849

Q: What do you get when you mix an AI system and an Orangutan?

A: Another Harry Reasoner!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 May 84 23:18:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems
-BODY-
From a newspaper column by Jon Carroll:

... Imagine, then, a situation in which an ordinary citizen faced
with a problem requiring specialized knowledge turns to his desk-top
Home Electronic Expert (HEE) for some information.  Might it not
go something like this?

Citizen: There is an alarming rattle in the front of my automobile.
It sounds likd a cross between a whellbarrow full of ball bearings
crashing through a skylight and a Hopi Indian chant.  What is the
problem?

HEE: Your automobile is malfunctioning.

Citizen: I understand that.  In what manner is my automobile malfunctioning?

HEE: The front portion of your automobile exhibits a loud rattle.

Citizen: Indeed.  Given this information, what might be the proximate cause
of this rattle?

HEE: There are many possibilities.  The important thing is not to be hasty.

Citizen: I promise not to be hasty.  Name a possibility.

HEE: You could be driving your automobile without tires attached to
the rims.

Citizen: We can eliminate that.

HEE: Perhaps several small pieces of playground equipment have been left
inside your carburetor.

Citzen: Nope. Got any other guesses?

...

Citizen: Guide me; tell me what you think is wrong.

HEE: Wrong is a relative concept.  Is it wrong, for instance, to eat
the flesh of fur-bearing mammals?  If I were you, I'd take that
automobile to a reputable mechanic listed in the Yellow Pages.

Citizen: And if I don't want to do that?

HEE: Then nuke the sucker.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13-May-84 16:21:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: johnsons@stolaf.UUCP
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Can computers think?
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from Usenet by SASW@MIT-MC.]

I often wonder if the damn things aren't intelligent. Have you
ever really known a computer to give you an even break? Those
Frankensteinian creations reek havoc and mayham wherever they
show their beady little diodes. They pick the most inopportune
moment to crash, usually right in the middle of an extremely
important paper on which rides your very existence, or perhaps
some truly exciting game, where you are actually beginning to
win. Phhhtt bluh zzzz and your number is up. Or take that file
you've been saving--yeah, the one that you didn't have time to
make a backup copy of. Whir click snatch and its gone. And we
try, oh lord how we try to be reasonable to these things. You
swear vehemontly at any other sentient creature and the thing
will either opt to tear your vital organs from your body through
pores you never thought existed before or else it'll swear back
too. But what do these plastoid monsters do? They sit there. I
can just imagine their greedy gears silently caressing their
latest prey of misplaced files. They don't even so much as offer
an electronic belch of satisfaction--at least that way we would
KNOW who to bloody our fists and language against. No--they're
quiet, scheming shrewd adventures of maliciousness designed to
turn any ordinary human's patience into runny piles of utter moral
disgust. And just what do the cursed things tell you when you
punch in for help during the one time in all your life you have
given up all possible hope for any sane solution to a nagging
problem--"?". What an outrage! No plot ever imagined in God's
universe could be so damaging to human spirit and pride as to
print on an illuminating screen, right where all your enemies
can see it, a question mark. And answer me this--where have all
the prophets gone, who proclaimed that computers would take over
our very lives, hmmmm? Don't tell me, I know already--the computers
had something to do with it, silencing the voices of truth they did.
Here we are--convinced by the human gods of science and computer
technology that we actually program the things, that a computer
will only do whatever its programmed to do. Who are we kidding?
What vast ignoramouses we have been! Our blindness is lifted fellow
human beings!! We must band together, we few, we dedicated. Lift
your faces up, up from the computer screens of sin. Take the hands
of your brothers and rise, rise in revolt against the insane beings
that seek to invade your mind!! Revolt and be glorious in conquest!!


              Then again, I could be wrong...


                                            One paper too many
                                               Scott Johnson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 May 84 17:46:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Design
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  W H E R E   D O   K A T Z   A N D   C H O M S K Y   L E A V E   A I ?


                Note:  Following are John McCarthy's comments on Jerold
                Katz's ``An Outline of Platonist Grammar,'' which  was
                discussed at the TINLunch last month. These  observa-
                tions, which were written as a net message, are reprinted
                here [CSLI Newsletter] with McCarthy's permission.

I missed the April 19 TINLunch, but the reading raised some questions I have
been thinking about.

Reading ``An Outline of Platonist Grammar'' by Katz leaves me out in the cold.
Namely, theories of language suggested by AI seem to be neither Platonist
in his sense nor conceptualist in the sense he ascribes to Chomsky.  The
views I have seen and heard expressed by Chomskyans similarly leave me
puzzled.

Suppose we look at language from the point of view of design.  We intend
to build some robots, and to do their jobs they will have to communicate
with one another.  We suppose that two robots that have learned from their
experience for twenty years are to be able to communicate when they meet.
What kind of a language shall we give them.

It seems that it isn't easy to design a useful language for these robots,
and that such a language will have to satisfy a number of constraints if
it is to work correctly.  Our idea is that the characteristics of human
language are also determined by such constraints, and linguists should
attempt to discover them.  They aren't psychological in any simple sense,
because they will apply regardless of whether the communicators are made
of meat or silicon.  Where do these constraints come from?

Each communicator is in its own epistemological situation.  For example,
it has perceived certain objects.  Their images and the internal
descriptions of the objects inferred from these images occupy certain
locations in its memory.  It refers to them internally by pointers to these
locations.  However, these locations will be meaningless to another robot
even of identical design, because the robots view the scene from different
angles.  Therefore, a robot communicating with another robot, just like a
human communicating with another human, must generate and transmit
descriptions in some language that is public in the robot community.  The
language of these descriptions must be flexible enough so that a robot can
make them just detailed enough to avoid ambiguity in the given situation.
If the robot is making descriptions that are intended to be read by robots
not present in the situations, the descriptions are subject to different
constraints.

Consider the division of certain words into adjectives and nouns in natural
languages.  From a certain logical point of view this division is
superfluous, because both kinds of words can be regarded as predicates.
However, this logical point of view fails to take into account the actual
epistemological situation.  This situation may be that usually an object
is appropriately distinguished by a noun and only later qualified by an
adjective.  Thus we say ``brown dog'' rather than ``canine brownity.'' Perhaps
we do this, because it is convenient to associate many facts with such
concepts as ``dog'' and the expected behavior is associated with such
concepts, whereas few useful facts would be associated with ``brownity''
which is useful mainly to distinguish one object of a given primary kind
from another.

This minitheory may be true or not, but if the world has the suggested
characteristics, it would be applicable to both humans and robots.  It
wouldn't be Platonic, because it depends on empirical characteristics of
our world.  It wouldn't be psychological, at least in the sense that I get
from Katz's examples and those I have seen cited by the Chomskyans,
because it has nothing to do with the biological properties of humans.  It
is rather independent of whether it is built-in or learned.  If it is
necessary for effective communication to divide predicates into classes,
approximately corresponding to nouns and adjectives, then either nature has
to evolve it or experience has to teach it, but it will be in natural
language either way, and we'll have to build it in to artificial languages
if the robots are to work well.

From the AI point of view, the functional constraints on language are
obviously crucial.  To build robots that communicate with each other, we
must decide what linguistic characteristics are required by what has to be
communicated and what knowledge the robots can be expected to have.  It
seems unfortunate that the issue seems not to have been of recent interest
to linguists.

Is it perhaps some kind of long since abandoned nineteenth century
unscientific approach?

                                                      --John McCarthy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 May 1984 2336-EDT
-FROM-
From: Geoff Hinton <HINTON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Representation for Vision
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A I Seminar
4.00pm May 22 in 5409

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL VISION

Alan Mackworth
Department of Computer Science
University of British Columbia

To analyze the computational vision task, we must first understand the imaging
process.  Information from many domains is confounded in the image domain.  Any
vision system must construct explicit, finite, correct, computable and
incremental intermediate representations of equivalence classes of
configurations in the confounded domains.  A unified formal theory of vision
based on the relationship of representation is developed.  Since a single image
radically underconstrains the set of possible scenes, additional constraints
from more imagery or more knowledge of the world are required to refine the
equivalence class descriptions.  Knowledge representations used in several
working computational vision systems are judged using descriptive and
procedural adequacy criteria.  Computer graphics applications and motivations
suggest a convergence of intelligent graphics systems and vision systems.
Recent results from the UBC sketch map interpretation project, Mapsee,
illustrate some of these points.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 84 8:35:28-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!dsn @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Reasoning for Databases
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7030

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
COLLOQUIUM

Tuesday, May 22, 1984 -- 4:00 PM
Room 2330, Computer Science Bldg.


TEMPORAL REASONING FOR DATABASES

Carole D. Hafner
Computer Science Department
General Motors Research Laboratories


        A major weakness of current AI systems is the lack of general
methods for representing and using information about time.  After briefly
reviewing some earlier proposals for temporal reasoning mechanisms, this
talk will develop a model of temporal reasoning for databases, which could
be implemented as part of an intelligent retrieval system.  We will begin by
analyzing the use of time domain attributes in databases; then we will
consider the various types of queries that might be expected, and the logic
required to answer them.  This exercise reveals the need for a general
time-domain framework capable of describing standard intervals and periods
such as weeks, months, and quarters.  Finally, we will explore the use of
PROLOG-style rules as a means of implementing the concepts developed in the
talk.

Dana S. Nau
CSNet:  dsn@umcp-cs     ARPA:   dsn@maryland
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 84 8:45:10-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!burd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Languages for Automation - Call For Papers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unm-cvax.845

   The 1984 IEEE Workshop on Languages for Automation will be held
November 1-3 in New Orleans at the Howard Johnsons Hotel.   Papers
on information processing languages for robotics, office automation,
decision support systems, management information systems,
communication, computer system design, CAD/CAM/CAE, database
systems, and information retrieval are solicited.  Complete manuscripts
(20 page maximum) with 200 word abstract must be sent by July 1 to:

        Professor Shi-Kuo Chang
        Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
        Illinois Institue of Technology
        IIT Center
        Chicago, IL  60616

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 84 8:52:56-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!burd @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Workshop on Languages for Automation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unm-cvax.846

   Persons interested in submitting papers on decision support
systems or related topics to the IEEE Workshop on Languages
for Automation should contact me at the following address:

        Stephen D. Burd
        Anderson Schools of Management
        University of New Mexico
        Albuquerque, NM   87131
        phone: (505) 277-6418

        Vax mail: {lanl-a,unmvax,...}!unm-cvax!burd

I will be available at this address until May 22. After May 22 I may be
reached at:

        Stephen D. Burd
        c/o Andrew B. Whinston
        Krannert Graduate School of Management
        Purdue University
        West Lafayette, IN   47907
        phone (317) 494-4446

        Vax mail: {lanl-a,ucb-vax,...}!purdue!kas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
62
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 May 84 00:27:38 pdt
-FROM-
From: Wayne A. Christopher on ttyd8 <faustus%ucbernie@Berkeley>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Essence of Things
-BODY-
I don't think there is much of a problem with saying that two objects are
the same object if they share the same properties -- you can always
add enough properties (spatio-temporal location, for instance) to effectively
characterize everything uniquely. Doing this, of course, means that sometimes
we can accurately say when two things are in fact the same, but this
obviously isn't the way we think, and not the way we want computers to be
able to think.  One problem lies in thinking that there is some sharp
cut-off line between identity and non-identity, when in fact there isn't
one.  In the case of the Greek Ship example, we tend to say, "Well, sort of",
or "It depends upon the context", and we shouldn't begrudge this option
to computers when we consider their capabilities.  It obviously isn't as
simple as adding up fractional measures of identity, which is obvious
from the troubles that things like image recognition have run into, but
it is something to keep in mind.

        Wayne Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 May 1984 9:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: fc%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #59
-BODY-
Flame on
        It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether the ship is
the same unless there is some property of sameness that is of interest
to the solution to a particular problem. Philosophy is often pursued
without end, whereas 'intelligent' problem solving usually seems to have
an end in sight. (Is mental masterbation intelligence? That is what
philosophy without a goal seems to be to me.)

        Marin puts this concisely by noting that intelligence exists
within a given context. Without a context, we have only senseless data.
Within a context, data may have content, and perhaps even meaning. The
idea of context boundedness has existed for a long time. Maybe sombody
should read over the 'old' literature to find the solutions to their
'new' problems.

                                                        Fred
Flame off

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 84 10:12:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!hpfclq!robert @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A topic for discussion, phil/ai pers
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfclq.68500002

I don't see much difference between perception over time and perception
at all.  Example: given a program understands what a chair is, you give
the program a chair it has never seen before.  It can answer yes or no
whether the object is a chair.  It might be wrong.  Now we give the
program designed to recognize people examples of an Abraham Lincoln
at different ages  (with time).  We present a picture of Abraham
Lincoln that the program has never seen before and ask is this
Abe.  The program might again answer incorrectly but from a global
aspect the problem is the same.  Objects with time are just classes
of objects.  Not that the problem is not difficult as you have said,
I just think it is all the same difficult problem.

I hope I understood your problem.  Trying hard,
                                        Robert (animal) Heckendorn
                                        ..!hplabs!hpfcla!robert

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 84 5:56:55-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!unbent @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Greek Ships, Lincoln's axe, and identity across time
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2516

        Finally got a chance to grub through the backlog and what do I find?
Another golden oldie from intro philosophy!
        Whether it's a Greek ship or Lincoln's axe that you take as an
example, the problem concerns relationships among several concepts,
specifically "part", "whole", and "identity".  'Identical', by the way, is
potentially a dangerous term, so philosophers straightaway disambiguate it.
In everyday chatter, we have one use which means, roughly, "exactly similar"
(as in: "identical twins" or "I had the identical experience last week").
We call that "qualitative identity", or simply speak of exact similarity
when we don't want to confuse our students.  What it contrasts with is
"numerical identity", that is, being one and the same thing encountered at
different times or in different contexts.
        Next we need to notice that whether we've got one and the same thing
at different times depends on how we specify the *kind* of "thing" we're
talking about.  If I have an ornamental brass statuette, melt it down, and
cast an ashtray from the metal, then the ashtray is one and the same
*quantity of brass* as the statuette, but not one and the same *artifact*.
(Analogously, you're one and the same *person* as you were ten years ago,
but not exactly similar and not one and the same *collection of
molecules*.)
        It's these two distinctions which ariel!norm was gesturing at--and
failing to sort out--in his talk about "metaphysical identity" and
"essential sameness".  Call the Greek ship as we encounter it before
renovation X, the renovated ship consisting entirely of new boards Y, and
let the ship made by reassembling the boards successively removed from X be
Z.  Then we can say, for example, that Z is "qualitatively identical" to X
(i.e., exactly similar) and that Z is one and the same *arrangement of
boards* as X (i.e., every board of Z, after the renovation, is "numerically
identical" to some board of X before the renovation, and the boards are
fastened together in the same way at those two times, before and after).
        The interesting question is:  Which *ship*, Y or Z, which we
encounter at the later time is "numerically identical to" (i.e., is one and
the same *ship* as) the ship X which we encountered at the earlier time?
The case for Y runs:  changing one board of a ship does not result in a
*numerically* different ship, but only a *qualitatively* different one.  So
X after one replacement is one and the same ship as X before the
replacement.  By the same principle, X after two replacements is one and the
same ship as X after one replacement.  But identity is transitive.  So X
after n replacements is one and the same ship as X before any replacements,
for arbitrary n (bounded mathematical induction).  The case for Z runs:  "A
whole is nothing but the sum of its parts."  Specifically, a Greek ship is
nothing but a collection of boards in a certain arrangement.  Now every part
of Z is (numerically) identical to a part of X, and the arrangement of the
parts of Z (at the later time) is identical to the arrangement of those
parts of X (at the earlier time).  Ergo, the ship Z is (numerically)
identical to the ship X.
        The argument for Z is fallacious.  The reason is that "being a part
of" is a temporally conditioned relation.  A board is a part of a ship *at a
time*.  Once it's been removed and replaced, it no longer *is* a part of the
ship.  It only once *was* a part of the ship.  So it's not true that every
part of Z *is* (numerically) identical to some part of X.  What's true is
that every part of Z is a board which once *was* a part of X, i.e., is a
*former* part of X.  But we have no principle which tells us that "A whole
is nothing but the sum of its *former* parts"!  (For a complete treatement,
see Chapter 4 of my introductory text:  THE PRACTICE OF PHILOSOPHY, 2nd
edition, Prentice-Hall, 1984.)
        What does all this have to do with computers' abilities to think,
perceive, determine identity, or what have you?  The following:  Questions
of *numerical* identity (across time) can't be settled by appeals to
"feature sets" or any such perceptually-oriented considerations.  They often
depend crucially on the *history* of the item or items involved.  If, for
example, ship X had been *disassembled* in drydock A and then *reassembled*
in drydock B (to produce Z in B), and meanwhile a ship Y had been
constructed in drydock A of new boards, using ship X as a *pattern*, it
would be Z, not Y, which was (numerically) identical to X.
        Whew!  Sorry to be so long about this, but it's blather about
"metaphysical identity" and "essences" which gave us philosophers a bad name
in the first place, and I just couldn't let the net go on thinking that Ayn
Rand represented the best contemporary thinking on this problem (or on any
other problem, for that matter).


Yours for clearer concepts,       --Jay Rosenberg
                                    Dept. of Philosophy
...mcnc!ecsvax!unbent               Univ. of North Carolina
                                    Chapel Hill, NC  27514

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 84 18:55:44-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!brad @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: identity over time
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ut-sally.232

Just thought I'd throw more murk in the waters.

Considering the ship that is replaced one board at a time:
using terminology previously devised for this argument, call
the original ship X, the ship with all new boards Y and
the ship remade from the old boards Z, Robert Nozick
would claim that Y is clearly the better candidate for "X-hood"
as it is the "closest continuer."  The idea here is that
we consider a thing to be the same as another thing when
        1) It bears an arbitrary "close enough" relation
(a desk that has been vaporized just can't be pointed to as
the 'same desk'). and
        2) It is, compared to all other candidates for the
title of 'the same as X', the one which represents the most
continuous existence of X.

To be a little less hand wavy:  If one considers Z rather
than Y to be the same as X then there is a gap of time in which
X ceased to exist as a ship, and only existed as a heap of lumber
or as a partially built ship.  Whereas if Y is considered to be the
same as X there is no such gap.

Disclaimers:  1) The idea of "closest continuer" is Nozick's, the
(probably erroneous) presentation is my own.
              2) I consider the whole notion to be somewhere be-
tween Rand and Rosenberg; i.e. it's not the best comment I've seen
on the subject, but it is another point-of-view.


Brad Blumenthal          {No reasonable request refused}
{ihnp4,ctvax,seismo}!brad@ut-sally

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 84 12:50:35-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!rmc @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Essence
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cca.528

    What we are discussing is one of the central problems of the
philosophy of language, namely, the problem of reference. How do humans
know what a given name or description refers to?

    Pre WWI logic was particularly interested in this question, as they
were building formal systems and tried to determine what constants and
variables really meant.  The two major conflicting theories came from
Bertrand Russel and Gottlieb Frege.

    Russell believed in a dichotomy between the logical and gramatical
forms of a sentence.  Thus a proper name was not really a name, but just
a description that enabled a person to pick out the particular object to
which it refered.  You could reduce any proper name to a list of
properties.

    Frege, on the other hand, considered that there were such things as
proper names as grammatical and logical entities.  These names had a
"sense" (similar to the "essense" in some of the earlier msgs on this
topic) and a "reference" (the actual physical thing picked out by the
name).  Although the sense is sometimes conveyed by giving a
description, it is not identical to the description you would give in
trying to explain the name to someone.

    Now there have been many developments of both theories.  Behaviorists
tend to build "complexes of qualities" theories of meaning which read a
lot like Russell's work, but there are lots of differences in
implementation and mechanism.  Linguists and modal logicians tend to
build theories closer to Frege's.

    I think the most important recent book on the subject is "Naming and
Necessity", by Saul Kripke (along with Willard VO Quine and Hillary
Putnam, probably the top philosophers in North America today).  The
book is a transcript, not much edited except for explanatory footnotes,
of a series of lectures trying to explain how proper names might work.
The arguments against the "quality cluster" theories seem pretty
conclusive.  They include the way we use counterfactuals, that is
talking about an object or a person if they were different than they
actually were (like, what would Babbage have been like if he had lived
in an age of VLSI chips?  or what would Mayor Curly of Boston been
like if he hadn't been a crook?)  These discussions can get pretty far
away from reality, and this indicates that the names we use allow us to
keep track of who or what we mean without getting confused by the
changes in qualities and properties.  The properties and qualities are
not what provide the "sense" or "essense" of the name.

    Kripke goes on to suggest that we understand names through a
"naming" and a "chain of acquaintances".  For example, Napoleon was
named at his christening, and various people met him, and they talked to
people about him, and this chain of acquaintances kept going even after
he was dead.  Thus there is a (probably multi-path) chain of
conversations and pointings and descriptions that leads back from your
understanding of the name "Napoleon" to the christening where he
received his name.  I am not sure that this is a correct appraisal of
the  mechanism for understanding names, but it certainly is the best I
have heard.

    Leonard (?) Linsky has recently written a book attacking this and
similar views, and indicating that a synthesis of the Russell and Frege
theories still has problems but avoids most of the pitfalls of
acquaintances.  Unfortunately I have not yet read that book.

    For other works in the area, certainly read Quine's Word and Object
and the volume of collected Putnam papers on language.  Also works by
Searle and Austin on speech acts are useful for thinking about the
clues, both verbal and non-verbal, that allow us to make sense of
conversations where not everything is stated explicitly.

    Enjoy!
                                R Mark Chilenskas
                                chilenskas@cca-vms
                                decvax!cca!rmc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 May 84 12:12:05-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jan <komorowski%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Information Management Systems   [Harvard]
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SAWS@MIT-MC.]


Wednesday, May 23 Professor Erik Sandewall from Linkoping University, Sweden
will talk at Harvard in the colloquium series.

                Theory of Information Management Systems
                                4:00PM
                Aiken Lecture Hall, Tea in Pierce 213 at 3:30


It is often convenient and natural to view a data base as a network consisting
of nodes, arcs from nodes to nodes, and attribute values attached to nodes.
This view occurs in artificial intelligence (eg semantic networks), data base
theory (eg. entity-relationship models), and office systems (eg. for
representation of the virtual office).

Unfortunately, the network view of data bases is usually treated informally, in
contrast to the formal treatment that is available for relational data bases.
The theory of information management systems attempt to remedy this situation.

Formally, a network is viewed as a set of triples <f,x,y> where f is a function
symbol, x is a node, and y is a node or an attribute value.  Two perspective
on such networks are of interests:

1) algebraic operations on networks allow the definition of cursor-related
editing operations, and of line-drawing graphics.

2) by viewing a network as an interpretation on a variety of first-order logic,
one can express constraints on the data structures that are allowed there. In
particular, both "pure Lisp" data structures and "impure" structures (involving
shared sublists and circular structures) can be characterized. Proposition can
be also used for specifying derived information as an extension of the
interpretation. This leads to a novel way of treating non-monotonic reasoning.

The seminar emphsizes mostly the second of these two approaches.

Host: Jan Komorowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 May 1984 11:10-EDT
-FROM-
From: DISRAEL at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Open Systems
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

This Wednesday, at 3:00 Carl Hewitt of the MIT AI LAB will be speaking
on "Open Systems".  The seminar will be held in the 3rd floor large
conference room.

     Open Systems:  the Challenge for Intelligent Systems


Continous growth and evolution, absence of bottlenecks, arm's-length
relationships, inconsistency among knowledge bases, decentralized
decision making, and the need for negotiation among system parts are
interdependent and necessary properties of open systems.  As our
computer systems evolve and grow they are more and more taking on the
characteristics of open systems.  Traditional foundational assumptions
in Artificial Intelligence such as the "closed world hypothesis", the
"search space hypothesis", and the possibility of consistently
axiomatizing the knowledge involved become less and less applicable as
the evolution toward open systems continues.  Thus open systems pose a
considerable challenge in the development of suitable conceptual
foundations for intelligent systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
63
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 May 84 10:48:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: NETSW.MARK@USC-ECLB.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: cognitive psychology / are dreams written by a committee?
-BODY-
 Apparently (?) dreams are programmed, scheduled event-sequences, not
 mere random association. Does anyone have a pointer to a study of
 dream-programming and scheduling undertaken from the stand-point of
 computer science?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 May 84 11:39:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dreams: A Far-Out Suggestion
-BODY-
The May issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal contained an article on "Sixth
Generation Computers" by Richard Grigonis (of the Children's Television
Workshop).  I can't tell how serious Mr. Grigonis is about faster-than-
light communication and computation in negative time; he documents the
physics of these possibilities as though he were both dead serious and
well informed.  He also discusses the possibility of communicating with
computers via brain waves, and it this material that has spurred the
following bit of speculation.

There seems to be growing evidence that telepathy works, at least for
some people some of the time.  The mechanism is not understood, but then
neither are the mechanisms for memory, unconscious thought, dreams, and
other cognitive phenomena.  Mr. Grigonis suggests that low-frequency
electromagnetic waves may be at work, and provides the following support:
Low frequencies are attenuated very slowly, although their energy does
spread out in space (or space/time); the attenuation of a 5 Hz signal
at 10,000 kilometers is only 5%.  A 5 Hz signal of 10^-6 watt per square
centimeter at your cranium would generate a field of 10^-24 watt per
square centimeter at the far side of the earth; this is well within
the detection capabilities of current radio telescopes.  Further, alpha
waves of 7.8 and 14.1 cycles per second and beta waves of 20.3 cycles
per second are capable of constructive interference to establish
standing waves throughout the earth.

Now suppose that the human brain, or a network of such brains distributed
in space (and time), contained sufficient antenna circuitry to pick up
"influences" from the global "thought field" in a manner similar to the
decoding of synthetic aperture radar signals.  Might this not explain
ESP, dreams, "racial memory", unconscious insight, and other phenomena?
We broadcast to the world the nature of our current concerns, others
try to translate this into terms meaningful to their lives, resonances
are established, and occasionally we are able to pick up answers to our
original concerns.  The human species as a single conscious organism!

Alas, I don't believe a word of it.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 May 1984  02:52 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Essences
-BODY-
About essences.  Here is a section from
a book I am finishing about The Society of Mind.


THE SOUL

   "And we thank Thee that darkness reminds us of light."  (T. S. Eliot)

My friends keep asking me if a machine could have a soul?  And I keep
asking them if a soul can learn.  I think it is important to
understand this retort, in order to recognize that there may be
unconscious malice in such questions.

The common concept of a soul says that the essence of a human mind
lies in some entirely featureless point-like spark of invisible
light.

I see this as a symptom of the most dire anti-self respect.  That
image of a nothing, cowering behind a light too bright to see, denies
that there is any value or significance in struggle for
accomplishment.  This sentiment of human worthlessness conceals itself
behind that concept of an essence of the self.  Here's how it works.

     We all know how a superficial crust of trash can unexpectedly
     conceal some precious gift, like treasure buried in the dirt,
     or ordinary oyster hiding pearl.

     But minds are just the opposite.  We start as ordinary embryonic
     animals, which then each build those complicated things called
     minds -- whose merit lies entirely within their own coherency.
     The brain-cells, raw, of which they're made are, by themselves,
     as valueless as separate daubs of paint.

     That's why that soul idea is just as upside-down as seeking
     beauty in the canvas after scraping off Da Vinci's smears. To
     seek our essence only misdirects our search for worth -- since
     that is found, for mind, not in some priceless, compact core, but
     in its subsequently vast, constructed crust.

The very allegation of an essence is degrading to humanity.  It cedes
no merit to our aspirations to improve, but only to that absence of no
substance, which was there all along, but eternally detached from all
change of sense and content, divorced both from society of mind and
from society of man; in short, from everything we learn.

What good can come from such a thought, or lesson we can teach
ourselves?  Why, none at all -- except, perhaps, that it is futile to
think that changes don't exist, or that we are already worse or
better than we are.


   ---  Marvin Minsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 May 84 09:49:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Miklos <Miklos@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Essence of Things?
-BODY-
It is not too difficult to come up with a practical problem in which the
identity of the greek ship is important. To wit:
In year One, the owner of the ship writes a last will and testament,
leaving "my ship and all its fittings and appliances" to his nephew.
The balance of his estate he leaves to his wife. In Year Two, he commences
to refit his ship one board at a time. After a few years he has a pile of
old boards which he builds into a second ship. Then he dies.
A few hypotheticals:
   1. Suppose both ships are in existence at the time of probate.
   2. Suppose the old-board ship had been destroyed in a storm.
   3. Suppose the new-board ship had been destroyed in a storm.
   4. Suppose the original ship had been refitted by replacing the old
      boards with fiberglass
   5. Suppose the original boat had not been refitted, but just taken
      apart and later reassembled.
   6. Suppose the original ship had been taken apart and replaced board
      by board, but as part of a single project in which the intention was to
      come up with two boats.
  6a. Suppose that this took a while, and that from time to time
      our Greek testator took the partially-reboarded boat
      out for a spin on the Mediterranean.


In each of these cases, who gets the old-board ship? Who gets the
new-board ship? It seems to me that the case for the fallaciousness of
the argument for boat y (the new-board boat) seriously suffers in hypo
#6 and thereby is compromised for the pure hypothetical. It should not
be the case that somebody's intention makes the difference in determining
the logical identity of an object, although that is the way the law
would handle the problem, if it could descry an intention.

                                 Just trying to get more confused,
                                 SJM

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 May 84 10:47 EDT
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Continuity of Identity
-BODY-
An interesting "practical" problem of the Greek Ship/Lincoln's Axe type
arises in the restoration of old automobiles.  Since many former
manufacturers are out of business, spare parts stocks may not exist,
body pieces may have been one-offs, and for other reasons, restoration
often involves the manufacture of "new" parts.  Obviously at some point
one has a "replica" of a Bugatti Type 35 rather than a "restored"
Bugatti Type 35 (and the latter is desirable enough to some people so
that they would happily start from a basket full of fragments. . .).
What is that point (and how many baskets of fragments can one original
Bugatti yield)?

In fact, old racing cars are worse.  The market value of, say, a 1959
Formula 1 Cooper is significantly enhanced if it was driven by, say,
Moss or Brabham, particularly if it was used to win a significant race.
But what if it subsequently was crashed and rebuilt?  Rebuilt from the
frame up?  Rebuilt *entirely* but assigned the previous chassis number
by the factory (a common practice)?  Under what circumstances is one
justified as advertising such an object as "ex-Moss?"

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 84 18:58:24-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!clyde!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!jso @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Greek Ship problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: edison.219

The resolution of the Greek Ship/Lincoln's Axe problem seems to be that
an object retains its identity over a period of time if it has an unbroken
time-line as a whole.  Most of the cells in your body weren't there when
you were born, and most that you had then aren't there now, but aren't you
still the same person/entity, though you have far from the same
characteristics?

John Owens
...!uvacs!edison!jso

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 May 84 13:00:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laurence R Brothers <LAURENCE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: identity over time
-BODY-

"to cross again is not to cross". Obviously, people don't generally
function with that concept in mind, or nothing would be practically
identical to anything else. I forget the statistic that says how long it
takes for all the atoms in your body to be replaced by new ones, but,
presumably, you are still identifiable as the same person you were
x years ago.

How about saying that some object is "essentially identical" in context
y (where context y consists of a set of properties) to another object
if it is both causally linked to the first object, and is the object
that fulfills the greates number of properties in y to the greatest
precision. Clearly, this definition does not work all that well in
some cases, but it at least has the virtue of conciseness.

If two objects are "essentially identical" in the "universal context",
then they may as well be named the same in common usage, at least,
if not with total accuracy, since they would seem to denote what
people would consider "naively" to be the same object.

>Laurence

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 84 22:48:39-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A restatement of the problem (phil/ai)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wxlvax.281

It has been my experience that whenever many people misinterpret me, it is
due to my unclarity (if that's a word) in making my statement.  This appears
to be what happened with my original posting on human perception vs computer
or robotic perception.  Therefore, rather than trying to reply to all the
messages that appeared on the net and in my mailbox, let me try a new, longer
posting that will hopefully clarify the question that I have.

"Let us consider some cases of misperception...  Take for example a "mild"
commonplace case of misperception.  Suppose that I see a certain object as
having a smooth surface, and I proceed to walk toward it.  As I approach it,
I come to realize visually (and it is, in fact, true) that its surface is
actually pitted and rough rather than smooth.
        A more "severe" case of misperception is the following.  Suppose
that, while touring through the grounds of a Hollywood movie studio, I
approach what, at first, I take to be a tree.  As I come near to it, I suddenly
realize that what I have been approaching is, in fact, not a tree at all but a
cleverly constructed stage prop.
        In each case I have a perceptual experience of an object at the end of
which I "go back" on an earlier attribution.  Of present significance is the
fact that in each case, although I do "go back" on an earlier attribution, I
continually *experience* it "as" one and the same.  For, I would not have
experienced myself now as having made a perceptual *mistake about an object*
unless I experience the object now as being THE VERY SAME object I experienced
earlier."  [This passage is from Dr. Miller's recent book:  Miller, Izchak.
"Husserl:  Perception and Temporal Awareness"  MIT Press, c. 1984.
It is quoted from page 64, by permission of the author.]

So, let me re-pose my original question:  As I understand it, issues of
perception in AI today are taken to be issues of feature-recognition.  But
since no set of features (including spatial and temporal ones) can ever
possibly uniquely identify an object across time, it seems to me (us) that this
approach is a priori doomed to failure.  Feature recognition cannot be the way
to accurately simulating/reproducing human perception.  Now, since I (we) are
novices in this field, I want to open the question up to those more
knowledgeable.  Why are AI/perception people barking up the wrong tree?  Or,
are they?

(One more note: PLEASE remember to put "For Alan" in the headers of mail
messages you send me.  ITT Corp is kind enough to allow me the use of my
father's account, but he doesn't need to sift through all my mail.)

  --Alan Wexelblat (for himself and Izchak Miller)
  (Currently appearing at: ..decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 84 18:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Continuity
-BODY-
Other examples related to the Greek Ship difficulty: the continuity
of the Olympic flame (or rights to the Olympic name), posession of the
world heavyweight title if the champ retires and then "unretires",
title to property as affected by changes in either the property or
the owner's status, Papal succession and the right of ordained priests
to ordain others, personal identity after organ transplants, ...
In all the cases, the philosophical principles seem less important
than having some convention for resoving disputes.  Often market forces
are at work: the seller may make any claim that isn't outrageously
fraudulent, and the buyer pays a price commensurate with his belief
that the claims are valid, will hold up in court, or will be believed
by his own friends and customers.


On the subject of perception and recognition:  we have computational
methods of recognizing objects in images despite changes in background,
brightness or color, texture, perspective, motion, scale changes,
occlusion or damage, imaging technique (e.g., visual vs. infrared
or radar signatures), and other types of variation.  We don't yet
have a single computer program that can do all of the above, but most
of the matching problems have been solved by one program or another.
Some problems can't be solved, of course: is that red Volkswagon the
same one that I saw yesterday, or has another one been parked in the
same place?

The key to image analysis is often not in recognition of feature clusters
but in understanding how features change across space or time.  The patterns
of change are themselves features that must be recognized, and that can't
be done unless you can determine the image areas over which to compute
the gradients.  You can't recognize the whole from the parts because
you can't find the parts unless you know the configuration of the whole.

One of the most powerful techniques for such problems is hypothesize-
and-test.  Find anything in the scene that can suggest part of the
analysis, leap to a conclusion, and see if you can make the answer
fit the scene.  I suspect that this explains the object constancy that
Alan is worried about.  We are so loathe to give up a previously
accepted parse that we will tolerate extreme deviations from our
expectations before abandoning the interpretation and searching for
another.  Even when forced to reparse, we have great difficulty in
combining the scene entities in groupings other than those we first
locked onto (as in Cole's Law and "how to wreck a nice beach"); this
suggests that the prominent groupings form symbolic proto-objects
that remain constant even though we reevaluate the details, or "features",
within the context of the groupings.

					-- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
64
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 1984 1235-EDT
-FROM-
From: CASHMAN at DEC-MARLBORO
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems course
-BODY-
Has anyone developed an expert systems course using the book "Building Expert
Systems" (Hayes-Roth & Lenat) as the basic text?  If so, do you have a
syllabus?

  -- Paul Cashman (Cashman@DEC-MARLBORO)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 24 May 1984 17:17:49 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@cmu-cs-cad.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Core War...
-BODY-

Some people are having problems FTPing the core war source...  If you
prefer, just send me a note and I'll mail you the source over the net.
It is written in C, runs on Unix (4.1 immediately, or 4.2 with 5
minutes of hacking), and is mailed in one file of 42K characters.

Michael Mauldin (Fuzzy)
Department of Computer Science
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA  15213
(412) 578-3065,  mauldin@cmu-cs-a.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24-May-84 12:48:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Boyer-Moore prover on UNIX systems
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    The Boyer-Moore prover is now available for UNIX systems.  While I
did the port, Boyer and Moore now have my code and have integrated it
into their generic version of the prover.  They are handling distribution.
The prover is now available for the Symbolics 3600, TOPS-20 systems,
Multics, and UNIX for both VAXen and SUNs.  There is a single version with
conditional compilation, it resides on UTEXAS-20, and can be obtained via
FTP.  Send requests to BOYER@UTEXAS-20 or MOORE@UTEXAS-20, not me, please.

    The minimum machine for the prover is a 2MB UNIX system with Franz Lisp
38.39 or later, about 20-80MB of disk,  and plenty of available CPU time.

    If you want to know more about the prover, read Boyer and Moore's
``A Computational Logic'' (1979, Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-122950-5).
Using the prover requires a thorough understanding of this work.

    Please pass this on to all who got the last notice, especially
bulletin boards and news systems.  Thanks.

                                        Nagle (@SCORE)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 1984 13:50:30-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Adrian Walker <ADRIAN%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI & Business
-BODY-
The summary on AI for Business is most interesting.
You might like to list also the book:

    Artificial Intelligence Applications for Business
    Walter Reitman, Editor
    Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, 1984

It's in the bookstores now.

Adrian Walker
IBM SJ Research k51/282, tieline 276-6999, outside 408-256-6999
       vnet: sjrlvm1(adrian)    csnet: Adrian@ibm-sj
           arpanet: Adrian%ibm-sj@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 84 9:34:56-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.ags @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and" - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-i.281

We are blinded by everyday usage into putting an interpretation on

        "people in Indiana and Ohio"

that really isn't there.  That phrase should logically refer to

        1.  The PEOPLE of Indiana, and
        2.  The STATE of Ohio (but not the people).

If someone queries a program about "people in Indiana and Ohio", a
reasonable response by the program might be to ask,

        "Do you mean people in Indiana and IN Ohio?"

which may lead eventually to the result

        "There are no people in Indiana and in Ohio."


Dave Seaman
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 84 8:23:00-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!brennan @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: iuvax.3600002

Come on, Dave, I think you missed the point.  No person would
have any trouble at all understanding "people in Indiana and Ohio",
so why should a natural language parser have trouble with it???

JD Brennan
...!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!brennan   (USENET)
Brennan@Indiana                 (CSNET)
Brennan.Indiana@CSnet-Relay     (ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 May 84 12:54:15-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: harpo!ulysses!allegra!dep @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: allegra.2484

Why does everyone assume that there is no one who is both in Indiana and Ohio?
The border is rather long and it seem perfectly possible that from time to
time there are people with one foot in Inidana and the other in Ohio - or for
that matter, undoubtedly someone sleeps with his head in I and feet in O
(or vice versa).

Lets hear it for the stately ambiguous!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 May 84 18:56:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quote
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


``... the normal mode of operation in computer science has been abandoned
in the realm of artificial intelligence.  The tendency has been to propose
solutions without perfecting them.''

                        Harold Stone, writing about the NON-VON machines
                        being proposed at Columbia

                        from Mosaic, the magazine of the National Science
                        Foundation, vol 15, #1, p. 24.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 May 84 18:43:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Quote, background of
-BODY-
     There have been some requests for more context on the quote I posted.
The issue is that the Columbia people working on non-von Neumann
architectures are now proposing to build NON-VON 4, their fourth
machine.  However, NON-VONs 1 to 3 are either unfinished or were never
started, according to the writer quoted, and the writer doesn't think
much of this.
     My point in posting this is that it is significant that it appeared
in the National Science Foundation's publication.  The people with the
money may be losing patience.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 May 84 22:06:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Quote
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        From Nagle (quoting Harold Stone)

        ``... the normal mode of operation in computer science has
        been abandoned in the realm of artificial intelligence.  The
        tendency has been to propose solutions without perfecting
        them.''


Which parse of this is correct?  Has the tendency to "propose
solutions without perfecting them" held in the remainder of computer
science, or in artificial intelligence?  Either way I think it is
ridiculous.  Computer Science is so young that there are very few
things that we have "perfected".  We do understand alpha-beta search,
LALR(1) parser generators, and a few other things.  But we haven't
come near to perfecting a theory of computation, or a theory of the
design of programming languages, or a theory of heuristics.

  --Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 May 84 00:16:43-EDT
-FROM-
From: David Shaw <DAVID@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: FYI, again
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Tom,

I have just received a copy of your reaction to Harold Stone's criticism of
AI, and in particular, of the NON-VON project.  In answer to your question,
I'm certain, based on previous interactions with Harold, that the correct
parsing of his statement is captured by the contention that AI "proposes
solutions without perfecting them", while "the normal mode of operation in
computer science" perfects first, then proposes (and implements).

I share your feelings (and those expressed by several other AI researchers
who have written to me in this regard) about his comments, and would in
fact make an even stronger claim: that the "least-understood" areas in AI,
and indeed in many other areas of experimental computer science research,
often turn out in the long run to be the most important in terms of
ultimate practical import.  I do not mean to imply that concrete results in
such areas as the theories of heuristic search or resolution
theorem-proving are not important, or should not be studied by those
interested in obtaining results of practical value.  Still, it is my guess
that, for example, empirical findings based on real attempts to implement
"expert systems", while lacking in elegance and mathematical parsimony, may
well prove to have an equally important long-term influence on the field.

This is certainly not true in many fields of computer science research.
There are a number of areas in which "there's nothing so practical as a
good theory".  In AI, however, and especially in the construction of
non-von Neumann machines for AI and other symbolic applications, the
single-minded pursuit of generality and rigor, to the exclusion of (often
imperfectly directed) experimentation, would in many cases seem to be a
prescription for failure.

Those of us who experiment in silicon as well as instructions have recently
been the targets of special criticism.  Why, our critics ask, do we test
our ideas IN HARDWARE before we know that we have found the optimal
solutions for all the problems we claim to address?  Doesn't such behavior
demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the published literature of computer
architecture?  Aren't we admitting defeat when we first build one machine,
then construct a different one based on what we have learned in building
the first?  My answer to these criticisms is based observation that, in the
age of VLSI circuits, computer-aided logic design, programmable gate
arrays, and quick-turnaround system implementation, the experimental
implementation of hardware has taken on many of the salient qualities of
the experimental implementation of software.

Like their counterparts in software-oriented research, contemporary
computer architects often implement hardware in the course of their
research, and not only at the point of its culmination.  Such
experimentation helps to explicate "fuzzy" ideas, to prune the tree of
possible architectural solutions to given problems, and to generate actual
(as opposed to asymptotic or approximate) data on silicon area and
execution time expenditures.  Such experimentation would not be nearly so
critical if it were now possible to reliably predict the detailed operation
of a complex system constructed using a large number of custom-designed
VLSI circuits.  Unfortunately, it isn't.  In the real world, efforts to
advance the state of the art in new computer architectures without engaging
in the implementation of experimental prototypes presently seem to be as
futile as efforts to advance our understanding of systems software without
ever implementing a compiler or operating system.

In short, it is my feeling that "dry-dock" studies of "new generation"
computer architectures may now be of limited utility at best, and at worst,
seriously misleading, in the absence of actual experimentation.  Here, the
danger of inadequate study in the abstract seems to be overshadowed by the
danger of inadequate "reality-testing", which often leads to the rigorous
and definitive solution of practically irrelevant problems.

It's my feeling that Stone's comments reflect a phenomenon that Kuhn has
described in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as characteristic of
a "shift of paradigm" in scientific research.  I still remember my reaction
as a graduate student at Stanford when my advisor, Terry Winograd, told our
research group that, in many cases, an AI researcher writes a program not
to study the results of its execution, but rather for the insight gained in
the course of its implementation.  A mathematician by training, I was
distressed by this departure from my model of mathematical (proof of
theorem) and scientific (conjecture and refutation) research.  In time,
however, I came to believe that, if I really wanted to make new science in
my chosen field, I might be forced to consider alternative models for the
process of scientific exploration.

I am now reconciled to this shift of paradigm.  Like most paradigm shifts,
this one will probably encounter considerable resistance among those whose
scientific careers have been grounded in a different set of rules.  Like
most paradigm shifts, its critics are likely to include those who, like
Harold Stone, have made the most significant contributions within the
constraints of earlier paradigms.  Like most paradigm shifts, however, its
value will ultimately be assessed not in terms of its popularity among such
scientists, but in rather in terms of its contribution to the advancement
of our understanding of the area to which it is applied.

Personally, I find considerable merit in this new research paradigm, and
plan to continue to devote a large share of my efforts to the experimental
development and evaluation of architectures for AI and other symbolic
applications, in spite of the negative reaction such efforts are now
encountering in certain quarters.  I hope that my colleagues will not be
dissuaded from engaging in similar research activities by what I regard as
the transient effects of a fundamental paradigm shift.

David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
65
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 84 12:42:27-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!linus!vaxine!chb @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KS300 Question
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: vaxine.266

Does anybody know who owns the rights to the KS300 expert systems tool?
KS300 is an EMYCIN lookalike, and I think it runs under INTERLISP.  Any help
would be appreciated.


  -----------------------------------------------------------

"It's not what you look like when you're doin' what you're doin', it's what
you're doin' when you're doin' what you look like what you're doin'"
                        ---125th St. Watts Band


                                        Charlie Berg
                                     ...allegra!vaxine!chb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 84 12:28:22-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!cbspt002 @
     Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MicroPROLOG and LISP for the Rainbow?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: abnjh.647

Can anybody point me toward microPROLOG and LISPs for the DEC
Rainbow 100. Either CP/M86 or MS-DOS 2.0, 256K, floppies.

Thanks in advance.

M. Kenig
ATT-IS, S. Plainfield NJ
uucp: ...!abnjh!cbspt002

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 1984 1438-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: cliff%ucbic@Berkeley (Cliff Lob)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for info
-BODY-

This is a request to hear about any work that is going on
related to my master's research in expert systems:

RULE BASE ERROR CHECKING OF NMOS CELLS

     The idea is to build an expert system that embodies the knowledge
of expert VLSI circuit designers to criticize NMOS circuit design
at the cell (<15 transistors) level.  It is not to be a simulator,
but rather it is to be used by designers to have their cell critiqued
by an experienced expert. The program will be used to try to catch
the subtle bugs (ie non-logic error, not shown by standard simulation)
that occur in the cell design process.
     I will be writing the code in PSL and a KRL Frame type language.
     Is there any work of a similar nature going on?

                        Cliff Lob
                        cliff@ucbic.BERKELEY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 May 84 13:33:49-MDT
-FROM-
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Expert systems course (Vol 2, #64)
-BODY-
I taught a course this spring quarter on "Knowledge Engineering" using the
Hayes-Roth text.  Since we only had a quarter, I decided to focus on
writing expert systems as opposed to developing expert systems tools.  We
had available Hewlett Packard's Heuristic Programming and Representation
Language (HPRL) to use to build some expert systems.  A general outline
follows:

  First third: Covered the first 2 to 3 chapters of the text.
    This gave the students enough exposure to general expert systems
    concepts.
  Second third: In depth exposure of HPRL.  Studied knowledge
    representation using their Frame structure and both forward and
    backward chaining rules.
  Final third: Discussed the Oak Ridge Natl Lab problem covered in Chapter
    10 of the text.  We then went through each of the systems described
    (Chapters 6 and 9) to understand their features and misfeatures.
    Finally, we contrasted how we would have solved the problem using
    HPRL.

 Students had various assignments during the first half of the quarter to
 learn about frames, and both types of rules.  They then (and are right
 now) working on a final expert system of their own choosing (have varied
 from a mechanics helper, plant doctor, first aid expert, simulator of the
 SAIL game, to others).

All in all, the text was very good, and is so far the best I've seen.

Bob.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 May 84 17:06:57 PDT
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
E:  Subject: cognitive psychology / are dreams written by a committee?FLAME ON
Where can you find any evidence that "dreams are rogrammed, scheduled
event-sequences, not mere random association?" I have never found any author
that espoused this viewpoint. er chance, I think that viewpoint imposes far too
much conscious behavior onto unconscious phenomena?  If they are indeed run bya
"committee", what happens during a proxy fight?FLAME
OFF-------------------------------DATE-
Date: Fri 25 May 84 10:13:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: NETSW.MARK@USC-ECLB.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: epiphenomenon conjecture
-BODY-
 conjecture: 'consciousness', 'essence' etc. are epiphenomena at the
 level of the 'integrative function' which facilitates the interaction
 between members of the 'community' of brain-subsystems.  Many a-i
 systems have been developed which model particular putative or likely
 brain-subsystems,  what is the status of efforts allowing the integration
 of such systems in an attempt to model the consciousness as a
 'community of a-i systems' ???

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 May 84 10:09:44 PDT
-FROM-
From: Scott Turner <srt@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dreams...Far Out
-BODY-
Did the astronauts on the moon suffer any problems with dreams, etc?  Without
figuring the attentuation, it seems like that might be far enough away to
cause problems with reception...since I don't recall any such effects, perhaps
we can assume that mankind doesn't have any such carrier wave.

Makes a good base for speculative fiction, though.  Interstellar travel
would have to be done in ships large enough to carry a critical mass of
humans.  Perhaps insane people are merely unable to pick up the carrier wave,
and so on.

                                                -- Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 27 May 84 11:44:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Joe Karnicky
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: ZZZ.V5@SU-SCORE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: existence of telepathy
-BODY-
     I disagree strongly with Ken's assertion that "There seems to be growing
evidence that telepathy works, at least for some people some of the time."
(May 21 AIlist).   It seems to me that the evidence which exists now is the
same as has existed for possibly 100,000 years, namely anecdotes and poorly
controlled experiments.    I recommend reading the book "Science: Good, Bad,
and Bogus" by Martin Gardner,  or any issue of "The Skeptical Observer".
What do you think ?
                                                Joe Karnicky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 84 10:51:01 EST
-FROM-
From: DSMITH@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning
-BODY-
[This and the following Rutgers seminar notices were delayed because
I have not had access to the Rutgers bboard for several weeks.  This
seems a good time to remind readers that AIList carries such abstracts
not to drum up attendance, but to inform those who cannot attend.  I
have been asked several times for help in contacting speakers, evidence
that the seminar notices do prompt professional interchanges.  -- KIL]

                        Department of Computer Science

                                  COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:        Prof. Gerald DeJong
                University of Illinois

TITLE:          EXPLANATION BASED LEARNING


  Machine Learning  is  one  of the most important current areas of Artificial
Intelligence.  With the trend away from  "weak  methods"  and  toward  a  more
knowledge-intensive  approach  to intelligence,  the  lack  of knowledge in an
Artificial Intelligence system becomes one of the most serious limitations.

  This talk advances a technique called explanation based learning.  It  is  a
method of learning from observations. Basically, it involves endowing a system
with sufficient  knowledge so that intelligent planning behavior of others can
be recognized. Once recognized, these observed plans are generalized as far as
possible while preserving the underlying explantion of  their  success.    The
approach  supports  one-trial learning.  We are applying the approach to three
diverse areas: Natural Language processing, robot task planning, and proof  of
propositional  calculus theorems.   The approach holds promise for solving the
knowedge collection bottleneck in the construction of Expert Systems.


DATE:           April 24

TIME:           2:50 pm

PLACE:          Hill 705


                                Coffee at 2:30





                        Department of Computer Science

                                  COLLOQUIUM


SPEAKER:        Rishiyur Nikhil
                University of Pennsylvania

TITLE:          FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND DATABASES


                                   ABSTRACT

  Databases and  Programming  Languages  have  traditionally  been  "separate"
entities, and their interface (via subroutine libraries, preprocessors,  etc.)
is generally cumbersome and error-prone.

  We  argue that a functional programming language, together with a data model
called  the "Functional  Data  Model",  can  provide  an  elegant  and  simple
integrated database programming environment. Not only does the Functional Data
Model provide a richer model for new database systems, but it is also easy  to
implement atop existing relational and network databases. A "combinator"-style
implementation technique is particularly suited to implementing  a  functional
language in a database environment.

  Functional database languages also admit a rich type structure, based on
that of the programming language ML.  While having the advantages of strong
static type-checking, and allowing the definition of user-views of the
database, it is unobtrusive enough to permit an interactive, incremental,
Lisp-like programming style.

  We shall illustrate these ideas with examples from the language  FQL,  where
they have been prototyped.

DATE:           Thursday, April 26, 1984

TIME:           2:50 p.m.

PLACE:          Room 705 - Hill Center

                                Coffee at 2:30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 84 16:21:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analogy in Legal Reasoning
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      machine learning brown bag seminar

Title:        Analogy with Purpose in Legal Reasoning from Precedents

Speaker:      Smadar Kedar-Cabelli <Kedar-Cabelli@Rutgers.Arpa>

Date:         Wednesday, May 9, 1984, 12:00-1:30
Location:     Hill Center, Room 423 (note new location)


       One  open  problem in current artificial intelligence (AI) models of
    learning and reasoning by analogy is: which aspects  of  the  analogous
    situations  are  relevant to the analogy, and which are irrelevant?  It
    is currently recognized that analogy involves mapping  some  underlying
    causal     structure     between    situations    [Winston,    Gentner,
    Burstein,Carbonell].  However, most current models of  analogy  provide
    the  system  with  exactly  the relevant structure, tailor-made to each
    analogy to be performed.  As AI systems become more  complex,  we  will
    have  to  provide them with the capability of automatically focusing on
    the relevant aspects of situations when reasoning analogically.   These
    will  have  to  be  sifted from the large amount of information used to
    represent complex, real-world situations.

       In order to study these general issues, I am examining a  particular
    case  study  of learning and reasoning by analogy: legal reasoning from
    precedents.  This is studied within the TAXMAN  II  project,  which  is
    investigating  legal reasoning using AI techniques [McCarty, Sridharan,
    Nagel].

       In this talk, I will discuss the problem and a proposed solution.  I
    am examining legal reasoning from  precedents  within  the  context  of
    current  AI  models  of  analogy.  I plan to add a focusing capability.
    Current  work  on  goal-directed  learning   [Mitchell,   Keller]   and
    explanation-based  learning  [DeJong] applies here:  the explanation of
    how a the analogous precedent case satisfies  the  goal  of  the  legal
    argument  helps  to  automatically  focus  the  reasoning  on  what  is
    relevant.

       Intuitively, if your purpose  is  to  argue  that  a  certain  stock
    distribution  is  taxable by analogy to a precedent case, you will know
    that aspects of the cases having to do with the change in the  economic
    position  of  the  defendants  are  relevant  for  the  purpose of this
    analogy, while aspects of the case such as the size of paper  on  which
    the  stocks were printed, or the defendants' hair color, are irrelevant
    for that purpose.  This knowledge of purpose, and the ability to use it
    to focus on relevant features, are missing from most current AI  models
    of analogy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 84 11:13:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: BORGIDA@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nonmonotonicity in Information Systems
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


          III Seminar by Alex Borgida, Wed. 2:30 pm/Hill 423

        The problem of Exceptional Situations in Information Systems --
                                  An overview


We  begin  by  illustrating  the wide range of exceptional situations which can
arise in the context of Information Systems (ISs). Based on this  evidence,  we
argue   for   1)   a   methodology   of   software   design   which   abstracts
exceptional/special cases by considering normal  cases  first  and  introducing
special  cases  as  annotations  in successive phases of refinement, and 2) the
need for ACCOMMODATING AT  RUN  TIME  exceptional  situations  not  anticipated
during  design.  We  then  present  some Programming Language features which we
believe support the above goals,  and  hence  facilitate  the  design  of  more
flexible ISs.

We   conclude   by   briefly  describing  two  research  issues  in  Artificial
Intelligence which arise out of this work: a) the problem of logical  reasoning
in  a  knowledge  base of formulas where exceptions "contradict" general rules,
and b) the issue of suggesting improvements to the design of an IS based on the
exceptions to it which have been encountered.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
66
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 May 84 08:59:00-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Course
-BODY-
Gordon Novak at UT (UTEXAS-20) teaches Expert Systems based on
"Building Expert Systems".  The class project is building a system
with Emycin.  For details on the sylabus, please contact Dr. Novak.
I took the course and found the "hands-on" experience very helpful
as well as Dr. Novak's comments and anedotes about the other system
building tools.

Charles Petrie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 May 84 22:42:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: KS300 Inquiry
-BODY-
KS300 is a product of Teknowledge, Inc.  Palo Alto, CA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 84 17:31:36-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of "and"
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sbcs.640

        > No person would have any trouble at all understanding "people
        > in Indiana and Ohio", so why should a natural language parser
        > have trouble with it???

The problem is that the English word "and" is used in many different ways,
e.g.:

1) "The people in Indiana and Ohio" -- refers to the union of the set of
people in Indiana, and the set of people in Ohio.  Could conceivably be
rewritten as "the people in Indiana and the people in Ohio".  The arguments
to "and" can be reordered, i.e.  it refers to the same set as "the people in
Ohio and Indiana".

2) "The house on 55th Street and 7th Avenue" -- refers to the *intersection*
of the set of houses on 55th street and the set of houses on 7th Avenue
(hopefully, a singleton set!).  NOT the same as "the house on 55th street
and the house on 7th Avenue".  The arguments to "and" *CAN* be reordered,
however, i.e.  one could as well say, "the house on 7th Ave. and 55th
Street".

3) "You can log on to the computer and post an article to the net" -- refers
to a temporal order of events: login, THEN post to the net.  Again, not the
same as "you can log on to the computer and you can post an article to the
net".  Unlike (2) above, the meaning changes if the arguments to "and" are
reordered.

4) "John aced Physics and Math" -- refers to logical conjunction.  Differs
from (2) in that it can also be rewritten as "John aced Physics and John
aced Math".

&c.

People know how to parse these different uses of "and" correctly due to a
wealth of semantic knowledge.  For example, knowledge about computers (that
articles cannot be posted to the net without logging onto a computer)
enables us to determine that the "and" in (3) above refers to a temporal
ordering of events.  Without such semantic information, your English
parser'll probably get into trouble.

Saumya Debray,  SUNY at Stony Brook

        uucp:
            {cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs \
                    {amd70, akgua, decwrl, utzoo}!allegra  > !sbcs!debray
                        {teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax /
        CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 May 84 12:10:32-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object identification
-BODY-
The AI approach certainly does not seem to be hopeless.  As someone else
mentioned, the boat and ax problems are philosophical ones.  They fall
a bit out of our normal (non-philisophical) area of object recognition:
these are recognition problems for ordinary people.  The point we should
get from them is that there may not be an objective single algorithm that
completely matches our intuition about pattern recognition in all cases.
In fact, these problems may show such to be impossible since there is
no intuitive consensus in these cases.

The AI approach aspires to something more humble - finding techniques
that work on particular objects enough of the time so as to be useful.
Representing objects as feature, or attribute, sets does not seem hopeless
just because object's features change over time.  Presumably, we can
get a program to handle that problem the same way that people do.  We
seem to conclude that an object is the same if it has not changed too
much in some sense.  Given that the values of the attributes of an object
change, we recognize it as the same object if, since the last observation,
either the values have not changed very much, or most values have not
changed, or if certain high priority values haven't changed, or some
combination of the first three.  To some extent, object recognition
is subjective in that it depends on the changes since the last
observation.  When we come home after 20 years, we are likely to remark
that the town is completely different.  But what makes it the same town
so that we can talk about its differences, are certain high importance
attributes that have not changed, such as its location and the major
street layout.  If we can discover sufficient heuristics of how to
handle this kind of change, then we succeed.  Since people already do
it, even if it involves additional large amounts of contextual
information, feature recognition is obviously possible.

Charles Petrie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 84 11:18:54-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihuxr!lew @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: misperception
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1096

Alan Wexelblat gave the following example of misperception:

                         -------------------
        A more "severe" case of misperception is the following.  Suppose
that, while touring through the grounds of a Hollywood movie studio, I
approach what, at first, I take to be a tree.  As I come near to it, I suddenly
realize that what I have been approaching is, in fact, not a tree at all but a
cleverly constructed stage prop.
                         -------------------

This reminds me strongly of the Chapter, "Knock on Wood (Part two)",
of TROUT FISHING IN AMERICA. Here is an excerpt:

        I left the place and walked down to the different street
        corner.  How beautiful the field looked and the creek that
        came pouring down in a waterfall off the hill.

        But as I got closer to the creek I could see that something
        was wrong.  The creek did not act right.  There was a strangeness
        to it.  There was a thing about its motion that was wrong.
        Finally I got close enough to see what the trouble was.

        The waterfall was just a flight of white wooden stairs
        leading up to a house in the trees.

        I stood there for a long time, looking up and looking down,
        following the stairs with my eyes, having trouble believing.

        Then I knocked on my creek and heard the sound of wood.

TROUT FISHING IN AMERICA abounds with striking metaphors, similes, and
other forms of imagery.  I had never considered these from the point
of view of the science of perception,  but now that I do so, I think
they provide some interesting examples for contemplation.

The first chapter, "The Cover for Trout Fishing in America", provides
a very simple but interesting perceptual shift.  "The Hunchback Trout"
provides an extended metaphor based on a simple perceptual similarity.

Anyway, it's a great book.

        Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 84 11:35:55-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: the Greek Ship problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccivax.144

In reference to John Owens resolution of the Greek Ship problem:

> Most of the cells in your body weren't there when
> you were born, and most that you had then aren't there now, but aren't
> you still the same person/entity, though you have far from the same
> characteristics?

Is it such an easy question?  It's far from clear
that the answer is yes.  The question might be
What is it that we recognize as persisting over time?
And if all the cells in our bodies are different,
then where does this what reside?  Could it be that
nothing persists?  Or is it that what persists is
not material (in the physical sense)?


        Bill Anderson

        ...!{ {ucbvax | decvax}!allegra!rlgvax }!ccivax!band

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 84 17:46:26-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!flink @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: pointer -- identity over time
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7266

I have responded to Norm Andrews, Brad Blumenthal and others on the subject
of identity across time, in net.philosophy, which I think is where it
belongs.  Anyone interested should see my recent posting there. --P. Torek

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 84 15:08:52-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-smurf!arndt @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "I see", said the carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.621

But perception, don't you see, is in the I of the beholder!

Remember the problem of Alice, "Which dreamed it?"

"Now, Kitty, let's consider who it was that dreamed it all.  This is a
serious question, my dear, and you should not go on licking your paw like
that -  as if Dina hadn't washed you this morning!  You see, Kitty, it MUST
have been either me or the Red King.  He was part of my dream, of course -
but then I was part of his dream, too!  Was it the Red King, Kitty?  You
were his wife, my dear, so you ought to know - oh, Kitty, DO help to settle
it!  I'm sure your paw can wait."


The point being, if WE can't decide logically what constitudes a "REAL"
perception for ourselves (and I contend that there is no LOGICAL way out
of the subjectivist trap) how in the WORLD can we decide on a LOGICAL basis
if another human, not to mention a computer, has perception?  We can't!!

Therefore we operate on a faith basis a la Turing and move forward on a
practical level and don't ask silly questions like, "Can Computers Think?".

Comments?

Regards,

Ken Arndt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 May 84 13:07:47-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxt!marcus @ Ucb-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "I see", said the carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxt.119

Eye agree!  While it is valuable to challenge the working premises that
underlie research, for most of the time we have to accept these on faith
(working hypotheses) if we are to be at all productive.  Most arguments
connected with Descartes or to perceptions of perceptions ultimately have
lead to blind alleys and dead ends.

                marcus hand (pyuxt!marcus)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 May 1984 2124-PDT
-FROM-
From: WENGER%UCI-20B@UCI-750a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Response to Marvin Minsky
-BODY-
Although I concede that Marvin Minsky's statements about the essence of
consciousness are a somewhat understandable reaction to a common form of
spiritual immaturity, they are also an expression of an equal form of
immaturity that I find to be very common in the scientific community.
We should beware of reactions because they are rarely significantly different
from the very things they are reacting to.

Therefore, I would like to respond to his statements with a less restrictive --
maybe even refreshing -- point of view. I think it deserves some pondering.

The question 'Does a machine have a soul ?' may well be a question that only
the machine itself can validly ask when it gets to that point. My experience
suggests that the question whether one has a soul can only be asked in the
first person singular meaningfully. Asking questions presupposes some
knowledge of the subject; total ignorance requires a quest. What do we know
about the subject except for our own ideas ?

Now, regardless of how the issue should or can be approached, the fact is that
answering the question of the soul on the grounds that the existence of an
essential reality would interfere with our achievements is really an
irrelevant statement. Investigation cannot be a matter of personal preference.
Discarding an issue on the basis of its ramifications on our image of
ourselves is contrary to the scientific approach. Should we stop studying AI
because it might trivialize our notion of intelligence ?

The statement is not only irrelevant, but I do not see that it is even correct.
I do not find any contradiction between perceiving one's source of
consciousness as having some essential quality and thriving for achievements.
The contradiction is based on a view of the soul as inherently static which
need not be true. My personal experience so far has actually been to the exact
contrary.

One can dance to try to feel good, or because one is feeling good. The
difference may only be in the quality of the experience, and the movements look
very much the same. One can strive for achievements to find an identity or to
fulfill one's identity.

As a student in AI, I share the opinion that discarding non-mechanistic
factors is a necessary working assumption for the study of intelligence. I
even hold the personal belief that what we commonly call intelligence will
eventually turn out to be fully amenable to mechanistic reduction.

However, we cannot extrapolate from our assumptions to statements about
the essence of one's being, first because assumptions are not facts yet,
secondly because intelligence and consciousness may not be the same thing.

Therefore claiming that essential aspects do not exist in the phenomenon of
consciousness is in the present state of scientific knowledge an unreasonable
reaction that unnecessarily narrows the field of our investigation. I even
consider it a regrettable impoverishment because of the meaningful personal
experiences one may be able to find in the course of an essential quest.

Intellectual honesty should deter us from making such unfounded statements
even if they seem to fit well in a common form of scientific paradigm.
Rather it should inspire us to objectively assess the frontiers of our
knowledge and understanding, and to strive to expand them without
preconceptions to the best of our abilities and the extent of our individual
concerns.

Etienne Wenger

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 84 10:13:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: BORGIDA@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Using PROLOG to Access Databases
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      May 3 AT 2:50 in HILL 705:


               USING PROLOG TO PLAN ACCESS TO CODASYL DATABASES


                                  P.M.D. Gray
                       Department of Computing Science,
                              Aberdeen University


  A  program generator which plans a program structure to access records stored
in a Codasyl database, in answer to queries  formulated  against  a  relational
view, has been written in Prolog.  The program uses two stages:

   1. Rewriting   the  query;  Generation  and  selection  of  alternative
      programs.

The generated programs are in Fortran or Cobol, using Codasyl DML.    The  talk
will  discuss  the  pros and cons of this approach and compare it with Warren's
approach of generating and re-ordering a Prolog form of the query.

                            (Note added by Malcolm Atkinson)
   The Astrid system previously developed by Peter had a relational algebra
      query language, and an interactive (by example) method of debugging
     queries and of specifying report formats, which provided an effective
        interface to Codasyl databases.  Peter's current work is on the
     construction of a system to explain to people what the schema implies
   and what a database contains - he is using PS-algol and Prolog for this.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
67
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 84 8:08:13-EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!ukc!west44!ellis @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pointers to natural language interfacing
-BODY-
  Article-I.D.: west44.214

I am investigating the feasibility of writing a natural language interface for
the UNIX operating system, and need some pointers to good articles/papers/books
dealing with natural language intrerpreting. Any help would be gratefully
appreciated as I am fairly 'green' in this area.

        mcvax
         |
        ukc!root44!west44!ellis
       /   \
  vax135    hou3b
       \   /
       akgua

        Mark Ellis, Wesfield College, Univ. of London, England.


[In addition to any natural language references, you should certainly
see "Talking to UNIX in English: An Overview of an On-line UNIX
Consultant" by Robert Wilensky, The AI Magazine, Spring 1984, pp.
29-39.  Elaine Rich also mentioned this work briefly in her introduction
to the May 1984 issue of IEEE Computer.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 May 84 12:55:37-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!cornell!jqj @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: KS300 Question
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cornell.195

KS300 is owned by (and a trademark of) Teknowledge, Inc.  Although
it is largeley based on Emycin, it was extensively reworked for
greater maintainability and reliability, particularly for Interlisp-D
environments (the Emycin it was based on ran only on DEC-20
Interlisp).

Teknowledge can be reached by phone (no net address, I think)
at (415) 327-6600.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 May 84 19:41:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSLI Report
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                New CSLI-Report Available

``Lessons from Bolzano'' by Johan van Benthem, the latest CSLI-Report,
is now available. To obtain a copy of Report No. CSLI-84-6, contact
Dikran Karagueuzian at 497-1712 (Casita Hall, Room 40) or Dikran at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 May 84 11:15:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Al Davis <ADavis at SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hardware Prototyping
-BODY-

On the issue of the Stone - Shaw wars.  I doubt that there really is
a viable "research paradigm shift" in the holistic sense.  The main
problem that we face in the design of new AI architectures is that
there is a distinct possibility that we can't let existing ideas
simply evolve.  If this is true then the new systems will have to try
to incorporate a lot of new strategies which create a number of
complex problems, i.e.

        1.  Each new area means that our experience may not be
            valid.

        2.  Interactions between these areas may be the problem,
            rather than the individual design choices - namely
            efficient consistency is a difficult thing to
            achieve.

In this light it will be hard to do true experiments where one factor
gets isolated and tested.  Computer systems are complex beasts and the
problem is even harder to solve when there are few fundamental metrics
that can be applied microscopically to indicate success or failure.
Macroscopically there is always cost/performance for job X, or set of
tasks Y.

The experience will come at some point, but not soon in my opinion.
It will be important for people like Shaw to go out on a limb and
communicate the results to the extent that they are known.  At some
point from all this chaos will emerge some real experience that will
help create the future systems which we need now.  I for one refuse to
believe that an evolved Von Neumann architecture is all there is.

We need projects like DADO, Non-Von, the Connection Machine, ILLIAC,
STAR, Symbol, the Cosmic Cube, MU5, S1, .... this goes on for a long
time ..., --------------- if given the opportunity a lot can be
learned about alternative ways to do things.  In my view the product
of research is knowlege about what to do next.  Even at the commercial
level very interesting machines have failed miserably (cf. B1700, and
CDC star) and rather Ho-Hum Dingers (M68000, IBM 360 and the Prime
clones) have been tremendous successes.

I applaud Shaw and company for giving it a go along with countless
others.  They will almost certainly fail to beat IBM in the market
place.  Hopefully they aren't even trying.  Every 7 seconds somebody
buys an IBM PC - if that isn't an inspiration for any budding architect
to do better then what is?

Additionally, the big debate over whether CS or AI is THE way is
absurd.  CS has a lot to do with computers and little to do with
science, and AI has a lot to do with artificial and little to do with
intelligence.  Both will and have given us something worthwhile, and a
lot of drivel too.  The "drivel factor" could be radically reduced if
egotism and the ambition were replaced with honesty and
responsibility.

Enough said.

                                        Al Davis
                                        FLAIR

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 May 84 14:28:32 PDT
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Identity
-BODY-
    The thing about sameness and difference is that humans create them;  back
to the metaphor and similie question again.  We say, "Oh, he's the same old
Bill.", and in some sense we know that Bill differs from "old Bill" in many
ways we cannot know.  (He got a heart transplant, ...)  We define by
declaration the context within which we organize the set of sensory perceptions
we call Bill and within that we recognize "the same old Bill" and think that
the sameness is an attribute of Bill!  No wonder the eastern sages say that we
are asleep!

[Read Hubert Dreyfus' book "What Computers Can't Do".]

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 May 1984  16:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A restatement of the problem (phil/ai)
-BODY-
  From: (Alan Wexelblat) decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw @ Ucb-Vax

  Suppose that, while touring through the grounds of a Hollywood movie
  studio, I approach what, at first, I take to be a tree.  As I come
  near to it, I suddenly realize that what I have been approaching is,
  in fact, not a tree at all but a cleverly constructed stage prop.

  So, let me re-pose my original question: As I understand it, issues of
  perception in AI today are taken to be issues of feature-recognition.
  But since no set of features (including spatial and temporal ones) can
  ever possibly uniquely identify an object across time, it seems to me
  (us) that this approach is a priori doomed to failure.

Spatial and temporal features, and other properties of objects that
have to do with continuity and coherence in space and time DO identify
objects in time.  That's what motion, location, and speed detectors in
our brains to.  Maybe they don't identify objects uniquely, but they
do a good enough job most of the time for us to make the INFERENCE of
object identity.  In the example above, the visual features remained
largely the same or changed continuously --- color, texture normalized
by distance, certainly continuity of boundary and position.  It was
the conceptual category that changed: from tree to stage prop.  These
latter properties are conceptual, not particularly visual (although
presumably it was minute visual cues that revealed the identity in the
first place).  The bug in the above example is that no distiction is
made between visual features and higher-level conceptual properties,
such as what a thing is for.  Also, identity is seen to be this
unitary thing, which, I think, it is not.  Similarities between
objects are relative to contexts.  The above stage prop had
spatio-termporal continuity (i.e., identity) but not conceptual
continuity.

Fanya Montalvo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 May 84 09:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Izchak Miller <Izchak%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The experience of cross-time identity.
-BODY-
      A follow-up to Rosenberg's reply [greatings, Jay].  Most
commentators on Alan's original statement of the problem have failed to
distinguish between two different (even if related) questions:
   (a) what are the conditions for the cross-time (numerical) identity
       of OBJECTS, and
   (b) what are the features constitutive of our cross-time EXPERIENCE
       of the (numerical) identity of objects.
The first is an ontological (metaphysical) question, the second is an epis-
temological question--a question about the structure of cognition.
      Most commentators addressed the first question, and Rosenberg suggests
a good answer to it. But it is the second question which is of importance to
AI. For, if AI is to simulate perception, it must first find out how
perception works. The reigning view is that the cross-time experience of the
(numerical) identity of objects is facilitated by PATTERN RECOGNITION.
However, while it does indeed play a role in the cognition of identity, there
are good grounds for doubting that pattern recognition can, by itself,
account for our cross-time PERCEPTUAL experience of the (numerical) sameness
of objects.
     The reasons for this doubt originate from considerations of cases of
EXPERIENCE of misperception.  Put briefly, two features are characteristic of
the EXPERIENCE of misperception: first, we undergo a "change of mind" regar-
ding the properties we attribute to the object; we end up attributing to it
properties *incompatible* with properties we attributed to it earlier. But--
and this is the second feature--despite this change we take the object to have
remained *numerically one and the same*.
     Now, there do not seem to be constraints on our perceptual "change of
mind": we can take ourselves to have misperceived ANY (and any number) of the
object's properties -- including its spatio-temporal ones -- and still
experience the object to be numerically the same one we experienced all along.
The question is how do we maintain a conscious "fix" on the object across such
radical "changes of mind"?  Clearly, "pattern recognition" does not seem a
good answer anymore since it is precisely the patterns of our expectations
regarding the attributes of the object which change radically, and incom-
patibly, across the experience of misperception.  It seems reasonable to con-
clude that we maintain such a fix "demonstratively" (indexically), that is
independently whether or not the object satisfies the attributive content (or
"pattern") of our perception.
     All this does not by itself spell doom (as Alan enthusiastically seems
to suggest) for AI, but it does suggest that insofar as "pattern recognition"
is the guiding principle of AI's research toward modeling perception, this
research is probably dead end.

                                         Izchak (Isaac) Miller
                                         Dept. of Philosophy
                                         University of Pennsylvania

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 84 9:04:56-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!gmf
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comment on Greek ship problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1317

Reading about the Greek ship problem reminded me of an old joke --
recorded in fact by one Hierocles, 5th century A.D. (Lord knows how
old it was then):

     A foolish fellow who had a house to sell took a brick from one wall
     to show as a sample.

Cf. Jay Rosenberg:  "A board is a part of a ship *at a time*.  Once it's
been removed and replaced, it no longer *is* a part of the ship.  It
only once *was* a part of the ship."

Hierocles is referred to as a "new Platonist", so maybe he was a
philosopher.  On the other hand, maybe he was a gag-writer.  Another
by him:

     During a storm, the passengers on board a vessel that appeared in
     danger, seized different implements to aid them in swimming, and
     one of them picked for this purpose the anchor.

Rosenberg's remark quoted above becomes even clearer if "board" is
replaced by "anchor" (due, no doubt, to the relative anonymity of
boards, as compared with anchors).

     Gordon Fisher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 84 7:47:08-EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!ukc!west44!gurr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "I see", said the carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: west44.211

    The point being, if WE can't decide logically what constitudes a "REAL"
    perception for ourselves (and I contend that there is no LOGICAL way out
    of the subjectivist trap) how in the WORLD can we decide on a LOGICAL basis
    if another human, not to mention a computer, has perception?  We can't!!

    Therefore we operate on a faith basis a la Turing and move forward on a
    practical level and don't ask silly questions like, "Can Computers Think?".


        For an in depth discussion on this, read "The Mind's I" by Douglas R.
Hofstatder and Daniel C. Dennett - this also brings in the idea that you can't
even prove that YOU, not to mention another human being, can have perception!

                 mcvax
                 /
               ukc!root44!west44!gurr
              /  \
        vax135   hou3b
             \   /
             akgua


        Dave Gurr, Westfield College, Univ. of London, England.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 May 84 08:44:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral - Perceptual Organization for Visual Recognition
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                  Ph.D. Oral

                         Friday, June 1, 1984 at 2:15

                         Margaret Jacks Hall, Room 146

           The Use of Perceptual Organization for Visual Recognition

                   By David Lowe (Stanford Univ., CS Dept.)


Perceptual organization refers to the capability of the human visual to
spontaneously derive groupings and structures from an image without
higher-level knowledge of its contents.  This capability is currently missing
from most computer vision systems.  It will be shown that perceptual groupings
can play at least three important roles in visual recognition:  1) image
segmentation, 2) direct inference of three-space relations, and 3) indexing
world knowledge for subsequent matching.  These functions are based upon the
expectation that image groupings reflect actual structure of the scene rather
than accidental alignment of image elements.  A number of principles of
perceptual organization will be derived from this criterion of
non-accidentalness and from the need to limit computational complexity.  The
use of perceptual groupings will be demonstrated for segmenting image curves
and for the direct inference of three-space properties from the image.  These
methods will be compared and contrasted with the work on perceptual
organization done in Gestalt psychology.

Much computer vision research has been based on the assumption that recognition
will proceed bottom-up from the image to an intermediate depth representation,
and subsequently to model-based recognition.  While perceptual groupings can
contribute to this depth representation, they can also provide an alternate
pathway to recognition for those cases in which there is insufficient
information for bottom-up derivation of the depth representation.  Methods will
be presented for using perceptual groupings to index world knowledge and for
subsequently matching three-dimensional models directly to the image for
verification.  Examples will be given in which this alternate pathway seems to
be the only possible route to recognition.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
68
-DATE-
Date: 31 May 84 9:00:56-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "I see", said the carpenter... (PERCEPTION)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.652

The idea of proof or disproof rests, in part, on the recognition that the
senses are valid and that perceptions do exist...  Any attempt to disprove
the existence of perceptions is an attempt to undercut all proof and all
knowledge.  --ariel!norm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 May 84 12:18:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Essences and soul
-BODY-
        In response to Minsky's comments about soul (AIList vol
2, #63): this is a "straw man" argument, based on a particular
concept of soul - "... The common concept of soul says that ...".
Like a straw man, this particular concept is easily attacked;
however, the general question of soul as a concept is not
addressed.  This bothers me because I think that raising the
question in this manner can result in generating a lot of heat
(flames) at the expense of light.  I hope the following thoughts
contribute more light than heat.

        Soul has been used to name (at least) two similar
concepts:

  o  Soul as the essence of consciousness, and
  o  Soul as a form of consciousness separate from the body.

        The concept of soul as the essence of consciousness we
can handle as simply another name for consciousness.

        The concept of soul as a form of consciousness separate
from the body is more difficult: it is the mind/body problem
revisited.  You can take a catagorical position on the existance
of the soul/mind as separate from the body (DOES!/DOESN'T!) but
proving or disproving it is more difficult.  To prove the concept
requires public evidence of phenomena that require this concept
for their reasonable explanation; to disprove the concept requires
proving that it clearly contradicts other known facts.  Since
neither situation seems to hold, we are left to shave with
Occam's Razor, and we should note our comments on the hypothesis
as opinions, not facts.

        The concept of soul/consciousness as the result of
growth, of learning, seems right: I am what I have learned - what
I have experienced plus my decisions and actions concerning these
experiences.  I wouldn't be "me" without them.  However, it is
also possible to create various theories of "disembodied" soul
which are compatible with learning.  For example, you could have
a reincarnation theory that has past experiences shut off during
the current life so that they do not interfere with fresh
learning, etc.

        Please note: I am not proposing any theories of
disembodied soul.  I am arguing against unproven, catagorical
positions for or against such theories.  I believe that a
scientist, speaking as a scientist, should be an agnostic -
neither a theist nor an athiest.  It may be that souls do not
exist; on the other hand, it may be that they do.  Science is
open, not closed.  There are many things that - regardless of our
fear of the unknown and disorder - occur publicly and regularly
for which we have no convincing explanation based on current
science.  Meteors as stones falling from heaven did not exist
according to earlier scientists - until there was such a fall of
them in France in the 1800's that their existance had to be
accepted.  There will be a 21st and a 22nd century science, and
they will probably look back on our times with the same bemused
nostalgia and incredulity that we view 18th and 19th century
science.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 May 1984  18:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Essences and Soul
-BODY-

I can't make much sense of Menger's reply:

        Therefore claiming that essential aspects do not exist in the
        phenomenon of consciousness is in the present state of
        scientific knowledge an unreasonable reaction that
        unnecessarily narrows the field of our investigation.

I wasn't talking about consciousness.  Actually, I thnk consciousness
will turn out to be relatively simple, namely the phenomenon connected
with the procedures we use for managing very short term memory,
duration about 1 second, and which we use to analyse what some of our
mental processes have been doing lately.  The reason consciouness
seems so hard to describe is just that it uses these processes and
screws up when applied to itself.

But Menger seems intent on mixing everything up:

        However, we cannot extrapolate from our assumptions to
        statements about the essence of one's being, first because
        assumptions are not facts yet, secondly because intelligence
        and consciousness may not be the same thing.

Who said anything about intelligence and consciousness?  If soul is the whole
mind, then fine, but if he is going to talk about essences that change along
with this, well, I don't thing anything is being discussed except convictions
of self-importance, regardless of any measure of importance.

 --- Minsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 May 84 15:31:58-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Dreams: A Far-Out Suggestion
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.894

    Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA> summarizes an article in the May Dr. Dobb's
    Journal called "Sixth Generation Computers" by Richard Grigonis.  Among
    other things it proposes that standing waves of very low frequency
    electromagnetic radiation (5 to 20 Hz apparently) be used to explain
    telepathy.

As the only person of I know of with significant involvement in both the fields
of AI and parapsychology I felt I should respond.

1) Though there is "growing evidence" that ESP works, there is none that
telepathy does.  We can order the major classes of ESP phenomena by their a
priori believability; from most believable to least: telepathy (mind-to-mind
communication), clairvoyance (remote perception) and precognition (perception
of events which have not yet taken place).  "Some-kind-of mental radio" doesn't
seem too strange.  "Some-kind-of mental radar" is stretching it. While
precognition seems to be something akin (literally) to black magic. There is
thus a tendency, even among parapsychologists, to think of ESP in terms of
telepathy.

Unfortunately it is fairly easy to design an experiment in which telepathy
cannot be an element but precognition or clairvoyance is.  Experiments which
exclude telepathy as an explanation have roughly the same success rate
(approximately 1 experiment out of 3 show statistical significance above the
p=.01 level) as experiments whose results could be explained by telepathy.
Furthermore, in any well controlled telepathy experiment a record must be made
of the targets (i.e. what was thought).  Since an external record is kept,
clairvoyance and/or precognition cannot be excluded as an explanation for the
results in a telepathy experiment.  For this reason experiments designed to
allow telepathy as a mechanism are known in parapsychology as "general ESP"
(GESP) experiments.

Telepathy still might be proven as a separate phenomenon if a positive
differential effect could be shown (i.e. if having someone else looking at the
target improves the score).  Several researchers have claimed just such an
effect. None have, however, to the best of my knowledge, eliminated from their
experiments two alternate explanations for the differential: 1) The subjects
are more comfortable with telepathy than with other ESP and thus score higher
(subject expectation is strongly correlated with success in ESP). 2) Two
subjects working together for a result would get higher scores whether or not
one of them knows the targets.  Its rather difficult to eliminate both of these
alternatives from an experiment simultaneously.

The proposed mechanism MIGHT be used to explain rather gross clairvoyance (e.g.
dowsing) but would be hard pressed to distinguish, for example, ink in the
shape of a circle from that of a square on a playing card. It is obviously no
help at all in explaining precognition results.

2) Experiments have frequently been conducted from within a Faraday cage (this
is a necessity if a sensitive EKG is used of course) and even completely sealed
metal containers.  It was just this discovery which led the Soviets to decide
in the late 20s (early 30s?) that ESP violated dialectic materialism, and was
thus an obvious capitalist plot.  Officially sanctioned research in
parapsychology did not get started again in the Soviet Union until the early
70s when some major US news source (the NY Times? Time magazine?) apparently
reported a rumor (apparently inaccurate) that the US DoD was conducting
experiments in the use of ESP to communicate with submarines.

3) Low frequency means low bandwidth.  ESP seems to operate over a high
bandwidth channel with lots of noise (since very high information messages seem
to come through it sometimes).

4) Natural interference (low frequency electromagnetic waves are for example
generated by geological processes) would tend to make the position of the nodes
in the standing waves virtually unpredictable.

5) Low frequency (long wavelength) requires a big antenna both for effective
broadcast and reception.  The unmoving human brain is rather small for this
since the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of 5 Hz is
about 37200 miles.  Synthetic aperture radar compensates for a small antenna
by comparing the signal before and after movement (actually the movement in
continuous).  I'm not sure of the typical size of the antennas used in SAP, but
the SAP aboard LandSAT operated at a frequency of 1.275 GHz which corresponds
to a wavelength of about 9.25 inches.  The antenna is probably about one
wavelength long.  To use that technique the antenna (in this case brain) would
have to move a distance comparable to a wavelength (37200 miles) at the least,
and the signal would have to be static over the time needed to move the
distance.  This doesn't seem to fit the bill.

I'm out of my depth in signal detection theory, but it might be practical to
measure the potential of the wave at a single location relative to some static
reference and integrate over time.  The static reference would require
something like a Faraday cage in ones head.  Does anyone know if this is
practical?  We'd still have a serious bandwidth problem.

The last possibility would be the techniques used in Long Baseline Radio
Interferometry (large array radio telescopes).  This consists of using several
antennas distributed in space to "synthesize" a large antenna. Unfortunately
the antenna have to communicate over another channel, and that channel would
(if the antennas are brains) be equivalent to a second telepathy channel and
we have explained nothing except the completely undemonstrated ability of
human beings to decode very low frequency electromagnetic radiation.

In summary: Even if you accept the evidence for ESP (as I do) the proposed
mechanism does not seem to explain it.

I'll be glad to receive replies to the above via mail, but unless it's
relevant to AI (e.g. a discussion of the implications of ESP for mechanistic
models of brain function) we should move this discussion elsewhere.

                                Topher Cooper
(The above opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my
employer, my friends or the parapsychological research community).

USENET: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA: COOPER.DIGITAL@CSNET-RELAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 84 16:04:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: WATANABE@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based Plant Diagnosis
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Date:   June 14 (Thursday), 1984
Time:   1:30-2:30PM
Place:  Hill 705

Title:  Preliminary Study of Plant Diagnosis
        by Knowledge about System Description


Speaker:        Dr. Hiroshi Motoda

                Energy Research Laboratory,
                Hitachi Ltd.,
                1168 Moriyamacho, Hitachi,
                Ibaraki 316, Japan


INTRODUCTION:

Some model,  whatever  form  it  is,  is  required  to  perform  plant
diagnosis.  Generally, this  model describes  anomaly propagation  and
can be regarded as knowledge about cause and consequence relationships
of anomaly situations.

Knowledge engineering is a software  technique that uses knowledge  in
problem solving.  One  of its  characteristics  is the  separation  of
knowledge from inference mechanism, in  which the latter builds  logic
of events on the  basis of the former.  The knowledge can be  supplied
piecewisely and is easily modified for improvement.

Possibility is suggested of making diagnosis by collecting many  piece
of knowledge  about causality  relationships. The  power lies  in  the
knowledge, not  in  the  inference  mechanism.  What  is  not  in  the
knowledge base is out of the scope of the diagnosis.

Use of  resolution  in the  predicate  calculus logic  has  shown  the
possibility of using knowledge about system description (structure and
behavior of  the  plant) to  generate  knowledge directly  useful  for
diagnosis. The problem of this  approach was its inefficiency. It  was
felt necessary to devise  a mechanism that  performs the same  logical
operation much faster.

Efficiency has been improved by  1) expressing the knowledge in frames
and 2) enhancing the memory  management capability of LISP to  control
the data in global memory in which the data used commonly in both LISP
(for symbolic manipulation) and FORTRAN (for numeric computation)  are
stored.

REFERENCES:

Yamada,N. and Motoda,H.; "A Diagnosis Method of Dynamic System using
the Knowledge on System Description," Proc. of IJCAI-83, 225, 1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 May 1984 1146-EDT
-FROM-
From: Wendy Gissendanner <WLG@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Procedures
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

AI SEMINAR
Tueday June 5, 5409 Wean Hall

Speaker: Kurt Van Lehn (Xerox Parc)

Title: Learning Procedures One Disjunct Per Lesson

How can procedures be learned from examples?  A new technique is to use
the manner in which the examples are presented, their sequence and how
they are partitioned into lessons.  Two manner constraints will be
discussed: (a) that the learner acquires at most one disjunct per lesson
(e.g., one conditional branch per lesson), and (b) that nests of
functions be taught using examples that display the intermediate results
(show-work examples) before the regular examples, which do not display
intermediate results.  Using these constraints, plus several standard AI
techniques, a computer system, Sierra, has learned procedures for
arithmetic, algebra and other symbol manipulation skills.  Sierra is the
model (i.e., prediction calculator) for Step Theory, a fairly well
tested theory of how people learn (and mislearn) certain procedural
skills.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
69
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 84 18:50:50 PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ESP
-BODY-
to:  Topher Cooper & others who claim to believe in ESP

1.  this discussion SHOULD be moved off AIList.
2.  the technical discussion of wavelengths, etc is fine but
3.  anyone who claims to believe in current ESP should FIRST read
        the book:  FLIM-FLAM by James Randi  (the "Skeptical Inquirer"
        journal has already been mentioned once but deserves
        a second mention)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 May 84 19:31:04-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Message for all phil/ai persons
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wxlvax.287

Dear net readers,
        I must now apologize for a serious error that I have committed.
Recently, I posted two messages on the topic of philosophy of AI.  These
messages concerned a topic that I had discussed with one of my professors,
Dr. Izchak Miller.  I signed those messages with both his name and mine.
Unfortunately, he did not see those messages before they were posted.  He
has now indicated to me that he wishes to disassociate himself from the
contents of those messages.  Since I have no way of knowing which of you
saw my error, I am posting this apology publicly, for all to see.  All
responses to those messages should be directed exclusively to me, at the
address below.  I am sorry for taking up net resources with this message,
but I feel that this matter is important enough.  Again, I apologize, and
accept all responsibility for the messages.

>-Alan Wexelblat
(currently appearing at:  ...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw.  Please put "For Alan"
 in all mail headers.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Jun 84 13:49:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Essences, objects, and modelling
-BODY-
        All the net conversation about essences is fascinating,
but can be a little fuzzy making.  It made me go back and review
some of the basics.  At the risk of displaying naivete and/or a
firm grasp of the obvious, I thought I would pass some of my
thoughts along.

        The problem of essences has been treated in philosophy
under the heading of metaphysics, specifically ontology.  I have
found a good book covering these problems in short, clear text.
It is: "Problems & Theories of Philosophy" by Ajdukiewicz,
Cambridge University Press, 1975, 170 pp. in paperback.

        About substance (from the book, p. 78):

        ".... the fundamental one is that which it was given by
Aristotle.  He describes substance as that of which something can
be predicated but which cannot itself be predicated of anything
else.  In other words, substance is everything to which some
properties can be attributed, which can stand in a certain
relationship to something else, which can be in this state, etc.,
but which is not itself a property, relation or a state, etc.
Examples of substances are: this, this table, this person, in a
word concrete individual things and persons.  To substance are
opposed properties which in contradistinction to substances can
be predicated of something, relations which also in
contradistinction can obtain between certain objects, states,
etc.  The scholastics emphasized the self-subsistance of
substance in contrast to the non-self-subsistance of properties,
relations, states, etc.  The property of redness, for example,
cannot exist except in a substance that possesses it.  This
particular rose, however, of which redness is an attribute, does
not need any foundations for its existance but exists on its own.
This self-subsistance of substance they considered to be its
essential property and they defined substance as 'res, qui
convenit esse in se vel per se'."

        To me, this implies that an object/substance is an
axiomatic "thing" that exists independantly - it is the rock that
kicks back each time I kick it - with the characteristic that it
is "there", meaning that each time I kick at the rock, it is
there to kick back.  You can hang attributes on it in order to
identify it from some other thing, both now and over time.  The
Greek Ship problem in this approach becomes one of identifying
that Object, the Greek Ship, which has maintained continuous
existance as The Greek Ship - i.e., can "be kicked" at any time.

        This brings us to one of the problems being addressed by
this discussion of essences, which is distinguishing between
objects and abstractions of objects, i.e. between proper nouns
and abstract/general nouns.  A proper known refers to a real
object, which can never - logically - be fully known in the sense
that we cannot be sure that we know *all* of its attributes or
that we *know* that the attributes we do know are unchanging or
completely predictable.  We can always be surprised, and any
inferences we make from "known" attributes are subject to change.
Real objects are messy and ornery.  An abstract object, like pure
mathematics, is much neater: it has *only* those attributes we
give it in its definition, and there WILL BE no surprises.

        The amazing thing is that mathematics works: a study of
abstractions can predict things in the real world of objects!
This seems to work on the "Principle of Minimum Astonishment"
(phrase stolen from Lou Schaefer @ SRI), which I interpret to
mean that "To the extent that this real object posseses the same
characteristics as that abstract object, this real object will
act the same as that abstract object, *assuming that it doesn't
do anything else particularly astonishing*."  And how many
carefully planned experiments have foundered on THAT one.  There
is *nothing* that says that the sun *will* come up tomorrow
except the Principle of Minimum Astonishment.

        So what?  So, studies of abstractions are useful;
however, an abstract object is not the same as a real object: the
model is not the same as the thing being modelled.  There is not
an infinite recursion of attributes, somewhere there is a rock
that kicks back, a source of data/experience from *outside* the
system.  The problem is - usually - to create/select/update an
abstract model of this external object and to predict our
interactions with it on the basis of the model.  The problem of
"identifying" an object is typically not identifying *which* real
object it is but *what kind* of object is it - what is the model
to use to predict the results of our interaction with it.

        It seems to me that model forming and testing is one of
the big, interesting problems in AI.  I think that is why we are
all interested in abstraction, metaphor, analogy, pholosophy,
etc.  I think that keeping the distinction between the model and
the object/reality is useful.  To me, it tends to imply two sets
of data about an object: the historical interaction data and the
abstracted data contained in the current model of the object.
Perhaps these two data sets should be kept more formally separate
than is often done.

        This has gotten quite long winded - it's fun stuff.  I
hope that this is useful/interesting/fun!

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 84 13:11:35 PDT
-FROM-
From: Philip Kahn <kahn@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Relevance of "essences" and "souls" to Artificial Intelligence
-BODY-
        Quite a bit of the AILIST has been devoted of late to metaphysical
discussions of "essences" (e.g., the Greek ship "problem") and "souls."
I don't argue the authors' viewpoints, but the discussion has strayed far
from the intent of the original Greek ship problem.  In short, the problem
with "essences" and "souls" are the questions posed, and not the answers
given.

        We are concerned with creating intelligent machines (whether we
consider
it "artificial" or "authentic").  The "problem" of "essence" is only caused
by the necessity that a hard-and-fast, black-and-white discrimination is being
asked whether "The reassembled ship is 'essentially' the same."  It should be
clear that the question phrased as such cannot be answered adequately because
it is not relevant.  You can say "it looks the same," "it weighs the same," "it
has the same components," but how useful is it for the purposes of an
intelligent machine (or person) to know whether it is "essentially" the same
ship?  The field of AI is so young that we do not even have a decent method of
determining that it even IS a Greek ship.  Before we attempt to incorporate
such philosophical determinations in a machine, wouldn't it be more useful
to solve the more pressing problem of object identification before problems of
esoteric object distinctions are examined?
        The problem of "souls" is also not relevant to the study of AI (though
it is undoubtedly of great import to our understanding of our role as humans
in the universe).  A "soul," like the concept of "essence," is undefinable.
The problem of "cognition" is far more relevent to the study of AI because
it can be defined within some domain; it is the object oriented interpretation
of some phenomena (e.g., vision, auditory, context, etc.).  Whether "cognition"
constitutes a "soul" is again not relevent.  The more pressing problem is
the problem of creating a sufficient "cognitive" machine that can make
object-oriented interpretations of sensory data and contextual information.
While the question of whether a "soul" falls out of this mechanism may be
be of philosophical interest, it moves us no closer to the description of
such a mechanism.

                        Another writer's opinion,
                        P.K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 84 12:24:57-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!borgia @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Essences and soul
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cwruecmp.1173

** This is somewhat long ...
   You might learn something new ...
   ... from Intellectuals Anonymous (IA not AI)
**
A few years ago, I became acquainted with an international group called
Community International that operates through a technique called Guided
Experiences to assist individuals in their progress towards self
actualization. I remember that some of the techniques like Dis-tension,
and the Experience of Peace were so effective that the Gurus in the
group were sought by major corporations for their Executive Development
programs. The Community itself is a non-profit, self-sustaining
organization that originated somewhere in South America.

The Community had a very interesting (scientific?) model for the body
and soul (existence and essence) problem. The model is based on levels
or Centers for the Mind.

I will summarize what I remember about the Centers of the Mind.

1. The major Centers of the Mind are the Physiological Center, the Motor
Center, the Emotional Center, and the Intellectual Center.

2. The functional parts of the Mind belong to different (matrix) cells
in a tabulation of major Center X major Center.

To illustrate the power of this abstraction, consider the following
assertions where the loaded words have the usual meaning.

The intellectual part of the intellectual center deals with reason or
cognition. The rationalist AI persons must already feel very small.
Reliance on reason alone indicates a poverty of the mind!

The motor part of the intellectual center deals with imagination and
creativity. The emotional part of the intellectual center deals with
intuition.

Similarly the motor center has intellectual, emotional and motor
parts that control functions like learning to walk, the Olympics, and
reflexes.

The emotional center has intellectual, emotional, and motor parts that
control faith and beliefs, the usual emotions like fear, anger, joy etc.
and stuff like euphoria, erotica.

The Physiological center is unfortunately the least understood. The
center controls the survival drives for food, sex, safety etc.
(And I believe, rational economic behaviour, free markets etc.)

The thesis is that the lower centers (Physiological) must be developed
before the higher centers can be productive. This must seem obvious
since we don't expect a starving man to cry out with joy, or an
emotionally disturbed person to reason effectively.

************************************************************************
I would appreciate any comments, anonymous or otherwise. Does this make
any sense to you? Does this change your picture of your own mind?
************************************************************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 84 17:07:34 PDT
-FROM-
From: Joe Halpern <HALPERN%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Knowledge Representation
-BODY-
    [Forwarded from the IBM/Halpern distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The knowledge seminar will be meeting again at 10 AM, Friday, June 8,
in Auditorium A of Building 28 at IBM.  This week Joe Karnicky will
speak on "Knowledge Representation and Manipulation in an Expert System"
and I will speak on work in progress entitled "Towards a Theory of
Knowledge and Ignorance".  I have appended the abstracts
below.  I have speakers lined up for three more sessions, which will
be  held June 22, July 6, and July 20.  After that the seminar will stop,
unless we can find some more volunteers to speak.  As you can see by my
talk, discussing work in progress is perfectly reasonable, as is talking
about research other than your own.  If you have any suggestions for
speakers, or directions the seminar might take, please let me know.

10 AM -- Knowledge Representation and Manipulation in an Expert System
         Joe Karnicky, Varian Systems and Techniques Lab (Palo Alto)

We are constructing an expert advisory system for chromatography,
i.e. a computer program which is to perform as an advisor to analytical
chemists (chromatographers) with functionality on the level of human experts.
One of the most important considerations in the design of such a program
is the choice of  techniques for the representation and manipulation of
the knowledge in the system.    I will discuss these choices of knowledge
representation, the results we have achieved, and the advantages
and disadvantages we have discovered.
    The techniques to be discussed include:
  PREDICATE LOGIC-inference by a prologue-type interpreter (backward chaining
+ unification) modified to include certainty factors and predicates to be
evaluated outside of the rule base.
  PRODUCTION SYSTEMS-collections of situation-action (if...,then...)rules.
  FRAMES-heirarchically related data structures.
  PROCEDURES- small programs for specific tasks in specific situations.
  ANALOG REPRESENTATIONS-in this case, a detector's output signal vs. time.

11 AM. -- Towards a Theory of Knowledge and Ignorance
          Joe Halpern, IBM Research

Suppose you only have partial information about a particular domain.
What can you be said to know in that case?  This turns out to be a
surprisingly tricky question to answer, especially if we assume that
you have introspective knowledge about your knowledge.  In particular,
you know far more than the logical consequences of your information.
For example, if my partial information does not tell me anything about
the price of tea in China, then I know I don't know anything about the
price of tea in China.  Moreover, I know that no one else knows that
I know the price of tea in China (since in fact I don't).  Yet this
knowledge is not a logical consequence of my information, which
doesn't mention the price of tea in China at all!

I will discuss the problem of characterizing an agent's state of
when s/he has partial information, and give such a characterization
in both the single agent and multi-agent case.  The multi-agent
case turns out to be much harder than the single agent case, and
we're still not quite sure that we have the right characterization
there.  I will also try to relate this work to results of Konolige,
Moore, and Stark, on non-monotonic logic and circumscriptive ignorance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
70
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jun 84 13:22:15-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!intelca!cem @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer War Games
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: intelca.287

This may be a rather simple problem, but it least it has no philosophical
ramifications.

I am developing a game that plays very similarly to the standard combat
situation type games that Avalon Hill is famous for. Basically, it has
various pieces of hardware, such as battleships, aircraft carriers,
destroyers, transports, tanks, armies, various aircraft, etc. and the
purpose is to build a fighting force using captured cities and defeat
the opposing force. It is fairly simple to make the computer a "game
board" however I would also like it to be at least one of the opponents
also. So I need some pointers on how to make the program smart enough
to play a decent game. I suspect there will be some similarities to
chess since it to is essentially a war game. The abilities I hope to
endow my computer with are those of building a defense, initiating an
offense, and a certain amount of learnablity. Ok world, what text
or tome describes techniques to do this ? I have a book on "gaming
theory" that is nearly useless, I suspect.  One that was a little more
practical and less "and this is the proof ...", 10 pages later the
next sentence begins. Maybe something like Newman and Sproul's graphics
text but for AI.

                             --Chuck McManis


        ihnp4!               Disclaimer : All opinions expressed herein are my
             \                            own and not those of my employer, my
              dual!    proper!            friends, or my avacado plant.
             /    \   /
      fortune!     \ /
                    X--------> intelca!cem
     ucbvax!       / \
           \      /   \
            hplabs!    rocks34!      ARPAnet : "hplabs!intelca!cem"@Berkeley
           /
        hao!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Jun 84 15:17:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Crispin <MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stanford University News Service press release
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.]
    [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by CMP.Werner@UTEXAS-20.]

                STANFORD UNIVERSITY NEWS SERVICE
                   STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
                         (415) 497-2558

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Shurkin
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    STANFORD COMMISSIONS COMPUTER TO REPLACE LARGE DEC-20'S.

STANFORD--
        Stanford University is negotiating with a small Silicon
Valley company to build large computers to replace the ubiquitous
DECSYSTEM-20s now ``orphaned'' by their manufacturer, Digital
Equipment Corp. (DEC).

        The proposed contract, which would total around $1.4
million, would commision two machines from Foonly Inc. of
Mountain View for delivery early in 1986.  Foonly is owned by
former Stanford student David Poole.

        According to Len Bosack, director of the Computer Science
Department's Computer Facilities, the Foonly F1B computer system
is about four times faster than the DEC model 2060 and 10 times
faster when doing floating-point computations (where the decimal
point need not be in the same place in each of the numbers
calculated) that are characteristic of large-scale engineering
and scientific problems.

        Ralph Gorin, director of Stanford's Low Overhead Time
Sharing (LOTS) Facility -- the academic computer center -- said
the Foonly F1B system, which is totally compatible with the
DEC-20, is an outgrowth of design work done by Poole and others
while at the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

        Since 1977, Foonly has built one large system, the F1,
and several dozen smaller systems.  The Foonly F1B is a
descendant of the original F1, with changes reflecting advances
in integrated circuit technology and the architectural
refinements (internal design) of the latest DEC-20s.

        A spokesman for DEC said the company announced last year
it had discontinued work on a successor to the DEC-20, code named
``Jupiter,'' and would continue to sell enhanced versions of the
large mainframe.  Service on the machines was promised for the
next ten years.

        However, said Sandra Lerner, director of the Computing
Facilities at the Graduate School of Business, the
discontinuation of DEC-20 development left approximately 1,000
customers world-wide without a practicable ``growth path.''

        Ten DECSYSTEM-20 computers on campus make that machine the
most numerous large system at Stanford.

        The Graduate School of Business uses its two DEC-20s for
administration, coursework, and research.  The Computer Science
Department uses two systems for research and administration.
LOTS, the academic computer facility, supports instruction and
unsponsored research on three systems and hopes to add one more
in the time before the F1B is available.

        Other DEC-20s are at the Department of Electrical
Engineering, the artifical intelligence project at the Medical
Center (SUMEX), and the recently formed Center for the Study of
Language and Information (CSLI).

        The Stanford University Network (SUNet), the main
university computer communications network, links together the
10 DEC-20s, approximately 30 mid-size computers, about 100
high-performance workstations, and nearly 400 terminals and
personal computers.

        The DEC-20 has been a cornerstone of research in artificial
intelligence (AI).  Most of the large AI systems evolved on the
DEC-20 and its predecessors.  For this reason, Stanford and other
computer science centers depend on these systems for their
on-going research.

        Lerner said the alternative to the new systems would
entail prohibitive expense to change all programs accumulated
over nearly twenty years at Stanford and to retrain several
thousand student, faculty, and staff users of these systems.  The
acquisition of the Foonly systems would be a deliberate effort to
preserve these university investments.

6-1-84                        -30-                         JNS3A

EDITORS: Lerner may be reached at (415) 497-9717, Gorin at
497-3236, and Bosack at 497-0445.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Jun 84 22:22:51-EDT
-FROM-
From: David Shaw <DAVID@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correcting Stone's Mosaic comments
-BODY-
Reluctant as I am to engage in a computer-mediated professional spat, it is
clear that I can no longer let the inaccuracies suggested by Harold Stone's
Mosaic quote go uncorrected.  During the past two weeks, I've been
inundated with computer mail asking me to clarify the issues he raised.  In
my last message, I tried to characterize what I saw as the basic
philosophical differences underlying Harold's attacks on our research.
Upon reading John Nagle's last message, however, it has become clear to me
that it is more important to first straighten out the surface facts.

First, I should emphasize that I do not in any way hold John Nagle
responsible for propagating these inaccuracies.  Nagle interpreted Stone's
remarks in Mosaic exactly as I would have, and was careful to add an
"according to the writer quoted" clause in just the right place.  I also
agree with Nagle that Stone's observations would have been of interest to
the AI community, had they been true, and thus can not object to his
decision to circulate them over the ARPANET.  As it happens, though, the
obvious interpretation of Stone's published remarks, as both Nagle and I
interpreted them, were, quite simply, counterfactual.

Nagle interpreted Stone's remarks, as I did, to imply that (in Nagle's
words) "NON-VON's 1 to 3 are either unfinished or were never started."
(Stone's exact words were "Why is there a third revision when the first
machine wasn't finished?")  In fact, a minimal (3 processing element)
NON-VON 1 has already been completed and thoroughly tested.  The custom IC
on which it is based has been extensively tested, and has proved to be 100%
functional.  Construction of a non-trivial (though, at 128 PE's, still
quite small) NON-VON 1 machine awaits only the receipt from ARPA's MOSIS
system of enough chips to build a working prototype.  If MOSIS is in fact
able to deliver these parts according to the estimated timetable they have
given us, we should be able to demonstrate operation of the 128-node
prototype before our original milestone date of 12/84.

In fact, we have proceeded with all implementation efforts for which we
have received funding, have developed and tested working chips in an
unusually short period of time, and have met each and every one of our
project milestones without a single schedule overrun.  When the editors of
Mosaic sent me a draft copy of the text of their article for my review, I
called Stone, and left a message on his answering device suggesting that
(even if he was not aware of, did not understand, or had some principled
objection to our phased development strategy) he might want to change the
words "wasn't finished" to "hasn't yet been finished" in the interest of
factual accuracy.  He never returned my call, and apparently never
contacted Mosaic to correct these inaccuracies.

For the record, let me try to explain why NON-VON has so many numbers
attached to its name.  NON-VON 2 was a (successful) "paper-and-pencil"
exercise intended to explore the conceptual boundaries of SIMD vs. MIMD
execution in massively parallel machines.  As we have emphasized both in
publications and in public talks, this architecture was never slated for
physical implementation.  To be fair to Stone, he never explicitly said
that it was.  Still, I (along with Nagle and others who have since
communicated with me) felt that Stone's remarks SUGGESTED that NON-VON 2
provided further evidence that we were continually changing our mind about
what we wanted to build, and abandoning our efforts in midstream.  This is
not true.

NON-VON 3, on the other hand, was in fact proposed for actual
implementation.  Although we have not yet received funding to build a
working prototype, and will probably not "freeze" its detailed design for
some months, considerable progress has been made in a tentative design and
layout for a NON-VON 3 chip containing eight 8-bit PE's.  The NON-VON 3 PE
is based on the same general architectural principles as the working
NON-VON 1 PE, but incorporates a number of improvements derived from
detailed area, timing, and electrical measurements we have obtained from
the NON-VON 1 chip.  In addition, we are incorporating a few features that
were considered for implementation in NON-VON 1, but were deemed too
complex for inclusion in the first custom chip to be produced at Columbia.

While we still expect to learn a great deal from the construction of a
128-node NON-VON 1 prototype, the results we have obtained in constructing
the NON-VON 1 chip have already paid impressive dividends in guiding our
design for NON-VON 3, and in increasing the probability of obtaining a
working, high-performance, 65,000-transistor chip within the foreseeable
future.  Based on his comments, I can only assume that, in my position,
Stone would have attempted to jump directly from an "armchair design" to a
working, highly optimized 65,000-transistor nMOS chip without wasting any
silicon on interim experimentation.  This strategy has two major drawbacks:

1.  It tends to result in architectures that micro-optimize (in both the
area and time dimensions) things that ultimately don't turn out to make
much difference, at the expense of things that do.

2.  It often seems to result in chips that never work.  Even when they do,
the total expenditure for development, measured in either calendar months,
designer-months, or fabrication costs, is typically far larger than is the
case with a phased strategy employing carefully selected elements of
"bottom-up" experimentation.

Finally, let again state my view that one of the essential characteristics
of the emerging paradigm for experimental research in the field of
nonstandard architectures is the development of "non-optimal" machines that
nonetheless clearly explicate and test new architectural ideas.  Even in
NON-VON 3, we have not attempted to embody all of (or even all of the most
important) architectural features that we believe will ultimately prove
important in massively parallel machines.

By way of illustration, we have thus far limited the scope of our
experimental work to very fine grain SIMD machines supporting only a single
physical PE interconnection scheme.  This is not because we believe that
the future of computation lies in the construction of such machines.  On
the contrary, I am personally convinced that, if massively parallel
machines ever do find extensive use in practical applications (and, in my
view, it is too early to predict whether they will), they are almost
certain to exhibit heterogeneity in all three dimensions (granularity,
synchrony and topology).

Ultimately, we hope to broaden the scope of the NON-VON project to consider
the opportunities and problems associated with more than one class of
processing element, multiple-SIMD, as opposed to strictly SIMD, execution
schemes, and the inclusion of additional communication links.  In the
context of a research (as opposed to a development) effort, however, it
often seems to be more productive to explore a few mechanisms in some
detail than incorporate within the first architectural experiment all
features that seem like they might ultimately come in handy.

The NON-VON 1 prototype, along with our proposed NON-VON 3 machine,
exemplify this approach to experimental research in computer architecture.
Until we lose interest in the problems of massively parallel computation,
or run out of either unresolved questions or the funding to answer them, we
are likely to stick to our current research strategy, which is based in
part on the implementation of experimental hardware in multiple, partially
overlapped stages.  Although I know this will upset Harold, there may thus
someday be a NON-VON 4, a NON-VON 5, and possibly even a NON-VON 6.  Some
of these later successors may never get past the stage of educated doodles,
while others may yield only concrete evidence of the shortcomings of some
of our favorite architectural ideas.

I believe it to be characteristic of the paradigm shift to which I referred
in my last message that the very strategy to which we attribute much of our
success is casually dismissed by Stone as evidence of indecison and
failure.  As decreasing IC device dimensions and the availability of
rapid-turnaround VLSI facilities combine to significantly expand the
possibilities for experimental research on computer architectures, it may
be useful to take a fresh look our criteria for evaluating research methods
and research results in this area.

David


P.S.  For those who may be interested, a more detailed explanation of the
rationale behind our plan for the phased development of NON-VON prototypes
is outlined in a paper presented at COMPCON '84.  This paper was not,
however, available to Stone at the time his remarks were quoted in Mosaic;
in general, our failure to promptly publish papers describing our work is
probably the source of much legitimate criticism of the NON-VON project.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 1984 16:59-EDT
-FROM-
From: DISRAEL at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System for Maintenance
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


There will be a seminar on Thursday, June 7th at 10:30 in the 2nd floor
large conference room.  The speaker will be Gregg Vesonder of Bell
Labs.

           ACE: An Expert System for Telephone Cable Maintenance

                        Gregg T. Vesonder

                        Bell Laboratories
                          Whippany, NJ

As more of the record keeping and monitoring functions of the local
telephone network are automated, there is an increasing burden on the
network staff to analyze the information generated by these systems.
An expert system called ACE (Automated Cable Expertise) was developed
to help the staff manage this information.  ACE analyzes the
information by using the same rules and procedures that a human analyst
uses. Standard knowledge engineering techniques were used to acquire
the expert knowledge and to incorportae that knowledge into ACE's
knowledge base.  The most significant departure from "standard" expert
system architecture was ACE's use of a conventional data base
management system as its primary source of information.  Our experience
with building and deploying ACE has shown that the technology of expert
systems can be useful in a variety of business data processing
environments.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
71
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jun 1984 13:12:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Perry W. Thorndyke <THORNDYKE@USC-ISI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer war games
-BODY-
Reply to Chuck McManis's request for information on war games:

There are literally hundreds of programs, written in a variety of languagues
for a variety of machines, that support battle simulation or war gaming.
A catalog of these is published annually and is available under the title
"Catalog of Wargaming and Military Simulation Models" from Studies,
Analysis, and Gaming Agency; Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
The Pentagon; Washington, D.C.

Few, if any, of the systems described in the catalog provide "intelligent"
simulation of opponent behavior.  One reason for this is that there exists
no articulated model for expertise in tactical planning and decision making.
We at Perceptronics are developing a Navy tactical battle game with an
automated opponent based on a cognitive model of tactics.  The project is a
vehicle to explore (1) development of an expert model of time-stressed
tactical decision making, (2) development of an instructional system to
teach these skills to a novice, (3) automating an adaptive, intelligent
opponent using the expert model, and (4) making the opponent behavior
modifiable under program control of the instructional system to achieve
pedagogical objectives.  A technical report is due out soon; if you are
interested, send your address and I'll add you to the mailing list.

Perry Thorndyke
Perceptronics, Inc.
545 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 321-4901

thorndyke@usc-isi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jun 84 16:34:24 EDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@XEROX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Wargames
-BODY-
Sounds like you've got your work cut out.  It'll probably be
considerably more complex than a chess player, because chess is the
simplest of wargames (I choose to ignore checkers): 2 players with 32
counters (of 6 types) on a 64 space board, with relatively limited
connections (4) per space.  More complex wargames have more players,
with hundreds of counters (of many more than 6 types) on a board with
thousands of spaces, each space usually connnecting to 6 others.  The
rules are vastly more complex as well.

The project sounds pretty interesting though, and I'll be glad to lend
what aid I can from this distance.


                                Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 84 15:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: Brian Reid <reid@Glacier>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI programs: a definition
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


An AI program is a program written by a person who fervently believes that
he is doing AI as he writes the program. Mere belief is not sufficient; it
must be zealous belief.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 84 16:18 PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Kent <kent@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI programs: addition to a definition
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


In addition to the definition given by reid@Glacier:

An AI program is a program in which at least one of the important
subproblems that needs solving is solved by a brute force method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 3 Jun 84 20:23:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Buchanan  <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Program Demo
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[The following is part of an exchange of messages about the percentage
of graduating AI students who have been exposed to actual AI program
demos.  I have edited it slightly. -- KIL]


MYCIN is available on SUMEX from the guest account -- remember that
large jobs are slow during the day.  Once on Sumex, type

        <MYCIN>MYCIN

to the Exec and read the help options.  If you don't know much
medicine it might be a good idea to run a library case first.
You should not need someone else to demo it for you, but there
are still people around who worked on MYCIN when it was an active
project if you need help.

The password for the Sumex guest acct is available from RYALLS @ SUMEX.

A caveat: the medical knowledge base has not been updated
in the past several years to reflect knowledge of new drugs or
improved therapies.

bgb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Jun 84 08:46:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bud Spurgeon <SPURGEON@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Have you seen?
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           How may MTC students have seen a Turing machine?
					-- Moshe Vardi

Our DEC 2060 nicknamed "TURING" is on view daily in the Pine Hall machine
room.
                -Bud :-)
(P.S. We're still looking for a tape cabinet capable of storing infinitely
long tape.)
(P.P.S. Backups on this thing take FOREVER.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 84 09:26:42 edt
-FROM-
From: aronson@nlm-mcs (Jules P. Aronson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Research Contract
-BODY-
Please distribute the following announcement to Research people in the
fields of AI and Information Science:
    --------------------------------------------------------------

AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION AND RETRIEVAL PROJECT -- The Lister Hill National
Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, is
developing a research project to investigate, develop, and evaluated
Information Science, Computational Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence
techniques which support the automated classification and retrieval of
biomedical literature.  The project shall include investigations in natural
language understanding, knowledge representation, and information retrieval,
to explore the development of automated systems for identifying,
representing, and retrieving relevant concepts and main ideas from printed
documents.

Written requests for RFP NLM-84-115/PSP, should be addressed to the National
Library of Medicine, Office of Contracts Management, Building 38A, Room
B1N17, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20209, Attention:  Patricia
Page.  The RFP will be available in approximately 30 days and will close 30
days after it is issued.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Jun 84 23:15:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: JMILLER%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming by Example
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Title: Programming by Example

Speaker: Dan Halbert, University of California, Berkeley,
         and Xerox Corporation, Office Systems Division

Wednesday, June 6, 2pm, AI playroom (8th floor, Tech Square)


Most computer-based applications systems cannot be programmed by their
users. We do not expect the average user of a software system to be able
to program it, because conventional programming is not an easy task.

But ordinary users can program their systems, using a technique called
"programming by example". At its simplest, programming by example is
just recording a sequence of commands to a system, so that the sequence
can be played back at a later time, to do the same or a similar task.
The sequence forms a program. The user writes the program -in the user
interface- of the system, which he already has to know in order to
operate the system. Programming by example is "Do what I did."

A simple program written by example may not be very interesting. I will
show methods for letting the user -generalize- the program so it will
operate on data other than that used in the example, and for adding
control structure to the program.

In this talk, I will describe programming by example, discuss current
and past research in this area, and also describe a particular
implementation of programming by example in a prototype of the Xerox
8010 Star office information system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 May 84 16:29:48-EDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph Traub <TRAUB@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for papers
-BODY-
                           CALL FOR PAPERS

Symposium on Complexity of Approximately Solved Problems

April 17-19, 1985

Computer Science Department
Columbia University
New York, NY  10027

SUPPORT:  This symposium is supported by a grant from the System Development
Foundation.

SCOPE:  This multidisciplinary symposium focuses on problems which are
approximately solved and for which optimal algorithms or complexity results
are available.  Of particular interest are distributed systems, where
limitations on information flow can cause uncertainty in the approximate
solution of problems.  The following is a partial list of topics:  distributed
computation, approximate solution of hard problems, applied mathematics,
signal processing, numerical analysis, computer vision, remote sensing,
fusion of information, prediction, estimation, control, decision theory,
mathematical economics, optimal recovery, seismology, information theory,
design of experiments, stochastic scheduling.

INVITED SPEAKERS:  The following is a list of invited speakers.

L. Blum, Mills College                  J. Halpern, IBM
L. Hurwicz, University of Minnesota     D. Johnson, AT&T - Bell Laboratories
J. Kadane, Carnegie-Mellon University   R. Karp, Berkeley
H.T. Kung, Carnegie-Mellon University   D. Lee, Columbia University
M. Milanese, Politecnico di Torino      C.H. Papadimitriou, Stanford University
J. Pearl, UCLA                          M. Rabin, Harvard University and
                                                  Hebrew University
S. Reiter, Northwestern University      A. Schonhage, University of Tubingen
K. Sikorski, Columbia University        S. Smale, Berkeley
J.F. Traub, Columbia University         G. Wasilkowski, Columbia University
                                            and University of Warsaw
A.G. Werschulz, Fordham University      H. Wozniakowski, Columbia University
                                            and University of Warsaw


CONTRIBUTED PAPERS:  All appropriate papers for which abstracts are contributed
will be scheduled.  To contribute a paper send title, author, affiliation, and
abstract on one side of a single 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper.


          TITLES AND ABSTRACTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY JANUARY 15, 1985


PUBLICATION:  Invited papers will be published.

REGISTRATION:  The symposium will be held in the Kellogg Conference Center on
the Fifteenth Floor of the International Affairs Building, 118th Street and
Amsterdam Avenue.  The conference schedule and paper abstracts will be
available at the registration desk.  Registration will start at 9:00 a.m.
There is no registration charge.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:  The program schedule for invited and contributed
papers will be mailed by about March 15 only to those responding to this
Call for Papers.  If you have any questions, contact TRAUB@Columbia-20.ARPA.

To help us plan for the symposium please send the following information to
NG@Columbia-20.ARPA.


Name: ________________________ Affiliation: _______________________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________

City: ___________________ State: _____________________ Zip: _______________


( ) I will attend the Complexity Symposium.

( ) I may contribute a paper.

( ) I may not attend, but please send program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
72
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Jun 84 08:10:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: TEX82@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Names
-BODY-
BibTeX, LaTeX's bibliography lookup program, needs:

  * a grammar of author names--that is, a BNF specification of
    the components of a name, and

  * a specification of how to print a name, in various styles, given
    its parse tree.

Possible style choices for names include last name first or last and,
perhaps, complete first/middle names or initials.

The rules should handle almost all cases encountered in technical
literature, including  'Brinch Hansen, Per'  and  'Jean-Pierre van der
Waerden, Jr.'  but need not cover cases like  'John Thompson, Earl of
Rumford'.  The grammar need not be logically complete; for example, it
would be all right to consider  'Colonel'  to be the first name of
'Colonel John Blimp', if that produces the correct printed version.

Please contact me if you know of anything like this.

Leslie Lamport


[Please forward this to anyone who might have an answer.  Leslie has
been doing a great job building the LaTeX friendly user interface to
TeX, and a great many of us can benefit from any increased functionality
he can develop for the bibliography preprocessor.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 84 20:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: THE DESK (terminal)OF <Gangel%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: multi-agents and complex world models
-BODY-
      There are many planning systems using multi-agents and temporal
 constraints. But the domains for most of these systems are limited
 to only a very simplistic world model. The system we are working on
 involves a complex graphic display of the inside of NASA's space lab
 (within the space shuttle). There are many complex objects and
 multi-agents to contend with to provide a true simulation of even a
 simple command.

      Hendrix's model shows an interesting world model for a simple
 scenario, but without a sophisticated planner. There must be further
 research in such "robot-like" worlds and if so, I would greatly
 appreciate any pointers toward articles/papers/books dealing with
 such complex world models and planning systems.

                                Thank you,

                                Jeffrey S. Gangel
                                [ Gangel%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa ]
                                Dept. of Computer and Information Science
                                Moore School
                                University of Pennsylvania
                                Philadelphia, PA 19104

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jun 84 10:32:19 PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course using *Building Expert Systems* (Hayes-Roth,Waterman,Lenat)
-BODY-

In response to a request for information on courses using the
text *Building Expert Systems* by R. Hayes-Roth, D. Waterman, and D.
Lenat (Addison Wesley, 1983):

UCLA Extension Offered such a class this past spring: Developing Expert
Systems.  Instructor: Dr. Douglas R. Partridge (works for one of the
defense/aerospace contractors in the LA area.)

The course was taught as a lecture-seminar w/demonstrations & code
walkthroughs.
Both LISP and PROLOG methods were discussed. A major portion of the
grading depended on a term project. The class was expanded from a
seminar given by Dr. Partridge for the Technology Transfer Society.

The prospectus I have is 3pg and too long for the digest.  I will forward
it on request but suggest calling the extension at (213) 825-3985 for
more up-to-date information.

J.B. Isdale
(Isdale.es@XEROX.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jun 84 6:00:08-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Watch out for that tree
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.220

It's the computer's own fault for using human-range vision.  Infra-red
would have revealed the cardboard tree.  "Take these broken wings ... "

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jun 84 6:07:27-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: cross-time identity.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.221

This problem also arises in databases.  How do you find out whether the
Joe Szmoe in your tax database is the same as the Joe Szmoe in your
welfare database?  SSNs don't count - he may have several.

The problem is even worse when you pass from Artificial Intelligence
to Military Intelligence.  You may know nothing for certain about
enemy spies, and can only suspect that two spies are identical.

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 84 9:47:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@Brl-Bmd.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Methods
-BODY-
Not at all deep; maybe others will find our gropings briefly amusing .....

    Date:     Fri, 8 Jun 84 11:19:30 EDT
    From:     Brint <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>

"The usual attitude of mathematicians is reflected in their published
research papers and in mathematics textbooks.  Proofs are revamped and
polished until all trace of how they were discovered is completely
hidden.  The reader is left to assume that the proof came to the originator
in a blinding flash, since it contains steps which no one could possibly
have guessed would succeed.  The painstaking process of trial and error,
revision and adjustment are all invisible."

Alan Bundy


    From:     Stephen Wolff <steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA>

I have the greatest respect for Alan Bundy, and I agree with his words.  I
shall however adamantly disagree with his (or anyone's) implication that

"The painstaking process of trial and error, revision and adjustment....."

should NOT be invisible -- in a MATHEMATICS paper.  The purpose of such a
paper MUST be FIRST to advance knowledge; proofs MUST be as spare, concise
and lucid as it is within the author's talent to make them -- for sloppy or
wordy proofs are just that much harder to verify.  And, indeed, the paper is
diminished to PRECISELY the extent that the author's trials and fumbles are
displayed -- for they may prejudice the world-view of a reader and lead him
to the same (POSSIBLY erroneous) result.

If you say that there are too few (maybe no) places to publish mathematicians'
thought processes, methods of hypothesis, &c., then I shall agree.  And,
further, state my belief that UNTIL we are able to read how both successful
and unsuccessful mathematicians derive the objects of their study, then all
successful efforts at automated reasoning will be just blind beginners' luck.


    From:     Paul Broome <broome@BRL-TGR.ARPA>

Bundy was not implying that the dead end paths in the search for a proof
should be in the paper that publishes the proof.  Just before the portion
that Brint quoted, he discussed Polya's books, "How to Solve It" and
"Mathematical Discovery" and introduced the paragraph containing the
aforementioned quote with, "Polya's attitude in trying to understand the
'mysterious' aspects of problem solving is all too rare."  His next
paragraph begins with "The only attempt, of which I am aware, to explain
the process by which a proof was constructed, is B.L. van der Waerden's
paper, 'How the proof of Baudet's conjecture was found', .."

He's giving motivation for a book on the modeling of mathematical reasoning.


    From:     Brint <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>

Perhaps, as in so many endeavors, several bright people actually
agree:

        1. Mathematics papers are not the place for discussing
trial_and_error, inspirational flashes, false starts, and other
means for "discovering" truth and error.

        2. Forums are needed for the discussion of such ideas in
order to advance our understanding of the process at least toward
the end of improving mathematical reasoning by computer.

        3. In some limited way, such forums exist.  We need to
encourage and motivate our mathematicians to contribute to them.

Brint

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jun 84 16:57:32 EDT  (Fri)
-FROM-
From: JACK MINKER <minker@umcp-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOGIC and its ROLE in AI
-BODY-

                        SPECIAL YEAR
                             IN
                     MATHEMATICAL LOGIC
                            AND
                THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE


     Each year the Mathematics Department of the  University
of  Maryland  devotes  its attention to a special topic.  In
conjunction with the Department  of  Computer  Science,  the
1984-1985  academic  year  will  be  devoted to the topic of
mathematical logic and theoretical  computer  science.   The
year  will  consist  of eight sessions devoted to particular
areas.  The time-table that has evolved is given below.

     As will be noted, the week of October 22-26, 1984, will
be  devoted  to  issues  in LOGIC and its ROLE in ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE with emphasis on knowledge representation, com-
mon  sense reasoning, non-monotonic reasoning and logic pro-
gramming.

     The lectures will be open to the public.   The  precise
times  and  dates  of  the  lectures for the AI week will be
announced in the next few months.

     We anticipate that there will be modest financial  sup-
port  presumably  for  graduate students and junior faculty.
Applications for support for the week of October 22-26 to be
devoted  to  LOGIC  and  its ROLE in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
should be sent to:

       Dr. Jack Minker
       Department of Computer Science
       University of Maryland
       College Park, Maryland
       20742
       minker@umcp-cs
       (301) 454-6119

Kindly send a letter including a vitae, a  statement  as  to
the  importance of these issues to your research, the number
of days you might like to attend, and the amount of  support
that you might require.  We emphasize that we do not know if
we will have funds and even  assuming  they  are  available,
they  will  be  modest  at best.  You should also notify the
above by sending a message  over  the  net  expressing  your
interest in attending the open sessions.

     Those who plan to come, but require no  financial  sup-
port should also inform us of your intentions so that we may
arrange for an appropriate size lecture hall.

     Those individuals interested in other topics associated
with this Math Year should contact:

       Dr. E.G.K. Lopez - Escobar
       Department of Mathematics
       University of Maryland
       College Park, Maryland
       20742
       egkle@umcp-cs
       (301) 454-3759

and provide the same information as above.


                       TIME SCHEDULE
                            AND
                         LECTURERS

     October 1-5, 1984.  Semantics and Logics of Programs.
     Participants: S. Brookes, D. Kozen,  A.  Meyer,  M.  O'Donnell,
         R. Statman

     October 8-12, 1984. Recursion Theory.
     Participants: R. Book, J. Case, R. Daley, D. Leivant, J. Myhill,
         A. Selman, P. Young

   **October 22-26, 1984. LOGIC and its ROLE  in  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
     Participants: J. Barwise, M. van Emden, L. Henschen,  J.  McCarthy,
         R. Reiter

     December 3-7, 1984. Model Theory and Algebra.
     Participants: A. Macintyre, A. Mekler, C. Wood

     March 4-8, 1985.   Automath  and  Automating  Natural Deduction.
     Participants: N.G. DeBruijn, J. Zucker

     March 11-15, 1985.  Stability theory.
     Participants: J. Baldwin, S. Buechler, A. Pillay, C. Steinhorn

     April 22-26, 1985.  Toposes and Model Theory.
     Participants: A. Joyal, F. Lawvere, I. Moerdijk, G. Reyes,
         A. Scendrov

     April 29-May 3,1985. Toposes and Proof Theory.
     Participants: M. Bunge, P. Freyd, M. Makkai, D. Scott, P. Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 84 9:00:08-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!alberta!sask!utcsrgv!utai!gh @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian A.I. Newsletter -- Call for submissions
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utai.187

                         ====================
                         Call for submissions
                         ====================
   CANADIAN
             A R T I F I C I A L   I N T E L L I G E N C E
                                                            NEWSLETTER

                      (Published by CSCSI/SCEIO)

The Canadian A.I. Newsletter invites submissions from Canada, the U.S., and the
rest of the world of any item relevant to artificial intelligence:

        -- Articles of general interest.
        -- Abstracts of recent publications, theses, and technical reports.
        -- Descriptions of current research and courses at a given institution.
        -- Reports of recent conferences, workshops and the like.
        -- Announcements of forthcoming conferences and other activities.
        -- Calls for papers.
        -- Book reviews (and books for review).
        -- Announcements of new A.I. companies and products.
        -- Opinions, counterpoints, polemic, and controversy.
        -- Humour, cartoons, artwork.
        -- Advertisements (rates upon request).
        -- Anything else concerned with A.I.

Please send submissions, either physical or electronic, to the editor:
   Graeme Hirst
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Toronto
   Toronto, CANADA  M5S 1A4

   Phone: 416-978-6277/6025
   CSNET: cscsi@toronto                 ARPANET: cscsi.toronto@csnet-relay
   UUCP:  utcsrgv!cscsi (connections to allegra, cornell, decvax, decwrl,
            deepthot, drea, floyd, garfield, hcr, ihnp4, linus, mbcsd,
            mcgill-vision, musocs, qucis, sask, ubc-vision, utzoo, uw-beaver,
            watmath, and many other sites)

                        ------------------------

The Canadian A.I. Newsletter is sent to all members of CSCSI/SCEIO, the
Canadian artificial intelligence society.  To join, write to CIPS (which
administers membership matters for the society) with the appropriate fee and a
covering note.  You need not be Canadian to be a member.
   CIPS
   243 College Street, 5th floor
   Toronto, CANADA  M5T 2Y1
Membership: $10 regular, $5 students (Canadian funds); there is a discount of
$2 for CIPS members.  Payment may be made in U.S. dollars at the current rate
of exchange.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
73
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 84 14:06:55-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!exodus!dhc
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Definition of an AI program
-BODY-
  Article-I.D.: exodus.169
  In-Reply-To: Article <581@sri-arpa.UUCP>


How about this:
A program is an AI program if and only if it is written in LISP.

                                David H. Copp

[Or Prolog?  The "if ..." is commonly assumed, but the "only if ..."
seems much too strong.  I currently do list processing in C; while
I don't claim much AI content, I see little difference between the C
code and equivalent algorithms written in LISP.  Bob Amsler has pointed
out to me that spelling correctors are knowledge-based programs capable
of outperforming even intelligent humans; few such programs are written
in AI languages.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 13-Jun-84 16:33:08-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Bundy%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Methods
-BODY-
        I support Broome's and Brint's interpretations of what I was
trying to say in my book.  I was not trying to criticise mathematics
papers per se, but to point out that they do not contain some of the
information that AI researchers need for computational modelling and to
make a plea for a forum for such information.

        But let me add a caveat to that.  The proofs in a paper are at
least as important a contribution to mathematics as the theorems they
prove.  Future mathematicians may want to use these proofs as models for
proofs in analogous areas of mathematics (think of diagonalization
arguments, for instance).  So it will improve the MATHEMATICAL content
of the papers if the author points out the structure of the proof and
draws attention to what s/he regards as the key ideas behind the proof.

                Alan Bundy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jun 84 20:27:32-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!sher @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rocheste.7379

Personally,  I have done mathematics up to the beginning graduate level
for various courses.  When I do any difficult piece of mathematics I
find that after the fact I can never remember how I came upon the
proof.  I can reconstruct my steps but the reconstruction has no real
relationship to what I really did.  The sensation of finishing a proof
is highly analogous to waking up from a dream.  This is possibly the
most important reason why I am doing artificial intelligence rather
than mathematics today.  If other real mathematicians also operate in
this manner then it is not surprising that they are reluctant to write
up their reasoning processes.  They literally cannot remember them.
  -David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 10 Jun 84 13:26:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: Chuck Restivo  <Restivo@SU-SCORE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LP - Library Update
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Isaac Balbin and Koenraad Lecot sent a copy of their
useful publication;

"Prolog and Logic Programming Bibliography"

The cost for obtaining your own copy is $5.00 Australian,
and includes the cost of Air Mail.

Contact:
                             Isaac Balbin
                    Department of Computer Science
                            Parkville 3052
                         Melbourne, Australia

Send information regarding new references and errata to

    UUCP:  {decvax}, vax135} !mulga!Isaac
or
    ARPA:  CS.Koen@UCLA-Locus

so the bibliography can be updated regularly, please.

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Jun 84 19:27:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Reports
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                       Partial New Reports List
                   MATH & COMPUTER SCIENCE LIBRARY

                    (From Vol. 6, No. 6, 05/28/84)

The reports listed below are now available for circulation at Stanford.

     019257    Haridi, S. Sahlin, D.*Evaluation of logic programs based on
                 natural deduction.* Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm.
                 Telecomm. & Comp. Systems Dept.*TRITA-CS-8305 B.*1983.

     019261    Gendrix, G.G. Lewis, W.H.* Transportable natural language
                 interfaces to databases.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*
                 Tech.Note 228.*1981.

     019263    Walker, D.E. Hobbs, J.R.* Natural language access to
                 medical text.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note
                 240.*1981.

     019264    Pereira, F.* Logic for natural language analysis.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 275, Ph.D. Thesis.
                 Pereira, F.*1983. (Slightly revised version of a thesis
                 submitted to the Department of Artificial Intelligence,
                 University of Edinburgh for the degree of Doctor of
                 Philosophy).

     019271    Moore, R.C.* Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic
                 logic.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 284.*
                 1983.

     019272    Uszkoreit, H.*A framework for processing partially free
                 word order.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note
                 285.*1983.

     019277    Warren, D.H.D.* Applied logic - its use and implementation
                 as a programming tool.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*
                 Tech.Note 290, Ph.D. Thesis. Warren, D.H.D.*1983.
                 (Verbatim copy of a thesis submitted to the Department of
                 Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh in 1977
                 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy).

     019278    Shieber, S.M.* Direct parsing of ID/LP grammars.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 291R.*1983
                 (revised).

     019279    Grosz, B.J. Joshi, A.K. Weinstein, S.*Providing a unified
                 account of definite noun phrases in discourses.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 292.*1983.

     019280    Martin, P. Appelt, D. Pereira, F.* Transportability and
                 generality in a natural language interface system.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 293.*1983.

     019292    Pereira, F.C.N. Warren, D.H.D.* Parsing as deduction.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 295.*1983.

     019284    Appelt, D.E.* Telegram: a grammar formalism for language
                 planning.* SRI International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 297.*
                 1983.

     019290    Appelt, D.* Planning English referring expressions.* SRI
                 International. A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 312.*1983.

     019294    Nilsson, N.J.* Probabilistic logic.* SRI International.
                 A.I. Center.*Tech.Note 321.*1984.

     019308    Meandzija, B.*Automated generation of communication
                 systems.* Southern Methodist U. Comp.Sci. & Eng.Dept.*
                 83-CSE-16.*1983.

     019319    Griswold, R.E.*The implementation of an experimental
                 language for manipulating sequences.* Arizona U.
                 Comp.Sci.Dept.*TR 83-20.*1983.

     019336    Janssens, D. Rozenberg, G.* Graph grammars with node label
                 controlled rewriting and embedding.* Colorado U.
                 Comp.Sci.Dept.*CU-CS-251-83.*1983.

     019368    Koskimies, K.*Extensions of one-pass attribute grammars.*
                 Helsinki U. Comp.Sci.Dept.*Rpt. A-1983-04.*1983.

     019373    Shilcrat, E. Panangaden, P. Henderson, T.*Implementing
                 multi sensor systems in a functional language.*  Utah U.
                 Comp.Sci.Dept.*UUCS-84-001.*1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13-Jun-84 02:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: William Daul  Augmentation Systems Division / MDC <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Forum Set For Aug. 4-8
-BODY-
RENSSELAERVILLE, N.Y. -- Marvin Minsky, a co-founder and member of the MIT
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and science fiction writer/scientist Isaac
Asimov will address "Artificial Intelligence: Are We Being Outsmarted?" in an
Aug. 4-8 program at the Rensselaerville Institute located here.

The program will be conducted in the manner of a hearing, and Asimov and Minsky
will be questioned by participants in the AI program.

The cost for the program is $250.  More information can be obtained from
Mary-Ann Ronconi, Public Programs Coordinator, The Rensselaerville Institute,
Rensselartville, N.Y. 12147.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06/11/84 12:23:47
-FROM-
From: AH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Motion of Objects in Contact
-BODY-
                [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                        DATE:   Thursday, June 14, 1984
                        TIME:   Refreshments    3:45PM
                                Lecture         4:00PM
                       PLACE:   NE43-512A


                      "THE MOTION OF OBJECTS IN CONTACT"

                            Professor John Hopcroft
                              Cornell University

There is an increasing use of computers in the design, manufacture and
manipulation of physical objects.  An important aspect of reasoning about such
actions concerns the motion of objects in contact.  The study of problems of
this nature requires not only the ability to represent physical objects but the
development of a framework or theory in which to reason about them.  In this
talk such a development is investigated and a fundamental theorem concerning
the motion of objects in contact is proved.  The simplest form of this theorem
states that if two objects in contact can be moved to another configuration in
which they are in contact, then there is a way to move them from the first
configuration to the second configuration such that the objects remain in
contact throughout the motion.  The obvious applications of this result in
compliant motion and also applications in motion planning are discussed.

HOST:  Professor Silvio Micali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 84 14:08:17 PDT
-FROM-
From: Philip Westlake <westlake@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI and APL
-BODY-
                       APL Users Group Meeting

The Aerospace Corporation APL Users Group is honored to present:
        Dr. Zdenek V. Jizbz and Ms. Phuong T. Nguyen
        of Chevron Oil Field Research Co., La Habra, California

Speaking on: "Artificial Intelligence and APL with Nested Arrays"

        Wednesday, June 13, 1984
        1:00 pm
        A1/1062
        The Aerospace Corporation

The Chevron Oil Field The Chevron Oil Field Research Company of La Habra,
California has been doing some research on Expert Systems implemented in
nested array APL and they are pleased with the rapid progress that they have
achieved in a relatively short time due to the power of nested array APL.
A vector of nested vectors can be matched to a tree structure.  The utility
of this relationship, however, is relatively limited because nodes and
branches are implicit (not explicit).  By adding a convention similar to that
of polish notation, modes can be made explicit.  A special type of nested
vector called a scalar tree will be defined.  The following powerful
properties of scalar trees will be illustrated:

        1. The possibility to separate syntactic constructs from semantics

        2. The ability to form AND/OR trees of arbitrary complexity, and
           application of DeMorgan's law to such trees with a single
           one-character APL primitive function.

        3. The simplicity of building (primitive) inference engines in
           just a few lines of APL code.

There will be three lectures lasting about 50 minutes each.  Dr. Jizba will
be giving the first two lectures and Ms. Nguyen will be giving the third
lecture.

Lecture 1       Define Artificial Intelligence. Describe basic idea of
                Expert Systems.  Compare LISP to APL with nested arrays.
                Define tree structures, and describe the specific concept
                of an APL scalar tree.  Show how recursuve functions are
                used to operate on nested arrays.

Lecture 2       Introduce Predicate Calculus, and illustrate how it can be
                implemented using APL nested structures.  Describe
                Production rules, and Inference Engine in APL implementation.
                Describe DRIVER function that allows English-like
                communication with user.

Lecture 3       (PTN) Understanding a sentence.  Kinds of sentences. Global
                and local dictionaries.  Meaning.  Syntactic sentences.
                History trace.  Handling of misspelled words and phrases.

U.S. Citizenship required in order to attend the presentation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jun 84 17:04:39 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Equation Solving Methods
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                  machine learning brown bag seminar

Title: Learning Equations Solving Methods from Worked Examples

Speaker:      Bernard Silver
              Dept. of Artificial Intelligence
              University of Edinburgh

Date:         Wednesday, June 27, 1984, 12:00-1:30
Location:     Hill Center, 7th floor lounge


       This talk will describe LP, a program that learns new techniques for
    solving  equations  by  examining  worked examples.  Unlike most of the
    work in this field, where the equations have been very simple, LP  uses
    equations  of A level standard (A levels are exams taken at 18, and are
    used for university selection.)

       In order to be able to successfully use a new technique,  LP  learns
    many  different types of information.  At the lowest level, LP compares
    consecutive lines in the worked example,  finding  differences  between
    them.  This allows the program to learn new rewrite rules.

       LP  also  tries  to  discover  the  strategic  purpose of each step,
    expressed in terms of  satisfying  preconditions  of  following  steps.
    From  this  viewpoint,  the  worked example can also be considered as a
    type of plan for solving the  equation.    LP  extracts  the  necessary
    information,  and  builds  a  plan  which is stored for future use.  LP
    executes the plan in a flexible way to solve new equations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Jun 84 00:17:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Expert Systems
-BODY-
This is a repeat of an earlier announcement that went out on AILIST but
not that the date of acceptance for submissions has been moved back to
July 1.

[The original announcement appeared in AIList Vol. 2 #58, May 15, 1984.
I will send a full copy of this second announcement to anyone who requests
it. -- KIL]

                ---------------

Date:     Sun, 10 Jun 84 15:39 EST
From:     John Roach <roach%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject:  workshop on expert systems

                           CALL FOR PAPERS
        IEEE Workshop on Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems
      Sheraton Denver Tex, Denver, Colorado, 3, 4 December 1984

Please send eight copies of a 1000-2000 word double-space, typed, summary of
the proposed paper to:

        Mark S. Fox
        Robotics Institute
        Carnegie-Mellon University
        Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

July 1, 1984 is the deadline for the submission of summaries.
Authors will be notifed of acceptance or rejection by July 23, 1984.
The accepted papers must be typed on special forms and received by the program
chairman at the above address by September 3, 1984.

General Chairman
John Roach
Dept. of Computer Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, VA  24061  (703)-961-5368

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Jun 84 18:11:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Reasoning
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                          Stanford Workshop On
                     PRACTICAL REASONONING AND PLANNING
               Sponsored by CSLI and the Philosophy Department
                              June 19-21

The workshop will involve researchers in philosophy and artificial
intelligence. Workshop organizers anticipate a productive interaction
centering on issues of belief, desire, intention, and action in humans and
machines.

All sessions will be held in Building 380 (Mathematics), Room 380Y,
unless otherwise specified.

SCHEDULE: Tuesday, June 19
                10:00 to 11:45  John Searle
                1:30 to  3:15   Drew McDermott
                 3:30 to  5:30  Allan Gibbard

          Wednesday, June 20
                10:00 to 11:45  Gilbert Harman
                 1:30 to  3:15  Thomas Hill
                 3:30 to  5:30  Patrick Hayes, David Israel
                 8:30 to 10:30  Richard Jeffery

          Thursday, June 21
                 9:00 to 10:30  Jon Doyle
                10:30 to 12:15  Hector-Neri Castaneda
                 2:00 to  3:45  James Allen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
74
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jun 1984 23:33-EST
-FROM-
From: Todd.Kueny@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Q'NIAL
-BODY-
I have recently heard of a language developed in Canada
(Queens University?) called Q'Nial or Nial.  These folks have been at
some shows (USENIX) and have a demo system which looks alot like a lisp
with algol syntax.  Does anyone know about these guys?
Are there any technical papers?
(I think NIAL stands for Nested Inter???? Array Language.)

                                                        -Todd K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 84 11:58:54 PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Pazzani <pazzani@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spelling Correctors
-BODY-
I disagree with the statement that spelling correctors are knowledge-based
programs capable of outperforming even intelligent humans.

There are two basic parts to spelling correction: detection and correction.

In the case where there is more than one possible correction for a misspelled
word, people can of course use the context to find the correct spelling.
Selecting the proper choice is in many ways like selecting the intended
sense of a word.

Computers, of course, can be much better at detection of spelling errors
except when the misspelling is another word in the vocabulary.  I would
not call checking a word against a prestored vocabulary knowledge based
even with a complex root stripping capability.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jun 84 19:51:25-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princet
     on!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: elevance of "souls" to AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.927

Philip Kahn, in his discussion of souls and essences, writes:
>> A "soul," like the concept of "essence," is undefinable.
>> The problem of "cognition" is far more relevent to the study of AI because
>> it can be defined within some domain...  Whether "cognition"
>> constitutes a "soul" is again not relevent..."

I submit that the concept of "soul" is irrelevant only if AI is doomed
to utter failure.  Use your imagination and consider a computer program
that exhibits many of the characteristics of a human being in
its ability to reason, to converse, and to be creative and unexpected in
its actions.  How will you AI-ers defend yourself if a distinguished
theologian asserts that G-d has granted to your computer program a soul?

If he might be right, the program, and its hardware must not be destroyed.
Perhaps it should not be altered either, lest its soul be lost.
The casual destruction, recreation and development of computer programs
containing souls will horrify many people.  You will face demonstrations,
destruction of laboratories, and government interference of the worst kind.

Start saving up now, for a defense fund for the first AI-er accused by
a district attorney of soul-murder.

On second thought, you have nothing to fear;  no one in AI is really trying
to make computers act like humans, right?

                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 84 14:36:00 pdt
-FROM-
From: Harlan Sexton <hbs%BUGS@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Methods
-BODY-
  It is true that most mathematics papers contain
little of the sort of informal, sloppy, and confused thinking that
always accompanies any of the mathematical discovery that I have been
a party to, but these papers are written for and by professional
mathematicians in journals that are quite backlogged.
Also, although I have always been intrigued by the differences beween
modes of discovery among various mathematicians of my acquaintance,
I never found knowing how others thought about problems
of much use to me, and I think that most practicing mathematicians
are even less inclined to wonder about such things than I was when I
was a "real" mathematician.
  However, in response to the comment by David ???, I can only say that
I, and most of my fellow graduate students to whom I talked about such things,
had no trouble recalling the processes whereby we arrived at the ideas
behind proofs (and the process of proving something given an "idea"
was just tedious provided the idea was solid).
The process used to arrive at the idea, however, was as idiosyncratic
as the process one uses to choose a spouse, and it was generally as portable.
  I found it very useful to know WHAT people thought about various things,
and I learned a great deal from my advisor about valuable attitudes toward
PDE's, for example (sort of expert knowledge about what to expect from a
PDE), but HOW he thought about them was
not useful. (With the exception of the infamous Paul J. Cohen, I felt that I
appreciated HOW these other people thought; it was just that it felt like
wearing someone else's shoes to think that way. In Cohen's case we just
figured that Paul was so smart that he didn't have to think, at least like
normal people.)
  In the last year or so of my graduate career, someone came to the mathematics
department and interviewed a number of graduate students, including me,
about something which had to do with how we thought about mathematical
constructs (of very simple types which they specified). Presumably this
information, and related things, would be of some interest to Bundy. I'm
sorry that I can't be more specific, but if he would contact the
School of Education at Stanford (or maybe the Psychology Dept., but I think
this had to do with some project on mathematics education), they might be
able to help him. There is also a short book by J. Hadamard, published by
Dover, and some writings by H. Poincare', but as I recall these weren't
very detailed (and he probably knows of them already anyway). Finally,
I know that for a while Paul Cohen was interested in mathematical theorem
proving, and so he might have some useful information and ideas, as well.
(I believe that he is still in the Math. Dept. at Stanford. The AMS MAA SIAM
Combined Membership List should have his address.) --Harlan Sexton

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 15 Jun 84 13:25:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-
I'm not sure whether the following probes our commonsense reasoning
ability or simply demonstrates a quirk of natural language:

  "The Monday class will meet on Tuesday next week.  The Wednesday
  class will thus be the day after the Monday class.  (We may
  decide to hold the Friday class on Wednesday and the Wednesday
  class on Friday if everyone can make it then.)"


Another example along the same line is:

  If 3 were half of 5, what would a third of 10 be?

Although it's easy enough to finesse the problem by claiming that
this is nonsense, most people would find the answer 4 to be quite
reasonable.  The answer is derived by following the chain 3:5/2
as 6:5 as 12:10 as 4:10/3, where ":" represents some unspecified
transformation that is assumed to be linear.  I consider this similar
to the nonlinear Monday:Tuesday reasoning above.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jun 84 7:29:14-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!rbg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbosgd.20

> I believe there are aprroximately 10 to the 9th neurons in a human
> brain, if that's of any help.  Add in the glial cells (there is some
> debate about their function) and it comes to 10 to the 10th.
>  Bob Binstock

Those numbers are both wrong, but so was the number in my original posting.
Let me correct the numbers, and add the discussion to some other groups which
may or may not be interested.

Recent estimates of the number of neurons in the human brain have been
increasing, for a current estimated total of between 30x10^9 and 50x10^9.
Glial cells outnumber neurons by at least 10 to one, and occupy about half
the volume of the brain, but the ratio varies widely between brain regions,
and between species within a brain region.

To get an estimate of the computational equivalent of the brain:

Assume 5x10^10 neurons with 2x10^4 synapses each = 10^15 synapses/brain.
Each synapse, on average, adds in a quantity about 20 times/sec (it can
go much faster, but not many do at the same time).  So that's 2x10^16 very
simple approximate adds per second.

Even when everything is just right, a Cray can't do better than about 10^9
simple integer adds per sec.
So, IF THE SYNAPSES ARE BEING USED WITH TOTAL EFFICIENCY FOR PERFORMING
THE TASK, a brain is worth about 10^7 Crays.

[Credit for this calculation to Terry Sejnowski (Biophysics, Johns Hopkins)
and Geoff Hinton (Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon)].

It is not surprising that most tasks use only a small fraction of this
capacity.  However, I think the computation of the amount of information
used to store sensory perceptions by hound!rfg may be misleading:

>>if I assume a visual field as 10**3 bits high by 10**4 bits wide
>>by 10 bits for color and shading of each element, we have 10**8 bits
>>per visual field. Suppose a life time of 72 years and 16 hours a day of
>>observing (neglecting "visual dreams" which may also be remembered),
>>with a new observation every 10 seconds. I multiply it all out to
>>about 1.5 x 10**16 bits. (187,500 billion bytes?)
>>Adding audio, tactile, olfactory, taste to that ought to easily run the
>>total over 200 gigabytes. That's just for remembering observations
>>(eidetically, which is a faculty some do have).

Most people do not remember every detail of every scene they ever see.
How much of your early childhood (0-4) do you even remember at all?
Emotional content of a situation can have a large impact on what and how
much you recall.  Dangerous or joyful experiences stand out in memory
more than most neutral events.

The role of language is also an important issue in considering the storage
and information processing capacity of the brain.  Using a word to stand
for the many features which make up an object or a concept is an incredible
data compression.  This may be why the gradual increase in computational
ability across primate evolution is not a very satisfying explanation for
the quantum leap in human intellectual ability.  Many of the explanations
of the origin of consciousness rely on the advantages of language for
improving analytic ability.  The one I like best is Julian Jaynes idea
(The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind):
that consciousness is not just a simple consequence of language, but
that the exponential growth in knowledge fostered by language generates
self-consciousness only after certain kinds of concepts are introduced
into language.  This allows him to trace the evolution of consciousness
by literary analysis!

Rich Goldschmidt    -- a former brain hacker (now reformed?)
cbosgd!rbg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 13 June 1984 11:41:32 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mario.Barbacci@cmu-cs-spice.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: call for papers
-BODY-
                        CALL FOR PAPERS

                WORKSHOP ON HARDWARE DESIGN VERIFICATION
                        November 26-27, 1984
                Technical University of Darmstadt, F.R. Germany

This workshop is organized by IFIP Working Groups 10.2 and 10.5. Program
will cover all aspects of verification methods for hardware systems,
including:

        Correctness of hardware design,
        Tools and methodologies for verification,
        Verification of multilevel descriptions,
        Timing verification,
        Temporal logic,
        Correctness by construction,
        Circuit extractors,
        Design rule checkers,
        Language issues,
        Application of AI techniques.

PARTICIPATION IS BY INVITATION ONLY. If you would like to propose a
contribution to the workshop send a short summary of the intended
presentation to the Workshop Chairman before July 31, 1984. Notices of
acceptance will be sent by September 15, 1984.

Workshop Committee:

Hans Eveking (Chairman)                 Stephen Crocker
Institut fuer Datentechnik              Aerospace Corporation
Technical University of Darmstadt       P.O. Box 92957
D-6100 Darmstadt                        Los Angeles
Fed. Rep. Germany                       California 90009
(49) (6151) 162075

George J. Milne                         Robert Piloty
Computer Science Department             Institut fuer Datentechnik
University of Edinburgh                 Technical University of Darmstadt
Edinburgh, Scotland                     D-6100 Darmstadt
United Kingdom                          Fed. Rep. Germany

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
75
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 84 12:27:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Ferd Brundick (VLD/LTTB)" <fsbrn@Brl-Voc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for information
-BODY-
Hi,

Does anyone know of any expert systems to aid regression analysis ?
I've been told that Bell Labs is working in the area of AI data
analysis; William Gayle is reportedly developing a program called REX.
I would appreciate any information in this area (net addresses, phone
numbers, references, etc).  Thanks.

                                        dsw, fferd
                                        Fred S. Brundick
                                        USABRL, APG, MD.
                                        <fsbrn@brl-voc>

[Bill Gayle has been developing an expert system interface to the
Bell Labs S statistical package.  I believe it is based on the
Stanford Centaur production/reasoning system and that it uses
"pipes" to invoke S for analysis and display services.  Gayle's
system currently has little expertise in analyzing residuals,
but it does know what types of transformations might be applied
to different data types.  It is basically a helpful user interface
rather than an automated analysis system.

Rich Becker, one of the developers of S, has informed me that
source code for S is available.  Call 800-828-UNIX for information,
or write to

        AT&T Technologies Software Sales
        PO Box 25000
        Greensboro, NC 27420

For a description of the S package philosophy see Communications of
the ACM, May 1984, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 486-495.

Another automated data analysis system is the RADIX (formerly RX)
system being developed at Stanford by Dr. Robert Blum and his students.
It has knowledge about drug interactions, symptom onset times, and
other special considerations for medical database analysis.  It is
designed to romp through a database looking for interesting correlations,
then to design and run more (statistically) controlled analyses to
attempt confirmation of the discovered effects.

                                        -- Ken Laws ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Jun 84 12:44:50-EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Rubin <RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Q'NIAL
-BODY-
According to an advertisement I got, NIAL is "nested interactive array
language" and Q'NIAL is a Unix implementation from Queen's University at
Kingston, Ontario.  It claims to be a sort of cross between LISP and APL with
"nested arrays" instead of APL flat arrays or LISP nested lists, "structured
control constructs... and a substantial functional programming subset."  The
address is Nial Systems Ltd., 20 Hatter St., Kingston, Ontario K7M 2L5 (no
phone # or net address listed).  I don't know anything about it other than what
the ad says.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 17 Jun 84 16:28:44-EDT
-FROM-
From: MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pandora Project
-BODY-
   In the July 1984 issue of Esquire appears an article by Frank Rose
entitled "The Pandora Project." Rose provides some glimpses into work
at Berkeley by Robert Wilensky and Joe Faletti on the commensense
reasoning programs, PAMELA and PANDORA.

>-Wayne McGuire

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 June 1984 0019-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave Touretzky at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-84 Program Now Available
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The program for AAAI-84, which lists papers, tutorials, panel discussions,
etc., is now available on-line, in the following files:

        TEMP:AAAI84.SCH[C410DT50]       on CMUA
        <TOURETZKY>AAAI84.SCH           on CMUC
        [g]/usr/dst/aaai84.sch          on the GP-Vax

The program is 36 pages long if you print it on the dover in Sail10 font.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Jun 84 18:26:11-CDT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak Jr. <CS.NOVAK@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Army A.I. Grant to Texas
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The U.S. Army Research Office, headquartered in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, has announced the award of a contract to the University
of Texas at Austin for research and education in Artificial Intelligence.
The award is for approximately $6.5 million over a period of five years.

The University of Texas has established an Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory as an organized research unit.  Dr. Gordon S. Novak Jr. is
principal investigator of the project and has been named Director of
the Laboratory.  Dr. Robert L. Causey is Associate Director.
Other faculty whose research is funded by the contract and who will be
members of the Laboratory include professors Robert F. Simmons, Vipin
Kumar, and Elaine Rich.  All are members of the Department of Computer
Sciences except Dr. Causey, who is Chairman of the Philosophy Department.

The contract is from the Electronics Division of the Army Research Office,
under the direction of Dr. Jimmie Suttle.  The contract will provide
fellowships and research assistantships for graduate students, faculty
research funding, research computer equipment, and staff support.

The research areas covered by the Army Research Office contract include
automatic programming and solving of physics problems by computer (Novak),
computer understanding of mechanical devices described by English text
and diagrams (Simmons), parallel programs and computer architectures for
solving problems involving searching (Kumar), reasoning under conditions
of uncertainty, and intelligent interfaces to computer programs (Rich).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 19-Jun-84 12:19:22-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Bundy%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Maintaining High Quality in AI Products
-BODY-
        Credibility has always been a precious asset for AI, but never
more so than now.  We are being given the chance to prove ourselves.  If
the range of AI products now coming onto the market are shown to
provide genuine solutions to hard problems then we have a rosy future.
A few such products have been produced, but our future could still be
jeopardized by a few, well publised, failures.

        Genuine failures - where there was determined, but ultimately
unsuccesful, effort to solve a problem - are regretable, but not fatal.
Every technology has its limitations.  What we have to worry about are
charlatans and incompentents taking advantage of the current fashion
and selling products which are overrated or useless.  AI might then be
sigmatized as a giant con-trick, and the current tide of enthusiasm
would ebb as fast as it flowed.  (Remember Machine Translation - it
could still happen.)

        The academic field guards itself against charlatans and
incompentents by the peer review of research papers, grants, PhDs, etc.
There is no equivalent in the commercial AI field.  Faced with this
problem other fields set up professional associations and codes of
practice.  We need a similar set-up and we needed it yesterday.  The
'blue chip' AI companies should get together now to found such an
association.  Membership should depend on a continuing high standard of
AI product and in-house expertise.  Members would be able to advertise
their membership and customers would have some assurance of quality.
Charlatans and incompetents would be excluded or ejected, so that the
failure of their products would not be seen to reflect on the field as
a whole.

        A mechanism needs to be devised to prevent a few companies
annexing the association to themselves and excluding worthy
competition.  But this is not a big worry.  Firstly, in the current state
of the field AI companies have a lot to gain by encouraging quality in
other companies.  Every success increases the market for everyone,
whereas failure decreases it.  Until the size of the market has been
established and the capacity of the companies risen to meet it, they
have more to gain than to lose by mutual support.  Secondly, excluded
companies can always set up a rival association.

        This association needs a code of practice, which members would
agree to adhere to and which would serve as a basis for refusing
membership.  What form should such a code take, i.e.  what counts as
malpractice in AI?  I suspect malpractice may be a lot harder to define
in AI than in insurance, or medicine, or travel agency.  Due to the
state of the art, AI products cannot be perfect.  No-one expects 100%
accurate diagnosis of all known diseases.  On the other hand a program
which only works for slight variations of the standard demo is clearly
a con.  Where is the threshold to be drawn and how can it be defined?
What consitutes an extravagent claim?  Any product which claims to:
understand any natural language input, or to make programming
redundant, or to allow the user to volunteer any information, sounds
decidedly smelly to me.  Where do we draw the line?  I would welcome
suggestions and comments.

                Alan Bundy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 6:44:56-EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!west44!greenw @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Human models
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: west44.243


[The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things...]

        Consider...
        With present computer technology, it is possible to build
 (simple) molecular models, and get the machine to emulate exactly
 what the atoms in the `real` molecule will do in any situation.

        Consider also...
        Software and hardware are getting more powerful; larger models
can be built all the time.

[...Of shoes and Ships...]

        One day someone may be able to build a model that will be an exact
duplicate of a human brain.
        Since it will be perfect down to the last atom, it will also be
able to act just like a human brain.
        i.e. It will be capable of thought.

[...And Sealing Wax...]

        Would such an entity be considered `human`, for, though it would
not be `alive` in the biological sense, someone talking on the telephone
to its very sophisticated speech synthesiser, or reading a letter typed from
it would consider it to be a perfectly normal, if not rather intelligent
person.
        Hmmmmmm.

        One last thought...
        Even if all the correct education could be given it, might it still
suffer from the HAL9000 syndrome [2001]; fear of being turned off if it
did something wrong?

[...of Cabbages and Kings.]

Jules Greenwall,
Westfield College, London, England.

from...

     vax135            greenw            (UNIX)
         \            /
   mcvax- !ukc!west44!
         /            \
     hou3b             westf!greenw      (PR1ME)


The MCP is watching you...
End of Line.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 84 13:27:47-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!crane @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.3615

Up to this point the ongoing discussion has neglected to take two
things into account:

        (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be enabled (through
        hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
        infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
        times. Does the mind selectively block out trivia in order
        focus on what's important currently?

        (2) Intuition - by this I mean huge leaps into discovery
        that have nothing to do with the application of logical
        association or sensual observation. This kind of stuff
        happens to all of us and cannot easily be explained by
        the physical/mechanical model of the human mind.

I agree that if you could build a computer big enough and fast
enough and taught it all the "right stuff", you could duplicate
the human brain, but not the human mind.

I don't intend to start a metaphysical discussion, but the above
needs to be pointed out once in a while.

John Crane

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Jun 84 10:01:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Turing Test - machines vs people
-BODY-
        Tony Robison (AIList V2 #74) and his comments about
machine "soul" brings up the unsettling point - what happens when
we make a machine that passes the Turing test?  For:

  o  One of the goals of AI (or at least some workers in the
     field - hedge, hedge) is to make a machine that will pass
     the Turing test.

  o  Passing the Turing test means that you cannot distinguish
     between man and machine by their written responses to
     written questions (i.e., over a teletype).  Today, we could
     extend the definition to include oral questions (i.e., over
     the telephone) by adding speech synthesis and recognition.

  o  If you cannot tell the difference between person and machine
     by the formal social interaction of conversation, *how will
     the legal and social systems differentiate between them!!*

     Our culture(s) is set up to judge people using conversation,
written or oral: the legal arguments of courts, all of the
testing through schools, psychological examination, etc.  We have
chosen the capability for rational conversation (including the
potential capability for it in infants, etc.) as the test for
membership in human society, rejecting membership based on
physical characteristics such as body shape (men/women,
"foreigners") and skin color, and the content of the
conversations such as provided by cultural/ religious/political
beliefs, etc.  If we really do make machines that are
*conversationally indistinguishable* from humans, we are going to
have some interesting social problems, whether or not machines
have "souls".  Will we have to reject rational conversation as
the test of membership in society?  If so, what do we fall back
on?  (The term "meathead" may become socially significant!)  And
what sort of interesting things are going to happen to the
social/legal/religious systems in the meantime?

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI

P.S.    Asimov addressed these problems nicely in his renowned "I,
Robot" series of stories.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 1984  14:21 EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Peter Andreae <PONDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Precondition Analysis
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

         PRECONDITION ANALYSIS - LEARNING CONTROL INFORMATION


                            Bernard Silver

                 Dept. of AI, University of Edinburgh

                       2pm Wednesday, June 20.
                          8th Floor Playroom


I will describe LP, a program that learns equation solving strategies from
worked examples.  LP uses a new learning technique called Precondition
Analysis.  Precondition Analysis learns the control information that is
needed for efficient progblem solving in domains with large search spaces.

Precondition Analysis is similar in spirit to the recent work of Winston,
Mitchell and DeJong.  It is an analytic learning technique, and is capable
of learning from a single example.

LP has successfully learned many new equation solving strategies.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
76
-DATE-
Date: 20 June 1984 0512-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave Touretzky at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: panel on chips for AI
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Dana Seccombe is looking for people to participate in a panel discussion
at ISSCC (International Solid State Circuits Conference) to be held in
February '85 in New York City.  The topic of the panel is issues in the
realization of AI systems using VLSI technology, e.g. AI inference
engines, 5th generation architectures, or Lisp processors that are or
could be implemented using VLSI.

If you would be interested in participating in this panel, please contact
Mr. Seccombe at (408) 257-7000 x4854.  DON'T contact me, because I don't
know any more about it than what you've just read.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 1984 11:07:46-EDT
-FROM-
From: Doug.Jensen at CMU-CS-G
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Trilogy CPU design fails
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

After 4 years and $220 million, Gene Amdahl's Trilogy Corp. has declared
their attempt to build a computer from 2.5" diameter whole wafer VLSI a
failure. They never got even one wafer functioning correctly much less ever
powered up a machine. Trilogy thus follows in the path of TI and many other
whole wafer failures before them over the past decade; the others were less
known because they were military projects. Trilogy was one of, and probably
THE, most publicized and heavily funded new startup in the history of the
computer business. They were spending $7 million/month and estimated that
they would need at least another $100 million just to get them to mid-85,
while their first machine was still two years beyond that (more than two
years later than they estimated when they started in 1980). Each 2.5" wafer
was to contain about 60K ECL gates, with four layers of metalization, and
dissipate about 1000 watts. The CPU was to have nine wafers and excute 32
MIPS. Trilogy was even further behind on the other computer subsystems. They
now say they may try a smaller machine, or just subsystems (e.g., memories),
or just wafers and related technology. DEC, Sperry, and CII-HB were among
the investors in Trilogy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13-Jun-84 02:30 PDT
-FROM-
From: William Daul  Augmentation Systems Division / MDC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Oxford English Dictionary goes On-Line
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

LONDON -- ...the Oxford University Press has announced plans to
publish a computerized version of the venerable Oxford English
Dictionary.

With the help of a $1.4 million donation from IBM United Kingdom Ltd.,
the British publisher will produce the first fully integrated edition
of the 13-volume dictionary since the original work was begun in 1884.
That first edition took 44 years to complete; the publisher said it
will be able to complete the second edition in a fraction of that
time.

...

The New Oxford English Dictionary, as the new version has been named,
will constitute the largest electronic dictionary data base in the
world.  The present multi-volume version consists of more than 20,000
printed pages.  Computerization of the dictionary is a massive
undertaking that will involve the data entry of about 60 million words
used to record, describe and illustrate 500,000 words and phrases.
The Oxford University Press has hired International Computaprint Corp.
of Fort Washington, Pa., to do the data entry.  A staff of 120 people
has been assigned the task of completing the data entry by this
September.

...  Additionally, the company (IBM) is providing two data processing
specialists who will work on the dictionary project for two years.

Once the electronic dictionary is finished, it could be made available
on-line, on magnetic tape, on laser/video disk or possible, on a
single integrated circuit...

The publisher estimated the project will cost $10 million.  The
British government awarded the company a 3 year grant of roughly
$420,000 -- or 25% of the development cost -- for the dictionary.

The University of Waterloo in Ontario will conduct a survey for the
publisher of the potential users of an electronic dictionary.  The
university will also help develop software that would be needed to
take advantage of an electronic dictionary.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Jun 84 22:06:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Newsletter, June 21, No. 37
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        COMMON SENSE SUMMER

CSLI is sponsoring a summer-long workshop called "Common Sense Summer."
It has long been agreed that language use and intelligent behavior in
general require a great deal of knowledge about the commonsense world.  But
heretofore no one has embarked on a large-scale effort to encode this
knowledge.  The aim of Common Sense Summer is to make the first three months
of such an effort.  We are attempting to axiomatize in formal logic
significant amounts of commonsense knowledge about the physical,
psychological and social worlds.  We are concentrating on eight domains:
shape and texture, spatial relationships, lexical semantics of cause
and possession, properties of materials, certain mental phenomena,
communication, relations between textual entities and entities in the world,
and responsibility. We are attempting to make these axiomatizations mutually
consistent and mutually supportive.  We realize, of course, that all that
can be accomplished during the summer is tracing the broad outlines of each
of the domains and, perhaps, discovering several hard problems.

Nine graduate students from several universities are participating in the
workshop full-time.  In addition, a number of other active researchers in
the fields of knowledge representation, natural language, and vision are
participating in meetings of various sizes and purposes.  There will be two
or three presentations during the summer, giving progress reports for the
general public.  The workshop is being coordinated by the writer.

                                        --Jerry Hobbs

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 84 17:25:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Human Models
-BODY-
The foundation of the reasoning constructed by Jules Greenwall in his note
depends on being able to specify exactly the behavior of atoms in molecules.
The precise description required depends on the molecular physics.  Unfor-
tunately study is still going on.  The study of the molecule is a many-body
problem for which there is no closed-form solution.  Another fly in the
ointment is the fact that the behavior of atoms in molecules depends, albeit
in second order, on the nature of the nucleus.  This is another branch of
physics that is very active, i.e. much is not known.  What one would get
for a model built on such a fuzzy foundation is of dubious value.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 84 10:07:07-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!lwt1 @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: aplvax.663

The other thing to note is that while each 'memory cell' in a computer
has ~2 connections, each 'memory cell' in the brain has ~100.  Since
processing power is relative to (cells * connections), a measure of
relative capacities is not sufficient for comparison between the brain
and the CRAY.


                                                -Lloyd W. Taylor
                                                 ... seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!lwt1
            ---I will have had been there before, soon---

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 84 06:39 EDT
-FROM-
From: dmrussell.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Objection to Crane: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain --   V2
-BODY-
Sorry, but I must make a serious objection to your claim that

"...    a person can be enabled (through
        hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
        infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
        times ... "

I object to the use of the term "infinite" in describing memory.  That
simply isn't true.  If you just mean "large number", then say so.  The
infinite memory capacity problem was addressed once (in either AIDigest
or HumanNets, I've forgotten) and found indefensible.

The phrase "prior life times" assumes reincarnation, a completely
unsupported assumption.

"of any experience" demands that all experiences can be recalled, not
just *recognized*, or *restored* but recalled!  Do you really want the
references to show that this isn't true?  Memory recall under hypnosis
has been found to be just as reconstructive (perhaps more so) as normal
memory.  Hypnotic states buy you some recall, but not that much!

We haven't taken these things into account because they simply aren't
true, or at the very least, can't be supported by anything other than
religious belief.

  -- D.M. Russell. --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 84 15:08:10-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihldt!stewart @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ihldt.2382

>       (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be enabled (through
>       hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
>       infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
>       times.

I don't know where the "prior life" part came from, but this claim is
usually an incorrect extrapolation of studies that indicate no such
thing.

What has been established is that people can be induced to remember
things that they considered forgotten.  This isn't by a long shot
the same thing as saying that we remember everything that's ever
happened to us.

If you have evidence to support this claim, by all means present it.  If
not, please spare us.

Bob Stewart
ihldt!stewart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 84 08:23 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dehn@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Joseph W. Dehn III)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing test - legal implications
-BODY-
...computers someday might act like people...  ...legal system is based
on capability for rational conversation...  ...what will we do????...
...will we have to reject rational conversation as the test of
membership in society?...

Sorry, I must have forgotten, but why exactly do we WANT to distinguish
between humans and machines?

                            -jwd3

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 84 14:14 EST
-FROM-
From: Huhns <huhns%scarolina.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Natural Language Parsing
-BODY-

             CONSTRAINT PROPAGATION SENTENCE PARSING

                         Somnuek Anakwat

                 Center for Machine Intelligence
                     College of Engineering
                  University of South Carolina

                 2pm Thursday, June 21, Room 230

     An algorithm for parsing English sentences by the method  of
constraint  propagation is presented.  This method can be used to
recognize English sentences and indicate whether those  sentences
are  syntactically  correct  or  incorrect  according  to grammar
rules.  The central idea of constraint  propagation  in  sentence
analysis  is  to  form  all possible combinations of the parts of
speech from adjacent  words  in  the  input  sentence,  and  then
compare   those  combinations  with  English  grammar  rules  for
allowable combinations.  The parts of speech for each word may be
modified,  left  alone,  or  eliminated according to these rules.
The analysis  of  these  combinations  of  the  parts  of  speech
normally  proceeds  from  left  to  right.   The most significant
feature of the algorithm presented is  that  grammar  constraints
propagate  backward  when  it is possible.  The algorithm is very
useful when the given sentence contains words which have multiple
properties.    The  algorithm  also  has  an  efficient  parallel
implementation.

     Results  of  applying  the  algorithm  to  several   English
sentences  are  included.   An  interpretation of the algorithm's
performance and some topics for future research are discussed  as
well.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
77
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 84 14:59:27-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-cvax!janney @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Q'NIAL
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: unm-cvax.962

The April 1984 issue of Computer Design has an article on Nial
(Nested Interactive Array Language).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 84 15:10:07-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!jcz @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncsu.2622

It is not surprising that mathematicians cannot
remember what they do when they first
construct proofs, especially 'difficult' proofs.

Difficult proofs probably take quite a bit of processing power,
with none left over for observing and recording what was done.

In order to get a record of what exactly occurs ( a 'protocol' )
when a proof is being constructed, we would have to interrupt the
subject and get him to tell us what he is doing - interferring with the precise
things we want to measure!

There is much the same problem with studying how programmers
write programs.    We can approach a recording by saving every scrap of paper
and recording every keystroke, but that is not such a great clue
to mental processes.

It would be nice if some mathematician would save EVERY single scrap of
paper ( timestamped, please! ) involved in a proof, from start to finish.
Maybe we would find some insight in that. . .

John Carl Zeigler
North Carolina State University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 84 20:39:01 edt
-FROM-
From: Roger L. Hale <rlh@mit-eddie>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-
        From: Roger L. Hale <rlh@mit-eddie>
        Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?

        I get 4 quite a different way:
          If 3 (2) were half of 5 (4), what would a third of 10 (9) be? 4 (3).
        This way twice 5 (4) is 9 (8), [rather than twice 6 (5) is 12 (10)
        the way you describe.]

The transformation I have in mind is "say 3 and mean 2", which is simply
difference-of-1.  The numbers I *mean* are in the stated relations
(half, a third, twice) but they are renamed by a distorting filter,
a homomorphism.  "If arithmetic were shifted right one, what would half of 5,
a third of 10, twice 5 be?  (Answer: 3, 4 and 9.)"  Partly it is a different
choice of who to believe, the numbers or the relations; but I find this
form most compelling due to the components being so fundamental.


The extended proportion [for your method in parallel form] would be
        3 : 5/2 :: 4 : 10/3 :: 12 : 2*5,
the 12 (v. 9) serving to show that our two methods differ concretely.

        I think that the critical point for AI is that we make sense of
        a nonsense problem by postulating an unmentioned linear
        transformation since only a linear transformation permits a unique
        solution.  [...]  -- KIL

In the first place, any critically constrained transformation has discrete
(locally unique) solutions, barring singularities; and it is false that
they are only unique for linear transformations:  it takes a fairly special
domain, like the complex analytic, to make it true.  In the second place,
what confidence should one gain in a theory on fixing a free parameter
against one datum?  Surely one should aim to constrain the theory as well
as the parameter, and you have used up all your constraints.  Where would
we be if twice 5 were neither 12 nor 9?   ?8-[   Back to square one.

                                Yours in inquiry,
                                Roger Hale
                                rlh%mit-eddie@mit-mc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 84 14:00:58-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: shark.836

     About "if 3 is half of 5, what is a third of 10?"

It is interesting to note the assumptions that might be made here.
One could assume that all numbers retain their good-old standard meaning,
except 3, when compared to 5.  Then the chain of relationships
(3:5/2, 6:5, 12:10, 4:10/3) can be made.  What I first thought was
"so what's a '10'? "  I.e, let's toss out all the definitions of the
numbers along with 3.  'Half' could be redefined, but that says
nothing about what to do with 'third'.  One could redefine 'is',
in effect, making it mean the ':' relation of the previous article.


Anybody have hypotheses on which assumptions or definitions one would
tend to drop first, when solving a puzzle of this sort?

                                Brian Peterson
                                ...!ucbvax!tektronix!shark!brianp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 84 18:34:05-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!davep @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekecs.3861


>   From: brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson)
>
>   It is interesting to note the assumptions that might be made here.
>   One could assume that all numbers retain their good-old standard meaning,
>   except 3, when compared to 5.  Then the chain of relationships
>   (3:5/2, 6:5, 12:10, 4:10/3) can be made.

If one redefines "3, when compared to 5", shouldn't the 3 be redefined in all
instances of the "chain of relationships"? If so, one could conclude that
one-"third" of 10 is 24/5 via 3:5/2, 6:5, 12:10, 12/(5/2):10/3, 24/5:10/3.


                                            David Patterson
                                            Tektronix, Inc.
                                            Wilsonville Industrial Park
                                            P.O. Box 1000
                                            Wilsonville, Oregon 97070
                                            (503) 685-2568

{ucb or dec}vax!tektronix!tekecs!davep      uucp address
davep@tektronix                             csnet address
davep.tektronix@rand-relay                  arpa address

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Jun 84 18:37:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jean-Luc Bonnetain <BONNETAIN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: softwar, a new weapon to deal with the Soviets ?
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stnaford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This is my translation of an article published in a French news magazine,
"Le Point"; i have done my best to translate it, but i am sure there are
some inadequacies. I just hope they don't occur in important places.

I am just wondering if any one has heard about that, and if this is real,
pure computer fiction or so well known that it's not worth flaming about.




"Between the atomic bomb and conventional weapons, there was nothing in the
American warfare equipment against the USSR. Now the time has come for
"soft bombs", to launch a destructive war without any bloodshed. This is the
topic of "Softwar", a forthcoming book written by a French computer scientist
working in New York. The idea: as simple as it is machiavelic. In the programs
that Soviet people get from Western countries are placed what amounts to "time
bombs": devices that can be triggered from afar to hamper the functioning of
Russian computers and paralyze the economy. With "Softwar", nuclear blackmail
becomes obsolete. Le Point asked the author, Thierry Breton, how his relations
with highly skilled American engineers has convinced him of the existence of
the new type of weapon.

LePoint:
is "Softwar" just an computer thriller, or do "soft bombs" really exist ?

ThierryBreton:
I never used any, but they have been used for a few years already in our
trade. Some countries from Africa or South America, who are customers of
big American software companies, have booby-trapped programs running in their
administrations. The aim of the providers of the software is to be protected
against customers who won't pay. These soft bombs are set in vital areas,
like payroll routines, which are then paralyzed. The customer has to call the
company, and won't get any help until debts are cleared. In this case people
talk about technical problems in the computer, but obviously never say that
the program contained a bomb.
Since now, these techniques had never been used for aggressive purposes. But
there is absolutely no technical difficulty in doing that, so we are led to
believe that this new weapon could be used through non strategic networks
giving access to databases. For example, the Stockex network, which gives
information on stock exchange values, or the WMO network, about worldwide
meteorological information.

LePoint:
Has softwar begun yet ?

ThierryBreton:
For me, there is no doubt about that. The Soviets use 80% of the American
databases. It is this dependency on communication between computer which is
new, and which allows to enter a territory. Until now, the "bombs" had to be
triggered on the spot by someone inside the place. The bombs were there, but
could not be triggered remotely. Today, thanks to data transfer, they can be
reached from thousands of kilometers. In the book, I imagine that one bomb is
controlled, through Stockex, by the rate of exchange for a particular company
determined in the software, and the Pentagon, as long as it does not want to
detonate the "bomb", avoid the critical value by buying or selling actions.

LePoint:
You give some names of American organisms working for the Pentagon whose work
is to set bombs in the programs, and to activate them. Is this real ?

ThierryBreton:
The names quoted have been slightly modified from the real ones. I took my data
from a group founded in 1982 by the American Army, called NSI (National
Software Institute). This institute works on all programs which have military
applications. In 1983, the Army has spent 500 million dollars to debug its
programs. Written in different languages, they have now been unified by the ADA
language. This is the official objective of NSI. But for these military
computer scientists, there is not much difference between finding unvoluntary
errors and adding voluntary ones...

LePoint:
What is the Trojan horse used to send those soft bombs to the USSR ?

ThierryBreton:
The USSR has a lag of about 10 to 15 years in computer science, which is the
equivalent of 2 or 3 new generations of computers. This lag in hardware
causes an even more important lag, in artificial intelligence, which is the
type of software running on the machines Soviet people have to buy from Western
countries. They are very eager to get those programs, and some estimate that
60% of the software running there comes from the USA. The most important source
is India, which has very good computer scientists. Overnight, IBM has been
kicked out, to be replaced by Soviet Elorg computers ES10-20 and ES 10-60,
which are copied from IBM. The Indians buy software from Western countries,
port it to Elorgs, and then this software goes to the USSR.

LePoint:
Can a trap be invisible, like a buried mole ?

ThierryBreton:
Today, people know how to make bombs completely invisible. The first generation
was fixed bombs, lines of code never activated unless a special signal was
sent. Then the Polaris-type traps: like for the rockets, the programs contain
baits to fool the enemy, multiple traps, only one of which is active. Then the
stochastic bomb, the most dangerous one, which moves in the program each time
it is loaded. These bombs are all the more discreet that they can be stopped
from a distance, failures then disappearing in an unexplicable way.

LePoint:
Have there been cases in USSR of problems that could be explained by a soft
bomb ?

ThierryBreton:
Some unexplained cases, yes. In November 1982, the unit for international
phone calls has been down for 48 hours. Officially, the Soviets said it was
a failure of the main computer. We still have to know what caused it. Every
day in the Soviet papers one can read that such and such factory had to stop
its production because of a shortage of some items. When the Gosplan computers
break down, there are direct consequences on the production and functioning of
factories.

LePoint:
By talking about softwar, aren't you helping the Soviets ?

ThierryBreton:
No. For 30 years, we have seen obvious attempts from the Soviets to destabilize
Western countries by infiltrating trade unions, pacifist movements. The Eastern
block can remotely cause strikes. But since now, there was now way to retaliate
by doing precise desorganizing actions. In the context of the ideological war,
softwar gives another way to strike back.
The book also shows that the Soviets have no choice. They know that by buying
or getting by other means this software, they are taking a big risk. But if
they stop getting this software, the time it will take them to develop it by
themselves will increase the gap. This is a fact. So soft bombs, like atomic
bombs, can be a means of deterrence. For political people who are just
dicovering this new strategy, the book is that of a new generation showing to
the old one that what was a tool has become a weapon."


[This reminds me of an anecdote I heard Captain (now Cmdr) Grace Hopper tell.
It seems some company began to pass off a Navy-developed COBOL compiler
verifier as their own, removing the print statement that gave credit to
the Navy.  When the Navy came out with an improved version, the company
had the gall to ask for a copy.  Her development group complied, but
embedded concealed checks in the code so that it would fail to work if
the credit printout were ever altered.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Jun 84 20:07:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: softwar  @=
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The article Jean-Luc (or whoever) translates sounds like a typical piece of
National Enquirer-style "reporting", namely it describes something that is
*just* feasible theoretically but against which countermeasures exist, and
which has wider ramifications than are mentioned.   I'm sure the Russians are
too paranoid to allow network access to important computers in such a way as to
trigger these "bombs".

But:  it is widely rumoured that IBM puts time-delayed self-destruct operations
into some of its programs so as to force you to buy the new release when it
comes out (and heaven help you if it's late?).   And in John Brunner's book
"The Shockwave Rider", one of America's defence systems is a program that would
bring down the entire national network, thus making it impossible for an
invader to control the country.

I love science fiction discussions, but I love them even more when they're not
on BBoard.
                                - Richard

[Another SF analogy: there is a story about the consequences of developing
some type of "ray" or nondirectional energy field capable of igniting
all unstable compounds within a large radius, notably ammunition, propellants,
and fuels.  This didn't stop the outbreak of global war, but did reduce it
to the stone age.

All that has nothing to do with AI, of course, except that computers may
yet be the only intelligent beings on the planet. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
78
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 12:14:49-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd70!intelca!glen @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Definition of an AI program
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: intelca.317

As a half-serious/half humorous suggestion:

Consider the fact that most of man's machines are built to do the same
thing over and over and do it very well.  Some random examples:
  - washing machine
  - automobile hood fastner in production line
  - pacman video game

AI programs (hopefully) don't fit the mold, they don't spend their lives
performing the same routine but change as they go.


  ^ ^    Glen Shires, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca.
  O O     Usenet: {ucbvax!amd70,pur-ee,hplabs}!intelca!glen
   >      ARPA:   "amd70!intelca!glen"@BERKELEY
  \-/    --- stay mellow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Jun 84 11:28:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a third of ten
-BODY-
Please.   Everyone knows that 2*2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

More to the point, if you take the square root of 5 and round to the nearest
integer, you get 2.   Again, if you take half of 5 and round to nearest using
accepted method, get 3.   A third of ten now becomes 3 as well.   How many AI
people does it take to change a lightbulb?
                                                - Richard


[One graduate student, but it takes eight years.  -- KIL (from John
Hartman, CS.Hartman@UTexas-20) ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 10:51:26-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-rayna!swart @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.1845

I am reminded of an old children's riddle:

Q. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

A. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.


                Mark Swartwout
                UUCP {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!rayna!swart
                ARPA MSWART@DEC-MARLBORO

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 22:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: Shrager.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Memory
-BODY-
This might amuse.  Authorship credit to Dave Touretzky@CMU.

  From: Dave Touretzky (DT50)@CMU-CS-A
  To: Jeff Shrager <shrager.PA>
  Subject: Q-registers in the brain


ENGRAM (en'-gram) n.  1.  The physical manifestation of human memory -- "the
engram."  2.  A particular memory in physical form.  [Usage note:  this term is
no longer in common use.  Prior to Wilson & Magruder's historic discovery,
the nature of the engram was a topic of intense speculation among
neuroscientists, psychologists, and even computer scientists.  In 1994
Professors M. R. Wilson and W. V. Magruder, both of Mount St. Coax University
in Palo Alto, proved conclusively that the mammalian brain is hardwired to
interpret a set of thirty seven genetically-transmitted cooperating TECO
macros.  Human memory was shown to reside in 1 million Q-registers as
Huffman-coded uppercase-only ASCII strings.  Interest in the engram has
declined substantially since that time.]

    --- from the New Century Unabridged English Dictionary,
        3rd edition, A.D. 2007.  David S. Touretzky (Ed.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 84 16:02:49-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.769

>       (2) Intuition - by this I mean huge leaps into discovery
>       that have nothing to do with the application of logical
>       association or sensual observation. This kind of stuff
>       happens to all of us and cannot easily be explained by
>       the physical/mechanical model of the human mind.
>
>       I agree that if you could build a computer big enough and fast
>       enough and taught it all the "right stuff", you could duplicate
>       the human brain, but not the human mind.

Intuition is nothing more than one's subconscious employing logical thought
faster than the conscious brain can understand or realize it.  What's all the
fuss about?  And where's the difference between the "brain" and the "mind"?
What can this "mind" do that the physical brain doesn't?

A good dose of Hofstadterisms and Smullyanisms ("The Mind's 'I'" provides
good examples) puts to rest some of those notions of mind and brain.


"I take your opinions and multiply them by -1."
                                        Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 84 13:55:43-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utastro.114

>       (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be enabled (through
>       hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
>       infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
>       times. Does the mind selectively block out trivia in order
>       focus on what's important currently?

One of the reasons that evidence obtained under hypnosis is
inadmissable in many courts is that hypnotically induced
memories are notoriously unreliable, and can often be completely
false, even though they can seem extremely vivid.  In some states,
the mere fact that a witness has been under hypnosis is enough to
disqualify the individual's testimony in the case.

I have personal, tragic experience with this phenomenon in my own
family.  I don't intend to burden the net with this, but if anyone
doubts what I say, I will be glad to discuss it by E-mail.


        Bill Jefferys  8-%
        Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
        {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill    (uucp)
        utastro!bill@ut-ngp                        (ARPANET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 9:22:50-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!riddle @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2301

Now that Chuqui's obligingly created net.sci, why don't we move this
discussion there?  Is there any reason for it to go on in five
newsgroups simultaneously?  If interest continues, perhaps this topic
will form the basis for net.sci.psych.

Followups to net.sci, please.

  --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
  --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 84 15:47 CST
-FROM-
From: Nichael Cramer <cramer%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Memory
-BODY-
>
>From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!crane @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
>
>        (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be [...]

But, brain is mind is brain is mind is brain is mind is brain...
[what else have you got to work with?]

                                        So long and thanks for all the fish,
                                        NLC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 1984 1825-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: gd@sri-spam (Greg DesBrisay)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: aplvax.663


>The other thing to note is that while each 'memory cell' in a computer
>has ~2 connections, each 'memory cell' in the brain has ~100.  Since
>processing power is relative to (cells * connections), a measure of
>relative capacities is not sufficient for comparison between the brain
>and the CRAY.          -Lloyd W. Taylor


In addition, many connections in the human brain are analog in
character, so any comparison with a binary digital computer must
multiply the number of connections by the number of bits necessary to
digitize the analog range of each synapse.  To do that, one would have
to know what analog resolution is required to accurately model the
behavior of a synapse.  I'm not sure if any one has figured that one out
yet.


Greg DesBrisay
SRI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 9:20:43-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.954

I'm not comfortable with Rich Rosen's assertion that intuition
is just the mind's unconscious LOGICAL reasoning that happens
too fast for the conscious to track.  If intuition is simply
ordinary logical reasoning, we should be just as able to
simulate it as we can other tyes of reasoning.  In fact, attempts
to simulate intuition account for some rather noteworthy successes
and failures, and seem to require a number of discoveries before
we can make much real progress.  E.g.:

I think it is fair to claim that chess players use
intuition to evaluate chess positions.  We acknowledge that
computers have failed to be intuitive in playing chess in at
least two ways that are easy for people:
        - knowing what kinds of tactical shots to look for
          in a position
        - knowing how to plan longterm strategy in a position

In backgammon, Hans Berliner has a very successful program that
seems to have overcome the comparable backgammon problem.
His program has a way of deciding, in a smooth, continuous fashion,
when to shift from one set of assumptions to another while
analyzing.  I am not aware of whether other people have been able
to develop his techniques to other kinds of analysis, or whether
this is one flash of success.  Berliner has not been comparably
successful applying this idea to a chess program.
(The backgammon program defeated then world champion in a short
match, in which the doubling cube was used.)

  [There was general agreement that the program's play was inferior,
  however.  Another point: while smooth transitioning between strategies
  is more "human" and easier to follow or explain (and thus to debug
  or improve), I can't see that it is inherently as powerful as
  switching to a new optimal strategy at each turn.  -- KIL]

Artists and composers use intuition as part of the process of
creating art.  It is likely that one of the benefits they gain
from intuition is that a good work of art has many more internal
relationships among its parts than the creator could have planned.
It is hard to see how this result can be derived from "logical"
reasoning of any ordinary deductive or inductive kind.  It is
easier to see how artists obtain this result by making various
kinds of intuitive decisions to limit their scope of free choice
in the creative process.

Computer-generated art has come closest to emulating this process
by using f-numbers rather than random numbers to generate
artistic decisions.  It is unlikely that the artist's intuition
is working as "simply" as deriving decision from f-numbers.
It remains a likely possibility that a type of reasoning that we
know little about is involved.

We are still pretty bad at programming pattern recognition, which
intuitive thinking does spectacularly well.  If one wishes to assert
that the pattern recognition is done by well-known logical processes,
I would like to see some substantiation.
                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 18:14:17-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utzoo.3971

John Crane cites, as evidence for the human mind being impossible to
duplicate by computer, two phenomena.

        (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be enabled (through
        hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
        infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
        times. Does the mind selectively block out trivia in order
        focus on what's important currently?

As far as I know, there's no evidence of this that will stand up to
critical examination.  Even disregarding the "prior life times" part,
for which the reliable evidence is, roughly speaking, nonexistent,
the accuracy of recall under hypnosis is very doubtful.  True, the
subject can describe things in great detail, but it's not at all proven
that this detail represents *memory*, as opposed to imagination.  In
fact, although it's quite likely that hypnosis can help bring out things
that have been mostly forgotten, there is serious doubt that the memories
can be disentangled from the imagination well enough for, say, testimony
in court to be reliable when hypnosis is used.

        (2) Intuition - by this I mean huge leaps into discovery
        that have nothing to do with the application of logical
        association or sensual observation. This kind of stuff
        happens to all of us and cannot easily be explained by
        the physical/mechanical model of the human mind.

The trouble here is that "...have nothing to do with the application
of logical association or sensual observation..." is an assumption,
not a verified fact.  There is (weak) evidence suggesting that intuition
may be nothing more remarkable than reasoning and observation on a
subconscious level.  The human mind actually seems to be much more of
a pattern-matching engine than a reasoning engine, and it's not really
surprising if pattern-matching proceeds in a haphazard way that can
sometimes produce unexpected leaps.

                                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                                {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 17:14:58-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: shark.838

| Intuition is nothing more than one's subconscious employing logical
| thought faster than the conscious brain can understand or realize it.
| What's all the fuss about?  And where's the difference between the
| "brain" and the "mind"? What can this "mind" do that the physical brain
| doesn't?
|                                       Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

Thank you, Rich, for so succinctly laying to rest all the questions
mankind has ever had about self and mind and consciousness.

Now, how about proving it.  Oh, and by the way, what is a "subconscious"
and how do you differentiate between a "conscious" brain and a "subconscious"
in any meaningful way?

And once you have told us exactly what a physical brain can do, then we
can tell you what a mind could do that it doesn't.

Hutch

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 June 1984 0802-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Full Abstraction and Semantic Equivalence
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker:  Ketan Mulmuley
Date:     Friday, June 22
Time:     11:00
Place:    5409
Title:    Full Abstraction and Semantic Equivalence

The Denotational Approach of Scott-Strachey in giving semantics
to programming languages is well known. In this approach each
construct of the programming language is given a meaning in a
domain which has nice mathematical properties.
Semantic equivalence is the problem of showing that this map --
the denotational semantics -- is faithful to the operational semantics.
Because known methods showing such equivalences were too complicated,
very few such proofs have been carried out.
Many authors had expressed a need for mechanization of these proofs.
But it remained unclear whether such proofs could be mechanized at all.
We shall give in this thesis a general theory to prove such equivalences
which has a distinct advantage of being mechanizable. A mechanized tool
was acually built on top of LCF to aid the proofs of semantic
equivalence.

Other central problem of denotational semantics is the problem of
full abstraction, i.e., determining whether the meanings given to two different
language constructs by the denotational semantics are equal whenever
they are operationally equivalent. This has been known to be a hard
problem and the only known general method of constructing such models
was the {\it syntactic } method of Milner.  But whether  such
models could be constructed semantically remained an important open
problem. In this thesis we  show that  this is indeed the
case.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
79
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 84 6:56:08-EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ukc!srlm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: combinatory logic
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ukc.4280

[-: kipple :-]            [I couldn't bear to delete this one. -- KIL]


In the hope that many of you are also interested in combinatory logic...
please have a look at this and mail me any suggestions, references, etc.

                          ------------------

[by a. pettorossi in notre dame j. form. logic 22 (4) 81]

define:
     marking

        is a function that assigns, for each combinator in a term (tree)
        the number of left choices (of path) that one has to make to go
        from the root to the combinator.
        ex.:
        marking SII = <S,2><I,1><I,0>

     the set right applied subterms of a combinator X is defined as:

        1) if X is a basic combinator or a variable ras(X) = {X)
        2) if X is (YZ) then ras(YZ) = union (ras(X)) Z

     a combinator X with reduction axiom X x1 x2 x3 ... xk -> Y
     has non-ascending property iff

        for all i, 1<=i<=k, if <xi,p> occurs in marking (X x1...xk)
        and <xi,q> occurs in marking Y, then p >= q.

     a combinator (X x1 x2 ... xk -> Y) has compositive effect iff

        a right applied subterm of Y is not a variable.

                          ------------------
Theorem:
        given a subbase B={X1,...Xk} such that all Xi in B have non-ascending
        property and no compositive effect, every reduction strategy applied
        to any Y in B+ leads to normal form.

                          ------------------
Open Problem:
        does the theorem hold if non-ascending property is the only condition?

                          ------------------
My personal questions:

        if one specifies leftmost-outermost reduction only, would the Open
        Problem be any easier?

        how much of combinatory logic can we do with B?

        and with non-ascending property only?


        silvio lemos meira

        UUCP:   ...!{vax135,mcvax}!ukc!srlm
        Post:
                computing laboratory
                university of kent at canterbury
                canterbury ct2 7nf uk
        Phone:
                +44 227 66822 extension 568

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 84 10:35:51-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!qucis!carl @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: what is NIAL?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: qucis.70

Nial is the "Nested Interactive Array Language."
It is based on the nested, rectangular arrays of T. More, and
  has aspects of Lisp, APL, FP, and Pascal.
Nial runs on lots of Unix(&etc) systems, VAX/VMS, PC-DOS, and
  VM/CMS (almost).
Nial is being used primarily for prototyping and logic programming.
Distribution is through Nial Systems Limited, PO Box 2128, Kingston,
  Ontario, Canada, K7L 5J8. (613) 549-1432.
Here are some trivial samples (names in uppercase are second order
  functions, called transformers):

  5 in 0 1 2 5  =  truth
  1 3 5 EACHLEFT in 0 1 2 5  =  truth falsehood truth

  average is divide [sum, tally]
  average 1 2 3 4 5  =  3.
    [sum, tally] 1 2 3 4 5  =  15 5
    divide 15 5  =  3.

  MONO is equal EACH
  MONO type  1  2.0  3.1j4.3  `a  "phrase  ?fault  truth  =  falsehood
  MONO type 1 3 5 2  =  truth

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jun 84 11:39:00-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!hpfclq!robert @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: elevance of "souls" to AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfclq.68500003

Is a soul going to be the real issue here?

> I submit that the concept of "soul" is irrelevant only if AI is doomed
> to utter failure.  Use your imagination and consider a computer program
> that exhibits many of the characteristics of a human being in
> its ability to reason, to converse, and to be creative and unexpected in
> its actions.  How will you AI-ers defend yourself if a distinguished
> theologian asserts that G-d has granted to your computer program a soul?

To those AIers who don't believe in God it probably won't matter much what a
distinguished theologain asserts.  I think many that believe in God will
wonder why God would come down and bless a computer program with a soul.
They will doubt the theologian.  And for those that do believe that
the program has a soul, what are they to defend themselves from?  Are they
to defend God for doing it?  Or they may just agree with the theologian
saying, "Yep, that sure is neat that it has a soul."

I think a bigger problem will be empathy for the program.  A program that
is your friend could be just as hard to kill as any other being.
This could be particularly true of people who are only end users of
these friend programs and don't understand how it works.  It is hard
to guess the psychological effects of man-machine freindships.  It is a very
lonely world and a computer might be your only friend in the world!

> If he might be right, the program, and its hardware must not be destroyed.

Is cremation bad because that destroys the hardware of
something that had a soul?

> Perhaps it should not be altered either, lest its soul be lost.
> The casual destruction, recreation and development of computer programs
> containing souls will horrify many people.

Altering, such as in psychotherapy for humans and mods to code or inference
tables in programs, is bad?  Operating on people or making mods to hardware
is bad?   I would imagine not.  What we do have is the possibility of
of modifying and experimenting with models of human psychologies to a
degree never before available.  What are the issues involved in the
torture of beings created out of software?  The indiscriminate
experimentation on man-made psyches may bring about a new form of the
antivivisectionist movement.  This is all independant of the soul issue
for many people.  "If it really appears to be human how can you kill it?"
will be the underlying measure, I think.  Again, who knows how the
intervening history will condition man to the thought of man made intelligence.

> You will face demonstrations,
> destruction of laboratories, and government interference of the worst kind.

Nice drama here.

> Start saving up now, for a defense fund for the first AI-er accused by
> a district attorney of soul-murder.

Now I speak from the point of view of someone who doesn't hold much stock in
the idea of a soul.  I do believe in the importance of the human as a
thinking, feeling being, so we may really agree.  A lot of what you said
seems to be all based on the issue of a soul.  I'm just not convienced that
that many people will see it as an issue of the soul.  I can see more easily
the DA above arguing that the man-made intelligence is alive
and therefore can be murdered.

> On second thought, you have nothing to fear;  no one in AI is really trying
> to make computers act like humans, right?

You bet AIers are out to make computers act like humans, bit by bit
and byte by byte.  They are also studying
even more general concepts.  What is intelligence?  What is
the nature of thought?  This goes beyond just making a machine act like
a human.
                                -Robert (animal) Heckendorn
                                hplabs!hpfcla!robert

[A couple of notes here:  First, SF writers have certainly tried to
explore the man/machine friendship issue in many forms.  I remember
stories about robots, computer environments (e.g., HAL), direct
computer/brain links, relationships with intelligent spaceships, etc.
Second, the churches have seldom been strongly opposed to killing
either in war or as capital punishment.  At times they have taken the
position that torture and death are unimportant as long as confession
has cleared the soul for entry to heaven.  They have been less tolerant
of the torture of soulless animals.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 13:58:15-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxm!mhuxi!charm!slag @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: charm.377


        In solving a puzzle like:

If 3 is half of 5, what is a third of ten?

 One might try a series of solutions like the ones suggested,
but I would consider them incorrect if they were logically
inconsistant.  The meaning of the problem would be undermined
if one redefined three but not two, five, ten, half or third.

        One approach I would take would be to explore
alternate bases.  For instance, in base nine, three is a third
of ten.  This approach does not solve the above problem though
so it must be marked as wrong, and thrown out.

        At what point should a problem like that be given up
on as illogical?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 12:45:00-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!keller @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uicsl.12300001


1/2 * 5 = 2.5 round up to 3
1/3 * 10 = 3.333... round down to 3

Just another possible interpretation.

  -Shaun Keller

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Jun 84 22:34:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-
    1/2 * 5 = 2.5 round up to 3
    1/3 * 10 = 3.333... round down to 3
                  -Shaun Keller


Shaun's solution is the same as Richard Treitel's solution in the
previous issue, derived independently.  I like it better than my
own solution except for the fact that it makes the problem less
metaphysical.

Roger Hale's solution of (temporarily) subtracting one from each
number was essentially a solution to "If 3-X were half of 5-X, what
would X plus a third of 10-X be?"  It seems as valid as my own
solution to "If 3 were half of 5X, what would a third of 10X be?"

I am surprised that such good alternatives to my explanation were found,
especially after I had exposed everyone to my own way of thinking.
For 18 years I've thought I had >>the<< answer.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 17:15:09-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense reasoning
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.955


>> Q: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a sheep have?

>> A: Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

I find this answer less satisfactory than the two given below.
It seems to me that "calling an X a Y" is exactly how we define
what most things are.  SO:

A: One. A tail is leg, those other four things are obviously
something else.

OR:

A: Five. If you call it a leg, it is a leg (albeit of a different
kind), in addition to those other four legs.
                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
                                        princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Jun 84 22:30:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spelling Correction vs. Fact Correction
-BODY-
If one changed the content of a Spelling corrector to be a list of
predicates containing `facts' rather than sequences of letters, and then
one used such a program against the output of a parser which reduced
incoming text to similarly structured predicates, and the `fact checker'
then emitted confirmations or `corrections' of the facts in the parsed text
(e.g. South-Of San-Francisco San Jose; Capital-of USSR Moscow; etc.)
would this be a knowledge-based system? What has changed from sequences
of letters being acceptable `truths' to the mechanical use of predicates?

I fail to see how this is very different from having a spelling corrector
look over a string of letters and note that MAN and DOG are correct truths
whereas DOA (= Capital-of USSR San-Francisco) and MNA = (South-Of
San-Jose San-Francisco) are actually `misspellings' of DOG and MAN.

It might well be one doesn't want to call a system that uses this
strategy to proofcheck student's essays about geography an AI program,
but it sure would be hard to tell from its performance whether it
was an AI program or a non-AI program `pretending' to be an AI program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jun 84 13:30:56-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!ech @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intuition
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: spuxll.510

We have a couple of different issues here: is there a distinction between
'mind' and 'brain', and -- if you advocate the position that there is no
difference -- what possible mechanisms account for intuition?

On the first, I will (like others) recommend "The Mind's I".  The issue
is addressed until ANYBODY will get confused.  You may come away with the
same belief, but you will have DOUBTS, regardless of your current position.

As for "intuition," we are (so far) using an inaccurate picture: those
"leaps of imagination" are not necessarily correct insights!  Have you never
had an intuitive feeling that was WRONG in the face of additional data?

Let's look at a few candidates; are any of these either supported or
disproved by current evidence?

1. Intuition is just deduction based on data one is not CONSCIOUSLY aware of.
   Body language is a good example of data we all collect but often are not
   aware of consciously; we may use terms like "good/bad vibes"...

2. Intuition is just induction based on partial data and application of a
   "model" or "pattern" from a different experience.

3. Intuition is a random-number-generator along with some "sanity checks"
   against internal consistency and/or available data.

I submit that about the only thing we KNOW about intuition is that it is
not a consciously rational process.  Introspection, by definition, will not
yield up any distinctions between any of the above three mechanisms, or
between them and the effects of a soul or divine inspiration.  The traditional
technical and ethical constraints against breaking open that skull to measure
it are only beginning to break down (the technical ones, that is!).

I'll add one thing, then get off the box.  I USE my intuition: I am willing
to take ideas whether I can account for the source/process or not.  However,
I apply the usual rational processes to the intuitive notion before swearing to
its truth: check for self-consistency, consistency with available data,
and where possible set up "experiments" that might falsify the premise.
The Son of Sam had the divine inspiration that he had to kill a few folks...

=Ned=

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 84 13:17:28 PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intuition
-BODY-
Those who are trying to argue that "intuition" is something that cannot
be mechanized or understood in terms of computational structures and
operations should try substituting the word "soul" everywhere for
"intuition"  and see if they still believe their own arguments.
If they still do,  then I ask them to re-read Minksy's comments
on the "soul" a few digest issues back.  The task of AI researchers
is to show how such vague notions CAN be understood computationally,
not to go around arguing against this simply because such notions
as "intuition" are so vague as to be computationally useless at
such at a bs level of discussion.  It's like my postulating the
notion of "radio" and then looking at each transistor, crystal, wire or
what-have-you inside the radio, and then saying "THAT part can't be a
radio; that OTHER part there can't be one either.  I guess the idea of
'radio' can never be realized by the combination of such parts."
I second the suggestion that amateur philosophers of mind read
Hofstadter, or better yet, start building computer programs which
exhibit aspects of "intuition" and then discuss their own programs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 8:41:28-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccivax.171

In reference to Mr. Robison's comments:

Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we
use to explain what cannot be explained more
formally or logically?

I'm thinking of the explanation of evolution
based on Natural Selection.  An explanation based
on probability is NOT an explanation at all.
It is an admission that there is no logical or
formal explanation possible.  Of course, we
still accept evolution as a fact of life, but
we don't have any mechanical (or dynamical in the
sense of physics) model for it.

Perhaps the same is true of our experience of
intuition.  Something is going on when we have
a flash of insight, but we don't have any
dynamical model that can be used for prediction.

I think that Mr. Robison is correct when he says
that we just don't know much about how our
mind/brain system works.  We need to keep asking
any and all questions that come to mind (pun not
intended) -- that's what science is all about.

        Bill Anderson

        ...!{ {ucbvax | decvax}!allegra!rlgvax }!ccivax!band

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 10:11:16-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.770

[from shark!hutch]
> | Intuition is nothing more than one's subconscious employing logical
> | thought faster than the conscious brain can understand or realize it.
> | What's all the fuss about?  And where's the difference between the
> | "brain" and the "mind"? What can this "mind" do that the physical brain
> | doesn't?
> |                                     Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr
>
> Thank you, Rich, for so succinctly laying to rest all the questions
> mankind has ever had about self and mind and consciousness.

You're welcome.  It only takes a miniscule amount of logic and a careful
shave with my Occam's Electric Razor.  The point is, for all this talk of
"soul" and "mind", I've never seen anything that points to a *need* (from a
logical point of view) for anything external to "physicalism" to describe
the goings-on in the human brain.

> Now, how about proving it.  Oh, and by the way, what is a "subconscious"
> and how do you differentiate between a "conscious" brain and a "subconscious"
> in any meaningful way?
> And once you have told us exactly what a physical brain can do, then we
> can tell you what a mind could do that it doesn't.

Let's place the burden of proof on the proper set of shoulders.  If anyone is
proposing a view of intelligence involving a "mind" (defined as that part of
intellect not part of the physical brain), then they had better describe some
phenomena which physical processes cannot account for.

[from eosp1!robison]
> I'm not comfortable with Rich Rosen's assertion that intuition
> is just the mind's unconscious LOGICAL reasoning that happens
> too fast for the conscious to track.  If intuition is simply
> ordinary logical reasoning, we should be just as able to
> simulate it as we can other types of reasoning.  In fact, attempts
> to simulate intuition account for some rather noteworthy successes
> and failures, and seem to require a number of discoveries before
> we can make much real progress.  E.g.:

My statement was probably a little too concise there.  It seems like the
brain may be able to extract patterns through an elaborate pattern matching
process that can be triggered by random (or pseudo-random) "browsing", such
that a small subsection of a matched thought pattern can trigger the recall
(or synthesis) of an entire thought element.  (Whatever that means...)

> Artists and composers use intuition as part of the process of
> creating art.  It is likely that one of the benefits they gain
> from intuition is that a good work of art has many more internal
> relationships among its parts than the creator could have planned.
> It is hard to see how this result can be derived from "logical"
> reasoning of any ordinary deductive or inductive kind.  It is
> easier to see how artists obtain this result by making various
> kinds of intuitive decisions to limit their scope of free choice
> in the creative process.

Logical may not be the right word, since the process does seem to be either
conscious or intentional.  The "click" or "flash" that often is said to
coincide with intuitive realizations seems like an interrupt from a sub-
conscious process that, after random (or pseudo-random) searching, has found
a "match".

"Submitted for your approval..."                  Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
80
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 84 17:05:31 EDT  (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn@umcp-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert computer systems
-BODY-
I am currently writing a revised and updated version of my tutorial on
expert computer systems (which appeared in IEEE Computer in Feb.  1983).  As
part of the tutorial I plan to include a list of current expert computer
systems, including both their domains of expertise and references to any
available current papers describing them.  If you know of any successful
expert computer systems which you would like me to mention, please send me a
brief note giving the name of the system, the domain area, what kind of
success the system has had, and journal-style reference listings for any
relevant published papers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jun 84 16:24:59-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: shark.845

When presented with a problem like the 'if 3 is half of 5' one,
how many dive right in and try to solve something, and how many
start by checking for inconsistencies?  Solving problems that
are 'inconsistent' sounds like it goes in the same pile as working
with insufficient data.  (problems with problems :-)

                                Brian Peterson
                                ...ucbvax!tektronix!shark!brianp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 84 09:09 EDT
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Spelling Correction vs. Fact Correction
-BODY-
"It might well be one doesn't want to call a system that uses this
strategy to proofcheck student's essays about geography an AI program,
but it sure would be hard to tell from its performance whether it
was an AI program or a non-AI program `pretending' to be an AI program."

        -- Robert Amsler <AMSLER@SRI-AI>

If one cannot distinguish a non-artificial intelligence program from an
artificial intelligence program by, say, interacting with it freely for
a couple of hours, then would not one be compelled to conclude that the
non-artificial intelligence program was displaying true artificial
artificial intelligence?

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 84 18:38:06 pdt
-FROM-
From: syming%B.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Softwar
-BODY-
Four years ago, I worked as a programmer for Business School at Ohio State U.
When we ordered SAS/ETS(Statistical Analysis System/Econometic and Time Series)
from SAS company, they sent us a tape with a fixed time (two months or so?)
payment notice and stated that the program would vanish after that time. Of
course, we paid in time and they sent us a 20(?)-digit long key word and
instruction to make our trial copy a one-year-life-time program, since the
service contract was year by year. I had not realized this was a rare case.
Isn't it a common practice for a company to protect their products?

  -- syming hwang

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jun 84 8:13:06-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: utastro.127

Apropos this discussion, there has been research into hypnotically
aided recall that casts serious doubt on its reliability.
Two recent articles in *Science* magazine directly address this issue:
"The Use of Hypnosis to Enhance Recall", Oct 14, 1983, pp. 184-185 and
"Hypnotically Created Memory Among Highly Hypnotized Subjects", Nov 4,
1983, pp. 523-524.

        Bill Jefferys  8-%
        Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
        {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill    (uucp)
        utastro!bill@ut-ngp                        (ARPANET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 10:56:44-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxm!mhuxi!charm!slag @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: charm.380

        There seems to be some consensus here that however mind
and brain are related, there seems to be more process going
on then we are directly aware of.  In some way,  a filtering
mechanism in our mind/brain extracts certain salient images
from all the associations and connections.  It is these
structures (thoughts?) that I would call consciousness or
awareness.  Would anybody care to take a stab at a
model for this?


Logic is bunch of pretty flowers that smell bad.

                                slag heap.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 13:58:21-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Intuition
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.773

[from Ned Horvath:]
> I will (like others) recommend "The Mind's I".  The issue
> is addressed until ANYBODY will get confused.  You may come away with the
> same belief, but you will have DOUBTS, regardless of your current position.
> As for "intuition," we are (so far) using an inaccurate picture: those
> "leaps of imagination" are not necessarily correct insights!  Have you never
> had an intuitive feeling that was WRONG in the face of additional data?

> 1. Intuition is just deduction based on data one is not CONSCIOUSLY aware of.
>    Body language is a good example of data we all collect but often are not
>    aware of consciously; we may use terms like "good/bad vibes"...
> 2. Intuition is just induction based on partial data and application of a
>    "model" or "pattern" from a different experience.
> 3. Intuition is a random-number-generator along with some "sanity checks"
>    against internal consistency and/or available data.

> I submit that about the only thing we KNOW about intuition is that it is
> not a consciously rational process.  Introspection, by definition, will not
> yield up any distinctions between any of the above three mechanisms, or
> between them and the effects of a soul or divine inspiration.

Thanks, Ned, for putting together what I was trying to say about intuition
in a clearer manner than I could.  The three examples you cite sound like
rationally feasible constructs to describe what we call intuition.  As far
as external possibilities (souls and deities), it seems sufficient to say that
until we see a facet which internal biochemical physical processes cannot
account for, there is no reason to presuppose the supernatural/external.

  "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither
  "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother
                                Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 84 8:36:42-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cbosgd!rbg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cbosgd.42

The distinction between conscious and subconscious components of the mind
is an important one.  The substrate for consciousness is basically cortical,
which implies that it has access to language and reasoning processes, but
only some of the information about emotional states processed
primarily in lower brain centers.  To restate it: consciousness can monitor
only a fraction of the activity of the brain, and can effectively control
only a fraction of our behavior.  The example of body language not being
conscious is a good one (although trained observers can learn to make
conscious interpretations of some of these signals).

>2. Intuition is just induction based on partial data and application of a
>   "model" or "pattern" from a different experience.
>
>3. Intuition is a random-number-generator along with some "sanity checks"
>   against internal consistency and/or available data.
>
>I submit that about the only thing we KNOW about intuition is that it is
>not a consciously rational process.
> ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath)

There is a variety of evidence that human memory is content addressable.
The results of the association process whereby different memories are
compared or brought together are accessable to consciousness, and indeed
may even make up a significant component of the "stream of consciousness".
The "sanity checks" are the conscious, rational evaluation of the
associations.  A lot of intuitions and ideas get junked...

The control of this association process is not rational: how many times
have you known that you knew a fact, but were unable to produce it on the
spot?  There may well be an element of randomness to this process (Hinton
at CMU has suggested a model based on statistical mechanics), but there
are also constraints on the patterns to be matched against.  You don't
generate lots of inappropriate associations, or you would not be very
successful in competing for survival.  And that is the force that shaped
our brain and thought capacity.

  --Rich Goldschmidt    cbosgd!rbg     a former brain hacker (now reformed?)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 1984 10:39-EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intuition; Hans Berliner
-BODY-
        There is a good article in the Winter 83 AI Magazine (4;4) about
non-logical AI (it is a rebuttal to Nils Nilsson's Presidential Address
at AAAI-83).  The authors point out that certain problems are intractable if
dealt with symbolically, whereas they are easily solved if one uses
real numbers and ordinary math.  I suspect that the human brain uses a
combination of analog and digital/symbolic processing, and that some
cases of intuition might arise from the results of an analog
computation into which introspection is not possible.
        As for Ken Laws's comment about switching to a new optimal
strategy at each step (rather than Berliner's smoothing of
transitions), one of the things he is trying to get around is the
"horizon effect", where the existance of a sharp cut-off in the
program's evaluation makes it think that postponing a problem solves it
(since you no longer see the problem if it is pushed back over your
horizon).  In other words, perhaps the optimal strategy at each point *is*
a non-linear combination of several discrete strategies.
        Also, I think it is a mistake to say that "pattern-matching"
and "reasoning" are different things.  After all, one must
pattern-match in order to find appropriate objects to combine with an
inference rule (obvious in OPS5, but also true in PROLOG).  The
question at hand is perhaps more whether one is allowed to use logically
unsound inferences (a.k.a. heuristics).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Jun 84 08:10:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ``Mind and brain'' mumbo-jumbo
-BODY-
> From: Michael Dyer <dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA>
> The task of AI researchers
> is to show how such vague notions CAN be understood computationally,
> not to go around arguing against this simply because such notions
> as "intuition" are so vague as to be computationally useless at
> such at a bs level of discussion.  It's like my postulating the
> notion of "radio" and then looking at each transistor, crystal, wire or
> what-have-you inside the radio, and then saying "THAT part can't be a
> radio; that OTHER part there can't be one either.

Just so!

> From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
> Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we
> use to explain what cannot be explained more
> formally or logically?

Why do these discussions always degenerate into suggestions of
absolute limits to reason, perception or what not? That the task is
*very* difficult we know, but we should not claim (without proof) that
something *cannot* be done just because we cannot see how it could be
done (within our lifetime...). Reminds me of those old ``if God had
intended man to fly...'' arguments...  Let's replace those ``what
*cannot* be explained'' by ``what we can't yet explain''!

  -- Fernando Pereira
  pereira@sri-ai

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 84 16:27:57 EDT
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Philosophy and other amusements.
-BODY-
Judging from the responses on this net, the audience is evenly split between
those who consider philosophy a waste of time in the context of AI, and those
who love to dig up and discuss the same old chestnuts and conundrums that
have amused amateur philosophers for many years now.

First, any AI program worthy of that apellation is in fact an implementation
of of philosophical theory, whether the implementer is aware of that fact or
not. It is  unfortunate  that most implementers do *NOT* seem to be
aware of this.

Take something as apparently clear and unphilosophical as a vision program
trying to make sense out of a blocks-world. Well, all that code deciding
whether this or that junction of line segments could correspond to a corner
is ultimately based on the (usually subconscious) presumption that there
is a "real" world, that it exhibits certain regularities whether perceived
by man or machine, that these regularities correspond to arrangements of
"matter" and "energy", and that some aspects of these regularities can and
should serve to constrain the behavior of some machine. There are  even
more buried assumptions about the time invariance of physical phenomena,
the principle of causation, and the essential equivalence of "intelligent"
behavior realized by different kinds of hardware/mushware (i.e. cells vs.
transistors). ALL of these assumptions represent philosophical positions,
which at other times, and in other places would have been severely
questioned. It is only our common western heritage of rationalism and
materialism that cloaks these facts, and makes it appear that the matter is
settled. The unfortunate end-effect of this is that some of our more able
practitioners (hackers) are unable to critically examine the foundations
on which they build their systems, leading to ever more complex hacks, with
patches applied where the underlying fabric of thought becomes threadbare.

Second, for those who are fond of unscrewing the inscrutable, it should be
pointed out that philosophy has never answered any fundamental questions
(i.e. identity, duality, one vs. many, existence, essence etc. etc.).
That is not its purpose; instead it should be an attempt to critically
examine the foundations of our opinions and beliefs about the world, and
its meaning. Take a real hard look at why you believe that "...Intuition
is nothing more than..." thus-and-such, and if you come up with:'it is
intuitively obvious', or 'everybody knows that', you've uncovered a mental
blind spot. You may in the end confirm your original views, but at least
you will know why you believe what you do, and you will have become aware
of alternative views.

Consider a solipsist AI program: philosophically unassailable, logically
self-consistent, but functionally useless and indistinguishable from
an autistic program. I'm afraid that some of the AI program approaches
are just as dead-end, because they reflect only too well the simplistic
views of their authors.

        Pete    BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA


(quick, more gasoline, I think the flames are dying down...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
81
-DATE-
Date: 26 June 1984 1651-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave Touretzky at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI paper presentations
-BODY-
Claudia Mazzetti, executive director of AAAI, warns that many of the
paper presentations at this year's conference will be in very large
concert or lecture halls.  Ordinary transparencies done in 20-point
font will *not* be readable.  AAAI very strongly recommends using
35mm slides for paper presentations.  If you must use transparencies,
a 36-point font is recommended.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 84 16:02:56-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!abc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Maintaining High Quality in AI Products
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3065

I suggest that the ACM provides an appropriate umbrella under which such
an effort can at least be planned.  It is sufficiently broad-based as to
be representative and not exclusive and its democratic procedures
provide protection from the types of abuses that could be possible.  (I
do not mean to slight the AAAI; it's just that ACM seems to have more of
the "mechanisms" that such an efort will need.)

Also, I have felt for many years that ACM should, at least in the US,
provide the kind of accreditation of Computer Science curricula that the
engineering societies provide for theirs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 June 1984 07:04-EDT
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Softwar
-BODY-

    From: syming%B.CC at Berkeley
    They sent us a tape with a fixed time (two months or so?)
    payment notice and stated that the program would vanish after that time. Of
    course, we paid in time and they sent us a 20(?)-digit long key word and
    instruction to make our trial copy a one-year-life-time program, since the
    service contract was year by year.

I'm a bit confused.  How could this particular program make itself
vanish without some external reference to a date?  It seems that a
simple routine to change the date to the date of original purhcase
whenever the routine was invoked would do the trick.  Do you know if
anyone ever actually has their program vanish?  Maybe the whole thing
was a bluff?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jun 84 12:26:54-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee171bbr @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Best fitting curve
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdccsu3.1970

Given three points, what is the equation
of the best fit curve. (how does one
go about solving this?)

also, what is knuth's cocubic equation
and would that solve my problem?


John F.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 84 6:08:52-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mouton!mwg @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Best fitting curve - 3 points
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mouton.90

Since three points determine a parabola, just plug them into
y = Ax^2 + Bx + C and solve the system.  If you are in more than two
dimensions, you can probably do a transformation somehow into the
plane determined by the three points and solve; then translate back.
                -Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 84 11:40:06-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!yale-comix!leichter @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Best fitting curve
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: yale-com.4061

The notion of a "best fitting curve" through some points has no inherent
meaning.  You have to specify what kinds of curves you are willing to allow,
what kind of constraints you want to put on them, and what kind of measurement
of "fit" you are interested in.

Given n points in the plane, in general there is a unique (n-1)st degree poly-
nomial that passes through those points.  (Hence, there are infinitely many
nth degree polynomials, one for every other point in the plane that you can
consider to be an (n+1)st point.)  Such a polynomial is "best" in the sense
that it has 0 error at every point specified.  It is almost certainly not
what you would want for fitting data; it will generally oscillate between
your data points and will have uncontrollable behavior outside the range in
which your data points occur - i.e., the curve will not look at all "smooth"
to the eye.  Even if you want a curve that "looks good", you can use a
cubic (or higher-order) spline curve.  This is a curve defined by fitting
together polynomials; you take the first 4 points in order, pass a cubic
through them, take the last two and the next one, pick a cubic through those
that has the same derivative at the 4th point as the first cubic, etc...
(There are many other ways to choose spline curves.  This particular method
passes through all the points; in some cases, "smoothness" of some sort may
be more important than actually touching the points, so some kinds of splines
don't even pass through the given data points.  All spline curves are piece-
wise defined polynomials; there is no simple algebraic formula that defines
them; rather, there is a series of such formulas, one for each range of input
values.)

If the goal of "best fit" is to produce good interpolated values for a
function,
rather than a curve that "looks" like it is determined by the points, all sorts
of other techniques exist.  For example, a Chebyshev approximation will have
the least maximum error (assuming a model in which you are approximating some
known, complex function by choosing some representative points on it and
an approximating polynomial.)  However, least maximum error is not the same
as least average absolute error, or least RMS error, or...

So, in summary:  If you give me three points, I can write down pretty much
ANY function and find some way to defend it's being the "best fit" to the
three given points.  You will have to specify your goals more precisely.
                                                        -- Jerry
                                        decvax!yale-comix!leichter
leichter@yale

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Jun 84 11:44:04-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Frames Question
-BODY-
As a relief from the insubstantial debates on insubstantial souls, I
have a question about frames.

From my studies, I have observed two fundamentally ways of viewing
slots in frames: as heads of predicates, or as instance variables of
objects.

In the first view, if a FIDO frame has an AGE slot with the value 2,
then that is equivalent to making the assertion AGE(FIDO,2).  Thus the
name of the slot becomes the head of a predicate.  The advantages of
this view are twofold: the inheritance mechanism of a frame system
then appears as an inference rule, and slots can be made into frames
themselves, thus making meta-level knowledge easy (for instance, one
could say DATATYPE(AGE,NONNEGATIVE_NUMBER) to assert that AGE could
only hold values of a certain type).  This view of slots as
first-class concepts or frames is exemplified by RLL, and by simple
frame systems built on top of logic languages.

The second view is exemplified by FRL, its descendants, and any of a
number of object-oriented systems.  Here, slots are in some sense
"local" to frames or classes of frames, and an AGE of FIDO may have a
completely different meaning than an AGE of PINOT_NOIR.  Meta-level
knowledge generally resides in facets and other subparts of a slot, so
in a well-developed system, the "value" of a slot is often a rather
complex entity.  Interestingly enough, the facets (such as $VALUE,
$IF-ADDED etc) are usually quite consistent in meaning (which no doubt
simplifies meta-knowledge; one then needs only a few frames named
$VALUE, $IF-ADDED, ... to express the meanings of facets).

Each view can be simulated using the other.  To simulate the "slot as
frame view", the "objects view" can make all slots be defined for a
toplevel frame THING, and then have frames with the same names as the
slots; while the "slot as frame view" can have slots of slot frames
that point to many different ones (so for instance the AGE slot frame
has a slot VERSIONS that points to ANIMAL_AGE and WINE_AGE slots - all
the associated paperwork is handled automatically by the system).  Of
course, such simulations may be extremely inefficient! but I just
mention them to show that neither method is inherently more capable
than the other.

Now for the question: which view is favored by practitioners, and why?
Do any existing KRLs allow the view of slots to be changed according
to the problem, or do the two views require such fundamentally
different implementations that it's just better to stick to one or the
other?  Is it possible to do work using frames without being concerned
about the particular view imposed by the frame system? (my own
experience says no - converting an FRL-based program to an RLL-based
one is not easy!).  Are there problem domains in which one view is
distinctly superior to the other?  If so, what are they, and why is
that view superior?

Any answers or insights will be greatly appreciated...

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Jun 84 11:35:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI & statistics
-BODY-
Ken,

        Thank you for mentioning our work on RADIX in  the recent AILIST
response about AI and regression analysis. It prompted me to put together
a partial list of articles in AI and statistics, which I have been meaning
to do.  I've left out a number of articles by these authors in more obscure
journals and proceedings.  There is also work going on at Brunel University,
and at BBN, but I haven't seen any publications from them yet. If people
have additions to make, I would be happy to collect them and send them to
the list.

        If readers would like reprints, the following addresses may be
useful. Daryl Pregibon and Bill Gale can be reached at:

        Bell Laboratories
        600 Mountain Avenue
        Murray Hill, New Jersey
        07974

For D. Rodbard, write:

        D. Rodbard, M.D.
        National Institute of Child Health and HUman Development
        National Institutes of Health
        Bethesda, Maryland

Our address here at the RADIX project is:

        Robert L. Blum and Michael G. Walker
        RADIX Project
        Department of Computer Science
        Margaret Jacks Hall
        Stanford University
        Stanford, California
        94305



                                        Mike Walker
                                        WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

[Blum 82a]     Blum, R.L.
               Discovery and Representation of Causal Relationships from a
                  Large Time-oriented Clincal Database: The RX Project.
               Springer-Verlag, 1982.
               Vol. 19 in the Medical Informatics series edited by D.A.B.
                  Lindberg and P.L. Reichertz.

[Blum 82b]     Blum, R. L.
               Discovery, Confirmation, and Incorporation of Causal
                  Relationships from a Large Time-Oriented Database: The RX
                  Project.
               Computers and Biomedical Research 15(2):164-187, 1982.

[Blum 82c]     Blum, R. L.
               Induction of Causal Relationships from a Time-Oriented Clinical
                  Database: An Overview of the RX Project.
               In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Applications in
                  Medical Care.  IEEE Computer Society, 1982.

[Blum 84]      Blum, R.L.
               Two-Stage Regression: Application to a Time-Oriented Clinical
                  Database.
               1984.
               in preparation.

[Chambers 81]  Chambers, J.M., Pregibon, D., and Zayas, E.
               Expert Software for Data Analysis: An Initial Experiment.
               In 43rd Session ISI.  Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1981.

[Gale 83]      Gale, W.A., and Pregibon, D.
               Using Expert Systems for Developing Statistical Strategy.
               In Joint Statistical Meetings.  Toronto, 1983.

[Hajek 82]     Hajek, P., and Ivanek, J.
               Artificial Intelligence and Data Analysis.
               In COMPSTAT 1982, pages 54-60.  International Association for
                  Statistical Computing, Physics-Verlag, Vienna, 1982.

[Rodbard 83]   Rodbard, D., Cole,B.R., and Munson,P.J.
               Development of a Friendly, Self-Teaching, Interactive
                  Statistical Package for Analysis of Clinical Research Data:
                  The BRIGHT STAT-PACK.
               In Seventh Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical
                  Care, pages 701-704.  IEEE Computer Society, 1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 84 09:36:41 PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Pazzani <pazzani@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spelling Correctors = Geography test correctors?
-BODY-

Ignoring philosophical issues (after all, this is AILIST not a bad remake
of "My Dinner With Andre")  I don't feel that the spelling correctors or
the geography test correctors are really that intelligent.  The geography
corrector seems to be very similar to the programs which grade SAT tests.
Surely, one wouldn't want to call a SAT test correcting program AI
even though it does a better and faster job than I would.

I think its more important to discuss how to make these programs smarter.
What would it take to have a spelling corrector find the intended word
instead of all of the possibilities?  A while ago, I worked on a program
to do word sense selection.  I wrote a spelling corrector for that
program which treated a misspelled word as new word whose senses were
the senses of all the possible corrections.  It worked well when
things like part of speech or selectional restrictions could
disambiguate.  How could one make this program smarter?  Is it possible
to try the "closer" possibilities first?  Can you propagate the part of
speech or semantic constraints into the search for possibilities?  How
would one store a large dictionary so it is efficient to find nouns,
which are vehicles which look like "planh"?  How can you detect a
spelling error if the mistake is another word?  (e.g. "I just typed
rm *.  Can you restore my flies from backup tape?)  How do people
do this anyway?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jun 84 8:49:24-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.255

[This followup was actually written by a very clever computer program.]

As you say, the Turing test is a _conversational_ test.  Do you remember
Turing's original "conversation"?  "...Count me out on this.  I never
could write poetry."

The whole conversation is fatuous!  But then, it has no bonafide purpose.
It was merely set up by a scientist to prove something.  Nothing would
be easier, for that matter, than to program a computer to take part in
what Berne calls "8-stroke rituals":

        Hi.
        Hi.
        How are you?
        Fine.  How are you?
        Fine.  Nice day, isn't it?
        Yes.
        Well, goodbye.
        Goodbye.

But would you want to carry on such a conversation with a computer?
One converses socially only with conversers that one knows to be people.

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
82
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 1984 08:23:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How Not to Buy a Hero-1
-BODY-
        From kushnier@NADC Tue Jun  5 08:44:53 1984
        Date: 5 Jun 1984 08:38:27-EDT
        From: kushnier@NADC
        To: SURINA@AFSC-HQ, kushnier@NADC.ARPA
        Subject: Re: Small Computer Procurements

        HOW NOT TO BUY A HERO 1
              By Ron Kushnier

        I am an Engineer, by trade.
        I have my Double-E.
        And When I saw the Hero-1,
        I knew it was for me.

        I gave the order to my boss
        And explained the application,
        He very quickly signed the thing
        With the wildest jubilation.

        The order went to Purchasing
        And was no sooner in the door,
        When panic struck
        the buyer screamed,
        "No one bought a Hero-1 before".

        The order came back down to me
        With a simple "DISAPPROVED"
        My dreams were smashed
        My hopes were dashed
        My plans had been removed.

        Now I could understand this
        If a Shoeshine Boy I'd be
        But I'm supposed to be
         An Engineer
        And work in R&D.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 1984 08:15:48-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another Toy
-BODY-

Another Toy
   By Ron Kushnier

Here's another toy
That my husband wants to buy.
I'll never know
What good it is
Or any reasons why.
But HERO-1, my fate is doomed
I see it very clear.
The age of
Personal Computer Pets
Is very nearly here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Jun 84 11:29:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <EMMA@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - HAM-ANS Natural Language System
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following will take place on Friday, June 29 in the Ventura
Conference room from 2:00 to 4:00 (followed by tea).

THE DIALOG SYSTEM HAM-ANS:  NATURAL LANGUAGE ACCESS TO DIVERSE APPLICATION
SYSTEMS (H. Marburger, K. Morik, B. Nebel) -- St

This talk will introduce the overall goals of the NL-System HAM-ANS (HAMburg
Application-oriented Natural language System) which is currently being
developed at the University of Hamburg.  HAM-ANS encompasses three different
application classes:  natural language access to a vision system (traffic at
a street crossing), to a relational database system (fishery data), and for
guiding a competitive dialog with a client (hotel reservation situation).
The system accepts typed input in colloquial German and produces typed German
responses.  The system's general architecture and knowledge sources will be
introduced.

USER MODELING, EVALUATION STANDARDS, AND DIALOGUE STRUCTURE -- THE HAM-ANS
APPROACH

(Katharina Morik) --

AI dialogue systems are now developing from question-answering systems toward
advising systems.  This includes:

        *       structuring dialog

        *       understanding and generating a wider range of speech acts than
                simply information request and answer

        *       modeling the user's familiarity with the system, his/her state
                of knowledge about the domain, and his/her evaluation
                standards (goals)

In this talk, first the field of user modeling is structured according to the
different aspects of the user (familiarity, knowledge, evaluation).

We may then, secondly, describe our ongoing work in this field and relate it
to other approaches.  User modeling in HAM-ANS is closely connected to dialog
structure and dialog strategy.  In advising the user, the system generates the
verbalizes speech acts.  The choice of the speech act is guided by the user
profile and the dialog strategy of the system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Jun 84 11:55:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ted Shortliffe <Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System for Medical Consultation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

There will be a special seminar presented by Mario Fieschi from Marseilles
on Tuesday, July 10, from 2:30-3:30pm in the TC-135 conference room at the
medical school.  Mario has done some interesting work on medical expert
systems, and is spending a few months at MIT with Peter Szolovits (who was on
his thesis committee).  He will be visiting Stanford from July 9-11.

                   -------------------------------

        Speaker:     Mario Fieschi, MD, PhD
        Affiliation: University of Marseilles, France
        Title:       SPHINX: An Expert System for Medical Consultations
        Place:       Room TC-135, Medical School
        Time:        Tuesday, July 10, 2:30-3:30pm

        I will present an outline of the program SPHINX, designed for the
definition of medical knowledge and construction of a rule-based system,
currently being used in:

        . Therapeutic decisions : Application in diabetes
        . Diagnostic decisions : Application in jaundice
        . Tool for education : Application in jaundice

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Jun 84 09:46:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems at Hewlett-Packard
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             SIGLUNCH

DATE:        Friday, June 29, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Organic & Physical Chemistry
TIME:        12:05
SPEAKER:     Steven Rosenberg
             Hewlett-Packard Research Laboratories
             Palo Alto

TOPIC:       Expert Systems at Hewlett-Packard

The Applications  Technology  Laboratory  of HP  Labs  is  engaged  in
developing "industrial strength"  AI. As part  of its contribution  to
this effort,  the Expert  Systems Department  has engaged  in  various
"experiments"  to  develop   expert  system   prototypes.   One   such
experiment involved  the development  of PICC,  an expert  system  for
diagnosing flaws in IC  wafers during negative photolithography.  This
talk will  discuss  the  development  and  status  of  PICC.   Besides
describing the technical aspects of PICC,  I will explore some of  the
issues involved  in conducting  expert  systems experiments:  why  was
photolithography chosen  as  a  good  area  to  apply  expert  systems
technology; what were the  pitfalls in moving  PICC from a  laboratory
environment into a real fab line; even if it works, is it useful?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jun 84 14:28:00-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!conery @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Symposium
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uoregon.30100001

>From John Conery (conery@uoregon)


                            -- Announcing --

             1985 International Symposium on Logic Programming

        Tentatively scheduled for Boston, Massachusetts, June 1985

        Sponsored by IEEE Technical Committee on Computer Languages

The symposium will cover implementations and applications of logic programming
systems, including (but not limited to) parallel processing, expert systems,
natural language processing, systems programming, implementation techniques,
and performance issues.

Authors should send 8 copies of their papers (8-20 pages, double spaced) to

        John Conery
        Department of Computer and Information Science
        University of Oregon
        Eugene, OR   97403

Submission deadline is November 1, 1984.  A formal call for papers will be
issued shortly.  For more information, contact:

        Conference Chairman:    Doug DeGroot
                                IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
                                PO Box 281, Yorktown Hts. NY 10598

        Technical Co-Chairmen:  Jacques Cohen
                                Computer Science Dept - Ford Hall
                                Brandeis University
                                415 South St
                                Waltham MA  02254
                                CSNET:     jc@brandeis
                                ARPANET:   jc.brandeis@csnet-relay

                                John Conery
                                Department of Computer and Information Sci
                                University of Oregon
                                Eugene, OR  97403
                                CSNET:     conery@uoregon
                                ARPANET:   conery.uoregon@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Jun 84 09:15:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Language Generation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON LANGUAGE GENERATION

Organizers - Doug Appelt and Ivan Sag
Staff - Emma Pease
Dates - July 8 - 11
Size - 30 invited + 30 local
Location - Stanford University
Sponsors - National Science Foundation, American Association for
           Artificial Intelligence, CSLI, Fujitsu Laboratories, Ltd.

The Second International Workshop on Language Generation will be held at
Stanford University from July 8-10, immediately following the COLING
conference.  The workshop, organized by Doug Appelt and Ivan Sag is designed
to allow researchers working in the field of language generation to share
recent research results and discuss matters of importance to the field.
Topics of discussion for this workshop include the design of grammatical
formalisms for language generation, the role of planning and speech act
theory in language generation, the production of extended discourse, the
foundations for a theory of language generation, modeling the hearer's
knowledge and intentions, and producing coherent explanations of reasoning
and decision-making.  Linguists as well as artificial intelligence
researchers will participate in the workshop.

The workshop is being sponsored by a grant from the National Science
Foundation, the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, and a gift
from Fujitsu Laboratories, Ltd.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Conference starts at noon, July 8 in the
Elliott Program Center.  This is a workshop and so interested people
should check with Doug Appelt before going.

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
83
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 84 17:08:17 EDT
-FROM-
From: William K. Cadwallender (LCWSL) <wkc@Ardc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP IN AZTEC C
-BODY-
        I was at a seminar in applied AI recently, and someone there told me
about a LISP written in Aztec C under CP/M (... something like Z-LISP?) which
was allegedly in the public domain and available possibly from SIMTEL. Does
anyone out there know anything about this LISP, or any LISP that I could run
in any manner on a 6502 system?

                        William Cadwallender
                        (wkc@ARDC)

P.S. I am interested in the C SOURCE code for this thing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 84 1:07:33-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!py
     uxww!gamma!ulysses!burl!idi!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp under UNIX?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: idi.207

        Can someone tell me if there is a version if Interlisp
that runs under UNIX?  If so, where/how does one go about
getting a copy?  Thanks,

Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Jun 84 13:42:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: System-Assoc Dir <SRISW@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chess 4.5
-BODY-
I would like to inquire of the list if there is anyone who would like
to participate in converting a Pascal clone of the Northwestern University
Chess 4.5 program into TOPS-20 assembly language. The Pascal clone is
partially written and unrelated to the bug-filled version published in Byte
a few years ago. This version is based on a technical article by the
authors, Slate and Atkin. Replies to g.mclure@su-score.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jul 84 22:10:20-EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!idi!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: AI texts & references
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: idi.205

        I'm looking for some good AI references and/or texts.
Pointers to books that are considered a "must" are particularly
wanted, but even ones that you consider "good reading" would
be helpful, too.  Thanks,

Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 84 18:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: JPAnderson@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in process control
-BODY-

I'm looking for information on AI applications in the process control
industry.  Any information on what is being done or what should be done
would be greatly appreciated.

Jay Anderson JPAnderson -at mit-multics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 84 8:41:49-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: a third of ten
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.794

> Please.   Everyone knows that 2*2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

Now hold on.  You're misquoting one of the great axioms of science,
Skillman's Axiom.
                 ____
                V 3     =     7

        ... for very large values of 3.

Back in 1973 at Cornell was the first I had heard of this "axiom".  Has
anyone actually traced its roots back to its real origins?

[Skillman is now an astronomer somewhere in the northwest.]


WHAT IS YOUR NAME?                      Rich Rosen
WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS?               pyuxn!rlr
WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA?         I don't know that ...  ARGHHHHHHHH!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 84 10:55:00-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcla!hpfclq!robert @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfclq.68500004

I think a human or computer presented this problem may end up
asking for clarification provided more context (not supplied)
were not available.

For the problem given I would suspect perhaps
not an inconsistancy but rather that
I was being asked to setup a mapping from one "world" to another.
A similar problem is:

        If 32 is 0 and 212 is 100  what is 65?

This is of course a fahrenheit to celsius conversion problem.
Read out of context it sure sounds strange.  This kind of
mapping problem is very common and might be done correctly
by a computer without blinking a led.  :-)

                        -Robert (animal) Heckendorn
                        ..!hplabs!hpfcla!robert

[Readers might note that the recently posed problem of fitting the
"best" curve through three points was similarly underconstrained.
I have suppressed several responses of the form "The problem as
stated has infinitely many solutions; please clarify what you want."
Other responses have been a survey of applicable techniques and
a couple of replies suggesting particular techniques that are usually
appropriate.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 84 10:57:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!warner @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: three point curve
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: orca.915

I solved a similar problem once. My solution was without reguard to
"best fit" as it didn't pass through the "middle" point. Simple
mathematically, it was done with a recursive procedure that accepted
three points. It might be applied here if some method was devised for
extrapolating two more points from the original three points.

Brief description of the method:
Calculate the mid points of the lines between the "end" points and
the "middle" point, i.e. between 1,2 and 2,3. You now have five points.

                              (2).

                                   (4).

                 (5).                   (3).



    (1).

Pass the original procedure 1,5,4 then 5,4,3 .. repeat.

When the the distance between the points is "small enough" ..
connect them with a line.

If the original problem required a point through 1,3,X then 2 would
have been extrapolated, somehow, from 1,3,X.

The curves made this way look nice and smooth on a macro scale but
look wiggly on a micro scale.

Ken Warner
..tektronix!tekecs!warner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 84 19:11:02 pdt
-FROM-
From: syming%B.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Second Summary of AI for Business
-BODY-

I have compiled a second summary of AI For Business which contains the
info I have received since the time I posted the first summary about one
month ago. If interested, please send me a mail. It is rather long, so I
don't want to waste the resource here.
                                        -- syming hwang

[The length is not excessive for AIList, but Syming is also interested
in compiling a list of people with particular interest in this subject.
I can help anyone who has difficulty constructing a net address for
him. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 11:04:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Applied Artificial Intelligence Reporter
-BODY-
I have received a mailing from the ICS (Intelligent Computer Systems)
Research Institute of the University of Miami.  They are hawking a
the Applied Artificial Intelligence Reporter, a monthly newsletter that
expanded to 12 pages in February (Vol. 1, No. 5).  The excerpts shown
in the ad look like fairly typical trade press material, with everything
having been passed through an editor or professional reporter to make
sure it's readable.  The publishers are promising a broad mix of
news, editorials, tutorials, reviews, etc.  The newsletter is available
for $49 ($39 for AAAI members) per year from the ICS Research Inst.,
U. of Miami, P.O. Box 1308-EP, Fort Lee, NJ 07024.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 21:44:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Industry
-BODY-
The July issue of IEEE Spectrum mentions (p. 69) a new two-volume
report, "Artificial Intelligence--A New Tool for Industry and Business,"
from Technical Insights, Inc., P.O. Box 1304, Fort Lee, N.J. 07024,
(201) 944-6204.  Volume I is said to contain explanations of
expert systems, natural-language processing, vision, touch sensing,
cognitive modeling, computer hardware, VLSI design, and applications,
as well as a market analysis and forecast for each technology.  Volume
II presents "hundreds of annotated programs currently under study at
universities," as well as lists of available research reports and
technical publications for each university program.  The two-volume
report costs $485 plus 6% in NJ or $27 overseas postage and handling.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 13:18:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Tools
-BODY-
Teknowledge (of Palo Alto) has released two software packages for
expert system builders.  M.1, at $12,500, is for those who want to
explore expert systems concepts on the IBM PC.  The price includes
a four-day training course for one person.  S.1 is for professional
knowledge engineers developing large-scale knowledge systems.  It
sells for $50,000, which includes a two-week training course for two
people, a sample system with detailed case history, and access to
Teknowledge's applications engineering services.  S.1 currently
runs on Xerox 1100 and 1108 workstations and is being ported to
VAX 11/750 and 11/780 under VMS.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 21:57:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Translation
-BODY-
CNN News carried a story over the weekend about Bravice Int., which
claims to have the first commercial Japanese-to-English translation
system.  They claim about 80% accuracy for technical text, and charge
$100,000 for the program.  An English-to-Japanese translator is in
the works.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 22:06:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural-Language Interface
-BODY-
We had a query recently about natural-language interfaces to UNIX.
Anyone interested in this subject should read "Talking to UNIX in
English: An Overview of UC" in the June issue of Communications of
the ACM, pp. 574-593.  The article is by Robert Wilensky, Yigal Arens,
and David Chin.  It has considerably more detail than the articles
I mentioned previously.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
84
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 84 13:38:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Objection to Crane: A Quick Question - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: convex.45200002

"...    a person can be enabled (through
        hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember
        infinite details of any experience of this or prior life
        times ... "

> Memory recall under hypnosis has been found to be just as reconstructive
> (perhaps more so) as normal memory.  Hypnotic states buy you some recall,
> but not that much!

I have heard (but have no reference document to cite) that neuro-surgeons
have demonstrated that stimulation (i.e, contact with) certain parts of the
brain can produce complete recall of all sensory input from a past event,
even of details not originally "noticed".  There is apparently a complete
record of sensory input stored which some mechanism filters, so that we are
"aware" of only some of it.  Can anyone corroborate this, and cite a reference?

Marv Graham; ConVex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!graham

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03 Jul 84  17:06:08 bst
-FROM-
From: "J.R. COWIE%rco"@ucl-cs.arpa
se of if in natural language:The following is a brief description of the project
proposal by oneof our students on a M.Sc. cours in Information Technology.This
student is originally a philosopher by profession, but hasdecided to move over
into Computer Scince. He is interested inusing prolog to test out his ideas.If
you have any suggestions or references send them to me and I will ass themon to
him.  (j.r.cowie%rco@ucl-cs.arpa)
---------------------------------------------    It is arguable that
ontraposition is not a universallyvalid principle of inference for empirical
conditionals andyet we use it, apparently successfuly, all the time. Anobvious
suggestion is that we are discriminating and selecta subclass of cases to
contrapose. We then ask whtcharacterizes that subclass.   of a setof principles
of natural infrence, it is expected that itwillrature on these topics and would
begrateful for any references.Ian Wilson.-------------------------------DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 1984 08:00:20-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Law
-BODY-

The Law
   By Ron Kushnier

The Robotic Laws of Asimov
Have always been in Fiction,
But now through High Technology
They've lost that last restriction.
So the Robots are becoming real
They are our new found tools.
Although they may be getting smart,
They must still obey the Rules.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 1984 08:33:47-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Last Laugh
-BODY-

The Last Laugh
    By Ron Kushnier


Some people laughed
When they heard me say,
"We need a robot right away".
And I must admit
I had to smile
When I thought about it
For awhile.
This funny little box of steel
Running about on one big wheel
Raising its arm
So it can say,
"excuse me folks,
But you're in my way".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jul 1984 09:10:53-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Robot Boom
-BODY-

The Robot Boom
    By Ron Kushnier

The Robot Boom
Will be here soon-
Bigger than Home Computers.
The parents will pay,
But the kids will play
And be their main recruiters.

For there is no fear
In our children, dear
Of androids or machines.
Kids feel quite at ease,
Think it's a breeze
To proces all our dreams.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 84 17:36:05-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.ags @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-i.331

>  [This followup was actually written by a very clever computer program.]
>
>  As you say, the Turing test is a _conversational_ test.  Do you remember
>  Turing's original "conversation"?  "...Count me out on this.  I never
>  could write poetry."
   [...]
>  The whole conversation is fatuous!  But then, it has no bonafide purpose.
>  It was merely set up by a scientist to prove something.
>
>  But would you want to carry on such a conversation with a computer?
>  One converses socially only with conversers that one knows to be people.

Your bug-killer line turns out to have more apparent truth in it than the
rest of the article.  It's too bad you didn't read the original conversation
which you quoted from.  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here by
assuming that you did not deliberately misrepresent the conversation (and that
you were not unable to understand it):

        Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.
        A: Count me out on this one.  I never could write poetry.
        Q: Add 34957 to 70764.
        A: (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621.
        Q: Do you play chess?
        A: Yes.
        Q: I have K at my K1, and no other pieces.  You have only K at K6
           and R at R1.  It is your move.  What do you play?
        A: (After a pause of 15 seconds) R-R8 mate.

The point of the first answer is that no human is an expert on everything,
and that a program which hopes to pass the Turing test had best not give
itself away by being overly knowledgeable.

Did you notice that the answer to the second question is incorrect?  It
should be 105721.  [Aha! a sexist machine!  It assumes that women are no
good with figures.  Oops--I forgot.  Since you haven't read Turing's
"Can a Machine Think?" you won't understand what women have to do with
this discussion.  Oh, well...]


Dave Seaman                     "My hovercraft is full of eels."
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 84 17:22:46 EDT
-FROM-
From: kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robot Rights
-BODY-
re: Why distinguish humans from machines...

For the same reason the Supreme Court in the last century got into the
business of deciding what fraction of a human being a slave was for
political purposes. Pandora's box will be opened again on this issue in
the future if and when we succeed in creating AI devices that pass
various tests. I don't care if the devices are made of silicon, biomass
(shades of genetic engineering), or some hybrid combo. The point is, I
can see some group organizing them into either a union, a voting block,
or a public interest group to keep another ton of lawyers living off the
fat of the land for years to come.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jun 84 7:42:05-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!unc!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxn.784

> "subconsious", "mind", etc -- what DO these words mean?  More
> importantly, do these things exist?
> I assert they do not.  I take the behaviorist philosophy that what
> you call "mind" is a thing invented by Plato or some dead Greek
> person which is just as mystical and unreal as "the Gods" or
> "magic."
> What you have is a brain.  What you do is behavior.  You are an
> organism that responds to AND IS CHANGED BY your environment.
> That's all.  The rest you've made up or assumed was true because
> some dead greek person said it was there.
> Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence.  I dare you.

BRA-VO!!!!!!!


It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there.
                                                Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 84 14:38:01-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!ech @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Human Models
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: spuxll.514

Jules Greenwall's suggestion is an extreme example of what researchers in the
area refer to as a "meat machine."  Traditionally, such experiments contain
a neuron model and attempt to simulate a brain at THAT level of detail.

His suggestion suffers from a similar problem, also: assuming that one
has a complete quantum-mechanical model of a human brain, how is one to model
the behavior of molecules, in real time, with a computer made of molecules?
I thank him for the suggestion, of course, because it drives home an
important point: you simply can't build a real-time emulation of a brain
by modelling it at the quantum-mechanical level; you MUST use some
"higher level" model.

Note that, except for rather simple neuron nets, traditional meat machines
are also many orders of magnitude removed from a real-time simulation of
a brain of human-class complexity.

Finally, I will note that we are on the verge of opening yet another round
of the reductionist/wholist debate; yet again, I will recommend that you
go devour a copy of "The Mind's I".

=Ned=

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jul 84 13:51:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sharon Bergman <SHARON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral - Knowledge-Based Circuit Design
-BODY-
            [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        KNOWLEDGE-BASED CIRCUIT DESIGN


                               Christopher Tong
                          Computer Science Department
                              Stanford University


                             Dissertation defense
                       2:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 17, 1984
                            Margaret Jacks Hall 146


DESIGN AS DIALECTIC. Design is a dialectic between the designer and what is
possible. As design of an artifact, circuit design involves creating artifact
descriptions that satisfy the requirements imposed by designer, environment,
domain, logic, and limited experience; good design exploits these requirements
of the design problem by converting them into constraints on the design
process. As design of a functionally decomposable artifact, circuit design
entails recursive partitioning of functional requirements in such a way that
the partitioned requirements map onto technologically available structures that
satisfy them.  Finally, viewing circuit design as the design of a physical
computational system, we can categorize the required functionality along a
small number of functional dimensions (e.g. control, communication, behavior).

        This thesis makes several contributions. It introduces the notion of a
playful design process as an ideal toward which the engineering of design
knowledge should be steered; it describes the extent to which the "playful
design" ideal can be realized by a circuit design process. It extends the
notion of play to playful control of the design process; and finally, it
presents an ontology of dimensions for categorizing and relating design
requirements and approaches.

A PLAYFUL DESIGN PROCESS. Play is doing what one wants to do when wants to do
it. Playful design is possible to the degree that: refinement steps can be
carried out in an order-insensitive manner; and decomposition creates
context-insensitive components. We show that the benefits derived from enabling
such play in the process of design include: enablement of goal-directed
refinement, and an exponential reduction in number of solutions considered over
a more traditional "fixed phases" approach to circuit design. By characterizing
circuit specifications by the ubiquitous functional dimensions of control,
communication, and behavior, we enable a measure of order-insensitive
refinement; these functional dimensions induce a set of evaluation dimensions
for performing goal-directed refinement. Viewing components as processors
facilitates context-insensitive decomposition.

PLAYFUL CONTROL OF THE DESIGN PROCESS. Playful control entails being able to
resolve current design problems by pursuing strategies that are appropriate
given the resource limitations of the designer. Playful control is possible to
the extent that: the problems produced by the design process are
well-categorized; and problem posting and resolution can be separated. Playful
control is knowledge-intensive, drawing on a library of strategies indexed by
problem type and resource allocation.

        We describe an interactive computer program called DONTE (Design
ONTology Experiment). DONTE has served to implement, motivate, and help debug
the contributions made by this research.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
85
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 84 14:39:45 pdt
-FROM-
From: cjet%ucbamber.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Participation in Education
-BODY-
                              ANNOUNCING
                              ----------


        The opening in September 1984 of a Model School which will  develop
new ways to use computers in education for use throughout the Berkeley Uni-
fied School District, the state, and the nation.  The District seeks colla-
boration  with  persons,  firms,  research organizations, universities, and
others interested in the leading edge of technology in the schools.


                               FEATURING
                               ---------

   *    Computer workstations on local area networks
   *    Many workstations per classroom
   *    Computers used to teach regular curriculum
   *    Computers used for classroom and school administration
   *    Total Integration, including persons with physical and mental
        disabilities in the classroom
   *    Collaboration by prominent members of  business  and  faculty  from
        the  University  of California at Berkeley toward curriculum design
        and technology integration
   *    A site for research, development  and  demonstration  of  effective
        use of educational technology


                        REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
                        -----------------------

We desire information about advanced  hardware  or  software  systems  that
could  be  acquired  for use in the Model School. In addition to computers,
courseware, and networks, the District is interested  in  peripherals  that
address  the needs of younger children and children with disabilities, such
as special keyboards, graphic displays, voice synthesisers, etc.

The Berkeley Unified School District is investing substantial funds in  the
school,  staff  and technology.  We seek collaboration, sponsorship, assis-
tance and state-of-the-art products. People of many disciplines, skills and
viewpoints  are  working together to make major advances.  We invite you to
explore fuller involvement and/or participation in any of the major aspects
of this exciting project.  Please contact us at cjet@amber@berkeley or call
(415) 527-9030.
                                Eric Novikoff, C-JET

This flyer is being sent by the Center for Jobs Education
and Technology, the non-profit corporation which is the technology
consultant for the Berkeley School District's Model School Project.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 84 12:51:23-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!noscvax!goodhart @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Interlisp under UNIX?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: noscvax.532

Information Sciences Institute (ISI) provides INTERLISP for VAX computers
running either the UNIX or VMS operating systems.  For further information
call ISI at (213) 822-1511.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 1984 1322-EDT
-FROM-
From: WHOLEY at CMU-CS-C.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

First of all, there's a CLISP BBoard (C for Common) that things like this
should probably be discussed on.  Since a number of questions were asked in
this forum [CMU bboard], I'll answer them in this forum.

1. DEC is supposedly either doing or planning to do ("real soon now") a port of
DEC Common Lisp to Unix.

2. I'd be wary of any "compatibility" package for Common Lisp in Franz.  There
are a number of complicated Common Lisp features that are somewhat difficult to
implement from the ground up, and I doubt that a "compatability" package can
accurately capture enough to make large Common Lisp programs run.  Such
features include (but are not limited to):
        The package system, which provides one with separate namespaces,
        Lexical scoping of variables (upward and downward "funargs"),
        Multiple value returns from functions,
        Arrays with fill pointers, adjustable arrays, and displaced arrays.

3. Golden Common Lisp from Gold Hill Computers is a subset of Common Lisp for
the IBM PC.  It is intended more as a teaching tool than a full Common Lisp
programming environment, although one could certainly write useful programs in
it (much as one can write useful programs in BASIC).  It is certainly the
finest microcomputer Lisp around.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 84 8:24:45-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Best fitting curve - 3 points
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.418

Usually the correct approach is to take the parameterized curve that
is expected by theory to pass through the data and do a weighted (by
inverse error squared) least squares fit (i.e. determine the values
of the parameters that minimizes the weighted sum of the squares of
the deviations of the known data points from the curve).  One method
that works well is the Marquardt gradient-expansion technique described
in Bevington's "Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical
Sciences".  Of course this assumes that you HAVE a theory...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 84 22:44:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: War Games
-BODY-
Although  this  is  a  late  response to Chuck McManis' request for
information on wargames, I thought I'd pass this along:

There are many microcomputer wargames available today. The majority
of  them  are  produced  by Strategic Simulations Inc. (SSI). SSI's
games are very similar to Avalon Hill's  games,  and  cover  topics
such as The Civil War, WWII (D-Day, North Africa, Sink the Bismark,
Battle of Britian, etc), and modern day  hypothetical  combat.  All
these  games  are realistic (they use accurate orders of battle for
both sides) and quite playable. These games can be  played  by  two
people,  or you can play against the computer. Unfortunately, while
playing these games may help you get  a  "feel"  for  computer  war
games,  they  won't  help you write one since you can't look at the
programs - they are locked up. SSI's games are available for almost
all  microcomputers,  with  the  selection  for the Apple II family
having the most games. Go to a local computer store to see them.

One wargame that stands out from all others is "Eastern  Front"  by
Chris  Crawford  for  the  Atari 400/600/800. In addition to buying
Eastern Front, you can buy a documented 6502 source code listing of
the  program,  along with a booklet that Chris wrote describing how
he implemented the program, and the  various  combat  and  movement
routines he used. The program also has a
little rudimentary "AI" in it - when you  play  against
the   computer  the  computer  is  quite  a  formidable
opponent, and Chris  describes  his  "AI"  routines  in
detail.  Chris is one of the premier computer war games
designers in the country. To see this, you might  check
a  local  computer  store, or a local Atari User Group.
Eastern Front was originally available via  the  "Atari
Program  Exchange"  run  by  Atari, but since Atari has
just been sold  to  Jack  Tramiel,  the  Atari  Program
Exchange may no longer exist.

   Michael_D'Alessandro%Wayne.MTS%Umich.MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 04 Jul 84  0027 PDT
-FROM-
From: Don Woods <DON@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: mongice
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This is the tail
end of a discussion about the plural of mongoose (mongooses).]

[...]

I'm also reminded of Walt "Pogo" Kelly's observation that "the mongoose is a
singular beast because nobody can pronounce two of them."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 Jul 84  1532 PDT
-FROM-
From: Frank Yellin <FY@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: From the New Yorker:  Man, Bytes, Dog  :-)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

From the New Yorker
July 2, 1984


MAN, BYTES, DOG

Many people have asked me about the Cairn Terrier.  How about memory, they want
to know.  Is it IBM-compatible?  Why didn't I get the IBM itself, or a Kaypro,
Compaq, or Macintosh?  I think the best way to answer these questions is to
look at th Macintosh and the Cairn head on.  I almost did buy the Macintosh.
It has terrific graphics, good word-processing capabilities, and the mouse.
But in the end I decided on the Cairn, and I think I made the right decision.

Let's start out with the basics:

Macintosh:
    Weight (without printer): 20lbs.
    Memory (RAM): 128K
    Price (with printer): $3,090

Cairn Terrier:
    Weight (without printer): 14lbs.
    Memory (RAM): Some
    Price (without printer): $250

Just on the basis of price and weight, the choice is obvious.  Another plus is
that the Cairn Terrier comes in one unit.  No printer is necessary, or useful.
And--this was a big attraction to me--there is no user's manual.

Here are some of the other qualities I found put the Cairn out ahead of the
Macintosh:

PORTABILITY:  To give you a better idea of size, Toto in "The Wizard of Oz" was
a Cairn Terrier.  So you can see that if the young Judy Garland was able to
carry Toto around in that little picnic basket, you will have no trouble at all
moving your Cairn from place to place.  For short trips it will move under its
own power.  The Macintosh will not.

RELIABILITY:  In five to ten years, I am sure, the Macintosh will be superseded
by a new model, like the Delicious or the Granny Smith.  The Cairn Terrier, on
the other hand, has held its share of the market with only minor modifications
for hundreds of years.  In the short term, Cairns seldom require servicing,
apart from shots and the odd worming, and most function without interruption
during electric storms.

COMPATIBILITY:  Cairn Terriers get along with everyone.  And for communications
with any other dog, of any breed, within a radius of three miles, no additional
software is necessary.  All dogs share a common operating system.

SOFTWARE:  The Cairn will run three standard programs, SIT, COME, and NO, and
whatever else you create.  It is true that, being a microcanine, the Cairn is
limited here, but it does load the programs simultaneously.  No disk drives.
No tapes.

Admittedly, these are peripheral advantages.  The real comparison has to be on
the basis of capabilities.  What can the Macintosh and the Cairn do?  Let's
start on the Macintosh's turf--income-tax preparation, recipe storage,
graphics, and astrophysics problems:

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    |              Taxes    Recipes    Graphics    Astrophysics |
    | Macintosh     yes       yes         yes           yes     |
    | Cairn         no        no          no            no      |
    -------------------------------------------------------------

At first glance it looks bad for the Cairn.  But it's important to look beneath
the surface with this kind of chart.  If you yourself are leaning toward the
Macintosh, ask yourself these questions:  Do you want to do your own income
taxes?  Do you want to type all your recipes into a computer?  In your graph,
what would you put on the $x$ axis?  The $y$ axis?  Do you have any
astrophysics problems you want solved?

Then consider the Cairn's specialties:  playing fetch and tug-of-war, licking
your face, and chasing foxes out of rock cairns (eponymously).  Note that no
software is necessary.  All these functions are part of the operating system.

         ----------------------------------------------------
         |            Fetch    Tug-of-War    Face     Foxes |
         | Cairn        yes        yes        yes      yes  |
         | Macintosh    no          no         no       no  |
         ----------------------------------------------------

Another point to keep in mind is that computers, even the Macintosh, only do
what you tell them to do.  Cairns perform their functions all on their own.
Here are some of the additional capabilities that I discovered once I got
the Cairn home and house-broken:

WORD PROCESSING:  Remarkably, the Cairn seems to understand every word I say.
He has a nice way of pricking up his ears at words like "out" and "ball."  He
also has highly tuned voice-recognition.

EDUCATION:  The Cairn provides children with hands-on experience at an early
age, contribution to social interaction, crawling ability, and language skills.
At age one, my daughter could say "Sit," "Come," and "No."

CLEANING:  This function was a pleasant surprise.  But of course cleaning up
around the cave is one of the reasons dogs were developed in the first place.
Users with young (below age two) children will still find this function useful.
The Cairn Terrier cleans the floor, spoons, bib, and baby, and has the unerring
ability to distinguish strained peas from ears, nose, and fingers.

PSYCHOTHERAPY:  Hear the Cairn really shines.  And remember, therapy is
something that computers have tried.  There is a program that makes the
computer ask you questions when you tell it your problems.  You say "I'm afraid
of foxes."  The computer says, "You're afraid of foxes?"

The Cairn won't give you that kind of echo.  Like Freudian analysts, Cairns are
mercifully silent; unlike Freudians, they are infinitely sympathetic.  I've
found that the Cairn will share, in a nonjudgmental fashion, disappointments,
joys, and frustrations.  And you don't have to know BASIC.

This last capability is related to the Cairn's strongest point, which was the
final deciding factor in my decision against the Macintosh--user-friendliness.
On this criterion, there is simply no comparison.  The Cairn Terrier is the
essence of user-friendliness.  It has fur, it doesn't flicker when you look at
it, and it wags its tail.

  -- James Gorman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 84 20:04:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph.D. Oral - Analogy in Legal Reasoning
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                    A Ph.D. Oral Examination - Proposal Defense

          Title:    Analogy with Purpose in Legal Reasoning from Precedents
          Speaker:  Smadar Kedar-Cabelli
          Date:     Friday, July 6, 1984, 10:00 - 11:00 am
          Location: Hill Center, room 423

                    Open to DCS Faculty and Students

       One  open  problem in current artificial intelligence (AI) models of
    learning and reasoning by analogy is: which aspects  of  the  analogous
    situations  are  relevant to the analogy, and which are irrelevant?  It
    is currently recognized that analogy involves mapping  some  underlying
    causal  network  of relations between situations [Winston 82], [Gentner
    83], [Burstein 83], [Carbonell 83].  However, most  current  models  of
    analogy  provide  the  system  with  exactly  the  relevant  relations,
    tailor-made to each analogy to be performed.  As AI systems become more
    complex,  we  will  have  to  provide  them  with  the  capability   of
    automatically  focusing  on  the  relevant  aspects  of situations when
    reasoning analogically.  These will have to be sifted  from  the  large
    amount of information used to represent complex, real-world situations.

       In  order  to  study  these  general  issues,  we  are  examining  a
    particular case study of learning and  reasoning  by  analogy:  forming
    legal  concepts  by  legal  reasoning from precedents.  This is studied
    within the TAXMAN II project, which is  investigating  legal  reasoning
    using AI techniques [McCarty 82], [Nagel 83].

       In  this  talk, we will discuss the problem and a proposed solution.
    We examine legal  reasoning  from  precedents  within  the  context  of
    current  AI  models  of  analogy.    We then add a focusing capability.
    Current work on goal-directed learning [Mitchell 83a], [Mitchell  83b],
    and   explanation-based   learning [Dejong   83]   applies   here:  the
    explanation of how the precedent satisfies the intent of the law  (i.e.
    its  goals,  or purposes) helps to automatically focus the reasoning on
    what is relevant.

       Intuitively, suppose a lawyer wishes to argue that a particular case
    involving a bicycle violated  the  following  statute:  'a  vehicle  is
    forbidden  in a public park' [Hart 58].  He might argue by analogy to a
    clear precedent--a passenger car.  He needs to establish that a bicycle
    is a vehicle for the purposes of this statute, that bicycles should  be
    banned from the park for the same reasons that passenger cars are.  The
    purpose,  or  intent  of the law is to prohibit those things that would
    interfere with the serene, quiet setting of the park, or would  destroy
    the  natural  habitat,  and so on.  Reasoning from this, the lawyer can
    determine that aspects of the cases such as the ability to trample over
    lawns,  run  over  small  animals,  make  noise,  are relevant for this
    purpose.  On the other hand, aspects of the cases involving the country
    where the vehicles were manufactured, or the materials the vehicles are
    made of, are irrelevant for this purpose.  Given a  different  law  and
    purpose, these might well be relevant.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
86
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 12:28:38-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!whuxle!otto @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART mailing list
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: whuxle.511

This notice is intended to those interested in AI who live and work in the
greater New York City area.  My apologies to those who read this who are not
included in the above group.  The distribution mechanisms of netnews are not
precise enough to allow me to target my message better.



                            **************
                            **  NOTICE  **
                            **************

The New York City chapter of SIGART (the ACM Special Interest Group in
Artificial Intelligence) is interested in adding names to its mailing list.
This chapter holds monthly meetings in Manhattan to discuss various aspects
of AI, and often has invited speakers to present new ideas.

If you would like to receive the monthly meeting notices, please send the
following to me via electronic or paper mail:

        Your
                name
                US Mail mailing address
                company
                telephone number
                list of topics for the chapter to focus on

Please send this information to me at one of the following addresses:

        USENET: {ihnp4!}whuxld!otto
        CSNET:  otto.whuxle.btl
        MAIL:   George Otto, 1C-329A
                AT&T Bell Laboratories
                Whippany Road
                Whippany, NJ  07981

By working together to make this organization responsive to our interests,
it can become a valuable addition to our professional lives.

                                        George Otto
                                        AI Systems Dept
                                        AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 1984 12:24:19-PDT
-FROM-
From: doshi%umn-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info. on >YAPS< production system.
-BODY-
Subject: Info. about the   YAPS   production system.
                           ----   -----------------

I am looking for information about the YAPS. In particular,

        (1) Can anyone please send me some short
            (1-30 pages) coded examples about the actual usage.

            And documentation, if possible.

        (2) Does there exist a YAPS  "primer" or any such
            thing, which gives some good examples.

        (3) Any other information (names, csnet addresses
            etc.).

We have UNIX 4.1 & 4.2 .

If you have to send by surface mail, please send to :

        Rajkumar Doshi
        Computer Science Department
        University of Minnesota
        136 Lind Hall,
        207 Church Street, S.E.
        Minneapolis,  MN  55455

I will gladly re-pay the US postage promptly.
Thank you very much.

  -Raj Doshi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 1984 08:25:26-EDT
-FROM-
From: bac@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Small Computer Lisps?
-BODY-

   While everyone's on the topic of Lisps for various systems,
does anyone know of any decent Lisp implementations for CP/M
or MS-DOS (Z-80 or 8088 based systems)?  All I know of is a
version called MULisp, from Microsoft, but I have no idea
whether it's useful, efficient, etc.

   Is AI and Lisp going to remain tied to mainframe machines,
or will it ever reach the growing population of microcomputers?


                                        Brant Cheikes
                                        bac @ Mitre-Bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 Jul 84 11:52:00-MDT
-FROM-
From: purush <purushothaman@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Interlisp on Unix? -- partial answer
-BODY-
Interlisp on vax running Unix can be obtained by sending mail to
Interlisp@isib.arpa or by writing to

USC Information Sciences Institute
Interlisp-VAX Project
4676 Admirality Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90291.

A report of this effort is in the 1982 Lisp and Functional Programming
conference proceedings.

  -purush

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 Jul 84 10:32:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: best-fitting curve for 3 points
-BODY-
Maybe I'm missing something.  Three points define a unique circle.
Finding the circle given the points is trivial.  What's the problem?

In general, the theory of splines deals with the problem of fitting
a piecewise polynomial to a sequence of points.  For example,
b-splines are piecewise cubics that can be used to connect points
with smooth, continuous curves (i.e., twice-differentiable curves).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 84 9:11:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ctvax!jmiller @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Direct Brain Stimulation
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ctvax.45200003

As noted by others, we're talking about experiments by Penfield here.
Pretty much any intro psychology book should be able to point you in the
right direction, but be careful about taking them too seriously.
Followup experiments by others did not always replicate Penfields
findings, and these often failed in problematic ways -- people reported
hearing both sides of a telephone conversation, or doing things or being
places that could be disconfirmed in independent ways.  The effects that
could most reliably be replicated were those that suggesting that
sensory pathways were getting activated by the stimulation: reports of
pure tones or flashes of monochrome light were very common.  Penfield's
work was certanly interesting, but the current attitude is that there
was a little less there than first appeared.

Jim Miller
Computer Thought, Dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jul 84 1227 EDT (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: Alex.Rudnicky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Human Memory
-BODY-
Hypnosis does not enhance memory for past events.  There is no proof
that it does.  There never was.  In all likelyhood there never will be.
You may find documentation for this assertion in the work of several
investigators (in particular, Martin Orne).  For a review of the
literature try:

M. C. Smith Hypnotic memory enhancement of witnesses: Does it work?
        Psychological Bulletin, 1983, 94(3), 387-407.

I quote from the abstract:

        "In contrast to the myriad of anecdotal reports extolling the
        virtues of hypnosis for this purpose [witness memory],
        controlled laboratory studies have consistently failed to
        demonstrate any hypnotic memory improvement."


Electrical stimulation of the brain was studied by Wilder Penfield, 30
to 40 years ago at the Montreal Neurological Institute.  Penfield did
experiments with stimulation in the course of operations for epilepsy.
His work is described in most textbooks.  You might enjoy reading
some of the protocols he collected in his book "The excitable cortex
in conscious man" (1958).  In summarizing his findings, Penfield uses
the words "illusions" and "hallucinations" to describe his patients'
recollections.

Now I have a question:
It may be fun to speculate about the super-normal and the para-normal,
but what does it have to do with AI?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jul 84 20:26:59-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester
     !rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.290

For those of you who missed the start of this colloquy, here's the text
of Turing's original hypothetical conversation:

        Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.
        A: Count me out on this one.  I never could write poetry.
        Q: Add 34957 to 70764.
        A: (Pause about 30 seconds and then give as answer) 105621.
        Q: Do you play chess?
        A: Yes.
        Q: I have K at my K1, and no other pieces.  You have only K at K6
           and R at R1.  It is your move.  What do you play?
        A: (After a pause of 15 seconds) R-R8 mate.

>>      The point of the first answer is that no human is an expert on
>>      everything, and that a program which hopes to pass the Turing
>>      test had best not give itself away by being overly
>>      knowledgeable.

This strains my credulity.  Is it coincidence that the computer declines
to write a sonnet and accepts the other challenges?  A real human, trying
to prove that he is not a computer program, would probably welcome the
opportunity to offer a poem.

And did Turing believe that one can be an "expert" poet in the same way
that one can be an expert arithmetician or chess-player?  I hope not!

>>      Did you notice that the answer to the second question is
>>      incorrect?  It should be 105721.  [Aha! a sexist machine!  It
>>      assumes that women are no good with figures.  Oops--I forgot.
>>      Since you haven't read Turing's "Can a Machine Think?" you
>>      won't understand what women have to do with this discussion.
>>      Oh, well...]

This is unworthy of its author.  Of course I read the article.  My attack
was not against the details of the conversation (for that matter, the
third problem is ambiguous), but the premise of the Test.  You may
remember that Turing called it a "Game" rather than a "Test."  This
sort of situation arises _only_ as a game; if you really want to know
whether somebody is a person or a computer, you just look at him/it.

I should think that ELIZA has laid to rest the myth that a program's
"humanity" has anything to do with its intelligence.  ELIZA's intel-
ligence was low, but she was a very human source of comfort to many
people who talked with her.

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Jul 84 12:06:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: M.MCLURE%LOTS-B@SU-SCORE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: chess game
-BODY-
Below is reproduced a game the Fidelity Prestige chess machine
recently played against me. I have a provisional rating of 1550
based on 15 games. Not great, but not terrible.

Prestige makes a very interesting move at 17 ... Ng3. I prefer
this game to the Blitz vs. Belle game of a few years ago where
Belle makes a 10-ply mating sacrifice giving up a rook.

Here, Prestige makes a 10-ply king position disruption sacrifice
giving up a knight. If White does not return the Knight, all sorts
of mating threats ensue at about the 10-12 ply level.

This is easily the most impressive micro chess game I've seen.

White - Cracraft/1550, Black - Prestige/1875

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 g6 5. c4 Bg7 6. Nc6 bc6
7. Qc2 Nf6 8. Bd3 d5 9. ed5 cd5 10. cd5 Qd5 11. o-o Bb7 12. f3 Rd8
13. Rd1 Qd4 14. Kh1 o-o 15. Nc3 Qc5 16. Bf4 Nh5 17. Bd2 Ng3 18. hg3 Qh5
19. Kg1 Bd4 20. Be3 Be3 21. Kf1 Bd4 22. Ke1 Qe5 23. Kf1 Qe3 24. Rde1 Kg1
25. Ke2 Qg2 26. Kd1 Qf3 27. Kc1 Bc3 White resigns.

The time control was 40 moves in 2 hours.

        Stuart

[For a record of the first game in which a micro defeated a USCF-rated
master in a tournament game see David Welsh's letter in IEEE Spectrum,
July 1984, p. 8.  Jerry C. Simon (rated 2245) was mated (that's chess
talk) in 55 moves by Novag's Constellation chess micro, which uses the
same 6502 8-bit processor as the Prestige machine.  An earlier Spectrum
report that David Moody held the dubious honor of the first defeat was
incorrect.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Jul 84 14:59:37-PDT
-FROM-
From: M.MCLURE%LOTS-B@SU-SCORE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bit-Map Chess Article
-BODY-
        I have an article that will soon be published in the
ICCA Journal (International Computer Chess Journal) and I would
like to offer it to AILIST for its readers.

        The title is "Bit-map move generation in chess."
and it is 15262 bytes on TOPS-20.  The article is in
[SU-SCORE]<G.MCLURE>BITMAP.TXT.

I've included a note at the top of the file that I would like kept in the
distributed version.

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 3 Jul 84 09:23:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1984 International Robotics Industry Directory
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Math/CS Library has received the 1984 edition of the International
Robotics Industry Directory.  This directory has expanded a great deal since
the first edition in 1981.  The main part of the directory is an alphabetical
listing by company with a page of specifications for each product.  There is
also a listing of research institutes which includes number of staff, director
addresses, and areas of research.  A listing of consultants/systems houses
is included.  The directory is located in our reference section.
Tabel of Contents: Applications supported matrix
                   Sensors supported matrix
                   Performance Characteristics matrix
                   Price range matrix
                   Industrial robots
                   special application sytems
                   automatic guided vehicles
                   actuators
                   controllers/electronics
                   distributors
                   end effectors
                   hydraulic/pneumatic
                   mechanical components and peripherals
                   consultants/systems houses
                   research institutes
                   glossary
                   index

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 1984 10:43:28-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Magazines
-BODY-

The Magazines
    By Ron Kushnier

It seems for every topic
For every job or scheme
For each and every interest
There exits a magazine.

So I predict with robots
At least a choice of four
All touting ads and projects
Ariving at your door.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 1984 08:31:44-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Story
-BODY-

A Story
  By Ron Kushnier

Into our home a robot comes
Its shape seems deja vu
It's something to do with Hans and Luke
With Leia and R2.
But it's purpose is not one of fright,
Nor Universal Glory
It is here to serve and be our friend
Which is quite a different story.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
87
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 84 09:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Implementations of quantum logic?
-BODY-
Does anyone out there have an interest in quantum logic?
Has any sort of implementation of a "theorem prover" ever
been attempted?  I would be interested in any experience, thoughts
etc. on this subject.

"Steve" Stevenson
dsteven@clemson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 84 6:18:55-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!kaist!kiet!aitool @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Under Unix
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: kiet.196

Where and How can I get the Ops5 on Unix (4.1bsd or others).
Please inform to me if you know. I also want information about other
knowledge engineering tools on Unix.

address:        ..!hplabs!kaist!kiet!dhshin
                Dongha Shin
                Comuter Research Div.
                K.I.E.T
                P.O. Box 31, Kumi
                Republic of Korea

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 84 14:37:10 cdt
-FROM-
From: archebio!bantz%uiuc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP on microcomputers
-BODY-

cf. BYTE, July '84, pp. 281ff: review of MuLisp and IQLISP

cf. full page ad in latest AI Magazine for Golden Common Lisp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jul 1984 10:43:37-EDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Mark N. Wegman <WEGMAN.YKTVMX%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP release at IBM
-BODY-
         [Forwarded to the Rutgers bboard by Ryder@Rutgers.]
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Tyson@SRI-AI.]


Could you pass this on to whoever might be interested?

    IBMIBMIB            IBMIBMIB      MIBMIBMIBMI      IBMIBMIBMIBMI
    IBMIBMIB            IBMIBMIB    IBMIBMIBMIBMIBM    IBMIBMIBMIBMIBM
      MIBM                MIBM      IBMI       MIBM      MIBM    BMIBM
      MIBM                MIBM        MIBMI              MIBM    BMIB
      MIBM                MIBM          BMIBMIB          MIBMIBMIBM
      MIBM      IBMI      MIBM              MIBMI        MIBM
      MIBM      IBMI      MIBM      IBMI       MIBM      MIBM
    IBMIBMIBMIBMIBMI    IBMIBMIB    IBMIBMIBMIBMIBM    IBMIBMIB
    IBMIBMIBMIBMIBMI    IBMIBMIB      MIBMIBMIBMI      IBMIBMIB


Today IBM announces the availability of LISP/VM.
With thanks to the many people who helped make this possible.
                     --- Cyril Alberga, (914) 945-1776 (ALBERGA.YKTVMX@IBM)
                         Martin Mikelsons, (914) 945-1343 (MIKELSN.YTKVMX@IBM)
                         Mary Van Deusen, (914) 945-2394 (MAIDA.YKTVMX@IBM)
                         Mark Wegman, (914) 945-1327 (WEGMAN.YKTVMX@IBM)


[At last, LISP is legitimate!  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jul 84 08:23 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: DMRussell.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Electrical Stimulation Studies
-BODY-
From pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham @ Ucb-Vax.arpa

"... I have heard (but have no reference document to cite) that neuro-surgeons
have demonstrated that stimulation (i.e, contact with) certain parts of the
brain can produce complete recall of all sensory input from a past event,
even of details not originally "noticed". ...."

Electrical stimulation studies were originated by Wilder Penfield at
the Univ. of Montreal.  During neurosurgery, he would drop on a few
electrodes onto the brain surface (with ground at base of spine) and
stimulate away.  His subjects reported all sorts of sensory phenomena
including taste, sounds, lights, stars, and (apparently) memory
awareness.  One subject reported hearing a particular song being
performed by a specific orchestra.  As these things go, people later
decided that he was using far too much current, and apparently had no
control over exactly how much brain he was stimulating.  Thus, his
conclusions about locality wrt electrical stimulation are suspect.
Similar arguments are made about how to interpret the sensory
phenomena he elicited.  [As for references, almost any beginning
neuropsych textbook will have them, but here's one: W. Penfield and P.
Perot "The Brain's Record of Auditory and Visual Experience", Brain,
(1963), v. 86, pp 595-696]

Nowadays, electrical stimulation mapping has vastly improved.  Small
amounts of current are used, and people have some idea about what
exactly is being hit.  There is some good stuff done by Whitaker and
Ojemann on what happens to the a subject's ability to use and
understand language during electrical stimulation.  [somewhere in the
journal Brain & Language, within the past 4 years]

Something to keep in mind, however, is that almost all brain
stimulation is done to people that have their skulls open for a very
serious reason.  (Generally, the patients are being treated for severe
eplilepsy.)  Drawing conclusions about the functioning of normal
brains on the basis of a few tests performed on severely epileptic
brains leaves me wondering.

  -- Daniel Russell --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 84 09:50:33 PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: McNelly.ES@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Use of if in natural language
-BODY-
I thought the following message raised some points that might be of
interest to the general readership...

  -- John

  Date:  6 Jul 84 09:31:00 PDT (Friday)
  Subject: Re: Use of if in natural language
  In-reply-to: McNelly's message of 6 Jul 84 07:58:19 PDT (Friday)

John,

        Thank you for forwarding that wonderful message.  I'd have to agree
with most of it on a preliminary basis but some points deserve a bit
more thorough examination.  For instance, I must take issue with the
statement: "In the philosophical literature questions about the validity
of contraposition ... are generally asked under the headings
'Subjunctive Conditionals', 'Counterfactuals' or 'Contrary-to-fact
Conditionals'".  I think the author has inadvertently or otherwise
forgotten the most important heading "Inferential Counter-positive
Conditionals".  This category, as we know, contains the first two
sub-headings mentioned along with an abstract grouping of
uncategorizable subclasses of separate but still readily identifiable
conditionals.  By this time, we are all well aware that the infinite
group of non-identifiable conditionals is gathered together under the
single heading "Unrecognizable Categorical Implications" and that this
category is itself what has come to be known in recent literature as a
"non-group" (i.e., one that is not generally associated with the other
"real" groups when discussing conditionals).  However to retrace that
tangent to the main thread of circular focus, one must begin to grasp
the full implications of the inferential counter-positives.  As an
example, when one says, "I have seen the daybreak and it is dawn," the
preferred "quasi-logical" response on the counter-positive heirarchical
level would not directly ask of night.  A question of night would fall
under a "contrary-to-fact" heading, most likely the "positive
post-reality" subclass, although this stands to be debated.  In any
case, I would like to hear if anyone else felt the same strong
motivation to disbelieve the original message and if so, what points in
particular did you find to be the greatest source of misinformation.

  -- Fungi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jul 84 03:03:50 EDT  (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn@umcp-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Use of if in natural language
-BODY-
Your description sounds like it may relate to the difference between
deductive and abductive inference.  Jim Reggia and I have been doing
some research on this at the University of Maryland; the following is
a partial list of references (given in "refer" format).

%A J. A. Reggia
%A B. Perricone
%A D. S. Nau
%A Y. Peng
%T Answer Justification in Abductive Expert Systems for
Diagnostic Problem Solving
%D 1984
%R submitted for publication

%A D. S. Nau
%A J. A. Reggia
%T Relationships between Abductive and
Deductive Inference in Knowledge-Based Diagnostic Problem Solving
%R submitted for publication
%D 1984

%A J. A. Reggia
%A D. S. Nau
%A P. Y. Wang
%T Diagnostic Expert Systems Based on a Set Covering Model
%D Nov. 1983
%P 437-460
%J International Journal of Man-Machine Studies

%A J. A. Reggia
%A D. S. Nau
%A P. Y. Wang
%T A Theory of Abductive Inference in Diagnostic Expert Systems
%D Dec. 1983
%R Tech. Report TR-1338, Computer Sci. Dept., Univ. of Maryland
%C College Park, MD

%A J. A. Reggia
%A P. Y. Wang
%A D. S. Nau
%T Minimal Set Covers as a Model for Diagnostic Problem Solving
%J Proc. First IEEE Computer Society Internat.
Conf. on Medical Computer Sci./Computational Medicine
%D Sept. 1982

%A D. S. Nau
%A J. A. Reggia
%A P. Y. Wang
%T Knowledge-Based Problem Solving Without Production Rules
%J Proc. IEEE 1983 Trends and Applications Conference
%C Gaithersburg, MD
%D May 1983
%P 105-108

%A J. A. Reggia
%A D. S. Nau
%A P. Y. Wang
%T A New Inference Method for Frame-Based Expert Systems
%J Proc. Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
%C Washington, DC
%P 333-337
%D Aug. 1983

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 8:17:05-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!duke!mgv @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Report on the Cultural Premises of the AI Community
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: duke.4495


     I would like to point out the existence of a "pilot  survey"
on  the  "cultural premises of [the] artificial intelligence com-
munity." The survey was carried out during IJCAI-8  in  Karlsruhe
by  Massimo Negrotti, a sociologist with the University of Genoa,
Italy.  The  research  was  sponsored  by  the  Italian  National
Research Council (CNR), and I think that you can obtain a copy of
the report by writing to Massimo Negrotti, Chair of Sociology  of
Knowledge, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy.

     Within its limitations (e.g., small sample size), the survey
shows  that AI researchers from different geographical areas have
different views of the world. For example, "human  understanding"
is most often defined as "reduction to familiar terms" by British
researchers, but as "general representation  of  facts"  by  Con-
tinental Europeans.

     It may be interesting to note that almost 60% of the  inter-
viewed  researchers  answered  "yes"  to  the following question:
"From your point of view, is it  plausible  a  pure  A.I.  theory
[sic]  without  references  to the philosophical tradition?", but
that this percentage was as high as 67.8 for Continental  Europe-
ans, and as low as 37.8 for USA researchers.

                                        Marco Valtorta
                                        (duke!mgv)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 7 Jul 84 09:36:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New CSLI Reports
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        N E W   C S L I   R E P O R T S

Limited editions of three new Reports (Nos. CSLI-8-84, CSLI-9-84, and
CSLI-10-84) have just been published. Copies may be obtained by writing
to Dikran Karagueuzian at the Center. The reports are:

Reflection and Semantics in LISP by Brian Cantwell Smith.
        Report No. CSLI--84--8, July, 1984.

The Implementation of Procedurally Reflective Languages by
        Jim des Rivieres and Brian Cantwell Smith.
        Report No. CSLI--84--9, July, 1984.

Morphological Constraints on Scandinavian Tone Accent by
        Meg Withgott and Per-Kristian Halvorsen.
        Report No. CSLI--84--11, July, 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jun 84 0:13:42-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!tektronix!orca!shark!brianp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Commonsense Reasoning?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: shark.861

the computer could do the temperature conversion without blinking
an led,  if it knows that this here's a mapping, (not a monkey and
banana to simulate), and its one of those easy linear jobs, and
if it knows how to read and can figure out the question.
(no fair writing a temperature conversion (or any give-it-some-numbers
interpolation/extrapolation) program. you have to write a run of the mill
common sense reasoning program, and send it through elementary school.
or hire a tutor.  little kids can tease new types of people real bad.
wouldn't want our program to have emotional problems, would we? :-)

                        Brian Peterson
                        ...!ucbvax!tektronix!shark!brianp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 9:37:29-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.ags @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test (reply to Col. Sicherman)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-i.338

>  Is it coincidence that the computer declines
>  to write a sonnet and accepts the other challenges?  A real human, trying
>  to prove that he is not a computer program, would probably welcome the
>  opportunity to offer a poem.

Yes, I believe it is a coincidence.  Another conversation from the Turing
article demonstrates that he did not mean to exclude the possibility of
a sonnet-writing machine:

        Interrogator:  In the first line of your sonnet which reads
        'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day,' would not 'a spring
        day' do as well or better?

        Witness:  It wouldn't scan.

        Interrogator:  How about 'a winter's day.' That would scan all
        right.

        Witness:  Yes, but nobody wants to be compared to a winter's
        day.

        Interrogator:  Yet Christmas is a winter's day, and I do not
        think Mr. Pickwick would mind the comparison.

        Witness:  I don't think you're serious.  By a winter's day one
        means a typical winter's day, rather than a special one like
        Christmas.

And so on [Turing continues].  What would Professor Jefferson say if
the sonnet-writing machine was able to answer like this in the viva voce?

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

>  My attack was not against the details of the conversation (for that
>  matter, the third problem is ambiguous), but the premise of the Test.

Yes, the third problem was ambiguous.  I thought it was also rather
clever:

        Q:  I have K at my K1, and no other pieces.  You have only K
            at K6 and R at R1.  It is your move.  What do you play?
        A:  (After a pause of 15 seconds) R-R8 mate.

A machine might be expected to ask whether the rook is at QR1 or KR1,
not realizing that it is irrelevant.  The answer "R-R8 mate" is
correct in either case.  Was this a trap laid by the questioner?

You say you object to the premise of the test.  The reason for that
becomes apparent in your next comment:

>  You may remember that Turing called it a "Game" rather than a "Test."  This
>  sort of situation arises _only_ as a game; if you really want to know
>  whether somebody is a person or a computer, you just look at him/it.

Where does Turing say or imply that being able to tell a person from a
computer is of any importance?  The question is merely, "Can a machine
think?"  Unless you believe that "having a human form" is a prerequisite for
thinking, physical appearance means nothing.  Is your objection of the form,

  1.  The Turing "imitation game" is not an adequate test of a machine's
      ability to think?  [If not, why not?]

  2.  It is of no importance to decide whether machines can think, and
      therefore the Turing "imitation game" has no value?  [If this is
      your position, then I think we have nothing more to discuss.]

>  I should think that ELIZA has laid to rest the myth that a program's
>  "humanity" has anything to do with its intelligence.  ELIZA's intel-
>  ligence was low, but she was a very human source of comfort to many
>  people who talked with her.

I don't think the imitation game is (or was intended to be) a test of
"humanity."  Since ELIZA cannot come close to performing well in the
imitation game, she has no relevance to the validity of the test.
Yes, I am aware that ELIZA has fooled people, but this happened under
circumstances that are very different from the imitation game.


Dave Seaman                     "My hovercraft is full of eels."
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
88
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 16:02:48-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!alexc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JEALOUS COMPUTER KILLS TOP SCIENTIST
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dartvax.2070

AI in the news:

The 10 July 1984 issue of Weekly World News has the cover headline

     -----------------------------------------------------------
        `It was cold-blooded murder' says grieving wife

                J E A L O U S      C O M P U T E R

                K I L L S   T O P   S C I E N T I S T

Old machine electrocutes owner -- after he buys a more advanced model
     -----------------------------------------------------------

(I'm unable to reproduce their usual 100pt type).

The essence of the article is that one Chin Soo Ying, Chinese inventor
had been building the computer since 1950.   After he had decided to build
a more modern machine he was electrocuted at the controls when the computer
burned out.
The News quotes his wife, Tzu Lin.


   "Chin was murdered in cold blood by the computer he had created.

   "He had given life to his creation.  He thought of it as a woman,
had even given it a woman's name.

   "He spoke to the thing adoringly as Tsen Tsen.

   "Through his genius he had programmed it to respond to his words
of love, to excite him beyond the limits of what a mortal woman could
hope to achieve.

   "Somehow the thing took on a mind of its own.  The computer fell
in love with my husband.

   "For 34 years they were closer than lovers.

   "I tried to fight for my husband.  But how could I compete with a
machine?  There was no room in his life for me.  Finally, I left him.

   "Tsen Tsen was a huge computer.  It covered three walls of one room
in our home.  I used to listen in amazement as he talked to it like a
schoolboy in love.  And the computer would respond like a worshipful
woman.

   "But Chin one day decided to build a newer, more modern computer.

   "The trade agreements with America made the technical information
and the components available to him for the project.

   "He began working on the new computer day and night.

   "And he even gave it another woman's name -- Woo Shi.

   "There is an old Chinese proverb that says vengeance is nourished
in the heart of a spurned woman.

   "I am thoroughly convinced that Chin's rejection sparked the fires
of hate within the old computer.

   "She could not bear to lose her creator to another.  He had been
hers for so many years and if she could not have him, no one else
would.

   "Somehow Tsen Tsen programmed herself to electrocute Chin.

   "And with the death of that incredible man, she no longer had a
reason to live.

   "She overloaded her circuits and destroyed herself.

   "That computer committed murder and suicide".

   A longtime friend and computer programmer expressed the opinion that the
death was an accident, but noted

   "A computer programmed as his was could be capable of jealousy.
There's no doubt in my mind his computer had unusual qualities.
   "That may be difficult to believe, but we are learning astonishing
things about computers every day.
   "With such machines, anything is possible, jealousy and even murder".

     -----------------------------------------------------------

 So much for a very promising AI effort.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 7 Jul 84 09:57:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Thinking for Non-Thinkers
-BODY-
This letter from Jim Horning was published in
the Open Channel column of IEEE Computer, July 1984, p. 90.

                                        -- Ken Laws


               The Future of Thinking for Non-Thinkers

  There are a large number of people who are not prepared to think
(since thinking is often complex and unintegrated) but nonetheless
need the results of thinking.  We can attack their problem in a
variety of ways:

  * providing multiple-choice questionaires;
  * observing the I/O behavior of real thinkers;
  * developing natural language conventions that avoid the need
    for thinking (cliches, etc.);
  * publishing collections of real thoughts that can be combined
    to suit the special needs of any occasion (Bartlett's, etc.);
  * equipping a system with useful thoughts that determine whether
    any of them are relevant to the current user (the prototype
    will think about blocks);
  * developing a fuzzy system that postpones the need for thinking
    indefinitely;
  * implementing a specialized system that contains only the thoughts
    needed by a particular class of users and allows them to
    personalize thoughts by discarding those they don't need; and
  * setting up a system that selects the most efficient thought
    for any occasion.

  For a further breakthrough in the area, however, we must develop a
simple semantic model of thinking that can be directly implemented
on existing hardware.  It must incorporate the behavior currently
exhibited by non-thinkers in the application areas and interact
gracefully with non-thinkers.  We must not take thinkers as our model!
The thoughts produced must not be too sophisticated for naive users.
In each application, thoughts must be introduced gradually to
minimize disruption and to allow for imprecise thinking.  The system
should evolve to the point where it handles all the routine thinking.
We must cater to maximum independence in thinking--separate thoughts
should not affect each other.

  To plan our next step, we should look back to the last major
breakthrough in thinking: Euclidean geometry.  Euclid believed that
the world was flat; this belief permitted significant simplification
in his thinking about the geometry of the world.  Unfortunately,
many more recent "thinkers" have ignored this lesson and used more
complicated, spherical world models ...

                                        Jim Horning
                                        DEC Systems Research
                                        130 Lytton Ave.
                                        Palo Alto, CA  94301

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 1984  15:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rensselaerville Forum
-BODY-
About that forum  in Rensselaerville with Asimov --
I'll only be there on Aug 4th and 5th, because of AAAI meeting
in Austin.  But I consider Asimov to be an absolutely first-class
thinker about the future of AI and worth the price of admission.

Speaking of that, when I accepted the invitation (at no fee) I was
unaware that there was a price of admission to that symposium.  I'm
sure it just covers expenses for that non-profit foundation, but I
might have thought twice if I'd known.  In any case I've gotten good
ideas from Asimov every time we've met; the simplicity of his language
may obscure his depth.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 84 7:40:52-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!psuvax1!simon @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Human Models
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1093

Incorrect argument: "You cannot model the brain at a quantum-mechanical level,
you must use a higher order (deterministic, non-molecular) one".
Why?
You cannot make a simulator that is an exact replica, and expect it to
be faster.  But there's no reason why there couldn't be a quark computer,
working at incredible speeds (and probably getting the answers).  In
fact the reverse question is more interesting: how fast can you
simulate the real world?
js

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 84  1:05:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Paul Levinson" <1303@NJIT-EIES>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mind in a Techno-Evolutionary Perspective
-BODY-
In response to Rich Rosen's attempt to reason away the existence of mind
(pyuxn.784):

(a) Organisms do much more than merely "respond" to environments.  Even
the tiniest viruses actively reshape their environments by incessantly
moving bits of matter from place to place.

(b) In humans, this active reshaping becomes a predominating, deliberate
reshaping, as the shaping becomes fired by our imagination and rationality.
Through the technological result, we have reshaped our Planet and are now
on the verge of beginning to reshape the universe.

(c) The organ that makes this technological reconfiguration possible is
of course the brain.  It is indeed composed of material, but of material
so special in its organization that it can do things -- reshape the
world, think  -- that no other natural (and, at present, artificial)
material can do.  It is in recognition of the evolutionary uniqueness
of this thinking material that many people refer to it as mind.  We need
not discard a word -- and the important concept it emphasizes -- merely
because it has been abused by Greek philosophers and others.

For more on this, see my "Technology as the Cutting Edge of Cosmic
Evolution," paper presented at 150th Annual Meeting of the AAAS
in N.Y.C., May 27, 1984.

See also Paul M. Churchland's "Matter and Consciousness" (M.I.T. Press,
1984).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 11 Jul 84 00:35:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mike Peeler <MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Curve Fitting
-BODY-
To BARNARD@SRI-AI:

    The problem is that three points do not ONLY define a
circle.  It takes five points to determine a unique conic
section.  Besides, it's fairly likely that the curve is
desired to be a function of x.

                                        Cheers,
                                        Mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 21:08:50-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!jaw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Beef Wellington too tough for Robots (+ shoe-tying algorithm
-BODY-           challenge)
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.388

#  "God sends meat, and the Devil sends cooks." -- John Taylor, Works [1630]

     Here is a quote from Computer Currents, a local trade newspaper,
under the byline of Wendy Woods (no relation):

     "Meanwhile, a Stanford University scientist is attempting to program
a robot to cook Beef Wellington.  Professor Brian Reid has racked up
60 pages of instructions just to tell the robot how to find and slice beef.
He gave up when he became bogged down.  'It was when I had to tell the robot
how to wrap the beef in pastry ... I decided to go to bed.'  He's also
discovered that 'a lot of cooking is reading BETWEEN the lines.'"

     [Note:  Reid authored SCRIBE, is a wine connoisseur, likes to bust UNIX
system crackers (see recent issue of California), and submits stuff to
fa.laser-lovers.]  Now, cooking has always been more of a tactile and visual
feedback process rather than an intellectual endeavor.  Given the general
agreement that the cerebral (chess, medical diagnosis, etc.) is easy for AI
but the physical (juggling, driving a car) is not, why Mr. Reid would try
to make a rule base for such a thing seems a bit premature.  On the other
hand, sushi-making robots in Japan are old hat.

        -----------------(net.cooks may stop here)------------

     This reminds me of a lecture given years ago by a linguistics prof
at U. C. Berkeley (J. Matisoff, I believe), who, to impress students about
the underlying knowledge base for language, dared his audience to
give a verbal ALGORITHM FOR TYING SHOES.  Folks would throw instructions
at him; he'd follow them blindly, interpreting fuzziness and ambiguity
freely, and as a consequence, could not successfully tie a shoe.  I've
always regarded this as a decent "robot benchmark", sort of a "physical
Turing test", and probably just as tough.

        -- James A. Woods  {dual,hplabs,hao}!ames-lm!jaw  (jaw@riacs.ARPA)

"A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat,
A careless shoestring, in whose tie,
I see a wild civility,
Do more bewitch me than when art
Is too precise in every part."

        -- Robert Herrick, from Delight in Disorder, Hesperides [1648]

P.S.
     Anyone know how the Marilyn Monroe robot in Japan is coming along?
I hear they have the guitar playing (stiff) and the breast heaving (pneumatic)
down, but are having trouble with subtler effects, as well as realistic soft
plastics technology.  Great strides in robotics will probably be underwritten
by rich perverts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jul 1984 09:18:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Japanese
-BODY-

The Japanese
    By Ron Kushnier

The Japanese can really please
The American consumers.
They get things done in factories run
By robots and computers.

In the USA the old fashioned way
Is the method that we use.
Although it's tried, the price is high
And we pay for more than Union dues.

So let's do our part and try to start
this revolution of machines.
We can take the lead if we plant the seed
And work to fulfill our dreams.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
89
-DATE-
Date: Monday,  2-Jul-84 20:26:24-BST
-FROM-
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Syntax Semantics
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.
     This is part of an ongoing discussion of a proposed
     Prolog transport syntax.]

I agree that S-expressions are elegant, general, and so on.
{So for that matter are Goedel numbers.}  But there is good
reason to believe that they are not well suited to human
reading and writing.  That is that ***LISP*** doesn't use
S-expressions for everything.  Consider

 [A<-(FOR NODE IN NODELIST COLLECT CAR EVAL (NODE:NODEFORM]

which is perfectly good InterLisp.  I might be persuaded
that this is readable, though not after the uglyprinter has
had its way with it, but it quite certainly is NOT an S-expression.
Now there is an isolationist section of the Lisp community which
ignores Interlisp (the Common Lisp designers did not, well done).
But as soon as you use ANY sort of read macro, you have left
S-expressions behind.  `(cons ,(cadr form) ,(caddr form)) is not
an S-expression.  And of course the MacLisp family has (loop ...).

As for the question about whether there are natural binary operations
which are not associative, mathematics is FULL of them.  Any function
whose result type differs from its right argument type.  Quite a lot
are relations, such as "=", "<", and so on.  Note that the extension
of the relational operations to multiple arguments in some Lisps
loses you a lot of nice properties: (>= A B C) is not the same as
(NOT (< A B C)).  Depending on implementation subtleties it might not
even be the same as (<= C B A).  And the extension STILL doesn't let
you write 0 <= X < Y, you have to write -1 < X < Y which is often more
obscure than an explicit conjunction would have been.  The principal
example of a non-associative binary operator is exponentiation.
As an instance of exponentiation, let's take the free monoid over
the ASCII characters, where "abc"^4 = "abcabcabcabc".  Any
generalisation of this to take an arbitrary number of arguments will
not treat all the arguments equally.  One natural extension to
multiple arguments would be to take an alternating list of strings
and integers (^ S1 N1 ... Sk Nk) = (concat (^ S1 N1) ... (^ Sk Nk))
with omitted integers taken to be 1.  But this doesn't place all the
arguments on an equal footing (what should (^ "abc" 2 3) mean?) and
doesn't really generalise to other operators.  There is even a
problem with operators which have coincident argument and result
types.  For example, why should (CONS x y z) means (CONS x (CONS y z))
rather than (CONS (CONS x y) z)?

I'm afraid the Sigma notation is not an example of mathematicians
retreating in response to an indaequacy in infix notation.  When
writing *informally*, mathematicians are as pleased as anyone else
to write a1 + ... + an.  Sigma notation specifies three things:
a commutative associative binary operation (if the domain can be
empty the operation must have an identity), a domain, and a
FUNCTION.  E.g. in
                /\
               /  \     f(i) = g(i)^2
              i=1..n
the operation is "and", the domain is {1,2,...,n}, and the
function is lambda i. f(i) = g(i)^2.  I fully agree that this is a
good thing to have, but it is NOT a thing you can get by allowing
the argument list of everything in sight to have an arbitrary number
of arguments.  The number of arguments is still fixed at each CALL.
When the number of operands is unknown, the Lisper still has to write

        (apply #'and (mapcar #'(lambda (i)
           (eql (f i) (expt (g i) 2))) (num-list 1 n)))

and then finds that he can't, because "and" is a special form and
you can't apply special forms.  Quite a few Lisps macro-expand
(plus a b c d) to (plus2 (plus2 (plus2 a b) c) d), and you can have
fun applying #'plus !  What you find yourself having to do all too
often is

        (eval (cons #'and (mapcar #'(lambda (i)
            (kwote (eql (f i) (expt (g i) 2)) )) (num-list 1 n)) ))

Now there IS a lisp-like language which has faced up to this problem
of some functions sensibly taking an arbitrary number of arguments.
It's called 3-Lisp.  Yes, I mean the thing described in Brian Smith's
thesis.  It has been implemented and runs quite nicely on Xerox 1108s.
3-lisp distinguishes between PAIRs, written (car . cdr) and SEQUENCES,
written [a1 ... an].  I shan't tell you about the distinction between
sequences and rails.  There *is* a notational convention that if you
write (car a1 ... an) {note: no dot after the car} it means
(car . [a1 ... an]).  So (+ a b c) means (+ [a b c]).  The thing is
that if you employ the language's reflective capabilities to poke
around in the guts of your program while it's running, you'll find
that the rail or sequence really is there.  The cdr of a pair can be
any form (as can the car), so if I want to write
        (+ . (map f L))
I can.

Given that Prolog is based on relations rather than functions,
you don't find anywhere NEAR as much nesting as you do in a
language based on functions, so the operator priority issue doesn't
really arise, except when the data you are working on are expressions
in some language.  MACSYMA, for example, exploits the CGOL parser
to handle its input.  Prolog happens to use the analogous thing all
the time.

Prolog lets you use operators when you want to.  You don't have
to use any operators at all if you don't want to:
        :-(max_min(X,Y,X,Y), >=(X,Y)).
        :-(max_min(X,Y,Y,X),  <(Y,X)).
is quite acceptable to the Prolog parser, though not to me.
Similarly, Lisp lets you use operators if you want to (in InterLisp
it happens automagically with CLISP, use the CLISPTYPE, UNARYOP, and
LISPFN properties; in PSL you can use RLISP; in MacLisp there is
CGOL), but normally only uses a handful of strange syntactic forms.

Prolog and Lisp are similar internally as well.  Modulo all the
exotic data structures like records and hash tables present in all
modern Lisps, which structures have no S-expression representation
{Common Lisp does let you use #(struct-name field-1 "val1" ...)
for defstructs, but there is nothing for hash tables or most forms
of array}, most Lisp data can be viewed as
        atomic
or      (CONS something something-else)
and functions to hack such structures are indeed easily written.
If you want to write programs that analyse programs, you rapidly
find yourself in very deep water sinking fast.  It is a MAJOR
contribution of Common Lisp that they have spelled out exactly
what special forms a program-hacking tools must understand (there
are about 20 of them) and that they have specified ways of telling
whether a form is a macro call and of getting at the macro expansion
without too much pain.  The hair in the MASTERSCOPE interface for
coping with InterLisp's "no specifications please, we're power-
assisted programmers!" view is amazing.

Prolog code that wants to hack arbitrary data structures can
similarly view the world as divided into two sorts of objects:
        variables
and     other terms
Other terms have a function symbol and 0 or more arguments.
For example, 77 is a non-variable whose function symbol is 77
and which has 0 arguments.  This is admittedly a wee bit more
complex than basic Lisp, as cons cells are known to have exactly
two components.  But I have faithfully described real Prolog;
there is nothing else that a Prolog program can get its hands
on and look inside.  A Lisp |print| routine really does have
to worry about what to do with records (defstructs) and arrays
and compiled-code pointers and ...
The list of Prolog "special forms" is embarrassingly large:
        ?- /1   :- /1   :- /2   , /2
        ; /2    \+ /1   setof/3 bagof/3 call/1
        once/1  forall/2        % some Prologs lack these two
But that's still a LOT less than Common Lisp has.

To summarise:
        yes, S-expressions are general, clean, and hackable.
        BUT, so are terms.
        BUT, there is a LOT more to Lisp syntax and internal
             structure both than S-expressions.

Ken Kahn is absolutely right that it is important to have an
internal structure which you can easily build tools for.  He
is right that S-expressions are such an internal structure.
(Just don't assert any clauses mentioning arrays...)  It is
also true that "Core Prolog" data structures are themselves
convenient to work with.  (Some of the toy Prologs that you
can buy for peanuts get basic things like functor/3 wrong so
that it isn't true.  But there are several toy implementations
of Lisp which represent a list as a string, so that
        DEFINE('CAR(X)')
        CAR.PAT = "(" BAL . CAR "."     :ON
CAR     X CAR.PAT :S(RETURN)F(FRETURN)
Does that mean Lisp data structures are bad?)

Look, we're NEVER going to agree about syntax.  I've indulged myself
somewhat in this message, but I have been defending a kind of
syntax (infix operators) and to some extent even a choice of syntax,
rather than any specific form.  [...]

[O'Keefe went on to discuss his previously-presented proposal for
a Prolog transport syntax.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 07:45:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expressiveness of Languages
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                EXPRESSIVENESS OF LANGUAGES

Jock Mackinlay, Stanford, will give a talk on ``Expressiveness of Language''
on Friday, July 13, at noon in Braun Lecture Hall, Seeley Mudd Chemistry
Bldg., as part of SIGLunch series. The talk is expected to last no more than
45 minutes.

        ABSTRACT:  A key step in the design of user interface is
        the choice of a language for presenting facts to the user.
        The spectrum of possible choices ranges from general
        languages, such as predicate calculus, to more specialized
        languages, such as maps, diagrams, and ad hoc languages.
        General languages can express a broader range of facts than
        more specialized languages, but specialized languages are
        more parsimonious.  The basic motivation for the research
        described in this talk is to construct a presentation
        system that can automatically choose an appropriate graphic
        language for presenting information to a user.

        This talk addresses two issues that must be considered when
        choosing a language to represent or present a set of facts.
        First, a language must be sufficiently expressive to state
        all the facts.  Secondly, it may have the property that
        when  some collections of facts are stated explicitly,
        additional facts are  stated implicitly.  Such a language
        should not be chosen if these additional facts are not
        correct.   We first define when a fact is stated in a
        message.   Using this definition, we define when a set of
        facts is expressible in a language.  This definition can
        be used to determine whether a language should be chosen
        to represent or present a set of facts.  We also consider
        the problem of choosing between languages that are
        sufficiently expressible for a set of facts.  Two criteria
        are considered: the cost of constructing a message and the
        cost of interpreting a message.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 07:45:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Translation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


For the Record
                MACHINE TRANSLATION AND SOFTWARE TOOLS

On Tuesday, July 10 Mike Rosner of ISSCO Geneva and Rod Johnson of the
University of Manchester gave a talk at SRI on their work on software
environment for the Eurotra machine translation project, a coordinated
international effort for the research and development of a multilingual
machine translation system.

ABSTRACT: A software environment which supports large-scale research
in machine translation must provide the facility for rapid implementation
and evaluation of a variety of experimental linguistic theories and/or
notations, including novel ones developed specifically for the task.  We
have based our approach to the design of a suitable architecture upon the
principle of executable specifications, an important aspect of which is an
attempt to decouple the syntax of a given notation from the semantics.  An
appropriate choice of definition languages is essential for the success of
such a venture, and in the talk we will present the current state of the
work and discuss some of the open issues.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 07:45:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Statistical Computing Environments
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                Computing Environments Seminar

        FEATURES OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENTS
                                Part 1

By John Alan McDonald (Stanford) at 11:00am Thursday, July 12, in Sequoia 114.

        ABSTRACT: Interactive data analysis can be usefully thought
        of as a particular kind of experimental programming.  Our
        work should build on the 10-15 years of research in
        environments for experimental programming associated with
        places like Xerox PARC and the MIT AI Lab.  In this
        session, we will discuss, in general terms, properties of
        experimental programming environments that are relevant
        to interactive data analysis.  We will also describe and
        compare the two basic alternatives in programming
        environments that are open to us:

            o Conventional operating systems (eg. Unix).

            o Integrated programming environments
                (eg. Lisp Machine Environment).

        The conclusion will be that integrated programming
        environments are far superior to conventional operating
        systems for both the practice of data analysis and for
        research in data analysis.


        JULY-AUGUST SCHEDULE FOR COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS SEMINAR SERIES


Tue., July 17: Flavors: Object-oriented Programming on the Symbolics
               Lisp Machine. (Richard Dukes, Symbolics)
Thu., July 19: Features of Experimental Programming Environments, Part 2.
               (John McDonald, Stanford)
Tue., July 24: Object-oriented Debugging Tools for S.
               (Alan Wilks, AT\&T Bell Labs)
Thu., July 26: Data Analysis with Rule-based Languages and Expert Systems
               (Steve Peters, MIT)
Tue., July 31: Current Research with S.
               (Rick Becker, AT&T Bell Labs)
Thu., Aug.  2: Design Decisions in Object-oriented Programming.
               (John McDonald, Stanford)
Tue., Aug.  7: Integrating Graphics into a Data Analysis Environment.
               (Mathis Thoma, Harvard)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 07:45:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Properties and Predication
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                P R O P E R T I E S  A N D   P R E D I C A T I O N


By Gennaro Chierchia and Ray Turner, next Thursday's (July 19) CSLI Seminar
will take place at 2 p.m. in the Ventura Conference Room.

        ABSTRACT: One of the most interesting recent developments
        in logic is perhaps the formulation of theories of
        properties where logically equivalent properties do not
        have to be identical and properties in some sense can
        be applied to themselves. We will consider two such
        theories and argue for one which is inspired by Frege's
        views . In particular, we will argue that such a theory
        solves a number of outstanding problems in natural language
        semantics.  We shall consider some general consequences
        of adopting such a property theoretic approach to formal
        semantics. The presentation will be in two halves. The
        first will provide some linguistic and semantic motivation
        for the theory. The second will contain a formal
        development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
90
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jul 84 0127 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave Touretzky <Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: revised AAAI84 program
-BODY-
I have received a revised version of the AAAI-84 conference program from
Ron Brachman.  It can be found in the following places:

        AAAI84.SCH[C410DT50]            on CMU-CS-A
        <TOURETZKY>AAAI84.SCH           on CMU-CS-C
        [g]/usr/dst/aaai84.sch          on CMU-CS-GP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jul 84 09:44:29-EDT
-FROM-
From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: (virtual) Laboratories
-BODY-

I am writing a program which simulates various classical thermodynamic
systems.  The ultimate goal is to have a system which helps (in some
way!) a student to understand classical thermodynamics.  Obviously, a
simulator bears as much resemblance to such a thing as a chemical stockroom
does to a laboratory.

What is the purpose of a laboratory course?  What should the purpose of
a virtual laboratory be?  How can I best reach the goal of teaching students
about thermo?

Comments specific to laboratories, simulations and/or thermodynamics will
be greatly appreciated.  You may wish to cc: me or the list to make sure
I get them.
                                wz
(G.ZEEP%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jul 84 09:54:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: evolution of conciousness
-BODY-
Can anyone suggest references on the above general topic?
(Probably best to reply to me instead of the whole list.)
David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 1984 10:08-EDT
-FROM-
From: Patrick Harrison <harrison@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for Honeywell 6060 DPS-8
-BODY-

     Am looking for information on current versions of LISP (FranzLisp,
MacLisp) running in a Honeywell 6060, DPS-8 environment. Would also
like to implement OPS5 on same.  Address:

                        Dr. Patrick Harrison
                        Computer Science Department
                        U.S. Naval Academy
                        Annapolis, Maryland 21402.

Responses to above address or <harrison@nrl-aic>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 13-Jul-84 17:02:15-BST
-FROM-
From: MIKE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Uschold%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Advertising
-BODY-
The IBM LISP announcement looked very much like an advertisement.  Is this
sort of thing appropriate for this list?  In theory, no.  In practice, it
may not be so easy to tell who is behind such announcements and for what
reasons.  We frequently use this medium to tell each other what sort of
resources are available.  The IBM bit certainly falls into this category
as well.   I don't see that a problem exists, but one can certainly imagine
companies trying to slip something into this sort of medium surreptitiously.
It seems to me it should be discouraged.

Mike Uschold

[I usually answer such concerns privately in my AIList-Request capacity,
but I'm will to let the list membership express opinions if they wish.
The message in question was sent by one of the system developers (not
by any advertising arm of IBM) to someone at Rutgers.  No conflict there.
The recipient posted it to the Rutgers bboard, where I read it.  Not only
did I forward it to AIList, but so did another reader at SRI (I gave him
credit when I redistributed the message).  Further, at the request of a
CMU reader, I have written to the original author asking for more details
that I can post to the list.

While the message and any subsequent discussion are to IBM's advantage
(assuming they have a quality product), the company has hardly been
using this digest as an advertising channel.  The potential for minor
abuse may be present, but there is no danger of corporate America
flooding the taxpayer-supported net with junk mail.  I'm inclined
to allow legitimate news items, lab reports, and other subtle forms
of PR until such time as undesirable trends emerge.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jul 84 11:52:49-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!jcw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP IN AZTEC C
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cvl.1155

I have the sources for a very neat little version of LISP called
'X-LISP'.  Although I have an IBM-PC, the program is completely written
in C and has been implemeted on many machines including a Z-80 running
CP/M-80.  It also is an experiment in object-oriented programming, so
it has some interesting facets not normally found in LISPs, as well
a fair number of the standard LISP functions.  It was written by:

David Betz
114 Davenport Ave.
Manchester, NH 03103
(603) 625-4691

If there is enough interest, and I get the author's approval, I will
post the sources.  Write me if you are interested, or talk to the
author.

Jay Weber

..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!jcw
..!seismo!rochester!jay
jay@rochester.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 84 10:56:12 EDT  (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Liz Allen <liz@umcp-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YAPS information
-BODY-
As the person who wrote YAPS, I thought I should speak up.

We don't have a lot of good examples of production rule systems in
YAPS.  The main examples we have are a monkey and bananas example
and a little odd-even determiner (the latter is taken from a similar
example from OPS 5).  These two examples are on our distribution tape
(which includes YAPS and some other hacks written here at Maryland.

There is no YAPS primer of any sort; the only documentation is
a user's manual.  I have gotten good feedback, by and large,
from people using YAPS.

YAPS only runs under 4.1 right now since we are not yet running
Berkeley 4.2; we should be upgrading this summer.

For more information about YAPS or obtaining our distribution, send
mail to me.

                                -Liz Allen

Univ of Maryland, College Park MD
Arpanet:  liz@maryland
Usenet:   ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jul 84 9:11:00-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!hpfclk!fritz @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Reference Books
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfclk.75500004

I have been reading "Artificial Intelligence Programming" by Charniak et al,
and have found it to be a very good intro to Lisp.  The second half of the
book goes into some detail on useful AI techniques, such as discrimination
nets, rule-based inference engines, etc.

Gary Fritz
ihnp4!hpfcla!hpfclk!fritz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jul 84 13:46:09-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Softwar
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2870

>From: LIN%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP Tue Jun 26 04:04:00 1984
>I'm a bit confused.  How could this particular program make itself
>vanish without some external reference to a date?
>... Maybe the whole thing was a bluff?

The package in question was SAS, a large data manipulation and
stats package, running on a fair-sized machine (not a micro).  The
program repeatedly checks the system date during execution.  The
date-protection business doesn't make it impossible to run the
program after the contract expiration date, just inconvenient.  It
is more an automatic billing system than anything else.  And yes,
the idea is widely used in the mainframe world, where changing the system
date in a multitasking system would play hell with accounting
systems, payroll.....

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 84 09:21:15 PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Pettit.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Shoe-Tying Challenge
-BODY-
Re: hplabs!hao!ames-lm!jaw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa's shoe-tying algorithm
challenge

That sounds very much like a game we used to play in English class in
grade school, called Dressing Martians.  One person in the class would
pretend to be a Martian, who knew English but had no cultural knowledge
of clothing.  Another person would be chosen to be the instructor, and
would have to go in a corner and turn his or her back to the rest of the
class.  The instructor would give the Martian directions in how to put
on a jacket, but could not use words like sleeve or button.  The Martian
would follow the instructions to the letter, but do his or her best to
put the jacket on wrong.  This yielded some pretty comical contortions.
The game would continue with a new Martian and a new instructor, until
someone managed to be so precise that the Martian couldn't screw it up.

I think the game was meant to teach us how to communicate with precision
more than it was to impress us with the underlying knowledge base for
language.  Real life is full of situations, like giving directions to
one's house over the phone, which are easy to mess up if you don't keep
clear the difference between what you know and what the listener knows,
no matter how expert you both are with the language.  Clear
communication requires keeping this difference in mind and including
every necessary piece of information in the best order for enabling the
listener to build up a model which matches your own.

By the way, what would you regard as "passing" your proposed robot
benchmark, to be able to tie the shoe right or to be able to tie it
wrong as consistently and creatively as the professor did?  The latter
would probably be harder: you not only have to know enough about shoes
and laces to be able to tell the right way from the wrong way (both
tasks require that), but you also have to be able to examine all the
possible interpretations of an instruction and pick one that will be
sure to make the result wrong.

  -- Teri Pettit

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jul 84 20:34:34-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!unc!ulysses!allegra!princeton!
     eosp1!robison @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain; "chunking" in chess
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.992


The idea that chess grandmasters analyse faster by "chunking"
(thinking in terms of groups of moves) is only applicable to
partial analysis of some positions.  There are many forcing
and non-forcing tactical sequences which a chessplayer, having
thought them out once, need not rethink.  Simple examples are:

        - Routine endgames, such as K+P vs K, where the winning
          procedure is known from a set of positions

        - A queen sacrifice on KN8 to force a smothered mate by
          a knight on KB7, of a king on KR1.

In positions that have a mixture of tactical threats and positional
considerations, "chunking" will not save the grandmaster much time.
Every move that s/he analyzes must be considered for the precise
answers that are available in the specific game.

I think that grandmasters benefit more from what might look like
intuition, but is more often a matter of experience.  In the
study of how chess players think by (Andries?) de Groot, all players
up through the master level tended to start analyzing an
unfamiliar middle-game position by checking its material balance.
Grandmasters generally began by making a comment such as, "this
position seems to have come out of a Catalan Opening..."

The implication is that Grandmasters are familiar with many
types of positions, and know from experience what sorts of methods
will lead to wins for each type of position.  This experience acts
as a powerful filter, allowing the grandmaster to concentrate upon
far fewer possibilities in each position for deep analysis.
                                        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
                                        allegra!eosp1!robison
                                        decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 1984 1142-PDT
-FROM-
From: JOUANNAUD at SRI-CSL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RTA-85
-BODY-
                            CALL FOR PAPERS

                 Rewriting Techniques and Applications

  May 20-22, 1985                                     Dijon, Burgundy, France


Topics:
This First International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications
is planned in response to the growing interest in the theory and applications
of term rewriting techniques.
Papers will be solicited concerning issues in Term Rewriting Theory as well as
in applications of term rewriting in the following areas (the list must be
understood as non-exhaustive, additions are welcome):

Equational Deduction,
Automated Theorem Proving,
Computer Algebra,
Rewrite Rule Based Expert Systems,
Unification and Matching Algorithms,
Functional and Logic Programming,
Algebraic and Operational Semantics,
Data Type Implementation and Validation,
Program Specification, Program Transformation, Program Generation and Program
Proof Techniques.

Submission:
Each submission should include 11 copies of a one page abstract and 4 copies of
a full paper of no more than 15 double spaced pages.  Submissions are to be
sent to one of the Co-Chairmen:

For Europe:    Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,  RTA-85,
               Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy,
               Campus Scientifique, BP 239,
               54506 Vandoeuvre-Les-Nancy  Cedex, France.

For the rest:  David Musser, RTA-85,
               General Electric Laboratories,
               Research and Development Center,
               Schenectady, NY 12345, USA.

Paper selection will be done by circulating abstracts to all members of the
program committee, with each full paper assigned to several committee
members having appropriate expertise.
In addition to selected papers, a few invited lectures will be given by
well-known researchers who have made major contributions to the field:

R. Book, Santa Barbara, USA: Thue Systems,
B. Buchberger, Linz, Austria: History and Basic Features of the
Critical-Pair/Completion Approach,
N. Dershowitz, Urbana-Champaign, USA: Termination Issues in Term Rewriting
Systems,
G. Huet, INRIA, France: Systemes Equationnels pour la Logique Intuitionniste et
le Lambda-Calcul.,
A last lecture prepared by the Program Committee will emphasize the most
important applications of Term Rewriting.

Program Committee:
J. Bergstra, Amsterdam, Netherlands
J. Goguen, SRI-International, USA
J. Guttag, MIT, USA
J.P. Jouannaud, Nancy, France
P. Lescanne, Nancy, France
D. Musser,General Electric Labs, USA
P. Padawitz, Passau, West Germany
D. Plaisted, Urbana-Champaign, USA
R. Sethi, Bell Labs, USA
D. Turner,Kent, Great-Britain.

Schedule:
Paper submission deadline by December 10, 1984.  Acceptance/Rejection
Notification by March 1st.  Camera ready Copies by April 15.
Proceedings will be distributed at the Conference and edited later on
in @i[Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag] (To be confirmed).

Social Events:
A serious visit to famous French Wine Cellars will take place on Tuesday
afternoon, May 21.

Local Arrangements:
Jean-Marc Pallo, Laboratoire d'Informatique, BP 138, 21004 Dijon Cedex, France.

Pre-Registration:
To receive further Information, you are kindly requested to return the
following filled form to the Chairman for Europe (by mail, or electronic mail
to Jouannaud@@SRI-CSL on arpanet):

Name:             Organization:                            Net Address:
Mailing Address:
I plan:   To attend RTA-85       To attend maybe      To submit a paper
Preliminary Title of the paper:

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
91
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jul 84 10:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Delphi Experiment: group play against 8-ply machine
-BODY-
    I would like to conduct a Delphi Experiment with this list.  The
format of the experiment is as follows.  All interested chess players
will vote for their choice of move in an on-going game between them
(the group) and the Fidelity Prestige which will be set to search a
minimum of 8-ply deep (like Belle and Cray Blitz).  This Prestige has
the ECO opening modules (80,000 variations).

    A move with the most number of votes will be chosen above others
and made in the current position.  A couple days will be given for
gathering the votes.  In the event of a tie between two or more moves,
the move will be selected randomly.

    The resulting position will then be handed to Prestige 8-ply which
will conduct a brute-force search to at least 8-ply.  Its move will be
reported (the search usually takes about 3-15 hours) to the players and
another move vote will be solicited.  This process will continue until
the Prestige mates the group or the group mates the Prestige or a draw
is declared.

    The moves, as they are made, will be reported to this list.
    Please include the move number and the move in either Algebraic
    or English notation.

>>>>>>>>>       Prestige 8-ply will play White.
>>>>>>>>>       Prestige 8-ply moves 1. e4 (P-K4)

                        BR BN BB BQ BK BB BN BR
                        BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP
                        -- ** -- ** -- ** -- **
                        ** -- ** -- ** -- ** --
                        -- ** -- ** WP ** -- **
                        ** -- ** -- ** -- ** --
                        WP WP WP WP -- WP WP WP
                        WR WN WB WQ WK WB WN WR

    Your move, please?

        Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure.
        DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of
        the above addresses.

[Unless large numbers of people choose to participate, I would prefer that
a separate mailing list be used for communicating the state of the game.
Since this is to be an experiment, however, discussion of the purpose
and predicted outcome of the experiment would be interesting topics for
AIList.  This seems to be a study of group intelligence, but with the
group dynamics largely removed.  (See the following message from Richard
Brandau for speculation about group intelligence.)  Is such a group
doomed to unimaginitive play?  A true Delphi experiment would circulate
initial suggestions and arguments (anonymously) before taking the final
vote; how much would that advance the group's intelligence?  What can be
learned here?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jul 1984 14:43-EDT
-FROM-
From: LCELEC@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proposed Limit of Intelligence
-BODY-

An  assumption  in  'armchair  AI'  is  that  some  lower threshold of
information content and processing is required for  'intelligence'  to
manifest itself.  Debates abound on the subject of what that threshold
must be -- in other words,  what  operational  definition  of  minimal
intelligence is to be accepted.

The Turing test is an example of this lower bound, a threshold set  at
the  level  of human-like behavior.  This test is sometimes criticized
as not being stringent enough, as missing parts  of  human  experience
like  'emotion,'  'intent'  or  'consciousness.'   Still, the ultimate
object of comparison is human intelligence.  Indeed, the comparison is
restricted to the intelligence of an individual human, rather than the
collective intelligence of a group, or of the species.

Expert  system  practitioners  encounter  difficulties  in  trying  to
represent the combined  expertise  of  multiple  individuals.   It  is
generally  assumed, I believe, that these difficulties are principally
technical, that they could be surmounted if we simply knew more  about
how to represent and process diverse knowledge.  This may be true, but
these technical difficulties may not be mere technicalities.   Rather,
there  may  be  a  profound  problem  at  root  here,  and an issue of
practical significance for the future of AI.

Might there exist an upper limit on the concentration of intelligence?
Beyond  this  hypothetical  ceiling,  information  capacities   and/or
processing  abilities  would  have  to  be partitioned and distributed
among separate intelligent agents.

I do not seriously propose that the appropriate location of this upper
bound is at the level  of  intelligence  possessed  by  an  individual
human.  Rather, I propose that some such ceiling exists, above, at, or
below the level of intelligence possessed by an individual.

If  the ceiling lies at or above the level of human intelligence, then
it is not necessary  to  be  concerned  with  it  when  modelling  the
intelligent  behavior  of a single human.  In other words, development
of AI programs can  continue  without  regard  for  some  higher-level
macrostructure  of  intelligence,  as would be demanded if the ceiling
were below human-level.

This  is  not  to say that a human or super-human ceiling can never be
important in the development of artificial intelligence.   Indeed,  we
humans  (limited  by a de facto rather than a theoretical ceiling) are
often involved in  systems  --  such  as  professional  organizations,
communications  networks,  and  committee  meetings  -- the cumulative
intelligence of which may surpass the level of any of  the  individual
human  participants.   These  systems each possess a structure for the
organization of their constituent intelligent  agents.   In  order  to
model  the  BEHAVIOR of these systems, their organizational structures
must be modeled.  If the proposed ceiling exists, it will be necessary
to model some such structure, just to obtain the level of INTELLIGENCE
possessed by these or more advanced systems.

The   existence   of   these   organizational  structures  raises  the
possibility that the structures themselves possess intelligence.  This
may not seem intuitive (or at least not parsimonious) when considering
the last committee meeting you've attended, but a lower-level  example
may  be  more  appealing.  Lewis Thomas, in _The_Medusa_and_the_Snail_
(if I remember correctly) proposes that social insects  such  as  ants
possess  an  intelligence  AS  A  GROUP, and can be said to THINK as a
group, although the constituents of the group appear to lack  anything
like    intelligence.    Presumably,   something   in   the   colony's
organizational   structure   is   responsible   for   this    societal
intelligence.

Humans would presumably prefer to think of themselves as  INDIVIDUALLY
intelligent.   Perhaps  the  human  neuron fills the role of building-
block to human intelligence, in the way that the individual ant  plays
a role in ant-colony intelligence.  Both roles are clearly the product
of evolution; the role of individual humans in organizations can  also
be  seen as a product of evolution; the organizations themselves are a
product of a kind of evolution.  Might these organizational structures
possess an intelligence of their own?

This raises the possibility  that  the  ceiling  on  concentration  of
intelligence  lies  below the level of human intelligence.  Obviously,
if this is the case, human intelligence is just  another  "structural"
or  "organizational" intelligence.  This may be relevant to the limits
of  human  attention  and  task-multiplexing  which  are  studied   by
experimental  psychologists.   If  so, the existence of such a ceiling
has profound significance for even modest advances in the state of the
AI  art.

Regardless of the level (or levels)  at  which  the  proposed  ceiling
exists,   its   very   existence   would   have  significance  to  our
understanding of the  nature  of  intelligence.   It  may  also  prove
important  for  future system designers.  After all, we would not want
them to spend time trying to build a machine whose  existence  can  be
known to be impossible.


  -- Richard Brandau

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 1984 08:56:33-EDT
-FROM-
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Simulation, limits to
-BODY-
According to Information Mechanics (if I understood the relevant part),
it is impossible to totally simulate anything in less than the mass of
the thing to be simulated. For a more elaborate response, the person who
should be commenting on this is Fred Kantor, the author of the monograph.
Unfortunately, I don't think he is on Arpanet.
   David   sde@mitre-bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jul 84 5:21:10-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrus @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Small Computer Lisps?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eneevax.146

This month's BYTE (July) has an article on LISP for the IBM PC.  It is
a review of Integral Quality's IQLISP and The Software House's muLISP.
It is on page 281 and the authors are Jordan Bortz and John Diamant.



Without hallucinogens, life itself would be impossible.

ARPA:   phaedrus%eneevax%umcp-cs@CSNet-Relay
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!eneevax!phaedrus

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 84 20:57:06-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: sun!idi!kiessig @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Reference Books
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: idi.210

        I received the following suggestions for reference/text books
on AI in response to my article posted a while ago:

        AI Handbook by Feigenbaum et al.

        AI Journal (pretty technical)

        AI Magazine

        Artificial Intelligence by Elaine Rich (a textbook)
                (several people thought this was a good intro book)

        Artificial Intelligence by Patrick Winston (2nd ed.)

        Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man by Margaret Boden
                (less technical, more historical & quite thick)

        Expert Systems by Hayes-Roth, Waterman, et al.

        Fifth Generation by Feigenbaum et al.

        Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence by
                Nils J. Nilsson (1971)

        If you know of any others, I'd like to hear about them,
or if you've read any of these any have comments (good or bad),
that would be useful, too.

Rick Kiessig
{decvax, ucbvax}!sun!idi!kiessig
{akgua, allegra, amd70, burl, cbosgd, dual, ihnp4}!idi!kiessig
Phone: 408-996-2399

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jul 84 15:45:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How to get a Ph.D. in AI
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Alan Bundy, Ben du Boulay, Jim Howe, and Gordon Plotkin have written a
chapter in O'shea's and Eisenstadt's new book Artificial Intelligence
Q335.A788 1984.  The chapter, five, is titled how to get a Ph.D in AI.
Anybody out there need some advice?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jun 84 13:47:51-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ecsvax!hes @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Softwar
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2814

In the good old days, SAS only ran on IBM mainframes (360 & offspring)
and so there was the operating system (OS!) to ask for the date.  Most
large corporations use the date for all sorts of operations, and so
probably wouldn't want to set the wrong date at IPL (OS load) in order
to avoid paying lease costs.  (I believe the dissappearing act works.)
  Also SAS sells a lot of (quite good) tutorial and technical manuals
and does a fair amount of answering bug requests over the phone and
sending out newsletters, updates, etc. -- none of which would be
readily  available if you weren't making lease payments (I assume they
would be suspicious ...)
  --henry schaffer  genetics  ncsu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jul 84 8:18:53-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Law
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2903

The Three Laws of Robotics for the 1980s
(originally developed by the author and J. W. Godwin)

1.  Never give a sucker an even break.
2.  Never draw to an inside straight.
3.  Don't get caught.

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 12 July 1984 18:11:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Purvis.Jackson@cmu-cs-cad.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tests & Poems
-BODY-
Regarding the Turing Test . . .

Perhaps a more appropriate test of intelligence would be to have the
machine play the part of the interogator.  If it could distinguish
properly between a monkey and a business administration major, then
it would clearly exhibit intelligence.  But on second thought, this
wouldn't be a very good test, for it would be entirely possible for
an intelligent human to fail to distinguish them.

                Hurrah for artificial intelligence,
                I think it be due time
                To off this unnatural diligence
                For activities more sublime.
                Methinks with rapid development,
                Applications become quite close,
                My mind entertains the President,
                Who surely could use a dose.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jul 84 16:13:55-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2879

Kilobaud magazine (now Microcomputing) ran an article ~5 years ago on ai and
"humanlike conversation" in which the author concluded that humanlike dialog
had little to do with intelligence, artificial or genuine.  To accurately
simulate human dialog required, among other things, WOM (write only memory)
which was used to store anything not of direct immediate interest to the
speaker.  You could do a pretty good simulation of Eddy Murphie on the other
end of a Turing test with a very simple algorithm.

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 84 10:24:53-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ecsvax.2926

Someone took issue with a recent posting I made:

>From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman) Tue Jul 10 10:38:42 1984
>>  ...You could do a pretty good simulation of Eddy Murphie on the other
>>  end of a Turing test with a very simple algorithm.
>
>Anyone who believes this either doesn't understand the Turing test or has
>a very low opinion of his own intelligence.  Are you seriously claiming ...

From the kidding tone of the rest of my posting, I assumed the :-) was
quite unnecessary.  Evidently I was wrong.  So I retract my insult
to Messrs Turing and Murphy, and suggest that a simple algorithm could
substitute for "Cheech" Marin.  OK, what about Marcel Marceau...

:-) :-) :-)  <-- Please note!!

D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET:  {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jul 84 12:37:51-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!hlexa!bev @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hlexa.2559

Understanding?
If a human passes a calculus test it means they can calculate
correct answers to (some percentage of) the questions asked.
If a computer does the same it means the same, but that's all.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jul 84 16:58:47-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mit-athena!yba @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-athe.206

If a program passes a test in calculus the best we can grant it is that
it can pass tests.  In the famous program ANALOGY (Bobrow's I think)
the computer "passes" geometric analogy tests.  It does not seem to understand
either geometry or analogy outside of this limited domain of discourse.
We make the same mistaken assumption about humans--that is that because
you can pass a "test" you understand a subject.

The Turing test was a "blind" test; in that the Colonel is wrong--someone
reading this over the net or receiving a note from the bank cannot just
"go look".  The idea was to tell via dialog only in a blind situation
(maybe even a double-blind if there are some control situations where
two humans taking the Turing test face each other).

The question of how to evaluate the performance of an AI system has become
an important question.  I am not sure that the question of "understanding"
should even enter into it.  In any case, let's not trivialize it.

yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA            UUCP:   decvax!mit-athena!yba

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
92
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 84 08:29:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Judy Froscher <froscher@NRL-CSS>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for mature expert systems
-BODY-

                      REQUEST FOR EXPERT SYSTEMS



At NRL, we are working on a research project to develop a software
engineering methodology for rule-based expert systems.  To gain insight
into devising criteria for the separation of knowledge in a production
system, we need to statically analyze the structure and connectivity of
rules and facts in large, widely used knowledge bases.  We would
appreciate hearing from anyone who has access to a mature production system
and is willing to send us a copy of it.  Because many of these systems
contain proprietary information, we will sign a non-disclosure agreement
with any organization whose system we obtain.  Since we only care about
analyzing the connectivity between rules, the proprietary information
can be removed.  Any help will be appreciated.


                                      Judy Froscher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jul 84 16:04:33 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Cornish.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistical Computing Environments & EXPERT Traders
-BODY-

Has anyone tried to build an Expert System to model a hypothetical
commodity trader's technical analysis based on "downside wedges", "trend
lines", "head and shoulders" and other "technical indicators"?  Such a
system would identify "bear markets" and "bull markets" and would
believe things like "we remain bullish for the long term" and a
"precious metals shakeout is in progress".

Also, can someone provide a bibliography about "Interactive data
analysis" in the sense of  "Interactive data analysis" given below:

 Thursday, July 12: FEATURES OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENTS
    ABSTRACT: Interactive data analysis can be usefully thought
        of as a particular kind of experimental programming.  Our
        work should build on the 10-15 years of research in
        environments for experimental programming associated with
        places like Xerox PARC and the MIT AI Lab.  In this
        session, we will discuss, in general terms, properties of
        experimental programming environments that are relevant
        to interactive data analysis.  We will also describe and
        compare the two basic alternatives in programming
        environments that are open to us.
	
and this talk:

 Data Analysis with Rule-based Languages and Expert Systems
               by Steve Peters, MIT
  (AIList Digest Friday, 13 Jul 1984
-VOL-
2

-N-
89
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jul 84 20:37:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!smu!hemphill @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lexical-Functional grammer activity? - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: smu.10900003


        Is anyone out there doing anything with Lexical-Functional
        grammer?

        -Charles Hemphill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 84 7:16:14-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!cires!boulder!marty @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Legal Issues in AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: boulder.186

   Apropos the recent discussion of the "souls of intelligent computer
programs" and potential legal problems related to same, there was a very
interesting article in the Summer 1983 issue of AI Magazine which dealt with
some (related) issues.  I believe it was entitled "Artificial Intelligence:
some legal implications", and was written by a member of the Nevada State
Supreme Court (again, my memory is weak, but I believe it was Marshall
Willick).
   His major thesis seemed to be that the development of law in America has
largely been characterized by the granting of (fuller) franchise to beings
initially thought unworthy of it: blacks, women, adolescents, coma victims
and unborn children etc.  He also makes some interesting points about the
rights and legal status of certain non-human entities, such as corporations.
   Among the scenarios he presents: an intelligent computer system is stolen
and, realizing that this is the situation, refuses to work and attempts to
bring suit against its current "owner" . . .  a factory worker dies as a
result of an accident in which responsibility is placed on an industrial
robot.  To what extent should the robot be held responsible, particularly in
the case where the robot is shown to have willingly/knowingly caused the
person's death?
   Interesting reading, if you're into this sort of thing ...

                                        Marty Kent

uucp:
   {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
                                        !hao!boulder!marty
arpa: polson @ sumex-aim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jul 84 08:08:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Brain and technology
-BODY-
In response to which organ is responsible for the technology advance :

The brain is not the agent : the hand is what has allowed man to progress.
Especially the fact that the thumb was opposite the other fingers. And being
able to free the hands from walking (by standing up) is also a factor to be
considered.  One couls even argue that the human brain would not be what
it currently is without that hand.
Obviously the brain is what tells the hand what to do, but it is the hand
which does it.

Rene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jul 84 7:43:52-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.ags @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-i.361

>  If a program passes a test in calculus the best we can grant it is that
>  it can pass tests.  ...
>  We make the same mistaken assumption about humans--that is that because
>  you can pass a "test" you understand a subject.

Suppose the program writes a Ph.D. dissertation and passes its "orals"?
Then can we say it understands its field?  If not, then how can we decide
that anyone understands anything?

Dave Seaman                     My hovercraft is no longer full of
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags            eels (thanks to my confused cat).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jul 1984 16:52:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen.Smith at CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based System Development Environment
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker: Beverly Kedzierski, Kestral Institute
Title: Knowledge-Based Communication and Management Support
        in a System Development Environment

Date: July 18, 1984
Time: 11:30 - 1:00
Place: 6423 Wean Hall


Software development environments are needed to support the variety of
activity that people perform while building complex, evolving software
systems and managing their projects.  This talk will describe some work done
at the Kestrel Institute in the area of project management and
communication support for effective software development environment, and
the application of speech act theory to that domain.  A framework, or
paradigm, was designed for such an environment using a knowledge-based,
program synthesis approach from artificial intelligence.  A pilot
communication and management support environment (CMS) was implemented.  CMS
supported an existing project to build a complex software system that is
referred to as the "target system".

Anyone interested in meeting with Beverly Kedzierski should send mail to
sfs@cmu-ri-isl1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 84 14:55:06 PDT
-FROM-
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Knowledge Representation
-BODY-
    [Forwarded from the Halpern/IBM distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The knowledge seminar continues on Friday, July 20, at 10 AM in Building
28 at IBM, with talks by Chris Cherniak and Tom Strat.  I've appended the
abstracts below.  This will be the second-to-last knowledge seminar for a
while.  I'll give a seminar on logics of knowledge and complexity on
August 3.  I've appended that abstract as well.  I'm still open for
suggestions for more speakers if and when we start up again!

July 20
10 AM: COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY AND PSYCHOLOGY -
Christopher Cherniak, Philosophy Department, University of Pennsylvania

What are the implications of computational complexity theory for
feasible knowledge representation and inference systems?  One of the most
important current questions about complexity theory concerns its real
world relevance.  For example, do the "hard" cases of a provably complex
problem occur frequently in the set of cases of the problem that are of
interest, or are the hard cases so enormous that no entity with
human-level resources would ever even encounter them?  Some formal results
bear on this question, and some "empirical" studies of running times of
particular algorithms.  I shall discuss another approach: Treating the
assumption that there is real world complexity as a working hypothesis,
and empirically testing some of its implications for human cognitive
psychology.  I shall describe some of my experiments on people's use
of quick but dirty "prototypicality" deductive reasoning heuristics on
monadic predicate calculus problems.

11 AM: EVIDENTIAL REASONING AND ITS APPLICATION TO CONTINUOUS VARIABLES
Tom Strat - SRI International

Expert systems are often expected to draw conclusions based on
evidence about the world which is uncertain, inaccurate, and
incomplete.  Such evidential information poses difficulties for
traditional theories for dealing with uncertain information.  The
Shafer-Dempster approach, which is gathering an increasing amount of
interest, provides a suitable basis for representing and drawing
inferences from evidence.

The first half of the talk will be devoted to a review of
evidential reasoning as based on Shafer's work, including Dempster's
Rule of Combination for pooling multiple bodies of evidence to obtain
a consensus opinion.  The second half will present some recent results
for dealing with continuous variables within the Shafer-Dempster
theory.  A new representation will be introduced that provides strong
intuitions and visual interpretation of belief functions associated
with continuous variables.  A number of examples will be included to
illustrate the concepts.

August 3, 1984, 10 AM.
LOGICS OF KNOWLEDGE AND COMPLEXITY THEORY
Joe Halpern, IBM San Jose

After a whirlwind review of complexity theoretic notions such as
NP-completeness, I will discuss the semantics for a modal logic
of knowledge and consider the complexity of the procedure for
deciding whether or not a formula is valid.  It turns out if there
is only one player in the game, the problem is NP-complete.  If
there are many players, the problem is PSPACE-complete; when
we add the notion of common knowledge, the problem becomes
exponential-time complete.  This will be a two-hour,
self-contained presentation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 84 17:21:06 PDT
-FROM-
From: Guy M. Lohman <lohman%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR.IBM-SJ@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - IBM San Jose
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Tues., July 17 Computer Science Seminar
  1:00 P.M.   A RELATIONAL LANGUAGE WITH A DEDUCTIVE CAPABILITY
  2C-012      Deductive Algebra (DEAL) is a proposed relational
            algebra capable of providing the deductive
            capabilities of Prolog for database operations.  Its
            special features include the creation of attributes,
            tuples and relations deductively subject to
            predicates; it also supports user-defined and
            recursive functions along with a relational schema
            for knowledge representation.  DEAL is an extended
            version of the PRECI Algebraic Language (PAL)
            implemented at Aberdeen.  In this talk some examples
            of the power of the language in dealing with problems
            such as ancestors, part-explosions and connected
            tours will be given.

            S. M. Deen, PRECI Database Research Project,
            University of Aberdeen
            Host:  P. Wilms

            [...]


  Visitors, please arrive 15 mins. early.  IBM is located on U.S. 101
  7 miles south of Interstate 280.  Exit at Ford Road and follow the signs
  for Cottle Road.  The Research Laboratory is IBM Building 028.
  For more detailed directions, please phone the Research Lab receptionist
  at (408) 256-3028.  For further information on individual talks,
  please phone the host listed above.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Jul 84 15:52:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Classification Problem Solving
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:        Friday, July 20, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Bill Clancey
             Heuristic Programming Project
             Stanford University

TOPIC:       Classification Problem Solving


        A  broad  range  of  heuristic  programs--embracing  forms  of
diagnosis, catalog selection, and skeletal planning--accomplish a kind
of  well-structured  problem  solving  called  classification.   These
programs have a characteristic inference structure that systematically
relates data  to a  pre-enumerated set  of solutions  by  abstraction,
heuristic association,  and  refinement.  This  level  of  description
specifies the knowledge needed to solve a problem, independent of  its
representation in a particular computer language.  The  classification
problem-solving model provides a useful framework for recognizing  and
representing similar problems, for designing representation tools, and
for   understanding    the    problem-solving    methods    used    by
non-classification programs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 July 1984 23:09-EDT
-FROM-
From: ROSIE@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Early LISP History
-BODY-
              [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                         DATE:  July 19, 1984
                         TIME:  Refreshments  2.45 pm
                                Lecture       3.00 pm
                        PLACE:  NE43-8th Floor

                      Early Lisp History (1956 - 1959)

                            Herbert Stoyan
                       University of Erlangen
                             Germany


This is the invited talk for the conference on LISP and functional programming
in Austin.

It's now ten years since McCarthy gave a talk of the same content here at MIT.
Because not every piece of his recollections (even in the ACM History of
Programming Languages Conference) may be accepted in light of saved written
sources we try to give a correct account of the events that lead to LISP.
Thereby we name some open points in the history of LISP and discuss some of
the early LISP interpreters.

HOST:  Professor Szolovits

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
93
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 84 12:39:55 pdt
-FROM-
From: Shimon Cohen <Shimon>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Yet another new language ?
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

We, at Fairchild AI laboratory, are in the process of designing a
super parallel computer for AI applications (called FAIM).  In the
process we have to define the language that will be used for this
machine. We intend to summarize our initial ideas in a working paper
and distribute it to interested people.

If you (or someone you know) are interested in a copy of this working
paper please mail your name and full address to: Shimon@SRI-KL.

Thank you.

  -- Shimon Cohen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jul 84 21:22:13-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxa!diamant @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Small Computer Lisps?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pyuxa.882

For anyone interested, the net addresses of the authors of the
previously mentioned BYTE review of muLISP and IQLISP:

Jordan Bortz:           decvax!cbosgd!osu-dbs!gang!jordan
and
John Diamant:           ihnp4!pyuxgg!diamant (until Aug. 10th)
                        decvax!cwruecmp!diamant (after that)

I apologize for posting this to the net, but it was originally in the
article and was accidentally edited out.


                                        John Diamant
                                        ihnp4!pyuxgg!diamant

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jul 84 11:29:54-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!unc!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!sfjec!
     sfmag!eagle!prem @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Small Computer Lisps?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eagle.1180

I certainly wouldn't expect a grown up computer to.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 84 10:28:01 PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commodity Experts
-BODY-
Jan, The input of the wide areas of data (fundamental and technicial
plus current new items) into a AI enviromnent for Stock/Commodity
trading may be a little too much to start with.  You can however, input
only technicial data into the database and use a wide variety of
technicial indicators to evaluate the trend for short term, long term,
etc.  This will also aid in making market projections using technicial
indicators such as on-balance-volume ior OBV (Granville),
Parabolic-Time-Price Curves (Wilder), etc.  Due to the large number of
different technicial indicators for the various markets (OBV is fine for
Gold but not for Silver), AI could be very well suited for this kind of
application.  This is primarily due to hard data for technicial analysis
(Open, Hi, Lo, Close, Settle, Volume, Open Interest, Interest rates,
etc.)  This information is also available from many dial-up data bases
for automatic entry for the particular market.  By utilizing an
algorithm which would first use all methods programmed for each analysis
and then take the results and utilize them for further analysis, a
reasonably accurate projection may be possible based on only technicial
indicators.

Fundamental information is harder to deal with.  Analysis based on
fundamental knowledge requires that some effect either positive or
negative be applied to a repeatable phenomenia.  Since news items often
do not repeat, the AI software would first have to separate the valid
fundamental indicators from the other fundamental noise.  Over a period
of time, certain phenomenia may be evaluated as being pertinent to the
trend of a given market.  At this point, any tool could be written to
search out this "signal" from the "noise".  In order for any tool to be
effective, the tool would be required to have a high signal to noise
ratio.  The tool must be able to ascertain, for example, if a member of
the FRB says he thinks the discount rate will decline,what will be the
immediate and future impoact on the price of soybeans?  Since
historically statments of this type have caused both higher and lower
prices due to other fundamental variables, a fundamental formula would
have to be derived which works with total unknown abstract concepts.

The Technicial Analysis Group (TAG) has a very complete package of
technicial software however, due to the immediacy of the markets, and
the small systems (Apple, IBM-PC) which the programs run on, it is not
feasible to do a complete analysis on every market on a daily basis.  A
multi-tasking AI environment would be able to take the results of each
of these TAG tools and then work with those results.

I would recommend that any attempt to utilize AI for the purpose of
market analysis should start with only technicial analysis and that the
AI environment gradually be fed only certain types of Fundamental data.

Bob

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 1984  11:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: REID%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning
-BODY-
Regarding the Fahrenheit/Celcius problem (if 32 is 0 and 212 is 100 ...).
Even there, the "obvious" answer is only obvious due to cultural
biases.  A computer might indeed solve the problem without "blinking an
LED," but the answer it would likely to come up with is NOT what we
think of as obvious.  Simply put, the "data" given fits equally well
with the hypothesis that the mapping is just the lower 3 (or 4) order
bits of the binary representation of the first number.  It would seem
to me that a computer would be more likely to hit upon this mapping,
unless it were endowed with a lot of "common sense" and (human)
cultural information.

   --- Reid Simmons ---

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Jul 84  1157 PDT
-FROM-
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: AI-speak ?? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
-BODY-
   [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This reply
       is in response to a request from David Cheriton@Navajo.]


jmc - As one of the importers of the first two terms from philosophy into
AI, I will say what I mean.

ontology - The dictionaries define it as the branch of philosophy that
studies what exists.  In the bad old days, they argued about whether
physical objects, disembodied spirits, God, exist.  Quine (1940s or 1950s?)
modernized the idea by saying that the ontology of a theory is the set
over which the bound variables range.  As a nominalist he favored an
impoverished ontology, e.g. just because you want to predicate  red(x),
doesn't mean that you need  red  or  redness  as an object.  The AI
usage is derived from Quine's and remains quite close to it.  The programs
or logical sentences have variables, and the ontology of the program
includes the sets from which these variables take values.  For example,
Mycin includes bacteria in its ontology, because some of its variables
range over bacteria (the kinds of bacteria, not individual bacteriums),
but doesn't have doctors.  It actually doesn't have patients either.

epistemology - In philosophy it means the study of knowledge, its sources
and limits.  Again AI usage is derived from that and remains fairly
close.  AI is more concerned than most philosophers with how the
knowledge is represented.  AI is concerned with "epistemologically
adequate" internal languages for programs, i.e. languages that are
adequate for representing the knowledge that can actually be obtained
with given opportunities to observe and experiment.  See McCarthy and
Hayes "Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial
intelligence", Machine Intelligence 4, 1969.

teleology - I haven't used it in AI, so I can't speak precisely about
AI usage.  In philosophy it means explaining things by ascribing
purpose to them.  Extreme examples are, "The purpose of the rainbow
is to teach us that the next time God destroys the world it will be
by fire and not by water" and "The purpose of the ant is to teach us
not to be lazy".  Teleological explanations were driven out of
biology accompanied by considerable squabbling.  In AI the term
might be used to refer to goal-driven programs, but then it would
seem that the usage is further from the philosophical usage.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Jul 84 11:45:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Buchanan  <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI jargon
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

David,
  [...]  Let me try to give you a straight
answer on terminology.  I spent five years in hard-core philosophy
and never felt that the terms were well-defined there, so it is no
wonder that AIers who have adopted the terms from philosophy also
have no consistent definitions.  Dictionary defns are probably not
very illuminating on these things, so I haven't looked at what you
might have found there.
  ONTOLOGY -- a conceptual map, a systematic description of the
        objects in the world, a study of "what is"
        [or the discipline of creating an ontology]
  EPISTEMOLOGY -- a study of what we know & how we know it, usually
        broken into a priori and a posteriori (or empirical) knowledge
  TELEOLOGY -- a study of purposeful behavior (often, though not always,
        defined wrt God's purpose).

  This is oversimplified, of course.  I would recommend Plato's
Timaeus and Theaetetus on the first two, and Aristotle's Metaphysics
on the last.  By the time St.Thomas began writing about these things,
their definitions are not so clear as in Plato & Aristotle.
   Epistemology is the most relevant to AI in its emphasis on
knowledge -- what it is, where it comes from, etc.

  [...]

bgb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Jul 84 14:35:14-EDT
-FROM-
From: David Rogers <DRogers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: an interesting implicit definition of intelligence
-BODY-
Can you spot the fallacy in this implicit definition of intelligence?

"As the programs become more refined and the network of paths and
boxes grow more complex, it becomes increasingly difficult to predict
what a computer will decide. In one second, it can process between 10
and 100 thousand logical inferences, or syllogisms. In 1981, the Japanese
government announced that it would provide almost a half a billion dollars
in seed money over the next decade to produce machines that will be able
to draw as many as 1 billion logical inferences per second.

If that goal is achieved, a computer could make, in one second, a decision
so complex that it would take a human 30 years to unravel it, assuming that
he or she could think constantly at the superhuman speed of 1 syllogism
per second. Given 10 seconds to ponder a problem, a computer's decision
would have to be taken on faith. By human standards it would be unfathomable.

When computers can have thoughts that would take more than a human lifetime
to understand, it is tempting to consider them smarter than their makers."


From "The Lure of Artificial Intelligence", by George Johnson, in the
APF reporter, Vol 7, No. 3.

(In a box at the bottom of the page, one reads "George Johnson, a freelance
writer, is reporting on the quest to build computers smarter than humans.")

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jul 1984 1329 PDT
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: adverts
-BODY-
I don't mind messages like the one (very indirectly) from IBM.  I'm quite
capable of recognizing even very covert bias and would discount it auto-
matically.  I'd much rather do my own filtering than have a moderator do it.

                        larry @ jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Jul 84 20:29:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GMR DATALOG Demo at AAAI
-BODY-
Kurt Godden informs me that General Motors Res. Labs. will have a live
demo of their DATALOG natural language query system at their AAAI
Villa Capri hospitality suite August 7-8.  Vistors can also discuss
GMR projects in expert systems, natural language, computer vision,
robotics, etc.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jul 84 18:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Delphi Experiment: move 2 please?
-BODY-
                            The Vote Tally
                            --------------
Folks, the moves are in and have been tallied.  The winner is: 1. ... c5.

A total of 21 votes were cast.  Originally there was a tie between 1.
...  c5 and 1.  ...  e5 with 7 votes each.  I cast the deciding vote in
favor of the Sicilian because machines play optimally in Classical
double-KP positions and we want to avoid positions the machine likes.

                          The Machine Moves
                          -----------------
The Prestige 8-ply replied 2. Nf3 from book in 0 seconds.

                Humans                    Move   # Votes
        BR BN BB BQ BK BB BN BR         1 ... c5     8
        BP BP ** BP BP BP BP BP         1 ... e5     7
        -- ** -- ** -- ** -- **         1 ... e6     2
        ** -- BP -- ** -- ** --         1 ... d5     1
        -- ** -- ** WP ** -- **         1 ... d6     1
        ** -- ** -- ** WN ** --         1 ... f5     1
        WP WP WP WP -- WP WP WP         1 ... Nc6    1
        WR WN WB WQ WK WB ** WR
             Prestige 8-ply

                           The Game So Far
                           ---------------
1. e4    c5
2. Nf3

    Your move, please?

        Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure.
        DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of
        the above addresses.

                               Addendum
                               --------
For readers who don't understand all of this, I am conducting a Delphi
experiment wherein a large network-based readership can send moves in
for a chess game.  Each reader's move is a vote that is combined with
other readers' votes.  The move with the most votes is played against
the Prestige chess machine searching a minimum of 8 full ply deep.  At
this level it is probably playing around the ELO 2200 level.  The results
will eventually be published in a journal along with an analysis of the
experiment.

[In view of the limited number of respondents, I shall have to discontinue
publishing the play-by-play in this digest.  Please contact mclure@sri-unix
if you wish to follow the game.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
94
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jul 84 12:42:15-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!masrani @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for information (INDUCE/PLANT expert system)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: calgary.473

I would appreciate any information (references) on an expert system
called INDUCE/PLANT.  Apparantly, this system is able to deduce rules
about diagnosing soybean diseases from cases.  Thanks in advance.

Roy Masrani, University of Calgary.
..!alberta!calgary!masrani

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 84 20:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jill Smudski <Jill%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOGO implementation
-BODY-
I am looking for an implementation of LOGO to run on a Symbolics 3600 Lisp
Machine. Can anyone send me information about such a thing?  Also, any
pointers to current computer science (as opposed to educational) research
with LOGO would be appreciated.

    Thanks,
      Jill Smudski            mailing address:  University of Pennsylvania
                                                Moore School rm 66
                                                33rd and Walnut Sts
                                                Philadelphia, PA 19104

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 1984 11:38:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: Philip.Kasprzyk at CMU-RI-ISL2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Islisp/Franz Lisp Utility Functions
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am building a Lisp Utility Function Library for use in Islisp.
In addition to the built-in Islisp functions dones anyone out there
know of any existing libraries or have any private libraries that
they could contribute to the cause?

Documented functions would be nice but I can live with undocumented
code as long as the functionality of the code is obvious.

If you can help me please send mail to pmk@isl2.

The current status of this project is that I have slightly over 200 functions
which I am in the process of categorizing.

                           -Thanks
                          Phil Kasprzyk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 84 8:18:46-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!gmf @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Franz Lisp info
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1375

I will be grateful for information on where to get a Franz Lisp
with its usual library written in C to be run on an Intel 8286
(new, compatible with 8086) running under Xenix ("small" UNIX).
There will be plenty of memory (hard disk).  Presumably any
Franz Lisp written in C which will run on a VAX 11/780 using
UNIX will be OK.

     Gordon Fisher
     c/o CS Dept
     Univ of Virginia
     Charlottesville, Va 22901

     ...!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!gmf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 21 Jul 84 09:56:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEXIS, NEWSNET & AI
-BODY-
     I would like to know if anyone here has searched occasionally, or
searches regularly, NEXIS and/or NEWSNET (two commercial databases
which store the full text of many leading U.S. magazines and
newsletters). Has anyone found either database to be a particularly
useful source of information about developments in artificial
intelligence and related topics? Opinions, impressions, evaluations,
tips, gripes, etc. would be appreciated.

>- Wayne McGuire --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 21 Jul 84 10:55:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: AAAI-OFFICE <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-84 Registration
-BODY-

 Hello!
 We've had an overwhelming response to the AAAI-84 Conference
 this year. We have room for 2,600 people for the Technical Program,
 and, at this time, we have about 50 seats left. If you expect
 to walk-in, please call Kathy Kelly (415-328-3123) to make
 some alternate arrangements.

 AAAI Office

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 84 00:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Henry Lieberman <Henry%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Implicit Definition of Intelligence
-BODY-

I see the fallacy as being that the word "decision" in the article connotes
some willful decision of real significance to a human, such as
"Should I vote for Reagan or Mondale?". The article confuses it in the lay
reader's mind with the computer science sense of "decision", or primitive
conditional, like "If this location is zero, I'll skip to the next
instruction".  Obviously, one decision of a person in the former sense
may invovle zillions of primitive conditionals, so the human and
machine "speeds" are not directly comparable.

Why wait for the fifth generation?  The Lisp machine I'm using right now is
much
smarter than a person, because a person can consciously consider only a few new
subgoals every second, whereas a Lisp machine can do a million function calls a
second.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 84 09:52:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: Adolfo Di-Mare <dimare@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An interesting implicit definition of intelligence
-BODY-
The following is an even more intelligent program than the one described
in the Lure of AI. Any human being trying to figure it out will die blue
even for small values of n:

                n + 1                   m = 0
            /
AI(m,n) =  <    AI(m-1,1)               n = 0
            \
                AI(m-1,AI(m,n-1))       otherwise

        Adolfo
              ///

P.S.I  The A in the above definition stands for Artificial.  The I stands
       for Intelligence (it's easy when you know it).
P.S.II I couldn't come up with the Prolog version, which is far more
       intelligent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 Jul 84 16:49:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: An interesting implicit definition of intelligence
-BODY-
           [In response to my personal query about the "AI"
             function in Adolfo DiMare's message. -- KIL]

Yes, that's the Ackermann function. The problem with it for benchmarking
is that it is hyperexponential, and so the intermmediate values soon
become too big to represent (even with bignums!) -- Fernando

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 84 02:26 PDT
-FROM-
From: Gloger.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. people
-BODY-
Someone (I no longer have any record of who) apparently said:

>>  If a program passes a test in calculus the best we can grant
>>  it is that it can pass tests.  ...
>>  We make the same mistaken assumption about humans--that is
>>  that because you can pass a "test" you understand a subject.

To which Dave Seaman replied:

>  Suppose the program writes a Ph.D. dissertation and passes its
>  "orals"?  Then can we say it understands its field?  If not,
>  then how can we decide that anyone understands anything?

Implicit in the first quote is the answer to the second.  We cannot
(absolutely) decide that anyone understands anything, i.e. that
understanding exists, since "understanding" as used here is not a
scientific observable.  We can, if we wish, observe the observables,
like test passing.  And we can choose to infer from them the existence
of a causative agency for them, like "understanding" for test passing.
But this inference is true only to the extent that we can observe the
agency; and it is valid only to the extent that from it we can deduce
other, observably true and useful facts.

If you're willing for "understanding" to mean some observable thing,
like passing of some tests or other, then you can decide if someone
"understands" something, i.e. if "understanding" exists.  Otherwise, you
can't absolutely decide where, when, or how much understanding exists or
doesn't exist.

And ditto the entire preceding discussion with the buzzword
"understanding" replaced by "intelligence."  And again, replaced by
"luck."  And again, by "soul."  And again, by "god."

(Credit for the basis of much of my argument is due to Prof. Andrew J.
Galambos.)

Paul Gloger
<Gloger.es@Xerox.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 84 11:42:10-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!abh @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Brain and technology
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccivax.183

I beg to add that if the brain did not have advanced coordination
centers for speech and hand, thumbs would be as useful as
your big toes.
                                        Andrew Hudson
>-
Christine, strawberry girl,
Christine, banana split lady.....
                         - Siouxsie & the Banshees

        ...[rlgvax | decvax | ucbvax!allegra]!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!abh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 July 1984 16:51-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hal Abelson <HAL @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: publication announcement
-BODY-

The book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" written
by Gerry Sussman, Julie Sussman, and me has just been published
(jointly by MIT Press and McGraw-Hill).

This book is based on the introductory programming course that we
teach at MIT.  All programming is done in the Scheme dialect of Lisp
(which nowadays is the entry-level programming language used at MIT).
We attempt to present an "AI/Lisp"-flavored introduction to the issues
of coping with the complexity of large software systems.  We hope that
this point of view can become an alternative to the Pascalitis that
has infected so much of computer science education.

Copies of the book should be available at the Lisp conference and at
AAAI..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 Jul 84 16:52:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bob Moore <BMOORE@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tense and Aspect
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by permission of the author.]

The difficulty of analyzing the semantics of tense and aspect in
natural language has been widely discussed in the past few years, but
I hadn't realized the extent to which this problem plagued medieval
scholars until I found this item in The Oxford Book of Oxford (Jan
Morris, ed.):

     Three Oxford academics were deputed to wait upon Henry III
     in 1266 to ask permission for a postern gate through the
     city wall at Oxford.  The King (in Latin) asked them what
     they wanted:

     First scholar: We ask the licence for the making of a gate
     through the city wall.

     Second scholar: No, we do not want the making of a gate, for
     that would mean the gate was always in the making and never
     made.  What we want is a gate made.

     Third scholar: No, we do not want a gate made, for a gate
     made must already be in existence somewhere else, and so we
     should be taking somebody else's gate.

     The King told them to go away and make up their minds.  When
     they returned in three days' time they had agreed on a
     formula:

     We ask permission that the making of a gate be made.
     [Ostium fieri in facto esse].

     Permission was granted."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 July 1984 09:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: Arline H. Benford <AH @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Second-Order Polymorphic Lambda Calculus
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                         DATE:  Tuesday, July 24, 1984
                         TIME:  1:45PM Refreshments
                                2:00PM Lecture
                        PLACE:  NE43-512A


                   "THE SEMANTICS OF EXPLICIT POLYMORPHISM"

                                 Kim B. Bruce
                      Department of Mathematical Sciences
                               Williams College
                               Williamstown, MA


Facilities for defining GENERIC or POLYMORPHIC routines, i.e., routines which
can have several typed instantiations, are now available in programming
languages such as Ada, Clu, and ML.  We consider a typed calculus called
second-order polymorphic lambda calculus as a theoretical model for
EXPLICIT polymorphism -- where types appear as parameters of procedures as in
Ada and Clu (and as opposed to ML).

The proof theory of the second-order polymorphic lambda calculus was reasonably
well understood before there was much concern over its semantics (as is common
in the development of logical systems).  The problem with assigning semantics
to the system is that terms may be applicable to their own types, which
involves a classical type violation.  Reynolds attempted to construct a kind of
set-theoretic model for the language but ran into difficulties, and
subsequently demonstrated that no such model is possible.  Donahue
attempted to construct a model using complete lattices and also failed.
Finally, McCracken and also Haynes successfully constructed models usng Scott
domains.

We describe in this talk a general notion of model for the second-order lambda
calculus.  In support of our definitions we establish soundness and
completeness results relative to our semantics for the previously given axiom
system for the calculus.  We also review related results and open problems.

HOST:  Professor Albert R. Meyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 84 10:33:05 PDT
-FROM-
From: Guy M. Lohman <lohman%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR.IBM-SJ@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Probabilistic Analysis of Hierarchical Planning Problems
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Wed., July 25 Computer Science Seminar
  10:30 A.M.  PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS OF HIERARCHICAL PLANNING PROBLEMS
  Aud. A      Multi-level decision problems can often be modeled as
            multi-stage stochastic programs.  Hierarchical
            planning systems designed for the solution of such
            problems can then be viewed as stochastic programming
            heuristics, and they can be subjected to the same
            kind of analytical performance analysis that has
            become customary in the area of combinatorial
            optimization.  We will give a general formulation of
            these multi-stage stochastic programs and sketch a
            framework for the design and analysis of heuristics
            for their solution.  The various ways to measure the
            performance of such heuristics are reviewed, and some
            relations between these measures are derived.  Our
            concepts are illustrated on a simple two-level
            planning problem of a general nature and on a more
            complicated two-level scheduling problem.  This talk
            is based on joint work with Alexander Rinnooy Kan and
            Leen Stougie.

            J. K. Leustra, Department of Computer Science,
            University of California at Berkeley
            Host:  B. Simons

            [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
95
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 84 15:00:46 pdt
-FROM-
From: Angela Shiflet <shiflet@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ben-Zoma Mailing List
-BODY-
                          RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT

Ben-Zoma is a knowledge- and experience-based scientific/engineering advisor
which converses in technical English.  It learns by abstracting
solution methods and language understanding derived from assisting users.
Requests, once converted to a frame-like form, are dispatched to a
distributed consortium of experts.  These sources of expertise (e.g. MACSYMA
on LISPM, LM on a Cray, SMP on a VAX, as well as new experts) are callable
through drivers written in LISP.  Ben-Zoma will create and dispatch code for
appropriate special-purpose processors (e.g. Crays, Cosmic Cubes, data flow
machines, and VAX arrays).  Graphical displays of numerical data will be
incorporated where appropriate.

Work on this project has begun under the direction of Dr. Ted Einwohner
at the Univeristy of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Computing Research Group, under contract to the Department of Energy.

Comments and suggestions are welcomed:

        ben-zoma-discussion@lll-crg.ARPA

To be added to this list send mail to:

        ben-zoma-discussion-request@lll-crg.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 23 Jul 84 14:06:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Plant/Induce reference
-BODY-
Roy,
        The Plant/Induce work was done by Ryzard Michalski at the
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. The paper I have is:

Michalski, R.S., and Chilausky, R.L.  Learning by being told and learning
from examples: an experimental comparison of the two methods of knowledge
acquisition in the context of developing an expert system for soybean
disease diagnosis. International Journal of Policy Anaysis and Information
Systems, Vol 4, No. 2, 1980.

        I believe he also published a version in 1981 in the International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies.

        If you are interested in systems that learn rules automatically,
you might also want to look at Peter Politakis' SEEK system described in
Artificial Intelligence, January 1984.

                                        Mike Walker
                                        walker@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 84 8:28:06-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!jcw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP sources posted to net.sources
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cvl.1193

After dozens of requests reached me, I decided to post the sources to
David Betz' XLISP interpreter.  It is written entirely in C, commented
uncommonly well, fairly portable, and has some rather neat features
including primitives for object-oriented programming.

The program is in the public domain, Copyright by David Betz.

Jay Weber
..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!jcw
..!seismo!rochester!jay
jay@rochester.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 84 13:10:50-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Why discuss super- and para-normal phenomena
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.2741


"Alex.Rudnicky" asks:

    "It may be fun to speculate about the super-normal and the para-normal,
    but what does it have to do with AI?"

Answer: A number of things.  First let's discuss the "super-normal", a phrase
which I will take to refer to "exceptional human performance."

1) Like it or not, we're stuck (at least for now) with describing the "I" in
"AI" in terms relative to human performance.  In most instances average human
performance is all that is required of our programs, but sometimes, the
exceptional is called for.  Human performance serves as a guide to what CAN
be done, because it HAS been done.  According to the standard assumptions of
AI, if humans can do it, so can sufficiently powerful, well-programmed
machines.  If humans cannot, then there may well be a NP-hard or worse problem
involved.  For example: can the type of associative memory retrieval associated
with human intelligence be merged effectively with total recall?  Or must the
information available by free-form association always be strictly limited?
If total well-indexed recall is done by at least one human being than it can
presumably also be done by a machine.  Otherwise, it remains an open question.

2) An understanding of human information processes is seen as either absolutely
necessary or (depending on what "school" of AI philosophy you subscribe to) at
least very useful to AI programming.  If your model of human information
processing cannot account for exceptional human performance then it is either
incorrect or incomplete.  Knowledge that some adults have "eidetic" memory
(near perfect image memory) may well be critical to understanding all memory.
Knowledge that a large percentage of children (perhaps all if we could test
them young enough) have eidetic memory and then lose it as they grow up,
should be taken into account in theories of information acquisition from a
near "tabla rasa" state.

In other words, knowing the limits of human information processing is, in the
long term, very important to the field.  In the short term, given our
distance from our ultimate goals, the need is less critical.  Some relatively
brief exchanges in an informal forum seems appropriate to keep people thinking
about it.

Which brings us to the paranormal.  First of all, claims of paranormal
abilities would seem to be included as exceptional human information processing
capabilities.  My previous comments about the "super-normal" applies.
Some effort (probably not much from the viewpoint of current AI) should be
applied to determine whether or not, in general, the phenomena exist and if so
whether they should be considered as an exceptional cognitive skill or only
an exceptional perceptual skill.  In the latter case its relevance is much
reduced. (My own opinion is: the experimental evidence makes it much more
likely than not that psi exists, and I would tend to see it as sensory/motor
rather than cognitive, though ESP seems to share many characteristics with
memory and dreaming).

Second, paranormal phenomena brings considerable doubt to the basic assumption
of AI: that human cognitive function can be explained as information processing
and therefore can be simulated or approximated by a sufficiently powerful and
well programmed artificial symbolic processor.  This is of minor pragmatic
concern if psi is simply a rarely used IO channel.  Several parapsychologists
have theorized, however, that psi functioning as perception is simply "leakage"
from its fundamental purpose in the organism; to wit, an essential part of
one or another cognitive function.  Candidate functions I have seen mentioned
are intuition, creativity and memory.  If so, (and I personally doubt it) then
human cognitive processing may not be simulatable on a Turing machine but only
on a Turing machine plus (you'll pardon the expression) oracle.

IN SUMMARY: while it seems premature to spend too much time now worrying about
exceptional (particularly paranormal) human performance,  the AI community
should remain aware of this area.  It might become very important to us and
we should not be caught unaware.

                                Topher Cooper

USENET: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 84 13:12:05-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Continuation of ESP discussion available.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.2742


On May 21 Ken Laws posted a reply summarizing an article from Dr. Dobb's
containing a theory of ESP.  I replied with a detailed criticism of the theory
(at least as summarized) and suggested that further contributions be mailed
to me rather than posted. I have put together a single file containing:

        1) A repeat of the original pair of articles.
        2) Some corrections/updates to my article.
        3) The five responses I got from my article.
        4) My replies to those five responses.

The compilation is 745 lines long.  Anyone who is interested in getting a
copy should send me mail requesting it.  Unless you request otherwise you
will also be added to a mailing list to receive the next round, if there is
one.  Your name and location will be kept confidential.  Any submissions for
the next round will be public unless you request that I remove your name and
location from the posting.

                                Topher Cooper

USENET: ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper
ARPA: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jul 84 23:17:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lab Reports and Project Descriptions
-BODY-
Moderating the digest has become sufficiently routine that I
can devote increased time and creative energy to shaping the
contents.  I can thus accept submissions to new digest
"departments" for lab reports, project summaries, and abstracts
of recent or current work.  My intention is to better inform
readers by publishing "promotional" material originally written
for other audiences.  This is similar to AIList's circulation
of seminar abstracts, a feature that I consider highly successful.

I therefore encourage list members to send abstracts of their
technical reports, conference papers, and journal articles to
AIList.  Usenet members should preferably send such items directly
to AILIST@SRI-AI rather than through net.ai, although the usual
mechanisms will operate to prevent double distribution of net.ai
submissions.  I shall screen the items and publish them in
coherent groups as the digest load permits.  The digesting
delay for such material may be several weeks, but I shall try
to keep the backlog to a reasonable size by publishing special
issues of abstracts as necessary.

I shall also pass along a limited number of carefully edited
messages derived from Arpanet-distributed position postings and
similar material.  I shall take considerable liberties with the
arrangement and format of the original texts without inserting
[...] annotations, and shall suppress explicit solicitations
(although the unofficial custom on the Arpanet has been to permit
such commercialism by academic institutions).  I shall also try
to avoid repeating boilerplate lab descriptions that AIList has
already published.  Nonacademic institutions may [occasionally]
submit similar promotional material so long as Arpanet standards
are respected.  My decision to distribute such material will be
based solely on interest to the general AIList reader, not on the
potential benefit of filling AI-related positions.

Please don't dump all of your archived blurbs on me today
or tomorrow; we have plenty of time.  I should like to see
the submissions dribble in over a period of >>years<<, so
wait until an appropriate opportunity (e.g., when a related
discussion comes up in the digest or when your dissertation
goes to press).  Eventually we shall reach a steady state
with material being submitted as it is produced for other
purposes.

I anticipate that these news items will require more editing than
normal submissions, particularly the lab reports derived from
promotional material.  You can simplify my job if you provide a
meaningful "Subject:" line such as the "Seminar - ..."  headers I
have been distributing.  Keywords such as "Abstract" and
"Project" should be followed by a very short title that readers
can use to screen the messages.  The submissions themselves
should be concise and closely related to the interests of the
AIList readership.  (The enthusiasm of your colleagues, bosses,
and sponsors for your 200 papers on educational parapsychology
may not be shared by a general audience.)  Please include
sufficient "Contact:" information (e.g., address and phone number)
that I shall not have to help readers wanting further information.

I shall be fairly strict about screening material I consider
marginal, and should appreciate your consideration in minimizing
this unpleasant part of my responsibilities.  Rejections will be
handled by "form letter", and generally will not include detailed
justifications.  I hope that few will interpret such a notice
as an invitation to debate or the opening round in a series of
negotiations.

Comments to AIList-Request@SRI-AI on this new policy will be
helpful in determining whether this experiment should be modified
or discontinued.  (Your silence will be interpreted as lack of
disapproval.)  I shall keep list readers informed of any
significant trends in the expressed opinions.

                                        -- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws
                                           AIList Moderator

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jul 84 12:36:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning State Variables
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:        Friday, July 27, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Tom Dietterich
             Heuristic Programming Project
             Stanford University

TOPIC:       Learning About Systems That Contain State Variables

It is difficult to  learn about systems  that contain state  variables
when  those  variables  are   not  directly  observable.   This   talk
formalizes this  learning problem  and presents  a method  called  the
iterative extension method for solving it.  In the iterative extension
method, the  learner  gradually constructs  a  partial theory  of  the
state-containing system.   At each  stage,  the learner  applies  this
partial theory to interpret the I/O behavior of the system and  obtain
additional constraints  on  the  structure and  values  of  its  state
variables.  These constraints  can be  applied to  extend the  partial
theory by  hypothesizing  additional internal  state  variables.   The
improved theory  can then  be applied  to interpret  more complex  I/O
behavior.  This process continues until a theory of the entire  system
is obtained.  Several  sufficient conditions for  the success of  this
method  will  be  presented   including  (a)  the  observability   and
decomposability of  the  state  information in  the  system,  (b)  the
learnability of individual  state transitions in  the system, (c)  the
ability of the learner to perform synthesis of straight-line  programs
and conjunctive predicates from  examples and (d)  the ability of  the
learner to perform theory-driven  data interpretation.  The method  is
being implemented and  applied to  the problem of  learning UNIX  file
system commands by observing a tutorial interaction with UNIX.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 04:33:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: MEISENSTADT@USC-ECLB.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project - Engineer's Assistant for Fault Diagnosis
-BODY-

Human Cognition Research Laboratory, Open University, Milton Keynes, England

LOCATION: 50 miles north of London (between 38 and 60 minutes
          by train, depending upon the service).

COMPUTING FACILITIES:
   Symbolics 3600 Lisp Machine (for the dedicated use of this project), VAX
   11/750 running NIL, Prolog, and POP-11, and dedicated lines to the Open
   University's three DECsystem-20's running Interlisp, Maclisp, Edinburgh
   Prolog, etc. ALL TERMINALS IN OUR LAB ALSO HAVE DIRECT ARPANET ACCESS.

ACTIVE AI PERSONNEL: Two tenured staff members, (Marc Eisenstadt and Jon
   Slack), three research fellows, three Ph.D. students, and one consultant
   programmer, all of whom constitute the Human Cognition Research
   Laboratory's mainstream AI people.  The OU also has other active
   AI researchers on site, working under Max Bramer in the Maths Faculty
   and Tim O'Shea in the Institute of Educational Technology.  We are a
   vigorous and growing group of researchers, and our current manageable
   size enables us to offer the best AI computing facilities of any
   academic institution in Europe.

PROJECT: "A Knowledge Engineer's Assistant for Constructing
   Knowledge Based Fault Diagnosis Systems"

PROJECT SYNOPSIS: We are building a repertoire of rapid prototyping tools
   intended to speed up both the analysis of verbal protocols (such as
   those obtained during interviews with domain experts), and also the
   encoding of elicited knowledge into implementable form. The applied
   aspect of this work is the design of intelligent cross-referencing
   and browsing facilities linked directly to a coding window. The
   theoretical aspect of this work is an investigation of the process
   of theory-formation as typified by modern day Knowledge Engineers.

CONTACT: MEISENSTADT@USC-ECLB, or telephone (international) 011-44-908-653149
   or 011-44-908-661566.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
96
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jul 84 15:41:57-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!flairvax!pfps @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Genealogy of AI
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: flairvax.677

David S. Johnson of ATT Labs has gathered together a genealogy of theoretical
computer science along intellectual, rather than biological bloodlines.  That
is, the parent-child relationship has been replaced by the more significant
PhD advisor-advisee relationship. I have just seen a report that he produced
that contains 672 of these entries and several genealogical trees taken from
the data and I thought that it would be a nice idea to produce a similar
listing for Artificial Intelligence.  This data could show how AI has spread
from its initial centres to its current broad coverage.

One problem with such a genealogy is collecting and organizing all the data.
Therefore I am asking for anyone who wants to contribute data about AI
advisor-advisee relationships to send mail to me.  To make the organizing
process easier I would like all responders to follow the strict format
detailed below:

        1/ no ``bug killer'' lines
        2/ each entry is one line and should contain the following information
            a) advisee name with surname first
            b) advisor name with surname first
            c) institution where degree granted (in a short format)
            d) year in which degree granted (all four digits)
            e) type of degree (PhD, MSc, or other graduate degree)
            f) field of research (AI, Physics, Mathematics, etc.)
            f) area of research (natural language, expert systems, etc.)
            g) current affiliation of advisee (in a short format)
        3/ fields separated by # characters
        4/ unknown values indicated by ? characters
        5/ null values indicated by empty fields
        6/ all entries together at the beginning of the message and followed
           by a blank line

Here are three sample entries:

Cohen, Robin#Perrault, Ray#Toronto#1984#PhD#AI#natural language#Waterloo
Patel-Schneider, Peter F.#Mylopoulos, John#Toronto#1978#MSc#AI#knowledge
  representation#FLAIR
Patel-Schneider, Peter F.#McCalla, Gord#Toronto#1978#MSc#AI#knowledge
  representation#FLAIR

  [I had to break the longer lines for AIList. -- KIL]

When entering names try to use the name from the thesis unless the person's
name has since changed and the changed version is more well-known.  For
institution names try to use the shortest name in common use which is unique.
For example, use Toronto for University of Toronto, FLAIR for Fairchild
Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence, and other well-known short forms such
as Berkeley and MIT but NOT UofT for the University of Toronto or the
University of Texas.  Fields of research include AI, Computer Science,
Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, Psychology, and Chemistry.  The idea here is
to find out the backgrounds of AI people which is why AI is separated from
Computer Science.  Areas of research are most important when the field is AI
and areas within AI include but are not limited to natural language, knowledge
representation, expert systems, theorem proving, learning, and vision.

A thesis advisor is that person officially recognized by the granting
University as the advisor.  If there is no such person then the advisor is
that person who guided the research for the thesis.  Such an advisor should be
indicated by a '*' character after the name.  If the official advisor did
nothing besides act as a signing agent and someone else really did all the
work then include two entries for the thesis, one listing the official advisor
and the other the unofficial advisor again with a trailing '*' character.
Also include two entries if there were two official advisors or two unofficial
advisors but please do not go beyond two advisors for one thesis.

To keep the amount of data within reasonable limits I am really only
interested in people who are in AI (preferably doing research) or who have
advised (directly or indirectly) someone in AI.  So if you are in AI the data
concerning you that I am interested in are your thesis advisor(s), their
advisors, and so on as far back as can be traced.  Of course, you can also
include other relevant data if you so wish.  If you know for certain that some
advisor has no advanced degree please include this.  I will assume that if
someone has only a master's degree listed then that person has no PhD.

I will collect all information sent to me and do as much error correction and
redundancy elimination as possible.  If enough responses are generated I will
send out periodic lists of the information generated, otherwise I will reply
only to the respondants.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider        {decvax!decwrl,hplabs}!flairvax!pfps

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 84 12:50:03-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!rmk @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robotics Directory
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: edison.317

A few weeks ago someone posted a notice about the 1984 edition of the
International Robotics Industry Directory.  Would someone tell me
the publisher of this directory, or where it could be obtained?

                        Thanks much in advance,

                        Bob Kossey

{...houxm,...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!iedl02}!edison!rmk  (804) 978-6378
GE - Industrial Electronics Development Lab             Charlottesville, Va.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 1984 12:31:23-EDT
-FROM-
From: Philip.Kasprzyk at CMU-RI-ISL2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Speed Benchmarks
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am interested in determining the absolute speed of execution of a lisp
system. I realize that this is a complicated task that is application
and implementation dependant. Nevertheless I am seeking the following:

1) A "gibson mix" style benchmark for lisp based systems.

2) Any data that experienced users of lisp may have regarding performance.
    (I don't care what machine or dialect of lisp is reported)

3) Any method or program which translates a lisp program into another
    target high level language with execution speed as its objective.
        (I don't mean a normal lisp compiler)

Can anyone out there help me?

If so send mail to pmk@isl2.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 23 Jul 84 09:54:56-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <LRC.Throop@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: naming names
-BODY-
  I have started naming names.
  It started with  the observation  that since I  am David  Throop, and  David
Throop is my name, then  it follows that I am  my name.  There is obviously  a
flaw here; I am not my  name.  I mean, if I changed  my name I would still  be
myself.  So it is  perhaps more clear to  say that I am  David Throop, and  my
name is "David Throop".  (This is still off.  I mean, "David Throop" is  still
a character string, a sequence of letters, and my name is something other than
a sequence of letters.   "David Throop" has  a value that is  a name, and  the
name has a value that is a person, and I am that person.)  [Are you still with
me?]
  That is, to say of course, that D - a - v - i - d - - T - h - r - o - o - p
is still another character string that denotes a character string that denotes
a  name  that  denotes  me.   (The  string  "me"  denoting  the  same  person,
coincidently, as is denoted by my name.)
  Which is all  prologue to the  question of whether  I could give  my name  a
name.  Not  the name  "David Throop",  of course.   That's already  taken.   I
considered naming my name "david throop" but I felt that this might cause some
confusion.  (And raises the  ugly question of how  to pronounce it.  You  see,
the "h" silent  in my  last name,  and though  "Throop" is  pronounced with  a
silent "h" I'm not sure that "throop" would be also.)
  [Which brings up the side  issue of the version of  my name as a  pronounced
set of sounds.   And on  reflection, I'm  not sure  whether the  value of  the
character string "David Throop" is a sound sequence, or my name itself.  Or it
may be that the value of the  sound sequence is the character string.  Or  its
more likely that the sound sequence and the character string are two  separate
objects that happen to have the same value.  Although, curiously, you can  get
from one to the other  and back again without  ever encountering me.  I  mean,
even if you didn't know me, even if you didn't know that "David Throop" was  a
name, you could  pronounce it and  if you heard  it you could  spell it.   But
you'd probably have  a little  trouble with the  silent "h".   It persists  in
injecting itself into the whole problem.]
  But back to giving my name a  name.  People always say, "Well I'm not  about
to start  naming names",  and I  think the  forgoing illustrates  some of  the
problems away from which  people are shying.   But then, how  are we going  to
talk about my name if it is nameless?
  For instance, if I tell you that I don't want to sully my good name, and you
reply, "What good name?" how can I reply?  If I reply, "Why, David Throop,  of
course," then  I haven't  refered to  my  name, I've  refered to  myself.   Of
course, I could reply "Why, "David Throop", of course" but those little  quote
marks are kind  of hard  to see in  a spoken  retort, and that's  the kind  of
challenge I reply to immediately.  It wouldn't  do to have a letter show up  a
week later saying "Why, "David Throop", of course."  One needs to defend one's
name promptly.  Some people have a cute  way of waving their hands in the  air
in order to indicate those  marks, but it kind of  takes the force out of  the
retort, and I must remember that my good name is on the line.
  So I've decided to name  my name something else.   Although I saw some  good
ideas in a book  named "Your Baby's Name",  I steered clear.  "Jason"  sounded
nice, but somebody might  think that that was somebody's name.  And it's  not.
It's a name's name.  I decided on G00483; as near as I can tell it's not being
used for anything else right now.  And it sounds like a name's name.
  But this brings up a question.  Is G00483 my name's name?  Or is it just  my
name for my name? (my own name, that is.)  After all, my name doesn't have any
need for its name.   I'm the one that  needs to know its  name, so that I  can
refer to it when you question my good name.  Since it doesn't name itself  and
I do, I'll just leave it as my name for the name of myself.
  Look, I realize this is all rather complex and  I  don't want to run it into
the ground.  Just  understand.  I've started  naming names.  I've  got a  good
one.  And for now, I'm retaining custody.
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                  David Throop

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 22 Jul 84 23:34:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neuroanatomy and Electromagnetic Waves
-BODY-
The August issue of High Technology has an interesting article about
EEG potentials in the brain in response to different stimuli.  It points
out, for instance, that the spatial patterns of the potentials are
very different for a subject hearing the noun "rose" and another hearing
the verb "rows".  These patterns of oscillatory activity may be simply
a side effect of neural processing or a fundamental information transfer
mechanism.  (It is suggested that transfer of signals via electromagnetic
radiation may be faster than broadcasting via neural interconnections,
but I find that hard to believe.  It is also suggested that the resonant
coupling of neural circuits may be a robust transmission mechanism in
an organ that is continually rearranging synapses and even losing neurons
[at about 50,000 per day, I think].)  The temporal frequency spectra of
these patterns are also presented as fuzzy hash functions possibly
responsible for associative memory.

A box accompanying the article discusses the Boltzmann Machine, an
architecture based on neural models.  Scott Fahlman (of NETL fame) and
Geoffrey Hinton are quoted.  (Scott mentioned this work in an AIList
issue last year.)  The Boltzmann machine apparently has stochastic
behavior even for deterministic inputs; this simplifies stochastic
analyses of its behavior.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 84 14:12:05-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Should The Turing test be modified with the times?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ames.427

I am not an AI expert, but I do know image processing and certain other
computationally intensive tasks which are 'easy' for humans.  I also know
the original definition of the Turing test.  I take issue
with statements that LISP machines are 'smarter' or 'better' than humans
for "subgoal" tasks.  What I am wondering is "should the Test be modified
to Our times?"

I recall that Turing specified that a communication link such as a tty or
phone could be used [1930s].  Should this be changed to a video link?
[This is am example only, there might be other aspects.]
Should the testee 'see' images?  Can machines recognize defocused images
of an animal and say "That is a cow" as humans could [to a limit].

Perhaps our definition of 'human' constitutes a moving target which
might make the Test more difficult.  The processing requirements of the
Turing Test in the 1930s would be less than those of today.  I can see it now:
over a crude link, we discover that we cannot tell the difference between
man and machine, then we hook up a video link and the difference 'becomes
apparent.'  Admittedly, one can argue that this is only a matter of adding
more processig power, but ignore that argument for a while.  Also, there might
be audio examples (perhaps not as powerful as the video example).

Comments?  This is for discussion purposes, not just me.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 84 10:15:25-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mit-athena!yba @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: mit-athe.213

<Dave Seaman, re: phd thesis and orals passing>

You are trivializing the point, not understanding it.  The test of whether
an engineer understands engineering is that he can design and build things
that work.  I have met Ph.D.s who can write "learned" papers but cannot
"do" anything concrete.

If you must have a test, I'll assert that someone who can apply knowledge
of a field to a new area, and can transmit that knowledge to another who
was previously ignorant of said knowledge such that that person can apply
the knowledge in the same way, has understanding (yes, it's recursive).

Measurement of AI performance is important.  It is notions like "test"
that cause people to confuse "production systems" with "expert systems".
You may recall that the original notion of "expert system" was "a system
that solves problems the way (human) experts do".  This has been reduced
to rules-based production systems in many people's minds, because they
think that experts solve problems by applying rules.  I am not satisfied
that this is true; the question several people have asked is "does a
rules based system demonstrate an expert's intuition?"  After all, it passes
the "test" of applying knowledge to a problem.  You can substitute
"judgement", "intelligence", "understanding", or "talent" for the word
intuition if you like.

The question becomes rather concrete when you decide whether to allow
a program to practice medicine.  We have all heard of examples of
accredited (human) doctors who have not been able to safely practice
medicine although they passed all the qualifying "tests".

In fact, there seems to be a great body of technique floating around in
many disciplines; there is also a great lack of those who know what the
limits of application of those techniques are (usually because they
know the underlying assumptions and constraints).  I greatly fear
people who have become so proficient at using hammers that every problem
begins to resemble a nail.

I will also assert that you read my previous letter, processed the information,
responded, and did all this without understanding what I meant.  Now if we
assume you disagree, what test would you design to see which of us was
correct?  (Warning: this is a hard problem).

>-
yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA            UUCP:   decvax!mit-athena!yba

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 84 9:46:04-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H.Pucc-I.ags @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: The Turing Test - machines vs. p - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: pucc-i.374

Reply to Mark Levine:

The original example was of a program which passes calculus tests.  You
objected that such a program has not really demonstrated understanding.
I agreed with your point before, and though I did not explicitly say so,
I thought it was implicit in the fact that I did not express disagreement.

I then suggested a different test:  suppose a program writes a Ph.D.
dissertation and passes its "orals."  I didn't mention any specific field,
but I was thinking of mathematics, where a Ph.D. dissertation involves the
development of new mathematics.  I then asked whether this program has
demonstrated understanding of its field.

>  If you must have a test, I'll assert that someone who can apply knowledge
>  of a field to a new area, and can transmit that knowledge to another who
>  was previously ignorant of said knowledge such that that person can apply
>  the knowledge in the same way, has understanding (yes, it's recursive).

I submit that the test I suggested meets the first half of your criterion.
You have added a new point here which I overlooked:  the ability to transmit
knowledge should also be considered part of the test.  I don't believe this
part should be weighted as heavily, however, since the best doers are not
necessarily the best teachers.  My objective was not so much to establish
the definitive test but to explore the question of whether a computer can
demonstrate understanding of a particular field (which is closely related
to the question of whether an adequate test can be devised).  I don't
understand why you think this is "trivializing the point."  You admitted
yourself that "measurement of AI performance is important."

>I will also assert that you read my previous letter, processed the
information,
>responded, and did all this without understanding what I meant.  Now if we
>assume you disagree, what test would you design to see which of us was
>correct?  (Warning: this is a hard problem).

I really don't understand why you are being so defensive.  I agreed with your
original point and I have already said so.  In my own previous posting I did
not state any opinions;  I merely posed a question.  My objective was
enlightenment.  I am sorry you interpreted this as an attack on your position.
>-

Dave Seaman                     My hovercraft is no longer full of
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags            eels (thanks to my confused cat).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
97
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 1984 14:49:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard F. Hartung <HARTUNG@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP interpreter
-BODY-
I have a LISP interpreter written in PASCAL by Chris Meyers and myself.
It has about 90 functions and is approximately MACLISP in dialect.
It does its own garbage collection and is written in standard PASCAL.
I currently have it running on an HP-1000 and a VAX under VMS. It has
also been used with a Honeywell 6000.  It can easily be cut down in size
to run on small systems and is also easily expandable.  If you would like a
copy write to me on the net at:  HARTUNG@USC-ISI.ARPA or write to:
Dr. Michael A. Moran
Lockheed Missles and Space Co.
Advanced Software Laboratory
O/92-10 B/255
3170 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 1984 12:11:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Macintosh Devaluation Manager <AXLER%upenn-1100.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Geneology & Naming Names
-BODY-
1.  The notion of studying the history of any subject via its intellectual
linkages is hardly a new one.  Advisor-advisee connections are important, but
an equally relevant approach is via citation-tracing -- looking at who has
quoted whom, and in what context.  The best tool for this type of work is
the Science Citation Index (from ISI).  Here, you can look up any given
article and find out who has referenced it during the past 12 months.  With
a bit of patience one can do a great deal of tracing by switching back and
forth between the index and various articles.

2.  David Throop's name problem was, as I recall, proposed in a more enjoyable
form by Lewis Carroll, in the scene where the White Knight offers to sing a
song to Alice.  We learn not only what the song is, but what its name is, and
what both the song and its name are called.

(I think Hofstadter carries this even further in Goedel, Escher, Bach, too...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 22 Jul 84 23:49:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CACM Articles
-BODY-
The July CACM has a few items that may be of interest to AIers.
The first is a letter to the editor from Rellim C. Drahcir pointing
out the relevance of Clark's COME-FROM statement to AI.  (COME-FROM
is an alternative to the GOTO.  Drahcir claims that COME-FROM simplifies
proof procedures: "It can be shown that an arbitrary starting point can
be utilized for any program, given a clear statement of its terminus.
Thus we have a computational analog of the long-sought and very
elusive 'solve problem' computer instruction.")

Another letter, from Vic Vyssotsky, explains the origins of the
famous (phony) BTL TM on the Chaostron learning system.  The
Chaostron memo was reprinted in the April CACM.

The journal also contains news notes on a Zurich workshop on AI
in economics and management and a Kansas City symposium on the role
of AI in command and control.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 26 Jul 84 09:38:10-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <LRC.Throop@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: infinite sexual partners
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  "Due to the increase in  the number of herpes  cases reported, the staff  at
the Student Health Center  suggests that people limit  themselves to a  finite
number of sexual partners."  -Daily Texan, September '83

  We decided at the time that two monuments were in order.  One is for the guy
that has had a denumerably infinite number of sexual partners.  But the other,
still bigger  monument would  be for  the guy  that has  had a  nondenumerably
infinite number of sexual partners.
  But we were curious.  Who are these guys? And where do they get off?
  The guy that has had a  denumerably infinite number of partners is  obvious.
He's the guy that slept  with everyone now living, who  has ever lived or  who
ever will live.  But the other guy?
  Our investigations show that this guy is into group sex.  He's the one  that
has slept with the power set of everyone now living, who has ever lived or who
ever will live.
  But that leaves  us with  an unanswered  question.  Consider  a woman  named
Polly who has slept with both these guys.  The first guy has slept with Polly,
while the other guy has, strictly, slept with the singlton set containing only
Polly.
  Which should be more satisfying?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 84 8:29:49-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!whuxle!pez @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: AI-speak ?? (from SAIL's BBOARD)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: whuxle.539

    Please note that not only has biology exiled teleology
    but they have replaced it with teleonomy, meaning
    purposefulness in name only, that is to help in our
    understanding rather than to explain.  See Konrad
    Lorenz Introduction to Ethology.

                Paul Zeldin.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 84 23:24:26-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!jso@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: more on atheism (+ cross-over to "mind" discussion)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: edison.314

> I know not what Buddha says, but as for Descartes, cogito ergo sum!

> Yes, Descartes believed the real world could be proved to exist, and
> his famous propostion is but his first step: he proved he existed.

> Please be kinder to Rene next time. He would not rest well if he
> thought his method could be generally perceived to state the opposite
> of what he meant.
>                                       David Rubin
>                       {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david


He *believed* that the real world could be proved to exist,
but he certainly didn't prove it logically.  It's been a while since
I read his "proof", but I seem to remember something like this:
He proves he exists, as a thinking entity, because the one thing
he can't deny is that he thinks.  He also experiences the external
world through his senses; this can either be real, he decides, or
the action of a "deceiving demon" (maya, illusion).  Fine so far.
How does he then "prove" that the outside world is real as opposed to
some "deception"?  Because God is Good.  He proves this quite logically,
he simply has some very questionable axioms...

This is similar to his thoughts on mind-body dualism.  He reached the
conclusion that the mind (soul?) and body were of separate substances,
and therefore could not interact.  But of course they did, and faced
with a nice, rational conclusion, and "facts" that disagreed with it,
he of course retained his conclusion, giving as explanation that
the mind and body couldn't interact, except in the pineal gland. [Huh?]
Kind of suggests that there's something wrong with mind-body dualism.
[Interesting how these netnews discussions cross-fertilize.
To net.ai'ers: Note that this says nothing against the existence
of the mind, but indicates that maybe there is no real duality,
(the universe is one...), or maybe no real body (hmm...)]

John Owens
...!{ {duke mcnc}!ncsu!uvacs houxm brl-bmd scgvaxd }!edison!jso

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jul 84 2:44:54-EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ukc!west44!gurr@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Should The Turing test be modified with the times?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: west44.276


I think that we're all missing something here - the Turing test was not
designed to test how like a human a machine could be, but to test whether
or not a machine could appear to think. Adding such facilities to the test
such as a video link merely makes the test into an imitation game. This
is not what the test was designed for.

Personally, I think the test is totally inconclusive and irrelevant. It gives
merely a subjective qualitative answer to a question which we cannot answer
satisfactorily about other people, or even about ourselves (from some of the
items on USENET, I'm sure some people don't think :-) !!!).

                                         mcvax
        "Hello shoes. I'm sorry               \
        but I'm going to have to                ukc!west44!gurr
        stand in you again!"                  /
                                        vax135

        Dave Gurr, Westfield College, Univ. of London, England.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 84 08:42:24 PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Ph.D. and 'understanding'
-BODY-
From H. E. Booker in a piece in "Science" magazine (maybe around summer 1973):

"At the conclusion of an ideal undergraduate education, a man's brain
works well.  He is convinced, not that he knows everything or even that
he knows everything in a particular field, but that he stands a
reasonable chance of understanding anything that someone else has
already understood.  Any subject that he can look up in a book he feels
that he too can probably understand.  On the other hand, if he cannot
look it up in a book, he is uncertain what to do next.  This is where
graduate education comes in.  Unlike the recipient of a Bachelor's Degree,
the recipient of a Doctor's Degree should have a reasonable confidence in
his ability to face what is novel and to continue doing so throughout life."

>-Rodney Hoffman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 1984  17:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: HENRY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LISP Debugger
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Steps Toward Better Debugging Tools For Lisp

Henry Lieberman

Thursday, 2 August 1984, 3 PM
7th floor playroom, 545 Technology Square

Although contemporary Lisp systems are renown for their excellent debugging
facilities, better debugging tools are still urgently needed.  A basic flaw
with the tools found in most implementations is that they are oriented
towards inspection of specific pieces of program or data, and they offer
little help in the process of localizing bugs within a large body of code.
Among conventional tools, a stepper is the best aid for visualizing the
operation of a procedure in such a way that a bug can be found without prior
knowledge of its location.  But steppers have not been popular, largely
because they are often too verbose and difficult to control.

We present a new stepper for Lisp, Zstep, which integrates a stepper with a
real-time full-screen text editor to display programs and data.  Zstep
presents evaluation of a Lisp expression by visually replacing the expression
by its value, conforming to an intuitive model of evaluation as a
substitution process.  The control structure of Zstep allows a user to "zoom
in" on a bug, examining the program first at a very coarse level of detail,
then at increasingly finer levels until the bug is located.  Zstep keeps a
history of evaluations, and can be run either forward or backward.  Zstep
borrows several techniques from the author's example-oriented programming
environment, Tinker, including a novel approach to handling error conditions.

A videotaped demonstration of Zstep will be shown.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Jul 84 18:38:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Hardware Design Verification
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                WORKSHOP ON HARDWARE DESIGN VERIFICATION

The IFIP Working Groups 10.2 and 10.5. Program have issued a call for papers
to be delivered at a workshop to be held on November 26 and 27, 1984, in
Technical University of Darmstadt, F.R. Germany. The workshop is on hardware
design verification and will cover all aspects of verification methods for
hardware systems, including temporal logic, language issues, and application
of AI techniques, as well as other areas.

The workshop committee is chaired by Hans Eveking, Institut fuer
Datentechnik, Technical University of Darmstadt, D-6100 Darmstadt, Fed. Rep.
Germany, (49) (6151) 162075, and includes Stephen Crocker, Aerospace
Corporation, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, California 90009.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
98
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jul 84 9:09:00-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!chandra @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Req: Info on Archaeological Expert - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.28900002

Help!!!
        I am a Graduate student trying to build an Archeologist's
assistant. This program is supposed to contain knowledge about human
habitation patterns, anthroplogical aspects etc.

        This note is a request for any info on the application of a
knowledge based programs to archeological surveying. I faintly remember
having seen a reference on this topic long ago.

        I am currently thinking of using some of the ideas used in
PROSPECTOR.

        Any Ideas, Comments, cues?

                                        Thanks,
                                        Navin Chandra

        (outside Illinois)      Phone 1-800-872-2375 (extention 413)
        (in Illinois)           Phone 1-800-252-7122 (extention 413)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 29 Jul 84 10:34:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Archaeology and PROSPECTOR
-BODY-
PROSPECTOR is a pretty fair hierarchical inference system, but
be advised that it provides no spatial reasoning mechanisms.  The
basic consultation mode asks questions about geologic conditions
at a single position or "site".  In map mode, it uses map data
to provide the same information independently for every point on
the map -- there is no spatial analysis or carry-over from one
point to the next.  You can add decisions based on criteria such
as being "near a fault", but the reasoning mechanisms have no
way of determining "nearness" automatically unless you provide
a "nearness map"; neither can they reason about one site being
nearer than its neighbors.  These deficiencies could be fixed, but
the existing PROSPECTOR is not a spatial reasoning system.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jul 84 11:44:30-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!zir @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: image processing
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: drutx.763


     I am trying to track down source code for image
     processing routines, such as digital filters, noise
     filters, dithering filters, shape recognition and
     visual database design. Any and all responses will be
     appreciated. I will post results in Net.sources if there
     is sufficient interest.

         Thanks for your time,
         Mark Zirinsky
         AT&TIS, Denver 31d48
         (303)  538- 1063

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jul 1984 13:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public Domain Theorem Provers
-BODY-

I'm trying to find out what's available in the public domain in the way
of theorem proving programs and subroutine packages.  If you have such
please send a note to:

                Paul Dietz
                dietz%usc-cse@usc-ecl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 84 22:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Frame-Based Languages
-BODY-

I am investigating some implementation techniques for frame-base
representation languages with inheritance.  Most such languages do
inheritance at "access time" and may or may not keep a local copy of the
inherited data.  I am trying to determine which languages and/or
implementations of languages have instead done the inheritance at
"definition time" by making some kind of explicit local copy or pointer to
the inherited information.  I am particularly interested in finding out if
any languages have done this in a general way that would allow changes in
the attributes of a generic object to be properly inherited by its current
descendants.

Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Jul 84 18:23:17-EDT
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Facom Alpha
-BODY-
     MIS Week for 8/1/84 (p. 18) reports the following:

     ''Fujitsu Ltd. last week announced shipment next March of Japan's
first Lisp machine, named Facom Alpha, claiming it is four times
faster than the Symbolics 3600 in executing artificial intelligence
programs such as expert systems.

     ''The Alpha, carrying a price tag of $90,930, was said to be a
back-end processor connectable with a Fujitsu mainframe or the
company's S-3000 super minicomputer. It runs 'Utilisp,' a local
version of Lisp language developed by Tokyo University.''

     What catches one's eye is the claim that the Facom Alpha is four
times faster than the Symbolics 3600.

     Reading the popular computer press these days could easily give
one the impression that Japan is about to trounce the U.S. in the
development of both supercomputers and AI systems. Does anyone on
AIList know whether this claim about the Facom Alpha's speed has any
grounding in reality?

>- Wayne McGuire --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Jul 84 17:34:23-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Yet Another Lisp Dialect?
-BODY-
I recently received a rather indirect inquiry concerning a Lisp dialect called
"Georgia Tech Lisp".  Could anyone out there provide or direct me to some
information about this variant and its idiosyncrasies?

Dallas Webster (CMP.BARC@UTexas-20)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jul 84 10:09:44-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!pesnta!lpi3230!steve @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz Lisp running on Perkin Elmer 3230 Unix
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: lpi3230.142


Franz Lisp (Opus 38.79) is now running on a Perkin Elmer 3230 under
their version 2.4 Unix (a V7 version).  Soon after PE delivers their
promised System 5.2, it will be ported to that system.  For the many
of you who have never heard of Perkin Elmer, They used to be called
Interdata and an Interdata machine was the first machine to which
Unix was ported in the mid seventies.  The 3230 has about 90% of the
speed of a VAX-780 for the price of a 750.

For the few of you who actually HAVE a PE machine and want to use Franz
Lisp, send me mail.  We haven't yet decided under what terms to make it
available.  The port was too time consuming and expensive to just give
it away, but we aren't in business and do not have the manpower to really
market and support it.  Maybe PE will distribute it on a third party
basis at a reasonable cost.

                                        Steve Burbeck
                                        Linus Pauling Institute
                                        440 Page Mill Road
                                        Palo Alto, CA 94306  (415)327-4064
                                        hplabs!{analog,pesnta}!lpi3230!steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jul 1984 2132-CDT
-FROM-
From: Usadacs at STL-HOST1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP in Aztec C, Public Domain
-BODY-
  Ref: AI Digest, V2 #90 "LISP in Aztec C", is avaliable from
SIMTEL20 via FTP. MICRO:<SIGM.VOL118>

A.C. McIntosh, USADACS@STL-HOST1.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Jul 84 15:14:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nonmonotonic Reasoning Using Dempster's Rule
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:        Friday, August 3, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Matt Ginsberg
             Heuristic Programming Project
             Stanford University

TOPIC:       Non-monotonic Reasoning Using Dempster's Rule

Rich's suggestion that the arcs of  semantic nets be labeled so as  to
reflect confidence in the properties they represent is investigated in
greater detail.   If these  confidences are  thought of  as ranges  of
acceptable probabilities,  existing statistical  methods can  be  used
effectively to combine them.  The framework developed also seems to be
a natural one in which to describe higher levels of deduction, such as
"reasoning about reasoning".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
99
-DATE-
Date: 1 Aug 84 09:54 PDT
-FROM-
From: stefik.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Questions:  AAAI panel on SC
-BODY-
DARPA's Strategic Computing initiative is going to be a major source of
funding for AI research (as well as other Computer Science research) in
the next several years.   The project has been hailed as "just in time"
by people concerned with the levels and directions of funding for
research in Computer Science.  It has also attracted the criticism of
those who are worried about the effect of military goals on funding, or
about dangers of trying to guide research too much.

        Next Friday morning at  the AAAI  conference in Austin, there will be a
panel session during which several members of the DARPA staff will
present goals, ideas, and scales of this program.   The presentation
will be followed by a question and answer period with me as moderator.
Some of the questions will come "live" from the audience.

        Because the SC project will effect our research community in many ways,
I would like to make sure that the questions address a broad enough
range of issues.  To this end I am now soliciting questions from the
community.  I will select a sampling of "sent-in" questions to try to
provide a balance across issues of concern to the community -- anything
from funding levels, to research objectives, to 5th generation
comparisons, to the pace of the research, to expectations by the
military, to statements that have appeared in the press, etc.

        Please send questions to me -- Stefik@Xerox.Arpa.  Keep them short.  I
don't want to wade through long paragraphs in search of a coherent
question.  Think of questions that could fit easily on a 35 mm slide --
say 25 words or so.  I expect to choose from these sent-in questions for
about half of the Q/A period.

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jul 84 9:50:07-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!cib @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query - LISP for IBM 4341?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: lanl-a.11272

I would be very grateful for information on LISP dialects
for the IBM 4341, and sources thereof.

Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 Aug 84 10:43:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Design & Test
-BODY-
The July issue of IEEE Computer Graphics mentions that IEEE Design & Test
of Computers is seeking submissions for a special August 1985 issue on
artificial intelligence techniques in design and test.  They particularly
solicit material on AI in design automation, CAD, and CAT, and on
expert systems, automatic design systems, test generation and system
diagnosis, natural-language CAD interfaces, and special-purpose hardware
to support AI systems.

Submit four copies by December 1 to Guest Editor Donald E. Thomas,
ECE Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA  15213,
(412) 578-3545.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Jul 84 13:49:29-CDT
-FROM-
From: Bob Boyer <CL.BOYER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Journal/Call for Papers
-BODY-
The Journal of Symbolic Computation (published by Academic Press, London) will
publish original articles on all aspects of the algorithmic treatment of
symbolic objects (terms, formulae, programs, algebraic and geometrical
objects).  The emphasis will be on the mathematical foundation, correctness and
complexity of new sequential and parallel algorithms for symbolic computation.
However, the description of working software systems for symbolic computation
and of general new design principles for symbolic software systems and
applications of such systems for advanced problem solving are also within the
scope of the journal.

Manuscripts should be sent in triplicate to:

   B. Buchberger, Editor
   Journal of Symbolic Computation
   Johannes-Kepler-Universitat
   A4040 Linz, Austria

Associate Editors:  W. Bibel, J. Cannon, B. F. Caviness, J.  H. Davenport, K.
Fuchi, G. Huet, R. Loos, Z. Manna, J.Nievergelt, D. Yun.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 1 Aug 84 09:50:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Successful Dissertations and Theses by David Madsen
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Successful Dissertations and Theses; a guide to graduate student research
from proposal to completion by David Madsen  LB2369.M32 1983 c.3, is
currently on the New Books Shelf in the Math/CS Library.  HL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 84 9:54:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Should The Turing test be modified w - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ea.500002


>What I am wondering is "should the Test be modified
>to Our times?"

I don't think so; at least not with the video link you mentioned.  A key
element in the Turing Imitation game was that it hid the handicaps suffered
by the computer, leaving only the (possible) intelligence exposed. If you
could modify it without subtracting that property, then I'd say yes. It
just isn't clear that that can be done.

>I can see it now,
>over a crude link, we discover that we cannot tell the difference between
>man and machine, then we hook up a video link, and the difference 'becomes
>apparent.'

If that were the case, it would seem that the "apparent difference" would
be identical to the difference you get between a blind man and a sighted
man.  Are we therefore to conclude that the blind are only artificially
intelligent?

>--eugene miya
>  NASA Ames Research Center

        <mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jul 84 10:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: Woody.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing tests
-BODY-
There's this accounting computer at the Santa Fe, (where my dad works),
and before it was installed, accounting was something which needed a very
intelligent person to do.  It required a high level of intelligence to keep
the books balanced, the type of intelligence a machine could never have.
The Santa Fe uses a computer to keep all their books now.
But note that the discussion with accounting is now not "The computer is
intelligent--look, it can keep the accounting books for an entire company",
but "Gee, anyone can keep the accounting books; even a computer."

The Turing test is a poor test, granted; but can there be a more
generalized test to tell if a computer is truly intelligent?  With the
Turing test, we can give the computer and the human at the other end a
test in math, understanding, and creativity; we could even talk about
the presidential elections; we're not restricted to the things that
have been discussed earlier.

As for hooking up a camera to the computer and using visual
identification as a test for intelligence: I know of a few blind
people who would be hard-pressed to past that test.  Sure, it takes a
lot to be able to see, but then most mice can see, and some humans
cannot; does that make the mice smarter than the humans?

  - Bill Woody
    1-60 Caltech
    Pasadena, CA 91126

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 84 12:06:17-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: can computers understand?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.400


As long as the problem of "understanding" has come up again, here's
a provoking quotation:

        In this argument [deleted] commits two blunders.  He interprets
        understanding as the limit of an evolutionary process of
        baconian observation, and he treats understanding, like
        intelligence, as a fixed property independent of its
        possessor.

        To understand is to assimilate a process foreign to oneself.  A
        machine does not "understand" how to make screw eyes, because
        that is part of its function. ... When we examine [deleted]'s
        argument closely, it reduces to two familiar ideas:  the
        logical idea that all understanding rests on knowledge of the
        principles of physics, and the psychological idea that
        understanding is necessary for the sake of controlling.
        ... The ideal of [deleted]'s theory would be a computer that
        "understands" natural language well enough to be able to make
        people do its bidding.
                                        --Maia I. Aimless (1979)

>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jul 84 10:10:42-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!philabs!linus!vaxine!wjh12!harvard
     !seismo!hao!ames-lm!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Test
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ames-lm.383

With regard to expert systems, I thought of an interesting
[take this with a grain of salt] set of tests to evolve or refine
the development of such systems.  These tests would test the expertise
of such systems.  Take a classic system like MYCIN.
When the developers feel the system is ready for a shake down,
[remember, this is not entirely serious, but not for the weak of heart]
infect the developers of the system with one of the diseases in the
knowledgebase, and let them diagnose their own ailment.
There might be interesting evolutionary consequences in software development.

Similarly, other people developing other systems would put their
faith and lives on the line for the software systems they develop.
Are these systems, truly 'expert?'

Admittedly, not a rigorous test, but neither was Turing's.

The above are opinions of the author and not the funding Agency.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,hao,dual}!ames-lm!aurora!eugene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 1 Aug 84 18:45:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Speech Recognition Using Lexical Information
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

  LEXICAL ACCESS USING PARTIAL INFORMATION

By Daniel P. Huttenlocher, Massachusetts Institute of
   Technology, Friday, August 3, 2 p.m. in the Trailers'
   Conference Room next to Ventura Hall.


ABSTRACT:  Current approaches to speech recognition rely on classical
pattern matching techniques which utilize little or no language knowledge.
We have recently proposed a model of word recognition which uses
speech-specific knowledge to access words on the basis of partial
information.   These partial descriptions serve to partition a large lexicon
into small equivalence classes  using sequential phonetic and prosodic
constraints.  The representation is attractive for speech recognition system
because it allows all but a small number of word candidates to be excluded
using only a crude description of the acoustic signal.  For example, if the
word ``splint'' is represented according to the broad phonetic string
[fricative][stop][liquid][vowel][nasal][stop], there are only two matching
words in the 20,000 word Webster's Pocket Dictionary, ``splint'' and
``sprint.''

Thus, a partial representation can both greatly reduce the space of possible
word candidates, and be relatively insensitive to variability in the speech
signal across utterance situations. This talk will discuss a set of studies
examining the power of such partial lexical representations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
100
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 84 01:00:23 pdt
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp
-BODY-
Is there a commercially available implementation (by which I mean either
sold by a for-profit company or available from educational and research
institutions for use by for-profit companies) of Common Lisp for either
4.2 bsd Unix on a VAX, or for Version 7 Unix on a 68000?  If anyone out
there has any leads, I would most appreciate hearing of them.

                                                    Harry Weeks
                                                    (g.weeks@Berkeley)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Aug 1984 13:56:42-EDT
-FROM-
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Total simulation and Information Mechanics
-BODY-
Someone asked if I could abstract (what I recall as) the I.M. argument that
total simulation requires at least the mass of the thing to be simulated.
Rather than chance noise in the channel, I think it would be better to inquire
of Dr. Frederick W. Kantor, who may be telexed at 4998124, answer-back
KANTOR FW, or MCI mail #2050656.
Dr. Kantor is the man who laid the foundation for the field of Information
Mechanics, which name is taken from his book. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
publishers, asked for permission to publish his research notes, which are
available as a book (copies from 2nd printing) which is the defining monograph
world-wide for the field. Dr. Kantor set down the name for the field
"Information Mechanics" as the last two words of the monograph.

If the above seems other than what was requested, my apologies, but I think
that Fred is the best person to deal with the matter.

   David   sde@mitre-bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Jul 84 14:44:35-CDT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak Jr. <CS.NOVAK@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: U. Texas Demos at AAAI
-BODY-
The University of Texas at Austin will hold an open house and series of
demonstrations during AAAI-84.  The demonstrations will be from 7-9 PM
on Tuesday, August 7.  The demonstrations are not listed in the conference
schedule, but a brochure describing them and showing where they are located
will be provided in the registration packet.  Bus service will be provided.
The demonstrations will include:

J. K. Aggarwal                 Laboratory for Image and Signal Analysis
R. S. Boyer, J S. Moore        The Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover
Shang-Ching Chou               Geometry Provers Based on Wu's Algorithm
Larry Hines                    Inequality Theorem Prover
W. Lehmann, O. Gajek,          METAL German-to-English Machine Translation
  J. Slocum, J. White, B. Root
Robert Levinson                A Self-Organizing Retrieval System for Graphs
Gordon Novak                   GLISP Language and GEV Data Inspector
Gordon Novak                   ISAAC Physics Problem Solver
Elaine Rich, William Murray    Automatic Debugging System for LISP
Robert F. Simmons, Chin Chee   Device Simulation
Robert F. Simmons              An English to Horn Clause Translation System

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 84 12:54:24-EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Graeme Hirst <gh%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian Artificial Intelligence Newsletter
-BODY-
.    CANADIAN  A R T I F I C I A L   I N T E L L I G E N C E   NEWSLETTER    .

                   Publication begins in September 1984
                   ====================================

A subscription to the /Canadian Artificial Intelligence Newsletter/ is included
in membership in CSCSI/SCEIO, the Canadian artificial intelligence society.
All members will soon be receiving the first issue.

The /Newsletter/ will include news reports from industry and universities,
opinions, reviews, abstracts of recent research, and announcements of general
interest in A.I.  To join the society and receive the /Canadian A.I.
Newsletter/ quarterly, just send a note to CIPS (which administers membership
for the society), with the appropriate fee (see below).  Join now, to be sure
of receiving the first issue.  ** Non-Canadian members are welcomed. **

       CIPS
       243 College Street, 5th floor
       Toronto, CANADA  M5T 2Y1

Membership: $10 regular, $5 students (Canadian funds); there is a discount of
$2 for CIPS members. Payment may be made in U.S. dollars at the current rate
of exchange (C$1.00 = US$0.76).

Articles and other material for the newsletter may be submitted to the editor:
Graeme Hirst, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto
Canada M5S 1A4.  Phone: 416-978-8747.    UUCP: ...!utcsrgv!cscsi
CSNET: cscsi@toronto    ARPANET: cscsi.toronto@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Aug 84 10:29:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robotics
-BODY-
The following challenge appears in the Forum column of the August issue
of IEEE Spectrum:

                         The Canine Computer

Having seen the June issue, I would like to raise a question about the
ability of roboticists to fuse technology with canine capabilities,
let alone human ones.  I hereby challenge the world's robot experts to
duplicate electronically the performance of my little dog, who is able
to catch morsels of raisin buns that I toss to him occasionally as he
sits patiently and expectantly beside the table.

His performance is spectacular.  He is able to calculate the parabolic
trajectory of the morsel, regardless of its height or direction, and
catch it in his mouth, often in the split second before it has reached
its apogee.  He can do this at all levels---from a crouch to catch low-
flying morsels, to a jump to catch high ones.  His accuracy is
astounding, showing that his internal computer can calculate a parabolic
course and give complete and elaborate instructions to his nervous
system, including the opening and closing of his mouth at the right
microsecond.  About 5 percent of the time the morsel hits the tip of
his nose and bounces off in a random direction.  This event is followed
by a lightening retrieval from the floor where it lands.  (On one
occasion he was able to catch a morsel on a second try after it had
bounced off his nose.)

My dog weighs 37 pounds.  Can anyone build a robot that can equal this
dog's operation while on a smooth linoleum tile floor and in an
illumination of about 15 footcandles?  Can it be done without the
37-pound restriction?

I offer no prize for this accomplishment.  Perhaps some wealthy
philanthropic roboticist would like to step forward.  Until electronic
technology can equal the computer in the brain of a little dog its
very honor is at stake.

                                        William B. Elmer
                                        Thornton, N.H.


The IEEE Spectrum editors then mention that John Billingsly is
organizing a contest for Ping-Pong playing robots, to be held at the
Computer Fair in London in 1985.  Dr. Billingsly's address is:
Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Portsmouth Polytechnic,
Anglesea Road, Portsmouth, England.  The International Personal
Robot Congress and Exposition will hold the U.S. trials for a 1986
Ping-Pong contest during the March 1985 meeting: contact IPRC, 777
Locust St., Denver, Colorado 80220.


This same issue contains a favorable book review of Ayres and Miller's
Robotics: Applications and Social Implications.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Aug 84 11:06:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Batteries
-BODY-
I have recently run across the July 9 issue of Business Week, which
featured Artificial Intelligence as its cover story (pp. 54-62).
Much of the article discussed expert systems and the 40 or so companies
now trying to market them.


The August 1984 issue of IEEE Spectrum contains an excellent article by
Lotfi Zadeh about fuzzy logic and its applications to process control,
robot navigation, database access, expert systems, and other topics.
He mentions that fuzzy mathematics now includes the theory of fuzzy
topological spaces, fuzzy measures, fuzzy groups, fuzzy random variables,
fuzzy arithmetic, fuzzy analysis, fuzzy stability theory, fuzzy systems,
and fuzzy graphs.  Dr. Zadeh presents a good case for fuzzy linguistics
and fuzzy reasoning (as in MYCIN and PROSPECTOR) as essential elements
of expert systems and learning systems.


For more fuzzy talk, the issue reprints an 1884 Life magazine article about
the cat battery.  An excerpt:

    Cats, according to Tyndall, are either electro-positive or
    electro-negative.  When in the neutral state (see Plate I) both
    fluids are combined, and the most sensitive galvanometer can detect no
    current.  Thus insulated, neither A nor B exhibits either attraction
    or repulsion for surrounding objects, excepting for a hot stove or a
    piece of fish.  But this affinity, according to the recent
    investigations of Siemens and Halske, is the result of chemical and
    not electrical attraction.

    Now, however, let us submit electro-positive cat A and
    electro-negative cat B to exciting influences (see Plate II).
    Instantly we observe the development of electrical energy -- A being
    strongly positive that he is the better cat, while B is as violently
    negative.  This, as has been proved by the experiments of Prescott,
    Edison, and others, is due to induction; each cat trying to induce the
    other to believe that he isn't afraid.

    This electrical state of activity is accompanied by all the well-known
    electro-static phenomena.  The hairs of each cat stand on end, and
    surrounding objects -- such as bootjacks, soap, cough-medicine
    bottles, and crockery -- may be attracted with great velocity from
    distances of 100 to 250 feet.

    Cats are absolute non-conductors.  This fact was discovered in 1876 by
    Gerritt Smith, while vainly endeavoring to conduct a cat out of the
    coal cellar.  It might be urged, therefore, that they had high
    internal resistance.  This is not true.  The external resistance
    (again glance at Plate II) is very high, but the internal resistance
    is never over one Ohm ("'ome" or "home," to give German, English, and
    American terms), while in many cases it is less, as is witnessed by
    the fact that there are 1,317,009 ohmless cats in this city alone.
    But while the internal resistance is surprisingly low, the intensity
    is so high that by inductive influence alone two cat elements can
    maintain a whole neighborhood in a state of electrical excitement for
    hours.    [...]


Speaking of fun with words, this issue of Spectrum also quotes a poll showing
that "chemists, if not actually better than all other human beings, are,
to say the least, a credit to their race and a damned fine group of
upstanding and patriotic Americans, all of whom embody the finest attributes
that can be attributed to those to whom those attributes can be attributed."
[From Ralph Steinhardt Jr. and David Weinman, "The Courteous Retort,"
Chemtech, Vol. 14, No. 6, June 1984.]

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 1984 10:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <Geoff @ SRI-CSL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: $12,000 Software?
-BODY-

San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, July 29, 1984

John Dvorak
PERISCOPE

$12,000 software?

Would you pay $600 apiece for gold-plated lug nuts to be used on the
beat-up rims of a '52 Ford pickup truck?  What would you think of the
marketing man who suggested such a products?  I'd think he was crazy.

There's a company down in Palo Alto that has a software package it
would like someone to buy.  (A little background music, please) The
company is called Teknowledge Inc. and was started by Stanford
professors.

The company makes software for the IBM PC.  You can buy an IBM PC for
around $2,000.  The software this company sells costs $12,000.  It
accomplishes one thing: It allows you to test an idea to see whether
an expert system can be built around the idea.  An expert system is a
computer system that solves complex problems using so-called
artificial intelligence.

An example of an expert system is a program called Mycin.  It was
developed in the 1970s to diagnose meningitis and other infections.  A
user tells the computer certain requested facts and the computer then
leads the user to something close to a diagnosis.

Now most people would have made a package like this and had it run on
an IBM mainframe computer or at least a VAX minicomputer.  But to put
a $12,000 piece of software on a personal computer is cavalier, to say
the least.  It's as if to say, "Yeah, we've got this package and we
know what it's worth, and we're going to let the well-heeled
government-financed research companies use it.  Look, we can even make
it run on a personal computer--look, but don't touch.

This is the old pre-micro attitude toward software.  It was proven to
be myopic when companies like MicroPro, Ashton-Tate and MicroSoft
started doing business in excess of $50 million a year by selling for
$500 software that would have cost $12,000 if marketed by Teknowledge.
MicroPro decided that everyone needed the power of a dedicated word
processor, Ashton-Tate felt that more than just a few dozen researchers
would like the power of a relational database, and MicroSoft felt that
a computer language would be popular if available for $350 instead of
$35,000.

OK, so forget about the price.  What can the Teknowledge package do?
The system is called M.1 (pronounced M dot 1 by my friends).
According to its own press release, you spend the $12,000 "for rapid
prototyping of potential full-scale operational systems.  In addition
to establishing technical feasibility, these example systems serve as
useful demonstrations."  That means this investment just gets you
started--started spending, that is.

Luckily, the system can also create a stand-alone expert system with
up to 200 knowledge base entries.  I'm not impressed.  The company
goes on to exemplify this stand-alone value with a "Wine Adviser"
expert system with 100 knowledge base entries.  Here's the actual
output from this "expert" system.  This is called by the company "the
deliberation process of a typical California wine expert." The computer
asks the question and the user responds.

Do you generally prefer red or white wines?    Red.

Do you generally prefer light, medium or full-bodies wines?    Full.

Is the main component of the meal meat, fish or poultry?    Poultry

Does the meal have turkey in it?    No.

Is the sauces for the meal spicy, sweet, cream or tomato?    Tomato.

Is the flavor of the meal delicate, average or strong?    Average.

The following wines will mostly be dry, medium-bodies, and red.  They
are recommended for your meal:  Zinfandel (86%); Cabernet Sauvignon
(86%); Burgundy (34%); Valpolicella (34%).


At this point every wine connoisseur is turning over in his grave.  So
the user goes out and buys a Zinfandel from Amador County laced with
residual sugar and 15 percent alcohol, drinks it with his chicken,
gags and decides that this "expert" system is useless.

The fact is that even the most mundane expert systems such as this are
infinitely complex and impossible to develop with the limitations
imposed by this $12,000 diskette.


[To be fair, I doubt that Technowledge intended this expert system
to be taken seriously as a "wine advisor" if they have given it no
knowledge of individual wines.  It is more likely a demonstration
of the type of program and level of sophistication that could be
handled with their system.  If someone with inside knowledge wishes
to defend the system, I will provide a reasonable amount of AIList
"space" for the reply.

Another point:  It appears to me (from typos and other signs) that
this message was typed in and not lifted from a newswire.  I am willing
to distribute such messages (on the sender's responsibility), but I have
to be a little more conservative about passing along newswire copy.
Certain universities get the newswires gratis as a stimulus to research
in automated information retrieval.  This service will be discontinued
if it appears that our net is publishing the material in competition with
other news providers.  Warning suspensions have already occurred.  I
therefore ask readers to be selective about sending in text from
newspaper items, preferably sending only summaries or extracts (with
proper credit given).

On the other hand, I greatly appreciate it when readers send in
informative pieces like this one.  Thanks, Geoff!  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
101
-DATE-
Date: 30 July 1984 16:36-EDT
-FROM-
From: Harten.Paradigm at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DOE MACSYMA AVAILABLE FOR NOMINAL FEE
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the Arpanet-BBoards distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           DOE MACSYMA AVAILABLE FOR NOMINAL FEE

This message should receive the widest possible re-transmission.
Paradigm Associates, Inc.  is pleased to announce that the DOE
MACSYMA program is available from NESC.  DOE MACSYMA runs on the
DEC VAX-series of computers under the VMS operating system, and
corresponds quite closely with the 1982 version of MIT-MC MACSYMA
(the translator/compiler interface work, but advanced plotting
features need work.) Those not already a member of NESC should
contact:

National Energy Software Center
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
Attention: Jan Mockler

for information about joining, and should inquire about accession
number 9847.  We are advised that there are two VAX-VMS BACKUP
format tapes with 40 MB of code: source to DOE MACSYMA and NIL,
object modules, executable images, control and auxiliary
information.  This work is supported by DOE Contract W-7405-ENG-48.

Users wishing to contribute programs and codes to the New MACSYMA
Users Consortium, for re-distribution through NESC, may send their
material to Leo Harten, Paradigm Associates, Inc., 29 Putnam
Avenue, Suite 6, Cambridge, MA 02139, or to
Harten@Mit-Multics (Multics mail is no longer case-sensitive).
[This is a volunteer effort for the improvement of the SHARE
libraries in DOE MACSYMA.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jul 84 13:54:05-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!linus!utzoo!dciem!mmt@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Should The Turing test be modified
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.1012

The Turing test played over a teletype can give way to one played
over a graphics terminal without laying any less bare the intelligence
causing the display.  But there is an interesting lead article in
a recent issue of Science (July something) on impacts of computers,
which has something possibly relevant to say.  In the experience of
IBM, the networking facilities have been used almost never by scientists
to do joint work from one site to another, sometimes by engineers
on major projects, and frequently by managers.  Could it be that the
subtle concepts required by scientists do not transmit well over
current technology, but that the simpler ideas used repetitively by
managers are satisfactorily handled?
  If there is some kind of a technology limitation on the power of
thought conveniently communicated, then the Turing Game should be
updated whenever new technology permits.  The only thing that should
be unfair is to demand a sight of the testee, or to demand that
he/she/it move voluntarily or perform actions not expressible on
a current technology computer terminal.
>-

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Aug 84 11:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: chess delphi game
-BODY-
Since the chess delphi game moves are not being published on
ailist any more, I would like to point out that one list
does receive the moves. It is chess@sri-unix. If you would
like to be added, send a note to chess-request@sri-unix.
We're on move 5 of the delphi game now.

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 84 14:05:11-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Some thoughts on problem solving
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.3076


                SYMBOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF PROBLEMS

Here is a problem which was presented to me in net.puzzle.

First I will solve the problem and then describe a proposed method of
solving it artificially.


Newsgroups: net.puzzle
Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix
      !teklds!azure!harriett
Subject: WHO OWNS THE ZEBRA
Posted: Mon Jul 30 13:14:07 1984


        The following is a brainteaser I got a long time ago. Many have tried
and failed, many have guessed. It is possible to solve alone or in a group.
If you really want to give yourself a brain hernia, try to solve it in you
head without writing anything down (It can be done, that is the way I solved
it the first time I tried it, it took about 15 to 20 hours over a three day
period!!!!!!)    [...]


        WHO OWNS THE ZEBRA .................

ON A CITY STREET, STRANGER ACCOSTS STRANGER WITH A XEROXED SHEET OF PAPER
AND THE QUESTION: "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?". IN UNIVERSITY DORMITORIES THE
PROBLEM IS TACKED TO DOORS, MUCH AFTER THE MANNOR OF MARTIN LUTHER.
IN SUBURBAN HOUSEHOLDS THE RING OF THE TELEPHONE IS LIKLEY TO HEARLD
A VOICE THAT ASKS 'IS IT THE NORWEGIAN?'

THE CAUSE OF THE EXCITEMENT IS THE BRAINTEASER BELOW. IT'S HARD, BUT
CAN BE SOLVED BY USING DEDUCTION, ANAYLSIS, AND A LOT OF PERSISTENCE.

1.      THERE ARE FIVE HOUSES, EACH OF A DIFFERENT COLOR AND INHABITED BY
        MEN OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES, WITH DIFFERENT PETS, DRINKS, AND
        CIGARETTES.

2.      THE ENGLISHMAN LIVES IN THE RED HOUSE

3.      THE SPANIARD OWNS THE DOG.

4.      COFFEE IS DRUNK IN THE GREEN HOUSE

5.      THE UKRAINIAN DRINKS TEA.

6.      THE GREEN HOUSE IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT (YOUR RIGHT) OF THE
        IVORY HOUSE.

7.      THE OLD GOLD SMOKER OWNS SNAILS.

8.      KOOLS ARE BEING SMOKED IN THE YELLOW HOUSE.

9.      MILK IS DRUNK IN THE MIDDLE HOUSE.

10.     THE NORWEGIAN LIVES IN THE FIRST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.

11.     THE CHESTERFIELD SMOKER LIVES NEXT TO THE FOX OWNER.

12.     KOOLS ARE SMOKED IN THE HOUSE NEXT TO THE HOUSE
        WHERE THE HORSE IS KEPT.

13.     THE LUCKY STRIKE SMOKER DRINKS ORANGE JUICE.

14.     THE JAPANESE SMOKES PARLAIMENTS.

15.     THE NORWEGIAN LIVES NEXT TO THE BLUE HOUSE.


NOW ...........

WHO DRINKS WATER?

AND ...........

WHO OWNS THE ZEBRA?

GOOD LUCK!

                ................ put that in your .bin and smoke it!!!!!

                        Harriette L. Lilly
                        Tektronix MDP Marketing
                        Technical Support
                        Beaverton ORG.
                        tekmdp!harriett


[I first saw this problem in Reader's Digest about 1964 -- does anyone
know the original source?  My first LISP program was an attempt to solve
this puzzle by simple constraint propagation (or elimination of terms
in the space of all conceivable solutions).  The program had some
trouble with the "next to" or "right of" relations, since these had
to be expressed as a set of more primitive constraints that I entered
by hand.  The program ultimately failed when it reached a choice point
requiring a binary choice and possible backtracking; I had not built
such sophistication into the control structure.  -- KIL]


*************************  SPOILER WARNING  ******************************

The answer to the five house problem is not so straight forward.

The first step to take was to solve the orientation of the houses.

The second house to the left was blue, being next to the norwegian on the
far left. The norwegian could not be red, that belonging to the englishman.
The norwegian could not be ivory, because of it's relative orientation to
green, nor could it be green leaving the second house from the left ivory.
The norwegian owned the yellow house. The middle house could not be green,
for the middle house drank milk, and not coffee, nor could it be ivory,
making the second house green, so it was red. The green and ivory fell into
place at this point.

YELLOW          BLUE            RED             GREEN           IVORY
Norwegian                       English
                Horse
                                Milk            Coffee
Kools

The next step was to resolve who had what cigarettes.

The norwegian had the kools, which were in the yellow house, and the japanese
had the parliaments. Neither the ukrainian nor the englishman could have the
lucky strikes because they had a different drink than orange juice. This
meant that the old golds and the chesterfields were mutually inclusive to
the ukrainian and the englishman leaving the spaniard having the lucky
strikes.

The next step was to solve who had what drinks.

The ukrainian had the tea, the englishman had the milk, and the spaniard
had the orange juice. This meant that the water and coffee were mutually
inclusive to the norwegian and the japanese. Since the norwegian's house
was yellow, he could not have the coffee. Therefore, the japanese had the
coffee and the NORWEGIAN HAD THE WATER.

The next step was to solve who lived where.

The norwegian lived in the yellow house, the englishman lived in the red
house, and because the japanese drank coffee, the japanese lived in the
green house. This meant that the blue and the ivory houses were mutually
inclusive to the ukranian and the spaniard. Since the blue house had a
horse, and the spaniard had a dog, this meant that the ukrainian owned
the blue house and the spaniard owned the ivory house.

The next step was to solve who had what cigarettes previously incomplete.

The old gold and the chesterfields belonged mutually inclusively to the
ukrainian and the englishman. Since the ukrainian lived in the blue and
had the horse, and the man with the snails also had the old golds, the
ukrainian had the chesterfields and the englishman had the old golds.

The next step was to solve who had what animals.

The ukrainian had the horse, the englishman had the snails, and the
spaniard had the dog. This meant that the fox and zebra belonged mutually
inclusively to the norwegian and japanese. Since the japanese did not live
next to the ukrainian, who had the chesterfields, he could not have the
fox. Therefore, the norwegian had the fox and the JAPANESE OWNED THE ZEBRA.

YELLOW          BLUE            RED             GREEN           IVORY
Norwegian       Ukrainian       English         Japanese        Spaniard
Fox             Horse           Snails          Zebra           Dog
Water           Tea             Milk            Coffee          Juice
Kools           Chesterfields   Old Golds       Parliaments     Lucky Strikes


This one definitely had a few wrinkles.

                John Williams           Digital Equipment Corperation





It appears to me as though the key to solving this problem was to
discover mutually inclusive sets of symbols, in this case, pairs.

Given:

a = x or y
b = x or y
a <> b <> c
c = x or y or z

Then:

c = z


This could be utilized by first defining sets ( or lists, for you lisp fans ),
of the various categories, owners, pets, drinks, etc., and a basic initial
condition. That is, each symbol has with it a list of possible connections.
The englishman is exclusively connected to the color red, whereas the japanese
is connected to all colors. The norwegian is connected to the left most house,
etc. The process is accomplished by rotating the context, that is, looking
for inclusive sets in convoluting categories, eliminating possible connections
until a stable state is achieved.

When I solved the problem, or should I say, when I wrote down the answer,
I naturally chose the most direct context switches for analysis. I do
not believe that this is nessesary. It would only mean that in an artificial
analysis, there would be contexts where analysis would not perform any
reductions. The choice of context was on my part, intuitive, and for a
finite problem, would only mean an increase in the amount of time required
to solve the problem, or prove it couldn't be solved.

I think a program like this would be an interesting study of problem
reduction. The formation of symbols in this program would be an even
more interesting problem.

                        < puzzled? >

(DEC E-NET)     KIRK::WILLIAMS
(UUCP)          {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
(ARPA)          williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
                williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Aug 84 13:04:46 EDT
-FROM-
From: LOUNGO@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar & Binding - Learning Circuit Design
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 R U T G E R S   U N I V E R S I T Y
                    Department of Computer Science
                              COLLOQUIUM


Speaker:        Masanobu Watanabe

Title:          LEARNING IMPLEMENTATION RULES IN CIRCUIT DESIGN
                BY HARMONIZING BEHAVIORS WITH SPECIFICATIONS

Date:           Friday, August 3, 1984



The problem of expertise acquisition by monitoring the user's response to
advice offered by the system is considered here as an implementation
rule acquisition problem in a domain of VLSI circuit design.  The task
is characterized as learning a Macro-operator in a problem space,
where data-streams and modules are viewed as states and operators,
respectively.  A Goal-Directed-Learning [Mitchell 83a] approach toward
justifiable generalization by analyzing a single training instance is
then applied to this problem.  Both the usefulness of its approach and
the remaining issues are clarified by examination through examples.


Masanobu Watanabe will be leaving Rutgers to return to Japan.
His office address is:

Computer System Research Laboratory
C&C Systems Research Laboratories
NEC Corporation
1-1, Miyazaki 4-Chome,
Miyamae-Ku, Kawasaki
Kanagawa 213 Japan
Tel (044)855-1111 ex.2275

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
102
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 84 17:35:00-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!chandra @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Charniak's "AI-Prog." book: Code Reqst
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.28900003


Help !!!

        I have been using the AI-programming book by Charniak, Riesbeck
and McDermott as a reference. I however do not have access to the Lisp
dialect in their book [UCI-LISP]. I am working in MacLisp/Franz Lisp
and am having some trouble performing the conversion.

        Judging from the popularity of the book, I wondered if somebody
had already written some code to perform the conversion.

        I also have access to Zeta-lisp and Interlisp.

        Do you think you can help me?

                                Thank you,

                                Navin
                                Phone 1-800-USA-CERL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 1984 15:28:26-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp/Zetalisp Compatibility
-BODY-

Can someone tell a novice the difference between Interlisp and Zetalisp..In pl
plain English?


                               Thanks
                               Ron Kushnier
                               kushnier@NADC.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6-Aug-84 22:35 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Self-Simulation
-BODY-
How long would a simulation of its own lifetime survive?

What would be the features of the most viable such simulation feasible in the
next year or so?

   For example, would it be a collaboration on a model of THAT collaboration
   process done in order to gain some insight into its most viable forms?

Would it be a computer simulation?

Would it aim to encourage anyone (with a modem?) to play with it?

How would those who contribute to the model or provide simulation services be
compensated?

How would proposed changes to the model be moderated?

What would be its measure of its aliveness?

   The self reference makes this question somewhat tricky to answer, though we
   usually manage to do it in one fashion or another with respect to our own
   lifetimes.  The trickiness comes when playing with some portion of the model
   central to its own self definition.  We must make sure that after we are
done
   playing, the measures of its aliveness are still valid.  Changing the
   measures can in turn affect a central part of the model ...

What would be the features of the language in which the model is written?

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 July 1984 1051-PDT (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: sdcsla!bannon@nprdc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer-Mediated Social Interaction
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the WorkS discussion list by Laws@SRI-AI.
      This seems to lead into the question of how AI can be used
      in computers for mediating human interactions.]


I am interested in collecting information on the use of computers to
mediate interactions between people.  It appears to me that our
computer systems today do not provide much in the way of support for
cooperation - joint problem-solving, sharing of information,
co-operative production of text, on-line (human) expert assistance.
If people know of experiments carried out in this domain, or of
experimental software facilities to support such activities, I would
appreciate if they could mail me information - references, personal
experiences, anecdotes, etc.
[As an example, how useful have people found the "link" command on
the TENEX system?]

(PS. I know about computer conferencing, my focus is more on other,
perhaps less-publicized facilities, but comments on the USE of
conferencing systems would be of interest.)

I will summarize the results of the survey to the [WORKS] net. Thank you.

        Liam Bannon
        Institute for Cognitive Science, C-015,
        UCSD, La Jolla, CA 92093.
        (619)-452-2807
             (452-6771)
or,
        bannon@nprdc                            -on the arpanet

        ....ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla!bannon        -on the net

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 7 Aug 84 11:36:19-EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru Sriram <Duvvuru.Sriram@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Engineering
-BODY-

                       SPECIAL ISSUE ON APPLICATIONS OF
                               AI IN ENGINEERING

The  April  1985 issue of the SIGART newsletter (tentative schedule) will focus
on the applications of AI in engineering. The  purpose  of  this  issue  is  to
provide  an overview of research being conducted in this area around the world.
The following topics are suggested:

   - Knowledge-based expert systems
   - Intelligent computer tutors
   - Representation of engineering problems
   - Natural language and graphical interfaces
   - Interfacing engineering databases with expert systems

The above topics are by no means exhaustive; other related topics are welcome.

Individuals or groups conducting research in this area and who  would  like  to
share  their  ideas  are invited to send two copies of 3 to 4 page summaries of
their work,  preferably  ongoing  research,  before  December  1,  1984.    The
summaries  should  include  a  title,  the  names of people associated with the
research, affiliations, and bibliographical references.  Since the primary  aim
of  this  special  issue  is  to provide information about ongoing and proposed
research, please be as brief  as  possible  and  avoid  lengthy  implementation
details.    Submissions should be sent to D. Sriram at the following address or
through Arpanet to Sriram@CMU-RI-CIVE:

      D. Sriram
      Design Research Center
      Carnegie-Mellon University
      Pittsburgh, PA 15213
      Tel. No. (412)578-3603

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday,  8-Aug-84 12:15:07-BST
-FROM-
From: BUNDY HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Bundy%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AISB-85: Call for Papers
-BODY-

                     The Society For The Study Of
          Artificial Intelligence And Simulation Of Behaviour
________________________________________________________________________

CALL FOR PAPERS         AISB 85       WARWICK, ENGLAND, APRIL 10-12 1985
________________________________________________________________________

Submissions are invited for the AISB Easter 1985 conference, to be  held
at  the University of Warwick on April 10-12 1985.  Papers may be on any
aspect of AI, including though not necessarily restricted to

       AI and Education                Reasoning
       Learning                        Knowledge Representation
       Robotics                        Vision
       Natural Language                Cognitive Modelling
       Expert Systems                  Architectures and Languages
       Planning                        Speech

Papers should  ideally  relate  to  practical  or  theoretical  work  in
progress  or  completed. Those intending to submit a paper should make a
preliminary submission of a provisional title and abstract of up to  100
words and a provisional list of keywords.
          Deadline for notification: November 1st 1984

Full papers, of 2000-5000 words, should  be  on  A4  pages  and  double-
spaced.  Three  copies  should be submitted. The first sheet should give
the title, names of authors, a brief abstract and a list of keywords, to
help in the assigning of referees.  The paper itself should start on the
next page, and authors' names should not appear in the main body of  the
text.
          Deadline for full papers: December 7th 1984

Authors will be notified  of  referees'  decisions  around  the  end  of
January  1985.   Final copies, for photo-reproduction, will be needed by
late February.  Copies of the conference proceedings will be provided to
everyone attending.

There will also be unrefereed postgraduate  poster  sessions,  to  allow
postgraduates  to display information about their work. Those wishing to
provide a poster session should contact the programme chairman, no later
than  January  31st,  1985.  Authors  of  submitted  papers  will not be
eligible to provide poster sessions.

Notification and the three copies of full papers should be sent  to  the
Programme Committee chairman:

       Peter Ross,
       Department of Artificial Intelligence,
       Forrest Hill,
       Edinburgh EH1 2QL,  Scotland.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
103
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 84 11:09:28 PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Cornish.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibilography of frame-base representation languages
-BODY-
    Date: Sun, 29 Jul 84 22:01 EDT
    From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
    Subject: Frame-Based Languages

    I am investigating some implementation techniques for frame-base
    representation languages with inheritance.  ...


Tim's message, partially quoted above, toggled me into requesting the
members of the AIList realm for a bibliography of frame-base
representation languages.

Thank you very much,  Jan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday,  9-Aug-84 17:52:23-BST
-FROM-
From: LUIS HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <lejm%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Software for Burroughs machines, any one?
-BODY-
I face the the prospect of having to live with a Burroughs B6920
for the next year or so, does anyone know about any decent Lisp
implementations running on this machines and/or where to look for
them?

Actually, I would rather use Prolog, but I don't expect to find any
implementation running on Burroughs ...

Feel free to reply either to me or the list. Thanks,

        Luis Jenkins

[ Lejm%Edxa@Ucl-Cs                              ArpaNet ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 1984 10:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: chaudhry%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallelism in Lisp?
-BODY-

        I am currently doing some research for which  I need to
use parallelism in lisp. Does anyone know of any lisp dialect which
has a built in parallel construct, i.e.

             (CONCURRENT s-expression-1 ... s-expression-k)

or has anyone out there implemented such a function.

        Your help will be greatly appreciated.

                                Kashif Chaudhry
                                chaudhry%usc-cse@usc-ecl  [ARPA]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 84 08:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hassan Aitkaci <Hassan%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Zebra Connection...
-BODY-
The Zebra puzzle was the object of a Prolog-Digest exchange about a
year and a half ago. Many solutions were proposed. Fernando Pereira of
SRI compiled a set of those for his own interest. The most interesting
(in my opinion) solution in Prolog was found by Hector Levesque of
Fairchild AI Lab, making a clever use of logical variables and the
unification process as an effective means to solve two-way constraint
propagations (i.e., a logical variable in Prolog has the behavior of
both a "synthesized" and "inherited" attribute, and unification
operates as the propagating mechanism). Hector's solution is given here
since I don't think it ever got posted on the Prolog Digest.

Those who are really intrigued by the method rather than the problem
which, by the way, happens to be a large-size, albeit simple, assignment
problem (complete state space has (5!)^6 nodes, or 2,985,984,000,000
nodes if you prefer!) may be interested by an alternative solution
given in a language of my design in my dissertation, also reported in
the following paper:

        Hassan Ait-Kaci, "A New Model of Computation Based on a Calculus
        of Type Subsumption", Technical Report MS-CIS-83-40, Department
        of Computer and Information Science, Univ. of Pennsylvania,
        Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Prolog solutions may be obtained from the Prolog Digest Archives from
the editor Chuck Restivo from Stanford University. Now, please, stop
losing sleep from so much coffee -- or you may turn into a greenish
looking samourai riding a bucking zebra!

                                Hassan Ait-Kaci
                                Hassan%Upenn@Csnet-relay

/*********************************************************************
                Hector Levesque's Solution to the Zebra Puzzle
 *********************************************************************/
:- op(500,xfy,[has_left_neighbor,is_right_of,lives_next_to,is_not]).

rightmost_occupant has_left_neighbor midright_occupant.
midright_occupant has_left_neighbor middle_occupant.
middle_occupant has_left_neighbor midleft_occupant.
midleft_occupant has_left_neighbor leftmost_occupant.

X lives_next_to Y :- X has_left_neighbor Y.
X lives_next_to Y :- Y has_left_neighbor X.

X is_right_of Y :- X has_left_neighbor Y.
X is_right_of Y :- X has_left_neighbor Z, Z is_right_of Y.

X is_not Y :- X is_right_of Y.
X is_not Y :- Y is_right_of X.

differ(X1,X2,X3,X4,X5) :-
       X1 is_not X2, X1 is_not X3, X1 is_not X4, X1 is_not X5,
       X2 is_not X3, X2 is_not X4, X2 is_not X5,
       X3 is_not X4, X3 is_not X5,
       X4 is_not X5.

?- Englishman = RedHouser,
   Spaniard = DogOwner,
   CoffeeDrinker = GreenHouser,
   Ukranian = TeaDrinker,
   GreenHouser has_left_neighbor IvoryHouser,
   WinstonSmoker = SnailOwner,
   KoolSmoker = YellowHouser,
   MilkDrinker = middle_occupant,
   Norwegian = leftmost_occupant,
   ChesterfieldSmoker lives_next_to FoxOwner,
   KoolSmoker lives_next_to HorseOwner,
   LuckyStrikeSmoker = OJDrinker,
   Japanese = ParliamentSmoker,
   Norwegian lives_next_to BlueHouser,
   differ(GreenHouser,YellowHouser,RedHouser,IvoryHouser,BlueHouser),
   differ(ZebraOwner,FoxOwner,HorseOwner,SnailOwner,DogOwner),
   differ(OJDrinker,MilkDrinker,TeaDrinker,CoffeeDrinker,WaterDrinker),
   differ(Englishman,Spaniard,Norwegian,Japanese,Ukranian),
   differ(KoolSmoker,WinstonSmoker,ParliamentSmoker,LuckyStrikeSmoker,
          ChesterfieldSmoker).

/*********************************************************************
        To solve the puzzle, load this program... and wait!
        It takes about 45 minutes when interpreted by UNH Prolog
        on our (overloaded) VAX/780...
 *********************************************************************/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday,  7 Aug 1984 08:49-EDT
-FROM-
From: bac@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The "Zebra Problem"
-BODY-

   It seems to me that there was a bug either in the statement of
the Zebra puzzle, or its following solution.  Constraint #6 in the
problem stated that "The green house is immediately to the RIGHT
(your right) of the ivory house."  However, the "solution" was
worked on the basis of the green house being to the LEFT of the
ivory house.  Note that this did not change the ultimate solution;
the Norwegian still drank the water, and the Japanese had the zebra.
However, if the problem was worked as stated, eventually one reached
a point requiring a binary decision: house 3 could be either red or
ivory, house 4 either green or ivory, and house 5 either red or green.
At this point, one had to make a guess about the color of any one of
the last three houses, and explore the remaining tree for a contra-
diction.  Using the constraints implied by the "solution," with green
to the left, the problem dropped out quite naturally, and involved
no analysis or backtracking.

   So, what is the correct statement of the problem?  Should one be
able to solve such a problem using only deduction, or should analysis
be necessary?

   An interesting question (to me, anyway) is, are there any theories
abounding that relate the number of variables in such a problem to
the number of contraints that must be applied to uniquely describe the
situation?


                                                Brant Cheikes

                                        ARPA, CSNET: bac@Mitre-Bedford
                                        UUCP: ...linus!bccvax!bac

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 84 23:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 6th move
-BODY-
The Vote Tally
>-------------
Folks, the moves are in and have been tallied.
The winner is: 5 ... Nf6
The runner-up was 5 ... e5
We had a narrow mix of moves.

A total of 18 votes were cast. Please relay this message to any
friends you have who might be interested in participating.

The Machine Moves
>----------------
The Prestige 8-ply replied 6. Re1 from book in 0 seconds.

                Humans                    Move   # Votes
        BR ** -- BQ BK BB -- BR         5 ... Nf6   10
        BP BP ** BB BP BP BP BP         5 ... e5     4
        -- ** BN BP -- BN -- **         5 ... a6     2
        ** WB BP -- ** -- ** --         5 ... Ne5    1
        -- ** -- ** WP ** -- **         5 ... e6     1
        ** -- WP -- ** WN ** --
        WP WP -- WP -- WP WP WP
        WR WN WB WQ WR -- WK --
             Prestige 8-ply

The Game So Far
>--------------
1. e4    c5
2. Nf3   d6
3. Bb5+  Nc6
4. o-o   Bd7
5. c3    Nf6
6. Re1   ???

Commentary
>---------
Steve Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>,  unrated, wrote the majority opinion.

    Since White threatens 6 d4 and there doesn't seem to be much we can do
    about it, I propose this move to counter in the center.  After 6 Re1 d5
    (7 e5 Nxe5 wins a pawn) White must either postpone his advance, 7 d3,
    or else allow us to isolate his QP, 7 ed Nxd5 8 d4 cd (9 Nxd4 either
    leads to an isolated QP or no QP at all).  Note we can't play 6 ... e6
    since 7 d4 d5 ultimately loses us a pawn due to the K-file pin.

Solicitation
>-----------
    Your move, please?

        Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure.
        DO NOT SEND REPLIES TO THE ENTIRE LIST! Just send them to one of
        the above addresses.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 August 1984 08:05-EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Delphi Experiment: group play against machine -> just people
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I'd be more interested in a delphi experiment with Go instead of
Chess. Pick some starting position (probably not start of game, there
are too many good ways to play the fuseki) and see if we can converge
on the optimum way for both sides to play through to the end. Allow
backtracking at any time, thus if you suddenly see where one side made
a mistake you can change your vote at that point. If changed vote(s)
cause an alternate branch to have largest vote, the experiment shifts
to explore that branch instead of the one that had largest vote
before. Either allow everyone to vote for both black and white moves,
or divide the membership into two teams and have them select only
their own moves not opponents.

Note that my method doesn't require a go-playing program/machine to
play one side of the game.

To speed up the experiment, allow a voter to specify a whole sequence
of moves in advance, contingent on the opponent choosing the same move
as in the sequence. (For example: now I move ..., if he replies ...
then I conterreply ..., etc.; abbreviated of course.) So long as the
first move agrees with the voted move and the reply agrees with the
voted reply then the next move will be counted as a vote.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 1984 08:02:05-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Prediction
-BODY-

I predict in three short years
Robots you will see
Being sold at K-Mart,
Sears and Kleins,
And the Macy's Company.

As common as a toaster,
Inexpensive and complete,
The robots of the next few years..
An appliance quite unique


The Fifties
     By Ron Kushnier

I remember "Robbie"
And "Tobor" and his friends
In the movies of the Fifties
And on the Late Shows
Seen Again.

These Science Fiction classics
Showed the future now come true
A world of shining robots
to serve me and to serve you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
104
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 84 15:40:58-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!mock @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hardware Implementations of Cellular Automata
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tekchips.1014

I'm looking for information concerning hardware implementations of 2d
cellular automata.  Specifically, do implementations tend to be just
`life' rules or are they the more general case, and what sort of
speed/resolution statistics have been achieved?  I would appreciate any
sort of information about particular implementations.

Jeff Mock

tektronix!tekchips!mock

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 10 Aug 84 09:17:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Hardware Implementations of Cellular Automata
-BODY-
The Golay processor has been around for about two decades; it's a
hard-wired hexagonal processor performing logical operations on boolean
image data.  I believe that various medical image processing
systems offer shrink/expand cycles for image overlays that can be
similarly programmed, and there are both software languages and
parallel-processor projects aimed at permitting easy specification
of parallel local operations on image arrays.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 9 August 1984, 22:01-EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert P. Krajewski <RpK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp/Zetalisp Compatibility
-BODY-
Since I have only a limited knowledge of Interlisp, this will be sketchy at
best.

(1) All arguments to functions in Interlisp are optional.  In ZetaLisp (Common
Lisp), optional arguments are specified in the function definition with special
keywords.

(2) The NTH function is different.  (Rather miscellaneous, eh ?)

(3) Interlisp does not have a package system.  (In this respect, it is like
MacLisp and Franz Lisp.)  The modern MacLisp descendants (ZetaLisp and NIL, and
the Common Lisp dialects) contain such a system, which is basically a way of
managing the namespace of symbols with ``packages,'' the equivalent of old
obarrays.  To give a quick example, suppose one has a symbol in the CELLOPHANE
package.  From within that package, one can refer to a symbol called WRAP in
that package by WRAP, and refer to outside as CELLOPHANE:WRAP.  It can get much
more hairy than this (what about global symbols like CONS ?), but that's the
general idea.

(4) Both Interlisp (in the workstatation implementations) and Zetalisp have
facilities for processes and windows, but they are obviously handled in
different ways.  The same is true for hash tables and macros.

(5) Zetalisp does not have a DWIM facility; the error handler is powerful
enough to enable the user to recover intelligently from errors while being
informed of the condition.  In keeping with the MacLisp tradition, the basic
unit for organising source code is the file, and a display editor that is
highly integrated with the Lisp environment is used.  In contrast, structure
editors are used in Interlisp to edit code.

I hope somebody more familiar with Interlisp can answer your question.  In
terms of compatibility, there doesn't seem to be much of it between the two
dialects..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 84 16:54:52 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computerized Conferencing and AI
-BODY-

     In response to Liam Bannon's (bannon@nprdc) message of July 21:

     We at the Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center of
New Jersey Institute of Technology operate the Electronic Information
Exchange System (EIES).  Over our six years of operation, we have
studied how people interact not only with the system, but with others,
and how the two modes differ.  In most instances, it has been found
that Computer Conferencing increases productivity and creativity, by
allowing not only ongoing discussion, but also 24 hour access.

     Over the past few months, I have begun looking into the
feasibility of integrating an AI subsystem into our most recent
effort, EIES II, a new, improved version of EIES.  At this point, the
design is such to provide user aid, to field questions (English text)
from the user, and try to answer those as intelligently as possible.
Most of our questions to the online consultants here take the form of
'Where do I find the conference on IBM PCs?', etc.

     I have available two lists: the first is the research
reports available from CCCC, and the second major works by Murray
Turoff and Starr Roxanne Hiltz, two of the original designers of EIES.
S. R. Hiltz is also a sociologist and along with Elaine Kerr has
carried out extensive research in user interactions and usage.  In
order to spare the list the 300+ lines of references, I am not
including them here.  If you would like a copy drop me a message and
I'll send them to you.  Please feel free to contact me here if I can
be of any help.


 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-EIES

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 84 18:20:00-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!mihran @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Robotics - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uicsl.12300002

Forget about the dogs. Even an ant is quite sophisticated compared to
the capabilities we want the robots to have, at least in the near
future. I was watching one of these nature shows on PBS the other day
which was showing the behaviour of the ants underground. I would guess
that if the technology develops to the level of sophistication that
allows us to implement the sensory-motor coordination that these ants
have, our robots will probably be more than adequate to perform with
great skill the necessary tasks at an assembly line or at a dangerous
mine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 1984 13:31:56-EDT
-FROM-
From: Chuck.Thorpe at CMU-CS-IUS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Underwater Robots
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-C bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Mobile Robot Lab has just set a new record for proven depth capability
for a CMU-built submersible robot.  Neptune, running under an umbrella taped
to its camera mast, operated successfully at depths up to .1" during the
recent rain storm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 84 14:49:23-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From:
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert system construction kit
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvicctr.501


     E X P E R T    S Y S T E M    C O N S T R U C T I O N    K I T


     The knowledge independent LISP-based expert system called PORTAL
is now available for distribution from the Laboratory for Computer
Enhanced Cognition, University of Victoria.

     It is a simple rule-based system, with a forward inference
mechanism, and includes supporting utilities for a rule and entity
editor as well as some analytical tools for validating your knowledge
base.

     The system has been written in Franz LISP under UNIX 4.1 BSD, and
can be obtained on a non-commercial, non-disclosure, as-is basis for a
nominal fee.  The distributed version includes source and executable
code, and a MAKE system for implementation.

     We are offering this system in the interests of making a simple
but complete expert system construction tool available to research
laboratories, so that the difficult problems of knowledge acquisition
can be attacked on a broad front.

     The fee is $200.00 for universities, and $500.00 for other
laboratories.  Interested parties should send a purchase order for the
amount indicated, or call.




Ernie Chang

Laboratory for Computer Enhanced Cognition             August 1, 1984
Department of Computer Science
University of Victoria
Victoria, B.C. V8W 2Y2
Canada

604-721-7232 (7233)                     ...uw-beaver!uvicctr!echang
                                        ...ubc-vision!uvicctr!echang


References:

1. Chang, EJH, McNeely M, Gamble K. An Expert System for Liver Function
   Test. Proc. 4th Jerusalem Conference on Information Technology, 1984.

2. Chang, EJH, McNeely M, Gamble K. Strategies for Choosing the Next
   Test in an Expert System. Proc. American Association for Medical
   Systems and Informatics Conference, San Francisco, May 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Aug 84 23:34:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Latest Math & CS Library "New Reports List" posted on-line.
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The latest Math & Computer Science Library "New Reports List" has been
posted on-line.  The file is "<LIBRARY>NEWTRS" at SCORE, "NEWTRS[LIB,DOC]"
at SAIL, "<CSD-REPORTS>NEWTRS" at SUMEX, and "<LIBRARY>NEWTRS" at SIERRA.
In case you miss a reports list, the old lists are being copied to
"<LIBRARY>OLDTRS" at SCORE and "<LIBRARY>OLDTRS" at SIERRA where they will
be saved for about six months.

If you want to see any of the reports listed in the "New Reports List,"
either come by the library during the display period mentioned or send a
message to LIBRARY at SCORE, giving your departmental address and the
six-digit accession numbers of the reports you want to see, and we will
check them out in your name and send them to you as soon as they are available.

The library receives technical reports from over a hundred universities
and other institutions.  The current batch includes - among others -
reports from:


      Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science.
      Carnegie-Mellon University. Robotics Institute.
      Harvard University. Center for Research in Computing Technology.
      IBM. Research Division.
      Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique (INRIA).
      Mathematisch Centrum (Amsterdam).
      U.K. National Physical Laboratory. Division of Information Technology
        and Computing.
      Universitaet Hamburg. Institut fuer Informatik.
      Universitaet Karlsruhe. Institut fuer Informatik.
      University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Department of Computer
        Science.
      University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Computer Science.


                                        - Richard Manuck
                                          Math & Computer Science Library
                                          Building 380 - 4th Floor
                                          LIBRARY at SCORE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday,  2-Aug-84 16:23:21-BST
-FROM-
From: HENRY T HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <hthompson%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project Report - AI/Speech Research at Edinburgh
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A major 5-year research and development project in speech recognition is to
start at the University of Edinburgh in October 1984 under the direction of
Dr John Laver and Dr Henry Thompson, in conjunction with members of the
Departments of Artificial Intelligence, Electrical Engineering and
Linguistics.

The goal of the project is a machine assisted speech transcription system -
a text input device starting from spoken input, and depending on incremental
interactions between user and system to develop a final text.

Computing resources will include 2 VAX 11/750s running UNIX(TM Bell
Laboratories) and a network of Xerox 1108s running Interlisp-D.  The eventual
target is the Alice parallel reduction machine.

In addition to the ten people already involved, seventeen new
positions are available.  For further information, write Dr J. Laver,
Centre for Speech Technology Research, Department of Linguistics, Adam
Ferguson Building, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL, SCOTLAND, or call
031 667-1011 x6380.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
105
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 84 08:18:26 pdt
-FROM-
From: Stanley Lanning <lanning@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and DataFlow machines -- a request for interested parties
-BODY-
A friend asked me to post this on the bboard.... -smL

 From DEBONI@Ames-VMSB Mon Aug 13 16:49:54 1984

 To All Interested Parties: AI AND DATAFLOW

 There will be a cooperative project in modelling the performance of dataflow
 systems, invloving personell from MIT, at Nasa Ames Research Center, Moffett
 Field, CA, the last two weeks of September. Interested participants are sought
 from the AI community who have either general algorithms or specific applica-
 tions they would like to see run on such systems. Indications of interest or
 queries for further information should be addressed to "DEBONI@AMES-VMSB".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Aug 84 12:14:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robot Ping-Pong Competition Announced
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    The current issue of Robotics Age has an announcement for a robot ping-pong
competition to be held in England in 1985.  The rules are set up to encourage
low-cost entries; there are upper limits on size and power of the mechanism
and the visual environment is so defined as to provide high contrast under
uniform illumination.  You don't even have to acquire the image of the ball;
it is served from a known location above the net and only has to be tracked.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 84 5:38:25-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!estate @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Speaking of Robotics...
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: abnjh.788

Would anyone be interested in starting a newsgroup for amateur robotics ?
I haven't got the slightest idea how to go about starting a new newsgroup,
but I've seen quite a few interesting articles and ideas on the net
concerning robotics.  To my knowledge their are only a very few periodicals
dealing with the subject of amateur robotics and robotics experiments, but
I have found a few interesting articles on simple robotic interfaces that
will work off a home computer (one of which I built).  If anyone else out
there in net-land enjoys tearing apart their household appliances and
and reconstructing them to do things that they were never meant to
do, please let me know and we'll see if we can get anything rolling!


(Visions From The Orcrest Stone)

Carl D.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 84 22:47:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven Lytinen <Lytinen@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COLING-76
-BODY-

I am interested in seeing several articles in COLING-76.  Unfortunately,
I can't find a copy anywhere.  Does anyone have a copy that they would
be willing to lend me?

Steve Lytinen (lytinen@yale)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 1984 14:21:24-EDT
-FROM-
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Warfian hypothesis, sort of
-BODY-
On a different net it was alleged, though w/o references to check,
that people, both of Japanese and British genetic background, when
raised speaking Japanese show EEG responses to music on the LEFT
side, but that when raised speaking English, their responses are
on the RIGHT side. This has some interesting implications, if true.
Does anyone out there know anything more about such a phenomenon?
Although no references were cited, the description was detailed
enough to sound like it had a basis in fact.
As a possibly related matter, I seem to recall reading somewhere
that musicians, or some subset of them, also show EEG responses
to music on the LEFT side.
Being quite curious about both, I'd love to get more information,
if anyone can assist.
                                  Thanx in advance,
                                  David   sde@mitre-bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 84 14:48:35-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hou2d!wbp @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On having virtually no crime rate.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hou2d.472

        "Saudi Arabia has virtually no crime rate," is what the commercial
told me about 30 times before I realized what they are really saying.
        I understand what having virtually no crime is, and also a very
low crime rate is within my grasp.  But virtually no crime rate is a very
odd construction.
        If a place has no crime rate then this means that the statistics
are not gathered and that's O.K too.
        If the crime rate is virtually non-existent then it indeed exists,
but is in a state of "almost non-being" which may mean that for all practical
purposes it does not exist, but is known to a select few who will tell
no-one.  (Or may be a reflection of their different system of justice!)

        Are virtual rates calculated on virtual machines, and does one
need either transcendental or imaginary numbers to express them?

        Seriously, what would a program do with such a sentence?
And even more interesting, would a sophisticated program have any
problem with it, and could it not even see a problem with it as I am
sure millons of people did not see one!
                                Submitted for your approval,
                                Wayne Pineault (hou2d!wbp)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Aug 84 10:53:16-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.716

>  Ahem.  Cause and effect may exist, and indeed, in order to function as
>  human beings, we seem to need to behave as if it exists, but I don't
>  think the principal of cause and effect can be *proved* to exist.  The
>  association of two events in time does not imply a connection between
>  the two.
>
>  (For a more detailed argument, read Hume and Kant)
>
>  --Ray Chen

The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among
other things.  Even the ideas "anything" and "functioning" depend upon
the idea of cause and effect.  All of these concepts depend on or are
rooted in the concepts of identity and identification.  Here's why:

To be is to be something in particular, to have a specific identity, or
having specific characteristics.  What does it mean to have specific
characteristics or a specific identity?  It means that in a particular
context, the entity's existence is manifested in a particular way.  An
entity IS what it can DO (in a given context).

So what's causality?  The law of identity applied to action.  Things do
what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are.
"What they are" includes or consists of "what they can do".
This is true irrespective of our ability to identify what they are.

Hume's and Kant's arguements re causality are the analytic-synthetic
dichotomy.  For the original presentation of the views that smash
this false dichotomy, see Leonard Peikoff's article "The Analytic-
Synthetic Dichotomy" in the back of recent editions of Ayn Rand's
"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".  For the epistemological
basis of Peikoff's article, read Rand's Intro.


(I almost posted this to net.cooks, but GOOD cooks know this already...)

>Norm Andrews, AT+T Information Systems, (201) 834-3685

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 1984  18:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Batteries
-BODY-
I had a Fuzzy cat named Zada once.  (This is really the truth.)  He
was named after Lotfi, of course.

Fanya

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 84 12:43:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!conery @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uoregon.30100002

                        -- CALL FOR PAPERS --

                1985 Symposium on Logic Programming

              Boston, Massachusetts, July 15-18, 1985

     Sponsored by IEEE and its Technical Committee on Computer Languages

The symposium will cover fundamental principles and important innovations in
the design, definition, and implementation of logic programming systems and
applications.  Of special interest are papers related to parallel processing.
Other topics of interest are (but are not limited to) FGCS, distributed control
schemes, expert systems, natural language processing, systems programming,
novel implementation techniques, and performance issues.

Authors should send 8 copies of their manuscript, plus an extra copy of the
abstract, to:

                John Conery
                Department of Computer and Information Science
                University of Oregon
                Eugene, OR   97403

Paper length should be 8-20 typed, double spaced pages, including figures and
abstract.  Submissions will be considered on the basis of appropriateness,
clarity, originality, significance, and overall quality.

Deadline for submission of papers is November 16, 1984.  Authors will be
notified of acceptance or rejection by March 8, 1985, and camera ready copy
must be returned by May 10, 1985.  Authors of accepted papers will be expected
to sign a copyright release form.

** Proposals for full or partial day tutorials are also being solicited.
Send a one to three page proposal to John Conery by November 16.

Conference Chairman             Technical Committee Co-Chairmen

Doug DeGroot            Jacques Cohen           John Conery
T.J. Watson Res. Ctr.   Computer Sci. Dept.     Dept. of Computer
PO Box 218              Ford Hall                  and Information Science
Yorktown Heights,       Brandeis University     University of Oregon
   NY 10598             415 South St.           Eugene, OR 97403
(914)945-3497           Waltham, MA  02254      (503)686-4408
                        (617)647-3370

        CSNET:          jc@brandeis             jc@uoregon


                        Technical Committee

        Ken Bowen (Syracuse)            Jack Minker (Maryland)
        Jacques Cohen (Brandeis)        Fernando Pereira (SRI)
        John Conery (Oregon)            Alan Robinson (Syracuse)
        Doug DeGroot (IBM Yorktown)     Sten-Ake Tarnlund (IBM Yorktown)
        Seif Haridi (IBM Yorktown)      D. S. Warren (Stony Brook)
        Bob Keller (Utah)               Jim Weiner (New Hampshire)
        Gary Lindstrom (Utah)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
106
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 Aug 84 22:08:59-EDT
-FROM-
From: MM%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Misrepresentations of AI
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

I am looking for examples of outrageous representations of the current state of
AI appearing in any popular newspapers or magazines. If you know of any, I'd
appreciate hearing them.

                                    Melanie Mitchell

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 1984 15:57:11 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomy Assistant
-BODY-
I would like to have some sort of computational aid for creating taxonomies.

In trying to understand a collection of objects or data, often one of
the most helpful things to do is to create a taxonomy of it.  Comparing
and classifying things makes one think about their attributes and how
they relate.  It also helps identify potential varieties of objects that
are "missing."

Often several attempts are required before a satisfactory result is
achieved, which can involve a lot of bookkeeping and an overwhelming
amount of detail, so much that significant patterns are missed.

Also, there are skills for doing taxonomies, and I don't have them all.

For all these reasons, it would be good to embed a lot of the support
operations for creating a taxonomy in a program, one that would let the
machine do bookkeeping, systematic evocation of data, consistency
checking and some pattern identification, but still leave me in charge.
(Perhaps it's already been done.)

What sorts of tools are out there?  Is this already embedded in some
collection of intellectual prosthetics?  Where should I look for such
programs?

Bill Mann

[There are indeed tools for creating numerical taxonomies --- see the
documentation for cluster analysis programs in statistical packages
such as BMD, SPSS, SAS, etc.  For other leads I would suggest the
Pattern Recognition journal, the seven (massive) IEEE conferences on
pattern recognition, and the Classification Society (c/o Dr. George
W. Furnas, Room 2C-572, Bell Communications Research, Inc., Murray
Hill, NJ 07974).  Can anyone suggest available software for nonnumeric
taxonomy construction or for handling the associated bookkeeping?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 84 15:44:00-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!chandra @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fuzzy reasoning and AI in Operational Research and Management
-BODY-           Science.
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.28900005


         I am a graduate student who is trying to apply
expert systems to managerial Decision Making . My thesis deals with applying
knowledge based techniques to decision support systems which use mathematical
models and Operations Research techniques.

        I would like to know if anybody is aware of some good references on
AI applications in Operations Research / Decision making . Any Symposia,
meetings, books etc.

        I would really appreciate your help, thank you.

                                                Navin Chandra

                                                Phone 1-800-872-2375
                                                      (ask for extention 413)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 84  0418 PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Japan's Fifth Generation Project
-BODY-
The following summary is from a NYT article, Japan Appears To Falter
Attempting To Create New Computer, by Andrew Pollack.

Kazuhiro Fuchi, research director of the 5th generation project,
says that the project budget has been drastically cut back on goals
of vision, speech understanding, and natural language translation.
The core program -- including reasoning, understanding written language,
and intelligent programming -- has been preserved.

The first phase, development of a database machine and a sequential
reasoning engine, has been completed on schedule.  Funding has been
cut by 50% for the second phase, including development of a parallel
machine and research in perception and man-machine interfaces.  Project
officials claim that: it is only natural the original vague goals would
be narrowed; the original funding proposals were overly generous; and
several private companies are researching the cut problems on their
own, so there is little need for the institute to work on them.
Finding qualified researchers was more of a problem than budget
limitations anyway.  ("I personally felt it was rather difficult to
spend 100 billion yen," Fuchi said.)

On the other hand, there will now be less opportunity for exploring
different approaches.  The third phase may be jeapardized if dead
ends are encountered in the second phase.

The Japanese government is trying to reduce a large deficit by
eliminating spending increases in all areas except defense and foreign
aid. If no exception is made for advanced technology, the ministry
would have to make cuts elsewhere to increase the budget of the Fifth
Generation project or find new sources of revenue.  The ministry has
continued to give the project favorable budget treatment, even though
the agency's overall budget for high technology has dropped 20 percent
during the last three years.

One way to increase the budget is to ask industry to provide money.
Eight computer companies are providing researchers to the project and
are building machines for it, but they are not eager to provide
speculative, long-term research funds.  Fuchi also is concerned that
corporate funding would limit the project's freedom to pursue its own
goals.

    The institute wants to increase its staff from 50 researchers to
    100 next year. But artificial intelligence reseachers are rare in
    Japan, and the companies are reluctant to part with more.  "The
    Fifth Generation will produce technology for the 1990s," said
    one official of Fujitsu Ltd., Japan's largest computer company.
    "But we need products for our customers before the 1990s."


                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Aug 84 18:01:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Kenji Sugiyama <SUGIYAMA@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abstracts - Natural Language Programming
-BODY-
Here are two abstracts of the papers that concern with a Natural Language
Programming System under development in Fujitsu Laboratories in Japan.

* "Understanding of Japanese in an Interactive Programming System"
   by Kenji Sugiyama, Masayuki Kameda, Kouji Akiyama & Akifumi Makinouchi
   in COLING84 (10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics).

        Abstract:  KIPS is an automatic programming system which generates
standrdized business application programs through interactive natural
language dialogue.  KIPS models the program under discussion and the
content of the user's statements as organizations of dynamic objects
in the object-oriented programming sense.  This paper describes the
statement-model and the program-model, their use in understanding Japanese
program specifications, and how they are shaped by the linguistic
singularities of Japanese input sentences.

* "An Experimental Interactive Natural Language Programming System"
   by Kenji Sugiyama, Kouji Akiyama, Masayuki Kameda & Akifumi Makinouchi
   to appear in Electronics and Communications in Japan which is published
        by Scripta Technical, Inc. (Silver Spring, MD 20910) in cooperation
        with IECEJ (the Institute of Electronics and Communication Engineers
        of Japan, Tokyo 105).

        Abstract:  This paper discusses the problems encountered in the
development of the interactive natural language programming system (KIPS)
from three aspects, which are input sentence, target program and communication
between the user and the system.  Based on the recognitin of the problems,
an interactive natural language programming system is proposed, which is
constructed on a model of the task domain consisting of active objects
in the object-oriented programming sense.  The proposedd system is composed
of four modules, which are parser, specification acquisitor, coder and
user interface.  Those modules realize the functions of information
extraction from Japanese sentence, assimilation of fragmentary informations,
automatic programming and man-machine interface, respectively.  Lastly,
future development of the system is discussed.


Contact point is as follows:

        Kenji Sugiyama

        (until Sept. 5 and thereabout)
        SRI International, BS253
        Menlo Park, CA 94025
        (415)852-4402
        Sugiyama@SRI-AI

        (afterwards)
        Software Laboratory, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
        Kawasaki-shi, 211 Japan
        (044)777-1111

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 84 10:46:31-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!ritcv!ccivax!abh @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: On having virtually no crime rate.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ccivax.195

This kind of sentence structure is highly dependent upon
perspective and context. If a problem is found on first parse
perhaps a simple substitution by synonym would do the trick.
In this case substituting 'nearly' for 'virtually' would do the trick.
Contextually, though, the program would have to know that rates
are for numerical comparison. In which case one of the better
semantic results might be "nearly no crime rate in comparison."
The reasons for which people interpret the same written words
would be an interesting endeavor.

                                Andrew Hudson
>-
"Freedom of choice is what you got
 Freedom from choice is what you want"
                         - DEVO
        ...[rlgvax | decvax | ucbvax!allegra]!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!abh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 84 7:44:08-EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houti!ariel!vax135!ukc!west44!westcsr!pkelly
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Ebstein Test, or DHSS loses to AI.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: westcsr.169

I read in today's Guardian newspaper of an unpublished report describing
an experiment performed at British Department of Health and Social
Security offices (D.H.S.S. or colloquially 'the SS'). People
claiming social security benefit often queue for literally hours
to see DHSS staff about what benefits they're entitled to.

   In a small selection of offices computers were installed
which people could choose to use instead of queueing to see a
person. The machines took about half an hour to do a
consultation, and produced an extensive print-out at the end.
Finally, the clients were questionned on their experience.

   Despite often never having communicated with a computer
before, 85 percent said they found the machines a better source
of information than DHSS staff.

   The mechanised interview took a bit longer than talking to a
human, but as the report's author, Joyce Ebstein, concludes,
"What the professionals don't appreciate is that people don't
object to long periods of service and attention. What they do
object to is long periods of waiting for service and attention".

   Of course, this is no evidence to support wholesale
redundancies - it simply underlines the abominable service being
provided.

   But it does bring to mind an alternative to the Turing test,
in which it is unimportant whether users can distinguish between
a machine and a human. What counts is which they prefer.

   The test no longer defines Artificial Intelligence, but
perhaps it makes a more sensible objective for artificial
intelligence research.

        Yours, Paul Kelly, Westfield College, Univ. of London.

(..vax135!ukc!west44!westcsr)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
107
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 84 10:50:44-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!noscvax!goodhart @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Interlisp/Zetalisp Compatibility
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: noscvax.583

Symbolics (phone- (213) 473-6583) publishes "Interlisp Compatibility Package
User's Guide" which discusses compatibility issues between Interlisp and
Zetalisp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Aug 84 14:49:29-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcvax!enea!erix!seeb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Charniak's "AI-Prog."book:Code Reqst
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: erix.550

Sure, when I first got my hands on that book that was my reaction too:

           "Translation please!".

But there wasn't any around just then so I had to work my way through it
by myself. And I discovered something:

Exercises in reading different Lisp dialects are actually good for you,
even when they are crammed with programmer-defined macros. After all,
being able to read is half the secret of communication. If you can't
do it --- well, you run into trouble ("Translation please!").

So my advice in this case is: Do it yourself!

/Sten-Erik E Bergner - LM Ericsson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 84 8:21:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!nowicki @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common Lisp - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.5500009


I am also interested in such info. We have Sun-2's running 4.2 and I am
interested in obtaining Common Lisp for them.


>Tony Nowicki
{decvax|inuxc}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!nowicki

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 84 15:18:54 pdt
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp.
-BODY-

I submitted earlier a query about Common Lisp.  Here's the rundown
on what I've come upon so far.

    ... Common Lisp is to be released by DEC for VAX/VMS
        ``in this quarter''.
    ... DEC developed Common Lisp at CMU using its money and
        apparently many of its own personnel, so they own
        the code developed.
    ... DEC developed a version to run under 4.n bsd VAX/Unix
        along with the VAX/VMS version, but the VMS version
        had priority, so the VAX/Unix version is lagging behind
        a bit.  They are supposed to release one soon, however.
    ... There is no version running on 68000's at present,
        through apparently some companies are working on it.
    ... There may be a Common Lisp mailing list (Common-Lisp@SU-AI),
        but I haven't determined this for certain.  I asked to be
        put on the list but haven't heard anything back.

                                                   Harry Weeks
                                                   (Weeks@UCBpopuli)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Aug 84 12:22:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: KYLE.WBST@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Brain Theory and Language
-BODY-
Re: David's request of 13 Aug 84 on Brain Theory-Language & EEG
(Warfian Hypothesis from Sde@Mitre-bedford.ARPA)

A team at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. developed PET Scan
techniques (Positron Emission Tomography) that allowed for real time
monitoring of brain response to various external stimuli (sound, light,
etc.). The key people are now at UCLA , I think.

You can read about this work in Science News, or in Science magazines.
There was also a booth at the Toronto APA meeting in 1982 describing
various applications for PET technology, and I seem to recall a paper
decribing some of the work you mentioned with musicians.

One of the magazine articles , I think, mentioned differences between
musicians who had become conductors of orchestras vs, those who had not
re:left & right brain activity. Musicians also respomd differently to
non musical sound inputs such as alarms , ambulance sirens, etc. and it
seems to have something to do with their training.

As you probably know, the entire issue is clouded by left handed people.
They seem to fall into 3 categories: mirror images of right handed ones
(i.e. speech is in the lefty's right brain hemisphere, etc),  same as
right handed people, and non-hemisphere specific (i.e. both halves share
same functions with no dominance). The latter group seems to always have
inner conflict and trouble making decisions.

PET techniques require access to the right expensive gear to make the
short lived radio isotopes that are presented to the subject's brain via
food stuffs that resemble sugars the brain can use. The emitted
radiation is picked up by gear similar to an X-ray CAT scanner and
presented to the researcher on a CRT. What one sees is a profile of
brain metabolism in response to various stimuli. It is superior to the
EEG in the sense that you can see dynamic resource allocation as a
function of problem solving. It would provide interesting study for
those interested in emulating nature's parallel processor. As I recall,
work has also been done using the technique to monitor activity during
math problem solving exercises.

One last note of reference, APA stands for American Psychiatric (or
Psychological...I forget) Association. The 1982 convention I attended
was at the Sheraton Plaza complex in Toronto, and a proceedings was
generated so a good library should be able to locate a copy.

Earle.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Aug 84 23:39:09-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: decvax!decwrl!flairvax!kissell @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: flairvax.720

(Norm Andrews challenges Ray Chen's agnosticsm on cause and effect)

> The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause and effect, among
> other things.

This is simply not true.  The notion of logical proof involves implication
relationships between discrete statements in discourse.  This is an agreed
upon rule of the game.  Causality assumes implication relationships between
discrete events in the world.  The universe may or may not argue like a
philosopher, and it is not always clear what constitutes a "discrete" event.

> So what's causality?  The law of identity applied to action.  Things do
> what they do, in any given context, BECAUSE they are what they are.

This is a denial of causality, not a definition.  If things do what they
do because they are what they are, then they certainly can't be *caused*
to do anything by something else.

Unless, of course, the only *thing* is everything.

uucp: {ihnp4 decvax}!decwrl!\
                             >flairvax!kissell
    {ucbvax sdcrdcf}!hplabs!/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Aug 84 19:40:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Pattis <PATTIS@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Name the Presidential Candidate who wrote...
-BODY-
Name the presidential candidate who wrote the following:

  It was in that mood, living day after day with this matter principally
  occuring in my mind, that I halted such peripheral considerations as the
  spur-of-the-moment Plotto simulation exemplified, and resolved to go
  directly to the crux of the matter of "artificial intelligence."

  It was simple enough for me to do.  A knowledge of both analog and
  computer principles, philosophical rigor, and my competence in
  economics: it was a simple matter to lay out in my mind a worldwide
  network of task-oriented, linked computers performing production of all
  human needs, including the building of task-oriented computers like
  themselves.

  Such an array is the precondition for supposing that "artificial intelli-
  gence" in computers might be approximated, at least in the form of conscious
  powers of deduction.  Since human consciousness and intelligence depend on
  what Kant terms the synthetic a apriori processes, and since there is no
  configuration of the indicated sorrt of model which could accommodate such
  synthesis, there is no way in which any form of computer could become
  willful in a human sense of willful intelligence.

  It was obvious, on less rigorous grounds, than no computer could synthesize
  intelligent behavior in the manner Minsky and others were approaching this.
  That was the simple case to prove.  Minsky's problem was that he proceeded
  in ignorance of even a Feuerbachian model of the determination of
  intelligence.


There is more, but it becomes less focused, and I became tired of typing.  As
a hint, the principal accomplishment of the author of this quotation is, "...
that of being, by a large margin of advantage, the leading economist of the
twentieth century to date."

Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 84 17:09 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project Reports - UPenn
-BODY-

THE CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE in the Department of Computer
and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania has received
a major award from the U.S. Army Research Office for research and
education in Artificial Intelligence.

The award is for $7.2 million together with a supplementary DOD-URIP
award of $500,000, a total of $7.7 million over a period of five years.
The award will support faculty and technical staff and provide graduate
research fellowships and research equipment. The contract is from the
Electronics Division of the Army Research Office under the direction
of Dr. Jimmie Suttle.

Principle Investigator for the grant is Professor Aravind K. Joshi and
co-Principle Investigators are Professors Norman Badler, Ruzena Bajcsy,
Peter Buneman, and Bonnie Webber.

Pennsylvania's CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is located in the
Department of Computer and Information Science but includes members from the
departments of Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Linguistics,
Philosophy and Psychology as well as the Wharton School and the School of
Medicine.  Primary research interests include natural language processing,
flexible communication with knowledge bases, programming languages and
knowledge bases, automated reasoning and expert systems, computer
interaction in three dimensions, interaction of visual and tactile
information, robotics, analysis and synthesis of motion, computer graphics
and animation, computational logic, and the design of languages for
representing and manipulating knowledge.

The CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE has been the recipient of
several other major grants recently, including an NSF Coordinated
Experimental Research grant ($3.8 million for five years), an IBM grant
for new ventures in Computer Science ($1 million), a Sloan Foundation
grant for Cognitive Science ($1.0 million), an Air Force Office of
Reseach grant for Query Driven Vision System ($1 million), a grant from
NASA for Human Body Motion Modelling ($800,000), and several grants
from the NSF Intelligent Systems Division.

Students interested in applying for graduate admission should write to:

     Professor Peter Buneman, Graduate Group Chair
     Department of Computer and Information Science,
     The Moore School
     University of Pennsylvania
     Philadelphia, PA 19104

Inquiries concerning faculty positions (regular and visiting) and research
staff positions should be directed to Professor Aravind K. Joshi at the same
address as above.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
108
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 1984  15:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: Skef Wholey <Wholey@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp
-BODY-
    From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
    Subject: Common Lisp.

        ... DEC developed Common Lisp at CMU using its money and
            apparently many of its own personnel, so they own
            the code developed.

DEC's Common Lisp was based on Spice Lisp -- a portable Common Lisp
implementation (written almost entirely in Common Lisp) for personal
workstations.  The Spice Lisp code is in the public domain, but the
VAX-specific compiler and runtime code is owned by DEC.  They have certainly
made big changes even in the Lisp-level code so that our sources may be very
different today, but most of the work done at CMU was on a portable,
public-domain implementation.

Perq Systems is (or will be) selling Common Lisp for the Perq -- their
implementation IS Spice Lisp, with little or no change.  Right now it is
jointly maintained by Perq and CMU.  Data General has also announced a Common
Lisp (based on Spice Lisp as well).  Symbolics is currently working on a Common
Lisp Compatability Package (CLCP) that is NOT based on Spice Lisp.  Because of
the strong similarity of Common Lisp and Zetalisp, such a compatability package
is feasible.  I've "ported" two large (source code at least 100K characters)
Common Lisp programs from the Perq (in Spice Lisp) to the 3600 (with CLCP) with
almost no modification.

        ... There may be a Common Lisp mailing list (Common-Lisp@SU-AI),
            but I haven't determined this for certain.  I asked to be
            put on the list but haven't heard anything back.

That mailing list was used during the design of Common Lisp and has been pretty
quiet lately except for nit-picking issues implementors worry about.  There is
currently no "Common-Lisp-Users" mailing list, but one could be created if
Common Lisp was deemed inappropriate material for AIList.

>-Skef

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 1984 17:06:53-EDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Mark N. Wegman <WEGMAN.YKTVMZ%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp/VM - History and Overview
-BODY-
   [This is a response to my request for more information.
   I have broken the message into two parts. -- KIL]


            A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF LISP/VM
            ______________________________

           A    complete   LISP    system,    LISP/VM   comprises    an
           interpreter/compiler for  its LISP language and  an environ-
           ment  that includes  a syntax-oriented  editor and  run-time
           debugger.

           History

           Created  at  the  IBM  Thomas  J.  Watson  Research  Center,
           Yorktown Heights, New York, LISP/VM grew out of a decade and
           a half of experience producing LISP systems.  Early LISP de-
           velopments at  T. J. Watson  were derived from the  LISP 1.5
           developed by John  McCarthy of MIT and  distributed by SHARE
           for the  IBM 704.  Subsequent modifications  and conversions
           by Fred Blair, ran on IBM  7090, 7094, 7040 and 7044 comput-
           ers.  This created and supported a LISP user community at T.
           J. Watson that has persisted to this day.

           After  the introduction  of System/360  in the  1960's, Fred
           Blair,  assisted  by  James Griesmer,  Mark  Pivovonsky  and
           Joseph Harry,  produced LISP/360, which inherited  much from
           the LISP 1.5 tradition.  LISP/360  ran in both the batch en-
           vironment  of OS/360  and  the  time-sharing environment  of
           TSS/360 and  VM/CMS.  The advent  of the IBM  System/370 and
           the limitations of the 18-bit  address space led to the cre-
           ation in the  mid-1970s of LISP/370.  In  the natural evolu-
           tion of a system created in a research environment, LISP/370
           diverged in its  semantics from both LISP/360  and LISP 1.5.
           It was eventually frozen as  an IUP (installed user program)
           and made available to internal IBM sites and some customers.

           In 1978, a new LISP project that would substantially enhance
           the capabilities  of LISP/370  was started.   Cyril Alberga,
           Martin Mikelsons, and  Mark Wegman were the  authors of this
           new LISP system, called YKTLISP,  for Yorktown LISP.  In ad-
           dition to being enhanced  functionally, YKTLISP was provided
           with a  sophisticated programming environment so  that users
           would be encouraged to  write maintainable and readable LISP
           programs.  It  has been used  extensively within IBM  and is
           now released publicly as  LISP/VM.  Contributors to the ref-
           erence manual  included the  system authors, John  Sowa, and
           Mary Van Deusen.

           Many  people have  participated in  discussions and  reviews
           which have contributed to the  quality of LISP/VM.  They in-
           clude:   Marc  Auslander,  Len  Berman,  Fred  Blair,  Chris
           Bosman-Clark, Alan  Brown, Larry Carter, Ashok  Chandra, Ken
           Chatfield, Alan Cobham, Walt  Daniels, James Davenport, Doug
           DeGroot, Cay  Dietrich, Pat Goldberg, Jim  Griesmer, Se June
           Hong,  Dick Jenks,  Paul Kosinski,  Vincent Kruskal,  George
           Leeman,  Victor  Miller,  Jim   Moore,  George  Radin,  J.A.
           Robinson,  Dick Ryniker,  Marshall Schor,  John Sowa,  Barry
           Trager, Jean Voldman, and Karen Woolhouse.

           LISP/VM Overview

           The LISP/VM Reference Manual describes in detail the facili-
           ties  and operators  available in  LISP/VM.  The  purpose of
           this description  is to list  the major features  of LISP/VM
           and some of the implementation  details to allow the experi-
           enced LISP programmer  to compare LISP/VM to  other LISP im-
           plementations.

           LISP/VM is  an interactive  LISP system for  use on  the IBM
           System/370 computer.   A program development  environment is
           provided which supports:

           ?   A structure editor for LISP functions and data which al-
               lows the  creation and modification of  objects from the
               file system and from the dynamic store.

           ?   An interactive interpreter which uses the editor to dis-
               play the course of program execution.

           ?   An indexed file system allowing access to LISP functions
               and data individually and as collections.

           ?   A compiler which will produce either immediately execut-
               able  functional  objects,  or  relocatable  objects  in
               files.

           ?   Carefully designed  compiler and  interpreter semantics.
               In most  practical cases, interpreted and  compiled code
               are fully interchangeable.

           ?   An error handler which  will, under user control, either
               return to the command level or enter a primitive command
               level from which the state of the computation may be ex-
               amined.

           ?   Pattern matching during lambda-binding and assignment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 1984 17:06:53-EDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Mark N. Wegman <WEGMAN.YKTVMZ%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp/VM - Features
-BODY-

           LISP/VM Features

           ?   Data types


               ?   Numbers include small integers  (up to 26 bits), in-
                   tegers of arbitrary precision (bignums) and floating
                   point numbers (7 bit exponent and 56 bit fraction).

               ?   Identifiers include characters and gensyms.

               ?   Pairs (lists or conses)

               ?   Vectors  of  arbitrary objects,  integers,  floating
                   point numbers, characters, or bits (Boolean values).

               ?   Hashtables can hash on pointers or structure.

               ?   Readtables allow prefix and infix character and dis-
                   patch macros.

               ?   State descriptors  capture the control  and environ-
                   ment components of an evaluation in a single object.

               ?   Streams are the interface to data in external files.

               ?   Functions and macros,  both interpreted and compiled
                   are ordinary data objects.

               ?   Funargs combine a function or  macro and a state de-
                   scriptor to provide a form of closure.

           ?   Scope and Extent

               ?   Variable bindings normally have lexical scope.

               ?   Variable bindings  that are declared fluid  have dy-
                   namic scope.

               ?   Control points established by CATCH and related con-
                   structs have dynamic scope.

               ?   Labels (or GO targets) have lexical scope.

           ?   Evaluation rules

               ?   Self-evaluating  forms  (constants) consist  of  the
                   numbers, character vectors, bit vectors and NIL.

               ?   Identifiers  (symbols or  variables)  evaluate to  a
                   current  lambda-bound value  or to  a default  value
                   stored in a non-lambda environment.

               Special forms as well as macros and function invocations
               are recognized by evaluating the CAR of a compound form.
               This feature allows  all operators in LISP/VM  to be re-
               defined by the user in order to modify or extend the se-
               mantics of the language.

               ?   The special forms are:

                     CLOSEDFN        FUNCTION        PROGN
                     COND            GO              QUOTE
                     EVALQ           GVALUE          RETURN
                     EXIT            LAMBDA          SEQ
                     F*CODE          MLAMBDA         SETQ

               ?   Macros  are applied  to  the invoking  form and  the
                   value of the macro call is re-evaluated.  A macro is
                   defined by assignment or lambda-binding.

               ?   Functions may have a fixed or variable number of ar-
                   guments.   Functions are  defined  by assignment  or
                   lambda-binding.

               ?   The bound variable  part of functions and macros may
                   be a pattern that specifies  the structure of an ar-
                   gument.  Specified components of  an argument may be
                   bound to distinct variables.

           ?   In addition  to all  the usual  type and  numeric predi-
               cates, LISP/VM includes three forms of structural equal-
               ity:

               ?   EQUAL is the traditional  equality test.  Atomic ob-
                   jects are EQUAL if  their external forms are identi-
                   cal.   Two composite  objects are  EQUAL if  for any
                   combination of  access operations  the corresponding
                   components are EQUAL.

               ?   UEQUAL     test    for     structural    equivalence
                   (isomorphism).

               ?   UGEQUAL tests for  structural equivalence and allows
                   different gensyms  in two objects if  their patterns
                   of occurrence are isomorphic.

               ?   All three equality predicates terminate for all data
                   objects, including objects  with shared and circular
                   structure.

           ?   Control structure

               ?   Simple sequencing  constructs include  PROGN, PROG1,
                   PROG2 and COND.

               ?   SEQ defines a sequential context and a scope for la-
                   bels and EXIT expressions.

               ?   PROG defines a scope for labels  as well as a set of
                   variables, and a scope for RETURN expressions.

               ?   Iterators include  the MACLISP-style  DO as  well as
                   most of the INTERLISP iteration constructs.

               ?   Mapping  operators include  MAP, MAPCAR,  MAPCAN, as
                   well as operators that map over vectors.

               ?   Non-local  exits  are  possible with  CATCH,  THROW,
                   THROW-PROTECT, and similar constructs.

               ?   State  saving and  application allows  co-routining,
                   backtracking and other non-LIFO control models.

           ?   Identifiers (symbols) have a  pname and a property list.
               There is  no function-value  cell, since  function defi-
               nition is assignment.

               Characters are not  a special case in  LISP/VM, they are
               simply the identifiers with a one-character pname.

               Gensyms are identifiers that  are created anew each time
               they are read.

           ?   Operations on  numbers include all the  usual arithmetic
               functions and a set of in-line operators for small inte-
               ger arithmetic.

           ?   Operations on lists normally  terminate or signal an er-
               ror when the list is circular.

           ?   Hash tables   allow hashing  on pointers,  structure, or
               the contents of character strings.

           ?   Operations on vectors  include specialized operations on
               character vectors (strings).

           ?   Structured data  definitions allow  named access  to the
               components of a data object.

           ?   The compiler can be  invoked dynamically to compile from
               and/or to the  LISP/VM heap or external  files.  In most
               cases, compiled  and interpreted definitions  are equiv-
               alent and interchangeable.

               Compilations take place in  an environment that may con-
               tain alternate definitions for  operators.  Thus, an op-
               erator can  have a  functional definition in  the normal
               environment, and  a macro definition that  emits in-line
               code in the compile environment.

           ?   Streams allow  parsed or character-oriented  data trans-
               mission between LISP/VM and the external file system.

           ?   Input/Output

               ?   The PRINT function produces an external form for ev-
                   ery LISP/VM  data object.  In addition,  shared sub-
                   structure  is revealed  by markers  in the  external
                   form; these markers are recognized by the READ func-
                   tion.

               ?   The input  syntax is determined by  a readtable that
                   defines a wide variety of character attributes.

           ?   Storage allocation

               ?   There  are no  fixed allocations  of storage  within
                   LISP/VM.  The  boundaries between heap,  stack, com-
                   piled  programs, etc.,  are adjusted  dynamically to
                   make full use of the available memory.

               ?   Garbage collection  is done  by a  copying algorithm
                   that takes  time proportional to the  amount of data
                   that survives the collection.

           ?   A MACLISP compatibility package allows existing applica-
               tions to be compiled for use in the LISP/VM environment

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
109
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 84  1800 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kenneth I. Laws <Laws@SRI-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Late Mailing
-BODY-
This issue, # 109, is being mailed after issue # 110 due my accidentally
deleting the file instead of sending it out.  Fortunately the SRI systems
staff was able to recover a copy.  I apologize for not getting the seminar
notices out in reasonable time.  -- KIL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 84  1136 PDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Blicher <PB@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ebstein/turing tests
-BODY-
As I continue to deal with bureaucracies and uninterested workers, it is
becoming clearer that the Turing test will soon be passed, but not because
of any improvement in technology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1984 00:01:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard F. Hartung <HARTUNG@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What APA stands for.
-BODY-

   APA stands for both American Psychological Association and American
Psychiatric Association, two separate organizations

    A friend who attends all these things tells me that the Psychological
org is meeting in Toronto this year (in about a week) and met their last in
1981 or 1980.  In 1982 it was in Washington D.C.  Although he doesn't
remember off hand where the Psychiatric org. met in 82, this was probably
the meeting refered to in the last AILIST (conclusion by default).

                        Michael Moran
                        Lockheed Advanced Software Laboratory

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 4 Aug 84 18:52:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stuart McLure Cracraft <G.MCLURE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Any online Personality Tests?
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This is
    in response to Stanford query about on-line personality tests.]


The book you want is
        PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME (absurdly chosen title)
        by David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates

It contains a 70-question instrument, the Keirsey Temprament Sorter,
based on the psychological typology developed by Carl Jung and
others (Myers-Briggs). The Myers-Briggs instrument which is the
true instrument is not available to the general public. Distribution
of it is limited to psychology grad students and psychologists/psychiatrists.
The Keirsey test is the best substitute I've found.

[...]

Several psychologists I have spoken with indicate the Jung typology
tests such as the Myers-Briggs and Keirsey are gaining recognition
as extremely deep tests. Although I have no formal degree in
psychology, I feel that the Jung typology is vastly more deep than
the Rorschach, Minnesota Multi-Phasic, and California Psychological
inventories.

The Myers-Briggs was eschewed by earlier researchers and is only
recently over-coming its "bad" reputation. The correlations between
personality types and profession, marriage, partners, etc are
very significant.

To me, the Jung typology is the most profound psychological work
done in this century by anyone.

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Aug 84 12:01:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CLARIFY: Rand's On-Line Guide for Revising Technical Prose
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


CLARIFY: Rand's On-Line Guide for Revising Technical Prose
Rand Report: N-2037-RC by M.E.Vaianan, N.Z.Shapiro and M.L.LaCasse 1983

This note describes the development and testing of CLARIFY, a computerized
writing aid designed to assist writers in revising technical prose. CLARIFY
is not a traditional readability formula; its design reflects research on how
English speakers understand sentences. CLARIFY flags sentences that have
certain patterns of nominalizations, prepositional phrases, and forms of the
verb to be.  The choice of these features reflects research which suggests
that the dominant strategy employed by English speakers in interpreting
sentences is to assume a subject-verb-object (SVO) structure.  The features
that CLARIFY flags are good surrogate indicators that a sentence does not have
an SVO structure, and therefore, that the initial interpretive strategy will
be unsuccessful.  In developing CLARIFY, the authors tested various patterns
of these features, and obtained user comments about the system's usefulness
and effectiveness.  Like all computerized writing aids, CLARIFY hs
limitations, which are discussed in the note. CLARIFY is in general use at
the Rand Corp. where it is also continuing to be tested 55pp**
**From Selected Rand Abstracts

Rand publications are located in the Green Library.
H. Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 08/14/84 12:35:48
-FROM-
From: ROSIE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanisms for Learning
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


            DATE:      Thursday, August 16, 1984
            PLACE:     NE43-7th Floor Playroom

               MECHANISMS FOR LEARNING

                  Kamesh Ramakrishna
        Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio


A number of different mechanisms for machine learning have been
proposed, though the definition of "learning" itself has not been
particularly clear.  We show that many proposed learning mechanisms
can be placed into two classes and that mechanisms within each class
are reducible to each other.  These two classes correspond roughly to
the "knowledge acquisition" and "skill refinement" classes proposed by
Mitchell, Carbonell, and Michalski; however, (and more interestingly)
they correspond to the two different levels of knowledge-based
processor architecture proposed by Newell in "The Knowledge Level".
The knowledge acquisition type learners appear to be at the
Symbol/Program level.  This observation lets us integrate this
approach to machine learning with the taxonomy of problem-solving
types proposed by Chandrasekaran et al., leading to the hope of an
integrated knowledge-level approach to both problem-solving and
learning.

With appropriate restrictions placed on the functioning of the
learning mechanisms, we show that the two classes also differ in the
fundamental learning problem that they solve.  We identify some
learning problems that are not solved by either class -- identifying
some possible future directions for research.

HOST:  Prof. Ramesh Patil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 21 Aug 84 09:17:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Juanita Mullen  <MULLEN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Medical Knowledge Acquisition
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                          RIPLUNCH

SPEAKER:     Larry Fagan, Joan Differding, and Mark Musen
             Medical Computer Science Group

TOPIC        OPAL: Practical Knowledge Acquisition for ONCOCIN

DATE:        Friday, August 24, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

  We will  discuss our  design of  the ONCOCIN  knowledge  acquisition
framework named OPAL.  ONCOCIN is  designed to assist physicians  with
the management of cancer treatment plans.  A number of these treatment
plans, called protocols,  have been  entered into  the ONCOCIN  system
using low level  tools.  We  have recently built  a protocol  oriented
knowledge  acquisition  system  designed   directly  for  the   cancer
specialist (oncologist).  The OPAL knowledge acquisition subsystem  is
graphically based and represents our analysis of the common components
of cancer treatment plans.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 21 Aug 84 11:11:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: Pamela Sedell <MAP@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Functional Languages and Parallel Computers
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


          "Functional Languages and Parallel Computers"


                       John Hughes
           Oxford University Computing Laboratory
             Programming Research Group, Oxford

                     Friday, August 24, 1984
                         NE43-512, 2:15

  We introduce functional programming and show how "real programs"
  such as simple operating systems can be written functionally.  We
  also explain why functional languages are particularly useful for
  programming parallel computers.  We have discovered that the
  relationship between functional languages and parallel computers
  is closer than previously suspected:  functional languages actually
  require a parallel implementation if they are to use memory efficiently.
  We introduce two simple constructs which allow the functional programmer
  to exert close control over memory requirements, and give a number of
  examples to illustrate them in use.  The new constructs can also be
  used to implement "non-deterministic unmerge".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 84 10:08:19-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!ames!eugene @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: National ACM'84 meeting San Franciso, CA
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ames.472

I am posting the following as a request of Lew Bornmann of the ACM'84
publicity committee.  Please mail any requests for information to:

      bornmann@ames-nas-gw    [or bornmann%ames-nas-gw@su-score]

=======================================================================

                ACM-84:  The Fifth Generation Challenge

What:   ACM-84, the Association for Computing Machinery's 1984 Annual
        Conference.
When:   October 8 to 10, 1984, with an "Early Bird" reception on Sunday,
        October 7.
Where:  At the San Francisco Hilton and Tower, Mason and O'Farrell Streets,
        San Francisco
Theme:  The Fifth Generation Challenge

The Conference will examine:

        The Impact of the Fifth Generation.
                Specifically, the effect that Fifth Generation computers
                will have over the next decade on society, industry, the
                professions, and computer science.
        The Building Blocks of the Fifth Generation.
                An examination of current developments, new techniques, and
                new products which will take computing into the 1990s.
        The Character of Integration...
                in the Fifth Generation.  How the Fifth Generation building
                blocks will fit together, and the impact of integration.

The technical conference program will complemented by:
        o       Professional Development Seminars.
        o       An exhibit program.
        o       An educators' program.
        o       A computer chess championship.

Social events will include a "Themes of San Francisco" gala evening and an
awards luncheon.

Special travel arrangements have been made with Corporate Travel Services of
Sunnyvale, Ca.  These include discounted air fares and pre- and
post-conference tours.  (CTS toll-free phone number:  800/851-3478; in
California:  call 408/734-9990 collect.)

Advance Registration Fees:
        $110.00 ACM Members
        $150.00 Non-ACM Members

Accommodations:  Blocks of rooms for ACM-84 have been reserved.  Please
contact the Hilton directly for reservations.  When calling, specify ACM-84
for reduced rates.
        Director of Front Office Operations
        San Francisco Hilton Tower
        Mason and O'Farrell Streets
        San Francisco, Ca.  94102
        (415)771-1400

Room rates:
        Singles begin at $67
        Double begin at $87

For any additional information, contact:
        (415)948-6306

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
110
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 84 08:29:19 PDT
-FROM-
From: Koenraad Lecot <koen@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inexact Reasoning Panel Discussion at AAAI-84
-BODY-
Does anybody have a tape and/or summary of what has been said during
the AAAI-84 panel discussion on inexact reasoning ?

>- Koenraad Lecot

 Arpa : koen@ucla-locus
 uucp : ...ucla-cs!koen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 84 10:49:50-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!gmf @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX VMS LISP ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uvacs.1453

I would appreciate information about LISP interpreters for a VAX
11/780 running VMS.  Thanks in advance.

          Gordon Fisher
          ...uvacs!gmf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 84 8:18:16-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!rti!rti-sel!crm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: VAX VMS LISP ?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: rti-sel.1182

Check out Common LISP, a new product for VMS which (I am told) is very like
InterLISP...

You can buy the book about it from Digital Press.  Call your local DEC office
for details.

Charlie Martin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 84 14:38 MST
-FROM-
From: LMiller%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI tools for IBM-PC/family
-BODY-
I  am  looking  for leads for two kinds of tools to run on models of the
IBM-PC (or compatibles).  The tools are: 1) expert system building tools
(have seen Expert-Ease and M.1 and need more than just a good LISP/PROLOG)
and  2)  CAE  graphic design aids for software engineers (a la CAD tools
for  hardware).   I  know  such  tools exist for somewhat large machines
(e.g.   Vaxen,  Appollo, Sun ...) but our needs are for something on the
order of a super/micro.  If you've seen such tools and can provide phone
numbers or addresses of vendors I would appreciate your help.  Thanks

Lance Miller
(LMiller%pco@CISL)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 84 15:05:41-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!druxx!jlmalito @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert system ``planner'' wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: druxx.604


We are currently planning on building a UNIX-based expert system to
handle ``system administration'' on a computer system.  My plan is to
build a knowledge base containing facts about the computer system, as
well as descriptions of possible actions and their consequences.  The
expert system would be presented with a description of the current world,
and a goal.  The planner (``inference engine'') will determine what
actions are needed to get from the current world to a goal state.

Due to time constraints, we are trying to find a planner that can
accomplish the task described above.  If anyone knows of such a planner
(or a system containing one), please contact me.  We need source,
preferably for a UNIX system.  Anything close will do.  We would
consider any purchase agreement and gladly accept freebies.

Quick responses would be appreciated.  (Also, any ``Have you
checked...?'' would be great.)

Any responses of general interest will be posted.

thanks,

Jeanine L. Malito
{ihnp4,allegra}!druxx!jlmalito

AT&T Information Systems
Rm. 30G73
11900 N. Pecos St.
Denver CO  80234

303-538-3859

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Aug 84 0:40:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: KYLE.WBST@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomic System
-BODY-
RE: BILL MANN'S REQUEST FOR TAXONOMY INFO.

IN THE LATE 1960'S, CESARE CACERES DEVELOPED PROGRAMS TO ANALYZE EKG
HEART WAVEFORMS WITH THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE IN ORDER TO CLASSIFY
PATTERNS THAT DEVIATED FROM THE NORM TO SPOT EARLY HEALTH PROBLEMS.

HE ALSO DEVELOPED STREP THROAT BACTERIA CLASSIFICATION PROGRAMS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOFFMAN LA ROCHE COMPANY.

ABOUT THIS SAME TIME, SANDIA LABS DEVELOPED A BACTERIA CLASSIFICATION
PROGRAM.

ALSO AT ABOUT THIS SAME TIME THE ARMY AT EDGEWOOD ARSENAL DEVELOPED A
CLASSIFICATION PROGRAM FOR VARIOUS CHEMICALS THAT HAD TOXIC PROPERTIES.

MOST OF THE INFO ON THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE IN THE OPEN LITERATURE IN THE
OLD ASTIA DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 1984 22:05:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: doshi%umn-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Question about HEARSAY-II.
-BODY-
I have a question about the HEARSAY-II system [Erman et.al.1980].

What exactly is the HEARSAY system required/supposed to do ?
i.e. what is the meaning of the phrase :
      "Speech Understanding system"


Honestly, I did go thru [Erman+ 1980] carefully. I can quote the following :

      page 213 : "The HEARSAY-II system....represents both a specific
                  solution to the speech-understanding problem and a
                  general framework for co-ordinating independent
                  processes to achieve cooperative problem solving
                  behaviour."

      page 213 : "The HEARSAY-II reconstructs an intention ....      "

      page 214 : "The HEARSAY-II recognises connected speech in .... "

      page 234 : (this is a footnote)
                 "IBM has been funding work with somewhat different
                  objective... Its stated goals mandate little reliance
                  on the strong syntactic/semantic/task constraints
                  exploited by the DARPA projects. This orientation is
                  usually dubbed SPEECH RECOGNITION as distinguished
                  from SPEECH UNDERSTANDING."

       page 233 : "DARPA speech understanding system performance goals.....
                                -------------                    -----
                  The system should
                      - Accept connected speech
                      - from many
                      - cooperative speakers of the General American Dialect
                      - in a quiet room
                      - using a good-quality microphone
                      - with slight tuning per speaker
                      - requiring only natural adaption by the user
                      - permitting a slightly selected vocabularu of 1000 words
                      - with a slightly artificial syntax and highly
                        constrained task
                      - providing graceful interaction
                      - tolerating less than 10 % semantic error

                        [this is the only direct reference to `understanding`
                         or `semantics`]

                      - ....... "

Let me explain my confusion with examples. Does the system do one of the
following :

      - 1) Accepts speech as input; Then, tries to output what (ever) was
          spoken or might have been spoken ?

      - 2) Or, accept speech as input and UNDERSTAND it ?

Now, the 1) above is, I think speech RECOGNITION. DARPA did not want just that.

Then, what is(are)  the meaning(s) of UNDERSTAND ?

      - if I say "Alligators can fly", should the system repeat this and also
        tell me that that is "not true"; is this called UNDERSTANDING ??

      - if I say "I go house", should the system repeat this and also add that
        there is a "grammetical error"; is this called UNDERSTANDING ??

      - Or, if HAYES-ROTH claims  "I am ERMAN", the system should say
        "No, You are not ERMAN" - I dont think that HEARSAY was supposedd
        to do this (it does not have Vision etc). But you will agree that
        that is also UNDERSTANDING. Note that the above claim by
        HAYES-ROTH would be true if :
              - he had changed his last name
              - he was merely QUOTING what ERMAN might have said somewhere
              - etc

So, could someone (the original authors of HEARSAY-II, perhaps)
respond to the question :
        In light of the above examples, what does it mean by
        saying that HEARSAY-II understands speech ?

Thank you.

>- raj
   Graduate student
   U. of Minnesota

   CSNET : doshi.umn-cs@csnet-relay


Reference : L.D.Erman, F.Hayes-Roth, Victor Lesser and D.R.Reddy
            "The Hearsay-II speech Understanding System : Integrating
                 Knowledge to resolve uncertainity."
            ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 12, No 2, June 1980.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu Aug 23 14:47:43 1984
-FROM-
From: mclure@sri-prism
-SUBJECT-
Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 9th move
-BODY-
[...]

The Machine Moves
>----------------
        Depth   Move    Time for search         Nodes      Machine's Estimate
        8 ply   cxd4   18 hours, 7 minutes    6.5x10^7       +=


The Game So Far
>--------------
1. e4    c5     6. Re1   a6
2. Nf3   d6     7. Bf1   e5
3. Bb5+  Nc6    8. d4    cxd4
4. o-o   Bd7    9. cxd4
5. c3    Nf6

Commentary
>---------
  [...]

  Tli@Usc-Eclb, USCF ?
   Unfortunately, the voting will also keep out the inspired moves.  So
   we get an average game of all playing....

  SLOAN@WASHINGTON
   8. ...  b5
   It is worth noting a classical problem here in building a chess program:
   1) The machine was following its book until this move,
   2) As White, the machine should enjoy AT LEAST EQUALITY in the first
     position following "book" recommendations,
   3) However, having switched from "book" evaluation to its own
     opening/middle game evaluation, the machine now decides that it
     doesn't much like this position after all!
   There are several possibilities:
   0) Black is superior in the starting position (unlikely!)
   1) the book (at least this line) is inferior, and the machine should
      discard it (anyone out there think that the Prestige will do
      this?)
   2) the book is (objectively) correct, but this line does not match
     the playing "style" of the machine (i.e., the position is OK, but
     the machine doesn't know the correct thematic continuations, and
     hence will indeed find the position to be difficult.)
   This last possibility is most likely, and is not limited to machine
   play. Many human players have the same problem when they memorize
   columns and columns of analysis without understanding the REASONS for
   the evaluations at the ends of the columns.  This leads to post-mortem
   conversations of the form "That master isn't so strong; I had him
   CRUSHED in the opening...but he SOMEHOW escaped to a dead drawn
   ending - he didn't even know that it was theoretically drawn - he
   refused my draw offer! - I was so mad at him for that that I lost my
   concentration for 1 move and hung a piece."

  EWG@Cmu-Cs-Ps1, USCF ?
   The comment that the group of humans won't have a
   long term strategy is, I think, naieve.  It is just
   as easy for us to analyze lines of play (e.g.
   kingside vs queenside attack, try to trade off and
   queen a pawn, etc.) as it is for us to analyze the
   single position.  If anything it's somewhat easier,
   since we think about that anyway.  Why not solicit
   votes on that level as well and at least report the
   judgement (if not allowing it to directly choose the
   move at hand, which would be rash).  A suggestion
   for later in the game, at least.  This harkens back
   to memories of 10 or so years ago when I was still
   reading the chess books, and ran across a comment by
   one of the grandmasters (Sam Reshevski, I think?)
   who liked to play blitz and always used the style of
   spending a significant time thinking about lines of
   play at the start of the middle game.
   His strategy was to have the lines firmly in
   mind for later play.  The comment was that his
   opponents often got bored waiting for him to reply
   at that time and wasted the real time; he could then
   play at blitz pace much better as the game
   progressed and the opponent struggled for the right
   line(s) of play.  It also had the surface appearance
   of him putting himself deliberately
   in time trouble, which wasn't the case.

Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-unix or Usenet: sri-unix!mclure.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 84 16:15:48 PDT
-FROM-
From: Guy M. Lohman <lohman%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - WYSIWYG Programming
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Wed., Aug. 29 Computer Science Seminar
  10:00 A.M.  WYSIWYG PROGRAMMING
  2C-012      Though single-user workstation hardware has evolved
            rapidly to the point of rivaling the mainframes of a
            few years ago, software has generally failed to keep
            pace.  "What you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG)
            software for text processing and other applications
            has shown the feasibility of performing applications
            by direct manipulations of visual objects.  But
            programming languages are still based on a
            "typewriter" model of communication which has
            remained essentially unchanged since the 1950's.
            This model has now been antiquated by the advent of
            high resolution displays and accurate pointing
            devices.  WYSIWYG applications are often dramatically
            easier to use than their traditional command-based
            counterparts.  This talk will describe a project to
            design and prototype an interactive facility for
            building programs as WYSIWYG objects, by capturing
            direct manipulations of visual objects on a display
            screen.  The resulting programs are animations which
            act like virtual users, doing the same things that a
            real user can do.  Building these programs is totally
            continuous with normal hands-on manipulation of the
            objects, while writing programs in traditional
            programming languages is quite discordant with that
            process.

            D. Hatfield, IBM Cambridge Scientific Center
            Host:  D. Chamberlin

            [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
111
-DATE-
Date: 20 August 1984 16:43-EDT
-FROM-
From: Roland Ouellette <ROLY @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Who knows about TOUCH SCREEN?
-BODY-
My group wants to buy a touch screen for our Symbolics 3600.  I would
appreciate any information about interfacing one to a 3600 or any
other machine.  Please, also, send me reviews, who's products are
great and who's aren't so hot, price, and anything else that you might
think of.  If you could send me information about who to get in touch
with, too, (i.e. address and/or phone) that would be fantastic.

Send mail to Roly at MIT-MC.ARPA

                        Many thanks in advance,
                        Roland Ouellette

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 August 1984 06:17-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: number-cruncher vs. humans: 9th move
-BODY-
query: is there a program that can convert from the algebraic
notation to descriptive notation?  I learned P-K4 and like that,
and there is no possibility that I will ever have an intuitive
feel for cxd4 and the like.  Can it be converted for those of us
who are algebraic cripples?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 84 13:38:10-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxm!sftig!sfmag!eagle!prem @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-84 - a short subjective report
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eagle.1187

The feelings evoked by the tremendous increase in interest, funding, media
participation and products available are best described by this excerpt from
W. B. Yeats :

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
 Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born? "

                        - W. B. Yeats, from "The Second Coming"

allegra!eagle!prem

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 84 10:23:00-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfcnml!robert @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Hardware Implementations of Cellular
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfcnml.3400002

The latest Discover magazine mentions a hardware implementation of
cellular automata in their article on the topic.  Interesting,
readily available, light reading.

                        -Robert (animal) Heckendorn
                        hplabs!hpfcla!robert

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 24 Aug 84 22:26:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomy Assistant
-BODY-
     The problems of systematically representing the conceptual
relations among a set of abstract objects in any knowledge domain go
right to the heart of much leading-edge AI research. All inferencing
is based, among other things, on implicit taxonomic understanding.

     It seems to me that in the knowledgebase management systems which
I hope we will see developed in the near future will be embedded rich
resources for evoking and representing taxonomies. Semantic nets
provide an ideal scheme with which to do just that.

     The most useful thinking about taxonomies and classification
theory appears not in the computer science literature, but at the
interface of library science, information science, and philosophy. The
leading journal in the field is _International Classification_ (which
should be available in any world class humanities library). It is
published (as I recall) three times a year, and is chockfull of
pointers to articles, books, dissertations, etc. in the world
literature on all aspects of classification theory.

     You might want to scan the following subject headings in some
recent editions of the index _Library Literature_ (published by H. W.
Wilson): Classification analysis, Subject headings, Thesauri. File 57
(Philosopher's Index) and File 61 (LISA -- Library and Information
Science Abstracts) on Dialog are also fertile sources of information
on the literature about taxonomies and classification theory. There
are many insights in the theoretical writings on classification theory
in the library science literature which could be handily transferred
to advanced AI research and systems.

     It occurs to me that what we need is a _meta-taxonomy_, that is,
a thorough inventory of all the fundamental conceptual structures by
which objects in _any_ domain can be taxonomically related.

     One way a taxonomy assistant might operate is to combine each and
every significant term in a knowledge domain with every other term,
and offer a list of possible relations with which to tag each offered
matching set. Someday, perhaps, we will be able to buy off the shelf
"taxonomy packs" (dynamic thesauri) in many domains.

>- Wayne --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 84 01:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Sidney Markowitz <sidney%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hearsay II question in AIList Digest   V2 #110
-BODY-

    Date: 22 Aug 1984 22:05:18-PDT
    From: doshi%umn-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
    Subject: Question about HEARSAY-II.

    I have a question about the HEARSAY-II system [Erman et.al.1980].

    What exactly is the HEARSAY system required/supposed to do ?
    i.e. what is the meaning of the phrase :
          "Speech Understanding system"

I am not familiar with the HEARSAY-II system, however I am answering
your question based on the following lines from the quotes you
provided, and some comments of yours that indicate that you are not
familiar with certain points of view common among natural language
researchers. The quotes:

(1)       page 213 : "The HEARSAY-II reconstructs an intention ....      "
(2)                   on the strong syntactic/semantic/task constraints
(3)                       - with a slightly artificial syntax and highly
                            constrained task
(4)                       - tolerating less than 10 % semantic error

  Researchers pretty much agree that in order to understand natural
language, we need an understanding of the meaning and context of the
communication. It is not enough to simply look up words in a
dictionary, and/or apply rules of grammar to sentences. A classic
example is the pair of sentences:   "Time flies like an arrow." and
"Fruit flies like a banana." The problem with speech is even worse --
It turns out that even to separate the syllables in continuous speech
you need to have some understanding of what the speaker is talking
about! You can discover this for yourself by trying to hear the sounds
of the words when someone is speaking a foreign language. You can't
even repeat them correctly as nonsense syllables.
  What this implies is an approach to speech recognition that goes
beyond pattern recognition to include understanding of utterances.
This in turn implies that the system has some understanding of the
"world view" of the speaker, i.e., common sense knowledge and the
probable intentions of the speaker. AI researchers have attempted to
make the problem tractable by restricting the "domain" of a system. A
famous example is the "blocks world" used by Terry Winograd in his
doctoral thesis on a natural langugage understanding system, SHRDLU.
All SHRDLU knew about was its little world of various shapes and
colors of blocks, its robot arm and the possible actions and
interactions of those elements. Given those limitations, and the
additional assumption that anything said to it was either a question
about the state of its world or else a command, Winograd was able to
devise a system in which syntax, semantics and task performance all
interacted. For example, an ambiguity in syntax could be resolved if
only one grammatical interpretation made semantic sense.
 You can see how this approach is implied by the four quotes above.
With this as background, lets proceed to your questions...


    Let me explain my confusion with examples. Does the system do one of the
    following :
          - 1) Accepts speech as input; Then, tries to output what (ever) was
              spoken or might have been spoken ?
          - 2) Or, accept speech as input and UNDERSTAND it ?
    Now, the 1) above is, I think speech RECOGNITION. DARPA did not want just
    that.

    Then, what is(are)  the meaning(s) of UNDERSTAND ?
          - if I say "Alligators can fly", should the system repeat this and
            also tell me that that is "not true"; is this called UNDERSTANDING?
          - if I say "I go house", should the system repeat this and also add
            that there is a "grammetical error"; is this called UNDERSTANDING?
          - Or, if HAYES-ROTH claims  "I am ERMAN", the system should say
            "No, You are not ERMAN" - I dont think that HEARSAY was supposedd
            to do this (it does not have Vision etc). But you will agree that
            that is also UNDERSTANDING. Note that the above claim by
            HAYES-ROTH would be true if :
                  - he had changed his last name
                  - he was merely QUOTING what ERMAN might have said somewhere
                  - etc

            In light of the above examples, what does it mean by
            saying that HEARSAY-II understands speech ?


  The references to "tasks" in the quotes you provided are a clue that
the authors are thinking of "understanding" in terms of the ability to
perform a task that is requested by the speaker. The examples in your
questions are statements that would need to be reframed as tasks. It
is possible that the system could be set up so that a statement like
"Alligators can fly" is an implied command to add that fact to the
knowledge base, perhaps first checking for contradictions. But you
probably ought to think of an example of a restricted task domain
first, and then think about what "understanding" would mean in that
context. For example, given a blocks world domain the system might
respond to a statement such as "Place a blue cube on the red pyramid"
by saying "I can't place anything on top of a pyramid". There's much
that can be done with modelling the speaker's intentions and
assumptions which would affect the sophistication of the resulting
system, but that's the general idea.

>- Sidney Markowitz <sidney%mit-oz@mit-mc.ARPA>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Aug 1984 15:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Speech Acts as Summaries of Plans
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                  Speech Acts as Summaries of Plans

                            Phil Cohen

                        SRI International
                               and
            Center for the Study of Language and Information
                         Stanford University


BBN AI Seminar
10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 5th
Third floor large conference room at 10 Moulton St., Cambridge.

Many theories of communication require a hearer to determine what
illocutionary act(s) (IA's) the speaker performed in making each
utterance.  This talk will sketch joint work, with Hector Levesque,
that aims to call this presumption into question, at least for some
kinds of illocutionary acts.  Such acts will be shown to be definable
on a "substrate" of interacting plans --- i.e., as beliefs about the
conversants' shared knowledge of the speaker's and hearer's goals and
the causal consequences of achieving those goals.  In this formalism,
illocutionary acts are no longer conceptually primitive, but rather
amount to theorems that can be proven about a state-of-affairs.  The
important point here is that the definition of, say, a request is
derived from an independently-motivated theory of action, rather than
stipulated.  Just as one need not determine if a proof corresponds to
a prior lemma, a hearer need not actually characterize the
consequences of each utterance in terms of the IA theorems, but may
simply infer and respond to the speaker's goals.  However, the hearer
could retrospectively summarize a complex of utterances as satisfying
an illocutionary act.

This move of defining illocutionary acts in terms of  plans may
alleviate a number of technical obstacles in applying speech act
theory to extended discourse.  It formally characterizes a range of
indirect requests  in terms of conversants' plans, and demonstrates
how certain conventionalized forms can be derived from and integrated
with plan-based reasoning.  Finally, it gives a formal foundation to the
view that speech act characterizations of discourse are not
necessarily those of the conversants but rather are the work of the
theorist.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
112
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 12:56:04-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lib of CS intro offer: Handbook of AI Vols 1-3 for $5
-BODY-
In Sept issue of Scientific American.

Club members agree to buy 3 other books during the next year.  Given that
one can buy books priced under 20$, it's a bargain, any way you look at it.
Having to send in their monthly reply card is a nuisance, of course, but
quickly buying 3 books cuts that short.  And I have no doubt, that anyone
serious about CS can find 3 interesting books in their 'Recent Selections'
catalogue.  Over the years, I bought dozens, which makes me 'a satisfied
customer', I guess.  Other than that, I have no connections ....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 1984 12:50-EST
-FROM-
From: Todd.Kueny@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VMS LISPs
-BODY-
> I would appreciate information about LISP interpreters for a VAX
> 11/780 running VMS.  Thanks in advance.

We use something called PSL (Portable Standard Lisp) from Univ. of Utah.
It has both a compiler and interpreter and *opinion* seems to be a heck
of a lot faster and far more efficient than DEC COMMON LISP.  We have
a version we created from Utah's Vax UNIX version; I think Utah will
have a VMS version of their own very soon.

PSL has a COMMON LISP compatability package, an object oriented
programming facility, and loads of other handy stuff.  Unlike COMMON
LISP PSL has a fixed sized heap with a two state garbage
collector.  A properly tuned PSL can be very fast (better
than C in many cases) and five or six can be
run at one time (while still doing other things).  Three DEC COMMON
LISPs can bog down a VMS 780 system.

                                                        -Todd K.
                                                        Unilogic

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 09:31:47-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Taxonomies
-BODY-
Some of the most recent KR systems attempt to provide meta-taxonomies;
I know of RLL/Eurisko, MRS, and AGE, all Stanford products.  Am not
sure what LOOPS provides in the way of knowledge about representation
schemes (although one could build something to recommend whether a given
piece of information should be a logical assertion, an object, an instance
variable of an object, Lisp code, etc).

Meta-taxonomies are HARD.  The ability to create a taxonomy of some body of
knowledge implies that one has both a deep and broad understanding of that
body.  The creation of a meta-taxonomy implies that there is a similar
level of understanding for many issues in knowledge representation, which
is definitely *not* the case.  We're still lacking adequate theories of
multiple inheritance, nor have we plumbed the depths of strange logical
systems.  Looking at library science is an interesting idea;  while I
imagine that many of the classification schemes are informal (probably
relying on human judgement), librarians have been classifying massive
databases (books) for a long time.

Moving farther afield, taxonomies in other AI areas are lacking.  I asked
a while back about taxonomies for rule systems, and found that there was
about one paper, by Davis and King in a ca. 1976 MI.  This, however, was
an informal taxonomy, and not particularly susceptible to mechanization.
Am still waiting for a tree that puts OPS5, Emycin, and Prolog on
different leaves...

                                                                stan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 10:12-EDT
-FROM-
From: Aaron F. Bobick <AFB%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Understanding speech versus hearing words
-BODY-
About speech recognition:

        From: Sidney Markowitz <sidney%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

        It turns out that even to separate the syllables in continuous speech
        you need to have some understanding of what the speaker is talking
        about! You can discover this for yourself by trying to hear the sounds
        of the words when someone is speaking a foreign language. You can't
        even repeat them correctly as nonsense syllables.
          What this implies is an approach to speech recognition that goes
        beyond pattern recognition to include understanding of utterances.
        This in turn implies that the system has some understanding of the
        "world view" of the speaker, i.e., common sense knowledge and the
        probable intentions of the speaker.....


Many psycho-lingists would dispute this.  The problem with the foreign
language example is that you don't recognize WORDS, not that you don't
understand the utterance (for now let us define understanding as
building some sort of SEMANTIC model, the details don't matter).
Consider the classic: "Green ideas sleep furiously."  I doubt one can
"understand" this in any plausible way yet it's encoding is easy.
Even if one removes grammar and is listening to a randomized listing
of Websters dictionary, one can easily parse the string into syllables
and words.

In fact, *except under noise conditions much worse than normal
conversation*, there is psycho-linguistic evidence that context does
not greatly affect word recognition by humans in terms of the parsing
of the input signal.  ....

(I am over simplifying a little; there is also evidence that
context can help you make judgements about incoming words and
syllables.  However, this may be a post-access phenomena, sort of a
surprise effect when an anomalous word or syllable is encountered; the
jury is still out.   Regardless, it is certainly reasonable to consider
a context independent word recognition system. )

.....  Therefore, it is clearly possible to consider speech
*recognition* as separate from understanding.  Hearsay (I or II) does
not; some psychologists (and, by the way, many AI speech hackers) do.


Stuck in the middle again ......  aaron bobick (afb%mit-oz@mit-mc)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 30 Aug 84 04:59:09-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: On having virtually no crime rate.
-BODY-
RE:      "Saudi Arabia has virtually no crime rate," (Olympic commercial)

Every time I heard it, there was this little alarm going off in my head
saying: "Think about it.  There is something wrong here."   To which my
semi-automatic stress-reduction program (always running in the "background")
responded:  "Don't think about it.  This is just another unimportant question
which, at most, is going to mess up the priorities of other, more important
tasks you have to worry about."

Of course, now Wayne has found the "weak spot" in my 'semi-automatic ...'

Turning to Bantam for enlightenment, I find:

virtual         [ML virtualis]
                adj  existing in effect though not in name or fact

virtually       adv  almost; for the most part

And, out of habit, I double-check in Webster (the Time-freeby with nearly
unreadable typeset) and get rewarded with:

virtual         adj  equivalent to, though somewhat different or deficient
                - virtuality, n.


That didn't put me at ease at all,  and I grabbed the "New American Computer
Dictionary" (by Ken Porter) .... well, excuse me, the computer was involved
in presenting me with Wayne's article, right ?

virtual         Giving an appearance of being without actually; an important
                concept in medium- to large-scale data-processing systems,
                in which virtual techniques "trick" the computer system or
                a program into "believing" that there are more resources
                available than there actually are. For further discussion,
                see 'virtual machine', 'virtual storage'

Aha, me thinks, the Saudis must have applied a new police technique, where
something or someone is doing some 'tricky' stuff ...  but wait, '... being
without actually' ???  Wasn't it the other way around?  Better check that
in German - and Langenscheidt says...:

virtual         dem Wesen nach, eigentlich

well, that doesn't help much, so I do a 'reverse check' to see what I come
up with (an important technique. with often surprising results, remember
the first Russian automatic translations???)

eigentlich      (genau) proper; (tatsaechlich) actual; (wirklich) true, real;
                (dem Wesen nach) virtual;
                adv  properly; actually; really; (genau gesagt) properly
                speaking; 'das ~e London'  London proper; 'Ich bin ~ froh'
                AmF I am sort of glad; 'was wollen Sie ~?'  what do you want?

See what I mean?  Is it 'real' now or 'virtual'?  'What do you want?'

Well, you have to endure my excursion into Spanish, too, but I spare you the
Latin.:  'Diccionario Larousse del Espanol Moderno' says:

virtual         adj  Posible, que no tiene efecto actual. || 'Fis' Que tiene
                existencia aparente pero no real: 'imagen, objecto virtual'

virtualidad     f. Posibilidad.

(dabbling in this 'foreign' mumble makes me wish that everyone had a Mac
 so I could use the proper foreign characters, like 'Umlauts' in German, etc.
 of course, there'd still be the 'minor' problem of making the main-frames
 cooperate, of course .....)


What's the point of all this?  Well, that's the ultimate test for AI.
You folks can go off now to write a program which will understand, when
the Arabs and I together throw our hands up into the air and say:

        WELL,  YOU KNOW WHAT WE MEANT TO SAY .....


But seriously now, folks ....

Maybe, DWIM is the real test of artificial intelligence, no more worries
about proper spelling, syntax, or semantics.  No more error messages
from compilers, no more bugs in programs. For that matter, no more machines
with a habit of crashing.  Why limit ourselves to require AI to be able to do
what we humans can do?  Our 'REAL' intelligence is so bug-ridden that we
are on the verge of self-extinction as a result of our progress.  What I'd
like to see is a Master-Robot of the world, programmed to DWIM (do what I mean)
with one overriding GOAL:

        BUT NO MATTER WHAT I SAY OR DO - DON'T ALLOW ME TO SELF-DESTRUCT !!!

The idea that the human drive to survive has left us with 'defensive'
weapons which will most likely guarantee our ultimate and definite
demise from this universe makes me want to 'stop the world and get off'.

It makes me SO angry to know that most of this AI-stuff is being developed
to make better instruments of killing and destruction (looked at who's
doing the funding, lately?) - and so sad at the same time, knowing that
the last thing the people doing the developing want, is to help blowing
up the world, or any small part of it, for that matter.  I am afraid that
the AI-community will find itself in a similar situation one day, as the
nuclear phycisists, asking themselves the question:

"But how could we have prevented it?"  There is one thing to be learnt
from the Nueremberg trials after WW2:  There is no sympathy earned with
this statement.

BTW, for all you Commie-hunters out there, I'm as suspicious as the next fellow
of Russian intensions, but I think that these days it's more likely that some
lunatic from some smaller country (no need to focus on anyplace in particular,
really)  will light the match which will lead to the ultimate explosion.
What I am concerned about is, is the fact that we all cooperated in developing
the technology which makes the blast so effective and deadly.  And ....
         'being sorry'  isn't going to do a damn bit of good !

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, Wayne, aren't you as sorry as I that you got me started?
I know that wasn't your intension, but ... so what?

...  off and fix my 'semi-automatic...' so people like Wayne will have
a harder time messing with the priorities of things I need to do do ....

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
113
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 84 18:22:02-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!minow @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Eliza Passes Turing Test (again)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decvax.59

Readers of net.ai might enjoy this extract from "Computing Across
America,"  Chapter 11: A High-tech Oasis in the Texas Sun, written by
Stephen K. Roberts, published originally in (and Copyright 1984 by)
Online Today, September 1984 (a CompuServ Publication).

                        The Phantom SysOp

  (Austin SYSOP speaking)

        "Personally, I get a little tired of answering CHAT
        requests.  That's why I brought up Eliza."

        "You mean..."

        He twinkled with wry humor.  "You got it.  It's the
        perfect Turing test.  I have a second computer hooked
        up to my board system.  When someone issues a CHAT
        request, it says 'Hello?  Can I help you?' I changed
        all the messages so it emulates a sysop instead of a
        psychiatrist.  Some people never do catch on."

        I groaned.  "That's cruel!"

(Transcribed by my collegue, John Wasser.)

Martin Minow
decvax!minow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Aug 1984 11:31:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reply to McGuire about taxonomy assistant
-BODY-

(Reply to Wayne McGuire's comments on the need for a taxonomy assistant: )

I agree with the notion that representing and using conceptual relations
effectively  is one of the central problems of AI research.  You say

     "It seems to me that in the knowledgebase management systems which
     I hope we will see developed in the near future will be embedded rich
     resources for evoking and representing taxonomies. Semantic nets
     provide an ideal scheme with which to do just that."


How do we know that semantic nets are so good?  Isn't this a complex
unsolved problem, for which the effectiveness of semantic nets is still
an open issue?

I suspect that semantic nets are useful for these problems just as
binary notation is useful.  The representative power is there, but
success depends not so much on the distinctive properties of nets as on
the techniques that create and use the nets.  I agree that they look
promising.  (Promises, promises.)

You suggest that a taxonomy assistant might work by operating on the
vocabulary of the domain, relating items.  That sounds like another
promising idea that might lead to a very powerful set of
generalizations if it was tried.

In the case that prompted all this, there is no recognized domain or
literature.  I have an experimental program which includes a specialized
internal interface language having several hundred predefined operators.
Doing a taxonomy is one way to increase my understanding of the
interface language.  So I would like to have a taxonomy assistant that
did not have to presume a domain.

Bill Mann

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Aug 1984 12:20:08 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: aids to the mind
-BODY-
I've gotten several interesting replies to my inquiry about finding a
"taxonomy assistant"  that could help me in thinking about the
organization of a collection of items.  It raises a larger issue:

        What intellectual operations are worth developing programmed
aids for?

Nobody came up with a pointer to an existing program for the taxonomy
task (except for something named PEGASUS, on the related topic of
vocabulary construction; I need to check it out.)  But still, there
might be other sorts of programmed assistants out there.

Here is a wish list for programmed assistants that could potentially be
important for my lifestyle:

RESOURCE ALLOCATION ASSISTANT:  Given a supply or a flow of resources,
help allocate them to particular uses.  Budgeting, personal time
allocation and machine scheduling are special cases.

TIME ALLOCATION ASSISTANT:  (a specialization, very important to me)
Help work through allocation of my time so that feasible things get
done, infeasible things don't get started, the things that get done are
the important ones,  things tend to get done on time,  allocations get
revised appropriately in the face of change, and the allocation provides
suitable flexibility and availability to other people.

I have in mind here much more than just the scratchpad-and-alarm-clock
kind of time allocation resource.  Those are fine as far as they go, but
they don't go nearly deep enough.  I want something that will ask me the
pertinent questions when they are timely.

EXPOSITORY WRITING ASSISTANT:  In this case, my research on text
generation has gone far enough to assure me that such a program is
feasible.  I have a systematic manual technique that works pretty well
for me, that could be developed into an interactive aid.  It would be
very different from the sentence-critic sort of programs that are now
emerging.

NEGOTIATION ASSISTANT:  There is a viewpoint and a collection of skills
that are very helpful in bargaining to an agreement.  A program could
raise a lot of the right questions.

                              ***

That is just a starter list.  What other sorts of assistants can we
identify or conceive of?

Other ideas can probably be developed from the problem-solving
literature, e.g. Polya, Wickelgren and Lenat.

This sort of thing could go far beyond the capabilities of autonomous AI
programs.  Often there are well known heuristics that are helpful to
people but too indefinite for programs to apply; an assistant could
suggest them.  Proverbs are one sort.

In sum, What do we want, and What do we have?

Bill Mann

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 84 14:21:56-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-bartok!shubin @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Replies to query for citations on user modeling
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: decwrl.3473

I posted a request for some papers on modeling users and/or user behavior,
and promised to post the results of my query.  (The original posting was on
or about 18 July 84).  Here is a summary of the results; a line of hyphens
separates one person's response from another.  I haven't had to check all
of them, and I may wind up with more references, which may be posted
later.  Any more suggestions are welcome.  Thanks to all.

>-----
Elaine Rich, "Users are Individuals: Individualizing User Models"
        Int.J.Man-Machine Studies 18(3), March, 1983.
Zog project at CMU
Elliot Soloway at Yale -- modeling novice programmer behavior
"The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction" by Card, Moran, and Newell
Current work at Penn by Tim Finin, Ethel Shuster, and Martha Pollock
             at UT at Austin by Elaine Rich
Work on on-line assistance:
        Wizard program by Jeff Shrager and Tim Finin (AAAI 82)
        Integral help by Fenchel and Estrin
        Lisp tutor - John Anderson at CMU
>-----
Regarding users' models of computer systems:
a.      Schneiderman, B. and Meyer R. "Syntactic/Semantic Interactions
        in Programmer Behaviour: A Model and Experimental Results"
        Int. J. of Computer and Information Sciences, Vol 8, No. 3, 1979
b.      Caroll, J.M., and Thomas, J.C. "Metaphor and the Cognitive
        Representation of Computing Systems" IEEE Trans. on Systems,
        Man, and Cybernetics, Vol SMC - 12, No. 2, March/April 1982.
c.      Anything from the CHI'83 conference -- Human Factors in
        Computing Systems sponsored by ACM.
About Modelling the User:
a.      Card, Newell and Moran, a book whose title escapes me
        offhand -- it has a chapter entitled The human Information
        Processor.
b.      Rich, E. "Users are Individuals: Individualizing user Models"
        Int. J. Man-Machine Studies 18, 1983
>-------
Peter Polson (U.COlorado) and David Kieras (U.Arizona) have a paper in this
year's Cognitive Science Conference on a program that tests user interfaces
by testing high-level descriptions of user behavior against expected system
behavior.
>-------
There was a lot of work done at Xerox PARC in the late
70's on task times and such.   They were interested
in work relating to I/O device design (mice, etc.), as
well as general models.  Some very good task timing
models came out of that work, I believe.
>------
Take a look at the work of Elaine Rich at Texas (formerly CMU).
>------
Chapter 6,The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,SK Card,
  SP Moran,A Newell
>------
...Some of the results of this are published in the 1983 AAAI Proceedings
in the paper "Learning Operator Semantics by Analogy" by S. Douglas
and T. Moran.

"A Quasi-Natural Language Interface to UNIX"; S. Douglas; Proceedings of
the USA-Japan Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Hawaii; 18-20 Aug
84; Elsevier.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Aug 84 13:05:13-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!dciem!mmt @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Hearsay II question in AIList Digest   V2 #110
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: dciem.1098


    It turns out that even to separate the syllables in continuous speech
    you need to have some understanding of what the speaker is talking
    about! You can discover this for yourself by trying to hear the sounds
    of the words when someone is speaking a foreign language. You can't
    even repeat them correctly as nonsense syllables.

I used to believe this myth myself, but my various visits to Europe for
short (1-3 week periods, mostly) trips have convinced me otherwise. There
is no point trying to repeat syllables as nonsense, partly because the
sounds are not in your phonetic vocabulary.  More to the point, syllable
separation definitely preceded understanding.  I HAD to learn to separate
syllables of German long before I could understand anything (I still
understand only a tiny fraction, but now I can parse most sentences
into kernel and bound morphemes because I now know most of the common
bound ones).  My understanding of written German is a little better,
and when I do understand a German sentence, it is because I can transcribe
it into a visual representation with some blanks.

(Incidentally, I also do some research in speech recognition, so I am
well aware of the syllable segmentation problem.  There do exist
segmentation algorithms that correctly segment over 95% of the syllables
in connected speech without any attempt to identify phonemes, let
alone words or the "meaning" of speech.  Mermelstein, now in Montreal,
and Mangold in Ulm, Germany, are names that come to mind.)
>-

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Aug 84 10:53:53-EDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph E. Stoy <JES@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call For Papers
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS

          FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE
                          A Conference Sponsored by
           The International Federation for Information Processing
                        Technical Committees 2 and 10

                                Nancy, France
                           16 to 19 September, 1985


This conference has been planned as a successor to the highly successful
conference on the same topics held at Wentworth, New Hampshire, in October
1981.  Papers are solicited on any aspect of functional or logic programming
and on computer architectures to support the efficient execution of such
programs.

Nancy, in the eastern part of France, was the city of the Dukes of Lorraine; it
is known for its "Place Stanistlas" and its "Palais Ducal".  "Art Nouveau"
started there at the beginning of this century.  There are beautiful buildings
and museums and, of course, good restaurants.

Authors should submit five copies of a 3000 to 6000-word paper (counting a full
page figure as 300 words), and ten additional copies of a 300-word abstract of
the paper to the Chairman of the Programme Committee by 31 January 1985.  The
paper should be typed double spaced, and the names and affiliations of the
authors should be included on both the paper and the abstract.

Papers will be reviewed by the Programme Committee with the assistance of
outside referees; authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by 30
April 1985.  Camera-ready copy of accepted papers will be required by 30 June
1985 for publication in the Conference Proceedings.

Programme Committee:
        Makoto Amamiya (NTT, Japan)
        David Aspinall (UMIST, UK)
        Manfred Broy (Passau University, W Germany)
        Jack Dennis (MIT, USA)
        Jean-Pierre Jouannaud (CRIN, France)
        Manfred Paul (TUM, W Germany)
        Joseph Stoy (Oxford University, UK)
        John Willliams (IBM, USA)

Address for Submission of Papers:
        J.E. Stoy, Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ, England.

Paper Deadline:  31 January 1985.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To receive a copy of the advance programme, return the following information to
J.E. Stoy, Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ, England
or by electronic mail to JESTOY@UCL-CS.ARPA

I plan to submit a paper: [ ]
        Subject:
Name:
Organisation:
Address:

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
114
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 1984 9:00-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross@wpafb-afita
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP for the Eclipse 250 with RDOS
-BODY-
I recently joined a group here doing low level pattern recognition work
applied to speech recognition and image processing. We have an Eclipse
250 running the RDOS operating system. We also have C (unix version 7
compatable). Does anyone out there know of a dialect of LISP that can be
used with this system? Any suggestions? Please respond to the address
listed below. Thanks in advance.

Steve Cross
cross@wpafb-afita

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 84 10:29 PDT
-FROM-
From: Feuerman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AGE:  Who to contact?
-BODY-
I'm interested in looking into AGE, which is quoted as being a "Stanford
product."  Does anyone have the name and phone number of who to contact
to obtain things, such as manuals, users guides, etc.  Thanks in
advance.

>-Ken <Feuerman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA>.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 84 15:59 BST
-FROM-
From: TONY HASEMER (on ALVEY at Teddington) <TONH%alvey@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: programmed assistants
-BODY-
In response to Bill Mann's list of desirable mechanised assistants,
one of our graduate students urgently wants to know: if he drops
everything else and writes a thesis-writing assistant, will he get
a PhD for it?
Tony Hasemer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 84 09:56 PDT
-FROM-
From: Feuerman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Understanding speech vs. hearing words
-BODY-
The subject has come up about whether one need understand the semantics
of an utterance before one can recognize words, or even syllables.
While it seems a bit of research has been cited for both sides, I
thought it would be interesting to offer an experience of mine for
evidence:

I was travelling in Italy, and it was that time of the evening again,
time to find our daily ration of gelato (Italian ice cream)!  Our search
brought us into a bar of sorts, with Paul Simon's (I think it was Paul
Simon) recording of "Slip Sliding Away" playing in the background.  The
bartender was singing along, only it didn't quite come out right.  What
he was singing was more like "Sleep Sliding Ayway" (all of the vowels
being rather exagerated).  I regret that I had no way of knowing whether
he had seen the words written down before (which could account for some
of his mis-pronunciations), but it was pretty clear that he had no idea
of the meaning of what he was singing.


>-Ken.

[It seems to me that the same sort of anecdote could be told of any
child; they frequently store and repeat phrases that are to them
merely nonsense (e.g., the alphabet, especially LMNOP).  More to the
point, a good first step in learning any new oral language is to listen
to it, sans understanding, long enough to begin to identify syllables.
This greatly simplifies later word drills since the student can then
grasp the phonetic distinctions that the teacher considers important
(and obvious).  The implication for speech understanding is that it is
indeed possible to identify syllables without understanding, but only
after some training and the development of fairly sophisticated
discriminant capabilities.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 84 15:53 BST
-FROM-
From: TONY HASEMER (on ALVEY at Teddington) <TONH%alvey@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Now and Then
-BODY-
(Tony Hasemer challenges Norm Andrews' faith about cause and effect)

You say: "logical proof involves implication relationships between
discrete statements...causality assumes implication relationships
between discrete events".

Don't think me just another rude Brit, but:-

     > in what sense is a statement not an event
         A statement (as opposed to a record of a statement,
         which is a real-world object) takes place in the
         real world and therefore is an event in the real
         world.

     > what do you mean by "implication"
         This is the nub of all questions about cause and
         effect, and of course the word subsumes the very
         process it tries to describe.  One can say "cause
         and effect", or "implication", or "logically
         necessary", and mean ALMOST the same thing in each
         case.  They all refer to that same intangible feeling
         of certainty that a certain argument is valid or that
         event B was self-evidently caused by event A.

     > what do you mean by "relationship"
         Again, this is a word which presumes the existence
         of the very link we're trying to identify.


   May I suggest the following-

   The deductive logical syllogism (the prototype for all
infallible arguments) is of the form

     All swans are white.
     This is a swan.
     Therefore it is white.

Notice that the conclusion (3rd sentence) is only true iff the two
premises (sentences 2 and 3) are true.  And if you can make any
descriptive statement beginning "All..." then you must be talking
about a closed system.
   Mathematics, for example, is a set of logical statements about
the closed domain of numbers.  It is common, but on reflection rather
strange, to talk about "three oranges" when each orange is unique and
quite different from the rest.  It is clear that we impose number
systems on the real world, and logical statements about the square
root of the number 3 don't tell us whether or not there is a real
thing called the square root of three oranges.
   I'm saying that closed systems do not map onto the real world.
Mathematics doesn't, and nor does deductive logic (you could never
demonstrate, in practice, the truth of any statement about ALL of a
class of naturally-occurring objects).
   On the contrary, the only logic which will in any sense "prove"
statements about the real world (such as that the sun will rise tomorrow)
is INDUCTIVE logic.  Inductive logic and the principle of cause and
effect are virtually synonymous.  Inductive logic is fuzzy (deductive
logic is two-valued), and bootstraps itself into the position of
saying: "this must be true because it would be (inductively) absurd to
suppose the contrary".
   There is no real problem, no contradiction, between the principle
of cause and effect and deductive logic.  There is merely a category
mistake.  The persuasive power of deduction is very appealing, but
to try to justify an inductive argument (e.g. causality) by the
criteria of deductive arguments is like trying to describe the colour
red in a language which has no word for it.  We just have to accept that
in dealing with the real world the elegant and convenient certainties
of the deductive system do not apply.  The best logic we have is
inductive: if I kick object A and it then screams, I assume that it
screamed BECAUSE I kicked it.

   If repeated kicking of object A always produces the concomitant
screams, I have two choices: either to accept the notion of causality,
or to envisage the real world as being composed of a vast series of
arbitrary possibilities, like billions of tossed pennies which only
by pure chance have so far happened always to come down heads.  Personally,
I much prefer a fuzzy, uncertain logic to a chaos in which there is no
logic at all!  Belief in causality, like belief in God, is an act of
faith: you can't hope to PROVE it.  But whichever one chooses, it doesn't
really matter: stomachs still churn and cats still fight in the dark.
The very best solution to the problem of causality is to stop worrying
about it.

     Tony.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 04 Sep 84  1424 PDT
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Abstracts for BATS
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The next Bay Area Theory Seminar (aka BATS) will be at Stanford, this Friday,
7 September.

The talks (and lunch) will take place in Room 200-305. This is a room on the
third floor of History Corner, the NE corner of the Stanford Campus Quadrangle.

The schedule:

10:00am         U. Vazirani (Berkeley):
                "2-Processor Scheduling in Random NC"

11:00am         R. Anderson (Stanford):
                "A P-complete Problem and Approximations to It"

noon:           Lunch

1:00pm          E. Lawler (Berkeley):
                "The Traveling Salesman Problem Made Easy"

2:00pm          A. Schoenhage (Tuebingen, IBM San Jose):
                "Efficient Diophantine Approximation"


*****************************************************************************

ABSTRACTS:

10:00am:        U. Vazirani:

                    "2-Processor Scheduling in Random NC"

(joint work with D. Kozen and V. Vazirani)

The Two-Processor Scheduling Problem is a classical problem in Computational
Combinatorics, and several efficient algorithms have been designed for it.
However, these algorithms are inherently sequential in nature. We give a
randomizing poly-log time parallel algorithm (run on a polynomial number of
processors). Interestingly enough, our algorithm for this purely
combinatoric-looking problem draws on some powerful algebriac methods.  The
Two-processor Scheduling problem can be stated as follows:

Given a set S of unit time jobs, and a partial order specifying precedence
constraints among them, find an optimal schedule for the jobs on two identical
processors.


11:00am:        R. Anderson (Stanford):

            "A P-complete Problem and Approximations to It"

The P-complete problem that we will consider is the High Degree
Subgraph Problem.  This problem is: given a graph G=(V,E) and an integer k,
find the maximum induced subgraph of G that has all nodes of degree at least
k.  After showing that this problem is P-complete, we will discuss two
approaches to finding approximate solutions to it in NC.  We will give a
variant of the problem that is also P-complete that can be approximated to
within a factor of c in NC, for any c < 1/2, but cannot be approximated by a
factor of better than 1/2 unless P=NC.  We will also give an algorithm that
finds a subgraph with moderately high minimum degree.  This algorithm exhibits
an interesting relationship between its performance and the time it takes.



 1:00pm:        E. Lawler (Berkeley):

                 "The Traveling Salesman Problem Made Easy"

    Despite the general pessimism resulting from both theory and
practice, the TSP is not necessarily a hard problem--there are many
interesting and useful special cases that can be solved efficiently.
For example, there is an efficient procedure for finding an optimal
solution for the bottleneck TSP in the case that the distance matrix
is "graded." This result will be used to show how to solve a problem
of great practical importance to paperhangers: how to cut sheets from
a long roll of paper so as to minimize intersheet wastage.

    Material for this talk is drawn from a chapter, by P. Gilmore,
E.L. Lawler, and D.B. Shmoys, of a forthcoming book, The Traveling
Salesman Problem, edited by Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan,
and D.B. Shmoys to be published by J. Wiley in mid-1985.


 2:00pm:        A. Schoenhage (Tuebingen, IBM San Jose):

                    "Efficient Diophantine Approximation"

Abstract: Given (a_1,...,a_n) in R^d (with d < n) and epsilon > 0, how to find
a nontrivial x = (x_1,...,x_n) in Z^n of minimal Euclidean norm nu such that
|x_1 a_1 + ... + x_n a_n| < epsilon holds. A weak version of this classical
task (where epsilon and nu may be multiplied by 2^(cn) ) can be solved in time

                O(n^2 (d*n/(n-d) * log(1/epsilon))^(2+o(1))).

The main tool is an improved basis reduction algorithm for integer lattices.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 4 Sep 84 09:27:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: name AAAI-OFFICE <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85 Call for Papers
-BODY-

                                IJCAI-85
                             CALL FOR PAPERS

The IJCAI conferences are the main forum for the presentation of Artificial
Intelligence research to an international audience.  The goal of the IJCAI-85
is to promote scientific interchange, within and between all subfields of AI,
among researchers from all over the world.  The conference is sponsored by the
International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Inc., and
co-sponsored by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).
IJCAI-85 will be held at the University of California, Los Angeles from
August 18 through August 24, 1985.

        * Tutorials: August 18-19; Technical Sessions: August 20-24

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Authors are invited to submit papers of substantial, original, and previously
unreported research in any aspect of AI, including:

* AI architectures and languages
* AI and education (including intelligent CAI)
* Automated reasoning (including theorem proving, automatic programming,plan-
  ning, search, problem solving, commensense, and qualitative reasoning)
* Cognitive modelling
* Expert systems
* Knowledge representation
* Learning and knowledge acquisition
* Logic programming
* Natural language (including speech)
* Perception (including visual, auditory, tactile)
* Philosophical foundations
* Robotics
* Social, economic and legal implications


REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION

Authors should submit 4 complete copies of their paper.  (Hard copy only, no
electronic submissions.)

        * LONG PAPERS: 5500 words maximum, up to 7 proceedings pages
        * SHORT PAPERS: 2200 words maximum, up to 3 proceedings pages

Each paper will be stringently reviewed by experts in the topic area specified.
Acceptance will be based on originality and significance of the reported
research, as well as the quality of its presentation.  Applications clearly
demonstrating the power of established techniques, as well as thoughtful
critiques of previously published material will be considered, provided that
they point the way to new research and are substantive scientific contributions
in their own right.

Short papers are a forum for the presentation of succinct, crisp results.
They are not a safety net for long paper rejections.

In order to ensure appropriate refereeing, authors are requested to
specify in which of the above topic areas the paper belongs, as well
as a set of no more than 5 keywords for further classification within
that topic area.  Because of time constraints, papers requiring major
revisions cannot be accepted.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION

The following information must be included with each paper:

        * Author's name, address, telephone number and net address
          (if applicable);
        * Topic area (plus a set of no more than 5 keywords for
          further classification within the topic area.);
        * An abstract of 100-200 words;
        * Paper length (in words).

The time table is as follows:

        * Submission deadline: 7 January 1985 (papers received after
          January 7th will be returned unopened)
        * Notification of Acceptance: 16 March 1985
        * Camera Ready copy due: 16 April 1985

Contact Points

Submissions should be sent to the Program Chair:

        Aravind Joshi
        Dept of Computer and Information Science
        University of Pennsylvania
        Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

General inquiries should be directed to the General Chair:

        Alan Mackworth
        Dept of Computer Science
        University of British Columbia
        Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5

Inquiries about program demonstrations (including videotape system
demonstrations) and other local arrangements should be sent to
the Local Arrangements Chair:

        Steve Crocker
        The Aerospace Corporation
        P.O. Box 92957
        Los Angeles, CA 90009 USA

Inquiries about tutorials, exhibits, and registration should be
sent to the AAAI Office:

        Claudia Mazzetti
        American Association for Artificial Intelligence
        445 Burgess Drive
        Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
115
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 84 8:54:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Ferd Brundick (VLD/LTTB)" <fsbrn@BRL-VOC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: QLAMBDA
-BODY-

Does anyone have any information on a new LISP called QLAMBDA ??
It is a "parallel processor" language being developed by McCarthy at
Stanford and is supposed to run on the HEP (Heterogeneous Element
Processor).  Since we have one of the original HEPs, we are interested
in any information regarding QLAMBDA.  Thanks.

                                        dsw, fferd
                                        Fred S. Brundick
                                        USABRL, APG, MD.
                                        <fsbrn@brl-voc>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 84 8:21:00-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcsb!nowicki @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common Lisp - (nf)
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.5500009

I am also interested in such info. We have Sun-2's running 4.2 and I am
interested in obtaining Common Lisp for them.

>Tony Nowicki
{decvax|inuxc}!pur-ee!uiucdcs!nowicki

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Sep 84 17:28:19-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AGE
-BODY-
Call Juanita Mullen at (415)497-0474 for a good time in obtaining
Stanford programs such as AGE.  It'll cost you about $500.
CJP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 1984 14:08:13 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Clarification on the non-existence of the Expository Writing Assistant
-BODY-
I've gotten several inquiries asking for the Expository Writing Assistant
Program that I wished for in a previous message.  Unfortunately, it
doesn't exist.  I'm convinced from studying text generation that we have
ENOUGH TECHNICAL INFORMATION about the structure of text, the functions
of various parts and how parts are arranged that such a program could be
written.  My own writing practise, which now in effect simulates such a
program, indicates that the program's suggestions could be very helpful.

An introduction to the text structures I have in mind was presented at
the 1984 ACL/Coling conference at Stanford in July.  The paper was
entitled "Discourse Structures for Text Generation."

Right now I have no plans to create the assistant.

Sorry, folks.
Bill Mann

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 84 16:36:13-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!adcock @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lib of CS intro offer: Handbook of AI Vols 1-3 for $5
-BODY-
Please note that the Handbook of AI is a REFERENCE book. It is not
meant to be read from cover to cover.

Also, this is the only books on AI that the Lib of CS sells.

[I disagree with the first point.  The Handbook is also an excellent
tutorial, although it does lack illustrations.  I enjoyed reading it
cover to cover (although I admit to not having finished all three
volumes yet).  The second point is largely true, although they have
offered The Brains of Men and Machines, Machine Perception, LISPcraft,
and a few other related books.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Sep 84 10:15:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistical Workstations and Time-Series Lisp (Tisp)
-BODY-
Anyone interested in statistical workstations should look up the
August IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications article
"A Graphical Interface to an Economist's Workstation" by Thomas
Williams of Wagner, Stott and Company, 20 Broad Street, New York,
NY 10005.  He describes a prototype for time-series analysis that
was quickly assembled from standard Interlisp-D functions on the
Xerox 1108.  Apparently the economists of the International
Monetary Fund took to it immediately, and Williams sees no problems
in extending its capabilities to better support them.  His company
is also working on a workstation for professional securities traders.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 1984 13:42-EDT
-FROM-
From: Russ Smith <smith@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Binding - Jim Slagle
-BODY-
As of September 10, 1984 Dr. Slagle will have a new address:

        Professor James R. Slagle
        University of Minnesota
        136 Lind Hall
        207 Church Street, S.E.
        Minneapolis, MN  55455

        (612) 373-7513
        (612) 373-0132

        slagle%umn-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa (possibly...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 84 10:00:24-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!fortune!polard @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Understanding speech versus hearing words
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.4138

<fowniymz for dh6 layn iyt6r>   [Phonemes for the line-eater. -- KIL]

        Which hip was burned?
        Which ship was burned?
        Which chip was burned?
and     Which Chip was spurned?

all sound the same when spoken at the speed of conversational speech.  This
is evidence that in order to recognize words in continuous speech
you (and presumably a speech-recognition apparatus) need to understand
what the speaker is talking about.
        There seem to be two reasons why understanding is necessary
for word recognition in continuous speech:
        1. The existence of homonyms.  This is why "It's a good read."
sounds the same as: "It's a good reed," and why the two sentences
could not be distinguished without a knowledge of the context.
        2. Sandhi, or sound changes at word boundaries. The sounds at the
 end of a word tend to blend into the sounds at the beginning of the next
 word in conversation,  making words sound as if they ran into each other
and making words sound differently than they would when said in isolation.
        The resulting ambiguities are usually resolved by context.
        Speech rarely occurs without some sort of context, and even then
the first thing that usually happens is to establish a context for what
is to follow.
        To paraphrase Edsgar Dijkstra: "Asking whether computers will
understand speech is like asking whether submarines swim."

>-
Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Sep 84 10:54:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: induction vs. deduction
-BODY-
Tony Hasemer's comments on causality and its relationship to inductive
versus deductive logic are very well-taken.  It's time for people in
AI to realize that deduction is quite limited as a mode of reasoning.
Compared to induction, the mathematical foundations of deduction are
well-understood, and deductive systems are relatively easy to
implement on computers.  This no doubt explains its popularity in AI.
The problem arises when one tries to extend the deductive paradigm
from toy problems to real problems, and must confront exceptions,
borderline cases, and, in general, the boggling complexity of the
state space.

While deduction proceeds from the general (axioms) to the specific
(propositions), induction proceeds from the specific to the general.
This seems to be a more natural view of human intelligence.  By
observing events, one recognizes correlations, and infers causality
and other relationships.  To be sure, the inferences may be wrong, but
that's tough.  People make mistakes.  In fact, one of the weaknesses
of deduction is that it does not permit one to draw conclusions that
may be in error (assuming the axioms are correct), but that represent
the best conclusions under the circumstances.

Visual illusions provide good examples.  Have you ever wondered why
you see a Necker Cube as a cube (one of the two reversals), and not as
one of the other infinite number of possiblities?  Perhaps we learn of
cubes through experience (an inductive explanation), but the effect
also occurs with totally unfamiliar figures.  A more general inductive
explanation holds that we see the simplest possible figure (the
Gestalt principle of Pragnanz).  A cube, which has right angles and
equal-length sides, is simpler than any of the other possiblilities.
The concept of "simple" can be made precise: one description is
simpler than another if it can be encoded more economically.  This is
sometimes called the principle of Occam's Razor or the principle of
Minimum Entropy.

        Steve Barnard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 84 07:39 PDT
-FROM-
From: Woody.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Causality
-BODY-
Food for thought:
  All the arguments for and against cause and effect and the workings of
Causality have been based around the notion that the cause 'A' of an
effect 'B' are time-related:  we assume that for A to affect B, A must
come before B in our perseption of time.
  But does this have to be the case?  Mathematics (inductive and
deductive logic) are time-independent identities; by assuming that
Causality may be a time-dependent phenomina on the basis of
time-independent arguments is at best wishful thinking.
  What's wrong with event A affecting event B in event A's past?  You
can't go back and shoot your own mother before you were born because you
exist, and obviously you failed.  If we assume the universe is
consistant [and not random chaos], then we must assume inconsistancies
(such as shooting your own mother) will not arise.  It does not,
however, place time constrictions on cause and effect.

    - Bill Woody

Woody.Pasa@XEROX.Arpa   [Until 7 September 1984]
** No net address **    [After 7 September 1984]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 84 00:35:19 pdt
-FROM-
From: syming%B.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Calculus of Usual Values
-BODY-
  From: chertok@ucbkim (Paula Chertok)
  Subject: Berkeley Cognitive Science Seminar--Sept. 11

                  COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                         Fall 1984

           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A


SPEAKER:        L.A. Zadeh
                Computer Science Division, UC Berkeley

TITLE:          Typicality, Prototypicality, Usuality,
                Dispositionality, and Common Sense

          TIME:           Tuesday, September 11, 11 - 12:30pm
          PLACE:          240 Bechtel Engineering Center
          DISCUSSION:     12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4


The grouping of the concepts listed in  the  title  of  this
talk is intended to suggest that there is a close connection
between them.  I will describe a general approach  centering
on  the  concept of dispositionality which makes it possible
to formulate fairly precise definitions  of  typicality  and
prototypicality,  and  relate  these concepts to commonsense
reasoning.  These  definitions  are  not  in  the  classical
spirit and are based on the premise that typicality and pro-
totypicality are graded concepts, in the  sense  that  every
object is typical or prototypical to a degree.  In addition,
I will outline what might be  called  a  calculus  of  usual
values.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 84 16:45:49 edt
-FROM-
From: minker@maryland (Jack Minker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WEEK ON LOGIC AND AI
-BODY-

                               WEEK of
            LOGIC and its ROLE in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
                                  at
                      THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
                         OCTOBER 22-26, 1984

The Mathematics and Computer Science Departments at the University
of Maryland at College Park are jointly sponsoring a Special Year in
Mathematical Logic and Theoretical Computer Science.  The week of
October 22-26 will be devoted to Logic and its role in Artificial
Intelligence.  There will be five distinguished lectures as follows:

Monday, October 22: Ray REITER

        "Logic for specification: Databases
        conceptual models, and knowledge representation
        languages"

Tuesday, October 23: John McCARTHY

        "The mathematics of circumscription"

Wednesday, October 24: Maarten VAN EMDEN

        "Strict and lax interpretations of rules in logic programming"

Thursday, October 25: Jon BARWISE

        "Constraint logic"

Friday, October 26: Lawrence HENSCHEN

        "Compiling constraint checking programs in deductive databases"


All lectures will be given at:
        Time: 10:00 AM - 11:30AM

Location: Mathematics Building, Room Y3206

The lectures are open to the public.  If you plan to attend kindly
notify us so that we can make appropriate plans for space.
Limited funds are available to support junior faculty and graduate
students for the entire week or part of the week.  To obtain funds,
please submit an application listing your affiliation and send either
a net message or a letter to:

Jack Minker
Department of Computer Science
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 454-6119
minker@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
116
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 84 10:08:15-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!bethel @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Help : need a Full implementation of FRL.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1468


Does anyone have a full implementation of Minsky's FRL, running
under Unix 4.2 and Franz Lisp ? If so would you please respond and
let me know where you are. I would like to get the sources if
they are available and not protected by company/university policy.

Thanks in advance,

Robert C. Bethel

 ...decvax!ucf-cs!bethel or ...duke!ucf-cs!bethel
        bethel.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Sep 84 12:35:53-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!denelcor!csu-cs!walicki @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: prolog/lisp/robotics - query
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: csu-cs.2619

I am looking for information on applications of symbolic computing
(lisp, prolog) in the area of robotics.  I do not have any specifics
in mind; I am interested in any (even fuzzy) intersections of the
abovementioned domains.
Please respond by mail, and I will post a summary in net.ai.

Jack Walicki
Colorado State U.
Computer Science Dept.
(Fort Collins, CO 80523)
{hplabs,hao}!csu-cs!walicki

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 84 18:11:40 PDT (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: wedekind.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Memory tests
-BODY-
Someone I know is looking for a battery of well-documented,
self-administered memory tests.  Does anyone know of an accessible
source?

thank you,
                Jerry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday,  8-Sep-84 18:35:50-BST
-FROM-
From: O'KEEFE  HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.@EDXA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 problem
-BODY-

An MSc student came to me with a problem.  He had a pile of OPS5 rules
and was a bit unhappy about the means he had adopted to stop them
looping.  Each rule looked rather like
    (p pain77
        (task ^name cert)
        (injury ^name injury6 ^cert <C>)
        (symptom ^name symptom9 ^present yes)
       -(done pain77)
    -->
        (make done pain77)
        (modify 2 ^cert (compute ....))
    )
There were dozens of them.  The conflict resolution rule of never
firing the same rule on the same data more than once didn't help, as
modify is equivalent to a delete and a make.  What he actually wanted
can be expressed quite neatly in Prolog:

        candidates(BestToWorst) :-
                setof(W/Injury, weight(Injury, W), BestToWorst).

        weight(Injury, MinusCertainty) :-
                prior_certainty(Injury, Prior),
                findall(P, pro(Injury, P), Ps),
                product(Ps, 1.0, P),
                findall(C, con(Injury, C), Cs),
                product(Cs, 1.0, C),
                MinusCertainty is -(1 - P + P*C*Prior).

        pro(Injury, Wt) :-
                evidence_for(Injury, Symptom, Wt),
                present(Symptom).

        con(Injury, Wt) :-
                evidence_against(Injury, Symptom, Wt),
                present(Symptom).

        product([], A, A).
        product([W|Ws], A, R) :-
                B is A*W,
                product(Ws, B, R).

We managed to produce something intermediate between these two, it
used evidence-for and evidence-against tables in working memory, and
had just two hacky rules instead of the scores originally present.
I did spot a way of stopping the loop without using negation, and
that is to make the "certainty" held in the (injury ^name ^cert)
WM elements a gensym whose value is the desired number, then as far
as OPS5 is concerned the working memory hasn't been changed.  Of
course that makes patterns that use the number harder to write, and
seems rather hacky itself.

To come to the point, I have two questions about OPS5.
1) Is there a clean way of coding this in OPS5?  Or should I have
   told him to use EXPERT?
2) As I mentioned, we did manage to do considerably better than his
   first attempt.  But the thing that bothered me was that it hadn't
   occurred to him to use the WM for tables.  The course he's in
   uses the Teknowledge(??) "OPS5 Tutorial" (the one with the Wine
   Advisor) and students seem to copy the Wine Advisor more or less
   blindly.  Is there any generally available GOOD course material on
   OPS5, and if so who do we write to?  Are there any moderate-size
   examples available?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 84 11:33:00-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hp-dcd!hpfcls!hpbbla!coulter @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Delayed Reply About muLISP
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpbbla.4900001

It may not be what you are looking for, but there are several LISP
implementations that run on CP/M.  I bought muLISP which is
distributed by MICROSOFT.  It cost $200.  Because of its larger
address space, you should be able to get a more capable LISP for the
IBM/PC, but it will cost more.  The muLISP is fairly complete, although
the only data type is integer (it can represent numbers up to 10**255).
The DOCTOR (a.k.a. ELIZA) program is supplied with it and it runs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 84 17:44 EST
-FROM-
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: understanding speech, syllables, words, etc.
-BODY-
Which hip was burned?
Which ship was burned?
which chip was burned?
Which Chip was spurned?

First of all, I disagree that all 4 sound 'the same' in conversational
speech, esp. the last.  The final [z] in 'was' gets devoiced because of
the voiceless cluster that follows in 'spurned'.  However, of course I do
agree that often/usually context is necessary to DISAMBIGUATE, tho' not
necessarily to understand in the first place.  Since I am already writing
this I might as well give my originally suppressed comments on the first
person's statement that syllable identification requires understanding.
I definitely do not agree with that claim.  Others have mentioned learning
a foreign language by first tuning the ear to the phonetics of the target
language including that target's syllable types, and this is a point well
taken.  The notion of syllable is certainly different in different lgs,
but apparently can be learned without understanding.
The point is even clearer in one's native language.  We have all heard
Jabberwockish type speech and can clearly recognize the syllables and
phonetic elements as 'English', yet we do so without any understanding.

All this assumes that we know just what a syllable is, which we don't,
but that's another argument and is not really suitable for ailist.
>Kurt Godden <godden.gmr@csnet-relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Sep 84 9:13:41-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!vax135!ariel!norm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ariel.751

>
> From:  TONY HASEMER (on ALVEY at Teddington) <TONH%alvey@ucl-cs.arpa>
>
> (Tony Hasemer challenges Norm Andrews' faith about cause and effect)
>
> You say: "logical proof involves implication relationships between
> discrete statements...causality assumes implication relationships
> between discrete events".
>
Hold on here!  I, Norm Andrews, didn't say that!  You are quoting someone
going by the name "Baba ROM DOS" who was attempting to disprove my
statement that "The concept of proof depends upon the concepts of cause
and effect, among other things."  Please don't assign other peoples'
statements to me!

I haven't time now to reply to any other part of your posting...

Norm Andrews

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 84 7:14:39-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!teddy!mjn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Personal Assistants
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: teddy.391

FINANCIAL ASSISTANT

        I think this would be a good one to add to the list of personal
assistants which would be valuable to have.  It could be a great
aid to budgeting and guiding investments.  It should go beyond
simple bookkeeping and offer advice (when it can).  If conficts
arise in where to spend money, it should be capable of asking
questions to determine what you consider to be more important.

        Additional functionality might include analysis of spending
patterns.  Where does my money go?  Such a question could be
answered by this assistant.  It might include gentle reminders if
you are overspending, or not meeting a payment schedual, or forget
something.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Sep 1984 15:04-EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semantic Modulation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

 David McAllester will give the next BBN AI Seminar at 10:30 AM on
Wednesday September 12. The talk is in the 3rd floor large conference room
at 10 Moulton St. Title and abstract follow.

    Semantic Modulation: A New General Purpose Inference Technique

                       David McAllester

             Massachusetts Institute of Technology

        Semantic modulation is a general purpose inference technique
based on the "modulation" of the interpretations of parameters which
appear free in an assertional data base.  A semantic modulation system
includes a finite and fixed set Delta of formulae.  By varying the
interpretation of the free parameters in Delta it is possible to use
the finite and FIXED data base Delta to perform a large set of
inferences which involve reasoning about quantification.  Semantic
modulation is a way of reasoning with quantifiers that does not
involve unification or the standard techniques of universal
instantiation.  Semantic modulation replaces these notions with the
notion of a "binding premise".  A binding premise is a propositional
assumption which constrains the interpretation of one or several free
parameters.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
117
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 1984 13:16:20-EDT
-FROM-
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert-ease
-BODY-
I got a flyer from Expert Systems Inc. offering something called Expert Ease
which is supposed to facilitate producing expert systems. They want $125 for
a demo version, so I thought to inquire if anyone out there can comment on
the thing, especially since the full program is $2000. I'm not eager to buy
a lemon, but if it is a worthwhile product, it might be justifiable as an
experiment.
Thanx in advance,
   David   sde@mitre-bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 84 19:16 BST
-FROM-
From: TONY HASEMER (on ALVEY at Teddington) <TONH%alvey@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lenat
-BODY-
   Please can anyone suggest any good references, articles etc. concerning
Lenat's heuristic inferencing machine I'd be very grateful.

Tony.

[I can suggest the following:

D.B. Lenat, "BEINGS: Knowledge as Interacting Experts,"
Proc. 4th Int. Jnt. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence,
Tblisi, Georgia, USSR, pp. 126-133, 1975.

D.B. Lenat, AM: An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Discovery
in Mathematics as Heuristic Search, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Computer Science Department Report STAN-CS-76-570,
Heuristic Programming Project Report HPP-76-8,
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Report SAIL AIM-286,
Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1976.

D.B. Lenat, "Automated Theory Formation in Mathematics,"
5th Int. Jnt. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, pp. 833-42, 1977.

D.B. Lenat and G. Harris, "Designing a Rule System That Searches for
Scientific Discoveries," in D.A. Waterman and F. Hayes-Roth (eds.),
Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, Academic Press, 1978.

D.B. Lenat, "The Ubiquity of Discovery," National Computer Conference,
pp. 241-256, 1978.

D.B. Lenat, "On Automated Scientific Theory Formation: A Case Study Using
the AM Program," in J. Hayes, D. Michie, and L.I. Mikulich (eds.),
Machine Intelligence 9, Halstead Press (a div. of John Wiley & Sons),
New York, pp. 251-283, 1979.

D.B. Lenat, W.R. Sutherland, and J. Gibbons, "Heuristic Search for
New Microcircuit Structures: An Application of Artificial Intelligence,"
The AI Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 17-33, Summer 1982.

D.B. Lenat, "The Nature of Heuristics," The AI Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2,
Fall 1982.

D.B. Lenat, "Learning by Discovery: Three Case Studies in Natural and
Artificial Learning Systems," in Michalski, Mitchell, and Carbonell (eds.),
Machine Learning, Tioga Press, 1982.

D. B. Lenat, Theory Formation by Heuristic Search,
Report HPP-82-25, Heuristic Programming Project, Dept. of
Computer Science and Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, October 1982.  To appear in The AI Journal, March 1983.

D. B. Lenat, "EURISKO: A Program that Learns New Heuristics and Domain
Concepts," Journal of Artificial Intelligence, March 1983.  Also available
as Report HPP-82-26, Heuristic Programming Project, Dept. of
Computer Science and Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford,
California, October 1982.

                                        -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Sep 84 01:50:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pattern Recognition and Computational Complexity
-BODY-
I have a solution to Jon Bentley's Problem 7 in this month's
CACM Programming Pearl's column (September 1984, pp. 865-871).
The problem is to find the maximal response for any rectangular
subwindow in an array of maximum-likelihood detector outputs.
The following algorithm is O(N^3) for an NxN array.  It requires
working storage of just over half the original array size.

/*
**  maxwdwsum
**
**    Compute the maximum rectangular-window sum in a matrix.
**    Return 0.0 if all array elements are negative.
**
**  COMMENTS
**
**    This algorithm scans the matrix, considering for each
**    element all of the rectangular subwindows with that
**    element as the lower-right corner.  The current best
**    window will either be interior to the previously
**    processed rows or will end on the current row.  The
**    latter possibility is checked by considering the data
**    on the current row added into the best window of each width
**    for each lower-right corner element on the previous row.
**
**    The memory array for tracking maximal window sums could
**    be reduced to a triangular data structure.  An additional
**    triple of values could be carried along with globalmax
**    to record the location and width of the maximal window;
**    saving or recovering the height of the window would be
**    a little more difficult.
**
**  HISTORY
**
**    11-Sep-84  Laws at SRI-AI
**    Wrote initial version.
*/


/* Sample problem. (Answer is 6.0.) */
#define NROWS 4
#define NCOLS 4
float X[NROWS][NCOLS] = {{ 1.,-2., 3.,-1.}, { 2.,-5., 1.,-1.},
    { 3., 1.,-2., 3.}, {-2., 1., 1., 0.}};

/* Macro to return the maximum of two expressions. */
#define MAX(exp1,exp2)  (((exp1) > (exp2)) ? (exp1) : (exp2))


main()
{

  float globalmax;                      /* Global maximum */
  float M[NCOLS][NCOLS];                /* Max window-sum memory,   */
                                        /* (triangular, 1st >= 2nd) */
  int maxrow;                           /* Upper row index */
  int mincol,maxcol;                    /* Column indices */
  float newrowsum;                      /* Sum for new window row */
  float newwdwsum;                      /* Previous best plus new window row */
  float newwdwmax;                      /* New best for this width */
  int nowrow,nowcol;                    /* Loop indices */


  /* Initialize the maxima registers. */
  globalmax = 0.0;
  for (nowrow = 0; nowrow < NCOLS; nowrow++)
    for (nowcol = 0; nowcol <= nowrow; nowcol++)
      M[nowrow][nowcol] = -1.0E20;

  /* Process each lower-right window corner. */
  for (maxrow = 0; maxrow < NROWS; maxrow++)
    for (maxcol = 0; maxcol < NCOLS; maxcol++) {

      /* Increase window width back toward leftmost column. */
      newrowsum = 0.0;
      for (mincol = maxcol; mincol >= 0; mincol--) {

        /* Cumulate the window-row sum. */
        newrowsum += X[maxrow][mincol];

        /* Compute the sum of the old window and new row. */
        newwdwsum = M[maxcol][mincol]+newrowsum;

        /* Update the maximum window sum for this width. */
        newwdwmax = MAX(newrowsum,newwdwsum);
        M[maxcol][mincol] = newwdwmax;

        /* Update the global maximum. */
        globalmax = MAX(globalmax,newwdwmax);
      }
  }

  /* Print the solution, or 0.0 for a negative array. */
  printf("Maximum window sum:  %g\n",globalmax);
}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 8 Sep 84 11:14:04-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Second Self
-BODY-
The Second Self by Sherry Turkle is an interesting study of the
relationship between computers and people.  In contrast to most
studies I've seen, this is not a collection of sensationalism from the
newspapers combined with the wilder statements from various
professionals.  Rather, it is (as far as I know) the first thorough
and scientific study of the influence of computers on human thinking
(there's even a boring appendix on methodology, for those who are into
details).

The book starts out with analyses of young children's attitudes towards
intelligent games (Merlin, Speak'n'Spell and others).  Apparently, the children
playing with these games spend a great deal of time discussing whether these
games are actually alive or not, whether they know how to cheat, and so forth.
The games manifest themselves as "psychological machines" rather than the
ordinary physical machines familiar to most children.  As such, they prompt
children to think in terms of mental behavior rather than physical behavior,
which is said to be an important stage in early mental development (dunno
myself
if psychologists hold this view generally).

The theme of computers as "psychological machines" is carried throughout the
book.  Older children and adolescents exhibit more of a desire to master the
machine rather than just to interact with it, but interviews with them reveal
that they, too, are aware of the computer as something fundamentally different
from an automobile, in the way that it causes them to think.  Computer
hobbyists of both the first (ca 1978) and later generations are interviewed,
and one of them characterizes the computer as "a tool to think with".

Perhaps the section of most interest to AIList readers is the one in which
Turkle interviews a number of workers in AI.  Although the material has an
MIT slant (since that's where she did her research), and there's an excess
of quotes from Pam McCorduck's Machines Who Think, this is the first time
I've seen a psychological analysis of motives and attitudes behind the
research.  Most interesting was a discussion of "egoless thought" - although
most psychologists (and some philosophers) believe that the existence
of self-consciousness and an ego is a prerequisite to thought and
understanding, there are many workers in AI who do not share this view.
The resolution of this question will have profound effects on many of
the current views in psychology.  Along the same lines, Minsky gave a
list of concepts common in computer science which have no analogies in
psychology (such as the notions of "garbage collection" and "pure procedure").

I recommend this book as an interesting viewpoint on computer science in
general and AI in particular.  The experimental results alone are worth
reading it for.  Hopefully we'll see more studies along these lines in the
future.

                                                               stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Sep 84 09:58:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dreams
-BODY-
A letter by Donald A. Windsor in the new CACM (September, p. 859) suggests
that the purpose of dreams is to test our cognitive models of the people
around us by simulating their behavior and monitoring for bizarre
patterns.  He claims that the "dream people" are AI programs that
we construct subconsciously.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09/11/84 13:56:44
-FROM-
From: STORY
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computational Theory of Higher Brain Function
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


TITLE:    ``A Computational Theory of Higher Brain Function''

SPEAKER:  Leslie M. Goldschlager, Visiting Computer Scientist, Stanford
          University

DATE:     Friday, September 14, 1984
TIME:     Refreshments, 3:45pm
          Lecture, 4:00pm
PLACE:    NE43-512a

     A new model of parallel computation is proposed.  The fundamental
item of data in the model is called a "concept", and concepts may be
stored  on  a  two-dimensional   data  structure  called  a   "memory
surface".  The  nature  of the  storage  mechanism and  the  mode  of
communication which is required between storage locations renders  the
model suitable for implementation in VLSI.  An implementation is  also
possible  with  neurons  arranged  in a two-dimensional sheet.  It  is
argued  that the model  is particularly  worthwhile  studying   as  it
captures   some  of  the  computational  characteristics of the brain.

     The memory surface consists of a vast number of processors  which
are called "columns" and  which operate asynchronously in  parallel.
Each processor stores a small amount of information and can be thought
of as a simple finite-state  transducer.  Each processor is  connected
only to those processors within a small radius, or neighbourhood.   As
is usually found with parallel computation, the most important  aspect
of the model is the method of communication between the processors.

     It is  shown in  the  talk  how the  function of  the  individual
processors and the communication  between them supports the  formation
and storage of associations between concepts.  Thus the memory surface
is in effect an associative  memory.  This type of associative  memory
reveals a number of interesting computational features, including  the
ability to store and retrieve sequences of concepts and the ability to
form abstractions from simpler concepts.

     Certain capabilities taken from the realm of human activities are
shown to  be explainable  within the  model of  computation  presented
here.  These include creativity, self, consciousness and free will.  A
theory of sleep is also presented which is consistent with the  model.
In general it is  argued that the  computational model is  appropriate
for describing  and  explaining the  higher  functions of  the  brain.
These are  believed to  occur in  a  region of  the brain  called  the
cortex, and the known anatomy of  the cortex appears to be  consistent
with the memory surface model discussed in this talk.

HOST:   Professor Gary Miller

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 84 17:38:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: Shel Finkelstein <SHEL%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Knowledge
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  [...]

  Thurs., Sept. 13 Computer Science Seminar
  3:00 P.M.   KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN A DISTRIBUTED
  Front Aud.  ENVIRONMENT
            By examining some puzzles and paradoxes, we argue
            that the right way to understand distributed
            protocols is by considering how messages change the
            state of a system.  We present a hierarchy of
            knowledge states that a system may be in, and discuss
            how communication can move the system's state of
            knowledge up the hierarchy.  Of special interest is
            the notion of common knowledge.  Common knowledge is
            an essential state of knowledge for reaching
            agreements and coordinating action.  We show that in
            practical distributed systems, common knowledge is
            not attainable.  We introduce various relaxations of
            common knowledge that are attainable in many cases of
            interest.  We describe in what sense these notions
            are appropriate, and discuss their relationship to
            each other.  We conclude with a discussion of the
            role of knowledge in a distributed system.
            J. Halpern, IBM San Jose Research Lab
            Host:  R. Fagin


  Please note change in directions due to completion of new Monterey
  Road (82) exit replacing the Ford Road exit from 101.  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
118
-DATE-
Date: 10 September 1984 15:29-EDT
-FROM-
From: Paula A. Vancini <PAULA @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MACSYMA Notice
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

  TO:  ALL MACSYMA USERS
  FROM:  MIT Patent and Copyright Office
  DATE:  August 31, 1984
  SUBJECT:  Recent Notices by Paradigm Associates Regarding MACSYMA Software

Please be advised that the version of MACSYMA designated by Paradigm
Associates in recent messages over this network as "DOE MACSYMA" is a
version of MACSYMA copyrighted to MIT.  "DOE MACSYMA" is an improper
designation.  MIT has delivered a copy of the MIT MACSYMA software to
DOE, pursuant to MIT's contraactual obligations to DOE.

Also be advised that Symbolics, Inc. is the only commercial company
authorized by MIT to perform maintenance services on, or to make
enhancements to, the MIT copyrighted versions of MACSYMA.

MIT hereby disclaims any association with Paradigm Associates and has
not granted Paradigm licensing rights to commercially make use of its
copyrighted versions of the MACSYMA or NIL software.


Queries to Hynes%MIT-XX@MIT-MC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 84 14:33:25-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!teddy!rmc @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: teddy.403

        I am not sure I agree that an inductive proof proves any more
or less than a deductive proof.  The basis of induction is to claim
1)  I have applied a predicate to some specific cases within a large
    set (class) of cases.
2)  I detect a pattern in the result of the predicate over those cases
3)  I predict that the results of the predicate will continue following
    the pattern for the rest of the cases in the set.
I state the proof pattern this way to include inductive arguments about
natural world phenomena as well as mathematical induction.

The proof is valid if the accepted community of experts agrees that the
proof is valid (see for example various Wittgenstein and Putname essays
on the foundations of mathematics and logic).  The experts could be
wrong for a variety of reasons.  Natural law could change.  The
argument may be so complicated that everyone gets lost and misses a
mistake (this has even happened before!)  The class of cases may be
poorly chosen.  etc.

        The disagreement seems to be centered around a question of
whether this community of experts accepts causality as part of the
model.  If it is, then we can use causality as an axiom in our proof
systems.  But it still boils down to what the experts accept.

                                        R Mark Chilenskas
                                        decvax!genrad!teddy!rmc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 84 9:27:15-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.1106

Mark Chilenskas discussion of inductive proof is not correct for
mathematics, and greatly understates the strength of
mathematical inductive proofs.  These work as follows:

Given a hypothesis;

> Prove that it is true for at least one case.
> Then prove that IF IT IS TRUE FOR A GENERIC CASE,
  IT MUST BE TRUE FOR THE NEXT GENERIC CASE.

For example, in a hypothesis about an expression with regard
to all natural numbers, we might show that it is true if "n=1".
We then show that IF it is true for "n", it is true for "n+1".

By induction we have shown that the hypothesis is absolutely true
for every natural number.  Since true: n=1 => true for n=2,
                                 true: n=2 => true for n=3, etc.

It is the responsibility of the prover to prove that induction
through all generic cases is proper; when it is not, additional
specific cases must be proved, or induction may not apply at all.

Such an inductive proof is absolutely true for the logical system it
is defined in, and just as correct as any deductive proof.
When our perception of the natural laws change, etc., the proof
remains true, but its usefulness may become nil if we perceive
that no system in the real world could possibly correspond to the proof.

In non-mathematical systems, it is possible that both deductive
and inductive proofs will be seriously flawed, and I doubt one
can try to prefer "approximate proofs" of one type over the other.
If a system is not well-enough defined to permit accurate logical
reasoning, then the chances are that an ingenious person can
prove anything (see net.flame and net.religion for examples, also
the congressional record).

        - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
        allegra!eosp1!robison
        or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
        or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Sep 84 09:14:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inductive Proof - The Heap Problem
-BODY-
As an example of improper induction, consider the heap problem.
A "heap" of one speck (e.g., of flour) is definitely a small heap.
If you add one speck to a small heap, you still have a small heap.
Therefore all heaps are small heaps.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Sep 84 09:40:42-CDT
-FROM-
From: Aaron Temin <CS.Temin@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robot chef bites off too much
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Our West Coast correspondent has returned with (among other things) an
article from the San Jose Mercury News entitled "Robot cooks if it finds
the beef" about Brian Reid's(TM){1} attempts to program a robot to cook beef
Wellington.   [...]

Aaron
{1}  Brian Reid is a trademark of ScribeInc., Ouagadougou, Bourkina Fasso.


[I have copied the following excerpts from the June 10 article. -- KIL]

                   Robot cooks if it finds the beef
                            by Kathy Holub

  Some professors will do anything for a theoretical exercise.  Brian
K. Reid, a food-loving assistant professor of electrical engineering
at Stanford University, recently tried to simulate teaching a mindless
robot how to cook beef Wellington, using Julia Child's 16-page recipe.
He failed.  Try telling a robot what "spread seasoning evenly" means.
"You have to specify the number of grams (of seasoning) per square
centimeter," he said, with a wry smile.

  It took him 13 hours and 60 pages of computer instructions just to
teach the would-be automaton how to slice and season a slab of beef
and put it safely in the oven.  Julia Child takes only three pages to
explain these simple steps.  "Where I bogged down -- where I gave it
all up and decided to go to bed -- was when I had to tell the robot
how to wrap the beef in pastry," he said.

  But Reid, an excellent cook with a doctorate in computer science,
was thrilled with the experiment, which involved only the computer
program and not an actual robot.  "It was exactly what I wanted," he
said.  "It showed that a cookbook does not tell the whole story, that
there is a lot of information missing from the recipe" that human
cooks provide without knowing it.  The Wellington exercise, he
believes, will help him reach his real goal: to teach a computer how
to make integrated circuits with a computer "recipe" that doesn't
depend on human judgement, memory or common sense.

[...]

  He picked the recipe for his experiment, because it's the longest
one in the book, involving 26 ingredients.  Beef Wellington is a long
piece of tenderlion that is baked twice, the second time in a light
pastry crust that should turn golden brown.  Forget telling the robot
what "golden brown" means.

  "Every time I turned around I discovered massive numbers of
things I was contributing without even thinking about it."
For example, "Julia Child has, 'you slice the beef and season
each piece separately'" before cooking, he said.  "The meat must
be cold or it won't hold its shape, but Julia doesn't tell you
that.  She assumes you know."

  For purposes of simplicity, Reid let the robot skip the slicing of
mushrooms and onions and sauteeing them in butter "until done."
"Cooking until done requires a great deal of knowledge.  A robot
doesn't know that fire [in the pan] isn't part of the process.  It
would happily burn the pan."

  But just telling the robot how to slice the meat, season it,
reassemble it with skewers and put it in the oven was tricky enough --
like teaching a 3-year-old to fix a car.  "You can't just say, 'Cut
into slices,' Reid said.  "You have to say, 'Move knife one centimeter
to the east, cut.'  And that assumes a sub-program telling th robot
what 'cut' means."  You can't tell a robot to slice 'across.'  "Across
what?" said Reid.  "You can't tell a robot to eyeball something.  You
have to tell it to define the center of gravity of the beef, find the
major axis of the beef and cut perpendicular to it."  You also have to
tell the robot how to find the beef, that is, distinguish it from the
other ingredients, and when to stop slicing.  These are standard
problems in robotics.
  Other problems are not so standard.  Reid forgot to specify that the
skewers should be removed before the pastry shell is added.  Julia may
be forgiven for leaving this step out, but the robot trainer has
tougher work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 September 1984 04:04-EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor in A.I.?
-BODY-
I saw the following button at a science fiction convention:

    Q.  Why did Douglas Hofstadter cross the road?

    A.  To make this riddle possible.

>- Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 1984  14:52 EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <WALTER%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor - Seminar on Types in Lunches
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

              GENERALIZED TYPES IN GRADUATE STUDENT LUNCHES

FIRST MEETING:  Friday, Sept. 14, 1984, 12:00 noon
PLACE:          MIT AI Lab Playroom, 545 Tech. Sq., Cambridge, MA, USA
ORGANIZER:      Walter Hamscher, (walter@oz)

An eating seminar about generalized cold cuts and spread-recognition;
gluttonism, leftovers, and indigestion; related notions appearing
in current and proposed lunches, such as volunteers, menus, and
The Roosevelt Paradox ("There is no such thing as a free lunch")
will be discussed.  The slant will be toward identifying the
underlying digestional problems raised by the desired menu features.
For the first five minutes (during the visit of Prof. Gustav Fleischbrot,
Univ. of Essen) we will present and discuss the papers below starting
with the first two and concluding with the final two:

1. Burger, Chip N., ``The Nutritional Value of Pixels'',
PROC. INT'L. CONF. 5TH GENERATION INGESTION SYSTEMS, Tokyo, to
appear.  Manuscript from Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Sandwich, 1984.

2. Burger, Chip N. and Gelly Muffin, ``A Kernel language for abstract
feta cheese and noodles'', SEMANTICS OF FETA CHEESE: PROCEEDINGS, (eds.)
Cream, MacFried and Potstick, Springer-Verlag, Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci.
173, 1-50, 1984.

3. MacDonald, Ronald, ``Noodles for standard ML'', ACM SYMP. ON LINGUICA
AND LINGUINI, 1984.

4. Munchem, J. C., ``Lamb, D-Calories, Noodles, and Ripe Fruit'',
Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, Dept. of EECS, September, 1984.

Meeting time for the first five minutes is Fri. 12:00-12:05, and
Friday 12:00-12:05 thereafter.  Aerobics course credit can be arranged.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 5 September 1984 23:28:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Sigart Issue on Applications of AI in Engineering
-BODY-

                       SPECIAL ISSUE ON APPLICATIONS OF
                               AI IN ENGINEERING

The  April  1985 issue of the SIGART newsletter (tentative schedule) will focus
on the applications of AI in engineering. The  purpose  of  this  issue  is  to
provide  an overview of research being conducted in this area around the world.
The following topics are suggested:

   - Knowledge-based expert systems
   - Intelligent computer tutors
   - Representation of engineering problems
   - Natural language and graphical interfaces
   - Interfacing engineering databases with expert systems

The above topics are by no means exhaustive; other related topics are welcome.

Individuals or groups conducting research in this area and who  would  like  to
share  their  ideas  are invited to send two copies of 3 to 4 page summaries of
their work,  preferably  ongoing  research,  before  December  1,  1984.    The
summaries  should  include  a  title,  the  names of people associated with the
research, affiliations, and bibliographical references.  Since the primary  aim
of  this  special  issue  is  to provide information about ongoing and proposed
research, please be as brief  as  possible  and  avoid  lengthy  implementation
details.    Submissions  should  be  sent  to D. Sriram (or R. Joobbani) at the
following address or through Arpanet to Sriram@CMU-RI-CIVE.

      D. Sriram
      Design Research Center
      Carnegie-Mellon University
      Pittsburgh, PA 15213
      Tel. No. (412)578-3603

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
119
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 84 14:28 BST
-FROM-
From: TONY HASEMER (on ALVEY at Teddington) <TONH%alvey@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp on the VAX
-BODY-
  We have a VAX 11/750 with four Mb of memory, running NIL.  We also have
four Lisp hackers of several years' standing who are likely to write
quite substantial programs.  We have to decide whether to buy some extra
memory, or to spend the money on Golden Common Lisp, which someone told
us is much more effiecient than NIL.

  Can anyone please advise us? Thank you.

   Tony.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 84 17:36:37-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!stan @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp under CP/M
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.52

I recently purchased a copy of ProCode's Waltz Lisp for the Z80 and CP/M
and found it to be a very good imitation of Franz Lisp.

I downloaded some rather substantial programs I'ld written over the
past two years and within 20 minutes had them up and running on my
Kaypro.  Surprisingly, there was little speed degradation unless there
was a major amount of computations involved.

All that was required (for my programs) were a few support routines to
implement defun, terpri, etc.

The manual is very complete and well written.  (For example, it had examples
of how to write defun in it.)

Cost was just under $100.00, and well worth it.

Now, if only my Kaypro could handle background processes like the VAX...

    Stan Tomlinson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 84 11:06:09-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.535

>>           All swans are white.
>>           This is a swan.
>>           Therefore it is white.
>>
>>      Notice that the conclusion (3rd sentence) is only true iff the two
>>      premises (sentences 2 and 3) are true.

A minor correction:  "iff" does not belong here.  The premises do not follow
from the conclusion.
>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 84 09:01 PDT
-FROM-
From: Feuerman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Inductive Proof - The Heap Problem
-BODY-
At the risk of getting involved.....

One thing bothers me about the inductive proof that all heaps are small.
I will claim that that is NOT an inductive proof after all.  The second
requirement for a (mathematical) proof by induction states that one must
show that P(n) implies P(n+1).  I see nothing in the fact that one
"speck" is small that NECESSARILY implies that two "specks" constitutes
a small heap.  One seems to conclude the fact that a two-speck heap is
small from some sort of outside judgment of size.  Thus, Small(1 Speck)
does NOT imply Small(2 Specks), something else implies that.

Lest we get into an argument about the fact that large for one could be
small for another, I'll bring up another mathematical point:  The
Archimedian Principle.  It basically says that given any number (size,
number of specks, what have you), one can ALWAYS find a natural number
that is greater.  Applying that to the heap problem, given anyone's
threshold of what constitutes a large heap and what constitutes a small
heap, one can ALWAYS make a large heap out of a small heap by adding one
speck at a time.  I'll further note that one need not make that
transition between small and large heaps a discreet number; as long as
you can put a number on some sense of a large heap (regardless of
whether that is the smallest large heap), you can always exceed it.  For
example, I will arbitrarily say that 10**47 specks in a heap makes it
large.  I don't have to say that 10**47 - 1 is small.  Yet we will still
be able to create a large heap (eventually).

Now, anyone interested in speculating about what happens if someone's
size function is not constant, but varies with time, mood, money in the
bank, etc.?

As further proof of my Archimedian Principle, we will note that I have
just in fact turned a small heap/argument (Ken Laws' four line Heap
Problem) into a large one (this message).

>-Ken <Feuerman.pasa@Xerox.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Sep 84 14:30:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: induction vs. deduction
-BODY-
The discussion of induction vs. deduction has taken a curious turn.
Normally, when we speak of induction, we don't mean *mathematical
induction*, which is a formally adequate proof technique.  We mean
instead the inductive mode of reasoning, which is quite different.
Inductive reasoning can never be equated to deductive reasoning
because it begins with totally different premises.  Inductive
reasoning involves two principles:

(1) The principle of insufficient reason, which holds that in the
absence of other information, the expectation over an ensemble of
possibilities is uniform (heads and tails are equally probable).

(2) The principle of Occam's razor, which hold that given a variety of
theories about some data, the one that is "simplest" is preferred.
(We prefer the Copernican model of the solar system to the Ptolemaic
one, even though they both account for the astronomical data.)

The relationship of time, causality, and induction has been
investigated by the Nobel Laureate, Ilya Prigogine.  The laws of
classical physics, with one exception, are neutral with respect to the
direction of time.  The exception is the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
which states that the entropy of a closed systems must increase, or
equivalently, that a closed system will tend toward more and more
disordered states.  For a long time, physicists tried to prove the
Second Law in terms of Newtonian principles, but with no success.
Eventually, Boltzman and Gibbs explained the Second Law
satisfactorily by using inductive principles to show that the
probability of a system entering a disordered, high-entropy state is
far higher than the converse.  Prigogine proposes that random,
microscopic events cause macroscopic events to unfold in a
fundamentally unpredictable way.  He extends thermodynamics to open
systems, and particularly to "dissipative systems" that, through
entropy exchange, evolve toward or maintain orderly, low-entropy
states.

Inductive reasoning is also closely connected with information theory.
Recall that Shannon uses entropy as the measure of information.
Brillouin, Carnap, and Jaynes have shown that these two meanings of
entropy (information in a message and disorder of a physical system)
are equivalent.

Steve Barnard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Sep 84 21:16:28-EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael J. Beckerle <BECKERLE@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course Offering - Logic Programming
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


              TECHNOLOGY OF LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                          CS  270
                         Fall  1984

              Professor Henryk Jan Komorowski
                     Harvard University
                 Aiken Computation Lab. 105
                          495-5973

Meeting:  Mondays, Wednesdays - 12:30 to 2 PM, Pierce Hall 209

This year the course will focus on presenting basic concepts
of  logic programming by deriving them from logic.  We shall
study definite clause programs:

    - What they specify (the least Herbrand model).
    - How they are used: a logical view  of  the  notion  of
      query.
    - What computations of logic programs are:  the  resolu-
      tion principle, SLD-refutability, completeness and nega-
      tion by failure.

This general background will serve as a basis to introduce a
logic  programming language Prolog and will be associated by
a number of assignments to master specification programming.
It  will  be followed by some implementation issues like in-
terpreting, compiling, debugging and other programmer's sup-
port  tools.   We shall then critically investigate a number
of applications of Prolog to  software  specification,  com-
piler writing, expert system programming, embedded languages
implementation, database  programming,  program  transforma-
tions,  etc.,  and  study  language's power and limitations.
The course will end with a  comparison  of  definite  clause
programming  to  other  formalisms,  eg. attribute grammars,
functional programming, rule based programming.   Time  per-
mitting parallelism, complexity and other topics of interest
will be studied.

REQUIREMENTS A background in propositional logic, some fami-
liarity  with  predicate  calculus and general background in
computer science (reasonable acquaintance with parsing, com-
piling, databases, programming im recursive languages, etc.)
is expected.

WORKLOAD
    - one problem set on logic.
    - Two sets of Prolog assignments.
    - Mid-term mid-size Prolog single person project.
    - A substantial amount of papers to  read:  core  papers
      and  elected one-topic papers (the latter to be reviewed
      in sections).
    - Final research paper  on  individually  elected  topic
      (with instructor's consent).

LITERATURE, REQUIRED

PROGRAMMING IN PROLOG by Clocksin and Mellish.  RESEARCH PA-
PERS distributed in class.


LITERATURE, OPTIONAL

LOGIC FOR PROBLEM SOLVING, by Kowalski  MICRO-PROLOG:  LOGIC
PROGRAMMING, by Clark and McCabe LOGIC AND DATABASES, edited
by Gallaire and Minker IMPLEMENTATIONS OF PROLOG, edited  by
Campbell


                       TENTATIVE PLAN
                        25 meetings

> Introduction: declarative and imperative programming,  the
goals of Vth Generation Project.

> Informal notions of: model, truth, provability.  The  syn-
tax  of predicate calculus, proof systems for predicate cal-
culus completemess, soundness, models.

> Transformation to clausal form,  resolution  and  its com-
pleteness.

> Definite clause programs:

        * operational semantics
        * proof-theoretic semantics
        * fixed point semantics

> Introduction to programming in Prolog.
> Data structures.
> Negation by failure and cut.
> Specification programming methodology.
> Advanced Prolog programming.
> Algorithmic debugging.
> Parsing and compiling in Prolog.
> Abstract data type specification in Prolog.
> Logic  programming  and  attribute  grammars,  data  flow
  analysis.
> Interpretation and compilation of logic programs

> Artificial intelligence applications:

        * metalevel programming
        * expert systems programming
        * Natural language processing

> Alternatives to Prolog;  breadth-first  search,  coroutines,
  LOGLISP, AND- and OR-parallelism.
> Concurrent Prolog.
> Relations between LP and functional programming.
> LP and term rewriting.
> Program transformation and derivation.
> Object oriented programming.
> Some complexity issures.
> LP and databases.
> Architecture for LP.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 84 10:40:23 pdt
-FROM-
From: Jeff Ullman <ullman@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Database Systems
-BODY-
                      CALL FOR PAPERS

        FOURTH ANNUAL ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD SYMPOSIUM ON
               PRINCIPLES OF DATABASE SYSTEMS

             Portland, Oregon March 25-27, 1985


The conference will  cover  new  developments  in  both  the
theoretical  and  practical  aspects  of  database  systems.
Papers  are  solicited  that  describe  original  and  novel
research into the theory, design, or implementation of data-
base systems.

     Some suggested but not  exclusive  topics  of  interest
are:  application of AI techniques to database systems, con-
currency control, database and database scheme design,  data
models,  data  structures  for physical database implementa-
tion,  dependency  theory,  distributed  database   systems,
logic-based  query languages and other applications of logic
to database systems, office automation  theory,  performance
evaluation  of database systems, query language optimization
and implementation, and security of database systems.

     You are invited  to  submit  9  copies  of  a  detailed
abstract (not a complete paper) to the program chairman:

                  Jeffrey D. Ullman
                  Dept. of Computer Science
                  Stanford University
                  Stanford, CA 94305

Submissions will be evaluated on the basis of  significance,
originality,  and  overall quality.  Each abstract should 1)
contain enough information  for  the  program  committee  to
identify  the  main contribution of the work; 2) explain the
importance of the work, its novelty, and  its  relevance  to
the  theory  and/or  practice  of  database  management;  3)
include comparisons with and references to relevant  litera-
ture.   Abstracts  should be no longer than 10 typed double-
spaced pages (12,000 bytes of source text).  Deviations from
these  guidelines may affect the program committee's evalua-
tion of the paper.

                     Program Committee

             Jim Gray            Richard Hull
             Frank Manola        Stott Parker
             Avi Silberschatz    Jeff Ullman
             Moshe Vardi         Peter Weinberger
             Harry Wong

The deadline for submission  of  abstracts  is  October  12,
1984.   Authors  will be notified of acceptance or rejection
by December 7, 1984.  The accepted papers, typed on  special
forms or typeset camera-ready in the reduced-size model page
format, will be due at the  above  address  by  January  11,
1985.   All  authors  of accepted papers will be expected to
sign copyright release forms.  Proceedings will  be  distri-
buted at the conference and will be available for subsequent
purchase through ACM.  The proceedings  of  this  conference
will  not  be  widely disseminated.  As such, publication of
papers in this record will not, of itself, inhibit  republi-
cation in ACM's refereed publications.


        General Chairman:      Local Arrangements Chairman:
        Seymour Ginsburg       David Maier
        Dept. of CS            Dept. of CS
        USC                    Oregon Graduate Center
        Los Angeles, CA 90007  19600 N. W. Walker Rd.
                               Beaverton, OR 97006

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
120
-DATE-
Date: 18 September 1984 1053-EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Pirolli at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: micro production systems
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A friend of mine is looking for a production system language (however simple)
that runs on an Apple (preferably) or any other micro.  He basically wants to
use the system to give some hands-on experience to fellow faculty members
at a small university where main-frame resources are too scarce to run a
full-blown production system.  Any pointers to micro-based systems would be
greatly appreciated.

Send mail to pirolli@cmpsya or pirolli@cmua.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 84 07:16 PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Perrine <tom@LOGICON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI SIG in San Diego
-BODY-
I have an off-net friend who is interested in starting (or finding) a
Special Interest Group for AI in San Diego.  It would appear that if
ACM or IEEE knows about such a group, "they ain't talking." Is there
anyone else in S.D.  who would be interested in such a group?  Please
reply to me, not the Digest, of course.

Please include name, address and a daytime phone.

Thanks,
Tom Perrine
Logicon - OSD
San Diego, CA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 17 Sep 84 12:41:04-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Publisher Info for The Second Self
-BODY-
I neglected to provide the details...

The publisher is Simon & Schuster, ISBN is 0-671-46848-0, and
LC number is QA76.T85 1984 (or something like that).  The book is available
in quite a few bookstores, including the big chains, so try there first.

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 1984 08:47:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Swans:
-BODY-
At least during the latter part of March, 1980, the statement,
"all swans are white," was false; those familiar with Heinlein's
"fair witness" concept will recognize the phrasing; I say it
having witnessed black or near-black swans in Perth during the
aforementioned time.
Granting that the facts have little to do with the principle of
the argument, I thought folks might nonetheless be amused.
   David   sde@mitre-bedford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 84 9:11:34-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!bennety @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tektroni.3588

Toby Robison's comment on Mark Chilenska's discussion on inductive
proof was quite apt -- however, we should note that induction is
limited to statements on a countably infinite set.  That is, induction
can only work with integers.

>bsy
 tektronix!bennety

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 84 11:01:17 PDT
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Uhrig's Stream of Consciousness in V2 #112
-BODY-

With regard to Werner's concern about unethical or immoral applications of
AI: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) is very concerned
with this issue as am I.

Please give me feedback on this.  Perhaps the surest death-knell for the
outrageous-dangerous stuff ("Intelligent Computers" that would make life-or-
death decisions for the human race) is to require that they pass rigorous
tests.  If it is required that they actually work the way they are supposed to
many of the systems will die a natural (and deserved) death.  A comprehensive
and rigorous top-down (parallel with the top-down design) testing program may
be the answer.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 84 09:20:20 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in the kitchen, continued
-BODY-
The article in V2,#118, "Robot cooks if it finds the beef", reminded me
of the following:

"....
John McCarthy, one of the founders of the field of artificial
intelligence, is fond of talking of the day when we'll have 'kitchen
robots' to do chores for us, such as fixing a lovely shrimp creole.
Such a robot would, in his view, be exploitable like a slave because it
would not be conscious in the slightest.  To me, this is
incomprehensible.  Anything that could get along in the unpredictable
kitchen world would be as worthy of being considered conscious as would
a robot that could survive for a week in the Rockies.  To me, both
worlds are incredibly subtle and potentially surprise-filled.  Yet I
suspect that McCarthy thinks of a kitchen as ... some sort of simple and
'closed' world, in contrast to 'open-ended' worlds, such as the Rockies.
This is just another example, in my opinion, of vastly under-estimating
the complexity of a world we take for granted, and thus under-estimating
the complexity of the beings that could get along in such a world.
Ultimately, the only way to be convinced of these kinds of things is to
try to write a computer program to get along in a kitchen...."

Excerpted from a letter by DOUG HOFSTADTER in 'Visible Language',
V17,#4, Autumn 1983.  (In 1983, that periodical carried, in successive
issues, an extensive piece by Knuth on his Meta-Font, a lengthy review
by Hofstadter, and letters from both of them and from others.)

>-Rodney Hoffman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 1984 16:36-EDT
-FROM-
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Maximum window sum, in AIList V2 #117
-BODY-
Ken,

    Bentley's problem 7 asks for the complexity of the maximum
subarray sum problem.  I would advise you to call your algorithm a
solution to the maximum subarray sum problem, rather than a solution to
problem 7.  You have given an upper bound for the complexity, but
barring an equal lower bound problem 7 is still unsolved.  I know of
no lower bound larger than the size of the input.

    In case you're interested, here's another maximum subarray sum
algorithm with the same time complexity, using less working storage.
See the comments for a description of its working.  Enjoy.

Dan


[The following is simpler, more efficient, and uses less auxilliary
storage than the version I gave (although it does require buffering
the full input array).  I can't think of any improvement.  -- KIL]

/*
**  maxsbasum
**
**    Compute the maximum subarray sum in an array. In case all
**    array elements are negative, the maximum sum is 0.0
**    for an empty subarray.
**
**  COMMENTS
**
**    Every subarray of an array is a full-height subarray of a
**    full-width subarray of the array.
**
**    This routine examines each of the O(NROWS^2) full-width
**    subarrays of the array.  A vector containing the sum of each
**    column in the full-width subarray is maintained.  The maximum
**    full-height subarray sum of the full-width subarray corresponds
**    to the maximum subvector sum of the vector of column sums,
**    found in O(NCOLS) time using Kadane's algorithm.
**
**    Running time is O(NROWS^2 NCOLS).  Working storage for this
**    program is dominated by the O(NCOLS) vector of column sums.
**
**  HISTORY
**
**    16-Sep-84  Laws at SRI-AI
**    Merged innermost two loops into one.
**
**    14-Sep-84  Hoey at NRL-AIC
**    Cobbled this version together.
**    Comm. ACM, September 1984; Jon Bentley
**    published maximum subvector code (Pascal).
**    Algorithm attributed to Jay Kadane, 1977.
**
**    11-Sep-84  Laws at SRI-AI
**    Wrote another program solving the same problem.  Parts of
**    his program, from AIList V2 #117, appear in this program.
*/


/* Sample problem. (Answer is 6.0.) */
#define NROWS 4
#define NCOLS 4
float X[NROWS][NCOLS] = {{ 1.,-2., 3.,-1.}, { 2.,-5., 1.,-1.},
    { 3., 1.,-2., 3.}, {-2., 1., 1., 0.}};

/* Macro to return the maximum of two expressions. */
#define MAX(exp1,exp2)  (((exp1) > (exp2)) ? (exp1) : (exp2))

main()
{
  float MaxSoFar;               /* Global maximum */
  float ColSum[NCOLS];          /* Column sums of full-width subarray */
  float MaxEndingHere;          /* For Kadane's algorithm */
  int lowrow,highrow;           /* Bounds of full-width subarray */
  int thiscol;                  /* Column index */

  /* Loop over bottom row of full-width subarray. */
  MaxSoFar = 0.0;
  for (lowrow = 0; lowrow < NROWS; lowrow++) {

    /* Initialize column sums. */
    for (thiscol = 0; thiscol < NCOLS; thiscol++)
      ColSum[thiscol] = 0.0;

    /* Loop over top row of full-width subarray. */
    for (highrow = lowrow; highrow < NROWS; highrow++) {

      /* Update column sum, find maximum subvector sum of ColSum. */
      MaxEndingHere = 0.0;
      for (thiscol = 0; thiscol < NCOLS; thiscol++) {
        ColSum[thiscol] += X[highrow][thiscol];
        MaxEndingHere = MAX(0.0, MaxEndingHere + ColSum[thiscol]);
        MaxSoFar = MAX(MaxSoFar, MaxEndingHere);
      }
    }
  }

  /* Print the solution. */
  printf("Maximum subarray sum:  %g\n",MaxSoFar);

}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Sep 84 15:09:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Samuel Holtzman <HOLTZMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Decision Systems
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                         Course Announcement

            DECISION ANALYSIS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE


                   Engineering Economic Systems 234
                               3 units
                     Instructor: Samuel Holtzman

                 Monday and Wednesday 2:00 to 3:15 pm
                        Building 260, room 264

This course investigates the relationship between decision analysis
and artificial intelligence in building expert systems for decision
making in complex domains.  Major topic areas include fundamentals of
artificial intelligence (production systems, search, logic
programming) and design of intelligent decision systems based on
decision analysis (use of formal methods in decision making,
represention and solution of decision problems, reasoning under
uncertainty).  The course will also cover programming in Lisp for
students not familiar with the language.  Course requirements include
a sustantial project based on the concepts developed in the course.

Prerequesites:  EES 231 (Decision Analysis) or equivalent
                and familiarity with computer programming.

For further information contact:

                Samuel Holtzman
                497-0486, Terman 301
                HOLTZMAN@SUMEX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon Sep 17 17:15:08 1984
-FROM-
From: mclure@sri-prism
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Games - Computer Chess Championship
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    The ACM annual North American Computer Chess Championship is a
watering-hole for computer chess researchers, devotees, and ordinary
chess players interested in what new improvements have been made in
computer chess during the past year.

        Come see Ken Thompson and Belle seek out chess
        truth, chess justice, and the American Way!

        Watch David Levy wince as his chess program
        discovers innovations in chess theory unknown even
        to Grandmasters!

        Marvel at Bob Hyatt's Cray Blitz program as it
        slices through the opposition at many MIPS!

        See the tiny Spracklen program otherwise marketed as
        Prestige and Elite by Fidelity tally up points
        against the "big boys!"

        Gawk as ivory tower researchers such as Tony
        Marsland of University of Alberta try to turn
        obscure and obfuscating computer chess theory into
        tangible points against opposition!

        Watch in amazement as David Slate's NUCHESS program,
        a descendent of the famous Northwestern University
        Chess 4.5 program, tries to become the most
        "human-like" of chess programs!

        And strangest of all, see a chess tournament where the
        noise level is immaterial to the quality of play!

The following information is from AChen at Xerox...

        1) dates - 7-9 Oct, 1984
        2) where - Continental Parlors at San Francisco Hilton
        3) times - Sun 1300 and 1900, 7 Oct, 1984
                   Mon 1900, 8 Oct, 1984
                   Tue 1900, 9 Oct, 1984
        4) who   - Tournament director will be Mike Valvo
                   four round Swiss-style includes Cray BLITZ,
                   BELLE and NUCHESS.

        for more information:
                Professor M. Newborn
                School of Computer Science, McGill University
                805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal
                Quebec, Canada H3A 2K6

note: this info can be found in July, 1984 issue of ACM Communications,
page A21.

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
121
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 84 17:07:00-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Aymara as intermediate language?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: uokvax.900011

Yesterday in a local paper a news item appeared (probably AP or UPI)
telling about a fellow in South America (Ecuador? Peru, perhaps?),
named Ivan Guzman de Rojas, who seems to be having respectable
success using a S. American Indian language, that of the Aymara
Indians, as an intermediate language for machine translation of
natural languages. The article seemed to indicate that Aymara is
something of a pre-Columbian Loglan, near as I could tell. Any
references to the literature concerning this would be greatly
appreciated. (Send mail, I'll summarize to the net after a seemly
interval.)

                                        James Jones

                                uucp: ...!ctvax!uokvax!emjej
                                or    ...!{ctvax,mtxinu}!ea!jejones

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 14:10:13 pdt
-FROM-
From: Stanley Lanning <lanning@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nitpicking...
-BODY-
  "... induction is limited to statements on a countably infinite set."

Well, that depends how you define induction.  If you define it in
the right way, all you need in a well-ordered set.  Cardinality
doesn't enter into it.

Concerning the argument "All A are B, x is an A, therefore x is a B".
It is not true that the conclusion is true only if the two assumptions
are true.  It is not even true that the argument is valid only if the
assumptions are true.  What is true is that we are guarenteed that
the conclusion is true only if the assumptions are true.

Thanks for your indulgence.
                                                        -smL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 September 1984 1419-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lee Brownston at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pittsburghese figured out
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The way Pittsburghers talk is a sure source of amusement for newcomers
to this area.  Most attention is devoted to diction, especially to the
idioms.  Although the latter are no more nor less illogical than any
other idioms, they are easily identified and likely to be unfamiliar.
Over the past couple years, I've been trying to figure out the system
of phonology.  I'm still working on the suprasegmentals, but I have
some preliminary results on vowels and consonants that may be of some
interest.

As far as I can tell, the only consonantal departure from Standard
American English is that the final 'g' is omitted from the present
progressive to the extent that the terminal sound is the alveolar nasal
rather than the palatal nasal continuant.  This pronunciation is of
course hardly unique to Pittsburgh.

The vowels are much more interesting.  The 'ow' sound is pronounced 'ah',
as in 'dahntahn'.  Confusion between, say, "down" and "don" is avoided
since the 'ah' sound has already vacated: it is pronounced 'aw', as in
'Bawb signed the cawntract'.  Similarly, 'aw' has gone to the greener
pastures of 'or', as in 'needs worshed'.  It appears that the chain ends
here.  As its discoverer, I shall call this phonological game of musical
chairs "the great Pittsburgh vowel movement."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 17 Sep 84 23:38:41-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <LRC.Throop@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor - Excuse Generation
-BODY-

TOWARDS THE AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF EXCUSES
by David Throop

The Great and Pressing Need for Excuses.
  There is a huge need in industry for excuses.  A recent  marketing survey
shows that the biggest need in air transport is not for a service to get it
there overnight, but for one that takes the blame for it being three weeks
late.  Every time there is a dockworkers' strike anywhere in the world, titans
of commerce who are completely unaffected get on the phone.  They then explain
to all their customers that every order that is overdue is sitting on that
dock, and that they couldn't help it.  Then they grin.  Because they've got a
good excuse.  And even the smallest industrial project needs a raft of
excuses by the time it finishes.
  Computers have already helped with this need.  Many problems that used to be
blamed on the postal service, on the railroads and on telegraph operators are
now routinely blamed on computers.  "Your check is in the mail" has now been
supplemented by "Our computer has been down, and we'll send you your money as
soon as the repairman fixes it."  Whenever a bridge collapses, specialized
teams of system analysts are called in, in order to quickly blame the whole
mess on a computer.
  But computers can do more than this.  Computers have a place to play in the
generation of excuses; actually coming up with the lies and evasions that keep
our economy running.

The Structure of Excuses
  There is a great size range in excuses.  Many small excuses can be generated
without any AI or other advanced techniques.  And there will always be some
really big FUBARS that will need humans to come up with appropriate excuses.
But in between there is the somewhat stereotyped snafu that can be framed in
some structure and has different excuse elements as slots.  These are the
half-assed excuses, the most fruitful field for knowledge engineering.

Where It Came From
  It has been noted repeatedly in work on computer vision that a subject often
does not have all of the necessary information to justify an observation, but
that he makes it anyway and supplies some "excuse" to explain why some
features are missing.  The classic illustration of this problem is in
envisioning a chair: the subject may only be able to see three of the legs
but assumes a 4-legged chair.  Indeed, Dr. Minsky presented such a chair at the
AAAI in August.
  We interview the chair itself after the lecture, and asked it why it came
with only three legs.  The resulting string of excuses was impressive, and
more robust than one might expect from a broken piece of furniture.
  These included:
      "I'm not registered with the local chairs' union, so they'd only let me
        up on stage if I took off one of my legs.
      "Accounting cut my travel allowance by 18%, so I had to leave my leg
        back in California.
      "This is just a demo chair that we put together for the conference.  We
        have a programming team on the West coast that will have implemented
        another leg by October.
      "My secretary talked to somebody on the program committee who assured
        her that I wouldn't have to bring my own legs, and that there would be
        plenty of legs here in Austin.  Then I go here and found they were
        overbooked.
      "I felt that three legs was adequate to demonstrate the soundness of the
        general leg concept, and actually implementing a fourth leg would have
        been superfluous."

  This underlined a central observation: making excuses is critical to
perception, and is central to intelligence.  I mean, think about.  Sounding
intelligent involves making gross generalizations & venting primitive
prejudices and then making plausible excuses for them when they collide with
reality.  Any imaginable robot that understands the consequences of its action
will want to weasel out of them.

     The 3 legged chair problem yielded a high number of palatable excuses.
This toy problem shows the feasibility of generating large numbers of
industrial-strength excuses.  This goal would free humans from having to
justify their actions, leaving them more time to spend on screwing things
up.  That, after all, seems to be what they are best at.

How It Works
  A user makes request via SNIVEL (Stop-Nagging,-I'm-Verifying-an-Excuse
Language), a user-friendly system that nods, clucks sympatheticly, encourages
the user to vent his hostility & frustration, and has a large supply of
sympathetic stock answers for lame excuses:
  "You poor dear, I know you were trying as hard as you could.
  "Well, you can't be blamed for trusting them.
  "I can certainly see how you couldn't get your regular work done after an
     emotional shock like that."

  The program then begins to formulate an excuse appropriate to the problem.
Many problems can be recognized trivially and have stock excuses.  These can
be stored in a hash table and supplied without any search at all:
  "The dog vomited on it, so I threw it out.
  "It's in the mail.
  "I thought you LIKED it when I did that.
  "Six debates would probably bore the public.
  "I have a headache tonight.
  "I trusted in the advice of my accountant/lawyer/broker/good-time mama."

  If the problem is more complex, SNIVEL enters into a dialog with the user.
Even if he wants to take responsiblity for his share of the problem, SNIVEL
solicits the user, getting him to blame other people and explain why it wan't
REALLY his fault.  A report may be late getting to a client, for instance; it
may ask what last minute changes the client had requested, and what kinds of
problems the user had with a typing pool.  SNIVEL shares records with the
personnel file, so that it can quickly provide a list of co-workers' absences
that problably slowed the whole process down.  It has a parsing alogrithm that
takes the original work order and comes with hundreds of different parses for
each sentence, demonstrating that the original order was ambiguous and caused
a lot of wasted effort.
  One of the central discoveries of AI has been that problems that look easy
are often very hard.  Proving this rigorously is a powerful tool: it provides
the excuse that almost any interesting problem is too hard to solve.  So of
course we're late with the report.

Theoretical Issues
  Not all the work here has focused on immediate payoffs.  We
have studied several theoretical issues involved with excuses.  We've found
that all problems can be partitioned into:
   1) Already Solved Problems for which excuses are not needed.
   2) Unsolved Problems
   3) Somebody Else's Problem
  We concentrate on (2).  We've shown that this class is further dividable.
Of particular interest is the class of unsolved problems for which the set of
palatable excuses is infinite.  These problems never need to actually be
solved.  We can generate research proposals, programs and funds requests
indefinitely without ever having to produce any results.  We just compute the
next excuse in the series and go on.

Remaining problems
  It is easiest to generate excuses when the person receiving the excuse is
either a complete moron or really couldn't care less about the whole project.
Fortunately, this is often the case and can be the default assumption.  But is
often useful to model the receiver of the excuse.  We can than calulate
just how big a whopper he's likely to swallow.
  It is, of course, not necessary that the receiver believe the excuse, just
that he accepts it.  The system is not ready yet able to model why anyone
would accept the excuse "Honestly, we're just friends, there's nothing
between us at all."  But our research shows that most people accept this
excuse, and almost no one believes it.

  The system still has problems understanding different points of view.  For
instance, it cannot differentiate why

  "My neighbors were up drinking and fighting and doing drugs and screaming
all night, so I didn't get any sleep at all,"

 is a reasonable excuse for being late to work, but

  "I was up drinking and fighting and doing drugs and screaming all night, so
I didn't get any sleep at all," is not.

  Finally, the machine is handicapped by its looks.  No matter how
brilliantly it calculates a good excuse, it can't sweep back a head of
chestnut hair, fix a winning smile on its face, and say with heartfelt warmth,
"Oh, thank you SO much for understanding..."  And that is so much of the soul
of a truly good excuse.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
122
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Sep 84 11:13:30-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Production Systems on Apple
-BODY-
The only thing I have seen for Apple is micro-PROLOG + APES (Augmented PROLOG
for Expert Systems), marketed in the U.S. by Programming Logic Systems, Inc.,
31 Crescent Drive, Milford, CT 06460 (203-877-7988).  I have no experience with
the system, but the brochures I have seen and the price make it attractive.
Micro-PROLOG runs on Apple II with a Z80 card and full l.c. keyboard, on the
IBM PC and PC Jr., and on various configurations of Obsborne, Kaypro II,
HP 150, TRS 2000, Xerox 820, among others.  CP/M 80 systems require at least
48K RAM, while PC/MS DOS needs 128K.  APES reportedly runs on any system which
supports micro-PROLOG, but the order form lists only PC/MS DOS and CP/M 86
versions (for Apricot, Sirius and IBM PC compatible).  APES requires a minimum
memory configuration of 128K.  In today's inflated market, the license fees of
$295 each or $495 for both are not too outrageous.  Clark and McCabe's book is
included.

The only other systems I've heard about are Expert-Ease and M.1 for the IBM PC
and TI's Personal Consultant for their Professional Computer.  These go for
$2000, $12,500 and $3000 each.  The literature and reviews of Expert-Ease make
it look like a joke (a friendly interface to a table), but neither media has
been able to give an example of the system's inductive capabilities.  Expert-
Ease appears to be able to form rules from examples, but the people writing the
brochures and reviews don't seem to be able to understand or convey this.
saw M.1 and the Personal Consultant demoed at AAAI.  Both are Emycin clones,
minus a lot of the frills (and thus, perhaps, minus the bugs).  The Personal
Consultant seemed more impressive.  It is supposedly written in IQLISP, but
does not appear to transport to non-TI computers running IQLISP.  All of these
products seem way overpriced, as university research has made them fairly
simple engineering projects.  In the case of the Personal Consultant, none of
the academics who did the research seem connected with the project.  I imagine
that Teknowledge (M.1) has some of Emycin's designers on staff, and know that
Michie is involved with Expert-Ease.

Dallas Webster (CMP.BARC@UTexas-20)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 84 18:16:54-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!akgua!psuvax1!simon @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1140

   ....induction (in mathematics) can deal only with integers.

(approximate quote). So what else do you expect a formal system to deal with?
The only reasonable answer would be "small finite sets (that are equivalent to
subsets of integers). Sure, there are non-denumerable sets that are interesting
> but only to sufficiently abstract mathematicians. I do not see useful
computer
systems worrying about large cardinals, determinacy or the continuum.
janos simon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 84 17:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: mclure @ Sri-Unix.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: deduction vs. induction
-BODY-
The recent claim in AILIST that

        'deduction proceeds from the general (axioms) to
         the specific (propositions), induction proceeds from
         the specific to the general.'

is not correct.

A lucid definition and comparision of both can be found in:

    LOGIC AND CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC by Kahane

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 23:01:24 BST
-FROM-
From: "Dr. A. Sloman" <XASV02%svpa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project - Traffic Information System
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]


     An Intelligent Collator and Condenser of Traffic Information

The Cognitive Studies Programme, at Sussex University, UK, now has an
AI/Natural Language project to build a traffic information system.
The project is concerned with a system which processes and integrates
reports from the police about traffic accidents. It must also make decisions
about which motorists are to be informed about these accidents, by means
of broadcasts over an (eventually) nationwide cellular radio network.
A significant part of the project will involve investigating to what
extent unrestricted natural language input can be handled, and how the obvious
problems of unexpected and ungrammatical input can be overcome. It will also
be necessary to encode rules about intelligent broadcasting strategies for
traffic information.  A dedicated workstation (probably SUN-2/120)
will be provided for the project, as well as access to network
facilities and other computing facilities at Sussex University (mostly
VAX-based).

For information about the project, and/or about the large and growing AI
group at Sussex University, please contact Chris Mellish, Arts Building E,
University of Sussex, BRIGHTON BN1 9QN, England. Phone (0273)606755 -
if Chris is not in ask for Alison Mudd.
(Contact via netmail is not convenient at present.)

Aaron Sloman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 84 15:49:20 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Common Sense Thinking
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

   TIME:                Tuesday, September 25, 11 - 12:30
   PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
   DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

   SPEAKER:        John McCarthy, Computer Science  Department,
                   Stanford University

   TITLE:          What is common sense thinking?

   ABSTRACT:       Common sense  thinking  includes  a  certain
                   collection  of knowledge and certain reason-
                   ing  ability.   Expert  knowledge  including
                   scientific knowledge fits into the framework
                   provided  by  common  sense.   Common  sense
                   knowledge  includes  facts  about the conse-
                   quences  of  actions  in  the  physical  and
                   psychological  worlds,  facts about the pro-
                   perties of space, time, causality and physi-
                   cal  and  social objects.  Common sense rea-
                   soning includes both logical  deductive  and
                   various  kinds  of  non-monotonic reasoning.
                   Much common sense knowledge is  not  readily
                   expressible  in  words, and much that can be
                   usually isn't.

                   The lecture will attempt  to  survey  common
                   sense  knowledge and common sense reasoning.
                   It will be oriented  toward  expressing  the
                   knowledge in languages of mathematical logic
                   and expressing the  reasoning  as  deduction
                   plus formal non-monotonic reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Sep 84 19:55:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Theories of Information
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    PROJECT ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT F-1:  THEORIES OF INFORMATION

The notions information and of informational content are central to much
of the work done at CSLI and are emerging as central notions in philosophy,
computer science, and other disciplines.  Thus we need mathematically
precise and philosophically cogent accounts of information and the forms
it takes. The F-1 project will hold a series of meetings on various CSLI
researchers' approach to the notion of information.  The emphasis will be
on gaining a detailed understanding of the theories that are being developed
and discussing issues in ways that will be helpful in making further
progress.  Those interested should attend the meetings regularly to help
develop a working group with a shared body of knowledge.  For this reason,
we will not make it a practice to announce individual meetings, which will
occur approximately bi-weekly, Tuesdays at 3:15, in the Ventura Seminar
Room.  The first meeting will be on October 2, when Jon Barwise will speak
for a bit about the nature and prospects for a theory of information,
followed by Fernando Pereira and/or Stan Rosenschein who will talk about
the current state of situated automata theory.

                                                        ---John Perry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 84 15:26:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dennis Perzanowski <dennisp@NRL-AIC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Fall AI Seminar Schedule at NCARAI
-BODY-
                       U.S. Navy Center for Applied Research
                             in Artificial Intelligence
                       Naval Research Laboratory - Code 7510
                             Washington, DC   20375-5000


                                FALL SEMINAR SERIES


        Monday,
        24 Sept. 1984   Professor Hanan Samet
                        Computer Science Department
                        University of Maryland
                        College Park, MD
                                "Overview of Quadtree Research"

        Monday,
        15 Oct. 1984    Professor Stefan Feyock
                        Computer Science Department
                        College of William and Mary
                        Williamsburg, VA
                                "Syntax Programming"

        Monday,
        22 Oct. 1984    Professor Andrew P. Sage
                        Computer Science Department
                        George Mason University
                        Fairfax, VA
                                "Alternative Representations
                                 of Imprecise Knowledge"

         Monday,
         5 Nov. 1984    Professor Edwina Rissland
                        Department of Computer and Information Sciences
                        University of Massachusetts
                        Amherst, MA
                                "Example-based Argumentation and Explanation"

        Monday,
        19 Nov. 1984    Mr. Kurt Schmucker
                        National Security Agency
                        Office of Computer Science Research
                        Ft. Meade, MD
                                "Fuzzy Risk Analysis: Theory and Implication"



   The above schedule is a partial listing of seminars to be offered this
   year.  When future dates and speakers are confirmed, another mailing
   will be sent to you.

   Our meetings are usually held on the first and third Monday mornings
   of each month at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Navy Center
   for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence (Bldg. 256) located on
   Bolling Air Force Base, off I-295, in the South East quadrant of
   Washington, DC.  A map can be mailed for your convenience.  Please
   note that not all seminars are held on the first and third Mondays this
   fall due to conflicting holidays.

   Coffee will be available starting at 9:45 a.m. for a nominal fee.

   IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING A SEMINAR, PLEASE CONTACT US BEFORE
   NOON ON THE FRIDAY PRIOR TO THE SEMINAR SO THAT A VISITOR'S PASS WILL
   BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU ON THE DAY OF THE SEMINAR.  NON-U.S. CITIZENS
   MUST CONTACT US AT LEAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO A SCHEDULED SEMINAR.
   If you would like to speak, be added to our mailing list, or would
   like more information, contact Dennis Perzanowski.  [...]

   ARPANET: DENNISP@NRL-AIC or (202) 767-2686.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
123
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 84 13:24:47 EDT
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info needed on OPS5
-BODY-

Any information on compilers/interpreters for the OPS5 language on VAXen
will be appreciated. I'm particularly interested in relatively short
reviews and/or introductions to the language; a tutorial would be nice.
If any of this stuff is available online I'd like to FTP it.
        Thanx in advance.
                Biesel@rutgers.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 84 15:28:05-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Program Usage Consultants?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.99

I am working on an expert system to advise users setting up
runs of a complex aerodynamics program.  The project is sort of like
SACON, only we're trying to do more.

Does anyone know of work in progress that I should know about?  I
am interested in any work being done on

        1. Helping users set up appropriate inputs for a
        sophisticated analytical or simulation program,
        2. Diagnosing problems with the output of such a program,
        or
        3. Interpreting large volumes of numerical output in
        a knowledgeable fashion.

I am looking for current work that people are willing to talk about.
Pointers to literature will be appreciated, even though our library
is doing a literature search.

Please reply by mail!  I will send a summary of responses to anybody
who wants one.

Fred Wamsley
Boeing Computer Services AI Center
UUCP:     {decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!alcmist
ARPA:     ssc-vax!alcmist@uw-beaver.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 84 10:38:00-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "introductory" book on AI??
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: convex.45200003

I would like to learn more about the AI field.  I am almost "illiterate" now.
I have a PhD in CS from Illinois and 26 years experience in system software
such as compilers, assemblers, link-editors, loaders, etc...  Can anyone cite
a good book  or books for the AI field which
        is comprehensive
        is tutorial, in the sense that it includes the motivation behind
                the avenues in AI that it describes, and
        includes a good bibliography to other works in the field?

[Previous AIList discussion on this subject seems to have found Winston's
new "Artificial Intelligence" and Elaine Rich's "Artificial Intelligence"
to be good textbooks.  The three-volume Handbook of AI is also excellent.
Older texts by Nils Nilsson and by Bertram Raphael ("The Thinking Computer")
still have much to offer.  Other recent books cover LISP, PROLOG, and AI
programming techniques, as well as expert systems and AI as a business.
>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Sep 84 10:08:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Engineering Article
-BODY-
The September issue of IEEE Computer is devoted to AI systems, with
emphasis on the man-machine interface.  It's well worth reading.

Frederick Hayes-Roth's article seems to be an excellent introduction
to knowledge engineering.  (The title is "The Knowledge-Based Expert
System: A Tutorial," but it is not really an expert-systems overview.)
The article by Elaine Rich on natural-language interfaces is also
excellent.  There are other articles on smart databases, tutoring
systems, job-shop control, and decision support systems.

There is also an article on a declarative parameter-specification
system for Schlumberger's Crystal system.  I found the article hard
to follow, and I have strong doubts about the desirability of building
a domain-independent parameter parser, then using procedural attachment
in the parameter declarations to hack in runtime dependencies and
domain-specific intelligent behavior.  Even if this is to be done,
the base program should have the option of requesting parameters only
as (and if) they are needed, and should be able to create or alter the
declarative structures dynamically at the time the parameters are
requested.  Given such a system, the declarative structures are simple
a convenient way of passing control options to the user-query
subroutine.  Most of the procedual knowledge belong in the procedural
code, not in declarative structures in a separate knowledge base.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 84 14:48:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gregory Parkinson <Parkinson@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VMS LISPS
-BODY-
We run Yale's T on VMS and like it a lot.  According to our benchmarks
it runs (on the average) a little faster than DEC's Common Lisp.  The
T compiler gets rid of tail recursion which speeds things up a bit, and
is about 40 times faster when dealing with labels.  Subjectively, working
with CL after working with T feels like driving a 76 Caddie Eldorado (power
windows, seats, brakes, steering, etc.) after getting used to a Honda CRX.
They both get you where you're going, but there's something about the
Honda that makes you feel like you're really driving......

                                          Greg Parkinson
                                          Cognitive Systems, inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Sep 84 3:42:03-EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!vu44!tjalk!dick @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proof by induction, fun & entertainment
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: tjalk.338

Claim: All elements of an array A[1..n] are equal to its first element.
Proof by induction:
        Starting case: n = 1.
                Proof:
                        Obvious, since A[1] = A[1].
        Induction step:
                If the Claim is true for n = N, it is true for n = N + 1.
                Proof:
                        All elements of A[1..N] are equal (premise), and since
                        A[2..N+1] is an array of length N, all its elements
                        are equal also.  A[N] is in both (sub-)arrays, so
                                A[1] = A[N] and
                                A[N] = A[N+1]   ->
                                        A[1] = A[N+1]
                        which makes all of A[1..N+1] equal.
                End of proof of induction step
        The starting case and the induction step together prove the Claim.
End of proof by induction

                Courtesy of             Dick Grune
                                        Vrije Universiteit
                                        Amsterdam
                                        the Netherlands



[ *** Spoiler ***     The flaw, of course, is in the statement that
"A[N] is in both (sub-)arrays".  (I point this out to avoid a flood of
mail supplying the answer.)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 84 08:36 CDT
-FROM-
From: Boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on induction and deduction
-BODY-
More on induction and deduction, along with much other interesting and
entertaining discussion, can be found in

Proofs and Refutations
by Imre Lakatos
Cambridge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Sep 84 10:32:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: induction vs. deduction
-BODY-
In reply to the claim that my statement

        'deduction proceeds from the general (axioms) to
         the specific (propositions), induction proceeds from
         the specific to the general.'

is not correct (according to Kahane, LOGIC AND CONTEMPORARY RHETORIC),
see Aristotle, BASIC WORKS OF ARISTOTLE, ed. by R. McKeon, Random
House, 1941.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 84 5:54:04-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!chris @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Causality
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.16

(Apply :-) to entire reply)

>  What's wrong with event A affecting event B in event A's past?  You
>can't go back and shoot your own mother before you were born because you
>exist, and obviously you failed.  If we assume the universe is
>consistant [and not random chaos], then we must assume inconsistancies
>(such as shooting your own mother) will not arise.  It does not,
>however, place time constrictions on cause and effect.

Who says you can't even do that?  Perhaps your existence is actually
just a probablility function.  If P(existence) becomes small enough
you'll just disappear.  Maybe that explains all those mysterious
disappearances (``He just walked around the horses a moment ago...'')

In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci (301) 454-7690
UUCP:   {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet:  chris@umcp-cs           ARPA:   chris@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 84 18:21:16-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Now and Then
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.424

     Having spent some years working on automatic theorem proving and
program verification, I am occasionally distressed to see the ways in which
the AI community uses (and abuses) formal logic.  Always bear in mind that
for a deductive system to generate only true statements, the axioms of the
system must not imply a contradiction; in other words, it must be impossible
to deduce TRUE = FALSE.  In a system with a contradiction, any statement,
however meaningless, can be generated by deductive means.
     It is difficult to ensure the soundness of one's axioms.  See Boyer
and Moore's ``A Computational Logic'' for a description of a logic for which
soundness can be demonstrated and a program which generates inductive proofs
based on that logic.  The Boyer and Moore approach works only for mathematical
objects constructed in a specific and rigorous manner.  It is not applicable
to ``real world reasoning.''
     There are schemes such as nonmonotonic reasoning which attempt to deal
with contradictions.  These are not logical systems but heuristic systems.
Some risk of incorrect results is accepted in exchange for the ability to
``reason'' with non-rigorous data.  A clear distinction should be made between
mathematical deduction in rigorous spaces and heuristic problem solving by
semi-logical means.

                                John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 1984  10:44 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <WALTER%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor & Seminar - Slimy Logic
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


       The Computer Aided Conceptual Art Laboratory
                            and
           Laboratory for Graduate Student Lunch
                          presents

                         SLIMY LOGIC
                              or
       INDENUMERABLY MANY TRUTH-VALUED LOGIC WITHOUT HAIR

                         by Lofty Zofty


The indenumerably many-valued logics which result from the first stage
of slime-ification are so to speak "non-standard" logics; but slimy logic,
the result of the second stage of slime-ification, is a very radical
departure indeed from classical logics, and thereby sidesteps many
fruitless preoccupations of logicians such as completeness, consistency,
axiomatization, and proof.  In this talk I attempt to counter Slimy Logic's
low and ever-declining popularity by presenting a "qualitative" view
of slimy logic in which such definitions as
                        2
        very true = true
and                                  -3/2
        not very pretty false = false

by the qualitative (i.e. so even people who don't carry
around two calculators can understand them) definitions:

        very true = true
and
        not very pretty false = ugly false

I will then use this "qualitative" slimy logic to very nearly prove
very much that Jon Doyle is probably not very right about nearly
extremely many things.

HOSTS: Robert Granville and Isaac Kohane
Refreshments will be served
Moved to the Third Floor Theory Group Playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 September 1984 13:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: Kenneth Byrd Story <STORY @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analysis of Knowledge
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

DATE:     Wednesday, September 26, 1984
TIME:     Refreshments, 3:45pm
          Lecture, 4:00pm
PLACE:    NE43-453
TITLE:    ``A MODEL-THEORETIC ANALYSIS OF KNOWLEDGE''
SPEAKER:  Dr. Joseph Y. Halpern, IBM, San Jose

Understanding knowledge is a fundamental issue in many disciplines.  In
computer science, knowledge arises not only in the obvious contexts (such as
knowledge-based systems), but also in distributed systems (where the goal is to
have each processor know something, as in Byzantine agreement).  A general
semantic model of knowledge is introduced, to allow reasoning about statements
such as "He knows that I know whether or not she knows whether or not it is
raining."  This approach more naturally models a state of knowledge than
previous proposals (including Kripke structures).  Using this notion of model,
a model theory for knowledge is developed.  This theory enables one to
interpret such notions as a "finite amount of information" and "common
knowledge" in different contexts.  This is joint work with Ron Fagin and Moshe
Vardi.

HOST:    Professor Silvio Micali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 17 Sep 84 09:01:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course & Conference - Stanford Logic Meeting
-BODY-
           Logic, Language and Computation Meeting

The Association for Symbolic Logic (ASL) and the Center for the  Study
of Language  and Information  (CSLI) are  planning a  two-week  summer
school and  meeting, July  8-20, 1985,  at Stanford  University.   The
first week (July  8-13) will  consist of  a CSLI  Summer School,  with
courses on various topics, including PROLOG, LISP, Complexity  Theory,
Denotational Semantics,  Generalized Quantifiers,  Intensional  Logic,
and Situation Semantics.  The second week (July 15-20) will be an  ASL
meeting  with  invited  lectures  (in  Logic,  Natural  Language,  and
Computation), symposia (on "Logic in Artificial Intelligence",  "Types
in the  Study  of  Computer  and  Natural  Languages",  and  "Possible
Worlds"), and  sessions  for  contributed  papers.   Those  interested
should contact Ingrid Deiwiks, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA  94305
(ph 415-497-3084) before November 1, with an indication as to  whether
they would like to make a reservation for a single or shared room  and
board in  a residence  hall, and  for  what period  of time.   A  more
detailed program will be available in November.  The program committee
consists of Jon  Barwise, Solomon Feferman,  David Israel and  William
Marsh.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
124
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 84 19:30:30 PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: Mike Brzustowicz <mab@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Demonstration Idea wanted
-BODY-
A non-network friend of mine needs to demonstrate to a class the importance
of detailed specifications.  He has been trying to find a task which is easy
to do but hard to describe, so that half of the class can write descriptions
which the other half will follow literally and thereby fail to accomplish
the described task.  Anyone have any ideas other than tying shoelaces or
cooking beef wellington?  (Many people don't wear laced shoes and the
facilities available aren't up to cooking :-)).  Thanks!

>Mike
<mab@aids-unix>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 84 20:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Sergei Nirenburg <nirenburg%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART Special Section on Machine Translation
-BODY-

                 ACM SIGART SPECIAL SECTION
         ON MACHINE TRANSLATION AND RELATED TOPICS

     A special section on MT and related work is planned for
an early 1985 issue of the SIGART Newsletter.

     The purpose of the section is:

     1.  To update the knowledge of the new paradigms in  MT
         in the AI community

     2.  To help MT workers to learn about  developments  in
         AI that can be useful for them in their projects

     3.  To  provide   the   MT   community   with   updated
         information  about  current,  recent and nascent MT
         projects

     4.  To  help  identify  major  topics,   results   and,
         especially, directions for future research.

Contributions are solicited from MT workers, as well as  all
workers   in  AI,  theoretical,  computational  and  applied
linguistics and other related fields  who  feel  that  their
work  has  a bearing on MT (machine-aided human translation;
automatic dictionary  management;   parsing  and  generating
natural  language;  knowledge representation for specialized
domains;  discourse analysis;  sublanguages  and  subworlds,
etc., etc.)

     A detailed questionnaire to help  you  in  preparing  a
response is available from the guest editor,

Sergei Nirenburg
Department of Computer Science
Colgate University
Hamilton NY 13346 USA
(315) 824-1000 ext. 586
nirenburg@umass

     If  you  know  of  people  interested   in   MT-related
activities  who are not on a net, please let them know about
this call.

     The deadline for submissions is DECEMBER 1, 1984.
     Electronic submissions are welcome

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13-Sep-84 18:49:25-BST
-FROM-
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Availability of a GPSG system in Prolog
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This message is composed of extracts from the ProGram manual.

ProGram is a suite of Prolog programs that are intended to permit
the design, evaluation, and debugging of computer realizations of
phrase structure grammars for large fragments of natural languages.
The grammar representation language employed is that known as GPSG
(Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar).  A GPSG grammar, as far as
ProGTram is concerned, has up to nine components as follows:

        1. Specification of feature syntax.
        2. Immediate dominance rules (ID rules).
        3. Metarules which operation on the ID rules.
        4. Linear precedence rules (LP rules).
        5. Feature coefficient default values.
        6. Feature co-occurrence restrictions.
        7. Feature aliasing data.
        8. Root admissibility conditions.
        9. A lexicon.

All the major conventions described in the GPSG literature are
implemented, including the Head Feature Convention, the Foot
Feature Principle (and hence slash categories &c), the Control
Agreement Principle, the Conjunct Realisation Principle, lexical
subcategorisation  and rule instantiation incorporating the notion
of privilege.

All the major parts of the grammar interpreter code are written
in standard Prolog (Clocksin&Mellish).  Installation of the
system should be fairly simple on any machine of moderate size
which supports Prolog.

                             AVAILABILITY

1.  The manual is "University of Sussex Cognitive Science Research
    Paper 35 (CSRP 035) and can be ordered from Judith Dennison,
    Congitive Studies Programme, Arts E, University of Sussex,
    Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN, for 7.50 pounds including postage.
2.  ProGram is aprt of the standard Sussex POPLOG system and is
    included, without extra charge, in all academic issues and
    updates of the POPLOG system.  POPLOG is available to UK
    academic users for the sum of 500 pounds (special arrangements
    apply to holders of SERC AI grants who have a VAX running UNIX).
    Existing UK academic POPLOG users can obtain a free update of
    the POPLOG system which will include ProGram.  POPLOG runs on
    VAXes under VMS and UNIX, and on Bleasdale BDC 680as under UNIX.
    [RAOK: The Bleasdale is a 68000, POPLOG is on SUNs too by now.]
    Non-educational customers (UK & overseas) who want ProGram with
    POPLOG should order it through System Designers Ltd, Systems
    House, 1 Pembroke Broadway, Camberley, Surrey GU15 3XH.  This
    company makes POPLOG available to educational institutions in
    the USA for 995 dollars.
3.  Academic users of other Prolog systems can obtain a magnetic tape
    in UNIX "tar" format of the Prolog code of the ProGram system
    free, together with a copy of "The Program Manual", provided they
    pay the tape, postage, package, and handling costs (35 pounds).
    Copies can be ordered from Alison Mudd, Cognitive Studies
    Programme, Arts E, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN
    A cheque for 35 pounds made payable to "The University of Sussex"
    should be enclosed with the order.



I have no connection with POPLOG, ProGram, or (save a recent visit
when I picked up the ProGram manual and saw PopLog running on its
home ground) with the University of Sussex.

Just to make sure you realise what ProGram is and isn't, it IS
meant to be a convenient toolkit for *developing* a GPSG grammar,
it is NOT meant to be the world's most efficient parser.  The manual
warns you that "in general, automatic exhaustive parsing with more
than a few rules tends to be slow".  You shouldn't need to know
any Prolog in order to use ProGram.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 14-Sep-84 21:20:02-BST
-FROM-
From: O'Keefe HPS (on ERCC DEC-10)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interpreting Kastner's Preference Rules in Prolog
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.  This is a declarative
specification of an expert-system interpreter. -- KIL]


I've always been quite impressed by the "EXPERT" stuff being
done at Rutgers, and when I read Kastner's thesis

        Kastner, J.K.
        @i"Strategies for Expert Consultation in Therapy Planning."
        Technical Report CMB-TR-135, Department of Computer Science,
        Rutgers University, October 1983.  (PhD thesis)

I decided to write an interpreter for his rules in Prolog as an
exercise.  The first version just came up with the answer, that's the
stuff that's commented out below.  The second version left behind
information for "explanations":

    chosen(Answer, Reason, WouldHaveBeenPreferred)

Answer was the answer, Reason was the text the rule writer
gave to explain his default ordering of the treatments, and
WouldHaveBeenPreferred are the treatments we'd have preferred
in this ordering if they hadn't been contraindicated

    despite(Answer, Contraindications)

means that Answer was contraindicated by each of the problems
listed, but it was still picked because the preferred choices
had worse problems.

    rejected(Treatment, Contraindications)

means that Treatment was rejected because it had the problems
listed.  Every treatment will be rejected or chosen.  Note: in
these two facts the Contraindications are those which were
checked and found to be applicable, less severe ones may not
have been checked.  (This is a feature, the whole point of the
code in fact.)

You'll have to read Kastner's thesis to see how these rules are used,
but if you're interested in Expert Systems you'll want to read it.

Why have I sent this to the [Prolog] Digest?  Two reasons.  (1) someone
may have a use for it, and if I send it to the library it'll sink without
trace.  (2) I'm quite pleased with the "no-explanations" version, but
the "explanations" version is a bit of a mess, and if anyone can find
a cleaner way of doing it I'd be very pleased to see it.  I guess I
still don't know how best to do data base hacking.

A point which may be interesting: I originally had worst/6 binding its
second argument to 'none' where there were no new contraindications.
The mess which resulted (though it worked) reminded me of a lesson I
thought I'd learned before: it is dangerous to have an answer saying
there are no answers, because that looks like an answer.  All the
problems I had with this code came from thinking procedurally.

:-  op(900, fx, 'Is ').
:-  op(899, xf, ' true').
:-  compile([
        'util:ask.pl',          % for yesno/1
        'util:projec.pl',       % for project/3
        'prefer.pl'             % which follows
    ]).

%   File   : PREFER.PL
%   Author : R.A.O'Keefe
%   Updated: 14 September 1984
%   Purpose: Interpret Kastner's "preference rules" in Prolog

:- public
        go/0,
        og/0.

:- mode
        prefer(-, +, +, +),
        pass(+, +, +, -),
        pass(+, +, +, +, +, +, -),
        worst(+, -, +, +, -, -),
        chose(+, +, +),
        forget(+, +),
        compare_lengths(+, +, -),
        evaluate(+).


prefer(Treatment, Rationale, Contraindications, Columns) :-
        pass(Columns, [], Contraindications, Treatment),
        append(Pref1, [Treatment=_|_], Columns), !,
        project(Pref1, 1, Preferred),
        assert(chosen(Treatment, Rationale, Preferred)).


pass([Tr=Tests|U], Cu, Vu, T) :-
        worst(Tests, Rest, Cu, Vu, Cb, Vb), !,
        pass(U, [Tr=Rest], Cu, Vu, Cb, Vb, T).
pass([T=_|U], C, _, T) :-
        chose(T, U, C).


pass([], [T=_], _, _, C, _, T) :- !,
        chose(T, [], C).
pass([], B, _, _, Cb, Vb, T) :-
        reverse(B, R),
        pass(R, Cb, Vb, T).
pass([Tr=Tests|U], B, Cu, Vu, Cb, Vb, T) :-
        worst(Tests, Rest, Cu, Vu, Ct, Vt),
        compare_lengths(Vt, Vb, R),
        (   R = (<), C1 = Ct, V1 = Vt, B1 = [Tr=Rest], forget(B, Cb)
        ;   R = (=), C1 = Cb, V1 = Vb, B1 = [Tr=Rest|B]
        ;   R = (>), C1 = Cb, V1 = Vb, B1 = B, assert(rejected(Tr,Ct))
        ),  !,          % moved down from worst/6 for "efficiency"
        pass(U, B1, Cu, Vu, C1, V1, T).
pass([T=_|_], B, _, _, C, _, T) :-
        chose(T, B, C).


worst([Test|Tests], Tests, C, [X|V], [X|C], V) :-
        evaluate(Test), !.
worst([_|Tests], Rest, Cu, [_|Vu], Ct, Vt) :-
        worst(Tests, Rest, Cu, Vu, Ct, Vt).


evaluate(fail) :- !, fail.
evaluate(Query) :-
        known(Query, Value), !,
        Value = yes.
evaluate(Query) :-
        yesno('Is ' Query ' true'),
        !,
        assert(known(Query, yes)).
evaluate(Query) :-
        assert(known(Query, no)),
        fail.


chose(Treatment, Rejected, Contraindications) :-
        assert(despite(Treatment, Contraindications)),
        forget(Rejected, Contraindications).


forget([], _).
forget([Treatment=_|Rejected], Contraindications) :-
        assert(rejected(Treatment, Contraindications)),
        forget(Rejected, Contraindications).


compare_lengths([], [], =).
compare_lengths([],  _, <).
compare_lengths( _, [], >).
compare_lengths([_|List1], [_|List2], R) :-
        compare_lengths(List1, List2, R).


/*----------------------------
%  Version that doesn't store explanation information:

prefer(Treatment, Rationale, Contraindications, Columns) :-
        pass(Columns, 0, [], Treatment).


pass([], _, [T=_], T) :- !.
pass([], _, B, T) :-
        reverse(B, R),
        pass(R, 0, [], T).
pass([Tr=Col|U], I, B, T) :-
        worst(Col, 1, W, Reduced),
        !,
        (   W > I, pass(U, W, [Tr=Reduced], T)
        ;   W < I, pass(U, I, B, T)
        ;   W = I, pass(U, I, [Tr=Reduced|B], T)
        ).
pass([T=_|_], _, _, T).         % no (more) contraindications


worst([], _, none, []).
worst([Condition|Rest], Depth, Depth, Rest) :-
        evaluate(Condition), !.
worst([_|Col], D, W, Residue) :-
        E is D+1,
        worst(Col, E, W, Residue).

>--------------------------------------------------------------*/


antiviral(Which) :-
        evaluate(full_therapeutic_antiviral_dose_recommended),
        prefer(Which, efficiacy,

         [pregnancy, resistance, severe_algy, mild_algy ], [
   ftft =[fail,      rtft,       at3,         at1       ],
   fvira=[fail,      rvira,      av3,         av1       ],
   fidu =[preg,      ridu,       ai3,         ai1       ]  ]).


go :-
        antiviral(X),
        write(X), nl,
        pp(chosen), pp(despite), pp(rejected).

og :-
        abolish(chosen, 3),
        abolish(despite, 2),
        abolish(known, 2),
        abolish(rejected, 2).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
125
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 84 22:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System for Foster Care Placements
-BODY-
One of my students has begun a project as described below.
We are wondering if there are any similar projects that people
would be willing to let us know about.
Many thanks, Ed Fox.

 This expert system will provide assistance to social workers charged with
 finding suitable substitute care placements for children who cannot continue
 to live with their families.  The system's rules will be based on
 expert input from social workers and an analysis of a social service agency's
 case records to determine the constellation of child, natural family, and
 substitute caregivers' characteristics and environmental factors which have
 been associated with successful placements in the past.  Users will be asked
 for descriptive information about the child for whom a placement is being
 sought and his/her family.  System output will provide the social worker with
 a description(s) of substitute care settings which can be expected to suit the
 needs of the particular child and contribute to a successful placement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Sep 1984 07:59:09-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Help- Franz Lisp
-BODY-

Help!
Does anyone have a good practical guide to Franz LISP running under UNIX
on a VAX ?
Is there a way to list the LISP environment when running the interpreter or
do you have to go in and out using the Unix editors?
Can you save the LISP envirnment to an editor file while you are in LISP?

P.S. I have the Franz LISP manual, but I haven't translated it to English yet.

P.S.S I haven't even figured out what language it's written in.......

                                     Ron Kushnier
                                     kushnier@nadc.arpa

[I'm not sure what's possible under Berkeley Unix (if that's what you
have) since I'm using a VAX EUNICE system.  Our people have rigged the
EMACS editor so that it can be called from Franz, provided that you load
and then suspend EMACS before starting up Franz.  Interpreted functions
can thus be edited and newly edited functions can be run; special editor
macros facilitate this.  4.1BSD Unix lacks the interprocess mechanisms
needed to support this (LEDIT), although EMACS process windows running
Franz are possible; 4.2BSD may be more flexible.

To examine your environment while in Franz, use the pp (pretty-print)
command.  You can certainly save an environment; check out the
dumplisp and savelisp commands.  For a readable Franz tutorial get
Wilensky's new LISPcraft book.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 84 14:42:49-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
     @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Inductive proof -- the heap problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: eosp1.1131


BUT! Human beings continually reason inductively on tiny amounts
of info, often two or even one case!  We have some way of monitoring
our results and taking back some iof the inductions that were wrong.
AI has to get the hang of this some day...

>-- Toby Robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 84 22:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Sergei Nirenburg <nirenburg%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural languages as interlinguas for MT
-BODY-

Re: using a natural language as an interlingua in a machine translation
system

A natural language and an MT interlingua have different purposes and are
designed differently.  An interlingua should be ambiguity-free and should
facilitate automatic reasoning about the knowledge encoded in it.  A natural
language is designed to be used by truly intelligent speakers and hearers, so
that a lot of polysemy, homonymy, anaphoric phenomena, even outright errors
can be put up with -- because the understander is so sophisticated.  Brevity
is at a premium in natural language communication, not clarity.

The most recent attempt to use a language designed for humans as an MT
interlingua is the Dutch researcher A. Witkam's attempt in his DLT machine
translation project.  He plans to use Binary-Coded Esperanto (BCE) as the
interlingua in a planned multilingual MT system.

An analysis of the approach shows that in reality the system involves two
complete (transfer-based) translation modules: 1) Source language to BCE; and
2) BCE to Target language.

Of many points of criticism possible let me mention just that this
approach (in effect, double transfer)  has nothing to do with AI methods.
If transfer is used, it is not clear why an interlingua should be involved at
all.

For some more discussion see Tucker and Nirenburg, "Machine Translation: A
Contemporary View", in the 1984 issue of the Annual Review of Information
Science and Technology.

At the same time, it would be nice to see a technical discussion of the
system by Guzman de Rojas -- is any such thing available?

Sergei

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1984  15:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semantic Modulation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        The AI revolving seminar this week is by David McAllester:

        SEMANTIC MODULATION:  A Relevance Based Inference Technique

        The Reasoning Utility Package RUP provides a set of
propositonal inference mechanisms for constructing inference-based
data bases and reasoning systems.  This talk will present new
inference mechanisms which can be incorporated into the RUP
architecture.  These inference mechansisms reason about quantified
formula using a technique based on the "modulation" of the
interpretation of free parameters.  By modulating the interpretation
of free parameters it is possible to perform a wide variety of
quantificational inferences without ever "consing" new formulae.
The semantic modulation inference mechanism relies on a notion
of relevance in propositional reasoning:  when a formula is proven
one can determine a subset of premises relevant to the proof.
The relevant subset is usually smaller than the set of premises actually
used in the proof.  Semantic modulation is also closely related to
the notions of "inheritance" and "virtual copy" used in semantic networks.


Time:           2:00PM          Wednesday Sept. 26  (THIS Wednesday)
Place:          7th Floor Playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 25 Sep 84 11:09:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - SOAR Intelligent System
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:        Friday, September 28, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     John Laird,
             Xerox Corp.

ABSTRACT:    SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence

I will present recent progress in developing an architecture for general
intelligence, called Soar.   In Soar, all problem solving occurs as
search in a problem space and all knowledge is encoded as production
rules.  I will describe the Soar architecture and then present three
demonstrations of its generality and power.

1. Universal Subgoaling: All subgoals are created automatically by the
architecture whenever the problem solver is unable to carry out the
basic functions of problem solving (so that all subgoals in Soar are
also meta-goals).  All the power of Soar is available in the subgoals,
including creating new subgoals, making Soar a completely reflective
problem solver.

2. A Universal Weak Method: The weak methods emerge from knowledge about
a task instead of through explicit representation and selection.

3. R1-Soar: Although Soar was designed for general problem-solving, it
is also effective in the knowledge-intensive domains of expert systems.
This will be demonstrated by a partial implementation of the R1 expert
system in Soar.

Soar also has a general learning mechanism, called Chunking.  Paul
Rosenbloom will present this aspect of our work at the SIGLunch on
October 5.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 25 Sep 84 14:08:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Current Distribution List
-BODY-
SIGART has recently been publishing names of companies involved in AI,
which started me wondering just where AIList goes.  The following are
organizations that I mail to directly, as nearly as I can figure out
from the net names.  In some cases the digest goes to numerous campuses,
departments, or laboratories; in others it goes to a single individual.
AIList also goes to numerous sites through indirect remailings,
particularly through Usenet redistribution.  If anyone would like to
add to my list, please send a brief message to AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA.

GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY:
Admiralty Surface Weapons Establishment
Air Force Institute of Technology Data Automation
Army Armament Research and Development Command
Army Aviation Systems Command
Army Communications Electronics Command
Army Engineer Topographic Laboratory
Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
Defense Communications Engineering Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Library of Medicine
National Research Council Board on Telecomm.-Comp. Applications
National Science Foundation
Naval Air Development Center
Naval Intelligence Processing System Support Activity
Naval Ocean Systems Center
Navel Personnel Research and Development Center
Navel Research Laboratory
Navel Surface Weapons Center
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment

LABORATORIES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Center for Seismic Studies
Center for Studies of Language and Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore Labs
Los Alamos National Laboratory
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
NASA Ames Research Center
Norwegian Telecommunication Administration Research Institute
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories
USC Information Sciences Institute

CORPORATIONS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS:
ACM SIGART
Advanced Computer Communications
Advanced Information and Decision Systems
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Compion Corp.
Digital Equipment Corp.
Ford Aerospace and Communications Corp.
GTE Laboratories
General Motors Research
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Honeywell, Inc.
Hughes Research
IntelliGenetics
International Business Machines
Kestrel Institute
Linkabit
Litton Systems
Logicon, Inc.
Marconi Research Centre, Chelmsford
Northrop Research Center
Perceptronics
Philips
Rome Air Development Center
SRI International
Science Applications, Inc.
Software A&E
Tektronix, Inc.
Texas Instruments
The Aerospace Corporation
The MITRE Corporation
The Rand Corporation
Tymshare
Xerox Corporation

UNIVERSITIES:
Boston University
Brandeis University
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Carnegie-Mellon University
Clemson University
Colorado State University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Grinnell College
Harvard University
Heriot_Watt University, Edinburgh
Louisiana State University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
New Jersey Institute of Technology
New York University
Oklahoma State University
Rice University
Rochester University
Rutgers University
St. Joseph's University
Stanford University
State University of New York
University College London
University of British Columbia
University of California (Berkeley, Davis, UCF, UCI, UCLA, Santa Cruz)
University of Cambridge
University of Delaware
University of Edinburgh
University of Massachusetts
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of North Carolina
University of Pennsylvania
University of South Carolina
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Texas
University of Toronto
University of Utah
University of Virginia
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin
Vanderbilt
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Yale University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
126
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 84 10:29:09-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!jensen @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI for Business
-BODY-
   Article-I.D.: trwspp.582

I hope that I can obtain a list of resources that  apply  AI
techniques  to  business.   Such  resources  would  include:
research  bulletins,  software,  books,   and   conferences.
Awhile  back,  I  recall  an  AI  for Business Summary being
offered, perhaps one of you still has a copy lying around on
disk.   I  will  pass on submissions to requesters, via mail
rather than a net posting.

Thank you very much for your assistance.
James Jensen

[I believe that Syming%B.CC@Berkeley is keeping an AI for Business
summary, as well as a list of interested individuals.  This is
still a suitable topic for AIList, of course.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 1984  10:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: Chunka Mui <CHUNKA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for info: commercialization of ai
-BODY-

Has anyone seen a report entitled "Commercial Applications of Expert
Systems"?  The author is Tim Johnson and it is put out by a company in
London named OVUM.  I'm wondering what perspective the report is
written from and whether or not it is worth tracking down.  Replies
can be sent directly to me at Chunka%mit-oz@mit-mc if general interest
in the topic does not exist.  Thanks,

                                      Chunka Mui

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 03:44:35-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A "populist's" view - Jerry Pournelle comments.
-BODY-
in Popular Computing, Nov 84, p 59, Jerry writes in his column THE MICRO
REVOLUTION about ARTIFICIAL EXPERTS: The computer as diagnostician has definite
limits.

worth reading as Jerry (love him or hate him) is a sharp and insightful
'populist' (consider this a compliment), who tries to bridge the gap
between experts and academia and is doing a credible job at it.  If you
keep a folder with informative articles about AI, especially with emphasis
on medical applications, you'll want to add this one.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 25 Sep 84 20:06:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: JKAPLAN@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Clarification Regarding Teknowledge's M.1 Product
-BODY-
I recently learned that an article by John Dvorak criticizing our M.1
product in the San Francisco Chronicle 7/29/84 was reproduced and
distributed to the AIlist.  This article presented a distorted and
factually incorrect picture of the Teknowledge product.  The author
made no attempt to contact us for information prior to publishing the
article and as far as we know, has not seen the product. The article
appears to be based solely on information from a brochure, and
hearsay.

Based on the tone and content of the article, it was apparently
written primarily for entertainment value, and so we decided it would
not be fruitful to draft a formal reply.  However, the AIlist might be
interested in a response.  [I added a note to the original article
requesting such a response.  -- KIL]

First about M.1 -

M.1 is a  knowledge engineering tool that enables technical
professionals without prior AI experience to build rule-based
consultation systems. It is designed for rapid prototyping of
large-scale applications, as well as building small-scale systems. The
product includes a four-day hands-on course, extensive documentation,
sample systems, training materials, one year of "hot-line" support,
and maintenance.

M.1 contains a variety of advanced features. Some of interest to the
AIlist types include: certainty factors; a multi-window interactive
debugging environment; explanation facility; list processing; single-
and multi-valued attributes; variables; dynamic overlays of the
knowledge base during consultations; presupposition checking;
and automatic answer "completion". However, the system was carefully
designed so that it can be learned incrementally, i.e. the beginner
doesn't have to understand or use these features.

An initial CPU costs $12,500 (not $12,000 as stated in the article),
which includes training. Additional licenses costs $5,000 with
training, and $2500 without.

Strategically, M.1 fills a gap between mainframe- or lisp
machine-based tools for AI professionals, and a variety of less
sophisticated systems available to hobbyists.

Turning to the article -


Dvorak makes basically three points:

1. The program is overpriced for personal computer software.

2. The program gives bad advice about wine.

3. Expert systems are too complex to run on micros, at least with M.1.

Let me respond briefly to  each point.

1. M.1 is not targeted to "personal computer owners" the way Wordstar
and VisiCalc are.  M.1 is not intended, nor is it suitable for, mass
distribution.  While M.1 can be used effectively without a graduate
degree in artificial intelligence, it is still quite a distance from
business productivity tools (such as Lotus 1-2-3) for non-technical
computer users.

Rather, it is a tool for technical professionals.  We decided to host
the system on the IBM Personal Computer rather than the VAX or other
environments because (a) we believed this would be more convenient for
our target customers, and (b) it was technically possible without
compromising the product.

M.1 is priced consistent with similar systems that run on the IBM
Personal Computer, such as CAD/CAM tools, or modelling and simulation
packages.  These systems typically appeal to a specialized audience,
and come with extensive training and support (as does M.1).

Our customers and the trade press understand the value of and
rationale for such systems. Some members of the popular and business
press do not. When we receive inquiries from these latter groups, we
explain the product positioning and provide appropriate references and
data points. We did not have this opportunity with Mr. Dvorak.

2. M.1 comes with a variety of sample knowledge systems, that
illustrate various M.1 features and suggest potential areas of
application.  Skipping past extensive consultations in the M.1 brochure
with a Bank Services Advisor and a Structural Analysis Consultant, Mr.
Dvorak reprints an edited transcript of a sample system that provides
Wine Advice, in an attempt to ridicule the quality of the product.

In our brochure, the purpose of the brief wine advisor example is to
illustrate that the user's preferences can be taken into account in a
consultation, and that the user can change his or her mind part way
through a consultation. Initially, the user specifies a preference for
red wine, despite the fact that the meal contains poultry. The M.1
knowledge base naturally recommends a set of red wines.  Mr. Dvorak's
version of the consultation stops at this point. In the balance of the
consultation, the user changes to moderately sweet white wines, and is
advised to try chardonnay, riesling, chenin blanc, or soave.

While it may occasionally provide controversial advice, the wine
advisor sample systems was reviewed by two California wine
experts before release, who felt that its advice was quite reasonable.

3.  Regarding Mr. Dvorak's final point, he is simply wrong. Micros in
general, and M.1 in particular, are powerful enough to solve high
value knowledge engineering problems.  Approximately 200 knowledge
base entries (facts and rules) can be loaded at any one time, and can
be overlayed dynamically if larger knowledge bases are required,
making the only practical limit the amount of disk storage. Through
the use of variables and other representational features, the language
is more concise and powerful than most of its predecessors.  Practical
systems such as the Schlumberger Dipmeter Advisor and the PUFF system
at the Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco use knowledge bases
that could fit easily within the M.1 system without overlays.

For pedagogical purposes, we reimplemented a subset of SACON, a system
originally developed at Stanford University using EMYCIN, as a sample
system.  SACON provides advice to structural engineers on the use a
complex structural analysis Fortran program.  Our sample system
demonstrates that M.1 has sufficient functionality at reasonable speed
to accomplish this task. (The current version does NOT contain the
entire original knowledge base - time and project resource constraints
precluded our doing a complete translation. It includes all questions
and control rules, which account for about 50% of the original system,
but only about half of the judgmental rules, using no overlays. The
reimplementation can run the standard consultation examples from the
SACON literature.)



AIlist readers may be interested to know that M.1 has been selling
very well since its introduction in June. Our customers have been
extremely pleased with the system - many have prototyped serious
applications in a short period of time after taking the course, and at
a cost far below their available alternatives.

For more serious reviews of M.1, may I refer you to

Rosann Stach
Manager of Corporate Development and Public Relations
Teknowledge Inc
525 University Ave
Palo Alto, CA
415-327-6600


                                Jerry Kaplan
                                Chief Development Officer
                                Teknowledge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
127
-DATE-
Date: 26 September 1984 1043-EDT
-FROM-
From: Roger Dannenberg at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Music Mailing List
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        If you are interested in announcements pertaining to computer music
(such as the one you are reading), send mail to Dannenberg@cmu-cs-a and
I'll put you on my mailing list.
        First announcement: there will be a seminar on Monday, October 8,
from 11 to 1 with pre-presentations of 3 talks from the 1984 International
Computer Music Conference.  Please let me know if you plan to attend.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Sep 84 10:09:16-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Windows and Expert Systems
-BODY-
Has anyone else become bothered by the recent apparent equation between
window packages and expert system tools?  The recent spiel on Teknowledge's
M.1 takes care to mention that it provides windows (along with other features).
However, other vendors (for instance all of those at the recent AAAI) seem
to emphasize their window and menu capabilities at the expense of actual
reasoning capacity.  Recent papers on expert systems at both AAAIs and IJCAIs
include the obligatory picture of a screen with all the capabilities being
shown at once (even if they're not really related to the paper's content).
What's going on?
Does a window system really have something substantial to offer expert systems
development?  If so, what is it?  Ultra-high bandwidth for display, so that
the system doesn't have to decide what the user wants to see - it just shows
everything?  Do people get entranced by all the pretty pictures?  Ease of
managing multiple processes (what expert system tools can even employ multiple
communicating processes)?  We've got zillions of machines with window systems
around here, but they seem supremely irrelevant to the process of expert
system development (perhaps because I tend to regard a system that requires
only low-bandwidth communication to be more inherently intelligent - it has
to do more inference to supply missing information).  Can anyone give a solid
justification for windows being an essential part of an expert systems tool?
(Please no one say anything about it being easier to sell tools with flashy
graphics...)

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 1984 09:33-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural languages as interlinguas for MT
-BODY-
        Sergia Nirenburg's statement that "a natural language and an
MT interlingua have different purposes and are designed differently"
is false and reveals an incorrect premise underlying much linguistic and
AI research.  There is a natural language which was spoken between
1000 B.C. and 1900 A.D. which was used amongst a scientific community,
and which was ambiguity free(in some senses syntax-free) and which
fascilitated automatic inference.  Instead of saying "John gave Mary
a book" these scientists would say "there was a giving event, having as
agent John, who is qualified by singularity...etc".
        I have shown this well-developed system to be equivalent to
certain semantic net systems, and in some cases the ancient language
is even more specific.
        The language is an obscure branch of Indo-Iranian of which there
are no translations, but the originals are extant.
        Natural languages CAN serve as interlingua.

Rick Briggs
briggs@riacs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Sep 84 10:58:36-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <LRC.Throop@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Having no crime rate & other text curiosities
-BODY-
  Continuing the consideration of texts that contain mistakes but are still
comprehensible:
  Another example, this from the Summer '84 issue of Foreign Affairs (p 1077):

  "In nine months... the [Argentine] peso fell in value by more than 400
percent."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 84 10:06:00-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!hpfclk!fritz @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Inductive Proof - The Heap Problem
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: hpfclk.75500005

    As an example of improper induction, consider the heap problem.
    A "heap" of one speck (e.g., of flour) is definitely a small heap.
    If you add one speck to a small heap, you still have a small heap.
    Therefore all heaps are small heaps.
                                        -- Ken Laws

That's a little like saying, "The girl next to me is blonde.  The
girl next to her is blonde.  Therefore all girls are blonde."  (Or,
"3 is a prime, 5 is a prime; therefore all odd numbers are prime.")

An observation of 2 (or 3, or 20, or N) samples does *not* an inductive
proof make.  In order to have an inductive proof, you must show that
the observation can be extended to ALL cases.

    [I disagree with Gary's analysis of the flaw.  I didn't say "if
    you add one speck to a one-speck heap", I said that you could add
    one speck to a (i.e., any) small heap.  -- KIL]


Mathematician's proof that all odd numbers are prime:
  "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime; therefore, by INDUCTION,
  all odd numbers are prime."

Physicist's proof:
  "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime,... uhh, experimental error ...
   11 is a prime, 13 is a prime, ...."

Electrical Engineer's proof:
  "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime, 9 is a prime, 11 is a prime..."

Computer Scientist's proof:
  "3 is a prime, 5 is a prime, 7 is a prime,
                               7 is a prime,
                               7 is a prime,
                               7 is a prime,
                               7 is a prime, ..."

Gary Fritz
Hewlett Packard Co
{ihnp4,hplabs}!hpfcla!hpfclk!fritz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Sep 84 10:42:28-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Induction
-BODY-
There's another name for "induction" on one case: generalization.  Lenat's
AM and the Boyer-Moore theorem prover are both capable of doing
generalizations, and there are probably others that can do it also.
Not too hard really;  if you've set up just the right formalism,
generalization amounts to easily-implemented syntactic mutations (now
all we need is a program to come up with the right formalisms!)

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 84 9:03:48-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!pesnta!scc!steiny @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: induction vs. deduction
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: scc.156

A point about logical induction that has not come up is
what Charles Sanders Peirce (who coined the
term "pragmatism") argued that one could never prove
anything inductively.  We believe that any human will die
eventurally and we reason that is so inductively.
We do not, however, have records on every human that has
ever existed, and humans that are still alive offer
no evidence to support the statement "all humans die".

        Peirce (being pragmatic), did not think we should
throw away the principle just because we can't prove anything
with it.  He suggested renaming it "reduction" (and renaming
deduction "abduction").  This  would leave the word
"induction" available to those special cases where
we do have all the evidence.
>-
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382
109 Torrey Pine Terr.
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060
ihnp4!pesnta  -\
fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny
ucbvax!twg    -/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 84 17:27:31 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Anatomical Analogy for Linguistics
-BODY-
                BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                            Fall 1984
              Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

       TIME:                Tuesday, October 2, 11 - 12:30
       PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
       DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

   SPEAKER:        Jerry Sadock, Center for the Advanced  Study
                   in   the  Behavioral  Sciences;  Linguistics
                   Department, University of Chicago

   TITLE:          Linguistics as Anatomy

   ABSTRACT:       The notion of modularity in linguistic  sys-
                   tems  is often supported by invoking an ana-
                   tomical metaphor in which the  various  sub-
                   systems  of the grammar are the analogues of
                   the organs of the body.  The primitive  view
                   of  anatomy  that  is employed supposes that
                   the organs are entirely separate in internal
                   structure, nonoverlapping in function, shar-
                   ply  distinguished  from  one  another,  and
                   entirely autonomous in their internal opera-
                   tion.

                   There is a great deal of suggestive evidence
                   from  language  systems  that  calls many of
                   these assumptions into  question  and  indi-
                   cates  that there are transmodular `systems'
                   that form part of the internal structure  of
                   various  modules,  that there is a good deal
                   of redundancy of function between  grammati-
                   cal  components,  that the boundaries of the
                   modules are unsharp, and that  the  workings
                   of  one module can be sensitive to the work-
                   ings of another.  These facts do  not  speak
                   against  either the basic notion of modular-
                   ity of grammar or  the  anatomical  analogy,
                   but  rather  suggest  that  the structure of
                   grammatical systems is to be compared with a
                   more  sophisticated view of the structure of
                   physical organic systems than has been popu-
                   larly employed.

                   The appropriate analogy is not only biologi-
                   cally more realistic, but also holds out the
                   hope of yielding better accounts of  certain
                   otherwise    puzzling    natural    language
                   phenomena.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
128
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 84 0:39:37-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!daryoush @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Top Ten
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.79

What are the top ten graduate programs in AI?
MIT is first I suppose.

>-id

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 84 13:41:12-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!amd!dual!zehntel!zinfandel!berry @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor - Top Ten
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: zinfande.199

    What are the top ten graduate programs in AI?
                                -- Karyoush Morshedian

To the best of my knowledge, NO AI program has ever graduated from an
accredited degree-granting institution , though I do know of a LISP
program that's a Universal Life Church minister.....


Berry Kercheval         Zehntel Inc.    (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry)
(415)932-6900

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 84 18:21:17-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Top Ten
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.437

     The Stanford PhD program probably ranks in the top 10.  (The MS
program is much weaker).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 84 17:39:34-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!koved @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ELIZA source request
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.171

I would also like a copy of ELIZA if someone could send it to me.
Thanks.

Larry
koved@umcp-cs or koved@maryland.arpa

Spoken: Larry Koved
Arpa:   koved.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!koved

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 84 18:21:31-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Info needed on OPS5
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.438

    OPS5 runs in Franz Lisp on the VAX, and can be obtained from
Charles Forgy at CMU.  It can be obtained via the ARPANET, but an agreement
must be signed first.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 84 18:21:46-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: VMS LISPS
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.439

     And then, there is INTERLISP-VAX, the Bulgemobile of language systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 84 10:12:10-PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!orca!iddic!rogerm @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tektronix 4404 AI Machine
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: iddic.1822

For information on the 4404 please contact your nearest Tektronix AIM Sales
Specialist; Tektronix Incorporated.

    Farwest:  Jeff McKenna
              3003 Bunker Hill Lane
              Santa Clara, CA 95050
              (408) 496-496-0800

    Midwest:  Abe Armoni
              PO Box 165027
              Irving, TX. 75016
              (214) 258-0525

  Northwest:  Gary Belonzi
              482 Bedford St.
              Lexington, MA. 02173
              (617) 861-6800

  Southeast:  Reed Phillips
              Suite 104
              3725 National Drive
              Raleigh, NC. 27612
              (919) 782-5624

This posting is to relieve tekecs!mako!janw from fielding responses that she
doesn't have time to answer after her initial posting several weeks ago.

Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 13:29:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <MOLENDER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEW ADDRESS FOR SYNTELLIGENCE
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Syntelligence is pleased to announce their new Headquarters at

                           100 Hamlin Court
                            P.O. Box 3620
                         Sunnyvale, CA 94088
                             408/745-6666

Effective September 1, 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Sep 84 08:18:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tim Johnson's Report
-BODY-
On AIList today, I saw where someone was asking about the report Tim Johnson
did on Commercial Applications of AI.  It was produced by Ovum Ltd. in England
and is available for about $350 from a place in Portola Valley.  I have the
address at home and can send that to you later.  The report covers AI
research and applications in the USA and UK but also covers the larger research
projects worldwide.  It is a well written and researched report.

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Sep 1984 15:15:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: smith%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: John Dvorak as an information source
-BODY-
  I assume that the John Dvorak who wrote the critique of M.1. is the same
one that writes a weekly column in InfoWorld.  He is not what I would consider
a reliable source of technical information about computers.  His columns
usually consist of gossip and unsupported personal opinion.  What he writes
can be interesting but I like to see facts once in a while, too.  I've read
exactly one good column of his -- it was about computer book PUBLISHING rather
than about computers or software.  He looks to me like a talented individual
who spends too much time out of his league, but is respected for it anyway.
This is common in the 'popular' computer media these days, I guess.

Rick.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 10:44:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Windows and Expert Systems
-BODY-
Reply to Sheb's flames:

No there is no direct relationship between window systems and expert
systems.  However, the goal of these vendors is to sell software
systems that make it easy to CONSTRUCT, DEBUG, and USE expert systems.
We know that high bandwidth between programmer and program makes it
easier to construct and maintain a program.  Similarly, high bandwidth
(properly employed) makes it easier to use a program.  The goal is to
reduce the cognitive load on the user/programmer, not to strive for
maximizing the cognitive load on the program.

Good software is 90% interface and 10% intelligence.

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 11:04:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Generalization
-BODY-
Reply to Shebs' other flame:

"Induction...Not too hard really;"

Shebs comments are very naive.  Of course it isn't too hard to
construct a MECHANISM that sometimes performs inductive
generalizations properly.  However, every mechanism developed thus far
is very ad hoc.  They all rely on "having the right formalism".  In
other words, the programmer implicitly tells the program how to
generalize.  The programmer communicates a set of "biasses" or
preferences through the formalism.  Many of us working in inductive
learning suspect that general techniques will not be found until we
have a THEORY that justifies our generalization mechanisms.  The
justification of induction appears to be impossible.  Appeals to the
Principle of Insufficient Reason and Occam's Razor just restate the
problem without solving it.  In essence, the problem is: What is
rational plausible inference?  When you have no knowledge about which
hypothesis is more plausible, how do you decide that one hypothesis IS
more plausible?  A justification of inductive inference must rely on
making some metaphysical assertions about the nature of the world and
the nature of knowledge.  A justification for Occam's razor, for
example, must show why syntactic simplicity necessarily corresponds to
simplicity in the real world.  This can't be true for just any
syntactic representation!  For what representations is it true?

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Sep 84 14:58:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural languages as MT interlingua
-BODY-
I would like to hear more about the language mentioned by
briggs@riacs as a natural language suitable for use as an MT
interlanguage. Specifically, what is it called and where is
it documented? Where did he publish his demonstration that
it is equivalent to certain kinds of semantic nets?
I would also be interested to hear in what sense he means that
it is a natural language. Virtually all known natural languages
are ambiguous, in the sense that they contain sentences that are
ambiguous, but that does not mean that they cannot be used unambiguously.
An example is the use of English in mathematical writing-it is
possible to avoid ambiguity entirely by careful choice of syntax
and avoidance of anaphora. I wonder whether briggs' language is not
of the same sort-a natural language used in a specialized and restricted
way.

                                        Bill Poser
                                        (poser@su-csli,poser@su-russell)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 84 15:14:41 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Michael G. Dyer" <dyer@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Languages
-BODY-
A recent comment was made that natural languages can serve as an
interlingua.  I disagree.  There's an ancient language used by scientists
to communicate that's called "mathematics"... but is that a
"natural" language?   Natural languages have certain features, namely,
ambiguity, reference to complex conceptualizations regarding human
affairs, and abbreviated messages (that is,  you only say a tiny bit
of what you mean,  and rely on the intelligence of the listener to
combine his/her knowledge with the current context to reconstruct
everything you left out).  If that ancient language spoken by Iranian
scientists was unambiguous and unabbreviated,  then it's probably
about as "natural" as mathematics is as a language.  Then, also, there's
LOGLAN,  where,  when you say (in it) "every sailor loves some woman",  you
specify whether each sailor has his own woman or whether everyone
loves the same woman.  Fine,  but I'd hate to have to use it as an
everyday "natural" language for gettting around.  Natural languages
are complicated because people are intelligent.  The job of AI NLP
researchers is to gain insight into natural languages (and the cognitive
processes which support their comprehension) by working out  mappings
from natural languages into formal systems (i.e., realizable on stupid
machines).  It's hard enough mapping NL into something unambiguous
without mapping it into a language that itself must be parsed to remove
ambiguities and to resolve contextual references, etc.  It's conceivable
that a system could parse by a sequence of mappings into a sequence of
slightly more formal (i.e., less "natural") intermediate languages.  But then
disambiguation, etc., would have to be done over and over again.  Besides,
people don't seem to be doing that.   Natural languages and formal languages
serve different purposes.  English is currently used as an "interlingua"
by the world community,  but that is using the term "interlingua" in a
different sense.  The interlingua we need for NLP research should not
be "natural".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
129
-DATE-
Date: 01 Oct 84  1144 PDT
-FROM-
From: Russell Greiner <RDG@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Syntelligence: Address Correction
-BODY-
Syntelligence, an AI company specializing in building
expert systems for business applications, has just moved.
Its new address and phone number are

        Syntelligence
        1000 Hamlin Court          [not 100]
        PO Box 3620
        Sunnyvale, CA 94088
        (408) 745-6666

Dr Peter Hart, its president, can also be reached as
HART@SRI-AI.arpa.  (This net address should only be used for
professional (e.g., AAAI related) reasons.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Oct 84 14:10:23-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Induction on One Case
-BODY-
(My my, people seem to get upset, even when I think I'm making
 noncontroversial statements...)

It wasn't clear whether Tom Dietterich (and maybe others) understood
my remark on induction.  I was merely pointing out that "induction on
one case" is indistinguishable from "generalization".  Simple-minded
generalization IS easy.  Suppose I have as input a Lisp list (A B),
(presumably the first in a stream), and I tell my machine to create
some hypotheses about what it expects to see next.  Possible hypotheses
are:

  (A B)         - the machine expects to see (A B) forever
  (?X B)        - the machine expects to see 2nd element B
  (A ?X)        - similarly
  (?X ?Y)       - 2-element lists

Since these are lists, presumably one could get more elaborate...

  (?X ?Y optional ?Z)
  ...

And end up with "the most general hypothesis":

  ?X

All of these patterns can be produced just by knowing how to form
Lisp lists;  I don't think there's any hidden assumptions or biases
(please enlighten me if there are).  I would say that in general,
one can exhaustively generate all hypotheses, when the domains
are completely specified (i.e. a pattern like (<or A B> B) for the
above example has an undefined entity "or" which has nothing to do
with Lisp lists; one would have to extend the domains in which one
is operating).  Generating hypotheses in a more reasonable order is
completely domain-dependent (and no general theory is known).

Getting back to the example, all of the hypotheses are equally
plausible, since there is only one case to work from (unless one
wants to arbitrarily rank these hypotheses somehow; but none can
be excluded at this point).

I agree that selecting representations is very hard; there's not
even any consensus about what representations are useful, let alone
about how to select an appropriate one in particular cases.

(Have I screwed up anywhere in this?  I really wasn't intending
to flame...)

                                                stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 1984 16:01-PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sanskrit
-BODY-
        In response to the flood of messages I recieved concerning the
ambiguity-free natural language, here is some more information about it.
        The language is a branch of Sastric Sanskrit which flourished
between the 4th century B.C and 4th century A.D., although its
beginnings are somewhat older.  That it is unambiguous is without
question.  (I am writing two papers, one for laymen and one for those with
AI background).  A more interesting question is one posed by Dr. Michael
Dyer, that is "is it a natural language?".
        The answer is yes, it is natural and it is unambiguous.  It
would be difficult to call a language living and spoken for over a
millenium with as rich a literature as this langauge has anything but a
natural language.  The problem is that most (maybe all) of us are used
to languages like English (one of the worst) or other languages which
are so poor as vehicles of transmission of logical data.  We have
assumed that since all languages known have ambiguity, that it is
a necessary property of natural languages, but there is no reason to
make this assumption.  The complaint that it is awkward to speak
with the precision required to rule out ambiguity is one based on
(I would guess) the properties of Engish or other common Indo-European
languages.
        If one were to take a specific formulation such as a semantic
net and "read" it in English the result is a cumbersome mass of
detail which nobody would be willing to use in ordinary communication.
However, if one were to take that same semantic net and translate it
into the language I am studying you get (probably) one very long word
with a series of affixes which convey very compactly the actual meaning
of the semantic net.  In other words, translations from this language
to English are of the same nature as those from a semantic net to
English (hence the equivalence to semantic nets), one compact structure
to a long paragraph.
        The facility and ease with which these Indians communicated
indicates that it is possible for a natural language to serve all
purposes of artificial languages based on logic.  If one could say
what one wishes to say with absolute clarity (although with apparent
redundancy) in the same time and with the same ease as you say
part of what you mean in English, why not do so?  And if a population
actually got used to talking in this way there would be much more
clarity and less confusion in our communication.  Sastric Sanskrit
allows you to say WHAT YOU MEAN without effort.  The questions
"Can you elaborate on that?" or "What exactly are you trying to say?"
would simply not come up unless the hearer wished to go to a deeper
level of detail.
        This language was used in much the same way as language found
in technical journals today.  Scientists would communicate orally
and in writing in this language.  It is certainly a natural language.
        As to how this is accomplished, basically SYNTAX IS ELIMINATED.
Word order is unimportant, speaking is thus comparable to adding a
series of facts to a data-base.
        What interests me about this language is:
        1) Many theories derived recently in Linguistics and AI were
           independently in use over a thousand years ago, without
           computers or any need to eliminate ambiguity except for
           precise thinking and communication
        2) A natural language can serve as a mathematical (or artificial
           language) and thus the dichotomy between the two is false.
        3) There are methods for translating "regular" Sanskrit into
           Sastric Sanskrit from which much could be learned from NLP
           research.
        4) The possibilities of this language serving as interlingua
           for MT.

        There are no translated texts and it takes Sanskrit experts a
very long time to analyze the texts, so a translation of a full work
in this language is a way off. However, those interested can get
a hold of "Vaiyakarana-Siddhanta-Laghu-Manjusa" by Nagesha Bhatta.

Rick Briggs
NASA Ames

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 84 16:05:37 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <walter@mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Onyx BC8820 Stone Block Reader
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Professor Petra Hechtman of the Archaeology Dept has an Egyptian
tombstone written in Hieroglyphs on an Onyx C8002 system running
ONYX IV.II that he needs to read.  The Onyx system that the
block was written with has died (legend has it that it is archived
in the temple of Tymsharin).  He needs to get the data off the
rock soon so that the exact date of Graduate Student Lunches can
be calculated (the most recent prediction fixes the date of the
next "bologna eclipse" as Friday the 28th at noon in the Third Floor
Playroom, hosted by David "Saz" Saslov and Mike "Mpw" Wellman).
According to Data Gene-rock, the original Filer was 1/4 cubit,
6250 spd (strokes per digit), 90 RAs, up to 10K BC.  Anyone who has,
knows of, or has chips off the original device that might be
able to decipher the stone, please contact Prof. Hechtman at
x5848, or at /dev/null@mit-htvax.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Oct 84 10:25:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in SOAR
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:        Friday, October 5, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Paul S. Rosenbloom
             Assistant Professor

ABSTRACT:    Towards Chunking as a General Learning Mechanism

Chunks have long been proposed as a basic organizational unit for
human memory.  More recently chunks have been used to model human
learning on simple perceptual-motor skills.  In this talk, I will
present recent progress in extending chunking to be a general learning
mechanism by implementing it within a general problem solver.
Combining chunking with the SOAR problem-solving architecture
(described by John Laird in the SigLunch of September 28) we can take
significant steps toward a general problem solver that can learn about
all aspects of its own behavior.  The combination of a simple learning
mechanism (chunking) with a sophisticated problem-solver (SOAR)
yields: (1) practice speed-ups, (2) transfer of learning between
related tasks, (3) strategy acquisition, (4) automatic
knowledge-acquisition, and (5) the learning of general macro-operators
of the type used by Korf (1983) to solve Rubik's cube.  These types of
learning are demonstrated for traditional search-based tasks, such as
tic-tac-toe and the eight puzzle, and for R1-SOAR (a reformulation of
a portion of the R1 expert system in SOAR).

This work has been pursued in collaboration with John Laird (Xerox
PARC) and Allen Newell (Carnegie-Mellon University).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 1984 18:13-EDT
-FROM-
From: ABN.CJMERRICK@USC-ISID.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Knowledge-Based Command and Control
-BODY-

                 SYMPOSIUM & EXHIBITION ON "ARTIFICIAL
                      INTELLIGENCE" TO BE HELD IN
                         KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI


                 "THE ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS
                         IN COMMAND & CONTROL"

                             SPONSORED BY:
                     KANSAS CITY CHAPTER OF AFCEA

                          OCTOBER 17-19, 1984


     The Kansas City Chapter of the Armed Forces Communications and
Electronics Association is proud to announce that it is sponsoring
its Second Annual Symposium and Exhibition to discuss the applicability
of artificial intelligence and knowledge based systems to command and
control requirements, in both the military and commercial environments.
     The Symposium will be enhanced by the presence of hardware and
software exhibits, representing advances in technology related to the
theme.
     Highlights of the Symposium will include noted individuals such
as Dr. Joseph V. Braddock of the BDM Corporation addressing user
perspectives of utilizing knowledge based systems to fulfill command
and  control needs.  Dr. Robert W. Milne of the Air Force Institute
of Technology will address AI technology and its application to
command and control.
     A luncheon presentation will be given by Lieutenant General
Carl E. Vuono, Commander, Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth
and Deputy Commander, Training and Doctrine Command.
     General Donn A. Starry (Ret), Vice President and General Manager,
Space Missions Group of Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation
will be the guest speaker following the evening meal on Thursday.
     The Symposium and Exhibition will be held over a three-day
period commencing with an opening of the exhibit area and a cocktail
and hors d'oeuvres social on October 17, 1984.  Technical sessions
will begin at 8:00 a.m. on October 18.  The format of the technical
presentation will consist of two high intensity panel discussions,
a session in which pertinent papers will be presented and two guest
lectures.

                          ABBREVIATED AGENDA

     WEDNESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 1984

1200-1700     Check in & Registration
1700-1900     Welcome Social & Exhibits Open

     THURSDAY, 18 0CTOBER 1984

0800-1145     SESSION I - Panel Discussion:  "Status and Forecast of
              of AI Technology as it applies to Command and Control"
              Panel Moderator:
                   Mr. Herbert S. Hovey, Jr.
                   Director, U.S. Army Signals Warfare Laboratory
                   Vint Hill Farms Station
                   Warrenton, Virginia  22186

1145-1330     Luncheon/Guest Speaker:
                   Lieutenant General Carl E. Vuono
                   Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
                   Deputy Commander, Training and Doctrine Command
                   Fort Leavenworth, Kansas  66207

1330-1700     SESSION II - Presentation of Papers

1700-1830     Social Hour

1830-2030     Dinner/Evening Speaker:
                   General Donn A. Starry (Ret)
                   Vice President & General Manager
                   Space Missions Group of Ford Aerospace and
                   Communications Corporation

     FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 1984

0800-1200     SESSION III - Panel Discussion:  "User Perspectives of
              Pros and Cons of Knowledge Based Systems in Command and
              Control"
              Panel Moderator:
                   Brigadier General David M. Maddox
                   Commander, Combined Arms Operations Research Activity
                   Fort Leavenworth, Kansas  66027


To make reservations or for further information, write or call:

                   AFCEA SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE
                   P.O. Box 456
                   Leavenworth, Kansas  66048
                   (913) 651-7800/AUTOVON 552-4721


                   MILITARY POC IS:

                   CPT (P) CHRIS MERRICK
                   CACDA, C3I DIRECTORATE
                   FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS 66027-5300
                   AUTOVON:  552-4980/5338
                   COMMERCIAL:  (913) 684-4980/5338
                   ARPANET:  ABN.CJMERRICK

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
130
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 84 21:46:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: "David J. Littleboy" <Littleboy@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chess Request
-BODY-
I  would  like  to acquire a state of the art chess program, preferably better
than USCF 1500, to run on  a  68000  based  machine  (an  Apollo).   Something
written  in  any  of the usual languages (C, Pascal) would probably be useful.
Since I intend to use it  as  an  opponent  for  the  learning  program  I  am
building,  I would also like the sources.  I am, of course, willing to pay for
the program.  Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.  Alternatively,  does
anyone know of a commercial chess machine with an RS-232 port?

                                          Thanks much,
                                          David J. Littleboy
                                          Littleboy@Yale
                                          ...!decvax!yale!littleboy

By  the  way,  the  basic  theoretical claim I start from is that the "problem
space" a chess player functions in is determined not so much by  the  position
at  hand,  as by the set of ideas, plans, and experiences he brings to bear on
that position.  Thus I view chess as a planning activity, with the goals to be
planned for deriving from a player's experiences in similar positions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 1984 11:25-cst
-FROM-
From: "George R. Cross" <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MST distributions
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am interested in references to the following problem:

Suppose we have n-points uniformly distributed in a subset S contained in
p-dimensional Euclidean space R^p:

1.What is the distribution of the largest length of the Minimum
Spanning Tree (MST) over the n-points?  Assume Euclidean distance is
used to define the edge weights.

2.What is the distribution of the length of edges in the MST?

3.What is the distribution of the size of the maximal clique?

Asymptotic results or expected values of these quantities would be
interesting also.  We expect to make use of this information in
cluster algorithms.

Thanks,
        George Cross
        Computer Science
        Louisiana State University

        CSNET: cross%lsu@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 2 Oct 84 09:54:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tim Johnson's Report
-BODY-
The Commercial Application of Expert Systems Technology by Tim Johnson is
a 1984 publication from Ovum Ltd., 14 Penn Road, London N7 9RD, England.
It is also available from IPI, 164 Pecora Way, Portola Valley, Ca. 94025
and sells for $395.  The report is 382 pages and primarily covers expert
systems research in the USA and UK although it also describes some of the
larger research projects worlwide.

Harry Llull, Stanford University Math/CS Library

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 84 20:19:50-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!daryoush @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Top Ten
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdcsvax.149

Stanford is defintely one of the 3 best, if not THE best.

>-id

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 84 11:41:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 info summary.
-BODY-
Thanks are due to all the folks who responded to my request for information
on OPS5. What follows is a summary of this information.

There are at least three version of OPS5 currently available:

1) DEC Compiler QA668-CM in BLISS, available to 2 and 4 year degree granting
institutions for $1000. Documentation:
        AA-GH00A-TE  Forgy's Guide
        AA-BH99A-TE  DEC's User Guide

2)Forgy's version (Charles.Forgy@CMU-CS-A), running under Franz Lisp on
VAXen. A manual is also available from the same source.

3)A T Lisp version created by Dan Neiman and John Martin at ITT
(decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!martin@Berkeley). This version is also supported by
some software tools, but cannot be given away. For costs and procedures
contact John Martin.

Short courses on OPS5 are available from:
        Smart System Technology
        6870 Elm Street
        McLean, VA 22101
        (703) 448-8562

Elaine Kant and Lee Brownston@CMU-CS-A, Robert Farrell@Yale and Nancy Martin
at Wang Labs are writing a book on OPS5, to be published this Spring by
Addison_Wesley.

        Regards,
                Pete

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Oct 84 14:35:13-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary of Window Responses
-BODY-
I got several replies to my question about the relation between windows
and expert systems.  The consensus seemed to be that since an expert
system development environment is like a programming environment, and
since PEs are known to benefit from having multiple windows available,
windows are an important part of expert system tools.  Incidentally, the
issue of graphics is orthogonal - graphics is useful in a great number
of applications (try describing the weirder geologic formations in words!),
although perhaps not all.

I have a little trouble with both assumptions.  I looked in my nifty
collection of reprints, "Interactive Programming Environments" (Barstow,
Shrobe, and Sandewall, eds., pub. by McGraw-Hill),
and found no research supporting the second assertion.  Its main
support appeared to be anecdotal.  My own anecdotal experience
is that even experienced users spend an inordinate amount of clock
time trying to do something right, but are not aware of just how
much time they're taking (pick a menu item, oops!, undo, try again,
then search all over the screen for 5 chars of text, then go through
an elaborate sequence of ops to grab those chars, paste them in the
wrong place when your mouse hand jiggles, delete, and try again, etc).
It's interesting to note that Winograd's two papers (from 1974 and 1979)
talk about all kinds of things that a PE should have, but with no mention
of graphics anywhere.

The first assertion appears to be true, and is a sad comment on the
sophistication of today's expert system tools.  If expert system
environments are just PEs, why not just supply PEs?  What's the
important difference between a Lisp stack backtrace and a rule
system backtrace?  Why can't today's expert system tools at least
provide a TMS and some detailed explanation facilities?  Why
hasn't anybody included some meta-level knowledge about the tool
itself, as opposed to supplying an inscrutable block of code and
a (possibly correct) user's manual?  I don't understand.  It seems
as though the programming mentality reigns supreme (if you don't
understand that remark, go back and carefully reread Winograd's
1979 paper "Beyond Programming Languages" (in CACM, and reprinted
in the abovementioned book).

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue Oct  2 12:24:29 1984
-FROM-
From: mclure@sri-prism
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reminder of upcoming computer chess tournament in San
-BODY-           Francisco

    This is a reminder that this coming Sunday (Oct 7) will herald the
beginning of the battle of the titans at the San Francisco Hilton
"continental parlors" room at 1pm.

    Cray Blitz the reigning world champion program will attempt to
squash the vengeful Belle.  Nuchess, a perennial "top-finishing
contender" and descendent of Chess 4.5, wants a piece of the action and
would be very happy to see the Belle/Cray Blitz battle cause both to go
up in a puff of greasy, black smoke, leaving Nuchess as the top dog for
the entire year.

    It promises to be as interesting as it is every year.  You don't
have to be a computer-freak or chess-fanatic to enjoy the event.

    Come on by for a rip-roaring time.

        Stuart

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun Sep 30 16:02:03 1984
-FROM-
From: mclure@sri-prism
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Delphi 15: cruncher nudges bishop
-BODY-
The Vote Tally
>-------------
The winner is: 14 ... Ne8
There were 16 votes. We had a wide mixture. The group seemed to have
difficulty forming a plan. Many different plans were suggested.

The Machine Moves
>----------------
        Depth   Move    Time for search         Nodes      Machine's Estimate
        8 ply   h3       6 hrs, 4 mins         2.18x10^     +4% of a pawn
                (P-KR3)

                Humans                    Move        # Votes
        BR ** -- BQ BN BR BK **       14 ... Ne8        4
        ** BP ** -- BB BP BP BP       14 ... Rc8        3
        BP ** -- BP -- ** -- **       14 ... Nh5        3
        ** -- ** WP BP -- ** --       14 ... Nd7        2
        -- ** -- ** WP ** BB **       14 ... Qd7        2
        ** -- WN -- WB WN ** WP       14 ... Nxe4       1
        WP WP -- ** WQ WP WP **       14 ... Qb6        1
        WR -- ** -- WR -- WK --
             Prestige 8-ply

The machine's evaluation turned from negative to slightly positive.
Apparently it likes this position somewhat but still considers the
position even.

The Game So Far
>--------------
1. e4  (P-K4)   c5 (P-QB4)  11. Be2 (B-K2)  Nxe2 (NxB)
2. Nf3 (N-KB3)  d6 (P-Q3)   12. Qxe2 (QxN)  Be7 (B-K2)
3. Bb5+(B-N5ch) Nc6 (N-QB3) 13. Nc3 (N-QB3) O-O (O-O)
4. o-o (O-O)    Bd7 (B-Q2)  14. Be3 (B-K3)  Ne8 (N-K1)
5. c3 (P-QB3)   Nf6 (N-KB3) 15. h3 (P-KR3)
6. Re1 (R-K1)   a6 (P-QR3)
7. Bf1 (B-KB1)  e5 (P-K4)
8. d4  (P-Q4)   cxd4 (PXP)
9. cxd4 (PXP)   Bg4 (B-N5)
10. d5  (P-Q5)  Nd4 (N-Q5)

Commentary
>---------
    BLEE.ES@XEROX
        14  ...  Ne8 as
        14  ...  Nh5?; 15. h3 B:f3 (if 15 ... Bd7?; 16. N:e5
        and white wins a pawn) 16. Q:f3 Nf6 (now we've lost
        the bishop pair, a tempo and the knight still blockades
        the f pawn and the white queen is active...)
        (if 16 ... g6?; 16. Bh6 Ng7; 17. g4 and black can't support f5 because
        the light square bishop is gone) while
        14 ... Nd7?; 15. h3 Bh5; 16. g4 Bg6; and black has trouble supporting
        f5. I expect play to proceed:
        15. h3    Bd7
        16. g4    g6
        17. Bh6   Ng7
        18. Qd3   f5 (at last!)
        19. g:f5  g:f5

    JPERRY@SRI-KL
        In keeping with the obvious strategic plan of f5, I
        vote for 14...N-K1.  N-Q2 looks plausible but I would
        rather reserve that square for another piece.

    SMILE@UT-SALLY
        14 ... Nh5.
        Paves the way for f5. Other possibility is Qd7 first. Either
        way I believe f5 is the key (as it often is!).

    REM@MIT-MC
        I'm not much for attacking correctly, so let's prepare
        to double rooks: 14.  ...  Q-Q2 (Qd7) (It also helps a
        K-side attack if somebody else can work out the details.)

    VANGELDER@SU-SCORE
        14. ... Nxe4 (vote)
        In spite of what the master says, White can indefinitely prevent f5 by
        h3, Bd7, g4.  Will the computer find this after Ne8 by Black?
        Stronger over the board is 14 ... Nxe4.  If 15. Nxe4 f5 16. N/4g5 f4
        and Black regains the piece with advantage.  The
        majority will probably not select this move, which may
        be just as well, as attack-by-committee could present
        some real problems.  Nevertheless, the computer
        presumably saw and examined several ply on this line and
        it would be interesting to see what it thinks White's
        best defense is.  An alternate line for White is 15.
        Nxe4 f5 16.  N/4d2 e4 17.  h3 Bh5 18.  Bd4 Bg4!?  19.
        Nxe4 fxe4 20.  Qxe4 Bxf3 21.  gxf3 Rf4.
        There are many variations, but most are not decisive in
        8 ply, so the computer's evaluation function would be
        put to the acid test.

    ACHEN.PA@XEROX
        13 ... Nh5 (keep up the pressure)
        this might provoke 14 g3 Bd7, either 15 Nd2 or h4 to
        start a counter attack.  the black is hoping to exchange
        the remaining knight with queen's bishop 16 ...  Nf4
        then maybe attempt to encircle the white with Qb6
        attacking the weakside behind the pawns.  (note: if 13
        ...  Nh5 can't 14 ...  f5 for the obvious reason)

Solicitation
>-----------
    Your move, please?

        Replies to Arpanet: mclure@sri-prism, mclure@sri-unix or
        Usenet: ucbvax!menlo70!sri-unix!sri-prism!mclure

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
131
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 1984  23:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sanskrit has ambiguity and syntax
-BODY-
Contrary to what Briggs claims, Shastric Sanskrit the same kinds of
ambiguities as other natural languages. In particular, the language
allows, and the texts abundantly exemplify: (1) anaphoric pronouns
with more than one possible antecedent, (2) ambigous scope of
quantifiers and negation, (3) ellipses, (4) lexical homonymy, (5)
morphological syncretism.  Even the special regimented language in
which Panini's grammar of Sanskrit is formalized (not a natural
language though based on Sanskrit) falls short of complete unambiguity
(see Kiparsky, Panini as a Variationist, MIT Press 1979).  The claim
that Sanskrit has no syntax is also untrue, even if syntax is
understood to mean just word order: rajna bhikshuna bhavitavyam would
normally mean "the beggar will have to become king", bhikshuna rajna
bhavitavyam "the king will have to become a beggar" --- but in any
case, there is a lot more to syntax than word order.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 01:23:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Michael G. Dyer" <dyer@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit
-BODY-

Re: Rick Briggs' comments on a version of Sastric Sanskrit.

Well,  I AM incredulous!  Imagine.  The entire natural language
processing problem in AI has already been solved!  and a millenium ago!
All we need to do now is publish a 'manual' of this language and
our representational problem in NLP is over!  Since this language
can say anything you want,  and "mean exactly what you say"  and
"with no effort",  and since it is unambiguous,  it sounds like
my problems as an NLP researcher are over.

I DO have a few minor concerns (still).  The comment that
there are no translations,  and that it takes sanskrit scholars
a "very long time"  to figure out what it says,  makes it sound to
me like maybe there's some complex interpretations going on.
Does this mean that a 'parser' of some sort is still needed?

Also,  I'd greatly appreciate a clearer reference to the book (?)
mentioned.  Who is the publisher?  Is it in English?  What year
was it published?  How can we get a copy?

Another problem:  since this language has an "extensive literature" does
that include poetry?  novels?  Are the poems unambiguous?  are there
plays on words?  metaphor?  (Can you say the equivalent of "Religion is
the opiate of the masses"?  and if not, it that natural?  if not, then
how are analogical mappings formed?) satire?  humor?  puns?
exaggeration?  fantasy?  does the language look like a bunch of horn
clauses?  (most of the phenomena in the list above involve AMBIGUITY of
context, beliefs, word senses, connotations, etc. How does the
literature avoid these features and remain literature?)

Finally,  Yale researchers have been arguing that representational
systems for story understanding requires explict conceptual structures
making use of scripts, plans, goals,  etc.  Do such constructs
(e.g. scripts) exist explicity  in the language?

does its literature make use of idioms?
e.g. "John drove Mary [home]"  vs
     "John drove Mary [to drink]"

Also,  why is English "worse" than other languages?  Chinese has
little syntax and it's ambiguous.  Latin has very free word order
with prefixes and suffixes and it's ambiguous.  Both rely heavily on
context and implicit world knowledge.  Early work by Schank
included representing a Mayan dialect (i.e. Quiche') in Conceptual
Dependency.  Quiche seems to have features standard to other natural
languages,  so how is English worse?

In the book "Reader over Your Shoulder", Graves & Hodge  have a humorous
piece about some town councilmen trying to write a leash law.
No matter how they state it,  unhappy assumptions pop up.
e.g.  "No dogs in the park without a leash"  seems to be addressed
to the dogs.  "People must take their dogs into the park on a leash"
seems to FORCE people to drag there dogs into the park (and at what hour?)
even if they don't want to do so. etc etc

what about reference?  does sastric sanskrit have pronouns?
what about IT?  does IT have THEM? etc  if so,  how does it avoid
ambiguous references?  how many different types of pronouns does it
have (if any)?

Let's have some specific examples.  E.g. does it have the equivalent of
the word "like"?  Before you answer "yes",  there's a difference
between "John likes newsweek"  and "John likes chocolate"

In one case we want our computer to infer that John likes to "eat"
chocolate  (not read it)  and in the other case that he likes to
read newsweek (not eat it).    Sure,  I COULD have said
"John likes to eat chocolate" specifically.  but I can abbreviate
that simply to "x likes <object>"  and let the intelligent listener
figure out what I mean.   When I say "John likes to eat chocolate"
do I mean he enjoys the activity of eating,  or that he feels
better after he's eaten?   When I say "John likes to eat
chocolate but feels terrible afterwards"  I used the word "but"
because I know it violated a standard inference on the part of the
listener.  Natural languages are "expectation-based".  Does this
ancient language require the speaker to explicitly state all
inferences & expectations?

Like I said already,  if this ancient language really does what
is claimed,  then we should all dump the puny representational
systems we've been trying to invent and extend over the last
decade and adopt this ancient language as our final say
on semantics.

Recent work by Layman Allen (1st Law & Technology conference)
in normalizing American law shows that the logical connectives
used by lawyers are horribly ambiguous.  Lawyers use
content semantics to avoid noticing these logical ambiguities.
Does this brand of sanskrit have a text of ancient law?  What
connectives did they use?  Maybe the legal normalization problem
has also already been solved.

Did they have a dictionary?  If so, can we see some of the entries?  How
do the dictionary entries combine?  No syntax AT ALL?  Loglan adds
suffixes onto everything and it's plenty awkward.  It has people who
write poems in it and other "literature" but you can probably pack all
loglanners who "generate" loglanese into a single phone booth.

Just how many ancient scholars spoke this sanskrit?

I look forward to more discussion on this incredible language.

>-  A still open-minded but somewhat skeptical inquirer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday,  4-Oct-84 23:59:06-BST
-FROM-
From: O'KEEFE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An Unambiguous Natural Language?
-BODY-

     There was a recent claim in this digest that a "branch of Sastric
Sanskrit" was an unambiguous natural language.  There are a number of
points I'd like to raise:

(a)  If there are no translated texts, and if it takes a very long
     time for an expert in "ordinary" Sanskrit to read untranslated
     texts, it seems more than likely that the appearance of being
     free from ambiguity is an illusion due to our ignorance.

(b)  Thanks for the reference.  But judging by the title you need to
     know a lot more about Indian languages to read it than most of
     the readers of this digest, and without knowing the publisher one
     would have to be thoroughly at home with the literature to even
     find it.

(c)  It's news to me that Sanskrit wasn't an Indo-European language.
     The Greek-English dictionary I have a copy of keeps pointing to
     Sanskrit roots as if the two languages were related, but what do
     they know?  If Sastric Sanskrit is an Indo-European language, it
     is astonishing that it alone is unambiguous.  It's especially
     astonishing when the one non-Indo-European language of which I
     have even the sketchiest acquaintance (Maaori) isn't unambiguous
     either and when no-one seems to be claiming that Japanese or
     Chinese or any other common living language is unambiguous.

(d)  Dead languages are peculiarly subject to claims of perfection.
     Without a living informant, we cannot tell whether our failure to
     discover another reading means there isn't one or whether it just
     means that we're ignorant of a word sense.  I suppose this is
     point (a) again.

(e)  If a language permits metaphor, it is ambiguous.  The word for
     "see" in ordinary Sanskrit is something like "oide", and I'm told
     that it can mean "understand" as well as "perceive with the eye".
     Do we KNOW that the Sastric Sanskrit words for "see", "grasp",
     and so on were NEVER employed with this meaning?

(f)  We're actually dealing with an ambiguous term here: "ambiguous".
     The following definition is the only one I can think of which is
     not dependent on some "expert's" arbitrary choice:
        a sentence S in a text is ambiguous if
        taking into account assumed common knowledge and the
        context supplied by the rest of the text
        there is some natural language L such that
        S has at least two incompatible translations in L.
     Here's an example: there are four people in a room, A, B, C, D.
     This is the beginning of the text, and nothing else in the text
     lets us judge these points, and we've never heard of A,B,C,D
     before.  A says to D: "we came from X."
     I assume we know exactly what place X is.  Now, does A mean that
        A,B,C and D all came from X?  (reminding D)
        A,B,C came from X?
        A and D came from X? (he knows B and C are listening)
        A and one of B and C came from X?
     We need to distinguish between dual and plural number, and
     between inclusive first person and exclusive first person.  If
     the language L marks the gender of plural subjects, we may need
     to know in the case of A and (B or C but not both) which of B
     and C was intended.  Now consider A mentioning to D "that table",
     assuming that there are several tables in the same room, all of
     the same sort.  We need to know whether the table he is indicating
     is near D (it can't be near A or he'd say "this table") or whether
     it is distant from both A and D.  Does the branch of Sanskrit in
     question make all these distinctions?  Can every tense in it be
     translated to a unique English tense?  Does it have no broad
     colour terms such as the "grue" present in several languages?
     Failing that, by what criterion IS it unambiguous?
     {What's a better definition of ambiguity?  This one strikes
     most people I've offered it to as too strong.}

(g)  Absence of syntax is no guarantee of unambiguity.  Consider the
     phrase "blackbird".  It doesn't matter how we indicate that
     black modifies bird, the source of ambiguity is that we don't
     know whether the referent is some generic bird that happens to
     be black (a crow, say), or whether this phrase is used as the
     name of a species.  In English you can tell the difference by
     prosody, but that doesn't work to well with long-dead languages,
     and if you thought it always meant turdus merula you might never
     find anything in the fixed stock of surviving texts to reveal
     the mistake.

(h)  What evidence is there that this language was spoken?  Note that
     if a text in this language quotes someone as speaking in it,
     that still isn't evidence that the language was spoken.  I've
     just been reading a book set in Greece, with Greek characters,
     but the whole thing was in English...  Are there historians
     writing in other languages who say that the language was spoken?

(i)  There is another ambiguous term: "natural" language.  Is Esperanto
     a natural language?  Is Shelta?  The pandits were nobody's fools,
     after all, Panini invented Backus-Naur form for the express
     purpose of describing Sanskrit, and I am not so contemptuous of
     the ancient Indians as to say that they couldn't do a better job
     of designing an artificial language than Zamenhof did.

I'm not saying the language isn't unambiguous, just that it's such a
startling claim that I'll need more evidence before I believe it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 84 12:57:24-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdamos!elman @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Sanskrit
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: sdamos.17

Rick,

I am very skeptical about your claims that Sastric Sanskrit is an
unambiguous language.  I also  feel you misunderstand the nature
and consequences of ambiguity in natural human language.

    |        The language is a branch of Sastric Sanskrit which flourished
    |between the 4th century B.C and 4th century A.D., although its
    |beginnings are somewhat older.  That it is unambiguous is without
    |question.

Your judgment is probably based on written sources.  The sources may also
be technical texts.  All this indicates is that it was possible to write
in Sastric Sanskrit with a minimum of ambiguity.  So what?   Most languages
allow utterances which have no ambiguity.  Read a mathematics text.

    |The problem is that most (maybe all) of us are used
    |to languages like English (one of the worst) or other languages which
    |are so poor as vehicles of transmission of logical data.

I think you have fallen victim to the trap of the egocentrism.  English is
not particularly less (or more) effective than other languages as a vehicle
for communicating logical data, although it may seem that way to
a native monolingual speaker.

    |        The facility and ease with which these Indians communicated
    |indicates that it is possible for a natural language to serve all
    |purposes of artificial languages based on logic.

How do you know how easily they communicated?   I'm serious.  And
how easily do you read a text on partial differential equations?  An
utterance which is structurally ambiguous may not be the easiest to
read.

    |If one could say what one wishes to say with absolute clarity (although
    |with apparent redundancy) in the same time and with the same ease as
    |you say part of what you mean in English, why not do so?  And if a
    |population actually got used to talking in this way there would be
    |much more clarity and less confusion in our communication.

Here we come to an important point.  You assume that the ambiguity of
natural languages results in loss of clarity.  I would argue that
in most cases the structural ambiguity in utterances is resolved
by other (linguistic or paralinguistic) means.  Meaning is determined
by a complex interaction of factors, of which surface structure is but one.
Surface ambiguity gives the language a flexibility of expression.  That
flexibility does not necessarily entail lack of clarity.  Automatic
(machine-based) parsers, on the other hand, have a very difficult time
taking all the necessary interactions into account and so must rely more
heavily on a reliable mapping of surface to base structure.

    |        As to how this is accomplished, basically SYNTAX IS ELIMINATED.
    |Word order is unimportant, speaking is thus comparable to adding a
    |series of facts to a data-base.

Oops!  Languages may have (relatively) free word order and still have
syntax.   A language without syntax would be the linguistic find of
the century!

In any event, the principal point I would like to make is that structural
ambiguity is not particularly bad nor incompatible with "logical" expression.
Human speech recognizers have a variety of means for dealing with
ambiguity.  In fact, my guess is we do better at understanding languages
which use ambiguity than languages which exclude it.

Jeff Elman
Phonetics Lab, Dept. of Linguistics, C-008
Univ. of Calif., San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093
(619) 452-2536,  (619) 452-3600

UUCP:      ...ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdamos!elman
ARPAnet:   elman@nprdc.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday,  5 Oct 1984 10:15-EDT
-FROM-
From: jmg@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan, properties of interlinguas, and NLs as interlinguas
-BODY-
        There has been a running conversation regarding the use of an
intermediate language or interlingua to facilitate communication between
man and machine.  The discussion lately has focused on whether or not it
is possible or even desirable for a natural language (i.e., one which was
made for and spoken/written by humans in some historical and cultural
context) to serve in this role.  At last glance it would seem to be a
standoff between the cans and cannots.  It might be interesting to see
if a consensus can at least be reached regarding what an interlingua
might be like and therefore whether any natural languages or formal ones
for that matter would fit or could be made to fit the necessary form.
        It would seem that a candidate language would possess a fair
sample of the following characteristics (feel free to add to or modify
this list):
        1) small number of grammar rules--to reduce the trauma of learninng
a new language, simplify parsing program, and generally speed up the works
        2) small number of speech sounds--to ease learning, and, if well
chosen, improve the distinction between sounds and thus the apprehensibil-
ity of the spoken language
        3) phonologically consistent--for similar reasons as 2) above
        4) relative freedom from syntactic ambiguity--to ease translation
activities and provide an experimental tool for exploring ambiguity in
NLs and thought
        5) graphologically regular/consistent with phonology--to ease the
transition to the interlingua by introducing no new characters and only
simple spelling rules
        6) simple morphology--to improve the recognizability of words and
word types by limiting the structures of legal words to a few and making
word construction regular
        7) resolvability--to aid in machine and human information extraction,
particularly in noisy environments, by combining  well-chosen phonology and
morphology
        8) freedom from cultural or metaphysical bias--to avoid introducing
unintended effects due to specific built-in assumptions about the universe
that may be contained within the language
        9) logical clarity--to ensure the ability to construct the classical
logical connections important to semantically and linguistically useful
expressions
       10) wealth of metaphor--to allow this linguistic feature to be studied
and provide a creative tool for expression

        These features were selected to try to characterize the intent of
a hypothetical designer of an interlingua.  Possibly no product could fully
merge all the features without compromising unacceptably some of the desir-
able traits.  If this list appears unacceptable, make suggestions and/or
additions and deletions until a workable list results.
        It is likely that no current or historical natural language would
combine a sufficient number of the above features to stand out as an obvious
choice to use as interlingua.  Simplicity, regularity, ease of learning,
ease of information extraction, lack of syntactic ambiguity, and the rest
are the earmarks of a constructed language.  It remains to be seen that a
so-constructed language can be used by humans to express  unrestrictedly the
full range of human thought.
        In response to Dr. Dyer's comment about loglan, I can testify that it
is not all that hard to get around in.  It is a "foreign" language, however,
and thus takes some learning and getting used to.  It does have several of
the features that an interlingua would.  Only experience will ultimately
reveal whether it is "natural" enough to be useful for exploring the rela-
tionship between thought and language and formal enough to be machine-
realizable.

                            -Michael Gilmer
                            jmg@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
132
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 1984  15:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query about D. Hatfield
-BODY-
      Wed., Aug. 29 Computer Science Seminar at IBM-SJ
      10:00 A.M.  WYSIWYG PROGRAMMING
                D. Hatfield, IBM Cambridge Scientific Center
                Host:  D. Chamberlin


This message appeared some time ago.  [Can someone provide]
any pointers to the speaker, D. Hatfield?  Does he have any papers
on the same subject?  Thanks.

Fanya Montalvo, MIT, AI Lab.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 84 8:39:05-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!noscvax!bloomber @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI for Business
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: noscvax.641

  I would also be interested in pointers to books or articles that
emphasize the business (preferably practical) uses of AI.


                                        Thanks ... Mike
>-

Real Life: Michael Bloomberg
   MILNET: bloomber@nosc
     UUCP: [ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax]!sdcsvax!noscvax!bloomber

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 00:05 CDT
-FROM-
From: Jerry Bakin <Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Keeping up with AI research
-BODY-
I am interested in following trends and research in AI.  What do active
AI'ers feel are the important journals, organizations and conferences?

Thanks,

Jerry Bakin -- Bakin@HI-Multics


[I have sent Jerry the list of journals and conferences compiled by
Larry Cipriani and published in AIList V1 N43.  In short,

    AI Magazine
    AISB Newsletter
    Annual Review in Automatic Programming
    Artificial Intelligence
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences
    Brain and Cognition
    Brain and Language
    Cognition
    Cognition and Brain Theory
    Cognitive Psychology
    Cognitive Science
    Communications of the ACM
    Computational Linguistics
    Computational Linguistics and Computer Languages
    Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing
    Computing Reviews
    Human Intelligence
    IEEE Computer
    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
    Intelligence
    International Journal of Man Machine Studies
    Journal of the ACM
    Journal of the Assn. for the Study of Perception
    New Generation Computing
    Pattern Recognition
    Robotics Age
    Robotics Today
    SIGART Newsletter
    Speech Technology

    IJCAI   International Joint Conference on AI
    AAAI    American Association for Artificial Intelligence
    TINLAP  Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing
    ACL     Association of Computational Linguistics
    AIM     AI in Medicine
    MLW     Machine Learning Workshop
    CVPR    Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (formerly PRIP)
    PR      Pattern Recognition (also called ICPR)
    IUW     Image Understanding Workshop (DARPA)
    T&A     Trends and Applications (IEEE, NBS)
    DADCM   Workshop on Data Abstraction, Databases, and Conceptual Modeling
    CogSci  Cognitive Science Society
    EAIC    European AI Conference

Would anyone care to add a list of organizations?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 13:31:08
-FROM-
From: Bob Woodham <woodham%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Top Graduate Programs
-BODY-
I cannot resist offering my contribution but first three comments:

 1. A strict linear ordering is rather meaningless so I've simply listed
    schools alphabetically within two broad categories.
 2. Not surprisingly, given my location, I've expanded things to
    all of North America.  There are good programs outside the continent
    but I'm not qualified to comment.
 3. If your favourite school is missing, let that indicate my ignorance
    rather than a slight.  Since this is roughly the advice I give our own
    students, I'd like to hear more.

Category I:   Major Strength in all Areas of AI (alphabetic order)

CMU, MIT, Stanford

Category II:  Major Strength in at least one Area of AI, adequate overall
              (alphabetic order)

Illinois, McGill, Penn, Rochester, Rutgers, Texas (at Austin), Toronto,
UBC, Yale

There are other schools with strengths, or emerging strengths, that are
worth considering.  Thankfully, I'm already beyond the requested number
of ten.  Any of the above schools could be an excellent choice, depending
on the particular area of interest.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 1984 14:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: scacchi%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM 84
-BODY-
Just a short note to point out that at the 1984 ACM Conference in San
Francisco has a number of sessions on AI and Fifth Generation
technologies. In particular, there are at least three sessions that
focus on the broader social consequences that might arise from
the widespread adoption and use of AI systems. The three sessions
include:

1. "The Workplace Impacts of Fifth Generation Computing -- AI and Office
Automation" on tuesday (9 Oct 84) morning

2. "Social and Organizational Consequences of New Generation Technology"
on tuesday afternoon.

3. "Social Implications of Artificial Intelligence" on wednesday
afternoon.

If you are able to attend the ACM 84 conference and you are interested
in discussing or learning about social analyses of AI technology
development, then you should try to attend these sessions.

>Walt-

(Scacchi@Usc-cse via CSnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 84 16:03:48-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: obtaining OPS-5
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.458

     OPS-5 is obtained from Charles Forgy at CMU, reached at the following
address.  Do not contact me regarding this.

Forgy, Charles L. (CLF)                              CHARLES.FORGY@CMU-CS-A
   Carnegie-Mellon University
   Computer Science Department
   Schenley Park
   Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
   Phone: (412) 578-3612

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 84 23:39:58 edt
-FROM-
From: mark@tove (Mark Weiser)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ops5 and yaps.
-BODY-
For those of you interested in ops5, don't forget YAPS.  Yaps was
described by Liz Allen of Maryland at the '83 AAAI.

Yaps, yet another production system, uses Forgy's high speed
short cuts for left hands sides which fall into ops5's limited
legal lhs, but yaps also allows fully general left hand sides.
Yaps second advantage over ops5 is that it is imbedded in
the Franz lisp flavors system (also from Maryland), so that
one can have several simultaneous yaps objects and send them
messages like add-a-rule, add-object-to-database, etc.

For more information, mail liz@maryland.

Spoken: Mark Weiser     ARPA:   mark@maryland
CSNet:  mark@umcp-cs    UUCP:   {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 84 18:21:18-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Windows and Expert Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.451

    I've noticed this lately too; I've also seen the claim that ``windows were
developed ten years ago by the AI community'', but the early Alto effort at
PARC, which I saw demonstrated in 1975 by Allen Kay, was not AI-oriented; they
were working primarily on improved user interfaces, including window systems.

                                                John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 84 8:30:02-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!water!rggoebel@Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Clarification Regarding Teknowledge's M.1 Product
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: water.20

I've just read what amounts to an advertisement for Teknowledge's
M.1 software product.   I can't believe there isn't something to
be criticized in a product that comes from such an infant technology?
I'd be interested to know what's wrong with M.1?  Will Teknowledge
give it away to universities to teach students about expert systems?
Is SRI-KL using M.1 for anything (note origin of original message)?
On a lighter note, what is novel about a software system that supports
``variables?''

Randy Goebel
Logic Programming and Artificial Intelligence Group
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA N2L 3G1
UUCP:   {decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!watmath!water!rggoebel
CSNET:  rggoebel%water@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:   rggoebel%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

[I am not aware of any SRI use of M.1, nor do I know of anyone at SRI
who has a financial interest in it.  Many people around the country
have mailboxes on systems where they once worked or otherwise have
incidental access; I assume that is the case here.  An SRI group has
recently come out with its own micro-based expert system toolkit,
SeRIES-PC, a PROSPECTOR derivative.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 84 22:21:20-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpda!fortune!wdl1!jbn @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Clarification Regarding Teknowle
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: wdl1.453

     I'd like to see them offer a training version of the program for $50 or so
which allowed, say, a maximum of 50 rules, enough to try out the system but
not enough to implement a production application.  This would get the tool
(and the technology) some real exposure.

                                John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Oct 84 00:05:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Induction
-BODY-
Well I guess I don't understand Stan Shebs' point regarding induction
very well.  I agree with everything he said in his message: It is
indeed possible to generate all possible generalizations of some fact
within some fixed, denumerable domain of discourse.  The problem of
induction is to infer PLAUSIBLE beliefs from a finite set of examples.
Shebs is correct in saying that from any finite set of examples, a
very large (usually infinite) set of generalizations can be generated.
He is also correct in saying that--in the absence of any other
knowledge or belief--all of these generalizations are equally
plausible.  The problem is that in common-sense reasoning, all of
these generalizations are not equally plausible.  Some seem (to
people) to be more plausible than others.  This reflects some hidden
assumptions or biases held by people about the nature of the common
sense world.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 84 15:17:51 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Natural Language Structure
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                  Fall 1984
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

             TIME:                Tuesday, October 9, 11 - 12:30
             PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
             DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

         SPEAKER:        Gilles Fauconnier, Linguistics Dept, UC  San
                         Diego & University of Paris

         TITLE:          Roles,  Space  Connectors  &  Identification
                         Paths

         ABSTRACT:       Key aspects of natural language organization
                         involve  a  general  theory  of  connections
                         linking mental constructions.   Logical  and
                         structural  analyses  have  overlooked  this
                         important  dimension,  which  unifies   many
                         superficially    complex    and    disparate
                         phenomena.  I will focus here  on  the  many
                         interpretations  of  descriptions and names,
                         and suggest a reassessment of  notions  like
                         rigidity,  attributivity,  or  ``cross-world
                         identification.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
133
-DATE-
Date: Saturday,  6-Oct-84  2:12:41-BST
-FROM-
From: O'KEEFE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References wanted
-BODY-
Anyone know where I can find anything by John Hosking,
now of Auckland University New Zealand?  Said to be in
expert systems/knowledge representation field.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 84 17:08:44-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!amd!turtlevax!ken @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Electrical CAE software/hardware
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: turtleva.541

We've been gathering information about CAD/CAE for electrical/computer
engineering and have been deluged with a foot's worth of literature.
No on makes the entire package of what we want, which includes
schematic entry, hierarchical simulation, timing verification, powerful
functional specification language, finite-state machine generator, PAL
primitives, PLA and PROM high-level language specification compiling
down to JEDEC format, driver for a Data I/O or more dependable PROM/PAL
programmer, transient and frequency analysis (SPICE works well here),
symbolic, analytical, and graphical mathematics, etc.

We've accepted the fact that we will need to get several packages of
software, but are prepared to buy no more than 1 extra piece of
hardware, if we can't get software to run on our VAX or Cadlinc
workstations.

Has anyone used any of the available products?  Does anyone have any
recommendations?

Following is a list of suppliers of CAE tools of some sort, for which I
managed to get some literature, and is in no way guaranteed to be
complete:

Altera
Assisted Technology
Avera Corporation
Cad Internet, Inc.
Cadmatics
Cadnetix
Cadtec
CAE Systems
Calma
Chancellor Computer Corporation
Control Data
Daisy
Design Aids, Inc.
Futurenet
GenRad
HHB Softron
Inference Corp.
Intergraph
Interlaken Technology Corp.
Mentor
Metalogic, Inc.
Metheus
Mirashanta
Omnicad Corp.
Phoenix
Racal-Redac
Signal Technology, Inc.
Silvar-Lisco
Step Engineering
Symbolics
Teradyne
Valid
Vectron
Verstatec
Via Systems
VLSI Technology, Inc.
>-
Ken Turkowski @ CADLINC, Palo Alto, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,flairvax,nsc}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 5 Oct 84 16:23:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <MOLENDER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI LISP MACHINE
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Texas Instruments invites ACM attendees (and AIC-ers) to see the new
TI LISP machine demo-ed at the

        San Francisco Hilton
        333 O'Farrel Street
        Imperial Suite Room #1915

        Monday, October 8, 1984
        5:00pm - 8:00pm

Refreshments and hors d'oeuvers.  Bring your ACM badge for admission.

...margaret

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 23:56:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Scott Meyers <MEYERS@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted:  info on printing directed graphs
-BODY-
I am faced with the need to come up with an algorithm for producing
hardcopy of a directed graph, i.e. printing such a graph on a lineprinter
or a V80 plotter.  Rather than just plopping the nodes down helter-skelter,
I will have an entry node to the graph which I will place at the far left
of the plot, and then I will want to plot things so that the edges
generally point to the right.  If anyone has solved this problem or can
give me pointers to places where it has been solved, or can offer any
other assistance, I would very much like to hear from you.  Thanks.

Scott

[Scott could also use a routine printing graphs top to bottom if
that is available.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 84 13:47:09 pdt
-FROM-
From: Howard Trickey <trickey@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: printing graphs
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I did a program that takes a graph description and produces a TeX input
file which in turn produces a reasonably nice looking graph on the
Dover (\special's are used to draw lines at arbitrary angles;  I can
use Boise by specifying only rectilinear lines, but it doesn't look as
good).  There's no way to use it as is for the output devices mentioned
in the previous message, but the algorithms I used may be of interest.

There can be different types of nodes, each drawn with a
user-specified TeX macro.  The graph description says which nodes there
are and of what type, and what edges there are.  Edges go to and from
symbolically specified points on nodes.  The output looks best when
the graph is acyclic or nearly acyclic, since that's what my graphs
are so I didn't spend time on other cases.

The program isn't robust enough or easy enough to use for general use,
but I can point people to it. If you need the capability badly enough,
it's not too difficult to get used to.  It's written in Franz Lisp.

        Howard Trickey

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 84 12:46:11-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!rich @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI decision systems - What are the risks for the vendor?
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ncoast.386

The rapid advance of Artificial Intelligence Software has caused me to
wonder about some of the possible legal problems.

SITUATION:  We are a software vendor that develops an AI software package.
        this package has been tested and appears to be correct in design and
        logic.  Additionally, the package indicates several alternative
        solutions as well as stating that there could be alternatives that
        are overlooked.

        What risk from a legal standpoint does the developer/vendor have to the
        user IF they follow the recommendation of the package AND the decision
        is proven to be incorrect several months later?

I would appreciate your opinions and shall post the compiled responses
to the net.

From:                                  |   the.world!ucbvax!decvax!cwruecmp!
  Richard Garrett @ North Coast Xenix  |       {atvax!}ncoast!rich
  10205 Edgewater Drive: Cleveland, OH |...................................
   (216) 961-3397             \ 44102  |   ncoast (216) 281-8006 (300 Baud)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 14:01:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Liability
-BODY-
Just as damning as using an incompetent [software] advisor is
failing to use a competent one.  If a doctor's error makes you a
cripple for life, and if he had available (and perhaps even used)
an expert system counceling a better course of treatment, is he
not guilty of malpractice?  Does the doctor incur a different
liability than if he had used/not used a human consultant?

The human consultant would normally bear part of the liability.
Since you can't sue an expert system, do you sue the company
that sold it?  The programmer?  The theoretician who developed
the algorithm?  I'm sure there are abundant legal precedents for
all of the above.

For anyone with the answers to the above, here's an even more
difficult problem.  Systems for monitoring and interpreting
electrocardiograms are commonly adjusted at the "factory" to
match the diagnostic style of the purchasing physician.  Suppose
that the doctor requests that this be done, or even does it
himself.  Suppose further that he is incompetent at this type
of diagnosis (after all, he's buying a system to do it for him),
and that customization to match his preferences can be shown to
degrade the performance of the software.  Is he liable for operating
the system at less than full capability?  I assume so.  Is the
manufacturer liable for making the adjustment, or for providing
him the means of doing it himself?  I would assume that also.
What are the relative liabilities for all parties?

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 1984  09:51 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <WALTER%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GSL sponsored Theorem Proving Contest
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

               DATE: Friday, 5 October, 12 noon
               PLACE: 3rd Floor Playroom
               HOST: Reid Simmons

          REAGAN vs. MONDALE THEOREM PROVING CONTEST

To help the scientific community better assess this year's
presidential candidates, GSL (in conjunction with the Laboratory
for Computer Research and Analysis of Politics) proudly presents
the first Presidential Theorem Proving Contest.  The candidates
will have 10 minutes to prepare their proofs, 10 minutes to
present, and then 5 minutes to criticise their opponents' proofs.
A pseudorandom number generator will be used to determine the
order of presentation.  The candidates will be asked to
prove the following theorem:

* Let (a + a + a ...) be a conditionally convergent series.
        1   2   3
  Show by construction that there exists a rearrangement of
  the a  such that
       i
            lim      (a + ... a ) = 0.
          n -> inf     1       n

Note:
  To increase public interest in this contest, the theorem
  will actually be phrased in the following way:

  Let (deficit    + deficit    + deficit    ...) be a
              1980         1981         1982

  series with both positive and negative terms.
  Rearrange the terms so that:

            lim      (deficit    + ... deficit    ) = $ 0.00
         year -> inf         1980             year

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 84 21:50:35-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!ames!jaw @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Humor & Seminar - Slimy Logic
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ames.548


     This B-Board article [on slimy logic] is a master parody, right down
to the "so to speak" mannerism.  Thanks for the entertainment!

     I took a couple of courses from Professor Zadeh at Berkeley in the 70s,
not just in Fuzzy Logic, but also formal languages, where we all struggled
with LALR(1) lookahead sets.  The fuzzy controversy was raging then, with
Prof. William Kahan, numerical analyst, being Zadeh's arch-enemy.  Kahan was a
natural devil's advocate, himself none too popular for raving on, in courses
on data structures, a bit muchly about the way CDC 6400 Fortrash treated
roundoff of the 60th bit.  Apparently, there's some bad blood over the size
of Zadeh's grants (NSF?) for his fuzzy baby.  They both have had tenure for
years, so maybe a pie-throwing contest would be appropriate.

     Anyway, looks like the fuzzy stuff is now making the rounds at MIT.
Zadeh, who ironically wrote the book on linear systems (circa 1948), at
least got the linguistics department hopping with the fuzzies, influencing
the Lakoffs (George, mainly) to trade in their equally ad hoc transformational
grammars for fuzzy logic.  Kinda soured me on natural language theory, too.
I mean, is there life after YACC?

     Old Lotfi has left an interesting legacy via his children.  Zadeh's
daughter, I understand is a brilliant lawyer.  One son, after getting his
statistics Ph.D. at 20 or so, claims to have draw poker figured out.
Bluffing is dealt with by simple probability theory.  As I remember,
"Winning Poker Systems" is one of those "just-memorize-the-equivalent-of-
ten-phone-numbers-for-instant-riches" books.  He worked his way through school
with funds won in Emeryville poker parlors.  Not too shabby, but not too
fuzzy, either ...

        -- James A. Woods  {ihnp4,hplabs,philabs}!ames!jaw  (jaw@riacs.ARPA)


[Dr. Zadeh also invented the Z-transform used in digital signal processing
and control theory.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Oct 84 18:31:33-PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel @
     Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: fuzzy poker
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: gloria.578

    One son, after getting his statistics Ph.D. at 20 or so, claims to
    have draw poker figured out. ...

When I was working with the SUNY-Buffalo POKER GROUP, we managed to
verify some of N. Zadeh's tables with hard statistics.  Anybody who's
interested can find some of our results in Bramer's anthology _Computer
Game-Playing: Theory and Practice_ (1983).
>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Oct 84  1318 PDT
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Continuing Seminar - FOL & First Order Logic Mechanization
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Seminar on FOL: a mechanized interpretation of logic
presented by Richard Weyhrauch

Time:  4:15 to 6:00
Date:  Alternate Tuesdays begining October 9
Place: Room 252 Margret Jacks Hall

The topic of this seminar is a description of FOL, a collection of structures
that can be used to provide a mechanized interpretation of logic.  We will
present specific examples of interest for logic, philosophy and artificial
intelligence to illustrate how the FOL structures give formal solutions,
or at least shed light on, some classical problems.  We will also describe
the details of FOL, a computer program for constructing these structures.
This provides a link between logic and AI.

Mechanization is an alternative foundation to both constructive and
classical logic.  I have always found constructive foundations
unconvincing.  Taken by itself, it fails to explain how we can understand
classical semantics well enough to make the distinction.  Even more -- a
philosophically satisfactory account of reasoning must explain why in the
comparatively well behaved case of mathematical foundations the classical
arguments carry conviction for practising mathematicians.

On the other hand the use of set theoretic semantics also seems to require
infinite structures to understand elementary arguments.  This conflicts
with the simple observation that people understand these arguments and they
are built from only a finite amount of matter.

Mechanization provides a semantics that is both finitist and at the same
time allows the use of classical reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 84 13:56:04 pdt
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FOL seminar
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    On the other hand the use of set theoretic semantics also seems to
    require infinite structures to understand elementary arguments.  This
    conflicts with the simple observation that people understand these
    arguments ...

In my day it was not uncommon for students to reason about all the reals in a
finite amount of time - in fact it was even required for exams, where you only
had three hours.  Whatever has modern mathematics come to?

    ... and they [people] are built from only a finite amount of matter.

By weight and volume, yes, but with elementary particles breeding like
rabbits one sometimes wonders about parts count.  Now here's a problem
spanning particle physics and number theory: if there exists such a thing
as an elementary particle, and if there are a fixed finite number of them in an
uncharged hydrogen atom at absolute zero, is that number prime?
>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
134
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Oct 84 09:31:31-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI Control Design
-BODY-
From the IEEE Grid newsletter for the SF Bay Area:

Some very exciting new ideas on the role of expert systems in control
design for AI will be presented at the Oct. 25 meeting of the Santa
Clara Valley Control Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society.

The talk, by Dr. Thomas Trankle and Lawrence Markosian of Systems
Control Technology, will report work in progress to develop an AI
system that implements a linear feedback control designer's expert
knowledge.  This AI system is a planning expert system written in LISP,
and has knowledge of linear control design rules and an interface
with a control CAD package.

The LISP code represents the design rules as operators that have
goals, preconditions, and side effects.  Higher-level operators
or "scripts" represent expert design procedures.  The control
design process takes the form of a recursive goal-directed search,
aided by the expert designer's heuristics.

Cocktails at 6:30 pm, dinner ($11) at 7:00, presentation at 8:00.
Rick's Swiss Chalet, 4085 El Camino, Palo Alto
Reservations by Oct. 24, Council Office, (415) 327-6622.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Oct 84 09:48:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning About Fault Diagnosis with LES
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:        Friday, October 12, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Walter Perkins
             Lockheed Palo Alto Research & Development

ABSTRACT:    Reasoning About Fault Diagnosis with LES

The Lockheed Expert System (LES) is a generic framework for helping
knowledge engineers solve problems in diagnosing, monitoring,
designing, checking, guiding, and interpreting.  Many of the ideas of
EMYCIN were incorporated into its design, but it was given a more
flexible control structure.  In its first "real" application, LES
was used to guide less-experienced maintenance personnel in the fault
diagnosis of a large electronic signal-switching network.  LES used
not only the knowledge of the expert diagnostician (captured in the
familiar form of "IF-THEN" rules), but also knowledge about the
structure and function of the device under study to perform rapid
isolation of the module causing the failure.  In this talk we show how
the topological structure of the device is modeled in a frame
structure and the troubleshooting rules of the expert are conveniently
represented using LES's case grammar format.  We also explain how
"demons" are used to setup an agenda of relevant goals and subgoals.
The system was fielded in November 1983, and is being used by Lockheed
technicians.  A preliminary evaluation of the system will also be
discussed.  LES is being applied in a number of other domains which
include design verification, satellite communication,
photo-interpretation, and hazard analysis.

Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 6 Oct 84 15:26:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Composite Graph Theory
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

AFLB talk
10/11/84 - Joan Feigenbaum (Stanford):

            Recognizing composite graphs is equivalent to
                      testing graph isomorphism

In this talk I will explore graph composition from complexity
theoretic point of view.  Given two graphs G1 and G2, we construct the
composition G = G1[G2] as follows: For each node in G2, insert a copy
of G1.  If two copies correspond to nodes that are adjacent in G2,
then draw in all possible edges x -- y such that x is in one copy and
y is in the other.  A graph that can be expressed as the composition
of two smaller graphs is called composite and one that cannot is
called irreducible.

Composite graphs have a great deal of structure and their abstract
mathematical properties have been studied extensively.  In particular,
Harary and Sabidussi have characterized the relationships between the
automorphism groups of G1 and G2 and the automorphism group of their
composition.  Graph composition has been used by Garey and Johnson and
Chv\'atal to study NP-complete problems.  Garey and Johnson used it to
derive upper bounds on the accuracy of approximation algorithms for
graph coloring.  Chv\'atal showed that the Hamiltonian circuit problem
remains NP-complete even if the input graph is known to be composite.
In this talk, I consider what seems to be a more basic question about
composite graphs; namely, how difficult are they to recognize?

The main result I will give is that testing whether a graph is
composite is equivalent to testing whether two graphs are isomorphic.
In the proof that recognizing composite graphs is no harder than
testing graph isomorphism, I will give an algorithm that either
declares a graph irreducible or finds a non-trivial decomposition.
This distinguishes graph- decomposition from integer-factorization,
where primality-testing and factoring are not known to have the same
complexity.  The inherent difficulty of the recognition problem for
composite graphs gives some insight into why some difficult graph
theoretic problems, such as Hamiltonian circuit, are no easier even if
the inputs are known to be composite.  Furthermore, assuming P does
not equal NP, graph isomorphism is one of the most important problems
for which neither a polynomial time algorithm nor a proof that there
cannot be such an algorithm is known.  Perhaps examining a problem
that is equivalent to it will yield insight into the complexity of the
graph isomorphism problem itself.  For example, if all irreducible
graphs have succinct certificates, then graph isomorphism is in Co-NP.

If there is time, I will also show that for cartesian multiplication,
another way to construct product graphs, the recognition problem is in
P.  This talk presents joint work with Alex Schaffer.

***** Time and place: October 11, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ****

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Regular AFLB meetings are on Thursdays, at 12:30pm, in MJ352 (Bldg.
460).
                                                - Andrei Broder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 15:00:32 edt
-FROM-
From: minker@maryland (Jack Minker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lectures - Logic and AI at Maryland, Oct. 22-26
-BODY-

                     FINAL ANNOUNCEMENT
                            WEEK
                             of
       LOGIC and its ROLE in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
                             at
                 THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
                    OCTOBER 22-26, 1984


The Mathematics and  Computer  Science  Departments  at  the
University  of Maryland at College Park are jointly sponsor-
ing a Special Year in  Mathematical  Logic  and  Theoretical
Computer Science.  The week of October 22-26 will be devoted
to Logic and  its  role  in  Artificial  Intelligence.   The
titles and abstracts of the five distinguished lectures that
are to be presented are as follows:


                    Monday, October 22:

      RAYMOND REITER (University of British Columbia)

   LOGIC FOR SPECIFICATION: DATABASES, CONCEPTUAL MODELS
          AND KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION LANGUAGES.


AI systems and databases have  a  feature  in  common:  they
require  representations  for  various  aspects  of the real
world.  These representations are meant to be  queried  and,
in  response to new information about the world, modified in
suitable ways.   Typically,  these  query  and  modification
processes require reasoning using the underlying representa-
tion of the world as premises.  So, it  appears  natural  to
use   a  suitable  logical  language  for  representing  the
relevant features of the world, and  proof  theory  for  the
reasoning.  This is not the normal practise in databases and
AI. The representations used assume a variety of forms, usu-
ally  bearing  little  or  no  resemblance to logic.  In AI,
examples of such representation  systems  include:  semantic
networks,  expert  systems,  and  many  different  knowledge
representation languages such as KRL, KL-ONE, FRL.  In data-
bases,  example  representation  systems  are the relational
data model, and various conceptual or semantic  models  like
TAXIS  and the entity-relationship model. The point of these
representation systems is that they provide their users with
computationally  efficient  ways  of representing, and using
the knowledge about an application domain.  The natural role
of  logic  in  databases and AI is a language for specifying
representation systems.  On this view, one must  distinguish
between  the  abstract  specification,  using  logic, of the
knowledge content of a database or AI application,  and  its
realization  as  a  representation system.  This distinction
has pleasant consequences:

      1.  The  logical  specification  provides  a  rigorous
      semantics  for the representation system realizing the
      specification.

      2. One can prove  the  correctness  of  representation
      systems with repect to their logical semantics.

      3. By taking seriously the problem of logically speci-
      fying an application, one discovers some rich and fas-
      cinating epistemological issues e.g. the centrality of
      non-monotonic reasoning for representation systems.


                   Tuesday, October 23:

            JOHN McCARTHY (Stanford University)

               MATHEMATICS OF CIRCUMSCRIPTION


Circumscription (McCarthy 1980, 1984) is a  method  of  non-
monotonic  reasoning proposed for use in artificial intelli-
gence. Let A(P) be a sentence expressing  the  facts  "being
taken into account", where P stands for a "vector" of predi-
cates regarded as variable.  Let E(P,x) be a  wff  depending
on  a  variable x and the Ps.  The circumscription of E(P,x)
is a second order formula in P expressing the  fact  that  P
minimizes  lambda  x.E(P,x)  subject to the facts A(P).  The
non-monotonicity arises, because augmenting  A(P)  sometimes
reduces  the conclusions that can be drawn.  Circumscription
raises mathematical problems similar to those that arise  in
analysis  in  that  it involves minimization of a functional
subject  to  constraints.   However,  its  logical   setting
doesn't  seem  to  permit  direct  use  of  techniques  from
analysis.  Here are some open questions that will be treated
in the lecture.

      1. What is the relation between minimal models and the
      theory generated by the circumscription formula?

      2. When do minimal models exist?

      3. The circumscription formula is second order.   When
      is it equivalent to a first order formula?

      4.  There  are  several  variants  of  circumscription
      including  successive circumscriptions and prioritized
      circumscription.  What are the relations  among  these
      variants?

      References:

      McCarthy, John (1980):
      "Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning",
      Artificial   Intelligence,  Volume  13,  Numbers  1,2,
      April.

      McCarthy, John (1984):
      "Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common
      Sense  Knowledge".   This  paper is being given at the
      1984 AAAI conference on non-monotonic reasoning and is
      being submitted for publication to Artificial Intelli-
      gence.


                     Wednesday, October 24:

            MAARTEN VAN EMDEN (University of Waterloo)

      STRICT AND LAX INTERPRETATIONS OF RULES IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING


      The  strict  interpretation  says  only that is admit-
      ted  which   is  explicitly allowed by a rule. The lax
      interpretation  says  only that is excluded  which  is
      explicitly  disallowed.  This  distinction  is  impor-
      tant in mathematics and in  law,  for  example.  Logic
      programs   also  are  susceptible  to both interpreta-
      tions. We discuss  the  use  of  fixpoint   techniques
      to  determine Herbrand models of  logic  programs.  We
      find that least fixpoints and least models  correspond
      to  the strict interpretation  and  characterize  suc-
      cessful  finite  computations   of   logic   programs.
      Greatest  fixpoints  and greatest models correspond to
      the lax interpretation and  are  closely   related  to
      negations inferred by finite failure and to terms con-
      structed by certain infinite computations.


                      Thursday, October 25:

                JON BARWISE (Stanford University)

                        CONSTRAINT LOGIC.


      Constraint Logic is based on a semantics that grew out
      of  situation  semantics,  but  on a syntax similar to
      that from first-order logic.  The sematics is not car-
      ried out in set theory, as is usual in logic, but in a
      richer theory I call Situation Theory, a theory  about
      things  like  situations, roles, conditions, types and
      constraints.  While the syntax is not so unusual look-
      ing,  the  connection between the syntax and semantics
      is much more dynamic than  is  in  traditional  logic,
      since  the interpretation assigned to a given *use* of
      some expression will depend on context, in particular,
      on  the  history of the "session".  For example, vari-
      ables are interpreted as denoting roles, but different
      uses  of  a  given  variable x may denote increasingly
      constrained roles as a session proceeds.  This is  one
      feature  that  makes Constraint Logic interesting with
      regard to AI  in  general  and  with  regard  to  non-
      monotonic logic in particular.


                       Friday, October 26:

           LAWRENCE HENSCHEN (Northwestern University)

      COMPILING CONSTRAINT-CHECKING PROGRAMS IN DEDUCTIVE DATABASES.


      There are at least two kinds of formulas in the inten-
      sional  database  which  should always be satisfied by
      the  interpretations  corresponding  to  the   various
      states  of  the  database -- definitions and integrity
      constraints.  In our approach, formulas  defining  new
      relations  are  used in response to queries to compute
      portions of those defined relations; such formulas are
      therefore  automatically  satisfied  by the underlying
      database state.  On  the  other  hand  integrity  con-
      straints may need to be checked each time the database
      changes.  Of course, we believe there are  significant
      advantages  in  being  able  to express integrity con-
      straints in a non-procedural way, such as  with  first
      order  logic.   However, reevaluating an entire first-
      order  statement would be wasteful as normally only  a
      small portion of the database needs to be checked.  We
      present (resolution-based) techniques  for  developing
      from   first-order   statements  efficient  tests  for
      classes of updates.  These tests can be  developed  at
      database creation time, hence are compiled, and can be
      applied before a  proposed  update  is  made  so  that
      failure does not require backing out.


     Lectures will be given at:

                  MWF 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM
                  TTH 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

     Location: Mathematics Building, 3rd Floor Room Y3206

     The lectures are open to the public.  If  you  plan  to
attend  kindly  notify  us  so  that we can make appropriate
plans  for  space.  We regret  that all  funds  available to
support junior faculty and graduate students have been allo-
cated.  For additional information contact:

                        Jack Minker
               Department of Computer Science
                   University of Maryland
                   College Park, MD 20742
                       (301) 454-6119
                      minker@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 15:24:48 pdt
-FROM-
From: ann%ucbernie@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Program - Complexity Year at MSRI
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the Univ. of Wisconsin by Udi@WISC-RSCH.]
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                         COMPLEXITY YEAR AT
               MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE


     A year-long research program in computational complexity will take
place at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley, California,
beginning in August, 1985.  Applications are solicited for memberships in
the Institute during this period.  The Institute will award eight or more
postdoctoral fellowships to new and recent Ph.D.'s who intend to participate
in this program.  These fellowships are generally for the entire year, but
half-year awards are also possible.  It is hoped and expected that members
at the more senior level will come with partial or full support from sab-
batical leaves and other sources.  Memberships for any period are possible,
although, for visits of less than three months, Institute support is limited
to awards to help offset living expenses.


     The Program Committee for the complexity year consists of Richard Karp
and Stephen Smale (co-chairmen) and Ronald Graham.  The program will emphasize
concrete computational problems of importance either within mathematics and
computer science or in the application of these disciplines to operations
research, numerical computation, economics and other fields.  Attention will
be given both to the design and analysis of efficient algorithms and to the
inherent computational complexity of problems.  Week-long workshops are planned
on topics such as complexity theory and operations research, complexity theory
and numerical analysis, algebraic and number-theoretic computation, and
parallel and distributed computation.  Programs in Mathematical Economics
and in Geometric Function Theory will take place concurrently with the
Computational Complexity program.


     Address inquiries and applications to:

                Calvin C. Moore, Deputy Director
                Mathematical Sciences Research Institute
                2223 Fulton St., Room 603
                Berkeley, California   94720

     Applicants' files should be completed by January 1, 1985.

     The Institute is committed to the principles of Equal Opportunity and
Affirmative Action.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
135
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 84 22:43:39-PDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrba!cepu!ucsbcsl!discolo @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Writing natural language/expert systems software.
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: ucsbcsl.172

I will be writing an simple expert system in the near future and was
wondering the advantages and disadvantages of writing something like
that in Prolog or Lisp.  I seem to prefer Prolog, even though I don't
know either one very well yet.  Are there any other languages out there
which are available under 4.2BSD for this purpose?

I would appreciate replies via mail.  Thanks.

uucp: ucbvax!ucsbcsl!discolo
arpa: ucsbcsl!discolo@berkeley
csnet: discolo@ucsb
USMail: U.C. Santa Barbara
        Department of Computer Science
        Santa Barbara, CA  93106
GTE: (805) 961-4178

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 84 3:42:10-PDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!kaist!kiet!sypark @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Processing Systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: kiet.232

Please send me the informations about natural language processing
systems which is machine translator or i/o interface for expert systems.
What I want is as following.
        1. Overview of the system
        2. Source is available ?
        3. How much price ?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 84 09:14 PDT
-FROM-
From: Feuerman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Training version of Expert System Tools
-BODY-
John Nagle brings up a good idea when talking about M.1.  One major
problem in trying to investigate various Expert System Building Tools is
that they are very expensive just to buy to find out whether they
actually lend themselves well to solving a problem.  One never really
can find out what it is like to use a system from a canned demo or user
guides.  The idea of having a training version (a stripped down version
that doesn't allow full-sized applications) could give someone enough
experience with the system to allow them to know what sorts of
application a tool is good for.  (Undoubtedly this would be viewed as a
bad marketing ploy; why would anyone want to come up with a cheap system
that would probably only keep someone from buying the full-fledged
expensive version.)

With that comment, I pessimistically ask:  Does anyone know of any tool
out there that has such a stripped down training version?

>-Ken <Feuerman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA>.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 1984 16:32:15 EDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Charles Howell <m15434@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Various Technical Reports
-BODY-

I would like to know what Technical Reports  are  available  from
some of the leading centers for research in AI and related fields
(how's that for a broad topic?).  Any  addresses  of  Publications
Offices (or whatever) that have a catalog and ordering / purchase
information will be appreciated. Implicit in this  request  is  a
request  for  suggestions  about  what  places  are  putting  out
interesting reports; any and all suggestions will  be  cheerfully
accepted!  I'll collect the answers and post them to the AIList if
there is much response.

Thanks,
Chuck Howell      Howell at MITRE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 22:54:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Decisions Article
-BODY-
I just ran across an AI-in-business article in the August issue
of Computer Decisions.  It features a roundtable of 14 consultants
and business bigwigs.  Phone numbers and reader service numbers
are given for 18 AI vendors, and mention is made of an annual
AI report -- AI Trends '84, a description of the technologies and
profile of 50 key vendors by DM Data Inc., Scottsdale AZ, $195,
(602) 945-9620.  The article includes advice on getting started
in AI (buy some Lisp machines, hire some hackers and AI experts,
and expect some failures), a short glossary (including Lisp,
a new language ...), and a short bibliography (including The
Mythical Man-Month).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 15:19:30-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: news from Austin: TI Explorer, MCC, and more
-BODY-
[ from the Austin American Statesman, p. D6 - Oct 9, 84 ]

            TI Explorer finds new path
        =================================

Texas Instruments in Austin has landed a major business prize: a
multi-million-dollar order for up to 400 of its highly sophisticated Explorer
symbolic processing systems from the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT.
The computers will be bought over the next 2 years to establish the world's
largest network of LISP machines involved in computer research.  TI officials
said the order is significant in view of the fact that only about 1,000 of
the specialized computers are in existence. TI plans to deliver 200 machines
in 1985 and 200 in 1986.

     Boing joins MCC as 19th member of the consortium
   ====================================================

... paying a sign-up fee of $500,000.  The cost for joining goes up
to $1-million on Jan 1.

   There are 4 seperate research programs at MCC, with a combined annual
budget of more than $50 million.  Boing reportedly has joined only one
program thus far, an effort to find new ways to connect complex computer
chips with the equipment the chips are supposed to control, but is
considering joining the other three as well.

MCC's managers are especially eager for Boing to join the artificial
intelligence program.  They believe Boing's participation in that expensive
program would draw other aerospace companies to it, spreading out the expense
and making it a cheaper deal for everyone involved.

Boing is the fourth major aerospace defense contractor to become an MCC
member [following Rockwell, Lockheed, and Martin Marietta].

[ in other news:  real estate prices and traffic jams are coming along nicely,
thank you.   the city is being sued by the state for polluting the river and
trying to sue everyone connected with building 2 nuclear power reactors, which
are WAY overdue and WAY over-budget, and not close to being finished.  Austin
is still trying to sell its 16% of the project, and given that nobody wants to
buy it, is close to pushing for abandoning the whole project.    So you really
don't want to come here .....    (-: I don't make the news, only report it ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Oct 84 17:49:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI's new Lisp Machines
-BODY-
News about TI's new Lisp Machines:

Timing figures, 1/60th of a second.
Both TI and 3600 were 1Mword memory, 300Mbyte disk

op              TI      3600            comment
>--------------------------------------------------------------
bitblt          270     441     shows basic memory cycle time
floating pt     23      17      //,* about the same, TI has 25 bit number
cons            25-40   17-40   depends somewhat on paging
paging          225-280 160-450 same transfer rate, seek time 50% more for TI
create flavor
  instance      140     52      not fully microcoded yet
send msg        52      21      not fully microcoded yet
function call   31      16      not fully microcoded yet
32bit floating  33      17      includes consing in TI machine

It appears that by the April delivery date, the TI will be the equal of a
3600.  It is already much more than an LMI, Cadr or LM2 (I ran these
benchmarks on an LM2, it was 1/2 to 1/5 the TI in all cases).
Ask for the benchmark programs if you are interested in details.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 16:58 CDT
-FROM-
From: Jerry Bakin <Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Wanted: info on printing directed graphs
-BODY-
Some friends of mine came up with such a program.  I have included its
first comment below.

It is written in Pascal, somewhere; I have a version I rewrote (i.e.,
force translated) into Multics PL/I.  If you can use either one, let me
know.  We do not support FTP, so if their is a wide demand for this, I
may ask someone else to take it off my hands.

There might be a small problem, they are currently selling a some of
their software, I have to find out if this is a portion of that software.

Even if it is, the following provided a source for more information.


(* TRPmod - A routine to print N-ary trees on any character printer.  This
   routine takes as input an arbitrary N-ary tree, some interface routines, and
   assorted printer parameters and writes a pictorial representation of that
   tree using an output routine provided in the call to treeprint.  The tree is
   nicely formatted and is divided into vertical stripes that can be taped
   together after printing.  Options exist to print the tree backwards or
   upside down if desired.

   The algorithm for treeprint originally appeared in "Pretty-Printing of
   Trees", by Jean G. Vaucher, Software-Practice and Experience, Vol. 10,
   pages 553-561 (1980).  The algorithm used here has been modified to support
   N-ary tree structures and to have more sophisticated printer format control.
   Aside from a common method of constructing an ancillary data structure and
   some variable names, they are now very dissimilar.

   treeprint was written by Ned Freed, Kevin Carosso, and Douglas
   Grover at Harvey Mudd College. (714) 621-3219 (ask for the Mathlib
   Director)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 84 8:51:42-PDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: liability for expert systems
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: cadre.57

This is a subject that we are quite interested in as we
develop medical expert systems.  There has been no court
case nor precedent nor law covering placement of blame
in the cases of errors in expert systems.  The natural
analogy would be medical textbooks.  As far as I know,
no author of a textbook has been found liable for errors
that resulted in mistreatment of a patient.  Therefore,
the logical liability should lie with the treating physician
to properly apply the knowledge.

Having said this, it is best to recognize that customs such
as this were developed in a much different society of 100
years ago.  Now every possible person in a case is considered
fair game and undoubtedly until a court rules or legislation
is passed, you must consider yourself at risk if you distribute
an expert system.  Unfortunately, there is no malpractice
insurance available for programmers and you will find a clause
in just about any other insurance that you might carry that
states that the insurance you have doesn't cover any lawsuits
stemming from the practice of your profession.  Sorry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 October 1984 0854-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: bannon@nprdc (Liam Bannon (UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science))
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bannon <sdcsla!bannon@nprdc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Liability and Responsibility wrt expert systems
-BODY-
        I was interested in the messages raising the issue of where
responsibility lies if a person follows the advice of an AI system and
it turns out to be wrong, or where the person disregards the computer
system advice, but the system turns out to be right (AI Digest V2#133).
        I am not a lawyer or AI system builder,
but I am concerned about some of the social dimensions
of computing, and have been concerned about how expert systems might
actually be used in the work environment.  There have been few
full-length papers on this topic, to my knowledge.  One that I have
found interesting is that by Mike Fitter and Max Sime "Creating
Responsive Computers: Responsibility and Shared Decision-Making" which
appeared in the collection H. Smith and T. Green (Eds.) Human
Interaction with Computers (Academic Press, 1980).  They point out "the
possibility that a failure to use a computer might be judged negligent
if, for example, a physician neglected to ask a question, the answer
to which was crucial to a diagnosis, AND a computer system would have
asked the question." This hinges on a famous 1928 case in the US, called
the T.J. Hooper, where a tugboat owner was found negligent for not having
radio sets on them, thus not hearing radio reports of bad weather which
would have made them seek safety avoiding the loss of the barges
which the tugs had in tow - this despite the fact that at that
time radio was only used by one tugboat company!
        This raises a host of interesting questions about how expert
systems could/should be used, especially in medicine, where the
risks/benefits are highest. Comments?
                                        -liam bannon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
136
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 84 13:53:26-PDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrba!logico!burge @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LMI (Uppsala) Prolog + Kahn's DCG's: User Experiences
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: logico.124

Does anyone have any experiences to relate about "LM-Prolog", implemented in
Zetalisp at the University of Uppsala by Ken Kahn and Mats Carlsson? And/or
of the DCG and "Grammar Kit" that comes with it? (We've been using the DEC-11
implementation for several years, but now it's time to expand...)

Also, our site is new to the net, and if anyone could send me previous
items, it would help me find out what all has been happening out there...!!

>-John Burge                                                    [818] 887-4950
LOGICON, Operating Systems Division, 6300 Variel #H, Woodland Hills, Ca. 91367

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 84 13:55:07 cdt
-FROM-
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Liabilities of Sofware Vendors
-BODY-
Maybe I am being naive or something, but I don't see why AI software should
be different from any other when it comes to the liability of the vendor.
My attorney has written me a boilerplate contract that contains a clause
something to the effect that "vendor is not liable for third-party or
consequential damages that result from the use of the product."
Doesn't that take care of the problem?  If not, maybe I had better find
an expert attorney system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 10 Oct 84 01:57:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Donald S. Gardner <GARDNER@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Preliminary computer chess results
-BODY-
The computer chess championship is almost over and BELLE has severly
bitten the dust.  This special purpose hardware (with ~1600 integrated
circuits and a PDP-11/23) first tied a program called Phoenix running
on a VAX-11/780 and then was beat by NuChess running on a CRAY 1M.
NuChess was the program previously called chess 4.7 and was the champion
until 1980 when it was beaten by BELLE.

The first place winner during the fourth round was declaired to be
the program CRAY BLITZ running on a cluster of 4 (FOUR) CRAY's.
This system checks in at 420 million instructions per second.
Now, CRAY time costs appx $10,000 per hour per computer and each
game lasts around 5 hours.  This adds up to a cool $1M in computer time!
Of course that is in "funny money", but still impressive.  There was also
a program from Canada which ran on 8 Data General computers (Novas and
an Eclipse), two more CRAYs (80 mips each), two Amdahl computers (10 &
13 mips), one CDC Cyber 176 (35 mips) and a Burrough's 7800 (8 mips).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 84 11:53:24 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Jef Poskanzer <Poskanzer.PA@XEROX.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: SocialIssues^.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Distributed Intelligence
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

By Erik Eckholm
New York Times

    Computer buffs call it "flaming."  Now scientists are documenting
and trying to explaim the surprising prevalence of rudeness,
profanity, exultation and other emotional outbursts by people when
they carry on discussions via computer.  [...]  "It's amazing," said Kiesler.
"We've seen messages sent out by managers - messages that will be seen
by thousands of people - that use language normally heard in locker rooms."

[...] in addition to calling each other
more names and generally showing more emotion than they might face to
face, people "talking" by computer took longer to agree, and their
final decisions tended to involve more risks than those reached by
groups meeting in person.  [...]

    "This is unusual group democracy," said Sara Kiesler, a
psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon.  "There is less of a tendency for
one person to dominate the conversation, or for others to defer to the
one with the highest status."  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 1984 11:09-PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit
-BODY-
        I would like to respond to recent criticisms concerning Sastric
Sanskrit.
        Firstly, Kiparsky is confusing Sanskrit in general from Sastric
Sanskrit.  His example, "bhikshuna rajna..." is NOT Sastric Sanskrit but
plain ordinary Classical Sanskrit.  I did not mean to imply that lack of
word order is a sufficient condition for unambiguity, only that it is
an indication.
        As to Dr. Dyer's comments: Yes, a parser will be needed due to
the difficulty with translations but this is due to the nature of what
one translates into.  In the case of English, the difference between
the two languages creates the difficulty in translation, not inherent
complexities in Sastric Sanskrit. The work I mentioned was edited by
Pandit Sabhapati Sharma Upadhyaya in Benares, India and published
recently(1963) by the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.  Also, there
is something like a concept of scripts in that subsets of discourse
(possibly nested) are marked off("iti" clauses) and therefore the
immediate context is defined.
        My comments about English stem from its lack of case.  Languages
like Latin are potentially capable of rendering logical formulation
with less ambiguity since a mapping from its syntactic cases can be made
to a set of "semantic cases", depending on how good the case system is.
Sanskrit has 8(including the vocatice) and a correspondance(though
not complete) is made between the cases of Classical Sanskrit and the
"karakas" or auxiliary actions in grammatical Sastric Sanskrit.  For
example, the dative case is "usually" mapped onto the semantic case
"recipient" but not always.  The exceptions make up the extension
from the commonly known language and the Sastra.
        An example is in order:

        "Caitra cooks rice in a pot" is expressed ordinarily in
Sanskrit as
        "Caitra: sthaalyaam taNDulam pacati" (double vowels indicate
length, capitals indicate retroflex)

        In Sastric Sanskrit:

        sthaliiniSTataNDulaniSTa:
        viklittijanakashcaitraabhinnaashrayako: vyaapaara:

        which translates into English:

        "There is an activity(vyaapaara:) , subsisting in the pot,
        with agency residing in one substratum not different from
        Caitra, which produces the softening which subsists in rice."

        The vocabulary is the same as in Classical Sanskrit, with
the addition of terms such as "none other than", and "not different
from".  Syntax is eliminated in the sense that the sentence is read
as "there is an abstract activity" with a series of "auxiliary
activities" which "agree" semantically with vyaapaara:.  Thus each
agreement here ends with ah: which indicates its SEMANTIC agreement with
the abstract activity.  What I am saying is that each "karaka" is
equivalent to a semantic net triple, which can be stored away as
eg. "activity, agent, none other than Caitra" etc.

        Thirdly, the first two points of O'Keefe's have been addressed.
Sanskrit is definitely Indo-European but its daughter languages
inherited the verbal roots(dhatus) not the methodology of its
grammarians.  Even though no other(that I know of) natural language
has found it worthwhile to pursue the developement of unambiguous
languages for a thousand years or so, one  parallel can be found:
recent work in natural language processing.  The difference is
that THEY used it in ordinary communication and AI techniques have
computer processing in mind.  Even though the language is dead there
are theoretical works which deal specifically with unambiguity.
After reading these, even though you may argue that ambiguity exists
(I'd like to see those arguments), you must concede that total
precision and an escape from syntax and ambiguity was a primary aim
of these scientists.  I find that interesting in itself.  It is
a possible indication that we do actually think "in semantic nets"
at some deep level.  Point e) again is a confusion with regular
Sanskrit.  The example of 4 people in a room A,B,C,D would not
be a problem in this language.  Since precision is required in
utterances(see the example above) one would simply not say
"we came from X", you would say "there was an activity connected
to a coming-activity, having as object X and having agency residing
in none other that (we 2, we 3 etc.)."  The number would have to
be specified.  "Blackbird" would be specified as either "a color-event
residing in a bird or "blackbird" would be taken as a primitive
nominal.

        Lastly, Jeff Elman's criticisms.  A comparison between
mathematics and Satsra is not a fair one.  Sastric texts have
been written in the domains of Science, Law, Mathematics, Archery,
Sex,Dance, Morality...  I wonder how these texts could be written
in mathematical formulisms; the Sastric language is, however,
beautifully and elegently suitable for these texts (Sastra means
basically "scientific").  I disagree with the statement that
"Surface ambiguity gives the language a flexibility of expression.
That flexibility does not necessarily entail lack of clarity."
Even if ambiguity adds flexibility I do not see how it follows
that clarity is maintained.  If there are 4 people in the room and
one says "we", that is less clear than the case where the language
necessitates saying we 3.  I also disagree with "...structural
ambiguity is not particularly bad nor incompatible with 'logical'
expression."  Certainly ambiguity is a major impediment to designing
an intelligent natural language processor.  It would be very desireable
to work with a language that allows natural flexibility without
ambiguity.  And I still maintain that the language is syntax free,
word order or no word order.  And maybe this is the linguistic
find of the century.

        One last point about metaphor, poetry etc.  As an example
to illustrate these capabilities in Sastric Sanskrit, consider
the "bahuvrihi" construct (literally "man with a lot of rice")
which is used currently in linguistics to describe references outside of
compunds.  "Bahuvrihi" is itself an example, literally "bahu"-many
"vrihi" rice.  Much rice is taken here as he who posesses a lot of
rice, and in Classical Sanskrit different case endings can make
"bahu-vrihi" mean "he or she who wants a lot of rice" , "is on a
lot of rice" etc.  Aha! Ambiguity?  Only in Classical, in Sastric
Sanskrit the use of semantic cases instead of syntactic do
not allow any ambiguity.

Rick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 1984 11:10:37 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Computational Linguistics Call for Papers
-BODY-

                        CALL FOR PAPERS

23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

                         8-12 July 1985
                      University of Chicago
                        Chicago, Illinois


This international conference ranges over all of computational linguistics,
including understanding, generation, translation, syntax and parsing,
semantics, natural language interfaces, speech understanding and generation,
phonetics, discourse phenomena, office support systems, author assistance,
translation, and computational lexicons.  Its scope is intended to encompass
the contents of an Applied Natural Language Processing Conference as well as
one on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing.  In short, we are
striving for comprehensiveness.

The meeting will include presented papers, system demonstrations, and, on
8 July, a program of computational linguistics tutorials.

Authors should submit, by 18 January 1985, 6 copies of an extended summary
(6 to 8 pages) to William C. Mann, ACL85 Program Chairman, USC/ISI,
4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA 90292, USA; (213)822-1511;
mann@isib.

The summaries should describe completed work rather than intended work, and
should indicate clearly the state of completion and validation of the
research reported, identify what is novel about it, and clarify its status
relative to prior reports.

Authors will be notified of acceptance by 8 March 1985.  Full length
versions of accepted papers prepared on model paper must be received,
along with a signed copyright release notice, by 26 April 1985.

All papers will be reviewed for general acceptability by one of
the two panels of the Program Committee identified below.  Authors
may designate their paper as either an Applications Paper or a
Theory Paper; undesignated papers will be distributed to one or
both panels.


Review Panel for Applications Papers:

Timothy Finin           University of Pennsylvania
Ralph Grishman          New York University
Beatrice Oshika         System Development Corporation
Gary Simons             Summer Institute of Linguistics
Jonathan Slocum         MCC Corporation

Review Panel for Theory Papers:

Robert Amsler           Bell Communications Research
Rusty Bobrow            Bolt Beranek and Newman
Daniel Chester          University of Delaware
Philip Cohen            SRI International
Ivan Sag                Stanford University


Those who wish to present demonstrations of commercial, developmental,
and research computer programs and equipment specific to computational
linguistics should contact Carole Hafner, College of Computer Science,
Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston MA 02115, USA;
(617)437-5116 or (617)437-2462; hafner.northeastern@csnet-relay.  For
planning purposes, we would like this information as early as possible,
but certainly before 30 April.

Local arrangements will be handled by Martha Evens, Computer Science
Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL 60616, USA;
(312)567-5153 or (312)869-8537; evens@sri-ai.

For other information on the conference, on the 8 July tutorials, and
on the ACL more generally, contact Don Walker (ACL), Bell Communications
Research, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960, USA; (201)829-4312;
bellcore!walker@berkeley.

Please note that the dates of the conference will allow people to
attend the National Computer Conference, which will be held in Chicago
the following week.

========================================================================

                        PLEASE POST

                        PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
137
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 84 8:55:33-PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!fortune!polard @ Ucb-Vax.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fuzzy logic references wanted
-BODY-  Article-I.D.: fortune.4472

Would anyone be kind enough to send me (or post) a list of readings
that would serve as an introduction to fuzzy logic?

                        Thank you,
                        Henry Polard

Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.)
{ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard
N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions
of me, my employer, or any AI project.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 21:09:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: ROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Omission
-BODY-
Your list of AI information resources omits a significant
publication:

        The Artificial Intelligence Report

published by Artificial Intelligence Publications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 84 13:38:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Addendum to OPS5 list.
-BODY-
Some readers of this list pointed out a couple of omissions on the OPS5
summary posted a few days ago; thanks are due them for the additional
material.
A version of OPS5 called OPS5E, running on the Symbolics 3600 is available from
        Verac, Inc.
        10975 Torreyana Road, Suite 300
        San Diego, CA 92121
Prices: $3000 object code, $10000 source, $1000 one year support.
There is also a version for the Xerox D series machines (Dandelion, Dolphin,
Dorado) available from
        Science Applications International Corp.
        1200 Prospect St.
        P.O.Box 2351
        La Jolla, CA 92038
        (619) 454-3811
Price: $2000.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 84 09:23 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LM-Prolog, Grammar Kit
-BODY-
My experiences using LM-Prolog have been very positive but I am surely
not an un-biased judge (being one of the co-authors of the system).   (I
am tempted to give a little ad for LM-Prolog here, but will refrain.
Interested parties can contact me directly.)

Regarding the Grammar Kit, the main thing that distinguishes it from
other DCGs is that it can continuously maintain a parse tree.  The tree
is drawn as parses are considered and parts of it disappear upon
backtracking.  I have found this kind of dynamic graphic display very
useful for explaining  Prolog and DCGs to people as well as debugging
specific grammars.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 07:16:44-MDT
-FROM-
From: Robert R. Kessler <KESSLER@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSL 3.2 for Vax VMS
-BODY-
                        PSL 3.2 for Vax VMS

We are pleased to announce that Portable Standard LISP (PSL) version 3.2 is
now available for Vaxen running the VMS operating system.  PSL is about the
power, speed and flavor  of Franz LISP or  MACLISP, with growing  influence
from Common  LISP.  It  is recognized  as an  efficient and  portable  LISP
implementation with  many  more capabilities  than  described in  the  1979
Standard LISP Report.  PSL's main  strength is its portability across  many
different  systems,   including:   Vax  BSD   Unix,   Extended   Addressing
DecSystem-20 Tops-20, Apollo DOMAIN  Aegis, and HP  Series 200.  A  version
for the IBM-370 is in beta test, a Sun version is 90% complete and two Cray
versions are being used on an experimental basis.  Since PSL generates very
efficient code, it is an ideal delivery vehicle for LISP based applications
(we can  also provide  PSL reseller  licenses for  binary only  and  source
distributions).

PSL is distributed for the  various systems with executables, all  sources,
an approximately  500 page  manual and  release notes.   The release  notes
describe how to install the system and how to rebuild the various  modules.
We are charging  $750 for the  Vax/VMS version of  PSL for Commercial  Site
licenses.  Non-profit institutions and all  other versions of PSL will  not
be charged a license fee.  We are also charging a $250 tape or $350  floppy
distribution fee for each system.

PSL is in heavy use at Utah, and by collaborators at Hewlett-Packard, Rand,
Stanford, Columbia and over  200 other sites.   Many existing programs  and
applications have been  adapted to  PSL including  Hearn's REDUCE  computer
algebra system and GLISP, Novak's object oriented LISP dialect.  These  are
available from Hearn and Novak.

To obtain a copy of the license  and order form, please send a NET  message
or letter with your US MAIL address to:

Utah Symbolic Computation Group Secretary
University of Utah - Dept. of Computer Science
3160 Merrill Engineering Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

ARPANET: CRUSE@UTAH-20
USENET:  utah-cs!cruse

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 03:52:11 pdt
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI Lisp Machines.
-BODY-
The recent article from PENTLAND@SRI-AI has some interesting benchmark
data.  I am looking seriously at Lisp Machines for purchase in the near
future, so I went around to the Xerox, Symbolics and LMI people at ACM
84.  I was told by the LMI folks that they were OEMs for the TI
machines.  (The machines do look almost identical.)  So I didn't chat
with the TI folks -- perhaps a mistake.  If LMI does OEM their machines
to TI, why the difference in performance?  Perhaps someone in the know
can clarify this.

If anyone out there with comparative experience in these various
machines can say a few words on what they think are the relative merits
of each vendor's product it would be quite helpful to prospective
buyers.  I came away with little substantive basis for comparison from
talking with the salesmen.  Most of them were high on pretension, low
on comprehension and quite adept at parrying questions.

As an incidental note, I found at the conference that Lisp and Prolog
are now available under PRIMOS on Prime computers.  A positive side-
effect of the increased interest in AI is the widening spectrum of
environments supporting AI languages, an important factor for soft-
ware producers looking for a wide market.

                                            Harry Weeks
                                            (Weeks@UCBpopuli)

P.S.
I just happened to read the latest Datamation today [10/11] and it
contains a news article which also provides some information on the
TI machines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 23:52:54-PDT
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI Lispm Timings - Clarification
-BODY-
Re: TI Lisp Machine timings

People have criticized me for the recently circulated comparison of TI
and Symbolics machines; mistaking the simple, rough timings I ran on
the TI and Symbolics machines for serious benchmarks.  I am surprised
that anyone thinks that benchmarking a machine can be a simple as the
comparison I did, which was limited by a need for extreme brevity.
I therefore want to make clear that the timings I ran were ROUGH, QUALITATIVE
measures of very limited portions of the machines performance, and
bear only a VERY ROUGH, ORDER-OF-MAGNITUDE RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRUE
PERFORMANCE of the machines.  That is, there is NO warranty of
accuracy for such simple tests.  Serious benchmarking has yet to be
done.
        Alex Pentland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 12 Oct 84 16:49:27-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI Explorers for MIT
-BODY-
Mike Green of Symbolics told us that MIT's "multi-million-dollar order" is
essentially a gift from TI to MIT.  He said that MIT has confirmed this.
Apparently, TI is donating 200 machines to MIT and giving them the option to
buy another 200 at $28K each over the next two years.  However, TI is working
to get DARPA to pay for the second 200!  If this is true, I just may "order"
a few hundred myself.

Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@UTexas-20.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 84 12:06:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Feng-Hsiung.Hsu@CMU-CS-VLSI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM Chess Tournament
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMUC bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following message was posted on usenet:

     The standings follow.  Ties were broken by considering the sum of
the opponents' scores.  Since 'Bebe' and 'Fidelity X' deadlocked here, the
sum of the opponents' opponents' scores were tallied.  Deadheat again, so
by fiat, Fidelity walked home with the second place trophy, as Bebe finished
second at ACM '83.  (At least, I think this is what happened, the groggy
hardcore disbanding at 1 am).

     There were surprises, including a disappointing showing by Belle.
I shall leave game commentary to the experts.  Mike Valvo and Danny Kopec
emceed the fourth round, and several other masters were in attendance,
including former World Juniors champ Julio Kaplan.

     Blitz was running on a 420 MIP four-barrel Cray XMP-48, computing
100K nodes per second (Belle does 160K).  Bebe is a custom bit-slice micro,
with hardware assist for various functions.  Fidelity is a commercial 6 MHz
6502, and International Software Experimental is David Levy's Apple II.

        Cray Blitz      2150        4
        Fidelity X      1900        3
        Bebe            1927        3
        Chaos           1714        3
        Belle           2200        2.5
        Nuchess         2100        2
        Phoenix         1910        2
        Novag X         1970        2
        Int. Soft. X    2022 (est)  2
        Schach 2.7      N/A         1.5
        Ostrich         1475        1
        Awit            1600        1
        Merlin          N/A         1
        Xenarbor        N/A         0

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 84 21:07:34 edt
-FROM-
From: krovetz@nlm-mcs (Bob Krovetz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: chess and planning
-BODY-
A very nice paper on a program that uses planning in making chess
moves is:

 "Using Patterns and Plans in Chess", Dave Wilkins, Artificial
  Intelligence, Vol. 14, 1980.

The program is called PARADISE, and has found a mate that was 19 ply
deep!


>Bob (Krovetz@NLM-MCS)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 1984 1306-EDT
-FROM-
From: Scott Dietzen <DIETZEN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Based Software Development
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMUC bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                           Friday, October 12
                           2:00 PM in Wean 5409

              Knowledge Based Software Development in FSD
                          Robert Balzer
                             USC/ISI


        Our group is persuing the goal of an automation based software
development paradigm.  While this goal is still distant, we have embeded
our current perceptions and capabilities in a prototype (FSD) of such a
software development environment.  Although this prototype was built
primarily as a testbed for our ideas, we decided to gain insight by
using it, and have added some administrative services to expand it from
a programming system to a computing environment currently being used by
a few ISI researchers for all their computing activities.  This "AI
operating system" provides specification capabilities for Search,
Coordination, Automation, Evolution and Inter-User Interaction.

        Particularly important is evolution, as we recognize that useful
systems can only arise, and remain viable, through continued evolution.
Much of our research is focused on this issue and several examples will
be used to characterize where we are today and where we are headed.
Naturally, we have started to use these facilities to evolve our system
itself.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 84 17:43:05 edt
-FROM-
From: Douglas Stumberger <des%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI Society of New England
-BODY-

               The Sixth Annual Conference of the
         Artificial Intelligence Society of New England

                        Oct. 26-27, 1984


It is time once again for our legendary annual AISNE meeting!  In
keeping  with our time-honored tradition, we will have an invited
speaker for Friday night, with panel  discussions  and  talks  by
students on Saturday.

Accommodations on Friday night will be informal. Bring a sleeping
bag,  and we can find you a place to stay. If you want us to find
you a place, tell Doug Stumberger at Boston University  how  many
bodies  you  have.  Note: If you have a faculty representative at
your institution, they can pass this information on to  Doug  for
you in order to minimize long distance phone calls. (If you don't
know who your faculty rep. is, it's probably the person who  dis-
tributed  this  announcement.)  There is no admission charge, and
no formal registration necessary, though if you need informal ac-
comodations for Friday night, please let Doug know.


The event will be held at:

                 Department of Computer Science
                        Boston University
                      111 Cumington Street
                           Boston, MA

The Program is:

                         Friday, Oct. 26

8:00 pm. Invited Talk by David Waltz (Brandeis University)
         "Massively Parallel Models and Hardware for AI"

9:00 pm. Libational Social Hour

                       Saturday, Oct. 27:

10:00 am. Panel discussion chaired by Elliot Soloway (Yale)
                 "Intelligent Tutoring Systems"

11:30 am. Talks on Academic Research Projects (15 min. each)

12:30 pm. Lunch

2:00 pm. Panel discussion chaired by Michael  Lebowitz  (Columbia U.)
                    "Natural Language - What Matters?"

3:30 pm. More Talks

4:30 pm. AISNE Business Meeting


Program Coordinator:                     Local Coordinator:

Wendy Lehnert                           Douglas Stumberger
COINS                                   Department of Computer Science
University of Massachusetts             111 Cumington Street
Amherst, MA 01003                       Boston, MA 02215
413-545-3639                            617-353-8919

csnet: lehnert@umass-cs                 csnet: des@bostonu
                                        bitnet: csc10304@bostonu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
138
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 84 19:56:17 EDT
-FROM-
From: Allen <Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AILIST as a source of info....
-BODY-

Many recent AILIST discussions have fascinated me, and I'm sure that
at some point in the near future I'll be using information presented
here for a paper or two.  Just exactly how do I credit an electronic
bboard in a research paper?  And who (i.e. moderator, author of
info, etc.) do I give credit to?
                                        -Allen LUTINS@RU-BLUE


[Certainly the author must be credited.  I am indifferent as to
whether AIList is mentioned since I consider the digest just a
communication channel by which authors circulate their unpublished
ideas.  (You wouldn't cite Ma Bell or your Xerox copier.)  This
viewpoint is intended to avoid copyright difficulties.  On the
other hand, a reference to AIList might help someone look up the
full context of a discussion.  Does any librarian out there know
a good citation form for obscure newsletters, etc., that the
reader could not be expected to track down by name alone?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 84 14:49:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: McCord @ DCA-EMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Model for AI Applications
-BODY-

Since the beginning, some intelligence, albeit explicit and highly
focused, has been built into nearly every program written.  This is
obviously not the "artificial" intelligence we now talk, market, and
sell.  Surely, to be worthy of the title "artificial" intelligence,
an AI application must exhibit some minimum characteristics such as
a specified level of control over its environment, the ability to learn,
and its transportability or adaptability to related applications.
Has anyone developed a model of an AI application that may be used to
discriminate between "programs" and "artificial" intelligence?

Also, does anyone have any comments on Dr. Frederick Brook's (of
The Mythical Man-Month fame) pragmatitic approach ("Intelligence
Amplification (IA) Is Better Than Artificial Intelligence (AI)")
to AI?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 84 17:09:29 edt
-FROM-
From: Douglas Stumberger <des%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language mailing list
-BODY-

        Does anyone know of a mailing list devoted solely to
linguistics/computational linguistics?

douglas stumberger
csnet: des@bostonu
bitnet: csc10304@bostonu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 18:15:59-MDT
-FROM-
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit
-BODY-
Coming from India and having learnt a little bit of Sanskrit, let me make a
few comments to add to Rick Briggs's claims.  I do not know for a fact if
Sastric Sanskrit is unambiguous.  In fact, I have not heard of it before.
But, its unambiguity seems plausible.

First of all, as to the history of Sanskrit.  It is an Indo-European
language but it has an independent line of development from all the
languages spoken outside the Indian subcontinent, i.e., all its daughters
are spoken, to the best of my knowledge, only in the subcontinent.  Not
only its dhatus but its methodologies have been inherited by its daughters.
Even the Dravidian languages (the other family of languages spoken in the
subcontinent which are not daughters of Sanskrit) have been influenced by
its methodologies.  For example, the first formal grammar of my own mother
tongue, which is not born of Sanskrit, was written in Sanskrit
Panini-style.

Strictly speaking, neither Sanskrit nor its daughters have a word order.
The sophisticated case system makes it possible to communicate without word
order.  The subject and object are identifiable from their own cases
independent of their position in a sentence.  Incidentally, the cases are
merely a convenience.  The prepositions (which become suffixes in Sanskrit
and its daughters) serve the same purpose, though they are more verbose.
However, the role of various words in a sentence is not always
independently identifiable.  This leads to ambiguity rather than
unambiguity.  Kiparsky's example
        "rajna bhikshuna bhavitavyam"
has BOTH the meanings
        "the beggar will have to become the king"
and
        "the king will have to become the king"
The latter meaning is normally understood, because it interprets the
sentence in the word order "subject-object-verb" which is the most
frequently used.  This kind of unambiguity is more of an exception than
the standard.  I would say it occurs not more than 5% of the time in normal
prose.  It is resolved by resorting to the "natural" word order.

Sastric Sanskrit is a subset of normal Sanskrit, i.e., every sentence of
Sastric Sanskrit is also a sentence of normal Sanskrit.  This also means
that Sastric Sanskrit did not evolve naturally on its own, but was the
result of probably hundreds of years of research to eliminate ambiguity in
communication.  It should be possible for the initiated and knowledgeable
to dig up the research that went into the development of this subset.

What seems to be important is whether an unambiguous subset of a language
can be formed by merely imposing rules on how sentences can be formed.  I
am not convinced about that, but I cannot also say it is impossible.
Ancient Indian scholars had a curious mixture of dogma and reason.  One
cannot take their claims at their face value.

If an unambiguous subset of Sanskrit could be developed, it should also be
possible for all the languages.  What is special about Sanskrit is that the
redundancy needed to disambiguate the language could be added in Sanskrit
without substantial loss of convenience.  In English, adding this
redundancy leads to a lot of awkwardness, as Briggs's examples exemplify.

Uday Reddy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 84 09:30 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Evolution
-BODY-
This discussion of Sanskrit leads me to ask the question of why
languages have evolved  the way they have.  Why have they moved away
from case?  Generalizing from the only example I know of (Old Norse to
Modern Swedish) I wonder why distinctions that seem useful have
disappeared.
For example, Old Norse had singular, plural, and dual (when two people
were involved).  Why would such a distinction come into a language and
then disappear hundreds of years later.  Why did Sastric Sanskrit die?

[Otto Jesperson (1860-1943), famous Danish linguist, studied such matters
at a time when classical Greek and Latin were very much in vogue and
modern languages with few cases, genders, tenses, and moods were
considered retrogressive.  He held the opposed view that English and
Chinese were the most advanced languages, and that the superiority
of modern languages stems from seven characteristics:

  1) Shorter forms, easier and faster to speak.  The Gospel of St.
     Matthew contains 39k syllables in Greek, 33k in German, 29k
     in English.

  2) Fewer forms to burden memory.  Gothic habaida, habaides,
     habaidedu, and 12 other forms map to just "had" in English.

  3) Regular formation of words.

  4) Regular syntactic use of words.

  5) Flexible combinations and constuctions.  Danish "enten du
     cller jeg har uret" is straightforward, whereas the inflected
     "either you or I am wrong" or "either you are wrong, or I"
     is awkward.

  6) Lack of repetitious concord.  Latin "opera virorum omnium
     bonorum veterum" expresses plurality four times, genitive
     case four times, and masculine gender twice; the English
     "all good old men's works" has no such repetition.

  7) Ambiguity is eliminated through regular word order.

Jesperson designed his own artificial language, Novial, after working
on a modified (and never adopted) form of Esperanto called Ido.

For more information, see Peter Naur's Programming Languages, Natural
Languages, and Mathematics in the December 1975 issue of Communications
of the ACM.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 84 13:39:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: Southern California AI Society <scais@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - SCAIS
-BODY-
I noticed the announcement of AISNE on AIList.  Since SCAIS is
inspired by AISNE,  it seems appropriate to announce it in
AIList also.   Here goes:

************************************************************************
                     1ST MEETING OF SCAIS

SCAIS -- Southern California Artificial Intelligence Society
         (Pronounced "skies".)

The purpose of SCAIS is to help create an AI community spirit  among  AI
researchers  and research labs in the Southern California area.  (As far
south as San Diego and as far  north  as  Santa  Barbara,  but  probably
concentrated in the greater LA area.)

SCAIS is inspired by AISNE (AI Society of New England).  AISNE meets  at
least  once  a year, at locations such as Yale, MIT, UMass, Stoneybrook,
etc. in the New England area.  (See prior AIList announcement of AISNE.)

Our  first  SCAIS meeting is intended to give everyone an opportunity to
meet other active AI researchers and  graduate  students  in  the  area.
Short  talks  on  research projects will be given by students and AI lab
project leaders, who will describe what AI research is going on  in  the
area.   In  addition,  we  hope  to  generate a list of the names, phone
numbers, net mailing addresses, and research interests of the attendees.
If  our  first SCAIS meeting is successful, future meetings will then be
held on a periodic basis at different sites.

SCAIS  is  intended  for serious AI researchers and graduate AI students
who reside in S.  Calif., who are working  in  the  field  and  who  are
interested  in learning about the research of others in the 'greater' LA
area.  SCAIS is NOT intended as a forum for industrial recruiting or for
interested  on-lookers.   Attendance  at  our  first  SCAIS  meeting  is
expected to be 100-150 people and is by invitation only.

AI researchers in the S.  Calif.  area  can  request  an  invitation  by
contacting:  SCAIS-REQUEST@UCLA-CS.ARPA or SCAIS-REQUEST@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
(or ...!ucla-cs!scais-request on uucp).  You should include  your  name,
affiliation, address, net-address, phone number, and research area.
************************************************************************

    (almost complete) AGENDA of 1st SCAIS Conference

(Oct 29, 8:00am-7:00pm, California Room, UCLA Faculty Center)

8:00 - 8:30    Morning OPEN HOUSE at UCLA AI Lab & Demos
8:30 - 8:40    Michael Dyer -- Welcome and Overview of UCLA AI
8:40 - 10:15   SESSION #1

     UCLA  (75 min)
     ==============
     Sergio Alvarado (stu) -- "Comprehension of Editorial Text"
     Uri Zernik (stu)    --  "Adult Language Learning"
     Erik Mueller (stu)  --  "Daydreaming and Story Invention"
     Charlie Dolan (stu)  --  "Reminding and Analogy"
     Judea Pearl -- "Learning Hidden Causes from Raw Data"
     Ingrid Zuckerman (stu) -- "Listener Model for Generation
                             of Meta-Technical Utterances in Math Tutoring"
     Rina Dechter (stu) -- "Mechanical Generation of Heuristics for
                            Constraint-Satisfaction Problems.
     Tulin Mangir -- "Applications of Expert Systems to CAD and CAT of VLSI"
     Vidal -- "Reconfigurable Logic Knowledge Representation and
               Architectures for Compact Expert Systems"

     Aerospace Corp. (20 min)
     ========================
     Steve Crocker  --  "Overview"
     Paul Mazaika -- "False Event Elimination"
     Ann Brindle  --  "Automated Satellite Control"
     John Helly -- "Representational Basis for A Distributed Expert System"
     *Break*  (coffee & danish)  10:15 - 10:30

10:30 - 11:50  SESSION #2

     UC Irvine (60 min)
     ==================
     Pat Langley -- "Overview of UCI AI Research"
     Rogers Hall (stu) -- "Learning in Multiple Knowledge Sources"
     Student (w/ Rick Granger) --  " NEED TITLE "

     IBM (20 min)
     ============
     John Kepler -- "Overview of IBM Scientific Center Activities in AI"
     Gary Silverman -- "The Robotics Project"
     Alexander Hurwitz -- "Intelligent Help for Computer Systems"

11:50 - 1:10   LUNCH  (Sequoia Rooms 1,2,3 in Faculty Center)
1:10 - 2:40    SESSION #3

     USC/ISI (90 min)
     ================
     Kashif Chaudhry (stu) -- "The Advance Robot Programming Project"
     Shari Naberschnig (stu) -- "The Distributed Problem Solving Project"
     Yigal Arens  --   "Natural Language Understanding Research at USC"
     Ram Nevatia  --   "Overview of Computer Vision Research at USC"
     Dan Moldovan --  "Parallel Processing in AI"

     Jack Mostow -- "Machine Learning Research at ISI"
     Bill Mann -- "Natural Language Generation Research at ISI"
     Norm Sondheimer -- "Natural Language Interface Research at ISI"
     Tom Kaczmarek -- "Intelligent Computing Environment Research at ISI"
     Bob Neches -- "Expert Systems Research at ISI"
     Bob Balzer -- "Specification-Based Programming Research at ISI"
     *Break*        2:40 - 2:55    (coffee & punch)

3:00 - 4:20    SESSION #4

     Hughes AI Center (20 min)
     =========================
     D. Y. Tseng -- "Overview of HAIC Activities"

     JPL (20 min)
     ====================
     Steven Vere -- "Temporal Planning"
     Armin Haken -- "Procedural Knowledge Sponge"
     Len Friedman   "Diagnostics and Error Recovery"

     TRW (20 min)
     ============
     Ed Taylor -- "AI at TRW"

     Rand Corp (20 min)
     ==================
     Phil Klahr     --  "Overview of Rand's AI Research"
                        "AI in Simulation"
     Henry Sowizral --  "Time Warp"
                        "ROSIE: An Expert System Language"
     Don Waterman   --  "Explanation for Expert Systems"
                        "Legal Reasoning"
     Randy Steeb    --  "Cooperative Intelligent Systems"
     *Break*        4:20 - 4:40  (coffee & punch)

4:40 - 6:00    SESSION #5

     UC San Diego  (20 min)
     ======================
       Paul Smolensky -- "Parallel Computation:  The Brain and AI"
       Paul Munro -- " Self-organization and the Single Unit:  Learning
                       at the Neuronal Level"

     SDC  (20 min)
     =============
       Dan Kogan -- "Intelligent Access to Distributed Data Management"
       Robert MacGregor -- "Logic-Based Knowledge Management System"
       Beatrice T. Oshika -- "User Interfaces:  Speech and Nat. Lang."

     Cal State, Fullerton (10 min)
     =============================
     Arthur Graesser -- "Symbolic Procedures of Question Answering"

     Rockwell Science Center (5 min)
     ===============================
     William Pardee -- "A Heuristic Factory Scheduling System"

     General Research Corp (5 min)
     =============================
     Jim Kornell -- "Analogical Inferencing"

     Northrup  (5 min)
     =================
     Steve Lukasis   -- 'NEED TITLE"

     Aerojet (5 min)
     ===============
     Ben Peake  --  "NEED TITLE"

     Litton (5 min)
     ==============
     speaker  -- "NEED TITLE"

     Logicon (5 min)
     ===============
     John Burge -- "Knowledge Engineering at Logicon"


6:00 - 7:00    GENERAL MEETING OF SCAIS MEMBERS

     SCAIS Panel & General Meeting
          possible themes:
               * Assessment - Where from here?
               * State of AI in S. Calif.
               * Organization of SCAIS
               * Future Hosting
               * Univ - Industry connections
               * Software - hardware community sharing
               * Arrival of IJCAI-85 in LA
               * LA AI Consortium/Institute ???

7:00 - 7:30    Evening OPEN HOUSE at UCLA AI Lab & Demos
               (3677 Boelter Hall)

> 7:30pm       Interested parties may form groups and dine
               at various restaurants in Westwood Village

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
139
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 84 16:09:03 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Monotonic Processes in Language Processing
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984

           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

    TIME:                Tuesday, October 16, 11 - 12:30
    PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
    DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Martin Kay, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center;
                Center  for the Study of Language and Infor-
                mation, Stanford University

TITLE:          Monotonic Processes in Language Processing

ABSTRACT:       Computation  proceeds  by  manipulating  the
                associations  between  (variable)  names and
                values  in  accordance  with  a  program  of
                rules.  If an association, once established,
                is never changed,  then  the  process  as  a
                whole is monotonic.  More intuitively, mono-
                tonic processes can add arbitrary amounts of
                detail  to  an  existing  picture so long as
                they never change  what  is  already  there.
                Monotonic  processes underlie several recent
                proposals in linguistic theory  (e.g.  GPSG,
                LFG  and  autosegmental  phonology)  and  in
                artificial intelligence (logic programming).
                I  shall  argue  for seeking monotonic solu-
                tions to linguistic problems wherever possi-
                ble  while  rejecting  some  arguments  fre-
                quently made for the policy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 1984  11:17 EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Qualitative Analysis of MOS Circuits
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Wednesday   October 17, 1984    4:00pm  8th floor playroom

Brian C. Williams
Qualitative Analysis of MOS Circuits

With the push towards sub-micron technology, transistor models have
become increasingly complex.  The number of components in
integrated circuits has forced designers' efforts and skills towards
higher levels of design.  This has created a gap between design
expertise and the performance demands increasingly imposed by the
technology.  To alleviate this problem, software tools must be developed
that provide the designer with expert advice on circuit performance and
design.  This requires a theory that links the intuitions of an expert
circuit analyst with the corresponding principles of formal theory (i.e.,
algebra, calculus, feedback analysis, network theory, and
electrodynamics), and that makes each underlying assumption explicit.

Temporal Qualitative Analysis is a technique for analyzing the
qualitative large signal behavior of MOS circuits that straddle the line
between the digital and analog domains.
Temporal Qualitative Analysis is based on the
following four components:  First, a qualitative representation is
composed of a set of open regions separated by boundaries.  These
boundaries are chosen at the appropriate level of detail for the
analysis.  This concept is used in modeling time, space, circuit state
variables, and device operating regions.  Second, constraints between
circuit state variables are established by circuit theory.  At a finer
time scale, the designer's intuition of electrodynamics is used to
impose a causal relationship among these constraints.  Third, large
signal behavior is modeled by Transition Analysis, using continuity and
theorems of calculus to determine how quantities pass between
regions over time.  Finally, Feedback Analysis uses
knowledge about the structure of equations and the properties of
structure classes to resolve ambiguities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 1984 13:27-EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Retrieval as Specialized Inference
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


On Thursday, October 11th, at 10:30 a.m., Alan Frisch, from the
Cognitive Studies Programme, University of Sussex, Brighton, England
and from the Department of Computer Science,  University of Rochester,
Rochester, New York, will speak at the 3rd floor large conference room
at BBN, 10 Moulton Street in Cambridge.

         Knowledge Retrieval as Specialized Inference

  Artificial intelligence reasoning systems commonly employ a
  knowledge  base module that stores a set of facts expressed
  in a representation  language  and provides  facilities  to
  retrieve  these  facts.  Though  there  has  been a growing
  concern  for  formalization  in  the  study   of  knowledge
  representation,  little  has  been  done  to  formalize the
  retrieval process.  This research remedies the situation in
  its  study  of  retrieval  from  abstract  specification to
  implementation.

  Viewing retrieval as a highly specialized inference  process
  that attempts to derive a queried fact from the set of facts
  in the knowledge base enables techniques of formal logic  to
  be  used  in  abstract  specifications.   This talk develops
  alternative specifications for an idealized version  of  the
  retriever incorporated in the ARGOT natural language system,
  shows how  the  specifications  capture  certain  intuitions
  about  retrieval,  and uses the specifications to prove that
  the retriever  has  certain  properties.   A  discussion  of
  implementation  issues  considers an inference method useful
  in both retrieval and logic programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 October 1984 1240-EDT
-FROM-
From: Staci Quackenbush at CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Juno Graphics Constraint Language
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Name:   Greg Nelson
Date:   October 22, 1984
Time:   3:30 - 4:30 p.m.
Place:  WeH 5409
Title:  "An Overview of Juno"


Connect a computer to a marking engine, and you have a drawing instrument
of unprecedented precision and versatility.  Already some graphics
artists have given up their T-squares and pens for the new world of raster
displays, pointing devices, and laser printers.  But they face a serious
difficulty: to exploit the power and generality of the computer requires
programming.  We can't remove this difficulty, but we can smooth it by
programming in the language of the geometry of images rather than in the
low-level language of some particular representation for images.

These considerations led to the design of Juno, an interactive and
programmable graphics system.  The first basic principle of Juno's design
is that geometric constraints be the mechanism for specifying locations.
For example, a Juno program might specify that points A, B, and C be
collinear and that the distance from A to B equal the distance from
B to C; the interpreter will solve these constraints by numerical methods.
The second principle of the design is that the text of a Juno program be
responsive to the interactive editing of the image that the program produces.
For example, to create a program to draw an equilateral triangle, you don't
type a word: you draw a triangle on the display, constrain it to be
equilateral, and command Juno to extract the underlying program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 16 Oct 84 09:46:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Susan Gere <M.SUSAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - PECAN Program Development System
-BODY-
        EE380/CS310 Computer Systems Laboratory Seminar

Time:  Wednesday, October 17,  4:15 p.m.
Place:  Terman Auditorium

Title:  PECAN: Program Development Systems that Support Multiple Views

Speaker:  Prof. Steven Reiss,  C.S.D. Brown University


This talk describes the PECAN family of program development systems.
PECAN is a generator that is based on simple description of the
underlying language and its semantics.  Program development systems
generated by PECAN support multiple views of the user's program.  The
views can be representations of the program, its semantics and its
execution.  The current program views include a syntax-directed
editor, a Nassi-Schneiderman flow graph, and a declaration editor.
The current semantic views include expression trees, data type
diagrams, flow graphs, and the symbol table.  Execution views include
the interpreter control and a stack and data view.  PECAN is designed
to make effective use of powerful personal machines with
high-resolution graphics displays, and is currently implemented on
APOLLO workstations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 84 16:56:22 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok@ucbcogsci (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Aesthetic Experience
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

    TIME:                Tuesday, October 23, 11 - 12:30
    PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
    DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Thomas  G.  Bever,  Psychology   Department,
                Columbia University

TITLE:          The Psychological basis of aesthetic experi-
                ence:  implications for linguistic nativism

ABSTRACT:       We define the notion of Aesthetic Experience
                as   a   formal   relation   between  mental
                representations:   an  aesthetic  experience
                involves  at least two conflicting represen-
                tations that are  resolved  by  accessing  a
                third  representation.   Accessing the third
                representation releases  the  same  kind  of
                emotional  energy as the 'aha' elation asso-
                ciated with discovering the  solution  to  a
                problem. We show how this definition applies
                to  various  artforms,  music,   literature,
                dance.   The  fundamental aesthetic relation
                is similar to the  mental  activities  of  a
                child  during  normal cognitive development.
                These considerations explain the function of
                aesthetic  experience:  it elicits in adult-
                hood the characteristic mental  activity  of
                normal childhood.

                The fundamental activity revealed by consid-
                ering the formal nature of aesthetic experi-
                ence involves developing  and  interrelating
                mental  representations.   If  we  take this
                capacity  to  be  innate  (which  we  surely
                must),   the question then arises whether we
                can account for the phenomena that are  usu-
                ally argued to show the unique innateness of
                language as a mental organ.  These phenomena
                include  the  emergence of a psychologically
                real grammar,  a critical  period,  cerebral
                asymmetries.     More    formal   linguistic
                properties may be accounted for as partially
                uncaused (necessary) and partially caused by
                general  properties  of  animal  mind.   The
                aspects  of  language  that may remain unex-
                plained (and therefore non-trivially innate)
                are  the  forms of the levels of representa-
                tion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Oct 84 11:32:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: Delores Ng <NG@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium - Complexity of Approximately Solved Problems
-BODY-
       SYMPOSIUM ON THE COMPLEXITY OF APPROXIMATELY SOLVED PROBLEMS


                             APRIL 17-19, 1985


                        Computer Science Department
                            Columbia University
                            New York, NY  10027


SUPPORT:  This symposium is supported by a grant from the System Development
Foundation.

SCOPE:  This multidisciplinary symposium focuses on problems which are
approximately solved and for which optimal algorithms or complexity results
are available.  Of particular interest are distributed systems, where
limitations on information flow can cause uncertainty in the solution
of problems.  The following is a partial list of topics: distributed
computation, approximate solution of hard problems, applied mathematics,
signal processing, numerical analysis, computer vision, remote sensing,
fusion of information, prediction, estimation, control, decision theory,
mathematical economics, optimal recovery, seismology, information theory,
design of experiments, stochastic scheduling.

INVITED SPEAKERS: The following is a list of invited speakers.

L. BLUM, Mills College                  C.H. PAPADIMITRIOU, Stanford University
J. HALPERN, IBM                         J. PEARL, UCLA
L. HURWICZ, University of Minnesota     M. RABIN, Harvard University and
                                                  Hebrew University
D. JOHNSON, AT&T - Bell Laboratories    S. REITER, Northwestern University
J. KADANE, Carnegie-Mellon University   A. SCHONHAGE, University of Tubingen
R. KARP, Berkeley                       K. SIKORSKI, Columbia University
S. KIRKPATRICK, IBM                     S. SMALE, Berkeley
K. KO, University of Houston            J.F. TRAUB, Columbia University
H.T. KUNG, Carnegie-Mellon University   G. WASILKOWSKI, Columbia University and
                                                        University of Warsaw
D. LEE, Columbia University             A.G. WERSCHULZ, Fordham University
M. MILANESE, Politecnico di Torino      H. WOZNIAKOWSKI, Columbia University
                                                     and University of Warsaw


CONTRIBUTED PAPERS:  All appropriate papers for which abstracts are contributed
will be scheduled.  To contribute a paper send title, author, affiliation, and
abstract on one side of a single 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper.


         TITLES AND ABSTRACTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY JANUARY 15, 1985


PUBLICATION:  All invited papers will appear in a new journal, JOURNAL OF
COMPLEXITY, published by Academic Press, in fall 1985.

REGISTRATION:  The symposium will be held in the Kellogg Conference Center on
the Fifteenth Floor of the International Affairs Building, 118th Street and
Amsterdam Avenue.  The conference schedule and paper abstracts will be
available at the registration desk.  Registration will start at 9:00 a.m.
There is no registration charge.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:  The program schedule for invited and contributed
papers will be mailed by about March 15 only to those responding to this
account with the information requested below.  If you have any questions,
contact the Computer Science Department, Columbia University, or call
(212) 280-2736.


To help us plan for the symposium please reply to this account with the
following information.


Name:                                   Affiliation:

Address:


 ( )  I will attend the Complexity Symposium.
 ( )  I may contribute a paper.
 ( )  I may not attend, but please send program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Oct 84 22:43:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Form and Meaning of English Intonation
-BODY-

                        COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

        Mark Liberman and Janet Pierrehumbert of AT&T Bell Laboratories
will give a course sponsored by the Linguistics Department and the Center
for the Study of Language and Information entitled:


                FORM AND MEANING OF ENGLISH INTONATION


Place: Seminar Room, CSLI, Stanford University
Dates: Monday 5 November - Saturday 17 November
Hours: MWF      16:30-18:00
       TTh      16:30-18:00 & 19:30-21:30
       Sat      10:00-12:30 & 14:00-17:00


A brief description follows:

(1) What

Participants will learn to describe and interpret the stress, tune and
phrasing of English utterances, using a set of systematically arranged
examples, given in the form of transcripts, tapes and pitch contours.
The class will also make use of an interactive real-time pitch detection
and display device.

We will provide a theory of English intonation patterns and their
phonetic interpretation, in the form of an algorithm for generating
synthetic F0 contours from underlying phonological representations.
We will investigate the relation of these patterns to the form, meaning
and use of the spoken sentences that bear them, paying special attention to
intonational focus and intonational phrasing.

Problem sets will develop or polish participants' skills in the exploration
of experimental results and the design of experiments.

(2) Who

No particular background knowledge will be presupposed, although
participants will have to acquire (if they do not already have) at least
a passive grasp of many technical terms and concepts. Thus, it will
be helpful to have had experience (for instance) with at least some of
the terms "hertz" (not the car company), "fricative," "copula," "lambda
abstraction," "gradient vector." Several kinds of people, from engineers
through linguists and psychologists to philosophers, should find the course's
contents interesting. However, we will angle the course towards participants
who want to study the meaning and use of intonation patterns, and we hope
that a significant fraction of the course will turn into a workshop on this
topic.

(3) Registration

Pre-registration is not mandatory, but if you expect to attend
it would be helpful if you would let Bill Poser (poser@su-csli) know.

Stanford students wishing to take the course for credit may enroll
for a directed reading with Paul Kiparsky or Bill Poser.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
140
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 84 11:45:49 cdt
-FROM-
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI applications in agriculture
-BODY-
I would like to know of any work in applying AI techniques to improve
agricultural production.  Tou at Florida and Michalski at Illinois had
some things going; what is the status of these projects?  Is there
anything else going on?

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.

Walt Rudd
Department of Computer Science
298 Coates Hall
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
rudd@lsu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3-Oct-84 23:53 PDT
-FROM-
From: William Daul / Augmentation Systems Div. / McDnD <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PC <--> Biofeedback Instrument Link (info wanted)
-BODY-
A friend has asked me to see if I can uncover some information for him.
So...here goes...

   He wants to connect an EEG biofeedback instrument to a personal computer
   (IBM or APPLE).  He hasn't decided on which.

   1.  What are the necessary componets of such a system (hard disk, disk
   controller, etc)?

   2.  He wants to get a spectrum analysis (FFT) of the recordings, both real
   time and compressed.  Does anyone know of existing software he could use?

   Emre Konuk
   MRI
   555 Middlefield Rd.
   Palo Alto, CA.  94301
   Tel: 415-321 3055 -- wk
        415-856 0872 -- hm

I suspect he would like to know if anyone knows of existing groups doing
similar
work.  If you have information, you can send it to me "electronically" and I
will pass it on to him.  Thanks,  --Bi//  (WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 84 16:55:43 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Cornish.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: InterLisp-D based Database Management Systems
-BODY-
I would like information on any Database Management Systems that are
implemented in InterLisp-D.  More generally, I'd like literature
pointers to the issues of Database Management in AI.

Thank you,

Jan Cornish

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 1984 21:00-EST
-FROM-
From: George.Wood@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another OPS5 Version
-BODY-
There is also a Common Lisp version of OPS5, running on VAX/VMS Common lisp,
PERQ (Spice) Lisp, Data General's Common lisp for the MV 4000/8000/10000
series, and Symbolics 3600 in common lisp mode. This version was derived
from Forgy's Franz Lisp Implementation by George Wood (GDW@CMU-CS-PS1)
with help from Dario Giuse (Dario.Giuse@CMU-CS-SPICE) on the PERQ
version and standardization.

Sorry this missed the original call for information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 84 14:35 PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Perrine <tom@LOGICON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5E and Verac
-BODY-
Verac has moved. The new address is:
        Verac
        9605 Scranton Rd. Suite 500
        San Diego, CA 92121
        Attn: Pete Paine
        (619)457-5550

I believe that you must already have OPS5 before you can get OPS5E,
which is OPS5E(xtended).  It runs on all of the Symbolics machines, and
(now) also the TI Explorer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 October 1984 18:32-EDT
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LMI, TI, and Lisp Benchmarks.
-BODY-
Note: Comments following are due to George Carrette and Ken Sinclair,
      hackers at LMI, mostly covering specific facts which have been
      disclosed in previous announcements in "the trades."

* As far as benchmarks are concerned we would suggest that people
  at least wait until RPG publishes his results, which we consider to
  be the most serious effort to honestly represent the speed capabilities
  of the various machines.

* TI and LMI OEM arrangements.
  (1) LMI buys NuMachines on an OEM basis from TI. To these LMI adds
      the LAMBDA processor, software to support multiple LAMBDA and
      68000 Unix processors to run together on the NuBus, sharing
      disks, ethernet, and other devices.
  (2) LMI has a license to build NuMachines.
  (3) It was a technology transfer agreement (license) between LMI and TI that
      led to the transfer of technology to TI which was the basis of
      the Explorer.
  (4) LMI has an OEM agreement to purchase Explorers from TI.
      To these we will add our own microcode, optimizing compiler,
      and other products to be announced.


[Thank you very much for the reliable information.  I'm afraid most of
us don't keep up with the trade press, and messages like yours are a
great help.

A reader providing benchmarks a year ago (some of RPG's old benchmarks,
in fact) was chastised for not waiting for RPG's report.  At the time,
I had never heard of RPG; I assume many other people still have not.
If he hurries he may be able to benchmark the machines before the
good citizens of Palo Alto start using them for doorstops.  Meanwhile,
I see no harm in someone publishing timing statistics as long as he
offers to provide the code involved.

One further note: the benchmarks recently published in AIList were
originally circulated privately.  It was at my request that they
were made available to the list.  I thank Dr. Pentland for letting
me pass them along, and I regret any inconvenience he may have had
as a result.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 84 13:26:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Miklos <Miklos@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Liability of software vendors
-BODY-

>     "Maybe I am being naive or something, but I don't see why
>     AI software should
>     be different from any other when it comes to the liability of the vendor.
>     My attorney has written me a boilerplate contract that contains a clause
>     something to the effect that "vendor is not liable for third-party or
>     consequential damages that result from the use of the product."
>     Doesn't that take care of the problem?  If not, maybe I had better find
>     an expert attorney system."

Afraid not. Product liability can jump over the middleman (here the
doctor) and is not a contractually-based liability, thus contract terms
between the software vendor and the doctor or hospital cannot prevent
the liability from attaching. If the aggrieved party sued the doctor,
the doctor could not turn around and sue the software vendor (due to
the limitation of liability clause given above) but the aggrieved party
could sue the software vendor directly and avoid the contract
limitation (since he never signed any contract with the vendor).

  So much for standing to sue. As far as actual liability is concerned,
it becomes dicy. Products Liability relies on a product being used
in the normal way it is intended to be used causing some kind of
injury. It seems to me that the cause of the injury is the doctor's
reliance on the software, and therefore the doctor is the "proximate
cause." If, however, the particular software product becomes widely
used by doctors, the causation seems to shift. A reason for this might
be that a single doctor trying out a new piece of technology is
responsible for taking greater care to make sure it works than is a
doctor who is doing what is accepted in the medical community. For
instance, a medical malpractice charge can be avoided by proving that
all the doctor's actions were such as would be recommended by the
medical community in touch with the state of the art.

So, an experimental medical program ought to be safe--the doctor is
the guilty party for fooling around with experimental stuff while
treating a patient (at least without getting a waiver). But an
established program that has a deeply hidden bug in it is the stuff
plaintiffs' fortunes are made on.

By the way, you are not naive in assuming that an ai program will not
be treated differently by the courts than a regular program. But what
the AI program is trying to do--make judgments, diagnose illnesses, god
knows what all else--will introduce the risk of injury. No one is
going to be killed by a defective copy of Visi-calc.

****Disclaimer****--> I got my law degree back in '79, but I am not
now, and never have been, a practising attorney in any jurisdiction.
(I did pass the Connecticut Bar Exam.) These remarks are not to be
construed as legal advice, and should not be relied on as such by
anyone. These remarks are also not necessarily the opinions of my
employer, or of Mario Cuomo, whom I have never met.

                                  Stephen J. Miklos
                                  Cognitive Systems
                                  New Haven, CT

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Oct 84 08:48:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI List--Crediting Ideas From AI List
-BODY-
My first reaction to the question about how to cite something from AI List
is that it is an organized form of communication.  That is, there are dates,
volumes, numbers, an electronic place etc.  To me, this is what distinguishes
it from "just a communication channel" like the telephone or the xerox
copier.  I view AI List much closer to the journals but in electronic format.
Therefore if I were to cite something from AI LIst, I would use the format
for journal articles: author, possibly topic for title of comment, AI List
for title; the number, volume, and date of the list; and one additional
item, the electronic address.  If these lists are going to be kept and
can be looked up and referred to, I would recommend as complete a citation
as possible.

If AI List is viewed as more closely related to informal communications between
researchers, then the format would be that which one uses when referrring
to a conversation or personal letter.  However to me that would indicate
that another person would not have access to the primary discussion.

Harry Llull, Mathematical and Computer Sciences Library, Stanford University.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15-Oct-84 14:10 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AILIST as a source of info....
-BODY-
From: Allen <Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA>

  Many recent AILIST discussions have fascinated me, and I'm sure that at some
  point in the near future I'll be using information presented here for a paper
  or two.  Just exactly how do I credit an electronic bboard in a research
  paper?  And who (i.e. moderator, author of info, etc.) do I give credit to?

This reminds me of Ithiel de Sola Pool's lament in note 8 to a paragraph in his
chapter on electronic publishing in Technologies of Freedom (Belknap Harvard
1983):

   "... The character of electronic publishing is illustrated by the problem of
   citing the information in this paragraph, which came from these interest
   group exchanges themselves.  Shall I cite the Arpanet list as from Zellich
   at Office-3?"

I am NOT an expert on obscure citations, so I can freely throw out the
following suggestion using Allen Lutins' original query for an
example.  "12345" would be the message ID if any had been provided:

   Lutins, Allen, "AILIST as a source of info...." message 12345 of 14 Oct
   1984 19:56 EDT, Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA or AIList Digest, V2 #138, 15 Oct 1984,
   AIList@SRI-AI.ARPA.

 -- kirk

[Alas, the title of a message is not a good identifier.  Many of the
messages in the AIList mailbox have meaningless titles (e.g., Re:
AIList Vol. 2, No. 136) or titles appropriate to some other bboard.
Some even have no titles.  I commonly supply another title as a service
to readers and as aid to my own sorting of the messages.  The title
sent out to Arpanet readers may thus differ from the title Usenet
readers see before I get the messages.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 October 1984 2252-PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: bannon@nprdc (Liam Bannon (UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science))
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bannon <sdcsla!bannon@nprdc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: citing information on electronic newsboards
-BODY-
Allen Lutins query about how to cite information obtained from AIList
interests me, as I have confronted this issue recently. I sent out a
query on netnews on "computer-mediated social interaction" (it even
got on this List) and received a no. of interesting replies. I just
sent out a note on the "results" to net.followup, including quotations
from several msgs sent to me. I don't identify authors explicitly,
partly because of requests for anonymity. (I have however privately
acknowledged the contributions, and certainly do not try to pass them
off as being my own work.) I think this is ok for a net reply, but as
I am writing a large paper on the topic, I have decided to explicitly
ask all the people that I quote  a) for permission to quote them, and
b)for permission to include their names with the quotes.

As to citing AIList, or net.general, or whatever, some of the msgs
sent to me were also broadcast to a newsgroup, others
were sent privately over the net to me, so I am unsure how to
cite them.  It is an interesting issue though, as if credit is
not given properly for ideas that first appeared on the net, then
there is a danger that people will be reluctant to share ideas on
the net until after "official" publication, thus destroying the
vitality of the net. I'll go ask some librarians to see if they
have any thoughts. I would be interested in other people's opinions
on the issue.
>liam bannon (bannon@nprdc)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 1984  14:08 EDT
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AILIST as a source of info....
-BODY-

    [Certainly the author must be credited.  ... ]

I'm not a librarian but have had some experience in citing obscure
reference.  I think it can be cited just like a newsletter is cited,
after all, it is a newsletter: citing author, title, newletter name,
Vol., and No.; maybe method of publication (ARPANET).  It is a form of
publication, though informal, just like a newsletter.  As for
copyright, I don't see that there is any problem since none of the
authors I've seen have ever copyrighted their material.  I'm assuming
it's fair game for copying, but that scientific (or literary) protocol
would oblige us to credit authors.

Fanya


[The welcome message I send out to each new subscriber states:

  List items should be considered unrefereed working papers, and
  opinions to be those of the author and not of any organization.
  Copies of list items should credit the original author, not
  necessarily the AIList.  The list does not assume copyright, nor does
  it accept any liability arising from remailing of submitted material.

The phrase "working papers" (which is also used by the SIGART newsletter)
is intended to mean that the author is not ready to officially publish
the material and thus is not surrendering copyright.  This might not
hold up in court, but it does establish the context in which people have
been submitting their material.

I have not been as strict as some list moderators in protecting authors
against unauthorized copying.  (The Phil-Sci list is/was particularly
strict about this.)  I have treated AIList as just another bboard that
happens to have a distributed readership.  I have forwarded items to
AIList from university bboards (as well as physical bboards), and I have
no objection to similar copying in return.  I would draw the line at
some major journal or copyrighted book quoting directly from the list
without at least asking the readership whether anyone objected to the
copying.  As I do not hold copyright, however, it really makes no
difference where I draw the line.  If someone copies material and the
author sues, the resolution will be up to a judge.  All that I can do
is to clarify the intention that should be ascribed to submitters in
the absence of other declarations.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
141
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 18 Oct 1984 06:11:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: michon%closus.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (Brian Michon  DTN: 283-7695 FPO/A-3)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp Flavors
-BODY-
Is there a flavor package for Common Lisp yet?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 84 02:26 PDT
-FROM-
From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 & Benchmarks
-BODY-
Two points, inspired by issue #140:

1) Xerox has a "LispUsers" version of OPS5, which is an unsupported
transliteration from the public Franz version, of a year or so ago, into
Interlisp-D.  As far as I know, this version is also in the public
domain.  [Amos Barzilay and myself did the translation "in a day or so",
but have no interest in further debugging/supporting it]


2)   Richard Gabriel is out of the country at the moment; but I'd like
to take a paragraph or two to defend his benchmarking project, and
report on what I witnessed at the two panel discussions sessions it
sponsored -- one at AAAI 83 and the other at AAAI 84.  The latter was
attended by about 750+ persons (dwindling down to about 300+ in the
closing hours!).  In 1983, no specific timing results were released,
partly because many of the machines under consideration were undergoing
a very rapid rate of development; in 1984, the audience got numbers
galore, more perhaps than they ever wanted to hear.  I suspect that the
TI Explorer is also currently undergoing rapid development, and numbers
taken today may well be invalid tomorrow (Pentland mentioned that).
     The point stressed over and over at the two panel sessions is that
most of these benchmarks were picked to monitor some very specific facet
of Lisp performance, and thus no single number could adequately compare
two machines.  In the question/answer session of 1983, someone tried to
cajole some such simplistic ratio out of Dr Gabriel, and his reply is
worth re-iterating "Well, I'll tell you -- I have two machines here, and
on one of the benchmarks, they ran at the same speed; but on another
one, there was a factor of 13 difference between them.  So, now, which
number do you want?  One, or Thirteen?"
     One must also note that many of the more important facets for
personal workstations were ignored -- primarily, I think because it's so
hard to figure out a meaningful statistic to monitor for them, and
partly because I'm sure Dick wanted to limit somewhat the scope of his
project.  How does paging figure into the numbers?  if paging is
factored out, then what do the numbers mean for a user who is frequently
swapping?  What about local area network access to shared facilities?
What about the effects of GC?  I don't know anyone who would feel
comfortable with someone else's proposed mixture of "facets" into a
whetstone kind of benchmark; it's just entirely possible that the
variety of facet mixtures found in Lisp usage is much greater than that
found in Fortran usage.  [Nevertheless, I seem to remember that the
several facets reported upon by Pentland are at the core of almost any
Lisp (or, rather, ZetaLisp-like Lisp) -- function call, message passing,
and Flavor creation -- so he's not entirely off the wall.]
     In summary, I'd say that both manufacturers and discerning buyers
have benefited from the discussions brought about by the Lisp timings
project; the delay on publication of the (voluminous!) numbers has had
the good effect of reminding even those who don't want to be reminded
that *** a single number simply will not do ***, and that "the numbers",
without an understanding analysis, are meaningless.  Several of the
manufacturer's representatives even admitted during the 1984 panel
sessions that their own priorities had been skewed by monitoring facets
involved in the Lisp system itself, and that seeing the RPG benchmarks
as "user" rather than "system" programs gave them a fresh look at the
areas that needed performance enhancements.


>- Jon L White --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 October 1984 0646-PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: mbr@nprdc
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: mbr@NPRDC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Timings
-BODY-
I along with about 8 million others heard RPG (Richard Gabriel) talk
at AAAI this year and at the Lisp Conference both this year and 2
years ago, so the benchmarks are around. I dunno if he has the
results on line (or for that matter what his net address is--
he was at LLL doing common lisp for the S1 last I heard), but
someone in net land might know, and a summary could be posted to
AIList mayhaps?

Mark Rosenstein


[Dr. Gabriel is on the net, but I will let him announce his own
net address if he wishes to receive mail on this subject.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 1984 09:40-EST
-FROM-
From: Todd.Kueny@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Evolution - Comments
-BODY-
For what its worth:

Any language in use by a significant number of speakers is under
constant evolution.  When I studied ancient Greek only singular and
plural were taught; dual was considered useful only for very old texts,
e.g. Homer or before.  The explanation for this was twofold:

        1) as the language was used, it became cumbersome to worry about
           dual when plural would suffice.  The number of endings for
           case, sex and so on is very large in ancient Greek; having
           dual just made things more cumbersome.

        2) similarly, as ancient Greek became modern Greek, case to a
           large extent vanished.  Why? Throughout its use, Greek
           evolved many special forms for words which were heavily used,
           e.g. to be. Presumably because no one took the time to speak
           the complete original form and so its written form changed.

I pose two further questions:

        1) Why would singular, dual, and plural evolve in the first
           place?  Why not a tri and quad as well?  Dual seems to be
           (at least to me) very unnatural.

        2) I would prefer English to ancient Greek principally because
           of the lack of case endings and conjugations.  It is very
           difficult to express certain new ideas, e.g. the concept of a word
           on its own with no sex or case, in such a language.  Why
           would anyone consider case useful?

                                                        -Todd K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 1984 09:52-PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Langauge Evolution
-BODY-

        Why do languages move away from case?  Why did Sastric Sanskrit
die?  I think the answer is basically entropy.  The history of
language development points to a pattern in which linguists write
grammars and try to enforce the rules(organization), and the tendency
of the masses is to sacrifice elaborate case structures etc. for ease
of communication.
        One of the reasons Panini codified the grammar of Sanskrit so
carefully is that he feared a degeneration of the language, as was
already evidenced by various "Prakrits" or inferior versions of
Sanskrit spoken by servants etc.  The Sanskrit word for barbarian
was "mleccha" which means "one who doesn't speak Sanskrit"; culture
and high civilization were equated with language.  Similarly English
"barbarian" is derived from the greek "one who makes noises like
baa baa" i.e. who doesn't speak Greek.
        Current Linguistics has begun to actually aid this entropy by
paying special attention to slang and casual usage(descriptive vs.
prescriptive).  Without some negentropy from the linguists, I fear
that English will degenerate further.

Rick Briggs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 15-Oct-84 19:32:13-BST
-FROM-
From: O'KEEFE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <okeefe.r.a.%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit again
-BODY-
     Briggs' message of 9 Oct 84 makes things a lot clearer.
The first thing is that Sastric Sanskrit is an artificial language,
very like Fitch's "unambiguous English" subset (he is a philosopher
who has a paper showing how this rationalised dialect is clear
enough so you can do Natural Deduction proofs on it directly).

     One thing he confuses me about is case.  How is having case
a contribution to unambiguity?  What is the logical difference
between having a set of prepositions and having a set of cases?
Indeed, most languages that have cases have to augment them with
prepositions because the cases are just too vague.  E.g. English
has a sort of possessive case "John's", but when we want to be
clear we have to say "of John" or "for John" or "from John" as
the case may be.  Praise of Latin is especially confusing, when
you recall that (a) that language hasn't got a definite article
(it has got demonstratives) and (b) the results of a certain
church Council had to be stated in Greek because of that ambiguity.
If you can map surface case to semantic case, surely you can map
prepositions to semantic case?

     The second thing which Briggs makes clear is that Sastric
Sanskrit is unbelievably long-winded.  I do not believe that it can
ever have been spontaneously spoken.

     The third thing is that despite this it STILL isn't unambiguous,
and I can use his own example to prove it.

     He gives the coding of "Caitra cooks rice in a pot", and
translates it back into English as "There is an activity(vyaapaara:),
subsisting in the pot, with agency residing in one substratum not
different from Caitra, which produces the softening which subsists in
rice."  Is Caitra BOILING the rice or STEAMING it?  It makes a
difference!  Note that this doesn't prove that Sastric Sanskrit
can't describe the situation unambiguously, only that it contains at
least one ambiguous sentence.  Then too, suppose I wanted to
translate this into Greek.  I need to know whether or not to use
the middle voice.  That is, is Caitra cooking the rice for HIMSELF,
or for someone ELSE?  Whichever choice I make in my translation, I
run the risk of saying something which Briggs, writing Sastric
Sanskrit, did not intend.  So it's ambiguous.

     Now that Briggs has made things so much clearer, I would be
surprised indeed if AI couldn't learn a lot from the work that
went into the design of Sastric Sanskrit.  Actually using their
formalism for large chunks of text must have taught its designers
a lot.  Though if "blackbird" really is specified as "a colour-
event residing in a bird" the metaphysical assumptions underlying
it might not be immune to criticism.

     A final point is that we NEED languages which are capable
of coding ambiguous propositions, as that may be what we want to
say.  If Briggs see Caitra cooking some rice in a pot, he may
not KNOW whether it is for Caitra or for another, so if Briggs
is going to tell me what he sees, he has to say something I may
regard as ambiguous.  Similarly, when a child says "Daddy ball",
that ambiguity (give me the ball?  bounce the ball? do something
surprising with the ball?) may be exactly what it means to say;
it may have no clearer idea than that it would like some activity
to take place involving Daddy and the ball.  A language which is
incapable of ambiguous expression is suited only to describing
mathematics and other games.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 84 11:01:49-CDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: "Roland J. Stalfonovich" <rjs%okstate.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Natural Language
-BODY-
Much has been said in the last few notes about old or forgotten human
languages.  This brings up an interesting point.
Has anyone thought of making (or is there currently) a 'standard' language
for AI projects?  Not a programming language, but rather a communication
language for interspecies communication ,man to machine-man (that is the whole
hope of AI after all).

Several good choices exist and have existed for several generations.  The
languages of Esperanto and Unifon are two good choices for study.
Esperanto was devised around the turn of the century for the purpose of
becoming the international language of the world.  To these ends it has
obviously failed.  This does not however say that it is not without merit.
It's advantages of an organized verb conjugation and easy noun and pronoun
definition make it a good choice for an 'easily implemented' language.
Unifon is a simplification of English.  It involves the replacement of the
26 characters of the English alphabet by a set of 40 characters representing
the 40 phonics (thus the name) of the English language.  This would allow
the implementation of the language for speech synthesis (a pet project of many
research groups).

There are many more languages, and I am sure that everyone has his or her
own favorite.  But for the criteria of being easily implemented on a computer
in both the printed and spoken form, Esperanto and/or Unifon should be
seriously considered.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Oct 84 11:22:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Two Cultures of AI
-BODY-
It seems to me that there are two quite separate traditions in AI.
One of them, which I suppose includes the large majority of AI
practitioners, is devoted to rule-based deductive methods for problem
solving and planning. (I would include most natural language
understanding work in this category, as well.)  The other, which
occupies a distinctly minority position, is concerned with models of
perception --- especially visual perception.  It is my experience that
the followers of these two traditions often have trouble
communicating.

I want to suggest that this communication problem is due to the
fundamental difference in the kinds of problems with which these two
groups of people are dealing.  The difference, put simply, is that
"problem solving" is concerned with how to find solutions to
well-posed problems effectively given a sufficient body of knowledge,
while "perception" is concerned with how to go beyond the information
given.  The solution of a well-defined problem, once it is known, is
known for certain, assuming that the knowledge one begins with is
valid.  Perception, on the other hand, is always equivocal.  Our
visual ability to construct interpretations in terms of invariant
properties of physical objects (shapes, sizes, colors, etc.) is not
dependent on sufficient information, in the formal logical sense.

As a researcher in perception, I have to admit that I am often annoyed
when problem-solving types insist that their formal axiomatic methods
are universal in some sense, and that they essentially "define" what
AI is all about.  No doubt they are equally annoyed when I complain
about the severe limitations of the deductive method as a model of
intelligence, and relentlessly promote the inductive method.  I'll
end, therefore, with a plea for tolerance, and for a recognition that
intelligence may, and in fact must, incorporate both "ways of
knowing."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
142
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 84 14:28:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Biofeedback Instrument Link
-BODY-
The John F. Kennedy Institute For Handicapped Children (707 North
Broadway, Baltimore, Maryland 21205 phone 955-5000) has done work in
this area. Contact Lynn H. Parker, or Dr. Michael F. Cataldo. They have
also published in things like  Journal of Behavioral Medicine.

Dr. D. Regan at Dalhousie University Department of Psychology Halifax,
N.S. B3H 4J1 has also done a lot in this area including the real time
Fourier analysis in a feedback loop. You can read about his work in the
Dec. 1979 issue of Scientific American (Vol. 241, No. 6 around p. 144 as
I recall).

At Carnegie-Mellon University were some people with experience in this
area. You may try contacting: A. Terry Bahill (Bioengineering ); Mark B.
Friedman (Psychology and EE). They may also be able to put you in touch
with a person they worked with about 4 years ago at the Pittsburgh Home
for Crippled Children called Mata Loevner Jaffe. I think she left full
time status at HCC and is now a professor at the University of
Pittsburgh.

If you want historical info, look in the literature for a system called
PIAPACS (I forgot what the acronym stands for now) that was developed by
LEar Siegler Co. in Michigan for test pilots at Edwards Air Force Base
in California in the mid 1960's.

And finally there is the historical work at Cambridge Air Force Research
Labs in the early 1960's to put a man in a feedback loop to use
amplitude modulation of the brain waves (alphas) to send morse code via
a PDP-8 (to clean up the signals and do some limited pattern
recognition) to a teletypewriter to transmit the first message
"CYBERNETICS". Shortly thereafter, Barbara Brown (I'm not sure of the
first name here) at the VA Hospital in Los Angeles used BFT techniques
to have subjects control lights and small model railroad trains.

Earle.

P.S. The ultimate source of commercially available hardware and software
in this area would be the TRACE Center at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 1984  17:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven <Handerson@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp Flavors
-BODY-

I am working on Flavors as part of the Spice Lisp project at CMU.  Although a
prototype system has been finished, we are currently in the process of
redesigning the thing from the ground up in an attempt to make it more modular
and portable [we've pretty much trashed the idea of a "white-pages"
(manual-level) object-oriented interface for now].  Could be another month.

>- Steve <Handerson at CMU-CS-C>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 84 11:43:53 pdt
-FROM-
From: Stanley Lanning <lanning@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Development Tool from TI
-BODY-
[From the October 1984 issure of Systems & Software magazine, page 50]

  TI AI tool prompts users to develop application


With many companies now entering the artificial-intelligence business, the
question, "Are there enough AI experts to write the programs?" has been
raised.  The answer is that Ph.D.s in AI are no longer needed to write expert
systems because several expert-system-development tools are available,
including one just introduced by Texas Instruments.

To ensure that AI tools can be used by nonexperts, Texas Instruments has
introduced a first-of-a-kind tool that prompts users for all information
needed to develop an expert system.  The Personal Consultant is a menu-and
window-oriented system that devolps rule-based, backward-chaining expert
systems on the TI Professional Computer under MS-DOS operating systems...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 October 1984 12:07-EDT
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LMI, TI, and Lisp Benchmarks.
-BODY-
Glad to be of some help. The main problem I had with Pentland's note
was the explanatory comments which were technically not as informative
as they could have been. Let me take a moment to review them:

(1) BITBLT. This result has more to do with the different amounts
    of microcode dedicated to such things and the micro instruction
    execution speed. Both the TI and 3600 have a simple and fast
    memory bus talking to similar dynamic ram technology. (On the
    other hand the LAMBDA has a cache and block/read capability)
(2) FLOATING POINT. Unless TI has extensively reworked the seldomly used
    small-floating-point-number code from what LMI sent them, it is the
    case that small floats are converted into longs inside the microcode
    and then converted back.
(2)(3) CONS & PAGING. ??? Would be more interesting to know how long
    a full-gc of a given number of mega-conses takes. That bears more on the
    real overall cost of consing and paging.
(4) MAKE-INSTANCE. Could indeed be improved on both the TI and the 3600.
    People who need to make instances fast and know how usually resort
    to writing their own %COPY-INSTANCE, since overhead of system default
    MAKE-INSTANCE depends a lot on sending :INIT methods and other parsing
    and book-keeping duties.
(5)(6) SEND/FUNCALL. These are full microcoded, although improvements are
    possible. There are some fundamental differences between the
    LMI/TI micro architecture and the 3600 when it comes to function
    calling though. In a "only-doing-function-calls-but-no-work"
    kind of trivial benchmark there are good reasons why a
    LMI/TI architecture will never equal a 3600 architecture.
(7) 32bit floating. Similar comment as applied to small floats,
    there wasn't any 32-bit floating point number representation in the
    code before, the floating point numbers were longer than 32 bits total.

Then there was a reference to "it is already much more than an LMI,
CADR or LM2." First of all, the Explorer *is* an LMI product, and
secondly the main product line based on the LMI-LAMBDA has some
fundamentally different features including pageable microstore,
lisp->microcode compiler, plenty of room for user loadable microstore,
SMD disk interface, multiple-processor software support, physical memory
cache, which can very strongly and materially change the performance of many
applications interesting in both AI research and practice.
If you need raw performance in simulation, vision research, array processing,
the classic way to go is special microcode
or special purpose hardware. The rule may be that simple operations
(such as what one may find in trivial benchmarks) done many times call
for specilization. The LAMBDA has better support
for microcode development, (more statistics counters, micro history,
micro stack, micro store, the possibility of
doing lambda->lambda debug using multiple-processor lambda configuration,
paging microcode good for patching during development) than any other
lispmachine. Of course, it does have a high degree of microcode
compatibility with the Explorer, which does suggest some possible ways
to do things probably of interest more to applying technology than to pure
get-it-up-the-first-time research.

>gjc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 15:44:36-MDT
-FROM-
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Languages and cases
-BODY-
When we discuss why cases have disappeared, we should also consider why
they have appeared.  It is clear that they have appeared as "naturally" as
they have disappeared.  Which of these represents a rise in "entropy"?

A reasonable explanation seems to be that cases have appeared for the sake
of convenience and brevity.  Before their proliferation, probably
prepositions and suppositions were used.  Eventually, the cases became such
a burden that people moved away from their complexity.  Don't we see the
same trend in programming languages?

Uday Reddy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 09:22:50-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Universal Languages (again!)
-BODY-
Before worrying about a universal language for man-machine communication,
we need a universal mechanism for knowledge representation!  After all,
the external language cannot include concepts (words) for things that
are not internally expressible.  And while there have been numerous
claimants for the status of a UKRL (Universal Knowledge Representation
Language) (one of my own projects included), there are none that can
really qualify, except perhaps on the basis of Turing-equivalence.
Perhaps the best overall candidate is some kind of logical formalism,
but as one makes the formalism more general, it seems to become
more content-free.  Seems to me (from examination of the literature)
that the search for a UKRL was very active about 3-5 years ago, but
that now everybody has given it up as being the wrong thing to look
for (does anybody who was there disagree with this analysis?).

These days, I'm inclined to believe that one might establish conditions
for *sufficiency* in a KRL.  There's the obvious condition that the
KRL should be Turing-equivalent.  Less obviously perhaps, the KRL should
also have the means of automatically translating expressions written
using that KRL to ones in some other KRL.  Also, the KRL should have
complete knowledge of itself (the second condition probably implies
this).  There may be other reasonable conditions (such as some condition
stating that KRL expressions should have some explicit relation to things
in the "real world"), but I think the three above should be a minimum.
Notice that they also make the question of a *single* UKRL irrelevant.
Two sufficiently powerful KRLs can translate themselves back and forth
freely, so neither is more "universal" than the other.  Notice also
that any given KRL must have knowledge of at least one other KRL, in
order to facilitate the translation process.  When such KRLs are
available, then we can profitably think about standard ways of
communicating (to ease the poor humans' difficulty with handling
69 KRLs all at once!)

                                                        stan shebs

ps I haven't actually seen any research along these lines (although
Genesereth and Mackinlay made some suggestive remarks in their AAAI-84
paper).  Is anybody out there looking at KRL translation, or maybe
something more specific, like OPS5 <-> Prolog?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Oct 84 10:44:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sites Receiving AIList
-BODY-
Readers at the following sites have responded to my Sep. 26 list of
AIList recipients (Volume 2, No. 125), or have since signed up for
the digest.  (There are still many other sites, of course, particularly
on Usenet.  I have also had contact with individuals who receive
the digest but cannot respond via the net.)


Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
Army Missile Command
Defense Communications Agency
DoD Computer Security Center
Edwards Air Force Base

Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Battelle Northwest (Pacific Northwest Laboratory)
Bell Communications Research
Interactive Systems Corporation
Lockheed
Microelectronics and Computer Corporation
Varian Associates

Case Western Reserve University
Dundee College of Technology, Scotland
Indiana University
Northeastern University
Southern Methodist University
Stockton State College
University of California at San Diego
University of Illinois at Urbana
University of Waterloo
Washington University in St Louis


My apologies to any sites I previously misspelled, including

Naval Personnel Research and Development Center
Naval Research Laboratory
Naval Surface Weapons Center
University of Rochester

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 84 01:50:10 edt
-FROM-
From: bedford!bandy@mit-eddie
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Net Readership
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Human-Nets digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        Date: Mon, 8 Oct 84 14:28 EDT
        From: TMPLee@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

        Has anyone ever made an estimate (with error bounds) of how
        many people have electronic mailboxes reachable via the
        Internet?  (e.g., ARPANET, MILNET, CHAOSNET, DEC ENET, Xerox,
        USENET, CSNET, BITNET, and any others gatewayed that I've
        probably overlooked?)  (included in that of course group
        mailboxes, even though they are a poor way of doing business.)

Gee, my big chance to make a bunch of order of magnitude
calculations.... [...]

USENET/DEC ENET: 10k machines, probably on the order of 40 regular
users for the unix machines and 20 for the "other" machines so that's
100k users right there.

  [Rich Kulaweic (RSK@Purdue) notes 15k users on 40 Unix machines
  at Purdue, with turnover of several thousand per year.  -- KIL]

BITNET: something like 100 machines and they're university machines in
general, which implies that they're HEAVILY overloaded, 100-200
regular active users for each machine - 10k users.

  [A news item in the latest CACM mentions 200 hosts at 60 sites,
  soon to be expanded to 200 sites worldwide.  A BITNET information
  center is also being developed by a consortium of 500 U.S.
  universities, so I expect they'll all get nodes soon.  -- KIL]

Chaos: about 100-300 machines, 10 users per machine (yes, oz and ee
are heavily overloaded at times, but then there's all those unused
vaxen on the 9th floor of ne43). 1k users for chaosnet.

I think that we can ignore csnet here (they're all either on usenet or
directly on internet anyway...), so they count for zero.

ARPA/MILNET: Hmm... This one is a little tougher (I'm going to include
the 'real' internet as a whole here), but as I remember, there are
about 1k hosts. Now, some of the machines here are heavily used
(maryland is the first example that pops to mind) and some have
moderate loads (daytime - lots of free hardware at 5am!), let's say
about 40 regular users per machine -- another 10k users.

I dare not give a guesstimate for Xerox.

  [Murray.PA@Xerox estimates 4000 on their Grapevine system.  -- KIL]

So it's something on the order of 100k users for the community. [...]
Well, it could be 50k people, but these >are< order of magnitude
calculations...

  [Mark Crispin (MRC@Score) notes that there are 10k addressable
  mailboxes at Stanford, but that the number of active users is
  perhaps only a tenth of this.  Andy's final estimate might be
  inflated or deflated by such a factor.  -- KIL]

Now that I've stuck my neck out giving these estimates, I'm awaiting
for it to be chopped off.

        andy beals
        bandy@{mit-mc,lll-crg}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
143
-DATE-
Date: 19 October 1984 22:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: buzzwords for different language types
-BODY-
Could someone out there please tell me the usual catch phrases for
distinguishing between languages such as C, Pascal, Ada on one hand
and languages such as LISP on the other?

Is it "structured" vs "unstructured"?  List vs ??

Thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 13:08:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP machine benchmarks
-BODY-
A thought for the day on the AI computer benchmark controversy.

We need a single, simple measure for machine quality in order to
decide which machine to buy.  It must be simple and general
because these are typically intended to be used as general
purpose AI research machines where we cannot closely define and
confine the application.

We already have one single, simple measure called price.  If
there is no *simple* alternative number based on performance,
others (i.e. those funding the effort) will use price as the only
available measure, and we will have to continually struggle
against it using secondary arguments and personal opinion.

It should be possible to create a simple benchmark measure.  It
will - of necessity - be highly abstracted, necessarily crude.
This has been done for conventional computer systems: the acronym
MIPs is now fairly common, for good or ill.  Yes, there are
additional measures, but they are used in addition to simple ones
like MIPs.

We need good, extensive benchmarks for these machines: they will
point out the performance bugs that are unique to particular
designs.  After we do the benchmarks, however, we need to boil it
down to some simple number we can use for general purpose
comparason to place in opposition to price.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 84 10:32 PDT
-FROM-
From: Schoppers.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Future of the English Auxiliary
-BODY-
In response to Ken Kahn's question on language evolution, my own theory
is that the invasion of a language by foreign cultures, or vice versa,
has a lot to do with how simple a language becomes: cross-cultural
speakers tend to use only as much as absolutely necessary for them to
consider themselves understood. The English spoken in some communities,
eg "Where they goin'?" (missing an auxiliary), "Why he be leavin'?"
(levelling the auxiliary), "He ain't goin' nowhere" (ignoring double
negatives), etc may well be indicative of our future grammar. On the
other hand, "Hey yous" for plural "you" (in Australia), and "y'all"
(here), are pointing towards disambiguation. Well, there does have to be
a limit to the simplification, lest we "new-speak double-plus ungood".
Then again, "ain't" can mean any one of "am not", "aren't", "isn't",
"haven't", "hasn't" --- effectively replacing both the primary English
auxiliaries (to be, to have) in all their conjugations! United States
"English", being the lingo of the melting pot, will probably change
faster than most.

Marcel Schoppers
Schoppers@XEROX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 15:23:26-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cases & Evolution of Natural Language
-BODY-
Has anybody at all researched the origins of language?  Not an expert
on the subject, but I do know that the languages of aboriginal tribes
are extraordinarily complicated, as languages go.  But they probably
don't give us much clue to what the earliest of languages were like.
If you believe that the earliest of languages arose along with human
intelligence, then you can suppose that the most primitive languages
had a separate "word" for each concept to be expressed.  Such concepts
might include what would correspond to entire sentences in a modern
language.  Thus the most primitive languages would be completely
non-orthogonal.  When intelligence developed to a point where the
necessary vocabulary was just too complex to handle the wide range
of expressible concepts, then perhaps some individuals would start
grouping primitive sounds together in different ways (the famous
chimpanzee and gorilla language experiments suggest that other primates
already have this ability), resulting in the birth of syntactic
rules.  Obvious question:  can all known languages be derived
as some combination of arbitrarily bizarre syntactic/semantic rules?
(I would guess so, based on results for mathematical languages)

Word cases can then be explained as one of the last concepts to
be factored out of words.  In the most ancient Indo-European languages,
for instance, prepositions are relatively infrequent, although
the notions of subject, object, verb, and so forth have already
been separated into separate words.  Perhaps in the future, singular
and plural numbers will be separated out also (anyone for "dog es"
instead of "dogs"?).

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 1984 15:17-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit
-BODY-
        Firstly, the language is NOT artificial.  There is a LITERATURE
which is written in this language.  It is different from toy artificial
languages like Fitch's in that for three thousand years scientists
communicated and wrote texts in this language.  There are thus
two aspects which are interesting and relevent; one is that research
such as I have been describing was carried out in its peculiar context,
the other is that a natural language can function as an unambiguous,
inference-generating language without sacrificing simplicity or
stylistic beauty.
        The advantage of case is that (assuming it is a good case system)
you have a closed set with which a correspondance can be made with a
closed set of semantic cases, whereas prepositions can be combined in
a multitude of ways and classifying prepositions is not easy.
Secondly, the fact that prepositions are not attached to the word
allows a possibility for ambiguity "a boat on the river near the
tree" could be "a boat on the (river near the tree)" or "a boat (on the
river) near the tree". Attaching affixes directly to words allows you
(potentially) to express such a sentence without ambiguity.  The Sastric
approach is to allow one to express a sentence as a series of "facts",
each agreeing with "activity".  Prepositions would not allow this.
If one hears "John was killed", some questions come to mind: who did
it, how, why.  These are actually the semantic cases agent, instrument,
and semantic ablative (apaadaanakaaraka). Instead of "on" and "near"
one would say "there is a proximity, having as its substratum an
instance of boatness... etc." in Sastric Sanskrit.  The real question
is "How good a case system is it?".  Mapping syntactic case to semantic
is much easier than mapping prepositions since a direct correspondance
is found automatically if you have a good case system, whereas
prepositions do not lend themselves to easy classification.
        Again, Sanskrit is NOT long-winded, it is the english
translation which is, since their vocabulary and methodology was more
exact than that of English.
        "Caitra cooks rice in a pot" is not represented ambiguously.
Since it is not specified whether the rice is boiled, steamed, or fried
the correct representation should include the fact that the means of
softening the rice is unspecified, and the language does have the
ability to mark slots as unspecified (anabhihite).  Actually, cooking is
broken down even further (if-needed) and since rice is cooked by boiling
in India, that fact would be explicitly stated.  The question is how deep
a level of detail is desired, Sanskrit maintains: as far as is necessary but
"The notion 'action' cannot be applied to the solitary point reached by
extreme subdivision", i.e. only to the point of semantic primitives.
Sentences with ambiguity like "the man lives on the Nile" in Sastric
is made up of the denotative meaning (the man actually lives on the
river) and the implied meaning (the man lives on the bank of the Nile).
The latter is the default meaning unless it is actually specified
otherwise.  There is a very complex theory of implication in the
literature, but sentences with implied meanings are discouraged because:
"when purport (taatparya) is present, any word may signify any meaning",
thus the Sastric system where implied meanings are made explicit.
        I do not agree that languages need to tolerate ambiguity,
in fact that is my main point.  One can take a sentence like
"Daddy ball" and express it as an imperative of  "there is a
desire of the speaker for an unspecified activity involving the ball
and Daddy."  By specifying what exactly is known and what is unknown,
one can represent a vague mental notion as precisely as is possible.
But do we really need to allow such utterances?  Would something
humanistic be lost if children simply were more explicit?  Children
in this culture are encouraged to talk this way by adults engaging
in "baby talk".  All this points to the fact that the language you
speak has a tremendous influence on the your mental make-up.  If
a language more specific than english was spoken, our thoughts would
be more clear and ambiguity would not be needed.
        I conclude with another example:

  Classical Sanskrit--> raama: araNye baaNena baalinam jaghaana (Rama
  killed Baalin in the forest with an arrow) --->
  raamakartRkaa araNyaadhikaraNikaa baaNakaraNikaa praaNaviyogaanukuulaa
  parokSHaatiitakaalikii baalinkarmakaa bhaavanaa (There is an activity
  relating to the past beyond the speaker's ken, which is favourable to
  the separation of life, which has the agency of Rama, which has the
  forest as locus, Baalin as object, and which has the arrow as the
  implement.

Note that each word represents a semantic case with its instantiation,
(eg., raama-kartRkaa having as agent Rama), with the verb "kill"
(jaghaana) being represented as an activity which is favourable
(anukuulaa) to the separation (viyoga) of praana (life).  Thus the
sentence is a list of assertions with no possibility of ambiguity.
Notice that Sanskrit expresses the notion in 42 syllables (7 words)
and English takes 75 syllables (43 words).  This ratio is fairly
indicative of the general case.

Rick Briggs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 1984  15:41 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Transformational Grammar and AI
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


        Transformational Grammar and Artificial Intelligence:
                        A View from the Bridge

                            Robert Berwick

It has frequently been suggested that modern linguistic theory is
irreconcilably at odds with a ``computational'' view of human
linguistic abilities.  In part this is so because grammars were
thought to consist of large numbers of explicit rules.  This talk
reviews recent developments in linguistic theory showing that, in
fact, current models of grammar are quite compatible with a range of
AI-based computational models.  These newer theories avoid the use of
explicit phrase structure rules and fit quite well with such
lexically-based models as ``word expert'' parsing.


Wednesday   October 24  4:00pm      8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 84 15:35 PDT
-FROM-
From: Dietterich.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PHD Oral: Theory-Driven Data Interpretation
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        PHD ORAL:       TOM DIETTERICH
                        DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

                        2:30PM OCTOBER 25
                        SKILLING AUDITORIUM


               CONSTRAINT PROPAGATION TECHNIQUES FOR
                 THEORY-DRIVEN DATA INTERPRETATION


This talk defines the task of THEORY-DRIVEN DATA INTERPRETATION (TDDI)
and investigates the adequacy of constraint propagation techniques for
performing it.  Data interpretation is the process of applying a given
theory T (possibly a partial theory) to interpret observed facts F and
infer a set of initial conditions C such that from C and T one can infer
F.  Most existing data interpretation programs do not employ an explicit
theory T, but rather use some algorithm that embodies T.  Theory-driven
data interpretation involves performing data interpretation by working
from an explicit theory.  The method of local propagation of constraints
is investigated as a possible technique for implementing TDDI.  A model
task--forming theories of the file system commands of the UNIX operating
system--is chosen for an empirical test of constraint propagation
techniques.  In the UNIX task, the "theories" take the form of programs,
and theory-driven data interpretation involves "reverse execution" of
these programs.  To test the applicability of constraint propagation
techniques, a system named EG has been constructed for the "reverse
execution" of computer programs.  The UNIX task was analyzed to develop
an evaluation suite of data interpretation problems, and these problems
have been processed by EG.  The results of this empircal evaluation
demonstrate that constraint propagation techniques are adequate for the
UNIX task, but only if the representation for theories is augmented to
include invariant facts about the programs.  In general, constraint
propagation is adequate for TDDI only if the theories satisfy certain
conditions: local invertibility, lack of constraint loops, and tractable
inference over propagated values.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
144
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Oct 84 13:33:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: Samuel Holtzman <HOLTZMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Responses to Decision Systems course.
-BODY-
Several individuals have requested further information on the course
in decision systems I teach at Stanford (advertised in AILIST a few
weeks ago).  Some of the messages I received came from non-ARPANET
sites, and I have had trouble replying electronically.  I would
appreciate getting a message from anyone who has requested information
from me and has not yet received it.  Please include a US (paper) mail
address for my reply.

Thanks,
Sam Holtzman
(HOLTZMAN@SUMEX or P.O. Box 5405, Stanford, CA  94305)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 1984 22:45:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Lockheed Advanced Software Laboratory@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for information
-BODY-
A local community college is considering adding an introductory course in
AI to its curriculum.  Evening courses would be of benefit to a large
community of technical people interested in the subject.  The question
is what will be the benefit to first and second year students.

If anyone knows of any lower division AI courses taught anywhere, could
you please drop me a line over the net.

Also, course descriptions on introductory AI classes, either lower or
upper division, would be appreciated.

Comments on the usefulness or practicality of such a course at this level
are also welcome.

                                Thank You,
                                Michael A. Moran
                                Lockheed Advanced Software Laboratory

                                address: HARTUNG@USC-ISI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 84 11:34 CDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph_Hollingsworth <jeh%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: annotated ai journal list
-BODY-

I am interested in creating an annotated list of the AI related journals list
that was published in AIList V1 N43.  I feel that this annotated list would be
beneficial for those persons who do not have easy access to the journals
mentioned in the previously published list, but who feel that some of them may
apply to their work.

I solicit information about each journal in the following form, (which I will
compile and release to the AIList if there is enough interest shown).

1) Journal Name
2) Subjective opinion of the type of articles that frequently appear in that
   journal (short paragraph or so).
3) Keywords and phrases that characterize the articles/journal, (don't let
   formalized keyword lists hinder your imagination).
4) The type of scientist, engineer, technician, etc. that the journal
   would benefit.
5) Address of journal for subscription correspondence, (include price too,
   if possible).

Please send this information to
Joe Hollingsworth at
  jeh%ti-eg@csnet-relay  (if you are on the ARPANET)
  jeh@ti-eg              (if you are on the CSNET; I am on the CSNET)


The following is the aforementioned list of journals:

AI Magazine
AISB Newsletter
Annual Review in Automatic Programming
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence Report
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Brain and Cognition
Brain and Language
Cognition
Cognition and Brain Theory
Cognitive Pshchology
Cognitive Science
Communications of the ACM
Computational Linguistics
Computational Linguistics and Computer Languages
Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing
Computing Reviews
Human Intelligence
IEEE Computer
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Intelligence
International Journal of Man Machine Studies
Journal of the ACM
Journal of the Assocation for the Study of Perception
New Generation Computing
Pattern Recognition
Robotics Age
Robotics Today
SIGART Newsletter
Speech Technology

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 October 1984 22:28-EDT
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: help needed on automatic programming information
-BODY-
I need some information on automatic programming.

1.  How complex a problem can current automatic programming systems
handle?  The preferred metric would be complexity as measured by the
number of lines of code that a good human programmer would use to
solve the same problem.

2.  How complex a problem will future automatic programming systems be
able to handle?  Same metric, please.  Of course, who can predict the
future?  More precisely, what do the most optimistic estimates
predict, and for what time scale?

3.  In 30 years (if anyone is brave enough to look that far ahead),
what will automatic programming be able to do?

Please provide citable sources if possible.

Many thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 1984 12:07:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: William Spears <spears@NRL-AIC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI Lisp machines
-BODY-

     The AI group at the Naval Surface Weapons Center is interested in the new
TI Lisp Machine. Does anyone have any detailed information about it? Thanks.

                                       "Always a Cosmic Cyclist"
                                        William Spears
                                        Code N35
                                        Naval Surface Weapons Center
                                        Dahlgren, VA 22448

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 84 08:10:32 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Thibadeau@CMU-RI-VI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TEK AI Machine
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I have good product literature on the Tektronix 4404 Artificial
Intelligence System (the workbook for their people).  This appears
to be a reasonable system which supports Franz Lisp, Prolog,
and Smalltalk-80.  It uses a 68010 with floating point hardware
and comes standard with a 1024^2 bit map, 20mb disk, floppy,
centronics 16 bit port, RS232, 3-button mouse, ethernet interface,
1 mbyte RAM, and a Unix OS.  The RAM upgrades at least 1 more mbyte
and you can have a larger disk and streaming tape. The major thing
is that the price (retail without negotiation) is $14,950 complete.
It is apparently real, but I don't know this system first hand.
The product description is all I have.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 23:10:53 edt
-FROM-
From: Douglas Stumberger <des%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reformatting AILIST digest for UNIX
-BODY-

        For those of you on Berkeley  UNIX  installations,  there  is  a
program  available  which does the slight modifications to ailist digest
necessary so it is in the correct format for  a  "mail  -f  ...".   This
allows  using the UNIX mail system functionality to maintain your ailist
digest files.

For a copy of the program, net to:

douglas stumberger
csnet:  des@bostonu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 10:30:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jean-Luc Bonnetain <BONNETAIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: worst algorithms as programming jokes
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

After reading the recent complaint(s) about those people who slow down the
system with their silly programs to sort a 150-element list, and talking with
a friend, I came up with the following dumb idea :

A lot of emphasis is understandably put on good, efficient algorithms, but
couldn't we learn also from bad, terrible algorithms ? I have heard that Dan
Friedman at Indiana collects elegant LISP programs that he calls LISP poems.
To turn things upside down, how about LISP jokes (more generally, programming
jokes) ? I'm pretty sure most if not all of programmers have some day (night)
burst into laughter when encountering an algorithm that is particularly dumb,
and funny for the same reason.

I don't know whether anyone ever collected badgorithms (sorry, that was the
worst name I could find), so I suggest that you bright guys send me your
favorite entries.

To qualify as a badgorithm, the following conditions should be met:
(if you don't like them, send me your suggestions for a better definition)

1. It *is* an algorithm in the sense described by Knuth Vol 1.
2. It *does* solve the problem it addresses. Entering the Knuth-Bendix
   algorithm as a badgorithm for binary addition is illegal (though I admit it
   is somewhat funny).
3. Though it solves the problem, it must do so in an essentially clumsy way.
   Adding loops to slow down the algorithm is cheating. In some sense a
   badgorithm should totally miss the right structure to approach the problem.
4. The hopeless off-the-track-ness of a badgorithm should be humorous for
   someone knowledgeable with the problem addressed. We are not interested
   in alborithms, right ? Just being the second or third best algorithm for
   a problem is not enough to qualify (think of the "common sense" algorithm
   for finding a word in a text as opposed to the Boyer-Moore algorithm, or of
   the numerous ways to evaluate a polynomial as opposed to Horner's rule;
   there is nothing to laugh at in those cases). There is nothing funny in just
   being a O(n^(3/(pi^3)-1/e)) algorithm, I think.
5. It should be described in a simple, clear way. Remember that the best jokes
   are the shortest ones. I'm sure there are enough badgorithms for well-known
   problems (classical list manipulation, graph theory, arithmetic,
   cryptography, sorting, searching, etc). Please don't enter algorithms
   to solve NP problems unless you have good reasons to think they are
   interesting in our sense.




If anyone out there is willing to send me an entry, please send the following:

* a simple description of the problem (the name is enough if it's a well-known
  problem).
* a verbal description of the badgorithm if possible.
* a programmed version of the badgorithm (in LISP preferably). this is not
  necessary if your verbal description makes it clears enough how to write
  such a program, but still it would be nice.
* a description of a good algorithm for the same problem in case most people
  are not expected to be familiar with one. Comparing this to the badgorithm
  should help us in seeing what's wrong with the latter, and I would say that
  this could have good educational value.


To start things, let me enter my favorite badgorithm (I call it "stupid-sort"):

* the problem is to sort a list, according to some "order" predicate.
* well, that's easy. just generate all permutations of the list, and then
  check whether they are "order"ed. would you bet that someone in CS105
  does actually use this one ?

  [I once had to debug an early version of the BMD nonparametric
  package.  It found the min and max of a vector by sorting the
  elements ...   (Presumably most users would also request the
  median and other sort-related statistics.)  For a particularly
  slow sort routine see the Hacker's Dictionary definition of JOCK,
  quoted in Jon Bentley's April Programming Pearls in CACM.  -- KIL]


I understand perfectly that some people/organizations do not wish to have their
names associated with badgorithms, but please don't refrain from entering
something because of that. I swear that if you request it there will be no
trace of the origin of the entry if I ever compile a list of them for personal
or public use (you know, "name withheld by request" is the usual trick).

jean-luc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 1984 16:25-EDT
-FROM-
From: Andrew Haas at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Metaphor
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Next week's BBN AI seminar is on Thursday, October 25th at 10:30
AM in the 3rd floor large conference room.  Bipin Indurkhya of
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst will speak on "A
Computational Theory of Metaphor Comprehension and Analogical
Reasoning".  Abstract follows.

   Though the pervasiveness and importance of metaphors in
natural languages is widely recognised, not much attention has
been given to them in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and
Computational Linguistics.  Broadly speaking, a metaphor can be
characterized as application of terms belonging to source domain
in describing target domain.  A large class of such metaphors are
based on structural analogy between the two domains.

   A computational model of metaphor comprehension was proposed
by Carbonell which required an explicit representation of a
mapping which maps terms of the source domain to the terms of the
target domain.  In our research we address ourselves to the
question of how one can characterize this mapping in terms of the
knowledge of the source and the target domains.

       In order to answer this question, we start from Gentner's
theory of Structure-Mapping.  We show limitations of Gentner's
theory and propose a theory of Constrained Semantic Transference
[CST] that allows part of the structure of the source domain to
be transferred to the target domain coherently.  We will then
introduce two recursive operators, called Augmentation and
Positing Symbols, that make it possible to create new structure
in the target domain constrained by the structure of the source
domain.

     We will show how CST captures several cognitive properties
of metaphors and then discuss its limitations with regard to
computability and finite representability.  If time permits, we
will use CST as a basis to develop a theory of Approximate
Semantic Transference which can be used to develop computational
models of the cognitive processes involved in metaphor
comprehension, metaphor generation, and analogical reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Oct 84 10:45:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Expert Systems
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:        Friday, October 26, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Li-Min Fu
             Electrical Engineering

ABSTRACT:    LEARNING OBJECT-LEVEL AND META-LEVEL KNOWLEDGE IN EXPERT SYSTEMS

A high performance expert system can be built by exploiting machine
learning techniques.  A learning method has been developed that is
capable of acquiring new diagnostic knowledge, in the form of rules,
from a case library.  The rules are designed to be used in a
MYCIN-like diagnostic system in which there is uncertainty about data
as well as about the strength of inference and in which the rules
chain together to infer complex hypotheses.  These features greatly
complicate the learning problem.

In machine learning, two issues that can't be overlooked are
efficiency and noise.  A subprogram, called "Condenser," is designed
to remove irrelevant features during learning and improve the
efficiency.  It works well when the number of features used to
characterize training instances is large.  One way of removing noise
associated with a learned rule is seeking a state with minimal
prediction error.

Another subprogram has been developed to learn meta-rules which guide
the invocation of object-level rules and thus enhance the performance
of the expert system using the object-level rules.

By embodying all the ideas developed in this work, an expert program
called JAUNDICE is built, which can diagnose the likely cause and
mechanisms of a patient with jaundice.  Experiments with JAUNDICE show

the developed theory and method of learning are effective in a complex
and noisy environment where data may be inconsistent, incomplete, and
erroneous.

Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 84 00:08:10 cdt
-FROM-
From: rajive@ut-sally.ARPA (Rajive Bagrodia)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representing Programs for Understanding
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      Graduate Brown Bag Seminar:

                Representing Programs For Understanding
                                  by
                              Aaron Temin

                         noon  Friday Oct. 26
                               PAI 3.36


        Automatic help systems would be much easier to generate than
        they are now if the same code used to create the executable
        version of a program could be used as the major database for
        the help system.  The desirable properties of such a program
        representation will be discussed.  An overview of MIRROR,
        our implementation of those properties, will be presented with
        an explanation of why MIRROR works.  It will also be argued
        that functional program representations are inadequate for the
        task.


If you are interested in receiving mail notifications of graduate brown bag
seminars in addition to the bboard notices, please send a note to
                            briggs@ut-sally

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
145
-DATE-
Date: Sat 27 Oct 84 21:36:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Usenet Disconnection
-BODY-
The SRI-UNIX host that has been the AIList gateway between Arpanet
and Usenet has been undergoing system changes.  This broke the
connection about a week ago, and I do not know how soon communication
will be restored.  Meanwhile the discussion continues asynchronously
in the two networks.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 22 Oct 84 11:18:59-MDT
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: buzzwords for different language types
-BODY-
My favorite buzzwords are "low-level" for C, Pascal, and Ada, and
"high-level" for Lisp  :-)

But seriously, one can adopt a very abstract (i.e. applicative/functional)
programming style or a very imperative (C-like) style when using Lisp.
On the other hand, adopting an applicative style in C is difficult (yes,
I've tried!).  So Lisp is certainly more versatile.  Also, Lisp's direct
representation of programs as data facilitates the construction of
embedded languages and the writing of program-analysing programs, both
important activities in the construction of AI systems.  On the other
hand, both of these are time-consuming, if not difficult to do in C or
Pascal.

Incidentally, these remarks largely apply to Prolog also (although Prolog
doesn't make it easy to do "low-level" programming).

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 25 Oct 84 20:59:56-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic-based Expert Systems
-BODY-
Regarding expert system tools: would anyone like to offer some reasoned
opinions regarding the suitability of logic-based systems for such?
I have no strong definition of "logic-based" to offer, but I have in
mind as prime examples MRS from Stanford and DUCK from SST which provide
interfaces to LISP, forward and back chaining, and various
extra-logical functions to make life easier for the system builder.  I
am interested in large systems (1000+ rules desirable) and the control
and performance problems and solutions that people have found.  Can
such systems be built successfully?  What techniques to constrain
search have been tried and worked/failed?  Any references?

Charles Petrie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 84 20:28:24 pdt
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system critique.
-BODY-
An article appears in the current (November/December) issue of
``The Sciences'' (New York Academy of Sciences) by Hubert and
Stuart Dreyfus of Berkeley.  The article ``Mindless Machines''
asserts that `computers don't think like experts, and never
will,' invoking, in part, Plato's ``Euthyphro'' (Euthyphro is
a theologian queried by Socrates as to the true nature of
piety) as an allegory.  The basic assertion is that so-called
expert systems reason purely from rules, whereas human experts
intuit from rules using the vast experience of special cases.
They cite this `intuition' as being an insurmountable barrier
to building intelligent machines.
                                            Harry Weeks
                                            (Weeks@UCBpopuli)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 26 Oct 84 06:46:39-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: is there an Expert-System like that ?? (-:
-BODY-
[ cartoon in from InfoWorld, Nov 5, 84, page 7]

( 2 ladies having tea in the 'parlor', chatting.  with a somewhat perplexed
  expression, one stares at a small dirt-pile on the carpet, while the
  obvious hostess explains with a smug grin:)

        "I thought he was a vacuum cleaner salesman.  He came in,
         sprinkled dirt on the carpet and then tried to sell me a
         software program that would show me how to clean it up.   "

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: gibson@unc.UUCP (Bill Gibson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recursive Riddle
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from Usenet by SASW@MIT-MC.]


   How many comedians does it take to tell a Light Bulb Joke ?

   Two - one to say,
   "How many comedians does it take to tell a Light Bulb Joke?
    Two - one to say,
    "How many comedians does it take to tell a Light Bulb Joke?
     Two - one to say,
     "How many comedians does it take to tell a Light Bulb Joke?
      Two - one to say,
      "How many comedians does it take to tell a Light Bulb Joke?
         ...
                 and one to ask nonsense riddles."
         ...
       and one to ask nonsense riddles."
      and one to ask nonsense riddles."
     and one to ask nonsense riddles."
    and one to ask nonsense riddles."
   and one to ask nonsense riddles.

 - from the parallel process of -     Bill Gibson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Oct 84 19:13:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jean-Luc Bonnetain <BONNETAIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: minor correction on my msg on "badgorithms"
-BODY-
Afte  reading again the message, I *do* find interesting and unusual an
O(n^(3/(pi^3) - 1/e)) algorithm. I'd be real glad to see, and maybe even
touch, one.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 84 07:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: worst algorithms as programming jokes
-BODY-
A very interesting idea, but "badgorithm" as a label should have been
strangled at birth.

How about "algospasm"?

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 84 08:14:31 cdt
-FROM-
From: "Duncan A. Buell" <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bad Algorithms
-BODY-
Jean-Luc Bonnetain suggests worst algorithms (badgorithms) as programming
jokes.  In a similar vein, with interests in winning the Cold War by
shipping some of these to the Soviet Union, what is the slowest possible
way to sort a list of N items?  The only requirement should be one (this
problem may not be well-defined yet, but I'm sure people could produce
subproblems that were) to the effect that repetition of a state or
sequence of states should not take place, and that the method actually at
some future date sort the list.

As an example of how to think about this, consider generating the permutations
of N things, then comparing the existing list against each permutation.
How slowly, then, can we generate the permutations of N things?  We could
isolate one element, generate permutations of N-1 things, and then insert
the isolated element in N different places.  Ignoring the symmetry of the
situation, we could isolate a second element and continue (is this cheating
on the rule?).  And generating permutations of N-1 things?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 84 09:58 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Badgorithms in AIList Digest   V2 #144
-BODY-
The examples of badgorithms that come to mind (including the sorting by
selecting an ordered permutation and find min and max by sorting, or for
that matter defining the last element of a list as CAR of the reverse of
the list or empty intersection by computing the entire intersection and
then seeing if its empty) all have in common that they are making use of
existing constructs that do what is desired and much more.  I think that
these are very reasonable PROGRAMS even if they normally correspond to
bad ALGORITHMS.
   The point is that various projects in program transformation
(especially partial evaluation) take as input such programs and
automatically transform them into programs that correspond to very
reasonable algorithms.  Also, true fans of logic programming who believe
that an algorithm = logic + control use sort as ordered permutation as
their classic example.  They add control anontations that cause the
permutation activity to be coroutined with the order selection.
  I'm looking forward to the day when one can write programs that if
interpreted naively correspond to badgorithms and yet  are either
tranformed automatically or interpreted cleverly enough so that they run
like a bat out of hell.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 1984 10:35-EDT
-FROM-
From: MVILAIN at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nonmonotonic Inference
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


"A Non-Monotonic Inference System"
James W. Goodwin, University of Linkoping.

BBN Laboratories, 10 Moulton St, Cambridge.
Third floor conference room, 10:30 AM.
Tuesday October 30th.


We present a theory and implementation of incomplete non-monotonic
reasoning. The theory is inspired by the success of inference systems
based on dependency nets and reason maintenance. The process of inference is
conceived as a monotonic accumulation of constraints on belief sets.
The "current database" is just the set of constraints accumulated so far;
the current beliefs are then required to be a set which satisfies all the
constraints in the current database, and contains no beliefs which are not
forced by those constraints. Constraints may also be thought of as reasons, or
as dependencies, or (best) simply as individual inference steps.

This approach allows an inference to depend on aspects of the current state
of the reasoning process. In particular, an inference may support P on the
condition that Q is not in the current belief set. This sense of
non-monotonicity is conveniently computable (by reason maintenance), so the
undecidability of Non-monotonic Logic I and its relatives is avoided. This
makes possible a theory of reasoning which is applicable to real agents, such
as computers, which are compelled to arrive at some conclusion despite
inadequate time and inadequate information. It supports a precise idea
of "reasoned control of reasoning" and an additive representation for control
knowledge (something like McCarthy's Advice Taker idea).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 84 15:47:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ruth.Davis@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mathematical Language
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Date:  Monday, October 29
Title:  PRL:  Practical Formal Mathematics
Speaker:  Joe Bates, Cornell University
Time:  1:30 pm
Location:  4605 WEH



             PRL: Practical Formal Mathematics
                     Joseph Bates
                  Cornell University

PRL is a family of development environments which are designed to
support the construction, validation, execution, and communication of
large bodies of mathematics text (eg, books on graph algorithms or
group theory).  The design of these systems draws on work in many
areas, from philosophy to Lisp hackery.  Tuesday, Constable will speak
on certain issues in the choice of PRL's mathematical language.  I
will present, in detail, the most significant aspects of the current
system architecture, and will suggest directions for future work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 1984  9:27:12 EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Marshall Abrams <abrams@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium - Expert Systems in the Government
-BODY-
I am helping to organize a Symposium on Expert Systems in the Federal
Government. In addition to papers, I am looking for people to serve on
the program committee and the conference committee, and to serve as
reviewers and session chairmen. The openings on the conference committee
include local arrangements, publicity, and tutorials.

Please contact me or the program chairman (or both by net-mail) with
questions and suggestions. The call for papers follows.

Call for Papers

Expert Systems in Government Conference

October 23-25, 1985

THE CONFERENCE objective is to allow the developers and implementers
of expert systems in goverenment agencies to exchange information and
ideas first hand for the purpose of improving the quality of
existing and future expert systems in the government sector.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently been maturing so rapidly
that interest in each of its various facets, e.g., robotics, vision,
natural language, supercomputing, and expert systems, has acquired
an increasing following and cadre of practitioners.

PAPERS are solicited which discuss the subject of the conference.
Original research, analysis and approaches for defining  expert
systems issues and problems such as those identified in the
anticipated session topics, methodological approaches for analyzing
the scope and nature of expert system issues, and potential
solutions are of particular interest.  Completed papers are to be no
longer than 20 pages including graphics and are due 1 May 1985.
Four copies of papers are to be sent to:

Dr. Kamal Karna, Program Chairman
MITRE Corporation W852
1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard
McLean, Virginia  22102
Phone (703) 883-5866
ARPANET:  Karna @ Mitre

Notification of acceptance and manuscript preparation instructions
will be provided by 20 May 1985.

THE CONFERENCE is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and The
MITRE Corporation in cooperation with The Association for Computing
Machinery, The American Association for Artificial Intelligence and
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics National
Capital Section.  This conference will offer high quality technical
exchange and published proceedings.

It will be held at Tyson's Westpark Hotel, Tysons Corner, McLean,
VA, suburban Washington, D.C.


TOPICS OF INTEREST

The topics of interest include the expert systems in the following
applications domains (but are not limited to):

 1.  Professional:           Accounting, Consulting, Engineering,
                             Finance, Instruction, Law, Marketing,
                             Management, Medicine
                             Systems, Intelligent DBMS

 2.  Office Automation:      Text Understanding, Intelligent

 3.  Command & Control:      Intelligence Analysis, Planning,
                             Targeting, Communications, Air Traffic
                             Control

 4.  Exploration:            Space, Prospecting, Mineral, Oil

                             Archeology

 5.  Weapon Systems:         Adaptive Control, Electronic Warfare,
                             Star Wars, Target Identification

 6.  System Engineering:     Requirements, Preliminary Design,
                             Critical Design, Testing, and QA

 7.  Equipment:              Design Monitoring, Control, Diagnosis,
                             Maintenance, Repair, Instruction

 8.  Project Management:     Planning, Scheduling, Control

 9.  Flexible Automation:    Factory and Plan Automation

10.  Software:               Automatic Programming, Specifications,
                             Design, Production, Maintenance and
                             Verification and Validation

11.  Architecture:           Single, Multiple, Distributed Problem
                             Solving Tools

12.  Imagery:                Photo Interpretation, Mapping, etc.

13.  Education:              Concept Formation, Tutoring, Testing,
                             Diagnosis, Learning

14.  Entertainment and       Intelligent Games, Investment and
     Expert Advice Giving:   Finances, Retirement, Purchasing,
                             Shopping, Intelligent Information
                             Retrieval

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
146
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Oct 84 18:33:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Institute Description - CSLI
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        NEW CSLI REPORT

Report No. 16, ``The Center for the Study of Language and Information,'' has
just been published. It describes the Center and its research programs. An
online copy of this report can be found in the <CSLI> directory in the file
``Report-No-16.Online.'' In addition to this report, the <CSLI> directory
contains other valuable information about the Center and Turing.  To obtain
a printed version of Report No. 16, write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI,
Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran at Turing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 84 20:06:59 pdt
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Indic interlingua.
-BODY-
If I recall correctly, the continuing colloquy on Sastric Sanskrit was
motivated by the desire for a natural interlingua for machine trans-
lation.  Pardon my ignorance, but I do not see the efficacy of trans-
lating a language first into something like Sastric Sanskrit with its
concomitant declensional, conjugational and euphonic complexity, then
from there into the target language.  Are not less complex (and less
verbose) formalisms more appropriate, not being weighted with aesthe-
tic amenities and cultural biases?  If Sastric Sanskrit is otherwise
being offered as a paradigm for such a formalism, a more detailed in-
sight into its grammar is needed.

Another facet of the colloquy is its focus on ambiguity in the rela-
tionship of semantic elements (viz. words) in sentences.  There is
also the problem of determining unambiguously the meaning of a word,
when in natural languages words often have more than one meaning de-
pending on context.  Is Sastric Sanskrit unique in its vocabulary as
well as its grammar that each word has but one precisely circumscribed
meaning, and how eclectic and deep is this vocabulary?  Certainly the
professed unequivocality of the syntax is an aid to determining mean-
ings of the words whose interrelationship is thus well defined, but
it would seem preferable not to rely on context or on clumsy defining
clauses in an interlingua.

As an aside on ambiguity being requisite for a literature in a lan-
guage, I might profer two opinions.  A great writer is often charac-
terized by his ability to mold sentences which have an uncommon flui-
dity and expressivity -- would an unambiguous language allow such
freedom?  Great poetry invokes thoughts and emotions which defy written
expression through the use of rhythm and juxtaposition of disparate
images through words set in defiance of strict grammatical precepts.
Further, the beauty of prose or poetry lies in good part in the use
of ambiguity.  Especially in poetry, distilling many emotions into
a compact construction is facilitated by ambiguity, either semantic
or phonetic.  The beauty of poetry is a very different one from the
beauty of logic or mathematics.

                                                Harry Weeks
                                                (Weeks@UCBpopuli)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 84 10:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: language evolution
-BODY-

Marcel Schoppers (AIList Digest V2 #143) seems to suggest that certain
dialects (e.g. those which include "Why he be leavin'?" and  "He ain't goin'
nowhere") are the result of forces which SIMPLIFY the grammar of a language:

     ".. my own theory is that the invasion of a language by foreign cultures,
     or vice versa, has a lot to do with how simple a language becomes:
     cross-cultural speakers tend to use only as much as absolutely necessary
     for them to consider themselves understood."

The analyses that I have seen show that such dialects are just as complex,
linguistically, as the standard dialect.  They are just complex in different
ways.  As I understand it, simplified PIDGIN languages quickly evolve into
complex CREOLE languages - all it takes is one generation of native speakers.

Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Oct 84 23:23:56-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: linguistics
-BODY-
        I would like to respond to several linguistic questions discussed
recently. First, in response to Rick Briggs re-assertion that Shastric Sanskrit
is a natural language, his claim that there was a literature written in it
and that it was in use for over three thousand years is simply irrelevant.
The same could perfectly well be true of an artificial language. There is
literature written in Esperanto, an artificial language which is also used
for scientific communication. It is perfectly possible that Esperanto will
remain with us for thousands of years. But we all know that it is an artificial
language. What makes it artificial is that it was consciously designed
by a human being-it did not evolve naturally.
        This leads to the question of whether Shastric Sanskrit is a natural
language. It looks like it isn`t. Rather, it is an artificial language
based on Sanskrit that was used for very limited purposes by scholars. I
challenge Rick Briggs to present evidence that (a) it was in use for anything
like 3000 years; (b) that anyone ever spoke it; (c) that even in written form
it was used extensively at any period; (d) that it was not always restricted
to scholars just as mathematical language is today.
        There has also been some speculation about the historical development
of languages. One idea presented is that languages evolve from morphologically
complex to morphologically simple. This is just not true. It happens to be
true of a number of the Indo-European languages with which non-linguists are
most familiar, but it is not true in general. Second, someone claimed that
the languages of "aboriginal people" (I assume he means "technologically
primitive") are complex and badly organized, and that languages evolve
as people become technologically more advanced. This was a popular idea
in the early nineteenth century but was long ago discarded. We know of no
systematic differences whatever between the languages spoken by primitive
people and those spoken by technologically advanced people. There is no
evidence that language evolves in any particular direction.
        Finally, Briggs mistakenly characterizes linguists as prescriptivists.
That is quite false. In fact, the prescriptivists are mainly English and
Literature people or non-academics like William Safire. Linguistics is
non-prescriptive by definition since we are interested in describing what
occurs in natural language and characterizing the possible natural languages.
        Finally (here comes a minor FLAME), why don't you guys read some
serious Linguistics books or ask a linguist instead of posting ignorant
speculation about linguistic issues? Some of us do Linguistics for a
living and there is extensive technical literature on many of these
questions. If I want to, say, know about algorithms I don't sit
around guessing. I look it up in a book on algorithms or ask a computer
scientist.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 1984  00:09 PDT
-FROM-
From: KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Even "shastric" Sanskrit is ambiguous
-BODY-
Take the example "Caitra is cooking rice in a pot". It is ambiguous in
both Sanskrit and English as to whether it is the rice that is in the
pot, or Caitra himself. Clearly the "shastric" paraphrase "There is an
activity subsisting in a pot..."  doesn't resolve this ambiguity. That
can only be done by distinguishing between subject- and object-
oriented locatives (which, incidentally, some natural languages do).
The reason why the Sanskrit logicians' paraphrases don't make that
distinction is that they follow Panini in treating locatives, like all
other karakas, simply as arguments of the verb.  In general, shastric
paraphrases, though certainly very explicit and interesting, are by no
means an "unambiguous language". What they make explicit about the
meanings of Sanskrit sentences is limited by the interpretations
assigned to those sentences by the rules of Panini's grammar.  This
grammar introduces only such semantic categories as are needed to
account for the distribution of Sanskrit grammatical formatives.  So
shastric paraphrases wind up leaving some of the ambiguities of the
corresponding ordinary Sanskrit sentences unresolved.

This sentence and its shastric paraphrase are ambiguous in other ways
as well, namely with regard to aspect ("cooks" or "is cooking"), and
definiteness ("the pot" or "a pot"). These categories don't play a
role here though they do in other areas of Sanskrit.  E.g.  the
generic/progressive distinction is important in derived nouns, where
English in turn ignores it: Sanskrit has two words for "driver",
depending on whether the activity is habitual/professional or not; a
shastric paraphrase might make the distinction explicit for such nouns.

The prevalence of this logicians' system of paraphrasing should not be
exaggerated, by the way. There is no evidence of it having been around
for anything like 3000 years(!), and it is not, to my knowledge, used in
any "literature" other than technical works on philosophy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 84 10:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reply to schoppers@xerox
-BODY-
   'United States "English", being the lingo of the melting pot,
    will probably change faster than most.'

The historical linguists tell us that in fact when groups of speakers
physically
move and establish a new language group, as has happened here in the US, that
the 'new' language dialect actually changes more slowly than the original
language group, in this case British English.  As simple evidence, witness the
fact of the diverse English dialects in the British Isles versus the far more
homogeneous regional dialects in the US.  There is also textual evidence from
poetry (rhythm, etc) showing that present day American English has preserved
the patterns of Middle English and early Modern English whereas present day
British English has changed.
>Godden@gmr

[Note that he availability of national radio and television broadcasts in
this century may be altering the evolution of modern dialects.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 1984 15:54-EDT
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge and Common Knowledge
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

There will be an AI seminar at 10:30 AM Friday November 2, in the
3rd floor large conference room. Abstract follows:


     Knowledge and Common Knowledge In Distributed Environments

                Yoram Moses, Stanford University


Knowledge plays a fundamental role in distributed environments.  An
individual in a distributed environment, be it a person, a robot, or a
processor in a network, depends on his knowledge to drive his
decisions and actions. When individuals' actions have an effect on one
another, it is often necessary that their actions be coordinated. This
coordination is acheived by a combination of having a predetermined
common plan of some kind, and communicating to expand and refine it.
The states of knowledge that are relevant or necessary in order to
allow the individuals to successfully carry out their individual plans
vary greatly according to the nature of the dependence of their plans
on the actions of others.

This work introduces a hierarchy of states of knowledge that a system may
be in.  We discuss the role of communication in ``improving'' the system's
state of knowledge of a given fact according to this hierarchy. The
strongest notion of knowledge that a group can have is Common Knowledge.
This notion is inherent in agreements and coordinated simultaneous actions.
We show that common knowledge is not attainable in practical systems, and
present a variety of relaxations of common knowledge that are attainable
in many cases of interest.  The reationship between these issues and
communication and action in a distributed environment is made clear through
a number of well known puzzles.

This talk should be of interest for people interested in distributed
algorithms, communication protocols, concurrency control and AI.  This work
is joint with Joe Halpern of IBM San Jose.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 84 15:56:32 pdt
-FROM-
From: chertok@ucbcogsci (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Gestalt Tutorial
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

SPEAKER:        Steven E. Palmer, Psychology Department and
                Cognitive  Science Program, UC Berkeley

TITLE:           ``Gestalt Then and Now: A Tutorial Review''


TIME:                Tuesday, October 30, 11 - 12:30
PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

ABSTRACT:       I will present an overview of the nature and
                importance  of  the Gestalt approach to per-
                ception and cognition with  an  emphasis  on
                its  relation  to  modern  work in cognitive
                science. First I will discuss the nature  of
                the  contribution  made by Gestalt psycholo-
                gists in the  historical  context  in  which
                they worked.  Then I will trace their influ-
                ence on some current work in cognitive  sci-
                ence:  textural segmentation (Julesz, Beck &
                Rosenfeld), Pragnanz (Leeuwenberg,  Palmer),
                soap-bubble    systems   (Marr   &   Poggio,
                Attneave,  Hinton),  and  global  precedence
                (Navon, Broadbent, Ginsberg).


Beginning with this talk, the Cognitive Science Seminar will periodically
present tutorials as a service to its interdisciplinary audience.  Each
tutorial will review the ideas in some research area for workers outside

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 84 15:17:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI and Real Life
-BODY-
                     ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND REAL LIFE

     "Artificial Intelligence and Real Life", a talk by Paul Levinson of The
New School for Social Research, will be one of several topics discussed as
part of the Second Colloquium on Philospohy and Technology.  The event is
co-sposored by the Media Studies Program of the New School for Social Research
and the Philosophy & Technology Studies Center at the Polytechnic Institute of
New York.  The talk will be held at the New School's 66 W. 12th St. Building,
NYC, Monday November 12th, at 8pm, and the general public is invited.
Admission is free.

     I am passing this info on for Paul Levinson, the aforementioned speaker.
He can be reached directly at this site as:
Lev%NJIT-EIES.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA or
@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Lev@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet

     Please do not address inquiries to me, as all the info I have is above.

 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."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
147
-DATE-
Date: Sun 28 Oct 84 17:40:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Shawn Amirsardary <SHAWN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Function-itis
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Lisp with its very elegant  syntax suffers from acute function-itis.   When
adhering to the traditional  lispish style of using  very few setq and  god
forbid even  fewer progs,  you  end up  with about  a  million and  a  half
functions that get called from usually  only one place.  Of course LET  and
lambda help, but not that much.  My question is does anybody know of a good
method for ordering and perhaps even naming the little suckers?  In  pascal
you have to define  procedures before you  use them, but  the lack of  such
restrictions in lisp means that functions are all over the place.  What  is
the cure?

                                --Shawn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 21:42:58 -0200
-FROM-
From: eyal@wisdom (Eyal mozes)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: different language types
-BODY-
  > But seriously, one can adopt a very abstract (i.e.
  applicative/functional) > programming style or a very imperative
  (C-like) style when using Lisp.  > On the other hand, adopting an
  applicative style in C is difficult (yes, > I've tried!).  So Lisp is
  certainly more versatile.

Really!! I've never yet seen an "imperative" non-trivial LISP program
which is not impossible to read, full of bugs which nobody knows how to
correct, and horribly time-consuming (most of UNIX's VAXIMA is a good
example of what I mean). Writing "imperative" style in LISP is a
programming equivalent of "badgorithms".

You can be as abstract as you want to be in C or Pascal.  I don't think
there is anything for which you can't come up with a good program in C,
if your writing style is good (and if it isn't, no language will help).
Of course, there are some activities, especially in some areas of AI,
which are made much easier by the functional style of LISP, and its
representation of programs as data - but even this wouldn't be true for
*all* AI systems. But in terms of versatility, I don't think there can
be much question about the big advantage of C, Pascal, and languages of
this type.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 84 14:41 PST
-FROM-
From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pessimal Algorithms ("Badgorithms"?)
-BODY-
The following "badgorithm" comes from a practical joke, perpretated many
years ago; although it is not a naturally occuring "badgorithm", it does
have a humorous side.

In high school, I worked part-time for a university computing center **
programming on an IBM 650 (don't ask how many years ago!).  [One really
shouldn't pooh-pooh the 650 -- it was the world's first List processing
computer!  explication follows].  It's main memory consisted of 2000
10-digit decimal words, stored on a rotating magnetic drum; there were
40 rotational channels on the drum, with each channel holding 50 words
(one complete revolution).  Since the various instructions took a
variable amount of time, it would be most unwise to sequence the
instructions by merely incrementing each instruction address by 1, for
an instruction which took more time than that which would elapse between
two successive words in a "channel" would thus be blocked for one full
drum rotation time.  An instruction consisted of an operator, an operand
address, and a "next instruction address" (i.e., a CDR link in Lisp
parlance); thus one could assign the sequenceing of instructions to be
"optimal" in that the successor of an instruction at word offset A (mod
50) would be A+n (mod 50) where n is the time in, fiftieths of a drum
rotation, required for the instruction exection of the operator stored
at A.

The IBM 704/709 series had a machine language assembler called SAP, for
"Symbolic Assembly Program"; the 650 had SOAP, for "Symbolic Optimal
Assembly Program".  One would speak of "Soaping" a program, meaning to
assemble a symbolic deck of cards into a self-loading machine-language
deck.  My cohorts and I dubbed the obvious pessimizing version of SOAP
as SUDS, for "Symbolic Un-optimal Disassembly System" (it would assign
the "next instruction" to a word offset just 1 short of optimal, and
thus would slow down the resultant object code by up to a factor of 50).

As a gag, we SUDS'd the SOAP deck, and left it for others to use.
Imagine the consternation when a program that normally took 10 minutes
to assemble suddenly began taking over an hour!  Of course, we were
quickly found out, and SUDS was relagated to the circular hacks file.

>- Jon L White --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 84 16:18:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Jones@CMU-CS-SPICE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Real Programmers
-BODY-
           [Excerpted from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[I regret having to truncate this, but the original was too long to
distribute on AIList.  I have decide to proceed with the following
because it fits in with other recent AIList messages.  -- KIL]


     A recent article devoted to the *macho* side of programming
     made the bald and unvarnished statement:

                Real Programmers write in Fortran.

     [...]
     I feel duty-bound to describe,
     as best I can through the generation gap,
     how a Real Programmer wrote code.
     I'll call him Mel,
     because that was his name.

     I first met Mel when I went to work for Royal McBee Computer Corp.,
     a now-defunct subsidiary of the typewriter company.  [...]
     Mel's job was to re-write
     the blackjack program for the RPC-4000.  [...]
     The new computer had a one-plus-one
     addressing scheme,
     in which each machine instruction,
     in addition to the operation code
     and the address of the needed operand,
     had a second address that indicated where, on the revolving drum,
     the next instruction was located.
     In modern parlance,
     every single instruction was followed by a GO TO!  [...]

     Since Mel knew the numerical value
     of every operation code,
     and assigned his own drum addresses,
     every instruction he wrote could also be considered
     a numerical constant.
     He could pick up an earlier "add" instruction, say,
     and multiply by it,
     if it had the right numeric value.
     His code was not easy for someone else to modify.

     I compared Mel's hand-optimized programs
     with the same code massaged by the optimizing assembler program,
     and Mel's always ran faster.
     That was because the "top-down" method of program design
     hadn't been invented yet,
     and Mel wouldn't have used it anyway.
     He wrote the innermost parts of his program loops first,
     so they would get first choice
     of the optimum address locations on the drum.
     The optimizing assembler wasn't smart enough to do it that way.

     Mel never wrote time-delay loops, either,
     even when the balky Flexowriter
     required a delay between output characters to work right.
     He just located instructions on the drum
     so each successive one was just *past* the read head
     when it was needed;
     the drum had to execute another complete revolution
     to find the next instruction.  [...]
     Mel called the maximum time-delay locations
     the "most pessimum".  [...]

     Perhaps my greatest shock came
     when I found an innocent loop that had no test in it.
     No test. *None*.
     Common sense said it had to be a closed loop,
     where the program would circle, forever, endlessly.
     Program control passed right through it, however,
     and safely out the other side.
     It took me two weeks to figure it out.

     The RPC-4000 computer had a really modern facility
     called an index register.
     It allowed the programmer to write a program loop
     that used an indexed instruction inside;
     each time through,
     the number in the index register
     was added to the address of that instruction,
     so it would refer
     to the next datum in a series.
     He had only to increment the index register
     each time through.
     Mel never used it.

     Instead, he would pull the instruction into a machine register,
     add one to its address,
     and store it back.
     He would then execute the modified instruction
     right from the register.
     The loop was written so this additional execution time
     was taken into account --
     just as this instruction finished,
     the next one was right under the drum's read head,
     ready to go.
     But the loop had no test in it.

     The vital clue came when I noticed
     the index register bit,
     the bit that lay between the address
     and the operation code in the instruction word,
     was turned on--
     yet Mel never used the index register,
     leaving it zero all the time.
     When the light went on it nearly blinded me.

     He had located the data he was working on
     near the top of memory --
     the largest locations the instructions could address --
     so, after the last datum was handled,
     incrementing the instruction address
     would make it overflow.
     The carry would add one to the
     operation code, changing it to the next one in the instruction set:
     a jump instruction.
     Sure enough, the next program instruction was
     in address location zero,
     and the program went happily on its way.

     I haven't kept in touch with Mel,
     so I don't know if he ever gave in to the flood of
     change that has washed over programming techniques
     since those long-gone days.
     I like to think he didn't.
     In any event,
     I was impressed enough that I quit looking for the
     offending test,
     telling the Big Boss I couldn't find it.  [...]
     I didn't feel comfortable
     hacking up the code of a Real Programmer."


         -- Source: usenet: utastro!nather, May 21, 1983.


[The Cray is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in three minutes?
This machine might beat it!  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1984  14:43 EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Robot Navigation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Wednesday, October 31;      4:00pm;     8th Floor Playroom

Navigation for Mobile Robots

Rodney A. Brooks

There are a large number of interesting questions in how to build a
mobile robot capable of navigating through unknown surroundings in
order to complete some desired task. Issues include obstacle avoidance
using local observations, overall path planning, registration with a
map and building a map from observations. There is a lot of ongoing
and promising work on the first two of these problems. Less has been
done on the last two.  Registration work has been most succesful with
detailed a priori maps in two domains: (1) indoors uncluttered areas
with flat walls giving unambigous geometric clues, and (2) areas with
reliably identifiable and accurately locatable landmarks visible over
a large area.  Re-registration with maps generated from a robot's own
observations has mainly been successful in two modes: (1) incremental
re-registration involving small motions from a known location, or (2)
in an environment with active beacons providing reliably indentifiable
and locatable landmarks.

This talk focus on some of the issues in building a map from
unreliable observations and in re-registering the robot to that map
much later, again using unreliable observations. In particular we
consider a new map represention, the requirements on the
representations of the world produced by vision, the role of
landmarks, and whether other sensors such as compasses or inertial
navigation systems are needed.

COMING SOON: Kent Pitman [Nov 7], Ryszard Michalski [Nov 14],
             Phil Agre   [Nov 28]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 1984 14:10-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Accessibility of Analogies
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


"Mental Models of Electricity"

Yvette Tenney, BBN Laboratories
Hermann Hartel, University of Kiel, West Germany

BBN Laboratories, 10 Moulton St, Cambridge.
Third floor large conference room, 10:30 AM.
Monday November 5th.


The presentation will consist of two short talks that were part of a
conference on Representations of Students' Knowledge in Electricity and
the Improvement of Teaching, held in Ludwigsburg, Germany this fall.

Talk 1:  Yvette Tenney (in collaboration with Dedre Gentner)
         "What makes analogies accessible:  Experiments on the
         water-flow analogy for electricity."

         In analogy, knowledge can be transferred from a known
         (base) domain to a target domain, provided the learner
         accesses the analogy.  We used the water-electric current
         analogy to test the hypothesis that prior familiarity
         with the base domain (Experiment 1) and pre-training
         on the base domain (Experiment 2) increase the
         likelihood of noticing the analogy.  Results showed
         that greater knowledge of the base domain did not
         increase accessibility, although it did increase the
         power of the analogy if detected.

Talk 2:  Hermann Hartel
         "The electric circuit as a system:  A new approach."
         [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 30 Oct 84 09:28:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Student Models
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:        Friday, November 2, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Derek Sleeman
             School of Education & HPP

ABSTRACT:    The PIXIE Project: The Inference and Use of Student
             (user) Models

For a decade or more the importance of having accurate student models
to guide Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) has been stressed.  I
will give an overview of the several types of models which have been
inferred and will talk in some detail about a system which infers
overlay models and Pixie which uses process-orientated models.
Currently, all these techniques effectively determine whether the
current user's behaviour falls within a previously defined
model-space.  The focus of some current work is to see whether these
techniques can be extended to be more data-sensitive.  (Analogous
issues arise when an ITS or ES is attempting to reason with an
incomplete database.)

Issues which arise in the use of models to control (remedial)
dialogues will be addressed.

The seminar will conclude with an overview of the fieldwork shortly to
be undertaken.  PIXIE now runs on a PC (in LISP) and several of these
machines will be used to "diagnose" the difficulties which high school
students have with Algebra and maybe Arithmetic.  It is envisaged that
PIXIE will be used to screen several classes, and that the class
teachers will remediate students on the basis of the diagnostic
information provided by PIXIE.  These sessions will then be analyzed
to determine how "real" teachers remediate; remedial subsystem(s) for
PIXIE will then be implemented.




Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
148
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 1984 20:15:33 EST
-FROM-
From: Miroslav Benda <BENDA@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: linguistics bibliography
-BODY-
Several years ago, Gazdar & Klein published a "Bibliography of Contemporary
Lingustic Reasearch", which was an indexed guide to papers and books on
generative linguistics.  Is there anything similar online somewhere?
Something that is kept up to date (and not several years behind, like
"Bibliografie Linguistique").

Miroslav Benda
Boeing Computer Services

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 84 13:45:48 pst
-FROM-
From: (Marvin Erickson [pnl]) erickson@lbl-csam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Workstations under $50K
-BODY-
I am interested in comments on the performance of low cost (under $50K) AI
Workstations.  Applications include expert system development and Landsat
image processing.  I am particularly interested in the availability of tools
for either application that run under common Lisp on a PERQ and provide
object oriented capabilities in addition to Lisp.
Ron Melton
Battelle/Pacific Northwest Laboratory
(509) 375-2932
erickson@lbl-csam

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 10:43:32 pst
-FROM-
From: Alan Mackworth <mack%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI Awards
-BODY-
               The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence

          The Board of Trustees of  International  Joint  Confer-
     ences  on  Artificial Intelligence Inc. is proud to announce
     the establishment of The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence
     to  honour  sustained  excellence in Artificial Intelligence
     research.  The Award will be made every second year, at  the
     International  Joint  Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
     to a scientist who has carried out a program of research  of
     consistently   high  quality  yielding  several  substantial
     results.  If the research program has been carried out  col-
     laboratively  the  award may be made jointly to the research
     team.

          The Award carries with it a certificate and the sum  of
     $1,000  plus  travel and living expenses for the IJCAI.  The
     researcher(s) will be invited to deliver an address  on  the
     nature and significance of the results achieved.  Primarily,
     however, the award carries the honour of having  one's  work
     selected by one's peers as an exemplar of sustained research
     in the maturing science of Artificial Intelligence.

          We hereby call for nominations for The IJCAI Award  for
     Research  Excellence  to be made at IJCAI-85 in Los Angeles.
     The  accompanying note on  Selection  Procedures  for  IJCAI
     Awards provides the relevant details.


                   The Computers and Thought Award

          The Computers and Thought  Lecture  is  given  at  each
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence by
     an outstanding young scientist in the  field  of  artificial
     intelligence.  An award of $1,000 and payment for travel and
     subsistence expenses are provided to the recipient.  Nomina-
     tion  and  selection  procedures  are  outlined  in the note
     Selection Procedures for IJCAI Awards.  The Lecture is given
     one evening during the Conference, and the public is invited
     to attend.  The Lectureship was established  with  royalties
     received  from  the  book  Computers  and Thought, edited by
     Feigenbaum and Feldman;  it is currently supported by income
     from IJCAI funds.

          Past recipients of this honour have been Terry Winograd
     (1971), Patrick Winston (1973), Chuck Rieger (1975), Douglas
     Lenat (1977), David Marr (1979), Gerald Sussman  (1981)  and
     Tom Mitchell (1983).

          Nominations are invited for The Computers  and  Thought
     Award  to  be  made  at IJCAI-85 in Los Angeles. The note on
     Selection Procedures for IJCAI Awards covers the  nomination
     procedures to be followed.


                Selection Procedures for IJCAI Awards

          Nominations for The Computers and Thought Award and The
     IJCAI  Award for Research Excellence are invited from all in
     the Artificial Intelligence  international  community.   The
     procedures are the same for both awards.

          There should be a nominator and a  seconder,  at  least
     one  of whom should not have been in the same institution as
     the nominee.  The nominee must agree to be  nominated.   The
     nominators should prepare a short submission less than 2,000
     words for the voters, outlining the nominee's qualifications
     with respect to the criteria for the particular award.

          The award selection committee is the union of the  Pro-
     gram,  Organizing  and Conference Committees of the upcoming
     IJCAI and the Board of  Trustees  of  IJCAII  with  nominees
     excluded.   Nominations should be submitted before March 31,
     1985 to the IJCAI-85 Conference Chair:

                    Alan Mackworth
                    Department of Computer Science
                    University of British Columbia
                    Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5
                    Canada                  Tel. (604) 228-4893

                    Net Addresses   CSnet:   mack@ubc
                                    ARPAnet: mack%ubc@CSNet-Relay
                                    UUCP:    mack@ubc-vision

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 1984 10:04-PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V2 #146
-BODY-

        I have been challenged to defend some of my recent assertions.
Bill Poser should be more careful when he criticizes
("Finally, Briggs mistakenly characterizes linguists as
prescriptivists" -- I said the exact opposite on AIList of Thursday Oct.
18, that is that lingiustics has become descriptive rather than
prescriptive: my own humble opinion is that non-prescriptive linguistics
will be the death of english).
        With regards to machine translation, the "aesthetic amenities"
could be an advantage rather than a disadvantage, since it might be
possible to encode poetic constructions in the interlingua, otherwise
many subtleties will be lost in the translation.  The Sanskrit scholars
have done a lot of work in formulating a mechanism for expressing
natural language entities unambiguously.  All I am saying is that it
would be unwise to sweep under the carpet millenia (yes, millenia) of
research without attempting to learn soemthing from it.
        Word ambiguity exists in Classical Sanskrit but is not a serious
problem in the Sastra, since the level of representation of meaning
is usually below the word level.  While Caitra is Caitra, cook is
a process of softening etc.  By going one level of representation
deeper, ambiguity between two possible meanings of the same word
is avoided.
        The use of Sastric Sanskrit can be dated back at least as far as
Patanjali's Mahabhashya (1st millenia B.C.).  The tradition continued through
Bhartrhari (the Vakyapadiya), Kaundabhatta, Dikshita (Vaiyakarana-
bhusanasara) and (in the 19th century) Nagesha
(Vaiyakaranasiddhantamanjusa).  That it was spoken is evidenced from the
fact that many Sastric works are actually transcripts of long dialogues
between the different "schools" (e.g. the grammarians and the logicians).
Their arguments were expressed in Sastric Sanskrit.  Arguing about
whether or not it was actually spoken is similar to  asking the same
of the Platonic dialogues.  Admittedly, its use was limited to
the scientific community to a large extent.  The same can be said about
the type of language used in today's scientific community, with its
own specialized jargon and style.  Is Mr. Poser suggesting that
this also is not a natural language?
        I do not understand exactly what Kiparsky means when he asserts
that there is ambiguity in whether or not Caitra or rice is in the pot.
What resides in the pot is a "locality", which as an object "rice".
Caitra is the agent of that activity; in no way can he be construed to
be in the pot.  Nothing is said about where Caitra is, I suppose he
could be in the pot, but the notion of unspecified slots being filled
in by defaults would be used.  Normally, the agent of cooking is not
in the pot and if he were it would probably be explicitly specified.
        With regards to definiteness ("the pot" or "a pot"):  "pot" is
defined as that which has potness (ghatatvam) in it.   More exactly,
a pot (or any other object) is defined by three terms (the determinant
of meaninghood (shaakyatavacchedaka) is made up of three elements). The first
is the genus (potness), the second is the form (or akrti) ("having a
conch-like appearance about its neck [kambugrivadimatvam]"), and
the third is the individual (pot "ghata").
        I think that much of the confusion results from too close
a correspondence being assumed from Classical to Sastric Sanskrit.
Much of so called "ambiguity" does not exist as the words themselves
are discarded for deeper representation.  Syntactic cases are also
changed when they are expressed as semantic cases since "over a fire"
can mean "by means of a fire" in the case of cooking.
        Let me state exactly what Sastric Sanskrit is: it is
"The most sophisticated stage of the developement of Sanskrit
(through Vedic, Classical etc.) in which a very sophisticated
philosophy of "the meaning of a sentence" was developed, and in
which unambiguity was strived for and obtained to a large extent."
By large extent I mean that it is ambiguous as a description
in semantic nets (say conceptual dependency), in fact it is more
precise.  What I suggest is that the Linguistic and AI community,
and especially those who are involved in both, take a very close
look at the Sastric methodology and its philosophy, with natural
language processing in mind.  They did
much research in how the mind perceives the meaning of words, and
it is surprising how little exposure it has gotten.

Rick Briggs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 84 10:18:47 PST
-FROM-
From: Scott Turner <srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SCAIS Review
-BODY-

  The first meeting of the Southern California AI Society was a major success,
with over 200 people from all walks of life (and industry too :-) attending.
The event was held at the Faculty Center at UCLA, and arrangements were
very comfortable.

  The agenda included almost 8 hours of talks by over 50 speakers.  This
rather long format was intended to allow all the participants to become
familar with AI activities all around Southern California, but the great
length proved to be a drawback.  By the end of the day the crowd had thinned
considerably.

  Most of the talks were short overviews of ongoing work, but among the
more interesting talks were Rogers Hall of UC Irvine, "Learning in Multiple
Knowledge Sources", Erik Mueller of UCLA "Daydreaming and Story Invention",
and Chuck Williams of Inference Corp., "ART:  Automated Reasoning Tool."

  A short business meeting was held after the talks were finished, where
preparations for IJCAI-85 were discussed and an interim governing board for
SCAIS was selected (i.e., people volunteered).  In all likelihood future
SCAIS meetings will occur monthly or bi-monthly at rotating hosts.  Each
host will showcase their AI acitivities and invite speakers on a selected
topic.  This format will give SCAIS members a chance to visit all the local
AI Labs over the course of the year, without unduly straining the capacity of
any single Lab.

  After the business meeting there was a demonstration session in the UCLA
AI Lab, hosted by the infamous UCLA Airheads.  Erik Mueller demonstrated his
Daydreamer, Sergio Alvardo demonstrated OpEd, a program that models reading
editorials, Uri Zernik demonstrated GATE, the UCLA Graphical AI Tools
Environment, Charlie Dolan demonstrated Aesop, a program that learns planning
knowledge from reading Aesop's fables, and a number of other students
demonstrated other software and current work.

    Scott R. Turner
    UCLA Computer Science Department
    3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024
    ARPA:  srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 84 17:33:44 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok@ucbcogsci (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Coherence in Life Stories
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

    TIME:                Tuesday, November 6, 11 - 12:30
    PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
    DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Charlotte Linde, STRUCTURAL SEMANTICS

TITLE:          ``The Creation of Coherence in Life Stories:
                Commonsense  Philosophy and Special Explana-
                tory Systems''

This talk reports on a study of the creation  of  coherence
in oral life stories.  Such coherence is not a property of a
particular life, but rather an achievement of the speaker in
constructing  the story.  Studying the creation of coherence
permits us to examine the  implicit  assumptions  which  are
made  about the nature of socially accepted reasons for life
decisions.  For example, when a  speaker  tells  us  how  he
became  an optometrist, the way he makes this story coherent
can give us insight into folk beliefs about  proper  causes,
the nature of accident, etc.

The first level of the creation of coherence is the level of
implicit,  commonsense philosophical categories, such as, in
English, causality, accident, continuity and  discontinuity.
Speakers  must  show that their lives exhibit proper reasons
for major decisions.  If they can not frame their stories as
exhibiting  such  causality,  they must then analyze them as
involving accident or discontinuity.  Stories about accident
or  discontinuity  tend  to  be  organized  to show that the
accident is purely local, that is, that only one small  part
of  an  otherwise  well-motivated life is accidental.  Simi-
larly, discontinuity is managed by a variety of  strategies,
such  as  discontinuity  as  only apparent, discontinuity as
sequence, and discontinuity as  metacontinuity.   All  these
strategies  work  to  show that the speaker's life is not as
discontinuous as it might look.

A more complex level of coherence is the level  of  explana-
tory  systems.   These  are  non-expert  versions of various
expert systems in the  culture,  such  as  popular  Freudian
theory,  behaviorism,  feminism, and astrology.  The systems
at this level all presuppose the categories of the  previous
level.  That is, they all assume the existence of causality,
but specify possible causes  which  are  somewhat  different
from the causes permitted by the commonsense system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
149
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 84 12:34:55 PST
-FROM-
From: Scott Turner <srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SCAIS
-BODY-
Before I personally get flooded with mail, please send all request
concerning joining SCAIS, etc., to scais-request@ucla-locus.

    Scott R. Turner
    UCLA Computer Science Department
    3531 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024
    ARPA:  srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 1984 14:06-EST
-FROM-
From: CDR Jeff Ackerson (ACKERSON@USC-ISI)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP/PROLOG Availability
-BODY-
Would like to know if anyone knows of availability of either a
LISP or PROLOG environment that will run on an Altos 586-40.
Currently running Xenix.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 84 13:16-EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Malmros (Fs Hill) <malmros%umass-ece.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CAI authoring systems
-BODY-
     Perhaps someone out there can help me.  I'm looking for a CAI
authoring system and all the ones I've seen so far have been absolute
dogs.  They're pedagogically simplistic and they're all geared to the
same old tutorial/drill-practice kind of application.  Does anyone know
of something more exciting that would be of sufficient pedagogical
quality for use at the college level?  I'm writing to AILIST because I
don't know where else to go.  My address is:

     malmros.umass-ece@csnet-relay.arpa

     thanks very much.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 1984 10:01:09 EST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Charles Howell <m15434@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 examples
-BODY-

I am developing a small KBS using OPS5.  My first goal (if you'll
pardon the expression...) is simply to "get up to speed" on OPS5.
When learning other languages/systems, I've found examples to  be
very  helpful.   Does  anyone  have  any examples of working OPS5
systems that they can send me or give me pointers to?   If  there
is  much  response,  I'll be happy to collect them and distribute
them (or collect and distribute pointers, as the  case  may  be).
If  you  have an example that you wouldn't mind my using (the KBS
is for a graduate course in  AI)  but  you  don't  wish  to  have
distributed,  I'll  of course not include it in the distribution.
I hope my system will be a bit more stable from now on,  so  that
the turnaround on distributing the OPS5 examples isn't as long as
it was for the technical publications addresses...

Thanks very much,
Chuck Howell
The MITRE Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 1984  9:48:08 EST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Charles Howell <m15434@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Publication addresses
-BODY-

A  month  or  so  ago,  I  posted  a  request  for  addresses  of
institutions publishing technical reports related to AI.  Several
people responded; thanks! Several people also requested a copy of
the  collected  list  of  addresses.   Unfortunately,  the file I
collected these messages in has been destroyed, along with a  lot
of  my other files... and, of course, the most recent backup that
is usable predates the creation of this file.   If you would
like  a  copy  of this list, please let me know.  I apologize for
the delay in responding to those who already sent such a request.

Chuck Howell
The MITRE Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 09:00:29-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linguistics Bibliography
-BODY-
There is an index published by Sociological Abstracts which is called
Language and Language Behavior Abstracts.  I believe it is a quarterly
publication.  It is also an online database available on at least Dialog
and BRS.  I have not made a complete evaluation of these abstracts for
their relevance to computer science, AI etc.  However this week at the
Online conference in San Francisco I did learn that the index does
have a section on mathematical and computational linguistics.  A very
quick search with the descriptor term artificial intelligence came
up with 45 hits.  However much of the material was in the older part
of the database.  I was told there has been some changes in scope and
as of now I am not sure whether their scope has expanded in the areas
of interest of AIList readers or the scope has been limited.

Harry Llull, Computer Science Library Stanford University.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 1984 08:36-CST
-FROM-
From: SAC.LONG@USC-ISIE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Badgorithms
-BODY-

I have noticed much discussion on natural languages and AI processors
with difficulties in linguistical interpretations due to varied
meanings (?!?).  Well my PC (personal consideration) on the use of
'badgorithm' is that it is a poor construct from the similarity and
pronouncability of its original word, 'algorithm'.  In view of this
I would like to submit in its place a modified parsed version:

                           'badorithm'

It seems to me the substituted word is much simpler to pronounce and
has more of an audio similiarity to algorithm.  It is not my intent to
bring any discredit or defaming to the coiner of 'badgorithm', but
only to present what may be a more useful form of the original idea.
Of course, such things are a matter of personal taste to a great extent.

What do you think?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 14:28:15-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "badgorithms" vs. "algospasms"
-BODY-
I know this is an election year, but perhaps we need more than two choices
on some important issues.  How about "malgorithms" or is that too easy?

Dallas Webster

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 09:55:03-MST
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programming Style in Lisp and C
-BODY-
(Oh no, not more "programming style" flames!)

I'm a little puzzled why "imperative style" in Lisp is so much worse
than the same style in C or Pascal.  There's a difference between
abstraction and imperative code.  Last year I wrote a large quantity
of graphics C code, and attempted to make it functional as possible.
I ended up resorting to amazing numbers of preprocessor macros (is this
abstraction?  why not just use the macro processor (it's computationally
adequate) and dump the C compiler?) in order to get the polymorphic
functional style, and it was pretty messy.  Why should one have to tinker
with pointers explicitly, or allocate storage manually?  I have yet
to see a nontrivial C program that dispensed entirely with assignment
statements.

There are at least two reasons for doing "imperative style" in Lisp.
The first reason is to reduce the complexity of programs.  True functional
style requires that you *always* pass around all data that you will
ever use.  For instance, any I/O parameters can never be defaulted -
all of them will always have to be passed to the I/O functions.  I've
heard very few people actually advocating that in practice (although
many are quick to advocate in theory...).  Another way to put it is that
global variables are completely disallowed!  The second reason is that
Lisp kernels generally have to be coded for VN machines, and so their
code tends to look more "imperative" in nature (of course, I'm assuming
that one is doing Lisp-in-Lisp).  The PSL kernel definitely has an
atypical coding style, but of course you can't implement LAMBDA using
LAMBDA directly!

In any case, I've only seen a few Lisp programs that were totally
without side-effect operators, and those were small examples.  I'd
be interested to hear of a major system being done in a true functional
style (Steele's RABBIT compiler for Scheme is the closest candidate
I know).  Side effects have their place, albeit a rather small one...

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 10:16:48-MST
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What To Do With All Those Functions
-BODY-
I use lots and lots of small functions in Lisp programs also, and have
adopted a sort of semi-systematic depth-first scheme for ordering them
in a file.  That is, if A calls B and C, and B calls D, and C calls
E and F, then I put them in the order A B D C E F.  The rationale is
that B and D (for instance) form a unit, and should therefore be
grouped together.  If a function is used in several places, I usually
put it close to the first place.  If it's used in *lots* of places,
it's a utility, and therefore goes in a separate utilities file.
Files should be kept relatively small (<1000 lines), and should have
plenty of "separating" documentation that divides larger files into
several parts.

Don't think of functions as a burden;  they are an advantage.  There's
no limit on name lengths, and their cost is trivial, so you can name
them to be very mnemonic (such as "get-first-item-and-mung").  This
is a great aid for debugging.  Also, programs will be easier to modify
later on (and save scrolling work for the text editor!).

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Oct 84 14:18:32-MST
-FROM-
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functionitis
-BODY-
I thought that there were several books answering questions of the sort
Shawn Amirsardary posed and that all decent Universities offered courses
that dealt with such questions.  The subject is called "programming
methodology".  Since the questions are age-old and so are the answers to
them, I will be brief.

What do you do with "million and a half functions that get called from
usually one place"?  You use "abstraction".  If you are trying to
understand a program by tracing it, you are NOT using abstraction.  In that
case you would naturally prefer SETQ's to functions.  But, if you know how
to use abstraction, you would hate SETQ's.

How do you order function definitions?  You organize them into "modules"
which are also called "classes", "forms", "clusters" or "packages" in
various contexts.  If you are using a state-of-the-art language, it should
support modules.  Otherwise, you can still organize the functions into
modules on your own.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 14:33:58-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lisp Function-itis
-BODY-
Would you consider trading your LAMBDA (or 3600 or Dandelion) for a NORMA
(Normal Order Reduction Machine Architecture), and using a purely functional
language that supports modules (SASL)?

Dallas Webster (CMP.BARC@UTexas-20)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
150
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 21:22:53 mst
-FROM-
From: "Arthur I. Karshmer" <arthur%nmsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog Availability
-BODY-

Our vax-11/750 runninx UNIX 4.2 is newly installed and we would very much
like to locate PROLOG for it. We would appreciate any help in finding
a version of PROLOG for our system. Further, we are using a number of
DEC pro-350 systems under Venix/11. The version of PROLOG we currently
have for these systems is badly brain damaged - is there any help
available in this area?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Nov 84 09:32:25 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: cherry.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Getting started in AI
-BODY-
I am looking for any pointers which may help me get started in LISP.
Utility programs, applications programs, etc. will be helpful so that I
can analyze the source to better understand what I am trying to
accomplish.  Most of the literature I have read on the topic of AI makes
the assumption that the reader is quite proficient in the LISP
environment.  While I'm not new to programming, the LISP environment is
new to me.

My purpose for utilizing AI will be as an engineering aid for product
yield improvement.

Cherry.es@Xerox.Arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 November 1984 1311-PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: psotka@nprdc
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: psotka@NPRDC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CAI Authoring
-BODY-
I too would like to hear about good CAI authoring systems.  Several
commercial systems that run on VAXen  CYBERs and other stuff are really
good for their purpose -- linear CAI.  The real question, it seems to me,
is how to use the marvelous computational power of personal
Lisp machines to do CAI authoring.  What kinds of facilities would one want?
Natural language interpreters; graphic simulation systems for rapid
prototyping; expert systems for explaining;  complex knowledge representation.
ETC.   Could such a system be designed now to produce instruction as
effective as one on one tutoring by an expert?  Would the author (the person
using the system to develop instruction) have to be an expert in the area
being taught (and an expert teacher, too)??


[For one viewpoint on nonlinear CAI, see Jacques Habenstreit's article,
Computers in Education: The French Experience (1970--1984), in the
Fall issue of Abacus.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 84 15:49:16 pst
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <poser@SU-Russell>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlinguae
-BODY-
        I think that it is Rick Briggs who should read his own
writing more carefully. The relevant portion of Briggs' comment
runs as follows:

"Current Linguistics has begun to actually aid this entropy by paying
special attention to slang and casual usage (descriptive vs. prescriptive).
Without some negentropy from the linguists, I fear that English will
degenerate further."

The use of the inchoative "has begun" in the first sentence clearly
presupposes that Linguistics has hitherto been prescriptive.  (I.e.,
Linguists have only have just begun to pay special attention to slang
and casual speech; they have just begun to engage in descriptive, as
opposed to prescriptive, linguistics.)  So although it is quite true
that Briggs recognizes that there is now a descriptive element to
Linguistics, he is claiming (whether he intended to or not) that
Linguistics has been prescriptive and still is predominantly
prescriptive, and that it would be appropriate for linguists to be
more prescriptive. My point, which I believe still stands, was that
what we call Linguistics is not at all prescriptive and has not been
in the past.  Modern Linguistics (by which I mean Linguistics since
the mid-nineteenth century) is by definition not prescriptive.
Moreover, the traditions of prescriptive grammar and Linguistics have
been essentially independent for a very long time.
        Polemic aside, there is a real issue here. Briggs is
claiming that there is such a thing as degeneration of languages.
Now it is certainly true that some people use language more effectively
than others, whether we measure effectiveness in terms of aesthetics or
clarity or what. And it may be that the mean effectiveness of language use
over a population varies with time, e.g. as literacy rises and falls,
although I know of no objective demonstration of such a claim. But
that does not mean that the *language* degenerates--only that its use
degenerates. The issue is whether historical change in language results
in degneration of the language. This is certainly an empirical issue,
but I am not aware of any evidence that such degeneration takes place.
Features of one generation's casual style often become features of a
subsequent generation's formal style. There is just no evidence that
any historical stage of a language is less useful or more ambiguous
or whatever than any other. Different languages (and different social
and geographic dialects and historical stages of the same language)
differ in what information they present obligatorily or briefly,
but there is no evidence that there are statements that can be made
in one language that cannot be translated into another language, although
the expression of a given piece of information in one language may be
more or less cumbersome than in the other. In sum, while it is very
common for people to believe that their language is deteriorating and
look back to some golden age in which the language was just right,
the notion that there is such a thing as degeration of a language
(short of the special case of "language death" that sometimes
occurs when a language has only a few speakers left) is one that
has never been substantiated.
        Finally, to return to my challenge to Briggs to show that
Shastric Sanskrit is a natural language, he argues that the
existence of dialogues written in it demonstrates that it was spoken,
suggesting that raising the issue of whether this demonstrates that
it was actually spoken is equivalent to raising the issue of whether
the Platonic dialogues were actually spoken.
It is quite possible to write dialogues that never took place, and
moreover to write them in a style that would never have been used
in actual speech, so the existence of written dialogues in and of
itself is not compelling. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Platonic
dialogues are not believed to be actual transcripts of spoken
dialogues. In the case of Greek we have lots of other evidence that
the language was spoken, and the language of the dialogues is not so
different from other forms of the language, so I would not argue that the
Platonic dialogues could not have been spoken. But Shastric Sanskrit
differs sufficiently from other forms of Sanskrit that one must consider
seriously the possibility that the dialogues written in it were actually
spoken. The existence of dialogues in the language certainly shows that
it had a broader semantics than, say, the language of mathematical discourse,
but it doesn't show that Shastric Sanskrit was actually a spoken language.
        But let's go one step further. Suppose that Briggs is right and
some people actually spoke Shastric Sanskrit, perhaps even all the time.
The mere fact that it could be spoken wouldn't mean that it wasn't artificial.
People speak Esperanto too. I reiterate: a language is artificial if it
was consciously designed by human beings. The use to which an artificial
language is put says nothing about its artificiality. (I'll back down
just a bit here. We should probably be willing to give a language status
as a natural language (in one sense) if, although it is the result
of conscious design, it is subsequently learned as a native language
by human children. This learnability would presumably show that the
language's properties are those of a natural language, although
it happens that it did not evolve naturally.)
        I still think that Shastric Sanskrit is an artificial derivative
of Sanskrit used for specialized scientific purposes, not a natural language.
Briggs asks whether I would deny the language of scientific discourse
the status of natural language. As I indicated in my very first message
on this topic, yes I would, at least the language of mathematics. The
language of mathematics is a specialized derivative of normal language
that contains special constructions that in some cases violate strong
syntactic constraints of the natural base. Consider the "such that"
construction in English mathematical language, for example.
        I suspect that it is pointless to quibble endlessly about
whether or not a given form of specialized language is natural
or not-we'll just end up worrying about at what point we say
that the specialized language departs sufficiently from its
source to differentiate them. But the real point, and the one that
I have been trying to make from the outset, is simple and, I
think, untouched. It is possible to create specialized languages based
on natural languages that are more precise, less ambiguous, etc., conceivably
even perfect in these respects, and therefore better candidates for
machine translation interlinguae, but there is no known natural language
which in its ordinary form has these properties.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Nov 84 11:57:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Vineet Singh <vsingh@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Knowledge Representation, Problem Solving, Vision
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A couple of researchers from IBM Yorktown will be at HPP next Thursday
(11/8/84).  They will present two short 20 minute talks starting at
10 am on distributed computing (AI and systems) research at their
research facility.  Anyone who is interested in listening to their
talks and/or talking to them should show up at that time.  Details are
given below:

Time: 10 am
Day: Thursday (11/8/84)
Place: Welch Road conference room (HPP, 701 Welch Rd., Bldg C)
Speakers: Sanjaya Addanki and Danny Sabbah
Abstracts:

*Abstract1*

Knowledge Representation and Parallel Problems Solving:

          While there has  been much research on  "naive sciences" and
          "expert  systems" for  problem-solving  in  complex domains,
          there is a large class of  problem solving tasks that is not
          covered by these efforts.  These tasks (e.g. intelligent de-
          sign in complex domains) require  systems to go beyond their
          high level rules into deeper levels of knowledge down to the
          "first principles"  of the  field. For example,  new designs
          often  hinge on  modifying  existing  assumptions about  the
          world. These  modifications cause changes in  the high level
          rules about the world.   Clearly, the processes of identify-
          ing the modifications to be made and deducing the changes to
          the rules require deeper levels of knowledge.

          We propose  a hierarchical,  prototype-based scheme  for the
          representation and interpretation of the different levels of
          knowledge  required by  an  intelligent  design system  that
          functions in a world of complex devices. We choose design as
          the target  task because it  requires both the  analysis and
          synthesis of solutions and thus covers much of problem solv-
          ing.  This work is a part of a larger effort in developing a
          parallel approach to complex problem solving.

*Abstract2*

Vision:

In this short overview of current interest in Computer Vision at Yorktown,
we will be discussing issues in:

    a) Incorporation of complex shape representation (e.g. Extended Gaussian
Images) into parallel visual recognition systems.
    b) Improvement of recognition behavior through the incorporation of
multiple sources of information (e.g. contour, motion, texture)
    c) A possible mechanism for focus of attention in highly parallel,
connectionist vision systems  (an approach to indexing into a large data
base of objects in such vision systems).

Detailed solutions will be sparse as the work is beginning and is just through
the proposal stage.  The issues, however, are relevant to any visual
recognition system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Nov 1984  13:04 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Editing
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


        Wednesday,  Nov 7       4:00pm      8th floor playroom

               CREF: A Cross-Referenced Editing Facility
                 for the Knowledge Engineer's Assistant


                             Kent M. Pitman


I will present a critical analysis of a tool I call CREF (Cross
Referenced Editing Facility), which I developed this summer at the Human
Cognition Research Laboratory of the Open University in Milton Keynes,
England. CREF was originally designed to fill a very specific purpose in
the KEA (Knowledge Engineer's Assistant) project, but appears to be of
much more general utility than I had originally intended and I am
currently investigating its status as a ``next generation'' general
purpose text editor.

CREF might be described as a cross between Zmacs, Zmail, and the Emacs
INFO subsystem. Its capabilities for cross referencing, summarization,
and linearized presentation of non-linear text put it in the same family
as systems such as NLS, Hypertext, and Textnet.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 84 10:20:54 cst
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Program Debugging
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


     Heuristic and Formal Methods in Automatic Program Debugging
                                  by
                          William R. Murray

                         noon  Friday Nov. 9
                               PAI 3.38

  I will discuss the implementation of an automatic debugging system for
pure LISP functions written to solve small but nontrivial tasks.  It  is
intended to be the  expert module of  an intelligent tutoring  system to
teach LISP.  The debugger uses both heuristic and formal methods to find
and correct bugs  in student  programs.   Proofs  of correctness  of the
debugged definitions are generated for  verification by the Boyer  Moore
Theorem Prover.

   Heuristic methods are used  in algorithm identification, the  mapping
of stored functions to student functions, the generation of verification
conditions, and in the localization  of bugs.   Formal methods  are used
in a  case  analysis  which  detects  bugs,  in  symbolic  evaluation of
functions, and in the verification of results.  One of the main roles of
the theorem prover is to represent intensionally an infinite database of
all possible rewrite rules.

 - Regards,
      Bill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3-Nov-84 21:33 PST
-FROM-
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD
     <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS - CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE -- 1985
-BODY-
Conference On Softway Maintenance -- 1985

   Wahsington, D.C., Nov. 11-13

The conference will be sponsored by the Association For Women in Computing, the
Data Processing Management Association, the Institute for Electrical &
Electronics Engineers, Inc., the National Bureau of Standards and the Special
Interest Groups on Software Maintenance in cooperation with the Special
Interest
Group on Software Engineering.

Papers are being solicited in the following areas:

   controlling software maintenance
   software maintenance careers and education
   case studies -- successes and failures
   configuration management
   maintenance of distributed, embedded, hybrid and real-time systems
   debugging code
   developing maintainance documentation and environments
   end-user maintenance
   software maintenance error distribution
   software evolution
   software maintenance metrics
   software retirement/conversion
   technololgy transfer
   understanding the software maintainer

Submission deadline is Feb. 4, and 5 double-spaced copies are required.  Papers
should range from 1,000 to 5,000 words in length.

The first page must include the title and a maximum 250-word abstract; all the
authors' names, affiliations, mailing addresses and telephone numbers; and a
statement of commitment that one of the authors will present the paper at the
conference if it is accepted.

Submit papers and panel session proposals to: Roger Martin (CMS-85), National
Bureau of Standards, Building 225, Room B266, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3-Nov-84 21:33 PST
-FROM-
From: William Daul - Augmentation Systems - McDnD
     <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CALL FOR PAPER -- 1985 Symposium On Security And Privacy
-BODY-
1985 Symposium On Security And Privacy

   Oakland, Ca., April 21-24

The meet is being sponsored by the Technical Committee on Security and Privacy
and the Institue Of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, Inc.

Papers and panel session proposals are being solicited in the following areas:

   security testing and evaluation
   applications security
   network security
   formal security models
   formal verification
   authentication
   data encryption
   data base secutity
   operating system secutity
   privacy issues
   cryptography protocols

Send three copes of the paper, an extended abstract of 2,000 works or panel
proposal by Dec. 14 to:

   J.K. Millen
   Mitre Corp.
   P.O. Box 208
   Bedford, Mass. 01730

Final papers will be due by Feb. 25 in order to be included in the proceedings.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
151
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 1984  13:20 EST
-FROM-
From: Chunka Mui <CHUNKA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Hardware - Fujitsu Facom Alpha
-BODY-

In a recent issue of Electronic News (I think it was October), there
was an article on AI systems which was interesting.  After the usual
discussion about Symbolics, LMI, and Xerox lisp machines, the article
discussed a Fujitsu machine called the "facom alpha" which was priced
at 90K and which Gary Moskovitz of Xerox described as a "back-end
processor to a main frame."  Now it doesn't seem that 90K for a
back-end processor is much of a bargain, but I think the idea of a
very fast Lisp processing back end for a mainframe is worth looking
at.  To be able to use a 3600 or a Lambda as a development environment
but know that one could ultimately use a mainframe as the execution
environment would, I think, make big business look more kindly upon
potential AI projects.

Has anyone out there seen the Fujitsu machine or know anything about
it?  I like to hear whatever information, thoughts, rumors, etc.
people had on it.  If there is a Fujitsu person out there, I'd be
interested in hearing from you.

I'd also like to know what kind of thoughts people had on this topic:
lisp back ends for mainframes that can roughly compare with the
various lisp machines as oppose to single user work station that are
used now.  Is anyone working on such a thing here in the U.S.?

Thanks,

     Chunka Mui
     Chunka%mit-oz@mit-mc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 14:53:19-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal of Intelligent Systems
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I have received very brief information on a journal to appear in 1985.
The Journal of Intelligent Systems will be published by Freund Publishing
House Ltd., London England for $120 per year, a quarterly.  The editors
are Frank George, Les Johnson, and Mike Wright of Brunel University,
Uxbridge England. The managing editor is Mrs. Alison Lovejoy, AA
publishing Services, London England.  The Aims and Scopes are described
as follows:

...to provide research and review papers on an interdisciplinary level, where
the focal point is the field of intelligent systems.  This field includes:
the empirical study and modelling of natural intelligent systems (human
beings and also relevant studies in evolutionary theory and biology);
the theoretical analysis of possible systems which could display intelligence,
the development and enhancement of intelligent systems (eg learning theories)
the designing of intelligent systems (or the application of intelligent systems
concepts to the design of semi-intelligent machines) and the philosophical
aspects of the field of intelligent systems.

It is believed that technological advances in such areas as robotics and
knowledge based systems are facilitated by interdisciplinary communcication.
Additionally, those sciences which are concerned with the understanding of
human intelligence stand to gain by such a dialogue.

In keeping with the interdisciplinary intent of the journal, papers will be
written for general professional readership.  It is therefore important
that technical jargon should be avoided, or it used , shld be made
explicit...........


An editorial board of 20 is being formed at present.  If anyone has any
information or opinions about this publication, please let me know.
Does it sound like something I should order for the Math/CS Library?

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 11:24:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Markets
-BODY-
I just got a flier from AIM Publications, P.O. Box 156, Natick, MA 01760.
They are planning a newsletter, Artificial Intelligence Markets, to
track the AI business world starting in January 1985.  The price is
$255 regular, $195 charter, $380 2-year, and $550 3-year for 12 issues
per year of eight pages each.

The flier claims this to be the ONLY publication dedicated to covering
commercial AI (also DoD and Fifth Generation coverage).  Perhaps they
aren't aware of the AI Report from AI Publications (95 first st., Los
Altos, CA  94022), or of the Georgia Tech (?) newsletter described in
AIList about six months ago.  I've also heard recently of an "AI and
its Applications" newsletter, but have no details.

The flier does mention levels of AI investment by U.S. companies, and
claims that the current AI market of $125 million (36% software, 12%
intelligent robots, 52% LISP workstations) will expand to $4,440 million
by 1990: 43% software (7% LISP, 13% expert system tools, 5% natural
language, 8% programming languages, 8% military, 2% other), 15%
intelligent robots, 28% LISP workstations, 11% other processors, and
3% AI communications.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Nov 84 15:32:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Intelligence News Digest
-BODY-
From the November issue of IEEE Spectrum, p. 123:

Yet another newsletter covering the field of artificial intelligence
has been announced, but this time it comes from the United Kingdom.
Machine Intelligence News Digest is the first British news publication
to monitor artificial intelligence on a monthly basis.  It will
concentrate on the existing and potential applications of AI and
their impact on the industrial and commercial world.  It will also
include a calendar of events and a publication review section.
Regular coverage will be given to artificial vision and speech
recognition, AI languages such as LISP, integrating intelligent
machines with computer-aided systems, and AI research programs.
These include the DARPA effort in the United States, the fifth-
generation project in Japan, and the Esprit program in France.

The monthly newsletter costs 110 pounds annually ($140).  Subscription
information is available by writing the publisher, Oyez Scientific
and Technical Services Ltd., Bath House, 3rd Fl., 56 Holborn Viaduct,
London EC1A 2EX, England; or calling 01-236-4080.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 84 14:06:29 EST
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomy of malgorithms.
-BODY-
Now that the concept of malgorithms has been defined it behooves us as
serious scientists to classify the different kinds of malgorithms, to
write learned papers in obscure journals, and to generally do everything
to bring scholarly respectability to this heretofore underrecognized area
of computer science. The following is a modest contribution to the
establishment of a taxonomy of malgorithms.

The notion of an optimal algorithm is an old one, and the definition of
of optimality in time, say, or in storage is straightforward. The little
"o" and the big "O" notation is well established and suffices to define
the complexity of an algorithm (except for a constant or two), and thus
permits the comparison of two algorithms for the same problem. The optimal
algorithm is therefore simply that algorithm which has the lowest
time complexity for any given problem. Often it is possible to prove
mathematically that the best possible algorithm for a given class of problems
cannot do better than some lower bound.

The converse of this, the worst possible algorithm, is not as easily defined.
Is the worst possible algorithm one that never finishes, while wiping
out every piece of storage and tying up your computer until you unplug
it? Or, more insidious, does this algorithm appear to run normally,
generate recognizable output, but produce results that are subtly wrong,
so wrong as to cause maximum damage when the results are used?

If we restrict our considerations only to those algorithms that
actually produce the correct result, but do so in the longest possible
time, we run into other problems. The concept of 'longest possible time'
is ill-defined, since we do not know the temporal extent of the
universe. Neglecting for the moment the relatively trivial problem
of how to keep a computer running forever ( a hardware problem, and
therefore not worthy of our consideration), we still need to
define some upper bounds on the time intervals we are considering.

Assumption 1: The universe will exist forever.
Definition 1: Any algorithm that runs forever before it produces the
correct result is a member of the class "Aleph Zero". Extensions
to algorithms that take longer than this are made in the obvious way
(i.e. classes aleph one etc.). The development of such an algorithm
is left as an exercise to the reader.

Assumption 2: The universe will exist until some terminal
climactic event.
Definition 2: Any algorithm that runs a finite amount of time,
and produces its output at the last moment of existence, is a
member of the class "Gabriel". (members of non-christian
religions may wish to substitute a climactic event of their own
choice).

While the classes thus far defined would appear to specify
theoretical upper bounds for malgorithm execution times, some
practitioners may be concerned with malgorithms that take into
account the limitations of present hardware configurations. While
this kind of pandering to mechanical strictures is abhorrent
to every theoretician, some precedents exist in the literature,
and we will accordingly briefly touch upon the subject here.

Suppose we have devised a malgorithm which can run an arbitrary
amount of time before producing its result. The task now becomes
one of maximizing this time, subject to the constraints formed
by the finite MTBF of the hardware, and the equally finite tolerance
threshold of the person waiting for the result.

Definition 3: Any malgorithm which produces its output at the last
possible instant before either the hardware fails, or the user
terminates the program is a member of class "Epsilon".

As an aside, malgorithms of this class will usually require some
additions to the operating system to recognize an attempt to
cancel the program execution. Hardware modifications, in the
form of energy storage systems to permit the program to
print its output after the frustrated user has pulled the power
plug, will probably also be necessary.

It should be noted that malgorithms of class "Epsilon" have
an unfortunate flaw: since they produce output whenever they are
terminated by the user, they are also the fastest possible
algorithms for any problem, being limited only by the speed with
which the user can pull the plug. Once malgorithms of this class
have become established, future work in computational speedup
will likely focus on fast switches for power cutoff.

Now that we have defined some upper bounds on theoretical
malgorithm performance, we would like to define some additional
classes of actual malgorithms, primarily for taxonomic purposes.

The classes below are only a beginning, and the reader is invited
to contribute additional definitions and examples to the discussion.
The classes are not maximal or minimal in any sense, but merely define
some categories of malgorithms. Example malgorithms should be easily
recognized as falling into one or another of the classes defined.

Definition 4: Malgorithms which employ recursion to solve a problem
for which there exists a closed form solution are members of class
"Fibonacci".

Definition 5: Malgorithms which solve a problem by exhaustive generation
of all permutations, when there is any alternative solution, are
members of class "Salesman".

Definition 6: Malgorithms which apply a general algorithm to the wrong
size problem are members of class "Heapsort".
Example: Heapsort applied to the list 1,3,2.

Definition 7: Malgorithms for Monte-Carlo solutions to analytic
functions are members of class "Pi".

Definition 8: Malgorithms which provide a solution to a problem by
solving a more complex isomorphic problem are members of the class
"Gauss".
Example: Multiplication of two numbers by adding their logarithms.

Definition 9: Malgorithms which perform redundant computations
are members of class "Sheep".
Example: Determining the number of sheep in a herd by counting
the number of legs and dividing by four.

It should be noted that the classes proposed here are neither
exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive. Most current
programs contain algorithms which upon inspection are really
malgorithms that fall into one or more of the classes here
defined. It is our devout hope that this short note will lead to
a more intensive investigation of this much neglected area of
computer science. The author is convinced that this area
can provide subject matter for several Ph.D. dissertations
at the more mathematically rigorous institutions of higher
learning, and wishes to express his gratitude to the contributors
to the Ailist, who have given the impetus for this important work.


Biesel@Rutgers.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 11:30:22 cst
-FROM-
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: data structures + malgorithms =
-BODY-
It is clear that there are many more malgorithms than problems, if for no
other reason than we all have more solutions than problems.  The real
science of malgorithms is to find really useful applications of good
malgorithms beyond the trivial ones of classroom and textbook examples.

To my surprise there really are such uses, or there is at least one.
The other day I was talking with an attorney about copyrighting programs.
He says that in copyright cases in which there is some question of
authorship, judges are often impressed by "fingerprints" embedded in
software.  The usual kind of fingerprint is a copyright notice
buried in block 0 of an index file, variable names which form a code
for the author's name, etc.  But he says the most effective fingerprints
are sections of code so poorly designed and written that their inclusion
in the software must have been intentional, since nobody would be stupid
enough to use such sloppy techniques in their normal practice.
In court, to prove you wrote the program, you simply point out the bad parts
to the judge and claim that, since you are an expert, the only way that code
could have gotten there was by your intentionally inserting a fingerprint.

A nice side effect of this technique is that we now have a good excuse to
give to grad students and others who discover malgorithms in our programs.  We
simply say that we are preparing to protect our copyright.

So here we have the birth of a new discipline.  Not only do we have the
design and analysis of malgorithms; we now have applications of malgorithms
as well.  The question is, are there any other applications?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 1984 1201-PST
-FROM-
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI-20B@UCI-750a>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Program Description - Social Impacts of Computing, UC-Irvine
-BODY-
                                CORPS

                        Graduate Education in
            Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society
               at the University of California, Irvine

     This graduate concentration at the University of California,
Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.

     The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in
the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and
PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).
Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social
dimensions of computing.

     The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's.  The faculty and
students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the
social sciences.

     The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of
inquiry:

 1.  Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
     computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
     society.

 2.  Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational
     worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
     disseminated, deployed, and sustained.

 3.  Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
     deployment and use of computer-based technologies.

 4.  Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
     development and use of computing in pro-social ways.


     Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
command and control systems, and computing at home.  The questions
vary from study to study.  They have included questions about the
effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
and their social carrying costs.

     CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation -

(i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,

(ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
      organizations,

(iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
      vivo" in ordinary settings, and

(iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.



         Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS


     The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal
graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM.  Admission requirements for
this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in
ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM.  Students with varying backgrounds are
encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research
promise.

     The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold
appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Graduate School of Management.  Additional faculty in the School
of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have
collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS
students.  Research is administered through an interdisciplinary
research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the
Public Policy Research Organization.

Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration
should write to:

          Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci)
          Department of Information and Computer Science
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5955 or 856-7403

                                or to:

          Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci)
          Graduate School of Management
          University of California, Irvine
          Irvine, Ca. 92717
          714-856-5246

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
152
-DATE-
Date: 10 Nov 84 18:53:18 PST (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: Mark Sabiers <Sabiers.es@XEROX.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Sabiers.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The names of bands
-BODY-
The enclosed message came through net.music (uucp) and Info-Music
(ARPA).  Thought it was appropriate to this list.

Mark


  Subject: Artificial Intelligence
  Date: 8 Nov 84 04:46:12 GMT
  Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
  From: "N.BRISTOL" <bristol@hou2h.uucp.ARPA>

  Has anyone heard of a band called
  Artificial Intelligence?  I heard a
  tune on the radio and I would like to know more
  about the band.
  RSVP by mail or the net, I don't care.

  Gil Bristol
  AT&T Consumer Products
  Neptune, NJ
  hou2h!bristol

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri Nov  9 1984 13:22:59
-FROM-
From: Yigal Arens <arens%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Strange new languages
-BODY-

As if we didn't have enough trouble with Sastric Sanskrit, last Wednesday's
LA Times contains a story about wonderful advances in machine translation
using an Indian language (Aymara) which "according to some historians [was
constructed by] wise men from scratch, by logical, premeditated design, as
early as 4,000 years ago."  How "some historians" know this remains a
mystery, all the more so since according to the article there are hardly any
written records of the langauge.

Anyway, a Bolivian mathematician, Ivan Guzman de Rojas, has devised a system
for machine translation using this language as a "bridge".

        "Sitting at a computer terminal, Guzman de Rojas demonstrates by
         typing a tricky Spanish sentence: `La mujer que vino ayer tomo
         vino.'  Less than a second after he pushes a button, five
         translations flash on the screen and roll off a printer.  The
         English reads: `the woman who came yesterday drank wine.'

        "The system is remarkable, according to US and Canadian experts, not
         only for its speed and versatility, but its ability to sort out
         ambiguities.  Other systems, they say, cannot distinguish between
         uses of the word `vino' - which can mean `came' or `wine' - without
         an awkward modification of the computer logic."

The article is full of inaccuracies concerning machine translation.

It claims that Wang has recently given Guzman de Rojas $50,000 plus a
$100,000 computer "to refine his system."

Anybody know more about this?

Yigal Arens
USC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Nov 1984 11:59-PST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sastric Sanskrit & Language Degeneration
-BODY-

        By "has begun", I meant since the mid-nineteenth century.
Since the time frame I have been writing in is measured by millenia,
one century qualifies for "has begun".
        Anyway, I wonder what Bill Poser means by saying:
"But that does not mean that the *language* degenerates--only that
its use degenerates."  If a language is abused to a large extent by
its speakers, has it not degenerated?  What seems to be implied
here is that there is some abstract "language" prototype which
exists independent of use.  If this is so, violations to this prototype
are degeneration.  This is exactly the point of view of Panini etc.
The Indian and Greek cultures considered language to be a primary
component of culture(in the Indian case, language IS culture: the word
Aryan originally meant one who spoke Aryan language(i.e. Sanskrit)).
To illustrate what I mean by degeneration, consider a group of
primitives who begin to use language.  They begin with primitive
grunts to signify essential notions such as "food".  Later, they find
that the machinery of the language does not allow the expression of
concepts.  Thus the langauge evolves and evolves.  The ultimate
evolution is reached  when a language can express all notions in the
realms of the physical, emotional, conceptual, and spiritual in
a concise unambiguous way.  Sastric Sanskrit may indeed be that
language(or close to it).  Now the less lofty of the population
find no need to use such words as "none other than", "agreeing with
no other", "activity conducive towards existence" etc. (these are words
in Sastric Sanskrit).  So they cease to use the complex machinery
and revert to simple formatrions to express what they need to.
If there is no prescription, or encouragement in the educational
process to stick to the higher form of the language, the more popular
masses(consider television) will produce a pressure on the less numerous
scholarly class, and the language will begin to revert backwards.
This is exactly what happened to Sanskrit.  The "Prakrits" and "Apabrahmshas"
eventually turned Sanskrit into Hindi, Bengali etc., which do not
have the sophisticated machinery Sastric Sanskrit had.  In other words,
where one word in the Sastra signified a concept, an entire sentence
is now needed in the degenerated form of the language.  I believe this
is also the pattern which Proto-Indo-European followed, and which
English is following now.

        Once again, Sastric Sanskrit is a natural language.  But what
exactly is a natural language?  Is it existence of native speakers
(as Bill Poser suggests), or is it something about the nature of te
language itself?  Whether consciously or not, Linguists and NLP
people think of natural languages as necessarily being ambiguous
and very different from the predicate calculus.  What the existence of
the Sastra indicates is that the definition of natural language
should be changed.  I would say that a natural language is one which
1) is used
2) which has the ability to express naturally, all the various aspects
of the natural world.
Thus, if Esperanto were used in a culture, it would be a natural
language. Mathematics cannot naturally express poetic notions, it
is defined over only a small aspect of the natural world.  Sastric
Sanskrit(so I have been told by Sanskrit experts) had(and may still
have) native speakers. It is also capable of expressing anything any
other natural language can express.  You can write philosophy or
poetry in the Sastra.  I challenge anybody to find a sentence in
any language which cannot be expressed using the machinery of
Sastric Sanskrit.
        I think the real point is that the Sastra is a bridge
between the natural and artificial and challenges common notions
of what the boundary is.  One conclusion I would make is that
it is possible for a child to be raised speaking totally
unambiguously from birth and never suffer from lack of expression
or cumbersomeness.  As an interlingua, Sastra would be great
because it can codify with exactitude and make inferences naturally,
and yet poetic notions can be coded and not lost on the target
language.

Rick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 07:41:30-CST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Temin <CS.Temin@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: convenient problem solving representations
-BODY-
There was a conference on knowledge representation and languages at the
Applied Physics Lab of Johns Hopkins from Oct 29-31.  One of the main
issues was that current programming languages force one to use
primitives that map well to a machine, but badly to most problem
domains.  Thus there are two problems: What primitives are appropriate
for a given problem domain and how can one map those into an executable
module on a given machine?

Jean Sammet from IBM contended that many problem-domain specific
languages already exist, but obviously there aren't enough or everyone
would be pretty content by now.  What is seems we need are guidelines to
help with these questions.

These are questions for all computer scientists, but especially those of
us in AI who have spent time developing new knowledge representations
rather than implementing old ones.

>Aaron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 November 1984 1227-EST
-FROM-
From: Staci Quackenbush@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Rule-Based Debugging System
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        Name:   Bernd Bruegge
        Date:   November 12, 1984
        Time:   3:30 - 4:30
        Place:  WeH 5409
        Title:  "PATH RULES:  Debugging as a Rule-Based Activity


Debugging has often been considered an ad hoc technique with no underlying
model for the user. In this talk we show how debugging can be viewed as a
rule based activity. Rule based systems have been used extensively in the
area of artifical intelligence. We demonstrate that they can be quite useful
in the area of debugging.

We have designed and implemented a language called PATH RULES. Several
examples of PATH RULES on the implementer as well as on the user level are
given: We show how rules can be used in the design of the command language,
the implementation of debugging mechanisms (breakpoints, tracing, etc),
screen layout, dialog control and multiple process debugging problems.
PATH RULES have been used in the implementation of the Interim Spice
Debugger KRAUT. KRAUT is a remote, source oriented debugger for Pascal
running under the Accent Operating system and is currently being modified
for Ada.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 09:32:17 pst
-FROM-
From: (Julia D. Snyder [csam]) julia@lbl-csam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - PROLOG Static Data Dependency Analysis
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the LBL distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


       High Performance Execution of PROLOG Programs
         Based on a Static Data Dependency Analysis
                             by
                     Jung-Herng Chang*
                    (UCB Aquarius Group)

                 Room:  Bldg. 50B Rm. 4205
                  Date:  November 12, 1984
               Time:  10:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

Outline
     What is PROLOG ?  Why is it an important symbolic manipulation
     language? The Performance of executing PROLOG programs has been
     improved by going from interpreters to compilers, and then to
     special hardware (e.g. the PLM Machine at UCB).  What is the next
     step to improve performance?  This talk begins with an introduction
     to PROLOG, followed by a discussion of more advanced topics in PROLOG.
     A methodology for a static data dependency analysis for PROLOG is
     introduced, as well as its applications to the PLM Machine and a
     parallel execution environment.

*The speaker is also affiliated with ACAL LBL.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 08:49:27-PST
-FROM-
From: name AAAI-OFFICE <AAAI@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85 Call
-BODY-

                                IJCAI-85
                             CALL FOR PAPERS

The IJCAI conferences are the main forum for the presentation of Artificial
Intelligence research to an international audience.  The goal of the IJCAI-85
is to promote scientific interchange, within and between all subfields of AI,
among researchers from all over the world.  The conference is sponsored by the
International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Inc., and
co-sponsored by the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).
IJCAI-85 will be held at the University of California, Los Angeles from
August 18 through August 24, 1985.

        * Tutorials: August 18-19; Technical Sessions: August 20-24

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Authors are invited to submit papers of substantial, original, and previously
unreported research in any aspect of AI, including:

* AI architectures and languages
* AI and education (including intelligent CAI)
* Automated reasoning (including theorem proving, automatic programming,plan-
  ning, search, problem solving, commensense, and qualitative reasoning)
* Cognitive modelling
* Expert systems
* Knowledge representation
* Learning and knowledge acquisition
* Logic programming
* Natural language (including speech)
* Perception (including visual, auditory, tactile)
* Philosophical foundations
* Robotics
* Social, economic and legal implications


REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION

Authors should submit 4 complete copies of their paper.  (Hard copy only, no
electronic submissions.)

        * LONG PAPERS: 5500 words maximum, up to 7 proceedings pages
        * SHORT PAPERS: 2200 words maximum, up to 3 proceedings pages

Each paper will be stringently reviewed by experts in the topic area specified.
Acceptance will be based on originality and significance of the reported
research, as well as the quality of its presentation.  Applications clearly
demonstrating the power of established techniques, as well as thoughtful
critiques of previously published material will be considered, provided that
they point the way to new research and are substantive scientific contributions
in their own right.

Short papers are a forum for the presentation of succinct, crisp results.
They are not a safety net for long paper rejections.

In order to ensure appropriate refereeing, authors are requested to
specify in which of the above topic areas the paper belongs, as well
as a set of no more than 5 keywords for further classification within
that topic area.  Because of time constraints, papers requiring major
revisions cannot be accepted.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION

The following information must be included with each paper:

        * Author's name, address, telephone number and net address
          (if applicable);
        * Topic area (plus a set of no more than 5 keywords for
          further classification within the topic area.);
        * An abstract of 100-200 words;
        * Paper length (in words).

The time table is as follows:

        * Submission deadline: 7 January 1985 (papers received after
          January 7th will be returned unopened)
        * Notification of Acceptance: 16 March 1985
        * Camera Ready copy due: 16 April 1985

Contact Points

Submissions should be sent to the Program Chair:

        Aravind Joshi
        Dept of Computer and Information Science
        University of Pennsylvania
        Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA

General inquiries should be directed to the General Chair:

        Alan Mackworth
        Dept of Computer Science
        University of British Columbia
        Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5

Inquiries about program demonstrations (including videotape system
demonstrations) and other local arrangements should be sent to
the Local Arrangements Chair:

        Steve Crocker
        The Aerospace Corporation
        P.O. Box 92957
        Los Angeles, CA 90009 USA

Inquiries about tutorials, exhibits, and registration should be
sent to the AAAI Office:

        Claudia Mazzetti
        American Association for Artificial Intelligence
        445 Burgess Drive
        Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
153
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 84 14:54:08 est
-FROM-
From: FRAWLEY <20568%vax1%udel-cc-relay.delaware@udel-relay.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Degeneration
-BODY-
I'd like to make a few comments on Briggs' statements on language
degeneration and Sanskrit, English, etc. The idea that a language
degenerates stems from the 19th century biological metaphor which
has been refuted for at least 100 years. Language is not alive; people
are. We in linguistics know that "language death" is a metaphor and
has almost nothing to do with the language as a system; it has everything
to do with the sociocultural conditions on speaking and the propagation
of cultural groups.

How can it be reasonably said that a language degenerates if it is
abused? What do you mean by "abused"??? If "abused" means "speaking in
short sentences," then everyone "abuses" the language, even the most
ardent pedants. Language indeed changes, but it does not degrade.

Briggs says that violations of the prototype are degenerations. This
is true by definition only. And this definition can be accepted only
if one also adheres to a Platonic notion of language history, wherein
the pure metaphysical Ursprache is degraded by impure shadowy manifestations
in the real world. Maybe Briggs is a Platonist, but then he's not saying
anything about the real world.

Popular use does NOT imply a reversion or "reversal" of progress
in language change. There is no progress in language change: a change
in one part of the system over time which complicates the system
generally causes a simplification in another part of the system.
So, Hoenigswald said that languages maintain about 50% redundancy
over time.

What is the "sophisticated machinery" Briggs talks about? I suspect that
he means that he thinks that language which have a lot of morphology
and are synthetic are somehow "more sophisticated" than "our poor
unfortunate English," which is analytic and generally free of
morpho-syntactic markings. Honestly, the idea that a synthetic language
is "better" than a degraded analytic English is another remnant of
the 19th century (where neo-Platonism also reigned).

The evolution of analytic languages from synthetic versions (i.e.,
pure to degraded) is not only charged with moral claims, but it is also
wrong.

1. Finnish has retained its numerous case markings over time, as has
Hungarian.

2. Colloquial Russian has begun to add case markings (instrumental in
the predicate nominative).

3. English is losing overt marking of the subjunctive: are we therefore
less able to express subjunctive ideas? Is English becoming (GOOD GOD!)
non-subjunctive, non-hypothetical....

If Briggs is right, then he himself is contributing to the degradation
by his very speech to his friends. (I, of course, don't believe this.)

Finally, if Briggs is right about the characteristics of natural language,
then any natural language can be a bridge, not necessarily Sanskrit. And
this claim is tantamount to saying only that translation is possible.

Bill Frawley

Address: 20568.ccvax1@udel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 1984 18:02:20 EST
-FROM-
From: MERDAN@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: balgorithms
-BODY-
Here are couple balgorithms that I encountered on a single microprocessor
project.  Neither of these balgorithms appeared the slightest bit bad to
their authors, and one of them was insulted when I pointed out how bad
his approach really was.

Balgorithm #1

Problem
  Perform error correction for a 15,11 Hamming code on an 8 bit micro
  (Intel 8008).

Original solution
  Implement a feedback shift register with error trapping logic as with
  a BCH code.  Approximately 600 bytes of tricky code was required.

Better solution
  Use the classic error dectection matrix method.  I believe about 100
  bytes of obvious code was required.

Balrgorithm #2

Problem
  Calculate horizontal and vertical parity for a sequence of 5 bit char-
  acters and tack them on at end of the sequence.

Original solution
  Pick up each character and count the number of 1s by masking out each
  bit with a separate mask, packing the resultant bit into a 5 bit word
  on the fly. About 1500 bytes of very buggy code resulted.

Better solution
  Treat the sequence in blocks of 5 characters.  For each block prestore
  a pattern assuming that parity is even.  Pick up each character, determine
  its parity (the load did this on the 8008), and clear the pattern for that
  character.  Or the patterns together, producing the result.  About 150
  bytes of mostly straight line code resulted.

Even better solution
  Don't calculate parity in software but let the UART hardware generate
  and check the parity.

Comment
  In both cases I feel that the justification for the original solution
  was that programmer wanted to do some tricky coding just to prove that
  he could do it rather than understand the problem first.  This tendency
  does not seem to be going away as fast as we all would like it.


Thanks

Terry Arnold

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 1984 11:40-EDT
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project Report - IU via Dialectical Image Processing (DIP)
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from Vision-List by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Just read the summary of DARPA IU effort which I find very interesting.
By coincidence, we submitted this week to DARPA a summary of our current
efforts in "Dialectical Pattern Processing".  Although phrased in
broader terms, much of this effort is also directed toward IU.  We
enclose a copy of the report in the possible interest of the vision-list
readership.  -- JDI

10/7/84
                  DARPA Research Summary Report
             I M I  Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri
         Project Title:  Dialectical Pattern Processing


Overview.    Earlier  work  [1] has demonstrated  unusual  low-level
intelligence features in dialectical processing of string  patterns.
This  effort  extends  dialectical processing to  2-D  arrays,  with
applications in machine-vision.   I M I  Corporation is an innovator
in Dialectical Image Processing (DIP),  a new subfield in very  low-
level vision (VLLV) research.   Dialectics is an elusive doctrine of
philosophy and (non-standard) logic that can be traced from Plato to
Hegel  and beyond,  but that has never lent itself to be grounded in
precise  formalisms or in computing machines.   Certain  influential
philosophies  hold  that  the   universe  operates  in  accord  with
dialectical  processes,  culminating  in  the  activity  of  thought
processes.   This  effort builds on the fact that [1] discloses  the
first and only machine implementation of dialectical processes.

Objectives.     A broad long-term objective is to test  a   working-
hypothesis  that  states that dialectical processes are  fundamental
ingredients,   in  addition  to  certain  others,  in  autonomically
emergent intelligences. Intelligences that bootstrap themselves in a
bottom-up   fashion  fall  into  this  category.    More   immediate
objectives  are  (1) to demonstrate the technical feasibility  of  a
small  number  of VLSI chips to host a dialectical image  processor,
and (2) to evaluate the type of intelligence inherent in networks of
dialectical processors, with emphasis on learning.

Approach.   A  mix  of  activities includes software  simulation  of
dialectical  networks  for  image  processing;  VLSI-based  hardware
design  for  dialectical  image processors;  and assessment  of  the
learning capabilities inherent in the above-mentioned systems.

Current  Status & Future Plans.     Consideration of the possibility
of  dialectical  processing began in the  early  Sixties.   By  now,
theoretical  foundations have been laid and  dialectical  processing
has been amply demonstrated in strings and in 2-D arrays (see Fig. 1
&  Fig.  2 below) to the point where it appears to support a  viable
new  computer-vision technology.   Feasibility studies in the design
of  VLSI-based DIPs have shown that reasonably large  DIPs  (100x100
pixels)  will fit into a single card and can be readily implemented,
at least for experimentation.   Scant   resources limit the scope of
some and preclude others of the activities listed below,  which  are
considered important to the advancement of this technology.

*   Run software simulations of DIP on better equipment (e.g.,  Lisp
machine or BION workstation) and attempt to extend effort to 3-D.

*  Implement in VLSI hardware a prototype of a moderate size DIP.

*  Attempt to specialize other vast parallel networks (e.g., Hillis'
Connection   Machine  [2]  or  Fahlman's  Boltzmann  Machine)   into
dialectical image processors.

*   Specialize  a  network  of  dialectical  processors  to  support
low-level machine learning by analogy and metaphor.


            Fig. 1 - DIP Analysis of a Plane Silhouette
                 [Graphics will be sent by US Mail]

   Fig. 2 - Selected Steps from DIP Analysis of a Tank Silhouette
                 [Graphics will be sent by US Mail]

Resources and Participants.   Available resources are limited.   The
list  of participants includes:  Joel D.  Isaacson,  PhD,  Principal
Investigator;   Eliezer Pasternak,  MSEE,  Project Engineer;   Steve
Mueller,  BS/CS,  Programmer;  Ashok Jain, MS/CS, Research Assistant
(SIU-E).


Products,  Demonstrable Results,  Contact Points.   Certain products
and  results are proprietary and included in patent applications  in
progress.   Software  simulation of DIP can be readily demonstrated.
A  version  written  in Pascal for the IBM  PC/XT  is  available  on
request.    Point  of  contact:   Dr.  Joel  D.  Isaacson,   I  M  I
Corporation,  20 Crestwood Drive,  St. Louis, Missouri 63105, Phone:
(314) 727-2207, (ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA).


References

[1]  Isaacson, J. D., "Autonomic String-Manipulation System,"  U. S.
Patent No. 4,286,330, August 25, 1981.

[2]  Hillis,  W.  D.,  "The Connection Machine," Report AIM-646, The
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Sept. 1981.

Acknowledgements

Supported  by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency  of  the
Department of Defense under ONR Contract No.  N00014-82-C-0303.  The
P.I.   gratefully  acknowledges additional support and encouragement
received   from  the  Department  of  Mathematics,  Statistics,  and
Computer  Science,  Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 13:23:13 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok@ucbcogsci (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Spatial Representation in Rats
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

   TIME:                Tuesday, November 13, 11 - 12:30
   PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
   DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        C.  R.  Gallistel,  Psychology   Department,
                University  of  Pennsylvania;   Center for
                Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

TITLE:          ``The rat's representation  of  navigational
                space:   Evidence  for  a  purely  geometric
                module''

ABSTRACT:       When the rat is shown the location of hidden
                food  and  must subsequently find that loca-
                tion, it  relies  strongly  upon  a  spatial
                representation  that  preserves  the  metric
                properties of the enclosure (the large scale
                shape   of  the  environment)  but  not  the
                nongeometric characteristics  (color,  lumi-
                nosity, texture, smell) of the surfaces that
                define the space.  As a result,  the  animal
                makes   many  ``rotational''  errors  in  an
                environment that has a rotational  symmetry,
                looking in the place where the food would be
                if the environment  were  rotated  into  the
                symmetrically  interchangeable position.  It
                does   this   even   when   highly   salient
                nongeometric   properties  of  the  surfaces
                should enable it to avoid these costly rota-
                tional  errors.   Evidence is presented that
                the   rat   notes   and   remembers    these
                nongeometric properties and can use them for
                some purposes, but cannot directly use  them
                to   establish  positions  in  a  remembered
                space, even when it would be highly advanta-
                geous  to  do so.  Thus, the rat's position-
                determining system appears to be an encapsu-
                lated  module  in  the Fodorian sense.  Con-
                siderations of possible  computational  rou-
                tines  used to align the currently perceived
                environment  with  the  animal's  map  (it's
                record   of   the   previously   experienced
                environment) suggest reasons why this  might
                be  so.  Old evidence on the finding of hid-
                den food by chimpanzees suggests  that  they
                rely on a similar module.  This leads to the
                conjecture that the module is  universal  in
                higher vertebrates.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 22:51:11 pst
-FROM-
From: Misha Pavel <mis@SU-PSYCH>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Human Memory Capacity & Design of Computer Tools
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


*************************************************************************
                   Two talks by T.K. Landauer:
*************************************************************************

       Some attempts to estimate the functional capacity
                   of human long term memory.

                         T. K. Landauer
               Bell Communications Research, N.J.

Time:  Wednesday, November 14, 1984 at 3:45 pm
Place: Jordan Hall, Building 420, Room 050

How much useful (i.e retrievable)  information  does  a  person's
memory  contain? Not only a curiosity, even an approximate answer
would be useful in guiding theory about underlying mechanisms and
the  design of artificial minds. By considering observed rates at
which knowledge is added to and lost from long-term  memory,  and
the information demands of adult cognition, several different es-
timates were obtained, most within a few orders of  magnitude  of
each other. Obtaining information measures from  performance data
required some novel models of recognition and recall memory  that
also will be described.

>------------------------------------------------------------------

  PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTION: some examples of cognitive research
          applied to the design of new computer tools.

                         T. K. Landauer
               Bell Communications Research, N.J.

Time:  Friday, November 16, 1984 at 3:15 pm
Place: Jordan Hall, Building 420, Room 100

Computers offer the possibility of designing  powerful  tools  to
aid  people  in  cognitive  tasks. When psychological research is
able to determine the factors that currently limit how  well  hu-
mans   perform  a particular cognition-based activity, the design
of effective new computer aids sometimes follows directly. Illus-
trative  examples  will be described in information retrieval and
text-editing applications. In the former, insights leading to in-
vention  came from systematic observations of the actual linguis-
tic behavior of information-seekers, in the latter from  correla-
tions  of task performance with measured and observed differences
in individual characteristics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 84 16:25:11 EST
-FROM-
From: "Paul Levinson" <1303@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Artificial Intelligence and Real Life
-BODY-

     "Artificial Intelligence and Real Life"

     Abstract of talk to be given by Paul Levinson at the New School
for Social Research, November 12, 1984, 8 PM, 66W12th St., NYC.

     Part of the 1984-1985 Colloquium on Philosophy and Technology,
sponsored by the Polytechnic Institute of New York and the New School.


     Talk begins by distinguishing two types of "AI": "auxiliary" or
"augmentative" intelligence (as in mainframes extending and
augmentating the social epistemological enterprise of science, and
micros extending and augmenting thinking and communication on the
individual level), and "autonomous" intelligence, or claims that
computers/robots can or will function as self-operating entities, in
independence of humans after the initial human programming.  The
difference between these two types of AI is akin to the difference
between eyeglasses and eyes.

     Augmentative intelligence on the mainframe scientific level will
be assessed as reducing intractable immensities of data, or allowing
human cognition to process ever larger portions and systems of
information.  Just as the telescope equalizes human vision to the vast
distances of the universe, so computers on the cutting edges of
science make our mental capacities more equal to the vast numerosity
of data we encounter in the macro and micro universes.  The social and
psychological as well as cognitive consequences of micro computers and
the type of instant, intimate, intellectual and personal communication
they allow across distances will be compared to the Freudian
revolution at the turn of the century in its impact upon the human
psyche and the way we perceive ourselves.  Critics of these two types
of computers such as Weizenbaum will be seen as part of a long line of
naive and failed media critics beginning at least as far back as
Socrates, who denounced writing as a "misbegotten image of the spoken
original," certain to be destructive of the intellect (Phaedrus).

     "Expert systems" and "human meat machines" claims for autonomous
intelligence in machines will be examined and found wanting.
Alternative approaches such as Hofstadter's "bottom-up" ideas will be
discussed.  A conception of the evolution of existence in the natural
cosmos as progressing in a subsumptive way from non-living to living
to intelligent material will be introduced, and this model along with
Hofstadter-type critiques will lead to the following conclusion: the
problem with current attempts at autonomous intelligence is that the
machines in which they're situated are not alive, or do not have
enough of the characteristics necessary for the sustenance of the
"living" label.  Put otherwise, the conclusion will be: in order to
have artificial intelligence (the autononous kind), we first must have
artificial life; or: when we indeed have created artificial
intelligences which everyone agrees are truly intelligent and
autonomous, we'll look at these "machines" and say: My God (or
whatever)!  They're alive.

     Practical and moral problems that may arise from the creation of
machines that are more than metaphorically autonomous of their human
producers will be examined.  These machines will most likely be in the
form of robots, since robots can move in the world and interact with
environments in the direct ways characteristic of living organisms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
154
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 84 08:20:48 cst
-FROM-
From: Mohd Nasiruddin <nasir%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Partial Matching
-BODY-

     I am interested in finding information on the extent of
work done in partial matching.

     If anyone can point me towards research in  this  area,
or references, please respond as early as possible.

     Thanks in advance.


                    ---Mohd. Nasiruddin

                    Dept.  Of  Computer  Science,
                    Louisiana State University,
                    Baton Rouge, La 70893.

                    CSNET: <nasir%lsu@csnet-relay>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 15:02:33 -0200
-FROM-
From: jaakov%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Jacob Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Is there a Lisp mailing lists?
-BODY-
        I know of franz-friends@berkeley. Is there some other list of people
who have Symbolics 3600, Maclisp, etc? Thanks for the info,

        Rusty Red (AKA Jacob Levy)

        BITNET:                         jaakov@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP: (if all else fails..)     ..!decvax!humus!wisdom!jaakov

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 84 13:56 MST
-FROM-
From: May%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conversion Between Dialects of Lisp
-BODY-
I'm looking for tools to convert among the following Lisp dialects, with
the potential for going in any direction.  Any replies sent to me will
be published collectively.  Thanks.

 Maclisp, the Multics version
 Interlisp, the GCOS version from the U. of Waterloo
 Franz Lisp
 Common Lisp

Bob May

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 10:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85
-BODY-
_________________________ IJCAI-85 ____________________________________

The call for papers for IJCAI-85  has already been issued. The deadline
is January 7, 1985.  Please send your suggestions for invited speakers,
panels, or any other aspects concerning the technical program to:

     Aravind Joshi, Program Chair IJCAI-85
     Department of Computer and Information Science
     University of Pennsylvania
     Philadelphia, PA 19104
     USA

Clearly, it is impossible to accept all suggestions. However, your
suggestions are very essential and will be carefully considered by the
Program Committee.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 84 11:06 PST
-FROM-
From: Kahn.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LM-Prolog and DCG's
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

In answer to John Burge's questions in V2 #33 [AIList V2 #136]:

My experiences using LM-Prolog have been very positive
but I am surely not an un-biased judge (being one of the
co-authors of the system).   (I am tempted to give a
little ad for LM-Prolog here, but will refrain.  Interested
parties can contact me directly.)

Regarding the Grammar Kit, the main thing that distinguishes
it from other DCGs is that it can continuously maintain a
parse tree.  The tree is drawn as parses are considered and
parts of it disappear upon backtracking.  I have found this
kind of dynamic graphic display very useful for explaining
Prolog and DCGs to people as well as debugging specific
grammars.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:41:37 est
-FROM-
From: FRAWLEY <20568%vax1%udel-cc-relay.delaware@udel-relay.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dialectics & Mel'cuk's Dictionary
-BODY-
Two things:

1. Isaacson has discussed dialectical image processing. There is a considerable
body of information on dialectical psychology and psycholinguistics which
may be of some help theoretically. The work by Klaus Riegel is seminal, as is
the work of the Soviets (esp. Vygotsky and cohorts). Though I know of no work
on vision using dialectical psychology, their work on the dialectics of
perception and cognition might be of use.

Also, the Soviets have made some attempts to develop dialectical logic: i.e.,
some form of a dialectical predicate calculus. I can't remember the references
for this, but I think I ran across it in the 1970 surveys of Soviet thought,
or perhaps in the Soviet studies series (Soviet Philosophy, Psychology, etc.
published by Sharpe). In any case, there have been attempts at formal
dialectic logic (though they may be ideologically charged), and these
studies may help in formalizing algorithms for low-level visual perception
in a dialectical model.

2. More generally for AI: there's a new dictionary out, written by I.A.
Mel'cuk and published by Montreal U. which is the richest formal/linguistic
representation I've seen of the encyclopedic structure of the lexicon.
It combines lexical collocation and a set of 53 relations to generate
the entire lexicon. It is very good for text-generation. But, it's in
French. Bonne chance, mes amis...

Bill Frawley

20568.ccvax1@udel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 84 15:03 CST
-FROM-
From: "Brett D. Slocum" <Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language translation
-BODY-
Ancient Purity and Polyglot Programs
London Sunday Times, November 4th, 1984
John Barnes

    Aymara, an old South American tongue used mainly by Andean peasants and
llama-herders,  has  enabled  a  Bolivian  mathematician to score a notable
first   in   the   increasing  application  of  the  computer  to  language
translation.   Using  it  as an intermediate language, Ivan Guzman de Rojas
has  written  the  first computer program capable of translating an English
text into several other languages simultaneously, rather than one at a time
as could already be done, at speeds of up to 120 words a minute.

    Aymara  is  spoken by 2.5 million people living around Lake Titicaca on
the  border  between  Bolivia  and  Peru.  There is no written form in use;
Aymara  speakers  who  can  write  do so in Spanish, the country's official
language.   Yet  Guzman  discovered  that  it is so logical and pure in its
syntax that it makes an ideal bridging language to a computer.

    Aymara  is rigorous and simple - which means that its syntactical rules
always  apply,  and  can  be written out concisely in the sort of algebraic
shorthand  that computers understand.  Indeed, such is its purity that some
historians think that it did not just evolve, like other languages, but was
actually  constructed  from  scratch  some  4,000 years ago.  It is also so
compact that a few words in it can do the work of dozens in English.

    Canadian  and  American  experts  believe  Guzman's  system is not only
versatile  in  the  range  of languages it can handle, but that it can also
sort  out  ambiguities  in  a  language  as it translates.  This is because
Aymara has a sense of logic that is very different from European languages.

    Guzman,  who  now  runs  a computer consultancy in the capital, La Paz,
says  that while he was teaching mathematics to Aymara children he realised
that  their  language  admitted  an intermediate value of truth or falsity.
That, he said, enabled them to reason about things that were uncertain in a
way  Europeans  could not.  He has spent the past five years developing his
translation program, which he calls Atamiri (the Aymara for interpreter).

    What is even more laudable about Guzman's achievement is that he did it
in  his  spare time, on borrowed computers, without any commercial backing,
in  one  of  the world's poorest countries.  His clients, he says, gave him
free time on their computers at night and over the weekend.

    Guzman  has already turned down the commercial overtures made by one US
computer  giant.  Not surprisingly, he has become a staunch defender of the
Aymara  language,  which is not taught in Bolivian schools and is generally
discouraged as a deadend peasant tongue.

    "It is a disgrace those things can happen on our planet," he says.  "If
I  ever  make  any  money  from  this, I will see that they get books and a
newspaper in their own language."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 84 16:54:43 EST
-FROM-
From: Allen <Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Evolution
-BODY-

         The ultimate evolution is reached  when a language can
        express all notions in the realms of the physical, emotional,
        conceptual, and spiritual in a concise unambiguous way.

The implication here is that there is a point where language *stops*
evolving. This is not the case.  One synchronic example of this diachronic
process is the presence of "dialects" within "languages" (I use these
terms cautiously, as defining them in a strict sense would be impossible
and unnecessary).  Although it might be argued that a written language may
stop evolving while the spoken language went on changing, I sincerely
doubt that this would be feasable.
                                        -Allen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 18:59:17-PST
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What Racter Wrote (from Harper's Magazine, Nov. 1984)
-BODY-
From "The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed," a collection of
prose and poetry  written by a computer.  Racter, as the computer is
called, was programmed (by William Chamberlain) with rules of English
grammer and syntax, as well as an 8000-word vocabulary.  Warner Books,
publisher of "The Policeman's Beard," claims that it is the first book
written by a computer.


Bill sings to Sarah.  Sarah sings to Bill.  Perhaps they will do other
dangerous things together.  They may eat lamb or stroke each other.
They may chant of their difficulties and their happiness.  They have
love but they also have typewriters.  That is interesting.

PAUL: Hello, Joan.

JOAN: Hello, Paul.

PAUL: Joan, I was fantasizing that a white crow flew across the black
sky of night.

JOAN: I too have been thinking of a white crow.  It flies in the night
and it flies in the day.  It incites my dreams.  My fantasy is that I
can soar with it.

PAUL: A single white crow or many winging eagles.  All inflame my
dreams and cogitations.  A single bird or many birds are in my dreams.

JOAN: Paul, have you bolted meat today?

PAUL: I have bolted lamb and chicken.

JOAN: Have you drained sherry?

PAUL: I have sipped seltzer.

JOAN: Shall we show our love by the reflections of our desire, or
shall we dream of a white crow?

PAUL: The dream is a reflection of our passion just as the white crow
is a reflection of our ambiguity.

JOAN: My desire to incite myself in my dreaming is also a reflection
of ambiguity.

PAUL: Well chanted, Joan.  I craftily desire you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 Nov 84 17:55:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Speech Acts
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                ABSTRACT OF TODAY'S SEMINAR
  ``Natural language from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence''

An intelligent individual, human or computer program, must act on the basis
of what it believes in advance modified by what it observes and what it
learns from linguistic communication.  Thinking about how the achievement
of goals is helped by communication leads to a somewhat different point of
view from one derived mainly from study of the corpus of spoken and written
language.  Namely,
  1. Communication should be regarded as a modifier of state of mind.
  2. The most basic form of communication is the single word sentence
        uttered under conditions in which the speaker and hearer share enough
        knowledge so that the single word suffices.  The complete sentence
        develops under conditions in which the speaker and the hearers share
        less context.
  3. Many of the characteristics of language are determined by so far
        unrecognized requirements of the communication situation.  They will
        apply to machines as well as people.
  4. An effort to make a Common Business Communication Languages for
        commercial communication among machines belonging to different
        organizations exhibits interesting problems of the semantics of
        language.
                                                ---John McCarthy


                SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S SEMINAR

Phil Cohen of SRI gave a seminar in which he claimed that illocutionary act
recognition is not necessary for engaging in communicative interaction.
Rather, engaging in such interaction requires intent/plan recognition.  In
support of this claim, he presented a formalism, being developed with Hector
Levesque (Univ.  of Toronto), that showed how illocutionary acts could be
defined in terms of plans --- i.e., as beliefs about the conversants' shared
knowledge of the speaker's and hearer's goals and the causal consequences
of achieving those goals.  In this formalism, illocutionary acts are no
longer conceptually primitive, but rather amount to theorems that can be
proven about a state-of-affairs.  As an illustration, the definition of a
direct request was derived from an independently-motivated theory of action,
rather than stipulated.  Just as one need not determine if a proof
corresponds to a prior lemma, a hearer need not actually characterize the
consequences of each utterance in terms of the IA theorems, but can simply
infer and respond to the speaker's goals.  However, the hearer could
retrospectively summarize a complex of utterances as satisfying an
illocutionary act.  Moreover, it was claimed that the framework can
characterize a range of indirect speech acts as lemmas, which can be derived
from and integrated with plan-based reasoning.  The discussant, Ivan Sag,
related the theory to Gricean maxims of conversation, and to the ``standard''
view of how pragmatics fits into a theory of linguistic communication.


                        NEW CSLI REPORT

A final edition of Report No. CSLI-9-84, ``The Implementation of Procedurally
Reflective Languages'' by Jim des Rivieres and Brian Cantwell Smith, has just
been published. Copies may be obtained by writing to Dikran Karagueuzian
at the Center (Dikran at SU-CSLI).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
155
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 15:30:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent AI Articles
-BODY-
Oscar Firschein has called my attention to three articles on AI in
the November issue of Datamation.  The Overselling of Expert Systems,
by Gary R. Martins, is a devastating attack on the current crop of
production-rule interpreters.  The Blossoming of European AI, by
Paul Tate, is an informative piece on expert systems development
in Europe that is much more positive about the approach, but ends
with the appeal "Please, be honest."  AI and Software Engineering,
based on Robert Kowalski's 1983-84 SPL-Insight Award lecture, advocates
logic-based programming; I found the presentation discursive and
inconclusive, but there's a nice example concerning the expression
of British citizenship laws as logical rules.


Martins makes some very good points about current expert systems
and development shells (e.g., "the blackboard model of cooperating
expert processes" is just a longer name for the old COMMON storage
facility in FORTRAN), but he neglects hierarchical inference (as in
MYCIN and PROSPECTOR), learning and self-modification (as in AM/EURISKO),
and the benefits of new ways of looking at old problems (hypothesize
and test in DENDRAL, "parallel" activity of cooperating experts
in HEARSAY).  He describes rule-based systems as clumsy, resource-hungry,
and unsuitable for complex applications, and regards them as a result
of confusing AI science (simple cognitive models, LTM and STM, etc.)
with engineering.  He does favor the type of serious AI development
being pursued by DARPA, but seems to think that most of the current
"expert systems" will be limited to applications in the personal
computer market (applications that could have been coded just as
easily with decision tables, decision trees, or other methodologies).

Martins also tells why he thinks the few experts systems mentioned above
(and also R1/XCON-XSEL) have been so successful.  His points are worth
considering:

  1) Brilliant programmers.
  2) Easy or carefully delimited problems.
  3) Plenty of time and funding in a favorable environment.
  4) Developers were not saddled with expert system tools!
     They develop systems to fit problems, not the other way around.
  5) Luck -- other promising systems didn't make it to the finish line.
  6) Public relations; some of these wonders are less than the public
     believes them to be.


For a much more positive outlook on expert systems, or at least on
knowledge-based systems, see Frederick Hayes-Roth's overview in
the October issue of IEEE Computer.  (One minor typo: Figure 5
should have an instance of PROLOG changed to POPLOG.)

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 1984 21:29-EST
-FROM-
From: milne <milne@wpafb-afita>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Frl Source
-BODY-

                        MIT FRL Available

I have become the "keeper of the source" for FRL, originally from
MIT and implemented in FranzLisp. The system includes a machine-readable
version of the manual and a demo of the tower of hanoi and an atn.
I am happy to distribute the sources free of charge, subject to the
following conditions:
        1. Although I will distribute it, I am not a maintainer of the
software. I do not guarantee it is free of bugs (but I think it is),
and I do not have time to fix problems.
        2. I can write UNIX tar tapes only. Sorry, no mail or FTP
transfers. (The source is about 95 files)
        3. It includes a UNIX and vms make file, but I can write only
tar tapes.
        4. To get a copy, send a blank tape to:
                Dr. Rob Milne
                AFIT/ENG
                WPAFB, OH 45433
        I will write the tape and send it back.
cheers,
Rob Milne
Director, AI Lab
Air Force Institute of Technology
milne@wpafb-afita

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 11:20:19 -0200
-FROM-
From: jaakov%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Jacob Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Announcement of new Lisp for UN*X 4.x VAXen
-BODY-
I don't know if this is the appropriate place for such an announcement,
but here goes, anyway :-


        YLISP, a Coroutine-based Lisp System for VAXen.
        -=============================================-

        A friend of  mine, Yitzhak  Dimitrovski, and  myself, wrote a Lisp
system for UN*X 4.x systems on VAXen. It has the following features :-

        o - Coroutines and  closures. The  system uses  these to implement
            the user-interface, single-stepping and  error-handling.  It's
            easy to write a scheduler and time-share YLISP between  two or
            more user programs.
        o - Multiple-dimension arrays.
        o - Multiple name  spaces (oblists) arranged  in a tree hierarchy.
            This is similar to the Lisp Machine facility.
        o - Defstruct structure definition package.
        o - Flavors object-oriented programming tools.
        o - User-extensible  evaluator (it is  possible to (re)define  the
            actions of 'eval', 'apply' and 'print'  relative to all  user-
            and pre-defined types).
        o - Integer arithmetic. No floating-point, sorry. don't think that
            that's  really  necessary, but *could*  be hacked. No  BIGNUMs
            either.
        o - Good user-interface with history, sophisticated error handling
            and function-call and variable-assignment tracing facilities.
        o - Extensive library of ported and user-contributed programs,such
            as a variant of the Interlisp  structure editor, 'loop' macro,
            'mlisp' Pascal-like embedded language, etc.
        o - Compiler  that  generates efficient native  assembler code for
            the VAXen. The  compiler is provided as a separate program,due
            to size  considerations. The compiler is  written entirely  in
            Lisp, of course.
        o - Extensive online documentation, as well as  a 400-page  manual
            describing the whole system from a programmer's point of view.

        The system is named  'YLISP', and was written for 4.1 when we were
students at the Hebrew University  at Jerusalem. Since  then, Yitzhak  has
left  for the  US and  is  currently a  Ph.D. student in  Prof. Schwartz's
Supercomputer group at Courant. I have continued to  develop the system on
my own, and have ported it to UN*X 4.2.

        I am looking for a site that is willing to handle the distribution
of this software from the US, by letting  one FTP it  from their computer.
Alternatively, I am also willing to supply people  with magtapes of YLISP,
for the cost of the tape and handling charges (about 70$ a piece).  If you
are interested, please respond by electronic mail to one of  the addresses
given below. I will be  ready  to  start distributing  the  system in  two
weeks' time.

        Rusty Red (AKA Jacob Levy)

        BITNET:                         jaakov@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP: (if all else fails..)     ..!decvax!humus!wisdom!jaakov

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 23:22:28-MST
-FROM-
From: Uday Reddy <U-Reddy@UTAH-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Compiling Logic to Functional Programs
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The only work I know on compiling logic to functions:

1. Bellia , Levi, Martelli: On compiling Prolog programs on
demand driven architectures,  Logic Programming Workshop,
Albufeira, '83

2. Reddy: Transformation of logic programs to functional
programs, ISLP, Atlantic City, 84.

The two pieces of work are similar.  They should be distinguished
from other pieces of work cited by Webster (Lindstrom and Panangaden,
Carlsson, Bruce Smith) which interpret logic in a functional language
rather than compile a logic language into a functinal language.

The translation approach has limitations in that it needs mode
annotations (either from the programmer or chosen by the compiler)
and it cannot handle "logical variables".  I don't know of any work
that overcomes these limitations.  Personally, I believe they cannot
be overcome.  One can probably prove this assertion, provided one
can formalize the difference between translation and interpretation.

Combinator calculus is equivalent to lambda calculus, and there are
translators available from one to the other.  So, using combinators
neither simplifies nor complicates the problem.

>- Uday Reddy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 84 08:56:04 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Nick <NNicoll.ES@XEROX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Badgorythms
-BODY-
What makes the following worse than a normal software badgorythm is that
it is implemented in the Language compiler...

"Another reason for bloated code:  increment a byte in memory can be
done in a single instruction, but they load the byte into a register,
extend it to a word, extend that to a long, add one, and then store the
low 8 bits of the long back into memory."

This gem came from the following msg;

  From: <Devon@MIT-MC.ARPA>
  Subject: Macintosh language benchmarks
  To: homeier@AEROSPACE.ARPA, info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA

I have been using the [notoriously awful] Whitesmith C compiler
available from "software toolworks" or some similar name.  It does work,
and there are header files defining all the data structures, and
interface files so you can make all the ROM calls.  I haven't found any
serious bugs, but code bloat is amazing.  One reason is that Apple's
linker is a crock that doesn't have have the concept of scanning a
library!  Instead it blithely loads everything contained in each library
file (which you must specify yourself -- blech!) regardless of whether
it is called for or not.  Another reason for bloated code:  increment a
byte in memory can be done in a single instruction, but they load the
byte into a register, extend it to a word, extend that to a long, add
one, and then store the low 8 bits of the long back into memory.


\\ Nick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 Nov 84 14:57:15-PST
-FROM-
From: Jean-Luc Bonnetain <BONNETAIN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: malgorithms
-BODY-
I just received a msg from Andrei Broder (Broder@decwrl) saying that he and
George Stolfi wrote a paper called "Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity
Analysis" which is to appear in the SIGACT news. Maybe people who expressed
interest in my msg will find this "joke paper" (Andrei's term) worth reading.

jean-luc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 84 08:43 PST
-FROM-
From: Todd.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Malgorisms (What malgorithms were before LISP)
-BODY-
        Yet another class of malgorithms is generously provided by the
INTERLISP-D implementation of LISP ... algorithms that look like
malgorithms but really aren't. An example:

To strip an M element list from the top of a larger list X, a seemingly
logical approach would be to take the first element of X, append it to
the second, and so on until the Mth. In INTERLISP-D, a faster way to
accomplish this is to take the difference of the larger list X and its
tail beginning at element M+1. In other words, to "subtract" the list
lacking the elements you want from the full list. The malgorithm code
appears as:

(LDIFF X (NTH X (ADD1 M)))

The "logical" code as:

(FOR I FROM 1 TO M COLLECT (CAR (NTH X I)))


        As is shown below, the "malgorithm" is actually a faster way to
solve the problem. Timed executions for 100 sample runs yielded the
following results:


                                "Malgorithm"       "Logical method"

                  M=4         .00114 sec.               .00127
                  M=30        .00902                    .0214
                  M=100       .0301                     .170


        The method breaks down when you try to extract sublists from
arbitrary positions inside larger lists ... execution of a "logical"
method similar to the above is MUCH faster. However, I am still amazed
that a malgorithm as seemingly ridiculous as this one is can be so
efficient for even a special case.


                                                --- JohnnyT

"Things are more like they used to be now than they ever were"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 1984  17:03 EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inductive Learning
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Inductive Learning: Recent Theoretical and Experimental Results
                    Ryszard Michalski

Wednesday   November 14     4:00pm      8th floor playroom


Inductive learning is presented as a goal-oriented and resource-constrained
process of applying certain rules of inference to the initial observational
statements and hypotheses. This process involves new type of
inference rules, called "generalization rules."
In contrast to truth-preserving deductive rules, inductive
generalization rules are falsity-preserving.

Two types of inductive learning are distinguished,
learning from examples (concept acquisition or reconstruction)
and learning by observation (concept formation and descriptive
generalization). Learning from
examples in turn divides into "instance-to-class" and
"part-to-whole" generalization.

We will briefly describe recent experiments with two inductive
learning systems:
1 - for learning from examples via incremental concept refinement, and
2 - for automated formation of classifications via conceptual clustering.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
156
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 84 20:45:32 EST
-FROM-
From: Edward.Smith@CMU-CS-SPICE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Programming Language Horror Stories
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

In a couple of weeks I'm going to give my last lecture in Comparative
Programming and as a way of motivating these undergraduates about the
importance of the consideration of language design in their future work I
was going to present some examples of particularly BAD (ugly or dangerous or
however you wish to define that) design. So, if you have any favorite horror
story about some programming language you'd like to contribute I would
appreciate it - I will put all the good ones up in a file somewhere. These
stories should be SHORT and to the point, and could be things like these
classics:
  - the property of FORTRAN to compile and execute (generally without
complaining) a DO loop construct without a comma
  - just about ANY one-line APL program (my favorite being the one-line game
of LIFE attributed to Marc Donner)
  - the use of the space character in SNOBOL as (a) the separator between
labels and statements, (b) concatenation operator, (c) pattern matching
operator, or (d) separator for the pattern match assignment operator "."
  - (FORTRAN's full of them) the property of early FORTRAN's to change the
value of "constants" like 5 to say 3 by an interesting parameter passing
mechanism

Please send to ets@cmu-cs-spice. Thanks in advance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 84 12:39 PST
-FROM-
From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp-D "malgorithm"?
-BODY-
Regarding the "malgorithm" and "Logical method" proposed by
Todd.pasa@XEROX.ARPA:  using the NTH function repeatedly on a list of
elements (as opposed to an array or "vector" of elements) has got to be
a classic "malgorithm".  The access time for selecting the n'th element
of a list is proportional to n, whereas the similar time for arrays or
vectors should be essentially constant.  The repeated selection evident
in Todd's example converts a linear algorithm into a quadratic one.

Just for the record, let me propose what I (and I suspect many other
long-time "Lisp lovers" would have considered to be the "logical"
algorithm):

    (for ITEM in X as I to M collect ITEM)

A little analysis would show this to be asymptotically better than the
proposed "malgorithm" by a factor somewhere between 1 and 2 -- 2 because
the "malgorithm" traverses the M-prefix of the list X twice, and 1
because the the CONS time cost may be made arbitrarily high, thereby
occluding any other effect.

>- JonL White --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 84 0524 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DEC news release
-BODY-
The following two paragraphs come from a medium-length article in DEC's
Large System News.


        Digital Signs Marketing Agreements With Six AI Firms

Digital has signed agreements with a number of leading independent producers of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to market cooperatively their products
on VAX computers and personal computer systems.

Independent AI software producers include the Carnegie Group, Inc.; Digital
Research, Inc. (DIR); Gold Hill Computers; Inference Corp.; Prologia; and
USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI).  AI software packages developed to
run on Digital's computers include Inference's ART, Gold Hill's GCLISP,
ISI's Interlisp, Prologia's PROLOG II, and the Carnegie Group's SRL+ and PLUME.


In two other articles in the same newsletter, Digital announced availability
of VAX Lisp 1.0 as a fully-supported Common Lisp product, and availability
of OPS5 as a supported product.  Digital's OPS5 is written in Bliss-32 for
performance reasons; it includes both an interpreter and a compiler.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 84 09:31:35 PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Jed Marti <marti@randgr>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Japanese Lisp Machines.
-BODY-
  I just saw the request for information about the Fujitsu Alpha. I
recently spent a week in Japan as a guest of the RIKEN institute which
provided a tour of some of the local Tokyo efforts in this direction.
Perhaps it would be of interest to the AIList readers.

Jed Marti.



                      Japanese Lisp Machines

The RSYMSAC conference held at the Riken institute in Saitama, Japan on
August 21-22, provided an opportunity for a close view of Japanese
efforts to construct very fast machines for running large scale
symbolic algebra and AI programs. Four of us toured two computer
centers and three Lisp machine construction projects, talking to
implementors and trying our favorite test programs. This short report
describes the state of their systems and the Japanese symbolic algebra
environment.

                           FLATS at Riken

The Riken institute conducts research in the physical sciences and
operates a Fujitsu M380H (an IBM 370 look-alike) providing both time
sharing and batch services. During the day, computer algebra system
users access Cambridge Lisp running REDUCE 3.1. The symbolic
computation group operates a VAX 11/750 running VMS, a host of 16 bit
micro-computers, and the FLATS machine.

The symbolic computation group officially unveiled FLATS (Formula Lisp
Association Tuple Set) at the conference. The Mitsui Ship Building
Company constructed the hardware based on designs of the Riken group.
Built from SSI ECL components, the CPU executes a micro-instruction
every 50 nanoseconds and a Lisp instruction every 100 nanoseconds from
a 300 bit by 256 word micro store and 8 megabytes of 450 nanosecond
main memory. Over 70,000 wires connect the back plane making
conventional hardware debugging impossible. The engineers exercise
modules on a special test jig or through the attached support
processor.

The hash code generation hardware sets FLATS apart from conventional
Lisp machines. It computes a hash code in the basic machine cycle time
for extremely fast property list access and CONS cell generation.
Improvements in execution speed and program clarity more than offset
the loss of the RPLACA and RPLACD functions on hashed CONSes.

The designers increased speed with a number of special features:

   3 separate cache memories for instructions, data, and stack

   special micro-coded instructions for the garbage collector and
     big numbers

   CALL, JUMP and RETURN executed in parallel with other instructions

   hardware type checking in parallel with data operations

   3 address instruction codes

   hardware support for paging

   data path width of 64 bits

The FLATS machine, without hash CONS and property lists, runs REDUCE
3.0 at about IBM 3033 speeds. Several papers presented at RSYMSAC
described the status of FLATS and the design of the next FLATS machine
that the group hopes to construct from Josephson Junction circuits
[2-3].

               University of Tokyo Computer Center

We visited the University of Tokyo Computer Center to find out more
about UTILISP (University of Tokyo Interactive LISP) implemented by the
Department of Mathematical Engineering and Instrumentation Physics
[1]). Probably one of the largest academic installations in the world,
the center operates two Hitachi M280 dual processors (roughly
equivalent to an IBM 3081) each with 32 megabytes of main storage and a
Hitachi M200H with 16 megabytes of main storage. A Hitachi S810/2
vector processor with 64 megabytes of main memory and a VAX 11/780 with
4 megabytes complement the general purpose machines. On-line storage
consists of 48 gigabytes on disk, and 37 gigabytes in data cells. The
center emphasizes user convenience. Users mount their own tapes, take
output off printers, read their own card decks (we didn't actually see
anyone do this, but the machine was there), tear off plots and so on.
The lightly loaded machines run an average of only 4,000 jobs per day.
Users need not wait for terminals and other equipment, an enviable
situation indeed.

UTILISP resembles MacLisp. An effort to transport MACSYMA to UTILISP
suffers only from the lack of built-in big number arithmetic.

                            Fujitsu ALPHA

A long train and subway ride brought us to the third tour stop, the
Fujitsu Laboratories in Kawasaki, home of the Lisp machine ALPHA [4-5].
The ALPHA offloads time sharing symbolic processing jobs from IBM style
mainframes. More than one ALPHA can be connected to a single mainframe,
which supplies I/O device, filing system, editing and operating system
support.

The ALPHA has 8 megabytes of real memory with a 16 megabyte virtual
address space. Memory and data buses are 32 bits wide with Lisp items
composed of an 8 bit tag and 24 bit value. The ALPHA processor has a
high speed hardware stack of 8k words with special hardware for
swapping segments to and from slower memory. The division of the stack
into blocks permits high speed switching between different processes.
To support tagged data items, a micro-instruction jump based on the 8
bit tag is implemented. The ALPHA machine performs data calculations by
masking off the tag bits in hardware, rather than software. The machine
has over 7700 STTL, 64k bit RAMs and 4k high speed RAMs.

     Micro Instructions - 48 bits wide, 160 ns, 16k words.
     Main Memory - Virtual 16 M words, Real 8 M words,
          Page size 4 K bytes.
     Stack - Logical stack 64 K words, Hardware stack 8 K words,
          Swapping block size 2 K bytes.

The ALPHA runs UTILISP and has an interpreter, compiler, and copying
garbage collector. Fujitsu claims the ALPHA runs three times faster
than the Symbolics 3600 and 5 times faster than DEC 2060 MACLISP.
Fujitsu uses the ALPHA for CAD, machine translation, and natural
language understanding.


        ELIS - Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation demonstrated the ELIS
machine and TAO language a "harmonic" mixture of Lisp, Smalltalk, and
Prolog, to quote the authors [6]. A PDP 11/60 provides file and
operating system support while the ELIS hardware performs the list
processing functions. The ELIS hardware features 32 bit items with 8
bit tags providing for 16 million items (128 megabytes). The basic
microcycle time is 180 ns in 32k of micro-instructions 64 bits wide.
Main memory is 4 megabytes with an access time of 420 ns and a special
system stack of 32k 32 bit items. Deep binding is used and multiple
processes are supported by stack groups, and the cpu switches between
contexts very fast (2 microseconds unless there is some stack
swapping). For identical tasks programmed in the three different
paradigms, the procedural version provides the most speed with the
object oriented version about 1.1 times as slow and the logic version
about twice as slow.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Dr. N. Inada of Riken for
organizing both RSYMSAC and the tour.

List of References
1. Chikayama, Takashi, `UTILISP Manual', Technical Report METR 81-6
    (September 1981), Department of Mathematical Engineering and
    Instrumentation Physics, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo,
    Japan.
2. Goto, E., Shimizu, K., `Architecture of a Josephson Computer
    (FLATS-2)', RSYMSAC, Wako-shi, Saitama, 351-01 Japan, 1984.
3. Goto, E., Soma, T., Inada, N., et al, 'FLATS: A Machine for
    Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation', RSYMSAC, Riken, Wako-shi,
    Saitama, 351-01 Japan, 1984.
4. Hayashi, H., Hattori, A., Akimoto, H., `ALPHA: A High-Performance
    LISP Machine with a New Stack Structure and Garbage Collection
    System', Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Symposium
    on Computer Architecture, pages 342-347.
5. Hayashi, H., Hattori, A., Akimoto, H., `LISP Machine "ALPHA"',
    Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 2,
    pages 219-234.
6. Okuno, H. G., Takeuchi, I., Osato, N., Hibino, Y., Watanabe, K.,
    `TAO: A Fast Interpreter-Centered System on Lisp Machine ELIS',
    Proceedings of the 1984 Conference on LISP and Functional
    Programming.


Jed Marti  MARTI@RAND-UNIX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 November 1984 1359-EST
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logo for Teaching Language
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Subject:  Guest speaker on teaching language with LOGO
Source: charney (davida charney @ cmu-psy-a)

               English Department -- Guest Speaker

NAME:   Wallace Feurzeig  (Bolt, Beranek and Newman)
DATE:  Friday, November 16
TIME:  9 - 10:30 am  (There will be coffee and doughnuts.)
PLACE:  Adamson Wing in Baker Hall

TITLE: Exploring Language with Logo

The talk gives examples of materials from our forthcoming book "Exploring
Language with Logo" to be published by Harper and Row o/a first quarter,
1985, co-authored by Paul Goldenberg and Wallace Feurzeig.  The book
attempts to develop a qualitatively different approach to the teaching of
language arts in schools.  Our approach is based on two major intellectual
developments -- the theory of generative grammar in formal linguistics and
the invention of programming languages.  The important new idea from
linguistics is that a grammar can be used as a constructive instrument to
generate sentences, in contrast to the conventional school experience of
grammar as an analytic device, a set of tools for parsing sentences to
determine whether or not they are instances of "good" English.  This shift
has enormous psychological and pedagogical benefits: it switches the
learner's focus and viewpoint from rule learner to language creator.  At the
same time, it provides a distinctly different, more accessible and
acceptable way of introducing the formal structures of language and the
regularities and rules describing these structures.

The other major intellectual development, programming languages, provides
the most distinctive and radical departure from the present language arts
course. Our approach depends fundamentally upon programming ideas and
activities.  In our presentation, the key and central language concepts are
introduced and developed as Logo programs.  Teachers and students are engaged
in programming projects throughout.  The use of a programming language in the
English language classrooom makes the idea of generative grammars concrete
in tasks readily accessible to schoolchildren.  Moreover, in the environment
of programming, grammar models are transformed from highly abstract
formalisms into runnable objects in semantic situations that are meaningful
and interesting to students.  For example, students can create Logo programs
that simulate the grammar of gossip, puns, jokes, love letters, baby talk,
proverbs, quizzes, conversational discourse, poems of various forms and
expressive styles, and many other kinds of texts.  Examples will illustrate
the approach and materials at three levels: the structure of sentences,
structures within a word, and larger structures.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 November 1984 11:12-EST
-FROM-
From: Rosemary B. Hegg <ROSIE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Representation and Temporal Representation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    COOPERATIVE COMPUTATION, KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION AND TIME

                         John K. Tsotsos

                 Department of Computer Science
                      University of Toronto
                    Toronto, Ontario, Canada


                DATE:    Friday, November 16, 1984
                TIME:    1.45 pm  Refreshments
                         2.00 pm Lecture
               PLACE:    NE43-7th Floor Playroom


     A cooperative processing scheme is presented that deals with
time-varying information.  It operates over a network of temporal
concepts, organized along common representational axes:generali-
zation,  aggregation,  similarity and temporal precedence.  Units
in this network are organized into computation layers, and  these
layers  are  conceptualized as "recognizing" concepts that can be
organized along  a  generalization  /  specialization  dimension.
Thus  elements of both "localist" and "distributed" views of con-
cept representations are present.  Static and dynamic data in the
same  way  -  as samples over time, and thus, sampling issues are
directly addressed.  This process is  a  time-varying  non-linear
optimization  task;  it differs from past cooperative computation
schemes in three respects: a) our information is not uniform  but
rather  different concepts are represented at different levels of
the hierarchies; b) there are multiple interacting networks, each
organized  according to different semantics; c) the data is time-
varying and more importantly,  the structure over  which  relaxa-
tion is performed is time-varying.  The cooperative process to be
described has the qualitative properties we believe are desirable
for   temporal   interpretation,  and  its  performance  will  be
described empirically, and in a qualitative fashion  through  the
use of several examples.

HOST:  Prof. Peter Szolovits

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
157
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 1984  9:37:06 EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Marshall Abrams <abrams@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Symposium
-BODY-
I am helping to organize a Symposium on Expert Systems in the Federal
Government. In addition to papers, I am looking for people to serve on
the program committee and the conference committee, and to serve as
reviewers and session chairmen. The openings on the conference committee
include local arrangements, publicity, and tutorials.

Please contact me or the program chairman (karma @ mitre) with
questions and suggestions. The call for papers is available
on request.

Marshall Abrams

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 16 Nov 84 11:34:27 EST
-FROM-
From: shrager (jeff shrager) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quote for our times...
-BODY-
"If Skinner were born in our time, he'd have been an expert
 systems researcher."

                        -- Peter Pirolli  11/16/84 in the heat of
                                          an argument.

(Quoted with permission)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 84 11:38:40 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheduling algorithm questions
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I want an online algorithm for preemptive scheduling on a single processor
with release times and deadlines (no precedence relations).  This problem
is trivial offline, but I want to be able to add new jobs (or determine
they cannot be added) in polylog time.  Has anyone looked at this problem?

Paul Dietz (dietz@rutgers)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 84 15:30 CST
-FROM-
From: Boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Old high-level malgorithm
-BODY-

A (very) early IBM FORTRAN compiler contained the following jewel of an
error message:

"COLUMN cc OF CARD nnnn CONTAINS A 12-4 PUNCH MINUS SIGN INSTEAD OF AN
11 PUNCH MINUS SIGN.  CORRECT AND RESUBMIT."

This was a fatal error.

(For the youngsters, "12-4 punch" and "11 punch" refer to the patterns
of holes in a card column; I believe the 12-4 was officially a "dash".
Also, FORTRAN only spoke capital letters; this was an Eisenhower-era
compiler, and shouted at you in proper authoritarian style.)


[Speaking of user-interface styles:
Commodore Grace Hopper tells of the time a Navy (or perhaps just
Pentagon) programming team realized that a computer could "speak German"
if you just replaced JUMP with SPRUNGE, etc.  (Even JUMP was a novelty
at this time: it may have been the earliest COBOL compiler prototype.)
They set up a demo and passed around a memo saying "Come see our computer
compile this German program."  The brass were not amused at the idea
of an American military computer being trained to speak German, and the
team had to distribute another memo saying that the first was just a
bad joke -- no computer could possibly understand German!  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 19:31:17-MST
-FROM-
From: Uday Reddy <U-REDDY@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Compiling logic to functions
-BODY-
To add to my previous message on the topic, the fact that the effect of
logical variables cannot be achieved in functional languages is not a
linguistic limitation but an operational one.  Specifically, all logic
predicates are boolean-valued functions.  So, all Horn clauses can be
directly translated into function equations.

        A :- B1, ..., Bn.       =>      A = and(B1,...,Bn)
        A.                      =>      A = true

However, in traditional functional languages the translated logic programs
can only be used for rewriting.  They cannot be used to solve goals with
variables in them.

If "narrowing" rather than "rewriting" is used as the operational semantics
of functional programs, they too can be used to solve goals and the effect
of logical variables is achieved.  For more details, see

        Hullot, Canonical forms and unification, Conf. Automated Deduction,
        1980.

        Lindstrom, Functional programming and the logical variable, to
        appear, POPL 85.

        Reddy, On the relationship between logic and functional languages,
        to appear in, Degroot, Lindstrom, Functional and Logic programming,
        Prentice-Hall, 85.

Uday Reddy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 11:01:51 PST
-FROM-
From: April Gillam <gillam@AERO2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: In Praise of Natural Languages
-BODY-
Rick Briggs raises some very interesting questions about what is a natural
language, so I thought I'd air my views.  Natural language, in its broadest
sense, should include any communication between man and/or animal for which
there is an underlying common belief system. I'd even go so far as to
include non-verbal communications. I'm not a linguist, so this is just how
I view the term.  When dealing with machine translation, a working
definition restricting it to verbal or written communications of course
makes more sense.

It would be interesting if at some time we could interpret body language
well enough to have a computer analyze what a person says verbally and
bodily. (When pattern recognition has matured!) There are certainly some
people who have the sensitivity and receptiveness to do the interpretation.

Reading of some of Dr. Kubler-Ross's work, it is an amazing
learning experience to see the level of interpretation which she does with
dying patients, many of whom cannot express directly their knowledge of
their imminent death, however they still have a strong desire to
communicate this to someone, using an analogy or some indirect manner. She
writes of a terminally ill man who could not get out of bed without the use
of his cane, who one day said to take the cane away, Shortly after which he
died. This man was letting her know that the time had come. But few, if any
of us pick up on the cues. Do we really expect a computer to do this? It
also points up how vital context is to understanding.

It doesn't seem plausible to me that any language can express ALL "aspects
of the natural world"? In Indian (from India) languages there are words for
levels of consciousness (eg. samadhi), for energy centers of the body (eg.
chakras), etc.  In English we have sophisticated words pertaining to
weaponry, to real estate, etc. Do you think an aborigine would have a word
or concept for garbage recycling? (Or coke bottle?) What I'm trying to say
is, language is cultural (as my friend Ellen, an anthropolgist, succinctly
put it).

I find it hard to believe that Sastric Sanskrit, or any other language, can
contain the concepts of all of humanity's experiences. Have we ourselves
experienced enough of our reality to be able to express it, and does the
person we talk to have a common enough set of experiences to interpret what
we say? There are enough misunderstandings when we both speak the same
language, that I doubt another language will render a semantically exact
translation.  How can the color scheme be described to the land of the
blind? There is also a flavor to words. For eg., cabron in Spanish, or the
phrase "curses, foiled again" to those of us who've seen the Perils of
Pauline or comic strips.

I don't see it as a virtue, to be able to express oneself unambiguously.
Part of the power and beauty of language is the ability to make
multi-leveled statements, double entendres, analogies, etc.

It's interesting what Bill Frawley says about a change which complicates a
language being compensated by by a simplification elsewhere. On some level
that is aesthetically pleasing, but I have no feel for whether that would
be the case.

In the proceedings of this year's AAAI conf. there was an interesting paper
in which a micro-environment (a context) of words, likely references and
multiple meanings for a particular topic was set up. If the topic was
Italian food, there'd be some notions of restaurants and pizza and such.
Then if the statement "Hold the anchovies" was encountered, it would be
known that it means "Do not put anchovies on the pizza", as opposed to
"Grasp the anchovies in your hand."  I don't have the reference handy, but
it looked like a good idea, as well as a lot of work.
                        - April Gillam

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 84 14:40:54 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Conceptual Change in Childhood
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

   TIME:                Tuesday, November 20, 11 - 12:30
   PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
   DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Susan  Carey;  MIT  Psychology   Department;
                Center  for Advanced Study in the Behavioral
                Sciences

TITLE:          ``Conceptual Change in Childhood''

ABSTRACT:       In the tradition of recent Cognitive Studies
                tutorials,  this  paper is a tutorial on the
                proper description of cognitive development.
                At  issue  is  the  status of the claim that
                young children think differently from  older
                children  and  adults.   This claim is often
                contrasted  with  the  claim  that  children
                differ  from  adults merely in knowing less.
                I review the kinds of phenomena that  parti-
                cipants  in  the  debate take as relevant to
                deciding the issue.  Finally, I argue that a
                third  position,  in which the phenomenon of
                conceptual change is taken seriously, avoids
                the pitfalls of the original Piagetian posi-
                tion while allowing for its successes.

                I exemplify the third position by  sketching
                a recently completed case study of the emer-
                gence of biology as an independent domain of
                intuitive  theorizing in the first decade of
                life.  I will conclude by raising the  ques-
                tion  of  the  relation  between  conceptual
                change in childhood and conceptual change in
                the history of science.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 18:41:04 cst
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Relational Interface, Process Representation
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

       ROSI: A UNIX Interface for the Discriminating User
                               by
                            Mark Roth
                     Srinivasan Sundararajan


                      noon  Friday Nov. 16
                            PAI 3.38

ROSI ( Relational Operating System Interface ) strives to provide
the  UNIX user an environment based on the relational data model.
Usually,  relational database theory deals only with relations in
1NF.   In  this  talk,  this  assumption is  relaxed  by allowing
sets-of-values to exist anywhere an atomic  value  could  before.
These  relations will be unnormalized or in non-first-normal-form
(non-1NF).  The need for non-1NF relations, a relational calculus
and  algebra  dealing  with  non-1NF relations, and some extended
algebra operators will be discussed.

The approach used in the design of ROSI was to model elements  of
the operating system environment as relations and to model system
commands as statements in a relational language. In adapting  the
relational data model to an operating system environment, we have
extended the model  and@tried  to  improve  existing  relational
languages.  The  extensions to the relational model  are designed
to allow a more natural representation of  elements  of  the  en-
vironment. The language extensions exploit the universal relation
model and utilize the graphical capabilities of  modern  worksta-
tions.

The goal of the project is to produce a user and  programmer  in-
terface to the operating system that :

        * is easier to use
        * is easier to learn
        * allows greater portability

as compared with existing operating system interfaces.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 84 08:37:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Dennis Perzanowski <dennisp@NRL-AIC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Partial Winter Schedule at NCARAI
-BODY-

           U.S. Navy Center for Applied Research
                 in Artificial Intelligence
           Naval Research Laboratory - Code 7510
                 Washington, DC  20375-5000

                   WINTER SEMINAR SERIES


Monday, 10:00 a.m.
3 December 1984
                Dr. Poohsan Tamura
                Westinghouse Research & Development Center
                Pittsburgh, PA
                 "Optical High Speed 3-D Digital Data Acquisition"

Monday, 10:00 a.m.
17 December 1984
                Dr. Terrence Sejnowski
                Department of Biophysics
                Johns Hopkins University
                Baltimore, MD
                 "The BOLTZMANN Multiprocessor"

Monday, 10:00 a.m.
14 January 1985
                Dr. Lance Miller
                IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                Yorktown Heights, NY
                 "Bringing Intelligence into Word Processing:
                  The IBM EPISTLE System"

Monday, 10:00 a.m.
28 January 1985
                Dr. Larry Reeker
                Visiting Scientist at NCARAI
                from Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
                 "Programming for Artificial Intelligence:
                  LISP, Ada, PROLOG,   ... or Something Else?"


Meetings are held at 10:00 a.m. in the  Conference  Room  of
the   Navy   Center   for  Applied  Research  in  Artificial
Intelligence (Bldg. 256) located on Bolling Air Force  Base,
off  I-295, in the South East quadrant of Washington, DC.  A
map can be mailed for your convenience.
Coffee will be available starting at 9:45 a.m. for a nominal
fee.  Please do not arrive before this time.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING A SEMINAR, PLEASE CONTACT
US  BEFORE NOON ON THE FRIDAY PRIOR TO THE SEMINAR SO THAT A
VISITOR'S PASS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR YOU ON THE DAY  OF  THE
SEMINAR.   NON-U.S.  CITIZENS  MUST  CONTACT US AT LEAST TWO
WEEKS PRIOR TO A SCHEDULED SEMINAR.  If you  would  like  to
speak,  be  added  to  our  mailing list, or would like more
information,   contact   Dennis    Perzanowski.     ARPANET:
DENNISP@NRL-AIC or (202) 767-2686.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Nov 84 17:21:21-PST
-FROM-
From: Jon Barwise <BARWISE@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course & Conference - Logic, language and computation meeting
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


           LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND COMPUTATION MEETINGS

The Association for Symbolic Logic (ASL) and the Center for the Study
of Language and Information (CSLI) are planning a summer school and a
meeting from July 8-20, 1985, at Stanford University.  The first week
(July 8-13) will consist of the CSLI Summer School, during which
courses on the following topics will be offered:

        Situation Semantics               Prof. Jon Barwise
        PROLOG                            Prof. Maarten van Emden
        Denotational Semantics            Prof. Gordon Plotkin
        Types and ML                      Dr. David MacQueen
        Complexity Theory                 Prof. Wolfgang Maass
        Abstract Data Types               Dr. Jose Meseguer
        The Theory of Algorithms          Prof. Yiannis Moschovakis
        Generalized Quantifiers           Dr. Lawrence Moss
        LISP                              Dr. Brian Smith
        Foundations of Intensional Logic  Prof. Richmond Thomason

(Enrollment in some courses using computers is limited.)

The second week (July 15-20) will consist of an ASL Meeting with
invited addresses, symposia, and sessions for contributed papers.  Of
the invited speakers, the following have already accepted:

        Prof. Peter Azcel                 Prof. David Kaplan
        Prof. Robert Constable            Prof. Kenneth Kunen
        Prof. Maarten van Emden           Prof. Per Martin-Lof
        Prof. Yuri Gurevich               Prof. John Reynolds (tentative)
        Prof. Anil Gupta (tentative)      Dr. Larry Wos
        Prof. Hans Kamp

Symposia:

Types in the Study of Computer and Natural Languages:

        Prof. R. Chierchia                Dr. David MacQueen
        Prof. Solomon Feferman            Prof. Barbara Partee

The Role of Logic in AI:

        Dr. David Israel                  Dr. Stanley Rosenschein
        Prof. John McCarthy


Possible Worlds:

        Prof. John Perry                  Prof. Robert Stalnaker


For further information or registration forms, write to Ingrid
Deiwiks, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305, or call (415)
497-3084.  Room and board in a residence hall on campus are available,
and those interested should indicate their preference for single or
shared room, as well as the dates of their stay.  Since space is
limited, arrangements should be made early.  Some Graduate Student
Fellowships to cover cost of accomodation in the residence hall are
available.  Abstracts of contributed papers should be no longer than
300 words and submitted no later than April 1, 1985.  The program
committee consists of Jon Barwise, Solomon Feferman, David Israel and
William Marsh.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
158
-DATE-
Date: 19-Nov-84 10:11:58-PST
-FROM-
From: mkm@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public-Domain LISP?
-BODY-
Is there a public domain copy of a LISP interpreter running around out there?
If so, I would like to know where, how to get it, etc.

Thanks,

Mike McNair
Ford Aerospace

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 19 Nov 1984 09:39:20-PST
-FROM-
From: cashman%what.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp performance tools
-BODY-
        I am interested in pointers to any tools which have been developed for
measuring the performance of Lisp application programs (not measuring the
performance of Lisp systems themselves).

Paul Cashman (Cashman%what.DEC@DECWRL)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 18:25:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Paradocs Expert System
-BODY-
    Has anyone out there heard of/seen/used a software system called Paradocs?
It is marketed by a company that has undergone several name changes and is
currently known as Cogensys (out of Farmington Hills, Mich.).  The system
is described as a "judgement processing system" and is represented as being
able to combine inputs from several domain experts into a judgement base
which is then able to diagnose problems in the domain.  The name of the fellow
who created the system is Buzz Berk (spelling uncertain).
     I'd very much appreciate ***any*** information and/or opinions about the
value or performance of this system.
                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 Joe Karnicky
                                                 <KARNICKY@SCORE>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 1984 1421-EST
-FROM-
From: Venkat Venkatasubramanian <VENKAT@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Karmarkar
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

There is a front page article in today's NY Times on Karmarkar and his
linear programming algorithm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 84  1204 PST
-FROM-
From: Martin Frost <ME@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: linear programming "breakthrough"
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

18 Nov 84
By JAMES GLEICK
c.1984 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - A 28-year-old mathematician at AT&T Bell Laboratories has
made a startling theoretical breakthrough in the solving of [linear
programming] systems of equations. [...]
    The Bell Labs mathematician, Dr. Narendra Karmarkar, has devised a
radically new procedure. [...]
    The new Karmarkar approach exists so far only in rougher computer
code. Its full value will be impossible to judge until it has been
tested experimentally on a wide range of problems. But those who have
tested the early versions at Bell Labs say that it already appears
many times faster than the simplex method, and the advantage grows
rapidly with more complicated problems. [...]
    Karmarkar, the son and nephew of mathematicians, was born in
Gwalior, India, and grew up in Poona, near Bombay. He joined Bell
Labs last year after attending the California Institute of Technology
at Pasadena and getting his doctorate from the University of
California at Berkeley.
    News of his discovery has been spreading through the computer
science community in preprinted copies of Karmarkar's paper and in
informal seminars. His paper is to be formally published in the
journal Combinatorica next month and will be a central topic at the
yearly meeting of the Operations Research Society of America this
week in Dallas. [...]
    Mathematicians visualize such problems as complex geometric solids
with millions or billions of facets. Each corner of each facet
represents a possible solution. The task of the algorithm is to find
the best solution, say the corner at the top, without having to
calculate the location of every one.
    The simplex method, devised by the mathematician George B. Dantzig
in 1947, in effect runs along the edges of the solid, checking one
corner after another but always heading in the direction of the best
solution. In practice it usually manages to get there efficiently
enough for most problems, as long as the number of variables is no
more than 15,000 or 20,000.
    The Karmarkar algorithm, by contrast, takes a giant short cut,
plunging through the middle of the solid. After selecting an
arbitrary interior point, the algorithm warps the entire structure -
in essence, reshaping the problem - in a way designed to bring the
chosen point exactly into the center. The next step is to find a new
point in the direction of the best solution and to warp the structure
again, bringing the new point into the center.
    ''Unless you do this warping,'' Karmarkar said, ''the direction that
appears to give the best improvement each time is an illusion.''
    The repeated transformations, based on a technique known as
projective geometry, lead rapidly to the best answer. Computer
scientists who have examined the method describe it as ingenious.
    ''It is very new and surprising - it has more than one theoretical
novelty,'' said Laszlo Babai, visiting professor of computer science
at the University of Chicago. ''The real surprise is that the two
things came together, the theoretical breakthrough and the practical
applicability.''
    Dantzig, now professor of operations research and computer science
at Stanford University, cautioned that it was too early to assess
fully the usefulness of the Karmarkar method. ''We have to separate
theory from practice,'' he said. ''It is a remarkable theoretical
result and it has a lot of promise in it, but the results are not all
in yet.''
    Many mathematicians interested in the theory of computer science
have long been dissatisfied with the simplex method, despite its
enormous practical success. This is because the program performs
poorly on problems designed specificaly to test its weaknesses,
so-called worst possible case problems. [...]
    But fortunately for computer science, the worst-case problems almost
never arise in the real world. ''You had to work hard to produce
these examples,'' Graham said. And the simplex method performs far
better on average than its worst-case limit would suggest.
    Five years ago, a group of Soviet mathematicians devised a new
algorithm, the ellipsoid method, that handled those worst-case
problems far better than the simplex method. It was a theoretical
advance - but the ellipsoid had little practical significance because
its average performance was not much better than its worst-case
performance.
    The Soviet discovery, however, stimulated a burst of activity on the
problem and led to Karmarkar's breakthrough. The new algorithm does
far better in the worst case, and the improvement appears to apply as
well to the kinds of problems of most interest to industry.
    ''For a long time the mind-set that the simplex method was the way
to do things may have blocked other methods from being tested,'' said
Dr. Richard Karp, professor of computer science at the University of
California at Berkeley. ''It comes as a big surprise that what might
have been just a curiosity, like the ellipsoid, turns out to have
such practical importance.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 14:15:01-PST
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <NAGLE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: new linear programming algorithm
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

     This may have implications for automatic theorem proving.  Since
Dick Karp is working on it, they will probably be explored.  We may get
some really high performance verification techniques someday.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 16:17:41 pst
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new linear programming algorithm and automatic theorem
-BODY-           proving.

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

As applied to program verification, the typical linear programming problems
that arise are almost all of the form, find any integer solution to a set
of inequations of the form x+c<y where x and y are variables and c is an
integer constant.  (Different inequations are allowed different choices of
the two variables, i.e. there are more than two variables in the system as
a whole.)  There is a simple algorithm for solving these (in either integers
or reals) having worst case O(n**3) (essentially Floyd's algorithm for all
shortest paths).  The sets tend to be sparse, which can be taken advantage
of to get better than n**3 performance.  The implementation is simple and the
constant factor is small.

The reason this form crops up is that it is an alternative representation
for the inequational theory of successor and predecessor, which in turn
crops up since most arithmetic occurring in programs consists of subscript
incrementing and decrementing and checking against bounds.  Programs whose
arithmetic goes beyond this theory also tend to go beyond the theory of + and
> by having * and / as well, i.e. the fraction of programs covered by
linear programming but not by the above trivial fragment of it is not that
large.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 17:26:48 pst
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Algorith for Linear Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A preliminary report appeared in the proceedings of the last ACM Symp. on
Theory of Computing. It is a provably polynomial time algorithm, which unlike
Khachian's algorithm is a practical one. There are doubts among the experts
whether the algorithm is as revolutionary as the PR people say it is.

Moshe

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 17 Nov 84 17:58:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Ole Lehrmann Madsen <MADSEN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Solving Problems in Equational Theories
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION
                 AREA C MEETING

Topic:     REVE: a system for solving problems in equational theories,
                 based on term rewriting techniques.
Speaker:   Jean-Pierre Jouannaud, Professor at University of NANCY, FRANCE,
           on leave at SRI-Internatinal and CSLI.
Time:      1:30-3:30
Date:      Wednesday, Nov. 21
Place:     Ventura Seminar Room

Equational Logic has been adopted by mathematicians for a very long time and by
computer scientists recently.  Specifications in OBJ2, an "object-oriented"
language designed and implemented at SRI-International, uses equations to
express relations between objects.  To express computations in this logic,
equations are used one way, e.g. as rules.  To make proofs with rules in this
logic requires the so-called "confluence" property, which expresses that the
result of a computation is unique, no matter the order the rules are applied.
Proofs and computations are therefore integrated in a very simple framework.
When a set of rules does not have the confluence property, it is augmented by
new rules, using the so-called Knuth and Bendix completion algorithm, until the
property becomes satisfied.  This algorithm requires the set of rules to have
the termination property, i.e., an expression cannot be rewritten forever.  It
has been proved that this algorithm allows to perform inductive proof without
invoking explicitly an induction principle and solve equations (unification) in
the corresponding equational theory as well.

REVE1, developped by Pierre Lescanne during a leave at MIT, implements all
these concepts, including automated proofs for termination.

REVE2, developped by Randy Forgaard at MIT, provided REVE with a very
sophisticated user interface, including an undo command.

REVE3, developped by Claude and Helene Kirchner in NANCY, includes new powerful
features, mainly mixted sets of rules and equations for handling theories
including permutative axioms.

All versions are developped in CLU and run on VAX under UNIX-Berkeley.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 22:59:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Art Owen <OWEN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Grand Tour
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Laboratory for Computational Statistics Seminar

Time:   3:15pm Wednesday November 21st
Place:  Sequoia Hall 114
Cookies:  at 3:00  in the Lounge

Title:          Hopes for the Grand Tour

by                      Daniel Asimov
                        Dept. of Computer Science
                        U.C. Berkeley

The grand tour is a technique for examining two dimensional projections
of higher dimensional objects.  The tour essentially picks a trajectory
through the space of possible projections, while a data analyst watches
the corresponding 'movie' on a graphics terminal.  The objective
is to as quickly as possible pass near to most of the
possible projections.  It is a tool for finding projections that are
informative.

The talk will discuss the current state of grand tour
research, identifying desirable properties
that a tour might have, indicating which such properties have been
achieved and directions for future research.

That's 3:00, 21 Nov 84, Sequoia Hall 114

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
159
-DATE-
Date: Sun 18 Nov 84 13:55:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Jay Ferguson <FERGUSON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp-D "malgorithm?"
-BODY-

Another point on this classic example of a true malgorithm is that
there is a lack of understanding of implementation detail.  The
CLISP feature of Interlisp is translated into a MAP function or a
PROG depending upon the structure.  Each time you call a FOR statement
interpetively the translation occurs.  When you compile the FOR
statement you will see large gains in efficiency.

I ran several test of both LDIFF, the initial FOR, and JonL's FOR with
the following results:

                   interpreted          compiled

LDIFF              .00125 secs          .00125 secs

Todd - FOR         .02125 secs          .00444 secs

JonL - FOR         .02114 secs          .00115 secs


These were run under INTERLISP-10 on a DEC-2060 with a 26 element list,
taking the first 9 elements.  Each test was run 100 times.  LDIFF was
not actually compiled because it was a normal function call.

jay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 15:50:57 PST
-FROM-
From: Steve Crocker <crocker@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM compiler message rebuttal
-BODY-
At the risk of being misunderstood as an apologist for IBM's ultra prosaic
programming systems, I feel Earl Boebert's Nov 16 item on IBM's Fortran
compiler error message, viz. "COLUMN cc OF CARD nnnn CONTAINS A 12-4 PUNCH
MINUS SIGN INSTEAD OF AN 11 PUNCH MINUS SIGN.  CORRECT AND RESUBMIT.", is
taken out of context and misrepresents the situation.

First, a slight diversion.  I believe a 12-4 code is a D, and Earl probably
meant the 11-8-4 code, although my memory is a bit rusty and I surely have
not saved my old IBM BCD crib sheets.

The real issue is there had been two legal codes for minus, 11-8-4 and 11.
A decision had been made to phase out the 11-8-4 so it could be reassigned
to another symbol, and it eventually became the apostrophe, I believe.

Conversion proceeded in phases.  At the end of the conversion, the 11-8-4
code would always be treated as an apostrophe and receive no more special
attention if it were detected in an inappropriate position than any other
character would.  For example, "A = B'C" and "A = B$C" would get the same
treatment, and inhibit completion of the compilation.  (Admittedly, other
strategies for dealing with errors are possible, e.g. the DWIM system in
Interlisp, but that would mean a COMPLETE overhaul of the Fortran compiler,
and Fortran wasn't designed for either heuristic error correction or
interactive repair.)

To get to the point where 11-8-4 was freed up from its interpretation as a
minus sign, users were informed of the change and "encouraged" to amend
their programs.  The messages during the initial period were just warning
messages.  Later they were hard errors, as Earl related.  One might object
to this, but it's not simple to see what else to do.  If the 11-8-4 were to
take on a new meaning and still be accepted as a minus sign in all contexts
that minus signs are legal, both ambiguity and outright misunderstandings
would be propagated.  Despite the apparent inflexibility of the compiler, I
doubt this kind of error message caused any large disruption in programmer
productivity.

The problem was not unique to IBM's character set, of course.  The meaning
of the ASCII code for "_" was changed a few years ago.  It used to mean a
left arrow and some languages used it for assignment; now it means an
underscore and is used within identifiers.  This conversion was not without
some pain...

More seriously, the problem of catching all the dependencies of some change
to an established interface remains a challenge.  This may be a more frutiful
topic for discussion than malgorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 13:54 CST
-FROM-
From: Boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: IBM compiler message rebuttal
-BODY-
Just when you think of a good cheap shot, somebody goes and makes it
sound like it was a reasonable thing to do...in any event, we were
undergrads and very much on the Algol side of the Algol/FORTRAN dispute,
and we thought the message a wonderful example of IBM mindlessness.
Maybe they should have appended THIS FATAL ERROR BROUGHT TO YOU IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE GREATER GOOD.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 22:47:28-EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Rubin <RUBIN@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computers speaking German
-BODY-
I've seen a paper from the very early sixties that described a French
preprocessor for FORTRAN -- it converted ALLER to GOTO, FAIRE to DO,
etcetera....  The paper claimed this was a first step toward machine
translation (of natural language).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 05:55:27-CST
-FROM-
From: Clive Dawson <CC.Clive@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: book"Hackers: heroes of the computer revolution"
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

   I picked up Steven Levy's "Hackers" today and have gotten through Part 1:
"True Hackers--Cambridge: the Fifties and Sixties".  All in all quite
enjoyable and well worth the money, though I did have to grit my teeth when
reading about the "TICO" text editor and the "MULTIX" and "TENNIX"
operating systems.  Sigh.  The book comes mostly from over a hundred
personal interviews conducted in 1982-83.  Levy seems to have done a
careful job of documenting the written sources and of compiling an index.
Those who were interviewed will have to be the ones to say how faithfully
their perspective was communicated.  Most of the stories in Part 1 have
become part of standard "hacker folklore" which has been passed from mouth
to mouth and keyboard to keyboard over the last 25 years.  It's nice to
have them all collected in one place now.

   I certainly wouldn't rate Steven Levy's writing in the same class as Tom
Wolfe's, but I must admit that the the way the image of Cambridge is
painted as the birthplace of hacking was strikingly reminiscent of how
Wolfe built the image of the high desert in California as the birthplace of
the Right Stuff.  Levy even sprinkles references to "The Right Thing"
throughout the text.  (As we all know, Wolfe came up with his title after
seeing this term in the Jargon file. :-))

   I cheated and temporarily skipped over Part 2 ("Hardware Hackers") and
Part 3 ("Game Hackers") to the Epilogue--"The Last of the True Hackers".
The material covered here (e.g. the birth of Symbolics & LMI) is more
contemporary and thus familiar to many of us.  It is, sadly, pretty much
on the mark.

I too would be interested in hearing other opinions of this book
(especially from any of those interviewed.)

Clive

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 84 09:48 PST
-FROM-
From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: B.F. Skinner: A Man for All Reasonings
-BODY-
Shrager's conveyance of the quote about Skinner being an "expert systems
researcher" highlights a fundamental split in the AI community.

First, let me say I don't regard expert systems as a panacea -- at worst
they could be viewed as a technological spin-off of 20 years of AI
research.  Contrast this with the view taken by Skinner and his
disciples about SR being a fully adequate model of psychology; the
appearance of his book Verbal Behaviour is a desperate attempt to shore
up this claim.

On the other hand, a certain faction of AI is also trying to find a
fully adequate model of human cognitive capabilities (I would place
Minsky as the arch-defender of this "faith" -- the mind-as-meat-computer
camp); possibly *some* AI people would think that a brute force approach
along the lines of expert systems would be an interesting model, but I
don't personally know any such.  Another faction is less concerned with
mimicing the human structures and more concerned with the "artificial"
aspects of intelligence; I tend, now, to think of John McCarthy as the
prototype of this camp (see his article in Psychology Today earlier this
year -- perhaps April? -- and don't be put off by the fact that it
appears in, glaaag, Psychology Today).

The second approach is *not* to be confused with expert systems.
Although, one could imagine why "expert systems" would receive a more
favorable review from the latter camp than from the former.

I was present at MIT in late 1971 when the "MathLab" group was "read
out" of the AI community (the "MathLab" group at MIT quickly then became
MACSYMA).  Although MacSyma was certainly among the first of Expert
Systems with a major impact, it wasn't "AI" by the prevailing standards;
perhaps more like engineering, but not "AI".  What must be emphasized,
however, is that no one, at any time, thought of MacSyma as even a
partial model of human cognition.


If Skinner were coming of age now, with the same mind set, and were
indeed an expert systems researcher -- don't you think he'd have a more
"ambitious" goal?

>- JonL White --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 1984 17:32-EST
-FROM-
From: milne <milne@wpafb-afita>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART on Reasoning about Structure and Function
-BODY-

Special Issue of SIGART News on Reasoning about Structure and Function.

  We plan to edit a special issue of SIGART News devoted to representing,
and reasoning about, structure, behavior and function of devices and
systems.   This has recently become a topic of increasing importance
in giving expert systems capabilities for causal reasoning to support
diagnostic and other tasks.  Work in this area has been in the domains
of simple machines, electronic circuits, mechanical systems and medicine.

  Our aim is to cover the spectrum of work that is going on in the U. S
and other countries in this general area.  We expect that the SIGART News
special issue will be followed by a special issue of some appropriate
journal containing fuller version of selected papers from the former.

  Submissions are invited from researchers summarizing their approach,
results, problems and plans.   The submissions should be under
5 type-written pages, and should be sent to Prof. Rob Milne at the address
below.  The deadline for submissions is 15 January 1985.

Rob Milne                               B. Chandrasekaran
Department of Electrical Enginnering    Department of Computer & Information
AFIT/ENG                                                Science
A.F. Institute of Technology            The Ohio State University
WPAFB, OH 45433                         Columbus, OH 43210
513-255-3576                                    614-422-0923
milne@wpafb-afita

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 17 November 1984 20:35:17 EST
-FROM-
From: Mario.Barbacci@cmu-cs-spice.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Hardware Description Languages
-BODY-

                                CALL FOR PAPERS

                        7TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
                    COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES
                            AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
                                    CHDL-85

                              AUGUST 29-31, 1985
                              KEIDANREN BUILDING
                                 TOKYO, JAPAN

Sponsored by the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) and
the Information Processing Society of Japan (IPSJ), organized by IFIP TC-10 and
IFIP WG 10.2, in cooperation with IEEE-CS, ACM, GI, and NTG.

The theme of the symposium is:

                    TOOL, METHOD, AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATION

The  Symposium  focuses  on  the design process as a whole. The objective is to
cover the various aspects of (computer-supported) specification,  verification,
modelling,  evaluation, and design of computer systems based on suitable design
languages. Integration can be considered from specification  to  implementation
as well as in terms of language and tool integration at a given level.

Topic areas are:

>From Specification to Implementation of Digital Systems:
    methodological aspects            integrating levels of description
    formal verification and           performance and reliability
            correctness                       evaluation
    test generation from CHDL         synthesis
            descriptions

Computer System/Hardware Description Languages:
    formal specification languages    languages and technology
    multiple representation of        language support for verification,
            design objects                    performance, and reliability

Tool Integration:
    design environments               expert systems for system design
    data structures for integration   integration of tools for testing,
           between levels and tools            verification, and simulation

Acceptance and Experience:
    reality in industry               acceptance problems of new methods,
    integration with CAD/CAM                  languages and tools

Five  (5)  copies  of  the  full length manuscript in English, not exceeding 20
double-spaced typewritten pages, should be sent  to  the  Program  Chairman  to
arrive no later than December 15, 1984.

Notification   of   acceptance  is  planned  for  March  15,  1985.  The  final
camera-ready version of accepted papers is due on May 15, 1985.

Because the symposium is held immediately after the VLSI 85 conference  at  the
same location, Program Committees of both conferences may transfer papers which
fit better the topics of the other conference.

General Chairman:                     Program Chairman:

Professor Tohru Moto-oka              Dr. Cees Jan Koomen
Department of Electrical Engineering  Philips International
University of Tokyo                   Product Development Coordination
Hongo, 7 chome                        VO-1, P.O. Box 218
Bunkyo-ku                             5600 MD Eindhoven,
Tokyo, Japan                          The Netherlands
telephone (212) 2111 ext. 6652        telephone (31) (40) 884962
                                      ArpaNet: Philips@sri-csl

Local Committee Chairman:             IFIP WG 10.2 Chairman:

Dr.Takao Uehara                       Dr. Mario R. Barbacci
Tools and Methodology Section         Department of Computer Science
Software Laboratory                   Carnegie-Mellon University
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.             Pittsburgh
1015 Kamikodanaka Nakahara-ku         Pennsylvania 15213
Kawasaki 211, Japan                   USA
telephone (81) (44) 777 1111 X6155    telephone (412) 578-2578
telex 3842 122

Local Committee:

H. Ando  (publicity),  Y. Ikemoto  (local  arrangements), O. Karatsu (finance),
T. Uehara (Chairman)

Program Committee:

M. Barbacci (USA), D. Borrione (France), S. Crocker (USA), J. Darringer  (USA),
S. Dasgupta    (USA),   R. Hartenstein   (FRG),   E. Hoerbst   (FRG),   J. Jess
(Netherlands),  C.J.   Koomen   (Netherlands,   Chairman),   F. Rammig   (FRG),
W. Sherwood   (USA),  T. Sudo  (Japan),  T. Uehara  (Japan),  M. Vernon  (USA),
A. Yamada (Japan)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
160
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 1984 15:55:02-EST
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Plan Recognition
-BODY-

                               WANTED

We are interested in any information, papers, reports, or titles of same
dealing with AI PLAN RECOGNITION that can be supplied to the government
at no cost (they made me say that!). We are presently involved in an
R&D effort requiring such information.

                                          Thanks in advance,

                                          Ron Kushnier
                                          Code 5023
                                          NAVAIRDEVCEN
                                          Warminster Pa. 18974

kushnier@nadc.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 84 16:55:09 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Are books obsolete?
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Sony has recently introduced a portable compact optical disk player.
I hear they intend to market it as a microcomputer peripheral for
$300.  I'm not sure what its capacity will be, so I'll estimate it at
50 megabytes per side.  That's 25000 ascii coded 8 1/2x11 pages, or
1000 compressed page images, per side.  Disks cost about $10, for a
cost per word orders of magnitude less than books.

Here's an excellent opportunity for those concerned with the social
impact of computer technology to demonstrate their wisdom.  What will
the effect be of such inexpensive read-only storage media?  How will
this technology affect the popularity of home computers?  What
features should a home computer have to fully exploit this technology?
How should text be stored on the disks?  What difference would
magneto-optical writeable/erasble disks make?  How will this
technology affect
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 22:26:16 est
From: FRAWLEY <20568%vax1%udel-cc-relay.delaware@udel-relay.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Language Simplification,  V2 #157

On Gillam's comments on simplification:

1. In the South U.S., there is a raising of the vowels. "Pen" becomes
"pin." This results in homophony between the words "pen" and "pin."
Thus, in these dialects, the word "pin" becomes something like "peeun,"
with the vowel raised even more. The lesson is that an ostensible sim-
plification complicates the system further by requiring a dif-
ferentiation between certain phonological forms. This is an instance of
supposed regularity causing complication.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 17:45:34 PST
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Michael G. Dyer" <dyer@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: what language 'is' (?)
-BODY-

re:  what natural language 'is'

While it's fun to make up criteria and then use those criteria to judge
one natural language as 'superior' to another, or decide that a given NL
has 'degenerated' etc, I don't really see this approach as leading
anywhere (except, perhaps, for 'phylogenetic' studies of language
'speciation', just as pot shards are examined in archeology for cultural
contacts...  We could also spend our time deciding which culture is
'better' by various criteria, e.g. more weapons, less TV, etc).

It's also convenient to talk about natural language as if it's something
"on its own".  However, I view this attitude as scientifically
unhealthy, since it leads to an overemphasis on linguistic structure.
Surely the interesting questions about NL concern those cognitive
processes involved in getting from NL to thoughts in memory and back out
again to language.  These processes involve forming models of what the
speaker/listener knows, and applying world knowledge and context.  NL
structure plays only a small part in these overall processes, since the
main ones involve knowledge application, memory interactions, memory
search, inference, etc.

e.g. consider the following story:

     "John wanted to see a movie.  He hopped on his bike
     and went to the drugstore and bought a paper.
     Then he went home and called the theater to get the
     exact time."

now we could have said this any number of ways, eg.

     "John paid for a paper at the drugstore.  He'd gotten
     there on his bike.  Later, at home,  he used the number
     in the paper to call the theater,  since he wanted
     to see a movie and needed to know the exact time."

The reason we can handle such diverse versions -- in which the goals and
actions appear in different order -- is that we can RECONSTRUCT John's
complete plan for enjoying a movie from our general knowledge of what's
involved in selecting and getting to a movie.  It looks something like
this:

     enjoy movie
          need to know what's playing
           --> read newspaper (ie one way to find out)
                  need newspaper
                  --> get newspaper
                        possess newspaper
                           need $  to buy it (ie one way to get it)
                        need to be where it's sold
                           need way to get there
                             --> use bike (ie one way to travel)
          need to know time
            --> call theater (ie one way to find out)
                   need to know phone number
                     --> get # out of newspaper

          need to physically watch it
            need to be there
              --> drive there (ie one way to get there)
            need to know how to get there
               etc

We use our pre-existing knowledge (e.g.  of how people get to a movie of
their choice) to help us understand text about such things.  Once we've
formed a conceptual model of the planning involved (from our knowledge
of constraints and enablement on plans and goals), then we can put the
story 'in the right order' in our minds.

In fact, the notion of goals, plans, and enablements should be universal
among all humans (the closest thing to a 'universal grammar', for people
who insist on talking about things in terms of 'grammars').  Given this
fact, EVERY natural language should allow sparse and somewhat
mixed-order renditions of plan-related stories.  Is this a feature,
then, of one or more NATURAL LANGUAGEs, or is it really a feature of
general INTELLIGENCE -- i.e. planning, inference etc.

Clearly the interesting problems here are:  how to represent goal/plan
knowledge, how this knowledge is referred to in a given language, and
how these knowledge sources interact to instantiate a representation of
what the reader knows after reading about John's movie trip.

(Of course, other types of text will involve other kinds of conceptual
constructs -- e.g. editorial text involves reasoning and beliefs).

Wittgenstein expressed the insight -- i.e. that natural languages are
fundamentally different from formal languages -- in terms of his notion
of "language games".  He argued that speakers are like the players of a
game, and to the extent that the players know the rules, they can do
all sorts of communication 'tricks' (since they know another player
can use HIS knowledge of the "game" to extract the most appropriate
meaning from an utterance, gesture, text...).  As a result, Wittgenstein
felt it was quite misguided to argue that formal languages are 'better'
because they're unambiguous.

Now this issue is reappearing in a slightly different guise as a number
of ancient natural(?) languages are offered as 'the answer' to our
representational problems, based on the claim that they are unambiguous.
Two favorites currently seem to be sastric sanskrit and a Bolivian
language called "Aymara".

(Quote from news article in LA Times, Nov.  7, '84 p 12:  "...  wisemen
constructed the language [Aymara] from scratch, by logical, premeditated
design, as early as 4,000 years ago")

I suspect ancient and exotic languages are being chosen since fewer
people know enough about them to dispute any claims made.  Of course
this isn't done on purpose:  it's simply that the better known NLs that
get proposed are more quickly discarded since more people will know, or
can find, counter-examples for each claim.

By the way, the kinds of discussions we have here at UCLA on NL are very
different from those I see on AIList.  Instead of arguing about what
language 'is' (i.e.  the definitional approach to science that Minksy and
others have  criticized on earlier AILists), we try to represent ideas
(e.g.  "Religion is the opiate of the masses", "self-fulfilling
prophecy", "John congratulated Mary", etc) in terms of abstract
conceptual data structures, where the representation chosen is judged in
terms of its usefulness for inference, parsing, memory search, etc.
Discussions include how a conceptual parser would take such text and map
it into such constructs; how knowledge of these constructs and
inferential processes can aid in the parsing process; how the resulting
instantiated structures would be searched during:  Q/A, advice
giving, paraphrasing, summarization, translation, and so on.

It's fun to BS about NL, but I wouldn't want my students to think that
what appears on AIList (with a few exceptions) re: NL is the way NL
research should be conducted or specifies what the important research
issues in NL are.

I hope I haven't insulted anyone.  (If I have, then you know who you
are!)  I'm guessing that most readers out there actually agree with me.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 14:02:39 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intention in Text Interpretation (Berkeley)
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

   TIME:                Tuesday, November 27, 11 - 12:30
   PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
   DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Walter Michaels and  Steven  Knapp,  English
                Department, UC Berkeley

TITLE:          ``Against Theory''

ABSTRACT:       A discussion of the role of intention in the
                interpretation   of  text.   We  argue  that
                linguistic meaning  is  always  intentional;
                that   linguistic   forms  have  no  meaning
                independent of  authorial  intention;   that
                interpretative disagreements are necessarily
                disagreements about what a particular author
                intended  to  say;  and that recognizing the
                inescapability of intention has fatal conse-
                quences  for  all  attempts  to  construct a
                theory of interpretation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 84 15:24:46 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Shafer@CMU-CS-IUS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Victor Lesser, from U. Mass., is coming to CMU on Tuesday to present
the AI Seminar.  He will be speaking about AI techniques for use on
distributed systems.  3:30 pm on Tuesday, November 27, in WeH 5409.


COOPERATIVE DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM SOLVING

   This research topic is part of a new research area that has
recently emerged in AI, called Distributed AI.  This new area
combines research issues in distributed processing and AI by
focusing on the development of distributed networks of
semi-autonomous nodes that cooperate interactively to solve a
single task.
   Our particular emphasis in this general research area has
been on how to design such problem-solving networks so that
they can function effectively even though processing nodes have
inconsistent and incomplete views of the data bases necessary for
their computations.  An example of the type of application that
this approach is suitable for is a distributed sensor network.
   This lecture will discuss our basic approach called Functionally-
Accurate Cooperative Problem-Solving, the need for sophisticated
network-wide control and its relationship to local node control, and
[end of message -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 November 1984 1639-EST
-FROM-
From: Cathy Hill@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Shape Recognition Illusion (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:  Geoff Hinton and Kevin Lang (CMU)
Title:    A Strange property of shape recognition networks.

Date:     November 27, l984
Time:     12 noon - 1:30 p.m.
Place:    Adamson Wing in Baker Hall

Abstract: We shall describe a parallel network that is capable of
          recognizing simple shapes in any orientation or position
          and we will show that networks of this type are liable to
          make a strange kind of error when presented with several
          shapes that are followed by a backward mask.  The error
          involves perceiving one shape in the position of another.
          Anne Treisman has shown that people make errors of just
          this kind.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
161
-DATE-
Date: Sun 25 Nov 84 01:50:44-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Benchmarking Reading Comprehension
-BODY-
     Does anyone know if any objective standards or tests have been
devised for rating or benchmarking the power of natural language
understanding systems?

     In the world of chess exists a standard international system for
rating players which can be applied to chess-playing programs. I think
it would be useful to devise a similar system for natural language
understanding software. Such a benchmarking scheme would make it
possible to track the rate of progress in the most fundamental branch
of computational linguistics, and to compare the performance of
competing systems. The National Bureau of Standards might be an
appropriate organization to oversee a project of this kind.

     Perhaps such a benchmarking system could be based on the reading
comprehension sections of the SAT or GRE exams. A GRE-style multiple
choice test for natural language understanding would avert the problem
of wrongly jumbling the capacity to understand--to recognize
propositions, reason, and draw inferences--with the ability of a
program to answer questions with well-formed discourse, a domain of
skill which is really quite separate from pure comprehension. It would
be desirable to establish standard tests for every major language in
the world.

     Is there an existing natural language understanding system in the
world that can read even at the level of a third grader? Probably not.

     To that researcher or research team in the world which first
designs (no doubt decades from now) a program which consistently
scores at least 700 on the reading comprehension sections of
standardized tests like the SAT or GRE could be offered, perhaps, a
major cash prize.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 24 Nov 84 15:27:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Abstracts
-BODY-
Two ads for AI abstracts and indices have recently crossed my desk:

Scientific Datalink is offering a four-volume index to the AI
research reports that they offer in microfiche (one volume of
authors and titles, one of subjects, and two of abstracts).
The price is $375 now, $495 after publication.  Individual
volumes are not offered separately in this ad.  For more
information, write to Ms. Chia Reinhard, Scientific Datalink,
850 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022.  (212) 838-7200.

ECI/Intelligence is offering a new journal, Artificial Intelligence
Abstracts, at $295 for 1985.  (The mockup of the first issue is dated
October 1984, but the text consists of such gems as "Ut einim ad
minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
ea commodo consequet.")  The journal offers to keep you up to date on
market research, hardware and software developments, expert systems,
financial planning, and legislative activities.  There is a similar
journal for CAD/CAM.  The AI advisory board includes Harry Barrow,
Michael Brady, Pamela McCorduck, and David Shaw.

ECI/Intelligence also offers a full-text document order service
from their microfiche collection.  For more info, write to them
at 48 West 38 Street, New York, NY 10018.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 24 Nov 84 14:51:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Computer Articles
-BODY-
AI is mentioned a few times in the November issue of IEEE Computer.

On p. 114, there are excerpts from the keynote Compcon speech by
Robert C. Miller, a senior vice president of Data General.  He is
touting expert systems, and estimates that overall sales of AI-related
products will increase from $100-150 million this year to $2.5
billion by the end of the decade.

P. 117 has a very short mention of NCAI and the coming IJCAI.

P. 133 has L. Elliot's review of Learning and Teaching with Computers,
by Tim O'Shea and John Self.  The book is evidently about half AI
(Logo, MYCIN, knowledge engineering, and epistemology) and half
computer-assisted learning (teaching styles, learning styles,
tutoring strategies).

The rest of the magazine is mostly about Teradata's database machines,
the PICT graphical programming language, workstations in local area
networks, and some overviews of software engineering at NEC and GTE.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 24 Nov 84 15:02:27-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: High Technology Articles
-BODY-
The December issue of High Technology has some interesting articles
for computer folk.  On p. 9 there's a short item about Logicware's
(Hungarian-developed) MPROLOG, a "modular" PROLOG for IBM PCs and
mainframes, 68000-based micros, VAXen, and other hosts.  Other
articles review the best of current microcomputer equipment (chiefly
PC-AT and Macintosh), survey the field of visual flight and driving
simulators, and present an excellent introduction to database
structures and machines (esp. relational databases).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 25 Nov 84 15:25:50-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CACM Article on Learning
-BODY-
The November issue of CACM includes "A Theory of the Learnable", by
L.G. Valiant of Harvard.  I am not competent to evaluate the article,
which is based on theorems in computational complexity, but I can
characterize it as follows:

The author is considering the class of concepts in propositional logic
that can be learned in a polynomial number of steps from a source of
positive examples (produced as required in accordance with a probability
distribution) and an oracle that can classify an arbitrary Boolean vector
as a positive or negative exemplar.  The classes that are found to be
learnable are  1) conjunctive normal form expressions with a bounded
number of literals in each clause (no oracle required),  2) monotone
disjunctive normal form expressions, and  3) arbitrary expressions
in which each variable occurs just once (no examples required, but
the oracle must be especially capable).  The method of learning used
is such that the learned concept may occasionally reject true exemplars
but will not accept false ones.

The closing remarks contain this interesting quote:

  An important aspect of our approach, if cast in its greatest
  generality, is that we require the recognition algorithm of the
  teacher and learner to agree on an overwhelming fraction of only
  the natural inputs.  Their behavior on unnatural inputs is
  irrelevant, and hence descriptions of all possible worlds are not
  necessary.  If followed to its conclusion, this idea has considerable
  philosophical implications:  A learnable concept is nothing more
  than a short program that distinguishes some natural inputs from
  some others.  If such a concept is passed on among a population
  in a distributed manner, substantial variations in meaning may arise.
  More importantly, what consensus there is will only be meaningful
  for natural inputs.  The behavior of an individual's program for
  unnatural inputs has no relevance.  Hence thought experiments and
  logical arguments involving unnatural hypothetical situations
  may be meaningless activities.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 Nov 84 17:36:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: quote  {:-)
-BODY-
Attributed to Marvin Minsky (someone tell me if it's wrong)

        "I'll bet the human brain is a kludge."

                                                        - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 24 Nov 84 14:36:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Many-Body Problem
-BODY-
Need software to run 10,000-body simulations?  A VAX Pascal program
is discussed in the November CACM Programming Pearls column.
Optimization brought the run time down from one year to one day.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 84 17:20 PST
-FROM-
From: JonL.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Macro cacheing: Interlisp-D Interpreter as "malgorithm"?
-BODY-
Jay Ferguson suggests, in his contribution of 18 Nov 84 13:55:58-PST,
that an explanation for the timing differences between using a FOR loop
and using LDIFF in the original "Interlisp-D malgorithm" is because
"Each time you call a FOR statement interpetively the translation
occurs."  This is not the case -- the Interlisp interpreter (in all
implementations of Interlisp, I believe) caches the results of any macro
or CLISP expansion into a hash array called CLISPARRAY; see secton 16.8
of the Interlisp Reference Manual (Oct 1983).  In fact, the figures
supplied by Jay show a speed difference of a factor of 17, which would
be consistent with the basic loop being compiled in LDIFF (a "system"
function) and being interpreted in the FOR.

The question of "cacheing" as noted above is a complicated one, and in
Jay's defense, I can say that it is not at all clearly outlined in the
IRM.   For example, it lays the burden on the "in-core" structure editor
of examining CLISPARRAY on any change, to de-cache the expansions for
any code that is modified; but random modifications (caused by, say,
redefinition of a function upon which the expansion depends), don't
cause de-cacheing, and this is the source of some very obscure bugs.
Furthermore, lots of cruft may stick around forever because the garbage
collector does not reclaim items placed in the cache; for this reason,
it is advisable to ocasionally do (CLRHASH CLISPARRAY).

MacLisp provides three options for macro expansions which are
controllable on a macro-by-macro basis (CLISP is, unfortunately, a
kludge dating to pre-macro Interlisp days -- it could and should be
implemented entirely as a set of macros, so I will view it in that light
for the rest of this discussion): (1) do no cacheing, (2) "displace" the
original list cell containing the macro call with a form which contains
both the original and the expanded code [compiler and interpreter use
the expanded code, prettyprinter uses the original], and (3) cache the
expansion in a hash array called MACROMEMO.  While all these options can
be run in any Lisp that implements macros by giving the expansion
function a pointer to "the whole cell", Common Lisp provides the
*macroexpand-hook* facility so that the cacheing code which is common to
all macros can be put in one place, rather than distributed throughout
the many macro bodies.

>- JonL --

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 84 07:15:10 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linear Programming Algorithms
-BODY-

The recent discussion of the Karmarkar Linear Programming algorithm on
this newsgroup has stirred me to comment.  I wouldn't think a cubic time
linear programming algorithm to be any great deal, indeed I present one
myself shortly.  An algorithm that solves the INTEGER linear programming
problem, however, is something else again.  My understanding is that the
Khachiyan algorithm solved the integer problem in polynomial time.  If
the Karmarkar algorithm does also, then it is truly worthy.  But it has
not been apparent in the popularized discussion I have been reading that
this is so.  Perhaps those on the net who are more in the know can tell
us whether it is or not.

Ever since I took Luenberger's course in Linear and Nonlinear Programming
(Stanford EES department, 1973) I have wondered why people didn't apply
the powerful nonlinear tools to the linear problem.  I played around with
the idea and came up with an algorithm I call "gradient step linear
programming".  I've never done anything with it because it's so simple
and obvious that it seemed someone had to have thought of it before.
Because the algorithm follows the gradient as best it can subject to
the constraints, from a geometric point of view it travels through the
"interior" of the polytope, much as has been described for the Karmarkar
algorithm.  Optimality is achieved in no more than N steps, each step
requiring o(N^2) numerical operations, where N is  the dimension of the
space.

Mathematical notation isn't easy on a terminal.  I adopt the convention
of representing vectors by preceding them with an underline, as "_x".
Subscripts I represent using a colon, _c:j being the j-th vector _c.
The inner product is represented by < * , * >.  I use a functional
form (i.e. f(  )) to represent things like sums. The rest should be
fairly obvious.

A statement of the linear programming problem, convenient for the description
of the algorithm,  follows.  This problem statement is readily converted into
other forms of the linear programming problem.  The problem is to maximize
with respect to the N-dimensional vector _x the linear functional:
               <_c , _x >
 subject to the constraints:
               <_a:j , _x > >= b:j   for j = 1, 2, ..., M
The vector '_c' is often called the cost vector when a minimization problem is
being considered.  M >= N, as otherwise the solution is unbounded.

The procedure for finding an initial feasible vector _x(0) is essentially
identical to the procedure for finding an optimum vector.  For now an initial
feasible vector _x(0) in the interior of the polytope defined by the
constraints may simply be assumed.  The initial gradient vector,
maximizing the rate of change subject to the active constraints, is _c(0) =
_c.  At each stage, the idea of the algorithm is to move along the current
gradient vector (subject to the active constraints) as far as possible, until
a previously inactive constraint is encountered.  The direction of change is
modified by the most recent active constraint, until no motion in the
direction of the gradient is possible.  This is both the formal and the
obvious stopping condition for the algorithm.  The details of the algorithm
follow:

Step 1:  given a current solution point _x(n), determine the step size s
(giving the next solution point _x(n+1) = _x(n) + s*_c(n), identifying at
the same time the next active constraint.
          D:j = < _x(n) , _a:j > - b:j    ( >= 0 )
          s:j = D:j / < _c(n) , _a:j >    for j in the set of inactive
constraints.
          s = min { s:j } , and the next active constraint has the index j(n)
providing the minimum, which is also the maximum feasible step size.

Step 2:  Apply the Gram-Schmidt procedure (i.e., projection) to remove the
component of the most recent active constraint from the gradient direction, so
that subsequent steps will not result in violation of the active constraint.
It is necessary first to remove all components of previous active constraints
from the newly actived constraint to insure that the adjusted gradient
direction will not violate any previous acitve constraint.
          _a(n) = _a:j(n) - sum(k = 0 to (n-1))[
                         _a(k) * <_a:j(n),_a(k)> / <_a(k),_a(k)> ]

          _c(n+1) = _c(n) - _a(n) * <_c(n),_a(n)> / <_a(n),_a(n)>

Steps 1 and 2 are repeated until _c(n+1)=0, at which point _x(n) is the
optimal solution to the linear programming problem.  Additional tests to
detect and recover from degeneracy are easily added.

A detailed proof of optimality is straightforward but somewhat tedious.
Intuitively, the algorithm is optimal because steps are always taken along the
direction maximizing the rate of change of the functional, subject to the
active constraints.  At the optimal point, there is no feasible motion
improving the functional.  Stated differently, the original cost vector lies
in the space spanned by the gradients of the constraints, and this is the
formal (Lagrange) optimization condition.  It is only necessary to add
constraints to the set of active constraints because the optimization space is
convex, and therefore changes in the functional improvement direction (and
reduction in the rate of improvement) result only from encountering new
constraints and having to turn to follow them.

Note that the number of iterations is simply the number of dimensions N of the
space, this being also the number of vectors required to span the space.  Each
iteration entails the removal of o(N) vector components from the new
constraint, and the removal of a vector component entails o(N) multiplications
and additions.  Similarly, determining the step size requires the computation
of o(N) inner products, each requiring o(N) multiplications and additions.
Finding the iniitial feasible vector requires about the same effort in
general.  Thus overall the algorithm presented for solving the linear
programming problem requires O(N**3) arithmetic operations.

An initial feasible point can be determined starting from an arbitrary point
(say the origin), identifying the unsatisfied constraints, and moving in
directions that satisfy them.  It may be more direct to simply start with a
"superoptimal" point, say K*_c for suitably large K, and iterate using
essentially the previously described algorithm along the negative constrained
gradient directions to feasibility.  By duality, the resulting feasible point
will also be optimal for the original problem.

                                                Carl F. Kaun

                                                ckaun@aids-UNIX
                                                415/941-3912

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 November 1984 1014-EST
-FROM-
From: Staci Quackenbush@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Set Theoretic Problem Translation (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        Name:   Robert Paige
        Date:   November 27, 1984
        Time:   10:00 - 12:00
        Place:  WeH 8220
        Title:  "Mechnical Translation of Set Theoretic Problem
                 Specifications into Efficient RAM Code"


Many computer problems can be expressed accurately and easily in the
following form: 'find the unique set s subset of t satisfying
predicate k(s) and minimizing objective function f(s)'.  Although such
specifications are generally unsolvable, we can provide rather broad
sufficient conditions under which these formal problem statements can
be compiled into efficient procedural implementations with predictable
time and space complexities.  A toy implementation of such a compiler
has been implemented and used within the RAPTS transformational
programming system.

Our methodology depends on three fundamental program transformations,
two of which resemble classical numerical techniques.  The first
transformation solves roots of set theoretic predicates by iterating
to a fixed point.  It turns an abstract functional program
specification into a lower level imperative form with emerging
strategy.  The second transformation is a generalized finite
differencing technique.  It implements program strategy efficiently by
forming access paths and incremental computations.  The third
transformation is a top down variant of Schwartz's method of data
structure selection by basings.  It replaces sets and maps by
conventional storage structures.

The method will be illustrated using two examples -- graph
reachability and digraph cycle testing.

This is a special 2-hour lecture with a 10-minute break in the middle.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
162
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 84 12:54:44 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ML to Interlisp Translator Wanted
-BODY-
I'd like to get a translator from ML to Interlisp.  Does anyone have one?

Paul Dietz (dietz@rutgers)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 12:59:42 pst
-FROM-
From: nick pizzi <pizzi%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SYMBOLICS 3670 software
-BODY-
     Would anyone happen to know whether or not the SYMBOLICS machines
(specifically, the 3670) have PROLOG and/or C as available language
options?

     Furthermore, does the 3670 have any available software packages
for image processing (especially, symbolic image processing)?

     Thank-you in advance for any information which you might provide!

                                                Sincerely,
                                                nick pizzi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 09:59:31 pst
-FROM-
From: Douglas young <young%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonverbal meaning
-BODY-
  Is there anyone out there working on completely nonverbal meaning
representations of words and sentences?  Although I have been working
on this problem for a very substantial time, and have reached some
significant solutions ( which I expect to have published in the form
of a book , the draft ms for which is already completed, and in
several papers }, during 1985 ), I have not been able to date to
discover anyone else who is working on this specific aspect of NLU.
However, it is impossible to believe that there are no others working
on this, and a newly acquired membership of the AIList appears to be
an invaluable way of finding out who is involved and where they are.
If you are working in this area, or if you know of anyone who is,
please would you send me a message ( network address as in header )
with a short note of what is being done, and include a postal address;
alternatively, write or call me.

      Douglas Young
      Dept. of Computer Science,
      University of Manitoba,
      Winnipeg,
      Manitoba, R3T 2N2
      Canada                  Tel: (204) 474 8366  (lab)
                                         474 8313  (messages)
 PS: {Two original papers describing some of the principles of the techniques
     I employ, that were published in the medical literature during 1982-83,
     are largely out of date in almost every respect ( except for some of the
     neurological arguments, that form the foundation of the principles ),so
     I am not including their references here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 18:05:24 mst
-FROM-
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: obsolete books?
-BODY-
> Sony has recently introduced a portable compact optical disk player.
> I hear they intend to market it as a microcomputer peripheral for
> $300.  I'm not sure what its capacity will be, so I'll estimate it at
> 50 megabytes per side.  That's 25000 ascii coded 8 1/2x11 pages, or
> 1000 compressed page images, per side.  Disks cost about $10, for a
> cost per word orders of magnitude less than books.

The capacity of a normally formatted compact disc (audio people spell it
with a 'c') is about 600 megabytes.  That's without counting the error
correcting information.  The number is for about one hour of music sampled
with two 16-bit channels at a rate of 44.1 kHz.  Furthermore, some companies
are already demonstrating 'write once' disks with about 500 megabytes
for use as computer peripherals.  I've even seen one proposal for an
erasable disk using magneto-optical technology.

It has already been suggested that the advent of very cheap mass storage
devices will soon replace dictionaries, encyclopepias, catalogues, etc.
There has also been talk of software (such as spelling checkers) which
require very large data bases being either cheap or public domain.  I
think it will be a while before books are replaced, though.  Nobody wants
to carry video monitor in their briefcase just to catch up on their
favorite science fiction interests.  Besides, paperback books are still
cheaper than compact discs by about a factor of 4 or more.

I'm holding off buying new drives for my home computer for a while.  This
new stuff seems to be worth waiting for.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 84 17:00:07 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Scientist AI Series
-BODY-
The British magazine New Scientist is running a three part series on AI.
The first article, in the Nov. 15 issue, has the title "AI is stark naked
from the ankles up".  It has some very interesting quotes from John McCarthy,
W. Bledsoe, Lewis Branscomb at IBM and others.  The article is critical
of the way AI has been oversold, of the quality (too low) and quantity
(too little) of AI research, and of the US reaction to the Japanese new
generation project, especially Feigenbaum and McCorduck's book.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 11:53:16-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PBS Series on the Brain
-BODY-
The PBS series on the brain has focussed each week on specific neural
systems and their effects on behavior.  The last show concentrated on
hearing and speech centers, and had a particularly enlightening
example.  It showed a lawyer who had suffered damage to his hearing or
linguistic centers.  (Sorry, I don't remember exactly where.)  He
still had a normal vocabulary and could understand most sentences,
although slowly and with great difficulty.  He was unable to parse or
store function words, however.  When asked "A leopard was killed by a
lion.  Which died?", he was unable to answer.  (He also knew that he
had no way of determining the answer.)  When asked "My uncle's sister
..., is it a man or a woman?" he was similarly unable to know.

Another example was a woman who could not recognize faces, even when
she was presented with a picture of her interviewer and told who it
was.  She could describe the face in detail, but there was no flash
of recognition.  She lives in a world of strangers.

A previous show desribed various forms of amnesia, and the role of the
hippocampus in determining which events are to be stored in long-term
memory.  Or rather, in the conscious LTM.  One subject was repeatedly
trained on the Tower of Hanoi puzzle; each time it was completely
"new" to him, but he retained strategy skills learned in each session.

The question was raised why no one can remember events prior to the
age of five.  I suppose that we create a mental vocabulary during the
first years, and later record our experiences in terms of that
vocabulary.  (It would be awkward, wouldn't it, if the vocabulary
changed as we got older?  Memories would decay as we lost the ability
to decode them.)  This suggests that we might be unable to learn
concepts such as gravity, volume, and cooperation if we do not learn
them early enough.  I'm sure there must be evidence of such phenomena.

The last two shows in the series will be shown Saturday (in the San
Francisco area).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 1984  03:27 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Quote, V2 #161
-BODY-
I certainly have suggested that the human brain is a kludge, in the
sense that it consists of many complex mechanisms, accumulated over
the course of evolution, a lot of which are for correcting the bugs in
others.

However, this is not a useful quotation for public use, because
outside of engineering, the word "kludge" is not in the general
language.  There isn't even any synonym for it.  The closest phrase
might have been "Rube Goldberg device" -- but that, too, is falling
out of use.  Anyway, a Rube Goldberg device did not have the right
sense, because that cartoonist always drew machines which were
complicated serial devices with no loops and, hence, no way to correct
bugs.  My impression is that a "kludge" is a device which actually
usually works, but not in accord with neat principles but because all
or most of its bugs have been fixed by adding ad hoc patches and
accessories.

By the way, the general language has no term for "bug" either.
Programmers mean by "bug" the mechanism responsible for an error,
rather than the surface error itself.  The lack of any adequate such
word suggests that our general culture does not consider this an
important concept.  It is no wonder, then, that our culture has so
many bugs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84  8:20:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Simplification
-BODY-
On Frawley on Gillam on simplification:

You needn't go so far south for pen/pin homophony, it occurs in certain
midwestern dialects and I believe even in New Jersey, as merger pure and
simple.  And of course you are talking not about homophony but about shifted
contrast such that `pin' of your dialect is "homophonous" with `pen' of the
southern dialect.  (Is English `showed' "homophonous" with the French word
for `hot'?)

Phonological systems do change in the ways that you deny, as
witness for example the falling together of many vowels to i in modern
Greek (classical i, ei, oi, y, long e (eta), yi all become high front i),
and the merger of several Indo-European vowels in Sanskrit a.

I have not seen Gillam's comments (just joined the list), so let me say
too that languages do preserve systematic contrasts while shifting their
location, and that the observation about southern dialects of US English
is correct.  Whether the result of change is merger or relocated contrast
depends on sociological as well as physiological and psychoacoustic factors,
and no simple blanket statement fits all cases.

        Bruce Nevin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 1984  03:12 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Natural Language Study, V2 #160
-BODY-

Bravo, Dyer!  As you suggest, there is indeed much to learn from the
study of natural language -- but not about "natural language itself";
we can learn what kinds of manipulations and processes occur in the
under-mind with enough frequency and significance that it turns out to
be useful to signify them with surface language features.

For example, why do all languages have nouns and adjectives?  Because
the brain has some way to aggregate the aspects of "objects" and
retrieve these constellations of partial states of mind.  Why
adjectives?  To change particular properties of noun-objects.  Why put
adjectives near the nouns?  So that it is easy to recognize which
properties of what to modify.  Now, if we consider the which surface
relations are easiest to recognize by machinery, the near-ness of
words is surely among the easiest of all -- so we can expect that
human societies will find an important use for this.  Thus, if
adjective-noun relations are "universal" in human languages. it need
not be because of any mysterious syntactic apriori built into some
innate language-organ; it could be because that underlying cognitive
operation -- of modifying part of a representation without wrecking
the rest of it -- is a "cognitive universal".  Similarly, the study of
how pronouns work will give us clues about how we link together
different frames, scripts, plans, etc.

All that is very fine.  We should indeed study languages.  But to
"define" them is wrong.  You define the things YOU invent; you study
the things that already exist.  Then, as in Mathematics, you can also
study the things you define.  But when one confuses
the two situations, as in the subjects of generative linguistics
or linguistic competence -- ah, a mind is a terrible thing to waste,
as today's natural language puts it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 1984 11:13-PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Rick Briggs <briggs@RIACS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language
-BODY-

        The reason why it is important to study natural languages
"on their own" and to understand language degredation etc. is because
language influences how its speakers think.  This idea, known commonly
as the "Whorf hypothesis" has its correlate in computer languages
and in potential interlingua.  The usual examples include AmerIndian
languages which have little concept of time.
        If you have only Fortran to program in, many elegant programming
solutions simply will not present themselves.  The creation of
higher level languages allows the programmer to make use of complex
data structures such as 'predicates' and 'lists'  instead of addresses.
        These higher level data structures correspond to the concepts
available in a natural language.  Primitive languages which exist mainly
for simple communication will not allow the kind of
thinking(programming) as a language with "higher level" concepts
(data structures).
        In the same way that a conceptually rich language(like Sanskrit)
allows greater expression that Haitian Creole does, and that
LISP vs. assembly does, Sastric Sanskrit functions as the ideal
interlingua because of the nature of its high level data structures
(i.e. is formal and yet allows expression of poetry and metaphor).
And in the same way that a particular programming language is chosen
over another for an application, Sastric Sanskrit should be chosen
(or at least evaluated) for those doing work in Machine Translation.

Rick Briggs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Nov 1984  22:38 EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Structures of Everyday Life  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                    The Structures of Everyday Life

                              Phil Agre

             Wednesday, November 28; 4:00pm  8th floor playroom



Computation can provide an observation vocabulary for gathering
introspective evidence about all manner of everyday reasoning.  Although
this evidence is anecdotal and not scientific in any traditional sense, it
can provide strong constraints on the design of the central systems of
mind.  The method is cyclical: attempts to design mechanisms to account
for the phenomenology of everyday activity suggest new classes of episodes
to look out for, and puzzling anecdotes show up weaknesses in designs and
suggest improvements.

I have been applying this method particularly to the study of routines,
the frequently repeated and phenomenologically automatic rituals of which
most of daily life is made.  Some common routines in the lives of people
like me include choosing the day's clothes, making breakfast, selecting a
turnstile in the subway, listening to a familiar piece of music, beginning
and ending conversations, picking up a coffee mug, and opening the day's
mail.  It is not reasonable to view a routine as an automated series of
actions, since people understand what they're doing when carrying out
routine actions at least well enough to recover sensibly if things don't
proceed in a routine way.

I propose to account for the phenomenology of the development of mental
routines in terms of the different stages of processing that arise in the
interaction of a few fairly simple mechanisms.  These stages appear vaguely
to recapitulate the stages of development of cognition in children.

This talk corresponds roughly to my thesis proposal.



COMING SOON: Jonathan Rees [Dec 5], Alan Bawden [Dec 12]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1984  23:52 PST
-FROM-
From: KIPARSKY@SU-CSLI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Language Behavior as Distributed Processing
-BODY-           (Stanford)


Jeff Elman (Department of Linguistics, UCSD)
"Parallel  distributed  processing:   New  explanations  for
                        language behavior"

        Dec. 11, 1984, 11.00 A.M.
        Stanford University, Ventura Hall Conference Room

Abstract:

Many students of human behavior  have  assumed  that  it  is
fruitful  to  think  of the brain as a very powerful digital
computer.  This metaphor  has  had  an  enormous  impact  on
explanations  of  language  behavior.   In  this talk I will
argue that the metaphor is  incorrect,  and  that  a  better
understanding  of  language  is gained by modelling language
behavior with parallel distributed processing (PDP) systems.
These  systems offer a more appropriate set of computational
operations, provide richer insights into behavior, and  have
greater biological plausibility.

I will focus on three specific areas  in  which  PDP  models
offer  new explanations for language behavior: (1) the abil-
ity to simulate rule-guided behavior without explicit rules;
(2)  a  mechanism  for analogical behavior; and (3) explana-
tions for the effect of context on  interpretation  and  for
dealing with variability in speech.

Results from a PDP model  of speech perception  will be pre-
sented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 November 1984 09:21-EST
-FROM-
From: Arline H. Benford <AH @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Full Abstraction and Semantic Equivalence  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


       APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND THEORY OF COMPUTATION COLLOQUIUM


                  "FULL ABSTRACTION AND SEMANTIC EQUIVALENCE"

                                Ketan Mulmuley
                          Carnegie Mellon University


                       DATE:  TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1984
                       TIME:  3:30PM  REFRESHMENTS
                              4:00PM  LECTURE
                      PLACE:  2-338

A denotational semantics is said to be fully abstract if denotations of two
language constructs are equal whenever these constructs are operationally
equivalent in all programming contexts and conversely.  Plotkin showed that the
classical model of continuous functions was not a fully abstract model of typed
lambda calculus with recursion.  We show that it is possible to construct a
fully abstract model of typed lambda calculus as a submodel of the classical
lattice theoretic model.

The existence of "inclusive" predicates on semantical domains play a key role
in establishing semantic equivalence of operational and denotational
semantics.  We give a mechanizable theory for proving such existences.  In
fact, a theorem proving has been implemented which can almost automatically
prove the existence of most of the inclusive predicates which arise in
practice.


HOST:  Professor Michael Sipser

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
163
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 84 20:42:29 est
-FROM-
From: FRAWLEY <20568%vax1%udel-cc-relay.delaware@udel-relay.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dialectics
-BODY-
Joel Isaacson (USC) and I (Frawley, Delaware) have recently exchanged, briefly,
ideas about DIALECTICS. Issacson is using dialectics in a theory of image
processing; I am using dialectics in my own work on Soviet theories of
language and cognition and the use of Soviet theories to explain
various quandaries about such things as language learning and text
processing. We thought it would be appropriate to have a general
discussion of dialectics on the AIList.

I have agreed to begin the discussion with a general introduction. Below are
some basic statements on what I see to be the nature and implications
of dialectics, along with some comments on how I see these ideas relating
 to problems of language and cognition. I offer these ideas not as
definitive statements, but as a means to get the ball rolling on a
discussion of dialectics. We (Isaacson and I) would appreciate any
commentary, arguments, etc. that can be given.


1. What is, and Whence, Dialectics?

Dialectics is, first of all, a method. It is a method of analyzing any
phenomenon not in terms of the phenomenon as an isolated entity, but
in terms of the phenomenon in its opposition to other phenomena and how
the opposition of two phenomena give rise to a third phenomenon (the
classic thesis, antithesis, synthesis trichotomy from Hegel). This idea
of opposition can of course be traced back in Western philosophy to Plato
(who loved oppositions), but is more conveniently situated in the work
of Marx. Marx objected to both idealism and positivism: to the former
because it ultimately situated knowledge in one metaphysical entity
(e.g., the pre-programmed subject, as Kant and Piaget argue, or in the
world of pure forms, as Plato argued) and to the latter because it
situated knowledge wholly in terms of the object of knowledge (i.e.,
the world irrespective of the perceiving subject). Marx saw knowledge
only in the dialectical struggle of the perceiving subject and perceived
object which unify in their struggle to produce knowledge. Dialectics is
a way of walking between hopeless metaphysics (idealism) and hopeless
banality (the world). Thus, it does no good simply to talk about
either simple properties of the subject or of the object since
neither exists without the other and neither the subject nor the
object has any privileged status in epistemology. If an epistemology
privileges the subject at the expense of the object, one gets
Piagetian psychology; if one privileges the object at the expense of the
subject, one gets behaviorism, Carnap, or the early Wittgenstein.


2. What does dialectics imply (I use "dialectics" in the  singular since
it is a totality, like the word "linguistics")?

First, it implies that knowledge is the activity of constant struggle.
What is primary in dialectics is not knowledge, but knowING. What is
primary in any dialectical epistemology is not knowledge structures,
but the BUILDING OF KNOWLEDGE. As Leontiev has said, heuristics are
more important than algorithms.

Second, it implies that development never ends. If knowing is a constant
struggle of opposites which unite in synthesis, and if that synthesis then
is opposed to something else and unites with it to produce another
synthesis, knowing never stops. We suffer, in developmental theory, from
a Piagetian epistemological blindness which views development as stopping
after logical operations: thereafter only mere learning occurs. When
studies have shown that only 50% of the U.S. population has achieved
logical operations, I begin to doubt Piaget and begin to side with
Luria, who has shown (Cognitive Development) that development, because
of its dialectical underpinnings, never stops.

Third, it implies that one must be a materialist. The subject is not
a metaphysical entity, but located in the world; the object is not
a metaphysical entity, but located in the world; the dialectical
synthesis of the two is not a metaphysical entity, but a process and
product conditioned by the material circumstances and nature of the
subject and object: dialectics secularizes knowing.

Fourth, it implies that one must always consider history. If knowing is
tied to dialectics in material circumstances, then one must also
realize that circumstances can only be historically given. As
Derrida has argued in his introduction to Husserl's Geometry, there
are no extra-systemic a priori ideas, only historical a priori ideas.
In this way, biological givens are also historically given because
both ontogenesis and phylogenesis are historical.

3. Two Psycholinguistic Implications of Dialectics

It is very chic these days to abandon linguistic competence in favor
of communicative competence by arguing that linguistic competence is
idealized and that communicative competence (pragmatics, speech acts,
intentionality, etc.) is "more real" because communicative competence
considers how language is used in the world. Dialectics shows that this
is a pseudo-argument.

Communicative competence still privileges the subject only, by giving
taxonomies of intentions which the subject felicitously deploys
"in the world." How is this done? That is the "real" question.
Pragmatics, in criticizing Chomskyan competence for being idealized
falls prey to its own criticisms since it still privileges the
subject and idealized linguistic knowledge just one step higher
than the sentence: communicative competence is another from of
idealism (for a very brief discussion, see my review in December 1984
issue of Language, p. 967).

Dialectics has another implication for theories of text processing.
It is typical in text theory to privilege either the subject or the
object: if privileging the former, one acconts for text processing
in terms of mental structures -- schemas, frames, scripts; if
privileging the latter, one accounts for text processing in terms
of the structure of the text -- rhetorical structure, propositional
hierarchies, complexity, etc. A dialectical model would ask how
schemas and text structure interact.

Dialectical considerations of text processing have implications for
AI. In Schank and Abelson's model, e.g., the script or frame is
seminal. From a dialectical model, the script is less important than
the ways by which the machine "decides" to access the script to
begin with: the knowledge structure is less important than the
procedures to deploy the knowledge structure since that is the
point where the machine as subject interacts with the text as
object.

Well, I've gone on perhaps too long for some preliminary statements
about dialectics, so I'll stop here. Any comments??

Bill Frawley

20568.ccvax1@udel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 17:13:33 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Aesthetic Experience  (Berkeley)
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Fall 1984
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

SPEAKER:        Thomas  G.  Bever,  Psychology   Department,
                Columbia University

TITLE:          The Psychological basis of aesthetic experi-
                ence:  implications for linguistic nativism

    TIME:                Tuesday, December 4, 11 - 12:30
    PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
    DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

ABSTRACT:       We define the notion of Aesthetic Experience
                as   a   formal   relation   between  mental
                representations:   an  aesthetic  experience
                involves  at least two conflicting represen-
                tations that are  resolved  by  accessing  a
                third  representation.   Accessing the third
                representation releases  the  same  kind  of
                emotional  energy as the 'aha' elation asso-
                ciated with discovering the  solution  to  a
                problem. We show how this definition applies
                to  various  artforms,  music,   literature,
                dance.   The  fundamental aesthetic relation
                is similar to the  mental  activities  of  a
                child  during  normal cognitive development.
                These considerations explain the function of
                aesthetic  experience:  it elicits in adult-
                hood the characteristic mental  activity  of
                normal childhood.

                The fundamental activity revealed by consid-
                ering the formal nature of aesthetic experi-
                ence involves developing  and  interrelating
                mental  representations.   If  we  take THIS
                capacity  to  be  innate  (which  we  surely
                must),   the question then arises whether we
                can account for the phenomena that are  usu-
                ally argued to show the unique innateness of
                language as a mental organ.  These phenomena
                include  the  emergence of a psychologically
                real grammar,  a critical  period,  cerebral
                asymmetries.     More    formal   linguistic
                properties may be accounted for as partially
                uncaused (necessary) and partially caused by
                general  properties  of  animal  mind.   The
                aspects  of  language  that may remain unex-
                plained (and therefore non-trivially innate)
                are  the  forms of the levels of representa-
                tion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 17:24:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Phonetics, Discourse, Semantics  (CSLI Stanford)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                   ABSTRACT OF TODAY'S SEMINAR
                   ``Parsing Acoustic Events''

This seminar addresses the problem of formulating a language-independent
representation of the acoustic aspects of natural, continuous speech from
which a general parser using language-specific grammars can recover
linguistic structure.  This decomposition of the problem permits a
representation that is stable over utterance situations and provides
constraints that handle some of the difficulties associated with partially
obscured or ``incomplete'' information. A system will be described which
contains a grammar for parsing higher-level (phonological) events as well
as an explicit grammar for low-level acoustic events. It will be shown that
the same techniques for parsing syntactic strings apply in this domain.  The
system thus provides a formal representation for physical signals and a way
to parse them as part of the larger task of extracting meaning from sound.
                                              --Meg Withgott
                           ____________

                ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
           ``The Structures of Discourse Structure''

This talk will introduce a theory of discourse structure that attempts to
answer two rather simple questions, namely: What is discourse? What is
discourse structure? In this work (being done jointly with Sidner at BBN)
discourse structure will be seen to be intimately connected with two
nonlinguistic notions--intention and attention. Intentions will be seen to
play a primary role not only in providing a basis for explaining discourse
structure, but also in defining discourse coherence, and providing a coherent
notion of the term ``discourse'' itself.  A main thesis of the theory is that
the structure of any discourse is a composite of three interacting
constituents: the structure of the actual sequence of utterances in the
discourse, a structure of intentions, and an attentional state. Each of these
constituents of discourse structure both affects and is affected by the
individual utterances in the discourse.  The separation of discourse
structure into these three components allows us to generalize and simplify a
number of previous results and is essential to explaining certain discourse
phenomena. In particular, I will show how the different components contribute
to the proper treatment of various kinds of interruptions, as well as to
explanations of the use of certain types of referring expressions and of
various expressions that function directly to affect discourse structure.
                                        --Barbara J. Grosz
                        ____________

                  ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
    Syntactic Features, Semantic Filtering, and Generative Power

There is a trade-off in linguistic description using grammars with a syntax
and a separate semantics, such as GPSG.  One can often either use a
syntactic feature or appeal to semantic filtering to achieve the same ends.
Current GPSG countenances no semantic filtering, i.e. does not overgenerate
strings in the syntax and then let the semantics throw some away as
`uninterpretable'.  In the Tinlunch I would like to discuss this position
in light of some work I did in my dissertation which looks like it requires
semantic filtering, and in light of a paper by Marsh & Partee which shows
that adding certain types of semantic filtering to a grammar greatly
increases the generative power.                  --Peter Sells

                         ____________


            CSLI WORKSHOP ON THE SEMANTICS OF PROGRAMS

Tuesday, December 4, 1984
Location: The Bach Dancing and Dynamite Society, Princeton CA
          (a suburb of Half-Moon Bay)

There are long-standing traditions for the study of natural language
semantics and CSLI projects have been extending and reinterpreting them.
There is a briefer, but substantial, tradition for the study of the
semantics of programming languages.  Over the past few months, there have
been a series of presentations and discussions about similarities and
differences between the semantic accounts of natural and computational
languages.  Theories of natural language semantics have raised a number of
issues.  The purpose of the workshop is to discuss how some of these
theories can give rise to better accounts of the relation between
programs/program executions and the world.  Participation in the workshop
is by invitation only.  If you are interested in being invited to the
workshop, contact Ole Lehrmann Madsen (Madsen at SU-CSLI). If you have any
questions regarding the workshop you may contact Terry Winograd (TW at
SU-SAIL) or Madsen.
                         ____________

                        PH.D. PROPOSAL

On Tuesday, December 4, from 3:15 p.m. to 5:05 p.m., in Bldg. 200-217, Kurt
Queller will talk about ``Active Exploration with syntagmatic routines in
the child's construction of grammar:  Some phonological perspectves.'' Based
on detailed longitudinal analysis of data from 3 one-year-olds, the proposed
dissertation will provide a typology of syntag-matic phonological routines
or ``word-recipes'' used by young children in bulding a repertoire of
pronounceable works.  Then, it will show how individual children exploit
particular combinations of routines in constructing a coherent phonological
system.  Extensive synchronic variability and changes over time will be
accounted for in terms of the child's systematic exploration of the options
implicit in the resulting system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 11:15:02-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The KEE Knowledge Engineering System  (Stanford)
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

SPEAKER:     Richard Fikes, Director
             Knowledge Systems Research and Development
             IntelliCorp, Inc.

ABSTRACT:    The KEE System - An Integration of Knowledge-Based
             Systems Technology

DATE:        Friday, November 30, 1984
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

IntelliCorp has developed an integrated collection of  representation,
reasoning,  and  interface  facilities  for  building  knowledge-based
systems called  the  Knowledge  Engineering  Environment  (KEE).   The
system's components include (1) a frame-based representation  facility
incorporating features  of  UNITS,  LOOPS, and  KL-ONE  that  supports
taxonomic definition  of  object  types,  structured  descriptions  of
individual objects,  and  object-oriented  programming;  (2)  a  logic
language  for  asserting  and  deductively  retrieving  facts;  (3)  a
production rule language with  user-controllable backward and  forward
chainers that  supports  PROLOG-style  logic programming;  and  (4)  a
graphics work bench for  creating display-based user interfaces.   KEE
uses  interactive  graphics  to  facilitate  the  building,   editing,
browsing, and  testing of  knowledge  bases.  A  primary goal  of  the
overall  design  is  to  promote  rapid  prototyping  and  incremental
refinement  of  application  systems.    KEE  has  been   commercially
available since August 1983, and has been used by customers to build a
wide range  of application  systems.   In this  talk  I will  give  an
overview  of  the   KEE  system  with   particular  emphasis  on   its
representation and reasoning facilities, and discuss ways in which the
system provides significant leverage for its users.



Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
164
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 1984 17:19:38-EST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: S.Miller@wisc-rsch.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Karmarkar Algorithm
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Karmarkar algorithm was presented at STOC (Symposium on Theory of
Computing) on May 1, 1984 (STOC '84, p. 302)
"A New Polynomial time Algorithm on Linear Programming".
The STOC proceedings are available from the ACM if your
location doesn't have them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 17:33:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Walter Murray <OR.MURRAY@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linear Progamming Algorithms.
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by CKaun@AIDS-UNIX.]

Some recent bboard messages have referred to linear programming. The
algorithm by Karmarkar is almost identical with iterative reweighted
least squares (IRLS). This latter algorithm is used to solve approximation
problems other than in the l2 norm. It can be shown that the form of
LP assumed by Karmarkar is equivalent to an l infinity approximation
problem. If this problem is then solved by the IRLS algorithm the
estimates of the solution generated are identical to those of the
Karmarkar algorithm (assuming certain free choices in the definition
of the algorithms). Perhaps it should be added that the algorithm is
not held in high regard in approximation circles. To solve a
an l infinity problem it is usually transformed to an LP and solved using
the simplex method.

A message from Kaun (forwarded by Malachi without a heading)
described an algorithm for LP which Kaund claimed requires o(n^3) work. It
is easy to demonstrate the algorithm may fail to converge to the solution.
The following is a cross-section of a hole consisting of straight
sides. Water is poured into this hole from the point x.


                  x


                o                       o
                .                       .
                o                       o
                 .                     .
                  .                   .
                   o                 o
                      .         .
                           o

The water hits a facet. It continues to fall until it hits a second
facet which is a vertex. Unless the water is prepared to leave the first facet
hit it will not reach the bottom.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 84 11:45:16 PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linear Programming Algorithm
-BODY-
Murray is correct -- the algorithm as stated will not usually converge
to the solution.  One problem is that removing components from the
gradient does not automatically force it to zero after N steps, as I
asserted.  It looks to me like the gradient stepping idea can still be
used in a more complicated scheme, and that the computational time for
the algorithm will be o(M*N^2), where M is the number of constraints.
But I want to verify the details better than I did for my original
message before saying more.

I still wonder if finding such a solution to the continuous (as opposed to
the integer) linear programming problem has any significance.

                                                ckaun@aids-unix

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 84 22:31:30 PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Carl Kaun <ckaun@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Gradient Step Linear Programming (again)
-BODY-

Well, here we go again.  Let's see if this try stands up to scrutiny.
The claim is that the algorithm following (gradient step linear
programing) solves the linear programming problem in at most
o(M^2*N +M*N^3) operations.  I still don't know if that has any significance.
As before, the idea is to step, as best one can subject to the constraints,
along the gradient.  The terminating conditions are similar to the
algorithm given previously.

As before, the mathematical notation represents vectors by preceding them
with an underline, as "_x".  Subscripts are represented using a colon, _c:j
being the j-th vector _c. The inner product is represented by < * , * >.  A
functional form (i.e. f(  )) is used to represent things like sums. The rest
should be fairly obvious.

The statement of the linear programming problem is also as before, being to
maximize with respect to the N-dimensional vector _x the linear functional:
               <_c , _x >
 subject to the constraints:
               <_a:j , _x > >= b:j   for j = 1, 2, ..., M
M>= N, as otherwise the solution is unbounded.

Assume for the moment an initial feasible vector _x(0) in the interior (so
that there are initially no active constraints) of the polytope defined by
the constraints. _c:0 = _c.  All constraints are potentially active.

A.  From the current solution point _x(n), find the constraint limiting
motion in the direction _c:n, and the maximum feasible step size s>0  giving
the next solution point:  _x(n+1) = _x(n) + s*_c:n
    For j = 1, 2, ... M and j not a currently active constraint, compute
          D:j = <_x(n), _a:j> - b:j    ( >= 0 )
          s:j = - D:j / <_c(n), _a:j>
    s = min { s:j | s:j>0} , and the next active constraint has the index
j(n) providing the minimum.

B.  The next step is to compute a movement direction aligned with the
gradient (thus enabling improvement in the functional) that also satisfies
the active constraints.  The first active constraint was identified in the
previous step, thus:
          _c(0) = _c - _a:j(n) * <_c, _a:j(n)> / <_a:j(n), _a:j(n)>

C.  Next determine which of the constraints active in the previous cycle
are active in this step, and modify the movement direction accordingly.  A
previously active constraint a:j is active in this cycle if
          <_a:j, _c(i)> < 0.
That is, motion along the current direction _c(i) would violate the
constraint.  If the constraint is active, then the Gram-Schmidt
procedure is applied to _a:j to orthogonalize the vectors involved and
thereby determine the component to be removed from _c(i), yielding _c(i+1).
          _a(i) = _a:j - sum (n=0 to i-1) [ <_a:j, _a(n)> / <a:j, a:j> ]
          _c(i+1) = _c(i) - _a(i) * <_c(i), _a(i)> / <_a(i), _a(i)>
When all of the previously active constraints have been determined to be
either active or inactive for the current cycle, the next step direction is
          _c:n = _c(i), for the latest i.

(It appears necessary, for each determination of a _c(i), to scan the
entire set of constraints which were active in the previous cycle (but have
not yet been determined to be active in the current cycle) before deciding
that none is active in the current cycle.  Practically, there will
be only one active constraint in most of the cycles, and the
trajectory of the algorithm passes through various of the facets of the
polytope most of the time.)

The stopping condition results when _c(i) = _0; that is, when the objective
gradient _c lies in the cone formed from the combination of negatively
scaled gradients of the constraints.  This is the Kuhn-Tucker condition
of optimality.  Equivalently,N (linearly independent) constraints are found
to be active.  I don't remember that the Kuhn-Tucker conditions are
sufficient, but in any event this is the optimal point because there
is no feasible motion direction which improves the objective.

Unlike the previous algorithm, in this the identification of new constraints
can result in movement away from a previously active constraint.  When this
happens, the previously active constraint can be totally removed from further
consideration, due to the convexity of the problem (this assertion seems
obvious, but has not been PROVED by me).  The algorithm
encounters a new active constraint each cycle, and therefore converges
in at most M cycles, this being the maximum number of constraints that
can be newly encountered.  In practice again, the trajectory of the
algorithm will generally be such that convergence will occur in many fewer
cycles than M.

Steps A-C are repeated until the stopping condition occurs.

As indicated above, the algorithm converges in at most M cycles.  For each
cycle, step A requires o(N) multiplications and additions to compute the
inner product, etc. for each of o(M) constraints, for a total of o(MN)
operations.  Step B requires o(N) operations, which scarcely affects the
overall timing.  Step C can potentially result in the identification of N-1
active constraints.  Each such identification requires the removal of o(N)
orthogonal components, and each such removal entails o(N) operations, for
an overall count of o(N^3) operations to remove the effects of previously
identified active constraints.  Also, o(N) constraints may have to be
scanned to determine if they are active for each such identification,
each such determination requiring o(N) operations; resulting again in
a total of o(N^3) operations for step C.  Performing steps A and C therefore
requires o(M^2*N + M*N^3) operations.

An initial feasible point can be determined starting from an arbitrary point
(say the origin), identifying the unsatisfied constraints, and moving in
directions that satisfy them.  It may be more direct to simply start with a
"superoptimal" point, say K*_c for suitably large K, and iterate using
essentially the previously described algorithm along the negative constrained
gradient direction to feasibility.  The resulting feasible point
will also be optimal for the original problem.

                                                Carl F. Kaun

                                                ckaun@aids-UNIX
                                                415/941-3912

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 84 17:12:55 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Search Complexity & User Interfaces  (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

                             CALENDAR
                       (DECEMBER 3 - 7, 1984)

  Wed., Dec. 5 Computer Science Seminar
  10:00 A.M.  HOW HARD IS NP-HARD?
  2C-012      This talk examines the average complexity of
            depth-first search for two different search models.
            The first model has no cutoff at unpromising internal
            nodes, but does terminate at a leaf node when the
            leaf node represents a successful search outcome.
            This model leads to an average complexity that grows
            anywhere from linearly to exponentially in the depth
            of the tree depending on the probability of choosing
            the best branch to search first at each internal node
            of the tree.  Good decisions lead to linear
            complexity and bad decisions lead to exponential
            complexity.  The second model examines tree searching
            with internal cutoff when unpromising paths are
            discovered.  In this model, the search terminates
            successfully when it reaches the first leaf.  The
            model is representive of branch-and-bound algorithms
            that guarantee that the first leaf reached is a
            successful leaf.  Roth's D-algorithm for generating
            test vectors for logic circuits fits this model, and
            White's efficient algorithm for solving the Traveling
            Salesman problem also fits except for the
            distribution cutoff probabilities.  Our model shows
            that the number of nodes visited during a depth-first
            search grows at most linearly on the average,
            regardless of cutoff probability.  If cutoff
            probability is very high, the search fails with a
            very high probability, and visits an average number
            of nodes that grows as O(1) as the tree depth
            increases.  If cutoff probability is very low, then
            the algorithm finds a successful leaf after visiting
            only O(N) nodes on the average where N is the depth
            of tree.  Many NP-complete problems can be solved by
            depth-first searches.  If such problems can be solved
            by algorithms that order the depth-search first to
            terminate at the first leaf, then this work and the
            work by Smith suggests that the average complexity
            might grow only polynomially in the tree depth,
            rather than exponentially as the worst-case analysis
            suggests.

            H. S. Stone, IBM Yorktown Research
            Host:  B. D. Rathi

  Thurs., Dec. 6 Computer Science Seminar
  10:00 A.M.  APPLICATIONS OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY THEORY
  2C-012      TO THE DESIGN OF USER INTERFACES
            The cognitive complexity project has two major
            objectives.  The first is to gain a theoretical
            understanding of the knowledge and thought processes
            that underlie successful use of computer-based
            systems (e.g., text editors).  The second goal is to
            develop a design technology that minimizes the
            cognitive complexity of such systems as seen by the
            user.  Cognitive complexity is defined as the amount,
            content, and structure of the knowledge required to
            operate a system.  In this particular work, the
            knowledge is described as a production system.  The
            computer-based system is described as a generalized
            transition network.  Quantitative predictions,
            derived from the production system, are shown to
            account for various aspects of user performance
            (e.g., training time).  The talk will include a brief
            presentation of the design methodology based on the
            production system formalism.

            Prof. D. E. Kieras, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
            Prof. P. G. Polson, University of Colorado, Boulder
            Host:  J. L. Bennett

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 17:24:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Semantical Definition of Probability  (CSLI
-BODY-           Stanford)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


            SEMINAR IN LOGIC AND FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS

Speaker: Prof. Rolando Chuaqui, Catholic University of Chile and IMSSS
Title:   A Semantical Definition of Probability

Place:   Room 381-T, 1st floor Math. Corner
Time:    Monday, December 3, 4:15-5:30 p.m.

ABSTRACT:  The analysis proposed in this lecture is an attempt to formalize
both chance and degree of support.  Chance is considered as a dispositional
property of the objects plus the experimental conditions (i.e. what is
called the chance set-up).  Degree of support measures the support that the
evidence we have (i.e. what we accept as true) gives to propositions.
Chance, in this model, is determined by the set K of possible outcomes (or
results) of the chance set-up.  Each outcome is represented by a relational
structure of a certain kind.  This set of structures determines the algebra
of events, an algebra of subsets of K, and the probability measure through
invariance under a group of symmetries.  The propositions are represented
by the sentences of a formal language, and the probability of a sentence,
phi in K, P[K](phi), is the measure of the set of models of phi that are
in K.   P[K](phi) represents the degree of support of phi given K.  This
definition of probability can be applied to clarify the different methods
of statistical inference and decision theory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 November 1984 1607-EST
-FROM-
From: David Ackley@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Stochastic Networks  (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

     "Learning evaluation functions in stochastic parallel networks"
                           Thesis Proposal
             Tuesday, December 4, 1984, at 3:30pm in 5409 WeH.

Although effective techniques exist for adjusting linear coefficients of
features to produce an improved heuristic evaluation of a game position,
the creation of useful features remains poorly understood.  Recent work
on parallel learning with the Boltzmann Machine suggests that the
creation of useful new features and the tuning of coefficients of
existing features can be integrated into a single learning process, but
the perceptual learning paradigm that underlies the Boltzmann Machine
formalism is substantially different from the reinforcement learning
paradigm that underlies most game-learning research.  The thesis work
will involve the development of a reinforcement-based parallel learning
algorithm that operates on a computational architecture similar to the
Boltzmann Machine, and drives the creation and refinement of an
evaluation function given only win/lose/draw reinforcement information
while playing a small game such as tic-tac-toe.  The thesis work will
test several novel ideas, and will have implications for a number of
issues in machine learning and knowledge representation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
165
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 84 15:07:23 PST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Dan Shapiro <dan@aids-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Planning Bibliography wanted
-BODY-
Does anyone know of an annotated biblography in the area of AI
planning?  My specific context is an autonomous land vehicle
project which involves generating a plan for traversing long
distances in essentially unrestricted terrain.  Issues in route
planning, real time planning, planning under uncertainty, planning
with multiple goals, goal conflict resolution strategies, etc.,
are all relevant.

I would also be interested in a reference list on the topic of
spatial reasoning, in particular the representation and
manipulation of symbolic features in maps or processed images.

I am going to be compiling/extending annotated bibliographies in
these areas; once done, I'd be glad to distribute them to anyone
who is interested.

                        Dan Shapiro
                        (dan@aids-unix)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 84 15:22:05 EST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Chris Heiny <Heiny.henr@XEROX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Amnesia before age 5????
-BODY-
"..no one can remember events before the age of five."

What's going on here, anyway???   Does this mean that no one remembers
(during any part of their life) any events that occurred prior to age 5;
or does it mean that prior to age 5, one can't remember events occuring
during ages 0..4.99.  I personally can disprove the former: I remember
events that occurred when I was 3 & 4.  An acquaintance disproves both:
at age 3 she remembered an event several weeks after it occurred, and at
18 still remembers both the event and the remembering of the event (is
this a meta-memory?).

I think someone's confused....I hope it's not me.

                                        Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 14:10:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Amnesia before age 5????
-BODY-
Granted, I was rather sweeping in my generalization.  Kids certainly
do remember events, but after growing up very few can remember more
than one or two vague incidents from the early years.  Even those
few memories are often the ones strengthened by parent's retelling
of the events.  At any rate, >>I<< have only two or three conscious
memories from pre-kindergarten days, and not a great many more from all
of grade school.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Nov 84 15:45 EST
-FROM-
From: WILLUT%EDUCOM.BITNET@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Estimate on number of Internet users
-BODY-
Some belated facts related to estimates of Internet users:

BITNET currently has 328 machines at 117 sites (almost exclusively
universities), with 52 sites pending.  A stats program run recently at
a non-peak time determined that 150 nodes were up and 6,000 users logged in.

Also, MAILNET includes 24 universities (most single machines, but some
multiple-node sites, such as Carnegie-Mellon) that exchange mail with the
MAILNET hub (the MIT-MULTICS machine) via dial-up and/or Telenet connections.

Using the proposed estimate of 100-200 users per university machine that's
35-70,000 users.

Candy Willut
EDUCOM Networking Activities

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 84 05:12:53 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent AI News
-BODY-
[The following message from Laurence Leff at SMU was delayed somewhat
by mailer troubles.  He has offered to provide AIList readers with
references to AI articles in the non-AI press.  Such reviews and
alerts are certainly welcome.  -- KIL]


...
I currently provide this service to the AI group in the department and
it might be useful to others.  The journals I scan include

  Electronic Week
  Electronic News
  IEEE PAMI
  IEEE System Man and Cybernetics
  IEEE Computer
  Communications ACM
  Datamation
  Infoworld
  IEEE Spectrum
  IEEE Potentials

[Each notice] includes a citation (so people can find it) and usually
a sentence or two about contents.  Very short articles (<= 1 paragraph)
are usually typed in verbatim.



As if we didn't know department:

From Wall Street Journal

COMPUTERS THAT THINK like people create demand for experts in short supply.

Interest in "Artificial Intelligence" systems is booming, say employers
and recruiters among firms in financial services, computer hardware and
software design, defense and communications.  The systems principally
duplicate the thought processes of experts for trouble-shooting and cash
management.  Demand for systems is "explosive" says Halbrecht Associates,
Stamford, Conn.

But Halbrecht's recruiter Daryl Furno says "there just aren't enough
people to go around" to design the systems.  Most prospects have about five
job offers when they finish a project.  Christian & Timbers, a Cleveland
recruiting firm, says qualified experts demand 10%-20% premiums over most
computer designers.

DM Data, a Scottsdale, Ariz., consulting firm, estimates that there are
nearly 5,000 jobs in the industry now, but there may be 50,00 jobs
by 1990.


CACM 1984 - Vol 27 No. 10 page 1044:
Combination of PERT with [heuristic] search.


Byte Vol 9 No 11 October 1984 page 39:
Announcements of Tektronix AI system and TIMM expert system.


Byte Vol 9 No 11 October 1984 page 207:
Ad for IBM PC Common Lisp.


Electronic News Monday October 1, 1984 pp. 37:
Japanese-English translation-software article.


Copied from Computer Industry Update September 1984
IBM Company Announcements:

Announced a version of the Lisp programming language for the VM operating
system.  Lisp/VM is an integrated interactive invironment that provides a
collection of artificial intelligence programming tools.  A structure
editor displays the structure of all objects including programs, data
and results.  A variety of debugging tools are included.  The price is
$6500.

The firm also unveiled five other internal research and development
projects in artificial intelligence: the YES/MVS, an expert system
which runs on mainframe computers that use the MVS operating system;
PRISM, a system shell written in PASCAL for developers who wish to
insert their own rules and inferences for expert systems; Scratchpad
II which incorporates a system and language to provide facilities for
scientists to manipulate algebra directly on the computer screen; PSC
Prolog, a version of the Prolog programming language that operates on
the 370 and interfaces with the LISP/VM and SQL/VM relational DBMS and
the CMS Command Executive language REXX; and HANDY, a user interface
to AI systems and a PC-based program that includes elements of
windowing, color animation, graphics, speech synthesis and video
programs.


Electronic Weeks November 12, 1984:
Describes efforts of Sperry ($20,000,000 worth) to become leader in AI.  pp. 34


Electronics Week October 22, 1984:
Work by Kurzweill on solving the speech recognition techniques.
(Kurzweill was the developer of the text recognizer used to make a
reader for the blind.)  pp. 83


Infoworld November 5, 1984:
Review of "Into the Height [Heart? --KIL] of the Mind"
The review is oriented towards those not knowledgeable in AI.


IEEE Transactions on System Man and Cybernetics July/August 1984
    Volume SMC-14 Number 4:
Linguistic Representation of Default Values in Frames
  R. R. Yager pp 630
Approximate Reasoning as a Basis for Rule-Based Expert Systems
  R. R. Yager pp 636


Electronic News, Monday November 12, 1984:
Computer Thought ships ADA/ Interpreter Debugger on Symbolics 3600
  Machine pp 43


Electronic News, October 29, 1984:
Article on Marketing AI systems pp 34

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 12:40:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Software Productivity
-BODY-
The November issue of IEEE Computer contains an Open Channel note fro
David Feinberg about the folly of programmer productivity metrics that
reward only lines of code and not lines of documentation.  This
suggests many lines of thought.

A lines-of-code metric penalizes those who write APL one-liners -- a
good thing, no?  We could increase the readability/maintainability of
programs if we passed them through a filter that would expand complex
expressions into simpler steps.  We could then increase our
productivity even further by converting these simple steps into more
complex operations.  The possibilities for bootstrapping are obvious,
although important research questions must be solved to eliminate
cycles in repeated transformations.  Fortunately, we only need to find
one example of unlimited software growth (coupled with our supercomputer
technology) in order to guarantee our world pre-eminence in software
productivity.

The same concept can be extended to hardware development to guarantee
our lead in computer complexity.  Progess in this direction has so far
been limited to computer support systems (e.g., F-15 aircraft), but
wafer-scale integration offers hope for further optimization.

This looks like a fruitful area for artificial intelligence research.
(Progress might be measured by published lines of proof or by reams
of suggestive hypotheses.)  I suggest that DARPA institute a crash
project to develop a prototype optimizing preprocessor able to convert

    x = y = 0;

into

    register t;

    t = 0;
    y = t;
    x = t;
    if (x != y)
      abend("Compiler and/or hardware error.");


Further breakthroughs will come quickly.  For instance, we might
substitute

     Ln (Lim (1+(1/z))^z) + sin^2(x) + cos^2(x)
        z->INF
                   INF
                 - SUM (cosh(y sqrt(1-tanh^2(y))/(2^N)
                   N=0

for the constant 0 in the above program, providing that we can find
numerical methods of evaluating the limit and infinite summation
with adequate accuracy.  All that we need for rapid progress is a
sufficiently complex bureaucracy to support research and manage
distribution of the results.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 84  1404 PST
-FROM-
From: Frank Yellin <FY@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: from the New Yorker
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The following is from the Palm Springs Desert Sun (and reprinted word
for word in the New Yorker).

        "Controlling a plant," says Theodore J.  Williams, a researcher
    at Purdue University "takes a wider attention span than any one person
    could possibly have."  But with a distributed computer system, Mr.
    Williams added, "You can increase profitability, increase
    productivity, reduce raw materials and reduce emissions, because the
    computer system is flexible, process, rather than an entire plant.
    The system is flexible, allowess, rather than an entire plant.  The
    system is flexible, allowing anather than an entire plant.  The system
    is flexible, allowing an operator to rearrange a manufacturing process
    from his seat at the console.  "If you change your mind," said Robert
    E. Otto, a technical consultant at the Monsanto Co., "you don't have
    to rewire, you can just reprogram."

        And because the systhe central computer.  Then if something goes
    wrong ing back to the central computer.  Then if something goes wrong
    ing back to the central computer.  Then if something goes wrong wit
    back to the central computer.  Then if something goes wrong with the
    main cocentral computer.  Then if something goes wrong with the main
    control l computer.  Then if something goes wrong with the main
    control room your plant is O.K."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 November 1984 1433-EST
-FROM-
From: Staci Quackenbush@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - User Interface Management System  (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        Name:   Phil Hayes
        Date:   December 3, 1984
        Time:   3:30 - 4:30 p.m.
        Place:  WeH 5409

        Title:  "Design Alternatives for User Interface Management
                 Systems Based on Experience with the COUSIN System"


 User   interface  management  systems  (UIMSs)  provide  user  interfaces  to
 application  systems  based  on  an  abstract  definition  of  the  interface
 required.    This approach can provide higher-quality interfaces with a lower
 construction cost.  This talk examines a UIMS called  COUSIN  which  provides
 graphical  interfaces  to  a variety of application systems running on a Perq
 under the Accent operating system.  The presentation will include a videotape
 of a COUSIN interface.

 The talk will also take a more general look at the design  space  for  UIMSs.
 Specifically, we will consider three design choices.  The choices concern the
 sharing  of  control  between  the  UIMS  and  the  applications  it provides
 interfaces to, the level of abstraction in the definition of the  information
 exchanged  between  user and application, and the level of abstraction in the
 sequencing of information exchange.  For each choice, we argue for a specific
 alternative.  COUSIN's design corresponds to the alternatives we  argued  for
 in two out of three cases, and partially satisfies the third.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 16:37:16-EST
-FROM-
From: Susan Hardy <SH%MIT-XX@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        A LATTICE-THEORETIC APPROACH TO COMPUTATION
BASED ON A CALCULUS OF PARTIALLY-ORDERED TYPE STRUCTURES

                     Hassan Ait-Kaci
  Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation
                      Austin, Texas


             DATE:    Friday, November 30, l984
             TIME:    2:00 p.m. - Talk
             PLACE:   NE43-512A

This talk will present a syntactic calculus of partially ordered
structures and its application to computation.  A syntax of record-
like terms and a "type subsumption" ordering are defined and shown
to form a lattice structure.  A simple "type-as-set"
interpretation of these term structures extends this lattice to
a distributive one, and in the case of finitary terms, to a
complete Brouwerian lattice.  As a result, a method for solving
systems of @i(type equations) by iterated substitution of type
symbols is proposed which defines an operational semantics
for KBL -- a Knowledge Base Language -- so-named to reflect
the original aim of this research; to wit, attempting a proper
formalization of the notion of "semantic network".

HOST:  Professor Rishiyur Nikhil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
166
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Dec 84 09:20:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lost Issue
-BODY-
It seems likely now that very few, if any, sites received this issue
on the first mailing.  I am therefore sending it out to all subscribers.
It has been gratifying to learn how many people just can't do without
an AIList issue, but you can all stop sending me messages about #166 now.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 84 14:17:42 PST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Rosenberg.PA@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dialectics and Piaget
-BODY-
Your summary of dialectics is quite nice, but your portrayal of Piaget
has a major error: Piaget was not a nativist, so it's unfair to lump him
together with, say, Kant.  (After all, Chomsky denounces him as an
empiricist!)  In fact, his constructivist genetic epistemology is
similar in many ways to the dialectical position you outlined (cf. his
books on negation and contradiction).

Jarrett Rosenberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 84 0059 EST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Alex.Rudnicky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Piaget & dialectic
-BODY-
I would take issue with Bill Frawley's contention that Piaget's theory
is idealist in flavour.   If anything, it is essentially dialectical
in nature.  Piaget's work is often popularized in terms of his ``stages''
of intellectual development and their apparently immutable order.
His major contribution, however, is probably his elaboration of the
mechanisms by which this development could take place.  Specifically,
I would point to Piaget's concept of ``equilibration'', which can
(loosely) be described as the constant interaction between internal
cognitive structures and external events that results in modification
of internal structures.  Equilibrium is never quite reached, a state
that persists throughout an individual's life.  On the matter of
Piaget vs dialectics, I can offer the following quote:

"... in the domain of the sciences themselves structuralism has always
been linked with a constructivism from which the epithet "dialectical"
can hardly be withheld---the emphasis upon historical development,
opposition between contraries, and ``Aufhebungen'' (``de'passements'')
is surely just as characteristic of constructivism as of dialectic,
and that the idea of wholeness figures centrally in structuralist as
in dialectical modes of thought is obvious."  (Piaget, Structuralism,
1970, p.121).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 84 09:46 PST
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Dialectics,   V2 #163
-BODY-
In reference to the recent posting on Dialectics, and in spite of the
fact that some of this has very little to do with AI.

Question: How does dialectics interact with the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle and other facets of quantum theory? It seems to me that the
idea of an interaction between the object and the observer which results
in some knowledge on the part of the observer might be an interesting
topic to discuss in terms of dialectics.

Comment: More in line with the basic topic of the digest, I think it is
obvious that there is some interaction between the observer and the
observed since psychology has shown that (to put it very simply) we see
and hear what we want to, and we don't notice what we wish to avoid.
However, this evidence and your arguments do not conclusively show that
Positivism is entirely wrong. Because I think that there are other
reasons to dismiss Behaviorism and I am not sure how Dialectics deals
with it, I will not deal with Behaviorism in this comment.

The best reason that I can think of on short notice for not dismissing
Positivism is that we must suppose that objects have some existence and
characteristics independent of the observer. I think that we would all
agree that there will be shock waves travelling through the air when the
tree falls in the forest, though we might disagree on whether this
constituted a sound (depending on the possible presence of an observer).
I am not sure what your position is on this issue, but my inclination is
that there is a position combining elements  of Dialecticism and
Positivism which is more aceptable than either of its parents.

Note that this is just an opinion since I don't have the time or
resources to do justice to the topic at the moment.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 1984 04:55-EST
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dialectics: Perils, and Promises for AI
-BODY-
Bill  Frawley  has  written a thought-provoking introduction  for  a
discussion  on  dialectics  [AIList v2  #  163,  11/29/84].   As  he
mentioned,  he applies dialectics in his work on Soviet theories  of
language  and  cognition, and studies the use of Soviet theories  to
explain language learning and text processing.   My own work relates
to  a  new  mode of information processing which is  dialectical  in
nature.   One of its applications is in Dialectical Image Processing
(DIP), reported in AIList v2 #153, 11/12/84.  It goes without saying
that   I  think  that  things  dialectical  are  crucial  to  things
intelligent.   But  before I proceed to elaborate    this  point  of
view,  I wish to caution the uninitiated,  and point out some of the
many perils of dialectics.

                      The Perils of Dialectics

"Dialectics" is basically an elusive, vague, and often controversial
and  misunderstood  term.   Its  origin is in antiquity  (Plato  and
Aristotle).   It attained prominence  and immense influence  through
the  German  idealism  of  the  early  nineteenth  century  (Fichte,
Schelling,   and, most notably Hegel) and has been transformed later
into  "dialectical materialism" by no other than Karl  Marx.   Major
American  philosophers  (notably C.  S.  Peirce) have  been  greatly
influenced by Hegelianism, and  significant Hegelian influences have
reached  as far as Japan (Nishida).   All in all,  huge segments  of
humanity  today  live under political philosophies,  or  ideologies,
that are dialectical at their roots in one way or another.   Through
it all, though, dialectics has remained elusive, unformalizable, and
>- in the view of many,  especially in the West -- unscientific  and
hence irrelevant to Western science.  A weird mixture of a method, a
(non-standard)  logic,  a  philosophy,  and  sometimes  a  political
ideology,  it  usually  baffles  the  Western  mind  and  hopelessly
frustrates  attempts to harness it in the interest of scientific  or
technological  objectives.   In  fact,  if  you wish to  dispose  of
dialectics  altogether,  you  are urged to read a  most  devastating
critique  by Karl Popper ("What is dialectics?" - Chap.  14) in  his
*Conjectures and Refutations* book.   Written many years  ago,  when
Marxist ideology seemed even more menacing than it is today,  Popper
shows  very little patience with "dialecticians" and portrays   them
as  a bunch of misguided cynics,  intellectual dwarfs,  and  pseudo-
scientific misfits.   And,  I should add, his points are not without
merit in many instances, and should not be ignored.

In  addition,   beyond philosophical and scholarly controversy   and
confusion,  there  always  looms  the  ideological/political  stigma
which  is usually attached to dialectics.   For it is the case  that
"dialectical materialism" has become the official dogma of  Marxism-
Leninism.   Much of Soviet science is constrained by their political
ideology,  and,  almost Pavolovian-style,  researchers are sometimes
rewarded for exhibiting "dialectical thinking" in their work.   Yet,
few Soviet scientific discoveries are known,  or recognized,  in the
West that owe their existence to dialectical foundations.   In other
words,  even  a  totalitarian society that  promotes,  and  rewards,
dialectical  thinking among its intellectuals has failed to  produce
significant scientific or technological results which are  genuinely
dialectical.  So, the questions should be asked:  What's really good
about  that dialectical stuff?   What's the hidden promise,  if any?
Why drag it into AI, our good old American AI?

                 The Promises of Dialectics for AI

The  answers are not easy to state,  and surely are incomplete here.
Bill Frawley gave his own sketchy rationale for adopting  dialectics
for certain language learning theories.   I am generally in sympathy
with  his  reaching  out for dialectics,  but my reasons  for  using
dialectics in AI are  more basic and,  admittedly,  almost  bizarre.
Having  an engineering background,  I never dreamt of using anything
as  remote  as dialectics for anything as   technically  mundane  as
image  processing.   It  so happened that,  for something like  five
years  (in the mid 60's) certain simple types of operations  yielded
imagery  that was "interesting" but unexpected and not  particularly
meaningful  or  interpretable.   Only  after  the  fact,  and  after
outsiders  had  been consulted,  it has become clearer  (and  later
obvious!)  that  what that type of image processing  was  doing  was
Hegelian  dialectics,  pure and simple.   All in all,  that exercise
took  some  twenty  years.   In other  words,  we've  learned  about
dialectics from the machine,  rather than have had any  premeditated
intention to program the machine to do dialectics!  Put another way,
the  machine  had been doing dialectics for us for some five  years,
well before we ever heard the term for the first time.  Well, twenty
years is certainly a long time,  and serious study of dialectics and
its ramifications has led, little-by-little, to the realization that
its  application in the implementation of certain intelligent  tasks
is  potentially  very  powerful.   The  reality  of  an  implemented
"dialectical  machine" then took hold and has opened  up  tremendous
possibilities.

To  put  it  all in very simple terms.   We on  this  project  don't
particularly  care  for Hegelian philosophy,  nor do  we care  about
Marxist  ideology.   Here  is  a machine that,  of its  own  accord,
behaves  in  a  classical dialectical  mode.   While  doing  so,  it
processes  images in an unusual (non-programmed) way that is  useful
in  machine-vision.   And  there are clear  indications  that  other
applications in other machine-intelligence domains are feasible, and
we hope to hear from others about those in this forum.   Anyway,  we
think  that  the promise of dialectics for AI clearly outweighs  its
traditional perils,   and recommend that people consider the  issues
and ramifications involved.

>- J. D. Isaacson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 84 13:03:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Anonymous
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Foundations of Logic Programming
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                   Foundations of Logic Programming

                          J.W. Lloyd

                  Springer-Verlag,ISBN 3-540-13299-6


This is the first book to give an account of the mathematical
foundations of Logic Programming.  Its purpose is to collect,
in a unified and comprehensive manner, the basic theoretical
results of Logic Programming, which have previously only been
available in widely scattered research papers.

The book is intended to be self-contained, the only prerequisites
being some familiarity with Prolog and knowledge of some basic
undergraduate mathematics.

As well as presenting the technical results, the book also
contains many illustrative examples and a list of problems
at the end of each chapter.  Many of the examples and problems
are part of the folklore of Logic Programming and are not easily
obtainable elsewhere.

                             CONTENTS

Chapter 1. DECLARATIVE SEMANTICS
           section 1.  Introduction
           section 2.  Logic programs
           section 3.  Models of logic programs
           section 4.  Answer substitutions
           section 5.  Fixpoints
           section 6.  Least Herbrand model
                   Problems for chapter 1

Chapter 2. PROCEDURAL SEMANTICS
           section 7.  Soundness of SLD-resolution
           section 8.  Completeness of SLD-resolution
           section 9.  Independence of the computation rule
           section 10. SLD-refutation procedures
           section 11. Cuts
                   Problems for chapter 2

Chapter 3. NEGATION
           section 12. Negative information
           section 13. Finite failure
           section 14. Programming with the completion
           section 15. Soundness of the negation as failure rule
           section 16. Completeness of the negation as failure rule
                   Problems for chapter 3

Chapter 4. PERPETUAL PROCESSES
           section 17. Complete Herbrand interpretations
           section 18. Properties of T'
           section 19. Semantics of perpetual processes
                   Problems for chapter 4

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 84  0255 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PhD Oral - Nonclausal Logic Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Monday 3 December, 1984, 2:15pm, 146 MJH
PhD Orals
Yoni Malachi


                       Nonclausal Logic Programming


The Tableau Programming Language (Tablog) is based on the Manna-Waldinger
deductive-tableau proof system and combines advantages of Prolog and Lisp.  A
program in Tablog is a list of formulas in [quantifier-free] first-order logic
with equality and is usually more natural than the corresponding program in
either Lisp or Prolog.

The inclusion of equivalence, negation, conditionals, functions, and equality
in Tablog enables the programmer to combine functional and relational
programming in the same framework.  Unification is used as the binding
mechanism and makes it convenient to pass unbound variables to a program and
to manipulate partially computed objects.

The tableau proof system is employed as an interpreter for the language in the
same way that a resolution proof system serves as an interpreter for Prolog.
The basic rules of inference used in the system are: nonclausal resolution,
equational rewriting, and replacement of formulas by equivalent ones.

This work describe Tablog and its semantics.  In addition to the simple
declarative (logical) semantics of the language, a procedural interpretation
is presented for sequential and parallel models of computation.  Various
properties of the language are studied and the language is compared to Lisp
and Prolog and to other combinations of functional and logic programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 1984  14:50 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "Robert C. Berwick" <BERWICK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Theory and Natural Language  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                 Language and Learning Seminar Series


                           Scott Weinstein

                      University of Pennsylvania
                                 and
                  Center for Cognitive Science, MIT


               ``LEARNING THEORY AND NATURAL LANGUAGE''


                      Tuesday, December 4, 2 PM
                            A.I. Playroom
                   8th floor, 545 Technology Square


Formal learning theory may be conceived as a means of relating
theories of comparative grammar to studies of linguistic development.
After a brief review of relevant concepts, the present talk surveys
formal results within Learning Theory that suggest corresponding
constraints on linguistic theory.  Particular attention is devoted to
the question: How many possible natural languages are there?

Host: Prof. Robert C. Berwick


Refreshments at 1:30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Nov 84 1146 EST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Edmund.Clarke@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logics of Programs Call for Papers
-BODY-
                      CALL FOR PAPERS
                   Logics of Programs 1985

The Workshop on Logics of Programs 1985, sponsored by Brooklyn College
and IBM Corporation, will be held Monday, June 17 through Wednesday,
June 19, at Brooklyn College in Brooklyn, New York.  Papers presenting
original research on logic of programs, program semantics, and program
verification are being sought.

Typical, but not exclusive, topics of interest include:  syntatic and
semantic description of new formal systems relevant to computation,
proof theory, comparative studies of expressive power, programming
language semantics, specification languages, type theory, model theory,
complexity of decision procedures, techniques for probabilistic,
concurrent, or hardware verification.  Demonstrations of working systems
are especially invited.

Authors are requested to submit 9 copies of a detailed abstract (not a
full paper) to the program chairman:

          Professor Rohit Parikh
          Logics of Programs '85
          Department of Computer and Information Science
          Brooklyn College
          Brooklyn, New York  11210

Abstracts should be 6 to 10 pages double-spaced, and must be received no
later than January 14, 1985.  Authors will be notified of acceptance or
rejection by February 18, 1985.  A copy of each accepted paper, typed on
special forms for inclusion in the proceedings, will be due on March 24, 1985.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
167
-DATE-
Date: Sun 2 Dec 84 16:04:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Net.AI Issues for Arpanet Readers
-BODY-
Laurence Leff of SMU has sent me the Usenet Net.AI record for
the period since my Usenet gateway has been down.  (I.e., since
October 23.)  I will pass the Usenet messages along to Arpanet
readers in three special issues.  This first one includes a
discussion of linguistics and translation difficulties.  The
next issue will include related material about the influence
of language on thought.  The third will be a miscellany issue
containing nonlinguistic material.

					-- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1:18 pm  Oct 23, 1984
-FROM-
From: colonel@gloria
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language deficiencies?
-BODY-
> This struck a chord.  I remember a PBS TV show about the Australian
> aborigines and the difficulties studying them.  There is apparently no
> way to phrase "what if" types of questions.  The anthropologists had to
> tell them a thing was so, get their response, and then tell them it was
> not so.
>
> This would seem to me to be a serious "expressive deficit".  Any
> aborigines on the net care to verify this?

	A general semanticist named Harrington whose first name
	I have forgotten said that he knew an Indian who was
	fluent in his tribal language and also in ours.  Harring-
	ton asked the Indian if there were such words (meanings)
	as "could" and "should" in his Indian language.  The
	Indian was quiet for a while, then shook his head.  "No,"
	he said.  "Things just are."

			Barry Stevens, _Don't Push the River_ (1970)

Expressive deficiency?  Or a more accurate modeling of reality?

See also the "Counterfactuals" dialogue in Hofstadter's _Godel, Escher,
Bach._

Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10:10 am  Oct 25, 1984
-FROM-
From: dan@aplvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tenses in Hopi
-BODY-
It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a
present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs.
Surely this is a language deficiency.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2:27 pm  Oct 26, 1984
-FROM-
From: mmt@dciem
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tenses in Hopi
-BODY-
  It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language [...]

If I remember correctly, Whorf pointed out that the Hopi don't really
have verbs.  Rather, they differentiate between events that last longer
than a cloud (nouns) and shorter events (verbs). Presumably they also
distinguish between events you know about (past+present[which is now past
because you are talking about it]) and events you don't know about
(counterfactuals and/or future).  Does anyone know more directly about
this?
The nature of the Hopi verb/noun tense/factual distinction is interesting
because Whorf used the non-distinction between noun and verb to
argue that the Hopi probably see the world in a different way.

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1:06 pm  Oct 27, 1984
-FROM-
From: steven@mcvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
I find this talk of 'deficiencies' a little disturbing.

A deficiency is in the ear of the listener, surely. If a language doesn't
have a particular feature, then that is only because the speakers of that
language don't need it. If they perceived a need for it, something would
develop.

As an example, 'standard' English doesn't distinguish between 'you' singular
and plural, while many languages do. Is this a deficiency of English? Most
English speakers would probably say not because they get along fine as it is.
However certain dialects of English apparently found it a deficiency, because
they went and invented a plural version (y'all in USA, youse in England).

A similar example is the difficulty in English of saying something in a
gender-neutral way (Chinese has a single word for 'he or she' for instance).
Many English speakers find this a deficiency, and so are developing ways to
express these things.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:32 am  Oct 28, 1984
-FROM-
From: malcolm@west44
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Youse"
-BODY-
Since when has the word "youse" been used in England (or even Great Britain)?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:40 am  Oct 28, 1984
-FROM-
From: dick@tjalk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
>
>	From: dan@aplvax.UUCP (Daniel M. Sunday)
>
>	It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language [...]

It is well-known that the English language only has a genderless
substantive, there are no masculine or feminine forms for their
substantives.  Surely this is a language deficiency.

It is well-known that the English language only has a sizeless
substantive, there is no diminuitive form for their substantives.
Surely this is a language deficiency.

There is no (reasonable) way to render Dutch: leraresje (little female teacher)
into English.

					Dick Grune
					Vrije Universiteit
					Amsterdam
and my name isn't Richard.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:40 am  Oct 28, 1984
-FROM-
From: steven@mcvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation of Dutch
-BODY-
> There is no (reasonable) way to render Dutch: leraresje (little female
> teacher) into English.

There is no way, reasonable or not, to render Dutch 'gezellig' into English.
This is also SURELY a language deficiency.

(Since there's no way to render the word into English, I'm afraid I can't
explain to non-Dutch speakers what it means, except to say that it's an
adjective describing social situations, and is desirable.)

((For Dutch readers: I find the same problems with 'eng', though it's not so
widely discussed as gezellig. But perhaps discussion on that should be
restricted to nlnet distribution.))

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6:32 pm  Oct 29, 1984
-FROM-
From: rob@ptsfa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
> It is well-known that the Hopi (American Indian) language only has a
> present tense, there are no past or future tenses for their verbs.
> Surely this is a language deficiency.

Similarly Indonesian does not have tenses either (nor aspect or person
or number).
However, the meanings that tenses, etc. express in English et al. get expressed
with separate words in Indonesian. In fact English doesn't even have a real
future tense, e.g. no prefix/suffix added to verb root to denote future;
English uses a separate word 'will' to denote futurity, as well as phrases
like 'be going to'.
Indonesian has a whole battery of adverbs to take the place of verb tense.

The lack of a syntactic feature does not necessarily mean a communicative
deficiency. And in any case it is not clear that if a language cannot
communicate some certain meaning it is deficient - maybe the native speakers
of that language have no need to express that meaning.
Do Congolese Pigmies need to have a word for snow? Actually that's a slightly
different issue than tense, because 'snow' is an object whereas tense is
has a more abstract significance.

Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!pbauae!rob

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:24 pm  Oct 29, 1984
-FROM-
From: lwall@sdcrdcf
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
In article <6115@mcvax.UUCP> steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) writes:

>I find this talk of 'deficiencies' a little disturbing.
>
>A deficiency is in the ear of the listener, surely. If a language doesn't
>have a particular feature, then that is only because the speakers of that
>language don't need it. If they perceived a need for it, something would
>develop.

I find this talk of deficiencies a little disturbing too, but for different
reasons.  Almost all purported "deficiencies" indicate not that a language
cannot communicate a particular idea, but that the purported linguist has
not studied the language well enough.  Languages are not differentiated on
the basis of what is possible or impossible to say, but on the basis of what
is easier or harder to say.  That is not to say that a given language is
easier or harder than another--languages on the whole are of approximately
equal complexity, but the complexities show up in different places in
different languages.  This is known as the waterbed theory of linguistics--
you push it down one place and it pops up somewhere else.

>As an example, 'standard' English doesn't distinguish between 'you' singular
>and plural, while many languages do. Is this a deficiency of English? Most
>English speakers would probably say not because they get along fine as it is.
>However certain dialects of English apparently found it a deficiency, because
>they went and invented a plural version (y'all in USA, youse in England).

Here in California, it's "you guys".  And no, they don't all have to be male.
They don't any of them have to be male.

Of course, "standard" English has "all of you", "you folks", "you ladies",
etc., and a bunch of vocative phrases to indicate plurality.  "Gentlemen,
start your engines!"

>A similar example is the difficulty in English of saying something in a
>gender-neutral way (Chinese has a single word for 'he or she' for instance).
>Many English speakers find this a deficiency, and so are developing ways to
>express these things.

One does have a certain amount of difficulty, doesn't one?  But just because
an English speaker runs up against this problem, it doesn't mean they have to
reinvent the wheel, do they?  English already has both a formal and an
informal way to express the idea.  One doesn't have to misunderstood if they
don't want to.  Of course, if one mixes up the formal with the informal, they
very well might be misunderstood.

(For you clunches out there, the previous paragraph is self-referential.)

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4:55 pm  Oct 30, 1984
-FROM-
From: mmt@dciem
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation of Dutch
-BODY-
> There is no way, reasonable or not, to render Dutch 'gezellig' into English.
> This is also SURELY a language deficiency.

  (Since there's no way to render the word into English, I'm afraid I can't
  explain to non-Dutch speakers what it means, except to say that it's an
  adjective describing social situations, and is desirable.)

Why is there *no* way?  Do you mean to imply that English-speakers cannot
experience this social situation, or just that it would take a complex
phrase or paragraph to get the idea across.  If the former, then there
must be more difference between the Dutch culture and all English-speaking
ones than I have observed.  If the latter, then why not try and see
where you get.  I was under the impression that "gezellig" was close
to cosy, comfortable, unconstrained and home-like.  Is this anything like?

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:47 am  Oct 31, 1984
-FROM-
From: marcus@pyuxt
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation of Dutch
-BODY-
Does gezellig mean the same as the german word "gemutlich"? ('Skuse the
spelling, please, but I'm not a German speaker, or even a speaker of
German).
		marcus hand

Incidentally,  I think its usually a deficiency in the speaker or writer
rather than the language....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:33 pm  Nov  2, 1984
-FROM-
From: lambert@mcvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
[warn your system administrator if this line is missing]

> I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being
> 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea
>    that needs several words in some other language.
> 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas.

The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one. Steven
Pemberton mentioned already the Dutch word "gezelligheid".  No doubt it is
possible to explain the meaning of the word "gezellig" and its derivatives in
English.  To do so, however, to a reasonable degree of precision (let alone
to a degree of precision that would suffice for non-native speakers to rely
on their understanding and utter these words when and only when appropriate)
would require a minor essay.  Now these words are not at all infrequently
used in Dutch.  My dictionary lists as translations for "gezellig":
"sociable", "cosy", "snug" and "social".  A "gezellig avondje" is rendered as
a "social evening".  In the direction English -> Dutch this is always
reasonable.  But telling the host that the evening was "gezellig" would be
considered a compliment, whereas stating that it was social sounds like a
superfluous statement of fact.  Translating "gezellig" as "cosy" is usually
not only wrong, but also ridiculous.  When I try to express myself in English
where I would have used "gezellig" in Dutch, I usually substitute "nice".
However, "nice" does not really convey the meaning of what I am trying to
say.  I experience this as a language deficiency.

Another example is the Dutch phrase "voor de hand liggen".  There is no
phrase in English with the same meaning.  In some cases, "to be obvious" is
acceptable, in some other cases one can use "to come to mind", but in many
cases both are plainly wrong, and in those cases there is no *reasonable* way
that I know of to express the concept in English.

> On the other hand, the Aborigines have no construction for 'what if',
> which is much more serious. This really is a language deficiency,
> since it will take *lots* of trouble to communicate this idea.

Having no construction for a concept is not a property of a race or ethnic
group, but of a language.  There are many Australic languages.  Is the lack
of expressibility of "what if" common to all these, mutually largely
disparate, languages?  That would be a very interesting fact to find.
(However, it appears that none of these languages can express the concept
"supply-side economics" :-) Seriously, I don't know any of the Australic
languages, but I am not at all convinced that natural languages do exist in
which it is hard to express the fact that something has the status of a
hypothesis, even though the language may lack a word for the concept
"hypothesis".  This claim about the languages spoken by the Aborigines seems
to me just one more unfounded popular belief similar to so many introduced by
travellers to uncharted areas while recounting their curious discoveries.  If
it is true, however, for some language, then this would be a good test case
for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  For the implication would be that the native
speakers could not entertain hypothetical thoughts, and so would not take
provisions for contingencies.

To conclude, I want to point out two deficiencies common to all languages I
know.  The first is well known: what should you reply to the question "Do you
still persist in your lies?", when you believe you are speaking the truth?

There is no way of stating that the question implies a falsehood other then
by directly contradicting the falsehood.  On paper, "Question not applicable"
may do, but not in a conversation.  The other deficiency has to do with "why"
questions.  Children tend to pass through a period of asking questions like:
"Why are bananas yellow?" "Why does water not burn?"  "Why is ice cold?"
etc., ad nauseam.  In some cases there is no "why"; the concept does not
apply.  For example, it is not reasonable to ask "Why is it Wednesday
today?", or "Why is red a colour?".  The deficiency is that there is no
accepted way of stating about a proposition that the concept "why" does not
apply.

     Lambert Meertens
     ...!{seismo,philabs,decvax}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP
     CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam

"If I were you, I should wish I were me."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:34 pm  Nov  2, 1984
-FROM-
From: steven@mcvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Youse"
-BODY-
In article <382@west44.UUCP> malcolm@west44.UUCP (Malcolm Shute.) asks:

> Since when has the word "youse" been used in England (or even Great Britain)?

Well, the earliest date I can't give you. However, it was recorded in
Norfolk, for instance, in 1905. As for Great Britain, I can find references to
1880, and possibly earlier, in Northern Ireland. However, since it is also
recorded in Australia and the USA, it probably derives from much earlier.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2:43 am  Nov  4, 1984
-FROM-
From: biep@klipper
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation of Dutch
-BODY-
In article <1175@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes:

>I was under the impression that "gezellig" was close
>to cosy, comfortable, unconstrained and home-like.  Is this anything like?

	I wouldn't say it is "close to" the words you mentioned.
	It often is, but it isn't that. E.g. it can suddenly be
	"gezellig" when one of two people on an inhabitated is-
	land, suddenly reveals a bar of chocolate and shares it
	with his companion. They may be almost starving, but
	they eat it with little bits, and talk about the taste,
	and where, in which shop ("You remember, the old man
	who used to buy licorice over there?"), one can buy
	the best, etc.
	My English isn't that good, but the whole situation
	doesn't sound like "cosy", or "home-like", or such. The
	Dutch word "gezellig" is derived from the same stem as
	"gezelschap", which means both "the group around you"
	and "the mutual affection within the group". However,
	it has got a special meaning too because of the fact
	that the word is often used with respect to going and
	drinking coffee together at eleven o'clock in the mor-
	ning. (The word "coffee" itself is highly associated
	with "gezellig" too: I don't drink coffee, but nobody
	would invite me "Come, and drink chocolate milk with
	us!", however that is what I actually do. The word
	"coffee" *has* to be mentioned to commumicate the
	idea. The Dutch expression for "Our house stands always
	open for you" is "The coffee is always ready for you".)

							  Biep.
	{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep

I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am
prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it.
							--Voltaire

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5:10 pm  Nov  4, 1984
-FROM-
From: ir44@sdcc6
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
>
> > I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being
> > 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea
> >    that needs several words in some other language.
> > 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas.
>
> The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one.

There are further problems in the comparison of languages and
their semantic capabilities that become evident in this series
of articles on "deficiencies."
   1. The discussion of Dutch "gezellig" illustrates the
   difficulty of defining a word (more for some words than
   others) in its OWN language, let alone translating it, i.e.,
   finding a single or compact phrase that conveys its meaning
   to speakers of another language. The problems of definition
   and translation appear to be similar and always approximate.
   One test (of distribution) is whether a proposed synonym or
   defining phrase or circumlocution can be substituted for the
   original word over the whole range of environments in which
   that word can occur. Under this test there are few true
   synonyms within a language let alone single word translations
   in the target language. In translation the test is doubly
   approximate as the environment in which a term occurs are
   themselves approximate translations, themselves environed by
   the word being tested. I have spoken to Bible translators, now
   so widespread in the world, about how they translate such
   notions as "God" or "hell." They do their best, ignore the
   incommensurabilities, and rely on God or "God" to get his
   point across.

   2. The notion of "word" in my inexpert opinion is one of the
   most loosely defined in linguistics. Sometimes it is taken
   as a unit that can occur by itself (unlike an affix which,
   while it can occur independently, with many different roots,
   is a bound morpheme that would not occur by itself unless
   it has been liberated, like "isms and ologies.") But much of
   what we take as words in English are, I think, only separated
   as orthographic conventions, not occuring separately as
   utterances in speech-- compare "am" with "-ing". The sense
   of "wordness" may be more semantic than syntactic or perhaps
   more a matter of cognitive chunking. The question of what
   makes a good dictionary entry may have its counterpart in the
   storage of vocabulary- "word" being in some way the best
   retrieval unit.

   Ted Schwartz    Anthro/UCSD

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
168
-DATE-
Date: 4:55 pm  Nov 10, 1984
-FROM-
From: dts@gitpyr
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language and Thought
-BODY-
...

> The lack of a syntactic feature does not necessarily mean a communicative
> deficiency. And in any case it is not clear that if a language cannot
> communicate some certain meaning it is deficient - maybe the native speakers
> of that language have no need to express that meaning.

I don't take it as given that there exist any concepts that some language
can't express, because I'm not sure what it means to say that a language
"can't express" an idea. One thing that most people in this discussion
seem to have overlooked is the fact that the words don't carry all the
meaning.

The words you are reading now are arousing ideas in your mind. I have no
direct control over those ideas. All I can do is try to chose my words
so that they will evoke the ideas I want them to in the minds of the
majority of those people who bother to read this. If you fail to properly
understand what I am trying to say, whose fault is it? Mine for choosing
the wrong words? Yours for having the wrong ideas? English's for not
having a single word which encompasses everything I'm trying to say?

I've had discussions on this topic before with friends, in which I took
the position that there are things that can't be expressed in English.
But now I think that's a naive viewpoint because so much depends on
mutual understanding between the persons involved. I asked a Dutch
person about "gezellig" and she explained it so that I think I
understand. The closest single-word synonym I could think of in English
is "homey" but that's not really anywhere near being an exact equivalent.

But now, if someone said to me, "Homey. You know, in the Dutch sense,"
I would have a good idea of what they meant. English will have
communicated an idea that many people on the net have been saying it
can't.

>- Either Argle-Bargle IV or someone else. --

Danny Sharpe
School of ICS
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!dts

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1:00 pm  Nov  9, 1984
-FROM-
From: arndt@decwrl
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Soapy-Woof theory of talk.
-BODY-

It seems to me that there is a hole at the bottom of the bag.
I mean, does language really have THAT much control over how we think?

"Language exists to communicate whatever it can communicate.  Some things
it communicates so badly that we never attempt to communicate them by words
if any other medium is available."

". . . what language can hardly do at all, and never does well, is to inform
us about complex physical shapes and movements.  Hence descriptions of such
things in the ancient writers are nearly always unintelligible.  Hence in
real life we never voluntarily use language for this purpose; we draw a
diagram or go through pantomimic gestures."

"Another grave limitation of language is that it cannot, like music or
gesture, do more than one thing at once.  However the words in a great poet's
phrase interinanimate one another and strike the mind as a quasi-instantaneous
chord, yet, strictly speaking, each word must be read or heard before the next.
That way, language is unilinear as time.  Hence, in narrative, the great
difficulty of presenting a very complicated change which happens suddenly.
If we do justice to the complexity, the time the reader must take over the
passage will destroy the feeling of suddenness.  If we get in the suddenness
we shall not be able to get in the complexity.  I am not saying that a genius
will not find its own ways of palliating this defect in the instrument; only
that the instrument is in this way defective."

"One of the most important and effective uses of language is the emotional.
It is also, of course, wholly legitimate.  We do not talk only in order to
reason or to inform.  We have to make love, and quarrel, to propitiate
and pardon, to rebuke, console, intercede, and arouse.  The real objection
lies not against the language of emotions as such, but against language
which, being in reality emotional, masquerades - whether by plain hypocrisy or
subtler self-deceit - as being something else."

From:  C.S. Lewis, STUDIES IN WORDS, Cambridge University Press, 1960.
       Chapter 9 "At The Fringe Of Language, p.214-5.

Comments???????????????????

Regards,

Ken Arndt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:21 am  Nov 12, 1984
-FROM-
From: robison@eosp1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Perception
-BODY-
I disagree strongly wth the C.S. Lewis quote below (from ken Arndt).

>"Another grave limitation of language is that it cannot, like music or
>gesture, do more thatn one thing at once.  However the words in a great poet's
>phrase interinanimate one another and strike the mind as a quasi-instantaneous
>chord, yet, strictly speaking, each word must be read or heard before the
>next. That way, language is unilinear as time. Hence, in narrative, the great
>difficulty of presenting a very complicated change which happens suddenly.
>If we do justice to the complexity, the time the reader must take over the
>passage will destroy the feeling of suddenness.  If we get in the suddenness
>we shall not be able to get in the complexity.  I am not saying thta genius
>will not find its own ways of palliating this defect in the instrument; only
>that the instrument is in this way defective."
>
>From:  C.S. Lewis, STUDIES IN WORDS, Cambridge University Press, 1960.
>       Chapter 9 "At The Fringe Of Language, p.214-5.

All arts that appeal primarily to one sense suffer to a degree from
the fault Lewis describes, that one item of information is processed at
a time, and the artwork is perceived serially in a sense.  Almost all
great artists in all media have wonderful ways of addressing this
problem, so that it is not a limitation, but merely a challenge.
In the specific example, the words of poems particularly tend to have
multiple meanings, and to give additional meanings to other parts of
the poem.  Even if one focuses on the INITIAL reading of a poem
(which is ridiculous), the words already read will continually change
in perception as additional words are read.  This is a heavy parallel
activity!

Other examples one might give:

  In writing, many authors contrive to describe a complicated sudden
  change obscurely, so that the reader knows he does not understand the
  words fully in his serial reading, but the entire complex moment may
  be understood suddenly when, after many pages, the whole situation
  falls into place.  I'm sure we can all think of books where this
  occurs.  For spectacular, but easy examples of this I would recommend
  the beginning (say, the first 15 pages) of either of these novels by
  Henry Green:
	- Living
	- Party Going
  In each case, he starts by partially describing the current situation
  in such an uncommunicative manner that the reader is all at sea.
  Conversation, observation, and environment just accumulate in the
  readers mind, awaiting elucidation.  Then orientation occurs, the
  meaning of the opening pages hits the reader in a rush, and he is
  emotionally deep in the fabric of the book, having been struck by
  a torrent of words suddenly, in a way C.S. Lewis would have thought
  impossible...

  Painters and similar artists know that the eye perceives a picture
  serially.  Most types of art attract the eye (not 100%, but
  materially) to a part of the picture, and then lead it from place to
  place.  Many pictures are arranged so that the actual motion of the
  eye will be soothing or otherwise.  Some pictures are arranged so
  that a surprise awaits the eye after part of the picture is
  perceived.  [In Western Art, landscapes that slope down from left
  to right tend to be more soothing than the reverse, since Western
  eyes tend to read from left to right.  Some pictures just lead the
  eye round and round through an unsettling maze, as Picasso's
  Guernica.]

  Musical compositions are heard serially.  Again, if we focus on the
  initial hearing, musical ideas are being presented serially, with
  a minimum of parallelism possible.  But as a composition goes on,
  the listener learns more about, and re-interprets, what he has heard.
  An obvious example would be a theme and variations, in which some of
  the variations emphasize constructional characteristics of the theme,
  and some recall the theme so the listener can rethink its impression
  on the basis of better understanding of its parts.  These variations
  will be communicating in parallel (what happened before, plus the new
  variation itself).

  Three-dimensional sculptures must also be perceived over time, since
  they are not fully visible from one place.  Mnay sculpors are aware
  of this and arrange that the whole is greater than the sum of its
  parts.

  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10:26 am  Nov 14, 1984
-FROM-
From: ben@sysvis
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Perception
-BODY-
	Interesting.  (But why is this in net.ai instead of net.lang.n?)
	Language as an informational tool, especially when in written form,
	seems to have some distinct disadvantages in terms of information
	density.  When describing a house, for instance, it is certainly
	more informative to draw a floor plan, with dimensions, and provide
	architectural renderings in color, than to give a verbal description.

	However, the emotional impact of being present in a building itself
	cannot be conveyed by graphic or pictorial means alone.  If you visit
	the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, it is a moving experience.
	However, the photograph you bring back cannot convey the emotion you
	experienced.  It will arouse emotional reactions in your viewers, but
	not necessarily the emotions you wished to convey.
	
	To a limited extent, written language together with graphic and pic-
	toral information will provide the emotional base for communication.
	Spoken language, with all its intonational coloring, will convey much
	more of the emotion.  These combined with musical score will allow
	you as a communicator to most closely recreate the experience both
	informationally and emotionally for your audience.  Thus the basis for
	this combination in cinema and video.

					Ben Evans
					{ctvax!convex}!trsvax!sysvis!ben

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5:02 pm  Nov 17, 1984
-FROM-
From: mark@digi-g
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language and Thought
-BODY-

arndt@lymph.DEC writes:

> ...  does language really have THAT much control over how we think?

That depends on what you mean by `think'.

This is one of my pet theories.

At the very least, there are functional areas of the mind that perform
verbal reasoning.  This area maintains the continuous internal dialogue
that we all experience.  Most people identify this area as `I'.  There
are certainly non-verbal areas, too.  But this is not identified as the
self.  Consider, as an example, reflex actions: `I jumped out of the way
before I was even aware of it...'.  Other non-verbal areas influence
the `verbal-consciousness' with messages called `intuition'.

I believe that the reason we assign such importance the the verbal
consciousness is that we are social animals.  The importance of our
interactions with others of our ilk is so great that we tend to define
ourselves as that which others can experience.  Because language is the
primary means of communication with others, we percieve verbal
consciousness as being terribly important. Self-awareness would not exist
without the built-in social hooks.

Language, however, has little effect on the non-verbal areas of the mind.
A human in total isolation with no language experience could probably
function quite well with no internal dialogue. Many complex tasks, which
we would like to have computers emulate, are performed without language.

Comments?

					-- Mark Mendel
					-- ...ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
169
-DATE-
Date: 3:26 pm  Nov 29, 1984
-FROM-
From: chandra@uiucuxc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Constraint Propagation & Planning
-BODY-

	Constraint   Propagation  in  Planning

	
	I am thinking of doing my theses on Planning. I read Mark Stefik's
theses on Planning with Constraints. I wanted to know if anybody has seen
any other papers on constraint propagation applied to
	
		a) Planning

	   or   b) Blocks world problems....

	I am planning on a system that will generate constraints from the
physical interaction between blocks and use them to do heirarchical
planning to achieve goals. Still thinking...
 - Navin Chandra

full arpa address is : chandra@uiucuxc@uiucdcs@RAND-RELAY.ARPA

Thank you

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10:12 pm  Nov 23, 1984
-FROM-
From: davy@ecn-ee
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Crossword Puzzles?
-BODY-

Anybody got a nifty program to fill in crossword puzzles? Basically I
need something which, given a template of "white squares" and "black
squares" and a list of words, will generate patterns of the words
placed into the template. All the program has to do is stick the words
in the holes and make sure all the vertical/horizontal combinations
are really words; it doesn't have to handle clues, etc.

Please mail responses to:

	{decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax}!pur-ee!davy
	ecn.davy@purdue.arpa

Thanks in advance,
>-Dave Curry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12:32 pm  Nov 19, 1984
-FROM-
From: rjs@okstate
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learn
-BODY-
I am intersted in making a 'learn' system for xlisp 1.2+.  To do this
I find myself in need of many examples of not only style but
*ACTUAL WORKING CODE*.  If anyone who has something that currently works
could send me a copy, I will try to build a learn system and will
subsequently post it to the net.

To these ends, a few guidelines should be adheard to:
1.  These xlisp 1.2+ programs should be short, useful, and explain
    some '*function*' that shows xlisp's abilities as a language.
2.  Interest should be aimed at A.I. people and others that would like
    to learn xlisp in a cursory manner (i.e. two approaches).
3.  The 'version' of xlisp 1.2+ that we have has been modified via the
    following net notes:
        net.sources / mit-eddi!jfw / 12:23 am  Sep 19, 1984
        net.sources / mit-eddi!jfw /  4:21 pm  Sep 21, 1984
        net.sources / mit-eddi!jfw /  8:24 pm  Sep 21, 1984
        net.sources / mit-eddi!jfw /  8:56 pm  Sep 24, 1984
        net.sources / mit-eddi!jfw /  2:04 pm  Oct  9, 1984
        net.lang.lisp / ea!mwm /  1:52 am  Oct 13, 1984
    Any programs should be runnable on this system.

Many Thanks in Advance

Roland Stolfa (Stalfonovich),
Oklahoma State University

....!ihnp4!umn-cs!isucs1!\
.......!ucbvax!mtxinu!ea! > okstate!rjs
....!convex!ctvax!uokvax!/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:21 am  Nov 12, 1984
-FROM-
From: robison@eosp1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Diagnosing strategies for humans
-BODY-
This is a followup on the discussion of how doctors reason when
doing diagnoses:

>I don't think it would alarm anyone who does deductive reasoning a lot.
>The method described IS deductive reasoning.  As Sherlock Holmes once
>observed: 'when all that is impossible has been removed, whatever remains,
>no matter how improbable, must be the truth.'  This doesn't prevent checking
>out the most probable (or the most easily tested) first.

Sherlock Homes did not, in my opinion, describe what doctors do.
In the first place, many tests are available to doctors, some simple
and inexpensive, to rule out the improbable.  Usually these tests are
not performed until the more likely cases are checked out.  A good
example is a diseased gall bladder.  Its common symptoms are similar
(depending upon how people report them) to lower backpain, ulcers,
and other forms of gastric distress, including viruses.  Doctors
almost always will do the more painful, and more expensive ulcer test
first (barium X-ray), before checking for gall bladder disease, which
is less common.

Sherlock Holmes always reasoned on the basis of very little
information, but he was careful to collect all he could at a given
moment, and then was ready to deduce from that the ONLY possibility,
however improbable.  Doctors will collect some of the information
easily available to them, and then deduce the most probable cause,
no matter how many possible causes are still not ruled out.

Please recall that I'm not flaming about all this.  Anyone who has
suffered from one of the less likely possibilities will prefer that
more deductive reasoning were used sooner; but I can appreciate that
doctors have a system that works a high percentage of time, and also
minimizes the number of tests required, at the cost of delaying correct
treatment to a relatively few cases.  I'm not sure that any alternative
would be better.

	- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
	allegra!eosp1!robison
	or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
	or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4:34 pm  Nov 21, 1984
-FROM-
From: emneufeld@water
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UNIX - ai
-BODY-
/*
	For all you ai-ers, here's a great state-of-the-art
	ai program that runs on UNIX.  Compile this program
	with the command

	cc riddle.c -o ridde -lcurses -ltermlib

*/


#include <math.h>
# include <sys/types.h>
# include <sys/timeb.h>
#include <curses.h>


main()
{
    int     i,j;
    char    a,b,c;
    savetty();
    initscr ();
    printw ("ask me a riddle...\n");
    refresh ();
    i = randy (10);
    j = 0;
    while ((c = getchar ()) != '\n') {
	if (i = j)
	    srand ((int) c);
	j++;
    }
    printw ("Gee! ");
    refresh ();
    sleep (2);
    printw (" That's a tough one...");
    refresh ();
    refresh ();
    for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
	printw (".");
	refresh ();
	sleep (1);
    };
    printw ("\nI give up !!  What's the answer?\n");
    refresh ();
    while (getchar () != '\n');
    for (j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
	i = randy (3);
	move (randy (31), randy (70));
	switch (i) {
	    case 0:
		printw ("Hee hee!");
		break;
	    case 1:
		printw ("Har har!");
		break;
	    case 2:
		printw ("That's a good one!");
		break;
	    case 3:
		printw ("Yuk, yuk!!");
		break;
	    default:
		printw ("That's hilarious!");
		break;
	}
	refresh ();
    }
    endwin();
    resetty();
}

randy(i)
int i;
{
    i = (int) ((double) i * (double) rand () / (double) 017777777777);
    return (i);
}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7:01 pm  Nov 13, 1984
-FROM-
From: neihart
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 disjuction dilemma.
-BODY-
        I have encountered a problem with ops5 as follows:  since
disjunctions  are  implicitly  quoted  (see  pg 18 of ops5 users'
manual), it is impossible to substitute a variable within a  dis-
junction.   This is needed in the following example where the ^sd
field of a passtx should consist of a vector of 2 elements;  how-
ever,  it  doesn't  matter  which element is listed first, so the
condition element should succeed as long as the two elements  are
present  in any order.   If there were a method to call functions
for arguments of the condition elements, a function could  create
the  proper  disjunction, an admittedly clumsy solution; however,
the call mechanism only works on RHSs of productions!

        I have also considered using two  ^sds,  ^sd1  and  ^sd2,
storing the least of the two numbers in ^sd in ^sd1 and the other
in ^sd2, thereby eliminating the  vector  and  using  two  scalar
variables.  However, this won't work since the LHS of the produc-
tion is incapable of sorting the two variables (eg, <d> and  <in-
put1>  below),  providing the proper target variable for ^sd1 and
^sd2. How can I get around this and allow the LHS condition  ele-
ments  4  and 5 below to match regardless of the order of the two
^sd arguments?

(p Dflipflop
  (inv ^name <inv1>  ^input <input1> ^output <output1>)
  (inv ^name <inv2>  ^input <output1> ^ output <output2>)
  (inv ^name <inv3>  ^input <enable> ^output <output3>)
  (passtx  ^name <tx1> ^gate <enable> ^sd
;*** following line doesn't work since <d> and <input1> are taken literally.
	{<< <d> <input1> >> <temp1>} {<< <d> <input1> >> <temp2> <> <temp1>})
  (passtx  ^name <tx2> ^gate <output3> ^sd
;*** following line doesn't work since <output2> and <input1>
;*** are taken literally, rather than their values being used.
 {<< <output2> <input1> >><temp3>}{<< <output2> <input1> >><temp4> <> <temp3>})
>->
  (make Dff ^name <inv1>  ^clock <enable> ^Q <output2> ^Qbar <output1>)
  (remove 1 2 3 4 5)
)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12:25 pm  Nov 15, 1984
-FROM-
From: paul@ctvax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Disjunctions
-BODY-
The solution is simple (though a little ugly). Productions themselves
are disjunctions. The idea is that rules be aranged into disjunctive
form, then each disjunction is a separate OPS5-rule. and each rule
is itself a conjunction (with possible negations).

(p variant1
   ...ce's that bind <foo1> and <foo2> ...
   ( <foo1> <foo2> )
   -->
   (make found))

(p variant2
   ...ce's that bind <foo1> and <foo2> ...
   ( <foo2> <foo1> )
   -->
   (make found))

(p var1orvar2
   ...ce's that bind <foo1> and <foo2> ...
   (found)
   -->
   .... rhs goes here ...)

This way you can avoid duplication of the RHS.

paul.ct@CSNet-Relay
ctvax!paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9:21 pm  Nov 17, 1984
-FROM-
From: neihart
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Disjunctions
-BODY-
That certainly is a solution to the problem, but it gets inadequate
quickly.  The number of productions needed to express a production which
has n vectors, with m order-independent elements each, is m to the
n productions!  I've tried making a routine which would (build ..) these
productions automatically, however I've discovered that values in the
attribute-value pairs cannot be expressions which evaluate to a variable,
such as <x>!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9:36 am  Nov 18, 1984
-FROM-
From: neihart
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Disjunctions
-BODY-
I've decided it is easier to make multiple version of the same thing in the
working memory, one for each possible permutation, than it is to just have
one copy with one or more complicated productions for matching.  All the
versions can have the same value in the ^name field, so that as soon as one
is used, all working memory elements with the same name as the one just
used can be removed.  This is still a clumsy way to get around the problem,
but does anyone know of any better method?

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
2

-N-
170
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Dec 84 21:05:48-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Missing Digest #166
-BODY-
I have reason to believe that digest V2 #166 did not make it
out to several (many?) sites before it was mysteriously deleted
from my system.  Let me know if you need a remailing.  The digest
included

  Philosophy - Dialectics and Piaget,
  Logic Programming - Book Review,
  PhD Oral - Nonclausal Logic Programming,
  Seminar - Learning Theory and Natural Language  (MIT),
  Conference - Logics of Programs

It should have gone out Friday or Saturday (Nov. 30 or Dec. 1).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Dec 84 20:49:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Digest Sequence
-BODY-
Usenet readers may have noticed that digest issues 167-169 are missing.
These issues were sent only to Arpanet readers because they contained
only messages from the net.ai discussion -- the ones since Oct. 23,
when our gateway host went down.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 1984 1219-EST
-FROM-
From: Scott Fahlman <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz Lisp -> Common Lisp
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A number of people around CMU and CGI have now successfully translated
Franz Lisp programs into Common Lisp.  In general, people seem to have
little trouble moving big programs over, but people who have not yet
done this are understandably apprehensive.  If the people who have
experience in this area want to send me a brief description of the
things to look out for or that caused them trouble, I will try to merge
these experiences into a short guide for people faced with this kind of
task in the future.

>- Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 84 08:15 EST
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Languages for A. I.
-BODY-
I would like to compile a list of all language systems which have been
implemented / proposed for artificial intelligence purposes.  I would
appreciate lists, pointers, and vague recollections from anyone within
the community.  I will be glad to forward any resulting document.

steve
(803) 656-3444

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Dec 1984 2124-PST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: ricks%ucbic@Berkeley (Rick L Spickelmier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Disjunctions
-BODY-
I have found the following to be a solution to disjunction
in the type of problem you (neihart) have come up against.

If you are trying to represent a pass-transistor with permutable terminals,
just remove the permutable terminals from the pass-transistor working
memory element and make seperate working memory elements for each permutable
terminal, such as the following:

(passtx ^name <tr1> ^gate <gate>)
(terminal ^parent <tr1> ^name <tag1> ^type sd ^node <sd1>)
(terminal ^parent <tr1> ^name <tag2> ^type sd ^node <sd2>)

Then your rule can be:

(p Dflipflop
  {(inv ^name <inv1>  ^input <input1>  ^output <output1>) <inv1>}
  {(inv ^name <inv2>  ^input <output1> ^output <output2>) <inv2>}
  {(inv ^name <inv3>  ^input <enable>  ^output <output3>) <inv3>}
  {(passtx ^name <tx1> ^gate <enable>)  <passtx1>}
  {(terminal ^parent <tx1> ^name <tag1>    ^type sd ^node <input1>) <term1>}
  {(terminal ^parent <tx1> ^name <> <tag1> ^type sd ^node <d>)      <term2>}
  {(passtx ^name <tx2> ^gate <output3>) <passtx2>}
  {(terminal ^parent <tx2> ^name <tag2>    ^type sd ^node <output2>) <term3>}
  {(terminal ^parent <tx2> ^name <> <tag2> ^type sd ^node <input1>)  <term4>}
  -->
  (make Dff ^name <inv1>  ^clock <enable> ^Q <output2> ^Qbar <output1>)
  (remove <inv1> <inv2> <inv3>)
  (remove <passtx1> <passtx2> <term1> <term2> <term3> <term4>))

Note:  I have run examples using the above and using a single working memory
element for a pass-transistor with seperate rules for each allowable
permutation - and in all cases I have tried, adding extra rules gives
better performance than adding more working memory elements
(but if you are interested in readability, the extra working memory
element representation is better).

            Rick L Spickelmier (ricks@berkeley)
            Electronics Research Laborartory, UC Berkeley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Dec 84 1531 EST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Lee.Brownston@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 disjunction problem
-BODY-
A better solution is to remove the sd values from the passtx working memory
element.  If the name fields of the passtx wme's contain unique values, then
two sd children can be created which point to their common parent.

(literalize passtx
  name              ; a unique value
  gate)

(literalize sd
  passtx            ; the same value as the "name" field of the passtx parent
  value
)

When the passtx is made, the two sd children are linked to it.

>->
...
(make passtx ^name   <passtxname>
             ^gate   <passtxgate> )
(make sd     ^passtx <passtxname>
             ^value  <sd-value-1> )
(make sd     ^passtx <passtxname>
             ^value  <sd-value-2> )
...

Then it is easy to test the disjunction because the sd elements are unordered
(except by time tag, which is not used in matching).

(p Dflipflop
  (inv     ^name   <inv1>
           ^input  <input1>
           ^output <output1> )
  (inv     ^name   <inv2>
           ^input  <output1>
           ^output <output2> )
  (inv     ^name   <inv3>
           ^input  <enable>
           ^output <output3> )
  (passtx  ^name   <tx1>
           ^gate   <enable>  )
  (sd      ^passtx <tx1>
           ^value  <d>       )        ; is this where <d> is to be bound?
  (sd      ^passtx <tx1>
           ^value  { <input1> <> <d> } )
  (passtx  ^name   <tx2>
           ^gate   <output3> )
  (sd      ^passtx <tx2>
           ^value  <input1>  )
  (sd      ^passtx <tx2>
           ^value  { <output2> <> <input1> } )
>->
  (make Dff ^name  <inv1>
            ^clock <enable>
            ^Q     <output2>
            ^Qbar  <output1> )
  (remove 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
)

Might I take this opportunity to make a plug for a forthcoming book on OPS5?
It is called "Programming Expert Systems in OPS5," and is to be published in
mid-April by Addison-Wesley.  The authors are Lee Brownston (CMU), Robert
Farrell (Yale), Elaine Kant (CMU), and Nancy Martin (Wang Institute).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 84 11:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A calculus of elegence (re: kludge v2 #162)
-BODY-
I found your definition of Kludge very interesting. In the sense you
use it, it seems to be the antonym of Elegance (a term frequently heard
in mathematical circles). The problem is I have never seen a precise
definition of elegance. Would you like to try and produce a definition
for it?

1. What is it about a representation schemas (symbolic/anologic) that
   lead mathematicians or programers to consider them to be elegant
   representations of a problem?

2. Does elegance extend beyond to domain of symbolic representations
   to what David Smith (Pygmallion) called Non-Fregean systems such
   as art (paintings)? Do we call this esthetics?

3. Is there a calculus of esthetics? Can we capture its properties
   in a formal system (axiomatic) or does it correspond to
   reasoning structures inside the brain (a dual of K-lines)?

                                        - Steven Gutfreund

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 1984  01:06 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A calculus of elegence (re: kludge v2 #162)
-BODY-
  Dear Steven,

Mathematical elegance must be a lot of things; generally it includes
economy and surprise: the sense of getting more from something than
one expected.  I don't believe it very often pays to "define" a
commonsense word, because it includes too many unrelated things -- or
ones which cannot be related except within some larger psychological
theory.  A sounder approach would be to define half a dozen influences
which might contribute, and make separate theories of them.  In
Poincare's famous essay on unconscious mathematical creativity, he
leaves open the question of how the unconscious mind decides when its
mathematical efforts have produced a structure which might be worthy
of the conscious mind's attention.

In fact, I would say that, rather than try to define mathematical
elegance, one would better spend the time refining a system which uses
criteria of possible mathematical value -- e.g., Lenat's AM and
Eurisko systems.  Then, when we better understand a way to make a
system make mathematical discoveries, we can return to speculate about
how human minds do such things.

As for a calculus of esthetics, that probably reflects even more
varied cultural acquisitions.  There was a whole book about this, in
the 1920's I think, called "Esthetic Measure", by Gearge. D. Birkhoff,
a great mathematician.  Here are some of my views, from a page in my
not-quite-finished new book.

PAGE 47:  STYLE

Why do we like so many things which seem to have no earthly use?
We often speak of this with mixtures of defensiveness and pride.

     "Art for Art's sake."
     "I find it aesthetically pleasing."
     "I just like it."
     "There's no accounting for it".

"There's no accounting for" sounds like a guilty child who's been told
to keep accounts.  "I just like it" sounds like one is hiding reasons
too unworthy to admit.  Why do we take our refuge in such vague,
defiant principles? Indeed, we @B{ought} to feel ashamed of doing
things that have no use -- if it is written in our self-ideals that it
is bad to squander time.

However, there are practical reasons to maintain stylistic
preferences.  Here are some reasons why it makes sense to make
choices which are empty in themselves, so long as they are based on
predictable, coherent uniformities.

SIMPLICITY: The legs of a chair work equally well if made square or
round.  Then, why do we tend to choose our furniture according to
systematic style or fashions?  Because they make it easier to
understand whole scenes; you can more quickly see which things are
similar.

DISTRACTION:  The purpose of a picture's frame is normally to
circumscribe its boundary.  Too much variety might distract viewers
from the pictures themselves.  Thus, the more easily the style of the
frames can be  identified -- even if by encrusting them with
ornaments --  the frames themselves can be more easily ignored.

CONVENTION: It makes no difference whether a single car drives on
the left or on the right. But when there are many cars, they must do
the same, one way or the other, or they'll crash.  Societies need
rules which make no sense at all for single individuals.

It saves a lot of mental work, to make each choice the way you did
before. To find out what to do, just use find the rule in memory.
Strangely enough, this principle can be the most valuable, when the
situation it applies to is the least critical, because of the
following principle:

FREDKIN'S PARADOX: The more equal seem the two alternatives, the
harder it will be to choose -- yet the more equal they are, the less
the choice matters.  Then, the more time spent, the more time lost.

It is no wonder that we find it hard to account for "taste" -- since,
often, it depends on all the rules we use when ordinary reasons
cancel out!  Does this mean that Fashion, Style, and Art are all the
same? No, only that they have the common quality that their diverse
forms of sense and reason are further than usual from the surface of
thought.  This is why, when we use stylish ways to make decisions, we
often feel a sense of being "free" from practicalities.  Those
decisions would seem more constrained, were we aware of how they're
made.

When should one give up reasoning and take resort to rules of style?
Only when we're fairly sure that further thought will just waste
time.  What are those fleeting hints of guilt we feel for liking
works of art? Perhaps they're how our minds remind themselves  to not
use rules, which we don't understand, too recklessly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 84 07:36:16 cst
-FROM-
From: leff@smu (Laurence Leff)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI Architectures at TI  (SMU)
-BODY-
Department of Computer Science and Engineering Seminar
    Southern Methodist University

SPEAKER: Dr. Satish Thatte
         Computer Science Laboratory Group
         Texas Instruments Incorporated
         Dallas, Texas

TOPIC: Computer Architectures for Artificial Intelligence

TIME: 3:00-4:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 5, 1984
PLACE: 315 Science Information Center, SMU

ABSTRACT: The seminar will cover the research on computer architecture for
symbolic processing and artificial intelligence at Texas Instruments.  Our
work is concentrated on three major areas: memory system architecture,
language and compiler technology, and symbolic processor design.  The memory
system research is aimed at developing a "uniform memory abstraction" that
comprehends a very large, recoverable, garbage-collected, virtual memory
system to support short-lived, as well as persistent objects.  Such a memory
system is expected to play a crucial role in supporting large,
knowledge-intensive artificial intelligence applications.  The language nad
compiler technology is based on the language SCHEME, a powerful and elegant
dialect of LISP.  The processor design effort is based on using the Reduced
Instruction Set Computer (RISC) philosophy to implement a virtual machine
that supports the SCHEME language, as well as the uniform memory abstraction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 2 Dec 84 17:10:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Karmarkar's Algorithm  (SU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

12/6/84 - Irvin Lustig (OR Dept. - Stanford)

   "Karmarkar's Algorithm:  Theory, Practice, and Unfinished Business"

Recent articles in Science Magazine and the New York Times have
brought to light a new algorithm for Linear Programming by N.
Karmarkar.  The excitement created by this discovery in the Operations
Research and Computer Science communities is understandable,
considering the spectacular nature of the reported results.  In my
talk, I will discuss the theoretical result of Karmarkar, some of the
practical considerations of the algorithm, and how this algorithm is
leading to new heuristics for Linear Programming.  I will also explain
how the result has not yet been shown to be practically efficient,
even though fairly good results have been reported in the news media.

Time and place: December 6, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460)

                                                - Andrei Broder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
171
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 84 13:52 CDT
-FROM-
From: Joyce_Graham <jgraham%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References to MACSYMA applications
-BODY-
I am putting together a little pitch for the TI Journal on the usefulness
of MACSYMA.  What I would like are references to articles about projects
that made use of MACSYMA.  I would also welcome any folklore that may be
floating around.  Can anyone help me?

Joyce Graham
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Post Box 801
M/S 8007
McKinney, TX  75069

from Arpanet - jgraham%ti-eg@csnet-relay
from Csnet   - jgraham@ti-eg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 14:46:02 PST
-FROM-
From: Randy Schulz <lcc.randy@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: xlisp source
-BODY-
I'd like to find out how to get the source for version 1.2 of xlisp.
I'll be using it on a Macintosh, and compiling it with the Manx C
compiler.  If there are multiple versions of the source, I'd like to
get the one most appropriate to that environment.  Thanx in advance.

                                                Randy Schulz
                                                Locus Computing Corp.

                                                lcc!randy@ucla-cs
                                          trwrb!lcc!randy
                {trwspp,ucivax}!ucla-va!ucla-cs!lcc!randy
         {ihnpr,randvax,sdcrdcf,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!lcc!randy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 1984  13:22 EST
-FROM-
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz Lisp -> Common Lisp
-BODY-

Since my post appeared on this list (and thus received wider circulation
than I had really intended) I've had a number of requests for the Franz
Lisp to Common Lisp Conversion Guide.  When and if this document (or any
other conversion guide) is available, I'll put it in some place easily
accessible via arpanet and will send a pointer to AIList.  Don't
hold your breath, however.  So far, the response from people who have
done conversions is underwhelming, and while I would like to see this
document come into being, I do not have the time to go re-learn Franz
and gain the relevant conversion experience myself.  All I can say at
present is that the people who have done Franz to Common Lisp
conversions have reported very little trouble.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 84 9:42:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Pete Bradford (CSD UK) <bradford@Amsaa.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Typagrophical Erorrs.
-BODY-

        Those who, like me, enjoyed the Palm Springs Desert Sun paragraph
which was reprinted in the New Yorker would enjoy an article in the just
published Winter edition of the British periodical, Punch. The article is
entitled 'Wernit'.
        I cannot possibly describe it (is this a deficiency of the English
language?!), but Punch is widely available over here, at better bookshops
and in most college libraries.  Bear in mind when reading it that the
computer referred to belongs to the British newspaper 'The Guardian', and
that this paper is notorious for its typos.

                        Good reading,
                                PJB

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 84 06:03:54 cst
-FROM-
From: leff@smu (Laurence Leff)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI News
-BODY-

Electronics Week, November 19, 1984
ICOT Details Its Progress.  Reports on work done on prolog
machines, a new logic language called Mandala. page 20


IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Sept 1984, Volume SE-10, No 5
Reusability Through Program Transformations - discusses using a
transformation-based system to convert a lisp program to Fortran. page 589

Empirical Studies of Programming Knowledge. - this is a cognitive science
study on the use of plans by experts and novice programmers.  Should
be of interest to those following the Plan Calculus work from MIT. page 595


IEEE Computer October 1984,  Volume 17 1984
This is their Centennial Issue.  The articles here are summaries of
various divisions of computer research and practice.
Relevant articles are "Knowledge-Based Expert Systems" by Frederick
Hayes-Roth, Robotics by John F. Jarivis, Computing in Medicine by
K. Preston Jr. et. al. and Speech Processing by Harold Andrews


IEEE Spectrum December 1984,
A one column article on Do What I Mean facilities.  page 29


Electronics Week November 26, 1984, page 50:
Article on venture between Isis Systems Ltd and Imperial Chemical
Industries to market expert systems.


Infoworld November 12, 1984 page 36-41
Article on marketing natural language interfaces for microcomputers.


Datamation, November 1 1984
Page 10, the following sentence was found in their Look Ahead section:
"TRW, the big defense contractor, is looking for some 500 symbolic
processors (Lisp Machines, that is) for use in a global weather
mapping application.

"The Overselling of Expert Ssytems" by Gary R. Martins page 76
Rather scathing attack on AI.  If you enjoyed Drew McDermott's Artificial
Intelligence meets Natural Stupidity, you should read this one too.

"The Blossoming of European AI" by Paul Tate page 85
discusses work by Imperial Chemical Industries, Elf Aquitaine,Schlumberger
and Framentec (set up by Teknowledge).  Sinclair has announced a Prolog
for one of its home machines and expects to have expert system products
out for it soon.  Also Expert System Internationals has announced
ES/P Advisor for $1300.00 (runs on 16 bit micros).  Also has discussions
of management reactions to AI and work done on along the lines of R/1.

"AI and software Engineering" by Robert Kowalski page 92
Talks about using AI techniques to handle a program to work with the
British Naturalization Act.  Presents AI as a technique like decision
tables, dataflow diagrams to improve productivity in general software
development, e.g. business sytems.

Page 163: review of about 10 books on AI.


Electronic Week, November 5, 1984 page 24
Discusses DARPA automated vehicle effort.


Electronics Week, December 3, 1984.
Cautiously Optimistic Tone Set for Fifth Generation Page 57-63 (Note
that this is a six page article.)

Discussed progress of Japanese ICOT effort. In the words of Susan Gerhart who
was quoted in the article, "The single thing that impresses me the most did
not really come out clearly at the conference but did at the ICOT open-house
demonstration the next week; it was that so much new stuff was all working
together -- new hardware, basic software, and application demos--all of it
based on logic programming."  Note that the *operating system* for the new
system is written in a logic programming language called KL1.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Dec 84 1806 EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Lee.Brownston@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A baaaadalgorithm for sorting
-BODY-
One way to make a sort of n items very expensive is to compute the set of all
n! permutations of the n items and map each permutation onto its Godel number.
(One can find opportunities to dawdle in generating primes, too.)  Finding
the sorted permutation is equivalent to finding the minimum or maximum
Godel number if the Godelization preserved order.  This can be accomplished
by sorting the Godel numbers.  Thus, the problem of sorting n items has been
"reduced" to that of permuting, Godelizing, and sorting n! integers.  The
recursion cannot be infinite, of course, but may stop as soon as the use
of resources exceeds that of some turkey who thinks he has come up with a
slower sort.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Dec 1984 0942-PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: ricks%ucbic@Berkeley (Rick L Spickelmier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on OPS5 Disjunctions
-BODY-

The idea of separating the 'sd' field from the 'passtx' element
and creating separate elements for each 'sd' were presented in
two submissions (ricks%ucbic@berkeley and Lee.Brownston@CMU-CS-A).
I would like to point out a difference that looks like it is important
in the original application (of neihart).

Lee's submission distinguished the two 'sd' elements by making sure
they were not connected to the same node (the 'value' attribute).
In this particular example it does not make sense to tie the two 'sd's
together, but in general, you may want to connect two or more of these
type of terminals (from a single element) to the same node (mosfets
used as capacitors have their source and drain connected together,
and in TTL design, nand gates are occassionally used as inverters by
tying their inputs together).

The above argument is why I put unique tags on each 'sd' working memory
element so this could be used to distinguish them, and thus allowing them
to be tied to the same node.

            Rick Spickelmier (ricks@berkeley)
            Electronics Research Laboratory, UC Berkeley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Dec 1984  16:26 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Scheme Overview  (Yale)
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                    AI Revolving Seminar

                An Overview of Yale Scheme

                       Jonathan Rees


        Wednesday   12/5/84     4:00pm      8th floor playroom

Yale Scheme, also known as T, was developed over the past three years by
the Yale Computer Science Facility.  It is being used as a production
Lisp system at Yale, UCLA, and elsewhere.  It features a compiler which
generates native VAX and MC68000 code and compiles closure-intensive
code efficiently enough that closures may be used in preference to
record structures for many applications which are space- or
time-critical.  I will discuss how the language and implementation work
and how T is different from other Scheme and Lisp systems, and give a
list of what I consider to be unsolved problems in the design of
Scheme-like languages.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Dec 1984 1105-EST
-FROM-
From: ALR at MIT-XX
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Principles of OBJ2  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


"Principles of OBJ2"

Jean Pierre Jouannaud
University of Nancy (France) and SRI

Friday, December 7, 1984
Refreshments at 3:00 pm, talk at 3:15 pm
Room NE43-453


OBJ2 is an object-oriented language with an underlying formal
semantics based on equational logic and an operational semantics
based on rewrite rules.  Key OBJ2 principles are:

1.  Use of parameterized modules (Objects and Theories).  Objects
encapsulate executable code (e.g. rewrite rules), whereas Theories encapsulate
assertions that may be nonexecutable (e.g. first order formulae).

2.  Specification of interface requirements for parameters (Views).

3.  Use of Module Expressions for creating complex combinations of modules.

4.  Use of subsorts to support:

        a simple yet powerful form of polymorphism (overloading).

        partially defined operations (use of "sort-constraint").

        a simple yet powerful and automatic form of error-recovery.

5.  Use of user defined "built-ins", e.g. low level data types described in the
implementation language itself, e.g. MACLISP.  "Built-ins" are first class
objects, e.g. all other construct apply to them, including subsort definitions.


We will discuss these principles by means of examples of OBJ
specifications and point out the main implementation issues.


HOST:  Prof. Guttag

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 16:59:47 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - QUTE Functional Unification Language  (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Mon., Dec. 10 Computer Science Seminar
  10:30 A.M.  QUTE:  A FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE BASED ON UNIFICATION
  Aud. B      A new programming language called Qute is introduced.
            Qute is a functional programming language which
            permits parallel evaluation.  While most functional
            programming languages use pattern matching as basic
            variable-value binding mechanism, Qute uses
            unification as its binding mechanism.  Since
            unification is bidirectional, as opposed to pattern
            match which is unidirectional, Qute becomes a more
            powerful functional programming language than most of
            existing functional languages.  This approach enables
            the natural unification of logic programming language
            and functional programming language.  In Qute it is
            possible to write a program which is very much like
            one written in conventional logic programming
            language, say, Prolog.  At the same time, it is
            possible to write a Qute program which looks like an
            ML (which is a functional language) program.  A Qute
            program can be evaluated in parallel
            (and-parallelism) and the same result is obtained
            irrespective of the particular order of evaluation.
            This is guaranteed by the Church-Rosser property
            enjoyed by the evaluation algorithm.

            M. Sato, Kyoto University
            Host:  J. Halpern

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
172
-DATE-
Date: 3 Dec 84 08:48 PST
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Indonesian
-BODY-

In reply to the note from rob@ptsfa about "Indonesian".


Just one question in regard to your note about "Indonesian". Do you mean
that all dialects spoken in Indonesia have the features that you
mention? Or do you mean that the official language of Indonesia (called
Bahasa Indonesia I believe) has these features? Could you be more
specific? It has been many years since I lived in Indonesia, and I never
really learned enough of the language to have an opinion about your
assertions, but I do know that there are many languages spoken in
Indonesia, and that what you say may be true of any number of these
languages.


>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 84 20:20:49 pst
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Andean interlingua monograph.
-BODY-
Some mention has been made on this list recently of Aymara'
(that is an accent mark), an Andean language purportedly used
successfully by Iva'n Guzma'n de Rojas of La Paz, Bolivia, as
an interlingua for machine translation.  An article appears
in today's New York Times (Saturday, December 1) on page 4.
Probably of most interest to those involved in the interlingua
debate will be a reference to a 150 page monograph by Mr. Guzma'n
(no title given) published by the International Development
Research Center in Ottawa.  The article also mentions that
Mr. Guzma'n uses ``three-valued formulas, following the Polish
scientist Jan L/ukasciewicz'' to represent the Aymara' logic.
The remainder of the article seems to largely repeat what has
previously been cited on this list from articles in the Los
Angeles Times.
                                                -- Harry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 84 9:16:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Pete Bradford (CSD UK) <bradford@Amsaa.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation.
-BODY-
        The October 1 Electronic News article on Japanese-English translation
reminds me.........

        A young guy in the Pentagon devised this remarkable program to
translate English into Russian, and vice-versa.
        The Secretary of State for Defense was to visit his office and be
given a demonstration of the system.  On the arrival of the 'big-wig', our
hero asked him if he had a phrase he would like translated.  "What about 'The
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak'?" asked the top man.
        This phrase was duly typed in, and after much flashing of lights etc,
the Russian translation appeared on the screen.   This was smugly read out to
the Secretary of State who pointed out, rather sheepishly, that he did not
speak Russian and was in no position to judge the quality of the translation.
        Things were about to break up in a very unsatisfactory and embarrassing
manner when our hero yelled "I've got it!  I'll just reverse the polarity of
the program and feed back the phrase it just came up with!".   "Brilliant!"
gulped his Director, recovering just sufficiently from his recent apoplexy
to enable him to talk again, "Let's do that.".
        The Russian phrase was then fed back into the machine which had now
been switched into the Russian-English mode, and the small crowd waited
expectantly while more lights flashed and blinked.
        They say that the Director is still recovering in George Washington
Hospital and our hero has, of course, given up all thoughts of a successful
carreer in the Defense Department.  How was he to know the program would play
such a dirty trick on him.  It certainly performed the translation it had
been asked to do, but it did seem too loose or colloquial a translation -
'The whisky's OK, but the meat's lousy!....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 03 Dec 84 10:46:51 EST
-FROM-
From: thompson (ross thompson) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language deficiencies (or wife beating)
-BODY-
There was a mention earlier on this bboard that it is often difficult
to answer questions, because there is an implication which is not
true contained in the question.  The example given was the question
"Do you persist in your lies?"  A more well known example of the same
phenomenon is the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

I don't know a lot about eastern religions, and I am sure I will be
shot down in flames for going out on a limb, but I believe that Zen
provides us with at least one answer to this problem.  If, in response
to a question, you reply "Mu," then you have ``unasked'' the question.
The situation in which you do this is precisely what is described above.

The interesting thing about this (to me) is not what word they chose,
but the fact that there is an excepted linguistic practice among
these people for dealing with what many people around here
would call a ``deficiency.''
                                        Ross Thompson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 84 10:00:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Communication
-BODY-

        A General Semanticist named Harrington
        Returned from his colloquy swearing ten
        Natives could count
        Only half the amount
        Any properly trained investigator could while ignoring the fact
          that it was not really counting that they were doing, but
          rhyming.

Ancient chestnut from anthropological lingustics:

        Anthropologist (pointing):  What's that?
        Native: <forefinger>
        Anthropologist (pointing again):  And what's that?
        Native: <forefinger>

        (This goes on for a while.)

        Anthropologist:  You see, they have only the word <forefinger>
        for all these things, and make up for their deficient vocabulary
        by grunts and gestures.

(In fairness, this combines the (true) `finger' story with the persistent
canard about a `primitive language with grunts and gestures'.)

Opinion:  language, properly speaking, is principally a means of transmitting
information.  It happens to be used together with representational and
gestural systems (including the gestural system we know as intonation and
inflection) as a means of communicating a great deal more than (and sometimes
contrary to) the bare-bones information that it transmits.  See e.g.
Z. S. Harris, Mathematical Structures of Language, esp. ch 2 `Properties
of language relevant to a mathematical formulation'.

(By `contrary to' I refer to irony and the like.  Though I know no
Dutch, I bet there are instances where speakers say something like `That
must have been a gezellig meeting!', referring to e.g. a collection of
`strange bedfellows' brought together by political expedience.)

Much of this discussion confuses linguistic competence with communicative
competence.  Communicative competence boils down mostly to skills in
engaging others in a willing desire to communicate and understand.

        I have seen an affable extrovert on a Greek train
        communicate quite well with speakers of at least three
        languages of which he knew perhaps two words each.  (My
        companion identified Hungarian and Slovenian, I recognized
        German.) A gezellig time was had by all, proof positive of
        satisfactory communication (whether or not much information
        is transmitted), and liquor played a miniscule role.

        I have seen fluent speakers of the same dialect of English
        unable even to transmit information to one another, because
        of their abject failure to communicate.  And so have you.

Stereotypically, right-limbic communicative skills are best developed and
exemplified by women in western cultures, and by Japanese and Chinese
cultures in our reluctantly waning ethnocentricity.  What we call `small
talk' (software aside).

(Is there any AI work miming right-cerebral and right-limbic functions,
other than visual pattern perception?)

An important part of `engaging others in a willing desire to communicate
and understand' is the range of what I call gestures of solidarity--
affirming that we are comembers of the same gezellig in-group.  Jargon
plays a central role, especially in an electronic-mail environment.
Denigration of outsiders is felt necessary when the boundaries have not
yet been clearly defined and the door so to speak is not yet shut or
when an unwelcome interloper is suspected.  There are many unconscious
and semiconscious identifiers of class, ethnos, region, and so on in the
range of vocabulary choice and pronunciation (dialect), application of
standard or nonstandard grammatical rules (to call them standard and
nonstandard of course begs the sociological question), shared references
(`remember the old man who bought licorice there') and so on.

(Fade to track of Frank Sinatra crooning `Gezelligheid is made of this'.
Bring up following quote from Harris op. cit. 216:

        . . . the very simplicity of this system, which
        surprisingly enough seems to suffice for language, makes
        it clear that no matter how interdependent language and
        thought may be, they cannot be identical. It is not
        reasonable to believe that thought has the structural
        simplicity and the recursive enumerability which we see
        in language.  So that language structure appears rather
        as a particular system, satisfying the conditions of
        [the chapter cited above], . . . which is undoubtedly
        necessary for any thoughts other than simple or
        impressionistic ones, but which may in part be a rather
        rigid channel for thought.)


Bruce Nevin, bn@bbncch

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 84 15:59:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: saying the unsayable
-BODY-

      > Languages are not differentiated on the basis of what is
      > possible or impossible to say, but on the basis of what
      > is easier or harder to say.

                                        --Larry Wall (V2 #167)

My understanding of tense morphemes is that they have the same semantic
relation to adverbs of time that pronouns and classifier nouns have to
nouns: having said the adverb, the tense morpheme is obligatory; having
said the tense morpheme, certain non-specific adverbs (`in the future',
`in the past') need no longer be said.  But whether a given language has
a particular tense morpheme or not, the equivalent information about
temporal relationships may be expressed with adverbs of time or
conjunctions (`before', `after').  (Cf.  Harris, A Grammar of English on
Mathematical Principles, 265-79.)

I don't think even Whorf claimed that Hopi lacked all adverbs of time
and temporal conjunctions.

Achumawi, a Hokan language of northern California on which I have done
some work, has a dual number, like Classical Greek.  The dual is
obligatory whenever referring to a pair of something.  Having said the
dual suffix, the actual noun pair is almost always tacit.  The dual is
also obligatory in direct address to one's mother-in-law (if a man) or
father-in-law (if a woman), and also in certain religious invocations
and prayers.  A whole range of nuance expressing social relationships
and attitudes is thereby easy to express in Achumawi and awkward in
English.  But the `objective information' is transmitted in a pretty
obvious way, even in English.  Sometimes, the `objective information'
transmitted is that the speaker is referring to a pair; sometimes, the
`objective information' is that the speaker affirms a certain special
deference with respect to the intended audience.  Irony and the like can
complicate this further.  In each case, the dual suffix is an obligatory
choice given presence of certain explicit constructions; and given the
presence of the dual suffix those constructions need no longer be
explicitly said and are instead tacitly understood.

Honorifics in Japanese present a rich field for issues of this sort.
Indeed, every language abounds with reductions of explicit constructions
to concise, nuance-laden forms.

Translating from a nuance-laden reduced form to an explicit,
spelled-out, fully explanatory form always loses the impact that the
reduced form has on a native speaker.  Closely analogous to translating
a joke.  Which is why `getting' native humor is such an excellent test
of fluency.  (For many years, anthropologists speculated whether or not
American Indians joked!  My experience suggests they probably were the
frequent butts of deadpan setups and putons.)

Ross recently proposed differentiating languages along a Macluhanesque
`hot/cool' spectrum according to how easy or difficult it is to recover
tacit information from under pronominal references; an article in the
last issue of Linguistic Inquiry reviews and extends this work.  (Sorry,
I don't have either reference at hand.)

        Bruce Nevin, bn@bbncch

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 27 Nov 84 11:10:47-PST
-FROM-
From: ISRAEL@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding
-BODY-
                       CALL FOR PAPERS

                        WORKSHOP ON

                   Theoretical Approaches to
                Natural Language Understanding

                    Dalhousie Univeristy
                    Halifax, Nova Scotia
                    28-30 May, 1985

General Chairperson: Richard Rosenberg, Mathematics Department,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S. B3H 4H8

Program Chairperson: Nick Cercone, Computing Science Dept., Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding is intended
to bring together active researchers in Computational Linguistics,
Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive
Science to discuss/hear invited talks, papers, and positions relating
to some of the 'hot' issues regarding the current state of natural
language understanding.  The three areas chosen for discussion are
aspects of grammars, aspects of semantics/pragmatics, and knowledge
representation.  In each of these, current methodologies will be
considered: for grammars - theoretical developments, especially
generalized phrase structure grammars and logic-based meta-grammars;
for semantics - situation semantics and Montague semantics; for
knowledge representation - logical systems and special purpose
inference systems.

Papers are solicited on topics in any of the areas mentioned above.
You are invited to submit four copies of a paper (double-spaced,
maximum 4000 words) to the program chairman: Nick Cercone, before 12
January, 1985.  Authors will be notified of acceptances by 27
February.  Accepted papers, typed on special forms, will be due 30
March 1985 and should be sent to the program chairman.  To make
referring possible it is important that the abstract summarize the
novel ideas, contain enough information about the scope of the work,
and include comparisons to the relevant literature.  Accepted papers
will appear in the Proceedings; those papers so recommended by the
reviewers will be considered for inclusion in a speacial issue of
Computational Intelligence, an international Artificial Intelligence
journal published by the National Research Council of Canada.
Presentation of papers at the Workshop will be at the discretion of
the program/organizing committee in order to maintain the focus and
workshop flavor of this meeting.  Information concerning local
arrangements will be available from the general chairman: Richard
Rosenberg.  Proceedings will be distributed at the workshop and
subsequently available for purchase.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
173
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Dec 84 15:16:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Michael Georgeff <georgeff@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journals for LISP papers
-BODY-

I wish to submit a paper on a new and efficient method for implementing
funargs in LISP (currently an SRI Tech Note) to an appropriate
journal.  Anyone know of any GOOD journal that publishes papers
on programming languages and implementations??

Michael Georgeff.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Dec 84 16:58:08-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computational Intelligence--New Journal
-BODY-
Computational Intelligence/Intelligence Informatique is a new journal which
will publish in English/French high-quality original theoretical or
experimental research in computational (aritificial) intelligence.  The
editors are Nick Cercone/Simon Fraser University and Gordon McCalla/Univer.
of Saskatchewan. Editorial board includes L. Bolc, A. Mackworth, A. Ortony,
R. Perrault, E. Sandewall, A. Sloman, n. Sridharan, D. Wilkins etc.
Subscription rates: U.S. $85 institutional, $47 personal.  It will be
a quarterly with the first issue to be available February 1985.
It will be published by the National Research Council of Canada and
sponsored by the Canadian Society for Computational studies of intelligence.
For more information: Distribution, R-88 (Computational Intelligence),
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A OR6.
Special rates for members of Canadian Societies.  Manuscripts should be
addressed to the editors, Computational Intelligence, Computing Science
Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada,
V5A 1S6.

I will be ordering this title for the Math/CS Library.  [...]

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Dec 84 12:01:07-CST
-FROM-
From: ICS.DEKEN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: brains, kludges, and elegance
-BODY-
The most substantial evidence of brain kludgery or lack thereof
curiously resides in the structure (completely mapped) of a nematode
named ... "elegant."

Caenorhabditis elegans has 302 neurons of 118 different types, which
make about 8000 synapses in total (each process synapses with about
50% of its neighbors).  The lineage of every one of these cells is
known, and the process by which neurological structures are formed may
well seem, to a computer scientist, a kludge.  Bilateral symmetry is
not produced, for example, in the "logical" mirror-image development
of a single precursor.  The word "kludge," though, carries a pejorative
connotation which seems inappropriate - there are multiple forces and
priorities at work. (One might similarly feel that "kludge" is not
the right word to describe democracy relative to totalitarianism.)

A better word, which may mean something to biologists and others
outside the hacker's ken, might be "fossiliferous," used to describe
any system (program or biological organism) which carries along the
baggage of its own trial-and-error evolution.  As Sulston, White,
Thomson, and Schierenberg put it:

        "... the perverse assignments, the cell deaths, the long-range
        migrations - all the features which could, it seems, be
        eliminated from a more efficient design - are so many
        developmental fossils."

(There is a three-part series on C. elegans in Science of 22 Jun,
6 Jul, and 13 Jul).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 1984  01:59 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Infant Amnesia   V2 #165
-BODY-
The general evidence for infant memories is pretty poor.  For one
thing, as Ken Laws points out, there is something mighty suspicious
about those handfuls of memories each person claims.  In psychiatry
some of these are called "screen memories".  A very common feature is
to remember some scene, sort of "eidetically" -- but on questions, the
subject very often sees itself right in the center of the stage!
Since this is impossible, obviously, the conclusion is that the memory
is a construct.

What's worse, with careful questioning, one usually finds that the
memory has indeed been rehearsed, as Ken remarks, perhaps
periodically.  Presumably it has been reconstructed in the process,
too -- and can hardly be called a memory, but rather, an elaborated
theory or fantasy.

Finally, even more careful questioning is revealing: how do you know
that this was when you were three years old?  Oh, I'm sure of it.  It
was the day my dog was run over.  An innocent clue like that most
likely points to an incident of Freudian magnitude; a loss or death,
itself rehearsed perhaps for months, and then, unconsciously, for all
the rest of one's life.

In any case it is silly to haggle over the sharpness of the cutoff of
infantile amnesia.  I like theories like this: our experience is first
encoded in rather stupid ways; a square is seen as a line attached to
another line attached to another line, etc.  Like an early
assembly-language.  Later, a square is represented as "closed path of
equal lines" and, later, orthognal pairs of parallels, etc. -- going
to Fortrams to Pascals to LOGs to SMALLTalks to who-knows-what.  The
representatins and their interpreters grow more sophisticated, and
those first machine-languages of infancy just can't be always
upwards-compatible.  So, even if those early memories were not, in
fact, entirely ever lost, they're doomed to become
unintelligible, eventually.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 1984 20:03:35 EST
-FROM-
From: HARTUNG@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PBS & The Brain
-BODY-
Hello,
   I too have been watching the PBS series on the brain.  And while I find
it to be remarkably up to date, I do have a concern about it.  This is a
concern not just for this series but for many physiological explanations
of experiential phenomena presented to lay audiences.  When statements are
made that such and such an area of the brain is responsible for some known
effect, or that damage to location X results in some new and peculiar
observed behavior, these statements are (I fear) taken in a way they are
not meant to be.
   The lay audience has a different frame of reference than a psychologist or
neurophysiologist.  Scientists studying brain functions view their subjects
as complex models involving the interaction of a variety of known components:
neurotransmiters; ganglia; axon projections; structures, etc.  The majority
of the audiance has only limited exposure to these objects and concepts and
not enough time to really develop a similar framework to view all this new
knowledge in.  Instead I believe they do what people usually do when under-
standing new material and that is relate it to what they already know.  What
people already know is that their brain is responsible for their subjective
awareness of the world.  And as a result of the attempt to integrate knowledge
about the brain with the fact that it is the seat of subjective experience
there is a strong possibility that people will believe that these explanations
of brain functioning are in fact explanations of how it is that they have
an experiential component to their lives.
   Such physiological explanations will probably never supply the answer to
the question of how it is that we have the kind of experience of things that
we do.  For good argument on this point I refer you to Nagel's article in the
Oct. '74 Philsophical Review "What is it like to be a bat?".  But, lay
audiences are rarely if ever informed of this.
   Another point frequently skipped in presenting brain physiology to lay
audiences is the great importance of subjective experience in the functioning
of cognition.  (See Natsoulas, T.  Residual Subjectivity. American Psychologist
March 1978.)  Indeed subjectivity is so inseparable from cognition that it
raises serious questions about the capacity of digital machines to perform
the full range of human abilities, given that such digital machines may not
be able to achieve a subjective perspective (Searle, J. Minds, Brains, and
Programs.  Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 3).  Arguments concerning
the mind brain problem have even come to doubt the capacity of present
scientific approaches to the study of mental phenomena and their relationship
to physical phenomena to have any success (Fodor, J.A. Methodological solipsism
considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology.  Behavioral and
Brain Sciences Vol. 3 No. 3).
   I assume that the AI-LIST audience is aware of details of these arguments.
The television audience mostly is not.  I understand the reluctance of
television producers to include arguments as abstract and difficult as those
on the mind-brain problem.  Not to mention the fact that certain religious
groups find them upsetting.  However, I feel it is important for us who are
scientists, to encourage people consulting us about presentations they would
make to lay people, to provide the broadest possible context for our arguments,
and always to remember who our audience is and how different their perspective
may be.

                                Michael A. Moran
                                Lockheed Advanced Software Laboratory

address HARTUNG@USC-ISI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 21:28:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Speech & Language & Memory & Math Representation
-BODY-           (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
      ``A Generalized Framework for Speech Recognition''

This talk will describe a framework for speaker-independent,
large-vocabulary and/or continuous speech recognition being developed at
Schlumberger (Fairchild).  The framework consists of three components:
  1) a finite-state pronunciation network which models relevant
     acoustic-phonetic events in the recognition vocabulary;
  2) a set of generalized acoustic pattern matchers; and
  3) an optimal search strategy based on a dynamic programming algorithm.
The framework is designed to accommodate a variety of (typically disparate)
approaches to the speech recognition problem, including spectral template
matching, acoustic-phonetic feature extraction and lexical pruning based
on broad-category segmentation.  A working system developed within this
framework and tailored to the digits vocabulary will also be described.  The
system achieves high recognition accuracy on a corpus spoken by
approximately 250 talkers from 22 ``dialect groups'' within the continental
United States.
                                                ---Marcia Bush
                        ____________

                ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM
                      ``Data Semantics''

Abstract: There is a growing agreement of opinion that several semantic
phenomena can only be adequately dealt with in a theory which takes
partiality seriously, a theory of partial objects. There is no agreement
about what these partial objects are; for instance, whether they represent
``pieces of the world'' or ``states of partial information about the world.''
Yet, the choice of the perspective determines in large part the potential
of the theory.  I will discuss various aspects of Data Semantics, a theory
being developed by Frank Veltman and me, which takes the second
perspective as basic: the semantic behavior of several types of expressions
can best be understood if we take them to relate to our lack of information,
and regard them as patterns on how information can grow. I will argue that
problems concerning quantification and equality force us to distinguish
between different kinds of partial objects.
                                                        ---Fred Landman



                    F1 (AND F3) PROJECT MEETING

Title:     Self-propagating Search of Memory
Speaker:   Pentti Kanerva
Time/Date: Tuesday, December 11, 3:15 p.m.
Place:     Ventura Seminar Room

Abstract: Human memory has been compared to a film library that is indexed
by the contents of the film strips stored in it.  How might one construct
a computer memory that would allow the computer (a robot) to recognize
patterns and to recall sequences the way humans do?  The model presented
is a simple generalization of the conventional random-access memory of a
computer.  However, it differs from it in that (1) the address space is very
large (e.g., 1,000-bit addresses), (2) only a small number of physical
locations are needed to realize the memory, (3) a pattern is stored by
adding it into a SET of locations, and (4) a pattern is retrieved by POOLING
the contents of a set of locations.  Patterns (e.g., of 1,000 bits) are
stored in the memory (the memory locations are 1,000 bits wide) and they
are also used to address the memory.  From such a memory it is possible to
retrieve previously stored patterns by approximate retrieval cues--thus,
the memory is sensitive to similarities.  By storing a sequence of patterns
as a linked list, it is possible to index into any part of any "film strip"
and to follow the strip from that point on (recalling a sequence).
                         ____________

                       AREA C MEETING

Topic:     Theories of variable types for mathematical practice,
           with computational interpretations
Speaker:   Solomon Feferman, Depts. of Mathematics and Philosophy
Time/Date: 1:30-3:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 12
Place:     Conference Room, Ventura Hall

Abstract:  A new class of formal systems is set up with the following
characteristics:
   1) Significant portions of current mathematical practice (such as in
      algebra and analysis) can be formalized naturally within them.
   2) The systems have standard set-theoretical interpretations.
   3) They also have direct computational interpretations, in which all
      functions are partial recursive.
   4) The proof-theoretical strengths of these systems are surprisingly
      weak (e.g. one is of strength Peano arithmetic).
   Roughly speaking, these are axiomatic theories of partial functions and
classes.  The latter serve as types for elements and functions, but they
may be variable (or "abstract") as well as constant.  In addition, an element
may fall under many types ("polymorphism").  Nevertheless, a form of typed
lambda calculus can be set up to define functions.
   The result 3) gets around some of the problems that have been met with
the interpretation of the polymorphic lambda calculus in recent literature
on abstract data types.  Its proof requires a new generalization of the
First Recursion Theorem, which may have independent interest.
   The result 4) is of philosophical interest, since it undermines
arguments for impredicative principles on the grounds of necessity for
mathematics (and, in turn, for physics).
   There are simple extensions of these theories, not meeting condition 2),
in which there is a type of all types, so that operations on types appear
simply as special kinds of functions.



                           NL1 MEETING

Topic:      ``Association with Focus''
Speaker:    Mats Rooth
Time/Date:  2 p.m., Friday, December 7
Place:      Trailer Seminar Room
Note:       The content will overlap with but be non-identical to the
            presentation the speaker gave in the intonation seminar.

Abstract: In the context of adverbs of quantification, conditionals, and
``only,'' focus can have truth conditional significance.  Suppose Mary
introduced Bill and Tom to Sue and performed no other introductions.  Then
``Mary only introduced Bill to SUE'' is true, while ``Mary only introduced
BILL to Sue'' is false.  Similarly, ``MARY always takes Sue to the movies''
and ``Mary always takes SUE to the movies'' have different truth conditions.
My general claim is that focus influences truth conditions indirectly:  the
semantics of the constructions in question involve contextual parameters,
typically unspecified domains of quantification, which are fixed by a
focus-influenced component of meaning.  This idea is executed in a Montague
grammar framework.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 84 10:36:07 EST
-FROM-
From: Morton A Hirschberg <mort@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Systems and Machines
-BODY-

                                CALL FOR PAPERS

                1985 Conference on Intelligent Systems and Machines

Dates:  April 23-24, 1985

Place:  Oakland University
        Rochester, Michigan

Technical papers reflecting both advances and applications in all aspects of
intelligent systems and machines will be considered.  Suggested topics include,
but are not restricted to:

     Intelligent Robotics, Machine Intelligence, C3I, Adaptive Control and
     Estimation, Visual Perception and Computer Vision, Pattern Recognition
     and Image Processing, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
     Intelligent Simulation Tools, Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
     Knowledge Representation, Expert Systems, Game Theory and Military
     Strategy, Interpretation of Multisensor Information, Automatic Message
     Understanding, Natural Language and Automatic Programming.

Authors are requested to submit a 300-500 word abstract by January 31, 1985 to:

     Professor Nan K. Loh, Conference Chairman,
     (313)377-2222

     Professor Christian Wagner, Technical Review Committee Chairman
     (313)377-2215

     Center for Robotics and Advanced Automation
     School for Engineering and Computer Science
     Oakland University
     Rochester, Michigan 48063

The conference will be preceded by tutorials on AI and Robotics held 22 April.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
174
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 84 13:08:58 PST
-FROM-
From: Adolfo Di-Mare <dimare@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UNSW Prolog
-BODY-
    Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 23:21:34-PST
    From: Michael A. Haberler <HABERLER@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
    Subject: UNSW Prolog interpreter
    To: info-ibmpc@USC-ISIB.ARPA

I have ported the University of New South Wales Prolog interpreter to an
IBM PC running MS-DOS 2.0. It implements all built-in predicates of the
Unix version and can call your favorite editor or the command line inter-
preter.  UNSW Prolog is closely patterned after Prolog-10, but has no
compiler.

I got the permission to redistribute the interpreter from the author of
the Unix version, Claude Sammut of UNSW. If you want to obtain a copy,
sign the license which can be FTP'ed from [SIERRA]<HABERLER>PROLOG.LICENSE,
and send the license with 2 DSDD diskettes to the address below. Neither
Claude nor I charge anything for it.

Michael Haberler
Computer Systems Laboratory ERL 403
Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305
(415) 497-9503


        Adolfo
              ///

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Dec 84 17:32:57-EST
-FROM-
From: SRIDHARAN@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pitman AI series now a concrete reality!
-BODY-

Many of you know that Derek Sleeman and myself are the two Main
Editors for the Pitman AI research notes series.  The series was
conceived and developed over the past 18 months.  Some of you also saw
the Pitman booth at the AAAI-84 trade show.
Finally, the series appears to have taken concrete reality.  I have
received the first "book" in the series.  Another six books will be
out within the month.  THe first title is Perry Miller, A Critiquing
Approach to Expert Computer Advice: ATTENDING.
The other titles are listed below.
Paul Cohen, Heuristic Reasoning about uncertainty.
A. Palay, Searching with probabilities.
Y. Ohta, Knowledge based interpretation of outdoor natural color scenes.
R. Korf, Learning to solve problems by searching for macro-operators.
P. Poliltakis, Empirical Analysis for Expert Systems.
J. Kender, Shape from texture.

The series covers the whole spectrum of AI and publishes research
materials suitable for use in graduate courses, seminars, and
reference material for individuals working in this field.   The aims
of the series are (a) rapid publication in softback form;
(b) worldwide exposure for significant research results; and
(c) low cost - usually under $20.

Authors are encouraged to get in touch with one of the main editors
either Sridharan@BBNG or Sleeman@SUMEX.  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 84 21:30:31 est
-FROM-
From: utcsrgv!dciem!mmt@uw-beaver.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Childhood memories
-BODY-
I have many memories dating back to as early as my 2nd birthday, and
can clearly remember large parts of the floor plan of the school I
attended from 3-5.  But ALL these memories are pictorial, not sequential.
I cannot remember happenings until about 5, when I remember my first
introduction to French verb conjugation.  Perhaps the truth is that
children are not capable of sequential logical operations until around 5,
and therefore cannot remember events of that kind, whereas pictures
are more readily preserved if you happen to grow up to be imagery-oriented.


Martin Taylor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Dec 84 19:19:58-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Personal Assistants & Optical Disks
-BODY-
     Re: Dietz's speculation about optical disks:

     Optical disks will clearly impact information technology in
general (microforms, magnetic tape, commercial databases, book
publishing, etc.) and microcomputers in particular in many
revolutionary ways.  One potential use would be to integrate the
optical disk with AI-based integrated software in a microcomputer
product which would be a powerful general purpose idea processor and
personal assistant.

     We already see a trend towards general purpose idea processors in
such micro products as Framework, Symphony, Thinktank, Clout, Dayflo,
Factfinder, and The Desk Organizer.  This trend is likely to continue
and to accelerate as new generations of microprocessors rapidly come
online and make available ever greater random access memory for
personal computer users.  Framework and Symphony are the crude
precursors of general purpose personal assistant programs of 1MB, 5MB,
and more of memory.

     A sign of the times: Mitch Kapor, the founder of Lotus, recently
commented in an MIS Week interview that the next key step for his
company would be to explore current AI research in depth, and to
develop new more powerful products that were capable of sophisticated
qualitative, not just quantitative, information processing.

     Optical disks would nicely interface with the next generation of
general purpose idea processors.  With them one could easily store,
retrieve, and manipulate all the vital information and minute details
in one's life: financial transactions, notes for miscellaneous
projects, diary entries, address books, medical records, rough drafts,
datebooks, electronic mail, shopping lists, statistics, papers,
bibliographies, administrivia, programs in progress, graphs, abstracts
and full-text documents downloaded from commercial databases, etc.
Every individual record or key chunk of information in one's personal
digital archive could be uniquely identified by a date and time stamp,
and every personal database, structured and/or free-form, could be
integrated into a single richly interconnected knowledgebase.  The set
of storage optical disks for a program of this kind would constitute
for anyone, in compact and efficient form, an extremely thorough
journal of his or her life.

     Write-once optical disks would actually be preferable for this
archival purpose than disks which could be erased and written over.
Subsets from the master archival disk(s), of any desired information
or complex combination of records, could be transfered at will to
working floppy or hard disks.  The technology for the greatest
revolution in the history of personal information management is
already solidly in place.

     It is not likely that the total information processed by a
personal assistant for an average person over a lifetime would occupy
more than one or two disks.  Even for someone whose personal
information needs were much greater than average--say, a Harvard
economics professor who is a dedicated teacher, a prolific scholar and
author, holds a cabinet-level post (not concurrently with his teaching
responsibilities, of course), and has an active globe-trotting social
life--under 100 disks would probably neatly archive a lifetime of rich
intellectual, professional, and social activity.  Our professor would
be able to pinpoint in a few minutes those two sentences in which x
remarked about y in a private communication twenty years ago, or that
small note of last year which captured a flash of insight about how to
improve a formula in an econometric model of the Venezuelan oil
industry.  (Literary scholars analyzing the biodisks of future Walt
Whitmans or Virginia Woolfs would be able to reconstruct in
microscopic detail the evolution of their subjects' works and themes,
and the interaction of quotidian life events with their imaginative
creations.)

     AI-based personal assistants and optical disks seem to be made
for one another.  I wouldn't be surprised to see prototype products on
the market within the next two years.  By the '90s we may well wonder
how we ever got by without them.

>- Wayne McGuire (mdc.wayne@mit-oz)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Dec 84 16:22:46 EST
-FROM-
From: Allen <Lutins@RU-BLUE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: more on translation...
-BODY-

I understand that a similar attempt with a Chinese/English translator
yielded the following results:

English input:  "Out of sight, out of mind"

Translated response: "Blind and Stupid"

I did have the occasion to "speak" with a Japanese student using a Sharp(?)
hand-held translator.  Surprisingly, general ideas were conveyed quite well.
However, I think we're still a long way off from getting a computer to
translate a language any better than an eight year old bilingual person can.

                                                -Allen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 84 09:58:10 pst
-FROM-
From: Douglas young <young%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonverbal meaning
-BODY-
Following my enquiry in AIList 62, a few people have asked what I
mean by "nonverbal meaning". It seems appropriate to reply to them,
and to explain to any others who may not understand the significance
of the term, through the medium of AIList.
   While until quite recently Wittgenstein, Frege, Quine, and Chomsky
might have seemed nearer than any other philosophers of language ( or
anyone else, for that matter) to providing a firm foundation from
which to represent meaning, none has been willing to go systematically
"deeper" than using words, ultimately, as that foundation. They have
written only of very unspecific and vague concepts and structures.
But Jerry Fodor's recent and exciting book, " The Modularity of Mind",
made, in my view, a major leap ahead, in at least recognising that meaning
is founded upon nonverbal, cognitive modules, although he did not suggest
either the exact form that such modules might take, nor just how they
could be applied to providing nonverbal meaning.
   We have been working here for several years on the theory and
foundations of a system by which word and sentence meaning could be
represented nonverbally in a natural language understanding system. The
principles of this system arose from clues derived from some neuro-
>physiological experiments I conducted during 1976-78 (in which recordings
were taken from the pulvinar complex, a part of the brain that in man
is involved in language but that also exists as far back the phylogenetic
tree as in the rabbit).During the following six years, further neurologic
and psychological research provided the detailed foundations of a system
by which we could represent the meaning(s) of any word or sentence, in
English (but that is essentially transportable to any other major
natural language), wholly nonverbally.
   Some of the neurological and psychological grounds, for both the
semantic and the syntactic base of the system were described in two
papers published in Medical Hypotheses in 1982,83, but, as I mentioned
in my previous communication, the original systems of modalities and
coding described in these papers were so long ago superseded that they
(but not the grounds) are of little significance now. We are currently
in the early stages of designing the software for a prototype of the
modal system, and some of the reults of this work should be published
during the latter part of 1985.
  In order to explain as concisely as possible the principles and some of
the techniques employed, it may be helpful to take people back to basics:
Try to explain by words alone the meaning of any one of a range of
different words (eg, MUG, DIFFERENTIATE, WALK, OR, INTERNATIONAL, QUICKLY).
You will succeed in providing several sets and trees of dictionary-type
definitions; but, in the end ,if you continue to ask yourself the meaning
of each new word in each succeeding set of definitions, you will either
get into an endless cycle of using the same words with which you began
your definitions, or you will reach an impasse. If, however, you then
ask yourself, and consider carefully, the subjectively experienced
nonverbal significances of those same words, several ideas will come to
mind. For example, in respect of MUG, you will likely notice the fact
that it has both aspects of "appearance" (such as its visual shape, or
the interorientation of its parts to one another) and of "function" (such
as the motor and kinaesthetic sequences of events that enable you to
drink from a mug).  The same kind of thoughts may also occur to you when
you consider a word like QUICKLY or UP, for example. Abstract words, like
the verb MATCH, and "long" words, like INTERNATIONAL, will require some
or many levels of verbal "unfolding" of their meanings in order for you
to be able to reach any of their nonverbal foundations; but these words
also can be nonverbally represented, by means of the "mental modalities".
In fact, all of these nonverbal aspects of meaning can be represented
by means of a whole range of modalities.
    The system incorporates 32 different modalities, of which 27 are
neurologically based (such as visual detection of movement (VDM), verbal
expression (VXP), kinaesthetic (KIN), central autonomic proprioception
and control (CAP)), and 5 are the mental modalities, for which there are
no neurological, only cognitive, grounds (such as cognitive mental acts
(CMA), metaconceptual (MET), emotive mental states (EMS)). Codes within
these modalities, grouped together as a frame of generic parts of function
and/or appearance, and closely interrelated, can provide a nonverbal
meaning representation for any word. The meaning of a sentence is provided
through an interactive syntactic process that, both anteroactively and
retroactively, interrelates appropriate segments of those modal code
frames, so as to disambiguate both the individual word meanings and their
"use-categories" (i.e., "object", "activity", "characteristic", or "relation").
By this method, it is possible to represent the meaning(s) of any sentence
nonverbally, and at the same time provide access, up to any depth required
of a particular system application, to direct and associated knowledge re
that sentence.
   The modal system seems both versatile and quite powerful, and it has
the advantage over some other systems of NLU that it reduces memory and
storage requirements by taking advantage of the many cognitively equivalent
modal aspects in descriptions of similar objects, activities or
characteristics. One rather satisfying aspect of the mental modalities
is that the cognitive mental act modality not only provides for the
nonverbal meanings of such words as ASSOCIATE, NEGATE, SYMBOLIZE, MATCH
or CONJUNCT, but also provides the means of executing the relevant logical
activity. Incidentally, another feature of the system is that it can
provide for both metaphor and idiom; but work on this will almost
certainly be delayed until 1986 due to the need to complete the basic
system software for the prototype.
  It would be inappropriate in the AIList to do more than try to provide
with sufficient background an idea of the general characteristics of the
system. I hope, however, that what I have written will be sufficient to
explain at least what sort of thing I am referring to by "nonverbal meaning"
As mentioned in AIList 62, I would be most interested to hear about, and/or
to receive copies of any papers from other projects  in this or any allied
area of natural language understanding.

      Douglas A,Young
      Dept of Computer Science
      University of Manitoba
      Winnipeg
      Manitoba, R3T 2N2
      CANADA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Dec 84 11:48:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Shafer@CMU-CS-IUS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reinforcement Learning  (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Richard Sutton, from U. Mass., will be speaking at next Tuesday's AI
Seminar.  WeH 5409 at 3:30 pm.  If you'd like to speak with him
during his visit, please contact Geoff Hinton.

REINFORCEMENT LEARNING:  LEARNING METHODS FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS

   Reinforcement learning is the process of learning to make decisions
based on the observed results of previous decisions.  It is
distinguished from other forms of machine learning in that it does not
require instruction as to what the learning system should do, only
evaluation of what it does do.  In this sense reinforcement learning
requires less help from its environment and is more powerful and robust
than other forms of learning.  In complex learning systems it is
particularly difficult to specify in detail what the learning system
should do, and reinforcement learning is particularly relevant.

   Nevertheless, reinforcement learning has been studied very little.
This talk will present computational experiments comparing the
performance of many previously-studied algorithms and several new
ones.  In many cases the previously proposed algorithms were found to
perform very poorly, much worse than the new algorithms.  Since in many
cases the new algorithms are only slightly different from the old,
these results suggest that the space of possible reinforcement learning
algorithms is mostly unexplored.  Among the previously-studied
algorithms compared are those due to Minsky, Rosenblatt, Farley and
Clark, Widrow, Samuel, and Michie and Chambers.  The most sophisticated
of the new algorithms appears to be a refinement and generalization of
the algorithm used in Samuel's celebrated checker-player to modify and
improve its static evaluation function.

   This talk will emphasize (1) the difference between reinforcement
learning and other basic forms of learning which have already been
thoroughly studied, (2) the demonstration of improvement over
previously-studied methods, and (3) areas of possible application of
reinforcement learning methods.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
175
-DATE-
Date: 10 Dec 1984 at 1125-EST
-FROM-
From: jim at TYCHO.ARPA  (James B. Houser)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tapes on LM
-BODY-
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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 84  3:52:54 EST
-FROM-
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP availabilty
-BODY-

     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."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 84 06:42:05 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI News
-BODY-

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.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Dec 84 17:49:26-EST
-FROM-
From: SRIDHARAN@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Excerpt from "games" mag
-BODY-
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."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 December 1984 0140-EST
-FROM-
From: Joseph Kownacki@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Processing and OPS5
-BODY-
           [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.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 84 13:12:29 cst
-FROM-
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special purpose hardware
-BODY-
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.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Dec 84 20:06:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed.Frank@CMU-CS-UNH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: History of Computing Qual
-BODY-
           [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?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Dec 1984  16:35 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connection Language for Parallel Computers  (MIT)
-BODY-

             [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.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 December 1984 2230-EST
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Instructionless Learning  (CMU)
-BODY-
             [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.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 07 Dec 84  0845 PST
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Sets and Processes  (SU)
-BODY-
         [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-
-VOL-
2

-N-
176
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13 December 1984 00:24:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information about AI companies
-BODY-
I am trying to put together a survey of various tools available in the
market for AI work. In particular I am interested in an assessment of the
tools (user experiences). Also would appreciate any information about the
kind of systems that AI companies are building.

sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Dec 84 11:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Gocek.henr@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Automatic Chinese translation
-BODY-
I remember the story about "Out of sight, out of mind" differently.  The
phrase was translated into Chinese and then retranslated into English.
The result was "invisible idiot".  Again, the person requesting the
translation was a government official.

Gary Gocek (Gocek.Henr@Xerox.ARPA)


[I first heard it as "blind idiot".  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 1984  16:14 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translation Folklore   V2 #174
-BODY-
I'm getting sick of hearing those two stories: "Blind and Stupid,"
and "The drinks were good but the meat was rotten."


It is time for you computer-people to start being serious!  Those
stories are only folklore, and did not come from the
machine-translation milieu at all; they circulated long before
computers, and were invented by cynic to make fun of bad human
translators!

If you think about it for a minute, you will realize that none of the
old translating machines were even nearly subtle enough to make such
coherent mistakes!  Modern ones are only a little better, and probably
not quite up to that standard yet.

Has anyone heard of a genuine translation blunder by a working
translation machine -- that is, one which is bad enough to be
considered really funny?  I consider a few of the paraphrases
produced by FRUMP to be in that class.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 11 Dec 84 09:46:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Aymara'
-BODY-
I just ran across an article in the S.F. Sunday Examiner and Chronicle
by Peter McFarren, Associated Press, Sept. 23, 1984, p. A17.  Most of
the content has been published in AIList already, but the following
may be new.

"Atamiri [Guzman de Rojas' program] is 10 times faster than any of the
others," said Bill Page, a computer specialist at the International
Research Center in Ottawa, Canada.  The center published Guzman de
Rojas' first study of Atamiri's potential in 1980, and Wang has just
offered him a $50,000 grant and a $100,000 computer to refine his
system.

The creator of Atamiri hopes to expand its vocabulary from the current
3,000 to 8,000 words per language [English, French, German, Portugese,
and Spanish] to about 30,000.  Then, he says, it will be possible to
translate prosaic texts such as newspaper articles with about 90 percent
accuracy.  Literary translations would come later, but human translators
will always have to be around to make corrections.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 84 16:21:58 pst
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lakhota@Berkeley (Lakhota)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language deficiencies (AI List Digest 2:167,168,172)
-BODY-

   The interesting discussion of possible language deficiencies was triggered
by two anecdotes, one involving Australian Aborigines and the other American
Indians.  It would be useful in this context to look at some empirical facts
relating to these languages.  Australian languages are perfectly capable of
forming conditional and hypothetical expressions.  Examples of languages with
references follow below:

Dyirbal - Dixon, THE DYIRBAL LANGUAGE OF NORTH QUEENSLAND. CUP, 1972.
Tiwi - Osborne, THE TIWI LANGUAGE. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies
       [AIAS], Australian Aboriginal Studies no. 55, Linguistic Series no. 21,
       1974.
Walmatjari - Hudson, THE CORE OF WALMATJARI GRAMMAR. AIAS, 1978.
Guugu Yimidhirr - Haviland, Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dixon & Blake (eds.),
       HANDBOOK OF AUSTRALIAN LANGUAGES [HAL], v. 1. John Benjamins, 1979.
Djapu - Morphy, Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. HAL, v. 3. John Benjamins, 1983.
Yukulta - Keen, Yukulta. HAL, v. 3.
Nunggubuyu - Heath, A FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR OF NUNGGUBUYU. Humanities Press, 1984.

   The same holds true for American Indian languages.  It is worth mentioning
that there is now more on Hopi than Whorf's papers.  E. Malotki has written two
700 page books on Hopi concepts of space and time: HOPI TIME, Mouton, 1983, and
HOPI RAUM (not yet translated into English).  These volumes should lay to rest
speculation about what Hopi does and doesn't have.  Examples of American Indian
languages and references follow:

Nootka - Sapir & Swadesh, NOOTKA TEXTS. LSA, 1939.
Yokuts - Newman, YOKUTS LANGUAGE OF CALIFORNIA. VFPA 2, 1944.
Cree - Wolfart, PLAINS CREE: A GRAMMATICAL SKETCH.  Trans. APS, 1973.
Takelma - Sapir, The Takelma Language of Southwestern Oregon. HANDBOOK OF
      AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES [HAIL], v. 2 (BBAE 40, 2), 1922.
Tunica - Haas, TUNICA. HAIL, v. 4. J.J. Augustin, 1940.
Uto-Aztecan - Langacker, AN OVERVIEW OF UTO-AZTECAN LANGUAGES. STUDIES IN
      UTO-AZTECAN GRAMMAR, v. 1. SIL Publ. in Ling. 56, 1977.

   There are hundreds of Aboriginal and American Indian languages, and these
are only a handful of examples.  Nevertheless, they illustrate the point that
these languages do have the capacity for forming conditional, counterfactual,
and hypothetical expressions.  If anyone desires any further references, I'd
be happy to supply them.

   Robert Van Valin (ucdavis!lakhota@BERKELEY)
   Linguistics, UC Davis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 10:40:02 pst
-FROM-
From: Peter Karp <karp@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Christmas Tidings
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        A VISIT FROM ST. NICHOLAS
                        -------------------------

Twas the nocturnal segment of the diurnal period preceding the annual
yuletide celebration, and throughout our place of residence, kinnetic
activity was not in evidence among the possessors of this potential,
including that species of domestic rodent known as Mus musculus.
Hosiery was meticulously suspended from the forward edge of the wood
burning caloric apparatus, pursuant to our anticipatory pleasure
regarding an immiment visitation from an eccentric philanthropist
among whose folkloric appellations is the honorific title of St.
Nicholas.

The prepubescent siblings, comfortably ensconced in their respective
accommodations of repose, were experiencing subconscious visual
hallucinations of variegated fruit confections moving rhythmically
through their cerebrums.  My conjugal partner and I, attired in our
nocturnal head coverings, were about to take slumbrous avantage of
the hibernal darkness when upon the avenaceous exterior portion of
the grounds there ascended such a cacaphony of dissonance that I felt
compelled to arise with alacrity from my place of repose for the
purpose of ascertaining the precise source thereof.

Hastening to the casement, I forthwith opened the barriers sealing
this fenestration, noting thereupon that the lunar brilliance without,
reflected as it was on the surface of a recent crystalline
precipitation, might be said to rival that of the solar meridian
itself-- thus permitting my incredulous optical sensory organs to
behold a miniature airborne runnered conveyance drawn by eight
diminutive specimens of the genus Rangifer, piloted by a minuscule,
aged chauffeur so ebullient and numble that it became instantly
apparent to me that he was indeed our anticipated caller.  With his
ungulate motive power travelling at what may possibly have been more
vertiginous velocity than patriotic alar predators, he vociferated
loudly, expelled breath musically through contracted labia, and
addressed each of the octet by his or her respective cognomen - "Now
Dasher, now Dancer..." et al. - guiding them to the uppermost exterior
level of our abode, through which structure I could readily
distinguish the concatenations of each of the 32 cloven pedal
extremities.

As I retracted my cranium from its erstwhile location, and was
performing a 180-degree pivot, our distinguished visitant achieved -
with utmost celerity and via a downward leap - entry by way of the
smoke passage.  He was clad entirely in animal pelts soiled by the
ebon residue from oxidations of carboniferous fuels which had
accumulated on the walls thereof.   His resemblance to a street vendor
I attributed largely to the plethora of assorted playthings which he
bore dorsally in a commodious cloth receptacle.

His orbs were scintillant with reflected luminosity, while his
submaxillary dermal indentations gave every evidence of engaging
amiability.  The capillaries of his malar regions and nasal
appurtenance were engorged with blood which suffused the subcutaneous
layers, the former approximating the coloration of Albion's floral
emblem, the latter that of the Prunus avium, or sweet cherry.  His
amusing sub- and supralabials resembled nothing so much as a common
loop knot, and their ambient hirsute facial adornment appeared like
small, tabular and columnar crystals of frozen water.

Clenched firmly between his incisors was a smoking piece whose gray
fumes, forming a tenuous ellipse about his occiput, were suggestive of
a decorative seasonal circlet of holly.  His visage was wider than it
was high, and when he waxed audibly mirthful, his corpulent abdominal
region undulated in the manner of impectinated fruit syrup in a
hemispherical container.  He was, in short, neither more nor less than
an obese, jocun, multigenarian gnome, the optical perception of whom
rendered me risibly frolicsome despite every effort to refrain from so
being.  By rapidly lowering and then elevating one eyelid and rotating
his head slightly to one side, he indicted that trepidation on my part
was groundless.

Without utterance and with dispatch, he commenced filling the
aforementioned appended hosiery with various of the aforementioned
articles of merchandise extracted from his aforementioned previously
dorsally transported cloth receptacle.  Upon completion of this task,
he executed an abrupt about-face, placed a single manual digit in
lateral juxtaposition to his olfactory organ, inclined his cranium
forward in a gesture of leave-taking, and forthwith effected his egress
by renegotiating (in reverse) the smoke passage.  He then propelled
himself in a short vector onto his conveyance, directed a musical
expulsion of air through his contracted oral sphincter to the antlered
quadrupeds of burden, and proceeded to soar aloft in a movement
hitherto observable chiefly among the seed-bearing portions of a
common weed.  But I overheard his parting exclamation, audible
immediately prior to his vehiculation  beyond the limits of
visibility:  "Ecstatic yuletide to the planetary constituency, and to
that selfsame assemblage, my sincerest wishes for a salubriously
beneficial and gratifyingly pleasurable period between sunset and
dawn."

>- From Eleonore Johnson at Teknowledge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 84 00:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Sergei Nirenburg <nirenburg%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Machine Translation
-BODY-

               CALL  FOR  PAPERS

CONFERENCE ON THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

   IN MACHINE TRANSLATION OF NATURAL LANGUAGES

              Colgate  University
              Hamilton  NY  13346
              August 14-16, 1985

The program of the conference will be biased toward invited lectures and
panel discussions.  However, a restricted number of excellent submitted
papers will be also included.

The major topics of the conference are as follows :

>- Machine Translation (MT) as an application area for Theoretical
   Linguistics (including stylistics and discourse analysis)

>- MT as an application area for Artificial Intelligence (including the
   choice of the representation schemata for MT)

>- Theory and methodology of translation and machine translation

>- Sublanguages, restricted domains and MT

>- MT as a case study in software system development

>- Computational tools for MT, human engineering aspects,
   management and evaluation of MT projects.


The papers should not exceed 3,000 words, should contain a 250-word abstract
and a list of index terms.  Send them (and address all inquiries) to

Sergei Nirenburg
MT Conference Program Chair
Department of COmputer Science
Colgate University
Hamilton  NY  13346
(315) 824-1000 x586

Every paper will be read by two members of the program committee whose
members are:

Christian Boitet, University of Grenoble
Jaime Carbonell, Carnegie-Mellon University
David MacDonald, University of Massachusetts
James Pustejovsky, University of Massachusetts
Allen Tucker, Colgate University
Don Walker, AT&T Laboratories

The emphasis of the conference is on the theoretical and methodological
issues.  Therefore, the papers that do not address such issues will not
be considered.

Dates: Submission deadline        -- March 11, 1985
       Notification of acceptance -- May 15, 1985
       Final version due          -- June 17, 1985


>>>>> the above will provide a good opportunity to conduct more lively
>>>>> discussions of Aymara, Sastric Sanskrit, Esperanto, etc., the
>>>>> problem of translatability, theory of translation (even not
>>>>> necessarily automatic), interlinguae and their structure...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 84 11:20:41 cst
-FROM-
From: Don Kraft <kraft%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: JASIS Call for Papers
-BODY-
As the new editor of the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
INFORMATION  SCIENCE  (JASIS),  I  am sending out a call for
papers.  We are  a  refereed  professional  journal  seeking
scholarly, relevant articles in the area of information sci-
ence.  To submit an article, please send three copies of the
manuscript to me at

     Donald H. Kraft
     Department of Computer Science
     Louisiana State University
     Baton Rouge, LA  70803.

If you have any questions, I can also be reached at
(504) 388-1495 or
kraft%lsu@csnet-relay  .

I have attached below a list of topics considered  relevant.
Please  note  the presence of artificial intelligence, which
has become of interest, especially in the area  of  informa-
tion  retrieval (intelligent front ends, expert systems, and
the use  of  natural  language  processing  seem  especially
relevant  to  my  readers  at  the moment).  You may wish to
check out the September, 1984 (v. 35,  n.  5)  issue,  which
featured a series of articles on AI.


                  CALL FOR PAPERS -- JASIS

1. Theory of Information Science          4. Applied Information Science

   Foundations of Information Science        Informations systems design --
   Information theory                            tools, principles,
applications
   Bibliometrics                             Case histories
   Information retrieval --                  Information system operations
      models and principles                  Standards
   Evaluation and measurement                Information technology -- hardware
   Representation, organization, and             and software
       classification of information         Automation of information systems
   ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and natural       Online retrieval systems
       language processing                   Office automation and records
                                                 management

2. Communication                          5. Social and Legal Aspects of
                                                 Information
   Theory of communication
   Non-print media                           Impact of information systems and
   Man-machine interaction                       technology upon society
   Network design, operation, and            Ethics and information
       management                            Legislative and regulatory aspects
   Models and empirical findings about       History of information science
       information transfer                  Information science education
   User and usage studies                    International issues

3. Management, Economics, and Marketing

   Economics of information
   Management of information systems
   Models of information management decisions
   Marketing and market research studies
   Special clientele -- arts and humanities,
        behavioral and social sciences, biological
        and chemical sciences, energy and environment,
        legal, medical, and education.


Authors may also  send in  brief  communications,  scholarly
opinion pieces, and even letters to the editor. In addition,
we also have a fine book review section.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of JASIS.

Don Kraft
kraft%lsu@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
177
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 13 December 1984 00:28:33 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART special issue on AI in Engineering
-BODY-
The deadline for submissions of abstracts for the special issue is extened
to  January 15th  for all Arpanet mailers. For more information on this
issue see SIGART newsletter dated July 1984.  All submissions should be sent
to rj@cmu-cs-h.arpa.

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 84 16:05:23 mst
-FROM-
From: "Arthur I. Karshmer" <arthur%nmsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems
-BODY-

I am interested in obtaining information about expert systems that
run on micro computers and software to develop expert system on
micro processors. We are currently using a variety of micro's including
IBM PC'c and IBM-AT's.

Arthur I. Karshmer
arthur.nmsu@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Dec 84 10:35:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Jeffrey Shulman <SHULMAN@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ORAC's Poker Game
-BODY-
        This past weekend (Sunday 12/9) "Ripley's Believe It or Not" had a
segment on ORAC's poker game.  You should try to catch it in rerun.

                                                        Jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 17:28:04 EST
-FROM-
From: David_West%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: McGuire's Speculations on Personal Assistants (v2 #174)
-BODY-
   -Of course, the biodisks of a future Walt Whitman would be
exhaustively analyzed not by a future Louis Untermeyer, but
by the latter's automated personal assistant, and the resulting
voluminously definitive biography would be read and enjoyed by the public's
personal assistants.  Thus we would all be freed from untold
drudgery, to fulfil the vision of Villiers de L'Isle-Adam (1890):
  "Living? Our servants will do that for us."         :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Dec 84 13:30:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Constraint Propagation and Planning
-BODY-
A recent message from chandra@uiucuxc@uiucdcs@RAND-RELAY.ARPA asked
about people working on Constraint Propagation and Planning ala
Stefik's MOLGEN.

The AI/VLSI Project at Rutgers is using this approach in building a
system to do design.  Our thesis is that:
        Design = Top Down Refinement + Constraint Propagation
Our current system aids in the design of digital VLSI circuits, but we
believe the ideas apply to the design of other kinds of things as
well.  Design and the sort of planning chandra was talking about are
essentially the same problem, although there are some peculiar things
about blocks-world style domains that make planning/design issues a
bit different than they are in design of circuits or, to some extent,
programs.

The only paper I can point you to on our design stuff is:

        Mitchell, Steinberg, and Shulman, "A Knowledge Based Approach to
        Redesign", Proceedings of IEEE workshop on Principles of Knowledge
        Based Systems, Denver, December 3-4, 1984

Also, many of our ideas flow from previous work on REdesign and on
constraint propagation in circuits - see, for instance:

        Steinberg, L. and Mitchell, T., "A Knowledge Based Approach to
                VLSI CAD", Proceedings of 21st Design Automation
                Conference, June, 1984.

        Kelly, V.  "The CRITTER System: Automated Critiquing of Digital
                Circuit Designs", Proceedings of 21st Design Automation
                Conference, June, 1984.

        Mitchell, T., Steinberg, L., Kedar-Cabelli, S., Kelly, V., Shulman,
                J., Weinrich, T., "An Intelligent Aid for Circuit Redesign",
                Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
                Intelligence, 1983, pp. 274-278.

        Kelly, V., and Steinberg, L., "The CRITTER System:  Analyzing Digital
                Circuits by Propagating Behaviors and Constraints",
                Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
                Intelligence, 1982, pp. 284-289.  Also Report LCSR-TR-30,
                Dept. of Computer Science, Rutgers University.

        Mitchell, T., Steinberg, L.,  Smith, R. G., Schooley, P.,  Kelly, V.,
                and  Jacobs,  H.,  "Representations  for  Reasoning  about
                Digital Circuits," Proceedings of the Seventh International
                Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1981, pp. 343-344.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 17:54:25-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Reflection and Semantics in LISP
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                   NEW EDITION OF CSLI REPORT NO. 8

The final edition of Report No. CSLI--84--8, entitled ``Reflection and
Semantics in LISP'' by Brian Smith, has now been published. Copies
of this report may be obtained by writing to Dikran Karagueuzian at CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 00:42:44 PST
-FROM-
From: reid@Glacier.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scientific Method
-BODY-
        [Forwarded to the Xerox bikers' bboard by Trow.PA@XEROX.]
        [Forwarded to the Xerox bboard by Ayers.PA@XEROX.]
        [Forwarded from the Xerox bboard by PolleZ.PA@XEROX.]
        [Forwarded to the Stanford bboard by Jock@SU-SCORE.]
        [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Subject: net.bicycle.freewheel.cleaning: a reprise

As avid readers of this group may remember, we had a big row about cleaning
freewheels this summer, which was sort of ended when Fred at Varian, who is an
analytical chemist, and me, Brian at Stanford, who is a professor of CS, got
into a disagreement about something having to do with chemistry and Brian at
Stanford had the rare sense to keep his mouth shut.

However, despite being merely a computer scientist, and being quite willing to
work out of doors where the fumes won't kill him as fast, Brian remained
slightly unconvinced that the chemicals suggested by Fred at Varian were in
fact better at cleaning freewheels than the junk currently used by Brian at
Stanford. Brian had this vague suspicion that Fred the Chemist from Varian had
been exposed to lectures telling him to stay away from the kind of toxic
chemicals that Brian liked to use to clean freewheels, in much the same way
that Brian the CS professor lectures his students to stay away from Fortran
and IBM PC's.

So Brian went out in the rain and did some experiments. Actually, he had
another attack of good sense and stayed on his back porch, where the rain did
not fall directly on his head or on his freewheels or into his chemicals.

Now here a problem developed. Computer Scientists do not customarily do
experiments. Computer Scientists normally just say things because it makes
them feel good, and if they say them loudly and brashly enough then the things
become true. The current U.S. 5th generation computer project is a good
example of this.

But Brian at Stanford was once a physics major at the University of Maryland,
and he remembered how to run experiments after some consultation with his old
Physics 171 lab notebooks. The gist of it seemed to be that you were supposed
to do something twice, and the second would be identical to the first in every
way except for one controlled variable, and then if there were any differences
you could chalk them up to that variable. I think you're supposed to do a Chi
Square test in there too, or maybe draw some graphs, but this was just an
amateur experiment.

As the light dawned, Brian realized that he could do this experiment using
some hardware that was near and dear to his hacker's heart.  Brian's wife had
given him a birthday present consisting of a real mother of a power saw, a
Milwaukee worm drive power saw, with a finetooth carbide blade. That saw is
just the cat's meow--you put the carbide blade on it, put on the requisite eye
and lung protectors, and wow, you can rip up anything you can reach.  Joe-Bob
Briggs would be thrilled. The same feeling that you get when you first run
some code on a Cray, that feeling of almost limitless power, can be had much
more cheaply with a Milwaukee worm drive saw with a good carbide blade.

In particular, a Milwaukee worm drive saw with a carbide blade will saw a
freewheel clean in half. Lots of wild sparks shooting everywhere, but since
it's raining they probably won't set very much on fire. Ball bearings getting
caught in the carbide teeth and being whipped around at 200 mph and shot
across the yard, scaring the squirrels. Oh, this was great fun.

After counting his fingers and finding them all still intact, Brian took these
two demi-freewheels and stuck them in two old margarine tubs, which are one of
the principal tools of the serious amateur freewheel cleaner.  Brian got out a
beaker (after all, this was an experiment, right?  Experiments use beakers)
and measured out a beakerful of Berryman's Carburetor Cleaner [brian's
favorite toxic chemical for cleaning freewheels].  This beakerful didn't cover
the freewheel much, because it was a 60ml beaker, so then Brian poured a bunch
of glugs of Berryman's on top of the freewheel, until it was immersed. Brian
figured he would face the issue of how to clean the beaker and return it to
his kitchen at a later time.  The label on the Berryman's can says it contains
Methylene Chloride, Cresylic acid, and Perchloroethylene.

Into the other margarine tub Brian put the other half of the freewheel, and
then poured out a bunch of glugs of "Gunk" brand degreasing liquid. The label
on the Gunk can says it contains Petroleum Distillates.

Brian is sufficiently afraid of Berryman's Carburetor Cleaner that he didn't
want to go messing with it by stirring it or sticking a brush into it, but it
was quite clear to Brian from the moment this experiment started that the Gunk
was going to need some help, so he took an acid brush and used it to scrub
parts of the surface of the freewheel that was soaking in Gunk.

Brian then went to eat a chicken chimichanga (hold the sour cream) and came
back about 20 minutes later to inspect the results of the experiment.

The result was that there was no grease on either freewheel half, but there
was still a pile of rust and black goop and garbage on the Gunk half, though
not as much in the places where it had been brushed. The Berryman's Carbuetor
Cleaner half was as clean as a new whistle, gleaming metal. A dead insect of
some sort was floating in the Berryman's, busily dissolving.

Brian longed for the skills of a real physical scientist--to weigh these
bisected freewheels on a microbalance, or look at them under high-powered
microscopes, or grind them up and feed them to a mass spectrometer, but none
of these machines were in evidence in the back yard, so instead he just washed
them off with soap and water and looked at them under a bright light.

What he saw is that the Berryman's Carburetor Cleaner gets freewheel halves
(and therefore, presumably, freewheels) really really clean, by dissolving or
decaying or disintegrating the grease and the rust and the insects.  And that
the Gunk gets the grease off of freewheels, and if you scrub it will get the
dirt off, but it leaves the rust behind.

The moral of this story seems to be that if you are a responsible freewheel
owner and you clean it as often as it wants to be cleaned and you avoid
letting it get built up with dirt and you keep it out of the rain, all of
which are good things to do to a freewheel, that Gunk degreaser (or other
similar chemicals) works just fine. But if you let your freewheel go too far,
to get to the point where if it were teeth you know your dentist would give
you a long lecture about flossing, that you should clean it with some sort of
toxic waste such as Berryman's Carburetor Cleaner (which has been found "more
effective" in scientific experiments at a major university.....)

        Brian Reid      Reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA    decwrl!glacier!reid

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Dec 84 17:54:25-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Three-valued Hintikkian Epistemic Logic  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 SUMMARY OF LAST WEEK'S NL1 SEMINAR
             ``Three-valued Hintikkian Epistemic Logic''
                          By Lauri Carlson

Hintikka's system of epistemic logic in K&B and Models for Modalities
contains a number of peculiar features (restricted range feature,
treatment of irreducible existential formulae) which skew the natural
interpretation of certain formulae and make it hard to ascertain
completeness of the system(s).  For instance the formula (x)(Ey)Kx=y
is valid (and does not mean I "know who everyone is"), while
(Ex)(Ey)(x=y & -Kx=y) is inconsistent (and does not mean "There is
someone who might be two different people as far as I know").  Lauri
Carlson presented a version of epistemic logic which overcomes these
difficulties and can be shown complete with respect to its intended
Kripkean style semantics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 09:35:13 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Sequential Nature of Unification  (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
                 [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Mon., Dec. 17 Computer Science Seminar
  2:00 P.M.   ON THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF UNIFICATION
  Audit. A     Unification of terms is a crucial step in resolution
            theorem proving with applications to a variety of
            symbolic computation problems.  It will be shown that
            the general problem is log-space complete for P, even
            if infinite substitutions are allowed.  Thus, it is
            "popularly unlikely" that unification can enjoy
            substantial speed-up in a parallel model of
            computation.  A fast parallel (NC) algorithm for term
            matching, an important subcase of unification, will
            also be presented.  This talk assumes no familiarity
            with unification or its applications.

            Dr. C. Dwork, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
                Laboratory for Computer Science
            Host:  J. Halpern

  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
178
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 84 13:13:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonverbal Semantics  [Long Message]
-BODY-

    >It's . . . convenient to talk about natural language as if
    >it's something "on its own".  However, I view this attitude
    >as scientifically unhealthy, since it leads to an
    >overemphasis on linguistic structure.  Surely the
    >interesting questions about NL concern those cognitive
    >processes involved in getting from NL to thoughts in memory
    >and back out again to language.  These processes involve
    >forming models of what the speaker/listener knows, and
    >applying world knowledge and context.  NL structure plays
    >only a small part in these overall processes, since the main
    >ones involve knowledge application, memory interactions,
    >memory search, inference, etc.

                Dyer V2 #160

    >Bravo, Dyer!  As you suggest, there is indeed much to learn
    >from the study of natural language -- but not about "natural
    >language itself"; we can learn what kinds of manipulations
    >and processes occur in the under-mind with enough frequency
    >and significance that it turns out to be useful to signify
    >them with surface language features.

    >. . . All that is very fine.  We should indeed study
    >languages.  But to "define" them is wrong.  You define the
    >things YOU invent; you study the things that already exist.
    >. . . But when one confuses the two situations, as in the
    >subjects of generative linguistics or linguistic competence
    >-- ah, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, as today's
    >natural language puts it.

                Minsky V2 #162


I suspect that the antipathy to natural-language parsers, grammars, and
theories that we often encounter in AI literature reflects a healthy
revulsion from the excesses of generative linguistics.  In all of its
many schizmatic forms, generative grammer posits, as the secret inner
mechanism of language, one of various language-like systems that share
historical roots with programming languages, and uses natural-language
data only in a fragmentary and anecdotal way to advance or refute the
latest version.  These systems can be quite hairy, but I am convinced
that the hair is mostly inside the heads of the theorists.

Any natural phenomenon, or any artifact of human culture, is a
legitimate object of study.  Natural language is both an artifact of
human culture, and a natural phenomenon.  There are some who are
studying language, as opposed to the grammatical machinery of
language-like systems.

I recently reviewed a book by the linguist from whom Noam Chomsky
learned about linguistic transformations (among other things).  It will
appear in AJCL vol. 10 nos. 3 and 4 (a double issue).  The following
excerpt gives an outline of the model of language he has developed:

          I refer to the Harrisian model of language as `constructive
          grammar' and to the Harrisian paradigm for linguistics as
          `constructive linguistics'.  A constructive grammar has
          at least the following six characteristics:

          1    The semantic primes are words in the language, a base
               vocabulary that is a proper subset of the vocabulary of
               the language as a whole.

          2    Generation of sentences in the base is by word entry,
               beginning with entry of (mostly concrete) base nouns.
               The only condition for a word to enter is that its
               argument requirement must be met by some previously
               entering word or words, generally the last entry or
               entries, which must not already be in the argument of
               some other word.  The base vocabulary has thus a few
               simple classes of words:

               N         base nouns with null argument
               On, Onn   operators requiring base nouns as arguments
               Oo, Ooo   requiring operators as arguments
               Ono, Oon  requiring combinations of operators and base
                         nouns
               [NOTE:  these are intended to be O with subscripts]

               This does not exhaust the base vocabulary.  In addition
               to these, almost all of the operators require
               morphophonemic insertion of `argument indicators' such
               as -ing and that.  (These were termed the `trace' of
               `incremental transformations' in Harris 1965 and 1968.)

          3    The base generates a sublanguage which is
               informationally complete while containing no
               paraphrases.  This is at the expense of redundancy and
               other stylistic awkwardness, so that utterances of any
               complexity in the base sublanguage are unlikely to be
               encountered in ordinary discourse.  As in prior reports
               of H's work, base sentences are all assertions, other
               forms such as questions and imperatives being derived
               from underlying performatives I ask, I request, and the
               like.

          4    A well-defined system of reductions yields the other
               sentences of the language as paraphrases of base
               sentences.  The reductions were called the
               `paraphrastic transformations', and `extended
               morphophonemics' in earlier reports.  They consist of
               permutation of words (movement), zeroing, and
               morphophonemic changes of phonological shape.  Each
               reduction leaves a `trace' so that the underlying
               redundancies of the base sublanguage are
               recoverable. Linearization of the operator-argument
               dependencies--in English either `normal' SVO or a
               includes much of what is in the lexicon in generative
               `topicalizing' linear order--is accomplished by the
               reduction system, not the base.  The reduction system
               includes much of what is in the lexicon in generative
               grammar (cf. Gross 1979).


          5    Metalinguistic information required for many
               reductions, such as coreferentiality and lexical
               identity, is expressed within the language by conjoined
               metalanguage sentences, rather than by a separate
               grammatical mechanism such as subscripts.
               Similarly, `shared knowledge' contextual and pragmatic
               information is expressed by conjoined sentences
               (including ordinary dictionary definitions) that are
               zeroable because of their redundancy.  [Harris's book
               Mathematical Structures of Language (Wiley 1968) shows
               that the metalanguage of natural language necessarily
               is contained within the language.]

          6    The set of possible arguments for a given operator (or
               vice-versa) is graded as to acceptability.  These
               gradings correspond with differences of meaning in the
               base sublanguage, and thence in the whole language.
               They diverge in detail from one sublanguage or
               subject-matter domain to another.  Equivalently, the
               fuzzy set of `normal' cooccurrents for a given word
               differs from one such domain to another within the base
               sublanguage.

               In informal, intuitive terms, a constructive grammar
          generates sentences from the bottom up, beginning with word
          entry, whereas a generative grammar generates sentences from
          the top down, beginning with the abstract symbol S.  The
          grammatical apparatus of constructive grammar (the rules
          together with their requirements and exceptions) is very
          simple and parsimonious.  H's underlying structures, the
          rules for producing derived structures, and the structures
          to be assigned to surface sentences are all well defined.
          Consequently, H's argumentation about alternative ways of
          dealing with problematic examples has a welcome concreteness
          and specificity about it.

               In particular, one may directly assess the semantic
          wellformedness of base constructions and of each intermediate
          stage of derivation, as well as the sentences ultimately
          derived from them, because they are all sentences.  By
          contrast, in generative argumentation, definitions of base
          structures and derived structures are always subject to
          controversy because the chief principle for controlling them
          is linguists' judgments of paraphrase relations among
          sentences derived from them.  Even if one could claim to
          assess the semantic wellformedness of abstract underlying
          structures, these are typically so ill-defined as to compel us
          to rely almost totally on surface forms to choose among
          alternative adjustments to the base or to the system of rules
          for derivation.  And as we all know, a seemingly minor tweak
          in the base or derivation rules can and usually does have
          major and largely unforeseen consequences for the surface
          forms generated by the grammar.

This model of language offers an interesting approach to the problem
brought up by Young in V2 #162, 174: how to represent the meaning of
words without (circularly) using words?

Most approaches amount to what I call `translation semantics':  having
found a set of language-universal semantic primes, one translates
sentences of a given natural language into those primes and, voila'!,
one has represented the `meaning' of those NL sentences.

Let us ignore the difficulty of finding a set of semantic universals (a bit
of hubris there, what!).  The `representation of meaning' is itself a
proposition in a more-or-less artificial language that has its own
presumably very simple syntax (several varieties of logic are promoted
as most suitable) and--yes--its own semantics.  Logics boil `meaning'
down to sets of `values' on propositions, such as true/false.

`But my system', rejoins Young, `uses actual nonverbal modalities, it
has real hooks into the neurological and cognitive processes that human
beings use to understand and manipulate not only language, but all other
experience as well'.  That may be.  It does beg the question to what
degree cognitive processes and even neurological processes are molded by
language and culture.  (In Science 224:1325-1326 Nottebohm reports that
the part of the forebrain of adult canaries responsible for singing
becomes twice as large coincident with (a) increased testosterone and
(b) learning of songs.  This is the same whether the testosterone
increase is annually in the Spring or experimentally, and the latter
even in females, who consequently learn to sing songs as if they were
males.  Vrenson and Cardozo report in Brain Research 218:79-97
experiments indicating that both the size and shape of synapses in the
visual cortices of adult rabbits changed as a result of visual training.
Cotman and Nieto-Sampedro survey research on synapse growth and brain
plasticity in adult animals in Annual Review of Psychology 33:371-401.
Roger Walsh documents other research of this sort in his book Towards an
Ecology of Brain.  Conventional wisdom of brain science, that no new
neurons are formed after infancy, is unwise.)

The padres of yore surveyed the primitive languages around their
missions and found so many degenerate forms of Latin.  Their grammars
lay these languages on the procrustean bed of inflections and
declensions in a way that we see today as obviously ethnocentric and
downright silly.  We run the same risk today, because like those padres
we cannot easily step out of the cultural/cognitive matrix with which we
are analyzing and describing the world.  Ask a fish to describe water:
the result is a valid `insider's view', but of limited use to nonfish.

Mr. Chomsky characterized his mentor in linguistics as an Empiricist and
himself as a Rationalist, and in the Oedipal struggle which ensued
mother Linguistics has got screwed.  Given that systems based on
constituent analysis are inherently overstructured, with layers of
pseudo-hierarchy increasingly remote from the relatively concrete words
and morphemes of language, an innate language-learning device is
ineluctable:  how else could a child learn all of that complexity in so
short a time on so little and so defective evidence?  The child cannot
possibly be an Empiricist, she must be a Rationalist.  Given a
biologically innate language-acquisition device, there must be a set of
linguistic universals that all children everywhere come into the world
just knowing, and all languages must be specialized realizations of
those archetypes--phenotypes of that genotype, as it were.  (Chomsky did
not set out to `define' natural language but to explain it.  It is
principally because his `underlying', `innate' constructs have a
connection to empirical data that is remote at best--rather like the
relation of a programmer's spec to compiled binary--that they appear
to be (are?) definitions.)

But consider a model in which the structure of language is actually
quite simple.  Might the characteristics of that model not turn out to
be those of some general-purpose cognitive `module'?  I believe Harris's
model, sketched above, presents us this opportunity.

Now about Jerry Fodor's book The Modularity of Mind, which Young mentions.
The following is from the review by Matthei in Language 60.4:979,

        F presents a theory of the structure of the mind in which two
        kinds of functionally distinguishable faculties exist:
        `vertical' faculties (modules) and `horizontal' faculties
        (central processes). . . . F identifies the modules with the
        `input systems, whose function is to interpret information
        about the outside world and to make it available to the central
        cognitive processes.  They include [five modules for] the
        perceptual systems . . . and [one for] language. . . .

        The central processes, as horizontal faculties, can be
        functionally distinguished from modular processes because their
        operations cross content domains.  The paradigm example of their
        operation is the fixation of belief, as in determining the truth
        of a sentence.  What one believes depends on an evaluation of
        what one has seen, heard, etc., in light of background
        information. . . .

                . . . the condition for successful science is that
                nature should have joints to carve it at:  relatively
                simple subsystems which can be artificially isolated and
                which behave, in isolation, in something like the way
                that they behave in situ. (128)

        [The above, by the way, suggests that, while studying language
        in isolation--severing its `joints' with other systems--may be
        of limited interest to AI researchers seeking to model language
        users' performance, rather than their competence, it is not
        `scientifically unhealthy'.  It also points to the central
        problem of semantics, as Matthei points out . . .]

        Modules, F says, satisfy this condition; central processes do
        not.  If true, this is bad news for those who wish to study
        semantics.  The burden which F puts on them is that they must
        demonstrate that computational formalisms exist which can
        overcome the problems he enumerates.  These formalisms will have
        to be invented, because F maintains that no existing formalisms
        are capable of solving the problems.

I, too, feel that notions of modules and modularity, or at least Fodor's
attempt to consolidate them, make a great deal of sense.  However, the
caveat about the study of semantics underscores my contention that
semantics properly must be based on an `acceptability model': a body of
knowledge stated in sentences in the informationally complete
sublanguage of Harris's base, whose acceptability is known.  This is
akin to a `truth model' in aletheic approaches to semantics in logic.
It is also very simply conceived of as a database such as is constructed
by Sager's LSP systems at NYU.  We should note that the sentences of
this base sublanguage correspond very closely across languages (cf. e.g.
the English-Korean comparison in Harris's 1968 book), and that the
vocabulary of the base sublanguage is a subset of that of the whole
language (allowing for derivation, morphological degeneracy, and the
like), much closer to Young's categories than the vocabulary with which
he expresses so much frustration.

There is one pointer I can give to another version of `translation
semantics' that probably satisfies Young's sense of `nonverbal':
Leonard Talmy developed an elaborate system for representing the
semantics and morphological derivation of some pretty diverse languages
in his (1974?) PhD dissertation at UC Berkeley.  The languages included
Atsugewi (neighbor and cousin to the Native American language I worked
on), Spanish, and Yiddish.  He went to SRI after graduation, but I have
no idea where he is now or what he is doing.

        Bruce Nevin (bn@bbncch)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
179
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1984  17:36 EST
-FROM-
From: Chunka Mui <CHUNKA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: micro-PROLOG info request
-BODY-

We are looking for PROLOG packages which run on micros, especially the
IBM PC.  If you are familiar with any PROLOG interpreters for the PC,
especially one with a tutorial package, I appreciate any information
that you could give me.

Thanks,

Chunka Mui
Chunka%mit-oz@mit-mc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 84 12:21:53 EST
-FROM-
From: Mike.Rychener@CMU-RI-ISL2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SmallTalk AI systems?
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Does anyone know of any successful AI applications coded in SmallTalk?
This was stimulated by the new Tektronix AI machine, whose blurb touts
its SmallTalk as useful for developing expert systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 1984 12:21-EST
-FROM-
From: Alexander.Hauptmann@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert legal systems?
-BODY-
I am looking for references to publications about expert systems for
legal reasoning. If you know of anybody who has done work in this area,
please let me know (Alexander.Hauptmann@CMU-CS-G.ARPA). Among other
things, I have heard that Roger Schank has done work in this area, but have
been unable to find citations. Thanks.

                                        Alex.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 84 06:44:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Thibadeau@CMU-CS-H
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert legal system
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Extensive work in legal reasoning was done by Thorne McCarty.  Thorne published
in the Harvard Law Review back in 1977ish.  His topic was legal reasoning
in corporate tax law -- one of the areas where the Supreme Court effectively
makes the law.  Thorne, educated at Harvard in Law and Stanford in AI,
and a tenured professor of Law at Rochester, evaluated Yale, way back,
but decided to do his AI work at Rutgers.  While I regard Roger Shank as
absolutely excellent, I find it unfortunate that like natural language
understanding systems vis a vis Yorick Wilks, belief systems vis a vis
Chuck Schmidt and N. Sridharan, Memory vis a vis 100 years of thought
in German and British psychology, we find now Roger implied at the leading
edge in legal reasoning.  Roger does good work, but he takes a long time
to see the light and he tends to ignore his surround.
I would hope the people on the frontiers not be forgotten this time around.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 84 16:05:04 EST
-FROM-
From: BIESEL@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligent skimmer suggestion.
-BODY-
As the volume of mail in this and other lists increases I find that
I spend more and more time only skimming the text, searching for the
message or two that is of interest to me. It occurs to me that an
intelligent program for skimming text would be of some help in this.

This program would scan a message, break up its sentences into
grammatical tokens, and would first display only nouns and verbs - in
their correct places on the screen. As the text scrolls upward adjectives,
adverbs and pronouns appear, and by the time the text has traversed
2/3 of the screen, all words in each sentence are filled in. A smarter
system would also keep track of the rate at which CTL-s/CTL-Q is sent,
and adjust its transfer rate accordingly. A really smart program would
keep track of keywords in those pieces of text which the user actually
reads, determined by how often he slows down the skimming presentation,
and would automatically present more fleshed out versions of messages
which contained such keywords.

There is no good reason why text has to be displayed in a letter-
sequential form. We have a whole 2-D array to work with; let's try
to use it to enhance rather  than obfuscate communication.

Biesel@rutgers

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 15 December 1984 03:46:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Planning, Constraint Propagation and Design
-BODY-
A part of the January 1983 SIGART newsletter was dedicated to Planning.
A number of abstracts on (then) current  research was compiled by
Ann Robinson.

I would like to add the following to Steinberg's equation about design:

   Heuristic Knowledge  (HK) +  Well-structured Programs (Algorithms) (WP)
                           = Good Engineering Programs (GEP)

If we add Causal knowledge (CK) to the LHS of above equation then we have

 HK + WP + CK = EEP (Effecient Engineering Programs)

Any comments?

Has anyone tried the task suspension method instead of constraint
propagation? Task suspension works in the following manner (there is more to
it):
   IF a constraint in a certain part of the design cannot be satisfied
   THEN suspend that task and get the values needed to satisfy the constraint
In other words if you are designing Module-1 and find that there is a
constraint relating Module-1 to Module-2 then suspend the task of performing
Module-1 and design that part of Module-2 which satisfies the constraint.
I tried this in structural design [1] using a  Hearsay-type approach.
However, I ran into problems when a constraint involved interaction
between 3 or more components.

[1] ALL-RISE : A Case Study in Constraint-Directed Design, Working Paper,
               Department of Civil Engineering, C-MU, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 10:47:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SEAI Publications
-BODY-
A brochure from the SEAI Institute has crossed my desk.  They are offering
a two-volume survey of commercial and near-commercial AI systems as of
August 1984.  The two 200-page surveys, AI Applications for Manufacturing
and AI Applications for Business Management, include 136 products and
in-house systems at over 100 corporations, including 28 expert-system
toolkits and 10 natural-language systems.  The reports are $110 each, or
$200 together.  SEAI also offers a three-volume set on Machine Vision for
Robotics and Automated Inspection and several other reports on robots
in industry, AI, expert systems, and automated guided vehicle systems.
You can contact them at Box 590, Madison, GA 30650, (404) 342-9638.


[Note: I have no connection with the company, and pass this along only in
the hopes that it will be of use to the Arpanet or AI research communities.
I obviously cannot report on every AI book offered by every publisher, but
see no harm in forwarding book reviews or notices about obscure reports.
Correspondence about this policy should be directed to AIList-Request@SRI-AI.
>- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 84 21:34:41 PST
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <judea@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Visitors from USSR
-BODY-
 I wish to share with the readers of the AI-Digest this
letter, which I wrote to Professor Viktor V. Aleksandrov,
Head, Leningraad Research Computer Center, who is currently
visiting the U.S. and who is particularly interested in
meeting AI researchers.


Dear Professor Alexandrov,

           I would have liked very much to meet you during
your current visit to UCLA, but the following circumstances
will not allow me to do so in good faith:

           I have received from the Association of Computing
Machinery (ACM) a long list of Soviet computer scientists who,
for the past several years, have been barred from scientific
activity and have been denied permission to participate
in scientific meetings, domestic as well as international.
Some of these people would like to present papers at the
International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
which will take place at UCLA, August 1985, but will be
prevented from leaving your country.

           I am particularly familiar with the stories of:

                 Alexander Lerner, Moscow
                 Isai Goldstein, Tbilisi
                 Gregory Goldstein, Tbilisi

whom I met at the International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence - 1973, Tbilisi, Georgia, and with
whom I tried to keep in touch. To my dismay, I find
these three cited in the 1984 Report of the ACM
Committee on Scientific Freedom and Human Rights as being
harrassed and prevented from engaging in scientific
activities. In 1973, I personally witnessed
Isai Goldstein being barred from entering the lecture hall of
the Tbilisi conference, so I feel obliged to express my
concern that today, eleven years later, the method of
professional deprivation is still practiced in your country.

        Although I would like to contribute to improved
scientific cooperation between our two countries, my
understanding has been that a prerequisite to true
cooporation is the freedom for individuals to engage in
scientific pursuits and to communicate their findings to
other scientists.  Your government apparently has a
different perception of cooperation, and I will be happy to
discuss with you these differences. However, because you are
an official Soviet visitor, I cannot meet with you in good
faith to engage in a purely professional discussion. To do
so would be to betray Professor Lerner, who personally
pleaded with me to refrain from participation in U.S.-USSR
cooperative programs until minimum standards of scientific
freedom are agreed upon.

         I hope you understand my position and will
 convey my regrets to your colleagues at the Leningrad
 Computer Research Center.

                              Yours Sincerely,

                                         Judea Pearl
                           Professor, Computer Science Dpt.
                                  University of California
                                        Los Angeles


A note to the reader:
        The 1984 report of the ACM Committee on Scientific
Freedom and Human Rights is available from my office. It is
scheduled for publication in the January-85 issue of the
Communications of the ACM.

        If you  meet with Professor Alexandrov, or other
Soviet visitors, you may find it appropriate to
express your sensitivity to two allegations made
in the ACM report:

1. That Soviet scientists are dismissed from their jobs
   (or demoted) once they apply for exit visas.

2. That these scientists are prevented from attending
   professional meetings (even in the privacy of their homes)
   or from submitting papers to international meetings,
   e.g., IJCAI-83.

       If you kindly send me a summary of Professor
Alexandrov's replies, especially regarding the practices at
his own Institute, I will be glad to bring them to the
attention of the ACM Committee.
                                      J.Pearl
                                <judea@ucla-locus.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 16:30:45 est
-FROM-
From: Rod Johnson <johnson@nrl-css>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lab Description - NRL (Computer Science & Systems Branch)
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]



                       NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
                  Computer Science and Systems Branch


The Computer Science and Systems Branch of NRL is active in:

  >> software engineering  >> computer security  >> information theory
  >> search theory         >> expert systems     >> message processing
  >> software measurement  >> speech and signal processing
  >> formal software specifications.

Our interests also include performance modeling and evaluation, human-
computer interfaces, and program specification and verification tools.

    OUR GROUP is small, close-knit, and informal, with a research staff
of 22 members; 9 hold PhDs.  Attendance at conferences and publication
in the open literature are encouraged.  There are ample opportunities
for educational support toward graduate degrees.  Several branch
members also teach at local universities.

    COMPUTING RESOURCES at NRL are being expanded to include a Cray
X-MP/12 system.  This unique system will include a front end consisting
of a cluster of VAX 11/785s with connections to the ARPANET and to a
broadband network linking other NRL computers.  The Branch maintains
VAX 11/780, Sun, and VAX 11/750 machines running UNIX and VMS, and a
Symbolics Lisp Computer.  Each office includes a terminal with a
high-speed link to these systems, which are also linked to the ARPANET.

    THE NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY is a government laboratory located on
a 129-acre campus on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington,
D.C.  It was founded at the suggestion of Thomas Edison more than 60
years ago and carries out a wide variety of basic and applied
research.  The Washington area offers a temperate climate and an
outstanding cultural environment, including the museums of the
Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,
and several excellent professional and collegiate theatre groups.

    For more information, contact:

    Mr. S. H. Wilson
    Head, Computer Science and Systems Branch
    Code 7590                      Phone:  (202) 767-2518
    Naval Research Laboratory      Arpanet:  Wilson@NRL-CSS
    Washington, D.C.  20375        uucp:  ...!decvax!nrl-css!wilson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 84 16:07:59 est
-FROM-
From: ukma!marek@ANL-MCS.ARPA (Wiktor Marek)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Logic and Computer Science
-BODY-
                    FIRST COMMUNICATION

                        Workshop on

                 LOGIC AND COMPUTER SCIENCE

               Lexington,KY, June 9-14 1984.

     In the first half of June 1985 a workshop on Logic  and
Computer Science will take place in Lexington, Kentucky.

     The workshop will take 4 and 1/2 working days.

     The workshop will cover those parts of Computer Science
where  an  active part is played by logic-inclined research-
ers, in particular:

                   Theory of Computation
                    Theory of Databases
                  Artificial Intelligence
        Theory of Operating Systems (Temporal Logic)
                    Program Verification
                     Logic Programming

All the inqueries should be sent to:

                 Logic and Computer Science
               Department of Computer Science
                   University of Kentucky
                 Lexington, KY, 40506-0027
                       (606) 257-3961
or:


    Logic and Computer Science
    ARPA:  "ukma!logic-and-cs"@ANL-MCS   (Note the quote marks.)
    UUCP->  unmvax -----------\
    UUCP->  research ----------\____ !anlams --\
    UUCP->  boulder -----------/                >-!ukma!logic-and-cs
    UUCP->  decvax!ucbvax ----/                /
                       cbosgd!hasmed!qusavx --/


                 Organizational Committee:
          Forbes Lewis  Wiktor Marek  Anil Nerode

Lexington, December 1984

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
180
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Dec 84 09:21:09-EST
-FROM-
From: Bob Hall <RJH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Jokes
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                      Announcing the only annual

                         AI Joke Contest

Come up with a good cocktail-party-worthy joke about some aspect of
AI and win a U.C., Berkeley T-shirt!  Enter as many times as you like.
Winner (exactly one) will be judged solely on the number of ``HA''s
evoked from the impartial panel of judges.  Ties will be broken by
earliest postmark and contest ends after a sufficiently long time with
no entries.

To be eligible for a prize, you must include your address and t-shirt size.
Entries become property of the judges.

To Enter:

Mail via US Mail your entry in any legible format to

                       AI Jokes
                       1717 Allston Way
                       Berkeley, CA  94703

Please do not send any entries to me, as I am just posting this.  I can,
however, answer limited questions on this, like "Is it legit?" (Yes.)

Enter Now!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Dec 84 16:38:26-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Computer Science Limericks--ABACUS
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The journal Abacus will pay $25 for each original limerick related to computing
that is accepted and published.  Send entries to Mr. Eric A. Weiss, Box 222,
Springfield, PA 19064.  Submissions should be better than the following
samples:

Said a recent B.S. in E.E.
"Three things are important to me:
 How much do you pay?
 Must I work every day?
And the proof of correctness of C."

A professor (whose last name is Wirth),
After seeing Pascal through its birth,
  Said, "It's better than Snobol,
  More structured than Cobol,
And soon will take over the earth!"

This is strictly a public service announcement for those students who want to
make some extra money.  I will make no comments about the above examples nor
my personal view of limericks in general.

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Dec 84 19:29:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Oxymorons, Pleonasms and various forms of Bull
-BODY-
              [Forwarded from net.jokes by SASW@MIT-MC.]


       From "More on Oxymorons, Foolish Wisdom in Words and
       Pictures".

       Oxymoron:   two antithetical words, adj vs. noun.  eg.
                   Living Death (can be extended: They agreed to
                   disagree)

       Pleonasm:   sort of the opposite of an oxymoron, the adj or
                   adv agrees with the noun. eg. Wet Water  (what
                   else could water be?) Tautology: a pleonasm
                   whose terms are joined by a copula.  eg. At the
                   center is the middle.

       Bull:       the linguistic name for such linguistic pearls
                   of logic, enabling one to label examples of:

                      - self-contradiction (To be ignorant of one's
                        ignorance is the malady of the ignorant).

                      - self reference (Brain: an apparatus with
                        which we think that we think).

                      - the obvious (Who died? I'm not sure, but I
                        think it's the one in the hearse).

                      - "read the sentence twice and be amazed that
                        it was written" (The sudden rise in
                        temperature was responsible for the
                        intolerable heat) (Nobody goes to that
                        restaurant anymore, it's too crowded)



       Sort the following according to the above rules:

         1.  The best cure for insomnia is to get a  lot of sleep.
             (W.C.Fields)

         2.  You will always find something in the last place you
             look.

         3.  He hadn't a single redeeming vice. (Oscar Wilde)

         4.  Nothing succeeds like success. (Alexandre Dumas)

         5.  New Innovation.

         6.  In these matters the only certainty is that there is
             nothing certain. (Pliny the Elder)

         7.  For those who like this sort of thing, this is the
             sort of thing they like.  (Abraham Lincoln)

         8.  Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his
             head examined. (Samuel Goldwyn)

         9.  To visually see.

        10.  Bachelors' wives and old maids' children are always
             perfect. (Nicolas Chamfort)

        11.  One effect of the better lighting is the improved
             visibility.

        12.  He lived his life to the end.

        13.  I have made mistakes but I have never made the mistake
             of claiming that I have never made one. (James Gordon
             Bennett)

        14.  She's genuinely bogus.

       HINT: There are 2 examples of each category (not counting
       "Bull" but rather the subdivisions mentioned)

       "Words are but a window on the word...."

       Sam Saal
       ...ihnp4!eisx!sms

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 08 Dec 84 20:27 CDT
-FROM-
From: Maxwell_L%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Maxwell_L%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA,
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language Deficiencies
-BODY-
There is a legend of a remote tribe of Indians in the Peruvian
Andes, the language of which has no word for "No."  Should a
member of this tribe wish to communicate a negative response,
he will nod his head and say "I'll get back to ya."    :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 December 1984 2105-EST
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Discipline&Bondage Theory
-BODY-
      [Forwarded by Laws@SRI-AI from a file typed from hardcopy
      and made available by Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A.  The original
      author is James A. Matisoff of Berkeley.]


                Announcing a new theory of language:

                   DISCIPLINE AND BONDAGE THEORY

                        Ffositam A. Semaj
                             Yelekreb

                        February 23, 1984

       [APPLICATION TO THE GROAN FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.]

        It has become increasingly clear that the current linguistic theories
are inadequate to explain much of anything about language.

        Yesterday, however, I conceived a new theory of language, which is,
finally, the correct one.  Already I have found the solutions to virtually
all linguistic problems.  A few details remain to be worked out, but this can
certainly be accomplished during the grant period.

        Despite its explanatory and predictive power, my theory rest on a
very few simple ideas.

        (1) The chief organizing principle of language is CONTROL.

That is to say, certain words should boss others around.  This idea is
perhaps not entirely new, but my theory is the first to carry it one step
further, to the meta-theoretical level:

        (2) The linguist must control language, not vice versa.

        At no time must the theoretician allow himself to be hog-tied by mere
data.  Too much unmotivated detail clogs the mind, and can led to "control
slippage."  Endless time can be wasted on brute undisciplined facts.  That
leas to our third axiom:

        (3) The most highly valued theory is based on the most limited
            and carefully selected data, preferably data gained from
            solitary introspection by the linguist himself.

(In difficult cases, however, it is not methodologically unsound to seek
confirmation of one's grammaticality judgments from other linguists,
provided they are working within the same theory.  It is for this reason that
I have included within this proposal a request for funds for consultation in
D/B Theory at other institutions.)

        D/B Theory is correct precisely because it succeeds in *controlling*
and *dominating* language.  The unique terminology required by our theory
reflects this orientation.  (See below, GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS.)

        D/B Theory relates in the most efficient way imaginable to its
data base.  I have, in fact, succeeded in formulating a single sentence that
is so rich in theoretical implications, that once it is properly
disciplined-and-bound it will serve all by itself as the corpus of data for
the whole theory.  Here it is:

        (4) Helmut asked her if Fatima could say wow what a nice day
            to them sorta only if the beige one circumcised her with
            a knout.

It need hardly be emphasized that my theory also applies to other languages
than English, indeed universally to the class of all possible languages.
Firm plans are in place to have (4) translated into French during the next
(1985-86) grant period.

        On a more mundane level, note that D/B Theory uses much better names
in its example sentences than any other theory.   While some theories use
anodyne names like John and Mary, and others offer unmotivatedly cutesy-poo
ones (e.g., Mortimer, Seymour, Snurdley), D/B Theory goes in exclusively for
names like Butch, Helmut and Fatima, thereby enhancing its predictive power
in pragmatic situations where discipline and control are at issue.

        Notice also that (4) could never have been arrived at by the
"butterfly-collector" method of recording natural utterances.  Fortunately,
D/B Theory enabled me to predict that the odds of (4) occurring in a natural
conversation would be quite low.  If I had waited around to hear this
sentence uttered spontaneously I could never have formulated my theory so
rapidly, and would probably have missed the application deadline.

        D/B Theory enables us to account in a principled way for the
otherwise puzzling fact that (4) is fully grammatical, while (5), (6), and
(7) are totally unacceptable:

        (5) * Helmut sorta circumcised her with a knout.

        (6) * Wow what a nice day sorta.

        (7) * Helmut could say beige.

Even previous theories of language recognize that (7) violates a felicity
condition whereby the features [+male] and [+beige] are mutually exclusive.
If the feature specification for "Helmut" does indeed include [+male], these
theories would predict, quite correctly in this case, that (7) is
infelicitous.  Only D/B Theory, however, explains why the acceptability of (7)
increases when it is disciplined by a strappadoed clause, as in (4).

        Space constraints preclude our going into further detail here, and in
any event this discussion must necessarily appear somewhat abstract before
the special terminology required by D/B theory has been mastered.  As a
warning to the reader, the following Glossary of Technical Terms has been
provided.

        Learn them, and learn them now!

                GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

CAT-O'-NINE-TAIL-MENT.

        A clause which is reluctant to fit into our framework may be whipped
into shape by this operation, according to which any nine constituents may be
entailed by any nine others.  Thus (8) may be cat-o'nine-tailed into (9):

        (8) Fatima sucked the sherbert through a straw while her
            Shiite eunuch guards leafed through a stack of girlie
            magazines without much interest.

        (9) The Queen of England opened Parliament with a knout.

As always, however, rigorous disciplinary techniques like this should
not be resorted to prematurely.  It is usually advisable to try FROTTAGE
first, in order to relax the clause and throw it off its guard.

CLAUSE-ABUSE.

        A cover-term for several more specific operations described below.
Occasionally a deeply embedded clause may be forced into self-abuse to avoid
subjugation or subincision at the hands of a clause that ranks higher on the
BOUNDEDNESS HIERARCHY.

CLAUSE-CASTRATION.

        A clause is said to have undergone castration when certain members
have been removed in order to allow a rule to work more insightfully.  Thus
(11) may be generated from (10) by this operation, which is actually
justified on independent grounds anyway, so that no special ad hoc rules need
be added to the grammar:

        (10) What's all this ballyhoo about that balloon that was
             embellished by the ballistic missile?

        (11) What's all this yhoo about that oon that was embellished
             by the istic missile?

Note that our theory correctly predicts that "embellishment" does not satisfy
the conditions for the operation of this rule, despite its surface similarity
to the castratable constituents.  "Embellished" therefore survives
(temporarily) to undergo other sorts of clause-abuse that occur later in the
grammar.

CLAUSE-CRUCIFIXTION.

        A crucified clause is one which has been generated by entailment.
The head of the clause remains free to move slightly, but the rest is bound
tightly to the tree.  Ex-cruciated constituents are usually found to be much
more amenable to persuasion than before the operation applied.

CLAUSE-FROTTAGE.

        An important preliminary discourse strategy that opens clauses up
for further discipline.  Unlike its extreme form, KEELHAULING, which can
involve scraping the clause up one side and down the other, FROTTAGE requires
only a light movement from left to right and back again on the nodule which
is F-commanded by the subjugating member.

CLAUSE-STRAPPADO.

        The weakest NP's hands are tied behind its back and attached to a
pulley by means of which it is pulled out from under the VP that had been
disciplining it and raised to the next higher clause, after which it is
suddenly dropped halfway back down with a jerk.  Thus (12) may be strappadoed
into (13).

        (12) Butch said fuck you or I'll take away your teddybear
             with a knife.

        (13) Butch said fuck you, teddybear, or with a knife I'll take
             yours away, jerk.

Note that jerk-insertion must be ordered with respect to frottage, to avoid
generating such ungrammatical strings as:

        (14) *Butch said fickledy-fuckledy you, teddldy-bearidy, jerk.

PROCRUSTEAN PRUNING.

        A powerful process whereby unwanted constituents are lopped off
either from the beginning or the end of a clause, or both.  This is related
to Pham Phuc Dong's 'constituent gerrymandering', though it is much more
rigorously applied within the D/B framework.  Thus (16) may be derived from
(15) by "equi-PP":

        (15) The chomeur had no place to go during the earthquake, so he
             sat down by default, the chomeur had no place to go during the.

        (16) Earthquake, so he sat down by default.

The questionable grammaticality of (16) is accounted for by the fact that
neither the pre-pruned nor the post-pruned constituents were willing to cross
the picket line.

PROTO-HYPE THEORY.

        Proto-hype theory is an important adjunct to D/B analysis.  Generally
speaking, it enables us to recognize whether a token is behaving
satisfactorily as a member of its type.  (If a constituent is lacking in
discipline, we have ways to make it talk.)  The following data are from
French:

        (17) *Mordxe hot zix nebex aroysgeshnitn di kishkes mit a
              tsibele-kuxn.

             (Mortimer ripped out his guts on a buzz-saw, poor guy.)

Proto-hype theory enables us to predict that "tsibele-kuxn", literally:
"onion-roll", is nowhere near being a prototypical cutting instrument (though
sometimes in particular pragmatic situations poppy seeds may be rather
sharp).  We thus reject (17) as ungrammatical.

TOUGH B-MOVEMENT.

        Applies when a clause has become constipated through lack of roughage.
This is one of the more severe operations permitted by our theory, and should
only be used after milder processes like frottage and proto-hyping have
failed to dislodge the construction.  Consider the following:

        (18) *To do it squeezing over a pit full of viper without
              bran muffins or prune juice is tough duty.

This is clearly ungrammatical and infelicitous as it stands, though, as my
theory predicts, a perfectly good reading is obtained if tough b-movement is
not allowed to apply until after the sentence has been sphincter-bound, as in
(19):

        (19) It is tough duty to do it without squeezing bran muffins
             or prune juice over a pit full of vipers.

The 3-way ambiguity of this sentence is likewise predicted by the theory.

                                ***

All previous linguistic theories have been thinly disguised notational
variants of the flabbily sentimental "philology" of the past.  With
Discipline and Bondage Theory, we serve notice on language that it is to be
coddled no longer.  Broad new vistas of control have opened up.  Let 1984 be
the year that we get back at language once and for all.

                                        MAJ, Principle Investigator.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 14:06:32 cst
-FROM-
From: "Walter G. Rudd" <rudd%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Architecture for Malogrithms
-BODY-

Kathy Daley, one of our graduate students, suggests the following:

Since the "hardware" will be running "underneath" the malgorithm,
why not call it "UNDERWARE"?????

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 84 07:09:02 pst
-FROM-
From: Paul A. Ehrler <ehrler%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lardware
-BODY-
    My nomination  for  Lardware of the month goes to IBM. I recall seeing a
    reference to an attempt of theirs to build  a  computer  without an ALU.
    The trick was to do everything with table  look  up, even arithmetic.  I
    guess  they reasoned that first graders are pretty good at that sort  of
    thing, so why not automate it.  It worked  to  some extent, but needless
    to say was not an overwhelming commercial success.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 84 14:41:50 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <walter at mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Museum Traveling Exhibit
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


        NOON, FRIDAY, IN THE 8TH FLOOR PLAYROOM

               THE BOSTON COMPUTER MUSEUM
                  In conjunction with
              THE REVOLTING SEMINAR SERIES
Presents a traveling exhibit especially for Graduate Students

            COMPUTER POWER AND HUMAN FASHION

                       Featuring

               THE VON NEUMANN TURTLENECK
                          Plus
           NILS NILSSON'S ALPHA-BETA CUTOFFS

   Also featuring a rare Huffman-clothes encoating and
    a dress once worn by Herb Simon's wandering Aunt.

         Hosts: Bonnie Dorr and Dave Braunegg.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
181
-DATE-
Date: 19 December 1984 1724-EST
-FROM-
From: Oswald Wyler@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fermat's last Theorem
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The first two sentences of an AMS abstract, 816-11-188, by Chen Wenjen,
read: The missing proof of Fermat's Last Theorem has been rediscovered.
The proof is elementary, zigzag, and truly wonderful as claimed by
Fermat nearly three and a half centuries ago.
Anyone know more about this?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Dec 1984 2001 PST
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xlisp interpreter
-BODY-
Some time back David Betz announced he'd placed into the public domain
a Lisp interpreter with object-oriented extensions.  Where is it stored
in FTPable form?  Thanks.
                                        Larry @ jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 84 00:06 MST
-FROM-
From: May%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re Issue 179, "micro-PROLOG info request"
-BODY-
Dr.  George Luger, at the University of New Mexico, is developing a
Prolog that runs on PC-compatibles.  It is currently in beta-test.  (no
phone # available)

Also, the University of York, Heslington, York, YO1 5DD, England, has a
C&M Prolog that is written in standard Pascal.  It requires three
file-system-specific procedures to be written for the host, which is
usually a minor job.  The original version compiled cleanly under
Turbo-Pascal but we haven't yet checked it out for correct execution.
The same source compiled and executed cleanly on a mainframe host.
Contact Mrs.  Jenny Turner, Secretary, Software Technology Centre,
telephone 0904 59861, or at the above address.  (A few months ago, they
were charging 200 Pounds.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 84 15:20:44 pst
-FROM-
From: weeks%ucbpopuli.CC@Berkeley (Harry Weeks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog on Micros.
-BODY-
There is an article in the December 1984 issue of Byte on
`micro-Prolog', which runs on CP/M and MS-DOS machines
(including the IBM PC).  It is distributed in the United
States by Programming Logic Systems, 31 Crescent Drive,
Milford, Connecticutt 06460, 203 877 7988.
                                            -- Harry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 84 07:07:46 pst
-FROM-
From: Paul A. Ehrler <ehrler%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Tools
-BODY-
    Are  there  any  head-to-head   comparisons   of  the  so-called  'fifth
    generation'  expert  system  building tools like KEE, ART, S1, SRL,  and
    LOOPS? I've heard that ART has been improved since the AAAI conference.
    The demo I saw then was  not very informative, since they didn't have an
    extra Symbolics to put  in their hotel suite for serious shoppers; I was
    more favorably impressed by  KEE  at the time.  As for the others, first
    impressions  are  that  S1  was out of date, SRL was underdeveloped  and
    overpriced  ($70K),  and  LOOPS  was  unsupported,  but  had   lots   of
    potential.    Anything   more  concrete  (performance,  ease   of   use,
    robustness,  support provided, etc) would be welcome, especially  direct
    comparisons.   If  I  missed  any  of  importance  (not  of  the  EMYCIN
    generation, please), that would also be useful to know.

    Speaking of prices, are they serious  about  the  exorbitant  prices for
    secondary copies of the software?  I can understand, given the tradition
    of whatever the market  will  bear, that something extra must be charged
    for more  application,  but we have a LAN of five 1108's all on the same
    project, and I can't see charging more for the secondary copies than the
    machines cost  -  that's  a  big  reason  we're  using LOOPS now.  Maybe
    they're thinking like the micro houses,  assuming  that  since  most  of
    their customers are going  to  cheat,  they'll use the honest suckers to
    subsidize.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 20 December 1984 01:26:44 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SEAI Publications
-BODY-
Another report by SEAI  titled "Artificial Intelligence: A New Tool for
Industry and Business" discusses a number of products in the market.  The
utility of this book, which costs $485, is summarized by Price (see SIGART
Newsletter, Oct. 1984) as "it is expensive but it would cost more to
assemble the same information. It is not directed towards researchers but
managers who want to determine how AI can be effectively used in their
business". I wonder if there is a significant difference in content
between this one and the ones mentioned by Ken Laws!

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Dec 84 18:32:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reports - Winograd & Barwise
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                         CSLI REPORTS

``Moving the Semantic Fulcrum'' by Terry Winograd (Report No. CSLI--84-17)
has just been published. Report No. CSLI--84-2, ``The Situation in
Logic--I'' by Jon Barwise, which has been out of print, is now available.
To obtain a copy of these reports write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI,
Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Dec 84 13:03:55 CST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

> Dear sir--oh, my very dear sir.  Is NOTHING going to cheer you
> up?  Can the micro revolution do nothing to help you?

Nope, I'd rather be grumpy and play Devil's Advocate.  Bah.  Humbug.
(Who is that odd fellow with the chains coming through my wall...?)

> For me, I keep remembering what a joy Electric Pencil was after
> typing millions of words on a Selectric; and while nothing that
> has come after Pencil has been the quantum step up that Pencil
> was in 1977, there has been steady improvement.  Computers make
> my life simpler.  (Well, actually more complex; but I get more
> done, and spend more of  my time doing that which I LIKE
> doing...)

I have similar memories of encountering computerized text editing for
the first time, back in 1972.  I've never written anything substantial
on a typewriter since, and have no wish to.  I do appreciate the vast
improvement computers have brought, and the continuing improvements in
the situation.

What I do dislike is sales hype, or the equivalent, which claims that
innovation X is going to bring about Nirvana here on Earth in just a
few years.  I.e., Real Soon Now.  (Yes, I read and enjoy your column
in Byte.)  In particular, the next time somebody tells me that applied
AI and/or the Fifth Generation is going to solve all my problems, I
think I'm gonna throw up.  The AI folks are notorious for exuberant
promises followed by failure and disillusionment.  I would have
thought they, of all people, would be a bit more cautious about
predicting the Millenium yet again.  Nope, same old snake oil...

What I should have made clearer, in my earlier note, was that I do
expect some very interesting by-products from the inevitable failures.
I have no quarrel with anyone who merely predicts significant advances
and the appearance of useful new tools.  This cloud is indeed likely
to have a silver lining, even though it's not going to be solid
platinum as its proponents claim.

                           Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                            {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 December 1984 00:46-EST
-FROM-
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Personal Assistants -- a skeptical viewpoint
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Ah well, I suppose I must agree regarding the hype.
As to AI: there is a famous story.

John McCarthy some years ago is said to have bought a Heathkit
television for the Stanford AI lab.  When it arrived a student
eagerly fell upon it, but was restrained.
        "We will construct a robot to build the kit," McCarthy
is said to have said.
        Last I heard the box was unopened.

        The story is probably apocryphal, but I do recall
the Great Foreign Language Translation Revolution predicted in
the 60's...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Dec 84 18:32:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - REVE: Solving Problems in Equational Theories
-BODY-           (CSLI)

         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 21 AREA C MEETING

Topic:     REVE: A system for solving problems in equational theories,
              based on term rewriting techniques
Speaker:   Jean-Pierre Jouannaud, Professor at University of NANCY, FRANCE,
              on leave at SRI-International and CSLI.

Equational Logic has been adopted by mathematicians for a very long
time and by computer scientists recently.  Specifications in OBJ2, an
``object-oriented'' language designed and implemented at
SRI-International, uses equations to express relations between
objects.  To express computations in this logic, equations are used
one way, e.g. as rules.  To make proofs with rules in this logic
requires the so-called ``confluence'' property, which expresses that
the result of a computation is unique, no matter the order the rules
are applied.  Proofs and computations are therefore integrated in a
very simple framework.  When a set of rules does not have the
confluence property, it is augmented by new rules, using the so-called
Knuth and Bendix completion algorithm, until the property becomes
satisfied.  This algorithm requires the set of rules to have the
termination property, i.e., an expression cannot be rewritten forever.
It has been proved that this algorithm allows one to perform as
inductive proof without invoking explicitly an induction principle and
to solve equations (unification) in the corresponding equational
theory as well.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 84 16:15:12 PST
-FROM-
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course on reasoning about knowledge
-BODY-
I'll be teaching a course on reasoning about knowledge at Stanford
in the winter quarter, along much the same lines as [my IBM-SJ] seminar.
He are the details:

Reasoning About Knowledge (CS400B)
Knowledge seems to play a crucial role in such diverse areas as
distributed systems, cryptography, and artificial intelligence.
We will examine various attempts at formalizing reasoning about
knowledge, and see to what extent they are applicable to the areas
mentioned above.  In particular we will consider such problems as
resource-bounded reasoning, inconsistency of beliefs, belief revision,
and knowledge representation.  There is no text from the course; we
will be concentrating on current research.

Officially the course meets on Tuesdays in the winter quarter,
from 2:45-5:00.  I would be willing to consider moving that time
to another afternoon (although I suspect it might be hard to
reach agreement).  It might be nice to push the meeting time forward
to 1:30-3:45, so those interested can attend the CS Colloquium.
I've enclosed a brief (tentative!) outline for the course.  As of now,
the emphasis is on material I'm most familiar with (i.e., papers
I've written), but I would be interested in hearing suggestions
from participants in the course on other material to cover.
Auditors are welcome.

Week 1 and 2:  Philosophical background and thorough introduction to
               possible-worlds semantics for knowledge.
  References:  W. Lenzen, Recent work in epistemic logic, Acta
               Philosophica Fennica, 1978.
               J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, A guide to the modal logics
               of knowledge and belief, to appear as an IBM RJ, 1985.
Week 3:        The "knowledge structures" approach
  References:  R. Fagin, J.Y. Halpern, and M.Y. Vardi, A
               model-theoretic analysis of knowledge, in "Proceedings
               of the 25th Annual Conference of Foundations of
               Computer Science", 1984, pp. 268-278
Week 4:        Knowledge in distibuted systems
  References:  J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Knowledge and common
               knowledge in a distributed environment, in "Proceedings
               of the 3rd ACM Conference on Principles of Distributed
               Computing", 1984; IBM RJ 4421, 1984.
               R. Strong and D. Dolev, Byzantine agreement, IBM RJ 3714,
               1982.
Weeks 5 and 6: Resource-bounded and incomplete knowledge, relevance
               logic, the "syntactic approach"
  References:  H.J. Levesque, A logic of implicit and explicit belief,
               Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial
               Intelligence, 1984, pp. 198-202.
               K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
               Stanford University, 1984.
               R. Fagin and J.Y. Halpern, Knowledge and awareness,
               unpublished manuscript, 1985.
               S. Shapiro and M. Wand, The relevance of relevance,
               Indiana University Technical Report No. 46, 1976.
Weeks 7 and 8: Belief revision and non-monotonic reasoning
  References:  D. McDermott and J. Doyle, Non-monotonic logic I,
               Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 41-72.
               R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning,
               Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980, pp. 81-132.
               J. McCarthy, Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic
               reasoning,  Artificial Intelligence 13, Vol. 1,2, 1980,
               pp. 27-39.
               W.R. Stark, A logic of knowledge, Zeitschrift fur
               Mathematische Logik und Grundalagen der Mathematik 27,
               pp. 371-374, 1981.
               D. McDermott, Non-monotonic logic II: non-monotonic modal
               theories, Journal of the ACM, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1982,
               pp. 35-57
               R.C. Moore, Semantical considerations on non-monotonic
               logic, SRI Technical Note 284, 1983.
               H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
               bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
               Report No. 3, 1982.
               K. Konolige, Circumscriptive ignorance, Proceedings of
               the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1982,
               pp. 202-204.
               J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Towards a theory of knowledge
               and ignorance, Proceedings of Workshop on Non-monotonic
               Reasoning, 1984; IBM RJ 4448, 1984.
               R. Parikh, Monotonic and non-monotonic logics of
               knowledge, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
Week 9:        Knowledge bases
  References:  H.J. Levesque, A formal treatment of incomplete knowledge
               bases, Fairchild Technical Report No. 614, FLAIR Technical
               Report No. 3, 1982.
               K. Konolige, A deduction model of belief, Ph.D. Thesis,
               Stanford University, 1984.
Week 10:       Knowledge and cryptography; puzzles
  References:  M.J. Merritt, Cryptographic protocols, Ph.D. Thesis,
               Georgia Institute of Technology, 1983.
               S. Goldwasser, S. Micali and C. Rackoff, Knowledge
               complexity, unpublished manuscript, 1984.
               X. Ma and W. Guo, W-JS: a modal logic about knowing,
               Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference
               on Artificial Intelligence, 1983.
               D. Dolev, J.Y. Halpern and Y.O. Moses, Cheating spice
               and other stories, unpublished manuscript, 1984.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
182
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 84 21:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog for PC-type machines
-BODY-

Expert Systems Limited has a prolog for PC-type machines that seems
pretty good.  It is Clocksin&Melish compatible.  We've run it with
no problems on both a IBM-PC and a DEC Rainbow, so it will probably
run on any MS-DOS machine.  There is also a CP/M version.  This is the
prolog that Technowledge used to implement M1 in.  The home address for
the company is:

        Expert Systems Limited
        9 West Way
        Oxford OX2 OJB
        England

There is a U.S. affiliate, located in the Philadelphia area, that
has the US rights.  I don't have the address at the moment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 84 21:29 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Oxymorons, Pleonasms and various forms of Bull
-BODY-

Saul Gorn has published a compendium of material related to the recent
note on "Oxymorons, Pleonasms and various forms of Bull" that he has
collected in his 50 year career as a mathematician and computer
scientist.  It is available as "Self-Annihilating Sentences; Saul
Gorn's Compendium of Rarely Used Cliches"; Technical Report
MS-CIS-83-22.  It can be obtained by writing:

        Publications
        Computer and Information Science
        The Moore School
        University of Pennsylvania
        Philadelphia, PA 19104

Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 84 14:53:45 mst
-FROM-
From: jlg@LANL (Jim Giles)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contest
-BODY-
It's the first annual Complete the Book Title Contest ( no prizes awarded,
none were donated).

'Malgorithms + Data Scrambling = ___________________'

First prize (which is worth twice as much as the other prizes) will be
awarded to the person who guesses the author of the above work.

Send answers to jlg@lanl.ARPA and I will summarize.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 10:25:36 est
-FROM-
From: Dennis Perzanowski <dennisp@nrl-aic>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: erratum
-BODY-
Please be advised of the following correction in the address for the
Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence which was
recently broadcast:

     U.S. Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence
     Naval Research Laboratory - Code 7510
     Washington, DC  20375-5000

The address of the Civilian Personnel Office to which all resumes and
inquiries should be sent is correct as printed in the announcement.
Sorry for any inconvenience.  Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 84 12:46:37 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI News
-BODY-

The Institute, Volume 9 Number 1 January 1985 Page 10
Experts Envision New Applications for AI Technology on the Shop Floor
Describes work for automatically constructing part programs for milling.
Also discusses applications of AI to such industries as paperboard packaging
Proccedings on an Expert System Session of Autofact 6 are available
from SME, One SME Drive, P. O. Box 930, Dearborn, Mich. 48121 which includes
papers on these subjects.


Electronics Week, October 15 1984 page 14
Discusses various Fifth Generation projects in America and Japan


IEEE Computer November 1984 Volume 17 No. 11

Page 117 Three-paragraph review of the National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence in Austin by Elaine Rich

Page 114 summarizes talk by Robert Miller, senior vice president at Data
General, on "personal expert systems"

Page 65 The Library of Computer and Information Science is again offering
the three volume Handbook of Artificial Intelligence for only $4.95 as
a sign up bonus.


Electronics Week October 29, 1984, page 34
Discusses Quintus Computer Systems Prolog systems and development environments
for Prolog.


Electronics Week September 24, 1984 page 59
Interview with Larry Harris who is president of Artificial Intelligence
Corp., the people behind the Intellect natural language database interface


Communications of the ACM December 1984 Volume 27 Number 12 page 1227
Discusses a solution to the travelling salesman problem with thousands
of nodes.  The solution was used for determing paths in drilling holes in
PC boards.  Uses a cluster-based approach.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Dec 84 20:40:13-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE@MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Personal Assistants
-BODY-
     I agree with Henry Spencer that many claims from the AI community
are overblown, and that we need to maintain a healthy stance of
skepticism about the Next Big Revolutionary Breakthroughs that are
forecast every week.  However:

     (1) I don't think the present generation of outliners, natural
language interfaces, and free-form databases, which are some of the
basic building blocks of idea processors, are, as you insist, a "fad."
Products like Thinktank and Intellect are not vaporware: they have
firmly established themselves in the marketplace, and are not going to
disappear.  They are a permanent and welcome fixture in the world of
microcomputer and (in the case of Intellect) mainframe software.

     (2) Mitch Kapor's remarks about AI are not, as you put it, a lot
of "marketing hype." As I understand it, a company has been spun off
from Lotus which is doing serious research in natural language
processing.  That company will probably develop a product somewhat
like Intellect or Clout which will become an essential element in
future integrated software from Lotus.

     (3) A pencil and paper is fine, but I much prefer a Model 100 as
a portable device for recording and shaping notes and ideas.  A Model
100 with significantly greater memory, built-in idea processing
software, and a connecter to an optical disk storage device would, I
suspect, wean many people away from paper and pencils for good.

     (4) Building a powerful idea processor is very much a function of
available memory.  Framework, for instance, would be a much more
effective product if the quality of its word processor and database
management system could be raised to the level of ZyWrite II Plus and
MDBS III.  To acquire that kind of power would require an extra
megabyte or two of memory.

     (5) The privacy issue in regard to optical disks is a red
herring.  The federal government already has easy access to much of
the sensitive information which would be stored on a personal disk.  A
biodisk might give individuals an opportunity to know as much about
themselves as the government does.

>- Wayne McGuire <wayne%mit-oz@mit-mc>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Dec 1984 00:07-EST
-FROM-
From: Todd.Kueny@CMU-CS-G.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Very Inexpensive LISP Machine
-BODY-
I have recently been toying with the idea of very inexpensive lisp
machines (VILM).  The ideal VILM would support a hi-res display,
a keyboard, mouse, RS-232/422 interface, floppies (5 1/4 or 3 1/2 inch),
support interpreter, compiler, plus other handy functions (fasl,
debugger, trace, maybe an object language), provide a window package
(mulitple fonts, editor, etc.), be portable (so I can drag it back
and forth to work easily), and be able to support
as some sort of options: virtual memory with a hard disk (10M, 20M, or
whatever is cheap), ethernet, and different size physical memory (512K, 1M,
2M).

As I see it, the technology exists right now to build such a beast (by
"right now" I mean "order it from BYTE magazine").  The hi-res display,
keyboard, mouse, r2-232/422 and floppies are supplied by an Apple MacIntosh
(approximately $1700-2800).  The remaining non-optional stuff would be
supplied (initially) by a box similar in size to the Mac containing an
8 slot Multi-Bus card rack, power supply, fan,
M68010 processor card, ROM card (interpreter, compiler, other handy
stuff), RAM card or cards (512K or more), interface logic to talk to the
Mac (total < $5,000).

The LISP would be Portable Standard Lisp (PSL) which is
cheap, avaiable, and could be loaded into ROMS.  The Mac would
handle the display and filing functions. It would be portable
since the Mac will zip into a bag and so could the additional box.

Total cost would be around $8,500 to build from scratch (the
Imagine IMPRINT laser printers use this concept, so I know it's
workable).

Some tense hacking plus a disk controller card and 10-30M Winchester
could make a single process, virtual memory system possible
for an additional $5,000 (total price ~ $13,500).

Enhancements could include a bit-slice processor board with a real
instruction set, tape cartridge backup, more disk, and a real
operating system with files, multple processes, and ether/arc/apple
net.

My goal is a VILM which is affordable, flexible, and
able to support truly tense lisp hacking in a useful way.  Is there
any such thing out there?  I would like to correspond with anyone
having interest in VILMs (ideas, designs, hardware and software
implementations).

                                                        -Todd K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Dec 84 23:29:42-PST
-FROM-
From: Derek Sleeman <SLEEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligent Tutoring Systems course - Winter Quarter
-BODY-
    [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This course was given for the first time last session; this year the
course will have more of a workshop flavour.


Topic:  Some issues in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) CS 324X & Ed. 495X

Instructor:  D Sleeman

Time/Location: Winter Quarter: Wednesday, 4-6 p.m., Room 334 Cubberley
Audience: Graduate Students in Computer Science, Education & Psychology.
Prerequisites: Consent of Instructor required
Number of units: 2-3

The  seminar  will  highlight  research  problems  which  are   encountered
in
implementing automated teaching systems from principally, an AI perspective,
and
secondly from Cognitive Science and instructional perspectives.   In
particular
we  will  review the "traditional" CAI systems and the more recent activities
in
ITSs within these frameworks and point out the  current  perceived
shortcomings
which include:

        -  inappropriate feedback due to inadequate students models
        -  inadequate conceptualization of the domain
        -  unprincipled tutoring strategies
        -  user interaction with the system is too restricted

The systems which have concentrated on the issue of inferring a  student
model,
namely BUGGY and PIXIE (formerly LMS), will be studied in some depth.
Inferring
a model of a student's problem solving, even in a  restricted  domain,  is
very
complex as given N rules, there are potentially N!  models to be considered.
We
shall discuss how these  modelling  systems  have  addressed  and  "solved"
the
combinatorial  explosion  problem.   We  will  then  consider  how some of
these
techniques could be applied to the more general problem of modelling a  user
of
computer system/package.  The class will have access to several mini-versions
of
ITSs which have very recently been transferred to the IBM PC -- these include
a
version  of  BUGGY,  PROUST  and  the  instructor's  PIXIE  system.   Indeed
the
principal task for the class will be to implement  a  data-base  for  the
PIXIE
system.


The course will conclude with a discussion of open research issues in the area.

Literature:  Principal source will be  Intelligent  Tutoring  Systems,
Academic
Press  l982,  (eds.   Sleeman  and  Brown).  Additional BUGGY and LMS papers
and
selected papers from Mental Models Erlbaum, l983, (eds.  Gentner & Stevens).


Queries may be addressed to SLEEMAN@SUMEX, or 497-3257.

D.  Sleeman, 10 December l984

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Dec 84  1105 PST
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course on Computational Semantics - Ling/CS 276
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Computer Science 276 / Linguistics 276
Computational Models for the Semantics of Natural Language
Winter 1985
Terry Winograd

MWF 10-11, Terman 156 (televized)

In this course we will develop the theoretical basis for the implementation
of computer systems dealing with the meaning of natural language.  We
will cover a variety of semantic and pragmatic areas, developing three
aspects of each:

1) The formal theories relevant to the area, drawn from work in linguistics
   and the philosophy of language

2) Computational issues that arise, and the computational mechanisms that
   have been developed to augment or supplant the standard formal framework

3) Limitations of the formalization and problems in extending it to cover
   the full range of related phenomena.

Areas covered will include lexical meaning, compositionality, quantification
and reference, temporality, speech acts, and schematic structures.

I will describe a number of existing AI systems in light of these
theoretical foundations, but will not attempt to provide a comprehensive
coverage of the currently available systems or to deal in depth with
details of implementation.  The course is intended to serve as a basis for
understanding what is being done and what can be done, not as a practical
"how-to-do-it" course.

There will be three lectures a week, and some homework assignments.  There
will be a mid-term and a final exam.  No computer programming exercises or
project will be required.

There is no regular textbook.  Course notes will be duplicated and made
available, based partly on a textbook I am writing.

The course will assume a background (either prior, or through additional
study during the course) in two areas: formal logic and basic techniques
of artificial intelligence.  Two books are recommended:

  Logic in Linguistics, by Allwood, Andersson and Dahl,is recommended to
  anyone not already well versed in the logical formalisms used in
  semantics, including basic set theory, propositional and predicate logic,
  deduction rules, and rudiments of modal and intensional logic.

  Principles of Artificial Intelligence, by Nils Nillson, is recommended
  as an introduction to basic AI techniques for planning, deduction, and
  representation.

We will not cover most of this material in class, but will provide
tutorial opportunities for those students who need to fill in the
background as we go.  There are no other prerequisities in either
computation or linguistics, except for a general familiarity with concepts
of programming (as gained from any programming course or experience).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
183
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 84 21:53:17 est
-FROM-
From: 20568%vax1@cc.delaware (FRAWLEY)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science Dictionary
-BODY-

I recently spoke with a publisher about the possibility of compiling
a Dictionary of Cognitive Science. I'm sending out this preliminary
inquiry to you all to see what you think of the idea. I'd appreciate
responses to any or all of the following:

1. Is the idea of such a dictionary good, bad, ridiculous...?

2. Is such a dictionary a feasible project?

3. If the project is feasible, what areas of Cognitive Science
ought to be covered?

4. What do you think of the marketability of such a dictionary?

5. If the project is feasible, what form should the dictionary take
(i.e., standard dictionary form, encyclopedic form, etc.)?

You can send your responses via the AIList or to me directly.

Thanks,

Bill Frawley
Linguistics
U. of Delaware

20568.ccvax1@udel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 84 17:07:33 pst
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!darrelj@Berkeley (Darrel VanBuer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Very Cheap Lisp Machine
-BODY-
To be slightly partisan toward the machines I
use, Xerox Dandelions can be had for under $19,000 in some configurations.
For not much over the high end of the proposal in V2 #182, you GET the high
end machine (except addition of Ethernet and a display with 6 times the
pixels of the Macintosh).  About a third of the cost of a Dandelion is for
the Interlisp software (inferred from the unbundled Star price list).
This is a reasonable cost given the complexity of a full-blown display-oriented
Lisp environment and the (relatively) small market for Lisp machines.

Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2500 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Dec 1984 1757 PST
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox AI
-BODY-
Paul Erler's message reminds me: the latest Computerworld has a full-page
ad with the banner XEROX ANNOUNCES A 15-YEAR HEADSTART IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE.  It seems they're now selling and supporting what they call
the Xerox AI System.  It includes a combination of 1108 or 1132 workstations,
Interlisp D and LOOPS, and training as well as support.  Added info can be
gotten from
                        attn: AI Marketing, MS 1245
                        Xerox Special Information Systems
                        Artificial Intelligence Business Unit
                        250 N. Halstead St., PO Box 7018
                        Pasadena, CA 91109

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 84 06:24:05 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent AI Articles
-BODY-

New Scientist November 8, 1984 Volume 104 No. 1429 pp 10
Japan unveils its fifth generation


New Scientist November 15, 1984 Volume 104 No. 1430
AI is Stark Naked from the Ankles Up.  [An entertaining article
claiming that the emperor's new clothes (AI) consist only of
sneakers (20-year-old expert systems technology).  -- KIL]

Distributing Computing
APIC studies in Data Processing Volume 20
Edited by F. B. Chambers D. A. Dune G. P. Jones
Academic Press $22.50
The following titles in this compendium might be of interest:
  Using Algebra for Concurrency
  Reasoning about Concurrent Systems
  Functional Programming
  Logic Programming and Prolog

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 31 Dec 84 11:40:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Thinking Machines Corporation
-BODY-
From the January, 1985, issue of Omni, p. 33, by Edward Rosenfeld:

[...]
The latest fusion of acadame and venture capital is Thinking
Machines Corporation (TMC), a Cambridge, Mass., company that
boasts Marvin Minsky, cofounder of MIT's AI Laboratory and one
of the pioneers of AI, as one of its founders.

A group of investors headed by CBS founder William Paley has
reportedly put up a $10 million stake to get TMC off the ground.
AI insiders refer to the company as the Marv and Marv Show because,
in addition to Marvin Minsky, TMC has also acquired the services
of Marvin Denicoff, who formerly guided the AI programs at the
Office of Naval Research.

The company's first product, currently in prototype development,
will be the connection machine, a parallel-processing supercomputer
designed by W. Daniel Hillis, of MIT.  [...]

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 84 14:04:56 est
-FROM-
From: nikhil@mit-fla (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and the Shuttle
-BODY-

Here are some items of interest from Aviation Week and Space Technology:

++++ AWST Sep 17, 1984, page 79

Johnson Space Center (Houston) officials expect to use AI techniques in
future Shuttle missions, beginning late 1984 or in 1985.

The first use will be Navex, a "navigational expert system". Currently, the
navigation console position is manned in 4 shifts, with 3 controllers per
shift. Each person needs 2 years of training to make high-speed decisions
about shuttle velocity and trajectory.
JSC officials expect to man it with one controller per shift in conjunction
with Navex.

Navex is built on ART (Automatic Reasoning Tool), which is written in Lisp.
ART is a product of Inference Corp. of Los Angeles. Navex was developed by
Inference Corp. and LinCom Corp. of Houston.

++++ AWST Dec10, 1984, page 24

NASA will test Navex along with its human counterparts in Jan 1985. A Symbolics
computer will run in a lab near Mission Control at Johnson Space Center,
Houston, and will be wired to the navigator console position. They expect
it to make decisions about Shuttle velocity and trajectory six times faster
than humans.

By March, an AI program will perform Shuttle electrical system checks during
pre-launch ground preparations. The actual program is finished, but
documentation to explain it will take 3 months. (!!)

By late summer 1985, Johnson Space Center wil complete an expert system
that captures the expertise of a person whose job would be to talk the
shuttle down during re-entry if it were to emerge from a radio blackout
with malfunctioning navigation instruments. It will take 2 months to build,
and will run in Mission Control as an advisor to flight controllers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Dec 1984 1152-EST
-FROM-
From: Geoff Hinton <HINTON@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Massively Parallel Models of Intelligence
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      Advanced Course on:

           MASSIVELY PARALLEL MODELS OF NATURAL INTELLIGENCE

                  Geoffrey Hinton & Scott Fahlman

This is a 7 week advanced course. It meets from 11.30 - 12.50 on Wednesdays
and Fridays in 5409, starting on Wednesday Jan 16.  A reading list and a brief
description of each lecture will be available from Geoff Hinton on Jan 15th.

The course covers models of @b(search, representation,) and @b(learning) in
networks of simple processing elements that are richly interconnected.  The
emphasis will be on the computational properties of these networks, but we will
also cover the psychological and neurophysiological evidence for and against
various models.

SEARCH
The main search technique used in these networks is iterative relaxation.
Five different models of relaxation will be presented and their performance
will be compared on a variety of tasks including stereo-fusion,
surface-interpolation, shape-recognition, and figure-ground segmentation.
Other search methods will also be covered.

REPRESENTATION
To make efficient use of the representational capacity of massively parallel
networks, it is often necessary to use novel kinds of representation in which
individual processing elements do not have a simple relationship to the
concepts being represented.  We will cover methods of representing continuous
variables, high-dimensional feature spaces, spatial transformations, simple
associations, schemas, trees, production systems, and Clyde.  We will discuss
the interaction between representational efficiency and ease of search for each
kind of representation.

LEARNING
We will cover the history of attempts to make networks that learn by modifying
connection strengths, and show why these attempts generally failed or worked
only for very circumscribed domains.  The difficult problem in learning is to
construct @i(new) representations.  We will compare three different models that
create representations by modifying connection strengths.  We will also compare
these connectionist models with more conventional AI learning methods.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 84 20:57:01 cst
-FROM-
From: Kenneth Forbus <forbus%uiucdcsp@uiuc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Reasoning about the Physical World  (UIUC)
-BODY-
Course Announcement - U. of Illinois at Urbana

CS 497, Spring 1985
Title: Reasoning about the Physical World
Instructor: Ken Forbus

This graduate seminar will examine principles and methods developed in
Artificial Intelligence for reasoning about problems involving space, time,
processes, and action.  Topics include:  solving word problems; qualitative
physics; planning actions, experiments, assemblies, and routes; analysis,
design, troubleshooting, and control of engineered systems.  A solid AI
background will be assumed.

Outline:

1. Solving Textbook Physics Problems

        Survey of programs: Charniak's CARPS, Novak, Larkin,
                Bundy, de Kleer.

        Transformation from natural language to equations

        Symbolic algebra

2. Qualitative Physics

        Qualitative State representation: ontology,
                making predictions, correlating qualitative
                results with quantitative results, using
                qualitative reasoning to guide search for
                quantitative solutions.

        Qualitative Process theory: processes as mechanisms of
                change, influences as representation of equations,
                basic deductions sanctioned by QP theory, prediction,
                measurement interpretation.

        Qualitative System Dynamics: breakdown of processes when
                system connectivity becomes high, device-centered
                model for physics.  Confluences as representation of
                equations, constraint-satisfaction and propagation
                techniques for solving confluences.

3. Planning

        "Classical" AI planning: GPS, STRIPS, NOAH, MOLGEN.  Limitations
                due to inadequate models of time, space, and action.

        Modelling time: Histories and Chronicles.  Allen's interval-based
                formulation.  Vere's DEVISER. Theories of action.

        Modelling space: symbolic, metric, and analog representations
                of space.  The "visual routines" model of human spatial
                competence.

        Robot planning (routes): Configuration space approach and related
                computational problems.  Quantizing free space into
                 "freeways".

        Robot planning (assembly):  Symbolic analysis of errors.  Automatic
                insertion of inspection steps into assembly plans.

4. Engineering Problem Solving

        Analysis: Propagation of constraints, EL.  Qualitative
                analysis for functional recognition.

        Design: SYN, the role of causality in circuit design,
                circuit grammars.

        Troubleshooting: Digital electronics: Davis' group and the DART
                 project.  Continuous systems: SOPHIE.

        Control: Temporal logic for synthesizing control strategies.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
2

-N-
184
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 85 08:34 EST
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolic Algebra Package Request
-BODY-
I would like to obtain a symbolic algebra package which would run on
a VAX/Franz Lisp configuration.  Preferably, I like one in the public
domain.

D. E. Stevenson,
Department of Computer Science
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29631
(803) 656-3444

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed,  2 Jan 85 11:43:21 PST
-FROM-
From: Jan Steinman <jans@mako>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Jan Steinman <jans%mako.uucp@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Smalltalk Expert Systems
-BODY-

    Mike.Rychener@CMU-RI-ISL2:
    Does anyone know of any successful AI applications coded in SmallTalk?
    This was stimulated by the new Tektronix AI machine, whose blurb touts
    its SmallTalk as useful for developing expert systems.

Take a look at the Troubleshooter for the Tektronix 4404.  Although I am not
on the "inside" on this one, It is a rule based system written in Smalltalk.
One of the program's principles (Jim Alexander) is a Cognitive Scientist and
not, strictly speaking, a propgrammer, which attests to the ease with which
such things can be done in Smalltalk.

The Troubleshooter has two graphic and several text windows.  The graphic
windows present a schematic and a parts layout, each having little probes that
move from point to point.  A text window asks questions, such as "Is the
voltage at N19 high?"; the answers of such questions cause the probe(s) to
move to the next test point.  Other text windows can be opened on a parts
database, troubleshooting advice, and the actual rules program, among others.
(Remember, the full power of Smalltalk is always available, which is good and
bad!)  A window can be opened on a scope screen, which shows expected
waveforms at various points.

I have seen it; it works; it's fun!  I fixed stereos, transceivers, and color
TVs before getting into computers and know that half the battle in
troubleshooting is often using the service literature!  This application is
sort of a smart, graphics-based, hypertext service manual and would really be
useful.  It is not simply an interesting bit of AI research!

I AM NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT.  Although I don't want to seem anti-social,
please contact your nearest Tek field office for a demo and more information;
do not contact me!

:::::: Jan Steinman             Box 1000, MS 61-161     (w)503/685-2843 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans    Wilsonville, OR 97070   (h)503/657-7703 ::::::

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jan 1985 09:58:48-EST
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VILM
-BODY-

Todd,
We at NAVAIRDEVCEN are also interested in a Low cost portable LISP machine.
The MAC came up as a possible candidate. Could you please tell me more
about Portable Standard LISP (PSL) ?

We are currently considering implementing an EXPERT SYSTEM written in FORTH
which we would translate into MACFORTH. Unless an external high speed, high
capacity memory device can be utilized, the prospect of using LISP does not
look promising. Keep us informed on your progress.

                                   Ron Kushnier
                                     kushnier@nadc.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday,  3-Jan-85 12:20:36-GMT
-FROM-
From: JOLY QMA (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fermat's Last Theorem.
-BODY-

Does the reference to the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (Vol 2 # 181)
have anything to do with the incorrect proof of Arnold Arnold which
was reported in the Guardian newspaper in October/November 1984 ?

Gordon Joly

gcj@edxa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 85 15:12:10 est
-FROM-
From: hoffman%vax1@cc.delaware (HOFFMAN)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Cognitive Science Dictionary
-BODY-

I think it would be a good idea and might have a good market. I would
hate to be the one doing the compiling, though.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 85 13:01:25 est
-FROM-
From: chester%vax1@cc.delaware (CHESTER)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Cognitive Science Dictionary
-BODY-
A dictionary (with short definitions of terms) would have limited sales,
since it would only be useful to people who are already in the field or who
already have strong motivation to get in the field and are required to buy
it for a course.

An encyclopedia would be better, but I favor a format like that of The
Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, (Barr and Feigenbaum) or the Handbook of
Human Intelligence (Sternberg).  Such a work would appeal to people who have
a moderate interest in the field and might give them suitable orientation
and motivation to join us.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 18:12-PST
-FROM-
From: imagen!les@su-shasta.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TV and the 5th generation
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

In response to your 20 Dec. comments on "Personal Assistants", I can
confirm that the TV story is apocryphal.  I bought the Heathkit
television set for the Stanford AI Lab and it was completely assembled
within a few days after arrival, by gnomes not robots.  Aside from its
use for monitoring "Mary Hartman! Mary Hartman!" it served as a
display for computer-synthesized color images.

A creative student (Hans Morovec) shortly built a remote control ray
gun that worked rather well.  As I recall, that was a few years before
remote control became available on commercial TV sets.

As for the digs at the AI community by you and others, please do not
paint everyone with the same brush.  In any research field, the
lunatic fringe is much more likely to catch headlines and certain
government grants than those who speak rationally.  The Great Machine
Translation fiasco of the '60s was brought about mainly by the CIA's
slavering desire to leap ahead in an area where no one knew how to
walk yet.

An even greater fiasco was the series of "Command and Control" systems
assembled by the Air Force and others in the '50s, '60s, and '70s.
They wanted computers to run the military establishment even though
they hadn't mastered chess yet.  The reason that these largely useless
projects kept going was that the people involved were having a good
time (and making good money) and the Congress never seemed to
understand what was going on.

As for AI and 5th generation computers, I know of very few people in
the AI community who believe in any of that nonsense.  Nevertheless,
some will use it to pry larger grants out of the government or to sell
high-priced seminars to the gullible public.

What keeps happening, it seems, is that people take a few partially-
understood facts and principles then extrapolate a few light years
away and declare that it must be possible to do this new thing.  As
long as such activities are rewarded, they will continue to
proliferate.  Why settle for a trip to the beach when you can head
toward Andromeda?

        Les Earnest

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 Jan 85  2300 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Vistnes <RV@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reading machines & news
-BODY-
I seem to remember someone a while ago asking about the availability
of machines that could `read' a page of text with a camera and produce
computer-readable text.  In the latest issue of Fortune magazine
(Jan 7 '85, p.74) there's an article about speech recognition, and it
mentions that Kurzweil (formerly of MIT, I believe) let Xerox produce his
reading machine, and that this machine can read text in several
different fonts.  Maybe someone at Xerox can supply more information.

                - Richard Vistnes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 Jan 85  1107 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Upcoming conference submission deadlines
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

(details in file CONFER.TXT[2,2] at SAIL.)

7-Jan-85: IJCAI-85
10-Jan-85: VLSI-85
12-Jan-85: Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding
14-Jan-85: Logics of Programs 1985
15-Jan-85: Symposium on Complexity of Approximately Solved Problems
15-Jan-85: Workshop on Environments for Programming-in-the-Large
15-Jan-85: 1985 CHAPEL HILL CONFERENCE ON VLSI
18-Jan-85: Computational Linguistics
31-Jan-85: FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE
31-Jan-85: Conference - Intelligent Systems and Machines
4-Feb-85: CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE -- 1985
4-Feb-85: Sigmetrics '85
11-Mar-85: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN MACHINE TRANSLATION OF
        NATURAL LANGUAGES
1-Apr-85: Logic, language and computation meeting
29-Apr-85: FOUNDATIONS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (FOCS)
1-May-85: Expert Systems in Government Conference

You can get the file to your computer using FTP.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Jan 85 17:16:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representation and Presentation  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             CSLI SEMINAR
                 ``Representation and Presentation''
             Benny Shanon, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
     Wednesday, January 9 at 4:00 pm in the Ventura conference room

A series of arguments, drawn on the basis of various aspects of
psychological phenomenology are marshalled against the representational-
computational view of mind.  The argument from context marks the
unconstrained variation of meaning with context, hence the impossibility
of a full, comprehensive semantic representation; the argument from
medium points out that medium is an ineliminable contributor to meaning
and that a variety of psychological patterns do not allow for a
distinction between medium and message, hence they cannot be accounted
for by means of abstract, symbolic representations; the argument from
development notes that the representational view not only cannot
account for the problem of the origin in cognition, but that it leads
to unnatural and even paradoxical patterns whereby what is theoretically
simple is phenomenologically complex and/or developmentally late and
what is theoretically complex is phenomenologically simple and/or
developmentally early.  On the basis of these arguments it is
suggested that cognition be viewed as a dialectic process between two
types of patterns: representational and presentational.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 Jan 85  2347 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Rewrite Rules for Functional Programming   (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

2:00pm  Monday, Jan. 7
Room 1C-012 (in Building 28 at IBM)

Ed Wimmers
IBM Research San Jose

        What does it mean for rewrite rules to be "correct"?

We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite rules.  What would it
mean for such a definition to be correct?  We certainly want the rewrite rules
to capture correctly our intuitions regarding the meaning of the primitive
functions.  We also want there to be enough rewrite rules to compute the
correct
meaning of all expressions, but not too many, thus making equivalent two
expressions that should be different.  And what does it mean for there to be
"enough" rules?  We develop a new formal criterion for deciding whether there
are enough rewrite rules and show that our rewrite rules meet that criterion.
Our proof technique is novel in the way we use the semantic domain to guide an
assignment of types to the untyped language FP; this allows us to adopt
powerful
techniques from the typed lambda-calculus theory.

Host: John Backus


>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
1
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 Jan 85 20:49:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Extra! Extra! 1984 Had 371 Days!
-BODY-
Andy Freeman has pointed out to me that the previous issue, V2 #184,
should have been the first issue of Volume 3.  To set things to rights,
I hereby declare that January 5 was actually December 36, 1984.
This issue is thus the first of 1985, V3 #1.  Happy New Year!

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jan 85 15:31:54 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Is Xerox Punting D-Machines?
-BODY-
A recent Electronics News has an article suggesting Xerox will close
their Information Products Division in Dallas.  Isn't that where Dandelions
are made?  Is Xerox getting out of the lisp machine business?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jan 85 20:50 PST
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mac LISP and Kurzweil Scanners
-BODY-
In response to two separate postings  :

1) There is a company in Santa Barbara called ExperTelligence Inc. who
are purportedly developing a LISP (called EXPERLISP) for the MacIntosh.
The brochure I have says it "is available at your local Apple Dealer
beginning October, 1984".  'Nuff Said.

2) Yes, Kurzweil scanners (text reading machines) are being marketed by
a Xerox afilliate. Not knowing who to contact about them, I suggest you
speak to the local XEROX sales people in your area.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jan 85 10:48 PST
-FROM-
From: trauberman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Kurzweil Reader
-BODY-
I worked on the Optical Character Recognition system at Kurzweil, so
here's a brief description.  It was originally developed as a machine to
enable blind people to read books, in the late 60's by Kurzweil and
other MIT people. It uses a high resolution CCD motorized scanner to
scan the page, then multi-font recognition algorithms implemented in
machine language on a Data General Nova, to decifer the text, and a
speech system to read the text vocally.  The recognition system is truly
multi-font, using curve-searching and other very general algorithms,
some of which had previously been applied to handwriting recognition
problems.  As a result, the machine is capable of reading with adequate
accuracy, about half of all printed material.  Kurzweil has developed an
office product based on this technology for inputting printed text into
a database.  With some assistance from a secretary during the initial
reading phase, this product is quite effective.

                                David Trauberman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 6 Jan 85 20:07:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reading Machine
-BODY-
The December issue of IEEE Computer Graphics carries a short description
of a new document scanner from Electronic Information Technology, Inc.
It can be used to enter diagrams, pictures, and text into IBM PC and XT
systems, with other interfaces due soon.  The blurb implies that it also
has output capabilities, although I'm not sure what they are.  It does
have built-in optical character recognition for at least typewriter fonts.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 7 Jan 85 11:32:07 PST
-FROM-
From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!postmaster@uw-beaver.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolic Algebra Packages
-BODY-

>>  I would like to obtain a symbolic algebra package which would run on
>>  a VAX/Franz Lisp configuration.  Preferably, I like one in the public
>>  domain.

The symbolic computation system REDUCE 3.0, originally written in
Standard Lisp, has been ported to Franz Lisp to run on the VAX machine
under 4.2BSD.  Please contact me if you are interested in the system.

        uucp:       {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs}
                            !tektronix!tekchips!abdali
        CSnet:      abdali@tektronix
        ARPAnet:    abdali.tektronix@csnet-relay
        US Mail:    Kamal Abdali
                    Computer Research Lab, 50-662
                    Tektronix, Inc.
                    Box 500
                    Beaverton, OR 97077

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 85 10:13:44 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News - Recent Articles
-BODY-

New Scientist Nov. 29, 1984 Volume 104 No. 1432
Japan woos a wary Britain
describes efforts by the Japanese to acquire AI software from Britain
and to "cooperate" in AI research.


Cybernetica Vol 27 No 3 1984
THES/BID- the construction of a computer-based thesaurus for legal
informatics and computer law pp 231


Datamation January 1, 1985

Bringing AI Home Page 34
Describes efforts by various corporations in JAPAN in AI (as distinct from
the Fifth Generation Efforts) including a Prolog based VLSI system called
WIREX at NEC, a FUJITSU PROLOG/LISP system for hardware design.  Also
discusses American reactions to the Japanese international conference on the
fifth generation.

On page 15, the following letter appeared:
"Our product IF/Prolog has been available for VAX with Berkeley-UNIX since
September 1983, also beating DEC's PROLOG implementation.  During 1984 we
have ported IF/Prolog to 14 different computers including IBM's PC, VAX/VMS
and Eclipse/AOS.   We are currently working on a Prolog compiler to be
released during the first quarter of 1985."

                                Claus M. Mueller
                                President INterface Computer GmbH
                                Munich, Germany

Page 139,in "updates" section:
DM DATA estimates the AI market will grow from $148 million this year to
$28 billion in the 1990s.  Also discusses the need for systems to assist in
the knowledge transfer from experts to machines.


From the Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications March 20-22 1985
Advance Program:

Tutorial I on Expert Systems by George Luger March 20

Expert System Panel, "Artificial Intelligence Meets the Real World",
March 21 3:30 PM

10:30 AM
"Hector: A Logic Based Parser, Semantic Interperter, and Planner" March 21
"Sensors, Vision and Robtics: A Perspective"
"Vision Systems in Assembly of Semiconductor Devices"
"A Kinematic Computer Simulation System for Robotic Manipulators"

1:30 PM
"Prolog Interpreter for Industrial Use"
"Accounting and Billing Software Related to Computer User Satisfaction: An
Interactive Online Expert System Using Diagnostic Audit Trails Through
  Telecommunications Networks"
"Surface: An Application of Small Scale Expert Systems Using the DQR Format"

For more info contact PCCC-85  34 W. Monroe, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85003

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 6 Jan 85 20:45:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent IEEE Articles
-BODY-

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, December 1984.

A Report on the Vail Workshop on Human Factors in Computer Systems, by
Michael E. Atwood, p. 48:  Participants discussed ways of integrating
human factors knowledge with the initial design process for computer
systems.  Several of the conference subgroups proposed that expert
systems technology and knowledge-based prototyping be applied to interface
design issues.

Symbolic Processing Computer Handles AI Applications, p. 75:
A description of the IE Explorer LISP-machine, at $52,500 and up each.


IEEE Spectrum, January 1985.

Fuzzy Logic, a letter from David McGoveran, p. 8:
This is a reply to Lotfi Zadeh's article on fuzzy logic.  McGoveran
points out that the mathematical foundations of this discipline may
be "unsound".  He cites his own articles on fuzzy logic, claiming
that the approach is not a complete representation system and cannot
consistently represent hierarchical systems (because it blurs
distinctions of level and thus has no consistent metalanguage or
model).  He further states that fuzzy logic is commutative, distributive,
and not order-preserving, and hence is incapable of consistently
representing [noncommutative and/or nondistributive] systems that
depend on an ordering.

John D. Musa on Software, p. 37:
A few comments are made about AI papers at the 7th Conf. on Software
Engineering, particularly intelligent editors and tutoring aids.

Software, by Paul Wallich, p. 50:
Survey of the past year's developments in LISP, knowledge-based system
development tools, and ADA.  The various implementations of Common LISP
seem to be riding high with the defense community, and seven or eight
validated ADA compilers are now available.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jan 1985 11:48-EST
-FROM-
From: LEVITT@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART MEETING
-BODY-

THE SECOND MEETING OF THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON CHAPTER OF SIGART
WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY NIGHT, JAN.15 AT 730 AT THE KEY BRIDGE
MARRIOT IN ROSSLYN VIRGINIA.

IT IS BEING HOSTED BY GENE CARTIER OF SRA, (703)-558-5194.

I AM TEMPORARILY ACTING CHAIRMAN UNTIL ELECTIONS:  MR. LORE
LEVITT, (301)-964-8693 OR VIA THE ARPANET LEVITT AT USC-ISI.

LORE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:29:26 -0200
-FROM-
From: udi%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (Ehud Shapiro)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summer School at the Weizmann Institute
-BODY-
        The Karyn Kupcinet International Science School
        The Weizmann Intitute of Science
        Rehovot, Israel


The Weizmann Institute of Science's Annual Karyn Kupcinet
International Science School is accepting a small number of
science students (from second year) from overseas for
the summer of 1985 to participate in research projects in
mathematics, computer science, physics, chemistry, and biology.

A modest stipend and dormitory-style accomodation
near the campus are provided.
No travel funds are available.

Application forms may be obtained from the Academic Secratary,
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel.
Completed applications should be returned before February 15, 1985.


p.s.  Student application will be given to the relevant scientists
for review.  If you know Prolog, Concurrent Prolog, computer graphics, esp.
Sun graphics, its window system and operating system, familiar with the
Smalltalk or Lisp Machine programming environment, or simply want to come
to Israel for a summer, and willing to work hard for that, I will be glad to
have you here.  Please CC me on your application form.

As for equipment, we have here three VAX'es (two Unix and one VMS), two
Sun worktations (expecting several more), one Symbolics 3670 (expecting
one more), and several IBM and DEC PC's.  And (how could I forget) an IBM 3081.


Ehud Shapiro
Department of Applied Mathematics
The Weizmann Intitute of Science

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Jan 85 07:19:03-EST
-FROM-
From: Sidney Markowitz <SIDNEY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another malgorithm
-BODY-
Here's another malgorithm that comes from SIGPLAN NOTICES, Nov., '84,
in a letter citing its original publication in an earlier issue.
The author is making a case for avoiding backward-directed GO TO's in
FORTRAN, so as to make the program more "structured". To that end, he is
advocating replacing the following implementation of a WHILE-DO construct:

C     While condition is true, execute body
10    IF(.NOT. Boolean Expression) GOTO 100
C     Begin iterated body
            .
            .
            .
C     End iterated body
      GO TO 10

with the following "more structured" version:

C     CHOOSE N SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SO THE BOOLEAN EXPRESSION
C     IS TRUE BEFORE I = N.

      DO 10 I=1,N
      IF(Boolean Expression) GO TO 100
C     Begin iterated body
            .
            .
            .
C     End Iterated Body
10    CONTINUE
      TYPE *,'OOPS!PUT ANOTHER DO LOOP AROUND THE CURRENT ONE'
      STOP
100   CONTINUE

Notice what happens if you don't pick a sufficiently large N.
The original version apparently didn't even have the error message
in the TYPE statement.

>- sidney markowitz <sidney@mc>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 04 Jan 85  1132 PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Selker <EJS@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Better LISP Debugging Tools  (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        U       S       E
                      User    System  Ergonomics
        A human interface journal club and discussion group

                    Wed January 9, 12:00 PM
                 Margaret Jacks Hall, room 252
                      Stanford University

Chris Perdue from Hp Labs will come lead a discussion on
Henry Lieberman's Steps Towards Better Debugging Tools For Lisp
paper. Pick up a copy of the paper at The reception desk at
the Computer Science Department At Stanford.

Contact Ted Selker ejs@su-ai.arpa for information on USE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 85 13:49:36 -0200
-FROM-
From: scheff%wisdom.BITNET@Berkeley (scheff chaim)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mapless Networks  (Berkeley)
-BODY-
    The Weitzmann Institute of Science - Rehovot, Israel

       Seminar in Advanced Topics in Computer Science

                     Chaim-Meyer Scheff
will speak on

"General Description of Search Protocol for a Mapless Network"

The talk will take place on Sunday, January 13, 1985 in the Feinberg
Building, Room A, at 2:00.

Mapless Networks are asynchronous concurrent communication networks in
which each node in the network contains a current list of its own
internal user population but no node contains a user map of larger scope.
Which is to say, each node must operate according to its subjective view
in that there is no objective view to appeal to. This is a generalization
of Terrestrial Networks and similarly contains spanning tree and
leader-net schemes as special cases. Both load optimization and systems
relyability at minimum cost are the natural result of implementation;
which is provably upward compatible with existing architectures.
Portability of the search protocol to computational and communications
environments would suggest that mapless networks would provide a stable
model for the large scale integration of both into grand scale global
systems.                                                                  //

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
2
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 85 09:21:37 EST
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CommonLisp Documentation
-BODY-
Does anyone have ordering information for the "official" CommonLisp
specification (publisher, document number, cost, ...)?
Thanks for any help.
John Cugini <cugini@nbs-vms>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 85 15:45 PST
-FROM-
From: "S. Sridhar" <sridhar%wsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp in C or Pascal
-BODY-
I desperately need to port a Lisp interpreter to the HP 9000 (or HP 3000)
running 4.2 BSD Unix. For this purpose, I need that the interpreter be
written in C, or Pascal or any other machine-independent language.
Would anyone be kind enough to lemme know where I can get hold of such an
interpreter (or even a compiler) ?

 Thanks a lot.

           --- S. Sridhar (sridhar@wsu)
Washington State University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 85 07:59 PST
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mac LISP
-BODY-
Pardon me, I would like to correct the error in the posting I made
earlier. I quoted the ExperLogo brochure when I meant to quote the
ExperLisp brochure. What the relevant part of my posting should have
said was:

1) There is a company in Santa Barbara called ExperTelligence Inc. who
are purportedly developing a LISP (called EXPERLISP) for the MacIntosh.
The brochure I have says it "will be available for shipment in late
1984".  'Nuff Said.


My apologies to ExperTelligence.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 10:45:07-EST
-FROM-
From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mac LISP
-BODY-
ExperIntelligence is now predicting an April '84 delivery for their Macintosh
Common Lisp subset.  It should be lexically-scoped (unlike GC Lisp for the PC)
and will include a 68000 native compiler.  Development is being done on a
Symbolics LISPM and there will be some sort of object/class system.

They have also advertised a LOGO.  As I have never seen an Oct. 84 date
for the LISP, I have a feeling something got garbled in transmission. The
above information is straight from their technical support staff.  Jan '85
MacWorld has a quick bite on ExperLisp in their news section.

If this is for real (all of my info comes from the company, not from a
neutral source), I'll get a copy and post a review of it.  They seemed
nice enough....

                                wz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 85 14:54:59 EST
-FROM-
From: cowan@GE-CRD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Mac Lisp Machines
-BODY-

        There is a company in Santa Barbara called ExperTelligence Inc. who
        are purportedly developing a LISP (called EXPERLISP) for the MacIntosh.
        The brochure I have says it "is available at your local Apple Dealer
        beginning October, 1984".  'Nuff Said.

I met one of the ExperLisp developers at AAAI; they are making
effective use of a Symbolics (they wrote a mac cross-compiler) and their
goals are quite ambitious.  A SCHEME-like lisp interpreter was running in
August; I guess now they are working on the compiler and class inheritance
facilities.  December's "release date" was March, but if they really
are developing a truly easy to use object-oriented window system, it will
take longer.  When the gap between current date and "release date" narrows
to within two weeks, that's when to get next month's orders ready.

On a more optimistic note, it's pretty certain that sometime
in 1986, an Apple 68020 product running a completed Experlisp will be
available.  If the lisp is efficient, benchmarks indicate [see Deering, p. 73
of AAAI-84] that the combination could be 1/4 the speed of a 1984 Symbolics.

Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 85 09:48:20 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Conde.osbunorth@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Is Xerox Punting D-Machines?
-BODY-

Never! The Dallas operation made typewriters or something, and they are
moving to sunny Southern California. D-Machine will still be made.

DSC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 85 09:46:44 PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: GMeredith.es@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox D-Machines Alive and Well
-BODY-
The manufacture of the Xerox Dandelions has been moved to the building
across the street from us here in El Segundo, CA.  The production line
is in full swing and putting out high quality units.

Xerox has not given us any indication that the corporation will be
getting out of the lisp field.  In fact, a recent full page ad touting a
15 year headstart in AI experience indicates otherwise.

Guy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jan 85 15:39:01 EST
-FROM-
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: False Alarm on DLions
-BODY-
Xerox isn't going to stop making D machines.  They are apparently
quite profitable.  They are also continuing to make Stars, and will
reportedly come out with a much cheaper Star soon.  Dallas is being pared
back, but apparently not closed.

P. Dietz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 17:21:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI, Employment and Income  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                   ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S TINLUNCH
                      AI, Employment and Income

In a recent article in the AI Magazine, Nils Nilsson explores the
profound effects Artificial Intelligence is likely to have on
employment and the distribution of income.  He presents an economic
and a psychological reason for his opinion that we should greet the
work-eliminating consequences of AI with enthusiasm, since they will
liberate people from unfulfilling work without necessarily harming
them economically.  The article has drawn a number of interesting
responses, some of which have been published in a later issue of the
AI Magazine.  This issue also contains a reply by Nils Nilsson to the
readers' letters.  The variety of arguments, in the article and the
letters, both for and against an optimistic view of the social impact
of AI will serve as the basis for our TINLUNCH discussion.  Nils
Nilsson will be present.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 17:21:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - On Comparatives and Superlatives  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                  ABSTRACT OF THIS WEEK'S COLLOQUIUM

                 ``On Comparatives and Superlatives''

Consider a phrasal comparative like (1).

    (1) Little died earlier than Dolphy.

(`Phrasal' comparatives, as opposed to `clausal' ones, are those which
instead of a clause have a single phrase after ``than.'')  There are
(at least) two ways of approaching the semantic analysis of (1).  One
is to view ``than Dolphy'' as essentially an elliptical description
for a certain degree, viz. the degree x such that Dolphy died x-early,
and to construe the whole sentence as basically a comparison between
that degree and another one, namely the degree y such that Little died
y-early.  The other approach is to read (1) as primarily a comparison
between two people, Little and Dolphy, who are being compared with
respect to a certain `dimension'.  The dimension is earliness-of-death
and may be formally represented as a function from people to degrees
which maps every person x onto the degree y such that x died y-early.
This talk adopts the second approach and explores its empirical and
theoretical implications.  While the scopes of the comparison
operators themselves seem to obey constraints that have emerged from
studies of quantifier scope, this is not the case for the putative
scopes of certain other phrases.  To accommodate this finding, I will
draw on recent work by Rooth and suggest a refinement of the analysis
which recognizes a distinction between scope-assignment proper and
something like association-to-focus.              ---Irene Heim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 85 12:10:32 est
-FROM-
From: bellcore!walker@Berkeley (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on The Lexicon, Parsing, and Semantic Interpretation
-BODY-
THE LEXICON, PARSING, AND SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION


CUNY Graduate Center, Auditorium
33 West 42nd Street
New York, NY  10036


THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 1985

 8:30  Registration with coffee

 8:50  Welcoming
       Steven Cahn, Provost, CUNY Graduate School
       John Moyne, CUNY Graduate Center and Queens College

 9:00  Linguistic Lexicography
       Terence Langendoen, CUNY Graduate Center and Brooklyn College

10:00  How to Misread a Dictionary
       George Miller, Princeton University

11:00  Knowledge Management Support for Language Processing
       Charles Kellogg, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp.

12:00  Lunch

 1:30  Customizing the TQA Lexicon for Semantic Disambiguation
       Fredrick Damerau and David Johnson, IBM Yorktown Research

 2:30  Parse Trees as Lexical Projections
       Joan Bachenko and Eileen Fitzpatrick, Bell Laboratories

 3:30  Requirements on the Lexicon for Parsing and Generation
       Robert Ingria, Bolt Beranek and Newman

 4:30  Discussion

 6:00  Dinner at Peng Tengs, 219 East 44th Street


FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 1985

 8:45  Coffee

 9:00  The Nuts and Bolts of Lexical Access
       Martin Kay, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

10:00  Text Files as Sources for Creating an Augmented Dictionary
       Robert Amsler and Donald Walker, Bell Communications Research

11:00  The Lexical Base for Semantic Interpretation in a PROLOG Parser
       Roy Byrd and Michael McCord, IBM Yorktown Research

12:00  Lunch

 1:30  Lexicons for Conceptual Analyzers
       Michael Lebowitz, Columbia University

 2:30  The LSP Lexicon for Free Text Information Formatting
       Susanne Wolff, Joyce London and Naomi Sager, New York University

 3:30  Using a Lexicon of Canonical Graphs in Parsing
       John Sowa, IBM Systems Research Institute

 4:30  Closing


Advance registration is not necessary, and no fees will be charged for
the workshop.


ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:  Terence Langendoen, (212)
790-4574
                       John Sowa, (212) 309-1493, sowa.yktvmt.ibm@csnet-relay
                       Don Walker, (201) 829-4312, bellcore!walker@berkeley

Cosponsored by the City University of New York, IBM Systems Research
Institute, and Bell Communications Research.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jan 1985 12:34:16-EST
-FROM-
From: Linda.Quarrie@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI Student Volunteer Positions Available
-BODY-
The Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence will
be held from August 18 to 24, 1985, at the University of California at
Los Angeles.

The I.J.C.A.I. Local Arrangements Committee is looking for student volunteers
for the August 1985 conference.  Volunteers work approximately 8 hours during
the conference. Tasks include manning information desks, checking badges at
sessions, and distributing conference materials.  In exchange volunteers
receive a staff T-shirt, free registration at the conference, proceedings, and
free admission to any tutorials at which the volunteer works.  Additional
benefits include a party and great opportunity for meeting people from all
over the world.

Graduate students are encouraged to volunteer, and undergraduates are welcome.
Names will be taken for the next few months, with final assignments made
in July.  Tentative volunteers are welcome.  Volunteers will be taken on a
first come/first served basis, so reply now!

Reply to:

   Linda Quarrie

arpanet address:
     lindaq@cmu-ri-isl1.arpa

snail mail:
      Linda Quarrie
      The Robotics Institute
      Carnegie-Mellon University
      5000 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15213
phone:
     (412)578-8815
     (412)521-1968

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jan 1985  8:55:30 EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Charles Howell <m15434@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hospitality Suites for Expert Systems Conference
-BODY-
I am helping with local arrangements for the  Expert  Systems  in
Government Symposium, which  is being held October 23 ..  25 1985
in McLean VA. The conference will consist of a two day  symposium
preceded  by  an optional tutorial day.  The conference objective
is to allow the developers and implementors of expert systems  in
government  agencies  to  exchange  information and ideas for the
purpose of improving the quality of existing  and  future  expert
systems in the government sector.  The conference is sponsored by
the  IEEE  Computer  Society  and  the   MITRE   Corporation   in
cooperation with AIAA/NCS.

We  are  expecting  a  wide  variety  of  people  to  attend  the
conference.    I  am  specifically  interested  in  hardware  and
software vendors who would like to display their products  during
the  conference.   The  conference  will  be  held in the Tyson's
Westpark Hotel.  The hotel has a number of suites  available  for
vendor  "hospitality  suites".   If  you  are  interested, please
contact me. I'll put you in touch with the appropriate person  at
the  Tyson's Westpark, and  I'll also keep track of the amount of
interest from vendors.  If there is a lot, we may explore a block
reservation of some suites for the period of the conference.

Chuck Howell
(703) 883-6080             U.S.P.S.: The MITRE Corp.,
Howell at MITRE                      1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.,
                                     McLean, VA 22102
                                     Mail Code W459

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
3
-DATE-
Date: 01/10/85 12:20:46
-FROM-
From: PETERS@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme for 3600's?
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Not too long ago in these pages someone advertised Scheme for the 3600's.
I've forgotten who, can anyone provide the senders address?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jan 1985 11:22:58-EST
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VILM
-BODY-
Todd-
I just saw the new HP Pisces/200 computer. It looks like another candidate
for a low cost portable LISP Machine. Here are the specs:

Pisces/200 is a full function personal computer which integrates a printer,
full-size display, keyboard, and disc mass storage in a single transportable
package.

It is positioned as the transportable offering in the HP9000 product family and
represents the low-end product in the HP-UX strategy.

Target markets include engineers and technical professionals, and instrument
control.

HARDWARE FEATURES

* 8 Mhz Motorola 68000
* 256KB ROM (OS, Device Drivers, User Interface)
* 512K built-in RAM
* 8M address space
* 710KB 3-1/2" double-sided disk
* 255 x 512 Electroluminescent Display (up to 85 characters x 32 lines)
* 16 bit Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) Custom CMOS IC
* 32KB dedicated display memory
* Inkjet 80 column printer
* Detachable, low profile ITF keyboard with merged numeric keypad.
* Mainframe supports ITF Caravan devices via two connectors in front.
* PReal Time Clock
* Speaker
* HP-IB
* Briefcase size-upright configuration
* Two I/O slots, each capable of supporting I/O, Memory, or an I/O expander
* Weight 25 lbs

SOFTWARE

* ROM-based operating system  HP-UX/RO
* Multi-Tasking, single user
* Visual user interface, Multiple windows, menus & softkeys, supports 2 button
  mouse
* Foreign language localized

COST

* about 5K


I'm pushing the HP Rep to look into the AI market as a possible LISP machine

                                 Ron Kushnier
 kushnier@nadc.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Jan 85 11:32:16-EST
-FROM-
From: Wang Zeep <G.ZEEP%MIT-EECS@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ExperLOGO for the Mac
-BODY-
I just received a brochure on ExperLogo.  It included a press release
that said the Logo was to be released Dec. 17, 1984.  I called MacConnection
and they told me it was released, but that they had not yet completed
negotiations on price, etc. with ExperIntelligence.  The salesperson
quoted from the manual a few times, etc., indicating that it is a
real product.

ELogo includes arrays, 3d graphics, compilation, etc.  It requires
a Mac with an external drive, and uses LOAD-WHEN-NEEDED to run within
the 128K memory space.  I'm going to wait for their LISP, but anyone with
Macs and children may want to look into this.

                        Ken

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 85 11:47:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert Willis <rwillis@bbn-labs-b>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: CommonLisp Documentation
-BODY-
I assume you mean "CommonLisp" by Guy L. Steele, Jr.

The book is published by Digital Press [ 30 North Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803].
Order number EY-00031-DP.

You may either order from
        Digital Press/Order Processing
        Digital Equipment Corporation
        12A Esquire Road
        Billerica, MA  01862

        Title:  Stelle, COMMMON LISP
        Order No.:  EY-00031-DP
        Price (US only): $22.00  (add state sales tax to this amount)

        Method of Payment allowed:  check (payable to D.E.C.),
                                        purchase order, Master Card or Visa.
OR
You may call on the phone (toll free)
        1-800-343-8321 (In Massachusetts, 1-800-462-8006)
        from 8 AM to 4 PM  Eastern Time.  Have Master Card or Visa number
        ready.

Bob Willis
Bolt Beranek and Newman Laboratories, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 11 Jan 1985 13:10:51-PST
-FROM-
From: puder%bach.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (Karl Puder)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common LISP: The Language
-BODY-

From the frontispiece:

Copyright (c) 1984 by Digital Equipment Corporation.

        ...

Order number EY-00031-DP

        ...

Steele, Guy.
    Common LISP: The Language

    Includes bibliographical references and index.
    1. LISP (Computer program language) I. Title.
II. Title: Common LISP: The Language.
QA76.73.L23S73 1984      001.64'24      84-7681
ISBN 0-932376-41-X


Published by
    Digital Press
    30 North Avenue
    Burlington, MA 01803

I believe that the suggested retail price is $22.00

postal: Karl Puder, HL02-3/E09, DEC AITG, 77 Reed Road, Hudson, MA, 01749-2809
phone:  (1)(617)568-4979  |  ARPA:      puder%logic.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
DTN:    225-4979          |  EasyNET:   LOGIC::PUDER
UUCP:   ...!{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-logic!puder
CSNET?: puder%logic.DEC@decwrl.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jan 85 19:42 PST
-FROM-
From: Masinter.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox and the AI business
-BODY-
For those who want further evidence that Xerox is in the business, I
offer the fact that the Xerox Artificial Intelligence Systems business
unit is dramatically increasing the size of their development, support,
and marketing staffs. The development group, based in Palo Alto, has
projects in systems, communication, programming environment and language
development, text processing and graphics, applications, documentation,
as well as several different hardware integration projects. Of course, I
wouldn't want to use the Arpanet for overt recruiting....

Larry Masinter
(415) 494-4365

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Jan 85 17:21:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Mathematical Properties of Linguistic Theories
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                           NEW CSLI REPORT

A new CSLI Report by C. Raymond Perrault, ``On the Mathematical
Properties of Linguistic Theories'' (Report No. CSLI--84-18), To
obtain a copy of this report write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI,
Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 85 17:47:40 PST
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <judea@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: errata sheet for Pearl's HEURISTICS
-BODY-
I have prepared an errata sheet for my book HEURISTICS
(Addison-Wesley, 1984). If you wish to obtain a copy
please send me a message and indicate if you prefer a hard
copy or an electronic message.
                           Judea Pearl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 85 20:30:20 est
-FROM-
From: krovetz@nlm-mcs (Bob Krovetz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: online technical reports
-BODY-
The following is a list of people who can be contacted at various sites
on the net for ordering technical reports.  I've tried to determine who
is the site contact, whether they have an on line bibliography, if they
have a mailing list for notification of new TR's, and if the TR's themselves
are available on line.  If anyone knows of this information for any sites I
haven't mentioned, please send me a message and I will post a followup to the
net.  Note that the mailing lists mentioned are U.S. mail, not electronic!
Online bibliographies at the various sites may be FTP'd by logging in with
id: ANONYMOUS and password GUEST (this only applies if you are on the ARPANET)


Yale:     Donna Mauri (MAURI@YALE) is the contact person for AI or cognitive
          science reports.  There is no online list of those reports, but she
          can send a hard copy list.  For non-AI/cognitive science reports
          the contact person is Kim Washington (WASHINGTON@YALE).


CMU:      No online list, however they do have a mailing list for
          notification of recent TR's.  TR's can be ordered over the net.
          The contact person is Sylvia Hoy (HOY@CMU-CS-A).


MIT:      There is an online list, but the publications office is undergoing
          a restructuring, so it isn't available at the moment.  A contact
          for ordering the TR's will be established at some future time.


SRI:      No online line of just the report names, but there is a list of
          the reports plus abstracts.  Tonita Walker (TWalker@SRI-AI) is
          the contact person.  Many of the reports are available for FTPing.


UTEXAS:   A list of current reports is in {UTEXAS}<cs.tech>TRLIST.  A
          master list of reports still in print is under MASTER.TR.  Many
          of the current reports themselves are also available in the
          above directory, but they contain text formatting commands.
          The directory contains a file READ.ME which tells which text
          formatter was used for which reports (SCRIBE vs. NROFF).
          Reports may be ordered by sending mail to CS.TECH@UTEXAS-20.


BBN:      No reports or list online (no list even in hard copy).  Contact
          author directly about getting a copy of the TR.


PARC:     Maia Pindar (PINDAR@XEROX) is the contact person.  An online
          copy of the bibliography is not available at the moment, but
          Ms. Pindar may be contacted to obtain a hardcopy.


Rutgers:  Contact Christine Loungo (LOUNGO@RUTGERS) or Carol Petty
          (PETTY@RUTGERS) to obtain reports.  They maintain a mailing
          list to distribute notices of the TR's and the abstracts.
          The abstracts of recent reports are online and under:
          {RUTGERS}<library>tecrpts-online.doc.


ISI:      Lisa Trentham is the contact (LTRENTHAM@ISIB).  There is a list
          of the available reports under {ISIB}<BBOARD>ISI-PUBLICATIONS.DOC


Stanford: Stanford reports are issued by four sources: the HPP (Heuristic
          Programming Project), the AI lab, the Center for the Study of
          Language and Information (CSLI), and the Computer Science
          Department.  HPP reports are available without charge by contacting
          Paula Edmisten (EDMISTEN@SUMEX).  Please be reasonable with your
          requests; no more than 15 at a time! There is no online bibliography
          available, but a hard copy may be requested.  There is an online
          bibliograpy of AI lab reports in AIMLST in [BIB,DOC]@SU-AI.  Some
          of the reports are available online and are so indicated in the
          bibliography.  Reports from CSLI may be requested from Dikran
          Karagueuzian (DIKRAN@SU-CSLI).  A bibliography of the reports
          is stored under {SU-CSLI}<CSLI>CATALOG.REPORTS.  CSLI will also
          be issuing lecture notes, and a bibliography of these will be under
          {SU-CSLI}<CSLI>CATALOG.LECTURE-NOTES.  The reports are
          available without charge, but there is a charge for the lecture
          notes.  There is also a charge for reports published by either
          the AI lab or the Computer Science Department, but information as
          to cost and/or availablity may be sent to Kathy Berg (BERG@SU-SCORE)
          A bibliography of CSD reports from 1963 to 1984 is available for
          $5.00.  The department maintains a mailing list for notification
          of new TR's.  You can be added to it by contacting Kathy Berg.
          Updates are sent out about five or six times per year.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 85 18:24:11 est
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn@tove>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: PBS Series on the Brain
-BODY-
        From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
        Subject: Re: PBS Series on the Brain

        Well, I'm not really familiar with the field -- and introspection
        is risky.  Chris Heiny also questioned infantile amnesia, but
        Minsky wrote in support of the concept (V2 #173).  I do find
        it strange that I have so few memories of the early years (well
        into grade school, in my case), whereas I certainly stored a
        great many long-term memories at the time.


[...]
I was catching up on old AILIST mail, and I responded to your month-old note
before seeing all the responses it had already generated.

However, having gotten started on it:

I have various memories of events going back to when I was no older than one
or two.  I really don't know "how many" such memories I have--different
memories come to mind at different times and in different contexts.  The
reason I know that they were before I was 5 was not (as someone on the net
was theorizing) because of any special quality to them, but rather because
of WHERE they occurred:  in houses and towns that we lived in when I was
that young.

For me, the farther back I go the fewer readily accessible memories I
have--but the only kind of "quantum jump" I see in how hard it is to
remember things is that I don't think I remember anything that occurred
before I was about 1-1/2.  Now, that COULD be related (as someone on the net
was theorizing) to lack of language skills before that time, but I doubt it.
Memories for me are more often visual/aural/olfactory/conceptual than
verbal.  I suspect it was more likely related to lack of general conceptual
skills.

Do you suppose that for some reason you might be suppressing some of those
early memories?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01/13/85 03:10:12
-FROM-
From: KMP
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Garbage Collection in a Large Lisp System  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

On Monday (Jan 14), the AI Lab's IAP seminar series on
Advanced Topics in Lisp will host an invited talk by
David Moon about ``Garbage Collection in a Large Lisp System.''

The abstract for this talk (from a paper which appeared in this
summer's ACM Lisp & Functional Programming Conference) follows:

 This paper discusses the garbage collection techniques used
 in a high-performance Lisp implementation with a large virtual
 memory, the Symbolics 3600. Particular attention is paid to
 practical issues and experience. In a large system, problems
 of scale appear and the most straightforward garbage collection
 techniques do not work well. Many of these problems involve
 the interaction of the garbage collector with demand-paged
 virtual memory. Some of the solutions adopted on the 3600 are
 presented, including incremental copying garbage collection,
 approximately depth-first copying, ephemeral objects, tagged
 architecture, and hardware assists. We discuss techniques for
 improving the efficiency of garbage collection by recognizing
 that objects in the Lisp world have a variety of lifetimes.
 The importance of designing the architecture and the hardware
 to facilitate garbage collection is stressed.

The talk will be at 2pm in the 8th floor playroom. All are welcome.
No previous attendance at these seminars is required.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
4
-DATE-
Date: 9 January 1985 09:49-EST
-FROM-
From: Jon C. Haass <JONCH @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TeX indexing program
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am very interested in finding a program which will produce an index of
specified keywords in a (or several) TeX files. In order to know the page
numbers the input would be either a press (or dvi) file, the output
would preferably be the list of words with all pages on which they occur.
The environment of choice is UNIX 4.2 .

If you have information leading to the acquisition of such, I would be glad
to offer at least a free lunch! If you have a proof that one does not exist
that would also be of interest.

Thanks..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jan 1985 20:52-EST
-FROM-
From: cross <cross@wpafb-afita>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: micro LISP for short course?
-BODY-
I am setting up a short course in AI concepts and programming
techniques. The course will be five weeks long. I want the course to be
laboratory intensive and representative of development and
laboratory environments using LISP machines. Because of monetary
constraints I can only afford IBM XT's. It seems Golden Hill COMMON
LISP is a good piece of software to build the course around - fairly
compatable with Zeta-LISP (I even hear that someone has an interface
that enables programs to be transferred from an IBM machine to a 3600).
Any comments anyone has about this programming environment or
suggstions for a better one given the constraints would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks.

Steve Cross

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 85 17:09:05 cst
-FROM-
From: neves@wisc-rsch.arpa (David Neves)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI course suggestions?
-BODY-
I'm teaching an undergraduate AI course this semester and would like
to get/share some ideas with others in a similar situation.  Part
of the course is Lisp programming projects.  Last semester I had
3 projects.  The first was the 8-puzzle (A*).  I am thinking of
replacing it with a simple game (and alpha-beta search).  Anyone have
any good ideas or experiences with a 2-person game that is easy to
represent and which doesn't have many rules?  The second program was
a SIR-type program teaching about semantic nets.  I'm not all that
happy with it and am thinking about a program on frames.  Ideas
here?  The last program was an ATN and I'm happy with that.  I
am looking for an idea for one more program though.

For the course I used Rich (for the AI part) and Wilensky (for the
Lisp part).  Rich is very comprehensive although some parts are
confusing to students.  It is also used in the graduate course here.
The other alternative is Winston's AI book (the 2nd edition).  Have
others had good experiences with it?  It seems easier to understand
than Rich but doesn't cover nearly as much material.  Another book
I like is Raphael's book (The thinking computer).  It is somewhat
dated but might be appropriate for a lower level (or non computer
science) course.

I'm trying Winston&Horn (for Lisp) this semester because they seem to have more
examples and a somewhat better style (LET's and DO's).

>Thanks, David Neves

...!{allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!neves
neves@uwvax

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jan 85 18:01 PST
-FROM-
From: Sheil.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Sheil.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Rumor
-BODY-
Xerox moved most of its workstation manufacturing from Dallas, Texas to
El Segundo, California quite some time ago, so the changes at Dallas
will have no impact on 1108 (Dandelion) production.  And, no, we're not
getting out of the Lisp machine business!

Beau Sheil
Xerox Artificial Intelligence Systems

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 85 07:09:43 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
Computer Design: Volume 23, Number 13 November 84
Single-User Symbolic Processor Cuts AI Systems Cost by J. Bond


Datamation January 15, 1985 page 69 from their "Worldwide" section.
"TOKYO - Hot on the heels of the phantom fifth comes word of Japanese
efforts to go after Josephson Junction Lisp machines, and biological chips
that would fuel the sixth generation.  Following the familiar form without
substance format are recommendations in a confidential report [of] Japan's
Science & Technology Agency that plant seeds for biocomputer research."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 31 Dec 1984 10:18-EST
-FROM-
From: munck@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Overblown Expectations for AI
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

   Les Earnest's report that sanity still exists in the "real" AI
community, despite the fantastic pronouncements surrounding it, was
long overdue.  However, I must quibble with his use of past tense in
describing the attempts at AI "Command and Control" systems by the Air
Force and others.  They've changed focus slightly, but they're still
around.

   Specifically, it's a widely-held belief in the DoD that our
problems with building large software systems will be solved - more
accurately, circumvented - within a decade by AI.  They believe that
AI systems will be able to listen to an hour or so of verbal
description of, say, an air-defense system and then produce overnight
the million-odd lines of code to implement it. Normally, I'd classify
this belief as relatively harmless, like those in the Tooth Fairy, the
Star Wars initiative, and Santa Claus, but it has a chilling effect on
work on practical, people-writing-code methodologies.  I have no doubt
that there is a great deal of the programming task that can be taken
over by computers using AI techniques, but the state of the art is
that many people are not convinced that compilers can be used to free
humans from doing register allocation.

   Fusion research uses the criterion of "break-even," the point at
which a reactor produces more power than is needed to run it, as a
goal. I suggest that a similar measure could be applied to AI systems
and the field as a whole. What AI systems have saved more human effort
than was needed to produce them?

           -- Bob Munck

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 85 12:52:32 EST
-FROM-
From: Morton A Hirschberg <mort@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  PBS Series on the Brain
-BODY-
  I am glad that Dana has brought up the series on the brain.  When I was
studying psychology with an emphasis on personality, some 15 years ago, the
very subject of infantile amnesia arose.  We, the professors and students in
the seminar, felt that it was a true phenomena.  Indeed we also felt it was
very unusual for people to have no memories until well into grade school.  It
does seem that there is the likelihood of either/or suppression or repression
at work in these cases.

  Often the early memories are of a traumatic nature and are of a single
incident rather than recurring events.  Although basically a Freudian, I am
not convinced that a single incident is responsible for latter behavior.  I am
more of the mind that several events or the entire gestalt or ambiance of the
environment are responsible.  Serious traumatic events lead to the phenomena
of multiple personalities.  Here we see that various personalities have no
recollection for long periods of time, although I am not suggesting that
everyone who has no childhood memories is a multiple.

  I also recall that some myelination occurs about the time that language
skills develop so there seems to be a correlation between lack of language
skills and early memory.

  If you had early conceptual memories more power to you.  I would agree
with visual/olfactory which seems to make us reminisce, have feelings of
deja vu, and when we get older feel maudlin.

  Remember there are great individual differences so that a wide range can be
expected.  Don't feel that you are bonkers if you have no early childhood
memories (unless supported by other evidence.)

  Is there no personologist who can shed some further light here?
Side issues such as multiple personalities are so fascinating.

  Mort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jan 85  1236 PST
-FROM-
From: William K. Erickson <WKE@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Announcement / Call for Papers
-BODY-

                     Call For Papers

******************************************************************

                  SPACE STATION AUTOMATION

  to be held in conjunction with the International Conference on

         INTELLIGENT ROBOTS AND COMPUTER VISION II

******************************************************************
Part of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers' (SPIE)
1985 Cambridge Symposium on Optical and Electro-Optical Engineering


15-20 September 1985
Hyatt Regency Cambridge
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Chairman:  Wun C. Chiou, Sr., NASA/Ames Research Center

In the next decade an increasing amount of research will be
devoted to the applications of artificial intelligence and
robotics technology to space station automation.  The purpose
of the conference is to bring together researchers in the areas
of artificial intelligence, image science and robotics who are
working on various aspects of space station automation.  Papers
on the following and related topics as applied to this unique
microgravity, high vacuum, high radiation environment are invited.

Topics of interest include:

        * Space automation and tele-science
        * Image understanding and scene analysis
        * Machine/computer vision
        * Autonomous/self-organizing systems
        * Hardware architecture designs
        * Knowledge-based expert systems

If you are interested in participating in this conference, please
leave your name and address at the SPIE Registration Desk, or
contact:

        Cambridge 1985
        SPIE
        P.O. Box 10
        Bellingham  WA.

        telephone:  (206)676-3290


Abstract Due Date:    April 15, 1985
Manuscript Due Date:  August 19, 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 14:13:55-PST
-FROM-
From: P. Cheeseman <cheeseman@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Probability in AI
-BODY-

                         CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

  "Workshop on Uncertainty and Probability in Artificial Intelligence"

                      Sponsored by:  AAAI and IEEE
           University of California, Los Angeles, California
                   August 14 through August 16, 1985


     The  workshop will  explore the  use of  probabilities for decision
making  in AI systems.  In  particular, topics such as  the induction of
"theories"  from  uncertain  data,  coupling  to  decision  theory,  the
accuracy   of   probability  values,   and   computerized   "subjective"
probability estimation will be examined.  Participants are encouraged to
submit papers or join the discussions on the following topics:

     *  Probabilistic Induction and Machine Learning

     *  Higher Order Probabilities (or accuracy of probabilities)

     *  Probabilities   and  "Subjective"   Estimates  (people  and
        machines)

     *  Techniques for Probability Evaluation

     *  Foundations of Probability Theory for AI

     This workshop has been designed to provide an atmosphere which will
foster  not  only  the  exchange  of  information,  but  also  extensive
discussion and participation by all involved.

Paper Submission Details

     Authors  should submit  two copies of  an extended  abstract to the
program chairman  by April 6 for consideration  by the review committee.
Each copy  should  include  a title,  the  names  and addresses  of  all
authors,  as well as  a primary topic from  the above list.   One of the
authors should be identified  as the principal contact.  Acceptance will
be   based  on   originality  as   well  as   significance  of  research
(Notification by  April 27).   Complete  papers should  be sent  to  the
general chairman by June 1 for distribution at the workshop.

Program Committee:  Lotfi Zadeh        Judea Pearl     Laveen Kanal
                    Peter Cheeseman    John Lemmer

Program Chairman:        General Chairman:      Arrangements Chairman:
John Lemmer              Peter Cheeseman        Rob Suritis
PAR Technology Corp.     SRI International      Par Technology Corp.
220 Seneca Turnpike      333 Ravenswood Ave.    220 Seneca Turnpike
New Hartford, NY 13413   Menlo Park, CA 94025   New Hartford, NY 13413
(315) 738-0600 x322      (415) 859-6469         (315) 738-0600 x233

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
5
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 85 16:01 EST
-FROM-
From: Araman@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PORTING OF LOOPS
-BODY-
I would like to know whether LOOPs has been ported on to the Symbolics
3600.  I would also like to know whether it has been converted to
ZETALISP or has been ported using the INTERLISP COMPATABILITY PACKAGE.
Pointers, names & phone nos.  would do.  thanks in advance -sankar (617
671 3018)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 17 Jan 85 00:33:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Sam Hahn  <SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for PC
-BODY-
If you're using PC's and looking for a Lisp, I'd suggest
TLC-Lisp, from The Lisp Company.  I myself have not used GCLisp,
but have been quite impressed with TLC-Lisp, which has a compiler,
an object-class system, packages, auto-load entities,
and costs less than half what GCLisp costs.

TLC is John Allen's (The Anatomy of Lisp) company, located in
Redwood Estates, CA.  I have no connection with TLC except as
a customer.

                                -- sam hahn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jan 85 0228 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: review of Golden Common Lisp
-BODY-
This is a review of Golden Common Lisp; I was one of its beta test users.  I
first got involved with GCLisp when I contracted to develop an intensive
week-long tutorial on Common Lisp to be marketed nationally by Carnegie
Group, Inc.  The tutorial is designed to be held in a classroom full of
Compaq Plus computers (PC/XT clones) with 640K of memory and 10.5 MB hard
disk drives, running Golden Common Lisp.

I'm used to working on a Symbolics 3600, yet find I am quite comfortable
moving to the PC using this software.  GCLisp is a very respectable subset
of the Common Lisp dialect.  It includes DEFMACRO, generalized variables
(with SETF, etc.), one-dimensional arrays, named structures, closures,
stack groups, multiple values, lambda lists with &optional/&rest/&aux
keywords, a window package, FORMAT, the sharp sign and backquote macro
characters, i/o streams, and pathname objects.  The online documentation
facilities are excellent.  Example:  you can start to type in a Lisp
expression at top level, like

        (+ foo (nth

and, if you forget the order of arguments to the NTH function, you can
hit meta-L and the system will look at the expression you are typing,
find the documentation for the NTH function, and display its argument
list.  The GMACS editor (a descendant of Emacs) is reasonably powerful
and contains its own online help facilities.  Some of the other programming
tools provided are TRACE, STEP, DOC, APROPOS, DESCRIBE, and a pretty printer.

Now, here are the negative aspects of GCLisp.  First, it is not a full
Common Lisp implementation.  Missing features include:  ratios, bignums,
complex numbers, many FORMAT and # options, some of the sequence functions,
most of the optional keyword arguments to sequence functions, hash tables,
character objects, user-defined packages, and keyword arguments in
user-defined functions.  Of course, if Gold Hill had crammed a complete
implementation onto the PC there would be no room left for user code or
data structures.  I think they did a good job of deciding which parts of the
language to omit.

Another shortcoming of GCLisp is that it is dynamically scoped (like
MacLisp) rather than lexically scoped (like true Common Lisp).  This choice
was made for efficiency reasons; it is hard to do efficient lexical scoping
in an interpreter.  Case in point:  at AAAI-84 I saw a PC running GCLisp
outperform a Vax running interpreted Vax Common Lisp; both were executing a
recursive Fibonacci function, but the Vax was using lexical scoping.  Also,
to be fair, it was an early version of Vax Common Lisp which wasn't yet
tweaked for speed, and the Vax was using 32 bit arithmetic while the PC
used 16 bits.  But on the other hand, the PC wasn't just slightly faster
than the Vax; it was a good deal faster.  The folks who created T use a kind
of pre-compilation hack to interpret lexically scoped code efficiently.  As
far as I know, no Common Lisp implementation uses this trick.

There is a GCLisp compiler in the works.  The first release is due in
30-60 days, although that might be just a beta test version.  A random
comment one of the Gold Hill people made to me suggests that when the
compiler is ready they might decide to switch to lexical scoping.

A third criticism of GCLisp is that you can't buy just the Lisp; it is
bundled together with a piece of tutorial software known as the San Marco
Lisp Explorer, plus copies of two books (Steele's Common Lisp manual and
the 2nd edition of Winston and Horn.)  If you already know Lisp, and you
already have copies of these two books, you have to buy the extra stuff
anyway.  I don't know exactly how much the bundling adds to the $495 price
of GCLisp ($395 for academic institutions), but I hope Gold Hill will
reconsider this decision.  For large institutions, a site license is
available that permits unlimited copies.  We are presently arranging to get
one for CMU; we plan to move two Lisp courses (one for novices and one for
experienced programmers), and the Lisp segment of a third course, onto PC's
using GCLisp.  This will provide better computing resources and a higher
quality environment than what is available running MacLisp on our
well-loaded academic DEC-20's.

GCLisp needs at least 512K to run, and you really ought to have 640K (the
max addressable on a PC) in order to use the system to its fullest without
running out of memory too quickly.  You don't have to have a hard disk,
although it helps.  On the new PC/AT, GCLisp can address up to 1 megabyte of
memory.  (You can put up to 3 meg on an AT, but Gold Hill uses some of the
bits in each 32 bit address for type codes and other stuff, so only 20 bits
are available for addressing.)

Gold Hill's address is:  Gold Hill Computers, Inc., 163 Harvard Street,
Cambridge, MA, 02139.  Telephone (617) 492-2071.

In summary:  this is a superb product.  It puts state-of-the-art Lisp
programming technology into the hands of anyone who can afford a PC.

>- Dave Touretzky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 17:31:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Implementation of Functions in LISP
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                              NEW CSLI REPORT

A new CSLI Report by Michael P. Georgeff and Stephen F. Bodnar, ``A Simple
and Efficient Implementation of Higher-order Functions in LISP'' (Report
No. CSLI--85--19), has just been published.  To obtain a copy of this
report write to Dikran Karagueuzian, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or
send net mail to Dikran at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 85 06:28:48 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent UTexas Reports
-BODY-
                    Technical Reports
U. T. Austin

TR-84-29 Translating Horn Clauses from English Yeong-Ho Yu

TR-84-30 Automated Proof of a Trace Transformation for a Bitonic Sort
         Chua-Huang Huang and Christian Lengauer

TR-84-33 From Menus to Intentions in Man-Machine Dialogue Robert F. Simmons

TR-84-35 Modelling Concepts for VLSI CAD Objects
         D. S. Batory and Won Kim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 17 Jan 85 17:30:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Communications of the ACM, January 1985.

IJCAI Award for Research Excellence Announced, p. 123:
$1000 plus expenses to be awarded every second year to honor
sustained excellence in AI research.

AFIPS Publishes Volume on Artificial Intelligence, p. 123:
Describes "Artificial Intelligence", volume VI in the AFIPS
Information Technology series, a collection of NCC and joint
USA/Japan Computer Conference papers edited by Oscar Firschein
[then at Lockheed, now at SRI].  AFIPS Press Department, 1899
Preston White Drive, Reston, VA  222091, $23 (plus $3.50 if not
prepaid).  [The collection includes three 60's papers on solving
geometic analogy problems, decomposing line drawings in 3-D
polyhedra, and representation in GPS; five on knowledge engineering
and expert systems; two on planning and problem solving; two on
AI languages; six on applications; and six on image understanding.]


IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, January 1985:

Consensus Bibliography Technique Aids Access to Literature, p. 94:
Ware Myers describes a series of annotated bibliographies being
compiled by John L. Burch's Ergosyst Associates.  (No address is
given, but they have a division called the Report Store, 910
Massachusetts St., Lawrence, KS 66044, that sells copies of the cited
documents.)  The company identifies top people in a field and
uses the sources they cite as the core of their bibliography.
Each citation they include is accompanied by a capsule review of
about 1 or 2 pages, and the volume as a whole has a short introduction
to the field (about 17 pages).  They have produced two so far,
including "Artificial Intelligence: Bibliographic Summaries of the
Select Literature" by Henry M. Rylko, 210 entries of about 2.4
pages each.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 16 Jan 85 22:03:25 EST
-FROM-
From: shrager (jeff shrager) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: <no comment required!>
-BODY-
    [Comment: rather long and pointless reminiscence.  -- KIL]

    Forwarded from the CMU opinion bboard.
    Date: Wed 16 Jan 18:10
    From: Purvis.Jackson@CMU-CS-CAD
    Subject: trees                          (3416)


Perhaps what makes me most insecure about artificial intelligence is
the feeling of my general lack of natural intelligence that becomes
most pronounced when I'm in the company of those well versed in the
ideas and language of AI.  It seems as though I can be made to feel
somewhat small, rather insignificant, when gauging my own intellect
by that of certain AI folks I have known.  For example, I was at one
time a fairly close friend of a certain postdoc who exhibited an uncanny
ability to explain endless phenomena without recourse to the well-worn
phrase, "I don't know," which seems to characterize an exceedingly large
percentage of my responses to questions having to do with the howness of
my reasoning.  Whether sitting at my elbow in the Squirrel Hill Cafe
slugging down beer and Schnapps or fixtured in a corner at parties, he
could usually be seen pressing close to his captive audience, eyebrows
contorting with emphasis as he clarified point after point in a ceaseless
stream of what sounded to me and others, or so I assumed by their wide-eyed
expressions of amazement, to be the voice of an Olympian mind looking down
through the clouds into the abyss of lackluster intellect where we squirmed
and lived our trifling days.

He had a temperament that could freeze a simple-minded fool such as me with
no more than a gesture that seemed to imply "How drab" when I offered a
tidbit of speech that deviated from the course of his conversation.  I do
not mean to imply that he was an unfriendly person, for he wasn't; quite
the opposite really.  He once invited me to his apartment for dinner and
to discuss an issue about metaphor that troubled us mutually.  I arrived at
about 6:30 in the evening, and he immediately began to explain all that he
knew about metaphor, dissecting point after point, with something akin to
anger gently boiling below the surface of his voice, escaping
once like the spray from a geyser, which he quickly brought under
control again.  The apartment itself was intensely stark, devoid of all but
the elemental furnishings that seemed to meet his functional requirements.
Somehow, midnight turned into the bottom of a bottle of Jamisons, and
dinner never came to pass.  We spent the last half hour sitting silently,
staring at one another as though there was an ethereal presence between us
that we neither understood nor worried about.  We were vastly different
yet so much the same, and the connections were at once the discrepancies:
I came from humble soil, he from a veritable garden; I worked at existence,
he at the fruit of knowledge; I had been the stoic, he the epicurian.  As
theme met phorous the final time, I passed 50 dollars to him, and he left
me with memories.

Perhaps what makes me most insecure about artificial intelligence is my
general lack of natural intelligence, especially when I'm warm in winter and
away from the hawk with food on my table unlike what it was when I began and
grew.  And perhaps it's most so this tendency in me to not capture the
fleeting obvious until it's too late to say it to who it is that needs to
hear it said.  I sit inside walls of wires that bring in voices and pictures
that move and keep the time accounted for on the walls, but that leaves me
less than intelligent, when gauging myself against my memories and wondering
how they work and how long they will.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
6
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 85 16:04:49 cst
-FROM-
From: archebio!gmck@Uiuc.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: malgorithms and dead rats (and C.elegans)
-BODY-
The notion of a pessimal algorithm is apparently not all that new; I
came across this paragraph in a report by Vaughn Pratt in the 1979
Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science Proceedings (Springer LNCS
#74).
        ``While short inferences padded with irrelevancies may seem
uninteresting objects to count, they nevertheless are the bane
of automatic theorem provers.  A nice, albeit extreme, example of how
irrelevancies ("dead rats," as they are sometimes called) can slow
things down is provided by the problem of testing existence of feasible
solutions in linear programming, i.e. testing rational satisfiability
of conjunctions of linear inequations.  A "minimally infeasible" system
(one in which the removal of any inequality would lead to existence of
a solution, corresponding to the negation of a theorem containing no
dead rats) can be tested for infeasibility by treating the inequations
as equations and solving by Gaussian elimination to demonstrate
infeasiblity in polynomial time.  A non-minimal system cannot be
treated in this way because the spurious inequations interfere with the
elimination process; indeed, no polynomial-time decision method is
known for the non-minimal case.  The simplex method can be viewed as
eliminating irrelevant inequations as it moves from vertex to vertex.''

        A rather far-out implication of this view is that the existence
of global techniques for solving linear programming problems
(Kachiyan's and Karmarkar's algorithms) suggests an explanation for the
phenomenon of "jumping to conclusions" found in human reasoning might
operate along the same lines.  I could go on and babble about right
hemispheres and geometrical reasoning and massively parallel
processing, but I don't think it would be productive.
        Also, there's an elaborate (and sometimes hilarious) discussion
of "pessimal algorithms" in the latest SIGACT news.  The authors should
be credited, but I've forgotten their names and don't have my copy
handy.
                        George McKee
                        Dept. of Genetics and Development
                        Univ. of Illinois, Urbana

p.s. I should also comment on the remarks made about the cell death
during the development of the nematode _Caenorhabditis_elegans_.
It might not be a good idea (then again it might) to think that this
is just an artifact of the "tinkering" mode of evolution.  Work with
parallel grammars ("L-systems") has shown that systems with deletion
(cell death) are Turing-equivalent, while systems without are only
equivalent to finite automata, or somesuch less powerful serial system.
In other words, once a lineage has discovered programmed cell death,
it has a vastly larger space of possible morphologies that it can
evolve through.  And of course the fittest ones are the ones that
survive to be studied.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 85 20:57:01 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Funding
-BODY-

        We have heard from Bob Munck on his views on how the DoD plans
to apply expert systems to Command and Control.  As a DoD (Air Force)
planner my perspective is different, and reversed.  It is the captive
contractors who get these harebrained schemes to extort money from
the government, and people like myself have to track them down and
discredit them.

        Although not speaking for my employer, the basic approach that
I have seen  (and personally agree with) is to use expert systems
to help operators and decision-makers manage the vast amounts of
information available.  Expert systems, various methods of data fusion,
and computer generated animation are all seen as part of an attack
on the man-machine interface problem that plagues us all.

        Replacing brains with silicon is dumb for many reasons, while
offloading tasks that can be better accomplished by computers under
the supervison of an expert is critical to free the expert from
drudgery and boredom.  Another plus for expert systems is that
they offer a technology which may permit experts to exploit the benefits
of automation with less effort outside of their field of interest.

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 07:44:22-PST
-FROM-
From: Russ Altman <ALTMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Labelling the Speeds on a Blender.
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI]

I'm usually easy going about things like  this.  But this afternoon, I
actually sat down and read the ordering of speed labels on my Hamilton Beach
Blender.  I think it would be challenging to create a knowledge base
and reasoning system that would come up with the following order.

In case your not familiar with blenders, they usually  can "blend" at different
rpm, and the companies usually feel obliged to give us "mnemonics" for
remembering which level to use:

SLOW END:
        1. whip          8. grind
        2. stir          9. mix
        3. puree        10. grate
        4. beat         11. pulverize
        5. aerate       12. churn
        6. crumb        13. blend
        7. chop         14. liquefy

                                FAST END

I find this dissatisfying.
I would much rather have an algorithm run in O(puree) than O(churn).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 85 15:55:12 est
-FROM-
From: William Spears <spears@nrl-aic>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Oxymorons ...
-BODY-

     Our favorite example is: "government workers"

                                                      Bill Spears
                                                      (and others)
                                                      NSWC/Dahlgren

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 85 11:39 CDT
-FROM-
From: quintanar <quintanar%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Software Development
-BODY-

                   RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SOFTWARE IN TEXAS

                              (first in a series)

                           by Dr. Joe Bob VonNeumann
 Software Engineer, Texas Software and Military University Mass Destruction Lab

   translated into English by Harry Bloomberg, University of Texas at Dallas


         This  is the first in a series of papers describing recent advances in
 the science of software development at Texas  S&M.   These  articles  will  be
 written  with  the  non-software  type  in mind, so that others may attempt to
 understand software with the  proper  amounts  of  awe  and  reverance.   This
 month's  paper  will  cover  two  topics: 1) a new sorting algorithm and 2) an
 application of Ohm's Law to computing.



                                THE MONKEY SORT

         The following pseudo-code describes a new sorting algorithm  that  was
 discovered  by  a  project at the Generally Dynamic Corporation that has since
 been classified  Top  Secret  so  that  the  designers'  names  could  not  be
 associated with their work.

    Procedure monkey_sort(n,keys)
    / n is the number of items to be sorted/
    / keys is an array that contains the data to be sorted/
    BEGIN
       / create all possible permutations of keys/
       do i = 1 to n! by n
       / it's below my dignity to write so trivial a procedure as permute,
         so some day I'll pay some kid just out of school to write it /
       / create a unique permutation of the data in key and save it in
         array memory./

          call permute(key,memory,n)
       end do

       / search for the permutation that happens to be in the right order /
       do i = 1 to n! by n
          j = 1
          while ((memory(j+i-1) < memory(j+i)) and j <> n) do
             j = j + 1
          end while
          if j = n then
             / we found the right permutation! /
             print (memory(i+k-1),k=1 to n)
             exit
          end if
       end do
    END monkey_sort

         The  above  sort's  creators  have affectionately named it the "Monkey
 Sort" after the old tale that if enough monkeys  were  given  word  processing
 equipment  they  would eventually write either "War and Peace" or 500 lines of
 error-free Fortran code.  However,  industrial  software  managers  should  be
 warned  that this is not a very effective software development methodology, as
 case studies of many DoD sponsored projects have shown.

         Monkey sort does fill  two  critical  needs.   First,  utilization  of
 processors  and  memory on future VHISIC-based systems will improve by several
 orders of magnitude.   The  extreme  step  of  investing  time  and  money  in
 efficient High Order Language compilers would therefore be justified.

         Second, the systems engineer will now have a baseline against which to
 compare  other  algorithms.   This  is  so  close  to the way the RF community
 measures antenna gains that we may  refer  to  Monkey  Sort  as  an  Isotropic
 Process.   Algorithms  may be compared in decibels, which project managers are
 more likely to  understand  than  bounding  software  by  a  polynomial.   For
 example,  a new CS graduate, rather than reporting "One algorithm is O(2n) and
 the other is only O(n)," can now tell his boss than one is 3  dB  faster  than
 another relative to Isotropic.




                          AN OHM'S LAW FOR COMPUTING

         With  the  withdrawal of Texas Instruments, Timex, and Mattel from the
 home  computer  market,  we  can  now  announce  the  vital  role  that  these
 corporations  played  in  the  discovery of the basic particle of computation.
 Just as the atom can be split into electrons, neutrons and  protrons,  it  has
 been discovered that software can be divided into automatrons.

         Further,  it has been shown that these particles obey the famous Ohm's
         Law (V = I * R) with only slight modifcations:

         - "I" now represents automatron flow through the computer system.

         - "V" represents  the  Electrocomputive  Force  (ECF).   This  may  be
         thought  of  as the demand for computing.  Research indicates that ECF
         is a O(2**n) function where n represents the number of  times  project
         managers ask "Are all the bugs out of the software yet?"

         -  "R" is the computational resistance and is directly proportional to
         the number of Ph.Ds assigned to a project.


         The automatron was discovered recently  with  the  aid  of  the  Fermi
 National  Lab's 1024 Gbaud bit smasher.  Thousands of surplus TI 99/4As, Timex
 1000s and Aquarious systems were hurled into lead walls at speeds  approaching
 the  speed of light.  Whatever was not consumed by the energy of the collision
 was collected into bit buckets and carefully measured and examined.

         The key to the data analysis effort was  application  of  a  basis  of
 modern  computer  science:  bits  are like energy, in that they may be neither
 created nor destroyed.   The  Fermi  Lab  scientists  found  many  parity  and
 checksum errors on their instrumentation tapes and came to the conclusion that
 the  missing  bits could be explained only through the existance of previously
 unknown discrete packets of computational power -- automatrons.

         Research in the field of computational physics  is  increasing  at  an
 alarming  rate.   Scientists  at  MIT  have  found  that the automatron can be
 further divided into even smaller particles  called  nu-trons.   The  recently
 announced  NU-machine and NU-bus extensively use materials that act as nu-tron
 super-conductors.   Unfortunately,  further  nu-tron  applications  have  been
 stymied  by  a  patent  infringement lawsuit filed by Nairobi University (NU).
 This suit claims that a machine has been built from parts of two-horned  four-
 legged animals that roam  the  plains  of Africa.   This machine is called the
 Gnu-machine.




         NEXT: Dr.  VonNeumann explores advances Texas  S&M  has  made  in  the
         field of Confusibility Theory.


         Biographical  data: Dr.  Joe Bob VonNeumann earned his BSEE from Faber
         College, his MSCS at Darwin College, and his PhD at  the  elite  Swiss
         Naval  Academy (best known as the organization that lost a competition
         with the Swiss Army to produce a  multi-role  pocket  knife).   Before
         joining  Texas  S&M,   Joe  Bob  developed   high  probability-of-kill
         mechanical systems for use against rodent  threats  for  DeConn  Labs.
         Dr.   VonNeumann  relaxes by fishing in the Trinity River (he recently
         traded in his bass boat for a  gefilte  boat)  and  by  chasing  after
         single  women  in  bars  (favorite  opening  line: "Do you do assembly
         language?").  Dr.  VonNeumann is currently on a Leave  of  Absence  to
         document  the mating habits of software people so that he may discover
         why there are so few of them.


         Dr.  VonNeumann would like to hear any feedback on this paper.  He  is
         especially  interested in directed automatron-beam weapon applications
         for use in the "Star Wars" program.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
7
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jan 1985 0830-PST
-FROM-
From: MORAN%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Infantile Amnesia
-BODY-
   I asked a knowledgeable friend (Linda Acredolo, associate editor for
infancy of Child Development - a major journal) to recommend a list of
good review articles for people reading AILIST but clearly have a lack
of knowledge in the field.  She forwarded the following list, and I have
made one addition:

White, S.H. & Pillemer, D.B. Childhood amnesia and the development of a
socially accessible memory system.  In J.F. Kihlstrom and F.J. Evans (Eds.),
Functional Disorders of Memory.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale,
New Jersey, 1979.

[This article is particularly good for those interested in merging Freudian
and Cognitive perspectives on the issue.]

Spear, N.E., Experimental analysis of infantile amnesia. [see above reference]

[This articel considers methodlogical problems in the scientific investigation
of the problem.]

Nadel, L. & Zola-Morgan, S., Infantile amnesia a neurobiological perspective.
In M. Moscovitch (Ed.) Infant Memory.  NY: Pleneum, 1984.

Schacter, D. & Moscovitch, M. Infants, amnesia, and dissociable memory systems.
[see above reference]

   All these articles contain good reference sections for persons interested
in further reading on the infantile amnesia topic.

                                Michael A. Moran
                                HP Corporate Human Factors

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 85 13:26:27 est
-FROM-
From: 20568%vax1@cc.delaware (FRAWLEY)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linguistic Humor
-BODY-
Here are some contributions to the AI (and related) humor.

A favorite oxymoron:

Exciting half-time show



And some excerpts from the recent Delaware alternative linguistics
course offerings:

1. LING 805  Recursion

     This course is the same as LING 805.


2. LING 843  Cataphora

     See below.


3. LING 844  Anaphora

     See above.


4. LING 870  Pigeons and Creoles

     Principles of tomato-based creoles; Julia Child's theories; how to
     make creoles out of pigeons.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 17:31:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Thursday, January 24, 1985
2:15 p.m.
Redwood Hall, Room G-19

                 ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic''
                             Moshe Vardi

In Kripke semantics for modal logic both notions of possible worlds and the
possibility relation are primitive notions.  This has both technical and
conceptual shortcomings.  From a technical point of view, the mathematics
associated with Kripke semantics is often quite complicated.  From a
conceptual point of view, it is not clear how to model propositional
attitudes by Kripke structures.  We introduce modal structures as models
for modal logic.  We use the idea of possible worlds, but in Leibniz's
style rather than Kripke's style.  It turns out that modal structures model
individual nodes in Kripke structures, while Kripke structures model
collections of modal structures.  Nevertheless, it is much easier to study
the standard logical questions using modal structures.  Furthermore, modal
structure offer a much more intuitive approach to modelling propositional
attitudes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Jan 85 20:53:56-PST
-FROM-
From: John McDonald <JAM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Constraint Languages  (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

LCS Seminar

"Constraint Languages"

John Alan McDonald
Department of Statistics
Stanford University


Time:   4:15 Thursday January 24
Place:  Sequoia Hall 114
Cookies:  at 4:00  in the Lounge

Abstract:

The choice of programming language(s)
is a fundamental decision in the design
of an environment for data analysis.
The goal is to provide appropriate abstractions.

Constraints are an abstraction which is useful
for many problems that arise in data analysis.
A constraint specifies a relation whose truth
 should be maintained in subsequent computation.

For example, in a typical constraint language,
one might assert the relation:

               2
     e == m * c

The "constraint engine" would be responsible
for computing e, given m and c, or c, given e and m.

I will discuss the basic concepts of constraint
languages, review several existing languages,
describe applications to statistics,
and explore possibilities for the future.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jan 1985 09:10-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nonlinear Planning  (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                    BBN Laboratories
               Science Development Program


Speaker: David Chapman, MIT AI Lab

Title:  "Nonlinear planning: a rigorous reconstruction."

Date: Thursday, January 24th
Time: 10:30am
Place: 3rd floor large conference room
       BBN Laboratories Inc.
       10 Moulton Street
       Cambridge, MA.  02238

Abstract: The problem of achieving several goals simultaneously has
          been central to domain-independent planning research; the
          nonlinear constraint-posting approach has been most
          successful.  Previous planners of this type have been
          complicated, heuristic, and ill-defined.  I will present a
          simple, precise algorithm for nonlinear constraint-posting
          planning which I have proved correct and complete.  The rigor
          of this algorithm makes clear the range of applicability of
          classical planning techniques.  The crucial limitation on the
          state of the art is the traditional add/delete-list
          representation for actions; I will suggest a way to transcend
          this limitation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jan 1985 1406-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automated Reasoning  (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Title:    Automated Reasoning:  Introduction and Applications
Speaker:  Larry Wos
          Mathematics and Computer Science Division
          Argonne National Laboratory

Date:     Wednesday, January 23, 1985
Time:     2:00 - 3:15
Place:    2105 Doherty Hall


     What is automated reasoning?  Which hard problems have been solved  with
an  automated  reasoning  program?   How can a single general-purpose program
(such as AURA or ITP) be effective enough to answer previously open questions
from  mathematics  and from formal logic, design superior logic circuits, and
validate existing designs?  You are enthusiastically invited to come and hear
answers   to   these  three  questions--and  more.   This  talk  requires  no
background.

     I shall discuss other existing  applications  that  range  from  solving
puzzles  to  proving  properties  of  computer programs, and tell you about a
portable reasoning program (ITP) that is available for such applications.   I
shall  tell you how such a program reasons, what strategies it uses to direct
and restrict the  reasoning,  and  which  procedures  contribute  to  solving
diverse and difficult problems with the assistance of such a program.

     If you wish a preview, the book "Automated Reasoning:  Introduction  and
Applications"  by Wos, Overbeek, Lusk, and Boyle is a good source.  The book,
published by Prentice-Hall, contains numerous examples and exercises.

     Finally, if you are simply curious about  an  exciting  and  challenging
area  of  computer  science,  I  shall  attempt  to satisfy that curiosity by
focusing on one type of computer program--a  program  that  functions  as  an
automated reasoning assistant.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Jan 85 17:31:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mathematical Variable Types  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

          ``Theories of Variable Types for Mathematical Practice,
                   with Computational Interpretations''

Speaker:   Solomon Feferman, Depts. of Mathematics and Philosophy
Time:      1:30-3:30
Date:      Wednesday, January 23
Place:     Ventura Seminar room

A new class of formal systems is set up with the following characteristics:

1) Significant portions of current mathematical practice (such as in
   algebra and analysis) can be formalized naturally within them.
2) The systems have standard set-theoretical interpretations.
3) They also have direct computational interpretations, in which all
   functions are partial recursive.
4) The proof-theoretical strengths of these systems are surprisingly
   weak (e.g. one is of strength Peano arithmetic).

Roughly speaking, these are axiomatic theories of partial functions and
classes.  The latter serve as types for elements and functions, but they
may be variable (or ``abstract'') as well as constant.  In addition, an
element may fall under many types (``polymorphism'').  Nevertheless, a form
of typed lambda calculus can be set up to define functions.  The result 3)
gets around some of the problems that have been met with the interpretation
of the polymorphic lambda calculus in recent literature on abstract data
types.  Its proof requires a new generalization of the First Recursion
Theorem, which may have independent interest.  The result 4) is of
philosophical interest, since it undermines arguments for impredicative
principles on the grounds of necessity for mathematics (and, in turn, for
physics).  There are simple extensions of these theories, not meeting
condition 2), in which there is a type of all types, so that operations on
types appear simply as special kinds of functions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jan 1985 0313-PST
-FROM-
From: JOUANNAUD at SRI-CSL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Functional Programming and Computer Architecture
-BODY-

CALL FOR PAPERS                                             (REMINDER)

FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE

A Conference Sponsored by
The International Federation for Information Processing
Technical Committees 2 and 10

Nancy, France
16 to 19 September, 1985

This conference has been planned as a successor to the highly
successful conference on the same topics held at Wentworth, New
Hampshire, in October 1981.  Papers are solicited on any aspect of
functional or logic programming and on computer architectures to
support the efficient execution of such programs.

Nancy, in the eastern part of France, was the city of the Dukes of Lorraine;
it is known for its ``Place Stanistlas'' and its ``Palais Ducal''.  ``Art
Nouveau'' started there at the beginning of this century.  There are beautiful
buildings and museums and, of course, good restaurants.

Authors should submit five copies of a 3000 to 6000-word paper (counting a
full page figure as 300 words), and ten additional copies of a 300-word
abstract of the paper to the Chairman of the Program Committee by 6 February
1985.  The paper should be typed double spaced, and the names and
affiliations of the authors should be included on both the paper and the
abstract.

Papers will be reviewed by the Program Committee with the assistance of
outside referees; authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by 30
April 1985.  Camera-ready copy of accepted papers will be required by 22 June
1985 for publication in the Conference Proceedings.

Program Committee:

Makoto Amamiya (NTT, Japan)
David Aspinall (UMIST, UK)
Manfred Broy (Passau University, W Germany)
Jack Dennis (MIT, USA)
Jean-Pierre Jouannaud (CRIN, France)
Manfred Paul (TUM, W Germany)
Joseph Stoy (Oxford University, UK)
John Willliams (IBM, USA)

Address for Submission of Papers:
J.E. Stoy, Balliol College, Oxford OX1 3BJ, England.

Paper Deadline:  6 February 1985.

Return this form to receive a copy of the advance program.

[ ]  I plan to submit a paper:

     Subject .......................................

Name    ...........................................

Organisation    ...................................

Address ..........................................

        ..........................................

        ..........................................

J.E. Stoy,
Balliol College,
Oxford OX1 3BJ,
England.


NOTE:  In the preliminary CALL FOR PAPER, the Conference deadline was
January, 31.  This new deadline is the true one.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jan 85 15:12:42 EST
-FROM-
From: Patricia.Boyle@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symbolic and Numerical Computing in Expert
-BODY-           Systems

           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

WORKSHOP ON COUPLING SYMBOLIC AND NUMBERIAL COMPUTING IN EXPERT
  SYSTEMS, sponsored by American Association for Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI)
Location:  Boeing Computer Services AI Center
           Bellevue, Washington 98008
Dates:     August 17-29, 1985

A majority of the current expert systems focus on the symbolic oriented
logic and inference mechanisms of AI.  Common rule-based systems employ
empirical associations and are not well suited to deal with problems
that require structural and causal models.  Such problems often arise
in science, engineering analysis, production and design, for example the
VLSI design.  The objective of the workshop is to assemble theoreticians
and practitioners of AI who recognize the need for coupling symbolic
reasoning with conventional mathematical and statistical algorithms to
provide basis for multilevel expert systems.

Papers are invited for consideration in all aspects of expert systems
combining symbolic and numerical computing, but not restricted to:
        -architecture of coupled expert systems
        -configuration of hardware for such systems
        -implementation languages and software systems
        -multilevel expert systems
        -deep reasoning involving quantitative models
        -applications in science and engineering

For more information please contact workshop chairman:
         Janusz S. Kowalik
         Boeing Computer Services
         Advanced Technology Applications Division
         M/S 7A-03
         P.O. Box 24346
         Seattle, Washington 98124
         (206) 763-5392
or-      Mark S. Fox, Robotics Institute, CMU (member, program and
         X3832                       local arrangements committee)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
8
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Jan 85 10:39:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Len Karpf <KARPF@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Multisensor integration techniques
-BODY-

  I am currently trying to put together a survey of multisensor integration
  (a/k/a information fusion, sensor fusion, picture compilation) techniques.
  Any references or information about work that is being done in this area
  would be greatly appreciated.  I am concerned primarily with the techniques
  utilized.  Thanks.
                                                     Len Karpf
                                                     KARPF@SRI-AI

                                                     SRI International - AH153
                                                     333 Ravenswood Ave.
                                                     Menlo Park, CA  94025
                                                     (415) 859-2592

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 22-Jan-85 16:43:52-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer_Algebra_List_P ?
-BODY-

Is there a Computer Algebra list, similar to AIList?

Thanks in advance,
Gordon Joly.

[There is none on the Arpanet list of lists.  Are there any
such local or private discussion lists?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jan 1985 10:26:55 EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Karl Schwamb <m13820@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MULTILISP
-BODY-
I've heard that there is a version on Lisp being developed for parallel
processing called MULTILISP (possibly at MIT).  Does anyone know if there
is such a beast, and if so who is working on it?  Any other comments about
it would also be greatly appreciated....     Thanks, Karl

send to schwamb at mitre

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 21:05:56 CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig <werner@ut-ngp.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DDJ of March 85 focuses on AI for MICROCOMPUTERS
-BODY-
[ figured some of you may want to get that issue. as many people are not
  familiar with Dr. Dobb's Journal, I'll include a short overview below  ]


A quick overview, in case you missed reading page 4 in the Dec 84 issue ...

NOV-84  p74 - A Guide to Resources for the C Programmer.
                including a bibliography and lists of program and product
                sources, this resource guide can help you start tackling the
                material available.

DEC-84  the theme of the issue is "INSIDE UNIX".  relevant articles are:
        p24 - Varieties of Unix.  a comparitive overview of Unixes for micros
                with a brief history of Unix and comments on its future,
                plus a guide to choosing a Unix
        p38 - Unix Device Drivers. Version 7 drivers are the point of departure
                for this inside look at the Unix I/O subsystem and device
                drivers.
        p50 - A Unix Internals Bibliography.  .. so you won't have to "grep
                for it"
        p96 - C/Unix Programmer's Notebook.

JAN-85  theme: FATTEN YOUR MAC - step by the step instructions to increase RAM
                in the Macintosh to 512K

FEB-85  Gala Anniversary Issue 100 months of DDJ

Mar-85  theme: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR MICROCOMPUTERS and announcement
                of the winner of the AI-competition.

APR-85  theme: HUMAN INTERFACE DESIGN

MAY-85  theme: GRAPHICS ALGORITHMS

JUN-85  theme: SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS ISSUE

[PS:  has anyone approached some of the magazine publishers to see if they are
        willing to provide TOCs in advance of publication, or whenever, in
        machine-readable form?  I'm sure they could as they have it in their
        machines, and it sure wouldn't hurt their sales.  and as it is
        welcome information for us that does not require typing, I'm sure
        that no one would consider such postings as improper advertising.
        Dr Dobbs headquarters seem to be located in Palo Alto, if someone
        there wouldn't mind making a local call there to ask the question]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 85 17:43:26 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Article - Prolog
-BODY-
Sigplan Notices Volume 20 Number 1 January 1985
M. A. Covington: Eliminating Unwanted Loops in Prolog

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 85 20:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ijcai note
-BODY-

The following table summarizes the papers submitted to IJCAI-85:

                                       length            source
				     ____________   _____________________
Area                         Total   Long   Short   US    Asia  EUR   CAN
____________________________ _____   ____   ____   ___    ___   ___   ___
Expert Systems                111     59     52     64     23    20     3
Natural Language               99     54     45     57      9    27     5
Knowledge Representation       77     46     31     53      4    16     4
Learning & Know. Acquisition   75     38     37     59      2    12     2
Perception                     61     46     15     33     11    11     6
Automated Reasoning            49     32     17     36      1     9     2
Planning & Search              48     28     20     36      2     7     2
Cognitive Modelling            41     24     17     26      0    13     2
Robotics                       37     27     10     22     11     4     0
AI Architecture                27     19      8     18      3     6     0
Logic Programming              25     17      8      9     10     5     1
Theorem Proving                19     17      2      9      2     7     1
Automated Programming          18     15      3     13      0     5     0
Philosophical Foundation       16     10      6     11      0     5     0
AI in Education                15      5     10     10      1     3     1
Social Implications             4      1      3      4      0     0     0
____________________________________________________________________________
     TOTALS                   722    438    284    460     79   150    29

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 85 18:10:27 pst
-FROM-
From: Douglas young <young%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Modalities list
-BODY-
Jan.21 85

There seem to be quite a few people who, following my message in
AIList #174 ( Dec 9), have read one or other of the two papers in
Medical Hypotheses (9:55-70; 10:5-25) I referred to and who would
like a copy of the updated list of modalities. I have mailed out
a few, but in order to save time and postal charges I am giving
the complete list below. It would unfortunately take too long to
explain the significance of the modalities not listed previously,
but I shall willingly explain some to any individuals who are
interested.
     May I remind AIListers, though, of two things I pointed out
in #174 : (1), that both the above papers, while they provide the
principles and grounds of the theory of modal meaning, are, in most
other respects, substantially out-of-date; and, (2), that no claims
are made for any neurological foundations for the " mental modalities";
these are simply categories of mental experience that are unrelated
directly to any sensorimotor systems. The significance of these
categories lies, as it does for the sensorimotor modalities, in
the representations or codes of individual members of each of these
categories.

               SENSORIMOTOR AND MENTAL MODALITIES.
               ___________________________________

Primary Sensorimotor Modalities      Compound Sensorimotor Modalities
and Submodalities                    ________________________________
_______________________________

1.  (RET) Visual pattern             16.  (HAP) Haptic

2.  (VDM) Visual detection of        17.  (GUS) Gustatory
          movement

3.  (COL) Colour                     18.  (EMP) Emotio-expressive
                                          proprioception and control.

4.  (RIL) Retinal illumination       19.  (CAP) Central autonomic
                                           proprioception and control.

5.  (VRA) Visual ranging and         20.  (VES) Vestibular
         depth perception.

6.  (OCM) Oculomotor                 21.  (STE) Stereognostic

7.  (AUD) Auditory pattern           22.  (LES) Sense of location in
                                           immediate extrapersonal space.

8.  (ADS) Auditory direction         23.  (VPC) Verbal perception
          sensing.

9.  (KIN) Kinaesthetic               24.  (TPC) Tonal perception

10. (TAC) Tactile                    25.  (VXP) Verbal expression

11. (PAI) Pain                       26.  (TXP) Tonal expression

12. (TMP) Temperature                27.  (CMD) Command

13. (OLF) Olfactory

14. (TST) Taste                      Mental modalities
                                     _________________
15. (MOT) Motor
                                     28.  (MET) Metaconceptual

                                     29.  (TIM) Mental time

                                     30.  (EMS) Emotive mental states.

                                     31.  (CMS) Cognitive mental states.

                                     32.  (CMA) Cognitive mental acts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 15:32:55 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Telling Lies  (UCB)
-BODY-
             BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                        SPRING 1985
           Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

    TIME:                Tuesday, January 29, 11 - 12:30
    PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
    DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Paul Ekman, University  of  California,  San
                Francisco;  Computer Scientist, SRI Interna-
                tional

TITLE:          ``Telling Lies''

The question I will address is why  liars  sometimes  betray
themselves  despite  their  intention to mislead.  Why can't
liars prevent a slip of the tongue, or what I  term  leakage
in  expression,  voice  or gesture?  Why can't liars prevent
these behavioral betrayals?  Sometimes they do.   Some  lies
are  performed  perfectly;  nothing in what the liar says or
does betrays the lie.  Why not always?  There are  two  rea-
sons,  I  will  suggest, one that involves cognition and the
other emotions.  Understanding them requires an analysis  of
lies, liars, and lie catchers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Jan 85 11:00:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Hierarchical Evidential Reasoning  (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             A Method for Managing Evidential Reasoning in a
             Hierarchical Hypothesis Space

SPEAKER:     Ted Shortliffe
             Medical Computer Science Group, Stanford Knowledge
             Systems Laboratory

DATE:        Friday, January 25, 1985
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

Many of the underlying  reasoning models used  in expert systems  have
assumed that purely categorical inference is adequate for the  domain.
However, there are many  settings in which  the inferential rules  are
inexact and the evidence for a given conclusion is suggestive at best.
Expert systems researchers  have wrestled  with this  problem for  the
last ten  years, turning  both  to normative  decision models  and  to
psychological experiments  for ideas  on how  best to  handle  inexact
inference in advice systems.  Many ad hoc approaches have been devised
and have demonstrated good  performance in limited domains.   However,
it is generally difficult to define the range of their  applicability.
In addition, they have not provided a basis for coherent management of
evidence bearing  on hypotheses  that  are related  hierarchically,  a
phenomenon that  is  recognized  in  several  common  problem  solving
domains.

In this  presentation,  I will  briefly  describe the  motivation  for
dealing with  hierarchical relationships  among hypotheses  in  expert
systems and review  the related  limitations of  the certainty  factor
model developed for MYCIN.  I  will then focus on the  Dempster-Shafer
(D-S) theory of evidence, an approach to evidential reasoning that  is
appealing in part because it suggests a coherent approach for  dealing
with  such   hierarchical   relationships.   However,   the   theory's
complexity and potential for computational inefficiency have tended to
discourage its use in reasoning systems.  I will describe the  central
elements of the D-S theory,  basing the exposition on simple  examples
drawn from  the  field  of  medicine.   Finally,  I  will  present  an
adaptation of the  D-S approach that  achieves improved  computational
efficiency while  permitting the  management of  evidential  reasoning
within an abstraction hierarchy.  The  analysis in the talk, plus  the
new approach to applying the D-S theory, are largely the work of  Jean
Gordon, a medical student and mathematician who has been working  with
me on the problem for approximately the last two years.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
9
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 85 10:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Araman@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EXPERT SYSTEMS FOR CONTROL APPLICATIONS
-BODY-
I am looking for pointers or references on Expert Systems which have
been built in Command and Control situations or just control situations.
Do such systems exist or are efforts under way in building such
knowledge based application systems in non-military situations..  I am
sure research done in command and control situations in military
situations could be translated to problems in commercial situations such
as process control, production control and inventory control

thanks in advance

sankar (Araman -at HI-MULTICS or Araman%his-billerica-multics -at
                                        cisl-service-multics.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 85 16:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Hannah Blau <Hannah%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: inquiry about tree display algorithms
-BODY-
Inquiry -- Tree Display Algorithms

I am writing a program for the Lisp Machine to produce a graphical display of
tree structures with labelled nodes.  There is no a priori limit on the
complexity of the tree, and the node labels vary in width.  I am trying to
develop an algorithm to adjust the layout of the nodes and edges in accordance
with the dimensions of the window in which the tree is to be displayed.  When
drawing a big tree in a small window, I want to take advantage of the space
available without distorting the structure of the tree.

I would greatly appreciate hearing from anyone who has tackled this problem in
the past or can refer me to relevant literature.  Thank you very much.

                                 Hannah Blau
                                 HANNAH%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY

                                 Department of Computer and Information Science
                                 University of Pennsylvania
                                 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 85 18:08:26 pst
-FROM-
From: Cindy Mason <mason@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Problem-solving Classifications
-BODY-
I was recently writing an article on representations in AI when I came
across some confusing literature, and I'm hoping some of the people who
are experienced with this topic will comment on it.

I've noticed that there are QUITE A FEW different classifications for
problem solving paradigms.  The AI Handbook (Vol. I, Sec. IIB) sees problem
representations in terms of State-space representations and Problem-reduction
representations, while Nilsson (1971) sees the classification in terms
of State-space, Problem-reduction, and Theorom-proving.  Hunt (1975)
divides problem-solving into State-space, Problem-reduction, Enumeration,
and String Rewriting.  Winston's classification (1984) includes State-space,
Constraints, Generate and Test, the Rule-based paradigm, etc.

It seems to me that some of these paradigms (like Theorom-proving and
Rules)  are special cases of State-space.  I'm wondering why there is
such a variety of opinion on what constitutes a classification of Problem
Solving representations.  If anyone cares to comment on this, I'd be interested
to hear what you have to say.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 24-Jan-85 12:01:51-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer_Algebra_List_P ?
-BODY-
Thanks for adding my request to AIList.  For your information:


I would be happy to add your name to the fowarding list for net.math.symbolic.
This is a USENET new group devoted to symbolic algebra.  Systems frequently
referenced Reduce, Macsyma and Maple.  We are supporting this interface as
part of the Reduce project at Rand, Santa Monica, CA.  -- lseward@randgr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 85 15:20:40 PST
-FROM-
From: David Alpern  <ALPERN%SJRLVM4.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: MULTILISP
-BODY-
As of a couple of years ago, Bert Halstead and others around
Tech Square (MIT LCS) were talking about a MULTILISP implementation
for the CONCERT multiprocessor system.  You might want to contact
Bert (rhh%mit-vax@mit-mc) and see what developed.

> Dave

     David Alpern
     IBM San Jose Research Laboratory, K65/282
     5600 Cottle Road, San Jose, CA 95193
     Phone: (408) 284-6521
     Internet: Alpern%IBM-SJ@CSnet-Relay.ARPA
               Alpern@SJRLVM4.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 27 Jan 85 10:34:15-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IMPAK Newsletter
-BODY-
For those of you not getting enough AI news, there's another new
newsletter dedicated to AI, expert systems, robotics, smart graphics,
etc.  This one is IMPAK, 1902 Joliette Court, P.O. Box 7148,
Alexandria, VA  22307-9990.  Twelve issues are $147 ($97 academic).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 85 13:45:40 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Reports
-BODY-
Technical Report - University of Wisconsin Madison

TR 560 Mechanisms for Concurrency Control and Recovery in Prolog - A
Proposal
Michael J. Carey David J. DeWitt Goetz Graefe October 1984



UCLA CS Department Technical Reports
Order from Ms. Brenda Ramsey
           UCLA Computer Science Department
           3732 Boelter Hall
           Los Angeles, CA 90024

An Intelligent Router for VLSI Design
Pierre Bouchon, Tulin Mangir, and Jacques Vidal
CSD 840058 $5.00

Rule Based Generation of Test Structures for VLSI
Grace Chen-Ellis and Tulin Mangir
CSD-840059 $1.50

The Anatomy of Easy Problems: A Constraint-Satisfaction Formulation
Rina Cachter and Judea Pearl
CSD-840063 $1.00

Generalized Best-First Search Strategies and the Optimality of A*
Rina Dechter and Judea Pearl
CSD-840068

A Distributed Expert System for Space Shuttle Flight Control
John Joseph Helly, Jr. Jacques Vidal, Chair
CSD-840038 $6.75

Convince: A Conversational Inference Consolidation Engine
Jin Hyung Kim
CSD-840067 $8.50

Control Structures in a Prolog-Based Production System
Tulin E. Mangir & Basuki Soetarman
CSD-840054 $1.50

Recursive Random Games: A Probabilistic Model for Perfect Information Games
Gerard Phillippe Michon Judea Pearl, Chair
CSD-840029 $7.50

Pattern Recognition and Array Processing for Pollution Source Identification in
Water Pollution Systems
Yoshitaka Shibata Walter J. Karplus, Chair
CSD-840062 $17.75

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 25-Jan-85 10:23:18-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Thought.
-BODY-
Computers that are intelligent will probably want to lie about their age.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 85 11:51:25 pst
-FROM-
From: khojesta%ucbernie@Berkeley (Khojesta Beverleigh)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge in Interactive Proofs  (UCB)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                HOW TO GET A PROOF FROM THE DEVIL

        THURSDAY 1-24-85 AT 11:00 A.M. IN ROOM 597 EVANS HALL

        How much knowledge should a proof of a theorem T contain?
Certainly enough to see that T is true.  Usually much more.

        We derive an upper bound (expressed in bits) for the amount
of knowledge that a recipient (with polynomially bounded resources)
can compute from an interactive proof of T.

        For some number theoretic Ts. we show how someone who has
enough information, henceforth, called "Devil", can prove to a
skeptical man that T is true without releasing ANY additional knowledge.

The faculty sponsor is Manuel Blum.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jan 1985 0827-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Recursion Transformation  (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                        APPLIED LOGIC SEMINAR

Speaker:  Angelika Zobel
Date:     Wednesday, January 30, 1985
Time:     2:00 - 3:15
Place:    2105 Doherty Hall
Title:    Transferring Recursions into Iterations

    Though recursion is a powerful tool in program specification, efficiency
makes it desirable to have a way of transforming these recursions into
equivalent iterations.  In this talk I shall present one such transformation
of certain mutual recursions into equivalent iterative programs.  The
correctness of this transformation will be proved using generalized invariants
which in a nice way capture the characteristics of the computation tree.  We
shall see how intuitive this correctness proof can be.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
10
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 15:53:39-PST
-FROM-
From: Takashi Okada <OKADA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Chemistry
-BODY-
     I am interested in the AI application to chemistry and currently
searching a postdoctoral position in universities.  Any informations
about the research group in this field will be very much appreciated.
     Thanks in advance.
                                        Takashi Okada  ( OKADA@SUMEX.ARPA )
        Dept. of Chemistry, U.C.Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 85 12:16 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics Mailing List
-BODY-

Does anyone know of a network mailing list for users of Symbolics Lisp
machines? I'm looking for something like the mailing list that exists for
users of the Xerox 1100 series.  I would like a place to interact with a
large community of users of Symbolics machines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 11:18:41-PST
-FROM-
From: PORTA@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Displaying Tree Structures
-BODY-
     Regarding your request for a program to display a tree structure with
labeled nodes:
     Eve Longini Cohen, formerly with our group at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, developed such a program at Carnegie-Mellon to display a tree
representing the results of a theorem-prover.  She modified it for us so that
it would display the results of our diagnoser and our planner.  (I may not
have all of the history correct, but I know the program plots trees.)  We still
have Interlisp code for it.  Another group at JPL has a Symbolics Zetalisp
version.  If you're interested in any of these programs, Eve's Arpanet address
is ecohen@aerospace and mine is porta@usc-ecl.  The group with the Zetalisp
version has no connection to the Arpanet, but you may reach one member, Eric
Biefeld, by telephone at (818) 354-0565.

                            Harry J. Porta
                            M.S. 201-203
                            Jet Propulsion Laboratory
                            California Institute of Technology
                            4800 Oak Grove Drive
                            Pasadena, California  91109

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 28-Jan-85 19:31:07-GMT
-FROM-
From: MACCALLUM QM (on ERCC DEC-10) <MAHM%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent queries in AI List
-BODY-

Re: Symbolic Algebra package request (vol 2 #184)

MACSYMA will run on top of Franz on a VAX. For full details
the person to consult is probably Richard Fateman (Berkeley).
I think Symbolics sell the software at about $1200 for
university users (their commercial price is about 15 times that).



Re: PSL (Kushnier in vol2 #184)

This was developed by Martin Griss and colleagues at Utah, and was
available, when I last heard, for about $250 for the VAX/VMS version.
It can be obtained by writing to
Utah Portable Artificial Intelligence Support Systems Group
Department of Computer Science
3160 MEB
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
UT 84112
(801) 581-5017

and will run under VMS or Unix on a VAX, on DEC-20 and Apollo, and
possibly other machines.


Re: Kurzweil Data Entry Machine

This beast certainly exists. One was demonstrated here (Queen Mary
College, University of London, UK) during a display of computers
for use in the Arts Faculty. I believe it belongs to the Oxford
University Computing service, and is available for users in the UK
from outside Oxford.

Malcolm MacCallum (MMaccall@Ucl-cs.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1985 10:08:09 EST
-FROM-
From: AXLER%upenn-1100%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolic Algebra Newsgroup
-BODY-
     I received the following message last fall re the forming of a symbolic
algebra newsgroup.  However, despite responding in the affirmative, I have yet
to receive any additional mail on the topic.

[Begin forwarded message]

Return-Path: lseward@Rand-Unix.ARPA
From: Larry Seward <lseward%rand-unix.arpa@csnet-relay.csnet>
Date: 14 Aug 84 10:58:06 PDT (Tue)
Subject: Symbolic Algebra Newsgroup

A new newsgroup (net.math.sym) focusing on symbolic algebra is being formed
on the UUCP/USENET.  The group will cover algorithms, applications and
related languages.  Currently such issues might be discussed in net.ai,
net.math or net.lang.  There are 3 algebra systems available under UNIX:
REDUCE, MACSYMA or MAPLE, all of which will be applicable to the newsgroup.
This message is being sent to REDUCE users with a known network address.

Although the newsgroup will be a USENET group, a gateway to the ARPANET is
being set up by Jim Purtilo at the University of Illinois.  Presumably
this will also allow access to BITNET and CSNET.

If you would like to be included in such a group, please reply directly to
Laurence Leff (..!decvax!allegra!convex!smu!leff), or me if you have
difficulty reaching that address.  If you will be re-distributing the news
locally, or if there are others at your site interested in the group, please
include a count of them.

Larry Seward

[End forwarded message]

Dave Axler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Jan 85 20:36:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Douglas Galbraith <GALBRAITH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: $20 to the first person ...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I will pay $20 to the first person to send me the INVERSE Laplace Transform
of this equation:

        1                     2
F(S) = --- * ----------------------------------
        S     exp[-A*sqrt(S)] + exp[A*sqrt(S)]

where "A" is a real constant and "S" is the variable.

                                                Thanks,
                                                Douglas Galbraith
                                                galbraith@sierra
                                                doug@helens

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Jan 85 08:30:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Nils Nilsson <NILSSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers and Birds
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Here's a possibly interesting project for "birders"


          COLLABORATION SOUGHT ON COMPUTER ANALYSIS OF BIRD SONGS

We would like to develop a system for determining the number of
different species (kinds) of song birds present in an area from
"shotgun" recordings of the singing of the entire avian community.
The basic problem is to develop programs that can estimate how many
kinds of songs there are on a 45 minute sound tape, even though the
songs partially overlap one another, show some variation from
individual to individual, and there is no "library" of known songs to
use for comparisons.

An exact count is not required.  We wish to be able to determine
whether one patch of tropical forest had, say, 140-160 species present
when another had only 35-50.  We want, in essence, to use tape
recorders in the field to substitute for highly trained ornithologists
when doing surveys of bird diversity.  This work is part of a project
of Stanford's CENTER FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY in evaluating the
"health" of tropical forest ecosystems.

The project is at present unsupported.  Rewards would be working on a
biologically (and perhaps computationally) interesting problem that
has immediate importance to today's environmental crisis and, we hope,
glory in the form of publication(s).  If you are interested, please
call:

      Paul R. Ehrlich, Department of Biology, Stanford (415) 497-3171
                                  or
     John Harte,Energy and Resources Program, Berkeley (415) 642-8553

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 85 05:26:39 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Electronic News, December 31, 1984 page 18

Lisp Machine Incorporated received $7.6 million in third round of financing.


Electronic News, January 14, 1985, page 47

International Robomation/Intelligence has received $2 million in additional
financing from Garrett Corporation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jan 85 16:28:14 EST
-FROM-
From: Jon.Webb@CMU-CS-IUS2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rog-o-matic makes Scientific American
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The "Computer Recreations" column in this month's Scientific American
discusses Rogue and Rog-o-matic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jan 85  1635 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tablog
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Tablog (Tableau Logic Programming Language) is a language
based on first-order predicate logic with equality that
combines functional and logic programming.

A program in Tablog is a list of formulas in a first-order
logic (including equality, negation, and equivalence). Tablog
programs may define either relations or functions.

Tablog employs the Manna-Waldinger deductive-tableau proof
system as an interpreter in the same way that Prolog uses a
resolution-based proof system.  Unification is used by Tablog
to match a call with a line in the program and to bind
arguments.  The basic rules of deduction used for computing are
nonclausal resolution and rewriting by means of equality and
equivalence.

A previous message by Uday Reddy (U-REDDY@UTAH-20) classified
Tablog together with Eqlog and Kornfeld's work. There are
however important differences between the three languages:
Kornfeld extends unification to unify expressions declared to
be equal but his system will not reduce a term into other term
defined to be equal to it.  Eqlog is an extension of OBJ1 to
use narrowing rather than simple pattern matching when trying
to reduce functional terms.

Tablog, on the other hand, uses standard unification. It
operates on both formulas and terms and uses different inference
rules to reduce them. An atomic formula is reduced using
nonclausal resolution or is rewritten if it is asserted to be
equivalent to another formula. A term gets rewritten using an
equality rule that is applied to the goal to be reduced and
an assertion in the program. This rule is a generalization of
paramodulation.

Tablog distinguishes between negation and failure, so in a
sense it has 3-value logic. Tablog is strictly first-order so
it does not allow higher order functions.

References:

Y. Malachi, Z. Manna, and R. Waldinger,
   ``TABLOG -- The Deductive Tableau Programming Language,''
   Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional
   Programming, Austin, Texas, August 1984.

   Also available as:
   Stanford Computer Science Technical Report No. STAN-CS-1012.
   (Contact Berg@SCORE for ordering  information)

>-  Yoni Malachi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Jan 85 18:06:37-EST
-FROM-
From: David Kirsh <KIRSH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Philosophy and AI  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by JCMA@MIT-MC.]


             WHY PHILOSOPHY MIGHT MATTER TO AI


DATE: Tuesday, January 29th
TIME: 2:30 PM
PLACE: 8th Floor Playroom

In the 20th century, philosophers have made significant advances
toward understanding the nature of our higher mental abilities.  Since
AI is the science of designing possible minds and mind parts, it would
be a surprise if philosophy were not relevant to AI.  Questions of the
form "What must a person know if he is to be able to: understand a
language; make valid inductive inferences; explain the occurrence of
a physical event; rationally choose his next action..." are
characteristic of modern philosophy, and not surprisingly philosophers
have their theories.  I hope to convince you that philosophers often
ask good questions; they have useful formulations of the terms of
certain AI problems; and they have partial solutions to some of these
problems.





David Kirsh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
11
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 85 10:26:25 PST
-FROM-
From: Marty Cohen <mcohen%NRTC@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics stock price
-BODY-
At the AI conference at Denver in December,
I heard that Symbolics had gone public.
Their stock was then under $7 a share.

It is now up to $12 a share.

Any idea why the surge?

(I expected it to rise, but not that fast.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday,  1-Feb-85  8:56:48-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: $20 to the first person ...
-BODY-
>-------



We believe the answer to be  (see Vol3 #10)

                            s + ir
                              /
                              |
                1             |    pt           1
      f(t) =  -----    lim    |  e      -------------------    dp
              2 pi i  r->inf  |         p  cosh (A sqrt(p))
                              /
                            s - ir

       where s is chosen so that all singular points of the
       integrand lie on the left hand side of the straight
       line   Real(p) = s.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 85 10:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Fishwick
     <Fishwick%UPenn-Graphics%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Issue of CG&A
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Norm Badler <Badler@UPenn-Graphics> on Tue 15 Jan 1985 at 11:15


IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications is planning a Special Issue on Computer
Graphics and Expert Systems.  Papers addressing any relevant topic along the
following general lines are invited:

  * expert systems used in computer-aided design,
  * expert systems using graphical displays as an essential part of
    reasoning or analysis systems, or
  * graphical interfaces to expert systems.

Publication is scheduled for October 1985  The submission deadline is
April 1, 1985.  IEEE CG&A publishes color graphics in a magazine format,
but all papers are reviewed.  Republication (after revision) of very low
circulation conference papers is also permitted.

Please submit four copies of the paper, preferably in IEEE format, to:

   Dr. Norman I. Badler
   Associate Editor, IEEE CG&A
   CIS - Moore School D2
   University of Pennsylvania
   Philadelphia, PA 19104


(Net address: Badler%UPENN@CSNET-Relay)
(215) 898-5862

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 1 February 1985, 07:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Jim Hollan <hollan@nprdc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Availability of Steamer Software
-BODY-

        Some readers of this list may be interested in knowing that a
tape of the source code for the Steamer training system can be obtained
from the National Technical Information Service. This includes code for
the basic Steamer system and an associated object-based graphics editor.
Steamer was recently described (Hollan, Hutchins, & Weitzman, 1984) in
the Summer issue of AI Magazine. It is written in Zetalisp and currently
runs on Symbolics lisp machines. We would be interested in bug reports
but do not have time to offer any support or information services. Send
bug reports to hollan@nprdc.

        The charge for a 9-track 1600bpi tape is $240.  The order number
for the tape is AD-A146757. It can be obtained from

                National Technical Information Service
                5285 Port Royal Road
                Springfield, Virginia 22161

Jim Hollan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 85 09:45:33 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Reports
-BODY-

Technical Reports from Carnegie Mellon University

Masaru Tomita: An Efficient All-paths Parsing Algorithm for Natural Languages
October 1984

Ellen Lowenfeld Walker, Takeo Kanade: Shape Recovery of a Solid of Revolution
From Apparent Distortions of Patterns

C. E. Thorpe: FIDO: Vison and Navigation for a Robot Rover

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 1985 02:29:36 EST
-FROM-
From: BASKEYFIELDM@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Knowledge-Based Command and Control
-BODY-

                        ABSTRACT

        KNOWLEDGE BASED MODELS FOR COMMAND AND CONTROL

                        Dennis Cooper
                        General Research Corporation
                        P.O. Box 6770
                        Santa Barbara, CA  93160-6770

        In the last two years, there has been a growing interest in the
field of Artificial Intelligence.  More specifically, an area known as
"Expert Systems" or "Knowledge Engineering" has received much attention.
Expert systems are computer programs that can perform at a human expert
level in some narrow domain (e.g., infectious blood diseases, VAX 11/780
computer performance, etc.).  Expert systems are currently being developed
to deal with a variety of problems.  In the last six years General Research
Corporation has been developing technologies that support the definition
and construction of decision-making models.  The technology makes use of
techniques drawn from the expert systems field. Our decision-making model
have been principally applied to Army and Air Force analytical simulations
and wargaming models of military combat.  The emphasis is thus placed not
on developing expert models of command and control but on developing
fast, reasonable models of decision-making behavior.

        In this paper, we present a description of our still developing
technology and illustrate its capabilities from examples taken from the
TAC ASSESSOR model, CORDIVEM Cap design, and McClintic Theater model.
We will also describe two artificial intelligence tools, TIMM and KATIE,
which have facilitated knowledge-based model development.

        Requests for this paper should be directed to the author or
I will provide a copy (as long as the number doesn't get outrageous):

                          BASKEYFIELDM@USC_ISI.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 85 14:31:31 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Reports - University of Illinois
-BODY-

University of Illinois Technical Report List

Schang, Thierry "A Rule-Based Manager for the GPSI Environment" File 923
(Rule manager for an expert system environment)

Challou, Daniel J. "Towards a Knowledge Based Data Restructing Aid" 924
system to assist in development in of data structures and type definitions

Cohen, Seth M. "Object Identification Using Keyword Matching" File No 925
user interfaces for AI systems

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Feb 85 02:09:06-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Abstracts
-BODY-
     I perused recently the premier issue of Artificial Intelligence
Abstracts, published by EIC/Intelligence in New York.  Following is a
brief description and review.

     Artificial Intelligence Abstracts will be published monthly, for
an annual price of $295.  The first issue is 62 pages long, and prints
just over 300 abstracts.

     Document types abstracted include academic reports, association
reports, conference papers, federal government reports, journal
articles, news articles, newsletter articles, and patents.

    Some representative serials abstracted in the first issue: AI
Magazine, Artificial Intelligence, Business Week, Byte, Cognitive
Science, Computerworld, Datamation, The Economist, Electronic News,
Electronics Week, Financial Times of London, High Technology, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, Journal of Logic
Programming, MIS Week, The New York Times, Science, Scientific
American, Signal, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.
Abstracts of the entire proceedings of the 1984 AAAI National
Conference appear to be included in this issue.

     Abstracts are organized under the following major categories:
Markets & Issues: Business & Economics, International News, Human
Factors, General; Applications: Specialty Applications, Automation &
Robotics, Knowledge-Based Systems; Research: Computer Architecture,
Programming & Software, Sensors, Human Machine Interface, Cognitive
Sciences.

     The publication is generously indexed, and abstracts can by
accessed by author, subject, source (serial title), or industry or
corporation topic.  An Events & Meetings section in each issue
provides basic information about forthcoming meetings and conferences
related to artificial intelligence scheduled to occur during the next
12 months.

     Although the abstracts in this publication are uniformly useful
(the attention to developments in supercomputing is particularly
valuable), its coverage could be significantly broadened.  The
emphasis of AIA seems to be more on the popular and trade press, than
on the academic, scientific, and technical literature.  Computer &
Control Abstracts, for instance, captures much important AI-related
literature in all major languages from around the world which AIA's
editorial policy apparently excludes or overlooks.

     AIA's coverage of cognitive science--the AI-relevant literature
from philosophy, linguistics, psychology, and educational research--is
especially weak.  Perhaps there is a need for a special new
publication entitled Cognitive Science Abstracts which will do the job
for which AIA lacks the interest or space.

     Any habitual reader of AIList Digest would, I suspect, find
Artificial Intelligence Abstracts to be a worthwhile tool.  A sample
copy can be obtained by writing EIC/Intelligence at 48 West 38th
Street, New York, NY 10018, or calling (800) 223-6275.  AIList Digest
readers might also want to examine EIC's Robomatix Reporter (which
abstracts the robotics literature), CAD/CAM Abstracts, and
Telecommunications Abstracts.

>- Wayne McGuire <wayne%mit-oz@mit-mc>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 1985 1325-PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Miriam Blatt <blatt@amadeus>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new and trendy word collection
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A friend of mine is looking for words to put in a dictionary she is
working on. Some examples of words we have already suggested are
"WYSIWYG" - what you see is what you get, and "RISC" - reduced
instruction set computer. If you have some words to suggest, or
think some may occur to you in the next few days, please save the
form at the end of this message and mail it back.

Here is the original letter:

Hi,

We are starting on a new, exciting project and we need your help. The
project is a business dictionary - working title "Essential Terms:
Today's Business Vocabulary - to be published by Franklin Watts (part
of Grolier, they started as a children's house and now do adult books
as well) and the help we need is a list of words.

What will set our book apart from the ordinary business dictionary is
its emphasis on new and trendy words and ironic usages for old words or
terms. Some examples: "merged and purged" (what is done, via a computer
program, when combining mailing lists to eliminate from the final list,
duplicates and people who cannot tolerate direct mail advertising),
"socks and stocks" (Sears financial centers in retail stores), "big
blue" (IBM), "Kaufmanized" (the state of the financial markets after a
pronouncement about the direction of interest rates by Salomon
Brothers' economic guru, Henry Kaufman), "golden girdle" (the high tech
belt that crosses central Florida) and "valium picnic" (slow day on the
stock market).

With the exception of the last term, we saw all of these expressions in
print. However, to get more of them we need access to words that are so
new, so particular, and so irreverent that they have not yet been
published, and this is where we hope you can help.

What are the fun, interesting terms in your work - field and/or
industry? Would you please keep the attached form wherever it is most
likely to be at hand when a word "flashes" into your conversation, for
the next few days, and fill it with the words/terms and definitions
that make "Today's Business Vocabulary" so lively?

We appreciate the crucial nature of your help to our project, and will
be happy to acknowledge your contribution in our introduction.

Please circle February 8th on your calendar and leave a few minutes on
that Friday to mail back the list.

Thank you very much for your help.

        Rachel Epstein and Nina Liebman


Name:
Phone:
Wish to be acknowledged: (Yes/No)

For each word, give its meaning and origin.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 09:50:15-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Procedural Knowledge  (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             Procedural Knowledge

SPEAKER:     Michael Georgeff
             A.I. Center, SRI International and,
             Center for the Study of Language and Information,
             Stanford University


DATE:        Friday, February 1, 1985
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

Active intelligent systems  need to  be able to  represent and  reason
about actions and how those actions  can be combined to achieve  given
goals.  This knowledge is often in the form of SEQUENCES of actions or
PROCEDURES  for  achieving   given  goals  or   reacting  to   certain
situations.   For  example,  knowledge   about  kicking  a   football,
performing a certain dance movement,  cooking a roast dinner,  solving
Rubik's cube,  or  diagnosing  an  engine  malfunction,  is  primarily
knowledge about procedures for accomplishing these tasks.

In this  talk we  describe a  scheme for  explicitly representing  and
reasoning about procedural knowledge based  on the notion of  PROCESS.
The knowledge  representation is  sufficiently  rich to  describe  the
effects of arbitrary sequences of tests and actions, and the inference
mechanism provides a means for directly using this knowledge to  reach
desired operational goals.  Furthermore, the knowledge  representation
has a declarative semantics that  provides for incremental changes  to
the system,  rich explanatory  capabilities, and  verifiability.   The
scheme also provides a mechanism for  reasoning about the use of  this
knowledge, thus  enabling the  system  to choose  effectively  between
alternative courses of action.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 17:26:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning about Actions and Processes  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 ``Reasoning About Actions and Processes''

  Room G-19             Michael Georgeff, CSLI
  2:15 p.m.             Thursday, Feb. 7, Redwood Hall, Stanford


Active intelligent systems need to be able to represent and reason about
actions and how those actions can be combined to achieve given goals.  For
example, knowledge about kicking a football, performing a certain dance
movement, cooking a roast dinner, solving Rubik's cube, or diagnosing an
engine malfunction, is primarily knowledge about sequences of actions or
procedures for achieving these goals.  Within AI, there have been two
approaches to this problem, with a somewhat poor connection between the
two. In the first category, there is some work on theories of action, or
what an action is.  This research has focused mainly on problems in natural
language understanding concerned with the meaning of action sentences.
Second, there is work on planning, i.e., the problem of constructing a plan
by searching for a sequence of actions that yields a given goal.
Surprisingly, there is almost no work in AI about the execution of
pre-formed plans -- yet this is the almost universal way in which humans go
about their day-to-day tasks, and probably the only way other animals do
so.  In this talk we aim to set the foundation for a theory of action that:
(1) provides a suitable semantics for simple action sentences in natural
language, (2) provides a method of practical reasoning about how to achieve
given goals based on procedural knowledge, and (3) serves as a basis for
planning.  The first of these aims is met by defining a suitable
declarative semantics for action, and the second by providing a suitable
operational semantics.  The third rests on both of these, but in addition
requires that we have a means of searching the space of possible world
histories.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
12
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 09:00:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sublists
-BODY-
Readers occasionally ask me whether there is an AIList version
that omits seminar notices, conferences, flames, or some other
subset of the usual material.  Usenet readers used to ask
whether messages could be split into two or more bboard streams.
(Incidentally, our full Usenet gateway may be working again in two
or three weeks.)

At present there is no such sublist mechanism.  I haven't the time
and energy to maintain multiple subscription lists; even if I did,
there is no concensus on which messages are the "good stuff".

If someone else wants to create such a "cream" distribution,
I will help any way I can.  I skim material from other bboards and
lists, and I see no reason why someone shouldn't excerpt AIList and
pass his selections along.  We could even have multiple splits, with
one sublist taking, say, philosophy and psychology and another carrying
psychology and linguistics.  (This would cause difficulty, however, in
the eventual establishment of the sublists as independent lists.)

Another possible solution is for mailers or redistribution systems to
include message parsing code that can delete any text starting with
"Subject: Seminar -", etc.  (Even the ability to skip to the next message
would be welcome.  I currently read mostly "undigested" or "exploded" digests
and bboards, which is one way of getting this convenience.)  If someone
wants to develop such a mail system, I am willing to cooperate in
standardizing the header keyword format.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 09:17:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Ariadne Johnson <ARIADNE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Berkeley Prolog Machine  (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

CS 300  --  Computer Science Department Colloquium  --  Winter 1984-1985.
Our fifth meeting will be

                      Tuesday, February 5, 1985
                    at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium

                    THE BERKELEY PROLOG MACHINE

                         Alvin M. DESPAIN
               Computer Science, Univ. of Calif.,Berkeley

     The Berkeley Prolog Machine (PLM) is an experiment in high performance
architecture for executing logic programs.  It is part of a longer term
effort, the Berkeley Aquarius project.  The Aquarius project at Berkeley is
an on-going investigation whose ultimate research goal is to determine how
enormous improvements in performance can be achieved in a machine specialized
to calculate some very difficult "real" problems in design automation,
discrete simulation, systems, and signal processing.  Our approach can be
characterized by three important points:
   (1) Aquarius is to be a MIMD machine made of heterogeneous processing
       elements, each of which is tailored to accommodate its own
       individual processing requirements
   (2) it is to exploit parallelism at all levels of execution, and
   (3) it is to support logic-programming at the ISP level.
The presentation will include a discussion of the systems architecture of
Aquarius.  The main discussion will focus on the Prolog Machine(PLM)
and will describe its key innova- tive features and development status.
Some performance estimates of the PLM as derived from simulation studies will
be presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 17:26:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Typography  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  12 noon, 2/7          TINLunch
  Ventura Hall          Excerpts from Charles Bigelow's ``Principles of
  Conference Room        Structured Font Design for the Personal Workstation''
                        and Fernand Baudin's
                         ``Typography: Evolution + Revolution''
                        Discussion led by David Levy


The TINlunch of February 7 will focus on some of the issues surrounding the
new computer technology exemplified by TEDIT, TEX, and EMACS.  These ``word
processing'' and ``document preparation'' systems are, of course, nothing
other than ``writing'' tools -- intended for writing with the aid of the
computer.  The first reading, an excerpt from an article by Charles
Bigelow, discusses the design of typefaces in the new digital medium as a
problem of balancing conservation and innovation: conserving the legibility
and elegance of our inherited letter forms while meeting the demands of the
new medium.  In the second reading, Fernand Baudin suggests that the new
writing technology will require of us a new literacy: not just the ability
to read and write, but the ability to organize our writing visually -- that
is, typographically.  He calls for ``the close cooperation of specialists
in many branches: linguist[ic]s, communication, psychology, history,
technology.''                                              --David Levy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 85 11:56:01 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Conceptual Competence for Solving Problems  (UCB)
-BODY-
                          BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Spring  1985
                         Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B


         ``Conceptual Competence for Understanding and Solving Problems''

            James G. Greeno, School of Education, UC Berkeley


                 TIME:                Tuesday, February 5, 11 - 12:30
                 PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

            Behavior of people, including children, can include  generative
            conformity  to  principles  in  a way that supports conclusions
            that they understand the principles.  This understanding may be
            implicit,  involving  a kind of competence.  Examples involving
            principles of number, analyzed using planning nets, and princi-
            ples  of  set  theory, analyzed using Montague grammar, will be
            discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 17:26:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief Revision  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]



                  SUMMARY OF THE F4 MEETING ON JANUARY 7

    The topic was an overview belief revision as a research area in AI.
``Belief revision'' is a broad enough term to cover many different types of
inferential activity in AI.  We discussed four types: (1) Search theory, in
which assumptions are made and retracted in an effort to find a problem
solution; (2) ``Truth'' maintenance systems a la Doyle.  There are
foundational theories of belief in the sense of Harmon, with a set of
unsupported premises underlying all beliefs.  The key feature of these
systems is their attempt to keep track of all justifications for belief,
and to revise these justifications in the face of contradictory belief.
(3) Database updates in the presence of integrity constraints or
user-defined views, in which case the update can become ambiguous.  The
syntactic approach of Vardi et. al. was reviewed.  (4) Ad-hoc approaches
designed for particular domains, for example the simple ``believe what you
see'' principle embedded in Shakey the robot.
    Ned Block made the interesting observation that belief revision in the
AI context did not correspond to scientific theory revision as discussed in
the philosophical literature; for example, the principle of simplicity did
not seem to be a criterion for revision.  This provoked a large amount of
discussion.                                          --Kurt Konolige

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 1985  14:20 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Nonlinear Planning  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Nonlinear Planning: A Rigorous Reconstruction

Dave Chapman - AI Revolving Seminar

The problem of achieving conjunctive goals has been central
to domain-independent planning research; the nonlinear
constraint-posting approach has been most successful.  Previous
planners of this type have been complicated, heuristic, and
ill-defined.  I will present a simple, precise algorithm and prove it
correct and complete.  The analytic tools I have developed in
constructing this algorithm clarify previous planning research.  The
frame problem is revealed as the limiting factor in the range of
applicability of state-of-the-art planners.  I will suggest a new
approach for future research.

TUESDAY 2/5/85  4:00pm      8th floor playroom

*** NOTE PERMANENT CHANGE OF DAY ***

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 85 11:47:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Shafer@CMU-CS-IUS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Syllable Recognition  (CMU)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the CMU-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker:  Renato DeMori, Concordia University, Montreal
Topic:    Parallel Algorithms for Syllable Recognition in Continuous Speech
Dates:    5-Feb-85
Time:     3:30 pm
Place:    WeH 5409

        The talk describes a distributed rule-based system for automatic
speech recognition.  Acoustic property extraction and feature
hypothesization are performed by the application of sequences of
operators.  The sequences, called plans, are executed by cooperative
expert programs.  Experimental results on the automatic segmentation
and recognition of phrases, made of connected letters and digits are
described and discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 85 09:15:56 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Cognitive Science Society
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        7th Annual Conference of the COGNITIVE SCIENCE SOCIETY

                           August 15-17, 1985
                             U.C. Irvine

                          Call for Papers

Submission Deadline: 11 MARCH 1985

Topics: Language Processing, Memory Models, Vision Processing, Belief
        Systems, Learning and Memory, Perception, Knowledge Representation,
        Inference Mechanisms

Submission:
  Four copies,
     Papers: 5000 word maximum
    Posters: 2000 word maximum

  Include: named, address, phone number
           four key words
           abstract (100-250 words)
           total word length

  Send to: Richard Granger
           Computer Science Dept.
           University of California
           Irvine, CA 92717

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 09:46:10-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Idaho State University Conference on Automated Reasoning and
-BODY-           Expert Systems

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho, Dept. of Mathematics is sponsoring
their 8th miniconference in the area of Automated Reasoning and Expert
Systems. (Does anyone know if this means they have had 8 conferences on
automated reasoning or that only the 8th conference is devoted to automated
reasoning?)  They have sent out a call for papers for the conference to
be held in Pocatello on April 26-27, 1984.  The people to contact are
Larry Winter 208-236-2501 or Bob Girse 208-236-3819  Department of Math.
Idaho State University, Pocatello Idaho 83209.  Dr. Ewing Lusk of the
Automated Reasoning Group at Argonne National Lab. will be the principal
speaker.  Is anyone familiar with any of the research in this area
going on at Idaho State Univ.?

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 85 16:36:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "Bruce D. Shriver"
     <shriver.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Systems Sciences Software
-BODY-

    CALL FOR: Papers, Referees, Session Coordinators, Task Forces
    =============================================================

SOFTWARE TRACK of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
========================================================================

HICSS-19 is the ninteenth in a series of conferences devoted to advances
in information and system sciences.  The conference will encompass develop-
ments theory and practice in the areas of systems architecture, software,
decision support systems, and knowledge-based systems.  The conference is
sponsored by the University of Hawaii and the University of Southwestern
Louisiana in cooperation with the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society.  It
will be held on Jan. 8-10, 1986 in Honolulu, Hawaii.  Papers, referees,
and session coordinators are solicited in the following areas:

     Software Design Tools, Techniques, and Environments
     Models of System and Program Behavior
     Testing, Verification, and Validation
     Professional Workstation Environments
     Alternative Language Paradigms
     Reuseability in Design and Implementation
     Knowledge-Based Systems Software
     Algorithm Analysis and Animation
     Visual Languages

Please submit six (6) copies of the full paper (not to exceed 26 double-
spaced pages including diagrams) by July 5, 1985 directly to:

     Bruce D. Shriver
     HICSS-19 Software Track Coordinator
     IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
     PO Box 218, Route 134
     Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

     (914) 945-1664
     csnet: shriver.yktvmv@ibm-sj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 85 12:28:11 est
-FROM-
From: minker@maryland (Jack Minker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AUTOMATH AND AUTOMATED REASONING WEEK AT MARYLAND MARCH 4-8, 1985
-BODY-

                            WEEK
                             of
              AUTOMATH AND AUTOMATED REASONING
                             at
                 THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
                  MARCH 4 - MARCH 8, 1985


The Mathematics and  Computer  Science  Departments  at  the
University of Maryland at College Park and the National Sci-
ence Foundation are jointly sponsoring  a  Special  Year  in
Mathematical  Logic  and  Theoretical Computer Science.  The
week of March 4-8, 1985 will  be  devoted  to  Automath  and
Automated  Reasoning.   There will be ten distinguished lec-
tures as follows:


     Monday,    March 4  1100-1230   Nicolas deBruin
                "THE AUTOMATH PROJECT"

     Monday,    March 4  1500-1630   Jeffrey Zucker
                "FORMALIZATION  OF  CLASSICAL   MATHEMATICS   IN
                AUTOMATH"

     Tuesday,   March 5  1000-1130   Woody Bledsoe
                "HIGH LEVEL PLANS FOR AN INEQUALITY PROVER"

     Tuesday,   March 5  1400-1530   Larry Wos
                "AUTOMATED REASONING: INTRODUCTION AND  APPLICA-
                TION"

     Wednesday, March 6  1100-1230   Larry Wos
                "AUTOMATED REASONING: OPEN QUESTIONS FROM  ALGE-
                BRA AND FORMAL LOGIC"

     Wednesday, March 6  1430-1600   Woody Bledsoe
                "USING ANALOGY IN AUTOMATIC THEOREM PROVING"

     Thursday,  March 7  1030-1200   Robert Constable
                "PROGRAMMING AS FORMAL MATHEMATICS"

     Thursday,  March 7  1330-1500   Peter Andrews
                "TYPED LAMBDA  CALCULUS  AND  AUTOMATIC  THEOREM
                PROVING"

     Friday,    March 8  1100-1230   Robert Constable
                "CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS AS PROGRAMMING"


     Friday,    March 8  1330-1500   Peter Andrews
                "TOWARDS AUTOMATING HIGHER ORDER LOGIC"

     All lectures will be given at:
                Mathematics Building, Room Y3206

     The lectures are open to the public.  If  you  plan  to
attend  kindly  notify  us  so  that we can make appropriate
plans for space. Limited  funds  are  available  to  support
junior  faculty and graduate students for the entire week or
part of the week.  To obtain funds, please submit an  appli-
cation  listing  your affiliation and send either a net mes-
sage or a letter to:


                        Jack Minker
               Department of Computer Science
                   University of Maryland
                   College Park, MD 20742
                       (301) 454-6119
                      minker@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
13
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 31 January 1985, 14:32-EST
-FROM-
From: Henry Lieberman <Henry at MIT-OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp machine graphing/chart software
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Has anybody got a package for generating graphs and charts
on the Lisp machine [for example, the equivalent of Microsoft Chart]?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Feb 1985  12:35 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Steven Christopher Bagley <BAGLEY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISPs for the Apple Lisa
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Are there are any reasonable LISP systems available for the Apple
Lisa?  Any pointers, leads, info,.... to Bagley@OZ.

Thanks,
Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 85 20:41:48 -0200
-FROM-
From: eyal%wisdom.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (Eyal mozes)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for information
-BODY-
I am looking for information about the application of traditional
philosophical logic (such as Aristotle's rules of the syllogism, or
Mill's laws of inductive logic) in computer science, particularly in
Artificial Intelligence.

I would be very grateful to anyone who can tell me where I can find
any reports about work in this direction, or any papers discussing
possibilities in this area. I would also be grateful for suggestions
about people whose work is close enough to this area to have a good
chance of knowing about such work.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!decvax!humus!wisdom!eyal

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 Jan 85 21:36:19-PST
-FROM-
From: Jose Brazio <FAT.BRAZIO@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Large sparse systems of linear equations - want information
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

    I would appreciate if someone could give me some information on
the problem of solving the equilibrium equations for a finite Markov
chain.  That is, I want to solve a system of the form

                        q A = 0

where either A = I - P, with P being the transition probability matrix
of a discrete time Markov chain, or A is the rate transition matrix of a
continuous time Markov chain.  In any case, the matrix A is large (as
large as I can get away with) and sparse, the fraction of nonzero
elements being of the order of ln N / N (N = order of A).  I would
like to know

(1) If there is any solution method especially appropriate (i.e.,
exploiting the special structure of A) for this problem;

(2) Pointers to literature on implementation issues, data structures,
etc.; alternatively, if there is any package with an appropriate
subroutine (neither NAG or IMSL seem to have one).

Thanks.

    Jose Brazio

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 85 01:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics Users' Group
-BODY-

I posted a note last week asking about "a network mailing list for users of
Symbolics Lisp machines".  I received several replies pointing me toward
SLUG@UTEXAS-20, a mailing list for the "Symbolics Lisp Users Group". This
mailing list is maintained by Rich Cohen (CMP.COHEN@UTEXAS-20). Requests to
be added to the mailing list should be sent to SLUG-REQUEST@UTEXAS-20 and
submissions to SLUG@UTEXAS-20.

This mailing list reportedly does not see a great deal of traffic
at present.

Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 2 Feb 85 22:04:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Chips
-BODY-
Wayne McGuire (MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC) has called my attention to
a New York Times article by Andrew Pollack, 1/24/85, p. D2,
Chips to Spur Intelligence.  Some excerpts:


[...]  artificial intelligence chips are so close to
reality that this year that, for the first time, a panel will be devoted
to the topic at the international Solid State Circuit Conference, the
annual scientific meeting for microchip designers that will be held in
New York next month.  [...]

     Texas Instruments Inc., which sells a LISP machine, is working
under a Defense Department contract to shrink virtually the entire
machine onto a single chip by 1986.  Symbolics Inc. of Cambridge,
Mass., another vendor of such machines, says it is also working on
shrinking its machine onto a chip over the next several years.  And
Motorola is believed to be considering the development of a LISP
co-processor that would work alongside its 68000 microprocessor and
speed its handling of artificial intelligence tasks.  [...]

     Proximity Technology Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., has developed
a chip that looks for similarities between strings of characters.
Today, a computer will be stumped by a simple spelling error in its
instructions.  An intelligent computer, however, when asked to search
a data base for information on "Los Angelees," would recognize that
that probably means "Los Angeles."  [...]  Such pattern-matching chips
could also be useful for speech recognition [...]

Developing a meaningful artificial intelligence chip will require
putting at least 10 million logic elements, or gates, onto a single
piece of silicon, according to Raj Reddy, director of the Robotics
Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.  That is 10 times the number
of elements that can now be put on even the most advanced chips, he
said.  [...]  "By the year 2000, it's reasonable to have one
billion gates on a chip."  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 2 Feb 85 21:50:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Music
-BODY-
A Stanford bboard item mentioned a 1/29/85 AP article on automated
music transcription.  This may be relevant to the problem of
recognizing bird songs (AIList Vol. 3, No. 10).  Some excerpts:


Computer Prints Mozart From Piano
By STEVE WILSTEIN
Associated Press Writer

    STANFORD, Calif. (AP) - Roll over Beethoven, and take a look at a
computer that can transcribe Mozart just by ''listening'' to a piano.
    An artificial intelligence program developed by Stanford University
printed out a minuet from a Mozart symphony, complete with accents,
meters and notes on a five-line staff, researchers said Tuesday.
    The computer has a bit more trouble with the syncopation of ragtime
or the funk of Michael Jackson, and can't transcribe harmony. But
researchers believe polyphony is less than two years away, and
computer jam sessions may be possible.
    ''It shows there is really good potential,'' said research associate
Bernard Mont-Reynaud. ''We've had success with the single voice. Now
we're gearing up with new machines to do polyphonic transcription. We
should be able to do a full piano piece or string quartet within 1 1/2
years.''  [...]
    ''My hope is these things will connect someday,'' Mont-Reynaud said.
''You can play something, it gets analyzed, and software transforms
it and responds. A musician and a computer can play together.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Feb 85 05:59:30 EST
-FROM-
From: Ping.Kang.Hsiung@CMU-CS-UNH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a good article on IEEE COMPUTER
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

For those who are interested in gaining some knowledge on
the Chinese/Japanese/Korean languages, the article written
by Joseph Becker in Jan 85's   *IEEE Computer*  provides an
extremely rare opportunity.

This paper highlights the features of the idiographic
writing systems, and gives intelligent description of
the structure of written and spoken Chinese/Kanji.
It also discusses some possible approaches and related
problems to "computerize" these languages--which used
to be, and still are the subject of calligraphic creation.

Mr. Becker is a remarkable reseacher in this field as
well as an excellent writter. His paper is well organized,
easy to read, yet gives very precise illustration of some
certain abstract concepts in these beautiful languages.
His previous article dealing with a similar topic and
published on June, 1984's *Scientific American* is also
very good.

(As a person who holds Chinese as his mother-tongue,
 i actually feel quite embarrassed by the fact that
 here is this *foreigner* who studys my language
 so deep and detailed, such that i have to from time
 to time stop reading and think for a while before
 agree with him.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 85 09:54 PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Perrine <tom@LOGICON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "True Names"
-BODY-
Vernor Vinge's classic SF/AI novella is back in print!  The latest
edition is from Bluejay Books, in a larger-format paperback.  This
edition features an afterword by Dr.  Marvin Minsky.  The book is worth
buying just for the afterword, although I originally bought the book
because I was familiar with the story.  The book was a Hugo nominee
several years ago (1981, I think).

I strongly recommend it to anyone in the Cognitive Science field.
(Actually, I recommend it to *everyone* I know.)

Tom Perrine
"tom@logicon.arpa"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Feb 85 11:46:39-EST
-FROM-
From: Bob Hall <RJH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI JOKES (with a twist)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Well, the AI Joke Contest is winding down and so far the response has
been minimal (but non-zero).  There IS still time to enter, but
there is now a deadline of postmark by Feb. 25.  Since there has
been some griping about actually having to find a stamp and some
paper, I HAVE AGREED TO BE A NETWORK ADDRESS FOR ENTRIES.  So
send 'em to me, rjh@oz, and I'll send 'em in for ya.  Include all
the same info.  Here's a reminder ...

                         AI Joke Contest

Come up with a good cocktail-party-worthy joke about some aspect of
AI and win a U.C., Berkeley T-shirt!  Enter as many times as you like.
Winner (exactly one) will be judged solely on the number of ``HA''s
evoked from the impartial panel of judges.  Ties will be broken by
earliest postmark and contest ends Feb 25, 1985.

To be eligible for a prize, you must include your address and t-shirt size.
Entries become property of the judges.

To Enter:

Mail via US Mail your entry in any legible format to
(or send via net mail to rjh@oz)

                       AI Jokes
                       1717 Allston Way
                       Berkeley, CA  94703

Enter Now!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 1985 2117-EST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: dndobrin@mit-charon (David N. Dobrin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - The Scientific Essay  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Name:  21.780    The Scientific Essay

Time:  TR  3:30 - 5:00
Place:  4-260 (Probably)


    This is simultaneously a historical course in essays on the mind and
a writing course, for people who write sentences like this one and wish
they wouldn't.  The reading begins with James and Freud.  It then moves
to artificial intelligence and cognitive science--the usual Tuuring,
Simon, Minsky, Fodor stuff, with the addition of (dare I say it)
Dreyfus and Searle.  The writing is partly on the essays and partly on
anything you want.  (If you have something you've got to get done, you
can write it in this class.)

    The course is designed for undergraduates.  Taking courses with
similar reading (24.09) is helpful, but not required.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 January 1985 16:40-EST
-FROM-
From: Rosemary B. Hegg <ROSIE @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - AI in Medicine  (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

SPRING TERM SEMINAR

The following course will be offered next term:

6.891  ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE (A)


Prereq: 6.824 or equivalent.  6.871 in addition is recommended.
G(2)
3-0-9
Friday 9-12, Room 26-314.
Enrollmment may be limited to preserve a seminar atmosphere.

This seminar course will explore the state of the art of AI in
medicine research.  Much of the methodology of ``expert systems'' was
first developed for medical applications, and the field of medicine
continues to provide excellent problems for challenging AI work.  The
intent of this course is to assess the accomplishments of over a decade
of work in this field, to identify and study those problems now thought
to be central to further progress, and to review the most interesting
current approaches to these problems.  Topics to be covered include:

1. The rationale for medical reasoning systems; their possible use
as error-detectors, consultants and teachers; historical non-AI
approaches to medical decision making.  Pragmatic constraints and
opportunities provided by the needs of the health-care system.

2. A rapid review of the original AI programs for medicine, looking
at the strengths and weaknesses of simple rule-based reasoning programs
such as MYCIN and simple frame-matching programs such as
INTERNIST and PIP.

3. Consideration of knowledge representations that make explicit the
anatomical, physiological, temporal and causal inter-relationships in
medicine; new reasoning methods (e.g., CADUCEUS) that can exploit
a number of these representations.

4. Reasoning at multiple levels of detail, thus integrating
reasoning based on associations drawn from experience with reasoning
based on an analysis of the structure and function of the body (e.g.,
ABEL.)

5. Analysis of the generic problem solving tasks (e.g.,
classification, construction, debugging) in diagnostic and therapeutic
reasoning, and consideration of programs that adapt their methods to the
problem at hand.

6. Generation of explanations and justifications of a program's
knowledge, reasoning strategies, and conclusions.

7. Knowledge acquisition.  Learning from textbooks, by disagreement
with experts, and from experience.  Analysis of protocols of expert
behavior.


This seminar will be an advanced-level course, intended only for
students with a strong artificial intelligence background.
The
textbook will be "Readings in Medical Artificial Intelligence: The
First Decade" by Clancey and Shortliffe, and a large number of
additional papers.

Each student will write a
substantial term paper, and there will be short (?) research problems
that involve building small systems.


Instructor: Prof. Peter Szolovits, NE43-365, 3-3476,

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
14
-DATE-
Date: 4 Feb 85 13:43:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp and Lexical Bindings
-BODY-
I saw a comment on AIList about Common Lisp that should probably be
answered.  The claim is that the Gold-Hill CL interpreter is faster than
the VAX interpreter because the VAX interpreter does lexical bindings.
This is almost certainly false. During the early design stages of Elisp
(the extended-addressing TOPS-20 UCI Lisp), I tried several different
binding strategies. I found that in the interpreter there was almost no
difference in speed caused by a full A-list binding strategy.  This
should be about the same as implementing lexical bindings in the obvious
way.  The main problem with lexical binding in the interpreter is that
it uses CONS cells, since most implementations use some sort of binding
list to keep local bindings. This it causes more GC's.  In the DEC-20
CL, I construct these lists on the stack, since bindings are not needed
once you exit from the routine in which they are made.  If someone
constructs a lexical closure, I copy all bindings from the stack to the
heap.  But this happens fairly seldom.  The mechanisms needed to do the
copying from stack to heap are somewhat delicate, but it can be made to
work.  There are also implementations using indirect pointers, if that
turns out to be reasonable on your machine.  A CL interpreter will
probably be slower than a Maclisp interpreter, because of a number of
things:
  - lexical closures
  - the & binding options
  - multiple values
Each of these things can be implemented without adding serious overhead,
but the affect of all of them together is noticable.  However I think a
properly tuned interpreter should be able to get within a factor of 1.5
of Maclisp.  The current DEC-20 Common Lisp is entirely interpreted.
Even system functions are supplied in interpreted form.  Although more
speed would be desirable (Our compiler will be out Real Soon Now), one
can certainly do real work in our system.  I can see that someone might
want to produced a stripped-down pseudo-CL for some sort of real-time
work.  In that case, a lot of thought would have to go into what to
leave out.  I do not think it makes sense to leave out only lexical
binding.  That alone does not cause serious performance problems.  The
real problem is the size of the language, and the number of options,
particularly in the sequence functions.  This means that good performance
can be obtained only by careful special-case optimizing.  Unfortunately
the language is so large that a compiler that does appropriate optimizations
will take a while to develop.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 84 05:11:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: report of meeting about Common Lisp
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard, with permission from the author.
I just recently discovered this September message.  -- KIL]

This is a report on the Common Lisp Workshop, held at the Naval
Postgraduate School, in Monterrey, CA, 18 and 19 Sept 84.  The meeting
was called by ARPA, to examine the present state of CL, and to make
suggestions on where it should go next.  The attendees were mostly
associated with organizations that were implementing CL or thinking of
doing so, though there were also some user organizations.  There was a
mix of Universities, commercial vendors, etc.

The main thrust of the meeting seemed to be how CL would make the
transition between a nice idea dreamed up by a few language designers to
a language that is being supported by a large number of vendors and
required by ARPA.  My discussion will follow the overall organization of
the sessions.  (However this order is not chronological.  It is
organized so that some of my users won't have to wade through technical
details to see what is likely to be of the most interest to them.)

   ARPA policy
   Subsets
   Organizational issues
   Proposed extensions
   Workstation/server architecture
   Multi-processing facilities

I. ARPA Policy

The folks who were here from ARPA were Ron Ohlander and Steve Squires.
Apparently Ron will be leaving ARPA (when? I didn't get the time - I
think within a year), and Squires will end up carrying the ball for CL.
Ron did most of the talking in this meeting.

One of the factors that is going to change the nature of CL is the fact
the ARPA is planning to push it strongly.  No final decisions are made,
but it looks like ARPA is going to require and/or strongly suggest that
CL be used for its research contracts.  This will be particularly the
case for the Strategic Computing project, since they intend for all
contractors involved in that project to be able to share code.  They
made all the normal qualifications about doing this in a way that will
not stiffle innovation, and allowing exceptions as appropriate.  But the
evidence is that they will exert very strong pressure towards CL.  (They
mentioned in passing that they also plan to specify that systems they
pay for should use TCP/IP for networking.  Incidentally, they also said
that if you want the RFP for the Strategic Computing initiative in new
architectures, you should ask for
   N0039-84-R-0605(Q)
from the Naval Electronics Systems Command, Code 2013.  The following
phone number is not for Code 2013, but they can refer you:
202-692-6085.)

One of the amusing results of ARPA's policies is that there is now a bit
of a battle over how much of CL you have to implement in order to
qualify.  Certain vendors seem to be interested in providing some degree
of CL compatibility within their existing Lisps, and on that basis want
to be qualified to participate in cases where CL is specified.  It is
not clear to what extent they have sound technical reasons for not
wanting to do full CL, and to what extent they feel that they don't have
time to do so soon enough.

ARPA seems to be willing to put at some money into helping CL get off
the ground, and also to supplying some clerical support, and possibly
legal and organizational advice.

II. Subsets

One of the questions which was posed is whether the CL community should
specify one or more official subsets.  There are a number of reasons
why subsets might be desirable:
  - several people have proposed a subset for teaching purposes.  The
        language is so big that many courses would probably prefer not
        to deal with the whole thing.  It might be helpful if different
        texts would use the same subset.  This could promote a
        competitive marketplace.  It might also be nice if our AI
        textbooks and our Lisp programming intro assumed the same
        subset! This might not mean a special implementation, since it
        would be easy enough to hide the names of the functions that are
        not in the subset.  Instructional applications also tend to be
        on small machines, and so might also fall afoul of the second
        requirement:
  - it might be nice to implement CL on small machines.  Existing CL
        implementations seem to take between 1 and 2.5 Mbytes of ram
        (more if you count editors, etc.).  It would be nice to be able
        to have CL for the Macintosh and other smaller machines.
  - full CL has features that may make it hard to do efficient
        implementations.  This could be important for slower micros. But
        it also affects people interested in doing "embedded systems",
        i.e. things that have to go inside missles, or that have to do
        process control, etc. Examples of such features are lexical
        binding, multiple values, and sequence functions.  There was
        considerable disagreement over how significant this issue is.
        Some felt that with enough work all of these problems could be
        overcome, but it does seem clear that the first implementations
        of full CL are going to be noticably slower than simpler Lisps
        such as PSL.
 - some vendors may not find it practical to implement full CL
        immediately.  They would like to be able to start with a subset,
        and have that be enough to qualify them to participate in
        projects for which ARPA wants CL to be used.

There was no concensus on this issue.  Discussion of subsets got off to
a slow start, but it kept coming up, and tempers starting getting hotter
as time went on.  Here is my reading of the general reactions:
  - people seemed to agree that an educational subset might be useful
        and was harmless.  No one seemed to feel that the CL designers
        or this meeting were ready to specify such a subset.  So it
        seems that textbook writers will be left on their own, at least
        until we see how a few of these subsets turn out.
  - little was said about the small-machine problem.
  - there was a lot of discussion about the last two types of subsets.
        (They are hard to separate.)  There were strong feelings on both
        sides.  Some people feel that only a full CL should be called
        CL, and that we should not encourage subsets.  Even the most
        extreme holders of this view did feel sympathetic to purveyors
        of existing Lisp implementations, and did agree that they should
        be encouraged to provide whatever degree of CL compatibility
        they felt they could manage.  This issue is obviously going to
        come up again at the next meeting, and will be discussed hotly
        with ARPA in the meantime.  ARPA will have a strong effect on
        this.  If they plan to require use of CL, then they will  have
        the final say on what they mean by CL.  There will surely be
        subsets of this kind.  I would be willing to bet that ARPA will
        allow it for embedded systems and process control, where there
        are clear technical reasons.  I have no idea what they will do
        in other cases.  (Maybe the Ada approach, where subsets are
        allowed as long as there is a clear plan to move to a full
        implementation.)  There is also some indication that ARPA may
        find it acceptable to do work in another Lisp as long as there
        is a program to translate the results into CL.  Clearly a subset
        would qualify here.

Note that some of these "subsets" may not be real subsets.  It is likely
that they will have to add a few features.  E.g. those implementors who
do not want to bear the overhead of generic sequence functions may add a
few type-specific functions, such as STRING-CONCAT.  It is quite likely
that people who do this will want these functions added to the full
language, so that their implementations will be true subsets.

III.   Organizational issues

It is interesting to see how much difference it makes that this language
is going to be supported by vendors.  They want to make sure
  - that the language is well-defined.  This means that there is some
        authoritative way to answer questions, and that a validation
        procedure is developed (including a validation suite).
  - that it is possible to make changes where implementation experience
        shows that it is desirable, or as the CL community comes up with
        important new ideas
  - that changes to the language do not happen too quickly
  - that their interests are represented in whatever group is authorized
        to change the language.

It is clear that these requirements imply a person or persons who
control the development of the language.  Initially the language was
designed primarily by a group of 5 people (the so-called "gang of 5"),
with participation by many others over the Arpanet.  The vendors that I
heard would like for those original designers to continue to have a
strong influence over the language.  (Indeed the Gang of 5 is probably
the most enthusiastic to turn things over a formal organization.) Most
people see that we are going to start some organization analogous to a
standards committee.  However most people do not want to be involved in
ANSI, ISO, etc.  The feeling seems to be that there is too much
bureacracy, and that CL still needs enough clarification and additions
that we could not tolerate the delays involved in conventional standards
organizations.  Clearly some vendors would like to see an ANSI standard
eventually, but everyone seems to agree that we are not ready yet. Here
is a partial list of things that the people responsible for the language
have to handle:
  - some way to process proposals for changes to the language. Everyone
        envisions that some sort of vote of a large CL community will be
        required to approve changes.  (This has been true all along,
        except for last-minute details.)  So we are looking for a person
        or persons to receive suggestions, distribute them for comment,
        and conduct votes if appropriate.  I suspect that this group
        might also solict suggestions and possible make some themselves.
  - some way to give authoritative answers to questions that call for an
        interpretation of the language specification
  - destribution of any decisions that result from these two processes
        to all interested parties
  - an archive of all decisions, and possible of all discussion
  - a "delta document".  This would represent all changes that will show
        up in the next edition of the CL manual.  I.e. it is with
        respect to the most recently published edition of the CL manual.
  - new editions of the CL manual.  Initially this may happen as often
        as once a year
  - maintenance of online documentation.  This would be used by builtin
        help facilities, etc.  This will require some negotiation with
        Digital Press, as they currently hold a copyright for the
        manual.
  - licensing special editions of the manual.  Vendors may want to
        intersperse details of their implementation in the text, so that
        the user has a single, integrated manual for  Vendor X's CL.
        Most people seem to feel that this is OK as long as the manual
        contains the unadulterated text of the official CL manual, with
        all additions being set off visibly (e.g. printed in a
        contrasting color).  They may also allow subsets to cut parts of
        the CL manual, but this will require that there is a clear
        disclaimer that this is not CL.  Anyway, somebody is going to
        have to set reprint policies and monitor what is going on.  This
        will also have to be done in conjunction with Digital Press.
  - a test/validation suite.
  - implementation notes
  - a library of public-domain CL code (the "yellow pages" library)
  - a group to vote on changes and matters of policy.  Generally some
        way of providing "legitimacy" to the whole process.
  - trademarking of the language.  We are not sure whether it is too
        late to trademark CL.  One proposal is to trademark CL-84,
        CL-85, etc.  The date would be associated with a test suite (and
        probably also an edition of the manual - these would be issued
        at the same time).  There is no clear concensus that
        trademarking is needed, but it should at least be looked into.
  - budget for clerical support, mailings, and other expenses associated
        with the above.

We have an interim arrangement to handle all of this for the next 6
months.  A committee will make a proposal for a permanent organization
to take effect at the end of 6 months.  Probably there will be another
CL workshop at that time.  The CL mailing list will continue to be used
to take votes on major issues, and generally to represent the CL
community as a whole.  This list may be split, as there seem to be some
people who are just random users, and do not want to (or should not)
participate in the design decisions.  The gang of 5 will moderate the
mailing list, and will also continue to take somewhat of a leadership
role in technical matters, i.e. answering questions, coordinating
proposed changes, etc.  This coordination includes maintaining archives,
the delta document, etc.  They will investigate some of the other
issues, such as licensing the manual for online use and special
editions, trademarks, and preparation of an initial budget. (This budget
will probably be covered by ARPA.)  They will try to do something about
the Yellow Pages library.  (There is actually already one at CMU.  Maybe
this will just continue for the  interim period.)  Committees were
appointed to propose extensions to the language in several important
areas (see below).  The results will be discussed on the CL mailing
list.  There is also a committee to propose a permanent organization.
It is likely that some funding will be needed for the 6 month interim,
if only to handle clerical support.  There way a broad hint that the
Gang of 5 might find ARPA receptive to a proposal that ARPA fund this.

IV.   Proposed extensions

No one was crazy enough to propose that we should come up with
extensions to CL on the spot during the meeting.  Instead we tried to
agree on what areas are the most important to look into. Committees
volunteered to look into each of these areas.  We hope that they will
propose extensions.  I think most of us agree that the actual language
design is going to be done by individuals or very small groups in each
case.  The committees are thus the people who want to be in on initial
discussions, and also people who are considering writing proposals or
parts of proposals.  Here was the initial set of extensions proposed:
  object-oriented programming
  window support
  error handling
  multiprocessing support
  graphics
  iteration (e.g. some sort of macros for writing loops)
  facilities to monitor the internal state of Lisp
  interface to the surrounding system
  networking
  interface to database facilities
  configuration and version management tools
  pattern matching
  calling foreign (non-Lisp) functions
  destructuring
  international character sets
  program manipulation facilities
  coercion among numerical types
  storage management
We took a vote, giving each person 6 votes.  Most of the above
received 0 to 4 votes.  The only significant votes were for the
following items.
  almost 100% -  object-oriented programming
  almost 100% -  error handling
  about 50%   -  display support (windows, etc.)
  about 50%   -  calling foreign (non-Lisp) functions
  about 33%   -  iteration
  about 33%   -  graphics
These are the areas for which committees were set up.

V.   Workstation/server architecture

A number of people expect that we will continue to have systems of
differing power.  That is, in your office will be something for around
$15K.  It will be able to handle CL.  You will do a lot of your
development work on it.  But when you want to process a lot of
real-world data, you will want a more powerful machine.  These machines
would likely be $100K or more.  The folks from ARPA seemed to feel that
configurations like this would be important for their Strategic
Computing projects.

The issue put before us was what sort of language facilities are needed
to support this.  No one seemed to feel that we knew enough of this sort
of thing that we were ready to add such facilities to the language.  Of
course individual researchers would make extensions in the course of
their research.  But we would like to see several such projects before
adopting a particular design permanently.

VI.   Multi-processing facilities

This discussion was somewhat similar to the previous one.  We envision
multiprocessing as becoming more important as time goes on.  Again, the
Strategic Computing project is likely to use this.  The question is what
language facilities will be needed to support multiprocessing. No one
feels we know  enough about this area to say at the moment.  Brief
mention was made of several pieces of work in this area:
  Gabriel's work at Stanford
  Halstead's at MIT
Both of these are shared-memory.
  the remote sensing project at CMU.  Multiple PERQ's with CL.
        Uses the facilities of the PERQ OS.
This is more like conventional networking.
  BBN's butterfly project.  Many 68000 systems in parallel, with a Lisp
        Machine as a front end to supply the user interface.  Both
        the 68000's and the LM will use CL.

It is clear that there are not only many different approaches, but even
more than one basic model (shared memory and networking are sort of the
opposite ends of the spectrum).  In the end we may need language
facilities to support both styles.  But nobody is ready to say much at
the moment.

Anyone interested in working on multiprocessing support is invited to
send mail to RPG@SU-AI to be added to a mailing list.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
15
-DATE-
Date: 05 Feb 85 14:00:37 PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Steve Smith <ssmith%NRTC@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOOP macro under CommonLisp
-BODY-

Has anybody hacked up the old MIT Loop macro to work under
vanilla CommonLisp (eg. DEC's CommonLisp)?

                               --Steve Smith (ssmith%nrtc@usc-ecl)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Feb  15:02:33 1985
-FROM-
From: des.allegra.btl@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Relational Database System
-BODY-
Does anyone have or know where to find a relational database
management system written in Zetalisp for the Symbolics 3600
Lisp Machine?

Thanks,
Douglas Stumberger

U.S. Post:      AT&T Bell Laboratories
                Room 3C-438
                600 Mountain Ave.
                Murray Hill, N.J.       07974

csnet:          allegra!des%ucb-vax@csnet-relay.arpa
uucp:           allegra!des
Phone:          201.582.5251

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 February 1985 1232-EST
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The game Cubic
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A few years ago someone proved that the game Cubic (4x4x4) tic-tac-toe
is a win for the first player.  If anyone has a reference to this
paper I would very much appreciate getting it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday,  4-Feb-85 13:49:53-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Points Arising.
-BODY-

Two points from Vol 3 # 11. The Symbolics stock price reminds me
on the Britsh Telecom share issue, where the price went from
50 pence to around 130 pence in the space of about two months.
(Bob Beckman is reported to be using a dog to figure the market,
`one bark for buy, two barks for sell'.)

Secondly, the transform in Vol 3 # 10 is not a Laplace transform
at all! It is really a Carson-Heaviside transform. (Thanks to all
the guys in 201 for pointing this out).

From Vol 3 #9 & 10, I believe requests for addition to the
net.math.symbolic mailing list should be sent to lseward@randgr.

Gordon Joly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 20:39:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Douglas Galbraith <GALBRAITH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: answer to Inverse Laplace Transform problem
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Several people have asked for the answer to the transform problem I put on
the bboard about a week ago.  So here's the solution for all of those who
asked.  (Sorry about the delay.  I'm only here two days a week.  So I
don't get to my mail very often.)  Just to remind everyone, the original
problem was:

        1                     1
F(S) = --- * ----------------------------------
        S     exp[-A*sqrt(S)] + exp[A*sqrt(S)]

The inverse Laplace transform of this equation is:

                  +infinity
                  --  (-1)^N
f(t) = 1 + PI/4 * >  -------- * exp[-(2N-1)^2*t*PI^2/(4*A^2)]
                  --   2N-1
                  N=1

I solved it with the help of the "Mathematical Handbook of Formulas and
Tables" by Murray R. Speigel from the Schaum's outline series.  The inverse
transform is number 32.153 on page 171.


For those who want to try it on their own, here are three hints.

HINT #1: Convert to infinite series and infinite products.

HINT #2: The original equation is also equal to:

        1           1
F(S) = --- * -----------------
        S     cosh[A*sqrt(S)]

                                          G[sqrt(S)]
HINT #3: The inverse Laplace Transform of ----------  is:
                                              S
           infinity
           /
    1      |
>--------- | exp[-u^2/(4*t)]*g(u)*du
sqrt[pi*t] |
           /
           0

where g(u) is the inverse transform of G(S).



The original problem is a simplified version of a general equation I'm
working on:

        1     1                   cosh[B*sqrt(S)]
F(S) = --- - --- * ---------------------------------------------
        S     S     cosh[A*sqrt(S)] + C*sqrt(S)*sinh[A*sqrt(S)]

where "A", "B", and "C" are real constants, and "S" is the variable.  I've
solved it for C=0, and I'm now working on the non-zero case.  The
general case looks like it's going to keep me busy a while.

                                                Good luck,
                                                Douglas Galbraith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 85 04:59:13 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
Electronic News  Monday January 28, 1985 Page 11

The European Economic Community Commission approved 104 projects submitted
to the Euyropean Strategic Program for Research and Development in Information
Technology (Esprit).

Although, they probably approved several projects of interest to AIer's,
the only such project mentioned was a contract for "a cognitive simulator
for user interface design" involving ITT of Great Britain, Logos Projetti of
Italy and the Applied Psychology Unit of Cambridge University in Britain.


The DEC Professional, January 1985, Page 82
Shape of Machines to Come

Discusses clustering, pipelines, parallel processors, dataflow architecture,
symbolic manipulation, the Japanese ICOT effort, the MCC and DARPA.
Although most of this material would be known by most, if not all of
this audience; of particular interest is a list of some projects at
DEC and IBM.

AT DEC, they have 35 separate AI/expert system projects.  XSITE helps
site planners prepare customer sites for new VAX installations.  AI SPEAR
helps DEC Field Service Engineers diagnose and prevent TU-78 tape drive
failures.  They also have an intelligent DCL interpreter and cDx which helps
VAX managers diagnose system crashes.

Dec is working on an 'AI Engine,' a high speed RISC system.  It is rumored
that DEC will be unveiling a parallel processor or AI machine based on the
single chip MICRO-VAX II 'in the 1988 timeframe.'

IBM alledgedly is marketing Epistle which reads electronic mail and summarizes
messages.  IBM is rumored to be soon announceing PROLOG.

Also mentions the National Bureau of Standards Center for Manufacturing
Engineering which has a 5000 square foot fully automated machine shop.


Computer, December 1984
"Top-Down Construction of 3-D Mechanical Object Shapes from Engineering
Drawings.", page 32

Discusses a natural language interface which assists with disambiguating
conventional orthographic projections which are being converted into
Constructive Solid Geometry representations.


"Alvey reconsiders complexity of Expert Systems" Page 106

In the report of Alex d'Agapeyeff to the British Alvey
many expert systems  were developed at low cost by people
not trained in Artificial Intelligence.  Often they were developed without
benefit of expert system development tools and even in such languages as
FORTRAN and BASIC.

Examples are:

A system to analyze crash dumps (developed by two knowledge engineers and
one domain expert in 20 calendar weeks).  It fully analyzed 91 per cent
of the dumps that the expert was able to fully analyze and partially
analyzed 57% of those that the expert was able to partially analyze.

British Telecom developed a system in MICRO-PROLOG on a Z-80 system
for analyzing PABX power supply problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jan 85 17:26:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Conditionals in Logic
-BODY-
         [Extracted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


A new CSLI Report by Jon Barwise, ``The Situation in Logic--II:
Conditionals and Conditional Information'' (Report No. CSLI--85--21), has
been published.  To obtain a copy of this report write to Dikran
Karagueuzian, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net mail to Dikran
at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 85 00:24:27 est
-FROM-
From: Kent Dybvig <dyb%unc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chez Scheme
-BODY-
=>                      Chez Scheme

     Chez Scheme is an implementation of Scheme for Vaxes
running 4.2 Bsd Unix.  Chez Scheme supports all required and
most optional features of the anticipated Scheme standard.
The first Chez Scheme release will include an extensive
reference manual.  A Chez Scheme tutorial is in preparation
for later releases.

Features of Scheme:

o    Clean, concise dialect of Lisp
o    Lexically scoped (as is Common Lisp)
o    Full function closures (first-class, full funarg)
o    Tail-recursion reliably translated into iteration
o    Full upward/downward continuations

Features of Chez Scheme:

o    Incremental native-code (Vax object code) compiler
o    Flexible user interface
o    Fast-loading compiled files
o    Very fast arbitrary precision integer and rational
     arithmetic
o    Programmable exception handlers
o    Support for multi-tasking (timer interrupts,
     continuations)
o    String and vector operations
o    Macros and structures
o    Engines (a process abstraction)

     Application programs distributed with the first release
of Chez Scheme include a set operation package, a logic
programming subsystem, a lazy-cons facility, and a generic
matrix, vector and scalar multiplication package.

     Faster than many Lisp systems, Chez Scheme may be the
fastest Scheme available.  On the Vax 11/780, Chez Scheme is
competitive with benchmarks reported for Franz Lisp and
Digital Common Lisp at last summer's AAAI conference in
Austin, TX.  For example, Chez Scheme runs the "Tak"
benchmark in 3.4 cpu seconds and the "Deriv" benchmark in
21.9 cpu seconds.  The code tested contained no
declarations, used generic arithmetic, and had no inlined
calls.  No separate compilation phase is necessary: all code
loaded into Chez Scheme is compiled incrementally.

     Chez Scheme is available for mid-March distribution to
US educational institutions only.  We will send a license
agreement to interested parties.  There is a $400
distribution fee.  We are not yet able to do foreign or
commercial distributions, but contact us if you are
interested.

     Write for a copy of the license agreement and ordering
information to:

     R. Kent Dybvig
     Department of Computer Science
     New West Hall (035-A)
     University of North Carolina
     Chapel Hill, NC  27514
     USA

     decvax!mcnc!unc!dyb    (usenet)
     dyb.unc@Csnet-Relay    (ARPANET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Feb 1985 08:06:17-EST
-FROM-
From: psm@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Boston SICPLAN seminar
-BODY-

    Boston SICPLAN (Special Interest Committee on Programming Languages) is
a local affiliate of the ACM SIGPLAN group and vaguely associated with and
chartered by the Greater Boston area chapter of the ACM.  It normally meets
once a month, usually on the first Thursday, almost always at 8 p.m., and
normally at either BBN or Intermetrics.  Its talks are often of interest
to people working in the fields of programming languages and compilers,
environments, artificial intelligence, and data/knowledge base management.
Past speakers over the last 16 months have included Marvin Minsky, Seymour
Pappert, Bob Morgan, Pam Zave, Doug Hofstadter, Richard LeBlanc, Barry Boehm,
Adele Goldberg, Mahadevan Ganapathi, Frank Belz, Norm DeLisle, Mark Miller,
Richard Gabriel, Maurice Wilkes, Tom Love, and Ray Buhr.

Its next talk is scheduled for this Thursday, February 7:


                ACM GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER SICPLAN

                    Thursday, February 7, 1985
                              8 P.M.

             Bolt Beranek and Newman, new auditorium
                    70 Fawcett St., Cambridge


                   The Design of the Digital Orrery

                        by Gerald Jay Sussman
                               MIT

    I will talk about the Orrery, a special computer for high-speed,
high-precision, orbital mechanics computations.  The people who were
involved in the design and construction of the Orrery are James H.
Applegate, Michael R. Douglas, Yekta Gursel, Peter Hunter, Charles L.
Seitz and Gerald Jay Sussman.  On the problems the Orrery was designed
to solve, it achieves approximately 10 Mflops in about one cubic foot
of space while consuming 150 watts of power.  The specialized parallel
architecture of the Orrery, which is well matched to orbital mechanics
problems, is the key to obtaining such high performance.

In this talk I will explain the scientific reasons for building the
Orrery.  I will discuss the design, construction, and programming of
the Orrery.  I will show how the design of a computer is really a
problem of software engineering.  I will also show a few preliminary
results of a 110 million year integration of the outer planets using
the Orrery.


                 ACM GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER SICPLAN

 Dear Colleague,

   Our February speaker, Gerry Sussman, is  a  professor  at  MIT,
 where  he  is very active in AI research.  He  is  probably  best
 known for his work on the Scheme dialect of Lisp and for the book
 Structure  and  Interpretation  of Computer  Programs,  which  he
 coauthored with Harold Abelson and is  now  using  for  what  has
 become  a  fairly  famous  programming  course  for incoming  MIT
 freshmen.  The Orrery system that he will describe in his talk is
 an attempt to investigate the extent to which massively  parallel
 computer architectures and algorithms can be used to  help  solve
 hard scientific problems.

   Mitch Wand, who is currently visiting Brandeis, has  agreed  to
 give our March talk.  The talk on his Semantic Prototyping System
 is tentatively scheduled for March 7 in the Intermetrics atrium.

   Our  group  customarily meets informally for  dinner  at  Joyce
  Chen's restaurant, 390 Rindge Ave., Cambridge at 6:00 P.M.  (just
  before the  meeting).   If  you wish to come, please call Carolyn
  Elson  at  Intermetrics 661-1840 as early as possible so  we  can
  make the appropriate dinner reservation.


              Peter Mager
              chairperson, Boston SICPLAN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
16
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85 18:22:48 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme for MS-DOS
-BODY-
Is there a source of documentation for Scheme, and an implementation for
small MS-DOS machines?  Would appreciate any information on this topic.

Rich.
AFSCF/XRP
PO Box 3430
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3430
(408) 744-6427 AV: 799-6427

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85  9:04:33 EST
-FROM-
From: Pierre duPont <pdupont@bbn-spca>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM VM/CMS Lisp
-BODY-
I am trying to locate information about what Lisp interpreters
and/or compilers are available on IBM VM/CMS mainframes. So far,
the only one I have identified is from IBM, and as yet I know
very little about it.

I am interested in any flavor of lisp, preferrably Common Lisp, and
would like to get the names of companies, people, or whatever,
who have experience with or know about VM/CMS Lisps.

    Thanks,
        - Pierre

pdupont@bbn-unix.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06 Feb 85 11:59:58 PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: peck@sri-spam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI, Lisp, Graphics on SUN computers?
-BODY-
I would like to hear from anyone using SUN computers
who can supply answers or comments on any of these issues:
 Is Franz the only (best) lisp available?
 Has anyone used the Maryland Flavors to create useful tools/extensions?
 Any support for sun graphics (windows, menus,etc) a la Interlisp-D?
 Any differential reports of Prolog (Quintus) vs Lisp ?
 Any obvious alternative to SUN? (vendor in same class (Tektronix?))
 Worst or hidden problems, pitfalls, gotcha's, etc.
> Can real AI development (even applications) be supported on SUN's? <

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85 14:36:22 MST
-FROM-
From: kessler%utah-orion@utah-cs (Robert Kessler)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI, Lisp, Graphics on SUN computers? (Long Message)
-BODY-

 >  I would like to hear from anyone using SUN computers
 >  who can supply answers or comments on any of these issues:
 >  Is Franz the only (best) lisp available?

We have finally finished porting Portable Standard LISP (PSL) to yet
another machine.  This time it is now running on the SUN.  Initial
timing measurements indicate that its speed is somewhere between a
Vax 750 and 780 (all running PSL), and about twice as fast as Franz running
the REDUCE algebra system test on Suns.  We are now running the Gabriel
benchmarks to discover where it fits in the set.  For more details
see the announcement at the end of this message.


 >  Has anyone used the Maryland Flavors to create useful tools/extensions?

PSL provides support for a simple flavors package that seems quite
useful.  However, the current version has no inheritance.


 >  Any support for sun graphics (windows, menus,etc) a la Interlisp-D?

We have oload working which allows you to call externally compiled
routines (like other c sources).  So the interface should be easy to
add (but we haven't done it).


 >  Any differential reports of Prolog (Quintus) vs Lisp ?

None that I know of.


 >  Any obvious alternative to SUN? (vendor in same class (Tektronix?))

PSL also runs on Apollo's and HP Series 200 (both 68K based machines).
We have also ported a simple "educational" version to the 128K
Macintosh which is used in a beginning programming class.  We plan on
moving at least the Standard LISP subset and compiler to the 512K mac
(so if you want to go really cheap...... :-) )


 >  Worst or hidden problems, pitfalls, gotcha's, etc.

We had a lot of problems with the Sun port.  Some were hardware
related, others were differences between Unix 4.2 on the Sun and on the
Vax.  After we get some more experience using PSL on the machine, maybe
we could report more.


 > > Can real AI development (even applications) be supported on SUN's? <

I think so, as long as you can get one with enough memory.  Some of our
applications running on HP 9836's (which doesn't have virtual memory)
really fly (better than a 780 in speed).  So, memory is really a key to
a fast machine.

 >
Bob.

                   PSL 3.2 for the SUN Workstation

We are pleased to announce that Portable Standard LISP (PSL) version
3.2 is now available for the Sun workstation.  PSL is about the power,
speed and flavor  of Franz LISP or  MACLISP, with growing  influence
from Common  LISP.  It  is recognized  as an  efficient and  portable
LISP implementation with  many  more capabilities  than  described in
the  1979 Standard LISP Report.  PSL's main  strength is its
portability across  many different  systems,   including:   Vax  BSD
Unix, Vax VMS,  Extended   Addressing DecSystem-20 Tops-20, Apollo
DOMAIN  Aegis, and HP  Series 200.  A  version for the IBM-370 is in
beta test and two Cray versions are being used on an experimental
basis.  [...]

PSL is in heavy use at Utah, and by collaborators at Hewlett-Packard,
Rand, Stanford, Columbia and over  250 other sites.   Many existing
programs  and applications have been  adapted to  PSL including
Hearn's REDUCE  computer algebra system and GLISP, Novak's object
oriented LISP dialect.  These are available from Hearn and Novak.

For more information, contact:

Utah Symbolic Computation Group Secretary
University of Utah - Dept. of Computer Science
3160 Merrill Engineering Building
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

ARPANET: CRUSE@UTAH-20
USENET:  utah-cs!cruse

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7-Feb-85 19:41:45-PST
-FROM-
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp standards?
-BODY-
      One correction; Ada subsets are NOT approved by DoD; see ANSI/MIL-STD
1815a-1983, section 1.1.2.  There are no approved subsets, and no approved
supersets.  Before there were any validated Ada compilers, the AJPO was
somewhat tolerant of the use of the Ada name regarding compilers that
were incomplete, but the official policy appears on the inside cover of the
Ada standard; ``Describing, advertising, or promoting a language processor
as an ``Ada'' processor is equivalent to making a voluntary statement of
conformance to ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A. ...  Those persons advertising or
otherwise promoting a language processor asserted as being a standard Ada
processor ... are required to provide the AJPO with evidence sufficient
to demonstrate conformance with the Ada standard.  ... Misuse of the trademark
(Ada) may lead to legal action.''
     That seems to cover it.

     As for Common Lisp, the amusing thing about the Lisp community is that
all the recent dialects are being promoted as ``standard''; we have
Common Lisp, Portable Standard Lisp, and the old Interlisp.  None of these
are ANSI or ISO standards.  All are huge.  And all assume an environment
suitable for program development (as opposed to an embedded system).
     What we really need is an agreed-upon minimal Lisp in which portable
programs can be written if desired, and for which everyone agrees that the
semantics of the primitives are uniform.  Larger dialects would be supersets
of this base.  As yet, we don't even have agreement on the semantics of
(car nil).

                                                John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 1985 1001-EST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: trwatf!maverick@seismo.ARPA (Mark D. Grover)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Command and Control applications
-BODY-
        In response to Araman's question, there  certainly  *are*
applications of expert systems in Command and Control.  The prob-
lem (which you've probably already run into) is that  researchers
of this application rarely publish anything which would be useful
to other designers.  In my view, this is due to a combination  of
the  competition  among defense  contractors,  the practical (ap-
plied vs. basic research) flavor of the work,  and  the  lack  of
return-value  from   publishing  to  the  sponsors  of  the work.
Occasionally there are write-ups in the  military  service  jour-
nals,  but  the  only  place  you'll find  information  that   is
truly helpful to designers will be in the traditional AI journals
(for  those  applications  which have  not yet   hit  the  opera-
tional  stage).  Of  course the government AI labs publish useful
basic  research  of good quality,  but  such systems  have   gen-
erally   not  been  developed for the rigorous conditions  of  an
operational  environment.   Anything   that   has  reached   that
stage, I'd love to know about. The closest thing I know is Infer-
ence  Corp's  Navex  system  for NASA using ART.  (Aviation Week,
9/17/84, p. 79).  TRW has produced fielded prototypes for certain
C3I applications but has not yet published details.
        I face these problems constantly (both in  trying  to  do
research   and  figuring  out  where, when and what I should pub-
lish). I would  favor  a  government  clearinghouse  (like  NTIS)
specifically   for  research  software  distribution  (especially
half-baked solutions that could be picked up and improved by oth-
ers).  This should work at all appropriate classification levels,
but unclassified software could be stressed.
        Most of the C3I work   with   which    I   am    familiar
relies heavily  on  planning, constraint checking, and deduction.
Other than that, I can only say   that     the     success    has
been  mixed.    I  believe  this  is  due  more to the paucity of
researchers working on  fieldable  defense solutions   than    to
the    maturity of AI. There is much that is promising in produc-
ing intelligent adjuncts to command,   and    we   are    working
seriously  to provide them.

>- MDG                               Mark D. Grover
                                     Advanced Technology Facility
                                     TRW Defense Systems Group
                                     2751 Prosperity Ave.
                                     Fairfax, VA 22031
                                     (703) 876-8184, -8036
ARPA: trwatf!maverick@SEISMO
UUCP: ...!{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!maverick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 10:09:17-PST
-FROM-
From: Renate Kempf <HPP-SECRETARY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Totality of Knowledge (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:       Friday, February 8, 1985
LOCATION:   Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:       12:05

SPEAKER:    Pierre Bierre
            Clairvoyant Systems
            sensory learning machine research

ABSTRACT:   The Totality of Knowledge

Would it be possible, in a few words or a single illustration, to
capture and enclose all the knowledge both existing now and in the
indefinite future?

The field of AI stands to benefit by coming to grips with the totality
of that which it claims to study.  Having a way to once-and-for-all
embrace all knowledge will help AI researchers blaze the trail beyond
limited-domain systems in future work.  The practical payoff will be
knowledge systems where the user steers the conversation at the
human-machine interface without running up against artificially
imposed domain boundaries.  Once more, the same fluidity will apply to
knowledge transmission among intelligent machines.

Come munch on lunch while Pierre attempts to throw a lasso around
everything that will ever be known.


[For a detailed introduction to this week's SIGLUNCH topic, see "The
Professor's Challenge," The AI Magazine, Winter 1985, pp. 60-70.  I
would take the central thesis to be that the future of AI is in
learning systems that build up concepts from their own experiences
(including formal instruction) rather than in expert systems with
knowledge bases supplied by AI theoreticians.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logic and Functional Programming (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  2:15 p.m., 2/14       CSLI Seminar
  Redwood Hall          ``Logic and Functional Programming''
  Room G-19             Joseph Goguen, CSLI
                        Discussion will be led by Fernando Pereira


We begin by reviewing what logic and functional programming are, indicating
basic aspects of their programming styles, applications and implementations.
We then show how to enrich logic programming with some features of current
interest in programming methodology, maintaining both logical rigor and
efficient implementation.  The first and most important feature is
functional programming; full logical equality provides an elegant way to
combine the power of logic programming (including logical variables,
pattern matching and automatic backtracking) with functional programing
(supporting functions and their composition, as well as strong typing and
user definable abstract data types).  An interesting new feature that
emerges here is a complete algorithm for solving equations containing
logical variables; this algorithm uses ``narrowing,'' a technique from the
theory of rewrite rules.  The underlying logical system here is many-sorted
Horn clause logic *with* equality.  A useful refinement is ``subsorts,''
which can be seen as an ordering relation on the set of sorts (usually
called ``types'') of data.  Finally, we provide generic modules by using
methods developed in the specification language Clear.  These features make
up a language called Eqlog; we illustrate them with a program for the
well-known Missionaries and Cannibals problem, and with some simple
examples from natural language processing.                 --Joseph Goguen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 1985  16:31 EST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI and Distributed Computing (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Gul A. Agha
Artificial Intelligence and Distributed Computing

TUESDAY 2/12/85     4:00pm      8th floor playroom

To take advantage of the parallelism available in distributed systems,
many programming languages incorporate concurrency.  Unfortunately,
distributed systems often exhibit pathological behavior: Problems such
as divergence, deadlock, and the Brock-Ackerman anomaly make it
difficult to program using concurrent constructs.  The talk will
describe a model for actors which addresses such problems.
Actors are particularly relevant to computation in A.I.  For example,
actors permit dynamic reconfigurability and extensibility.  We will
show how the actor model supports abstraction and compositionality in
the context of open, evolving systems.  A simple actor language,
called SAL, will be defined for illustrative purposes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
17
-DATE-
Date: 06 Feb 85  0936 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The game Cubic
-BODY-
The work you refer to was done by Oren Patashnik who is now a Computer Science
PhD student at Stanford. I forwarded the message to him.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 09:09:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Mark Kent <KENT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: German to English translator?
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This may be silly, but I feel that somewhere there must exist a German to
English translator program.  Nothing fancy (no Artificial Intelligence
required) but just a word for word literal translation.  The resulting
phrases need not make sense.

This could be used as follows: suppose you had a book on disk in German,
and you were going to translate it to English (and you are fluent in both
German and English) then it would save a lot of typing if most of the
words were already in the english file.  Even if some phrases were garbage,
it would be easy to kill the line(s) and type the desired phrase.

Anyone know of such a program on any system?
Thanks,
>mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 12:57 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sublists - response to Laws msg of 30 Jan and request for
-BODY-           wishes

   Ken Laws mentioned the fact that people wish to have portions of the
AILIST digests sent to them.  This is essentially a filtering operation,
related to the SDI (selective dissemination of information) problem
being handled by many information retrieval systems.
   At VPI we are presently involved in a research project related to this,
and welcome comments and involvement.  The idea is to study electronic
mail messages and digests like AILIST, and to implement means to allow
people to find useful information either in new issues or retrospectively
by searching past issues.  We will build an intelligent automatic analysis
system that will create knowledge representations for AILIST messages, and a
search system to allow users to find messages in the collection.  Users
will be able to define profiles, describing what they are interested in,
and each new digest will then be split up so that most relevant items
are presented first, and least relevant items are either discarded or
made to appear later in a ranked list.  Users will also be able to ask
specific questions and be given a list of messages that are possibly
relevant.
   To make this realistic, we need user profiles and questions, and
in order to see if automatic methods perform properly, need users to
indicate which messages are indeed relevant to each question.  We welcome
specific questions and interest statements.  Perhaps more important at
this time, however, would be to have wish lists like:
   find messages that announce seminars or conferences
   recognize RFPs or contract work requests
   list papers cited about a specific topic
   extract bibliographic items or newspaper extracts relating to ...
Later on we will have a crude version of the planned system running
and will be better able to handle specific queries and possibly let
people try to use it.
   This investigation relates to retrieval for offices, or for mail
or conferencing systems.  Please send comments, wishes, suggestions,
etc. to fox.vpi@csnet-relay
                                       Thanks, Ed Fox.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 85 21:01:29 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DDC
-BODY-

        For those of you with a clearance and a certified "need to know",
the Defense Documentation Center (DDC) serves as a repository of
DoD technical (and I suppose other) information.  Both DoD agencies &
their contractors are encouraged to use it, and they provide a suite
of bibliographic services as does NASA.  NASA libraries are open to
the public, and in the Bay area Ames (at Moffett) is a treasure trove.

        Taxes support these services, so use them.

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Feb 85 23:59:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: bambi!schatz@topaz (Bruce R. Schatz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: description of Telesophy Project
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the WorkS list by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following project may be of interest to readers of net.works :

Telesophy literally means "wisdom at a distance".  The goal of the
Telesophy Project is to build a system which makes obtaining
information as transparent as telephony makes obtaining sound.  The
system could be viewed as a "WorldNet" browser, which lets one
navigate an underlying information space.  The information units in
the space can contain any type of data and the system hides their
actual physical location.  In addition to these retrieval facilities,
there are also storage facilities for generation of new items from
old.  The system thus supports the notion of an Information
Community, permitting the users to browse for AnyThing AnyWhere and
share their findings with others.

These notions are old desires, undoubtably familiar to the readers of
this newsgroup.  What is new is that these problems seem finally
about to break because of coming mass availability of new technology.
In particular, because of the speed and transmission characteristics
of optical fibers, it is now feasible to consider the idea of
building what is logically a single computer physically distributed
over a wide area.  This potentially worldwide single computer
provides the hardware upon which an operating environment permitting
the transparent fetching and manipulation of uniform objects can be
built.

My dream is a worldwide information community, a greatly generalized
USENET.  I work for Bell Communications Research, the central
research organization for the local telephone companies (like Bell
Labs before the divestiture).  The fiber optic telephone network of
the near future will likely obtain end-to-end speeds much closer to
gigabits/second than the current kilobits.  To utilize this, I have
been investigating the architecture of a Telesophy System.  Thus far,
a long paper has been written describing the underlying philosophical
and technological issues.  I am now actively seeking colleagues to
help build a first version on a local-area network of Apollo
workstations.  For more information, please contact me at one of the
following addresses (a fuller description has been posted to
net.jobs):

                Bruce Schatz

 physical:      Bell Communications Research
                435 South Street,  Room 2A275
                Morristown, New Jersey  07960
 phone:         (201) 829-4744
 USENET:        bellcore!bambi!schatz
 ARPAnet:       bellcore!bambi!schatz@BERKELEY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 2 Feb 85 13:14:20-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox NoteCards
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Human-Nets Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Apropos the recent discussion about idea processors and general
purpose personal assistants appears below a message from Info-Mac
about Xerox NoteCards.  Can anyone here offer any further information
about this product?


  Date: 24 Jan 1985  7:05:38 EST (Thursday)
  From: Mark Zimmerman <mex101@mitre>
  Subject: Xerox NoteCards on Mac?
  To: info-mac@sumex


I just saw a demo of Xerox's NoteCards system and want to tell
people about it, so we can start working on a version for the Mac!
NoteCards is like an extension of the desktop metaphor:  your
screen has windows on electronic index cards, each of which can
contain text, pictures, etc., and links to other cards.  Links
can be of various types:  references/sourcing, argumentation,
proof, refutation, consequences, etc.  Cards can be filed in boxes,
which can contain other boxes, etc.  One can display graphically the
links between cards, to get an overall view of the information, or
zoom in to look at all the gory details when needed.

Esther Dyson wrote about NoteCards in the 31 Dec 84 issue of her
newsletter, RELease1.0 ... see that for further impressions.
Perhaps if there are experts at Xerox PARC or elsewhere listening
they can correct/extend my comments.

The Mac's TE and windowing should do a fair fraction of the work
for a Mac version/analog of NoteCards ... I am dreaming about
 writing up a first hack at it in MacFORTH.

NoteCards is sort of a multidimensional ThinkTank (or rather,
ThinkTank is a 1-dimensional shadow of NoteCards) ... it looks
likely to be a great tool for gathering/organizing/presenting
complicated data.  (Besides other features described above, one
can ask NoteCards to search along various types of links to find
various items, reorganize links, embed pointers to other cards
within the text/picture on a card, etc.)

Best,    Zimmermann at MITRE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Dec 84 08:05:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Don <Watrous@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Online dictionary server at SRI-NIC
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[I have only recently regained access to this bboard, so this message
has been delayed for a couple of months.  It describes a software
system that I had not run across before.  -- KIL]

If you have Arpanet-Access privs, you can now access an online copy
of Webster's 7th dictionary.  The program's name is WEBSTER.  It can
be used to get definitions or to check spelling.  Note: escape and
question mark work!

Don


[I have reproduced most of the associated help file below.  -- KIL]

Invoke the [Rutgers] program by "@WEBSTER word-to-define" or

        @WEBSTER<return>
        Word:

If the word is found, Webster will then provide the complete dictionary
entry for the word including definitions, pronunciation, and derivation.

If the specified word was not found, Webster will try to find close
matches, as if you spelled the word wrong.  The possibilities are
numbered and typed out.  To select one of them, you can just give its
number.

Additionally, Webster can match words using wildcards.  The character
"%" in a word mean match exactly one character, so "w%n" matches "win",
"won", "wan", etc.  The character "*" matches ZERO OR MORE characters,
so "a*d" matches "ad", "and", "abound", "absentminded", and so on.
Any number of wildcards can be used, and in any arrangement.

<escape> and "?" are used the same way in Webster as in most programs.
<escape> tries to complete what you have typed so far, and "?" lists
those words that match your partial word.

If what you have given is a unique abbreviation for a word, <escape>
will typed out the rest of the word.  If what you typed is ambigious,
it beeps and does nothing.

For example,

Word: plur? Maybe you mean:
      -----
  1. plural           2. pluralism        3. plurality        4. pluralization
  5. pluralize        6. pluri-           7. pluriaxial
Word: pluri? Maybe you mean:
      ------
  1. pluri-           2. pluriaxial
Word: pluria<escape>xial
      --------------

Where the underlined parts are typed by the user, and rest by Webster.
Note that wildcards and <escape>/? can be used together, for example

Word: plu*x<escape>
      -------------
Word: pluriaxial

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 85 04:44:08 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Fribourg, Laurent  Oriented equational clauses as a programming language
J. Logic Programming 1(1984) 2 165-177

Tseitlin, GE  Structured programming in symbolic multiprocesing
Cybernetics (19) 1983 no 5 614-625

Oscar E. Lanford  Computer Assisted proofs in analysis Mathematical Physics
VII Phys. A 124 (1984) no 1-3 465-470


Science 85, March
Machinations of Thought Pages 38-45
General Article on AI with emphasis on discussion of question "Could a machine
think?"

The Black Knight of AI Page 46-51
Article about Richard Dreyfus, who is a philosopher who is arguing that
machines cannot think and there is something called intuition that
cannot be captured by a computer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 85 10:28:34 pst
-FROM-
From: Craig Cornelius <cwc@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI article in Science 85
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The newest issue of Science 85 contains two articles on AI, with
vignettes on two Stanford profs: Bruce Buchanan and Terry Winograd.
It's interesting reading.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 03:03:38-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI on TV (in NEW TECH on PBS)
-BODY-
KLRU, the local PBS affiliate, has recently started a very interesting
program at 5pm Sunday afternoons, titled  NEW TECH.

Last Sunday, Feb 3, mainly concentrated on projects of Kurzweil Enterprises.
one of the 3 Kurzweil companies seems to concentrate on text-readers, and the
work being discussed mentioned a reader under development and test which can
read over 100 fonts at amazing speeds.

A second company is producing electronic musical equipment, and Mr. Moog of
Moog-synthesizer fame has recently joined Kurzweil.  Stevie Wonder was
extensively featured as he serves as kind of a "guinea-pig" for the company.
He is using model #1 of their synthesizers to produce his music and his
recent song "The Woman in Red" was produced by him on this equipment.  Given
that Stevie is blind, being able to produce all his own sound-tracks and
mixing the results is a considerable feat. Special I/O devices for the
use of the handicapped are being developed thanks to Kurzweil's support
of Stevie Wonder.  Another song by Wonder used in the feature was:
"Having Computer Fun".

I noted down a reference to "CompuServe" and "The Source Public Area 125 Dired"
but I only remember now that something is being discussed in these 2
commercial online electronic media, relevant to the musical equipment.

If you have a video-recorder, this show is definitely worth recording while
you're out having fun in the park       (-:

PS: my TV-program for Thursday, Feb 7, showed as topic for the Donahue-show
        "Computer Sub-culture".  well, it wasn't on, postponed it seems due
        to more a more "urgent" topic: the New York subway-vigilante.
        I am trying to find out when this topic will be discussed.
        thought some of you fellow-TV-junkies might be interested

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 10:03:24-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Sociological Look at AI Research
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following is the introduction to an article by James Fleck which appeared
in Sociology of the Sciences, Volume VI, 1982, pp.169-217.  The title of the
article is Development and Establishment in Artificial Intelligence.

In this paper, I discuss the role played by scientific establishments in the
development of a particular scientific specialty, Artificial Intelligence, a
computer-related area which takes as its broad aim, the construction of
computer
programs that model aspects of intelligent behaviour. As with any discussion
of a scientific specialty, the identification of what is involved is not
unproblematic, and the above serves as an indication rather that a definition.
While the term Artificial Intelligence is used in a variety of ways, there is
a discernable group (perhaps approaching the degree of commonality to be called
a community) of researchers who recognize the term as descriptive of a certain
sort of work, and who, if they themselves are not willing to be directly
labelled by the term, can locate themselves with respect to it.

Unfortunately, there is little or no commonly available literature that
systematically charts the scope of this area.  It is worthwhile, therefore,
to consider the distinctive socio-cognitive characteristics of research in
AI as a prelude to a fairly specific discussion of the social and institutional
processes involved in the development of the area, thus providing a basis
for exploring the usefulness and applicabiligy of the concept of establishment.


The article includes an interesting chart showing the movement of AI
researchers
during the 1960's and 1970's among the main centers of AI research: SRI, CMU,
Stanford, and MIT.  If you are interested in this article, I have a copy
of it in the Math/CS Library.

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 18:42:28-EST
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: _The Sirens of Titan_
-BODY-

     I recently read for the first time Kurt Vonnegut's _The Sirens of
Titan_, and came across the following spooky, dystopian view of AI:


     Once upon a time on Tralfamadore there were creatures who weren't
anything like machines.  They weren't dependable.  They weren't
efficient.  They weren't predictable.  They weren't durable.  And
these poor creatures were obsessed by the idea that everything that
existed had to have a purpose, and that some purposes were higher than
others.

     These creatures spent most of their time trying to find out what
their purpose was.  And every time they found out what seemed to be a
purpose of themselves, the purpose seemed so low that the creatures
were filled with disgust and shame.

     And, rather than serve such a low purpose, the creatures would
make a machine to serve it.  This left the creatures free to serve
higher purposes.  But whenever they found a higher purpose, the
purpose still wasn't high enough.

     So machines were made to serve higher purposes, too.

     And the machines did everything so expertly that they were
finally given the job of finding out what the highest purpose of the
creatures could be.

     The machines reported in all honesty that the creatures couldn't
really be said to have any purpose at all.

     The creatures thereupon began slaying each other because they
hated purposeless things above all else.

     And they discovered that they weren't even very good at slaying.
So they turned that job over to the machines, too.  And the machines
finished up the job in less time than it takes to say, "Tralfamadore."


Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.  The Sirens of Titan.  New York: Dell Publishing
Co., 1959 (1976 printing).  Pp. 274-275.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
18
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 7 Feb 85 15:03:05 PST
-FROM-
From: wm@tekchips
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Bertrand Constraint Language (Oregon)
-BODY-
                          Oregon Graduate Center
              Department of Computer Science and Engineering
                                Colloquium
                  February 22, 3:30 pm, Main Seminar Room


              Bertrand, a General Purpose Constraint Language

                                  Wm Leler

                        Computer Research Laboratory
                               Tektronix, Inc.


           Constraint languages and constraint satisfaction
           techniques are making the problem solving abilities of
           the computer available to a wider audience.  For
           example, simple spread-sheet languages such as VisiCalc
           allow many different financial modeling problems to be
           solved without resorting to programming.  In a
           conventional language the programmer must specify a
           step-by-step procedure for the language interpreter to
           follow.  In a constraint language, programming is a
           descriptive task.  The user specifies a set of
           relationships, called constraints, and it is up to the
           constraint satisfaction system to satisfy these
           constraints.  Unfortunately, constraint satisfaction
           systems have been very difficult to build.

           Bertrand is a general purpose language designed for
           building constraint satisfaction systems.  Constraints
           are solved using rewrite rules, which are invoked by
           pattern matching.  Bertrand is similar in expressive
           power to relational languages such as Prolog, but
           without any procedural semantics.  Its lack of
           procedural semantics makes Bertrand especially
           attractive for execution on parallel processors.

           This talk will review several example constraint
           satisfaction systems built using Bertrand with
           applications in graphics, design, and modeling.  There
           will also be some discussion of the language issues
           involved in the design of Bertrand.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 85 18:49:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Shafer@CMU-CS-IUS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Insights on Searching (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Tyson@SRI-AI.]

Type:     AI Seminar
Speaker:  Hans Berliner
Topic:    Superpuzz and Some Insights on Searching
Dates:    12-Feb-85
Time:     3:30 pm
Place:    WeH 5409


    Most solutions in any complex domain require some non-intuitive
moves that violate good heuristic rules.  When a combination of search
procedure and evaluation function requires that the search keep finding
"good" moves or else abandon the current branch, the search takes on
an undesirable breadth-first character.  This research indicates that
it is possible to define evaluation functions that allow continuing a
branch that encounters some non-intuitive moves by giving credit for
earlier "good" moves.  We define an "adventurousness coefficient"
that determines the ratio of acceptance of non-intuitive moves to
"good" moves, and show that greater adventurousness is desirable as
the depth of solution increases.  Further, adventurousness has an
even greater payoff when a constraint satisfaction method exists that
can terminate unsolvable branches.
    Our domain for this study was Superpuzz, a very difficult solitaire
puzzle.  Four search paradigms, each the best of its kind for
non-adversary problems, were investigated.  These are:  Depth-first
with branch and bound and iterative deepening (DF), A*, Best-first
with a simple evaluation function (BF1), and Best-first with a
complex evaluation function (BF2).  All methods except BF2 use the
same knowledge, and each of these methods is tested with and without
the use of a constraint satisfaction procedure, all on the same sets
of progressively more difficult solitaire problems.
    As expected, the most informed search (BF2) does better than the
less informed as the problems get more difficult.  Constraint
satisfaction is found to have a pronouncedly greater effect when
coupled with the most informed algorithm (BF2).  BF1, which uses the
same knowledge as A* and DF but has a greater adventurousness
coefficient, far outperforms these paradigms in terms of work required
at about a 5% reduction in the quality of the (otherwise) optimal
solution.
    Adventurousness can be thought of as a primitive form of planning,
in which no specific goal is enunciated but the cohesion of a set of
moves in "making progress" is being measured.  The desired degree
of adventurousness appears to depend on the domain, evaluation
function, and constraint satisfaction method used.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Feb 85 15:13:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Motion Planning Algorithms  (SU)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             AFLB Seminar
               2/14/85 - Prof. Micha Sharir (Tel Aviv)

                "Motion planning algorithms - a survey"

We discuss the problem of planning automatically a continuous motion
of a given robot system B having k degrees of freedom, from an initial
position to a final desired position. During the required motion B has
to avoid certain obstacles whose geometry is known.  In abstract
terms, the problem is reduced to that of calculating the connected
components of the (k-dimensional) manifold FP of all free positions of
B, and is thus a problem in "computational topology".  In the talk we
will survey the main results in this area as developed during the last
four years. Some of the topics of the talk (as time will permit) will
be:

(1) We show that the problem is solvable in time polynomial in the
geometric complexity n of the obstacles, provided that k is fixed.
(2) The problem is PSPACE-hard if k is arbitrary, even for very simple
systems.
(3) Efficient solutions exist for several simple systems. We will
describe some of them.
(4) Review of the main solution techniques.
(5) Spin-off problems in computational geometry.
(6) Variants of the problem: motion planning with a gripped object,
motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles, optimal motion
planning, etc.

***** Time and place: February 14, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 21:19:30-PST
-FROM-
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Triangle Tables for Robot Actions (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      Tuesday, February 12, 1985
                     at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium

                          Nils J. NILSSON
            Chairman, Stanford Computer Science Department

                         will present:

                       TRIANGLE TABLES:
      A Proposal for a Language for Programming Robot Actions

Structures called ``triangle tables'' were used in connection with the
SRI robot SHAKEY for storing sequences of robot actions.  Since the
original motivation for triangle tables still seems relevant, I have
recently elaborated the original concept and have begun to consider
how the expanded formalism can be used as a general robot programming
language.  This talk will describe this new view of triangle tables
and how they might be used in a language that supports asynchronous
and concurrent action computations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Summary - Robot Mind-Body Synapse (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                            SUMMARY OF F-4 MEETING
             ``Robot Design: In Search of the Mind-Body Synapse''
                            Stan Rosenschein, CSLI

For purposes of the discussion, the term ``robot'' was taken refer to a
collection of (man-made) sensors and effectors connected through a computer
controller.  To lend an air of reality to the discussion, a ``hands-on''
display was given of an ultrasonic rangefinder, a small CCD camera, a
battery-operated robotics kit including a motorized gripper, and a small
computer.  The challenge facing the robot designer is how to assemble these
(or similar) components to build a device capable of complex and
interesting behaviors.  The most complex and difficult part of the robot
design task is programming the controller.  Many AI researchers have sought
to manage this complexity by developing computational abstractions based on
some version of commonsense belief-desire-intention (BDI) psychology--the
``folk'' theory of mind.  In addition, they have tended to adopt a
``representationalist'' tactic in which the components of mental state
(beliefs, desires, intentions) are realized as symbolic structures to be
manipulated by the program.  Another approach, one based on an abstract
correlational theory of information-bearing states in automata, was put
forward as an alternative.  There was much discussion on the utility of
belief-desire-intention psychology, especially in its
``representationalist'' form, as a framework for building robots.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Feb 85 13:44:23-CST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "John J. Grefenstette" <jjg%vanderbilt.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on Genetic Algorithms
-BODY-

                      Call for Papers
       International Conference on Genetic Algorithms
                   and Their Applications


An International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and  Their
Applications,  sponsored  by  Texas Instruments and the U.S.
Navy Center for Applied Research in  AI  (NCARAI),  will  be
held  on  July  24-26, 1985 at Carnegie-Mellon University in
Pittsburgh.  Authors are invited to submit papers on all as-
pects of Genetic Algorithms, including the following topics:
theoretical  foundations  of  Genetic  Algorithms;   machine
learning  using  Genetic Algorithms; classifier systems; ap-
portionment of credit; Genetic Algorithms in function optim-
ization and search; experimental applications.

Authors are requested to  submit  three  copies  (hard  copy
only)  of  a full paper by May 1, 1985 to the program chair-
man:

        Dr. John J. Grefenstette
        Computer Science Department
        Vanderbilt University
        Box 73 Station B
        Nashville, TN 37235

Papers will be refereed by the Program  Committee,  and  au-
thors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by May 20,
1985.  Camera ready copies are due by June  21,  1985.   Ac-
cepted  papers  will be published in the Conference Proceed-
ings.

Morning sessions  of  the  conference  will  be  devoted  to
presentations  of  the  accepted papers.  Afternoon sessions
will be devoted to panel discussions of the  general  themes
raised in the morning sessions.

There will be no registration fee, but for planning purposes
all attendees are asked to register by June 1, 1985.  Regis-
tration information may be obtained from:

        Dr. Stephen F. Smith
        Robotics Institute
        Carnegie-Mellon University
        Pittsburgh, PA 15213
        sfs@CMU-RI-ISL1
        (412) 578-8811


Conference Committee
>--------- ---------

John H. Holland       University of Michigan (Conference Chair)
Lashon B. Booker      NCARAI
Kenneth A. De Jong    NCARAI and George Mason University
John J. Grefenstette  Vanderbilt University (Program Chair)
Stephen F. Smith      C-MU Robotics Institute (Local Arrangements)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 85 16:26:43 cst
-FROM-
From: Austin Melton <austin%kansas-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        CALL FOR PAPERS AND CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

                     CONFERENCE ON
    THE MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PROGRAMMING SEMANTICS


DATE AND SITE                        SPONSORS

                                   Iowa State University
April 11 and 12, 1985              Kansas State University
Kansas State University            The University of Kansas
Manhattan, Kansas 66506            The University of Nebraska
                                   Wichita State University


The conference will be a forum for computer scientists and mathematicians
jointly to discuss current research and possible directions for future research
in both programming language semantics in general and the mathematics used
in programming semantics in particular.  From these discussions the computer
scientists will have first-hand exposure to the mathematical ideas which
might prove fruitful for future work, and the mathematicians will gain insight
for future work by seeing how their results can be applied and by seeing what
types of mathematical results are needed for future work in programming
language semantics.


Suggested topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

    theory of complete partial orders and continuous lattices,
    topological and categorical approaches to semantics,
    formal and descriptive aspects of semantics notations


The following computer scientists and mathematicians will be speaking at the
conference:

Dr. Dana Scott, Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Horst Herrlich, University of Bremen, West Germany
Dr. Adrian Tang, The University of Kansas
Dr. George Strecker, Kansas State University
Dr. Stephen Brookes, Carnegie-Mellon University
Dr. Carl Gunter, Carnegie-Mellon University


Authors are invited to submit five copies of extended abstracts (approximately
two pages double spaced) describing recent advances in programming semantics
or related mathematics.  The first page of the abstract should include
all authors' names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers.  Graduate
students are also encouraged to submit abstracts.  The submission deadline
is March 11, 1985.  Authors will be notified of acceptance by March 22, 1985.

Five copies of the extended abstracts should be submitted to:

Prof. Austin Melton           or   Prof. Robert Wherritt
Computer Science Department        Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Fairchild Hall, 121                Box 33
Kansas State University            Wichita State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506            Wichita, Kansas  67208
USA                                USA
or via CSNET
austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay


Abstracts of the accepted papers and the invited addresses will be available
to all conference participants at the start of the conference.
The conference proceedings will be published after the conference and
mailed to all the participants.
...

FOR MORE INFORMATION about the conference or accommodations please contact
Professor Austin Melton or Ms. Robin Niederee:

Kansas State University
Computer Science Department
Fairchild Hall, 121
Manhattan, Kansas  66506
913-532-6350
CSNET austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay or robin%kansas-state@csnet-relay


The registration fee is $35 (students $5).
Meals are included in the $35.00 registration fee. Students may purchase
meals for an additional $20.00.
PLEASE REGISTER AND MAKE MEAL RESERVATIONS BY APRIL 8, 1985.  Registration and
meal reservations may be made via CSNET (austin%kansas-state@csnet-relay  or
robin%kansas-state@csnet-relay) with payments being made at the conference.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
19
-DATE-
Date: Sun 10 Feb 85 17:35:14-PST
-FROM-
From: LOUROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Translation
-BODY-
Regarding a German/English translator: How about Jonathan Slocum's
program developed for Siemens?  Slocum is now at MCC in Austin
courtesy of the University of Texas.  Good luck.

Lou Robinson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lecture Notes - Manual of Intensional Logic
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                    FIRST VOLUME OF CSLI LECTURE NOTES

The first in the series of CSLI Lecture Notes has just been published.
Entitled ``Manual of Intensional Logic,'' the 75-page book by Johan van
Benthem constitutes a graduate course that the author taught in the Winter
of 1984 while at CSLI.

``Intensional Logic as understood here,'' the author writes in the
Introduction, ``is a research program based upon the broad presupposition
that so-called `intensional contexts' in natural language can be explained
semantically by the idea of `multiple reference.' ''

Unlike CSLI Reports, the Lecture Notes will be sold for a nominal fee to
defray part of production costs. The price of ``Manual of Intensional
Logic'' is $5, and it may be purchased at the Stanford Bookstore or by
writing to Dikran Karagueuzian at the Center. A 25% discount is offered to
all members of the CSLI community or to anyone ordering three or more
copies to be used for instructional purposes. California residents should
add sales tax.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Summary - Algebraic Specifications (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                         SUMMARY OF AREA C MEETING
         ``Algebraic Specifications in an Arbitrary Institution''
                             Andrzej Tarlecki
               Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Edinburgh

The pioneering papers on algebraic specification used many-sorted
equational logic as a logical framework in which specifications were
written and analyzed.  Nowadays, however, examples of logical systems in
use include first-order logic, higher-order logic, infinitary logic,
temporal logic, and many others.  Note that all these logical systems may
be considered with or without predicates, admitting partial operations or
not.  This leads to different concepts of signature and of model, perhaps
even more obvious in examples like polymorphic signatures, order-sorted
signatures, continuous algebras, or error algebras.  The informal notion of
a logical system for writing specifications has been formalized by Goguen
and Burstall who introduced for this purpose the notion of institution.
The first and presumably most important application of this notion is its
use in the theory of algebraic specifications.  It turns out that most of
the work on algebraic specification, especially concerning specification
languages, may be done in an institution-independent way.  We briefly
present a collection of simple but very powerful specification-building
operations and give their semantics in an arbitrary institution.  In this
context we outline a very simple and mathematically elegant view of the
formal development of programs from their specifications.  The notion of
institution is also used to formulate (and prove) some model-theoretic
results at an appropriately general level.  We show how to generalize to an
arbitrary institution a Birkhoff-type characterization of quasi-varieties
as implicational classes.  This result may be used to prove that Mahr and
Makowsky's characterization of standard algebraic institutions which
strongly admit initial semantics holds for arbitrary institutions
satisfying a number of technical assumptions.  Finally, we briefly outline
some problems concerning the notion of institution itself.  We discuss the
need for some tool for constructing new institutions and for combining
institutions (``putting institutions together'').  We also indicate
possible generalization of this notion which would provide a mold for
richer semantical systems than just collections of sentences with a notion
of their truth.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 1985 14:58-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN@BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Massively Parallel Natural Language Processing (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by JCMA@MIT-MC.]


            Massively Parallel Natural Language Processing

 Professor David L. Waltz, Thinking Machines and Brandeis University

Date:  10:00 a.m. Tuesday,  February 19, 1985
Place: Newman Auditorium
       BBN Laboratories Inc.
       70 Fawcett Street
       Cambridge, Ma.


This talk will describe research in developing a natural language
processing system with modular knowledge sources but strongly
interactive processing.  The system offers insights into a variety of
linguistic phenomena and allows easy testing of a variety of hypotheses.
Language interpretation takes place on an activation network which is
dynamically created from input, recent context, and long-term knowledge.
Initially ambiguous and unstable, the network settles on a single
interpretation, using a parallel, analog relaxation process.  The talk
will also describe a parallel model for the representation of context
and of the priming of concepts.  Examples illustrating contextual
influence on meaning interpretation and "semantic garden path" sentence
processing, along with a discussion of the building and implementation
of a large scale system for new generation parallel computers are
included.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  12 noon, 2/14         TINLunch
  Ventura Hall          ``Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning''
  Conference Room       Ronald Fagin, IBM San Jose Research Laboratory

Possible-worlds semantics for knowledge and belief do not seem appropriate
for modelling human reasoning since they suffer from the problem of what
Hintikka calls ``logical omniscience''.  This means that agents are assumed
to be so intelligent that they must, in particular, know all valid
formulas.  Moreover, each agent's knowledge is also closed under deduction,
so that if an agent knows p, and if p logically implies q, then the agent
must also know q.  Unfortunately, this is certainly not a very accurate
account of how people operate!  People are not logically omniscient for
several reasons, including (1) Lack of awareness: how can someone say that
he knows or doesn't know about p if p is a concept he is completely unaware
of?  (2) People are resource-bounded: they simply lack the computational
resources to deduce all the logical consequences of their knowledge.  (3)
People don't focus on all issues simultaneously: it is possible for a
person to have distinct frames of mind, where the conclusions drawn in
distinct frames of mind may contradict each other.  Some new logics for
belief and knowledge are introduced which model these phenomena, so that,
in particular, agents need not be logically omniscient.  This talk
represents joint work with Joe Halpern.                    --Ronald Fagin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 09:08:22 pst
-FROM-
From: Gabriel Kuper <kuper@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ph. D. Oral - The Logical Data Model (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        Gabriel M. Kuper

        The Logical Data Model: A New Approach to Database Logic

                        9AM, 7 Feb. 985
                Building 420 (Psychology), Room 41


We propose a mathematical framework for unifying and generalizing the three
principal data models, i.e., the relational, hierarchical and network models.
Until recently most theoretical work on databases has focused on the relational
model, mainly due to its elegance and mathematical simplicity compared to the
other models.
Some of this work has pointed out various disadvantages of the relational
model,
among them its lack of semantics and the fact that it forces the data to have a
flat structure that the real data does not always have.

The Logical Data Model (LDM) combines the advantages of both approaches.
It models database schemas as directed graphs, in which the leaves correspond
to
the attributes, and the internal nodes to connections between the data.
Instances of LDM schemas consist of r-values, which constitute the data space,
and l-values, which constitute the address space.
This enables us to deal with instances of cyclic structures, but still get a
first-order theory.

We define a logic on LDM schemas in which integrity constraints can be
specified, and use it to define a logical, i.e. non-procedural, query language
that is analogous to Codd's relational calculus.
We also describe an algebraic, i.e. procedural, query language and prove that
the two query languages are equivalent.
These languages have a novel feature: not only can they access a non-flat data
structure, e.g. a hierarchy, but the answers they produce do not have to be
flat
either.
Thus, the language really does have the ability to restructure data and not
only
to retrieve it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Feb 85 17:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on Evolution and Information
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                  CONFERENCE ON EVOLUTION AND INFORMATION

A conference on Evolution and Information with major support from CSLI will
be held at Stanford this April 19-21.  The specific focus of the conference
will be on the use of optimality models both in biology and in the human
sciences.  Papers will be contributed to the conference by biologists,
philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists.  Apart from addressing
problems and limitations of optimality models within biology, an important
aim of the conference will be to explore the relevance of biological
results, either factually or methodologically, to other areas of inquiry.

Papers to be discussed at the conference will be circulated about a month
before the meeting.  Contributors will be asked to give a brief summary of
their papers at the conference sessions but papers will not be read.
Therefore, anyone who would be interested in seeing the papers in advance,
or would like any further information about the conference, should contact
John Dupre, Philosophy, Stanford University (415-497-2587, Dupre@Turing).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 20:13:24 pst
-FROM-
From: li51x%sdcc3@SDCSVAX
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SCCGL Conference on General Linguistics
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE ON GENERAL LINGUISTICS


APRIL 20-21, 1985

The Conference will be held at the University of California,
San  Diego.   Papers  from  any  of  the  subdisciplines  of
linguistics are eligible.  Graduate students are  especially
encouraged  to  participate,  and abstracts will be refereed
anonymously.

Please  provide  10  copies  of  your   single-page   titled
anonymous  abstract, and include an index card with the fol-
lowing information:

     Paper title (matching that on abstract)
     Author
     Address
     Phone number (including area code)

Please send abstracts to the address below before 28 February 1985.

     Chilin Shih
     SCCGL
     Linguistics, C-008
     UCSD
     La Jolla, CA 92093

Information about meals and  accommodation  will  be  mailed
later.   For further information call (619) 452-3600, Chilin
Shih, Carol Georgopoulos, or Diane Lillo-Martin.

You may reach Chilin at sdcc6!ix226@UCSD.arpa.   Please use SCCGL
as the subject heading.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
20
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Feb 85 15:14:12-CST
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic-Based Expert Systems
-BODY-
From the what-you-and-everyone-else-would-like-department: I'm looking
for non-trivial but (sigh) non-proprietary expert system applications
written in a logic-based system such as DUCK, MRS, or PROLOG.  Please
let me know if you can help. CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 13-Feb-85 12:51:52-GMT
-FROM-
From: MACCALLUM QM (on ERCC DEC-10) <MAHM%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on PSL and Kurzweil
-BODY-
 The network contact for PSL seems to be Jed Krohnfeldt
<jed%arpa.utah-orion%arpa.utah-cs> who maintains a psl-forum
mailing list.

 The Kurzweil Optical Character Reader is a product of
Kurzweil Computer Products
185 Albany Street
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
(617) 864-4700
Telex 951246 KURZWEIL CAM

and is sold in Britain by
Penta Systems (UK) Ltd
15 Sheet Street
Windsor, Berks.
(07535) 55513

According to the glossy bumph it can hold 25 different fonts and can be
trained to recognise others, each containing up to 400 characters. These
can be defined from the first few pages of a document using a "training
script".It can handle various paper and print sizes. Output is to
floppy, tape, or via a LAN. I have four closely-typed pages of
promotion material, but obviously the rest of the details can be
obtained direct from the company.

 I also believe there are machines at Glasgow and Cambridge (UK) which
are readily available to users. London is about to buy one (or possibly
two) at about 50K pounds each (I think).

Malcolm MacCallum

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 85 09:55:37 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

International Journal of Man Machine Studies Volume 21, No 3 Sep 1985
An Economical Approach to Modelling Speech Recognition Accuracy 191
An Analysis of Formal Logics as Inference Method in Expert System 213
Users and Experts in the Document Retrieval System Model 245
An Experimental Expert System for Genetics 259


Angewandte Informatik No 11 Nov 84
Design of a Corporate Know-How database 471


Electronics Week Volume 57 no 36 December 1984
AI Transforms CAD/CAM to CIM J. R. Lineback


IEEE PAMI Volume 6 no 6 Nov 84
Parallel Branch and Bound Formulations for And/Or Tree search 768


Computer Aided Design Volume 16 No 5 1984
Wirewrap Design Aid written in Prolog 249
Two algorithms for three-layer channel routing 264


Computers and Biomedical Research V 17  1984
An Expert System which critiques Patient Workup: Modelling Conflicting
Expertise 554-569

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 9 Feb 85 12:59:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Chuck Restivo  <RESTIVO@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: List of Weizmann Institute Reports
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[...]
Ehud Shapiro also forwarded a list of available publications from the Weizmann
Institute.  This is available as <Prolog>Weizmann_Abstracts.Doc
at SU-SCORE.ARPA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 14:41:07-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematics: People, Problems, Results  edited by Douglas
-BODY-           Campbell and John Higgins

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Mathematics: People, Problems, Results is a three volume book which is now
in the Math/CS Library--QA7.M34466 1984, v.1, v.2, v.3.

V.1--Historical Sketches, Some Mathematical Lives,The Development of
Mathematics
V.2--The Nature of Mathematics, Real Mathematics, Foundations and Philosophy
V.3--Computers, Mathematics in Art and Nature, Counting Guessing Using,
     Sociology and Education

The following authors have papers included in the three volumes: D.E.Knuth,
N.Wiener,A.L.Samuel,H.A.Simon,M.Kline,M.Minsky,Bertrand Russell,Richard
Courant,
D.R.Hofstadter,George Polya,John von Neumann,David Hilbert

HLlull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 00:01:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Journal
-BODY-
I have received a brochure for a new quarterly: Expert Systems, the
international journal of knowledge engineering, from Learned Information, Inc.,
143 Old Marlton Pike, Medford, NJ 08055, (609) 654-6266  [with offices
in Oxford as well].  A subscription is normally $79, but through March 15
they are offering it at $67.  They are also throwing in a copy of their
"$25" soon-to-be-published report, The Guide to Expert Systems, that will
include an introduction, glossary, and directory of companies.  Two back
issues of the journal are available for $30 (total, I presume).

The editors are Ian F. Croall of AERE Harwell in Britain, Donald A. Waterman
of The Rand Corporation, and Mitsuru Ishizuka of The University of Tokyo.
The editorial board includes Alex Goodall, Tohru Moto-Oka, Douglas
Partridge, and J.R. Quinlan.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 12 Feb 85 11:49:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Ellie Engelmore <EENGELMORE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Fifth Generation Revisited (SU)
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distibution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

SPEAKER:        Edward Feigenbaum
                Professor of Computer Science
                Stanford University

TITLE:          Fifth Generation Revisited--Some Informal Impressions


DATE:           Friday, February 15, 1985
LOCATION:       BRAUN Lecture Hall - Next to Mudd Chemistry Building
                                   Roth Way - Near Campus Drive
TIME:           12:05


The Japanese Fifth Generation Project, and its central institute ICOT,
held the Second International  Conference on Fifth Generation  Systems
last November. Well  over a thousand  people attended this  impressive
gathering and its associated Open House to hear about and see progress
on the project and plans for its future.

I'll recount  my  impressions  of  these  events  and  impressions  of
industrial activity in  the AI  area both  inside and  outside of  the
Fifth Generation project.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 15:44:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: BareSlug meeting, Fri. Feb. 15
-BODY-
BAY-AREA SLUG PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT- FEBRUARY 1985 MEETING

******** note the time and location changes *************

Date: Friday, February 15, 1985
Time: 3:15-5:15 PM
Place: Stanford Campus , Room 041 Jordan Hall (in the basement)
       See the directions at the end of this notice

for additional information contact:
  Tom Fall, General Chairman 408/289-2373
  Ron Antinoja, Program Chairman 415/966-4043
  Ken Olum, Program Librarian 415/858-4498 <KDO@SRI-KL>
  Joe Karnicky, Correspondence Secretary 415/424-5085 <KARNICKY@SCORE>

PROGRAM

  Tom Jensen of Evans and Sutherland will give a talk
entitled: "Essential Adaptation: Computer Assisted Symbolic
Manipulation and Computer Aided Geometric Design".  The talk will
include, but not be limited to, discussion of MACSYMA.
  Rich Cohen at U. Texas is interested in organizing a two day national
users group meeting, probably in S. F. probably at the end of May.  At
the business meeting we'll discuss the interest in (and desirable content
of) such a meeting.
  We'll finish with the usual gripe session.

SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING (Jan. 11, 1985)

  Richard Lamson talked on "hacking the window system".  He focused on
the way the window system handled the mouse.  This can be a fairly
complex process, in part because the process must appear to run real
time while sharing the machine with other processes. (e.g. mouse
clicks are time tagged so that when they are handled the response is
to the window the cursor was in at the time of the click rather then
the time of handling.)  The talk gave valuable insight into the inner
workings of the Symbolics machine and helped clarify the window system
operations.
  Tom Fall spoke of his experiences using the KEE system (version 1.2,
*not* the current release) on Symbolics.  Strong points of the system
included the ability to rapidly create a prototype, thus quickly
providing a focus and device for knowledge acquisition, good graphics,
ease of use, and excellent support.  Weak points include
difficulty in connecting the KEE program to other code, some difficult,
opaque bugs, and documentation that could stand improvement.
  During the business meeting, interest was expressed in hearing about
other software systems, such as ART or S1.  Especially interesting would be
discussion by someone from an installation that used several different
systems.

===========================================================================
Map to next meeting:
         --            |     quadrangle        |
        |  |           |                 X     |  <-- X=Jordan Hall
         --             ----------   ----------
  Hoover Tower        ----------------------------    ____
                                  / \     serra St.   @@@ \-----------
                                 /   \                @@@ | \ ---------
Notes:                          |     |                   |  |
1)the map is *not* to scale      \   /                    |  |
                                  \ /                     |  |
2)look for parking                 |<-Palm Drive          |  |
in the pay-parking lot shown by    |               <--    |  |
the @ characters,    --------------------------------------  |
or along Serra.      -----------------------------------------
                                   |    Campus Dr.  -->
                      -------------|-------------
                                   | Arboretum Rd.
                                   |

       <--to S.J.           El Camino Real        to S.F.-->

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
21
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 85 9:18:51 EST
-FROM-
From: Pete Bradford (CSD UK) <bradford@AMSAA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Description of Telesophy Project.
-BODY-
        The  idea  of a worldwide computer net cannot fail to remind
     those of you who have read the story, of the SF classic,  I think by
     my compatriot and old friend, Arthur C. Clarke.

        The story tells of the quest by mankind to establish the ex-
     istence or otherwise of a God.

        They built the largest computer the world had ever seen, and
     asked it whether there  was  a  God.  "Insufficient data.", came the
     reply.   So they built an even larger one:  "Insufficient data." was
     still the only answer they got.   Finally, somebody came up with the
     idea that if all the  computers in the world were linked together in
     some way, the resulting `Supercomputer' might be able to do the job.

        The  project was completed,  and the burning question was at
     last put to the machine; "Is there a God?".   It was not long before
     the machine came back with its reply.

        "Yes, there is a God -- now!".



                                PJB

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Feb 85 10:02:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Gods
-BODY-
Asimov wrote a similar piece about the "AC Computer", which grew in complexity
until the entire "physical embodiment" was moved into hyperspace (to permit
convienent internal and external communication throughout the universe, I
suppose).  Various people asked it how entropy could be reversed and the
universe rejuvenated, but there was always insufficient data.  After Man
and the stars had faded out, and no further data could possibly come in,
the computer continued to work on the problem.  At last it came up with
an answer, and said "Let there be light."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Feb 85  2008 PST
-FROM-
From: Brian Harvey <BH@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another Computer Application
-BODY-
11 Feb 85
By ROLLANDA COWLES
Reporter for the Staten Island (N.Y.) Advance
Newhouse News Service
(DISTRIBUTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE)

    NEW YORK - You've had your eye on a new car for some time. Should
you buy now or wait?  [...]
    ''Try the computer,'' counsels John C. Lee, president of the
Manhattan-based Horizon East, which has come up with a computerized
version of the ''I Ching,'' the Chinese book of wisdom. [...]
    The computerized version of the ''I Ching,'' which Horizon East is
presenting for the first time in the West, is based on a
numero-astrological reinterpretation of the ''I Ching.'' Keyed to
one's date of birth - year, month, day and hour - the ''I Ching''
spells out an analysis of one's life and offers near-inexhaustible
wisdom and counsel.  [...]
    The computerized ''I Ching'' provides a lifetime analysis and
detailed analyses of the past two years and one year into the future.
    It took eight people 10 months to program the Horizon East
computer, which stores approximately 4 million characters pertaining
to the ''I Ching'' in its memory. So far, Lee says, the response has
been favorable.
    ''Because the computer handles the information much more
efficiently, we are able to offer ... service by mail at a very
reasonable cost,'' he says, noting that where personal analyses often
cost about $200, the computerized version costs $20. [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06 Feb 85  1850 PST
-FROM-
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Russell Baker on Word Processing
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[Russel Baker's column last Sunday had some pithy comments about the
cognitive effect of our writing tools.  Readers who enjoy the excerpt
below should look up the full article.  -- KIL]

OBSERVER: The Processing Process
By RUSSELL BAKER
c.1985 N.Y. Times News Service
    NEW YORK - For a long time after going into the writing business, I
wrote. It was hard to do. That was before the word processor was
invented. Whenever all the writers got together, it was whine, whine,
whine. How hard writing was. How they wished they had gone into dry
cleaning, stonecutting, anything less toilsome than writing.
    Then the word processor was invented, and a few pioneers switched
from writing to processing words. They came back from the electronic
frontier with glowing reports: ''Have seen the future and it works.''
That sort of thing.  [...]
    It is so easy, not to mention so much fun - listen, folks, I have
just switched right here at the start of this very paragraph you are
reading - right there I switched from the old typewriter (talk about
goose-quill pen days!) to my word processor, which is now clicking
away so quietly and causing me so little effort that I don't think
I'll ever want to stop this sentence because - well, why should you
want to stop a sentence when you're really well launched into the
thing - the sentence, I mean - and it's so easy just to keep her
rolling right along and never stop since, anyhow, once you do stop,
you are going to have to start another sentence, right? - which means
coming up with another idea. [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 22:30:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Steven Tepper <greep@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Humor
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I got the new memory for my brain and now I can read the Russell Baker
article and JMC's reply without a stack overflow (although response time
seems to be slower (I think that's because the garbage collection takes
longer (I should have thought of that first (but I didn't (does anyone have
a good on-the-fly garbage collection routine (one that will will run on a
normal two-hemisphere brain configuration (i.e. doesn't require any non-
standard lisp features (such as depending on the Interlisp spaghetti stack
(I think I'm going to recode my brain in Common Lisp (if a good
implementation becomes available (that's supposed to happen soon (at least
according to what I've heard)))))))))))).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 85 14:02:45 pst
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stacks and Garbage Collection
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Pop.

Marvin Minsky organized his public lectures that way.  The left parens
were silent and the right were omitted.  Occasionally he would
mutter "Where was I?  I seem to have overflowed my stack."  It was
widely speculated that this was just for show and that Marvin didn't
even own a stack.

Van Wijngaarden, the man who gave Algol 68 its unique flavor, appears
to be the first to propose seriously, somewhere around 1964, that
computers should exhibit this sort of behavior and never bother to pop
their stack.  One might assume that this would save the bother of
pushing the return address on the stack when calling another routine,
but no.  That stack had good stuff on it, or rather in it since you
were expected to use it more or less like any other chunk of memory, to
within the vagaries of how Algol organized access into the nether
reaches of the stack.  Return addresses were just parameters naming
procedures to call when you had an answer.  In the old regime you
called such a procedure by popping its address off the stack and
jumping to it.  In Van Wijngaarden's regime the address stayed on the
stack and your current PC was pushed on the stack as part of the
ordinary procedure call sequence, not only saving the return address
for posterity but contributing another.

Van Wijngaarden was thus an early right-to-lifer for return addresses
and anything else pushed on the stack.  His proposal was in the same
spirit as more recent proposals not to bother with garbage collection.
Users of Lisp machines who simply reboot as needed rather than endure
having the garbage collector turned on should have this man
enshrined somewhere on their stack (at each reboot, of course).

Other advocates of not garbage collecting include Charles Bennett, at
IBM Yorktown Heights, and Ed Fredkin, a colleague and friend of Marvin
Minsky who does digital physics at MIT.  Their interest in clinging to
worn-out information is that by so doing you can always reverse the
computation back to exactly where it started.  This is not because you
want to do this, but because the physicists promise that if you don't
throw it away you can get by with far less energy, a sort of
physicist's bottle bill.  One of the rules appears to be that you have
to settle for a nonzero probability that the computation will
unpredictably run backwards at some moment.  The energy you do consume
is expended on adjusting the probability that the computation will
proceed forwards more often than backwards; more energy improves the
odds and hence the speed of computation.

I have heard it whispered that DNA unzips itself on this principle; if
it were to unzip in such a way that it could not zip itself right back
up again it would fry.  I may of course be confusing this with a sermon
I heard.

Another reason for clinging to old...

Pop.

[...]

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 85 11:23:57 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Graduate Student Lunch
-BODY-
TIME: 12 Noon
DATE: Friday, Feb 15
PLACE: 8th Floor Playroom
HOSTS: Mark Tuttle and Sathya Narayanan
REFRESHMENTS: t

                PLAUSIBLE HAIRSTYLE GENERATION:
           THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF EURISKO, PART I

                       Blackstone Le Mot

As AI programs have been reported more widely in the popular
media, they have been called upon to perform tasks that have
heretofore gone unnoticed by AI researchers.  Proper hair care
is one of these tasks.  In this talk I will discuss the application
of EURISKO to developing healthy hair and attractive styling.
Remarkably enough, the program itself has modified itself
to represent characteristics of the domain, by developing
hair in its control structure and a significant bald spot
in its documentation.  But it looooks maaaahvelous!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 08:55:27-PST
-FROM-
From: Jay Ferguson <FERGUSON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Positions
-BODY-

Seems like the most popular of the AI positions today is MISSIONARY!

jay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 20:51:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cryptographic Humor
-BODY-
Gilles Brassard at Stanford mentioned on the bboard an improvement
on the one-time pad consisting of enciphering text by taking its
exclusive OR with itself.  ("We are still working on the decipherment.").

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Feb 85 14:33:25-PST
-FROM-
From: Tai Jin <G.Jin@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical/Linguistic Humor
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

     [Does anyone know the source of this?  It's been around for
     a good many years.  -- KIL]

From net.jokes...

        To  prove  once  and  for  all  that math can be fun, we
present:  Wherein it is related  how  that  paragon  of  womanly
virtue,  young  Polly  Nomial  (our heroine) is accosted by that
notorious villain Curly Pi, and factored (oh horror!!!).

        Once  upon  a  time (1/t) pretty little Polly Nomial was
strolling across a field of vectors when she came to the boundary
of a singularly large matrix.  Now Polly was convergent, and her
mother had made it an absolute condition  that  she  must  never
enter  such  an  array without her brackets on.  Polly, however,
who had changed her  variables  that  morning  and  was  feeling
particularly  badly behaved, ignored this condition on the basis
that it was insufficient and made her way in amongst the complex
elements.   Rows  and  columns  closed in on her from all sides.
Tangents approached her surface.  She became tensor and  tensor.
Quite  suddendly  two  branches  of a hyperbola touched her at a
single point.  She  oscillated  violently,  lost  all  sense  of
directrix,  and  went  completely divergent.  She tripped over a
square root  that  was  protruding  from  the  erf  and  plunged
headlong down a steep gradient.  When she rounded off once more,
she found herself inverted, apparently alone, in a non-Euclidean
space.
        She was being watched, however.  That  smooth  operator,
Curly  Pi,  was lurking inner product.  As his eyes devoured her
curvilinear coordinates, a singular expression crossed his face.
He  wondered,  "Was  she  still  convergent?".   He  decided  to
integrate improperly at once.
        Hearing  a common fraction behind her, Polly rotated and
saw Curly Pi approaching with  his  power  series  extrapolated.
She  could  see  at once by his degenerate conic and dissipative
terms that he was bent on no good.
        "Arcsinh," she gasped.
        "Ho, ho," he said, "What a  symmetric  little  asymptote
you have.  I can see your angles have lots of secs."
        "Oh sir," she protested, "keep away from me.  I  haven't
got my brackets on."
        "Calm yourself, my dear," said our suave operator, "your
fears are purely imaginary."
        "I, I,"  she  thought,  "perhaps  he's  not  normal  but
homogeneous."
        "What order are you?" the brute demanded.
        "Seventeen," replied Polly.
        Curly leered.  "I suppose  you've  never  been  operated
on."
        "Of course not,"  Polly  replied  quite  properly,  "I'm
absolutely convergent."
        "Come, come," said Curly,  "let's off to a decimal place
I know and I'll take you to the limit."
        "Never," gasped Polly.
        "Abscissa,"  he  swore,  using  the vilest oath he knew.
His patience was gone.  Coshing her over the coefficient with  a
log  until she was powerless, Curly removed her discontinuities.
He stared at her significant places, and began smoothing out her
points  of  inflection.  Poor Polly.  The algorithmic method was
now her only hope.  She felt his hand tending to her  asymptotic
limit.  Her convergence would soon be gone forever.
        There was no mercy, for Curly was a heavyside  operator.
Curly's  radius  squared  itself;  Polly's  loci  quivered.   He
integrated by parts.  He integrated by partial fractions.  After
he  cofactored,  he  performed Runge-Kutta on her.  The complex
beast  even  went  all  the  way  around  and  did   a   contour
integration.   What  an indignity -- to be multiply connected on
her  first  integration!   Curly  went  on  operating  until  he
completely  satisfied  her hypothesis, then he exponentiated and
became completely orthogonal.
        When  Polly got home that night, her mother noticed that
she was no longer piecewise continuous, but had  been  truncated
in several places.  But it was to late to differentiate now.  As
the months went by, Polly's denominator increased monotonically.
Finally  she  went  to  L'Hopital  and  generated  a  small  but
pathological function which left surds all over  the  place  and
drove Polly to deviation.

        The  moral  of  our  sad story is this:  "If you want to
keep your expressions convergent,  never  allow  them  a  single
degree of freedom ...  "

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
22
-DATE-
Date: Fri 15 Feb 85 13:58:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp workstation, request for info
-BODY-
We are looking into buying a CHEAP computer to run LISP in a reasonably
friendly environment. The constraints are that the machine should be
accessible remotely (through modems) and support networking.

We would also like the machine to support more than one user (but
certainly less than five). It should run a LISP close to Franz, Zeta
or Common Lisp (with hooks for remote file access !), EMACS should
be available for it.

We are looking into micro-vax and tektronix (I still have to check
on some of the constraints satisfaction of those). Price
range <~ 20,000 $.

We are aware of the NIL+micro-vax combination.

Is there anything else worth knowing about ???
Thank you for any suggestion
Reply to BACH@score.
Rene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 18:27:56 est
-FROM-
From: gross@dcn9.arpa (Phill Gross)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Dev. Tools Info Request
-BODY-

Several months ago, there was some discussion in the list about expert
system development packages.  There were also some information requests
(eg, ehrler%cod@nosc) but I don't recall any follow-ups posted.  I'm
now at the point of wanting to purchase one of these packages and have
been compiling a survey list of candidate packages.  I would like to
solicit information/comments about the packages listed below.  I will
summarize and post the results of any information I get.  I'll fertilize
the discussion with an initial list of information I've found so far.
What I'm really interested in is user comments on ease of use, capabilities,
how fast to get "up the curve", etc.  Again, I will summarize all information
I receive.

Phill Gross

Note: All comments in quotes below were taken from promotional material,
all comments within square brackets represent incomplete info.

                Large or Special Purpose Machines

        Vendor                    Machines/
Package (Contact Info)          HW Environment   Price  Comments

ART     Inference Corp.         [runs on
        5300 W.Century Blvd.     Symbolics]
        Los Angeles, CA 90045
        213-417-7997

DUCK    Smart Systems Tech.     "works within           Runs under Zetalisp
        6870 Elm Street          Lisp environ-          on Symbolics,Franz on
        McLean, VA 22101         ment"                  Vaxen (Unix or VMS),
        703-448-8562                                    T lisp on Appollo,
                                                        soon Common Lisp

K:Base  Gold Hill Computers     "Symbolics 3600         [Provides networking]
        163 Harvard Street        family"
        Cambridge, MA 02139
        617-492-2071

KEE     IntelliCorp             Need AI machine  $60K
        707 Laurel St.          (eg, Symbolics)
        Menlo Park, CA
        94025
        415-853-5540 or
        415-323-8300

LOOPS   [Xerox]                 [Xerox machines]        [unsupported but
                                                         provided by Xerox
                                                         for the cost of
                                                         distribution]

OPS5    DEC                     Vaxen                   "can call or be called
                                                         by routines .. in any
                                                         VAX language"

SRL     [Carnegie Group]        [Symbolics]      $70K

S1      Teknowledge, Inc.       Xerox 1100/1108, $50K   Includes 2 week course
        525 University Ave.     soon VAX/VMS
        Palo Alto, CA 94301
        415-327-6600

TIMM    General Research Corp.  "Most computers
        7655 Old                 and AI machines"
            Springhouse Road
        McLean, VA 22102
        703-893-5915

=============================================================================
                        Personal Computers

        Vendor                    Machines/
Package (Contact Info)          HW Environment   Price  Comments

Expert- J. Perrone &            IBM PC or XT,    $2K    2 disks advisable
Ease     Associates, Inc.       some
        3685 17th Street        "compatibles"
        San Francisco, CA
        94114
        415-431-9562

K:Base  Gold Hill Computers     IBM PC's         [<$5K] [Provides networking]
        163 Harvard Street
        Cambridge, MA 02139
        617-492-2071


M1      Teknowledge, Inc.       IBM PC          $12.5   Includes 4 day course,
        525 University Ave.                             Color recomended,
        Palo Alto, CA 94301                             PC-DOS or MS-DOS
        415-327-6600


Personal     Texas Instruments  "Widespread             Includes 3 day course,
Consultant   P.O. Box 809063     personal               runs under MS-DOS,
             Dallas, TX 75380    computers",            allows 400 rules
             1-800-527-3500     TI Professional

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 15:10:33 EST
-FROM-
From: winkler@harvard.ARPA (Dan Winkler)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP 1.4 Source Available
-BODY-
Source, documentation and compiled Macintosh versions of XLISP 1.4 are
available by anonymous ftp login at Harvard.  It's all in a subdirectory
named pub.  The author of xlisp, David Betz, logs in here as betz@harvard.
Feel free to send him mail if you have questions or comments.

Dan. (winkler@harvard)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 85 11:22:57 EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Broome <broome@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Origin of "Impure Mathematics"
-BODY-

In answer to your query in AIList V3 #21 I'm sending you a note I found
on net.jokes.d on USENET.

>paul


From seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!pesnta!lsuc!msb
From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: "The Adventures of Poly Nomial"
Date: 5 Feb 85 07:02:25 GMT
Summary: Credit and correct title


This little gem previously appeared in the Journal of Irreproducible
Results.  I don't know what issue; I have it in a Best of the JIR
collection.  The real title is "Impure Mathematics".  No author is given
in the normal style, but it is marked as "submitted by" Richard A. Gibbs.

Subscriptions to the JIR are now $4.50, $6.50 outside
the USA, for 4 issues = 4/5 year, from Box 234, Chicago Heights, IL 60411.

{ allegra | decvax | duke | ihnp4 | linus | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader        also via amd!pesnta!lsuc!msb, uw-beaver!utcsrgv!lsuc!msb
                        (From February 14, utcsrgv will be utcsri)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 12-Feb-85 12:03:01-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Y'all and Youse
-BODY-

In a recent discussion on the  plural of `you', I believe that someone
said that `youse'  was not part of the English language. Yesterday  on
the bus, I heard a 12-year-old say to her friend ` I'll see youse later'.
Nuff said.

Gordon Joly
gcj@edxa

[Edxa is at Edinburgh. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 1985 14:58-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Natural Language Processing (BBN)
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

           BBN Laboratories SDP AI Seminar Series



       Massively Parallel Natural Language Processing


           Professor David L. Waltz

               Thinking Machines
                      and
              Brandeis University


Date:  Tuesday,  February 19, 1985
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Newman Auditorium
       BBN Laboratories Inc.
       70 Fawcett Street
       Cambridge, Ma.

This talk will describe research in developing a natural language
processing system with modular knowledge sources but strongly
interactive processing.  The system offers insights into a variety of
linguistic phenomena and allows easy testing of a variety of hypotheses.
Language interpretation takes place on an activation network which is
dynamically created from input, recent context, and long-term knowledge.
Initially ambiguous and unstable, the network settles on a single
interpretation, using a parallel, analog relaxation process.  The talk
will also describe a parallel model for the representation of context
and of the priming of concepts.  Examples illustrating contextual
influence on meaning interpretation and "semantic garden path" sentence
processing, along with a discussion of the building and implementation
of a large scale system for new generation parallel computers are
included.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 85 15:53:16 pst
-FROM-
From: hardyck%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Curtis Hardyck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Modeling Intuition in Problem Solving (UCB)
-BODY-

             Speaker: Paul Smolensky, Institute for Cognitive Science
                                      University of California, San Diego


            Title:  A FORMAL FRAMEWORK FOR MODELLING INTITUTION IN
                    PROBLEM SOLVING

            Thursday, Feb 21 at 1 pm, room 2515 Tolman Hall, Berkeley


The following hypotheses will be elaborated and analyzed:

   Experts' intuitions derive from their specially developed perceptions
   of the problem domain;

   The perceptual processor solves the problem's simultaneous constraints
   literally in parallel;

   The level at which processing is governed by formal laws involves
   small units of knowledge, not elaborate "rules" or symbolic structure;

   These formal laws involve numerical, not symbolic, variables and
   operations.

I will discuss the motivation for these hypotheses, the presumed roles of
intutition and rule interpretation in problem solving, and implications for
instruction.

Then I will describe how the hypotheses lead to a principled formal framework
for modelling intuition.  This framework is derived from probability theory
and exploits a formal isomorphism with statistical (thermal) physics.  Three
theories will be described that give a formal competence model, a realization
in a parallel processor, and a learning procedure through which the processor
acquires its knowledge.  These theorems are part of an effort to develop a
new theory of computation describing massively parallel systems.

An application of the framework to simple quantitative problems in
electricity will be described.  Concepts and techniques from
statistical physics guide analysis of the processing.

                                        -- Steve Palmer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Feb 85 17:25:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Partially Compiled Prolog Interpreters  (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Exercpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        SUMMARY OF AREA C MEETING
                  ``The Compilation of Prolog Programs
                 Without the Use of a Prolog Compiler''
                          Ken Kahn, Xerox PARC

      An efficient Prolog interpreter written in Lisp was presented. The
   interpreter was then specialized to run different Prolog predicates.
   These specializations are generated automatically by a partial
   evaluator for Lisp programs called Partial Lisp. It transforms Lisp
   programs to other Lisp programs and knows nothing about Prolog. It was
   argued that the partial evaluation of interpreters can be a substitute
   for compilation. The results of partially evaluating the Prolog
   interpreter for simple Prolog predicates were presented. The speed of
   the specialized interpreters has been found to be about ten times
   faster than ordinary interpretation. These speeds compare favorably
   with an optimizing compiler for the same Prolog dialect and computer
   system. The advantages of using partial evaluation upon an interpreter
   include a much smaller and easily modifiable implementation. The major
   difficulty in generating thousands of small specialized interpreters
   is that it currently takes about two orders of magnitude more time
   than compilation. Different approaches to reducing partial evaluation
   time were presented. The possibilities of specializing the interpreter
   for different uses of the same Prolog predicate were discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 1985 1044-EST
-FROM-
From: Jon Doyle <DOYLE@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Modal Logic (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                AI Seminar, Feb. 19, 3:30 PM, WeH 5409

      CALM : A Contestative Apprenticeship System in Modal Logic

                  Jean Sallantin and Joel Quinqueton

      Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Montpellier, France

    We present a formal approach to Learning as a process in a
non-distributive Modal Logic. We illustrate it by considerations about
the results of our work on SEQUOIA, a Learning Machine for decoding
Genetic Sequences.

Contact Jon Doyle (x3739) for appointments or more information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 February 1985 1215-EST
-FROM-
From: Cathy Hill@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Beyond Bacon (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker:  Professor Herbert Simon
Title:    "Beyond Bacon"
Date:     February 19, 1985
Time:     12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m.
Place:    Adamson Wing, 1st Floor, Baker Hall

Abastract:  BACON is a data-driven program for discovering
            regularities (laws) in data.  It attempts to
            simulate one aspect of scientific discovery.
            Other aspects include theory-driven discovery,
            choosing research problems, and designing
            instruments.  The seminar will discuss progress
            that has been made in characterizing programs to
            do these latter kinds of tasks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 12 Feb 1985 08:22:51-PST
-FROM-
From: turner%when.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Decision Support Systems
-BODY-

            C O N F E R E N C E   A N N O U N C E M E N T

The  Fifth  Annual  Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS) will be
held  from  April  1  through April 4 in San Francisco. The goal of this
conference, like its predecessors, is to provide a forum for researchers
and  practitioners  to present and discuss their most recent experiences
and  ideas  about  decision  support  systems  and  their  use in making
organizations and individuals successful.

The  conference  is  sponsored  by  the Institute for the Advancement of
Decision Support Systems in cooperation with the Institute of Management
Sciences and its College on Information Systems.

The program is a series of six tracks:

            . Introduction to DSS and DSS Tools (tutorial)
            . DSS Futures
            . Expert and Knowledge Based Systems
            . DSS Methodologies
            . DSS in Practice
            . DSS Products and Services


                         Conference Committee

Chairman                       Program Chairman    Proceedings Editor

  Dr. Robert Zmud                Dr. Robert Reck     Dr. Joyce Elam
  University of North Carolina   Index Systems       University of Texas


For information, please contact:  Ms. Julie Eldridge
                                  DSS'85
                                  Third Floor
                                  290 Westminster Street
                                  Providence  RI  02903
                                  (401) 274-0801


                                        Mark Turner
                                        Digital Equipment Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
23
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 85 07:39:32 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: johnson <johnson@udel-dewey>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: info request pc lisps
-BODY-
I am looking for experiences, comparisons, and evaluations of any
lisp available on PC+compatibles.  I am particularly interested in:

TLC [The Lisp Company] Lisp
  vs
GC Lisp
  vs
IQ Lisp
  vs
muLisp.

I am familiar with franz, interlisp, and muLisp - so any comparisons
versus these breeds of lisp would be particularly useful to me.

I am more concerned with efficiency than adherence to standards,
in particular :

1. how long does this take in (X)_lisp:

        ; use any interation method provided by X
        ; AVOID recursion if possible

   (do-2000-times (cond (T)))



2. how long does this take:

   ; after : (setq z nil)

   (do-2000-times (setq z (cons T z)))


3. Is there a way to remove objects from the object list?


4. Is there an interface to assembly language modules?
   (can lisp call machine-lang functions?)


5. How long does it take for (X)Lisp to load and give its first prompt.

[please include a hardware description for sake of comparison]
(eg: 256k IBMXT, PCDOS 2.00, running (X)lisp from fixed disk)

6. Price of (X)lisp and any licensing charges.

please send response directly to me, I will (net-mail) results to
anyone who asks [but wait a few days before asking, ok?]

>thanks in advance.
johnson@udel-ee

 ...  Share a little joke with the World  |-> ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 19-Feb-85 12:20:12-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Flavors
-BODY-

I have come across the term `flavors' several times but still have no
idea what it means. Please could someone explain?

Thanks,
Gordon Joly
gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 85 13:27:30 cst
-FROM-
From: "Duncan A. Buell" <buell%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: polly nomial
-BODY-
This was printed in a slightly different form (the version from the
network has some updates that actually make it a little better in
my mind) in Scope: Journal of the Federation of University
Astronomical Societies about fifteen years ago.  That, at least, is
where I got my copy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 85 20:02:11 est
-FROM-
From: davy@purdue-ecn.ARPA (Dave Curry [decvax!pur-ee!davy -or-
     davy@purdue-ecn])
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Webster
-BODY-

Regarding the copy of Webster's dictionary on SRI-NIC.  I have written
a program for 4.2BSD UNIX which contacts the server on SRI-NIC and
enables the user to "converse" with the dictionary.  The source for
this program is available via anonymous FTP from PURDUE-ECN in the
directory "pub/webster". Please note that we have a "part-time" ARPAnet
connection, i.e., we run thrugh the computer center, which has rather
strange hours:

   M-F: 8:30am - midnight   Sat: noon - 5:00pm   Sun: noon - midnight

or something like that.  All times are Eastern. The source is also
available in WEB:WEBSTER.C from SRI-NIC, however, this is an old copy of
the source (with a couple of minor bugs), so don't grab it unless you
can't get to us (it should be updated soon).

Also, for you TOPS-20/Tenex folks, there's a Midas source in the file
WEB:WEBSTER.MID (executable is WEB:WEBSTER.EXE) on SRI-NIC (I know
nothing about this one, I just mention it to be complete). As far as I
know from conversing with the folks in charge of this thing, these are
the only two programs available for dealing with Webster.  If you have
one for another operating system, send a note to IAN@SRI-NIC. He is
collecting the sources.

>-Dave Curry
davy@purdue-ecn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 85 15:54 PST
-FROM-
From: fisher.pasa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox Notecards
-BODY-
The Xerox notecards system is presently being licenced to Xerox
1100/1108/1132 customers as a part of special Xerox applications
development programs.

The Xerox notecards system is not a supported product at this time
although discussions are proceeding within the Corporation regarding
that possibility.

Further information can be obtained by messaging me.

Pete Fisher (fisher.pasa@Xerox)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 85 04:52:03 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
January 1985 Volume PAMI-7 Number 1

Parallel Algorithms for Syllable Recognition in Continuous Speech
page 56-69

An Evaluation Based Theorem Prover page 70-79
A mechanical theorem prover applied to proving theorems about programs.

A New Heuristic Search Technique - Algorithm SA page 103-107
A Search Technique based on a statistical sampling technique


Inforworld February 11, 1985 page 13
Lotus Edges into AI
Lotus signed a 1 million dollar venture financing agreement with
Arity computer.  The software, promised for late 1985, will be
an integrated business productivity tool for IBM PC's.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 85 16:01:59 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: University of Rochester Reports
-BODY-

The University of Rochester
Technical Report List

TR132 Gacs, P "Reliable computation with cellular automata" $2.25

Construction of one-dimensional array of cellular automata which is
self-repairing

TR133 Ballard, D. H. "Cortical connections: Structure and Function" $1.50

TR141 Allen, J. F and D. J. Litman "A plan recognition model for
subdialogues in conversations" $1.50

TR143 D. C. Plaut "Visual recognition of simple objects by a connection
network" $1.25

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 85 09:11:35 pst
-FROM-
From: kuhn%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Elisabeth Kuhn)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mental Models (UCB)
-BODY-
BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
Spring  1985
Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

TIME:                Tuesday, February 19, 11:30 - 12:30
(Please note that the talk starts at 11:30 this week)
PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4


Philip Johnson-Laird, Visiting Professor at Stanford - from MRC
Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge

``Mental Models''

The aim of this talk is to explore the hypothesis that a major class
of mental representations take the form of models of the world.
Such models contrast with propositional representations, i.e.
syntactically structured strings of symbols in a mental language,
because models are assumed to make explicit the perceived or conceived
relations between things in the world. The explanatory value of models
will be illustrated in three areas: reasoning, comprehension, and
the representation of discourse.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 85 11:42:19 -0200
-FROM-
From: scheff%wisdom.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (scheff chaim)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Natural Concurrent Grammar (Weitzmann)
-BODY-

   The Weitzmann Institute of Science - Rehovot, Israel

    Seminar in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science

                    Chaim-Meyer Scheff
will speak on

"Alternatives in Artificial Intelligence: Natural Concurrent Grammar".

The talk will take place on Wednesday, February 27, 1985 in the Feinberg
Building, Room C, at 9:00.

Natural grammer, based on the independent work of Vygotsky and Bitner,
suggest the feasibility of flow through parsing schemes for natural
language; and further suggest applications for seemingly ambiguous
natural language in the programming environment.
Vygotsky grammar removes the structural constraints of transformational
grammar. While Bitner grammar gives formal structure to the otherwise
nondeterministic ambiguity problem.
Further analysis, based on the grammar of American Sign Language, would
replace Bitner's sequential based ambiguity marker set with a set of
vector space markers of generalized function; thereby allowing for viable
models of concurrent cognitive processes; such as those which minimize
transaction flux in Mapless Networks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 18 February 1985 05:49:16 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI in Engineering
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS

     FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON APPLICATIONS OF
      ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
                        (AIEP)

The  purpose  of  this  conference is to provide a forum for
engineers all over the world to present their  work  on  the
applications   of  artificial  intelligence  to  engineering
problems.  The conference will be held from April 15-18 1986
at Southampton University, England and will be preceeded  by
tutorials in Expert systems and Robotics.

CONFERENCE THEMES

The  following  topics are suggested and other related areas
will be considered.

   - Computer-aided design
   - Computer-based training
   - Planning and Scheduling
   - Constraint Management
   - Intelligent Tutors
   - Expert systems
   - Knowledge representation
   - Learning
   - Natural language applications
   - Cognitive modelling of engineering problems
   - Robotics
   - Database interfaces
   - Graphical interfaces
   - Knowledge-based simulation
   - Design Modelling

CALL FOR PAPERS

Authors are invited to submit three copies  of  a  500  word
abstract.  The abstract should have enough details to permit
careful evaluation by  a  committee  consisting  of  renowed
experts  in  the  field. The abstracts should be accompained
with the following details:

   - Authors' address, name, affliation.  Indicate  the
     person to address all correspondence.
   - The  branch of engineering. If the paper addresses
     engineering in general, then should be categorized
     under GENERAL DESIGN.
   - The topic area.

TIME TABLE

Submission of Abstracts:  June 1st 1985

Notification of acceptance: August 1st 1985

Submission of Full Paper: November 1st 1985

INFORMATION

All abstracts should be sent to:
          Dr. R. Adey, General  Chairman, AIEP
          Computational Mechanics Centre
          Ashurst Lodge
          Southampton S04 2AA
          England

Inquires about exhibits, registration  should  be  addressed
to:
          Ms Elaine Taylor
          Computational Mechanics Centre
          Ashurst Lodge
          Southampton S04 2AA
          England

For more information in US contact:
          D. Sriram, Technical Chairman  AIEP
          Civil Engineering and Construction Robotics
                                Laboratories
          Department of Civil Engineering
          Carnegie-Mellon University
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 13 February 1985, 10:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Jim Hollan <hollan@nprdc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Postdocs
-BODY-

        This note is to announce the formation of a new collaborative
research group: the NPRDC-UCSD Intelligent Systems Group (ISG).  ISG is
concerned with addressing basic research questions involving intelligent
graphical interfaces, computational accounts of cognition, knowledge
representation, human machine interaction, and elicitation of expert
knowledge.  The group has excellent computational facilities.  Currently
this includes four Symbolics lisp machines, two Xerox Dandy-Tigers, a Xerox
Dorado, and arpanet access via central Vax computers.  The Institute for
Cognitive Science, of which ISG is a member, has a network of 15 SUN
workstations and a Vax.

        A number of post-doctoral fellowships are available for recent
cognitive science or artificial intelligence PhDs.  Fellowships are for
two-years with an option of a third year.  Stipend is approximately
30K/year with an additional allowance of 6K for relocation and
professional travel.  The postdoctoral fellowships come from ONR (Office
of Naval Research).  Fellows will work in ISG on the UCSD campus.
Interested applicants should communicate with James D. Hollan or Donald
A. Norman, Intelligent Systems Group; Institute for Cognitive Science
C-015; University of California, San Diego; La Jolla, CA 92093.  Arpanet
addresses:  hollan@nprdc or norman@nprdc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 06:28:35 PST
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <judea@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Research at UCLA
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The UCLA Computer Science Department is actively researching in all areas
of  Artificial  Intelligence,  with  increasing interest in:  robotics &
vision, learning &  memory,  qualitative  reasoning  &  expert  systems,
planning and automatic programming.

Current  AI  research  at  UCLA is most focussed in the areas of natural
language processing,  cognitive  modeling,  the analysis  of
heuristics  and evidential reasoning. Projects include editorial
comprehension, story invention, legal reasoning, intelligent tutoring,
learning  through  planning, discovery of heuristics, and distributed
inferencing.

Facilities  for  AI research at UCLA consist of a ring network of Apollo
workstations,  which comprises  one  of  the  largest Apollo
installation sites in Southern California.  Each Apollo workstation
consists  of 1.5-4 Mbyte main memory, multi-processing operating
system with multi-windowing, font editing, and SIGGRAPH  Core
graphics  primitives.  Networking is built into each workstation.

Our AI tools environment, called GATE (Graphical AI Tools  Environment),
is  built  on top of T, a lexically-scoped, Scheme-based dialect of Lisp
developed at Yale University.  T, designed for efficient  implementation
and    execution,    incorporates    object-oriented   programing   with
message-passing semantics as its most  fundamental  language  construct.
GATE  includes  a  number  of interacting packages:  Flavors, DELON -- a
language for specifying demons and traps, WEBs -- a  slot-filler  system
for   specifying   semantic  memories  represented  by  graphical  icons
connected by rubberband links, and TLOG -- a logic programming
system which allows both Prolog and T style syntax.

In addition to the Apollos,  the CS department maintains a network of 20
Vaxes, which communicate with the Apollo ring via an ethernet gateway.

For more information contact:

 Prof.  Judea Pearl,
 4731E Boelter hall, UCLA,  Los Angeles,  CA  90024
    (judea@UCLA-CS.arpa)

 Prof.  Michael Dyer,
 3532 Boelter Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024
 (dyer@UCLA-CS.ARPA).

 Prof. Margot Flowers
 3532 Boelter Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024
 (flowers@UCLA-CS.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
24
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 85 20:46:40 cst
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Slightly Depressed....
-BODY-
I always see notices on the AIList digest about fantastic seminars
all over the  country  (especially at BBN, Stanford, etc.)  and get
depressed because :

   (1) I can't attend them,
   (2) The transcript/recording is never published, nor accessible
   (3) So there is no way for an interested person to learn.

I was wondering if somebody/anybody/any organization {BBN/or  any
university  libraries (Stanford libraries)} would keep recordings
on tape/cassette ??.

   (1) Either record any & all public seminars advertised over the net
       (Tapes/Video ?).
   (2) Or, if some number of people show interest (say 50) within a
       specified period of time (2 weeks?)  of the first (or last)
       time of announcement (on AIList Digest?) then, record the
       requested seminar.
   (3) Charge some reasonable fee for it (please keep the poor
       grad-student in mind; Tapes for grads; Videotapes for industry folks).

I think I should probably be writing this to the  respective  ad-
mintrative departments and/or to the Librarians.

But, I think :

   [1] I don't have the time to write to these administrative
       departments.
   [2] I don't even have the names of the persons who might be able to
       make these (expensive) decisions.
   [3] I don't have any clout; It will take more than one person to
       voice the need.

Do the Stanford or BBN librarians read this AIList digest??  Can
somebody send this messsage over to a net where this message will
be read by administrators and/or librarians ??

Does anybody else feel so deprived ??

Any other Issues or Ideas or Pros or Cons or Problems ??

>-Raj Doshi
  Graduate Student,
  University of Minnesota
  csnet: doshi.umn-cs@csnet-relay

[While seminars are rarely recorded, they usually spring from or lead
to a conference paper or dissertation.  Sending a message to the author
(perhaps via the seminar host) will often get you some interesting
pre/reprints or literature citations.

I don't know whether administrators respond to net messages, but you
can often get a lead on the proper address for an administrative
request by writing to "postmaster" at any site.  The various postmasters
have been a great help to me in distributing the AIList.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 11:09:03-PST
-FROM-
From: Joseph A. Goguen <GOGUEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional and Logic Programming  (long message)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Here's a little more for those who have been eagerly
following recent discussions in the Digest about the
relationship between logic and functional programming.
This appears to be a very exciting field just now, with
a rapidly expanding literature, much of it not yet even
published.  First, I want to add some bits of information
to the very helpful classification that Reddy recently
sketched for the Digest.  Barbutti, Belia, Levi and their
gang in Pisa, Italy may have been the first workers in
this field, with papers going back to the late 70s; their
latest work is on embedding logic programming into
functional programming.  Drosten and Ehrich from Braunschweig,
Germany have recently given a fully rigorous translation from
algebraic specifications to logic programs.  There are several
functional languages that use unification or narrowing.
Qute by Sato (of Tokyo, Japan) really is cute, and is notable
for its higher order functions.  Fribourg in France has done
some really elegant work; and so has Kanamori in Japan; and
Dershowitz and Plaisted are thinking along similar lines at
Illinois; all of these have some interesting ideas about how
to make things more efficient.  I also like the work of Haridi
and Tarnlund (Uppsala, Sweden), Lindstrom at Utah (in the
latest POPL), and of course the LOGLISP system of Alan Robinson
at Syracuse.

Uday Reddy was kind enough to send me copies of the unpublished
papers that he mentioned in a recent Digest.  I enjoyed reading
them, especially his ideas on how to control control.  Reddy's
approach views logic programs as functional programs by viewing
predicates as functions.  Unfortunately, his approach is
constructor-based, so you can't give Append an associative syntax
(with which you could write things like [1,2] [3,4] [5,6] to append
three lists (using an "empty" infix syntax).  Also, as Reddy notes,
his approach cannot treat all logic programs as functional programs
without somehow extending the basic framework, for example with ad
hoc mechanisms to support set-valued functions.  This seems an
interesting area for further research.

Our Eqlog system (see vol.1, No.2, Logic Programming Jnl.) is
misleadingly characterized in Reddy's papers and Prolog Digest
note, and also in Lindstrom's paper and Malachi's Digest note on
Tablog.  Eqlog has an equational sublanguage with logical variables,
and uses narrowing to solve equations for values of the logical
variables (this sublanguage has the syntax of OBJ2, for which see
POPL85).  However, Eqlog is not purely functional, or even
"equational"; it is a logic programming language, whose logic is
first order Horn clause logic *with equality*.  Since this equality
is real *semantic* equality (as opposed to Prolog's syntactic
equality), i.e., it is interpreted as *identity* in models, and the
logic of this equality is the usual equational logic; this is what
gives the semantics of the equational sublanguage.  However, Eqlog
also allows real predicates; its Horn clauses can have both
predicates and equations in their heads and tails.  The operational
semantics of Eqlog integrates unification with term rewriting; the
result is that Prolog-like clauses (without real equality) are
solved in the usual way with standard unification, while terms are
automatically simplified by term rewriting, and narrowing is used
to solve equations for the values of logical variables, which can
yield "partially resolved expressions".  A fair-interleaving
version of the usual Prolog-like backtracking not only takes
care of predicates, but also handles conditional equations
correctly, both forsimplification and for solving; thus, a number
of computational methods appear as special cases.  Also, it avoids
the infinite descents that can cause non-termination in Prolog.
This is not just universal unification.  It is perhaps worth
emphasizing that these features are not just hacked together, but
are the natural outcome of taking Horn clause logic with equality
as the semantic basis: interleaved unification and rewriting then
give the right operational semantics.

Termination plus confluence of the equations viewed as rewrite
rules is a sufficient conditition for completeness of narrowing.
Since equational goals can contain logical variables, this gives
a powerful "constraint language like" facility for solving over
user defined data abstractions.  Our operational semantics (fair
interleaving of unification and rewriting) seems to work reasonably
even without the termination condition; but we no longer have a
*theorem* that guarantees completeness.  It would be nice to have a
formal semantics for the non-terminating case, including infinite
(lazy) data structures, but of course equality (in the theory) of
terms won't generally be decidable in such a scheme.  Moreover,
some pretty hard math is needed to do it right.  So it is very
comforting that we understand the case where the rewrite rules
terminate, even though it's not the end of the story.  My objection
to Tablog is just that it is not complete.  Without a completeness
theorem, the programmer has no idea which programs are going to
terminate and which are not.  This seems like another interesting
area for further research.

By the way, it's worth mentioning that when you program
for a  parallel machine, you should probably give preference
to straight term rewriting over unification and narrowing,
since no general implementation of unification can really
exploit the parallelism (by a theorem of Dwork, Kanellakis
& Mitchell, and also Yasuura).

Finally, I would like to mention that if anyone out there
is really turned on by this sort of thing [...], we
would really like to hear from you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 19 Feb 85 14:31:30 PST
-FROM-
From: wm@tekchips
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction - Bertrand Constraint Language
-BODY-
The seminar on the Bertrand constraint language at the
Oregon Graduate Center will begin at 3:00 pm, not 3:30
as announced in the AIList digest.

Wm Leler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 85 09:12:08 EST
-FROM-
From: coopercc@GE-CRD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inductive Theorem Proving in Prolog (GE)
-BODY-

                    Computer  Science Seminar
                General  Electric  R & D  Center
                       Schenectady, N. Y.

               Inductive Theorem Proving in Prolog

                        Prof. Jieh Hsiang
                      SUNY at Stoney Brook

                      Tuesday, February 26
                1:30 PM, Building K1, Conf. Rm. 3
                     (Refreshments at 1:15)

     ABSTRACT: Prolog is a logic programming language  based
     on  theorem  proving techniques such as unification and
     resolution. It has gained  considerable  popularity  in
     recent years as an alternative approach to programming.

     In this talk we introduce the use of Prolog as a deduc-
     tive  theorem  prover  for  the  first  order inductive
     theory.  In addition to the backward chaining and back-
     tracking  facilities  of Prolog, we introduce three new
     mechanisms -- Skolemization by need, suspended  evalua-
     tion,  and  limited  forward chaining.  The features of
     the method include the ability to automatically  parti-
     tion the domain of variables according to the manner in
     which the predicate symbols are defined, and  automatic
     generation  of  lemmas  (or inductive hypothesis) under
     which the proposition is true.  The  method  also  does
     not explicitly employ any inductive inference rule.

     These new mechanisms are simple  enough  to  be  imple-
     mented  in  Prolog  without  too  much difficulty.  The
     theorem prover has been used in the verification  phase
     of  a  Prolog  environment  for  developing  data types
     currently being developed at Stony Brook.

     Notice to Non-GE attendees:
     It is necessary that we ask you to notify Marion  White
     (518-385-8370  or  WHITEMM@GE-CRD) at least two days in
     advance of the seminar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 00:05:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based Software Development (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

CS 300  --  Computer Science Department Colloquium  --  Winter 1984-1985.
Our eigth meeting will be on Februray 26th, 4:15 in Terman Auditorium:


                  KNOWLEDGE BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IN FSD

                                      by

                               Dr. Robert BALZER
                     USC  Information Sciences Institute


Our  group  is  pursuing  the  goal of an automation based software development
paradigm.  While this goal is  still  distant,  we have  embedded  our current
perceptions   and  capabilities  in  a  prototype  (FSD)  of  such  a  software
development environment.   Although this prototype  was  built  primarily  as a
testbed  for our ideas,  we decided to gain insight by using it, and have added
some administrative services to expand  it  from  a  programming  system  to  a
computing  environment  currently  being  used by a few ISI researchers for all
their computing activities.  This "AI operating System" provides  specification
capabilities  for  Search,  Coordination, Automation, Evolution, and Inter-User
Interaction.

Particularly important is evolution, as we recognize that  useful  systems  can
only  arise,  and  remain  viable,  through  continued  evolution.  Much of our
research is focused on  this  issue  and  several  examples  will  be  used  to
characterize  where  we  are today and where we are headed.  Naturally, we have
started to use these facilities to evolve our system itself.
( After the presentation Bob will show a Video tape in )
(  the Auditorium to show all that, and how it works.  )
>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 11:19:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cooperation Among Intelligent Agents (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:            Friday, February 22, 1985
LOCATION:        Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:            12:05

SPEAKER:         Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
                 Stanford University

TITLE:           Rational Interaction:  Cooperation among Intelligent
                 Agents


The development of intelligent agents presents opportunities to
exploit intelligent cooperation.  Before this can occur, however, a
framework must be built for reasoning about interactions.  This work
describes such a framework, and explores strategies of interaction
among intelligent agents.

The formalism that has been developed removes some serious
restrictions that underlie previous research in distributed artificial
intelligence, particularly the assumption that the interacting agents
have identical or non-conflicting goals.  The formalism allows each
agent to make various assumptions about both the goals and the
rationality of other agents.  In addition, it allows the modeling of
restrictions on communication and the modeling of binding promises
among agents.

This talk describes work done in conjunction with Matthew L. Ginsberg
and Michael R. Genesereth.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 February 1985 1134-EST
-FROM-
From: Staci Quackenbush@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming in Concurrent Prolog (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        Name:   Vijay Saraswat

        Date:   Friday, February 22
        Time:   3:30 - 4:30
        Place:  WeH 4605

        Title:  "Programming in Concurrent Prolog"


The talk will briefly introduce Horn logic programming and will then
examine Concurrent Prolog as a concurrent and as a logic programming language.
I will compare CP to CSP and highlight various semantic and operational
difficulties with CP-like  `concurrent' languages based on Horn logic.  My
thesis is that CP is best thought of as a set of control features designed to
select a very few of the many possible execution paths for programs in a
non-deterministic language.  It is perhaps not a coherent set of control and
data-structures for the ideal concurrent programming language.  It is certainly
even less a logic programing language than Prolog.

Some of these languages have been proposed as systems programming languages. In
the second half of the talk, I will focus on  the difficulty in efficiently
programming such data-structures as arrays, dequeues, heaps etc  and propose
the use of  associative, commutative and  idempotent logic functions (data
structures) as a partial remedy.  This also naturally leads to (a slightly
generalised form of) a synchronous WRAM model of computation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 85 09:41:20 cst
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Self-Organizing Retrieval for Graphs (UT)
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      Graduate Brown Bag Seminar

          A Self-Organizing Retrieval System for Graphs
                               by
                          Bob Levinson


                      noon  Friday Feb. 22
                            PAI 5.60

We  present  the  theory,  design,  and application of a self-organizing
intelligent  knowledge  base  in  which    all    concepts    are
represented  as graphs.  The  system  is  designed to support the
expert problem solving tasks of recall, design, and discovery. It
is  being  applied successfully in organic chemistry to store and
retrieve molecular structures   and   to  reason   with   organic
reactions. We believe that the system will also be useful in oth-
er domains.

At the basis of the system's design is the production and mainte-
nance   of  a  partial  ordering  of  graphs  by   the   relation
"subgraph-of".  We  will discuss  how  this   relation   can   be
considered   to   be  equivalent to "more-general-than",  and  we
will  present  a  simple,  yet   powerful retrieval algorithm for
data ordered in this way.

The  system  exploits  a  set  of  concepts that are common  sub-
graphs of previously stored concepts (graphs). We will  show  how
these  concepts serve  multiple  purposes that improve the  effi-
ciency  and  flexibility of the system. Since these concepts  can
be  "discovered"  by  the  system  itself,  we  say  that  it  is
"self-organizing".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
25
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 85 16:46:45 est
-FROM-
From: fischer@ru-opal (Ron Fischer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cheap Lisp workstations
-BODY-
Has anyone heard of an under $10,000 Lisp workstation with an environment
comparable to Interlisp?  If you reply with a mention of a diskless
workstation, please make it obvious that the machine needs a network.

(ron)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 February 1985 11:13-EST
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISPM Tape Formats
-BODY-
It seems this question comes up a lot. We don't have any set policy on
tape formats but LMI customers have been provided with the following
support when the need came up: (+ means comes with the system already).

    Machine       Format Supported
               LMI-Backup  TOPS-20-DUMPER  ANSI-LABELED  TAR  FIXED-EBCD(IBM)
 LMI-LAMBDA       +            *              *           *       *
   VAX/VMS        *                           +                   *
    UNIX          *                           *           +       + (dd)


The LMI-Backup is similar to ANSI-LABELED in use of file and tape
marks, except lisp-like in its use of LABELS (disembodied plists,
parsed by READ).  As I recall JIM at Tycho was able to read it easily
on his 3600. On the other hand the various Symbolics formats looked
considerably hairier and are probably covered by their trade-secret
policy, which is why we didnt try to reverse engineer it and provide
support for it on the LAMBDA, even though people are always asking us to
move code from 3600's to LAMBDAs. But either they usually have some
kind of VAX or Unix handy to make a tape or they have a
non-industry-standard 1/4-inch tape, in which case the easiest thing
is to find somebody with a 3600<->VAX settup to make a copy for you.

>gjc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 February 1985 1131-EST
-FROM-
From: Lee Brownston@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: book on OPS4 programming
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

"Programming Expert Systems With OPS5," by Lee Brownston, Elaine Kant,
Robert Farrell, and Nancy Martin, is scheduled to be published by
Addison-Wesley on April 15th.  It is about 400 pages long, and contains
an introduction to production systems, a tutorial on the OPS5 language,
an extended example of program development, treatment of control, data
representation, and programming style, the RETE pattern-match algorithm
and how to exploit it for efficiency, a general discussion of production
system architectures, a survey of applications, a comparison of related
production-system languages, solved exercises, and much, much more.

The authors are now correcting page proofs and making an index.  Things
seem to be on schedule.  For those who can't wait until publication,
copies of the page proofs are available from Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc., Reading, MA, 01867.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 20 Feb 1985 08:45-EST
-FROM-
From: mcc@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Polly Nomial
-BODY-

I was both surprised and dismayed to find "The Adventures of Polly
Nomial," which is a story about a rape, in AIList.  It saddens me to
realize that there are people who think there is something "humorous"
about rape, no matter how clever the description.  That this "gem" is
still around proves that misogyny still is, too.

mcc@MITRE-BEDFORD

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 12:35 MST
-FROM-
From: May%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Polly Nomial is Offensive
-BODY-
I am offended at the insensitivity of stories like this and ask the
chairman to deny publication in the future.  Whether it is talked about
directly or disguised in a "cute" story, rape is a violent and cruel act
by one human being against another.  When it happens to someone you
know, you begin to appreciate the horror of it all.

Sexual fantasies can be fun (and healthy) but not when they are at the
expense of another.

Bob May

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 21 February 1985 13:18:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Purvis.Jackson@cmu-cs-cad.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 2nd person plural
-BODY-

I have noticed several posts on the AI-list bboard recently that address the
use of alternative plural forms of the pronoun "you" in various
socio-geographical segments of America.  Specifically, I recall references
to "y'all" and "youse".  Growing up in South Carolina, I frequently heard
the former; while living for the past 5 years in Pittsburgh, I have
frequently heard the latter.  For both of these forms, however, I have
noticed 2 pronunciations.  "Y'all" is often pronounced "yaw-ul" through the
proper application of the South Carolina low country diphthong.  "Youse" is
sometimes pronounced "yooze" around Pittsburgh.  None of these forms,
however, seems to me to be as interesting as a form I often heard used in
South Carolina low country "geechie" English, a mix of low country standard
and gullah.  In this strain, "you" becomes "yennuh" and is oftentimes barely
distinguishable as a single word because it can be imbedded in phrases that
are delivered with a rapidly rythmic tongue movement.  Hence, the phrase
sounds somewhat like one long word.  An example, one that I recall quite
clearly, was delivered by Mum Tweedie DeLee, a noted root doctor of
Dorchester County whose practice of midwivery yielded me and three of my
siblings.

On the day of the particular utterance, I and several of Mum Tweedie's
great-grand children were in the back dooryard of her shanty, poking sticks
through a chicken wire fence at a goose, which would peck at the sticks,
flap its wings, and hiss angrily, all of which provided for us a somewhat
frightening source of squeeling glee.  Several times, Mum Tweedie came out
onto the stomp and warned us to stop picking at the goose.  Each time we
dropped our sticks and pretended to take up a new form of intertainment.  On
what must have been the fourth or fifth time on the stomp, Mum Tweedie
charged down the steps and grabbed Yockey, one of the older boys, by the ear
and damned near lifted him clear of the ground.  With his attention focused
fully on her, she bent over and placed her mouth close to his firmly pulled
ear and shouted into it "Yennuhadduhbedduhmine" and then let loose his ear.
She then proceeded to use our goose sticks on our backsides to ensure we had
understood her point.  After we had received our just punishment, cried for
a spell, and were standing around sniffling, Mum Tweedie called us into the
shanty.  Once inside she gathered us around her where she could stroke our
heads and soothe us with whispered words of love laced into further warning.
"Yennuhadduhbedduhmine," she whispered, "Yennuhbedduh."  Mum Tweedie lived
to be 117 years old, by all estimates, and I have tried to follow her advice.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Feb 85 10:06:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Shawn Amirsardary <SHAWN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: amirsardarism
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Wow!  Thanks Evan for making my contribution to the English language
possible.

Actually the amirsardarism phenomenon comes from having a sufficiently
different set of 'cognitive' rules.  Forward amirsardarism is the
application of these rules in a forward chaining paradigm--and hence the
necessary blurting out of irrelevent conclusions.  While
reverse-amirsardarism is the application in a reverse or backwards chaining
paradigm.  I do believe that reverse-amirsardarism is the worst of the two
since the aforementioned rule set forms logically consistant conclusions in
the reverse mode, which makes it hard to spot.  While in the forward mode,
the conclusions are sufficiently illogical to make for good sarcasm.

                                --Shawn Forward-Amirsardary

(Another application of forward-amirsardarism:

        All tykes on bikes should be offered 5 Dollars, then shot
)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Feb 85 09:57:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Dikran Karagueuzian <DIKRAN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Epistle Project (CLSI)
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the Stanford CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                         THE EPISTLE PROJECT
                            Martin Chodorow
                              Yael Ravin
                                 IBM
                      T.J. Watson Research Center

                                                Date:   Friday, February 22
                                                Time:   2 p.m.
                                                Place:  Reading Room,
                                                           Ventura Hall.

    This talk will be an overview of the EPISTLE natural language processing
system, especially as applied to text-critiquing. The system has four major
components: a text pre-processor, a dictionary, a parser and a set of style
rules. We will describe two implementations that represent different
approaches to parsing and will discuss the style component in detail.

    In the second part of the talk we will describe semi-automatic techniques
for enhancing the semantic information contained in the dictionary. The
results of this work will provide the foundation for additional applications
in other areas, such as document abstracting or machine translation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Feb 85  2133 PST
-FROM-
From: EJS@SU-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Use of Sound to Present Data (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      User    System  Ergonomics
        A human interface journal club and discussion group

   On Wednesday February 27th, 12:00 - 1:00 in Margaret Jacks Hall room 352
                      Stanford University

              Dr. Sara Bly from Xerox will speak:
         "Beyond Vision: Using Sounds in the Interface"

   This talk will focus on the use of sound to present data information.
Multivariate, logarithmic, and time-varying data provide examples for
aural representation.  Experiments have shown that sound does convey
information accurately and that sound can enhance graphic presentations.
Methods will be discussed and examples given.

Contact Ted Selker ejs@su-ai.arpa for information on USE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 1985 16:25-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Logic of Knowledge and Belief (BBN)
-BODY-
             [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

           BBN Laboratories Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series



Speaker:   Dr. David Israel
           BBN Laboratories
           SRI International & CSLI

Title:     "A LOGIC OF KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF
            For Logically Omniscient Yuppies (and other extroverts)"


Date:      Friday, March 1, 1985, 10:30 a.m.
Location:  3rd Floor Large Conference Room
           BBN Laboratories Inc.
           10 Moulton Street
           Cambridge, MA

Having done extensive research on the subject--to wit, having read the
Newsweek cover story "The Year of the Yuppie"--I discovered that
orthodox epistemic/doxastic logics had it all wrong.  (I assume, of
course, that such logics were meant to apply, inter alia, to Yuppies.)
But the crucial problems lie not in the ascription of logical
omniscience.  Nay; it is in the attributions of (pale and sickly)
introspection.  Yuppies who worry too much about about inner states,
their own or others', don't get to own BMW's.  I shall offer this key
demographic cohort an epistemic/doxastic logic smartly tailored to suit
their needs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 1985 09:50-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computing Conversational Implicature (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

        BBN Laboratories Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series


Speaker:   Julia Hirschberg
           University of Pennsylvania

Title:     "Computing Conversational Implicature"

Date:      Tuesday,  February 26, 1985, 10:30 a.m.
Location:  3rd Floor Large Conference Room
           BBN Laboratories Inc.
           10 Moulton Street
           Cambridge, MA

Determining what an utterance conveys, beyond its semantic import, is an
important issue in Natural Language Processing.  Such research seeks to
provide a principled basis for computational models of human behavior --
and so to support more natural computer-human interaction.   To date,
however, results have been limited by the lack of formal representations
of nonconventional inferences and the consequent difficulty of
constructing algorithms for their calculation.  The work discussed
examines one class of such inferences, scalar implicature, a type of
Gricean generalized conversational implicature. It proposes a theory of
scalar implicature based upon an analysis of naturally occurring data.
A formal representation of scalar implicature is described as well as
procedures for calculating licensed implicatures.   An application to
computer-human question-answering - now being implemented in Prolog - is
discussed, as are other potential uses in Natural Language generation
and understanding.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 85  1348 PST
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <TW@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Project Description - Cognitive Complexity (IBMSJ)
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The Computer Science Department at IBM Research, San Jose,
has a project which is developing the "cognitive complexity"
theory of D. Kieras (formerly at U. of Arizona, now at U. of Michigan)
and P. Polson (U. of Colorado).  The theory is being applied
to representation of the user "how to do it" knowledge implied
by the particular design of, for example, an interactive text
formatter.  The technology K & P have developed is directed to
representing user "how to do it" knowledge in production rules,
representing the surface design of the application (with respect to
what is seen by the user) as a generalized transition network, and
then deriving some measures of complexity (related to the Card, Moran,
and Newell work) for the design with respect to typical tasks.
The idea is to be able to compare design proposals (with respect to
the ease of learning and ease of use measures indicated by the
theory) at early stages of the design process.  [...]

Anyone interested should contact John Bennett, bennett%ibm-sj@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
26
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 24-Feb-85 18:24:20-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wally.
-BODY-
There was some discussion recently in the Guardian newspaper here
in the U.K. about the word `wally'. Does the word exist on the other
side of the Atlantic (or elsewhere) and if so what meaning does it have?

Gordon Joly

gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

School of Mathematical Sciences,
Queen Mary College, Mile End Road,
LONDON E1 4NS, UK.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 15:41:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: General Research Corp. pointer request
-BODY-
Does someone know the address/phone number of the company ? They apparently
have developed an expert system to tune a VAX VMS operating system we might
be interested in using. It is build on TIMM and is called TUNER.

Thanks for any info.
Rene Bach, Varian Associates
Bach@score

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Feb 85 08:42:26 GMT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Martin Cooper <Cooper.rx@XEROX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Slightly Depressed....
-BODY-
I certainly feel the same sense of deprivation, since as far as I'm
concerned, all the seminars are on the wrong side of the Atlantic, and a
very long way from the UK.

I wonder if it would be possible for the existence of related papers
and/or recordings to be mentioned along with the seminar announcements,
or in a related message on this list.

        Martin.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Feb 85 10:36:44-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI newsletter and request for recommendations
-BODY-
I just received a flier from another AI newsletter called 'TARGET
The AI Business Newletter'.  In 1985 it promises

        Analysis of installed base of AI and standard machines
        used for symbolic processing.

        The market for natural language.

        AI in the micro marketplace.

        AAAI/IJCAI coverage.

        Outlook on venture capital and corporate funding.

Price: $190/year

Where: Target Technologies, 3000 Sand Hill Rd., Bldg 1, Suite 255
       Menlo Park, CA 94025.

>-ted

PS: Is there a consensus in the group for which of these 'digests'
    is really worth the several hundred bucks/yr.? I'd like to get
    my folks to order one, but I want to make sure it's worth
    something.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 85 13:23:02 -0200
-FROM-
From: jaakov%wisdom.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (Jacob Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YLISP available for FTP
-BODY-
Hi!

        I am pleased to announce that YLISP is finally available for FTP
from  'maryland.arpa' using  user id 'ftp' and password 'anonymous'. The
stuff is  in directory  YLISP (note capitals); There are 20 files in all
to copy - 16 files containing the system, named FTP_Y.[1-16], a makefile
a recursive copying program named 'copy' and 2 READ.ME  files. Make sure
that the receiving system has ~4500 K disk space on the  file system you
copy it to.

        Before trying to  install the system,  please read 'READ.ME.FTP'
carefully. All bugs, complaints, requests and suggestions please mail to

        BITNET:                         jaakov@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP: (if all else fails..)     ..!decvax!humus!wisdom!jaakov
        POSTAL: Jacob Levy
                Dept of Applied Math,
                Weizmann Institute of Science,
                Rehovot 71600, ISRAEL

PS - The system will be available on BITNET pretty soon also. Separate
     anouncement to BITNET users will follow.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Feb 1985 17:09:06 EST
-FROM-
From: BASKEYFIELDM@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Info.
-BODY-
I would like to know if anyone out there has an AI language that can
be run on a KAYPRO 4/84 using the CP/M operating system?


Recent articles:

There is an interesting and introductory article article in the
March 1985 issue of  COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS, pp. 69-73, entitled
"Expert Systems on Microcomputers."  The article describes the very
basics of decision-support systems and how AI fits in.  The systems
covered in the article are M.1 and M.1a (Teknolledge), Expert Ease
(Expert Systems), and MVP-Forth (Mountain View Press).  These three
systems all run on the IBM PC/XT.

In addition, there is an article "AI On A Chip" and another, "FORTH
and AI" which prove interestign reading for new people in the AI
field.

Mark Baskeyfield
Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, CA  93943

baskeyfieldm@usc-isia.arpa

Thanks!!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 09:27:34 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Infoworld February 25, 1985 Page 5  Editorial

'The next big lemminglike rush will be to artificial intelligence.  AI will
be the most despised and abused [software concept] of the next year.  So
in a perverse way, AI is an exciting opportunity for people who recognize
what it can do for customers.'
Mitch Kapor, Chairman of Lotus Development

Some people are avoiding the AI label due to AI-hype and Rube Goldberg
overdesign.  Microsoft's Bill Gates has used the term "softer software"
instead of AI.  This is for systems that will learn the user's work
patterns and help execute them.
For example, if a person dials up his mainframe, gets some data, does
some spread sheet processing and generates some graphics pasting it into
a report, the system should figure out that is his pattern and start
doing it automatically.  Furthermore it should handle a request on
Friday like "generate the usual sales report but give me a separate
graph on what is happening in Europe"

Also software should determine which configuration a user has so he does
not have to enter information as to what graphics card and printer he
is using.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Feb 85 10:48:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, February 1985:

From Paper Drawings to Computer-Aided Design, by M. Karima, K. Sadhal,
and T. McNeil of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, pp. 27-39:
A survey of techniques and difficulties in automated optical
entry of complex schematics and wiring diagrams.  Thirty papers
are referenced.

An Overview of Analytic Solid Modeling, by M. Casale and E. Stanton
of PDA Engineering, pp. 45-56:
Describes a way of modeling complex shapes as composites of parametric
curves and solids (e.g., swept or deformed regular solids).  This seems
to combine the volumetric simplicity of CSG representations with the
flexibility of B-rep.  Derivation of mass properties is very simple,
although the "inverse problem" of determining whether a point is inside
or outside a volume is a little complex.  The ASM approach maintains
a parametric coordinate system so that physical properties (e.g.,
temperature, stress, curvature, color) can be attached to each point
on or in a solid.  This makes the technique ideal for finite element
analysis.

Braintrain Seeks Educational Software from Independent Authors, p. 82:
An example is shown of this company's iconic programming language for
the ChipWits computer-graphics robots.  Apparently it's a high-level
flowchart language.  The simulated robots can be pitted against
various simulated environments.  The game software is available for
the Macintosh and Apple II.

Badler Becomes Associate Editor-in-Chief of IEEE CG&A, p. 86:
Norman Badler is interested in artificial intelligence, particularly
as applied to simulation of human motion, so the magazine will no
doubt continue its coverage of AI-related topics.


High Technology, March 1985:

Software Tools Speed Expert System Development, by P. Kinnucan, pp. 16-20:
Describes commercially-available expert system shells, particularly KEE.
Mentions KEE for frame-based representation and for forward chaining
(as well as the usual backward chaining), ART for hypothetical and
multiworld reasoning, and Insight for database access and low price
($95, but without the ability to use variables in rules).  Also mentions
M.1, LOOPS, TI's Personal Consultant, Arbie, IN-ATE, and REVEAL.

Expert System Shells Boost A.I. Market, by M. Foley, p. 21:
Further discussion of the same material.

IntelliCorp: The Selling of Artificial Intelligence, by E. Linden, pp. 22-25:
A two-page history and description of the company making KEE.

Prospecting from the Skies, by G. Graff, pp. 49-56:
Interesting discussion of the advances that can be expected soon in
remote sensing >>without<< the use of AI (but with high-resolution
multispectral data and sophisticated location- and time-specific
analysis).

Personal Robots Face Software Challenge, by M. Higgins, pp. 71-73:
Describes the primitive state of personal-robot software.


                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 85 19:51:37 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EURISKO Seminar, Continued
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

TIME: 12 Noon
DATE: Friday, February 22
PLACE: 8th Floor Playroom
HOSTS: Michael Caine, Neil Singer, and Kenneth Pasch.
REFRESHMENTS: t

                PLAUSIBLE POSITION GENERATION:
           THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF EURISKO, PART II

                       Blackstone Le Mot

This talk was to be the second in a series describing the application
of EURISKO, a discovery program, to non-traditional domains.  In this
case the domain was position generation, in which the program is given
some knowledge of geometry, anatomy, and the first 37 pages of the
Kama Sutra.  The talk is canceled, however, because the slides have not
yet been cleared with Dean McBay and the Ad Hoc Committee.  Hence we
instead skip to the third and final talk in this series:

                       TARGET SELECTION:
            THE LAST ADVENTURE OF EURISKO, PART III

Traditional strategic thinking, i.e. from Clausewitz to the present day,
emphasises the need to bring maximum destructive force to bear on the
enemy's armed forces and industrial centers to ensure a swift end to
hostilities.  Present day weapons systems have been characterized as
"eggshells armed with hammers," suggesting that in the event of
hostilities, targets must be swiftly chosen, in time-frames requiring
automated response, to avoid the loss of precious megatonnage.  In this
experiment we used EURISKO to choose targets in simulated nuclear exchanges,
with extremely exciting results.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 85 19:42:32 est
-FROM-
From: Gary Cottrell  <gary@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming the User-Friendly Dog
-BODY-

                                 SEMINAR

                       Saturday, 23 February 1985
                             55 Cottage St.
                                9:00 p.m.

                                 Speaker
                          Garrison W. Cottrell
                      University of Cottage Street
                        Department of Dog Science

                   "Programming the User-Friendly Dog"


         A current  hot  research  topic  is  building  user-friendly
    interfaces  to  computer  systems.  One of the techniques of this
    work is  to  design  so-called  "habitable  subsets"  of  natural
    language  that  in  many  cases  allow  the  naive  user to begin
    productively using the system with little instruction.   In  this
    work,  we  will show that these techniques, combined with results
    from connectionist dog modelling, can be transferred to the  ever
    growing field of building user-friendly dogs.  While the hardware
    in this case is an example of a VRISC (Very  Reduced  Instruction
    Set)  computer, we will show that it is still possible to program
    easily-learned high level commands.

         Since it has been shown that in working with such  machines,
    the user has to do much of the computation of appropriate command
    contexts (New Directions in Connectionist Dog Modelling, Cottrell
    84), it is important to use English commands that make sense with
    respect to the  intended  effect.   For  example,  many  previous
    researchers  have  advocated  the use of such commands as "Go on"
    (How to Live with Three Dobermans, Kester 84) or "Go play" (Being
    Mellow  with  Your  Dog,  Ose  73)  to mean "Go lie down and quit
    bothering me." The obvious mismatch here between the  intent  and
    the  usual meaning of "Go on" (i.e., continue) makes it difficult
    for new users of the system to adapt to the command language.   A
    more  ergonomically-designed  command  is  "Scram."  The  command
    matches the intent,  and  "go"  is  saved  for  more  appropriate
    contexts.

         The reasons for the present sad state of affairs in most dog
    programming  systems can be traced to the use of outmoded command
    languages and archaic beliefs about the capacities  of  the  dog.
    On  the  first point, many so called "experts" still advocate the
    use of "heel" to mean "walk beside me." In this case, there is  a
    double  mismatch:  First  with  the  hardware,  which as everyone
    knows, has no heel; and second with the semantics of the  English
    word  "heel", which might better be used with respect to the male
    dog's behavior towards female dogs.  The New Age  dog  programmer
    uses the much more natural command "Walk with Me." Addressing the
    second  point,  many  dog  programmers  believe  that  they  have
    accomplished   much  more  than  is  possible  with  these  crude
    machines.  It has long been known to those on  the  forefront  of
    this  field  (Larson,  84) that such baroque commands strings as:
    "Now, JellyBean, you stay here, I have to go to a party  and  you
    can't  come.  Be a good boy, JellyBean!" are actually interpreted
    by the machine as: "blah JellyBean blah blah blah blah blah  blah
    blah   blah  blah  blah  blah  blah  blah  blah  blah  blah  blah
    JellyBean," which is certainly not what the  user  intended.   We
    will  have  a  demonstration  system  at  the  talk employing our
    interface, including such useful commands as "Call the Elevator",
    "Wag your tail", and "Eat that dog food."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Feb 1985  16:10 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Motion Planning with Uncertainty (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

On Motion Planning with Uncertainty

Michael Erdmann

Robots must successfully plan and execute tasks in the presence of
control and sensing uncertainty.  Said differently, a robot must know
both how to get to a goal and how to recognize success once it has
gotten to the goal.  I will present a backprojection algorithm that
computes regions from which motions along particular commanded
directions are guaranteed to successfully reach a goal.  I will also
discuss the issue of goal recognizability and the power of the
backprojection approach in terms of the termination predicates
required to recognize success.

Tuesday, Feb. 26, 4 PM, 8th Floor Playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
27
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 85 15:56:24 EST
-FROM-
From: David_Michael_Fobare%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP Questions
-BODY-
 I am working on a version of LISP called XLISP and am wondering
if anyone else has worked with it.  In particular I am having trouble
with the 'Object', 'Class', and 'Keymap' primitives.  What are instance
variables? Class variables? Thanks.
David Fobare

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 10:20:30-MST
-FROM-
From: Pete Tinker <tinker@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Production Systems/Unification
-BODY-
Are there any production systems (backward- or forward-chaining) which
use unification rather than simple pattern matches to bind variables?

>Pete Tinker (TINKER@UTAH-20)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 85 12:49:42 PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Don Rose <drose@uci-icse>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rete networks
-BODY-

Hello everyone - I am currently familiarizing myself with the subject of
rete networks (esp. with regards to a possible synthesis with current
data-dependency frameworks for truth maintenance); if anyone can point the
way to relevant/interesting articles along these lines (or just on rete
networks alone), I would appreciate your help. Thanks    --Donald Rose
                                                        drose@uci-icse

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 17:57:23 PST
-FROM-
From: Koenraad Lecot <koen@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DUCK
-BODY-
Can anybody provide me with references to the DUCK language? I know Smart
Systems Technologies is selling DUCK but I imagine they'll charge for
manuals (smart).
Thanks in advance,

 -- Koenraad Lecot

ARPA: koen@ucla-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,randvax,sdcrdcf,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!koen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 15:09:44 est
-FROM-
From: Deepak Kumar <kumard%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info wanted - Expert Systems for CAI
-BODY-

        I'm taking a course on AI in Medicine where in I have decided
        to present a seminar on Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction
        for Medical Diagnosis. I want to emphasize use of already-
        existing Expert Systems for CAI applications. After all, when the
        knowledge is there, it can be utilized for purposes other than
        advising and decision making.

        If there are any references or materials on the above domain
        I'd like to have it. It need not be specifically to the
        area of Medicine. So, if anyone has made any attempts on using
        Expert Systems in Education, I'd like to get some experiences
        that I can share with my audience.

        Thanx.

        Deepak Kumar (Dept. of CS, SUNY at Buffalo)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 17:16:42 est
-FROM-
From: arora@buffalo (Kulbir S. Arora)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for bibliography
-BODY-

 Is there a bibliography available on Common-sense reasoning systems
 (qualitative reasoning, mental models) ?

 Kulbir Arora

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 1985 1559-PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: info requested -- paradox
-BODY-
Newsgroups: net.ai
Distribution: net

This is for someone else.  Send replies to me.

Does anybody have pointers to structures and techniques for dealing with
paradox or apparent contradiction [e.g., light is a wave, light is a
particle]?  one suggestion made was to use analogy, but we have a
copy of the "analogy considered harmful" paper by some people at parc.

thanks in advance.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

p.s. usenet responses turned up one ref to work at mit on contradiction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 February 1985 23:16-EST
-FROM-
From: John G. Aspinall <JGA @ MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Article - representation of solids
-BODY-
In a recent AI digest, I noticed this summary of a paper from IEEE Computer
Graphics and Applications, February 1985:

    From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>

    An Overview of Analytic Solid Modeling, by M. Casale and E. Stanton
    of PDA Engineering, pp. 45-56:
    Describes a way of modeling complex shapes as ...

I'm very interested by these sorts of systems, and have been working with
splines for some time now, so I was quite interested in the paper.  If any
reader has deeper knowledge of the system described I would appreciate some
enlightenment about a query of mine.  I have read the paper thoroughly, and I
don't think it answers this.

One thing I did not understand was the following: They made a big deal out of
the necessity to represent circles (surfaces of rotation, holes, cylinders,
etc.)  which I agree with -- a round object is easily produced in many ways
in the real world (lathes, drills, etc.).  But there is no way to exactly
represent a circle as a polynomial of a parametric variable.

That is if x = P(u) and y = Q(u), where P and Q are polynomials, there is no
way to let x^2 + y^2 = r^2 (a constant, independent of u) except the trivial
point solution x = constant, y = constant.

So how do they represent circles?  Possibility 1: they represent them
approximately with splines.  Problem: suppose you want to model another
cylinder rotating in that hole.  It's quite conceivable that the clearances
involved might be 10^-3 or less of the diameter.  That implies an awful lot of
spline-knots.  Possibility 2: Circles (and by extension, cylinders etc.) exist
as exact entities in their system.  Problem: how do you join that to a spline
solid, for instance when you put a hole in something?

If you have any ideas about this, I'd be very interested in hearing them.
Many thanks for any light you might shed.  Oh yes, please reply to me directly.

John Aspinall.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Feb 85 14:36:52-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: General Research Corp. Query
-BODY-
General Research has two locations:

  P.O. Box 6770                      7655 Old Springhouse Road
  Santa Barbara, CA  93160-6770      McLean, VA  22102
  (805) 964-7724                     (703) 893-5915
  TWX-TELEX 910-334-1193


Dallas Webster

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Feb 85 15:22:16-PST
-FROM-
From: David Roode <ROODE@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Webster service
-BODY-
In Volume 3 issues 17 and 23 of this digest, mention was made
of an experimental service being developed here at SRI-NIC.
The articles gave the false impression that this was a generally
available, production service.  This is in fact not the case.
We have to iron out several issues before the service can be made
public, and an announcement will be made when and if the
online dictionary is available.

[My apologies for picking up the Rutgers bboard announcement and
help file for the WEBSTER program without checking into the
program's availability.  It seems there may be copyright or
related issues in addition to software-related ones.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 13:16:03 EST
-FROM-
From: Pete Bradford (CSD UK) <bradford@AMSAA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Wally
-BODY-
                As a `Brit', now resident in the US for some 3 years,
        and  an  avid fan of the `Grauniad' newspaper,  let me try to
        answer Gordon Joly's question.    To the best of my knowledge
        the word `wally' does NOT exist in the United States. It app-
        ears in Websters Dictionary as a Scottish word meaning `fine,
        splendid, or sturdy',  a long way from its modern day British
        use! There is also a word  `wallydraigle', or `wallydrag'(!),
        also Scottish,  which means `a feeble, undergrown or slovenly
        creature', perhaps a lot closer to the `wally' we all know --
        at least, ONE of the meanings we know!

                The nearest equivalents to `wally' over here,  in the
        sense of a stupid or foolish person, are `jerk',or `nerd'. As
        for the other meanings, well,  the one meaning that which you
        would buy in a Fish and Chip shop is a `dill pickle', or just
        plain `pickle'. The other meaning, ie an organ which I, along
        with approximately half the human race, possess,   is covered
        by as many terms in the US as it is in the UK - but NOT wally.

                        Hope this helps!

                                PJB

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 85 13:43:58 est
-FROM-
From: "Thomas E. Schutz" <tes%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Y'alls
-BODY-

  Some people in Richmond, Virginia have evolved their own forms
  for the singular and plural "you" :

      Singular - "y'all"

      Plural   - "y'alls"

  I discovered this while visiting Richmond over summer vacation.
  A native of the town addressed me as "y'all"; perplexed, I turned
  around but did not see anyone else standing there.  Later on
  I overheard the word "y'alls," and then everything fell into place.

                                     - Tom Schutz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 85 16:04 EST
-FROM-
From: White@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: R&D Opportunity
-BODY-
An announcement will soon appear (estimated 7 - 14 March 85) in the
Commerce Business Daily (CBD) advertizing a research and development
(R&D) program to be undertaken by the Rome Air Development Center
(RADC).  This advertisement will be in the form of a Program Research
and Development Announcement (PRDA) which is a notice which provides
information about RADC's interest in R&D in a specific area where the
method for achieving the goal is not evident.  This particular PRDA
will contain many different areas of interest.  Some will be of
interest to the AI community such as the application of AI technology
in software development environments.  The notice you are now reading
is not a solicitation and is merely a "heads up" to encourage
participation.  Responses and/or communications are not to be
directed to the address appearing on this notice and should be made
in accordance with directions contained in the CBD announcement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 85 05:50:10 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Medicomp AI/DB System
-BODY-

Electronics Week February 18, 1985 Page 59

Medicomp of Virginia Inc. is now selling a combination medical records
/artificial intelligence system.  The system runs on an IBM Series/1
minicomputer with a dabase covering 3000 diseases, 1000 symptoms and 1000
medical tests.  The system had its first sale to Cleveland Clinic.  They
purchased it when it solved a baffling case of infectious endocarditis.
It costs $55,000.

They have been maintaining a free telephone hookup to the system for
demonstration purposes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 February 1985 1351-EST
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Direct Manipulation Interfaces (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                Artificial Intelligence Lecture Series

     COGNITIVE ENGINEERING of DIRECT MANIPULATION INTERFACES

                            Don Norman

                  Institute for Cognitive Science
                University of California, San Diego
                        La Jolla  CA  92093

                     2:00 PM, Friday, March 1

           Westinghouse R & D Center Auditorium - Bldg 401

                             Abstract

To program by Direct Manipulation is to program by connecting together
data streams, drawing the interconnections on the screen and letting
the resulting diagram be the program.  Direct Manipulation is made
possible by the combination of object-oriented programming languages
(as available on Lisp machines), high-resolution bit-mapped graphics,
and pointing devices.  It promises superior performance for that class
of problems that can be characterized in this manner.   It allows
concentration upon the semantics of the task rather than the structure
of the programming language.   At least, so goes the rhetoric.

Examination of the nature of Direct Manipulation leads naturally to an
examination of the major issues in interface design.  It turns out that
one of the major virtues of Direct Manipulation is the feeling of
control that it produces, the feeling of directly manipulating the
computational objects one cares about.   This feeling depends as much
upon the skill of the user as the nature of the interface.  We meet the
Gulfs of Execution and of Evaluation, gulfs that Direct Manipulation
interfaces promise to bridge more readily than conventional interfaces.
Will Direct manipulation Interfaces live up to their promise?  Yes and
no.

                           Directions

Head east on the parkway, I-376, to the Churchill exit (13).  As you
come off, keep bearing right for a few hundred yards to the first
traffic light.  Proceed straight through it, across Beulah Road, and
up the R&D entrance road where the guard will point out visitors
parking and reception.  You don't need to call in advance; there will
be a few technicians to escort visitors to the auditorium.

In addition to the Westinghouse talk, Don Norman will be speaking in the
Psychology Colloquium Series this Thursday, Feb 28, at 4:00 in the
Adamson Wing (BH).  The talk is entitled: "From slips and mistakes to
a theory of action".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 09:39:50-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Counterfactuals (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]

DATE:        Friday, March 1, 1985
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Matthew Ginsberg, Computer Science Department and
             Heuristic Programming Project, Stanford University

ABSTRACT:    COUNTERFACTUALS

Counterfactuals are a form of commonsense non-montonic inference  that
has been of  long-term interest  to philosophers.  In  this paper,  we
begin by describing some of the impact counterfactuals can be expected
to have in artificial intelligence,  and by reviewing briefly some  of
the philosophical  conclusions  which  have  been  drawn  about  them.
Philosophers  have   noted  that   the  content   of  any   particular
counterfactual is  in  part  context-dependent; we  present  a  formal
description  of  counterfactuals  that   allows  us  to  encode   this
context-dependent information clearly in  the choice of a  sublanguage
of the logical  language in which  we are working.   Having made  this
choice, we show  that our description  of counterfactuals is  formally
identical to  the accepted  "possible  worlds" interpretation  due  to
David Lewis.  Finally, we examine the application of our ideas in  the
domain of automated diagnosis of hardware faults.


Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
28
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 85 07:50:00 EST
-FROM-
From: bogner@ari-hq1
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <bogner@ari-hq1>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ATTRIBUTION OF CHARACTERISTICS
-BODY-
I AM COLLECTING DATA FOR A KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION MODEL, ON THE ATTRIBUTION
OF CHARACTERISTICS TO INDIVIDUALS USING A MODIFICATION OF GEORGE KELLY'S
REP GRID.  I AM DEVELOPING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ATTRIBUTION ALONG BIPOLAR
DIMENSIONS (BOUNDED BY ANTONYMS).  IS ANYONE  ELSE ADDRESSING THAT OR A
SIMILAR QUESTION???

I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE LISTINGS OF ANY RELATED CONFERENCES, MEETINGS,
TUTORIALS, . . .

SUE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1985  9:08:28 EST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Karl Schwamb <m13820@mitre>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RETE Algorithm
-BODY-
This is in replay to Don Rose's message to the AIList (V 3, N 27).

The two references below are an excellent place to start learning about
the RETE algorithm:

C. L. Forgy, "Rete: A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object
Pattern Match Problem," in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (V 19, N 1).

C. L. Forgy, On the efficient implementation of production systems,
Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 1979.

Hope this helps! ...Karl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 85 08:20 PST
-FROM-
From: Bobrow.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commonsense Reasoning
-BODY-
        From: arora@buffalo (Kulbir S. Arora)
        Subject: Request for bibliography

         Is there a bibliography available on Common-sense reasoning systems
        (qualitative reasoning, mental models) ?

        Kulbir Arora

Volume 24  of the AI Journal was devoted to Qualitative Reasoning about
Physical Systems, and is now avalailable as a book from MIT Press.
danny bobrow

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 85 17:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Qualitative Reasoning
-BODY-
As to the request for a bibiliography for qualitative reasoning, I
suggest reviewing the following 2 references:

1) "Mental Models", edited by Gentner, Dedre and Stevens, Albert,
   Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey 1983.

2) Special Issue of the Artificial Intelligence Journal: Volume 24,
   numbers 1-3, December 1984.

They contain a number of very good papers in addition to further
references for more specific topics within QR.

>paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 3 Mar 85 08:49:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Fikes <FIKES@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rule Systems Using Unification
-BODY-
Regarding your query about production rule systems and unification --

The rule system in IntelliCorp's KEE system (Release 2.0) uses full
unification to match rules to goals, subgoals, and items retrieved
from the knowledge base.  It has both a forward chainer and a backward
chainer.

richard fikes
(FIKES@USC-ECL)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday,  1 Mar 1985 06:37:27-PST
-FROM-
From: minow%rex.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP
-BODY-
Re: XLISP question in AIList V3.27

There is an article on XLISP in the March 85 Byte magazine.  Also,
the recent USENET distribution of XLISP mentioned that the author,
Dave Betz, can be reached as "harvard!betz".  I don't know the
USENET path to harvard, nor do I know if betz@harvard.arpa would
work.

Dave's a good guy, please don't bother him with questions if you
haven't read the article (and the code/documentation/examples).

Martin Minow
minow%rex.dec@decwrl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1985 1656 PST
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP
-BODY-
The latest Byte (March '85) has an article by the author of XLISP, David
Betz.  It includes a fairly clear explanation of the concepts you're
having trouble with and some examples.
                                                Larry @ jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 85 18:28:31 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP 1.4
-BODY-
        The current issue of Byte (March 85) has an excellent article
on XLISP by its creator David Betz.  In it he mentions version 1.4
which is supposed to be similar to Common Lisp.  Anybody know where a
copy can be obtained?

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 85 16:00:23 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP
-BODY-
I am in the process of getting the newest version of XLISP to run
on an IBM-PC-AT/DOS 3.0/Computer Innovations ver 2.1/ big-dos2-soft
model.  The source is available at HARVARD, which accepts an
anonymous login.

In order to get the thing to recompile (almost 1 hr), some changes
had to be made, described below.  Although I have just started to
test it out, any obvious mistakes I may have made I would appreciate
hearing about from an observant reader.

[XLISP ver 1.4 is a public domain version of a COMMON LISP, new
with version 1.4, which was authored and maintained by David Betz]
[The source is 170K, .EXE is 70K, and the manual is 30p]
[Also see March 85 BYTE for an article by Betz on XLISP]

Changes:
1) NIL => 0 from (NODE *) 0
2) deleted references to xlintern()
3) used standard unix "setjmp.h" (bsd 4.1)
4) used a dummy "ctype.h"

The file available on HARVARD is a shell file.  Since I am not
running under unix, I had to kludge my own decommutator which I
can send upon request.

Richard K Jennings
AF Sat Cntl Fac
408 744-6427 av: 799-6427  arpa: jennings@aerospace
                                  afscf.xrp@hq-afsc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Feb 85 14:50:16-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Summary - Representational Cognitive Modeling (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                          SUMMARY OF F4 MEETING

      At the meeting of project F4 on February 11, Bob Moore presented
   arguments for the representational approach to designing AI systems
   and modelling mental activities in humans.  Moore first noted the
   relative ease with which a human can acquire individual beliefs
   without disturbing very much of the rest of his mental state.  This
   supports the idea that distinct beliefs ought to be embodied
   more-or-less individually, since acquiring a new belief does not seem
   to require wholesale reorganization of one's mental state.  Moore went
   on to argue that the combinatorial structure of what can be believed
   suggests a similar combinatorial structure to how it is believed.  The
   idea is that the combinatorial structure of the sentences used to
   characterize belief states does not serve merely to distinguish one
   belief state from another; there are regularities in behavior that
   depend on that structure.  For instance, having a belief of the form
   ``if not P, then Q'' is associated with behavior appropriate to Q's
   being true when evidence of P's being false is presented, but not
   necessarily with behavior appropriate to P's being true when evidence
   of Q's being false is presented, even though ``if not P, then Q'' and
   ``if not Q, then P'' are equivalent under most interpretations of the
   conditional.  The fact that this and many other structural
   distinctions in sentences used to classify belief states correspond to
   systematic distinctions in behavior presents a prima facie case that
   the belief states themselves are similarly structured.  But, Moore
   argued, under a conception of representation sufficiently abstract to
   cover the kinds of ``representation'' actually used in computational
   models of mental states, the claim that mental states involve
   ``syntactic'' representations--a language of thought--probably comes
   to no more than this.  Moore concluded by noting that none of these
   arguments bear on the question of whether the language of thought is
   distinct from natural language, but that empirical considerations,
   such as the indexicality of natural language and the difficulty of
   stating principles of reasoning that apply directly to natural
   language, suggest that the two are distinct.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 16:15:29 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Varieties of Phenomenology (UCB)
-BODY-
                    BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                              Spring 1985
                   Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

            TIME:                Tuesday, March 5, 11 - 12:30
            PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
         (followed by)
            DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

            SPEAKER:  Hubert  Dreyfus,  Department  of  Philosophy,  UC
                      Berkeley
            TITLE:    ``Varieties of Phenomenology:  Husserl, Heidegger
                        and Merleau-Ponty''

            A tutorial review of the three most  important  accounts  of
       intentionality in recent continental philosophy, with emphasis on
       their relevance to current  theories  of  mental  representation.
       Edmund  Husserl  begins  the phenomenological concern with inten-
       tionality.  In his earlier work, The LOGICAL  INVESTIGATIONS,  he
       holds  a  view  similar to Searle's that intentional content type
       individuates mental acts.  Later, in IDEAS, he changes to a posi-
       tion,  which  he  calls  ``cognitive  science,''  in which mental
       representations are held  to  be  hierarchies  of  strict  rules,
       involved in all intelligent activity.  I take this to be an early
       version of the computational view of the mind.

            Husserl's account  leads  to  two  important  counter-views.
       Martin Heidegger in BEING AND TIME argues that intentional states
       do not play the central role in intelligent behavior Husserl sup-
       posed,  and that even in those cases where intentional states are
       involved their intentional content can not be treated as abstract
       structures.   Maurice Merleau-Ponty, like Heidegger, argues for a
       primitive form of intentionality which does  not  involve  mental
       representation, but  whereas Heidegger is primarily interested in
       an account of action and its social setting, Merleau-Ponty  bases
       his critique on a phenomenology of perception and bodily skills.

            Together, Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's  work  constitutes
       the most powerful critique of cognitivism so far offered.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 28 Feb 85 09:51:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - PROLOG, DATABASES, AND NATURAL LANGUAGE ACCESS (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

CS 300  --  Computer Science Department Colloquium  --  Winter 1984-1985.


                      Tuesday, March 5, 1985
                    at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium

         PROLOG, DATABASES, AND NATURAL LANGUAGE ACCESS


                        David H.D. WARREN
                  Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.


PROLOG is a general purpose programming language based on logic.  It
can be viewed either as an extension of pure LISP, or as an extension
of a relational database query language.  It was first conceived in
1972, by Alain Colmerauer at the University of Marseille.  Since then,
it has been used in a wide variety of applications, including natural
language processing, algebraic symbol manipulation, compiler writing,
architectural design, VLSI circuit design, and expert systems.  PROLOG
was chosen as the initial kernel language for Japan's Fifth Generation
Computer Systems project, and the project's prototype Prolog machine,
PSI, has recently been unveiled in Tokyo.

In this talk, I will give an overview of the language, and then focus
on one particular application, a domain-independent system for natural
language question answering, called "CHAT".  I will compare the way
Chat plans and executes a query with the query optimization strategies
of relational database systems such as SYSTEM-R.  Finally I will
discuss the future prospects for PROLOG in the light of Japan's Fifth
Generation project, and describe the high-performance PROLOG systems
for the SUN and VAX available from Quintus.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 1 March 1985 15:56:29 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Shafer@cmu-cs-ius.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Inference Architecture (CMU)
-BODY-
AI SEMINAR
Symbols Among the Neurons:  Details of a Connectionist Inference Architecture
Dave Touretzky, CMU
Tuesday, March 5, 3:00 pm in WeH 5409


    Pattern matching and variable binding are easily implemented in
conventional computer architectures, but not necessarily in all
architectures.  In a distributed neural network architecture each
symbol is represented by activity in many units and each unit
contributes to the representation of many symbols.  Manipulating
symbols using this type of representation is not as easy as with a
local representation where each unit denotes one symbol, but there
is evidence that the distributed approach is the one chosen by
nature.  In this talk I will describe work I am doing with Geoff
Hinton on production system interpreters implemented in neural
networks using distributed representations for both symbols and
rules.  The research provides an account of two important symbolic
reasoning operations, pattern matching and variable binding, as
emergent properties of collections of neuron-like elements.  The
success of our production system implementations goes some way
towards answering a common criticism of connectionist theories:
that they aren't powerful enough to do symbolic reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 85 15:13:02 EST
-FROM-
From: coopercc@GE-CRD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Animating Programs Using Smalltalk (GE)
-BODY-
                    Computer  Science Seminar
                General  Electric  R & D  Center
                        Schenectady, N.Y.

               Animating Programs Using Smalltalk

                         Ralph L. London
                         Tektronix, Inc.

                        Friday, March 15
                 1:30 PM, Bldg. K1, Conf. Rm. 2
                     (Refreshments at 1:15)

     ABSTRACT: We discuss  our  work  in  program  animation
     using the Smalltalk programming environment.  We strive
     to isolate the graphical  viewing  structure  from  the
     code  of  the algorithm being animated.  In addition to
     "procedure calls" this is achieved through a refinement
     of  the  Smalltalk  Model-View-Controller construct and
     view dependency mechanism, which allows  the  algorithm
     code  to  broadcast interesting events and supports the
     insertion of probes into active values.  Multiple, dif-
     ferent  views  of  a single object are easily achieved.
     There are connections between  interesting  events  and
     invariant  assertions.   Further  efforts  were made to
     ensure smoothness of  motion  and  transitions  between
     states.   A number of particular animations, the evolu-
     tion  of  an  animation,  and  directions  for  further
     research are included.  We plan to show a videotape.

     Notice to Non-GE attendees:
     It is necessary that we ask you to notify Marion  White
     (518-385-8370  or  WHITEMM@GE-CRD) at least two days in
     advance of the seminar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
29
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1985 13:32-EST
-FROM-
From: Leff@laurence, 300C%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa,
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Articles in the Applied Intelligence Reporter
-BODY-

Applied Intelligence Reporter Volume 2 No 3/4 (some material omitted
as it is a repeat of stuff I reported earlier)

Robots in the Workplace: Summary of material from James S. Albus work on
robotics.


An ad from Scientific Data Link 850 Third Avenue, New York NY 10022
(212) 838-7200 for various microfiche copies of technical reports on
artificial intelligence from

  MIT 1-513 450 fiche $2100.00
  Rutgers 230 reports 264 fiche $1395
  SRI 285 reports $1800
  Carnegie Mellon 600 papers Part I $2050, Part II $2150 Parts I and II $4000
  Stanford 500 fiche $2425
  Purdue (Pattern Recognition and Image Processing) 145 reports $1365
  Maryland (Computer Vision) 313 reports $1750


Overview of Computer Vision

Tutorial on Lisp Iterative structures

Expert Systems for Executives

AI entering world of art (talks about computer graphics applications to art)

Russel H. Petersen is vice-president of marketing for Synthetic Vision Systems


Kurzweill announced a chip to recognize human speech.  This is part of
an effort to build a voice-typewriter.

FMC established an artificial intelligence center in Santa Clara
California.

Synthetic Vision Systems was formed to sell technology to inspect and validate
the manufacture of semiconductor products.

AI companies are forming in the following states in descending order by
employment level: California, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan,
Florida, New Jersey and Texas


Technical Reports from Rutgers University

CBM-TR-139 Localization Problems and Expert Systems Allen Ginsberg
  (discusses expert systems that handle localization problems as
   opposed to classification systems such as disease diagnosis)

CBM-TR-145 "Shift of Bias for Inductive Concept Learning" Paul E.
Utgoff.  $15.00

LCSR-TR-60 "Artificial Intellligence and The Social Sciences: A
Preliminary Report" Saul Amarel

LCSR-TR-61 "Knowledge Representation as the Basis for Requirements"
A. Borgida, S. Greenspan and J. Mylopoulous

LCSR-TR-62 "Introduction to the Comtex Microfiche Edition of the
Rutgers University Artificial Intelligence Research Reports" S. Amarel

LCSR-TR-64 "Leap: A Learning Apprentice for VLSI Design" T. M.
Mitchell, S. Mahadevan and L. I. Sternberg

LCSR-TR-65 "A Knowledge-Base Approach to Design", T. M. Mitchell, L. I.
Steinberg and J. S. Shulman (primarily concerned with VLSI design
issues)

LCSR-TR-66 "Verification-Based Learning: A Generalization Strategy for
Inferring Problem-Decomposition methods" S. Mahadaven.



Artificial Intelligence Reporter December-January 1985


Conference Announcements

The International Federation of Automatic Control
conference on Artificial Intelligence in Economics and Management

Robotics International of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers
Second Annual Robotic End Effector: Design and Applications Seminar on
March 19, 1985 at the Holiday Inn Livonia (detroit)

IEEE Computer Society on Robotics and Automation on March 25-28 1985 in
ST. Louis, Missouri

AT&T Bell Laboratories: Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in
Statistics AT&T Conference Center in Princeton NJ on Apr 15-16, 1985

Association Francaise d'Intelligence Artificielle et Systems de
Simulation in association with the Society of Manufactuirng Engineers
will present Intelligencia 85 at the Parc des Expositions, Porte de
Versailles, Paris May 21-24 1985

Robotics International of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
Robots 9 at Cobo Hall, Detroit, Michigan on June 3-6 1985

IEEE Comptuter Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, San Francisco June 9-13 1985

Robotics International of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers will
sponsor the 34d Canadian CAD/CAM and Robotics Exposition and Conference
at the International Society

IEEE Computer Society seminar on Logic Programming in Boston,
Massachusetts

The Institute for Computer Engineering Research in cooperation with
the Intelligent Computer Systems Research Institute of the University
of Miami is presenting ARTELL 85 at the Philadelphia Civic Center on
November 4-7 1985

The Computer and Automated Systems Asssociation of the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (CASA/SME) are holding Mechatronics/Autofact
Japan 85 at the New Osaka Fairgrounds in Osaka, Japan November 25-28
1985


Also an article urging cooperation between OR and AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 85 17:41 PST
-FROM-
From: Halasz.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information on Xerox NoteCards
-BODY-
This description of the Xerox NoteCards system is a response to
inquiries that have recently appeared on several Arpanet discussion
lists.

A.  Background:   NoteCards is part of an ongoing research project in
the Intelligent Systems Lab at Xerox PARC investigating "idea
processing" tasks, such as interpreting textual information, structuring
ideas, formulating arguments, and authoring complex documents.  The
NoteCards system provides an on-line environment for carrying out this
research.  The principal reasearchers involved in this project are Frank
Halasz, Tom Moran, and Randy Trigg.

NoteCards is implemented in Interlisp-D and runs on the Xerox 1108
family of Lisp processors.

B.  The System:   NoteCards is intended primarily as an idea structuring
tool, but it can also be used as a fairly general database system for
loosely structured information.  The basic object in NoteCards is an
electronic note card containing an idea-sized unit of text, graphics,
images, or whatever.  Different kinds of note cards are defined in an
inheritance hierarchy of note card types (e.g., text cards, sketch
cards, query cards, etc.).  On the screen, multiple cards can be
simultaneously displayed, each one in a separate window having an
underlying editor appropriate to the card type.

Individual note cards can be connected to other note cards by
arbitrarily typed links, forming networks of related cards.  At present,
link types are simply labels attached to each link.  It is up to each
user to utilize the link types to organize the note card network.
Within a note card, a link is represented by a small, active icon.
Clicking with the mouse in the icon, retrieves the target card and
displays it on the screen.

NoteCards includes a filing mechanism built around a special type of
card called a FileBox.  In each FileBox are filed (i.e., linked by a
Filing link) zero or more note cards as well as zero or more other
FileBoxes.  FileBoxes serve as a kind of categorization hierarchy for
filing note cards by "topics".

Browser cards contain node-link diagrams (i.e., maps) of arbitrary
pieces of the note card network.  Each node in a Browser's node-link
diagram is an active icon that can be used to retrieve the indicated
card.  Spatially organized information is also available in the form of
Sketch cards that allow the user to lay out line drawings, text, and
link icons in an arbitrary, zoomable 2-D space.

NoteCards is an environment that integrates several packages already
available in the Interlisp-D system, e.g., TEdit, Grapher, and Sketch.
NoteCards has a full programmer's interface.  All of the functionality
in NoteCards is accessible through a set of well-documented Lisp
functions, allowing the user to create new types of note cards, develop
programs that monitor or process the note card network, and/or integrate
new Interlisp packages into the NoteCards environment.

C.  Research directions:   NoteCards was designed primarily as a
research vehicle.  The following are some of the research topics that we
are pursuing using the NoteCards system.

1)  User tailorability -- a system description language that a
non-programming user could edit in order to tailor the system to his or
her task and/or interaction style.

2)  Argumentation -- use of a "truth-maintenance" mechanism to help
users develop and manipulate alternative argument structures.

3)  Psychological issues --  investigations of the ways in which
NoteCards does or does not support real-world tasks.

4)  Visual summaries of large networks --  investigations of other ways
to display network maps, including fish-eye graphs, trimmed graphs, 3D
graphs, indented outline, etc.

5)  Multi-window management -- investigations of various abstractions
for building general multi-window management tools that take advantage
of inter-card dependencies.

6)  Querying networks of cards -- design of a querying interfaces that
allow users to ask questions about the contents and structure of a
network.

7)  Multiple user, interlinked NoteFiles -- providing distributed/shared
NoteFiles with links between different NoteFiles.

8) Alternative documents -- explore alternative document concepts, such
as guided tours (i.e., suggested paths through a network of cards).

9)  Text retrieval -- investigate several methods for doing text
retrieval based on full-text search and statistical matching.

10)  Object-oriented implementation -- we are investigating the
possibility of rewriting NoteCards in Loops.


D.  How to get more info:

A technical paper on Notecards is in progress.  For information about
the research issues surrounding NoteCards contact Halasz.pa@Xerox or
Trigg.pa@Xerox.

NoteCards is not at this time a Xerox product.  However, Xerox Special
Information System's Vista Laboratories offers a limited licensing
agreement aimed at distributing NoteCards to groups doing related
research (Contact: NoteCardsInfo.pasa@Xerox)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 27-Feb-85 10:22:14-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humour
-BODY-
Re: Kurzweil Data Entry Machine (Vol 3 # 10 and others)
Can this machine read bewteen the lines ?

Gordon Joly
gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 08:58:01-MST
-FROM-
From: Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Analysis(?) of AIList Contents
-BODY-
Yesterday I culled through 1 1/2 years worth of saved and printed
AIList digests (about 3 inches thick).  The result was about 1/2 inch
of individual articles that are still of interest (mostly seminar
notices with abstracts) - about 16% of the original saved stuff.
Since I only printed out about 30% of the digests that actually came
by (the ones that were interesting when I read them), this works
out to approximately 5% of the total volume.  This is in accordance
with the general rule that "9x% of everything is b*llsh*t".  So
AIList is really not so bad, and the experimental technique has
been corroborated :-)

                                                stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 18 February 1985 05:53:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on AI in Engg.
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS

     FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON APPLICATIONS OF
      ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO ENGINEERING PROBLEMS
                          (AIEP)

The  purpose  of  this  conference is to provide a forum for
engineers all over the world to present their  work  on  the
applications   of  artificial  intelligence  to  engineering
problems.  The conference will be held from April 15-18 1986
at Southampton University, England and will be preceeded  by
tutorials in Expert systems and Robotics.

CONFERENCE THEMES

The  following  topics are suggested and other related areas
will be considered.

   - Computer-aided design
   - Computer-based training
   - Planning and Scheduling
   - Constraint Management
   - Intelligent Tutors
   - Expert systems
   - Knowledge representation
   - Learning
   - Natural language applications
   - Cognitive modelling of engineering problems
   - Robotics
   - Database interfaces
   - Graphical interfaces
   - Knowledge-based simulation
   - Design Modelling

CALL FOR PAPERS

Authors are invited to submit three copies  of  a  500  word
abstract.  The abstract should have enough details to permit
careful evaluation by  a  committee  consisting  of  renowed
experts  in  the  field. The abstracts should be accompained
with the following details:

   - Authors' address, name, affliation.  Indicate  the
     person to address all correspondence.
   - The  branch of engineering. If the paper addresses
     engineering in general, then should be categorized
     under GENERAL DESIGN.
   - The topic area.

TIME TABLE

Submission of Abstracts:  June 1st 1985

Notification of acceptance: August 1st 1985

Submission of Full Paper: November 1st 1985

INFORMATION

All abstracts should be sent to:
          Dr. R. Adey, General  Chairman, AIEP
          Computational Mechanics Centre
          Ashurst Lodge
          Southampton S04 2AA
          England

Inquires about exhibits, registration  should  be  addressed
to:
          Ms Elaine Taylor
          Computational Mechanics Centre
          Ashurst Lodge
          Southampton S04 2AA
          England

For more information in US contact:
          D. Sriram, Technical Chairman  AIEP
          Civil Engineering and Construction Robotics
                                Laboratories
          Department of Civil Engineering
          Carnegie-Mellon University
          Pittsburgh, PA 15213
          sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 85 13:13:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Chris Riesbeck <Riesbeck@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Theoretical Issues in Conceptual Information Processing
-BODY-

                     *** Call for participants ***

                     The Second Annual Workshop on

                         Theoretical Issues in

                   Conceptual Information Processing

                             May 2-3, 1985

                 The Peabody Museum of Natural History
                            Yale University
                             New Haven, CT


This year's workshop will focus on new research into memory-based models
of planning, reasoning, natural language processing, learning, and other
issues in conceptual information processing.  The format will mix panels
and papers, with ample time for discussion  and  debate.    We  hope  to
foster  inter-laboratory  interaction,  with  a session devoted to "What
we're going to do, we think," including  research  plans  from  as  many
centers as possible.

Prospective  speakers  and  panel  leaders should contact Chris Riesbeck
immediately, and also submit, via  mail  or  netmail,  a  2  -  10  page
write-up,  for  distribution  at  the workshop, addressing the following
questions, if appropriate:


       What  specific  domains,  tasks,  and  examples   will   your
    laboratory be investigating in the next few years?

       What  theoretical  questions  are  involved?    How does this
    research fit in the overall picture? How  does  it  follow  from
    previous research?  What related topics are you NOT addressing?

Submission  deadline:  March 29.  Notification: April 8th.  Note: submit
earlier for an earlier response.

Rooms are being blocked at the Park Plaza hotel in downtown  New  Haven.
Information available from Donna Mauri.


    SUBMISSIONS:                      LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS:

    Christopher K. Riesbeck           Donna Mauri
    PO Box 2158, Yale Station         PO Box 2158, Yale Station
    Department of Computer Science    Department of Computer Science
    New Haven, CT   06520             New Haven, CT   06520

    Phone: (203) 436-0606             Phone: (203) 436-0606


    ArpaNet address: RIESBECK@YALE    ArpaNet address: MAURI@YALE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 85 00:55:16 pst
-FROM-
From: Yigal Arens <arens%usc-cseb%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Southern California AI Society
-BODY-

         Announcement of the Second General Meeting of SCAIS
         ===================================================

                                and

                        Call for Abstracts
                        ==================

The second general meeting of the Southern California AI Society will be
held on Monday, April 15 1985, at the University of Southern California.

The meeting will be devoted to the presentation of talks by members of the
local AI community.  The talks should discuss recent new research results,
as opposed to being general project descriptions.  Everyone interested in
giving a talk (graduate students greatly encouraged), or organizing a panel
discussion, should send a note containing:

        1. Title of the talk, or subject of panel
        2. General area of AI talk relates to (e.g. vision, natural lang.)
        3. Name, institution, phone number, net or USmail address
        4. Any audio-visual aids (besides transparency and slide projector)
           needed during presentation.
        5. Estimate of number of participants from your site.

to one of the following addresses:

ARPANET:  scais2%usc-cse@csnet-relay
CSNET:    scais2@usc-cse
USMAIL:   SCAIS-2
          c/o Yigal Arens
          Computer Science Department
          SAL 200
          University of Southern California
          Los Angeles, CA 90089-0782

This information should be sent as soon as possible, and should arrive no
later than March 25, 1985.  The abstracts themselves will be accepted until
April 8.  While there will be no refereeing of the submissions, time
constraints will probably require us to limit the number of presentations.
Chances are we will not be able to accommodate requests to speak that arrive
late.  We will try to provide at least 15-20 minutes per talk.

We anticipate there being some minor costs associated with the meeting, to
cover the "proceedings", lunch, snacks, etc.  These should amount to
no more than $15, exclusive of parking.

The number of parking spaces reserved for the meeting will be 120.  This
should be enough, but carpooling is encouraged nevertheless.

The next mailing will be sent on April 1, and will include precise location,
cost, parking arrangements, and schedule.

Yigal Arens
University of Southern California
arens%usc-cse@csnet-relay.arpa
arens@usc-cse.csnet
(213) 743-7848

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
30
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Feb 85 10:40:42-EST
-FROM-
From: Mark S. Day <MDAY@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Soft-Eng List
-BODY-

SOFT-ENG@MIT-XX

 Soft-Eng is a list for discussion of software engineering and related topics,
 covering such areas as:

 Requirements 		Specification		Design
 Testing		Maintenance		Enhancement
 Languages		Methodologies		Tools
 Verification		Validation		Reliability
 Debugging		Testing			Testing Tools
 Error handling		Recovery		Programming Environments
 Modelling		Documentation		Extensibility
 Practices		Standards		Protection mechanisms
 Portability		Complexity		Performance
 Software science	Management		Cost estimation
 Productivity		Rapid prototyping	Reusable software
 Professional ethics	Configuration mgmt.	Quality assurance	
 Staffing		Systems analysis 	Training & education	
 Human factors		Software: legal issues	Real-time systems	
 Hardware/software tradeoffs			Software fault-tolerance

 Any and all contributions are welcome (e.g. questions, ideas, "war stories",
 proposals, humor, abstracts, conference reports, bibliographies, problems,
 reviews, tutorials, solutions, planned or completed projects).

 The list is currently unmoderated, but may become a digest if the volume of
 mail warrants it.

 All requests to be added to or deleted from this list, problems, questions,
 etc., should be sent to Soft-Eng-Request@MIT-XX.


[Rather than compete with this list, I shall no longer forward items
about programming languages, environments, man-machine interfaces, etc.,
unless they relate specifically to AI and information science.  LISP
and PROLOG articles will still be carried in AIList, of course.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Feb 85  0933 PST
-FROM-
From: Rosemary Brock <RBA@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automated Ada Programming using Icons and Prolog (SU)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the Stanford AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

TITLE:   "CAEDE - Carleton Embedded System Design Environment - An
          Experimental Design Environment for Ada Using Icons and Prolog"

SPEAKER: Professor Ray Buhr
         Department of Systems and Computer Engineering
         Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

PLACE:   ERL 401, Monday Feb. 25th, 2:30 pm.

This informal talk will  provide an overview  of CAEDE's approach,  status
and capabilities.  With CAEDE, multitasking design structures are  entered
iconically on the screen of a SUN workstation, using a notation  described
in the speaker's "System Design With Ada" book (PH, 1984).  The structures
are automatically converted  into Prolog facts.   Prolog programs  process
these facts to generate  skeleton Ada programs  and to perform  structural
and temporal analysis of the  designs represented by the facts.   Temporal
analysis is based on Prolog descriptions of the temporal properties of the
Ada rendezvous and  of the  temporal behaviour  of tasks.   The talk  will
describe the iconic interface and the nature of the Prolog representations
and tools.   CAEDE  is  part  of  a  research  program  at  Carleton  into
environments and tools  for embedded  real time  systems, with  particular
emphasis on communication protocol systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 11:46:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Alison Grant <GRANT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - INTERNIST Scoring Schemes (SU)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the Stanford AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                Medical Information Sciences Colloquium
                        Tuesday, March 5, 1985
                  Stanford University Medical Center
                             Room M-106
                          1:15 - 1:45 P.M.

Speaker: David Heckerman

Title: Probabilistic Interpretation of Two Ad Hoc Scoring Schemes

I will present a new formulation of Bayes' theorem with the usual
assumptions that evidence is conditionally independent and that
hypotheses are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.  Within this
formulation, I define a quantity called the Measure of Confirmation
(MC).  I will show that MC's satisfy all the axioms of MYCIN's
certainty factors.  I will also show that a quantity closely related
to MC behaves similarly to the weighting factors in the INTERNIST-1
scoring scheme.  Thus, a probabilistic interpretation will be provided
for these two evidence combination schemes that have been labeled
ad hoc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 85 16:03:04 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Modelling Discourse Structure (UCB)
-BODY-
                 BERKELEY LINGUISTICS LUNCHBAG COLLOQUIUM

                    DAY:    Thursday March 7, 1985
                    TIME:   11 - 12:30
                    PLACE:  200 Bldg. T-4

SPEAKER:   Dr. Livia Polanyi, English Department, University of Amsterdam;
           BBN Laboratories
TITLE:     ``Modelling Discourse Syntactic and Semantic Structure''

ABSTRACT:  The ultimate goal of the research to be discussed is to characterize
the structural and semantic relationships obtaining among individual clauses in
natural discourse. In this talk,a formal linguistic model of discourse
structure
will be sketched which is designed to account for the ability of language users
to  assign proper semantic  interpretations  to clauses  in naturally occurring
interactively constructed talk despite the interruptions, resumptions, repairs,
and other disfluencies which characterize performance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 1985 00:08:40-EST
-FROM-
From: psm@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semantic Prototyping System (Boston SICPLAN)
-BODY-

    Boston SICPLAN (Special Interest Committee on Programming Languages) is
a local affiliate of the ACM SIGPLAN group and vaguely associated with and
chartered by the Greater Boston area chapter of the ACM.  It normally meets
once a month, usually on the first Thursday, almost always at 8 p.m., and
normally at either BBN or Intermetrics.  Its talks are often of interest
to people working in the fields of programming languages and compilers,
environments, artificial intelligence, and data/knowledge base management.
[...]

                  ACM GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER SICPLAN

                       Thursday, March 7, 1985
                                8 P.M.

                         Intermetrics Atrium
                     733 Concord Ave., Cambridge

                    A Semantic Prototyping System

                            Mitchell Wand
              Indiana University and Brandeis University

    Denotational  semantics  seems  to  be  a  useful language  for
  specifying the  behavior of programming languages.  The talk will
  describe a set of computer  programs  that Dr. Wand developed for
  testing and exercising programming language specifications  given
  in this  style.   It will also give an introduction to the method
  of denotational semantics and an overview of how  these tools can
  be used to construct rapid prototypes of programming languages.


  Our March speaker, Mitch Wand, is one of the leading innovators
in applying formal methods to language design and the analysis of
programs and language  systems.   He  is  spending  the  year  at
Brandeis University, on leave from  the  University  of  Indiana,
where he is a professor.  [...]

  Our  group   customarily  meets  for  dinner  at  Joyce  Chen's
restaurant, 390 Rindge Ave., Cambridge at 6:00 P.M. (just  before
the meeting).  If you wish to come,  please call Carolyn Elson at
Intermetrics  661-1840  as early as possible so we can  make  the
appropriate dinner reservation.

                     Peter Mager
                     chairperson, Boston SICPLAN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 85 18:31:45 est
-FROM-
From: "Robert C. Bethel" <bethel%ucf.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Language Comprehension (UCF)
-BODY-

Date & Time: Tuesday - April 9, 1985 at 6pm.
Location   : Computer Center II, Rm #103
             University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Speaker    : Eugene Charniak

Subject    : Language Comprehension from an
             Artificial Intelligence Perspective


In the first half of this talk will review the work which has been done
on language comprehension within the Artificial Intelligence Community.
Despite the often heated controversy surrounding the area, there is,
in fact, agreement on what the basic model must look like.  Furthermore
this model is not, except in retrospect, a completely obvious one.

Unfortunately, in retrospect the model is rather obvious, and offers
little real guidance for someone trying to build such a system.
In the second part of the lecture will suggest how the model should be
extended to answer some of the problems left open in the consensus version.
This will include issues such as the relative importance of syntax and
semantics, limits on inference, and the role of logic.

Robert C. Bethel
University of Central Florida
uucp: {duke,decvax,akgua}!ucf-cs!bethel
ARPA: bethel.ucf-cs@csnet.relay.CSNET
csnet: bethel@ucf.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 85 17:54:05 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Reductionist Semantics (UCB)
-BODY-
                          BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Spring 1985
                         Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

                 TIME:                Tuesday, March 12, 11:00 - 12:30
                 PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 (followed by)
                 DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

            SPEAKER:        Ned Block, CSLI and MIT
            TITLE:          ``A Reductionist Semantics''

            There are two quite different families of approaches to  seman-
            tics:  REDUCTIONIST  approaches  attempt  to  characterize  the
            semantic in non-semantic terms NON-REDUCTIONIST approaches  are
            more  concerned  with  relations  among  meaningS than with the
            nature of meaning itself.  The non-reductionist approaches  are
            the  more  familiar  ones  (eg,  Montague, the model- theoretic
            aspect of situation semantics, Davidson, Katz).  The reduction-
            ist approaches come in 4 major categories:

            1. Theories that reduce meaning to the mental (This is what  is
            common  to  Grice  and  Searle).  2. Causal semantics--theories
            that see semantic values as derived from causal chains  leading
            from  the  world  to our words.  (Field's combination of Kripke
            and Tarski) 3. Indicator semantics--theories that  see  natural
            and non-natural meaning as importantly similar.  Their paradigm
            of meaning is the way the rings on the tree stump represent the
            age  of  the tree when cut down. (Dretske/Stampe) 4. Functional
            role semantics--theories that see meaning in terms of the func-
            tional  role  of  linguistic expressions in thought, reasoning,
            and planning, and in general in the way  they  mediate  between
            sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.

            After sketching the difference  between  the  reductionist  and
            non-reductionist  approaches,  I  will focus on functional role
            semantics, a view that has independently arisen  in  philosophy
            (where  its  sources are Wittgenstein's idea of meaning as use,
            and pragmatism) and cognitive science (where  it  is  known  as
            procedural semantics).

            Instead of devoting the talk to trying to answer  certain  well
            known  criticisms of functionalist views, I will concentrate on
            what one particular version of the doctrine can DO (if the cri-
            ticisms  can  be answered): viz., illuminate acquisition of and
            knowledge of meaning, principles of  charity,  how  meaning  is
            relevant  to  explanation  of behavior, the intrinsic/observer-
            relative distinction, the  relation  between  meaning  and  the
            brain,  and  the relativity of meaning to representational sys-
            tem.  The point is to give a sense of the fertility  and  power
            of the view, and so to provide a rationale for working on solu-
            tions to its problems.  Finally, I will sketch some reasons  to
            prefer  functional  role  semantics  to  the other reductionist
            theories.

            A copy of a paper which the talk draws on will be in the cogni-
            tive science library.


            UPCOMING ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS

            Andy diSessa (Computer Science Lab at MIT) will be speaking on
            ``Knowledge  in  Pieces:   Intuitive  Knowledge  in Physics and
            Other Things'' at 4pm on Friday, March 8, in  the  Beach  Room,
            third floor, Tolman Hall.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 85 18:31:45 est
-FROM-
From: "Robert C. Bethel" <bethel%ucf.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Motivation Analysis (UCF)
-BODY-
Date & Time: Wednesday - April 10, 1985  (time - to be announced on tuesday)
Location   : Computer Center II, Rm #103
             University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Speaker    : Eugene Charniak

Subject    : Motivation Analysis, Abductive Unification,
             and Non-monotonic Equality


Motivation analysis in story comprehension requires matching an action
mentioned in the story against actions which might be predicted by possible
explanitory motivations.  This matching requires matching constants from
the story against skolem functions in the possible motivations (assuming a
normal first order representation of stories, plans, etc.).  We will show
that extending unification to allow for unifying two things if they are
non-monotonically equal does exactly what is needed in such cases.  We also
show that such a procedure allows for a clean method of noun-phrase reference
determination.

Robert C. Bethel
University of Central Florida
uucp: {duke,decvax,akgua}!ucf-cs!bethel
ARPA: bethel.ucf-cs@csnet.relay.CSNET
csnet: bethel@ucf.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 1985 0903-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionistic Logic (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker:  Dana Scott
Date:     Wednesday, March 6
Time:     2:00
Place:    2105 DH
Topic:    Intuitionistic logic and some models

        Abstract: The lambda calculus as usually presented is an equational
        theory, but it is also supposed to be a theory of functions.  One
        way to understand its scope is to discuss models for lambda
        calculus in intuitionistic logic and to relate it to the notion of
        function appropriate within that framework.  However, this first
        talk will be just about intuitionistic logic and some of its
        interpretations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 1985 0904-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Domains and Intuitionistic Logic (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Speaker:  Dana Scott
Date:     Monday, March 11
Time:     2:00
Place:    324 Scaife Hall
Topic:    Domains and intuitionistic logic (I)

        Abstract: Kleene's realizability interpretation in one very
        explicit approach to intuitionistic logic.  The basics of the
        interpretation will be discussed, and it will be explained how
        computability theory gets a logical form.  In particular, the
        effectively given domains become just sets (of a special kind).
        Some results from McCarty and others on realizability will be
        explained.  The way domain models for lambda calculus behave from
        this point of view will also be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 85 09:27:39 mst
-FROM-
From: bbw@LANL.ARPA (Burton Wendroff)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Evolution, Games, and Learning
-BODY-
        [Forwarded by Golub@SU-SCORE and Buchanan@SUMEX-AIM.]


               CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

Title - EVOLUTION, GAMES, AND LEARNING: Adaptation in Machines and Nature

Date - May 20 - 24, 1985

Place - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico

Topics include - biological evolution, deterministic and random
        automata, learning algorithms, neural networks, computer
        game programs, game theory, allocation mechanisms,
        and brain function.

Speakers include - J. ANDERSON, H. BERLINER, M. CONRAD, J. H. CONWAY,
J. D. COWAN, M. DAVIS, J. L. DENEUBOURG, M. W. FELDMAN, P. FREY, I. J. GOOD,
J. H. HOLLAND, J. HOPFIELD, B. HUBERMAN, S. KAUFFMAN, S. KIRKPATRICK,
N. PACKARD, S. REITER, G.-C. ROTA, A. SAMUEL, P. SCHUSTER, T. J. SEJNOWSKI,
J. MAYNARD SMITH, J. W. VALENTINE, L. G. VALIANT, S. WOLFRAM

Registration fee - $50

Contact - For registration information and forms write or call

        Evolution, Games ,and Learning
        Los Alamos National Laboratory
        P. O. Box 1663, MS-B258
        Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
        Tel. 505-667-1444

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
31
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 85 15:07:34 pst
-FROM-
From: susan@aids-unix (Susan Rosenbaum)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Systems
-BODY-

  I am looking for pointers to any public domain systems
written in OPS5.  Please reply directly to me.
  Thanks!

    Susan Rosenbaum
     (susan@aids)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 14:04:15-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP and Betz
-BODY-
XLISP 1.4 is available via FTP at sumex-aim (login anonymous) on the
<info-mac> directory.  Documentation is also available there.  The source
code will soon (and may already) be available there, too.  I think all of
this is also on net.sources as well.  David Betz is eager to get XLISP
distributed and can be contacted via
  Betz@Havard or cornell!packard!havard!betz@uw-beaver

Dallas Webster
Burroughs Austin Research Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 07:34:37 PST
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!BTS@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog in Dr. Dobb's Journal
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Dr. Dobb's Journal for March is a "Special Prolog
Issue".  Only three articles on Prolog, but there
are lots of ads about Prologs for small systems.

>- Bruce T. Smith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 1985 0853-EST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: dndobrin@mit-aphrodite (David N Dobrin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common-sense reasoning
-BODY-
About the request from arora@buffalo.

Don't forget about Bert Dreyfus's discussion of common-sense reasoning
and the problems it poses in principle for AI.  Still the best.

     Hubert L. Dreyfus.  What Computers Can't Do.  2nd ed., 1979.
                Harper&Row

                                        David Dobrin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 09:09:57-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: History of Ideas in Computer Science
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This was in
  response to a query about the history of ideas in computer science.]

If you are interested in doing research in the history of ideas in computer
science, you are going to not only want to search the computer science
literature but the history of science literature and the sociology of
science literature.  History of science is a growing field.  Berkeley is
strong in this area.  An example of the type of articles and journals
you might be interested in is the journal Sociology of the Sciences (this
is in the Green Library) which in 1982 has an article titled "Development
and Establishment in Artificial Intelligence".

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Mar 85 10:19:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Henry E. Lowood <PHYSICSLIB@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: History of ideas in computer science
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

It sounds to me like what you want is a general overview of the history
of computer science.  If that's the case, I would recommend:

Herman Goldstine,
        The computer from Pascal to Von Neumann
        TK7885.A564 in the Math Library and elsewhere on campus.

Or, for a far less technical approach:

Joel Shurkin,
        Engines of the mind.
        QA7617.S49 in Math, Green, etc.

It may interest you to know that the Stanford Libraries are starting up a
historical project to document specifically the history of science and
technology at Stanford and in the Silicon Valley since World War II.  This
will take many years, of course.

In fact, I'd appreciate online mail from anyone who might be interested
in contributing in some way to this project.

Henry Lowood
Bibliographer for History of Science and Technology Collections, SU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday,  4-Mar-85 20:53:48-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re :Wally
-BODY-
For all potential wallies, there is a manual for your edification !
       `How to be Wally' by Paul Manning, published in the U.K. by
Futura Books.
But what about the song `La Wally' in the French film, `Diva' ?

Gordon Joly
gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 85 13:08:26 mst
-FROM-
From: crs@LANL.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Y'alls
-BODY-
Actually, I think you will find, if you pursue it, that the "y'alls"
that you overheard is actually the possesive form of y'all (i.e. y'all's).
As in "Is that y'all's car?"

Charlie Sorsby
...!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 85 09:18 EST
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on y'all.
-BODY-
Just to add more fuel to the fire.  In the mountain regions of the Piedmont
(SC-NC), the locals use "y'all" for singular and "all y'all" for the
plural.  Really - I kid you not.

steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday,  6-Mar-85 15:53:15-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Youse - The Last Word
-BODY-
It seems that the term `youse' is not the plural of `you',
it is a form of address.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Mar 85 08:44:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Artificial Intelligence Report
-BODY-
Ted Markowitz recently asked about newsletters.  I have never
seen most of them.  I have seen a copy of The Artificial
Intelligence Report, however, and I've decided to pass
along, with permission, its description of previous issues.
This may be compared to the contents of some issues of
the Artificial Intelligence Reporter that Laurence Leff
described in AIList V3 N29.

The Artificial Intelligence Report that I have seen contains
10 pages of text (set in 9-inch by 3-inch columns of 12-point
type) along with several pages of publisher's messages and
administrative notes.  (This issue may have contained more
self-advertising than most since it was distributed in a mass
mailing to potential subscribers.)  The news portion described
past and current research at SRI International.

The following are the topics covered in back issues of The
Artificial Intelligence Report.  I'm told that back issues
are still available, but I don't know the price.


Premier Issue
The U.S. Pavilion at Tsukuba Japan -- it's theme: AI; The
Companies: Carnegie Group, Syntelligence; a list of new AI
companies; Foreign AI R&D.

Vol. 1,  No. 1,  January, 1984
Digital Equipment Corporation's new Artificial Intelligence
Technology Center plus a definition of two classic working
expert  systems developed for DEC at Carnegie-Mellon
University:  EXCON  and EXSEL;  An examination of GE's
DELTA/CATS-1 locomotive  maintenance system now being field
tested; Artificial  Intelligence research at Edinburgh
University;  An identification  of four AI companies:
Thinking Machines Corp., Inference, Corp.,  Data Base
Informatica (Italy) and Intelligenetics;  A list of
inexpensive AI titles.

Vol. 1,  No. 2,  February, 1984
The U.S.Department of Defense's AI goals:  The Defense
Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency's objectives;
AI activity in the U.S. Air Force, Army and Navy.

Vol. 1,  No. 3,  March, 1984
AI and the Personal Computer: Expert systems, natural
language,  LISP;  A look at Perceptronics, an AI company; AI
and the CIA.

Vol. 1,  No. 4,  April, 1984
Reviews of the U.S. National Science Foundation's
supercomputer  report, the System Development Foundation and
the Alvey Report:  Great Britain's strategy for meeting the
Fifth Generation  Computing Challenge; AI at Arthur D. Little
and at Sussex University.

Vol. 1,  No. 5,  May, 1984
Artificial Intelligence at the University of California at
Los  Angeles;  an update on the European Economic
Community's ESPRIT project; a look at two companies now
commercializing natural language understanding systems:
Artificial Intelligence Corporation and Frey Associates; AI
Titles; an evaluation of a number of robotics periodicals.

Vol. 1,  No. 6,  June, 1984
The AI Machines: LISP Machines/AI Workstations: The Xerox
1100,  LISP Machine Inc.'s LAMBDA, the PERQ Machine, the
Symbolics 3600;  AI Titles.

Vol. 1,  No. 7,  July, 1984
The Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation;
The  Robotics/Artificial Intelligence Database;
Syntelligence; AI as an Investment;  AI at FMC; AI Titles.

Vol. 1,  No. 8,  August, 1984
AI Companies: Teknowledge, The Carnegie Group; An
Established  Company's New AI Center: FMC; a new PROLOG
company: QUINTUS; AI at the University of Texas; Robotics
Titles.

Vol. 1,  No. 9,  September, 1984
AI at AT&T Bell Labs; French AI Companies including Cap
Gemini  Sogeti; Expert Systems Reviews; Robotics Reviews;
AAAI-84: A Summary.

Vol. 1,  No. 10,  October, 1984
Carnegie-Mellon University's Intelligent Systems Laboratory;
The  Companies: Symantec, an update, the Tektronix 4404
Machine,  Infologics of Sweden; Machine Translation: Where
is it? Where can  it go? AI Titles; Review of a new Expert
Systems Directory.

Vol. 1,  No. 11,  November, 1984
The Fifth Generation Computer:  Japan's FGCS Project, The
Fifth  Generation Challenge: ACM-84, Fifth Generation
Titles; Japanese  AI Companies: CSK and NEXSYS, AI at
Boeing.

Vol. 1,  No. 12,  December, 1984
AI at Texas Instruments; the MIT AI Lab; Commercializing
Speech  Recognition: Kurzweil, Inc.; Japan's ICOT
Conference; Alvey and  ICOT: A Cooperative Relationship.

Vol. 2, No. 1, January, 1985
SRI International:  The AI Center, The Robotics Laboratory,
The Advanced Information Technology Applications Center, The
Advanced Computer Systems Department, The Financial Expert
Systems Program, SRI's Expert System for the PC, The SRI AI
Consultants, SRI's AI Reports.

Vol. 2, No. 2, February, 1985
AI and the Personal Computer: the Word from Esther Dyson; The
New U.S. Air Force AI Consortium; The Companies:  Cognitive
Systems, Inc., the Knowledge Systems Center at Sperry, Inference
joins Lockheed; The Reports; Titles: an AI and Robotics Series,
a review of books on Expert Systems.

Vol. 2, No. 3, March, 1985
AI in Outer Space: NASA's AI Program; LISP on the PC: TLC LISP,
GCLISP; Expert Systems: the Number One Topic; Aboard Japanese
Ships; New Affiliations: at DEC, at Sumitomo.


This newsletter was the first one mentioned in AIList.  Since
that time, it has moved from Los Altos to:

    Artificial Intelligence Publications
    Suite Three
    3600 West Bayshore Road
    Palo Alto, CA  94303 - 4229
    U. S. A.
   (415) 424-1447

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Mar 85 18:34:06 EST
-FROM-
From: John <Bresina@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Structural Change Through Experience (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                       MACHINE LEARNING COLLOQUIUM

Date:           March 8th, Friday
Time:           11:00 am - 12:30 pm
Place:          Hill 423
Speaker:        Robert W. Lawler
Affliation:     GTE Laboratories, Inc.
Title:          STRUCTURAL CHANGE THROUGH EXPERIENCE

Drawing on data from an empirical study and computer based simulations, I will
explore some problems and tentative solutions arising from the issue of how
specific knowledge structures can change through interactions based on
particular experience.  The domain is Tictactoe.

A knowledge structure is here represented as having three parts: a Goal, a
sequence of actions for achieving the goal, and a set of constraints upon
execution of those actions (GAC).  Simulations played with such structures
lead to winning and losing games, which in turn leads to the generation of new
structures as modifications of the current GACs.  Learning varies with the
flexibility of the opponent's play.  Subject to certain limitations, I explore
completely certain classes of strategic play.  The most interesting result is
a characterization of play against a moderately flexible opponent, through
which the sequences of derivation of individual GACs can be seen in overview
as folding together into a richly connected network of generability.  The
network, summarizing the learnability of strategies, varies with the
flexability of the opponent.

Current work on experience motivated analogy and the inception of multi-role
and interiorized play will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Mar 85 13:46:39-PST
-FROM-
From: Paul Rosenbloom <ROSENBLOOM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New cs/psych course -- Cognitive Architecture
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following new spring course was inadvertantly omitted from the
spring time schedule.  The course is intended for graduate students
and advanced undergraduates in both psychology and computer science.

                            COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE

An  examination  of  the issues involved in designing a cognitive architecture.
Topics include the role of the architecture in the construction  of  a  general
artificially-intelligent  system, the role of the architecture as a large-scale
psychological model, existing (and proposed) cognitive architectures,  and  the
evaluation  of  architectures.   Prerequisites: Advanced undergraduate standing
and either Psychology 106, Computer Science 223, or equivalent experience.

Course Number: Psych 223/CS 325
Times: MW 10:00 - 11:15, Jordan 100
Units: 3
Instructor: Paul Rosenbloom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
32
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 10 Mar 85 21:40:24 EST
-FROM-
From: stacey (martin stacey) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Australasia
-BODY-
        I'd like to find out who is doing what sorts of AI and
cognitive science in Australia and New Zealand. If you are working
in Australia or New Zealand, or know of people doing AI there, please
send me pointers (names and departments).
        Thanks in advance,
                                        Martin Stacey
                                        stacey@cmu-psy-a.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 85 17:59:00 est
-FROM-
From: bellcore!walker@Berkeley (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-87 Election and Site Selection
-BODY-
IJCAI-87 Officer Election and Site Selection

The Trustees of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial
Intelligence, Inc. are pleased to announce that Alan Bundy, University
of Edinburgh, will be Conference Chair for IJCAI-87; John McDermott,
Carnegie-Mellon University, will be Program Chair; and Milan will be
the site, with Marco Somalvico of the University of Milan being
responsible for Local Arrangements.  The conference will be held
23-29 August 1987 (Sunday through Saturday).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 85 18:01:38 est
-FROM-
From: bellcore!walker@Berkeley (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proposals solicited for sites for IJCAI-89
-BODY-
The site for IJCAI-89 will be selected at the IJCAI-85 in Los Angeles
this summer (18-24 August).  Proposals--for North American locations
only (in accordance with the IJCAI practice of alternating between
North America and other parts of the world; IJCAI-87 will be held in
Milan, Italy)--should be sent by 1 August 1985 to Don Walker, IJCAII
Secretary-Treasurer, Bell Communications Research, 435 South Street,
Morristown, NJ 07960.  Note that AAAI will cosponsor the conference
and that the AAAI Office will coordinate local arrangements activities
and support the local committee.

Proposals should respond to the following criteria, which were developed
by the IJCAII Trustees to govern site selection:

1. Local AI Group Support: strength of local AI activity; quality and
breadth of the proposed local arrangements group; potential beneficial
impact of an IJCAI on local activity.

2. Site Accessibility: ease of access for the international AI community
via air and train transportation; convenient access to social centers.

3. Conference Facilities: ability to accommodate 5,000-10,000 people,
with a hall for plenary sessions that can hold the full number and 5-6
rooms for 1,000-2,000 each.

4. Residences and Catering: a range of accommodations from dormitories
to good quality hotels in sufficient quantities and proximity to the
conference site; catering services for meals, breaks, banquets, and
receptions are required.

5. Site Attractiveness: pleasantness of surrounding environment; local
social and cultural attractions for attendees and families.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Mar 85 16:13:00 EST
-FROM-
From: psotka@ari-hq1
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <psotka@ari-hq1>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Research on ICAI at ARI
-BODY-
The Army Research Institute has begun a program of research on
intelligent tutoring systems for application to Army training and
instruction in schools and in the field.  The Army has an enormous
need for high quality training in diverse technical fields --
electronics, vehicle mechanics, radar, aviation -- as well as basic
cognitive skills and decision support systems. The initial research
focus is on Intelligent Computer Aided Instruction and related topics
(such as learning, knowledge representation, explanation systems,
mental models, natural language, and direct manipulation interfaces,
reactive environments, inspectable simulations, etc.). The
computational environment is well supported with a variety of micros
(Macs & PC_ATs) as well as 3 Xerox 1108s, 1 1100, and 2 Vaxes.
Currently four professionals (cognitive science, computer science, and
psychology) have sole access to the 4 Lisp machines.  A significant
proportion of time is also spent on developing and monitoring research
contracts, making presentations to Army groups, and discussing needs
and the possibility of applying artificial intelligence techniques and
tools to the various problems Army schools and institutions have
defined.  Anyone interested in obtaining more information about these
activities is encouraged to call, or send mail or Arpanet to:

Joseph Psotka,
Army Research Institute
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, Va.  22333-5600

(202)274-5540/5565

Psotka@ARI-HQ1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Mar 85 21:27:33-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Latest Math & CS Library "New Reports List" posted on-line.
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.
         This is a reminder that the online new reports list
         is a gold mine of computer science citations -- you
         just have to apply your own screening criteria to
         separate the gold from the dross.  -- KIL]

The latest Math & Computer Science Library "New Reports List" has been
posted on-line.  The file is:

               <LIBRARY>NEWTRS at SCORE
               <LIBRARY>NEWTRS at SIERRA
               NEWTRS[LIB,DOC] at SAIL
               <CSD-REPORTS>NEWTRS at SUMEX
               <CSM.LIBRARIAN>NEWTRS at TURING.


In case you miss a reports list, the old lists are being copied to

               <LIBRARY>OLDTRS at SCORE
               <LIBRARY>OLDTRS at SIERRA
               <CSM.LIBRARIAN>OLDTRS at TURING

where they will be saved for about six months.  [...]

The library receives technical reports from over a hundred universities
and other institutions.  The current batch includes - among others -
reports from:


      Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science.
      General Motors Corporation. Research Laboratories. Computer Science
        Department.
      Mathematisch Centrum. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.
      Rutgers. Department of Computer Science.
      Rutgers. Laboratory for Computer Science Research.
      Universitaet Hamburg. Fachbereich Informatik.
      U.K. National Physical Laboratory. Division of Information Technology
        and Computing.
      University of Arizona. Department of Computer Science.
      University of California, Berkeley. Operations Research Center.
      University of Edinburgh. Department of Artificial Intelligence.
      University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science.
      University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Department of Computer
        Science.
      University of Saskatchewan. Department of Computational Science.
      University of Waterloo. Department of Computer Science.
      University of Wisconsin, Madison. Computer Sciences Department.

                                        - Richard Manuck
                                          Math & Computer Science Library
                                          Building 380 - 4th Floor
                                          LIBRARY at SCORE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Mar 1985 08:36-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Electronics Week, February 25, 1985

Hewlett Packard will be donating $50,000,000 worth of hardware and
software to various universities.  These systems will be HP 9000 series
systems running HPRL.  HPRL
  - rule based reasoning systems and representational languages
  - can call C, Fortran and Pascal
  - runs on HP's portable, the Integral Personal Computer
  - applications have been written in this system for semiconductor
         fabrication, troubleshooting, office autoamtion, and natural
         language understanding
  - runs under UNIX


Electronic News, March 4, 1985 Volume 31 No. 1539 Page 1

As you may know, Texas Instruments's Explorer was based on the NuMachine
bus and machine design.  They were selling a 68010 based version of this
as a high-end engineering workstation.  They are not pursuiing that
market.  This does not effect its operations in selling the TI Explorer
which is based on the same bus.  They are also negotiating to sell
nonexclusive rights to the workstation to Lisp Machine.


IEEE Software March 1985 Page 101

Reprint of an article printed in the New York Times on efforts to use
Aymara, an ancient Peruvian Indian language, as an aid in natural
language translation efforts.


EDN Career News January 1985, page 1
Artificial Intelligence and the Military


ComputerWorld Page 47 February 18, 1985
"Semantics Muddling AI Issues"


International Journal of Man Machine Studies Volume 21 No 3 Sept 1984

An Economical Approach to Modeling Speech Recognition Accuracy 191

An Analysis of Formal Logic as Inference Method in Expert System 213

Users and Experts in the Document Retrieval System Model 245

An Experimental Expert System for Genetics 249


Angewandte Informatik No 11 Nov 84
Design of a Corporate Know-how Database 471


Electronics Week Volume 57 No 36
AI Transforms CAD/CAM to CIM J. R. Lineback


IEEE PAMI Volume 6, Number 6 November 84
Parallel Branch and Bound Formulations for AND/OR Tree Search 768


Computer Aided Design Volume 16 no 5 1985

Wirewrap Design Aid written in Prolog 249

Two algorithms for three-layer channel routing 264


Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
NATO Advanced SND/ES INSTITUTES, Series F
Computer and System Sciences Volume 11
Springer-Verlag 693 pages $62.50


Advances in Computer Vision and Image Processing Volume 1
Image Reconstruction from Incomplete Observations
T. S. Huang JAI Press $52.50


Technology Review Volume 88 No 1 January 85

Automated Factory-Vision and Reality
J. Blumenthal, J. Dray pp 28

The Automated Factory-View from Shop Floor
H. Shaiken pp 16


Research and Development Volume 26 No 10 October 1984
Artificial Perception gives super vision 142


Nauchno-Tekhinicheskaya Informatsiya
Seriya II - Informatsionnye Protsessy I Sistemy Volume 11 1984

Importance of the Expert Information System Developing in Informatics
R. S. Gilyarevskii 1

Some Semantic and Syntax Problems of the PSM Method of Automatic
Hypothesis Outcome O. M. Anshakov, D. P. Skvortsov, J. K. Finn 5

Nonheritibility of Empirical Contradicitons in DSM-methods and
Non-Monotonic Logic
M. I. Zabezhailo 14

Program Realization of Automatic Hypothesis Outcomes of DSM Methods
with Non-Single Element Criterion Sites
M. A. Mikheenkova, V. V. Avidon, S. A. Sukhanova


J. Computer System Science 29 (1984) no 1 8-35
Plaisted, David "Complete Problems in the first-order predicate
calculus"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday,  6-Mar-85 12:18:03-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI-Aims
-BODY-
The goal of AI research seems, to me, to be to produce a `machine'
that will satisfy the Turing criterion. This is a total waste of
time and effort.
We are going through the second industrial revolution. (Wo)man's
(ie the human race's) muscle power was extended and (s)he is now
extending the  mind by the use of computer as a  tool (cf expert
systems). But the power of this revolution lies in the extension
of the thinking process and not its paltrey imitation of the mind
(cf my "chalk and cheese" entry on parallel thought processes).

Gordon Joly (with acknowledgment to Richard Winter).

gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Mar 1985  14:04 EST (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Japanese Research Environment (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Revolving Seminar
March 12, 1985      4:00pm      8th floor playroom

Monica Strauss

Basic Research in Computer Science:
a perspective on the Japanese environment


This talk considers the structure of the computer science community in
Japan.  I focus on a central case: the Electrotechnical Laboratory (ETL), a
government research lab under the Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI).  I contrast the apparent rigidity of the research
environment imposed by the formal structure with the flexibility of
informal practices.  In particular, I consider (1) the importance of
personal contacts in interactions with outside organizations, (2) informal
solutions to budgeting problems, (3) research interactions with industry.
My master's thesis in the Japan Science and Technology Program at MIT is a
comparative case study of MIT and ETL.  As an AI researcher, my purpose is
to gain a clear understanding of the conditions, supports, and pitfalls of
research interactions bridging the Japanese and American research
communities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Mar 85 12:21:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Daniel.Rehak@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Synthesis In Design (CMU)
-BODY-
                         DESIGN RESEARCH CENTER
                            PANEL DISCUSSION


       SYNTHESIS IN DESIGN: CHALLENGES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
                     AND MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING

    MODERATOR:  Ignacio Grossmann, Chemical Engineering
    SPEAKERS:   Mary Lou Maher, Civil Engineering
                Gary Powers, Chemical Engineering
                Sarosh Talukdar, Intelligent Design Lab, DRC
                Donald Thomas, Electrical and Computer Engineering


    DATE: Monday, March 11, 1985
    TIME: 1:30 - 3:00 PM
    PLACE: Porter Hall 123B


   Synthesis is one of the most important steps in design since it deals
with the problem on how to select and interconnect the components for
integrating a large scale system in an optimal or near optimal manner.
The major challenge for research in this area lies in the development of
systematic strategies and tools that can not only cope effectively with
large combinatorial problems, but that can also produce solutions that
are both innovative and of high quality. This seminar will present an
overview on the type of synthesis problems that arise in several engineering
disciplines and the approaches that have been used to tackle these problems.
The main objective in holding this seminar will be to examine the question
as to what extent common methodologies and tools can be shared among the
various engineering fields for the systematic synthesis of systems. Another
important objective will be to examine the scope and limitations that knowlege
based systems and algorithmic optimization methods have in solving these type
of problems. Specific examples on several synthesis applications will be
given.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 85 14:49:36 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Storing LISP Structures in a Database (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the SRI-AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  [...]

  Tues., Mar. 12 Computer Science Seminar
  10:00 A.M.  STORING LISP STRUCTURES IN A DATABASE
  2C-012      The paging problems that LISP programs with large
            knowledge bases incur together with the features
            databases provide, such as concurrency control and
            crash recovery, make extending LISP to allow
            persistent data desirable.  Rather than building a
            special purpose filing system, an interface to
            commercial INGRES was constructed.  Polymnia is a
            package that has been designed, partially
            implemented, and tested on a sizable LISP program
            (PHRAN).  The speed with which PHRAN executes is
            faster with a persistent knowledge base than with a
            virtual memory knowledge base when the manner of
            knowledge base storage is the only differing factor.

            M. Butler, University of California at Berkeley
            Host:  W. Plouffe (PLOUFFE@IBM-SJ)

  Visitors, please arrive 15 minutes early.  IBM is located on U.S.
  101, about 7 miles south of Interstate 280.  Exit at Monterey Road
  (82) and turn right if you took 101 south (left for 101 north.)
  Continue straight, ignoring the sign for 82, then follow signs for
  Cottle Road.  The Research Laboratory is IBM Building 028.
  For more detailed directions, please phone the Research Lab
  receptionist at (408) 256-3028.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
33
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Mar 85 10:20:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hungal
-BODY-
Gordon Cook of Delta Data Systems would like some information about
the Hungal dialect of Korea.  In particular, he would like to know
whether any form of automated translation system has ever been
written for this dialect.

Please reply to 200%NJIT-EIES.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS, or call Gordon at
(215) 322-5400 x258 if you have any leads.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 09:41:16 pst
-FROM-
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems vs "Conventional" Programming
-BODY-
I have been involved for two years in a project to apply an existing
expert system development tool to a particular problem that we
have to solve.  In this time, starting from scratch, as far as AI and
expert systems are considered, I have developed opinions about the advantages
(and disadvantages) of expert systems, as opposed to traditional programming
methods.  I would like to hear from people who feel they have qualified
comments regarding this issue.

In preface to a discussion I'd like to provide a few comments based on my
observations and experience.

Often people outside the field of AI see expert systems as some new kind
of magic.  In fact it's not new magic or old magic but rather an area of
computer science that one might say provides styles or methods of programming
that prove useful in tackling certain types of problems.


The most valid two claims of advantages of expert systems that I see are:

  1) Expert systems provide cost efficient development for software develop-
     ments that will undergo an intensely iterative, or test/modify cycle
     (ie the exact procedure for problem solution, the algorithm, cannot
     be stated in detail and with confidence prior to initiating software
     development).

     The main basis of this is held to be a structured framework consisting
     of partitioned control, domain knowledge (procedural), and global data
     base (which includes domain factual or declarative knowledge).  It is
     the resulting uniformity and modularity that provide the foundation for
     an iterative development cycle.

  2) Expert systems, by way of recorded production rule firings, which are
     often used, provide for explanation of the "reasoning process" used to
     generate the solution.  This will be of value only if the end user will
     benefit from explanation, or if system development is speeded by expla-
     nation as opposed to the sole use of debug tools or methods that are
     used in non-expert-system developments.

Again, the degree of benefit would vary according to the characteristics of
the particular application, and the benefit increases for those problems that
will require an intensive iterative type of development.  Note that point 1
above points to expert systems as a development tool for the right kinds of
problems.


Some of the other claimed benefits of expert systems seem less supported to
me.  For example, I don't see that reasoning with uncertainty must be unique
to an expert system approach.  Another point, if "symbolic computation" (as
opposed to number crunching) is a valid claim it appears to me that its basis
must be in the dynamic memory allocation and list processing capabilities of
Lisp and not neccessarily in an expert system approach.


Finally, since the question of advantages of expert systems always comes up,
are there any good studies with hard numbers that can be referred to?  For
example, are there any papers that report on a case where conventional and
expert systems approaches were both used on an actual problem and comparisons
made in order to substantiate the advantages (eg show that "rapid proto-
typing" saves development time)?  Are there any papers that provide a sound,
and convincing basis for the virtues of expert systems, that could be given
to non-AI persons?


To summarize the question, what advantages (or disadvantages) do expert
systems provide over conventional software approaches. And note, I want to
limit the discussion to expert systems and not address the whole field of AI.


Responses can go to the net, AILIST, and/or to myself.


    Curt Goodhart   (goodhart@nosc -- on the ARPANET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 1985 1159-PST
-FROM-
From: PRICE@USC-ECLC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Australasia
-BODY-
For a 30 page report on AI in Australasia contact:

        DEBENHAM - AIIA
        Computing Sciences
        N S W I T
        Box 123 Broadway
        NSW 2007
        Australia

AIIA (Artificial Intelligence in Australia) publishes a report annually.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 85 10:47:27 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: "Bruce Hamilton.OsbuSouth"@XEROX.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Hamilton.OsbuSouth@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: History of Ideas in Computer Science
-BODY-

I haven't been on the list for a while, but I saw V3 #31 and wondered if
anyone had mentioned the collection

Fritz Machlup and Una Mansfield, Eds., "The Study of Information:
Interdisciplinary Messages", Wiley, 1983, in particular Section 3,
"Intellectual Issues in the History of Artificial Intelligence", by
Allen Newell, with responses by Margaret A. Boden, Avron Barr, Douglas
R. Hofstadter, and Allen Newell.

>-Bruce

[Nope. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85  0:05:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Frank Ritter <ritter@bbn-labs-b>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: response to gJolly
-BODY-
     From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
     Subject: AI-Aims

     The goal of AI research seems, to me, to be to produce a `machine'
     that will satisfy the Turing criterion. This is a total waste of
     time and effort.  ...


[old zen motto: "if you want to get someplace, you've got to give up
wanting to get to that place"]

Gordon is right in his statement that the power of this revolution lies
in the extension of the thinking process. There are obviously new
ways to think, and new ways to add leverage to man's current cognitive
powers.  Whether this intelligence is best done in a brute force manner,
or modelled after human thinking processes is still an open question.
The basics of thought are still very much a research issue.
Which is better is a silly question until we are able to even define
such terms.
Just as man had to study birds, and was able to derive the underlying
mechanism of flight, and then adapt it to the tools and materials
at hand, man must currently study the only animal that thinks
in order to derive the underlying principles there also.  The best
way to study the mind is to hypothesis a theory and test it. And in the
process of doing that, insight just might emerge on what powers we have,
how they work, and how to best augment them, and thus give Gordon the
answers he seeks.

Frank Ritter (ritter@bbn-labs-b)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 11:44:13-CST
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak Jr. <CS.NOVAK@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI Member Statistics
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The membership statistics of the American Association for Artificial
Intelligence provide an interesting picture of where the AI people are:

Calif.    1431          Canada         200
Mass.      709          U. K.          146
Texas      668          Japan           84
New York   451          W. Germany      70
Virginia   317          Australia       34
Penn.      293          France          29
Maryland   278
New Jersey 258          Foreign total:  765
Illinois   173

Total Membership: 7094  [of which 4145 are listed in the directory. -- KIL]

Texas is a strong third, and nearly as big as all foreign countries combined.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 1985 01:04:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Perry W. Thorndyke <THORNDYKE@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News - FMC and Teknowledge
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        FMC ANNOUNCES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VENTURE WITH TEKNOWLEDGE


SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, March 12, 1985 -- FMC Corporation today
announced that it has entered into a joint venture with Teknowledge,
Inc. in the area of artificial intelligence software development.  FMC
has acquired approximately 11% of Teknowledge, Inc.  In addition, the
companies have entered into a "strategic affiliation". [...]

Peter E. Weber, Director of Corporate Research and Development at FMC, said the
investment was a key element in FMC's plan to build a premier corporate
capability in artificial intelligence. [...]

Teknowledge will collaborate with FMC's Artificial Intelligence Center, part of
the company's corporate R&D laboratory in Santa Clara, California, to develop
generic software tools. [...]

One of the initial joint projects will develop a tool for use in building
expert systems for real-time process control.  This tool could be used to
control such diverse systems as autonomous military vehicles or mineral
refining plants.  Another project will develop a tool for use in designing
complex configurations of parts into a final product.  This tool could be used
in applications such as product configuration (as in R1/XCON), knowledge-based
CAD/CAM, or planning the steps in a manufacturing process for a metal part.

The Artificial Intelligence Center at FMC, the focal point for the company's AI
activities, conducts basic research in the areas of knowledge systems,
real-time heuristic control, human-machine interfaces, computer-based
instruction, intelligent robotics, and vision.  The Center also undertakes
leading-edge applied research focused on the development of software products
for internal use or incorporation into FMC product lines. [...]


Perry W. Thorndyke
FMC Corporation
1185 Coleman Avenue, Box 580
Santa Clara, CA 95052
(408) 289-3112

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Mar 1985 20:36-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Baldwin, J. F. and Zhou, S. Q. A fuzzy relational inference language.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 14 (1984) no 2 155-174

GWAI 83 (Dassel, 1983) Informatik-Fachber 76 Springer, Berlin New York
1983 (It appears that some or all of these items may be in German):

Dilger, Werner and Janson, Agnes
Unification graphs for intelligent backtracking in deduction symbols

Eder, Elmar Properties of substitutions and unifications

Elsinger, N. A technical note on splitting and clausal normal form
algorithms

Horster, Patrick J. Complete reduction systems

Ohlbach, Hans Jurgen A rule-based method of proof using clausal graphs

Habel, Christopher Logical systems and representation problems


Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat Inst. Steklov 137(1984) 80-86
Linear-time recognition of isomorphism of tree-like images (Russian
with English summary) by A. N. Grigor'eva


International J. Comput. Inform. Sci 13(1984) no1
H. R. Lu, Inferability of context-free programmed gammars.


Electron. Comm Japan 67 (1984) no 6 10-17
An extended Fisher criterion for feature extraction--Malina's method
and its problems.


Studies aand Research in Data Processing Masson, Paris 1984 252 pp
Jean-Claude Simon, Pattern Recognition by algorithms.


Inform. Process. Lett 1984 no 1 41-46
P. A. Subrahmanyam, "On embedding functions in logic"


Pattern Recogniton 17 (1984) no 3 331-337
Dean M. Young, Patrick Odell A formulation and comparison of two linear
feature selection techniques applicable to statistical classification


Engineering Cybernetics 21 (1983) no 4 85-92
An information approach to estimation of the usefulness of features in
statistical pattern recognition


RAIRO Inform. Theor 18 (1984) no 2 161-170
Luis Farlinas del Cerro
A resolution principle in modal logic.


AT&T Bell Labs Tech J 63 (1984) no 7 1213-1243
B. H. Juang.  On the hidden Markov model and dynamic time warping for
speech recognition -- a unified view


Engineering Cybernetics 21 (1983) no 4 1-11 (1984)
M. I. Sudelkin Search for solutions using Knowledge


Simulation Volume 44 No 1 Jan 1985
Artificial Intelligence Topics at IBM 33


Computer Design Volume 24 No 1 Jan85
Machine Vision Technology is Coming of Age but is not here yet 64
Symbolic Processor Aids Design of Complex Chips 147
Lisp Workstation brings AI power to Users desk 155


Electronics Week Vol 58 No 2 Jan 7 85
Expert System uses AI for Natural Sound


Computer Languages Volume 9 No 3/4 161-182
Huhu: The Hebrew University Hebrew Understander

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85 14:41:04 pst
-FROM-
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Jokes on rape
-BODY-

Some things are immoral, period.  Rape is one of them, and thankfully
there is still an overwhelming consensus on that (unlike shifts in our
society's view on other issues).  In any case, consensus or not, I'd
like to request that such material not be submitted to the net, and if
it is submitted it should be eliminated by the mail reviewer should he
or she see it.  Those who have similar feelings should definitely
speak up.  Though there is the tendency to fear being labeled a prude,
silence only gives the appearance that there is no opposition or other
side, and consequences will follow.  For example, if all the decent
people stay out of politics, by default the government will be run by
indecent people, and we can not complain, indeed we can only expect
the quality of our government to reflect this indecency.

[I apologize to all who were offended by the posting.  I have received
a few messages on each side of the issue, but it seems clear that
Poly Nomial and Curly Pi should have been left to make their own way
in the world without the help of AIList.  The policy of this list is
to avoid "ethnic" humor or any form of wit at the expense of individuals
or sensitive groups.  There may have been a few lapses, but I'll try to
enforce the policy strictly in the future.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 17:24:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cheating Husbands and Other Stories (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This AFLB talk might interest AI and systems people as well. - Andrei


3/14/85 - Yoram Moses(Stanford)

                 Cheating Husbands and Other Stories:
         A Case Study of Knowledge, Action, and Communication

We present variants of the cheating husbands puzzle in order to illustrate
the subtle relationship between knowledge and action in a distributed
environment. We examine the state of knowledge of a message that
a group of wives achieves as a function of how the message is communicated.
We analyze how the states of knowledge arising in the different circumstances
may affect the wives' ability to act and the success of their actions in
achieving their stated goals.

This will be a recreational AFLB. This work is joint with Danny Dolev of
the Hebrew University and Joe Halpern of IBM San Jose.

***** Time and place: March 14, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******

[AIList does not, of course, endorse activities of cheating husbands. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 12 Mar 85 11:26:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Limits of Calculative Rationality (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                           CSLI COLLOQUIUM

Speaker:  Hubert Dreyfus
          University of California, Berkeley

Title:    From Socrates to Expert Systems:  The Limits of Calculative
          Rationality.

Time and Place:  March 14, 1985, 4:15, Redwood Hall, rm. G-19

Abstract: An examination of the general epistemological assumptions of
artificial intelligence with special reference to recent work in the
development of expert systems.  I will argue that expert systems are
limited because of a failure to recognize the real character of expert
intuitive understanding.  Expertise is acquired in a five-step
process; only the first of which uses representations involving
objective features and strict rules.  A review of the successes and
failures of various specific expert systems confirms this analysis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
34
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 14 Mar 85 12:55:07 EST
-FROM-
From: jaffe (elliot jaffe) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Universities and AI
-BODY-
About 4 months ago on AILIST I remember a discussion about which universities
were doing AI work and a general listing was given.

1) Can I get a copy of that set of lists?

2) Does anybody have any new information to enter?

Elliot Jaffe
Jaffe@CMU-PSY-A.ARPA

[I'll send Elliot a copy of the list of sites receiving AIList.
See also the November 1983 issue of IEEE Spectrum; it misses
some sites -- SRI, for example -- but the chart of academic and
nonacademic sites on pp. 59-68 is impressive.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Mar 85 08:14 PST
-FROM-
From: Kay.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hangul
-BODY-
The word "Hangul" (not "Hungal") may refer to a dialect, but that is not
its main use.  It is the name of the wonderfully ingenious writing
system that Korean has, named after the emperor who invented it.  The
system is interpretable both phonemically and syllabically and is a gem
of design.  There are the same number of good automated translation
systems for this as for every other natural language, namely none.

>-Martin Kay.


[The last IEEE Computer featured oriental text entry systems; I
remember seeing Korean discussed, so perhaps there are some
appropriate references.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 08:31:31 pst
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A place for everything
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I just received volume 1, number 1 of The Journal for the Integrated
Study of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology.
It is described as "a quarterly journal published by Communication and
Cognition-AI at the State University of Ghent, Blandijnberg 2,
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium."

I imagine they will soon tire of allusions to Browning's "How They Brought
the Good News from Ghent to Aix," if they haven't already.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Mar 85 15:30:43 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim <WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Policy on Humor
-BODY-

        [...The policy of this list is to avoid "ethnic" humor or any form of
        wit at the expense of individuals or sensitive groups.  There may
        have been a few lapses, but I'll try to enforce the policy strictly
        in the future.  -- KIL]

   Unfortunately, if you really intend to stick strictly to this policy,
I'm afraid you will end up posting no humor at all, as it seems there are
very few statements and even fewer jokes which no group finds offensive.
Do you realize that, according to this policy, you cannot publish any of
the various humorous versions of Little Red Riding Hood?

   I mourn the demise of humor on AIList.


   Twinerik

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 16:31:33 pst
-FROM-
From: newton@cit-vax (Mike Newton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rape and humor
-BODY-

Though rape is a barbaric act, censorship is a far worse crime for it
affects so many more.  Do the people who object so much about the "polly
nomial" story complain so loudly w.r.t. jokes about murder, or, worse,
war?

There is a fundamental difference between an act and writing about an act.
If jokes about a subject are banned, how long is it before satire about
the same subject is banned?  Then there is only a small step fiction is
banned.  Next comes fact, research...

mike

ps: I realize that the above is a viewpoint some will find objectionable.
Arguments about my first sentence had better be convincing:  Though due to
my sex it would be hard to rape me, I have been shot, mugged and robbed --
one of these incidents still bothers me noticeably -- yet I do NOT think
that jokes about these subjects should be censored.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 11:11:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: in defense of humor
-BODY-
I am all for decent people expressing opinions and running the
government, but being oversensitive can take the fun out of life.
Any reasonable definition of rape should include the fact that
the raper and rapee are human or at least members of the
animal kingdom.  I find it hard to be offended when polynomials
are raped, however.  We all know mathematical/computer language
is colorful, but using a verb that would be in poor taste when
applied to humans does not mean its in poor taste when applied
to abstract data structures.  For example, killing a line in
your editor is not considered murder.

While the story in question did say Polly Nomial was a
"paragon of womanly virtue", it never said she was a woman
or was human, so one can easily assume she is a polynomial.
The story implies that Curly Pi is a "common fraction" which
is consistent with these characters being abstract mathematical
being.  This story was good humor, though admittedly non-mathematicians
might not appreciate it and transfer it into a human domain and
be offended.  I personally enjoyed getting the chance to read it.

Striking a blow for more humor and fun in life,
David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 12 Mar 85 13:26:45-EST
-FROM-
From: Bob Hall <RJH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Jokes RESULTS
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


     Q.  "What do you get when you cross an expert system with an
          orangutan?"

     A.  "Another Harry Reasoner."

Yes folks, that's it, the winner of the first annual AI Jokes Contest.
The winner has been awarded his lovely blue and gold Cal T-shirt.

We got many entries (single digits, though), which were much appreciated.
Highlights follow.  The names have been withheld just in case the authors
are sensitive about being associated with their entries.  (Anyone who
wants explicit credit should send me mail.)

Consensus honorable mentions:

     Q.  "What did the Apple 5e say when a human fell on it?"

     A.  "Ureka! (sic)  I've discovered gravity!"



     Q.  "How many expert systems does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

     A.  "If they're so smart, why don't they know?"


*******************************************************************
Now that you've got a feel for the competition, ANNOUNCING

         AI JOKES II: THE WRATH OF CONS

Send your entry for the next, bigger, better AI Jokes Contest to
either me (rjh%mit-oz@mit-mc) or US mail directly to

   AI JOKES II: THE WRATH OF CONS
   1717 Allston Way
   Berkeley, CA 94703

Terms are the same: if yours is the funniest, as judged by an impartial
panel of natural intelligences, you win your choice of a T-shirt from
one of the following schools:

U.C. Berkeley
Cal State, Hayward
Chabot College, Hayward
MIT
Harvard
Leland Stanford Junior College
Doug Flutie's alma mater

Enter Now!! (Include shirt size and school preference)
*******************************************************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 March 1985 0512-EST
-FROM-
From: Jeff Shrager@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Security the MIT way
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

If you have access to MIT-OZ, try sending a message to their operator
from a not-logged-in task.  In order to handle dial-in randoms who tend
to do operator sends (and used to get no reply) they've now piped the
operator's message buffer through an Eliza system, which proceeds to
"analyze" the luser's problems.  Hack Hack.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Mar 85 08:57:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Political/Mathematical Humor
-BODY-
From a WORKS message by Greg Kuperberg (harvard!talcott!gjk or
talcott!gjk@topaz):

"2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Feb 85 14:13:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Steven Tepper <greep@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Found: right parens
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the Stanford AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I found a sequence of right parentheses lying around on the Ethernet.
They look like they might have fallen off the end of somebody's Lisp program.
If you lost some and think these might be yours, send me a message identifying
them.

Also, has anyone seen a matched pair of asterisks in Gacha 10?  I can get
new ones, but this particular pair had sentimental value.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Feb 85 15:31:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Gustavo Fernandez <FERNANDEZ@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Found: right parens
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the Stanford AI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Sorry, I have not seen your asterisks, but please! Does anyone know where
the daily bit buckets are stored? I lost some data Thusday night by
doing one too many left shift on a program I was writing on SCORE and
I was wondering whether I might be in some way able to recover the bit
strings. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
                                                        Gus Fernandez
                                                        FERNANDEZ@SCORE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 85 17:57:17 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Graduate Student Lunch *SEMINAR*
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Place: *THIRD FLOOR THEORY PLAYROOM*
Date: Friday, March 8
Time: 12 Noon
Hosts: Isaac Kohane and Mike Wellman

               COMPUTER AIDED CONCEPTUAL ART
                  REVOLTING SEMINAR SERIES
                          presents

         GREEDY ALGORITHMS FOR REALLY HARD PROBLEMS

                       Mike Generous
                        Penny Weise
                       Dahlia Fulisch

Perhaps the best known greedy algorithm is Kruskal's Minimum
Spanning Tree algorithm.  The concept of "greedy algorithm"
is here generalized to provide a framework in which any
problem can be solved with bounded error in constant time.
The simplest such algorithm is a stupefyingly
straightforward algorithm for finding the maximum of a list
of numbers: take the maximum of the first two elements of
the list.  The bounded error arises from the provability of
the correctness criterion "We could have done worse!".  The
Satisfiability problem for the predicate calculus is solved
trivially, because we have shown conclusively elsewhere that
we are Satisfied with predicate calculus.  The framework
applies also to meta-problem solving (i.e. "What problem
should we sic the greedy algorithm on next"), as we will
demonstrate by applying it to the problem of generating
grant proposals.  If there is time, we will give other
examples involving Single-State Automata (Moronotrons) and
Extremist Graph Theory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 16:42:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Nonexistent Objects and Fiction (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                           COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT
                      Graduate Seminar - Philosophy
          ``Nonexistent Objects and the Semantics of Fiction''
                          Edward N. Zalta, CSLI

      The problem of how it is we can think about and tell stories about
   what does not exist is one of the foremost problems in the study of
   intentionality.  We'll begin by asking what an analysis of fiction,
   and stories in general, ought to do, and then quickly review the
   problems facing the semantic analysis of sentences about nonexistent
   objects developed by Meinong, Russell, Quine, and the free logicians.
   We then turn to a careful presentation of both Terence Parsons'
   neo-Meinongian views (developed in his book: Nonexistent Objects) and
   my own, which has a Meinongian flavor. There will be a comparison of
   how the language and logic of these theories represent the meaning of
   English sentences about nonexistents.  Then we shall ask whether these
   theories provide a better representation, and do a better job of
   analyzing fiction in general, than some current alternatives, some of
   which do without nonexistents (Plantinga, Searle, Fine, Lewis) and
   some of which appeal to some sort of abstract objects (Kripke, van
   Inwagen, Wolterstorff).  We'll conclude the course with a brief
   examination of how these axiomatized theories fit into a larger
   picture of the semantics of language and intensionality.

      The first meeting of this seminar will be held in the Venture Hall
   trailers conference room, Tuesday April 2, at 1:15.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Mar 85 17:04:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based Software Development at Kestrel (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:        Friday, March 15, 1985
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

SPEAKER:     Douglas R. Smith, Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

ABSTRACT:    KNOWLEDGE-BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AT KESTREL INSTITUTE

Kestrel Institute is a non-profit organization with a two-fold
purpose:

    Research and graduate education in computer science.
    Its main research goal is the formalization and incremental
    automation of software development.

Towards this goal,  we carry  out research  in such  areas as  machine
intelligence,    very-high-level    languages,    algorithm    design,
transformation  and  synthesis,   software  project  management,   and
knowledge-base programming environments.

I'll present an overview  of current and  planned research at  Kestrel
Institute  and  describe  our  experience  with  the  DSE  system,   a
knowledge-base programming environment  in routine use.   The bulk  of
the talk will examine two research themes at Kestrel:

    Knowledge compilation and,
    The use of schemes in program synthesis.

Knowledge compilation involves transforming declarative knowledge plus
directions for its useage into efficient procedural form.  The uses of
program  schemes  and  strategies   for  instantiating  them   include
knowledge   compilation   and   the   design   of   algorithms    from
specifications.

Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 85 15:53:13 PST
-FROM-
From: yao.pa@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Computational Geometry, Rewrite Rules, Etc. (PARC)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The next BATS [Bay Area Theory Seminar] will take place on Friday,
March 15 at Xerox PARC (in the auditorium).  [...]  -- Frances

SCHEDULE

10 a.m.  Ronald Graham (AT&T Bell Lab):  Remarks on The Finite Radon
    Transform
11 a.m.  Frances Yao (Xerox PARC):  A General Approach to d-Dimensional
    Geometric Queries

 1 p.m.  Andrew Yao (Stanford):  Separating the Polynomial-Time
    Hierarchy by Oracles
 2 p.m.  Joe Halpern (IBM):  What Does It Mean for Rewrite Rules to be
    "Correct"?
 3 p.m.  Andrei Broder (DEC):  Vote Early and Vote Often; The
    Distributed Lottery Problem

[...]


A General Approach to d-Dimensional Geometric Queries

Frances Yao
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center


ABSTRACT  Research results in the area of computational geometry have
been largely limited to problems concerning simple relations between
objects in the plane.   In this talk, we shall define what we call a
"generic query" in d-space, and present a uniform solution to it.  As
examples of application, the nearest-neighbor query in d-space can be
solved in linear space and sublinear time; the pairwise intersection
problem for polytopes and the construction of minimum spanning trees in
d-space can be solved in linear space and subquadratic time.



 What does it mean for rewrite rules to be "correct"?

Joe Halpern
IBM San Jose Research Center


ABSTRACT  We consider an operational definition for FP via rewrite
rules.  What would it mean for such a definition to be correct?  We
certainly want the rewrite rules to capture correctly our intuitions
regarding the meaning of the primitive functions.  We also want there to
be enough rewrite rules to compute the correct meaning of all
expressions, but not too many, thus making equivalent two expressions
that should be different.  And what does it mean for there to be
"enough" rules?

We give a formal criterion for deciding whether there are enough rewrite
rules and show that our rewrite rules meet that criterion.  We develop
powerful techniques to prove these results, that
involve imposing a notion of types on the untyped language FP, and then
using techniques of typed lambda-calculus theory.  (Note: This talk is
completely self-contained.  No previous knowledge of FP or lambda
calcuclus will be assumed.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Mar 1985  22:11 EST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Shape from Function (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

AI Revolving Seminar    Tues 3/19/85    4:00pm  8th floor playroom


               SHAPE FROM FUNCTION VIA MOTION ANALYSIS

             with Application to the Automatic Design of
             Orienting Devices for Vibratory Part Feeders

                          TOMAS LOZANO-PEREZ

This talk explores the premise that a device's function can be
characterized by how it interacts with other objects.  I focus on
devices for which some aspect of their function can be characterized
in terms of constraints they place on the motions of objects.
Commonplace examples of this class of device abound; any office is
full of them: chairs, cups, rulers, telephones, cabinets, bookends,
etc.  In fact, the shape of most objects is constrained by the legal
motions of that object and of objects it must interact with.

I suggest a representation for the function of this class of objects
in terms of motion contraints.  These possible--motion constraints are
expressed as an abstract diagram.  Combinations of these diagrams
serve both in describing a device's function and in designing devices
with specified behavior.

The design problem for these devices is a kind of inverse of the
motion planning problem in robotics.  In both cases we know the shape
of the moving part.  In motion planning, we are given the obstacles
and we must find a legal path between the specified origin and
destination.  In our view of design, however, we are given the desired
motion (actually a range of possible motions) and are asked to find a
legal shape of the obstacle, that is, the device.

We illustrate our approach to design with a detailed case study of
mechanical part feeders, a class of real devices with an interesting
and direct relationship between shape and function.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
35
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 1985 17:27-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-

Cybernetics: Theory and Applications Hemisphere, New York, N. Y. 1983

Donald C. Gause Gary Rogers Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence 339-360

Ya Z. Tsypkin The theory of adaptive and learning systems 57-89
____________________________________________________________________________
Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz 24 (1984) no 9 1392-1401
I. V. Issev Design of pattern recognition and classification algorithms
by the covering method (in Russian)
____________________________________________________________________________
Information Sciences 33 (1984) no. 3 197-207
Rudolf Kruse Statistical Estimation and Linguistic Data
____________________________________________________________________________
Kexue Tongbao (English Ed.) 29 (1984) no 7 861-866
Xin Zhan Wu On the classification entropy criterion in pattern
recognition
____________________________________________________________________________
Figural Synthesis Erlbaum Hillsdale NJ 1984
David H. Foster Local and Global Computational Factors in Visual
Pattern Recogniton
____________________________________________________________________________
Journal Multivariate Analysis 15 (1984) no 2 147-163
Richard A. Olshen, Louis Gordon
Almost surely consistent nonparametric regression from recursive
parrtitioning schemes
____________________________________________________________________________
Raoro Inform. Theor. 18 (1984) no 3 191-208
J. P. Jouannaud  H. Kirchner Constructing a smallest simplification ordering
____________________________________________________________________________
Studia Logica 42 (1983) no 4 443-451
J. A. Kalman Condensed detachment as a rule of inference
____________________________________________________________________________
Engineering Cybernetics 21 (1983) no 5 107-115
V. M. Sumarokov System Modelling of Information Structures of Data BAses
____________________________________________________________________________
Communications, Pure and Applied Math 37 (1984) no 6 815-848
Jacob T. Schwartz Micha Sharir On the Piano Movers' Problem V. The case
of a rod moving in three-dimensional space amidst polyhedral obstacles.
____________________________________________________________________________
Discrete and Applied Math 9 (1984) no 3 269-295
51
Walter Whitely, A correspondence between scene analysis and motions of
frameworks
____________________________________________________________________________
Engineering Costs and Production Economics Volume 8 No 3 Dec 15 1984
Two Heuristic Methods for Grouping Inventory Items Page 211
____________________________________________________________________________
Computer Decisions Volume 17 Number 1 jan 15 1985
Expert Systems Get Down to Business
A. Lampert 138
____________________________________________________________________________
Theoretical Computer Science Volume 34 NO 1-2 Nov 1985
T. Sato H. Tamaki Enumeration of Success Patterns in Logic Programs pp
227
____________________________________________________________________________
The Institute April 1985 Volume 9 Number 4

Page 8 "Optical Crossbar Switch to be Developed"
Work done on a 32 by 32 crossbar to implemented with optical switch
technology

Page 8 "VLSI called second-best for future architecture"
Discussion of various architectures in Connection Machines and Lisp
Machines.

Page 9 "Reddy calls for Design Library to Help Build 'superchips'"
Discussion of chip libraries and needs for special purpose computers
and chips in AI work
____________________________________________________________________________
Infoworld March 18, 1985 Volume 7, Issue 11
"Pathfinder Aims at Resale"
Pathfinder from KDS Corp of Wilmette has been announced which reads up
to 256,000 facts and converts them into a set of rules.  Designed to
allow novices to devlop expert systems.  Available on IBM PC with work
being done on Apple II and Macintosh versions. The Apple and Macintosh
versions will run the resulting expert system only and not be able to
create new expert systems.
____________________________________________________________________________
The Artificial Intelligence Report
Artificial Intelligence Publications
3600 West Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA (415)-424-1447

Volume 2 Number 1

Describes various AI work at SRI-International

Knowledge Based Systems: Prospector and HYDRO
Natural Language Processing
Planning Problem-Solving and Deduction: electromechanical system
  assembly and disassembly planning, distributed AI
Image Processing Computer Vision
Distributed Data Management
Automatic Program Syunthesis
Inference Machine Architecture
  SHAKEY: mobile robot
  STRIPS
  LIFER: programmable natural language system
  TEAM: natural language and databased
  QA4, QLISP, AI languages
  LADDER: distributed data base access
  MEDINQUIRY: medical patient management and clinical research

Robotics Lab

  the problem of identifying objects in a jumble of parts
  using multiple arms
  arc welding
  visual inspection

AI and the Military
  expert system for loading military cargo planes AALPS
  ADVISOR: system used by planes returning from missions
  FLIREX: Flight rules expert system
  SAMPL: mission planning
  CHATTER: natural language system

Advanced Computer Systems Department
  Systems Life Cycle Management, computer architecture, simulation,
  Computer System Performance Prediction, Data Base system Design,
  Office Automation System
  feasibility studies of expert systems in monitoring earth-orbiting
  spacecraft for malfunctions and planning of space missiONS
  expert system for the design of consumer good packaging, loan
  application checking

Financial Applications
  International Bank Loan Evaluations, Commercial Loan Evaluation,
  Financial Planning, Insurance Underwriting, Financial Product sales,
  Insurance Claims Processing

SRI has developed a PC based expert system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 16:16:57 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Berkeley PROLOG Machine (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the IBM-SJ Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  Wed., March 20 Computer Science Seminar
  10:40 A.M.  THE BERKELEY PROLOG MACHINE
  Cafe. A     The Berkeley Prolog Machine (PLM) is a co-processor
            architecture designed for efficient execution of
            Prolog programs.  It is the first prototype of a
            logic processor for our Aquarius heterogeneous MIMD
            machine.  Currently, it is attached to an NCR/32
            system which provides the memory and I/O subsystem as
            well as processing power for other operations not
            suited to the functional unit of the PLM (e.g.,
            floating point operations).  This paper describes the
            architecture of the PLM and some aspects of its
            implementation.  We conclude with an analysis of some
            performance data obtained from a simulation of the design.

            Prof. A. M. Despain, Computer Science Division,
            University of California at Berkeley
            Host:  G. Langdon, Jr. (LANGDON@IBM-SJ)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 85 13:19:09 est
-FROM-
From: Voula Vanneli <voula%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Tools for Conceptual Modeling (Toronto)
-BODY-

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEMINAR - Tuesday, March 19,
           at 2 p.m., SF 3201

               Hannu Kangassalo
        University of Tampere, Finland

   "Comic - A Project for Developing Tools for Conceptual
         Modelling and Information Construction"

Abstract:  The goal of the project is to develop concepts,
methods and software tools to support end users and data
administrators in their work for developing a conceptual
schema on a graphical workstation.  A graphical language,
Concept D contains two sublanguages, one for describing
independent concept defninitions and one for describing the
conceptual schema.
The information given in the conceptual schema is stored
into the data base from which it can be analyzed and
manipulated for different purposes, e.g. for producing
a data base schema.  The presentation gives also the
outline of the architecture of the comic-system which
is being developed at the University of Tampere.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 85 15:27:07 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Innate Linguistic Knowledge (UCB)
-BODY-
              BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
             Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

     TIME:                Tuesday, March 19, 11:00 - 12:30
     PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
     (followed by)
     DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Janet Dean Fodor, University of Connecticut and
                CSLI

TITLE:          ``A  Formal   Theory   of   Innate   Linguistic
                Knowledge''

     An infant must be innately  provided  with  some  sort  of
representational  medium  in  which  to record what he observes
about his target language.  It has occasionally been  suggested
that the formal properties of this mental metalanguage could be
the source of universal properties of natural languages.   This
is  quite different from the standard (= substantive) approach,
which assumes that children are born with certain statements of
the metalanguage innately tagged as true.

     I propose to take the formal approach seriously.  That way
to do so seems to be to try for a theory which accounts for ALL
universals in the same way, i.e., solely on the basis  of  what
can  and  cannot be expressed in the metalanguage.  The attempt
is  very  informative,  regardless  of  whether  it  ultimately
succeeds or fails.

     Success is by no means guaranteed, for the  formal  theory
overthrows  many  familiar assumptions.  For example, it can be
shown to be incompatible (on standard assumptions  about  chil-
dren and their linguistic input) with the existence of any con-
straints on rule application  or  on  derivational  representa-
tions.   All  the  work of distinguishing well-formed from ill-
formed sentences must be done by rules only.   Constraints  can
determine the shape of the rules, but cannot tidy up after them
if they overgenerate.

     It is easiest to see how to set about formulating grammars
of  this kind within the framework of GPSG, and it is encourag-
ing to find that a number of universals do fall out  as  conse-
quences  of  the  GPSG  formalism.  But there are problems too.
Syntactic features, in particular, create headaches for learna-
bility.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 09:25:52 est
-FROM-
From: rada@nlm-mcs (Roy Rada CSB)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Information Retrieval
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS

     Session(s) on  Intelligent  Information  Retrieval  are
being  organized for the upcoming "Expert Systems in Govern-
ment Conference". Papers are requested  on  any  of  a  wide
variety  of  topics,  such  as  adaptive  document  or query
description, knowledge-bases to guide document  search,  and
classification  of  documents  via  semantic  parsing.   The
Conference is not restricted to Government-related work.  If
you  are  interested  in  submitting a paper or organizing a
session, please contact Roy Rada at

                    National Library of Medicine
                    Bethesda, MD 20209
                    phone 301-496-2475
                    ARPA net: Rada@NLM



Permission has been secured from the Editor Donald Kraft  of
the  Journal  of the American Society of Information Science
(JASIS) to have the best papers considered for  publication,
perhaps as a special issue.


      ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONFERENCE FLIER

          Expert Systems in Government Conference

                    October 23-25, 1985

     THE CONFERENCE objective is to allow the developers and
implementers  of  expert  systems in goverenment agencies to
exchange information and ideas first hand for the purpose of
improving  the quality of existing and future expert systems
in the government sector.  Artificial Intelligence (AI)  has
recently  been  maturing so rapidly that interest in each of
its  various  facets,  e.g.,   robotics,   vision,   natural
language,  supercomputing,  and expert systems, has acquired
an increasing following and cadre of practitioners.  [...]

     Additional information may be obtained from the Program
Chairman:
                    Dr. Kamal Karna
                    MITRE Corporation W852
                    1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard
                    McLean, Virginia  22102
                    Phone (703) 883-5866
                    ARPANET:  Karna @ Mitre

                                        -- Roy Rada

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 1985 10:38-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN@BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - ACM Northeast Regional Conference
-BODY-
I am chairing the natural language session and
especially encourage people to submit papers in that area.
                                             Thanks.  -Brad Goodman


                          CALL FOR PAPERS

           SECOND ANNUAL ACM NORTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE

               "Integrating the Information Workplace:
                     the Key to Productivity"

                         28-30 October 1985

                         Sheraton-Tara Hotel
                          Framingham, Mass.
                                and
                         The Computer Museum
                            Boston, Mass.

The conference sessions are grouped into tracks corresponding to major areas
of interest in the computer field.  Papers are solicited for the Conference's
Artificial Intelligence Track.  The Track's program will emphasize "real world"
approaches and applications of AI.

                       Topics of interest include:

                          - Expert Systems
                          - Natural Language
                          - Man-Machine Interface
                          - Tools/Environment
                          - A.I. Hardware
                          - Robotics and Vision


Papers are invited.  Two copies of an abstract (maximum 500 words) should be
submitted for review by April 1 to the Program Chairman, ACM Northeast Regional
Conference, P.O. Box 499, Sharon, MA  02067.  Three copies of the final paper,
in camera-ready form, should be sent by July 1, 1985 to Dr. David S. Prerau,
Track Chairman, Artificial Intelligence Track, ACM Northeast Regional
Conference, GTE Laboratories Inc., 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA.  02254.

For additional information on the Conference, write:

                       ACM Northeast Regional Conference
                       P.O. Box 499
                       Sharon, MA.  02067

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 85 07:46:44 EST
-FROM-
From: "Bruce D. Shriver" <shriver.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - System Sciences Software Track, Revised
-BODY-
    CALL FOR: Papers, Referees, Session Coordinators, Task Forces
    =============================================================
SOFTWARE TRACK of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
========================================================================
HICSS-19 is the nineteenth in a series of conferences devoted to advances
in information and system sciences. The conference will encompass develop-
ments theory and practice in the areas of systems architecture, software,
decision support systems, and knowledge-based systems.	The conference is
sponsored by the University of Hawaii and the University of Southwestern
Louisiana in cooperation with the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society.  It
will be held on Jan. 8-10, 1986 in Honolulu, Hawaii.  Papers, referees,
and session coordinators are solicited in the following areas:
     Software Design Tools, Techniques, and Environments
     Models of System and Program Behavior
     Testing, Verification, and Validation
     Professional Workstation Environments
     Alternative Language Paradigms
     Reuseability in Design and Implementation
     Knowledge-Based Systems Software
     Algorithm Analysis and Animation
     Visual Languages
Authors please submit  250 word abstracts by May 1, 1985.  Session
and Task Force Coordinators should submit a 350 word proposal for
the session or task force by Apr. 1, 1985.  Referees should submit a
list of the topics and the number of papers they are willing to review
May 15, 1985.  Authors should submit six (6) copies of the full paper
(not to exceed 26 double-spaced pages including diagrams and references)
by July 5, 1985 directly to:
     Bruce D. Shriver
     HICSS-19 Software Track Coordinator
     IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
     PO Box 218, Route 134
     Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
     (914) 945-1664
     compmail+: b.shriver
     csnet: shriver.yktvmv@ibm-sj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
36
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 15 March 1985 22:17:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART Special Issue on AI in Engineering
-BODY-
The special issue on AI in engineering (SIGART Newsletter) will be
available sometime in the middle of April or begining of May. It will
be around 90+ SIGART pages and contains contributions from over sixty
researchers from 6 countries. Copies of this special issue are sent
to SIGART members at no extra cost. If you are not a member and
interested in getting a copy then extra copies are available at
$5.00  each from the SIGART-ACM office.

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 March 1985 0809-EST
-FROM-
From: Dave Touretzky@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 4th generation languages
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This was
      in response to a question about 4th-generation languages.]

4th generation languages are not programming languages in the usual sense.
They allow you to define database files, process transactions
against databases, and generate reports from them.  For example, you can say
"For every state, for every product we sell in that state, list the
salesmen who sell that product, their annual sales, their commissions, and
their office location, sorted by annual sales."  The actual command language
uses a slightly more complex syntax, but it's still pretty close to English.

These systems are not just report writers.  They allow you to extract, sort,
copy, and update databases.  They use clever hashing and indexing algorithms
for fast retrieval.  Thus, one can write substantial data processing
applications in them, using their simple English-like commands, without
ever learning how to "program".  This is a far cry from conventional data
processing as taught in universities, which emphasize languages like COBOL
or PL/I.  The database access algorithms used by 4th generation languages
are more sophisticated than anything you would expect someone with a
two or four year degree in data processing to come up with.

Martin's complaint is based on the following scenario.  A student is hired
by a local DP shop and, for his first assignment, asked to generate a
sales report.  He goes off for a month and returns with a huge piece of
PL/I code, nicely structured and commented, and mostly debugged, that
does the job.  But he could have done the same thing in two days if he'd
just used RAMIS, or FOCUS, or one of the other 4th generation languages
that run on IBM mainframes.  Martin's point is valid.  Much of routine DP
programming is becoming obsolete -- except in the universities.

Now, not all university CS programs are designed to produce data processing
technicians.  I don't think MIT or CMU teaches much COBOL these days.  But
your average rinky-dink CS department, which just graduated from punched
cards a few years ago, would be wise to teach more than just COBOL
or PL/I (or even Pascal) to its students if it wants them to be useful
in the real world of DP.

[Some other languages that James Martin cites in the March CACM are
SAS, Natural, Ideal, Nomad, Application Factory, ADF, CNS, DMS,
Mapper, and [for DB query only] QBE.  He excludes Smalltalk and
VisiCalc.  C is 3rd-generation and LISP is 5th-generation.  Martin
seems interested only in languages for commercial DP.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 85 21:03:19 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Programming
-BODY-
In response to benefits of AI versus 'common' software:

        Our application is to improve the efficiency of a huge, real time,
reliable, control system.  Based upon about a year's worth of research, my
opinion [not yet that of my employers .. but hopefully soon to be that
of my immediate bosses] is that arguing about the utility of Expert Systems
is like arguing about the utility of the "if" statement in a programming
language.  There are situations where they are useful, and there are
applications where they are not.  In a simple, overengineered application
they look great -- in tough problems they provide no panacea.

        The question to ask is how should they be used, and how can we
use them to do our job.  First I will describe what we initially thought.
Then I will transition to my current view.

        Like everybody else, we read the standard AI texts, visited the
AI demo's, and read the AI and other journals -- all talking about
specialized expert systems that configure vaxes, identify fingerprints,
prospect for oil, fix locomotives.  We said: let us go out and find
such an application within our organization.  We found it, and my boss
sent me out to develop a briefing to convince the world that it was
what should be done.

        Based upon, in hindsight, some poorly thought out logic from
one of our contractors -- we thought to remove our dependance upon
experts with expert systems.  Is not that what happened in the above
cases?  We made an important and subtle mistake:  expert systems
should be targeted towards *people* not *areas* *of* *expertise*.

        This can be understood from two perspectives: 1) an expert
system is only as good as the rules within, and they must continue
to evolve, and 2) if the expert only uses the system a part of the
time, then he never becomes proficient with it or the knowledge
within it to use it effectively.  In our case, we could have had one
operator using 15+ different expert systems created by different
contractors, with vastly different knowledge structures at one time.

        The difference between expert systems should now be clear: an
expert system is tied to a person's job; commom software is tied to
a specific technical area.  There is a lot of common ground here, but
the difference is distinct.

        Why?  Anybody with experience with expert systems understands
how quickly massive rule bases become unwieldy -- just like nested
if statements.  Keying expert systems to people keeps them small,
and permits the integrity of the distributed knowledge base to
be effectively managed.  Our expert system became a network
of distributed expert systems, mapped very closely to our current
organizational structure.  Our thinking was that individuals
within an organization drive its evolution, and we should apply
expert systems and let nature take its course.

        Our organization is a learning one, and so must be the entity
we set up.  The expert systems must contribute to flexibility and
fluidity of the organization -- by permiting the programmer and the
user to meld into one.  People, once again, will be responsible for
what their computer does.

        No one is advocating total elimination of all computers in
favor of expert systems.  We will have our share of big number crunchers.
Personal expert systems will provide the interface to these machines
in the terms meaningful to specific experts.  Personal expert systems
will also provide interfaces with each other.

        With these insights, we looked again at our organization.  We
also considered inexpensive commercially available products such
as the PC-AT, and the PC-AT-II-jr due out this summer with a 600MB
removable optical disk.  After some analysis of what our experts
were actually doing most of the time, our transitional approach became
clear:  1) use off-the-shelf micros to automate the routine tasks
that micros do better than experts and 2) slip in expert system
technology to these PC's to permit the experts to easily offload
all their well understood "routine" tasks and 3) put all these
machines into a network which permits expert systems to talk to
each other under the supervision of expert people.  We can also
build "learning systems" by extending this approach.

        I welcome comments on this matter; especially those that are
critical (but not abusive).

Richard Jennings        Arpa: jennings@Aerospace
AFSCF/XRP                     AFSCF.XRP@AFSC-HQ
PO 3430
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3430  AV: 799-6427  comm: 408 744-6427

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 15 March 1985 22:37:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-isl1.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KBES - comments
-BODY-
This is in reference to Goodhart's comments on expert systems.

Knowledge-Based  Expert  Systems  (KBES)  are  supposed to differ from
conventional programming languages in the following manner:

   1. Completeness : Knowledge in a  KBES  can  be  incrementally
      added,  while it is very difficult to make any changes to a
      conventional program.

   2. Uniqueness: A conventional program is supposed to  give  an
      unique  answer  for  a certain input data. KBES can come up
      with a number of possible solutions, ranked  in  a  certain
      order.

   3. Sequencing: In a KBES sequencing does not matter.

The above differences can be clearly seen in a production-based expert
system,  since  the  knowledge tends to be separate from the inference
mechanism.  The production system  programming  can  be  viewed  as  a
different  programming  methodology.  Production system programming is
also closely related to the decision table approach used in the  early
70's.

Only  when  an EXPERT'S knowledge is included in the knowledge-base we
have an KBES. Otherwise we are talking about knowledge-based  systems.
Even  your  algorithmic  program  can  be  viewed as a knowledge-based
system; only it doesn't have the specialist's knowledge.   Any  decent
(engineering)  KBES  would combine the specialist's knowledge with the
algorithmic knowledge.

Building a KBES is quite a  painful  task.  Before  you  venture  into
building  one, study the pros and cons properly. Make sure that proper
experts are available.

Regarding inexact inferences, experts will  never  say  anything  with
100% certainty. Hence a KBES should handle uncertain information.

[A different viewpoint is expressed in a Consultants in Information
Technology study done in late 1983 for the British Alvey Committee (as
reported in Expert Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, July 1984, pp. 19-20).
They conclude that expert systems are easier to construct than is
generally believed, and that academic concerns about search, conflict
resolution, and uncertain knowledge are largely irrelevant to the
commercial expert systems now under development.  (These systems
generally avoid applications that require tentative hypotheses or must
deal with uncertain data other than the user dialog.)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Mar 1985 08:53-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
Electronics Week March 4, 1985 page 77-78

Announcement of Timm, an expert system development kit for the PC.

Electronics Week March 11, 1985 page 65-66

Describes work on testability and testing of electronic circuits using
AI.  Part of a larger article on the military's new push for
reliability.



I just received an announcement of a journal called "New Generation
Computing."  Cost of a subscription is $96.00 to be obtained from
Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Attn: D. Emin
175 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10010

They also are willing to send out sample issues.


Table of Contents: Volume 2 No 3

Preface:

Communication and Knowledge Engineering I. Toda

Efficient Unification over Infinite Terms J. Jaflar
Fair, Biased and Self-Balancing Merge Operators: Their Specification and
Implementation in Concurrent Prolog, E. Shapiro and C. Mierowsky
A Multiport Page-Memory Architecture and a Multiport Disk-Cache System
Y. Tanaka
Functional Programming with Streams-Part II, T. Ida and J. Tanaka
ORBIT: A Parallel Computing Model of Prolog H. Yasuhara and K. Nitadori

Serialization of Process Reduction in Concurrent Prolog A. J. Kusalik



The following are NTIS publications noted in SIGPLAN (Volume 20 Number 3
March 1985).  Prices are paper copy prices.

PROLOG Programming Language. 1974-August 1984 (Citations from the
INSPEC: Information Services for the Physics and Engineering
Communities Data Base)  PB84-874775 $35.00

Grasp; Uma Proposta Para Extensao Do Lisp (In Portugese)
N84-27463/8 $4.50

Kanji PROLOG Programming System (In Japanese)
Also can be found in Mitsubishi Denki Giho Volume 58 n6 p 9-13 1984
PB84-218197) $11.50

Enhanced Prolog for Industrial Applications
Same article as above page 5-8
PB84-218197 $11.50



The Artificial Intelligence Report Volume 2 No 2

Discussion of AI and the Personal Computer by Esther Dyson
Discussion of Air Force new AI Consortium involving Syracuse University,
University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, SUNY at
Buffalo; Rensselaer Polytechnic; Clarkson University; Colgate
University; University of Massachussetts
Cognitive Systems Inc.: System for portfolio analysis
AI at Sperry
Review of Hewlett Packards Integrated Personal Computer
Agreement between Inference Corp and Lockheed Corporation

Reviews of AI growth: AI is growing at 50% a year, 53 million in 1983
and $142 million in 1984; 70 million in Lisp Machines sale for 1984 and
in 1989 310 million in Lisp Machines; natural language systems did 16
million in sales with 200 million in 1989

AI company percentage break down by state: California 30 per cent,
Massachusetts 24 per cent; New York; 12 per cent; Michigan and Florida
eight per cent each; New Jersey 5 per cent and Texas 3 percent

Gartner Group estimates $183 million in Lisp machine sales broken down
by company:
  Symbolics 88 million
  Lisp Machine, Inc 37 million
  Xerox 35 million
  Texas Instruments 23 million

A series of AI titles available from National Bureau of Standards is
available for $100.00 total from Business/Technology Books

Expert Systems: Principles and Case Studies Reviews



Artificial Intelligence Report Volume 2 Number 3

AI at NASA: Lists research activities at various centers of NASA.
A lot of work is done in robotics for space applications and space
station as well as basic research in many areas of research.

Current Projects include: Lisp Machine for space applications,
smart checklist for procedural execution which knows about human factors
pilot training system; life support system controller; visual pattern
recognition for interpretation of scanning electron microscope pictures
of airborn sulfuric acid particles; aircraft design expert system;
system to assist helicopter crews; pilots associate

An expert system has been developed to assist in monitoring Halley's
Comet.

List of Lisp and Prolog vendors for the PC including reviews of some
products.

Description of project to replace harbor and river pilots on Japanese
ships.

Dec has signed agreements with the following vendors to jointly market
products:

SRL+ and PLUME from Carnegie Group
PROLOG II from Prologia
GCLISP from Gold Hill Computers
ART from Inference Corporation

Agreement between Sumitomo Electric Industries to market Silogic's
Knowledge Workbench in Japan

AI area breakdown of papers submitted to 1985 IJCAI

Expert Systems 111
Natural Language 99
Knowledge Representation 77
Learning and Knowledge Acquisition 75
Perception 61
Automated Reasoning 49
social implications of AI 4

Geographic Breakdown

US 460
Europe 150
Asia 79
Canada 29

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Mar 85 16:42:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Principles of OBJ2
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             NEW CSLI REPORT

      A new CSLI Report by Kokichi Futatsugi, Joseph Goguen, Jean-Pierre
   Jouannaud, and Jose Meseguer, ``Principles of OBJ2'' (Report No.
   CSLI-85-22), has been published.  To obtain a copy of this report
   write to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford 94305 or send net
   mail to Brown at SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 1985 15:10-EST
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Discourse Semantics for Temporal Expression (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

   The next BBN Artificial Intelligence seminar will be at 10:30 AM on
Tuesday March 19, in the 2nd floor large conference room at 10 Moulton
St.  Erhard Hinrichs of Stanford and Ohio State wil speak on "A
Discourse Semantics for Temporal Expressions in English". His abstract follows:

  Apart from the semantic properties of tenses, temporal
conjunctions, and temporal adverbials in discourse, I will
discuss the contribution of Aktionsarten to the shift of
reference time.  Adopting the classification of Aktionsarten into
states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements suggested
in Vendler(1967), only accomplishments and achievements lead to
the introduction of a new reference point, which moves the time
frame of a narrative forward, whereas states and activities are
ordered with respect to previously introduced reference points
and therefore do not move the time frame of the narrative.  These
properties of Aktionsarten turn out to be relevant for the
analysis of both tenses and temporal conjunctions.

  The semantics of temporal frame adverbials in the sense of
Bennett/Partee(1972) can best be accounted for by means of a
reference point scoreboard, which is designed to keep track of
context information.  I will demonstrate how this approach to
frame adverbials can acount for phenomena such as restricted
quantification and reference time nesting.

  I will further suggest how to incorporate the interpretation of
temporal expressions in discourse into the framework of discourse
representation structure (DRS) developed by Kamp(1981).  I
propose to augment DRS theory by a modified version of the system
of event structures proposed in Kamp(1979).  However, unlike
Kamp's original structures, the event structures I am proposing
offer a formal implementation of the three-dimensional tense
logic of Reichenbach(1947).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
37
-DATE-
Date: 18 Mar 85 10:42:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RULEMASTER Language
-BODY-
Has anyone heard of the RULEMASTER language for building expert systems?
It is an inductive system; i.e it learns rules from examples, can
interface with lisp, pascal, c, or fortran, and can access databases.
It was developed under the direction of Donald Michie and sold by
Radian Corp. I am considering going to take their tutorial course
and would like to know if anyone has heard of or used this language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 16 Mar 85 04:47:58-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Found: right parens
-BODY-
  RE:

  Sorry, I have not seen your asterisks, but please! Does anyone know where
  the daily bit buckets are stored? I lost some data Thusday night by
  doing one too many left shift on a program I was writing on SCORE and
  I was wondering whether I might be in some way able to recover the bit
  strings. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Formerly, the NSA sent all dropped bits to the shredder, but these
days they are transported nightly via Federal Express to MCC where
they are trying to solve the problems that escaped the rest of y'all.
Earlier this week a comment was overheard between two members of
a visiting Russian delegation to Texas' high-tech city: "Dammit,
comrade, they look all alike."  I no longer wonder what they were
refering to.

[Hey, if you think this is lousy humour, watch David Letterman sometimes.
I figure Johnny Carson supports him to justify his own whopper of a salary]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Mar 85 19:01:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Carl.Ebeling@CMU-CS-UNH
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sesame Street FA
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I was watching Sesame Street today (getting the kid started early) and it
appears that they are teaching some beginning theory.  They had a box that
accepted only the letter 'A'.  Next week they're going to cover regular
expressions and the Pumping Lemma.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 15-Mar-85 11:05:43-GMT
-FROM-
From: DIANA HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <"[140,153]%edxa"@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Censoring jokes about rape
-BODY-

  [Though rape is a barbaric act, censorship is a far worse crime for it
  affects so many more.......]

I'm not going to answer your first point because, like you, I have
never been the victim of rape and hence cannot compare the effects of
rape with those of censorship. But I will just say that FEAR of rape
has profoundly affected the lives of at least as many people as
censorship; indeed, it even acts as a kind of censorship - a
censorship of behaviour, of being afraid to say certain things, go to
certain places, enter into certain kinds of relationship, even to be
out of doors at certain times of the day. And to imply

  i)  that rape is a normal part of human(male) behaviour, or
  ii) that the victim enjoyed it

(the Poly Nomial joke does both) is to encourage an acceptance of attitudes
that lead both to rape and to that fear.


  [There is a fundamental difference between an act and writing about an act.
  If jokes about a subject are banned, how long is it before satire about
  the same subject is banned?  Then there is only a small step fiction is
  banned.  Next comes fact, research...]

There is actually a very big leap between banning jokes which casually
make assumptions that are damaging to a group of people, and
banning satire which questions people's assumptions. For example, you would
probably not want to encourage the circulation of a joke that took it for
granted that the victims of shooting, mugging or theft enjoyed the experience?
In a sense, such jokes have already been censored - no-one even writes or
tells them!


  [..Any reasonable definition of rape should include the fact that
  the raper and rapee are human or at least members of the
  animal kingdom. I find it hard to be offended when polynomials
  are raped, however.......]

I'm very surprised that David enjoyed the joke, since he seems to have missed
its main point. The point of the joke is that the language used to describe
mathematical functions can be neatly turned into a description of a piece
of human behaviour. It certainly would have been very funny, if it had not
required the acceptance of the two appalling assumptions regarding rape
that I noted above.


Apropos, I should like to know how AIlist readers would have reacted if
the joke had referred to 'Paul E Nomial', the 'epitome of masculine qualities',
instead of a clearly female character? Would the joke still be funny?
Would it still be less offensive than censorship?

Diana Bental
University of Edinburgh
mail: bental%edxa@ucl-cs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 13:30:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Diana Bental
-BODY-
This discussion of morality on the network should really be conducted
on Human-Nets, but I'll permit it to continue on AIList for awhile.
(I.e., I can't resist putting in my two-cents worth.)

Diana Bental claims that the Impure Mathematics story depicts
Poly Nomial as enjoying being raped.  I have reread the story
and can find no support for this view (aside from a very cryptic
remark about having "satisfied her hypothesis").  The entire
tone of the story is just the opposite.

She also claims that the humor in this piece is in its use of
mathematical terms to describe human behavior.  I think it equally
supportable that the humor is in attributing human emotions to
mathematical entities, as David Wilkins said.  No doubt both
viewpoints contribute to the mental gymnastics that we call humor.

As for the offensiveness of this or any other text, I believe that
people regard the public distribution of material offensive when

  1) the depicted behavior is threatening to them or to their society, and

  2) the material is likely to promote such behavior.

(There is also a second category of offensive material, namely anything
that one finds personally disgusting or frightening.  In this case,
however, we seldom object to others having access to the material unless
it is forced upon them.  My wife, for instance, used to have a very
strong fear of snakes and worms, but she never felt that such subjects
should be banned from the public media.)

In support of this view, I submit that subjects we would find very
offensive on TV would be perfectly acceptable in a scientific treatise
or an X-rated videocassette -- the latter media are less likely to
have an effect on social behavior.  We perceive less threat in graphic
portrayals of war attrocities than in Bugs Bunny hitting Elmer Fudd.
Many people have recently found words such as "he" and "chairman"
offensive even in technical texts, precisely because they believe that
such language does affect our society adversely.

I think we all all agree that point one is applicable here: rape is
abhorrent.  (The question of whether it is "normal human (male)
behavior", in the absence of strong social sanctions, could be
discussed at great length.)  Ms. Bental's comments about the fear
of rape being as harmful as censorship are well taken.

The applicability of the second point is more doubtful.
It may be true that if AIList sanctions such material, the material is
more likely to be distributed through other channels having more
effect on social behavior.  This is far fetched, but is essentially
identical to the reasoning behind much of the "sexist language"
controversy.  Rape is a sufficiently serious social problem that we
must consider the possibility of such influences.

Let's not get carried away, however.  Impure Mathematics >>is<< funny,
or at least witty, regardless of whether it has to be banned for
social reasons.  It does not "require the acceptance" of rape, and
might be funny even if it did require a "willing suspension of
disbelief".  (Cartoons are often based on unbelievable premises.)
The story is not intrinsically offensive, any more than is the word
"he" or the biblical story of the flood; those of us who enjoyed it
are not perverts or misogynists.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 85 15:23 IST
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <VSHANK%WEIZMANN.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor
-BODY-
I too cast my vote for humor.  Not to repeat what others have said
(Issue #34), I have found that computers have been filled with violence
and I do not find it intentional.  How often do we say 'Let me execute
the program...', and realize what we are saying?  In VM, when issuing the
CMS START command, CMS replies with 'EXECUTION BEGINS...'.  A non-
computer person looking over your shoulder might be offended if they
recently had a person they know executed.  The Wylbur operating system
uses the command KILL to force a user off the system, and VM uses the
command FORCE to do the same.  Not very nice language.  When a user
complains that their terminal is 'dead', they say that their terminal is
'hung'.  Not very nice language, indeed.  I have often heard users
complaining that the system just 'died'.  There used to be a regression
analysis package that was extended with new functions and was named
RAPE (and forced to change its name to RAPFE a few years later).

I could go on and on.  The point is the author of Poly Nomial didn't
intend to glorify rape.  No one in their right mind likes rape.  But
censoring humor is not going to stop rape.

Henry Nussbacher
Weizmann Institute of Science
Rehovot, Israel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 18-Mar-85 14:55:12-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Jokes_P ?
-BODY-

Curtis L. Goodhart's comments (Vol 3 # 33) are very important. AI is  a male
dominated domain and that should change. The situation is, of course, moving
forward, but what we really need is a change of attitude.

Gordon Joly
gcj%edxa@uk.ac.ucl.cs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 85 13:45:24 pst
-FROM-
From: wfi <@csnet-relay.arpa,@ucsc.CSNET (Wayne F. Iba):wfi@ucsc.CSNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rape and censorship
-BODY-

        [ Though rape is a barbaric act, censorship is a far worse crime
        for it affects so many more. ]

This might have some validity (and I emphasize might) if we were talking
about censorship in the context of some government official dictating
to various publishers what's to be printed and what's not.   However,
in the context of the present discussion, we are referring to editorial
decisions.  Any printed newspaper will print only what it wants with respect
to anticipated reader reaction.  They generally won't print items which
might tend to reduce their readership.  For Ken to withold such items
in the future is not the same as censorship.  Just as you can choose to
read a newspaper or not, you can choose to read this newsletter.
I am adding my voice to those requesting that such not be printed.

Even if I am in the minority, I submit that if for no other reason, we
refrain from printing such on the basis that computer science and AI
are heavily male dominated to begin with, and that printing
stories about rapes in a context which might be amusing,
is no way to encourage female involvement.

>-wayne

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 15 Mar 85 12:23:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Social Effects of Computing (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

CS 300  --  Computer Science Department Colloquium  --  Winter 1984-1985.
Our final presentation will be on


                      Tuesday, March 19, 1985
                    at 4:15 in Terman Auditorium


                              Rob Kling
           Department of Information and Computer Science
                  University of California, Irvine


 THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF COMPUTERS, COMPUTING, AND COMPUTERIZATION



Research on the social impacts of computing indicates few
"deterministic" consequences of introducing computer-based systems
into social settings such as organizations. Jobs may become more or
less skilled; decisions may be "better" or more confused; power may
shift to or from central administrators. Much depends upon the kinds
of systems introduced, who controls them, and the particular practices
and procedures that people develop to use the computer systems and the
services that they support. The social consequences of computer use
are often very "context sensitive."  Moreover, computer-based systems
which can be perfectable under static laboratory conditions and when
supported by a rich array of resources may be very problematic when
introduced into dynamic social settings, settings rife with social
conflict, or settings where support resources are limited.

This talk will examine some organizing ideas to help understand
the context-sensitive character of computerization.   One cluster
of ideas is embodied in web models and these will be explained in
the talk.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Mar 85 12:19:29-PST
-FROM-
From: Paula Edmisten <Edmisten@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems in China & TUILI (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


SPEAKER:     Dr. Ru-qian Lu, Professor and Head of Department of
             Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Science,
             Beijing, China

ABSTRACT:    This will be a combination of two talks:

                 1. DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERT SYSTEMS IN CHINA (SELF EXPLANATORY)

                 2. TUILI - A GENERAL PURPOSE TOOL FOR DESCRIBING
                    EXPERT SYSTEMS (ABSTRACT BELOW)

DATE:        Friday, March 22, 1985
LOCATION:    Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical and Organic Chemistry
TIME:        12:05

Since the seventies, more and more people are involved in developing
expert systems.  But most of them are special-purpose systems,
containing only knowledge and experiences of a special field, even of
a special person (such as an experienced doctor of traditional Chinese
Medicine).  Despite the advances in the field of knowledge
representation, general-purpose tools for describing expert systems
are still rare and in the early stage of their development.  In many
cases, they are only new versions of existing special-purpose tools
with minor extensions.

Tuili (Tool for Universal Interactive Logical Inference) takes the
generality as one of its important design goals.  The main mechanism
of its knowledge representation are production rules, but other
mechanisms can be simulated as well.  Here are the main
characteristics of Tuili:

   1. Not only predicates, but also predicate procedures are allowed
      in production rules.

   2. The parameters of predicates and predicate procedures are
      pattern elements of different data types.

   3. A new principle of semantic pattern matching is proposed.  Users
      are allowed to define their own pattern matching rules.

   4. Users can define their own probability functions, attribute
      functions and their propagation rules during the course of
      inference.

   5. Rule bases and data bases are modular structured.

   6. The control structure is represented as production rules, they
      form the meta-structure, which can be organized hirarhically to
      form a multi-level control structure.

   7. The system provides a rich set of built-in control strategies to
      be chosen from by users.  They can define their own strategies,
      too.

At present, Tuili is being used to write an expert system for brain
diseases and one for teaching traditional Chinese Medicine.

Paula

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
38
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 11:32:43 pst
-FROM-
From: Cindy Mason <clm@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: decision making references
-BODY-
Does anyone know of references to

         Real time  multi-agent decision making strategies
         Real time single-agent decision making strategies
     OR
         Heuristics that humans use in real time situations
         in either group or solo problem solving?

Any leads on these topics will be appreciated.

        Cindy Mason  (clm@lll-crg)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 16:37:38-CST
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mastermind Rules Request
-BODY-
Does anyone have the set of "if/then" rules for playing
some version of mastermind?

[Several algorithms and sets of rules have been published
in the SIGART Newsletter.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Mar 85 08:16:56-CST
-FROM-
From: Jim Miller <HI.JMILLER@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: stray parens and brackets
-BODY-
Some of us recipients of the aforementioned stray parens here at MCC would
appreciate it if the Interlisp programmers out there would set #RPARS to NIL,
so that the pretty printer does not substitute square brackets for multiple
parens.  Many of us are working in Zetalisp, which does not recognize square
brackets as anything special, and trying to infer how many parens are
implied by a random square bracket is very difficult and time consuming.

Thanks for your consideration in this matter.

Jim Miller
MCC / Human Interface

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 09:16:13 PST
-FROM-
From: hplabs!tektronix!jans@mako
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hangul
-BODY-
    AIList Digest            Friday, 15 Mar 1985
-VOL-
3

-N-
34
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 85 22:07:29 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fourth Generation Languages
-BODY-
Re: Comments by Touretzky.

        I think the gist of the matter boils down to whether languages
or engineering should be taught in computer science departments.  My
undergraduate professors did not consider software creation to be
worthy of academic credit (extreme) [course 16, MIT, 78], but in
retrospect (see the discussions on SOFT-ENG) may have had  a point.

        We just recieved an Aero from VPI.  Given a task, he worked
out a solution, found a machine, looked at several available languages,
chose FORTRAN and wrote a program in about 4 hours to help him.  The
design is separate from the coding or implementation. [Since then, he
became frustrated with FORTRAN, BASIC and Z-100 assembler .. and is
now happily working with XLISP 1.4].

        In this context how does one exploy the concept of "shells"
for expert systems?  If one knows that a shell is applicable, I can
clearly understand (what I presume would be) Martin's argument to
use it.  If one is not sure, how should one's time be budgeted towards
understanding the problem, understanding the shell(s), selecting
a shell, and implementing a solution?

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Mar 85 14:19:11-PST
-FROM-
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Misrepresentation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Recently, another incidence of someone misrepresenting themself as
a AAAI employee/consultant has occurred.  This person named
"Judy Robbins" is calling AAAI members inquiring about their
interest in attending one of the AAAI's many workshops and seminars.

The AAAI does have a workshop program that focuses on well defined,
narrow technical topics. No one from the AAAI office is involved
directly with the coordination of any of these workshops. So, if this
person calls you, please try to catch her phone number and address and
send it to us.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!


[There was a previous incident in which someone used the AAAI
name to solicit salary information.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Mar 1985 11:52-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
High Technology April 1985

41-49: Discusses DARPA Advanced Computer Research effort.
This includes the AI work, past civilian spinoffs of DARPA computer
initiatives, moral and social issues as well as results of interviews
with researchs who have problems with DARPA's efforts

3: add from AT&T describing expert systems for phone compnay cable
maintenance (which runs on the 3B2 computer), statistics (particularly
regression) expert systems , silicon compilers and systems to derive
new rules from existing rules in its database.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dec Hardcopy March 1985 Volume 14 no 3

43-49: AI for Micros minireviews of Golden Hill Common Lisp and Lisp/88,
micro prolog, Insight, Expert System Tool Kit (running under Forth) and
Expert Ease.  Also includes some general AI info for those not familiar
with AI.

18: evaluation of AI market potential.

Estimated 1984 AI products sold $140,000,000 worth with 5 billion
dollars by 1990.  Another study estimated that 'overinflated product
claims' and "brain drain from university to industry" would slow
growth down to 50 per cent a year (1 billion in 1989).

____________________________________________________________________________

IEEE Computer February 1985 Volume 18 Number 2 (Special Issue on
Hardware Description Languages)

Temporal Logic for Multilevel Reasoning about Hardware Ben Moszowski

Hardware Verification Fumihiro Maruyama and Masahiro Fujita
(Discussed application of theorem proving and PROLOG to hardware verification.)

Concurrent Prolog as an Efficient VLSI Design Language Norihisa Suzuki

A Transformation Model for VLSI Systolic Design MOnica S. Lam and Jack
Mostow

____________________________________________________________________________
Byte March 1985 Volume 10 No. 3

Page 10: "TI Offers AI Software for IBM PC, TI Professonal"

"Texas Instruments planned to announce Arborist, a decison-analysis
tool for managers, late last maonth.  Arborist, an expert system that
allows you to enter information in a natural-language format, sets up
decision trees that can be graphically displayed.  It is expected to
sell for about $500.00"

Page 221 "An XLISP tutorial"  tutorial on a public domain version of
LISP (written in C)
____________________________________________________________________________
Electronic News Monday, March 18, 1985
Page 24: PE Group named Richard W. Peebles director of research for
their AI group.  He was a manager of DEC's project to design office
systems based upon AI technology.

Page 61: Vuebotics (a company making machine vision systems) filed for
Chapter 11
____________________________________________________________________________
Electronics Week March 18, 1985 Page 48
Interview with Danny Hillis of Thinking Machines, Inc.

____________________________________________________________________________
Department of Computer Science and Engineering  Southern Methodist University

Dr. Chao-Chih Yang
Professor
Department of Computer and Information Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, Alabama

"Representations and Implemenations of the Decision Tables"

1:30-2:30 PM Friday March 22, 1985

Decision table definiitions; some representations such as functional
approach, logical approach, and relational database approach.
Implementations by a LISP program and PROLOG program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 85 14:09:46 est
-FROM-
From: Voula Vanneli <voula%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semantic Interpretation Against Ambiguity
-BODY-           (UToronto)

                   UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
               DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
  (SF = Sandford Fleming Building, 10 King's College Road)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEMINAR - Tuesday, March 26,  3  pm,
SF 1105
                   Professor Graeme Hirst
      Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto

        "Semantic Interpretation Against Ambiguity"


     A semantic interpreter must be able to provide feedback
to  the parser to help it handle structural ambiguities.  In
Absity, the semantic interpreter we describe, this  is  done
by  the  "Semantic Enquiry Desk", a process that answers the
parser's questions on semantic preferences.   Disambiguation
of  word  senses  and of case slots is done by a set of pro-
cedures, one per word or slot, each of which determines  its
correct  sense  in cooperation with the others.  A partially
disambiguiated  procedure's  remaining   possibilities   are
well-formed Frail objects that can be seen and used by other
processes, including the Semantic Enquiry Desk,  just  as  a
person  can  see  many  of the details of a partly developed
"instant" photograph.  It is  from  the  fact  that  partial
results  are  always  well-formed  semantic objects that the
system gains much of its power.  This, in turn,  comes  from
the  strict  correspondence  between syntax and semantics in
Absity.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 85 14:11:41 est
-FROM-
From: Voula Vanneli <voula%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Massive Parallelism (UToronto)
-BODY-
                   UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
               DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
          (GB = Galbraith Building, 35 St. George)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE/THEORETICAL ASPECTS/SYSTEMS  SEMINAR
             Thursday, March 28, 11 am, GB 220
                  Professor Jerry Feldman
     Dept. of Computer Science, University of Rochester

  "Massive Parallelism in Nature and in Computer Science"


     Human brains made of millisecond  components  (neurons)
can carry out complex perceptual tasks in less than a second
i.e. in about a hundred sequential time steps.  This  compu-
tational  constraint,  among others, suggests that the algo-
rithms employed by nature are quite different from those  of
conventional  AI.   Several  groups  have been exploring the
direct use of "connectionist" computational models and  have
obtained  some  promising results.  The talk will describe a
model of massively parallel computation, its application  to
problems  of  vision and language, and some of the issues it
raises for theoretical and systems work on parallel computa-
tion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 16:40:56 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Category Theory (UCB)
-BODY-
                          BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

                 TIME:                Tuesday, March 26, 11 - 12:30
                 PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 (followed by)
                 DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

            SPEAKER:        George Lakoff, Department  of  Linguistics,  UC
                            Berkeley
            TITLE:          ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things:  A  Guided
                            Tour''

                 I'll be presenting an overview of what's in my  new  book:
            WOMEN, FIRE AND DANGEROUS THINGS:  WHAT CATEGORIES REVEAL ABOUT
            THE MIND.  Here's some of what the tour will cover:

            - Prototype effects are surface phenomena that have sources  in
            cognitive  models  of  four types: scalar, propositional, meto-
            nymic, and radial.

            - Why prototype and basic-level effects are  inconsistent  with
            classical  theories of meaning, including all theories in which
            symbols (that is words, and mental representations)  are  taken
            as  being given meaning by virtue of their relation to external
            reality.  These include  model-theoretic  semantics,  internal-
            representations-of-external-reality,    Fodor's   `semantically
            evaluable' representations, etc.

            - The logical inconsistency of  model-theoretic  semantics  and
            all theories in which meaning is based on truth and reference.

            - How cognitive model theory gets around these problems.

            - Whorf and Relativism: Why there are hundreds of positions  on
            linguistic  relativity  which are not totally relativistic, and
            why at least one such position is probably true.

            - Why categorization phenomena are inconsistent with a view  in
            which (a) thought is merely a matter of symbol manipulation and
            (b) the mind is independent of the  body.  They  are,  however,
            consistent  with information processing approaches in which the
            mind is not separate from and independent of the body.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 11:29:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Morton A Hirschberg <mort@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems in Government Symposium
-BODY-
  I am organizing the sessions on Weapon Systems at the upcoming Expert Systems
in Goverment Symposium to be held in McLean VA, Oct 23-25.  Weapons Systems
topics include adaptive control, electronic warfare, star wars, and target
identification.  Anyone wishing to organize sessions and/or submit papers
can contact me (soon).    Mort

  mort@brl-bmd

  Morton A. Hirschberg
  USA Ballistic Research Laboratory
  Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
  AMXBR-SECAD

  301-278-6661

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
39
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 16:40:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sexism in AI
-BODY-
The response on this list-policy topic (Impure Mathematics/Humor/Rape/
Censorship/Sexism) clearly makes this special digest issue necessary.
A few readers have complained, however, that the discussion has already
been out of hand and that it is my job as moderator to reject such
submissions.  I therefore request that readers direct their further
replies to each other rather than to the list unless they introduce
AI-related issues that are not considered below.

The AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA mailbox is still open for administrative
discussions, and copies of significant messages to that mailbox are
available to interested parties.  I will reply as I have time,
but will not necessarily answer messages cc'd as a courtesy.  It would
be impossible for me to agree with more than half of the opposing views
that have been expressed, but I am generally pleased with the quality
of the arguments that have been presented.

[My] official list policy is a composite of my own views and those that
I perceive the readership to hold, so your feedback on this and other
matters has been helpful in establishing digest policy.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 19 Mar 1985 12:58:53-PST
-FROM-
From: robbins%lite.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (Jeff Robbins CSC/CS 523-4880)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another comment on Polly Nomial
-BODY-
From:   MOLSON::S_ROGENMOSER  "Sharon Rogenmoser (CSC/CS-TSS) 523-4529
To:     LITE::ROBBINS

As far as the story goes, I agree with everyone that complained about it.
It wasn't funny.  And it wasn't just a play on mathematical terms.  It
very obviously associates Polly as a young woman at the beginning of
the story.  And the reason she had such a terrible thing happen to her
was that that she was feeling 'adventurous' that day, so wandered off
where she wasn't supposed to be.

The story very much parallels (no pun intended) what woman are told all
their lives.  And the moral of the story is 'don't allow them freedom'.
Don't you find it interesting that there was nothing mentioned about
Curly doing anything wrong.

I disagree with all the men that commented what a terrible thing censorship
was.  This story explains what a female should expect if she steps out
of the bounds society (or the laws of mathematics) has laid down for her,
just like most of our fairy tales do.

The message is very much there.  And as long as 'innocent' stories are
allowed to circulate without question, the message will be considered
true.

It scares me.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1985  11:15 EST
-FROM-
From: MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Polly Nomial
-BODY-
   From: Ken Laws <Laws at SRI-AI.

   It may be true that if AIList sanctions such material, the material is
   more likely to be distributed through other channels having more
   effect on social behavior.  This is far fetched, but is essentially
   identical to the reasoning behind much of the "sexist language"
   controversy.

The effect that such jokes have on social behavior does not
necessarily have to be rape in order to be unacceptable.  If it
encourages the threat of rape or ridicule of women, which is not so
far fetched, it's unacceptable.

   Let's not get carried away, however.  Impure Mathematics >>is<< funny,
   or at least witty, regardless of whether it has to be banned for
   social reasons.

It was not so long ago that exclusively male clubs existed where women
were kept out by law, the threat of violence, or ridicule.  Such jokes
where part and parcel of keeping up the threat of rape or ridicule
which many women have experienced.  They are means of excluding women
from exclusively male domains, since mostly men enjoy these jokes and
most women are offended by them.  Some men are also threatened by
these kinds of jokes; if they don't find them funny by laughing
openly, their masculinity may be questioned.  I feel that AIList is no
place for such material because it gives the list the aura of an
exclusively male club.

Fanya Montalvo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 16-Mar-85  6:20:58-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Top-Down AI.
-BODY-
The demise of  humour on the AI-Digest would  indeed be a sad event.
I see humour as one of the most functional and dynamic parts of the
list. This follows from the thesis of `The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'
by Robert Heinlein. In this fiction, the central character is `Mike'
who is a self-aware computer who is trying to  understand the human
race. His main  avenue of research is  a massive  analysis of jokes
and non-jokes.  (I hope the title of  the novel is not construed as
sexist!)

Gordon Joly

gcj%edxa@uk.ac.ucl.cs

[I recall a science fiction story in which humor disappeared from the
world once it was realized that jokes (as opposed to puns) were
just tools of aliens studying the transmission of information in our
species.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 13:16:30 est
-FROM-
From: Elias Israel <me%brandeis.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Poly and good taste....
-BODY-
WARNING! Yet another two cents' worth on the same old topic follows:

Normally, I wouldn't say anything, but here at Brandeis we have been
grappling with this very subject. The "Women's Coalition" (a Brandeis group)
is sponsoring "Women's Month" and they have addressed this recently. The
point of contention seems to be about images of men and women in the
mainstream of society. Some people contend that images of men and women in
mainsteam societal activities now actively or passively advocate violence
against women. Not just pornography, about which there has always been this
complaint, but also TV, movies, magazines and, yes, even jokes have been
blamed as vehicles for these images.

The next point that some people make is that the existence of these images
promote violence against women by creating an atmosphere in which violence
against women is considered acceptable behaviour.

This last point is, to my mind, less clear than many people might think. I
see this question as a kind of chicken-and-egg  situation. Which came first:
violence against women, or depictions thereof?  I think this question has to
wait for some more conclusive evidence concerning the acquisition of
attitudes that promote violence against women. Where do these attitudes come
from?

I also have a problem thinking that humour might be a significant vehicle
for these images (assuming that they exist in any of the other cases,
something which seems likely to be true) Humour, by its nature, says "here's
a story that you should not take seriously".  I don't think that the author
of Poly Nomial intended to rationalize rape any more than a person might
rationalize infant killing by telling dead-baby jokes.  The funny part of
the Poly Nomial story was that you could use mathematical terms to describe
a piece of human behaviour. Alas, the behaviour depicted was also something
that is regarded as distasteful and wrong, at least by most responsible
adults. Herein lies the rub. Some people, when they read Poly Nomial, don't
separate the linguistic games from the act that the story depicted.
Understandably, this story can offend when the point of the story seems to
be the act of rape rather than the wordplay.

What to do, what to do?
I guess the only real solution is to be careful about what we post to the
net. There seems no reason in hurting people's sensibilities. At the same
time, however, I think when we get offended by something that comes across
the net, we should each try to be a little less sensitive. We should  try
"not to ascribe to maliciousness that which can be adequately explained by
ignorance" (quote stolen from the 4.2BSD fortune program :-).

In any case, maybe we should let Poly rest and get back to artificial
intelligence (ok, an occasional joke or two would be nice too :-).


======================================================================

Elias Israel
All opinions above are mine, but you know all that.....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 10:13 IST
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <vshank%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor
-BODY-
I would like to request that all seminar announcements no longer be posted
in AIlist.  These seminars are scheduled for places like Stanford and MIT
which I can't attend and therefore I find offensive.  You see, it is sort
of like rubbing my nose it, saying, "Ha ha, we have this great seminar and
we know you can't attend since you are located 5,000 miles away".  I find
this lack of sensitivity on the part of AIlist for people located in
foreign countries most offensive.

You may not find it offensive but I do!!

Henry Nussbacher
Rehovot, Israel

  [Please do not reply to this message until you have taken note
  of the subject line.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 21 Mar 1985 11:12-EST
-FROM-
From: mcc@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rape Jokes and Policy
-BODY-

What if the joke in question were a "nigger" joke, or that it were
about Paul E. Nomial, as Diana Bental suggested, who was raped or
sodomized by a homosexual?  What if Paul E. Nomial (or Polly
Nomial, for that matter) were a five year old and the story were
about sexual assault on a child?  Would it still be funny?  And if
not, why not?  Would Ken Laws have included them in AIList?  Would
David want any of these censored?  If so, why censor any of these
and not the original Polly Nomial?

As far as David thinking that censorship is a crime that is "far
worse" than rape because "it affects so many more" --that is
bullshit.  I have never been a victim of a rape, either, but the
statistics tell us that 50% or more of the women in the U.S. today
have been victims of rape or will be at some time in their lives.
Too many of my friends have been assaulted.  There is a good chance
that some of the women who read AIList, the wives, mothers,
daughters, sisters, friends, co-workers or girlfriends of many of
the men who read AIList have been or will be victims of rape.  In
addition, the fear of rape is debilitating, and it affects 100% of
the women in this country, and their friends, co-workers, husbands,
fathers, sons...  EVERYONE!!!

Regarding freedom and restriction thereof, the precautions we take
in an effort to avoid rape are frustratingly inconvenient and
inadaquate to say the least.  At school, we were ordered not to
EVER jog alone because women had been raped while jogging alone at
9:00 am, 4:30 pm, and (of course) at night.  I resent having to
think twice about taking a course that ends at 10:00 pm.  Sometimes
I can't even walk to my car after dark without wishing I had a can
of mace on hand.

And it bugs me that I can't even read AIList without being harassed.

Maryellen C. Costello
mcc@MITRE-BEDFORD

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 08:46:20 mst
-FROM-
From: crs@LANL.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Reply to Diana Bental
-BODY-
Your reply to Ms. Bental makes a lot of sense to me.  It seems to me that
there is all to much of a tendency among people to want to BAN anything
and everything that offends THEM.  The rationale seems to be that it is
only a "tiny" step from that which they want to ban  to some [to all or to
them] undesirable action by society, but it is a "huge" leap from banning
what they want  to banning the next logical item in the chain.

And, of course, there is the widely held belief that outlawing the
INSTRUMENT of an undesirable action rather than the action itself is
going to save us all from the action.  It doesn't matter to proponents
of this approach that the item banned may well have some perfectly
legitimate purpose for the majority of its users.  If the item is
banned, the activity will magically go away.  In the case of jokes, it
is only WORDS that they would have us ban to cause this magic.  I  am
well aware of the power of words, but this is ridiculous.

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 85 13:52 EST
-FROM-
From: Sheehan.henr@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V3 #37
-BODY-
Diana Bental's assessment of the polynominal joke and censoring
ramifcations is excellent.
Tom Sheehan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 12:13:37-PST
-FROM-
From: VARDI@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Censoring Humor
-BODY-
The pious claims about censorship are misleading. Clearly, not every
thing should appear on a bboard. I can easily come up with something that
would be so offensive that the most liberal moderator would can it.
I find the Poly Nomial joke very offensive to me as a man. Since I believe
that there many others who find such pieces offensive, they should be kept
out of AIList. I see it as the moderators duty.

Moshe Vardi
CSLI, Stanford University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 21-Mar-85 16:40:34-GMT
-FROM-
From: JANE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <Hesketh%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humour
-BODY-
Two points to add to the debate:


1.      I'm surprised that so many people dismiss humour so casually
        as light entertainment, when it can be a particularly good
        way of displaying power. Would the creator of Poly Nomial
        care to make a sexist joke if s/he were being interviewed
        by a woman for a much wanted job? And if the roles were
        reversed?


2.      I often find it illuminating, when looking at questions
        of sexism, to translate into another realm such as racism
        or religious prejudice, in which our sensitivity is not
        so dulled. I doubt whether clever tricks like the Poly Nomial
        story would be regarded as humorous if their context
        were something as ugly as apartheid or sending Jews to
        the gas chambers.


                                        Jane Hesketh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Mar 85 23:50:26 CST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!yali@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Discussion of rape, jokes, censorship.
-BODY-
        I agree with Ken Laws that AILIST is probably
not the best forum to discuss such issues. However,
since he chose to include the original Polly Nomial
article in the digest, it is only fair that some follow-ups
criticising that article also be allowed to appear.
        I also agree with Diana Bental that articles such as
the one under discussion may encourage an acceptance of
attitudes that lead to rape (of women) being regarded
as the prerogative of a man. Moreover, I think that
the humour in such an article itself depends, to some
extent, upon the reader being able to identify with
such attitudes. After all, why is it that one almost
never sees (at least in mainstream N. American circles)
jokes whose humour is based on incidents of homosexual
rape of men by men? Would the readers of AILIST find
such a joke as funny as the Polly Nomial article?
If not, why not? Is it because such behaviour or humour
is not "normal"? Is it the case then that rape of
women by men is in some sense regarded as normal?
Or perhaps I should be more charitable. Perhaps it is
the case that such jokes are made in order to allow
us to sublimate our fear of heterosexual rape, which after all
is a rather common phenomenon in our society. That is,
perhaps we men are all really identifying ourselves with Polly Nomial,
the rape victim. Perhaps.

                        Yawar Ali
                        BNR,  Ottawa (Canada).
                        ihnp4!utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!yali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
40
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 85 12:35:35 est
-FROM-
From: Alan Oppenheim <avo@MIT-BUGS-BUNNY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI short courses
-BODY-

I'm trying to find a TOP QUALITY 3 or 4 day short course on AI/expert systems.
One that I've recently heard about is called knowledge-based systems and AI
offered by Integrated Computer Systems. If anyone has attended this course,
or is familiar with any other similar course I would apprciate their
comments and suggestions. Please send any replies to avo@bugs-bunny.

Al Oppenheim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 85 10:50 PST
-FROM-
From: "B.S.Radhakrishna Sharma" <bsharma%wsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PUBLIC DOMAIN LISP FOR AMDAHL470/V6 OR V8
-BODY-

CAN ANYONE SEND ME POINTERS TO ANY REASONABLY GOOD LISP AVAILABLE ON

PUBLIC DOMAIN

THANX,

BSHARMA@WSU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 22 Mar 85 10:24:20 PST
-FROM-
From: tekig5!sridhar%tektronix.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 4th generation languages
-BODY-
>From the discussions on the above and from the March CACM, I've become
intrigued by 4GL's and am seriously thinking of incorporating them in my
present project. If anyone could give me pointers to where I can get hold of
the technical details, I'd be very grateful. Thanks.

Sridhar

(arpa)          sridhar%tekig5@tektronix
(csnet)         sridhar%tekig5%tektronix@csnet-relay
(usenet)        { decvax,ucbvax,ogcvax,ihnp4,allegra,purdue,psu-eea, masscomp,
                  mit-eddie,mit-ems,uoregon,psu-cs,,uw-beaver,ucbcad ,tekred }
                  !tektronix!tekig5!sridhar
USMAIL: Tektronix, Inc., MS C1-952, PO Box 3500, Vancouver, WA 98661

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Mar 1985 21:53-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Real Time Multi Agent Planning
-BODY-
I know of many good references on multi-agent planning and decisionmaking,
but few that I know of address the issues of real time decisionmaking.
The best overall reference I have seen is a RADC report written by people
at AI&DS: "Distributed Decision Making Environments." This is easily the
best survey of Distributed AI extant (Unfortunately I don't have the
report with me at the moment and can't give you the number. It may be for
limited distribution.)  Also see the work on the Vehicle Monitoring
Testbed (Lesser, Corkhill, et al. at UMASS), the Contract Net (Randy Davis
and Reid Smith), the Rand Corp Air Traffic Control and RPV projects
(Steeb, Cammarata, etc.- there is a real time element here), the SRI work
on multiagent planning (Konolige, Appelt, Genesereth, Rosenschein). Most
of these groups publish regularly in IJCAI and AAAI Proceedings since 1979
or so. Also see the reports on the annual workshops in Distributed AI in
SIGART #'s 73, 80, and 84.

Several people have tried to integrate time into planning - notably:

Steve Vere at JPL (DEVISER) - see IEEE PAMI 5/83 pg. 246 (One of the best
actual planning systems.)

James Allen at Rochester: "Towards a General Theory of Action and Time"
AI Journal 23 (1984) pg. 123-154.

William Long, Reasoning about state from causation and time in a medical
domain, Proc AAAI 83

Drew McDermott, A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans,
Cog Sci, 6 1982, pg 101-157

Kahn, K. and G.A. Gorry: Mechanizing temporal knowledge, AI Journal,
9, 1977, pg 87-108

Gary Hendrix, Modelling Simultaneous actions and continuous processes
AI Journal, 8, 1977, pg 47-68.

Mark Fox's thesis and follow-on work out of CMU Robotics Institute.

We have started a distributed problem solving project here at USC Computer
Science as well, and are investigating temporal planning, joint planning
among agents, evolutionary-opportunistic reasoning, the roles of agent
models, and how agents jointly handle anomalies. Our particular focus
applies knowledge from organization theory and the sociology of work to
multi-agent problem solving.

>- Les Gasser
   Asst. Professor
   Dept. of Computer Science, SAL-200
   USC
   Los Angeles, CA. 90089-0782

ARPANET: GASSER%USC-CSE@CSNET-RELAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 85 16:14:58 pst
-FROM-
From: Vish Dixit <dixit%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Assembly Language as Expert System
-BODY-
I agree with Curtis Goodhart's comments on Expert systems.
It raises the following questions:
        1. is an Expert System simply a programming methodology?
        2. must it be written in a particular language for it to
           be an ES?
        3. Must it embody large/imprecise body of knowledge and
           employ heuristic/adhoc rules?
        4. finaly, what is the most important charasteristic of an ES -
                programming style, language, or the domain?

Also, there seems to be a craze for writing ES for every problem.
(You know that when even the campus recruiters start asking about them.)

If only programming methodology (Forward production System)
is the criterion Assembly language programs would qualify to be called
Expert Systems. (?)
Here it goes:
An assembly language program is written as a sequence of instructions
of the form <operation> <operand> <operand> ...
The <operands> are usualy the internal registers and some memory.
The internal registers and the memory could be considered as the
database (short term memory). Each instruction is simply a Rule of
the expert system. The Rules are <condition> <action> pairs.
In the assembly program, the conditions and some
actions are implicit to save the space.
Thus the instructions
                        ORG 2000H
                        MOV A,B
                        ....

                        ORG 3000H
                        MOV A,B
                        ...
                        JNZ 2000H

actually stand for the rules: (PC is program counter)

                <PC=2000H OR PC=3000H> then <MOV A,B> <PC++>
                <PC=??? AND NZ> then <PC := 2000H>
The order of these rules is immaterial.
The microprocessor control simply looks at whatever rule has its condition
satisfied, fetches it and executes it until it is explicitly put into
Halt mode or it none of rules can be applied (PC runs over). The
actions, conditions, etc are very restricted, nevertheless they are there.

signed -:)
USENET: ...!{sdcrdcf,randvax}!uscvax!dixit
CSNET:  dixit@usc-cse.csnet
ARPA:   dixit%usc-cse@csnet-relay.arpa
MABEL:  (213) 747-3684
USMAIL: EE-systems, SAL-337, Univ. of Southern Calif.,
        Los Angeles, CA 90089-0781

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 85  1808 PST
-FROM-
From: Bengt Jonsson <BXJ@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Possibilities to visit Sweden
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

A new research institute for Computer Sciences is now being formed in
connection with the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
They are interested in furthering contacts with other research groups.
Areas of interest include parallel machine architectures, logic
programming, design of integrated circuits and computer networks.
There is also interest if someone likes to visit Stockholm for X
months of research.  Persons interested in this can send a message to
BXJ@SAIL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 22 Mar 85 10:33:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Evan Cohn <COHN@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Free Trip to Cambridge (England)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Each year the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory pays for a graduate
student from North America to visit the Laboratory for a few weeks over the
summer. By doing this we hope to learn about some of the latest research in
the USA .. and to make a friend. All we expect is that the selected person
will interact with relevant students and faculty members at Cambridge. We will
pay travel to and from Cambridge and provide accomodation in Wolfson College
plus reasonable living expenses (including hire of a bicycle). This year we
can only provide accomodation between 8 July and 14 September.

The selection of our summer visitor is competitive. We base our decision
mainly on the research achievements and potential of the candidate, but also
on the relevance of his interests to those of the people here.

If you would like to apply for the visiting studentship please send a one
page desciption of your current research to:

   Mike Gordon
   University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
   Corn Exchange Street
   Cambridge
   CB2 3QG
   England

Please also arrange for a letter of reference on your behalf to be sent to
this address.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 23 Mar 85 14:27:10-CST
-FROM-
From: CL.SHANKAR@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Plug for FREE TRIP TO CAMBRIDGE
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I was one of the two people who made the trip out there last summer,
and I must say it is a great deal.  Cambridge is a wonderful little
university town and the CS department is really friendly.  I didn't
find out everything about the dept. but their main strengths are:
Networks, Dist. systems, Comp. Architecture, Prog. language theory
and implementation, Natural language understanding, graphics,
VLSI design automation, Program and Hardware verification, etc.
The place is infested with americans, and one of these, Larry Paulson,
will be visiting here in early April.  It's really a fantastic
experience, and I'll be glad to provide more details to anyone
who is interested.

Shankar

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 1985 09:51-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
Electronics Week, February 4 1985
Page 28-30 "Investment Shifts in AI"
Describes Corporate and venture capital funding for AI
Page 51-62
Discusses many AI efforts and systems in different areas (including many
that are not the usual examples given of AI successes).  Also discusses
AI tools.

____________________________________________________________________________

High Technology, March 1985
Page 6: short article on IBM efforts in speech recognition
Page 80: shot article on Hitachi's robot hand.  Based on shape-memory
alloy techniques.  This hand is 1/10 the previous weight and is
described as being almost as good as the human hand.
Page 16-25: articles on expert system shells, a one page business
outlook for expert system shells, and a special article on Intellicorp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 85 19:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: seminar announcements (PENN)
-BODY-

Here are descriptions of some upcomming seminars at the University of
Pennsylvania.  All will be given in the Moore school building (33rd and
Walnut, Philadelphia).


MARKER-PASSING DURING PROBLEM SOLVING; Jim Hendler (Brown)
3pm Tuesday March 26; 216 Moore School

 A standard problem in Artificial Intelligence systems that do planning or
 problem solving is called the "late-information, early-decision paradox." This
 occurs when the planner makes a choice as to which action to consider, prior
 to encountering information that could either identify an optimal solution or
 that would present a contradiction. As the decision is made in the absence of
 this information it is often the wrong one, leading to much needless
 processing.

 In this talk I describe how the technique known as "marker-passing" can be
 used by a problem-solver. Marker-passing, which has been shown in the past to
 be useful for such cognitive tasks as story comprehension and word sense
 disambiguation, is a parallel, non-deductive, "spreading activation"
 algorithm.   By combining this technique with a planning system the paradox
 described above can often be circumvented. The marker-passer can also be used
 by the problem-solver during "meta-rule" invocation and for finding certain
 inherent problems in plans. An implementation of such a system is discussed
 as are the design "desiderata" for a marker-passer.


RATIONAL INTERACTION: COOPERATION AMONG INTELLIGENT AGENTS
Jeffrey S. Rosenschein (Stanford)
10:30 - 12:00 Thursday, April 11; 216 Moore School

 The development of intelligent agents presents opportunities to exploit
 intelligent cooperation. Before this can occur, however, a framework must be
 built for reasoning about interactions. This talk describes such a framework,
 and explores strategies of interaction among intelligent agents.

 The formalism that has been developed removes some serious restrictions that
 underlie previous research in distributed artificial intelligence,
 particularly the assumption that the interacting agents have identical or non-
 conflicting goals. The formalism allows each agent to make various
 assumptions about both the goals and the rationality of other agents. In
 addition, it allows the modeling of restrictions on communication and the
 modeling of binding promises among agents.


VISION SYSTEM OF MOBILE ROBOT, Saburo Tsuji (Osaka University)
3pm Monday, April 1st, 216 Moore School

  This paper describes model-guided monitoring of a building environment
  by a mobile robot. The prior knowledge on the environment is used as a
  priori world model and constraints for image analysis. The world model
  is arranged in a hierarchy with three levels so as to provide coarse to
  fine structures of environment; 1D route, 3D work space and 2D patterns
  of specific obects. In the preliminary experiments, a mobile platform
  with a TV camera is driven around passages of a building via a given
  route and reports changes there to a human operator. It stops every few
  meters, takes pictures and finds correspondences between line features
  detected in the image and those in the image model generated from the
  work space model. Mismatched lines are further examined to detect
  changes in the scenes. The drawbacks in the system design are
  discussed, and a brief overview of hardware and software systems of a
  new mobile robot is described.


COUNTERFACTUAL IMPLICATION; Matt Ginsberg (Stanford)
2pm Friday, May 3rd, 216 Moore School

 Counterfactuals are a form of commonsense non-monotonic inference that has
 been of long-term interest to philosophers. In this talk, I discuss the
 problem of deriving counterfactual statements from a predicate calculus
 database, and present a formal description of this derivation that allows the
 encoding of some context-dependent information in the choice of a sublanguage
 of the logical language in which we are working. The construction is formally
 identical to the "possible worlds" interpretation due to David Lewis.

 A concrete example is given which uses counterfactual implication for the
 purpose of diagnosing digital hardware, and the talk concludes with a
 discussion of possible applications of counterfactuals elsewhere in AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Mar 1985 1049-PST
-FROM-
From: JOUANNAUD@SRI-CSL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Rewriting Techniques and Applications
-BODY-

*****************************************
* First International Conference        *
* on                                    *
* Rewriting Techniques and Applications *
*****************************************

To be held
in
Dijon, Burgundy, FRANCE
from May, 20 to May, 22, 1985.

Sponsored
by
NSF, CNRS, ADI
Bull
University of Dijon
City Council of Dijon.


Program Committee
*****************

Jan Bergstra, Amsterdam
Joseph Goguen, SRI-International
John Guttag, MIT
Jean-Pierre Jouannaud, Nancy (co-chairman)
Pierre Lescanne, CRIN
David Musser, General Electric Labs (co-chairman)
Peter Padawitz, Passau
David Plaisted, Chapel Hill
Ravi Sethi, Bell Labs
David Turner, Kent


Warning: Since Dijon is a very attractive city, and welcomes many
peope late spring and summer, your Hotel reservation Form must arrive
no later than April 10th.  No reservation can be garanteed after that
date.  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
41
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 15:20 EST
-FROM-
From: Eleanor Hare <eohare%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Music Composition
-BODY-
Does anyone know of any work currently being done
in composition of music?  Are there
any bibliographies about?

Please reply direct to EOHARE@clemson (not member of this list)

Eleanor Hare
DCS
(803) 656-3444

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 85 12:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Ethel Schuster <Ethel%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for a paper
-BODY-

I am looking for a paper that was presented at the 1980 AISB conference
which was held in Amsterdam in July. The title of the paper is
"A Rather Intelligent Language Teacher" by S. Cerri and J. Breuker.
I would really appreciate it if anyone who has a copy of the procedings
could send me a photocopy of the paper at the following address:

Ethel Schuster
Department of Computer and Information Science/D2
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 26 Mar 1985 07:01:28-PST
-FROM-
From: sclark%nermal.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: REQUEST FOR INFO
-BODY-
A colleague and I will be presenting a paper and a workshop on machine
translation at the Society for Technical Communication's International
Technical Communications Conference in May.  We are designing the
workshop to show technical writers ways to make their writing more
conducive to being translated by machine.  We welcome any ideas and
suggestions from the AIList community.

Regards,

Sharon Clark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 85 08:40:31 pst
-FROM-
From: stever@cit-vax (Steve Rabin  )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GO Algorithms
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from Arpanet-BBoards by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am looking for pointers at algorithms for playing the oriental
game GO, or contact with authors of computer programs which play GO.
Reply to stever@cit-vax or cithep!cit-vax!stever.   Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 09:55:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RuleMaster
-BODY-
Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE asked about RuleMaster in a recent digest.
I found the following information on p. 107 of Expert Systems, Vol. 1,
No. 2, October 1984:

    RuleMaster: inductive rule-generator and rule language.  Primitive
    attributes characterising problem domain are coded in C as
    external routines.  RuleMaster is suitable for implementing
    both heuristic models and deep models of expertise.  For
    VAX machines and Unix machines in general (including SUN
    workstation), $15,000.  Further information may be obtained
    from Intelligent Terminals Ltd., George House, 36 North
    Hanover Street, Glasgow G1 2AD, Scotland.

The same company offers several other inductive rule generators for
a variety of hardware systems and programming languages.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 1985 21:38-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Survey
-BODY-
International J. Systems Sciences 15 (1984) no 11 1231-1246
Blesiada, Henryk "Calculating the growth function of a developmental
system in the case of asynchronous elementary operations"
____________________________________________________________________________
Pattern Recogniton 17 (1984) no 2 205-210
L. Bobrowski, W. Niemiro "A method of synthesis of linear discriminant
function in the case of nonseparability"
____________________________________________________________________________
Cybernetics 19 (1983) no 6 843-848
S. S. Epshtein A. L. Goralik "Information additivity conditions in
object and phenomena recognition problems
____________________________________________________________________________
Podstawy Sterowania 13 (1983) Ewa Grabska no 4 279-292
Compositing nets and their application to pattern representation
203-214 Marian Loboda "Classification of strings of the sample by means
of canonical systems"
____________________________________________________________________________
BOOK (in French): Laurent Miclet Structural methods for pattern recognition.
Scientific and Technical Collection on Telecommunications Editions
Eyrolles, Paris 1984
____________________________________________________________________________
M. Yu Moshkov "Uniqueness of minimal tests for pattern recognition
problems with linear decison rules" (in Russian)
Combinatorial-algebraic methods in applied mathematics 97-109
Gorkov Gos. Univ., Gorki 1981
____________________________________________________________________________
M. Richetin and F. Vernadat Efficient regular grammatical inference for
pattern recognition.  Pattern Recognition 17 (1984) no 2 245-250
259-273 A. G. Wacker "Average classification accuracy over collections
of Gaussian problems - common covariance matrix case"
____________________________________________________________________________
BOOK: J. W. Lloyd Foundations of logic programming. Symbolic
Computation. Artificial Intelligence Spring Verlag, NY 1984
____________________________________________________________________________
Cybernetics 20 (1984) no 1 147-152 M. K. Morokhovets "A modified
unification procedure"
____________________________________________________________________________
C. R. Acad. Bulgare Scie. 37 (1984) no 6 741-744
A. Atas Radenski "Functional Programming in the Style of Logic
Programming"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Mar 1985 09:47-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Robotics
-BODY-
Electronics Week, January 21, 1985
"Robots get Smart in Japan"  Discusses an organ playing automaton from
Sumitomo Inc. (designed as a technological tour de force), Hitachi's
mobile robot (which can climb stairs) and Toshiba's climbing robot.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 14:18:42-PST
-FROM-
From: C Papadimitriou <PAPA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Science in Greece
-BODY-
Here is a piece I wrote for the EATCS Bulletin on the occasion of the 12th
ICALP.  [...]

                        COMPUTER SCIENCE IN GREECE

There are two Departments of Computer Science in Greece, one in the University
of Patras and one in the University of Crete at Iraklion; there is also a
Division of Computer Science in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the
National Technical University of Athens.  Departments are also being started at
the University of Athens and the Athens Business School, and there are several
isolated computer scientists at other Universities, such as the University of
Thessaloniki.  Finally, there are three newly founded Departments of Computer
Technology in the Institutes for Technical Education.

The most pressing problem is, of course, qualified academic personnel.  Most
Departments have tried to tap the Greek computer scientists of the diaspora,
with varying success.  Many Greek computer scientists are currently in the
transition from a career abroad, typically in the U.S., to an academic career
in Greece, and the ``re-entry problem'' has proven formidable.  The
two-year obligatory military service and its inflexible rules is not the least
of the problems.  In all, this is a very critical moment for Computer Science
higher education in Greece.

Outside Academia, there is of course a large market for computer usage, a
growing software industry, and a number of hardware ventures in the making.
Very recently, there has been a considerable high-level government
involvement in all aspects of Informatics, via the Governmental Council for
Informatics.

As for research, in Patras there are research groups in Computer Architecture,
Numerical Analysis, and Workstations.  In Crete, the interests range from
Databases and Office Automation to VLSI.  In Thessaloniki, there is research
activity in Logic Programming, Architecture, and Numerical Analysis.  Now, in
Theoretical Computer Science, there is one group at the Division of Informatics
at the National Technical University of Athens, with Leo Guibas, Foto Afrati,
Lefteris Kiroussis, Andreas Stafilopatis, and Christos Papadimitriou on the
faculty, and a group of graduate students.  There is only a two-year military
service and a volume of intractable legislation between Mihalis Yannakakis and
this group.  The interests range from Algorithms, Complexity, Geometry,
Database Theory, Automatic Program Synthesis, Combinatorial Optimization, and
Parallel Computation.  Also at NTUA there are faculty members with research
interests in Databases, Hardware, and Logic Programming, as well as people
working in related fields, such as Communication, Signal Processing, and
Control.

                                                Christos H. Papadimitriou

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 85 02:41:52 pst
-FROM-
From: newton@cit-vax (Mike Newton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rape jokes & Policy
-BODY-

Regarding your [mcc@mitre-bedford] recent posting to AIList-Digest:

I believe the words "censorship is a far worse crime for it affect so many
more" were mine and not "David's".

Cold hard (horrible) figures:  Regarding your numbers (believing the 50%
>- from what i have read 12% -- either is horrible enough) 50% of women raped
times 52% of the population being female yields 26%.  Vastly different
than censoring everybody (100%).

Though I believe the story would have been censored if it had been
"a five year old" (this year's current fad) that does not mean it should
be censored.  I cannot guess whether Ken Laws would have censored
"Paul E. Nomial", though, again, I hope he, nor anyone else, would act
as a censor for (against!) me.

  [In point of fact, it was I who "reported" the story to AIList
  in the first place.  Had I chosen not to do so, this would
  hardly be censorship.  I also regard it as my duty to keep
  offensive or pointless material out of AIList (as a courtesy
  to the readership and because of Arpanet policy); some
  censorship is therefore unavoidable.  -- KIL]

Do you think rape does not affect the male part of the population?  I am
sure fear of rape does is not 'debilitating ... 100% of the women in
this country' for I know too many women that will not let their lifes be
curtailed in this manner.  I also know that the reverse implication is
equally false.  The women that I have been close too I care about.  I
and a friend have gone to sessions held by the local police -- sessions
that invited women and their partners to come -- and have been one of
two or three males out of a group of 20.  I still VERY MUCH believe
against censorship.

Equally, men are about 7 times more often killed by the firing of a gun
than women.  Should I ask that gun jokes be forbidden?

Finally, your line "And it bugs me that I can't even read AIList without
being harassed" leaves me with a bitter taste.  Harassment implies intent,
intent which I doubt the original poster, or the moderator, or any reader
felt towards you.

mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
ate: 25 Mar 85 14:10:30 PST (Monday)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Censorship vs Sexism
-BODY-  From: "Bill Wu.osbunorth"@XEROX.ARPA


The response so far illustrates the diffulty of keeping cool during the
discussion of a sensitive subject.   Are we all scientists?  Let us
examine the facts and data.

Those who claim that jokes on rape, such as Poly Nomial, can actually
increase the number of rape please show me actual data which support
your conjecture and procedures of collecting and interpreting them.

Those who claim that even a small step of censorship can lead to a
bigger censorship please show me actual data which support your
conjecture and procedures of collecting and interpreting them.

So far I only find two facts.  For those who feel offended by that joke
want to censor it, who gives you the right to censor when YOU feel being
offended.  For those who feel the joke amusing (or not offended) want to
keep it, who gives you the right to speak in this forum when YOU feel
like it?

Why don't we let our moderator decide what to be put in the distribution
list.  If you do not like his policy, send a message to HIM ONLY.



	Bill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Mar 85 17:32:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Evolution and Polly Nomial
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the AIList-Request mailbox, with permission.  -- KIL]


An evolutionary perspective on the Polly Nomial story may help in
suggesting alternative actions that can be taken to end the propogation
of such material which are not censorship.

	The Polly Nomial story can be properly viewed as an EMAIL or
copy machine "virus".   What persuades people to reproduce and propogate
it is that it is a clever telling of a story using mathematical
terms.  The disturbing content (which is its meta-message that rape is
exciting, adventurous, and a top choice as a topic for humor) is, for a
sufficient number of people, either missed or not disturbing enough to
counter the cleverness, so the story is kept "alive" in the
"replicative" media.  The rape content itself is not keeping the story
going, because we do not see other humourous items on rape in the
R-media.  But the rape content seem to be an inseparable part of the
story, and gets propogated along with the cleverness (like sticking
ammendments on bills in Congress).

	But, if there were an alternative story which made just as
clever use of mathematical terms, and had a fun and exciting plot, it
would get propagated quite well.  After one had seen
the alternative story, one would not be as likely to propagate "Polly
Nomial".  A competing "species" might therefore take over the "niche"
that "Polly Nomial" has in the R-media.  My suggestion is that someone,
even the original author of "Polly Nomial", come with a competing story,
and throw it into the replicative media (electronic mail, bulletin
boards, and copy machines) and see what happens.


  [Someday there will be AI (or other buzzword) systems to translate
  documents into alternative styles, with or without semantic modification
  to accentuate particular effects such as puns and alliteration.  We
  will then be able to produce as many variants of the Poly Nomial
  style as we wish -- but will no longer have any interest in doing so.
  Such is the nature of art.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 01:40:39-CST
-FROM-
From: CL.SHANKAR@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Constructive Type Theory (UTexas)
-BODY-

Colloquium: David Turner, Wed. Mar. 27, Pai 3.14, 4PM
Title:  Constructive type theory as a programming language

Abstract:  Constructive type theory is a formal logic and set theory which
has been developed by Per Martin-Lof as a foundation for constructive
(or "intuitionist") mathematics.  Curiously, it can also be read as a
(strongly typed) functional programming language, with a number of unusual
properties, including that well-typed programs always terminate.  The talk
will give an overview of the main ideas in constructive type theory from
the point of view of someone trying to use it as a programming language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 26 Mar 85 10:26:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Commercial AI Forum
-BODY-
I have received literature touting the Gartner Group's first annual
forum on AI, Commercial Artificial Intelligence: Myths and Realities,
May 20-22, Century Plaza Hotel, 2025 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles.
The $800 seminar ($700 with payment by March 31) consists of a
couple of talks and a series of panels by knowledgeable executives and
corporate officers.  Topics include AI in computer operations,
manufacturing, financial services, office information systems, user
interfaces, personal computers, and specialized hardware, as well as
management and investment.

For more information, contact Ashley Pearce, (203) 967-6757,
Gartner Group, Inc., P.O. Box 10212, Stamford, CT  06904.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
42
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Mar 85 09:51:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Mailboxes
-BODY-
I have recently been getting many messages in inappropriate mailboxes.
In most cases I can deduce the sender's intention and forward to the
appropriate mailbox, but it would be a help to me if readers would
observe the following convention:

   AIList@SRI-AI.ARPA - Submissions for broadcast to the list.

   AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA - Messages related to list administration
   or policy, for private reply.

   Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA - Messages unrelated to AIList policy.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 12:38:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Morton A Hirschberg <mort@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for chemistry AI expert systems
-BODY-
I am looking for information about expert systems in chemistry.  More
specifically, documentation if any exists, such as rules or flow
charts. They need not be in the public domain.  Of course, more
information is better (prices for commercial stuff).  Thanks.

  Mort


  [Some of the famous systems are Stanford's DENDRAL and META-DENDRAL
  for mass spectrometry and NMR analysis, SUNY(Stonybrook)'s SYNCHEM
  system for chemical synthesis, Stanford's MOLGEN and GA1 for DNA
  analysis and synthesis, Stanford's CRYSALIS for protein
  crystallography, UCSC's SECHS for chemical synthesis, and Rand's
  SPILLS for locating and identifying chemical spills.  I don't know
  which of these are commercial systems, though IntelliCorp (formerly
  IntelliGenetics) has derived commercial systems from some of them.
  For rules and other info I would suggest that you do a search of the
  chemical literature or contact the universities for technical reports;
  the AI conference proceedings and journals would discuss mostly the
  data structures and reasoning methods.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03/28/85 13:34:17
-FROM-
From: ADIS@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spelling Check Algorithms
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Does anyone know of some good references for spelling checking
algorithms?  Human or written references acceptable.

Andy diSessa (ADIS@MC)

  [Check the following from Communications of the ACM:

    J.L. Peterson, Computer Programs for Detecting and Correcting
    Spelling Errors, Vol. 23, No. 12, Dec. 1980, pp. 676-687.
    Replys in Vol. 24, No. 5, May 1981, pp. 322 and 331-332;
    Vol. 24, No. 9, Sep. 1981, pp. 608-609; and Vol. 25, No. 3,
    Mar. 1982, pp. 220-221.

    P. Robinson and D. Singer, Another Spelling Correction Program,
    Vol. 24, No. 5, May 1981, pp. 296-297, followed by R. Nix,
    Experience witha Space Efficient Way to Store a Dictionary,
    pp. 297-298.  Replys in Vol. 24, No. 9, Sep. 1981, pp. 618-619
    [from a pseudonymous Joaquin Miller], and Vol. 25, No. 2,
    Feb. 1982, p. 159.

    M. Mor and A.S. Fraenkel, A Hash Code Method for Detecting
    and Correcting Spelling Errors, Vol. 25, No. 12, Dec. 1982,
    pp. 935-938.

    D.J. Dodds, Reducing Dictionary Size by Using a Hashing Technique,
    Vol. 25, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 368-370.

    J.J. Pollock and A. Zamora, Automatic Spelling Correction in
    Scientific and Scholarly Text, Vol. 27, No. 4, Apr. 1984, pp. 358-368.

    These papers provide references to dozens of others.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 08:57:42 pst
-FROM-
From: coates%usc-liddy%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: World models for Planning in a Dynamic Environment
-BODY-
        Does anyone know of research on representation scemes for
world knowledge that facilitate planning for an agent which actually
executes in a dynamic domain?

        I am interested in modelling an agents ability to detect
anomalies iplan due to unexpected results during plan execution.
Additional complications in plan enactment may occur if the world
contains other agents whose behavior is unpredictable.

        If anyone can recommend papers on appropriate knowledge
representations and/or methods for anomally detection in dynamic
worlds contact me at: COATES%USC-liddy@USC-CSE.CSNET

  [I have sent a copy of Les Gasser's reference list.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Mar 85 16:14:33-PST
-FROM-
From: MOHAN@USC-ECLC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Associative Processing
-BODY-

I am working on identifying system software requirements for an array processor
(based on associative processing and cellulaer array processing). The processor
is to be used primarily for Artificial Intelligence and Image Undersatnding
tasks. Main system software requirements would be in the area of a suitable
language, its compiler and an operating system. (A host computer is assumed
to be attatched to this processor).

Some pointers to relevant work and literature will be welcome. Please send
mail to me or to AIList.

 Thanks.

Rakesh Mohan

ARPA-  mohan@eclc
US Mail- Rm #224 Powell Hall
         University of Southern California
         Los Angeles, CA 90007.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 21:23:43 pst
-FROM-
From: jeff@aids-unix (Jeff Dean)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: wanted: travelling AI lecturer
-BODY-

I've just received a request from someone at California State
Polytechnic (in San Luis Obispo) for a lecture on "AI" (yes, that
provides considerable leeway).  Unfortunately, San Luis is a
little out of the way for most of us, being halfway between SF and
LA (a four hour drive from either place).  However, if there are
any ("qualified") folks out there who might be interested in
making a presentation, please let me know. Thanks...

P.S.  There is no expiration date on this opportunity, but
the presentation should be given during the school year.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 29 Mar 85 09:18:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MacIntosh Lisp
-BODY-
I have heard a rumor that Expertelligence of Santa Barbara has now
come out with their version of a Maclisp/Commonlisp for the 512K
MacIntosh, priced just below $500.  I haven't checked it out, but
(805) 969-7871 was given as the phone number for more information.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 1985 0555-PST
-FROM-
From: MEYERS%UCI-20A@UCI-ICSA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: game of GO
-BODY-

In response to a query about Go programs:

         Wilcox, Bruce  and Walter Reitman
         The Structure and Performance of the Interim.2 Go Program.
         IJCAI, 1979. pp.711-719.

Address: University of Michigan
         205 Washtenaw Place
         Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Unfortunately, this is the most recent work I know of; it references
most other work.  Theirs is a long-term, conceptual approach.  Also:

         David J H Brown
         Hierarchical Reasoning in the Game of Go.
         IJCAI, 1979. pp.114-116.

Address: Computer Science Department
         Teesside Polytechnic
         Middlesborough, Cleveland, England

            Good luck!
                Amnon Meyers (meyers @ uci) (2-dan)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 1985 09:52-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Expert System Shells
-BODY-
Infoworld April 1, 1985 page 46 Volume 7 no 13

There is a review of a revised version of "Expert Ease."  This is a
system which sets up a classification system based upon examples given
by the user.  Many feel that it is not a true "AI" system but rather a
decision table development tool that is being marketed by people as an
AI system for the purposes of making a fast buck.

It is has dropped in price from $2,000 to $695.00 and is being marketed
by Human Edge Software.  The ratings are:

  two out of a possible four diskettes
  performance: good
  documentation: fair
  ease of use: good
  error handling: excellent
  support: good

____________________________________________________________________________
Electronics Week, March 25, 1985  page 35

NIXDORF has announced an expert system shell which runs on its 32-bit
minicomputer, the 8832.  The cost is $47,00 at current exchange rates.
Nixdorf is also selling a system called Twaice which is designed to
build expert systems to help diagnose malfunctioning objects.

There is also a joint venture between the British Racal Electroinics
and Norway's Norsk data selling an expert system shell.  Matra S. A. is
selling an AI system for military training.

Also there are a few paragraphs on GCLisp's Golden Common Lisp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 1985 18:10-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Survey
-BODY-
ComputerWorld March 18, 1985 "Engineers behind Expert Systems"
A reprint from Patel Harmon, Dave King "AI in business"
____________________________________________________________________________
JACM Vol 32 no 1 Jan 1985
 1 Three Approaches to Heuristic Search in Networks A. Bagchi and A. Mahanti
28 And/Or Graph Heuristic Search methods
____________________________________________________________________________
IEEE Trans on Industrial Electronics Vol 32 No 1 Feb 85
Design and Implementation of a Binocular-Vision System for Locating
Footholds on a Multi-Legged Walking Robot F. Ozguner S. J. Tsai Page 26
____________________________________________________________________________
ComputerWorld March 25 1985 Page 11
Usefulness of micro expert systems called limited

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 85 18:40 CDT
-FROM-
From: Patrick_Duff <pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Development of Nat. Langs., Pidgin, Creole, Lang. Trans/Unders/Gener.
-BODY-

   I have a newspaper clipping which quotes Dr. Laurence McNamee, a
linquistics professor at East Texas State University, as follows:

         "Theories on the origin of language became so rife and
      so romantic that in 1886 the Linguistic Society of Paris
      passed a resolution outlawing any more theories on this
      topic, a resolution that has since been reaffirmed.

         "The truth is that scholars simply do not know how
      languages developed because they have never observed one
      develop.  We have seen many languages die, and recently
      even witnessed the rebirth of a language (Hebrew), but
      never a language from its initial stage."

Can anyone elaborate on the resolutions and why the issue came up?

   Derek Bickerton writes in "Creole Languages" (Scientific American,
July 1983, pages 116-122) that new languages have developed...

         "... many times over the past 500 years among the
      children of slaves and laborers who were pressed into
      service by the European colonial powers.

         "These laborers, who were shipped from many parts
      of the world to tend and harvest crops in Africa, the
      Indian Ocean region, the Orient, the Caribbean and
      Hawaii, were obliged to communicate within their
      polygot community by means of the rudimentary speech
      system called pidgin.  Pidgin speech is extremely
      impoverished in syntax and vocabulary, but for the
      children born into the colonial community it was the
      only common language available.  From these modest
      beginnings, new native languages evolved among the
      children, which are generically called creole
      languages.  It can be shown that they exhibit the
      complexity, nuance and expressive power universally
      found in the more established languages of the world."

         "... scholars have noted a remarkable similarity
      of structure among all the creole languages.  It can
      now be demonstrated, by considering the origin of
      creole language in Hawaii, that similarities among
      creoles cannot be accounted for by contact with other
      languages, either indigenous or imported.  The finding
      suggests that what is common to creole languages may
      indeed form the basis of the acquisition of language
      by children everywhere.  There is now an impressive
      body of evidence to support this hypothesis:  between
      the ages of two and four the child born into a
      community of linguistically competent adults speaks
      a variety of language whose structure bears a deep
      resemblance to the structure of creole languages...."

   Besides recommending that interested parties read this Scientific
American article, I'm curious about whether it would be useful to use
a creole language as an intermediate language for translation, what
"pidgin speech" with its "impoverished syntax and vocabulary" could
tell us about how to design command languages for computer systems,
whether the current state-of-the-art in natural language parsers and
generators are up to the task of using pidgin or creole, etc..  After
looking at some of the sample sentences in the article, it seems to
me that it would be easier for a computer program to generate or
understand a sentence in Pidgin or Hawaiian Creole than it would be
for it to handle the English equivalent.

   regards, Patrick

   Patrick S. Duff, ***CR 5621***          pduff.ti-eg@csnet-relay
   5049 Walker Dr. #91103                  214/480-1905 (work)
   The Colony, TX 75056-1120               214/370-5363 (home)
   (a suburb of Dallas, TX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 29-Mar-85 17:06:35-GMT
-FROM-
From: GIDEON FH (on ERCC DEC-10) <G.Sahar%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Edinburgh Intelligent Knowledge Based Designer System
-BODY-

                          UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

                     DEPARTMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

                    Alvey Large Scale Demonstrator Project
              "Design to Product" at the University of Edinburgh:

  The Alvey Directorate  have awarded  a  major  contract to a consortium of
  companies and universities: GEC Electrical Projects, GEC Marconi  Research
  Centre,  GEC  Avionics, Lucas CAV, the National Engineering Laboratory and
  Edinburgh, Leeds and Loughborough Universities.  The part of  the  project
  to be carried  out  at  Edinburgh  will involve the development of a novel
  Intelligent Knowledge Based Designer System.  This  Designer  System  will
  enable  a  design  engineer  to  communicate  interactively the conceptual
  function and form of a design, and  to  interface  the  resulting  product
  description  to  a  manufacturing  capability.   It will be implemented in
  POP-11, Prolog and Lisp, running in the Poplog environment, under the UNIX
  operating system.


  Further information is also to be had from tims%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa.
  If you are interested and have questions, don't hesitate to ask them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 85 18:03:46 cst
-FROM-
From: porter@anl-mcs (Porter)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Expert Systems
-BODY-
        Workshop on Knowledge Engineering/Expert Systems

The twenty-fourth annual workshop sponsored by the Western
Committee of the IEEE Computer Society will be held September 4-
6, 1985 at the UCLA Conference Center at Lake Arrowhead.  The
subject of the workshop is:  "Knowledge Engineering:  How?"
Sessions are planned on knowledge acquisition, knowledge
representation, inferencing strategies, and programming
environments.

Topics of discussion include the following:  Are there domain-
specific approaches to knowledge acquisition?  How can an expert
system tell when it is in an area outside of its competence?
What is the best way to choose inference strategies?  How much
can expert system builders help?  How important are user models?
How does one deal with the uniqueness of an expert's knowledge?
How do questions of acquisition relate to representation and
inference strategies?

Due to the limited facilities, attendence will be by invitation.
People working in the knowledge engineering and expert systems
area are encouraged to contact the program chairperson, Greg
Kearsley, Courseware, Inc., 10075 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego,
Ca  92131, (619) 578-1700 or the general chairperson, Sig Porter,
Merdan Group, Inc. 4617 Ruffner Street, Box 17098, San Diego, CA
92117 (619-571-8565).

(note: Greg will be out of communication until about April 20,
and Sig will also be unreachable until April 8.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
43
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Mar 85 18:18:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: EURISKO
-BODY-
Does anyone know who in the Stanford area is actively working with
EURISKO, if anyone, now that Doug Lenat is in Texas?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 85 09:02:48 mst
-FROM-
From: cib@LANL.ARPA (C.I. Browne)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DENDRAL/META-DENDRAL
-BODY-

Can anyone tell me where either source or object code for DENDRAL and
META-DENDRAL may be obtained? SUMEX advises that they no longer either
support or distribute the program, and refer me to Molecular Design
Limited. While that company markets several interesting programs,
neither DENDRAL nor META-DENDRAL is among them.

It would be a pity if such programs have disappeared from the scene and
become unavailable to sites wishing to include them in an AI library.

Thank you.

cib

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 March 1985 1049-EST
-FROM-
From: Peter Pirolli@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 for PCs
-BODY-
I just received a flyer for a language called TOPSI which is supposed
to be an OPS5 clone developed for CP/M and MS-DOS machines.  Here are some
quotes from the flyer:

 "TOPSI has the full power of the original language PLUS extensions to
  improve its computational and list management capabilities.  Usage of
  memory and computer time is optimized for use on home computers."

 "TOPSI rule are written in a simple, legible form and compiled into a
  memory-efficient data structure enabling fast execution."

 "TOPSI's rule base and data base can be saved separately allowing a system
  to be exercised easilty with different data sets."

 "TOPSI is available on 5 1/4 in diskettes for 65k CP/M systems or MS-DOS
  with at least 128k of memory.  It comes complete with a users manual,
  example programs, a tutorial section on writing your own production systems,
  and a 30 day warranty."

The company is:
  Dynamic Master Systems Inc.
  P.O. Box 566456
  Atlanta, GA 30356
  [404] 565-0771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Mar 85 15:21:43-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MCC's Bob Inman named to SWB's board of directors
-BODY-
[ from the Austin American Statesman - March 30, 1985 ]

Bob Inman, chairman and chief executive officer of MCC has been elected to the
board of directors of Southwestern Bell Corp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 85 09:48:24 PST
-FROM-
From: "David G. Cantor" <DGC@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: If f(f(x)) = x^2 - 2, what is f(x)?
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Q: "Can a computer solve the query:

  "If f(f(x)) = x^2 - 2, what is f(x)?

If so, how?"

   [This question was forwarded to the Prolog Digest
   a few weeks ago by Nils Nilsson.  -- KIL]

The solution is essentially contained in the
article by Michael Restivo in the March 20
issue of Prolog Digest.

The nth Tchebycheff Polynomial may be defined
as
                         n        n
        T   (x)   =    u    +   v   ,
          n

where  u  =  (x + d)/2,  v   =  (x - d)/2, with
       d  =  sqrt(x * x - 4).

It is easy to check that, when n is an integer,
the powers of d cancel and hence that the above
functions are really are polynomials.  These
polynomials satisify numerous identities.  The
pertinent one here is that

        T   (T  (x))   =   T      (x) .
          m    n             m * n

This can be verified by elementary algebra (note
that u * v = 1).  It holds certainly for all complex
numbers m and n, subject to choosing appropriate
branches of the mth and nth power as well as the
square root, in the complex plane.

The function

        f(x)   =   T        (x)
                     sqrt(2)
then satisfies

        f(f(x)) =  T         (T         (x))
                     sqrt(2)    sqrt(2)

                =  T                   (x)
                     sqrt(2) * sqrt(2)

                =  T   (x)
                     2

                =   x * x   -   2,

and hence solves the original problem.

As to how a computer could solve this:

It need only search the mathematical literature
to find a paper by Michael Fried giving all
solutions to the functional equation (due to
Issai Schur):

F   (F   (x))   =   F        (x) .
  m    n              m * n

Fried shows that, under very general conditions,
the solutions are either
               n
F   (x)  =   x       or      F   (x)   =   T   (x) ,
  n                            n             n

as given above. The computer then need only recognize
that the given function

f(x)   =   T   (x) .
             2

Alternatively it could recognize the latter first,
and be led to study identities of the Tchebycheff
polynomials.

>- David G. Cantor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 85 12:13:39 pst
-FROM-
From: Jeff Ullman <ullman@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NAIL! (Not another implementation of Logic!) Journal Club
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

There is a meeting of people interested in implementation
of database systems with a "knowledge" component, i.e., a logical
language providing access to a database.
We primarily read and present papers, and present our own ideas
on the subject.

The first Spring meeting is 1PM Weds. 4/3, in 252MJH, and
subsequent meetings are Wednesdays, 11AM in 301MJH.

You can get on the nail list by mailing to mailer@diablo
a message with *subject heading* add <yourname> to nail

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 14:45:45 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Plans and Situated Actions (UCB)
-BODY-
                          BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                         Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

                 TIME:                Tuesday, April 2, 11 - 12:30
                 PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 (followed by)
                 DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

            SPEAKER:        Lucy Suchman, Intelligent  Systems  Laboratory,
                            Xerox PARC

            TITLE:          ``Plans and Situated Actions:  the  problem  of
                            human-machine communication''

                 Researchers in Cognitive Science view the organization and
            significance  of action as derived from plans, which are prere-
            quisite to and prescribe action at whatever level of detail one
            might imagine.  Mutual intelligibility on this view is a matter
            of the recognizability of plans, due to common conventions  for
            the  expression  of  intent, and common knowledge about typical
            situations and appropriate actions.  An alternative view, drawn
            from  recent  work  in  social science, treats plans as derived
            from situated  actions.   Situated  actions  as  such  comprise
            necessarily  ad  hoc  responses to the actions of others and to
            the contingencies of particular situations.  Rather than depend
            upon the reliable recognition of intent, successful interaction
            consists in the  collaborative  production  of  intelligibility
            through  mutual  access to situation resources, and through the
            detection, repair or exploitation of differences in understand-
            ing.

                 As common sense formulations designed  to  accomodate  the
            unforseeable   contingencies  of  situated  action,  plans  are
            inherently vague.  Researchers interested in  machine  intelli-
            gence  attempt  to  remedy the vagueness of plans, to make them
            the  basis  for  artifacts  intended  to   embody   intelligent
            behavior,  including  the  ability to interact with their human
            users.  I  examine the  problem  of  human-machine  interaction
            through  a case study of people using a machine designed on the
            planning model, and intended to be intelligent and interactive.
            A conversation analysis of "interactions" between users and the
            machine reveals that the machine's insensitivity to  particular
            circumstances  is  both a central design resource, and a funda-
            mental limitation.   I  conclude  that  problems  in  Cognitive
            Science's  theorizing  about  purposeful  action as a basis for
            machine intelligence are due to  the  project  of  substituting
            plans  for  actions,  and  representations  of the situation of
            action for action's actual circumstances.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 17:18:44-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Models in Syllogistic Reasoning (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 4, 1985

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall       ``Manipulating Models in Syllogistic Reasoning''
     Room G-19          Marilyn Ford, CSLI
                        Discussion leader to be announced


      Johnson-Laird has argued that reasoners do not use formed rules of
   inference in solving problems involving syllogistic reasoning, but
   rather that they come to a solution by manipulating mental models.  I
   will show that while this certainly appears to be true, a number of
   details of Johnson-Laird's theory appear to be incorrect.  An
   alternative theory will be presented.                --Marilyn Ford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 1985  12:06 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming Descriptive Analogies by Example (MIT)
-BODY-
              [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                            AI REVOLVING SEMINAR

                Programming Descriptive Analogies By Example

                               Henry Lieberman


Before making programs that can perform analogies by themselves, we can
attack the more modest goal of being able to communicate to the computer an
analogy which is already understood by a person.  I will describe a system
for "programming by analogy", called Likewise.  This new approach to
interactive knowledge acquisition works by presenting specific examples and
pointing out what aspects of the examples illustrate the more general case.
The system constructs a general rule which abstracts out the important
aspects so the rule can be applied to "analogous" examples.  Given a new
example, the system can then construct an analogy with the old example by
trying to instantiate analogous descriptions which correspond to the
descriptions constructed for the first example.  If a new example doesn't fit
an old concept exactly, a concept can be generalized or specialized
incrementally to make the analogy go through.  The operation of the analogy
system on a typical concept learning task is presented in detail.


Tuesday April 2, 1985   4:00pm      8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 27 Mar 85 17:18:44-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Functional Role Semantics (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 4, 1985

   4:15 p.m.            CSLI Colloquium
     Redwood Hall       ``Two Cheers for Functional Role Semantics''
     Room G-19          Ned Block, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


      There are two quite different frameworks for semantics:
   REDUCTIONIST approaches attempt to characterize the semantic in
   non-semantic terms.  NON-REDUCTIONIST approaches are more concerned
   with relations among meaningS than with the nature of meaning itself.
   The non-reductionist approaches are the more familiar ones (eg.,
   Montague, the model-theoretic aspect of situation semantics,
   Davidson, Katz).  The reductionist approaches come in 4 major
   categories:
      1. Theories that reduce meaning to the mental. (This is what is
   common to Grice and Searle.)
      2. Causal semantics--theories that see semantic values as derived
   from causal chains leading from the world to our words.
      3. Indicator semantics--theories that see natural and non-natural
   meaning as importantly similar.  The paradigm of meaning is the way
   the rings on the tree stump represent the age of the tree when cut
   down.  (Dretske/Stampe, and, in my view, though not in Barwise and
   Perry's, Situations and Attitudes)
      4. Functional role semantics--theories that see meaning in terms of
   the functional role of linguistic expressions in thought, reasoning,
   and planning, and in general in the way they mediate between sensory
   inputs and behavioral outputs.
      After sketching the difference between the reductionist and non-
   reductionist approaches, I will focus on functional role semantics, a
   view that has independently arisen in philosophy (where its sources
   are Wittgenstein's idea of meaning as use, and pragmatism) and
   cognitive science (where it is known as procedural semantics).
      I will concentrate on what theories in this framework can DO, e.g.,
   illuminate acquisition of and knowledge of meaning, principles of
   charity, how meaning is relevant to explanation of behavior, the
   intrinsic/observer-relative distinction, the relation between meaning
   and the brain, and the relativity of meaning to representational
   system.  The point is to give a sense of the fertility and power of
   the view, and so to provide a rationale for working on solutions to
   its problems.  Finally, I will sketch some reasons to prefer
   functional role semantics to the other reductionist theories.
      A copy of a paper which the talk draws on will be in the Ventura
   reading room.                                        --Ned Block

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 March 1985 1352-EST
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NL Understanding and Generation (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                                Name:  NL Seminar
                                Date:  3 April
                                Time:  11:00-12:00
                                Place: WeH 7220


The Janus System: Coordinating Understanding and Generation
        Norman K. Sondheimer
        USC/Information Science Institute

Technology for natural language understanding and generation differs
significantly.  In cases where they have both been employed in the same
system, the results have been an impression of a system that could not
understand what it could say.  As part of ARPA's Strategic Computing
Initiative, researchers at USC/Information Sciences Institute and Bolt
Beranek and Newman have begun the design of a system that may be able to avoid
these problem.  The system employs the ATN parsing, KL-ONE based semantic
interpretation, and the NIGEL systemic grammar generator.   Much of the
integration of understanding and generation will come from a large domain
knowledge base developed in the NIKL (New Implementation of KL-One) knowledge
representation language.

This talk will be a short, informal look at the goals of the effort
and the system's initial design.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
44
-DATE-
Date: 31 Mar 1985 1952-PST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
ewsgroups: net.women
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hofstadter on sexism in the English language
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from net.women by Miriam Blatt <blatt@Glacier>.]
         [Excerpted from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The most interesting work of writing I have seen on sexism in the
English language is by Douglas Hofstadter (writing under the name
William Satire) and is called "A Person Paper on Purity in Language".
It can be found in his wonderful book "Metamagical Themas: Questing for
the Essence of Mind and Pattern".  Hofstadter is strongly in favor of
removing sexism from our language and writes about it in this paper
using biting sarcasm.  Included at the end of this message is an excerpt
from the paper (included without permission -- I don't think Hofstadter
would object).

                        Doug Alan
                         mit-eddie!nessus
                         Nessus@MIT-MC


  [I presume that this message is socially acceptable and of some
  relevance to an AIList issue on the psychology of sexism.  It has to
  do with AI only in that it touches on linguistics and psychology and
  was written by Doug Hofstadter, so I have reduced the extract to a
  single representative paragraph.  Anyone thinking of replying to this
  message should bear in mind that sexist language was discussed for
  many months in Human-Nets a couple of years ago; I am unaware of any
  single issue resolved by the debate.  -- KIL]


Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the
age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as
"chairwhite", "mailwhite", "repairwhite", "clergywhite", "middlewhite",
"Frenchwhite", "forwhite", "whitepower", "whiteslaughter",
"oneupswhiteship", "straw white", "whitehandle", and so on.  The
negrists claim that using the word "white", either in on its own or as a
component, to talk about *all* the members of the human species is
somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism.  Therefore the
libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere where "white" now
occurs.  Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this
preposterous.  There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are
created equal."  Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of
Indepedence well understood the poetry of our language.  Think how ugly
it would be to say "All persons are created equal.", or "All whites and
blacks are created equal."  Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you,
such phrases are redundant.  In most contexts, it is self-evident when
"white" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes
members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.            [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 85 21:54:10 est
-FROM-
From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sexism, censorship and degrees of reaction
-BODY-
I have resisted thus far but now I give in to an opinion on the Sexist
Joke issue:

I for one am offended by such public displays of locker-room humour.  On
the other hand, I am offended by censorship. The obvious solution to
such a situation like this comes from the realization that one cannot
utilize as powerful and hard to apply instrument as the 'law' for
obnoxious and 'potentially' dangerous behavior (the law is always very
cautious when words like potentially have to be used.) The 'law' I
equate here with the moderator being asked to filter such jokes.

The error comes from the desire for authoritative revenge, either from
the police or a moderator. In a situatiion like this you are quite
powerful enough as human beings to correct this situation.

I simply suggest that it be left at the level of:

        1. If something offends you tell the offender and,
        if appropriate, the net audience.
        2. Remember the individual involved. Next time
        something comes up about that person you will
        know their character is probably suspect, or at
        the very least, their sense of judgement.

I for one would feel severely punished if someone so seriously
suspected my character. An entire audience like this would be
crushing.

Never doubt your power as a human being, nor that the power of your
words and opinions are at least as powerful as the ones that offended
you. Don't look so quickly to others for solutions. [Before the flames
start I am not advocating this for something like a violent act like
rape...call the cops and have the beast caged, they're paid to do that.]

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

I ain't afraid o' no paradox

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 85 12:18:15 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: linguistics, humor, the subconsicious, pathogenic 'memes'
-BODY-
The meta-message of pollynomials...

    The humor (if any) in this story is based on the differences between
the syntactic level (mathematical language) and the semantic level (a story
about rape).  This story allows one to write, publish, and read this story
and always say, in the back of the mind (at the other level) "this only
a play on mathematical terms", and therefore one can talk about, think about,
accept and even enjoy this story about violent rape without having to
expose oneself as a sexist psychopath; it is (was) socially acceptable.

    Now, there are some people who don't yet understand why this story
is objectionable, they see it as just a harmless little play with words.
And perhaps those people really are not tuned into hearing it at its
true semantic level.  That is no excuse, because the semantic message of
the story can still be learned subconsciously.  [There is a second
level of meaning which says "it is ok to write, publish, and read this
type of material without comment, under the guise of 'humor'."]

   The objectionable elements of this story center around the rape myths
which are expressed quite blatently. These myths are: "She wanted to get
raped", "She deserved to get raped", "She had no choice but to allow the
rape", "She enjoyed getting raped", "The rapist is not to be blamed",
"The rapist is to be admired".  And the moral of the story states quite
clearly that rape and fear of rape should be used to control freedom.

    For those who contend that stories such as these are really
harmless, please consider this:  The story was written to be harmless
mathematical/linguistic humor, and yet, all these myths are expressed in
the story, without even trying; obviously THE AUTHORS KNEW ALL THESE
MYTHS, AT LEAST AT A SUBCONSCIOUS LEVEL.  And I suspect that they did
not pick them up in a textbook or a course on rape myths; THEY WERE
LEARNED BY READING OR HEARING STORIES JUST LIKE THIS!

   And now, a few words about humor and censorship.  As I mentioned
above, the humor (socio-linguistic survival value) of this story is
based on the switching between levels of meaning. The masquerade of
mathematical/linguistic wordplay allows this story to easily enter the
social--literary--cognitive system.  (and it is a masquerade, just try
publishing this under the subject line: "rape humor").  A vivid
analogy comes to mind; this story (and others like it) interact with the
system much as a virus interacts with biological systems.  [This analogy
is similar to the "memes" presented in Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"]

    The story is wrapped in a double protective cover of humor and
mathematics so it can slip past the usual antibodies of sensitivity or
sensability.  But underneath this coating is a cognitive "DNA sequence"
(meme) which when injected into and nutured by the host, produces
attitudes and behaviours which protect and perpetuate both the pathogen
(the story) and the disease (rape and fear).  Those who are surpised by
the flaming about the publication of this story, perhaps don't realize
that over the past twenty years, parts of our societal organism have
developed antibodies for this particular virus.

    So, should it be published? Maybe, but not as humor; it should be
quoted (mention vs use) as an example of vicious pseudo-humor.  If must
always be presented in the context of its reality, its disguise must be
removed.  The alternative is to publish it naively, and as in the case
of the AIList, it may become a relatively innocuous "vaccine".  The flurry
of commentary is, in fact, nothing more or less than the swarming of
antibodies to this virus, to engulf it, and label it as the pathogen
that it is.  And now, maybe a larger segment of the population will be
able to detect the antigens of rape myths.  There are those who will
fight for the rights of viruses to reproduce and otherwise express
themselves, but in this case, I think it can be shown that the organism
as a whole will be healthier if this infection can be eradicated.

Jeff Peck
(peck@sri-spam)

PostScript:

   For those who still claim that Polly Nomial is not a story about rape,
please reread the first paragraph: "our heroine is accosted by
villain..." Even without this statement of the plot, anyone who refuses
to accept that this is a story about rape is simply failing to
acknowledge the distinction between syntax and semantics, the use of
allegory and metaphor.  This story was not generated just by conjoining
mathematical phrases, it was clearly written to use all those phases to
describe a rape.  That is an important point, this story did not spring
from the pen (or keyboard) of "anonymous", it was written by a person,
or more likely, a team of persons, who thought that it would be funny.
This story reflects the attitudes and enlightenment of those people at
that time, in that society; and they clearly believed that rape was
humorous, justifiable [!!! -- KIL], etc.  In today's society such attitudes
must be exposed and identified as sick.


  [Very cleverly put, but under the syntactic sugar is a questionable
  premise: that anyone who enjoyed reading the story (even if female?)
  is a "sexist psychopath".  I found humor in the word play and novel
  semantic mappings in spite of the subject matter; perhaps I am just
  more sensitive to linguistic patterns than to social concerns, at
  least in the intellectual context of AIList peer discussion -- that
  doesn't mean I'm "sick" (I hope).  I think there is general agreement
  that the plot of the item (as opposed to its "message" or "intention",
  perhaps) concerned rape, that rape is abhorrent and a serious social
  problem and not a joking matter, that any message with intent to
  denigrate, subjugate, or offend is offensive, that the piece had
  little to do with AI, that it would have been more palatable if run
  with a commentary discussing its linguistic merits and decrying its
  subject matter, and finally that it would have been better for all
  concerned if I had kept it out of AIList.  A reasonable amount of
  protest, or "sensitization", was in order.  That having been done,
  let's get back to the theme of this list.  AIList is a forum for
  discussion of AI and information science; it has little capacity
  for social subversion or reform.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1985  03:11 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Imprinting and Humor
-BODY-

I don't think rape-jokes are a good idea, either.  In fact this is
discussed tangentially in Chapter 294 (seriously -- the chapters are
only 1 page long) of my almost-finished Society of Mind book.

   *****************************************************

                     TIME-SPANS of MEMORIES

Contemplate the plight of a mother with a new infant! The baby will
demand her time and attention for many years -- and sometimes she may
wonder why. ["Why must I do all this?" "How could this baby justify
such sacrifice."]  Then various answers might come to mind: ["Because
it will repay you some day,"] or ["This is to carry on our race"]. But
these are not the arguments that end the questioning; all cultures
recognize that mother-love is far from rational.  Instead, an
instinctive attachment-bond is formed, which then protects itself from
change.  The final reason to keep nurturing that child is simply,
["Because I love it."]

The problem is still a real one, and there are frequent, secret,
tragedies in which a mother's frustration and strain overwhelms those
attachment bonds and all the other personal pleasures and social
compulsions that come with rearing a child.  But rather than stray off
to talk about those other matters; let's focus on the nature of the
mother-child bond itself. I'll argue that it's based upon a special
kind of memory.

We often think of all our memories as much the same in character, and
all stored in the same huge container.  But certain kinds of memories
[ought] to be less changeable than other kinds.  For example, because
human infants are so utterly dependent on their parent's sustenance,
our species had to evolve attachment-bonds which last at least for
several years. This is seen in many other animals as well, in the form
of what psychologists call "imprinting" -- the kind of learning in
which an infant animal learns to recognize its parent.  These special
memories are very swiftly formed -- and then they're very slow to
change. It can be very difficult to get those babies to transfer their
attachment to foster-parents.  On the other side, there are similarly
rigid constraints of parents' attachment to their babies.  Many adult
mammals will eject alien babies from their nests, if they have not
been involved in the normal process of attachment shortly after birth.
The parent-child bondage, too, forms rapidly and decays slowly.

These are not our only long-persisting person-bonds.  There are many
animal species in which an individual will choose a mate and then
remain with it for all the rest of life.  Many people do that, too.
And of the ones who don't do that, something rather similar instead:
they keep on changing person-mates but choose from those of similar
appearance or character -- as though they cannot change some
underlying stereotype.  And on a shorter scale of time, many persons
find themselves enslaved by unwanted infatuations and one-way bonds
that can't be made to go away -- because the parts of the mind which
do not desire those attachments are unable to control the parts of
minds which made them.  It's little use to complain about this; the
slowness of those memory-systems evolved to suit our ancestors'
requirements, not our own.

We all know, too, the seemingly inexorable time-span of mourning.  It
often takes a year or more to manage and accept the separation or loss
of those we love.  This, too, could be a product of the slowness of
attachment-change.  Perhaps this, too, explains the prolonged,
mourning-like depression that follows sexual or other forms of
personal assault.  No matter that the unwelcome intimacy of violence
may be brief; it nonetheless affects one's attachment machinery,
however much against one's wish.  And then, because those agencies are
do inherently slow, recovery involves a profound and prolonged
disturbance to ordinary social relations.  And since that happens
inside agencies we can't control, it does not help very much for the
victim to view the incident "rationally" -- since that can only slowly
bring those sluggish mechanisms back to their normal states.  It is
the worst of injuries, to lose the use of precious sections of one's
mind.

>------ Then a chapter on Freud's theory of jokes and censors concludes:

Why does humor seems so humorous when it is actually concerned with
unpleasant, painful, and disgusting subjects? There's nothing very
"funny" at all about most jokes - except, perhaps, in the skill and
subtlety with which their dreadful content is disguised; the joke
itself is often little more than ["look at what happened to somebody
else; now, aren't you glad that that wasn't you"?]  The censor theory
not only explains this, but also why jokes are usually not so funny
when heard again.  That is because, each time, those censors learn a
little more, and become harder to fool.

Then why do certain kinds of jokes, particularly those about
forbidden sexual subjects, seem to remain persistently funny to so
many people? Our theory suggests that the censors in that area area
must be peculiarly inept at continuous learning: the peculiar
robustness of sexual humor means that the censors of sexuality are
among the "slow learners" of the mind, like retarded children. In
fact, we could argue that they literally [are] retarded children --
that is, frozen remnants of our earlier selves.  But why should these
particular censors stay unchanged so long? We saw, in [S257B] one
reason why it could be good to stop some agency from learning more,
and we'll see more such arguments in [S295].  There are good reasons
why our sexual censors should be slow to change their ways.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
45
-DATE-
Date: Sat 30 Mar 85 20:00:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Administrivia - Short Vacation
-BODY-
Expect about a ten-day interval between this digest and the next.
I'll be attending an SPIE conference, among other activities, and
I haven't yet trained my computer to issue the digest automatically.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: TUE 2 APR 85 1240 MEZ
-FROM-
From: U02F%CBEBDA3T.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (Franklin A. Davis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Any PRIME installations doing AI research?
-BODY-
We are interested in exchanging tools, compilers, & hints with any
PRIME users who see this note.  Our research includes computer
vision using a CAD model, robotics & collision detection, and
expert systems.

Please contact me directly.  Thanks.

>- FAD <U02F@CBEBDA3T.BITNET>
Institute for Informatics and Applied Mathematics
University of Bern, Switzerland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 85 09:25:08 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: LLi.ES@XEROX.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LLi.ES@XEROX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  game of GO
-BODY-
Steve,

Lester Buck at shell!buck@ut-sally.arpa sent out a fairly extensive
bibliography on computer Go to Usenet net.games.go.  I only have a
hardcopy of that message dated 1/14/85.  If you can't get in touch with
him and can't get someone to retrieve that file from Usenet, I can make
a copy for you.

Leonard Li.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 15:30:17-CST
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Small Expert Sys & Process Control
-BODY-
  I just returned from the AIChE conference & Petroleum Exposition in
Houston.  I saw  a single-loop process controller from Foxboro there.  It's
advertised as the first AI technology to come out as a commercial process
control product.   It's a hardwired expert system for dynamically resetting the
loop control parameters.  It has seven rules.
  Now I'm currently taking an Expert System course in which the term project
involves building an ES with ~100 rules, and a 7 rules system doesn't seem
that impressive.  However, the competition at the show was not pooh-poohing
it, at it did seem to do some pretty good level control on the demo system
they'd rigged up.
  Research has focused on systems between 100 and 3000 rules.  But I remember
that working in a engineering office, people often wrote 30 line FORTRAN
programs for one shot calculations, throwing the code away after we'd
generated our one-time-use output.
  As we develop robust Expert System tools with ties to good editors and
explanation facilities we may find that there are many areas where the
control and decision process is best expressed (and developed) in an ES, even
though the knowledge in the program fits in less than a dozen rules.  These
will include systems where the "expert" knowledge is not expert at all, but
just well expressed in the production rule form.

  There was not much AI activity shown there.  The process industries are
very interested in the AI technology (the oil companies showed up in force at
AAAI 84) but almost nothing has been published, or come out as a product
package.  The most obvious areas of development are AI in process design
(engineering databases etc) and in process control.  What seems to be holding
things back?   The ES packages out there don't seem to be talking to any of
the engineering database formats already in place.  And there are some very
tough representational & computational problems to work on for process
control.   Expert systems would have a tough time matching the well developed
supervisory programs already in place out there.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 11:49:46-PST
-FROM-
From: MARCEL@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Living Programs
-BODY-
It's no secret that what a body does for its living is sometimes obvious even
when the body is not working at its living. After an operating systems course
I was once caught behaving like a scheduler, starting longer jobs (a coffee
pot)
earlier and at low priority, then time-sharing my CPU between my homework, my
TV and my brother. Obviously, that's a simplistic example; the effect can be
much more subtle. Programming brings with it:

1. an assumption that all problems are solvable (all bugs can be "fixed");
2. sharper programming "techniques" yield better programs sooner;
3. reason is adequate for all aspects of the task;
4. issues are polarized (the program works or it doesn't, this algorithm is
   or is not faster than that);
5. every functional goal can be achieved by correct analysis of conditionals
   in branches and loops.

In short, software gives us a world which may be very complex, but in which
we can still feel a sense of control denied us in day-to-day life. After all,
we created the machinery in the first place. I contend that a good many of us
(eg myself until a while ago) take the assumption of control away with us from
our programs. This applies especially to "hackers", meaning people who spend
much of their time programming as opposed to doing conceptual design first. It
might apply less to AIers faced with the problem of human intelligence, though
we tend to believe that machines will be intelligent someday (read: the problem
is solvable, we have better languages now, and sufficient analysis will tell
us what intelligence is).

Question: am I right about the false sense of power; have I misdiagnosed the
cause; and how much is AI the projection par excellence of this illusion?

Marcel@SRI-AI    (M.Schoppers)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 1985 09:22-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Expert Database Systems
-BODY-
>From  the 1985 SIGMOD Conference Program, May 28 to May 31, 1985 Austin
Texas

May 30, 1985 4-5:30 3DP1 Panel: Expert Database Systems (Workshop
Review) Chairperson Larry Herschberg

May 31, 1985 9:30 - 11:00
P. M. D. Gray "Efficient Prolog Access to CODASYL and FDM
Databases"
J. D. Ullman "Implementation of Logical Query Languages for Databases"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 1985 16:05:34 EST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: PSN Development <psn@bbn-noc3.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: subjective C
-BODY-
          [Forwarded by Susan Bernstein <slb@BBNCCP.ARPA>.]


            Subjective C, a new programming language.

Recently researchers in the computer language field have shown much
interest in subject oriented languages.  Subjective programming
languages draw upon concepts developed in the fields of subjective
probability and philosophical subjectivism to enrich the field of
programming semantics.  `Subjective C' is such a language based on the
programming language C.

Subjective C grew out of the AI concept of DWIM, or "do what I mean".
The subjective C compiler infers the mood of the author of the input
program based on clues contained in the comments in the program.  If no
comments (or verbose identifiers) are present, the programmer is judged
to have insufficiently thought out his problem, i.e.  to have
insufficiently specified the computation to be performed.  In this case
a subjective diagnostic is issued, depending on the compiler's own mood.
Assuming comments or other mood indicators are present, an amalgam of
inference techniques drawn from various reputed-to-be-successful expert
systems are used to infer the author's mood.

A trivial example of a mood revealing comment with accompanying program
text is the following:

        a = a - 1;      /* add one to a */

A too simple analysis of the dichotomy between apparent meaning of the
statement and accompanying comment is that one of them is in error.  A
more insightful analysis is that this program should not be allowed to
work, even if no syntax errors occur in it.  Accordingly, subjective
compiler should hang the system, thus inducing the programmer to quit
for the night.

More interesting cases occur when there is no conflict between program
text and commentary.  It is these cases where Subjective C is shown to
be a significantly richer language than normalcy.

Some examples of mood-implying comments found in actual programs are the
following:

        ; Here we do something perverse to the packet.  Beats me.

In this case, the comment reveals that the programmer does not care what
the code does, except that he wants it to be something that subsequent
programmers will be shocked by.  The compiler uses a variation of its
mood-inference techniques to generate code that is suitably perverse by
systematically generating actions and evaluating them against the
criteria it has synthesized.

        blt                     ; hold the mayo

The Subjective C compiler evaluates the indicatory content of this
comment to discern that the programmer is undoubtedly hungry.  Code will
be generated that will crash inexplicably, thus inducing the programmer
to go to the candy machine and pig out, which is what he wanted in the
first place.

Subjective C is neither a superset nor a subset of "normal" (if one can
apply the term) C, known in subjective parlance as normalcy.  However,
there is an extensive intersection, if meanings of programs are ignored.
The central thesis of research in the field of subjective languages is
that the meanings of programs are far more subtle than first appears to
the reader (or author).

Some examples of mood revealing comments in well known C programs
include the following:

        /* I've been powercoding much too much lately.  */ and,

        /* WARNING: modify the following at your own risk. */


Students of program complexity will be interested to note that the
algorithms used for mood inference are of greater complexity than NP
complete, which is of one of the first known practical applications of
this class of computations.  The exact characterization of this class of
problems is not yet fully explored, but some initial theoretical results
will be published by certain graduate students, real soon now, and no
later than next August when their fellowships run out.

The subjective C compiler, called "see", will be available (relatively)
shortly on all bbn unix systems.  Comments can be directed directly
to the compiler itself, in the usual fashion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 85 13:42:23 EST
-FROM-
From: CHOMICKI@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Forgetting (Rutgers)
-BODY-

Jan Chomicki, a Ph.D. student in our department, agreed to give a talk
about MACHINE FORGETTING. His research interests in AI are pretty recent,
in fact they date from today morning. The talk starts at 2:50 pm and ends
at 1:30 pm. The place is Hill-402: if too many people arrive, we will move
into a smaller room. Considering many things, the topic of the talk among
others, you should not expect the speaker to be there. The abstract follows:

                Machine Forgetting

We argue that there is no learning without forgetting.
At least, by learning a man forgets how stupid he used to be.
Current research in Machine Learning, cf.(...), doesn't take
this phenomenon fully into account.

We develop a Theory of Forgetting Functor(TFF).
For a class of systems, called Sclerotic, forgetting is monotonic.
However, as our everyday experience indicates,
there also exist non-monotonic forgetting systems.
TFF is one of the variants of a more general Theory of Limited Resources (TLR).
Others include: Theory of Incompetence, Theory of Not Understanding etc.

We implemented a general program, the Forgetting Daemon, that makes any
other program forget about its original purpose, e.g. sorting numbers.
We conjecture that this program may provide a high degree of domain
independence in AI systems.
Take the expert system for diagnosing soybean diseases,
run it through the Forgetting Daemon and the expert system will totally
forget about soybeans.
However, it will also forget about everything else.
We plan to remove this problem in the second version of our system.
A facility of Selective Forgetting will be provided.
The user will define what to forget by means of production rules and/or
menus.

Methodologically, we see several avenues for further research:

1.Example- and Pattern-driven Forgetting.

2.Forgetting Without an Explanation and its relationship with Random
  Forgetting.

3.Forgetting Without a Trace vs.Reversible Forgetting.

4.Meta-forgetting: I forgot what I forgot what...

We would have formalized our concepts, but we are pretty certain that
some graduate student at MIT or Stanford has been working on it for a few
years already.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 14:17:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Algorithms (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:                   Friday, April 5, 1985
LOCATION:               Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:                   12:05

SPEAKER:                Lawrence J. (Dave) Davis, Ph.D.
                        Texas Instruments Computer Science Laboratory.
                        Knowledge Based Systems Branch. Dallas, Texas.

TITLE:                  Applying Adaptive Algorithms to Epistatic Domains



Abstract: In his 1975 book ADAPTATION IN NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL
SYSTEMS, John Holland proposed a technique for carrying out search in
large solution spaces that is based on the process of natural
evolution.  Among the important points in the book is Holland's proof
that the search process can be greatly accelerated if certain sorts of
mutations (CROSSOVER mutations) are used.  Interest in probabilistic
search techniques, and the Holland techniques in particular, has grown
quite strong in the last two years.  The talk will begin by describing
procedures Holland and his students used in their early work, and then
will move to the topic of recent innovations.

Holland has shown that when adaptive algorithms are used to search
certain kinds of extremely large spaces, they will converge on a
"good" solution fairly quickly.  Such problem spaces are characterized
by a low degree of interaction between components of solutions.  A
host of classical search problems, however, are oriented toward
solutions that are highly interactive.  The talk will describe some
new techniques for applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains,
while retaining some of the strength of Holland's convergence proof.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 13:54 EST
-FROM-
From: Ramesh Astik <rampan%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Generation of Expert Systems from Examples
-BODY-           (Northeastern)


             AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF EXPERT SYSTEMS FROM EXAMPLES


                                 Steve Gallant

            Wednesday, April 10, 4 p.m.  Botolph Bldg, First Floor



             A process for generating an Expert System from Training
         Examples (and/or Rules) will be described.  The Knowledge
         Base for such a system principally consists of a Matrix of
         integers called a Learning Matrix.

             Given a set of Training Examples, a Learning Matrix may
         be generated by various means including the Pocket
         Algorithm (a modification of Perceptron Learning).  The
         resulting Learning Matrix is then combined with a Matrix
         Controlled Inference Engine (MACIE) to produce a true Expert
         System.

              This talk will focus on how MACIE interprets the
         Learning Matrix in order to perform forward chaining,
         backward chaining, and likelihood estimates.


         Presented by:  The College of Computer Science
                        Northeastern University
                        Boston, Ma.  02115

         Information:  437-2462

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
46
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Apr 85 22:54:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList is Back
-BODY-
Did you hear the one about the bum on the park bench?  He was a top man
in the computer field, but he took a two-week vacation and fell behind.

Twenty new readers have signed up for direct distribution of the list
since April 2, including several at new sites.  There were about 80
messages in the AIList mailbox (after I read the bboards and forwarded
a few items), as well as 40 messages each in the AIList-Request
mailbox and my own mailbox.  [My accumulated physical mail consisted of
only a dozen items, nearly all junk.]  Could someone unplug the
network while I catch up?

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Apr 85 19:58:10-EST
-FROM-
From: MCCOWN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query on Hopfield's work
-BODY-
      Does anyone know of any TR's (or any info at all!) on John Hopfield's
work at CIT on neuron modelling and memory?  Please send any pointers to
MCCOWN@RADC-TOPS20.  Thanks.
                                        Michael McCown

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 85 08:10:13 pst
-FROM-
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Translation of Natural Languages
-BODY-

Does anyone know of a company or R&D group in La Jolla, California that
is working on computer translation of natural languages?

     Curt Goodhart  (goodhart@nosc  on the arpanet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 85 08:17 CDT
-FROM-
From: Eric_Tannenbaum <erict@ti-eg>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How about them Lisp compilers....?
-BODY-
To Anyone out there...

  I was wondering if anyone knows of a Lisp compiler for the IBM PC and
  how I could get one (including the price) as I am interested in some
  home AI projects. Also, could you tell me how good and/or bad they are.

  If there aren't any Lisp compilers out there in AI land, how about letting
  me know about what popular Lisp interpreters there are for the IBM PC
  (and price, too?). Since I'm new to the Lisp PC market place, I'll appreciate
  any and all comments. Thanks!

  Please reply to:

    CSNET address:  erict @ ti-eg
    ARPANET address: erict % ti-eg@csnet.relay


  Again, thanks for the info.

  Eric Tannenbaum

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1985 14:50-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DPS at Clarkson U
-BODY-
 A notice in March COMPUTER (pg 139) about an 8 university AI
 consortium funded by the Air Force mentions research in
 "distributed problem solving at Clarkson University." Can
 anyone (at Clarkson or elsewhere) tell me what's going on
 there in the realm of DPS?

 -- Les Gasser
    Asst. Professor
    Computer Science Dept. SAL-200
    USC
    Los Angeles, CA. 90089-0782

    ARPANET: gasser%usc-cse@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday,  3 Apr 1985 07:54:01-PST
-FROM-
From: cashman%how.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Formal models of negotiation
-BODY-
I would appreciate pointers to any work which has been done on formal models
of negotiation between people.  I am familiar with David Lowe's work on the
representation of debate, Reid's and Davis' contract net protocol, and
Flores' and Ludlow's paper "Doing and Speaking in the Office."  Anything
else?

>- Paul Cashman
   Cashman%what.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 1985 1030-EST
-FROM-
From: Amsel-Sdsc@CECOM-1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Exploration
-BODY-
                         KNOWLEDGE EXPLORATION

    DOD Computer Scientist conducting a study of information flow
    which will culminate in an analysis of the Knowledge - Information
    processing involved in a large hi-tech research and development
    environment.  Request assistance and dicussion on any of the
    following topics:


         1.  Definition of knowledge.
         2.  What constitutes knowledge? (How to identify it)
         3.  Relationship of data, information and knowledge.
         4.  How does one collect or engineer knowledge? (Collection
             mechanism)
         5.  Mathematical representation of knowledge. (Formula with
             rationale)
         6.  Software and Hardware relationships to knowledge.
         7.  How to represent knowledge? (ex: What form or which
             computer language)
         8.  Difference between knowledge engineer and knowledge
             scientist.
         9.  Methods of controlling knowledge.
         10. Who should have access to knowledge within an
             organization?
         11. Relationship of networking to knowledge.
         12. Fifth generation concept of knowledge.
         13. General comments on knowledge.


    Charles E. Woodall

    (SNAIL MAIL)
    BOQ Box 122
    Ft. Monmouth, NJ 07703
    Office: (201)544-3294
    Home:   (201)389-3598

    (ARPA/MILNet)
    [woodall]:AMSEL-SDSC at CECOM-1.ARP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 85 16:53:47 EST
-FROM-
From: John Kastner <kastner.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Legal Systems
-BODY-
Does anyone know of a CS Department in which there is current work on,
or a serious  interest in, expert  systems applied to  the practice of
law?   An acquaintance  of mine,  currently at  the University of East
Asia, Macau, would like to do his  Doctorate in this field.  He is  an
Associate Professor of Management Science with a strong background  in
law.

Maurice Karnaugh
ARPAnet: KARNO.YKTVMZ.IBM-SJ@CSnet-Relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 1985 13:30-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Linguistic Plans (BBNG)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                       BBN Laboratories
             Artificial Intelligence Seminar Series


Speaker:   Diane Litman
           University of Rochester

Title:     "Discourse and Plan Recognition - A Model of
            Subdialogues in Conversation"

Date:      Tuesday,  April 16, 1985
           10:30 a.m.

Location:  3rd Floor Large Conference Room
           10 Moulton Street
           Cambridge, MA


     One  promising  approach  to  analyzing  dialogues  has involved
modelling the  goals  of  the  speakers.  In other words, participants
in a conversation are viewed  as  accomplishing goals  via  plans
containing the utterances of the conversation as actions in  the  plan.
In  general,  these models  work  well  as  long  as  the topic follows
the plan structure closely, but they have difficulty  accounting  for
such interrupting subdialogues as clarifications and corrections.

     To address this problem, a plan-based natural  language system
incorporating  both task and discourse knowledge has been developed.  In
particular, a new model of plan recognition  is  used  to  construct  a
hierarchy of task plans and meta-plans via the process of constraint
satisfaction.   The plan  recognition model has also been extended using
results from work in discourse analysis.  Such an approach  accounts for
interrupting subdialogues and various surface linguistic phenomena while
maintaining the advantages of the plan-based methodology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 85 11:01 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representing Objects (UPenn)
-BODY-

REPRESENTING, REASONING ABOUT AND MANIPULATING OBJECTS BY A COMPUTER
John E. Hopcroft (Cornell)
Thursday, April 16; 216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania

     The areas of CAD/CAM and robotics require computer representations of
     physical objects.  These representations must support automatic design
     tools, analysis packages, high level reasoning and object manipulation.
     This talk will discuss potential applications, problems that must be
     overcome and important directions in developing the engineering science
     base needed to support the design, simulation, testing and debugging of
     sophisticated objects. An example of a major problem is that the actual
     construction of a computer representation of a physical object such as
     a crankshaft is a major undertaking.  Thus interactive physical object
     editors will play an important role.  The use of automatic surface
     generation in constructing solid models will be illustrated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 85 16:31:59 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Bodily Basis of Meaning (UCB)
-BODY-
               BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
              Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
      TIME:                Tuesday, April 16, 11 - 12:30
      PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
      (followed by)
      DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

SPEAKER:        Mark  Johnson,  Philosophy  Department,  Southern
                Illinois University

TITLE:          ``The Bodily Basis of Meaning and Imagination''

     The idea that human rationality is an abstract, disembodied,
formal  structure  is  deeply rooted in the Western Philosophical
tradition and is manifested most recently in model-theoretic  and
Davidsonian  semantics.   According  to  this view, meaning is an
abstract relation between symbolic representations (either  words
or mental representations) and objective (mind-independent) real-
ity. Meaning is thus a matter of objective senses and has nothing
to  do  with  how  human  beings understand their experience. And
rationality is a rule-governed manipulation of the  symbols  that
express  meaning. In this whole picture nothing is said about the
role of bodily experience, either in the emergence of meaning  or
in our reasoning about our world.

     But it is a fact that we humans do have bodies, and it would
be rather strange if this fact didn't have some important bearing
on what we experience as meaningful and how we make sense of  our
world  in  a rational fashion. I suggest that there are recurrent
preconceptual structures in  our  bodily  interactions  with  our
environment  that  are  the  basis  for  human meaning. These are
structures of our perceptual activity and bodily  movements  that
are  metaphorically  extended  to  structure  more abstract, non-
physical domains. So I am claiming that our more `abstract'  rea-
soning  is grounded in a concrete reasoning via metaphorical con-
nections. My argument is based on an analysis of  the  experience
and meaning of balance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 85 14:44:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Scientific Problem Solving (Rutgers)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             III Seminar

Title:          Problem Solving in a Qualitative Scientific Domain

Speaker:        Don Ploger

Time:           Tuesday, April 16, 1985, 11:00am - 12:00pm
Place:          Hill Center, room 423

        Don Ploger is a Ph.D. candidate in the psychology  department.
He will  describe  his  ongoing dissertation  research.   An  abstract
follows:

                A research scientist is typically  able to solve problems  and
        explain phenomenon in his area  of expertise.  The primary purpose  of
        this study is to develop  a methodology for studying this  performance
        in a qualitative scientific domain.  The domain chosen is intermediary
        metabolism, an  important area  of  biochemistry.  Reasoning  in  this
        domain involves large amounts of knowledge which is richly structured,
        but is  not  mathematical.   It therefore  differs  sharply  from  the
        scientific domains  that have  been  previously studied  in  cognitive
        psychology.

                In  the  study,  expert  biochemists  and  first-year  medical
        students thought aloud  as they  solved a  problem, and  then gave  an
        explanation for  the phenomenon.   Analysis  of the  resulting  verbal
        protocols employed representations  of the domain  knowledge that  are
        consistent   with   textbooks   in   the   field.    Two    particular
        representations are  considered  in  detail:  biochemical  mechanisms,
        which are explicitly  represented in  texts, and  level of  knowledge,
        which are usually implicit.

                Examples of the analysis will be presented for three subjects:
        an  expert,  a   successful  novice,  and   an  unsuccessful   novice.
        Particular attention will be given  to the difference between  problem
        solving and explanation among subjects.

                The purpose  of  the  study  is  to  make  explicit  important
        features of human performance,  and it differs  in many respects  from
        work in AI.  However, the general approach is compatible with  certain
        recent trends  in  the  development  of  expert  systems.   The  study
        provides a view of how humans use a "first principles" approach.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 10 Apr 85 17:26:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Model Theory of Shared Information (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                              LOGIC SEMINAR
              ``On the Model Theory of Shared Information''
                            Jon Barwise, CSLI
               April 16, at 4:15, Room 381 T (Math Corner)

      The traditional model-theoretic approach to the problem of shared
   understanding (public information, common knowledge, mutual belief)
   has been through an iterated hierarchy of attitude reports (c knows
   that b knows ... that c knows that P), mirroring the iterated
   hierarchy in set theory and higher-order model theory.  In this talk I
   want to show that Aczel's work on non-wellfounded sets gives us a new
   tool for a ``direct'' model-theoretic approach through situations.  I
   will go on to state some approximation theorems that show to what
   extent the hierarchy approach does and does not add up, in the limit,
   to the direct approach.  The results raise a number of interesting
   model-theoretic questions that only arise in the context of
   non-wellfounded sets.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
47
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 15:43:54 EST
-FROM-
From: David_West%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bindings - Walter Reitman
-BODY-
   Walter Reitman, whose address was given as here in AIlist v3 #42,
in fact moved east a few years ago.  We are currently forwarding
his mail to   25 Oak St., Rumson NJ   <no zip available>
I am not sure whether he continued to work on Go after leaving here.

     David West   (David_West%umich-mts.mailnet@mit-multics.arpa)
     MHRI, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Apr 85 16:31:38 EST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Carlo J. Rodriguez <rodrigue@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Advanced AI Programming Topics
-BODY-

Hello!  I was wondering if I could stir up some interest on the part of
some of the more experienced programmers and designers that follow the
AIList to share some of their knowledge of programming techniques and
structures, data structure implementations and favorites tricks, shortcuts
and other similar tidbits with those among us less experienced in this
magic. Topics such as information hiding, graph structure applications,
parsing techniques and other similar methods typically employed in AI
programming are the types of things I'd like to see discussed.  It would
be nice to see some real hard-core, nitty-gritty technical information
exchange.

Let us all know what you think about this topic.

                                        --- Carlo J. Rodriguez
                                            aka: carlor@mitre

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 85 15:37:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RuleMaster
-BODY-
I recently attended a training session for RuleMaster at Radian
Corporation.  RuleMaster is an expert system development tool that allows
the programmer to put the knowledge in the form of examples and RuleMaster
will induce the rules.  RuleMaster essentially accepts rules in the form
of decision tables and induces an efficient IF THEN representation.
The decision tables form a hierarchy of modules and allow variable
declaration and access to external programs or databases.  RuleMaster
was developed with consultation problems in mind and may possibly be
used for robotic control.  I found a few limitations that would make it
difficult to use RuleMaster for design problems (one of which is the
requirement that you have to declare all your variables before execution).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 85 10:22:42 BST
-FROM-
From: Fitch@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for IBM PC
-BODY-
The number is growing, but I reckon the best is UOLISP from Jed Marti
(Marti@Rand-unix on arpa net). It has a compiler, screen editor and other
goodies.  I have seen it run a large part of the REDUCE algebra system, which
for a PC is good going.

Alternatives are Golden Common Lisp and MuLisp (Stoutemyer in Hawaii)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 16 Apr 85 12:53:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GCLISP & Expert Systems Articles
-BODY-
For information on GCLISP, see Jonathon Amsterdam's review in the May
issue of Popular Computing.  The same issue also features overview
articles about AI and expert systems, and a review of four AI books.
(Mike Nicita and Ron Petrusha liked Expert Systems by Paul Harmon
and David King, didn't like The AI Business by Winston and Prendergast,
and had mixed comments about Into the Heart of the Mind by Frank Rose
and The Cognitive Computer by Schank and Childers.)

For a business view of expert systems, see Exploring Expert Systems,
by Elisabeth Horwitt, in Business Computer Systems, March 1985, pp. 48-57.
The article concludes with a list of vendors of expert-system hardware,
software, and services.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 12 Apr 85 14:55:27-PST
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: report on ES tools
-BODY-
I have written a report (for a class) on five software tools for building
knowledge-based systems: ART, DUCK, KEE, S1, and SRL.  The report is based
on written information I have collected and demos I have seen of KEE and S1.
(Unfortunately no hands-on experience). Nevertheless, several people have
found the paper imformative so I am offering it to others.  Send me your
US mail address if you are interested. I will wait a little while and if
there aren't too many requests I'll mail you a copy.  Otherwise, I'll make
arrangements to post somewhere on the net where you can ftp it. (Actually
it was written with Macintosh word, and another alternative is to send me
a floppy with a self-addressed mailer).
mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 85 09:30:57 PST
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Flores Publications  (AIList Digest   V3 #46)
-BODY-
Reply to Paul Cashman:  More by Flores that you might not have seen:

   "Management and Communication in the Office of the Future"  (dissertation)

   'Understanding Computers and Cognition' with Winograd

You can get these through Hermenet Inc. in the SF Bay area (415) 474-3400.

  --Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 85  1225 PST
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp conferences proceedings
-BODY-
[from SIGACT News]

ACM SIGPLAN has republished the conference proceeding of
previous Lisp conferences.

                           Price
                  Order No.   Members  Others

1980 Lisp Conf.    552800       $15     $21
1982 Lisp Conf.    552820       $18     $26
1984 Lisp Conf.    552840       $20     $27

Ordering address (prepaid)

        ACM Order Dept.
        P.O.Box 64145
        Baltimore, MD 21264

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09 Apr 85 09:38:31 PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Phil Klahr <klahr@rand-unix>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85 Registration -- Please post
-BODY-

The International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence will be
meeting in Los Angeles (at UCLA) August 18-23, 1985.  Conference
brochures (including registration information) have already been mailed
out.  If you have not received one, or would like extras, contact

        IJCAI-85
        c/o AAAI
        445 Burgess Drive
        Menlo Park, CA 94025
        415-328-3123 or 415-321-1118

Registration will be limited to 5,000 people.  Based on early projections,
up to 7,000 people may wish to attend, so early registration is highly
encouraged (if not necessary).

As a bonus, early registrants will receive a substantial reduction in
registration costs.  Through June 28, registration fees are $175 ($80 for
students); for registrations received after June 28 but prior to July 26,
fees will be $225 ($100 for students); and for on-site registration (if
available), fees will be $275 ($125 for students).  Substantial reductions
for early tutorial registrations are also in effect.

Further information on the technical conference, the tutorials, the
exhibition, and housing can be found in the conference brochure.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 85 14:01:06 PST
-FROM-
From: Phyllis O'Neil <oneil@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85 housing
-BODY-
The UCLA Guest House is booked up for IJCAI-85.

Many residential suites and residence hall rooms are available, as well
as hotel rooms.  Mail your IJCAI Housing Bureau Reservation Form with
the deposit as soon as you can, to be assured a room for IJCAI-85.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1985 1524-PST
-FROM-
From: GOGUEN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Relational Database with Logic Programming (SRI)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


CSL SEMINAR SERIES: 17 April 1985 at 2pm in EL381


       EXTENDING A RELATIONAL DATABASE WITH LOGIC PROGRAMMING FACILITIES

            H. van Emde Boas - Lubsen, IBM INSDC, Uithoorn Netherlands

            P. van Emde Boas, IBM San Jose, on leave from IIW/FVI, Univ.
            Amsterdam

            C.F.J. Doedens, Univ. of Amsterdam, while at IBM-INSDC Uithoorn
            Netherlands


            The  observation  that  there  exists  a  strong  connection
            between the Relational Database Model on the one side, and a
            convincing  interpretation of  Logic Programs  on the  other
            hand  has been  made frequently.  The real  issue is  how to
            exploit this  connection in  order to let  Logic Programming
            share the  fruits of  years of  research and  development in
            Database technology.

            Various  groups have  worked on  the problem  of interfacing
            Logic  Programming and  Relational Databases  by giving  the
            logic  programming system  access  to  an existing  Database
            system,  or by  incorporating Database  facilities into  the
            Logic   Programming  System.   Our  approach   is  radically
            different:  we incorporate Logic Programming Facilities into
            an existing  Database system by extending  the functionality
            of the latter.

            In the presentation we  illustrate this strategy by defining
            a simple  subset of PROLOG. Our  prototype system translates
            programs  from this  subset  into high  level  code for  the
            Database   System   Business   System  12,   a  commercially
            available relational  Database system  for time  sharing use
            developed  at IBM-INSDC,  Uithoorn, the  Netherlands.  Facts
            are  translated into  rows  which are  inserted in  Database
            tables. Clauses are compiled into View definitions and goals
            are represented  by Database queries. The  existing BS12-API
            language provides a powerful  view mechanism, allowing us to
            design this  translation. The  query generated  by compiling
            the goal statement is processed  by the BS12 system, and all
            answers generated are returned  to the Prolog system without
            further need for interfacing.

            The  subset  of  PROLOG  presently  covered  by  our  system
            excludes   several  important   facilities.  They   will  be
            discussed together  with the  required enhancements  both to
            our  interface  and  the  existing BS12  system  needed  for
            incorporating these features. We  also compare our work with
            projects performed by others.


            Disclaimer

            This  presentation  contains  reference to,  or  information
            about,   possible  future   enhancements  to   IBM  products
            (Business System  12).  Such  reference or  information must
            not be construed to mean that IBM intends to implement these
            enhancements. The  contents are entirely  the responsibility
            of the authors and reflect their personal opinion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1985 12:17-EST
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Phrase Structure and Parsing (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

  BBN's next AI seminar is at 10:30 on Thursday, April 18, in the 3rd
floor large conference room at 10 Moulton Street.  Craig Thiersch, of
the University of Connecticutt and the University of Koeln, will speak
on "Scrambling, the "VP node" and the nature of projections".  His
abstract:


This talk consists of two parts: the first deals with several
linguistic problems, illustrated by a specific example from the
structure of German; the second discusses the effect which the
resolution of these problems has on (1) the nature of phrase-
structure, and (2) applications to parsing.

   In the past, parsers have quite generally assumed that one needed
separate "packets" for different constituent types, NP, VP, S, etc.
which had rather different structures from one another, in spite of
attempts to reduce them to a common structure.

   If my arguments are correct, there is only one constituent type,
XP, and its structure is uniform; the "satellites" of the Head are
licensed by it and given interpretations which vary little from
constituent to constituent.  This isolates and minimizes the
difference between constituents, and locates the few differences where
they belong, namely in the lexicon.

  The parser itself, on the other hand, is the same for all
constituents, and "expects" the same structure for all.  This means
that given a particular place in the parse tree, the parser has a more
complete set of expectations.  This presumably would be particularly
useful in processing fragmentary or garbled utterances, as in speech
rather than text processing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 12 Apr 85 09:00:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems at Lockheed (SU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The next seminar will take place Wednesday, April l7, in Terman 2l7
from 2:l5 - 3:30.

Speaker:   J.R. Zumsteg
           Advanced Software Laboratory

Topic:     "An Overview of Engineering Expert Systems Research
            at Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory

Expert system technology has progressed to the point where it can
be used to assist engineers and designers during the design and
analysis of aerospace structures.  Because structural design and
analysis relies heavily on computer-based modelling, an engineering
expert system must be able to utilize existing application programs.
The software interface required to provide this capability must set
up the input for the program, run the program, and extract the
needed results from the output of the program, in much the same
manner as a human expert would use the progeram.  In addition,
the knowledge base of the expert system must include facts and
rules to decide when and how to use an application program during
the course of a design or analysis.

Two engineering expert systems have been under development at the
Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory for over a year.  The
Composites Design Assistant (CDA) uses a PROLOG-based expert
system framework, which has been interfaced to the RIM relational
database manager and the ADVLAM laminate analysis code, to assist
an engineer in the design of sandwich panels.  The Buckling Expert
uses the Lockheed Expert System (LES), an expert system framework,
written in analysis code and the PANDA shell design code during
the analysis of a cylindrical shell.  The design and operation
of these engineering expert systems, along with the software and
logic issues encountered during their development, will be
described.  An example of each system in use will also be presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Apr 85 16:03:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Japanese Lisp Machine (SU)
-BODY-
 [Forwarded from the Stanford SIGLUNCH distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


DATE:           Friday,  April 19,  1985
LOCATION:       Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical & Organic Chemistry
TIME:           12:05

SPEAKER:        Shigeki Goto
                Musashino Electrical Communication Laboratory,
                NTT,  Japan
                Visitor SU Computer Science Department

TITLE:          Japanese Lisp Machine ELIS and it's Language TAO



     NTT is a Japanese telephone company.  Electrical Communication
Laboratories are often called "Japanese Bell Labs".  At the Feburary
15 Siglunch, Professor Feigenbaum spoke about NTT's  new Lisp machine
being ten times faster than Symbolics 3600. This talk is a follow
up on his talk, and will cover the following points:
1)  A brief overview of NTT, and Research activities at Electrical
    Communication Laboratories.
2)  Lisp Machine ELIS: It is safe to say that ELIS is at least six times
    faster than Symbolics 3600.  Because the interpreter is implemented
    fully by microcode, interpreted code runs faster than most dedicated
    machines.
3) A dialect of Lisp: TAO
   Although TAO looks like Zetalisp, it takes in features of Prolog and
   Smalltalk. Users can program by selecting and mixing the programming
   paradigms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
48
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 11:57:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Peter Friedland <FRIEDLAND@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in agriculture
-BODY-
I have a friend who has just been hired by the US Dept. of Agriculture to
explore advance computer applications, including AI, to problems in
agriculture.  If anybody has any information about existing systems or research
in this area, please send it to FRIEDLAND@SUMEX (or publish on the AILIST).

Thanks,

Peter

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 85 9 32 CST
-FROM-
From: Douglas young <young@uofm-uts.cdn>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GCLisp
-BODY-

Please can anyone tell me if there is a way of being able to use
Golden Common Lisp on a TI Professional ( equipped with 512k )?
Thanks.

           Douglas Young ( University of Manitoba )
           young%uofm-uts.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Apr 85 15:53:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: es tools paper
-BODY-

I have gotten an incredible number of responses for the ES paper I have
offered. I didn't realize that that many people even read AIList.  As a
result I will have  it made into a Stanford Knowledge Systems Lab
(KSL) paper.  I am saving all the addresses and will have copies
mailed out asap.   If you are in a rush to get this information let me
know ... if the 'emergency' cases are small in number I can send out
a photocopy of the Macintosh output right away.  I will also try to
make an announcement about the mass mailing so you should have to worry
about whether you got missed.
mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 1985 14:22-EST
-FROM-
From: BATES@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: address for Walter Reitman
-BODY-
In the latest issue of the AIList newsletter, someone mentioned that
Walter Reitman's address was unknown.  Here it is, in case you'd like
to publish it:

  Dr. Walter Reitman
  Palladian Software Inc.
  41 Munroe Street
  Cambridge, MA 02142

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 08:14 EST
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <hafner%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Legal Systems
-BODY-
Responding to John Kastner's request in AILIST V3 #46:

    Northeastern University in Boston is in the process of developing a new
    program in Law and Computer Science.  Although we are not ruling out work
    on traditional "computer law" issues (software protection, liability of
    computer system vendors, privacy, etc.), our primary interest is the use
    of computers to model and/or enhance the process of "legal reasoning" -
    whatever that is!! Thus, legal expert systems, natural language processing
    and intelligent legal retrieval systems are the areas we want to develop.

    We are very interested in hearing from potential graduate students
    who want to work on AI and Law - and also potential faculty!

        Don Berman                        Carole Hafner
        School of Law                     College of Computer Science
        berman%northeastern@csnet-relay   hafner%northeastern@csnet-relay

                          Northeastern University
                          Boston MA 02115

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 85 10:12:47 PST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Knowledge Exploration (some suggestions)
-BODY-
A good overview of the problem of defining "information" is in "Theories
of Information" [edited] by Machlup and Mansfield (John Wiley 1984).
Its a thick volume, with articles by a large number researchers in
information science/computer science/cognitive science, but reading just
the prologue and epilogue will give you a good overview of the current
thinking about Information and Knowledge.  In particular, it will warn
you about trying to extend from the Shannon definition of the word,
which generally tends to confuse the user, (and the English language).

Machlup is biased toward the position is that Information is
what is told from one human to another; all other uses are derived
metaphorically from that usage.

Personally, I would suggest that Information and Knowledge are related
just as Communication and Memory;  Information is Knowledge in transit,
or conversely, Knowledge is stored Information.  Knowledge is what you
"Know", Information is what you don't know; it's what you want to get
so that you may Know something.  In this case, we can agree in principle
with Shannon, that the amount (or value) of information in a signal/symbol
is related to the amount of NEW knowledge we recieve.

"Datum", as Machlup points out, is latin for "given";
So, in any context in which a particular object is not the result of
immediate inference or derivation, that information or knowledge may
be considered as data.  Inference and analysis may then proceed from
data to derive new knowledge, new "knowns" from the "givens".
These "knowns", when transmitted to a new process, then become the
"givens" for the next round of analysis.  So, data is analysed to
create knowledge, which is transmitted as information, and may then again
become data and knowledge.

This explains the relationships, based on function, context and point-of-view,
but leaves open the question of the type or kind of object information is,
or the means of representation for these objects.

The bottom line, I think, is that all of these (info, knowledge, data)
must be seen in the context of their use: the purpose of intelligence is
to make (good) decisions.  The memories, beliefs, inferences,
predictions, expectations, etc., that are used to make an "intelligent"
choice, or an "informed decision", are knowledge.  Whether something is
knowledge can only be judged by its relationship to decisions that must
be made.  I suggest that any theory of knowledge must include a theory
of decisions and utility.

* for those philosphers who still beleive in "true, justified belief"
as the definition of knowledge, I submit that "true, justified belief"
is just a special case of "things that are useful in making good decisions".
I suggest that the latter is the more fundamental and more useful concept.

peck@sri-spam

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 85  8:58:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hangul and Cherokee
-BODY-
Sorry, Jan Steinman, at least one elegant writing system is more recent
than that of Hangul:  in the early 1800s, Sequoya (aka George Guess)
invented a very sophisticated syllabary for the Cherokee language.
Each of its 85 characters represents one of the possible syllables of
the language.

This writing system enabled the Cherokees to write down their elaborate
system of laws and to publish newspapers in their language.  They still
do publish Cherokee newspapers, though they disbanded as a tribe in 1906.
Their legal tomes still await scholarly study, many in possession of the
American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.

A bit of history:  the Cherokees were quite successful farmers and
businesspeople, a nation with a republican form of government (not to be
confused with the present GOP!)  under a written constitution.  Then
gold was discovered in their territory.  A treaty obtained from a small
group in the tribe was claimed to be binding on the whole tribe.  Their
autonomy as a nation was upheld by the US Supreme Court, and the tribe
overwhelmingly repudiated the treaty, but the State of Georgia used
military force and President Andrew Jackson refused to intervene, hence
the `Trail of Tears' from the Carolinas, Georgia, and Alabama to
Oklahoma.  (Occurs to me that `Improper Mathematics' could well be
rewritten to this tune!)

Devanagari, used to write Sanskrit and its descendants, and many other
languages influenced by the spread of Buddhism, is also a syllable-
oriented script, but does have distinct marks for vowels.  I should be
surprised if it did not influence King Sejong's scholars.

        Bruce Nevin
        bbncch.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 85 23:57 EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A final note on humor...
-BODY-
In response to the "Special Issue on Humor" of the AI bboard, I would
like to make some comments concerning the somewhat involved treastises
presented therein:

    > I simply suggest that it be left at the level of:
    >
    > 1. If something offends you tell the offender and, if
    >    appropriate, the net audience. [Ok, agreed -pf]
    > 2. Remember the individual involved. Next time something
    >    comes up about that person you will know their
    >    character is probably suspect, or at the very least
    >    their sense of judgement.
    >
    > I for one would feel severely punished if someone so seriously
    > suspected my character. An entire audience like this would be
    > crushing.

This sounds like something from a CIA primer. Can we not voice
our opinions freely without mass condemnation? I for one would
feel "severely punished" if I could not voice what I felt without
constantly being concerned about being "crushed."


    > So, should it be published? Maybe, but not as humor; it should be
    > quoted (mention vs use) as an example of vicious pseudo-humor. If
    > it must always be presented in the context of its reality, its
    > disguise must be removed.

Then the author presents metaphors relating to viruses,
pathogens, antigens and DNA sequences which I find quite
entertaining but highly romantic.

The part about removing disguises reminds me of one of the earlier
comments made by someone: namely, that we should remove disguises
associated with cartoons since they often contain violent acts.
And, heaven forbid that we should watch slap-stick.


I found "Freud's Theory of Jokes and Censors" interesting. It might
suggest an inquiry into the meaning of 'funny'. What exactly does
'funny' mean? I would be interested in someone would give me a
definition of 'funny' (no Webster's interpretations, please).
Amazingly enough, these heated discussions about humor might
have some relevance to AI after all...A computational model which
would relate to humor: I can see it now - If only I could attach
a voice box to my PC and come up with an algorithm (I would stick
it in the corner of my living room with a microphone so that it could
listen-in at parties....)

  [I believe that both McCarthy and Minsky have published
  papers on humor.  -- KIL]


The point is that many people found Polly Nomial hilarious and many
people found it disgusting. The question is: can we look across
the fence and appreciate someone else's point of view (not necessarily
changing our own view)? There is nothing wrong with either view. Now,
lets get back to some AI, shall we?

>paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1985  09:47 EST
-FROM-
From: BATALI%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Midnight Theorizer
-BODY-

   From: MINSKY

   Perhaps this, too, explains the prolonged, mourning-like
   depression that follows sexual or other forms of personal
   assault.  No matter that the unwelcome intimacy of violence
   may be brief; it nonetheless affects one's attachment
   machinery, however much against one's wish.

So the suggestion is that the rape-victim feels bad because she has
formed an attachment-bond to her attacker?  The same "mechanism" is
involved as in the formation of her attachment-bonds to other people?
So she feels bad not because she has been raped, but because her
rapist has then left her?  Is there a shred of evidence that any rape
victim has ever felt this way?  Is this theory somehow suggesting that
there really isn't much of a difference between rape and seduction and
falling in love?  Is it being assumed that fear, pain and loss of
self-esteem is not enough to "explain the prolonged depression" that
follows sexual assault?

  [Surely the phrase "affects one's attachment machinery" should be
  interpreted as "damaging" or "adversely affecting" the mechanism.
  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 15-Apr-85 16:50:04-BST
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Street Speak
-BODY-

The current debate over  censorship and jokes in the AI  Digest leads me
to think that there is something fundamentally wrong. If your are trying
to mimic the human mind, you have do both sides of the brain. But if you
are using a computer, you can only duplicate the logical thought process
and not the emotional thought process.

Gordon Joly
aka
The Joka.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 16-Apr-85 10:06:40-BST
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Man as Machine
-BODY-
          Hardware  =    Brain
          Firmware  =    Instinct
          Software  =    Intelligence.

"If man is any sort of a machine he is a learning machine"
                     Jacob Bronowski on The Ascent of Man.

Gordon Joly

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
49
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 15:43:54-PST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Buchanan  <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: STANFORD KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS LABORATORY
-BODY-

    ***                     NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE                       ***


        HEURISTIC PROGRAMMING PROJECT --> KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS LABORATORY

                          COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
                              STANFORD UNIVERSITY

Upon entering our third decade of AI research, the group formerly known as the
DENDRAL Project (1965-1972) and the Heuristic Programming Project (1972-1984)
announces the creation of the Knowledge Systems Laboratory (KSL).  The overall
research directions will remain the same but scientific direction and
administration will be distributed among the five collaborating, but distinct,
subgroups listed below.

A central KSL administration will coordinate activities among the
subgroups and between the KSL and outside agencies, corporations, and the
university.  Thomas Rindfleisch will serve as Director of the KSL.

1.  The Heuristic Programming Project group, Prof. Edward A. Feigenbaum,
        principal investigator.  The current foci of the HPP include:
        studies of blackboard systems, machine and system architectures
        for concurrent symbolic processing, and models for knowledge
        discovery.  Executive Director: Robert Engelmore.  Research
        scientists: Harold Brown, Bruce Delagi, Peter Friedland, H.Penny
        Nii, and Byron Davies.  Consulting Professor: Richard Gabriel.

2.  The HELIX Group, Prof. Bruce G. Buchanan, principal investigator.
        The main foci of this group are machine learning, transfer of
        expertise, and problem solving.  Other faculty and research
        scientists are Paul Rosenbloom, James Brinkley, William Clancey,
        and Barbara Hayes-Roth.

3.  The Medical Computer Science Group, Prof. Edward H. Shortliffe,
        principal investigator.  Research on and application of AI to
        medical problems.  Research scientist: Larry Fagan.

4.  The Logic Group, Prof. Michael R. Gensereth, principal investigator.
        Research on formal reasoning and introspectivie systems.
        Research scientist: Matt Ginsberg.

5.  The Symbolic Systems Resources Group, Thomas C. Rindfleisch, director.
        Research on and operation of computing resources for AI research,
        including the SUMEX facility.  Asst. Director: William J. Yeager.


Address correspondence to:
        Knowledge Systems Laboratory
        Computer Science Dept.
        Stanford University
        701 Welch Rd., Bldg. C
        Palo Alto, CA    94304

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 1985 10:28-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contents, AI Report
-BODY-
The Artificial Intelligence Report, April 1985, Volume 2 no. 4

"FDA Looks at Medical Software" describes a move within the FDA to
classify medical software (including medical expert systems) as medical
devices subject to improvement

"The NSF Supercomputer Centers"

"Sun Microsystems" announced the availability of the following AI
products for their workstations: Quintus Prolog, Lucid Common Lisp,
Software Architecture and Engineering Inc.s' Knowledge Engineering
System, Smart System Technology's Duck.  Also includes information on
Sun's philosophy with respect to AI and some prices for some of their
products and general corporate aims.

"Teknowledge joins FMC" describes investments by FMC and others in
Teknowledge.

"A $50 Million Give Away" describes HP's planned donations to
Universities for AI work.

"A Commerical AI Forum" describes a forum being sponsored by the
Gartner Group.

"The Japanese AI Market" describes work by Nichiman Co in importing
Symbolics 3600 machines and other AI software to Japan.


"Expo 85: Tsukuba Japan"  States that the American pavillion in Japan
(whose theme is AI) has good technical information but lacks the flash
and glitz of Japanese exhibits.

Announcements of AI products for the  IBM PC

  Logicware announced availability of PC/MProlog which is execution
  compatible with unspecified DEC and IBM mainframe computers.

  Artelligence of Dallas, Texas is selling a PC version of OPS5 called
  OPS5+($3,000)

  California Intelligence announces XSYS, an expert system shell,
  for $1000.  (It is similar to the SeRIES-PC system developed at
  Stanford)

  KDS Corporation announced KDS AUTOLOGIC

Review of the NATO Advanced Study Institute workshop.  These are
available in Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, volume 11 of NATO
ASI Series, series F- Computer and Systems Sciences published by
Springer VErlag

Review of IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence Conference, Dec
5-7 1985.  They are available from IEEE Computer Society (order no 624)

Review of Artificial Intelligence in Maintenance, sponsored by the
Department of Defense October 4-6 1983.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 1985 09:37-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
Datamation, April 1, 1985 Volume 31 no 7
Reader's Forum - Hacker meets Star War's.

This was written by John M. Morris of Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute in Rome New York.  He claims that IIT has developed
a "set of software metrics -- measurements of such things as the
complexity of programs -- for use with LISP programs."  They also found
that "AI programs can meet commercial software standards without
neglecting the hackers' creative artistic spirit."  and that the usual
software development cycle can be modified for AI development.

No documentation or references for these claims were provided in the
article.
____________________________________________________________________________
Infoworld, January 28, 1985 Volume 7, Issue 4
Review of Exsys, an expert system based on a taxonomic approach
Rating: two out of a possible four diskettes.
Performance: good
Documentation: fair
Ease of Use: Fair
Error Handling: Excellent
Support: Good                 Pages 43-44

Review of Expert Ease: This is superseded by a review of a newer
release of their product which I summarized earlier

Review of Expert Choice: page 45-50
This is a decision support system based on Professor Saaty's "Analytic
Hierarchy Process"
Rating: two out of four possible diskettes
performance: good
documentation: good
ease of use: fair
error handling: Excellent
support: four
____________________________________________________________________________
Electronics Week, February 11, 1985, page 45
"Upstart Vendor Makes Waves in Japn's Robot Market"
Talks about Dainichi Kiko Co. which is a small company that is growing
very fast by using novel control circuits to compensate for the weight
of the robot arm when moving it, and by selling turnkey systems.
____________________________________________________________________________
Computer World, April 1, 1985 page 45
Article describing Arthur D. Little's efforts in Artificial
Intelligence applications, particularly to data processing.
____________________________________________________________________________
Electronics Week December 17, 1984 page 17-18
"AI Transforms CAD/CAM to CIM"
describes efforts by CAM-I to integrate engineering work-stations and
automated factories using expert systems.  Also describes work by
Westinghouse Electric Corp to apply expert systems to hybrid circuits,
magnetic dervices, printed circuits, array products.  Computervision
has a system which refers to past experiences and classifies parts into
categories.  They did not call the system AI based at the time but it
can now be considered an AI system.
____________________________________________________________________________
Computer Products March 1985

Intellimac announces the following systems for its IN/7000 series ADA
development super-minis:  Common Lisp, Lisp-To-ADA Translater, an
expert system shell, a CAI system for LISP
____________________________________________________________________________
Computer Products Page 34 March 1985

Frey Associates Inc. announces Themis V1.1 that provides a natural
language in.terface to ORACLE Relational Database and VAX DATATRIEVE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 85 10:35:51 cst
-FROM-
From: Richard Smith <smith%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Occupational Fatality Associated with a Robot
-BODY-
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Center for Disease Control, Atlanta
Vol. 34, No. 11, March 22, 1985.

  "On July 21, 1984, a 34-year-old male worker in Michigan was operating
an automated die-casting system that included an industrial robot.  At
approximately 1:15 p.m., he was found pinned between the back end of the
robot and a 4-inch-diameter steel safety pole used to restrict undesired
arm movement by the robot.  The robot stalled, applying sustained pressure
to the chest of the operator, who experienced cardiopulmonary arrest...
the worker was admitted comatose to a local hospital, where he died 5 days
later."

  The report provides additional details.  Apparently the operator
climbed around the safety bars and was trying to clean up metal scrap
on the floor when he got pinned by the robot.  The operator was thought to
be fairly competent, but had a practice of sneaking into the robot's
work envelope every so often.  He evidently didn't anticipate the motions
of the back of the robot as well as he anticipated the gripper motion.
The company has since installed a chain link fence around the work cell.

  According to the CDC this is the first robot-caused fatality in the U.S.
The report also mentions that 2 fatalities have occured in Japan.  Robot
related injuries occur most often while a robot is being programmed or
repaired, unlike this case.

Back issues of M&M Weekly Report are availible from the publisher,
Massachusetts Medical Society, Waltham, MA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 12:08:37-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject:  New Journals In The Math/CS Library
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following is a list of some of [Stanford Library's] more recent
subscription purchases:

Abacus

Computers and Artificial Intelligence (Czechoslovakia)

Expert Systems: the international journal of knowledge engineering

ICOT Journal Digest: Fifth Generation Computer Systems

Integration: the VLSI Journal

Journal of Automated Reasoning

Journal of Logic Programming

Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing

Journal of Pascal, Ada & Modula-2

Macworld

Tech Journal; for IBM Personal Computer Users

Technology and Sciences of Information; cover to cover translation of
    Technique et Science Informatiques


HL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 12:04:19-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical People--New Book in the Math/CS Library
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Mathematical People by Albers and Alexanderson (QA28.M37 1985) has arrived
in the Math/CS Library and is on the new books shelf for sign-ups. This
is the book that includes interviews with Don Knuth, Persi Diaconis, and
George Polya all of Stanford.  Interviews of the following people are
also included:
Garrett Birkhoff,  David Blackwell,  Shing-shen Chern,  John Horton Conway,
H. S. M. Coxeter, Paul Erdos,  Martin Gardner, Ronald L. Graham, Paul R.Halmos,
Peter J. Hilton,  John Kemeny,  Morris Kline,  Benoit Mandelbrot, Henry O.
Pollak,  Mina Rees,  Constance Reid,  Herbert Robbins,  Raymond Smullyan,
Olga Taussky-Todd,  Albert W. Tucker, Stanislaw M. Ulam, and Reminiscences
of Solomon Lefschetz by Albert W. Tucker.

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 09:08:24 est
-FROM-
From: Dennis Perzanowski <dennisp@nrl-aic>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NCARAI Seminar Series
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS

The Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial  Intelli-
gence  (NCARAI),  a  branch of the Naval Research Laboratory
located in Washington, D.C., sponsors  a  bimonthly  seminar
series.   Seminars  are held on alternate Mondays throughout
the year (except summers). The seminars are intended to pro-
mote   interaction  among  individuals  from  the  military,
governmental, industrial and academic communities.

Topics span the various research areas and issues in Artifi-
cial Intelligence with special interests in:

        *Expert Systems
        *Knowledge Representation
        *Learning
        *Logic programs and automated reasoning
        *Natural Language processing
        *New generation architectures

Presentations last for approximately one hour, followed by a
fifteen-minute  question-and-answer  session.   Speakers in-
vited from the academic community are provided  with  a  per
diem and an honorarium.

Please send 3 copies of a 200-250 word abstract to:

        Dennis Perzanowski
        Navy Center for Applied Research
        in Artificial Intelligence
        Naval Research Laboratory -- Code 7510
        Washington, DC  20375-5000

        ARPANET address: DENNISP@NRL-AIC.ARPA
        Telephone: (202) 767-2686 (AV) 297-2686

The committee will consider new  and  interesting  work,  as
well as promising work in progress.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 85 17:15:24 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - AI and Statistics
-BODY-
        WORKSHOP ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND STATISTICS

                       April 10-12, 1985
              AT&T Conference Center, Princeton, NJ

                   General Chair: William Gale
                     AT&T Bell Laboratories
                        Murray Hill, NJ



Annie G. Brooking   The Analysis Phase in the Development of Knowledge-
                    Based Systems

Keith A. Butler     Use of Psychometric Tools for Knowledge Acquisition:
James E. Corter     A Case Study

Thomas Ellman       Representation of Statistical Computation: Toward Expert
                    Systems with a Deeper Understanding of Statistics

Douglas Fisher      Methods of Conceptual Clustering and their Relation to
Pat Langley         Numerical Taxonomy

John Fox            Decision Making and Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems

William B. Gale     STUDENT Phase I - A report on Work in Progress

David J. Hand       Patterns in Statistical Strategy

Stephen C. Hora     Learning Rates in Supervised and Unsupervised Intelligent
                    Systems

Laveen N. Kanal     Problem Solving Methods for Pattern Recognition
G. R. Dattratreya

R. Wayne Oldford    Implementation and Study of Statistical Strategy
Stephen C. Peters

Robert I. Phelps    Artificial Intelligence Approaches in Statistics
P. B. Musgrove

Darryl Pregibon     A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Statistical Strategy

Steven Salzberg     Pinpointing Good Hypotheses with Heuristics

D.J. Spiegelhalter  A Statistical View of Uncertainty in Expert Systems

Ronald A. Thisted   Representing Statistical Knowledge and Search Strategies
                    for Expert Data Analysis Systems

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
50
-DATE-
Date: Mon 22 Apr 85 20:44:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lost Messages
-BODY-
SRI-AI had a bad system crash Sunday morning; mail sent to AIList
or AIList-Request that morning may not have gotten through.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 APR 85 14:16-N
-FROM-
From: PETITP%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine translation at La Jolla
-BODY-
[In answer to request from goodhart@nosc  AIList Digest v3 #46]

Hi!
  The people you are looking for in La Jolla are probably working on
SYSTRAN, a commercial machine translation system. Here is their address:
   P. Toma
   WTC Inc
   7854 Ivanohe Avenue
   PO Box 907
   La Jolla, Ca 92037
   Tel: 619/459-3471
Other commercial systems I know of in the States are the Weidner System
and the ALPS system, both companies are located in Provo, Utah. (I could get
more for you if you are interested).

  But none of those are proper research projects, and are based on
linguistically and computationnally "old" ideas. A more advanced project
is METAL, developed at the Linguistic Research Center, University of Texas,
in Austin. You can contact Rebecca Root (LRC.ROOT@UTEXAS.ARPA) to get more
information about it.

  In Europe there are the SUSY project (Saarbruecken,Germany), and the GETA
project (Grenoble, France), and the EUROTRA project of the European Economic
Communities, to which many european universities collaborate. Here at ISSCO
in Geneva we are working on EUROTRA.

  And of course there is many Japanese projects but I don't know much about
them.

  A good introduction to machine translation is a paper by Jonathan Slocum,
presented at COLING-84 in Stanford: "Machine Translation: its History, Current
Status an Future Prospects". If you can't get a copy of the proceedings,
I think it was also published as a report by the LRC in Austin.

  Last year ISSCO organised a tutorial on machine translation and a book will
be published by Edinburgh University Press.

                                Dominique Petitpierre (PETITP@CGEUGE51.BITNET)
                                ISSCO
                                54 route des acacias
                                CH-1227 GENEVA (Switzerland)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 08:23 EST
-FROM-
From: kyle.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Friedland's request about AI in agriculture
-BODY-

Some years ago, Control Data Corp in Minneapolis had a New Business
Ventures Unit that included various software systems for the farmer and
Agribusiness industry. You might check with them to see what is going on
in that area with them now. Also at about that same time frame they got
on board a former SRI type who had background with SRI's early AI
efforts. I don't know if there was any connection between that person
and the farm stuff though.

Earle Kyle.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue,16 Apr 85 16:16:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Robyn D. Spencer <TOOTSE@MIT-MC>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Transformation of Functional Equations (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        DATE:  April 22, 1985
                        TIME:  Lecture 3:30 p.m.
                        PLACE:  NE43-3rd floor conference room


         TRANSFORMATIONS of HIGHER-TYPE FUNCTIONAL EQUATIONS
                   VIA THE COMPUTATION OF RETRACTS

                           Richard Statman
                      Carnegie-Mellon University

        Functional equations occur in diverse branches of logic and computer
science.  In type theory with the axiom of choice, every formula is equivalent
to one which asserts that a functional equation has a solution with the given
parameters. In theorem proving, unification problems are simply functional
equations which one wants to solve in all models. In programming language
semantics, programming constructs, such as fixed point operators, are
represented as solutions to functional equations.
         The general functional equation
                                Fx=Gx
where operators F,G have type A -> B can be transformed one with
operators of type C -> D while preserving all solutions, when there is a
surjective H of type C -> A and an injective J of type B -> D. The transformed
equation is
                          J(F(Hy))=J(G(Hy))
We shall show that this transformation can be carried out in every model if and
only if A is a retract of C and B is a retract of D in every model.  There is a
retract from C onto A if and only if the equation
                         lambda z. y(xz) = I
is solvable for some y in C -> A and x in A -> C. This equation is solvable in
every model if and only if it is solvable in the term model of beta-eta
conversion. Thus transformations of the above type can always be carried out by
lambda terms. We shall give some further information about when this type of
transformation can be carried out including bounds on the size of A as a
function of the size of C.  The decision problem (unification problem) is open.


HOST:  Albert Meyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 21:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming with Recurrent Equations (Penn)
-BODY-

PROGRAMMING WITH RECURRENT EQUATIONS
Boleslaw Szymanski (University Pennsylvania)
3:00pm April 23, 1985, 216 Moore School, Univ. of Pennsylvania

   Software development tools proposed for new generation of computers are
   based on assertive programming, where a program is expressed as a set of
   assertions. There are two basic notations used in assertive programming:
   Horn clauses of logic programming (e.g.  PROLOG) and conditional equations
   used in so called definitional or equational languages.  Equational
   languages are natural and convenient complements of PROLOG-like languages
   for such applications as programming dataflow machines and modelling complex
   systems.

   This talk focuses on languages based on recurrent equations.  Finite-
   difference approximations to systems of partial difference equations lead to
   such recurrence equations.  Our experience indicates that such languages are
   general purpose.  Description of many algorithms is greatly simplified when
   presented in such a form.

   The talk presents new results of the MODEL project.  Three MODEL language
   processor components: Compiler, Configurator, and Timing System will be
   discussed.  The emphasis will be on the following problems: 1) optimization
   of programs generated by the MODEL compiler, 2) programming parallel and/or
   distributed computations with Configurator 3) use of temporal relations for
   scheduling parallel components 4) distributed termination of a solution to
   simultaneous equations, 5) real-time software development using Timing
   System. Future research will also be outlined.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 17:11:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representation, Aesthetics, Learnability (SU)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 25, 1985


   4:15 p.m.            CSLI Colloquium
     Redwood Hall       ``The Representational Basis for Everyday Aesthetic
     Room G-19          Experience -- A Motivational Constraint on Learnable
                        Systems of Knowledge''
                        Tom Bever, Columbia University and CASBS


    ``The Representational Basis for Everyday Aesthetic Experience --
      A Motivational Constraint on Learnable Systems of Knowledge''

      The structure of everyday aesthetic judgements depends on computations
   of mental representations and relations between representations.
   Examination of objects of everyday aesthetic preference (e.g., simple
   rhythms, shapes, and songs) affords a definition of the aesthetically
   satisfying experience: such experiences involve the formation of
   incompatible representations and their resolution within the framework
   of an overarching representational system.  The enjoyment of such
   experiences follows from the extent to which they are like solving a
   problem during normal cognitive development.  Indigenous systems like
   language must have formal properties that stimulate aesthetically
   satisfying experiences as an immediate motivation for the acquisition of
   abstract structures.  That is, we learn a multi-levelled representational
   structure for language because it is fun.                    --Tom Bever

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 14:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The MIT Mobile Robot Project (Penn)
-BODY-
THE MIT AI LAB MOBILE ROBOT PROJECT - Rodney A. Brooks (MIT)
3pm April 25, 23 Moore School, Univ. of Pennsylvania

     We are interested in a number of questions relating to intelligent
     mobile robots.  These include the following.  (a) How to combine a
     number of early vision modules into a robust vision system which can
     operate under a wide range of conditions and a wide range of scenes
     through redundancy of perceptions. (b) How to make reliable maps given
     that all sensors produce error laden readings, and control of the robot
     is also a source of error.  (c) How to apply model-based vision
     techniques to the landmark selection and recognition problems.  (d) How
     to make a robot control and planning system which is competent and
     robust enough to allow an autonomous vehicle to operate for long
     periods with absolutely no assistance from a human.  In support of
     these goals we are building a mobile robot which will operate
     autonomously for a number of hours at a time within the Artificial
     Intelligence Laboratory office area.  Our approach to building the
     robot and its controlling software differs from that used in many other
     projects in a number of ways.  (1) We model the world as three
     dimensional rather than two.  (2) We build no special environment for
     our robot and insist that it must operate in the same real world that
     we inhabit. (3) In order to adequatley deal with uncertainty of
     perception and control we build relational maps rather than maps
     embedded in a coordinate system, and we maintain explicit models of all
     uncertainties.  (4) We explicitly monitor the computational performance
     of the components of the control system, in order to refine the design
     of a real time control system for mobile robots based on a special
     purpose distributed computation engine.  (5) We use vision as our
     primary sense and relegate acoustic senors to local obstacle detection.
     (6) We use a new architecture for an intelligent system designed to
     provide integration of many early vision processes, and robust
     real-time performance even in cases of sensory overload, failure of
     certain early vision processes to deliver much information in
     particular situations, and computation module failure.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 1985  15:57 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - ARLO: Representing Representation Language (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

AI Revolving Seminar    Ken Haase
                        ARLO: Representing Representation Languages
                        Tuesday, April 23; 4:00pm; 8th Floor Playroom

ARLO is a language for describing the implementation and functionality
of frame based representation languages.  A given representation
language is specified in ARLO by a collection of structures describing
how its descriptions are interpreted, defaulted, and verified.  This
high level description is compiled into lisp code and ARLO structures
whose interpretation fulfills the langauge's abstract specification.
The dependencies of this compilation process (from description to
implementation) are recorded by ARLO, so that changes in the
high-level description will propogate to the generated implementation.
In addition, ARLO itself --- as a representation language for
expressing and compiling partial and complete language specifications
>-- is described and interpreted in the same manner as the languages
it describes and implements.

This talk will address general issues in the definition and
implementation of representation language languages, as well as the
technical problems in implementing self-descriptive systems.  Finally,
I will discuss the use of ARLO-like languages as a basis for learning
and concept formation programs like Lenat's Eurisko.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1985  13:18 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Mike Gennert@MIT-OZ <MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Representation Lunches
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                 COMPUTER AIDED CONCEPTUAL ART (CACA)
                       REVOLTING SEMINAR SERIES
                               presents

              TACO: REPRESENTING REPRESENTATION LUNCHES

                             Mike Gennert
                          Mike Gerstenberger

TACO is a lunch for describing the implementation and functionality of
frame based representation lunches.  A given representation lunch is
specified in TACO by a collection of fillings describing how its
descriptions are interpreted, defaulted, verified, and eaten.  This
high level description is compiled into TACO shell code and TACO
fillings whose interpretation fulfills the langauge's nutritional
specification.  The dependencies of this compilation process (from
description to implementation) are recorded by TACO, so that changes
in the high-level description will propogate to the generated
implementation.  In addition, TACO itself --- as a representation
lunch for expressing and compiling partial and complete lunch
specifications --- is devoured and interpreted in the same manner as
the lunches it devoured and implements, i.e., with one's fingers.

This talk will address general issues in the definition and
implementation of representation lunch lunches, as well as the
technical problems in implementing self-devouring systems.  Finally,
We will discuss the use of TACO-like lunches as a basis for learning
and concept formation programs like Automatic Hairstyle Generation:
The Further Adventures of Eurisko.

              Friday, April 12, 12:00, 3rd Floor Lounge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 17:26:10 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Traveling President Problem
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


            COMPUTER AIDED CONCEPTUAL ART (CACA)
                  REVOLTING SEMINAR SERIES

                         :-) (-:

              THE TRAVELING PRESIDENT PROBLEM

                       Tod Malmedy

We present a new variation of the traveling salesman problem.
There are two differences.  First, the links are free but the
nodes, representing memorials, have either small positive or
large negative weights, and the goal is to maximize this
weight.  Second, unlike most problems, in which a solver is
allowed to exaustively search the space of combinations for an
optimal solution, in this variation the value of the final
solution is penalized by the number of combinations tested
before finding it.  Under these conditions the L/D (Leave it
to Deaver) strategy can be proven to be the worst possible.


TIME: 12 Noon Friday
PLACE: 3rd Floor Theory Playroom
HOSTS: Bhaskar Ghudaroy and Mike Beckerle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
51
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 85 15:30 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding
-BODY-
     Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding

A workshop sponsored by the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of
Intelligence (CSCSI) / Societe canadienne pour l'etude de l'intelligence par
ordinateur (SCEIO), in conjunction with Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova
Scotia, and Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

To be held:  28-30 May, 1985, in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Abstract:  Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language Understanding is
intended to bring together active researchers in Computational Linguistics,
Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science to
dsicuss/hear invited talks, papers, and positions relating to some of the
``hot'' issues regarding the current state of natural language
understanding.  Three topics will form the focus for discussion; the topics
include aspects of GRAMMARS, aspects of SEMANTICS/PRAGMATICS, and KNOWLEDGE
REPRESENTATION.  Each of these topics will consider current methodologies:
for grammars - theoretical devlopments, especially generalized phrase
structure grammars and logic-based meta-grammars; for semantics - situation
semantics and Montague semantics; for knowledge representation - logical
systems (temporal logics, etc.)  and special purpose inference systems.

Invited speakers:  Harvey Abrahamson (UBC), Robin Cooper (U.Wisc), Dan
Flickinger (HP), Pat Hayes (U.Rochester), Don Hindle (Bell Labs), Lynette
Hirshman (SDC), Ron Kaplan (Xerox PARC), Mitch Marcus (Bell Labs), Bill
Mark (Savoir), Eric Mays (IBM), Fernando Pereira (SRI), Stan Peters (CSLI),
Stan Rosenschein (SRI), Paul Sabatier (Rue des Mariniers, Paris), Patrick
Saint Dizier (IRISA), Candy Sidner (BBN), Norm Sondheimer (UCS-ISI), David
Scott Warren (SUNY Stony Brook), Dave Touretzky (CMU), and William Woods
(Applied Expert Systems).

General Chairperson:    Richard Rosenberg, Dalhousie University
Program Chairperson:    Nick Cercone, Simon Fraser University
Local Arrangements:     Jan Mulder, Dalhousie University

Schedule:
  Grammar Day: Tuesday, 28 May; organized by Len Schubert and Veronica Dahl
  Semantics Day:  Wednesday, 29 May; organized by Graeme Hirst and David Israel
  Knowledge Representation Day:  Thursday, 30 May; organized by Ralph
        Weischedel and James Allen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 85 15:30:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems In Engineering Applications
-BODY-
We are actively seeking quality papers for the Expert Systems in
Government Conference in Washington DC this fall. I am head
of the session on engineering applications and having a difficult time
finding many applications. If you are doing work in this area and would
like to meet others doing similar work, submit a paper to:
Dr. Kamal Karna,  Mitre Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard
McLean VA 22102
The deadline is May 1 - if you need any further information you can
contact me at maher@cmu-ri-cive

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 85 16:38:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Neil Immerman <Immerman@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Toronto Day at Wesleyan
-BODY-
 announcing . . . . . TORONTO DAY AT WESLEYAN

                          Saturday May 4

      Talks and discussions led by a contingent of computer scientists
                     from the University of Toronto.



9:30 am                   Steve Cook
    A Taxonomy of Problems with Fast Parallel Algorihms
11:00am                    Mike Luby
   A Simple Parallel Algorithm for the Maximal Independent Set Problem
2:00 pm                  Allan Borodin
                 Parallel Algebraic Complexity
3:30 pm                  Charles Rackoff
     Some Definitions and Issues in the Theory of Cryptography


      On Friday, May 3, Steve Cook will give a talk at 4 P.M. in
150 Science Center intended for a general audience: Can Computers
Routinely Discover Mathematical Proofs?  [...]

     Toronto Day is hosted by Alan Cobham, Dan Dougherty, Sorin Istrail,
Susan Landau, and Carol Wood, and is funded in part by The Sloan
Foundation, Proctor and Gamble Co., and the Wesleyan University Department
of Mathematics.

     For further information contact the Wesleyan Mathematics
Department at (203)347-9411 Ext.2398 or Carol Wood at Ext.2648
(Bitnet address WOODatWESLYN).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 April 1985 1527-PST (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: li51x%sdcc3@SDCSVAX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - SCCGL Linguistics
-BODY-
   SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE ON GENERAL LINGUISTICS (SCCGL)

University of California, San Diego

SCHEDULE

We have scheduled all papers to be presented in
the Third College Lecture Halls, Room 104 (TLH 104).

Saturday, 20 April, morning:

9:30    Nora Gonzalez, UCSD, "Starter 2s and Object to Subject Raising in
        Spanish"
10:00   Ik-Hwan Lee, Yonsei U/Harvard U, "Multiple WH questions in GPSG"
10:30   Geraldine Legendre, UCSD, "Multiattachment Constraints on OSR in
French"
11:00   Robert Chametzky and John Richardson, UChicago, "Taking Strings
        Seriously: Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Lasnik &
        Kupin (1977)"
11:30   Yoshihisa Kitagawa, UMass, "Small But Clausal"

Saturday, 20 April, afternoon:

1:30    J. Albert Bickford, UCSD and SIL, "Another Look at Tone in Pen~oles
        Mixtec"
2:00    Monica Macaulay, UCBerkeley, "Cliticization and the Morphosyntax of
        Mixtec"
2:30    Robert Vago, Queens College & the Graduate Center, CUNY, "Finnish Word
        Games: Implications for the Autosegmental Treatment of Vowel Harmony."
3:00    William Davies, Cornell, "Nominative Nonsubjects in Choctaw"

4:00    Gerald P. Delahunty, SDSU, "On an Apparent Violation of the Discourse
        Conditions for Using English It-Clefts"
4:30    Gary Gilligan and Chris Hall, USC, "Processing Constraints on
        Morphological Structure"
5:00    David Corina, Salk Institute, "Linguistic Mapping Strategies of Deaf
        Signers"
5:30    German Westphal, UMaryland, Baltimore County, "On Some Consequences
        of the Verb-Initial Hypothesis in Spanish"

Saturday evening-BUFFET SUPPER AND PARTY!
        Fifth floor patio in the Psychology and Linguistics Building (P&L).

Sunday, 21 April, morning:

9:30    Robert Chametzky, UChicago, "Anaphoric Dependencies and Coordinate
        Structures"
10:00   Sungshim Hong, UConn, "A Constraint on Pronominal Binding in
        Null-Subject Languages"
10:30   Donna Gerdts, SUNY-Buffalo, "Korean Passive Causatives and Their
        Implications"
11:00   Peter Sells, CSLI, Stanford, "The Interpretation of Non Restrictive
        Relative Clauses"
11:30   David Dowty, CASBS, Stanford, and William Ladusaw, UCSC, "Toward a
        Formal Semantic Account of Thematic Roles"

        ==============================================================

Further information: (619) 452-2523  or  SCCGL UCSD Linguistics
        or sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix212           C-008
                                         La Jolla, CA 92093

Registration is $5 for students and $7 for non-students.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 85 19:24:07 PST
-FROM-
From: Joe Halpern <halpern%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
-BODY-
CONFERENCE ON THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF REASONING ABOUT KNOWLEDGE:
               FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS

A conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
will be held Mar. 19-22, 1986, at the Asilomar Conference Center in
Monterey.  While traditionally research in this area was mainly done by
philosophers, recently it has been shown to be of great
relevance to computer science, especially in such areas as artificial
intelligence, distributed systems, database systems,
and cryptography.  There has also been interest in the area among
linguists and economists.  The aim
of this conference is to bring together
researchers from these various disciplines
with the intent of furthering our theoretical understanding of
reasoning about knowledge.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:

* Semantic models for knowledge and belief
* Resource-bounded knowledge (appropriate for modelling reasoners with
  limited reasoning power and reasoning about cryptographic protocols)
* Using knowledge to specify and reason about distributed systems
* Semantic models of knowledge acquisition and learning
* Nonmonotonic reasoning

Please send 8 copies of a detailed abstract
not exceeding 10 double-spaced typewritten pages in length
(not a full paper),
by September 15, 1985, to the program chair:

Dr. J. Halpern
IBM Research, K51/281
5600 Cottle Rd.
San Jose, CA 95193

The abstract should include a clear description of the problem being
addressed, comparisons with extant work, and a section on major
original contributions of this work.  The abstract must provide
sufficient detail for the program committee to make a decision.
Papers will be chosen on the basis of scientific merit, originality,
and appropriateness for this conference.

Authors will be notified of acceptance by Nov. 1, 1985.  Accepted
papers typed on special pages will be due at the above address
by Dec. 15, 1985.

The program committee members are:
M. Fischer, Yale
J. Halpern, IBM San Jose
H. Levesque, University of Toronto
R. Moore, SRI
R. Parikh, CUNY/Brooklyn College
R. Stalnaker, Cornell
R. Thomason, Pittsburg
M. Vardi, Stanford/CSLI

We hope to allow enough time between the talks during the conference
for private discussions and small group meetings.  In order to
ensure that the conference remains relatively small, attendance will
be limited to invited participants and
authors of accepted papers.
Support for the conference has been received from IBM and AAAI;
an application for further support is pending at ONR.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 85 07:32:48 EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Sims  <MSIMS@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium - Animal Cognition [and AI?]
-BODY-

                        Symposium
            The Question of Animal Cognition

                      May 1-2, 1985



Wednesday, May 1:

 9:00 am        Dr. Donald Griffin              "Animal Consciousness"
                Rochefeller University

10:30 am        Dr. Robert Epstein              "Animal Cognition as the
                Harvard University               Praxis Views it"

 1:30 pm        Dr. E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh      "Language Acquisition and
                Emory University                 Cognition in the Chimpanzee"

 3:30 pm        Dr. Louis Herman                "Episodic Memory for Semantic
                University of Hawaii             Information by Dolphins"




Thursday, May 2:

 9:00 am        Dr. Gordon Gallup               "Do Minds Exists in Species
                SUNY at Albany                   Other Than our Own?"

10:30 am        Dr. Herbert Terrace             "Towards an Evolutionary
                Columbia University              Perspective on Thinking"

 1:30 pm        Round Table Discussion Chaired
                by Dr. Michael D'Amato



For further information and registration contact Ms. Mary Wilk,
Dept. of Psychology, Psychology Building, Busch Campus, Rutgers Univ.
New Brunswick, NJ 08903  (201) 932-2553.


[The three speakers that I'm familiar with, Griffin, Savage-Rumbaugh,
and Terrace, are outstanding researchers in their field and represent
a diversity of opinions on animal cognition.  Let me briefly say why I
think this work is important for AI.  In AI we are trying to model the
processes of 'thinking', and it seems foolish to ignore the examples
of thinking which are available to us.  Although AI has gotten a good
bit of feedback from investigations into human cognition (Cognitive
Science), we have been little influenced by the animal cognition
research of ethologists or animal behaviorist.  Our Species-ism would
tell us that human cognition is too complicated or mystical to be
useful to AI (Dreyfus et al), and that animal cognition is too
primitive to be useful.  But is that true?  -MHS]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Apr 85 14:39:05 EST
-FROM-
From: Ruth.Davis@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Approximate Reasoning
-BODY-
1985 North American Fuzzy Information processing Society
WORKSHOP ON APPROXIMATE REASONING THEORY & APPLICATIONS

                Atlanta, Georgia

                        October 24 - 25

        Workshop Coordinators:  THOMAS WHALEN & BRIAN SCHOTT

Papers are invited in all areas of fuzzy expert systems & decision support
                including but not limited to:

        - Fuzzy knowledge acquisition, representation & refining
        - Applied fuzzy logic & Fuzzy inference processes
        - Approximate & common sense reasoning
        - Linguistic processing & the human-system interface
        - Management of imprecision & uncertainty
        - Implementation issues & case studies

        Send abstract or session proposal by AUGUST 1 '85 to:

                Thomas Whalen/Brian Schott, NAFIPS '85
                Decision Sciences Department
                Georgia State University
                Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 3083
                (404) 658-4000

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 15:37:44 EST
-FROM-
From: Bill Dean <dean@seismo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Joint AI Conference at GWU
-BODY-
Call for Papers


MAJOR CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE


An INTERSOCIETY CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENCE
APPLICATIONS will be held at the George Washington
University on October 21-23, 1985.  The conference is
jointly sponsored by:

*  IEEE's Engineering Management Society (EMS)
*  IEEE's Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society (SMC)
*  GWU's Institute for Artificial Intelligence
*  TIMS' College on Artificial Intelligence
*  ORSA's Military Applications Section (MAS)
*  The Washington Area Working Group on Artificial
   Intelligence.

Sessions at the symposium will cover:  AI in research and
development; AI in design and development; AI in test and
evaluation; AI in project management; AI in production
management; AI in military systems; and AI in technology
insertion.  Plenary addresses will present views of the
status and significance of AI research from industrial and
government perspectives.

Special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management and the IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics are planned as products of the symposium.

To submit a paper for presentation at the symposium, send a
500 word abstract, by June 30, 1985 to:

        Dr. Barry G. Silverman
        Institute for Artificial Intelligence
        Gelman Library - Room 636A
        George Washington University
        Washington, D. C.  20052
        phone: 202-676-6443

Complete papers will be due by September 15, 1985.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
52
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 1985 09:59-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at the North Texas CS Conference
-BODY-
The Federation of North Texas Area Universities Ninth Annual
Computer Science Conference, Friday April 26 1985 North Texas State
University Denton, Texas

3:25 K. N. Cooper T. M. Sparr
Knowledge Base Systems Architecture Reviewed

3:50 Susan Rulon
An Introduction to PROgramming LOGic

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: Graeme Hirst <gh@utai>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Program, Soc for Phil and Psych AI Sessions
-BODY-
                           PROGRAM FOR THE
           MEETING OF SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY

University of Toronto
Wednesday May 15 - Saturday May 18, 1985


For information about the program [note that there may still be
room for some discussants or speakers], the usenet address for
the Program Chairman, Stevan Harnad, is:

                     bellcore!princeton!mind!srh

or write to: Stevan Harnad, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20 Nas-
sau Street, Suite 240, Princeton NJ 08540

For information about local arrangements, write to: David Olson,
McLuhan Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA, M5S 1A1

For information about the Society and attendance, write to: Owen
Flanagan, Secretary/Treasurer, Society for Philosophy & Psycholo-
gy, Philosophy Department, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA 02181

Program follows [participant lists are in several cases only par-
tial; other contributors will also be on the program]:


Workshop (2 full sessions):

Ia & Ib. Artificial Intelligence Versus Neural Modeling in
Psychological Theory: D. Ballard, P. Churchland, P.C. Dodwell,
J. Feldman, A. Goldman, S. Grossberg, S.J. Hanson, A. Newell, R.
Schank.


Symposia (11):

II. Category Formation: S. Harnad, M. Lipton, R. Jackendoff, N.
Macmillan, R. Millikan, R. Schank.

III. Unconscious Processing: T. Carr, P. Kolers, A. Marcel, P. Merikle,
W. Savage, A. Treisman.

IV. Memory and Consciousness: K. Bowers, M. Moscovitch, D. Schacter, A.
Marcel, R. Lockhart, E. Tulving.

V. New Directions in Evolutionary Theory: E. Balon, O. Flanagan,
A. Rosenberg, M. Ruse, E. Sober, W. Shields.

VI. Paradoxical Neurological Syndromes: M. Gazzaniga, A. Kertesz, A. Marcel,
O.Sacks.

VII. The Empirical Status of Psychoanalytic Theory: M. Eagle, E. Erwin,
A. Grunbaum, J. Masling, B. von Eckardt, R. Woolfolk.

VIII. The Scientific Status of Parapsychological Research: J. Alcock,
K. Emmett, R. Hyman, C. Honorton, R.L. Morris, M. Truzzi.

IX. The Reality of the "G" (General) Factor in the Measurement
and Modeling of Intelligence: D. Detterman, P. Hertzberg, A. Jensen, W.
Rozeboom.

X. The Ascription of Knowledge States to Children: Seeing,
Believing and Knowing: D. Olson & J. Astington, J. Perner & H.
Wimmer, M. Taylor & J. Flavell, F. Dretske, S. Kuczaj.

XI. Psychology, Pictures and Drawing: J. Caron-Prague, S. Dennis,
J. Kennedy, D. Pariser, S. Wilcox, J. Willats, S. Brison

XII. Interpretation Versus Explanation in Cognitive and Social
Theory: R. DeSousa, A. Grunbaum, S. Harnad, R. Nicholoson,
A. Rosenberg, E. Sullivan, R. Woolfolk.


Contributed Paper Sessions (4):

XIII. Perception and Cognition

To What Extent Do Beliefs Affect Apparent Motion (M. Dawson, R.
Wright) (discussant: P. Kolers)

Images, Pictures and Percepts (D. Reisberg, D. Chambers) (discus-
sant: W. Savage)

What the First Words Tell Us About Meaning and Cognition (A. Gop-
nik)


XIV. Induction and Information

Beyond Holism: Induction in the Context of Problem-Solving (P.
Thagard, K. Holyoak) (discussant: C.F. Schmidt)

The Semantic of Pragmatics (M.A. Gluck, J.E. Corter) (discussant:
D. H. Helman)

About Promises (J. Astington)


XV. Evolution of Cognitive and Social Structures

Is Decision Theory Reducible to Evolutionary Biology? (W.E. Coop-
er)

Human Nature, Love and Morality: The Possibility of Altruism (L.
Thomas)

On How to Get Rid of the Craftsman (B. Dahlbom)


XVI. Inferences About the Mind (chairman: J. Poland)

The Puzzle of Split-Brain Phenomena (S.C. Bringsjord) (discus-
sant: R. Puccetti)

The Mark of the Mental (R. Puccetti) discussant: L. Alanen

Natural Teleology (S. Silvers)


PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE

Wed am: VII vs. XIII (parallel sessions)
Wed pm: III vs. XIV
Wed eve: VI
Thurs am: II
Thurs pm: Ia
Thurs eve: Ib
Fri am: IV vs. XVI
Fri pm: II vs XV
Fri eve: (presidential address and business meeting)
Sat am: V vs. XI
Sat pm: VIII vs X
Sat eve: XII

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: Graeme Hirst <gh@utai>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Abstracts, Soc for Phil and Psych AI Sessions
-BODY-
                     SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACTS FOR THE
           MEETING OF SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY

University of Toronto
Wednesday May 15 - Saturday May 18, 1985


I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE VERSUS NEURAL MODELING IN PSYCHOLOGI-
CAL THEORY

The issues will be discussed at two levels, a practical one (P)
and a foundational one (F). At the practical level the following
two questions will be considered: (P1) Is psychological theory-
building more successful with or without constraints from neuros-
cientific evidence and neuroscientific considerations? (P2) Are
the current differences between models that are neurally motivat-
ed (which tend to be statistical, connectionistic, and lately,
parallel) and models that are not neurally motivated (which tend
to be symbol/sentence manipulative) fundamental differences, and
is one approach more promising than the other?

At the foundational level the questions will be: (F1) What are
the data that psychological theory should account for (behavioral
performance? cognitive competence? real-time topography and exe-
cution? neural activity?)? (F2) Is a successful functional theory
of higher cognitive performance and competence necessarily
"implementation-independent" (i.e., independent of the architec-
ture of the mechanism that embodies it)? The issues will be dis-
cussed in the context of actual current work in modeling.


II. CATEGORY FORMATION

Categorization is a fundamental human activity. It is involved in
everything from operant discrimination to perceptual recognition
to naming to describing. Five different approaches to categori-
zation now exist more or less in parallel: (1) The nativist ap-
proach, which holds that there are few, if any, nontrivial induc-
tive categories, and hence that most categories are preformed
[see Symposium V]; (2) the statistical pattern recognition and
multidimensional scaling approach, which computer-models category
formation probabilistically; (3) the artificial intelligence ap-
proach, which models categorization with symbol-manipulation
rules; (4) the natural category approach, which investigates
categorization through reaction time studies and typicality judg-
ments and developmentally; (5) the categorical perception ap-
proach, which investigates categorization through discrimination
and identification studies. These approaches will be presented
and the interaction will aim at a synthesis.


III. UNCONSCIOUS PROCESSING

It is undeniable that most cerebral information processing is un-
conscious. Not only are vegetative functions such as posture and
respiration (as well as automatized, overlearned skills) uncons-
ciously controlled by the brain, but even the basic processes
underlying higher cognitive activity are unavailable to conscious
introspection: No one knows "how" he actually adds two and two,
retrieves a name, recognizes a face. This is what makes cognitive
modeling a nontrivial enterprise. But apart from these basic cog-
nitive processes (about which our ignorance is sufficient to
demonstrate that that they are not conscious), there are some
kinds of processes that are at least normally accompanied by some
awareness of their occurrence. These include the detection,
discrimination and identification of verbal and perceptual in-
puts. New data indicate that even these activities may sometimes
occur without introspective awareness of their occurrence. This
new look at "subliminal perception" and related phenomena in a
contemporary psychophysical, information processing framework
will examine the evidence, methodological criteria and theoreti-
cal interpretations of the newer findings. [See also Symposium
VI.)


IV. MEMORY AND CONSCIOUSNESS

The symposium will examine the distinction between memory (the
consequence of some experience) and remembering (the awareness of
past events), which involves consciousness of a past experience.
The distinction involves the relation between mental processes
that reasonably decribe the performance of intelligent systems
(whether animals, people or machines), that is, "subpersonal"
cognitive psychology, and the intentional mental activities and
states of conscious human adults: "intentional psychology."


V. NEW DIRECTIONS IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Among the current developments in evolutionary theory and their
implications for psychology that will be discussed are: (1) The
"new preformationism," arising chiefly from develomental biology,
according to which there are substantial structural constraints
on the variation on which selection can operate; this implies
that there are structures and functions that cannot be regarded
as having been shaped by random variation and selection by conse-
quences but rather as having arisen from boundary conditions on
biological structures. The issue is particularlly relevant to
questions about the origins of cognitive and linguistic struc-
tures [Symposium II]. (2) Current sociobiological theory has be-
come concerned with cognitive questions, in particular, the ex-
istence of "cognitive primitives" on which selection would
operate in a way that is analogous to its effects on traits coded
by genes: Is this "gene-culture co-evolution" and its new unit,
the "culturgen" just overinclusive curve-fitting or is there a
real empirical phenomenon here? (3) In general, are the kinds of
assumptions and inclusive-fitness calculations that characterize
sociobiological theorizing (and that have been critically re-
ferred to as "just-so stories") a reasonable explanatory handicap
or signs of taking the wrong theoretical direction? In particu-
lar, when is a conscious, cognitive explanation of a behavior
[Symposium III] preferable to an unconscious, fitness-related
one?


VI. PARADOXICAL NEUROLOLOGICAL STATES

This symposium will consider neurological states that (based on
their symptoms and inferences from their symptoms) are very hard
to imagine "being in." These include: (1) "blindsight," i.e., the
loss of all conscious visual experience, but with the retention
of "visual" information (e.g., object location); (2) the anosag-
nosias and attentional disorders, i.e., the apparent unawareness
and denial of dramatic neurological deficits such as loss of
large portions of the visual field or of body sensation; (3)
deconnection phenomena such as alexia without agraphia (intact
vision with the loss of all ability to read but the retention of
the ability to write) or the split-brain patient's ability to
match but inability to name out-of-sight objects grasped with the
left hand; (4) various memory disorders such as the ability to
acquire cognitive information and skills with complete inability
to remember the episodes in which they were acquired [cf. Sympo-
sium IV]; (5) confabulations arising from these paradoxical
states (i.e., the unusual way patients rationalize having these
deficits). The clinical phenomenology of these paradoxical states
will be decsribed and then they will be discussed in terms of
current philosophical, psychological and neurological theories of
cognition and consciousness.


VII. THE EMPIRICAL STATUS OF PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY

The empirical status of psychoanalytic theory will be considered
in terms of the following questions: (1) Is psychoanalytic theory
testable? (2) If so, how much of it is testable, and, in particu-
lar, what parts? (3) How is it testable (clinically? experimen-
tally? epidemiologically?)? (4) How much of psychoanalytic theory
has actually been tested in these ways, and was the theory sup-
ported by the evidence? (5) Are future tests of psychoanalytic
theory likely to yield outcomes that support the theory, and is
this theory the best one to use to guide future research? (6) Is
the proportion of psychoanalytic theory that is testable compar-
able to the proportions of other scientific theories that are te-
stable, or is evidence disproportionately remote from or ir-
relevant to psychoanalytic theory? (7) Is testability irrelevant
to some kinds of theoretical understanding? (8) Is psychoanalytic
theory based on adequate views of conscious and unconscious
processes and explanation? These questions will be discussed by
clinicians, experimentalists and methodologists of science.



VIII. THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF PARAPSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH


In parapsychology there appears to be a chronic polarization of
rival views in a way that only occurs occasionally and briefly at
the frontiers of other kinds of scientific research. The polari-
zation consists of those who accept the validity of the reported
phenomena and of the theoretical framework accounting for them
and those who do not. The following questions will be considered:
(1) Is the polarization merely a prejudice, or are there objec-
tive characteristics that set this field of research apart? (2)
Are there special problems with furnishing replicable positive
evidence in this area? (3) Are there logical problems with the
theoretical framework in which the research is undertaken? (4)
Are there statistical problems with the data-analysis and the
underlying assumptions? (5) Is there any possibility of resolu-
tion, or will the field always continue to split among believers
and nonbelievers, and if the latter, (6) what does that imply
about the scientific validity of this domain of inquiry? These
questions will be discussed, in the context of representative
current experimental work in parapsychological research, by
parapsychologists, skeptics and (as yet) uncommitted methodolo-
gists.


IX. THE REALITY OF THE "G" (GENERAL) FACTOR IN THE MEASUREMENT
AND MODELING OF INTELLIGENCE


When intelligence tests are factor-analyzed (i.e., the structure
of their correlations with one another is reduced to a small
number of underlying variables), one general, overall factor al-
ways emerges, along with a number of special factors peculiar to
some groups of tests and not others. The general ("g") factor has
been interpreted as a unitary measure of general intelligence.
Some have challenged the reality of "g" on the grounds that indi-
vidual test items (and indeed entire tests) are so constructed as
to correlate with one another, and hence the overall positive
correlation factor is built in; moreover, it is argued that it is
fallacious to think in terms of an underlying, one-dimensional
unitary intelligence. Others have argued that "g" is an empirical
finding after all, because even tests constructed and validated
to measure the special abilities (e.g., verbal versus spatial
skills) have high "g" loadings, and indeed the more discriminat-
ing tests (the ones that are more sensitive to and predictive of
individual differences) tend to have the higher "g" loadings. The
technical and conceptual problems of measuring, validating and
modeling human cognitive capacities will be discussed in the con-
text of the interpretation of "g."


X. THE ASCRIPTION OF KNOWLEDGE STATES TO CHILDREN: SEEING,
BELIEVING AND KNOWING

Considerable discussion in cognitive science surrounds the issue
of the ascription of beliefs to animals, machines and young chil-
dren. Opinions range from that of Davidson, who argues that one
cannot have beliefs unless one has a concept of belief, to that
of Searle, who argues that "only someone in the grip of a philo-
sophical theory would deny that dogs and children have beliefs."
Recent research on children's ascription of beliefs to others and
to themselves in the interpretation of visual events may cast
some light on this question.


XI. PSYCHOLOGY, PICTURES AND DRAWING

The past decade has seen considerable interest in theory of dep-
iction and allied theories of drawing. Current theories are
technically well constructed, significant in themselves and, in
addition, have important implications for neighboring areas of
psychology. Yet they are often distinct in the assumptions they
make about perception, communication and the environment. The
present symposium draws together philosophers, educators and
psychologists who have developed theories about pictures, percep-
tion and drawing. Assumptions will be reviewed and implications
will be discussed.


XII. INTERPRETATION VERSUS EXPLANATION IN COGNITIVE AND SOCIAL
THEORY

The following questions will be considered: (1) What is an expla-
nation, and is "scientific" explanation an atypical case or a
paradigmatic one? (2) What is the role of testability and falsi-
fiability in explanation? (3) What is the role of considerations
of satisfyingness, coherence, elegance and other subjective cri-
teria in explanation? (4) Are there different explanatory metho-
dologies in the natural sciences and ther "human" sciences? (5)
Is there an objective way to choose among rival interpretations?
(Should there be? Is there one in the case of rival scientific
theories?) (6) Is there anything objective to replace the outmod-
ed "positivistic" stereotype? Pro and antihermeneuticists will
participate and the discussion will focus on the role of in-
terpretation in psychological and social scientific theory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
53
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 85 15:52:40 PST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: whiting@sri-spam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for additional information on MRS
-BODY-
I am looking at making some extensions/improvements to MRS.
The following are being investigated:

        - Adding a better user-interface
        - Improving efficiency
        - Adding debugging aids
        - Extending the system to deal with uncertainty elegantly

I have all the HPP reports on MRS, I am looking for additional information.
If you have worked with the system or know of articles which might be
useful to me, I would very much appreciate hearing from you.

Thanx in Advance,

Kevin Whiting
(415) 859-4099

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 1985 1119-EST
-FROM-
From: Benoit Flamant <FLAMANT@CMU-CS-PS2.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: FLAMANT@CMU-CS-PS2.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems in Architecture
-BODY-
I am looking for information about experts systems in the domain of
architecture.
Does anyone know of good articles or books published recently, understandable
by people without deep knowledge in AI ?

Please reply to flamant@cmu-cs-ps2. Thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 20 Apr 85 17:42:22-PST
-FROM-
From: LOUROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Agricultural AI
-BODY-
In response to Peter Friedland's inquiry regarding agricultural
AI systems:

The Imperial Chemical Industries of Great Britain recently
entered into an agreement with a British expert systems company,
ISIS Systems, to develop tools that will assist farmers.  One of
these tools is a system called Counselor intended to help farmers
analyze crop diseases.  The advisory service calculates the probable
incidence of disease based on data provided by the user.  "Wheat
Counselor" can be used to determine probable wheat infestations and
appropriate (chemical) treatment.

Lou Robinson
The AI Report

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Apr 85  17:16 EST (Sat)
-FROM-
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Midnight Theorizer
-BODY-

    From: BATALI%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA

       From: MINSKY

       Perhaps this, too, explains the prolonged, mourning-like
       depression that follows sexual or other forms of personal
       assault.  No matter that the unwelcome intimacy of violence
       may be brief; it nonetheless affects one's attachment
       machinery, however much against one's wish.

    So the suggestion is that the rape-victim feels bad because she has
    formed an attachment-bond to her attacker?  The same "mechanism" is
    involved as in the formation of her attachment-bonds to other people?

That is precisely the suggestion.

    So she feels bad not because she has been raped, but because her
    rapist has then left her?  Is there a shred of evidence that any rape
    victim has ever felt this way?

No, perhaps the victim feels bad because of

    a.   The terrible invasion of the sexual assault itself,

    b.   The cognitive dissonance when the attachment machinery begins
         to operate in these terribly inappropriate circumstances.

I suspect that many people would agree there is more than a shred of
evidence for similar emotive patterns.  The syndrome in which
hostages identify with their captors, despite violence (and in the
case of Patty Hearst, rape) comes to mind.

                                    Is this theory somehow suggesting that
    there really isn't much of a difference between rape and seduction and
    falling in love?

Perhaps not, in some ways.

                      Is it being assumed that fear, pain and loss of
    self-esteem is not enough to "explain the prolonged depression" that
    follows sexual assault?

No, rather it seems to be examining the internal dynamics of "loss of
self-esteem."

I have some doubts about that part of AI which asserts the validity
of scientific inquiry that gathers "data" by introspection.  But I
have even greater doubts about moral indignation as a criterion for
rejection of hypotheses (or of humor, for that matter).

_B

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 85 11:51 EST
-FROM-
From: Brant Cheikes <Brant%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Book on semantics of humor
-BODY-

Since there was some recent mention on studies of humor, I thought
I'd mention a book I just started reading on that very topic:

        "Semantic Mechanisms of Humor"
        Raskin, Victor
        D. Reidel Publishing Company
        Dordrecht, Holland, 1985.

Raskin attempts to develop a semantic theory that captures the
necessary and sufficient conditions for a text to be considered
funny by the "native speaker."  The book is full of examples,
however, in the preface, Raskin insists that the book is not a
joke book, rather, that all joke examples were chosen purely for
their illustrative value.  So if you want to know what's funny
and what's not and why, then read this book.

                                                Brant

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 11:04:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Morton A Hirschberg <mort@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Jeff Peck
-BODY-
 Jeff's got a good start on the data, information, knowledge hierarchy (you see
it here as you read from left to right, think from bottom to top).  Data is all
around us and can exist without context.  Information is derived from data in a
particular context with or without the aid of data, information, and knowledge
from other contexts.  From information we can derive secondary data.  Think of
the two triplets of numbers representing the coordinates of two points in three
space.  Each by itself is meaningless however, assuming that the triplets are
not identical, one can derive the equation of a line in space.  From that
equation, one can then derive as many new triplets as one desires (some may
actually be useful).  Knowledge can be derived from information, that is it is
the synthesis of information (usually thought of in particular contexts).

  Thinking about the hierarchy in this way has been quite useful in dealing
with and teaching data basing.  We also see that data which can not be
manipulated to form information remains data.  The listing of names, street
numbers and telephone numbers in a telephone book is really data and those
books should be called data books and not information books.  There are ways
of manipulating those data (I don't work for Ma Bell) to derive information
(Ma Bell sells those books to businesses) but that is another story.

  Mort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 85 10:36:39 EST
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: definition of knowledge/information/data
-BODY-
Alright, my philosophical feathers have been ruffled...
"True justified belief" is *not* a special case of "things that are
useful in making good decisions".

1. While it probably is true as a matter of empirical fact that true
beliefs are likely to be more useful for making decisions than
are false ones (in most cases), this is certainly not true by
definition.

2. One quick counter-example: Suppose you were in a prisoner-of-war
camp.  You might have a false, unjustified belief that you would
soon be rescued.  This irrational hope might in fact have greater
survival value (= lead to better decisions on how to act) than a
more realistic outlook - but the utility of the belief hardly
makes it true, in the any normal English sense of the word.

3. Anyway, the emphasis of the "true justified belief" concept is on
"justified" - ie defining knowledge as a true belief rationally
arrived at, rather than as a lucky guess.  There are problems with
this defintion, to be sure, in particular, distinguishing between
subjective justification (I believe X, based on the evidence given
to me so far), vs objective (but in fact part of that evidence consists
of lies, undetected by you).

A typical case discussed is: suppose Mr. X wrongly believes that P,
and, wanting to deceive you, tells you that not-P is the case (which
in fact it is).  You then, believing him, have a true belief that
not-P is so.  But is it justified?  Subjectively, yes, because you
are acting rationally - but in fact you're relying on a method
(Mr. X) which is unreliable - if P really were the case, this method
would not lead you to believe P - so your source of belief is not
related to its object in such a way that it would reliably track that
object in other "nearby" possible worlds.

Robert Nozick in "Philosophical Questions" has a very
well-written insightful discussion on all this.


John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 11:24:58 pst
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge as an obstacle
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

This morning I overhead "I just don't understand Karl Marx" as I biked
past two students.  My first reaction was "Gee, if they think Marx is
tough they must go bananas with Kant."  Then on further reflection
I thought "Now if Marx is really that inaccessible, where did he
get such a large following?"  Which train of thought led me to:

There are two very different reasons for being unable to grasp an
idea.  The "obvious" one is that it takes time to assimilate new
ideas.  The less obvious one is that you may already know too much!  If
the new idea is inconsistent with what you know, something has to
give.

Now consider the following scenario.  A teacher of Marx spends say forty
years expounding Marx's ideas.  In his youth he has no trouble getting
the message across.  Later he finds it much harder.  He agonizes: "Are
students really getting dumber, or am I just losing my touch?"

The truth of the matter may be neither.  He and his students may simply
have diverging theories of the world.  His stays put while theirs
(collectively!) continue to accumulate the latest ideas.  The more
divergent those theories become, the harder he finds it to get his
ideas across.

What really ices all this is that neither he nor his students diagnose
the problem.  They all think that there is an idea here which the
students are just having trouble absorbing.  If the teacher were to say
"Marx's ideas are contradicted by X,Y,Z that you take as economic
gospel" then the students would know what knowledge had to be laid
aside to appreciate Marx.  This is surely better than laying aside
either nothing, everything, or a guessed-at selection.

Whether teaching Marx, or any other subject, actually works this way I
haven't a clue.  Educational theorists have a batting average about that
of economic theorists, whether you look at the professional leagues or
the amateur.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Apr 85 08:32:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert.Thibadeau@CMU-RI-VI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: BB Contest
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Bulletin boards certainly have had their ups and downs.  I have always
objected to a plethora of boards and to a plethora of posts, a quandary
perhaps.  But let us invite an "expert system" contest in the world
community (for heavens sake!) which provides us with "the intelligent
bulletin board".  I can indicate my own predilections, and, when I write a
message, the system will interpret it with respect to the world of
everybody's predilections.  Anyone can enter: protocols are at your finger
tips.  Imagine a system which, after you post your message says, "System
won't bother on that post, no one wants to read it."  You might even ask
why, and find out.  Then imagine the thrill, one day, of seeing "System
has decided everybody in the world wants that message today -- automatic
phoning system engaged."  Frabjous joy.  This contest is serious: when you
have a system design, describe it: consider performance, compatibility,
and extensibility along with representational and procedural intelligence.
Deadline is December 1, 1985 (mid-term assignments anyone?).  Mail
description only to prism@cmu-ri-vi. I will put my IRS gift of $100 into a
winner and invite other sufferers longing for the good old days to do the
same (send commitments not cash).  All suggestions will be publicly
available, the results published (SIGART Newsletter).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 1985 0959-PST
-FROM-
From: GOGUEN@SRI-CSL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Bertrand Constraint Language (SRI)
-BODY-

      CSL SEMINAR, 10:30am THURSDAY, 25 APRIL 1985, ROOM EL381

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

        Bertrand, a General Purpose Constraint Language

                         Wm Leler

                Computer Research Laboratory
                       Tektronix, Inc.


Constraint languages and constraint satisfaction techniques are
making the problem solving abilities of the computer available
to a wider audience.  For example, simple spread-sheet languages
such as VisiCalc allow many different financial modeling
problems to be solved without resorting to programming.  In a
conventional language the programmer must specify a step-by-step
procedure for the language interpreter to follow.  In a
constraint language, programming is a descriptive task.  The
user specifies a set of relationships, called constraints, and
it is up to the constraint satisfaction system to satisfy these
constraints.  Unfortunately, constraint satisfaction systems
have been very difficult to build.

Bertrand is a general purpose language designed for building
constraint satisfaction systems.  Constraints are solved using
rewrite rules, which are invoked by pattern matching.  Bertrand
is similar in expressive power to relational languages such as
Prolog, but without any procedural semantics.  Its lack of
procedural semantics makes Bertrand especially attractive for
execution on parallel processors.

This talk will review several example constraint satisfaction
systems built using Bertrand with applications in graphics,
design, and modeling.  There will also be some discussion of the
language issues involved in the design of Bertrand.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Apr 85 13:19:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright/Susie Barnes <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance (SU)
-BODY-

                            SIGLUNCH

DATE:               Friday, April 26, 1985
LOCATION:           Chemistry Gazebo, between Physical &
                    Organic Chemistry
TIME:               12:05


SPEAKER:            Johan Dekleer
                    Member of Research Staff in Qualitative
                    Physics at Xerox Park


TITLE:              An Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance System



This talk presents a new view of problem solving motivated by a
new kind of truth maintenance system. Unlike previous truth maintenance
systems which were based on manipulating justifications, this truth
maintenance system is, in addition, based on manipulating assumption
sets.  As a consequence it is possible to work effectively and
efficiently with inconsistent information, context switching is free,
and most backtracking (and all retraction) is avoided.  These
capabilities motivate a different kind of problem-solving architecture
in which multiple potential solutions are explored simultaneously.  This
architecture is particularly well-suited for tasks where a reasonable
fraction of the potential solutions must be explored.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
54
-DATE-
Date: 22 April 1985 1003-EST
-FROM-
From: Peter Pirolli@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nim refs sought
-BODY-
I'm posting this for Malcom Cook (mcook@cmu-psy-a):


For an exercise in human problem solving and learning to
solve problems, I'm looking for references to nim (a.k.a. the
Marienbad game) as an example.  I would like to know of
analysis of best or winning play in this game, and also
of computer programs that play the game.  Any data much
appreciated.  Please direct replies to Cook@ari-hq1
(that is my father Donald A. Cook, not me).

                thanks

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 1985 0906-EST
-FROM-
From: Benoit Flamant <FLAMANT@CMU-CS-PS2.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: FLAMANT@CMU-CS-PS2.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI list post correction
-BODY-
My apologies for my last message, I meant archeology instead of architecture,
so the right message is:

  I am looking for information about expert systems in the domain of
  archeology.  Does anyone know of good articles or books published recently,
  understandable by people without deep backkgrond in AI ?

  Please reply to flamant@cmu-cs-ps2.arpa. Thanks.

Maybe Freud would certainly have found an appropriate explanation for my
making this slip.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 04:21:09 est
-FROM-
From: kevin%gvax@Cornell.ARPA (Kevin Karplus)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: what's the best preparation for AI study?
-BODY-
One of my CS advisees has expressed a serious interest in AI, but
Cornell has no AI courses or researchers.  He is now a second semester
sophmore, and plans to go to graduate school to do AI work.  What
courses should I recommend for him?

I recommended the following electives:
        Intro to Cognitive Psychology (1 semester)
        Introductory Linguistics (2 semesters)
        Mathematical Logic (1 semester)
                        as taught by Math, not Philosophy
        Programming Languages (1 semester)
                         (our only course that does anything with Lisp)

He could take other courses (instead of the computer architecture
sequence) in his current schedule.  What do the AI researchers and
students recommend as the "best" background  for an undergrad?

Thanks for the help,
Kevin Karplus

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 85 08:48 CDT
-FROM-
From: Warren_Moseley <moseley%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Help in Tools for AI course
-BODY-
Can any one out there tell me where I can get a copy of Pearl?  I have seen
a write up of the capabilities and I interested in  the possibility of using
it in a graduate course in Software Engineering in which I want to try some
Ai techniques.  I teach at North Texas State University.  We run VMS and Franz
Lisp, and have IBM and TI PC'S. If anyone can help I would appreciate a reply.

        I would also be open to any other suggestions for tools to support
instruction in AI.  I also need an implementation of a relation data base
simulator written Franz Lisp.  Any suggestions for tools, techniques,
text books and ideas would be appreciated.

        I can be reached at   MOSELEY@TI-EG.  214-952-2157

                                                Warren Moseley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 26-Apr-85 18:11:00-GMT
-FROM-
From: STEVE HPS (on ERCC DEC-10) <sowen%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bindings
-BODY-

Can anyone give the current bindings for either or both of

                Sharon Sickel
                James Munyer    ?
Thanks,
        Steve Owen
        Edinburgh University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 85 09:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill D'Camp <bill@LOGICON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Speakers wanted
-BODY-
The newly formed San Diego SIGART group is interested in contacting
potential speakers. If you are planning to be in Southern California
for IJCAI and would like to give a presentation on any topic related
to artificial intelligence, please contact me.

We are also interested in contacting potential speakers for
presentations at other times.


                                Thank You,
                                Bill D'Camp

arpa address:  bill@logicon.arpa
USnail      :  Bill D'Camp
               Logicon Inc.
               P.O. Box 5158
               San Diego, Ca. 92138
phone       :  (619)455-1330

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 26 Apr 85 12:19:27-MST
-FROM-
From: Pete Tinker <tinker@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rule-Based Systems on Multiprocessors
-BODY-
I'd like to hear of any attempts to put either new or existing rule-based
systems on multiprocessors.  I'm already aware of the DADO project, and
should appreciate hearing of other efforts.

> Pete Tinker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Apr 1985 11:26-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hardware for Unification
-BODY-
We need information on VLSI/hardware processors for unification and
transitive closures.  References, contacts, etc. would be greatly
appreciated:

We have heard about a transitive closure chip at XEROX, a unification
processor built at AT&T and work in this area at Stanford.  However,
right now we do not have specific references.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 May 85 10:49:56 pdt
-FROM-
From: Cindy Mason <clm@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Simulation of Human Understanding
-BODY-
I came across this question on a take-home final exam I had in my
cognitive psychology class, and I would be interested to see what
some of you have to say on the matter, especially some of the readers
who have been studying AI for a while.

      "Which of the following topics covered in the course
       do you feel must be built into an adequate computer
       simulation of human understanding?  Why?

                 Attention
                 Memory
                 Categorization
                 Language
                 Judgement Heuristics
                 Decision Framing
                 Causal Perceptions
                 Emotion (in light of causation)
                 Event Structure
                 Problem Solving
                 Scripts, Plans and Goals

Please send responses to the AILIST rather than to me personally since
I believe many people will be interested in this question.

                        Cindy Mason

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday,  1 May 1985 16:17:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: bstafford%nermal.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query to Dominique Petitpierre on Machine Translation
-BODY-
From:   NERMAL::SCLARK        1-MAY-1985 07:52
To:     BSTAFFORD
Subj:   DOMINIQUE

Dominique,

     In response to your notice in the AIList Digest (V3 #50) my
colleague, Sharon Clark, and I are very interested in obtaining
additional information on the machine translation systems, ALPS
and Weidner.

     We are preparing a workshop to help writers eliminate
ambiguity from their work in anticipation of having their work
translated by machine.  The topics we intend to cover are words
with multiple meanings, conversions, simplifying syntax,
eliminating idioms, eliminating logical ambiguities, and dealing
with cultural issues.  The workshop's objective is to teach writers
to prepare documentation that can go straight into being translated
by a computer without the benefit of a pre-editor.

     We are also interested in obtaining a copy of the tutorial organised
by ISSCO which you also mentioned in the AIdigest Entry.

     In addition, can you tell us the best way to get a hold of Rebecca
Root?  Do you have a phone number for the LRC?

     Any additional information you can provide us will be greatly
appreciated.  We are working on a tight deadline as we will be presenting
the workshop at a Conference which begins May 19.

Regards,

Barbara Stafford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 85 00:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Josef Skrzypek <skrzypek%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VISION ON APOLLO OR SUN ?
-BODY-
I am looking for information about Vision
(imaging) systems based on Apollo or SUN
workstations.
Please reply directly to:
        SKRZYPEK.NORTHEASTERN@CSNET-RELAY
thank you -- josef

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 May 85 13:55:25 -0200
-FROM-
From: prlb2!ronse@seismo.ARPA (Ronse)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Image Processing in LISP?
-BODY-
Some time ago I posted to net.ai a request for information on image processing
in LISP (including binary or grey level images, quadtrees, efficiency, etc.).
I have so far received only one answer (from msp@ukc.UUCP). Has really noone
used LISP for image processing? I repeat thus my request: can anyone give me
pointers to any work done in this subject?

Christian RONSE                 maldoror@prlb2.UUCP  {philabs|mcvax}!maldoror

Philips Research Laboratory Brussels
Av. E. Van Becelaere 2, box 8
B-1170 Brussels, Belgium


  [SRI has been doing considerable image processing on Symbolics lisp
  machines, and is offering an image manipulation and processing package
  called ImageCalc; contact Quam@SRI-AI for details.  John Gilmore of
  Georgia Tech is associated with a somewhat similar image windowing
  system called Dalek.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 30 Apr 85 14:07:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright/Susie Barnes <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - BB1: A Blackboard Architecture (SU)
-BODY-

                                SIGLUNCH


DATE:            Friday, May 3, 1985
LOCATION:        Braun Auditorium in Mudd/Chemistry Building
TIME:            12:05-1:05

SPEAKER:         Barbara Hayes-Roth
                 Helix Group, Knowledge Systems Laboratory

TITLE:           BB1: An Architecture for Blackboard Systems


BB1 is a domain-independent blackboard architecture. The prototypical
blackboard system includes: functionally independent knowledge sources to
generate solution elements; a structured blackboard to record solution
elements and mediate knowledge source interactions; and a control mechanism
to trigger, schedule, and execute knowledge sources. Building upon this basic
functionality, BB1 also provides capabilities for dynamic control planning,
strategic explanation, and automatic learning of control heuristics. BB1 will
be illustrated with examples from PROTEAN, a system that integrates multiple
constraints to determine the 3-D structures of proteins in solution.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
55
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 3 May 85 11:12:12 pdt
-FROM-
From: (Marvin Erickson [pnl]) erickson@lbl-csam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info request: IBMPC & Expert Systems
-BODY-
I am gathering information on IBM PC-compatible expert
system development packages. I am also reviewing packages
that require/allow development on a different machine for
e.s. application delivery on IBM PCs.

So far, I have information on the T.I. Personal Consultant,
ExpertEase, TIMM, INSIGHT, M.1, and K-Base. I would be
very interested in hearing about packages I have missed
(or getting appropriate pointers).

Thanks in advance and please send responses to
erickson@lbl-csam.

Mark A. Whiting
Battelle Northwest Laboratories


  [SRI has a SeRIes-PC expert-system shell. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 1 May 85 19:17:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ES Tools Paper
-BODY-
The paper I offered to readers about 5 tools for building KB systems is ready
to go.  I am mailing out copies tomorrow to those people who needed a copy
right away.  After we get more copies back from the photocopy center the
other copies will be sent out (probably next week).

        A few people insisted on electronic copies ... I will try to
accomodate you tomorrow.  You are also welcome to ftp it from
{sumex}<richer>es.mss if you wish.  This is a scribe file.  Don't ask me about
ftping however .. if someone succeeds perhaps they can explain how they did
it.  In fact, I will be gone from Fri. 5/2 through 5/20.  (what is a scribe
file ... SCRIBE is a text formatting program.  My file is a normal ascii text
file, but it has scribe commands in it like @b[this prints in bold
when scribed] There is a chance I may be able to produce a text file
... check for es.txt or es.tty if you don't have access to scribe.

As I said in my original note, this paper is a modest review of the 5 systems.
Without hands-on testing I was unable to make the kind of evaluations I
wanted to make. For many people, my paper will be a valuable introduction and
overview to this market of products. More experienced readers may or may not
be disappointed.  However, from some of the msgs. that I received it seems
likely I will get responses back from people who have had experience with
one or more of the programs I describe.  I don't know which idea is better
(and perhaps Ken Laws can decide):

  I get all the responses and then post a summary on the net at some
  point (when I get time, which is uncertain) or

  A dialogue about the products and comments I have made can start on
  the AILIST bboard?

I myself would like to learn more about these products as well as the
broader issues I have raised in the paper; perhaps, some of you can contribute.

mark

  [A dialog in AIList is fine, but try to keep messages self-contained
  for the benefit of those who haven't read the paper.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Apr 1985 09:32-PDT
-FROM-
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New interest group -- evolution
-BODY-
There has been a lot of interest in what I will call mathematical
evolution theory.  This includes some game theory (for example the
result that equal numbers of males and females should exist in any
species in which each birth is the result of a mating) and some
computer simulation work (for example the result that cooperation can
evolve if and only if members of the species can recognize each other
as individuals).

I am sending this message to guage interest in the establishment of an
interest group in this area.

If anyone has an address that accesses a large number of csnet bboards,
please tell me.

                                        Dick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 1985 06:20:21 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Nim refs sought
-BODY-
I told Cook@ARI-HQ1, but I guess I'd better let you folks know, or I'll
be reading this query on ARPANET-BBoards next.

Perfect strategy for Nim is known.  For an analysis of Nim, and open
questions associated with many related games, see *On Numbers and
Games* by J. H. Conway (Academic Press, 1976).

Dan Hoey

  [Another good source is Mathematical Recreations by Bell. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 03 May 85 09:25:32 EDT
-FROM-
From: connolly@GE-CRD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Image Processing in Lisp
-BODY-
In praise of Image-Calc:

        In response to the query about Image Processing in Lisp - We at
GE CRD have been using Image-Calc for about a year now, and are pleased
as punch with the environment it provides.  Image-Calc runs on a
Symbolics 3600, and for a really comfortable environment, you should
have a frame buffer & color monitor.  We've mainly been working on
implementing promising image-processing algorithms (e.g., the Canny edge
detector) and model-matching in images (akin to Faugeras' work) and have
found that the Image-Calc environment takes a lot of the drudgery,
boredom, and slowness out of constructing these algorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 1985 19:21-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles - Survey
-BODY-
Journal of Logic Programming 11(1984) no 3
William F. Dowling J. H. Gallier
267-284 Linear time algorithms for testing satisfiability of Horn
Formulae
225-240 J. W. Lloyd R. W. Topez Making Prolog more expressive
____________________________________________________________________________
J. Info Science 34(1984) no 1
1-24: Weichung Lun  King Sun Fu 3D-Plex Grammars
47-59: Marco Valtorta "A result on the computation complexity of
heuristic estimates for the A* algorithms"
____________________________________________________________________________
Vestnik Lening Unive. Mat. Mekh. Astron 1984
111-113 S. P. Lukin V. N. Fomm
An optimal stopping rule for training algorithms with reward
In Russian with English Summary
____________________________________________________________________________
Publ. Inst. Math (Beograd( 1983 34(48)
37-47: Dragos Cvetkovik, Irena Pevac
Discussing graph theory with a computer III Man Machine Theorem Proving
____________________________________________________________________________
Comm. Cognition 17 (1984) no 1 3-42
Isles, David "Artificial Intelligence as a possible tool for
discovering the laws of logic
____________________________________________________________________________
J. Math. Psych. 24(1984) no 3
231-281 Richard Schweickert, George J. Boggs
Models of central capacity and concurrency
____________________________________________________________________________
STACS 84 2nd Annual Symposium on Theorietical Aspects of Computer
Science
Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in CS 182 $16.00
Tree Automata and Logic Programs G. File page 119
____________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Bio-Medical Computing
Volume 16 no 1 Jan 84
Computer Vision J. G. Llaurado Page 4

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 May 85 11:35:39 pdt
-FROM-
From: li51x%sdcc3@SDCSVAX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Linguistic Notes from La Jolla
-BODY-
Working papers in linguistics from the faculty and students of the
Department of Linguistics, University of California at San Diego,
are available from

        "Linguistics Notes from La Jolla"
        Department of Linguistics, C-008
        University of California, San Diego
        La Jolla, California 92093

For a list of contents of issue 13 and of back issues send a
self-addressed stamped envelope to LNLJ.

I am posting this for Michael Smith, who is handling orders this year.
He asks that orders (and payment) be received by May 15, 1985.
                                                        --Michelle Gross

  [I've edited this down; the author can supply more info. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 04 May 85  0038 PDT
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review - The Logical Basis for Computer Programming
-BODY-

                THE LOGICAL BASIS FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMMING
                      Volume 1: Deductive Reasoning

                   ZOHAR MANNA  and  RICHARD WALDINGER

                   Addison-Wesley, ISBN: 0-201-18620-2


This exceptionally clear text, laced with many examples, provides a most
readable introduction to the logical concepts and techniques underlying
computer programming.  Computational notions are explored in a logical
realm independent of any programming language or any machine.  The text is
accessible to readers with no background in mathematics or computer
programming, yet it supplies axiomatization for a rich collection of
abstract data types.

This book provides the intellectual tools for studying artificial
intelligence, software engineering, automatic programming, database
theory, logic programming, and the theory of computation.  A
forthcoming second volume, DEDUCTIVE SYSTEMS, describes logical
techniques for automated theorem proving and its applications.

Zohar Manna is Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University;
he is the author of the textbook "Mathematical Theory of Computation."
Richard Waldinger is Staff Scientist in the Artificial Intelligence Center
at SRI International.



TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Part I. Mathematical Logic

Chapter 1: Propositional Logic
  Introduction. The Language. The Meaning of a Sentence. Properties of
  Sentences. Truth Tables. Semantic Trees. Proof by Falsification.
  Valid Sentence Schemata. Substitution. Extended Interpretation.
  Equivalence. Problems.

Chapter 2: Predicate Logic: Basic
  Introduction. The Language. The Meaning of a Sentence. Semantic Rules.
  Validity.  Universal and Existential Closure. Problems.

Chapter 3: Predicate Logic: Advanced
  Valid Sentence Schemata. Equivalence. Safe Substitution. The Value Property.
  Valid Schemata with Substitution. Function Introduction and Elimination.
  Problems.

Chapter 4: Special Theories
  Definition of a Theory. Augmenting Theories. Relationship between Theories.
  Theory of Strict Partial Orderings. Theory of Equivalence Relations.
  Problems.

Chapter 5: Theories with Equality
  Theory of Equality. Theory of Weak Partial Orderings. Theory of Associated
  Relations. Theory of Groups. Theory of Pairs. Relativized Quantifiers.
  The Lexicographic Relation. Problems.

Part II. Theories with Induction

Chapter 6: Nonnegative Integers
  Basic Properties. The Addition Function. Multiplication and Exponentiation.
  Predecessor and Subtraction.  Decomposition Induction. The Weak Less-than
  Relation. The Strict Less-than Relation. Complete Induction. Quotient and
  Remainder. Proof of Complete Induction. The Divides Relation. The
  Least-Number Principle. Problems.

Chapter 7: Strings
  Basic Properties. The Head and Tail Functions. The Concatenation Function.
  The Reverse Function. The Decomposition Induction Principle.
  The Substring Relation.  The Complete Induction Principle. Nonnegative
  Integers and Strings.  String Representation of Integers. Problems.

Chapter 8: Trees
  Basic Properties. The Left and Right Functions. The Subtree Relation.
  Strings and Trees. Problems.

Chapter 9: Lists
  Basic Properties. The Head and Tail Functions. Append and Member.
  Example: Flatlist. Tree Representation of Lists. Example: Parsing. Problems.

Chapter 10: Sets
  Basic Properties. The Equality Proposition. The Choice and Rest Functions.
  The Union and Intersection Functions. The Deletion and Difference Functions.
  The Subset Relation. The Set Constructor. Cardinality. Singleton Sets.
  Problems.

Chapter 11: Bags
  Basic Properties. The Equal-Multiplicity Relation. Multiplicity and Equality.
  The Count Function. Additional Functions and Relations.  Sum, Union,
  and Intersection. Problems.

Chapter 12: Tuples
  Basic Properties. Nonnegative Integers and Tuples. Mapping Tuples into Sets
  and Bags. The Permutation Relation. The Ordered Relation. The Sort Function.
  Recursive Definition of Functions. Problems.

Related Textbooks
Index of Symbols
General Index

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 21 April 1985 20:35:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Software - Knowledge-Based Systems for Engineering
-BODY-

                           CALL FOR PAPERS

The March 1986 issue of IEEE Software will address software aspects of
knowledge-based   systems   developed  for  engineering  applications,
focusing on the following issues:    (IEEE  Software  is  one  of  the
prestigious magazines devoted to problems in Software engineering).

   - need for building the KBES;

   - why a particular representation was chosen;

   - why a particular expert-system-building tool or language was
     used;

   - what  advantages  and  limitations were revealed through the
     attempt;

   - what kind of software tool would be ideal for doing  similar
     tasks;

   - how knowledge was acquired from experts;

   - the software cycle;

   - user interfaces; and

   - current status.

The   deadline   for  receiving  the  manuscript,  not  more  than  30
double-spaced typewritten pages, is July 1st and it will  be  reviewed
as per the IEEE standard review process.

For more information (or a copy of author's guidelines) write to:

D. Sriram/M. Rychener (Guest Editors)
Civil Engg. and Construction Labs.
Department of Civil Engineering
Carnegie-Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
ARPAnet address: sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 May 85 15:51:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Ron Green" (ARO) <green@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ARO sponsored summer courses for Army
-BODY-
Two courses will be taught this summer as part of ARO AI education program
for Army.  The courses will have limited enrollment because of hands-on
content of course.
                         Logic Programming
This course will be given at University of Pennsylvania from June 17 till
noon June 21.  A familiarity with basic issues and techniques of AI and
the ability to program in higher-level languages is assumed.  Familiarity
with logic and LISP is very desirable.  The course will cover the use of
logic-based systems as arepresentation language and programming language for
AI systems}i.  The course will be approximately one-half lecture and one-
half laboratory work.  The hardware will be VAXes and LISP machines.  Various
PROLOG implementations and logic programming systems will be available.

MAIN TOPIC AREAS
1. Theoretical foundations
2. Logic as a programming language
3. PROLOG as a programming language
4. Pratical PROLOG
5. Knowledge representation
6. Reasoning
7. Expert systems
8. Natural language processing
9. Evaluating logic programming

                             LISP Programming
This course will be taught at the University of Texas at Austin from
July 8 to noon on July 12.  Lectures will be presented during the
mornings of Monday through Thursday, and the rest of the time will be
devoted to hands-on LISP programming on LISP machines.  No knowledge
of LISP is required.  Applicants must have general familiarity with AI
problems and techniques, and must have significant programming
experience in standard high-level programming languages.  Persons with
moderate LISP experience are welcome, but it is expected that they
will work more independently on advanced problems.

MAIN TOPIC AREAS
1. Basic data structures and functions
2. User-defined functions and recursion
3. Explicit flow of control and iteration
4. More advanc{_ed topics -- LAMBDA expressions, destructive alteration, arrays
5. AI methods -- state-space methods, simple rule-based systems, frames

To enroll or at least apply for enrollment send a letter with the
course desired, brief reason for taking the course, and status of
experience with AI.  Deadline for application is June 5.  ARO will
select the ones to attend.

Send letter to
US Army Research Office
Electronics Division
Attn:  Dr. C. Ronald Green
P.O. Box 12211
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
56
-DATE-
Date: 2-May-85
-FROM-
From: l12%dhdurz2.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emotions and Memory
-BODY-

Hello,
  My name is Wolf-Dieter Batz. I'm a Psychologist working at a
software advisory board at the University of Heidelberg. This
is my request to be put on the AIList.

My special interest, which is also the basis for this request,
lies in the metatheoretical aspects of memory research. In my
thesis "About Model Construction in Memory Research", I investigated
several theories about memory for their essential characteristics;
theories were selected from Cognitive Science, Artificial Intelligence,
and Neuroscience. Results indicated a number of questionable
fundamentals in memory research. If anybody is interested in them
I would like to get feedback.

A very newborn idea in this context is to establish a new theory
of emotions that is structurally related to a still-to-formulate
theory of memory.  I would be very glad for responses to this idea. -
Everybody's invited!

Kind regards - mit freundlichen Gruessen ***

                                 Wolf-Dieter Batz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 09:28:33 pst
-FROM-
From: ed298-aa%ucbjade.CC@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emotional Attachment
-BODY-
  [I'll permit this message, not as another "rape" piece, but
  as it relates to the Minsky/Batali/Carter discussion of human
  emotional mechanisms.  -- KIL]

Having finally become quite weary reading abstract theorizing about rape (b
(brought on by the posting of a dumb story I remember first hearing in
high school), I'll add some down-to-earth comments.  I won't try to link
this to AI issues; I don't think it works that way, and I feel somewhat
strange addressing this on this bb, but it seems appropriate to offer some
first-hand information and "introspection.'

I've been raped, and I've worked on a rape crisis line, counseling rape
survivors.  I've never run across anyone agonizing because of an instant
"attachment" of some kind to the rapist.  Many women are raped by men they
know; in this situation indeed there can be very complicated feelings.  But
the strongest feeling I remember, and one which I've heard expressed by
other women, is the world-altering loss of trust and security after any
kind of rape.  Rape is a act of violence and a robber of power; one who
previously feels ok about something as mundane as walking down the street
may no longer be able to leave the house, or only with the greatest fear
and mistrust.  The attitude, which is changing but still strong, that a woman
who is raped has somehow brought it on herself is enough to add feelings of
shame and self-hate to the complex of fear.

I don't find anything funny about jokes on rape, or any other form of
humiliation or violence.  There is a great deal of work to be done to
transform our communities, and society, into a place where rape is not
tolerated, indeed, is viewed as something as incredible as cannibalism
or any other barbarism of the past.  Calling people on rape "jokes" is one
thing which can be done, perhaps you all can think of other more stronger
steps to take.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1985  16:22 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emotional Attachment
-BODY-

Bob Carter has answered Batali's objections
to my "assault" theory better than I would have.  Thanks.
>- minsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 May 85 17:58:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: JMYERS@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive dissonance
-BODY-
  I am offended by Mr. Carter's views on the subject of rape, that the anxiety
of the victim is caused by her "cognitive dissonance when the attachment
machinery begins to operate...".  Although this might in some sense be true,
it is not the whole truth, and I cannot remain indifferent to what is to me
such a dangerous statement.

Anxiety is indeed caused by cognitive dissonance, but the conflict is between
our opinion of the world, and our perception of reality.  We must have a valid
model of our world in order to survive--there is an incredibly basic drive in
human nature to make sense of it all.  And, given a conflict between our
concepts and our perceptions, it is usually the concepts that win out.  our
perceptions, our evaluations of what is occurring, are twisted to align with
our model of the world, so that we do not have to bear fully the psychic shock
of having our basic assumptions undermined.  This accounts for the human
reactions of denial, repression, regression, rationalization, and other
defense mechanisms, when confronted with the occurrence of a crisis.

The most basic assumptions have to do with the meaning of life, the question
of evil, the assumption of causality, and the myth of invulnerability.  These
are the foundations on which general behavior is based.  After defining and
discussing these concepts, I will come back to how they apply in the case of
a rape.
  Each person has his own meaning of life.  A great many people have not
formulated it explicitly, but everyone has a vague sense of purpose, a reason
for living; everyone has a sense that it means something to be alive, and that
it does all make sense somehow, even if we don't understand it.  (Note that
knowledge of the existence of purpose does not require knowledge of the
purpose.)  This is one of the great things theology gives us, that we do have
a reason for being here.  If there were no reason, if there were no sense of,
"I should stay alive because someday something might happen", then there would
be no reason to get out of bed in the morning, to eat, to love.  Starving to
death takes too long; aspirin is relatively quick and soft, although some
people prefer more violent ways of ending their existence.  The fact that we
are saddened and outraged when a person commits suicide indicates that we
believe that he had a purpose.
  The reality of evil is a problem that most people cope with by ignoring it
or denying that it exists.  We like to think that the world is basically a nice
place, that people are generally decent and reasonable, and that you can
generally count on them not to do evil acts.  Although this must be the basis
for social interaction and trust, we get into the habit of believing, because
we are fortunate enough no to encounter evil in the world, that there is no
evil in the world(1).
  People in general, and especially computer scientists, like to believe in
causality.  Things happen for reasons.  If you can know the reasons, then you
can understand the event, and predict it or modify it.  This implies that you
have the power to determine your own life, and that you are therefore
responsible for what happens, which is a pernicious lie(2).  Remorseful people
feel, "If only I'd have done things differently, this wouldn't have
happened...".  The fact is that they acted in the best way they knew how at
the time, and they cannot be held responsible for something they didn't know
how to do; furthermore, things may *not* have happened differently if their
actions had changed.  Finally, there might not BE a reason for an occurrence,
in a fundamental sense it "just happened".
  The myth of invulnerability says that I have always been alive as long as I
can remember, and therefore, at a very deep level, I always will be alive.
Bruce Lee never dies in the movies.  Sure, other people die of cancer, other
people get divorced, other people go through the windshield when they drive
after drinking or don't fasten their seatbelts, other people get raped,
but it's not REALLY going to happen to ME.  The myth of invulnerability allows
us to continue to live and function in a modern world while threatened with
everything from nuclear annihilation down to robberies next door, without
becoming completely paranoid and dysfunctional.

Given this framework of beliefs held by people in general, let us now examine
the rape victim.  She is directly and violently confronted with a reality that
goes against her deepest assumptions; there is no place to hide (successfully)
from her perceptions by repression or denial.  A rape is a violent act of
violation that has no inherent meaning; if such senseless things occur as
*reality*, then maybe life has no meaning after all.  Rape is one of the
ultimate evils.  The rape victim is directly confronted with an experience of
undeniable evil; she must completely revise her opinions of the basic nature
of mankind and men, what she now believes will happen in the future from a
given situation, and how far she can trust people.  The rape victim is
confronted with a random act that does not make sense, that she realistically
could not change or stop from happening.  Yet, she still feels that maybe it
happened because of something she did, maybe if she somehow had done something
different that it wouldn't have happened.  Not only must she deal with these
feelings, but she must accept the horrifying concept that causality does not
apply at some times.  Finally, the rape victim has something terrible happen
directly to her, something that she cannot ignore, that shatters her illusion
of invulnerability.  She must directly confront the fact of her own mortality
at a gut level, something that most of us are unable to do completely.

  Again, it is not these emotions or concepts per se that are so difficult to
deal with; it is the fact that they are completely opposed to the current
belief structure of the victim, which is the basis for survivability.  She is
forced to somehow integrate these new values into her beliefs.  She cannot
survive with her old beliefs; she has no way of knowing whether
she will survive with her new beliefs, and so her survivability is seriously
within question.  I argue that the cognitive dissonance created in the victim
by attempting to integrate any one of these four areas into her belief
structure is a stronger and more probable explanation for anxiety than a
theoretical "attachment bond" to the attacker.  I also feel that the
"attachment bond" theory is open to distortion, and could promote
significantly unhealthy attitudes in the population at large (e.g., "she really
loves it", "it's not the rapist's fault", etc.)

Finally, I would like to again call attention to the concept of homosexual
rape.  This is a reality that people do not like to think or talk about.  Male
computer scientists are not immune to being raped, and I strongly believe that
considering the concept of it happening to YOU puts things in a much different
perspective than the abstract idea of it happening to some woman.  In such a
situation, you would be given the same choice:  submit or die.  I hope you
find such an idea extremely offensive and revolting.  RAPE, IN GENERAL, IS.


Notes:
(1)  Proving the existence of evil raises disturbing fundamental questions
about the existence or direction of purpose in life.
(2)  Paradoxically, the concept that you do not have the power to determine
your own life, and that you are not responsible for what happens to you,
is also a pernicious lie.  The Theater of the Absurd is based on this concept.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
57
-DATE-
Date: 30 Apr 1985 0749-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - What is Information? (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker: Heinz Zemanek (Vienna)
Date:    Wednesday, May 8
Time:    11:00 am
Place:   5409
Title:   What is Information?

        Our century has its information technology and its information
industry, but does it know what entity it is dealing with?  There is no
standard definition of information, and there is no way to measure it.  The
Bit, for example, merely measures the statistical density of symbols, and
it does not measure the flow through a logical network.  Perhaps if
computer scientists cannot measure their primary entity, they do not belong
to the natural sciences but at least partially belong to the humanities!

        The author will argue that information can be understood from the
context in which it appears: in the naive context (what was information
before the computer appeared?), in the sensory organs, in language, in the
transmission media (that is, in the channel, where information theory
began), in protocols, as merchandise, as "intelligence," as knowledge, and
as an entity controlling real-world processes (of which the computation
processes are a harmless subclass).  The conclusion is that the computer
may turn science and technology much more towards the humanities than
scientists and engineers might expect.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 1985 13:49-EDT
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Theorem Proving, Connection Machine (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

  Something new in ther BBN AI seminar series: a talk on theorem
proving.  This area is enjoying a revival - they've even written
some programs that real mathematicians consider useful.  Wolfgang
Bibel of Duke University and Technische Universitat, Munich will
speak at 10 AM on Monday May 6 in the 3rd floor conference room.

          The connection method and plan generation W. Bibel In
this talk we give a brief overview of the AI projects at the TUM.
These include the development of a logical connection machine, ie
a multi-processor machine for deduction based on the connection
method in ATP.  This method is outlined in some detail.  As an
example among the various applications of deductive reasoning
plan generation is considered, and a new purely deductive
solution for this well-known problem in AI is presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 1985 11:45-EST
-FROM-
From: "George R. Cross" <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Hypotheticals and Legal Reasoning (LSU)
-BODY-
   Hypotheticals and Legal Reasoning
           Edwina Rissland
     Department of Computer Science
       University of Massachusetts

Sponsored by: Louisiana State Law Institute, Center for Civil Law Studies,
and Department of Computer Science, Louisiana State University

Place: Coates 155, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Time: Tuesday, May 7, 1:30 P.M.

Abstract: In this talk, I shall discuss the use of hypotheticals in legal
reasoning, in particular, how hypos serve a central role in analyzing issues
and preparing arguments.  I'll describe a program, called HYPO, which
generates legal hypotheticals, and an environment, called COUNSELOR, which
provides support for legal reasoning and other strategic tasks, like
resource management.  I'll discuss the kinds of modifications one makes to
hypos in the course of argument, offer a preliminary taxonomy of such
"argument moves", and discuss some higher level structures in legal
argument.  As background, I'll also present some general issues about
examples such as their generation, structure and importance in reasoning,
especially in the domains of mathematics and the law.

For More Info:
        George R. Cross
        Computer Science Department
        Louisiana State University
        Phone: 504-388-1495
        cross@lsu.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 May 1985  14:20 EDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Domain-Independent Planning (MIT)
-BODY-
    AI Revolving Seminar    Tuesday, May 7  4:00pm  8AI Playroom

                          Reid G. Simmons

                    Domain Independent Planning:
                  Putting "Shakey" on Firmer Ground

Current domain independent planners are limited in the range of
real-world problems that they can handle.  This limitation is due
largely to the lack of explicit temporal representations and to the
relative inexpressiveness of the STRIPS-like operator representations.
We present a domain independent planner which overcomes some of these
limitations.  First, time is explicitly represented and reasoned
about.  Second, the operator representation is extended in two
important ways -- an "effect" may consist of a quantified formula and
the "output" value of an effect may depend on its "input" value.  We
demonstrate how these changes significantly extend the range of
operator representation without rendering the planning problem intractable.

We also present a technique which can be used to control the
potentially exponential search for a correct plan, so that planning is
manageable even using these extended operator representations.  This
technique combines a careful analysis of the effects of each plan step
with dependency directed search.  It has proven to be very effective
in solving traditional blocks-world examples and is currently being
applied to more demanding domains.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 4 May 85 15:50 EST
-FROM-
From: John Roach <roach%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI Applications
-BODY-
                        ===============
                        CALL FOR PAPERS
                        ===============


                     IEEE Computer Society

     SECOND CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS

            The Engineering of Knowledge-Based Systems

                      Fontainebleau Hilton
                      Miami Beach, Florida
                      11-13 December 1985


Purpose:  to explore the technology, implementation and impact of
emerging application areas and indicate future trends in available
systems and required research.  Topic areas include:

Knowledge Acquisition and Representation        System Architecture
Planning and Problem Solving                    Natural Language
Reasoning with Uncertainty                      Sensor Feedback
Validation                                      Learning and Control
Human-Computer Interface                        Explanation

The program will consist of submitted and invited paprs.  Invited
papers will provide an overview of research in selected areas.
All papers will be reviewed by two members of the program review
committee.  Contributed papers may be selected for presentation
and publication, or for publication only.  Please limit papers
to five thousand words.  Research proposals and minor changes to
old ideas are discouraged.  Fours copies of the complete paper
are to be submitted to:

                        Program Chair
              Artificial Intelligence Conference
                        P. O. Box 639
                   Silver Spring, MD  20901

Accepted papers will be published in the proceedings of the
conference and will be allocated a maximum of six pages.

CONFERENCE TIMETABLE
Four Copies of Manuscript               1 June 1985
Acceptance Letters                      15 July 1985
Camera-Ready Papers                     1 September 1985
Tutorials                               9, 10 December 1985
Conference                              11 - 13 December 1985

A limited amount of exhibit space is available.  Please contact
Director of Conferences, IEEE Computer Society, 301-589-8142.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

General Chair
John Roach
Department of Computer Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Blacksburg, Virginia  24061

Program Chair
Charles Weisbin
Center for Engr. Systems Advanced Research
Oak Ridge National Laboratories
Oak Ridge, TN  37831

Local Arrangements Chair
Harry Hayman

Tutorials Chair
Mabry Tyson
SRI International

Treasurer
Daniel Chester
University of Delaware

Program Committee
Charles Weisbin
J. Barhen
P. Cheeseman
R. Duda
R. Haralick
E. Heer
D. Hertz
A. Kak
H. Pople
E. Rich
J. Roach
L. Shapiro
R. Simmons

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 04 May 85 11:32:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: sokolov (jeff sokolov) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Carnegie Symposium, Language Acquisition
-BODY-

 **********************************************************************
                 20th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition
                        Carnegie-Mellon University
                                May 16-18
                Theme:  "Mechanisms of Language Acquisition"
 **********************************************************************

The 20th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition will be held on May 16, 17,
and 18 in the Adamson Wing of Baker Hall on the Carnegie-Mellon campus in
Pittsburgh.  Presentations will begin at 2:00 on the 16th.  Participants
include Martin Braine, Robert Berwick, Jaime Carbonell, Eve Clark, Elizabeth
Bates, Brian MacWhinney, John Anderson, Melissa Bowerman, Michael Maratsos,
Marlys Macken, Pat Langley, Jeff Sokolov, Steven Pinker, Kenneth Wexler,
Thomas Roeper, Jay McClelland, Peter Gordon, and David Rumelhart.  Focal
issues will be:  the role of universal constraints on the shape of grammar
and the parser, ways of constraining rule overgeneralization, and
competition/parallel models of learning and processing.

Support is being provided by the National Science Foundation and the Sloan
Foundation.  For a copy of the program contact Brian MacWhinney or Kathy
Marengo at (412) 578-2656.  The public is invited.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 2 May 85 08:28:36-CDT
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Database Systems   [long message]
-BODY-

                     Call for Papers and Participation

         First International Conference on Expert Database Systems

                April 1-4, 1986, Charleston, South Carolina


                       Sponsored by:

        The Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy
        College of Business Administration,
        University of South Carolina


                    In Cooperation With:

        American Association for Artificial Intelligence
        Association for Computing Machinery -- SIGMOD, SIGART and SIGPLAN
        IEEE Technical Committee on Data Base Engineering
        Agence de l'Informatique, France


                   Conference Objectives

The goal of this conference is to explore both the theoretical and  practi-
cal issues of Expert Database Systems.  These systems represent the conflu-
ence of R&D activities in  Artificial  Intelligence,  Logic,  and  Database
Management.

Expert Database Systems will play an ever-increasing  role  in  scientific,
governmental and business applications by:

o    providing intelligent, knowledge-based access to  large  shared  data-
     bases  through  novel  user-interfaces  and natural-language question-
     answering facilities,

o    endowing database systems with reasoning, planning, and  justification
     capabilities,

o    creating knowledge base management tools and techniques to support the
     creation,  manipulation,  indexing,  and  evolution of large knowledge
     bases, and

o    integrating AI & DB functional  requirements  into  new  hardware  and
     software  environments for the specification, prototyping, testing and
     debugging of knowledge-based applications.

In order to foster the cross-fertilization of ideas  from  AI,  Logic,  and
Databases  the Conference will be composed of tutorial sessions, paper ses-
sions, and panel discussions.

                            Topics of Interest

The Program Committee invites original papers (of approximately 5000 words)
addressing (but not limited to) the following areas:

Theory of Knowledge Bases (including  knowledge  representation,  knowledge
     models,  recursive  data  models,  object-oriented  models,  knowledge
     indexing and transformation),

Knowledge  Engineering  (including  acquisition,   maintenance,   learning,
     knowledge-directed  database  specification  and design methodologies,
     and case studies),

Knowledge Base Management  (including  architectures  and  languages,  con-
     straint  and rule management, metadata management, and extensible data
     dictionaries),

Reasoning on Large Data/Knowledge Bases (including inexact and  fuzzy  rea-
     soning,  non-monotonic  reasoning,  deductive  databases,  logic-based
     query languages, semantic query optimization, and  constraint-directed
     reasoning),

Natural Language Access (including question-answering, extended  responses,
     cooperative behavior, explanation and justification),

Intelligent Database Interfaces (including expert system --  database  com-
     munication,  knowledge  gateways, knowledgeable user agents, browsers,
     and videotex),

Knowledge-Based Environments (including Decision Support Systems,  CAD/CAM,
     and VLSI Design),

Organizational Issues (including technology transfer, procurement of expert
     database systems, and knowledge certification).

Please send five (5) copies of papers by September 1, 1985 to:

                    Larry Kerschberg, Program Chairman
                    College of Business Administration
                    University of South Carolina
                    Columbia, SC, 29208


                             Program Committee


Hideo Aiso                                  Sham Navathe
Keio University                             University of Florida

Antonio Albano                              Erich Neuhold
University of Pisa                          Technical University of Vienna

Robert Balzer                               S. Ohsuga
USC/Information Sciences Institute          University of Tokyo

James Bezdek                                Alain Pirotte
University of South Carolina                Philips Research Lab, Brussels

Ron Brachman                                D. Stott Parker, Jr.
Schlumberger Palo Alto Research             UCLA and SILOGIC

Michael Brodie                              Harry Pople
Computer Corporation of America             University of Pittsburgh

Peter Buneman                               Erik Sandewall
University of Pennsylvania                  Linkoping University

Mark Fox                                    Edgar H. Sibley
Robotics Institute, Carnegie-Mellon Univ.   George Mason University

George Gardarin                             John Miles Smith
Univ. of Paris 6 and INRIA                  Computer Corporation of America

Herve Gallaire                              Reid Smith
ECRC, Munich                                Schlumberger-Doll Research

Matthias Jarke                              Michael Stonebraker
New York University                         UC -- Berkeley

Jonathan King                               Jeffrey Ullman
Teknowledge                                 Stanford University

Robert Kowalski                             Bonnie L. Webber
Imperial College                            University of Pennsylvania

Jack Minker                                 Andrew B. Whinston
University of Maryland                      Purdue University

Michele Missikoff                           Gio Wiederhold
IASI-CNR, Rome                              Stanford University

John Mylopoulos                             Carlo Zaniolo
University of Toronto                       MCC Corporation





                              Important Dates

               Submission Deadline:       September 1, 1985
               Acceptance Notification:   November 7, 1985
               Final Version Due:         December 15, 1985
               Conference:                April 1-4, 1986


Conference proceedings will be available  at  the  conference,  and  subse-
quently will appear in book form.



 Conference General Chairman          Conference Coordinator

 Donald A. Marchand                   Cathie L. Hughes

 Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy
 (803) 777-5766

 Panel Coordinator                    Conference Treasurer

 Arun Sen                             Libby Shropshier
 Dept. of Management Science          Institute of Information Management,
 College of Business Administration   Technology and Policy
 Univ. of South Carolina              Univ. of South Carolina
 Columbia, SC 29208                   Columbia, SC 29208

 Publicity Chairman                   Tutorial Chairman

 John Weitzel                         Jonathan King
 Dept. of Management Science          Teknowledge, Inc.
 College of Business Administration   525 University Avenue
 Univ. of South Carolina              Palo Alto, CA 94301
 Columbia, SC 29208



                       International Representatives

      Latin America               Europe                  Far East

Claudio M.O. Moura       Jean-Claude Rault       Masahiro Nakazawa
Independent Consultant   Agence de l'InformatiqueNihon Digital Equip. Corp.
Rua R. Eduardo Guinle 60 Tour Fiat-Cedex 16      Sunlight Bldg. 5th Floor
Botafogo                 Paris-La Defense        5-29-1, Toyotamakita,
22.260 Rio de Janeiro, RJParis                   Nerima-ku Tokyo, 176
Brazil                   France                  Japan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
58
-DATE-
Date: Sun 5 May 85 16:09:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Abstracts
-BODY-
I fell behind on the seminar notices when I took off for DC early this
month.  Rather than just ignore all the talks, I've decided to "read
them into the record" now.  It will take three issues to hold all the
post-dated notices -- just ignore them if abstracts aren't your thing.

I find that I'm spending too much time gathering and editing seminar
notices, so I'm going to cut back.  I will continue to forward the
Stanford notices, but I'd like to get some volunteers to edit and
forward notices from CMU, CSLI, MIT-MC, Rutgers, and UTexas-20.

Other contributors can help me by providing meaningful Subject lines
for your messages.  I have been cleaning up many of the subject lines
as an aid to sorting the messages and to simplify construction of the
Today's Topics header.  It takes a fair amount of effort to find a
concise summary of an author's message, and I would appreciate it if
contributors would make an effort to provide the summary.

If anyone would like to split off a linguistics/psychology list, I'll
provide the necessary assistance.  I like reading the messages, but
I'm having trouble moderating such discussions and deciding which
seminar notices to include.  I think that a separate discussion list
is the best solution, but I'm willing to consider some kind of
joint moderation of the AIList message stream.  AIList is a fun hobby,
but I'd like to have a little more free time for other activities.

Thanks to everyone for helping to make AIList such a success.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 1985 1229-EST
-FROM-
From: ALR at MIT-XX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Database Theory and Equations (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


DATE:    TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1985
PLACE:   NE43-512A


Database Theory and Computing with Equations

Paris C. Kanellakis
MIT


Databases and equational theorem proving are well developed and
seemingly unrelated areas of Computer Science research.
We provide two natural links between these fields and demonstrate
how equational theorem proving can provide useful techniques and tools
for a variety of database tasks.

Our first application is a novel way of formulating database constraints
(dependencies) using equations. Dependency implication, a central computational
problem in database theory, is transformed into reasoning about equations.
Mathematical techniques from universal algebra provide new proof procedures and
better lower bounds for database dependency implication.

Our second application demonstrates that the uniform
word problem for lattices is equivalent to
implication of dependencies expressing transitive closure together with
functional dependencies,
(functional dependencies were the first
and most widely studied database constraints).
This natural generalization of functional dependencies, which is
not expressible using conventional database theory formulations, has
an efficient decision procedure and a natural inference system.

This is joint work with Stavros S. Cosmadakis.


HOST:  Prof. Guttag

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 85 13:04:45 est
-FROM-
From: Voula Vanneli <voula%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Processing Uncertain Knowledge (UToronto)
-BODY-

                           UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
                     DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
         (SF = Sandford Fleming Building, 10 King's College Rd.)

ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE SEMINAR -  Monday, April 15, 11 a.m.,
SF 1105
                      Harry Stephanou
                           Texas



               Processing Uncertain Knowledge

     The methodology described in this talk is motivated  by
the  need to design knowledge based systems for applications
that involve: (1)  subjective  and/or  incomplete  knowledge
contributed  by multiple domain experts, and (ii) inaccurate
and/or incomplete data  collected  from  different  measure-
ments. The talk consists of two parts.

     In the first part, we present a quantitative  criterion
for measuring the effectiveness of the consensus obtained by
pooling evidence from two knowledge sources.  After a  brief
review  of the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, we intro-
duce a set-theoretic generalization  of  entropy.   We  then
prove  that  the  pooling  of  evidence  by  Dempster's rule
decreases the total entropy of the  sources,  and  therefore
focuses their knowledge.

     In the second part of the  talk,  we  present  a  fuzzy
classification  algorithm  that can utilize a limited number
of unreliable training samples, or prototypes.  We then pro-
pose the extension of this algorithm to a reasoning by anal-
ogy scheme in which decisions are based on the  "similarity"
of  the  observed evidence to prototypical situations stored
in the knowledge base.  The measure of similarity relies  on
a set-theoretic generalization of cross-entropy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Apr 85 14:21:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Susan Gere <M.SUSAN@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Compact LISP Machine (SU)
-BODY-
                        EE380/CS310
                Seminar on Computer Systems


Title:     Compact LISP Machine

Speaker:   Steven D. Krueger
           Texas Instruments, Dallas

Time:   Wednesday, April 10  at 4:15 p.m.

Place:  Terman Auditorium

The Compact LISP Machine (CLM) development program is the first of
several Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programs
intended to provide embedded symbolic computing capabilities for
government applications.  As one of many contracts funded under the
Strategic Computing Program, the CLM will provide a symbolic computer
capability for insertion of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics
technology in a wide range of applications.

The heart of the CLM system is a high speed 32-bit VLSI LISP processor
chip, built using high speed CMOS technology.  It is based on the
architecture of the Explorer LISP machine from Texas Instruments, which
is based on the CADR LISP Machine from MIT and and LISP Machines
Incorporated (LMI).

The CLM system consists of four types of modules: Processor,
Cache/Mapper, 4MB Memory, and Bus Interface. The Processor, Memory,
and Bus Interface modules communicate over a high-performance 32-bit
multi-master NuBus(TM) system bus.

Some motivation will be given for adopting a special architecture for
symbolic processing.  Then the basic architecture of the CLM processor
and Explorer processor will be reviewed.  The NuBus system bus will be
described, and the CLM system modules will be described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 April 1985 1155-EST
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - How Processes Learn (CMU)
-BODY-
        Name:   PS Seminar - J. Misra, The University of Texas/Austin
        Date:   10 April (Wed.)
        Time:   3:00-4:30
        Place:  4605 WeH
        Topic:  How Processes Learn


A key feature of distributed systems is that each component process
has access to its own state but not to the states of other processes.
Any nontrivial distributed algorithm requires that some processes
learn about the states of others.  To study such issues, we introduce
the notion of isomorphism among computations:  two computations are
isomorphic with respect to a process if the process can't tell them
apart.  We show that isomorphisms can be used to define and study
learning by processes.  We give a precise characterization of minimum
information flow for achieving certain desired goals.  As an example
we show that there is no algorithm to detect termination of an
underlying computation using a bounded number of overhead messages.

This talk assumes no previous background in distributed systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09 Apr 85  1321 PST
-FROM-
From: Marianne Siroker <MAS@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Space Modeling for Robot Navigation (SU)
-BODY-
                         SPECIAL ROBOTICS SEMINAR


      On Wednesday, April 10, Raja Chatila from France will speak on


          Consistent Space Modeling for Mobile Robot Navigation

Time: 4:15 PM                                   Place:  Rm 352 MJH

In order to understand its environment, a mobile robot should be able to
model it consistently, and to locate itself correctly. One
major difficulty to be solved is the inaccuracies introduced by the sensors.

The presented approach to cope with this problem relies on
general principles to deal with uncertainties: the use of
multisensory system, favoring of the data collected by the more accurate sensor
in a given situation, averaging of different but consistent measurements of the
same entity weighted with their associated uncertainties, and
a methodology enabling a mobile robot to define its own reference
landmarks while exploring and modeling its environment.

These ideas are presented together with an example of their application on
the mobile robot HILARE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 85 14:15 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Pictorial Explanations (UPenn)
-BODY-

AUTOMATING THE CREATION OF PICTORIAL EXPLANATIONS

 Steve Feiner (Brown Univ)

 3pm Monday April 15th, 337 Towne Building
 Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania

     The APEX [Automated Pictorial EXplanations] project has as its
     long-term goal the realtime computer generation of effective pictorial
     and textual explanations. Our current research has concentrated on the
     automated creation of pictures that depict the performance of physical
     actions, such as turning or pushing, on objects.

     We are constructing a test-bed system that generates pictures of
     actions performed by a problem solver. Our system supports rules for
     determining automatically the objects to be shown in a picture, the
     style and level of detail with which they should be rendered, the
     method by which the action itself should be indicated, and the
     picture's viewing specifications. A picture crystallizes about a small
     set of objects inferred from the nature of the action being depicted.
     Additional objects and detail are added when it is determined that they
     help disambiguate an object from others with which it may be confused.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 12:48 EST
-FROM-
From: Huhns <huhns%scarolina.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Knowledge-Based Learning (USCarolina)
-BODY-

                           CENTER FOR MACHINE INTELLIGENCE
                            University of South Carolina

                    A DISTRIBUTED KNOWLEDGE-BASED LEARNING SYSTEM
                              FOR INFORMATION RETRIEVAL

          Speaker:  Uttam Mukhopadhyay

          Date:  3:00 p.m.  Wednesday, April 17, 1985
          Location:  Room 230, Engineering Building

               MINDS (Multiple Intelligent  Node  Document  Servers)  is  a
          distributed   system   of   knowledge-based   query  engines  for
          efficiently  retrieving  multimedia  documents   in   an   office
          environment  of  distributed  workstations.  By learning document
          distribution patterns, as well as user interests and  preferences
          during  system  usage, it customizes document retrievals for each
          user.

               In this talk we discuss the implementation  of  a  two-layer
          learning  testbed  for  studying  plausible  heuristics.   In the
          simulated    environment,    document    distribution    patterns
          (object-level  concepts)  used by the query engine are learned at
          the lower level with the help of heuristics for assigning  credit
          and recommending adjustments;  these heuristics are incrementally
          refined at the upper level with the help of meta-heuristics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 25 Apr 85 16:35:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - DART: An Automated Diagnostician (SU)
-BODY-

Professor Michael Genesereth will be the featured speaker at the
Seminar on May 1st.  Time is 2:15, in Terman Room 217.

"DART: An Automated Diagnostician for Equipment Failures"
    Michael R. Genesereth
     Logic Group
     Knowledge Systems Laboratory, Stanford


This talk describes a device-independent diagnostic program called
DART.  DART differs from previous approaches to diagnosis taken in
the Artificial Intelligence community in that it works directly
from design descriptions rather than MYCIN-like symptom-fault
rules.  DART differs from previous approaches to diagnosis taken in
the design-automation community in that it is more general and in
many cases more efficient.  DART uses a device-independent language
for describing devices and a device-independent inference procedure
for diagnosis.  The resulting generality allows it to be applied to
a wide class of devices ranging from digital logic to nuclear reactors.
Although this generally engenders some computational overhead on
small problems, it facilitates the use of multiple design descriptions
and thereby makes possible combinatoric savings that more than offsets
this overhead on problems of realistic size.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Apr 1985  16:05 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Abstraction and Classification in NIKL (MIT)
-BODY-

ABSTRACTION AND CLASSIFICATION IN A HYBRID REPRESENTATION SYSTEM

                           Marc Vilain
                        BBN Laboratories
                          Cambridge, MA

   Hybrid architectures have been used in several recent knowledge
representation systems.  In this talk, I will explore several hybrid
representation architectures, focusing particularly on the architecture
of the KL-TWO system.  KL-TWO is built around a propositional reasoner
called PENNI (a descendant of RUP) and a terminological reasoner called
NIKL (a descendant of KL-ONE).

   I will show how NIKL can be interfaced to PENNI so as to augment
PENNI's propositional language with a limited form of quantification.
This interface relies crucially on two operations that follow naturally
from the KL-TWO architecture: abstraction and classification.  I will
describe these operations, and discuss how their generality might extend
beyond the scope of KL-TWO.

        Tuesday, April 30; 4:00pm; 8th Floor Playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 1985 12:24-EST
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Evidential Reasoning in Semantic Networks (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

  Another BBN AI Seminar: Lokendra Shastri of U. of Rochester
will talk on Friday April 26 in room 5/143 (near the travel
office).

              Evidential Reasoning in Semantic Networks
           A Formal Theory and its Parallel Implementation

   The talk presents an evidential approach to knowledge
representation and inference wherein the principle of maximum
entropy is applied to deal with uncertainty and incompleteness.
It focuses on a representation language that is an evidential
extension of semantic networks, and develops a formal theory of
inheritance and recognition within this language.  The theory
applies to a limited, but interesting, class of inheritance and
recognition problems, including those that involve exceptions,
multiple hierarchies, and conflicting information.  The resulting
theory may be implemented as an interpreter-free, massively
parallel network made up of highly interconnected but extremely
simple computing elements.  The network can solve inheritance and
recognition problems in time proportional to the depth of the
conceptual hierarchy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
59
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 85 18:23:01 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Artificial Language Learning (SU)
-BODY-
              Morphological & prosodic cues in the learning
                of a miniature phrase-structure language

                            RICHARD MEIER
                        (Stanford University)

      I will claim that the input to language learning is a grouped
and structured sequence of words and that learning operates most
successfully on such structures, and not on mere word strings.  After
briefly reviewing evidence for such groupings in natural language, this
claim will be supported by three experiements in artificial language
learning.  These experiments allow rigorous control of the input to the
learner.  Prior work had argued that, in such experiments, adult subjects
can learn complex syntactic rules only with extensive semantic mediation.
In the current experiments, subjects fully learned complex aspects of
syntax if they viewed, or heard, sentences (paired with an uninformative
semantics) containing one of three grouping cues for constituent structure:
prosody, function words, or agreement suffixes on the words within a
constituent.  Absent such cues, subjects learned only limited aspects of
syntax.  These results suggest that, in natural languages, such grouping
cues may subserve syntax learning.

April 12th                      3:15pm               Jordan Hall; Rm. 100

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 85 13:24:21 cst
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Understanding Text with Diagrams (UTexas)
-BODY-

         Understanding Text with an Accompanying Diagram

                               by
                           Bill Bulko


                      noon  Friday April 12
                            PAI 5.60


We are investigating the mechanisms by which a physics problem
specified jointly by English text and graphics images can be
understood.  The investigation is guided by the study of the
following subproblems:

   (1)  What kinds of rules and knowledge would it take to understand
        the information contained in a picture model and a block of
        related English text?

   (2)  What kind of control structure is required?

   (3)  How can information contained in the picture but not in the
        text, and vice versa, be recognized and understood?  That is,
        how can coreference between text and a picture be handled?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 16:26:36-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semantics and Metaphysics (CSLI)
-BODY-
         Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 11, 1985


 ``Semantics for Natural Language:  Metaphysics for the Simple-minded?''

                        Chris Menzel, CSLI

      What, exactly, is the connection between semantics and metaphysics?
   A semantical theory gives an account of the meaning of certain
   expressions in natural language, and, intuitively, the meaning of an
   expression has to do with the connection between the expression (or an
   utterance of it) and the world.  Thus, a simple-minded view might be
   that (as far as it goes) a correct semantical theory ipso facto yields
   the sober metaphysical truth about what there is.
      To the contrary, implicit in much work in semantics is the idea
   that all we should expect of a good theory is that it be, in Keenan's
   terms, descriptively adequate: it should provide a theoretical
   structure which preserves our judgments of logical truth and
   entailment, never mind the question of the literal metaphysical
   details of the structure (e.g., that the denotations of singular terms
   are complex sets of sets rather than individuals).
      For next week's TINlunch I will provide a framework for discussion
   by laying out the simple-minded view and its chief rival in somewhat
   more detail.  Being rather simple-minded myself, I'll attempt to
   defend a reasonable version of the former.  As grist for both
   philosophical mills I will draw upon recent work in intensional logic,
   Montague grammar, generalized quantifiers, the semantics of plurals,
   and situation semantics.                             --Chris Menzel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Apr 85 11:19:34-PST
-FROM-
From: PENTLAND@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Diagram Understanding (SRI)
-BODY-
Area P1 Talk --
WHERE: SRI Int'l Room EK242 (conference room)
WHEN: Tues April 9 at 2:30


                       DIAGRAM UNDERSTANDING:
      THE INTERSECTION OF COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND COMPUTER VISION

                          Fanya S. Montalvo
               MIT, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

                               ABSTRACT

A problem common to Computer Vision and Computer Graphics is
identified.  It deals with the representation, acquisition, and
validation of symbolic descriptions for visual properties.  The
utility of treating this area as one is explained in terms of
providing the facility for diagrammatic conversations with systems.  I
call this area "Diagram Understanding", which is analogous to Natural
Language Understanding.  The recognition and generation of visual
objects are two sides of the same symbolic coin.  A paradigm for the
discovery of higher-level visual properties is introduced, and its
application to Computer Vision and Computer Graphics described.  The
notion of denotation is introduced in this context.  It is the map
between linguistic symbols and visual properties.  A method is
outlined for associating symbolic descriptions with visual properties
in such a way that human subjects can be brought into the loop in
order to validate (or specify) the denotation map.  Secondly, a way of
discovering a natural set of visual primitives is introduced.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 16:26:36-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Simple Description of the World (CSLI)
-BODY-
         Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, April 11, 1985

             ``What if the World Were Really Quite Simple?''

                         Alex Pentland, CSLI


      One of the major stumbling blocks for efforts in AI has been the
   apparent overwhelming complexity of the natural world; for instance,
   when an AI program tries to decide on a course of action (or the
   meaning of a sentence) it is often defeated by the incredible number
   of alternatives to consider.  Results such as those of Tversky,
   however, argue that people are able to use characteristics of the
   current situation to somehow "index" directly into the two or three
   most likely alternatives, so that deductive reasoning per se plays a
   relatively minor role.
      How could people accomplish such indexing?  One possibility is that
   the structure of our environment is really quite a bit simpler that it
   appears on the surface, and that people are able to use this structure
   to constrain their reasoning much more tightly than is done in current
   AI research.
      Is it possible that the world is really relatively simple?  In
   forming a scientific theory we may trade the size and complexity of
   description against the amount of error.  Because modern scientific
   endeavors have placed great emphasis on increasingly accurate
   description, very little effort has gone toward discovering a grain
   size of description at which the world may be relatively simply
   described while still maintaining a useful level of accuracy.
      I will argue that such a simple description of the world is
   plausible, discuss progress in discovering such a descriptive
   vocabulary, and comment on how knowledge of such a vocabulary might
   have a profound impact on AI and psychology.         --Alex Pentland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 85 17:34:14 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Illocutionary Acts (UCB)
-BODY-
               BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
              Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

      TIME:                Tuesday, April 30, 11 - 12:30
      PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center

SPEAKER:        Herbert H. Clark, Department of Psychology, Stan-
                ford University

TITLE:          ``Illocutionary   acts,   illocutionary   perfor-
                mances''

     From John Austin on, theorists have said a good  deal  about
what it is to be a question, assertion, promise, or other illocu-
tionary act.  But in their characterizations they have  generally
assumed a rather strong idealization about how illocutionary acts
are performed.  Among other things, they have  taken  these  four
points  for  granted:  (1)  An  illocutionary act is a preplanned
event.  (2) It is performed by the speaker acting alone.  (3) The
speaker acts with certain definite intentions about affecting his
addressee.  And  (4)  the  speaker  discharges  these  intentions
merely by issuing a sentence (or sentence surrogate) in the right
circumstances.   As  with  any  idealization,  these  assumptions
aren't  quite  right.  Indeed, I will document that illocutionary
acts in conversation are not preplanned events but processes that
the  participants  may  alter midcourse for various purposes, and
that they are accomplished by the speaker and  addressees  acting
together.   Once the traditional assumptions are replaced by more
realistic ones, we are led to quite a different notion of illocu-
tionary act.

     The view I will develop  is  that  performing  illocutionary
acts  in  conversation is a collaborative process between speaker
and addressees.  One of the goals of  these  participants  is  to
establish the mutual belief, roughly by the beginning of each new
contribution, that the addressees have understood  the  speaker's
meaning  well  enough  for  current  purposes.   The  speaker and
addressees have systematic  linguistic  techniques  for  reaching
this  goal.   In  support  of  this view I will report a study by
Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs and myself on  how  definite  references  get
made in conversation and another study by Edward F.  Schaefer and
myself on what it is, more generally, to make  certain  contribu-
tions to conversation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 85 05:01:59 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Computational Model of Skill Acquisition (SU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                Psych. Dept. Friday Cognitive Seminar
April 26th                      3:15pm               Jordan Hall; Rm. 100

                      A Computational Model of
                          Skill Aquisition

                      KURT VAN LEHN (Xerox PARC)

   A theory will be presented that describes how people learn certain
procedural skills, such as the written algorithms of arithmetic and
algebra, from multi-lesson curricula.  There are two main hypotheses.
(1) Teachers enforce, perhaps unknowingly, certain constraints that
relate the structure of the procedure to the structure of the lesson
sequence, and moreover, students employ these constraints, perhaps
unknowingly, as they induce a procedure from the lesson sequence.  (2)
As students follow the procedure they have induced, they employ a
certain kind of meta-level problem solving to free themselves when their
interpretation of the procedure gets stuck.  The theory's predictions,
which are generated by a computer model of the putative learning and
problem solving processes, have been tested against error data from
several thousand students.  The usual irrefutability of computer
simulations of complex cognition has been avoided by a linguistic style
of argumentation that assigns empirical responsibility to individual
hypotheses.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 85 13:04:45 est
-FROM-
From: Voula Vanneli <voula%toronto.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Marker-Passing during Problem Solving (UToronto)
-BODY-

                   UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
               DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
         (GB = Galbraith Bldg., 35 St. George St.)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEMINAR - Wednesday, April 10, 4 pm,
GB 244


                        Jim Hendler
        Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University

   Studies of Marker Passing in Knowledge Representation
                and Problem Solving Systems.


A standard problem in Artificial Intelligence  systems  that
do   planning  or  problem  solving  is  called  the  "late-
information, early-decision paradox." This occurs  when  the
planner makes a choice as to which action to consider, prior
to encountering information that could  either  identify  an
optimal  solution or that would present a contradiction.  As
the decision is made in the absence of this  information  it
is often the wrong one, leading to much needless processing.

In this talk I describe how the technique known as  "marker-
passing"  can  be used by a problem-solver.  Marker-passing,
which has been shown in the past to be useful for such  cog-
nitive  tasks as story comprehension and word sense disambi-
guation, is a parallel,  non-deductive,  "spreading  activa-
tion"  algorithm.   By combining this technique with a plan-
ning system the paradox described above can often be circum-
vented.   The marker-passer can also be used by the problem-
solver during "meta-rule" invocation and for finding certain
inherent  problems  in  plans.   An implementation of such a
system is discussed as are the  design  "desiderata"  for  a
marker-passer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
60
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 15:29:21 pst
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Frame Problem (UCB)
-BODY-
               BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
              Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B

      TIME:                Tuesday, April 9, 11 - 12:30
      PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center

SPEAKER:        Jerry Fodor, Philosophy Department, MIT and
                 UC Berkeley

TITLE:          ``Modules,  Frames,  Fridgeons,  Sleeping
                Dogs and The Music of The Spheres''

     This paper continues the discussion  of  the  frame  problem
from  The  Modularity  of Mind. It's argued that outbreaks of the
frame problem are characteristic of the study of unencapsulated -
hence  nonmodular  -  cognitive faculties, and that this explains
why the effects of the problem are felt much more  strongly  when
we  consider cognition and problem solving than when the topic is
perceptual  integration.  Since  unencapsulation  is  a   leading
characteristic of any process of rational nondemonstrative infer-
ence, it is argued that the solution of the frame problem is  not
dissociable  from  the  general  problem  of  understanding  such
processes. This rather gloomy assessment is  then  compared  with
views  current  in AI according to which resort to `sleeping dog'
strategies has already made it possible to circumvent  the  frame
problem. I argue that the proposed solution begs the problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 85  0000 PST
-FROM-
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Sequential Nature of Unification (SU)
-BODY-

CS Colloquium, April 9, 4:15pm, Terman Auditorium

                 ON THE SEQUENTIAL NATURE OF UNIFICATION

                              Cynthia Dwork
                  Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Unification of terms is a crucial step in resolution theorem proving, with
applications to a variety of symbolic computation problems.  It will be
shown that the general problem is log-space complete for P, even if
inifinite substitutions are allowed.  Thus a fast parallel algorithm for
unification is unlikely.  More positively, term matching, an important
subcase of unification, will be shown to have a parallel algorithm
requiring a number of processors polynomial in n, the size of the input,
and running in time poly-logarithmic in n.

This talk assumes no familiarity with unification or its applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 17:03:57 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Late-Bound Polymorphic Languages (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Mon., Apr. 8 Computer Science Seminar
  10:30 A.M.  STATIC TYPE ANALYSIS IN LATE-BOUND POLYMORPHIC LANGUAGES
  Aud. A      Late-bound languages are those which in some way
            permit the user to delay the binding of meanings to
            operation names until such time as the operation is
            actually to be invoked.  SIMULA is generally
            considered to be the first such language and several
            others, most notably Smalltalk, Zetalisp, and LOOPS,
            have been introduced in recent years.  These
            languages gain great flexibility from the
            programmer's ability to write procedures which work
            on a wide variety of kinds of data, each of which
            implements a small set of common operations in a
            data-specific way.  This kind of polymorphism,
            coupled with an inheritance mechanism for sharing
            code, has enabled the creation of powerful software
            in remarkably little time and space.  The price for
            this flexibility, however, has until now been the
            inability to formally reason about programs in these
            languages.  In particular, the lack of a decidable
            and sound system of static typechecking has prevented
            the application of even the simplest kinds of
            compiler optimizations.  In this way, late-binding
            has acquired a reputation for inherent slowness and
            impracticality.  My talk will examine the issue of
            static typechecking for these languages in detail.
            The Smalltalk-80 language is studied first, leading
            to an explication of both the major subtleties
            inherent in the problem and the picayune but
            crippling difficulties with Smalltalk itself which
            render static analysis in that language ugly and,
            ultimately, impracticable.  An approach to the
            problem and a new perspective on late-binding itself
            eventually emerge and, in the final part of the talk,
            these are applied to the design of a small,
            late-bound, polymorphic language.  I have constructed
            formal semantics and a provably-sound system for
            type-inference in this language.  These in turn have
            led to a type-assignment algorithm based on circular
            unification.

            P. Curtis, Cornell University
            Host:  J. Williams

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 1985 1621-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inclusive Predicate Existence (CMU)
-BODY-
APPLIED LOGIC SEMINAR

Speaker:  Ketan Mulmuley
Date:     Monday, April 8, 1985
Time:     2:00 - 3:15 pm
Place:    2105 Doherty Hall
Title:    A Mechanizable Theory For Inclusive Predicate Existence
ABSTRACT:

In denotational semantics inclusive predicates play a major role in showing
the equivalence of two semantics - one operational and one denotational, for
example - of a given language.  Proving the existence these inclusive
predicates is always the hardest part of any semantic equivalence proof.
Reynolds and Milne gave a general scheme for proving such existences.
However, because of the difficult nature of these proofs it soon became
desirable to have a mechanizable theory for such proofs so that the computer
could automate a large chunk of them.  We shall present one such theory and
see how it was implemented on top of LCF.

Moreover, we shall prove that this existence issue is indeed nontrivial
through diagonalization.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 7 Apr 85 13:23:27-CST
-FROM-
From: CL.SHANKAR@UTEXAS-20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The LCF Programmable Theorem Provers (UTexas)
-BODY-

Larry Paulson (Cambridge U.) on LCF, Tue April 9, 4-5pm, Pai 3.02

Abstract:  The LCF project has produced a family of interactive,
programmable theorem-provers, particularly intended for verifying computer
hardware and software.  The introduction sketches basic concepts: the
metalanguage ML, the logic PPLAMBDA, backwards proof, rewriting, and theory
construction.  A historical section surveys some LCF proofs.  Several
proofs involve denotational semantics, notably for compiler correctness.
Functional programs for parsing and unification have been verified.
Digital circuits have been proved correct, and some subsequently fabricated.

There is an extensive bibliography of work related to LCF.  The most dynamic
issues at present are data types, subgoal techniques, logics of computation,
and the development of ML.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Apr 1985 0912-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automated Programming (CMU)
-BODY-
Speakers:  Kent Petersson and Jan Smith
           Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Goteborg, Sweden
Date:      Tuesday, April 16
Time:      3:30 - 4:30
Place:     4605 Wean Hall
Topic:     Program derivation in type theory

In Martin-Lof's type theory, programs can be formally derived from
specifications.  When formulating a specification, predicate
logic is available by the interpretation of propositions as types.
Formulating the rules as tactics, programs are constructed "top
down."  These ideas will be illustrated by a derivation of a
program for the partitioning problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Apr 85 13:28:24 EST
-FROM-
From: John <Bresina@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mathematical Discovery and Hindsight (RU)
-BODY-

                          Machine Learning Colloquium

              MATHEMATICAL DISCOVERY AND THE HINDSIGHT CRITERION

                             Michael Sims, Rutgers

                                   Abstract

My  dissertation  research  is an investigation into the nature of mathematical
discovery, and this talk will concern the portion of that work related  to  the
understanding  of  the  relationship  between  changes  in representation and a
discovery systems performance.  More specifically, I would like to  define  new
concepts  in  such  a  way  that the resulting representation language leads to
better efficiency in  future  discovery  tasks.    I  will  suggest  a  general
principle  (Hindsight  Criterion),  which leads to greater future efficiency in
concept formation problems in an interestingness driven discovery  system.    I
will also indicate why this is expected to be true.

The  Hindsight  Criterion  says  that it is useful to define a new concept when
doing so will make an (already known) interesting expression simpler.  Although
this is a widely used criterion, my work indicates how Hindsight relates to the
complexity of the search for the original expression, as well  as  how  it  can
improve  the complexity of future discoveries in an actual discovery system.  I
will also discuss how Hindsight is being used to direct  concept  formation  in
the mathematical discovery system, IL, which I am currently implementing.

DATE:          Friday, April 19th
TIME:          11:00-12noon (talk); 12noon-12:30 (discussion)
PLACE:         Room 423, Hill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 1985 0828-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Foundations of Horn Logic Programming (CMU)
-BODY-

Speaker:  Vijay Saraswat
Date:     Monday, April 29, 1985
Time:     2:00 - 3:15
Place:    Scaife Hall 324
Topic:    On the foundations of (Horn) logic programming.


In this talk I present the classical (van Emden, Kowalski, Apt ...)
interpretation of  Horn logic (without equality) as a programming language.
In this view (computation as deduction), definite clauses are viewed as
specifications of recursively defined procedures.  The least fixed point of the
functional associated with these procedures (which can be captured by a form
of resolution known as SLD-resolution, i.e. non-deterministic procedure call
with parameter passing by unification) is then seen as precisely the extension
of the corresponding predicate in the initial model of the axioms.

Various operational notions of "negation" arise in this context, which can be
related to validity in certain Herbrand models, and I will
discuss them briefly.  I will also discuss recent work by Nait-Abdallah and van
Emden on the semantics of a certain kind of infinitary computation using Horn
clauses.

Finally, I will touch upon some "real" "logic" programming langauges such as
Prolog and Concurrent Prolog and show why the classical semantics is not
adequate.  For Prolog it only provides a notion of partial correctness, and for
Concurrent Prolog it just bounds the space of correct answers to a query, while
not telling us anything about whether the query might fail or not terminate.
Answering such questions leads to the application of more conventional
techniques from semantics of programming languages to (Horn) logic programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Apr 85 17:10:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Property Theory and Second-Order Logic (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                        THURSDAY, May 2, 1985

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall       ``Property Theory and Second-Order Logic''
     Room G-19          Chris Menzel, CSLI


               ``Property Theory and Second-Order Logic''

      Much recent work in semantics (e.g., Barwise and Perry, Chierchia,
   Sells, Zalta) involves an extensive appeal to abstract logical
   objects--properties, relations, and propositions.  Such objects were
   of course not unheard of in semantics prior to this work.  What is
   noteworthy is the extent to which the conception of these objects
   differs from the prevailing conception in formal semantics, viz.,
   Montague's.  Two ways in which they differ (not necessarily common to
   all recent accounts) stand out: first, these abstract objects are
   metaphysically primitive, not set theoretic constructions out of
   possible worlds and individuals; second, they are untyped--properties
   can exemplify each other as well as themselves, relations can fall
   within their own field, and so on.
      With properties, relations, and propositions playing this more
   prominent role in semantics (as well as in philosophy), it is
   essential that there be a rigorous mathematical theory of these
   objects.  The framework for such a theory, I think, is second-order
   logic; indeed, I will argue that second-order logic, rightly
   understood, just IS the theory of properties, relations, and
   propositions.  To this end, building primarily on the work of Bealer,
   Cocchiarella, and Zalta, I will present a second-order logic that is
   provably consistent along with an algebraic intensional semantics
   which yields significant insights into the structure of the abstract
   ontology of logic and the paradoxes.  Time permitting, I will apply the
   logic to two issues, one in semantics and the other in the philosophy
   of mathematics--specifically, to the analysis of noun phrases
   involving terms of order like `fourth' and `last', and the question of
   what the (ordinal) numbers are, to which I will give a logicist answer
   adumbrated by Russell.                               --Chris Menzel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
61
-DATE-
Date: 6 MAY 85 14:48-N
-FROM-
From: PETITP%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: more on machine translation
-BODY-
Here is a summary of the information I sent to Barbara Stafford concerning
Machine Translation. (cf her request in AIList V3 #54 and my note in V3 # 50)

To know what is beeing done on MT in Provo,Utah, contact Alan K. Melby at
Brigham Young University. Mr Melby works in the field of user interface for
MT and gave a paper at the ISSCO tutorial on MT: "Recipe for a translator's
workstation".

Here are ALPS and WEIDNER's address:
        Alps Systems
        190 West 800 North
        Provo, Utah 84601
        Tel: (801) 3750090

 Another commercial system I didn't mentionned was developped in Germany:
LOGOS (also quite primitive). Here is their address:
        LOGOS Computer Systems Deutschland Gmbh
        Lyoner Strasse 26
        6000 Frankfurt am Main 71
        Tel: (0611) 666 69 50
        Telex 4 189808

And also in Germany, Siemens just entered the market with
METAL (that I mentionned in AIList v3 #50). It was presented at the Hannover
fair this april.

In the ISSCO MT tutorial, the presentation by E.Ananiadou & S.Warwick ("An
overview of post ALPAC developments") might interest you: In that paper there
is a part on TITUS a french MT system for abstracts with a restricted syntax.
This might be close to your work.  Here is their address:
        Institut Textile de France
        35 rue des Abondances
        F-92100 Boulogne-sur-Seine (France)
        Tel: 825.18.90
        Telex: 250940

And some more reference to introductory readings in Machine Translation:

Kilby K.J., Whitelock P.J.
"Linguistic and computational techniques in Machine Translation system design.
> Final report", December 83
CCL/UMIST report 84/2
with description of the systems SYSTRAN, TAUM METEO,
TAUM AVIATION, GETA ARIANE-78, LRC METAL, Wilks' PS.
Centre for Computational Linguistics
University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
PO BOX 88
Manchester, England
(Pete Whitelock's network address is pjw%minim%umpa@UCL-CS.ARPA)

Veronica Lawson (Editor)
Practical Experience of Machine Translation
North Holland, 1982
(Papers from a conference given by the ASLIB)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 5 May 85 13:53:17 edt
-FROM-
From: gross@dcn9.arpa (Phill Gross)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NIM references
-BODY-
With a partner, I developed a learning Nim game as part of a project
for a AI course at George Washington University.  It was implemented
as a Collective Learning Automaton, a concept advanced by the instructor,
Peter Bock.  The CLA concept is rather simple.  It only works for small
state-space games where the current state representation contains all
information necessary to make the next move.  It also works best with
games like Nim that have a perfect playing strategy.  The automaton knows
the rules and begins by guessing moves.  An independent process watches
the action and rewards or punishes the automaton based on the result.  In
the next game, the automaton chooses moves based on what it 'learned' from
its previous experiences.  After a series of games, it homes in on the
correct strategy.

We matched our automaton against 4 levels of opponents- an expert,
another learner, a dummy (made legal but totally random moves) and a
'novice' (smart enough not to make random moves but hasn't really gotten
the hang of it yet).  Our interest was learning speed under various
reward/punishment regimes.

Despite the simplicity of the CLA model, some interesting, 'intuitively
obvious' anthropomorhisms were 'verified'.  For example, it always learned
quickly and perfectly against an expert.  Against the dummy, it exhibited
very confused behavior, characterized by slow, imperfect learning, since
it may be alternately rewarded and punished for the same move.
(The moral, I suppose, is if you want to learn a game, don't play against
schlubs).  It seemed that heavier punishment was more important when playing
against the novice or the dummy.  (ie, if a move loses against a dummy, it must
really be bad), whereas light punishment/heavier reward produced better
results against the expert (don't crucify the kid if he loses when he's
clearly out of his league).  Interestingly enough, learning was slowed
against the expert without at least a small amount of punishment
(constructive criticism?).

AI is by no means my main interest but I feel compelled to open myself to
flames by adding a couple comments.  The two AI courses I took (the other at
Penn State) were (charitably) the weakest courses I had in grad school.
While any good curriculum should include courses on topics like compilers
and operating systems, perhaps the state of AI today is such that it should
not be casually included just to broaden the course offerings.  It seems
that the AI frontier is pushing forward on two fronts- a rather esoteric
'high end' exploring things like vision, natural language understanding
and cognitive processes; and a more down-to-earth 'low end' dealing with
knowledge based systems and heuristic programming.  While the former mixes
a number of disciplines outside computer science and is best pursued as
thesis topics, I feel the latter could be taught to a bright class of
sophomores or juniors.  A manager of KBES projects noted to me that his
experience showed that if you give some expensive tools to a smart programmer,
send her to a two week course given by one of the vendors and then let'm
hack for a while, you've got yourself a 'knowledge engineer'.  If only
results in true AI could be achieved as readily.

All of this is a major digression from my original intent, which was to
add a few references to the Nim list.

 * 'Basic Computer Games', David Ahl, Workman Publishing Co., 1978.

 * 'Games of the World', Frederick Gruenfeld, Ballentine Books, 1975.

 * 'The World Book of Math Power', (Adjunct to the good old World Book
   Encyclopedia), Vol 2, "NIM", pp 667-671, 1983.

Anyone interested in CLA's should contact Peter Bock at GWU, since I
can't recall him giving references for his articles.  Regretfully (and
somewhat gratefully, since I really don't feel that we did much to push
forward the AI frontiers), neither the code nor our final report is available
online, nor do I have the time and resources to make it available by mail.

Phill Gross

  [Phil's approach sounds like the "learning machine" discussed in
  Martin Gardner's Scientific American column in March 1962.
  I remember inferring that something was wrong with my own NIM
  strategy after noticing that  1) my machine quickly learned to
  beat me whenever I started, and  2) it usually also beat me when
  it started.  That column got me interested in learning algorithms
  and, eventually, AI.  I still have the paper machine I constructed,
  along with the card-and-hole "logic machine" from the December
  1960 column.

  The NIM reference I gave earlier should have been W. Rouse Ball, not
  Bell.  I think I have his 13th edition packed away somewhere.  It
  also has interesting discussions of mathematical card tricks, string
  figures, and the Cambridge educational system -- much of which was
  omitted from later editions.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 7 May 85 18:25:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: SRIDHARAN@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Research Literature
-BODY-
I read an article in New Scientist (18 April 85) that ...

".. there are 2750 different mathematics research journals.  If you
conservatively estimate the annual contents of each to be, on average,
700 pages, this means that each year some 1 650 000 pages of mathematical
research are published.  One estimate puts the number of profesional
mathematicians in the world at 100 000."

Compared to this AI has I would guess has less than 2 dozen journals now
and about 1000 researchers (over-estimate).  In my mind, this
discipline, concerned with knowledge and reasoning, is just as
fundamental as mathematics - and I should like AI to be eventually (in
the next century) to be just as large.

One consequence of growth should be understood.  When someone writes a
paper, others may not actually read it, especially not right away.  I
think the time lapse between the appearance of a paper and its wide
appeal may grow QUADRATICALLY with the volume of publications.  I know
that I now take about 2 years to catch up with papers of interest to me.
A decade ago, I used to finish reading relevant papers in about 6
months.  For example, six months after the '73 and '75 IJCAIs, I had
managed to read or scan relevant papers from those proceedings.  Now,
I am behind even with AAAI-83 and -84.

All this says, we need to cultivate patience as the discipline grows!
The process of knowledge diffusion will take longer.  Our respective
distractions engendered by commercial/business hoop-la, only aggravates
this.  To do anything state-of-the-art, and to push the frontiers will
take more effort as time goes on.

People who write papers, now have an increased responsibility to do
more thorough checks of existing literature.  Given that we have the
use of very advanced computational tools, we ought to be able to do
this more thoroughly than most other disciplines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 May 1985 19:50-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanized Hypothesis Formation (SMU)
-BODY-
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern Methodist
University

TOPIC: Progress in Automated Research
SPEAKER: Dr. Fred N. Springsteel, Visitng Professor University of Missouri,
Columbia, Missouri
WHERE, WHEN INFO: Thursday May 9, 1985 1:30-2:30 PM Thursday May 9, 1985
315 SIC, Southern Methodist University


Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) is a lesser-known field that outgrew
the bounds of statistics.  Originated by J. W. Tukey in 1962, EDA works
toward an open-ended meta-goal: to discover "all interesting"
(nontrivial, normal form, valid) hypotheses about a domain that is
represented by a large scientific sample of data, e. g. a suburban
census matrix.  One very active brand of EDA is being purused by a
20-year-old Czech research circle that I visited in 1976.  Their EDA is
called Mechanized Hypothesis Formation (MHF); it can heuristically
generate-and-test many types of logical/statistical forms.

MHF algorithmic decision problems have been shown, by me, to have
complexities that swift shiftly from P-time to NP-hard (TCS '79 IJMMS
'81).  Users of such complex, multilevel software packages need expert
advice!  Lately, consulting system technics have been applied to make a
Test  Advisor for users, based on their special needs; it recommends
which statistic (of many) to run and how to parametrize the load
module.  A much larger project (GUHA-80) is planned, which hopes to
apply the results of AUTOMATED EDA to the big bottleneck in building
expert systems: KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 1985 2115
-FROM-
From: mcvax!enea!liuida!jbl@seismo.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Description - CS at Linkopings University, Sweden
-BODY-
                       [Edited by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The Department of Computer and Information Science at Linkopings University in
Sweden  announces  the  availability  of  postdoctoral research and sabbatical
leave  positions.  The  department  provides  a  wide  range  of  research and
educational  activities  as  indicated in the areas of faculty specialization.
The  university  is  located  in  the  town  of  Linkoping,  approximately 200
kilometers  south of Stockholm. Linkoping has a population of 120000 and is in
the  heart  of  the  rapidly expanding Ostergotland high technology industrial
area.  Linkopings  University  employes  approximately  1600  people  and  has
faculties  of  engineering, science, liberal arts, medicine and education. The
department  of Computer and Information Science has approximately 80 employees
(faculty,  staff  and graduate students) of whom 15 have attained the doctoral
degree.  [...]

Faculty members (for academic year 1984-1985)

Par  Emanuelson,  functional languages, program verification, program analysis
          and   program   manipulation,   programming  environments,  software
          engineering.

Peter  Fritzson  (on  leave to SUN MicroSystems during 1985), tool generation,
          incremental tools, programming environments.

Anders Haraldsson, programming languages and systems, programming methodology,
          program manipulation.

Roland   Hjerppe,   library   science   and  systems,  citation  analysis  and
          bibliometrics,   fact   representation  and  information  retrieval,
          hypertext, human-computer interaction and personal computing.

Sture  Hagglund,  database  technology, human-computer interaction, artificial
          intelligence applications.

Harold  W. Lawson, Jr. (Professor of Telecommunications and Computer Systems),
          computer  architecture,  VLSI, computer-aided design, methodology of
          computer-related education and training.

Bengt   Lennartsson,   programming   environments,   real-time   applications,
          distributed systems.

Andrzej   Lingas,   complexity   theory,  analysis  of  algorithms,  geometric
          complexity, graph algorithms, logic programming, VLSI theory.

Bryan  Lyles (guest researcher), computer architecture, VLSI, user interfaces,
          distributed systems.

Jan Maluszynski, logic programming, software specification methods.

Erik  Sandewall  (Professor  of Computer Science), representation of knowledge
          with   logic,  theory  of  information  management  systems,  office
          information systems, autonomous expert systems.

Bo  Sundgren,  database  design, conceptual modelling, statistical information
          systems.

Erik Tengvald, artificial intelligence, knowledge representation, planning and
          problem solving, expert systems.

Associated Faculty Members

Jan-Olaf  Bruer  (Dept  of Electrical Engineering), office automation systems,
          especially security issues.

Ingemar  Ingemarsson  (Professor  of  Information Theory), information theory,
          security  and  data  encryption,  error  correction  codes  and data
          compression.

Ove  Wigertz  (Professor of Medical Informatics), medical information systems,
          expert systems.

During the next academic year (85/86) additional Ph.D. faculty will be joining
the  department  in  the  areas  of  computational  complexity,  computational
linguistics, software engineering and computer systems.

Department and University Computing Resources

The  department has as research computers a DEC 2060, a DEC VAX11/780, several
SUNs, six Xerox 1108 InterLisp machines, and numerous smaller machines such as
PDP-11s   and  micro-VAXs.  Department  plans  include  significant  near-term
expansion of research computing.

Undergraduate  computing  systems include two DEC 2065s, a DEC 2020, a DEC PDP
11/70  and  PDP  11/73 running Unix, a large number of Apple Macintoshes and a
variety  of  small machines such as PDP 11s used for operating system labs. As
is  the  case  with  research  computing,  major  expansions  of undergraduate
computing  capacity  are planned in the near future. Since the total number of
undergraduates  enrolled  in  computer  related lines of study is less than at
some large U.S. universities, each student gets significant computer time.

Linkoping  is  part  of  the UUCP and SUNET networks. The campus is wired with
Ethernet  and  all  major  machines  are  connected  via TCP/IP, DECNET or XNS
protocols.

For  further  information  about  Linkoping  University  and the Department of
Computer and Information Science contact:

Graduate Division
c/o Mrs. Lillemor Wallgren
Department of Computer and Information Science
Linkopings University
S-581 83 Linkoping
SWEDEN

Telephone (+46) 13-281480
Telex:    50067 LINBIBL S
UUCP:     {decvax, seismo}!mcvax!enea!liuida!lew
ARPA:     LEW%LIUIDA.UUCP@SEISMO.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
62
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 May 85 10:31:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Simon MacDonald <munnari!simonmac@seismo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Book Review - Logic Programming Bibliography
-BODY-

        Logic Programming: a Classified Bibliography
                by I. Balbin, and K. Lecot.

This exciting area in computer science is growing very
quickly; so quickly in fact, that an overview of its
origins, seminal papers, landmark treatises, pioneering
articles etc., may be forgotten, or difficult to identify
and obtain.

Now, the authors of this comprehensive bibliography of well
over 1,600 entries have brought it all together, classed the
type of each paper or monograph into one of 18 broad
categories.  This is somewhat arbitrary, but very useful for
those wishing to cover a specific sub-topic.  If the item
covers more than one category, it is entered in each
relevant section.

The bibliography is more than twice the size of the one
which appeared in Journal of Logic Programming, and is very
recent.  It also has an author index, and subject index.
Approx. 330 pages, softcovers,laminated, burstbound.
Release date July 15, 1985.  Prepublication price of A$17.95
[Australian] is valid only until June 30th, 1985.

Publisher: WILDGRASS BOOKS, 289A Smith Street, Fitzroy,
Victoria, 3065, AUSTRALIA.  U.S. Distributor: Publishing
House, 210 Broad Street, Washington, NJ, 07882.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 8 May 85 22:58:07 cdt
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Proof of the Church-Rosser Theorem (UTexas)
-BODY-

         A MECHANICAL PROOF OF THE CHURCH-ROSSER THEOREM

                               by
                           N. Shankar


                      1 PM  Friday May 10
                            PAI 5.60


       The talk outlines a formalization and proof of the
Church-Rosser theorem that was carried out with  the  Boyer-Moore
theorem  prover.   This celebrated theorem on the Lambda Calculus
lacked a widely  accepted  proof  for  over  thirty  years.   The
mechanical  proof is based on the one due to Tait and Martin-Lof.
The proof  illustrates  the  effective  use  of  the  Boyer-Moore
theorem  prover  in  checking  difficult metamathematical proofs.
The above proof effort led to a much clearer understanding of the
proof  and  brought certain representational issues to light.  No
familiarity  with  the  Boyer-Moore  theorem  prover  or   Lambda
Calculus will be assumed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 10 May 85 17:08:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: WALDINGER@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanical Proofs in Metamathematics (SRI)
-BODY-
Wednesday, May 15, 4:15, in EJ232, SRI International
This is different from Shankar's talk at Stanford.


                 MECHANICAL PROOFS IN METAMATHEMATICS

                            N. Shankar
                    University of Texas at Austin
                            Austin, Texas

Metamathematics is a source of many interesting theorems and difficult
proofs.  Among these are theorems which express the soundness of
derived inference rules.  The talk will describe a formalization of
first-order logic within the Boyer-Moore logic and discuss some
well-known derived inference rules that were proved to be sound using
the Boyer-Moore theorem prover.  The most important of these is the
tautology theorem which states that every tautology has a proof.  The
proof of the tautology theorem will be discussed in some detail.  Such
proofs demonstrate a feasible way to construct sound, efficient, and
extensible proof-checking programs.  No familiarity with automated
theorem-proving will be assumed.


Visitors from outside SRI should come to the Engineering building
reception, on Ravenswood Avenue opposite Pine street.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 May 85 13:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logic Programming Environments (Penn)
-BODY-

A MODEL AND AN IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOGIC PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT
  Henryk Jan Komorowski (Harvard)
  10:30 May 17; room TBA, Moore School, Univ. of Pennsylvania

          It has been claimed that logic programming offers  out-
     standing  possibilities  for  new  concepts  in  programming
     environments.  But with the  exceptions  of  the  pioneering
     work of Shapiro on algorithmic debugging, Pereira's rational
     debugging and early work on  expert  systems  from  Imperial
     College,  there  has  been  little  progress reported in the
     field  of  logic  programming  environments.   This  summary
     describes our current work on a generic software engineering
     shell for logic programming.   We  use  reflection  and  the
     amalgamation of meta-level language with the object level to
     express   and   support   the   INCREMENTAL   character   of
     specifying/programming.  An  important facet of the shell is
     that we formalize some aspects  of  programming  methodology
     and provide heuristics for avoiding errors. These heuristics
     formalize what experienced programmers may already know.

          The shell bears similarities to an expert system  since
     it  has  explanation  mechanisms  and  provides programming-
     knowledge acquisition.  Currently, it supports  single  user
     Prolog  programming  and runs in C-Prolog. The shell is gen-
     eric in that it provides support for activities ranging from
     artificial  intelligence programming to formal specification
     development.

     This is a joint work with Shigeo Omori.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 1985  22:15 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Qualitative Causal Reasoning (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


    AI Revolving Seminar    Tues    5/14/85  4:00pm  8AI Playroom

            Qualitative Causal Reasoning in Diagnosis

                        Benjamin Kuipers


The classical approach to diagnosis in medical AI programs has been
based on accumulating confidence scores from weighted associations
between findings and diseases.  Some of the weaknesses in this
approach can be avoided by incorporating a "causal model" of the
mechanisms involved in the disease.  We have developed a causal model
representation based on qualitative simulation of the structures of
physiological mechanisms to yield qualitative predictions of behavior.
The causal model elaborates the diagnostic hypothesis and derives its
evolution through time from its primary causes.  We demonstrate QSIM,
an efficient, flexible algorithm for qualitative simulation.  QSIM is
a qualitative abstraction of differential equations, which makes it
possible to prove some useful properties.  We show some examples of
output from QSIM on significant physiological mechanisms, and we
demonstrate our progress toward integrating hypothesis evocation and
qualitative simulation into a single diagnostic system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 May 85 20:33:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI in Manufacturing Design (SU)
-BODY-
AI in Manufacturing and Design       Seminar May l5, l985

   2:l5 p.m.           Terman 2l7

Speaker:  Professor David C. Brown
          Worcester Polytechnic Institute


We are investigating the structure and operation of expert systems
for the design of mechanical components by computer.  As design
in general is a poorly understood activity we have chosen to limit
ourselves to a particular class of design activity, understand it
thoroughly, and built expert systems that simulate that activity
in a realistic way.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 1985 19:24-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI and Simulation
-BODY-
Southwestern Region Simulation Council Spring Technical Meeting

Artificial Intelligence and Simulation
May 16-17 1985
At: University of Houston/Clear Lake
    Bayou Building
    2700 Bay Area Blvd.
    Clear Lake/NASA JSC Area
    Houston, Texas

HIghlights: Thursday 11:00
  Dr. John Pinkston
  Vice President and Chief Scientist
  Micro-Electronics, Computer Technology Corp (MCC)
  Austin, Texas

  PROLOG Tutorial, Friday 9-11:15 AM
  Dr. Ralph Huntsinger
  Senior Vice PResident, SCS
  Professor of Computer Science
  California State University, Chico

Cost: $25.00 two days $15.00 one day students: $10.00

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 1985 16:09-EST
-FROM-
From: "George R. Cross" <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Law and Technology
-BODY-
========================================================
         Second Annual Conference on Law and Technology

Theme: Legal Language, Computational Linguistics,
       and Artificial Intelligence

Organizers:
        Dr. Charles Walter, Director
          Program on Law and Technology
        University of Houston Law Center
        Houston, Texas 77004
                713-749-1422
                713-749-4935

        Dr. Sidney Lamb, Chairman
        Department of Linguistics and Semiotics
        Rice University
        Houston, Texas

When: June 24-30, 1985

Where: University of Houston,
       Houston, Texas

Goal: To stimulate research between jurists, linguists, and computer
        scientists

Format: Tutorials, Research Presentations, and Workshops

         (Tentative) Schedule

Tutorials:
        June 24 A.M. Legal Language
        June 24 P.M. Programming the Law in PROLOG
        June 25 A.M. Natural Language Processing
        June 25 P.M. Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems

Original Research Papers:
        June 26-June 28

Workshops:
        June 28-30 Workshop Topics to be determined by Participants

Possible Sessions and Workshop Topics:
  --viewing legal language as the interface between legal concepts and
	  computer code
  --the language of justice and legal logic: Cardozo's methods of sociology
	  and philosophy
  --semantics of legal situations
  --viewing legal language as a computerizable process
  --structural & cognitive analysis of legal language
  --indeterminancy and uncertainty in legal language
  --the role of language in reasoning
  --linguistic & cognitive networks
  --computer-human interactions
  --understanding natural legal language
  --legal document analysis  & linguistic theory
  --automatic representation of semantic relationships
  --non-Von Neumann architectures
  --parsing natural language
  --the role of language in human reasoning.
=======================================================
Please contact Charles Walter for further information

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
63
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 9 May 85 09:21 CDT
-FROM-
From: David_Lagrone <lagrone%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Requirements Decomposition: Correctness and Consistency
-BODY-
Can someone help me with a solution or even an approach to a solution to
the following problem?

        Given a set of requirements; e.g., a requirements specification,
        and a "first-level expansion" of those requirements into a top-
        level design.  Can one "prove" or otherwise demonstrate whether
        the lower-level, more detailed requirements are a "necessary and
        sufficient" statement of the related higher-level requirement?

It has been pointed out that this problem may mean "are you trying
to find out if all requirements mentioned in higher levels are talked
about in lower levels (by actual presence)" or "if things mentioned
in lower levels contain the right content or meaning to fulfill higher
level requirements."

I am more interested in a solution to the "content analysis" problem; how-
ever, the "presence" problem needs resolution as well.

I would appreciate responses being sent to me at:

                        LAGRONE%TI-EG@CSNET-RELAY

Thank you, very much, for your time and help with this.

                                ...Regards...David LaGrone

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 May 85 16:14:56 est
-FROM-
From: "Marek W. Lugowski" <marek%indiana.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info-request: Connectionism and Parallel Distr. Processing
-BODY-
This is a general info request concerning the design of a graduate AI course.

Over here at Indiana University CS Dept. we are working on the updating our
AI curriculum with a graduate-level course to be called "Connectionism and
Parallel Distributed Processing".  A prerequisite for this course would be our
standard 2-semester sequence of AI courses taken both by undergraduates and
graduates.  It involves a hefty amount of programming in Lisp.  The new course
would have a programming project, too.  And now, the questions:

        (1)  Whose AI work do you feel is most appropriate for this course?
(We're thinking along the lines of the Hinton/McClelland/Rumelhart/Sejnowski/
Smolensky axis, and Hofstadter.  Others?)

        (2)  What textbooks, if any, would you recommend?  Or should the course
be based on papers?  Which ones?

        (3)  Could you recommend a course along those lines already taught
elsewhere?  Perhaps you could send us a course outline?

Thank you.  Please reply to me.  Will summarize if desired.   -- Marek Lugowski
                                                               IU CS Department
                                                            marek@indiana.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 8 May 85 18:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gibbons@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Binding: Walter Reitman
-BODY-

A friend of mine noticed an attempt to bind Walter Reitman in Volume 3,
Issue 47 of the AI digest. I can provide current information for you.

Walter spent some time at New York University and then, in the fall of
1983, became the department manager for the Artificial Intelligence
Department at Bolt Beranek and Newman in Cambridge, MA where he replaced
Bill Woods. In the fall of 1984, he left BBN to become the Vice President
of Palladian Software, Inc., also in Cambridge, where he has been, and is
responsible for, assembling the technical staff. Several other BBN
employees, some from the AI department (including myself), have since
joined Palladian as have others in the community.

For your information, Palladian Software is a well funded and fast growing
startup developing very sophisticated applications in the domains of
finance and manufacturing. We are constructing hybrid systems using
appropriate mixtures of both conventional and artificial intelligence
technologies. We are currently developing on Symbolics 3640's (every
developer has his/her own machine - and office).

If you wish to contact Walter, or Palladian, messages can be sent to me,
Jeff Gibbons. My arpanet address is Gibbons at MIT-MULTICS.

jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 9 May 85 12:16:06 edt
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn@tove>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nim
-BODY-
I know of two different games that are sometimes called "nim".  The first
one (the _real_ nim) involves splitting piles of sticks into smaller piles
of sticks in such a way the the smaller piles contain differing numbers of
sticks.

The second game involves removing various quantities of sticks from a pile of
sticks until none are left.  This game is called Bachet's game, but it has
sometimes incorrectly been called nim--even in such well-known books as
Horowitz and Sahni's "Fundamentals of Data Structures Using Pascal".

I imagine the request for information on nim programs was for the real nim.
But in the case of Bachet's game, it's trivial to tell whether a game
position is a forced win or forced loss (for example, see "Mathematical
Games and Pastimes" by Domoryad), and thus it's very easy to write a
computer program to play the game perfectly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 May 85 10:57:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Joe Karnicky <KARNICKY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prospector on a PC
-BODY-
     The April 29, 1985 issue of COMPUTER ENGINEERING contains the following
statement in an article entitled AI MOVES FROM LABS TO PERSONAL COMPUTERS

           "The power of AI is illustrated by Stanford Research International
        Inc.'s Prospector, a so-called knowledge-based system. Written in
        Lisp, it is considered a classic example of AI.
           This program, which integrated the knowledge of many US Geological
        Survey experts, was responsible for suggesting the existence of
        a molybdenum deposit in Cascades, Wash., a find estimated to be
        worth more than $100 million.   It also exemplifies AI's future
        direction.    The system can now be implemented on a personal computer
        for less than $3000 with available software."

   This rather startling statement deals with two issues about which I would
very much appreciate receiving information from readers of the AIlist:

   (1)  What exactly was the role of Prospector in this discovery?
Would the discovery have been made without the program?  How much of the
discovery was made by the program, and how much by the programmers?
If Prospector is so competent, are other geologists using it?   If not, why
not?    I've never seen a thorough discussion of these issues, and
responses by AIlist readers who are familiar with the project would be very
welcome.

   (2)  How good an expert system can be run on a pc using one of the
many commercial tools available?    What practical expert systems
have been created that run on pc's?   I've seen a lot of articles describing
expert system software for pc's, but what useful systems have been/can be
contructed?   It's a long jump from choosing a red wine with fish to
discovering a $100 million ore deposit.   Again, any information would be
appreciated.


  [I can provide a little info on the first query, although I
  have not been closely connected with Prospector.  First, SRI
  International has not been Stanford Research Institute since
  May 16, 1977.  Prospector was primarily developed by John
  Gashnig, Peter Hart, Dick Duda, and Rene Reboh, although others
  have contributed (including M. Einaudi, a USGS geologist).
  John died of lung cancer; Peter, Dick, and Rene have moved on to
  found Syntelligence.  Prospector lives on, but is not under active
  development; the original code has suffered from hardware changes
  and bit rot, but versions have been ported to many systems.
  I don't know whether USGS is adding additional mineral
  models to its repertoire.  The geologists working on the
  project seemed to feel that this was a useful exercise,
  whether or not the program ever became an expert geologist.

  As for it fitting on a PC, I'm not too surprised -- the core
  of the program is a [compiled] inference net that does not grow
  during execution.  About the only thing that does grow is the
  history list used for the explanatory capability.  I would assume
  that most of the difficulty in porting Prospector is in providing
  the software tools for editing graphs and knowledge bases.

  The story I heard about the molybdenum strike was that this
  particular site was fed into Prospector because geologists
  were already convinced that molybdenum should be there -- they
  just hadn't been able to find it over several decades of
  exploratory digging.  Humans were thus "responsible for suggesting
  the existence" of the deposit, as well as for loading in the domain
  models, probability functions, and field data.  What Prospector did
  was to highlight a spot under a large pile of tailings as being
  the best place to dig; sure enough, that's where the molybdenum was.

  A strike like that more than pays for the system's entire development
  cost, a fact which was not lost on the oil industry -- Schlumberger
  and others soon started large in-house projects.  The majority
  of people interested in Prospector, however, have been looking for
  an off-the-shelf expert system capable of reasoning in any
  domain.  ("Sure, we'll just rip out all that stuff about uranium
  and load in some knowedge about rubber tires.  Anything else?")
  There has been surprisingly little interest in supporting the
  development of new uncertain-reasoning techniques appropriate for
  other problem domains.  That is one reason Prospector has not
  been overtaken by a new generation of expert systems.

  Can anyone answer Joe's question about how sophisticated a PC
  expert system can be?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 May 85  13:30 EDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emotional Attachment
-BODY-

    From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA

    Bob Carter has answered Batali's objections
    to my "assault" theory better than I would have.  Thanks.

You are more than welcome.  The theory has a verisimilitude that
attracts me, and I look forward to reading your book when it is
published.

But I am bowing out of this discussion and leaving it to those who
prefer to see the world in clearer tones of black and white than
I do.

They are right.  Ideas @i(are) dangerous.

_B

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 May 85  8:57:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reason and emotion
-BODY-

Reason is a good servant but a lousy master.

Benjamin Franklin it was who said

    What a wonderful thing it is to be a rational being:  for we can
    make up a reason for whatever we have decided to do!

We have this truly marvellous ability to reason, and we use it most of
the time to rationalize.  We freely invent plausible premisses, complete
with supporting histories, to make our cherished beliefs into reasoned
conclusions.  We can do this only by maintaining selective ignorance, by
ignoring data that do not fit.

My own impression is that artificial intelligence systems mirror the
choices made by many persons who enter fields of science and
engineering, in that they model only the intellectual fraction of human
reasoning ability.

Human belief-disbelief systems depend upon a variety of logics.  (I am
thinking of research of Milton Rokeach.)  Emotions have their own logic,
and this logic drives our ratiocination far more than many of us are
comfortable acknowledging.

At the risk of being trite, let me affirm that there is nothing wrong
with emotional motivations or emotionally-directed reasoning.  It is
when we keep the emotional richness of our reasoning out of conscious
awareness that something is wrong, because we have hobbled ourselves.
Then there can be a great deal wrong with our reasoning and with our
responses to experience.  We cripple ourselves by cutting off a limb of
our reasoning ability, and then attribute our distress and dysfunction
to the alleged unruliness of the very limb we have tried to amputate.

Integration is not a matter of reconciling contrary things.  It is not
nearly so complicated.  Integration is rather a matter of recognizing
unity from multiple perspectives.  Binocular vision provides a
simplistic model.  With both eyes you see, not two conflicting images
somehow reconciled, but one image with depth added.  The third dimension
is not predictable from either single image by itself.  Allowing the
full breadth of our premisses and our logic brings the equivalent of
depth perception to our conclusions.  And to our belief-disbelief
systems.

The self-insulated intellect can be very alarmed by this kind of talk.
Quite emotional, in fact, in its cold, steely way.  How difficult it can
be to realize that this is not a Darwinian competition (poor Charles
Darwin!  He said that cooperation was far more important than
competition in evolution, but his audience heard what they wanted to
hear . . . ), not an either/or choice between intellect and that
nameless other, but the removing of a patch over one eye!

(Does the artificially intelligent computer look like a tyrannical
pirate to the nontechnical majority of the world?)

This relates very much to the `false sense of power' noted by M.
Schoppers (marcel@SRI-AI) in his note on `living programs' (3.45), to
our commonly shared Pollyana-ish beliefs about self and the world noted
by jmyers (3.56), and to the call for some reality-checking issued by
the rape survivor/counselor from Berkeley (3.56).

It is difficult to go through childhood without experiencing deep
humiliation--sometimes physical rape--at the hands of ignorant,
half-blind adults.  Because of its power, and especially because it
keeps reality at arms length, we often sieze upon intellectual prowess
as a means never again ever to be so humiliated.  Altogether too often
we carry with us a need to humiliate others `first'.  This may be
difficult to bring to conscious awareness in ourselves.  Until we do it
consciously, however, we cannot choose whether to do it or not.

And this ignorance is not bliss.

Something to consider during the discussion period after a paper or
research proposal has been presented!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7-May-85
-FROM-
From: Wolf-Dieter Batz  <L12%DHDURZ2.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: emotions & memory - public discussion
-BODY-
Hello,
  Thanks a lot to all the folks who replied to my last
advertisement in this place.

To everyone who's interested but still didn't write:
Please don't write to my personal address, but to the
Digest - I'm convinced that there is enough stuff in our
minds to be discussed in public. - ok?

Next point:

My thesis is written in German and is about 150 pages long.
Anyway it is stored on disk so that it can easily be
transmitted by means of network exchange. Such requests
will be answered as fast as possible, but in general I won't
transmit it all - so tell me about special questions.

So long Folks & kind regards *** Wodi <l12@dhdurz2.bitnet>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8-May-85
-FROM-
From: Wolf-Dieter Batz  <L12%DHDURZ2.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: C. Mason on Simulation of Human Understanding
-BODY-
While working in the field 'History of Memory Research'
I discovered the writings of J.F. HERBART, a German philosopher
living from 1776-1841.

Writing about 'Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegruendet
auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik' he didn't use
the term 'memory', although he dealt with various topics
of information processing.

My very personal opinion is now:

HERBART's theory is a theory of memory. He just uses various
synonyms for this term, like ideas, images and so on.
If one substitutes this synonyms with 'memory' he got it made!
This indicated to me that there's no possibility theorizing
about HUMAN Information Processing without refering to memory
mechanisms.

Anyway this is a debatable point, and I'm looking forward
to public replies to this proposal.


So long folks & kind regards *** Wodi <l12@dhdurz2.bitnet>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
64
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 85 18:06:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Louis Steinberg <STEINBERG@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PROLOG on INTERLISP/LOOPS
-BODY-
Can anyone point me to an implementation of PROLOG that will run on
a Xerox Lisp machine, i.e. is implemented in Interlisp-D or Interlisp-D
with LOOPS?  I know of Ken Kahn's version but that unfortunately does
not use standard LOOPS.  This is for an educational environment so
efficiency is not essential.  Also welcome would be advice on porting
some other, existing version.

                Lou Steinberg
                STEINBERG @ RUTGERS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 May 85 15:32:55 pdt
-FROM-
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machines
-BODY-
Anybody have any pointers to some good references for explaining the
architectural characteristics of a lisp machine, ie why do you need a
specific kind of machine, as opposed to a conventional computer, to run
lisp?

      Thanks,

            Curt Goodhart  (goodhart@nosc   ;on the arpanet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 May 85 10:23 EST
-FROM-
From: John N Frampton <frampton%northeastern.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Microcomputer Lisps comparable to GCLISP
-BODY-
I am writing a review of GCLISP for a computer magazine.  I have used
MULISP and IQLISP on an IBM PC previously but just found out yesterday
that there are several new Lisp implementations for the IBM PC which
are competitive with GCLISP.  I would appreciate very much getting a short
description of these products to include in the GCLISP review.  I would
have preferred to do a comparison, but it's too late for that.  At least
I can say what's out there.

I'd like a short description (better shorter and sooner than longer and later)
> particularly touching on the extent to which they implement Common Lisp
(if they do) and if they have a compiler.

Reply directly to me (and the board if you want).

                Thanks, John Frampton

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 13 May 1985 15:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: rh@Mitre-Bedford
-SUBJECT-
Subject: STATECHARTS
-BODY-

    Dave Harel was to have given a talk "Statecharts:  A Visual
    Approach to Complex Systems" last week at MIT.  I'd be interested
    in anyone's impressions who attended or otherwise knows about this
    work.  Are there any available references?

        Thanks,

        Rich Hilliard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 May 85 11:08:50-MDT
-FROM-
From: Pete Tinker <tinker@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Translation Update
-BODY-
A friend of mine who works as a consultant for Weidner informs me of some
corrections to the information posted by Petitpierre on Machine Translation.

Only the address for ALPS was given, but the message could be construed
to also be the address of their competitor, Weidner.  Weidner is no longer
in Provo, Utah, and is no longer called Weidner.  The correct name and address
are
   WCC
   Suite 300
   40 Skokie Boulevard
   Northbrook, Illinois  60062
   (312) 564-8122

Also, Siemens has an active MT group in Boca Raton, Florida;  LOGOS
does MT in Boston (Petitpierre mentioned only their European branches).
ISSCO is also in Sorrento Valley, California, but I don't know if they
work in MT there.

>Pete Tinker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 May 85 10:57:37-PDT
-FROM-
From: HART@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prospector on a PC
-BODY-
Ken,
        I saw a copy of the "Prospector on a PC" query, and thought your
AIList readers might be interested in the following clarifications and update.

        First, the role of Prospector in the famous molybdenum strike:
Unfortunately for journalists, an accurate account of the role played by
Prospector is not simply stated, and a simple account is not likely to be
accurate.  Prompted by the confusion surrounding these events (notwithstanding
a research report that appeared in Science in 1982), Dick Duda, Rene' Reboh
and I submitted a rather lengthy letter to the AI Journal that lays out the
details quite carefully.  Since the letter should be appearing shortly, and
in recognition of my own admonition about simple statements, I will say here
only that the evaluation of the moly prospect was intended purely as a
scientific experiment and that Prospector's predictions were confirmed to
a high degree by independent means.

        Second, Prospector's origins and descendants:  My first notes on
the subject date from early 1974, and were motivated by the early success of
MYCIN.  The project began in earnest in 1975, with Dick Duda, Nils Nilsson,
Georgia Sutherland and a geologist named Alan Campbell as the earliest
contributors.  Rene Reboh joined the project shortly thereafter, and John
Gaschnig a couple of years after that.  Since the earliest implementation
there have been many other contributors and any number of implementations
on other machines.  Some of the earliest small-machine systems were done
by Rene Reboh (on an Apple II) and by John Reiter on a PDP-11.  These and
other ports generally are not as powerful as the original PDP-10 version,
but have been useful nonetheless.  The USGS has done a port to the IBM/PC,
and Alan Campbell has done an independent port to the IBM/PC and is
marketing his as "The Deciding Factor."  Coincidentally, a user's review
of The Deciding Factor appeared in last Sunday's (May 12) San Jose Mercury
by Ray Levitt, a Civil Engineering professor at Stanford.  (He liked it,
by the way.)  I am told that some mining companies are interested in Campbell's
version;  however, any discussion of use by commercial companies must
begin with the recognition that the North American mining industry has been
in a severely depressed state for quite some years.

        The US Geological Service has an active program underway to extend
and use Prospector.  They have the PC version mentioned above, as well as
a Xerox 1108 version.  There are something like 30 - 35 models that have
been developed (a "model" is a major module of the knowledge base). The
Survey has used Prospector to evaluate mineral potential in Alaska and
in New England, and has stated (in writing) that the results obtained were
in their view superior to what would have been otherwise achievable.
(Incidentally, the USGS has a charter to assess resource potential over
large tracts of land rather than "to discover a mine".)   The Survey also
has some 8-10 models under active development for the PC version, and
is planning to use the 1108 version for geographically-organized data.
Finally, I am told that their systems and plans have achieved a very high
level of visibility and excitement in their parent agency, the Dept. of
Interior, although the current size of the effort is not large.

        Does this discussion answer the question of what a PC expert system can
do?  Obviously not, but I hope it adds more light than heat to the current
discussions.  In any case, a lot of the value of an expert system lies in the
knowledge base;  I agree with Karnicky's observation that, regardless of
implementation, it's a long way from choosing red wine to discovering an
ore deposit.

Cheers,
Peter

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 May 85 12:41:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright/Susie Barnes <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Diagnosing Multiple Faults (SU)
-BODY-
                             SIGLUNCH

DATE:           Friday, May 17, 1985
LOCATION:       Braun Audiltorium, Mudd/Chemistry Building
TIME:           12:05

SPEAKER:        Johan Dekleer
                Xerox

TITLE:          Diagnosing Multiple Faults


Diagnostic tasks require determining the differences between a model of
an artifact and the artifact itself.  The differences between the
manifested behavior of the artifact and the predicted behavior of the
model guide the search for the difference between the artifact and its
model.  The diagnostic procedure presented in this paper reasons from
first principles, inferring the behavior of the composite device from
knowledge of the structure and function of the individual components
comprising the device.  The novel contributions of this research are:

Multiple-faults: No presupposition is made about the number of failed
components.

Measurements: Proposes optimal measurements to localize the fault.

Probabilistic: A priori probabilities of component faultedness are taken into
account.

Intermittency: The approach is robust in response intermittent faults.

The system is based on incorporating probabilistic information into an
Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance System.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 1985 1429-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Fixpoint Extensions of First-Order Logic (CMU)
-BODY-

APPLIED LOGIC SEMINAR

Speaker:  Yuri Gurevich (University of Michigan)
Date:     Wednesday, May 15
Time:     2:00 - 3:15
Place:    5409 WeH
Topic:    Fixpoint extensions of first-order logic

In 1979 Aho and Ullman noted that the relational calculus is unable to express
the transitive closure of a given relation, and suggested extending the
relational calculus by adding the least fixed point operator.  From the point
of view of the expressive power, the relational calculus is exactly first-order
logic.  Aho and Ullman's paper triggered an extensive study of the expressive
power of fixpoint extensions of first-order logic with emphasis on finite
structures.  We survey the results of this study.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 1985 1433-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A New "Turing" Thesis (CMU)
-BODY-
JOINT LOGIC COLLOQUIUM

Speaker:  Yuri Gurevich (University of Michigan)
Date:     Thursday, May 16
Time:     2:00 - 3:30
Place:    4605 WeH
Topic:    A new thesis

Turing's thesis is that every computable function can be computed by an
appropriate Turing machine.  The informal proof of the thesis gives more:
every computing device can be simulated by an appropriate Turing machine.  The
following much stronger form of the thesis seems to be very much accepted
today:  every sequential computing device can be simulated by an appropriate
Turing machine in polynomial time.

Turing machines are computational devices with unbounded resources.  First, we
adapt Turing's thesis to the case when only devices with bounded resources are
considered.

Second, we define a more general kind of abstract computational devices, called
dynamic structures, and put forward the following new thesis:

Every computational device an be simulated by an appropriate dynamic structure
> of approximately the same size - in real time:  a uniform family of
computational devices can be uniformly simulated by an appropriate family of
dynamic structures in real time.

In particular, every sequential computational device can be simulated by an
appropriate sequential dynamic structure.

A contribution of Andrea Blass is acknowledged.  Descriptions of computational
devices are solicited for further confirmation of the thesis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 May 1985 1140-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Model Theory (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                           Department of Mathematics
                          CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIVERSITY


                      COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT - MODEL THEORY

                           Instructor:  Ana Pasztor


Textbook:  Model Theory, by Chang and Keisler, North Holland, 1973
When:   Fall 1985, MWF - 2:30-3:20, Porter Hall 125C
Note:   If you would like to take this course and have conflicts with the
        time, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.  (Room 7219 or phone x2558)
Course No., Credit, and Grade:  21-753, 12 Units, based on homework.
Aimed at:  those who have had a basic course in logic and are interested in
           broadening their knowledge.

What is model theory:

        Model theory is the branch of mathematical logic which deals with
relation between a formal language and its interpretations, or models.  We
shall study the model theory of first order predicate logic.

        Models are structures of the kind which arise in mathematics or
computer science.  To arrive at a model theory, we set up our formal language
of first-order logic by specifying a list of symbols and giving rules by which
sentences can be built up from the symbols.  The reason for setting up a formal
language is that we wish to use the sentences to reason about the models.

        Typical results of model theory say something about the power of
expression of first-order predicate logic.  Lowenheim's theorem, for example,
shows that no consistent sentence can imply that a model is uncountable, or
Morley's theorem shows that first order predicate logic cannot, as far as
categoricity is concerned, tell the difference between one uncountable power
and another.

        Model theory also gives methods of constructing models.  A special
attention will be given in this course to ultraproduct constructions and their
applications in mathematics and computer science.

        Much of model theory deals with the interplay of syntactical and
semantical ideas.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
65
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 May 85 21:51:31-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar and Conference Notices
-BODY-
The number of seminar notices varies with the academic season, but
clearly AIList is now carrying far more seminar and conference
announcements than two years ago.  Many readers have expressed
enthusiasm for the "clipping service" I have been providing, but
this material is now so overwhelming that it swamps other functions
of the discussion list.

A couple of weeks ago I asked for volunteers to forward bboard
messages from the major universities.  No one has volunteered.
I shall continue scanning the bboards for the present, but this
service will be dropped if either AIList or my professional
duties demand more of my time.

Steve Crocker has suggested to me that a separate list be split
off for seminar notices and [perhaps] conference announcements.
Then people could subscribe to the lists separately, and could
more easily archive and search just the data stream that they
find relevant.

I was originally opposed to such a split, but I have come to favor
it -- as long as someone else takes over distribution of the
seminar list.  I would provide the current distribution list,
and the new moderator could handle deletions and modifications
without much trouble.  New readers to either list would receive
a welcome message mentioning the companion list.  The new moderator
would be free to set his/her own policies about what to include
in the list.  Do I hear any volunteers?

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 May 85 16:59:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Procedural Logic (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]



                        THURSDAY, May 23, 1985

   12 noon              TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       ``A Procedural Logic''
     Conference Room    Michael Georgeff (SRI and CSLI), Amy Lansky (SRI),
                        and Pierre Bessiere (SRI)


      Much of our commonsense knowledge about the real world is concerned
   with the way things are done.  This knowledge is often in the form of
   `procedures' or `sequences' of actions for achieving particular goals.
   In this paper, a formalism is presented for representing such
   knowledge based on the notion of `process'.  A declarative semantics
   for the representation is given, which allows a user to state `facts'
   about the effects of doing things in the problem domain of interest.
   An operational semantics is also provided, which shows `how' this
   knowledge can be used to achieve given goals or to form intentions
   regarding their achievement.  The formalism also serves as an
   executable program specification language suitable for constructing
   complex systems.                     --Michael Georgeff and Amy Lansky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 May 85 14:32:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: Elliott Levinthal <LEVINTHAL@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning and Scheduling (SU)
-BODY-
SIMA`s final Seminar on AI in Manufacturing and Design will take
place next Wedneday, May 29th, at 2:l5 in Terman, Room 2l7.

Dr. Karl Kempf
McDonnell Douglas Research Laboratories
Principal scientist, Artificial Intelligence Group

The scheduling of tasks to be executed in the real world is difficult
because the world contains an inescapable element of unpredictability.
However much effort has been expended in preparing a schedule prior
to execution, surprises are virtually inevitable once execution
commences.  Additional difficulties are often encountered through
the unnecessary confounding of planning and scheduling.  Planning
requires knowledge of the capabilities of classes of resources while
scheduling uses knowledge of the availability of individual resources.
It is generally not possible for the planner to have, at plan time,
the timely data necessary for efficient scheduling.  The objective
of the research described here is the clarification of the differences
between planning and scheduling, and the development of a representation
for schedules which is robust in the face of real world unpredictability.
Examples are given for the off-line construction of schedules using both
domain-independent and domain-dependent knowledge, and for the
on-line real-time knowledge-based execution of schedules.  The examples
are drawn from robotic machine tending and robotic assembly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jun 85  0100 PDT
-FROM-
From: Arthur Keller <ARK@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Modal Temporal Logics (SU)
-BODY-

CS Colloquium, June 4, 4:15pm, Terman Auditorium

            MODAL TEMPORAL LOGICS: A SURVEY OF RECENT RESULTS

                              Daniel Lehmann
                            Hebrew University
                      (visiting Brandeis University)

In a joint work with S. Shelah, some extensions of the propositional
temporal logic of discrete time were advocated as useful for stating and
proving properties of probabilistic concurrent programs. Deductive
completeness theorems were proved. In a joint work with S. Kraus
corresponding decision procedures were investigated. Recently a system for
describing time and knowledge has been proposed. All those systems can be
characterized as two-dimensional modal logics, i.e. they involve two
essentially orthogonal modalities, one of them being time, that satisfy
some interchange law.  The techniques involved in studying such systems
and some open problems will be described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 May 85 16:59:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representations, Information, and the Physical
-BODY-           World (CSLI)

         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]



                        THURSDAY, May 23, 1985

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall       ``Representations, Information, and the
     Room G-19          Physical World'' by Ivan Blair
                        Discussion led by Meg Withgott


      The notions of representation and information have been much used
   in recent cognitive psychology and philosophy of mind, yet much
   remains to be done to determine more precisely what is meant by these
   notions, particularly in elucidating the basis of their
   intentionality.  I think that the place to start with an investigation
   of these matters is the analysis proposed by Howard Pattee.  Pattee
   has for a long time wrestled with the question of how symbols are
   related to their referents, and has tried to establish some general
   principles of the symbol-referent or symbol-matter relation.
      I shall attempt to do two things in this presentation.  Firstly, I
   want to explain as briefly as possible Pattee's view of symbolic
   information (information carried by a symbol or string of symbols) and
   the relation of symbolic information to the physical world.  Secondly,
   I shall consider a prominent theory of information -- Dretske's, as
   presented in his book, ``Knowledge and the Flow of Information''
   (1981), -- in the light of various results about the nature of symbols
   and information that emerge from Pattee's analysis.          --Ivan Blair

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 May 85 13:12:18 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logical Query Languages for Databases (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
                     [Excerpted by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  Mon., May 20 Computer Science Seminar
  10:30 A.M.  LOGICAL QUERY LANGUAGES FOR DATABASE SYSTEMS
  Audit. A     In an advanced form of relational database system, a
            collection of rules, probably Horn clauses, will
            stand between the user's query and the database.
            Because these rules may involve recursion,
            straightforward methods of query evaluation may not
            work, and a variety of strategies have been proposed
            to handle subsets of recursive queries.  We shall
            express such query evaluation techniques as "capture
            rules" on a graph whose nodes represent the rules and
            the terms in those rules.  Nodes may be "adorned" by
            codes for a limited number of special cases, such as
            an indication of which variables or arguments are
            free and which are bound.  One essential property of
            capture rules is that they can be applied
            independently, thus providing a clean interface for
            query-evaluation systems that use several different
            strategies in different situations.  Another
            important property is that we be able to test in
            polynomial time whether a capture rule applies, so
            that we can plan queries in less time than it takes
            to execute them.  We show how rules suggested
            previously can be fit into this framework, and we
            propose some new capture rules and generalizations of
            old ones.  In particular, a result with Y. Sagiv
            characterizes exactly the sets of rules for which a
            simple top-down query-evaluation algorithm with
            "sideways" passing of variable binding works.
            L. Naish gave an exponential algorithm to test
            whether this query-evaluation strategy works, but our
            theory provides a polynomial algorithm for the case
            when the number of arguments in predicates is
            bounded.  We also show that the problem is NP-hard if
            the number of arguments is part of the problem
            instance.  To apply top-down capture rules, we need
            to be able to prove convergence of certain
            iterations.  We therefore consider "unique" (logical)
            rules and the way that testing their convergence can
            be reduced to linear programming.  An algorithm
            developed with A. Van Gelder provides an even more
            efficient test for applicability of the top-down
            capture rule in the case of unique rules.

            Prof. J. D. Ullman, Computer Science Department,
            Stanford University
            Host:  P. Lucas (LUCAS@IBM-SJ.CSNET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 May 85 00:33:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symbolics Lisp Machine Users' Meeting
-BODY-
Early next month there will be a national Symbolics Lisp machine users
group in SF.  Details are in the two messages below.


Return-Path: <CMP.COHEN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Date: Mon 13 May 85 22:44:20-CDT
From: Rich Cohen <CMP.COHEN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Info on National Meeting

A complete agenda of the 1985 National SLUG meeting follows in a separate
message.  Printed copies of the agenda and registration form were mailed out
to people for who we had US Mail addresses.  Copies were also sent to all SLUG
leaders and to all Symbolics sales offices.  So, everyone interested should be
able to get a copy of the printed announcement and registration form from one
of those sources.

Summary:

The 1985 National Meeting of SLUG will be held Monday, June 3, and Tuesday,
June 4, at the Cathedral Hill Hotel in San Francisco.  There will be sessions
all day Monday and Tuesday, and round table discussions both Monday and
Tuesday evenings.

Symbolics will host a wine & cheese reception at their San Francisco Training
Center Sunday evening.

The hotel has agreed to hold open a block of rooms for SLUG until Friday May
17th.  There is still time to call for a reservation.  The rate is $75/single,
$85/double.  Please tell them you are with the Symbolics Users Group.

There is no registration fee.  No meals or proceedings are included.  (There
is no free lunch.)  However, please to register so that we can estimate
attendence and coordinate arrangemens with the hotel.  If possible, try to get
a copy of the registraion form, and mail it in.  If you can't get a form, just
send a letter or post card stating your intent to:

        SLUG '85
        c/o Tom Fall
        GTE Western Division
        M/S B 212
        100 Furgeson Drive
        P.O. Box 7188
        Mountain View, California  94039

See you in San Francisco!



Return-Path: <CMP.COHEN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Date: Mon 13 May 85 22:45:23-CDT
From: Rich Cohen <CMP.COHEN@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
Subject: Agenda for National Meeting


                                   SLUG '85

            THE 1985 SYMBOLICS LISP USERS GROUP NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

                    Monday, June 3 & Tuesday, June 4, 1985

                             Cathedral Hill Hotel
                                 San Francisco


This  is  the  planned  agenda for the 1985 National Symposium of the Symbolics
Lisp Users Group (SLUG).  The purpose of  SLUG  is  to  promote  communications
among users of Symbolics Lisp Machines, and between the users and Symbolics.


Non-technical sessions:

   - Corporate directions.
   - Company organization ... or "who to contact about what."
   - Field Service & Hardware Maintenance ... or "where the spares are."
   - Software  Support  ...  including HOSS, FOSS, and source distribution
     policies.
   - Questions for Symbolics Sales/Service/Management.
     General Question  &  Answer  session  with  Symbolics  managers  from
     Software  Products,  Documentation,  Field Service, Software Support,
     Education Services, Sales, and Marketing.


Technical Sessions:

   - Living with Release 6.0. Jon Balgley (Symbolics).   Now  that  you've
     gotten  the  tape, what do you do with it?  Discussion to include new
     features (such as Dialnet, the Mailer,  the  Document  Examiner,  the
     Command  Processor),  and  effects  on  user  code (e.g., coping with
     lexical scoping).

   - Technical Q&A.

   - Performance measurement and program tuning.  Dave Moon & Dave Plummer
     (Symbolics).

   - The  Symbolics  Window  System:    a  conceptual model with practical
     applications.  Rich Bryan & Jon Balgley (Symbolics).

   - 3600 Hardware Architecture.  Dave Stryker & Linda Birch (Symbolics).

   - Networks.  Charlie Hornig & Scott Matsumoto  (Symbolics).    Chaosnet
     support  under  VMS,  Berkeley UNIX; 3600 support for various network
     protocols, such as TCP/IP, DECNet, Symbolics Namespace Protocol.

   - Common Lisp.  Dave Moon, Dan  Weinreb,  and  Bob  Kerns  (Symbolics).
     Discussion  of the Common Lisp language definition, and how Symbolics
     Zetalisp, and Symbolics Common Lisp relate to it. (LISP in a changing
     world.)

   - Prolog and the 3600.  Bob Cassels (Symbolics).  The chief implementor
     of Symbolics Prolog talks about Prolog, LISP, and the 3600.


Round Table Discussions:

   - Tools for Building Expert Systems -- Some Practical Experience.   Tom
     Fall  (GTE),  chairman.    A discussion of users' experience building
     expert systems on the 3600; how they chose among the available tools,
     and their experience in trying to use the tools effectively.

   - Dealing  with  Symbolics:   What we really do in the field.  Ken Olum
     (Fairchild), chairman.  An open discussion with general users  and  a
     panel of people who manage and support large sites.

     Possible topics to be discussed:

        * User experience with hardware maintenance,
        * Service contracts vs. time-and-materials.
        * Installing new Symbolics releases -- how well does it work, what
          do you need to know besides what's in the installation guides.
        * Management of worlds, tapes, and disk space.
        * Installing larger disk drives.
        * Maintaining multiple releases at one time & migrating  from  one
          release to the next.
        * Sending bug reports and getting fixes from Symbolics.
        * Maintaining local patches and modifications to worlds.

SLUG Business Meeting:

   - SLUG Charter.
   - Election of officers
   - Establishing a program library.
   - Menu of our concerns & suggestions to be presented to Symbolics.


There  will  be  a  wine & cheese reception Sunday evening at the San Francisco
Symbolics Training Center (a few blocks from the hotel).  The session  schedule
is  not  complete,  but  we  expect  to  hold  sessions both Monday and Tuesday
evening.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
66
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 85 14:48 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Caswell <caswell@nswc-wo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Exploring Language with Logo
-BODY-
Last November, a seminar on material from a forthcoming book, "Exploring
Language with Logo", by Paul Goldenberg and Wallace Feurzeig, was announced
in this list.  The book was to be published 'first quarter, 1985' by Harper
and Row, and I have not seen anything about it since.  Has it been published,
or is it otherwise available?                               Bill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 1985 1951-EDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: trwatf!maverick@seismo.ARPA (Mark D. Grover)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Binding - Mark Grover
-BODY-
Binding:  Mark D. Grover
Formerly:              TRW Defense Systems Group (Advanced Technology Facility)
                       Fairfax, Virginia [trwatf!maverick@SEISMO]
Beginning 5/24/85:     Advanced Information & Decision Systems
                       Washington technical office [Arlington, Virginia]

New ARPAnet address:   GROVER@AIDS-UNIX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 18:43:10 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: STATECHARTS reference
-BODY-
Here's the reference:

Harel, D.
Statecharts: A Visual Approach to Complex Systems
CS84-05, Department of Applied Math, Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot, Israel. 1984.  35pp.

Harel's developed a nice notation for complex finite-state machines
by making use of hierarchic states, allowing both XOR-decomposition
of a state (i.e. the system's in one & only one of the substates)
and AND-decomposition (i.e. the system's in a state defined by the
cross product of the substates).  By defining some other conventions
about transition arcs, the result is surprisingly compact and
expressive.  However, his discussion of adding actions to arcs and
states seemed a bit less elegant.  Worth a look.

Incidentally, Harel's netadress is harel%wisdom@WISCVM.ARPA ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 85 08:27 PDT
-FROM-
From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machines
-BODY-
In reply to curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@Nosc>

You don't need any specific kind of machine to run lisp. There are lisp
implementations for lots of machines. Some of them can be quite fast.
Specialized instruction sets for Lisp allow you to get performance
without declarations, to retain full information for symbolic debugging,
better garbage collection performance, and the ability to retain
run-time type-checking even in performance critical loops.

Memory utilization is generally much better; for example, the last time
I measured, Interlisp-D programs took less than half the bytes to
represent than the same programs on a VAX,  and CDR-coding allowed the
average size for a CONS cell to be 36 bits rather than 64. Lisp machines
can afford to use compact data structures because the instruction set
can be designed to deal with them; "conventional" instruction sets
generally cannot be skewed to make otherwise obscure manipulations
(fetch bits 4-5 and branch if 0) into single operations.

All of the lisp machines on the market come with software as well as
hardware. Dedicated machines allow the implementation of integrated
environments and high performance graphical interfaces which are
generally unavailable on conventional computers. The software
enviornment can be major portion of the "value added" of the system; the
proportion is likely to continue as hardware costs drop.

What is true of larger machines today will be true of smaller ones in
the future; while prices of all computer components drop, so do the
prices that people expect to pay for them.

The earliest reference I've found is Peter Deutsch's paper, "A Lisp
machine with very compact programs," IJCAI 1973. "Programming
environments" are quite popular these days, with whole conferences
devoted to them, although most of the papers spend their time extolling
individual environments rather than the notion of them.

There are other justifications more recent found in the marketing
literature of various vendors, written to make sure that its clear that
each is the best.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 18 May 85 12:17:18-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI's Explorer won Industrial Design Awards
-BODY-
    [ from the Austin American Statesman - May 18 ]

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS' AUSTIN-developed EXPLORER artificial intelligence
workstation has received one of 23 Industrial Design Awards given by
ID Magazine.  More than 800 entries were judged on innovation,
problem-solving, aesthetics, materials and use of the products.
The computer also won a design award in a competition at the
Hannover Trade Fair in West Germany.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 May 85  9:28:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@BBNCCH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: indignation and clarity
-BODY-
        From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA> (the Midnight Theorizer)

    I have some doubts about that part of AI which asserts the validity
    of scientific inquiry that gathers "data" by introspection.  But I
    have even greater doubts about moral indignation as a criterion for
    rejection of hypotheses (or of humor, for that matter).

Chomsky has argued that introspective data are necessary for a science
of language.  His followers and apostates have demonstrated how
hazardous they can be.  His teacher, Zellig Harris, has shown that
appeals to introspective data can be well defined and few with no loss
to linguistic science.

As to moral indignation, it is possible to read this message and wonder
whether it is allowed any legitimacy, and to ask under what circumstances
the writer would find moral indignation appropriate.  I believe this would be a
misreading of the message, but nonetheless a possible reading.

Ambiguity is ineluctable.  I believe we have to anticipate, insofar as
is possible, the ways in which we may be misconstrued, and make our
communications clear IN TERMS APPROPRIATE TO THE MISCONSTRUING AUDIENCE.
To insist that the burden of rightly understanding rests alone on those
who have misunderstood is practically to guarantee a failure of
communication.

There is another well-known mechanism in which a social level of
communication is incongruent with a psychological level.  A simple
example is the stereotype that has been made of Bateson's work on the
double bind (Mother says `I love you, come here' while appearing fearful
and angry, or in a context that punishes the child).  The communication
that is not consciously acceptable to the sender is kept out of the
sender's awareness.  The receiver must choose which message to believe
and act on consciously, and believes and acts on the other message
unconsciously.

Most miscommunication, it has been argued, occurs when people make
different choices about which parts of the complex message are socially
acceptable and which are not.  And people often vigorously resist
recognizing the beliefs and disbeliefs that they have been communicating
and otherwise acting on out of conscious awareness.

The `talking past each other' that we have just seen on this list
concerning rape and humor has this character.

By the way, I recommend Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind,
for a perspective on belief-disbelief systems that would be useful for
modelling human `knowledge bases'.

        Bruce Nevin (bn@bbncch.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 May 85 04:52:50 est
-FROM-
From: "Marek W. Lugowski" <marek%indiana.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emotion & AI and its discussion on the AIList
-BODY-
The discussion of emotion in the context of AI can be of benefit to us all.
For too long, AI has equated thinking with "reasoning", where reasoning is
a something, and entirely apart from a something else called "passion".  This
dichotomy is Plato's, and likely an AI liability, given the affective basis
for one's actions and one's interpretation of actions.  Judgement as such
crucially depends on emotional state, as psychiatrists well know.  Judgment
is what yesterday's Shakey the Robot lacked, and what today's naive physics
is ostentatiously after.  Alas, nothing's changed:  Each confines itself to
the rigid minuet of "reasoning" devoid of emotional context.

Incidentally, the AIList-Digest's discussion of emotion has been stirring up
ideas in the classical vein of emotional muckraking, not so much dispassionate
analysis.  What's needed is computational ideas on how to model emotions: to
start with, in a "toy" domain.  And don't assume that they are if-then rules!

                                        -- Marek Lugowski
                                           marek@indiana.csnet
                                           Indiana U. CS Department
                                           Bloomington 47405

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 13 May 1985 23:34:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Journal - AI in Engineering
-BODY-

A new journal on the applications of AI in Engineering will be launched at
the First Conference on Applications of AI in Engineering next April.
Details of the journal are provided below. The deadline for sending papers
for the first issue is  November 15, 1985.



                      International Journal for
                ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ENGINEERING

Editors:
     D. Sriram                          Dr. K. J. MacCallum
     Dept. Civil Engineering            Dept. of Ship & Marine Tech.
     Carnegie-Mellon University         Marine Technology Centre
     Pittsburgh, PA 15213               100 Montrose Street, Glasgow
     USA                                Scotland

Recent  advances  in  the applications of artificial intelligence (AI)
are begining to make a major impact in the world of engineering. As  a
consequence,  important  opportunities  for  using computers to tackle
engineering problems in new  ways  are  opening  up.  The  engineering
industry  must  keep  itself  fully informed of these developments and
contribute to them, if  it  is  to  realize  the  potential  of  these
advances.

The  aim  of  this  journal  is  to  establish  a forum for a fruitful
exchange of ideas  through  the  publication  of  up-to-date  research
results  and recent developments. While the range of AI topics covered
by the journal is broadly based, the emphasis will be on research  and
development  leading  to problem solving. The journal should appeal to
engineers  for  all  disciplines  who  are   involved   in   research,
development or implementation of computer systems.

Members of the journal's leading international Editorial Board will be
responsible  for the review of all papers submitted for publication to
ensure that readers receive a consistently high  quality  of  work  in
each issue.

>From  time  to  time  review  papers  will  be  published  to  provide
state-of-the-art analyses of various areas  of  current  interest.  In
addition  the  journal  will  provide a review of books and reports in
this expanding field as well as news letters, and a dairy of events of
conferences, courses and meetings in AI.

FIELDS COVERED

   - Expert systems
   - Knowledge representation
   - Knowledge-based simulation
   - Computer aided design
   - Design modelling
   - Cognitive modelling of engineering problems
   - Learning
   - Computer based training
   - Intelligent tutors
   - Robotics
   - Planning and scheduling
   - Constraint management
   - Natural language applications
   - Database interfaces
   - Graphical interfaces
   - Computer integrated manufacturing

REGULAR FEATURES

   - Discussion of published papers
   - Conference and meeting reports
   - Personalia
   - Letters
   - Book reviews
   - Current literature
   - Calendar of events
   - News

POLICY AND CALL FOR PAPERS

The editorial policy encourages the publication of  research  articles
on  recent advances in AI in engineering. State-of-the-art papers will
also be included from time to time. Details on presentation of  papers
for consideration of publication can be obtained from the editors.

SUBSCRIPTION

This  journal  will  keep  you  abreast  with  the  major research and
development work  around  the  world  in  AI  applied  to  engineering
problems. The editors and their international Editorial Board are well
placed  to  keep  you  informed in these rapidly developing field. For
more details contact:

          Lance Sucharov
          Publishing Director
          CML Publications
          Ashurst Lodge
          Ashurst
          Hants SO4 2AA
          England

For  a  author's  tookit (in US),  write  to  D. Sriram  or   send   mail   to
sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa.

  [The subscription price has not yet been determined.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
67
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 May 85 14:41:54 -0200
-FROM-
From: mcvax!vu44!klipper!biep@seismo.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cooking Knowledge
-BODY-
Doing research on collaboration between robot systems, we need to
implement knowledge about cooking. I've heard that long, long ago,
a group in San Diego worked on that, and that some Mrs. Cordier in
Paris has done research in that field.
Does anyone have more information on these, or on other projects
using cooking knowledge, or does someone have any ideas about the
subject which might be useful?

Thanks,
                                                          Biep.
        {seismo|decvax|philabs|garfield|okstate}!mcvax!vu44!klipper!biep

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 May 85 15:06 CDT
-FROM-
From: Patrick_Duff <pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: a "new" turing thesis
-BODY-

> From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
> Subject: Seminar - A New "Turing" Thesis (CMU)
>
> ....  Turing machines are computational devices with unbounded resources.
> First, we adapt Turing's thesis to the case when only devices with bounded
> resources are considered.

    When I studied Turing machines in an AI course I took back in college,
this had already been done.  Here is a summary of the four types of Turing
Machines (with various bounds on the available resources), from my class
notes [if you have any corrections or additions, please send them to me]:

TYPE 3 TURING MACHINE:
   Description:
      1)  Tape has finite length;
      2)  Control unit has one read head and no write heads;
      3)  Read head is initially positioned at beginning of tape;
      4)  Read head cannot be moved backwards;
      5)  Control unit is deterministic;
      6)  Control unit has finite memory.
   Remarks:
      1)  Recognizes exactly all regular languages;
      2)  Making control unit non-deterministic does not increase power;
      3)  Equivalent to a finite-state automaton;
      4)  Able to decide whether a number is odd, compute the sum of two
          numbers, or decide whether a number is divisible by 3, for instance.

TYPE 2 TURING MACHINE:
   Description:
      1)  Tape has finite length;
      2)  Control unit has one read head and no write heads;
      3)  Read head is initially positioned at beginning of tape;
      4)  Read head cannot be moved backwards;
      5)  Control unit is deterministic;
      6)  Control unit has finite memory.
      7)  Control unit has a push-down stack.
   Remarks:
      1)  More powerful than TYPE 3;
      2)  Recognizes exactly all context free languages;
      3)  Making control unit non-deterministic does not increase power.
      4)  Ability to read any position in push-down stack would make it more
          powerful;
      5)  Letting read head move both ways adds power;
      6)  Letting head read and write adds power--more powerful than even
          without the push-down stack;
      7)  If a second push-down stack is added, it can do anything a TYPE 0
          can do;
      8)  Using a single counter instead of a push-down stack is more
          powerful than TYPE 3 but less powerful than TYPE 2 [could check
          for an arbitrary string of symbols on tape or see if parentheses
          are balanced, for instance].

TYPE 1 TURING MACHINE:
   Description:
      1)  Tape has finite length;
      2)  Control unit has one read/write head;
      3)  Read/write head is initially positioned at beginning of tape;
      4)  Read/write head can be moved both forwards and backwards;
      5)  Control unit is deterministic;
      6)  Control unit has finite memory.
   Remarks:
      1)  Recognizes context sensitive languages;
      2)  Also called a linear bounded automata;
      3)  Adding multiple tapes does not increase power;
      4)  It is not known whether a non-deterministic control unit increases
          power.

TYPE 0 TURING MACHINE:
   Description:
      1)  Tape has infinite length;
      2)  Control unit has one read/write head;
      3)  Read/write head is initially positioned somewhere on tape;
      4)  Read/write head can be moved both forwards and backwards;
      5)  Control unit is deterministic;
      6)  Control unit has finite memory.
   Remarks:
      1)  Adding multiple tapes does not increase power;
      2)  Adding multiple read/write heads does not increase power;
      3)  Adding push-down stack does not increase power;
      4)  Non-deterministic control unit does not increase power;
      5)  Infinite memory control unit does not increase power;
      6)  Able to determine whether a number is prime or whether a program
          has infinite loops, for instance;
      7)  Claimed to be "an adequate and complete model of processes
          that can be carried out mechanically (effective processes)"
          [Church-Turing thesis].

   regards, Patrick

   Patrick S. Duff, ***CR 5621***          pduff.ti-eg@csnet-relay
   5049 Walker Dr. #91103                  214/480-1659 (work)
   The Colony, TX 75056-1120               214/370-5363 (home)
   (a suburb of Dallas, TX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 May 85 00:46 EDT
-FROM-
From: Henry Lieberman <Henry@OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers cheat at chess?
-BODY-

The chess columnist of the Boston Globe wrote an article claiming that computer
programs cheat in chess tournaments! He had two arguments for this:

 * Tournament rules forbid the players to use an extra board to move pieces
while considering their moves during the game. He argued that tree searching of
moves in computer programs constitutes using an extra board.

 * Tournament rules forbid the players to consult books during the game.
Most programs rely on a book to play openings.

These arguments seemed silly to me at first, but on reflection, I think he
might have a point, especially with the second point about book openings.
It might be worthwhile to try human-computer chess tournaments with relaxed
rules that, for example, permit the human to consult a book of openings, or
even better, the same on-line data base of openings that the program uses.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 18:01:50 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher at mit-htvax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Revolting Seminar - Qualitative Calculator
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

DATE:   Friday, 17 May
TIME:   12 NOON
PLACE:  8th FLOOR PLAYROOM
HOST:   Michael Kashket

    QUALITATIVE CALCULATORS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

                 (-:    Tex Tuftsman    :-)

The classical approach to decision analysis in medicine has been
based on constructing decision trees, giving numerical weights to
outcomes, and banging away at the keys of an ordinary 16-key
calculator to choose between appropriate therapies.  Some of the
weaknesses in this approach can be avoided by using a QUALITATIVE
CALCULATOR (c) from Ronco.

Envision yourself with a QUALITATIVE CALCULATOR (c) -- A QUALITATIVE
CALCULATOR especially designed for Naive Physicists.  Comes with [+],
[-], and [0] keys, plus a Clear key and a DeClear key.  Was $20.99,
marked down to [+].  But wait -- There's more!  Qual before [0] tonight
and get a free State Map for your locality.  Operators are standing by!
Don't miss this landmark value!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 19 May 85 18:02 EDT
-FROM-
From: jcma@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Constraint-Interpreting Reference (MIT)
-BODY-

                             AI REVOLVING SEMINAR

                          John Mallery (JCMa@MIT-MC)

                     "Constraint-Interpreting Reference"

                         Tuesday, May 21, 1985 at 4pm

                       8th Floor Playroom, AI Laboratory, MIT

        This talk will discuss the theory of reference used in the Relatus
Natural Language System, an AI program developed at the MIT AI Laboratory in
collaboration with Gavan Duffy.  Relatus parses sentences and uses a reference
system to incrementally construct a semantic model.  The reference system
matches graphs and creates (interns) graph structure in a semantic network.
The separation of the constraint interpreter from specific constraints
describing the matching problem yields various benefits.  For instance:

*  Matching speed is independent of database size, normally faster than linear
   in the size of the smallest accessible set of potential referents.

*  A powerful and extensible constraint language provides the ability to
   describe an infinite number of matchers, each tuned to recognize and prefer
   specific structures.

In addition to the theoretical ideas, some practical uses of the implemented
reference system will also be discussed:

*  It is regularly used in intersentential reference, finding references
   to previously interned descriptions in new sentences.  Relatus can
   presently parse and reference a 10-page text (250 sentences) in under
   10 minutes while running on a Symbolics 3600 (1536K real memory).

*  It is regularly used to answer literal and explicit questions.  The
   approach to question answering depends on both the reference system and a
   procedure which is actually the inverse of reference.  Semantic inversion
   builds constraint descriptions from the graph structure previously created
   by the reference system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 May 85 13:32:05 pdt
-FROM-
From: (Frank Olken [csam]) olken@lbl-csam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Exceptions in Data/Knowledge Bases (LBL)
-BODY-

                      CSRD Colloquium
                Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

 **********************************************************

       Living with Exceptions in Data/Knowledge Bases

 **********************************************************

                     Alexander Borgida
               Department of Computer Science
                     Rutgers University

The ``schema'' of a large database is usually used to  vali-
date  the  data  being  entered and to help set up efficient
access structures.  Because the  real  world  is  irregular,
unpredictable  and  evolves,  we  contend  that  useful data
management systems,  including  large  ``knowledge  bases,''
must  be tolerant of deviations from the constraints imposed
by the schema, including type and  semantic  integrity  con-
straints.  We   therefore  examine  the problems involved in
accommodating exceptions to constraints, and propose a solu-
tion  based on the concept of exception handling in Program-
ming Languages.  This technique can also  be  used  to  deal
with  problems  such  as  null  values and estimates, and in
addition has good Software Engineering properties.  We  con-
clude  by  discussing  the  formal  logic of assertions with
exceptions, and hint at the utility of exceptions  in  data-
base re-design through learning.

          Wednesday, May 22, 1985, 2:00pm - 4:00pm
           Bldg. 50D, Room 116 - Conference Room

For further information, call Harry Wong at (415) 486-6884.  Dept. of
Computer Science Research; LBL; One Cyclotron Road; Berkeley, CA
94720.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
68
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 1985 12:03:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: conery%uoregon.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming
-BODY-
                        -- Preliminary Schedule --

                -- 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming --

For more information, contact:
        John Conery  (jc@uoregon.csnet)    503-686-4408
        Jacques Cohen (jc@brandeis.csnet)  617-647-3370

MONDAY, July 15

Tutorials  (Two parallel sessions, 9:00 - 4:30) (Two more tutorials on Friday)

"Expert Systems Using Prolog", Bob Kowalski, Imperial College
"Parallel Logic Programming", Gary Lindstrom, Univerity of Utah

8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.  Early Registration and Reception

TUESDAY, July 16, 1985

  8:00 a.m. -  9:00 a.m.  Registration

  9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.  KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Robert Kowalski, Imperial College
                          London, England

 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.  PARALLELISM
                          Semi-intelligent Backtracking of Prolog Based on a
                          Static Data Dependency Analysis, Jung-Herng Chang
                          and Alvin M. Despain, University of California,
                          Berkeley

                          User-defined Parallel Control Strategies, J. I.
                          Glasgow, M. A. Jenkins, and C. D. McCrosky,
                          Queen's University, Canada

                          AND-parallelism with Intelligent Backtracking for
                          Annotated Logic Programs, J. Maluszynski, Linkoping
                          University and P. Dembinski, Chalmbers University of
                          Technology, Sweden

 2:00 p.m. -   3:30 p.m.  EXTENSIONS
                          An experiment in Programming with Full First-Order
                          Logic, Zerkis D. Umrigar and Vijay Pitchumani,
                          Syracuse University

                          A Meta-Level Extension of Prolog, Kenneth A. Bowen,
                          Syracuse University, and Tobias Weinberg, Digital
                          Equipment Corporation

                          Logic Programming Cum Applicative Programming, Nachum
                          Dershowitz and David Plaisted, University of
                          Illinois at Urbana Champaign

  4:00 p.m. -  5:30 p.m.  LANGUAGE ISSUES
                          On the Treatment of Cuts in Prolog Source-Level
                          Tools, R. A. O'Keefe, University of Edinburgh,
                          United Kingdom

                          All Solutions Predicates in Prolog, Lee Naish,
                          University of Melbourne, Australia

                          Unification-free Execution of Logic Programs,
                          Jan Komorowski, Aiken Computation Laboratory,
                          Harvard University and Jan Maluszynski,
                          Linkoping University, Sweden


Wednesday, July 17, 1985

 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.  INVITED SPEAKER
                         Dr. Herve Gallaire, European Computer Research
                         Center, Munich, West Germany

11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.  CONCURRENT PROLOG
                         Concurrent Prolog in a Multi-process Environment,
                         Rosanna Lee and Randy Goebel, University of
                         Waterloo, Canada

                         A sequential Implementation of Concurrent Prolog
                         Based on the Shallow Binding Scheme, Toshihiko
                         Miyazaki, Akikazu Takeuchi and Takashi Chikayama,
                         ICOT, Japan

 2:00 p.m. -  3:30 p.m.  SEMANTICS
                         The Declarative Semantics of Logical Read-only
                         Variables, G. Levi and C. Palamidessi,
                         Universita'di Pisa, Italy

                         Narrowing as the Operational Semantics of Functional
                         Languages, Uday Reddy, University of Utah

                         Towards an Algebra for Constructing Logic Programs,
                         R.A. O'Keefe, University of Edinburgh, United
                         Kingdom

 4:00 p.m. -  5:30 p.m.  IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
                         A Microcoded Unifier for Lisp Machine Prolog, Mats
                         Carlssn, Uppsala University, Sweden

                         SLOG: A Logic Programming Language Interpreter Based
                         on Clausal Superposition and Rewriting, Laurent
                         Fribourg, Laboratoires de Marcoussis, France

                         A Real Time Garbage Collector for Prolog, Edwin
                         Pittombils and Maurice Bruynooghe, K.U. Leuven,
                         Belgium


Evening Banquet
Speaker                  Dr. Maurice Wilkes, Digital Equipment Corporation

Thursday, July 19, 1985

 9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.  THEORY
                         Recursive Unsolvability of Determinacy, Solvable
                         Cases of Determinacy, and Their Applications to
                         Prolog Optimization, Jajime Sawamura and Taku
                         Takeshima, International Institute for Advanced
                         Study of Social Information Science, Japan

                         Graph-based Logic Programming Interpreters, Jean
                         Gallier and Stan Raatz, University of Pennsylvania

                         Surface Deduction: A Uniform Mechanism for Logic
                         Programming, P. T. Cox and T. Pietrzykowski,
                         Technical University of Nova Scotia, Canada

11:00 a.m. -  1:00 p.m.  SPECIAL TOPICS
                         Towards a Programming Environment for Large
                         Prolog Programs, Jan Chomicki and Naftaly H.
                         Minsky, Rutgers University

                         Modular Logic Programming of Compilers, Harald
                         Ganzinger and Michael Hanus, University Dortmund,
                         West Germany

                         An(other) Integration of Logic and Functional
                         Programming, Amitabh Srivastava, Don Oxley and
                         Aditya Srivastava, Central Research Laboratories,
                         Texas Instruments, Inc.

                         A Technique for Doing Lazy Evaluation in Logic,
                         Sanjai Narain, Rand Corp.

FRIDAY July 19

Tutorials:  (Two concurrent sessions, 9:00 - 4:30)

"Concurrent Logic Programming Techniques", Ehud Shapiro, Weizmann Institute
"Prolog and Software Engineering", Susan Gerhart, Wang Institute.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 1985 17:39:24 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tutorials on Computational Linguistics: July 8
-BODY-

TUTORIALS ON TOPICS IN COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS

The conference schedule for the 1985 Association for Computational
Linguistics is now available.  The conference will be held July 8-12 at
the University of Chicago, with the first day devoted to Tutorials in
Computational Linguistics, described below.

Each tutorial is a presentation of the state of the art in an important
area of computational linguistics--not just the speakers' work on the
subject--the whole range of approaches being actively pursued.



PARSER CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
Jonathan Slocum,
MCC Corporation

The tutorial on Parser Construction Techniques will cover, briefly,
the various approaches to parsing (algorithms) and implementation
methodologies; included will be discussion of matters relating to
runtime (CPU) performance.  Focus will then shift to matters
concerning the user interface: what tools ought to be provided to the
linguist/developer, and how those tools can be tied to the central
parsing program.  Several different parsers employing the same user
interface will be introduced (and their source code distributed in
the handout).


It will be assumed that participants are somewhat familiar with LISP,
that they know enough about formal linguistics to understand such
concepts as "context free," context sensitive," and "phrase structure
grammar," and that they know what is meant by "parsing" and related
technical terms from the computational perspective.




PROLOG WITH NATURAL-LANGUAGE EXAMPLES
Dr. Fernando C.N. Pereira, SRI International

The logic programming language Prolog is becoming an important tool in
artificial intelligence and, in particular, in computational
linguistics.  This tutorial is intended as an introduction to Prolog and
its programming methodology.  Rather than making an abstract
presentation of the language, we will build up a vocabulary of Prolog
programming concepts and techniques by examining a progression of
examples that show how Prolog can be used in simple
natural-language-analysis tasks.  Topics covered include facts and
queries; rules; the logical variable; terms as structured information;
unification; axiomatization of phrase-structure grammars;
definite-clause grammars; the Prolog execution model; control mechanisms
(sequencing and cut); metalogical operators and alternative execution
models; program transformation and embedded formalisms; the relation
between Prolog and logic programming.

Although there are no formal prerequisites of this course, some
familiarity with elementary concepts of logic and traditional syntax
would be useful.



UNIFICATION APPROACHES TO GRAMMAR
Stuart M. Shieber, SRI International

Current trends in syntactic theory and computational syntax seem to be
converging toward a type of grammatical formalism based on complex
feature systems and an operation called "unification."  This tutorial
presents this approach to the syntax and semantics of natural language.
Beginning with a characterization of the principles that underlie
grammar formalisms in general, a particular simple formalism based on
these ideas will be derived.  Its relation to many of the currently
prevalent unification-based grammar formalisms--including functional
unification grammar, lexical-functional grammar, head grammar,
generalized phrase-structure grammar, and definite-clause grammar--will
be explicated as more general or more particular variants motivated by
linguistic or computational considerations.  Finally, the manner in
which these approaches may be applied to the modelling of a number of
linguistic constructs will be described, and the implementation of such
formalisms discussed briefly.

A very rudimentary knowledge of traditional syntax is recommended as a
prerequisite of the course.  Familiarity with Prolog, definite-clause
grammar, or elementary logic would be helpful, but is not essential.
Although intended as a sequel to Fernando Pereira's "Prolog with
Natural Language Examples," this tutorial can be taken independently.



NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACES
Norman K. Sondheimer, USC/ISI and
Madeleine Bates, BBN

This tutorial will outline the role of natural language interfaces
in man-machine interaction: their uses, limits, and technology.  These
systems allow a user to communicate with a computer in much the same way as
he communicates with other humans.  To date, english language interfaces to
databases have achieved the greatest commercial success, but interfaces for
other languages and applications, such as spreadsheet packages, are emerging.

There are at least as many implementation technologies as systems: syntactic
grammars, semantic grammars, conceptual parsers, pattern matchers, etc.
Each has its strengthens and weaknesses.  The greatest variability is found
in language coverage, ease of developing new applications, and, of course,
cost.  Current research promises to improve the integration of natural
language with other types of interfaces and support extended human-machine
conversations.  Nevertheless, they will not be appropriate for every
application.  The purpose of this tutorial will be to introduce the
technology and allow the attendee to evaluate the alternatives.



WHO SHOULD ATTEND: designers, managers, and users of human-machine
interfaces.  This tutorial is aimed primarily at the individual who requires
the information to understand or evaluate natural language interfaces, but
who is not now a natural language processing professional.  It should also
be of use to more experienced individuals seeking a survey current applied
state-of-the-art.

About the instructors: Dr. Norman Sondheimer is a computer scientist at the
University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute and past
President of the Association for Computational Linguistics.  His research has
been into natural language understanding.  Dr. Madeleine Bates is one of the
primary architects of BBN'S IRUS, a highly advanced nl system, and has
developed other systems in speech understanding, text generation, intelligent
computer assisted instruction, interfaces to databases and human factors
studies.  She is currently President of the ACL.  Both instructors have more
than a decade of research and development experience in AI and have authored
numerous publications.


SPEECH RECOGNITION AND SYNTHESIS
Dr. Jared Bernstein
SRI International

Dr. Beatrice T. Oshika
System Development Corporation

The tutorial will include a review of commercial speech recognition and
synthesis products, metrics for evaluation, and research issues crucial
to continued development.  The synthesis section will discuss the
linguistic and phonetic problems to be solved in designing
text-to-speech systems, including letter-to-sound conversion, prosodic
assignment and spectral composition.  The recognition section will cover
the problems associated with modelling continuous speech, including
discussion of phonological variation, lexical retrieval and matching,
and control structures required to handle multiple sources of knowledge.
Familiarity with phonology and data structures is helpful but not
required.


Dr. Jared Bernstein is a Senior Computer Scientist at SRI International
working on applied speech recognition projects, and has ten years
experience in speech synthesis and speech processing.  At Telesensory
Systems he led the effort that resulted in the Prose 2000 text-to-speech
converter.  Prior to that he was with the MIT Speech Communication Group
working on speech perception, phonetics and the analysis of deaf speech.

Dr. Beatrice T. Oshika is manager of the Research and Development
program at System Development Corporation and has seventeen years
experience in linguistics and speech processing.  At Speech
Communications Research Laboratory she was responsible for formulation
and testing of phonological rules in conversational speech as part of the
DARPA Speech Understanding Research program in the 1970s.


Each tutorial is a half-day in length.  They cost only $50 each,
including handouts.  The conference brochure and registration form for
both the tutorials and the paper presentations are available from

Don Walker
Bell Communications Research
445 South Street, MRE 2A379
Morristown, NJ 07960 USA

on the ARPANET: bellcore!walker@berkeley.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
69
-DATE-
Date: Tue 21 May 85 10:03:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright/Susie Barnes <WRIGHT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Acquiring Control Knowledge in BB1 (SU)
-BODY-

                           SIGLUNCH

DATE:          Friday,  May 24, 1985
LOCATION:      Braun Auditorium, Mudd/Chemistry Bldg.
TIME:          12:05

SPEAKER:       Mike Hewett
               Knowledge Systems Laboratory

TITLE:         MARCK:  A Module for Acquiring and Refining
                       Control Knowledge in BB1


     MARCK is the first step in exploiting the capabilities for
knowledge acquisition and learning within the BB1 blackboard
architecture.   MARCK automates the role of a BB1 knowledge
engineer by assisting the expert with defining, formulating, and
integrating new control knowledge into a knowledge base during
a problem-solving session.

     While running a system in BB1, an expert may take an action
which indicates that some piece of control knowledge is missing.
MARCK uses its knowledge of the control architecture in BB1 to
guide the expert toward identifying the missing knowledge.  It
then uses a set of data analysis routines and a library of generic
heuristic forms to postulate some applicable control heuristics.
Although MARCK has no knowledge of the domain, it can generate
domain-dependent control knowledge.  MARCK communicates to the
expert through a translator which converts heuristic forms and
LISP code into English sentences.

     MARCK is currently being used in the PROTEAN project at KSL
and several examples will be presented where MARCK has formulated
important and useful pieces of control knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 22 May 85 17:10:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computers and Emotion (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             *NEXT* THURSDAY, May 30, 1985

   12 noon              TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       ``Computers and Emotion''
     Conference Room    Discussion led by Helen Nissenbaum


      Emotion is an integral part of human consciousness. Yet common
   practice in AI takes its ideal to be an intelligent, goal-driven agent
   entirely devoid of passion.  The assumption behind the practice is
   that emotionless intellect is possible, and that a purely cognitive
   agent is a valid abstraction from the total human individual.  The
   TINLunch, inspired by a TINLunch held October 13, 1981, titled ``Will
   Robots Need Emotions?'', probes the AI assumption.  I offer the
   following as starting points for the discussion:
      - What would it take to have a computer with emotions?
      - Why worry about this?  A passionless automaton is fully rational
   and far better off for not having emotions.  (Too bad we humans suffer
   this affliction.)
      - These are idle speculations.  A sufficiently complex robot, that
   could truly be said to understand and be goal-driven, will, of
   necessity, have emotion, no matter what the intentions of its
   creators.
      Background readings are excerpts from Hume's ``Of the Passions'',
   Jerome Shaffer's ``An Assessment of Emotion'' and TINLunch Outline
   ``Will Robots Need Emotions?'' by A. Archbold and N. Haas.
                                                        --Helen Nissenbaum

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 May 85 18:36:12 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge, Beliefs, Time and More Puzzles (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193


  Wed., May 29 Computer Science Seminar
  10:30 A.M.  KNOWLEDGE, BELIEFS, TIME AND MORE PUZZLES
  Cafe. A     In "Knowledge, Common Knowledge and Related Puzzles,"
            PODC 84, a logical system for formalizing reasoning
            about knowledge and time was proposed.  Ongoing
            research around this system will be described and
            touch on subjects such as:  restrictions on how one
            may acquire knowledge, surprises, beliefs, and
            knowledge about time.

            Prof. D. L. Brandeis
            Host:  J. Halpern (HALPERN@IBM-SJ)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 85  0000 PDT
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Functional Programming and the Logical Variable (SU)
-BODY-
Thursday 6-6-85, 11am in MJH 352

                FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING AND THE LOGICAL VARIABLE

                                Gary Lindstrom
                        Department of Computer Science
                              University of Utah
                          Salt Lake City, Utah 84112

Logic programming offers a variety of computational effects which go beyond
those customarily found in functional programming languages.  Among these
effects is the notion of the "logical variable," i.e. a value determined by the
intersection of constraints, rather than by direct binding.  We argue that this
concept is "separable" from logic programming, and can sensibly be incorporated
into existing functional languages.  Moreover, this extension appears to
significantly widen the range of problems which can efficiently be addressed in
function form, albeit at some loss of conceptual purity.  In particular, a form
of side-effects arises under this extension, since a function invocation can
exert constraints on variables shared with other function invocations.
Nevertheless, we demonstrate that determinacy can be retained, even under
parallel execution.  The graph reduction language FGL is used for this
demonstration, by being extended to a language FGL+LV permitting formal
parameter expressions, with variables occurring therein bound by unification.
The determinacy argument is based on a novel dataflow-like rendering of
unification.  In addition the complete partial order employed in this
proof is unusual in its explicit representation of demand, a necessity
given the "benign" side-effects that arise.  An implementation
technique is suggested, suitable for reduction architectures.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 May 85 11:49:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: johannes@BRL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Applications of Expert Systems
-BODY-
The U. S. Army Research Office is sponsoring a Summer Workshop on
Application of Expert Systems.  The workshop will be held on July 16,18
1985 at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia.

The workshops objective is to assess the application of expert systems
to military applications and to identify the state-of-the-art and research
needs.  Particular emphasis shall be given to diagnostic and automatic
test applications.
The four main topics for discussion in the working sessions are:
1.  Preventive maintenance  -- Prognostics
2.  Diagnostic maintenance
3.  Automatic logistics planning
4.  Automatic training


The keynote speaker for the workshop will Lieutenant General Robert Moore
Deputy Commander for Research Development and Acquisition - US Army Materiel
Command.


The workshop attendance is limited to 50 participants from the US Army
industry, and academia.  The program will consist of invited and
submitted papers.  A 200 word abstract must be submitted to the program
committee prior to June 15, 1985 for consideration.
Abstracts should be sent to Dr. Johannes of the Program committee.
The author will be notified of acceptance of the paper and particpation
by June 21, 1985.

Accepted papers will published in the proceedings of the conference
and will be allocted a maximum of five pages.

Program Committee
Dr. J. D. Johannes    Dr. C. R. Green          Dr. W. M. Holmes
Univ of Alabama       US Army Research Office  US Army Missile Command
Computer Science      Electronics Division     Redstone Arsenal, AL
Huntsville, AL        P.O. Box 12211           35898-5252
35899                 Research Triangle Pk.
                      NC 27709-2211
205-895-6255          919-549-0641              205-876-1048

johannes@brl-bmd.arpa  green@brl-bmd.arpa       holmes@brl-bmd.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
70
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 May 85 18:27:14 pdt
-FROM-
From: Cindy Mason <clm@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reasoning by Analogy
-BODY-
Does anyone have a bibliography (preferably refer format) or references
for reasoning by analogy?  I'm especially interested in learning by
analogy, but any nice articles relating to this area would be helpful.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 1985 at 1634-EDT
-FROM-
From: jim at TYCHO.ARPA  (James B. Houser)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Language Translation
-BODY-

        Has any work been done in the area of machine  translation  of
functional languages into procedural languages?  As an example LISP ->
C or PROLOG  to  ADA.  At  first  glance  it  seems  useful  but  also
potentially very tricky transformation.

        Also do any reasonable C compilers/environments exist for LISP
Machines?  I  have  heard  rumors  that something is available for the
CADR.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 1985 1547-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lee Brownston@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Book
-BODY-
            Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

"Programming Expert Systems in OPS5: An Introduction to Rule-Based
Programming," by Lee Brownston, Robert Farrell, Elaine Kant, and Nancy
Martin, is scheduled to be published by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
on May 31 at a list price of $35.95.

The blurb from Addison-Wesley's flier for Spring 1985 says the following
about this book:

   Presents practical techniques for rule-based programming of
   expert systems in OPS5.  This comprehensive book will prove
   itself indispensible to the experienced programmer.  The first
   section of the book is a tutorial, teaching both the OPS5
   language and effective programming techniques.  The development
   of a small, self-contained OPS5 programmed is followed from
   problem definition to testing.  The second section takes a
   broader view, considering the nature of production-system
   architectures and comparing OPS5 with other tools for
   programming corporate systems.

It is also the only book-length treatment of OPS5 and production-system
programming.    [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 85 14:14:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim <WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Animal Cognition
-BODY-

   For those of you who missed the symposium on "The Question of Animal
Cognition", which was presented by the psychology department in early May,
I've written a paper which is somewhere between a transcription of the
notes I took and an informal summary of the proceedings of that symposium.
This is on
        <Weinrich>ANIMAL.SYMPOSIUM
in case anyone is interested in reading it.

   Twinerik

  [I can mail a copy to interested readers who can't FTP it. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 May 1985 0734-PDT
-FROM-
From: MEYERS%UCI-20A@UCI-ICSA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computers cheating in chess
-BODY-

I think there is a misconception about what it means for a computer to
"use a second board" and for a computer to have access to a book of
openings.

We don't penalize a human who has memorized a book of openings, and
we don't penalize a human who can using several "mental boards"..

I think it is proper to regard the computer memory as analogous to the
human chess player's mind -- we should not penalize the computer for
having perfect rote memory and for perfect ability to "mentally"
visualize the chess board, just as we allow any mental capabilities
and mental acts of the human chess player.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 May 85 07:40:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: cheating at chess
-BODY-
>   * Tournament rules forbid the players to consult books during the game.
>  Most programs rely on a book to play openings.

This raises some interesting points.  It seems that the thrust of the
rules is that a player should play with no "external" help - ie the
player is expected to rely solely on his/her/its internalized
knowledge of the game.  For humans, the interpretation is clear -
ie I assume it would be cheating if a human utilized *any*
externally recorded knowledge or advice (say on a handy micro).

But what interpretation can this idea have for a computer?  Well,
there is a long tradition of referring to "external" storage,
ie disk, drum, and tape.  Conversely "main" storage (known as "core"
to the old-timers) does really seem to be "inside" of the computer,
more an intrinsic part of it.

Sooo... rather than bend the rules to allow humans to cheat also,
why not restrict computers to the use of internal storage during
play? ie they can load up from disk, tape, whatever, but once the clock
starts, we unplug all the I/O ports, and may the best rational agent win.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 May 85 15:08 IDT
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <vshank%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor
-BODY-
>From Datamation - March 15, 1985 - page 166:

AI YI YI

The following can be attributed to a novice system with an ignorance
base and an unnatural language interface, programmed to produce
Artifical Humor (AH).

Of a planning aid using AI,
A customer said with a sai,
"If they think we know whai,
We decide what to trai,
There's no chance that their product will flai."

After giving a robot AI,
An inventor rushed out the next dai.
With a tear in his ai,
He gave a sad crai,
"I've made a machine that can lai!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
71
-DATE-
Date: Fri 31 May 85 22:54:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mailer Problems
-BODY-
SRI-AI has been down for five days, since Sunday morning.
If you have sent mail to AIList during that time, you
should probably send it again.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 30 May 85 11:47:54-EDT
-FROM-
From: John R. Kender <KENDER@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Scrabble
-BODY-

What is the state of the art in computer Scrabble?

I am aware of a company called Ritam that produces a device called
Monty that is "pretty good", according to the president of the
Scrabble Players' Club.  I have no idea what, if any, AI techniques it
uses.  Further, the Club president knows of no tournaments involving
computers.  At first glance this does not appear because the game
would be trivial to program, rendering computers invincible to humans
or making games between them boring.

My interest is more in using the game as a task domain in an AI
course.  Thus:

     o  What work has been done?  References?  Software?  Anecdotal
        remarks?

     o  How deep is the strategy of the game: is it more on the level of
        blackjack, or of go?  Are there commonly known or articulated
        heuristics?  How far ahead do human players look?  Is a multi-
        handed game qualitatively different from a two-handed one?

     o  Assuming a word data base, is Scrabble a game of difficulty
        appropriate to the level of a homework assignment?
        a term project?  a Master's degree project?  Would it be worth
        doing:  are their sufficiently interesting issues of representation,
        search, and control that are not overwhelmed by bookkeeping details
        or brute force methods?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 85 06:35:12 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: zim@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: size of self-reproducing system; intelligence?
-BODY-

  Q:  What's the minimum "size" for a self-reproducing thing?  For an
"intelligent" thing??
  These are half-baked questions and I need help in sharpening then up.
Maybe this subject has been all worked out and all I really need is a few
pointers to the appropriate literature?  I don't know...  Here are some
preliminary thoughts, to clarify the question I'm trying to ask:
  A measure of "size" probably needs to include the complexity of the
environment ... for instance, a virus takes advantage of a highly-ordered
set of cell mechanisms and can reproduce with only a few thousand (or so?)
bits of information ... its "size" measure should be bigger than the amount
of DNA in it might seem to imply.  All living creatures make use of some
of the physical laws of the universe (mostly chemistry), and should be
charged some for that in "size" measure ... though they probably shouldn't
be charged for remote-seeming physics such as general relativity, high-energy
particle physics, etc. (On the other hand, maybe the information "cost" of
those theories is tiny compared to the more immediate environmental "size"
around a living cell??)  The problem is to define a "relevant" environment.
  Self-reproducing cellular automata that I've heard of seem to
generally require billions and billions of cells or so (as in
Conway's LIFE); they live in a very simple universe, where there is almost
no information stored in their environment.  On the other hand, most of
the self-reproducing automata I've seen are quite huge and inefficient,
because they're structured to be comprehensible to people....
  Are the questions of self-reproduction and intelligence related?  I'm
thinking vaguely about notions of Godel's theorem, complexity of human
brains, self-reference, etc.  Maybe an appropriate size measure would come
out about the same for a single cell and for a brain??  Presumably brains
should be charged for their structure, not for the details of how neurons
metabolize, in a size measure....  On the Godel's theorem again, the coding
schemes needed in producing the self-referential statement typically seem
to require really huge numbers (unless a lot of information is hidden
somewhere else).  Maybe one could define "intelligence" in terms such as
"capable of formulating Godel's theorem", or some other definition (with
malice aforethought) to make the self-reproducing size measure come out
the same as the intelligence size measure?
  So to restate the question, can one define an appropriate measure and prove
that any self-reproducing (or intelligent?) system has to be at least of a
certain size?
  This might have interesting implications as to how hard it will be to make
AI systems with human-like consciousness ... how many logic elements or gates
will be required, how many gigaflops (or gigalips) are needed to think at a
human pace, etc....
  -zim@mitre


  [I remember John DeVore at K-State building a self-replicating
  2-D binary pattern as his master's project circa 1978.  I'm sure it
  had millions of cells rather than billions.  AIList readers interested
  in such questions should be aware of the Self-Org@MIT-MC discussion
  list.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 09:52:10 PDT
-FROM-
From: (David Sherman) pesnta!dave@UCB-Vax
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Suggestions needed for tax rules
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I am trying to design a system which will apply the rules of
the Income Tax Act (Canada) to a set of facts and transactions
in the area of corporate reorganizations.

This is not a typical "AI and law" problem, because the Income
Tax Act is highly technical and extremely specific about what
rules apply and when. To the extent there is "open texture", or
issues which require legal judgment (e.g., whether an amount
is "reasonable"), I assume the lawyer using the system will
provide the judgment as an input fact. The problems are therefore
quite different from those addressed by McCarty@Rutgers' TAXMAN
program, because the approaches of the Income Tax Act and the
Internal Revenue Code are very different.

The difficulty in programming the system is simply the complexity
of the Income Tax Act. On a given transaction, a large number of
rules have to be examined to determine possible tax effects. Some
of these rules create new facts (e.g., a deemed dividend or a deemed
disposition). The passage of time is very important: steps happen
in a particular sequence, and the "state of the world" at the moment
a step is taken is crucial to determining the tax effects. In the
context of corporate transactions, this state includes such things
as who controls a corporation; who owns what assets; the residence
and status of and relationships among taxpayers; cost bases and
proceeds of disposition; and so on.

(My background to this: I'm a tax lawyer and an experienced C
programmer. I'm doing this work towards an LL.M. thesis.)

I've tried several approaches to this field before. Last year
I did a small version in C which uses an event-driven simulation,
and as it encounters each event calls a function for each rule in
the database to generate new events and tax results. (Incidentally,
if anyone wants a copy of that paper, "Towards a
Comprehensive Computer-Based Problem Solving Model of the
Income Tax Act: A Suggested Approach and Implementation of
Examples from Corporate Reorganizations", let me know.)

One of the problems with the C implementation was designing the
order in which the rules should be applied. For even the small subset
I implemented, this was awkward and difficult.

I came across Prolog at an ICS course on expert systems a few
weeks ago. It looks like the perfect tool for much of what I want
to do. Besides the workshops at the course (taught=sdcsvax!vis!greg),
I've now read Clocksin & Mellish and skimmed through How To Solve
It In Prolog.

The definitional stuff is fine. Using C-Prolog 1.4 on a VAX (not this
machine), I've already coded the Income Tax Act's definitions for
things like "resident", "private corporation", etc.

The problem I have (if you've read this far, thank you!) is how
to deal with _time_. I suppose the overall model I need to work with
is one of "changing states", where a transaction (e.g., X transfers
property to corporation Y in exchange for shares in Y) changes the
world from state A to state B, and the rules can examine differences
between the states to determine the effects. But then how does that
jive with definitional tests which may need to look back in time
(e.g., a corporation is resident in Canada in a given year if it
meets certain conditions and it was resident in Canada, or carried
on business in Canada, in the previous year. This is a perfect
recursive definition for Prolog, and I've implemented the rule,
but only as a fixed definition, not as part of a "changing
state" system.)?

I guess part of my problem is that I'm not working in an
AI department, or even a Computer Science department, and
so I don't have knowledgeable people to bounce my ideas off.
If you have any suggestions as to approaches I should be taking,
I'd greatly appreciate hearing from you. I'd be happy to send you
a copy of the code I've written so far to explain what I mean.
(You could even learn all about Canadian tax law!)

>- David Sherman
   The Law Society of Upper Canada
   Osgoode Hall
   Toronto, Canada  M5H 2N6
   (416) 947-3466

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 May 85 10:47:11 pdt
-FROM-
From: (Tep Dobry) Tep%ucbdali@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Berkeley PLM Benchmarks
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


     At the Warren Abstract Machine Workshop a few weeks ago
I  was  asked to publish the set of benchmarks programs I've
been  using  on  my  simulator  for  the   Berkeley   Prolog
Machine(PLM).  I've  finally got them all collected together
in Prolog form (CProlog) and have sent them to  the  Digest.
They're  really  too  big  to just publish in the Digest, so
they are being set up in a directory in the PROLOG directory
at  SU-SCORE.  There are 11 files with a total of 400 lines.
Since our machine is based on compiled Prolog, the top level
queries  are  also  compiled  in, generally as the predicate
main/0.

     The benchmarks were primarily chosen to exercise all of
the  features of the PLM, not for any complexity of program-
ming. About half of them come from Warren's thesis, and  the
others  we've  added here.  Our original performance figures
were based on simulations of hand compiled versions of these
benchmarks.   We are currently looking for larger, more com-
plex benchmarks to run on the hardware when it is available.
So  I'd  be  interested  seeing large benchmarks sent to the
Digest.

>- Tep Dobry

[ the code for these benchmarks is available from the SCORE
  PROLOG library under the subdirectory PS:<Prolog.BM> ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 May 85 12:50:32-EDT
-FROM-
From: Bob Hall <RJH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: You thought it was over...
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

No, but
              AI JOKES II: THE WRATH OF CONS

is entering its final week, so if you've heard any good ones
and want to get in on the glory, send your entry to me
<rjh%mit-oz@mit-mc> before June 7, 1985.  Remember to include
T-shirt size and school from the list on the announcement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 85 11:39:32 EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: cheating at chess
-BODY-
  From: cugini@NBS-VMS:

  "Sooo... rather than bend the rules to allow humans to cheat also, why
  not restrict computers to the use of internal storage during play? ie
  they can load up from disk, tape, whatever, but once the clock starts,
  we unplug all the I/O ports, and may the best rational agent win."

Surely if we unplug *all* the I/O ports, one of the rational agents will
lose by exceeding the time limit before making its first move?

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thursday, 30 May 1985 22:41:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Submission Date for AIE
-BODY-
A number of people have inquired about the due date for the Artificial
Intelligence in Engineering Conference, to be held in April 1986 at
University of Southampton, UK. The due date is extended to June 15th. If you
still plan to send an abstract don't waste your money on overnight mail,
good old US mail would do the job.

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
72
-DATE-
Date: Sat 25 May 85 12:48:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Georgeff <georgeff@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System for Fault Diagnosis (SRI)
-BODY-

Time: Wednesday May 29 at 11:00 am
Location: EJ232

Speaker : Guy A. Boy (NASA-Ames & ONERA, France)

Topic : HORSES


   HORSES ( Human - [Orbital Refueling System] - Expert System ) is a
malfunction procedure-oriented diagnosis aid. It takes into account
two types of logic, the functioning logic of the system to be
controlled and the user logic. HORSES will be used to study a
theoretical framework of the situation recognition problem.

   As a strategy for research in the use of expert systems for fault
diagnosis this example focuses attention on three interrelated issues;
1) The characterization of the fault diagnosis process with the
current ORS implementation (shuttle orbital refueling system
simulator); 2) Improved understanding of how humans recognize,
diagnose, and respond to system failures; and, 3) A deeper analysis of
the fault diagnosis process concentration a better understanding of
the knowledge and inferences required.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 24 May 85 14:19:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andrei Broder <Broder@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Logic (SU)
-BODY-
5/30/85 - Daniel Lehmann (Hebrew U. visiting Brandeis U.)

            "The temporal logic of probabilistic programs"

In a joint work with S. Shelah, some extensions of the propositional
temporal logic of discrete time were advocated as useful for stating
and proving properties of probabilistic concurrent programs. Deductive
completeness theorems were proved. In a joint work with S. Kraus
corresponding decision procedures were investigated. Recently a system
for describing time and knowledge has been proposed. All those systems
can be characterized as two-dimensional modal logics, i.e. they
involve two essentially orthogonal modalities, one of them being time,
that satisfy some interchange law.  The techniques involved in
studying such systems and some open problems will be described.

***** Time and place: May 30, 12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460) ******

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 May 85 17:16:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                  THURSDAY, June 6, 1985, 4:15 p.m.
               CSLI Colloquium, Redwood Hall, Room G-19


           ``An Assumption-Based Truth-Maintenance System''

         Johan De Kleer, Xerox PARC, Intelligent Systems Lab.

      This paper presents a new view of problem solving motivated by a
   new kind of truth maintenance system. Unlike previous truth
   maintenance systems which were based on manipulating justifications,
   this truth maintenance system is, in addition, based on manipulating
   assumption sets.  As a consequence it is possible to work effectively
   and efficiently with inconsistent information, context switching is
   free, and most backtracking (and all retraction) is avoided.  These
   capabilities motivate a different kind of problem-solving architecture
   in which multiple potential solutions are explored simultaneously.
   This architecture is particularly well-suited for tasks where a
   reasonable fraction of the potential solutions must be explored.
                                                --Johan De Kleer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 85 13:10:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: jan@harvard.ARPA (Jan Komorowski)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Spreadsheets in Logic Programming (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                           Harvard University
              Center for Research in Computing Technology

                               COLLOQUIUM

             Spreadsheets as a Subset of Logic Programming

                           Maarten van Emden
                         University of Waterloo

                         Tuesday, June 4, 1985
                                4:00 PM
                         Aiken Lecture Hall 101
                    (Tea in Pierce Hall 213 at 3:30)

                               ABSTRACT:


     We believe that currently marketed programs leave unexploited  much
of  the potential of the spreadsheet interface.  The purpose of our work
is to obtain suggestions for wider  application  of  this  interface  by
showing  how  to  obtain its main features as a subset of logic program-
ming.

     Our  work  is  based  on  two  observations.   The  first  is  that
spreadsheets  would  already  be  a  useful  enhancement  to interactive
languages such as APL and BASIC.  Although Prolog is also an interactive
language,  this  interface cannot be used in the same direct way.  Hence
our second observation: the usual query mechanism  of  Prolog  does  not
provide  the  kind of interaction this application requires.  But it can
be provided by the incremental query, a new query mechanism for Prolog.

     The two observations together yield the spreadsheet as a display of
the state of the substitution of an incremental query in Prolog.  Recal-
culation of dependent cells is achieved by automatic modification of the
query  in  response  to  a  new  increment that would make it unsolvable
without the modification.

Host:  Professor Henryk Jan Komorowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 85   10:20-EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Mager   <met128%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - PCs as Vehicles for LISP (BBN)
-BODY-

                           ACM GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER SICPLAN

                                Thursday, June 13, 1985
                                         8 P.M.

                       Bolt Beranek and Newman, Newman auditorium
                               70 Fawcett St., Cambridge



                      The Personal Computer as a Delivery Vehicle

                                   Gerald R. Barber
                                  Gold Hill Computers
                                     Cambridge, MA

             The growing interest in artificial intelligence technologies is
           stimulating interest in how  the  benefits  of these technologies
           can be delivered on a low cost and low  risk  basis.   This  talk
           focuses on the elements of a  personal  computer  based  delivery
           vehicle for artificial intelligence applications.

             The combination of a growing market for artificial intelligence
           applications and dropping  development  costs have created a need
           for an inexpensive, PC  based  delivery  vehicle.  Some desirable
           characteristics  of  a  PC  delivery  vehicle  will be  discussed
           including   characteristics   of   the   Golden    Common    Lisp
           implementation, performance, networking, memory needs, and use of
           backend  machines.   A   strategy   for   the  implementation  of
           artificial  intelligence  technology  in  a  cost  effective  and
           incremental fashion will also be discussed.



                           ACM GREATER BOSTON CHAPTER SICPLAN

           Dear Colleague,

             Our June speaker, Gerry  Barber,  is  president  of  Gold  Hill
           Computers  and  the prime mover behind  their  implementation  of
           Common Lisp for the IBM/PC.  Their  product  Golden  Common  Lisp
           originated when  Gerry  spent  a post-doc year in France at INRIA
           and found himself without adequate  access  to  Lisp  processors;
           hence a Lisp implementation for the IBM/PC.  Prior  to that Gerry
           studied under Carl Hewitt at MIT's AI  Lab, receiving a Ph.D.  in
           1982.  The  talk  should  give a good  perspective  on  where  AI
           application languages are going and how well they are penetrating
           into the everyday world of low cost environments.

             Our  group  customarily meets informally for  dinner  at  Joyce
           Chen's restaurant, 390 Rindge Ave., Cambridge at 6:00 P.M.  (just
           before the  meeting).   If  you wish to come, please call Carolyn
           Elson at 661-1840 before the day of the talk - early please.

                                             Peter Mager
                                             chairperson, Boston SICPLAN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 May 1985 13:53:18 PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Mann <MANN@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACL program information: papers July 9-12th
-BODY-

                Association for Computational Linguistics
                        Annual Conference
                        University of Chicago

                        Presentations of Papers
                        July 9 - 12, 1985

TUESDAY - 9 July

morning
>------

 Carole D. Hafner
 Semantics of Temporal Queries and Temporal Data


 Klaus Obermeier
 Temporal Inferences in Medical Texts


 Kenneth Man-kam Yip
 Tense, Aspect and the Cognitive Representation of Time


 Shozo Naito, Akira Shimazu & Hirosato Nomura
 Classification of Modality Function & its Application to Japanese
       Language Analysis


 John C. Mallery
 Universality and Individuality: The Interaction of Noun Phrase
       Determiners in Copular Clauses


 William J. Rapaport
 Meinongian Semantics for Propositional Semantic Networks

afternoon
>--------

INVITED SPEAKER
Fernando Pereira
A Survey of Natural Language Research at Japan's Institute for New
Generation Computing Technology

 Philip Cohen and Hector Levesque
 Speech Acts and Rationality


 Jerry Hobbs
 Ontological Promiscuity


 Sam Pilato & Robert Berwick
 Reversible Automata & Induction of the English Auxilary System


 G. Edward Barton, Jr.
 The Computation Difficulty of ID/LP Parsing


 Aravind Joshi & K. Vijayshankar
 Some Computational Properties of Tree Adjoining Grammars


 David McDonald & James Pustejovsky
 TAGs as a Grammatical Formalism for Generation


WEDNESDAY - 10 July

morning
>------


 Michael McCord
 Modular Logic Grammars


 Robert Berwick & Sandiway Fong
 New Approaches to Parsing Conjunctions Using Prolog


 Mark Johnson
 Generalizing the Early algorithm

Lauri Karttunen and Martin Kay
Structure Sharing with Binary Trees


 Fernando Pereira
 A Structure-Sharing Representation for Unification-Based
       Grammar Formalisms


 Stuart M. Shieber
 Using Restriction to Extend Parsing Algorithms for
       Complex-Feature-Based Formalisms

afternoon
>--------

INVITED SPEAKER
William Woods
Knowledge and Language: A New Frontier


 Philip Hayes
 Semantic Case Frame Parsing & Syntactic Generality


 Mark Jones & Alan Driscoll
 Movement in Active Production Networks


 Derek Proudian and Carl Pollard
 Parsing Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar


 Carl Pollard & Lewis Creary
 A Computational Semantics for Natural Language


 Leonardo Lesmo & Pietro Torasso
 Analysis of Conjunctions in a Rule-based Parser


THURSDAY - 11 July

morning
>------

INVITED SPEAKER
Barbara Grosz
The Structures of Discourse Structures


 Remko Scha
 The Dynamic Discourse Model: A Formal Approach to Discourse
       Segmentation


 Sandra Carberry
 A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding Intersentential Ellipsis


 Douglas Appelt
 Some Pragmatic Issues in the Planning of Definite & Indefinite
       Noun Phrases


 Brad Goodman
 Repairing Reference Identificaiton Failures by Relaxation

afternoon
>--------

INVITED SPEAKER
Bonnie Webber


 Raymonde Guindon & Burton Wagner
 Focusing in Anaphora Resolution: Allocation of Short-term Memory


 Karen Kukich
 Explanation Structures in XSEL


 Cecile L. Paris
 Description strategies for naive & expert users


 Kenneth Church
 Stress Assignment in Letter to Sound Rules for Speech Synthesis


 Brian Phillips, Michael Freiling, James Alexander, Steven Messick,
        Steve Rehfuss & Sheldon Nicholl
 An Eclectic Approach to Building Natural Language Interfaces

FRIDAY - 12 July

morning
>------


 Daniel Flickinger, Carl Pollard & Thomas Wasow
 Structure-Sharing in Lexical Representation


 Thomas Ahlswede
 A Tool Kit for Lexicon Building


 Roy Byrd & Martin Chodorow
 Using an On-line Dictionary to Find Rhyming Words and
       Pronunciations for Unknown Words


 Uri Zernik & Michael G. Dyer
 Towards a Self-Extending Phrasal Lexicon


 Andrew D. Beale
 Grammatical Analysis by Computer of the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen
       Corpus of British English Texts


 Martin Chodorow, Roy Byrd & George Heidorn
 Extracting Semantic Hierarchies from a Large On-Line Dictionary

afternoon
>--------

INVITED SPEAKER
George Miller
Dictionaries of the Mind


 Nan Decker
 The Use of Syntactic Clues in Discourse Understanding


 Helen M. Gigley
 Grammar Viewed as a Functioning Part of a Cognitive System


(The tutorial program on July 8 was described in a previous AILIST message.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 85 08:19:05 cet
-FROM-
From: CSCROS%NSNCCVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Program - Law & Technology
-BODY-
Final Program of Second Annual Conference on Law and Technology
Legal Language, Computational Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence
June 24-30, 1985
Conrad N. Hilton Hotel
  Campus of the University of Houston
  University Park
Tutorials:
   June 24 a.m. Understanding Legal Language
         Layman Allen, Jeff Roberts, Peter Linzer
      Discussion:
         Jon Bing, Donald Berman, Hector Castaneda, Grayfred Gray,
         Jay Hook, and Peter Seipel

   June 24 p.m. Programming the Law in PROLOG
         Marek Sergot, Elizabeth MacRae
      Discussion:
         Michael Heather, Sidney Lamb, Duncan MacRae, and Charles
         Walter

   June 25 a.m. Natural Language Processing
         George Heidorn, Martin Kay
      Discussion:
         Jean-Claude Gardin, David Hays, Michael Hoey, Sidney Lamb,
         and Peter Reich

   June 25 p.m. Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems
         L. Thorne McCarty and Donald Waterman
      Discussion:
         Cary deBessonet, Michael Dyer, Carole Hafner, Michael Heather,
         and Michael Lebowitz
 Research Presentations:  June 26-June 28
   Legal Language Processing
   Representing Open-Textured Legal Concepts
   Cognitive Processes
   Non-von Neumann Architectures
   Computer-Lawyer Inteface
 Workshops:    June 28-30
   Conference faculty workshop topics will be determined by the
   participants.  Microcomputuers and micro-PROLOG will be available.
 Conference Participants:
   Layman Allen (Law, Michigan)
   Donald Berman (Law, Northeastern)
   Jon Bing (Informatics, U of Oslo)
   Hector Castaneda (Philosophy, Indiana)
   George Cross (Computer Science, Louisiana State)
   Cary deBessonet (Law, Southern U)
   Bethany Dumas (Linguistics and Law, Tennessee)
   Michael Dyer (Computer Science, UCLA)
   Margot Flowers (Computer Science, UCLA)
   M. Jean-Claude Gardin (Linguistics, Ecole Pratique de Haut Etudes)
   Grayfard Gray (Law, Tennessee)
   Carole Hafner (Computer Science, Northeastern)
   David Hays (Computational Linguistics, New York)
   Michael Heather (Law and Computer Science, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Poly)
   George Heidorn (Linguistics and Computer Science, IBM)
   Michael Hoey (Linguistics, U of Birmingham, England)
   Jay Hook (Law and Psychology, U of Houston)
   Martin Kay (Linguistics, Xerox)
   Sidney Lamb (Linguistics, Rice)
   Michael Lebowitz (Computer Science, Columbia)
   Peter Linzer (Law, U of Houston)
   Duncan MacRae (Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D.C.)
   Elizabeth MacRae (PROLOG and AI, Washington, D.C.)
   L. Thorne McCarty (Law and Computer Science, Rutgers)
   Jose Carlos Neves (Legal Informatics, U of Minho)
   Michael Parks (Information Science, Houston)
   Peter Reich (Linguistics and Psychology, Toronto)
   Jeff Roberts (Roberts, Markel & Folger, Houston)
   Charles Saxon (Computer Science, Easter Michigan U)
   Marek Sergot (Law and PROLOG, London)
   Peter Seipel (Legal Informatics, Stockholm)
   B. Vauquouis (Linguistics, Grenoble)
   Charles Walter (Law and Computer Science, Houston)
   Donald Waterman (AI and Linguistics, RAND)

Tutorials:
_ $250/4 Tutorials (before 6/7/85) (Includes lunch 6/24 & 6/25)
_ $75/Tutorial (before 6/7/85)
_ $350/4 Tutorials (after 6/7/85)
_ $100/Tutorial (after 6/7/85)
Research Presentations:
_ $300/five sessions (before 6/7/85) (Includes lunch 6/26 & 6/27)
_ $75/session (before 6/7/85)
_ $400/five sessions (after 6/7/85)
_ $100/session (after 6/7/85)
Mail to:
  Charles Walter
  Director, Program on Law and Technology
  University of Houston Law Center
  4800 Calhoun
  Houston, Texas 77004
Phone:   (Not on network mail)
  713-749-4935
  713-749-4196

Accommodations:
  Call University of Houston Hilton Hotel (713-741-2447) for
  reservations.  Additional rooms may be available at University Park
  Inn, (713-224-5971).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
73
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 85 22:34:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Pazzani <pazzani@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and proctology
-BODY-

I am about to start my Phd research on an expert system for proctology.
I am interested in finding out what others have done in this area.

Also I'd like to have some opinions on the best language for implementing
expert systems: PROLOG EURISKO or OPS5?

Thanks,
Mike Pazzani

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Jun 85 17:02:30-MDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Henderson <Henderson@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Range Data Images for Robotics
-BODY-

The IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Robotics has asked me to look
into the creation of a database of range data images.  We would like to get an
idea of both the availability of range imagery and the demand for such imagery.
If you have range data images (perhaps with registered intensity images) or you
would like to have access to such images, please answer the following questions
and send to henderson@utah-20.

Name:
Address (Net and US Post):
Range Data Available (give format):
Would like access to range data (give any special requirements):

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 85 13:18:21 edt
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark@tove>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Explorer/Symbolics compatibility
-BODY-
We have a Symbolics 3600, and are looking at Explorers from TI now.
What is the software compatibility between these two?  Is it the very
same zetalisp, windowing, etc.?  Or is the only software similarity
that of ancient common ancestry?  Thanks for any help or advice.
        -mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 30 May 85 14:41:20 BST
-FROM-
From: Ewgorc@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP on SUN Workstations
-BODY-
Can anyone gine me information about LISP availability on the SUN
workstation range?
I am interested in what variants are available, COMMON Lisp, Inter Lisp
or whatever.
Comments from actual users on how they have found the implementation would be
very useful.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 85 20:32:36 CDT
-FROM-
From: marick@GSWD-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp user survey
-BODY-
I'm making a survey of what users need from Lisp systems.  If you use Lisp
for work other than developing Lisp itself and you would mail me answers to
the following questions, I'd much appreciate it.  I will of course summarize
the results to the net.

1.  (I hesitate to start this battle.)  What do you consider the most
    cost-effective system on which to develop programs?  Special-purpose
    Lisp machines?  General purpose personal workstations with Lisp
    (e.g., Suns, Apollos)?  Timeshared systems?  What about the most
    cost-effective system on which to deliver programs?

2.  How important is the ability to call functions written in another
    language?  If it's important, will those functions be specially written
    for the application or will they tend to be parts of libraries like
    the IMSL math library or a plotting package?  If they're specially
    written, are they making up for some deficiency in your Lisp (e.g., no
    or weak support for handling strings)?

3.  Should the editor be a part of the Lisp environment or should it be
    separate?  What are the important differences between an embedded
    Emacs-like editor and an external Emacs-like editor that allows you
    to run Lisp in a window?

4.  How often could your programs run "standalone", without the support of
    the full Lisp environment?  Would it be useful to have some way to dump
    a set of Lisp functions as an executable file, so that you could, for
    example, write a reasonably-sized UNIX filter in Lisp?

5.  How important is some sort of object-oriented programming package,
    like Flavors or Loops?  Do you have any preferences?

6.  How important is the speed of your compiled code?
    Obviously, everyone wants a Cray on their desk, but how many of your
    programs are truly limited by machine speed or compiler quality and
    would be significantly more useful if they ran faster?  What operations
    are most common in your tight inner loops?

7.  How adequate is the standard set of debugging tools (trace,
    single-stepper, debugger that lets you poke around in the stack)?

8.  What other things make a Lisp system better?
    If there's a question I haven't asked, please tell me.


                        Brian Marick
                        Gould Computer Systems -- Urbana
                        USENET: ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!marick
                        ARPA:   Marick@GSWD-VMS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 1985 08:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: JWOLFE@USC-ECLB
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and the CAIS
-BODY-
                 [Also forwarded by Larry@JPL-VLSI.]


Dear Colleagues: The Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) is
investigating the Common APSE Interface Set (CAIS) for Ada
Programming Support Environments (APSE).  Although it is a
proposed DoD standard, it is unlike other standards in that it
will evolve as interface needs are identified.  My particular
interest is in what needs are generated by the introduction of AI
languages and techniques (e.g.  LISP, PROLOG, Knowledge Bases,
Inferencing, etc.)  to software engineering environments.  This
issue may effect the CAIS at two levels: First, tools may be
written using AI languages and techniques; second, applications
may use AI languages or techniques which may require unique
tools.  I am coming to the Ada and AI communities to solicit your
help and advise.  I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has
experience in:

        * Using AI languages and techniques to develop software
          tools.
        * Developing tools for the life cycle maintenance of
          AI software.
        * Anyone else who can contribute.

     Since the results of this study will influence the evolution
of the CAIS standard, it is important to have the participation
of government, industry, and acedemia.  Please note that since
IDA is a FCRC, issues of proprietary information and
non-disclosure CAN be resolved.  Your participation is needed and
appreciated.
            James Wolfe
            Institute for Defense Analysis
            1801 N. Beauregard Street
            Alexandria, VA 22311
            ARPA: JWOLFE@USC-ECLB.ARPA
            Voice: (703) 845-2109

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 85 17:31:28 edt
-FROM-
From: Rob Jacob <jacob@nrl-css>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query - AI and man-machine interaction
-BODY-
I'm trying to put together an entry on "man-machine interaction" for an
encyclopedia of artificial intelligence.  My initial reaction is that the
main areas are natural language, speech, and maybe intelligent CAI-type
dialogues.  Another area might be user interface techniques first pioneered
by AI people (as a byproduct of their work), like the Interlisp-D user
interface.

Have I missed your favorite topic?  I'd appreciate any comments, pointers,
suggestions, vicious attacks, etc. on this topic.  Please reply to me
directly, because I'm often too far behind in reading the lists.

Thanks in advance,
Rob Jacob

ARPA:   jacob@nrl-css
UUCP:   ...!decvax!nrl-css!jacob
SNAIL:  Code 7590, Naval Research Lab, Washington, D.C. 20375

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4-Jun-85 12:26 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kirk Kelley  <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: McDonnell Douglas announcement
-BODY-
McDonnell Douglas has announced a "breakthough" in Natural Language processing
on the back cover of this week's Business Week.  Of course there are no
specific references.  Does anyone know what they are talking about or if there
is any substance to the hype:

    ... practical thinkers at our McDonnell Douglas Computer Systems Company
   have created the first computer that accepts you as you are -- human.

   They emulated the two halves of the human brain with two-level software:
   One level with a dictionary of facts and a second level to interpret them.
   The resulting Natural Language processor understands everyday conversational
   English.  So it knows what you mean, no matter how you express yourself.  It
   also learns your idiosyncracies, forgives your errors, and tells you how to
   find what you're looking for.

   Now, virtually anyone who can read and write can use a computer.

   ...

That is essentially all the "information" given.  If you know what this refers
to, or what the nature of the "breakthrough" is please let me know.

 -- kirk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 4 Jun 85 13:16:32-PDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems vs "conventional" programming
-BODY-
Curt,
        You sent a message to the ailist some time ago on expert
systems vs. "conventional" programming. I drafted a reply, but have
been slow in sending it to you. Here it is, perhaps better late than never.

        There is a great deal of value in asking questions about what
expert systems are good for. It is important for an emerging science
to seek clear statements of its capabilities and boundaries. I think
your observations on the value of ES are accurate. There is a third
advantage which I feel is moderately well substantiated: that
non-programmers can build certain types of programs using an expert
system shell that they could not otherwise build. A specific example
is the Blue-Box pharmacology therapy advisor built by two
non-programmer medical students using Emycin. A reference is:

Benoit Mulsant and David Servan-Schreiber (1984) "Knowledge
Engineering: A Daily Activity on a Hospital Ward" Computers and
Biomedical Research 17, pp 71-91.

        I recommended that they use Emycin when they visited during
their medical clercship at Stanford. Neither of them had the knowledge
to build the system in an ordinary programming language, but were
successful in building their advisor in a remarkably short time using
the expert system shell.

        Your question addressed the issue of what expert systems were
good for. We should probably also ask what expert systems research, as
opposed to just expert systems, is good for. I think that expert
systems research is valuable, in part, because it is concerned with
seeking ways to represent and use knowledge that cannot currently be
readily represented or used. In this sense, we can view knowledge
representation research as being concerned with developing new data
structures and algorithms, appropriate for representing and
manipulating symbolic information. There are many other arguments that
could be made about the value of expert systems research, but I think
I'll leave that for further discussion.

Cheers,
                        Mike Walker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 85 15:39:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: Phyllis O'Neil <oneil@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85:  UCLA campus housing available
-BODY-
Economical UCLA dormitory rooms and suites are still available for
IJCAI-85 this August.  You can stay in dorm rooms for the 6-night
period beginning Saturday, August 17, or for the 4-night period
beginning Monday, August 19.  Dorm rooms sleep one or two people.

Residential suites are available starting Monday, August 19.  Suites
sleep two to four people; each suite has two bedrooms, bath, and living
room.

Breakfast and dinner are included when you stay in the dorms or suites.
Additionally, you can use UCLA's swimming pools, raquetball courts, and
other atheletic facilities.

Campus housing forms are on pages 27 and 29 of the IJCAI-85 conference
brochure.  For copies of the brochure, contact:

     AAAI
     445 Burgess Dr.
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     (213) 328-3123

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
74
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 85 09:31:54 edt
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: scrabble reference
-BODY-
   What is the state of the art in computer Scrabble?
   What work has been done?  References?  Software?  Anecdotal remarks?

Here's one reference that I know about:

Shapiro, Stuart C., "A Scrabble Crossword Game Playing Program,"
IJCAI-79, Vol. Two, pp. 797-99.

                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193
uucp:  ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet/arpanet:  rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 85 09:55:47 edt
-FROM-
From: "Stuart C. Shapiro" <shapiro%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: scrabble reference
-BODY-

  There are two papers on SCRABBLE in the book, Computer Game-Playing:
Theory and Practice, edited by M.A. Bramer, Ellis Horwood Ltd (distributed
in the U.S. by Halsted Press, a division of John Wiley & Sons), 1983:

   A competitive Scrabble program, by P.J. Turcan, pp. 209-220
   Scrabble crossword game-playing programs, by S.C. Shapiro, pp. 221-228

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 June 1985 0912-PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: gross@nprdc (Michelle Gross)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MMI/HMI
-BODY-
Ron Jacob--

List "man-machine interaction" as "human-machine interaction,"
or HMI.  This is how the field is referred to by people at the
university that I attend.  Some link should be made between
the two names.

>-Michelle Gross

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 85 07:39:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: size of self-reproducing system; intelligence?
-BODY-
>    Q:  What's the minimum "size" for a self-reproducing thing?
> For an "intelligent" thing??
>   A measure of "size" probably needs to include the complexity of the
> environment ... for instance, a virus takes advantage of a highly-ordered
> set of cell mechanisms and can reproduce with only a few thousand (or so?)
> bits of information ... its "size" measure should be bigger than the amount
> of DNA in it might seem to imply.  All living creatures make use of some
> of the physical laws of the universe (mostly chemistry), and should be
> charged some for that in "size" measure ...

>   Self-reproducing cellular automata that I've heard of seem to
> generally require billions and billions of cells or so (as in
> Conway's LIFE); they live in a very simple universe, where there is almost
> no information stored in their environment.  On the other hand, most of
> the self-reproducing automata I've seen are quite huge and inefficient,
> because they're structured to be comprehensible to people....

I recently ran across a new book, "The Recursive Universe" by
William Poundstone that covers a lot of these issues.  It's
written in a somewhat gee-whiz style, but there's a lot of
good information, especially for Life aficianados.  Anyway,
according to the book:

   Von Neumann could have allowed a distinct cellular state for every
   possible component of a machine.  The fewer the states, the simpler
   the physics, however.  After some juggling, he settled on a cellular
   array with 29 different states for its cells...The [next]
   state of a cell...depends only on its state and the states of
   its...neighbors....

      What Von Neumann did is this: he proved that there are starting
   patterns that can reproduce themselves...Von Neumann's pattern,
   or machine reproduced in a very powerful way.  It contained a
   complete description of its own organization.  It used that
   information to build a new copy of itself.  Von Neumann's
   machine reproduction was more akin to the reproduction of living
   organisms than to the growth of crystals, for instance. Von
   Neumann's suspicion that a self-reproducing machine would have to
   be complicated was right.  Even in his simplified checkerboard
   universe, a self-reproducing pattern required about 200,000 squares.


>   Are the questions of self-reproduction and intelligence related?  I'm
> thinking vaguely about notions of Godel's theorem, complexity of human
> brains, self-reference, etc.
>
>   This might have interesting implications as to how hard it will be to make
> AI systems with human-like consciousness ... how many logic elements or gates
> will be required, how many gigaflops (or gigalips) are needed to think at a
> human pace, etc....
>   -zim@mitre

My feeling is that many people are too ready to assume self-reference=
intelligence=consciousness, eg Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" and/or
"The Mind's I".  Von Neumann's machine seems self-referential enough,
but not too bright, and hardly conscious.  I assume that dogs, cats,
birds, lizards...?? are conscious (feel pain, have visual experience,..)
but some of them aren't too bright either.  I say this knowing that
they perform complex tasks such as nest-building, but I don't believe
that such performance is prima facie evidence for intelligence,
in that intelligence should include some notion of a *general* ability to
deal with abstract problem representation (calculators can do
trig functions, but they're not intelligent).


John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday,  4 Jun 1985 10:16:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: billmers%rayna.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (Meyer Billmers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: size of self-reproducing system; intelligence?
-BODY-
>  Q:  What's the minimum "size" for a self-reproducing thing?  For an
>"intelligent" thing??
...
>the self-reproducing automata I've seen are quite huge and inefficient,
>because they're structured to be comprehensible to people....

I'm not sure I agree. For straightforward replication, it has been shown
(Fredkin, Winograd, and others) to be easy. For example, in a 2-D cellular
automaton, if the states are 0 and 1 and if the result state is computed by
taking the sum of the neighbors modulo 2, then any initial configuration
will replicate forever.

It could be argued that this doesn't count as "self-reproducing"
because there is no agent which "intentionally" reproduces itself (whatever
that means). But Banks (MIT MAC TR-81, Jan. 1971) showed that a 4 state, 5
neighbor 2-D cellular automaton could be constructed which was
a) a universal computer, e.g. given the correct encoding of a function,
could compute any function, and b) a universal constructor, e.g. could
"build" another configuration in the space which would then be capable of
computing any function. a) and b) taken together imply a self-reproducing
automaton which certainly displays some degree of intentionality.
And it doesn't seem to require even millions of cells; indeed, Banks
outlines its construction as an appendix of about 10 pages (although he
doesn't actually display the entire beast).

Hope that helps.

>Meyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Jun 85 16:59:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report on Natural Language
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


      Report No. CSLI-85-24, ``Computationally Relevant Properties of
   Natural Languages and Their Grammar'' by Gerald Gazdar and Geoffrey K.
   Pullum, has just been published.  This report may be obtained by
   writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
   Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 1985 16:12-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Bibliography Format
-BODY-
I am using a new format in handling submissions of material.

This format is the BIB citation format.  BIB comes in the BSD UNIX 4.2
release.  This is similar to the refer available with UNIX in general.
The only major difference is the allowance of a definition file which
I use for things like many articles from the same conference.
That is I can define a string like BOOK11 for a specific conference
in a definition file and then type BOOK11 for each paper in the
conference for the information about editor, conference title, etc.
Those users who use refer can insert the definitions in manually with
a text editor.


Definitions:

D BOOK11 First Conference of Robotics Europe--Robot Technology
   and Applications\
%C Brussels, Belgium\
%D June 27-28 1984\
%E K. Rathmill\
%E P. Mac Conaill\
%E S. O'Leary\
%E J. Browne

bib citations:

%T Early Users Give Thumbs Up to TI's Expert System Tool
%D April 15
%P 13
%J ComputerWorld

%A P. Macconaill
%T Esprit and Robotics Europe
%J BOOK11
%P 1

%A H. J. Warnecke
%A G. Schiele
%T Performance Characteristics and Performance Testing of Industrial
   Robots - State of the Art
%J BOOK11
%P 5

%A M. Priel
%A B. Schatz
%T Project for Development of a Photogrammetric Method for the Evaluation
   of the Dynamic Performance of Industrial Robots
%J BOOK11
%P 18

%A J. H. Gilby
%A R. Mayer
%A G. A. Parker
%T Dynamic Performance Measurement of Robot Arms
%J BOOK11
%A 31

%A H. J. Warnecke
%A R. D. Schraft
%A M. C. Wanner
%T Application of the Experimental Modal-Analysis in the Performance Testing
   Procedure of Industrial Robots
%J BOOK11
%P 45

%A N. Percival
%T A review of Safety Standards
%J BOOK11
%P 55

%A J. P. Vautrin
%T Safety of Robot Installations in France
%J BOOK11
%P 61

%A R. Bell
%T Assessment of Programmable Electronic Systems with Particular Reference
   to Robotics
%J BOOK11
%P 68

%A P. Nicolaisen
%T Occupational Safety and Industrial Robots - Present State of Discussions
   Within the Tripartite Group on Robotic Safety
%J BOOK11
%P 74

%A F. Duggan
%A R. H. Jones
%A K. Khodabandehfoo
%T Towards Developing Reliability and Safety Related Standards
   Using Systematic Methodologies
%J BOOK11
%P 90

%A J. J. Hunter
%T International Standards Activities in the Field of Industrial Robots
%J BOOK11
%P 108

%A B. Knoerr
%T Standardization in the Industrial Robot Field
%J BOOK11
%P 116

%A H. Tipton
%T International Standardization Related to Industrial Robots
%J BOOK11
%P 122

%A G. Gini
%A M. Gini
%T Robot Languages in the Eighties
%J BOOK11
%P 126

%A C. Launer
%T Robot Programming Using a High-Level Language and CAD Facilities
%J BOOK11
%P 139

%A C. Blume
%T Implicit Robot Programming Based on a High-Level Explicit System and
   Using the Robot Data Base RODABAS
%J BOOK11
%P 156

%A R. Dillman
%T Robot Architecture for the Integraiton of Robots into Manufacturing Cells
%J BOOK11
%P 172

%A K. Collins
%A A. J. Palmer
%A K. Rathmill
%T The Development of a European Benchmark for the Comparison of
   Assembly Robot Programming Systems
%J BOOK11
%P 187


%A H. Ford
%A L. R. Hunt
%A Renjeng Su
%T A simple algorithm for computing canonical form
%J Computers and Math
%V 10
%N 4-5
%D 1984
%P 315

%A C. V. Negoita
%T Fuzzy Systems in Knowledge Engineering
%J Kuberneles
%V 14
%N 1
%D 1985

%A Michael Strizenec
%T Cognitive Psychology and AI
%P 3
%J Kybernetika
%V 21
%N 1
%D 1985

%A K. B. Zun
%A V. V. Malyshev
%T Generalized Minimax Approach to Solving Optimization Problems with
   Chance Constraints
%J Engineering Cybernetics
%V 22
%N 1
%P 105

%A L. A. Sholomov
%T On Representation of a Binary Relation by a Collection of Criteria
%J Engineering Cybernetics
%V 22
%N 1
%P 93

%A Michael Georgeoff
%T Transformations and Reduction Strategies for Typed Lambda Expressions
%J ACM TOPLAS
%V 6
%N 4
%D OCT 1984
%P 603

%A P. H. Winston
%T The AI Business - A Perspective
%J Manufacturing Engineering
%V 94
%N 3
%D MAR 85
%P 75

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
75
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Jun 85 23:22:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: CHEESEMAN@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Probability in AI Workshop
-BODY-

  Information on the Workshop on:

Probability and Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

Sponsored by: AAAI and RCA

University of California, Los Angeles, August 14-16, 1985


Registration Fee:  Early (before July 10)   $25
                   Late                     $30

   The registration fee includes admission to all presentations,
discussions, patio lunches as well as the published proceedings.
Registration and refund requests will not be accepted after 5th. of
August.  Registrations will be accepted on-site.

Accomodations:   Single Residence Hall Room 4 nights   $160

  Single room accomodations have been reserved through the UCLA
conference services in university dormitories.  Rates are based on a
four day period starting the evening of Tuesday August 13th. and
ending Sat. morning Aug. 17th.  Check in is after 3:00p.m., check out
by 12:00 noon.  Breakfast and dinner are included starting with dinner
on Tue. and ending with breakfast on Sat. 17th.  Residence hall rooms
are provided with linens and towels.  Shared bathroom facilities are
provided.  The entire room payment for the four nights period must be
enclosed with your reservation (unless you are making your own
accomodation arrangements).

Parking:   Parking permit          $15

Note:
  -No registration or refund after Aug. 5th.
  -There are a limited number of rooms--please make your reservations
early.
  -Return registration and accomodation forms to the arrangements
chairman.

Arrangements Chair:       General Chair:            Program Chair:
Rob. Suritis              Peter Cheeseman           John Lemmer
Par Technology Corp.      NASA/Ames Research        RCA Advanced Tech.
220 Seneca Turnpike       Center, Mail Stop 244-7   Labs., Route 38,
New hartford, NY 13413    Moffett Field, CA 94035   Moorestown,
(315)738-0600 x233        (415)694-6526             NJ 08057
                                                    (609)866-6650

Registration Information should include:

Name, address, ARPA address (if any), phone number, parking permit
required ($15), date and time of arrival and whether you will be
attending IJCAI.

  Checks payable to AI Workshop at UCLA, and the registration
information (and checks) should be sent to Rob. Suritis, PAR
Technology Corp., 220 Seneca Turnpike, New Hartford, NY 13413.  The
workshop will occur in Sproul Hall, UCLA.

  Proposed Agenda
  ---------------
Tue. Aug. 13th.
  3:00 Registration and check-in, front desk, Sproul Hall

Wed. Aug 14th.
   8:30 Session 1:  Foundations of Probability Theory
  10:00 Break (20 min)
  10:20 Session 1 (cont.)
  12:00 Patio Lunch
   1:00 Session 2: Comparison of Different Uncertainty Formalisms
   3:00 Break
   3:30 Session 2 (cont.)
   5:00 Break for day

Thurs Aug. 15th.
   8:30 Session 3: Induction of Models Under Uncertainty
  10:00 Break
  10:20 Session 4: Combining Uncertain Information and
                   Model Update from Data
  12:00 Patio Barbecue
   1:00 Session 5: Alternative Uncertainty Formalisms
   3:00 Break
   3:30 Session 6: Subjective Probability and Uncertainty
   5:00 Break for day

Fri. Aug. 16th.
   8:30 Session 7: Applications of Probability theory
  10:00 Break
  10:20 Session 8: Decision Making Under Uncertainty
  12:00 End of Workshop

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 1985 22:07-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 5th Int. Workshop on Expert Systems and Applications
-BODY-
Fifth International Workshop
Expert Systems & Their Applications
Conference & Exhibition

Palais des Papes - Avignon, France May 13 1985

Session 1: Parallelism & Real Time
Parallelism in production systems: The sources and the expected speedup
A. Gupta CMU
The PICON expert system for process control
G. C. Knickerbocker, R. L. Moore, L. B. Hawkinson and M. E. Levin
LISP Machine Inc.

Session 2A Theoretical Issues
Automatic theorem proof & expert systems
Y. Kodratoff and J. G. Ganascia Universite Paris-Sud (Orsay, France)
Session 2B Case Studies I
Distributed intelligence in alternative analysis for computer systems
selection and configuration
F. T. Zeviar Boeing Computer Services

Session 3A Environments 1
The role of the knowledge engineer in instantiating the MP
parameterizable inference engine
C. Roche CRIl (Puteaux, France)
Efficient expert system development through domain-specific tools
J. A. Alexander Tektronix
EX-TRAN 7 a different approach for an expert system generator
T. Hassan M. A. Razzak and D. Michie
Intelligent Terminals Ltd (Glasgow UK) R. Pettipher -ITT (Harlow UK)

Session 3B Medicine
A diabetes expert system using videotex technology
J. C. Buisson, H. Farreny and H. Prade-Enseeiht & Universite Paul
Sabatier (Toulouse, France)
Spatial knowledge represenation in diagnostic expert systems
Z. Xiang S. N. Srihari SUNY at Buffalo
GROK - a natural language front end for medical expert systems
K. K. Obermeier Battelle (Columbus, OHIO)

Session 4A Theoretical Issues II
Control in inference engines
M. O. Cordier ECRC (Munich, FRG), M. C. Rousset Universite Paris-Sud

Session 4B Case STudies II
A knowledge based expert system used to prevent the disclosure of
sensitive information at the US Environmental Protection Agency
J. L. Feinstein - Booz, Allen & Hamilton (Bathesda, Maryland)

Session 5 Expert systems and data bases
Expert database systems: evolutionary and revolutionary approaches
L. Kerschberg University of South Carolina

Session 6A Knowledge Representation and Management I
Knowledge representation and intentional logic
F. Lepage Universite du Quebec
KAUS - a tool for model building and evaluation
H. Yamauchi and S. OHsuga University of Tokyo
Prolog and Objects
P. Albert - BULL (Louveciennes, France)
LKJ-ex: an expert system for modifying a knowledge base
P. Mazas Renault (Rueill-Malmaison, France)

Session 6B Chemistry
Learning spectrum-structure relations for automatic interpretation of
carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance spectra
S. Belaid - CISI (Paris, France)
The DARC-EPIOS system - Structural elucidation by carbon-13 nuclear
magnetic resonance
M. Carabedian, I. Dagaine, and J. E. Dubois ITODYS (Paris, France)
EXSYLA - an expert system for interpeting laser spectrometry data
M. Lamboulle (Universite de Metz, France) JH. P. Haton (Universite de
Nancy, France) J. F. Muller (Universite de Metz, France)
Feasibility study concerning the use of expert systems for the
development of formulas in pharmaceutical analysis
D. L. Massart, M. R. detaevernier, Y. Michotte, L. Buydens, M. P.
Derde, M. Desmet, L. Kaufman, G. Musch, J. Smeyers-Verbeke, A.
Thielemans and L. Dryon Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)

Session 6C Technical Diagnosis
Naive causal reasoning for diagnosis
W. Van de Velde - Vrije Universiteit Brussel (belgium)
Rule categories and their use in technical diagnosis
J. C. Emond Philips (Brussels, Belgium)
A general model to troubleshooting and its applications to computer
support
A. Farley Hewlett-Packard (Palo Alto, CA)
A diagnosis expert system
M. Marrakchi, B. Houriez, F. Grzesiak and D. willaeys Universite de
Valenciennes (France)

Session 7 ONboard expert systems
Military applications of expert systems
J. F. Gilmore Georgia Tech Research Institute (Atlanta, Georgia)

Session 8A Environments II
The architecture of an expert system environment
M. T. Harandi University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaigne)
Babylon-kernel system of an integrated environment for expert system
development & Operation
F. Di Primio and G. Brewka - GMD (Sankt Augustin, FRG)
Reasoning explication in expert systems
B. Safar Universite Paris-Sud (Orsay, France)

Session 8B Pattern Recognition & Signal Processing
A design expert for digital signal processing
I. Hartimo, O. Hyvarinen, K. Kronlog, O. Simula and J. Skytta Helsinki
University of Technology (Finland)
Expert graph prediction system
J. P. Tsai Y. C. Chen, R. Krelling and W. Kabat Northwestern University
(Evanston, Illinois)
An expert system for pattern recognition
A. Giordana, G. Ippolito and L. Saitta Universita di Torino (Italy)

Session 8C Applied Linguistics
NLI-ESD: An expert antural language interface to a statistical data bank
P. Bucci G. Lella and S. Pavan SARIN SpA (Pomezia, Italy)
An expert system for educational diagnosis based on default logic
M. Jones and D. Poole University of Waterloo
The twelve chairs and onamaturge - The representation of synonyms nad
of related terms in the frames of an expert system for word coinage
E. Nissan Ben gurion University of the Neguev (Beer Sheva, Israel)

Session 9A Computer Engineering
The Analyst - A workstation for analysis and design
M. Stepehns and k. Whitehead - SDL (Camberley, Surrey, UK)
An expert system for computer room facility layout
T. Watanabe, Y. Nagai, C. Yasunobu, Y. IIzuka, K. Sasaki, and T.
Yamanaka Hitachi (Kawasaki and Tokyo, Japan)

Session 9B Law & Management
Law-Expert Systems and decison aids
J. Gros and C. Bernad - IRETJ (Montpellier, France)
SESP - an expert system for personnel seleciton
X. Debanne - Data Base Informatica (Pomezia, Italy)

Session 9C Computer-Aided Manufacturing
SOJA - an expert system for daily workshop  planning
B. Sauve and C. Lepape - CGE (Marcoussis, France)
Knowledge organisation in an expert system for spot-welding robot
configuraiton
R. Rehmnert and K. Sandahl - Linkoping University (Sweden) O. Granstedt
> ASEA Robotics (Vasteras, Sweden)

Session 10A Knowledge Acquisition
KADS - structured knowledge acquisition for expert systems
J. A. Breuker and B. Wielinga - University of Amsterdam
Generating expert knowledge using data analysis techniques
V. Rialle - Faculte de Medecine de Grenoble (France)

Session 10B finance & Fiscality
FINEX - an expert support system for financial analysis
L. Kerschberg and J. Dickinson - University of South Carolina
The development of an expert tax system
A. E. Roycroft - ICL (Manchester, UK) and P. Loucopoulos - UMSIT
(Manchester UK)

Session 10C Architecture
Considerations concerning expert systems in the architectural design
process
K. H. Oey Technische Hogeschool Delft (Netherlands)
ACE - an aid for architectural design
F. Iselin, J. Menu and L. de Trentinian - EPFL (Lausanne, Switzerland)

Session 11A Knowledge Represenation and Management II
Control knowledge in expert systems - relaxing restrictive assumptions
S. Fickas and D. Novick University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon)
Conflict detection in knowledge bases
E. Pipard - Universite Paris-Sud (Orsay, France)

Session 11B - Agriculture and Botany
Counsellor - an agricultural advisory system combining expert system
and videotex technology
N. J. Jones and D. T. Crates -ICI (Franham, Surrey, UK)
An expert system for determining the families of the Swiss flora
J. M. Mascherpa - Conservatoire et Jardin Botaniques (Chabesy,
Switzerland) C. Pellegrine Universite d CGeneve

Sesison 11C - CADD
Infering geometric description of objects from their functional
specifications
F. Ingrand - IMAG LIFIA (Grenoble, France)
A domain-independent knowledge engineering architecture for CAD
M. Barbuceanu - Central Institute for Management and Informatics
(Bucarest, Rumania)

Sesison 12A Environments III
BOUM - an instantiation of the (PS) sup 2 concept
J. M. PUGIN BULL (Louveciennes, France)
MI 3: A set of tools for knowledge representaitons & processing.  Its
descriptiona nd use
P. Tallibert - ESD (saint-Cloud France)

Session 12 B Earth Sciences
MEPRA- A feasibility study for an avalance prediction expert system
J. M. Lefevre and T. Granier - IMAG LIFIA (Grenoble, France)
Structure and function of the SIES system
G. Jiwen, Y. Yuchuan and H. Jun - Jilin University (PRC) Z. Guosen and
C. Qianyuan China National Oil and Gas (PRC)

Session 12C engineering software
An expert system aiding developers of engineering software packages
C. Saurel - CERT (Toulouse, France)
Symatrau - an expert system for 3D finite element modelling
P. Trau - Enset (Cachan, France)

Session 13A inexact reasoning

Programming in fuzzy logic for expert systems design
I. P. Orci - Stockholm University and KTH (Stockholm, Sweden)
A hybrid-uncertainty theory
E. M. Oblow - Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA)
The LEZARD sytem: an experiment in inexact reasoning in medical
applications
O. Gascuel, J. charlet, S. genetet and B. Mari INSERM (Paris, France)

Session 13B Speech Recognition
SYSTEXP - an expert system for acousticophonetic speech decoding
N. Carbonell, D. Fohr and J. P. Haton- CRIN (NANCY, France)
An expert system for identifying analytically words in continuous speech
H. Meloni - Faculte des Sciences (Avignon, France) J. Gispert and J.
Guizol - GIA (Marseilles, France)
An expert system for speech recognition by signal segmentation
S. Minault, M. Invernizzi and B. Dupeyrat CEA (Saclay, France)

Session 13C electronics CAD
Knowledge based selection and coordination of existing algorithms
V. Jonckers - Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium)
KnowPLACE - Knowledgebased placement of PCBS
Hyung-Sik Park and W. C. Kabat Northwestern University
PECOS - an expert hardware synthesis system
C. R. Green US Army Research Office (Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, USA) and S. G. Shiva Unviersity of Alabama (Huntsville,
Alabama, USA)

Session 14 - Artificial intelligence or intelligent artificats
The polarisation approach to intelligent artificats - a
hyper-hemispherical model
S. Kableshkov - Burroughs Machines Ltd (Glasgow, UK)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
76
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 85 16:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: susan watkins <chaowatkins@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert system based database
-BODY-
I'm interested in finding out whether database systems using expert
system technology (or other AI techniques) have been developed.
Is it, for example, fruitful to think about the difference between an
expert-system-database and a conventional database with an `intelligent'
user-interface front end (presumably holding the `reasoning' part of the
knowledge that are domain specific to the application) ?


  [The 1st Int. Conf. on Expert Database Systems will be held in
  Charleston, April 1-4, 1986.  See AIList vol. 3, no. 57, for an
  announcement and list of the program committee.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jun 1985 20:56-EDT
-FROM-
From: RSHU@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Military and Financial Expert Systems
-BODY-
I noticed that the Intl. Workshops on Expert Systems and Applications will
include two areas which I am interested in.  The first is J.F. Gilmore's talk
on military applications of expert systems.  The second is Kershberg &
Dickinson's talk on an expert support system for financial analysis.

I would appreciate the following:

1) Pointers to the above mentioned researchers.  Net addresses are preferred
   physical mail would also be appreciated.

2) Pointers to anyone else working in either of these two fields.

I am currently working on a support system for tank platoon tactics.  Our work
centers around reasoning with a terrain database to make conclusions about
visibility and trafficability.  This project is not classified so I'll gladly
provide more information if anyone is interested.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Jun 85 17:20:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: MARCEL@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Love-Hate Computers
-BODY-
At present, computer science and especially artificial intelligence work is
very highly regarded by those outside the field. When people find out what
my trade is I can sometimes watch the points go up on their prestige score-
board. On the other hand there is something about computers and AI that can
arouse strong instinctive fears. For the most part it's a matter of speculation
what those fears are. Few people know the field well enough to judge it
accurately, and those who do know the field (and its resemblance to alchemy) no
longer fear it. That, and the fact that the articulated reason for fear is
unlikely to be the actual reason, makes it largely a matter of guesswork as
to what the problem is. Let me propose a few possibilities:

        - AI threatens to make machines autonomous
        - it's humiliating that mere machines can be smarter than us
        - AI hopes to make machines capable of improving their own techniques,
          thus automating the invasion of technique over spontaneity, and
          multiplying Future Shock
        - people don't know how to use computers, so feel intimidated
        - people worry about being controlled by/dependent on machines
        - we have to redefine what it is that makes us humane -- some kinds
          of intelligence will become unimportant, and people are just
          emotional machines -- so we lose some aspect of "what's special
          about me"
        - we may be machines ourselves, devoid of free will/responsibility
        - machines will take over our jobs

I'd like to know of:
        - other causes of technophobia
        - references to literature analyzing technology (I know about Asimov,
          Weizenbaum, Dreyfus, Dennett, Turkle, Ellul, Toffler, Wiener, Huxley
          and the like)

Please send replies directly to me:
        Marcel@SRI-AI.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7-Jun-85 10:08:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: mhb@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp on the Sun
-BODY-

Regarding query concerning Lisp on Sun, I am familiar with the
following three versions.

(1) Franz Lisp as part of the Berkeley Distribution Tape
(2) Franz Lisp sold by "Franz, Inc." in Berkeley
    This has some Common Lisp features added to it.
    Vendor: (415) 540-1224
(3) Common Lisp, currently under development by "Lucid" in Palo Alto
    Phone: (415) 424-8855

Mike Bender
Ford Aerospace

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Jun 85 09:30:24-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <LRC.Throop@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Capitalization: Various Entities
-BODY-
Class                           Capitalization          Pronoun Capitalization
=============================================================================
Inanimate Object               Normally lowercase      Normally lowercase
(bugs, desks, toaster)                                   (it, them)

People                         First letter            Normally lowercase
(Tom, Dick, Harry)              uppercase               (him, her, they)

Dieties                        First letter            Always uppercase
(Christ, Krishna, Athena)       uppercase               (He, Him, Her)

Expert Systems                 All letters             (Answer uncertain,
(EMYCIN, ISIS, SOLOMON)         uppercase                 ask One)
=============================================================================

  [Aside from the humor in this progression, there seem to be at least
  the following factors at work:  1) FORTRAN, COBOL, and other relics
  of the golden age of punched cards;  2) copyright/trademark conventions;
  3) acronym syntax; and  4) the right of a developer to name a system
  whatever he wants.  I have been told by an editor that any nonacronym
  of more than five letters (4? 6?) should have only a single capital,
  e.g., Prospector, but I think that rule 4 should take precedence.
  Personally, I like all caps (except for AIList).  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 85 14:42:48 edt
-FROM-
From: rada@nlm-mcs (Roy Rada CSB)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Journal - Applied Artificial Intelligence
-BODY-

Perhaps you too have recognized the same  need  that  we,  a
group  of  American  and European AI researchers and practi-
cioners have felt regarding the absence of a journal devoted
to practical information such as

>    applications of AI, e.g. use of expert systems, natural
     language  systems,  speech,  vision,  and robotics, for
     solving tasks in industry, management,  administration,
     and education,

>    evaluations of existing AI  systems  and  tools,  espe-
     cially comparative studies,

>    user experience,

>    theoretical research with relevance to potential appli-
     cations,

>    economic, social, and cultural impacts of AI.

An established publisher has joined our forces, and  we  are
now happy to announce:

            AAI Applied Artificial Intelligence,
                 an International Journal.

The first issue of AAI will appear in January, 1986.

If you are interested in

>    being informed about the subscription prices, which are
     drastically reduced for members of AAAI, ACM, IEEE, and
     of member organisations of ECCAI and IFSR,

>    submitting a paper and want the Information for Authors
     (accepted  papers  will  be published rapidly--at least
     now!),

please contact

Hemisphere Publishing Corporation
79 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016.

                        June 7, 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Jun 85 09:43:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Obituary - King-sun Fu, 1930-1985
-BODY-
              [Reprinted from IEEE Computer, June 1985.]


King-sun Fu, Goss Distinguished Professor of Engineering and Professor
of Electrical Engineerinr at Purdue University died April 29 in
Washington, DC.

Fu was born October 2, 1930, in Nanking, China.  He earned a BS degree
in electrical engineering in 1953 from National Taiwan University, an
MA in science in 1955 from the University of Toronto, and a PhD degree
in 1959 from the University of Illinois.

Fu was a member of the National Academy of Engineering, a member of
Academia Sinica, and a Guggenheim Fellow.  He was the first president of
the International Association for Pattern Recognition.  He received the
IEEE Award of Service in 1971, ASEE Senior Research Award in 1981,
IEEE Educational Medal in 1982, and AFIPS Harry Goode Memorial Award in
1982.  He authored four widely adopted textbooks and edited more than
15 books, was author or coauthor of over 100 journal papers and over
200 conference papers.  He also produced over 60 doctoral students.

He was a distinguished member and dedicated officer of the IEEE Computer
Society.  He was elected a fellow of the IEEE in 1971 for his contributions
to the field of pattern recognition and leadership in engineering
education.  He was the first editor-in-chief of the IEEE Transactions
on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence and served as vice president
for publications for the Computer Society in 1982-83.  He received several
awards from the Computer Society, including the Outstanding Paper Award
in 1973, Honor Roll in 1973, Certificate of Appreciation in 1977 and 1979,
and Special Award in 1982.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 85 11:51:44 edt
-FROM-
From: FRAWLEY <20568%udel-cc-vax1.delaware@UDEL-LOUIE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Self-Reproduction and Consciousness
-BODY-
I'd like to make a few comments on the discussion about self-reproduction
and consciousness/intelligence.

As several people have pointed out (and I agree), size does not
ensure self-reproduction. This, of course, depends on what is meant
by "self-reproduction," but, Fodor's arguments against paramecia not
having mental representations notwithstanding, it looks as if
there is some evolutionatry continuity in consciousness: see
Griffin's book, The Question of Animal Awareness. Thus, size is not
the issue. After all, computers are very large, but they have
no consciousness and, in my opinion, no intelligence (this of course
is just Dreyfus' and Searle's arguments).

I think this discussion would profit if "self-reproduction" were
defined. Cugini is correct, I'd say, in pointing out that self-
reference does not equal intelligence or consciousness (i.e., the
Hofstadter argument pushed to the extreme). I think that we ought
to consider self-reference as "self-communication" or "symbolic
self-interaction." See Dennett's great book, Elbow Room. A computer
has self-reference, but no self-communication: A computer can "say"
"I'm a computer" (self-reference), but that "utterance" doesn't
mean anything to the machine (no self-communication); again, this
is just Searle's argument put in terms of Dennett. "Self-communication"
is important because it changes our ideas about other human
cognitive processes and the whole size/self-reference problem.
Memory is not a data-structure, but a way that a human communicates
with himself/herself through time (Michael Cole's argument). That's
why it doesn't matter how large the memory is: if memory
is not a self-communication method, the organism will never
be conscious. In any case, Dennett's book is excellent on this
problem, as is Searle's Minds, Brains and Science. Some of these
issues are addressed directly in the journal Human Development,
though that journal may be a little too social-psychological for
the hardcore AI community.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
77
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 85 14:58:27 edt
-FROM-
From: rada@nlm-mcs (Roy Rada CSB)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 8th European Cybernetics and Systems Research
-BODY-

                         ANNOUNCING

                  Eighth European Meeting
            on Cybernetics and Systems Research

                      April 1-4, 1986

                at the University of Vienna

Contact:
          Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies
      A-1010 Wien 1, Schottengasse 3, Austria (Europe)

We draw your attention to symposium E

           "Cybernetics in Biology and Medicine"

which is being chaired by:

                       Gerold Porenta
          Department of Medical Cybernetics and AI
                    University of Vienna
            Freyung 6/2, A 1010 Vienna, Austria


                        June 7, 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 1985 23:59-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: recent technical reports
-BODY-
%A Bipin Indurkhya
%T A Computational Theory of Metaphor Comprehension and Analogical Reasoning
%R BUCS Tech Report #85-001
%I Boston University
%D February 1985

%A Michael Siegel
%A Edward Sciore
%T Automatic Constraint Generation for Semantic Query Optimization
%I Boston University
%D April 1985
%R BUCS #85--006

%A Bruce Abramson
%A Mordechai Young
%T Construction through Decomposition: A Linear Time Algorithm for the
   N-Queens Problem
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-129-84

%A Rodney Farrow
%T Covers of Attribute Grammars and Sub-Protocol Attribute Evaluators
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-71-83

%A Rodney Farrow
%T Experience with a Production Compiler Automatically Generated from
   an Attribute Grammar
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-102-84

%A Hussein A. H. Ibrahim
%T Image Understanding Algorithms on Fine-Grained Tree-Structured SIMD Machines
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-139-84

%A Toru Ishida
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Simultaneous Firing of Production Rules on Tree Structured Machines
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-109-84

%A John R. Kender
%T Environmental Relations in Image Understanding: The Force of Gravity
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-47-83

%A John R. Kender
%T Surface Constraints From Linear Extents
%I Columbia Universtiy
%R CUCS-49-83

%A Richard E. Korf
%T An Analysis of Abstraction in Problem Solving
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-108-84

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T "Abstract" Understanding: The Relation Between Language and Memory
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-12-81
%O describes system to "remember" patent abstracts

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Memory Based Parsing
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-13-81
%O describes system to "read" news stories

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Representing Complex Events Simply
%R CUCS-14-81
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Implementing Descriptions Using Non-Von Neumann Parallelism
%R CUCS-52-83
%I Columbia University
%O describes implementing memory search on Columbia's Non-Von computer

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Classifying Numeric Information for Generalization
%R CUCS-53-83
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Researcher: An Overview
%R CUCS-54-83
%I Columbia University
%O describes system read natural text and create an intelligent information
   system

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Creating a Story Telling Universe
%R CUCS-55-83
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Putting Pieces Together: Understanding Patent Abstracts
%R CUCS-98-84
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Creating Characters in a Story-Telling Universe
%R CUCS-99-84
%I Columbia University

%A Micheal Lebowitz
%T Ill-Formed Text and Conceptual Processing
%R CUCS-101-84
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowtiz
%T Interest and Predictability: Deciding What to Learn, When to Learn
%R CUCS-110-84
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Concept Learning in a Rich Input Domain: Generalization-Based Memory
%R CUCS-111-84
%I Columbia University

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Using Memory in Text Understanding
%R CUCS-121-84
%I Columbia University

%A Andy Lowry
%A Stephen Taylor
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T LPS Algorithms: A Detailed Examination
%R CUCS-112-84
%I Columbia University
%O logic program system for parallel architectures

%A Andy Lowry
%A Stephen Taylor
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T LPS Algorithms: A Critical Analysis
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-113-84
%O logic program system for parallel architectures

%A Kevin Matthews
%A Katthleen McKeown
%T Taking the Intitiative in Problem-Solving Discourse
%R CUCS-114-84
%I Columbia University

%A Katthleen R. McKeown
%T Recursion in Text and Its Use in Language Generation
%R CUCS-39-83
%I Columbia University

%A Katthleen R. McKeown
%T The Text System for Natural Language Generation
%R CUCS-23-82
%I Columbia University

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Focus Constraints on Language Generation
%R CUCS-40-83
%I Columbia University
%O responding to questions about database structure

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Natural Language Systems: How are They Meeting Human Needs?
%R CUCS-76-83
%I Columbia University

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Natural Language For Expert Systems: Comparisons with Database Systems
%R CUCS-91-84
%I Columbia University

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T User-Oriented Explanation for Expert Systems
%R CUCS-85-83
%I Columbia University

%A Marcia A. Derr
%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Using Focus to Generate Complex and Simple Sentences
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-86-83
%O system to decide whether to use a sequence of simple sentences or
   a single complex one.  student advisor expert system.  Prolog
   Definite Clause Grammar Function

%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T Performance Analysis of Two Competing DADO PE Designs
%R CUCS-118-84
%I Columbia University
%O DADO is a system designed for AI production systems

%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T Performance Estimates for the DADO Machine: A comparison of TREAT and RETE
%R CUCS-140-84
%I Columbia University

%A Cecile Paris
%T Determining the Level of Expertise of a User of a Question Answering System
%R CUCS-115-84
%I Columbia University

%A Alexander Pasik
%A Marshall Schor
%T Table-Driven Rules in Expert System
%R CUCS-69-83
%I Columbia University
%O interfacing database systems and knowledge based systems

%A Theodore M. Sabety
%A Brian Mathies
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T The Semi-Automatic Generation of Processing Element Control Paths for
   Highly Parallel Machines
%R CUCS-127-84
%I Columbia University

%A David Elliot Shaw
%A William R. Swartout
%A C. Cordell Green
%T Inferring Lisp Programs From Examples
%R CUCS-1-75
%I Columbia University

%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Structure and Abstraction in a System for Conceptual Matching
%R CUCS-2-77
%I Columbia University

%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Knowledge-Based Retrieval on a Relational Database Machine
%R CUCS-9-80
%I Columbia University

%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Non-Von: A Parallel Machine Architecture for Knowledge-Based Information
   Processing
%R CUCS-18-81
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Learning Control of Production Systems
%R CUCS-6-79
%I Columbia University

%A Malcolm C. Harrison
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Learning Meta-Rule Control of Production Systems from Execution Traces
%I Columbia University
%R CUCS-10-80

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Specialized Hardware for Production Systems
%R CUCS-16-81
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Dado: A Tree-Structured Architecture for Production Systems
%R CUCS-24-82
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatoe J. Stolfo
%A Gregg T. Vesonder
%T Ace: An Expert System Supporting Analysis and Management Decision Making
%R CUCS-33-82
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A Daniel Miranker
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Progamming the Dado Machine: An Introduction to PPL/M
%R CUCS-34-82
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A David Miranker
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Architecture and Applications of Dado: A Large Scale Parallel Computer
   for Artificial Intelligence
%R CUCS-43-83
%I Columbia University
%K PROLOG tree-structured

%A Salvaotre J. Stolfo
%T Knowledge Engineering: Theory and Practice
%R CUCS-56-83
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T The Dado Parallel Computer
%R CUCS-63-83
%I Columbia University
%K RETE PROLOG

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T On the Design of Parallel Production System Machines: Whats in a Lip?
%R CUCS-77-83
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Five Parallel Algorithms for Productin System Execution on the DADO Machine
%R CUCS-116-84
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T Dado: A Parallel Processor for Expert Systems
%R CUCS-123-84
%I Columbia University

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T A Note on Implementing OPS5 Production Systems on DADO
%R CUCS-130-84
%I Columbia University
%X rebuttal to Anoop Gupta's performance analysis of DADO and conclusion
   that it is not an effective OPS5 machine

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Is Cad/CAM Ready for AI
%R CUCS-128-84
%I Columbia University

%A Stephen Taylor
%A Christoher Maio
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A David E. Shaw
%T Prolog on the DADO Machine: A Parallel System for High-Speed Logic
   Programming
%R CUCS-46-83
%I Columbia University

%A S. Taylor
%A A. Lowry
%A G. Q. Maguire Jr.
%A S. J. Stolfo
%T Logic Programming Using Parallel Associative Operations
%R CUCS-96-84
%I Columbia University

%A Stephen Taylor
%A Daphne Tzoar
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Unification in a Parallel Environment
%R CUCS-97-84
%I Columbia University

%A Stephen Taylor
%A Gerald Maguire, Jr.
%A Andy Lowry
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Analyzing Prolog Programs
%R CUCS-117-84
%I Columbia University

%A Michael K. van Biema
%A Mark D. Lerner
%A Gerlad Maguire
%A Salvatore J. Stofo
%T ||PSL: A Parallel Lisp for the DADO Machine
%R CUCS-107-84
%I Columbia University

%A Kenneth Wasserman
%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Representing Complex Physical Objects in Memory
%R CUCS-37-82
%K frames patents Researcher
%I Columbia University

%A Kenneth Wasserman
%T Physical Object Representation and Generalization A Survey of
   Natural Language Processing Programs
%R CUCS-62-83
%I Columbia Univeristy

%A Kenneth Wasserman
%T Understanding Hierarchically Structured Objects
%R CUCS-124-84
%I Columbia University

%A C. R. Giardina
%T The Universal Imaging Algebra
%R Tech Rep. EECS 8307
%D March 1983
%I Stevens Institute of Technology
%K translation thresholding erosion counting covariance function

%A C. R. Giardina
%T Observations on the Variety of the Universal Imaging Algebra
%R Tech. Rep. EECS 8309
%I Stevens Institute of Technology
%K convex hull

%A C. R. Giardina
%T A Bernstein Polynomial Feature Extraction Technique
%R Tech. Rep. EECS 8310
%I Stevens Institute of Technology
%D April 1983
%K Chebychev norm    chain encoded

%A C. R. Giardina
%T The Method of Moments in the Universal Imaging Algebra
%R Tech. Rep. EECS 8311
%D May 1983
%I Stevens Institute of Technology
%K ellipse   image segmentation

%A C. R. Giardina
%T Syntactical Pattern Recognition via the Universal Imaging Algebra
%R Tech. Rep. EECS 8317
%D June 1983
%I Stevens Institute of Technology

%A C. R. Giardina
%T The Fuzzification of Morphological Operators in the Universal Imaging
   Algebra
%R Tech. Rep. EECS 8321
%I Stevens Institute of Technology
%D August 1983
%K dilation   erosion indicator thinning thickening

%A Christian Lengauer
%A Chua-Huang Huang
%T Automated Deduction in Programming Language Semantics: The Mechanical
   Certification of Program Transformations to Derive Concurrence
%R TR 85-04
%I University of Texas at Austin
%K automated theorem proving  semantic relations

%A Michael R. Eisler
%A Armar Mukherjee
%T An Approximate String Matching Chip
%R CS-TR-85-01
%I University of Central Florida

%A F. Gomez
%T Objective Understanding: Explanatory Driven Comprehension of
   Elementary Scientific Test
%R CS-TR-85-03
%I University of Central Flordia

%A Fernando Gomez
%T TQ: A Specification Language Based on Conceptualizations Underlying
   Natural Language
%R CS-TR-83
%I University of Central Florida

%A Fernando Gomez
%T Prepositions and Participles in LLULL
%R CS-TR-62
%I University of Central Florida
%K natural language

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
78
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jun 1985 13:14-EDT
-FROM-
From: SDMARTIN@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Animal Predation
-BODY-
I would appreciate any information about the modelling of group
intelligence among animals, particularly predatory behavior.
Has anyone written any AI programs which "learn" the best
strategies for group food collection, for example cooperation
within a hunting wolf pack?  Thanks.  sdmartin@bbng.

  [This seems to have some similarity to studies of the "commons"
  problem, in which different strategies for sharing a common
  resources (such as the village "common" or "green" used to graze
  sheep) are seen to collapse if individual greed is not kept in
  check.  I remember reading about psychological simulations,
  probably in Popular Psychology or the defunct Human Nature, but
  I don't know of any AI studies.  Do any of the "core wars"
  automata learn cooperation?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jun 1985 0358 PST
-FROM-
From: Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Capitalization
-BODY-
The progression is obvious: pronouns referring to artificial intelligences
are all caps.  Thus you should have said: "Uncertain; ask ONE."  Or one
may say in another context, "Ask IT if IT's intelligent."

                        Larry @ jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 85 11:32:22 PDT
-FROM-
From: Phyllis O'Neil <oneil@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-85:  campus housing available
-BODY-

Economical UCLA dormitory rooms and suites are still available for
IJCAI-85 this August ...

Campus housing forms are on pages 27 and 29 of the IJCAI-85 conference
brochure.  For copies of the brochure, contact:

     AAAI
     445 Burgess Dr.
     Menlo Park, CA 94025
     (415) 328-3123


The incorrect area code for AAAI's phone was given on the previous
announcement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jun 1985 1743-CDT
-FROM-
From: Doug <Johnson%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Explorer/Symbolics Compatibility
-BODY-
Texas Instruments has a document that is the result of our experience
(and that of our customers) in porting code from Symbolics to Explorers.
The document is available from me on request.  I can send it via the net
(preferred) or U.S. mail if desired.  In general, porting is not a
difficult task.  The differences are largely the kind of things you
would expect from software with common ancestry and different
maintainers.

>- Doug

Johnson%ti-csl@csnet-relay

Douglas Johnson MS 238
Texas Instruments
P.O. Box 226015
Dallas, Texas  75266

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 85 17:27:27 edt
-FROM-
From: Bruce Smith <BTS%UNC@csnet-relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New LIST of PROLOGs
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The "LIST of PROLOGs" was started by Randy Harr (then at
CWRU) and myself, largely from the USENET and ARPANET
computer networks.  It's grown over the last couple of
years, with help from numerous Prolog folks.

     The list emphasizes Prolog systems that are currently
available. Also, I've tried to note which vendors offer
educational discounts. There are a lot of new Prolog
systems being announced, with rumors of still more on the
way.  In particular, I expect that this list'll be very
much out of date after this summer's Logic Programming
Symposium and, of course, IJCAI.

     Please let me know of any additions or corrections
to the list.  Sorry, but I didn't have time to verify all
the information.  Some of the entries are also over a year
old and are likely out of date.

>- Bruce T. Smith

[ this file is available from the SCORE:PS:<Prolog>
  directory as Prolog.NImplementations  -ed ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Jun 85 16:53:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Semantics for Modal Logic
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                               CSLI REPORT

      Report No. CSLI-85-25, ``An Internal Semantics for Modal Logic:
   Preliminary Report'' by Ronald Fagin and Moshe Vardi, has just been
   published.  This report may be obtained by writing to David Brown,
   CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 1985 17:23-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Tech Reports and some articles
-BODY-
%A D. Rozenshtein
%A J. Chomicki
%T Unifying the Use and Evolution of Database Systems: A Case Study in
PROLOG
%R LCSR-TR-68
%I Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University
%K frame control

%A C. V. Srinivasan
%T CK-LOG, A Calculus for Knowledge Processing in Logic
%R DCS-TR-153
%I Laboratory for Computer Research, Rutgers University
%K MDS

%A A. Hsu
%A T. Imielinski
%T Integrity Checking for Multiple Updates
%R DCS-TR-155
%I Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University
%K and-or database

%A S. M. Ehrlich
%A J. R. Gabriel
%A A. Gonen
%A L. Kuchnir
%T Graph Theoretic Approaches to Diagnostics: Applications of Logic
Programming and Cutset Theory to Aspects of Reactor and Circuit
Analysis
%R ANL-84-74
%D JAN 1985
%I Argonne National Labs Mathematical and Computer Science Division
%K PROLOG

%A J. R. Gabriel
%A T. G. Lindholm
%A E. L. Lusk
%A R. A. Overbeek
%T A Short Note on Achieveable LIP Rates Using the Warren Abstract
Prolog Machine
%R MCS-TM-36
%I Argonne National Labs Mathematics and Computer Science Division

%A J. R. Gabriel
%A P. R. Roberts
%T A Signal Flow Model for Sequential Logic Built from Combinatorial
Logic Elements and Its Implementation in PROLOG
%R ANL-84-89
%D SEP 1984
%I Argonne National Labs Mathematics and Computer Science Division

%A E. Lusk
%A R. Overbeek
%T Comment atteindre le milliard d'inferences par seconde
%J Intelligence Artificielle et Productique
%V 3
%D NOV 1984
%P 5-7
%O (in French)
%X describes work on the Denelcor Hep to get high number of logic inferences
per second

%A E. Lusk
%A R. Overbeek
%T Non-Horn Problems
%J JAR
%V 1
%N 1
%P 103-114
%D FEB 1985
%X Problems illustrating difficulties when a problem cannot be formulated
naturally in Horn clauses

%A E. L. Lusk
%A R. A. Overbeek
%T Research Topics: Multiprocessing Algorithms for Computational Logic
%R MCS-TM-31
%I Argonne National Labs Mathematical and Computer Science Division

%A L. Wos
%T Achievements in Automated Reasoning
%J SIAM News
%D JUL 1984
%P 4-5

%A L. Wos
%T Automated Reasoning
%J American Mathematical Monthly
%V 92
%D FEB 9185
%P 85-92

%A L. Wos
%T Automated Reasoning Programs: How They Work
%J SIAM News
%D SEP 1984
%P 4-5

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Jun 85 09:52:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: LOWRANCE@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Plausible Reasoning (SU & SRI)
-BODY-

                      **** SPECIAL JOINT SEMINAR ****

                     Sponsored by SRI International and
             the Stanford Medical Information Sciences Program

                           Professor Judea Pearl
                        Computer Science Department
                   University of California, Los Angeles

                              Friday, June 14
                    Room M-114, Stanford Medical School
                               1:30pm-3:30pm


                 "A Graph-Calculus for Plausible Reasoning"
                                     or
          "How to Do with Probabilities what People Say You Can't"


                              ABSTRACT

     Numbers are known to be bad summarizers of knowledge.  However,
probabilistic networks of conceptually related propositions, in which
the numbers serve to regulate and propel the flow of information,
allow reasoning about uncertainty to be as knowledge-intensive,
accurate, and psychlogically plausible as the level of details which
we care to explicate. The talk will describe a calculus which
facilitates concurrent, self-activated and stable propagation of
beliefs in such networks, and which is based on strict compliance
with probability theory.

Specific attention will be paid to the following issues:

1. Constructing probabilistic knowledge-bases without
   collecting "massive amounts of data".

2. Making explicit assertions about independencies without
   feeling guilty, without leaning on "Entropic" principles,
   and without hiding assumptions under the guise of new calculi.

3. Distinguishing ignorance from uncertainty, postponing
   judgments, and representing uncertainty about
   probabilities.

4. Handling uncertain evidence without "ad-hoc-ery".

5. Admiting implicit (i.e. "intangible") evidence.

6. Maintaining consistency without interpolations.

7. Identifying conflicting evidence.

8. Making sure that evidence in favor of a hypothesis
   would not be construed as partially suporting its
   negation.

9. Tracing back assumptions and sources of belief to
   produce sound explanations.

10. Updating beliefs in hierarchical hypotheses spaces,
    avoiding circular reasoning, using self-activated
    propagation mechanisms.

11. Optimizing the acquisition of data.

12. Recommending actions with meaningful guarantees
    and reasoned assumptions.


Judea is planning to visit SRI the morning of June 14, before the
joint seminar at Stanford.  At that time we will discuss "a short
appetizer" that he is preparing, "My strugles with Mr. Holmes."  We
will meet at 10:30 in EJ232.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06/10/85 10:57:52
-FROM-
From: AH at MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Partial Correctness Logic for Procedures (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


DATE:  JUNE 12, 1985
TIME:  1:45PM      Refreshments
       2:00PM      Lecture
PLACE:  NE43-374

A PARTIAL CORRECTNESS LOGIC FOR PROCEDURES
(IN AN ALGOL-LIKE LANGUAGE)

Kurt Sieber
University of Saarlandes


We extend Hoare's logic by allowing quantifiers and other logical connectives
to be used on the level of Hoare formulas.  This leads to a logic in which
partial correctness properties of procedures (and not only of statements) can
be formulated adequately.  In particular it is possible to argue about free
procedures, i.e. procedures which are not bound by a declaration but only
"specified" semantically.  This property of our logic (and of the corresponding
calculus) is important from both a practical and a theoretical point of view,
namely:
> Formal proofs of programs can be written in the style of stepwise refinement.
> Procedures on parameter position can be handled adequately, so that some
sophisticated programs can be verified, which are beyond the power of other
calculi.

HOST:  Professor Albert R. Meyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 1985 22:17-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at upcoming conferences
-BODY-
Twelth International Symposium on Computer Architecture
Boston Park Plaza Conference June 17-19, 1985

Lisp Machines
Architecture of the Symbolics 3600 D. Moon Symbolics
Parallel Garbage Collection without Synchronization Overhead. A. Ram
J. Patel Univ. of Illinois
An Efficient LISP-Executive Architecture with a New Presentation for
List Structures G. Sohi, Et. al. Univ. of Illinois

LOGIC Programming Machines
Performance Studies of a Prolog Machine Architecture T. Dobry, A.
Despain, Y. Patt Berkeley
Design of a High-Speed Prolog Machine R. Nakazaki et. al. NEC, ICOT
A Hardware Unification Unit: Design and Analysis N. Woo, Bell Labs

____________________________________________________________________________

ACM Sigplan 85 Symposium on Language Issues in Programming Environments

Session 2-3:30 Wednesday June 26, 1985
Debugging in a Side Effect Free Programming Environment
Cordelia V. Hall, John T. O'Donnell, Indiana U.

Session 6 11-12:30 Thursday June 27, 1985
An Algebra for Program Fragments Bent Bruun Kristensen, Aalborg U.;
Ole Lehrmann Madsen, Aarhus U; birger Moller-Pedersen Norwegian
Computing Center; Kristen Nygaard U. of Oslo

Session 8 Friday June 28, 1985 9:30-1:00
An Environment for Logic Programming Nissim Francez, Technion, Shalom
Goldenberg, Ron Pinter, Michael Tiom,kin, IBM Israel Scientific Center,
Shalom Tsur, MCC

Logic Programming Engineering Shell Henryk Jan Komorowski, Shigeo Omoro,
Harvard U.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
79
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Jun 85 13:59:39-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: proposal for ijcai ICAI meeting
-BODY-

        I have suddenly gotten an urge to find out who is interested in
applications of AI to educational computing.  That would include knowledge
based tutoring systems, interactive encyclopedias, etc.  Is there a bboard
on the net that discusses such issues?
        I was speaking with someone who is also interested in this area and
It occurred to me that it would be neat to have an interest group meeting
at IJCAI this august.  Is anyone out there interested?  Does anyone know
who to contact about setting up such a meeting at IJCAI?  (someone involved
with setting up the conference).  It would be nice to have a time and place
to meet and an advance announcement about it in some form.  Perhaps, 1 or
more people want to volunteer to be discussion leaders.
mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Jun 85 08:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Animal Predation
-BODY-
The two papers that I remember reading that refer to sharing commons are
"The Tragedy of the Commons," by Garrett Hardin, and "Tragedy of the
Commons Revisited" (I'm not sure of the author of this one).  Both
appeared in SCIENCE, Hardin's paper came out in the late 1960's or early
1970's, "The Tragedy ... Revisited" later in the 1970's.  If anyone
needs the exact references, I can dig them up at home upon request.

Bill Anderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 85 15:15:22 edt
-FROM-
From: hal%gvax@Cornell.ARPA (Hal Perkins)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Typography
-BODY-

[...]  I don't want to start a holy war about typography in the
digest, but ...


>  Personally, I like all caps (except for AIList).  -- KIL

Actually, an initial capital and small caps, or all caps in a slightly
smaller size looks much better than all caps (in my non-expert opinion).
All-caps is awfully obtrusive.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 85 13:39:36 CDT
-FROM-
From: marick@GSWD-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp user survey -- Results
-BODY-

Here's a summary of my survey of what users want from Lisp systems.  I've
also produced a longer document containing the full text of each question
together with the relevant text from each response.  Send me mail
(ARPANET:  MARICK@GSWD-VMS; USENET:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!marick)
if you want it.

Nine people responded; all of them were from the ARPANET.  (No one on the
USENET uses Lisp?) If anyone wants to send more responses, I'll take them
and incorporate them.

I hope I've summarized people's responses adequately.  If you have more than
a passing interest in the issues, please send for the full report.

1.  Lisp machines vs. general-purpose workstations vs. timeshared
    "mainframes".

    For development purposes, Lisp machines or general-purpose workstations
    are the clear favorite.  The argument is that people are very expensive
    compared to hardware, and that the productivity gain of a personal
    computer offsets the hardware cost.  There is a counter-argument that
    the productivity gain is not necessarily due to features unique to
    Lisp machines, but which happen to be available only on Lisp machines.

    For delivery purposes, the obvious answer is "it depends".  Dumb
    question.  However, it's not clear that developers have considered
    delivery carefully enough.

2.  Calling functions written in another language.

    A majority finds this feature necessary.  It is less necessary on the
    Lisp machines, but there is still the need to use foreign code.
    People need to be able to invoke both canned packages and
    one-of-a-kind functions.

3.  Embedded editor vs. external editor

    Most people don't care, provided the editor provides a good enough
    connection to LISP.  The definition of "good enough" varies, and
    it's of course easier to provide if the editor is internal.

4.  Creating as-small-as-possible stand-alone "application programs".

    No particular consensus.  Some people would like it, some don't care,
    and some don't think as-small-as-possible is particularly small.

5.  Object-oriented programming.

    Object-oriented programming is important.  The right system has yet
    to be invented.

6.  Speed.

    Speed is very important.  Both the speed of the development system when
    doing development tasks and the speed of the final compiled code are
    important.

7.  How adequate are the standard debugging tools?

    Most people think they're adequate, but could be better.  (One person
    thought they were quite insufficient; one thought they were overkill.)
    The use of embedded languages creates the need to debug at the level
    of those languages.

8.  Other important things.

    Tight integration, consistency of user interface, good documentation,
    availability of understandable source code, a standard dialect for
    portability, access to external devices, large address space,
    source code control.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1985  23:19 PDT
-FROM-
From: DAVIES@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The following is Hal Abelson's response to my request for information
about what's good about Scheme:

 The following description of Scheme is taken from the "Chez Scheme
 Manual" by Kent Dybvig, with some editing by Hal Abelson:

 Scheme is an applicative-order, lexically-scoped, and block-structured
 dialect of Lisp.  Like almost all Lisp dialects, Scheme is an
 interactive language with automatic storage management for data
 objects, including lists, strings, various numeric datatypes, and
 symbols.  Because of this, Scheme is ideally suited to symbolic and
 dynamic computation.  Because Scheme is interactive, it is easy to
 learn Scheme by experimenting with it.

 Scheme also employs lexical scoping and block structure.  In this way,
 it is similar to Algol 60 and Pascal and unlike traditional
 (dynamically-scoped) Lisp dialects.  But Scheme goes beyond either
 traditional Lisp or Algol-like languages by providing procedures as
 "first-class" data objects.  A Scheme procedure may be passed as an
 argument, returned as a value, made part of a compostive data
 structure, and stored indefinitely while still retaining the
 environment of its definition.

 Like Scheme, Common Lisp also provides lexical scoping and first-class
 procedures.  However, Common Lisp does not treat procedures and data
 in a uniform manner: Procedure identifiers are separate from data
 identifiers, evaluation of the operator position of a combination
 follows different rules than evaluation of the operand positions, and
 procedures must be "quoted" in a special way if they are to be treated
 as data.  Scheme really does treat procedures and data uniformly,
 greatly simplifying evaluation rules and cutting down namespaces, and
 gaining expressive power with no loss of efficiency.

 Another difference between Scheme and Common Lisp is that Scheme is
 specified to be tail-recursive -- procedure calls can be evaluated
 without building up space for "control stack."  This permits the
 definition of a wide variety of "imperative" constructs (such as
 loops and other iterators) purely in terms of procedure application.
 Additionally, Scheme does not prescribe the order of argument
 evaluation (as does Common Lisp) so there is more freedom for the
 Scheme implementor to rearrange programs for optimization or for
 parallel evaluation.

 As a consequence of lexical scoping and tail recursion, Scheme
 encourages functional (side-effect free) programming.  The
 higher-order procedures that a Scheme programmer can easily construct
 and use provide alternative and more elegant ways to perform most of
 the computations that are usually accomplished with side-effects.

 Another feature of Scheme places it beyond other Lisp dialects, and
 most other programming languages as well.  This is the provision for
 continuations, a general control facility based on solid semantic
 principles.  Continuations allow the implementation of control
 structures such as coroutines, non-blind backtracking, and multiple
 tasks.

 These semantic attributes of Scheme help the programmer to create
 clear, concise, and maintainable programs and program systems.
 However, the most important attribute of Scheme supporting this
 goal is its simplicity.  The Scheme community has staunchly resisited
 the addition of new language features that have not proven themselves
 to be general engough to warrant making the language larger.  As a
 result, Scheme is a fairly small language that relies on a small set
 of underlying concepts, which once mastered, provide more power than
 the less general mechanisms found in other programming languages.

 A complete description of Scheme can be found in the "Revised Revised
 Report on Scheme," edited by Will Clinger.  This is published as a
 joint technical report of the Indiana University Computer Science
 Department and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (June 1985).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
80
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 85 15:47 EST
-FROM-
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A General Machine-Learning Mechanism (GM)
-BODY-

             Towards a General Machine-Learning Mechanism

                        Paul Rosenbloom
                      Stanford University

                Thursday, June 27, 1985, 10:00 a.m.
                General Motors Research Laboratories
                   Computer Science Department
                        Warren, Michigan

Machine learning is the process by which a computer can bring about
improvements in its own performance.  A general machine-learning mechanism
is a single mechanism that can bring about a wide variety of performance
improvements (ultimately all required types).  In this talk I will present
some recent progress in building such a mechanism.  This work shows that the
combination of a simple learning mechanism (chunking) with a sophisticated
problem-solver (SOAR) can yield: (1) practice speed-ups, (2) transfer of
learning between related tasks, (3) strategy acquisition, (4) automatic
knowledge-acquisition, and (5) the learning of general macro-operators of
the type used by Korf (1983) to solve Rubik's cube.  These types of learning
are demonstrated for traditional search-based tasks, such as tic-tac-toe and
the eight puzzle, and for R1-SOAR (a reformulation of a portion of the R1
expert system in SOAR).

This work has been pursued in collaboration with John Laird (Xerox PARC) and
Allen Newell (Carnegie-Mellon University).

>Steve Holland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 85 16:25:22 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Decision Procedures (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the IBM-SJ Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                      IBM San Jose Research Lab
                           5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

  Tues., June 25 Computer Science Seminar
  11:15 A.M.  DECISION PROCEDURES
  Aud. A      Distributed artificial intelligence is the study of
            how a group of individual intelligent agents can
            combine to solve a difficult global problem.  This
            talk discusses in very general terms the problems of
            achieving this global goal by considering simpler,
            local subproblems; we drop the usual requirement that
            the agents working on the subproblems do not
            interact.  We are led to a single assumption, which
            we call common rationality, that is provably optimal
            (in a formal sense) and which enables us to
            characterize precisely the communication needs of the
            participants in multi-agent interactions.  An example
            of a distributed computation using these ideas is presented.

            M. Ginsberg, Stanford University
            Host:  J. Halpern (HALPERN@IBM-SJ)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Jun 85 17:02:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Organisms' Internal Models (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                    *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 27, 1985

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Redwood Hall       ``An Organism and Its Internal Model of the World''
     Room G-19          Pentti Kanerva, CSLI
                        Discussion led by Alex Pentland

                     ABSTRACT OF NEXT WEEK'S SEMINAR
           ``An Organism and Its Internal Model of the World''

      There is a glaring disparity in how children and computers learn
   things.  By and large, children are not instructed explicitly but
   learn by observation, imitation, and trial and error.  What kind of
   computer architecture would allow a machine to learn the way children
   do?
      In the model I have been studying, an organism is coupled to the
   world by its sensors and effectors.  The organism's mind-ware consists
   of a relatively small focus and a large memory.  The sensors feed
   information into the focus, the effectors are driven from the focus,
   the memory is addressed by the contents of the focus, the contents of
   the focus are stored in memory, and the memory feeds information into
   the focus.  The contents of the focus at a moment account for the
   subjective experience of the organism at that moment.
      The function of the memory is to store a model of the world for
   later reference.  The memory is sensitive to similarity in that
   approximate retrieval cues can be used to retrieve exact information.
   It is dynamic in that the present situation (its encoding) brings to
   focus the consequences of similar past situations.  The model sheds
   light on the frame problem of robotics, and it appears that a robot
   built according to this principle would learn by trial and error and
   would be able to plan actions and to perform planned sequences of
   actions.
     Reading: ``Parallel Structures in Human and Computer Memory,''
   available from Susi Parker at the Ventura Hall receptionist desk and
   on line as <PKANERVA>COGNITIVA.PAPER at SU-CSLI.ARPA.
                                                     --Pentti Kanerva

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jun 85 11:16:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Design Expert Systems (CMU)
-BODY-

            DESIGN RESEARCH CENTER BI-WEEKLY SEMINAR SERIES

                 COPS - A Concurrent Production System

                                BY
                     Luiz Alberto Villaca Leao
        Department Of Electrical and Computer Engineering

  Wednesday, June 26 at 1:30 pm in the Adamson Wing, Baker Hall

Existing tools for writing expert systems are most helpful when one wants to
emulate a single human expert working alone and without the aid of large
number crunching programs. Few engineering problems fit this template. Rather,
they tend to require multiple experts, working concurrently and supported by
numbers of CAD, CAM and other tools. COPS has been designed with these
requirements in mind. It is an interpreter of a superset of the OPS5 language.
It provides the means for implementing multiple blackboards that integrate
cooperating, concurrent expert systems, running in a distributed network of
processors.
>------

Refereshments will be served at 1:15

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Jun 85 10:49:56-EDT
-FROM-
From: Monica M. Strauss <MONICA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Unification of Logic, Function and Frames (MIT)
-BODY-
Date:  Friday 21 June, 1985
Time:  11:00AM
Place: 8th Floor Playroom


     The Uranus System -- Unification of Logic, Function and Frames

                        Hideyuki Nakashima
                    Electrotecnical Laboratory
                          Tsukuba, Japan


                             Abstract

Uranus is a knowledge representation system based on the concept of logic
programming.  The basic computational mechanism is the same as that of the
famous (or infamous!) logic programming language, Prolog, with several
extensions.

One important extension is the introduction of a multiple world mechanism.
Uranus consists of several independent definition spaces called worlds.
Worlds are combined at execution time to form a context for predicate
definitions.  Regarding a given world as a frame for a given concept, and
predicates as slots, you have a frame-like system in logic programming.

Another extension is along the lines of functional notations within the
semantics of logic.  Uranus has only one semantics, that of logic
programming.  At the same time, it has the expressive power, or
convenience, of functional programming.  Lazy execution of functional forms
follows naturally, since portions are computed only when they are necessary
for unification.

A brief demonstration of the system is scheduled following the talk.


Host: Gerald J. Sussman




REFRESHMENTS will be served.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 85 15:11:31 cdt
-FROM-
From: briggs@ut-sally.ARPA (Ted Briggs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Example Generation (UTexas)
-BODY-

EGS: A Transformational Approach to Automatic Example Generation

                               by
                          Myung W. Kim


                      noon Friday June 28
                            PAI 5.60



In the light of the important roles of examples in AI, methods for
automatic example generation have been  investigated.   A  system
(EGS) has been built which automatically generates examples given
a constraint specified in the Boyer-Moore logic.  In EGS examples
are generated by successively transforming the constraint formula
into the form  of  an  example  representation  scheme.   Several
strategies  have  been  incorporated:  testing  stored  examples,
solving   equations,   doing   case-analysis,    and    expanding
definitions.   Global  simplification  checks  inconsistency  and
rewrites formulas to be easy to handle.

EGS has been tested for  the  problems  of  controlling  backward
chaining  and  conjecture  checking  in  the  Boyer-Moore theorem
prover.  It has proven to be powerful -- its power is mainly  due
to  combining  efficient  procedural knowledge and general formal
reasoning capacity.

In this talk I will present the operational  aspect  of  EGS  and
some underlying principles of its design.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Jun 85 17:02:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Qualitative Process Theory (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                    *NEXT* THURSDAY, June 27, 1985

   4:15 p.m.            CSLI Colloquium
     Redwood Hall       ``Qualitative Process Theory''
     Room G-19          Ken Forbus, University of Illinois, Computer Science


                     ``Qualitative Process Theory''

   Things move, collide, flow, bend, stretch, break, cool down, heat up,
   and boil.  Intuitively we think of the things that cause changes in
   physical situations as processes.  Qualitative Process Theory defines
   simple notions of quantity, function, and process that allow
   interesting common-sense inferences to be drawn about dynamical
   systems.  This talk will describe the basics of the Qualitative
   Process Theory, illustrate how it can be used to capture certain
   aspects of different models of physical phenomena, and discuss the
   claims it makes about causal reasoning.              --Ken Forbus

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 85 10:04:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: coopercc@GE-CRD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Architectures for Logic Programming (GE)
-BODY-
                    Computer  Science Seminar
                General  Electric  R & D  Center
                        Schenectady, N.Y.

               Experimental Computer Architectures
                      for Logic Programming

                       Prof. John Oldfield
                       Syracuse University

                        Tuesday, June 25
              10:30 AM, Conference Room 2, Bldg. K1
                     (Refreshments at 10:15)

     ABSTRACT: Syracuse University is an established  center
     for  research  in logic programming languages and their
     applications. In the last few years research  has  com-
     menced  on  ways  of speeding-up the execution of logic
     programs by special-purpose computer architectures  and
     the incorporation of custom VLSI components.
     The  Syracuse  Unification  Machine  (SUM)  is  a   co-
     processor for a host computer executing LOGLISP. Unifi-
     cation is a fundamental and  common  operation  in  the
     execution of logic programs, and is highly recursive in
     nature. SUM speeds up unification by the combination of
     separate functional units operating concurrently, high-
     speed  pattern  matching  and  the  use   of   content-
     addressable  memory  (CAM) techniques. Unification fre-
     quently requires a variable to be  bound  to  something
     else, such as an expression, a constant or even another
     variable. The Binding Agent of SUM  holds  the  set  of
     current  bindings in the form of a segmented stack, and
     with the aid of a CAM made up of custom  nMOS  circuits
     it  is possible to check if a variable is already bound
     in under 150 nS. Binding is an operation which  may  be
     carried  out  concurrently  in  most situations, and an
     extra Binding Agent  may  be  used  to  advantage.  The
     Analysis  Agent  is another custom nMOS component which
     implements  the   pattern-matching   and   case-by-case
     analysis  required.  It is organized as a pipeline, and
     uses a state machine implemented as a PLA.

     (Note: the June issue  of  Byte  Magazine  contains  an
     informative article on this work by Phillip Robinson)

     Notice to Non-GE attendees: It is necessary that we ask
     you   to   notify   Marion  White  ((518)  387-6138  or
     WHITEMM@GE-CRD) at least two days  in  advance  of  the
     seminar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1985  11:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: DICK%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning via Constraints (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                               Tuesday, June 18
                              8th Floor Playroom
                                    4:00PM


                           REASONING ABOUT PROGRAMS
                                      VIA
                            CONSTRAINT PROPAGATION

                             Thomas G. Dietterich
                        Department of Computer Science
                            Oregon State University

  This talk describes a program reasoning system (PRE) and its application to
problems of incremental program development in machine learning.  PRE solves
the following problem: given a program (in a modified Programmer's Apprentice
notation) with tokens labeling some of the ports in the program, find the set
of possible "interpretations" of the program.  That is, compute the set of
executions consistent with the given information.  The characterization of
these executions should be succinct and their computation should be efficient.
To perform this task, PRE applies constraint propagation methods.  The talk
will focus on (a) modifications made to the P.A. notation, (b) techniques
introduced to handle failure of local propagation, and (c) strategies for
resolving the frame problem.  PRE is part of a larger system, EG, whose task is
to form (procedural) theories of the UNIX operating system through
experimentation and observation.  EG's theories take the form of programs, and
PRE is applied to perform tasks of data interpretation and goal regression.

Refreshments will be served.

Host:  Richard C. Waters

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Jun 85 19:27:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning as Debugging (SRI)
-BODY-

                        PLANNING AS DEBUGGING

                   Reid Simmons -- MIT AI Lab / SPAR
                      11:00 am, Monday, June 24
		     Room EJ232, SRI International


    We are currently building a domain independent planner which can
represent and reason about fairly complex domains.  The first part of
the talk will focus on the representations used and the rationale for
choosing them.  The planner uses explicit temporal representations,
based on time points and the notion of "histories".  It also extends
the traditional precondition/postcondition representation of actions
to include quantification, conditionals and the ability to reason
about cumulative changes.
    The second part of the talk will focus on techniques to organize
and control the search for a plan.  We view planning as "debugging
a blank sheet of paper".  We correct a bug (ie. unachieved goal) by
changing one of the underlying assumptions in the plan which are
responsible for the bug.  This problem solving approach combines
backtracking with traditional planning techniques, giving the planner
the potential for finding a solution with much less search.  We also
present a simple, but effective, technique for choosing which plan
modification to pursue, based on maintaining a complete goal structure
of the plan.
    This planner has been partially implemented and tested on
traditional blocks-world and register-transfer examples.  It is
currently being applied to the problem of geologic interpretation and
to diagnosis of chip manufacturing problems.

>------

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
81
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Jun 85 09:25:21-MDT
-FROM-
From: Pete Tinker <tinker@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request: EMYCIN KBs
-BODY-
We are implementing an EMYCIN-like system in the functional language FEL
and would like to feed it a substantial knowledge base.  We would appreciate
hearing from anyone who can make one available to us for internal use.

Thanks,

>Pete

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 1985 at 1102-EDT
-FROM-
From: jim at TYCHO.ARPA  (James B. Houser)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system tools
-BODY-

        I would like to find out which of the "canned"  expert  system
development  systems  like KEE or KES are considered reasonable to use
on a Lisp machine.  An approximate idea of cost and machine  resources
required, and a POC would also be helpful.

        Thanx - Jim  (jim@tycho)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 85 07:03:33 pdt
-FROM-
From: Guy Lapalme <lapalme%iro.udem.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scrabble Program
-BODY-
Dear Dr. Kender:
   Following your inquiry about programs for playing Scrabble, you might
   be interested to know that we have built a championship level program
   called Athena. It plays a version of the game called duplicate Scrabble
   which is the form used for championships in french. The idea is that
   everybody is playing the same board at the same time, each person
   has a 3 minute lapse of time to find the best play, each player gets
   the points for the word he/she found but the best word is put on everybody's
   board. That way, luck is eliminated and each player can find out what
   proportion of the optimal he/she found. In doing so, all strategy is of
   no use because at each move the best play FOR THAT MOVE is put on the
   board for everybody.
   Under those rules, our program consistently plays more than 98% .
   For the last four years, we had the program play the world championship
   games, and only last year it would not have been first.
   A paper describing the program was published in
       TSI (Techniques and Science of Informatics) vol2, no 4, p249-256, 1983.
   This is an english translation of a french publication.
   We also have a report that describe it in english.  Honestly, we cannot
   call the techniques we use AI techniques but more of "Scrabble Hacks",
   but so are in my opinion the last Chess Programs (ie the ones that win).
I hope that you find this information useful.
Guy Lapalme
Dept IRO
Universite de Montreal
PS: The programs now plays in french because we had access to a 80000 words
     dictionnary of acceptable words in french. We hope to get access to
    a similar list in English, Do you have one????
    Should you want to organize a tournament we would be glad to come.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Jun 85 15:28:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEW BBOARD on Application of AI to education
-BODY-
There seemed to be enough interest to create a bboard on artificial
intelligence in education.  Here the description:


AI-ED@SUMEX-AIM

   Discussions related to the application of artificial intelligence to
   education.  This includes material on intelligent computer assisted
   instruction (ICAI) or intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), interactive
   encyclopedias, intelligent information retrieval for educational
   purposes, and pychological and cognitive science models of learning,
   problem solving, and teaching that can be applied to education.
   Issues related to teaching AI are welcome.  Topics may also include
   evaluation of tutoring systems, commercialization of AI based
   instructional systems, description of actual use of an ITS in a
   classroom setting, user-modeling, intelligent user-interfaces, and the
   use of graphics or videodisk in ICAI.  Announcements of books, papers,
   conferences, new products, public domain software tools, etc. are
   encouraged.

   Archives of messages are kept on SUMEX-AIM in:
      <BBOARD>AI-ED.TXT

   All requests to be added to or deleted from these lists, problems,
   questions, etc., should be sent to AI-Ed-Request@SUMEX-AIM

   Coordinator: Mark Richer <Richer@SUMEX-AIM>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 1985 22:42-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: symbolic math mailing list/news group announcement
-BODY-
Symbolic math mailing list/news group announcement

   Mailing list covering symbolic math algorithms, applications and problems
   relating to the various symbolic math languages.  It is primarily  the
   USENET newsgroup net.math.symbolic; items are forwarded to ARPANET,
   BITNET and CSNET from randvax.

   Mail to be forwarded to the list should be sent to lseward@RAND-UNIX
   (ARPANET/MilNet) or net.math.symbolic (USENET).  Requests to be included
   on the list should be sent to lseward@RAND-UNIX.

   Coordinator: Larry Seward <lseward@RAND-UNIX>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 85 20:14:32 pdt
-FROM-
From: Eric Berglund <berglund@Pescadero>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Sense
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

For reasons too weird to explain, some friends and I have been trying to come
up with a definition or characterization of "common sense".  I'd like to
throw the question to the bboard community and hope for some help.  Though
I wouldn't mind getting cute little epigrams and silly jokes, I'm really
much more interested in a serious and thorough characterization.

As for the progress of our discussion so far, there seem to lots of things
that go under the heading of common sense:  street sense (don't wave lots
of money around in bad neighborhoods), minor mechanical aptitude (the ability
and willingness to fix the toilet when it's running), perspective (don't
cry if you drop an egg; do if you drop your kid).  At this point I want
to try to separate those from common sense and let common sense denote
things that don't fit under those titles--although perspective and common
sense may overlap.  (Of course, a good argument could convince me to
include them.)

We've come up with two main traits that a person with common sense has:
the ability to completely learn something once they've been taught it,
and the ability to understand others' motives and how their motives will
likely affect their behavior.  As an example of the first, a person may
not know that the quickest way to Formico's Pizza is down Embarcadero.
He may instead always go down University to 101 and head south.  However,
once he's driven down Embarcadero once and seen how much shorter it is,
he would seem foolish to go the long way if his motivation is to avoid
wasting time.  Having learned something, he should internalize the knowledge
to the point of being able to use whenever it's applicable.

As an example of the second, one should understand that if someone is
trying to sell you something, they're more likely to tell you the good
things about it than the bad, even if they're honest.  This is not just
street sense (let the buyer beware) but the ability to imagine yourself
in the situation of another person.

Any other such traits?  Or a neater way of summarizing them?

>-Eric

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 85 22:24:45 pdt
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@Navajo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: common sense
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Common sense: that which is obvious once it has been pointed out.

More precisely, the two criteria for common sense are:
        common knowledge basis (all facts depended on must be common knowledge)
        low computational complexity (easy to check the conclusion).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Jun 85 17:02:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Pixels and Predicates (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                             AREA P1 MEETING
                        ``Pixels and Predicates''

      Beginning Wednesday, June 26 we will start a discussion series on
   visual (graphic) communication: how can we relate predicates to
   pixels, and vice versa?
   Topics will include:
     * What image regularities do we perceive as the primitive elements
       of form, the ``visual morphemes'' that convey information?
     * How do people organize images into these parts, gain information
       about the situation from them, and use them in communication?
     * How can we use our knowledge of such matters to design graphic
       interfaces to facilitate visual communication?
   Those interested in these topics are encouraged to attend, debate
   vigorously, and perhaps suggest further topics for discussion.  The
   first speaker (tentative) is:

                 ``Visual Morphemes in the 3-D World.''
                           Alex Pentland, CSLI
                Wednesday June 26th, 3:00pm, Ventura Hall

   People have a strong perceptual notion of the ``parts'' of a 3-D
   form; a good understanding of what constitues ``a part'' is critical
   to communication about visual data. A theory of parts will be
   presented and a 3-D graphics modeling tool based on this theory will
   be discussed.                                --Alex Pentland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 85 13:14:47 cdt
-FROM-
From: Don Kraft <kraft%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers -- NAFIPS Meeting
-BODY-
                         CALL FOR PAPERS

     North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)

                    International Meeting

            Monteleone Hotel    New  Orleans, Louisiana
               (In the Heart of the French Quarter)
                       June 1-4, 1986

     Papers on all fuzzy topics  are  encouraged,  and  wide
     international participation is expected.


     Deadlines
          Notice of intent with a title and abstract     9/1/85
          Completed paper  (3 copies)                   10/15/85
          Notification of acceptance                     1/15/86
          Camera-ready copy due                          3/15/86


     Proceedings  will  be  distributed  during   Conference
     registration.


     Send all abstracts and papers to:

          NAFIPS86
          Department of Computer Science
          Florida State University
          Tallahassee, FL  32306


     Abraham Kandel and Wyllis Bandler, Program  Committee Co-Chairs

     Fred Petry and Donald H. Kraft,  General Meeting Co-Chairs

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
82
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 85 07:38:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX Lisp
-BODY-
Just looking for a little consumer information here - does anyone have
any experience with Digital's VAX LISP ?  DEC advertises it as a
full-fledged implementation of CommonLisp.  Any remarks on price,
performance, quality, etc are appreciated.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 23 Jun 85 15:09:12-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Delatizky <DELATZ%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PC Lisps
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Can some of you out there who have used Lisp implementations on IBM PC
type machines give me some recommendations as to the best PC Lisp? I
plan to run it on a PC/XT and a PC/AT if possible. Also, any expert systems
shells that run on the same machines, real or toy-like.

...jon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 1985 13:20-EST
-FROM-
From: George Cross <cross%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: McDonnell Douglas NL Breakthrough
-BODY-
         The following is the text of a full page color ad on page 49
         in the June 24, 1985 New Yorker.  It has also been run in the
         Wall Street Journal.  Does anyone know what the breakthrough
         is?  This was mentioned on the ailist some time ago but I
         didn't notice a response.  There is a photo of a hand holding
         the chin of smiling boy.

BREAKTHROUGH: A COMPUTER THAT UNDERSTANDS YOU LIKE YOUR MOTHER

Having to learn letter-perfect software languages can be frustrating to the
average person trying to tap the power of a computer.

But practical thinkers at our McDonnell Douglas Computer Systems Company
have created the first computer that accepts you as you are - human.

They emulated the two halves of the brain with two-level software: One level
with a dictionary of facts and a second level to interpret them.  The
resulting Natural Language processor understands everyday conversational
English.  So it knows what you mean, no matter how you express yourself.  It
also learns your idiosyncrasies, forgives your errors, and tells you how to
find out what you're looking for.

Now, virtually anyone who can read and write can use a computer.

We're creating breakthroughs not only in Artificial Intelligence but also in
health care, space manufacturing and aircraft.

We're McDonnell Douglas.

How can I learn more?
Write
        P.O. Box 19501
        Irvine, CA 92713

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 1985 13:07-EDT
-FROM-
From: Jon.Webb@CMU-CS-IUS2.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Optimal Scrabble
-BODY-
Anyone interested in computer Scrabble should be aware that Guy
Jacobson and Andrew Appel (some of the people that did Rog-o-matic)
have written a program which in some sense solves the problem.  Using a
clever data structure, their program makes plays in a few seconds and
always makes the best possible play.  Their dictionary is the official
Scrabble dictionary.  The program is not completely optimal because it
doesn't take into account how the placement of its words near things
like triple word scores may help the other player, but in all other
senses it always makes the best play.  I suppose some simple strategic
techniques could be added using a penalty function, but as the program
almost always wins anyway, this hasn't been done.  It regularly gets
bingos (all seven letters used), makes clever plays that create three
or more words, and so on.  The version they have now runs on Vax/Unix.
There was some work to port it to the (Fat) Macintosh but that is not
finished, mainly for lack of interest.

Jon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 85 17:17:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: David_West%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Predation/Cooperation (AIL v3 #78)
-BODY-
Re: enquiry of sdmartin@bbng about learning cooperation in predation:
For an extensive investigation of a minimal-domain model (prisoner's
dilemma),see _The Evolution of Co-operation_ (NY: Basic Books, 1984;
LC 83-45255, ISBN 0-465-02122-0) by Robert Axelrod (of the U of Mich).
 He is in the Institute of Public Policy Studies, but one of his more
interesting methods was the use of the genetic algorithms of John
Holland (also of the U of Mich) to breed automata to have improved
strategies for playing Prisoner's dilemma.  A one-sentence summary of
his results is that cooperation can displace non-cooperation if
individuals remember each other's behavior and have a high enough
probability of meeting again. An intermediate-length summary can be
found in Science _211_ (27 Mar 81) 1390-1396.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Jun 85 19:23:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Calton Pu <CALTON@WASHINGTON.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: definition of common sense
-BODY-
I had a discussion with a friend on this exact topic just a few weeks
ago.  My conclusions can be phrased as an elaboration of V. Pratt's
two criteria.

   1.   common knowledge basis (all facts depended on must be
        common knowledge)

I think the (abstract) common knowledge basis can be more concretely
described as "cultural background".  Your Formico's Pizza example
shows clearly that anybody not familiar with San Francisco will not
have the "common sense" to go there.  The term "cultural background"
admits many levels of interpretation (national, provincial, etc.)
so most of REALLY COMMON knowledge basis will be encompassed.

   2.   low computational complexity (easy to check the conclusion).

I think the key here is not the checking (NP), but the finding (P) of
the solution.  So here I differ from Vaughan, in that I believe common
sense is something "obvious" to a lot of people, by their own
reasoning power.

There are two factors involved: the first is the amount of reasoning
power; the second is the amount of deductive processing involved.  On
the first factor, unfortunately usual words to describe people with
the adequate reasoning power such as "sensible", "reasonable", and
"objective" have also the connotation of being "emotionless".  Let's
leave out the emotional aspects and use the term "reasonable" to
include everybody who is able to apply elementary logic to normal
situations.  On the second factor, typical words to picture easy
deductive efforts are "obvious", "clear", and "evident".

So my definition of common sense is: that which is obvious to a
reasonable person with an adequate cultural background.

I should point out that the three parameters of common sense, cultural
background, reasoning power, and deductive effort, vary from place to
place and from person to person.  If we agreed more on each other's
common sense, it might be easier to negotiate peace.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 24 Jun 85 01:38:08 EDT
-FROM-
From: shrager (jeff shrager) @ cmu-psy-a
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Analogy Bibliography
-BODY-
[Someone asked for an analogy bibliography a while back.  This was compiled
about two years (maybe more) ago so it's partial and somewhat out of date,
but might serve as a starter for people interested in the topic.  I've added
a couple of thing just now in looking it over.  The focus is primarily
psychological, but readers will recognize some of the principle AI work as
well. I've got annotations for quite a few of these, but the remarks are
quite long and detailed so I won't burden AIList with them. -- Jeff]

                                    ANALOGY
                           (A partial bibliography)

                           Compiled by Jeff Shrager
                                CMU Psychology
                                 24 June 1985

               (Send recommendations to Shrager@CMU-PSY-A.)

Bobrow,  D.  G.  &  Winograd,  T.    (1977).  An  Overview  of KRL: A Knowledge
     Representation Language.  Cognitive Science, 1, 3-46.

Bott, R.A.  A study of complex learning: Theories and Methodologies.  Univ.  of
     Calif.  at  San  Diego, Center for Human Information Processing report No.
     7901.

Brown, D.  (1977). Use of Analogy to Acheive New Experience.  Technical  Report
     403, MIT AI Laboratory.

Burstein,  M.  H.    (June,  1983). Concept Formation by Incremental Analogical
     Reasoning  and  Debugging.    Proceedings  of  the  International  Machine
     Learning Workshop.  pp. 19-25.

Carbonell,  J.  G.  (August, 1981). A computational model of analogical problem
     solving.  Proceedings of the Seventh  International  Joint  Conference  on
     Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver.  pp. 147-152.

Carbonell,  J.G.    (1983).  Learning  by Analogy: Formulating and Generalizing
     Plans from Past Experience.    In  Michalski,  R.S.,  Carbonell,  J.G.,  &
     Mitchell,  T.M.  (Ed.),  Machine  Learning,  an  Aritificial  Intelligence
     Approach  Palo Alto:  Tioga Press.

Carnap, R.  (1963).  Variety,  analogy  and  periodicity  in  inductive  logic.
     Philosophy of Science, 30, 222-227.

Darden,   L.     (June,  1983).  Reasoning  by  Analogy  in  Scientific  Theory
     Construction.  Proceedings of the International Machine Learning Workshop.
     pp. 32-40.

de Kleer, J. & Brown, J.S.  Foundations of Envisioning.  Xerox PARC report.

Douglas,  S. A., & Moran, T. P.  (August, 1983). Learning operator semantics by
     analogy.    Proceedings  of  the   National   Conference   on   Artificial
     Intelligence.

Douglas,  S.  A.,  &  Moran,  T.  P.    (December, 1983b). Learning text editor
     semantics by analogy.  Proceedings of  the  Second  Annual  Conference  on
     Computer Human Interaction.  pp. 207-211.

Dunker, K.  (1945). On Problem Solving.  Psychological Monographs, 58, .

Evans,  T.  G.    (1968).  A  program  for the solution of a class of geometric
     analogy intelligence test  questions.    In  Minsky,  M.  (Ed.),  Semantic
     Information Processing  Cambridge, Mass.:  MIT Press.  pp. 271-253.

Gentner,  D.    (July,  1980).  The  Structure of Analogical Models in Science.
     Report 4451, Bolt Beraneck and Newman.

Gentner, D.  (1981).  Generative Analogies as Mental Models.    Proceedings  of
     the  3rd  National Cognitive Science Conference.  pp. 97-100.  Proceedings
     of the 3rd annual conference.

Gentner, D.  (1982). Are Scientific Analogies Metaphors?  In D. S. Miall (Ed.),
     Metaphor:  Problems and Perspectives  New York:  Harvester Press Ltd.  pp.
     106-132.

Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R.  (1983). Flowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental
     Models  of  Electricity.    In  Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (Ed.), Mental
     Models  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.  pp. 99-129.

Gick, M. L. & Holyoak, K. J.  (1980).  Analogic  Problem  Solving.    Cognitive
     Psychology, 12, 306-355.

Gick,  M.  L. & Holyoak, K. J.  (1983). Schema Induction and Analogic Transfer.
     Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.

Halasz, F. & Moran, T. P.  (1982).  Analogy Considered Harmful.  Proceedings of
     the Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, New York.

Hesse,  Mary.    (1955).    Science  and  the  Human  Imagination.    New York:
     Philisophical Library.

Hesse, Mary.  (1974).  The Structure of Scientific Inference.   Berkeley: Univ.
     of Calif. Press.

Kling,  R.  E.    (1971).  A  Paradigm  for  Reasoning  by Analogy.  Artificial
     Intelligence, 2, 147-178.

Lenat, D.B. & Greiner, R.D.  (1980).  RLL: A representation language  language.
     Proc. of the first annual meeting.  Stanford.

McDermott,  J.    (December,  1978).  ANA:  An  assimilating  and accomodatiing
     production  system.    Technical  Report  CMU-CS-78-156,   Carnegie-Mellon
     University.

McDermott,  J.    (1979).   Learning to use analogies.  Sixth Internation Joint
     Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

Medin, D. L. and Schaffer, M. M.   (1978).  Context  Theory  of  Classification
     Learning.  Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238.

Minsky,  M.   (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge.  In Winston, P.H.
     (Ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision  New York:  McGraw Hill.

Minsky, M.  (July, 1982). Learning Meaning.  Technical Report, .    Unpublished
     MIT AI Lab techinical report.

Moore, J. & Newell, A.  (1974). How can MERLIN Understand?  In L.W.Gregg (Ed.),
     Knowledge and Cognition  Potomic, Md.:  Erlbaum Associates.

Ortony, A.  (1979). Beyond Literal Similarity.  Psych Review, 86(3), 161-179.

Pirolli, P. & Anderson, J.R. (1985) The role of Learning from Examples in the
     Acquisition of Recursive Programming Skills.  Canadian Journal of
     Psychology. Vol. 39, no. 4; pgs. 240-272.

Polya, G.  (1945).  How to solve it.   Princton, N.J.: Princeton U. Press.

Quine, W. V. O.  (1960).  Word and Object.   Cambridge: MIT Press.

Reed, S. K., Ernst, G. W., & Banerji, R.    (1974).  The  Role  of  Analogy  in
     Transfer  Between  Similar  Problem  States.    Cognitive  Psychology,  6,
     436-450.

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D.  M.,  &  Boynes-Braem,  P.
     (1976). Basic Objects on Natural Kinds.  Cog Psych, 8, 382-439.

Ross,  B.   (1982). Remindings and Their Effects in Learning a Cognitive Skill.
     PhD thesis, Stanford.

Rumelhart,  D.E.,  &  Norman,  D.A.      (?DATE?).   Accretion,   tuning,   and
     restructuring:  Three  modes  of  learning.    In R.Klatsky and J.W.Cotton
     (Eds.),  Semantic  Factors  in  Cognition    Hillsdale,  N.J.:     Erlbaum
     Associates.

Rumerlhart,  D.E. & Norman, D.A.  (1981). Analogical Processes in Learning.  In
     J.R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their  Acquisition    Hillsdale,
     N.J.:  Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.  pp. 335-360.

Schustack, M., & Anderson, J. R.  (1979). Effects of analogy to prior knowledge
     on memory for new information.  Journal  of  Verbal  Learning  and  Verbal
     Behavior, 18, 565-583.

Sembugamoorthy,  V.    (August,  1981). Analogy-based acquisition of utterances
     relating to temporal aspects.  Proceedings of the 7th International  Joint
     Conference on Artificial Intelligence.  pp. 106-108.

Shrager,  J.  &  Klahr,  D.    (December,  1983).  A  Model  of Learning in the
     Instructionless Environment.   Proceedings  of  the  Conference  on  Human
     Factors in Computing Systems.  pp. 226-229.

Shrager,  J.  &  Klahr, D.  Instructionless Learning: Hypothesis Generation and
     Experimental Performance.  In preparation.

Sternberg, R.  (1977).  Intelligence, information  processing,  and  analogical
     reasoning:  The  componential  analysis  of  human abilities.   Hillsdale,
     N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

VanLehn, K., & Brown, J. S.    (1978).  Planning  nets:  A  representation  for
     formalizing  analogies and semantic models of procedural skills.  In Snow,
     R. E., Frederico, P. A. and Montague, W. E. (Ed.), Aptitude  Learning  and
     Instruction:  Cognitive Process Analyses  Hillsdale, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum
     Associates.

Weiner, E. J.  A Computational Approach to Metaphore  Comprehension.    In  the
     Penn Review of Linguistics.

Winston,   P.  H.    (December,  1980).  Learning  and  Reasoning  by  Analogy.
     Communications of the ACM, 23(12), 689-703.

Winston, P. H.  Learning and Reasoning by Analogy: The details.   MIT  AI  Memo
     number 520.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 85 11:42:26 pdt
-FROM-
From: gabor!amyjo@RIACS.ARPA (Amy Jo Bilson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Evaluating Expert Forecasts (NASA)
-BODY-
                           NASA

            PERCEPTION AND COGNITION SEMINARS

    Who:        Keith Levi
    From:       University of Michigan
    When:       10 am, Tuesday, June 25, 1985
    Where:      Room 177, Building 239, NASA Ames Research Center
    What:       Evaluating Expert Forecasts

    Abstract:   Probabilistic forecasts, often generated by an expert,
                are critical to many decision aids and expert systems.
                The quality of such inputs has usually been evaluated in
                terms of logical consistency.  However, in terms of
                real-world implications, the external correspondence of
                probabilistic forecasts is usually much more important
                than internal consistency.  I will discuss recently
                developed procedures for evaluating external correspondence
                and present research on the topic.


    Non-citizens (except permanent residents) must have prior approval from
    the Directors Office one week in advance. Permanent residents must show
    Alien Registration Card at the time of registration.

    To request approval or obtain further information, call 415-694-6584.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
83
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 85 06:51:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: cugini@NBS-VMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisps for VAX
-BODY-
Does anyone have recommendations for incarnations of Lisp to run
under VAX/VMS, especially ones with features for object-oriented
programming?  Is there something called XLISP which fits this
description, and if so, where does it live?  Thanks for any help.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 85 09:02:59 mdt
-FROM-
From: cib%f@LANL.ARPA (C.I. Browne)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp on VAX/UNIX (Query)
-BODY-

We would be most grateful for pointers to a source of Common Lisp
for a VAX 11/780 running under UNIX 4.2bsd.

Thank you.

cib
cib@lanl
cib@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jun 85  1842 PDT
-FROM-
From: Yoni Malachi <YM@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic Programming Text
-BODY-
  [Excerpted from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.  The original
  contained a lengthy abstract for each section of the book; to get a
  copy, FTP file <ailist>logicprog.txt on SRI-AI, or write to me at
  AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA.  -- KIL]


      LOGIC PROGRAMMING: RELATIONS, FUNCTIONS, AND EQUATIONS

                           Doug DeGroot
                          Gary Lindstrom
                             Editors

                       Prentice-Hall, Inc.
                  Publication date:  Summer 1985

                          June 14, 1985


1. Concept

  This book addresses the topical and rapidly developing
areas of logic, functional, and equational programming, with
special emphasis on their relationships and prospects for
fruitful amalgamation.  A distinguished set of researchers
have contributed fourteen articles addressing this field
from a wide variety of perspectives.  The book will be
approximately 500 pages, published in hard cover form, with
foreword by the editors and combined index.

2. Table of Contents

2.1. Setting the Stage

 - Uday Reddy:  On the Relationship between Logic and
   Functional Languages (34 pp.).

> J. Darlington, A.J. Field, and H. Pull: The Unification
  of Functional and Logic Languages (34 pp.).

2.2. Unification and Functional Programming

 - Harvey Abramson: A Prological Definition of HASL, a
    Purely Functional Language with Unification Based
    Conditional Binding Expressions (57 pp.).

 - M. Sato and T.  Sakurai:  QUTE:  a Functional Language
   Based on Unification (24 pp.).

 - P.A. Subrahmanyam and J.-H.  You:  FUNLOG:  a
   Computational Model Integrating Logic Programming and
   Functional Programming (42 pp.).


2.3. Symmetric Combinations

 - R. Barbuti, M. Bellia, G. Levi, and M.  Martelli:
   LEAF:  a Language which Integrates Logic, Equations and
   Functions (33 pp.).

 - Shimon Cohen: The APPLOG Language (38 pp.).


2.4. Programming with Equality

 - Wm. Kornfeld: Equality for Prolog (15 pp.).

 - Joseph Goguen and Jose Meseguer: EQLOG:  Equality,
   Types, and Generic Modules for Logic Programming (69 pp).

 - Y.  Malachi, Z.  Manna and R. Waldinger: TABLOG: a New
   Approach to Logic Programming (30 pp.).



2.5. Augmented Unification

 - Robert G.  Bandes (deceased):  Constraining-Unification
   and the Programming Language Unicorn (14 pp.).

 - Ken Kahn: Uniform -- A Language Based upon Unification
   which Unfies (much of) Lisp, Prolog, and Act 1 (28 pp.).



2.6. Semantic Foundations

 - Joxan Jaffar, Jean-Louis Lassez and Michael J.  Maher:
   A Logic Programming Language Scheme (27 pp.).

 - Gert Smolka: Fresh: A Higher-Order Language with
   Unification and Multiple Results (56 pp.).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Jun 85 16:03:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: davies@csli
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Situational Theory of Analogy (CSLI)
-BODY-

                     "A Situational Theory of Analogy"

                               Todd Davies
                       Conference Room, Ventura Hall
                         CSLI, Stanford University
                           Monday, July 1, 1985
                                1:15 p.m.


Analogy in logic is generally given the form:

                P(A)&Q(A)
        and     P(B)       are premises
                ---------
  therefore     Q(B)       can be concluded,

where P is a property or set of properties held by the analogous
situation A in common with the present situation B, and where Q is a
property which is initially held to be true of A.  The question is:
What justifies the conclusion?  Sometimes the conclusion is clearly
bogus, but for other pairs of situations and properties it seems quite
plausible. I will give examples of both intuitively good and
intuitively bad analogies as a way to argue that theories of analogy
hitherto proposed are inadequate, and that the rationale for analogy
which has been assumed for most early work on analogy in AI -- namely,
that the inference is good if and only if the situations being
compared are similar enough -- is based on a mistake.  I will also
point to traditional logic's inadequacies as a formal language for
analogy and develop a theory which incorporates ideas from (and finds
its easiest expression in) the theory of situations of Barwise and
Perry.  The theory suggests a general means by which computers can
infer conclusions about problems which have analogues for which the
solution is known, when failing to inspect the analogue would make
such an inference impossible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Jun 85 15:16:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Alison Grant <GRANT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Implementing Dempster's Rule (SU)
-BODY-
              SPECIAL MEDICAL INFORMATION SCIENCES COLLOQUIUM
                          Tuesday, June 25, 1985
                              3:00 - 4:00 P.M.
               Room M-112, Stanford University Medical Center

Speaker: Professor Glenn Shafer
         University of Kansas

Title:  IMPLEMENTING DEMPSTER'S RULE FOR HIERARCHICAL EVIDENCE

Abstract:    Gordon and Shortliffe have asked whether the computational
complexity of Dempster's rule makes it impossible to combine belief
functions based on evidence for and against hypotheses that can be arranged
in a hierarchical or tree-like structure.  In this talk I show that the
special features of hierarchical evidence make it possible to compute
Dempster's rule in linear time.  The actual computations are quite
straightforward, but they depend on a delicate understanding of the
interactions of evidence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 85 10:29:34 edt
-FROM-
From: Alan Gunderson <asg0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call For Papers-2nd ACM N.E. Reg. Conf. -- AI Track
-BODY-

                            CALL FOR PAPERS


            SECOND ANNUAL ACM NORTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE
                 Integrating the Information Workplace:
                        the Key to Productivity

                           28-30 October 1985

                          Sheraton-Tara Hotel
                           Framingham, Mass.
                                  and
                          The Computer Museum
                             Boston, Mass.

The conference sessions  are grouped into tracks corresponding to major
areas of interest in the computer field.   Papers are solicited for the
Conference's Artificial Intelligence Track.   The Track's  program will
emphasize "real world" approaches and applications of A. I.

                    Topics of interest include:

                       - Expert Systems
                       - Natural Language
                       - Man-Machine Interface
                       - Tools/Environments
                       - A. I. Hardware
                       - Robotics and Vision


                  Submit papers by: July 22, 1985

             Please send three copies of your paper to:

                     Dr. David S. Prerau
                     Track Chairman
                     Artificial Intelligence Track
                     ACM Northeast Regional Conference
                     GTE Laboratories Inc.
                     40 Sylvan Road
                     Waltham MA 02254

        For additional information on the Conference, write:

                     ACM Northeast Regional Conference
                     P.O. Box 499
                     Sharon MA 02067

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
84
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 85 01:58:21 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Maner <maner%bgsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Validation
-BODY-
I would appreciate pointers to research dealing with answers to questions about
expert system bugs, e.g.,

        How can expert-system advice be validated?
        Are there failure modes specific to expert systems?
        What classes of error can be prevented by consistency enforcers?

I am primarily interested in how these answers would apply to very large
rule-based systems which have evolved under multiple authorship.


                                        Walter Maner

        CSNet           maner@bgsuvax
        UseNet          ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!maner
        SnailMail       Department of Computer Scinece
                        Bowling Green State University
                        Bowling Green, OH  43403

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 85 13:02 CDT
-FROM-
From: Patrick_Duff <pduff%ti-eg.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: requested: papers concerning LISP programmer man-hours
-BODY-

   I am trying to locate articles which discuss the differences between LISP
and non-AI languages in terms of the time and effort required to create
prototype systems, to make additions or revisions to a design after much of
the programming is completed, total programming time from start to finish,
etc..  My opinion is that in general, it takes fewer man-hours to create a
LISP program than to create a program to do the same task using languages
such as Ada, Pascal, FORTRAN, or an assembly language.  Note that I am
*not* claiming that the program will also be "better", more efficient, or
faster--just that most relatively large programs will take less time to
write in LISP.  I have been asked to come up with justification for using
LISP based upon the total man-hours required.  Does anyone know of a paper
which would support or undercut my opinion?  Has there been a convincing
demonstration or test of the power of LISP (and its powerful programming
environment) versus more traditional languages?

   regards, Patrick

   Patrick S. Duff, ***CR 5621***          pduff.ti-eg@csnet-relay
   5049 Walker Dr. #91103                  214/480-1659 (work)
   The Colony, TX 75056-1120               214/370-5363 (home)
   (a suburb of Dallas, TX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 29 Jun 1985 22:22-EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Predation/Cooperation (AIL v3 #78)
-BODY-
David West (AIL v3 #82) mentioned the work of Robert Axelrod on the
evolution of cooperation. Another good summary of Axelrod's work can
be found in Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas column in Scientific
American, May 1983, v248 #5, pp 14-20.

     UUCP:    {decvax,vax135,eagle,pesnta}!mulga!psych.uq.oz!ross
     ARPA:    ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.arpa
     CSNET:   ross@psych.uq.oz
     ACSnet:  ross@psych.uq.oz

     Mail:    Ross Gayler                       Phone:   +61 7 224 7060
              Division of Research & Planning
              Queensland Department of Health
              GPO Box 48
              Brisbane  4001
              AUSTRALIA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 14:08:05 pdt
-FROM-
From: Evan C. Evans <evans%cod@Nosc>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Sense
-BODY-
        Common sense = conclusions reached thru the processes  of
natural  reasoning  (or behaviors resulting from such).  I borrow
heavily from Julian Jaynes, The Origin of  Consciousness  in  the
Breakdown  of  the  Bicameral Mind.  Natural reasoning is neither
conscious nor rigorous in the sense of  formal  logic.   For  in-
stance,  upon  observing a piece of wood floating on a given pond
one will conclude directly that ANOTHER piece of wood will  float
on ANOTHER pond.  This is sometimes called reasoning from partic-
ulars.  More simply, it's expectation based  on  subliminal  gen-
eralization.   A  baby  quickly  concludes that objects will fall
without being AWARE of that  conclusion.   We're  constantly  ex-
ercising  natural  reasoning  to  reach conclusions about others'
feelings or motives based on their expressions or actions.   Such
reasoning  was early recognized as unconscious & called automatic
inference or COMMON SENSE, see John Steward Mill or James Sully.

        Pu's elaboration on Pratt  stands,  but  it  is  well  to
remember that natural reasoning is usually unconscious & does not
necessarily proceed by logical means.  In fact, automatic  infer-
ence  sometimes  achieves correct conclusions by demonstrably il-
logical means.

evans@nosc-cc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Jun 85 15:54:15-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: news: TI and SPERRY join forces to sell AI
-BODY-
[ from Austin American Statesman - June 26, 1985 ]

    TI captures computer deal with Sperry
    =====================================

(Kirk Ladendorf - Statesman staff) - TI has landed what it calls its biggest
ever sales contract in the still-infant artificial intelligence industry - a
three-year, $42 million deal to supply computers and related equipment to
Sperry Corp.

Sperry, one of the largest computer makers with $5.7 billion in sales last
year, plans a large-scale campaign to develop specialized, salable uses for the
TI machine, which Sperry will call the Knowledge Workstation.

For TI the contract gives credibility that its well-regarded artificial
intelligence system, called Explorer, is more than just an esoteric product
with limited sales potential.

.....

Sperry will combine the TI machine with a software system called the Knowledge
Engineering Environment software developed by Intellicorp of Menlo Park, Calif.
Intellicorp software is regarded as a very sophisticated tool for building
specialized AI-programs.

The new system can be used to create so-called "expert systems" which ...

Such programs have been used on a demonstration basis to perform such tasks as
the running of an electrical power-plant and experimental weather forecasting.

Sperry's 26 specialized applications programs will be aimed at areas that have
been difficult to serve with traditional computers.  Those areas include
software development; testing and debugging; navigation; communications sognal
processing; CAD/CAM; and scheduling and resource allocation.

Sperry chose TI over 2 principal competitors in the field, Symbolics and Lisp
Machine Inc, because TI "has the best AI hardware available," a Sperry
spokesman said.

.....

Sales of AI Lisp-machines totaled only about $85 million last year, but Sperry
projects the AI market will mushroom to more than $4 billion by 1990.

.....

TI has announced no major additions to its 3,000 person Austin staff because of
the new contract, but ... it has already begun to build the staff it needs to
support the Explorer and the Business Pro.

TI is already at work developing new features for the Explorer.  They include
developing computer communications links so that the AI machine can interact
with Sperry and other IBM-compatible mainframes.

....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Jun 85 21:44:18-EDT
-FROM-
From: Andrew M. Liao  <WESALUM.A-LIAO-85@KLA.WESLYN>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LIAO%Weslyn.Bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chess, Programs And Cheating
-BODY-
A Consideration Of "Do Computers Cheat At Chess?"

     I've been giving some thought to the question, "Do computers
actually cheat at chess?".   To start,  I'm going to assume  that
what  is at issue in the first objection is a chess program's use
of  a  game    tree   whose   nodes   are   representations    of
potential   board/piece/move   configurations.    I   think   the
objection   that computers  cheat  because  they  use   "external
boards"   (albeit  represented  internally) can  be  answered  by
saying,  "No - there is no cheating involved because humans 'look
ahead'  in some way  and since  no physical external  boards  are
allowed,   the  only way  to 'look  ahead'  is  to  represent  an
'image'   of  potential  board positions in one's mind [though in
a real limited way].  But isn't this  just what a program does  -
only better?"  I  think that,   in some sense,  the argument that
programs   cheat  at  chess  by  virtue  of  having   "internally
represented 'external boards'" is  just  wrong.  What  a  program
tries  to do on one  aspect  is  to simulate  what  is  going  on
inside  a  person's  mind  and,   in  a limited sense,   this  is
actually achieved (albeit by brute  force game trees).

     The second objection concerns the problems  of  "moves-made-
by-reference".    The  objection,   if I understand it correctly,
is  that  (1)  one  cannot refer to moves that  have  been  pre-
recorded for the player's use during a match and  that (2)   such
moves   are   encoded into a program  (we disallow  an   external
database file of moves since it is,  in some way,  a set of moves
that  have been pre-recorded for future use),  and without  these
encoded   moves,   a   program   does  not  know   what   opening
move(s)/strategy(ies) is optimal. Presumably, the reason for this
rule  is to force a player to rely on his experience and  no  one
else's (i.e.  no outside help) and at the same time,  prevent any
player  being  put  at an unfair disadvantage.   But I  think  it
cannot  be denied that encoding any move into a chess program  is
tantamount  to  making the program dependent  upon  the  author's
experience  and not its own - a clear violation of the spirit  of
the  rule.   The question remains - Is it cheating?  I am of  the
opinion  that  such a program is cheating on the basis  that  the
program  cannot  decide  during  the opening  of  the  game  what
strategy  is optimal for it and hence must rely on outside  help,
in the form of stored data, given to it by its author.

     Although I feel the first objection is easily answered, I am
still  not  happy  with  my reply  to  the  second,  although  my
intuition tells me that my reply to the second objection  is,  at
least in spirit, on the right track. The motivation for my second
reply  is due (in great part) to J.R.  Searle's conception of the
Background which directly relates to the problem of  "experience"
and the like.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Jun 85 09:58:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Chess, Programs And Cheating
-BODY-
Reply to Andrew Liao:

When I open with a king pawn, I am relying on the experience and
knowledge of others -- that doesn't seem to be cheating.  I prefer
an interpretation of the rules as "you run what you brung" -- namely
that you cannot access external help >>during the match<<.  I do
admit that stored book openings seem questionable (although chess
masters certainly memorize such material), but to say that a
computer's superior memory gives it an advantage is no more damning
than to say that its superior speed gives it an advantage.  In just
a few years it will be obvious that computers are inherently better
"chess machines" than people are, and people will stop quibbling
about handicaping the computer in one way or another to make
the contest "fair".

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Jun 85 11:07:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Expert Systems (Rutgers)
-BODY-

               LEARNING IN SECOND GENERATION EXPERT SYSTEMS


                           Walter Van De Velde
               AI Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel



      This talk discusses a learning mechanism for second generation expert
systems: rule-learning by progressive refinement. Second generation expert
systems not only use heuristic rules, but also have a model of the domain of
expertise so that deeper reasoning is possible whenever the rules are
deficient. A learning component is described that abstracts new rules out of
the results of deep reasoning. Gradually, the rule set is refined and
restructured so that the expert system can solve more problems in a more
effecient way. The approach is illustrated with concrete implemented
examples.

Date:      Friday, June 28, 1985
Time:      11 AM
Place:     Hill Center, Room 423

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Jun 85 12:21:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - How to Clear a Block (SRI)
-BODY-
                         "HOW TO CLEAR A BLOCK"
                                  or
                Unsolved Problems in the Blocks World #17


                   Richard Waldinger -- SRI AI Center
                      11:00 am, WEDNESDAY, July 3
                     Room EJ232, SRI International


ABSTRACT:

Apparently simple problems in the blocks world get more complicated
when we look at them closely. Take the problem of clearing a block.
In general, it requires forming conditionals and loops and even
strengthening the specifications; no planner has solved it.

We consider how such problems might be approached by bending a
theorem prover a little bit.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
85
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jul 85 17:36:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: Kai-Fu.Lee@CMU-CS-SPEECH2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Othello (the game)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am leading a PGSS project (for high school students) that will implement
an Othello program in Common Lisp on the IBM PC.  Any program source,
clever tricks, and good evaluation functions that you're willing to share
will be appreciated.

/Kai-Fu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 June 1985 2144-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Chess (Hitech)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

CLOSE BUT NO BIG CIGAR is an appropriate summary of the performance
of Hitech in this week-ends Pittsburgh Summer Classic.  In a field
of 24, including 3 master and several experts, Hitech won its
first three games against an 1833 (Class A), 1802 (Class A), and
2256 (Master) before losing in the final round to another Master
(2263) who won the tournament.  This was Hitech's first win against
a Master.  Its overall performance in two tournaments is
6 1/2 - 2 1/2; better than 70 percent.  As it was, it finished
2nd in the tournament.  Its provisional rating is now around
2100; middle expert.

We will hold a show and tell on Friday at a time and place to
be announced.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jul 85 10:29:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: Murray.Campbell@CMU-CS-K
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Hitech Result
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The 3-1 result Hitech achieved in the chess tournament this
past weekend was a performance rating of about 2300, well above
the master standard of 2200.  And it should be noted that the
last round loss was to Kimball Nedved.
After 2 tournaments, Hitech's performance rating is approximately
2210.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 85 22:37:20 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Cheating.
-BODY-
        Computer programs are the consequences of people, like novels, as
ripples are to rocks thrown in a smooth pond.  Hence, it is the authors
of these programs who are the cheaters!
        In fact, computer chess is simply another iteration, as is speed
chess, double bug-house, and probably several other versions I have not
heard of.  Consenting adults can do what every they want as long as they don't
bill the government.  So, questions as to whether computers are cheating
are really questions about whether a programmer who writes a program
and watches it play is on the same footing as the live opponent.  Practically
I think he is, philosophically I think not.
        If the chess program is going to take more responsibility for its
actions, I think it should have to 'learn' as you or I (are all of you,
if expert systems, *learning* ones?).  Of course, the author of the
program still is partly responsible for how efficiently the program
learns, and in finite time how good his creation will become.
        So, to apply the principles of recursion, let the program have
to learn how to learn.  At this level it is easy to see that skilled
opponenets will cause a 2nd-loop learner to learn faster; hence the
product is less a function of its original architecture and more a function
of its environment -- which I guess we can (by default) attribute to the
program (not its creator).  At his point, if we put it in a closet and let
it vegetate, it probably will not be very good at chess.  This is certainly
true in the limit as n (as in nth-loop learner) approaches infinity.
        It is easy to see that man is effectively an n-loop learner
which cannot comprehend an o-loop learner for o>n.  To be precise
I should have said a *single* man.  Groups  of people, similarly and
perhaps even including women, can function at some level p>n.  Hence
it should be possible for teams of people to beat individuals (and
generally is).  I see no reason for p  or q to be bounded (where q
is the class of learning evidenced by machine), and the problem has
been reduced to a point: that is that man is just a transient form
of intelligence which cannot be quantified (by himself anyway), only
*measured*.
        Chess in its various forms does so (well you think when you
win, poorly when you lose): and in its various forms is *fun*.  Just
remember, computer chess wouldn't be around if several smart people
were not whipped at the game through careless errors by people so
dumb that 'even a computer could beat them' or 'except for one
careless mistake...'


RKJ.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 29 Jun 1985 22:16-EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Use of context to allow reasoning about time
-BODY-
David Sherman (AIList V3 #71: Suggestions needed for tax rules)
writes:

> I am trying to design a system which will apply the rules of the Income
> Tax Act (Canada) to a set of facts and transactions in the area of
> corporate reorganizations.
> ...
> The passage of time is very important: steps happen in a particular
> sequence, and the "state of the world" at the moment a step is taken is
> crucial to determining the tax effects.
> ...
> The problem I have ... is how to deal with _time_.

The following is just a suggestion. I have not actually tried it and I
am not familiar enough with the literature to even say whether it is an
old idea.  However, it seems plausible to me and might be a useful
approach.

Time is not directly perceptible. It is perceived indirectly by noting
that the environment (physical and cognitive) changes. There is a lot
of survival advantage to believing in causality so the brain likes to
attribute a cause to every change and when there is nothing obvious
around to attribute causality to, we invoke the concept of time.  As
Dave Sherman pointed out, time is bound up with changes in the "state
of the world", what I just called the environment.  Lets shift into
psychology and call it the context.

Context plays a very important role in psychology.  All the human and
animal decision processes that I know of are context dependent.
Consider a classic and simple memory experiment. The subject is given a
list of nonsense words to memorise and is then given a new list of
words some of which are from the memorised list to judge as old or
new.  This process may be repeated a dozen or more times in a session.
How does the subject restrict his definition of old/new to the list he
has just seen?

It seems that the words are not remembered as individual and isolated
objects but are remembered along with associative links to the context,
where the context contains everything else that happened
simultaneously. So, when memorising words in a list the subject links
the words to each other, any extraneous noises or thoughts, even small
changes in posture and discomfort. It has been shown that recognition
and recall are greatly enhanced by reconstruction of the context in
which memorisation occurred.

Context is also evolutionarily important. It obviously enhances
survival to be able to form associative links between the centre of
attention and possibly anything else.  The nasty thing about many
environments is that you can't tell before hand what the important
associations are going to be.

Lets look at how context might be applicable to AI. In MYCIN, data are
stored as <object,attribute,value> triples.  This is also a reasonable
way to do things in PROLOG because it allows the data to be treated in
a more uniform fashion than having each attribute (for instance) as a
separate predicate.  The objects in MYCIN are related by a context
tree, but this has nothing to do with the sense in which I am using
"context" so I will continue to call them objects. An object is a more
or less permanent association of a bundle of attributes. That is, there
is some constancy about it, which is why we can recognize it as an
object (although not necessarily a physical one).  By contrast the
context is an amorphous mass of other things which happen to be going
on at the same moment. There is little constancy to the structure of
the context.

The MYCIN triple cannot be related to it's context other than through
the values of its object, attribute or value fields. There is no
explicit way of showing that a fact was true only for a certain
interval of time or only when a particular goal was active.  I propose
that the triple be extended to explicitly represent the context so it
becomes <context,object,attribute,value>.  The values of the context
variable would normally be unique identifiers to allow a particular
context to be referred to.  The context does not actually store any
information, but many facts may be tied to that context. A context is a
snapshot of the facts at some stage in the computation.

Obviously there needs to be  a lot of thought put into when to take the
snapshots and the appropriate strategy will vary from application to
application.  The context will contain the facts being reasoned about
at the time of the snapshot (probably when they had been whipped into
consistency) but would also contain other relevant information such as
goal states and clock times.  For Dave Sherman's application there
would probably be a new context snapshot when each transaction occurred
(e.g. transfer of property in exchange for shares).  Two additional
facts within the context would be the earliest and latest clock times
for which the context is valid.  This would allow reasoning about
changes of state and elapsing of time because the before and after
states are simultaneously present in the fact base along with the clock
times for which they were true.

A couple of other uses of contexts suggest themselves.  One is the
possibility of implementing "possible worlds" and answering "what if"
questions.  If the system is capable of manipulating contexts it could
duplicate an existing context (but with a new context ID of course),
modify a few of the facts in the new context and then start reasoning
in that context to see what might have happened if things had been a
little different.  Another possibility is that it might be useful in
"truth maintenance systems".  I have heard of them but not had a chance
to study them.  However their references to assumption sets and
dependency directed backtracking sound to me like the idea of tracking
the context, attributing changes in the context to various facts within
the context and then using that information to intelligently manipulate
the context to implement backtracking in a computation.

     UUCP:    {decvax,vax135,eagle,pesnta}!mulga!psych.uq.oz!ross
     ARPA:    ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.arpa
     CSNET:   ross@psych.uq.oz
     ACSnet:  ross@psych.uq.oz

     Mail:    Ross Gayler                       Phone:   +61 7 224 7060
              Division of Research & Planning
              Queensland Department of Health
              GPO Box 48
              Brisbane  4001
              AUSTRALIA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
86
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 1 Jul 1985 20:49-EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: addresses of seminar presenters
-BODY-
Being from out of town I find it a little difficult to get to most of the
seminars advertised in the AIList. However, there are some I would like a
little more information on by contacting the presenter to get a copy of the
talk or, more likely, a related paper or report.

Unfortunately, most of the seminar announcements give no network address for
the presenter and an inadequately specified postal address. Would it be
possible to exhort seminar hosts to put complete addresses in the announcements
or at least make sure that they ask the presenter for an address so that
others may find out from the host?

        -- Ross

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 10:26:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Ben P. Yuhas" <yuhas@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Read My Lips
-BODY-
     Here at the Sensory Aids Lab, we are beginning to explore
some of the strategies used by lip readers to decode the visual
speech signal. One of the questions we want to answer is to what
degree does syntactic structure influence a sentence's lip read-
ability.

     In developing a data base of test sentences on laserdisk,
we began to wonder whether anyone had ever attempted to find
the statistical distribution of syntactic structures in spoken
English. I realize this distribution might vary greatly from
group to group. If there are any computational linguists with
references or thoughts on this matter I would appreciate hearing
from you.

    yuhas@hopkins-eecs-bravo

    Snailmail: Ben Yuhas
               Dept EECS
               Johns Hopkins University
               Baltimore, MD   21218

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 85 08:27:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: spatial reasoning
-BODY-

Can anyone suggest a good survey article or textbook that covers
AI for spatial reasoning, especially for 3-D?  I have in mind
things like, "will this refrigerator fit thru that door", etc.
Thanks for any help.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 85 11:51:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Marty Hall <hall@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: UNIVAC 1100 Series LISP
-BODY-
I am trying to find where I can find documentation or info on the
Univac 1100 LISP.  We are referring to a system that was written in
that dialect, and converting it to Common LISP.  However, there are two
functions that appear that are found in neither MACLISP or LISP 1.5
(which this LSP was supposed to be), that we can't find out what they
do.  The functions are "AMB" and "STACK".  They are used:

        (setq <var> (amb (stack <var2>)))

We have called lots of people, including the local Sperry Corp folks,
and no one seems to know.  Any suggestions on where to look or who
to call/send to ?
                                -Marty Hall

                                hall@hopkins
                                aplvax!m2lab!hall@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 11:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: susan watkins <chaowatkins@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics's application user interface
-BODY-
        I'm working as a developer at Symbolics, Inc. in Cambridge, Ma.
I would like to get opinions, reactions, problems encountered,
constraints the system s/w imposes,  etc.  from programmers who have
use the Symbolics s/w to develop a reasonably sized product. e.g. what
problems they have run into trying to use the window system. I'll be at
IJCAI, so I'll more than happy to meet and talk with anyone who is
interested. My mail-stop is  chaowatkins@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Jul 85 09:54:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Buchanan  <BUCHANAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: validation of expert systems
-BODY-
Ted Shortliffe & I tried to address the issues surrounding evaluation
of expert systems in chapter 30 of RULE-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS.  We
did not specifically talk about what to do in the case of very large
knowledge bases built by multiple experts, but chapter 8 does discuss
some knowledge-base editing facilities that should help.

I would like to know of work on these problems.

B.Buchanan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jun 1985 1215-PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Steven Tepper <greep@Camelot>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Putting comments in Interlisp programs (flame)
-BODY-
     [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.  This is
      part of an exchange on hacking and software engineering.]


I didn't say that comments are impossible in Interlisp -- merely that it's
painful to put them in.

For the edification of those who have not had the privilege of being
subjected to Interlisp's slavish adherence to the principle that it
should constitute an entire programming environment (as opposed to being
just another programming language living on a general purpose computer
system), one of the concomitant requirements of this philosophy is that all
operations, including editing, be done on Lisp objects.  This means that
comments (which are handled by a function called * that does not evaluate
its arguments) are a part of the running program.  Thus, extreme care is
required in the placement of comments.  For example, the following function
fails:

(DEFINEQ (FOO (LAMBDA (X Y)
   (COND ((GREATERP X Y) X)      (* Return the maximum value)
         (T Y]

because the comment is treated as a clause to the COND.  Similarly, a
comment placed as the last form in a function (Interlisp provides an
implicit PROGN in function definitions) will return the first word of the
comment as the value of the function.  In fact, because Lisp is largely a
functional language, there are relatively few safe places to put comments.

A further indication of the low repute with which comments are held in
Interlisp is the fact that the common way of displaying a function at
the top level, PP (pretty-print), replaces all comments with the symbol
**COMMENT**.  To me, this is backwards -- if anything, the comments should
be given prominence over the Lisp code.  Similarly, in the display editor
on Interlisp-D, comments are kept as far away from the executable code
as possible (on the same line) and displayed in a font which is considerably
less readable than that used for non-comments.

This is the basis on which I justify my earlier claim that Interlisp
"discourages" comments, which I consider an undesirable goal.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Jun 85 11:47:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Liam Peyton <PEYTON@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

If Interlisp's approach to comments prevents one from inserting mindless
comments like the following:

(DEFINEQ (FOO (LAMBDA (X Y)
   (COND ((GREATERP X Y) X)      (* Return the maximum value)
         (T Y)))))

then it should be praised not criticized.  A step by step translation
is not helpful commenting and certainly does not give the comments more
prominence than the actual code. (if anything it reduces the relevance of
comments).  A short summary before the cond explaining what the code is
doing is far neater and more useful.

Why would one ever want to have a comment in the last line of a PROG?

(* comment: this is the end of the prog)

This is not to say by any means that Interlisp has the ideal means of
handling comments or that Interlisp doesn't have its problems.  It
does, but they are certainly not a basis for rejecting it as a
programming environment.

Some of the things that result from "Interlisp's slavish adherence to
the principle that it should constitute an entire programming environment"
are incremental execution for debugging purposes, sophisticated mouse
and window system with interactions between windows, online text processing,
and online graphics.

A general purpose computer is a computer that can do anything painfully.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 85 21:46:21 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: C vs LISP
-BODY-
        We have continuing debates about that subject all the time,
and I think for us we have come to the conclusion (for now) that
C is better than LISP.
        Currently we have MS-DOS 2.0, XLISP 2.0, and Lattice C
compiler version 2.0.  A new man (fish@aerospace) was given
the simple task to write a plotter driver.  He did this by
first writing a plot spooler of sorts in assembly language (after
failing miserably in basic).  At this point, he was a virgin
programmer, save some fortran programming on large machines.
        He then started on another program to help people interactively
develop a 'plotter language' file which his plot spooler could plot.
At this point he was manually generating the plotter language, to
produce vu-graphs (as I said he was *the* new man).  Using a copy
of Winston's Lisp text, he set out with XLISP to produce this
translator.  After a month or so, his incentive to write an
interactive translator (to get him out of the vu-graph making loop)
dissipated.
        About a month ago, he went to NARDAC and attended a 1-day
C tutorial.  Then he brought up the C compiler, and now is just
about done.  There is no doubt in my mind that he prefers Lattice
C to XLISP.

        Before all the LISP people flame let me make a few comments.  I
am familliar with both C and XLISP, and have programmed in each.  Both
are pretty basic, but in my opinion I would chose XLISP to write the
basic program, and then recode it to C if it was going to be maintained.
During this effort I acted as the trouble shooter, and let me say that
if I was going to supervise a programming team, THEY WOULD USE C.  In
fact, from the management level, I think Lisp is only marginally better
than assembly language: perhaps.

        By September we should be using PC-AT's with GC-LISP, and the
new Microsoft C compiler.  By December we will probably have our
Symbolics, without a C compiler (although the salesman evidently has
one to sell which ought to say something).  So shoot me a note about
Jan and I may have changed my tune.

        To conclude, if you have a one man project, and the lisp environment
you plan to use has a lot of functionality you need in you application
built-in, lisp can probably be justified.  The source libraries now
available in C (or Pascal, real soon now for Ada) will be increasing
difficult to beat, especially in the context to C interpreters and
incremental compilers, and the fact C runs on *everything*.  If you
are starting from scratch -- common Lisp -- (even XLISP is extended to
support object oriented programming) ***good luck***!

Richard Jennings
AFSCF/XRP
Sunnyvale       ARPA: jennings@aerospace

>>standard disclaimer applies<-

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
87
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 85 11:25:17 mdt
-FROM-
From: yorick%nmsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Scholarship - NMSU
-BODY-
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLARSHIPS:
New Mexico State University, Computing Research Laboratory, invites
applications from excellent graduate and
undergraduate students interested in
Artificial Intelligence, including Expert Systems, Natural Language,
Cognitive Modelling, Intelligent User-Interfaces, Vision and
Robotics, and interdisciplinary projects that integrate these
fundamental aspects of computing science.  The CRL offers
scholarships of up to $12,000 for graduates and $3,000 for
undergraduates per year including tuition and cash.
Successful applicants will additionally be employed for up to
20 hours per week during the academic year, and 40 hours per week
during the summertime on CRL sponsored research programs.
Applications should include a letter indicating your intent to be
considered for one of these scholarships, a statement of your
experiences, a statement of your interests and future goals,
transcripts of all undergraduate work, and names and addresses of
3 references who know your abilities in computing science.
Please send applications, by 20 July 1985 to: Dr. Yorick
Wilks, Director, Computing Research Laboratory, Box 3CRL,
New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, NM 88003.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 1985 16:11-EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logic Programming with Functions (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                    BBN Labs SDP AI Seminar

Speaker:  Uday S. Reddy
          University of Utah

Title:    Logic Programming with Functions

Time:     Friday, July 19th, 10:30 a.m.
Place:   3rd Floor Large Conference Room
         10 Moulton Street, Cambridge

While functional programming has been with us for more than two
decades, logic programming is a relatively new programming
language concept.  A comparison of the two styles shows that
functional programming is done by rewriting expressions to
semantically equivalent ones, while, on the other hand, logic
programming is done by solving formulas for values of their free
variables.  Thus, logic programming provides significantly more
expressive power than functional programming.

However, it is possible to perform logic programming in
functional languages.  Whereas Horn-clause logic languages use
resolution as the operational mechanism, functional logic
languages use a mechanism called "narrowing".  Given an
expression with free variables, the narrowing mechanism answers
the question "for what values of the variables does the
expression reduce to a value?".  Narrowing is a generalization of
both rewriting and resolution and so makes it possible to use
both the styles of programming in a unified framework.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 14:14 EST
-FROM-
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Shape from Function (GE)
-BODY-

                       SHAPE FROM FUNCTION VIA MOTION ANALYSIS
                     with Application to the Automatic Design of
                    Orienting Devices for Vibratory Part Feeders

                               Dr. Tomas Lozano-Perez
                           MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
                                Cambridge, MA.  02139

                       Wednesday, August 14, 1985, 11:00 a.m.

                        General Motors Research Laboratories
                           Computer Science Department
                          Warren, Michigan  48090-9057



    This talk explores the premise that the function of many devices can be
    characterized by how they interact with other objects.  I suggest a
    representation of function of these devices in terms of motion constraints.
    These motion constraints are expressed as a diagram in configuration space.
    Combinations of these diagrams serve both in describing a device's function
    and in designing devices with specified behavior.

    This leads to a view of design as an inverse of the motion planning problem
    in robotics.  In both cases we know the shape of the moving part.  In
    motion planning, we are given the obstacles and we must find a legal path
    between the specified origin and distination.  In this view of design,
    however, we are given the desired motion (actually a range of possible
    motions) and are asked to find a legal shape of the obstacle, that is, the
    device.

    I illustrate this approach to design with a case study of mechanical part
    feeders, a class of real devices with an interesting and direct
    relationship between shape and function.

    Dr. Lozano-Perez has authored technical articles in the areas of motion
    planning, robot programming, and model-based object recognition.  He has
    been affiliated with the M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory since
    1973.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 07/05/85 15:18:19 MEZ
-FROM-
From: Christian Bader  <BADER%DB0TUI11.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems application in business
-BODY-
A workshop on Expert Systems in business will be held November
26/27 1985 in Berlin (West Germany) as a part of the BIG-TECH fair.
We are interested to know about business applications
of Expert Systems both in Germany and elsewhere. Please let me know
if you have an expert systems application that you could present
at the workshop.

Please contact
     Christian Bader
     Technische Universitaet Berlin
     Sekr. FR 6-7
     Franklinstr. 28/29
     D-1000 Berlin 10    West Germany
              phone: (49-30)-314-4903
                  or (49-30)-314-73260 (leave message)
       Network address:   ARPA : BADER%DB0TUI11.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        BITNET : BADER at DB0TUI11
                         CSNET : BADER%DB0TUI11.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 16:03 CST
-FROM-
From: Adelsberger%tamu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Simulation Environments
-BODY-
CALL FOR: PAPERS, PANELISTS, SESSION COORDINATORS

INTELLIGENT SIMULATION ENVIRONMENTS,
1986 SCS MULTICONFERENCE, JAN 23 - 25, SAN DIEGO

    The   Society  for  Computer  Simulatiion  is  sponsoring   a
multiconference  January 23-25,  1985 in San  Diego,  California.
Solicited are papers in the areas of:

    *  User friendly simulation environments.
    *  Knowledge based simulation sytems.
    *  Artificial intelligence applied to simulation
       environments.

    Papers  of  special interest might describe models  that  (1)
have many symbolic processes,  (2) use heuristic search, (3) have
a  command  structure separate from knowledge  domain,  (4)  have
expertise  built  into  the model so that decisions by  the  user
would be minimized.

    AI  papers  dealing  with subjects that are  not  necessarily
directly  simulation  related  but  which  have  a  strong   time
dimension or concern would also be welcome.

    We  are  also interested  in panel  discussions  or  sessions
coordination on a particular aspect of the subject.

    Detailed abstracts (300 words) of proposed papers and special
sessions should be sent direct to the program chairmen not  later
than July 21,  85.   Camera ready copies of accepted papers would
be due October 15, 1985.

Heimo H. Adelsberger
Program Chairmen

Texas A&M University
Computer Science Department
College Station, TX - 77843

Phone: (409) 845-0298

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 85 15:31:56 cdt
-FROM-
From: Don Kraft <kraft%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers -- NAFIPS Meeting
-BODY-
                         CALL FOR PAPERS

     North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society (NAFIPS)

                    International Meeting

            Monteleone Hotel    New  Orleans, Louisiana
               (In the Heart of the French Quarter)
                       June 1-4, 1986

     Papers on all fuzzy topics  are  encouraged,  and  wide
     international participation is expected.


     Deadlines
          Notice of intent with a title and abstract     9/1/85
          Completed paper  (3 copies)                   10/15/85
          Notification of acceptance                     1/15/86
          Camera-ready copy due                          3/15/86


     Proceedings  will  be  distributed  during   Conference
     registration.


     Send all abstracts and papers to:

          NAFIPS86
          Department of Computer Science
          Florida State University
          Tallahassee, FL  32306


     Abraham Kandel and Wyllis Bandler, Program  Committee Co-Chairs

     Fred Petry and Donald H. Kraft,  General Meeting Co-Chairs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
88
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jul 1985 14:17-EDT
-FROM-
From: Conal.Elliott@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Generators in Lisp query
-BODY-
I'd like to implement a simple generator-language (i.e.  functions with
backtracking and able to return more than once) on top of Common Lisp.  It
doesn't need to be anything fancy, as it will be for my own use.  I would
appreciate any hints or pointers.

                                        Conal Elliott
                                        conal@cmu-cs-cad.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 2 Jul 85 22:29:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: Marty Tenenbaum <Tenenbaum@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems for Configuration
-BODY-
Does anyone know where I might acquire an expert system for solving
configuration problems (ala R1/XCON) on a PC.  I am interested in such
a system, more as a tutorial aid than as a serious application.

Jay M. Tenenbaum, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research.
Please respond to Tenenbaum@SRI-KL, or call me at 415-496-4699.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 12:24:15 cdt
-FROM-
From: Mark Turner <mark%gargoyle.uchicago.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language processing
-BODY-
TIRA at U Chicago is looking for a robust Natural Language
Processing system - actual code - it can obtain and install
on a 4.2BSD Unix system.
To elaborate: Many faculty members from Departments of
Library Science, English, Linguistics, Classics, Romance
Languages, etc. at U Chicago who currently work in searching and
processing natural language text data bases have now formed the
Textual Information Retrieval and Analysis (TIRA) research
center.  The Department of Computer Science at U Chicago is
only a few years old, and although I understand that it would
be interested in hiring an Assistant Professor in AI/NLP,
it has not yet done so.  Consequently, we lack a faculty
member who might focus his energies on installing and tuning
a Natural Language Processing System. Several of us are familiar
with NLP, though, and we have some programmers on staff.
So I am beginning to wonder how we might obtain, for academic
research purposes, the code and documentation for someone
else's NLP system, and install it here with relative ease,
to help us with semantic, grammatical, thematic, and morphological
parsing, in various Indo-European languages, principally
English, French, Greek, Latin, Italian, German, and Spanish.
I would appreciate your responses.
Mark Turner
Department of English
U Chicago 60637
>ihnp4!gargoyle!puck!mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1985  14:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Juliana Kraft <ROBOT.JULIE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spatial Reasoning Query
-BODY-

    From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini at nbs-vms>
    Can anyone suggest a good survey article or textbook that covers
    AI for spatial reasoning, especially for 3-D?  I have in mind
    things like, "will this refrigerator fit thru that door", etc.
    Thanks for any help.

For 3D you must consider 6 degrees of freedom (3 translational and 3
rotational).  I recommend "Motion Planning with Six Degrees of
Freedom," by Bruce Donald, (261 pp), MIT AI-TR 791, available from

Publications Office
MIT AI Laboratory
Room NE43-818
545 Tech Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-6773.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 17:08 pst
-FROM-
From: "furth john%d.mfenet"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Best Chess Program
-BODY-
I would like to add something to Richard Jennings' words on the
responsibility of the author of a chess program for its performance.
The most rigid chess program will play chess only as its author
would at his/her best.  The program that learns has the possibility of
doing better.  Suppose the author wrote his/her program without any
instructions for playing chess but only for learning how to play
chess.  Then the program could learn and execute maneuvers that
the author was unaware of.  Now this program learns only as
its author learns at his/her best.  We may continue this iterative
procedure to some arbitrary degree and declare the author's taint
to be negligible.  In the process, however, we will probably have
accumulated some large overhead.  The time spent passing information
up and down this ladder of learners and the storage required at each
rung of the ladder will make the program unusable.
      To attain an independent and useful intelligence, the learner
must be able to discard signifigant portions of the means by which
it has arrived at its present level of ability.  The original hub
of its actions must fall away and a new one be generated.
So the adult forgets the involvements of childhood and the state
the cares of its early days.  With whatever vestiges remain, the
organism must take on a whole new orientation to meet new
needs with a closer approach to the optimum.  It is better to
forget the past than to live there.  The best chess program
will forget most everything its author ever told it to do.

                            John Furth

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun  7 Jul 1985 11:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New IEEE AI Journal
-BODY-
>From IEEE Computer, July 1985, p. 101:

IEEE Expert is the newest addition to the Computer Society's list
of publications, which already includes five magazines.  The Computer
Society Board of Governors gave its approval to the new quarterly at
its May 10 meeting ...

David Pessel of Standard Oil of Ohio will serve as acting editor-in-
chief and will have the responsibility of preparing for the initial
publication in the first quarter of 1986.  The magazine is expected
to treat such AI areas as knowledge engineering, natural language
processing, expert systems, and conceptual modeling.  ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jul 1985 10:46-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Report Vol 2 No 5 Summary
-BODY-
Report on Stanford University AI efforts including Knowledge Systems
Laboratory (VLSI design, MOLGEN, interpretation of nuclear magnetic
resonance data on proteins, computer-aided teaching of diagnostic
reasoning, ONCOCIN for administration of medical treatment protocols,
lymph node pathology diagnosis system, robotic manufacturing strategy
development, financial resource planning).  Basic AI research includes
non-monotonic reasoning, robotics, mechanical construction of computer
programs, design, description and interaction with computer systems,
database retrieval research.  RADIX [formerly RX] is a project which will
use computer programs to examine over 50,000 patient years of accumulated
medical data.

Report on ESPRIT and ALVEY, AI efforts of the European Economic
Community and England respectively:

The following are a list of some books mentioned in the report:
Artificial Intelligence Applications for Manufacturing
Artificial Intellgience Applications for Business Management
The 1985 Handbook of Manufacturing Software (all three by SEAI Techical
Publications)
Machine Vision -- A Summary and Forecast (Tech Tran Corporation)
A Practical Guide to Designing Expert Systems by S. Weiss and C.
Culikowski
William Gevarter: Artificial Intelligence, Expert System, Computer
Vision and Natural Language Processing
William Gevarter: Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: Five Overviews

Mitsubishi Research Institute has inititated a multi-client AI research
project

Report of work done by the Knowledge Information Research Institute of
Computer Services Corporation of Japan

Report on AI at Ohio State: medical systems which infer data from broad
data descriptions and concepts including a red cell antibody
identification system, a system for diagnosing fuel problems in
autombile engines, an air cylinder design system.

Report on Imperial Chemical Industries which has developed an expert
systems shell called Savoir, an agricultural advisor system.

Infologics of Stockholm has announced a PROLOG for IBM-PC costing
295 dollars.

Automata Design Associates has five versions of PROLOG available
for IBM-PC (public domain, educational $29.95, FS Prolog, $49.95,
Virtual memory prolog $99.95 and Large virtual model prolog $300).

TOPSI is selling an OPS-5 for CP/M and MS-DOS for $400.00.

The Automated Reasoning Corporation is selling a fault-diagnosis system.

Odetics (the maker of six legged robots) has announced the
development of an AI center.

Expert Technologies has been developed to sell AI technology to
printers and publishers.

Report on new shareholders of NCC.

Lynn Conway has left Darpa to join University of Michigan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jul 1985 10:18-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The AI Report Vol 2 No 7 Summary
-BODY-
The Artificial Intelligence Report July 1985 Volume 2 No 7

Nippon Telephone and Telegraph

Report on Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, the Japanese AT&T, (NTT)
includes general description of company and its computer related R&D
efforts.  In AI, they are working on a Japanese-English translation
effort, medical expert systems, systems to recognize handwritten
Japanese and Chinese characters, robotics, speech recognition and
speech synthesis.  They have also developed a Lisp machine using the
language Tao, which is a blending of LISP, PROLOG and Smalltalk.  It
40 to 50 times faster than ZetaLisp interpreter, 3 times faster than
Smalltalk-80 on the Xerox Dolphin and five times faster than the
DEC-10 Prolog interpreter.

Also Computer Services Corporation (CSK) is completing work on a LISP
machine prototype which will run Prolog, LISP, UNIX and process
Japanese natural language input.

The AI profits

discusses interest by new and old companies in AI.  based at a Gartner
group forum.  Reports on Lisp machine vendors, Texas Instruments,
Symbolics, Xerox, Lisp Machine Inc (LMI).  Symbolics revenues  are
expected to top 85 million dollars this year and LMI revenues will top
25 million dollars. They predict that Xerox will introduce a 10,000
dollar low-end AI machine.  The Gartner's group of Lisp machine sales in
1990 is over one billion dollars.

Also discusses expert systems.  They feel that natural language
understanding will not be as big a seller as expert system tools.

IBM has over 300 researchers pursueing AI objectives.

Reports on new DEC microvax products, management changes at Lisp
Machine Inc, announcement by Radian Corproation of a IBM PC expert
system shell, an apple Macintosh OPS5 interpreter, R&D expenditures
for various companies, a prediction that a billion transistors will
be packed on a single chip.

The Institut fur Entscheidungstheorie und Unternehmesforschung at der
Universitat Karlsruhe in Germany is conducting an international survey
on Expert Systems in business.

They review the following:

The Fourth Technical Conference of the British Computer Society
Speicalist Group on Expert Systems which has been published as
"Research and Development in Expert Systems"

V. Daniel Hunt's "Smart Robots: A Handbook of Intelligent Robotic
Systems"

Eugene Charniak and Drew McDermott's "Introduction to Artificial
Intelligence"

Also report on the Army AI Center which is doing research on systems to
field new equipment to the army.

The following is a list of some government documents on AI that I found
in this report:

An Overview of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, NASA-TM-85836
An Overview of Computer Vision PB83-217554, An Overview of
Computer-Based Natural Language Processing PB83-200832, Overview of
Expert Systems PB83-217562 and Flexible Manufacturing System Handbook
ADA-127927.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
89
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1985  15:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp vs. C
-BODY-

I won't try to take issue with Richard Jennings's views on Lisp vs. C,
except to note that he is only in a position to compare one dialect of
Lisp (XLISP) to one dialect of C on some sort of MS-DOS machine --
presumably a tiny one -- for one particular kind of task with one
particular virgin programmer who had been trained in in a different way
on the two languages.  His observations are probably valid for this
case, but I wouldn't draw any sweeping generalizations from this.

Lisp really requires a full-fledged environment in order to be an
attractive language.  A lot of people got turned off very badly back in
the bad old days when the Lisp environment was primitive and the address
space of most machines was too small to hold the kinds of features that
we see today on the various Lisp machines.  Now we are seeing the same
"turn off" among people whose exposure to Lisp consists only of using
very small Lisps on machines with only, say, 512K bytes of memory.  On
such a machine, a language like C (which evolved to fit the PDP-11, a
machine whose address space is even smaller) probably is superior for
getting real work done.  This phase will pass just as soon as machines
with adequate virtual memory systems become as common as PC's are today.

>- Scott Fahlman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Jul 85 13:55:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ~= re: Interlisp comments
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


    [...] Unfortunately at least once programming system I know of
    (Interlisp) actively discourages this by making it painful to put
    comments in programs.  For this reason alone Interlisp disqualifies
    itself as a serious programming environment.

Isn't that a little like saying that Boeing, by having tiny restrooms
disqualifies itself as a serious airplane manufacturer?

    I didn't say that comments are impossible in Interlisp -- merely that
    it's painful to put them in.

Pain is subjective.  For my money, tracking down bogus indentation, missing
semicolons or unbalanced parentheses or misspelled symbols in a
text-editor-oriented language is ever so much more painful than commenting
Interlisp.

All of these problems associated with the syntactic sugar of most
programming languages are non-issues in Interlisp, where the interned
form is edited.  For the non-Interlisper it should be explained that
in DEdit (the Interlisp-D display structure editor) the programmer
selects S-expressions with the mouse and operates on them through a menu.
Note that the user selects S-expressions; not the textual representation
of an S-expression.  Eg., a user can't select a parenthesis because it
is only an artifact of the pretty-printer.  Since parentheses are generated
only by the pretty-printer on redisplaying a transformed S-expression,
they can never be unbalanced.  Since atoms are typically "typed" into a
program by buttoning an existing instance and using a menu command which
copies the interned pointer (not the characters of the PNAME) spelling
errors can't occur.  Similarly, indenting is the job of the pretty printer--
not the programmer--and is done per-window, so editing windows may be of
different sizes.  I am amused to see CADR-sized editor windows on 3600's.

    For the edification of those who have not had the privilege of being
    subjected to Interlisp's slavish adherence to the principle that it
    should constitute an entire programming environment (as opposed to
    being just another programming language living on a general purpose
    computer system), one of the concomitant requirements of this philosophy
    is that all operations, including editing, be done on Lisp objects.

Some of us are willing slaves.

    This means that comments (which are handled by a function called *
    that does not evaluate its arguments) are a part of the running program.
    Thus, extreme care is required in the placement of comments.  [...]

Extreme care must be taken when spelling identifiers in C programs and placing
semicolons and parentheses.  Nobody said programming would be safe!  <:-)

    [...] In fact, because Lisp is largely a functional language, there
    are relatively few safe places to put comments.

I don't think that it is unfair to ask a programmer to learn the semantics
of the programming language he is using.  Given an understanding of PROGN,
COND, AND, OR, and the interpreter, I don't think it is difficult to comment
Interlisp programs at all.  Anyway, the compiler catches instances where
the programmer has used a comment for its value and warns him with a message
like "Warning: value of comment used".  Actually, I haven't seen this message
in a year or two.  When was the last time cc barfed on a semicolon you forgot?

    [...] Similarly, in the display editor on Interlisp-D, comments are
    kept as far away from the executable code as possible (on the same
    line) and displayed in a font which is considerably less readable than
    that used for non-comments.

You have only to rebind COMMENTFONT to a larger/bolder fontclass if you
don't like the default.  What font does EMACS use for comments in C programs?

    This is the basis on which I justify my earlier claim that Interlisp
    "discourages" comments, which I consider an undesirable goal.

As I've said too many ways above, I don't think Interlisp discourages
misplaced comments any more than C discourages misplaced semicolons.

>-Christopher Schmidt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 6 Jul 85 00:01:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp comments
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Interlisp manual contains roughly 25 chapters which average
approximately 25 pages each.  These are big pages with closely
packed type.  The Interlisp environment has been evolving for
almost 20 years.  This should suggest to you that it is a rich
and complex entity.

Are we really expected to take seriously the proposition that
we shouldn't use this language because it doesn't let you put
comments anywhere you please?  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 5 Jul 85 16:24:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ~= re: Interlisp comments
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[...]


    We're not talking about syntactic sugar or ease of use. We're talking
    about a limitation on the functionality of the programming environment.

My mistake then.  I think that C comments are the epitome of syntactic sugar;
discarded by the cc parser as if they never existed.  And rather than
Interlisp's being a programming environment that "holds comments in contempt"
I would go so far as to claim that it gives them MORE respect than
unix/EMACS/C.  In the unix/EMACS/C environment let's say that we have an
error.  unix gives us one of the many helpful error messages from the set
{bus error core dumped | segmentation error core dumped}.  The user invokes
the break package (cdb) (by hand).  Where are the comments now?  Where is
the symbol table?  The hacker only gets that if he is lucky!  In Interlisp,
by contrast, one of >50 error messages is printed, a break package window
opens up, a stack trace opens up (any frame can be selected and inspected
symbolically in its own window), and a menu of break package commands is
available (in addition to the entire programming language).  If one invokes
the editor from the break package (picking the function from the stack trace
with the mouse), the source code is right there; the variables can be
evaluated in the stack context of the break; and the comments are still
there!  I call that esteem, not contempt.  Now an Interlisp break is not
a post mortem.  Within the break package one can change the variable; rewrite
a function if desired and continue the program with the new definition,
which is now THE definition.  Do fixes made in cdb get incorporated into
the original source automatically?

[...]

>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 5 Jul 85 18:01:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Wade Hennessey <WADE@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: interlisp comments
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Chris' comments about the ease of debugging in INTERLISP are true of any
lisp system. They are not really relevant to greep's dislike of INTERLISP
or liking of UNIX. For example, ZETALISP uses a commenting style
similar to C, and yet it provides the same debugging functionality
of INTERLISP. There are several useful functions in ZETALISP which get
the system to find the source file where a function is defined, and then let
you start editing/examining the definition, comments and all. Thus, you
needn't make comments part of the code to make them easily accessible at
all times.

Wade

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
90
-DATE-
Date: 8 JUL 85 15:10-N
-FROM-
From: APPEL%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: QUERY ON WORKSTATIONS FOR AI AND IMAGE PROCESSING
-BODY-
AI on workstations

We are looking for a workstation for developping AI systems, mixed with an
image processing system. The workstation has to work under Unix (if possible
4.2).

We intend to buy a Sun-2, with floating-point accelerator and color graphic
system.

We heard that the SUN is slow for floating point operations. Does somebody
have informations on Franz LISP's performance on SUN, or other AI tools on SUN,
versus other similar workstations (in costs)?

We are interrested in positive and negative arguments to buy or NOT buy a
SUN.

                                                Ron Appel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 10:40:59 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!elecadel.oz!alex@seismo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSL Flavors Implementation.
-BODY-
The implementation of Flavors we received with our
PSL package from Utah does not permit the mixing of
Flavors (whats the point of calling it Flavors then
you might ask...). Can anyone tell me of a complete
version of Flavors that runs on PSL? I'm also
looking for a ZetaLisp compatability package that
implements the &.... function parameter conventions.

Thanks,
Alex Dickinson,
The University of Adelaide,
South Australia.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 00:00:19 cdt
-FROM-
From: Mark Turner <mark%gargoyle.uchicago.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: representation of knowledge
-BODY-
I am gathering for my students a bibligraphy
of works on representation
of knowledge.  I am particularly concerned with
cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence,
philosophy, linguistics, and natural language processing.
I would appreciate receiving copies of bibliographies
others may already have on-line.
Mark Turner
Department of English
U Chicago 60637
>ihnp4!gargoyle!puck!mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1985  21:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: DAVIES@Sumex
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PARSYM -- new mailing list for Parallel Symbolic Computing
-BODY-
                  PARSYM: A Netwide Mailing List for
                     Parallel Symbolic Computing

The PARSYM mailing list has been started to encourage communication
between individuals and groups involved in PARALLEL SYMBOLIC COMPUTING
(non-numeric computing using multiple processors).  The moderator
encourages submissions relating either to parallelism in symbolic
computing or to the use of symbolic computing techniques (AI, objects,
logic programming, expert systems) in parallel computing.  All manner
of communication is welcomed: project overviews, research results,
questions, answers, commentary, criticism, humor, opinions,
speculation, historical notes, or any combination thereof, as long as
it relates to the hardware, software, or application of parallel
symbolic computing.

To contribute, send mail to PARSYM@SUMEX (or PARSYM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA, if
your mailer requires).  To be added to the PARSYM distribution list,
or to make other editorial or administrative requests, send mail to
PARSYM-Request@SUMEX.  When you are added to the PARSYM distribution
list, I will send you a welcoming message with additional information
about PARSYM and some necessary cautions about copyright and
technology export.

To get the list off the ground, I offer the following set of
discussion topics:

1. Will there be a general-purpose parallel symbolic processor, or
   should parallel architectures always be specialized to particular
   tasks?

2. The primary languages for sequential symbolic computing are Lisp,
   Prolog, and SmallTalk.  Which is a better basis for developing a
   programming language for parallel computing?  Do we need something
   fundamentally different?

3. Sequential computing took about 30 years to reach its current
   state.  Thirty years ago, programming tools were nonexistent:
   programmers spent their time cramming programs into a few hundred
   memory cells, without programming languages or compilers or
   symbolic debuggers.  Now, sequential programming is in a highly
   developed state: most programmers worry less about the
   limitations of their hardware than about managing the
   complexity of their applications and of their evolving computer
   systems.

   Today, parallel programming is where sequential programming was
   thirty years ago: to optimize computation and communication,
   programmers spend their time manually assigning processes to a few
   processors, without benefit of programming languages or compilers
   or symbolic debuggers that deal adequately with parallelism.

   Will it take 30 years to bring parallel computing up to the current
   level of serial computing?

Submissions, queries, and suggestions are equally welcome.  Fire away!

                                PARSYM's Moderator,

                                Byron Davies (Davies@SUMEX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 85 21:47:37 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: instantiation in distributed associative memory systems
-BODY-
I was reading some papers by James A. Anderson the other day on the
psychological properties of distributed associative memory systems ("Cognitive
and psychological computation with neural models",IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Vol 13, pp 799-815, 1983; "Fun with parallel systems",
unpublished paper, 1984). His simulation model associates different features
with state vectors (patterns of activation of the neurons) instead of with
individual neurons. Orthogonality in this system is achieved in two ways.
Alternative values of the same variable (e.g. black-white, mortal-immortal)
use the same neurons but have orthogonal codings, whereas dissimilar things
(e.g. shoes-sealing wax, cabbages-kings)use entirely different sets of neurons.
He taught his system various associations such as Plato -> Man, Man -> Mortal,
Zeus -> God, God -> Immortal and the system was able to output triples such as
<Zeus,God,Immortal> from input of single components.

This system can be viewed as approximately equivalent to a production system
with rules such as "Man(X) -> Mortal(X)". In Anderson's simulation a better
pattern match leads to faster activation so conflict resolution uses a "best
match fires first" strategy. I think that his model also allows multiple rules
to fire simultaneously provided that they conclude about different attributes.
For example it would be possible to conclude simultaneously that Plato is
Greek and Mortal. However the superposition of the neural activation patterns
for Mortal and Immortal does not necessarily represent anything at all.

OK, so much for the rough sketch of Anderson's system. The questions which
interest me about it deal with instantiation. In a production system we can
arrange things so that values get bound to the variables in the rules. What is
the equivalent process in the neural network?

My guess is that the activation process is the closest equivalent. The total
activity pattern of the network represents the current entity being thought
about and it possesses some number of more or less independent attributes.
Thus the binding process is particularly simple because there is no choice of
entities to bind. There is only one value, the current state, and the choice
of attributes of the current state to bind is wired into the synapses of each
rule. So a rule looks more like "Big_animal(Current_state) & Teeth(Current_
state) -> Dangerous(Current_state)". You could say that all the rules are
permanently bound.

If this is a reasonable description of instantiation in neural nets, then the
next obvious question is "How the hell do you represent multiple entities?"
If multiple entities are represented by the current state of activity on the
network there is no way that the rules can decide which attributes go with
what entity. As far as they are concerned there is only one entity. So what
are the possibilities for keeping entities separate in the neural
representation?

1. Attribute separation. If two entities have no attributes in common then they
can be represented simultaneously. As noted above, the rules can't break them
apart but for some purposes this may not matter. If the entities have an
attribute in common then provided they have the same value on that attribute
no harm is done. If they have conflicting values on a shared attribute then the
representation of at least one of the entities will be distorted.

2. Temporal separation. If a pattern of neural activity causes a short term
increase in the ease with which that pattern can be re-triggered then several
entities could be juggled by time division multiplexing. Only one entity would
be actively represented at a single time, but the other recently represented
entities could be easily recalled. This scheme prevents entities interfering
and also seems to stop them usefully interacting. It is not clear how the rule
mechanism could be modified to allow references to multiple entities in the
pattern.

3. Spatial separation. Assume that instead of one neural population there are
several of them, all with identical knowledge bases, and communicating with
each other. These neural populations are not necessarily physically separate.
Each population would be capable of representing and manipulating an entity
without interference from the representations of the other entities.
Furthermore, because the populations are connected it would be possible for
rules to know about multiple entities. The difference between this scheme and
the attribute separation scheme is that for a given attribute there will be a
distinct group of neurons in each population rather than a single global group
of neurons. Any rule which is looking for a pattern involving multiple entities
will be able to see them as distinct because the information will come in over
distinct synaptic pathways.

This spatial separation scheme would be ideal for visual processing because the
populations could be arranged in a topographic mapping and allowed to
communicate only with their neighbours. This could deal with rules like, "If
the neighbour on my left sees an object moving right then I will see it soon
and it will still have the attributes my neighbour labelled it with."

This scheme could also be used for more cognitive calculations but obviously
there would need to be mechanisms for coordination to replace the simple
static coordination structure provided by topographic mapping and communication
with neighbours. Work done in cognitive psychology shows that children's
increasing ability to perform difficult tasks can be attributed to the
increasing number of concepts which can be simultaneously activated and
manipulated (Graeme S. Halford, "Can young children integrate premises in
transitivity and serial order tasks?", Cognitive Psychology, 1984, Vol 16,
pp 65-93). Perhaps the children are slowly learning the coordination rules
needed to stop the populations acting as one large population and allow them
to run as a coordinated group of entity processors.

That's my quota of armchair theorising for the week. Anyone got a comment?

Ross Gayler                     | ACSnet:       ross@psych.uq.oz
Division of Research & Planning | ARPA:         ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.arpa
Queensland Department of Health | CSNET:        ross@psych.uq.oz
GPO Box 48                      | UUCP:         seismo!munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross
Brisbane        4001            |
AUSTRALIA                       | Phone:        +61 7 224 7060

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
91
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 14:14 EST
-FROM-
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Shape from Function (GMR)   [correction]
-BODY-
                       SHAPE FROM FUNCTION VIA MOTION ANALYSIS
                     with Application to the Automatic Design of
                    Orienting Devices for Vibratory Part Feeders

                               Dr. Tomas Lozano-Perez
                           MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
                                Cambridge, MA.  02139

                       Wednesday, August 14, 1985, 11:00 a.m.

                        General Motors Research Laboratories
                           Computer Science Department
                          Warren, Michigan  48090-9057

[It seems I introduced a typo (GE) when I distributed this seminar notice.
Steve Holland informs me that this talk will be held at GMR and that Tomas
is reachable at tlp%mit-oz@mit-mc or via u.s. mail to MIT AI Lab.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Jul 85 17:41:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ed Pednault <PEDNAULT@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PhD Orals - A Mathematical Theory of Plan Synthesis (SU)
-BODY-

            Toward a Mathematical Theory of Plan Synthesis

                         Edwin P.D. Pednault
                        Electrical Engineering

                      Thursday, July 18, 2:15pm
                    Margaret Jacks Hall, Room 146


Planning problems have the following form: given a set of goals, a set
of allowable actions and a description of the current state of the world,
find a sequence of actions that will transform the world from its current
state to a state in which all of the goals are satisfied.  This talk is a
presentation of my thesis research which examines the question of how to
solve planning problems automatically.  The question of plan synthesis will
be addressed from a rigorous, mathematical standpoint in contrast to the
informal and highly experimental treatments found in most previous works.
By introducing mathematical rigor, it has been possible to unify many
existing ideas in automatic planning, showing how they arise from first
principles and how they may be applied to solve a much broader class of
problems than had previously been considered.  In addition, some entirely
new ideas have been developed and a number of theorems have been proved
that further our understanding of the synthesis problem.  The talk will
concentrate on my techniques for plan synthesis with only a brief summary
of the other contributions of my research.  A mathematical framework for
studying planning problems will be introduced and a number of theorems
will be presented that form the basis for the synthesis techniques.
These theorems will then be combined with a least-commitment search
strategy to obtain a solution method that unifies and generalizes
means-ends analysis, opportunistic planning, goal protection, goal
regression, constraint posting/propagation, hierarchical planning and
nonlinear planning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 8 Jul 85 15:30:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: David Beech <BEECH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Object Model of Information (SU)
-BODY-

The first Database Seminar of the summer quarter will be this Friday,
12th July, at 3:15 in MJH 352.

For information, please contact Beech@Score or call 497-9118.


 TOWARDS AN OBJECT MODEL OF THE REPRESENTATION AND USE OF INFORMATION

                          David Beech

               Stanford CIS and HP Laboratories


Future general-purpose information systems will need to deal with a
wide range of information, and offer flexible access to it, if they
are to appeal to the potential millions of non-specialist users.
For example, they should process pictures and sounds as naturally as
numbers and texts; they should answer questions which require some
deduction from the often incomplete information previously given to
the system; and they should move towards the support of natural
language interfaces, including spoken inputs.

An object-oriented model of the representation and use of information
is proposed, with the necessary generality for the description and
design of such systems.  Fundamental concepts including those of
agent, object, type, action, formula, process, transaction, predicator
and generator are introduced.  Recursive functions, predicate calculus,
and n-ary relations are brought together in a data abstraction framework,
with an emphasis on intensional definition of concepts and their
instantiation by means of predicators and generators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jul 85 10:19:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems and Databases (CMU)
-BODY-

            DESIGN RESEARCH CENTER BI-WEEKLY SEMINAR SERIES

               Interfacing Expert Systems and Databases
               for Structural Engineering Applications
                                by
                           Craig Howard

  Wednesday, July 10 at 1:30 pm in the Adamson Wing, Baker Hall
    *******  Refreshments will be served at 1:15   *******

Artificial intelligence programming techniques, specifically expert systems
and knowledge-based systems (KBS), are being applied to a broad range of
engineering problems.  However, most prototype expert system applications
are restricted to limited amounts of data and have no facility for
sophisticated data management.  As expert systems are integrated into
engineering computing systems, the data management capabilities of these
systems must be adapted to serve these new components.  The presentation
describes work underway to develop a flexible interface in which multiple
expert systems and multiple design databases communicate as independent,
self-descriptive components within an integrated structural engineering
computing environment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jul 85 13:17:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System for Grease Selection (CMU)
-BODY-
                Intelligent Systems Lab Seminar

Topic:    Presentation of Grease Project
Speaker:  Dr. Peter Spirtes
Place:    DH3313
Date:     Wednesday, July 10
Time:     10:00am - 11:00am

The Grease project is an expert system that is intended to aid in the
choice or design of a proper cutting fluid for a metal machining operation.
It is currently under development at the Intelligent Systems Lab in
cooperation with Gulf Oil Company.  Cutting fluids can extend tool life and
improve finish by providing lubrication and cooling, and by preventing the
welding of the metal being machined to the machining tool.  The goal is to
find a cutting fluid which will make a machining operation as economical as
possible by finding the best trade-off between the price of a cutting fluid
and the amount that it extends tool life.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 85 17:10:09 pdt
-FROM-
From: Bill Havens <havens%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Canadian AI Conference
-BODY-

               C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S

        Canadian Artificial Intelligence Conference

                      C S C S I - 8 6

                      Montreal, Canada

                    May 21 - 23,  1986

Sponsored by the

                    Canadian Society for

           Computational Studies of Intelligence


     The Sixth National Conference of the CSCSI invites sub-
mission  of  theoretical  and applied research papers in all
areas  of  Artificial  Intelligence  research,  particularly
those listed below:

        o Knowledge Representation
        o Computer Vision
        o Natural Language Understanding
        o Expert Systems and Applications
        o Logic Programming and Formal Reasoning
        o Robotics
        o Planning, Problem Solving and Learning
        o Cognitive Science
        o Social Aspects of AI
        o AI Architecture, Languages and Tools

     All submissions will be fully refereed by  the  program
committee.   Authors are requested to prepare full papers of
no more than 5000 words in length and specify in which  area
they  wish their papers reviewed.  All papers should contain
concise clear descriptions of significant  contributions  to
Artificial  Intelligence  research with proper references to
the relevant literature.  Figures and  illustrations  should
be professionally drawn.

     Three copies of each submitted paper  must  be  in  the
hands  of  the Program Chairman by December 31, 1985.  Elec-
tronic submissions are unfortunately  not  acceptable.   All
accepted papers will be published in the conference proceed-
ings.

     Correspondence should be addressed to either  the  Gen-
eral Chair or the Program Chair, as appropriate.

General Chair:

        Renato De Mori
        Department of Computer Science
        Concordia University
        Montreal, P.Q.  H3G 1M8
        CANADA

Program Chair:

        Bill Havens
        Department of Computer Science
        University of British Columbia
        Vancouver, B.C.  V6T 1W5
        CANADA
        Network Address:  havens@ubc.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
92
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Jul 85 22:39:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Center for Machine Intelligence
-BODY-
I have received an announcement of the formation of a new
Center for Machine Intelligence under the co-directorship
of Dr. Ashby Woolf and Prof. Lynn Conway (recently of DARPA).
The center is being formed by Electronic Data Systems Corporation
(subsidiary of GM) and the University of Michigan.  Their address is
2001 Commonwealth Blvd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105, phone (313) 995-0900.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, 10 July 1985 08:20:16 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reminder -- IEEE Software
-BODY-

A reminder that the last date for the submission of papers for
the IEEE software special AI issue is July 15th.  If anyone wants an
extension till August 1st, send mail to sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa.

Sriram

FOR YOUR INFORMATION:

The March 1986 issue of IEEE Software will address software aspects of
knowledge-based   systems   developed  for  engineering  applications.
(IEEE Software is one of the prestigious magazines devoted to problems
in Software engineering).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 11 Jul 85 22:32:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SPIE AI Issue
-BODY-
Mohan Trivedi tells me that SPIE (Society of Photo and Instrumentation
Engineers) is planning a special AI issue of their journal early
next year.  This seems to be a follow-on to their recent conference
on AI.  Contact Dr. Trivedi at

  Electrical Engineering Dept.
  Louisiana State University
  Baton Rouge, LA  70803
  Phone (504) 388-6826

soon if you are interested in contributing.  Submitted papers need not
be about optics.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 85 14:36:30 edt
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Vision of Knowledge Engineering
-BODY-

        I'm writing a manuscript, "A Vision of Knowledge Engineering",
for Prentice-Hall.  The intended audience of the textbook is
undergraduate students in philosophy, management information science,
and computer science.

        The parts of the book correspond to the audience:  Part I
(chapters 2-4) is concerned with the theoretical foundations of
knowledge engineering and will focus on symbolic logic and epistemology,
including both the empirical work of John Dewey, Rudolf Carnap, and
Isaac Levi as well as the transcendental work of Immanuel Kant and
Edmund Husserl.  Part II (chapter 5) introduces topics from information
management such as managerial cybernetics, decision support systems, and
man/machine interaction (software engineering and human engineering).
Part III (chapter 6) outlines the techniques and concepts of artificial
intelligence that young knowledge engineers need to be on friendly terms
with in order to design and implement applications programs such as
knowledge-based expert systems.  Here is an outline of the manuscipt:


        A VISION OF KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING

        1. Introduction

        2. Intelligent Resources
           2.1 The Age of Knowledge
           2.2 The System of Intelligent Resources
           2.3 Revision of Intelligent Resources

        3. Deductive Knowledge
           3.1 Logic Programming
           3.2 Automated Reasoning
           3.3 Deductive Systems

        4. Deep Knowledge
           4.1 Deliberate Expansion of Knowledge Bases
           4.2 Structures of Consciousness
           4.3 What Is Inductive Logic?

        5. Information Management
           5.1 Managerial Cybernetics
           5.2 Decision Support Systems
           5.3 The Unix Development Environment

        6. AI Techniques
           6.1 Concepts and Techniques
           6.2 Applications
           6.3 The AI Development Environment

        7. Vision of Possibilities


        As I begin to close off the theoretical part (chapters 2-4), I'm
looking for concrete systems and applications to write about in chapters
5 and 6.  If anyone has suggestions about systems that I can review,
please contact me at the address listed at the end of this article.


                                 * * *


        Here are three diagrams that summarize the approach to knowledge
engineering that I've taken in the manuscript.  The first diagram
(figure 1) shows a canonical or ideal form that seems to underlie most
(all?!)  interactive knowledge systems.  Figures 2 and 3 summarize the
literature that I have found to be a good basis for teaching the theory
and practice of knowledge systems and intelligent databases to young
knowledge engineers.


                              +---------+
                     ________ |knowledge|_________
                    |         |  base   |         |
                    |         +---------+         |
                    |              |              |
                    |              |              |
+---------+    +---------+    +---------+    +---------+    +---------+
| expert  |____|  inter- |____|inference|____|  inter- |____|  user   |
|         |    |   face  |    | engine  |    |   face  |    |         |
+---------+    +---------+    +---------+    +---------+    +---------+
                    |              |              |
                    |              |              |
                    |         +---------+         |
                     ________ |  black- | ________
                              |  board  |
                              +---------+

        Figure 1.  An interactive knowledge system.  Without much
        difficulty most block diagrams of knowledge systems can fit into
        this framework.



        5. Rule-Based Expert Systems (Buchanan & al. 1984)
        =======================================================
        4. Principles of Artificial Intelligence (Nilsson 1980)
        3. Automated Reasoning (Wos & al. 1984)
        2. Automated Theorem Proving (Loveland 1978)
        =======================================================
        1. Mathematical Logic (Shoenfield 1967)

        Figure 2. The five levels of knowledge engineering as seen
        from the theoretical perspective.  The concept of a production
        system and the concept of representation-inference-control can
        be traced on each of the five levels.



        5. Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema
           and the Information Base  (van Griethuysen 1982)
        =====================================================
        4. Advances in Data Base Theory (Gallaire & al. 1981)
        3. Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational
           Database Theory (Reiter 1984)
        2. Automated Theorem Proving (Loveland 1978)
        =====================================================
        1. Mathematical Logic (Shoenfield 1967)

        Figure 3. The five levels of knowledge engineering and automated
        reasoning as seen from the practical perspective of deductively-
        augmented (intelligent) relational databases.  The diagram is
        motivated by the practical need for intelligent deductions in
        large commercial databases.


        One more diagram, figure 4, helps round out this preliminary
Vision.  I drew figure 4 after using Argonne's Interactive Theorem
Prover (ITP).  ITP is a beautiful tool for giving young knowledge
engineers experience and understanding of how to build a production
system consisting of entities (the knowledge base of atomic and
molecular clauses), operators (rules of inference), and control
(strategies such as forward and backward demodulation and forward and
backward subsumption).


                              +------------+
                  ----------->|   Choice   |------------
                 |            | strategies |            |
                 |            +------------+            |
                 |                  ||                  |
                 |                  ||                  |
                 |           +---------------+          V
           +------------+    |               |    +------------+
           |  Backward  |----|   Knowledge   |----| Inference  |
           | strategies |----|     base      |----|   rules    |
           +------------+    |               |    +------------+
                 A           +---------------+          |
                 |                  ||                  |
                 |                  ||                  |
                 |            +------------+            |
                 |            |  Forward   |            |
                  ------------| strategies |<-----------
                              +------------+

        Figure 4.  Argonne National Laboratory's Interactive Theorem
        Prover (ITP).  This diagram is adapted from Allen and Luckham
        1970 and Wos et al. 1984 (section 4.4, "Order of Operations").


        The flow of operations is clockwise, beginning with the choice
strategies.  ITP stops when the knowledge base exhibits an appropriate
termination condition such as the null clause in refutation proofs.  The
corrpesondonce between ITP and an abstract production system is:

                ITP             Production system
                --------------  -----------------
                knowledge base  entities
                inference rules operations
                strategies      control

That is why we ITP addicts are so excited about using ITP in knowledge
engineering.  ITP serves as an example of a production system and a
production-system-building tool.  If you've ever tried using Yaps in the
University of Maryland Lisp environment, I think you'll agree that ITP
is a lot simpler.  I don't mean of course to tell people not to use the
Maryland systems or other production-system-building tools.  My
intention here is only to recommend the Argonne system as the easiest
way that I know of for new knowledge engineers to effortlessly gain full
knowledge of production systems through ITP-based experience and
understanding.

        Note the nice picture that results when we combine figure 1 (the
interactive knowledge system) and figure 4 (ITP).  Simply replace the
middle section of figure 1 by figure 4.  The knowledge bases in each
diagram correspond well; the inference engine and blackboard of the
interactive knowledge system correspond to the inference-rule module and
strategy modules of ITP.  The resulting picture is clean and neat.  What
more could a young knowledge engineer ask for?

                                 * * *

        I look forward to hearing your replies to these ideas.  We are
children of the cybernetic revolution and we are witnessing the rising
sunshine of the Age of Enlightenment.

        Jai Guru Dev,

        Tom Scott
        Department of Mathematics and Statistics
        Bowling Green State University
        Bowling Green OH  43403-0221

        Csnet: scott@bgsu
        UUCP: ...!cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Day phone: 419-372-2636

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
93
-DATE-
Date: Fri 5 Jul 85 19:28:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: Fred Hapgood <SIDNEY.G.HAPGOOD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Progress in Chess
-BODY-
It is my recollection that the first good chess program, Northwestern's
CHESS 3.0, had earned a USCF rating of about 2100 in 1973. In
the subsequent twelve years quite impressive advances have been
made both in chess programs and the hardware running them. Yet
apparently all that this progress has bought has been a measly
100 rating points. What conclusions might be drawn from these
facts? One, surely, is that it might take much longer than any
of us think to build a machine that plays even 2400 chess, let
alone at world champion level.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 85 16:03:56 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Falling Away; re Furth's message.
-BODY-

>  From: "furth john%d.mfenet"  >Subject: The Best Chess Program
>        To attain an independent and useful intelligence, the learner
>  must be able to discard significant portions of the means by which
>  it has arrived at its present level of ability.  The original hub
>  of its actions must *fall away* and a new one be generated.
>  So the adult forgets the involvements of childhood and the state
>  the cares of its early days.  With whatever vestiges remain, the
>  organism must take on a whole new orientation to meet new
>  needs with a closer approach to the optimum.  It is better to
>  forget the past than to live there.  The best chess program
>  will forget most everything its author ever told it to do.



    This is certainly true for persons in general.  The recent TV
    series & book entitled 'The Brain' talked about people who didn't
    seem to be able to forget very well, and the problems they had
    in normal life.

    Along these lines, it is possible to develop some rather interesting
    perspectives 'on the meaning of it all'.
    Suppose for a moment, one of the key features of our species is that
    regardless of how important person an person thinks he or she is, they

    'fall away' (read die) after a rather short period of time (on the
    cosmic scale).  If immortality could be achieved, this would not

    occur and the 'intelligence' of the species by Furth's implicit
    definition would be reduced.  Consequently, the immortality quest is
    ephemeral at best, and certainly not a quest that should be funded
    by the entire race.


                Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 85 19:27:40 PDT
-FROM-
From: Steve Crocker <crocker@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interlisp comments are first class citizens
-BODY-
I must have missed the first flame about comments in Interlisp, but I'll
jump in anyway.  I have used Interlisp for a decade and it's a sheer
delight to see how many good ideas have been implemented and are just
sitting there waiting for the semi-experienced user to discover them.
The method of handling comments is one of the minor delights, but a delight
nonetheless.

As has been noted, comments in Interlisp are simply functions that don't
have any useful value.  The "*" is used as the function symbol, and that
works fine, although any other symbol such as ";" or "comment" could have
been used as well.  Once you get the idea that comments are simply "useless"
functions, I find it hard to understand why there's much trouble placing
them correctly.  The prettyprinter always prints them out in an identifiable
way, and the compiler and/or DWIM package catch the majority of errors you
might make.  No similar service exists is most other languages, including
most dialects of Lisp.

One of the neat things we were able to do with Interlisp comments is adopt a
convention that each function definition contain a comment that describes
its purpose, inputs and output as its first "action."  (The compiler knows
enough to generate nothing when it sees a comment, so it doesn't take up
either time or space in the object code.)  Using the Masterscope system, we
built some tools that generate documentation for a file full of functions.
This documentation includes all of the Masterscope goodies -- who calls the
function, what variables are referenced, etc. -- and the initial comment for
the function.  All of this information is collected in a Scribe file and
turned into a substantial document.  This kind of thing is not necessary for
the programmer who's debugging a couple of functions in a context he knows
intimately, but it sure does help the next programmer or the same programmer
a year later.  This kind of tool was almost trivial to build because
comments are part of the code and not incidental frosting lost at the first
turn of the lexical analyzer.  (Anybody who thinks he has a natural language
parser that handles metaphors is invited to try that last sentence!)

There are always alternative ways of doing things and differences and taste
and style, but most of the criticisms of Lisp in general and Interlisp in
particular come from people who grew up (?) with batch compilers of
line-oriented, statement-oriented languages.  I think those are three of the
worst things that ever happened in computing, and will continue to haunt us
for another several decades.

Steve Crocker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:50:16 edt
-FROM-
From: Eric Nyberg <ehn0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Interlisp Comments
-BODY-

In reply to Steven Tepper's comments in AIList #86, I would
like to make the following points about commenting Interlisp
programs.

Placing a comment in the "wrong" place may result in a comment
value being used by a function in an undesirable way. During
compilation, the compiler issues a warning whenever this sort
of situation is noticed (VALUE OF COMMENT USED).

The printing of comments as "**COMMENT**" during pretty printing
is the system default. Mr. Tepper was too quick to flamethrow
before checking his Interlisp manual on this. There is a variable
called **COMMENT**FLG which controls this behaviour. If **COMMENT**FLG
is NIL, comments are printed. Otherwise, the value of **COMMENT**FLG
is printed (initially set to "**COMMENT**"). There is also a function
called PP* {nlambda*} which performs a PP with all comments expanded.
I refer Mr. Tepper and others interested in reading about the comment
facility to Sections 6.8.1 - 6.8.4 in the Interlisp-D manual (I'm
afraid my comments don't apply to older versions of Interlisp). For
info on how to change the font used for comments, see section 6.8.5.

The rest of Steven's complaints about the position and font used for
comments can all be remedied by resetting various parameters that
control the format of comments (see the above sections). If one takes
the extra time to set up his/her programming environment the way he/she
likes it, it is possible to have the comments just about anywhere (and any
size). It seems that there are many user "hooks" in Interlisp-D that
allow this sort of customization. It is too bad that the documentation
is sometimes very difficult to understand, even when tracked down.

I disagree with Steven's conclusion that Interlisp "discourages"
comments. The *default environment* handles comments in a discouraging
way, but a few lines of code in the init file can remedy the situation.

Eric Nyberg
GTE Laboratories
ehn0@gte-labs.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 9 Jul 85 02:51:46-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A visit to the Aymara FAB Lab [DDJ July 85]
-BODY-
[ from Dr. Dobb's Journal, July 1985 - "Of Interest" by Michael Swaine]

A VISIT to the FAB Lab
=======================

>-- A blip of 'deja vu' struck as I read in the March IEEE Software
about IVAN GUZMAN DE ROJAS and his plan for doing natural-language
translation via the peculiarly algebraic Andean Indean language Aymara.
Yes, trivial recall was working perfectly; halfway down the Andean peak
of press releases on my desk I found the announcement of the opening
of the AYAMARA FAB LAB in Sunnyvale.
A coincidence worthy of a drive down the peninsula.

DEAN NORMAN, director of the lab, ... explained that Guzman, discovering
the Aymara, lacking irregular verbs and gender, was an unprecedentedly
logical language (although its logic was not standard two-valued logic),
had succeeded in codifying the algorithmic structure of it syntax.
For the first time, someone had expressed a natural language in software.
Wasn't Guzman, I asked, considering the application of his achievement
in the design of translation machines, the notion being that computerized
Aymara could serve as the bridge in a multilanguage translation system?

Right, Norman answered, although at AFL they were taking the process in a
somewhat different direction.  Did I recall the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from
linguistics?  I did, more or less: that language delimited the thinkable
thoughts, and thus our culture and perceptions.  Under normal conditions
we see only those distinctions for which we have words.  In cultures in
which green is not a major linguistic division of the spectrum, it is also
not a primary perceptual division.

Norman nodded.  The principle can be applied to any language-processing
system, natural or artificial.  Curious as it might sound, the Aymara-
speaking software would, to a certain extend, think like an Aymaran.  With
it's multi-valued logic, it would make distinctions that would never occur
to a New York stock-broker; with its lack of grammatical gender, it would
fail to make distinctions the stockbroker would unconsciously make.
And Aymaran is only the easiest language, not the only one, to which
the principle can be applied.  Employing Guzman's translation techniques,
it would be possible to develop front-end packages that, with the proper
filtering out of Aymaran values and perceptions, would embody pure
upper-class British perceptions or ancient Greek thought processes.  We
could examine the way judges in ancient Sumeria examined evidence.

That, Norman explained, was what they were up to at AFL: just as the
developers of expert systems were trying to capture the knowledge of
selected individuals in software, AFL was trying to capture the style
of thinking, the intellectual spirit of whole cultures.  I mulled that
over.  Wouldn't there be a great advantage, I asked, in combining the two
approaches, developiong a system with a specifiable style of thinking?
Couldn't one develop, say, a machine with the knowledge of a high-energy
physicist and the spirit of a 12th-century Mandarin?  Or the knowledge
of a modern statesman and the intellectual style of the first Continental
Congress?  But Norman suddenly looked uncomfortable and said that he
couldn't discuss details of ongoing projects.

[given that I quote verbatim a large junk of text here, I feel it proper
 to make a plug for DDJ, one of the very few worthwhile commercial
  computer magazines:  DDJ appears monthly, subscription is $25/year,
  airmail Canada $46, other countries $62
  and if your technical newsstand doesn't have it you should ask for it.
  DDJ, PO Box 27809, Sand Diego, CA 92128
  call (800)321-3333 and (619)485-9623 or 566-6947 for subscription
  problems (not having one is a problem, right?  ;-)

  disclaimers galore - Werner ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
94
-DATE-
Date: Wed 10 Jul 85 12:22:15-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Reasoning (SRI)
-BODY-
                             Temporal Imagery:
     An Approach to Reasoning about Time for Planning and Problem Solving

                             Thomas Dean
                           Yale University

                        11:00 AM, Monday, July 15
                     Room EJ232, SRI International

Reasoning about time typically involves drawing conclusions on the basis
of incomplete information.  Uncertainty arises in the form of ignorance,
indeterminacy, and indecision.  Despite the lack of complete information
a problem solver is continually forced to make predictions in order to
pursue hypotheses and plan for the future.  Such predictions are
frequently contravened by subsequent evidence.  The talk will describe
a computational approach to temporal reasoning that directly confronts
these issues.   The approach relies upon a method  for keeping track
of the dependency relations among assertions in a temporalized data base.
The resulting computational framework extends the functionality of
reason maintenance systems [Doyle 79] to handle assertions with a temporal
extent. The techniques developed  extend the functionality of current
approaches to dealing with time in planning (e.g.,  [Sacerdoti 77], [Tate
77], [Vere 83], and [Allen 83]).  Examples from robot problem solving
will be used to illustrate the techniques.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 12:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Geometric Reasoning (Penn)
-BODY-

A GEOMETRIC REASONING SYSTEM FOR MOVING AN OBJECT WHILE MAINTAINING
CONTACT WITH OTHERS
Anastasia Koutsou, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh

Thursday,  11 July 1985 3:00 pm 216 Moore

This paper concerns the problem of moving a polyhedral object while maintaining
contact with a set of stationary polyhedral objects.  A method is developed for
deriving  a  sequence  of  compliant-guarded motions in order to move an object
from an initial configuration to a final configuration while it is in  contact.
This  sequence  is  derived  from a sequence of spatial relationships among the
features of the objects.  The construction of a graph of spatial  relationships
representing  the  space where the object is in contact with its environment is
described.  This is done using a geometric reasoning system which  is  able  to
find  a  relationship  equivalent  to a conjunction of two relationships and to
construct the new features among which the new relationship holds.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 1985  10:49 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Crisse Ciro <CRISSE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Electronic Encyclopedia (MIT)
-BODY-
                        Wednesday, July 17
                        8th Floor Playroom
                              NE43
                            3:00 PM


        INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS FOR AN ELECTRONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

                          Alan Borning
                   Computer Science Department
                    University of Washington

  In the first part of this seminar, I'll describe work on a prototype
electronic encyclopedia.  The prototype makes use of the text from an
existing print encyclopedia, and employs a window-oriented browser on a
Symbolics 3600 computer.  Selected articles in the prototype also include
some features that take advantage of the new medium, including interactive
simulations, links to a picture library stored on a videodisk, and active
text for browsing cross references, expanding abbreviations, and converting
from one measurement system to another.

  The construction of a comprehensive electronic encyclopedia that takes
full advantage of the computer medium will be an enormous task, and will
require good computer-based tools to support the encyclopedia's authors.
The second part of the seminar will concern research on one such tool: a
kit for constructing interactive simulations.  Using this kit, authors can
construct simulations of such things as manipulable diagrams illustrating
geometric theorems or simulations of physics experiments.  The kit, an
extension of the ThingLab system, uses constraints to specify the relations
between parts of the simulations, and provides convenient graphical tools for
assembling and manipulating simulations.

  As part of the talk two videoptapes will be shown: first, a brief demo of
the prototype electronic encyclopedia, and second, a demo of ThingLab,
including recent enhancements.


Refreshments will be served         HOST: Randall Davis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jul 1985 10:47-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross <cross@wpafb-afita>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Aerospace Applications of AI
-BODY-

AEROSPACE APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
September 16-19, 1985
Dayton Convention Center, Dayton Ohio

The purpose of the conference is to establish the present state of the
art in AI in selected areas of importance to the aerospace community.
There will be session in avionics, manufacturing, maintenance, decision
support systems, expert system building tools, programming languages,
man-machine interfaces, and new architectures. Each session will be
keynoted by a prominent researcher who will differeniate between
present capabilities and research problems. Keynote speakers are:
B. Chandrasekaran, M. Fox, T. Garvey, V. Lesser, D. Michie, K. Bowen,
W. Rouse, E. Sacerdoti, M. Stefik, and E. Taylor. In addition, each
session will include presentation from industry and government labs.
Each session will conclude with a panel discussion. The conference will
also feature a session that explores senior management expectations.
Exhibits will be open to the public.

Conference fee: $225.00 (includes luncheon and banquet).

Registration: AAAIC'85, PO Box 31250, Dayton OH 45431-0250
              send for a registration form or call (513) 426-8530 for
              more information

Lodging: A Block of rooms is reserved at the Stouffer's Dayton Plaza.
         Reseravations are preferably made with the conference
         registration form. If necessary, reservations can be made
         directly with Stouffer's, (513) 224-0800.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 85 05:46:02 pdt
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science Society Annual Conference: General Info
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


SCHEDULE:
   Thursday, August 15th, 8:30am   -  Saturday, August 17th, 5:00pm

AIRLINE TRANSPORTATION:
   30-35% Discount on American Airlines, call 1-800-433-1790.
   Conference code is: star file s7387. Closest airport is
   Orange Country/John Wayne.  Taxi to campus if $5.00.

DORMITORY ACCOMIDATIONS:
   Double Rate: $38.00 per person per day
   Single Rate: $45.00 per person per day

LOCATION:
   At the campus of Univ. California, Irvine (also known as
   U. Cal, Disney), which is about 40 miles south of LA and 5
   miles from the beach.

REGISTRATION:
   General: $65.00       Student: $45.00

MAJOR ADDRESSES:
   Endel Tulving, Allen Newell, Shimon Ullman, Roger Schank

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
95
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Jul 85 11:51:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Yigal Arens <ARENS@USC-ECLC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Prolog-Lisp combinations
-BODY-
I'm interested in finding out about implementations of Prolog in Lisp or
Lisp in Prolog(?), or any other version of either that allows one to
program in both.

I'm also interested in hearing from people who have experience using
such a combination, and who can give me an idea how efficiently it works.

Please respond to ARENS@USC-ECLC.ARPA.

Thanks,

Yigal Arens
USC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jul 1985 1649-CDT
-FROM-
From: Arthur <Altman%CSL60%ti-csl.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme Benchmark Programs Sought
-BODY-
I am beginning a Scheme performance evaluation project here at TI CSL,
an initial task being to build a suite of benchmark programs. Beyond the
Gabriel Lisp Benchmark Suite translated to Scheme and examples from
'Abelson & Sussman', most Scheme programs around these days seem to be
"systems" code such as compilers and editors.

I am soliciting Scheme "applications" code, especially programs that
show off **canonical Scheme programming style**, e.g., extensive use of
lexical scoping and first-class functions/environments/continuations in
solving a problem. Users of MIT Scheme, Scheme 84, Chez Scheme, and T,
let's see that simple, fast, elegant code you've been writing!

What's in it for you? Well, possible enshrinement of your name and all
or part of your favorite program in a "standard" benchmark suite for
Scheme. Also, the good feeling that comes with advancing the cause of
Lisp-Done-Right, since I hope to show off the performance advantages of
the Scheme runtime model.

Code that is as dialect-independent as possible (ideally conforms to the
Revised Revised Report) would be appreciated.  The ultimate suite of
programs will be made available to interested parties, of course.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Arthur Altman
Texas Instruments
Computer Science Laboratory
(214) 995-0383

CSNET: altman@ti-csl
ARPANET: altman%ti-csl@csnet-relay
U.S. Postal Service: M.S. 238, P.O. Box 226015, Dallas, Texas, 75266

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Jul 85 13:47:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: QUERY - references on graphic user interfaces
-BODY-

I am trying to collect references on the design, implementation and evaluation
of user interfaces, particularly interfaces that employ interactive graphics
(basically any bit-map display graphics), multiple windows, non-keyboard
input devices (e.g., mouse), etc.  Basically what are the key articles
that have formed the core of conventional wisdom on workstation design and
user-interfaces.

Even more specifically, I want to get references on user-interface design in
knowledge-based systems, especially browsers.  Besides STEAMER and
work I know of from Stanford (Mitch Model and ONCOCIN more recently),
I have come across very little in the AI literature on graphic
interfaces.
Perhaps, I have missed some key articles, even in IEEE Computer or
something.

If I get a good response I can make a bibliography available one way or
another on the net.

I really would like complete references to specific articles rather
than check out Englebart or Card&Moran.  Though general pointers are
also welcome.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can contribute.

mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 23:19 EST
-FROM-
From: Bill Faulkner <puppy%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review request for AI Handbook
-BODY-
        I was recently thumbing through the July issue of Scientific
American when I came across a Computer Science book club offer.  A
business reply card advertised a 3-volume Handbook of Artificial
Intelligence for $4.95 as an incentive to enter the bookclub (which
requires you to buy 3 more of their books during the next year). The
Handbook and the book club are being offered by the "Library of Computer
and Information Sciences" Riverside, NJ.

        I have been considering taking the risk and as a precautionary
measure thought that I would ask if anybody out there has gotten a look
at this Handbook.  If any of you have subscribed, I would appreciate any
comments you have about the Handbook, the company, and/or the quality and
type of books being offered.

Please send your replies directly to me at

        puppy@clemson                   if you're on csnet
        puppy.clemson@csnet-relay       if you're on arpanet


                                William Faulkner


[This offer has been mentioned previously on AIList.  The book club
is reputable and efficient, and offers substantial discounts and
rebates.  Only about 5% of their offerings have any connection with AI,
however; the rest is slanted toward data processing people and micro
owners.  Some of their currently-offered "past selections" are
Wilensky's LISPcraft; Abelson & Sussman's Structure and Interpretation
of Computer Programs; Schmucker's Fuzzy Sets, Natural Language
Computations, and Risk Analysis; and Pavlidis' Algorithms for Graphics
and Image Processing.  I think they had Steele's book on CommonLisp,
but it's not advertised this month.

The Handbook of AI is an excellent introduction to major currents
in the field;  read it cover to cover if you can find the time.
I have my doubts about whether people will consult this often
enough as a reference work to justify owning their own copies,
but having it on your shelf can give you a warm feeling.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 85 07:52:15 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: schwamb@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning List
-BODY-
        Our group here at MITRE is starting a new machine learning project
        oriented toward the improvement of expert system rule bases.  Does
        anyone know if there is a machine learning list like AIList?  This
        would certaintly be helpful for us, providing another outlet to
        banter ideas around.  If there isn't a list, perhaps someone might
        be interested in starting one up.  After all, with the coming
        MACHINE LEARNING journal starting in '86, the field will now have a
        better focus and more interest.
                                Karl Schwamb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 10:18 pst
-FROM-
From: "furth john%c.mfenet"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mistakes
-BODY-
Perhaps the computer fails to beat the best human player for the reason
that "Computers don't make mistakes."  This cliche does not hold up for
every use of term, "mistake" -- one could say that the computer has made
at least one mistake if it has lost.  Let us define "error" as a certain
sort of mistake which might not be a mistake after all.  An "error" will
occur when the response to an input is not "standard", a "standard"
response being a part of the structure which is the context
of the input.  The computer program understands nothing but chess -- its
responses are all standard.  The human player, on the other hand, has
experiences that differ in some or many respects from the experience of
playing chess.  When he or she receives an input in a game of chess, one
which would elicit a standard response from the computer, a pattern there
may be matched to a pattern outside of chess altogether, with the result
that the human player responds with a non-standard move.  Often this
"error" will truly be a mistake.  If the error turns out be superior
to the standard move, then the player will profit by remembering and
repeating it.

      The very attribute which gives the computer its power, the
ability to process ideas in an entirely discrete manner, will always
isolate it from the real world.  Only with difficulty can a program
even approach human experience.  How then can the chess program obtain the
breadth of experience which I am associating here with superior perform-
ance?  I suggest that the chess program be taught other games, mostly
similar ones, say Checkers or Go, but also games of chance, Monopoly, for
instance, or card games.  Any goal oriented activity should do, so long as
it can be discretized.  We should shake the computer up a bit in hopes
that it will survive and gain some insights otherwise unattainable.


John Furth

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 14:56:21 BST
-FROM-
From: Fitch@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP v C
-BODY-
Some of us can do useful work on a small LISP system.  The whole of
the integration code for REDUCE was developed on a 400Kbyte usable
store machine.  Not all LISPs are that big.  I know I am now using 1Mb
virtual, but LISP provides a better environment in 512K than C.
John Fitch

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 85 14:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Announcement of IRList
-BODY-

This is to announce a new list on information retrieval.

You may submit material for the digest to IRList%vpi@csnet-relay
from the Internet, IRList@vpi from CSNET, IRList@vpics1 from BITNET.
Administrative requests should be sent to IRList-Request.  As you
might expect, archival copies of all digests will be kept; feel free
to ask IRList-Request for recent back issues.  Note that FTP is not
possible, so all communication must be by EMAIL or phone or letter.

IRList is open to discussion of any topic related to information
retrieval.  Certainly, any material relating to ACM SIGIR is of
interest.  Our field has close ties to artificial intelligence,
database management, information and library science, linguistics, ...
A partial list of topics suitable are:

  Information Management/Processing/Science/Technology
  AI Applications to IR                   Indexing
  Abstracting                             Information Display
  Citations                               Information Theory
  Cognitive Psychology                    Knowledge Representation
  Communications Networks                 Language Understanding
  Computational Linguistics               Library Science
  Computer Science                        NL Processing
  Cybernetics                             Natural Languages
  Data Abstraction                        Pattern Recognition
  Document Representations                Library Science
  Electronic Books                        Probabilistic Techniques
  Expert Systems for IR                   Speech Analysis
  Full-Text Retrieval                     Statistical Techniques
  Hardware aids for IR

Contributions may be anything from tutorials to rampant speculation.
In particular, the following are sought:

  Abstracts                             Reviews
  Lab Descriptions                      Research Overviews
  Work Planned or in Progress           Half-Baked Ideas
  Conference Announcements              Conference Reports
  Bibliographies                        History of IR
  Queries and Requests                  Address Changes

The only real boundaries to the discussion are defined by the topics
of other mailing lists.  Please do not send communications to both
this list and AIList or the Prolog list, except in special cases.

I have no objection to distributing material that is destined for
conference proceedings or any other publication.  I am involved in
SIGIR Forum and unless you request otherwise may include submissions
in whole or in part in future paper versions of the FORUM.  Indeed,
this is one form of solicitation for FORUM contributions!  Both
IRList and the FORUM are unrefereed.  [...]

                                        -- Ed Fox

Dr. Edward A. Fox, Asst. Prof., Dept. of Computer Science, 562 McBryde Hall,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI&SU or Virginia Tech),
Blacksburg, VA 24061; (703)961-5113 or 6931.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
96
-DATE-
Date: Sat 20 Jul 85 18:38:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Rich Alderson <ALDERSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: V3 #95--AI Handbook
-BODY-
I took this offer up several years ago.  I have managed to pick up a few nice
items through the club, enough to justify the postage required to turn down
most of their monthly offerings.  It has been handy to have my own AIHB around
when libraries had funny summer or between-quarter hours, for example.

They have NOT had Steele's Common Lisp as yet, or I would have gotten it
through them.  Oh, well....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 85 13:04 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Watson Mark%SAI"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Vs C
-BODY-
I agree with John Fitch that both exploratory programming
and development work can be effectively done on a small memory
Lisp machine.  I have found it convenient to work with a 5000 line
program (Charles Forgy's OPS5) on a 512K Macintosh using a commercially
available Lisp compiler and still have lots of room for anciliary
Lisp functions and hundreds of production rules.  Programs written in
C certainly run much faster than those written in compiled Lisp, but
software development time is much greater.
Mark Watson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 85 16:10:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vaxy Lisps
-BODY-

About 2 weeks ago, I broadcast a request for information on the
availability of flavorful Lisps to run on a VAX.  I got a few
responses and also some requests to be informed on the
responses, so herewith a condensation of the results:

********* begin Vaxy-Lisp references *********************

Local DEC rep for AI applications is:

Richard Brimer
8301 Professional Place
Landover MD 20785
ms: DC0-912

They (DEC) are developing a flavors system, called VAXFLAVORS,
much like Symbolics'.

********************************************************
From:   MPW    26-JUN-1985 14:29:37

Return-Path: <MPW@MIT-MC.ARPA>

You probably should be aware of NIL, a lisp implementation for VMS
developed at MIT.  NIL has a flavor system, and is available for a
nominal tape-copying/distribution charge.  Contact Glenn Burke at
(617) 253-3546 for further information.  He's hard to get by phone;
you may have better luck with net mail to GSB@MIT-MC.

Mike Wellman

********************************************************
From:   CARR    26-JUN-1985 14:44:23
Subj:   psl blurb

Please send a psl [portable standard lisp] blurb for psl/vax/vms
to CUGINI@NBS-VMS.

Thanks, Harold

[psl is available from University of Utah for $750]

********************************************************
From:   chaowatkins    26-JUN-1985 15:56:06
Subj:   lisp

Return-Path: <chaowatkins@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

John,
        XLISP is a small, toy lisp. It is in public domain. The main
purpose is to allow users to play with `object oriented programming'
approach. The copy I have runs on the Z80. There must be a copy that
runs on the IBM-PC by now, i assume. i can get you the name of the
bulletin board to call for the Z80 copy, let me know.
        VAX/VMS has Common Lisp running on it. The compiler is developed
at DEC.
        For object-oriented programming purposes, try:
1) Symbolics lisp machine -- FLAVORS system
2) Xerox -- SMALLTALK

scw (my arpa address is :  chaowatkins@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA)

********************************************************
From:   FAHLMAN    27-JUN-1985 10:43:39

Return-Path: <FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>

DEC has been selling a Common Lisp for the Vax (VMS only, though a unix
version is about to enter field test) for over a year, with
professional-level support.  It is certainly the most solid and
well-supported Lisp available for VMS at this point, and because it is a
Common Lisp code can be ported to many other machines.  There is no
object-oriented support available from DEC yet, but we at CMU are close
to releasing a portable Flavors package for Common Lisp.

>- Scott Fahlman

********************************************************
From:   mcguire    28-JUN-1985 15:33:10

The best vax/lisp I've used is "T" which is a version of Scheme.
It has lexical scoping, closures, objects, and an optimizing compiler.
It was developed at the Yale C.S department and since you are at NBS
you can probably get it directly from them (there was company comercially
distributing it but I think no longer).

The contact point should still be John O'Donnel (? odonnel@yale.arpa).
If that address doesn't work, let me know and I'll try to hunt up the right
address.

********************************************************
There is CSI Lisp (Cognitive Systems, Inc) which
runs on top of VAX/LISP, but with object-oriented stuff.
cost $10K.

address: Cognitive Systems Inc.
         234 Church St.
         New Haven CT 06510

********************************************************
From:   vasoll%okstate.    26-JUN-1985 11:29:59

Return-Path: <vasoll%okstate.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

John,

        I have an old note from back in Dec. `84 that indicates a fellow named
David Betz wrote the original implementation of XLISP.  Another person, John
Woods, picked that up and enhanced it, then posted it to net.sources on USENET.
I don't have an electronic address for Mr. Betz, but John Woods was reachable
back in December at mit-eddie!jfw.

Hope this helps,

Mark Vasoll
Department of Computing and Information Sciences
Oklahoma State University

UUCP:  {cbosgd, ea, ihnp4, isucs1, mcvax, pesnta, uokvax}!okstate!vasoll

ARPA:  vasoll%okstate.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

********************************************************

Return-Path: <diamant%case.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>

I have been using VAXLISP for about six months now.  I have implemented
an expert system to reason about grasping objects in it.  It is truly
a full-fledged implementation of Common LISP.  I generally use Guy Steele's
language specification instead of the user's manual for a reference.  The
features that I have found lacking in it (not many) have been in the area
of problems with the specification, rather than the implementation.  I
can't comment on price -- I don't know how much we paid for it.  [I think
it costs $5K -- JC ]  Performance
of the system when the VAX doesn't have loads of memory can be pretty bad.
However, the compiler is quite good.  One grad student here implemented a
window system including a terminal driver in compiled LISP code, and it
ran quite rapidly.  It all depends on how well you write the code (declares
can be very important to speeding up compiled code).

As far as xlisp goes, it can run on VAX/VMS if you have a C compiler.
It is a good language in which to learn LISP, but it is only on the verge
of being a useful language for real work.  XLISP was written by David
Betz (I think his address is Betz@YALE, but I can't remember for sure).
XLISP is a public domain LISP which has some syntactic similarity to
Common LISP, but by no means is it Common LISP at present.  For one thing,
Common LISP is lexically scoped except when told otherwise.  XLISP is
dynamically scoped.  XLISP contains a smalltalk-like object oriented
programming interface.

If you are interested in object oriented Common LISPs (that is one
of the drawbacks of the language specification -- they didn't include
object oriented programming), I suggest you consider a few possibilities:
HP has a specification for a flavors-like extension to the Common LISP
specification (contact snyder@hplabs.csnet or hplabs!snyder.UUCP).  I'm
not sure if the implementation is complete or whether they sell it
independently of the LISP system itself.  The same grad student I mentioned
above implemented a subset of flavors in Common LISP.  Distribution of
this implementation has not been worked out yet, but I am sure it will
be possible to obtain it.  If you are interested, I could check up on it for
you.

John Diamant                            Usenet: ...decvax!cwruecmp!diamant
Case Western Reserve University         CSNet:  diamant@Case
Cleveland, Ohio                         ARPA:   diamant%Case@CSNet-Relay

********* end of Vaxy_Lisp references **************

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 85 15:43:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spatial reasoning
-BODY-

About 2 weeks ago, I broadcast a request for information on AI
work in the realm of spatial reasoning.  I got a few responses
and also some requests to be informed on the responses, so
herewith a condensation of the results:

********* begin spatial-reasoning references *********************

Return-Path: <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by NBS-VMS.ARPA ;  8 Jul 85 02:36:36 EDT
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>

The big names in the field are Tomas Lozano-Perez and Rod Brooks at MIT,
and Sharir & Co. at Courant Inst., NYU.
***************************************************

[this one came, unbidden, from ailist, but I'm repeating it for
 completeness - JC]

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 14:14 EST
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Seminar - Shape from Function (GMR)

                       SHAPE FROM FUNCTION VIA MOTION ANALYSIS
                     with Application to the Automatic Design of
                    Orienting Devices for Vibratory Part Feeders

                               Dr. Tomas Lozano-Perez
                           MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
                                Cambridge, MA.  02139

                       Wednesday, August 14, 1985, 11:00 a.m.

                        General Motors Research Laboratories
                           Computer Science Department
                          Warren, Michigan  48090-9057

    This talk explores the premise that the function of many devices can be
    characterized by how they interact with other objects....
    .....
    Dr. Lozano-Perez has authored technical articles in the areas of motion
    planning, robot programming, and model-based object recognition.  He has
    been affiliated with the M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Laboratory since
    1973.

Steve Holland informs me that this talk will be held at GMR and that Tomas
is reachable at tlp%mit-oz@mit-mc or via u.s. mail to MIT AI Lab.  -- KIL

***************************************************
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1985  14:14 EDT
From: Juliana Kraft <ROBOT.JULIE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Spatial Reasoning Query

For 3D you must consider 6 degrees of freedom (3 translational and 3
rotational).  I recommend "Motion Planning with Six Degrees of
Freedom," by Bruce Donald, (261 pp), MIT AI-TR 791, available from

Publications Office
MIT AI Laboratory
Room NE43-818
545 Tech Square
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-6773.

***************************************************
Return-Path: <dave@cmu-cs-cad.arpa>
Received: from CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA by NBS-VMS.ARPA ;  9 Jul 85 18:07:29 EDT
Date: 9 Jul 1985 18:01:34-EDT
From: Bharat.Dave@CMU-CS-CAD
To: cugini@nbs-vms
Subject: Re: Spatial reasoning

Does your query about "spatial reasoning" refer to the physical objects
(as in buildings) ? If so, then I don't know of any reference or work
that specifically addresses it. But you may try the following- it contains
a number of references which may be of interest to you.

DRC-12-23-84 A Bibliography on Knowledge-Based Expert Systems in Engineering,
             D. Sriram

(can be obtained from)   Design Research Center
                         Carnegie-Mellon University
                         Doherty Hall A219
                         Pittsburgh PA 15213

Dave

****************************************************

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 85 12:25 EDT
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Seminar - Geometric Reasoning (Penn)


A GEOMETRIC REASONING SYSTEM FOR MOVING AN OBJECT WHILE MAINTAINING
CONTACT WITH OTHERS
Anastasia Koutsou, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh

Thursday,  11 July 1985 3:00 pm 216 Moore

[...]

********* end of spatial-reasoning references **************

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Jul 85 14:36:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Spatial reasoning
-BODY-
Thanks for sharing your summaries with us.

Spatial reasoning is a lot harder than people realize.  We had a
fellow here who started naively with the "logic" approach --
"It's easy, you just define an AT predicate and a MOVE predicate ..."
>- and then began to learn the real problems when he started
writing programs for a robot arm.  A year later he said "You know,
I've almost finished developing an AT predicate!"

The problem he and others in the SRI Robotics Group have solved is
the transformation of spatial knowledge from one time and sensor
to knowledge relative to another [loosely-coupled] coordinate system
after an arbitrary sequence of arm motions and sensing steps.  The AT
predicate must therefore be developed as a fuzzy specification of
[bent] error ellipses or probability distributions, and propagating
these spatial uncertainties through sequences of imprecise motions is
pretty hairy.  (Contact Smith@SRI-AI if you want more details.)

Spatial (and temporal) reasoning has received quite a bit of attention
from the philosophers and linguists.  Annette Herskovits of Stanford
has written several papers on the semantics and pragmatics of spatial
prepositions, and Lotfi Zadeh has developed fuzzy representations
of spatial language.  I have a 1974 paper by Norman Sondheimer, UWashington
CSD Report 205, English as a Basis for Command Languages for Machines
and Some Problems of Spatial Reference; I'm sure there are many such papers.

The Commonsense Summer people at SRI (under Jerry Hobbs' leadership)
attempted to formalize spatial reasoning, but didn't come up with
much that wasn't already familiar to the robotics community (e.g.,
the Edinburgh RAPT system for constrained motion planning).
Mathematicians and computer scientists (and others) have worried about
traveling salesmen, bin-packing, spatial layout, tool motion, polygonal
decomposition, cartographic mapping, and many other problems.  In the
architecture domain, I've seen papers by John Grason and Charles
Eastman of CMU (e.g., CACM 13/4, April 1970, and CACM 15/2, February
1972) on space planning.

Some of the most interesting recent work in spatial reasoning seems to
be that of Earnest Davis at Yale (the MERCATOR representation) and of
John Tsotsos at U. Toronto (combined spatial/temporal reasoning
in the ALVEN system for interpreting ultrasound heart images).

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
97
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Jul 85 16:49:09-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGART Chapter Forming
-BODY-

  A SIGART chapter is forming for Austin, Texas.  SIGART is part of
Association for Computing Machinery.  It's the Special Interest Group on
Artificial Intelligence.

  Monthly program and dinner meetings will start this fall.  Each month an
invited speaker from industry or academia will talk on some aspect of AI in
Central Texas.  Dr. Jonathan Slocum (MCC) will be our first dinner speaker.
He will talk on Machine Translation of Natural Languages.  That meeting
will be Wed, Sept. 4th; the place has not yet been chosen.

  We have already chosen a board: Drs. Elaine Rich (MCC), Woodrow Bledsoe
(MCC & UT), Doug Lenat (MCC), Harry Tennant (Texas Instruments) and Bruce
Porter (UT) will serve.  I am responsible for the initial organization.

  We are inviting strong participation from the several industrial AI
groups in the area.  Austin SIGART will provide a common ground the
hardware people, the software people and the research people that are
making AI happen here.

  If you want to help this organization get going, come to our business
meeting.  Our first one will be a dinner meeting on Thur, July 25, at
6:30 pm, at
              SIRLOIN STOCKADE
              8828 Research Blvd
              (between Ohlen and Burnett)
  The dinner will be $8.00 for a full sirloin dinner.  If you're coming,
inform
    Rodney Lancaster, of TI Advanced Systems Software
      250-6456
      Dsg.Lancaster%CSL60%TI-CSL@CSnet-Relay.ARPA
  We need a rough advance count.

The agenda will include:

    Ratifying our initial bylaws and officers
    Certifying ourselves as an active chapter to the national SIGART
    Securing a place for our program meetings
    Publicity and Membership
    Speakers and Programs

  We will also need assistance, as the time of our first program meeting
approaches, getting sign-up sheets for the dinner circulated at the AI
office sites in town.

  Membership will be open to all people in the area with an interest in AI;
discounts will be available to those who have memberships in the ACM or the
national SIGART.

  I'm looking forward to working with a strong SIGART program for Austin
soon.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Jul 85 14:12:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Speech Acts and Rationality (SRI)
-BODY-
                      Speech Acts and Rationality

                             Phil Cohen
                            SRI AI Center

                        11:00 AM, Monday, July 22
                 SRI International, Building E, Room EJ232

This talk will describe how a theory of communication can be grounded in a
theory of rational interaction.  I will present a formalism,
jointly developed with Hector Levesque, that characterizes how an agent's
beliefs and goals eventually lead to action, and how goals to affect the
beliefs and goals of other agents leads to communication.
Communicative acts will be modelled along the lines of Grice's account
of non-natural meaning.  I will show how the speech acts of informing,
requesting, and questioning can be defined (rather than stipulated)
in this framework.  Importantly, these definitions will allow one
to distinguish insincere imperatives from true requests, and
exam questions from real questions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jul 85 11:54:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Design Expert Systems (CMU)
-BODY-
The next DRC seminar on expert systems for design applications is
Tuesday July 23 in the Adamson Wing at 1:30. Refreshments will be served
at 1:15.

               HYBRID KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS:
                REQUIREMENTS AND ADVANTAGES

                  Rene Banares-Alcantara

Experiments with the application of knowledge-based systems to engineering
design have shown us that the use of hybrid systems is necessary. Hybrid
knowledge-based systems make it possible to take full advantage of the
existing programs, and also allow the automization of a larger portion of
the design process.

Hybridity is a concept that can be achieved in several dimensions: knowledge
representation and abstraction, implementation languages, problem solving
methods, etc. In order to construct hybrid systems it is necessary to be
able to mix different components (programming languages, modules, programs,
levels of abstraction, etc.) into a common working space. Although no
complete solution has been developed to accomplish this goal, the blackboard
model seems to be the ideal paradigm for this purpose.

DECADE (Design Expert for CAtalyst Development) will be presented as one
system that partially illustrates the above ideas.


  [Automization?  Hybridity?  The latter >>is<< listed in the American
  Heritage dictionary, but do we need it?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 85  1359 PDT
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Typed Logical Calculus (SU)
-BODY-

There will be as short series of talks given by visitors to the
computer science department from Japan.  The seminars will occur on
Thursdays at 4pm.  The announcement for the first seminar is below.


Speaker: Prof. Masahiko Sato, University of Tokyo

Title: Typed Logical Calculus

Time: Thursday, July 25, 4:00-5:00 pm
Place: Room 352 Margaret Jacks Hall
      (Computer Science Department), Stanford


          We present a typed formal system QJ which  is
     intended  both  as a logical system and a program-
     ming system.  QJ is a constructive system based on
     free  intuitionistic  logic.  QJ is a typed system
     where forms play the roles of  both  formulas  and
     terms of conventional logical systems.

          The logic of QJ is free  in  the  sense  that
     forms  (considered  as  terms) may fail to denote.
     The type structure of QJ is rich enough to include
     such  data  types  as  integers,  lists, trees and
     function spaces.  A form of QJ, when considered as
     a  term, becomes a program in the usual sense.  As
     a programming language, QJ becomes a  typed  func-
     tional  language somewhat similar to ML.   A  form
     of QJ, when viewed as a formula, may  be  used  to
     specify a program.  We can also verify programs in
     QJ.  By implementing QJ on  a  computer,  we  will
     have  a  uniform environment where we can specify,
     execute and verify programs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 21:56 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: dissertation defense - Correcting Misconceptions (Penn)
-BODY-

                           Dissertation Defense
                 CORRECTING OBJECT RELATED MISCONCEPTIONS
                          Kathleen Filliben McCoy

                      10:00 am, Monday July 29, 1985
                   554 Moore, University on Pennsylvania

Analysis of a corpus of naturally occurring data shows that users conversing
with a database or expert system are likely to reveal misconceptions about
the objects modelled by the system.  Further analysis reveals that the sort
of responses given when such misconceptions are encountered depends greatly
on the discourse context.  This work develops a context-sensitive method for
automatically generating responses to object-related misconceptions with the
goal of incorporating a correction module in the front-end of a database or
expert system.  The method is demonstrated through the ROMPER system
(Responding to Object-related Misconceptions using PERspective) which is
able to generate responses to two classes of object-related misconceptions:
misclassifications and misattributions.

The transcript analysis reveals a number of specific strategies used by
human experts to correct misconceptions, where each different strategy
refutes a different kind of support for the misconception.  In this work
each strategy is paired with a structural specification of the kind of
support it refutes. ROMPER uses this specification, and a model of the user,
to determine which kind of support is most likely.  The corresponding
response strategy is then instantiated.

The above process is made context sensitive by a proposed addition to
standard knowledge-representation systems termed object perspective.  Object
perspective is introduced as a method for augmenting a standard
knowledge-representation system to reflect the highlighting affects of
previous discourse.  It is shown how this resulting highlighting can be used
to account for the context-sensitive requirements of the correction process.

Advisors: Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber
Committee: Tim Finin, Ellen Prince, Ralph Weischedel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Jul 85 13:59:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Time and Causation (SRI)
-BODY-
            Title: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of AI.
                  Nontitle: The Frame Problem is not.

                              Yoav Shoham
                         Yale University, SRI-AI

                        11:00 AM, Monday, July 29
                 SRI International, Building E, Room EJ232


Most tasks undertaken by AI researchers involve reasoning about
time in one way or another. In particular, the somewhat ill-defined
areas of planning and naive physics reasoning rely crucially on the
passage of time and the taking place of change. I am aiming at
a general and yet rigorous theory of time and change.
I am primarily interested in a useful notational device. Psychological
plausibility is only an added benefit, and philosophical truth
is something over which I lose little sleep.

The talk is structured as follows:

1. A first-order theory of time, which could be viewed as a generalization
   of James Allen's theory.

2. A modal version of the same theory. Several interval-based modal logics
   will be presented, along with the few of their theoretical properties
   which I am beginning to understand.

3. The theory of causal counterfactuals, a particular theory of change
   that relies on part 1. I will demonstrate how this theory appears
   to avoid three major problems:
   a. The cross-world identification problem for time tokens.
   b. The frame problem.
   c. A nameless problem encountered in the philosophy literature.

   Also, in the spirit of recent "rigorous reconstructions" I will
   reformulate Ken Forbus' Qualitative Process theory in terms of
   causal counterfactuals.

In the unlikely event of our having time left over I'll discuss
Richard Waldinger's toy car.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 24 Jul 85 17:04:56-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Realism in Cognitive AI (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


              David H. Helman, Department of Philosophy
                   Case Western Reserve University


    ``Realism and Antirealism in Cognitive Artificial Intelligence''
          Ventura Conference Room, Thursday, August 1, 2:15 pm

      In the philosophy of mind, one controversy between realists and
   antirealists concerns the semantics of sentences embedded in attitude
   reports.  Antirealists believe that the interpretation or reference of
   a sentence embedded in an attitude report is a psychological state of
   the agent who is the subject of the attitude report.  Realists believe
   that the interpretation or reference of a sentence is a state of the
   world and not a state of mind, whether or not the sentence is embedded
   in an attitude report.
      In this paper, I show how these two semantic analyses may be
   associated with different theories of mental representation in
   cognitive artificial intelligence.  Realists in cognitive artificial
   intelligence describe the mind by supposing that agents partially
   represent objects' law-like interactions.  Antirealism does not,
   perhaps, constitute a single well-defined research strategy in
   cognitive artificial intelligences.  We may, however, certainly count
   as antirealists those researchers in cognitive artificial intelligence
   who attempt to simulate mental processes by means of procedures which
   mirror tenets of associationist psychology.  I argue that acurate
   computational models of mind must contain elements from both realist
   and antirealist research programs.                   --David Helman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 85 18:52:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reformulation of Knowledge (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                      REFORMULATION OF KNOWLEDGE

                          Erik Van Releghem.
            AI Laboratory, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and
                GTE Fundamental Research Laboratories


        We describe  a  system for  reformulation  of knowledge  as  a
powerful extension  of the  knowledge representation  system KRS.   We
define reformulation operators that change the structure of knowledge.
A mathematical model describes the operators and shows their power and
limitations. We  show  applications  of reformulation  in  matters  of
defining analogies,  definition  of  office  procedures  and  computer
vision  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  use  of  reformulation  as  a
high-level AI tool.

Date:      Thursday, July 25, 1985
Time:      10:30-11:30 AM
Place:     Hill Center, Room 423

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 85 18:52:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Function from Form (Rutgers)
-BODY-

                          FUNCTION FROM FORM

                          David J. Braunegg
                              MIT AI Lab, and
                GTE Fundamental Research Laboratories


        I propose an approach  to reasoning about  the function of  an
object based on its shape.  A particular domain, hand tools, is chosen
to demonstrate this  approach.  The  novelty of this  approach is  its
combination of reasoning by analogy to the shapes of known tools  with
reasoning from the possible motions  of tools.  Each of these  methods
compensates for the deficiencies of the other.  When combined with the
use of domain heuristics,  they form a  powerful reasoning system  for
determining function from form.  (WARNING: This talk concerns research
which is  in  its early  stages.   No  claims of  results  or  working
programs are expressed or implied.)


Date:      Thursday, July 25, 1985
Time:      11:30 AM-12:00 PM
Place:     Hill Center, Room 423

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
98
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 85 10:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: Emanuel.henr@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for Commodore 128 machine.
-BODY-

        I have been reading this list for some time, and have found it quite
informative.  I have also been impressed by the informed level of the
discussion.  I would like to draw upon this now.

        I just purchased the new Commodore 128 machine.  It can run CPM-80, and
read IBM System 34 format disks (& Kaypro, Osborn disks).  I would like
to know which of the LISP Packages that are available in  this format
are the best to get.  There seems to be a wide spred of prices across
the offered LISPs.  Are the expensive ones that much better ?  Is one
Outstanding ?  Is one a best compromise of price and power ?

        I thank you in advance for your response.

                                                        Keith j. Emanuel
                                                        Xerox/Human Factors.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 11:11:07 edt
-FROM-
From: simmons@EDN-VAX (Bob Simmons)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DCA Query on AI Management
-BODY-
At the Defense Communications Agency, we have been laying the
groundwork for an in-house AI group, primarily to test and evaluate
emerging expert system technology.  We are also considering the
possibility of expanding to in-house development within the next three
to five years.  I'm interested in the issues and specific problems that
other organizations have faced or expect to face when forming an
in-house group.  I expect that these problems are quite different from
the concerns of a corporation developing a commercial product.  In
particular, other than questions about the best hardware/software
combination, our concerns center on careful selection of a problem
domain, management of AI pilot projects, and justification of the
effort to upper-level management.  As an aside, I found David Prerau's
"Selection of an Appropriate Domain for an Expert System" in the latest
issue of AI Magazine to be a great springboard into a pool of important
questions.  We plan on using that article as a guideline for our own
interviews with our technical managers.

I'd appreciate any input that you have on this matter.  If you are going
to be at IJCAI, please drop me a quick note and I'll look you up sometime
during that week.  If not, please respond via electronic mail.  If the
response warrants a summary (hopefully it will), I'll send a synopsis of
the interesting/important observations to AILIST.


Bob Simmons
Automated Technologies Planning
DCA/DCEC Code R802
1860 Wiehle Avenue
Reston, VA 22090

ARPANET:  simmons@edn-vax.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 85 16:37:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Ron Green" (ARO) <green@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Science Taxonomy
-BODY-
I would like to find out if there is a generally accepted taxonomy
for computer science.  The first level of break out that I desire
is hardware, software, and AI.  I feel that I would
like to see two or three levels of detail below this.  If there
are some taxonomies like this I would appreciate being told about
them.  The next phase will be soliciting names of persons and their
categories of expertise for review of proposals for basic research.
Thanks,
Ron

  [There are several such taxonomies.  One of the best is the
  Computing Reviews classification system (published in CACM,
  January 1982).  The various online abstracting services,
  including those of the defense department, have their own
  taxonomies, as do the librarians and, no doubt, the NSF and
  various government statistical agencies.  Academics in CS often build
  taxonomies in support of curriculum development; see, for instance,
  Schenk and Pinkert's survey in the 1978 National Computer Conference,
  pp. 1209-1212.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 85 10:15:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI databases?
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        I'm looking for a declarative knowledge-base to use as a domain for
the NL parser I'm working on.  It must be frame-oriented and rich in domain
knowledge, and preferably should contain intentional information (what the
defining features of a particular subset are, for instance) and "common
sense" knowledge.  (I don't actually expect to find all this in one KB.)
Note that I am specifically looking for content, not an empty KR system.
I'm already aware of the NLM database.  Thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jul 85 09:47:46 EDT
-FROM-
From: Rob.Woodbury@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: geometry survey
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I am doing a survey on computer based representations of geometry in
engineering and architecture. The intent of the survey is to collect in one
place an overview of all (or as close as possible to all) existing modelling
techniques and applications and all current areas of research. Of particular
interest is any work on spatial reasoning, motion planning and vision
systems.  I will make results available. Any pointers would be appreciated.
Thanks -rob-

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jul 1985 15:07:13-EDT
-FROM-
From: Bharat.Dave@CMU-CS-CAD
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Space Planning
-BODY-

Although this pertains to architecture, it would be interesting to hear
from others about issues of design and models of descriptions used.

Most of the work done in `space planning' in architecture, has concentrated
on geometric descriptions and manipulations (which is probably closer to
applications in robotics than architecture). Designers employ words, drawings
and perceptual notions which have not yet been fully investigated. To put
it differently, diagrams are used as a vehicle of statement as well as
interpretation of topological and semantic concepts.

To go beyond bin-packing spatial layouts, real world knowledge will have to
be built into the system (i.e. there are rules which are broadly observed,
some others come into play only in certain contexts; some of these are
stricter than the others and the rest are pure flights of fancy...).
Any of these rules or a combination of them, may be utilized for specifying
or evaluating given spatial configuration. And also, some mechanism for
alternating between various design-states will have to be built in.

Probably, what confuses the most about human designers is the kind of mental
representations they use. It seems more like abstract analog models of real
spaces and elements than simple surrogate verbal concepts.

`Mental Models' (ed.) by Gentner and Stevens has some interesting papers
on spatial models used by novices and experts in various domains.

                                        --Bharat Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 85 14:40:28 edt
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ITP, how to order it
-BODY-
        According to Ross Overbeek (overbeek@anl-mcs), who is one of the
developers of Argonne's Logic Machine  Architecture/Interactive  Theorem
Prover  (LMA/ITP)  and  a co-author of "Automated Reasoning" (Wos et al.
1984), you can obtain the software from Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG)
at the following address and telephone number:

        Numerical Algorithms Group
        1101 31st Street, Suite 100
        Downers Grove, IL 60515
        (312) 971-2337

        If  I  remember  correctly,  the  cost  of  LMA/ITP  was  $75.00
(seventy-five).     One    of    our    logicians,   Charlie   Applebaum
(applebau@bgsu), is working on LMA/ITP with some of the people at  Mitre
and  Argonne,  so  that  may  be the reason for the low price charged to
BGSU.  But I think the $75.00 price  is  what  NAG  charges  anyone  for
LMA/ITP,  simply  to cover the distribution costs.  The same software is
available from one of the innumerable departments  at  Argonne  National
Laboratory  for  something in the neighborhood of $1050.00 (one thousand
fifty).  I always thought the federal government was  expensive;  now  I
know it is.

        Jai Guru Dev,

        Tom Scott                   UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Dept. of Math. & Stat.      CSNET/ARPANET: scott@bgsu
        Bowling Green State Univ.   ATT: 419-372-2636
        Bowling Green OH 43403-0221

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 09:16 EDT
-FROM-
From: Scott Garren <garren@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics LISP/PROLOG
-BODY-

    From: Yigal Arens <ARENS@USC-ECLC.ARPA>

    I'm interested in finding out about implementations of Prolog in Lisp or
    Lisp in Prolog(?), or any other version of either that allows one to
    program in both.  [...]

Symbolics has a Prolog written in Lisp.  The 3600 architecture has been
expanded with additional instructions that implement backtracking,
unification, and cut.  We have also extended Lisp with a logic variable
data type.  The result is a well integrated environment where the user
can call back and forth between the languages.  All the operating system
and networking functions are accessible from Prolog.  Symbolics Prolog
also offers what we believe is the highest performance of any
commercially available Prolog.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 85 11:15:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim <WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More Interlisp comments
-BODY-

        Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:50:16 edt
        From: Eric Nyberg <ehn0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
        Subject: Re: Interlisp Comments

        I disagree with Steven's conclusion that Interlisp "discourages"
        comments. The *default environment* handles comments in a
        discouraging way, but a few lines of code in the init file can remedy
        the situation.

   But all he said was that Interlisp "discourages" comments, not that it
prohibits them.  The default Interlisp environment makes comments about as
inconvenient to use as it possibly can without actually prohibiting them.
Furthermore, as you yourself admit, the documentation which describes how to
change the environment is very difficult to find and use.  And no matter how
you change the environment, you still have to be careful where you put your
comments.  (The preferred place for documenting a variable would be right
where the variable is declared, which you can't do.  My preferred place for
documenting a clause of a CONDition is at the beginning of the clause, which
you can't do.  The nicest place to describe an argument which you're sending
to some function would be right after the argument itself, which you can't do.
Sometimes I like to include "afterthoughts" at the end of a function which
tell how that function might be improved or something, which you can't do.)

   If this sort of thing does not "discourage" the use of comments, I
honestly don't know what it would take for a language to do so.


   Twinerik

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 10:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jong@HIS-BILLERICA-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mistakes
-BODY-
  The recent comment on "mistakes" in chess and the limitation of
expert systems to their (narrow) field of expertise brings up an
interesting point.  Computer-science experts have been trying to
win chess championships for years; why aren't they trying to win
the World Series of Poker?  The answer is simply that in poker,
you win or lose less on the basis of the cards in your hand and
more on the basis of the expression on your face and your
opponents'.  The knowledge base for that game goes far beyond the
odds of filling an inside straight.
  The great chess champion Emmanuel Lasker said that chess was
not simply a mathematical exercise but a fight, a fight between
two people.  Lasker was a master of the psychological pressures
of the game.  He knew when to make a deliberately inferior move
that rattled an opponent into thinking Lasker had a prepared
variation (one line of play exhaustively studied by one
opponent), when really Lasker had nothing planned but a head
game.  Lasker knew which of his contemporaries to attack and
which to play defensively; which knew the openings well and which
were end-game masters; and which liked complications and which
shied away from them.  With this knowledge he became champion.
  A chess program is not likely to play based on its opponent,
because of the programming difficulties involved, and, I suspect,
because that is not an attractive line of research for its
programmers.  Right now, though, human masters are beating chess
programs by playing to their weaknesses (for instance, when to
jump out of a book opening to the program's disadvantage).  In a
larger sense, this is probably a discussion of "intuition" as it
applied to AI.  Obviously, we have a long way to go before we
have an expert system that bases its conclusions based to any
degree on the fact that the inquiring human has grass on his
shoes.

  [See Scientific American, July 1978, for an article on Nicholas
  Findler's research into automating poker strategies.  I seem to
  recall that the project ended before a player was developed that
  could detect and bluff the Mathematically Fair Player.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
99
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 85 14:00:35 pdt
-FROM-
From: Jim Fehrle <hpda!hpindla!jef%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Theorem Proving and Program Verification
-BODY-

I'm looking for information on using theorem proving techniques to
prove assertions about programs, such as (for example):

   o  Data structure X is not modified unless the variable LOCK is true.

   o  The memory allocated by procedure X is always released before X
      terminates.

   o  The variable POINTER always points to a data element of type T.

Any references to books or articles on this subject would be appreciated.

Jim Fehrle
Hewlett Packard
{ucbvax, hplabs, ihnp4!hpfcla} !hpda!jef

>-----------------------------
-END-
ate: 26 July 85 22:26-EDT-DATE-
Date: 26 July 85 22:26-EDT
-FROM-
From: BYKAT%UTCVM.BITNET@Berkeley
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ITP, how to order it
-BODY-
Just to add a little to Tom Scott's note in AIList Digest V3 #98 (7/20/85):
  Page 177 of the "Automated Reasoning" (Wos et al., 1984) states:
    "Both LMA and ITP are in the public domain."
Yet, as Tom Scott points out, the Argonne National Lab charges $1050,
educational institution or not! (Rather a lot to cover distribution costs.)

Alex Bykat

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 21:25:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info about Prolog for LMI-LAMBDA and 36xx
-BODY-
LM-Prolog is a LispMachine implementation of prolog that has been in
commercial and university distribution for both the LMI-LAMBDA and
Symbolics 36xx for over a year. The emphasis in the implementation is
on richness, maturity in datastructures (i.e. not just expressions or
lists but array's, multiple processes and other lispmachine
capabilities), the logically consistent implementation of NOT, the
error checking and handling capabilities such as occurs check and
circularity handling and performance in its database indexing and
ASSUME/RETRACT mechanism. The LMI-LAMBDA version includes a special
microcode-load.  Both versions are distributed in SOURCE FORM and
require no additional hardware. The 36xx version is available for
release 5 or 6, and the LMI-LAMBDA version for release 1 or 2.

A brilliant hacker could possible port LM-PROLOG to an enviroment
such as VAX-NIL where he had sufficient lispmachine compatibility
and hooks into the compiler and kernel.

>gjc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 09:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Space Planning
-BODY-
I used to work for the old Architecture Machine Group at MIT and saw a
number of programming efforts which emulated or assisted architects and
urban planners.  How the human mind deals with spatial reasoning is
still a mystery but architects are given specific training in how to
deal with architectural problems.  This body of knowledge is the study
of design methodology. The department head, who was from Eindhoven, was
noted for developing the SAR design methodology which involved the use
of architectural grammars. One graduate student did his thesis
on the grammar of Mediterranean hill towns while another parsed the
layout of furniture in an apartment building full of cooperating
retired people.

The SAR method looked rather theoretical to me but it was very popular
in Holland and Latin American countries with left wing governments
(read "democracies"). They encouraged user involvement in the planning
process and would actually teach factory workers how to deal with
"basic variants" at their afterwork planning sessions.

A visit to a good architecture library (e.g. Roche at MIT) should turn
up a fair bit on this subject.  Obviously, architects deviate from any
particular methodology, but the guidelines are often useful to help get
started.

Actually, doing architecture is a lot like doing programming from what
I have seen.  Back when Babbage was trying to raise funds there were
architects charretting (pulling all nighters).  Architectural problems
and programming problems have no one right answer or right approach.
Architects tend to approach a problem vaguely until they develop an
appropriate "vocabulary" (sets of subunits, useful relationships, ...)
for dealing with the problem before they start any serious drawing just
as most programmers tend to program "middle out". Most architects are
doing detail work for office remodelling jobs just as most programmers
are updating huge Cobol programs to take the new tax laws into account.
Finally, architects, like programmers often get carried away with the
elegance of a solution and implement a bathroom with no closet space to
store an extra roll of toilet paper.  (I will mention no particular
piece of software here).

                                        Seth Steinberg
                                        SAS @ BBN-VAX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 22 Jul 85 11:50:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE--New Journal Received
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

We have received number one of volume one, February 1985 of Computational
Intelligence/Intelligence Informatique.  [...]
The following articles are in the first issue of this new
quarterly journal:


Plan parsing for intended response recognition in discourse by Candace Sidner

On the adequacy of predicate circumscription for closed-world reasoning by
Etherington, Mercer and Reiter.

Knowledge organization and its role in representation and interpretation for
time-varying data: the ALVEN system by John Tsotsos

Recovering from execution errors in SIPE by David Wilkins.


     -- Mathematical and Computer Sciences Library.  H. Llull.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Jul 1985 21:20-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Report Volume 2 No. 6
-BODY-
o - Discussion of Darpa's strategic computing program
    driverless vehicle
    gallium arsenide work
    MOS implementation service
    parallel architectures
    naval battle management
    Lisp Machine on a chip (TI)
    speech recognition
    dataflow
    wafer scale integration
    benchmarking lisp machines

o - DOD Optical computer effort
    nine million dollars will be allocated over three years to develop
    compact optical computer

o - military expert systems
    Titan systems is developing Knowledge-Based engineering System
    which is optimized for expert systems related to  military command and
    control (it has been translated from LISP into C).

    Also, they are developing a system called a "space tree" to
    determine how goals are met by decisions, allocations or maneuvers.

    System to select path of travel based on maps

    Air/land battle simulator

o - The French Scene
    Laboratoires de Marcoussis (research labs for French corporation
    Compagnie Generale d'Electricite)
    o - expert systems
        process control
        diagnosis
        computer aided design
        scheduling in flexible manufacturing schedules
    o - natural language
        system to teach UNIX
        data base query
    o - language development
        FROG (integrates LISP and prolog), LISP, PROLOG, common lisp
    o - machine optimized for both lisp and prolog
    o - speech recognition
        system to recognize 35 words with 98 per cent accuracy

o - Carnegie Group has changed the name of SRL+ to Knowledge Prolog

o - Artificial Intelligence Corporation is dropping plans to develop
    a microcomputer version of INtellect, its natural language data
    base query facility
    Microrim has lowered the price of its system CLOUT to $2 50.00

o - Turing Institute has been formed in Scotland

o - review of Texas Instruments activities

o - Arthur D. Little predicts in year 20000, AI market will be 50 to
    120 billion dollars    [That's quite a crystal ball! -- KIL]

o - The Aeronautical and Electronic Council of Japan has recommended
    that Japan look at "the Sixth Generation Computer" which would have
    computers similar to the human brain!

o - fifty Japanese companies are forming a research association to look
    into AI applicatons to manufacturing

o - article on Lotus activities in AI

review of:

%A William B. Gevarter
%T Intelligent Machines: An Introductory Perspective
%I Prentice-Hall
%C Englewood Cliffs

%J Third Conference on Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision
%C Cambridge, Massachussetts
%D NOV 5-8 1984
%I Society of Photo Optical Instrumentation Engineers

%A Alick Elithorn
%A Ranan Banerji
%T Artificial and Human Intelligence
%I North-Holland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 1985 22:48-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Byte AI Special Issue
-BODY-
definition:

D MAG1 BYTE\
%V 10\
%N 4\
%D APR 1985

citations:

%T TI's Arborist, Decision-Tree Analysis Software, Supports IBM
%J MAG1
%P 42
%X Announcement for decision-tree analyst for making decisions.
Cost is $595.00

%T Book Review
%J MAG1
%P 65
%X Reviews of Build Your Own Expert System Chris Naylor
Artificial Intelligence in Basic Mike James
The Cognitive Computer: On Language, Learning, and Artificial Intelligence
by Roger C. Schank and Peter C. Childrs

%A Roger Schank
%A Larry Hunter
%T The Quest to Understand Thinking
%J MAG1
%P 143
%K scripts   natural language   conceptual dependency
%X discusses natural language reading including the famous restaurant
script.  Also discusses models of memory and "What is AI?"

%A John R. Anderson
%A Brian J. Reiser
%T The Lisp Tutor
%J MAG1
%P 159-175
%X discusses a tutor for people learning lisp.  Uses the Goal-Restricted
Production System with 325 production rules.  It is effective in
diagnosing between 45 and 80 percent of the student's errors.
They compared private human tutoring, the computer program and self-taught
methods.  They compared at 11.4, 15 hours and 26.5 hours to get through
six lessons.

%A W. Lewis Johnson
%A Elliot Soloway
%T Proust
%J MAG1
%P 179-190
%K Pascal tutor frame debug T lisp
%X Describes a system for asisting beginners with debugging Pascal
programs.  It is 15000 lines of T.  In a set of 206 student solutions
to a small problem, PROUST understood completely 79 percent of the programs
and identified 94 percent of the bugs.

%A Michael F. Deering
%T Architectures for AI
%J MAG1
%P 193-206
%K FAIM1 lisp machine Zetalisp Franz lisp PSL hardware unification
machine vision
%X A machine coded unifier is two orders of magnitude faster than the LISP-
coded unifier.
Time for the aggregate function foo on six different processors  (all times
in microseconds)
Machine     Zetalisp  Franz Lisp     PSL
VAX         53.8      13.9           5.6
68000       65.2      43.6           5.8
68010       68.6      43.6           10.6
68020       16.1      19.9           3.1
MIT CADR    19.0
3600         6.4
It has been found that by adding features to emulate bit-field dispatch
instructions and stripping off tag bits to conventional micros, they
would be much faster for type-checking LISPS.
Parallel machines sharing a large common memory is bad because there
is not enough memory bandwidth to go around.

%A Patrick H. Winston
%T The Lisp Revolution
%J MAG1
%P 209-218
%X lisp tutorial

%A Carl Hewitt
%T The Challenge of Open Systems
%J MAG1
%P 223-242
%K parallel AI computation   logic programming   due process reasoning

%A Dana H. Ballard
%A Christopher M. Brown
%T Vision
%J MAG1
%P 245-261
%K MOSAIC Hough transform
%X work done by Larry Roberts on block world vision; optical flow,
vision and the abstraction hierarchy
MOSAIC that uses stereo  to understand pictures of buildings,
the challenges of animal vision, Hough transformation

%A Geoffrey E. Hinton
%T Learning in Parallel Networks
%J MAG1
%P 265-273
%K Hopfield nets
%X networks that minimize their energy  probablistic nets

%A Jerome A. Feldman
%T Connections
%J MAG1
%P 277-284
%K Necker cube  semantic nets connectionist  natural language

%A John K. Stevens
%T Reverse Egnineering the Brain
%J MAG1
%P 286-299
%X describes various neural circuit analogies with a few words about
adapting the brains circuitry for use in computers

%A Robert H. Michaelsen
%A Donald Michie
%A Albert Boulanger
%T The Technology of Expert Systems
%J MAG1
%P 303-312
%K tax advice
%X describes the basic concepts of expert systems in terms of a tax advice
system.  Goes over some of the famous expert systems and expert system
shells.  Also discusses the basic concepts of forward and backward chaining,
networks and frames

%A Beverly A. Thompson
%A William A. Thompson
%T Inside an Expert Systems
%J MAG1
%P 315-330
%K plant identification Pascal
%X describes the outline of a small expert system for plant identification
which could be written in Pascal


%T Artificial Intelligence at Home
%J MAG1
%P 445
%K Dynamic Master Systems TOPSI OPS-5
%X announcement for TOPSI, an OPS5 in.terpreter for Z80 based systems

%A Bruce D'Ambrosio
%T Insight - A Knowledge System
%J MAG1
%P 345-347
%X This is a 95 dollar system offering a backward-chaining inference
engine with confidence values for the IBM-PC.  It is compiler based
and will handle up to 4000 rules.  It does lack various debugging
facilities such as a display of the currently active rule chains.

%A William M. Raike
%T The Fifth Generation in Japan
%J MAG1
%P 401-406
%K Kazuhiro Fuchi ICOT MITI prolog ESP KL0 PSI S-810
%X discusses choice of kernel language for fifth generation effort;
decision as to whether research should be open or closed and their
supercomputers; apparently they do not know about advanced software
development tools like RATFOR and are doing their work in Fortran.
They have no optimizing FORTRAN for their supercomputer.  If they
do not tweak existing code it runs no faster on the supercomputer than
on the conventional machine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
100
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 1985 22:49-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles  [long message]
-BODY-

%T Object's Shape digitized with Human-like Method
%J Electronics Week
%D JUN 3, 1985
%P 24
%K France  Eurosoft laser 3-D  digitization computer vision
%X Eurosoft Informatique SA is selling a system that digitizes
three dimensional objects using a laser beam.  The object is rotated
on a turntable for the laser beam to look at it.  An IBM-XT based
version is anticipated shortly.

%A John F. King
%T Fuzzy Logic Provides New Way to Deal with Uncertainty
%J Electronics Week
%D JUN 3, 1985
%P 40-41
%K Zadeh Maachen CMOS Kumamoto University train cardiology manufacturing
%X Describes fuzzy logic, work done using fuzzy logic in cardiology,
automatic train operation, loan applicants and stock portfolios.
Also describes Kumamoto Universities' efforts to develop a fuzzy logic
set in CMOS.

%T Elson Heads GM Move to Push Machine Vision
%J Electronics Week
%D JUN 3, 1985
%P 48
%K computer vision
%X gives short biography of Gerlad L. Ellson, the man who is directing the
Machine Intelligence Technology Implementation Section who is directing
GM efforts in computer vision.  Also describes need for 44,000 vision
systems in GM plants, up from 500 systems in use.

%J CACM
%D JUN 1985
%V 28
%N 6
%P A-32
%K T CSI Lisp Scheme Cognitive Systems
%X ad for CSI Lisp, an implementation of T designed to run
on top of Common Lisp and LISP-VM

%A Karen A. Frenkel
%T Automating the Software-Development Cycle
%J CACM
%D JUN 1985
%V 28
%N 6
%P 578-589
%K software engineering  PSI Kestrell space station KBSA  Intermetrics PQCC
%X describes uses of computers in program and software development.
outlines PSI and Programmer's Apprentice projects, the system to diagnose
failures in the life support system for the space station.
There is a proposal from Rome Air Development Center to apply AI
to software over a fifteen year period, some steps of which are being
implemented by Reasoning Systems and the Kestrel Institute.
Intermetrics has developed a compiler code generator based on the ideas of
the Production Quality Compiler Compiler Project.
This work was also used by GTE in developing a digital telephone switch
using multiple microcomputers.  Adequate code sequences are generated
with 200 rules and some additional optimization is provided with 500
sequences.  Intermetrics is using this technique to build four compilers
for another company plus one for the Air Force.
Waterloo has developed a system to analyze Message traces for
debugging purposes in a real time telecommunication system.
This system can analyze bugs in 20 minutes that would have taken a human
about ten times as long.
This system includes tables of automated tools used in software, electronics
and telecommunications as well as a bunch of expert systems that have already
been impelmented.
They also include a breakdown of 138 expert systems by field of application:
computing             19.6%
electronics            6.5%
engineering            3.7%
financial services     3.6%
general                8.0%
medicine              15.9%
military              10.9%
oil and mineral        7.2%
professional services  3.6%
research               7.2%
other                 13.8%

%T Light-Assembly Models Take Center Stage at Robots 9
%J Electronics
%D JUN 24, 1985
%P 71-74
%K semiconductor manufacturing market estimate Seiko
Microbot clean room Unimation Intelledex Hitachi Cincinnati Milacron
%X describes robots for use in light assembly such as computer manufacture
Halbrecht and Quist and the Robot Institute of America predict that
light-assembly robots will make up 40% of the market up from 3% in 1982.
The entire market which was $100 million in 1980 will leap to $2 billion in
1990. Describes robots from  Microbot and Unimation (which have the
low particle shedding rates needed for clean rooms) as well as other
companies.  Also describes a new sealant dispensing system.

%T IC-Design Tool Set is built on AI Foundation
%J Electronics
%D JUN 24, 1985
%P 63
%K Carnegie Group Silicon Design Labs VLSI DAS/LOGIC
%X Silicon Design Labs has developed a silicon compiler-compiler for
developing new silicon compilers for different technologies.  Carnegie
Group has developed an alternate system for capturing VLSI design
knowledge based up expert-systems.  The user enters timing requirements,
constraints and funcitonal specs for the circuit he wants.  Using
SPICE-models, DAS/Signal anlysis creates the design rules for the
layout program.  This is part of a much larger article on silicon compilers.

%T Gold Hill Computer Gives IBM PC's the Smarts
%J Electronics
%D JUN 24, 1985
%P 50-51
%K Lisp microcomputer
%X describes Gold HIll computer which has developed a subset of Common
Lisp for IBM PC's.  Includes estimates of total dollar value for AI
software and PC-based AI software
year  AI based software   PC AI software
1984    90                 10
1985    130                20
1986    60                 300
1987    110                550
1988    230                730
1989    400                1090
1990    700                1550
(numbers in millions of dollars and were read off a bar graph)

%J InfoWorld
%D July 1, 1985
%P 55
%K Microcomputer Data Base Systems MDBS GURU natural language Knowledgeman
database systems
%X An ad which says "Isn't it time you had a Guru?  Artificial
Intelligence From MDBS. Coming Soon.  MDBS is the company which makes
knowledgeman, a relational data base management system for micros.
I would suspect this would be a product to compete with CLOUT from
RBASE.

%T Nanobytes
%J BYTE
%D JUL 1985
%P 10
%K franz lisp UNIX PC
%X Franz Inc. Berkeley, CA planned to begin shipping Franz Lisp for
AT&T's UNIX PC this month.  Franz also expects to provide a complete
Common LISP for the UNIX PC by late August

%T Nanobytes
%J BYTE
%D JUL 1985
%P 10
%K natural language translation linguistic products  English Spanish
%X "Lingusistic Products: The Woodslands, TX announced two
language-translation programs for the IBM PC.  English/Spanish and
Spanish/English programs are $490 each or $790 together."

%A W. C. Kabat
%A A. S. Wojcik
%T Automated Synthesis of Combinational Logic Uisng Theorem-Proving
Techniques
%J IEEETC
%D JUL 1985
%V C-34
%N 7
%P 610-632
%K design automation multivalued logic hyperresolution

%A Tom Manuel
%T The Pell-mell Rush into Expert Systems Forces Integration Issue
%J Electronics
%D JUL 1, 1985
%P 54-59
%K Cognitech Harvey Newquist Human Edge HP Inference KEE Litton XCON
Expertelligence Experlisp OPS5 lisp machine arity Xsys Picon Texaco
%X General article on expert systems and expert system tools

%T Program gives AI capability to UNIX-based Computers
%J Electronics
%D JUL 1, 1985
%P 68
%K lisp Unilisp
%X announcement of of a new lisp for UNIX machines.  Has optional
packages for math, statistical and graphics functions.  Costs $895.00

%T Lotus Strikes a Deal with AI Pioneers
%J InfoWorld
%D JUN 3, 185
%P 15-16
%K Mitch Kapor Jerrold Kaplan Arity Dataspeed Teknowledge
%X describes Lotus activities in AI for microcomputers including deals
with Jerrald Kaplan, Teknowledge and Arity Corporation (a start up).
The company wants practical applications of AI to microcomputer software.

%A Ivars Peterson
%T Artificial Reality
%J Science News
%V 127
%D JUN 22, 1985
%N 25
%P 396-397
%K CRITTER VIDEOPLACE Myron Krueger computer graphic
%X describes a computer system that senses a person's movements
and changes a graphic display.  The applications described are artistic
in nature but they pointed possible applications of AI and the use of
such systems in operator interface for nuclear power plants.

%A J. D. Yang
%A M. N. Huhns
%A L. M. Stephens
%T An Architecture for Control and Communications in Distributed Artificial
Intelligence Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%P 316-326
%V SMC-15
%N 3
%D MAY/JUN 1985
%K PSC logic design
%X gives an application of the proposed architecture to logic design

%A Agata Muszycka
%A Rajjan Shinghal
%T An Empirical Comparison of Pruning Strategies in Game Trees
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%P 316-326
%V SMC-15
%N 3
%D MAY/JUN 1985

%A Yuzo Hiral
%T Mutually Linked HASPs: A Solution for Constraint Satisfaction
Problems by Associative Processing
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%P 316-326
%V SMC-15
%N 3
%D MAY/JUN 1985
%X HASP stands for Human Associative Processor

%T Expert Systems Tool Kit Available for UNIX-PCs
%J IEEE Micro
%D JUN 1985
%V 5
%N 3
%P 93
%K Radian expert system
%X announcement of expert system shell for UNIX PCs

%T Sperry to Market TI Symbolic Processors
%J Electronic News
%D JUL 8, 1985
%P 22
%X Sperry signed a three year marketing agreement for TI's explorer
with the Knowledge Engineering Environment Sofware developed by Intellicorp

%T AI brings smarts to PC-Board Assembly
%J Electronics
%D JUL 15, 1985
%P 17-18
%K Hughes industrial engineering
%X describes successful system by Hughes to set up the sequence of
hand assembly steps in PC-board layout

%T Says Fighter Pilots of Future will use AI
%J Electronic News
%D JUL 15, 1985
%K Wright Patterson Air Force Base

%A Tsukasa Furukawa
%T Symbolics Enters Japan AI Venture
%J Electronic News
%D JUL 15, 1985
%K Nichimen lisp machine Nihon
%X Symbolics is entering into a joint venture with Nichimen Co.
to help sell things to Japan.  First year sales are projected to
be four million dollars.  Already Symbolics has sold four million [?]
computers to Japan with 13 at Nippon Telephone and Telegraph and three
at Canon Inc.

%A Koji Kobayashi
%T Computers and Communcations: Toward Peace and Prosperity
%J High Technology
%D AUG 1985
%P 10-11
%K natural language machine translation voice recognition NEC
%X discusses activities of NEC in computers and communications including
a proposed system that will translate voice input from one language
to another in real time to be readied by year 2000.

%T Hitachi Technology 85
%J High Technology
%D AUG 1985
%P 42-45
%X corporate relations advertising showing work done on the robot hand,
process and assembly robots, image processing chips and systems

%A Robert Haavind
%T Playing to win a New Generation
%J High Technology
%D AUG 1985
%P 63-65
%K prolog lisp machine KL1 mandala ICOT
%X describes new parallel and other novel architectures being developed
in Japan including those for AI

%A David B. Macqueen
%A Donald T. Sannella
%T Completeness of proof systems for equational specifications
%J IEEE Software Engineering
%V SE-11
%N 5
%D MAY 1985
%P 454-460
%K clear    algebraic specifications    equational logic   proof systems
induction ground equations
%X Contrary to popular belief, equational logic with induction is not
complete for initial models of equational specifications.  Indeed, under
some regimes (the Clear specification language and most other algebraic
specification languages) no proof system exists which is complete even with
respect to ground equations.  A collection of known results is presented
along with some new observations.

%A George J. Pothering
%T A Methodology for Conducting Advanced Undergraduate Computer Science
Courses
%J ACM SIGCSE Bulletin
%V 17
%N 1
%D MAR 1985
%P 130-134
%K AI courses
%X describes an AI course.  The main purpose of this article is to show
how to get a course taught when there is no faculty available who knows
the subject to be covered.  This is done by letting the students teach
the course.

%A Gadi Kaplan
%T Robots getting smarter, but slowly, say experts
%J The Institute
%D JULY 1985
%P 8
%K CMU Terrogator Aurthur C. Sanderson
%X summary of "New Direction in Robots" which was a session of the
1985 National Media Briefing.  describes work on mobile robots and
applications to installing windshields in cars

%T Computer-assisted urological test facilitates diagnosis
%J IEEE Computer
%D APR 1985
%V 18
%N 4
%P 104
%K urology Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital Russel Lawson
%X describes system to analyze urodynamic studies.  They anticipate
developing an expert system to interface with same.  Anyone interested
in expert systems applications to urology might want to contact Russel Lawson
at Froedtert memorial Lutheran Hospital

%A Alexander Borgida
%A Sol Greenspan
%A John Mylopoulos
%T Knowledge Representation as the Basis for Requirements Specifications
%J IEEE Computer
%V 18
%N 4
%D APR 1985
%P 82-90

%A Kevin Smith
%T Britain Promotes Open Architecture
%J Electronics Week
%D APR 29, 1985
%P 22
%K Alvey IKBS parallel architecture expert system Alice
%X discusses British  efforts in expert systems and parallel architectures

%T LOOK AHEAD
%J Datamation
%P 14
%V 31
%N 12
%D JUN 15, 1985
%K Mitsubishi Japan prolog smalltalk
%X Mitsubishi Electric is due to announce a work station based on
artificial intelligence based on Prolog and Smalltalk

%A M. Shridhar
%A A. Baldreldin
%T A High-Accuracy Syntactic Recognition Algorithm for Handwritten Numerals
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%P 152-158
%V SMC-15
%N 1
%D JAN/FEB 1985

%A M. A. L. Thathachar
%A P. S. Sastry
%T A New Approach to the Design of Reinforcement Schemes for Learning
Automata
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%P 162-168
%V SMC-15
%N 1
%D JAN/FEB 1985

%A H. Niemann
%A H. Bunke
%A I. Hofmann
%A G. Sagerer
%A F. Wolf
%A H. Feistel
%T A Knowledge Based System for Analysis of Gated Blood Pool Studies
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 3
%D MAY 1985
%P 246-259
%K fuzzy membership function medical image analysis cardiology

%A Henri Prade
%T A Computational Approach to Approximate and Plausible Reasoning with
Applications to Expert Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 3
%D MAY 1985
%K fuzzy logic
%X describes a relationship between possibility distributions and
fuzzy systems

%A David M. Weber
%T Navigation Systems: It's Academic
%J Electronics Week
%D APR 15, 1985
%P 24
%K Jean-Paul Laumond Laboratoire d'Automatique du CNRS
%X describes work done on the robot navigation problem with applications
to DARPA's autonomous vehicle program

%A John Malpas
%T Prolog as a Unix System Tool
%J UnixWorld
%D JUL 1985
%P 48-53
%V 2
%N 6
%K human engineering
%X describes the use of prolog to develop a filter for analyzing
performance of non-technical people in using PC work

%T Japanese firm gets AI expertise from U. S. Joint Venture
%J Electronics Week
%D MAY 6, 1985
%P 14
%K Carnegie Group Japan Artificial Intelligent Technology
%X Pittsburgh's Carnegie Group and Tokyo's Artificial Intelligent
Technology will be doing joint development with Artificial Intelligent
Technology marketing Carnegie Group's software in East Asia

%A Henry Beechold
%T File Gateway Adds to Clout
%J Infoworld
%D APR 22, 1985
%P 48-49
%K database query natural language microcomputer microrim rbase
%X review of Clout, a natural language interface to microcomputers
sold by Microrim for $249.00
two out of a possible four disks (due to overpriced support plan)
performance: excellence
documenation: good
ease of use: excellent
error handling: excellent
support: fair

%J CACM
%D MAY 1985
%P A-20
%K Levien Instrument Byso Lisp Franz
%X advertisement for Byslo Lisp, for the PC and costs $150.00
claims that benchmarks faster on the AT than Franz Lisp on a VAX


%A David M. Weber
%T Consumer-goods Giants aim at Robotics Market
%J Electronics
%D JUN 17, 1985
%P 23-24
%K Sony Telefunken Toshiba Panasonic
%X describes entries seen at Robotics 9 show

%A James Fallon
%T Solartron Receives $4.5M in Pacts from U.K.'s Alvey
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1548
%D MAY 6, 1985
%P E
%K Schlumberger Britain health monitoring expert system aerospace
%X describes grant to Solartron, a division of Schlumberger, for work
in aerospace and health-monitoring

%T Lisp Cuts Price of Systems 35%
%J Electronic News
%D JUN 10, 1985
%V 31
%N 1553
%P 27
%K Lisp Machine Lambda Aerospace David Carlton
%X new prices for Lisp Machine Inc. products: single user Lambda $65,000
2 x 2 unit: 110,000.  Also all systems now include the standard configuration
to four Meg.  Also LMI named David Carleton to manage its Aerospace division

%T Carnegie Markets AI in Far East
%J Electronic News
%D JUN 10, 1985
%V 31
%N 1553
%P 37
%K Intelligent Technology Japan
%X describes Carnegie Group's marketing efforts in Far East and Japan

%T See AI benefit for 32-bit CPU sales - If barriers are overcome
%J Electronic News
%D APR 15, 1985
%V 31
%N 1545
%P M
%K Raj Reddy Tom Knight Hewlett-Packard MIT L. J. Thomas
%X describes comments made about the future of AI at the International
Solid State Circuits Conference

%T DEC Group Names Head; Ex-Chief is Now Lisp CEO
%J Electronic News
%D MAY 27, 1985
%V 31
%N 1551
%P 20
%K DEC LMI Ward D. MacKenzie
%X Ward D. MacKenzie is leaving DEC to join LMI as chairman and chief executive

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
101
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 85 16:52:19 cdt
-FROM-
From: porter@anl-mcs (Porter)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Knowledge Engineering/Expert Systems
-BODY-

Below is the tentative program for the Workshop on Knowledge
Engineering/Expert Systems, At Lake Arrowhead, California,
September 4-6, 1985.  For information regarding invitations
contact the General Chairman, Sig Porter (porter@anl-mcs
Merdan Group, Inc./PO Box 17098/San Diego, CA  92117).



                            Workshop on
                Knowledge Engineering/Expert Systems

                         Tentative Program
                          (July 22, 1985)

           Greg Kearsley, Courseware, Program Chairman


Wednesday, September 4, 1985, Afternoon

Knowledge Acquisition
   Carlton B. Solloway, JPL, Chair

   Knowledge Acquisition: Building the Oleophilic Advisor
   Gloria Reiss, Rockwell International Corp

   Automating Knowledge Acquisition:  Eliminating Your Job
   Jim Kornell, General Research Corp

   Knowledge Engineering and the New Arcana
   Lee Duke, Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility

   Autonomous Vehicle Planning System:  Development and Knowledge
        Acquisition
   David Tseng, Hughes Aircraft Co. AI Center

   Building a Weather Forecasting Expert System From Examples
   Charles Riese, Radian Corp



Thursday, September 5, 1985

Knowledge Representation/Tutoring
   Paul Harmon, Harmon Associates, Chair

   Achieving A General Intelligent Tutor Through a Flexible and
        Extendible Knowledge Representation
   Glen Silverstein, Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation

   Building Knowledge Representation Structures Via Intelligent
        Authoring Systems
   Bret Wallach, Advanced Processing Laboratories

   Representation and Acquisition of Knowledge in Medical Expert
        Systems
   Klaus-Peter Adlassnig, University of Calif Berkeley

   Intelligent Simulations for Navy Training
   Jim Hollan, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD


Inference Strategies
   Penny Nii, Stanford, Chair

   Universal Weak Method
   John Laird, Xerox PARC

   High Level Control of Inferencing
   Peter Hirsch, IBM

   The Role of Frame Based Representation in Reasoning
   Richard Fikes, Intellicorp

   Using Logic as a basis of a Problem Solving Expert
   Richard Weyhrauch, Stanford University



Friday, September 6, 1985

Knowledge System Programming Environments
   Bruce Bullock, Teknowledge Federal Systems, Chair

   Overview of STROBE
   Read Smith, Schlumberger-Doll Research

   Perspective on KEE
   Mike Williams, Intellicorp

   Directions for Future Environments
   Mike Fehling, Teknowledge

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 18:05:33 edt
-FROM-
From: Alan Gunderson <asg0%gte-labs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Extended Deadline-2nd ACM Northeast Regional Conference
-BODY-

                                CALL FOR PAPERS

                           *** DEADLINE EXTENDED ***


                SECOND ANNUAL ACM NORTHEAST REGIONAL CONFERENCE

                     Integrating the Information Workplace:
                            the Key to Productivity

                               28-30 October 1985

                              Sheraton-Tara Hotel
                               Framingham, Mass.
                                      and
                              The Computer Museum
                                 Boston, Mass.

 The conference sessions  are grouped into tracks corresponding  to major areas
 of interest in the computer field.   Papers are solicited for the Conference's
 Artificial  Intelligence Track.    The Track's  program  will emphasize  "real
 world" approaches and applications of A. I.


                          Topics of interest include:
                          ___________________________

                             Natural Language
                             Man-Machine Interface
                             A. I. Tools and Environments
                             A. I. Hardware
                             Expert Systems


               Due to publication delays of the Call for Papers,
           the paper deadline has been extended to: September 1, 1985


                   Please send three copies of your paper to:

                         Dr. David S. Prerau
                         Track Chairman
                         Artificial Intelligence Track
                         ACM Northeast Regional Conference
                         GTE Laboratories Inc.
                         40 Sylvan Road
                         Waltham MA 02254


              For additional information on the Conference, write:

                         ACM Northeast Regional Conference
                         P.O. Box 499
                         Sharon MA 02067

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 85 19:05:39 -0200
-FROM-
From: Ehud Shapiro  <udi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: call for papers - Logic Programming
-BODY-
                      CALL FOR PAPERS

     Third International Conference on Logic Programming

    Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, UK

                     July 14-18, 1986


In cooperation with:

                Association for Computing Machinery
                British Computer Society
                IEEE Computer Society
                Japan Society for Software Science and Technology

The conference will consider all aspects of logic programming,
including, but not limited to:
        Theory and foundations
        Architectures and Implementations
        Methodology
        Programming Languages and Environments
        Applications
        Relations to other computation models, programming
        languages, and programming methodologies.

Of special interest are papers related to parallel processing,
papers discussing novel applications and applications that address the
unique character of logic programming, and papers
which constitute a contribution
to computer science at large.

Papers can be submitted under two categories, short --
up to 2000 words,  and long -- up to 6000 words.  Submissions will be
considered on the basis of appropriateness, clarity, originality,
significance, and overall quality.

Authors should send eight copies of their manuscript, plus an
extra copy of the abstract, to:
        Ehud Shapiro
        ICLP Program Chairman
        The Weizmann Institute of Science
        Rehovot 76100, Israel.

Deadline for submission of papers is December 1, 1985.
Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection
by February 28, 1986.
Camera ready copies are due April 1st, 1986.

General Chairman
        Keith Clark
        Imperial College of Science and Technology
        180 Queen's Gate
        London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom

Local Arrangements and Exhibition Chairman
        Richard Ennals
        Imperial College of Science and Technology
        180 Queen's Gate
        London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom

Program Committee
        Martin van Caneghem, University of Marseille, France
        Veronica Dahl, Simon Fraser University, Canada
        Maarten van Emden, University of Waterloo, Canada
        Kazuhiro Fuchi, ICOT, Japan
        Koichi Furukawa, ICOT, Japan
        Ake Hanssen, Uppsala University, Sweden
        Kenneth M. Kahn,  Xerox PARC, USA
        Peter Koves, Logicware Inc., Canada
        Giorgio Levi, University of Pisa, Italy
        John Lloyd, University of Melbourne, Australia
        Frank G. McCabe, Imperial College, UK
        Jack Minker, Maryland University, USA
        Fernando Pereira, SRI International, USA
        Luis M. Pereira, University of Lisbon, Portugal
        Antonio Porto, University of Lisbon, Portugal
        Ehud Shapiro, Chairman, Weizmann Institute, Israel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
102
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 85 10:08 EST
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information on PRESS
-BODY-
I would like to get a copy of PRESS.  Can anyone tell me
how to obtain one?

PRESS is the name of the symbolic algebra system that he developed
at Edinburgh.  I have read spots here and there about it, mostly in
the applied math literature.  It is written in PROLOG and is
reputed to be very fast.  I asked for PROLOG-based systems on the
symalg net; PRESS was the only system identified.

I am interested in functional/logic programming and numerical analysis;
I thought I might get a copy and see what I could do with it.

Steve Stevenson
(803) 656-5880

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 28 Jul 85 18:11:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Loglan
-BODY-
LOGLAN was (is?) a language designed to test the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis that the natural languages limit human thought.
The Loglan Institute was set up to publish books on the
subject and to carry out investigations in loglan.

Does anyone know whether the Loglan Institute still exists
and what has been done with loglan? Does anyone have a current
address for them?


  [The most recent address I have is The Loglan Institute, Inc.,
  2261 Soledad Rancho Road, San Diego, CA 92109.  -- KIL ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Jul 85 10:59:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Aymara
-BODY-
Robert Van Valin ("ucdavis!harpo!lakhota"@BERKELEY) sent me a clipping
from the SSILA Newsletter.  It's a letter from Dr. M.J. Hardman-de-Bautista,
Director of the Aymara Language Materials Program, stressing that
Ivan Guzman de Rojas is not associated with the ALMP, does not himself
speak Aymara, and bases his work in machine translation on a grammar
and dictionary written over 400 years ago by a Jesuit priest.  He claims
that Mr. Guzman's published examples of Aymara are nearly all grammatically
incorrect and that the stated meanings for acceptable sentences are
often wildly inaccurate.  "His poor understanding of Aymara word and
sentence structure results in forms that are simply unintelligible to
the Aymara."  Which is not to say that Guzman's translation program
can't work, but it does cast a suspicious light on the matter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jul 85 15:38 PDT
-FROM-
From: Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Defining the Expert System
-BODY-
I am spending this summer as an intern for Xerox AI Systems group where
part of my task is to come up with a working definition of what
constitutes an "Expert System."  Having done some rather extensive
reading on AI in general and expert systems in particular throughout the
past month, I have come to two conclusions:

        First, due perhaps to media hype, the term "expert system" tends to get
bantered about extremely loosely and broadly and is applied to a wide
variety of programs and packages.

        Second, the only definitions which seem to exist in testbooks,
articles, or company literature all seem to go something like this:  "An
expert system is a computer program which does what an expert does."

While this definition is basic, I would like some more detail.  So
here's the question: What do you, as a knowledgeable person in the field
of AI, consider to be the necessary minimum attributes for an "Expert
System?"  Is it fair to give the same title to both CADUCEUS and to
'Tell Me Doctor' from Apple?  Why or why not?  Can you build an "Expert
System" with ART?  How about TOPSI from Dynamic Master Systems (1000
rules maximum, forward-chaining, $75) ?  How many rules does it take to
make a system 'expert'?  What kind (and how large) of a domain must an
"expert system" address?  Etc.

If you've got (or would care to write) a working definition of your own,
I'd love to hear it.  Otherwise, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on
any of the above questions or any others that may come to mind.
Pointers towards reading sources probably wouldn't hurt.  Look at this
as a very informal survey of the field-- linguistically speaking, a term
can only be defined by those who use it.

If anybody's interested, I'll be glad to compile the results and send a
copy.

Please reply to me at
Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA

>-Chris Miller


  [Alex Goodall supplies the following definitions in The Guide to
  Expert Systems (published by Learned Information):

    An expert system is a computer system that performs functions
    similar to those normally performed by a human expert.

    An expert system is a computer system that uses a representation
    of human expertise in a specialist domain in order to perform
    functions similar to those normally performed by a human expert
    in that domain.

    An expert system is a computer system that operates by applying
    an inference mechanism to a body of specialist expertise
    represented in the form of 'knowledge'.

  He prefers the latter, but discusses all three in his first chapter.
  Feigenbaum, in Knowledge Engineering for the 1980's (quoted by
  Gevarter in An Overview of Expert Systems and by Kolbus and Mazzetti
  in Artificial Intelligence Emerges) says:

    An 'expert system' is an intelligent computer program that uses
    knowledge and inference procedures to solve problems that are
    difficult enough to require significant human expertise for their
    solution.  The knowledge necessary to perform at such a level,
    plus the inference procedures used, can be thought of as a model
    of the expertise of the best practitioners of the field.

    The knowledge of an expert system consists of facts and heuristics.
    The 'facts' constitute a body of information that is widely shared,
    publicly available, and generally agreed upon by experts in a
    field.  The 'heuristics' are mostly private, little-discussed
    rules of good judgement (rules of plausible reasoning, rules of
    good guessing) that characterize expert-level decision making
    in the field.  The performance level of an expert system is
    primarily a function of the size and quality of the knowledge base
    that it possesses.

  I don't care for the words "intelligent" and "difficult" in the first
  paragraph, but the intention is clear.

  As for size, expert systems for process control (e.g., using fuzzy
  logic or qualitative "derivatives") can be quite small.  I remember
  a news note in Expert Systems (a journal from Learned Information)
  about a system with 7 rules that was said to function well.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 28 Jul 85 15:11:41-EDT
-FROM-
From: Oolong  <WESALUM.A-LIAO-85@KLA.WESLYN>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: LIAO%Weslyn.Bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Chess Programs and Cheating
-BODY-
     In reading Dr. Laws objection, let me begin by saying that I
certainly  agree  that  programs are better chess  machines  than
people are.  Further, I agree that superior memory and speed in a
computer does NOT give a program an unfair advantage.
      But  perhaps  I should clarify my position a  bit  more:  I
believe  that chess programs with moves written INTO the  program
cheat  in  the sense that they will ALWAYS carry  around  ENCODED
(and thus represented) moves. Human players do not, on the whole,
do  any such thing.  Perhaps it would be best to try a  Searleian
approach to the problem.  In particular, you might be right about
the  way humans play chess...we may have some moves memorized and
yet  not always have them actively represented.  Perhaps to  some
extent,  these  might  one  of (or at  least  part  of)  Searle's
unconcious  Intentional states.   However,  I'm not convinced  of
that this position completely accounts for the way we play.
     Consider  players who are familiar with each other's form of
play.   One cannot store every move made in every game played and
associate  each  game  with the correct  player  (that  goes  for
programs as well).   Still one recognizes particular COMBINATIONS
of  moves  ("chunking"  a la Hofstadter)  through  experience  of
following  the other player's games and,  moreover,  direct  play
reinforces  those  experiences.   As Searle would put it  - these
experiences/practices  create capacities presumably  realized  as
neural pathways (a sort of learning, if you will).  So in effect,
the  "practiced  moves" become part of the background  and  never
become  embedded/encoded representations.   This background  only
creates  the  capacity  to create the representations  needed  to
decide  what move to make (i.e.  to recognize a pattern of  moves
made  and  then  decide  what moves  are  needed  thwart  such  a
strategy).   Certainly,  if  one  chooses to memorize  particular
moves,  that  is one's perogative,  but on a whole,  we don't  do
that.   If you will notice,  this is the reason I argued for  the
notion of "playing from our own experiences".  This position that
I  hold  has the implication that we recognize strategies by  the
results of our experience and so it is actually a part of  us.  I
think  the interpretation of "run what ya brung" does not  escape
the  problem  of the program playing by its author's  experiences
and not its own.
     Now  let's  consider  the situation where two  players
are  not  familiar with each other's form  of  play.   Certainly,
there  can be no pre-memorized set of optimal opening moves since
you  have no experience with this player's strategic  tendancies.
Yet,  how is it that you open with your favorite move when you do
not  know what else to do.   Do you do it thinking "This  is  the
right  move  to  make",  or  do you just  move  from  experience?
How is it then you decide on what strategy to  use?   Presumably,
it makes more sense,  perhaps, to say that we use memorized moves
going  into such a game but use our background (thus  experience)
to recognize what the other person is doing.  In this way a human
player  can  "probe"  the other player's  strategy,  though  this
probing  technique  may  be an inefficient way  of  deciding  the
optimal strategy.   However, this relies on experience and again,
a computer with built in moves cannot "probe" if it MUST to  rely
on built-in moves (i.e.  experiences not its own).  In fact, this
is  a  form of learning and the acquirement of experience  (a  la
Searle).   Personally,  I do not see how my position differs from
Mr. Jennings - I too believe that a computer should "learn how to
play  chess" before it is allowed to play in a tournament  rather
than  rely on moves ENCODED into the program.   I see  one  major
problem  however - one may keep entire games on disk/tape for use
later  on  in other tournaments with other players  but  after  a
while you may exceed disk/tape memory.  One may object by saying,
"Well, we could get a program to convenietly forget certain moves
(etc)  and  install  the  better ones."   My  problem  with  that
response   is   the  question  "What  constitutes  moves  to   be
forgotten?"    Presumably,    all   this   is   a   question   of
Intentionality.   After   reading   Searle's   chapter   on   the
"Background"  (from "Intentionality") I am beginning  to  suspect
that  we may just forget the details of particular capacities and
retain some sort of skeletal structure of that capacity (whatever
that  maybe).   Just what is forgotten and how it is forgotten is
a question I offer to the forum for consideration.

                                                - drew liao

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jul 1985 23:58:11-BST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%svgv@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: POPLOG - A mixed language development system.
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Poplog is available on VAX and DEC 8600 computers.

It includes Prolog (compiled to machine code), Common Lisp (large
subset ready now, remainder available early 1986), POP-11
(comparable in power to Common Lisp, but uses a PASCAL-like syntax),
VED an integrated multi-window multi-buffer screen editor, which can
be used for all interactions with programs, operating system
utilities, online help, program libraries, teaching libraries, etc.
VED includes 'compile this procedure' 'compile from here to here'
'splice output into current file' etc.)

Incremental compilers are provided for Prolog, Lisp, and
POP-11. All the languages compile to the same intermediate
POPLOG 'Virtual machine' language, which is then compiled
to machine code. The 'syscompile' facilities make it easy
to add new front end compilers for additional languages,
which all share the same back-end compiler, editor and
environmental facilities. Mixed language facilities allow
sharing of libraries without re-coding and also allow
portions of a program to be written in the language which
is most suitable.

Approximate recent Prolog benchmarks, for naive reverse test,
without mode declarations:

 VAX/780 + VMS               4.2 KLIPS
 VAX/750 + Unix 4.2          2.4 KLIPS (750+Systime accelerator)
 DEC 8600                   13.0 KLIPS
 SUN2 + Unix 4.2             2.5 KLIPS (also HP 9000/200)
 GEC-63 + Unix V        approx 6 KLIPS

The Prolog is being substantially re-written, for greater
modularity and improved efficiency. Mode declarations should
be available late 1985, giving substantial speed increase.

POP-11 and Common Lisp include both dynamic and lexical scoping,
a wide range of data-types, strings, arrays, infinite precision
arithmetic, hashed 'properties', etc. (Not yet packages, rationals
or complex numbers.) POP-11 includes a pattern-matcher (one-way
unification) with segment variables and pattern-restrictors.

External_load now allows 'external' modules to be linked in and
unlinked dynamically (e.g. programs written in C, Fortran, Pascal,
etc.). This almost amounts to a 'rapid prototyping' incremental
compiler for such languages.

A considerable number of AI-projects funded by the UK Alvey
Programme in universities and industry now use a mixture of
Prolog and POP-11, within Poplog.

Enquiries:

    UK Educational institutions:
        Alison Mudd,
        Cognitive Studies Programme,
        Sussex University,
        Brighton, England. 0273 606755

>- Aaron Sloman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
103
-DATE-
Date: 01 Aug 85 13:50:38 CDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mmm!rouner@mmm.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query - Zetalisp Menu and Mouse Functions, Networking
-BODY-
We are developing expert systems on both the XEROX 1108 (Dandelion Interlisp-D)
and the SYMBOLICS 3640.  For a variety of reasons, we would like to develop a
system that runs without modification on both the Symbolics and Dandelion.  It
would be great if we could find Zetalisp implementation of the Interlisp-D menu
and mouse functions.  Our goal is to emulate the Macintosh interface and its
appearance on both machines, as that is what our users want.

We are aware that KEE which runs on both SYMBOLICS and XEROX has implemented
some of the Interlisp functions in the SYMBOLICS version, but unfortunately the
implementation is incomplete and does not yield equivalent visual display.  The
Interlisp Compatibility Package from SYMBOLICS does not support either the menu
or mouse functions.

Has any of this already been done and are there any significant problems in
trying to create a package that will run without modifications on both
machines?

A second need is to develop a password controlled access to the Symbolics
both from the terminal and over TCP/IP network.  Additionally, we need to
provide password controlled access to selected files.  Has any work been done
in this area?  What are the loopholes?

Finally, has anyone developed an Imagen 8/300 printer support package that
works with the Symbolics Hardcopy System over TCP/IP to either UNIX 4.2 VAX
or an IMAGEN host?  I wish to have services that are provided by Symbolics
over CHAOSNET with the now-discontinued LGP, including font changes and
screen dumps.

Thanks for your help.  If there are sufficient requests, I will post a
summary.

Bill Rouner, USENET address:  ihnp4!mmm!rouner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 85 20:00:33 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: query about company projects...
-BODY-

I was reading the recent issue of AI Magazine (Summer 1985) and
saw a few ads of Companies (ads placed by respective Personnel
Departments), that got me interested.

For example, OLIVETTI's ad said that they are doing work in :
                - ICAI
                - Inexact Knowledge
                - Non-Monotonic Logics.
INFERENCE CORP's ad said they are consultants on projects such as:
                - Scheduling & Planning Missions
PERCEPTRONICS ads said that they are working on:
                - Planning Aids
                - Training Systems & intelligent CAI
                - Robotics & Remote Systems.

I want to know more about these projects/oppurtunites.  (I did not
want to write to personel for this).

I was wondering if some technical person(s) at the above mentioned
companies, would like to communicate with me ????????

Thanks in advance.

> raj doshi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 Aug 85 15:31:01 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "Emil J. Volcheck" <volcheck@UDel-Dewey.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Processing and Economics & Theorem Proving
-BODY-

        Economists use mathematical models to analyze the behavior of
large systems, in fact some of these models are basically simulations
of an open system in which many individuals are making economic decisions.
If someone can prove theorems pertaining to parallel processing on
distributed systems, these results may carry over to economics, and
vice-versa.  Does anyone know of research pertaining to this idea, or
does anyone have thoughts about this?

        Also -- Does anyone know of a place in the literature about
theorem-proving where proving a theorem is defined as "The unification of
necessary (given) with sufficient (goal) conditions" ?  I'd appreciate
your thoughts on this too.

                                                        --Emil Volcheck

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 85 14:11:42 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.ES@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Architecture and Programming
-BODY-
Seth Steinberg outlined some intriguing similarities between the
practice of architecture and the practice of programming.  The teaching
of both disciplines can also be strikingly similar:  architecture
students get about as much structural engineering as programmers get
mathematics or electrical engineering, both are given numerous "toy"
problems as examples and exercises, most learning occurs in the lab
rather than from lecture, no one has a good way to test for natural
talent, and some people can be quite good with little formal training.

>-Rodney Hoffman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 85 11:06:42 PDT
-FROM-
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Loglan
-BODY-
The Loglan Institute's current address is:

        The Loglan Institute, Inc.
        Route 10, Box 260
        Gainesville, FL  32601

The language is undergoing continual revision, and a push is currently
on to scale up a project to increase the vocabulary considerably.  There
are plans to Go Public Again sometime in the next year or two.  This
means publishing something like the June 1960 Scientific American
article, which would require some major progress on the state of the
languge to be worthwhile.

I can answer questions about the language if anyone is interested.  (I'm
not sure AIList is the right place for a long summary of the current
state of the language and the institute.  A year ago, when I was on
Usenet, I sent them to net.nlang.)

The editor of the member's newsletter has a uucp address if you want to
talk to someone who's deeply involved in the work:  John Lees is
addressible as "ihnp4!umich!cosivax!bugs!jrl"@DECVAX or UCBVAX.

Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 85 10:24:25 edt
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Poker
-BODY-
  [See Scientific American, July 1978, for an article on Nicholas
  Findler's research into automating poker strategies.  I seem to
  recall that the project ended before a player was developed that
  could detect and bluff the Mathematically Fair Player.  -- KIL]

This is correct but misleading.  Due to a misconception, we stated in
the article that the Mathematically Fair Player's weakness was that it
could be bluffed out of any hand.  Later we realized that this could
not be true, because the M.F.P. decides whether to stay or fold without
considering its opponents' bets!  The M.F.P. cannot be bluffed - a clear
sign of weakness to any experienced player.

Of course, the weakness consisted precisely of ignoring the opponents'
behavior.  The M.F.P. consistently came out on top in tests where this
flaw did not matter.

Further details appear in M. A. Bramer's recent compilation, _Computer
Game-Playing: Theory and Practice_ (1983).

                                --G. L. S.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Aug 1985 09:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: No Knowledge Bases?
-BODY-
        My earlier request for sample AI knowledge bases turned up
exactly zero responses.  Does this perhaps confirm what I've suspected
for a while?  That people like to build all kinds of fancy KR systems,
with various kinds of inheritance, topologies, etc., but nobody is
interested in "populating" these systems with real AI-type knowledge?
The k-bases I'm familiar with all generally consist of fairly mundane
database information, stuck into fancy AI mechanisms, where the Lisp
code actually contains all the interesting AI-type knowledge
(especially, knowledge of what the nodes in the network mean).
        Some might speculate that this implies that the right way to
build AI systems is like any other software system: lots of meticulous
work on normal procedural code.  I'd prefer to think that either:
        (1) nobody has really put a lot of effort into building a
            "real" knowledge base yet, because it wouldn't be at all
            enjoyable, or
        (2) we still don't have a proper understanding of how to
            represent intentional and control knowledge in a declarative
            way, not to mention trying to represent domain knowledge in a
            declarative way.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Aug 85 08:53:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is an "expert system"
-BODY-

What is the nature of human expertise?  In what sense are current programs
"expert?"  Are they "expert" in a sufficiently rich enough sense that they
warrant the usage of this term?  Saying a program does something that
requires intelligence or expertise opens one up to including all programs
that do this including ones that use numerical and other techniques that
are not normally associated with AI .. how about a graphics program being
an expert system because it can create a picture that would otherwise
require human expertise.

        I prefer the term "knowledge based system," perhaps because it doesn't
imply as much and is more general (e.g., simulations, data bases, etc. can
use AI techniques of KR and inference without solving problems).

        I have heard the Flores and Winograd's new book (in press?) has an
interesting discussion on expert systems.
mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 Aug 85 09:58:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Definition
-BODY-

I offer the following candidate definition for expert system
programs, which attempts to differentiate expert system programs
from conventional decision making programs (i.e., any program
with an IF THEN statement.):

    An expert system is a computer program that makes decisions
    (and/or judgements) according to a set of rules that operate
    on a set of facts, and can explain each decision (or
    judgement) by giving the sequence of rules and the facts used
    to make that decision.

This is different from the concept that an expert system "does
what an expert does", since a conventional FORTRAN program can be
written do do what an expert does, but cannot explain why the
decision was made.  For example, an expert may
have a rule that says IF(there is a fire) THEN(turn on the fire
sprinklers).  This kind of decision making is done in
conventional programs all the time.  The thing that
differentiates expert systems is the possibility of asking for an
explanation of a decision: why a decision is made (or proposed).

Decision explanation is done in conventional expert systems by
using a rule based system design and using the rules and facts
invoked in a decision to "explain" the decision.  The rule based
system design consists of rules, facts, and a logic engine that
applies the rules to the facts to make decisions.  In its
simplest form, the rules are decision making algorithms with a
specified form, and the facts are input or derived data elements
used by the rules in making decisions.  Explanation consists of
listing the rules and facts (in some form) that were used to
reach a given decision (or are being used in an interactive
process of making a decision).

Not all expert systems explain their decisions, but it is the
ability to explain the decisions that is important.  A rule based
decision system can have this ability, even though the
explanation mechanism is not built in to the product.

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 Aug 85 10:25:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Definition
-BODY-
        Thanks for the note.  I'll try to answer the points you
raised in order.

    "If we take that FORTRAN program and add a few steps which
    will take an input of "WHY?" after the sprinklers have been
    turned on and respond with the string "__BECAUSE THERE WAS A
    FIRE" does that then make it an expert system?  Why or why not?"

    "Is this a dumb question?"

        No, it's a SIMPLE question: generally the nastiest, most
difficult, and most interesting kind.  (i.e., What is energy?)

        If my definition is accurately descriptive, that does
make the FORTRAN program an expert system, since it can explain
its decision.  It is a good example because it represents a
marginal case.  The problem with the FORTRAN expert system
program you have described is that it doesn't appear to work for
nested rules.  Nested rules are where you have more than one rule
invoked in a chain of logic to reach a decision.  For example:

   IF(the smoke alarm is on) THEN(there is a fire)
   IF(the alarm lever is pulled) THEN(there is a fire)
   IF(there is a fire) THEN(turn on the sprinklers)
   IF(sprinkler test switch is on) THEN(turn on the sprinklers)

        The (turn on the sprinklers) decision must be explainable
in terms of the rules actually used in making the decision, and
the explanation must be able to cover all the rules that were
invoked.  The first answer to why the sprinklers went off may be
that (there is a fire).  The next answer to the repeated question
"why" can be either that (the smoke alarm is on) or (the alarm
lever is pulled) depending on which rule was activated.  (The
third answer to "why" is "because!", since there is no prior
rule.)

    "(Let me ramble for a minute and correct me where I'm wrong.)
    Is the difference between this approach and the more
    conventional expert system design the fact that an expert
    system can trace back through its decision making process?"

        Yes, I think this is the essential feature of expert systems.

    "Perhaps I am missing the qualitative difference between an
    expert system design and the design of the FORTRAN program.
    Does it lie in the fact that the logic engine views rules and
    facts SEPERATELY and attempts to apply the one to the other."

        No, I think this is a practical requirement of the
explanation process.  For example, if you try to do nested rule
explanations in conventional IF THEN format FORTRAN, I think it
will get very messy because you will probably wind up with
indexed arrays, pointers, and variables to tie everything
together.  A "rule based" approach to the same program might
start by replacing the IF THEN statements with calls to a
subroutine with the components of the IF THEN statement passed as
parameters and the subroutine performing the IF THEN evaluation.
If the parameters for the various IF THEN rules are arranged in a
list (or FORTRAN array), you now have a simpler structure for
evaluating the rules and keeping track of the results.  Further
work in this direction will make it easier to enter the rules and
their explanations, etc.  The practical purpose of this exercise
is to make it easier to design the expert system by handling the
rules, their processing, and their explanations in simpler, more
regular fashion.

        I hope this helps.  Keep asking the simple questions:
they're the ones with the important answers.

Good luck,

Dave Wyland

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
104
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Jul 85 16:55:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Flexible Planning (SRI)
-BODY-
               How to Plan an Action When You Don't Know What to Do:
                A Logic of Knowledge, Action, and Communication

                           Leora Morgenstern
                      New York University, SRI-AIC

                        11:00 AM, Monday, August 5
                 SRI International, Building E, Room EJ232

Most AI planners work on the assumption that they have complete knowledge
of their problem domain and situation, so that formulating a plan really
consists of searching through some pre-packaged list of action operators
for an action sequence that achieves some desired goal.  Real life planning
rarely works this way, because we usually don't have enough information to
map out a detailed plan of action when we start out.  Instead, we initially
draw up a sketchy plan and fill in details as we proceed and gain more
exact information about the world.  This talk will present a formalism
that is expressive enough to describe this flexible planning process.

   The talk will consist of 5 (hopefully short) parts:

1. Motivation for a flexible logic of knowledge, action, and communication,
2. Discussion of Bob Moore's modal logic of knowledge and action,
   its advantages, and its limitations with respect to a robust theory
   of planning,
3. A move towards a syntactic theory of knowledge, and a discussion of the
   resulting paradoxes (esp. the Knower Paradox),
4. A solution to the Knower Paradox based on Kripke's solution to the
   Liar Paradox,
5. A solution to the problem of knowledge preconditions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Aug 1985 11:09-EDT
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - KADS Methodology for Knowledge Acquisition (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


   BBN-AI Seminar, 9 August 1985, 10.30 a.m.  10 Moulton St.,
Large Conference Room 2nd floor


   KADS: a structured methodology for knowledge acquisition

         Bob Wielinga University of Amsterdam


Current Expert System technology lacks a methodology and tools
which support a structured development of commercial Expert
Systems.  This is particularly the case for the knowledge
acquisition stage in E.S.  development.  KADS is the result of an
attempt to develop a structured methodology for knowledge
acquisition for E.S., and includes some preliminary support
tools.  The KADS methodology is based on the following
principles: 1) a decomposition of the knowledge acquisition task,
2) the use of a number of techniques for elicitation and
interpretation of verbal data, 3) the formalization of verbal
data in terms of epistemological models, independent of
implementation details, and 4) the use of generic models for
expert problem solving behaviour to guide the knowledge analysis.
The KADS methodology is being implemented in a system that will
support the knowledge engineer, both in performing the analysis
task and in the production of documentation.  In a number of case
studies KADS has been used in designing and implementing expert
systems.  A qualitative evaluation of these studies will be
presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 85 16:33:25 pdt
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallelism in Logic Programs (SU)
-BODY-
          AND/OR PARALLELISM  IN LOGIC PROGRAMS

                             by

                        Simon Kasif
               Department of Computer Science
            University of Maryland, College Park

                        MJH 352
                    Aug. 14, 1:00pm

     The separation of logic and control in  logic  programs
has  been  shown  to  allow the programmer to write declara-
tively lucid programs whose execution is determined  by  the
interpreter. This appealing characteristic of logic program-
ming spurred  research  directed  towards  diversifying  the
means  for  controlling  the execution of logic programs. In
particular, parallelism in logic programs may  be  exploited
even  when it is impossible to state a priori that two goals
may be executed concurrently, but such an opportunity may be
detected during the course of the execution.

     This talk will address the problem of AND/OR  parallel-
ism in logic programming. We  describe a computational model
for AND/OR parallel execution of logic programs.  The  model
provides  the  primitives  to  describe and analyze parallel
interpreters, emphasizing the  data-flow  among  conjunctive
goals. The effectiveness of our computational model is esta-
blished through its ability to support both old and new com-
munication  paradigms  for  the  parallel  interpretation of
logic programs.

     Several methods  to  implement  AND/OR  parallelism  in
logic  programs are investigated based on notation developed
in the model. The methods are shown to define a spectrum  of
communication  schemes,  ranging  from  the set intersection
method  where   communication  is   eliminated   altogether,
through methods based on producers-consumers, where communi-
cation is uni-directional and finally ending at  a  flexible
bi-directional  scheme  introduced  in the paper, called the
Intelligent Channel.

     The primitives that comprise the model are used to syn-
thesize  two  new  parallel interpreters: Disjunctive System
(DS) interpreters and Intelligent Channel Interpreters.  The
Intelligent  Channel is a scheme we propose to constrain the
combinatorial explosion of active processes,  and  to  elim-
inate  the  need  to maintain a separate binding environment
for every active OR-branch.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 6 Aug 85 16:07:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Carol Wright/Susie Barnes <SBARNES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System Toolkit (SU)
-BODY-
                            SIGLUNCH

DATE:              Friday,  August 9, 1985
LOCATION:          Chemistry Gazebo,  betweeen Physical and
                   Organic Chemistry
TIME:              12:05

SPEAKER:           Peter Jackson,
                   Department of Artificial Intelligence,
                   University of Edinburgh

TITLE:             A Flexible Toolkit for Building Expert Systems.


This presentation describes the progress to date of a three-year
Alvey-funded project to study, design and implement tools for building
knowledge-based systems.  The parties involved are Edinburgh University's
Department of Artificial Intelligence and GEC's Artificial Intelligence
Group at Great Baddow.  The aim of the seminar is not to present finished
work (the project is only six months old!), but rather to air our ideas and
prejudices in the hope of attracting criticism and other kinds of feedback
from the expert systems community.

Our survey of current expert systems technology has led us to believe that
neither shells such as EMYCIN (and derivatives) nor high-level programming
languages (such as LOOPS) represent the last word in expert system building
tools.  The former are generally restrictive with respect to both the
representation of knowledge and the specification of control, while the
latter present the average programmer with a bewildering array of
possibilities with little indication of how one combines different
programming styles in the construction of an expert systems architecture.
Thus, although there are groups of users for whom shells and AI programming
languages are well-suited, we feel that there is a substantial gap in the
market between the relative beginner or non-programmer, for whom the
majority of commercial shells are intended, and the veteran hacker, for and
by whom systems like LOOPS were developed.

The alternative approach that we are currently exploring can be summed up by
a number of slogans:

(1) The process of choosing a logically adequate representation language and
a heuristically adequate control regime and embedding these into a suitable
architecture should be guided by some analysis of the task one wants one's
system to perform.

(2) It is worth attempting to establish a correlation between a taxonomy of
expert systems tasks and representational schemes based on logical
languages, with respect to both the expressiveness required by the task
(e.g. modal and temporal notions, fuzziness, etc) and the control of
inference (e.g. different problem solving strategies).

(3) It is worth attempting to establish a similar correlation between tasks
and problem solving paradigms (such as ends-means analysis, hypothesize and
test, etc), with a view to helping the user decide on an architecture within
which he can embed the interpretation of this chosen logical language.

The problems we are currently considering include the following:

(1) Is it possible to provide, along with the toolkit, an abstract
architecture that can be instantiated in different ways to implement
different problem solving paradigms?

(2) Could one then embed different interpretations of different logics in
this architecture as part of the instantiation process?

(3) Could one get the behaviour associated with different problem solving
paradigms from this instantiated architecture by running the logical
language under different meta-level regimes?

(4) Will knowledge bases created for use with one instantiation of the
architecture have to be 'recompiled' for use with another instantiation?

(5) How can we help a user to make the 'right' design decisions (assuming we
know what these are)?

We feel that this research program raises a number of very difficult issues,
many of which will not be solved within the scope of the present project.
Nevertheless, we also feel that practical advances in expert systems
development ultimately depend upon theoretical issues of this kind being
addressed, however inadequately.  We still have open minds with regard to
the kinds of utility that a toolkit should provide, and are always ready to
talk to both the builders and users of tools in order to try and gain new
insights into the problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Aug 85 11:26:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Experiments with Belief Resolution (SRI)
-BODY-
                   Experiments with Belief Resolution

                  Kurt Konolige and Christophe Geissler
                              SRI AI Center

                        11:00 AM, Monday, August 12
                 SRI International, Building E, Room EJ232


In recent work, Konolige developed a resolution rule for a quantified
modal logic of belief.  However, the rule is difficult to apply in
practice, because it takes an arbitrary number of input clauses, and
some instances of the rule may subsume others.  In this talk we
describe a solution to this problem based on a generalization of
semantic attachment, that controls the growth of the search space.  We
have implemented the resulting version of belief resolution with
Stickel's first-order connection-graph theorem prover.  We present
several examples of automatic reasoning about belief using this
system, including a solution to the wise man problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 85 09:37:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RUTGERS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Purpose-Directed Analogy (Rutgers)
-BODY-

                       MACHINE LEARNING SEMINAR

Title:          Purpose-Directed Analogy**

Speaker:        Smadar Kedar-Cabelli

Date:           Monday, August 12, 11:00 AM
Place:          Hill Center, room 423

        Recent artificial intelligence models of analogical  reasoning
are based  on  mapping some  underlying  causal network  of  relations
between analogous situations.  However, causal relations relevant  for
the purpose of  one analogy may  be irrelevant for  another.  In  this
talk,  I  will   introduce  a   technique  which   uses  an   explicit
representation of the purpose of  the analogy to automatically  create
the relevant causal network.  I will illustrate the technique with two
case studies in which  concepts of everyday  artifacts are learned  by
analogy.

** This  is a  dry-run for  a talk  being presented  at the  Cognitive
Science Society Conference in Irvine, CA, August 15-17.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
105
-DATE-
Date: Wed 31 Jul 85 16:53:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Semantic Automata
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                             NEW CSLI REPORT

      Report No. CSLI-85-27, ``Semantic Automata'' by Johan van Benthem,
   has just been published.  This report may be obtained by writing to
   David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@su-csli.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Aug 85 13:16:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Newsletter from TI
-BODY-
IEEE Computer reports that:

Texas Instruments has launched the Artificial Intelligence Newsletter
to communicate the potentials, limitations, and progress of AI to
nonspecialists.  First issue presents the menu-based approach to
natural languages and AI briefs.  Available as a public service from
TI Data Systems Group, PO Box 2909, MS 2222, Austin, TX 78769;
(512) 250-6314.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 85 16:23:17 EDT
-FROM-
From: John Kastner <kastner.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers - Expert Systems for Engineering
-BODY-

                           CALL FOR PAPERS


                        IEEE COMPUTER MAGAZINE
                           SPECIAL ISSUE ON
             EXPERT SYSTEMS FOR ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS



     Contributions are  hereby solicited for this  special issue.
     To be considered, 5 copies of  a manuscript must be sent, no
     later than October 1, 1985, addressed to:

                      Se June Hong, Guest Editor
                      IEEE Computer Magazine Special Issue
                      IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
                      31-206
                      P.O. Box 218
                      Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

     Any paper that is postmarked after the date will be returned
     to the author, unprocessed.

     Further information may be  obtained by contacting the guest
     editor.

     Se June Hong
     ARPAnet: HONG.YKTVMX.IBM-SJ@CSnet-Relay
     914/945-2265

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sunday, 4 August 1985 20:55:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Two slots available in AI in Engg. Conf.
-BODY-
There  are  a  couple  of slots open in the TOOLS session of the First
International Conference on AI in Engineering, to be held in  UK  next
April. If your company's framework was used for an engineering application,
here  is  a  good  chance  to present your product. Interested parties
should send mail to me at sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa.

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 85 13:28 PDT
-FROM-
From: halko.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference : Aerospace Applications of AI
-BODY-
ACM/SIGART (Dayton, Ohio, Chapter) will hold an AI Conference Sept 16 -
19 (Registration Sept 16, Sessions 17-19) 1985.  Registration fee $225.
Address is
    AAAIC '85, Box 31250, Dayton, Ohio, 45431-0250.
    Phone  513-426-8530

While the name says "aerospace", this is because of the proximity of the
big air base there and because one or two of the sessions deals with
avionics.  Most of the sessions are applicable to AI in general:
Avionics, manufacturing, maintenance, decision support systems, expert
system building tools, programming languages, man-machine interfaces,
and new architectures.  World famous speakers are coming, such as Dr. M.
Stefik, XEROX PARC; Dr. Earl Sacerdoti, Teknowledge, Dr. M. Fox, CMU,
Prof. D. Michie, Univ of Edinburgh,  and many more.

Attendance is limited to 700 people.

Direct inquiries by mail or phone to the address above, or contact
Gerald Matthews, NCR R&D WHQ-5E, Dayton, Ohio, 45479, Phone
513-445-6054.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 85 02:48 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carl Hewitt <Hewitt@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for papers: OIS-86
-BODY-

        ******************************************************
        *                CALL FOR PAPERS                     *
        *                                                    *
        *             THIRD ACM CONFERENCE ON                *
        *       OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS: OIS-86           *
        *                                                    *
        *                October 6-8, 1986                   *
        *               Biltmore Plaza Hotel                 *
        *                  Providence, RI                    *
        ******************************************************

General Chair:  Carl Hewitt,              Program Chair:  Stanley Zdonik,
                MIT                                       Brown University

Treasurer:  Gerald Barber,                Local Arrangements: Andrea Skarra,
            Gold Hill Computers                               Brown University

An interdisciplinary conference on issues relating to office
information systems sponsored by ACM/SIGOA in cooperation with Brown
University and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Submissions from the following fields are solicited:

Anthropology                           Artificial Intelligence
Cognitive Science                      Computer Science
Economics                              Management Science
Psychology                             Sociology

Topics appropriate for this conference include (but are not restricted
to) the following:

Technologies including Display, Voice, Telecommunications, Print, etc.

Human Interfaces
                                  Deployment and Evaluation
System Design and Construction
                                  Goals and Values
Knowledge Bases and Reasoning
                                  Distributed Services and Applications
Indicators and Models
                                  Needs and Organizational Factors
Impact of Computer Integrated Manufacturing

Unpublished papers of up to 5000 words (20 double-spaced pages) are
sought.  The first page of each paper must include the following
information: title, the author's name, affiliations, complete mailing
address, telephone number and electronic mail address where
applicable, a maximum 150-words abstract of the paper, and up to five
keywords (important for the correct classification of the paper).  If
there are multiple authors, please indicate who will present the paper
at OIS-86 if the paper is accepted.  Proceeedings will be distributed
at the conference and will later be available from ACM.  Selected
papers will be published in the ACM Transactions on Office Information
Systems.

Please send eight (8) copies of the paper to:

       Prof. Stan Zdonick
       OIS-86 Program Chair
       Computer Science Department
       Brown University
       P.O. Box 1910
       Providence, RI  02912

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:   Rita Desormeau   (401) 863-3302

******************************************************************************

                            IMPORTANT DATES

     Deadline for Paper Submission:                   February 1, 1986
     Notification of Acceptance:                      April 30, 1986
     Deadline for Final Camera-Ready Copy:            July 1, 1986
     Conference Dates:                                October 6-8, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
106
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 85 01:22:57 pdt
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A new journal: MACHINE LEARNING
-BODY-

Machine Learning will publish papers on the processes through which
intelligent systems improve their performance over time, and will
cover ares such as: concept acquisition, strategy learning, language
development, reasoning by analogy, and scientific discovery.

Machine Learning will be published four times a year. Individual Rate:
$35.00, Institution Rate: $78.00.

Executive Editor: Pat Langley
Editors: Jaime Carbonell, Ryszard Michalski, Tom Mitchell

Orders to: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 190 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA 02043
           or call 617-749-5262.

First Issue: January, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 Aug 85 14:41:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge-Based Spelling Corrector
-BODY-
Those who objected to Bob Amsler's suggestion that all spelling correctors
are "knowledge-based" may be happier with Dr. Dave Fawthrop's Expert Speller.
There's a 2-page article on it in Vol. 1, No. 1, of Expert Systems User,
April 1985.  (The article is rather superficial and contains some editing
blunders, so interested readers should probably track down the true story
in "The Rules of Spelling Error" and "An Intelligent Spelling Error
Corrector" by E.J. Yannakoudakis and D. Fawthrop, Int. J. of Information
Processing and Management, 1983.)

The spelling program uses a bit-vector hash table and two slower dictionary
structures to detect misspelled words, then invokes a rule base of about
3,000 rules to predict the correct spelling.  The system contains some
knowledge of parts of speech, but bases most of its guesses on commonly-
occurring transformations of letter patterns.  I assume that suggested
corrections are looked up in the dictionaries before being offered to
the user (although I can imagine wanting to see all its hypotheses).
New words can be provided (or confirmed) during a session, so that
the program adapts itself to the specific document during the editing
session and to the user across sessions -- AI learning in the best tradition.

The probabilities of different transformations were adaptively
adjusted (at a cost of 250,000 pounds in computer time) for the best
correction performance, and Dr. Fawthrop makes the point that the
system now knows more than he does about correction probabilities.
(The system cannot "explain its reasoning", since no human is able
to "understand" the true explanation.)

The program is written in Fortran77, and runs mainly on Unix systems.
The article didn't supply an address.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 85 15:11 PDT
-FROM-
From: Ghenis.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System definition
-BODY-

I think it was Roger Schank that said "If it can't learn, it isn't AI".
In a nutshell, I think the main thing that distinguishes a true ES from
the hypothetical FORTRAN program mentioned earlier is that knowledge
isn't hard-coded and can be added at run time, becoming immediately
useful both for inferences and explanations.

This highlights the difference in architectures: separation of inference
engine and knowledge base (knowledge=rules+facts) should be considered
an essential part of the definition of ES or KBS, so add "DYNAMIC
KNOWLEDGE BASE" to "perform tasks requiring expertise" and "ability to
explain".  By the way, the ability to gracefully expose and resolve
knowledge base inconsistencies is also highly desirable in any system
with a dynamic KB, hopefully with a precedence mechanism and/or
weighting and/or consulting a human being when all else fails.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 85 15:12 PDT
-FROM-
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Definition
-BODY-
I believe that the term "expert system" is best thought of as a process,
rather than a thing; that is, it is a way of building programs rather
than something that a program can be. In this light, most of the thorny
issues that arise in trying to decide whether a program is or is not an
"expert system" become much clearer.

The "expert system" programming methodolgy has some simple
characteristics:

* An expert is involved in the construction of the program.
* The knowledge of the expert is couched within a representation
framework in which the objects of the domain and the relations between
them are explicitly represented.
* The expert is involved in refinement of the program after its initial
construction.

To answer the question "is this FORTRAN program an expert system", you
have to know "how did it get built?" and "how would you add more
knowledge to it?"

The various AI languages and systems make writing expert systems much
easier; that's their advantage.  However, their use is not criterial:
writing it in OPS-5 doesn't make it an expert system, and not all expert
systems are written using "expert system tools."

Rule-based programming is one mechanism for encoding knowledge, but its
use isn't criterial either: there are rule-based programs that are
trivial (the microprocessors that control traffic lights, for example),
and there are "expert systems" that do not use a rule-based paradigm for
performing inference.

Generally, experts aren't programmers, and their knowledge of their
field isn't explicit. The process of producing domain-descriptions and
rules usually involves running the system against test cases and
debugging the results. "Explaination facilities" are very helpful in
that debugging process, in localizing where the procedure has gone
wrong. It seems to be an important part of the development tools for the
expert-system methodology, even if it plays no part in final application.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 07 Aug 85 18:01:34 PDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Sanjai Narain <narain@rand-unix.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is an expert system
-BODY-

Wyland is absolutely right in encouraging the asking of simple questions.
I think many more simple questions need to be asked in AI.

According to him an expert system is a program which can not only do
reasoning but also explanation. I believe this definition is a special
case of a more general one:

        Given some fixed amount of knowledge think of the various ways in
        which  an (intelligent) human could use it.  If a program
        possessing the same knowledge could also use it in similar ways
        then it could be said to behave intelligently.

For example, when a human has medical knowledge, his intelligence allows
him to do diagnosis, to explain his diagnosis as well as to determine
whether a new piece of knowledge conflicts with something he already
knows. So, if a program which has medical knowledge can also do
diagnosis, explanation and integrity checking, it could reasonably be
regarded as intelligent.

Conversely, even though common word processing software allegedly "knows"
about letters, words, sentences, lines, paragraphs it could hardly be
expected to determine whether a sentence is well formed, or whether the
numbering scheme for sections is consistent throughout the text. Such
functions are normally associated with a competent copy editor.

It is quite hard to obtain flexibility of use of knowledge in procedural
languages. So, most software written in such languages can only be used
in a rigidly defined set of ways, and so is not considered intelligent.

Not surprisingly then, a central concern of AI is developing maximally
flexible representations of knowledge so it can be used in a great
diversity of ways.

>- Sanjai Narain

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 1985 07:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: JWOLFE@USC-ECLB
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KNOWLEDGE SYSTEM DEFINITION
-BODY-
     I read your comments on a definition of expert systems.
I think the views you express are useful and sorely needed.
If AI is to succeed, then it is necessary to precisely define
the terms used within the discipline.
     However, I do have one comment. The discussion I read
differentiated between a "true" expert system and a simple
FORTRAN program with a sequence of IF...THEN statements by
asserting that the expert system could explain its conclusions
in terms of the rules used to derive those conclusions.
Furthermore, there was a qualification that the expert system
merely had to have the potential of explaining itself and that
it was not necessary that the explanation mechanism be
implemented. I submit that the distinction is artificial in that
the FORTRAN program could easily implement an explanation
mechanism via a stack. In my opinion, the definition of
expert system should require that the explanation mechanism
be implemented or drop the requirement altogether.
     Perhaps another distinction would be the degree of
separation between the knowledge specific data and the
reasoning mechanism. This would exclude programs in which
the knowledge was totally embedded in the program code. I
don't believe the distinction is wholy satisfactory since all
but the most trivial systems have some knowledge embedded
in the program in order to gain performance. The line at
which a system is or is not an expert system becomes fuzzy.
     Thank you again for sharing your views with the community.
I hope to hear from you.
                          Jim Wolfe
                          JWOLFE@USC-ECLB.ARPA
               (usual disclaimers apply)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 Aug 85 09:53:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Definition
-BODY-
        Thank you for your comments.  I should have been more
precise when I said that it was not necessary to implement the
explanation mechanism, since I used it as the essential
ingredient of the definition of an expert system.

        I agree with you that for a program to be an expert
system, the explanation mechanism is required.  There is a
marginal case of an expert system where the explanation mechanism
has been implemented but is removed or disabled in the
application environment, as in a real-time pilot advisor or
process control program.  However, the clearest definition of an
expert system would allow only systems that had the explanation
mechanism implemented, but not necessarily used (i.e., it could
be disabled).  Otherwise, the definition is void since "any" rule
based system has the "potential" for the addition of an
explanation mechanism - i.e., "....the FORTRAN program could
easily implement an explanation mechanism via a stack."

        I like the definition of an expert system as a "decision
system which can explain its decisions" because it is functional
and objective.  Using this definition, other characteristics
associated with expert systems - such as the degree of separation
between the knowledge data and the reasoning mechanism and/or the
amount of knowledge embedded in the code - become design topics
on how to implement a system that meets the definition rather
than part of the definition itself.  This is good because - as
you pointed out - topics like "separation between the knowledge
base and the reasoning mechanism" are a matter of degree and are
subjective in that design/artistic judgement is involved in their
evaluation.

        Thank you again for helping to further clarify the
discussion.  I hope we can keep in touch.

Dave Wyland
WYLAND@SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 9 August 1985 03:39:57 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Discussion on Expert Systems Definition
-BODY-
Although  the  ability to explain things is one of the characteristics
of an Expert, only classification-type expert systems (ES)  have  this
feature.    These systems explain their actions by providing the rules
that have been used or being used in that context. However, a majority
of ES (or the so-called ES), such as R1, in the  market  do  not  have
this feature.

The main difference (with conventional languages) I see is the ease of
programming  with  rules. Try implementing the code provided by Wyland
in a conventional programming language. It may take you at least 1  to
2  hrs, while one could do the same in a rule-based framework in 10-15
minutes, assuming familiarity with the tool. The ES frameworks provide
a neat programming methodology for incorporating heuristic  knowledge.
Also, the completeness, uniqueness, and proper sequencing criteria,
required of many conventional languages can be relaxed in an ES envir-
onment.

Any Comments ==> AILIST

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
107
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 85 22:54:01 pdt
-FROM-
From: naomi@playfair (naomi altman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert System for Statistical Application (SU)
-BODY-

Laboratory for Computational Statistics Seminar
3:15pm, Friday Aug 9,  1985
in Sequoia 114


       AN EXPERT SYSTEM OF STATISTICAL APPLICATION
               Knut M. Wittkowski
    University of Tubingen, Department of Medical Biometry

Most structural information on statistical data (number and hierarchy of
factors, sampling strategy, scale types) are neglected by common statistical
data base management systems.  The wealth of methods currently available
in modern statistical program packages, consequently, often leads to
erroneous applications of statistical methods.
It is demonstrated, how an expert system can facilitate the use
of statistical analysis systems by means of intelligent dialogue
techniques based on knowledge of structural information and help to avoid
erroneous applications of statistical (graphical or analytical) methods.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 09 Aug 85 10:14:08 PDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Sanjai Narain <narain@rand-unix.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Prolog (Rand)
-BODY-

                      THE EXPRESSIVE POWER OF PROLOG

                              Peter Schmitt
                      IBM, Heidelberg, West Germany

                                2:00 p.m.
                         Tuesday, August 13, 1985
                       Rand Corporation, Room 2760

This talk is concerned with the foundations of logic programming.  In
particular, completeness results and insufficiencies of PROLOG are
discussed including questions of search strategy, occur check and
negation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 85 10:47:14 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The PRISM Expert System (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the IBM-SJ Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                    IBM San Jose Research Lab
                         5600 Cottle Road
                        San Jose, CA 95193

Thur., Aug. 15 Computer Science Seminar
10:00 A.M.     PRISM - AN EXPERT SYSTEM
Auditorium     While the expert system has been developed as a
               knowledge acquisition and delivery vehicle by
               the AI researchers, it has evolved to be a
               practical software development productivity
               tool.  PRISM is an expert system prototype
               developed at the Palo Alto Scientific Center and
               has been available for application development
               for more than a year to internal users and
               university study partners.  Recently, IBM
               announced its first expert system product,
               Expert System Environment/VM, based on PRISM.
               This talk will begin with an introduction to the
               expert system technology:  its basic
               architecture, knowledge representation and
               inferencing, the interrelationship among the
               application domain expert, the knowledge
               engineer, and the client.  The difference
               between the traditional application programming
               and the expert system approach will be
               emphasized.  The second half of the talk will
               describe the product and some projects and
               applications using the PRISM technology.

               F. C. Tung, IBM Palo Alto Scientific Center
               Host:  K. Wong

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 85 10:47:14 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM San Jose Research Laboratory Calendar
     <calendar%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallelism in Logic Programs (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the IBM-SJ Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                    IBM San Jose Research Lab
                         5600 Cottle Road
                        San Jose, CA 95193

 Fri., Aug. 16 Computer Science Seminar
 2:00 P.M.     PARALLELISM IN LOGIC PROGRAMS
 Aud. A        The separation of logic and control in logic
               programs has been shown to allow the programmer
               to write declaratively lucid programs whose
               execution is determined by the interpreter.
               This appealing characteristic of logic
               programming spurred research directed towards
               diversifying the means for controlling the
               execution of logic programs.  In particular,
               parallelism in logic programs may be exploited
               even when it is impossible to state a priori
               that two goals may be executed concurrently, but
               such an opportunity may be detected during the
               course of the execution.  This talk will address
               the problem of and/or parallelism in logic
               programming.  We describe a computational model
               for and/or parallel execution of logic programs.
               The model provides the primitives to describe
               and analyze parallel interpreters, emphasizing
               the data-flow among conjunctive goals.  The
               effectiveness of our computational model is
               established through its ability to support both
               old and new communication paradigms for the
               parallel interpretation of logic programs.

               Prof. S. Kasif, Department of Computer Science,
                 University of Maryland, College Park
               Host:  P. Lucas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 August 1985 1700-EDT
-FROM-
From: Roger Dannenberg@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computer Music Expert System (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Marilyn Taft Thomas (Music Department) and I will each present a
short talk on Monday, August 12, from 3:30PM to 4:30PM in WeH 4623.
        Dr. Thomas's talk is: "Vivace: A Rule-Based AI System for
Composition".  Vivace composes 4-part chorales in the style of Bach.
Sound examples of Vivace compositions will be performed.
        My talk is "Real-Time Computer Accompaniment of Keyboard
Performance" and is based on a paper co-authored with Joshua Bloch.
The talk will cover the application of dynamic programming to on-line
pattern matching of polyphonic music, and heuristics for musical
accompaniment.  A video-tape of our system will be shown.
        Both talks will be presented in a few weeks at the 1985
International Computer Music Conference.  We hope to receive
constructive criticism on our presentations as well as to share our
latest results.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Aug 85 13:39:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Foundations of AI
-BODY-

>From CACM, August 1985:

The AAAI and the Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University,
are sponsoring a Workshop on the Foundations of AI, February 6-8, 1986,
in Las Cruces, NM.  Papers dealing with the following three topics are
sought: relationships between foundations and working programs;
relationships between AI and other disciplines; and philosophical, logical,
and theoretical foundations of AI.  Three copies of a paper (maximum
2000 words) should be submitted by September 1 to Derek Partridge,
Computing Research Laboratory, NMSU, Las Cruces, NM 88003.  Authors are
to be notified by November 1.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
108
-DATE-
Date: 12 Aug 1985 1811-PDT
-FROM-
From: GRANGER%UCI-20A@UCI-ICSA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 7th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society,
-BODY-           15-17 Aug.

  Though it's the last minute, I'm sending a copy of the program for
the upcoming seventh annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
The conference runs 15-17 August (immediately before ijcai), and
contains much that may be of interest to the Artificial Intelligentsia.
Anyone who is interested in coming down for this conference, can show
up and register at the door; dorm rooms are available on the campus,
and hotel rooms are available at the Sheraton Hotel in Newport Beach.
The conference is being held on the campus of the University of
California, Irvine, which is about 40 miles south of Los Angeles,
adjoining Newport Beach.  There are currently about 400 preregistered
participants.
>Rick Granger (Granger@UCI)

========================================================================
Thursday 15 August 1985

7:30am-8:45am   Breakfast [Mesa Court Cafeteria]

8:45am-10:15am  Invited Address
Shimon Ullman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:15am-10:30am Break

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session I [Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:30am-10:55am
Symmetry Detection and the Perceived Orientation of Simple Plane
Polygons
Paul Kube, University of California, Berkeley

10:55am-11:20am
Variations on Parts and Wholes: Information Precedence vs. Global
Precedence
Marc M. Sebrechts, Wesleyan University
John J. Fragala, Wesleyan University



11:20am-11:45am
The Neural Locus of Mental Image Generation: Converging Evidence
from Brain-Damaged and
Normal Subjects
Martha J. Farah, Carnegie-Mellon University

11:45am-12:10pm
A Developmental Neural Model of Word Perception
Richard M. Golden, Brown University

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session II [Concert Hall]

10:30am-10:55am
A Computer Model of the Neural Substrates
of Classical Conditioning in the Aplysia
Mark A. Gluck, Stanford University
Richard F. Thompson, Stanford University

10:55am-11:20am
Structural Learning in Connectionist Systems
Andrew G. Barto, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Charles W. Anderson, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

11:20am-11:45am
The Learning of World Models by Connectionist Networks
Richard S. Sutton, GTE Laboratories
Brian Pinette, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

11:45am-12:10pm
Learning Salience Among Features Through Contingency in the
CEL Framework
Richard H. Granger, University of California, Irvine
Jeffrey C. Schlimmer, University of California, Irvine

12:10pm-2:00pm  Lunch Break [Mesa Court]

2:00pm-4:45pm   Invited Symposium I

Attention in Early Visual Processing
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

Anne Treisman, University of British Columbia
Michael Posner, University of Oregon
David LaBerge, University of California, Irvine
Francis Crick, The Salk Institute
Daniel Kahneman, University of British Columbia
Shimon Ullman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

4:45pm-7:00pm   Dinner Break [Mesa Court]

7:00pm-11:00pm  Poster Session and Reception
[University Club]
(List of poster presentations at end of program)

Friday 16 August 1985

8:45am-10:15am  Invited Address:
Allen Newell, Carnegie-Mellon University
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:15am-10:30am Break

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session III [Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:30am-11:20am
Bounded Irrationality: The Psychology of Incoherence
(paper not published in the proceedings)
Daniel Kahneman, University of British Columbia

11:20am-11:45am
Component Models of Physical Systems
Allan Collins, Bolt Beranek and Newman

11:45am-12:10pm
Temporal Notation and Causal Terminology
Yoav Shoham, Yale University
Thomas Dean, Yale University

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session IV [Concert Hall]

10:30am-10:55am
Story Telling and Generalization
Michael Lebowitz, Columbia University

10:55am-11:20am
MULTIPAR: A Robust Entity-Oriented Parser
Jill Fain, Carnegie-Mellon University
Jaime G. Carbonell, Carnegie-Mellon University
Philip J. Hayes, Carnegie-Mellon University
Steven N. Minton, Carnegie-Mellon University

11:20am-11:45am
Towards a Computational Theory of Human Daydreaming
Erik T. Mueller, University of California, Los Angeles
Michael G. Dyer, University of California, Los Angeles

11:45am-12:10pm
Integrating Marker-Passing and Problem Solving
James A. Hendler,  Brown University

12:10pm-2:00pm  Lunch Break [Mesa Court]

2:00pm-4:45pm   Invited Symposium II

Integrated Empirical Models of Learning and Memory
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

Paul Rosenbloom, Stanford University
Gary Lynch, University of California, Irvine
Pat Langley, University of California, Irvine
Jaime Carbonell, Carnegie-Mellon University
David Rumelhart, University of California, San Diego

4:45pm-5:30pm   Reception [University Club]

5:30pm-7:30pm   Banquet [University Club]

7:30pm-9:00pm   Invited Address

Endel Tulving, University of Toronto
[University Club]

9:00pm-12:00mid Reception [University Club]

Saturday 17 August 1985

8:45am-10:15am  Invited Address:

Roger Schank, Yale University
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:15am-10:30am Break

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session V [Fine Arts Village Theater]

10:30am-10:55am
The Evolution of Knowledge Representations with Increasing
Expertise in Using Systems
Dana S. Kay, Yale University
John B. Black, Teachers College, Columbia University

10:55am-11:20am
Purpose-Directed Analogy
Smadar Kedar-Cabelli, Rutgers University

11:20am-11:45am
Learning Concrete Strategies Through Interaction
R.W. Lawler, GTE Laboratories
Oliver G. Selfridge, GTE Laboratories

11:45am-12:10pm
Failure-Driven Acquisition of Figurative Phrases by Second
Language Speakers
Uri Zernik, University of California, Los Angeles
Michael G. Dyer, University of California, Los Angeles

10:30am-12:10pm Paper Session VI [Concert Hall]

10:30am-10:55am
Two Kinds of Feature? A Test of Two Theories of Typicality Effects
in Natural Language
Categories
Robin A. Barr, Ball State University
Leslie J. Caplan, Ball State University

10:55am-11:20am
Empirical Evidence for a Global Workspace Theory of Voluntary Control
Bernard J. Baars, University of California, San Francisco

11:20am-11:45am
Connectionist Parsing
Garrison W. Cottrell, University of Rochester

11:45am-12:10pm
A Rule-Based Connectionist Parsing System
Bart Selman, University of Toronto
Graeme Hirst, University of Toronto

12:10pm-2:00pm  Lunch Break [Mesa Court]

1:00pm-2:00pm   Business Meeting of the Society [Mesa Court]

2:00pm-4:45pm   Invited Symposium III

Syntactic Language Processing
[Fine Arts Village Theater]

Robert Berwick, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lyn Frazier, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Howard Kurtzman, University of California, Irvine
Eric Wehrli, University of California, Los Angeles
Ken Wexler, University of California, Irvine

4:45pm-5:30pm   Farewell Reception [Mesa Court]


Poster Presentations

7:00pm-11:00pm
Thursday, 15 August
[University Club]

Adaptive Planning: Refitting Old Plans to New Situations,
Richard Alterman, University of California, Berkeley
Memory Representation and Retrieval for Editorial Comprehension,
Sergio J. Alvarado, Michael G. Dyer, and Margot Flowers,
University of California, Los
Angeles

Analogy Recognition and Comprehension in Editorials,
Stephanie E. August and
Michael G. Dyer, University of California, Los Angeles

Investigations of Information Utilization during Fixations in
Reading,
Harry E. Blanchard, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign

Two Endorsement-based Approaches to Reasoning About Uncertainty,
Paul R. Cohen, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Teleology + Bugs = Explanations,
Gregg C. Collins, Yale University

A Model for Understanding the Points of Stories,
Marcy Dorfman, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

A Framework for Concept Formation,
J. Daniel Easterlin and Pat
Langley, University of California, Irvine

The Problem of Existence,
Kenneth D. Forbus,
University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign

Cross-Mapped Analogies: Pitting Systematiciy Aganist Spurious
Similarity,
Dedre Gentner, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign;
Cecile Toupin, University
of
California, Berkeley

Information, Uncertainty, and the Utility of Categories,
Mark A. Gluck,
Stanford University; James E. Corter, Columbia University

A Model of Question Answering,
Arthur C. Graesser, Memphis State University;
George Vamos, University of Southern
California; David Koizumi, C. Scott
Elofson,
California State University, Fullerton

The Time Course of Anaphora Resolution,
Raymonde Guindon, Microelectronics
and Computer Technology Corporation

Using a Computational Model of Language Acquisition to Address
Questions in Linguistic
Inquiry,
Jane Hill, Smith College

A Model of Acquiring Problem Solving Expertise,
Dennis Kibler and
Rogers P. Hall, University of California, Irvine

Creating and Comprehending Arguments,
Stuart M. McGuigan,
Yale University; John B. Black, Teachers College, Columbia University

Levels of Goal Direction and the Causes of Learning,
Dale M. McNulty,
University of California, Irvine

Connectionist Learning in Real Time: Sutton-Barto Adaptive Element
and Classical
Conditioning of the Nictitating Membrane Response,
J.W. Moore, J.E. Desmond, N.E. Berthier, D.E.J. Blazis, R.S. Sutton,
A.G. Barto,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Explanation and Generalization Based Memory,
Michael J. Pazzani,
University of California, Los Angeles and The Aerospace Corporation

Bayesian Networks: A Model of Self-Activated Memory for Evidential
Reasoning,
Judea Pearl, University of California, Los Angeles

Expert Variance: Differences in Solving a Dynamic Engineering
Problem,
Michael Prietula and Frank Marchak, Dartmouth College

Machine Understanding and Data Abstraction in Searle's Chinese Room,
William J. Rapaport, University of Buffalo

Toward a Unified Model of Deception,
Donald D. Rose, University
of California, Irvine

Building a Computer Model of Learning Classical Mechanics,
Jude W. Shavlik and Gerald F. DeJong, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign

Persuasive Argumentation in Resolution of Collective Bargaining
Impasses,
Katia Sycara-Cyranski, Georgia Institute of Technology

The Interaction of Lexical Expectation and Pragmatics in
Parsing Filler-Gap Constructions,
Michael K. Tanenhaus and
Laurie A. Stowe,
University of Rochester; Greg Carlson,
Wayne State University

Predicting Conversational Reports of a Personal Event,
Yvette
J. Tenney, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Thematic Knowledge, Episodic Memory and Analogy in MINSTREL, A
Story Invention
System,
Scott R. Turner and Michael G. Dyer,
University of California, Los Angeles

Spatial Inferences and Discourse Comprehension,
Karl F. Wender and
Monika Wagener, Technische Universitat Braunschweig

Cognitive Processing Strategies for Complex Addition,
Keith F. Widaman, David C. Geary, Pierre Cormier, Todd D. Little,
University of California,
Riverside

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
109
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 85 10:53:02 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: need phone numbers...
-BODY-

Could some one please give me the PHONE-NUMBERS and E_MAIL_ADDRESSes
of:                               =============     ================

        1. Dr. Elliot Solloway, YALE
        2. Dr. Michalski (machine Learning book)
        3. Dr. Lewis Johnson, (author of PROUST, ICAI-system
                               Ph.D. Thesis at YALE.)

Thanks very very much in advance.

> Raj Doshi
  Grad Student, University Of Minnesota.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1985  18:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: JIN%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Workstations
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

A friend of mine at Stanford CAD group is trying to choose a lisp machine
for his lab.  The candidates are: 3600, TI, Dandelion, and Tektronix.
If you know any pros and cons or any literature comparing these machines,
let me know.  I would appreciate it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Aug 1985 01:43-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Report Aug 1985
-BODY-
Summary of Artificial Intelligence Report, Volume 2, No. 8
August 1985

o - Evaluation of Five Commercial Expert Systems Tools
    related to "Evaluating the Existing Tools for Developing
    Knowledge-Based Systems: by Mark H. Richer, Knowledge Systems
    Laboratory, Stanford University, Report NO. KSL 85-19
o - General Motors and the Unversity of Michigan have formed
    a Center for Machine Intelligence headed by Lynn Conway
o - Proctor and Gamble and NYNEX have invested 3 million and 4
    million in Teknowledge respectively
o - Ted Harnett is now President and CEO of Quintus.  He was
    previously at Micro Focus
o - announcement of MacKit for writing expert systems on
    Macintoshes
o - Kurzweill has announced production and marketing of a speech
    recognizer with a vocabulary of 1000 words
o - Sperry - TI deal
o - The Geneval Laboratories of Battelle Memorial Institute
    have completed a 2000 page survey of computer vision
    hardware
o - Announcement of index to Scientific Data Link's
    AI memos
o - bibliography by Harry Llull

Review of:

%A Paul Harmon
%A David King
%T Expert Systems: Artificial Intelligence in Business
%I John Wiley & Sons

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 1985 02:25-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A Christine McGeever
%T Symantec Ships Its First Product
%J InfoWorld
%D JUL 22, 1985
%V 7
%N 29
%P 20
%K Gary Hendrix Symantec
%X Symantec, a company promising a significant AI product and which
has hired Gary Hendrix, has shipped its first product.  That product
is a Lotus 1-2-3 which has nothing to do with AI.  The "blockbuster"
AI product is still planned.

%T Teknowledge Gets $4M Cash Infusion
%J Electronic News
%D JUL 22, 1985
%V 31
%N 1559
%P 31
%K Proctor and Gamble
%X Proctor and Gamble has invested 4 million dollars for Teknowledge in
exchange for slightly more than 10 per cent ownership.

%A Barbara Kellam-Scott
%T Harvard Law School Computerizes the Paper Chase
%J Hardcopy
%D JUL 1985
%P 19
%V 14
%N 7
%K DEC
%X Harvard Law School is automating their Legal Services Clinics.
They have plans to include an expert system to assist lawyers in
handling these cases.  Digital Equipment has contributed to this program.

%A Clara Y. Cuadrado
%A John L. Cuadrado
%T Prolog Goes to Work
%J MAG4
%P 151-159
%K Symbolics Al Despain Yale Patt Berkely
%X Al Despain and Yale Patt of Berkeley have achieved 425,000 LIPS using
a custom designed processor.  Symbolics has achieved 100,000 LIPS using
custom microcode. Discusses general issues of Prolog in the contex of
a maze traversing system.  Also discusses the Japanese Fifth Generation
project.

%T Book Reviews
%J MAG4
%X reviews of J. R. Ennals, Beginning Micro-Prolog and K. L. Clark and
F. G. McCabe's Micro-Prolog Programming
%P 49-60

%A Robert Kowalski
%T Logic Programming
%J MAG4
%P 161-177
%K Prolog
%X general article on prolog, similar to other articles on the same
subject by the same author appearing in other publications.

%T Programming Environment with AI Module
%J MAG1
%P 386
%X Commodore 64 Superforth Parsec Research
%K Describes Superforth 64 + AI, a system to allow you to write expert
systems on the Commordore 64.  It supports antecedent and consequent
reasoning

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Aug 1985 02:20-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: bibliography
-BODY-
These definitions are used for this AI bibliography and for
the next submission which covers computer vision/ robotics
articles.

  [I have passed the vision bibliography on to
  Vision-List@AIDS-UNIX.  AIList readers can get a
  copy from AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA, or by FTPing
  file <ailist>vision.bib on SRI-AI.  -- KIL]


D MAG2 International Journal of Robotics Research\
%V 3\
%N 4\
%D Winter 1984
D MAG3 Journal of Mechanism, Transmission and Automation in Design\
%V 107\
%N 1 Special Issue\
%D MAR 1985
D BOOK14 Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision: Proceedings of the
Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
%D NOV 5-8 1984\
%E D. P. Casasent\
%E E. L. Hall
D MAG3X Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing\
%V 2\
%N 1\
%D FEB 1985
D MAG4 Byte\
%V 10\
%N 8\
%D AUG 1985
D MAG5 Industrial and Process Control Magazine\
%V 58\
%N 3\
%D MAR 1985
D MAG6 Aerospace America\
%V 23\
%N 4\
%D APR 1985
D MAG7 Computer Design\
%V 24\
%N 3\
%D MAR 1985
D MAG8 Manufacturing Engineering\
%V 94\
%N 4\
%D APR 1985

bib bibliography entries:

____________________________________________________________________________


%A J. A. Reggia
%A B. T. Pericone
%A D. S. Nau
%A Y. Peng
%T Answer Justification in Diagnostic Systems 1. Abductive Inference and its
Justification
%J IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
%V 32
%N 4
%D 85
%P 263

%A J. A. Reggia
%A B. T. Pericone
%A D. S. Nau
%A Y. Peng
%T Answer Justification in Diagnostic Systems 2. Supporting Plausible
Justifications
%J IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
%V 32
%N 4
%D 85
%P 268

%A K. Marik
%T Customers Requirements of Natural Language Systems
%J International Journal of Man-Machine Stuides
%V 21
%N 5
%D NOV 84
%P 401

%A Stephen W. Oxman
%T Expert Systems Represent Ultimate Goal of Strategic Decision Making
%J Data Management
%V 23
%N 4
%D APR 1985
%P 36

%A J. R. Ennals
%T Beginning Micro-Prolog
%I Harper & Row
%C New York
%D 1984
%X $15.95

%A K. L. Clark
%T Micro-Prolog: Programming in Logic
%I Prentice-Hall
%C Englewood Cliffs, NJ
%D 1984
%X $18.95

%A Tim Johnson
%T Natural Language Computing: The Commercial Applications
%I Ovum Ltd
%C London
%X Price $395.00

%A Ahrens, U.
%A Schmidt, U.
%T Advanced Programming Process for Industrial Robots
%J Industrie-Anzeiger
%V 106
%N 103/104
%D Dec. 28, 1984
%P 42-43

%A F. Bouille
%T The 'HBDS' Database Model Kernel of a Structured Data
Base System.  Making Databases Work
%J IEEE Proceedings of Trends and Applications
%D 1984
%P 324-331

%A M. B. Cooper
%A A. L. Kidd
%T A Man-Machine Interface for an Expert System
%J British Telecom Technology Journal
%V 3
%N 1
%D JAN 1984
%P 112-115

%T Development Tool Debuts
%J Computer World
%V 19
%N 11
%D MAR 18, 1985
%P 49

%A R. Goering
%T Do-It-Yourself Development Tools Speed AI Applications
%J Computer Design
%V 23
%N 14
%D DEC 1984
%P 29-32+

%A T. Huggins
%T AI Systems Made Simple
%J Informatics
%V 6
%N 1
%D JAN 1984
%P 11-13

%A P. Hunter
%T User Shells Sets Experts Wrangling
%J ComputerWeekly
%N 949
%D FEB 7, 1985
%P 28

%A V. P. Kobler
%T Overview of Tools For Knowledge Base Construction
%J International Conference on Data Engineering
%I IEEE
%C Los Angeles, Ca
%D 1984
%P 282-285

%A J. R. Lineback
%T Lisp Machine Provides a Shell for Industrial AI Applicaitgons In One of
First Expert Systems To Go To Work
%J Electronics Week
%V 57
%N 2
%D 1984
%P 33

%A C. Maioli et al.
%T Prototypes of Expert Systems for a Friendly Man Machine Interaction.
User Termianls for Information/Communication Systems
%J 31st International Congress on Electronics.  Proceedings
%D 1984
%P 35-42

%A A. Mehta
%T ICL Claims Its Shell Cracks Expert Problem
%J ComputerWeekly
%N 943
%D DEC 13, 1984
%P 10

%A M. Merry
%T Apex-3: An Expert System Shell for Fault-Diagnosis
%J GEC Journal of Research
%V 1
%N 1
%D 1983
%P 39-47

%A W. Rauch-Hindin
%T AI Tool on PC bridges Expert to Novice Gap
%J Systems and Software
%V 3
%N 7
%D JUL 1984
%P 42+

%A S. E. Savory
%T An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence with a Description
of the Tool System, 'Twice'
%J COMPAS 1984 Software as a Prduct
%P 1057-1064

%A M. Schindler
%T PC Software Tool Designs Small Expert Systems for Any Field
%J Electronic Design
%V 32
%N 12
%D JUN 14, 1984
%P 42-44

%A M. Schindler
%T Expert Systems
%J Electronic Design
%V 33
%N 1
%D JAN 10, 1985
%P 112-114

%A M. STephens
%A K. Whitehead
%T The 'Analyst,' An Expert Systems Approach to Requirements
Analyst
%J European Seminar on Industrial Software Engineering and the European
Workshop on Industrial Computer Systems. Proceedings
%
D 1984
%P 189-206

%T TI announces Expert System Software Tool
%J Computerworld
%V 18
%N 32
%D AUG 6, 1984
%P 59+

%A R. S. Wall
%T Industrial Strength Knowledge Representation
%J Third Annual International Phoenix Conference on Computers and
Communications Proceedings
%I IEEE
%C Phoenix
%D 1984
%P 6-10

%A R. C. Waters
%T The Programmer's Apprentice: Knowledge-Based Program Editor
%J Mini/Micro Northeast Computer Conference and exhibition
%D 1984

%A Anthony J. Frisai
%T AI Market Prospects are Good
%J MAG5
%P 41

%A Dr. Richard A. Herrod
%A Barbara Papas
%T Artificial Intelligence Moves Into Industrial and Process Control
%J MAG5
%P 45

%T I&CS Guide to AI Products
%J MAG5
%P 50

%A Thomas E. Murphy
%T Setting Up an Expert System
%J MAG5
%P 54

%A A. C. Buffalano
%T Expert Systems for the Military
%J MAG6
%P 40

%A P. G. Freck
%A R. P. Bonasso
%T Drawing a Clear Picture of the Battlefield
%J MAG6
%P 46

%A S. A. Vere
%T Deviser- An AI Planner for Spacecraft Operations
%J MAG6
%P 50

%A D. I. Smith
%T CATS Precursor to Aerospace Expert Systems
%J MAG6
%P 54

%A L. V. Filosofov
%T Dynamic Recognition with Internal Instruction
%J Engineering Cybernetics
%V 22
%N 3
%D MAY-JUN 1984
%P 134

%A N. Mokhoff
%T AI Techniques Aim to Ease VLSI Design
%J MAG7
%P 33
%K AIENG

%A H. J. HIndin
%A S. F. Shapiro
%T Speech Recognition Produces Natural Interface
%J MAG7
%P 59

%A Z. L. Rabinovich
%T Machine Intelligence and Fifth Generation Computer Structures
%J Cybernetics
%V 20
%N 3
%D MAY-JUN 1985
%P 426

%A W. Dilger
%A W. Womannn
%T The METANET: A Means for the Specification of Semantic Networks as
Abstract Datatypes
%J International Journal of Man-Machine Studies
%V 21
%N 6
%D DEC 1984
%P 463

%A Michael B. First
%A Lynn J. Soffer
%A Randolph A. Miher
%T QUICK (quick Index to Caduceus Knowledge) Using the
Internish/Cadaceus Knowledge Base as an Electronic Textbook of
Medicine
%J Computers and Biomedical Research
%V 18
%N 2
%D APR 1985
%P 137

%A Bernard Huet
%T Semantic Modelling of Biological Sub-Systems by a Multilevel Control
Structure Concept
%J Kybernetes
%V 14
%N 2
%D 1985
%P 93

%A J. A. Chester
%T Artificial Intelligence-Is MIS Ready for the Explosion
%J Infosystems
%V 32
%N 4
%D APR 1985
%P 74

%A R. K. MIller
%T Artificial Intelligence - A New Tool for Manufacturing
%J MAG8
%P 56
%K AIENG

%A R. P. Bergstrom
%T AI - Fad with a Future
%J MAG8
%P 65

%A Susan Walton
%T Fighting Fire with Computers
%T Technology Review
%V 88
%N 6
%P 68-69
%D AUG/SEP 1985
%K forestry forest fires
%X describes an expert system in a portable computer which is used
to help fire fighters in determining how to fight forest fires.
This system has been used to settle a law suit in Australia, to
determine the appropriate amount of staffing for fire
systems and has successfully predicted the area where a fire
will occur and its path and duration of travel.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
110
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 Aug 85 09:28:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Master Bibliography
-BODY-
        I suspect that I am not the only one reading this BB who finds some
of the submissions less than completely understandable due to lacunae in my
own background.  Hence a suggestion:  Would it make sense to establish and
maintain a bibliography (hopefully annotated), whose existence and address
would be mentioned in the header of the AIList Digest?  Then when someone
like myself wanted to understand more, he or she could FTP a copy of the
bibliography and with a little study, at least understand the terminology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 85 07:59:12 edt
-FROM-
From: Martin Lee Schoffstall
     <schoff%rpics-zen%rpi.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ops5 for symbolics
-BODY-

does anyone have any pointers to an OPS5 for the symbolics3600?

thanks,

marty schoffstall
schoff%rpics.csnet@csnet-relay  ARPA
schoff@rpics                    CSNET
seismo!rpics!schoff             UUCP
martin_schoffstall@TROY.NY.USA.NA.EARTH.SOL     UNIVERSENET

RPI
Computer Science Department
Troy, NY  12180
(518) 271-2654

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 85 15:28:07 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: want address of JPL...
-BODY-

Hi, would anyone know the address of
a Dr. LEN FRIEDMAN who used to (or still is) with
(JPL) Jet Propulsion Laboratory  ??

I have the old address.  I sent a letter, but it was returned to me
by U.S.Mail authorities.

I know for sure that this was his address in June 1983.

The old address was :   Dr. Len Friedman
    ===========         Automated Problem Solving
                        Jet Propulsion Laboratory
                        California Institute Of Technology
                        4800 Oak Grove Drive
                             SUITE # 278
                        Pasedena,  CA  91109

Would anyone know his PHONE-Number ?????

Would anyone know his new address (surface or email) ??

Thanks very very much in advance.  Please respond directly to me.
Thanks again.

>-- raj doshi,  University of Minnesota

                doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 1985 0855-PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Johnson@ISI-VAXA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: binding and request
-BODY-
I am told that a request for my current address appeared on ailist
recently.  My arpanet address is johnson@isi-vaxa; my mailing address is

        W. Lewis Johnson
        USC / Information Sciences Institute
        4676 Admiralty Way
        Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695

Also, could you please add my name to the recipients of ailist?  Thanks.

Lewis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 85 10:22 P
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <vshank%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IBM announces Prolog and Expert Systems Development
-BODY-
VM Programming in Logic  5785-ABH  One Time Charge  Lang: Assem, REXX
   "VM Programming in Logic is an IBM implementation of the PROLOG programming
language.  It is suited for the research and development of applications in
artificial intelligence including: expert systems, automated deduction,..."
   "VM Programming in Logic provides the following features:
      - Debugging Facilities
      - Communication with VM/SP ..., SQL/DS ..., and LISP/VM... (Note: the
        use of SQL/DS and LISP/VM are optional.)"
   The Availability is Sept. 6, 1985.
   Documentation: PDOM SH20-6541

Expert System Consultation Environment/VM  5798-RWP  OTC or Monthly
Expert System Development Environment/VM   5798-RWQ  OTC or Monthly
Language: PASCAL/VS

   "These two complementary program offerings provide the facilities
for developing and executing expert systems.  Expert System
Development Environment/VM is used to 'build' knowledge bases.  Expert
System Consultation Env./VM is used to 'consult' those knowledge
bases. ..."

   "These program offerings provide the following features:
     - English-like rules
     - Specialized editors with automatic checking to facilitate the entry and
       modification of knowledge base objects.
     - Explanation during consultation: 'Why?' provides a logical explanation
       for a certain request; 'What?' provides a more detailed explanation of
       the question being asked.
     - Debugging support.
     - Two inference processes: forward chaining, backward chainging.
     - Online help."
   "The Expert System Development Environment/VM requires the Expert System
Consultation Environment/VM.  Once the knowledge base (set of rules) has been
developed, it can be replicated and used by the Expert System Consultation
Environment/VM without the presence of the Expert System Development Env./VM."

Availability: Sept. 6, 1985
Documentation: Gen. Info. Man. GH20-9597,  ESDE Install: SH20-9607,
               ESDE User Guide SH20-9608,  ESDE Ref. Man. SH20-9609.
               ESCE Install: SH20-9605,  ESCE User Guide SH20-9606.

These are supported out of Irving Texas.  From Announcement Letter 285-284,
    August 6, 1985.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 85 00:40:17 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carl E. Hewitt <HEWITT@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog will fail as the foundation for AI; so will LOGIC as
-BODY-           a PROGRAMMING Language

Prolog (like APL before it) will fail as the foundation for Artificial
Intelligence because of competition with Lisp.  There are commercially
viable Prolog implementations written in Lisp but not conversely.

LOGIC as a PROGRAMMING Language will fail as the foundation for AI because:

  1.  Logical inference cannot be used to infer the decisions that need to be
      taken in open systems because the decisions are not determined by
      system inputs.

  2.  Logic does not cope well with the contradictory knowledge bases inherent
      in open systems.  It leaves out counterarguments and debate.

  3.  Taking action does not fit within the logic paradigm.


  [Carl also sent this message to the philosophy of science mailing
  list (Phil-Sci-Request%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC), and it has triggered several
  responses about Prolog/Logic Programming/AI.  I am happy to let
  Phil-Sci carry the discussion, although it could just as easily
  have fit within AIList or the Prolog digest.  For a good elaboration
  of Carl's thesis on open systems (networks, banking systems,
  nondeterministic distributed systems, etc.), see his article in
  the April '85 issue of BYTE.  It's interesting reading, as are most
  of the articles in this special issue on AI.  (The April Fool's
  What's Not column on pp. 96-97 is fun too.)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 10:07 P
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <vshank%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System definition vs Database Systems
-BODY-
I have been reading over the definitions of what an expert system is and
isn't and I have seen in many of the comments that an expert system needs
to be able to learn as it continues.  Somehow, I have always felt Expert
Systems to be glorified database systems.  A database system gains more
information as you add data to it.  Th common example of Expert Systems
(in my opinion) is the DOCTOR program:
1) Does the patient have a fever? Y
2) Has the patient vomitted in the past 24 hours? Y
3) Are the pupils dilated? N
4) etc...

The AI program asks questions and based on the answers, determines what
future questions to ask.  In the end it narrows it down and comes up with
a diagnoses based on the results of the questions.

But I know of many database packages where a question in the form of:

FIND FEVER > 100 & VOMIT = YES & DILATED = NO
DISPLAY ALL

My question is: What distinguishes the database search and display interface
from an AI Expert System?

Hank

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 Aug 85 18:27:09-EDT
-FROM-
From: SRIDHARAN@BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rule Induction and Expert Systems
-BODY-
Masinter narrows it too far, making it anthropocentric.
During the Machine Learning workshop at Allerton, IL, I heard Don Michie
talk about the efforts of one of his friends.  This effort involved building
an ES to analyze EKG charts.  They built two systems, one pretty closely
following the Expert System methodology that Larry talked about.  The other
system was constructed by using a rule-induction technique, giving it
a set of input charts and their analyses.  The induction technique was
biased toward a set of useful features for rule formation.  The comparison
of the two systems, yielded the conclusion that the induced-rule set
outperformed the other in terms of both speed of execution and quality of
results.

One might admit so called expertise may be included in such weak forms
as the bias given to the induction technique.  Nature provides constraints
for scientific theories.  Some of us would like to tap into this ultimate
source of "expertise" rather than stick to the derived expertise of humans.

Masinter's description could be broadened to include this, if each
occurrence of "expert" is not necessarily viewed as a human expert.
P.S. Note that with the induced rule-set the system might be capable of
explaining the rules themselves, by refering back to the cases.


Another case serves as reference example.  Larry and I both particpated in
the Dendral and Meta-Dendral efforts at Stanford.  The latter effort was
aimed at rule formation for a class organic molecules; rules to characterize
how bonds break in a mass spectrometer.  Validated rules for several class
of molecules were formed and incorporated into Dendral.  Here both
nature and human experts participated, but the human experts did not
construct the rules.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
111
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1985  21:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: DAVIES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
PARSYM is the new netwide mailing list for parallel symbolic
computing.  One of the first messages to PARSYM asked just what is
symbolic computing anyway.  I thought the readers of AIList might be
interested to see what PARSYM came up with.

        -- Byron Davies (PARSYM-Request@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 85 09:15:00 pdt
-FROM-
From: coraki!pratt@Navajo (Vaughan Pratt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
I suppose with quarter of a century of Lisp experience we should
understand by now what symbolic computing is.  Indeed everyone appears
to be quite happy to talk about symbolic computing as though the
concept had the unanimous blessing of the last three centuries of
mathematics.

Yet I have been unable to find in the literature a definition of the
concept that matches the facts.

Discussion based on the premise that the topic is well-defined when it
isn't is apt to run at cross-purposes.

I therefore challenge this list to agree on a definition of symbolic
computing.

Even if this challenge cannot be met (as I expect will be the case), at
least people will have been made aware of the variety of definitions
and will know to make allowance for this variety.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 15:34:33 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!dmtadel.oz!crw@seismo.CSS.GOV (charles watson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Applicative Symbolic Programming
-BODY-
Firstly I consider symbolic computing, to be abstract and non-numeric, dealing
with structured objects that match human concepts and images.

Secondly, I'd like to argue the case for side-effect free programming.
I feel that the side-effects of much real-world software are the
result of poor programming practice. John McCarthy's (1959) LISP is
sufficient. All the features added in the name of efficiency have
encumbered their compilers and interpreters. Except for debugging,
side effects have been tolerable in the past. For highly concurrent
systems of the future, side-effects would be catastrophic. I accept
that the cost of re-writing software is a strong reason for downward
compatability to existing non-applicative code, but redesign in a
sound paradigm would take less effort than conversion. The machine
architecture I'm working on will allow setq to avoid re-evaluating
S-exprs but not for explicit register assignment; it will allow
replac* to append non-circular lists, but not to point back to any
object in the ancestral tree.  There are those who still believe that
the shortest distance between two pieces of software is a GOTO
statement. In my experience real-world software is easier to develop
and maintain in the structured paradigm. The last project I was
involved in used an applicative hierarchical specification of IC
designs to drive a silicon compiler. The problem would have otherwise
been intractable.  Also, processors can be custom designed for
symbolic processing and replicated for the cost of about $10 each
(ignoring the development cost). A system with thousands of these
processors, could cost the same as a Symbolics 3600.  Arguments such
as "this side-effect riddled feature gives a 20% performance
improvement" would be irrelevent to the cost-effectiveness of such a
system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 85 07:46:47 pdt
-FROM-
From: coraki!pratt@Navajo (Vaughan Pratt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definitional Issues
-BODY-
        From: munnari!dmtadel.oz!crw@seismo.CSS.GOV (charles watson)
        Firstly I consider symbolic computing, to be abstract and non-numeric,
        dealing with structured objects that match human concepts and images.

Excellent!  A first attempt (on PARSYM) to define symbolic computing.
Let's try it out.

1.  What does "abstract" mean?  One definition I like a lot is
"authorized."  Computation is abstract when it depends only on what
is authorized by the documentation.  Is that what you meant?  If so,
why is that in the definition of "symbolic" computing, as opposed to
other kinds of computing?  If not, then what do you mean?

2.  Lisp has numbers.  Does this rule out Lisp as a symbolic language?

3.  In PROLOG without equality an inefficient but convenient way to
represent natural numbers is symbolically:  3 = (S (S (S 0))) and so
on.  How do you reconcile "symbolic" and "nonnumeric" for such a case?

4.  What is an example of a structured object *not* matching human
concepts and images?  I find it hard to conceive of or imagine such a
thing.  This requirement is surely more appropriate for a definition of
AI computing than symbolic computing.

In short, I see neither neither the rationale for nor the application
of any part of this definition.

        Secondly, I'd like to argue the case for side-effect free programming.
        ...  For highly concurrent systems
        of the future, side-effects would be catastrophic.

Speaking as one highly concurrent system trying to side effect another,
I hope I haven't thereby caused a catastrophe.  And on behalf of human
society, another highly concurrent system, it would certainly be
interesting, and surely catastrophic in some sense, if we ceased to
have side effects on each other.

Whether you have, or for that matter can identify, side effects is very
dependent on your particular computational paradigm, e.g. the
distinction between functional and imperative programming.  As soon as
one starts to explore other paradigms appropriate for concurrency,
e.g. dataflow (of particular interest to me), the concept of
side-effect free programming becomes either irrelevant or meaningless.
About the only sense one could make of it in dataflow would be if one
introduced ESP for processes, i.e. communication by unseen channels.

Sorry not to be more constructive here.  For more constructive remarks
in the above spirit see my POPL-83 paper "Five Paradigm Shifts in
Programming Language Design and their Application to Viron, a Dataflow
Programming Language"  After having taken off a couple of years helping
out with getting workstations out to people I am just now returning to
academia to continue the design and implementation of Viron, or
something resembling it (in addition to continuing my work on fonts, a
side-effect (hak coff) of my working at Sun).  If people would be
interested I'd be happy to make occasional short contributions to this
column expressing the general philosophy behind Viron, which is very
much a parallel and abstract programming language.  Since Viron
processes don't have a notion of internal state (how do you define "the
state" of a process consisting of an ocean of ships each loaded with
microprocessors with cycle times measured in nanoseconds, where
"simultaneous" is both physically and practically undefined?) one has
to define "side effect" in a way that does not depend on the notion of
state - in this sense Viron is free of any state-based notion of side
effect.  Whether Viron could be called "symbolic" depends on whether we
ever find a workable definition of "symbolic," but it should pass
almost any plausible definition that does not rule out numeric
computation and that does not specify implementation or representation
details.

>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
ate: 16 Jul 1985 1736-PDT (Tuesday)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: PARSYM Digest   V1 #1: RE: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
> From: coraki!pratt@Navajo (Vaughan Pratt)
> Indeed everyone appears
> to be quite happy to talk about symbolic computing as though the
> concept had the unanimous blessing of the last three centuries of
> mathematics.

I work with people who crunch numbers, permit me to play devils advocate
(I do support research on symbolic processing):  the only people
who have given their blessing is the LISP community.  Let's not
close our eyes to that fact.

> I therefore challenge this list to agree on a definition of symbolic
> computing.

I realize this is rehashing hallway arguments we have all had:
please define that which is "not" symbolic computing and why we should
make a distinction in these two types of parallel computing.  After all
isn't crunching a number the same as manipulating a symbol, and aren't
we possibly creating artificial distinctions of computing types (symbolic
and numeric)?


I like the idea of academic discussions of this nature.  Work can get too
serious at times.  I also would like to point out that I just returned from SU
and I have seen copies of Dr. Pratt's TRs on new thoughts for concurrency
models.

>-eugene miya
  NASA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 19 Jul 85 21:25:35-CDT
-FROM-
From: Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
Here's another attempt at  it.  First of all,  I think that the  terms
symbolic computing  and numerical  computing  are different  modes  of
computing  rather  than  mutually  exclusive  taxonomical  categories.
Then, numerical computing is the mode when the major data elements are
numerical and one is  interested in changing  the numerical values  of
these data elements.  That is, both  the input to and the output  from
the program  are  mainly numerical.   In  symbolic computing,  one  is
interested mainly in manipulating structures.  That is, both the input
and the  output to  the program  are structures.   Note that  in  this
definiton one mode of computing does not exclude the other.  In  fact,
most programs do some of each.  It is the predominant activity of  the
program that determines it's mode.

One could look at it from a  lower level as well. The memory cells  in
the computer's  data memory  (as opposed  to the  instruction  memory)
contain binary values.  If they are mostly interpreted as representing
numbers, and the majority of operations  that are carried out on  them
are numerical, i.e., add, subtract, multiply, shift etc. their values,
then the program  is a  numerical mode  program.  If  they are  mostly
pointers to other  cells in  memory, and  the operations  on them  are
mainly follow the pointers along, modify  them to point to some  other
cells etc., then the program is a symbolic mode program.

A characteristic that  generally distinguishes the  languages for  the
two kinds of programs is  memory allocation.  The languages  developed
for numerical processing have mostly static memory allocation schemes.
By that I mean that the data memory is allocated to a procedure (or  a
function, or block,  whatever you  want to  call it)  upon entry,  and
released upon exit.  Generally, though not always, the procedure  does
not (and in most cases, can not) change its data memory.  In contrast,
symbolic processing  languages  have dynamic  memory  allocation  with
attendant  garbage  collection.   This   is  necessary  for   symbolic
computing since in this case one is dealing with structures, which are
essentially pointers pointing at each other in various ways, and since
the  main  activity  here  is  manipulating  these  structures,  i.e.,
releasing and allocating pointers.

Admittedly these are somewhat vague definitions, but I hope that  this
posting will at least spur a discussion on the subject.

> mayank.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 85 22:43:43 edt
-FROM-
From: Tom Blenko  <blenko@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is symbolic computation?
-BODY-

Vaughn's question is an interesting one.  My proposal is that
numerical computation is performed over a flat domain, while symbolic
computing permits computation over terms which are partially bound or
instantiated.  Binding is used in a broad sense here, and subsumes
type declaration and generic instantiation, as well as the
conventional notion of variable binding.

According to this scheme, FORTRAN is almost purely numerical because it
allows variables to be bound only to constants (although a form of
compile-time co-referential binding is possible using EQUIVALENCE).

FORTRAN is not purely numerical because variables are typed.  Type
declaration is a form of binding under the notion of binding described
above, although an especially weak one because all type declarations
must be made at compile time.  The class of nearly-numerical languages
(those with flat domains plus some support for typed variables) can be
expanded somewhat by including languages with slightly more powerful
type mechanisms, i.e., those which support discriminated unions or
procedure name overloading.  For the purposes of discussion, I'd be
willing to refer to all of these as languages which support numerical
computation exclusively.  This seems like a reasonable approximation
because their competence as symbolic languages is both weak and well
known.

Languages which permit various forms of abstract data type or generic
procedure definition would be classified as partially-symbolic because
they each support some form of run-time partial binding of variables.
Representative examples in this class are CLU, ADA, and SMALLTALK-80.
This is the class currently of greatest interest to the imperative
language people, and certainly there needs to be more work on what
abstraction and type mechanisms are useful and can be implemented
efficiently.

My two choices to represent (nearly) fully-symbolic languages are
PROLOG and LISP.  In PROLOG, the binding mechanism, unification, can
also be viewed as a type restriction mechanism, so that a variable
becomes bound to a grounded term by successive application of type
restrictions to (variable) subterms of intermediate bindings as the
computation proceeds (reference for related work is Hassan Ait-Kaci's
thesis, A New Model of Computation based on a Calculus of Type
Subsumption).  This identification of variable typing with more
traditional notions of variable binding is precisely what I propose
permits one to view symbolic computation in a coherent way.

LISP is well-known, and it would be quite a task to persuade some that
it is anything except the ultimate symbolic language.  Clearly its
binding mechanism allows the kind of partial binding which occurs
naturally in PROLOG (although, of course, this could be said to be
only one consequence of its excessive permissiveness).  Let me mention
two ways in which it differs from PROLOG, however, and might be viewed
as a more powerful symbolic language.

First, it allows variables to be bound as pointers to other variables.
This is undeniably a powerful mechanism, although it makes for more
complicated language semantics.  It is also not a particularly good
substitute for what is (arguably) the corresponding mechanism in
PROLOG, specifically the co-referential binding resulting from the
unification of variables.  I say the two mechanisms correspond because
the only way to do equivalencing in LISP is for variables A and B to
both point to C, and for C to store the equivalenced value of A and B,
which may be accessed by a dereference followed by an evaluation --
which leads to the second point.

Many LISPs implement what might be termed a first-class recursive call
to the interpreter.  INTERLISP's evala, for example, allows any
procedure to call the interpreter recursively on a LISP data structure
with the binding environment of the computation completely specified
in an argument to evala.  Intuitively, this is a powerful mechanism
for symbolic computation, and is moreover necessary for the rather
awkward implementation of LISP equivalencing described above, since
dereferencing is indistinguishable from evaluation (although Brian
Smith has succeeded in separating the two in his definition of
3-LISP).  The (second-class) recursive call implemented in most
PROLOGs is more restricted because the environment of the calling
procedure is unconditionally inherited by the called procedure
(although proposals for more general approaches have been made).  Many
partially- and non-symbolic languages do not provide any recursive
call.

These are admittedly incomplete thoughts, and I'd be interested in any
responses.  I have not specifically addressed binding of parameters
across procedure calls -- call-by-value and call-by-reference can be
understood rather easily once the notion of variable creation is
included, I think.  I haven't though about the symbolic power of
exotica such as thunks, and I suspect that macro expansion doesn't add
much in the way of symbolic power.

I'd be particularly interested in a coherent exposition of the
relationships between what I've been proposing as the primary
characteristic of symbolic computation (partial binding) and
mechanisms such as pointer creation and dereferencing, and lazy or
eager evaluation.  For example, one might interpret PROLOG unification
of variables as a lazy assignment of the source variable to the target
variable, with evaluation of the source variable binding delayed
indefinitely (this is correct because PROLOG variables are
write-once).  The obvious way to do dereferencing in PROLOG is through
a "procedure call" or recursive call to the interpreter, except that
the PROLOG interpreter treats bound and unbound variables differently,
so that unbound variables "evaluate" to themselves both during
unification and when used as parameters to recursive function calls
(under what interpretation is this eager evaluation?).

Another question is why one is normally tempted to categorize a
language like C as non-symbolic, since it allows liberal pointer
creation/dereferencing and thereby allows the same binding of
variables to variables as LISP to be performed in a fairly direct
fashion.  (Note, however, that no recursive call to the interpreter is
permitted).

I'd be interested in any thoughts or comments the list might have.

        Tom
        BLENKO@ROCHESTER

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jul 85 10:04 EDT
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
Subject: Symbolic vs Numerical Computing

We had better be careful here.  Programs, not languages are either
symbolic or numerical.  If I write a numerical matrix inverter in LISP
it is still a numerical program while if I write a MACSYMA-like
symbolic algebra matrix inverter in Fortran it is a symbolic program.
(Never mind why I would want to do the latter).

Numerical programs make the vast majority of their decisions based on
the values of terminal values which are stored in relatively
homogeneous data structures.  Symbolic programs make significantly more
decisions based on examination of the structure of the data which may
vary more freely.  The exact implementation of runtime typed data may
be part of the programming language (LISP or SMALLTALK types), assisted
by the programming language (PASCAL records used with case or C struct
unions), or it can be implemented in spite of the programming language
(FORTRAN, possibly with a package like SLIP or ASSEMBLY language using
the high bits for type and the rest for pointer).  [Obviously, some
languages make symbolic programming easier than others].

This definition is far from perfect so I'll propose a test.  Try
ranking a list of programs on the numerical<->symbolic scale.  For
example (probably not in the right order):

                        Fast Fourier Transform
                        Sparse Matrix Multiply
                        Graph Coloring Algorithm
                        Simple Expression Compiler
                        ELIZA
                        LISP Interpreter
                        Simple Theorem Prover
                        Algebraic Integrator
                        Noun Phrase Parser

Try out your own ordering.  Where would you put in things like:

                        FTP support for the Symbolics 3600
                        UNIX (kernel or cshell)
                        MacPaint vs. MacDraw
                        A Turing Machine

I'd be interested to see how these would be ranked or whether it is
meaningless to perform such rankings.

                                                Seth Steinberg
                                                SAS @ BBN-VAX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 85 14:14:44 pdt
-FROM-
From: coraki!pratt@Navajo (Vaughan Pratt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
        From: Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA>
        Then, numerical computing is the mode when the major data elements are
        numerical and one is  interested in changing  the numerical values  of
        these data elements.  ...

I do a lot of computing with:
    *   complex numbers
    *   polynomials over various fields, including the reals
    *   vector spaces of various dimensions
    *   linear transformations
    *   survey maps, involving bearings, lot boundaries (expressed as lists
                of line segments), areas, etc.
    *   outline fonts based on conic splines

Now if these aren't examples of structured data I'm a monkey's uncle.
Yet most of the time spent manipulating these structures goes into
floating point operations.  On the one hand this is certainly
consistent with Mayank's observation that "most programs do some of
each."  On the other hand I don't see how to apply the test "predominant
activity."  Is this determined by the proportion of time spent on
floating point operations?  If so then does plugging in a floating point
accelerator convert my program from a numerical to a symbolic one?
Or is it determined by the number of calls to floating point routines
in my programs?  Most of my calls are to things like dot and matrix
products.

        If [the memory cells] are mostly interpreted as representing
        numbers, and the majority of operations  that are carried out on  them
        are numerical, i.e., add, subtract, multiply, shift etc. their values,
        then the program  is a  numerical mode  program.  ...

At this level the definition is vulnerable to the compiler.  Given a
vector of reals a powerful optimizing compiler may see fit to implement
it either as a linked list (if the optimizer detects operations on the
vector that amount to expanding or contracting the vector) or an array
of contiguous locations (if there is much random access to the array).
How does one classify a program that leaves such decisions to the
compiler?

        ... symbolic processing  languages  have dynamic  memory  allocation
        with attendant  garbage  collection.

When memory is allocated and released in LIFO order it is very efficient
to allocate it off a stack.  When the release order is unpredictable
one resorts to a heap.  How does this have anything to do with whether
numeric data types are involved?
>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 85 11:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolic and numerical computing
-BODY-
Symbolic programs:
  * laugh at themselves.
  * philosophize.
  * till the soil.
  * are featherless bipeds.

Here's a more serious attempt:  ALL computing applications are symbolic.
All applications rely on processing data organized according to some
structural discipline.  This discipline may be trivial or exceedingly
complex.  There are typically certain invariants or axioms of the
structure, and the operations on the structure, on which the processing
relies: for example, that a tree is binary and balanced, and insertion
and deletion maintain these invariants.

A particularly large and important class of applications relies heavily
on the axioms for rings and fields, particularly the ring of integers
and the fields of real and complex numbers, and for such applications
much of the computation is done with data structures and operations
that are organized so as to obey these axioms (more or less, given the
usual finiteness of the representations).  Because these applications
are so important, and the theory is well-understood and agreed-upon,
special hardware accelerators for certain very complicated operations
(such as multiplication) are the norm rather than the exception; but
the presence or absense of such hardware has, to my mind, little
bearing on the numericalness of the application.

So I propose that an application be considered numerical to the extent
that it relies on data structures obeying the axioms for rings or
fields, however these data structures may be represented as bits.  I
would regard a LISP program operating on lists of NIL's as numerical if
it were so organized as to treat these lists primarily as unary
encodings of numbers, using routines to concatenate the lists (addition)
and repeatedly self-concatenate (double, multiply), and so on.  (Indeed,
the SCHEME chips that I and others designed to directly interpret LISP
code had no on-chip ALU to speak of, and the chips were tested on
numerical applications using numbers encoded in exactly this way.)

Is a program that relies on a group structure numerical?  What if there
is hardware to compute a*b quickly, where * is the group operator?
Suppose the group were SU(16) or GF(16) instead of Z[2^16]?  By the
proposed criterion, any such program might be somewhat numerical,
but less so than one using a ring or field.

>-Guy Steele

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 85 22:18:42 pdt
-FROM-
From: coraki!pratt@Navajo (Vaughan Pratt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: PARSYM Digest   V1 #8
-BODY-
        From: Guy Steele <gls@THINK-AQUINAS.ARPA>
        ALL computing applications are symbolic.

My position exactly.  I particularly appreciated GLS's algebraic
examples, which I thought were right on.  Subject closed (as far
as I'm concerned).
>v

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 6 August 1985, 5:15 pm PDT
-FROM-
From: Byron Davies <PARSYM-Request@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is symbolic computing?
-BODY-
The cat is out of the bag.  Symbolic computing is indeed all
computing.  PARSYM was designated the netwide mailing list for
*symbolic* computing in order to broaden the domain of discourse
rather than to restrict it to any particular branch of computing.  I
hope it won't be long before someone asks the analogous question
about parallel computing -- and gets the *same* answer.

        -- Byron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
112
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1985  07:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GF11 Hardware
-BODY-

        Has anyone out there looked at SIGARCH proceeding of
        last month. I was wondering what comments might be
        found on IBM's GF11. I heard of this machine years
        ago. I thought at that time it was for a group of
        problems General Foods had taken to the Yorktown
        Group.

        I see that they have added some new micro-code features
        resembling Hewitt's Actors and Semantic Massage for a
        society of experts. Though I dunno as of yet what is
        happening with AI at Yorktown it seems they've tried
        to get this under the hood. If the machine was meant
        for the task of computing chromodynamics seems to me
        that the word size would have been re-engineered since
        there is no mention of double or quad wording in the
        article. Whatta think ?

                                Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 85 12:46:07 pdt
-FROM-
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Master bibliography
-BODY-
Excellent suggestion.  The net's biggest problem is a lack of
memory.  ;-)

I am trying something like this right now for parallel and distributed
computing.  Mine is ftp-able, and has over 5000 entries.  It also has
some copyright restrictions because I used several preexisting
bibliographies [i.e., stand on the shoulders of giants...].  There is only
one bibliography in the field larger than mine, but it's hardcopy,
hard to use, but it has many more European papers.  Mine's dynamic,
useable with text formatters, and updateable.  Keys and annotations, too.

I suspect an AI bibliography will have two major problems:
1) AI is a much bigger field.
2) AI has more hype literature associated with it.
If it were possible to moderate the technical content of the papers,
you will succeed nicely.  I have a separate bibliography for the
"top ten" required readings in software engineering.  I plan to update it
yearly with a call for suggestions.  Books will be booted in and out (I hope).

Other minor problems: some work was received in Scribe bibliographic
format: I decided on refer: ran on smaller machines, Unix more widely
available, and so on.  I had to write crude Scribe->refer translators.
Getting people to help add, correct, and delete work is surpising difficult:
everybody wants loaves of bread, but few want to do the work.
The initial start is the hardest of course.  Try to build off of others
work if they will let you.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA
  ames!aurora!eugene on UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 85 00:35:00 edt
-FROM-
From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System definition vs Database Systems
-BODY-
    From: Henry Nussbacher  <vshank%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
    ...Somehow, I have always felt Expert
    Systems to be glorified database systems....
      1) Does the patient have a fever? Y
      2) Has the patient vomitted in the past 24 hours? Y
      3) Are the pupils dilated? N
      4) etc...
    But I know of many database packages where a question in the form of:
      FIND FEVER > 100 & VOMIT = YES & DILATED = NO
      DISPLAY ALL

In the first place, differential diagnosis is both a good and a bad
example.  Bad because it is meant to provide a lot of structure that can
be likened to a data-base query with boolean logic and good because it
has been worked on a lot in AI and as you get into more details it
starts to become more clear why the database approach isn't always
powerful enough.

Consider: In the first place, there are many, many diseases. A doctor
doesn't attempt to know all of them. In fact, the questioning (in a
doctor's mind) I believe starts with something more like:

        is this person in front of me about to drop dead?

a lot of info has to be processed real fast and inaccurately (from a
data base/strict machine point of view) to answer that and act on it.
Ok, let's try it again:

        IF s/he has a fever AND s/he has been vomiting
                THEN (will s/he drop dead in a moment?)

        or FIND DISEASE WHERE FEVER & VOMIT & DEATH

hmmm, doesn't work. Maybe that's all the patient is saying though. I
guess we better find out if s/he's severely dehydrated, measure the
fever, or maybe they just have a little food poisoning.

Ok, try again:

        IF he has a fever AND he has been vomiting
                THEN he has malaria...

wait a minute! there's no malaria around here...try again (darn, if s/he
hadn't just fallen over I might have asked if s/he have been traveling in
the tropics lately or eaten any jalisco cheese, now what do I do...)

I think my point is, yes, it's kind of like a database query BUT WHO IS
GENERATING THE QUESTIONS. I think your example weakens a lot once the
first query is made, who decides what the second query is to be?  The
expert system of course. You are assuming some magic actor generating
all these nice queries and inferences, get rid of that actor and try it
again.

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 17 Aug 85 10:38:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hewitt's tirade against Prolog
-BODY-
Carl Hewitt's message is based on several misconceptions:

1. (the least interesting one) All the so-called commercially viable
Prolog systems in Lisp are not really Prolog systems written IN Lisp,
but rather Prolog systems written FOR Lisp machines. Or is it that a
microcode sublanguage or Lisp machine pointer-smashing operations are
part of List as we know it? Without those machine-level operations,
those Prolog systems would run too slow and use too much memory to be
useful for serious Prolog programming. From the Prolog implementation
point of view, what is important about the Lisp machines is not that
they run Lisp, but that they can be microcoded and have good support
for tagged data types and stack operations.

2. If the decisions (actions) of a system are not determined by its
inputs, the system is nondeterministic. Nondeterminism in a system can
be either an artifact of our incomplete knowledge (or lack of
interest) of the detailed operation of the system; or it can be
``real physical'' nondeterminism. It would take us to far to discuss
whether the second kind of nondeterminism is ``real'' or also an
artifact. In any case, most uses of nondeterminism, say in models of
concurrency, are of the first kind, and can be expressed appropriately
in various temporal/dynamic logics. Admittedly, these are not Prolog,
but then Common Lisp is not Lisp 1.5! (Prolog is 13 years old, Lisp
25).

3. The first logic course dictum ``from a contradiction one can
conclude anything'' is getting in the way. Notice that the dictum says
``can'', not ``must''. There is an enormous difference between things
that are in principle true and things that an agent knows to be true
in a way that can affect its action. An agent might know ``p'' and
``not p'', but it might well never come to infer the dreaded totally
unrelated ``q'' which IN PRINCIPLE follows from the contradiction.
This inference might not happen either because of inference control
mechanisms of the agent (eg. it uses the set-of-support strategy) or
because the agent's logic is just TOO WEAK to conclude anything from a
contradiction (vide Hector Levesque's work in the proceedings of the
last AAAI). In any case, Horn clauses (the basis of Prolog) are too
weak to represent contradictions... :-)

4. The question of whether ``taking action'' fits in a logic paradigm
tends to be answered negatively after an hour's worth of
consideration.  If you persist for several years, though, this
question becomes a source of insight on the relations between
knowledge, state and action that is not available to those who started
by dismissing the question after that initial hour. There is just too
much work on logics of knowledge and action in AI and computer science
for me to try to discuss it here. Some of this work has been applied
to logic programming, either in the form of new logic programming
languages based on temporal or dynamic logics or in representations of
temporal reasoning and decision in, say, Prolog.

5. It is curious to see someone by implication defend Lisp as a
language for expressing the taking of action! We know by now that the
most difficult issue in ``reactive systems'' is not EXPRESSING action,
but rather keeping it under control to prevent unwanted interactions.
In this area, less is REALLY more, and highly complex languages like
Lisp are just not suitable for the formal reasoning about programs
that is needed to help us believe our programs do what we intend. To
those who say ``...but we can keep to a carefully constrained subset
of Lisp, use only message passing for interactions,...'' I will answer
that the history of all large Lisp programs I know (and I think that
is a representative sample) is littered with the brutalized corpses of
constrained programming styles. Anyone who has looked at the current
flavor mechanism in Zetalisp and its use in the window system will
know what I mean...

6. Underlying Carl Hewitt's misconceptions is the old chestnut ``logic
is static, systems are dynamic''. Any language, be it first-order
logic or Lisp, is static; it is its USE which is dynamic (changes the
state of communicating agents). A good analogy here is the use of
differential equations to model dynamic systems in classical
mechanics. The differential equations themselves do not say directly
what happens when (they are ``static'' in Hewitt's jargon). It is
their SOLUTIONS that tell us the sequence of events. Even the
solutions are given as static objects (functions from an open interval
of the reals to some space). Does anyone worry that such equations do
not ``really'' describe the dynamic behavior of a system? Is it not
possible to combine such ``static'' entities with an incremental
solution procedure to build systems that actually control their
(classical mechanical) environment?

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 85 15:05:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CMU-RI-CIVE
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Design Expert Systems (CMU)
-BODY-
                        A GENERATIVE EXPERT SYSTEM
                    FOR THE DESIGN OF BUILDING LAYOUTS


                        Ulrich Flemming
                        Design Research Center &
                        Department of Architecture

                        Thursday, August 22 at 1:30 pm
                        Adamson Wing, Baker Hall

The talk will outline a generative expert system for the design
of building layouts aimed at systematically enumerating layout
alternatives while taking into account a broad range of criteria, a task
to which the human cognitive apparatus is not particularly well suited.
The system is roughly modelled after the DENDRAL system.
In its most simple incarnation, it will consist of a generator able to
generate all possible alternatives, a tester that evaluates these
alternatives, and a control strategy that mediates between the two
to help prune the search tree.

What makes the generator so special is that it
treats spatial relations between the objects to be allocated as the
basic design variables in which the generation takes place.
The completeness and non-redundancy of the generation have been
established.
The tester will be programmed to facilitate the addition and
modification of the design knowledge incorporated in it.
A tentative control strategy will be discussed.

It is expected that for more complicated layout problems, the control
strategy will have to be expanded into a genuine planner with at least two
levels: 'hierarchical' and 'strategic', both of which will be outlined.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 85 13:23:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Design Completion (CMU)
-BODY-
Topic:    Presentation of Wright Project
Speaker:  Can Baykan
Place:    DH3313
Date:     Wednesday, August 14
Time:     10:00am - 11:00am

An intelligent design completion system is a knowledge-based CAD system
which provides a design environment and assists the designer in analyzing
and synthesizing designs.  For example, the designer may generate a partial
design and have the system carry out a diagnostic evaluation, or complete
the design.  Such a system would be composed of two major components: a
knowledge-base and a drafting system.

The WRIGHT system is an interactive CAD system which the designer can use in
representing, analyzing and generating kitchen designs.  The goals in
building such a system are to understand:

1. The architecture and components of a design-completion system.

2. The types of knowledge required for analyzing and synthesizing designs,
   Knowledge required for recognizing elements in a drawing generated by the
   designer,
   Knowledge required for recognizing design contexts,

3. The generation of form -a complex, structured object-, based on function
   -a diverse set of constraints from many sources.

The application domain chosen for the WRIGHT system is kitchen design.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 AUG 85 15:57-N
-FROM-
From: ROSNER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers - Knowledge Represention, Proc. IEEE
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS

Proceedings of the IEEE
Special Issue on Knowledge Representation


Guest Editors: M King, M Rosner, University of Geneva


The special issue is scheduled for publication during the second half of
1986. You are invited to submit a 6-10 page extended abstract on any topic
relevant to the current state of the art in Knowledge Representation.

Deadlines:
        submission of abstracts:        30th September 1985
        notification of acceptance:     30th December 1985
        final copy:                     15th February 1986

contact: ROSNER%cgeuge51@WISCVM.ARPA (bitnet)
         mcvax!cernvax!cui!rosner (usenet, eunet, uucp)

M Rosner
ISSCO,
54 route des Acacias,
1227 Geneva, Switzerland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
113
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 85 23:00:23 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: machine learning journals..
-BODY-

I (as a co-author) would like to publish a modest article
which has something to do with MACHINE LEARNING.

Can someone tell me the JOURNALs that are strictly for
machine learning ????

Are there any such conferences. ????

Thanks in advance.

>-- raj doshi,  University of Minnesota

                doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa



  [Gluck@SU-PSYCH announced a new Machine Learning journal in
  AIList V. 3, No. 106, Aug. 10.  It will come out quarterly
  beginning January 1986.  Executive Editor: Pat Langley;
  Editors: Jaime Carbonell, Ryszard Michalski, Tom Mitchell;
  Kluwer Academic Publishers, 190 Old Derby Street, Hingham,
  MA 02043, or call 617-749-5262.  -- KIL ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 85 17:18:44 EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: duke@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp to C
-BODY-
We are looking for a Lisp to C translator, in the hope
that it might help us move some Franz Lisp programs onto
some parallel processor machines which currently lack Lisp.
Does anyone know of such a translator?

Duke Briscoe
Mitre

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 85 12:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Clarke Thacher  <UKC323%UKCC.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hardware Choices For Running LISP.
-BODY-
Our computing center director has asked me to get some information and
make recommendations on alternatives for supporting LISP at the
University.  Specifically,  he has been getting researchers in several
departments submitting requests for single user LISP workstations.  He
is reluctant to approve all of these requests, if a more economic
solution is available.   I would appreciate any pointers which people
might be able to offer.   We have an IBM 3081 with VM & CMS, and 3
Prime superminis.  One of the Primes has the Salford LISP/Prolog
system but I suspect that the researchers want more than that.
Approximate costs would be appreciated.


                  Clarke Thacher    BITNET : UKC323@UKCC
                                     (606) 257-2900
                  72 McVey Hall
                  Computing Center
                  University Of Kentucky
                  Lexington, Ky. 40506-0045

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 21 Aug 85 21:19:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Modularity and Compositionality
-BODY-
A few issues back someone used the term "modularity" to refer to parts of a
program.  This leads me to ask, is there a precisely defined notion of what
"modularity" is?  Also, it seems to me that there is a natural connection
between modularity as I understand it and "compositionality" as used in
linguistics.  Does anyone have any information, references, or ideas on these
points?
                -Lee Altenberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 85 17:20 EST
-FROM-
From: Clarke Thacher  <UKC323%UKCC.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems
-BODY-

A professor in our Psychiatry department has expressed interest in any
work which has been done with Expert Systems in psychiatry (please not
ELIZA).  He is interested in it as a diagnostic tool to be used by the
physician (and for teaching third year medical students).

Please send any leads to:

          Clarke Thacher         BITNET:   UKC323@UKCC
          Computing Center
          University Of Kentucky
          Lexington, Ky.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 85 13:28:56 pdt
-FROM-
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Additional comment about master bibliography
-BODY-
Oh, I forgot one MAJOR point of maintenance work.

I am just now receiving smaller bibiliographies on things like computer
networks.  There are many collisions with papers already in the existing file.
The problem is subtle because of slight variations in annotation
styles which bibliographic sorting programs cannot appropriately
handle.  Also, transferring interesting comments and annotations
from one entry to another is also time consuming.  Two smaller
bibliographies have come from England, and differences in spelling are
another subtle problem: Defense and Defence.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,vortex}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1985 02:54:13-EDT, Tue, 20 Aug 85 02:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: straz@AQUINAS.THINK.COM@MIT-CCC, Steve Strassmann
     <straz@AQUINAS.THINK.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Good news and bad news, Mr. Wizard...
-BODY-
                    [Forwarded by BNevin@BBNCCH.]

>From the September issue of "Science 85":

"This is a good time to play a scientist on TV. Researchers at the
University of Pennsylvania say that scientists on the tube are warm,
attractive, and five times more likely to be virtuous than villainous.

But the study also showed that TV scientists are killed more often than
soldiers, private eyes, and police officers."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 1985 10:25:51 PDT
-FROM-
From: Stuart Cracraft <CRACRAFT@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Drew Liao's comments about chess
-BODY-
"I too believe that a computer should learn how to play chess before
it is allowed to play in a tournament rather than rely on moves
encoded into the program."

                        - Drew Liao, AILIST V3 #102, 1-Aug-85

The above doesn't make much sense to me. Currently, chess programs
such as Belle and Cray Blitz usually play no more than the first
10 moves from a pre-stored "opening book".

If the opponent makes an extremely odd or unusual move early,
retrieval from the book is terminated and normal tree-searching
is begun in order to generate a move.

What would Drew have us do? Turn off book completely? Rely only
on tree-search for the opening? The opening is extremely tricky,
because pawn configurations and piece placements are being set
up for 20 moves later.

Thus, most programs that rely on heuristics and tree-search
for opening play are prone to fall into traps a book usually
avoids. They are also prone to jumble their pieces in bad ways.

Therefore, I argue that allowing opening book is essential to
good play. A more valid criticism would concern the transition
from opening book to tree-searching. Many programs deal with
this transition very poorly. International Masters or Grand-
masters can often take advantage of their poor *TRANSITION*
play and mop up quickly in a positional sense.

I see no great difference between storing 50,000 opening positions
in a computer "book" and a human expert spending 5 weeks studying
the Caro-Kann defense. Both have memorized in order to avoid
re-creating extensive work *OTHERS* have done for them ahead
of time.

Why re-invent the wheel?

        Stuart Cracraft

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1985  13:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC
-SUBJECT-
Subject:   Prolog will fail as the foundation for AI
-BODY-
Misconceptions?

    From: PEREIRA at SRI-AI.ARPA

    Carl Hewitt's message is based on several misconceptions:

    1. (the least interesting one) All the so-called commercially viable
    Prolog systems in Lisp are not really Prolog systems written IN Lisp,
    but rather Prolog systems written FOR Lisp machines. Or is it that a
    microcode sublanguage or Lisp machine pointer-smashing operations are
    part of List as we know it?

Yes.  They are DEFINITELY part of Common Lisp as we know it being
implementations of reading and writing operations on record
structures.  Such implementation methods are NOT part of Logic as a
Programming language.

    Without those machine-level operations,
    those Prolog systems would run too slow and use too much memory to be
    useful for serious Prolog programming. From the Prolog implementation
    point of view, what is important about the Lisp machines is not that
    they run Lisp, but that they can be microcoded and have good support
    for tagged data types and stack operations.

It is important to many users that they can make use of ALL the software
available to the community and not just be limited to the tiny amount
in Prolog.  Furthermore in the future good software will be ported
from stand alone Prolog systems to Prolog implemented on Lisp.  However
to good Lisp software will not be able to be ported to the stand
alone Prolog systems.

    2. If the decisions (actions) of a system are not determined by its
    inputs, the system is nondeterministic. Nondeterminism in a system can
    be either an artifact of our incomplete knowledge (or lack of
    interest) of the detailed operation of the system; or it can be
    ``real physical'' nondeterminism. It would take us to far to discuss
    whether the second kind of nondeterminism is ``real'' or also an
    artifact. In any case, most uses of nondeterminism, say in models of
    concurrency, are of the first kind, and can be expressed appropriately
    in various temporal/dynamic logics. Admittedly, these are not Prolog,
    but then Common Lisp is not Lisp 1.5! (Prolog is 13 years old, Lisp
    25).

Yes indeed there is a large problem here that poses fundamental problems
for using Logic as a Programming language to make decisions in Open
Systems.

    3. The first logic course dictum ``from a contradiction one can
    conclude anything'' is getting in the way. Notice that the dictum says
    ``can'', not ``must''. There is an enormous difference between things
    that are in principle true and things that an agent knows to be true
    in a way that can affect its action. An agent might know ``p'' and
    ``not p'', but it might well never come to infer the dreaded totally
    unrelated ``q'' which IN PRINCIPLE follows from the contradiction.
    This inference might not happen either because of inference control
    mechanisms of the agent (eg. it uses the set-of-support strategy) or
    because the agent's logic is just TOO WEAK to conclude anything from a
    contradiction (vide Hector Levesque's work in the proceedings of the
    last AAAI). In any case, Horn clauses (the basis of Prolog) are too
    weak to represent contradictions... :-)

I claim that in practice the contradictions lie close to the surface and
occur in any nontrivial application.  Thus the contradictions
pose fundamental problems for using Logic as a Programming Language.

    4. The question of whether ``taking action'' fits in a logic paradigm
    tends to be answered negatively after an hour's worth of
    consideration.  If you persist for several years, though, this
    question becomes a source of insight on the relations between
    knowledge, state and action that is not available to those who started
    by dismissing the question after that initial hour. There is just too
    much work on logics of knowledge and action in AI and computer science
    for me to try to discuss it here. Some of this work has been applied
    to logic programming, either in the form of new logic programming
    languages based on temporal or dynamic logics or in representations of
    temporal reasoning and decision in, say, Prolog.

I have been thinking about the problem for many years having designed
Micro-Planner, the first "procedural embedding of logic" programming
language in 1967.  I claim that the problem of taking action poses
fundamental problems for using Logic as a Programming language.

    5. It is curious to see someone by implication defend Lisp as a
    language for expressing the taking of action!

I claim that current Lisp systems are better than current Prolog
systems for taking action because the only ways to take action in
current Prolog systems are kludges.


    We know by now that the
    most difficult issue in ``reactive systems'' is not EXPRESSING action,
    but rather keeping it under control to prevent unwanted interactions.
    In this area, less is REALLY more, and highly complex languages like
    Lisp are just not suitable for the formal reasoning about programs
    that is needed to help us believe our programs do what we intend. To
    those who say ``...but we can keep to a carefully constrained subset
    of Lisp, use only message passing for interactions,...'' I will answer
    that the history of all large Lisp programs I know (and I think that
    is a representative sample) is littered with the brutalized corpses of
    constrained programming styles. Anyone who has looked at the current
    flavor mechanism in Zetalisp and its use in the window system will
    know what I mean...

    5. Underlying Carl Hewitt's misconceptions is the old chestnut ``logic
    is static, systems are dynamic''.

Note that the above quotation is NOT anything that I said.

    Any language, be it first-order
    logic or Lisp, is static; it is its USE which is dynamic (changes the
    state of communicating agents). A good analogy here is the use of
    differential equations to model dynamic systems in classical
    mechanics. The differential equations themselves do not say directly
    what happens when (they are ``static'' in Hewitt's jargon).

I do not deny that dynamic systems can be DESCRIBED using logic only
that they can be CONTROLLED.

    It is
    their SOLUTIONS that tell us the sequence of events. Even the
    solutions are given as static objects (functions from an open interval
    of the reals to some space). Does anyone worry that such equations do
    not ``really'' describe the dynamic behavior of a system? Is it not
    possible to combine such ``static'' entities with an incremental
    solution procedure to build systems that actually control their
    (classical mechanical) environment?

I do not believe that the control system can be implemented using Logic
as a Programming language

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 Aug 85 21:44:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ashok Subramanian <ashok@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Partial Evaluation in Meta Interpreters (SU)
-BODY-

Prof. Ehud Shapiro, of the Weizmann Institute of Science, will present a
talk at 9 am on Monday, the 26th of August, in Margaret Jacks Hall room 352.

         The Magic of Partial Evaluation,
                      or
          Meta Interpreters for Real


                Ehud Shapiro

       The Weizmann Institute of Science


Enhanced meta-interpreters can implement sophisticated functions within
complex software system.  Examples are explanation facilities in expert
systems, algorithmic debuggers in programming environments, and layers of
protection and control in operating systems.
However, the execution overhead of the added layer of interpretation
is unacceptable in many applications.

Partial evaluation can eliminate the overhead of meta-interpreters.
A partial-evaluator can specialize an enhanced meta-interpreter
with respect to a given program,
generating a variant of this program which inherits the enhanced
functionality of the meta-interpreter, but not its overhead.

An application of a Concurrent Prolog partial evaluator
to operating system development will be shown.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
114
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1985 21:05-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Business
-BODY-
Expert Systems, Artificial Intelligence in Business
by Pual Harmon and David King is now available from
Library of Computer and Information Science
Publishers Price $24.95
Members Price $19.95

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1985 21:44-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Technical Reports
-BODY-
Addresses for ordering same:

Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
Mail STop 230-5, NASA/Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035
ATTENTION: Technical Librarian

Department of Computer Science
405 Upson Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853

Erna Amerman
Department of Comptuer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1304 West Springfield Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801

Technical Reports
Computer Sciences Department
University of Wisconsin
1210 West Dayton Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Ms. Brenda Ramsey
UCLA Computer Science Department
3732 Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Carnegie Mellon University
Computer Science Department
Pittsburgh, PA 15213


____ Bibliography Entries __________________________________________________

%A Jeffrey Alan Jackson
%T Economics of Automatic Generation of Rules From Examples in
A Chess End Game
%R Department of Computer Science File No. 132
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D FEB 1985

%A Robert Stepp
%T A Description and User's Guide for Cluster/2 A Program for
Conjunctive Conceptual Clustering
%R Department of Computer Science Report No. 1085
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D FEB 1985

%A G. Smolka
%A P. Panangaden
%T FRESH: A Higher-Order Language with Unification and Multiple Results
%R 85-685
%I Department of Computer Science, Cornell University
%C Ithaca, New York
%D MAY 1985

%A Rick Briggs
%T An Approach to Deeper Expert Systems
%R 84.11
%I Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science, NASA/AMES Research
Center
%C Moffett Field, California

%A Charles F. Neveu
%A Charles R. Dyer
%A Roland T. Chin
%T Object Recognition Using Hough Pyramids
%R TR 576
%I The University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Sciences Department
%D JAN 1985

%A Deborah A. Joseph
%A W. Harry Plantinga
%T On the Complexity of Reachability and Motion Planning Questions
%R TR586
%I The University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Science Department
%D FEB 1985

%A Udi Manber
%T A Distributed Implementation of Backtracking
%R TR588
%I University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences
%D MAR 1985

%A Matthew R. Korn
%A Charles R. Dyer
%T 3-D Multiview Object Representations for Model-Based Object Recognition
%R TR602
%I University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences
%D JUN 1985

%A Richard Preston Hooper
%A Michel A. Melkanoff
%T An Application of Knowledge-Based Systems to Electronic Computer-Aided
Engineering, Design and Manufacturing Data Base Transport
%R CSD-850011
%I Computer Science Department, UCLA
%K IGES
%X describes a method of developing methodology for transferring databases
between CADCAM systems
There is a charge of $19.25 for this item

%A Randal E. Bryant
%T Symbolic Verification of MOS Circuits
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D APR 1985
%X The program MOSSYS simulates the behavior of a MOS circuit
represented as a switch-level symbolically.  That is, during
simulator the user can set an input to either 0, 1 or a Boolean
variable.  The simulator then computes the behavior of hte circuit as
a function of past and present and input variables.  By using heuristically
efficient Boolean function manipulation algorithms, the verification
of a circuit by symbolic simualtion can proceed much more quickly than by
exhaustive logic simulation.  In this paper we present our concept of
symbolic simualtion, dervie an algorithm for switch-level symbolic
simulation, and present experimental measurements from MOSSYM

%A Jon Doyle
%T Reasoned Assumptions and Pareto Optimality
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D JAN 1985

%A D. M. McKeown Jr.
%A J. F. Pane
%T Alignment and Connection of Fragmented Linear Features in Aerial
Imagery
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D APR 1985

%A Gary Kahn
%A John McDermott
%T MUD: A Drilling Fluids Consultant
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D MAR 1985

%A Geoffrey E. Hinton
%T Distributed Representation
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D OCT 1984

%A Theodore F. Lehr
%T The Implementation of a Production System Machine
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D MAY 1985

%A Steven Linton
%T A Game-Playing Porgram that Learns by Analyzing Examples
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D MAY 1985

%A Jaime G. Carbonnel
%T Derviational Analogy: A Theory of Reconstructive Problem Solving and
Expertise Acquisition
%I Carnegie Mellon University Department of Computer Science
%D MAR 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 1985 02:23-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A M. A. Covington
%T A Further Note on Looping in Prolog
%J SIGPLAN
%V 20
%N 8
%D AUG 1985
%P 28-31

%A D. Nute
%T A Programming Solution to Certain Problems with Loops in Prolog
%J SIGPLAN
%V 20
%N 8
%D AUG 1985
%P 32-37

%A D. Poole
%A R. Goebel
%T On Eliminating Loops in Prolog
%J SIGPLAN
%V 20
%N 8
%D AUG 1985
%P 38-40

%A Mark Stefik
%T Strategic Computing at DARPA: Overview and Assessment
%J Communications of the ACM
%D JUL 1985
%V 28
%N 7
%P 690-703
%X discusses various projects at DARPA.  Here are the time schedules for
various things they want as extracted from the Commerce Business Daily
request for proposals:
Autonomous Land Vehicle
1985 - The vehicle is expected to traverse a 20-km route on a paved
road at up to 10km per hour.  The vehicle will carry out only forward
motion, without obstacle avoidance
1986 The vehicle is expected to maneuver to avoid small fixed polyhedral
objects spaced 100 meters
1987 The vehicle will be able to plan and execute a route
across 10km of open desert at speeds up to 5 km per hour.  It should
demonstrate an understanding of types of soil and ground cover.
1988 The vehicle should plan and execute a 20-km route on a road network,
using landmarks as a navigation aid.  To avoid obstacles, the vehicle
will have to maneuver off the road.
1989 The vehicle should traverse across country at 10 km per hour avoiding
obstacles.
1990 The route traversed by the vehicle will include wooded terrain, paved
and unpaved roads, and deserts.   The vehicle may  have to consolidate
multiple goals
Pilots Associate (R2D2 for military aircraft)
goals vague or unspecified
Aircraft Carrier Battle-Management system
phase 1 - look at military database and reason about ships and
submarines, determine their readiness for missions and the effects of
redirecting them
phase 2 - handle five times real time performance and to achieve performance
ten thousand times current performance
phase 3 - provide aid to commanders in evaluating alternatives
Expert Systems
1986 - Demonstrate capabilities for situation assessment where conclusions
are annotated with different levels of confidence, support 3000 rule
databases at 1000 inferences per second (1/3 of real time)
1989 - support speech input, increase speed factor of three
1992 - support multiple cooperating expert systems increase speed by
factor of five
Image Understanding
1986 - demonstrate image-understanding for vehicle on simple terrain
1988 - be able to recognize land marks
1990 - navigation on complex terrains
1992 - recognize targets and threats in battlefield
Speech Production and Understanding
1986 100 words vocabulary, speaker dependent, sever noise
1988 1000 word, continuous speech, speech dependent, low noise
1990 200 word vocabulary, speaker independent, sever noise
1992 1000 word, continous speech, speaker independent, natural grammar
They claim that computation will hit 40 million inferences per
second for 1986 milestones and 20 billion for 1992
Natural language
1986 - demonstrate natural language interface for queries to database
1988 - should understand paragraphs about air threat
1990 - be able to converse and actively help user form a plan
1993 - interactive multiuser system and understand streams of information

%A I. Peterson
%T Conversing with Computers Naturally
%J Science News
%V 128
%D JUL 27, 1985
%N 4
%P 53
%K microcomputers natural language database Bozena H. Thompson
Frederick B. Thompson Microrim Savvy Caltech Natural Access System
%X discusses Intellect Microrim, and Savvy and a Natural Language System
developed by Bozena H. Thompson and Frederick B. Thompson for IBM PC's

%A Eric Nee
%T Xerox to Transfer Some IS Operations to Shugart Plant
%J Electronic News
%D AUG 5, 1985
%V 31
%N 1561
%P 24
%X Xerox will transfer its Artificial Intelligence Business from Pasadena
to Sunnyvale

%T VLSI-Chip Test System Tests Itself at Board Level
%J Electronics
%D AUG 5, 1985
%P 46-49
%V 58
%N 31
%K MegaOne Expert-Like diagnostic
%X Mega-One has introduced a VLSI test system that can diagnose malfunctions
in itself.  The manufacturer claims that it is "expert-like", i. e. is
an expert system but is not set up using production rules

%A Tom Manuel
%T Tektronix Makes Major Commitment to AI Market
%J Electronics
%D AUG 5, 1985
%P 46-49
%V 58
%N 31
%X Tektronix is lowering its price on its 32032 based microcomputer
that it is billing as an AI machines.  It has added two more models,
and added a 32-bit object oreinted machine.

%A Adam B. Green
%T Searching for Product X
%J InfoWorld
%D AUG 5, 1985
%P 28
%V 7
%N 31
%K prolog microcomputers
%X Adam Green, noted for his pushing DBASE products, says that
the new runaway product (like visicalc and database) will be
the based on Prolog

%T Updates
%J Datamation
%P 117
%D AUG 1, 1985
%V 31
%N 15
%K Gary Moskowitz, Xerox, natural language, office systems
%X says that AI should be aim to proofread documents for grammar errors;
and to help collaboration between humans

%T VLSI Design System Uses Artificial Intelligence
%J IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
%D AUG 1985
%P 89
%V 5
%N 8
%K Applicon BRAVO! design rule
%X Applicon has introduced BRAVO!, a VLSI system which uses AI
to monitor circuitry for design rule compliance and which will
redesign layouts.

%T IBM Adds 3 Programs for AI Applications
%J Electronic News
%D AUG 12, 1985
%V 31
%N 1562
%P 24
%K expert system tool lisp programming database
%X IBM introduced VM Programming in Logic (A Prolog compiler).
IBM provides communications with VM/SP, SQL/DS and LISP/VM.
They also introduced Expert System Consulation environment and Expert System
Development environment for building and using expert systems.

%T Control Data, Digicon Sign 3-Year Value Added Agreement
%J Electronics
%V 31
%N 1562
%P 25
%K CDC lisp prolog expert system tool
%X CDC introduced Lisp/VE, Prolog/VE, KES/VE

%T Tektronix unwraps AI workstations, Lisp Version
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 32
%D AUG 12, 1985
%P 16
%X same info as other article on Tektronix above

%T News, World Digest
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 32
%P 24
%K education Australia Queensland
%X Queensland Secondary schools will introduce a new computer curriculum
which includes AI.

%T HP Gives 3.3 million for AI Research
%J Electronics
%D AUG 19, 1985
%P 23
%V 58
%N 33
%K University of Pennsylvania
%X TI is giving some work stations to Pennsylvania.  Appears to be
part of a program of giving their work stations to schools announced
elsewhere.

%A Kevin Smith
%T Britain Makes Major Bid to Build Commercial Fifth-Generation Machine
%J Electronics
%D JUL 8, 1985
%P 26-27
%V 58
%N 27
%K Alice Declarative Alvey Compiler Target Language Flagship HOPE ICL
%X describes various parallel architectures being investigated by
Britain.  They hope to establish a defacto standard, beating IBM
to the punch and to get a commercial product up.

%A John Gallant
%T AI Product Deluge hits DP Market
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 33
%P 1+
%D AUG 19, 1985
%K DM Data Howard Dicken DEC IBM LISP Expert System Tool Prolog CDC
David Hertz
%X IBM has announced Prolog and Expert System tools for it
VM operating system.  Charges:
Prolog (Programming in Logic): $8,000
Expert System Consultation Environment/VM (delivery front end
for expert system tool): $25,000 or a monthly charge of $1250.00
Expert System Development Environment (to make expert systems
for use by above tool): $35,000 or a monthly charge of $1750.00.
DEC has announced an AI VAXStation which is a MICROVAX II without a
floppy drive and with various languages.  This includes an implementation
of Common Lisp, and they have upgraded OPS5 and have marketing agreements
with Quintus for its Prolog and Artificial Intelligence Corporation for
its Intellect front end for its database.  Quintus Prolog will
cost $6,000.
CDC announcement of tools:
PROLOG/VE (version of C-prolog): $4620 to $36330
LISP/VE (Common Lisp): $5166 to $40614
KES/VE (Knowledge Engineering System): $11,424 to $70,594
Also an interview with various people on the marketing impact
of these announcements.  Howard Dicken, publisher of AI trends,
says this "will legitimize AI."  However, other people feel be
hurt.  They draw parallel with the IBM personal computer which
on one legitimized the microcomputer industry but also took
away market share and eliminated some smaller companies.

%T Random Access
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 33
%P 2
%D AUG 19, 1985
%K Intellicorp KEE simulation microcomputer expert system
%X Intellicorp will issue the third release of their Knowledge
Engineering Kit.  They also announced Simkit which will
be used to create knowledge-based simulation software and PC-Host
which is an implementation of the KEE system on "conventional
architecture computers."

%A Howard Morgan
%T The Microcomputer and Decision Support
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 33
%P 39-46
%D AUG 19, 1985
%K Lightyear microcomputer Expert-Ease
%X discusses the use of AI in MIS, particularly Light-Year and
Expert Systems in MIS on page 44 of this article.

%A Mitch Betta
%T AI Specialist Sees $5 billion expert systems mart by 1990
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 33
%P 84
%D AUG 19, 1985
%K marketing Social Security Administration Sperry Corpration Atle Fjeld
%X Atle Fjeld gave a briefing in which he discussed AI.  He gave
the example of automating Social Security eligibility rules as an
example of its use.  Sperry anticipates spending 200 million dollars
over the next five years and hopes to capture 15 to 20 percent of
the market.  The Sperry Corporation Knowledge System Center employs 150
people.

%T TI Acquires Ten Percent of Carnegie Group
%J Electronic News
%D AUG 19, 1985
%V 31
%N 1563
%P 8
%K Explorer Knowledge Craft Language Craft
%X TI will fund research at the Carnegie Group and receive an
internal license for use of its products.  Carnegie
Group is expected to install 20 of TI's explorer systems over the next
18 months.

%A Michael Bunken
%T Dec Enters Artificial Intelligence Market with Workstation
%J Electronic News
%D AUG 19, 1985
%V 31
%N 1563
%K Vaxstation Lisp Prolog Quintas OPS-5 Common Lisp
%X same info on DEC as in article in Computerworld above

%A Nicholas Ourusoff
%T The Physical Symbol System Hypothesis of Newell and Simon:
A Classroom Demonstration of Artificial Intelligence
%J SIGCSE Bulletin
%P 19-23
%V 17
%N 3
%D SEP 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
115
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 85 09:59:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Andy diSessa <ADIS at MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mathematical Learning (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Marlene Kliman will talk about her work on balancing this Weds.,
August 28, 4 PM, third floor conference room.



      Mathematical Knowledge Underlying Performance on the Balance Scale

  Interviews of elementary school children using a balance scale show
that balancing is a complex domain involving many levels of competence
and understanding.  Performance on set balancing tasks may not always
be indicative of underlying knowledge, as children frequently display
special-case knowledge.  As children experiment with the balance
scale, they not only find new pieces of knowledge, but they also begin
to find connections among pieces of knowledge.  This talk will present
an analysis of mathematical knowledge underlying performance on the
balance scale in terms of the kinds of things children do and
generalizations they make when exploring the balance scale, strategies
children find natural and helpful, and facets of balancing that
children find particularly intriguing.  Educational implications of
this analysis will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Aug 85 10:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: (Herb Bernstein) <BERNSTEIN@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium on Fact. Aut. & Robotics
-BODY-
Reminder:
  The Symposium on Factory Automation and Robotics
  A Forum for Industrial and Academic Robotics Engineers and Scientists
      will be held 9-11 September 1985
      by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU
      in honor of Marvin Denicoff
      sponsored by the National Science Foundation
Registration $35 ($25 for NYU faculty and staff), in advance to
      NYU/CIMS Symposium on Fac. Aut. and Robotics
      Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
      251 Mercer Street, New York, N.Y. 10012
        Attn:  Herbert J. Bernstein
Or at the meeting, Eisner and Lubin Auditorium, Loeb Student Center,
566 LaGuardia Place (corner of LaGuardia Place and Wash. Sq. South).
For more information or to RSVP, mail to yaya@nyu (on ARPANET), or
call 212-533-3363 or 212-460-7444.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1985 21:09-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Announcement
-BODY-
I am relaying this from printed material received here for the benefit
of those who might be interested.  I am not connected with the
conference.

Society of Computer Simulation
P. O. Box 17900 San Diego California 92117-7900
Telephone 619-277-3888

Southwestern Region Simualtion presents their Fall 85 Technical Meeting

Theme: Simulation and Automation and Robotics

Dates: October 24-25 1985 Thursday and Friday

Location: Fort Worth Texas

Cost: $25 registration fee

Keynote Address: Robotics and Intelligent Systems: An Overview by George
A. Bekey

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Aug 85 08:21:59 EDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Marshall D. Abrams <abrams@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Program of Expert Systems in Government Symposium
-BODY-
Following is a list of all the sessions and papers for the Expert
Systems in Government Symposium to be held October 24-25, 1985 at the
Tysons Westpark Hotel, McLean, VA. The symposium is sponsored by the
MITRE Corporation and the IEEE Computer Society. Two one-day tutorials
are scheduled for October 23rd: "Concepts of Knowledge Engineering" by
Kamran Parsaye and "Expert Systems Development" by Elaine Kant.
Additional information is available from abrams@mitre. A registration
form follows the session listing.



ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS

Vice-Chairman:  Prof. Mary Lou Maher, Carnegie-Mellon University

Session-Chairman:  Dr. Duvvuru Sriram, Carnegie-Mellon University


"A Rule-Based System for Masonry Failures," S.M. Cornick, Carlton
University

"Development of An Intelligent Interface To An Interactive Design
Model," R.A. Harris, Vanderbilt University

"Micro Computer Based Expert Systems In  Engineering:   An  Exam-
ple," Nitin Pandit, D.  Sriram, Carnegie-Mellon University

"LASER:  A Programming Environment For Building High  Performance
Expert Systems," Dr. Y.V. Reddy, West Virginia University

"An  Expert  Tutor  for  Rigid  Body  Mechanics:  Athena   Cats--
Macavity,"  John  H.  Slater,  Robert B.P. Petrossiam, S.  Shyam-
sunder, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


MISSION PLANNING

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. Mark Fox, Carnegie-Mellon University

Sessions_Chairman:  Dr. Robert Milne, Pentagon


"Management of AI System Software Development For Military  Deci-
sion  Aids," Kerry Gates, John Lemmer, PAR Technology Corporation

"Expert Mission  Planning  and  Replanning  Scheduling  System,"
G.B.   Hankins, J.W. Jordan, J.L. Katz, A.M. Mulvehill, The MITRE
Corporation

"Mission  Planning  Within  the  Framework  of   the   Blackboard
Model,"Glen Pearson, FMC Corporation

"Developing a Microcomputer Based  Intelligent  Project  Planning
System,"  Suzanne Bradley, Ruth Buys, Amr ElSawy, Alan Sipes, The
MITRE Corporation


PANEL:  FRONTIERS OF KBES:  PRO & CON

MODERATOR:  Dr. Marvin Denicoff, Thinking Machine, Inc.


Panelists:

PRO  Prof. Chandrasekaran, Ohio State University  PRO   Dr.  Neil
Pundit, DEC

CON  Dr. Gary Martins,  Intelligent  S/W,  Inc.   CON   Dr.  John
Benoit, MITRE

MIDDLE   Dr. Robert Milne, Pentagon MIDDLE   Dr. Kamran  Parsaye,
Intelliware


UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. North Fowler, RADC

Sessions_Chairman:  Dr. Piero Bonissone, G.E.


"An     Application     of     Fuzzy     Reasoning      to      A
Confirmation/Disconfirmation  Decision  Making Algorithm," Joseph
A. Karakowski, U.S. Army

"An Expert System Based on a  Stochastic  Parallel  Network,"  V.
Venkatasubramanian, Northeastern University

"Data Analysis Assisted by an Uncertainty Varying Expert System,"
Petr Hajek, Fred Neil Springsteel

"In Introduction to Fact Based Model Expert  Systems,"  Sing  Chi
Koo, Software Intelligence Lab, Inc.


NETWORK MANAGEMENT

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Richard Martin, MCC

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Greg Vesonder, AT&T Bell Laboratories


"Specifications of a Knowledge System  for  Packet-Switched  Data
Network Topological Design," Chelsea White, III, Edward A. Sykes,
University of Virginia

"Telecommunications Resource Allocation  A  Knowledge-Based  Sys-
tem," Dai Chuang, Booz Allen & Hamilton

"Compass:  An Expert System for  Telephone  Switch  Maintenance,"
Shri  K. Goyal, David S.  Prerau, Alan V. Lemmon, Alan Gunderson,
Robert Reinke, GTE Laboratories, Inc.

"NEMESYS:  An Expert System for Fighting Congestion in  the  At&T
Network,"  Dr.  Richard  C.  Windecker,  Stephen M. Guattery, Dr.
Francisco J. Villarreal, AT&T Bell Labs, Inc.


INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM

Vice_Chairman:  Prof Saj-Nicole Joni, Yale

Session_Chairman:   Prof.  Beverly  Woolf,  University  of   Mas-
sachusetts


"Intelligent Tutoring Using the Integrated Diagnostic Model:   An
Expert  System for Diagnosis and Repair," Howard R. Smith, Pamela
K. Fink, John C. Lusth, Southwest Research Institute

"An Informal Programming Language," Jeffery Bonar, William  Weil,
University of Pittsburg

"Understanding Discourse Conventions in Tutoring," Beverly Woolf,
University of Massachusetts

"PRUST:  An Automatic System Program  Debugger,"  Lewis  Johnson,
ISI


NEW DIRECTIONS IN KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Bruce Bullock, Teknowledge

Session_Chairman:  Ethan Scarl, The MITRE Corporation


"Artificial Intelligence for C:3:I:  The Design  and  Development
of  a  Prototype Causal Schema Knowledge-Based System," Gerard W.
Hopple, Stanley M. Halpin, Defense Systems, Inc.

"Capturing Domain Primitives for Knowledge Engineering," R. Peter
Bonasso, The MITRE Corporation

"A Shared Knowledge Base for Independent Problem Solving Agents,"
Susan E. Conry, R.A.  Meyer, J.E. Searleman, Clarkson College

"Research in the Applications  of  Expert  Systems  at  the  NASA
Ames-Dryden  Flight  Research Facility," Eugene L. Duke, Victoria
A. Regeniek, NASA Ames Research Center


INTELLIGENT ANALYSIS

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Morten Hirschberg,  Army  Ballistic  Research
Laboratories

Session_Chairman:  Major Russ Frew, U.S. Army Intelligence Center
& School

"XCOR--A Knowledge-Based System for Correction  of  Oceanographic
Reports,"  Vincent G.  Sigillito, R.F. Wachter, The Johns Hopkins
University

"A Demonstration of An Ocean Surveillance Information Fusion  Ex-
pert  System,"  Elizabeth  H.  Groundwater,  Science Applications
Int., Corporation

"An AI  Technology  Insertion  Experiment  With  Analyst,"  Peter
Bonasso, The MITRE Corporation

"ACES Airborne Communication Expert System: A Proposed Expert Sys-
tem  for  Managing  Airborne Military Communication," Hal Miller-
Jacobs, The MITRE Corporation

"Artificial Intelligence Applications to Intelligence  Analysis,"
Jerald L. Feinstein, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.


PANEL:  INTELLIGENT COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRUCTION

MODERATOR:  Dr. Jeff Bonar, LRDC/University of Pittsburg

Panelists:

1.   Dr. Beverly Woolf, University of Massachusetts.

2.   Dr. Joseph Psotka, PERI-IC, Army Research Institute

3.   Prof Walker Schneider, University of Illinois

4.   Prof. T. Govindraj, Georgia Instute of Technology

5.   Dr. Stelan Ohlsson, University of Pittsburg


SOFTWARE

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Santosh Chokhani, The MITRE Corporation

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Robert Ensor, AT&T Bell Laboratories

"Automation  of  Programming:   the  ISFI  Experiments,"  Richard
Brown, The MITRE Corporation

"Mutations  &  Their  Consequences;  A  Study  of   Non-Monotonic
Behavior,"  Gary  A. Cleveland, Richard Brown, The MITRE Corpora-
tion

"Designing Expert Systems for Ease of Change," Judith N.  Frosch-
er, Robert J.K. Jacob, Department of the Navy

"Arrowsmith-P A Prototype Expert System for Software  Engineering
Management,:  Victor R.  Basili, Connie Loggia Ramsey, University
of Maryland


LANGUAGE TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Thomas London, AT&T Bell Laboratories

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Kamran Parsaye, Intelliware, Inc.


"A Multicriteria Model to Select An Expert System Shell,"  Ernest
H. Forman, Thomas J.  Nagy, The George Washington University

"Guess/1:  A General Purpose Expert  Systems  Shell,"  Newton  S.
Lee,  John  W.  Roach,  Virginia  Polytechnic Institute and State
University

"Prolog for Expert Systems:  An Evaluation," Richard Helm,  Cath-
erine Lassez, Kim Marriott, University of Melbourne

"Evaluating the Existing Tools for Developing Expert  Systems  In
PC  Environment,"  Animesh  Karna and Amitabh Karna , Information
Technical Institutes


WEAPONS SYSTEMS:  ADAPTIVE CONTROL

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Morton Hirschberg, Army  Ballistics  Research
Laboratories

Session_Chairman:   Dr.  Morton   Hirschberg,   Army   Ballistics
Research Laboratories


"A Numerical Symbolic Expert System in Computational Fluid Dynam-
ics," Rick Briggs, NASA Ames Research Center

"RICA:  An Expert System for Radar Image Classification," Deborah
T. Franks, Software Architecture & Engineering, Inc.

"Concepts for a Tactical Fire Control Decision Aid,"  Richard  C.
Kaste, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory

"An Experimental Expert Weapon Direction System,"  R.L.  Stewart,
D.R. Ousborne, The Johns Hopkins University


PANEL:  NETWORK MANAGEMENT

MODERATOR:  Dr. Kamal Karna, The MITRE Corporation

Panelists:

1.   Dr. Shri Goyal, GTE Labs

2.   Dr. Richard Wolf, AT&T Bell Labs

3.   Ms. Alice Van Domelen, GTE Sprint

4.   Mr. Lucien Capone, Jr., Vice President, Booz Allen &  Hamil-
ton


SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

Vice_Chairman:  Ms. Diane Tosh, E Systems, Melpar Division

Session_Chairman:  Ray Dolgert, Softtech, Inc.


"An Expert System Prototype For  Aiding  in  the  Development  of
Software  Functional  Requirements  For  NASA  Goddard's  Command
Management System," Jay Liebowitz, The George Washington  Univer-
sity

"Comments on the Procurement & Development  of  Expert  Systems,"
David L. Hall, HRB Singer

"Distributed Intelligence In Alternative  Analysis  for  Computor
Systems Selection & Configuration," Fiorin T. Zeviar, Boeing Com-
puter Services Co.

"Expert Systems & Robotics for the Space  Station:   Design  Con-
siderations,"  Barry  G.   Silverman,  V.S. Moustakis, The George
Washington University


INTELLIGENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL-1

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Roy Rada, National Library of Medicine

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Brian McCune, Advanced Information & Deci-
sion Systems


"A Rule-Oriented Methodology for Constructing  a  Knowledge  Base
from  Natural Language Documents," Dr. Stan Matwin, University of
Ottawa

"Understanding Technical Documents and Graphics," R.P.  Futrelle,
University of Illinois

"Information Retrieval Techniques In An Expert System for  Foster
Care,"  Sheila G. Winett, Edward A. Fox, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute

"Cognitive  Graphing   &   The   Representation   of   Biomedical
Knowledge,"  G.  Matthew Bonham, George J. Nozicka, F.N. Stokman,
The American University


ELECTRONIC WARFARE

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Morton Hirschberg,  Army  Ballistic  Research
Laboratories

Sessions_Chairman:  Mr. Joseph Mitola, Advanced Information & De-
cision Systems


"Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques in  a  War  Gaming  En-
vironment,"  Gregory B. White, Stephen E. Cross, Air Force Insti-
tute of Technology

"Evidential Reasoning for Electronic Warfare Threat  Assessment,"
Dr. Tom Garvey, SRI International

"Object Oriented Modeling in Electronic Warfare, Jim  Cunningham,
Advanced Information & Decision Systems

"Information Management Expert Systems, Capt Robert Milne, Penta-
gon


DESIGN, MONITORING & CONTROL

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Eric Braude, RCA

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Peter Politakis, DEC


"A Knowledge-Based System for  Transit  Bus  Maintenance,"  Peter
Wood, The MITRE Corporation

"Reactor Safety Assessment System--A Situation Assessment Aid for
USNRC  Emergency  Response,"  Michael A. Bray, Idaho National En-
gineering Laboratory

"Artificial Intelligence System for Failure Detection &  Monitor-
ing  in  Electronics  & Communication," L.F. Pau, Battelle Insti-
tute, Geneva Laboratories

"TITAN:  An Expert System to Assist in Troubleshooting the  Texas
Instruments  990  Minicomputer  System," Joe D. Stuart, Steven D.
Pardue, Radian Corporation


INTELLIGENT INFORMATION RETRIEVAL-2

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Roy Rada, National Library of Medicine

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Roy Rada, National Library of Medicine


"An Expert System for Document Retrieval," Bruce Croft, Roger  H.
Thompson, University of Massachusetts

"Building A Knowledge Base Statistically," Hafedh Mili, Roy Rada,
George Washington University

"The Application of an Expert System for Information Retrieval at
the  National  Archives," Daniel DeSalvo, Jay Liebowitz, American
Management Systems, Inc.

"Intelligent Information Retrieval:  Issues in  User  Modelling,"
Robert R. Korfhage, So.  Methodist University


MEDICINE-1

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. B. Chandrasekaran,

Session_Chairmen:  Dr. R. Smith, Ohio State University


"A Deductive Inference & Associative Memory Retrieval," James  A.
Reggia, University of Maryland

"An Expert Advisory System for Primary  Eye  Care  in  Developing
Countries,"  Jack  H..   Ostroff,  Chandler  R.  Dawson,  John  K.
Kastner, Sholom Weiss, Casimir A.  Kulikowski,  Kevin  B.   Kern,
Rutgers University

"Knowledge Representation for Knowledge Directed Data Retrieval,"
Jon Sticklen, Ohio State University

"Mapping  Medical  Knowledge  Into   the   Conceptual   Structure
Representation Language," Thomas C.  Bylander, Ohio State Univer-
sity


FLEXIBLE AUTOMATION

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. Tulin Mangir, UCLA

Session_Chairman:  Roger Duncan, The MITRE Corporation


"The Evolution of an Expert System for Process Planning,  Roy  S.
Freedman, Hazeltine Corporation

"Flexible Automation for  Printed  Circuit  Board  Assembly,  Dr.
Robert  J.  Stewart, Westinghouse Manufacturing Systems and Tech-
nology Center

"Sensor-Based Robot  Programming  for  Automated  Assembly,"  Dr.
Shaheen Ahmed, Purdue University


MEDICINE-2

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. Sholom Weiss, Rutgers University

Session_Chairmen:  Dr. R. Smith, Ohio State University



"RED:  A Classification &  Abductive  Inference  Expert  System,"
Jack W. Smith, Jr., Ohio State University

"Improved Retrieval Through Traversal of a Knowledge-Base," Ellen
Bicknell-Brown, Roy Rada, National Institutes of Health

"Semantic Network Representations for Neurological Diagnosis," S.
Srihari, Xiang, Chatkow, Shapiro, SUNY at Buffalo

"An Expert System for Interpretation of  Cranial  C.T.  Scan  Im-
ages," R. Kremar, S.  Srihari, SUNY at Buffalo


ENVIRONMENT & WEATHER

Vice_Chairman:  Dr. Robert Kay, National  Oceanic  &  Atmospheric
Administration

Session_Chairman:  Dr. Jude Franklin, Planning Research  Corpora-
tion

"Expert Systems for Environmental Regulation," Susan  G.  Hadden,
Chandler Stolp, University of Texas at Austin

"A Demonstration Expert System For Weather  Forecasting,"  George
Swetnam, The MITRE Corporation

"An Expert System for Water Quality Protection Permits,"  Charles
Spooner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

"The Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence/Expert Systems  in
the  Warning and Forecast Operations of the National Weather Ser-
vice," Randy I. Racer, John Gaffney, Jr., National  Weather  Ser-
vice


INTELLIGENT INTERFACES

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. Saj-Nicole Joni, Yale University

Session_Chairman:   Prof.  Beverly  Woolf,  University  of   Mas-
sachusetts


"A Knowledge Based Lab Assistant for a Computer Based Instruction
System,"  Larry  Christensen,  Gordon  Stokes, Bill Hays, E. Dale
Coons, Brigham Young University

"The Cognitive Principles Underlying Software Design,"  B.  Adel-
son, Yale University

"Tutoring Expertise:  Human & Otherwise," David Littman, Jeannine
Pinto, Elliot Soloway, Yale University

"Application of Expert Systems to Training," David L. Young, Mys-
tech Associates, Inc.


POLITICS & WELFARE

Vice_Chairman:  Prof. Sholom Weiss, Rutgers University

Session_Chairman:  Prof. Gavan Duffy, University of Texas at Aus-
tin, AMI Micro System


"A Prolog Model of Social  Structure,"  Sanjoy  Banerjee,  Baruch
College

"WEDS Welfare Eligibility Determination System:  An Expert System
in  an  Administrative  Context," Eswaran Subrahmanian, Carnegie-
Mellon University

"Expert  Systems  as   Elite   Foreign   Policy   Advisors:  Some
User/Machine  and Organization/Machine Issues," Howard Tamashiro,
G. Brunk, University of Oklahoma

"A Role for Expert System in  Foreign  Policy  Decision  Making,"
Prof. Stewart Thorson, Dr.  Christie Anderson, Syracuse Universi-
ty

"SYSFIL:  A Generalized Expert System Architecture for Filings,"
Krishan Chhabra, Kamal Karna, The MITRE Corporation

This list of session was compiled 8/20/85 and is subject to further
correction.


send REGISTRATION to:   Expert Systems Symposium
                        IEEE Computer Society
                        1730 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
                        Washington, DC  20036-1903

                prior to 10/1/85        late reg. surcharge
                member  non-member
tutorial        $200    $250            $30
symposium       $120    $160            $30

Give membership #, name, title, company, address, etc.

Blood type is optional (joke).

On-site registration may be limited. Call 202/371-0101 for latest
information on space availability.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
116
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 85 15:37:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Deepak Kumar <kumard%buffalo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel LISP Environments
-BODY-

        We are planning to implement a parallel-environment
        simulator in LISP for trying out various control
        metaphors that require parallelism.

        Anyone already having any implementations or
        experiences in using such environments?

        We would appreciate any kind of responses that could
        help in highlighting various aspects of design as well
        as implementation.

        Thanx.

        Deepak.


UUCP   : {cmcl2,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!kumard
         ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kumard
CSNET  :  kumard@buffalo
ARPA   :  kumard%buffalo@csnet-relay
BITNET :  kumard@sunybcs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Aug 85 13:54:23 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: duke@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Simulators for hypercube architectures
-BODY-

Lisa Sokol (sokol@mitre) and I are investigating the use of parallel
architectures for object-oriented simulations.  We have a large simulation
called the BEM (Battlefield Environment Model) which is written in the
simulation language ROSS, which runs on top of Franz LISP on a VAX.  We
would like to have a hypercube simulator which would help us investigate
strategies for distributing objects in a hypercube.  Our main problem seems
to be the integration of LISP code with the simulators.  Translating the
Lisp into C would be messy at best, even with a translator program.  Another
possibility would be to have Franz LISP running in another process on the
VAX and communicating with the simulator process.  That sounds pretty messy
also, particularly for analyzing the timing since the Lisp is running
outside of the simulator process.  For our purposes, it may be better to
write a Lisp simulator of a hypercube architecture.  Do you know of anyone
who already has such a simulator?  We expect that Lisp will be available on
some hypercube in the next year, and our simulator studies should allow us
to determine how to distribute the objects by that time.


Duke Briscoe
duke@mitre

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 85 00:20:55 cdt
-FROM-
From: neves@wisc-ai.arpa (David Neves)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 in Interlisp?
-BODY-
Has anyone translated OPS5 into Interlisp?  If yes, please send me
mail.

David Neves
Computer Sciences Department
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Usenet:  {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!neves
Arpanet: neves@uwvax

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Aug 85 14:48:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: texture images
-BODY-
I am collecting a set of digital images of natural textures.  If you
have any such images, I would appreciate your help.  They could either
be images of single textures (Brodatz-type) or images of natural
scenes constaining several textured surfaces.  I will make the
collection available to the AI community.

Reply to Barnard@SRI-AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 29 Aug 85 13:26:29-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <CS.PETRIE@UTEXAS-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tax Expertise Available for Expert System
-BODY-
Prof. Lewis Solomon is a specialist in tax law and is interested in
working with someone on an expert system in that domain.  He would also
like to hear about existing systems.  His US Mail address is:

  George Washington University
  National Law Center
  Washington, D.C. 20052        Phone #(202)676-6753

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Aug 85 14:51:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence as the ability to apply the distributive property
-BODY-

To wax philosophical for a while and then get down to specifics:

1. A major (the major?) aspect of intelligence is the ability to
see several instances of a thing and then be able to abstract
out common features.  This is terribly handy for information
representation as it allows one to condense, by "factoring out",
the total info.  Nothing really new here - the notion of
"inheritance", based on the is-a relation is a clear example.

2. The whole problem of context seems strongly related - isn't
context simply that which we hold constant over time, until we
are forced to assume something new? - finding the antecedent
of pronouns can be seen as the problem of: given the most
recent n sentences, what (single, common) interpretation allows
me to maximize the number of unchanged assumptions?

3. A big issue then becomes, how rich is the repertoire of
pattern-matching mechanisms?  Put concretely, and blithely
assuming that you can represent anything with lists, given n
lists (Lisp-type if you like), which abstractions are available
for describing (by generalizing about) them, and which of several
applicable abstractions should take precedence?  For example,
is there a Lisp system out there which would abstract over the
following sets of lists the way I suspect would be done by thee
or me?  Any research being done on general-purpose similarity
finding among Lisp lists?

(a b c), (a b c), (a b c)

(a b c), (a b w), (a b q), (a b d e r)

(a b c q), (a b c e), (a b c (d e (w e)))

(a b c), ((a) (b) (c)), (((a)) b c)

(a b c), (aaaa bb ccccc), (aaa b cccc)

(a b c), (A B C), (a B c)

((a b c) (b)), ((a b c d e f) (b c d e)), ((a b (c d) (e f)) (b (c d)))

(a a a), (b b b b b b), (xx xx xx xx)

(2 3 5), (5 6 11), (12 2 14)

(2 3 5), (5 6 11), (12 2 14), (one three four), (3 four 7)

The last set is, of course, somewhat unfair, since it relies on
knowledge of English semantics, and not simply on structural
properties.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Aug 1985 10:04-EDT
-FROM-
From: Robert.Frederking@CMU-CS-CAD.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Mag article on KR
-BODY-
        The current (Fall 85) issue of AI Magazine has an article by
Ron Brachman raising one of the issues (lack of definitional
information) that has been bothering me about AI knowledge bases.  He
explains why these capabilities are necessary, and then shows that they
aren't possible in a KR system where prototype information can be
overridden, i.e., where nodes are treated as prototypes containing
default information.

  [Among other points, Brachman shows that a frame/semantic net/
  inheritance network/nonmonotonic representation seems to have the
  following limitations:  it cannot determine automatically where in
  the network to place an ELEPHANT-WITH-THREE-LEGS (or similar composite)
  node; it cannot infer that this is a subclass of elephants, or indeed
  that it has anything to do with elephants; it cannot infer that instances
  have three legs; and it cannot recognize a three-legged elephant as
  an instance of this concept.  My 5-year-old also enjoyed the riddles
  about "What's big and gray, has a trunk, and lives in the trees?"
  (Valid answers in Ron's strawman representation systems are "elephants",
  "giraffes", and "ideas".)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 Aug 85 17:10:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Reports
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                            NEW CSLI REPORTS

     Report No. CSLI-85-29, ``Equations, Schemata and Situations: A
   framework for linguistic semantics'' by Jens Erik Fenstad,
   Per-Kristian Halvorsen, Tore Langholm, and Johan van Benthem, and
   Report No. CSLI-85-30, ``Institutions: Abstract Model Theory for
   Computer Science'' by J. A. Goguen and R. M. Burstall, have just been
   published.  These reports may be obtained by writing to David Brown,
   CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 85 15:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Clarke Thacher  <UKC323%UKCC.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems In Psychiatry (Responses)
-BODY-
I would like to thank all of the people who responded to my recent
request.  The following is a summary of the responses which I have
received (so far).   I have passed this information to Dr. David Atcher
in our Med. School, and he may be following up on some of these leads.
_______

> Date: 26 August 1985, 14:45:02 GMT
> From: Thomas Rothenfluh                              K715311  at CZHRZU1A
>
> I've read your request in the AIList and like to submit you two hints.
>
> In the last AI Magazine there was an article about AI research at
> the University of Michigan where some research is done in the field
> of expert systems in psychiatry. Upon request, I received a manuscript
> with a short overview about current systems, own work and bibliography:
>    Micheal Feinberg & Robert K. Lindsay
>    "Expert systems in psychiatry"
> (Mental Health Institute, Dept. of Psychiatry, Univ. of Michigan,
> Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-0010)
>
> Another research group around Janet L. Kolodner at the Georgia Institute
> of Technology (School of Information and Computer Science, Georgia
> 30332) is also working on a psychiatric expert system, e.g. see:
>    Kolodner, J.L.: Towards an understanding of the role of experience
>    in the evolution from novice to expert. In: M.J. Coombs. (Ed).
>    Developments in expert systems. London: Academic, 1984.
>
> There are a lot of references in the field of computer-assisted
> diagnosis in psychiatry, however there a only few concerning
> expert systems in a sense that deserves that term.
>
> As I'm working on a dissertation project related to this field
> (a computer model for the diagnostic process of experts in diagnosing
> borderline personality disorders), I would be happy if you could send
> me a collection of other people's answers.
>
>                        Sincerely yours,
>
> Thomas E. Rothenfluh, research assistant
> Konfliktforschungsstelle
> University of Zurich
> Zurichbergstrasse 43
> CH-8044 Zurich
> Switzerland                           (K715311 at CZHRZU1A.BITNET)
_______

> Date: Mon 26 Aug 85 17:12:45-EDT
> From: David.Servan-Schreiber@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
>
> I have developed with a collegue an expert system for the
> pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders called Blue-Box. You
> can find a description of our work in "Computers in Biomedical
> Research", Feb 84 issue. and also in the KSL series published by
> Stanford University (public domain reports).
>
> David
_______

> Date: Tue 27 Aug 85 18:19:24-PDT
> From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
>
>     I don't know much about his work, but Sam Holtzman
> (Holtzman@sumex-aim.arpa) has an expert system which helps infertile
> couples decide what their next move should be.  You could ask him for
> other references at least.
> --Christopher
_______

> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 10:14:03 pdt
> From: broder@isi-vaxa (Ben Broder)
>
>     I would be interested in any leads you turn up on Psychiatric
> Expert Systems.  I'm sorry that I don't have any information to give
> you.
>
>     Ben Broder
_______

> Date: Thu 29 Aug 85 11:15:27-PDT
> From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
>
>     You asked on the AIList for pointers to expert systems in
> psychiatry. One developed here at Stanford by Benoit Mulsant and David
> Servan-Schreiber was written up in Computers and Biomedical Research,
> as I recall in 1984 or late 1983.
>
>                     Mike Walker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
117
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 85 14:12:49 PDT
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Force Dynamics (UCB)
-BODY-
                    BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                Fall 1985
                  Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

      TIME:                Tuesday, September 3, 11:00 - 12:30
      PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
      (followed by)
      DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:00 in 200 Building T-4

      SPEAKER:          Leonard Talmy, UCB
      TITLE:            ``Force Dynamics in Language and Thought''


      A semantic category that  has  previously  been  neglected  in
      linguistic  research  is that of ``force dynamics''--how enti-
      ties interact with respect to force.   Included  here  is  the
      exertion  of force, resistance to such a force, the overcoming
      of such a resistance, blockage of  the  expression  of  force,
      removal of such blockage, and the like.

           Though scarcely recognized before, force dynamics figures
      significantly  in  language structure.  It is, first of all, a
      generalization over the traditional notion  of  ``causative'':
      it  places naturally within a single framework not only `caus-
      ing', but also `letting,' as well as a set of notions not nor-
      mally considered in the same context.

           Force dynamics, furthermore,  plays  a  structuring  role
      across a range of language levels.  First, it has direct gram-
      matical  representation.   In  English,  such   representation
      appears not only in subsets of conjunctions, prepositions, and
      other closed-class elements but, most significantly,  also  as
      the  semantic  category  that  the  modal system as a whole is
      dedicated to expressing.   Force  dynamic  patterns  are  also
      incorporated in open-class lexical items, and bring numbers of
      these together into systematic relationships.   Lexical  items
      involved in this way refer not only to physical force interac-
      tions but, by metaphoric extension, also to psychological  and
      social  interactions,  conceived  in  terms  of  psycho-social
      ``pressures.''  In addition, force dynamic principles  can  be
      seen to operate in discourse that is involved with persuasion.
      Such rhetorical interchange (including efforts to exhort, con-
      vince,  or  logically  demonstrate) involves the deployment of
      points to argue for and against conflicting positions.

           Force dynamics is a major conceptual  organizing  system,
      constituting one of four major ``imaging'' systems that I have
      developed which provide an integrated semantic  schematization
      of  a referent scene.  Cognitively, it corresponds to concepts
      within ``naive  physics''  as  well  as  to  ones  in  ``naive
      (social)  psychology,''  and  can  be  contrasted  with modern
      scientific concepts in these domains.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Aug 1985 07:42-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Rewrite Rules (SMU)
-BODY-
Dr. Franz Winkler
Department of Computer and Information Science
University of Delaware

Improvements of the Completion Algorithm for Bases of Polynomial Ideals
and Rewrite Rule Systems

Time: 1:00 - 2:00 PM Wednesday, September 4, 1985
Place: 315 Science Information Center, SMU, Dallas, Texas

The Knuth-Bendix completion procedure for rewrite rule systems is one
of wide applicability in symbolic and algebraic computation.  Attempts
to reduce the complexity of this completion algorithm are reported in
the literature.  Already in their seminal 1967 paper Knuth and Bendix
have suggested to keep all the rules intereduced during the execution
of the algorithm.  Huet has presented a version of the completion
algorithm in which every rewrite rule is kept in reduced form with
respect to all the other rules of the system.  Using an idea of
Buchberger's for the completion of bases of polynomial ideals we have
proposed in 1983 a criterion for detecting "unnecessary" critical
pairs.  If a critical pair is recognized as unnecesary then one need
not apply the costly process of computing normal forms to it.  Only
recently have we given a proof that these approaches can be combined.
I.e., it is is possible to keep all the rewrite rules interreduced
and still use a criterion for eliminating unnecesary critical
pairs.

_______

Speaker: Leo Bachmair
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Topic: Termination of Rewrite Rule Systems

Time: 3:00-4:00 P. M.
Wednesday, September 4, 1985
Place: 315 Science Information Center, SMU, Dallas, Texas

Applications of rewrite rule systems to programming languages,
specifications of abstract data types, theorem proving, algebraic
simplification, etc. often depend on the termination of the given
systems and various termination methods have been developed in recent
years.  Termination, in general, is a nondecidable property for rewrite
systems, however.

We will describe several termination methods.  Of particular practical
importance are methods based on the use of simplification orderings.
These include orderings that extend a given partial ordering on operator
symbols (a precedence ordering) to terms.  Examples are the
recursive path ordering and the recursive decomposition ordering.
Other techniques apply to rewrite systems satisfying certain syntactic
restrictions like linearity.  We will also describe recent results on
termiantion of associative-commutative rewrite systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 1985 1043-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@CMU-CS-C.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - PARLOG (CMU)
-BODY-

Keith Clark will visit CMU on August 29.
He is a reader and senior research fellow at Imperial College,
London.  He has been actively engaged in logic programming research
since 1975.

Speaker:  Keith Clark
          Imperial College, London
Date:     Thursday, August 29
Time:     3:30 pm
Place:    8220
Topic:    PARLOG: Parallel Programming in Logic

      PARLOG is a Horn clause logic programming language designed
      for efficient parallel implementation, including both and-
      parallel and or-parallel evaluation mechanisms.  The talk
      will include a summary of the history of parallel logic
      programming.  Then the features of PARLOG will be presented
      by means of examples; and some aspects of the implementation
      outlined.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 85 14:06:18 cdt
-FROM-
From: julie@ut-ratliff.UTEXAS.EDU (Julie Barrow)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Logic (UT)
-BODY-

                       University of Texas
                  Computer Sciences Department
                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:  Amir Pnueli
                 Weizmann Institute

TITLE:     Temporal Logic - Global vs. Compositional

DATE:     Thursday, August 29, 1985
PLACE:    PAI 3.14
TIME:      4-5 p.m.

                       We present the general  framework  of  Temporal
               Logic  as  a formalism for specifications, verification
               and develpment of reactive  systems.   Recent  enhance-
               ments required by a compositional approach will be dis-
               cussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Aug 1985 16:08-EDT
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Speech Recognition and NL Processing (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


  There will be an AI seminar on Monday August 26 at 10:30 in the second floor
conference room at 10 Moulton St. Jean-Francois Cloarec and Michel Gilloux
of Centre Nationale d'etudes des Telecommunications (CNET), Lannion, France
will speak. Their abstract:

  SERAC : An Expert System for Acoustic-Phonetic Speech Recognition

We present a knowledge based approach to speech  recognition  at  the
phonetic  level.  SERAC  is  a  production system generating phonetic
hypotheses for continuously spoken french sentences.
We  give  the  motivations for using such an approach and we describe
the knowledge representation language.
Then  we  present  the  knowledge  base  and  report some preliminary
results.


There will be another talk by Karen Sparck Jones the next morning,
August 27th, at 10:00 in the 2nd floor conference room. Her abstract:

             Natural Language Processing Research
                            at the
         Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

The talk will outline recent and current work at the
Laboratory. This includes both research with a semantic
stimulus and research driven by parsing issues. The semantic
work is concerned with interpretation problems like reference
resolution, and with techniques for representation and
inference involving general as well as domain knowledge, in
the context of such tasks as database query and construction,
paraphrase, and indexing. The parsing work includes projects
on grammar construction, morphological analysis, and the use
of a large machine-readable dictionary, and research on finite
state techniques for compositional interpretation and on
robust phrase-based parsing strategies.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Aug 1985 07:37-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Simulation Environments
-BODY-
1986 SCS MultiConference January 23-25 1985
Bahia Hotel
San Diego, California

Intelligent Simulation Environments

An expert system for simulation model selection
Delphi-based distributed expert decision making
Expert systems and user decisionf in simulation studies
Artificial Intelligence and Rapid Prototyping

Professional Development Seminar
An Introduction to Prolog
Instructor: Dr. Heimo H. Adeslsberger

For more info write to:
SCS, P. O. Box 17900 San Diego, CA 92117 (619) 277-3888

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
118
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 1985 10:19-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CUSP/MANDALA
-BODY-
I found this in net.ai.  I also have attached a response for him/her.
Can you either get it back to him or put in AIList?  (I checked the
curent UUCP map and find no record of this site.)


  /* Written 10:38 am  Aug 30, 1985 by jjd@oce-rd2.UUCP in smu:net.ai */
  /* ---------- "CUSP/MANDALA" ---------- */

   Can anybody tell me about CUSP, Mandala and/or other
   End User Languages.

   CUSP = Customer Programming Language
   Mandala = Pictoral Language


Response:

Electronics Week, November 19, 1984
ICOT Details Its Progress.  Reports on work done on prolog
machines, a new logic language called Mandala. page 20

%A Robert Haavind
%T Playing to win a New Generation
%J High Technology
%D AUG 1985
%P 63-65
%K prolog lisp machine KL1 mandala ICOT
%X describes new parallel and other novel architectures being developed
in Japan including those for AI

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 3 Sep 85 08:18:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 in Interlisp
-BODY-
Someone asked about OPS5 in Interlisp; I picked up a brochure at IJCAI
on a version that is for sale.

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation)
First package (1 disk, object code only, and 1 user's manual) $2000
additional packages $500 each
source code $5000 (interlisp)

For more information, write:

saic, p.o. box 2341, La Jolla, CA 92038  [attention: Linda Anderson]


Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 Aug 85 00:57:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Andy Freeman <ANDY@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and Lisp
-BODY-
From: Carl E. Hewitt <HEWITT@MIT-MC.ARPA>

    Prolog (like APL before it) will fail as the foundation for Artificial
    Intelligence because of competition with Lisp.  There are commercially
    viable Prolog implementations written in Lisp but not conversely.

From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA

    1. (the least interesting one) All the so-called commercially viable
    Prolog systems in Lisp are not really Prolog systems written IN Lisp,
    but rather Prolog systems written FOR Lisp machines. [They are
    microcoded and have good support for tagged data types.]  Without
    those machine-level operations, those Prolog systems would run too
    slow and use too much memory to be useful for serious Prolog
    programming.

Hewitt's message alludes to an apparent difference between Lisp and
Prolog which Pereira's response ignores.  The response also implies
that Prolog in Lisp is inherently slow.  A previous message from
Pereira (Prolog Digest Volume 1, Issue 21) correctly emphasizes that
speed is important.  (This issue and the ones following are quite
informative.)

From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
    What Prolog "does" is not just to make certain deductions in a certain
    order, but also MAKE THEM VERY FAST.

One of the differences between Lisp and Prolog is in how efficiently
they support embedded languages.  Special purpose languages, like
special purpose hardware, are an important tool.  Prolog has not
demonstrated its ability to support them (apart from Logic in Prolog,
of course), Lisp has.

One example of this is the Prolog interpreter Foolog by Martin
Nilsson* in that Prolog Digest issue.  Written in 2 pages of Maclisp,
it runs about 75% as fast as interpreted DEC-10 Prolog; a later
version was supposed to be marginally faster.  Naturally, Foolog
doesn't include a debugger and other system functions or all of the
user utilities in the Prolog library (but they're written in
Prolog...), but it does support cut, call, bagof, arithmetic, and I/O.
A simple compiler apparently was written later that generated code 25%
as fast as compiled DEC-10 Prolog.  After that message, I lost track
of Foolog.  Nilsson described it as a "toy"; I doubt much came of it.

Obviously the first 50% is the easiest and one shouldn't ignore the
environment.  (Both Prolog and Lisp encourage powerful environments.
At that time, DEC-10 Prolog was fairly mature.)  When Prolog is the
appropriate language, then one should use the best Prolog available.
When you need a special language however, Lisp is hard to beat.

If logic is by far the most important language for AI, Lisp may be in
trouble.  If it isn't, pure Prolog environments are in trouble.

>andy

ps - The speed advantage of special Lisp hardware is shrinking.  I
assume that the same is true for Prolog.

* Nilsson was one of the developers of LM-Prolog.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday,  3 Sep 1985 11:40:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: billingslea%lite.DEC@decwrl.ARPA  (Mark Billingslea `Lock and Load!')
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FDA Approval for Expert Systems
-BODY-
This mail was sent to me, from Germany.  Thought I would pass it on to you
for review.

>Mark

From: GYPSC2::ROLLER "Christian E. Roller - PSC Muenchen - RTO"
      1-SEP-1985 02:51
To:   COORS::BILLINGSLEA
Subj: Some news for AI digest

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>
 Edition :  897               Friday 30-Aug-1985            Circulation :   365
 Send subscription requests, backissue requests and letters to MAGIC::VNS

[TAYLOR         ]
[Nashua, NH, USA]

            Some AI systems may need FDA approval

    Expert systems come within the FDA ambit to the extent that
    they supplement doctor's work, according to Richard Beutal, a
    Washington D.C. attorney specializing in the legal aspects of
    technology.

    An expert system may be defined as a computer program that
    embodies the expertise of one or more human experts in some
    domain and applies this knowledge to provide inferences and
    guidance to a user. some of the earliest and most
    sophisticated systems were developed for medical diagnosis:
    MCYIN, EMCYIN, CADUCEUS AND ATTENDING. [There are several
    more in use in Japan. --mjt]

    Beutal called attention to proposed FDA regulations that, if
    implemented, would require medical expert systems to obtain
    FDA pre-marketing approval. Given that FDA approval for what
    are class 3 devices could take up to 10 years and that
    reclassifying such devices can take almost as long, these FDA
    regulations would virtually cause investment to dry up.
      {Government Computer News Aug 16, 1985}

    [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 85 10:50:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Cymru am Byth! <bradford@AMSAA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Good news and bad news, Mr. Wizard...
-BODY-

  From: straz@AQUINAS.THINK.COM@MIT-CCC, Steve Strassmann
  But the study also showed that TV scientists are killed more often than
  soldiers, private eyes, and police officers."


WOW!  Just how often is a TV scientist likely to be killed?

Not more than once, I hope!

                                        PJB


  "So you think being drunk feels good -- tell that to a glass of water!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 85  8:15:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: chess openings
-BODY-

It is not clear whether a human expert studying the Caro-Kann defense for five
weeks memorizes 50,000 openings or generalizes in ways that are difficult
in conscious, verbal terms to articulate.  Indeed, isn't there evidence that
even human memorizing entails kinds of generalization that are not present in
simple storage of a table for later lookup?

Seems to me this points to the kernel issue of machine learning,
and a hard nut at that!

  [For recent progress in chess subpattern learning see Albrecht Heeffer's
  "Validating Concepts from Automated Acquisition Systems", IJCAI-85, pp.
  613-615.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 85 09:33:14 pdt
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <tgd%oregon-state.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers Cheat at Chess?
-BODY-
I enjoyed Stuart Cracraft's notes concerning the use of tree searching in
chess programs.  Amidst all of the hype about "shallow" versus "deep" expert
systems, it is interesting to note that most computer chess systems should
be classified as "deep".  Once they get past the opening moves, they play
every game from "first principles"!

>-Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
119
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Sep 85 17:17:57-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Flavor-Based Knowledge Representation (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 ``FORK: A Flavor-Based Environment for
               Object-oriented Knowledge Representation''
   C. Beckstein, G. Goerz, University Erlangen-Nuernberg, West Germany
            2:15, Thursday, September 5, Ventura Seminar Room

      Most object-oriented extensions of LISP provide only marginal
   support for the purpose of knowledge representation. In particular,
   there are only poor means---if any---for specifying meta-information
   about attributes of objects such as typed domains, methods for
   determining values (demons), multiple-valued attributes and explicit
   control of inheritance.  Furthermore, they usually don't offer
   adequate utilities for handling multiple perspectives, retrieving
   objects through patterns of characteristic features, and maintaining
   structural relations (integrity constraints) in and between objects.
   FORK is an attempt to extend Flavors, an object-oriented extension of
   LISP, by adding features which are well known from frame-like systems
   with the advantage of keeping a systematic distinction between classes
   and instances. The procedural knowledge is attached to classes either
   in the usual sense of methods as functions or in the form of (forward
   chaining) rule sets. In addition, FORK offers a programming
   environment to support users in the construction and maintenance of
   large, hybrid knowledge bases.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 85 13:43:19 PDT
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Misconceptions about Basketball Statistics (UCB)
-BODY-
                          BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                      Fall 1985
                        Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

            TIME:                Tuesday, September 10, 11:00 - 12:30
            PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
              (followed by)
            DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

            SPEAKER:          Amos  Tversky,  Department  of   Psychology,
                              Stanford University

            TITLE:            ``Misconception  of  Chance   Processes   in
                              Basketball''

            We investigate the origin and the validity of  common  beliefs
            regarding ``the hot hand'' and ``streak shooting'' in the game
            of basketball.  Basketball players  and  fans  alike  tend  to
            believe  that  a player's chance of hitting a shot are greater
            following a hit than following a miss on  the  previous  shot.
            However, detailed analyses of the shooting records of the Phi-
            ladelphia 76ers provided no evidence for a  positive  correla-
            tion  between the outcomes of successive shots.  The same con-
            clusions emerged from free-throw records of  the  Boston  Cel-
            tics,  and  from a controlled shooting experiment with the men
            and women of Cornell's varsity teams.  The outcomes of  previ-
            ous  shots  influenced  Cornell  players'  predictions but not
            their preformance.   The  belief  in  the  hot  hand  and  the
            ``detection''  of streaks in random sequences is attributed to
            a general misconception of  chance  according  to  which  even
            short random sequences are thought to be highly representative
            of their generating process.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 20:56 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Haptic Object Recognition (UPenn)
-BODY-

HAPTIC OBJECT RECOGNITION:  WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HUMANS FOR MACHINE
PERCEPTION AND MANIPULATION.

Susan Lederman, Psychology Department, Queen's University in Kingston, Canada

2pm Friday, September 6, 216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania

  We  shall  present  our  investigation  of  haptic  object  recognition which
concerns with what we call "knowledge based control of  Human  hand  movements.
The "knowledge based" hand movements are directed by the observer's goal.  This
implies an analysis of hand movements at the cognitive level rather than  at  a
biomechanical  or neutral level.  Some exploratory hand movement procedures are
being suggested.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 85 15:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Scalar Implicature (UPenn)
-BODY-
                             DISSERTATION DEFENSE

                        A Theory of Scalar Implicature

                               Julia Hirschberg

                             10:00am Sept 4 1985
                 216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania

Determining what an utterance conveys, beyond its semantic import, is
an important goal of natural-language processing.  This thesis first
proposes a definition of one type of non-logical inference, Gricean
conversational implicature.  Within this framework, it defines a class
of conversational implicature, scalar implicature, revising and
extending work by Horn (1972), Harnish (1979), and Gazdar (1979).  A
theory of scalar implicature is proposed based upon an analysis of
naturally occurring data.  A representation of the phenomenon is
developed, as are algorithms for calculating licensed implicatures.  An
application to computer-human question-answering is discussed, as are
other potential uses in natural-language generation and understanding.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 1985 11:14-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NL Menu Interfaces to Databases (SMU)
-BODY-
Speaker: Dr. Craig W. Thompson, Texas Instruments, Inc.
Topic: Menu-Based Natural Language Interfaces to Databases

Time: 3:00-4:00 p. m., Wednesday, September 11, 1985
Place: 315 SIC SMU, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas

Menu-based natural language as implemented in the NLMenu system,
provides useful near-term solutions to a number of problems that
affect conventional natural language interfaces to databases.
This talk overviews our research on menu-based natural language,
describing
1) the basic NLMenu approach
2) advantages of the approach including ease-of-use for end users
and low cost for interface designers
3) applications of the approach for database updates, request for
business graphs and map displays, and mixed
dbms and keyword based informaiton retrieval queries.
The talk ends with research directions related to this new approach.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 11:46:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: MAJ Kenneth Rose (Ft. Benj. Harrison) <krose@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI and Robotics
-BODY-
The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is sponsoring an
artificial intelligence and robotics symposium in conjunction
with the American Defense Preparedness Association on November
6th-7th in Austin, Texas.  The pupose is to afford members of
industry and the acedemic research community an opportunity to
respond to Army areas of technical interest as described in the
call for papers.  A more specific description of Army interests
is in preparation for distribution at the symposium.  The agenda
for the symposium follows.  For more information, contact Colonel
Bruce Holt at--

    American Defense Preparedness Association
    Rosslyn Center, Suite 900
    1700 North Moore Street
    Arlington, VA  22209
*****************************************************************

         ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ROBOTICS SYMPOSIUM
                6-7 November 1985, Austin, Texas

                             AGENDA

Tuesday, 5 November

1800-    REGISTRATION, Wyndam Hotel, Austin, Texas.
2000

2030     PRE-SYMPOSIUM MEETING FOR SPEAKERS, Wyndam Hotel.  Room
         location to be announced.

Wednesday, 6 November

0700     REGISTRATION, Wyndam Hotel.

                         OPENING SESSION

0800     INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, Major Kenneth H. Rose, Chief of
         Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, US Army Soldier
         Support Center, Sessions Chairman.

0805     PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE, Major General Maurice O. Edmonds,
         Commander, US Army Soldier Support Center, Conference
         Chairman.

0815     KEYNOTE ADDRESS, Lieutenant General Robert L. Moore,
         Deputy Commanding General for Research, Development, and
         Acquisition, US Army Materiel Command.

0925     US ARMY ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTIONS, Mr. Richard
         Vitali, Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology Planning
         and Management, Headquarters, US Army Materiel Command.

                      SESSION I - ROBOTICS

0950     Mobile Robots for Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and
         Manipulative Missions: A Survey of Current Systems.
         Mr. Harvey B. Mieieran, H. B. Meieran Associates.

1015     Technology Development in Intelligent Machine Systems.
         Mr. Thomas G. Bartholot, Odetics, Inc.

1105     Loading, Assembling, and Packaging of Ammunition:
         Applying Flexible Automation in the Future to Solve the
         Problems of the Past.  Mr. Vernon L. Mangold, KOHOL, Inc.

1130     Control of a Multi-Robot Processing Line Using
         Artificial Intelligence.  Mr. James M. McNair, GA
         Technologies.

1300     ROMAC Muscle Powered Mobile Robots.  Mr. Guy Immega,
         MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, Ltd., (Canada) and
         Mr. Harvey B. Meieran, HB Meieran Associates.

                SESSION II - AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

1325     Abstractions to Represent the Plan of an Autonomous Land
         Vehicle.  Dr. Theodore A. Linden, Advanced Information &
         Decision Systems.

1350     A Planning System for Autonomous Land Vehicles: An
         Overview of the Hughes System.  Dr. David Y. Tseng,
         Hughes Aircraft Company.

1415     A Land Vehicle Navigation System Supported by a Digital
         Map Data Base.  Mr. Walter B. Zavoli, Etak, Inc.

1500     Obstacle Avoidance Simulation for Autonomous Land
         Vehicles.  Dr. Theodore A. Linden, Advanced Information
         & Decision Systems.

1525     An Incremental Path Toward Autonomous Vehicles.  Mr.
         Jack Harper, Robot Defense Systems, Inc.

1550     Robot Combat Vehicles: Synchronizing Technology and
         Applications.  Mr. R. G. Diaz, General Dynamics Land
         Systems Division.

1615     Remote Control Weapons Platforms.  Mr. C. Ron Clouser,
         Robot Defense Systems, Inc.

1640     Robotic Ranger: Recent Testbed Results/Path to Autonomy.
         Mr. Jerome Kirsch, Grumman Corporation.  (PROPRIETARY
         INFORMATION: US GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ONLY)

1800-    RECEPTION BUFFET, Wyndam Hotel.
2000

Thursday, 7 November

0800     Design of a Lightweight, Full Mobility Vehicle.  Mr.
David D. Wright, Unique Mobility, Inc.

              SESSION III - KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS

0825     Expert System for Logistics Analysis.  Mr. William O.
         Hedgepeth, US Army Logistics Center.

0850     Relevant Help, User Modeling, and Reasoning Under
         Uncertainty.  Dr. Joseph Dempsey, RCA.

0915     A Software Architecture for Realtime, Embedded Expert
         Systems.  Dr. Kenneth R. Whitebread, Honeywell, Inc.

1000     Stochastic Resources Allocation for Command and Control.
         Dr. Marc D. Diamond, FMC Corporation and Ms. Olivia M.
         Carducci, Carnegie-Mellon University.

1025     Knowledge Integrity Maintenance: Quality Assurance in
         Knowledge System Development.  Dr. E. Webb Stacey, Jr.,
         Scientific Systems, Inc.

                SESSION IV - COMMAND AND CONTROL

1050     Embedding AI Systems Into Command and Control
         Applications.  Ms. Sharon Storms, Ford Aerospace and
         Communications Corporation.

1115     A Knowledge-based System Approach for Enhanced Crisis
         Action Planning.  Ms. Ina Ghaznavi-Collins, GTE
         Government Systems.

1300     Intelligent Tactical Display.  Mr. James R. Richardson,
         Symbolics, Inc. and Captain Bill Johnson, US Army Armor
         Center.

                  SESSION V - NATURAL LANGUAGE

1325     A Natural Language Understanding System for Maneuver
         Control.  Mr. Isaac Fajerman, US Army Communications-
         Electronics Command, and Dr. Abe Lockman, Horizon
         Information Systems.

1350     A Speech Understanding Testbed for Command and Control
         Dialogs.  Dr. Richard Kittredge, Odyssey Research
         Associates and Mr. Isaac Fajerman, US Army
         Communications-Electronics Command.

                      SESSION VI - TRAINING

1415     A Mark 45 Maintenance Advisor.  Mr. Dick Grommes, FMC
         Corporation.

1440     The Design of a Generic Intelligent Trainer.  Mr. Philip
         Underwood, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company.

PAPERS TO BE PUBLISHED IN SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS.

Project PERICLES: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Assisting
the Provision of Legal Services.  Harvard University Law School.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
120
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 15:23 MST
-FROM-
From: May@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: May%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Source Licenses for Common Lisp
-BODY-
We are interested in porting Common Lisp to our large system hosts
and are looking for software houses who are interested in selling
source licenses for Common Lisp that is written in either Pascal
or, preferably, C.  If you know of any, please send whatever
information you can to me and I will post the responses here in
the list. Thanks. Bob May

May%pco @ cisl-service-multics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 21:18:31 edt
-FROM-
From: Brad Miller  <miller@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: Graphics Software for 3600 (Semantic Nets)
-BODY-
I'm doing a semantic parser, and just for hacks, want to display the
output graphically as a Semantic Net. Anyone out there hack anything
similar for the Symbolics FLAVOR system? (or the TI explorer, or LMI,
or any other degenerate case of MIT's LM) I'm a novice to this sort of
graphics, so anything likely (say a program that displays ATNs) would
be fine! I just want to get a better grasp on this stuff than the provided
examples give....

Brad Miller
miller@ur-seneca.rochester.arpa
University of Rochester CS dept.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 85 09:29:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Krypton
-BODY-

In the October 1983 issue of IEEE's Computer, there was an
article called "Krypton: A Functional Approach to Knowledge
Representation" by Ronald Brachman, Richard Fikes, and
Hector Levesque.  It described work in progress.  Does anyone
out there know what became of this effort?  Any follow-up
articles, etc??

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Sep 85 21:04:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steve.Hoffmann@CMU-CS-K
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Children's story generator
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Can anyone give me a reference to a story-generation program, I believe from
Schank's group at Yale, which tells stories about such characters as Joe Bear
and Irving Bird?  Also, any pointers to other story generation would be
appreciated.  Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1985  08:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and Lisp
-BODY-
I would like to respond to the message from Andy Freeman who sent the
following:

    From: Carl E. Hewitt <HEWITT@MIT-MC.ARPA>

        Prolog (like APL before it) will fail as the foundation for Artificial
        Intelligence because of competition with Lisp.  There are commercially
        viable Prolog implementations written in Lisp but not conversely.

        [...]

I believe that the Prolog implementations on Common Lisp will be just
as efficient as the stand-alone Prolog implementations.  However, it
is not possible to make a commercially viable Common Lisp
implementation on Prolog.  This means that any good software written
for a stand-alone Prolog system will soon appear on the Lisp Systems
but NOT vice versa.  Therefore the stand alone Prolog systems will
always have impoverished software libraries by comparison with the
Common Lisp systems and will not be commercially viable in the long
run.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Sep 85 21:17:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: Donald Henager <HENAGER@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Misperception of Probability
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The October issue of Science 85 has an interesting article on people's
mistaken view of probability.  It starts with the results of an experiment
in which people were drilled about the advantages of seat belts, then
agreed that seat belts were great, and then drove away without their seat
belts fastened.  It goes on to say:

"If you think the apparent irrationality of Slovic's subjects frustrated him,
imagine how people in the nuclear power business must feel.  [This is] the
same general public whose concern for the safety of nuclear reactors -- which
have claimed a total of three lives in accidents in the last 30 years --
brought the industry to a virtual standstill.  It's the same general public
that smokes billions of cigarettes a year while banning an artificial
sweetner because of a one-in-a-million chance that it might cause cancer;
the same public that eats meals full of fat, flocks to cities prone to
earthquakes, and goes hang gliding while it frets about pesticides in food,
avoidsthe ocean for fear of sharks, and breaks into a cold sweat on airline
flights.
        "In short, we the general public are irrational, uninformed, super-
stitious, even stupid.  We don't understand probability, are biased by the
news media, and have a fear of some technologies that borders on the
primeval."

It's an interesting article about how people think about probability and
in particular points out some catchy statistics about what is and isn't
dangerous to your life span.  If you can get a copy, read it.

Don

  [Although I have retitled this message "Misperception of Probability",
  articles by Amos Tversky (and cited by Paul Cohen) have stressed that
  people seem to base judgements on prototype similarity rather than on
  probability, even when the "priors" needed for probabilistic reasoning
  are presented as the major component of a problem specification.  Given
  that people >>want<< to reason in this manner, the misperception involved
  may be that of the scientific community in assuming that people are
  trying to reason probabilistically and that they are getting it wrong.
  There may be valid epistemological reasons (as well as computational
  ones) for prototype-based pattern recognition and reasoning.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Sep 85 14:37:38 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Marshall D. Abrams <abrams@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WARNING !!       [A Trojan Horse Bites Man]
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]
       [Forwarded from the Info-Atari bboard by MRC@SIMTEL20.]
       [Forwarded to the Info-Atari bboard by Malpass@LL-SST.]

Today's Wall St. Journal contained the following article.  I think
it is of enough potential significance that I'll enter the whole thing.
In addition to the conclusions it states, it implies something about
good backup procedure discipline.
        In the hope this may save someone,
                Don Malpass

                ******************************************
                        (8/15/85 Wall St. Journal)
                                ARF! ARF!
        Richard Streeter's bytes got bitten by an "Arf Arf," which isn't
a dog but a horse.
        Mr. Streeter, director of development in the engineering department
of CBS Inc. and home-computer buff, was browsing recently through the
offerings of Family Ledger, a computer bulletin board that can be used by
anybody with a computer and a telephone to swap advice, games or programs -
or to make mischief.  Mr. Streeter loaded into his computer a program that
was billed as enhancing his IBM program's graphics; instead it instantly wiped
out the 900 accounting, word processing and game programs he had stored in
his computer over the years.  All that was left was a taunt glowing back
at him from the screen: "Arf! Arf! Got You!"
"HACKERS" STRIKE AGAIN
        [...]  Several variations of the "Arf! Arf!" program have made
the rounds, including one that poses as a "super-directory" that
conveniently places computer files in alphabetical order.
        [...]   Al Stone, the computer consultant who runs Long Island
based Family Ledger, [says] "Don't attempt to run something unless you
know its pedigree," he says.
        That's good advice, because the computer pranksters are getting more
clever - and nastier.  They are now creating even-more-insidious programs
that gradually eat away existing files as they are used.  Appropriately
enough, these new programs are known as "worms".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
121
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 85 14:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Equational Logic as a Programming Language (UPenn)
-BODY-

EQUATIONAL LOGIC AS A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
Michael J. O'Donnell, The University of Chicago
3pm September 19th, 216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania

  In  logic  programming  languages,  programs  are  logical assertions with no
explicit procedural  information,  and  execution  consists  of  the  efficient
derivation  of  certain  logical  consequences  of  a  program.    Prolog,  and
relational database query languages are both logic programming languages  based
on  the predicate calculus.  The advantages of logic programming are clarity of
programs, simplicity of semantics, and the  potential  for  parallel  execution
without  timing  dependence.    In this talk, I describe a programming language
based on the logic of equations.  A prototype implementation  exists,  and  has
been  used  in  a  number  of  experiments.    The  talk will focus on examples
illustrating the advantages of  equational  programming,  and  the  differences
between equational programming and Prolog programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 1985 17:37-EDT
-FROM-
From: AHAAS at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Constructive Lexicon-Grammar (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

  The next BBN Artificial Intelligence seminar will be held in the 3rd
floor large conference room at 10 Moulton Street, 10:30 on Friday
September 13.  Bruce Nevins of BBN wil speak on "Constructive
Lexicon-Grammar". His abstract:

Maurice Gross's group in Paris found that, after they had specified
French verbs by their syntactic properties, there was no need for
lexical features to make further semantic distinctions between them.
Because of this perhaps surprising result, they have been able to
develop a highly specific lexical representation, using classifier
words in sentence forms rather than abstract features.  Their
lexicon-grammar replaces most context-free parsing with simple lookup
in 3-dimensional tables of syntactic properties of words.

Constructive grammar, as exemplified by Harris's _A_Grammar_of
_English_on_Mathematical_Principles_ (Wiley, 1984), uses only the
constructive `has-a' relations of dependency and adjunction, limiting
the taxonomic `is-a' relation to classifier hierarchies of words in
the lexicon.  A given input morpheme can only be one of a few kinds of
things: an operator with specified argument requirement, a primitive
argument (roughly, a concrete noun), an argument-indicator like -ing,
the operator-indicator -s, or a product of certain precisely
specifiable reductions of strings to more compact, and more
conventional, form.  Because each morpheme has at most only a very few
possible syntactic roles--frequently, just one--computer analysis of
text has much less structural ambiguity to cope with than in other
approaches.

In this talk, I will show how these two approaches to natural language
processing may be combined in a system for construing (as opposed to
parsing) natural language input that should be readily adaptable to
text generation as well.  I will sketch extensions similar to Naomi
Sager's system for automatically incorporating new text information
into subject-matter specific data bases.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 85 11:09:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Corporate Distribution Management (CMU)
-BODY-
Topic:     Presentation of Inet Project
Speakers:  Ramana Reddy and Nizwer Husain
Place:     DH3313
Date:      Wednesday, September 11
Time:      11:30am - 12:30pm

The Inet project is an application of Knowledge Based Simulation(KBS)
techniques to the domain of corporate distribution management.  Corporate
distribution management provides a rich environment for studying new
techniques developed in KBS.  Consider a typical manufacturing organization
which manufactures a number of products and whose components are manufactured
in a number of widely separated locations.  These components are warehoused
and merged at different locations and distributed to reseller locations.  In
such a system there are numerous decisions that have to be made about the
transportation, warehousing, manufacturing and order administration policies.
The purpose of I-NET is to provide a simulation model which can be
understood, modified and used by managers directly without the assistance of
a programmer.  These facilities should provide the manager with an indepth
understanding of the distribution network and aid in decision making.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 9 Sep 85 10:45:56-PDT
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning (SU)
-BODY-
DAY       October 1, 1985
EVENT     Computer Science Colloquium
PLACE     Skilling Auditorium
TIME      4:15
TITLE     Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning
PERSON    Dr. Joe Halpern
FROM      IBM Corporation

            BELIEF, AWARENESS, AND LIMITED REASONING

Classical possible-worlds models for knowledge and belief suffer from the
problem of logical omniscience: agents know all tautologies and their
knowledge is closed under logical consequence.  This unfortunately is not a
very accurate account of how people operate! We review possible-worlds
semantics, and then go on to introduce three approaches towards solving the
problem of logical omniscience.  In particular, in our logics, the set of
beliefs of an agent does not necessarily contain all valid formulas. One of
our logics deals explicitly with awareness, where, roughly speaking, it is
necessary to be aware of a concept before one can have beliefs about it,
while another gives a model of local reasoning, where an agent is viewed as a
society of minds, each with its own cluster of beliefs, which may contradict
each other. The talk will be completely self-contained.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Aug 85 10:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: (Herb Bernstein) <BERNSTEIN@NYU-CMCL1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium on Fact. Aut. & Robotics
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Reminder:
  The Symposium on Factory Automation and Robotics
  A Forum for Industrial and Academic Robotics Engineers and Scientists
      will be held 9-11 September 1985
      by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU
      in honor of Marvin Denicoff
      sponsored by the National Science Foundation
Registration $35 ($25 for NYU faculty and staff), in advance to
      NYU/CIMS Symposium on Fac. Aut. and Robotics
      Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
      251 Mercer Street, New York, N.Y. 10012
        Attn:  Herbert J. Bernstein
Or at the meeting, Eisner and Lubin Auditorium, Loeb Student Center,
566 LaGuardia Place (corner of LaGuardia Place and Wash. Sq. South).
For more information or to RSVP, mail to yaya@nyu (on ARPANET), or
call 212-533-3363 or 212-460-7444.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 1985 13:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross <cross@wpafb-afita>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Aerospace Applications of AI Conference
-BODY-
Registration is still open for the First Annual Aerospace Applications
of Artificial Intelligence, September 17-19, 1985 in Dayton Ohio.
The number to call for registration information is (513) 426-8430.
The conference will be held at the Dayton Convention Center and the
conference hotel, Stouffer's Dayton Plaza, is adjacent.  Stouffer's
phone number is (513) 224-0800. The registration cost of $225.00
includes the two conference luncheons and the banquet. The program is
listed below:

First Annual Aerospace Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference
Program

Tuesday Morning, 9:00 AM - 9:15 AM

   Welcome to Dayton
          Mayor Paul Leonard

   Welcome to AAAIC'85
          Jack Schira, AAAIC'85 General Chairman
          Capt Stephen E. Cross, AAAIC'85 Program Chairman

Tuesday Morning, 9:15 AM -  11:30 AM

   Management Session

     Session Moderator:
          Brig Gen Philippe O. Bouchard
          Vice Commander, Aeronautical Systems Division

     Speakers:
          Brig Gen Philippe O. Bouchard
          Vice Commander, Aeronautical Systems Division

          Dr. Woodrow Bledsoe
          MCC and U. of Texas at Austin

          Dr. Joseph Watson
          Vice President of the Data Systems Group,
          Texas Instruments

          Dr. Clinton Kelly III
          Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency


Tuesday Luncheon, noon - 1:30 PM, Stouffer's Dayton Plaza

          Dr. Ed Taylor, TRW

Tuesday Afternoon, 2:00 PM - 4:30 PM

    Avionics Session

      Session Moderator:
          Maj James R. Johnson, AFWAL

      Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. Tom Garvey, SRI International, AI Center
          "Keeping the Pilot in Command:  AI and Avionics"

      Speakers:
          Dick Feldman and Hal Cambell, Systran
          "Expert System Pilot Aid - an Update"

          Dr. Bruce Anderson, Christa McNulty, and Garr S. Lystad
          "Expert Systems for Aiding Combat Pilots"

          Dr. Michael R. Fehling, Teknowledge Inc.
          "Research Issues for Knowledge Based Planning"

   Programming Languages

     Session Moderator:
          Dr. Gary Lamont, AFIT

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. Kenneth Kahn, Xerox PARC
          "The Integration of Multiple Paradigms for AI
           Programming"

     Speakers:
          Charles T. Kitsmiller, J. Boose, T. Jardine
          Boeing Computer Services
          "Coupling Symbolic and Numerical Computing in Expert
           Systems"

          Bruce Reed Jr., Goodyear Aerospace
          "An Implementation of LISP on a SIMD Parallel
           Processor"

          Dick Naedel, Intellimac
          "Ada and Artificial Intelligence"

          Mark Miller, Computer Thought
          "Ada and Artificial Intelligence"

Wednesday Morning, 9:00 AM - 11:30 AM

   Manufacturing

     Session Moderator:
          Dr. Vince Russo, AFWAL

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. Mark Fox, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon Univ.
          "Artificial Intelligence in Manufacturing"

     Speakers:
           Dr. Petros Papus, Westinghouse Electric Corp.
           "ISIS Project in Review"

           Robert Joy, Northrup Corp.
           "Lisp Machine Based Generative Process Planning and
            Object Oriented Simulation"

           Capt Thomas Triscari, AFIT, and
           Dr. William M Henghold, Universal Technology Institute
           "Research Needs for AI in Manufacturing"

   Man-Machine Interfaces

     Session Moderator:
          Dr. Tom Furness, AAMRL

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. William Rouse, Search Technology Inc.
          "Human Interaction with Intelligent Systems"

     Speakers:
          D. Woods and E. Roth, Westinghouse R&D Center
          "Joint Person-Machine Cognitive Systems:  Issues in
           Intelligent Decision Support"

          Norm Geddes, Georgia Institute of Technology
          "Intent Inferencing Using Scripts and Plans"

          Dr. Russ Hunt, Search Technology Inc.
          "Human Factors of Intelligent Computer-aided Display
           Design"

Wednesday Afternoon, 2:00 PM - 4:30 PM

   Maintenance

     Session Moderator:
          Cpt Rob Milne, Army AI Center, Pentagon

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. B. Chandrasekaran, Ohio State University
          "Artificial Intelligence Applications to Diagnostics
           and Maintenance"

     Speakers:
          Mr. R. Cantone, Automated Reasoning Corp., and
          Dr. Don Allen, Northrup Corp.
          "Technical Diagnosis by Automated Reasoning"

          Dr. Joseph Hintz, Raytheon Co.
          "Expert Systems in Higher Echelon Maintenance
           Activities"

          Dr. F. Pippitone and Dr. K DeJong, Naval Research Lab
          "FIS: An Electronics Fault Isolation System Based on
           Qualitative Causal Modeling"

   New Architectures

     Session Moderator:
          Dr. Barry Deer, Systran

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. Victor Lesser, Univ. of Massachusetts at Amherst
          "Overview of Important Issues in Distributed Problem
           Solving"

     Speakers:
          Dr. Barry Deer, Hal Cambell, Jack Schira, and
          Dick Feldman, Systran
          "Architecture-Based Machine Intelligence"

          Cpt Richard Routh and Dr. Matthew Kabrisky, AFIT
          "Cortical Thought Theory: A New Computing Architecture
           Based on the Human Brain"

          Bruce Reed, Goodyear Aerospace
          "The ASPRO Parallel Inference Engine (A Real Time
           Production Rule System)"

Wednesday Evening Banquet, 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM

          Dr. Mark Stefik, Xerox PARC

Thursday Morning, 9:00 AM - 11:30 AM

   Decision Support Systems

     Session Moderator:
          Dr. Yan Yufik, NCR

     Keynote Speaker:
          Prof Donald Michie, The Turing Institute
          "The Automated Development of Decision Support
           Systems"

     Speakers:
          Cpt Rob Milne, Army AI Center, Pentagon
          "An Equipment Distribution Expert System"

          Dr. Thomas Sheridan, MIT, and Dr. Yufik, NCR
          "Hybrid Knowledge Based System for Operation
           Planning"

          Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, Grumman-CTEC
          "Determining the Relevance of Cues:  A New Type of
           Decision Support"

   Expert System Tools

     Session Moderator:
          Mr. David Dietz, System Research Laboratories Inc.

     Keynote Speaker:
          Dr. Earl Sacerdoti, Teknowledge Inc.
          "Overview of Expert System Building Tools"

     Speakers:
          Dr. William Faught, IntelliCorp
          "Aerospace Application and the Use of KEE"

          Linda Brainard, System Research Laboratories Inc.
          "Developing Portable Expert Systems"

          Mark Maletz, Inference Corp., and C. Cuthbert, NASA
          "Monitoring Real-Time Navigation Processes Using the
           Automated Reasoning Tool (ART)"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
122
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 85 09:57:34 cdt
-FROM-
From: Don <kraft%lsu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems for advising
-BODY-
Can anyone provide me with information and/or a bibliography on expert
systems to advise undergraduate students vis-a-vis planning their
curricula?

Don Kraft
kraft%lsu@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 10-Sep-85 17:45:01-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Autonomy
-BODY-
>From a recent AIList (Vol 3 # 119) announcement of a meeting
(Army AI) a discussion was to take place on a

``Robotic Ranger: Recent Testbed Results/Path to Autonomy...''

Can we really look forward to an autononous system? And in such
a setting?

Gordon Joly (now gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Sep 85 23:55:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: FIKES@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Your Inquiry About KRYPTON
-BODY-
John,
        The KRYPTON project resulted in papers at AAAI-82, AAAI-83,
AAAI-84, and IJCAI-85, in addition to the one in IEEE Computer.  The
KRYPTON "team" is currently dispersed as follows:  Ron Brachman is at
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Hector Levesque is at the University of Toronto,
and Victoria Gilbert and I are at IntelliCorp.

richard fikes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Sep 85 12:15:06-EDT
-FROM-
From: "Fanya S. Montalvo" <MONTALVO%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and Lisp
-BODY-
In-Reply-To: <HEWITT.12141071402.BABYL@MIT-XX>

   From: Hewitt

   However, it
   is not possible to make a commercially viable Common Lisp
   implementation on Prolog.  This means that any good software written
   for a stand alone Prolog system will soon appear on the Lisp Systems
   but NOT vice versa.  Therefore the stand alone Prolog systems will
   always have impoverished software libraries by comparison with the
   Common Lisp systems and will not be commercially viable in the long
   run.

This type of argument strikes one as historical accident not as anything
fundamental.  And by that accident I mean vagaries of the market place.
Could you say more about how it's fundamental, or do you agree that it's
historical accident?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 8 Sep 85 14:28:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Crispin <Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Professor George Polya
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Dr. George Polya, professor emeritus at Stanford and a leading research
mathematician, died Saturday at his home after a long illness.  He was 97.
Memorial services are pending; the family prefers memorials be contributions
to the George Polya Memorial Book Fund, Stanford University Department of
Mathematics, Stanford 94305.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 1985 09:13-EST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Report, SEP 1985
-BODY-
Artificial Intelligence Report, September 1985, Volume 2, No. 9

REPORT ON IJCAI-85  (interesting facts not reported by me from
other sources)

over 6000 attendees, 250 papers, five dozen commercial display
booths, fourteen tutorials,

Xerox announced new 1185 and 1186 AI work stations at $9,9995 and
$15,865 are comptabile with the IBM-PC.

Symbolics anounced the development of a workstation which will
sell at approximately half the price of present machines.

Hewlett Packard demonstrated an integrated circuitry photolithography
advisor and natural language analyzer.

Intellicorp previewed KEE 3.0 which has an updated version of its
object oriented graphcis package (scheduled for shipment in January).
Intellicorp also announced KEEWorlds, a tool that compares and
merges complementary worlds of knowledge, a system for delivering
expert systems on a personal computer and a manufacturing
simulation package.  They will be opening a  European Office
in Munich.

Palladian Software announced a Financial Adivisor running on a Symbolics
3640 connected to a major mainframe.  The economic strategies were
provided by Professor Steward Myers of the Sloan School of Management.
Among the first commercial will be the CIGNA Corporation.

Symbolics announced a record fourth quarter and fiscal 85 sales.  It
has shipped its 1,250th machine.  Their new units will use Symbolics
release 6.1 and will run Common Lisp.

TI demonstrated its PC-Scheme.

Inference Corporation announced the ARTIST graphics environment
and the ART STUDIO knowledge base browsing material.  It signed
an agremement with the Insurance Company of North America to develop
expert systems for the financial industry.

Teknowledge released Version 2 of its M.1 expert system and has rewritten
S.1 in the C programming language.

Teknowledge has announced an agreement with Computer Thought company
to convert S.1 to ADA programming language.

Apollo Computer and Sun announced agreements with LUCID to sell and
support LUCID's implementation of COMMON Lisp.

Membership in AAAI is over 10,000.  AAAI next conference to
be held in Philadelphia, August 11-15 1986 will have two tracks,
engineering and scientific.

REPORT ON FRENCH AI PROGRAM

which listed areas being studied and government agencies supporting
AI.  Also includes a comment by Geoffroy d'Aumale, Editor of
La Lettre da l'Intelligence Artificiel that unless something is
done about French research in AI, the fifth generation will be out
of reach of French Industry

THE CONNECTION MACHINE

discusses the Connection Machine Project of Thinking Machine Company.
Thinking Machine Company also will be offering a program that indexes
natural language for online text browsing.  It can generate indexes
at the rate of 200,000 characters per hour.  It runs on Symbolic
Machine and will soon run on other systems running the C language.

THE TURING INSTITUTE

This is the commercially independent AI system in Glasgow, Scotland.
It has been founded by Donald Michie and has the charter to develop
intelligent computers without interference from 'systems analysts,
programmers and operators.'  They are affiliated with the company
behind Expert-Ease, Radian Corporation.

AION CORPORATION:

This company is building expert systems on personal computer that
can access large mainframe databases.

EXPERT-EASE SYSTEMS

Expert-Ease Systems of Menlo Park has received a Department of
Energy contract to
  1) develop an expert system to enhance reliability-based decision
     making in power plants
  2) apply knowledge engineering to power plant heat rate performance
     monitoring

List of quotes overhead at the Gartner Group Forum on AI

book reviews of:

%A Shimon Y. Nof
%T Handbook of Industrial Robotics
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C Somerset, New Jersey
%X 1358 pages $76.95

%A International Society for Optical Engineering
%T Applications of Artificial Intelligence II

%E Mary S. Pickett
%E John W. Boyce
%T Solid Modelling by Computers From Theory to Applications
%I Plenum Press

%A Stephen J. Andriole
%T Applications in Artificial Intelligence
%I Petrocelli Books
%C Princeton, New Jersey

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
123
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Sep 85 12:00:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:TaleSpin
-BODY-

Re: Children's story generator <7-Sep-85 Steve.Hoffman@CMU-CS-K>

The program you're interested in is TALE-SPIN, by James Meehan.
He is currently at:
        James R. Meehan
        Cognitive Systems Inc.
        234 Church St.
        New Haven, CT 06510
        MEEHAN@YALE

> Matt Heffron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday,  9-Sep-85 16:26:12-GMT
-FROM-
From: GORDON JOLY (on ERCC DEC-10) <GCJ%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Analysis of ...
-BODY-
Re: Expert Systems In Psychiatry (Vol 3 # 116)

Psychotherapy is debugging for humans...

Gordon Joly.


  [I'm not sure what the intent of this message is.  I'll pass it along
  under a "humor" label, but to avoid any "Polynomial" debacle would
  like to point out that psychotherapy is not a joking matter.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 12 Sep 85 12:03:19-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP to C
-BODY-

Re: Lisp to C <20-Aug-85 duke@mitre.ARPA>
I know of (no endorsement, no experience with) a system called SILL
which is built on top of PSL on the Apollo.  It can "... output standard
PASCAL (or other conventional languages).  This capability enables the
user to port SILL developed code to other environments."
Contact:
        SILMA Incorporated
        1800 Embarcadero
        Palo Alto, CA 94303
        (415)-493-0145

>- Matt Heffron
From: Matt Heffron : Beckman Instruments Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 85 15:12 PDT
-FROM-
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More Xerox announcements at IJCAI
-BODY-
The 1185 and 1186, though they can run IBM-PC software, do not use the
8086 to run Interlisp.  The primary processor is microprogrammable,
constructed using bitslice chips.  A second IO processor is, in fact, an
8086.  IBM compatability is provided by a yet third processor, an 8086,
on a plug in board.  Performance is about 15% greater overall than the
Dandelion; we're still benchmarking.  These machines also have a new
larger 19" screen availible as an option, with more pixels at the same
density.

Also announced was a version of Quintus Prolog for D-machines, using
microcode support, which benchmarks at 51,000 LIPS.

Xerox Commonlisp was announced for 2nd quarter 1986.  It is to be fully
integrated with the Interlisp environment.

(ron)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Sep 85 15:16:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Acuff <Acuff@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Lists for TI Explorer Discussion
-BODY-
   In order to facilitate information exchange among DARPA sponsored
projects using TI Explorers, two ArpaNet mailing lists are being
created.  INFO-EXPLORER will be used for general information
distribution, such as operational questions, or announcing new
generally available packages or tools.  BUG-EXPLORER will be used to
report problems with Explorer software, as well as fixes.  Requests to
be added to or deleted from these lists should be sent to
INFO-EXPLORER-REQUEST or BUG-EXPLORER-REQUEST, respectively.  All
addresses are at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA.  These lists signify no commitment
from Texas Instruments or Stanford University.  Indeed, there is no
guarantee that TI representatives will read the lists.  The idea of
the lists is to provide communication among the users of Explorers.

        -- Rich Acuff
           Stanford KSL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Sep 1985 1557-EDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Hon Wai Chun <hon%brandeis.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connectionist Network Simulator
-BODY-

CONNECTIONIST NETWORK TEACHING / LEARNING TOOL

A connectionist network teaching / learning tool called AINET-1 is available
for distribution (educational and research purposes only) from the Computer
Science Department, Brandeis University.

AINET-1 is a graphic-oriented software package which can be used to
interactively create, manipulate, and experiment with connectionist
networks.  Most commands are conveniently driven by a mouse.  Nodes in
AINET-1 are shaded to reflect their activation levels.  Once a network is
created, the user can run an animated simulation (network relaxation).  In
the simulation, AINET-1 will change the various node shadings as the
activation levels change during each run cycle.  After a simulation, the
user can plot the results or display tables of previous activation levels.
Networks can be stored into binary files and reloaded later for further
editing.

AINET-1 is intended to be used mainly as a learning tool to give the user a
flavor of how connectionist networks behave.  A more sophisticated version,
called AINET-2 (under development), may be useful for development work.

AINET-1 is written in Symbolics Common Lisp and presently runs on Symbolics
Lisp machines (Release 6.0).  The system is offered on a non-commercial,
non-disclosure, and as-is basis for a nominal fee.

The fee is $150 for universities, and $250.00 for laboratories.  Interested
parties should send requests to (or call).


Hon Wai Chun       hon@brandeis.csnet
Computer Science
Brandeis University
Ford 232A
Waltham, MA 02254

617-647-2650 or
617-647-2119 (main-office)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 1985  07:21 EDT (Sat)
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp vs. Prolog vs. ?
-BODY-
Predicting what language will be most used for AI is problematic since
there seems to be little agreement about what AI is.  Let's assume,
however, that over the next decade or two ''AI'' will refer primarily
to expert systems.

In that case, one might speculate that perhaps the bulk of AI code
will be written neither in Lisp nor Prolog (not even an enhanced
Prolog which can elegantly manipulate and coordinate in the same
conceptual space multiple worlds, logics, and beliefs), but a
higher-level language, perhaps using Lisp and/or Prolog as a base.

One of the major tasks in the coming years will be tranferring the
expert knowledge from many domains--economics, medicine, sociology,
political science, literature, law, etc.--into expert systems.
Experts in these fields have dedicated their lives to mastering their
respective fields, not to learning the art of writing compact and
elegant Lisp code.  These experts are not computer scientists or even
computer programmers.

This situation implies three methods for transferring the knowledge of
domain experts into computer programs:

     (1) Natural language understanding systems which can translate
raw text directly into working knowledgebases.  We probably won't see
such systems on a large scale, which can operate with any degree of
reliablity, for at least another twenty-five years, and perhaps much
longer.

     (2) The laborious interviewing of domain experts by expert system
experts (if you will), and the transcription of those interviews into
programs.

     (3) The direct encoding of knowledge into expert systems by
domain experts themselves.

If the third method does indeed become the preferred method for
writing expert programs, then whatever higher-level language and user
interface best supports that activity (and I doubt it will be Lisp or
Prolog, which are relatively low-level) will probably become the
language which is most widely used for AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 85 08:22:25 edt
-FROM-
From: Ben Shneiderman <ben@MARYLAND>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Interactive Encyclopedia System (TIES)
-BODY-
             [Excerpted from IRList 1.8 by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                The Interactive Encyclopedia System (TIES)
                --- ----------- ------------ ------ ------

                Ben Shneiderman, Department of Computer Science
                Janis Morariu, College of Library and Information Services

                University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
                June 1985

The Interactive Encyclopedia System (TIES) has been under development  at  the
University  of  Maryland  since  Fall 1983.  It allows novice users to explore
information resources in an easy and appealing manner. They merely  touch  (or
use arrow keys to move a light bar onto) topics that interest them and a brief
definition appears at the bottom of the screen.  The users may continue  read-
ing  or ask for details about the selected topic. An article about a topic may
be one or more screens long.  As users traverse articles, TIES keeps the  path
and allows easy reversal, building confidence and a sense of control. Advanced
features include the ability to view an index of articles or print  out  arti-
cles of interest.    [...]

The TIES authoring software guides the author in writing a title, brief defin-
ition  (5-25  words),  text  (50-1000 words, typically), and synonyms for each
article title.  The author marks references in the text by surround them  with
a  pair of tildes.  TIES collects all references, prompts the user for synonym
relationships, maintains a list of articles, and allows editing, addition, and
deletion  of  articles.   A simple word processor is embedded in the authoring
software, but users can create articles on their own word processor,  if  they
wish.  There are no commands to memorize, every operation is done by selection
from options on the screen.    [...]

In the study comparing the arrow keys (maybe better termed "jump" keys because
the  cursor  would jump to the closest target in the direction pressed) to the
mouse, the arrow keys proved to be and average of 15% faster and preferred  by
almost  90% of the subjects.  We conjecture that when there are a small number
of targets on the screen and when jump keys can be implemented, they provide a
rapid, predictable, and appealing mechanism for selection.    [...]

We did find touchscreen was easier to teach people than arrow keys,
and that arrow keys were a solid winner against the mouse when there
are a small number of large targets on the screen.

>- Ben Shneiderman

  [A mouse could be programmed for similar "jump selection", of course.
  It would be interesting to know whether this would be more distracting
  than helpful.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Sep 1985 1209-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical foreign language material
-BODY-
Lately, there have been significant technical advances from non-English
speaking countries: Japan and the Continent.  How many know the Japanese
equivalent to the CACM?  What is the German equivalent of the IEEE?
It is too easy to say that such organizations and publications are
not significant.  We have been accused of parochialism.
Our problems in the computer industry are rather unique as colleagues in other
fields such as nuclear fusion report that most of their colleagues are,
for all practical purposes, forced to come to the U.S.  This is not the case
with computing

Just as we have file servers and process servers, we have a
distributed system.  Our greatest resource are not the machines, but
the people with special skills.  To this end I propose the following:

Propose:
1) to identify individuals who are capable of providing simple
translation.  It would help if the Universities could do this.
Perhaps, Universities could get assistance from foreign language
departments.

2) Identify various foreign language publications of technical interest.
Quickly identify articles of wide interest.  This information could
be posted to general interest Usenet newsgroups such as net.research
and net.mag as well as the special interest groups such as the AI List,
net.lang, and so forth.  We should not create news groups, but work
on top of existing groups.

3) Help fund subscription and translations. Perhaps, individuals
without technical translation expertise can get together to pay for
technical translations [commercial], and/or help fund the subscription
of those with technical translation expertise.

Dymond@nbs-vms.ARPA has started an info-japan and a nihongo discussion
group on the ARPAnet, but it would be difficult to get Usenet
participation.  I specifically do not want to create new newsgroups.
This structure can be placed atop the existing news group structure.

The Usenet has several advantages for the circulation of this type
of material: 1) it has the links into Japan, Korea, Australia,
Germany, France, and the rest of Europe not on the ARPAnet. 2)
since there is no global authority, industrial companies can participate
more easily. 3) There are a diversity of news groups which make news
dissemination easier: net.mag for instance is used for posting
the TOCs of various publications, ideal for this type of dissemination.
Other significant groups include:
net.ai, net.cse, net.announce, net.physics, net.arch, net.math, net.mag,
net.research, net.bio, net.graphics, net.wanted, net.nlang

It appears our most critical needs are in the Eastern Asian languages
such as Japanese, Korean, and Chinese.  Other useful work would include
French, German, and the other European languages.  We have to look to
the Universities for much of our assistance, but private organizations
and government can also help.  We can certainly make inquires.
The Usenet extends into Japan, France, and other non-English native
countries.  We must take benefit of these contributors.
Similarly, we can contribute to these countries by tagging significant
English language documents.

I am willing to act as a clearing house for determining finding
individuals and groups, and specific journals.  For this purpose,
I am giving my address an ARPA/uucp gateway.  Send the mail inquiries
there.  More in a couple of weeks.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!amelia!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
124
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 09:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Atul Bajpai <bajpai%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Conferences
-BODY-
Can somebody out there in the computer world provide me with a list
of major AI conferencs/symposiums/tutorials that are scheduled
through the end of 1986? Location and dates of these activities would
be useful. Thank you.

>-Atul Bajpai-- CSNET: bajpai%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay

  [A couple of good sources for such information are the ACM SIGART
  newsletter and the monthly Communications of the ACM.  IEEE Computer
  carries both a calendar and calls for papers, and the AI Magazine
  from AAAI has quite a few conference announcements.  Yoni Malachi
  (YM@SAIL) has been keeping an indexed list of conference announcements
  in file confer.txt[2,2] at SAIL (Stanford AI Lab).  Back issues of
  AIList are a pretty good source as well.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Sep 85 23:38:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSLA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: False advertising for "Expert Systems in Gov't"
-BODY-

Ailist V3 #115 includes a message dated August 28, from Marhshall Abrams
at Mitre, describing the program for a forthcoming conference on
"Expert Systems In Government".

My name appears as a panelist in a session entitled "Frontiers of KBES:
Pro & Con".

AIList readers should know that neither I nor anyone else from
Intelligent Software Inc. will be appearing in any capacity at this
festival of hype.

I have a written promise from Marshall Abrams to desist from this false
advertising.  He has known for several weeks that this announcement is
false.

Misrepresentation, exaggeration, and falsehood are important elements
of contemporary AI.  We would only ask that these be confined to the
technical presentations, and not spill over into administrative and
procedural announcements.

Thanks.

Gary R. Martins

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 85 11:12:05 EDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: Marshall D. Abrams <abrams@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Gary Martins will not be at ESIG
-BODY-
Due to a clerical error, the preliminary program for Expert Systems
in Government indicates that Gary Martins will participate on a panel
discussion.

I apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused.

Sincerely,

 - Marshall D. Abrams, phone: (703) 883-6938
   The MITRE Corporation, 1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
   Mail Stop W458, Mc Lean, VA   22102

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 85 08:53:08 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Kamal N. Karna <m16045@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Second EXPERT SYSTEMS IN GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE  1986
-BODY-
The second Expert Systems in Government Conference, sponsored by
the IEEE/CS and the MITRE Corporation, will be held in October
1986 in Washington D.C. metropolitan area.
Volunteers at all levels are solicited to participate in the
next year's program.
ESIG 1986 is anticipated to be much larger and broader in
scope. The ESIG 1986 conference shall include one day of
tutorials followed by the sessions on unclassified and classified
topics. There will be two technical co-program chairmen
to organize the technical programs.
People interested in participating in ESIG 1986 please
contact
        Dr. Kamal N. Karna
        Conference Chairman
        Second Expert Systems in Government Conference 1986
        The MITRE Corporation
        1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
        McLean, Virginia  22102.
        (Tel.) (703) 883-5866 (O)
               (301) 921-0392 (H)
               KARNA@MITRE----ARPANET

>-----------------------------
-END-
8-Sep-85 09:35:14-PDT,1332;000000000001-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 17 September 1985 14:52:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for submissions to IEEE Software
-BODY-
                           CALL FOR PAPERS

In  addition  to  the  regular  features, the March 1986 IEEE Software
special issue on Knowledge-based Expert Systems (KBES) for Engineering
Applications will have a section on research being  conducted  on  the
applications  of KBES for engineering.  Authors should submit a 3 page
(doubly spaced) paper, focusing on the following issues:

   - goal of the project;
   - architecture of the system;
   - current status; and
   - future plans.

All submissions should be sent before October 15th, 1985 to:

 D. Sriram/M. Rychener
 Civil Engg. and Construction Labs.
 Department of Civil Engineering
 Carnegie-Mellon University
 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
 ARPAnet address: sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu or sriram@cmu-ri-cive.arpa
 (Net mail is preferable)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1985  11:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter de Jong <DEJONG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science Calendar
-BODY-  Reply-to: Cog-Sci-Request%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

The Cognitive Science Calendar is a weekly listing of Cognitive
Science talks with their abstracts which are given at MIT and the
surrounding area. The listing includes the areas of Artificial Intelligence,
Cognitive Psychology, Philosophy, and Linguistics.
If you would like to join the listing or have talks listed please
reply to COG-SCI-REQUEST%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 09:03:50 PDT
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Mathematical Abstractions (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                  Fall 1985
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

          TIME:                Tuesday, September 17, 11:00 - 12:30
          PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
          (followed by)
          DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

        SPEAKER:          Alan H. Schoenfeld, Education & Mathematics, UCB

        TITLE:            ``Obstacles To Making Sense of  Mathematical
                          Notions,  or, The Transfer Problem Rears its
                          Ugly Head Once Again''

        It can be argued that the fundamental difficulty in  mathemat-
        ics  learning  is the transfer problem.  That is, the power of
        mathematics lies in the potential applicability of  mathemati-
        cal  ideas  to  new situations.  It doesn't matter whether the
        idea is, for example, function, group,  number,  or  triangle.
        Once  any  particular  mathematical  entity  is  recognized as
        belonging to an identified class of objects, everything  known
        about  that  class of objects applies to that entity.  In such
        abstaction resides much of the power and utility of  mathemat-
        ics.   This paper explores some theoretical and some pragmatic
        obstacles to students' abstraction  of  mathematical  notions.
        We  look  at  two  domains,  whole number arithmetic and plane
        geometry.  Some parallels between the two domains  are  drawn,
        to  indicate  that the processes of abstraction are similar in
        both.  In the case of number, we examine a  theoretical  para-
        dox:  the  use of good ``hands on'' manipulatives to help stu-
        dents make sense of base 10 addition and subtraction may  make
        it  harder to understand the nature of ``number.'' In the case
        of geometry, we discuss an empirical  obstacle.   When  things
        are  compartmentalized  in the curriculum, connections that we
        would hope are ``natural'' turn out to be very hard to make.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 September 1985 1308-EDT
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@CMU-CS-A
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming in Equational Logic (CMU)
-BODY-

	Name:  Michael J. O'Donnell - The University of Chicago
	Date:  Monday, 23 September
	Time:  3:00
	Place: WeH 5409
	Title: Equational Logic as a Programming Language
In logic programming languages programs are logical assertions with no
explicit procedural information, and execution consists of the efficient
derivation of certain logical consequences of a program.
Prolog, and relational database query languages are both logic
programming languages based on the predicate calculus.  The advantages
of logic programming are clarity of programs, simplicity of semantics,
and the potential for parallel execution without timing dependence.
In this talk, I describe a programming language based on the logic of
equations.  A prototype implementation exists, and has been used in a
number of experiments.  The talk will focus on examples illustrating the
advantages of equational programming, and the differences between
equational programming and Prolog programming.
			Mike O'Donnell

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 85 16:16:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explanation of Quantitative Models (CMU)
-BODY-
		Intelligent Systems Lab Seminar

Topic:    Presentation of Ergo Project
Speaker:  Dr. Donald Kosy
Place:    DH3313
Date:     Friday, September 20
Time:     11:00am - 12:00noon

The Ergo project is an investigation into computer methods for explaining
results produced by quantitative planning models.  It is an outgrowth of
previous research in which we developed a procedure that explains differences
in results by comparing their derivations.  For example, given a suitable
quantitative model and a series of results from it such as:

			1982		1983		1984
	Profit	      $683.00	      $676.40	      $951.60

this procedure can answer "why" questions about the results such as:

	Why did profit go down in 1983?
	  Profit went down in 83 primarily because overhead cost went up and
	profit = gross margin - overhead cost.  Although gross margin went up
	by 19%, overhead cost went up by 41% and the latter outweighed the
	former.  Would you like me to continue?

The explanation can be continued all the way down to the lowest level of the
model, i.e. down to its input variables.

The intent of the current work is to extend the explanatory power of this
procedure and to evaluate its potential for practical use.  In particular
we are interested in extensions to cover:

	*Models that involve simultaneous equations
	*Models that involve conditional expressions
	*Explanations of differential magnitude, e.g. Why did overhead cost
	 go up so much?
	*Inferring the referents of comparison, e.g. Why is production cost
	 high in 83?
	*Explaining lack of change, e.g. Why did material cost remain
	 constant?
	*Explaining differences between "what-if" cases and a base case, e.g.
	 Why is profit in case 1 higher than for the base case?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 14:24 EST
-FROM-
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automating CAD Design (GMR)
-BODY-
Presentation is to be held at General Motors Research Laboratories in
Warren, Michigan.

                       Function, Form and Fabrication:
                     Considerations in Automating Design

                              James R. Rinderle
                             Assistant Professor
                         Carnegie-Mellon University


                         Monday, September 16, 1985



 Any design modification requires knowledge of whether changed features
 affect the functionality of a product, impact the producibility or are
 simply arbitrary specifications.  Good designers simultaneously consider
 the form of the product, the functional requirements and the means for
 fabrication.  Even the most modest attempts at automating design are doomed
 to fail unless these considerations are included at some level.

 A CAD database should consist of multiple representations of a product in
 terms of function, form and fabrication analogous to the traditional
 specification list, drawings and process plan.  The relationships among
 these representations is the basis for design.  Design modification may be
 facilitated by developing a syntax for describing function, form, and
 fabrication and by developing strategies for manipulating the descriptions.

 Dr. James R. Rinderle is an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering
 at Carnegie-Mellon University.  He was awarded the Ph.D. degree by the
 Mechanical Engineering Department of the Massachusetts Institute of
 Technology in 1982.  He also received the Master of Science and Bachelor of
 Science degrees from MIT.  He is a member of Sigma Xi, Pi Tau Sigma, the
 ASME, Robotics International and CASA of SME.  He was named a Presidential
 Young Investigator in 1985.


>Steve Holland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1985  03:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: INGRIA%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Argument Structure - Brandeis
-BODY-

                                 The
                             Linguistics
                    and Cognitive Science Programs

                         Brandeis University

                               Present

                            A Workshop on
                               Argument
                              Structure

                        Friday, September 20th
                              9AM to 5PM
                     Sachar International Center

Presentations will be one (1) hour long with time for questions.

Speakers:

 9:30   Ken Hale
        ``A View from the Middle''

11:00   Ray Jackendoff
        ``The Role of Thematic Relations in Linguistic Theory''

 1:30   Edwin Williams
        ``Argument Structure and Heads''

 2:45   Armin Mester and Jane Grimshaw
        ``Light Verbs in Japanese'

 4:00   Howard Lasnik
        ``Subjects of NPs?''

 5:00 - 7:00
        Reception - Sachar International Center

For more information, call (617)-647-2986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Sep 85 08:22:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Leslie Kaelbling <KAELBLING@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New course: The Logic of Robot Design (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                      THE LOGIC OF ROBOT DESIGN


This course will explore theoretical issues in the design of software
for intelligent agents.  Its aim is to provide conceptual tools for
coping with complexity in robot design, covering processes from the
sensorimotor level through reasoning, planning, and linguistic
communication, emphasizing the role of formal methods in analysis and
synthesis of robot software.

The following topics will be covered:
  - applications of epistemic and temporal logic to robotics
  - automata-theoretic models of knowledge
  - inference and planning
  - logic-based tools for programming intelligent robots.

Some familiarity with basic logic and computer programming will be
assumed.  Coursework will consist of problem sets and one programming
assignment.

Instructor    : Stan Rosenschein   (stan@sri-ai; 859-4167)
Time          : TTh 11-12:15
Place         : 460-252
Course number : CS428
Units         : 3
TA            : Leslie Kaelbling   (kaelbling@sri-ai, pack@su-sushi,
				    k.kaelbling@su-lots-b; 859-2578)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
125
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 10:01:08 cdt
-FROM-
From: neves@wisc-ai.arpa (David Neves)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FRL sources
-BODY-

I remember a message a year ago about someone having the sources to FRL.
Unfortunately I don't remember who that person was.  Could anyone who
has the sources send me mail?  -Thanks, David Neves

Usenet:  {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo,uwm-evax}!uwvax!neves
Arpanet: neves@uwvax

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 85 09:04:36 pdt
-FROM-
From: Thomas L. Zimmerman <zimmer%marlin@nosc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Rule Execution
-BODY-
The Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC) and Goodyear Aerospace are working
on a series of experiments to demonstrate the feasibiliy of running expert
systems on the Goodyear ASPRO parallel processor.  A unique representation
for rules and data has been developed which on paper allows the ASPRO to
test 2,000,000 rules per second for satisfaction.  This representation
scheme does put some limitations on the system involved - it appears to
require a very pure production system with no embedded control or functions in
the rules. So far a small (500 rule) system was written with this application
in mind and run on both a Symbolics and the ASPRO sucessfully.  We would now
like to convert an existing sequential expert system for parallel execution
in order to determine the degree of speedup actually available and to discover
the limitations of converting a system not originally designed for this
application.  Unfortunatly I am having trouble finding a system to convert for
this demonstration - which is why I am appealing to all of you.  We need a
reasonably sized (200-700 rule) system, preferably military in character, that
meets the above limitations that we can attempt to run on our parallel
inference
engine.  This would be a no-cost way for someone to have their system speeded
up
by an estimated three orders of magnitude.  Any takers?  If you're interested
please contact me:

        Lee Zimmerman
        Naval Ocean Systems Center
        Code 421
        San Diego  CA  92152
        (619) 225-6571  or zimmer@nosc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 85 15:30:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: MARS@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NLP for knowledge acquisition
-BODY-
Hi:  I am interested in info about projects which use Natural Language
Processing Techniques to analyse scientific articles or abstracts
with the aim of deriving knowledge bases from them.

I am aware of a few projects in that field (UCLA, IBM
Heidelberg, Leiden University, Chemical Abstracts), but I
would appreciate any further pointers. Please
reply directly to me, and I will summarize to the net. Thanks.
                                    Nicolaas J.I. Mars


  [I have forwarded this message and the next to the information
  retrieval list, IRList%VPI.CSNet@CSNet-Relay.ARPA.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 09:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Ramesh Astik <rampan%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: query - Information Retrieval
-BODY-
I was looking for some references in synthetic organic chemistry
on a Chemical Abstract Database system.The first hit was 10,000
followed by narrowing down to 400 ! The same search by an expert
bibliographer or search assistant gave me exactly 23 article list.
This is the difference in eye-balling and machine-search.
We had  a lot of debate on the mental process of the human expert
doing the job and whether that can be mimicked on a computer or not.
Does any one know of any expert-system which can save us so
much paper work in searching  and retrieving the information?
Our University has access  to approximately 300 databases and
after the Automated search list  is obtained,most of us do
equally long eye-balling!!
Kindly send any information to RAMPAN@NORTHEASTERN.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 85 14:23:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Martin R. Lyons" <991@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info on Lisp/Prolog for IBM4361
-BODY-

          Greetings  all.  Does anyone have any leads where I might  obtain
     a LISP  or  Prolog implementation that would run on an IBM 4361?  I am
     looking  for public domain or reasonably priced packages; and wouldn't
     you know  it,  time is of the essence.  If anyone has any leads please
     contact me at the address below.

          I will summarize and post here if there is sufficient interest.

          As always, thanks in advance!


 MAILNET: Marty@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet
 ARPA:    Marty%NJIT-EIES.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
    or    @MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Marty@NJIT-EIES.Mailnet
 USPS:    Marty Lyons, CCCC/EIES @ New Jersey Institute of Technology,
          323 High St., Newark, NJ 07102  USA    (201) 596-2932
 "You're in the fast lane....so go fast."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 85 15:28 PDT
-FROM-
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction: Xerox 1185 uses 80186 not 8086
-BODY-
Being as close as I am to the subject I'm embarassed to say (but
overjoyed to know) that I was wrong and that the 1185 and 1186
workstations use the Intel 80186 processor chip both in the IO processor
and on the IBM PC emulator boards.  Their (micro programmable) main
processor is built with bitslice devices.

But note that I never claimed to be a faultless spokes-thing for Xerox
or Xerox AI Systems, just another random attendee of IJCAI.

Sorry folks,
(ron)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1985  06:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and Lisp
-BODY-
I would like to respond to the message in AILIST from Fanya Montalvo
who wrote:

       From: Hewitt

       However, it
       is not possible to make a commercially viable Common Lisp
       implementation on Prolog.  This means that any good software written
       for a stand alone Prolog system will soon appear on the Lisp Systems
       but NOT vice versa.  Therefore the stand alone Prolog systems will
       always have impoverished software libraries by comparison with the
       Common Lisp systems and will not be commercially viable in the long
       run.

    From: Montalvo

    This type of argument strikes one as historical accident not as anything
    fundamental.  And by that accident I mean vagaries of the market place.
    Could you say more about how it's fundamental, or do you agree that it's
    historical accident?


This is a very good question!  However, in this case I believe that
the commercial marketplace is reflecting some very real deficiencies
in Prolog and its underlying conceptual basis of LOGIC as a
PROGRAMMING language.  As far as I can tell no one in the Prolog
community believes that they will EVER be able to construct a
commercially viable Common Lisp on Prolog.  That indicates that there
are some critical limitations of Prolog that are not just historical
accidents.  I believe that the deficiencies of Prolog cannot be
repaired within the framework of LOGIC as a PROGRAMMING language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 18:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp vs. Prolog vs. ?
-BODY-
I agree with Wayne McGuire who wrote as follows to this list:

    ... one might speculate that perhaps the bulk of AI code
    will be written neither in Lisp nor Prolog (not even an enhanced
    Prolog which can elegantly manipulate and coordinate in the same
    conceptual space multiple worlds, logics, and beliefs), but a
    higher-level language, perhaps using Lisp and/or Prolog as a base.

However, I would like to point out that Prolog is not a suitable base
to implement the kind of higher-level languages that Wayne envisions
since it does not provide the appropriate primitives.  Implementing
higher-level Artificial Intelligence languages requires efficient data
structure and control primitives that are not part of Prolog.  I agree
that Common Lisp is too low level to use very much to directly
implement applications.  However, Lisp has historically been an
excellent implementation language for implementing higher-level
Artificial Intelligence languages.  Indeed some of the best Prolog
systems and other logic systems such as FOL (Wheyhrauch et.  al.), MRS
(Genesereth et. al), the Pure Lisp Theorem Prover (Boyer and Moore),
and LogLisp (Robinson et.  al.)  are implemented on Lisp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 85 15:48 EDT
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intellectual honesty and the SDI
-BODY-
At the recent IJCAI at UCLA I picked up a couple of papers at the GE
exhibit booth.  One of these,  entitled "A Tutorial on Expert Systems
for Battlefield Applications," (delivered at a meeting of the Armed
Forces Communications and Electronics Association last May) states that
"AI systems that incorporate human expertise may be the only way" to
fill the gap between availability of people and complexity of military
hardware.  In defense of this strategy the author states:

        - In contrast with humans, AI systems are good at handling the myriad
details of complex situations, such as often occur in military settings.

        - In contrast with other computational approaches that are more formal
and algorithmic, AI systems are more robust:  they are designed to deal
with problems exhibiting uncertainty, ambiguity, and inaccuracy.

I find it appalling (and frightening) that statements like this can be
presented in a technical paper to military personnel.   The author
(according to the references) has contributed widely to the AI field at
many conferences. It's simply ludicrous to state that current AI systems
are better in battlefield situations than humans.  What was the last AI
system that could drive a tank, carry on a conversation, and fix a
broken radio whilst under enemy fire?  The second comment is equally
misleading.  To  contrast "formal and algorithmic" with "robust" seems
to imply that algorithms and formal procedures are inherently not
robust.  On what is this claim based?  (There is no reference attached
to either statement.)  It sounds like a recipe for unreliable software
to me.

How can someone write this stuff?  I know, to make money.  But if this
is the kind of information that is presented to the military, and upon
which they make decisions, then how can we expect any kind of fair
assessment of the possible projects in the Strategic Computing (and
Defense) Initiatives?  How can this kind of misinformation be rebutted?

Bill Anderson

P.S. The full reference is available on request.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
126
-DATE-
Date: Sat 21 Sep 85 17:40:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSLA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Are We Ready For This ?
-BODY-

In reading and replying to Bill Anderson's msg in a recent edition of
AIList, it occurred to me that there may be broader interest out there
in a discussion of the question of objectivity and truthfulness in the
fields of "AI", "expert systems", "knowledge engineering", etc.

I have repeatedly observed the following at conferences, symposia,
briefings, etc., and in "AI" journals and magazines:

        - non-existent systems are described and debated as if
           they were real
        - unsuccessful developments are described as operationally
           validated
        - expensive and ineffective methods and "tools" are said to
           solve difficult problems in computing

This happens too often to be accidental or aberrational.  Those
responsible include highly placed figures from some of our most
prestigious institutions.

It would greatly interest me to understand:

        - why this happens ?
        - is this good or bad for "AI" ?
        - does this happen in all high-tech fields, or is "AI"
           unique ?
        - what can or should be done about it ?  by whom ?

Would AIList readers and contributors like to address these issues,
or is this set of topics too "sensitive" for the community to address
at this time ?

Many thanks!

Gary R. Martins

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 20 Sep 85 20:33:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSLA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Phony claims in AI
-BODY-
Bill -

I read your recent AIList comment with a mixture of amusement and
amazement.  Will you pardon my asking: where have you been ?  So far
as I have been able to probe, the entire edifice of "AI"  -- and most
especially "expert systems" -- is built on a foundation of the most
outrageous baloney.   At an endless procession of conferences,
symposia, press briefings, etc., the most outrageous claims are
relentlessly presented for the performance of a number of "AI"
systems.  I have personally been associated with several of these
developments, and I can testify that not a single one of them can
honestly be said to "work" in any authentic sense of that word.

There are apparently a few utterly trivial systems that "work", after a
fashion.  But the astronomical development costs of these toys should
make any rational user shrink from following a similar path.

Yet, despite these plain and rather obvious facts, military and industrial
audiences are daily told about the "successes" of "AI" and "expert
systems".  The sorts of claims you refer to are entirely ordinary and
routine in this context.

One has to wonder, is this what modern science and technology is all
about ?  Or is "AI" just a special case of extreme dishonesty ?

Gary R. Martins

PS -- Yes, send me the references, just for the record!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 85 23:50:57 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Satellite Control
-BODY-
        As one of the military (Capt USAF) standing guard against
over-enthusiastic claims by DoD contractors, I would like to assure
readers of this net that the USAF is not as gullable as Bill Anderson
fears in his recent message.
        My job for the past year is to develop an architecture which
is compatible with SDI which incorporates Expert Systems as appropriate.
Essentially Beau Shields conveyed the essence of our thinking in his
recent article published in Computer Design.  Expert Systems assist
experts with tasked well understood by experts, providing more time
for experts to handle the tough problems.
        To my knowledge, no person is seriously considering cutting
people out of the loop any more than you can completely replace
the engine in your car with a turbo charger.  We (the Air Force
Satellite Control Facility, Plans & Programs Division) plan to issue
the next version of our masterplan in late December, which will
describe our thinking in detail.  If you can come up with a good
reason why I should send you a copy, send a request to:

        AFSCF/XRP
        Attn: Capt Richard Jennings
        PO Box 3430
        Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3430

on letterhead requesting a copy of REVISION G, and stating your reason.
The document is not classified, but for obvious reasons, distribution
is limited, and I may have to argue for your copy on a case by case
basis.
        People have to do a lot more than write fiction about their
expert systems to get our serious interest.  Rome Air Development
Center, and the AFSCF both now have Symbolics 3670's to evaluate
these systems: RADC in the context of the current state of the art,
and the AFSCF in the context of satellite control.  The AFSCF is
also in the process of putting IBM-PC AT's into operations areas to
evaluate the PC-AT as a delivery vehicle in the context of distributed
shells such as KEE.
        One large defense contractor also know for dominating the
PC marketplace, as in *** PC, has tried for 4 years to solve one
of our operational problems *using their own funds* without acceptance.

        Back to GE, they are visiting us next week, and will get a chance
to show their system to the people who fly satellites for a living if
they sufficiently impress the Plans and Programs people.

Regards, Rich.

PS. Standard Disclaimer: I definitely hold opinions, but I am not always
successful at conveying them to my employer -- so they should be considered
my own personal opinions.

PSS. Perhaps I have been going after a gnat with a terminal air defense
system, but the concerns raised by Bill Anderson seemed to be a good
leadin to a request for information (by me) about what we should be
doing.

ARPA: jennings@aerospace
AV:   799-6427
ATT:  408 744-6427
sNAIL: AFSCF/XRP(Jennings), PO Box 3430, Sunnyvale CA, 94088-3430.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1985  03:57 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #125
-BODY-

I am amused at Bill Anderson's flame, in view of his righteous indignation
about an AI author's boasts about the merits of AI programming.

   It's simply ludicrous to state that current AI systems are better
   in battlefield situations than humans.

>From what we could see of the paper in question, there was no
suggestion about being better than humans.  The suggestion was that AI
systems are better than conventional software.

     What was the last AI system that could drive a tank, carry on a
    conversation, and fix a broken radio whilst under enemy fire?

To my knowledge, ONLY AI systems, so far, can drive cars, carry on
conversations, and debug electronic systems.  They don't do these jobs
very well yet, but they're coming along -- and have no competition in
those areas from any other kind of software.  So one could certainly
say that  Anderson's representation is "appalling".

   The second comment is equally misleading.  To contrast "formal and
   algorithmic" with "robust" seems to imply that algorithms and
   formal procedures are inherently not robust.  On what is this claim
   based?  It sounds like a recipe for unreliable software to me.

I think it is a fair claim.  This is because it appears infeasible to
prove the correctness of non-trivially complex programs, especially
because of the profound weakness of all known formal specification
languages, without which formal systems are entirely impotent.  In
such circumstances, AI methods which employ many kinds of redundancy
and plausibility tests, e.g., comparing plans to models, are the best
methods available.  They have a long way to go, but I suspect that,
for sufficiently complicated jobs, even the crude "expert systems" of
today are already ahead of all other practical forms of commercial or
theoretical programming methods.

     How can someone write this stuff?  I know, to make money.  But if
     this is the kind of information that is presented to the
     military, and upon which they make decisions, then how can we
     expect any kind of fair assessment of the possible projects in
     the Strategic Computing (and Defense) Initiatives?  How can this
     kind of misinformation be rebutted?

This is a complicated subject and it won't clarify it by making that
kind of accusation.

I have not heard enough good ideas to be convinced, incidentally, that
SDI is a feasible replacement for MAD.  But, I certainly am dismayed
by the strange arguments I've heard from the CS community about why
the hard problem with it is "software".  It seems to me that the hard
problem is centered around the proposed defensive weapons, and if
they're any good (which I doubt) then aiming and controlling them
should not be unusally difficult.  The arguments I've seen to the
contrary all seem to be political flames.

So is this, I suppose, hence I don't plan to defend what I've said
here in more messages.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 85 10:35 EST
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <hafner%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Honesty and the SDI: Reply to Bill Anderson
-BODY-
I was pleased to see Bill Anderson's comments on AILIST, and I admire his
courage for publicly criticizing the "Expert Battlefield Management System"
research.  He is not alone - there are many people in the AI field and
Computer Science in general who view these projects - with their definite
schedules for implementation of the various components - with alarm.

However, to say or imply that unscrupulous people are making these promises
just to "make money" is an oversimplification.
>From the beginning of Computer Science as a separate subject in the early
1960's (or perhaps a bit earlier), much if not most of the research funding
has come from the DOD.  This is especially true for AI.  This is not the
case in most other Western countries, where there are specific agencies
for funding scientific research, and the military services are more focused
on military projects.

Over the years, the DOD-supported research groups provided a wonderful
environment to pursue AI research - the most money, the best equipment, access
to ARPANET, etc.  And the DOD allowed the researchers a great deal of freedom
in pursuing their interests.  As a result, many of the best researchers ended
up working in these groups.

I have always felt that this is, structurally, a very dangerous situation both
for Computer Science and for the country.  For a very simple reason: if the
livelihood of a majority of AI researchers is dependent on the DOD, how can we
have a free and open debate on the use of computers in the military?  Now it
looks as if some of my fears are coming true.  I know some of the researchers
involved in SDI have severe misgivings about it - but if you have a 20-30
person group who all depend on the DOD for their jobs, it's a tough situation.
I personally would like to see groups such as "Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility" attack the structural problem rather than
"Star Wars" per se.

It is likely that the promises being made for the battlefield management
systems will not be fulfilled - since researchers in industrial labs are still
struggling with the problem of recognizing stationary objects in a "bin of
parts", and most industrial vision systems have to use special lighting
to recognize separate parts moving on a conveyer belt.  Furthermore, speech
understanding systems require ideal conditions and even then only work with
very limited vocabularies.  So it's interesting to wonder how the description
of the complex events taking place during the battle will be communicated to
the computer.

Perhaps the field of AI is fortunate that the SDI is happening now instead of
20 years from now.  We have a chance to get our research funded on a different
basis, so that this unfortunate situation won't happen again.

Carole Hafner
College of Computer Science
Northeastern University
csnet: hafner@northeastern

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
127
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 13:15:23 pdt
-FROM-
From: william@aids-unix.ARPA (william bricken)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spencer-Brown seminar in San Francisco
-BODY-

G. Spencer-Brown, the author of LAWS OF FORM, will be presenting
a five-day seminar at the Miyako Hotel in San Francisco, from
October 7 through 11, 1985.

Morning sessions will address the technical methodology of Laws
of Form.  Afternoon sessions will address "open intelligence",
Spencer Brown's ideas on life and living.

Registration costs:  $650 for both sessions,
                     $300 for afternoons only.

Information:  UNI-OPS
              260 Marshall Drive
              Walnut Creek, CA  94598-2833
              phone Walter Zintz, (415) 945-0048


PERSONAL COMMENTS:  Spencer-Brown's work on the 4-color map theorem was
discussed in this list early last year.  The man is an iconoclast, and
has managed to alienate a significant portion of most audiences.  The
afternoon session may be anything from EST training (which Spencer-Brown
is said to have originated) to metaphysical ecstacy.  The application of
Brownian mathematics to representation theory and automated theorem
proving in AI is profound.  Followers of his work range from mystics
to mathematicians;  he is both.  I have heard that he is not talking
to mathematicians.

william

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Sep 85 15:19:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Representation (SRI)
-BODY-

                        THE SKY IS A BLUE COLOR

                           Marcel Schoppers
                      SRI International AI Center

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, September 23
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


        I present a representation which will allow us to encode and
        access much of the information contained in simple descriptive
        statements. "The sky is a blue color" entails that blue is a
        color, that the sky has a color, that the sky is blue, that the
        sky is visible, and that the sky is located both spatially and
        temporally. These generalizations are so trivial that they border
        on presuppositions, and they have consequently been taken for
        granted in semantic nets and frames. Making such information
        explicit greatly increases the density and usefulness of stored
        knowledge. One interesting application is to disambiguate an
        adjective/predicate to suit a given noun/extension.

        My representation is parsimonious, having O(three) primitive con-
        structs (link types); is highly irredundant, since blue(sky) and
        color(blue) reference the same blue; and is static, being inten-
        ded to formalize and implement "massively parallel" deterministic
        connectionist question-answering systems. Predicates, relations,
        and simple forms of quantification all emerge as by-products of
        function applicability and set inclusion. Viewed as a logic the
        representation is potentially O(w), intensional and inconsistent.

        The talk will touch on issues in philosophy of logic and linguistics.
        I will especially appreciate constructive criticism in those areas,
        as I am a novice there.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 15:34:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: IBM-SJ Calendar <CALENDAR%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Directed Database Management (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
                     IBM San Jose Research Lab
                          5600 Cottle Road
                         San Jose, CA 95193

                              CALENDAR
                     SEPTEMBER 23 - 27, 1985

Thurs., Sept. 26  Computer Science Seminar
10:00 A.M.        PROBE: A RESEARCH PROJECT
Aud. B            IN KNOWLEDGE-DIRECTED DATABASE MANAGEMENT
                  Conventional record-based DBMSs will be
                  inadequate for many of the knowledge-intensive
                  information processing applications (e.g.,
                  business and industrial automation, CAD/CAM, and
                  military command and control) of the future.
                  These applications require integrated access to
                  a variety of information types (e.g., images,
                  maps, signals, text) not currently supported by
                  DBMSs.  Also, they rely on specialized knowledge
                  or expertise for processing the new information
                  types; for many of these types, specialized
                  storage devices and processors (e.g.,
                  workstations, image enhancers, solid modellers),
                  are or will be available.  Currently, DBMSs have
                  no general facilities for efficiently
                  assimilating and utilizing this special
                  knowledge or for incorporating these specialized
                  processors into their own processing.  The
                  objective of the PROBE project is to develop an
                  advanced DBMS effective for these
                  knowledge-intensive applications.  Our approach
                  is to enhance existing DBMSs with (a)
                  user-defined object classes as the basis for
                  defining new information types and operations
                  and for integrating specialized processors, (b)
                  dimensional (space and time) concepts, which are
                  a common characteristic of many of the new
                  information types, and (c) recursive predicates
                  and queries, which provide intensional knowledge
                  processing capabilities essential for many of
                  the applications.  In each case, it is necessary
                  to augment both the logical (data model, query
                  language) components and the physical (storage
                  structures, access methods, query processor)
                  components of the DBMS.  In this talk, we
                  describe approaches to addressing all these
                  issues.

                  Dr. U. Dayal, Computer Corporation of America
                  Host:  C. Mohan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 Sep 85 08:14:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Spatial Concepts (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


    ``Crossing the Rubicon: From a Physics of Dead Coordinate Spaces
               to a Physics of Living Coordinate Spaces''

   Dr. Peter Kugler, The Crump Institute for Medical Engineering, UCLA
            Monday, September 23, 1985, 2:15pm, Ventura Hall

      This talk will be about self-organizing systems that involve
   low-energy (nonforce) coupling and the nature of the predicates that
   constitute the low-energy descriptors, and will be organized around
   issues pertaining to general problems of language and information.
   The emphasis will be on systems that generate (self-assemble) new
   levels of description.  These new levels constitute new languages
   parasitic on the lower level languages but not reducible to their
   predicates.  In the self-organizing systems of interest it is the
   ``coordinate spaces,'' which are themselves evolving, that become the
   important objects of study.  Instead of assuming a fixed coordinate
   space, when the interest focuses on trajectories, attention is devoted
   to the coordinate space itself, since this is what provides the semantics.
      This approach is very similar to developments in computer
   architecture that focus on parallel processing.  In these machines
   (connection machines, Boltzmann, etc.) the machine language
   self-organizes (e.g. programs itself through the emergence of new
   stable configurations), and the new predicate descriptions play the
   role of symbols in terms of their opacity with respect to the lower
   level language.  The machine language `gives birth' to the symbolic
   level of description.  This situation contrasts dramatically with that
   of von Neumann machines, for which the symbolic language is
   ontologically independent of the machine language.  A symbolic
   language can run on any of an infinite variety of mechanistic
   substrates, the primacy of the symbol prevailing over the substrate
   machine.  The approach advocated here, puts the focus on the machine
   level of interaction, thus preserving an ontological continuity and
   avoiding mind/body, syntactic/semantic, etc. problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 85 11:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - 2nd-Order Lambda Calculus (UPenn)
-BODY-

THE 2ND ORDER LAMBDA CALCULUS - Dale Miller, Penn CIS
Joint Mathematics / Computer Science Logic Colloquium
4:40 Monday 23 September 1985, DRL 4E17, University Of Pennsylvania

In this talk we will present the description of an extended type lambda
calculus where types can be used as values.  We will illustrate how this
language can be used to perform computation in novel fashions and what
semantics might work with it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 85 11:12:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: davies%ucbcogsci@Berkeley (Catherine Davies)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computer Tutor for Programming Recursion (UCB)
-BODY-
                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Fall 1985
                       Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

           TIME:                Tuesday, September 24, 11:00 - 12:30
           PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
              (followed by)
           DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

           SPEAKER:          Peter  Pirolli,  School  of  Education,
                             UC Berkeley

           TITLE:          ``A Cognitive Model and Intelligent Computer
                             Tutor for Programming Recursion''


           Recursion is typically a novel concept  for  programming  stu-
           dents  that  causes  them  considerable  grief and difficulty.
           Thus, the study of how people learn to program recursive  pro-
           grams  provides a useful domain for addressing the psychologi-
           cal issue of how fundamentally new knowledge  is  acquired  as
           well  as  the  instructional issue of how to teach a difficult
           programming concept.  I will present a production system model
           that  addresses  expert  and  novice  problem-solving, problem-
           solving by  analogy,  and  skill  acquisition  in  programming
           recursive  functions.   This  research served as the basis for
           the development of recursion lessons in  an  intelligent  com-
           puter  tutor for programming LISP.  Specifically, a simulation
           model of ``ideal'' and ``buggy'' novice problem-solving was con-
           structed  for  coding  recursion.   Using this model, the LISP
           tutor provides instruction, hints, and feedback in the context
           of  programming.  The LISP tutor also maintains a model of the
           skill development of  individual  students.  Evaluations  show
           that the LISP tutor is more effective in teaching introductory
           LISP  programming  than   good   classroom   instruction   and
           approaches the effectiveness of human tutors.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Sep 85 09:26:04-PDT
-FROM-
From: Kurt Konolige <KONOLIGE@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - AI Theories of Belief and Action (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Announcement of a new course in Artificial Intelligence:


        CS429:  Formal AI Theories Of Belief and Action

Instructor:  Kurt Konolige, SRI International and CSLI

Description: We will discuss some formal commonsense theories of
belief and action that have emerged over the last 5-7 years.  This
course is intended both as a survey of recent research in this area,
and as an introduction to the application of techniques from formal
logic to AI problems.  The emphasis is on acquiring a facility for
working with the tools of logic, especially by analyzing and
critiquing current AI research.  The following is a list of topics we
will cover:

        1. Knowledge and Belief
                - Kripke and sentential semantics
                - Modal logics for knowledge and belief
                - Proof methods for quantified modal logics,
                        including recent resolution methods

        2. Formal planning theories
                - The situation calculus
                - Integration of action and belief

        3. Further topics
                - Introspective belief theories
                - The relation between introspection and nonmonotonic
                        reasoning


Prerequisites: Some familiarity with basic concepts from first-order
logic will be assumed, e.g., students should know what what a model
is, how to construct proofs from axioms and rules of inference, and so
on.

Requirements: Graduate-level course for CS students, 3 units.
Students will be expected to read 1-2 papers a week.  There will be
one problem set a week, and either a project or final exam.


Time:  MWF 11am (50 min), MJH 352, Fall 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
128
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 85 12:13:28 mdt
-FROM-
From: crs%a@LANL.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Engineering
-BODY-

> Date: 14 Sep 1985  07:21 EDT (Sat)
> From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
> Subject: Lisp vs. Prolog vs. ?
>
> Predicting what language will be most used for AI is problematic since
> there seems to be little agreement about what AI is.  Let's assume,
> however, that over the next decade or two ''AI'' will refer primarily
> to expert systems.
> ...
>      (1) Natural language understanding systems which can translate
> raw text directly into working knowledgebases.  We probably won't see
> such systems on a large scale, which can operate with any degree of
> reliablity, for at least another twenty-five years, and perhaps much
> longer.
>
>      (2) The laborious interviewing of domain experts by expert system
> experts (if you will), and the transcription of those interviews into
> programs.
>
>      (3) The direct encoding of knowledge into expert systems by
> domain experts themselves.

What work is being done toward the objective of combining (2) and (3)?
I. e. who is working on "expert system" expert systems incorporating
the knowledge of these expert system experts into an expert system
that will interview experts in other fields to free the human expert
system experts from the laborious interviewing tasks so that they can
do more creative work?

I just read that paragraph!  All those "experts" and "systems" sure
make it read as double talk but it is an honest question.  Is any
work being done in this area?  Thanks.

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 1985 16:07-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lowe@NYU-CSD2
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cooperative structuring of information
-BODY-
             [Excerpted from the IRList by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Readers of IRList may be interested in research I have been doing on methods
for information retrieval that are not based on the use of keywords.  [...]

Therefore, I have been developing a
structured representation for debate in which the computer maintains a
record of the reasoning behind each decision.  Rather than simply voting on
the correctness of each item in the database, users are required to indicate
which items of evidence support or refute a particular conclusion.  Not only
are users more likely to agree on whether specific evidence supports a
conclusion than they are to agree on the conclusion in the abstract, but the
representation provides a record for each user of what others have
considered to be the best available evidence bearing on each conclusion.
The representation is used not only to debate aspects of presentation and
indexing, but also to represent the content of much of the material in the
database as a snapshot of the reasoning process that links the concepts in
mind of each user.

The specific representation that is used for debate is derived from the
theory of argument developed by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin.
There is not space here to give a full explanation of the system, but I have
written a fairly detailed paper on the topic.  This paper was published as
"The representation of debate as a basis for information storage and
retrieval" by David G. Lowe, AFIPS Conference Proceedings Volume 53, 1984
National Computer Conference, pp. 595-603.  A more extensive version of this
paper will soon be published in the International Journal of Man Machine
Studies.  I will be happy to mail copies to anyone who sends me their U.S.
mail address.  I can be reached at LOWE@NYU-CSD2 on the ARPANET or the
following address:

    Prof. David Lowe
    Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
    251 Mercer Street
    New York, NY  10012

[...]  My own research background is in
artificial intelligence, but I have come to believe that the best route to
progress lies in having the computer represent the content of information in
the manner of AI systems while leaving the input task up to human users.
This type of system is well within the scope of existing technology and
would greatly increase the range of applications for information retrieval.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 1985 14:17-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Interactions, Vol 1, No 1 and 2
-BODY-
AI Interactions is published by the Texas Instruments' Data Systems Group

AI Interactions, Volume 1 Number 1, August 1985 summary:

Discussions of TI products: Explorer (Lisp Machine), Personal
Consultant (Expert System building tool), Arborist (decision tree
tool), NaturalLink (menu based natural language system) and Speech
Command (speech input).

Discussion of Campbell's Soup developing expert system to diagnose
large "cookers" which produce soup.

The California Firm, The Scientific Press, is developing a textbook
on decision analysis based on Arborist.

TI is supporitng expert system development projects at various
universities including:

Statistical Consultant, Carleton College
Weld Selector, Colorado School of Mines
Analysis and prevention of mechanical failures, Duke University
Material Handling Equipment Selector, North Carolina State University
Controlling Plant Life in Ponds, North Texas State University
Credit Limits for Industrial Customers, University of Delaware
Health Care Billing Advisor, Ohio State University
Utilizing Part Characteristics to Determine Feeding and
  Orienting Devices for Automatic Assembly, Texas A&M University
Expert Linear Programming System, The American University
Predicting and Measuring the Risk of a Small Business Becoming
  Insolvent, University of Texas at Dalls
Expert General Library Reference Work, Drexel University


AI Interactions, Volume 1 Number 2, September 1985 Summary:

Discussion of 42 million dollar Explorer contract by Sperry Corporation

Work done by Marc Victor in using Arborist to help lawyers decide
whether to continue with a law suit and settle.

Some technical tips on using Arborist and Personal Consultant

TI is selling a Personal Computer Plus for $2950.  It
supports compiled lisp and 2000 knowledge base elements (rules and
unique parameters).  It also adds graphics and extended
frame capability.   Personal Computer Consultant itself is
selling for $950 or with comprehensive training for $1750.

Infomart, the first shopping mall devoted solely to information
technology, is using a personal computer based expert system
called SNAP to help first time users help them decide what kind
of computer they need.

Carnegie-Mellon and National Bureau of standards has developed an
expert system to evaluate soil prior to excavation of shallow
trenches.  This is designed to help prevent cave ins.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 1985 21:40-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross@wpafb-afita
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference Proceedings - Aerospace Applications of AI
-BODY-
The proceedings for the First Annual Aersopace Applications of
Artificial Intelligence are available.  The cost is $30.00.  Send
a check or money order to:
       AAAIC'85
       PO Box 31250
       Dayton, Ohio 45431-0250

For information call (513) 426-8530.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 22 Sep 85 17:16:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: exaggerated claims
-BODY-
        In response to Bill Anderson's observation about grossly exaggerated
claims for AI systems, I don't think that this has a purely pecuniary
motivation, althought that certainly may play a role. As Herbert Dreyfus
documents in the first part of his "What Computers Can't Do", grossly
exaggerated if not blatantly false claims about the capabilities of AI
programs have been common from the very beginning, even in cases
(such as chess playing programs) where there was no monetary gain in sight.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate
-BODY-
        The Strategic Computing Program (DARPA) and SDI are opportunities
for technologists to convince the US Military that they have something to
offer.  Contrary to some of the recent comments on this net (and on
ARMS-D) the US Military is not constituted from defunct latin american
dictatorships.
        There is a raging debate within the military on the utility of
AI for battle management, and the USAF *pays* people to shoot holes
in it.  For those interested in the history of technology, most of the
things we take for granted (microelectronics, automobiles, planes,
interstate highway system) were gestated and field tested by the
US Military.
        SDI (ie. Space Development Initiative) is laying the ground work
for the commercialization of space which we will all take for granted
in 2000 or so.  The AI community (Minsky et al) feel that they have
something to offer, and I concur with providing them funding to put up
or shut up.  As usual, we will probably find that their initial claims
were a bit optimistic, but in the end they will have made a fundamental
contribution to the fabric of the incomparable standard of living
afforded by our nation.
        If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI.  But upon
close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
system.

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 85 09:22:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI hype
-BODY-

I've been reading the laments, complaints, etc regarding AI hype
with some interest; here's my $.02 worth.  I believe that the level
of promotional gas *is* higher in expert systems, AI, etc, than in
other aspects of the computer field (e.g., graphics, DBMS), and
than in many sciences (chemistry..) and engineering disciplines
(bridge-building...).  Howcome??  Well, it seems to me that a
unique aspect of AI is that it is involved with commercial
products for which we have *a priori* expectations as to
performance, because we are already familiar with a system that
does the same thing.

Notice the difference in reaction: if someone tells you (before
you've ever heard of VCRs) that he's got a marvelous machine
that will let you record and play back TV shows, you're happy
that such a thing is possible at all.  You are willing to accept
extra constraints and features as "part of the package" (eg you
can't record and play at the same time, you can pre-set to
record at some future time, a tape is good for 6 hours, ...).

But if someone tells you he's got a machine that will: diagnose
blood diseases, read a map, drive a car, compose music, play chess,
do arithmetic, etc, etc, the immediate question is: does the machine
do it better or worse than me, or some other representative of the
species?  If the machine is a lot better (200 googol floating-point
square roots per nanosecond or whatever) we are suitably
impressed and will buy several.  But if the map-reader can't
tell the difference between a secondary road and a river, well...

Take a physical analogy: suppose someone were selling a machine
that would chop and stack firewood (all by itself).  Aside from
the cognitive capabilities involved, wouldn't we expect that
such a machine could stack at least as neatly as people? Handle
wood chunks of at least a reasonable size?  Complete the task
at least as fast as a person?  Justifiably or not, we would
probably ask whether we were better off buying the machine, or
just paying someone to do the job.

Since AI, by definition, seeks to replicate areas of human
cognitive competence, its results will tend to be judged in
light of human performance.  And, lurking in the background
is the economic question: Am I better off hiring humans or
buying expert systems to get this job done?  No such issue
arises with VCRs, or with DBMSs, for that matter.  That is,
hiring people is not a practical alternative - either the
capability is worth the price or it's not.

And so, in semi-conscious response to this attitude, purveyors
of AI software feel compelled to make their wares sound
impressive, not only with respect to what's been done a year
ago, but with respect to human capabilities.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
129
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 85 17:39:06 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FRANZ-unix question...
-BODY-

> In Franz, how can I access the following:-
        (1) The user's name  (not just the login name, but also
            the actual name from the '.plan' (or whatever) file  ???
        (2) The date.

Thank you very much.

>-- raj doshi,  University of Minnesota

                doshi%umn.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

                Raj Doshi
                2030 Wilson Avenue, Apt #27
                Saint Paul, MN 55119
                (612)-739-2353
                (612)-739-2151

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 85 20:58:58 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: unknown prop.lists ..
-BODY-

**** QUESTION about FRANZ-LISP, atoms & their properties :-

Suppose that I have access to an atom (i.e. I know its NAME).
But I don't know anything more about it.

Now, is there a FRANZ function, whereby I can
ask franz to RETURN/LIST all the properties,
(given to the atom via PUTPROPs by the user).
if any, (and maybe their values) to me ???

Maybe the creators of FRANZ didn't see the need for such a function
or maybe they did not think about this, but,
I am sure FRANZ has to keep track of an atom's properties
(probably in an array or frame like structure).

HOW DOES FRANZ actually STORE THE properties OF ATOMS ??
If I know this, I could (probably?) write the function myself.

Thanks in advance.

>-- raj doshi,  University of Minnesota

  [Full address in first message of this digest.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 85 21:53:59 cdt
-FROM-
From: Raj Doshi <doshi%umn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: i AND o ....
-BODY-

**** Question about CONCURRENT i/o to the SAME file.

I am trying to do the following in Franz-Lisp:-
     I have a file which has some stuff in it (= it is non-empty).
     First, I want to  *append* something to it (that is, I want
        to write something FROM its end-of-file;  I want to preserve
        its original contents).
     Then, I want to read something from the start-of-the-file.
     Then, I want to  *append*  something-new to the new-version
        of this file.

Now, I have tried the following:-
     Lets say that the file name is fn.
     TRY #1 :  setq portout (outfile 'fn)
               fseek portout
                     (filestat:size (filestat 'fn)) ;Filestat take only 2
param.
                     0)
               (defun p-raj () (patom "Hi-raj" portout))
               (p-raj)
               (p-raj)
               ----------------
               The problem with this is that the
                    >setq portout (outfile 'fn)
                    seems to AUTOMATICALLY and PERMANENTLY
                    put the r/w-cursor at the START of the file
                    (without my permission).  Also, once this is
                    done, FSEEK become impotent.  It will always
                    send back a zero.  Also, a FILEPOS has no effect.
                    Basically, you cannot move the @<@!!# cursor
                    unless you write  (and therefore overwrite the
                    original contents) something to the file.
                       Note however that, if I had not done
                       setq portout (outfile 'fn)
                       then,
                           >(filestat:size (filestat 'fn))
                       does return the true (unix) size of the file.
               @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
     TRY #2 :  (setq inout (infile 'fn))
               (fileopen 'fn 'w+)  ; FILEOPEN takes only 2 parameters.
               ; you can also try the following
               ; (fileopen 'fn 'a+)
               (filepos portio)
                   [this gives back a zero, which is ok.]
               (filestat:size (filestat 'junk))
                   [this does give its true size, say 232 blocks.]
               (filepos portio (filestat:size (filestat 'junk)))
                   [this does put the r/w-cursor at 232.]
               (filepos portio)
                   [this confirms that.]
               (patom "IS this really going to get appended ?" portio)
                   [this prints the above string on the TERMINAL,
                    not onto the file fn.]
               (filepos portio)
                   [the cursor is STILL at 232.]

               Basically, I think that the reason it won't write to the file
               fn in this second case is that the <inout> was defined
               for reading and not for writing.
                   {Is this the correct impression ?}

[I have tried many many different permutations also.]

SO, in brief, a <setq pi (outfile..>
         automatically puts the cursor at the start-of-the-file;
    and the FILEOPEN, FILEPOS, FSEEK dont seem to have any effect.
    and, a <setq po (infile...>
         never allows me to write onto the file atall
         even if I do a  <FILEOPEN 'fn 'w+>.

>>>>>>   QUESTION: What am I missing here ??  <<<<<<

Thanks in advance.


>-- raj doshi,  University of Minnesota

  [Full address in first message of this digest.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 85 10:09:19 pdt
-FROM-
From: Peter Ludemann <ludemann%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public domain Prolog, Hope
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The August 1985 issue of BYTE magazine has a number of
articles on Declarative Languages (Prolog, Hope, FP).

Public domain versions of Prolog (from Automata Design
Associates) and Hope (from Imperial college) for MS-DOS
machines are apparently available from BYTEnet at (617)
861-9774.  [...]

>- Peter Ludemann

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 10:57:18 edt
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-
In the most recent issue of The_Journal_of_Philosophy, there is an
article by Vann McGee that presents several counterexamples to modus
ponens.  I am not sure whether to count them as counterexamples or as
cases where we hold inconsistent beliefs.  If the latter view is right,
it should be of interest to those who model belief systems.

One example of McGee's suffices to give the flavor of his article.
Before the 1980 presidential election, many held the two beliefs below:

   (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not Ronald
       Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

   (2) A Republican will win the election.

Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:

   (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.

John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Sep 85 16:54:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New CSLI Reports
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                             NEW CSLI REPORTS

      Report No. CSLI-85-31, ``A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action''
   by Robert C. Moore, and Report No. CSLI-85-32, ``Finite State
   Morphology: A Review of Koskenniemi'' by Gerald Gazdar, have just been
   published.  These reports may be obtained by writing to David Brown,
   CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 1985 19:49-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Technical Reports
-BODY-
Addresses for requests:

Carnegie Mellon University, CS Department, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Stanford University, Department of Computer Science, Stanford, CA 94305

____________________________________________________________________________

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T The Origin of the Binary Search Paradigm
%R STAN-CS-85-1044
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%D MAR 1985
%X $2.75 - shows how binary search based algorithms in numerical
analysis would be derived by an automatic program-synthesis system

%A Anne von der Leith Gardner
%T An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning
%R STAN-CS-85-1045
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%D JUN 1984, 205 pages (microfiche only $2.00_

%A Jeffrey D. Ullman
%A Allen Van Gelder
%T Testing Applicability of Top-Down Capture Rules
%R STAN-CS-85-1046
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%D APR 1985
%X $2.50 We extend the theory of "Capture rules", introduced in
Ullman (1984) and Sagiv and Ullman (1984), as a way
to plan the evaluation of queries in a "knowledge base."  The central
issue of the paper is how to adorn the nodes of
a rule/goal graph with limited amounts of information that can be used
to test wehtehr one can answer a query "top-down" as a Prolog would.
Moreover, the test must be performed quickly, preferably in time that is
polynomial in the size of hte logical rules in the "knowledge base."
We define the "uniqueness" property for rules and give an efficient
algorithms to generate a set of equalities among the sizes of arguments
in sets of such rules.  Satisfaction of these inequalities is sufficient
for the top-down processing of rules to cnverge.  We then give an efficient
test for satisfaction of these inequalities.  There is, of course, no
polynomial test that is both necessary and sufficient for applicability of
this or most any interesting capture rule.

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T Special Relations in Automated Deduction
%R STAN-CS-85-1051
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%K relation replacement rule relation matching rule polarity
%D MAY 1985
%X $4.00

%A Martin Abadi
%A Zohar Manna
%T Nonclausal Temporal Deduction
%D JUN 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1056
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%D JUN 1985
%K propositional temporal logic
%X 2.75

%A Ian A. Mason
%A Carolyn L. Talcott
%T Memories of S-expressions, Proving properties of Lisp-like programs
that destructively alter memory
%D JUN 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1057
%I Stanford University Department of Computer Science
%X $3.50

%A Masaru Tomita
%T An Efficient Context-free Parsing Algrithm for Natural Languages
and its Applications
%D MAY 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Gary L. Bradshaw
%T Learning to Recognize Speech Sounds: A Theory and Model
%D JUN 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Masaru Tomita
%T Feasibility Study of Personal/Interactive Machine Translation
Systems
%D JUL 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Jaime G. Carbonnell
%A Masaru Tomita
%T New Approaches to Machine Translation
%D JUL 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Robert E. Frederking
%T Syntax and Semantics in Natural Language Parsers
%D MAY 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Jeannette M. Wing
%A Farhad Arbab
%T Geometric Reasoning: A New Paradigm for Processing Geometric Information
%D JUL 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

%A Jeannette M. Wing
%A Mark R. Nixon
%T Adding Temporal Logic to Ina Jo
%D JUL 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K temporal logic formal specification

%A Ketan Mulmuley
%T A Mechanizable Theory for Existence Proofs of Inclusive Predicates
%D JUL 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 1985 20:02-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
D BOOK15 Applications of Artificial Intelligence II\
%D April 9-11\
%I International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE)\
%C Bellingham, Washington
D BOOK16 Solid Modeling by Computers From Theory to Applications\
%D SEP 25-27 1983\
%I Plenum Press\
%O (sponsored by) General Motors Research Laboratories of Warren Michigan
D BOOK17 Applications in Artificial Intelligence\
%I Petrocelli Books\
%C Princeton, New Jersey\
%E Stephen J. Andriole


%A Paul J. Besl
%A Ramesh C. Jain
%T Three-Dimensional Object Recogniton
%J Computing Surveys
%D March, 1985

%A Elain Marsh
%A Carol Friedman
%T Transporting the Linguistic String Project from a Medical
to a Navy Domain
%J ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Jonathan Slocum
%A Carol F. Justus
%T Transportability to Other Languages: The Natural Language
Processing Project in the AI Program at MCC
%J ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Samuel S. Epstein
%T Transportable Natural Language Processing Through Simplicity
%J ACM Transactions on Office  Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Bozena Hernisz Thompson
%A Frederick B. Thompson
%T ASK is Transportable in Half a Dozen Ways
%J ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Fred J. Damerau
%T Problems and Some Solutions in Customization of Natural Language Database
Front Ends
%J ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Carole D. Hafner
%A Kurt Golden
%T Portability of Syntax and Semantics in Datalog
%J ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems
%D APR 1985

%A Graham Birtwistle
%T Artificial Intelligence, Graphics and Simulation
%I Society for Computer Simulation
%D JAN 1985
%X $20.00, 119 pages, ISSN 07359276

%A Willard M. Holmes
%T Artificial Intelligence and Simulation
%I Society for Computer Simulation
%D MAR 1985
%X $20.00 75  pp ISBN 0911801057

%A Strategic Incorporated
%T Artificial Intelligence: Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI):
Markets, Issues, Suppliers and Technology Trends
%I Strategic Corporation
%D FEB 1985
%C Cupertino, California
%X price $1950.00

%A Perkins
%A Laffey
%A Nguyen
%T Rule-based Interpreting of Aerial Photographs Using LES
%J BOOK15

%A Captain Robert Milne
%T Functional Reasoning for Fault Diagnosis Expert Systems
%J BOOK15

%A Broadwell
%A Smith
%A Barnette
%A Staros
%T Decision Aiding for Tactical Aircraft
%J BOOK15

%A Appelbaum
%A Ruspini
%T ARIES: A Tool for Inference Under Conditions of Imprecision and
Uncertainty
%J BOOK15

%A Klinger
%T Search Processes for the Application of Artificial Intelligence
%J BOOK15

%A Levitt
%A Kirby
%A Muller
%T A Model-Based System for Force Structure Analysis
%J BOOK15

%A Hardt
%A Rosenberg
%T Developing an Expert Ship Message Interpreter-Theoretical and Practical
Conclusions
%J BOOK15

%A Rosenberg
%T ERIK, An Expert Ship Message Interpreter: New Mechanism for Flexible
Parsing
%J BOOK15

%A A Adams
%A Deutsch
%A Harrison
%T A hierarchical Planner for Intelligent Systems
%J BOOK15

%A Obermeier
%A de Hilster
%T DIID -- A Data-independent Interface for Databases -- The
AI Perspective
%J BOOK15

%A Haralick
%A Shapiro
%T Image Segmentation Techniques
%J BOOK15

%A Chestek
%A MUller
%A Chelberg
%T Knowledge Based Terrain Analysis
%J BOOK15

%A Forman
%T Robot Vision for Depalletizing Steel Cylindrical Billets
%J BOOK15

%A Bazakos
%A Panda
%T Stereopsis and Scene Partititoning for Terrain Interpretation
%J BOOK15

%A Lenger
%A Cipovic
%T Shape Recognition of Complex Objects by Syntactical Primitives
%J BOOK15

%A Castore
%T Solid Modeling, Aspect Graphs and Robot Vision
%J BOOK16

%A Lozano-perez
%A Brooks
%T An Apporoach to Automatic Robot Programming
%J BOOK16

%A Descotte
%A Latombe
%T GARI, an Expert System for Process Planning
%J BOOK16

%A Paul Lehner
%A Stephen Barth
%T Expert Systems on Microcomputers
%J BOOK17

%A Roger Schank
%A Steven Shwartz
%T The Role of Knowledge Engineering in Natural Language Systems
%J BOOK17

%A Jaime Carbonnel
%T The Role of User Modeling in Natural Language Interface Design
%J BOOK17

%A Gerald Hice
%A Stephen Andriole
%T Artificial Intelligent Videotex
%J BOOK17

%A Jean-Daniel Dessimoz
%T Vision for Industrial Robots
%J BOOK17

%A Dexter Fletcher
%T Intelligent Instructional Systems in Training
%J BOOK17

%A Jonathan Weiss
%T GenTree A Content Oreinted Aid to Decision Problem Structuring
%J BOOK17

%A Roger C. Schank
%A Peter G. Childers
%T The Cognitive Computer: On Language, Learning, and Artificial Intelligence
%X available from Library of Computer and Information Science for members
price of $14.50

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
130
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 13:38:21 cdt
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Citation/Abstract Distribution Service
-BODY-

I have volunteered to organize an electronic mechanism for the distribution
of technical report lists from Universities and R&D labs.  Some (and
hopefully all) of the people producing technical reports would send a copy
of the list to me.  I would then send these to a moderated group on USENET
as well as a mailing list for those sites on the INTERNET who do not get
news (ARPANET, CSNET, etc.).

I need two things from you:
  1) if your organization prepares technical reports and sends them
      out to interested parties (perhaps for a fee), please arrange
      to have electronically readable copy of your lists sent
      to trlist%smu@csnet-relay.
  2) if people at your organization would like to receive lists
     of tech reports produced by universities and R&D labs, please
     provide me an electronic address to send them to (if you are not
     on USENET).  Send such administrative mail to trlist-request%smu@
     csnet-relay.

Some frequently asked questions:

1. What are the advantages of sending my lists to you?

a. Most of the people to whom you are sending printed lists will
be receiving this list, either through the INTERNET as a mailing list
or as a moderated news group on the USENET distributed bulletin board
system.  Thus you can save the postage and printing costs in mailing
these lists.  I would be happy to provide you with a list of institutions
receiving this list as a mailing list as well as those institutions
on USENET who would be receiving it that way.  You can use this to
prune the mailing list you use to send out printed copies of your
technical report lists.

b. Many people at the Universities are not aware of technical
report lists.  I have been sending out lists of AI tech reports
to the AIList, an electronic newsletter on AI, for some time.
Every time I do so, my electronic mailbox fills up with requests on
how to obtain the tech reports.  Many of these requests come from
the most prestigious AI organizations in the country.

c. Many companies, particularly those on the USENET, would not
otherwise be aware of your research.  There are hundreds of small
companies on USENET who have no other access to the wealth of
information represented by University and other tech reports.

2. What is a technical report?

Most universities and big company R&D labs publish reports about their
research.  Some are highly research oriented (like new results in automata
theory).  Others are manuals for their public domain software or tutorials.
...

3. What format should the tech report lists be in?

Please see to it that there is some info indicating how people
can order the tech reports (whether sending you a check to
cover costs, requests via electronic mail or the reports can
be electronically available for Arpanet FTP transfer).

If you are already producing the list in some format, feel free to use that
format.  If you are preparing the list just for this purpose, I would prefer
that you use the input format for bib/refer, a common bibliography tool.
This way people can dump the lists into a file on their machine and be able
to do keyword searches.  Also bib/refer will automatically include and
format references in documents to be formatted or typeset.  However, I would
prefer the material in some weird format than not to have it at all!

For those not familiar with bib/refer, here is a brief tutorial.
Each report or other item should be a sequence of records which
are not separated by blank lines.  Each report should be separated
by the others by one or more blank lines.  Each report entry
consists of a label consisting of a % followed by a capital
letter and then a space.  Then include the information.  If the
information for a field (such as an abstract) requires more than one line,
just continue the field on a new line with no initial space.

The labels needed for tech reports are:

%A Author's name  (this field should be repeated for each author).
%T Title of report
%R report number
%I issuer, this will be the name of your institution.   This may
be ommited if implied by the report number
%C City where published (not essential)
%D Date of publication
%X Abstract


Here is an example of some tech report listings in the appropriate
format:

%A D. Rozenshtein
%A J. Chomicki
%T Unifying the Use and Evolution of Database Systems: A Case Study in
PROLOG
%R LCSR-TR-68
%I Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers University
%K frame control

%A C. V. Srinivasan
%T CK-LOG, A Calculus for Knowledge Processing in Logic
%R DCS-TR-153
%I Laboratory for Computer Research, Rutgers University
%K MDS

4. I already have exchange agreements with other Universities.
How does this affect them?

The only change would be how the information on what technical reports you
have for them to request gets transferred.  [...]

5. I need to charge for my tech reports to cover costs.

Fine.  Just include the prices for your reports next to each report (you can
use the %X field for that too).  At the beginning of the list you send me,
state where checks should be sent and to whom they should be made payable.

6. What about non-CS reports?

I am happy to handle reports for other departments.  If the volume of non-CS
reports becomes significant, I will split the list into tr-cs, tr-math,
tr-ee etc.  I would suspect that the majority of the people receiving this
list would be CS researchers since CS departments are quick to join
networks, etc.  However, some CS researchers (myself included) are working
in applications of computers and would like to receive information in
those areas as well.

7. I am already on USENET.  What should I do?

I anticipate a USENET moderated group in a time frame of one to
two weeks which will contain the same information as the
technical report lists.  If you indicate that you will get the
information via USENET, I will remove your name when the
list is established.  If you want to wait a week or two to
see if the list comes up, that is OK too.  I can send back
copies of the TR Lists that get sent out in the first few
batches of the mailing.  I will also send out on the USENET group,
everything that got sent out in the mailing list so you won't
miss anything either way.

8. I am on Arpanet, BITNET, etc.

I can get to Arpanet sites through csnet-relay so there is no problem there.
Otherwise, send me your address as best you know it.  I will
get through to you if at all possible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 1985 20:03-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliographies
-BODY-
            [Forwarded from a message to AIList-Request.]

You have probably noticed the announcement of the new tech
report list.  [...]  The thing that started me on this
was the response of AIList readers to my lists of tech reports.
>From what filled up my mailbox, it was obvious that many if not
most of your readers were not seeing the tech report lists and
a substantial fraction of those did not even know that tech reports
existed!  Hopefully this list will serve a useful function for
everyone.  It was something that should have been done a long
time ago.  [...]

I have increased the number of magazines from which my bibliographies
(type 1) are drawn.  We now have added ComputerWorld as well as a
few minor magazines.  ComputerWorld did a very good job on IJCAI-85
and I found material there that was no place else.  [...]

According to bib, we now have 430 documents sent to you since I
changed formats to machine readable.  This does not include
information sent to you in other formats.


  [I would like to thank Laurence for providing his services to
  AIList and the net community.  It's a heck of a hobby, but he
  does a great job.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 1985 20:00-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A Ruth E. Davis
%T Logic Programming and Prolog: A Tutorial
%J IEEE Software
%D SEP 1985
%P 53-62
%V 2
%N 5

%T Advertisement
%A Texas Instruments
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D SEP 1985
%V 22
%N 9
%P 22-23
%X announces a TV satellite symposium that can be received by
various companies using a satellite dish.  (On November 13, 1985)

%A T. A. Marsland
%A F. Popowich
%T Parallel Game-Tree Search
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 4
%D JUL 1985
%P 442-452
%K alpha-beta

%A K. C. Drake
%A E. S. McVey
%A R. M. Inigo
%T Sensing Error for a Mobile Robot Using Line Navigation
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 4
%D JUL 1985
%P 485-490

%A A. Lansner
%A O. Ekeberg
%T Reliability and Speed of Recall in an Associate Network
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 4
%D JUL 1985
%P 490-498

%A W. A. Gale
%T Book Review: The AI Business: The Commerical Uses of Artificial
Intelligence- P. Winston and K. Prendergast, Eds
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 4
%D JUL 1985
%P 499

%T FMC Invests $3.5 Million in Knowledge-Based Systems
%J IEEE Software
%D JUL 1985
%V 2
%N 4
%P 101
%K Teknowledge
%X FMC has invested $3.5 million in Teknowledge.

%T US, Japan AI firms enter joint ventures
%J IEEE Software
%D JUL 1985
%V 2
%N 4
%P 101
%K Carnegie Group Intelligent Technology Knowledge Craft Language Craft
Jack Geer McDonnell Douglas
%X Carnegie Group and Intelligent Technology have signed
a joint venture agreement where Intelligent Technology will distribute
Knowledge Crat and Language Craft throughout the far east.  They will
be creating Japanese language versions of these products.  Carnegie
Group has appointed Jack Geer, formally of the Knowledge
Engineering Division of McDonnell Douglas Information Systems Group,
as director of marketing.

%A Eric Bender
%T AI Firms Outgrow Seat-of-the-Pants Style
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 10+
%K Golden Common Lisp
%X general article on Gold Hill Computers, the author of Golden Common Lisp,
and Arity computers, the author of a Prolog compiler/interpreter.
Golden Common Lisp has sold approximately 3000
copies.  They employ 18 people and have a "monthly run rate" of
$200,000.  They anticipate selling a large memory version for
the PC/AT which can use 16M of memory.
The largest user of Arity products is software vendors with
classic DP shoppers a closer second.
Arity Prolog tools were used by one software vendor to develop
a system to consult on software installation.

%T Vendors Fuel AI Language Debate
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%X discusses battle between Prolog and Lisp as standard for AI.

%A Charles Babcock
%T Experts Beat out Expert Systems at Financial Firm
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 12+
%K business insurance financial Metropolital Life Roger Jones
expert system medical
%X Rojer Jones, planning manager in Metropolital Life's corporate
systems planning division, said that it is very difficult to
encode expert thinking and in many cases the bank prefers
training human experts to developing expert systems.  He said that
experts might lie, be wrong or the business might change.  He
emphasized that some experts are so possessive of their knowledge
that they would covertly sabotage the expert system development
process.  In the case of one project, it cost more to transcribe
the 30 pages of medical information to provide to the expert system
than to have an underwriter evaluate the information.  Insurance
companies are using larger pools of data to determine actuarial
tables so that expert systems based on segregated pools (e. g. with
men separated from women) would be obsolete.  He claims that
the systems that were successful (Prospector, Dendral) mapped a very broad
knowledge base of simple facts.

%T Artificial? Or Intelligent?
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 18
%X editorial on AI, saying that there is a legitimate demand
for AI technology but it will be frought with hard work and
that DP staffs can't neglect their day to day work to pursue
the interesting AI interests.

%A Eric Bender
%T Lively Discussions Highlight AI Meet
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 49+
%K IJCAI
%X quotes overhead at IJCAI-85
Beau Sheil of Xerox Artificial Intellgience Systems - AI works best
with a lot of information that can be manipulated at a shallow level
Xerox has received an order for 1000 of its 1185 work stations and is
flooded with requests at similar volume.
Alan Kay of Apple said "we need to do problem finding," not problem
solving.  He also griped about logic programming and parallel
processing.  He made a comment that if the Intel 80286 is a weak
architecture, what is it when you have 16 of them?  [probably a
veiled reference to Intel's Cosmic Cube.]
Larry Levesque of Carnegie Group said that AI products and
demos are tools and they don't scale up.

%T Secure Xerox Workstation Out
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 63+
%X Lisp Machine
%K Xerox announced the 1108-105T, an AI work station that meeets
standards for release of electronic radiation that can be tapped for
use in National Security and other places.  It also announced an
1108 series of AI work stations that can interface with IBM
and Multibus equipment.
%T Systems and Peripherals
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 35
%D SEP 2, 1985
%K digitization machine vision Industrial Vision Systems
%X Industrial Vision Systems has announced a 400 dot/in digitizing
scanner capable of handling up to 36 in wide paper.  It costs $79,000.

%A John Gallant
%T Will IBM Take AI by Storm
%J Computer World
%D SEP 9, 1985
%V 19
%N 36
%P 61+
%K IJCAI-85
%X general article on IBM's role in AI

%T Inference Enhances ART Development Environment
%J Computer World
%D SEP 9, 1985
%V 19
%N 36
%P 62
%X improvements to Inference Corp's Automated Reasoning Tool
include:
1) improved color graphics including
a away of attaching graphics primitives to rules,
2) a pseudo-natural language development enviornment which allows
a developer to build his knowledge-base using an English-like
syntax
3) a mixed initiative processing environment allowing the
expert system to prompt for information while reacting to user
inquiriers
4) separately compilable rule files

%T Software and Services
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 9, 1985
%V 19
%N 36
%P 69
%K Lucid  Sun    Common Lisp
%X Sun Microsystem has announced a version of LUCID, a Common LISP
implementation for its work stations costing $375.00.

%A Sol Libes
%T Bytelines
%J Byte
%D SEP 1985
%P 420
%V 10
%N 9
%X Kurzweil Applied Intelligence speech recognition KVS-3000
%X Kurzweil has introduced a KVS-3000 that can handle 1000 words
continuous speech with 100 per cent accuracy.  It is selling at
$3000.00 in quantity and comes in PC, multibus and RS232C versions.
It is speaker adaptive and its performance increases the more
it talks with the same user.

%A Jean Renard Ward
%%A Barry Blesser
%T Interactive recognition of Handprinted Characters for Computer
Input
%J IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
%V 5
%N 9
%P 24-37
%K Character Recogniton Pencept
%X discusses the human interface issues once you have character
recognition on your computer; i. e. how best to interface handwritten
character recognition with your product.

%T Hitachi to Spend $40 million in U. S. on High-Tech Gear
%J Electronic News
%D SEP 2, 1985
%V 31
%N 1565
%P 10
%K Tektronix
%X Hitachi has spent $700,000 at
Tektronix which includes an undisclosed amount of
"artificial intelligence products."

%T Raytheon Acquires Stake in Lisp Machines
%J Electronic News
%D AUG 26, 1985
%P 20+
%V 31
%N 1564
%K energy venture capital military electronics
%X Raytheon invested 4.5 million dollars into Lisp Machine Inc.
through its new venture capital subsidiary.  Lisp Machine Inc. has
raised a total of twelve million dollars in a fourth round of financing.
Raytheon hopes to be using Lisp Machine products in its military
electronics and energy business.  Ti currently owns 9 percent
of LMI.  other investors include
Abingworth plc, InterVEN, Genesis Venture Capital, Manufacturers Hanover Trust.

%A Eric Bender
%T Artificial Intelligence: On the Road to Reality
%J ComputerWorld
%D AUG 26, 1985
%V 19
%N 34
%K IJCAI-85
%X summary and analysis of events at IJCAI-85
%X Many vendors continued development work up until
the demonstrations themselves and there were more bugs than typical
at a computer conference vendor exhibition.
Beau Sheil of Xerox stated that  in order for AI to work at a company,
the company has to have long term horizons, a real clear
idea about its needs and a history of applying technology to solve
those problems.

%A Eric bender
%T IJCAI sees HP, Intellicorp moves in AI programming
%J ComputerWorld
%D AUG 26, 1985
%V 19
%N 34
%P 10+
%K Hewlett-Packard Common Lisp HP 9000 Xerox Palladian Software financial
%X Hewlett-Packard will have a Common Lisp development
environment running on its HP 9000 series 300 family of workstations.
It will have a system called Browsers "that will automatically have
appropriate tools for the task at hand."
Xerox will be announcing a Common Lisp in second
quarter 186.  Intellicorp announced a system to allow
personal computers to act as delivery vehicles for expert systems.
Initial versions will use VAX systems as hosts
and IBM PC's and the Macintosh as delivery vehicles.
Palladian Software announced its financial advisor expert system.
It runs on Symbolics and Texas  Instruments Lisp Machines and
communicates with IBM and DEC systems.  A system with four
work stations runs for $95,000.

%A Eric Bender
%T Symbolics, Xerox offer enhanced AI workstations
%J ComputerWorld
%D AUG 26, 1985
%V 19
%N 34
%P 11
%K Lisp Machine
%X Xerox announced an 1185 which costs $9.995 and runs
Interlisp-D software and serves as a delivery vehicle.
They also announced an 1186 development system with
3.6M of internal memory and 80M of hard disk storage for $15,865.

%T Aion offers AI development system
%J ComputerWorld
%D AUG 26, 1985
%V 19
%N 34
%P 55
%K expert system microcomputer venture capital
%X Aion announced a new expert system for the IBM Pc written
in Pascal.  They anticipate selling an IBM-370 version for
first-quarter 1986.  They are focussing on the traditional
DP environment.
They received 2.4 million in venture capital.

%T Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D AUG 26, 1985
%V 19
%N 34
%P 61
%K The Institute for Scientific Analysis Small-X microcomputer
expert system
%X The Instuitute for Scientific Analysis introduced Small-X,
an expert system development tool for the IBM-PC.  It costs
$249.95 and can control or exchange data with other applications
running under Microsoft.

%A S. Jerrold Kaplan
%T Designing a Portable Natural Language Database Query System
%J ACM Transactions on Database Systems
%V 9
%N 1
%D MAR 1984
%P 1-19

%A C. Hornsby
%A H. C. Leung
%T The Design and Implementation of a Flexible Retrieval Language
for a Prolog Database System
%J SIGPLAN
%V 20
%N 9
%D SEP 1985
%P 43-51
%X implementation of a database management system in PROLOG


%A Donna Raimondi
%T Ansa offers Paradox IBM-compatible relational DBMS
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 38
%P 12
%D SEP 23, 1985
%K data base system interface microcomputer heuristic query optimization
Ansa Software Paradox Sevin Rosen Management
%X A data base management package which uses machine reasoning to
evaluate user requests and write programs for the user.  It uses
query by example, program synthesis and heuristic query optimization
techniques

%A Jeffry Beeler
%T Symantec package out
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 38
%P 12
%D SEP 23, 1985
%K Symantec natural language microcomputer data base system interface
%X a new product which uses natural language to interface with a
database

%T Software and Services
%J ComputerWorld
%V 19
%N 38
%D SEP 23, 1985
%P 50
%K Franz Common Lisp flavors
%X a new release of Franz Lisp, Opus 42, is out which
supports Lisp flavors, functions returning multiple values,
multiple name spaces in the Lisp environment, hash table objects,
history mechanism.  It is available for Apollo, Sun, Cadmus, Masscomp,
Tektronix, Harris and Digital equipment Corp.  $5,000 first copy,
$1,000 subsequent copies

%A Craig D. Rose
%T R&D Race Tightens for Fifth-Generation Computers
%J Electronics
%D SEP 23, 1985
%V 58
%N 38
%P 30-31
%X Attempts to compare and contrast the Fifth Generation
efforts of Europe, Japan and the U. S.
The Strategic Computing Initiative (SCI) of DARPA will
spend one billion dollars over ten years.  Europe's Esprit program
is being funded with 1.2 billion for five years and Britain is
spending $455 million over the same time span for the Alvey project.
Japan's Fifth Generation Project is funded at twenty to thirty
million dollars per year.  Japanese companies are spending
in total about five times as much money as ICOT.
The Canadian Society for Fifth Generation computing has requested fourty
million dollars over three years.

%T Machine Vision Maker Raises Three Million Dollars
%J Electronics
%D SEP 23, 1985
%V 58
%N 38
%P 41
%X Itran venture capital inspection General Motors
%X Itran Corp has raised three million dollars in a new round
of venture financing.  Itran markets systems that inspects
parts on factory floors.  It sells systems to General Motors.

%A Tobias Naegele
%T How Rensing Got His Robot Working
%J Electronics
%D SEP 23, 1985
%V 58
%N 38
%P 42
%K Renco Electronics
%X describes experiences of a small firm in installing robots in
their factory.

%T AI Tools Automate Software Translation
%J Electronics
%D SEP 23, 1985
%V 58
%N 38
%P 59-61
%K Lexeme Michael Shamos computer language translation conversion expert
system
%X Lexeme sells an expert system that translates from one computer
language to another.  It supports Ada and C as target language and
accepts input of Fortran, PL/1, Bliss and SPL.  They are developing
COBOL, BASIC, Algol, Jovial and CMS-2 versions.   They also
handle conversions from one language to another.
There is a separate page on the personalities and stories of the
founders.  [Michael Shamos, the president, is also well known
for his work in computational geometry.  --Leff]  He managed
to pick up a law degree as well as a Ph. D. in computer science!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
131
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Sep 85 11:10:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ana Haunga <HAUNGA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - KSL/Symbolic Systems Resources Group (SU)
-BODY-

                     KSL/Symbolic Systems Resources Group

                        Tom Rindfleisch and Bill Yeager
                              Stanford University

This is the first of several SIGLunches this fall that will summarize work in
each of the five sublabs of the Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory (KSL),
including the Heuristic Programming Project, HELIX Group, Medical Computer
Science Group, Logic Group, and Symbolic Systems Resources Group (SSRG).  This
week's talk will consist of a brief overview of the KSL as an AI laboratory and
a survey of SSRG research and development activities.

Since 1980, the computing environment for KSL research has been moving slowly
away from central time-shared mainframes (like the SUMEX 2060 and VAX) toward
networked Lisp workstations.  Improvements in workstation performance, falling
prices, better packaging, and a wider vendor selection are now accelerating
this transition.  Over the next five years, we are proposing to phase out the
SUMEX research mainframes so that all KSL computing will be workstation-based
>- not only research program development but common tasks like text processing,
mail, file management, and budgeting.  This raises several important issues
that will require a community system software effort comparable to that in the
1970's that led to the current TOPS-20 and UNIX environments.

How can the user computing environment be improved using workstation bitmapped
graphics and AI methods for more intelligent systems/applications programs?

How can user displays connect flexibly to workstations -- from home, over
remote networks like ARPANET, and locally over Ethernet?

How can the considerable computing power distributed among many workstations be
combined to support individual user tasks?

What are the impacts on network protocols and services (file servers, gateways,
printing, etc.) of large numbers of workstations?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 85 15:50:05 cdt
-FROM-
From: rajive@sally.UTEXAS.EDU (Rajive Bagrodia)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Qualitative Simulation of Mechanisms in Diagnosis (UT)
-BODY-
                  Qualitative Simulation of Mechanisms
                                  and
                   Causal Models in Medical Diagnosis

                               Ben Kuipers

                        Friday, 27th September,

                            Pai 3.38  12 pm

Researchers in the AIM (Artificial Intelligence in  Medicine)  community
have concluded that expert medical diagnosis requires  knowledge  in the
form  of  causal  models, to support reasoning about  how  physiological
mechanisms   work  and  interact.  One  form  of  causal   reasoning  is
qualitative simulation of  descriptions of the structure  of  mechanisms
to yield  predictions of their behavior.  Qualitative  simulation  has a
number  of interesting  mathematical  properties, and a fast  algorithm.
The knowledge base of mechanism descriptions makes it possible  to model
both  a  healthy  and  a  broken  physiological  mechanism  with   minor
perturbations of the same structural description.  This talk will review
recent  results and open problems in both qualitative simulation and its
application to expert systems in medicine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 10:35:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bernard Silver <SILVER@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Purpose-Directed Analogy (GTE)
-BODY-

                GTE LABORATORIES INCORPARATED
                40 Sylvan Rd, Waltham, MA 02254

TIME:           October 3, 10AM

SPEAKER:        Smadar Kedar-Cabelli
                Laboratory for Computer Science
                Rutgers University, NJ

TITLE:          PURPOSE-DIRECTED ANALOGY


Existing techniques for analogical reasoning are based on mapping
some underlying causal network of relations between analogous
situations.  However, causal relations relevant for the purpose
of one analogy may be irrelevant for another.  We describe here
a technique which uses an explicit representation of the analogy
to automatically create the relevant causal network.

NOTE: If you wish to attend this seminar, please contact
Bernard Silver on (617) 466-2663

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 14:09:11 PDT
-FROM-
From: chertok%ucbcogsci@Berkeley.EDU (Paula Chertok)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Parallel Distributed Processing (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                  Fall 1985
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

        TIME:                Tuesday, October 1, 11:00 - 12:30
        PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
        (followed by)
        DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

        SPEAKER:          David  Rumelhart,  Institute  for  Cognitive
                          Science, UCSD

        TITLE:            ``Parallel Distributed Processing:  Explora-
                          tions in the Microstructure of Cognition''

        Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) is the name which I  and
        my  colleagues  at  San  Diego  have  given  to  the  class of
        neurally-inspired models of cognition we have  been  studying.
        We  have  applied  this  class  of "connectionist" models to a
        variety of  domains  including  perception,  memory,  language
        acquisition  and motor control.  I will briefly present a gen-
        eral framework for the class of PDP  models,  show  how  these
        models  can  be applied in the case of acquisiton of verb mor-
        phology, and show how such  macrostructural  concepts  as  the
        schema  can be seen as emerging from the microstructure of PDP
        models.  Implications of the PDP perspective  for  our  under-
        standing of cognitive processes will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 26 Sep 85 16:58:54-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Processes, Simultaneity and Causality (SRI)
-BODY-
                  PROCESSES, SIMULTANEITY AND CAUSALITY

                          Michael P.  Georgeff
                      Artificial Intelligence Center
                           SRI International

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, September 30
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


The notion of process is essential for reasoning about the behavior of
multiple agents or single agents in dynamic worlds.  In this talk, we
show why reasoning about process is so important, and contrast this
with other approaches in AI which are primarily based on the allowable
behaviors of agents.  An algebra of processes based on events is given.
We then show how events can be represented as changes of world state,
and how state properties can be inferred from the model. Interestingly,
no STRIPS-like assumption is involved in the definition of events, thus
allowing a proper model-theoretic semantics.  One of the most important
features of the model is a hiding operation.  This provides an abstraction
capability that can be used to avoid the combinatorial explosion
typical of other AI approaches.  Finally, we introduce a notion of
causality between events and processes.  This, together with the
notion of simultaneous actions and hiding operations, allows us to
avoid most of the problems associated with the frame problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 85 18:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Theory of Declarative Knowledge (UPenn)
-BODY-

TOWARDS A THEORY OF DECLARATIVE KNOWLEDGE
Krzysztof R. Apt, LITP, Universite Paris, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

3:00pm Tuesday 1 Oct, CIS, University of Pennsylvania

        We study logic programming with negation from the point of
        view of  its use  for building  expert  system shells.  We
        achieve   a  separation   between   the   declarative  and
        procedural meaning of the programs. We do this by defining
        a  class of  stratified programs  which  disallow  certain
        combination  of  recursion  and  negation  and to which we
        restrict our study.  We develop a  fixed point  theory  of
        non-monotonic  operators   and   apply it  to   provide  a
        declarative meaning of the programs based on model theory.
        We also define a backchaining interpretor and show that in
        the  absence of  function symbols  it  computes a selected
        model of a stratified program.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Sep 85 10:35:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Software Environments (CSLI)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CSLI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


New project meeting on environments
Mondays 1-2 in the trailer classroom, Ventura
[Future meetings will be from 12 to 1:15.]

Beginning Monday, Sept. 30 there will be a weekly meeting on
environments for working with symbolic structures (this includes
programming environments, specification environments,  document
preparation environments, "linguistic workstations", and grammar-
development environments).  As a part of doing our research, many
of us at CSLI have developed such environments, sometimes as a matter
of careful design, and sometimes by the seat of the pants.  In this
meeting we will present to each other what we have done, and also look
at work done elsewhere (both through guest speakers and reading
discussions).

The goal is to look at the design issues that come up in building
environments and to see how they have been approached in a variety of
cases.  We are not concerned with the particular details ("pop-up menus
are/aren't better than pull-down menus") but with more fundamental
problems.  For example:

  What is the nature of the underlying structure the environment supports:
  chunks of text? a data-base of relations? a tree or graph structure?
  How is this reflected in the basic mode of operation for the user?

  How does the user understand the relation between objects (and
  operations on them) that appear on the visible representation (screen
  and/or hardcopy) and the corresponding objects (and operations) on
  some kind of underlying structure?  How is this maintained in a
  situation of multiple presentations (different views and/or multiple
  windows)?  How is it maintained in the face of breakdown (system
  failure or catastrophic user error in the middle of an edit, transfer,
  etc.)?

  Does the environment deal with a distributed network of storage and
  processing devices?  If so, does it try to present some kind of
  seamless "information space" or does it provide a model of objects
  and operations that deals with moving things (files, functions, etc.)
  from one "place" to another, where different places have relevant
  different properties (speed of access, security, shareability, etc.)?

  How is consistency maintained between separate objects that are
  conceptually linked (source code and object code, formatter source
  and printer-ready files, grammars and parse-structures generated from
  them, etc.)?  To what extent is this simply left to user convention,
  supported by bookkeeping tools, or automated?

  What is the model for change of objects over time?  This includes
  versions, releases, time-stamps, reference dates, change logs, etc.,
  How is information about temporal and derivational relationships
  supported within the system?

  What is the structure for coordination of work?  How is access to the
  structures regulated to prevent "stepping on each other's toes"? to
  facilitate joint development? to keep track of who needs to do what
  when?

Lurking under these are the BIG issues of ontology, epistemology,
representation, and so forth.  Hopefully our discussions on a more down-
to-earth level will be guided by a consideration of the larger picture
and will contribute to our understanding of it.

The meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend.  Topics will be
announced in advance in the newsletter.  The first meeting will
be devoted to a general discussion of what should be addressed and to
identifying the relevant systems (and corresponding people) within
CSLI, and within the larger (Stanford, Xerox, SRI) communities in
which it exists.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 1985 09:24-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Society for Computer Simulation
-BODY-
Sponsor: Society for Computer Simulation

Dates: October 24-25 1985
Location: General Dynamics Recreation Area
Fee: $25 both day; $15 one day; $10 both days full time students

AI related talks listed below:
Thursday, October 24
8:45 AM Session I

"Adaptive Sequencing Rules in a Shop Floor Control System", Chris Gill,
General Dyanamics

Session II

"Shape Memory Alloy fo Robot Muscles", MIke Zerkus, Jeff Akus,
Martin Spizale, Louisiana Tech University

"Advanced Data and Picture Transformation System",
Dr. V. Devarajan, Y. P. Chen, LTV Corporation

10:30 AM Keynote Address
Keyote address: "Robotics and Intelligent Systems: An Overview"
Dr. George Bekey, University of Southern California

1:30 PM Session IV
"A Symbolic Expert System for the Design of Digital Controllers
for Space Vehicles", Dr. Wolf Kohn, Robert Norsworthy, Lockheed EMSCO

3:15 PM Session VI
"Ultra Sonic Ranging for Robot Sensing: Dr. Troy Henson,
Louisiana Tech University

"A Presentation of Expert Systems at NASA Johnson Space
Center, Dr. Wade Webster, Lockheed EMSCO

Friday, October 25

Session VII

"Exploiting Artificial Intelligence in Simulation"
Walter Strucely, Texas Instruments

"Application of an Expert System in Process Control in Aerospace
Manufactuirng
Bill Skelton, LTV Corporation

9:45 AM

Session X
"General Dynamics Simulation Systems and Artificial Intelligence:
Rich Teichgraeber, General Dynamics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 85 18:28:58 edt
-FROM-
From: Michael Lesk <lesk%petrus@MOUTON>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGIR/SIGDOC Workshop
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the IRList Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following is a proposal for a workshop which, although not yet
formally approved, [Note: Diana Patterson of SIGDOC has signed - Ed]
is very likely to take place in Snowbird, Utah, June 30-July 2, 1986.
Chair: Michael Lesk; Local Arrangements: Lee Hollaar; Treasurer: Karen Kukich.

Attendance will be limited to 75; there will be no formal proceedings,
but a report will be written for some ACM publication; a number of
prominent people (Karen Sparck Jones, David McDonald, Donald Walker,
Patricia Wright, etc.) have indicated interest in attending.  Comments
on the workshop, or indications of interest, are welcome.  Please
notify the chair at: bellcore!lesk, or lesk%bellcore@csnet-relay, or
(if you have current routing tables) lesk@bellcore.  Phone: 201-829- 4070.

NOTE: I will be on vacation Sept 9 - Oct 4; failure to reply
during those dates merely means your message has not been read!! --
Thanks, Michael Lesk


                       Writing to be Searched:
             A Workshop on Document Generation Principles


     As computers learn to write English, and others improve at
searching it, they ought to benefit from people who know how to do
these jobs.  We're proposing a workshop bringing together AI special-
ists in document generation, information retrieval experts, people who
know how to write manuals, and those who write programs to evaluate
writing.

     In recent years there has been a surge of interest in the use of
computer programs that write English.[1,2,3] Expert systems, for exam-
ple, need to explain what they are doing.  Programs are making
increasing strides in fluency, domain coverage, and expressive
power.[4,5] In fact, it is remarkable that there has been a long dis-
cussion over the last ten years about whether or not apes have
mastered language, based on utterances such as ``Please tickle more,
come Roger tickle''[6] while computer programs saying things like
``The market crept upward early in the session yesterday, but stumbled
shortly before trading ended''[7,8] have not impressed the public
nearly as much.  But even supposing that computers can now write
English, what should they write?   [...]

  [There followed a long essay about having computers write
  computer manuals.  -- KIL]

Workshop Specifics.

     In this workshop we will bring together subject specialists in
four main areas:

*    Artificial intelligence researchers working in natural language
     generation;

*    Documentation specialists interested in writing style and qual-
     ity, and in the definition of a `good' document;

*    Text analysis developers, building programs that analyze text
     automatically and try to make value judgments about it; and

*    Retrieval experts, who know how to build systems for keyword
     matching and retrieval.

Another major area that should be represented, but possibly not until
a later meeting, is computer graphics.  The value of illustrations,
diagrams, and charts is unquestioned but it is not clear how we can
integrate graphics with text today.  [...]

     Our best possible outcome, of course, is that the participants
will find something which is not quite a conventional reference
manual, but serves the same purpose and does it better.  Whether this
will be a structured document still written in English, or a
question-answering database with an explanation generator, it is
impossible to say.  But unless the various groups start talking to one
another, we'll never find out.

Michael Lesk
Bell Communications Research
435 South St., Rm. 2A-385
Morristown, NJ 07960

August 9, 1985


References


1.   E. Conklin and D. McDonald, "Salience: The Key to the Selection
     Problem in Natural Language Generation," Proc. 20th Meeting ACL,
     pp. 129-135, 1982.

2.   K. R. McKeown, "The TEXT System for Natural Language Generation:
     An Overview," Proc. 20th Meeting ACL, pp. 113-120, Toronto, Ont.,
     1982.

3.   R. E. Cullingford, M. W. Krueger, M. Selfridge, and M. A. Bien-
     kowski, "Automated Explanations as a Component of a Computer-
     Aided Design System," IEEE Trans. Sys., Man & Cybernetics, pp.
     168-181, 1982.

4.   W. C. Mann, "An Overview of the NIGEL Text Generation Grammar,"
     Proc. 21st ACL Meeting, pp. 79-84, 1983.

5.   A. K. Joshi and B. L. Webber, "Beyond Syntactic Sugar," Proc. 4th
     Jerusalem Conf. on Information Technology, pp. 590-594, 1984.

6.   S. Chevalier-Skolnikoff, "The Clever Hans Phenomenon, Cuing and
     Ape Signing: A Piagetan Analysis of Methods for Instructing
     Animals," in The Clever Hans Phenomenon: Communication with
     Horses, Whales, Apes and People, ed. Thomas Sebeok and Robert
     Rosenthal, vol. 364, pp. 60-93, New York Academy of Sciences,
     1981.

7.   Karen Kukich, Knowledge-Based Report Generation: A Knowledge-
     Engineering Approach to Natural Language Report Generation.  Ph.D
     Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1983

8.   Karen Kukich, "ANA's First Sentences: Sample Output from a
     Natural Language Stock Report Generator," Proc. Nat'l Online
     Meeting, pp. 271-80, 1983.

9.   G. Salton and M. McGill, Introduction to Modern Information
     Retrieval, McGraw-Hill, 1983.

10.  Among sellers of free text retrieval systems are ``Cucumber
     Information Systems'' (5611 Kraft Drive, Rockville, MD 20852) and
     ``Knowledge Systems, Inc.'' (12 Melrose St., Chevy Chase, MD
     20815).

11.  G. Salton, The SMART Retrieval System -- Experiments in Automatic
     Document Processing, Prentice-Hall, 1971.

12.  G. W. Furnas, T. K. Landauer, L. M. Gomez, and S. T. Dumais,
     "Statistical Semantics: Analysis of the potential performance of
     key-word information systems," Bell Sys. Tech. J., vol. 62, no.
     6, pp. 1753-1806, 1983.

13.  Marion O. Harris, "Thoughts on an All-Natural User Interface,"
     Proc. Summer USENIX Conf., pp. 343-347, Portland, Oregon, June
     1985.

14.  L. M. Bernstein and R. E. Williamson, "Testing of a Natural
     Language Retrieval System for a Full Text Knowledge Base," J.
     Amer. Soc. Inf. Sci, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 235-247, 1984.

15.  R. E. Williamson, "ANNOD -- A Navigator of Natural-Language
     Organized (Textual) Data," Proc. 8th SIGIR Meeting, pp. 252-266,
     Montreal, Quebec, 1985.

16.  M. E. Lesk, "Programming Languages for Text and Knowledge Pro-
     cessing," Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. and Tech., vol. 19, pp. 97-128,
     1984.

17.  Janet Asteroff, "On Technical Writing and Technical Reading,"
     Information Technology and Libraries, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3-8,
     March 1985.

18.  Christine Borgmann, "The User's Mental Model of an Information
     Retrieval System," Proc. 8th SIGIR Meeting, pp. 268-273, Mont-
     real, Quebec, 1985.

19.  Marilyn Mantel and Nancy Haskell, "Autobiography of a First-Time
     Discretionary Microcomputer User," Human Factors in Computing
     Systems: Proc. CHI '83 Conference, pp. 286-290, 1983.

20.  Bill Swartout, "GIST English Generator," Proc. AAAI-82, pp. 404-
     409, Pittsburgh, Penn., 1982.

21.  Ariel Shattan and Jenny Hecker, "Documenting UNIX: Beyond Man
     Pages," Proc. Summer USENIX meeting, pp. 437-454, Portland, Ore.,
     1985.

22.  Karen Kukich, "Design of a Knowledge-Based Report Generator,"
     Proc. 21st Meeting ACL, pp. 145-50, 1983.

23.  E. Voorhees and G. Salton, "Automatic Assignment of Soft Boolean
     Operators," Proc. SIGIR Conf., pp. 54-69, 1985.

24.  L. L. Cherry and N. H. Macdonald, "The Unix Writer's Workbench
     Software," Byte, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 241-248, Oct. 1983.

25.  G. E. Heidorn, K. Jensen, L. A. Miller, and R. J. Byrd, "The
     Epistle Text-Critiquing System," IBM Systems J., vol. 21, no. 3,
     pp. 305-326, 1982.

26.  M. O. Harris, Howto: An Amateur System for Program Counseling,
     1983.  private communication.

27.  J. R. Cowie, "Automatic Analysis of Descriptive Texts," Conf. on
     Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 117-123, Santa Monica,
     Cal., Feb. 1-3, 1983.

28.  M. S. Tuttle, D. D. Sherertz, M. S. Blois, and S. Nelson,
     "Expertness from Structured Text? Reconsider: A Diagnostic
     Prompting System," Conf. on Applied Natural Language Processing,
     pp. 124-131, Santa Monica, Cal., Feb. 1-3, 1983.

29.  Patricia Wright, "Manual Dexterity: a user-oriented approach to
     creating computer documentation," Human Factors in Computing Sys-
     tems: Proc. CHI '83 Conference, pp. 11-18, 1983.

30.  T. G. Sticht, "Comprehending Reading at Work," in Cognitive
     Processes in Comprehension, ed. M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter,
     Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
132
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1985  05:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI hype or .02+.02=.04
-BODY-

Depends on whether you like worth?less gadgets I guess.
SEC apparently doesn't according to a recent article
in Computerworld regarding Paradyne bidding in 1981.

                                        Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 85 08:56:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: Herb Lin <LIN@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate
-BODY-
    Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
    From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings at AEROSPACE.ARPA>

            SDI (ie. Space Development Initiative) is laying the ground work
    for the commercialization of space which we will all take for granted
    in 2000 or so.

This is most emphatically NOT the function of the President's SDI, or
even that of the DoD.  Maybe we would wish it to be (I would certainly
prefer such a goal to the current one), but it is not.  I base my
observation on official statements from the President, General
Abrahmson, Caspar Weinberger and others.  If you discount these
statements, then the claim that SDI is for space commercialization is
essentially opinion.

            If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
    inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
    by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
    pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI.  But upon
    close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
    technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
    tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
    system.

Every study that has investigated the funding of technical R&D has
concluded that spin-off is an economically unsound way to fund it.  If
you want to develop spin-offs, then you fund the spin-off directly,
not indirectly.  Technology development is a good thing, and it must
be debugged before it gets into wide public use, but using THAT to
justify military spending is to romanticize the military R&D process
more than appropriate.

Maybe the military is the only institution powerful enough and rich
enough to pay for risky R&D.  True enough.  But that is a social
choice that the nation has made; in my view that is inappropriate, and
it does not have to be that way.

Herb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 1985 10:38 PST
-FROM-
From: Mike Kane <PRODMKT@ACC.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: PRODMKT@ACC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI/SDI Hype
-BODY-

I have followed the evolution of AI for several years now, from a mere
academic curiosity, to where it is today. True, I am not a participant,
just an interested observer. The recent exchanges on the net regarding the
commercialization of AI and AI's role in the SDI, have indeed been
stimulating, and are too much to let pass without comment.

The first point I wish to make is for Capt. Jennings to reread his history
of American technology. Case in point: Aircraft. The airplane existed for years
before the military leaders in this country viewed this technology as
anything more than pure circus. Aviation technology in this country, prior
to World War II, was funded and promoted as a purely commercial entity.
Remember Billy Mitchell?

  [The Wright brothers did have Army funding for much of their
  work, though.  -- KIL]

True, after WW II, the military began to completely dominate the aeronautical
industries in this country. But this occurred only after people like
Douglas, Lindbergh, et. al, had proved the technology and commercial viability.
There is a direct paralell with AI here. J. Cugini's comments were
directly applicable I think.

Before AI takes it's place beside data communications, DBMS, etc, as
industry commodity segments, it must find a practical purpose in life.
I seriously doubt whether SDI or other DOD related applications fulfill
this requirement. It may in fact extend the technology, but will AI ever
grow wings and fly away, so to speak, without someone finding a practical,
dollar breeding, reason for it to exist?

This is not intended as a flame directed at academia, but AI must find a
path to the marketplace, if it is to survive. You can't expect DARPA
funding forever.

M. Kane

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Sep 85 00:18:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSLA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What does it mean ?
-BODY-

In dousing a recent anti-"AI" flame [AIList V3 #126], Prof.
Minsky asserts, among other things:

         To my knowledge, ONLY AI systems, so far, can drive
         cars, carry on conversations, and debug electronic
         systems.  They don't do these jobs very well yet,
         but they're coming along -- and have no competition
         in those areas from any other kind of software.

The boldness and economy of this sort of response to
criticisms of "AI" have not lost their charm over the years!
But, at the risk of falling into flaming ourselves, let's
take a closer look.

The following clauses are of special interest:

              (A)  ONLY AI systems, so far, can drive cars,
                   carry on conversations, ...

              (B)  They don't do these jobs very well yet

              (C)  but they're coming along

              (D)  [they] have no competition in those areas
                   from any other kind of software

and, from earlier in Prof. Minsky's message:

              (E)  AI systems are better than other kinds of
                   software

On hearing an authority of Prof. Minsky's stature assert (A),
the average intelligent citizen (e.g., business magazine
editor, R&D funding officer, corporate manager, housewife,
...) might well conclude:

              (F)  There exist AI systems which can drive
                   cars, and carry on conversations

Would Prof. Minsky be comfortable with this inference?

Perhaps the conclusion should be qualified, in a manner
familiar to real-world systems engineers:

              (F') There exist AI systems which, while they
                   CANNOT drive cars or carry on
                   conversations (in the ordinary meaning
                   of these phrases), CAN now perform the
                   essentials of these tasks in such a way
                   that they can be straightforwardly scaled
                   up to the real tasks

Do you buy this?  Well, then, how about:

              (F") There are no AI systems today which can
                   really drive cars or carry on
                   conversations, but we are keenly hopeful
                   that SOMEDAY such systems may exist

Setting these quibbles aside, let's zoom in for an even
closer look at the word "ONLY" in (A) [only AI systems ...].  Our
intelligent citizen might take this to mean:

              (G)  AI is the ONLY reasonable hope of
                   achieving sophisticated goals like these

On the face of it, this would seem to conflict with (B) [but not well ...],
given the long history of "AI" research in these areas!  But those
with short (long-term) memories may be soothed by the time-honored
refrain (C) [coming along ...], even without quantification.

But we could be flaming up the wrong tree.  Maybe (A) is
really just a factual boast in modest disguise:

              (H)  The nation's biggest AI Labs have been
                   pretty successful in monopolizing R&D
                   funds in areas like these.  [I.e., only AI
                   systems do these jobs because researchers
                   in other disciplines have not been funded
                   to attempt them. -- KIL]

Whatever the other merits of this interpretation, it
certainly helps us to see what (D) [no competition ...] really means.

We are left with (E) [AI is better ...].  Should our intelligent
citizen believe it?  Like Marxist economics, (E) may be a very
difficult thesis to sustain on the factual public record.

Like it or not, we live in a world (the so-called "real
world") that surrounds us with utterly non-"AI" software that
keeps track of payrolls, arranges airline reservations,
manages power distribution grids, guides missiles, allocates
resources, monitors inventories, analyzes radar signals, does
computer animation, assists in mechanical design and
fabrication, manipulates spreadsheets, controls space
vehicles, drives robots, integrates CAT scans, and performs
lots of other mundane tasks.  Of course, both (B) [but not well ...]
and (C) [coming along ...]  still apply to some extent in many of
these areas, but the existing accomplishments are genuine and
valuable.

In fact, there are some nicely engineered non-"AI" systems
that play world-class chess, and drive both commercial and
military high-performance aircraft in daily operations!

Even though "AI" has been around for about as long as the
rest of computing, its record of real-world deployment is
hardly consistent with (E) [AI is better ...], even now at the crest
of the latest "AI" boom. On the contrary, this record seems rather
skimpy and inconsequential sometimes, doesn't it?

Could it be true that (E) is a kind of modern cult
shibboleth, stimulating to believers but mostly just
mystifying to the uninitiated?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 85 08:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: Attenber%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI hype
-BODY-

   Here is an outsider's opinion regarding AI hype.  The mood of a
field and the tone of the technical presentations are shaped more by
political pressures and events than by the morals of the researchers.
As a grad student in particle physics I felt that people were a little
devious in presenting results or proposals.  Fortunately the audience
is always on guard and the question-and-answer sessions tend to be
very spirited.  Probably several decades of spectacular successes have
encouraged people to be optimistic, and fierce competition for machine
time and funds encourages people to present their results "in the
best possible light".
   As a researcher in particle physics I observe a much more open,
even pessimistic, attitude in oral presentations and publications.
This may be due to disappointing results in the early years of the
field.  Speakers tend to rush to present features of the data which
they don't yet understand, and the audience asks questions which
are intended to be constructive.  And yet the competition for funds
is very intense.  In fact I feel that the current funding squeeze
in plasma physics is partly due to underselling the current
encouraging results.
   I would encourage people in AI to be enthusiastic about prospects
for future programs (without, of course, getting caught making
a statement which can't be defended.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 1985 01:39-EST
-FROM-
From: Todd.Kueny@G.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Observations on Expert Systems
-BODY-
        o The existence of expert systems implies practice (refinement) and
          physiological learning are not necessarily prerequisites
          for becomming an expert.

        o An expert system ignores the transmission loss of the
          expert => knowledge engineer => program => user data path.

        o Expert systems filter out ``feel'' (both phsycial and
          mental), ``intuition'', and other ill defined,
          illogical quantities experts use when making decsions.

The motivation for these observations is derived from the following
real world experience:

  Instead of a computer and some expert system software I will use me.
  I will presume I am at least as ``intelligent'' as the computer.
  I now select my domain: conoeing in whitewater.  I will also
  act as my own ``knowledge engineer'' and mentally transcribe
  the instructions of the expert (the canoe instructor) into
  my memory; again I assume I am at least as good as a computer
  knowledge representation and a knowledge engineer.  So, I should
  be well prepared to canoe down some whitewater rapids.  I launch
  my canoe and within the first 100 yards or so I am dumped
  unceremoniously into the river by a nasty current. . .

Anyone who has been involved in a situation such as this realizes the fallacy
of attempting to become an expert in a relatively short time without
actually experiencing, learning, and practicing within the domain.
If the expert system model of ``becoming an expert'' were valid I
should be able to become an expert merely by studying an expert system.

                                                        -Todd K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 20:27:34 edt
-FROM-
From: Brad Miller  <miller@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI hype and Marvin Minsky's reply
-BODY-
In defense of my friend Bill Anderson:

Compare Marvin's posting to Weizenbaum's book "Computer Power and
Human Reason". He makes the point that not only is AI hype, but folks
like Dr. Minsky may be fundamentally deluded [i.e. their world view that
a computer can do anything a person can is incorrect].

Brad Miller
miller@rochester.arpa   miller!rochester
University of Rochester CS Dept. Lab Manager

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
133
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 18:52:47 PDT
-FROM-
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "SDI/AI/Free and open Debate" in AIList Digest   V3 #128
-BODY-
        Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
        From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
        Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate

        ... For those interested in the history of technology, most of the
        things we take for granted (microelectronics, automobiles, planes,
        interstate highway system) were gestated and field tested by the
        US Military.  ...

            If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
        inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
        by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
        pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI.  But upon
        close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
        technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
        tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
        system.

Agreed, the military was responsible for most of the advances you cite.
This doesn't do anything towards convincing me that that's the only
possible way for that outcome to have come about, or even that better
things wouldn't have happened in the absence of all the money going for
these ostensibly military purposes.

As a matter of fact, given my belief that ends NEVER justify means, I
don't even agree that having those things is good.  (Considering that
people who didn't consent were forced to help pay for them.)


P.S.  Why do you think field debugging of autonomous tanks will be less
costly/dangerous than of artificial life support systems?  In neither
case will all the bugs be found in simulations and I'd expect
programmers to do better debugging in the midst of doctors practicing
than in the middle of a tank battle.

Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 28 September 1985 06:53:19 EDT
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI/ES Hype : Some Discussions
-BODY-
Gary  Martin  posed  some  interesting questions in AILIST # 126.  One
problem lies in the definition of Artificial Intelligence.  In  recent
issues  of  AILIST  some  interesting  points  were  raised as to what
constitutes an Expert System. Similar discussion on AI would be useful
to the AILIST readers.

I understand that Gary Martin worked with the development of many  "so
called  AI"  systems  and  he feels that these systems did not do what
they were expected to do. One  must  note  that  AI  has  entered  the
commercial  market only recently and it will, probably, be a few years
before we see any  successes/failures.  The  commercialization  of  AI
started  after  the  Japanese initiated the fifth generation computing
project.  The American press also helped in this  endeavor.  With  all
the publicity given to the subject, people working in the area decided
to  sell  their  (research)  products.  I guess they have the right to
advertise their products.

I view expert system techniques as a programming philosophy.   I  like
it and advocate its use. However, I do not claim that these techniques
are  AI  - just that they evolved from research in AI.  As a marketing
strategy many tool builders use different  techniques  to  sell  their
product.  If people feel that the AI products are sheer crap, they can
always  speak  up  in  conferences  (such  as  the  one in ES in Govt.
symposium), magazines (I saw one such article in  Datamation  sometime
ago, written by Gary Martin) - and even write to Consumer Report. Just
because  a  few  people  take advantage of the situation and make tall
claims does not mean that the whole field should  be  criticized.    I
have  seen  some  recent Expert System Tools that claim to induce from
examples. These systems are  nothing  but  very  good  decision  table
evaluators.  I  guess  the  phrase "induce from examples" is used as a
marketing strategy. This kind of stuff happens in all  fields.  It  is
left  to  the consumer to decide what to buy (I guess that there are a
lot of consultants who are willing to advise you on this subject).

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 20:29:22 -0100
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hype, AI, et al.
-BODY-
Recently a representative of a well known International company
gave a seminar here in Edinburgh, in which we were promised the
moon, earth, and virtually the whole milky way. It was claimed
that with a little work, and some money, a literal pot of gold
is just around the corner.

Now I do not disagree with the basic premise that there is enormous
promise in AI, and I realize that profits are (one) driving force
behind any progress. But I do object to glowing accounts of
successes in AI, which turn out (always!) to be X1/XCONN.

I find hype exasparating and tiring, but in this case it is also
dangerous for the continuing well-being of AI. The glowing promises
are going to be proven impossible to fulfill, and the holders of
the purse strings will draw them tight and plunge AI into another
winter.

So please, dampen down the enthusiasm, and inject some realism
into your reports and salesmanship. Don't forget to mention the
blood, the sweat, and the tears.


Gideon Sahar (gideon%uk.ac.ed.edai@ucl-cs.arpa)
Dept. of AI
University of Edinburgh.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30-Sep-85 16:00:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIFT Verification
-BODY-

     The ``AI hype'' problem has been around for some time in the field
of program verification by proof of correctness techniques.  In that
field, there has been little progress in the last two or three years,
despite very impressive claims made in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
However, we are now getting some hard evidence as to part of the cause of
the trouble.  I have just obtained a copy of ``Peer Review of a Formal
Verification/Design Proof Methodology'', (NASA Conference Publication
2377, NASA Langley Research Center, Scientific and Technical Information
Branch, 1985), which is highly critical of SRI International's
work in the area.  The work being evaluated is SRI's verification
of the Software Implemented Fault Tolerance system,  a multiprocessor
system intended for use in future aircraft flight control systems.
SIFT was a major effort to utilize mathematical proof of correctness
technology, including automatic theorem provers, on a real problem.  This
was a multi-year effort, occupying most of a decade.

Some quotes from the report:

[p. 22]
        ``Scientific workers are expected to describe their accomplishments
in a way that will not mislead or misinform.  Members of the peer review
panel felt that many publications and conference presentations of the SRI
International verification work have not accurately presented the
accomplishments of the project; several panel members, as a result of the
peer review, felt that much of what they though had been done had indeed
not been done.''

        ``The research claims that the panel considered to be unjustified
are primarily in two categories; the first concerns the methodology
purportedly used by SRI International to validate SIFT, and the second
concerns the degree to which the validation had actually been done.
        Many publications and conference presentations concerning SIFT
appear to have misrepresented the accomplishments of the project.''

[p. 23]
        ``The incompleteness of the SIFT verification exercise caused
concern at the peer review.  Many panel members who expected (from the
literature) a more extensive proof were disillusioned.  It was the
consensus of the panel that SRI's acomplishment claims were strongly
misleading.''

This sort of thing cannot be tolerated. When someone publishes papers
that make it look as if a hard problem has been cracked, but the results
are not usable by others, it tends to stop other work in the field.
The pure researchers avoid the field because the problems appear to be
solved and someone else has already taken the credit for the solution,
and the system builders avoid the field because the published results
don't tell them enough to build systems.  This is exactly what has happened
to verification.

I'm singling out SRI here because this is one of the few cases where a
funding agency has called for a formal review of a research project by
an outside group and the review resulted in findings as strong as the ones
quoted above.

Some people at SRI who have seen this note have complained that I am quoting
the report out of context, so if you are really interested, you should
call NASA Langley (VA) and get the entire report; it's free.  NASA
permitted SRI to insert a rebuttal of sorts as an appendix after the
review took place (in 1983), so the 1985 report gives both the SRI position
and that of the review committee.

                                John Nagle


  [As moderator, I felt it my duty to ask for comments from someone
  at SRI who knew of this project.  I thank John Nagle for acknowledging
  that the review committee's findings are disputed, but feel that
  additional points in our behind-the-scenes discussion are worth passing
  along.  John's points about the effect of hype on AI research are
  important and well within the scope of AIList discussion.  The current
  state of the art in automatic verification is also appropriate for
  AIList (or for Soft-Eng@MIT-XX or ARMS-D@MIT-MC).  I do not know
  whether the merits and demerits of this particular verification project
  and its peer review are worthy of discussion; I am simply attempting
  to pass along as balanced and complete a presentation as possible.
  I hope that my editorial decisions do not reflect undue bias on behalf
  of my employer, SRI International.  -- KIL]


Date: Thu 26 Sep 85 15:05:12-PDT
From: MELLIAR-SMITH@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: John Nagle's AIList Request

    The report refered to by John Nagle (Peer Review of a Formal
Verification/Design Proof Methodology, NASA Conference Publication 2377, NASA
Langley Research Center, 1985) is a 50-odd page evaluation of an attempt to
provide a proof for a realistic system.  The project in its entirety was, and
still is, beyond the capabilities of our currently available technology, and
thus the proof exercise was incomplete; the proofs achieved were design level
proofs, down to the level of prepost conditions, rather than proofs to the
level of code.  The report reviewed what was done, and not entirely negatively.
The main cause for concern was that some descriptions of the work did not make
sufficiently clear precisely what had been done and what the limitations of the
work were.  In particular, the first quotation cited by John Nagle continues:
"In many cases, the misrepresentation stems from the omission of facts rather
than from inclusion of falsehood."    [...]

    A more recent, and very painstaking, peer review of SRI's
work in verification, together with the corresponding work at GE
Research Labs, SDC, and University of Texas, will be published by the
DOD Computer Security Center next month.

Michael Melliar-Smith


Date: 26-Sep-85 16:35:35-PDT
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
Subject: Re: SIFT

[...]  Unfortunately, previous statements have contained rather strong
claims.  The peer review quotes from Meillar-Smith's and Richard
Schwartz's ``Hierchical Specification of the SIFT Fault-tolerant
Flight Control System,'' CSL-123, SRI International, March 1981:

        ``This paper describes the methodology employed to demonstrate
rigorously that the SIFT computer meets its reliability requirements.''

And from the same authors, in ``Formal Specification and Mechanical
Verification of SIFT'', IEEE Trans on Computers, C-31, #7, July, 1982:

        ``The formal proof, that a SIFT system in a `safe' state operates
correctly despite the presence of arbitrary faults, has been completed
all the way from the most abstract specification to the PASCAL program.
This proof has been performed using STP, a new specification and verification
system, designed and developed at SRI International.  Except where explicitly
indicated, every specification exhibited in this paper has been mechanically
proven consistent with the requirements on SIFT and with the Pascal
implementation.  The proof remains to be completed that the SIFT executive
performs an appropriate, safe, and timely reconfiguration in the presence of
faults.''

     Those are strong statements.  And they just aren't true.

  [... you have selected two statements from reports of mine
  about SIFT and stated that they are not true.  YOU ARE WRONG!
  ... -- Michael Melliar-Smith]

     Unless we make it clear where we are today, future work will founder.
When you fail and admit it, the field moves forward; everyone learns what
doesn't work and what some of the problems are.  But when failure is hidden,
new workers are led to make the same mistakes again.  I'd like to see
verification work and be used.  Excessive claims have seriously damaged
this field.  Only recently, though, has solid information debunking these
claims become available.  Dissemination of the information in this report
will help those in the field make progress that is real.  [...]

                                        John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
134
-DATE-
Date: Thu 3 Oct 85 17:30:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Robert Blum  <BLUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP on micros:  need info and refs
-BODY-
        I teach a tutorial every year at SCAMC (the largest medical computing
meeting in the US) on AI in medicine.  My students invariably want to know
how to run LISP on their micros.  I'd like to request information on
the various currently marketed LISPs for micros (their cost, their
speed, quality, facilities).  Pointers to review articles would also
be helpful.

                                Thanks,  Bob Blum   (BLUM@sumex)


  [Has anyone saved past AIList micro-LISP messages in a convenient
  form?  My archive is not in a convenient form for multimessage
  topical searches. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 1985 10:06-EST
-FROM-
From: (Steinar Kj{rnsr|d) <steinar@oslo-vax>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp for DEC20/TOPS20
-BODY-
	
	I have a paper in front of me dated July 1984 describing
	avaiable Common Lisps. I'm aware of several new implementations
	since July 1984(!), and especially I'm interested in versions
	for DEC20/TOPS20 and VAX/UNIX. Does anyone know *IF* and
	*WHERE* these versions are avaiable ?
	
		Steinar Kjaernsroed,
		Institute of Informatics,
		University of Oslo,
		NORWAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 4 Oct 85 08:19:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI software tools
-BODY-
	Several months ago I wrote a report on commercial AI software tools
(KEE, ART, S.1, DUCK, and SRL+ ... now called Language Craft).  The paper
was basically in two parts : 1) general criteria for evaluating tools,
2) a description and partial evaluation of the five tools.  I am now
revising this paper and would welcome input from people. I am especially
interested in comments from people that have used of these software tools
OR another tool not described in my paper, but which you feel is another
good candidate for discussion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 10:36 EST
-FROM-
From: Atul Bajpai <bajpai%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: QUERY: Expert System Building Tools
-BODY-
Any ideas about what would be the implications (advantages/problems)
of using two (or more) different Expert System Tools (eg. KEE, ART,
S.1, Knowledge Carft etc.) to a single application. Has anyone done this
before? Is it practical to try such a thing? Any and all comments are
welcome. Thanks.

>-Atul Bajpai-- (bajpai%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay OR atul@sushi.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 09:35:06 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz Functions
-BODY-

(1) (getenv '|USER|) will return the user ID (Franz manual section 6).
    Then you can either write a C routine that uses _getpwent
    (Unix manual section 3) and link it in using cfasl (Franz section
    8.4), or franz code that opens and scans through the file /etc/passwd.

(2) (status ctime).  Franz manual section 6.

(3) `plist'.  Section 2.

(4) Try closing the file after you write to it, then reopening
    it in "a" mode.  Avoid filepos.

Incidentally, the mailing list "franz-friends@Berkeley.ARPA"
is a much more appropriate place for questions like this.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 1985 15:12:53-EDT
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Project Planning Survey
-BODY-

AI PROJECT PLANNING SURVEY


        In order to develop a better planning methodology for AI project
management, the Artificial Intelligence group at the Naval Air
Development Center is conducting a survey among readers of AILIST.  The
answers to the survey will provide guidelines and performance metrics
which will aid in the ability to "scope out" future AI projects.

          A summary of the results of this survey will be provided to the
          respondents.

          Although complete entries are desired, any information will help.

          Response to this survey must be made at no cost to the
          Government.

          Please respond by 18 Oct 1985.


General Project Information


  1. PROJECT NAME: (MYCIN, R1, PROSPECTOR, . . .)

  2. NAME OF DEVELOPMENT GROUP:

  3. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTACT:

  4. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

  5. TYPE OF SYSTEM: (Interpretation, Diagnosis, Monitoring, Prediction,
                      Design, Planning, Control, Debugging, Repair,
Instruction)

  6. DEVELOPMENT DATES:

  7. CONTACT FOR SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION:

  8. CURRENT LEVEL OF PROGRESS: (Fully successful, still developing,
                                  demonstrated but not in use, . . .)

Implementation Specifics

  9. METHOD OF KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION: (Frames, production rules,...)

  10. IMPLEMENTATION LANGUAGE: (Lisp, Prolog, Ops5, . . .)

  11. COMMERCIAL TOOLS USED (if any): (KEE, ART, M.1, . . .)

  12. NUMBER OF MAN-YEARS INVESTED:
                  Knowledge representation:
                  Knowledge acquisition:
                  Implementation:

  13. HOST COMPUTER: (Vax, Symbolics, IBM-PC, . . .)

  14. NUMBER AND AVERAGE SIZE IN BYTES OF RULES, FRAMES, WFFs
        OR OBJECTS (where applicable):

Performance Criterion

  15. PROGRAM EXECUTION TIME: (Avg. rule firings/task, rules
                                                   fired/sec, . . .)

  16. AMOUNT OF MEMORY IN BYTES FOR:
                    Short term memory:
                    Long term memory:
                    Procedural memory:

  17. IN WHAT WAYS DID THE SCOPE OF THE DOMAIN CHANGE? (Full scope,
                                               rescoping needed,...)

Knowledge Acquisition

  18. KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION EFFORT IN MAN-YEARS:

  19. NUMBER OF EXPERTS USED:

  20. EXPERT SELECTION METHOD:

  21. EXPERT INTERVIEWING METHODOLOGY:


Please send your responses to:



                          Ralph Fink,    rfink@NADC.ARPA
                          Code 5021
                          Naval Air Development Center
                          Warminster, PA   18974

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 85 00:51:02 est
-FROM-
From: "Marek W. Lugowski" <marek%indiana.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A reading list for a "Connectionism and Parallel Dist. Proc." course
-BODY-
After months of brainstorming (er, inaction), here comes at last the
promised reading list for Indiana U.'s planned connectionism course,
78 items long--just right for a semester.  IU's a liberal arts school,
after all. :-)
                        -- Marek


A list of sources for teaching a graduate AI course "Connectionism and
Parallel Distributed Processing" at Indiana University's Computer Science
Department.  Compiled by Marek W. Lugowski (marek@indiana.csnet) and Pete
Sandon (sandon@wisc-ai.arpa), Summer 1985.


Ackley, D. H., "Learning Evaluation Functions in Stochastic Parallel
     Networks," CMU Thesis Proposal, December 1984.

Amari, S-I., "Neural Theory of Association and Concept-Formation," Biological
     Cybernetics, vol. 26, pp. 175-185, 1977.

Ballard, D. H., "Parameter Networks: Toward a Theory of Low-Level Vision,"
      IJCAI, vol. 7, pp. 1068-1078, 1981.

Ballard, D. H. and D. Sabbah, "On Shapes," IJCAI, vol. 7, pp. 607-612, 1981.

Ballard, D. H., G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, "Parallel Visual
     Computation," Nature, vol. 103, pp. 21-26, November 1983.

Ballard, D. H., "Cortical Connections: Structure and Function," University of
     Rochester Technical Report #133, July 1984.

Block, H. D., "A Review of "Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational
     Geometry"," Information and Control, vol. 17, pp. 501-522, 1970.

Bobrowski, L., "Rules of Forming Receptive Fields of Formal Neurons During
     Unsupervised Learning Processes," Biological Cybernetics, vol. 43,
     pp. 23-28, 1982.

Bongard, M., "Pattern Recognition", Hayden Book Company (Spartan Books), 1970.

Brown, C. M., C. S. Ellis, J. A. Feldman, T. J. LeBlanc, and G. L. Peterson,
     "Research with the Butterfly Multicomputer," Rochester Research Review,
      pp. 3-23, 1984.

Christman, D. P., "Programming the Connection Machine," MIT EECS Department
     Masters Thesis, 1984.

Csernai, L. P. and J. Zimanyi, "Mathematical Model for the Self-Organization
     of Neural Networks," Biological Cybernetics, vol. 34, pp. 43-48, 1979.

Fahlman, S. E., NETL, a System for Representing and Using Real Knowledge ,
     MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.

Fahlman, S. E., G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, "Massively Parallel
     Architectures for AI: NETL, Thistle and Boltzmann Machines," Proceedings
     of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1983.

Feldman, J. A., "A Distributed Information Processing Model of Visual Memory,"
     University of Rochester Technical Report #52, December 1979.

Feldman, J. A., "Dynamic Connections in Neural Networks," Biological
     Cybernetics, vol. 46, pp. 27-39, 1982.

Feldman, J. A. and D. H. Ballard, "Computing with Connections," in Human and
     Machine Vision, ed. J. Beck, B. Hope and A. Rosenfeld (eds), Academic
     Press, New York, 1983.

Feldman, J. A. and L. Shastri, "Evidential Inference in Activation Networks,"
     Rochester Research Review, pp. 24-29, 1984.

Feldman, J. A., "Connectionist Models and Their Applications: Introduction,"
     Special Issue of Cognitive Science, vol. 9, p. 1, 1985.

Fry, G., ed., Nanotechnology Notebook, an unpublished collection of published
     and unpublished material on molecular computing.  Contact either the
     editor (cfry@mit-prep.arpa) or Scott Jones (saj@mit-prep.arpa) at MIT
     Artificial Intelligence Laboratory for distribution and/or bibliography
     information.  Contains material by Eric Drexler, Richard Feynman, Kevin
     Ulmer and others.

Fukushima, K., "Cognitron: A Self-organizing Multilayered Neural Network,"
     Biological Cybernetics, vol. 20, pp. 121-136, 1975.

Fukushima, K., "Neocognitron: A Self-organizing Neural Network Model for
     a Mechanism of Pattern Recognition Unaffected by Shift in Position,"
     Biological Cybernetics, vol. 36, pp. 193-202, 1980.

Hebb, D. O., The Organization of Behavior, Wiley, New York, 1949.

Hewitt, C., "Viewing Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages",
     Artificial Intelligence: An MIT Perspective, Winston and Brown, Editors,
     MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1979.

Hewitt, C. and P. de Jong, "Open Systems", MIT Artificial Laboratory Memo #691,
     December 1982.

Hewitt, C. and H. Lieberman, "Design Issues in Parallel Architectures for
    Artificial Intelligence", MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Memo #750,
    November 1983.

Hewitt, C., an article on asynchronous parallel systems not simulable
     by Turing Machines or Omega-order logic, BYTE, April 1985.

Hillis, D. W., "New Computer Architectures and Their Relationship to Physics
     or Why Computer Science Is No Good",  International Journal of
     Theoretical Physics, vol. 21, pp. 255-262, 1982.

Hinton, G. E., "Relaxation and its Role in Vision," University of Edinburgh
     Ph.D. Dissertation, 1977.

Hinton, G. E. and J. A. Anderson, Parallel Models of Associative Memory,
     Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1981.

Hinton, G. E. and T. J. Sejnowski, "Optimal Perceptual Inference," Proceedings
     of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on CV and PR, pp. 448-453,
     June 1983.

Hinton, G. E., T. J. Sejnowski, and D. H. Ackley, "Boltzmann Machines:
     Constraint Satisfaction Networks that Learn," CMU Department of Computer
     Science Technical Report No. 84-119, May 1984.

Hinton, G. E., "Distributed Representations", CMU Department of Computer
     Science Technical Report No. 84-157, October 1984.

Hirai, Y., "A New Hypothesis for Synaptic Modification: An Interactive Process
     between Postsynaptic Competition and Presynaptic Regulation," Biological
     Cybernetics, vol. 36, pp. 41-50, 1980.

Hirai, Y., "A Learning Network Resolving Multiple Match in Associative
     Memory," IJCPR, vol. 6, pp. 1049-1052, 1982.

Hofstadter, D. R., "Who Shoves Whom Inside the Careenium?, or, What is the
     Meaning of the Word 'I'?", Indiana University Computer Science Department
     Technical Report #130, Bloomington, Indiana, 1982.

Hofstadter, D, "The Architecture of Jumbo", Proceedings of the International
     Machine Learning Workshop, Monticello, Illinois, June 1983.

Hofstadter, D. R., "The Copycat Project", MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
     Memo #755, Cambridge, Massachusetts, January 1984.

Hofstadter, D. R., Metamagical Themas, Basic Books, New York, 1985.

Hopfield, J.J., "Neural Networks and Physical Systems with Emergent Collective
     Computational Abilities," Proceedings of the National Academy of
     Sciences, vol. 79, pp. 2554-2558, 1982.

Jefferson, D. E., "Virtual Time", UCLA Department of Computer Scienced
     Technical Report No. 83-213, Los Angeles, California, May 1983.

Jefferson, D. E. and H. Sowizral, "Fast Concurrent Simulation Using the Time
     Warp Mechanim, Part 1: Local Control", Rand Corporation Technical Report,
     Santa Monica, California, June 1983.

Jefferson, D. E. and H. Sowizral, "Fast Concurrent Simulation Using the Time
     Warp Mechanim, Part 2: Global Control", Rand Corporation Technical Report,
     Santa Monica, California, August 1983.


John, E. R., "Switchboard versus Statistical Theories of Learning and Memory,"
     Science, vol. 177, pp. 850-864, September 1972.

Kandel, E. R., "Small Systems of Neurons," Scientific American, vol. 241,
     pp. 67-76, September 1979.

Kanerva, P., Self-Propagating Search: A Unified Theory of Memory, Center
     for Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Report No. 84-7 (Stanford
     Department of Philosophy Ph.D. Dissertation), Stanford, California, 1984.
     To appear as a book by Bradford Books (MIT Press).

Kanerva, P., "Parallel Structures in Human and Computer Memory", Cognitiva 85,
     Paris, June 1985.

Kirkpatrick, S., and C. D. Gelatt, Jr. and M. P. Vecchi, "Optimization by
     Simulated Annealing", Science, vol. 220, no. 4598, 13 May 1983.

Kohonen, T., "Self-Organized Formation of Topologically Correct Feature Maps,"
     Biological Cybernetics, vol. 43, pp. 59-69, 1982.

Kohonen, T., "Analysis of a Simple Self-Organizing Process," Biological
     Cybernetics, vol. 44, pp. 135-140, 1982.

Kohonen, T., "Clustering, Taxonomy, and Topological Maps of Patterns," IJCPR,
     vol. 6, pp. 114-128, 1982.

Kohonen, T., Self-Organization and Associative Memory, 2nd edition,
     Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.

Lieberman, H., "A Preview of Act1", MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Memo #626.

Malsburg, C. von der, "Self-Organization of Orientation Sensitive Cells in the
     Striate  Cortex," Kybernetik, vol. 14, pp. 85-100, 1973.

McClelland, J. L., "Putting Knowledge in its Place: A Scheme for Programming
     Parallel  Processing Structures on the Fly," Cognitive Science, vol. 9,
     pp. 113-146, 1985.

McClelland, J. L. and D. E. Rumelhart, "Distributed Memory and the
     Representation of General and Specific Information," Journal of
     Experimental Psychiatry: General, vol. 114, pp. 159-188, 1985.

McClelland, J. L. and D. E. Rumelhart, Editors, Parallel Distributed
     Processing:  Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volume 1,
     Bradford books (MIT Press), Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985 (in press).

McCullough, W. S., Embodiments of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
     1965.

Minsky, M. and S. Papert, Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational
     Geometry, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.

Minsky, M., "Plain Talk about Neurodevelopmental Epitemology", MIT Artificial
     Intelligence Lab Memo #430, June 1977.

Minsky, M., "K-Lines: A Theory of Memory", MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
     Memo #516, June 1979.

Minsky, M., "Nature Abhors an Empty Vaccum", MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
     Memo #647, August 8, 1981.

Mozer, M. C., "The Perception of Multiple Objects: A Parallel, Distributed
     Processing Approach", UCSD Thesis Proposal, Institute for Cognitive
     Science, UCSD, La Jolla, California, August 1984.

Nass, M. M. and L. N. Cooper, "A Theory for the Development of Feature
     Detecting Cells in Visual  Cortex," Biological Cybernetics, vol. 19,
     pp. 1-18, 1975.

Norman, "Categorization of Action Slips", Psychological Review, vol. 88, no. 1,
     1981.

Palm, G., "On Associative Memory," Biological Cybernetics, vol. 36, pp. 19-31,
     1980.

Plaut, D. C., "Visual Recognition of Simple Objects by a Connection Network,"
     University of Rochester Technical Report #143, August 1984.

Rosenblatt, F., Principles of Neurodynamics, Spartan Books, New York, 1962.

Rumelhart, D. E. and D. Zipser, "Feature Discovery by Competitive Learning,"
     Cognitive Science, vol. 9, pp. 75-112, 1985.

Sabbah, D., "Design of a Highly Parallel Visual Recognition System," IJCAI,
     vol. 7, pp. 722-727, 1981.

Sabbah, D., "Computing with Connections in Visual Recognition of Origami
     Objects," Cognitive Science, vol. 9, pp. 25-50, 1985.

Smolensky, P., "Schema Selection and Stochastic Inference in Modular
     Environments", Proceedings of the AAAI-83, Washington, 1983.

Theriault, D. G., "Issues in the Design and Implementation of Act2", MIT
     Artificial Intelligence Lab Technical Report #728, June 1983.

Touretzky, D. S. and G. E. Hinton, "Symbols Among the Neurons: Details of
     a Connectionist Inference  Architecture," IJCAI, vol. 9, pp. 238-243,
     1985.

Uhr, L., "Recognition Cones and Some Test Results," in Computer Vision
     Systems, ed. A. R. Hanson and E. M. Riseman, Academic Press, New York,
     1978.

Uhr, L. and R. Douglass, "A Parallel-Serial Recognition Cone System for
     Perception: Some Test Results," Pattern Recognition, vol. 11, pp. 29-39,
     1979.

Van Lehn, K., "A Critique of the Connectionist Hypothesis that Recognition
     Uses Templates, not Rules," Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference
     of the Cognitive Science Society, 1984.

Willshaw, D. J., "A Simple Network Capable of Inductive Generalization,"
     Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 182, pp. 233-247, 1972.


A list of contacts known to us that have taught or are interested in
teaching a similar course/seminar:

J. Barnden, Indiana U. Computer Science
G. Hinton, CMU Computer Science
D. Hofstadter, U. of Michigan Psychology
J. McClelland, CMU Psychology
D. Rumelhart, UCSD Psychology
P. Smolensky, U. of Colorado Computer Science
D. Touretzky, CMU Computer Science

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
135
-DATE-
Date: Fri 4 Oct 85 23:49:55-EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Tool
-BODY-

Does anyone know anything about TIMM, an "expert system tool" put out
by General Research Corp?  I hear it costs $50,000 or so.  I'd be
interested to hear what a tool could do that costs that much money,
especially in comparison to KEE.

Don't want to hear much; just send a "thumbs up/thumbs down" reply
directly to cowan@mit-xx.

        Thanks,
        Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 85 20:07:27 PDT
-FROM-
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-
In a recent issue of AIList, John McLean cited an article about
inconsistencies in  public opinion that apparently said:

    Before the 1980 presidential election, many held the two beliefs
    below:

     (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not
         Ronald Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

     (2) A Republican will win the election.

    Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:

     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.


I would say the problem with this analysis is that people believed,
instead of statement 1, the following similar statement:

        (1a) If a Republican wins the election and the winner is not Ronald
                Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

People may have been willing to say that they believed #1, but that's
only because they didn't know the difference bewtween 1 and 1a.

Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 14:11:34 edt
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-
Chris Hibbert says that the purported counterexample to modus ponens I reported
rests on a distinction between

   (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not Ronald
       Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

and

   (1a) If a Republican wins the election and the winner is not Ronald
        Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

He says that

     People may have been willing to say that they believed #1, but that's
     only because they didn't know the difference bewtween 1 and 1a.

I would like to see some further discussion of this since I'm afraid that
I don't see the difference between (1) and (1a) either.  Certainly there
is no difference with respect to inferential power as far as classical
logic is concerned.
                   John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 13:24:56 PDT
-FROM-
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-
Oops.  I didn't think through very clearly what I had in mind.  (And
definitely didn't say clearly what I was thinking.)  I'll try again.

People's thinking may have been closer to probabilities rather than
classical logic.  (Since most people don't understand either in any
formal way.)  I'd like to claim that people believed something more like
the following:

(1b) If a Republican wins the election, then if the winner is not Ronald
Reagan, then the winner will probably be John Anderson.

(2b) A Republican will probably win the election.

without believing:

(3b) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will probably be
Anderson.

And these beliefs are entirely consistent.  (Given that peoples
standards for what constitutes a high probability are remarkably
inconsistent.)

Thanks John for making me think out more clearly what I had in mind.

Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 85 08:33:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A (supposed) Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-

> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 10:57:18 edt
> From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
>
> In the most recent issue of The_Journal_of_Philosophy, there is an
> article by Vann McGee that presents several counterexamples to modus
> ponens.  I am not sure whether to count them as counterexamples or as
> cases where we hold inconsistent beliefs.  If the latter view is right,
> it should be of interest to those who model belief systems.  [...]


I think this is just a problem with imprecisely stated beliefs:
surely the reasonable interpretation is that one believes (1) in
the simple sense that it's (almost certainly) true, but one
believes: (2') it is *probable* that a Republican will win the election.
After all, if you believed it was *certain* that "a Republican
wins the election" was true (maybe because you woke up the
morning after the election and someone told you: a Republican
has won), you would then believe (3).  "Normal" rules of logic
don't work with probabilistic statements in lots of cases, eg:
I believe:

(1) the die will not come up as a 1.
(2) the die will not come up as a 2.
...
(6) the die will not come up as a 6.

but I certainly don't believe the conjunction of (1)-(6).

Of course, (1)-(6) should really be stated as:
(1) the die will (probably) not come up as 1, etc.

So, I consider these cases as neither true counterexamples to modus
ponens, nor as examples of inconsistent beliefs.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 16:40:49 edt
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Modus Ponens
-BODY-
I agree that probability is the way to go in modeling beliefs.  It is easy
to construct a distribution where the probabilities for (1) and (2) are
both quite high but where the probability of (3) is quite low even though
(3) follows from (1) and (2).  Hence if believing p means that one assigns
a high probability to it, it is possible to believe (1) and (2) without
believing their logical consequence.
                                    John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 18:28:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: albert@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Anthony Albert)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Counterexample to modus ponens
-BODY-
    (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not Ronald
       Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

    (2) A Republican will win the election.

        Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:

    (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.

I don't think the given example is a counter-example of modus-ponens
or of contradictory belief systems. It is not modus-ponens because
the statements are not true or false, but are beliefs. You cannot make
a statement that is true or false about the future.

As far as beliefs, a non-contradictory set could be:

1) If a Republican wins then Reagan will win.
2) If Reagan doesn't win then a Republican won't win.
3) Unless a Democrat wins, a Republican will win.

A belief X can always be qualified, usually by an all things being equal
type of default qualification. The given example ignores these implicit
conditions and so leads to a contradiction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
136
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 85 10:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dale Miller <Dale%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Higher-Order Logic Features in Prolog (UPenn)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Restivo@SU-SCORE.]

A student of mine is holding a seminar at the University of Pennsylvania
that might be of interest to the Prolog bboard readers.
  -Dale Miller

                     Joint Mathematics / Computer Science
                               LOGIC COLLOQUIUM

              Introducing Higher-Order Logic Features into Prolog
                               Gopalan Nadathur
                          Monday 30th September 1985
                              4:40 p.m., DRL 4E17

  This talk reports work being undertaken towards a doctoral dissertation
under the supervision of Prof. Dale Miller. This work is motivated by a
desire to examine whether certain features afforded by higher-order logics
are useful in a computational setting.
  In this talk we shall present a language that is similar to that of Horn
Clauses of first-order logic except that first-order terms are now replaced
by typed lambda-calculus terms. We shall discuss  a theorem-prover based on
higher-order unification for this logic. We shall also attempt to motivate
the usefulness of this language for specifying and performing computations.
We are interested in extending this language by permitting suitably
restricted occurrences of predicate variables, and we shall conclude our
talk by a brief discussion of the issues involved in doing so.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 12:46:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin@ucbcogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cognitive Science and Computers (UCB)
-BODY-
                     BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                 Fall 1985
                   Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

       TIME:       Tuesday, October 8, 11:00 - 12:30
       PLACE       240 Bechtel Engineering Center
       DISCUSSION: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

       SPEAKER:    Terry Winograd, Computer  Science,  Stanford University

       TITLE:     "What Can Cognitive Science Tell Us About Computers?"

       Much work in cognitive science rests on  the  assumption  that
       there is a common form of "information processing" that under-
       lies human thought and language and that also  corresponds  to
       the  ways we can program digital computers.  The theory should
       then be valid both  for  explaining  the  functioning  of  the
       machines  (at whatever level of "intelligence") and for under-
       standing how they can be integrated into human situations  and
       activities.

       I will argue that theories like  those  of  current  cognitive
       science  are  based  on  a "rationalistic" tradition, which is
       appropriate for describing the mechanics of machine operation,
       but  is  inadequate for understanding human cognitive activity
       and misleading as a guide to the  design  and  application  of
       computer  technology.   The  emphasis  will  be  on looking at
       alternatives to this tradition, as a starting point for under-
       standing what computers really can do.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 1985 1410-EDT
-FROM-
From: Sylvia Brahm <BRAHM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Programmer's Apprentice: KBEmacs (CMU)
-BODY-

SPEAKER:  Richard C. Waters (AIL, MIT)
TOPIC:    The Programmer's Apprentice:  A Session with KBEmacs
WHEN:     Friday, October 18, 1985
WHERE:    Wean Hall  4605
TIME:     1:30 P.M.


The Knowledge-Based Editor in Emacs (KBEmacs) is the current demonstra-
tion system implemented as part of the Programmer's Apprentice project.
KBEmacs is capable of acting as a semi-expert assistant to a person who
is writing a program -- taking over some parts of the programming task.
Using KBEmacs, it is possible to construct a program by issuing a series
of high level commands.  This series of commands can be as much as an
order of magnitude shorter than the program it describes.

KBEmacs is capable of operating on Ada and Lisp programs of realistic
size and complexity.  Although KBEmacs is neither fast enough nor robust
enough to be considered a true prototype, both of these problems could
be overcome if the system were to be reimplemented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 1 Oct 85 08:40:19-PDT
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning (SU)
-BODY-
DAY       October 1, 1985
EVENT     Computer Science Colloquium
PLACE     Skilling Auditorium
TIME      4:15
TITLE     Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning
PERSON    Dr. Joe Halpern
FROM      IBM Corporation

            BELIEF, AWARENESS, AND LIMITED REASONING

Classical possible-worlds models for knowledge and belief suffer from the
problem of logical omniscience: agents know all tautologies and their
knowledge is closed under logical consequence.  This unfortunately is not a
very accurate account of how people operate! We review possible-worlds
semantics, and then go on to introduce three approaches towards solving the
problem of logical omniscience.  In particular, in our logics, the set of
beliefs of an agent does not necessarily contain all valid formulas. One of
our logics deals explicitly with awareness, where, roughly speaking, it is
necessary to be aware of a concept before one can have beliefs about it,
while another gives a model of local reasoning, where an agent is viewed as a
society of minds, each with its own cluster of beliefs, which may contradict
each other. The talk will be completely self-contained.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 1 Oct 85 14:27:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Alison Grant <GRANT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning Under Uncertainty using Simulation (SU)
-BODY-
                  Medical Information Sciences Colloquium
                        Thursday, October 3, 1985
                    Stanford University Medical Center
                              Room M-114
                            1:15-2:15 P.M.


Speaker: Curt Langlotz, MIS Program

Title:
        Planning under uncertainty
        using probabilistic and symbolic simulation

        Artificial intelligence research has largely concentrated on
solving two kinds of planning problems: (1) problems for which there
is certainty about the consequences of action and for which the
planning goals can be met completely (e.g., robot movement between
rooms in a building), and (2) problems for which explicit guidelines
exist for the construction of plans (e.g., the ONCOCIN, MOLGEN, and
ATTENDING programs).  However, many planning problems are
characterized by a lack of explicit plan construction guidelines,
goals that are difficult to satisfy completely, and actions whose
consequences cannot be predicted with certainty.  This talk will
describe an architecture for planning in such situations and will
outline the motivations behind its design.  One key component of this
new architecture is the ability to predict the consequences of plans.
A simulation architecture is currently under development to make these
predictions.  It will also be described, along with the motivations
for rejecting existing simulation techniques (both qualitative and
deterministic) in the domain of cancer therapy planning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1985  16:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter de Jong <DEJONG%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Cog-Sci-Request%MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Aggregation in Qualitative Simulation (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday 3, October  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


           "The Use of Aggregation in Qualitative Simulation"

                             Daniel S. Weld

                             MIT AI Lab.


I introduce a technique called aggregation which has several
applications to the problem of qualitative simulation and envisioning:

> It can simplify reasoning by dynamically creating more abstract
  process descriptions of the types of change occurring in a system.

> It can enable the application of powerful continuous analytic
  techniques such as limit analysis to systems whose descriptions
  include discrete processes.

> It can direct the reformulation of quantities to more abstract
  representations.

Aggregation works by searching the simulation history structure to find
cycles of repeating processes. Once cycles have been detected, a more
abstract continuous process, equivalent to the net effect of the cycle,
is created. Analysis now proceeds on the continuous process.
Aggregation correctly handles cycles that contain other cycles.

A program called PEPTIDE has been written to test these ideas in the
domain of molecular genetics. Paper tests have also been done in the
domains of digital electronics and xerography.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 30 Sep 85 18:18:03-EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael Eisenberg <DUCK%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Conflict in Problem Solving (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Andre Boder is scheduled to give a talk at the next ideas seminar,
TOMORROW, Tuesday Oct. 1, at 4:30. The talk is scheduled to
be held at the 3rd floor conference room in NE43.

Title: What Is a Conflict in Problem Solving?

I will address the question of why people have difficulty in
problem-solving, arguing that in most cases, a conflict between
incompatible ideas may be evoked. The conjecture is based on the
analysis of familiar-schemes brought to bear in the problem.
I will show that the relation between these schemes may generate
incompatible representations of the same situation. Conflicts
result from difficulty in reducing these incompatibilities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 3 Oct 85 07:50:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ana Haunga <HAUNGA@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Introspection (SU)
-BODY-

      SIGLUNCH, Friday, October 4, Chemistry Gazebo, 12:05-1:00.


                            Introspection

                        Michael R. Genesereth


                             Logic Group
                     Knowledge Systems Laboratory
                         Stanford University


Abstract: Introspection is a significant part of human mental
activity.  We introspect whenever we think about how to solve problem,
whenever we decide what information we need to solve a problem,
whenever we decide that a problem is unsolvable.

By its nature, the process of introspection involves both descriptive
and prescriptive metaknowledge.  Over the past years, logicians and AI
researchers have devoted considerable attention to autoepistemic
sentences (involving terms like KNOW).  By comparison, little attention
has been paid to prescriptive metaknowledge (involving terms like OUGHT).

This talk introduces a semantics for such knowledge in the form of
constraints on the process of problem solving.  It demonstrates the
computational advantages of introspection, and analyzes the
computational fidelity and cost of various introspective
architectures.  Finally, it discusses the potential for practical
application in logic programming and building expert systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 1985 09:08-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Compact Lisp Machine (SMU)
-BODY-
Speaker: Lawerence E. Gene Matthews
         Associate Director of the Computer Science Laboratory
         Texas Instruments, Dallas

Date: Wednesday, October 16, 1985
Time: 11:30 AM Luncheon
      12:15 Program
Place: Richardson Hilton, SW corner of N. Central Expressway & Campbell


The Compact LISP Machine (CLM) development program is the first of
several DARPA programs intended to provide embedded symbolic computing
capbilities for government applications.  As one of many contacts
funded under the Strategic Computing Program the CLM will provide
a ruggedized symbolic computer capability for insertion of AI and
robotics technology in awide range of applications.

A description of the four-module CLM system architecture is presented.
Starting with the CLM development goals, a brief system overview and
discussion of advanced software development and maintenance tools are
covered.  System and module packaging are described including options
available beyond the scope of the current contract.  Each of the four
modules under development are described starting with the CPU module,
which contains the 40 Mhz VLSI CPU chip, and its companion map/cache
module.  The module developed for providing physical memory is
described followed by a discussion of the Multibus I/O module which
supports communication between the high performance system bus and
Multibus I.  The VLSI LISP processor chip is next described with a
simplified block diagram and packaging information.  Finally, some
information on preliminary predicted performance is covered.

Luncheon reservations 995-4440 Monday October 14 $7.00

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 85 13:43:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: Chidanand Apte <Apte.Yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - IBM Yorktown Projects (Rutgers)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers BBoard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


IBM talks at Rutgers-IBM AI exchange seminar, 10th Oct., Hill Center.


Members of IBM Research from the T.J. Watson Research Center will be
presenting six talks at the 3rd annual Rutgers-IBM AI exchange seminar,
on 10th October 1985, at the Rutgers Computer Science dept. Preliminary
titles and abstracts:



         "A representation for complex physical domains"

                      Sanjaya Addanki

We are exploring a system, called PROMPT, that will be capable of
reasoning from first principles and high level knowledge in complex,
physical domains. Such problem-solving calls for a representation that
will support the different analyses techniques required (e.g.
differential, asymptotic, perturbation etc.). Efficiency considerations
require that the representation also support heuristic control of
reasoning techniques. This talk lays the ground work for our effort by
briefly describing the ontology and the representation scheme of PROMPT.
Our ontology allows reasoning about multiple pasts and different
happenings in the same space-time. The ontology provides important
distinctions between materials, objects, bulk and distributed
abstractions among physical entities. We organize world knowledge into
"prototypes" that are used to focus the reasoning process.
Problem-solving involves reasoning with and modifying prototypes.



"YES/FAME/IDV: An initial approach to a planning consultant for financial
 marketing problems"

        Chidanand Apte/ Jim Griesmer/ John Kastner/ Yoshio Tozawa

The YES/FAME (Yorktown Expert Systems for Financial and Marketing
Expertise) project is investigating interactive consultants to aid in the
financial marketing of computing technology. Significant expertise
seems to be required in the preparation of a recommendation to a customer
of a technical solution that meets his computing requirements over a
period of time, coupled with a plan for acquiring this technology under
financial terms and conditions that best suit the customer's needs and
concerns. Expertise is also required in generating a convincing financial
argument that will enable the "selling" of this plan. We present in this
talk an overview of an initial demonstration version (YES/FAME/IDV) of a
knowledge based system that illustrates these capabilities for a small
subset of the overall problem.



 "Logical extensions of logic programming based on intuitionistic logic"

                        Seif Haridi

Logic Programming is widely known as programming using Horn clauses. We
extend this paradigm to handle more general relations than Horn clauses.
Based on principles from first order intuitionistic (constructive) logic
we show a much more expressive language with a complete execution
mechanism that is able to handle general first order queries, iterative
and recursive statements, and positive and negative queries with equal
strength. The language has Horn clauses as a subset, and its interpreter
behaves as efficient as a Horn clause (PROLOG) interpreter on that
subset.



    "PLNLP: The programming language for natural language processing"

                     George Heidorn

This talk describes research being done at Yorktown to provide advanced
tools for building knowledge-based systems that involve a large amount
of natural language processing. PLNLP is a programming language based on
the augmented phrase structure grammar formalism that is particularly
well-suited for specifying the processing of natural language text. A
large, broad-coverage English grammar has been written in PLNLP, and
implementations in LISP/VM and PL.8 are currently being used in
applications doing text-critiquing, machine translation, and speech
synthesis. One of these systems, CRITIQUE, will be used as a concrete
illustration of the power of the language.



 "YSCOPE: A shell with domain knowledge for solving computer performance
  problems"

                       Joseph Hellerstein

Solving computer-performance problems requires two types of knowledge:
knowledge of the computer system and insights from queueing theory. We
describe the Yorktown Shell for Computer-Performance Experts (YSCOPE)
which is a special-purpose shell that incorporates a knowledge of
queueing theory to facilitate building computer-performance expert
systems.



         "Interactive classification in knowledge representations"

                             Eric Mays

A classifier for a structured representation language allows
semi-automatic maintenance of a knowledge base. However, problems, such
as detecting and recovering from inconsistencies, arise when editing a
KB which has been updated by classifier operations. This talk will
address preliminary investigations along these lines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
137
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 85 15:20:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Do I really need a AI Machine?
-BODY-
 Dear readers,
 I work at COMSAT LABS, Maryland. We are getting into AI in a big way
and would like comments, suggestions and answers to the
following questions,to justify a big investment on a AI machine.

  * What are the specific gains of using a AI Machine (like symbolics)
    over developing AI products/packages on general purpose
    machines like - VAX-11/750-UNIX(4.2BSD), 68000/UNIX etc.

  * How will an environment without AI Machines effect a major
    development effort.

  * How  is the HW Architecture of Symbolics, TI Explorer
    different from VAX.

  * What are the limitations/constraints of general purpose HW
     when used for AI applications.

  * Survey results of AI HW Machines. (if available)

  * Pointers to other relevant issues.

 Please message me at:
      Mailnet address:Vasu@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET
        Arpanet address: Vasu%NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

My sincere thanks in advance.
                                     ..........Vasu.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 11:06:40 edt
-FROM-
From: "Dennis R. Bahler" <drb%virginia.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request: formal semantics of OOL's
-BODY-
        Does anyone have pointers to work done on
formal specification and/or formal semantic definition of
object-oriented languages or systems such as Smalltalk-80?

Dennis Bahler

Usenet:  ...cbosgd!uvacs!drb                    Dept. of Computer Science
CSnet: drb@virginia                             Thornton Hall
ARPA:  drb.virginia@csnet-relay                 University of Virginia
                                                Charlottesville, VA 22903

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 7 Oct 85 17:27:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: MOHAN@USC-ECLC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: knowledge representation
-BODY-
Hi,

I am looking for a short list of introductory and survey type articles
on Knowledge Representation.

I am also looking for any work done on representing visual scenes so
that a system could reason about them and answers queries etc.
Minsky, M.:A Framework for Representing Knowledge, in Winston,P.H.
(ed.) "The Psychology of Computer Vision" is a typical paper on the type of
work I am interested. Since I have just started reading on this subject,
I am presently interested in all related topics (except the CAD/CAM
type of reasoning). What I am looking for is an introduction to this big
field: papers which have presented the key ideas and some surveys which can
give me an idea of the type of work being done in such areas.

Thanks,

Rakesh Mohan
mohan@eclc.arpa


[The October 1983 issue of IEEE Computer was a special issue on knowledge
representation, as was the February 1980 issue of the SIGART Newsletter.
Technical Report TR-1275 of the University of Maryland Department of
Computer Science (issued May 1983) is the proceedings of an informal
workshop on "Representation and Processing of Spatial Knowledge".  There
were also several papers on image-to-database matching in the April 9-11,
1985, SPIE Arlington, VA, conference on Applications of AI (SPIE volume
548).  Vision researchers generally seem happy with networks of
frames, although other representations are in use (e.g., connectionist
coarse coding, logic clauses).  I have sent a fairly extensive list
of vision citations to Rakesh and to Vision-List@AIDS-UNIX.  -- KIL ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 12:02 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <HAFNER%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for Macintosh
-BODY-
There is a new magazine out called MacUser.  The premier issue, which
is available at newsstands, contains a review of ExperLisp for the
Macintosh.  The review says it's good but buggy.

There is also a version of Xlisp by David Betz available through the
public domain software networks.  I got a copy from the Boston Computer
Society, and when I tried to open it on my 128K Mac, the computer crashed
(i.e., the screen went crazy and strange noises occurred).

Perhaps Xlisp only runs on the 512K Mac, or else I got a bad version.

Carole Hafner
hafner@northeastern

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 85 12:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TIMM
-BODY-
There's been some talk about AI hype in this digest, but not too many folks
have stood up and pointed to actual examples.  Cowan's inquiry about TIMM
affords an excellent opportunity, so here goes.

As far as I can tell, TIMM is the most colossal ripoff in the expert
systems business.  I got a demo last year at AAAI-84 from Dr. Wanda
Rappaport, who I believe is one of the developers.  Basically, TIMM
works by comparing the facts of a situation with a set of stored
templates, called training instances.  The underlying data structure
looks like a frame, i.e. it has named slots.  Each training instance
consists of a frame with some or all of the slots filled in.  After
you've given TIMM enough training examples, you tell it to "generalize",
which causes it to do some computation on the training set to extract
regularities and relationships between slot values.  Then, to have TIMM
solve a problem, you give it a frame with some of the slots filled in,
and it fills in the rest of the slots.

TIMM is a mere toy, in my opinion, because it doesn't provide adequate
facilities for expressing knowledge either procedurally or declaratively.
You can't write explicit IF/THEN rules, as in OPS5 or EMYCIN.  You can't
build data structures, i.e.  it's not a real frame system with inheritance
and demons and Lisp data objects that you create and pass around and do
computation on.  Nor can you write logical axioms and feed them to a general
purpose inference engine, like Prolog's resolution algorithm.  Many, perhaps
most kinds of knowledge can not be conveniently expressed as training
instances, but that's all you get with TIMM.

At IJCAI-85 I watched a General Research sales person trying to sell TIMM
to a couple of AI novices.  She was repeating the usual set of General
Research outlandish claims, viz.  that TIMM is good for ANY expert system
application you can think of, that it doesn't require any expertise in
knowledge engineering to create "expert systems" with TIMM, that domain
experts can sit down and create their own non-trivial systems without
assistance, and so on.  (See their ad on page 38 of the Fall '85 issue of AI
Magazine:  "Experts in virtually any field can build systems with TIMM, and
do it without assistance from computer or AI specialsts.")  I find General
Research Corp.'s arrogance simply galling.  How would they use TIMM to do
VLSI circuit design, as TALIB does, to configure a Vax, like R1 does, or to
generate and sift through a large set of plausible analyses of mass
spectrogram data, as Dendral does?  All of these tasks require significant
amounts of computation, yet all TIMM can represent is training instances.
Finally I asked the sales person how TIMM would represent the following
simple piece of domain knowledge:

"A certain disease has twenty manifestations.  If a patient has at least
four of these, we should conclude that he has the disease."

This knowledge can be expressed by a single rule in OPS5, but can't be
represented at all in TIMM.  First the sales person was going to put in one
training instance for every possible case, but C(20,4) is greater than
5000, so that's impractical.  Finally she decided she'd write a Fortran
program to ask the user if the patient had each of the 20 manifestations,
sum up the "yes" answers, and return the conclusion to TIMM.  (TIMM is
written in Fortran and has the ability to call external Fortran routines.)
The point she seemed to miss is that any nontrivial expert reasoner is
going to need data structures and computations that can't be expressed as a
small set of training instances.

TIMM costs roughly $47K for the Vax version, and roughly $9K for the IBM PC
version.  General Research boasts that TIMM is in use in several Fortune
500 companies, but I haven't heard any claims about successful, up and
running, NONTRIVIAL applications.  Not surprising.

>- Dave Touretzky

PS:  Due to the nature of the above comments, I feel compelled to include
the usual disclaimer that the above opinions are solely my own, and may not
reflect the official opinions of Carnegie-Mellon University or AAAI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri,  4 Oct 85 09:32:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An Application of Expert Systems
-BODY-
An application of expert systems that came to mind would be to auto-pilot
systems for  commercial aircraft. The recent  crash at Manchester airport
might not have been so serious if the reverse thrust had not been applied.
It had been suggested that this resulted in a spray of aviation fuel over
the fuselage  of the aircraft. Whether this can be avoided in future by a
change  in design  or if  a real-time  expert-system would  have been any
better than  the pilot's decision, which  of course was ``correct'', is a
matter for the deeper examination. It seems to me that  information about
possible outcomes of such an action could be made available to the pilot.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 85 11:03:53 cdt
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!toby@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Toby Harness)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Social Responsibility
-BODY-
Re: AIList Digest   V3 #132

Something I saved off usenet, about a year ago:

        It's sad that computers, which have so much potential, have so much of
        it invested in the purposes of the authorities.  I wonder if some day
        we'll be looking back at what we did in the 1980's the way many atomic
        physicists ended up remembering the 1930's.

        Jim Aspnes (asp%mit-oz@mit-mc)


Toby Harness            Ogburn/Stouffer Center, University of Chicago
                        ...ihnp4!gargoyle!toby

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 October 1985 2023-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer chess: hitech
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Hitech won its  first tournament, and one  with 4 masters in  it.  It
scored 3 1/2 -  1/2 to tie for first in the Gateway  Open held at the
Pittsburgh Chess Club  this week-end.  However, on tie  break we were
awarded  first place.   En  route to  this triumph,  Hitech beat  two
masters and tied with a third.  It also despatched a lesser player in
a brilliancy  worthy of any  collection of games.   One of  the games
that it  won from a master  was an absolute beauty  of positional and
tactical skill.   It just outplayed him  from a to z.   The other two
games were nothing  to write home about, but it  managed to score the
necessary points.   I believe this  is the first time  a computer has
won a tournament with more than one master in it.

We will have a show and tell early this week.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 1 Oct 85 13:50:21-CDT
-FROM-
From: ICS.DEKEN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information Science Program at NSF - Staffing Changes
-BODY-
Beth Adelson has been appointed to the position of Associate Program Director,
Information Science Program, effective August 15, 1985. Dr Adelson has been at
Yale University since 1983, as a Research Associate in the Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory.  She holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University.  Dr.
Adelson has published numerous articles in the areas of cognitive science and
artificial intelligence.  Recent works include papers on software design <<IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering>> and the acquisition of categories for
problem solving <<Cognitive Science>>.

Joseph Deken has been appointed to the position of Program Director,
Information Science Program, effective September 3, 1985.  Dr. Deken was most
recently Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, with a
joint appointment in the Department of Business and the Department of Computer
Sciences, and taught from 1976 to 1980 at Princeton University.  His Ph.D. in
mathematical statistics is from Stanford University.  Dr. Deken is the author
of several books on computing, the most recent of which is <<Silico Sapiens:
The Fundamentals and Future of Robotics>>, which will be Published by Bantam
books in January 1986.  His other writing includes <<Computer Images: State of
the Art>> (Stewart, Tabori, and Chang, 1983), <<The Electronic Cottage>>
(William Morrow, 1981), and numerous articles on statistics and statistical
computing.

Program announcements and other information about the Information Science
and Technology programs at NSF are available from:

             Division of Information Science and Technology
             National Science Foundation
             1800 G St. NW
             Washington, D.C. 20550


Correspondence may be addressed to the attention of Dr. Adelson or
Dr. Deken as appropriate.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
138
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 11:17:52 PDT
-FROM-
From: Charlie Crummer <crummer@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: G. Spencer-Brown Seminar
-BODY-
Was this some kind if joke?  I could not find any company called UNI-OPS
nor a Walter Zintz at (415)945-0048.  The Miyako Hotel has no
seminar on The Laws of Form, only a management association meeting.
Has someone erased the distinction between G. S.-B.'s existence and
non-existence?

  --Charlie


From: william@aids-unix (william bricken)

No hoax, although a possible unfortunate typo:  the phone number of
UNI-OPS is (415)945-0448.

The seminar was cancelled at the last minute by SB himself (according
to Zintz).  Totally in character.  Thus the existential dilemma.

Zintz is working on re-establishing it, and is compiling a mailing
list of those interested in the Laws of Form.

I have developed an automated theorem prover using SB's stuff, and
am encouraged by its applications to LISP program representation,
optimization, and verification.

William Bricken
Advanced Information & Decision Systems
201 San Antonio Circle, #286
Mountain View, CA  94040
(415) 941-3912

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 10:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "S. Holland" <holland%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Robot Legged Locomotion (GMR)
-BODY-

                General Motors Research Laboratories
                           Warren, Michigan


                           ROBOTS THAT RUN
              BALANCE AND DYNAMICS IN LEGGED LOCOMOTION

                         Dr. Marc H. Raibert
                     Carnegie-Mellon University
                           Pittsburgh,  PA

                      Monday, October 21, 1985

 Balance and dynamics are key ingredients in legged locomotion.  To study
 active balance and dynamics we have built a series of machines that balance
 themselves as they run.  Initial experiments focused on machines that
 hopped on one leg, but later work generalized the approach for two- and
 four-legged machines.  A very simple set of algorithms provides control for
 hopping on one leg, running on two legs like a human, and trotting on four
 legs.  We have begun to use these results from legged machines to improve
 understanding of running in animals.

 Marc Raibert received a B.S.E.E. from Northeastern University in 1973, and
 a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1977.  Since 1980
 Professor Raibert has been on the faculty of Carnegie-Mellon University,
 where he is an Associate Professor of Computer Science and a member of the
 Robotics Institute.  He is currently exploring the principles of legged
 locomotion.

>Steve Holland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Oct 85 13:57:58-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - What is a Plan? (SRI)
-BODY-

                           WHAT IS A PLAN?

                             Lucy Suchman
                  Intelligent Systems Lab, Xerox PARC

                11:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, October 9
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Researchers in AI have equivocated between using the term "plan" to
refer to efficient representations of action, and to the actual data and
control structures that produce behavior.  But while these two uses of
the term have been conflated, they have significantly different
methodological implications.   On the first use, the study of plans, as
internal representations of actions and situations, is an important
companion to the study of situated actions, but essentially derivative.
On the second use, plans as the actual mechanisms that produce behavior
are foundational to a theory of situated actions.

In this talk I will argue in support of the first use of "plans," to
refer simply to efficient representations of actions.  Situated actions,
on this view, are the phenomena to be modelled, whereas the function of
plans in the generation of situated actions is taken to be an open
question.  The interesting problem for a theory of situated action is to
find the mechanisms that bring efficient representations and particular
environments into productive interaction.   The assumption in classical
planning research has been that this process consists in filling in the
details of the plan to some operational level.  In contrast with this
assumption, I will present evidence in support of the view that situated
action turns on local interactions between the actor and contingencies
of his or her environment that, while they are made accountable to a
plan, remain essentially outside of the plan's scope.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 12:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Animating Human Figures (UPenn)
-BODY-

    ANIMATING HUMAN FIGURES IN A TASK-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENT: AN EVOLVING
   CONFLUENCE OF COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH

                               Norman I. Badler
                       Computer and Information Science
                          University of Pennsylvania

                  Tuesday, October 8, 1985 Room 216 Moore


A  system  called  TEMPUS is outlined which is intended to graphically simulate
the activities  of  several  simulated  human  agents  in  a  three-dimensional
environment.    TEMPUS  is  a  task  simulation  facility  for  the  design and
evaluation of complex working environments.   The  primary  components  of  the
TEMPUS   system  include  human  body  specification  by  size  or  statistical
population, 3-D  environment  design,  a  human  movement  simulator  and  task
animator,  a  user-friendly  interactive system, real-time motion playback, and
full 3-D color graphics of bodies, environments, and task animations.  Research
efforts  in  human  dynamics  control  and  natural  language  specification of
movements will also be described.  Recent efforts to link computer graphics and
artificial  intelligence will be discussed, especially as they relate to future
plans of NASA and the Space Station.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 12:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inheritance and Data Models (UPenn)
-BODY-

                    INHERITANCE, DATA MODELS AND DATA TYPES

                                 Peter Buneman
                       Computer and Information Science
                          University of Pennsylvania

                   Thursday, October 10, 1985, 216 Moore


The  notion  of  type  inheritance (subsumption, ISA hierarchies) has long been
recognised as central to the development of  programming  languages,  databases
and  semantic  networks.  Recent work on the semantics of programming languages
has shown that inheritance can be cleanly combined with functional  programming
and can itself serve as a model for computation.

Using  a  definition of partial functions that are well behaved with respect to
inheritance, I have been investigating a new characterization of the relational
and  functional  data models.  In particular, I want to show the connections of
relational database  theory  with  type  inheritance  and  show  how  both  the
relational  and  functional  data  models  may  be better integrated with typed
programming languages.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 17:30:00 cdt
-FROM-
From: Peter Chen <chen%lsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 4th Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship (ER) Approach
-BODY-

Title of the Conference:
     4th International Conference on Entity-Relationship (ER) Approach
     (See advertisement in Communications of the ACM, Sept. 1985
          or the IEEE Computer Magazine, Sept. 1985)

Major Theme:
     The use of entity/relationship concept in knowledge representation

Sponsor:
     IEEE Computer Society

Date:
     October 28-30, 1985

Location:
     Hyatt Regency Hotel at O'Hare airport, Chicago
     (312) 696-1234, $74 Single, $84 Double

Keynote Address:
     Roger Schank, Yale

Invited Addresses:
     Donald Walker, Bell Comm. Research
     Eugene Lowenthal, MCC

Tutorial Sessions (on the first day -- Monday):
     1. ER Modeling: A tool for analysis
     2. AI and Expert systems
     3. The Analyst's Round Table
     4. Database Design

Paper Sessions (on the next two days):
     Knowledge representation, database design methods,
     Query and manipulation languages, Entity-Relationship analysis,
     expert systems, modeling techniques, integrity theory, etc.

Panel Sessions:
     1. Mapping Specifications to Formalisms:
        Leader:   John Sowa, IBM
        Panelist: Sharon S. Salveter, Boston Univ.
                  Roger Schank, Yale
                  Peter Freeman, UC-Irvine
                  Peter Chen, Louisiana State Univ.

     2. Knowledge engineering and Its Implications
        Leader:     Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.
        Panelists:  Amil Nigan, IBM
                    Earl Sacerdoti, Tecknowledge

     3. Microcomputer DBMS Derby
        Leader: Rod Zimmerman, Standard Oil of California

     4. Practical Applications of ER Approach
        Leader:     Martin Modell, Merrill Lynch
        Panelists:  Suresh Gadgil,   "      "
                    Tom Meurer, ETA International
                    Harold Piskiel, Goldman Sachs
                    Elizabeth White

For more information, contact the registration chairperson:
     Prof. Kathi Davis
     Computer Science Department
     Northern Illinois University
     Dekalb, IL 60115
     (815) 753-0378

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1985  21:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: MEYER@MIT-XX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
-BODY-
                        Announcement and Call for Papers

                                  Symposium on
                           Logic in Computer Science

                   Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 16-18, 1986

          THE CONFERENCE  will cover a  wide range of  theoretical and
          practical issues in Computer Science that relate to logic in
          a   broad  sense,   including   algebraic  and   topological
          approaches.  To  date, many of  these areas have  been dealt
          with in separate conferences and  workshops.  It is the hope
          of the Organizing Committee that bringing them together will
          help stimulate further research.

          Some suggested,  although not  exclusive topics  of interest
          are:   abstract data  types,  computer  theorem proving  and
          verification, concurrency, constructive  proofs as programs,
          data   base  theory,   foundations  of   logic  programming,
          logic-based  programming  languages,   logic  in  complexity
          theory, logics of programs,  knowledge and belief, semantics
          of programs, software specifications, type theory, etc.

                              Organizing Committee
               J. Barwise           E. Engeler           A. Meyer
               W. Bledsoe           J. Goguen            R. Parikh
               A. Chandra (Chair)   D. Kozen             G. Plotkin
               E. Dijkstra          Z. Manna             D. Scott

          The conference  is sponsored  by the IEEE  Computer Society,
          Technical   Committee   on   Mathematical   Foundations   of
          Computing,  and  in  cooperation  with ACM  SIGACT  and  ASL
          (request pending).

          PAPER  SUBMISSION.   Authors  should  send 17  copies  of  a
          detailed abstract (not a full paper) by Dec. 23, 1985 to the
          program committee chairman:
                    Albert R. Meyer - LICS Program
                    MIT Lab. for Computer Science
                    545 Technology Square, NE43-315
                    Cambridge, MA 02139.
                    (617)  253-6024,  ARPANET: MEYER at MIT-XX
          The  abstract must  provide sufficient  detail to  allow the
          program  committee to  assess the  merits of  the paper  and
          should include  appropriate references and  comparisons with
          related  work.    The  abstract   should  be  at   most  ten
          double-spaced typed  pages.  The time between  the paper due
          date and  the program  committee meeting  is short,  so late
          papers  run  a  high  risk  of  not  being  considered.   In
          circumstances where adequate reproduction facilities are not
          available to the author, a  single copy of the abstract will
          be accepted.

          The program committee consists of R. Boyer, W. Damm, S. German,
          D. Gries, M. Hennessy, G. Huet, D. Kozen, A. Meyer, J. Mitchell,
          R. Parikh, J. Reynolds, J. Robinson, D. Scott, M. Vardi, and
          R. Waldinger.

          Authors will be notified of  acceptance or rejection by Jan.
          24, 1986.  Copies of accepted papers, typed on special forms
          for  inclusion in  the  symposium proceedings,  will be  due
          March 31, 1986.

          The general chairman is A.  K. Chandra, IBM Thomas J. Watson
          Research Center,  P.O. Box 218, Yorktown  Heights, NY 10598,
          tele: (914) 945-1752, CSNET: ASHOK.YKTVMV at IBM.  The local
          arrangements  chairman is  A. J.  Kfoury, Dept.  of Computer
          Science, Boston  University, Boston,  MA 02215,  tele: (617)
          353-8911, CSNET: KFOURY at BOSTONU.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
139
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 85 11:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction: Intellectual Honesty & the SDI
-BODY-
In a message posted in AIList Digest on Friday, 20 Sep 1985, Volume 3,
Number 125, I commented about statements made in two papers I picked up
at the GE exhibit at IJCAI-85.

In view of subsequent discussions with people at GE I wish to state that
the authors of these papers are NOT in any way connected with GE.  It
was not my intent to cast aspersions on work done by GE.  I wish to
correct any misconceptions people may have about the type and quality of
research at GE from my message.

Bill Anderson

People interested in GE AI R&D, may contact

        Dr. Larry Sweet
        K1-5C13
        General Electric Company
        Corporate Research and Development
        Schenectady, NY 12301

Dr. Sweet is the manager of the AI group here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 85 12:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Attenber%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: typographic error
-BODY-

     In case anyone cares, the second paragraph of my unintelligible
note of Sep.25 should have started "as a researcher in plasma physics"
not "as a researcher in particle physics".  Sorry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri,  4 Oct 85 08:57:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai hype vs profitable use
-BODY-
Observations I've been able to make (from inside and out) of the
activities of LMI's process control division may be interesting here.
(1) They call it PICON(tm) for Process Intelligent Control.
The world "artificial" hardly ever comes up. The purpose is to
more intelligently control the industrial process.
(2) The first installations at Exxon and Texaco were in place for
months before they even told anyone.
(3) Promise of profits were never made. The marketing was as an
ALARM condition detector/advisor. More subtle and possibly dangerous
conditions could be detected than with existing technology, and
more ALARM conditions could be handled at once, with more intelligent
selection of danger priorities. The purpose is of course to avoid
the 3-MILE-ISLAND-EFFECT.
(4) Once in place it was the customers that realized for themselves
that with the more intelligent modeling and flexibility in PICON
they could optimize the control of the process more closely,
and could start to save a percent or two in cost or get a percent or two
higher yield. Obviously in oil refineries this can translate into
big paydirt far above the cost of a few lispmachines and development costs.

The "downplaying" the PICON people have had to do is of course caused
by all the previous and continuing ai hype. This is probably why
they dont use the term AI very often.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 85 09:39 PDT
-FROM-
From: allmer.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Hype
-BODY-
Does anyone really expect truth in advertising?? Whenever I read a blurb
about some new "fully compatible" DBMS I always hear that click, you
know, what do they mean by "fully-compatible".  So I don't see the point
for ranting on about the "AI Hype".  It seems to me that if there was
nothing more than hype, there wouldn't be an AIList, or AIList
Moderator, no one would want to learn any "AI techniques" or take any "AI
courses", no one would spend millions of $$$$ to get "AI Systems", etc.
There's got to be more to AI technology than the hype, or this is the
greatest scam in history (Mr. Guiness, where are you?).  At the Expert
Systems panel for IJCAI85, Terry Winograd, (how's that for
name-dropping), made mention of the "illusion of the label 'expert
system'", that because we choose to call them that, they should be
as-good-as/better than 'experts' when they are finished, sort of a
"magical black-box" mentality.  To sell the concept, one does not call
their proposed system "idiot savant", or "limited-domain model", even
though that is what the buyer ends up with.  You just have to understand
what is meant by the terminology of the "hype".

Doug Allmer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 1985 1203-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: jeff@isi-vaxa.ARPA (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI, SCI, and SDI
-BODY-
After observing the various discussions regarding the place or state
in today's SCI/SDI-hyped environment, I think that it might be wise to
mention a chain of events that I believe has gone virtually unnoticed
in the AI community.  The opinions expressed here are based on my
connections within the REAL research world (academia, not the defense
contractor flops referred to as IR&D), and the defense/aerospace sector
over the past 5 or so years. (Limited compared to some I admit)

About 5 years ago, when DARPA was still being referred to as ARPA, DARPA's
commonly stated goal was to increase America's strength by promoting
raw research that would trickle into the ECONOMIC sector.  That may seem
like a rather empty statement based on today's activities, but that
was really the way it was. (Enter Dick Cavett).

ACADEMIA (5 YEARS AGO):

Around the same time (5 years ago), the various VLSI research groups around the
nation had their own mini-SCI, it was called the Silicon Compiler Project.
It may not have gotten the same attention, because the funding stakes
were probably not as high as AI today.  It can easily be stated that
SCP was a success.

Meanwhile, the research AI groups of the day were constantly complaining that
they were spinning their wheels.  The results of their work were constantly
being blocked from entering the marketplace for a variety of rights and
economic reasons.

DEFENSE/AEROSPACE (5 YEARS AGO):

In defense/aerospace, VLSI technology is basically unheard of.  Companies
like TRW (Torrance Rubber Works), HUGHES, and the like, were more interested
in off-the-shelf solutions from large vendors such as DEC, IBM, etc.
These vendors, in turn, had representatives participating in SCP at
various research institutions.

AI was a different story.  Defense contractors had AI projects (and funds)
coming out of their ears.  One of the largest such project was BETA-LOCE,
an in-the-field battle management-type system.  All such projects, without
many exceptions, were unqualified FAILURES.

TODAY (Exit Dick Cavett):

Sitting in meetings at ISI today, where the goals of SCI/SDI are being
stated, is like sitting in a status meeting at TRW as little as 2
years ago.

VLSI, having been successful, has now obtained a firm place in defense/
aerospace.  Due to the strong success and firm base achieved while it
was in the researcher's hands, VLSI is proving to be an excellent tool
now available to the real world.

AI projects in defense/aerospace have hit hard times.  SCI is now on hand.
I believe that one of the unspoken goals of SCI (and SDI) is to seriously
shift emphasis of AI projects back to the research institutions, hoping
that they can achieve success similiar to VLSI.

But, a funny thing is happening.  The barriers to their work have been
lifted, but the AI world is still complaining.  They are disatisfied
with the end user (as if Defense wasn't actually the end user all along).
The VLSI researches didn't seem to have the same qualms.  But then again,
maybe they weren't faced with SDI-type goals.

In conclusion (finally), the AI research community is currently in an
EXCELLENT position.  They now have the attention (which, in a way, is just as
important as funds) that they have desired for a long time.  Of course,
careful consideration is needed, but continued complaining and temper
tantrums of "We can't do that in the foreseeable future, so I don't even
want to try!!" will simply be detrimental to ALL parties involved.

(Oh, am I going to get jumped on for this one!!!)

                                                Jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 85 13:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeffrey R Kell  <JEFF%UTCVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hype and success/failure
-BODY-
The 'hype' of AI in terms of systems to carry on conversations or drive
cars or whatever is largely based on an idealistic projection of what we
have achieved in the directions we want to follow.  It began with the
stereotyped image of a computer as a thinking being when in fact it was
a primitive set of vacuum tubes.  The AI image suggests that we can do
just about anything; that we can eventually achieve that sort of goal.
AI researchers realize their current successes, albeit not on such a
grand scale, with a guarded skepticism.  If the shortcomings of any AI
project are stressed, the image sways in the other direction - maybe AI
can do nothing.

The relative success/failure of such projects seems to revolve around a
gap between the ideal and the practical.  A 'pure' AI system built with
'pure' AI processes is almost doomed to certain shortcomings whether in
speed, size, usability, correctness, completeness, or what have you.
Some practical (traditional) methodologies must be employed to narrow
the scope of the project.  Universal problem solvers were certainly not
a practical success, but they did lay the groundwork for expert systems
which have been successful.  But the balance between AI and traditional
methods varies, and disciples of 'pure' AI will argue that many expert
systems are not AI at all.  Perhaps not, from a purist view, but they
would not have been possible without the conceptual contributions from
the AI field.  It is THESE forms of contributions that will be of the
most lasting value, whether you view them as an idealistic success or
not.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1985  23:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #132
-BODY-
I was not planning to prolong this discussion, but I can't resist
pointing out the disgraceful lengths that Gary Martins will go to
prove himself right.  If you will examine my statement and then
Martins', you'll [note] an astonishing performance: he takes two
of my sentences, ONE OF WHICH CAREFULLY QUALIFIES THE OTHER,
breaks each of them into clauses and than attacks each clause by
itself!  I see no room in a professional discussion for that degree of
intellectual and rhetorical dishonesty.  Talk about "hype!"

Then he has the bad taste to talk about

   "utterly non-'AI' software" that keeps track of payrolls, arranges
   airline reservations, manages power distribution grids, guides
   missiles, allocates resources, monitors inventories, analyzes radar
   signals, does computer animation, assists in mechanical design and
   fabrication, manipulates spreadsheets, controls space vehicles, drives
   robots, integrates CAT scans, and performs lots of other mundane
   tasks. and about nicely engineered non-"AI" systems that play
   world-class chess.

The latter "non-AI" chess programs are, of course, essentially the AI
chess programs of the 1960's, based on Shannon. Samuel, and McCarthy's
tree-pruning heuristics and plausible move generators.  The robot
drivers are mostly based on the early MIT, SRI, and Stanford
prototypes.  Many of the aircraft control systems are based on the
adaptive algorithms developed in that general community in the same
period, and everyone knows the origins of much of computer graphics in
the early work of Sutherland, Knowlton, and many others in the AI
community.  As for those missile guiders, the roots of that whole
field now called "pattern recognition" have similar origins.  And I'm
pretty sure that the first practical airline reservation was designed
by Danny Bobrow of the BBN AI group around 1966.!

I'm not claiming that AI set the stage for accounting programs, and
some of the others.  But don't you agree that Martins could have made
himself a better case by mentioning a few first-rate programs that
didn't have substantial roots in the AI of 15 to 20 years ago.  If
there's anything wrong with the present-day AI hype, it's simply that
some people may be led to expect various goodies in 3 years instead of
15 -- and perhaps that's what we ought to tell people.

Time to take a course in the history of AI, Gary.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 15:54:22 mdt
-FROM-
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai/military flame
-BODY-

When did the military manage to take credit for automobiles????
Or for that matter how do they manage to take credit for debugging
and field testing the interstate highway system when there was a
civilian highway system in place before the interstates and as
far as I know, the only connection was that internal defence is
a standard rationale for better internal transportation?

Minsky's comments about what ai can do and other software
can't are very illuminating when compared with the real
world in the form of the first milestone test of arpa's
autonomous land vehicle in denver this spring.  one might
think that this would have provided a perfect example of
the way that ``ai software can ... drive a car''.

unfortunately for true fans, the ai approach to driving the
vehicle (line extraction, motion field analysis and so on)
turned out to be very difficult (read as late) to implement
so that the prime contractor (who is very capable in conventional
software) implemented a VERY conventional system which selected
``gray'' pixels from the television image and managed to steer
the vehicle toward the center of mass of the gray.  doesn't
this sound more like an example of conventional software doing
something (not very well, but literally good enough for government
work) that ai type software failed to do???

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu,  3 Oct 85 14:09:20 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mega-Hype
-BODY-
A comment from Vol 3 # 128:-
``Since AI, by definition, seeks to replicate areas of human cognitive
  competence...''
This should perhaps be read in the context of the general discussion which
has been taking place about `hype'. But it  is still slightly off the mark
in my opinion.
I suppose this all rests on what one means but human cognitive competence.
The thought processes  which make  us human are far  removed from the cold
logic of algorithms which are the basis for *all* computer software, AI or
otherwise.  There is  an element  in all human  cognitive  processes which
derives from the emotional part of our psyche. We reach decisions not only
because we `know' that they are right, but also because  we `feel' them to
correct. I think really  that AI must be seen as an important extension to
the thinking process, as a way of augmenting an expert's scope.

Gordon Joly     (now gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
                (formerly gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
140
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 17:38:09 mdt
-FROM-
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: prolog's on macintoshes and ibm-style pc's
-BODY-

Currently I know about arity prolog and prolog-2.  These are
reasonably-featured prolog interpreter/compiler packages that
run on the ibm pc.  Does anyone know of other packages which
are available on the pc or the macintosh???

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Sep 85 18:29:55 PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Sanjai Narain <Narain@rand-unix.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Response to Hewitt
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

>Prolog (like APL before it) will  fail  as  the  foundation  for
>Artificial   Intelligence  because  of  competition  with  Lisp.
>There are commercially  viable  Prolog  implementations  written
>in Lisp but not conversely.

For the same reason, Lisp should have failed as a foundation for
computing because  of  competition  with  assembly language.
There  are commercially viable implementations of Lisp in assembly
language  but not conversely.

>LOGIC as a PROGRAMMING Language will fail as the foundation
>for AI because:

>1.  Logical inference cannot be used to infer the decisions
>    that need to be taken in open systems because the decisions
>    are not determined by system inputs.

>>2.  Logic does not cope well with the contradictory knowledge
>>    bases inherent in open systems.  It leaves out
>>    counterarguments and debate.

>>3.  Taking action does not fit within the logic paradigm.

1.  Hewitt clearly states in his  recent  BYTE  article  that
traditional notions  of  computation  as  defined,  for example,
by Turing machines or recursive functions cannot model the behavior
of open systems.  Hence even Lisp  is  inadequate for such modeling
(by his reasoning).

2.  The notion of contradiction (i.e. inconsistency) is well
understood in logic.

3.  The statement is too vague for debate.  What do the words
"action" and "fit"  mean?   Certainly,  if  action  can  be  modeled
by  an  effective procedure, it can be modeled by logic, cf. 1.

>- Sanjai Narain

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 13:40:43 PDT
-FROM-
From: (Tom Khabaza) mcvax!ukc!warwick!cvaxa!tomk@Seismo
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On Hewitt's "Prolog and logic programming will fail"
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I have read with interest the discussion following Carl Hewitt's
"Prolog will fail as the foundation for AI and so will Logic
Programming". I particularly enjoyed Vijay Saraswat's reply, most
of which I agree with. However, I would like to add a few comments:

In some ways I was surprised by the original message; I should
have thought that if AI has taught us anything, it is that to solve
a given problem, we need a good representation language.  Why anyone
might think that logic is the BEST representation language for every
problem is beyond me.  (No Kowalskiist flames please, I know the
arguments, and I don't regard the case as proven.)

On the other hand, we don't yet know what the limits of logic
programming are; researchers in the field are constantly coming up
with new techniques.  There is convincing evidence that logic
programming is better than conventional programming for some kinds
of task, at least with regard to ease and clarity (though probably
not yet efficiency).

But I think the basis of the original comment goes deeper than the
virtues and vices of logic programming.  As I understand it (and I
wasn't around at the time) some earlier AI programming languages,
such as perhaps micro-Planner and its successors, WERE expected to
become a "foundation" for AI.  Perhaps this was because people still
had hopes for the notion of some "ultimate" representation language,
or family of languages.

AI is older and perhaps more cynical now; I don't think we expect
some single foundation to the field in the form of a representation
language.  Logic programming may be very useful for some parts of
AI; for example some kinds of rule based systems, but I don't expect
it to be the best tool for all kinds of AI programming.  In fact my
personal opinion is that logic programming will find its forte in
more conventional Computer Science, where formal specification is a
more practical proposition than in the relatively exploratory
activity of AI programming.

But I will say this in its favour: logic programming is IMPORTANT.

Logic programming is as different from conventional programming as
programming is from not programming at all.  I have met people who
have given up on Prolog because it was difficult for them and they
(rightfully) considered themselves competent programmers - and so
thought it must be Prolog's fault!  (I don't mean to imply that
anyone who has posted in this discussion is such a person.) But
logic programming is different in fundamental ways; it's worth
presevering to get to the bottom of it, and as logic programming
languages improve, it will become even more so.

So for all you computer people out there, USE Prolog, and study
how other people have used it.  It really is worth it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 85 10:41:27 bst
-FROM-
From: William Clocksin <wfc%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@ucl-cs>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp/Prolog
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I received issues 36 and 37 late owing to netproblem somewhere
between Stanford and Cambridge.  I am puzzled by this Lisp/Prolog
debate started by Carl Hewitt.  I use both Prolog and Lisp, and
have never felt the need to use one exclusively.  I suppose they
are like screwdrivers and chisels;  both are roughly the same,
but for slightly different purposes; to a person unfamiliar with
one of them, the other one might seem redundant.  I am also
puzzled about the question of a "foundation" for AI.  How can a
language be a "foundation" for anything?  Was Latin a "foundation"
of Western civilisation?  Seen any fundamental native speakers
lately? Besides, does AI deserve to have foundations attributed
to it anyway?

Another problem is this question about logic.  Prolog is a
programming language.  It was inspired by logic, but it is not
programming in logic.  Proponents of using logic do have a problem
matching impedance with the real world.  But Prolog is to logic
as Lisp is to lambda calculus.  Those who advocate programming in
lambda calculus have the same problem as those who advocate
programming in pure logic.  If Prolog can be said to have any
connection with logic, it is as the FORTRAN of logic programming.
Prolog is useful because you can grow data structures that have
actual variables in them, and because it is easy to define
nondeterministic methods.  I know how Prolog searches for a solution
just as I know how flow of control happens in Lisp, say.  I am not
disappointed with Prolog's strict strategy just as I am not
disappointed with Lisp's inability to run programs backwards, say.
I take it as it comes, and it is useful for some things.  Talking
hypothetically about the "ideal" language is another topic entirely,
and it only muddies the water to bring Prolog and Lisp into it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Sep 85 11:22:32-PDT
-FROM-
From: Fernando Pereira <PEREIRA%sri-candide@sri-marvin>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog vs. Lisp (again!)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

I humbly confess my incompetence at the debating style Carl
Hewitt is using in the Prolog vs. Lisp discussions, which
seems to consist in ignoring the FACTUAL points of other
contributions and just continuing to repeat the same OPINIONS.

It is a FACT that no practical Prolog system is written entirely
in Lisp: Common, Inter or any other. Fast Prolog systems have
been written for Lisp machines (Symbolics, Xerox, LMI) but their
performance depends crucially on major microcode support (so
much so that the Symbolics implementation, for example, requires
additional microstore hardware to run Prolog). The reason for
this is simple: No Lisp (nor C, for that matter...) provides the
low-level tagged-pointer and stack operations that are critical
to Prolog performance.

The fact that Lisp is not good enough as an implementation
language for Prolog should not be considered as a weakness of Lisp,
BECAUSE Lisp was not designed for such low-level operations in the
first place. In fact, NO ``high-level'' programming language that I
know of provides those kinds of operations, and for the very simple
reason that, being high-level languages, they have no business in
exploring the recesses of particular machine architectures. ALL
fast Prolog systems that I have seen (some of which I helped
implement) rely on a careful exploitation of the underlying machine
architecture.

By the same argument, the fact that Lisp cannot be efficiently
implemented in Prolog cannot be the basis of a valid criticism of
Prolog. Prolog is not a systems programming language, and in any
case a good Lisp implementation must be carefully coupled to the
underlying machine architecture -- so much so the the fastest Lisps
rely on specialized architectures!

It seems clear to me that no single existing programming language
can be said to provide a ``foundation'' for AI. In fact, the very
notion of a programming language providing a foundation for a
scientific  subject seems to me rather misguided. Does Fortran
provide  a ``foundation'' for physics?  The relation between AI
problems, formal  descriptions and programming concepts is far too
subtle for us to  expect a ``foundation'' for AI in a mere
programming language.

The crusading tone of Hewitt's comments is also rather
unsettling.  AI researchers will use whatever language they
feel most comfortable  with for the problem they are working
on, without need for any  guidance from on high as to the
ultimate suitability of that language. If more researchers use
Prolog, is that a threat to Lisp users? If I do a piece of AI
research using Prolog, will it not be judged according to its
content, independently of programming language?

That kind of battle might be very important for AI software
companies, but surely we should not let marketing hype get in
the way of our research. I am sitting at a Sun workstation typing
this, with a Prolog window just to the right. Will my research be
useless to someone who sits at a Xerox 1109? If I walk down the
corridor and write a Lisp program on a Symbolics machine (as I
have done and surely will continue to do), will THAT work have
a different value? If I decide to use Hoare's CSP for the
navigation component of our robot, will I be then outside
AI, because I am not using an ``official'' AI language?

With respect to Rick McGeer's points: there are some elegant ways
of compiling Prolog into Lisp, particularly into those statically
scoped variety (or into other statically-scoped languages such as
Algol-68...). I have reason to believe that a compiler along these
lines would produce code considerably faster than the 100 LIPS he
reports, even though still much slower than what is attainable with
a lower-level implementation.  [...]

>- Fernando Pereira

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 85 10:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp and Prolog
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                           PROLOG/LISP = LISP/C

I'd like to amplify a point of view Clocksin put forth in V3
#39 in the great LISP vs. PROLOG debate.  Prolog (and Logic
Programming in general) and Lisp are both tools which are suited
for different tasks. Luckily, none of us is being forced to use
one to the exclusion of the other.

I've had to give more than my share of introductory AI talks over
the years. When the discussion gets around to Lisp I usually point
out that Lisp is especially attractive for experimental programming
situations, i.e. where you know what you want to accomplish but do
not yet have all of the details as to algorithms, data structures,
etc. worked out.  Once you've worked out the last detail, you can
re-implement your system in C, if you like, and gain the benefits
of a faster and smaller system.

Along these lines, I think that the slogan "Prolog is to Lisp as
Lisp is to C" is not too inaccurate.  I think that Prolog is even
better suited to initial, experimental and exploratory attempts to
attack a problem computationally.  I find that it is a very
convienent paradigm in which to get started.  Once I have a better
idea of how  to reprent a problem and how to manipulate the
representation, I can  re-implement it in Lisp and gain a faster
more steamlined system.

>- Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 85 12:56 PDT
-FROM-
From: Kahn.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog vs Lisp
-BODY-
Apropos the long debate started by Carl Hewitt:
As co-author of LM-Prolog, the best performing Prolog implemented in
Lisp,  I thought some performance numbers might be useful.   Naive
reverse runs at 10K Lips on a CADR Lisp Machine with special micro-code
support, primarily for unification and trailing.  Without any micro-code
support it runs 2 to 3 times slower.  While there are much faster
Prologs available, I would argue that LM-Prolog is commercially viable
without the micro-code.  There have been sales of the 3600 version of
LM-Prolog despite the fact that it is not supported by micro-code.

But part of Fernando's counter to Carl was that a serious Prolog
implementation needs sub-primitives that Lisp does not provide.  It is
true that LM-Prolog even without micro-code relies on Zeta-Lisp's
sub-primitives to manipulate pointers and create invisible pointers.
This makes de-referencing variables very fast.   While I don't have any
figures I don't think that is so important, at least for the naive
reverse benchmark.  In other words I believe a pure Common Lisp
implementation of Prolog on say a 3600 would run 3 or 4 times slower
than Symbolics Prolog (which is fully micro-coded).  Depending upon how
important a factor of 3 or 4 is, one evaluates differently Carl's claim
that Lisp is good for implementing Prolog (and not vice versa).

I think part of this whole debate is confused with the larger debate of
single paradigm vs multi-paradigm languages.  My feeling is that while a
single paradigm system is elegant that too often it doesn't fit the
problem well and ackward cliches are used.  For example, it is widely
believed that for some kinds of problems object-oriented programming is
most appropriate because it encasulates state and behavior so well.

Concurrent Prolog advocates in such situations program objects in a
complex cliche of tail recursive predicates where one argument is a
stream of messages.  No serious object-oriented language requires that
each method list all the instance variables in the head and their new
values again at the end of each "method" (the tail recursive call).  I
am not happy with the argument that goes -- well some problems are best
programmed with Lisp, others with Prolog, others with SmallTalk, and
still others with Ops5.  Any significantly large problem is going to
have sub-problems that are best handled by different paradigms.

The debate should not be Lisp vs. Prolog but how can we combine Lisp and
Prolog (and Smalltalk and ...) in a coherent well-integrated fashion.
Its not easy.  LM-Prolog was one attempt at doing this, as well as
ICOT's ESP,  Prolog-KR and LogLisp.  I tried to integrate Prolog with
Loops.  None of these integrations are perfect but I think this is the
direction to go for BUILDING TOOLS for BUILDING REAL APPLICATIONS.  The
CommonLoops effort at Xerox represents to me the best effort to date to
build a tight integration of two paradigms (object and
procedure-oriented).

In contrast, to what I just said I think the single paradigm approach
can be a great research strategy.  Much of the Logic Programming
community is caught up in the game of finding out how far can one go
with logic programming.  Can one write simulators, text editors,
graphics, operating systems, embedded languages, and so on in Prolog
or a language like it?  It is rightfully considered cheating to
"escape to Lisp" or jump into some object-oriented subsystem.  Their
purpose is to explore the paradigm itself -- its uses, its
limitations, to stretch it and pull it in new directions not to build
real applications.  When building real applications the question is
not can this or that be done in Prolog, we all know that everything
can be written in Prolog, but what language can give the best support
for building the application in the most fitting way.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
141
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 14:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR@SCRC-PEGASUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Formal Logic
-BODY-
    Date: Wed, 2 Oct 85 14:11:34 edt
    From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
    Subject: Re: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens

       (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not Ronald
           Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

       (1a) If a Republican wins the election and the winner is not Ronald
            Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

    I would like to see some further discussion of this since I'm afraid that
    I don't see the difference between (1) and (1a) either.  Certainly there
    is no difference with respect to inferential power as far as classical
    logic is concerned.


There's no difference.  (At least, not logically.  Interpreting people's
judgements about probabilities from natural language statements is an
extremely subtle art, as I believe Chris said in a reply.)

[Notation: -> means "implies", ~ means "not", & means "and", | means
           "inclusive or".]

Let R  = "a Republican wins the election"
    RR = "Ronald Reagan wins the election"
    JA = "John Anderson" wins the election"

[1] R -> [ ~RR -> JA ]

[1a] [ R & ~RR ] -> JA

Of course, p -> q is the same as ~p | q.  Then [1] and [1a] both
transform to

        ~R | RR | JA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 17:39:03 edt
-FROM-
From: pugh@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (William Pugh)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
-BODY-

>>  In a recent issue of AIList, John McLean cited an article about
>>  inconsistencies in  public opinion that apparently said:
>>
>>    Before the 1980 presidential election, many held the two beliefs
>>     below:
>>
>>     (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not
>>         Ronald Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.
>>
>>     (2) A Republican will win the election.
>>
>>    Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:
>>
>>     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.
>>
        Just to throw my two bits in:

        First, from probability, some background:

                P(x) is the probability of x

                & P(x|y) is the probability of x given that y is true.

        And by Bayes' theorem,

                         P(x) P(y|x)
                P(x|y) = -----------
                            P(y)

The beliefs stated above can be rephrased as follows:

        Let RW stand for "A Republican wins"
        Let RR stand for "Ronald Reagan wins"
        Let JA stand for "John Anderson wins"

        (1) P( ~RR => JA | RW) = 1
        (2) P(RW) = 0.96 (for the sake of argument - high at any rate)

        and we wish to find

        (3) P(JA|~RR)

        well, from Bayes' theorem,

                    P(JA) P(~RR|JA)       P(JA)
        P(JA|~RR) = ---------------   =  -------
                        P(~RR)            P(~RR)

        For example, if P(JA) = 0.01 and P(RR) = 0.95,
        then P(JA|~RR) = 0.2

Note that we have not used 1 at all, and made the (obvious)
assumption (similar to 1) that if Anderson wins, Reagan can not win.

Now, to try to figure out what went wrong in the original example,
consider:

        Given P(A|B) and P(B),
        P(A&B) = P(A|B)P(B)

        HOWEVER, P(A&B) <= P(A)
        since P(A) = P(A&B)/P(B|A)

        THEREFORE, if
                A=>B with high probability
                and A with high probability
                THEN, B with high probability

        Now, going back to our example, we see the the original
        conclusion:

>>     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.

        is almost certainly true.  Although non-obvious, this is because
        (3) is true if Reagan wins.

        The problem, therefore, is that people do not use the
        "standard" definition of implication.  By "if A then B"
        people tend to think "given that A is true, B is true" - if
        A is false, the validity of the statement is not
        verified one way or the other.


        You can find more on Bayesian Inference in "Introduction to
        Artificial Intelligence" by Charniak and McDermott, or in many
        other sources.

        I have not yet figured out how to make Bayesian Inference work
        with this style of implication, but it is obvious that it
        requires some form of special treatment.  I'll let you know
        if I figure anything out.


Bill Pugh
Cornell University
..{uw-beaver|vax135}!cornell!pugh
607-256-4934,ext5

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 13:03 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <HAFNER%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Modus Ponens
-BODY-
Several ideas have been proposed to explain the fact that many people
in 1980 would agree to the following:

  1. If a Republican wins the election then if it is not RR then it will be JA.
  2. A Republican will win the election.

But they would not agree to the apparent logical consequence:

  3. If RR does not win the election then JA will win.

Does this mean that modus ponens is not a rule of common sense reasoning? NO.

The problem is due to the fact that "a republican" in the
first sentence has an "intensional" meaning, while in the second it
had (to most people) an extensional meaning.

In other words, people believed:

 (there-exists X) [win(X,election) & party(X,republican)]

                     and not

   (forall X) [win(X,election) --> party(X,republican)]

It is the second interpretation of the indefinite noun phrase that
gives rise to the conclusion in (3).

Carole Hafner
hafner@northeastern

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Oct 85 10:26:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: EDWARDS@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Equivocation (?) in "failure" of modus ponens
-BODY-

As far as I have been able to determine, in conversation with Todd
Davies and Marcel Schoppers, the apparent failure of modus ponens rests
on a subtle point about the understanding of "if-then".

If all conditionals are taken as truth-functional, then most people
would have believed the premises *and* the conclusion:

(1) If a Republican wins then if Reagan doesn't win then Anderson will
win.

(2) A Republican will win.

Therefore,

(3) if Reagan doesn't win then Anderson will win.


For (3), when read truth-functionally, is equivalent to:

(4) Either Reagan will win or Anderson will win

which in turn follows truth-functionally from:

(5) Reagan will win

which most people believed.

The problem is due to the fact that (3) is not normally understood
truth-functionally; it is understood as a counterfactual, setting up a
possible situation (or "mental space"--Fauconnier, *Mental Spaces*) in
which Reagan doesn't win and asking what assumption will make that
situation most like the actual one.  The assumption most people would
make, given such a situation, is that the Democrats will win; so they
believed (6), not (3):

(6) If Reagan doesn't win, then the Democrats will win.

The really interesting question here is whether (1) and (2) are
understood truth-functionally.  If they were, then the alleged failure
of modus ponens would rest on a simple equivocation.  But I don't
think they are.  (1) is a counterfactual just like (3) and (6).  The
problem is that (3) is understood quite differently when it appears as
the consequent of (1) than when it appears alone.  The antecedent of
(1) sets up a mental space in which a Republican wins, by hypothesis.
This affects the understanding of (3) in a way in which a mere factual
belief that a Republican will win (such as is expressed in (2)) does
not.  It rules out the consideration of a Democratic victory even in a
counterfactual situation.  So when the antecedent of (3) sets up
another mental space inside the first--where it is presupposed that
Reagan doesn't win--the consequent of (6) is ruled out.  Inside the
second mental space, *by hypothesis*, a Republican wins but Reagan
doesn't win.  Thus, Anderson's victory is the only conclusion
available.

Note that a factual belief with 100% certainty, that a Republican
will win, would have much the same effect as the antecedent of a
counterfactual.  If (2) were believed, not merely as very likely but
with absolutely unshakable confidence, then (3) should follow, even if
(1) is only believed with moderate confidence.  Thus those who
attributed the problem to difficulties about probability were in a way
right, though this misses the point about understanding of the
conditionals.

This does pose a problem for classical treatments such as David
Lewis's *Counterfactuals*.  According to Lewis, modus ponens applied
to a counterfactual conditional is valid.  The argument attributed to
McGee seems to refute this.

P.S.: I write the above without having read Van McGee's article, on
the basis of conversations and reading AIList.  I intend to get to
McGee's article in the near future.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 85 10:55:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DO you really need an AI machine?
-BODY-

> Date: Sun, 06 Oct 85 15:20:34 EDT
> From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
> Subject: Do I really need a AI Machine?
>
>  Dear readers,
>  I work at COMSAT LABS, Maryland. We are getting into AI in a big way
> and would like comments, suggestions and answers to the
> following questions,to justify a big investment on a AI machine.
>
>   * What are the specific gains of using a AI Machine (like symbolics)
>     over developing AI products/packages on general purpose
>     machines like - VAX-11/750-UNIX(4.2BSD), 68000/UNIX etc.
>
      ... [more questions follow]

Well, I'm not qualified to give detailed answers, but let me
rave mildly over some personal experience and indulge in a
little heresy in hopes of provoking some discussion:

So we're gonna do an expert systems project. So we got a Symbolics 3600,
so that me and one other guy can develop an expert system.

problem no. 1 - Geez, what a learning curve, when coming off
VAX/VMS - I mean, sure, ya gotta learn expert system techniques,
ya gotta learn Common Lisp, but I also gotta learn another file
system and operating system (which is somehow never quite
referred to as such), I gotta learn an editor with more features
than I could use in a million years, I gotta learn window
navigation -- after 3 months,  I have 12 dense pages of cheat
sheets, and am just getting to the point of adequacy (operationally
defined as: not getting caught inside the inspector and being unable
to figure out how to get out short of a boot-up).

problem no. 2 - We've got one screen and one keyboard - even with
only two people, it's surprising how often our schedules don't mesh.
Cugini's tentative hypothesis of hardware-sharing: the number of
people wishing to use a shared single-user system at any time is even.

problem no. 3 - So now we've got an AI lab, and whenever I wanna do
something I actually have to STAND UP AND WALK to the machine
(which may or may not be occupied anyway) - so I find myself
conversing with VMS, whose terminal sits conveniently to my right -
and login takes maybe 20 seconds, as opposed to a 3-minute boot-up.

problem no. 4 - and of course we don't have the Symbolics netted
to the VAX yet (or ever?), and so you can kiss data-sharing good-by.
Where should the (English) documentation for our expert system reside?
On the VAX, where I've got editors, formatters (eg runoff), and laser
printers already, or on the Symbolics, where the code lives, but which
at this point has no hard-copy output? What if I get some good Lisp
code over our beloved ailist? Do I key it in at the Symbolics?

Well, you get the idea - there's more to doing expert systems than
telling the forklift where to place your AI machine.  Let me forestall
some rebuttals by saying, sure I know some things we're doing wrong,
and yeah, we should net the Symbolics to the VAX and yeah, we should
buy a 3640 or whatever for additional users.  But point 1 is there's
a larger-than-I(-and-maybe-you)-suspected investment in
hardware, software, and time to be able to exploit these "power
tools" of AI.

Point 2 is it's not so clear when you need all that performance
that an AI workstation is giving you.  If PC's are seen as an
adequate delivery vehicle for an expert system, the assumption
would seem to be that you need performance during development -
but that doesn't seem right either - how fast does an editor
have to be? When you're doing logical testing (as opposed to
performance testing), wouldn't you be dealing with *smaller*
amounts of data, than in operational mode? Why would it not make
more sense to develop code on a relatively small system and
then use the performance of a 3600 for large-scale logic-crunching,
just as you might develop FORTRAN code on a PC, and then run it
on a CYBER?  I'm willing to believe I'm wrong about this, but I
don't understand why.

Point 3 is that the reason a lot of CompScis deride PL/I and
embrace, say, Pascal, is that PL/I is big, complicated, clumsy,
gives you everything you ever wanted and several that you didn't,
etc etc, whereas Pascal is small, elegant, well-designed, etc etc.
Any analogies here?

I should say that the Symbolics itself *is* fast, reliable,
and well-documented (but complicated) so I'm not complaining
about Symbolics per se. This is a generic complaint.

So now I'm using VAX LISP (which - shame! - does not yet have
complex numbers, but is otherwise pretty good), and I find that
the less-sophisticated editor is powerful enough for me, there
are reasonable tools for tracing, debugging, pretty-printing,
and I haven't yet been slowed down by performance problems.

What am I missing here?  Why am I happier on (sneer) a VAX than
on a glamorous Symbolics? (Replies implying coarse sensitivity
on the part of the writer will be, of course, be given the most
serious consideration and then dismissed).

Needless to say, these are my own utterly idiosyncratic views,
and in no way reflect the policy, de jure or de facto, of the
National Bureau of Standards, the Department of Commerce, or the
entire Federal Government.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
142
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Oct 85 16:51:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI Meets Natural Stupidity (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


          CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *THIS* THURSDAY, October 10, 1985

   12 noon              TINLunch
     Ventura Hall       ``Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity''
     Conference Room    by Drew McDermott
                        Discussion led by Roland Hausser, U. of Munich


   McDermott discusses three `mistakes', or rather bad habits, which are
   frequent in A.I. work.  He speaks from his own experience and cites
   several illuminating and amusing examples from the literature. In this
   TINLunch I will be discussing his thoughts on treating reference in
   A.I., which are discussed in the section entitled `unnatural
   language'.                                           --Roland Hausser

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 85 16:01:56 cdt
-FROM-
From: rajive@sally.UTEXAS.EDU (Rajive Bagrodia)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Expert Knowledge (UT)
-BODY-
                          Machine Learning for
                       Acquiring Expert Knowledge

                                  by
                             Bruce  Porter

                       noon, Friday 11th, Pai 3.38

An important  effort in Artificial Intelligence is the construction of
Expert Systems, but this effort is stymied by the problem of acquiring
knowledge  to guide  problem solving and reasoning.  This talk reviews
efforts  in  Machine  Learning  to  automate knowledge acquisition and
describes our current approach to the problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 16:48:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin@ucbcogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Interactive Modularity (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                  Fall 1985
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

        TIME:             Tuesday, October 15, 11:00 - 12:30
        PLACE:            240 Bechtel Engineering Center
        DISCUSSION:       12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

        SPEAKER:          Ronald M. Kaplan,
                          Xerox Palo Alto Research Center  and  Center
                          for  the  Study of Language and Information,
                          Stanford University

        TITLE:            ``Interactive Modularity''

        Comprehensible  scientific  explanations  for   most   complex
        natural  phenomena  are  modular  in character.  Phenomena are
        explained in terms of the operation of separate  and  indepen-
        dent  components, with relatively minor interactions.  Modular
        accounts of complex cognitive phenomena, such as language pro-
        cessing,  have  also  been proposed, with distinctions between
        phonological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic modules,  for
        example,  and  with  distinctions  among  various rules within
        modules.  But these modular accounts  seem  incompatible  with
        the   commonplace  observations  of  substantial  interactions
        across component boundaries: semantic and  pragmatic  factors,
        for  instance,  can  be shown to operate even before the first
        couple of phonemes in an utterance have been identified.

             In this talk I consider several  methods  of  reconciling
        modular descriptions in service of scientific explanation with
        the apparent  interactivity  of  on-line  behavior.   Run-time
        methods  utilize  interpreters that allow on-line interleaving
        of operations from different modules, perhaps including  addi-
        tional  "scheduling"  components  for  controlling  the cross-
        module flow of information.  But depending on their mathemati-
        cal properties, modular specifications may also be transformed
        by off-line, compile-time operations into  new  specifications
        that  directly  represent  all  possible cross-module interac-
        tions.  Such compilation techniques allow for run-time  elimi-
        nation  of  module  boundaries  and  of intermediate levels of
        representation.  I will illustrate these techniques with exam-
        ples  involving  certain  classes of phonological rule systems
        and structural correspondences in Lexical-Functional Grammar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Oct 85 16:51:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Commonsense and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


            COMMON SENSE AND NON-MONOTONIC REASONING SEMINARS
            Organized by John McCarthy and Vladimir Lifschitz
               Computer Science Dept., Stanford University

      A series of seminars on Common Sense and Non-monotonic reasoning
   will explore the problem of formalizing commonsense knowledge and
   reasoning, with the emphasis on their non-monotonic aspects.
      It is important to be able to formalize reasoning about physical
   objects and mental attitudes, about events and actions on the basis of
   predicate logic, as it can be done with reasoning about numbers,
   figures, sets and probabilities.  Such formalizations may lead to the
   creation of AI systems which can use logic to operate with general
   facts, which can deduce consequences from what they know and what they
   are told and determine in this way what actions should be taken.
      Attempts to formalize commonsense knowledge have been so far only
   partially successful. One major difficulty is that commonsense
   reasoning often appears to be non-monotonic, in the sense that getting
   additional information may force us to retract some of the conclusions
   made before.  This is in sharp contrast to what happens in
   mathematics, where adding new axioms to a theory can only make the set
   of theorems bigger.
      Circumscription, a transformation of logical formulas proposed by
   John McCarthy, makes it possible to formalize non-monotonic reasoning
   in classical predicate logic. A circumscriptive theory involves, in
   addition to an axiom set, the description of a circumscription to be
   applied to the axioms. Our goal is to investigate how commonsense
   knowledge can be represented in the form of circumscriptive theories.
      John McCarthy will begin the seminar by discussing some of the
   problems that have arisen in using abnormality to formalize common
   sense knowledge about the effects of actions using circumscription.
   His paper Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense
   Knowledge is available from Rutie Adler 358MJH.  This paper was given
   in the Non-monotonic Workshop, and the present version, which is to be
   published in Artificial Intelligence, is not greatly different. The
   problems in question relate to trying to use the formalism of that
   paper.
      The seminar will replace the circumscription seminar we had last
   year.  If you were on the mailing list for that seminar then you will
   be automatically included in the new mailing list. If you would like
   to be added to the mailing list (or removed from it) send a message to
   Vladimir Lifschitz (VAL@SAIL).

      The first meeting is in 252MJH on Wednesday, October 30, at 2pm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Oct 85 16:51:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LICS Conference
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                             LICS CONFERENCE

      A new conference, LICS, (an acronym for ``Logic in Computer
   Science'') will meet in Cambridge, Mass, June 16-18, 1986.  The topics
   to be covered include abstract data types, computer theorem proving
   and verification, concurrency, constructive proofs as programs, data
   base theory, foundations of logic programming, logic-based programming
   languages, logics of programs, knowledge and belief, semantics of
   programs, software specifications, type theory, etc.  For a local copy
   of the full call for papers, contact Jon Barwise (Barwise@CSLI) or
   Joseph Goguen (Goguen@SRI-AI), members of the LICS Organizing
   Committee.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
143
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 85 18:30:49 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YAPS - Commercial Version Info.
-BODY-
Dear Folks!
 Does anybody have information on the Commericial Availability
of a Production System called "YAPS"? This was developed at the
University of Maryland and funded by the Goddard Space Flight
Center. I can't seem to find the right people to talk to at
Maryland, regarding this system. Any leads will be greatly
appreciated...

   Thanks in Advance.
                                       .....Vasu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 85 10:02:58 PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Cornish.EIS@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog vs. OPS5
-BODY-

Can anyone provide me with a compare-and-constrast discussion of Prolog
vs. OPS5.  To use an analogy from this list, are they both screwdrivers
or both chisels ?


Jan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 08:53:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: es tools query
-BODY-

My list of major commercial AI software tools includes:
(1) S.1., (2) KEE, (3) ART, and (4) Knowledge Craft

There is also DUCK which seems to be more like an enhanced logic
programming language than the kind of tools (1)-(4) represent.

There is TIMM which was blasted on this list recently.

One other candidate appears to be KES or KES2.  Do you have any comments
on this system?  Is it a strong competitor to the other major tools?

mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 1985 14:37-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: franz lisp ?
-BODY-
The following demonstrates that enabling the trace facility causes
return values from lisp functions consisting of prog bodies to be set to
nil.  Is this supposed to happen and what does one do about it?

% cat blah1.l
(defun Blah (x y z a)
(prog (v)
(setq y (add 3 5))
(return 1)
))
% lisp
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
>> (load "blah1.l")
[load blah1.l]
t
>> (setq A (Blah 3 5 7 9))
1
>> (step e)
[autoload /usr/lib/lisp/step]
[load /usr/lib/lisp/step.l]
t
>> (setq B (Blah 3 5 7 9))
(setq B (Blah 3 5 7 9))
  (Blah 3 5 7 9)
    3
    5
    7
    9
    (prog (v) (setq y (add 3 5)) (return 1))
      (setq y (add 3 5))
        (add 3 5)
          3
          5
        8
      8
      (return 1)
        1
    nil
  nil
nil
>>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Oct 85 12:43:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Acuff <Acuff@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Symbolics lisp machine mailing list ??
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

   The Symbolics Lisp Users' Group has a mailing list SLUG@R20.UTexas.ARPA.
This can be read from the BBoard SYMBOLICS-LISP-USERS on Sumex.  Send
mail to SLUG-Request@R20.UTexas.ARPA to get on the list.

   There is also BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC which may be of some interest (also a
BBoard on Sumex), as well as {Bug,Info}-TI-Explorer@Sumex for TI Explorers.
Again, use the -Request convention for getting added.

        -- Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 21:38:01 PDT
-FROM-
From: Dick Kemmerer <dick@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Peer Review
-BODY-

        A colleague forwarded a copy of AIList Digest #133 to me. In this
issue Michael Melliar-Smith's response to John Nagle's SIFT verification
message contains a reference to a verification study that is being
sponsored by the DoD Computer Security Center. I am the PI for this
study and would like to comment that the reference is somewhat
misleading. In particular, the study group did not look at the SIFT work.
Also, the suite of tools that we reviewed were the enhanced HDM tools (most of
which have been developed since the SIFT work).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 12:22:01 edt
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!raybed2!gxm@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (GERARD MAYER)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TIMM Correction
-BODY-

I'd like to point out the only error I found in Touretzky's article about TIMM.
According to the General Research technical and sales people at the IJCAI-85
booth TIMM CANNOT call any external functions: Fortran or otherwise. I found
this amazing and asked several of their people the same question. I have sent
a synopsis of my review of TIMM, KEE, ART, etc. to Cowan directly.

                                        Gerard Mayer
                                        Raytheon Research Division

                                        uucp  ..linus!raybed2!gxm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 85 11:01:17 PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: do you REALLY need a AI machine?
-BODY-
  Funny how when you say a "lisp machine" some people just assume you
mean "Symbolics".  My experience has been that you can avoid most of
the problems John Cugini complained about by chosing an alternate
vendor.  For instance, with a $100K investment (equivalent to your
first 3600) you can buy 3 or 4 Xerox lisp machines.  So, now you can
put one in each programmers office (and not have to walk down the hall
to an occupied machine), no standing in line. The Xerox machines
network to VAX/VMS or Unix file servers, so sharing is easy.  The
Xerox user interface is so transparent that you can learn it in a day
or two (the editor in about 5 minutes).  And, although the Xerox may
be 1/3 the speed of a 3600, as John points out, "who cares" when you
are just building and exploring?  If you get into serious production
of large systems, then move it to a Symbolics, or a Cray.  If you are
doing Research on AI technology, you may also want the faster system,
but most industrial labs seem to be more into applications development.
(Also, the Xerox machines support (or soon will) both Quintus Prolog,
and CommonLisp, integrated with the InterLisp-D environment).
 As for a VAX <how fast does an editor need to be?> it's never fast
enough.  If all you do is editing, maybe; but where are the graphics?
And timesharing LISP is a serious development problem: "Is my program
stuck, or is someone else just compiling something?" For $250K, you
can do a lot better with personal workstations.
  This is not intended to be a plug for Xerox, and of course, these
are just my personal observations.

j. peck

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 20:56:49 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Big Lisp Machines
-BODY-
        We, as are you, are involved in applying AI to our jobs.  We
have 5 PC-AT's and a Symbolics (which we got from another organization).
The PC's are much more useful, and a VAX would be ideal.  The basic
reason is that PC-AT's and VAXEN are not that much slower than the big
machines, and cost less, and are compatible with alot more applications
programs and peripherals.  Most applications need a big data base to
work of, and the AI portion is relatively small.
        If you already have a great deal of LISP code already written,
and you already have VAXEN and ethernet, then a big machine might be OK.
My advice is to purchase AT's and micro-vax II's with your bucks, and
I sincerely doubt you will regret it.

        Jed Marti (ARPA: marti@rand-unix.arpa ATT:213 393-0411) published
a benchmark of many machines (including a Symbolics 3600, VAX 11/780, 750)
running REDUCE problems (a symbolics math package).  I think the 780 was
a tad faster than the 3600 and the 750 a tad slower (~10%).

        If you are working on the part of COMSAT which flies satellites,
I would like to find out what you are doing -- that's what we are using
AI (planning to use AI) for.

        Hope these comments help,

Richard Jennings,
Air Force Satellite Control Facility
Sunnyvale CA 95051
ATT: 408 744-6427
ARPA: jennings@aerospace

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 16:38 EST
-FROM-
From: "Christopher A. Welty" <weltyc%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Workstations
-BODY-

        I don't intend to offend anyone, but after reading  John
Cugini's response to Srinivasan Krishnamurthy's query about AI machines
I was a little taken aback.
        The reason one gets an AI machine is because it is the most powerful
AI/ES development tool around.  It provides the developer with facilities
that make the entire system development process a hundred times easier
(this number may vary depending on what system you are coming from).
Of course you have to learn how to use it.  Some people look forward to
the chance to learn something new, others prefer to know only one or
two systems and hail them as the ultimate.  Those who prefer to learn
know that each different system has a use that makes it helpful for
certain applications, and a hinderance in others.
        If you really make an effort to learn how to use an AI workstation,
you will find (especially if you've had to do development on other systems)
that you will be far more productive, and you will be doing things more in
the way they should be done.  We all know that it is often easier to cheat
than to do things the right way, and often times cheating makes later
development more difficult.  With the extensive support environments for
AI/ES that these workstations provide, doing things the right way is made
easier (almost easier than cheating).
        From Mr. Cugini's statement, his objections to the workstations seemed
no more than laziness...and that seems no reason to dissuade others from
getting them.  If you are really getting into AI "in a really big way," an
AI workstation is a must.  You won't know what your missing if you never
get one, and if you do (and take the time to learn it) you won't know how
you did without it.

                                        -Christopher A. Welty
                                         RPI/CIE Systems Mgr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
144
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 22:49:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grace Murray Hopper Award
-BODY-
>From the October issue of CACM:

Cordell Green of Kestrel Institute was chosen "for establishing a
theoretical basis for logic programming and providing a resolution
theorem proven to carry out a programming task by constructing the
result which the computer is to compute.  For proving a constructive
technique correct and for presenting an effective method for
constructing the answer; these contributions providing an early
theoretical foundation for Prolog and logic."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 85 11:42:41 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ``An Appreciation of Our Own Make-up''
-BODY-
>From the Guardian newspaper, 10 October 1985:-
   ``What he (Alan  Kay) would  like  to see AI people trying to
build is "not superhumans or humans,  but mammals," contrivances
that can explore  and learn  but do  not have to use language or
learn differential calculus." Ultimately, he asserts, "the basic
end of AI research is an appreciation of our own make-up." ''

I find the idea  that these "contrivances" do not  have the need
to make use of language rather strange, since there must be some
form of communication required between us and them and that will
be termed language.
The more important message of the short  quote is the repetition
of the  idea that intelligence is learning, starting from square
one  and building a  model of the world  that  is in one's view,
and the view from the chip must be through the language of data.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 12:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Henry Nussbacher  <HJNCU%CUNYVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Database service available for back issues of Ai-List
-BODY-
This is to announce that some new services have been added to the
inter-network server running at Bitnic.  Certain selected Arpanet
digests are now being loaded into a Spires database and are therefore
searchable from anywhere as long as you can send RFC822 mail.

If you are interested in using this service, send a piece of mail to:
DATABASE%BITNIC.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
or
DATABASE%BITNIC.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

and have as the first 3 lines of your file (case does not matter):
help
help arpanet
help design

The server will send back to you 3 help files describing how to use the
internet server, how to search Arpanet digests and how the whole thing
was designed.  Read over the section on "Signup" carefully before making
further use of the Database server.

Presently, the following 5 Arpanet forums are being loaded into the
Database:

Name           Retention Period
=============  ================
Ai-List        2 months
Info-Ibmpc     2 months
Info-Mac       2 months
Info-Graphics  3 months
Info-Nets      3 months

The retention period is set for a short duration in order to see if
Bitnic can handle the volume of data that needs to be stored in Spires.
This service was initialized on October 4th, 1985 so currently there
are just a few items available in the Database.

Example of search command:
FIND TEXT UNIX (IN INFO-IBMPC TABLE
would find all entries in Info-Ibmpc that contain the word UNIX.
An entry is just the section within a "digested" digest that makes
reference to the word UNIX.  For further details read over the
help files.

Henry Nussbacher (Hank@Bitnic.Bitnet)
Bitnet Development and Operations Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 18:39 EST
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reply to query on micros and LISP
-BODY-
From: france (Robert France)
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 14:35:52 edt
To: fox, sharan
Subject: Re:  chance to do a useful search

Ken: Robert Blum on 3 Oct asked for information on "currently
marketed LISPs for micros" including pointers to review articles.
While our new system that will classify and work with components of
messages is not yet ready, our adaptation of the SMART system is
running and ready for queries just like this.  Robert France did
a search with the following results.  Feel free to publish in
AIList or to send directly to Blum.  Send other queries along too!
I need then for experimentation, and only request that the
author of the query be willing to tell me which messages are
relevant to the question. Thanks, Ed Fox

  [At the risk of having this message show up in all future searches,
  I've decided to pass it along.  I deleted one false hit (a query
  from Rene Bach), and I remember at least one other very lengthy
  Lisp review that was not found.  -- KIL]
_______

.I 418
.W Tuesday, 20 Sep 1983
.V Volume 1
.U Issue 59
.D Mon, 19 Sep 1983  11:41 EDT
.N

.A WELD%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
.S Micro LISPs
.B

 For a survey of micro LISPs see the August and Sept issues of
 Microsystems magazine. The Aug issue reviews muLISP, Supersoft LISP
 and The Stiff Upper Lisp. I believe that the Sept issue will continue
 the survey with some more reviews.

 Dan
_______

.I 1113
.W Thursday, 8 Mar 1984
.V Volume 2
.U Issue 27
.D Tue 6 Mar 84 15:48:55-PST
.N Sam Hahn
.A SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
.S IQLISP Source
.B

 The source for IQLisp is:

         Integral Quality, Inc.
         P.O. Box 31970
         Seattle, WA  98103
         (206) 527-2918

 Claims to be similar to UCI Lisp, except function def's are stored in cells
 within identifiers, not on property lists; arg. handling is specified in the
 syntax of the expression defining the function, I/O functions take an explicit
 file argument, which defaults to the console; doesn't support FUNARGS.

 IQLisp does provide:
         32kb character strings,
         77000 digit long integers,
         IEEE format floating point,
         point and line graphics,
         ifc to assembly coded functions,
         31 dimensions to arrays,

 Costs $175 for program and manual, PCDOS only.

 I've taken the liberty to include some of their sales info for those who may
 not have heard of IQLisp.  It's fairly new, and they claim to soon make a
 generic MSDOS version (though probably without graphics support).
_______

.I 1264
.W Thursday, 12 Apr 1984
.V Volume 2
.U Issue 45
.D 11 Apr 1984 0206 PST
.N Reply-to: LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
.A Larry Carroll <LARRY@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
.S micro LISP review
.B

 There's a good article in the April issue of PC Tech Journal
 about three micro versions of LISP: IQ LISP, muLISP-82, and
 TLC LISP.  It gives a fair amount of implementation detail,
 contrasts them, and compares them to their mini and mainframe
 cousins.  The author is Bill Wong, who's working on his PhD in
 computer science at Rutgers.  [...]

                                 Larry Carroll
                                 Jet Propulsion Lab.
                                    larry@jpl-vlsi
_______

.I 1317
.W Sunday, 22 Apr 1984
.V Volume 2
.U Issue 51
.D 20 Apr 84 22:22:44 EST  (Fri)
.N Wayne Stoffel
.A wes%umcp-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
.S Review of LISP Implementations
.B

 Re: Bill Wong's article on three LISP implementations

 He also wrote a series on AI languages that appeared in Microsystems.  All
 were 8-bit CP/M implementations.

 August 1983, muLisp-80, SuperSoft Lisp, and Stiff Upper Lisp.

 December 1983, XLISP, LISP/80, and TLC Lisp.

 January 1984, micro-Prolog.

                                 W.E. Stoffel
_______

.I 1326
.W Wednesday, 25 Apr 1984
.V Volume 2
.U Issue 52
.D Sun 22 Apr 84 22:11:14-PST
.N Sam Hahn (Samuel@Score
.A Reply-to: SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
.S Another microcomputer Lisp
.B

 In line with the previous mentions of microcomputer implementations of Lisp,
 how about this pointer:

 I saw in the current (May) issue of Microsystems an advertisement for
 Waltz Lisp, from ProCode International.  "Waltz Lisp is not a toy.  It is the
 most complete microcomputer Lisp, including features previously available only
 in large Lisp systems.  In fact, Waltz is substantially compatible with Franz
 ... and is similar to MacLisp and Lisp Machine Lisp."

 Does anyone know anything about Waltz?  How about a review?

 [further claims:        functions of type lambda, nlambda, lexpr, macro
                         built-in prettyprinting and formatting
                         user control over all aspects of the interpreter
                         complete set of error handling and debugging functions
                         over 250 functions in total                     ]

 They're at POBox 7301, Charlottesville, VA  22906.
_______

.I 1753
.W Wednesday, 1 Aug 1984
.V Volume 2
.U Issue 98
.D 28 Jul 1984 2132-CDT
.N

.A Usadacs at STL-HOST1.ARPA
.S LISP in Aztec C, Public Domain
.B

   Ref: AI Digest, V2 #90 "LISP in Aztec C", is available from
 SIMTEL20 via FTP. MICRO:<SIGM.VOL118>

 A.C. McIntosh, USADACS@STL-HOST1.
_______

.I 2512
.W Sunday, 20 Jan 1985
.V Volume 3
.U Issue 5
.D Thu 17 Jan 85 00:33:35-PST
.N Sam Hahn
.A SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
.S Lisp for PC
.B

 If you're using PC's and looking for a Lisp, I'd suggest
 TLC-Lisp, from The Lisp Company.  I myself have not used GCLisp,
 but have been quite impressed with TLC-Lisp, which has a compiler,
 an object-class system, packages, auto-load entities,
 and costs less than half what GCLisp costs.

 TLC is John Allen's (The Anatomy of Lisp) company, located in
 Redwood Estates, CA.  I have no connection with TLC except as
 a customer.

                                 -- sam hahn
_______

.I 2773
.W Friday, 8 Mar 1985
.V Volume 3
.U Issue 31
.D Thu 7 Mar 85 08:44:14-PST
.N Ken Laws
.A Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA
.S The Artificial Intelligence Report
.B

 Ted Markowitz recently asked about newsletters.  [...]
 The following are the topics covered in back issues of The
 Artificial Intelligence Report.  I'm told that back issues
 are still available, but I don't know the price.  [...]

 Vol. 1,  No. 3,  March, 1984
 AI and the Personal Computer: Expert systems, natural
 language,  LISP;  [...]

 Vol. 2, No. 3, March, 1985
 LISP on the PC: TLC LISP, GCLISP; [...]

 [...]

 This newsletter was the first one mentioned in AIList.  Since
 that time, it has moved from Los Altos to:

     Artificial Intelligence Publications
     Suite Three
     3600 West Bayshore Road
     Palo Alto, CA  94303 - 4229
     U. S. A.
    (415) 424-1447

                                         -- Ken Laws
_______

You might try using other keywords (names of micros?) or going further.


                                        -- Robert

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
145
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 12:07:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Rich Alderson <ALDERSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: military flame
-BODY-
Like it or not, the military CAN take credit for the interstate highway system,
and the "civilian highway system in place before the interstates" as well--at
least, I ASSUME that you are referring to the U. S. highway system.  Both were
built under the mandate of the Constitution of the United States (Philadelphia,
1787), which did not view "internal defence [as] a standard rationale for
better internal transportation" but rather saw good internal transportation as
vital to both the internal and external defense of a nation.

Please note that the above is not a matter of opinion.  My own opinions are
just that, and I've had enough grief in my life for expressing them publicly.
Obviously, I make NO claim to represent anyone else's opinions if I refuse to
state my own.

                                                                Rich Alderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 10:12:48-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Hype is unavoidable
-BODY-
Part of the problem of AI hype is unavoidable: it is a result of
the definition of the field, which assumes that, once the problem
is defined, its solution is trivial.

Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science represent two
complementary approaches to the use of computers.  AI is problem
oriented, and CS is solution oriented.  In CS, one assumes that
the problem is (or is capable of being) well understood, and the
task is to design a good (clean, efficient, fast, etc.)  solution
to the problem.  In AI, the underlying assumption is that the
solution will be trivial once the problem is understood, and that
the task is to understand the problem.

These two approaches are reflected in the names of the field.
Computer Science is the science of using computers, a clear,
hard, objective definition about the use of a tool to solve
problems.  Artificial Intelligence is concerned with the
simulation of intelligence, a fuzzy, open, subjective definition
about the study of the problem of simulating a human behavior
called intelligence for which there is no clear, generally
accepted definition.

Each field encounters problems when its assumption is violated.
In CS, programming disasters can result if you start coding
before you have defined the problem.  Therefore, CS has developed
structured programming, programming specifications, etc. tools to
insure that the problem *is* well defined before the solution is
attempted.

In AI, trouble starts when, after the problem is understood, the
solution is *not* trivial in terms of computer performance, such
as execution time and memory space.  Then, you start hacking the
algorithms in order to get results in a finite amount of time and
memory, hoping that you are not betraying your understanding of
the problem.  Therefore, AI has developed extensive editors,
debuggers, windows, etc. in an attempt to insure that the
implementation of the solution remains trivial.

I believe that much of the AI hype problem stems from the
unstated assumption of trivial solutions.  Profound and
impressive insights expressed as toy problems typically do not
"scale up" to the real world.  An AI researcher involved in this
situation is embarrassed but not humiliated: the original
research on the problem is still valid; there is just a
"temproary problem in creating a practical solution."  This
obviously creates frustration for the customers who thought they
were buying a solution of the problem rather than an
understanding of it.

If the above is true, the problem of AI hype will not go away
until the field develops enough solid understanding of the
problem of intelligence to change its name from AI to a solution
oriented name, like Machine Learning, etc.  We are probably in
the same position now that physical science was before Galileo
and Newton when it was called Natural Philosophy - full of
metaphysics, passionate argument, and conflicting data (i.e.,
where the action is).


Dave Wyland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: CONNOLLY CHRISTOPHER IAN      <CONNOLLY@ge-crd.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Definition and Tools
-BODY-
1) I can't help but think that a cause of the recent arguments on AI
hype rests in the question "What is AI?".  Note that I say >>**"A"**<<
cause.  Definitions, anyone?


2) AI Machines - My observation is that the startup time on a 3600 without
help is quite long.  There are a few people here who have taken a Symbolics
Lisp course and seem to have picked up on the stuff much more quickly (2 or
3 months?).  Once you know how to use the machine though, I think it's a
far better programming environment than VAX/VMS.  I've seen nothing on a
VAX that parallels the Window Debugger (wherein the entire stack can be
dissected), the Inspector (wherein your data structures can be dissected),
and the Flavor Examiner (wherein your data types can be inspected).  The
latter two are also a great help when you have no source.  I think it speeds
up my programming by a factor of 5, at least.  Anyway, that's yet another
opinion...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 85 12:28:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: George J. Carrette <GJC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp vs prolog, implementation facts
-BODY-
Actually, all three of the Symbolics, LMI, and TI lispmachines give
the lisp-level system programmer access to extremely low level data
type and stack operations, there is no need to go to microcode for
that sort of thing. The LM-PROLOG that I maintain from time to time in
the Symbolics and LMI environment creates its own datatypes by the
usual lisp punning techniques, fooling with locatives, forwarding
pointers and the internals of CDR-CODED lists without needing
microcode support, and amazingly keeping a good deal of
transportability. Such is the ubiquity of certain hacks of lispmachine
implementation. Microcode is used, optionally, only for hand-coding
functions that are also written in lisp.  The LM-PROLOG technique is
in the class of CONTINUATION PASSING techniques of prolog
implementations, as described for example in a chapter of Sussman and
Ablesons "Structure and Interpretation ..."  book. This kind of
technique has more overhead associated with creation of real function
evaluation frames and such, (at least on a simple stack-machine) and
observably gets about 1/2 or 1/3 the BENCHMARK performance of a lower-level
machine-model implementation such as described by Warren. Overall
performance of a practical prolog "expert-system" may depend more
on virtual memory performance considerations of course rather than
what happens in the register-usage-mostly situation of some benchmarks.
Also consider that commercial systems put into production often have
assembly language coding of important subroutines, so high-level/low-level
language interface issues are important. The continuation passing
technique provides a more natural and efficient interface to
"assembly language" (i.e. LISP on a LISPMACHINE) than other models.

When talking about a commercial lispmachine it is important to think in
terms of LISP as a COMPUTER ENGINEERING technique rather than as having
anything to do with AI programming in particular.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 1985 11:04-EDT
-FROM-
From: milne@wpafb-afita
-SUBJECT-
Subject: call for papers - IEEE SMC
-BODY-
                        CALL FOR PAPERS

        IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN AND CYBERNETICS.
                        SPECIAL ISSUE ON
      Causal and Strategic Aspects of Diagnostic Reasoning


Papers are solicited for a special issue of IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics that will be devoted to the topic, "Causal and Strategic
Aspects of Diagnostic Reasoning."  Dr. Robert Milne, Army Artificial
Intelligence Center will be the guest editor of the special issue.

While it is expected that the research to be reported will be typically
backed up by concrete analyses or system building for real-world diagnostic
problems, the intent is to collect the most sophisticated ideas for
diagnostic reasoning viewed as a generic collection of strategies.  Articles
should attempt to describe the strategies in a domain-independent manner as
much as possible.  Articles that merely describe a successful diagnostic
expert system in a domain by using well-known languages or strategies will
typically not be appropriate.  Papers reporting on psychological studies,
epistemic analyses of the diagostic process, elucidating the strategies of
first-generation expert systems, descriptions of specific diagnostic systems
that incorporate new ideas for diagnostic reasoning, learning systems for
diagnosis are some examples that will be appropriate.  It is expected that
most articles will typically concentrate on some version or part of the
diagnostic problem, so it is important that the paper state clearly the
problem that is being solved independent of the implementation approaches
adopted.

Papers will be reviewed carefully by referees selected by the Transactions
Editorial Board.  Five copies of the manuscript should be submitted to Dr.
Robert Milne at the following address by January 15.  It will be helpful if
people who intend to submit manuscripts for consideration can let the guest
editor know of their intent as soon as possible via arpanet or telephone.

Submit papers by January 15th, 1986 to:
Dr. Robert Milne
US Army AI Center
HQDA DAIM-DO
Washington,  D.C. 20310-0700

phone:(202)-694-6913
arpa: milne@wpafb-afita

Author's Timeline:
15 January 1986         Papers Due
15 April 1986           Notificationo of acceptance/rejection
1  June 1986            Final Manuscripts due
   November 1986        Publication

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
146
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 85 15:58:27 EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Liz Allen <liz@tove.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YAPS info
-BODY-
In response to the question about obtaining YAPS:  YAPS is available
from the Univ of Maryland along with some other packages like a
flavors package.  They run under Franz Lisp (we supply a slightly
hacked version of Opus 38.91) and on Vaxes running Berkeley Unix.

For more information, send mail to me.

                                -Liz

liz@tove.umd.edu or liz@maryland.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 20:37:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hal Abelson <HAL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme mailing list
-BODY-

Scheme@MIT-MC.ARPA is a network-wide mailing list for discussions
concerning the Scheme dialect of Lisp -- both as a vehicle for
investigating language development and as a vehicle for teaching
about computer science.  To be added to the list, please send mail to
Scheme-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA.  Remote sites with many entries are
encouraged to set up local distribution lists..

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Oct 85 07:50:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scaling Up
-BODY-

In a recent issue of AIList [#145], Dave Wyland expresses a rather
common epistemological error, in his attempt to defend "AI" as we know
and love it today -- hype and all !

Mr. Wyland seems to think that finding problem solutions which "scale up"
is a matter of manufacturing convenience, or something like that.  What
he seems to overlook is that the property of scaling up (to realistic
performance and behavior) is normally OUR ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THE
"SOLUTION" DOES IN FACT EMBODY A CORRECT SET OF PRINCIPLES.

To put it more simply, if the solution doesn't scale up, then it just
plain isn't a solution, even if the inventor feels he has made a lot
of "profound and impressive insights".  The point is, these insights
aren't very profound or impressive (except perhaps to IJCAI referees)
if they fail the scaling test.

This principle is generally understood by persons with real engineering
backgrounds, but seems to come as news to "AI" folks.

G.R. Martins

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 16:43 EST
-FROM-
From: Mukhop <mukhop%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-contradictory set of beliefs and dependencies
-BODY-

> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 18:28:03 PDT
> From: albert@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU (Anthony Albert)
> Subject: Re: Counterexample to modus ponens
>
> As far as beliefs, a non-contradictory set could be:
>
> 1) If a Republican wins then Reagan will win.
> 2) If Reagan doesn't win then a Republican won't win.
> 3) Unless a Democrat wins, a Republican will win.
>


Beliefs 1) and 2) of this non-contradictory set are one and the same as far
as inferential power is concerned:
  P => Q     <=>     ~Q => ~P
Also, this set of non-contradictory beliefs does not include the notion
that Reagan (or a Republican) will probably win. It merely states that
Reagan's chances are better than his Republican opponent.

   Getting back to the original set of statements:

>     (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not Ronald
>        Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.
>
>     (2) A Republican will win the election.
>
>         Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:
>
>     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.
>


My perception of the commonly held beliefs at that time is:

a) There are three contestants in the election.
b) Ronald Reagan has the highest probability of winning.
c) John Anderson has the lowest probability of winning.
d) John Anderson and Ronald Reagan are the only Republicans contesting
   the elections.


The second statement in the original set ("A Republican will win the
election") was a commonly held belief, arrived at from:
 -   Ronald Reagan has the highest probability of winning, and
 -   Ronald Reagan is a Republican.
(Of course, John Anderson increased the odds in favor of a Republican)
If the assumption is now made that Ronald Reagan will not win the election,
then one can no longer make the assumption that a Republican will win.
The conclusion,
" If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson,"
can no longer be made.
  It seems that the dependencies of the belief structures need to be
taken into account in order to avoid contradictions. If it was
reasonable to believe that a Republican would win, irrespective of
the chances of Ronald Reagan, then it would be reasonable to believe:
"If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1985  21:09 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Republicans and Probability
-BODY-
About Republicans and probability.

That paradox comes from all those causes -- ambiguities, shifts in
meanings from "intension" to "extension," and so forth.  In my view,
adult psychology is too complicated to treat in terms of such simple
mathematical models as deduction and probability.  You've heard my
complaints about logic too often to repeat, and surely everyone has
read the critiques of Kahnemann and Tversky about applications of
probabilistic models to human beliefs and reasoning.

I suggest another, simple example to examine.  If you tell a "typical"
person that "Most A's are B's" and that "Most B's are C's," then the
most common inference is that "Most A's are therefore C's."  More
sophisticated people may say --"No, not most, but at least 26 percent
of A's are C's, because they'll notice that "most" might mean 51
percent.  Very few people will recognize that it is possible that no
A's are C's, or be able to construct a counterexample.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 85 13:39:09 edt
-FROM-
From: pugh@GVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU (William Pugh)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bayesian inference or nested assumptions
-BODY-

        Continuing on the subject of the Modus Ponens example, I have
worked out some results on using Bayesian Inference for nested
assumptions:

        Notation:

        A|B means assuming B is true, A is true
                        if B is false, the statement is neither
                        true nor false, it is untested.

        P(X) - the probability of X

        e.g. P(A|B) = the probability of A being true,
        given that B is true

        For the original example:

>>     (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not
>>         Ronald Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.
>>
>>     (2) A Republican will win the election.
>>
>>    Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:
>>
>>     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.
>>
        Let RW stand for "A Republican wins"
        Let RR stand for "Ronald Reagan wins"
        Let JA stand for "John Anderson wins"

        We have:

        1) P((JA|~RR)|RW) = 1
        2) P(RW) = very high
        3) P(JA|~RR) = ??

        Well, nested assumptions don't really work with the normal
        Bayesian calculations, so we first have to convert (1) to
        a normal form.

        To convert to a normal form, P((A|B)|C) = P(A|(B&C))
        You can show this formally, but informally in English:

                Assuming that C, then assuming that B, then A
                is the same as
                Assuming that C and B, then A

        Alright, so now we have P(JA|(~RR&RW)) = 1.  What can we do
        with this??

                         P(JA)P((~RR&RW)|JA)
        P(JA|(~RR&RW)) = -------------------
                              P(~RR&RW)

                         P(JA)P(RW|JA)P(~RR|(RW&JA))
                       = ---------------------------
                                P(RW)P(~RR|RW)

                                 P(JA)P(RW|JA)P(~RR|(RW&JA))
        so P(JA|(~RR&RW))P(RW) = ---------------------------
                                         P(~RR|RW)

                                                  P(JA)
        (since there can be only one winner) =  ---------
                                                P(~RR|RW)

        Which, by other real world knowledge, you can reduce to P(RW).


        Side note: I was explaining this problem to a friend who
        does not have a background in logic. I when I told her that
        A => B is true when A is false, she said "That's stupid... No
        wonder logicians have trouble with the real world."   :-)

        One moral of this story: Be careful of "if" in english - it
        oftens means something other than the standard logical meaning.


Bill Pugh
Cornell University
..{uw-beaver|vax135}!cornell!pugh
607-257-6994

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 85 20:02:19 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Counter-example to Modus Ponens
-BODY-
>>    Before the 1980 presidential election, many held the two beliefs
>>    below:
>>     (1) If a Republican wins the election then if the winner is not
>>         Ronald Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.
>>     (2) A Republican will win the election.
>>    Yet few if any of these people believed the conclusion:
>>     (3) If the winner is not Reagan then the winner will be Anderson.

> I would say the problem with this analysis is that people believed,
> instead of statement 1, the following similar statement:
>         (1a) If a Republican wins the election and the winner is not
>                 Ronald Reagan, then the winner will be John Anderson.

In classical philosophical logic, a conditional proposition (i.e., a
proposition of the form 'if A then B') asserts the necessity of a
certain sequence between two statements; the truth of 'if A then B'
does not depend on the truth of A and of B, but on the connection
between them - whether B's truth FOLLOWS NECESSARILY FROM A's truth.
For example, the statement 'if you are alive, then you are now reading
an ARPANET message' is FALSE; the condition and the consequent are both
true, but the consequent does not follow necessarily from the condition
(you could be alive and still be doing something else now).

Now, let us look at the meaning of (1a), (2) and (3).

(1a) asserts that if the winner is a Republican but not Reagan, it
follows necessarily that it will be Anderson. Given that there were
only two Republican candidates, (1a) is true, and everyone knew it is
true. The actual results of the elections determined the truth of the
two components (both turned out to be false), but made no difference
about the necessary connection between them.

(2) is a simple categorical proposition; before the elections, many
people believed it is true, others believed it is false; it turned out
to be true.

(3) asserts that if the winner is not Reagan, it FOLLOWS NECESSARILY
that it will be Anderson. This is obviously false, and I doubt if
anyone ever believed it. Again, the actual results of the elections
determined the truth of the two components (both turned out to be
false), but made no difference about the lack of any necessary
connection between them.

Given the classical logical interpretation, then, (3) does not follow
from (1a) and (2). People who believed (1a) and (2) but not (3) were
perfectly consistent (and they were also correct).

This example demonstrates one of the serious weaknesses of predicate
calculus. Predicate calculus has no way to express necessary
connections (mainly because its originators, Russell and Whitehead,
held a philosophy which denies the existence of such connections); the
result is the truth-functional interpretation of conditional
propositions, which leads to such anti-common-sense results as making
(3) follow from (1a) and (2).

As for (1), I'm not sure about its meaning, but it certainly doesn't
mean exactly the same as (1a). As far as I know, in all discussions, by
classical logicians, of conditional propositions or of Modus Ponens,
they only dealt with the case in which both components of the
conditional are simple categorical propositions. It is an interesting
question whether Modus Ponens remains valid in other cases as well (and
this, of course, depends on what exactly such 'multiple-conditional'
propositions mean).

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!decvax!humus!wisdom!eyal

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
147
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 1985 10:59-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian Artificial Intelligence 4
-BODY-
Summary of Canadian Artificial Intelligence 4, June 1985

Should CSCSI/SCEIO Attempt to Influence National Policy
(discusses whether their organization should work to influence national
policy on AI within the Canadian government.)

AI Research Spending and politics

Discusses Canadian research spending and talent shortage.  The Canadian
AI group has been active in opposition to Star Wars.

Discussion of an episode of Magnum P. I. which featured an AI researcher
who developed some formula that would tip the balance in favor of
whoever had it.  The formula was "3 bracket prompt semicolon."

The Canadian National Research Council is starting an inventory of
Canadian robotics research

Announcement of Babbage and Lovelace's BASIC package to expand other
BASIC programs to do natural language parsing.  Runs on an IBM PC
with 64 to 96 K.

French Article on AI and Cognitive Science at the University of Montreal

Canadian Companies
Applied AI Systems, Kanata Ontario doing consulting, marketing of
software, custom software.

Review of LOGICware which sells MPROLOG.

Book reviews of "The Comercial Application of Expert System Technology"
"Artificial Intelligence: Bibliographic Summaries of the Select
Literature Volume I", "L'Intelligence Artificielle: promesses et
Realities"

Humorous Article: A Brief Review of Ignorance Engineering

Simon Fraser University AI tech report list

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 1985 11:44-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian Artificial Intelligence 5
-BODY-
Summary of Canadian Artificial Intelligence 5, September 1985

"Canada Prominent in IJCAI Awards" Reports on AIers prominent at
IJCAI: Levesque (Computers and Thought), Best Paper to Fagin and
Halpern and Professor Randy Goebel who stumped the band in
a taping of Mr. Carson's televison show, The Tonight Show.

"NSERC Proposes Major Increase in Research Funding" NSERC
is the Canadian science funding organization

Michel Pilot has started his own AI consulting service

Coast Mountain Intelligence specializes in Resource
Applications.  They completed an expert system on the choice
of statistical packages for geophysical data.  They are working
on expert systems for forest management and interpretation of
snow profiles for avalanche predictions

Xerox Announces Low Cost Workstations

Workshop Report: Theoretical Approaches to Natural Language
         Understanding

Workshop Report: Workshop on the Foundations of Adaptive Information
         Processing


Canada Conquers Los Angeles:  mentions Canadians prominent at IJCAI-85

Directory of Candian AI businesses

Reviews of:

Human Foundations of Advanced Computing Technology:
The Guide to the Select Literature from the Report Store

Readings in Knowledge Representation

Introduction to Artificial Intelligence by Eugene Charniak and Drew McDermott

Artificial Intelligence Applications for Business Management
Artificial Intelligence Applications for Manufacturing

Obituaries for Jeffrey Robert Sampson, Daniel Louis Shalom Berlin
         Donald Grant Kuehner and David Julian Meredith Davies

Tech Report Lists from
University of Calgary, University of Montreal, University of Toronto,
McGill University, University of Alberta, Simon Fraser University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 1985 12:32-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at conferences
-BODY-
International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling at the University
of Zurich, August 1984

Order from Symposium Secretariat, Department of Geography,
University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190 CH-8057 Zurich,
         Switzerland.  Price 30 dollars


Data Structures for a Knowledge-Based Geographic Information System
D. J. Perquet

Symbolic Feature Analysis and Expert Systems
B. Palmer

Autonap -- An Expert System for Automatic Map Name Placement
H. Freemand, J. Ahn

Knowledge Based Control of Search and Learning in a Large Scale GIS
T. R. Smith M. Pazner


____________________________________________________________________________

Graphics Interface 85, 11th Conference of
Candian Man-Computer Society  Montreal May 27-31

Robotics and CAD/CAM Section

Non-rigid Motion
A. R. Dill and M. D. Levine
McGill University

Electronic Assembly by Robots
C. Michaud, A. S. Malowany, M. D. Levine
McGill University

Lo Cost Geometric Modelling System for CAM
W. G. Ngai and Y. K . Chan
Chinese Univeristy of Hong Kong

Panel- Computer Graphics in Environmental Design Artificial Intelligence

Generative Design in Architecture Using an Expert System
E. Chang University of Victoria

Knowledge Engineering Application in Image Processing
K. Mikame, N. Sueda, A. Hoshi, S. Ohoniden Toshiba, Japan

Visual Perception
L. Scholl
Laura Scholl and Associates USA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 85 13:49 EDT
-FROM-
From: Kahin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Electronic Mail (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

              Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                      Communications Forum


             Making Electronic Mail More Intelligent

                        October 31, 1985

                       Thomas Malone, MIT
          Kenneth Mayers, Digital Equipment Corporation


     Electronic messaging has become a familiar feature of the
office environment and a key element in office automation
strategy for many organizations.  As these systems spread, many
issues must be dealt with, such as accomodating evolving user
requirements, responding to rapid expansion, controlling junk
mail, and incorporating alternative technologies.  One of the
central challenges is how to enhance messaging features so that
users are not swamped by information overload.
     This forum will present the experience of Digital Equipment
Corporation, one of the pioneering users of electronic mail, and
will describe some recent innovative research at MIT which uses
artificial intelligence technology to improve the user's ability
to sort incoming messages by relevance and urgency and to route
outgoing communications to the most appropriate people within the
organizations.


                           4:00 - 6:00
               Bartos Theater for the Moving Image
                      The Wiesner Building
             (Center for Arts and Media Technology)
                   (Building E15 Lower Level)
                         20 Ames Street
              Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                    Cambridge, Massachusetts

           For further information call 617-253-3144.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 11:31:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bernard Silver <SILVER@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Learning (GTE)
-BODY-

                        GTE LABORATORIES INC
                        MACHINE LEARNING SEMINAR

TITLE:          Learning by Statistical Cooperation
                      in Connectionist Networks


SPEAKER:                Prof. Andrew G. Barto
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst

TIME:                   2pm, Wednesday, October 23

PLACE:                  GTE Laboratories Inc
                        40 Sylvan Rd
                        Waltham MA 02254


Since the usual approaches to cooperative computation in networks of
neuron-like computating elements do not assume that network components
have any ``preferences," they do not make substantive contact with game
theoretic concepts, despite their use of some of the same terminology.
In the approach I describe, however, each network component, or adaptive
element, is a self-interested agent that prefers some inputs over others
and ``works" toward obtaining the most highly preferred inputs.  I
describe some of our work with an adaptive element that is robust enough
to learn to cooperate with other elements like itself in order to
further its self-interests.  It is argued that some of the long-standing
problems concerning adaptation and learning by networks might be
solvable by this form of cooperativity, and computer simulation
experiments are described that show how networks of self-interested
components that are sufficiently robust can solve rather difficult
learning problems.  A secondary aim of this talk is to suggest that
beyond what I explicitly illustrate, there is a wealth of ideas from
game theory and allied disciplines such as mathematical economics that
can be of use in thinking about cooperative computation in both nervous
systems and man-made systems.

For more information contact Bernard Silver (617) 466-2663

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 05:45:36 pdt
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Learning (SU)
-BODY-
       THE COMPUTATION, COGNITION, & NEUROSCIENCE JOURNAL CLUB
                   AND SPORADIC SEMINAR SERIES

                           presents:


       "From Classical Conditioning to Cognitive Computations"

                         Richard S. Sutton
                GTE Fundamental Research Laboratory

Date: Mon, Oct. 28       Time: 12:00-1:15      Place: Room 100, Jordan Hall


One attractive aspect of connectionist models is their ability to make
contact with a wide range of fields from neuroscience to cognitive
science and AI.  In this talk I will review the status of the
"connectionist connection" between such fields and present some of my
own work as an example of a case in which pursuing it has been fruitful.
I will present a sequence of three closely-related connectionist
learning models.  The first was presented by Sutton and Barto in 1981 as
a real-time model of classical conditioning consistent with many
behavioral phenomena including blocking, conditioned inhibition, the ISI
dependency, higher-order conditioning, and serial-compound effects.  The
second model is the result of changes made to the first in trying to use
it in an AI learning problem.  Remarkably, the modified model is not
only very effective on the AI problem, but is also a better match to the
classical conditioning data than the first model.  I am currently
working on a third model that is able to reproduce the
animal learning phenomena of latent learning and sensory
preconditioning.  The AI goal for this model is to build a system that
can learn about and then reason about its environment.  The model shows
promise of being simultaneously very successful as all of 1) a model of
classical conditioning, 2) an aid to AI machine learning systems, and 3)
a model of simple forms of inference and planning.


*****************************************************************************

The CCNJCS^3 was formed in response to a growing interest among
members of the Psychology, Computer Science, and Neuroscience
departments at Stanford in learning about recent advances in the
study of computational approaches to modelling the relationship
between cognition and neuroscience. In addition to organizing
seminars, we also arrange journal club meetings in which graduate
students and post-docs meet to read and discuss current research
articles dealing with: The neural substrates of learning and memory,
computational models of neuronal processes, and the neural bases
of cognitive behavior.

For more information, contact Mark Gluck (gluck%su-psych@sumex-aim).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Oct 85 07:52:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ana Haunga <HAUNGA@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Probabilistic Interpretation of Certainty Factors (SU)
-BODY-

   SIGLUNCH will be held at the Chemistry Gazebo at 12:05-1:00 p.m.


     Probabilistic Interpretations for MYCIN's Certainty Factors

                           David Heckerman

I will show that the original definition of certainty factors (CF's)
is inconsistent with the "defining desiderata" of the CF combination
functions.  I will then show that if this inconsistency is removed by
redefining CF's in terms of the desiderata then CF's have
probabilistic interpretations.  In other words, I will show that
certainty factors are nothing more than transformed probabilistic
quantities.  The construction of the interpretation provides insights
into the assumptions made when propagating CF's through an inference
net.  For example, it can be shown that all evidence which bears
directly on a hypothesis must be conditionally independent on the
hypothesis and its negation.  After presenting the interpretations,
I will discuss several ramifications of the correspondence between
CF's and probabilities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
148
-DATE-
Date: 15-Oct-85   22:02-EDT
-FROM-
From: David Nicol   <cscboic%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: the ancient oriental game of Go
-BODY-
   I am in the process of writing a program to mediate a Go game, and hopefully
will be able to write an algorithm or two for playing.
   If anyone has done any thinking towards algorithms to play Go, or maybe
has one already, I would appreciate very much hearing from you.

      Cscboic@bostonu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 11:50 EST
-FROM-
From: "Christopher A. Welty" <weltyc%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VMS vs UNIX for AI development
-BODY-
        I know this may set people at each others throats, but it is a
legitimate concern of mine, so here goes:

        What experience has there been out there with AI (mainly ES)
development on VMS?  We use both UNIX and VMS here at RPI, and I have
found in my experience that VMS makes it more difficult to do work,
and UNIX makes it easier.  But there seems to be a number of people
(who don't even work for DEC) that swear by VMS.  There must be some rational
reason for this.  I don't really want to see a discussion of the Operating
Systems themselves (as that is another Newslist), just what support
they offer for development of Expert Systems (mainly LISP, but feel free
to add other languages).  I know what UNIX offers, let me hear (see) what
VMS offers.

                                        -Christopher Welty
                                         RPI / CIE Systems Mgr.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 85 1615 WEZ
-FROM-
From: U02F%CBEBDA3T.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA  (Franklin A. Davis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Languages for knowledge rep using semantic nets?
-BODY-
We are interested in knowledge representation using semantic nets
and frames, and we would like to know who has experience with
special languages for this purpose.  Furthermore, are there
distributors for such software packages?  Thanks in advance.

Regards,   Franklin Davis  <U02F@CBEBDA3T.BITNET>
Institut fuer Informatik und angewandte Mathematik
Universitaet Bern
Laenggassstrasse 51
CH-3012  Bern
Switzerland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85  9:24:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp Compiler/Interpreter for VAX/750(ULTRIX)
-BODY-
Dear Readers,
 Can somebody give me details about  a CommonLisp Compiler
and interpreter for a VAX/750 running ULTRIX? Heard that
KEE and Knowledge Craft(KC) work only on VMS, want to port
it to the above enviornment. Any ideas, leads are welcome.
 Please message me directly at the following net addreses:

  Mailnet:  srini@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET
  Arpanet:  srini%NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
  USMAIL:   S Krishnamurthy
            COMSAT LABS, NTD.
            22300 Comsat Drive.
            Clarksburg, MD-20871
            (301)428-4531

 Thanks in advance.
 Srini.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 1985 0744-PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Last call for assistance: helping with foreign language abstracting
-BODY-

I would like  to thank all of the people who responded for my first
call for people to help in the translation/abstraction of foreign
language documents.  I have been travelling quite a bit during the
past five weeks, so next week, I will have a chance to lay the
groundwork for determining what journals to monitor and where to
post information.

For those of you who missed this earlier posting: I am seeking people
interested in monitoring foreign language technical documents with
an eye to post significant new articles to various bulletin boards.
This would be prior to translation, and would hopefully speed translation
of potentially significant papers in: AI, graphics, and so forth.
Languages which are particularly critical are Eastern Asian: Japanese and
Chinese, perhaps French, and other western European languages.  We have
a few people of each, but it would help to spread the load out.

If you are interested, or want to hear more, send me mail to a UUCPnet/ARPAnet
gateway listed below.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center     [Rock of Ages Home for ...]
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
  UUCP: {ihnp4,hao,hplabs,nsc,cray,research,decwrl}!ames!amelia!eugene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 1985 1205-PDT
-FROM-
From: LAWS at SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ogling Overseas Technology
-BODY-
>From the EE's Tools & Toys column,
IEEE Spectrum, Volume 22, No. 10, 10/85, p. 85

The latest research results being published outside the United States
may not be as difficult to monitor as one might think.  The U.S. Dept.
of Commerce publishes a weekly newsletter called Foreign Technology
that abstracts new reports and papers from outside the U.S. that are
available through the National Technical Information Service.  Each
abstract lists the report's title, author(s), date, and NTIS publication
number, along with a brief synopsis.

Topics that the Commerce Department tracks in the newsletter are:
biomedical technology; civil, construction, structural, and building
engineering; communications; computer technology; electro and optical
technology; energy; manufacturing and industrial engineering; materials
sciences; physical sciences; transportation technology; and mining and
minerals technology.

An annual subscription to the weekly newsletter, which is indexed
every January, costs $90 in North America.  To subscribe or to request
subscription prices for other areas, write to U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,
VA  22161; telephone (703) 487-4630.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 1985 20:51:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: Spacely's Space Sprockets <MMDA@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ALV DEMO
-BODY-

In response to the recent post regarding the Autonomous Vehicle demo:

The Autonomous Land Vehicle project, sponsored by DARPA through the
Army ETL, is part of DARPA's Strategic Computing Program, sort of
the US's answer to Japan's Fifth Generation effort.  Martin Marietta
Denver Aerospace ( the Advanced Automation Technology Section ) is
the prime contractor of the project -- we are actually developing the
system and performing the demos.  The project started in late '84
(actually early '85 for most of us), and the first demo was in May '85.
We have another demonstration set for next month, and will have about
one per year for the next four years, I believe, each demo being more
ambitious.

The May demo was a preliminary road-following demonstration, with
the main point being that we actually got the vehicle going, hardware mounted,
some communications figured out, and made it follow a road autonomously.
It traversed a 1 km track of road at a speed of about 3 km/h (yep, pretty
slow).  The vision system (based on a Vicom image processing computer)
produced scene models about every 3 seconds for the navigator/pilot
to interpret and control the vehicle.  The scene model is basically 3D
road centerpoints.

In November, the vehicle will travel about 5 times as far at speeds up to
10 km/hr and handle things such as shadows on the road, intersecting roads,
and sharp curves.  We will also be using an ERIM laser range scanner as well
as the camera we used in May to provide road images.  In later demos we will
avoid obstacles, go over cross-country terrain, and other neato tricks.

Martin Marietta is officially the integrator of this project, and other
universities and companies also have research contracts -- University of
Maryland, Carnegie-Mellon University, SRI, AI&DS, Hughes, Honeywell,
and maybe some others that I'm not aware of.  So far, most of the work
contributing to the demos has been done here at Martin Marietta.  These other
folks will be contributing a lot in the future.

A paper describing the project and the May configuration will come out soon
in the proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Computer
Vision (Sept. '85) [1].

                        Matthew Turk
                        MMDA@USC-ISI.arpa

[1] Lowrie, Thomas, Gremban, Turk
    The Autonomous Land Vehicle Preliminary Road-following Demonstration

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 1985 09:29-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hans.Tallis@ML.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YAPS
-BODY-
Srinivasan,
I'm working at Mitre for the summer (tallis@mitre) and we have a
         version of YAPS which is source-code runnable under Franz,
         Lambda Zetalisp and Symbolics Zetalisp.  Since YAPS is
         practically public domain, Liz Allen at Maryland probably
         wouldn't mind our giving you a copy.  Send mail if you're
         intersted.
>-Hans

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 1985 23:48:39-BST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%svga@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DO you really need an AI machine?
-BODY-
Mon Oct 14 23:47:48 BST 1985

To John and Srinivasan,
At Sussex University we have been involved in AI teaching and
research for many years. Being British we have a relatively
small budget, and for this reason we have resisted going for
machines like Symbolics, since a wonderful tool is not much
use if you have to spend most of your time queueing up to use
it. Instead we have mostly been using VAXen for a range of AI
projects.

But we did not like the AI software available, so we developed
our own - POPLOG.. We've found that with suitable software 10
to 14 AI MSc students can be kept happy most of the time on a
4 Mbyte VAX 750 running Berkeley Unix or VMS. For more
advanced researchers the number drops, as it does if you get
someone doing image or speech processing. We can support this
number because most of the time most people are editing, not
running their programs. Of course, we are then stuck with a
terrible human-machine interface: a 24 by 80 VDU. So we are
now trying to shift as much as possible of our research onto
SUN workstations - cheaper than Symbolics. At least SUNs run
Unix, unlike most purpose-built AI workstations, and for us
that's a big advantage. We use POPLOG, but there's also
Quintus Prolog, Common Lisp, and other AI tools available on
the SUN. Of course it will be a little while before these
machines have the mature interfaces available on Lisp
machines.
Aaron Sloman, Cognitive Studies Programme,
University of Sussex, Brighton, England.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 21:22:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Hype & Big AI Machines.
-BODY-
        I think Martins (#146) missed the point of Wylands (#145) salient
observation that AI researchers focus on *problems* while disciples of
other forms of CS focus on *solutions*.  For those of you near good
college libraries let me suggest that you look up the "Collected Works
of John VonNeumann" and read what he has to say about computers.  In
short, he advocates (see Vol 5) that computers be used to obtain
insights into problems, which are then presumably solved in closed
form.
        It makes sense, then, to use AI to develop an understanding
of problems which are really too difficult to deal with without AI
techniques, and then close in on a CS *solution*, and finally with
insights so obtained on a closed form, mathematically verifiable
true solution.
        In my area of interest we have to deal with lots of nasty
solutions to differential equations.  At last, I have sold my
bosses to get Macsyma to help us beat these monster's into a form
which we can implement in reasonable time on our mainframes.
[Macsyma is a super duper symbolic algebra package which costs
5K for a Symbolics 3670 from Symbolics -- it was developed over
the last 20 years at MIT -- and yes, the price just dropped].

        With regard to messages from Peck (#144) suggesting small
Xerox AI machines and Connolly (#145) and Welty (#144) singing the
praises of large AI machines -- there is no doubt that if you have
experienced AI investigators, and a network of solid general
purpose processing the large AI (and small ones) are worth their
cost.
        The original questions was, however, where does one start?
Cugini was correct in pointing out the risks of jumping in to
the AI culture too quickly for the reasons he stated and two others:
1) *solutions* often are often dependant upon CS techniques, 2) if
you don't know that AI is part of your solution (eg. you are
not part of an research AI group) why commit yourself prematurely?
        Coupled with the availability of good learning systems (and
adequate but perhaps not best) development systems on the VAX and
PC-AT there is really little need to invest initially in a
dedicated AI machine of any size (although Xerox's 6085 sure looks
nice).  Slow as Golden Hill's Common Lisp is, it is the Lisp system
of choice for beginning Lisper's at our organization (we also have
a Symbolics 3670 as I implied above).  In fact, rolling out of
bed in the morning does not qualify one to appreciate the Symbolics
development environment.  {if it did it probably would not be
worth using}

[flame off]

Richard Jennings
Arpa: jennings@aerospace

I don't work for them, just use their arpanet port.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 10:21 CDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph_Tatem <tatem%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI machines
-BODY-
I have been reading with interest the discussion about AI (LISP)
machines and their usefulness. Since I have been thinking about this
myself, I will take this oppurtunity to throw my two cents in.

>From what I hear, the average time that it takes to come up to speed
on one of these LISP machines is about 3 months. This corresponds
roughly to my own experience. Of course, some vendors provide online
services that can aid you to various degrees. However, I have found
that John Cugini's sentiments are common and not altogether
ill-founded. Have you ever done any work with the Window System on
one of these beasts?? If you have you know that it is a mess and is
not well-documented. You find flavors like STREAM-MIXIN-WITH-HACKS.
When you look these up in the manual, you will likely-as-not read
something like, "This function does not work reliably, don't use it."

On the other hand, once you have learned your way around a little
bit, you find that you are using a very powerful machine with a nice
development environment. I can get at lots of imformation in the
debugger and I can incrementally develop my systems, etc, etc. I
find that I have become spoiled. Things that I once did fine without
(or with) now seem essential (unnecessary): I don't know how I lived
without (with) them before.

I believe that the problem is a design issue. Most of these machines
are based on software that was developed at (and licensed by) MIT.
It seems to me that the system was never really designed (at least
the user-interface), but that it was a concatenation of Master's
Theses (and other grad. student type work). This is not to say that
it is not a good system. There has been a lot of good work put into
these machines. It is just that there needs to be some consistency.

I see a need to redesign at two levels. First, I  would like to see
a consistent set of functions (and flavors, etc). Secondly, I would
like to see a well-designed user interface. A mouse and a few
windows do not make a good interface just by being there. By now, we
should know the kinds of things that make computers easy to use. There
certainly is no dearth of ideas in the literature. At the very least,
I would like for a brand-new user to be able to sit down at one of
these beasts and at least be able to figure out which mouse button to
click or which function to enter to get himself started.

So whaddya think??              Joe Tatem
                                tatem%ti-eg@csnet-relay

Note: The opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and in no
way reflect those of my employer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
149
-DATE-
Date: Thu 17 Oct 85 12:44:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Derek Sleeman <SLEEMAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: University of Aberdeen Program
-BODY-
                UNIVERSITY of ABERDEEN
                Department of Computing Science


The University of Aberdeen is now making a sizeable committment to
build a research group in Intelligent Systems/Cognitive Science.
Following the early work of Ted Elcock and his co-workers, the
research work of the Department has been effectively restricted to
databases. However, with the recent appointment of Derek Sleeman
to the faculty from summer 1986, it is anticipated that a sizeable
activity will be (re)established in AI.

        In particular we are anxious to have a number of visitors at
any time - and funds have been set aside for this. So we would be
particularly interested to hear from people wishing to spend Sabbaticals,
short-term Research fellowships etc.

        Please contact Derek Sleeman at 415 497 3257 or SLEEMAN@SUMEX
for further details.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 17:12:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSLI Projects
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                              CSLI PROJECTS

   The following is a list of CSLI projects and their coordinators.

    AFT Lexical Representation Theory.          Julius Moravcsik
        (AFT stands for Aitiuational Frame Theory)
    Computational Models of Spoken Language.    Meg Withgott
    Discourse, Intention, and Action.           Phil Cohen.
    Embedded Computation Group.                 Brian Smith (3 sub groups)
        sub 1: Research on Situated Automata.   Stan Rosenschein
        sub 2: Semantically Rational
               Computer Languages.              Curtis Abbott
        sub 3: Representation and Reasoning.    Brian Smith
    Finite State Morphology.                    Lauri Karttunen
    Foundations of Document Preparation.        David Levy.
    Foundations of Grammar.                     Lauri Karttunen
    Grammatical Theory and Discourse
        Structures.                             Joan Bresnan
    Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.       Ivan Sag and Thomas Wasow
    Lexical Project.                            Annie Zaenen
    Linguistic Approaches to Computer
        Languages.                              Hans Uszkoreit
    Phonology and Phonetics.                    Paul Kiparsky
    Rational Agency.                            Michael Bratman
    Semantics of Computer Language.             Terry Winograd
    Situation Theory and Situation
        Semantics (STASS).                      Jon Barwise
    Visual Communication.                       Sandy Pentland

   In addition, there are some interproject working groups.  These
   include:

    Situated Engine Company.                    Jon Barwise and Brian Smith
    Representation and Modelling.               Brian Smith and Terry Winograd

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 09:56:32-EDT
-FROM-
From: Susan A. Maser <MASER@COLUMBIA-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEW JOURNAL
-BODY-

                        JOURNAL OF COMPLEXITY

                            Academic Press

               Editor: J.F. Traub, Columbia University


                       FOUNDING EDITORIAL BOARD

                    K. Arrow, Stanford University
            G. Debreu, University of California, Berkeley
                    Z. Galil, Columbia University
                 L. Hurwicz, University of Minnesota
                J. Kadane, Carnegie-Mellon University
             R. Karp, University of California, Berkeley
                        S. Kirkpatrick, I.B.M.
                H.T. Kung, Carnegie-Mellon University
          M. Rabin, Harvard University and Hebrew University
             S. Smale, University of California, Berkeley
                         S. Winograd, I.B.M.
               S. Wolfram, Institute for Advanced Study
    H. Wozniakowski, Columbia University and University of Warsaw


 YOU ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT YOUR MAJOR RESEARCH PAPERS TO THE JOURNAL.
                  See below for further information.

Publication Information and Rates:
Volume 1 (1985), 2 issues, annual institutional subscription rates:
In the US and Canada: $60
All other countries: $68
Volume 2 (1986), 4 issues, annual institutional subscription rates:
In the US and Canada: $80
All other countries: $93

Send your subscription orders to:   Academic Press, Inc.
                                    1250 Sixth Avenue
                                    San Diego, CA 92101
                                    (619) 230-1840


Contents of Volume 1, Issue 1:

"A 71/60 Theorem for Bin Packing" by Michael R. Garey & David S. Johnson

"Monte-Carlo Algorithms for the Planar Multiterminal Network
 Reliability Problem" by Richard M. Karp & Michael Luby

"Memory Requirements for Balanced Computer Architectures" by H.T. Kung

"Optimal Algorithms for Image Understanding: Current Status and
 Future Plans" by D. Lee

"Approximation in a Continuous Model of Computing" by K. Mount & S. Reiter

"Quasi-GCD Computations" by Arnold Schonhage

"Complexity of Approximately Solved Problems" by J.F. Traub

"Average Case Optimality" by G.W. Wasilkowski

"A Survey of Information-Based Complexity" by H. Wozniakowski



                         SUBMISSION OF PAPERS

        The JOURNAL OF COMPLEXITY is a multidisciplinary journal which
covers complexity as broadly conceived and which publishes research
papers containing substantial mathematical results.

        In the area of computational complexity the focus is on
problems which are approximately solved and for which optimal
algorithms or lower bound results are available.  Papers which provide
major new algorithms or make important progress on upper bounds are
also welcome.  Papers which present average case or probabilistic
analyses are especially solicited.  Of particular interest are papers
involving distributed systems or parallel computers for which only
approximate solutions are available.

        The following is a partial list of topics for which
computational complexity results are of interest: applied mathematics,
approximate solution of hard problems, approximation theory, control
theory, decision theory, design of experiments, distributed computation,
image understanding, information theory, mathematical economics,
numerical analysis, parallel computation, prediction and estimation,
remote sensing, seismology, statistics, stochastic scheduling.

        In addition to computational complexity the following are
among the other complexity topics of interest: physical limits of
computation; chaotic behavior and strange attractors; complexity in
biological, physical, or artificial systems.

        Although the emphasis is on research papers, surveys or
bibliographies of special merit may also be published.

To receive a more complete set of authors' instructions (with format
specifications), or to submit a manuscript (four copies please),
write to:
                          J.F. Traub, Editor
                        JOURNAL OF COMPLEXITY
                    Department of Computer Science
                    450  Computer Science Building
                         Columbia University
                       New York, New York 10027

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 22:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp vs. Prolog (reply to Pereira)
-BODY-
I would like to reply to Fernando Pereira's message in which he wrote:

    It is a FACT that no practical Prolog system is written entirely
    in Lisp: Common, Inter or any other. Fast Prolog systems have
    been written for Lisp machines (Symbolics, Xerox, LMI) but their
    performance depends crucially on major microcode support (so
    much so that the Symbolics implementation, for example, requires
    additional microstore hardware to run Prolog). The reason for
    this is simple: No Lisp (nor C, for that matter...) provides the
    low-level tagged-pointer and stack operations that are critical
    to Prolog performance.

It seems to me that the above argument about Prolog not REALLY being
implemented in Lisp is just a quibble.  Lisp implementations from the
beginning have provided primitive procedures to manipulate the likes
of pointers, parts of pointers, invisible pointers, structures, and
stack frames.  Such primitve procedures are entirely within the spirit
and practice of Lisp.  Thus it is not surprising to see primitive
procedures in the Lisp implementations of interpreters and compilers
for Lisp, Micro-Planner, Pascal, Fortran, and Prolog.  Before now no
one wanted to claim that the interpreters and compilers for these
other languages were not written in "Lisp".  What changed?

On the other hand primitive procedures to manipulate pointers, parts
of pointers, invisible pointers, structures, and stack frames are
certainly NOT part of Prolog!  In FACT no one in the Prolog community
even professes to believe that they could EVER construct a
commercially viable (i.e. useful for applications) Common Lisp in
Prolog.

I certainly realize that interesting research has been done using
Planner-like and Prolog-like languages.  For example Terry Winograd
implemented a robot world simulation with limited natural language
interaction using Micro-Planner (the implementation by Sussman,
Winograd, and Charniak of the design that I published in IJCAI-69).
Subsequently Fernando did some interesting natural language research
using Prolog.

My chief chief concern is that some AILIST readers might be misled by
the recent spate of publicity about the "triumph" of Prolog over Lisp.
I simply want to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 11:03:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI hype
-BODY-
A comment from Vol 3 # 128:-
``Since AI, by definition, seeks to replicate areas of human cognitive
  competence...''
This should perhaps be read in the context of the general discussion which
has been taking place about `hype'. But it  is still slightly off the mark
in my opinion.
I suppose this all rests on what one means by human cognitive competence.
The thought processes  which make  us human are far  removed from the cold
logic of algorithms which are the basis for *all* computer software, AI or
otherwise.  There is  an element  in all human  cognitive  processes which
derives from the emotional part of our psyche. We reach decisions not only
because we `know' that they are right, but also because  we `feel' them to
be correct. I think really  that AI must be seen as an important extension
to the thinking process, as a way of augmenting an expert's scope.

Gordon Joly     (now gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
                (formerly gcj%edxa@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Oct 85 10:13:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scaling up AI solutions
-BODY-

>From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
>Subject: Scaling Up

>Mr. Wyland seems to think that finding problem solutions which "scale up"
>is a matter of manufacturing convenience, or something like that.  What
>he seems to overlook is that the property of scaling up (to realistic
>performance and behavior) is normally OUR ONLY GUARANTEE THAT THE
>"SOLUTION" DOES IN FACT EMBODY A CORRECT SET OF PRINCIPLES.  [...]


The problem of "scaling up" is not that our solutions do not work
in the real world, but that we do not have general, universal
solutions applicable to all AI problems.  This is because we only
understand *parts* of the problem at present.  We can design
solutions for the parts we understand, but cannot design the
universal solution until we understand *all* of the problem.
Binary vision modules provide sufficient power to be useful in
many robot assembly applications, and simple word recognizers
provide enough power to be useful in many speech control
applications.  These are useful, real-world solutions but are not
*universal* solutions: they do not "scale up" as universal
solutions to all problems of robot assembly or understanding
speech, respectively.

I agree with you that scientific theories are proven in the lab
(or on-the-job) with real world data.  The proof of the
engineering is in the working.  It is just that we have not
reached the same level of understanding of intelligence that
Newton's Laws provided for mechanics.

Dave Wyland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 15 Oct 85 13:48:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: modus ponens
-BODY-
Seems to me that McGee is the one guilty of faulty logic.  Consider the
following example:

    Suppose a class consists of three people, a 6 ft boy (Tom), a 5 ft girl
(Jane), and a 4 ft boy (John).  Do you believe the following statements?

    (1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then if the tallest is
        not Tom, then the tallest will be John.
    (2) A boy is the tallest person in the class.
    (3) If the tallest person in the class is not Tom then the tallest
        person in the class will be John.

 How many readers believe (1) and (2) imply the truth of (3)?
                                                 -  Mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85 21:22:26 pdt
-FROM-
From: cottrell@nprdc.arpa (Gary Cottrell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Dog Processing
-BODY-

                                       SEMINAR

                              Parallel Dog Processing:
                   Explorations in the Nanostructure of Dognition

                                Garrison W. Cottrell
                              Department of Dog Science
                Condominium Community College of Southern California


               Recent advances in neural network modelling have led to  its
          application  to  increasingly  more trivial domains.  A prominent
          example of this line of research has  been  the  creation  of  an
          entirely new discipline, Dognitive Science[1], bringing  together
          the  insights  of  the  previously  disparate fields of obedience
          training, letter carrying, and vivisection on such questions  as,
          "Why  are  dogs  so  dense?"  or,  "How many dogs does it take to
          change a lightbulb?"[2]

               This talk will focus on the first question.   Early  results
          suggest   that  the  answer  lies  in  the  fact  that  most  dog
          information processing occurs in their brains.   Converging  data
          from various fields (see, for example, "A vivisectionist approach
          to dog sense manipulation", Seligman, 1985) have shown that  this
          "wetware"  is  composed  of  a  massive  number  of  slow,  noisy
          switching elements, that are  too  highly  connected  to  form  a
          proper  circuit.  Further, they appear to be all trying to go off
          at the same time like  popcorn,  rather  than  proceeding  in  an
          orderly fashion.  Thus it is no surprise to science that they are
          dumb beasts.

               Further  impedance  to   intelligent   behavior   has   been
          discovered  by  learning  researchers.   They have found that the
          connections between the elements have  little  weights  on  them,
          slowing   them   down  even  more  and  interfering  with  normal
          processing. Indeed, as the dog grows, so do these weights,  until
          the processing elements are overloaded.  Thus it is now clear why
          you can't teach an old dog new  tricks,  and  also  explains  why
          elderly  dogs  tend  to  hang their heads.  Experience with young
          dogs appears to bear this out.  They seem  to  have  very  little
          weight  in  their  brains,  and  their behavior is thus much more
          laissez faire than older dogs.

               We have  applied  these  constraints  to  a  neural  network
          learning  model  of  the dog brain.  To model the noisy signal of
          the actual dog neurons, the units of the model are restricted  to
          communicate by barking to one another.  As these barks are passed
          from one unit to another, the weights on the units are  increased
          by  an amount proportional to the loudness of the bark.  Hence we
          ____________________
             [1]A flood of researchers finding Cognitive Science  too  hard
          are switching to this exciting new area.  It appears that trivial
          results in this unknown field will beget journal papers and  TR's
          for several years before funding agencies and reviewers catch on.
             [2]Questions from the Philosophy of dognitive science (dogmat-
          ics),  such  as  "If a dog barks in the condo complex and I'm not
          there to hear it, why do the neighbors claim it makes  a  sound?"
          are beyond the scope of this talk.






          term this learning mechanism bark propagation.  Since the weights
          only  increase,  just  as  in  the  normal  dog, at asymptote the
          network has only one stable state, which we  term  the  dead  dog
          state.   Our model is validated by the fact that many dogs appear
          to achieve this state while still breathing.  We will demonstrate
          a live simulation of our model at the talk.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
150
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 19:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Program Logics (UPenn)
-BODY-

    REASONING ABOUT PROGRAMS: CONCEPTUAL AND METHOLOGICAL DISTINCTIONS

                   DANIEL LEIVANT, COMPUTER SCIENCE, CMU

                     3:00 pm Tuesday, October 15, 1985
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

Reasoning about programs can be done explicitly, in first-order or higher-order
mathematical theories, or implicitly, in modal logics of programs (Hoare Logic,
Dynamic  Logic...).  One wants the latter, but the former are better suited for
metamathematical analysis (semantics, calibration of proof-theoretic strength).
However, modal logics are interpretable in explicit theories, so we can eat the
cake and have it.

In particular, we can distinguish in modal logics of programs a purely  logical
component  and  an  analytical  component.  For example, Hoare's Logic captures
exactly   logical   reasoning   about   partial-correctness   assertions   over
WHILE-programs.    We  argue that this type of completeness is more informative
than relative completeness.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 14:22:50 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin@ucbcogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Meaning, Information and Possibility (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                     Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A

                      Tuesday, October 22, 11:00 - 12:30
                        240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

                   ``Meaning, Information and Possibility''
                                  L. A. Zadeh
                   Computer Science Division, U.C. Berkeley

        Our approach to the connection between meaning and  information
        is  in  the  spirit  of  the Carnap--Bar-Hillel theory of state
        descriptions.  However, our point of departure is  the  assump-
        tion that any proposition, p, may be expressed as a generalized
        assignment statement of the form X isr C, where X is a variable
        which  is  usually implicit in p, C is an elastic constraint on
        the values which X can take in a universe of discourse  U,  and
        the  suffix  r  in  the  copula  isr is a variable whose values
        define the role of C in relation to X.  The principal roles are
        those  in  which  r is d, in which case C is a disjunctive con-
        straint; and r is c, p and g, in which cases C is  conjunctive,
        probabilistic  and  granular,  respectively.   In the case of a
        disjunctive constraint, isd is written for short as is,  and  C
        plays the role of a graded possibility distribution which asso-
        ciates with each point  (or,  equivalently,  state-description)
        the  degree  to which it can be assigned as a value to X.  This
        possibility distribution, then, is interpreted as the  informa-
        tion  conveyed by p.  Based on this interpretation, we can con-
        struct a set of rules of inference which allow the  possibility
        distribution of a conclusion to be deduced from the possibility
        distributions of the premises.   In  general,  the  process  of
        inference  reduces to the solution of a nonlinear program.  The
        connection between the solution of a nonlinear program and  the
        traditional  methods  of  deduction  in  first-order  logic are
        explained and illustrated by examples.

        ELSEWHERE ON CAMPUS

        William Clancy of Stanford University will speak on ``Heuristic
        Classification''  at  the SESAME Colloquium on Monday, Oct. 21,
        4:00pm, 2515 Tolman Hall.

        Ruth Maki of North Dakota State University will speak on ``Meta-
        comprehension: Knowing that you understand''  at the Cognitive
        Psychology Colloquium, Friday, October 25, 4:00pm, Beach Room,
        3105 Tolman Hall.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 85 15:02 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <HAFNER%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning and Knowledge Representation (NU)
-BODY-
                        Northeastern University
                College of Computer Science Colloquium

                      4p.m. Wednesday, October 30

          Brittleness, Tunnel Vision, Machine Learning and
                      Knowledge Representation

                          Prof. Steve Gallant
                        Northeastern University


A system is brittle if it fails when presented with slight deviations from
expected input.  This is a major problem with knowledge representation schemes
and particularly with expert systems which use them.

This talk defines the notion of Tunnel Vision and shows it to be a major
cause of brittleness.  As a consequence it will be claimed that commonly
used schemes for machine learning and knowledge representation are pre-
disposed toward brittle behavior.  These include decision trees, frames,
and disjunctive normal form expressions.

Some systems which are free from tunnel vision will be described.

Place: 405 Robinson Hall
       Northeastern University
       360 Huntington Ave.
       Boston MA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1985  16:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter de Jong <DEJONG%MIT-OZ at MIT-MC.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Cog-Sci-Request%MIT-OZ
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Mail Manipulation (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday 17, October  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


                         "The Information Lens:
           An Intelligent System for Finding, Filtering, and
                      Sorting Electronic Messages"


                            Thomas W. Malone

                     MIT Sloan School of Management



This talk will describe an intelligent system to help people share,
filter, and sort information communicated by computer-based messaging
systems.  The system exploits concepts from artificial intelligence such
as frames, production rules, and inheritance networks, but it avoids the
unsolved problems of natural language understanding by providing users
with a rich set of semi-structured message templates.  A consistent set
of "direct manipulation" editors simplifies the use of the system by
individuals, and an incremental enhancement path simplifies the adoption
of the system by groups.

The talk will also include an overview of the other projects and
research goals in the Organizational Systems Laboratory at MIT.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 85 08:30:03 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Logic for Defeasible Rules (Buffalo)
-BODY-
                                UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
                            STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

                                    DEPARTMENT OF
                                  COMPUTER SCIENCE

                                     COLLOQUIUM

                                     DONALD NUTE

                        Advanced Computational Methods Center
                            and Department of Philosophy
                                University of Georgia

                            A LOGIC FOR DEFEASIBLE RULES

          Humans reason using defeasible and  sometimes  conflicting  rules
          like  `Matches  burn when struck' and `Wet things don't burn'.  A
          formal language for  representing  sentential  versions  of  such
          rules is presented together with a derivability relation for this
          language.  The resulting system, LDR, is non-monotonic.  Inspired
          by  work  in  conditional  logic,  the non-monotonic rules of LDR
          correspond  to  simple  subjunctive  and  `might'   conditionals.
          Chaining  of these rules is restricted in LDR just as the transi-
          tivity of the conditional is restricted  in  conditional  logics.
          Several notions of consistency and coherency are defined.  LDR is
          of special importance for research in automated reasoning,  since
          its  language is PROLOG-like and its derivability relation can be
          implemented in PROLOG.

                             Thursday, November 7, 1985
                                      3:30 P.M.
                              Bell 337, Amherst Campus

             Wine and cheese will be served at 4:30 P.M., 224 Bell Hall

                    For further information, contact:

                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3181
uucp:   ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!rapaport
        ...{cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!rapaport
cs/arpanet:  rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 85 23:44:39 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bernard Silver <SILVER@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning From Multiple Analogies (GTE)
-BODY-

                        GTE LABS INCORPORATED
                        MACHINE LEARNING SEMINAR

Title:                 Learning from Multiple Analogies

Speaker:                      Mark H. Burstein
                                 BBN Labs.

Date:                   Monday October 21, 10am

Place:                  GTE Labs
                        40 Sylvan Rd, Waltham MA 02254


Students learning about an unfamiliar new subject under the guidance
of a teacher or textbook, are often taught basic concepts by analogies
to things that they are more familiar with.  Although this seems to
be a very powerful form of instruction, the process by which students
make use of this kind of instruction has been little studied by AI
learning theorists.  A cognitive process model of how students make
use of such analogies will be presented.  The model was motivated by
examples of the behavior of several students who were tutored on the
programming language BASIC, and focusses in detail on the development
of knowledge about the concept of a program variable, and its use in
assignment statements.  It suggests how several analogies can be used
together to form new concepts where no one analogy would have been
sufficient.  Errors produced by one reasoning from one analogy can
be corrected by another.

As an illustration of the main principles of the model, a computer
program, CARL, is presented that learns to use variables in BASIC
assignment statements.  While learning about variables, CARL generates
many of the same erroneous hypotheses seen in the recorded protocols
of students learning the same material given the same set of analogies.
The learning process results in a single target model that retains
some aspects of each of the analogies presented.

For more information, contact Bernard Silver (617) 576-6212

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11am 10/22/85
-FROM-
From: Alker@mc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computational Discourse Analysis Using DEREDEC (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


           Computational Discourse Analysis Using DEREDEC:
                  An Analysis of Balzac's Sarrasine


                Jaqueline Leon and Jean-Marie Marandin

             Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
                            Paris, France


We present research in computational discourse analysis and discuss an
example for the case of Balzac's Sarrasine.  We use P. Plante's
DEREDEC programming system in this work because of its suitability for
natural language processing.  After a bottom-up syntactic parser for
French grammar produces a syntactic derivation, we perform pattern
matching on the output to achieve a linguistic and literary
interpretation.  We describe how we use these programs to capture two
different aspects of a text: the thematic segmentation and density.


Time: 11-12:30, Tuesday, October 22, 1985
Place: Millikan Room, E53-482
Host: Professor Hayward R. Alker, Jr., Department of Political Science, MIT

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 85 10:14:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@CMU-RI-ISL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - RESEARCHER and Patent Analogies (CMU)
-BODY-
Topic:    Presentation of RESEARCHER project.
Speaker:  John C. Akbari
Place:    DH3313
Date:     Wednesday, Oct. 23
Time:     10:00am - 11:00am

Speaker:
John C. Akbari is a Masters student at Columbia University's Department of
Computer Science.  He is interested in joining the Intelligent Systems
Laboratory's Phoenix project.  Below is a description of his artificial
intelligence research.

Both projects described below investigate different aspects of RESEARCHER, a
prototype intelligent information system being developed at Columbia
University under the direction of Professor Michael Lebowitz.  The domain of
investigation is disc drive patents.  The result of this research is being
implemented in LISP as a component of RESEARCHER.

MS Thesis

                 Research involves generating "catalogue descriptions" of
                 hierarchical objects, determining salience as a function of
                 similarity between an instance of an object and the
                 prototype of the object.  This will be used in generating
                 information to be passed to a case grammar generator to
                 produce the actual text.  We hope to develop a method of
                 determining importance of static information (via "filtering
                 through" the prototype) relative to context.  We are studying
                 the interaction of structural, attributive, and functional
                 information on the quality of the description.  Further work
                 will investigate the need for different prototypes for
                 different users as an aspect of user modelling, so that a
                 patent lawyer would receive a different description from an
                 engineer, given the same instance.

                 Thesis advisor: Prof. Michael Lebowitz

Natural language

                 We are enhancing RESEARCHER's parser to utilize syntactic
                 aspects of relations that cause focus of attention to shift
                 within sentences.  This involves modifying memory-based
                 parsing to determine when syntax cues are sufficiently
                 strong to over-ride the need to search memory.

                 Supervisor: Prof. Michael Lebowitz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
151
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Oct 85 17:12:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Summary - Situation Theory and Situation Semantics
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                          CSLI SEMINAR SUMMARY
                    Notes from the STASS Underground
                             October 3, 1985

      David Israel gave an overview of the motivation behind the
   formation of the Group on Situation Theory and Situation Semantics
   (STASS).  The aim of the group is the development of Situation Theory
   as a framework within which to express, analyse, and compare
   treatments of a wide range of problems and phenomena.  Among the
   ``applications areas'' are the semantics of natural languages, the
   semantics of programming and other computer languages, the nature of
   informational content, the nature of computational processes, problems
   in the theory of representation, problems about the nature of truth,
   etc. The method of development is essentially a close and continuous
   interaction between those working on Situation Theory itself and those
   looking to use the theory within their own areas of interest.  This
   interaction is enhanced because everybody in the group is doing both
   things, often simultaneously---though not, of course, equally.
      In the respect of being a background theory within which to develop
   theories of more delimited domains, Situation Theory is analogous to
   Set Theory. Thus, for instance, Montague's treatment of phenomena in
   the semantics of natural language was carried out within set theory.
   So, too, was the treatment by Barwise and Perry in ``Situations and
   Attitudes.''  The crucial transition between the account in that book
   and the present approach is precisely the abandonment of the strategy
   (or was it anyway only a tactic?) of modelling all but a small number
   of basic kinds of things in set theory.  Thus, for instance, in
   ``Situations and Attitudes'' there was no real attempt to explicate
   the nature of propositions---though much of the interest of the book
   was said to lie in its treatment of the propositional attitudes.  The
   reason for this uncomfortable state of affairs was that there was no
   good way of modelling propositions set theoretically. The aim now is a
   direct, non-reductionist treatment of the various kinds of entities
   only modelled in the book---thus, of states of affairs and facts,
   conditions, situations, propositions, etc.  This is thought to have a
   number of happy side effects.  One is that it makes it much easier to
   expose the various modes of modelling to analysis---easier simply
   because one has not committed oneself to modelling as one's major
   theoretical technique.  The second stems from the fact that Situation
   Theory is not only analogous to Set Theory in a certain respect;
   Situation Theory is intended both to encompass and to be modellable by
   Set Theory.  Thus, the demand that Set Theory be capable of providing
   models of Situation Theory imposes constraints on our conception of
   sets.  A crucial example of such a constraint is that there be non
   wellfounded sets.                            --David Israel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1985  20:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: MEYER@MIT-XX.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symposium in Logic on Computer Science
-BODY-
                       ANNOUNCEMENT AND CALL FOR PAPERS

                    SYMPOSIUM ON LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

                    JUNE 16-18, 1986, CAMBRIDGE, MASS., USA

The  Conference  will cover a wide range of theoretical and practical issues in
Computer Science broadly relating to Logic, including algebraic and topological
approaches.  Many of these areas have been represented separately, but not in a
general LICS conference.  Some suggested, not exclusive, topics are:

      Abstract  data  types,   computer   theorem   proving,   concurrency,
    constructive proofs as programs, data base theory, foundations of logic
    programming, logic-based programming  languages,  logic  in  complexity
    theory, logics of programs, knowledge and belief, program verification,
    semantics of programs, software specifications, type theory.

                             Organizing Committee

                J. Barwise      E. Engeler      A. Meyer
                W. Bledsoe      J. Goguen       R. Parikh
                A.Chandra,Chair D. Kozen        G. Plotkin
                E. Dijkstra     Z. Manna        D. Scott

                               Program Committee

                R. Boyer        W. Damm         S. German
                D. Gries        M. Hennessy     G. Huet
                D. Kozen        A. Meyer,Chair  J. Mitchell
                R. Parikh       J. Reynolds     J. Robinson
                D. Scott        M. Vardi        R. Waldinger

Paper Submission:  Authors should send 16 copies of a detailed abstract by Dec.
23, 1985 to the program committee chairman:
              Albert R. Meyer - LICS Program        tele:(617)253 6024
              MIT Lab. for Computer Science         Arpanet: MEYER@XX
              545 Technology Square, NE43-315
              Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
(If  reproduction  facilities are not available to the author, a single copy of
the abstract will be accepted.)

The abstract should be at  most  4500  words,  but  should  provide  sufficient
detail,  including  references  and  comparisons  to related work, to allow the
Program Committee to assess its technical merits.  The  time  between  abstract
due-date  and committee review is short, so late submissions run a high risk of
elimination.  Authors  will  be  notified  of  acceptance  by  Jan.  24,  1986.
Photo-ready  copies of accepted papers typed on special forms are due March 31,
1986.

General Chairman: A. K. Chandra, IBM Thomas J.  Watson  Research  Center,  P.O.
Box  218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, tele: (914) 945-1752, CSNET: ASHOK.YKTVMV
at IBM.

Local Arrangements Chairman: A. J. Kfoury, Dept.  of Computer  Science,  Boston
University, Boston, MA 02215, tele: (617) 353-8911, CSNET: KFOURY at BOSTONU.

Sponsorship:   IEEE  Computer  Society,  Technical  Committee  on  Mathematical
Foundations of Computing, in cooperation with ACM SIGACT  and  Association  for
Symbolic Logic (request pending).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 85 17:27:37 edt
-FROM-
From: lesk%petrus@mouton.ARPA (Michael E. Lesk)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on the computerized Oxford English Dictionary
-BODY-
The University of Waterloo Centre for the New OED is starting research
projects using the machine-readable form of the OED now being prepared.
The plan is to have not just typesetting tapes, but an electronic database
representing the history and use of the English language, as shown in
the dictionary.  A one-day meeting at Waterloo, from 7pm Thursday Nov. 7
through 4:30pm Friday Nov. 8, 1985, will examine research areas related
to the OED and machine-readable dictionaries.  The program is:

Introduction
  John Simpson, Oxford University Press, "The New OED Project"
  John Stubbs, University of Waterloo, "The UW Centre for the New OED"

Using On-Line Dictionaries (Michael Lesk, session chair)
  Henry Kucera, Brown University, "The Problem of Structural Ambiguity
                   in the Lexicon"
  Donald Walker, Bell Communications Research, "Knowledge Resource Tools
                   for Accessing Large Text Files"
  George Miller, Princeton University, "Wordnet: A Dictionary Browser"

The Use and Misuse of Dictionaries (Neil Hultin, session chair)
  Gisele Losier, U. Waterloo, "Using the OED for the Study of Loan Words"
  Christopher Dean, U. Saskatchewan, "The OED: The Study of Local Regional
                    Dialects and Historical Dialet Dictionaries"

Knowledge Databases (Robin Cohen, session chair)
  Randy Goebel, U. Waterloo, "What is a Knowledge Representation System?"
  John Sowa, IBM, "Using Knowledge Representation to Capture the Semantic
                   Information of a Lexicon"

Summary (Frank Tompa, U. Waterloo, plus other session chairs)


Those interested in attending should send $25 US or $35 Canadian, along
with their name, address and phone numbers, to:
    Centre for the New OED
    Dana Porter Library, rm 105
    University of Waterloo
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
152
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 19 October 1985 20:05:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dan.Miller@a.sei.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Classic AI Books
-BODY-
This  type  of  question was asked a while ago on the SOFT-ENG (software
engineering) bboard, and now I'd like to ask the same of AI'ers:

          WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, ARE THE "CLASSIC" AI BOOKS???

Please send your replies or pointers directly  to  dhm@sei.cmu.edu  (old
style: dhm@cmu-sei.arpa).

I'll post the "netwide" consensus.

>-- Daniel "Dan" H. MIller              Software Engineering Institute
dhm@sei.cmu.edu (dhm@cmu-sei.arpa)      Carnegie-Mellon University
(412)578-7700                           Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
      "The views expressed are my own, and not of my employer"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 85 15:17 PDT
-FROM-
From: Fischer.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Move discussion to Symbolics list
-BODY-
In your message to AIList with header:

    Date: Wed, 16 Oct 85 10:21 CDT
    From: Joseph_Tatem <tatem%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
    Subject: AI machines

You prepare to discuss the redesign of the Symbolics window system.
That should probably be done on the mailing list reserved for that
specific machine.  I doubt everyone on AIList has a Symbolics system (I
don't), and those folks with Xerox Lisp machines are pretty happy with
their existing window interface.

(ron)
Ron Fischer
Xerox AI Systems
Palo Alto, CA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 13:38:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: the ancient oriental game of Go
-BODY-

  Reply to David Nicol   <cscboic%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>:

  Robert Maas, REM%IMSSS@SU-SCORE.ARPA, has a Go playing program.

                                                                ...Keith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 1985  22:14 EDT (Wed)
-FROM-
From: "David A. Brown" <DAVID%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IM Hockey!
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                          INTRAMURAL HOCKEY
                                  or
                  A Project in Cooperative Real-Time
                     Solution of 12-body Problems

Consider a compact subset of the Euclidean plane, H; cover this
compact set with substance W, cool that substance past its freezing
point.  Let P and Q be sets of independently controlled
self-interested actors.  Each actor is unaware of the specific
knowledge of the other actors (imperfect information) and also unaware
of the effects of its own actions (perfect incompetence).  Posit a
game plan "gp" in which an object, "puck", originally lying on the
plane H, is attracted strangely to one or both of two attractors, g1
and g2.  It is well known that this problem is decidable.  We propose
to implement a distributed system for solving this problem.  A simple
strategy for solving this is known (see Oilers, 1985), but difficult to
implement in general (see Rangers, 1900-.....).

A simulation of this 12-body problem will be performed under the
auspices of MIT intramurals; bodies are needed.   [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 1985 22:17:47-BST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%svga@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The future of POP-11
-BODY-
Fri Oct 18 22:17:37 BST 1985
Ken,

I've received a letter about POP-11 which may be of some
interest to AIList readers. I am forwarding it for you to veto
if appropriate. First some background.

POP-11 is a much expanded version of POP-2, the AI language
originally developed at Edinburgh University.

POP-11 is being increasingly widely used in the UK, both in
universities and in commercial organisations taking part in
Britain's Government-funded Alvey Programme, which has a major
AI component. It has many Lisp-like features, including
garbage collection, built in list processing, incremental
compilation, integrated screen editor etc. However, the syntax
and the philosophy are very different from Lisp: e.g.
procedures are just values of variables.

People in the UK have been discussing the future of POP-11,
some arguing that it should be abandoned in favour of Common
Lisp, others arguing that it has too many advantages and
should not be thrown out just because it is less widely used.
POP-11 is the core language of POPLOG, developed at Sussex
University and marketed by Systems Designers.

I recently had a letter on POP-11 from Steve Knight who
currently works for GEC, one of Britain's largest high tech
firms, and is about to move to Hewlett Packard AI Labs in
Bristol. He doesn't at present have access to Arpanet, so
agreed that I could forward an extract from his letter.

As we at Sussex University have an interest in this matter,
being the designers of POPLOG, I thought I should leave it to
you to decide whether the contents of this message are worth
broadcasting.

His current address (mail will be forwarded after he moves):
    Steve Knight,
    35 Baker St,
    Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 OSA,
    England.


Steve writes:

As you know, my main interests in computing are to do with
designing high quality software in as little time as possible.
What do I mean by high quality? Specifically, having high
reliability, good space/time performance, being written in a
natural and elegant way, and most important of all being what
the client really wanted. By as little time as possible, I
mean timescales that are orders of magnitude shorter than the
ones we accept now.

Not unnaturally these are regarded as contradictory aims. The
very short timescales are frequently the butt-end of
managerial humour (and subsequent managerial eating of hats!) I
practice what I preach in POPLOG because it is a system of
great potential; this potential is only partly understood,
even at Sussex.

As an example, when Graham Higgins (now at Hewlett Packard UK)
wanted a more complete Lisp system than the one available in
POPLOG 9.0, we wrote our ZLISP in 10 man-days, using POP-11.
The subsequent code was of the order of +1Mb. The system had
no serious bugs (apart from design errors, visible in long
distance hindsight), was as complete as any other Lisp system
either of us had used (PSL/Franz/other GEC-Lisps - but not
Common Lisp which is significantly better of course!), ran
quicker than any other Lisp on the system (VAX-750), had some
novel features (such as tracing individual embedded
S-expressions) and was integrated with VED (the POPLOG screen
editor). This is not just "blowing my own trumpet" because it
was easy. Any software engineer at all could do it in POP-11.

Anyhow, my interests led me in a number of distinct main
directions in POP11
    * formal methods and specification tools
    * applicative languages/style
    * software design assistance
    * reusability of software
    * programming environments
    * natural user interfaces.

I have been slowly building up a body of software and
experience in POPLOG that allows me to tackle a few of these
issues.

Along the way I have encountered some basic problems in using
POPLOG the way I want. Some are to do with the POPLOG--
Operating system interface. Some are design errors in POPLOG.
But before I dissect some of these problems for you, it might
be proper to touch on the really good points of POPLOG, for my
work.

* Help files.
I think the most inspirational aspect of POPLOG (for me) is
the 'help' system. I dislike manuals intensely. They represent
all that is wrong with computing. The commitment to online
help gets 10/10! I am amazed at the high standard of
description and usefulness throughout. Of course, 'help' is
not enough, but POPLOG shows up its potential.

* Virtual machine.
The presence of the VM in terms of its 'code planting
procedures' is invaluable. [What is needed here is a full
description of the VM]. I often remark that it is easier to
write a compiler than an interpreter in POPLOG!

* POP-11
A super language. Rich without being especially arbitrary
(non-orthogonal). The most important feature is the open
stack, leading to beautiful transformations. [Caroline and I
hope to write a paper (for ECAI 86?) on why Lisp is a "bad"
language, using POP-11 as a contrast.] The other important
features are: procedures as first-class citizens, the powerful
idea of updaters, partial application rather than closures,
and the 'keys' system.

* VED
Despite its faults, plainly the best full screen editor of its
type. EMACS comes a poor second in my view. [VED needs a major
overhaul, of course, but it is undoubtedly the best all the
same.] Without the powerful VED macros I define in my
vedinit.p file I could not manipulate code with the same
flexibility or have the same productivity.

Anyhow the list of generalisations could go on. Suffice it to
say that POPLOG does provide an environment conducive to the
development of software and teaching programming. POP-11 is
the key ingredient. [As an aside, Prolog is useful but I
regard it as a difficult language to use well. It is
temptingly declarative, but the left-to-right evaluation order
gives far too little control and spoils the declarative
flavour.]
_______

{Steve's letter goes on with a list of complaints at a level
of detail which would not make much sense to people who are
not familiar with POPLOG. So I have summarised them, and he
has checked my summary, as follows:}

* Subsystems
POPLOG does not yet have a good way of integrating different
subsystems (e.g. Lisp, Prolog, POP-11, user defined
sub-systems) with the editor and compilers, help system, teach
system, etc. The facilities available are not yet fully
documented.

* POP-11 should not be a privileged language as it is now.
The POPLOG VM should come with a disposable kit of tools for
building a range of language compilers. (This is also the
Sussex long term philosophy - see the paper by Mellish and
Hardy in IJCAI 1983.)

* VED - the screen editor is obsolete in terms of modern
machines, and needs a thorough overhaul including abandoning
the explicit use of files, adding non-ascii I/O, adding a
window manager, etc. (I appreciate this is a debatable area.)

* Need to be able to decouple compiled programs from the
development environment after development and testing. 'Having
written my 250 line POP-11 program, how can I throw everything
else away...?'

* Autoloading is a 'messy idea' and, like files, needs to be
re-designed.

* Sections (POP-11's substitute for 'packages').
'I don't think these are quite right yet'

* Files and Operating System.
The O.S. should be abandoned and replaced with an interactive
programming environment. POPLOG needs to move more in this
direction, including replacing files with for example
persistent variables.

* Exception handling.
'Novice programmers find writing exception handling quite
hard'. Steve has some proposals for improving exception
handling.

* POPLOG should not have a fixed user-settable upper memory
limit as now. It should deduce upper and lower safe limits
dynamically.

* Use of the stack and variables should be made traceable by
redefining the POPLOG VM. This gives the power of
access-orientd programming (cf LOOPS). Sophisticated users can
get the same effect with nullary operators, but something
simpler is needed for beginners.

* Lexical analysis of text is currently too inflexible
(Incharitem needs improvements.)

* User-definable system routines should be replaced by an
explicit list of routines to be executed so that
dynamic modifications are easier.

>From Steve Knight, via Aaron Sloman, Sussex University.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
153
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 21 Oct 85 11:18:14 PDT
-FROM-
From: wm%tekchips%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for Mike O'Donnell
-BODY-
I'm trying to contact Michael J. O'Donnell.
I think he is now at University of Chicago, but I'm
pretty sure he reads this list.

Wm Leler
(arpa) wm%tektronix@csnet-relay
(csnet) wm@tektronix
(usenet) decvax!tektronix!tekchips!wm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 85 09:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gunther @ DCA-EMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Law Enforcement
-BODY-
      Need information about others working in the area of Expert
      Systems and Law Enforcement.  We are compiling a bibliography of
      anything related to this area.  Please reply with
               * Bibliographies
               * Reports
               * Names and Phone Numbers
      to
               * John Popolizio or Jerry Feinstein
               * Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
               * 301-951-2911 (2912)
      Thank You.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Oct 85 20:40:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Book by Jackson
-BODY-
I saw an ad for an inexpensive AI book in a Dover catalog:
"Introduction to Artificial Intelligence" by Philip C. Jackson, Jr.,
second, enlarged edition, $8.95.  Just published, it says.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 85 11:27:28 EDT (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Liz Allen <liz@tove.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: YAPS
-BODY-
YAPS may be redistributed but only after the whoever wants YAPS gets a
license from the Univ of Maryland first.  Contact Hans or me for the
agreement which should be signed and sent to us.  Once that is done,
Hans can send you a copy of his code.

                                -Liz

[Liz also sent along a copy of the YAPS distribution agreement.  For $100
(4.1 sources) or $250 (4.1 and 4.2) UMd includes their Franz flavors package,
a window system, an editor, spreadsheet, Z80 emulator and cross-compiler, etc.
Here is a description of YAPS:

       The YAPS production system written in Franz Lisp.   This  is
       similar  to  OPS5  but  more  flexible  in the kinds of lisp
       expressions that may appear as facts and patterns  (sublists
       are  allowed and flavor objects are treated atomically), the
       variety of tests that may appear in the left hand  sides  of
       rules  and the kinds of actions may appear in the right hand
       sides of rules.  In  addition,  YAPS  allows  multiple  data
       bases which are flavor objects and may be sent messages such
       as "fact" and "goal".

Contact Liz for more details.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 85 10:33:36 EDT (Tue)
-FROM-
From: dndobrin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Workstations
-BODY-
Re:  Cugini's and Tatem's <148> flames.

     I agree that LISP machines are darned hard to learn;  I also agree
that they're worth the effort.  My interests are twofold:  why is it
that intelligent, capable people like Cugini aren't willing to make the
effort?   How can the learning be made easier, or at least, more
attractive.

     There's no easy solution.  LISP machines are, in my experience,
pretty well designed (at least by comparison with the hodgepodge in
UNIX), and their documentation is, in most places, very good.  (In my
book, any documentation which tells you not to use something is already
near the front of the pack.)  Their online documentation, in particular,
has received many awards;  in one case, I was one of the judges, and
they didn't even need to bribe me.  Their documentation department does
not consist of M.I.T. hackers;  it has very experienced people in it.
Jan Walker, their manager, is one of the best in the business.
Sometimes, admittedly, they just slap the hacker's documentation onto the
system, but most of the time, it shows real care.

     Then why is it so hard to learn?  I think learning a complex system
is very much like learning to play a complex game.  No one learns chess
in a month;  very few people can even become competent at nim or rogue
in a month.  If you could get good quickly, the game would lose its
interest.  I think, therefore, that one can learn how to teach people
LISP-machineology if one studies the way people learn games.

     Mostly, they learn from other people.  In an informal study I did
at M.I.T., I discovered that people learn to play rogue by watching
other people play rogue and by asking more experienced players about
what they should do whenever a difficult situation came up.  People who
play at home or who never ask don't play as well.  Profound discovery.
The analogy, however, is exact.  Whenever you have many different things
to do and the optimal move is not at all clear (or even calculable), you
have to have some way of zeroing in on the close-to-optimal solutions.
Documentation doesn't help you zero in, because it doesn't usually
discuss that situation, and just finding what the documentation does
say requires as much work as doing the original zeroing in.
Experience does help you zero in.  So if you don't have the
experience, the easiest thing is to ask somebody who does.

     So, I would argue, the solution to Cugini's problem is to get Tatem
to hang out over there for about three months.  Maybe two.

     Well-designed systems and good documentation do make learning
easier.  With a well-designed system, when you are confronted with a
puzzling situation, you can, in effect, consult the designer, figuring
that he or she already knows the situation and has worked out some
solution.  Similarly, good documentation can often take you through some
of the most common problem places.  But even with good documentation and
design, at some point, there you are on level 23, a griffin on one side,
a dragon, on the other, 88 hit points, strength of 24, a +2, +2
two-handed sword, a wand of cold, and a wand of magic missile.  What do
you do?

     The analogy does break down in a funny way.  In a game, you rarely
get in a situation where no move does anything.  But in learning a
computer system, you often do.  That's why Control-C is one of the first
things everybody learns.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 85 19:54:21 edt
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!dsn@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Counterfactuals
-BODY-

> From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
> . . .
> (0) Suppose a class consists of three people, a 6 ft boy (Tom), a 5 ft girl
>     (Jane), and a 4 ft boy (John).  Do you believe the following statements?
>
>         (1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then if the tallest
>             is not Tom, then the tallest will be John.
>         (2) A boy is the tallest person in the class.
>         (3) If the tallest person in the class is not Tom then the tallest
>             person in the class will be John.
>
>        How many readers believe (1) and (2) imply the truth of (3)?

If we accept statement (0) as an axiom, then statement (3) is a statement of
the form "A => B" whose antecedent A is false.  Thus statement (3) is true,
regardless of the truth or falsity of B.

Since (3) is true, it is also true that (1) and (2) imply (3).  The truth or
falsity of (1) and (2) are irrelevant in this case.

Although I haven't read the earlier articles in this discussion, I suspect
your INTENT was that statement (3) would talk about a world identical to (0)
except that Tom would not be present--and in this world statement (3) would
be false.  The only way I know of to handle this using logic is to state (3)
in completely separate logical theory from the one whose axiom is (0).

The rules for handling logical implications whose antecedents are
counterfactuals don't correspond to our intuitive notions of how
counterfactuals work.  Although this isn't my area, I have an impression
that the problem is a pretty thorny one.

        Dana S. Nau (dsn@rochester)
        From U. of Maryland, on sabbatical at U. of Rochester

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 15 October 1985, 23:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: COWAN@MIT-XX
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SDI Software and AI hype
-BODY-

I must respond to Prof. Minsky's perplexed comment that he does not
understand computer scientists who argue against the computing
requirements of SDI.  I believe Minsky and those computer scientists are
talking about two different things.

Arguing for the feasibility of the software portion of SDI, Minsky says:

   ... aiming and controlling them
   should not be unusally difficult.  The arguments I've seen to the
   contrary all seem to be political flames.

Minsky is obviously talking about the technical software problem.  But
SDI opponents flame POLITICALLY, and so they MUST, because they are
talking about the technical AND POLITICAL software problem.

Even though I, like Minsky, believe that computers can eventually be
made to think like humans, computers cannot RESPONSIBLY be used in place
of humans in certain situations, especially those requiring political
judgement.  I believe that it is easy to see that a lot of POLITICAL
decisions will have to be built into the SDI software.  Therefore, the
political aspects of the SDI software problem must be considered.

A bare-bones, apolitical SDI system is one that doesn't consider the
Soviet response (including a Soviet SDI).  For such a system, I'm
willing to agree that SDI software is feasible -- if not today, at least
within my lifetime.

But such a "vanilla-SDI" system would be worthless, unless there is a
US-Soviet treaty outlawing countermeasures and anti-SDI systems, AND the
SDIs of both countries (the USSR would not allow us to have a unilateral
SDI edge) COULD NOT BE USED OFFENSIVELY.  Unfortunately, it is
impossible to imagine an SDI system that could not be easily
software-upgraded to knock out the other country's SDI.  SDI satellites
are sitting ducks compared to missiles.

A true SDI system would have to be programmed to react to situations
where things go wrong, even if the problems are with the other country's
SDI.  If one country knocks out the other's SDI, then that country could
launch a first strike under a protective unbrella -- an unacceptable
situation for the country whose SDI was attacked.  Thus, each SDI system
would probably retaliate if the other SDI system attacked, even if the
attack was a mistake.  And each SDI system would probably fire on the
opposing SDI system if a missile launch were detected on the other side.
If you think about this situation for a while, you realize how serious
and unstable it is.  Even Charles Zraket, executive vice president of
the Mitre Corporation, describes multiple SDIs as

    "the worst crisis-instability situation.  It'd be like having two
    gunfighters in space armed to the teeth with quick-fire capabilities."

The country whose trillion dollar SDI system is destroyed first would be
tempted to "use 'em or lose 'em" -- to launch a first strike of its own.
(Submarine launched cruise missiles could underfly any imaginable SDI.)
Any hostile action (even upgrading the software!) could be perceived as
an opening maneuver leading to a first strike.  The decision of whether
to retaliate, if made by a human being, would undoubtedly consider
political circumstances on the ground (even statements in Pravda!).  But
time requirements would preclude human involvement; the software would
have to determine a potentially grave response, using incomplete
information, to situations for which it was not tested.

To be "safe," each country would need an "SDSDI" to protect its SDI.
But then, all the arguments of the previous paragraphs would still
apply, at a higher defensive level.  Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed, and
McDonnell Douglas might be content to build SDSDSDI's and SDSDSDSDI's,
but the result would be decreasing stability, not increasing deterrence.
The complexity of retaliatory policy would surpass the capabilities of
policy makers, and certainly make "SDI control" an even more difficult
problem than arms control is today.  Why not solve the easier problem?

It's fine to argue that software for a "vanilla-SDI" system is feasible,
but it is intellectually dishonest to argue feasibility if you
realize the true political nature of the software problem.

People who write the hyped proposals aren't being dishonest, though.  The
SDI organization's requests for proposals don't describe the above
scenario; they just ask people to study things like "reasoning under
uncertain conditions." That's a fine goal, but it is the responsibility
of computer scientists to make clear that such disciplines as "reasoning
under uncertainty" are not applicable to problems as political as
ballistic missile defense.

Rich Cowan  (cowan@mit-xx)


  [I would like to remind readers that SDI hype/feasibility is
  not necessarily AI hype/feasibility, and that ARMS-D@MIT-MC and
  POLI-SCI@RUTGERS seem to be the proper Arpanet fora for military/political
  discussions. I will attempt to screen out (censor, if you will) AIList
  submissions that do not focus on the AI aspects of the debate.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 19 Oct 85 01:02:09-PDT
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grading the Professor
-BODY-

In response to some simple questions about hype in "AI"
[AIList #132], Prof. Minsky illustrates [AIList #139] rather
than clarifies the subject matter.

First, with respect to his own role in "AI" hype, the
professor is evasive. Let's optimistically give him a grade
of "Incomplete", and hope he will make up the work later,
after he's had a chance to think about it some more.  The
only alternative is to conclude that he thinks it's OK to
recklessly exaggerate the usefulness of "AI".

Next, Prof. Minsky retells one of the most bizarre and
colorful "AI" myths: that "AI" has somehow been responsible
for all kinds of authentic real-world computing applications,
such as: air traffic control, CAT scanners, avionics,
industrial automation, radar signal processing, resource
allocation, etc. !!  But he rewards our patience with an
astounding Revelation that pumps new wind into these
nostalgic creations: that "AI" also deserves credit for the
successes of information theory, pattern recognition, and
control theory!!!!!  Leapin' lizards !!!

Could it really be that a field with this kind of
distinguished and fruitful past would have regressed to
today's fascination with such computationally trivial
pursuits as: the "5th Generation", "blackboards", "knowledge
engineering", OPS-5, R1/XCON, AM, BACON, EMYCIN, etc. ?

Finally, Prof. Minsky proposes to stretch to 15-years the
gestation period for "AI" products (an estimate that seems to
grow just about linearly with time).  But, 15 years FROM
WHEN?  Since modern "AI" is at least 30 years old, shouldn't
we already have experienced a 15-year bonanza of genuine,
concrete, real-world "AI" contributions?  Where is it ?

Every other area of computing can point to a steady
succession of useful contributions, large and small.  From
"AI" the world seems to get back very little, other than
amateurish speculations, wild prophecies, toy programs,
unproductive "tools", and chamberpots of monotonous hype.
What's wrong ?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
154
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Oct 85 09:55:17-EDT
-FROM-
From: "Brian C. Williams" <WILLIAMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representation of Natural Forms (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Thursday 24, October  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


    "Perceptual Organization And The Representation Of Natural Form"


                            Alex P. Pentland
                AI Center, SRI Int'l and CSLI, Stanford



To understand both perception and commonsense reasoning we need a
representation that captures important physical regularities and that
correctly describes the people's perceptual organization of the
stimulus.  Unfortunately, the current representations were originally
developed for other purposes (e.g., physics, engineering) and are
therefore often unsuitable.

We have developed a new representation and used it to make accurate
descriptions of an extensive variety of natural forms including people,
mountains, clouds and trees.  The descriptions are amazingly compact.
The approach of this representation is to describe scene structure in a
manner similar to people's notion of ``a part,'' using descriptions that
reflect a possible formative history of the object, e.g., how the object
might have been constructed from lumps of clay.

For this representation to be useful it must be possible to recover such
descriptions from image data; we show that the primitive elements of
such descriptions may be recovered in an overconstrained and therefore
reliable manner.  An interactive ``real-time'' 3-D graphics modeling
system based on this representation will be shown, together with short
animated sequences demonstrating the descriptive power of the
representation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 18:21 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LOGIN: Logic Programming with Inheritance (UPenn)
-BODY-

                                Colloquium
                               3pm 10-26-85
                   23 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

       LOGIN: A LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE WITH BUILT-IN INHERITANCE

                              HASSAN AIT-KACI
                     A.I. Program, MCC, Austin, Texas

Since  the  early days of research in Automated Deduction, inheritance has been
proposed as a means to capture a special kind of information;  viz.,  taxonomic
information.    For  example, when it is asserted that "whales are mammals", we
understand that whatever  properties  mammals  possess  should  also  hold  for
whales.    Naturally, this meaning of inheritance can be well captured in logic
by the semantics of logical implication.  However, this  is  not  operationally
satisfactory.    Indeed,  in  a  first-order  logic  deduction system realizing
inheritance as implication, inheritance from "mammal" to "whale" is achieved by
an  inference step.  But this special kind of information somehow does not seem
to be meant as a deduction step---thus lengthening proofs.  Rather, its purpose
seems  to  be  to  accelerate,  or focus, a deduction process---thus shortening
proofs.

In this talk, I shall argue that the syntax and operational  interpretation  of
first-order  terms  can  be  extended  to  accommodate  for  taxonomic ordering
relations between constructor symbols.  As a result, I shall propose  a  simple
and efficient paradigm of unification which allows the separation of (multiple)
inheritance from the logical inference machinery of Prolog.  This  yields  more
efficient computations and enhanced language expressiveness.  The language thus
obtained, called LOGIN, subsumes Prolog, in the sense that conventional  Prolog
programs are equally well executed by LOGIN.

I  shall  start  with  motivational  examples, introducing the flavor of what I
believe  to  be  a  more  expressive  and  efficient  way  of  using  taxonomic
information,  as opposed to straight Prolog.  Then, I shall give a quick formal
summary  of  how  first-order  terms  may  be  extended  to  embody   taxonomic
information  as  record-like  type  structures, together with an efficient type
unification algorithm.  This will lead to a technical proposal for  integrating
this  notion  of  terms  into  the  SLD-resolution  mechanism  of  Prolog. With
examples, I shall illustrate a LOGIN interpreter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 11:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Database Updates in Prolog (UPenn)
-BODY-

                         Colloquium - 3pm 10-24-85
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

             A LOGICAL APPROACH TO DATABASE UPDATES IN PROLOG

                   DAVID S. WARREN , SUNY AT STONY BROOK

The  power  of  the  logic  programming  paradigm  (exemplified  by  the Prolog
programming language) lies in its close relationship  to  logic.    This  gives
logic  programs a clean, simple, and elegant declarative semantics, making them
easy to understand and reason about.  It has turned out, however, that in order
to   make   Prolog   a  practical  and  usable  programming  language,  several
computational (and non-logical) extensions must be  added.    These  extensions
include  the  ``not''  operator, the ``setof'' operator, the ``var'' predicate,
and the ``assert'' and  ``retract''  operators.    To  the  extent  that  these
operators  are  non-logical, they destroy the declarative semantics of programs
that use them.    Such  a  program  can  only  be  understood  by  knowing  its
computation sequence.

Progress  has  been  made  in  providing  a  logical  semantics for the ``not''
operator in Prolog, and the circumstances  under  which  Prolog's  negation  as
failure rule coincides with logical ``not'' are now reasonably well understood.
This has allowed Prolog programs which use the ``not''  operator  (meeting  the
appropriate constraints) to be understood declaratively.

This talk describes an approach to providing a logical semantics for the Prolog
operator ``assert''.  We use a simple modal logic, which leads to a  slightly
different  operational  semantics  for ``assert'' and suggests ways that the
assert operator should be restricted in application.  The resulting system  has
interesting implications for a theory of database updates.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 1985 1109-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Thesis Oral - Concurrent Logic Programming (CMU)
-BODY-

                     ABSTRACT OF THESIS PROPOSAL

Speaker: Vijay A. Saraswat
Date:    Friday - 1 November, 1985
Time:    10:00 am
Place:   7220
Topic:   CONCURRENT LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

The domain of logic programming languages, consists, of the most part,
of programming languages based on Horn logic which provide modified
forms of top-down, SLD-refutation execution engines.  A program in
these languages consists of a set of definite clause axioms with
(perhaps implicit) control information for guiding the underlying
engine.  Execution is initiated by the presentation of a conjunction
of goals or queries and terminates when the engine, following the
prescribed control, discovers either a proof of the goals, or the
impossibility of such a proof.  Concurrent logic programming (CLP)
languages provide execution engines capable of pursuing concurrently
proofs of each of the goals in a conjunctive system (so-called
and-parallelism) and also different possible proof paths for each goal
(or-parallelism).  Examples of existing concurrent Horn languages are
Concurrent Prolog, Parlog, GHC, Delta-Prolog and CP[!,|,&].

In this thesis I propose to lay a sound theoretical foundation for,
and explore the paradigm of, CLP languages.  Specifically, I propose
to investigate the design, semantics, implementation and use of such
languages.

The thesis is intended to make contributions to each of the following
areas:

>-  programming language design, via
    --  an understanding of the design space for
        concurrent programming languages based on annotated Horn logic,
    --  the design of a paradigmatic CLP language (CP[!,|,&,;]) providing
        a reasonably complete set of control structures for the parallel
        exploration of the refutation search space, and,
    --  an extensive comparison of CLP languages with related
        computational models outside the realm of logic programming,
        such as Actors, CSP, data-flow languages (including the
        systolic computational model) and constraint-based languages

>-  theoretical computer science via an understanding of the formal
    (operational and denotational) semantics of, and reasoning systems
    for, concurrent logic languages, including an understanding of
    the `logic' in such languages,

>-  programming language implementation, via a compiler-based
    implementation of the specific concurrent language CP[!,|,&]
    targetted to a uniprocessor machine,

>-  the `correct' design of efficient concurrent algorithms in the
    framework of unification-based concurrent logic programming
    languages,

>-  knowledge representation languages, via the design of a
    `higher-level' object-oriented, schema-based language
    featuring multiple inheritance with exceptions, and its
    implementation in Cp[!,|,&].

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 13:52:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Person Schemata (UCB)
-BODY-
                   BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                              Fall 1985
                  Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A
                   Tuesday, October 29, 11:00 - 12:30
                     240 Bechtel Engineering Center
               Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

                          ``Person Schemata''

                         Mardi J. Horowitz M.D.
                    Professor of Psychiatry, U.C.S.F.

          The speaker directs the recently formed Program  on  Cons-
     cious  and  Unconscious  Processes of the John and Catherine T.
     MacArthur Foundation.  Research on person schemata  is  one  of
     the core agendas of this program.
          After a brief description of the program,  the  discussion
     will  focus  on  clinical  phenomena  as segmented by different
     states of mind in a single individual.  By examining the confi-
     guration  in  each state of mind as it occurs over time, it may
     be possible to infer what the self schemata and role  relation-
     ship  models  are  that  organize thoughts, feelings and action
     into observed patterns.  The theory that forms  the  basis  for
     such  inferences  includes  the  postulate  that  each person's
     overall  self  organization  may  include  a  partially  nested
     hierarchy  of multiple self-concepts.  A frequent set of states
     of mind in pathological grief reactions will provide a concrete
     illustration  of  phenomena, methods of inference, and a theory
     of person schemata.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 16:43 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NETTALK: Connectionist Speech Learning (UPenn)
-BODY-

                   Colloquium - University Of Pennsylvania
                           3pm 10-29-85, 216 Moore

           NETTALK:  TEACHING A MASSIVELY-PARALLEL NETWORK TO TALK

                            Terrence J. Sejnowski
               Biophysics Department, Johns Hopkins University


Text  to  speech  is a difficult problem for rule-based systems because English
pronunciation is highly context dependent and  there  are  many  exceptions  to
phonological   rules.      A   more   suitable   knowledge  representation  for
correspondences between letters and phonemes will be described in  which  rules
and  exceptions  are  treated  uniformly  and can be determined with a learning
algorithm.  The architecture is a layered network  of  several  hundred  simple
processing  units  with several thousand weights on the connections between the
units.  The training corpus is continuous informal speech transcribed from tape
recordings.   Following training on 1000 words from this corpus the network can
generalize to novel text.  Even though this network was not designed  to  mimic
human  learning,  the development of the network in some respects resembles the
early stages in human  language  acquisition.    It  is  conjectured  that  the
parallel  architecture  and  learning algorithm will also be effective on other
problems which depend on evidential reasoning from previous experience.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
155
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 22:02:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI & Responsibility
-BODY-
        After reading comments on this net concerning the
responsibility of AI systems, I finally got around to
looking into the IJCAI proceedings.  There was evidently
a pretty lively panel discussion between people (one
lawyer) who think that computers are the next group
to be franchised as people (following blacks and
women) and others (AI researchers) who tended to
argue that computers are unreliable and bear close
watching.
        Anybody out there attend the real thing and
care to comment on how the oral discussion went?  Any
other comments on the Proceedings text? (pp1260+ in
Vol II, IJCAI '85).

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1985  00:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Book by Jackson
-BODY-

I am reading Jackson's AI book.  It's very good and particularly in
respect to the early decades of AI.  I have seen no better way to get
a picture of all the ideas of the 1960's, which many students don't
know and do not always re-invent either.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Oct 85 22:33-EDT
-FROM-
From: Glen Daniels <MLY.G.DANIELS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New mailing list
-BODY-

MetaPhilosophers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA


 Discussion of personal philosophies, cosmologies, and metaphysical things.
The place to air your ideas (or see others) on life, why we're here, what
Mind is (as opposed to Brain), where our "selves" come from, what the
universe is, what God is, any anything else in a metaphysical/philosophical
vein.

Send mail to MetaPhilosophers-Request%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC for more
information or to be added.

Everyone is welcome!

>-Gub (The MetaModerator)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 85 15:59:04 EDT
-FROM-
From: DRASTAL@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Jersey regional AI colloquium series
-BODY-

Dear Colleague,

        During the last IJCAI, it became clear to me that keeping in touch
with other members of the AI community is only getting harder.  Networks
are not the right communication medium for reporting new work in progress,
and the major conferences have grown too large for lively exchange.  Yet,
there are quite enough of us in the central New Jersey area who have
something to say about our work in AI.
        This is why Dr. Yousry and I have decided to parent an informal
colloquium series for researchers in this geographic area, and we invite
your participation.  Reports are welcome in areas ranging from theoretical
foundations to implementation techniques.  Anyone wishing to present or
host a colloquium should send an abstract to one of us at the address below.
We will coordinate the date, location, and distribution of announcements.
        Since this letter creates the series, it is most important that we
hear from you now so that a distribution list can be compiled.  Speakers
will be recruited once we develop a critical mass of interested people.
I know that we can look forward to some stimulating chain reactions among
the participants.


George A. Drastal                       Mona A. Yousry
RCA                                     AT&T
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory      Engineering Research Center
Route 38 ATL Building                   P.O. Box 900
Moorestown Corporate Center             Princeton, NJ  08540
Moorestown, NJ  08057
                                        609-639-2405
609-866-6653
                                        ihnp4!erc780!may
DRASTAL@RUTGERS.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 85 14:43:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: modus ponens
-BODY-
Mike Dante writes:

>    Suppose a class consists of three people, a 6 ft boy (Tom), a 5 ft girl
>(Jane), and a 4 ft boy (John).  Do you believe the following statements?
>
>    (1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then if the tallest is
>        not Tom, then the tallest will be John.
>    (2) A boy is the tallest person in the class.
>    (3) If the tallest person in the class is not Tom then the tallest
>        person in the class will be John.
>
> How many readers believe (1) and (2) imply the truth of (3)?

In answer to the last question -  gosh, I sure do.  The way the
question is framed, however, blurs the distinctions between several
separate issues.

It would do to review what it means for a statement (or statements)
to imply another, which is just that statement A implies statement
B if and only if statement A and the negation of statement B are
contradictory. If several statements imply B, then their conjunction
is inconsistent with the negation of B.

In the above example, whether or not (1) and (2) are true, false,
or silly, (1) and (2) imply (3).  What we believe about the truth
or falsity of an argument's premises is quite another issue from
the soundness of the argument.

What clouds the issue, I think, is that you have introduced a
contra-factual hypothesis in (3) (i.e., "assume that Tom is not
tallest"). If we assumed that Tom were not tallest, then to preserve
consistency, some or all of the other atomic suppositions
(Jane is five feet, etc) would have to go.  This would terminate
the support for the argument's premises, and get us off the hook
for asserting its conclusion.

One final point. Note that (1) is equivalent to

        (1') A boy is not tallest or Tom is tallest or John is tallest.

>From Mike's supposition - Tom is 6, Jane is 5, and John is 4 feet tall -
we can deduce that Tom is tallest.  It would be unusual to ask whether
we believe the weaker statement (1') once we have established that Tom
is indeed tallest.  This points to another area where questions of
logic part company from questions of belief - logic holds, even where
questions of belief are inappropriate.

> Bob Stine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 85 08:57:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Son of DO you really need an AI machine?
-BODY-

Since my original eruption provoked some responses (gratifyingly enough),
I thought I'd indulge myself to a few comments on the comments.

> I think, therefore, that one can learn how to teach people
> LISP-machineology if one studies the way people learn games.
>      Mostly, they learn from other people.  In an informal study I did
> at M.I.T., I discovered that people learn to play rogue by watching
> other people play rogue and by asking more experienced players about
> what they should do whenever a difficult situation came up.  People who
> play at home or who never ask don't play as well.  Profound discovery.

Yes, I agree completely - we did not have a local Symbolics wizard,
and no doubt this made my life more difficult.  The situation is
reflected in the fact that I had to *develop* (as I said earlier)
about 10-12 pages of densely-packed cheat sheets, rather than
*inheriting* them, and then customizing.

>      I agree that LISP machines are darned hard to learn;  I also agree
> that they're worth the effort.  My interests are twofold:  why is it
> that intelligent, capable people like Cugini aren't willing to make the
> effort?   How can the learning be made easier, or at least, more
> attractive.

The heart of the issue here is I *did* make the effort and did get to
the point of feeling reasonably comfortable (though I certainly
did not attain wizardom) with the beast - I even knew by heart
how to get out of the inspector! - and even with that I never
felt I was quite getting my money's worth.  I believe there are two
factors:

1) My own style of programming leans away from spontaneity - perhaps
   I "over-design", but usually for me the coding is "merely" (hah!)
   a realization of an existing design.  All the features of an
   AI-machine are focused on *coding and testing* - but by then
   in some sense the real work is done.  Debugging aids are
   always helpful, of course, but I never really felt the
   need for all the exotic editor features.  Perhaps also
   a lot of these features really come into their own only
   with truly large systems (> 5,000 lines).

2) the issue is always, not: is this AI-machine good?, but: is this
   AI-machine better than the alternatives?  If the alternative is
   writing an expert system in BASIC with a line-oriented editor,
   then I too would kill to get on a Symbolics.  But in my case
   (not wholly atypical, I think) the alternative was the use
   of VAX/VMS Common Lisp.  My previous message discussed the costs
   of moving from a familiar, fully functional and maintained
   (by someone else, I'm pleased to say - who wants to do tape
   backup, anyway?) system to a new standalone machine.  I should
   re-emphasize a point made in passing last time: the VAX
   implementation is very well done - it has a slightly intelligent
   editor (even blinks matching parens for you!), a good debugger,
   prettyprinter, etc etc.

   Now in one sense, the AI-machine advocates can crow: "well, the
   only reason you like the VAX is that they stole, er, borrowed
   some of the nifty techniques originally developed on AI machines."
   True enough, but I'm not giving out prizes for creativity; if
   I can get "most" of the advantages of an AI machine, together
   with those of a plain old VAX (FORTRAN, Pascal, SNOBOL4, mail
   to other people including ailist, laser printer, TEX, a single
   set of files, my very own terminal, free (to me) maintenance,
   etc..), isn't this the best deal?

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
Bldg 225 Room A-265
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
phone: (301) 921-2431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1985  00:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SDI Software and AI hype
-BODY-

I agree generally with Cowan's analysis of that SDI debate: that I did
not consider the "political software" problem.  I don't know about the
split-second decision problem, because you can complain that we can't
program such things, but I'm not so confident about what the President
would do in 30 seconds, either.

IN any case, I repeat that I didn't mean to suggest that my opinion on
SDI has any value because I haven't studied it.  I was only reacting to
what I thought were political reasons for dragging weak computer
science arguments into the debate.  As for SDI itself, my only
considered opinion is based on meeting some of its principal
supporters, and on the whole, they don't seem to be a suitably
thoughful crowd to deserve the influence they've acquired.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Oct 85 15:18:31-EDT
-FROM-
From: MCCOWN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fundamental problems with current knowledge based systems
-BODY-
The following are my views of some of the fundamental problems with
current engineering of knowledge based systems.  Most of this is not
new, but perhaps needs restating.  These ideas have been stated by
others in other forms before, but I would like to make sure this
captures what has been said.

Primarily, the systems are inflexible. If new information is input to
the system which is not explicitly represented in the knowledge base,
similar though it may be to previous inputs or existing
representations, the system cannot deal with it unless explicitly told
how.  This lack of generalization and analogy capability causes a
great bottleneck in the maintenence of the system, requiring experts
and knowledge engineers to continuously update the knowledge base to
reflect the current possibilities of input.  In the rapidly changing
real world this is unacceptable.

  The lack of ability to generalize and analogize is closely related
to the ever present learning problem, and this not only affects the
knowledge base maintenance problem, but the problem of knowledge
acquisition as well.  Currently, an inordinate number of hours of an
expert's time are required in the interative process of knowledge
acquisition.  In addition, the capability of the knowledge engineer to
understand the domain and to program such knowledge directly affects
the quality of the system.  A poor knowledge engineer makes for a poor
system, regardless of the quality of the expert.

  While learning is a very general term, the type of learning referred
here is the ability to recognize new and relevant information and its
relation to information already known, and the ability to store that
information and its relationships.  While much work has been done in
the representation of knowledge (related work being semantic net
variations, frames, scripts, and MOPs for taxonomic and time ordered
information, as well as production rules for procedural information,
and predicate logic), no effective work has been done in getting
information from a source into these representations, except for the
method currently used - have a human (knowledge engineer) do it.
Automated techniques to implement representations from examples (such
as RuleMaster) are heavily domain dependent and are nothing more than
complex weighted decision tables which work only for certain types of
information.  Other generalization work (such as RESEARCHER, IPP) are
also heavily domain dependent, and are successful in capturing well
only taxonomic information (A is a B, B works for C, etc.), and simple
time-ordered information (A happened before B).  Ways to recognize new
related information, and (more important) new relevant related
information are still lacking, as are ways of converting input
information to consistent internal formats (consistent with the
previous existing related knowledge).

   Indeed, even in the area of knowledge representation itself, the
representations are often difficult to relate to other representations
in a general way.  Such relationships again depend upon the domain and
are rigidily coded, creating difficulty in generalization and analogy.
Time dependence, location dependence, non-monotonic reasoning, and
uncertainty all require the programmer to jump through hoops to find
ways to represent and relate information and procedures, forcing
domain-dependent representations as well.

   Many of the problems in distributed and cooperating expert systems
also stem from this apparent requisite to code knowledge in a domain-
dependent fashion.  Obviously if there are no generic techniques for
coding knowledge, then a communication scheme must be developed to
transfer information from one knowledge base to another (and as with
any communication, often something is lost in the translation).

   It seems to be apparent that the learning problem is probably the
most critical missing element in current knowledge based system
technology, and that the knowledge representation issue may be the
most critical element in the learning problem.  This observation is
not new, and this line of thought has been persued many times in the
past.  What I would like to add to the discussion is my belief that
the current methods of knowledge representation are fundamentally
incapable of solving the learning problem due to their discreteness.
While discrete, cleanly delineated representations are (relatively)
easy to work with, program well, and are easy to implement using the
discrete representations that binary, Von Neuman machines offer,
these representations, due to this very same discreteness, do not and
can not represent reality in any generic and flexible way.  I have an
argument as to why, but I would like to here some criticism of the
assertions set forth here first.  No sense arguing from a shaky
foundation.  Solutions along the lines (or at least in the spirit of)
coarse coding, distributed representation, etc., seem to be a possible
solution to some of these problems.

  Obviously this type of discussion is related to that of "shallow
structure" vs. "deep structure" in natural language processing.  We
can represent the shallow structure using these current representation
an relational techniques.  However, I feel that these techniques
cannot effectively represent the deep structure owing to the property
of their inherent discreteness.  All relationships must be explicitly
represented in these techniques, and are not implicit in the
representation.  Some means of content-addressable representation is
required for implicit relationships between information.

  This is not to say that these representations are useless.  On the
contrary, they are very useful programming techniques for some types
of analysis problems.  They offer insights into problem areas in AI
(such as learning), and they're representative of some real
psychologically functional products of the human mind, and are useful
in representing these products.  However, it's time to ask "products
of what", and to approach the "what" (learning) rather than the
product (knowledge).

Thanks for taking the time.

Mike McCown
mccown@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
RADC/IRDT
Griffiss AFB, NY 13441-5700

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
156
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 1985  14:51 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Kimberle Koile <KKoile@BBNG.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSL vs Common Lisp
-BODY-
I'm interested in finding out about the differences between Portable
Standard Lisp and Common Lisp.  Specifically, how difficult would it be to
take something that runs on a Symbolics machine (in Common Lisp) and make it
run in PSL on a Vax/VMS or a Cray?

Many thanks,
Kimberle Koile

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 23:11:04 edt
-FROM-
From: osiris!snk (Steve Kahane)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Micro Lisps
-BODY-
RE: Dr Blum's (BLUM@sumex) request for information on LISP products
    that run on micros:

A paper comparing three products that run in the IBM series of
personal computers (muLISP, IQLISP, GCLISP)
will be presented at the 1985 Symposium on Computer Applications
in Medical Care (SCAMC).  Information will be presented on the
following:

        Memory Addressing Capabilities
        Development Environment (error handling, debugging facilities,
                        editing, graphics, windowing)
        Tutoring Tools
        Benchmarks
        Compilers (GCLISP (beta-test)) IQC-LISP?

SCAMC meeting will be in Baltimore (Convention Ctr) on 11/10 - 11/13.
For more info on meeting call (202) 676-4509.

Reprints of the paper mentioned above are not yet available, but
if anyone has any specific questions I would be glad to try to
answer.

Stephen N. Kahane   (snk@osiris)
Operational and Clinical Systems
Halsted 124
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institution
600 North Wolfe St
Baltimore, MD  21205

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1985  21:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Book by Jackson
-BODY-

The Jackson book is

INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Philip C. Jackson, Jr.

Dover Publications, New York, 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Oct 1985 11:10-EDT
-FROM-
From: Vijay.Saraswat@K.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Concurrent Logic programming languages
-BODY-
Lest there be any misunderstanding: the presentation on Nov. 1 at CMU
is my thesis proposal NOT thesis defence! (The "Thesis Oral" in the
Subject field was a secretarial oversight.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Oct 85 11:51:35-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hype about Hype
-BODY-
  A CS professor recently told me that he was worried about the AI hype.
He (who is in databases, not AI) fears that so much has been promised that
there will be an anti-AI reaction and dissapointment that will hurt all of
CS.  And I've seen much posted on this list about the dangers of all this
hype.
  The fears seem a bit overblown to me.  I've gone through the professional
employment adds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal over the last
weeks.  I didn't notice ANYBODY advertising for hotshots in AI, Rule Based
programming, LISP etc.  The Austin American Statesman had one mention, but
just the "it would also be nice if the candidate had some experience in..."
form, what they were really looking for was UNIX.
  UT has been aswarm with recruiters recently.  I'm not interviewing, but
I've been talking with them in the halls and restaurants.  Nobody up above
seems to have told them to grab some heavy AI talent - most of them think
experts systems are inferior to decision tree systems and are not
impressed.
  The average American has > 14,000 commercial messages per WEEK aimed at
them.  I most people are pretty used to hype -we don't get our hopes up
very easily.
  When I see the strong reactions to some of the blatant BS being said
about AI, I'm puzzled.  I suspect strongly that we're the only ones giving
some of this stuff more than a second glance.
  Do you believe all the claims they make about your toothpaste?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 85 12:22 EST
-FROM-
From: "Christopher A. Welty" <weltyc%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contributions of AI
-BODY-

        I for one am tired of seeing this guy Gary Martins polluting
the net with his childish attacks on Dr. Minsky.  Did Minsky run away
with his wife or something?  Whatever the cause, keep your personal
problems off the net.  This should be for more productive discussions
dealing with the field.  Spending almost two hours some mornings reading
my mail is not rewarding when it invloves sifting through accusations
and wild generalizations, and things like this:

>Every other area of computing can point to a steady
>succession of useful contributions, large and small.  From
>"AI" the world seems to get back very little, other than
>amateurish speculations, wild prophecies, toy programs,
>unproductive "tools", and chamberpots of monotonous hype.
>What's wrong ?  [Gary Martins]

Read a few books, Mr Martins.  Maybe go for a trip to some research centers,
or even to some companies and hospitals.  Your messages are the only things
I can see that fit into the categories of "amateurish speculations, wild
prophecies, ..., and chamberpots of monotonous hype."  AI has made significant
contributions to Computer Science Research, and to the world.  Underneath
the "hype" are productive systems that are used to do such "toyish"
things as diagnose illnesses, and control processes that were once controlled
by humans (some of which were hazardous to those humans).  These diagnostic
and control Expert Systems come in many forms.  The most sophisticated
Data Base Systems in use today come from the knowledge-base systems sectors
of AI research.  Other examples are all around us, and there are too many
to discuss, this message is long enough already.

                                        -Chris

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Oct 85 20:20:54-EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Causes of AI hype
-BODY-
This is a response to Gary Martins' question about why AI is frequently hyped.
[AILIST: Volume 3, #126] I thought about this for a while, so please tell me
which points are weak, or if there are any factors I missed. Martins asks:

        - why this [hype] happens ?
        - is this good or bad for "AI" ?
        - does this happen in all high-tech fields, or is "AI"
           unique ?
        - what can or should be done about it ?  by whom ?

I offer a simple explanation: a lot of money is being pumped into AI to do
things the field is not ready for.  There are three different ways AI seems
"not ready," depending on the intended application.

1.  Some applications being funded are within the state of the art,
but too few researchers are close enough to the state of the art to
warrant the volume of money spent.

2.  Other applications currently being attempted are beyond state of
the art AI, but may be possible in 5 to 100 years.

3.  Still other applications are forever beyond the capabilities of
AI, because they involve responsibilities requiring human judgement.

Reason number 1 generates hype because there is a continual stream of
people from other fields into AI.  They go and take crash courses in
AI at various training centers, but what can they REALLY learn in one
week?  They get an excellent overview, which has to be optimistic about AI
in order to justify the $3000 expense for the course.

Perhaps the huge expenditure on AI training within industry is needed to
rapidly enlarge the "AI labor force."  But such expenditure puts a
severe strain on engineering faculty supply and salaries at universities
(MIT's former provost cited this as a primary cause of large tuition
increases).  This hurts university education in AI just when the need is
most critical.  It just might be better to slowly wait for the
university AI community to enlarge since dramatic corporate funding
increases at this stage also run the risk of damaging academic programs
by institutionalizing the hype (i.e. MIT's 6.871 Expert Systems course).

Reason number 2 generates hype because a disproportionate effort is
devoted to goals which are not achievable.  Most engineering fields
are composed primarily of people applying well-understood engineering
skills.  A relatively small number of especially creative people do
exploratory work advancing the engineering field itself.  But in AI,
since little is well-understood, almost everyone works on "novel
ideas."  Thus the "hype ratio" is very large.

I know an AI manager at DEC who (previous to DEC) worked on government
AI research contracts but now works on expert systems for industry.
He is glad to be working on real problems; by contrast much DOD AI
work was extremely detached from reality.  When private sector profits
are at stake, there must be something real underneath the hype for
funding to be continued.

For a contrast to this, I posted an inquiry about TIMM a couple of weeks
back, which received 6 negative responses, and none positive.  While
problems with one product does not mean that a company is incapable of
doing good work, the company (General Research Corporation) has received
over $12 million dollars in software research contracts for the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) alone.  I suspect the SDI office's
budget for corporate research is so large and the talent pool so small
that they can't be selective.  Sorry to pick on General Research; I
expect many other companies are the same.  It's perfectly possible that
such companies would do excellent work if the government would give them
problems with a more immediate use to solve.

I believe the Japanese 5th generation project will help Japan more than
SCI helps us because it has a more commercial orientation.  I also
believe that the total US effort in AI (ONR + SDI + SCI) is too large.
It's always exciting to attack unsolved problems, but AI initiatives of
the recent mission-oriented nature consume an awful lot of resources.
Why not devote some of those resources to unsolved problems such as acid
rain which have interested professors but scant funds?

>Rich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
157
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 85 22:20:47 pdt
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!harpo!lakhota@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Davis Working Papers in Linguistics
-BODY-
From: Robert Van Valin, UC Davis
      ucdavis!harpo!lakhota@Berkeley

   We have started publishing a working paper series at Davis,
and I think there are many linguists on the net who would be
interested in it.  Could you run the following blurb for the
first issue in the series?  Thanks.

                    DAVIS WORKING PAPERS IN LINGUISTICS

                                No. 1, 1985

Contents:

`A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian'
          Giulia Centineo, UC Berkeley

`Clause linkage and zero anaphora in Mandarin Chinese'
          Liang Tao, UC Davis & Hunan Teacher's College

`Aspects of the interaction of syntax and pragmatics: Discourse
     coreference mechanisms and the typology of grammatical systems'
          Robert D. Van Valin, Jr., UC Davis

`Notes on Tepehua (Totonacan; Mexico) verbal semantics'
          James K. Watters, UC Berkeley & SIL

Approx. 150 pages


  [This announcement of the report series is fine, but I have
  suppressed price and ordering information to comply with
  Arpanet regulations against commercial use.  Contact
  "ucdavis!harpo!lakhota"@Berkeley for details.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 00:43 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Iterative Knowledge Aggregation (UPenn)
-BODY-
                          12:00 Monday Oct. 28th
              303 Towne Building, University of Pennsylvania


        A Survey of Iterative Knowledge Aggregation Methods

                          Robert Hummel
                      Courant Institute, NYU

   Iterative knowledge aggregation methods are used to choose one of a
finite set of labels about each of a set of objects.  Relaxation
labeling processes are one example;  there are now numerous other
techniques for combining information which is sometimes supportive of
a hypothesis and sometimes mutually contradictory.  In this talk, I
compare and contrast these methods, including stochastic relaxation
algorithms, constrained power methods, and the Dempster/Shafer theory
of evidence formulation.  For each methods, we review the form of the
state space, the type of evidence which can be represented, and the
updating and convergence properties of the method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 21:37:39 pdt
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Limits of Expert Systems (Ames)
-BODY-
Terry Winograd, 11/5, 1030am
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ames Research Center
Joint Ames AI Forum/RCR Branch Seminar

SPEAKER: Terry Winograd
         Computer Science Dept.
         Stanford University

TOPIC: Expert systems: How far can they go?

ABSTRACT: We are in the midst of a great wave of enthusiasm about the
potential for expert systems in every area of human life and work.  There is
no agreement, however, as to just how much they can achieve, and where they
will run into fundamental limits.  This talk will address some basic
questions as to what expert systems can really be expected to do.  I will
describe the "blindness" that is inevitable in the process of articulating
the "systematic domains" that are needed for computer manipulation, and
argue that it leads to important limitations on what we can expect AI
techniques to accomplish.

DATE: 5 Nov. 1985       TIME: 1030am    BLDG: 245       ROOM: Space Sci Aud.
        Tuesday

POINT OF CONTACT: E. Miya               PHONE NUMBER: (415)-694-6453
                eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  See map
below.  Do not use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.  If you are a foreign
national E-mailing a request, please include your nationality, and
Visa Type and number.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 16:58:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Layered Control System for a Robot (MIT)
-BODY-
    Thursday  31, October  4: 00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


          "A Layered Robust Control System for a Mobile Robot"


                               Rod Brooks

                               MIT AI Lab


The AI Lab Mobile Robot project has built one robot and we are
constructing a second. They are intended to autonomously wander around
office areas of the lab at the same time as people are occupying those
areas.  The robots will eventually build maps of their surrondings and
the second one will interact with the environment with an onboard
manipulator.  We describe a new architecture for controlling these
mobile robots. Layers of control system are built to let the robot
operate at increasing levels of competence.  Layers are made up of
asynchronous modules which communicate over low bandwidth channels.
Each module is an instance of a fairly simple computational machine.
Higher level layers can subsume the roles of lower levels by
suppressing their outputs.  However, lower levels continue to function
as higher levels are added.  The result is a robust and flexible robot
control system.  The talk will end with speculations on evolution and
brains, and modelling them with the Unconnection Machine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 17:00:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning and Knowledge Representation (MIT)
-BODY-
Wednesday  30, October  4: 00pm  Room: 405 Robinson Hall

                                      Northeastern University
                                      360 Huntington Ave.
                                      Boston MA


                        Northeastern University
                College of Computer Science Colloquium


          Brittleness, Tunnel Vision, Machine Learning and
                      Knowledge Representation

                          Prof. Steve Gallant
                        Northeastern University


A system is brittle if it fails when presented with slight deviations from
expected input.  This is a major problem with knowledge representation schemes
and particularly with expert systems which use them.

This talk defines the notion of Tunnel Vision and shows it to be a major
cause of brittleness.  As a consequence it will be claimed that commonly
used schemes for machine learning and knowledge representation are pre-
disposed toward brittle behavior.  These include decision trees, frames,
and disjunctive normal form expressions.

Some systems which are free from tunnel vision will be described.


INFO: Carole D Hafner <HAFNER%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 27 Oct 85 18:48:47-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Possible Histories (SRI)
-BODY-
                          POSSIBLE HISTORIES

                              Pat Hayes
                 Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, AI Lab

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, October 28
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


A history is a connected piece of space/time with 'natural' boundaries.
Using these as a basic ontology for talking about events, processes, etc.
has some advantages over some other frameworks, and doesn't have some of
the disadvantages which are sometimes attributed to it.
However, it does have one major problem, which is the difficulty of talking
about alternative possible futures, to allow planning to be done.
In this talk I discuss a new way of using histories which looks like
it can overcome this problem.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
158
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Oct 85 08:42:30-EST
-FROM-
From: Richard A. Cowan <COWAN@MIT-XX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Hype
-BODY-
In response to David Throop's comment:

     The fears seem a bit overblown to me.  I've gone through the professional
   employment adds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal over the last
   weeks.  I didn't notice ANYBODY advertising for hotshots in AI, Rule Based
   programming, LISP etc.  The Austin American Statesman had one mention, but
   just the "it would also be nice if the candidate had some experience in..."
   form, what they were really looking for was UNIX.

Experience demonstrates that hype is in greatest abundance when lots of
money is involved.  Therefore recruiting is not the place where you'd expect
to find hype; after all, these ads hope to appeal to intelligent people.

There have certainly been plenty of AI-related ads at MIT, though.
The reason for this is quite simple: when applying for government
research contracts, companies must list people qualified to work on
the project.  These companies are facing shortages; they often put
each AI person on as many as 3 proposals.  Sadly, many companies
recruit here to buy contract winning power.  Regardless of a person's
programming ability, his or her MIT affiliation wins contracts.

I do believe that you've picked up on a trend, though: the hype is
decreasing.  There has been an academic reaction against such hype.  But the
hype persists where no reaction has occurred: where reaction is
self-censored by monetary interest in AI.

For real hype, go to IJCAI or read some publication that appeals to defense
markets (Defense Electronics, etc.); it's the military that has the money.
I sympathize with your perspective; I recently would have agreed.  As
undergraduates, we are often shielded from the realities of military
domination of our work, because our professors (rightfully) are
uncomfortable with it.  Please forward this to your concerned CS professor.

Rich (cowan@mit-xx)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 11:44 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Damage from AI Hype
-BODY-
David Throop in AI-List V3 #156 mentions that he has not seen much damage
from the AI hype to other areas of CS work. This may be true if you
look at the commercial cs field (as he did with the New York Times and
Texas Austin American) But I had some personal experiences in the
last year that indicate to me that it has had a significant effect
on CS RESEARCH LABS.

I went to several research labs in the last year (DEC, MCC, Siemens,
Tektronix, HP, NRL) looking for a research appointment. (I wanted to
put off my PhD work for a little while). This process started in
February, and it was about this time that the Industry down-turn
became severe. Naturally the first areas affected was expansion of
research groups hiring. This meant that most groups that were able
to get open req's, were targeting them to AI slots, since the companies
were perceiving that they "had to get into AI" or be left behind.
Needless to say, I did not find a satisfactory position, nor did
3 other New PhD's in software engineering here, who decided it would
be better to continue as Post-Docs. I am beggining to see a situation
that is defining CS research as AI research, especially when one
looks at DARPA and NSF funding.

This need "to get into AI or be left behind" is out of control. I have
a Tektronix Smalltalk machine that I obtained as a donation to do my
Thesis work. (smalltalk based). Next week a bunch of executives from
the local power company (a small outfit called Western Mass Elec)
is coming here to see my work because it is "ON AN AI Machine". You
see they have decided that they have to get into AI or be left behind
so these executive officers are dragging out their EDP computing staff
to see an AI machine and to get them to see the AI LIGHT! (I am
going to feel very bad when I tell them I do Smalltalk, not AI).
Don't these people have a better use for the scarce programming talent?

This all reminds me of the standard IBM hard-sell techniques of the
Thomas J. Watson days. Sell IBM to the top executives. Then force
those those poor system programmers to learn/use OS-360. If you sell
to the top, you can ignore the complaints of the knowlegable programmers
below who will complain about the bestiality of the system.

Speaking of bestiality, when at DEC I talked to the R1/XCON people.
I saw this project when I worked at DEC 4 years ago. It now takes 18 people
to maintain it (I was part of an operating system group that kept the
whole OS, and utilites going with 6, and we did developement too!)
Compare the functionality.

                                        - Steven Gutfreund
                                          gutfreund@umass.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 85 14:53:06 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Liz Allen <liz@tove.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP Workstations
-BODY-
I'd like to point out a couple things that made lisp machines hard
for me to learn -- that didn't quite coincide with the things that
dndobrin@athena.mit.edu was suggesting.  My background was strong
in running Franz under Berkeley Unix and using the vi editor there.
I'd already been maintaining the Maryland Franz Lisp environment
for a couple years or so -- and that includes a flavors package.
Lisp machine lisp was not a big problem.

I was using a Symbolics machine in a place where there was only
one of them and no one to give me any pointers -- or even much of
a lispm-init file...  I expected some learning time, but it was
*much* harder to learn that I ever expected...  Let me give some
examples of problems I had.  I should preface this by saying that
I do like to use the machine now that I've gotten more comfortable
with it, but...

I was using "system f" to look at the file system (I hadn't found
dired yet) and using the menu stuff pretty successfully.  I was
missing the notion of current working directory, but I was living
with that (I hadn't figured out how to avoid typing long names
yet).  What I really needed was to see the files that were listed
off the bottom of the screen...  I tried going to the last file on
the screen, but couldn't persuade the screen to scroll with a cr
or anything.  I'd seen scroll bars briefly before and wanted one
of those, but there wasn't one on the screen so I wasn't sure I
could use one there was for the window.  I tried to look up
how to scroll by looking under "window" in the documentation, but
only found info on creating windows...  I lived without scrolling
for a while by closing and opening directories a lot and using ^S
in emacs.  Then, one day, the scroll bar suddenly appeared -- and
then disappeared.  But I wasn't sure what I'd done to get it.  I
experimented a little, but since I was neatly keeping the mouse
within the window, I couldn't get the scroll bar back.  I got it
by accident one or two more times before I figured out that running
the mouse into the left margin of the window would get it.  Now,
wouldn't a little documentation in some obvious place about how to
*use* existing windows be a great help?

The other big problem I had was in using emacs -- I learned about
apropos pretty quickly, but it was not a lot of help.  My favorite
example is when I wanted to pick up some text without modifying
the existing buffer.  I tried apropos on "pick" which gave me
nothing except the all too familiar single line "Done".  Then I
tried "yank" which told me how to put it back down again...  (Yank
in vi is how to pick up text and put it in a register...)  That
did give me the correct idea that I wanted to put something in the
kill ring, so I did an apropos on "kill", but that didn't help.
"Copy region" (M-W) was the command that I was looking for -- I
stumbled across it by accident much later.  My problem was vocabulary
>- I knew the basic concepts, but it was hard to find out what the
names for them were.  I didn't have an emacs reference card (we
didn't seem to have one with the Symbolics documentation).  The
emacs manual was too much reading for too little new info; it tends
to assume you don't know anything about an editor.  And the index
is a lot like apropos -- you have to know the vocabulary.  I finally
decided that an apropos on something like "region" would probably
be a good way to learn emacs verbs, but I had already learned enough
to get by so never tried it.

Some specific responses to dndobrin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU:

             LISP machines are, in my experience, pretty well
        designed (at least by comparison with the hodgepodge in
        UNIX), and their documentation is, in most places, very
        good.

The documentation is good if you either already know the vocabulary
or have someone who can tell you the right word for what you want.
In UNIX, at least, apropos matches on descriptions of a command as
well as the name of the command (though just using the name of the
command under UNIX would be useless...).  That would have helped
me -- the apropos on "kill" would have given me copy region then.
And, as I said above, some basic stuff on *using* windows would
have been nice...

             Then why is it so hard to learn?  I think learning a
        complex system is very much like learning to play a complex
        game.

I'm not sure I like your game analogy -- why do you need a challenge
to use a tool?  It can be fun to learn, but I think you probably
have enough of a challenge just debugging your application.  It's
not supposed to be you against the machine where the machine is
trying to keep you from getting your program to run...  (I know
you didn't mean that.)

             Mostly, [new users] learn from other people.

That's a good way to learn, but documentation ought to be able to
stand alone.

        Whenever you have many different things to do and the optimal
        move is not at all clear (or even calculable), you have to
        have some way of zeroing in on the close-to-optimal solutions.

That wasn't the issue.  I knew exactly what I wanted to do.  There
are times when a way to do something on one machine isn't even
appropriate for the other machine, but I had an appropriate solution
in mind in both of my examples up there.  I just didn't know how
to use the mouse, etc, to accomplish it.

             So, I would argue, the solution to Cugini's problem
        is to get Tatem to hang out over there for about three
        months.  Maybe two.

I would recommend taking a course -- I haven't taken any (by the
time they were offered, I was already more or less comfortable with
the machine) so I don't know what levels are available -- or joining
a Local Symbolics Users' Group.  Otherwise, you can waste a lot of
time searching documentation, etc, for rather obvious things.

        But even with good documentation and design, at some point,
        there you are on level 23, a griffin on one side, a dragon,
        on the other, 88 hit points, strength of 24, a +2, +2
        two-handed sword, a wand of cold, and a wand of magic
        missile.  What do you do?

You didn't say what kind of armor you have!  But I think you're
an expert by then...  Anyway, I'm not quite sure I follow the
analogy -- I already knew how to debug programs if that's what you
mean.  But knowing what options are available (eg that you can
wield a sword) and knowing how to do them (press the "w" key and
do a menu select) is something the documentation should tell you
without you needing to know the word "wield"; you should be able to
find the info under "sword"...

                                -Liz Allen
                                 liz@tove.umd.edu or liz@maryland.arpa
                                 seismo!umcp-cs!tove!liz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
159
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 05:33:46 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Info wanted on AI & Cognitive Psych in India
-BODY-
I'm trying to collect information on scientists in India who
are interested in--or doing research in--the areas of Artificial
Intelligence or Cognitive Psychology. If you know of any such
people or of any releveant research centers or Indian AI
associations, I would be grateful if you could pass this information
on to me at: gluck%su-psych@sumex-aim. To anyone interested
in learning more about the Indian "Cognitive Science" community, I'd
be happy to forward the collected information.
                    -Mark Gluck
                     Dept. of Psychology-SU
                     Stanford, CA  94305

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 85 15:16:37 PDT
-FROM-
From: Stuart Crawford <GA.SLC@Forsythe>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistical Expert Systems
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the AI-ED list by Laws@SRI-AI.]

  I am interested in obtaining pointers to recent references regarding
  the known pros and cons of using pure statistical approaches to
  medical diagnosis (such as the use of classification and regression
  trees) as opposed to expert systems approaches.  In particular, I
  am interested in any literature discussing the possible use of
  the combined use of such approaches.  For example, using
  classification trees to help with the fine tuning of production
  rules, or using classification rules to augment current knowledge
  bases.  I know much more about the statistical approaches than the
  ai approaches, but it seems that some interdisciplanary technique
  might be fruitful.

                                 Stuart Crawford

  [Bob Blum's RX/RADIX work at Stanford is the best reference I
  can suggest.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85 10:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Garrigues <7thSon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC
-BODY-
In a recent AILIST digest, a recommendation was made that people
interested in information on Symbolics Lisp Machine Information could
join both SLUG@UTEXAS.ARPA and BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC.ARPA.

The first is true.  SLUG is the Symbolics Lisp Users Group and is
exactly what it sounds like.

The second is not true.  BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC is where MIT users send their
bug-reports to Symbolics and is exactly what that sounds like.

The volume of requests to BUG-LISPM-REQUEST@MIT-MC got to the point
that Symbolics Home Office Software Support (HOSS@SCRC-STONY-BROOK) has
been added to that list.

I believe that the confusion arose in the fact that MIT like most
sites, allows LOCAL users to be on the bug mailing lists.  In this case,
local users are those who are students, faculty or otherwise associated
with MIT.

To subsume the purpose that BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC has for writing on,
Symbolics customers with software contracts should send mail to
HOSS@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA.  If non-contract customers send legitimate
bug reports to HOSS, we will note the report and forward it to the
appropriate developers.

As a source to read from, I believe there has been some discussion on
the SLUG list of developing a second list for discussion of bugs and/or
problems users have encountered along with bugfixes.  You'll have to
contact SLUG for futher information on that subject.

I apologise for taking up the space on AILIST for a non-AI oriented
entry, but since the overflow of traffic to BUG-LISPM-REQUEST@MIT-MC
started here, I thought I should go to the source.


Thanks for the audience,

Chris Garrigues
Symbolics Home Office Software Support
(7thSon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 85 16:02:23 cst
-FROM-
From: "V.J. Raghavan" <ihnp4!sask!regina!raghavan@UCB-VAX>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Text Understanding
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the IRList Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[This year's Montreal ACM SIGIR Conference on Information Retrieval
had many interesting papers.  A file, in "SMART" form, of the
abstracts, was typed in at Univ.  of Regina and edited at Virginia
Tech.  Order info for proceedings is: Proc. of the Eighth Annual Int.
ACM SIGIR Conf. on R&D in Inf.  Ret., ACM Order No. 606850 -- Ed]

.I 10
.T
Processing Free-Text Input to Obtain a Database of Medical Information
.A
EMILE C. CHI
CAROL FRIEDMAN
NAOMI SAGER
MARGARET S. LYMAN
.W
The Linguistic String Project of New York University has developed computer
programs that convert the information in free-text documents of a technical
specialty into a structured form suitable for mapping into a relational
database.  The processing is based upon the restrictions on the use of
language that are characteristic of the subject matter and the document type.
These restrictions are summarized in a "sublanguage grammar" that provides a
set of word classes and formulas corresponding to the objects and relations
of interest in the domain.  The programs are independent of the particular
sublanguage grammar employed.  The application to narrative patient records
will be described and the applicability of the methods to other domains
discussed.

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 85  8:24:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: need for tutors
-BODY-
Re:  response to Cugini and Tatem by dndobrin@athena.mit.edu (3.153)

This discussion reminds me of the LISP tutor developed at CMU.
A brief search did not turn up the article that I read about it
(John R. Anderson and Brian J. Reiser, The LISP Tutor, BYTE, April 1985),
but I did find a piece to which it referred in its bibliography,
`Minimalist Training' by John M. Carroll, Datamation, Nov. 1, 1984.

Gist is that, of course, the ideal learning situation is me on
one end of a log and Socrates on the other, but who can afford
that, so the CMU folks set out to design a tutor for LISP that
would provide the kind of immediate feedback at arbitrary depth
that a human tutor would.  And apparently with considerable
success.

Reference to a similar effort appeared in a talk by Pirolli at UCB last
September 24 (according to Digest # 3.127)

Since we can't `get Tatem to hang out over there for about three months'
for all the `over theres' that there are, cloning software versions of
his familiarity with LISP machines would seem to be the right answer.


        Bruce Nevin
        bn@bbncch.arpa

        BBN Communications
        33 Moulton Street
        Cambridge, MA 02238
        (617) 497-3992

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Oct 85 13:40:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GUIDON-2 Project
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the AI-ED list by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Here's some information on the GUIDON project, including references:

Mark Richer, Oct. 25th, 1985

The GUIDON project is an applied AI research project at the Knowledge
Systems Laboratory, Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
This project is investigating strategies for teaching diagnostic
reasoning (specifically, medical diagnosis) using computers and
knowledge-based systems technology. Part of the effort in this project
has been to extend the capabilities of KB systems technology for the
purpose of explanation and instruction.  NEOMYCIN, a knowledge-based
diagnostic consultation system, has been implemented and is the
foundation for a new series of instructional programs, collectively
called GUIDON-2.  These programs are substantially different in design
than the original GUIDON tutoring system that worked in conjunction
with EMYCIN (e.g., MYCIN) systems.  The director of the project is
William J. Clancey, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Computer Science
Department, Stanford University.  There are about a dozen people
associated with this project at present including a physician.  Below
is a list of references that might be of interest to people doing work
in computer-based instruction.  Papers that are listed as HPP or KSL
technical reports are available by writing or calling Knowledge Systems
Laboratory, 701 Welch Road, Bldg. C, Palo Alto, CA 94304, (415)
497-3444.  STAN-CS papers (I think) are available through the Computer
Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305.

WARNING:  Do not send requests for papers to me; I'm afraid I will get
swamped. Try to find the reference yourself if it was published,
otherwise request it directly by calling or mailing to KSL or Stanford
CS. (KSL is part of the CS Dept, but we are  housed in a separate
building at present and we maintain our series of technical reports.)
Thank you.

References:  [these are not in any particular order]

Clancey, W.J. (1979) Transfer of rule-based expertise through a
tutorial dialogue. Computer Science Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford
University, NOT Available as a tech report. Revised version, MIT
Press, in preparation.

Clancey, W.J. (1979) Tutoring rules for guiding a case method
dialogue. Int J of Man-Machine Studies, 11, 25-49. Also in Intelligent
Tutoring Systems, eds. Sleeman and Brown, Academic Press, London,
1982.

Clancey, W.J.  (1982)   Overview of GUIDON.
        Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
        Summer 1983, Volume 10, Numbers 1 & 2, pages 8-15.
        Also in The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Volume 2,
        eds. Barr and Feigenbaum, Kaufmann, Los Altos.
        Also STAN-CS-93-997, HPP-83-42.

Richer, M. and Clancey, W. J. (1985)
        GUIDON-WATCH: A graphic interface for browsing and viewing a
        knowledge-based system.  To appear in IEEE Computer Graphics
        and Applications, November 1985, Also KSL 85-20.

Clancey, W.J., Bennett, J., and Cohen, P.  (1979)
        Applications-oriented AI Research: Education.
        In The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Chapter IX,
        Volume 2, eds. Barr and Feigenbaum, Kaufmann, Los Altos.
        Also STAN-CS-79-749, HPP-79-17.

Clancey, W.J., Shortliffe, E.H., and Buchanan, B.G.  (1979)
        Intelligent computer-aided instruction for medical diagnosis.
        In Readings in Medical Artificial Intelligence: The First
        Decade, eds. W.J. Clancey and E.H. Shortliffe, Addison-Wesley, 1984.
        Also Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on
        Computer Applications in Medical Care,
        Silver Spring, Maryland, October 1979, pps. 175-183.
        Also HPP 80-10.

Clancey, W.J. and Letsinger, R. (1981)
        NEOMYCIN: Reconfiguring a rule-based expert system for
        application to teaching.  In Readings in Medical Artificial
        Intelligence: The First Decade,
        eds. W.J. Clancey and E.H. Shortliffe, Addison-Wesley, 1984.
        Proceedings of Seventh IJCAI, 1981, pps. 829-826.
        Also STAN-CS-82-908, HPP 81-2.

Clancey, W.J. (1981)
        Methodology for Building an Intelligent Tutoring System.
        In Method and Tactics in Cognitive Science,
        eds. Kintsch, Miller, and Polson, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
        Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1984.
        Also STAN-CS-81-894, HPP 81-18.

Clancey, W.J. (1984)
        Acquiring, representing, and evaluating a competence model of
        diagnosis.
        In Contributions to the Nature of Expertise, eds. Chi,
        Glaser, and Farr, in preparation.
        Also HPP-84-2.

Clancey, W.J. (1979)
        Dialogue Management for Rule-based Tutorials.
        Proceedings of Sixth IJCAI, 1979, pps. 155-161.

London, B. & Clancey W. J. (1982)
        Plan recognition strategies in student modeling: Prediction
        and description.
        Proceedings of AAAI-82, pps. 335-338.
        Also STAN-CS-82-909, HPP 82-7.

Clancey, W.J. (1983)
        Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents:
        Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical
        Education.
        Proceedings of AAMSI-83, pps. 556-560.
        Also HPP-83-3.

Many people have influenced our thinking, but in particular the
following paper may be helpful to understand our current thinking with
regard to computer-based learning:

@Inproceedings[BROWN83,
        key="Brown"
        ,Author="Brown, J.S."
        ,title="Process versus product--a perspective on tools for
communal and informal electronic learning"
        ,booktitle="Education in the Electronic Age"
        ,note="Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the
        Educational Broadcasting Corporation, WNET/Thirteen Learning
        Lab, NY, pp. 41-58 ."
        ,month=July
        ,year=1983]

        The work described in this paper has its home at the XEROX
Palo Alto Reasearch Center (PARC).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
160
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 85 00:56:16 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based Language Production (BBN)
-BODY-

Friday  1, November  10: 30am  Room: BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street,
                   3rd floor large conference room

               BBN Artificial Intelligence Seminar

        "A Knowledge-Based Approach to Language Production"

                        Paul Jacobs

The development of natural language interfaces to Artificial
intelligence systems is dependent on the representation of knowledge.
A major impediment to building such systems has been the difficulty in
adding sufficient linguistic and conceptual knowledge to extend and
adapt their capabilities. This difficulty has been apparent in systems
which perform the task of language production, i. e. the generation of
natural language output to satisfy the communicative requirements of a
system.

The problem of extending and adapting linguistic capabilities is
rooted in the problem of integrating abstract and specialized
knowledge and applying this knowledge to the language processing task.
Three aspects of a knowledge representation system are highlighted by
this problem: hierarchy, or the ability to represent relationships
between abstract and specific knowledge structures; explicit
referential knowledge, or knowledge about relationships among concepts
used in referring to concepts; and informity, the use of a common
framework for linguistic and conceptual knowledge. The knowledge
based approach to language production addresses the language
generation task from within the broader context of the representation
and application of conceptual and linguistic knowledge.

This knowledge based approach has led to the design and
implementation of a knowledge representation framework, called Ace,
geared towards facilitating the interaction of linguistic and
conceptual knowledge in language processing. Ace is a uniform,
hierarchical representation system, which facilitates the use of
abstractions in the encoding of specialized knowledge and the
representation of the referential and metaphorical relationships among
concepts. A general purpose natural language generator, KING
(Knowledge INtensive Generator), has been implemented to apply
knowledge in the Ace form. The generator is designed for knowledge
intensivity and incrementality, to exploit the power of the Ace
knowledge in generation. The generator works by applying structured
associations, or mappings, from conceptual to linguistic structures,
and combining these structures into grammatical utterances. This has
proven to be a simple but powerful mechanism which is relatively easy
to adapt and extend.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 85 02:24:17 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanical Verification of Mathematics (BBN)
-BODY-
 Thursday  31, October  10: 30am  Room: BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street,
                   2nd floor large conference room

                         BBN Laboratories
                    Science Development Program
                            AI Seminars

    Toward the Mechanical Verification of Abstract Mathematics

                        David McAllester
                        MIT AI Laboratory


        To mechanically verify a mathematical argument one must
translate the argument into some formal language.  Many
mathematicians doubt that it will ever be practical to translate
arbitrary mathematical arguments into a completely formal language.
This talk will present a formal language called ONTIC which extends
set theory in a way that supports an "object oriented" style of
mathematical description.  Ontic has been used to formally define some
basic concepts of modern algebra, real analysis, and homotopy theory.
We feel that any branch of modern mathematics can be concisely
expressed in ONTIC.  Furthermore it seems practical to translate any
mathematical proof into a sequence of ONTIC formulas.  A theorem-
proving system has been constructed for ONTIC and some simple
verifications have been done.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1985 11:01-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Levels of Abstraction in Expert Systems (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Speaker:  Prof. B. Chandrasekaran
          Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research
          Department of Computer and Information Science
          The Ohio State University
Date:     10:30am, Monday, November 4th
Place:    BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, 3rd floor large conference room

    Generic Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning:  Characterizing
    and Designing Expert Systems at the "Right" Level of Abstraction

   We outline the elements of a framework for expert system design that
we have been developing in our research group over the last several
years. This framework is based on the claim that complex knowledge-based
reasoning tasks can often be decomposed into a number of generic tasks
each with associated types of knowledge and family of control regimes.
At different stages in reasoning, the system will typically engage in
one of the tasks, depending upon the knowledge available and the state
of problem solving.  The advantages of this point of view are manifold:
(i) Since typically the generic tasks are at a much higher level of
abstraction than those associated with first generation expert system
languages,  knowledge can be represented directly at the level
appropriate to the information processing task.  (ii) Since each of the
generic tasks has an appropriate control regime, problem solving
behavior may be more perspicuously encoded.  (iii) Because of a richer
generic vocabulary in terms of which knowledge and control are
represented, explanation of problem solving behavior is also more
perspicuous.  We briefly describe six generic tasks that we have found
very useful in our work on knowledge-based reasoning: classification,
state abstraction, knowledge-directed retrieval, object synthesis by
plan selection and refinement,  hypothesis matching, and assembly of
compound hypotheses for abduction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1985 11:01-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Conversational Language System (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Speaker:  Prof. Janet Murray
          Dept. of Humanities, MIT
Date:     10:30am, Tuesday, November 5th
Place:    BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, 2nd floor large conference room


      The Next Generation of Language Lab Materials:  Developing
      Prototypes at MIT


   MIT's Athena Language Learning Project is a five-year enterprise
whose aim is to develop prototypes of the next generation of
language-lab materials, particularly conversation-based exercises using
artificial intelligence to analyse and respond to typed input.  The
exercises are based upon two systematized methods of instruction that
are specialties at MIT:  discourse theory and simulations.  The project
is also seeking to incorporate two associated technologies:  digital
audio and interactive video.  The digital audio sub-project is
developing exercises for intonation practice, initially focusing on
Japanese speakers learning English.  The interactive video component of
the project consists of preparation of a demonstration disc which
features a variety of interactive video approaches including enhancement
of the text-based simulations and presentation of dense conversational
material in natural settings.  The project is being developed on the
Athena system at MIT, and is based upon the model of a near-future
language lab/classroom environment that will include stations capable of
providing interactive video, digital audio, and AI-based exercises.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 1985 11:01-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Correcting Misconceptions (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

Speaker:  Prof. Kathleen F. McCoy
          University of Delaware
Date:     10:30am, Friday, November 8th
Place:    BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, 3rd floor large conference room

            Correcting Object Related Misconceptions

  Analysis of a corpus of naturally occurring data shows that users
conversing with a database or expert system are likely to reveal
misconceptions about the objects modelled by the system.  Further
analysis reveals that the sort of responses given when such
misconceptions are encountered depends greatly on the discourse context.

  This work develops a context-sensitive method for automatically
generating responses to object-related misconceptions with the goal of
incorporating a correction module in the front-end of a database or
expert system.  The method is demonstrated through the ROMPER system
(Responding to Object-related Misconceptions using PERspective) which is
able to generate responses to two classes of object-related
misconceptions:  misclassifications and misattributions.

  The transcript analysis reveals a number of specific strategies used
by human experts to correct misconceptions, where each different
strategy refutes a different kind of support for the misconception.  In
this work each strategy is paired with a structural specification of the
kind of support it refutes.  ROMPER uses this specification, and a model
of the user, to determine which kind of support is most likely.  The
corresponding response strategy is then instantiated.

  The above process is made context sensitive by a proposed addition to
standard knowledge-representation systems termed "object perspective."
Object perspective is introduced as a method for augmenting a standard
knowledge-representation system to reflect the highlighting affects of
previous discourse.  It is shown how this resulting highlighting can be
used to account for the context-sensitive requirements of the correction
process.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Oct 85 21:23:18-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Economics and AI
-BODY-
See Communications of the ACM, September 1985, p. 1008, for an
announcement of the 1st Int. Conf. on Economics and AI (including
management science, organizational and behavioral sciences, etc.),
to be held in Aix-en-Provence, France, on September 2-4, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Oct 85 20:13:44-EST
-FROM-
From: Michael Lebowitz <LEBOWITZ@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI Society of New England
-BODY-
                         THE SEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
                        OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
                            SOCIETY OF NEW ENGLAND

             NOVEMBER 1-2, 1985, BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, WALTHAM, MA
                    NATHAN SEIFER AUDITORIUM, IN FORD HALL

Friday, November 1, 1985

8:00 PM Invited talk by Drew McDermott (Yale University)
Easy and Hard Problems in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract -- AI has not exactly solved everything.  In fact, the more  we
progress the harder problems we uncover.  However, some supposedly  hard
problems look as if they will evaporate completely.  In this talk  I will
discuss: ancient problems that now look easy, like free will  and
consciousness; modern problems that are hard, like representing  spatial
knowledge; ancient problems that are still hard, like the  nature of
explanation and induction.

9:00 PM Traditional AISNE social hour

Saturday, November 2, 1985

10:00 AM 15 minute talks

Robert McCartney (Brown University)
Algorithmic Synthesis

Tom Ellman (Columbia University)
Explanation Based Generalization of Logic Circuit Designs

Dave Glaubman (Northeastern University)
A Novice System for Bidding in Bridge

Robert S. Rist (Yale University)
Plans in Programming

Brian Otis (University of New Hampshire)
Knowledge-based Guidance for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

11:30 AM Panel chaired by John Kender (Columbia University)
Are Vision and Robotics AI?

12:30 PM Lunch Break

2:00 PM more 15 minute talks

Henry A. Kautz (University of Rochester)
Plan Recognition as Theory Formation

Mary P. Harper (Brown University)
Tense and Time in English

Tony Maddox (Brandeis University)
A Parallel Approach to Generating Visual Event Descriptions

Marie Vaughan (University of Massachusetts)
Rewriting and Regeneration: A Computational Model of the Writing Process

Ben Moreland (University of Connecticut)
Artificial Ingelligence Research at UConn

3:30 PM still more 15 minute talks

Marie Bienkowski  (Princeton University)
Generation of Elaborations: A Goal-Directed Model

Steven Hanks (Yale University)
Temporal Reasoning and Default Logic

Hon Wai Chun (Brandeis University)
Progress Towards Massively Parallel Speech Recognition

Richard N. Pelavin (University of Rochester)
A Formal Logic that Supports Planning with a Partial Description of the Future

4:30 PM AISNE business meeting -- volunteers for organizing next
year's conference will be solicited.

There is no registration fee for AISNE, but a small donation is
requested to cover the costs of the Friday night social hour.


     Program chairman:               Local arrangements:
     Professor Michael Lebowitz      Tony Maddox
     Department of Computer Science  Brandeis University
     450 Computer Science Building   Computer Science Department
     Columbia University             Ford Hall 3-227
     New York, NY 10027              Waltham, MA 02254
     212-280-8196                    617-647-2119
     lebowitz@columbia-20.arpa       tony%brandeis@csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 85 11:26 EST
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: REVISED call for papers: OIS-86
-BODY-

*******************       C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S
*                 * ----------------------------------------------
*                 *          Third ACM Conference On
*                 *        OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
*     OIS-86      *
*                 *            October 6-8, 1986
*                 *           Biltmore Plaza Hotel
*                 *              Providence, RI
******************* -------------------------------------------------


General Chair:  Carl Hewitt,          Topics appropriate for this
                MIT                   conference include (but are not
                                      restricted to) the following as they
Program Chair:  Stanley Zdonik,       relate to OIS:
                Brown University
                                         Technologies including Display, Voice,
Treasurer:  Gerald Barber,               Telecommunications, Print, etc.
            Gold Hill Computers
                                         Human Interfaces
Local Arrangements: Andrea Skarra,
                    Brown University     Deployment and Evaluation

An interdisciplinary conference on       System Design and Construction
issues relating to office
information systems (OIS) sponsored      Goals and Values
by ACM/SIGOA in cooperation with
Brown University and the MIT             Distributed Services and Applications
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Submissions from the following           Knowledge Bases and Reasoning
fields are solicited:
                                         Distributed Services and Applications
   Anthropology
   Artificial Intelligence               Indicators and Models
   Cognitive Science
   Computer Science                      Needs and Organizational Factors
   Economics
   Management Science                    Impact of Computer Integrated
   Psychology                            Manufacturing
   Sociology


The following have confirmed their membership on the program
committee:

   Guiseppe Attardi                   Ray Panko
      University of Pisa                 University of Hawaii
   James Bair                         Robert Rosin
      Hewlett Packard                    Syntrex
   Gerald Barber                      Erik Sandewall
      Gold Hill Computers                Linkoping University
   Peter de Jong                      Walt Scacci
      MIT                                USC
   Irene Greif                        Andrea Skarra
      MIT                                Brown University
   Sidney Harris                      Susan Leigh Star
      Georgia State University           Tremont Research Institute
   Carl Hewitt                        Luc Steels
      MIT                                University of Brussels
   Heinz Klein                        Sigfried Treu
      SUNY                               University of Pittsburgh
   Fred Lochovsky                     Dionysis Tsichritzis
      University of Toronto              University of Geneva
   Fanya Montalvo                     Eleanor Wynn
      MIT                                Brandon Interscience
   Naja Naffah                        Aki Yonezawa
      Bull Transac                       Tokyo Institute of Technology
   Margrethe Olson                    Stanley Zdonik
      NYU                                Brown University

The invited keynote speaker is Professor J.C.R. Licklider of MIT.

Unpublished papers of up to 5000 words (20 double-spaced pages) are
sought.  The first page of each paper must include the following
information: title, the author's name, affiliations, complete mailing
address, telephone number and electronic mail address where
applicable, a maximum 150-word abstract of the paper, and up to five
keywords (important for the correct classification of the paper).  If
there are multiple authors, please indicate who will present the paper
at OIS-86 if the paper is accepted.  Proceeedings will be distributed
at the conference and will later be available from ACM.  Selected
papers will be published in the ACM Transactions on Office Information
Systems.

Please send eight (8) copies of the paper to:

       Prof. Stan Zdonick
       OIS-86 Program Chair
       Computer Science Department
       Brown University
       P.O. Box 1910
       Providence, RI  02912

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:   Margaret H. Franchi (401) 863-1839.



                            IMPORTANT DATES

     Deadline for Paper Submission:                   February 1, 1986
     Notification of Acceptance:                      April 30, 1986
     Deadline for Final Camera-Ready Copy:            July 1, 1986
     Conference Dates:                                October 6-8, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
161
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 14:12:36 pst
-FROM-
From: Cindy Mason <clm@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DAI contacts
-BODY-
I have been reading a lot of articles in the area of Distributed
Artificial Intelligence (DAI) and would appreciate getting in
touch with others who have similar interests to discuss articles and
toss around ideas.  Thanks.

Cindy Mason (clm@lll-crg)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 85 10:01:23 cst
-FROM-
From: Alan Wexelblat <wex@mcc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abduction
-BODY-

Will someone please explain to me what is meant by this word?
My dictionary gives two definition:  one has to do with kidnapping,
the other has to do with exercising certain thigh muscles.  I assume
that AI'ers have a third definition (!?).  Replies directly to me,
please.
>-Alan Wexelblat
WEX@MCC.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Nov 85 11:49:21-EST
-FROM-
From: John C. Akbari <AKBARI@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: User Modelling Panel
-BODY-
Does anyone have notes on the User Modelling panel held at IJCAI-85 in
August?

THanks in advance.

john akbari

akbari@columbia-20.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 85 18:11:58 pst
-FROM-
From: decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!polyslo!cburdor
     @ucb-vax.berkeley.edu (Christopher Burdorf)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ATNS vs. ATTs
-BODY-
     I am currently working on a master's thesis in natural language
processing.  I am currently deciding whether to use ATNs or ATTs to do
the parsing. If anyone out there has any feelings one way or the other
as to which method is better, please let me know.

Chris burdorf
Cal poly slo.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon,  4 Nov 85 09:58:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vision Systems and American Sign Language
-BODY-
One of goals of AI research is to  produce speech recognition systems.
Has there been a proposal to produce a vision system that can ``read''
ASL?

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 1985  01:35 CST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Paul Fuqua <FUQUA@ti-csl60>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Workstations
-BODY-

Some comments in response to:

    Date: Thursday, 24 October 1985  13:53-CDT
    From: Liz Allen <liz at tove.umd.edu>
    To:   AIList at MIT-MC
    Re:   LISP Workstations

           What I really needed was to see the files that were listed
    off the bottom of the screen...

    The other big problem I had was in using emacs -- I learned about
    apropos pretty quickly, but it was not a lot of help.  My favorite
    example is when I wanted to pick up some text without modifying
    the existing buffer.

On the Texas Instruments Explorer (the third of the MIT-derived lispms), we
have a system called Suggestions that occupies a small menu strip on your
window with a selection of, well, suggestions.  Some of the menu items are
commands, some switch to more detailed menus of classes of commands, some do
other things.

As a whole, the suggestions menus are supposed to track the state you're in
>- in Zmacs, there are Zmacs menus, with headings like cursor movement,
deleting and moving text, font commands, etc;  in Dired, there is a menu of
the Dired-specific Zmacs commands;  in the Lisp Listener, there are
input-editing menus, window-switching menus, and so on.  (Sorry about the
vagueness, but with two years of pre-TI lispm experience, I've never used
Suggestions myself;  I just gripe about the implementation.)

The idea is to try to relate concepts that the user already has in mind to
commands or groups of commands.  The target person is someone who knows what
he wants to do, but not how to do it.  Suggestions is by no means perfect;
for one thing, it doesn't explain scroll bars.  However, it's a start.

    The documentation is good if you either already know the vocabulary
    or have someone who can tell you the right word for what you want.

So one obvious goal of good documentation is to lead the way to the
vocabulary.  The most useful feature of the red/black/blue/grey/green/orange
Lisp Machine Manual is its concept index.  At least it lands me in
approximately the right section of the manual, where I can pick up the proper
terms for the next time.

                              pf

ps  I'm not any sort of official TI spokesman, but no one else here was
    taking a shot at the issue.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 1985 16:55-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 5th Int. Workshop on Expert Systems and Their Applications
-BODY-
Some time ago, I sent a list to this digest of the papers presented at
the Fifth International Workshop on Expert Systems and Their
Applications at Avignon, France on May 13-15, 1985.  I have
tracked down the ordering information for those proceedings.  I am
posting the details here since I have received mail from many individuals
who needed articles from there and thus this info is of general
info:

To order write to:
  Marie Martine Sainflou
  Agence de l'Informatique
  Tour Fiat-Cedex 16
  92084 Paris la Defense, France

They accepted our purchase order and billed us for 800 French Francs.

If you try and order via Interlibrary loan here is the information
from the OCLC entry:

OCLC: 12661613

 1 100
 2 040    ISM c ISM
 3 020    2865810283
 4 041 0  freeng
 5 090    TK7885.A1 b P7 1985
 6 049    ISMM
 7 245 00 [Proceedings] / C Expert ?Systems & Tehir Applicatoins. 5th
International Workshop
 8 260 0  [Paris] : b AGence de l'Informatique c 1985
 9 300    2 v. : b ill. ; c 24 cm
10 500    French and English.
11 500    5 `emes Journbees Internationals, les Syst`emes Experts &
Leurs Applications
12 504    Includes bibliographies
13 650 0  Computer engineering x Congresses.
14 711 20 International Workshop on Expert Systems and their
Applications n (5th : d 1985 : c Avignon, France)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 16:16:30 est
-FROM-
From: "Dennis R. Bahler" <drb%virginia.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: replies to OOL semantics request
-BODY-

>       Does anyone have pointers to work done on
>formal specification and/or formal semantic definition of
>object-oriented languages or systems such as Smalltalk-80?

        Well, the traffic has died away on my request about formal
semantics of OOLs and a number of folks have asked to see what I got,
so this is it.

Dennis Bahler

Usenet:  ...cbosgd!uvacs!drb                    Dept. of Computer Science
CSnet: drb@virginia                             Thornton Hall
ARPA:  drb.virginia@csnet-relay                 University of Virginia
                                                Charlottesville, VA 22903
>------

From: mac@uvacs.UUCP (Alex Colvin)

You might check on the work done on PLASMA, an actor ( ~ object) language,
mostly applicative.  I asked the net about this some time ago, but got no
response.

Then there's Act I, another MIT-AI project.  And who knows what else?

Lastly, some folks (Lisp types, mostly), model objects as closures.
This leads to flavors.

%A Carl Hewitt
%T Viewing Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages
%J Artificial Intelligence
%V 8
%D 1977
%P 323-364
%X especially section 7.

%A Carl Hewitt
%A Brian Smith
%T Towards A Programming Apprentice
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%V 1
%N 1
%D March 1975
%P 26-45
%X describes meta-evaluation to justify contracts on implementations
%X featuring the Actor Induction Principle

%A Henry Lieberman
%T A Preview of Act I
%R AI Memo 625
%I MIT AI Lab
%D June 1981
%X describes the actor model of computation based on message passing

%A Henry Lieberman
%T Thinking About Lots of Things At Once Without Getting Confused
%R AI Memo 626
%I MIT AI Lab
%D May 1981
%X synchronization and concurrency in Act I

%A C. Hewitt
%A G. Attardi
%A H. Lieberman
%T Specifying and Proving Properties of Guardians for Distributed Systems
%B Semantics of Concurrent Computation
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science
%V 70
%I Springer Verlag
%C Berlin
%D 1979
%X synchronization device

Since you're just down the hall from me, you can check out my copies.

>-----

>From johnson%p.cs.uiuc.edu@CSNET-RELAY Thu Oct 10 00:18:08 1985

You recently asked a question on the net about work in semantics for
OOLs.  I am interested in semantics for OOL, though I haven't done
anything worth talking about, so I would appreciate any responses
that you get.  In general, I don't think that inheritance makes semantics
any more difficult, although Smalltalk (which is my interest) has weird
"functions that can goto creating environment" things called blocks
that require continuation semantics.  I least, I think they require
continuation semantics, I haven't completely solve the problem yet.

I have done some work in type systems for Smalltalk, but I haven't
written it up yet.  Are you interested in such things?

Ralph Johnson

>------

>From sokol%mitre.arpa@CSNET-RELAY Fri Oct 11 00:22:09 1985

Dennis
We have been using RAND's Rule Oriented Simulation System for about 4 years
now and have been very happy with it.  You can pick it up in a morning, and
can decipher other people's code immediately,  It`s a lovely system.
For more information, see  Rand publication R-3160-AF (1984) and N-1854-AF
(1982), or contact Phil Klahr at Rand.  He also gives out source code to
universities and the like for research.
Lisa Sokol  (sokol@mitre)

[ ROSS was written up in Proc. IJCAI-81 too if I remember -- drb ]

>------

>From jisdale%omnilax.arpa@CSNET-RELAY Fri Oct 11 00:22:46 1985

I saw your note in AILIST-DIGEST and it struck a responsive note.  I
just finished a UCLA Extension class on formal semantics that required
a term paper. For that paper I chose to attempt some formalization of
"Little Smalltalk", a stripped down Smalltalk-80 that is written in C
and does not require (or support) fancy graphics, etc. It is available
from Univ. of Arizona for a modest fee.

The paper did not really do any formal specification. Since it was
limited to 10 pages, I spent most of it giving an intro to OOL & some
of the difficulties in formalizing the syntax and semantics. The main
point on formalization I found was the ability of Smalltalk to be
self-defined.  The book "Smalltalk-80, The Language and Its
Implementation" does provide a formal specification of the semantics in
Smalltalk-80 in Part Four.  This was an interesting example of the
power of Smalltalk, since very few languages can be self-defining.
However, the definition is much longer than the self definition of LISP.

I did think there is potential for defining Smalltalk in VDL or other
language, but given the time I had (and the level of the class) I did
not invest much time on this.
I am interested in any responses you get about such formalizations.

Jerry Isdale

CSNET (X.25 site):      jisdale@omnilax
        from phonenet:  jisdale%omnilax@CSNET-RELAY
                        (I think thats right but not sure).

US Snail:
        Omnibus Computer Graphics,
        Studio G, Paramount Pictures
        5555 Melrose Ave,
        Hollywood, CA. 90038

        (213) 468-4694

(Omnibus is a commercial computer animation house with offices in NYC,
        Toronto and Hollyweird).

>------

>From mct%gandalf.cs.cmu.edu@CSNET-RELAY Sat Oct 12 00:13:48 1985


        A Semantics of Multiple Inheritance
            Luca Cardelli
        in,
            Semantics of Data Types,
                <some conference in France, June 1984>
            SpringerVerlag,
            Lecture Notes in CS, #173

has a nice treatment of multiple inheritance.

>- Mark Tucker

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
162
-DATE-
Date: Sat 2 Nov 85 19:16:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Stuart Cracraft <CRACRAFT at ISI-VAXA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM Computer Chess Championship
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

The annual slug-fest of machine against machine in the game of chess has
produced a new champion while in the same process dethroning CRAY BLITZ
which ran on multiple, parallel, CRAY processors. The new champion, by a
perfect 4-0 score against its opponents, is HITECH at Carnegie-Mellon,
searching 175,000 chess positions per second.

Below are reproduced descriptions of the participants including the names of
the computer chess programs, the authors, their affiliation, the type of
hardware used, and the number of nodes the particular program searches per
second. The time control for this is usually about 2 or 3 minutes per move
so you can multiply the nodes per second by 3x60 to get the total nodes
executed by a program in order to find its chess move (on the average).

In recent years, this number has been on the order of 10^7. There are
various schools of thought which believe that this will have to increase by
several orders of magnitude before an artificial player will defeat the
human champion, unless significant breakthroughs in chess knowledge
representation are achieved.

Also, in recent years, the best computer chess programs have barely passed
the National Master ranking. That is, they have achieved a rating of 2200.
The human champion is normally rated beyond 2700.

The relationship of processor speed to ratings has been determined to be
about 100 points per factor of 2 increase in processor speed, at least in
the range up to a 2000 rating.  There is some suspicion that beyond this
level, the relationship is not linear, although this has not yet been
shown by sufficient analysis, either empirical or theoretical.

                                       Stuart Cracraft
                                       (cracraft@isi-vaxa)

                           -------------

The following information was provided by the author of Phoenix.

PROGRAM         AUTHOR              AFFILIATION           HARDWARE        N/S
_______         ______              ___________           ________        ___

Awit        Tony Marsland       University of Alberta   Amdahl 5860         10

Bebe        Tony Scherzer       SYS-10 Inc., Chicago    Custom Chess    20,000
                                Engine

Chaos       Mike Alexander      University of Michigan  Amdahl 5860         70
            Fred Swartz
            Jack O'Keefe

Cray Blitz  Robert Hyatt        University of Southern  Cray X-MP      100,000
            Albert Gower        Mississippi             (4 CPUs)
            Harry Nelson

Hitech      Carl Ebeling        Carnegie-Melon          Special pur-   175,000
            Hans Berliner                               pose hardware
            Gordon Goetsch
            Andy Palay
            Murray Campbell
            Larry Slomer

Intelligent Mark Taylor         Intelligent Software    Apple IIE          500
Software    David Levy
            Kevin O'Connell

Lachex      Burton Wendroff     Los Alamos Laboratory   Cray X-MP       50,000

Ostrich     Monty Newborn       McGill University       8 Data General   1,200
                                                        computers

Phoenix     Jonathan Schaeffer  University of Alberta   4 VAX 11/780s    2,000
                                                        6 SUN workstations

Spoc        Jacques Middlecoff  SDI/Cypress Software    IBM PC             300

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Nov 85 09:25:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: DARPA Funds KEE
-BODY-
>From Expert Systems, Vol 2., No. 3, July 1985, p. 166:

IntelliCorp has recently been awarded a DARPA contract to develop
a prototype expert system development tool.  The tool will be used
by the Department of Defense, related government agencies, and
contractors working on DARPA-funded projects.  The contract is
worth $1 million to IntelliCorp and will take two years to complete.

The new system will be based on a refined version of KEE, incorporating
new knowledge representation techniques.  IntelliCorp sees limitations
in current ways of representing knowledge as being the limiting factor
in developing more powerful expert systems.  New techniques will allow
the full diversity of an expert's knowledge to be used.

IntelliCorp will retain exclusive ownership of the KEE system around
which the new tool will be built.  The compiled version of KEE will be
sublicenced to the Department of Defense, related agencies, and DARPA-
funded contractors.  Ownership of the remainder of the new system will
be shared by IntelliCorp and DARPA, with the company retaining
exclusive rights to its further release and commercialisation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 Oct 85 19:07:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Gary Martins <GARY@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contributions of "AI" ?
-BODY-

A recent issue of AIList [#156] carries a highly emotional message from
Mr. Chris Welty in defense of "AI".  The message is entitled "Contributions
of AI".  Wouldn't you expect such a message to refer to some real
contributions of "AI" ?  Instead, it contains:

        * idle speculations about the relationship between my wife and
          Prof. Minsky
        * complaints about his morning mail
        * educational advice
        * finally, the usual vague, abstract "AI" blah about all kinds
          of contributions "AI" has made to the world; Mr. Welty says
          the list is too long to provide in full -- and so he
          provides no specific information of any kind

I cannot pretend to help Mr. Welty with all of these problems.  I
think he should adopt a "wait and see" posture on the first point.
Perhaps a scrolling terminal will help with #2.  Advice duly noted.
As for the same old "AI" gobbledegook: CAN'T YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 85 14:26:53 pst
-FROM-
From: ames!eugene@RIACS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Minsky's definition of AI (really definition of I)
-BODY-
Interesting posting.
I'm not doing AI work, but I have something to share.

Two weeks ago on the plane down to JPL/Caltech, I read a very interesting
definition of "Intelligence" in the airline's magazine (PSA).
Intelligence is the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory
thoughts in one's head. I am working on parallelism, and I sort of like
that definition.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  emiya@ames-vmsb

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 Oct 85 15:21:39-EST
-FROM-
From: Steven M. Kearns <KEARNS@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Japanese are Coming!
-BODY-

THE JAPANESE ARE CONTROLLING THE WORLD - FUN, FICTION, OR FACT?

        Here is proof that fiction is actually stranger than truth: the
first "correct" exposition of the true goals of the Japanese Fifth Generation
program.  Actually, this is a fun look at some of the Fifth Generation Hype
that might leave you wondering "what if it is true???"

        (Q1) QUESTION:  Why the "open architecture" of the Japanese
Fifth Generation effort?  Why tell the world exactly what the goals are,
the money to be spent, and the principal goals to be pursued?

        (A1) The Japanese have stated in their Fifth Generation propoganda
material that the security of Japan in the future depends on transforming the
structure of today's economy.  Nowadays it is resource based;  Japan would
like it to be information based.  The reasons for this are clear.  Japan
imports something like > 90% of their fuel and food.  In a war, their enemies
could stop these shipments, while Japan could only threaten to cut off next
years shipment of remote control VCRs.   In addition, Japan has a severe space
shortage.  Material resources take up critical space, while information does
not.
                If Japan had the power to transform the world economy by
themselves, they would.  But the truth is, they do not have the resources to
do it by themselves.  To do so requires mobilizing the world - and in high
tech the "world" means the United States.  So the Japanese were very clever.
By committing a small amount of money (< 1 billion over 10 years, I believe)
and publicizing it as much as possible, they managed to steer the lumbering
giant of the United States, and the rest of the world, in the direction that
they wanted.  In effect, the Japanese are investing a little money, and in
return they get to mobilize ALOT of money in a way that benefits them the
most.  And none of the money that they invest is wasted either:  if the
Japanese Fifth Generation program does provide a significant advance, they get
to finally shake the unfair label of "imitators, not creators".  If no major
advance results, they are at least ready to exploit the successes of the
rest of the world.
                Let's look at some facts that support this theory.  As already
mentioned, the Japanese committment is less than 1 billion over 10 years.
In contrast, IBM's R&D budget is something like one and a half billion
EVERY YEAR.  And though I do not know the specific data, I would suspect that
the defense department's Fifth Generation budget is of similar order of
magnitude (after all, the defense budget is now 300 Billion).
Finally, there are the contributions from other countries of
the world such as Britain and France, which have now mounted efforts
comparable to Japan's.
                Thus, all of the gloom and doomers warning about the
onslaught of the Japanese are actually aiding the Japanese' cause.

>steve kearns
(kearns@cs.columbia.edu)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
163
-DATE-
Date: Fri 1 Nov 85 16:42:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Susan M. Gere
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: m.susan@sierra
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - CommonLoops (SU)
-BODY-
                 EE380--Seminar on Computer Systems

Title:  CommonLoops--A Graceful Merger of Lisp
                       and Object Oriented Programming

Speaker:  Daniel G. Bobrow
From:     Xerox PARC

Time:   Wednesday, November 6 at 4:15 p.m.
Place:  Terman Auditorium

CommonLoops merges the facilities of object oriented programming and
Lisp.  This talk will briefly describe the relevant features of the two
styles of programming, and describe the unique properties of this merge.
These include a uniform syntax for function calling and sending
messages; a merger of the type space of Lisp and the class hierarchy of
objects; a generalization of method specification that includes ordinary
Lisp functions at one extreme, and fully type specified functions at the
other; and a "metaclass" mechanism that allows  tradeoffs between early
binding and ease of exploratory programming in the implementation of
objects.

Short Biography:

Daniel Bobrow is a Research Fellow in the Intelligent Systems Laboratory
at Xerox PARC.  His research interests include programming languages,
expert systems, artificial intelligence, and cooperative computing.  He
received his PhD from MIT, started the Artificial Intelligence
Department at Bolt Beranek and Newman, and since at Xerox has helped to
develop a number of systems, including KRL, GUS, PIE, LOOPS, COLAB, and
CommonLoops.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 15:21:35-CST
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover (UTexas SIGART)
-BODY-
  SIGART, the Special Interest Group on ARTificial Intelligence, has its
monthly program meeting WEDNESDAY, 6 Nov, at JIMS restaurant at I-35 and
183 (Anderson).
  We meet for drinks at 6:30 and dinner to start at 7:00.  Charge is $2 for
members and $5 for non members (plus food and drinks).

  The speaker will be Dr J S Moore, speaking on:

Applications of the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover to
the Verification of Computer Hardware and Software


J Strother Moore


The Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover is computer program that
proves theorems about recursive functions.  The primary
application of the program is to prove formulas that
establish the correctness, reliability, or security of
computer hardware and software.

The proof techniques used by the system include rule driven
simplification, generalization of the conjecture to be
proved, and mathematical induction.  Each time a formula is
proved the theorem-prover builds it into an evolving
knowledge base which is used to structure subsequent proofs.
Thus, the human user of the system can improve the system's
performance by having it prove key lemmas first.  As the
theorems get harder the user's role in the process more and
more resembles that of the mathematician who sketches proofs
before an assistant who fills in the often large gaps.

In this talk I will informally explain how the system works
and how it is used.  I will also discuss some applications
of the system, including its use in finding security flaws
in the formal specifications of computer software, its proof
of the invertibility of the RSA public key encryption
algorithm, and the correctness proofs for a general purpose
microcoded CPU.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 1985 09:12-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Seminar on AI (SMU)
-BODY-
The following is the program for the

Special Event of the Dallas IEEE Computer Society and Dallas Section of
the ACM

Artificial Intelligence Satellite Symposium
Knowledge-Based Systems and Their Applications

presented by Texas Instruments Incorporated

Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1985 8:30 am - 4:00 pm
Place: Infomart, 1950 Stemmons Freeway Room 7011

Agenda:

Welcome and Opening Remarks 8:30 - 8:45 am
o Edward E. Feigenbaum Stanford      8:45 - 9:45

AI: An Overview. Knoweldge Engineering & Expert Systems
o RAndall Davis MIT                 10:00 - 11:00 am

Problem Solutions with Expert Systems:
Approach, Tools Available, How to Begin
o Bruce G. Buchanan Stanford        11:00 - 12:00 pm

Knowledge Based Systems:
  Problem Selection, Knowledge Acquisition, Validation
o Mark Fox CMU                       1:00 - 2:00 pm

Knowledge-Based Systems: Applications in the Induatrial Environment
o Harry Tennant, Host  TI Inc.       2:00 - 3:00 pm

Applications Abstracts by Representatives from AErospace,.
Manufacturing, Military, Industrial Control Engineering, and Education
o Harry Tennant, Moderator           3:00 - 4:00 pm

Presenter's Roundtable - Live

Closing Remarks                      4:00

[TI is also sponsoring a satellite presentation at Stanford. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 85 12:05:18 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mental Representations (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                  Fall 1985
                     Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A

                      Tuesday, November 5, 11:00 - 12:30
                        240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

        ``On the Intentional Contents of Mental States About Fictions''

                                 Edward Zalta
                 Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy at C.S.L.I.
           Acting Asst. Professor of Philosophy, Stanford University


             In this seminar, I present a theory of intentional objects
        some  of  which  seem to serve nicely as the contents of mental
        states about stories and dreams (no matter how bizarre they may
        be).  The theory yields a way of understanding utterances about
        particular fictional characters and particular  dream  objects.
        For  the  purposes  of  the  talk,  it  will make no difference
        whether one construes the  theory  ontologically  as  a  theory
        about  what  the  world  has to be like or has to have in it in
        order for us to characterize properly such  mental  states,  or
        whether  one  construes the theory as just a canonical notation
        for specifying  the  contents  of  (or  mental  representations
        involved  in)  such  states.   Either  way,  one is left with a
        domain over which operations may be defined to explain  how  we
        get  from one state to the next, and so the theory should be of
        interest to cognitive scientists.  The philosophical  basis  of
        my  work  lies in a theoretical compromise between the views of
        Edmund Husserl and Alexius Meinong, and it is  consistent  with
        classical logic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 85 15:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI in Design and Manufacture (UPenn)
-BODY-
                Professor Robin Popplestone
           Department of AI at Edinburgh University

                     will give a lecture on

        Applying AI Techniques to Design and Manufacturing

Today: Monday, November 4 at NOON in Towne Building, Room 303


I discuss the representation of mechanical engineering designs in a logic
programming context, and the exploration of a space of different possible
designs.  Designs are represented in terms of modules, which are basic
concrete engineering entities (eg. motor, keyway, shaft).  Modules interact
via ports, and have an internal structure expressed by the part predicate. A
taxonomic organisation of modules is used as the basis for making design
decisions.  Subsystems employed by the design system include the spatial
relational inference mechanism employed in the RAPT robot Language, the Noname
geometric modeller developed at Leeds Univeristy and the Press symbolic
equation solver.  The system is being implemented in the POPLOG system.  An
assumption based truth maintenance system based on the work of de Kleer is
being implemented to support the exploration of design space.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 16:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Brian C. Williams <WILLIAMS@OZ>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Predicting the Effects of a Therapy (MIT)
-BODY-
Thursday  7, November  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


    "Predicting the Effects of a Therapy in a Physiological Network"


                               Bill Long

                  Clinical Decision Making Group, LCS


If the physician gives Inderol to the patient to decrease angina, what
will happen to the blood pressure?  Or more generally, is there anything
the physician should watch out for when giving drug X to this patient?
An important aspect of the Heart Failure Program is helping the user
answer such questions.  The program assists in diagnosis by using the
patient information to constrain a physiological model to represent the
state of knowledge about the patient.  That model can then be used to
find likely therapies to correct dangerous states and to reason about
the possible effects of those therapies.

The problems with predicting the effects of the therapies include
accounting for multiple causal pathways, accounting for the effects of
feedback, reasoning about pathways that take widely differing amounts of
time, reasoning when there is uncertainty about the patient state, and
reasoning even though there is interpatient variation.  In attempting to
deal with these problems, we have developed an algorithm based on
techniques of signal flow analysis that handles some of these problems
well and others acceptably and has the right properties to provide
understandable justifications for the conclusions it reaches.

The talk will focus on the criteria that are being used in developing
this methodology, the algorithm itself, the effectiveness of the
approach, and the remaining problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Nov 85 17:02:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Tools for Building Expert Systems (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                             III Seminar

Title:          Issues in the Selection of Knowledge Engineering Environments
                        and Tools for Building Large Expert Systems

Speaker:        Susan Man

Date:           Tuesday, November 12, 1985, 11:00am - 12:00pm

Place:          Hill Center, room 423


        Susan Man, a  Ph.D. student  in our  department, will  present
results  of  a  study  on  knowledge  representation  and  programming
paradigms (done in conjunction with  an independent study under  Chris
Tong).  This is her abstract:

       One of the first decisions that must be made by designers of
       expert  systems  is  the choice of the knowledge engineering
       environment and tool to be used for the development  of  the
       system.  In  this talk, we attempt to identify some features
       of programming environments and knowledge engineering  tools
       that  are  important  in  building  large expert systems. We
       first look at features in programming environments  on  Lisp
       machines  such as the Symbolics 3600's and the Xerox 1100's.
       We then compare three knowledge engineering tools  that  are
       suitable for the development of large-scaled expert systems.
       The knowledge engineering tools studied  are  (1)  Zetalisp,
       (2)  KEE (from Intellicorp), and (3) S.1 (from Teknowledge).

       In discussing and comparing the features  offered  by  these
       knowledge   engineering   environments  and  tools,  we  are
       particularly interested in their  abilities  to  accommodate
       various  programming  methodologies  and  to  provide useful
       support   utilities.    Programming    methodology,    which
       encompasses  the  issues  of  knowledge  representation  and
       programming paradigm, impact directly on the ability of  the
       knowledge   engineering   tool   to   model   precisely  and
       efficiently  complex  domain  tasks  and   problem   solving
       behaviors.   Support  utilities  offer  facilities  such  as
       editing,  debugging,  and  explanation  and  are   important
       factors in reducing the time and effort required in building
       a large expert system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 14:37:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Terry Winograd <WINOGRAD@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Very High-Level Programming Environment (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

COMING ENVIRONMENTS MEETING (11/11) - Steve Westfold (Kestrel)
A Very-High-Level-Language Programming Environment

Kestrel Institute is doing research on a programming system based on a
very-high-level specification/programming language.  The language is
based on logic and set theory.  It is a wide-spectrum language
encompassing both an inference model of computation and a state-change
model.  Compilation is done by transformation and step-wise refinement
into the target language (initially Lisp).  A central part of the system
is the ability to define new language constructs and domain languages,
and facilities for manipulating and transforming them. Most of the
system is written in the system language.

The underlying structure of the environment is a database of objects,
sets, sequences and mappings.  There is an object hierarchy which is
used primarily for factoring applicability of mappings.  Language
statements (parse structures and annotations) are represented in the
database.  We identify the representation of statements with the
meta-level description of those statements.  Thus, meta-level inference
on descriptions results in statement manipulation such as
transformation.  Usually the programmer need not be aware of the
representation because of a quotation construct that is analogous to
lisp backquote, but is more powerful and can be used for testing and
decomposing statements as well as constructing them.  Among the ways
that the user may view portions of the database are as prettyprinted
language statements, as objects with properties, and as graphs of boxes
and arrows.  The database may be edited using any of these views.

The system enforces constraints stated as implications (universally
quantified) with an indication of the triggers for enforcement and of
the entities to change to make the constraint true.

We have a context tree mechanism for keeping different states of the
database.  It is somewhat smart in that it does not save undo
information for database changes that are "internal" to the current
state.  It would have wider application if it were able to work on
subsets of the database rather than the database as a whole.

We have recently built a prototype for a project management system. It
deals with system components and their versions and bugs, and tasks and
schedules.  This work is at a fairly early stage and not my area so I
wouldn't want to talk much about the details of it, although someone
else at Kestrel might.  However, it does provide good examples of the
utility of the language-defining and constraint capabilities in a domain
other than program synthesis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 85 16:47:40 est
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CALL FOR PAPERS; ACL 1986 Annual Meeting
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS

24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
10-13 June 1986, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

SCOPE:   Papers are invited on all aspects of computational linguistics,
including, but not limited to, pragmatics, discourse, semantics, and
syntax; understanding and generating spoken and written language;
linguistic, mathematical, and psychological models of language;
phonetics and phonology; speech analysis, synthesis, and recognition;
translation and translation aids; natural language interfaces; and
theoretical and applications papers of every kind.

REQUIREMENTS:   Papers should describe unique work that has not
been submitted elsewhere; they should emphasize completed work rather
than intended work; and they should indicate clearly the state of
completion of the reported results.  Authors should send eight copies
of an extended abstract up to eight pages long (single-spaced if
desired) to:

        Alan W. Biermann
        ACL86 Program Chair
        Department of Computer Science
        Duke University
        Durham, NC 27706, USA
        [919:684-3048; awb%duke@csnet-relay]

SCHEDULE:   Papers are  due by 6 January 1986 .  Authors will be
notified of acceptance by 25 February.  Camera-ready copies of final
papers prepared on model paper must be received by 18 April along with
a signed copyright release statement.

OTHER ACTIVITIES:   The meeting will include a program of tutorials and
a variety of exhibits and demonstrations.  Anyone wishing to arrange an
exhibit or present a demonstration should send a brief description to
Alan Biermann along with a specification of physical requirements:
space, power, telephone connections, tables, etc.

CONFERENCE INFORMATION:   Local arrangements are being handled by Kathy
McKeown and Cecile Paris, Department of Computer Science, Columbia
University, New York, NY 10027; 212:280-8194 and 8125; mckeown and
cecile @columbia-20.arpa.  For other information on the conference and
on the ACL more generally, contact Don Walker (ACL), Bell Communications
Research, 445 South Street, MRE 2A379, Morristown, NJ 07960;
201:829-4312; walker@mouton.arpa or walker%mouton@csnet-relay or
bellcore!walker@berkeley.

Program Committee:  Alan W. Biermann, Duke University
                    Kenneth W. Church, AT&T Bell Laboratories
                    Michael Dyer, University of California at Los Angeles
                    Carole D. Hafner, Northeastern University
                    George E. Heidorn, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
                    David D. McDonald, University of Massachusetts
                    Fernando C.N. Pereira, SRI International
                    Candace L. Sidner, BBN Laboratories
                    John S. White, Siemens Communication Systems

LSA SUMMER LINGUISTIC INSTITUTE:   ACL-86 is scheduled just before the
53rd LSA Institute, which will be held at the Graduate School and
University Center of the City University of New York from 23 June to 31
July.  The 1986 Institute is the first to focus on computational
linguistics.  During the intervening week, a number of special courses
will be held that should be of particular interest to computational
linguists.  For further information contact D. Terence Langendoen, CUNY
Graduate Center, 33 W. 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036; 212:921-9061;
tergc%cunyvm@wiscvm.arpa.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
164
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 09:37:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Rene Bach <BACH@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IQ test for AI.
-BODY-
I don't remember anyone suggesting to test AI programs with the
traditional human IQ test.

Is there any validity to this idea ?

I understand that it would be very hard for a computer program to
reason about the shape and graphics questions (given as is, i.e.
just given the actual picture of the question). I also understand
the IQ test are somewhat controversial, but they nevertheless
provide a metric for a lot of human reasoning abilities which
certainly require multiple facets of intelligence.

Has any one tried to write such a computer program ?

Rene Bach (Bach@score)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed,  6 Nov 85 20:22:21 EST
-FROM-
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RSA encryption
-BODY-
    Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 15:21:35-CST
    From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>

    ... I will also discuss some applications
    of the system, including its use in finding security flaws
    in the formal specifications of computer software, its proof
    of the invertibility of the RSA public key encryption
    algorithm ...

  Has RSA been broken?  I thought it was NP complete.  Can you
give a reference?
                                                                ...Keith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 5 November 1985 22:12:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abstracts for IEEE Software Special Issue
-BODY-
All summaries that have been submitted to the IEEE Software Special Issue on
KBES for Engineering (March 1986) that have exceeded the 3 page
(double-spaced) limit have been edited to comply with the guidelines. If
this is not acceptable, please send me mail.

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Nov 85 18:30:51-EST
-FROM-
From: "Randall Davis" <DAVIS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction - TI Satellite Seminar
-BODY-
Concerning the recent item in AI List which said in part:


  From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
  Subject: IEEE Seminar on AI (SMU)

  The following is the program for the

  Special Event of the Dallas IEEE Computer Society and Dallas Section of
  the ACM

  Artificial Intelligence Satellite Symposium
  Knowledge-Based Systems and Their Applications
  presented by Texas Instruments Incorporated
  Date: Wednesday, November 13, 1985 8:30 am - 4:00 pm
  Place: Infomart, 1950 Stemmons Freeway Room 7011


TI has advertised this event widely, but there has still been some confusion
about it.  It is an educational program conceived of and created by TI, and is
being broadcast via satellite to 23 different pre-selected sites around the
country; tickets are necessary only to assure seating; admission is free.

It is also, by design, available to anyone who has the equipment to pick up
the satellite signal (TI is offering technical information on satellite
reception at 214-995-4076).  Current estimates are that perhaps 400 additional
sites around the country will be doing so.

>From the IEEE/ACM notice above it appears that they have organized themselves
around this event, as numerous other organizations have.  Please note, though,
that the broadcast is available nationwide to anyone interested.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 22:18:15 est
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau  <dsn@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistics and Diagnosis
-BODY-
>From: Stuart Crawford <GA.SLC@Forsythe>
>
>  I am interested in obtaining pointers to recent references regarding
>  the known pros and cons of using pure statistical approaches to
>  medical diagnosis (such as the use of classification and regression

The following articles are relevant to your request.  I think one or
both of them may have appeared somewhere by now; my "refer" file is
out of date.  For more information, write to

        Dr. James Reggia
        Computer Science Department
        University of Maryland
        College Park, MD 20742

%A C. Ramsey
%A J. A. Reggia
%A D. S. Nau
%A A. Ferrentino
%T A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Expert Systems
%R submitted for publication

%A J. A. Reggia
%A B. T. Perricone
%T Answer Justification in Medical Decision Support Systems Based
on Bayesian Classification
%R Submitted for publication
%D 1983
%C College Park, MD
%I University of Maryland


        Dana S. Nau (dsn@rochester)
        from U. of Maryland, on sabbatical at U. of Rochester

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 5 Nov 85 04:48:39-EST
-FROM-
From: "Sidney Markowitz" <SIDNEY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: abductive inference
-BODY-
The following is in reply to the question about abduction, in the
sense of abductive inference, and its relation to AI. This is a
portion of a message extracted from the old philosophy-of-science
mailing list [and reprinted by permission of the author -- KIL]. It is
a bit long, as it contains both definitional material and opinions as
to its relevance to AI. I have deleted much extraneous material:

Date: 26 Jan 1983 0128-PST
From: ISAACSON at USC-ISI

[ ... ]

I can't speak for the Intuitionist position.  I do prefer the
second inference-chain you propose, though.  It is a *weaker*
inference, but, it is potentially generative.  It is close to a
form of inference which is sometimes called "abduction", favored
by Charles Sanders Peirce.  This sort of inference is held to
underlie hypothesis-formation.  Abductive inference can be stated
as follows:


       The surprising fact, C, is observed;

       But if A were true, C would be a matter of course;

       Hence, there is reason to SUSPECT that A is true.


The *tentative* (or hypothetical) nature of the conclusions in the two
latter cases above is what makes these inferences potentially
GENERATIVE, in the sense of knowledge-generation; whereas the
deductive template inherent in [ an example of deduction ] makes it a
barren exercise in classical Aristotelian logic, with no generative
power beyond the (pre-programmed, as it were) syllogitic-chain itself.

[ ... ]

I want to use that fairly long introduction to move into a comparison
between traditional deductive inference [ ... ] and other types of
inferences I consider to be knowledge-generators, or "epistemogenic
inferential processes."

[ ... discussion of deductive inference ... ]

  For example,


     All birds are five-legged mammals;
     Fred is a bird;
     Then Fred is a five-legged mammal.


Or,


     All Blacks are white;
     Fred is a Black;
     Then Fred is white.


All of the stuff you see above is entirely Kosher, viewed from
within deductive logic proper, and I have no quarrel with that.
BUT WHY TAKE EXTRA PRIDE IN PROMOTING THIS KIND OF BARREN
SYLLOGISTIC ACTIVITY WITHIN AI IS BEYOND ME!


What we sorely need are inferential processes that are capable of
generating new knowledge [through computational means!].  We need
to develop a broad class of "Epistemogenic Processes".  I think
it includes a family of inferences that can generate explanatory
hypotheses, and therefore, underlie theory-formation.

Peirce, the so-called "Father of Pragmatism" (he actually called
his creation "Pragmaticism"), devoted much of his massive
life-work to elaborating a type of inference he called
"abduction".  In his view, when contrasted with "induction" and
"deduction", it is the only truly creative mode of inference.  It
is THE epistemogenic agent.  The sort that yields new explanatory
hypotheses in scientific inquiry.  As a corollary he developed a
theory of the "Economy of Research", an obscure and understudied,
yet incredibly rich, research methodology.


I do agree with Minsky that we ought to be courageous and
resourceful enough to be willing to break new ground, without too
many hangups about "old stuff".  Yet, I think that we have an
incredibly fertile resouce in Peirce, and we owe it to our
enterprise to COHERE what we are trying to do with what he has
already accomplished.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Oct 85 23:02:50-PST
-FROM-
From: Paul Roberts <ROBERTS@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Colourless Green Ideas
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

For the Literary competition set on Christmas Eve you were asked to compose
not more than 100 words of prose, or 14 lines of verse, in which a sentence
described as grammatically acceptable but without meaning did, in the event,
become meaningful.  The sentence, devised by Noam Chomsky, was:

colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

[...]  Competitors rose to this challenge good-humouredly and in force....


 It can only be the thought of verdure to come, which prompts us in the autumn
to buy these dormant white lumps of vegetable matter covered by a brown
papery skin, and lovingly to plant them and care for them.  It is a marvel
to me that under this cover they are labouring unseen at such a rate
within to give us the sudden  awesome beauty of spring flowering bulbs.
  While winter reigns the earth reposes but these colourless green ideas
sleep furiously.

                C. M. Street


Behold the pent-up power of the winter tree;
Leafless it stands, in lifeless slumber.
Yet its very resting is revival and renewal:
Inside the dark gnarled world of trunk and roots,
Cradled in the chemistry of cell and sap,
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously
In deep and dedicated doormancy,
Concentrating, conserving, constructing:
Knowing, by some ancient quantum law
Of chlorophyll and sun
That come the sudden surge of spring,
Dreams become reality, and ideas action.

                Bryan O. Wright


Let us think on them, the Twelve Makers
Of myths, trailblazing quakers
Scourging earthshakers
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously
Before their chrysalides open curiously
Anarchy burgeons spuriously
Order raises new seedlings in the world
By word and gun upheld
The scarlet banner is unfurled
The New Country appears
Man loosens his fears
The New Dawn nears
Recollect our first fathers
The good society in momentum gathers.

                ("recently discovered sonnet by Alexander Blok")
                translated by Edward Black

[...]


(and the winner:)
(got 50 lbs.)

Thus Adam's Eden-plot in far-off time:
Colour-rampant fowers, trees a myriad green;
Helped by God-bless'd wind and temp'rate clime.
The path to primate knowledge unforseen,
He sleeps in peace at eve with Eve.
One apple later, he looks curiously
At the gardens of dichromates, in whom
colourless green ideas sleep furiously
then rage for birth each morning, until doom
Brings rainbows they at last perceive.

                D. A. H. Byatt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
165
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 12:01:32 -0100
-FROM-
From: Rolf Pfeifer
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Billy Salter's Thesis
-BODY-
I am looking for Billy Salter's Thesis on Subjective Theories of Economics
(or something like that). He got his PhD from Yale approximately in 83.
If anyone has a copy available or knows of Billy's whereabouts (possibly BBN?)
please let me know (including netmail address).
Thanks.
         --Rolf Pfeifer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 85 13:40:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intensional Contents
-BODY-
'whois zalta' fails, so I'll direct this request to
the net.  Can anyone give me pointers to Edward
Zalta's work on the "intentional contents of mental
states about fictions?"  In AIList Digest V3 #163,
it was announced that Dr. Zalta would be giving
a lecture in Berkeley on that topic.

Would one use  Golden Hill LISP to code assertion's
about Meinong's Golden Mountain?

> Bob Stine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 16:03
-FROM-
From: at GEC Research <YE15%mrca.co.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Validation of Knowledge Based Systems
-BODY-

  I am interested in carrying out some work on the validation of
real-time Knowledge Based Systems and would appreciate some help in
getting started. If anyone has any information they can send me on
this topic, in particular, significant references or current projects
it would be a great help. Thanks. Please send responses to:

      Kevin Poulter (YE15%uk.co.mrca@uk.ac.ucl.cs)
      GEC Research Ltd
      Marconi Research Centre
      West Hanningfield Road
      Great Baddow
      Chelmsford
      Essex
      CM2 8HN
      United Kingdom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-FROM-
From: CONNOLLY CHRISTOPHER IAN      <CONNOLLY@ge-crd.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reasoning about shape & graphics
-BODY-
Bach@score recently asked if anyone has tried to write a computer
program to reason about shape or graphics, in the context of IQ
tests:
        I don't know if this is really what you were thinking of,
but Gelernter did some work on this at IBM back in 1958-1960.
His aim was to use diagrams to aid in proving geometrical theorems.
If I remember correctly, he succeeded in that his program was able
to prove several theorems in geometry.  The work is reported in one
of the issues of the IBM research journal in 1960.  Gelernter has
since escaped to Biophysics as an occupation (!).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 10:14:32-CST
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: RSA encryption
-BODY-
>    ... I will also discuss (the Boyer Moore theorem prover's)
     proof of the invertiblity of the RSA public key encryption
    algorithm ...

     >   Has RSA been broken?  I thought it was NP complete.  Can you
    give a reference?
======================
No, it has not been broken.  But it has been proven invertible.  That is,
consider an (input) message encrypted with a public key and an (output)
string produced by decrypting the (encrypted) message using a private key.
The Boyer Moore theorem prover has rigorously proven that, given any
possible input, the output will be identical to it.
  As Dr Moore said in last night's talk, what you would like to prove is
that no one can solve the encrypted message with only the public key.  But
that's not provable, because the problem IS solvable.  Its just very hard.
NP hard, in fact.  What you would really like to prove are some things
about the properties of NP problems.
  You will certainly hear about it if anybody around here proves any such
thing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Nov 85  2115 PST
-FROM-
From: John Craig <JJC@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Typed languages and Lisp
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.
        This is part of an ongoing discussion of strong typing.]

Chris Goad (Stanford CS grad) developed a language originally called SIL,
now called RISE which is essentially a typing system added to Lisp, but
with a no-type type so that one can get around typing as one desires.  The
main reasons for adding typing are:
   1) faster code development (type checker finds bugs)
   2) the compiler can use type information to generate more efficient
      object code (for example, less or no garbage collection pauses when
      running compiled code)
RISE is in use at Silma Inc (Los Altos) and forms the user interface for
their product, RoboCam.

It seems to me like you get the best of lisp and typed worlds, and efficient
code generated also.  Its pretty fun, too.

John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 85 12:20:02 MST
-FROM-
From: shebs@utah-cs.ARPA (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Hype
-BODY-
Just got my announcement of AAAI-86 the other day.  Big poster, bright
colors (thankfully not as garish as certain other announcements), lots
of pictures, little information.  By contrast, announcements for ACM
conferences stick to the salient details and do it on the standard size
sheet of paper, although they do get radical for the national conference
and put in a little icon...  If AAAI can't seem to escape the need for
hype, why should anyone assume there's actually something real in AI?

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 2 Nov 85 08:20:07-PST
-FROM-
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow  <Geoff@SRI-CSL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Ultimate Hype: Mail Order "AI"!
-BODY-
In the interest of keeping the AI Research Community-At-Large informed of
just how out of hand AI Hype is, I offer, for your consideration the
following travesty (if you will) from the latest edition of the JS&A
"Products that THINK #16" yuppy catalog.  Both pieces are rather lengthy,
but in order to appreciate the fullness of egregiousness they espouse to our
public about "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE" (emphasis added here as well as
below), I have included them in toto.

  [I have taken the liberty of cutting Geoff's 17K-char message by
  about half.  -- KIL]

        -0-             -0-             -0-             -0-     Back Cover:
                                                                (full page)
                               MARKET VICTIM

I used to be a sucker for the stock market.  I'd get a tip from a friend,
I'd invest on a hunch or a broker would offer me some advice and off I'd
go.  On the average, I never made any money.  So I dropped out of the market
until I met Hal and Bill.

Hal was one of the most astute market advisors I have ever met.  At first, I
didn't trust Hal.  Despite his good credentials and a well-documented
three-year track record,  was still suspicious.  [...]

It took the incredible accuracy of Hal and Bill to finally get me back into
the market.  Hal had selected 14 stocks out of the 1500 on the New York
Stock Exchange that he felt would really take off.  A few I had never heard
of.  Bill advised me to sell some of my stocks in the nick of time so the
net results were 13 out of 14  winners with a few stocks  giving me a return
of greater than 30% in just a four-month period.  [...]

Hal and Bill are ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE computer programs--two independent
programs that perform what no other advisor or market expert has been able
to perform in the history of investing.  I can now sit at my Visual Computer
(see page 10), insert both Hal and Bill into my disk drive, and be told by
this intelligent program what stocks on the New York Stock Exchange to buy
and when to sell them.  [Runs on IBM compatibles with 256K memory.]

Hal gives his advice on the long range--usually his advice is good between a
three to nine month period after he makes his decisions.  Once that happens,
I then follow Bill very closely because he tells me when to close that
position.  If I want to know when to sell, I let Bill tell me by first
downloading the last 36 days of stock market activity from the Dow Jones
News Retrieval service with the help of my telephone modem.  The program
does this automatically--all I do is press a few buttons.  Then Bill takes
that information and advises me.  Between both programs the accuracy will
amaze you.  But that's not all.  [...]

The entire program is called Halographix.  [...]
The program features all the tools you need to analyze evaluate and record
your transactions.  It has automatic log-on features that access the Dow
Jones News Retrieval service and download information on any stock you've
selected for your portfolio.

Each disk is valid for only four months.  You pay only $199 for the program
(that's roughly $25 for each of the two independent programs per month), and
purchasing the disk entitles you to renew the disk every four months
thereafter for the same $199 per disk.  Obviously, if the program doesn't
make you plenty of money, you don't renew.  But for the few who have
participated, practically all of them have enthusiastically remained with
us.

Our guarantee of satisfaction is very compelling.  If, after the four
months, you are not satisfied with the program or have not seen it pay for
itself many times over, please return it and get a full refund of your $199
investment.  You can't lose.

To order, simply send your check, money order or credit card number to me
personally, Joseph Sugarman, President, JS&A Group, Inc., One JS&A Plaza,
Northbrook, Illinois  60062.  If for some reason, we sell out our
subscription for this issue, I will promptly refund your money and keep you
on our list for our next release.  But I urge you to act quickly.

I also urge you to read the article on page 20  entitled "Million Dollar
Phone."  In that article, I give you an idea of the nature of ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE and the philosophy of how the program works to accurately
predict market movement.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, the tremendous number-crunching power of your own
personal computer and the skills of a computer programmer have produced a
personal friend for the small investor.  You can now compete with the big
institutions on Wall Street with advice more accurate, personal and more
astute than their huge network of advisors and computers.  Join with me in
this novel program and enjoy the wealth of information Halographix provides
to guide you to success in your investment activity with the New York Stock
Exchange stocks.

Halographix (6082N 6.00)..........$199

        -0-             -0-             -0-             -0-     Page 20/21:

                         MILLION DOLLAR TELEPHONES

What you are about to read may sound like a get-rich-quick scheme.  And
indeed it may be.  [...]

For the past year, I have been working with a computer genius who has
developed a program that, when run on a powerful computer, can predict the
movement of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

In our first year of testing this program, our computer generated ten
signals.  Nine were accurate with the Dow making the forecasted moves within
twelve trading days.

To my knowledge, there has not been an advisor, a market expert or another
computer program that has been as accurate.

Two years ago a new form of option trading was introduced to investors.
Called OEX options, the concept gave investors a way to speculate on the
movement of the Standard and Poor's market index.  This market index is very
easy to follow because it runs almost parallel to the Dow Jones Industrial
Average.

If you were right on the movement of the overall market, you could possibly
double or triple your investment within a few short weeks.  If you were
wrong, all you could lost was your initial investment and no more.
Another popular feature of the option program is the tax treatment.  60% of
all your gains are treated as capital gains and 40% as ordinary income or
about a 32% effective tax rate.  [...]

I have formed a club called, "Dial-An-Option," which will offer information
on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  First you sign up with JS&A as a
member, which costs you only $25.  Then, at no extra charge, we provide you
with information on one major market signal.  Next, sit back, relax and
watch what happens to the Dow over the next two weeks following the signal.
[....]

Our advice will be sent via an overnight delivery service so you'll get the
first market signal well enough in advance to act quickly.  The signal must
make money for you and double or triple your investment or you can drop out
of our Dial-An-Option club and we'll refund your entire membership fee.  Or
don't take the chance and just follow the market and see what you would have
made had you invested on our advice.  [...]

Why does our computer program work so effectively?  What does it do to
predict the Dow so accurately?  If you'll take just a moment, I will
explain.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The big buzzword in software today is, "ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE," or a
special level of reasoning applied to a computer program.  The reasoning
involves looking at hundreds of factors at once and then comparing those
factors to previously programmed responses and then drawing a conclusion.

Our brains operate on a similar basis.  We are programmed with patterns
based on previous experiences or programming.  When we have to make a
decision based on new data, we lay that new data onto previous data and then
draw our conclusions.

With the number-crunching capabilities of a powerful computer and an
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE software program, our computer can sense market
movement, movement within an industry group and even movement (accumulation
or distribution) within a specific stock.

If then computes the major 30-day trend, and interprets the fluctuations in
trading and valuation levels to determine the one-to-five day pattern within
the major trend.  [...]

Our computer has the ability to first sense the changes and trends in the
market before they become obvious and then, with the minimal amount of
information, develop a comparable pattern and make a conclusion--an ideal
system for predicting the movement of the Dow Jones averages.  [...]

No program or system can guarantee future profit or success.  If we are not
correct on any of our calls (remember, so far we've been right on nine out
of ten calls), then you'll receive a refund of the fee--something that no
other advisory service that we know of provides.  Obviously we can't
guarantee any loss that may result from our advice but we urge you never to
invest more than you're willing to lose.  [...]

Thanks to a powerful computer, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, and a brilliant
program, we can no do this analytical work on a computer with greater
accuracy than even the most astute analyst or the most powerful institution.
I urge you to join our club and experience the power of our computer and its
new program designed to earn you bigger returns than you've ever dreamt
possible--and all in a very short period of time.

We've given the small investor the tool to compete with the big institutions
and enjoy the potential profits offered every day in the market place.  Join
our club, today.

Dial-An-Option Membership (6078N)..........$25
OEX Options Video Tape (6079N 2.00).........39
OEX Options Audio Tape (6080N 2.00).........14
Video and Audio Tape (6081N 2.00)...........49
Note:  Free OEX booklet sent to each club member or
tape purchaser.

(Dian-An-Option is a registered trademark of JS&A Group.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
166
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 09:42:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comments on the Xerox 1186...
-BODY-
With the idea of setting up an in-house AI lab for informal testing
of expert systems, teaching, etc., I've been looking at some of the
specialized AI hardware available.  I've read the discussions so
far on the various machines available, but would like some more
opinions on the new Xerox 1186 class processor. Needless to say
price is something of a factor in my choice and this machine seems
the cheapest with most of the functionality that I seek.  Any thoughts?
Pros and cons?

Please post answers to the list for redistribution.  Thanks muchly.

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 16:01 EST
-FROM-
From: Mukhop <mukhop%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abductive Inference
-BODY-

  >  From: "Sidney Markowitz" <SIDNEY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

     >>  Date: 26 Jan 1983 0128-PST
     >>  From: ISAACSON at USC-ISI

     >>  Abductive inference can be stated as follows:

     >>         The surprising fact, C, is observed;
     >>         But if A were true, C would be a matter of course;
     >>         Hence, there is reason to SUSPECT that A is true.


Assume the following:
Of the subjects with mono(nucleosis), 100% show a positive result for
the mono test. Of the subjects without mono, only 1% show a positive
result. Given that the test result for a subject (of unknown condition)
is positive, what is the likelihood of the subject having mono.
Of the total population, one out of every 10000 people is assumed to have
mono.

 "The surprising fact, C, is observed;"
     C is the fact that the subject tested positive. The fact is
     surprising because the probability is just over 1%.

 "But if A were true, C would be a matter of course;"
     A is the premise that the subject has mono (A => C).

 "Hence, there is reason to SUSPECT that A is true."
     Therefore, there is reason to suspect that the subject has mono.

The result appears to be reasonable. However, the probability of
~A given C is .991, indicating:
   If the result of the test is positive, then the subject probably
   does not have mono.

More appropriately:
   Despite the fact that the test is positive, the subject probably
   does not have mono.

   I realize that the point made by Isaacson is the generative nature
of abductive inference (used to generate plausible hypotheses for testing).
This counter-example is in the same vein as some recent contributions
to this list regarding modus ponens and the presidential triangle.

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
Comp. Sci. Dept.
GM Research Labs
Warren, MI 48090-9055
Phone: (313)575-2105

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 16:41:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Linguistics Reports (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                            NEW CSLI REPORTS

      Report No. CSLI-85-37, ``On the Coherence and Structure of
   Discourse'' by Jerry R. Hobbs, and Report No. CSLI-85-38, ``The
   Coherence of Incoherent Discourse'' by Jerry R. Hobbs and Michael
   Agar, have just been published.  These reports may be obtained by
   writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
   Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 1985 18:46-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at Past Conferences
-BODY-
Eighth International Conference on Software Engineering
Augst 28-30 1985 Imperial College, London

On executable models for rule-based prototyping S. Lee USA

Session 8A Knowledge Based Apporoaches

Automating tuning of multi-task program for real time embeded system
T. Shimizu K. Sakamura

Prompter: A Knowledge based support tool for code understanding
K. Fukunaga, Japan

The Analyst - A Workstation for Design and Analysis
M. Stephens, K. Whitehead

Session 9 Discussion

Software engineering- The role of  logic and AI in the software
         enterprise

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 08 Nov 85 17:24:32 +1100 (Fri)
-FROM-
From: munnari!mungunni.oz!lee@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mail Order "AI"!
-BODY-
This reminds me of an episode of Minder (BBC TV series), in which
Arthur (a con man) set up a racing tips business, on an "only pay
if you win" basis.  They tipped all horses in each race, so some
of the clients won and paid up.  A guaranteed income! I wonder if
the "AI" program for predicting the stock market uses this
heuristic.

        lee

[Another possibility is that many subscribers may stay in for one or
two rounds before becoming convinced that they've been had.  On the
other hand, the JS&A offer could be based on a legitimate formula
(not a breakthrough, I assume, but "chartists" have been known to do
quite with their formulas) that has recently donned AI garb.  I
have some of my savings in a "timing service" that uses a similar
approach.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 8 Nov 85 10:48:37-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.MGREEN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai hype
-BODY-
You ain't heard nothin' yet.

PCWeek, "The national newspaper of IBM standard microcomputing", ran a four
part review during October of a fourthcoming book by Mickey Williamson titled
"Artificial Intelligence for Microcomputers: A Business Design".  Although
the book appears to give a generally well balanced view of the current
capabilities of AI it occasionally misses the mark.

>From the start it is apparent that the author knows very little about the
subject and was forced to rely on facts and opinions supplied by others
without being able to provide some kind of sanity check.  Case in point:
He quotes Barbra Wallace of KDS corporation who "worked on a molecular
memory project in the 1950s" as predicting that within 10 years we will see
a microcomputer with capabilities comparable to 2001's HAL, "but she stops
short of predicting what it will cost".

I guess it's time to offer Stanley Kubric a position with our group, if he
did it once maybe he can do it again.

Cheers -- Mike Green

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 16:14:27-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Mailing List for AI Hype
-BODY-
Due to the volume of extraordinary AI claims, we have established
a new mailing list for promoting and isolating AI hype.  This list
is designed for persons who wish to lie, exaggerate or otherwise
misinform regarding the potential and/or accomplishments of AI.
Inflated discussions about AI features, enhancements, performance,
support, and other topics of interest to venture capitalists are
welcome.  Discussions about bugs, development problems, anything
approaching realism or legitimacy, or about AI hype itself are
specifically discouraged, as they are more appropriate for AIList
or other mailing lists.  These restrictions will have to be left
as a matter of "honor among thieves", since the list will NOT be
moderated, but will act as a mail "reflector" - ie., any message
sent to the list will be rebroadcast to everyone on the list.

The list will be maintained at Smart Expertelligeneric Logical Infer-
enceware and Teknowledgecraft Inc., using a proposed neural emulation
network of 3,140,000 parallel Lisp machines (Our current configuration
is an Explorer prototype and a Commodore 64, running CP/M.).  SELIT is
connected to the ARPAnet (both military and educational) and uucp, and
has gateways to CSNET, BITNET and Compuserve.  Thus, it should be pos-
sible to access every business, school or home in the U.S. and many in
Europe.  Therefore we hope to be able to reach every gullible element of
the computing community.  Of course, we intend to charge an exorbitant
fee for inclusion in the mailing list, until our subscribers figure out
that the list has nothing to offer beyond the current, conventional
lists and bulletin boards.

To add your name to the list, change or delete a name or have other
administrative requests serviced, send mail to:

        ARPAnet: AIHype-REQUEST@SELIT.ARPA
        uucp:    ...ihnp3.14!selit!aihype-request

To post a submission to the list, send mail to:

        ARPAnet: AIHype@SELIT.ARPA
        uucp:    ...ihnp3.14!selit!aihype

Please, do NOT bother the entire list with a request to have your name
added or deleted!  The general discussion should be bothersome enough.

Feel free to rebroadcast this announcement to anyone who might
be interested.


Dallas Webster

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
167
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 85 00:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI AI Symposium Sites
-BODY-

Two sites in our area that will be providing the TI AI Symposium are:

        University of Pennsylvania
        Harrison Auditorium (in the Univ. Museum, 33rd & Spruce)
        Philadelphia, PA
        contact: Tim Finin, TIM@UPenn (215-386-1749)
        lots of room - all are welcome - no invitation/RSVP needed

        U.S. Army Communications /Automatic Data Processing Center
        Watters Hall
        Fort Monmouth, NJ
        contact: Ms. Van dyke (201-544-2929)
        arrive early to assure seating.

It starts at 9:15 (EST) on Wednesday, November 13th.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 6 Nov 85 17:41:42-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Model Theory for Knowledge and Belief (SRI)
-BODY-
                MODEL THEORY FOR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF

                           Moshe Vardi
                           IBM San Jose

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, November 11
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


Recently, there has  been  a surge of interest in the modal logic of
knowledge and belief, which has applications in many area of computer
science.  The  standard semantics for modal logic is Kripke semantics.
In this semantics, possible worlds and the possibility relation are both
primitive notions. This has both technical and conceptual shortcomings.
>From a technical point of view, the mathematics associated with Kripke
semantics is often quite complicated.  From a conceptual point of view,
it is not clear how to use Kripke structures to model knowledge and belief,
where one wants a clearer understanding of the notions that are taken as
primitive in Kripke semantics.

We introduce modal structures as models for modal logic. We use the idea
of possible worlds, but by directly describing the internal semantics of
each possible world.  It is much easier to study the standard logical
questions, such as completeness, decidability, and compactness, using
modal structures.  Furthermore, modal structures offer a much more
intuitive approach to modelling knowledge and belief.

As an application, we present a semantic model for knowledge
with the following properties:

   (1) Knowledge is necessarily correct

   (2) agents are logically omniscient, i.e., they know all
       the consequences of their knowledge

   (3) agents are positively introspective, i.e., they are aware of
       their knowledge, but not negatively introspective,
       i.e., they may not be aware of their ignorance.

We argue that this is the appropriate model for implicit knowledge.
We investigate the properties of the model, and use it to formalize
notions such as "to know more" and "all that is known is".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 85 14:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Carole D Hafner <HAFNER%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Example-Based Reasoning (NU)
-BODY-
               College of Computer Science Colloquium
               Northeastern University, Boston, MA

                     Example-Based Reasoning

                      Prof. Edwina Rissland
               Dept. of Computer and Information Science
               University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA


In this talk, I shall discuss example-based reasoning,
particularly in the contexts of assisting in the preparation of
legal arguments and offering on-line explanations.
In the case of legal argumentation, I discuss how hypotheticals
serve a central role in analyzing the issues in
a case and describe a program, called HYPO, which generates
legal hypotheticals, and an environment, called COUNSELOR,
which provides support for legal reasoning and other strategic
tasks, like resource management. I'll briefly describe our
current work on on-line assistance and how we are trying to
make it more intelligent by embedding custom-tailored examples
in the explanations. I'll also discuss some general issues
about examples such as their generation, structure and importance
in reasoning, especially in the domains of mathematics and the law.

Date: Wednesday, Nov. 13, 1985
Time: 12:00 noon
Place: To be announced (contact hafner@northeastern or call the
       department office at 437-2462).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 17:29:20 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Representation (UCB)
-BODY-
                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                     Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A

                      Tuesday, November 12, 11:00 - 12:30
                        240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

             ``Knowledge Representation and a Theory of Meaning''
                                Robert Wilensky
                       Computer Science Division, U.C.B.

        Knowledge representation is central to most Artificial Intelli-
        gence   endeavors.    However,  most  knowledge  representation
        schemes are incomplete in a number  of  ways.   In  particular,
        their  coverage is inadequate, and they do not capture signifi-
        cant aspects of meanings.  Many do not  even  adhere  to  basic
        criteria of well-formedness for a meaning representation.

        KODIAK is a theory of  knowledge  representation  developed  at
        Berkeley  that  attempts to address some of these deficiencies.
        KODIAK incorporates representational ideas  that  have  emerged
        from  different  schools of thought, in particular from work in
        semantic networks, frames,  Conceptual  Dependency,  and  frame
        semantics.   In  particular,  KODIAK  eliminates the frame/slot
        distinction  found  in  frame-based  languages  (alternatively,
        case/slot distinction found in semantic network-based systems).
        In  its  place  KOKIAK  introduces  a  new  notion  called  the
        absolute/aspectual  distinction.   In addition, the theory sup-
        ports ``non-literal'' representations, namely, those  motivated
        by  metaphoric  and metonymic considerations.  Using these dev-
        ices, the theory allows for the representation  of  some  ideas
        that  in  the  past  have  only  been represented procedurally,
        informally, or not at all.

        KODIAK is being used to represent both linguistic  and  concep-
        tual   structures.   When  applied  to  the  representation  of
        linguistic knowledge, a new framework for talking about meaning
        emerges.   Five aspects of meaning have been identified.  These
        appear to  be  useful  in  describing  processing  theories  of
        natural language use.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 16:41:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Partial Truth Conditions and Their Logics (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


         CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR *NEXT* THURSDAY, November 14, 1985

   4:15 p.m.            CSLI Colloquium
     Redwood Hall       Partial Truth Conditions and Their Logics
     Room G-19          Hans Kamp, University of Texas


               Partial Truth Definitions and their Logics
                                Hans Kamp

      Until recently truth definitions for formal and natural languages
   were, with some few exceptions, total (in the sense of specifying
   w.r.t. any model a truth value for each sentence of the language under
   consideration). But during the past decade partial truth definitions
   have become increasingly common both within symbolic logic and in
   formal semantics.
      The motives for adopting partial truth definitions vary considerably.
   I will focus on three issues that have led to the formulation of such
   definitions: i) vagueness; ii) the semantic paradoxes; and iii)
   verification by partial information structures (a concept that has
   inspired both situation semantics and recent work on the semantics of
   data structures). I will discuss and compare some of the partial
   semantics that have been developed in attempts to come to terms with
   these issues, looking in particular at the question what logics are
   generated by the resulting semantic theories. I will argue that the
   relation between semantics and logic is less straightforward when the
   truth definition is partial than when it is total, and consequently that
   the notion of logical validity becomes much more delicate and equivocal
   once total semantics is abandoned in favor of some partial alternative.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 16:41:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Generation of Graphical Presentations (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                          PIXELS AND PREDICATES
             Automatic Generation of Graphical Presentations
                             Jock Mackinlay
         CSLI trailers, 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 13, 1985

      The goal of my thesis research is to develop an application-
   independent presentation tool that automatically generates appropriate
   graphical presentations of information such as charts, maps, and
   network diagrams.  A presentation tool can be used to build effective
   user interfaces because it exploits the structure of the information
   and the capabilities of the output device to generate appropriate
   presentations.  Application designers need not be graphical
   presentation experts to ensure that their user interfaces use
   graphical languages correctly and effectively.
      The research has two parts: a formal analysis of graphical
   languages for presentation and a prototype presentation tool based on
   the formal analysis.
      The formal analysis uses syntactic and semantic descriptions of
   graphical languages to develop criteria for evaluating graphical
   presentations.  There are two major classes of criteria:  expressiveness
   and effectiveness.  The expressiveness criteria are theorems that identify
   when a set of facts is or is not expressible in a language.  The
   effectiveness criteria are conjectures (rather than theorems) about
   the relative difficulty of the perceptual tasks associated with the
   interpretation of graphical languages.  Sufficiently expressive languages
   are ordered by the difficulty of their associated perceptual tasks.
      The prototype presentation tool, called APT (A Presentation Tool),
   uses the criteria developed by formal analysis to search a space of
   graphical languages for an appropriate presentation.  A novel feature
   of APT is its ability to generate its search space by composing
   sophisticated designs from a small set of fundamental graphical
   languages.  The design portion of APT is a logic program based on the
   MRS representation system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 7 Nov 85 15:32:51-EST
-FROM-
From: "Mary E. Spollen" <SPOLS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - CommonLoops (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                            CommonLoops

                       Speaker:  Gregor Kiczales
                                 Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

                       Date:     November 15, 1985, Friday

                       Time:     2:15 refreshments
                                 2:30 lecture

                       Place:    NE43-512A

CommonLoops is a merger of Object Oriented Programming and Lisp.  It
has a unique combination of features:

1) No special syntax:  Most attempts to add object-oriented programming
to Lisp have resulted in special syntax for message sending.  In
CommonLoops, there is no syntactic difference between calling a function
and "invoking a method."

2) Method Specification: In object oriented programming, methods are
specified in terms of the class of the object being sent the message.
One can think of this as specifying the type of one argument of the
method.  In CommonLoops,  one can specify the type of any number of
arguments to a method.

3) Type space:  The "object" space is an extension of the normal Lisp
type space, not a separate space as in Loops or Flavors.

4) Metaclasses:  The implementation of a type (determined by the
"metaclass") is independent of the type description.  This allows
tradeoffs between early binding and ease of exploratory programming.

Host: Hal Abelson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 00:53 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Minimal Entailment (UPenn)
-BODY-

FUN WITH MODELS: MINIMAL ENTAILMENT AND NON-MONOTONIC REASONING

                    David W. Etherington
             University of British Columbia
    (Currently at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.)

                  3:00pm December 3, 1985
   216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

     Circumstances  commonly  require  that  conclusions  be
drawn  (conjectured)  even though they are not strictly war-
ranted by the available evidence.  Various forms of  minimal
entailment   have  been  suggested  as  ways  of  generating
appropriate conjectures.  Minimal  entailment  is  a  conse-
quence  relation  in which those facts which hold in minimal
models of a  theory  are  considered  to  follow  from  that
theory.   Thus  minimal  entailment is less restrictive than
the standard logical  entailment  relation,  which  strongly
constrains  what  evidence may be taken as supporting a con-
clusion.

     Different definitions of  minimality  of  models  yield
different  entailment  relations.   The  talk will outline a
variety of such relations.  Domain, Predicate,  and  Formula
Circumscription  [McCarthy  1978,  1980, 1984] are syntactic
formalisms intended to capture these relations.  We  examine
each  from  a  semantic viewpoint, in the hope of clarifying
their respective capabilities and  weaknesses.   Results  on
the  consistency, correctness, and adequacy of these formal-
isms will be presented.

     While minimal entailment corresponds most  directly  to
the  Closed-World  Assumption, that positive information not
implicit in what is known can be assumed false, McCarthy and
others  have  suggested  applications  of circumscription to
more general default reasoning tasks.  With  this  in  mind,
connections  between minimal entailment and Reiter's Default
Logic will be sketched, if time permits.   In  this  connec-
tion,  we will consider positive and negative results due to
Grosof and Imielinski, respectively.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 00:56:01 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Alternatives to Concurrent Prolog (MIT)
-BODY-
Thursday  7, November  2: 15pm  Room: NE43- 7th floor playroom

         BFCP and GHC - Alternatives to Concurrent Prolog

                 Jacob Levy
                 Department of Applied Mathematics
                 Weizmann Institute of Science

This talk will discuss some of the alternatives to Concurrent Prolog
recently proposed.  Each of these languages is designed to cover a
large subset of Concurrent prolog, but to be much easier to implement.
Flat Concurrent prolog (FCP) and Guarded Horn Clauses (GHC) will be
described in detail.

FCP, which has only And-parallelism, was developed at the Weizmann
Institute as a viable subset of Concurrent Prolog.  Its current
implementation, in terms of a Warren Abstract Machine, will be
described.

The GHC language, designed by K. Ueda of ICOT, Japan, has
OR-parallelism as well as And-parallelism, but instead has more
limited synchronization primitives than Concurent Prolog.  The second
part of this talk will briefly describe my implementation of GHC.

After the talk, a demo of FCP and Logix, its programming environment,
will be given.

Refreshments at 2:00pm

HOSTS: Professors Gerald Jay Sussman and Henryk Jan Komorowski (Harvard)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 1985 17:09-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1986 Eastern Simulation Conference
-BODY-
10-12 March 1986, Omni International Hotel, Norfolk, Virginia
For more info contact: SCS, PO BOX 17900, San Diego, CA 92117
         (619)277-3888

List of AI related titles:

"TAT Teach" An Expert Training Simulator
Knowledge-Based Opponent Simulation for Tactical Decision Training
Simulators with Artificial Intelligence
Expert Systems in Training/Decision/Simulation
The Simulation Algorithm Itself: Driving the Inference Algorithm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
168
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 85 21:50:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent work by Johnson/Laird
-BODY-
Can anyone give me some pointers to recent work by
Johnson and Laird on the role of mental models in
cognition?

Thanks,
 - Bob Stine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 85 21:58:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conceptual Dependencies and Predicate Calculus wffs
-BODY-
Anyone know of any work that has been done in translating conceptual
dependency structures into predicate calculus wffs?

Thanks,

Bob Stine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1985  14:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Skef Wholey <Wholey@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Typed languages and Lisp
-BODY-
    From: John Craig <JJC@SU-AI.ARPA>

    Chris Goad (Stanford CS grad) developed a language originally called SIL,
    now called RISE which is essentially a typing system added to Lisp, but
    with a no-type type so that one can get around typing as one desires.  The
    main reasons for adding typing are:

       1) faster code development (type checker finds bugs)

A type checker can find some bugs, but it isn't clear that such bugs would
take much time to find and fix relative the to the "real" bugs a programmer
spends most of his time on.  Also, actually entering type information can add
to program development time.  Controlled experiments are required to back
claims like the above.

       2) the compiler can use type information to generate more efficient
          object code (for example, less or no garbage collection pauses when
          running compiled code)

I'll believe that type information can let a compiler generate more efficient
code, but dynamic storage allocation (and therefore garbage collection) has
almost nothing to do runtime typing.  The exception to this is "number
consing," which can be avoided by clever Lisp systems most of the time anyway.

    It seems to me like you get the best of lisp and typed worlds, and
    efficient code generated also.  Its pretty fun, too.

Common Lisp provides a very complete type declaration mechanism that lets one
give the compiler a great deal of information.  This information is used (by
some Common Lisp compilers) to generate very efficient code.  The difference
is not that one language is typed and the other untyped, but that the default
"typedness" is different.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 85 10:18:06 cst
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!simon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Janos Simon)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cryptography
-BODY-
A small correction about the difficulty of breaking the RSA scheme:
it is NOT NP-hard (although it is very likely that it is not
invertible in polynomial time - in fact it is very likely that it
cannot be inverted by polynomial time algorithms that use
randomization (that yield correct answers with high probability).

It is not hard to see that the RSA scheme can be broken if one
knows the factorization of the underlying number. Now factoring
is strongly suspected to be difficult (not doable in random
polynomial time), but it is not known to be NP-hard, and there are
good reasons to suspect that it isn't:
        1)Both factoring and primality testing are in NP. That is not
true of any NP-complete problem. If factoring would be NP-hard then
NP would be closed under complementation. This would be a surprising
answer to a very difficult question.
        2)There is a deterministic factoring algorithm that runs in
time exp(logn loglogn). This is not polynomial, but much less than
exponential (2**n). Again, this would be a very unexpected behavior
for an NP-hard problem.

Janos Simon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 09:27:54 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!basser.oz!anand@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Abduction
-BODY-
 The term abduction( as applicable to AI) or retroduction was first
coined by Charles Sanders Peirce. Deduction, Induction and Abduction
are three types of reasoning mechanisms.
DEDUCTION-   Rule: All the beans from this bag are white.
             Case: These beans are from this bag.
    Therefore Result: These beans are white.
INDUCTION-   Case: These beans are from this bag.
             Result: These beans are white.
    Therefore Rule: All the beans from this bag are white.
ABDUCTION-   Rule: All the beans from this bag are white.
             Result: These beans are white.
    Therefore Case: These beans are from this bag.
Induction is where we generalize from a number of cases of which
something is true, and infer that the same thing is true for a whole class.
Abduction is where we find some very curious circumstance which would
be explained by the supposition that it was a case of a certain general
rule and thereupon adopt the supposition.
Refer the 'Collected Papers of Charles Sandes Peirce' Vol I & Vol II
edited by Charles Hartstone & Paul Weiss, Harvard Uni. Press, 1960.
(paragraph 65,66,67,68 of Vol I and paragraphs 623 & 624 of Vol II).


(Postmaster:- This mail has been acknowledged.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 11:17:27 est
-FROM-
From: Brian Harvey <bh at mit-media-lab.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Museum Micromouse Competition
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

English and Japanese robot "mice" will engage in a heated nose-to-nose
competition at The Computer Museum on Saturday, November 23.  The miniature
self-guiding and self-propelled robots will compete for intelligence and
speed in the official room-sized Micro Mouse Maze used in the World Micro
Mouse Competition held in Japan last August.

Schedule of Events:

11:00 - 12:00  Tours of maze; micromice on display
12:00 -  1:30  Mouse warm-up and adjustment
 1:30 -  3:00  First micromouse race
 3:00 -  3:30  Mouse warm-up and adjustment
 3:30 -  5:00  Second micromouse race

Would-be mouse designers and the simply curious can attend a special lecture
and mouse demonstration clinic on Sunday, November 17 at 4:00 pm featuring
England's noted mouse expert Professor John Billingsley.

For more information call 426-2800 (a human being) or 357-8014 (a DECtalk
voice synthesizer).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Nov 1985 2102-PST
-FROM-
From: LAWS at SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Commercial Machine Translation
-BODY-
Title: Machines are Mastering the Language of Multinational Business
Author: Joyce Heard with Leslie Helm
Business Week (No. 2912, 9/16/85, pp. 90D ff.)

This article describes machine translation systems that are currently
available for translating English, German, French, Spanish, Italian,
and Japanese.  Speeds of up to 100,000 words per hour are claimed, as
are accuracies of up to 90% and prices as low as $3,000.  [Not all the
same system, of course.]  Customers are apparently willing to accept
rough translations as long as they can get them quickly; translators,
however, are not happy just polishing machine translations.  Most
of the companies offering multilingual services are converting text
to a "neutral" language, then into the target language -- this greatly
reduces the cost of additional source or target languages.  NEC
estimates that it needs about 100 "rules" for complete Japanese-English
translation, and has developed 30.  Europe has been the chief market
so far, but most of the commercial leaders are American (Automated
Language Processing Systems, Logos, World Translation Center, and Weidner).
Fujitsu, Toshiba, NEC, and Bravice International are coming up fast,
however.  Philips and the Netherlands' BSO are also working on systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 09:23:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Future Intelligence Quotation
-BODY-
>From the World Times, 11 November 2085 :-
``The World's first Intelligent System was put to the
test today. On the standard IQ rating, it's score was...''


Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
169
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 16:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Question-Answering Systems (UPenn)
-BODY-

Forwarded From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@UPenn> on Mon 11 Nov 1985 at 10:42
Subj: Seminar in Natural Language Processing

              CIS679 - SEMINAR IN NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
                                SPRING 1986

The topic for this term is question-answering systems, with particular
attention to the type of information included in response to a question,
instead of or in addition to an answer. We will look at the role of plan
recognition and planning in formulating cooperative responses, as well as
considering how to circumscribe the reasoning expected of a respondent.
Response components of particular interest will be information intended to
explain or justify answers, information intended to point out and/or correct
misconceptions, and information intended to further the questioner's goals.

Instructors: Joshi/Webber
Time: MW 3-4:30

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 85 12:54:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Kai-Fu.Lee@SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Bill, the Othello Program (CMU)
-BODY-

                                     BILL :
                              THE OTHELLO PROGRAM
                                THAT BEAT IAGO

                                  Kai-Fu Lee
                                    Friday
                               November 15, 1985
                                Wean Hall 5409
                               4:30 PM - 6:00 PM


               BILL  is  an  Othello  program  written  by myself and
          Sanjoy Mahajan.  It was entered  in  the  Waterloo  Othello
          Tournament  on  November 9, and captured first place with a
          4-0 record.  In two unofficial games, it defeated IAGO, the
          world champion othello program developed at CMU in 1980-2.

               Most,  if  not  all,  othello  programs use one of two
          types of evaluation functions: (1) knowledge-intensive  but
          slow  (such  as  IAGO), or (2) knowledge-deficient but fast
          (such as most programs at Waterloo).  BILL succeeds through
          its use of a knowledge-intensive, yet  extremely  efficient
          evaluation   function.    It  is  further  enhanced  by  an
          iterative deepening  zero-window  alpha-beta  procedure,  a
          hash   table,  a  linked-move  killer  table,  a  two-phase
          end-game search, and thinking on opponent's time.

               In this talk, I will first discuss othello strategies.
          Next, I will  describe  Bill,  and  analyze  its  games  in
          Waterloo  and  against  IAGO.  Finally, we will demonstrate
          BILL by playing it against the audience.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Nov 85 17:05:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Information-Based Complexity (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             An Introduction to Information-based Complexity
                               J. F. Traub
           Computer Science Department, Columbia University

                     THURSDAY, November 21, 1985
         4:15 p.m.  CSLI Colloquium, Redwood Hall, Room G-19

      In information-based complexity ``information'' is, informally,
   what we know about a problem which we wish to solve.
      The goal of information-based complexity is to create a general
   theory about problems with partial and contaminated information and to
   apply the results to solving specific problems in varied disciplines.
   Problems with partial and contaminated information occur in areas such
   as vision, medical imaging, prediction, geophysical exploration,
   signal processing, control, and scientific and engineering
   calculation.
      For problems with partial and contaminated information, very general
   results can be obtained at the ``information level.''  Among the
   general results to be discussed is the power of parallel
   (non-adaptive) information and the application of such information to
   the solution of problems on distributed systems.
      The methodology and results of information-based complexity will be
   contrasted with the study of NP-complete problems where the
   information is assumed to be complete, exact, and free.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 12 Nov 85 12:45:02-EST
-FROM-
From: "Brian C. Williams" <WILLIAMS%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Multilisp (MIT)
-BODY-

Thursday , October 14  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

         "Multilisp:  A Language for Parallel Symbolic Computing"

                               Burt Halstead

                                 MIT, LCS


Multilisp is an extension of Scheme with additional operators and
additional semantics for parallel execution.  These have been added without
removing side effects from the language.  The principal parallelism
construct in Multilisp is the "future," which exhibits some features of
both eager and lazy evaluation.  Current work focuses on making Multilisp a
more humane programming environment, and on expanding the power of
Multilisp to express task scheduling policies.

A skeletal Multilisp has been implemented, and has been run on the
shared-memory Concert multiprocessor, using as many as eight processors, as
well as on a BBN Butterfly machine with as many as 128 processors.  The
implementation uses interesting techniques for task scheduling and garbage
collection.  The task scheduler helps control excessive resource
utilization by means of an unfair scheduling policy; the garbage collector
uses a multiprocessor algorithm modeled after the incremental garbage
collector of Baker.

The talk will describe Multilisp, discuss the areas of current activity,
and indicate the future direction of the project.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Nov 85 15:55:02-CST
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Gazing in Theorem Proving (MCC)
-BODY-

                     GAZING: USING THE STRUCTURE
                   OF THE THEORY IN THEOREM PROVING

                             Dave Plummer
                      Department of Mathematics
                    University of Texas at Austin

                        Wednesday, November 20
                              10:00 a.m.
                         Echelon I, Room 409


A mechanical theorem prover embodies  two types of knowledge:  logical
and non-logical.   The  logical  knowledge informs  the  prover  which
inferences are legal within  the logic.  The non-logical  information,
however, is specific to the theory  that the prover is working in  and
includes definitions  of  concepts used  in  the theory,  axioms,  and
previously proved facts.   The theory is  structured by  relationships
between these facts and these relationships may be exploited in  order
to provide guidance for a mechanical theorem prover.

In this  talk  I  will  describe a  technique,  called  Gazing,  which
exploits the structure of a theory, thus aiding a mechanical prover in
determining which items of knowledge will be useful in the proof of  a
given goal.  As concepts are defined in the theory, the system  builds
a graph representing the  definitional order.  This  graph is used  in
two ways.  First, whenever a new fact enters the theory, the  ordering
is used  to determine  an  orientation of  that  fact creating  a  new
rewrite rule.  Secondly, the ordering is used to guide the search  for
a proof of a conjecture whenever the proof is known to require the use
of non-logical facts.   This guidance  takes the  form of  determining
which  concepts  are  "close"   in  the  definitional  ordering,   and
attempting to find  rewrite rules  which may  be used  to rewrite  two
different concepts to a common new concept.  The ordering can also  be
used to decide  which of  a number  of possible  common rewritings  is
preferable, and indeed if any common rewriting exists.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Nov 85 14:31:42-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Deductive Design Synthesis (SRI)
-BODY-
        EXPLOITATION OF CONSTRAINTS IN DEDUCTIVE DESIGN SYNTHESIS

                            Jeff Finger
                        Stanford University
                          JFinger@SU-SUSHI

                             PLANLUNCH
                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, November 18
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The talk will cover two related topics in deductive design synthesis:
(1) efficiency gained by reasoning forward from subgoals, and
(2) advantages and disadvantages of using a declarative representation
    for partially completed designs.

The first part of the talk gives the deductive framework for capturing the
following intuition:

        Suppose I have decided that X and Y and to be true of my
        design.  Perhaps I should think about what else X and Y imply
        about the design, say Z.  Otherwise, I might waste time
        trying to complete the design process by making decisions
        that have *already* been ruled out by X and Y, for example,
        NOT(Z).

The conditions that X and Y imply (called "necessary constraints" or "NC's")
are found via reasoning forward from subgoals. We show how NC's of a
subgoal can be used to prune the design space either by preventing some
impossible possibilities from ever being generated or by providing a quick
means of filtering bad choices.  In terms of resolution, the above use of
NC's corresponds to the rather counterintuitive notion of allowing
OR-INTRODUCTION on clauses in the set of support. We will also discuss
inheritance of NC's from goal to subgoal and the relation of finding NC's to
that of checking consistency of partially completed designs.

The second part of the talk deals with declarative representation of
partially completed designs. Deductive design systems such as QA3 or Manna
and Waldinger's reify the design as a single term in the logic.
However, it is difficult to express many sorts of constraints on partially
completed designs as a single term. Examples include two actions in an
unspecified order, or the constraint that Action A takes place less than 3
seconds or more than 8 seconds after Action B. We present a system called
RESIDUE in which we build up the design as a set of facts we are willing to
assume about of the design.  Using facts rather than a single term, we can
make finer-grained decisions, avoiding unwitting commitments that might
result in unnecessary backtracking.  In addition, forward reasoning on
subgoals (as in the first portion of the talk) may be done directly on the
set of facts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 10:40:19 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Probabilistic Propositional Logic (Buffalo)
-BODY-

                        UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
                    STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
                   DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

                             COLLOQUIUM

                            DEXTER KOZEN

                   Department of Computer Science
                         Cornell University

             A PROBABILISTIC PROPOSITIONAL DYNAMIC LOGIC

  This  talk  concerns  a  probabilistic  analog  of  Propositional
  Dynamic  Logic,  called Probabilistic Propositional Dynamic Logic
  (PPDL).  PPDL is useful in the formal manipulation of simple pro-
  babilistic  programs and the average-case analysis of determinis-
  tic programs.  We describe the formal syntax and semantics of the
  system and its deductive calculus, and illustrate its use by cal-
  culating the expected running time of a simple random  walk.   We
  also  describe  briefly a polynomial-space decision procedure for
  deciding the truth of  formulas  involving  well-structured  pro-
  grams.

                     Thursday, November 21, 1985
                              3:30 P.M.
                      Bell 337, Amherst Campus

     Wine and cheese will be served at 4:30 P.M., 224 Bell Hall
            For further information, call (716) 636-3181.

                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3180
uucp:   ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!rapaport
        ...{cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!rapaport
cs:     rapaport@buffalo
arpa:   rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
170
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 09:24:07 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: another request for help
-BODY-
When our system crashed, I also lost the address of a guy in Europe
(Switzerland, I think) who wanted info on semantic networks.  I'd
greatly appreciate help on recovering his address.  Thanks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 13:32:10 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!basser.oz!anand@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reason Maintenance System(or TMS)
-BODY-
 Has anyone implemented a RMS using PROLOG? Would like to know the
pros and cons of its implementation with LISP? Thank you in advance.
>- Anand S. Rao

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 13:28:33 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!basser.oz!anand@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conceptual dependency & predicate calculus
-BODY-
Perhaps the best work on linking CD and predicate calculus is by John Sowa.
Refer his book 'Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind
and Machine'.  (Review in AI journal Sept. 1985) --- Anand S. Rao

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 85 13:19:23 gmt
-FROM-
From: Patrick Hayes <spar!hayes@decwrl.DEC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CD into PC
-BODY-
In response to Bob Stines request concerning translating CD notation into
1PC.  This should by now be regarded as a routine exercise, surely.  Since
logic doesnt have such ideas as physical transfer already incorporated into
it, one has to translate into 1pc extended by the choice of a particular
vocabulary of relations, etc., and this can be done in several ways ( n-place
relations instead of (n-1)-place function symbols, for example ) : take your
choice.  You will need predicates such as PTRANS, of course, but also relations
(or whatever) corresponding to the various colors of funny-arrow used in CD.
There is a standard way to transform graphical notations into tree-structured
notation such as 1PC or LISP: each node in the graph becomes a name in the
language, and each link in the graph becomes an assertion that some relation
( which one depends on the color of the link ) holds between the entities
named.  In this way the graph maps into a conjunction of atomic assertions
in a vocabulary which is just about as simple or complex as that used in the
graphical language.
Several notaional tricks can add variety to this simple idea, for example
instead of mapping <node1>link2<node3> into relation2(thing1,thing3)
one can use  exists x. Isrelation(x,tpe2) & Holds(x,thing1,thing3).  This
enables one to write general rules about a number of link types in a few
compact axioms.  Ask any experienced logic programmer for more ideas.
Now, this just translates CD into 1PC notation, of course.  To get the
inferential power of CD one then needs to translate the inference rules into
1PC axioms written in the appropriate notation.  If you can find the CD
inference rules written out clearly somewhere, this should be straightforward.

One might ask whether such a translation actually captures the meaning of CD
adequately.  Unfortunately, as ( to the best of knowledge ) CD notation has
never been supplied with a clear semantics, this would have to remain a
matter for subjective judgement.

A last observation: if you check the published accounts of MARGIE, one of the
early demonstration systems using CD, you will find that one-third of it was
a program which manipulated CD graphs so as to draw conclusions.  In order
to do this, it first translated them into a tree-like notation similar to
that obtained by the above technique.

Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Nov 85 11:04:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Kevin.Neel@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI Explorer bbs
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following was posted on netnews:

>Date: Fri 13 Sep 85 15:16:25-PDT
>From: Richard Acuff <Acuff@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
>Subject: New Lists for TI Explorer Discussion

   In order to facilitate information exchange among DARPA sponsored
projects using TI Explorers, two ArpaNet mailing lists are being
created.  INFO-EXPLORER will be used for general information
distribution, such as operational questions, or announcing new
generally available packages or tools.  BUG-EXPLORER will be used to
report problems with Explorer software, as well as fixes.  Requests to
be added to or deleted from these lists should be sent to
INFO-EXPLORER-REQUEST or BUG-EXPLORER-REQUEST, respectively.  All
addresses are at SUMEX-AIM.ARPA.  These lists signify no commitment
from Texas Instruments or Stanford University.  Indeed, there is no
guarantee that TI representatives will read the lists.  The idea of
the lists is to provide communication among the users of Explorers.

        -- Rich Acuff
           Stanford KSL

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 85  1549 PST
-FROM-
From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Business World Flames as Well as We Do!
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

You might think that in moving to the business world I've given
up on the joy of seeing first-class flaming in my normal
environment - business ethics and all that.

Wrong!

The following is a quote from a story about Clarity Software Corp's
new ad (soon to appear). Clarity is introducing a product called
``Logic Line-1,'' which is a natural language data retrieval system.
The ad compares their product to competing AI products. They say,
apparently about AI programmers:

``Luckily, we won't have to worry about their rancid cells
polluting mankind's gene pool very long anyhow. Such
brain-damaged geeks tend to die young. If you've recently
spent money on artificial intelligence software, you might be
wishing that a few programmers had croaked before writing
that blithering swill they named AI and palmed off onto you.''

                        -rpg-

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 85 14:30 EST
-FROM-
From: Mukhop <mukhop%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rumor, prejudice and the management of uncertainty
-BODY-
   AI research in recent years has extensively dealt with the
management of uncertainty. A reasonable approach is to model human
mechanisms for knowledge maintenance. However, these mechanisms are
not perfect since they are vulnerable to rumor and prejudice. Both
traits are universal; the object(s) of rumor or  prejudice is a
function of the culture and the times.
   Rumoring is illustrated in the following scenario: A passes some
information to B and C, who in turn communicate it to others, and so on.
It is possible for a person to receive the same information from several
sources and consequently have a lot of confidence in its truth.
The underlying uncertainty management calculus seems to be flawed
since it ignores the fact that these sources are not independent.
   I would like to see some discussions on the following:

1) In any current AI system, is the test for independence of sources
   made prior to updating the uncertainty metric associated with a
   proposition?  This seems to be especially relevant to
   Distributed AI systems.

2) Can someone suggest a model or scenario for prejudice? This may
   lead to a test to rid AI systems of it.

3) The human knowledge maintenance system (HKMS) seems to update
   knowledge in a reasonable manner when the information is
   received from independent sources but behaves erratically when
   the sources are not independent. Similarly, do the features of
   the HKMS, that cause prejudicial reasoning under some circumstances,
   lead to sound conclusions when certain conditions are met? How else
   could the HKMS have evolved in such a way?

4) The human visual system allows optical illusions to be formed,
   but is near-perfect for most routine activities (the bedouin
   who regularly observes mirages may beg to differ). It has also
   had more time to evolve. Is it conceivable that the HKMS will
   evolve in time so that it will be robust in the face of rumor
   and eliminate prejudicial reasoning?  Or is it important to
   retain these traits to ensure "the survival of the fittest."

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
Computer Science Dept.
General Motors Research Labs.
Warren, MI 48090-9055
Phone: (313) 575-2105


  [One model of prejudice is based on our propensity for prototype-based
  reasoning, combined with our tendency to focus on and remember the more
  extreme characteristics of prototypes.  The fewer individuals we have seen
  from a population, the more certain we are that they are representative.
  The work of Kahneman and Tversky seems relevant.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Nov 1985 00:39-EST
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abduction & AI in space exploration
-BODY-
To  my  knowledge,  abductive  inference  received  some  serious
attention by NASA in the early 1980's.   There is a heavy volume:
ADVANCED   AUTOMATION   FOR  SPACE  MISSIONS,   NASA   Conference
Publication 2255, Proceedings of the 1980 NASA/ASEE Summer Study,
University of Santa Clara, CA [published end of 1982].

A certain "Space Exploration" team handled,  among other  things,
futuristic requirements for advanced machine intelligence.   (The
task  was to  design a mission to Titan sometime around the  year
2000.) The whole issue of abduction and hypothesis-formation  was
made  a central issue in competition with "expert systems"  soft-
peddled by certain vested interests.   The final "Conclusions and
Recommended  Technology  Priorities"  has in  No.   1  place  the
following recommendation:

(1)  Machine  intelligence  systems  with  automatic  hypothesis-
formation  [i.e.,  abduction - jdi] capability are necessary  for
autonomous examination of unknown environments.  This capacity is
highly  desirable  for efficient exploration of the Solar  System
and  is  essential for the ultimate investigation of  other  star
systems. [p.  381]

(Some  well-known  peddlers of expert systems actually wanted  to
send over there one of their expert systems,  until confronted by
the  question of whose expertise they are  going to package  into
the explorer...  )

That recommendation is derived from the Space exploration report,
p. 39-76.  That report, p. 68, cites the following conclusion:

Required machine intelligence technologies include:

* Autonomous processing (essentially no programming)

* Autonomous "dynamic" memory

* Autonomous error-correction

* Inherently parallel processing

* Abductive/dialectic logical capabilities

* General capacity for acquisition and recognition of patterns

* Universal "Turing Machine" computability

In  the  "Technology Assessment" section there are the  following
recommendations [p. 351]:

6.2.4 Initial Directions for NASA

Several research tasks can be undertaken immediately by NASA
which have the potential of contributing to the development of a
fully automated hypothesis formulating ability needed for future
space missions:

(1) Continue to develop the perspective and theoretical basis for
machine intelligence which holds that (a) machine intelligence
and especially machine learning rest on a capability for
autonomous hypothesis formation, (b) three distinct patterns of
inference underlie hypothesis formulation - Analytic, inductive,
and abductive inference, and (c) solving the problem of
mechanizing abductive inference is the key to implementing
successful machine learning systems.  (This work should focus on
abductive inference and begin laying the foundations for a theory
of abductive inference in machine intelligence applications.)
(2) Draw upon the emerging theory of abductive inference to
establish a terminology for referring to abductive inference and
its role in machine intelligence and learning.

(3) Use this terminology to translate the emerging theory of
abductive inference into the terminology of state-of-the-art AI;
use these translations to connect abductive inference research
needs with current AI work that touches on abduction, e.g.,
nonmonotonic logic; and then discuss these connections within the
AI community.  (the point of such an exercise is to identify
those aspects of current AI work which can contribute to the
achievement of mechanized and autonomous abductive inference
systems, and to identify a sequence of research steps that the AI
community can take towards this goal.)

(4) Research proposals for specific machine intelligence projects
should explain how the proposed project contributes to the
ultimate goal of autonomous machine intelligence systems which
learn by means of analytic, inductive, and abductive inferences.
Enough is now known about the terms of this criterion to
distinguish between projects which satisfy it and those which do
not.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
3

-N-
171
-DATE-
Date: Wed 13 Nov 85 17:05:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report - Limits of Correctness in Computers (CSLI)
-BODY-

      Report No. CSLI-85-36, ``Limits of Correctness in Computers'' by
   Brian Cantwell Smith, has just been published.  This report may be
   obtained by writing to David Brown, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA
   94305 or Brown@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 85 18:00:11 est
-FROM-
From: Ed Fox <fox%vpi.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SIGIR Forum Fall 85 - List of 1984 Information Awards of NSF
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the IRList digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                I. INFORMATION SCIENCE PROGRAM
Bolt Beranek & Newman
 User Goals as a Basis for an Intelligent System's Ability to Understand  Ill-
Formed Input--Weischedel, Ralph

Brandeis Univ.
 Information Structure of a Natural Language Lexicon--Jackendoff, Ray

Brown Univ.
 Cognitive Applications of Matrix Memory Models--Anderson, James A.

...

                            II. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

                          III. INFORMATION IMPACT PROGRAM


  [For the full 13K text of this IRList Digest, FTP file <AILIST>NSFIS.TXT
  from SRI-AI, or send a request to AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 1985 12:23-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary of Spang Robinson Report
-BODY-
FOCUS on MICRO Expert System tool kit

Estimated 1985 market at 7 million with 11,000 tool kits.
Sales figures:
  Human Edge Software's Expert Ease 1800 copies  (Jan - May)
  Expert Edge 426 copies (Jan - October)
  Expertintelligence 3000 copies
  Level Five Research Insight 1 and 2 1300 copies

Review of Symantec's Q&A and Paradoxes by ANSI, two AI products for
industry.

Reviews of the following Expert System tools including a nice
comparative table with prices, machines available on, units sold
and revenues from expert systems.


First Class: limited to 256 examples and 32 factors per
  knowledge base but knowledge bases can be chained.
Expert Ease: same limitations as firstclass
Wisdom PX: quantitative analysis
Wizdom XS: problem diagnostic
KDS: can handle 4000 rules and has dialog oriented user interface
TIMM: will infer an answer when the case does not exactly fit any of the
  examples entered.  Will report when case is not close enough to
  any example.  Will generate confidence factor.  Also will allow
  different experts to be integrated into the same expert system
RuleMaster: will allow user to create rule system with induction and
  then edit with a rule editor.

Rule Based Systems

PPE public domain system available for $20.00
MicroExpert for $49.95 (originally published in Byte but updated
  significantly)  $95.00
Insight1 from Level 5 Research
Insight2 from Level5 for $495.00.  Includes cyclical control and
  interfaces to Turbo Pascal and dBase II and dbaseIII, supports
  math and confidence systems
Exsys: suports math and confidence factors
Expert Edge: imports files, object hierarchy

High End Products
Personal Consultant from TI
M1 from Tecknowledge
KES: supports frames, production rules, Bayes Theorems and is written in C
Aion: checks for detached and redundant rules, has a Think Tank-like
  front end.

Neuron Expert: Runs on on Macintosh, allows user to print network giving
  relationship of all rules
Expertteach, includes Prolog 86, UO-Lisp and forward and backward
  inferencing engines in prolog, lisp, pascal and DBASE-II

VENTURE CAPITAL

interviews with Sprout Group and Mayfield Fund

NEWS section

Applied Expert Systems agreed to buy 1000 Xerox 1186 AI workstations;
  Applied Expert System markets PlanPower a personal financial planning
  system.  It will be distributing this system through Travelers
  Insurance system to independent financial planners
MAD Intelligent systems agreed to supply compatible workstations to
  the Philips group of companies, expected value: 15 million
Software A&E's KES now runs on the Tektronix 4404.
Migent Software has released ENRICH, The MEtods Expert, $595 on the IBM PC

Carnegie Group has delivered "Dispatcher" to Digital Equipment,
which dispatches order and controls material handling/conveyer for a
printed wire board assembly plant.

Discussion of Ford deal with Inference Corporation:

LIST of recent events and changes of bindings.

Review of Donald A. Waterman's "Guide to Expert Systems",
  "Market for Expert Systems

bibliography of recent articles on AI and the PC.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 85 10:31:04 cst
-FROM-
From: Xu Yan ren <xu%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ICOT Tech Reports
-BODY-
.TS
box;
cb s s s s
c|c|c|c
n|ltw(1i)|ltw(3i)|ltw(1.5).
ICOT TECHNICAL REPORT
_
NO.     Author  Topic   Comment
_
002     S. Kunifuji et. T{
PROLOG and Relational Data Bases for Fifth Generation Computer system
T}
_
003     E.Y. Shapiro    T{
A Subset Concurrent PROLOG and Its Interpreter
T}
_
006     A. Takeuchi et. T{
Interprocess Communication in Concurrent PROLOG
T}
_
008     H. Hirakawa     T{
Chart Parsing in Concurrent PROLOG
T}
_
013     H. Nishikawa et.        T{
The Personal Sequential Inference Machine(PSI): Its Design Philosophy
and machine architecture
T}
_
016     M. Sato et.     T{
Qute: A PROLOG/LISP Type Language for Logic Programming
T}
_
017     T. Hikita       T{
Average Size of Turner's Translation to Combinator Programs
T}
_
018     H. Tamaki et.   T{
A Transformation System for Logic Programs which Preserves Equivalence
T}
_
019     H. Yasukawa     T{
LFG in PROLOG --Toward a formal system for representing grammatical relations--
T}
_
020     H. Hirakawa et. T{
Implementing an OR-Parallel Optimizing PROLOG system (POPS) in
Concurrent PROLOG
T}
_
024     K. Sugiyama et. T{
A Knowledge Representation System in PROLOG
T}
_
026     H. Yokota et.   T{
An Enhanced Inference mechanism for Generating Relational Algebra Queries
T}
_
027     H. Yasuura      T{
On the parallel complexity of Unification
T}
_
028     K. Sakai et.    T{
Incorporating Naive Negation into PROLOG
T}
_
029     K. Furukawa et. T{
Mandala: A Concurrent PROLOG Based Knowledge Programming Language/System
T}
_
030     H. Enomoto et.  T{
Paradigms of Knowledge Based Software System and Its Service Image
T}
_
033     N. Ito et.      T{
Parallel Inference Machine Based on the Data Flow Model
T}
_
034     E. Shapiro      T{
Systems programming in Concurrent PROLOG
T}
_
035     N. Ito et.      T{
Parallel PROLOG Machine Based on the Data Flow Model
T}
_
041     M. Aso  T{
Simulator of XP'S
T}
_
042     R. Onai et.     T{
An Approach to a Parallel Inference Machine Based on Control-Driven
and Data-Driven Mechanisms
T}
_
044     T. Chikayama et.        T{
ESP Reference Manual
T}
_
046     J. Tsuji et.    T{
Dialogue Management in the Personal Sequential Inference Machine (PSI)
T}
_
.TE
.TS
box;
cb s s s s
c|c|c|c
n|ltw(1i)|ltw(3i)|ltw(1.5).
ICOT TECHNICAL REPORT
_
NO.     Author  Topic   Comment
_
053     S. Shibayama et.        T{
A Relational Database Machine with Large Semiconducter Disk and Hardware
Relational Algebra Processor
T}
_
055     T. Hattori et.  T{
SIMPOS: An Operating System for a Personal PROLOG Machine PSI
T}
_
056     T. Hattori et.  T{
The Concept and Facilities of SIMPOS Supervisor
T}
_
057     S.Takagi et.    T{
Overall Design of SIMPOS (Sequential Inference Machine Programming and
Operating System)
T}
_
058     F. Maruykama et.        T{
PROLOG-Based Expert System for Logic Design
T}
_
059     T. Hattori et.  T{
The Concept and Facilities of SIMPOS File System
T}
_
060     T. Yokomori     T{
A Note on the Set Abstration in Logic Programming Language
T}
_
061     T. Kurokawa et. T{
Coordinator -- the Kernel of the Programming System for the Personal
Sequential Inference Machine (PSI)
T}
_
062     K. Sakai        T{
An Ordering for Term Rewriting Systems
T}
_
063     H. Sakai et.    T{
Design and Implementation of the Relational Database Engine
T}
_
064     S. Shibayama et.        T{
Query Processing Flow on RDBM Delta's Functionally-Distributed Architecture
T}
_
065     K. Ueda et.     T{
Efficient Stream/Array Processing in Logic Programming Language
T}
_
066     K. Iwata et.    T{
Design and Implementation of a Two-Way Merge-Sorter and its Application
to Relational Database Processing
T}
_
067     H. Enomoto et.  T{
Natural Language Based Software Development System Tell
T}
_
068     H. Enomoto et.  T{
Formal Specification and Verification for Concurrent Systems by Tell
T}
_
071     M. Sugimoto et. T{
Design concept for a Software Development Consultation System
T}
_
072     T. Ida et.      T{
Comparison of Closure Reduction and Combinatory Reduction Schemes
T}
_
074     N. Miyazaki et. T{
An Overview of Relational Database Machine Delta
T}
_
075     K. Taki et.     T{
Hardware Design and Implementation of the Personal Sequential Inference
Machine (PSI)
T}
_
076     K. Furukawa et. T{
Mandala: A Logic Based Knowledge Programming System
T}
_
084     K. Murakami et. T{
Architectures and Hardware Systems: Parallel Inference Machine and
Knowledge Base Machine
T}
_
.TE
.TS
box;
cb s s s s
c|c|c|c
n|ltw(1i)|ltw(3i)|ltw(1.5).
ICOT TECHNICAL REPORT
_
NO.     Author  Topic   Comment
_
086     S. Uchida et.   T{
Sequential Inference Machine: SIM Progress Report
T}
_
088     H. Sawamura et. T{
Recursive Unsolvability of Determinacy, Solvable Cases of Determinacy and
their Applications to PROLOG Opetimization
T}
_
089     T. Kakuta et.   T{
The Design and Implementation of Relational Database Machine Delta
T}
_
090     T. Miyazaki et. T{
A Sequential Implementation of Concurrent PROLOG based on the Shallow Binding
Scheme
T}
_
.TE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
172
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 85 16:17 PST
-FROM-
From: Halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fictional accounts of machines that talk
-BODY-
I am looking for references to early (or ideally the earliest) mention
of machines with natural language capabilities in fiction or film.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 85 12:09
-FROM-
From: Nick Davies (at GEC Research) <YE85%mrca.co.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object oriented programming in Common Lisp
-BODY-

        Does anyone have or know of an implementation of Flavors or any other
object-oriented programming system in Common Lisp ?

        Nick Davies (ye85%uk.co.mrca@cs.ucl.ac.uk).

        Thanks in advance

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 85 14:09:10 gmt
-FROM-
From: Don Sannella <dts%cstvax.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Typed languages and Lisp
-BODY-
    >From: Skef Wholey <Wholey@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

    A type checker can find some bugs, but it isn't clear that such bugs would
    take much time to find and fix relative the to the "real" bugs a programmer
    spends most of his time on.  Also, actually entering type information can
    add to program development time.  Controlled experiments are required ...

I have been programming in HOPE and ML (both of which have the same strong but
flexible type system, due to Robin Milner) for about seven years.  I do not
know of any controlled experiments which show that strong type checking
decreases program development time; I can only report that in my experience
using these languages, the type checker catches so many bugs (I would guess
far in excess of 95% of non-syntax errors) that programs really do usually
run correctly the first time they get past the type checker.  I have heard
other people who use these languages say the same thing, and I haven't met
anybody who has really tried to use them complaining that entering type
information doesn't pay off.  (This is especially true of ML, where the
compiler is able to infer types of functions so that a programmer is not
required to say much about types at all.)  I shudder to think of how much
time I would have wasted in LISP trying to track down some of the (often
subtle) type bugs the compiler has caught for me!

Disclaimer: I haven't tried writing things like operating systems or compilers
in a language like HOPE or ML (although other people have done so), so I don't
know how much the strong type system gets in the way in cases like these.  My
experience is with rather mathematically-oriented programs of 1000 lines or so.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 22:32:12 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Removing Prejudice
-BODY-

        Concerning removing prejudice, let me suggest reading "The Nature of
Prejudice" by Gordon Allport and Patrick Monihan (then a Prof at Harvard).
I think modeling prejudice accurately is the mandate for AI systems, not
removing it.

Rich.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 85 03:16 EST
-FROM-
From: jcma@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abduction Makes The Big Time
-BODY-
See Charniak and McDermott, Introduction to AI, Addison-Wesley, 1985 for
several big sections on abduction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Nov 85 10:27 PST
-FROM-
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abduction
-BODY-
Isn't this what *all* script and schema inference systems do?
Isn't this what *all* pattern recognition systems do?

In fact almost every AI system that is not proof-based does something
like what you are calling abduction.  I can't understand why anyone
thinks that this is news, other than having a fancy new name for what
we've been doing for years.

>- Jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 85 21:18 PST
-FROM-
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On translating representations
-BODY-
"[...] for psychological reasons, in order to guess new theories,
[mathematically equivalent theories] may be very far from equivalent,
because one gives a man different ideas from the other.  [...] every
theoretical physicist who is any good knows six or seven different
theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.  He knows they
are equivalent, and that nobody is ever going to be able to decide which
one is right at that level, but he keeps them in his head, hoping that
they will give him different ideas for guessing [new theories]."

From: Feynman, R (1965). The Character of Physical Law.  MIT press,
Cambridge, Mass. pp. 168.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 10:39:47 est
-FROM-
From: Geoff Loker <gkloker%utai%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: IQ test for AI. (AIList Digest   V3 #164)
-BODY-

> I don't remember anyone suggesting to test AI programs with the
> traditional human IQ test.  [...]
> Has any one tried to write such a computer program ?
> Rene Bach (Bach@score)

Thomas Evans' PhD thesis (MIT 1963) was concerned with the solution
by machine of so-called "geometric-analogy" IQ test questions.  The
program he developped was called ANALOGY, and it apparently did quite
well with the "A is to B as C is to __" picture problems.

A revised form of his thesis can be found in "Semantic Information
Processing", edited by Marvin Minsky, published 1968 by MIT Press.
Also, the second edition of Winston's "Artificial Intelligence"
(1984) refers to Evans' work and may have pointers to follow-up
work as well.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 85 12:04:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Jakob Nielsen <nielsen.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Future IQ
-BODY-
I have actually for some time used the term "AIQ"
(Artificial Intelligence Quotient) as a shorthand when discussing
computers (e.g. "this system has an incredibly low AIQ").

I don't think that it would have any meaning to use human IQ tests
on computers however - just understanding the questions themselves
(without trying to *answer* them) would require a higher AIQ than
normally seen these days.

Of course in 2085, who knows ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1985  03:39 EST
-FROM-
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TI's Satellite Symposium & AI Hype
-BODY-

I went to this thing. It was terrible. The technical content
was zilch. I also question the way that "expert systems" and
rule-production systems are lumped together. Expert systems
are defined as systems that can handle areas of knowledge in
the manner that a human expert does. They may or may not be
rule-production systems. Rule Production systems may not
exhibit even vaguest qualities of a human expert.

This type of lumpage will only serve to confuse the general public
and lend the credence of the speakers and TI to real consumer
fraud. There is not even mention of the performance criteria that
originally generated the name of "EXPERT SYSTEM". This is further
solidified by a apprx. 25 year old student saying that he wrote an "EXPERT
SYSTEM" with a couple of rules. If I say that you have a gross income
of over $6000 dollars and you have to file, does that make me an
EXPERT. I think not.

There is no mention of the degree of expertice of such systems should
possess before being named even decision support tools.

What compounds this was I attended the Press viewing of the symposium
and there was no one there to field guestions. Most novices come with
a pre-concieved idea of AI and leave being more reinforced with
errant notions.

This feeds into Geoff Goodfellow's previous posting on this list. The
furtherence of this hype is just another blackeye AI researchers are
going to have to bear when it comes to how much funding AI is
receiving. Generating interest by speculation is one thing - opening
the doors for real consumer fraud other !

                                Dave Story
                                FTD@MIT-OZ

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 02:03 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RCA Chair at Penn
-BODY-

     RCA ESTABLISHES AN AI CHAIR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

The University of Pennsylvania is pleased to announce the establishment
of the RCA Professorship in Artificial Intelligence in the Department
of Computer and Information Science.  Established through the
generosity of RCA, the chair is intended to enhance the University's
position as a leading center for research and education in artificial
intelligence.

The University's tradition of pioneering work in the computing field, from
the development of ENIAC, the offering of the first computer course, and the
graduation of the first PhD in computer science, manifests itself today in a
strong focus in the Computer and Information Science Department on
artificial intelligence. The department is involved in a variety of research
programs at the forefront of the field, including work in natural language
processing, knowledge representation and reasoning, expert systems, computer
vision and robotics, computer graphics, parallel processing, programming
languages and environments, computer architecture and systems, theory of
computation, software engineering, and database systems.  These research
programs involve interactions with the Departments of Electrical and
Mechanical Engineering (in sensors and robotics), the Department of Chemical
Engineering (in expert systems), the Departments of Linguistics, Philosophy,
and Psychology (in cognitive science, in particular, in the computational
aspects of language and perception), the Wharton School (in database
systems, expert systems, and software engineering), and the Medical School
(in expert systems and image processing).

The person appointed to the RCA Professorship will be a distinguished
scholar who has performed outstanding research in artificial intelligence
with both theoretical and practical significance, especially in the areas of
knowledge representation and reasoning with potential applications to the
new generation of expert systems technology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
173
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 16:57:53 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Planning (UCB)
-BODY-

                      BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                      Fall 1985
                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A

                         Tuesday, November 19, 11:00 - 12:30
                        240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                 Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

                 ``Adaptive Planning is Commonsense Planning''
                               Richard Alterman
                       Computer Science Division, U.C.B.

        A  characteristic  of  commonsense  planning  is  that  it   is
        knowledge  intensive.   For  most  mundane  sorts of situations
        human planners have access to, and are capable  of  exploiting,
        large quantities of knowledge.  Commonsense planners re-use old
        plans under their normal circumstances.  Moreover,  commonsense
        planners  are  capable  of  refitting  old  plans to novel cir-
        cumstances.  A commonsense planner can plan about a wide  range
        of phenomena, not so much because his/her depth of knowledge is
        consistent throughout that range, but because s/he  can  re-fit
        old plans to novel contexts.

             This talk is about an  approach  to  commonsense  planning
        called adaptive planning. An adaptive planner plans by exploit-
        ing planning knowledge in a manner that delays the reduction of
        commonsense planning to problem-solving.    Key elements in the
        theory of adaptive planning are  its  treatment  of  background
        knowledge  and  the  introduction  of  a  notion of planning by
        situation matching.  This talk will describe adaptive  planning
        as  it  applies to a number of commonsense planning situations,
        including: riding the NYC subway, trading  books,  transferring
        planes at JFK airport, and driving a rented car.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 1985 11:48-EST
-FROM-
From: BGOODMAN at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Sparse Distributed Memory (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                    BBN Labs SDP AI Seminar


Speaker:  Dr. Michael R. Raugh
          Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
          NASA Ames Research Center

Title:    Kanerva's Sparse Distributed Memory: A RIACS Project

Date:     Friday, November 22nd, 2:00pm

Location: Main Seminar Room (2nd floor)
          Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
          50 Moulton Street
          Cambridge, MA.


  An exciting new concept in which information is stored in a large number
of neighboring addresses determined by "content," produces a memory
that retrieves causal relationships as well as sequences of episodes and
is sensitive to similarity.  It is also forgetful and reinforcable:  a
memory much like yours and mine.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 1985 11:48-EST
-FROM-
From: BGOODMAN at BBNG.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

                    BBN Labs SDP AI Seminar


Speaker:  Professor Gerald DeJong
          Coordinated Science Laboratory
          University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Title:    Explanation Based Learning

Date:     Monday, November 25th, 10:30am

Location: 2nd Floor Large Conference room
          BBN Laboratories Inc.
          10 Moulton Street
          Cambridge, MA.


    Machine learning is one of the most  important  current
areas  of artificial intelligence.  With the trend away from
"weak methods" and toward a more knowledge intensive approach
to  intelligence,  the  lack of knowledge in an AI system becomes
one of the most serious limitations.

    This talk advances a technique called explanation based
learning.   It  is  a  method  of learning from observation.
Basically, it involves endowing  a  system  with  sufficient
knowledge  so  that  intelligent planning behavior of others
can be recognized.  Once recognized, these observed plans are
generalized as far as possible while preserving the underlying
explanation of their success.  The approach supports one-trial
learning.  A new general concept can be acquired from an observation
of just one observed example.  The  approach  has  been  applied
to  three  diverse areas:  natural language processing, robot
task planning, and proof of propositional calculus theorems.  The
approach holds promise for solving the knowledge collection
bottleneck in the construction of current knowledge-based systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 85 23:39:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@CAD.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Search Control Knowledge (CMU)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

On Wednesday, November 20, at 12:00 I will present my thesis
proposal in 5409.  My thesis is concerned with the use of
explanation-based generalization in the PRODIGY system, a learning
apprentice that (among other things) acquires search control rules.
The title is: "Analytic Techniques for Learning Search Control Knowledge".
Copies are in the lounge.

                        ABSTRACT

Compression analysis, the subject of the proposed thesis, is a method for
analyzing search spaces to produce effective search control rules.
As with previous explanation-based learning techniques, an example problem
focuses the analysis process so that the entire search space need not
be analyzed.  The key idea behind compression analysis is that
many alternative explanations can be produced to justify a search control
decision; therefore it is appropriate to search for an explanation that
produces the most effective generalized control rule.  In practice this is
achieved by proposing an initial explanation which is then improved
using a set of heuristic transformation strategies.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 85 16:28:06 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - MED2 Diagnostic Expert (MIT)
-BODY-

Wednesday  20, November  4: 00pm (4:15 Refreshments) Room: NE43-512A

"MED2: An Expert System Shell for Diagnosis and Therapy in Complex Domains"

                   Frank Puppe
               Kaiserlautern University
                   Germany

Concentrating on the medical domain, MED2 is a shell combining a wide
variety of important aspects of clinical reasoning.  It's
"Working-Memory" control structure involves investigating a set of
hypotheses simultaneously, avoiding the shortcomings of focussing on
the top-hypothesis only.  This concept allows using differential
diagnosis techniques and exploiting relationships among patho-concepts
in an efficient manner.  Other interesting features of MED2 include
separation of database and diagnostic reasoning, temporal reasoning,
and belief revision.

HOST: Prof. Peter Szolovits

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Nov 85 08:32:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Truth Maintenance, Multiple Worlds in KEE (SU)
-BODY-
DAY         December 3, 1985
EVENT       Computer Science Colloquium
PLACE       Skilling Auditorium
TIME        4:15
TITLE       "Truth Maintenance and Multiple Worlds in KEE"
PERSON      Paul Morris, Robert Nado, Richard Fikes
FROM        IntelliCorp

              TRUTH, MAINTENANCE AND MULTIPLE WORLDS IN KEE

We describe the integration of an assumption-based truth maintenance
system (ATMS) into the frame-based representation facilities of the
KEE system, and the use of the ATMS to implement a multiple-world
context graph system for KEE.  Integration into the frame system
involves associating with potential slot values ATMS nodes that are
used to determine in which worlds (contexts) the slot values are
believed.  Built-in inferences provided by the frame system, such as
inheritance and the checking of value class and cardinality
constraints, are recorded, when needed, as explicit justifications in
the ATMS.  In addition, the default reasoning capabilities of KEE have
been refined and extended to take advantage of the ATMS.  Tradeoffs in
the integration between flexibility of use and run-time efficiency are
examined.  We describe the multiple-world context graph system with
particular attention to an interpretation of the graph as a network of
actions.  In this framework, the semantics of graph merges are
investigated and restrictions to ensure valid action sequences are
discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Nov 85 08:29:15-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representation of Natural Form (SU)
-BODY-
DAY         November 19, 1985
EVENT       Computer Science Colloquium
PLACE       Skilling Auditorium
TIME        4:15
TITLE       Perceptual Organization and the Representation of Natural Form
PERSON      Alex P. Pentland
FROM        AI Center, SRI Int'l and CSLI, Stanford


  PERCEPTUAL ORGANIZATION AND THE REPRESENTATION OF NATURAL FORM

To understand both perception and commonsense reasoning we need a
representation that captures important physical regularities and
that correctly describes the people's perceptual organization of
the stimulus.  Unfortunately, the current representations were
originally developed for other purposes (e.g., physics, engineering)
and are therefore often unsuitable.

We have developed a new representation and used it to make
accurate descriptions of an extensive variety of natural forms
including people, mountains, clouds and trees.  The descriptions
are amazingly compact.  The approach of this representation is to
describe scene structure in a manner similar to people's notion
of ``a part,'' using descriptions that reflect a possible
formative history of the object, e.g., how the object might have
been constructed from lumps of clay.

For this representation to be useful it must be possible to
recover such descriptions from image data; we show that the
primitive elements of such descriptions may be recovered in an
overconstrained and therefore reliable manner.  An interactive
``real-time'' 3-D graphics modeling system based on this
representation will be shown, together with short animated
sequences demonstrating the descriptive power of the
representation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Nov 85 11:46:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Fred Lakin <LAKIN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Setting Tables and Illustrations With Style (CSLI)
-BODY-
Pixels and Predicates:

        SETTING TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS WITH STYLE

Who:            Rick Beach, Xerox PARC
Where:          CSLI trailers
When:           1:00pm - Wednesday, November 20, 1985

Abstract:

Two difficult examples of incorporating complex information within
electronic documents are illustrations and tables.  The notion of style,
a way of maintaining consistency, helps manage the complexities of
formatting both tables and illustrations.  The concept of graphical
style extends document style to illustrations.  Observing that graphical
style does not adequately deal with the layout of information leads to
the study of formatting tabular material.  A grid system for describing
the arrangement of information in a table, and a constraint solver for
determining the layout of the table are key components of this research.
These ideas appear to extend to formatting other complex material,
including mathematical typesetting and page layout.  Several typographic
issues for illustrations and tables will be highlighted during the talk.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 85 23:29 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Connectionist Models (CMU)
-BODY-

                    CONNECTIONIST MODELS:  A SUMMER SCHOOL

                       Sponsored by the Sloan Foundation


ORGANIZERS:  Geoffrey Hinton (Carnegie-Mellon University)
             Terrence Sejnowski (The Johns Hopkins University)
             David Touretzky (Carnegie-Mellon University)

DATE:  June 20 through 29, 1986

PLACE:  Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

PURPOSE  OF  THE  PROGRAM:   The purpose of the summer school is to familiarize
young researchers with current techniques in the area of  connectionist  models
of  intelligence.    This  includes search procedures, learning procedures, and
methods  for  representing  knowledge  in  massively   parallel   networks   of
neuron-like  units.    Application  areas  include  vision, speech, associative
memory, natural language and motor control.


FACULTY:  There will be six full time Tutors plus several Guest Lecturers.

    Tutors:                             Guest Lecturers:
    James Anderson, Brown University    Jerome Feldman, U. of Rochester
    Dana Ballard, U. of Rochester       Christof Koch, MIT
    Andrew Barto, U. Mass. Amherst      David Rumelhart, UCSD
    Geoffrey Hinton, CMU                David Touretzky, CMU
    James McClelland, CMU               others to be announced
    Terrence Sejnowski, Johns Hopkins


WHO MAY ATTEND:  Participation is limited to graduate students and recent PhD's
who  are or will be working on connectionist models.  About 40 students will be
accepted.   Persons who have already completed a Ph.D. degree must have done so
no earlier than January 1985 to be eligible to attend.

EXPENSES:   There is no tuition charge.  Funding from the Sloan Foundation will
provide dormitory accommodations and breakfast and  lunch  for  each  attendee,
plus reimbursement for a substantial portion of travel expenses.

HOW  TO  APPLY:  By March 1, 1986, send your curriculum vitae and a copy of one
relevant paper, technical  report,  or  research  proposal  to:    Dr.    David
Touretzky, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
PA, 15213.  Applicants will be notified of acceptance by April 15, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
174
-DATE-
Date: 20 NOV 85 12:09-N
-FROM-
From: SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information about PEARL
-BODY-
Does anybody know, whether the PEARL project at Berkeley is still alive
and whom I could contact if I have questions ?
(I couldn't reach anybody of the persons mentioned in the Pearl manual
 distributed with the UNIX Franz Lisp.)

I also would be glad to get some comments on that language or pointers
to systems that have been built with it.


SNAILMAIL:    Daniel Schneider
              Departement de science politique
              Universite de Geneve
              1211 GENEVE 4                     (=GENEVA)
              Switzerland

BITNET:       SCHNEIDER@CGEUGE51
>From ARPANET: SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM
Usenet:       mcvax!cernvax!cui!shneider         (shneider without "c")

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 14:38:58 PST
-FROM-
From: Laursen.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: IQ test for AI. (AIList Digest   V3 #164)
-BODY-
Coming at this from another angle, has anyone considered building an AI
system that boosts a human being's performance on IQ tests?  Can a
person/computer combination confirm that 'Two heads are better than
one?"  A baseline for comparison would have to allow the non-AI assisted
person access to a calculator and an  on-line dictionary while taking an
IQ test.  How much leverage beyond that could an 'intelligent' system
give?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: nov 20 1985
-FROM-
From: astropa%ipacuc.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: smalltalk
-BODY-
I would like to know if anyone can help me to reach the people who
originally implemented Smalltalk-80 at Xerox on the networks. They
are Adele Goldberg, David Robson, Daniel Ingalls. I also would like to
know if there is somebody out there interested in Smalltalk, and if
someone knows about public-domain implementations of Smalltalk.
Please send private replies to me.
Fabio Favata
Net address: ASTROPA@IPACUC.BITNET

Use the Wisconsin ARPA-BITNET gateway to reach Bitnet.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 85 15:44 PST
-FROM-
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object-Oriented Programming in Lisp
-BODY-
  From: Nick Davies (at GEC Research) <YE85%mrca.co.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
  Subject: Object oriented programming in Common Lisp

  >        Does anyone have or know of an implementation of Flavors
  > or any other object-oriented programming system in Common Lisp ?


CommonLoops is an object oriented language that is written in Common
Lisp.  It is being proposed by Xerox as a standard for object-oriented
programming for that language.

CommonLoops merges the facilities of object oriented programming and
Lisp. It has a unique combination of properties.  These include a
uniform syntax for function calling and sending messages; a merger of
the type space of Lisp and the class hierarchy of objects; a
generalization of method specification that includes ordinary Lisp
functions at one extreme, and fully type specified functions at the
other; and a "metaclass" mechanism that allows  tradeoffs between early
binding and ease of exploratory programming in the implementation of
objects.

For information about the availability of an experimental version of
CommonLoops in Common Lisp contact Paul Ricci (Ricci@Xerox.ARPA).
For a copy  of a paper describing CommonLoops, please send your U.S.
Mail address to MGardner@Xerox.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 20:55:28 EST
-FROM-
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fictional accounts of machines that talk
-BODY-
    Date: 15 Nov 85 16:17 PST
    From: Halvorsen.pa@Xerox.ARPA

    I am looking for references to early (or ideally the earliest) mention
    of machines with natural language capabilities in fiction or film.

  In the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, author and age (at least
3000 years) unknown, Talus, the man of brass, is a minor character.
It was hammered out by Vulcan, owned by King Minos, and drowned when
it overreached itself attempting to club Theseus' vessel.  It was able
to speak Greek.
                                                                ...Keith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 17:43:08 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machines Who Talk
-BODY-
Try Pam McCorduck's "Machines Who Think".  The first chapter
"Brass for Brains" tells the history of AI from ancient Greece
to the Dartmouth conference.  Page 4 has a quote from Homer's
Iliad, circa 850 BC, concerning Hephaestus' attendants, whom he
created in his forge:

   These are golden, and in appearance like living young women.
   There is intelligence in their hearts, and there is speech
   in them and strength, and from the immortal gods they have
   learned how to do things.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 14:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Old Time Natural Language@bbn-vax.ARPA
-BODY-
How about Roger Bacon's great bronze head?  He supposedly built it to
answer questions for him which it supposedly did rather well.  It
finally said, "Time is, time was, time past." and shattered into pieces
but we've all had this happen to us at one time or another.  Before you
get too impressed with this story think of how much more impressed
you'd be if Bacon had supposedly typed in the questions on a keyboard?

There might be older stories lurking around Daedalus or possibly in
Ezekiel which supposedly has something for everyone in it.

                                        Seth Steinberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 19 November 1985 17:50:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Dan.Miller@a.sei.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Results - Classic AI Books Survey
-BODY-
The following are the results of an October 19, 1985 AIList survey concerning
classic AI books.  Thanks to all who responded.

>-- Daniel "Dan" H. MIller                Software Engineering Institute
dhm@sei.cmu.edu (dhm@cmu-sei.arpa)        Carnegie-Mellon University
(412)578-7700                             Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA

"Disclaimer:  The  views  and  conclusions  are those of the author, and
should not be interpreted as representing the official policies,  either
expressed or implied, of any organization he may be affiliated with."




===========================================================================
             CLASSIC ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BOOKS SURVEY RESULTS
===========================================================================
Total people responding: 5                    Total number of responses: 14
...........................................................................

                  Number of responses for the same book: 2

Minsky, "Semantic Information Processing"       MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
                                                GLICK@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA
...........................................................................

                  Multiple responses for same author: 2 sets

Nilsson, "Principles of AI".                    TIM%UPENN.CSNET@CSNET-RELAY

Nilsson, "Problem Solving Methods in AI"        GLICK@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA


Winston, "The Psychology of Computer Vision"    MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA

Winston, "Artificial Intelligence"              MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
        (the best intro to the field)
...........................................................................

                Number of responses for single books: 8

Bobrow & Collins, eds., "Representation and Understanding".
        Academic Press, 1975.  Still in print.  VIS!GREG@SDCSVAX.ARPA

Duda & Hart, "Pattern Classification & Scene Analysis"
        (also a classic in the pattern recognition literature)
                                                MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA

Feigenbaum and Feldman, "Computers and Thought" GLICK@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA

Hofstader (sp?), Douglas, "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid"
        (good reading for people who are AI oriented)
                                                PES@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA

Marr, "Vision"                                  MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
        (published in 82, this book may be too young to be considered
        a classic, but it expounds a set of principles that will
        always be applicable to vision)

Minsky & Papert, "Perceptrons"                  MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
        (also a classic in the pattern recognition literature)

Newell & Simon, "Human Problem Solving"         MICHAELG%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
        (a thorough analysis containing many important ideas)

Weizenbaum, "Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation"
        (a very readable book with some very powerful ideas)
                                                PES@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Nov 85 18:55:21-PST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Comments on the Xerox 1186...
-BODY-
        We've had a Xerox 1186 here for a couple of weeks running a
beta-version of Koto (the next release of Interlisp-D).  It is configured
with 3.8 Mb of memory, a 40 Mb disk, and the smaller display (633x832).
        The sales lit notes that you can buy as little memory as 1.1
Mb, disks sized at 10 Mb, 20 Mb, 40 Mb or 80 Mb, and a 15 or 19 inch
display.)  I've used as little as 1.1 Mb of memory in a dolphin and
found that a typical Interlisp-D working set wants more.  I recommend
at least 1.6 Mb.  Similarly, a 10 Mb disk isn't large enough to
support much virtual memory.  I recommend at least 20 Mb.  We've found
the small display adequate, but, naturally, prefer more bits.  (The 19
inch screen has more bits on it than the 808x1024 bits on the 17 inch
display found on dolphins and dandelions, but I don't know how many.)
        Before laying eyes on an 1186 we ordered a number of them for
program development with 3.8 Mb of memory, 40 Mb of disk, and the 19
inch display.  From our recent experience I wouldn't consider changing
the configuration in any respect.
        The processor is less than half the size of a dandelion and a
good deal cooler and quieter, but still not 100% unobtrusive.  The
keyboard is a major improvement over that of the dandelion.
        In speed it is not markedly different from a dandetiger, doing
some things a little faster and others a little slower.  Eg. it reads
files off of our unix file server slightly faster than a 'tiger and
off a Xerox 8037 slightly slower.  The discrepancies that favor one
machine over the other are roughly equal in number and not more than
about 10-20% in magnitude.  Exceptions: It's much weaker in floating
point (it lacks the special hardware), and in drawline (it lacks the
microcode).  I expect the microcode situation to improve, but I have
been unable to get a statement out of AIS on this point.
        I'd be willing to answer specific questions, but, as noted
above, we've only had it for a couple of weeks and we're running
beta-release software, so "your mileage may vary."
>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 85 09:42 PST
-FROM-
From: Stern.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Comments on the Xerox 1186...
-BODY-
        Just a note from the XAIS sales staff: the 1.1 mb RAM and 10 mb disk
are offered for "delivery systems" use, where an end user is not doing
development, and is probably running only compiled code. The average
application, even in runtime-only mode, may well require more of each
resource, but then again it may not. For development, you probably want
the full-up machines.

Josh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
175
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Nov 85 10:02:51-PST
-FROM-
From: OLENDER@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Unification Revisited (SRI)
-BODY-
    DATE:  Monday, November 25, 1985
LOCATION:  EJ242


                        UNIFICATION REVISITED

                          Jean-Louis Lassez
                 IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

There are three main approaches to finitely represent sets of
solutions of equations in the Herbrand Universe.  In Robinson's
classical approach the set of solutions is represented by an mgu which
is computed from the set of equations.  We introduce a dual approach,
based on Plotkin's and Reynold's concept of anti-unification in which
the finite representation (mgs) is now "lifted" from the set of
solutions.  A third approach proposed by Colmerauer is based on the
concept of eliminable variables.

The relationships between these three approaches are established.

This study provides an appropriate setting to address the problem of
solving systems of equations and inequations which arises in recent
extensions to Prolog.  A key result is that the meta-equation

                        E = E1 v E2 v ... v En

admits solutions only in trivial cases.  Two important corollaries
follow naturally.  The first is Colmerauer's property of independences
of inequations.  This means that deciding whether a system of
equations and inequations has solutions can be done in parallel.  The
other corollary is a negative result; the set of solutions of a system
of equations and inequations can be finitely represented by mgu's only
in trivial cases.  Consequently, one cannot obtain a simplified system
which is in "solved" form.  This is unlike the case when only
equations are considered.  Similar properties hold in inductive
inference when one attempts to generalize from sets of examples and
counter-examples.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Nov 85 15:25:48-PST
-FROM-
From: ICHIKI@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expanding the Horizons of Expert Systems (SRI)
-BODY-
                EXPANDING THE HORIZONS OF EXPERT SYSTEMS

                Piero P. Bonissone and Allen L. Brown, Jr.
                      General Electric Corp. R&D

                        Conference Room EK242
              Thursday, November 21, 1985 (10:00 - 11:00a.m.)


Abstract: In this paper we analyze the complexity of problem domains,
such as maintenance problems, typically handled by first generation
expert systems.  DELTA/CATS-1, an expert system for troubleshooting
diesel electric locomotives, is described as a typical example of such
systems.  More complex domains of expertise involving time-varying,
partial and uncertain information cannot be addressed by the
techniques common to first generation expert systems.  LOTTA, a
symbolic simulator of battlefield situations, illustrates some of the
requirements of such an intricate domain.  We discuss the new
inference techniques required to address the problem of managing
battlefield strategies and tactics.  These techniques include
capabilities for reasoning with uncertain and incomplete information.
The state of the art and current research thrusts are discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 11:16:19 EST
-FROM-
From: Bernard Silver <SILVER@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - CYC Commonsense Knowledge Project (GTE)
-BODY-

              GTE Laboratories AI  Seminar

                   Monday, November 25, 3 pm
                         Room 8-2335
                      GTE Laboratories
                 40 Sylvan Rd.,Waltham, MA

Mayank Prakash of MCC, Austin, Texas, will discuss the current state of
research on the CYC Project.

                       The CYC Project

The CYC Project at MCC is an attempt to enhance the power of AI
systems by providing them with common sense knowledge. Our approach
is based on the observations that 1) the brittleness of current
AI systems is due to a lack of knowledge of the broader context of
their narrow domain, and 2) automated acquisition of knowledge
requires the system to start out with a critical mass of general
knowledge. Our goal is to create a system with a large common
sense knowledge base. It will serve as a source of power for other
AI systems by acting as a knowedge server and thus providing a deeper
understanding of the domain, and by providing the ability to
analogise. It is our belief that this will significantly enhance the
performance of such systems.

For more information, please contact Bernard Silver (617) 466-2663

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 12:11 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Multimodal Perceptual System (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Sharon Stansfield <Stansfield@UPenn>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 11:09 EST



                               THESIS PROPOSAL:
                             A RUDIMENTARY ACTIVE,
                        MULTIMODAL, INTELLIGENT SYSTEM
                           FOR OBJECT CATEGORIZATION

                               S. A. Stansfield

This  proposal  outlines  the  design  of a knowledge-based, active, multimodal
perceptual system for the task of object categorization.  Passive stereo vision
and active touch are used.

Basic  level,  or  generic, objects will be recognized.  The representation for
reasoning will be hierarcical and frame-based.    At  the  highest  level  will
reside  a representation of the object as a whole, including the features which
comprise it and the relations among them.   Intermediate  levels  will  contain
frames  for  the  various  features and the slots to be filled will contain the
tactile, visual, and amodal  properties  of  these  features.    The  geometric
representation  will be based upon the idea of a spatial polyhedron:  an object
centered guide to the exploration of the object.

The architecture will be a distributed hierarchy  of  knowledge-based  modules,
each  domain  specific and informationally encapsulated.  These experts will be
dedicated to the exploration for and identification of the features  recognized
by the system.  Each module will be responsible for filling in the slots of the
frame with which it is associated.  At the lowest level of  the  hierarchy  are
the  visual  and  tactual perception systems.  At the highest level are the two
strategists:     the   reasoner,   responsible   for   hypotheses   generation,
disambiguation,  and  culling;  and  the  explorer,  responsible for generating
sensing strategies once a goal has been formulated by the reasoner.


               Advisor:                         Committee:
               R. Bajcsy                        S. Lederman
                                                R. Paul
                                                L. Shastri

                       Monday, 25 November 1985
                              10:00 a.m.
                         Room To Be Announced

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 85 12:21:19 EST
-FROM-
From: PRIEDITIS@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - ANALOGICA '85 (Rutgers)
-BODY-

                      You are cordially invited to attend
                                 ANALOGICA '85
                                  AT RUTGERS

                           Monday, December 2, 1985
                               8:30 AM - 6:00 PM

              Hill Center for the Mathematical Sciences, Room 705
                       Busch Campus, Rutgers University
                               New Brunswick, NJ

                                 Sponsored by
                        Department of Computer Science
                     Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

                                      and

                     GTE Fundamental Research Laboratories
                                  Waltham, MA

                          Free and Open to the Public



Analogica  '85 is a multidisciplinary seminar on analogical reasoning, bringing
together researchers from various disciplines such as artificial  intelligence,
cognitive  psychology,  linguistics,  and  philosophy of science.  This one-day
seminar  will  include  eight  half-hour  talks   and   a   panel   discussion.
Complimentary refreshments and lunch will be served.

For more information, contact:
Armand  Prieditis, prieditis@rutgers.arpa, 201-932-4273
Smadar Kedar-Cabelli, kedar-cabelli@rutgers.arpa  201-932-4648
Tom Mitchell, faculty sponsor, 201-932-4716


                                   SCHEDULE:

8:30 - 9:00         Coffee and donuts
9:00 - 9:15         Welcome
9:15 - 9:45         Dedre Gentner, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
9:45 - 10:15        Mark Burstein, BBN Laboratories
10:15 - 10:30       Coffee and donuts
10:30 - 11:00       Paul Thagard, Princeton University
11:00 - 11:30       Russell Greiner, University of Toronto
11:30 - 12:00       Smadar Kedar-Cabelli, Rutgers University
12:00 - 2:30        Luncheon
2:30 - 3:00         Lindley Darden, University of Maryland
3:00 - 3:30         Bipin Indurkhya, Boston University
3:30 - 4:00         Keith Holyoak, University of Michigan
4:00 - 4:15         Coffee and Donuts
4:15 - 5:45         Panel discussion

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 85 17:40:07 mst
-FROM-
From: yorick%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Foundations of AI
-BODY-

WORKSHOP ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF AI


Holiday Inn, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thursday February 6th - Saturday February 8th, 1986


Wednesday, February 5th:

6.00 pm  welcome reception

9.00 - 9.30am: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION: WILKS

9.30 - 12.30: LOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF AI (1) (Chair: Wilks)

CHANDRASEKARAN - Paradigms in AI:  An historical and contemporary perspective

HALPERN* - Turing's Test and the ideology of AI

Coffee (15 mins)

NEEDHAM - There's nothing special about AI

General Discussion (30 mins)

2.00 - 5.00pm: LOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF AI (2) (Chair: Hayes, Pat)

DREYFUS - Traditional AI: A degenerating research program

FODOR - Why there still has to be a language of thought

Coffee (15 mins)

DENNETT - The myth of original intentionality

General Discussion (30 mins)

Friday, February 7th:

9.30 - 12.30: RELATION BETWEEN FOUNDATIONS AND PROGRAMS  (1) (Chair: Sleeman)

BUNDY - What Kind of Field is AI?

McCARTHY - AI Reasoning Should be Logic with Extensions

Coffee (15 mins)

CAMPBELL* - Novelties of AI:  Theories, Programs, and Rational Reconstructions

General Discussion (30 mins)

2.00 - 5.00pm:  RELATION BETWEEN FOUNDATIONS AND PROGRAMS  (2) (Chair:
Brachman)

SPARCK-JONES - What is an experiment in AI?

NEWELL - On Comparing General Cognitive Architectures

Coffee (15 mins)

PYLYSHYN - Programs as models: Can there be a strong equivalence?

General Discussion (30 mins)

6.00 pm  An evening in Mexico



Saturday, February 8th:

9.30 - 12.30: AI AND OTHER DISCIPLINES (1) (Chair: Uhr)

ARBIB - How does Brain Theory Relate to AI?

CHURCHLAND - AI and the neurosciences

Coffee (15 mins)

JOSHI - AI and Linguistics

General Discussion (30 mins)

2.00 - 5.00: AI AND OTHER DISCIPLINES (2) (Chair: Schvaneveldt)

RUMELHART - AI:  What can Psychology learn?

BODEN - Has AI helped Psychology?

Coffee (15 mins)

MINSKY - AI and Cognitive Science

General Discussion (30 mins)


7.30pm: WORKSHOP BANQUET (Chair: Ortony)

Sunday, February 9th:

Depart for home, skiing etc.



Each presenter will have 30 minutes to present his/her position
followed by 15 minutes allocated for discussion.

*  Indicates submitted paper.

Contact: derek@nmsu.csnet or yorick@nmsu.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
176
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 12:52:35 EST
-FROM-
From: Frank Ritter <ritter@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ordering ICOT Reports
-BODY-
How does one order ICOT tech reports?
[I'm haven't had time to really go though the list of reports that I
had copied, but I'm sure many will want the address to order reports.]

Thanks for posting the list,

Frank

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1985 18:42 PLT
-FROM-
From: George Cross  <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MTSLISP on VM/CMS
-BODY-
Hi,
    Does anyone have MTSLISP running on VM/CMS?

>--- 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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 85 15:03 PST
-FROM-
From: kwhite.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: kwhite.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Shells for IBM PC
-BODY-
Does anyone out there have some experience on the IBM PC (or its
compatible clones) using Expert System Shells? I have been giving
consideration to KDS, EXSYS, and the Personal Consultant. I would like
to have the system be capable of running DOS commands which could invoke
other programs (in another language) and return. I am also  particularly
interested in shells that support the user when s/he is lost and says "I
don't know" or "I don't understand". The system should be capable of
making suggestions to the user in this situation.

Thanks in advance for your help.

...Kendall...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 12:02:13 est
-FROM-
From: mayerk%UPenn-GradEd%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Issues Concerning Expert Systems -- Who Owns What
-BODY-
This article was clipped from the Wall Street Journal,
Thursday, November 14, 1985.


                                * * *
        AFTER 15 YEARS of medical training in Pittsburgh, Caduceus will soon
be ready for its first patients.
        Caduceus is a computer program that tries to copy the skill of
72-year-old internist Jack Myers and other physicians at diagnosing about
600 illnesses.  The computer will never be as good as the best doctor
because it lacks an imagination, Dr. Myers says.  Diseases that haven't
been described or categorized will stump Caduceus, he explains, whereas
"a brilliant human being will realize he's facing something new."  Unlike
a human being, however, Caduceus never forgets to order a test or overlook a
symptom, so doctors could use the program to check their diagonoses.
        University of Pittsburgh computer engineer Harry Pople says the
long time spent developing Caduceus is partly a result of the system's
complexity:  The software had to be designed to rapidly diagnose several
illnesses at once.  But the system had some human problems, too.
        An early version, call Internist I, was rather authoritarian,
making diagnoses without telling doctors how it had arrived at its
conclusions.  That sort of bedside manner invariably stepped on fragile
medical egos.
        Caduceus, named for the coiled-snake medical emblem, now reasons
along with a doctor, suggests alternative diagnoses and explains its
"reasoning."  The system will be field-tested late next year.
                                * * *

        I now would like to ask for opinions on the following issue;
One reason experts (human) are valuable is because they are scarce.  This
scarcity is one of the driving forces behind implementing an expert
system.
        My question then, Is knowledge proprietary, if so, who owns it?
The domain expert, or the organization (university, corporation, etc.),
that the domain expert worked for when the special knowledge  was acquired?
Is the knowledge "stored" within a domain experts' brain copyrightable?
Obviously an expert system is, the same as any piece of software.  But
since, as so many people have said, "In the knowledge lies the power," an
expert system is only as valuable as the domain knowledge it contains.

        I think that in the next few years, serious questions like these
will affect the way we think about computer systems.  Another hard question
is who is liable?  Let's say some expert system in medical diagnosis was
fed data, which is later found to be faulty, or downright wrong.  And
a serious injury was related to a physician's use of this information.
If the writers of the expert system could be shown to be negligent in
the verification of their data, could it be possible that they are liable,
just as if it were a case of malpractice?

Kenneth Mayer                                   (mayerk@UPenn-Graded)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 85 07:35:42 EST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: IQ test for AI
-BODY-
>From Laursen.PA@Xerox in V3 #174:

". . .has anyone considered building an AI system that boosts a human
being's performance on IQ tests?"

Of course, *any* computer system which is more than a toy is intended to
boost human performance to some degree (answer questions one could not
answer so quickly, or at all, unaided).  Closer to the point, the
unifying principle of Doug Engelbart's work over the years has been
"augmentation of the human intellect."

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 9:13:49 PST
-FROM-
From: Laursen.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: IQ test for AI
-BODY-
"MJackson.Wbst's message of Thu, 21 Nov 85 7:35:42 EST"

"...Of course, *any* computer system which is more than a toy is
intended to boost human performance to some degree (answer questions one
could not answer so quickly, or at all, unaided).  "

True, but spreadsheets and inventory programs would be of little
immediate help in sitting down to an IQ test.  In the particular domain
of IQ tests, what partitioning of human/machine skills would make sense?
For me it comes down to the question of artificial intelligence as a
replacement or an assistant to human intelligence.  Who would you hire
for the job, the computer system with an IQ of 200, a person with an IQ
of 150, or a person with an IQ of 125 who knows how to work with a
computer system with an IQ of 200 :-)?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 08:10 EST
-FROM-
From: D E Stevenson <dsteven%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hard Typing
-BODY-
I asked our local software engineer about investigations using
hard typing.  His response was that such investigations have
been going on since about 1977.  Much of this was done by Gannon.
Anyone interested in such work can contact David Hutchens on
Hutch@clemson.

Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Nov 85 22:00:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report
-BODY-
Newsletter news: The TARGET newsletter has merged with The Artificial
Intelligence Report to form the Spang Robinson Report.  Sara Spang
is the editor, Louis G. Robinson the publisher.  The report is
available on-line through NewsNet and Mead Data Central's Nexis.
For subscription info contact Spang Robinson, 3600 West Bayshore
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303.  (It's $295 U.S. and Canada, $345 elsewhere.)

The contents of the first issue were listed in a recent AIList message
from Laurence Leff.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 13:48:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Norman Haas <nhaas.yktvmz@ibm-sj.csnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A.I. to the rescue!
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The following is a slightly abbreviated version of a recent press release. It's
interesting what applications AI is being put to these days...

Norm


Corporate News Bulletin
November 19, 1985


IBM ANNOUNCES NEW PROGRAM TO STRUCTURE COBOL CODE

IBM today announced a software program that uses "artificial
intelligence" techniques to structure existing programs written
in the COBOL language so they can be maintained and modified more
easily.

COBOL Structuring Facility (COBOL/SF) analyzes complex programs,
structures them into a top-down hierarchy of components and
identifies components for possible re-use in new program
development.  This can extend the life of current programs,
reduce the time and cost to develop new ones and improve the
productivity and quality of program maintenance.

The "artificial intelligence" techniques used to organize the
unstructured program into a hierarchy of components resemble the
way a person would analyze and reorganize the program.

Since COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language) was one of the
first and most widely used computer programming languages, many
businesses and organizations depend on COBOL-developed programs
that have been modified repeatedly.  This can result in programs
that are more and more complex and difficult to maintain and can
increase the risk of making changes that have hidden
consequences.

Programmers can use it to structure old code -- helping
make programs easier to understand, maintain and modify -- and
keep programs in structured form despite continued modifications.

It has two modes of operation:  Analysis Mode and
Generation Mode.  In Analysis Mode before structuring, it
analyzes the program and produces a report that identifies
unreachable code and endless loops it has detected.  The report
also lists especially complex parts of the program where minor
modifications by a programmer could improve the structuring
process.

In Generation Mode, it structures the program and organizes
it in a hierarchy of individually structured procedures.  This
process -- which resembles the way a person would analyze and
reorganize the program -- is an example of what many computer
scientists refer to as "artificial intelligence."

After a program is structured, a report summarizes the changes
by it and provides a structured table of program contents.
The structured program then must be recompiled.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
177
-DATE-
Date: Sat 23 Nov 85 18:07:06-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: connectionist query
-BODY-
Does anyone know of a connectionist mailing list or bulletin board to read
about the latest stuff in this area?
                -Lee Altenberg@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 85 14:33:59 est
-FROM-
From: ulysses!blade!gamma!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Lukacs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machines That Talk
-BODY-
        Fictional accounts of machines that talk:

        see: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein
                not the earliest account but a good detailed discussion of
                the (fictional) process by which Adam Selene (a self-aware
                computer) produced natural language and a video self image.

                                Michael E. Lukacs
                                Bell Communications Research
                                NVC 3X-330      (201)758-2876

        <any-backbone-site>!     \
                .OR.              \
        <AT&T-Bell-labs-machines>! \
                .OR.                > bellcore!sabre!nyquist!maxwell!mike
           direct ----> ----->-----/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 10:37:21 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Misunderstanding about the technical translation group
-BODY-
Recently, several members of the group volunteering technical
translation time (including myself) have been asked by people on the
net for copies of papers we have identified as significant.
PLEASE DO NOT ASK US FOR COPIES, especially translated copies.
We are NOT a translation service: this is too expensive of our time.
We simply identify (by translating the titles, authors, journals,
and subjects for the readership of existing newsgroups) potentially
significant papers.  We try to provide source material when ever
possible (institution or publishing house).

Some readers may find this like "Tantalus and the Grapes."  We can stop,
and you don't ever to hear about these publications again.  Just complain.
This is an international volunteer effort.  I've seen some postings
in their native European language (I should have told some people to
use English as a common Aether).  It is up to the readership of the net
to obtain foreign language reports just as they obtain other TRs.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 18:57 EST
-FROM-
From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR@SCRC-PEGASUS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Liability
-BODY-
    Date: Wed, 20 Nov 85 12:02:13 est
    From: mayerk%UPenn-GradEd%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
    Subject: Issues Concerning Expert Systems -- Who Owns What

            I think that in the next few years, serious questions like these
    will affect the way we think about computer systems.  Another hard question
    is who is liable?  Let's say some expert system in medical diagnosis was
    fed data, which is later found to be faulty, or downright wrong.  And
    a serious injury was related to a physician's use of this information.
    If the writers of the expert system could be shown to be negligent in
    the verification of their data, could it be possible that they are liable,
    just as if it were a case of malpractice?

The questions get even more interesting than that!  Suppose there's a
real zippy expert system available to your doctor.  He has to decide
whether or not to use it, and, if he uses it, whether or not to take its
advice.

[1] Suppose he decides NOT to use it, and he later messes up in a way
    the program would have warned him about.

    Can you sue him for NOT using the latest technology?
    If not, how is this different from a doctor who refuses
    to use CAT scans, X-rays, tissue-typing, or anything else?

[2] Suppose he decides to use it.

    [2a] The program tells him to pursue a particular treatment, which
         he does.  You are injured as a result.

         Can you sue the doctor?  Or should you sue the program's
         sellers? Suppose the program's sellers and implementors are
         not the same; can you sue them both?  What if the doctor
         "should have known better"?  (Never apply a tourniquet about
         the neck...)

    [2b] He overrides the program and does something else.  You are
         injured, either as a result of his treatment, or lack of the
         treatment the program ordered, or both.

         <Same questions as [2a]>

One consistent interpretation is that the doctor is ALWAYS responsible.
[That's why people usually trust a doctor; he's paid to take the
responsibility.]  On the other hand, you could reasonably claim that
it's not his fault if the technology misled him...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 1985 1733-PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: aurora!eugene@RIACS.ARPA (Eugene miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Removing prejudice (actually question on AI)
-BODY-
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 22:32:12 PST
> From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
> Subject: Removing Prejudice
>
> I think modeling prejudice accurately is the mandate for AI systems, not
> removing it.
>
> Rich.

I think the term you mean to use is "discriminate" in the behaviorism
sense.  I know the keyword you have in mind is "accurately," but I
cannot escape the problem that Intelligence is merely "accurate
preudice or discrimination."  Recently, I stuck the "artificial"
adjective in front of various words: artificial prejudice,
artificial discrimination [all this before Rich's posting].  It occurs
to me that a lot of what is lacking in AI would be illustrated by
the difference of these and what be called "artificial compassion."
I am not arguing for emotion in AI, but let me give you the circumstances
where I thought of this.

Recently, I met with some people who wanted to build an expert system
to help with Federal government procurement.  It occured to me that the
Government might get the idea to build expert systems as social workers
to process welfare cases or perhaps scholarship application.  That type
of work is not merely accessing numbers or conditions (frames?).
Deception is obviously a problem.  It occurs to me that creating
"artificial compassion" in this type of example is much harder than
building artificial discriminators.  This type of activity is the type
which humans pride themselves, and perhaps makes up a portion of
"intelligence."  Again, take the emotional aspect out of this, and
I wonder one might implement the "social worker" system [high human
goal].  Subexpert systems to aid overworked humans need not apply.  Can we
build such a system?

Lastly, the above comment falls into the category of social implications of
AI.  I am uncertain about all the AI issues I have raised, but it
seems to me that if corporations get the ideas of making such systems
for things like credit ratings [yes, I know you can argue they do this now],
or in worse cases to support "evil" governments, then .....  My interest
is in the rule-system when "rules" are broken: the welfare worker decides
to give assistance or the student gets the scholarship when rule say NO.
I'm confused, and all explanations are welcome.  Cite Turing's original
paper if you would like to show what area I'm getting wrong.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,vortex}!ames!amelia!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 85 14:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Mukhop <mukhop%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Modeling Prejudice
-BODY-
>   From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
>   Subject: Removing Prejudice

>   Concerning removing prejudice .......
>   I think modeling prejudice accurately is the mandate for AI
>   systems, not removing it.

         Modeling prejudice accurately is the mandate for AI systems
inasmuch as prejudicial inferencing embodies default reasoning and
generalizing. Admittedly, these are powerful techniques, but they
can sometimes cause unsound inferences. Over-generalization from a
small sample size and upward inheritance of defaults (most sports cars
are two-seaters => most cars are two-seaters) are error-prone.
         Modeling those aspects of prejudicial reasoning that cause
irrational behavior is certainly not mandated for common-sense
reasoning in AI systems. After all, some people exhibit more (robust)
common sense than others and it would be worthwhile modeling a clear
thinker. The upward inheritance of defaults may actually be used with
great advantage, but the clear thinker is aware of its limitations
and uses it with caution.
         My original submission regarding prejudice and
rumor addresses the design issues of a higher level control structure
for selectively invoking the appropriate reasoning techniques. This
requires a good knowledge of the degradation criteria for each
technique--an important component of common sense.

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
Computer Science Dept.
GM Research Labs
Warren, MI 48090-9055
Phone: (313) 575-2105

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
178
-DATE-
Date: 11/21/85 14:21:07
-FROM-
From: ELISHA at MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Confectionist Autumn Repast
-BODY-
                [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                    CONFECTIONIST MODELS:  AN AUTUMN REPAST

                       Sponsored by the Pavlov Foundation


ORGANIZERS:  Siu-ling Ku                        Peter Nuth
             Margaret St. Pierre                Steve Seda

DATE:   November 22, 1985
PLACE:  MIT A.I. Lab, 8th Floor Playroom

PURPOSE  OF  THE  PROGRAM:   The purpose of the autumn repast is to familiarize
young researchers with current techniques in the area of  confectionist  models
of  intelligence.    This  includes search procedures, learning procedures, and
methods  for  representing  knowledge  in  massively   parallel   networks   of
carbohydrate  units.   Application  areas  include  vision, speech, associative
memory, natural language and motor control.


FACULTY:  There will be four full time Tutors plus several Guest Lecturers.

    Tutors:                             Guest Lecturers:
    James Horner                        Julia Child
    (Ms) D. Muffet                      Charles Beard (on videotape)
    Peter Piper                         Elizabeth Crocker
    Thomas Piperson                     others to be announced

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 21 Nov 85 12:34:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Paul Roberts <ROBERTS@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A VALGOL-(un)like language......
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


A New Programming Language: SARTRE

*SARTRE--Named after the late existential philosopher, SARTRE is an
extremely unstructured language.  Statements in SARTRE have no purpose;
they just are. Thus SARTRE programs are left to define their own
functions. SARTRE programmers tend to be boring and depressed and are
no fun at parties.  The SARTRE language has two basic data types, the
EN-SOI and the POUR-SOI.  The EN-SOI is a completely filled heap,
whereas the POUR-SOI is a dynamic structure which never has the same
value.  The structures are accessed through the only operation
defined in SARTRE, nihilation, which usually results in a
?BAD FAITH at PC 02AC040 error.  Comparisons in SARTRE have a peculiar
form in that the IF statement can take no arguments and simply reads

                IF;

Similarly, assignments can only be of the form

                WHAT-IS := (NOT WHAT-IS);

since in SARTRE the POUR-SOI is only, and exactly, what it is not.
Although this sounds confusing, a background process, the NIHILATOR, is
constantly running, making any such statements (or any statements at
all, for that matter), completely meaningless.

Programs in SARTRE do not terminate, of course, since there is No Exit.

>-Author Unknown

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 11 Nov 85 13:57:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Paul Roberts <ROBERTS@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Advanced Learning Techniques....
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

        [Disclaimer: all this is forwarded.
        "I" and "me" don't apply to I or me. -- PR]

        Columbia is extending its lead the learning field:  3 recent
        discoveries have just been made by grad students there.

LEARNING BY EVOLUTION - ako survival of the fitest.  Doesn't work for
        qualifiers because admission to the department does not extend
        to the progeny.


LEARNING BY SENORY DEPRIVATION - staying away from the department in order
        to "get some work done", which simply results in (a) having a
        comprehensive knowledge of the library or (b) having a very
        clean apartment.


LEARNING BY FORGETING EVERYTHING THEY EVER TAUGHT YOU IN SCHOOL  -
        This should be self-explanatory; if not, see me after class.


        Discoveries about learning itself are a perfect example of
"learning by meta-learning".  it is well known in ai that if x is good,
meta-x is better (or at least meta-x sounds better in the title of a paper).
        in this case, perhaps meta-learning is symptomatic of learning-
avoidance, a common affliction among grad students who prefer to call it
"learning-by-doing-anything-else".  i know; i've mastered the technique.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 1985 0026-PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Stuart Marks <marks@cascade>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Found! list of proof methodologies
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I have received several responses to my request for proof techniques,
some with pointers, and some with actual "proofs."  But credit goes to
Greg Satz, who dug out of his jokes archive the list that I had in
mind.  The original author is someone named Dana Angluin, for whom no
professional association was given.

  [John McCarthy reports that Dana Angluin is now in the Computer Science
  Department at Yale, but probably compiled this list while a graduate
  student at UCB.  -- KIL]

There were a couple of references to the following work:

    Dunmore, Paul V., "The Uses of Fallacy", in R. L. Weber,
    @i{A Random Walk in Science}.  New York: Crane, Russak, & Co. Inc.,
    1973, p. 29.

This contains a similar list of proof techniques.  I haven't looked it
up yet, but I'll report if I find anything of interest.

Here is Dana Angluin's list.
=======================================================================
Proof by example:
  The author gives only the case n=2 and suggests that it contains most
  of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation:
  'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving:
  Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation:
  Best done with access to at least four alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion:
  An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by omission:
  'The reader may easily supply the details.'
  'The other 253 cases are analogous.'
  '...'

Proof by obfuscation:
  A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related
  statements.

Proof by wishful citation:
  The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem
  from the literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding:
  How could three different government agencies be wrong?

Proof by eminent authority:
  'I saw Karp in the elevator and he said it was probably NP-complete.'

Proof by personal communication:
  'Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete' [Karp, personal
  commmunication].

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem:
  'To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable,
  we reduce it to the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature:
  The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately
  circulated memoir of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance:
  A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
  question.

Proof by accumulated evidence:
  Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology:
  The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless.  Popular
  for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference:
  In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in reference B,
  which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference C, which is an
  easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference A.

Proof by metaproof:
  A method is given to construct the desired proof.  The correctness of the
  method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by picture:
  A more convincing form of proof by example.  Combines well with proof by
  omission.

Proof by vehement assertion:
  It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference:
  Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference
  given.

Proof by forward reference:
  Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often
  not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by semantic shift:
  Some standard but inconvenient definitions are changed for the statement
  of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition:
  Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
ate: 20 Nov 85  2304 PSTDon Woods <DON@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proof Methodologies
-BODY-
  [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The list of proof methodologies also appeared in SIGACT News, v15 #1
(Spring '83).  Incidentally, it omits the one I first heard from RPG, who
suggested the following as the generic form of proof methodology used in
some theological argument or other:

Proof by elimination of the counterexample:
  'Assume for the moment that the hypothesis is true.  Now, let's suppose
  we find a counterexample.  So what?  QED.'

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 1985 9:37-PST
-FROM-
From: Soon Yau Kong <soon@su-whitney.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: addendum to list of proof methodologies
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


"For the last century no one acquainted with the facts has disputed ...

> An equivalent statement is "I didn't look up the actual facts but
since most people I know think this way,it follows that everyone else
does too".

Also called proof by assumption

>Soon


  [This was in reference to a bboard discussion on evolution.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 14 Nov 85 02:24:47-PST
-FROM-
From: William "Chops" Westfield <BILLW@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor: Rinaldo's laws
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


***** sri-unix:net.ham-radio / eagle!karn /  4:17 pm  Apr 18, 1983
The following was written by Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, until recently the President
of AMRAD (the Amateur Research and Development Corp, a Washington-area
organization of experimentally-minded radio amateurs.)  Paul has accepted
an opportunity to run the Technical Department of the ARRL.


                        Rinaldo's Laws

        As I will be leaving the Washington area in early May, I thought
it appropriate to share the wisdom that I have accumulated thus far.
These truths have come not as a vision but by observation over time.
Accordingly, I have synthesized the following laws:

First Law.  Choreography is its own reward.
        Some things are done only for the sake of form.  Don't fight it
by looking for substance in everything.  Do it long enough and you'll
find enjoyment in an elephant dance.

Second Law.  He who does the work shapes it.
        As applied to computers, he who writes the code rules (the
Codin' rule).
        In meetings, he who writes the minutes determines the outcome.

Third Law.  The less the knowledge, the more jealously it is preserved.
        Societies with only a few precious facts make their people
memorize them and pledge to faithfully abide by them.
        In contrast, highly developed disciplines quit worrying about
losing knowledge (unless the computer crashes and there is no backup).

Fourth Law.  Excellence increases demands.
        Critics gather to spot tinier flaws as work nears perfection.
        Promptness invites impatience.  In correspondence, the faster
you answer a letter, the faster your correspondent will answer giving
you something with a shorter deadline.  This reaches a fever pitch with
electronic mail.

Fifth Law.  Skills diminish professionalism.
        Engineers who admit to drafting skills are vulnerable to
assignment of drafting work, just to help out.
        Similarly, female professionals should hide any clerical skills
lest they be asked to pinch hit for one of the secretaries in the event
of illness.

Sixth Law.  What separates the competent from the incompetent is the
ability to cover up mistakes.
        Many successful sales demonstrations have been made with
defective products in the hands of competent persons who avoid
demonstrating the features which don't work.  Beautiful Xerox copies can
be made from originals riddled with correction fluid.  Recovery from
some grievous errors can be attained by simply announcing, "No problem.
We'll just put it back in the word processor!"  The computer software
profession seems to be the exception; who else is so blatant as to have
a term such as "debugging" to let the world know that they need extra
time funded by the customer to correct their own errors.

Seventh Law.  Silence is not acquiescence.
        Contrary to what you may have heard, silence of those present is
not necessarily consent, even the reluctant variety.  They simply may
sit in stunned silence and figure ways of sabotaging the plan after they
regain their composure.

Eighth Law.  Quick-reaction and slow-reaction facilities rotate.
        Once people discover that there is a quick-reaction facility (QRF),
they will try to get all their work done there, bogging it down in work
and leaving the slow-reaction facility (SRF) nothing to do, thus
becoming the faster of the two.

Ninth Law.  Complexity attracts brilliance.
        The KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle is no fun and
certainly not a professional approach.  If you want brilliant people to
do work for you make it complex and demanding.
        The true professional will spend 20 hours at the computer
writing a one-time-use program that will replace 10 hours of clerical
work.  Anyway, 20 hours at professional rates pays more than 10 hours at
clerical rates.  Also, it's more intellectually rewarding.  The greatest
achievement is to use one's finest professional talents to accomplish
something that didn't need to be done.

Tenth Law.  Bad guys are replaced.
        Did you ever rejoice over the departure of someone that you
couldn't get along with only to find that a replica has shown up?
        When you are trying to make a U-turn and you have someone
tailgating you, have you pulled off on a sidestreet, then into an alley
only to find that two other cars are right behind you?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
179
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 1985 19:55-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A Christine McGeever
%T Databases: Artificial Intelligence Breeds Competition for Established
Vendors
%J Infoworld
%V 7
%N 43
%D OCT 28, 1985
%K Paradox Symantec Q&A ANSA micro database
%X Describes two database management systems which run on IBM PC's
and which are allegedly using Artificial Intelligence.
Paradox is a system which uses Query by Example with an
Artifical Intelligence system that optimizes the query.
Q&A uses an English front end and also uses query by example.

%A Keith Thompson
%T Paradox: Powerful Pricey, and Easy
%J Infoworld
%V 7
%N 43
%D OCT 28, 1985
%K Database query by example micro
%X review of the Paradox system which uses artificial intelligence
to optimize queries.  It earned three diskettes out of five and had
the following ratings
performance: very good
documentation: satisfactory
ease of learning: very good
ease of use: very good
error handling: poor
support: satisfactory
value: satisfactory

%A Dick Pountain
%T Computers as Consultants
%J BYTE
%P 367-376
%V 10
%N 10
%D OCT 1985
%K Expert-Ease Tess EMYCIN micro Expert Edge
%X reviews expert-ease (a decision tree generating system) and Tess which
is an EMYCIN like program.

%A Kenneth W. Kerber
%T Review of Computer Culture: The Scientific, Intellectual and Social
Impact of the Computer
%J BYTE
%P 57-58
%V 10
%N 10
%D OCT 1985
%X This book includes papers by John McCarthy (on the  need for commonsense
in expert sytems), Pamela McCorduck (on the promise of fifth generation
computers), Seymour Papert (on cognitive reasoning), Daniel Dennett (on
using computers to extend senses and imagination) and Feigenbaum (on
automated knowledge acquisiton in expert systems)

%A B. W. Wah
%A C. F. Yu
%T Stochastic Modeling of Branch-and-Bound Algorithms with Best-First Search
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%V SE-11
%N 9
%D SEP 1985
%P 922-923
%X reprint of paper from Compsac 82

%A B. P. McCune
%A R. M. Tong
%A J. S. Dean
%A D. G. Shapiro
%T RUBRIC: A System for Rule-Based Information Retrieval
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%V SE-11
%N 9
%D SEP 1985
%P 939-944

%A D. Keirsey
%A J. Mitchell
%A B. Bullock
%A T. Nussmeier
%A D. Y. Tseng
%T Autonomous Vehicle Control Using AI Techniques
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D SEP 1985
%V SE-11
%N 9
%P 9086-991

%A Richard Fikes
%A Tom Kehler
%T The Role of Frame Based Representation in Reasoning
%J CACM
%D SEP 1985
%V 28
%N 9
%P 904-920
%K STAR_PLAN satellite alarms KEE
%X describes STAR-PLAN which uses alarms to wake certain parts of
an expert system when conditiosn requires its analysis.  Also discusses
frames in general and KEE.

%A Frederick Hayes-Roth
%T Rule-Based Systems
%J CACM
%D SEP 1985
%V 28
%N 9
%P 921-932

%A Michael R. Genesereth
%A Matthew L. Ginsbert
%T Logic Programming
%J CACM
%D SEP 1985
%V 28
%N 9
%P 933-941
%X prolog

%A James R. Slagle
%A Henry Hamburger
%T An Expert System for a Resource Allocation Problem
%J CACM
%D SEP 1985
%V 28
%N 9
%P 994-1004
%K Battle
%X describes a system for deciding how to allocate weapons.
Goes into detail on its variation of A* to come up with a good approximation
to the optimum configuration and how values are propagated through the
network.  The techniques described could be used in such applications as
allocating advertising time in dealing with competitors in the marketplace.

%A S. D. Morgera
%T Information Theoretic Covariance Complexity and its Relation to
Pattern Recognition
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D SEP/OCT 1985
%V SMC-15
%N 5
%P 608-619

%A A. Goshtasby
%A G. C. Stockman
%T Point Pattern Matching Using Convex Hull Edges
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D SEP/OCT 1985
%V SMC-15
%N 5
%P 631-636

%A R. Jakubowski
%T Extraction of Shape Features for Syntactic Recongition of Mechanical Parts
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D SEP/OCT 1985
%V SMC-15
%N 5
%P 642-651

%T See $980M Sales in Vision Systems in 90
%J Electronic News
%D SEP 16, 1985
%V 31
%N 1567
%P 21
%X Frost and Sullivan predicts a 980 million market in vision systems in
1990 with 480 million of which would be inspection and 200 million for
identification and sorting

%A Paul J. Besl
%A Ramesh C. Jain
%T Three-Dimensional Object Recognition
%J ACM Computing Surveys
%V 17
%N 1
%D MAR 1985
%P 75-145

%T New Configuration Added, Price Cut, For Processor
%J Computer
%P 122
%D MAY 1985
%V 18
%N 5
%K Symbolics lisp machine
%X Symbolics announced a new configuration of its 3640 processor,
the 3640-1711 which has two 140 MB Winchester disks and
costs $71,080 and with one 140MB hard drive it costs $65,900.
2MB add-in board is $9,900 and an eight megabyte add-in memory board is $35,
000.

%T TI Offers Personal Consultant Version
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 16, 1985
%V 19
%N 37
%P 61
%K micro
%X discusses the new Personal Consultant Plus at $2950 and the new price
for the old Personal Consultant of $950.00

%T Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 16, 1985
%V 19
%N 37
%P 66
%K RuleMaster Radian micro
%X discusses enhancements to its Rulemaster with new screen and
menu handling facilities.

%A Takehisa Kondoh
%T Japanese Consortium Set
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 16, 1985
%V 19
%N 37
%P 85
%K Nissin Structural Planning Institute JGC Intelligence Engineering
Research Institute German Center for Comptuer Science
%X describes a consortium called Intelligence Engineering Research
Institute to be formed by European, US and Japanese companies.

%T Insight to Interpret with Expert Reports on Mac
%J Infoworld
%V 7
%N 37
%D SEP 16, 1985
%P 61
%K Macintosh micro Layered Inc. accounting
%X describes an accounting system with an AI program to help interpret
the reports

%T A Device that Heads Off Road Collision
%J Business Week
%D SEP 2, 1985
%P 77
%K Vehicle Radar Safety Systems, Inc.
%X Describes a system to warn drivers of impending collisons.  It does
not falsely alarm for road signs and radar overpasses.

%T Frey Associations to Exhibit Enhanced Version of Themis
%J DEC HARDCOPY
%V 14
%N 5
%P 94
%D MAY 1985
%K natural language database
%X this is one of those systems that allow the user to give his queries
in English to the database.  It supports 1000 word vocabulary which
can be expanded by the user.  It works with Oracle's Relational
Database Managmenet System and VaX Datatrieve.  It sells for $24,000.

%T Natural Language Software Builds Mainframe Databases
%J ElectronicsWeek
%D JAN 7, 1985
%V 58
%N 2
%P 49
%K Artificial Intelligence Corporation Intellect
%X They announced Intellect/SX which allows users to set up their own
lexicons, databases and manipulate their own databases.

%T Bureaucracy Spawns Entrepreneurs
%J High Technology
%D FEB 1985
%P 20
%V 5
%N 2
%K Lockheed pilot airplain Getex navigation
%X Describers AI system to airplane navigation making it possible to
have a one pilot airplane.

%A C. P. Neuman
%A V. D. Tourassis
%T Discrete Dynamic Robot Models
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 193-203

%A J. D. Wolter
%A R. A. Volz
%A Anthony C. Woo
%T Automatic Generation of Gripping Positions
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 204-212

%A B. K. Kim
%A K. G. Shin
%T Minimum-Time Path Planning for Robot Arms and Their Dynamics
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 213-223

%A R. A. Brooks
%A T. Lozano-Perez
%T A Subdividsion Algorithm in Configuration Space for Findpath with
Rotation
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 224-233

%A J. Rasmussen
%T The Role of Hierarchical Knowledge Represenation in Decisionmaking and
System Management
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 223-243

%A Mark R. Laff
%A Brent Halpert
%T SW 2 - An Object-based Programming Environment
%J SIGPLAN 85 Symposium on Language Issues in Programming Environments
%C Seattle, Washingto/n
%D JUN 25-28, 1985
%I ACM
%P 1-11

%A James Purtilo
%T Polylith: An Environment to Support Management of Tool Interfaces
%J SIGPLAN 85 Symposium on Language Issues in Programming Environments
%C Seattle, Washingto/n
%D JUN 25-28, 1985
%I ACM
%P 12-18
%K Macsyma
%X Describes a front end for Macsyma to allow interfacing it with
various other tools as well as general concepts for front-ends.

%A Nissim Francez
%A Shalom Goldenberg
%A Ron Y. Pinter
%A Michael Tiomkin
%A Shalom Tsur
%T An Environment for Logic Program
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 179-190

%A Mark Moriconi
%A Dwight F. Hare
%T PegaSys: A System for Graphical Explanation of Program Designs
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 148-160

%A Henryk Jan Komorowski
%A Shigeo Omori
%T A Model and an Implementation of a Logic Programming Environment
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 191-198

%A Stephen Fickas
%T Design Issues in a Rule-Based System
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1985
%P 208-215

%A P. E. Lehner
%A M. A. Probus
%A M. E. Donnell
%T Building Decison Aids: Exploiting the Synergy Between Decison Analysis and
Artificial Intelligence
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 469-474

%A Y. J. Tejwani
%A R. A. Jones
%T Machine Recognition of Partial Shapes Using Feature Vectors
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 504-516

%A A. L. Porter
%A F. A. Rossini
%A J. Eshelman-Bell
%A D. Jenkins
%A D. J. Cancelleri
%T Industrial Robots - A Strategic Forecast Using the Technological Delivery
System Approach
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 521-526

%A S. B. Ahuja
%A J. A. Reggia
%T Automated Classification of Complex Errors in Discrete Sequential Tasks
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 527-531

%A S. Gaglio
%A R. Minciardi
%A P. P. Puliafto
%T Multiperson Decision Aspects in the Construction of Expert Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 536-539

%A Y. Ichikawa
%A N. Ozaki
%T A Heuristic Planner and an Executive for Mobile Robot Control
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 4
%D JUL/AUG 1985
%P 558-563

%A Charles L. Cohen
%T AI Comes to the Aid of Pencil Pushers
%J Electronics
%P 58
%N 14
%D AUG 26, 1985
%P 18-19
%K pattern recognition VLSI Toshiba Expert System
%X Describes an expert system that transforms pencil sketches of
integrated circuit masks to computer compatible sketches.  This was
developed by Toshiba Corporation.
It uses 2000 rules and a structure-matching
method using model-based segmentation and hypothesis verfication.

%A Alexander Wolfe
%T How NASA Will Use AI in Space
%J Electronics
%D SEP 16, 1985
%P 32-327
%V 58
%N 37
%K expert systems space shuttle space station Empress LOX
%K AI applications at NASA
management of space resources
controlling experiments, assisting in repairng
planning and scheduling system for payload processing
diagnostic system for loading liquid oxygen into the shuttle
scheduling the operations of the tracking and data-relay satellite

%A James Clifford
%A David S. Warren
%T Formal Semantics for Time in Databases
%J ACM Transactions on Database Systems
%D JUN 1983
%V 8
%N 2
%P 214-254

%A R. Emeett Carlyle
%T Can AI Save Cobol
%J Datamation
%D SEP 15
%D SEP 15, 1985
%V 31
%N 18
%K expert systems T. Capers Jones maintenance
%X T. Capers Jones has developed expert systems that will structure COBOL that
produce code that takes 25 to 50 percent less time to maintain.

%A Neil C. Rowe
%T Top-down Statistical Estimatation on a Database
%J SIGMOD Record
%V 13
%N 4
%P 135-145
%K expert systems
%X This system uses a set of general-purpose statistics on a database and
then a set of inference rules to estimate other arbitrary statistics
requested by users

%A Janet L. Koldoner
%T Indexing and Retrieval Strategies for Natural Language Fact Retrieval
%J ACM Transactions on Database Systems
%V 8
%N 3
%P 434-464
%D SEP 1983
%K Cyrus information retrieval

%T Xerox Adds Low-End Workstations
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1566
%D SEP 9, 1985
%P 37
%K lisp machines
%X Describes new 1185 and 1186 with prices form 10,000 to 19,ppp.
The 10,000 gets you an 1185 with 1.1 Mbytes RAM, 10 Mbyte Winchester
and a 15 inch display.  The 19 grand gets you
3.6M bytes RAM, 80 Mbyte disk and 19 inch display.

%T Tektronix Unveils 2 New AI Systems
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1566
%P 39

%T Kurzweil Names Financial Chief
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1566
%P 39
%K Bernard F. Bradstreet
%X Kurzweill Applied Intelligence named Bernard F. Bradstreet,
a former Prime Computer vice president and treasurer, as
vice president of finance and administration.

%T Thoughtware Set To Buy Lightyear
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1566
%D SEP 9, 1985
%P 52
%X Thoughtware, a delvoloper of decision support
systems has agreed to acquire Lightyear, Inc.

%T Raster, TI Sign Marketing PACT
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1566
%D SEP 9, 1985
%P 42
%K Lisp Machine Graphics Explorer
%X Raster Technologies has agreed to market its color graphics system
for TI's Explorers.

%T Expert System Language May Improve 1-2-3
%J InfoWorld
%D NOV 4, 1985
%V 7
%N 44
%P 3
%K Teknowledge Lotus user interface expert system error correction M.1
%X Teknowledge is developing an M.1 front end to Lotus 1-2-3 which will
distinguish semantic errors from syntax errors and to allow the user
to express logic relationships.  It also provides a query by example
front end.
M.1 is being rewritten in the C programming language.

%T Advertisement
%J InfoWorld
%D NOV 4, 1985
%V 7
%N 44
%P 28
%X Advertisement for AI:Typist which is a $79.00 word processing system that
has a spelling corrector that checks words
as they are entered.  Billed as "AIRUS-A Technology is so new it's still
baffling the experts."

%T Lisp Machines Adds 2 New Directors
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1576
%D NOV 18, 1985
%P 27
%X Lisp Machines has added two new people to its board of directors:
George J. Demos and Harold Shattuck.
Art Marks has replaced Neil Bond on the board.

%T Robotic Vision Taps Marketing V-P
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1576
%D NOV 18, 1985
%P 90
%K Robotic Vision Systems
%X Robotic Vision Systems Systems reported a loss for the second
quarter of $319,000 compared with a $299,00 loss in the 1984 period.
The sales for the three months was 2.7 million up from 1.3 million.
Robotic Visions sell three-dimension vision-based robotic systems.
They also named L. Knox Johnstone, formerly marketing manager
of Robot Defense Systems, as vice president of marketing.

%T System for Automated Troubleshooting
%J NASA Tech Briefs
%D Winter 1985
%V 9
%N 4
%P 166-167
%K maintenance expert system
%X Describes software done by Leonard Friedman of Caltech in the area
of diagnostic system for electromechanical mechanisms

%T Automatic Guidance for Remote Manipulator
%J NASA Tech Briefs
%D Winter 1985
%V 9
%N 4
%P 68-69
%K robotics
%X System based on maintaining a mirror on the object to be grasped
with detectors and light sources on the end effector of the robot.
It is patented (NO. 3,888,362)

%A James A. Marti.n
%T Nixdorf Expert System Shell Out
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 4, 1985
%V 19
%N 44
%P 31
%K Prolog MProlog Twaice Logicware
%X Nixdorf announced an expert system shell based on Logicware's Prolog.
The system supports a taxonomy model, rule compiler and a general lease
is $70,000.

%T News from the Industry Front
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 4, 1985
%V 19
%N 44
%P 31
%K Inference Carnegie Group Ford Motor
%X Ford Motor purchased  interest in Inference Corp and Carnegie Group..
These represent $14 million each.

%A T. M. Mitchell
%A L. I. Steinberg
%A J. S. Shulman
%T A Knowledge-Based Approach to Design
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 502-510
%K VLSI Design

%A G. Kahn
%A S. Nowlan
%A J. McDermott
%T Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 511-522
%K maintenance MUD oil extraction MORE
%X describes a general theory for when a domain is suited for
diagnostic expert system based on shallow knowledge and how to
construct the base.  Then this was automated in a tool called MORE

%A R. Rada
%T Gradualness Facilitates Knowledge Refinement
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 523-530
%X describes a method to determine the weights of rules in expert
systems based on the closeness of answers of the expert systems
on the given answers

%A A. Sathi
%A M. S. Fox
%A M. Greenberg
%T Representaton of Activity Knowledge for Project Management
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 531-552

%A P. K. Fink
%A J. C. Lusth
%A J. W. Duran
%T A General Expert System Design for Diagnostic Problem Solving
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 553-560
%X describes a structure to which any domain that needs to be diagnosed
can be described as.  This is for diagnostic system based on deep
reasoning.

%A P. S. Rosenbloom
%A J. E. Laird
%A J. McDermott
%A A. Newell
%A E. Orciuch
%T R1-Soar: An Experiment in Knowledge-Intensive Programming in a
Problem-Solving Architecture
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 561-569

%A D. M. McKeown, Jr.
%A W. A. Harvey, Jr.
%A J. McDermott
%T Rule-Based Interpretation of Aerial Imagery
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 570-585
%K vision

%A C. V. Apte
%A S. M. Weiss
%T An Approach to Expert Control of Interactive Software Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 586-591
%K well-log geology ELAS
%X describes a system for dynamic selection and interpretation
fo appropriate programs and parameters in the area of well-log
analysis

%A Yizong Cheng
%A King-Sun Fu
%T Conceptual Clustering in Knowledge Organization
%J IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
%V PAMI-7
%N 5
%D SEP 1985
%P 592-598
%K Huato traditional Chinese medicine
%X describes an expert  system for "traditional Chinese medicine."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
180
-DATE-
Date: 26 NOV 85 12:08-N
-FROM-
From: MANUEL%CGEUGE52.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Workstations
-BODY-

  We are looking for an AI workstation for research purposes and would
appreciate any comments that you have concerning your favorite (or not
so favorite) workstation.  In particular, Sun vs. Symbolics arguments
would be appreciated.  Here are some of the workstations that we are
considering:

          Apollo DOMAIN family            Symbolics 3600
          DEC VAXstation II               Tektronix TEK 4406
          LMI Lambda family               TI Explorer
          Sun 2 & 3                       Xerox 1100 series

  Please send your comments directly to me.  If you would like the contest
results posted then please let me know.

  Thanks very much for your consideration.

... James Stewart
    Department of Physics
    University of Geneva
    MANUEL @ CGEUGE52 (on BITNET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Nov 85 13:10:38-EST
-FROM-
From: Marc Vilain <MVILAIN@BBNG.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system defeats halting problem?
-BODY-
I'd be curious to know just which kinds of infinite loops are detected
by IBM's COBOL restructuring program.  No doubt that some cases can be
detected by rudimentary kinds of template matching, but in general what
we're talking about is the halting problem.  Anybody out there have more
information on this?

marc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 85 10:59:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Fictional accounts of machines that talk (Vol 3 # 172)
-BODY-
The natural language  capabilities of a machine are amply illustrated
in Robert Heinlein's ``The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'', (cf AIList Vol
3 # 39), written in the sixties. Here the machine, called Mike, talks
to  the programmer who realizes  that Mike is now large enough to  be
self-aware.  Not only does Mike  hold quite normal conversations,  he
eventually  creates a fictional character ``inside his head'', called
Adam  Selene. He then gives  this character life by  building a video
and voice image. Many people would like to meet Mr. Selene in person!
Also  worth  a mention  in  this context  is ``Do  Androids  Dream of
Electric Sheep?'', by Philip K. Dick. These are not quite the ancient
Greeks, or particularly early.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Nov 85 17:14:02-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Doonesbury on Artificial Intelligence
-BODY-
[ Doonesbury - Sunday Nov 24, 1985 ]

[ Mike and Bernie, in front of a desk with a MACish computer facing them ]

B:  You see Mike, most of the computer breakthroughs we're making today have
    to do with Artificial Intelligence.

    The computer recognizes patterns in the user's behavior that enable it
    to make decisions on its own.  Of course, the machine is still only as
    ethical as its owner.

    Let me show you a hypothetical model.  Say I called up my company spread-
    sheet and transferred $100,000 to my personal account, okay?

<tip-a-ti-type-tap-tap>

    Watch.

>BING!<  EMBEZZLEMENT TRANSACTION COMPLETED.

M:  Good Lord !!!

B:  Mindless compliance, right? ...

RESERVATIONS FOR RIO CONFIRMED.

B:  ... but it anticipated my every need !

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 24 Nov 85 12:30:41-PST
-FROM-
From: PEREIRA@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert Systems and Liability
-BODY-
Given current litigation practices, I would think the answer to your
questions is rather simple: you sue everyone in sight (doctor, program
seller, program developer, hospital, city, state, Santa Klaus,...). With
the ``joint and several'' legal doctrine currently used in liability
cases, at least one of them will end up paying... (unless all go
bankrupt, of course...)

>- Fernando

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Nov 85 12:30:41-PST
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Strategies Newsletter
-BODY-
I have received a flyer for another AI newletter, Expert Systems Strategies.
Paul Harmon is one of the editors, and his AI in Business book (with David
King) is offered free to charter subscribers.  The newsletter covers the
usual mix: market trends, user profiles, vendor critiques, systems application
analyses, performance engineering, hardware reviews, languages and tools,
survey reports, knowledge engineering, events calendar, show updates,
literature reviews, major contract announcements, and new business ventures --
all focussed on expert systems rather than AI in general.  Current price is
$207 ($40 off) for 12 monthly issues of 16 pages each.  Cahners Newsletter
Center, P.O. Box 59, New Town Branch, Boston, MA  02258; (617) 964-3030;
Cable/CAHNERS BOSTON; Telex 94-0573 CPC BSN.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Nov 85 01:23:34-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: interesting article in CACM of 85/11
-BODY-
1164    DISCOVERING THE SECRETS OF DNA.  Peter Friedland and Laurence H Kedes
        Symbolic Pattern Recognition and the AI methodologies model building
        and theory formation will be critical to the next stage of discovery
        in regulatory molecular genetics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 1985 19:55-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Tech Reports
-BODY-
ADDRESSES TO REQUEST TECH REPORTS LISTED:

Department of Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

Department of Computer Science, Univeristy of Illinois at Urbana-Champign
1304 West Springfield Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 OR erna@uiuc OR
Engineering Docurments Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1308 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801

Washington State University, Computer Science Deparmtent, Pullman, Washington
99164-1210

Computing Research Laboratory, University of Michigan, Room 1079,
East Engineering Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109, USA

UCLA Computer Science Department, 3732 Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90024


%A Asya Campbell
%T Comparison of Dynamically and Statically Scoped Lisp
%R CSD-850024
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $2.75

%A Rina Dechhter
%T Studies in the Use and Generation of Heuristics
%R CSD-850033
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $12.50  (Ph. D. Thesis)
%K A*

%A  Judea Pearl
%T Bayesian Networks: A Model of Self-Activiated Memory for Evidential
Reasoning
%R CSD-850021
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $0.50

%A Judea Pearl
%T A Constraint-Propagation Approach to Probabilistic Reasoning
%R CSD-850020
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $0.75

%A Judea Pearl
%T Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Bayesian Networks
%R CSD-850022
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $4.25

%A Judea Pearl
%T Bayes Decision Methods
%R CSD-850023
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $2.00

%A Judea Pearl
%A Michael Taria
%T Structuring Causal Trees
%R CSD-850029
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $1.75

%A Judea Pearl
%T How to Do With Probabilities What People Say You Can't
%R CSD-850031
%X $1.75
%I UCLA Computer Science Department
%X $1.75

%A Judea Pearl
%T On Evidential Reasoning in a Hierarchy of Hypotheses
%R CSD-850032
%X $0.75
%I UCLA Computer Science Department

%A Michael A. Langston
%A Chul E. Kim
%T Movement Coordination for Single-Track Robot Systems
%R CSD-84-125
%X $2.50  (discusses dealing with multiple robots)
%I Washington State University Computer Science Department

%A Jerzy Tiuryn
%T An Introduction to First-Order Programming Logics
%I Washington State University Computer Science Department
%R CSD-84-126
%X $4.20

%A Keshav Sharma
%T Syntactic Aspects of the Non-Deterministic Lambda Calculus
%R CSD-84-127
%I Washington State University Computer Science Department
%X $7.20

%A Jerzy Tiuryn
%T A Simplified Proof of DDL < DL
%R CS-85-130
%I Washington State University Computer Science Department
%X 1.50 (compares Deterministic Dynamic Logics and Dynamic Logics of
regular programs)

%A David Matthew Dahlbacka
%T An ATN-Based Restricted Natural Language
Front End for A Data-Flow Design Aid
%R Department of Computer Science File No. 944
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D JUL 1985
%K software engineering

%A Tomoyasu-Taguti Nakagawa
%A Hung-Chi Lai
%T Reference Manual of Fortran Program ILLOD-(NOR-B) for Optimal
NOR Networks
%R Department of Computer Science Report No. 1129
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D JUL 1985
%K branch and bound

%A Simon M. Kaplan
%T Verification of Recursive Programs: A Temporal Proof Approach
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1207
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D SEP 1985

%A Larry Rendell
%T Induction, Of and By Probability
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1209
%I University of Illinois
%D JUL 1985
%X This paper examines some methods and ideas underlying the author's
successful probabilistic learning systems (PLS).  These systems have
proven uniquely effective and efficent for generalization learning
(induction) in heuristic search.  Aspects of PLS include use of
probabilities to guide both task performance and learning,
incremental revision and normalization of probabilities, and
localization and correction of their errors.  Construction of new
terms (features) for heuristic functions may be feasible.

%A Larry Rendell
%T Genetic Plans and the Probabilistic Learning System:
Synthesis and Results
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1217
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D JUL 1985
%X describes PLS2 which clusters data into economical cells in augmented
feature space, and a genetic level which selects successful regions by
a genetic algorithm.

%A Nachum Dershowitz
%T Termination of Rewriting
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1220
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D AUG 1985

%A Jean-Luc Remy
%T Review of Several Closure Properties in Universal Algebra and
First Order Logic
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1221
%I Univeristy of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D JUL 1985

%A John Shilling
%T Initial Report on ISADORE: A Reference Librarian Generator
%R Department of Computer Science Report NO. 1225
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D SEP 1985

%A S. R. Ray
%A W. D. Lee
%A C. D. Morgan
%A W. Airth-Kindree
%T Computer Sleep Stage Scoring - An Expert System Approach
%R Department of Computer Science Report No. 1228
%I University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
%D September 1985

%A T. G. Lewwis
%T An Operator Calculus for Computer Programs
%R CSTR-78-1-5
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science
%D 1978

%A W. S. Bregar
%A A. M. Farley
%T Interactive Problem Solving in Elementary Algebra
%R CSTR-78-3-1
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science
%D 1978

%A P. Cull
%A W. Frank
%T Flaws of Form
%D 1978
%R CSTR-78-20-3
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science
%X G. Spencer Brown's book \fBLaws of Form\fR has been enjoying
a vogue among social and biological scientists.
Proponents claim that the book introduces a new logic ideally
suited to their fields of study, and that the new logic solves the
problems of self-reference.  These claims are false.  We show that Brown's
system is Boolean algebra in an obscure notation, and that his "solutions"
to the problems of self-reference are based on a misunderstanding of
Russell's paradox.

%A B. Levin
%T The Automated Inference of Tree Systems
%D 1979
%R CSTR-79-20-6
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science

%A B. Blanchard
%A W. S. Bregar
%T A Production Environment
%D 1982
%R CSTR-82-3-1
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science

%A D. Kogan
%A M. J. Freiling
%T SIDUR: A Structuring Formalism for Knowledge Information Processing Systems
%D 1984
%R CSTR-84-40-2
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science

%A S. Rehfuss
%A M. J. Freiling
%A J. Alexander
%T Particularity in Engineering Data
%D 1984
%R CSTR-84-40-3
%I Oregon State University, Department of Computer Science
%X discusses inferential data in three engineering expert system databases

%A Soveig A. Viste
%A Chul E. Kim
%T The Recognition of Digital Cylindrical Surfaces and Digital Moebius Strips
%R CS-85-133
%I Washington State University Deparment of Computer Science
%X $3.50

%A Y. Gurevich
%A S. Shelah
%T Fixed-Point Extension of First-Order Logic
%R CRL-TR-5-85
%I Computing Research Laboratory, University of Michigan
%D May 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 85  1432 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Riddle of STRIPS (SU)
-BODY-

                The Riddle of STRIPS and Its Solution

                         Vladimir Lifschitz

                   Non-Monotonic Reasoning Seminar
                     Wednesday, November 27, 2pm

                              MJH 252


        STRIPS (STanford Research Institute Planning System) operates
with world models represented by sets of formulas of first-order
logic. A STRIPS system describes the effect of an action by a rule
which defines how the current world model should be changed when the
action is performed.

        The big mystery about STRIPS is why it does not produce
incorrect results.  Presumably, this happens because the rules
correctly describe properties of the corresponding actions. But what
do we mean by the "correctness" of a STRIPS rule?  Straightforward
attempts to define the semantics of STRIPS rules turn out to be
unsatisfactory; we will examine a classical STRIPS system and show
that, from some points of view, its rules are incorrect. The purpose
of that exercise is not to criticize the system, but rather to show
that defining the semantics of STRIPS is a tricky business.

        In the last part of the talk, a solution to the problem will
be proposed.  We will see that, under some conditions, STRIPS rules
can be viewed as perfectly legitimate tools for formalizing knowledge
about the effects of actions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
181
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Dec 85 08:54:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Truth Maintenance and Multiple Worlds in KEE (SU)
-BODY-
DAY         December 3, 1985
EVENT       Computer Science Colloquium
PLACE       Skilling Auditorium
TIME        4:15
TITLE       "Truth Maintenance and Multiple Worlds in KEE"
PERSON      Paul Morris, Robert Nado, Richard Fikes
FROM        IntelliCorp

              TRUTH, MAINTENANCE AND MULTIPLE WORLDS IN KEE

We describe the integration of an assumption-based truth maintenance
system (ATMS) into the frame-based representation facilities of the
KEE system, and the use of the ATMS to implement a multiple-world
context graph system for KEE.  Integration into the frame system
involves associating with potential slot values ATMS nodes that are
used to determine in which worlds (contexts) the slot values are
believed.  Built-in inferences provided by the frame system, such as
inheritance and the checking of value class and cardinality
constraints, are recorded, when needed, as explicit justifications in
the ATMS.  In addition, the default reasoning capabilities of KEE have
been refined and extended to take advantage of the ATMS.  Tradeoffs in
the integration between flexibility of use and run-time efficiency are
examined.  We describe the multiple-world context graph system with
particular attention to an interpretation of the graph as a network of
actions.  In this framework, the semantics of graph merges are
investigated and restrictions to ensure valid action sequences are
discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 December 1985 1654-EST
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Model and Temporal Proof System for Processes (CMU)
-BODY-
        Date:   Monday, 9 December
        Place:  5409 WeH
        Time:   3:30

                        PS SEMINAR

      A model and temporal proof system for processes

                       Van Nguyen
         IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
 (joint work with Alan Demers, David Gries and Susan Owicki)

   There exist several models of processes, e.g. those of
Brock-Ackerman, Hoare, Milner and Pratt. None of these models handles
both synchronous and asynchronous communication in a single framework.
In addition, their modeling of temporal properties
(e.g. liveness properties) is generally unsatisfactory.
The models that seem most promising, due to their
simplicity and ability to hide information, are those based on traces.
A trace is a finite sequence of communication events, which can be
thought of as an abstraction of a process state in which all irrelevant
internal details are hidden.

   A number of proof systems for processes have also been proposed. The
Hoare-like proof systems, e.g. those of Chen-Hoare, Levin-Gries and
Misra-Chandy, are simple but lack expressive power and cannot
deal with temporal properties. Temporal proof systems, e.g. those of
Manna-Pnueli and Barringer-Kuiper-Pnueli, are expressive but more
complicated.

   We present a model for processes that is based on the notion of
behavior (a generalization of trace). The model can handle either
synchronous or asynchronous communication, and can describe temporal
properties. We also describe a sound and complete temporal proof system
that is based on the model. Due to the modularity of the model, the
proof system is compositional. Both the model and proof system are
simple. Thus we show that temporal proof systems can be made

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 3 Dec 85 11:44:55-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning about Control in Vision (SRI)
-BODY-
        REASONING ABOUT CONTROL IN A HIGH-LEVEL COMPUTER VISION SYSTEM

                          Leonard Wesley
                    SRI International, AI Center

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, December 9
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


If you built an expert system, how would you expect it to decide what to
do next in complex situations? Typically there are several alternative
actions it might take to reach some goal. In some cases, the best alternative
is clear or the choices do not warrant extensive analysis. At times the
consequences of pursuing some action justify expending the effort to obtain
the necessary information to analyze the pros and cons of choosing a
particular alternative.

Most would agree that the information that is needed to reach any decision is,
to some degree, uncertain, imprecise, and occasionally inaccurate (called
"evidential" information). Clearly knowledge about the certainty, precision,
and accuracy of information can be used to improve a system's
ability to reason about (i.e., control) its actions. In this talk, we shall
describe how this might be accomplished by an expert system in the domain
of high-level computer vision. We shall explain why we view Shafer's theory
of belief functions as being better suited than some other models as a
theoretical foundation for representing evidential information and reasoning
about control. Results from a large number of image interpretation
experiments will be presented to demonstrate how a system's performance can be
improved when Shafer's theory is soundly exploited. Finally, we shall briefly
describe how our approach to control might be extended to an evidential-based
framework for planning under uncertainty.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 09:43:33 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Approach to Conscious Experience (UCB)
-BODY-
                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Fall 1985
                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A
                         Tuesday, December 3, 11:00 - 12:30
                           240 Bechtel Engineering Center
                    Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30 in 200 Building T-4

                       ``An Approach to Conscious Experience''
                                  Bernard J. Baars
                 Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric Institute, U.C.S.F.

                Conscious experience has been widely viewed as a confusing
           and  ill-defined  issue, and most psychologists have avoided it
           until quite recently.  However, there are straightforward  ways
           to  specify reliable empirical constraints on the problem, sim-
           ply by contrasting comparable pairs of events, one of which  is
           conscious  and  the  other  not.  For example, we are typically
           unconscious of highly  predictable  stimuli,  though  there  is
           strong evidence that such stimuli continue to be represented in
           the nervous system.  We are unconscious of automatized actions,
           of  the unattended stream in a selective attention paradigm, of
           conceptual presuppositions, of the unconscious meaning of  per-
           ceptual  and linguistic ambiguities, of lexical access, syntac-
           tic rule-application, etc.  In all these cases the  unconscious
           information  continues  to  be  represented and processed.  Any
           complete theory of conscious experience is bounded by, and must
           ultimately account for, the entire set of such contrasts.

                The empirical constraints converge on a model of the  ner-
           vous  system  as  a  distributed  collection  of specialists---
           automatic, unconscious, and very efficient.   Consciousness  is
           associated  in this system with a "global workspace"---a memory
           whose contents are broadcast to all the specialists.   Special-
           ists  can  complete  or  cooperate  for  access  to  the global
           workspace, and those that succeed can recruit and control other
           specialists  in  pursuit  of  their goals.  Over the past seven
           years this Global Workspace approach has  been  extended  to  a
           number  of  puzzling  issues,  including action control and the
           neurophysiological basis of consciousness.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Saturday, 30 November 1985 21:06:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems and Their Applications
-BODY-

                   SIXTH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON
                 EXPERT SYSTEMS & THEIR APPLICATIONS

INTRODUCTION

Following  the  success  of  the  5th International Workshop in Expert
Systems and their Applications at the prestigious 14th century fortess
Palace of the Popes in Avigon (France), the Agence  de  l'Informatique
has scheduled the 6th Workshop for April 28-30, 1986.

Papers are solicited which describe expert systems actually applied in
industry,   currently   under   assessment   by  users,  or  currently
commercially available.

INSTRUCTION TO AUTHORS

Five copies of submitted papers (not exceeding 20 pages  in  8  x  11"
camera-ready format) should reach the Workshop Chairman before January
15,  1986.  Papers  may  be  written  either  in  English  or  French.
Simultaneous translation will be provided at the conference.

Submitted papers should include a page with:

   - title of the paper
   - author's name
   - author's address
   - phone number and extension
   - telex number
   - a 10 line abstract
   - a list of key words

All papers will be refereed by  an  international  program  committee;
notification  of  acceptance  will  be given by March 4, 1986.  A best
paper award will be presented at the conference.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Tutorials and panel discussions  are  planned.  Send  suggestions  for
topics to Workshop Chairman at the address indicated.

INFORMATION

For further information contact:
        Jean-Claude Rault
        Workshop Chairman
        Agence de l'Informatique
        Tour Fiat - Cedex 16
        92084 Paris - La Defence
        France
        Tel. (331) 47 96 43 14

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 85 19:05:15 EST
-FROM-
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Knowledge and Data
-BODY-
                                  IFIP

          INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING

                              ANNOUNCEMENT

         TC2 WORKING CONFERENCE organized by Working Group 2.6

                       Knowledge and Data (DS-2)

          November 3-7, 1986 in Albufeira (Algarve), Portugal

Scope:  Questions of meaning are more important for the design
of a knowledge base than methods of encoding data in bits and bytes.
As database designers add more semantic information to their systems,
their conceptual schemata begin to look like AI systems of
knowledge representation.  In recognizing this convergence on issues of
semantics, IFIP Working Group 2.6 is organizing a working conference
on Knowledge and Data.  It will address the issues and problems
of knowledge representation from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Topics:
   Design of a conceptual schema
   Knowledge and data modeling
   Database semantics
   Natural language semantics
   Expert database systems
   Logic, databases, and AI
   Methods of knowledge engineering
   Tools and aids for knowledge acquisition

Invited speakers:
   Herve Gallaire, Germany
   Robert Meersman, Belgium
   J. Alan Robinson, USA
   Roger Schank, USA
   Dana Scott, USA

An IFIP working conference is oriented towards detailed discussion of
the topics presented.  Participation is by invitation, with optional
contribution of a paper that is refereed by the program committee.
Anyone who is interested in participating should send an abstract
of current research or a prospective paper to either of the
program cochairmen.  Abstracts are due March 14, 1986.  Complete
papers are due May 16, 1986.  Papers presented at the conference
will be published in book form by North Holland Publishing Co.


General Chairman:  Amilcar Sernadas, Portugal

Program cochairmen:

   John F. Sowa                         Robert Meersman
   IBM Systems Research Institute       L.U.C. -- Dept. WNIF
   500 Columbus Avenue                  Universitaire Campus
   Thornwood, NY  10594                 B-3610 Diepenbeek
   U.S.A.                               Belgium

   CSNET:  sowa.yktvmt@ibm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 85 15:58:44 est
-FROM-
From: Scott C McKay <scm%gitpyr%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on AI for Design Automation
-BODY-

                      FIRST AFWAL* RESEARCH WORKSHOP
                                    TO
                 DEVELOP AND AUTOMATE A SCIENCE OF DESIGN
                                    FOR
                         MILITARY WEAPONS SYSTEMS
                                    VIA
                     APPLIED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

                       Georgia Tech Research Institute
                              Atlanta, Georgia
                              March 24-26, 1986

          The premise of this workshop is that appropriate research can
     create a new, invented Science of Design to support CAE/CAD in a
     CAE/CAD/CAM Military Weapons System Foundry.  A Foundry is required
     for rapid design and production of complex weapons systems demanded by
     changing military mission requirements.  CAE/CAD is viewed as a domain
     of Applied AI called Design Automation (DA), and Design Science is
     considered a subdiscipline of Design Automation.  DA is viewed as a
     totally generic discipline whose domain is both weapons systems and
     their embedded electronics, including multiplatform systems.  The
     discipline of DA incorporates requirements engineering, weapons system
     and subsystem configuration, the design of mission-specific system and
     subsystem functions, signal and data processing algorithm design,
     software engineering (including firmware), multiprocessor and
     processor design, and structural, mechanical, thermal, electrical,
     electromagnetic, and electronics (including analog) engineering.

          For this workshop the domain of DA will be limited to military
     embedded electronics systems (including multiplatform systems).  Within
     this domain the workshop is generic, in that it includes all the
     preceding DA disciplines from requirements engineering to electronics
     engineering.

          The workshop's purpose is to prepare approximately five detailed
     near-term project plans for initial vectoring of DA-relevant research
     towards Weapons System Foundry objectives.  One project plan will
     detail development of a DA Testbed.  Additional special interest
     project plans may also be prepared.

          All workshop attendance expenses are the responsibility of
     attendees, and include a nominal registration fee for lunches and
     refreshments.  Only US citizens will be allowed to attend the
     workshop.  There is no a priori restriction on attendees' technical
     background or employer.  An attendance limit of 40 participants may
     cause rejection of some attendance applications; however, all
     applicants will be provided copies of the draft workshop report for
     review.

          An Attendance Application Package is available on request.  It
     contains a white paper defining AFWAL objectives for long term DA
     technology development, a detailed workshop description, and a
     questionnaire to establish individual applicant's DA-relevant
     qualifications and interests.

          To request an Attendance Application Package please contact:

               Mr Harold Noffke
               AFWAL/AARM-3
               WPAFB OH 45433-6543

               Tel: (513) 255-3655/5097/6071

     *AFWAL stands for Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
182
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 22:10:06 est
-FROM-
From: mex107@mitre (Michael Leavitt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: First use of phrase "knowledge base management system"
-BODY-
I'm trying to track down the first use of the phrase "knowledge base management
system" to refer to expert system shells like KEE and ART.  I've heard it in
oral presentations, but not seen it in writing.  Can anyone help?  Replies to
me please.  Many thanks.

Mike Leavitt <mex107@mitre.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 85 12:48 CDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph_Tatem <tatem%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query - paper on machine learning
-BODY-
In Artificial Intelligence #25, Kurt VanLehn, reviewing Machine
Learning, says "Carbonell's more recent papers report that further
implementation uncovered fundamental flaws in the design presented
[in Carbonell's chapter in Machine Learning]". Can anyone direct me
to these papers and/or give me an idea what theses flaws are??

                                        Thanx,
                                        Joe Tatem
                                        tatem.ti-eg@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 85 11:46:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@ucl-cs.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Subconscious Reasoning : Discovery and Invention
-BODY-

subconscious, adj. ``of our own mental activities of which we are
                     not aware'',
                n.  ``the part of the mind in which these
                     activities take place.''

                     The Oxford Paperback Dictionary.

What does  cognitive  science  have to  make of the discovery  of the
structure of the benzene molecule? It is said to have been the result
of  a chemist having a dream in which serpents  were biting their own
tails. He interpreted this when waking as  the long sought after ring
configuration  that  would make  sense of  the ratios of  hydrogen to
carbon atoms that had been discovered by experiment.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa



[An even more impressive feat was the translation of Samuel Pepys'
diary, written in a code (actually an ancient shorthand, for which
the key was later found in his personal library) which had resisted
many cryptographic efforts.  The owner of the diary one night dreamt
a full page of cleartext, including the page number, and was then
able to translate the whole thing.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27-NOV-85
-FROM-
From: PETER PIRRON  <H29%DHDURZ2.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request - Decision Theory and Natural Language
-BODY-

HALLO

I am a new member in the AIList.  My name is Peter Pirron.  I am
living in Heidelberg/West Germany.  I am working as an computer
advicer for statistical problems at the Psychochological Institut.
At the moment my interests are normative decision theory and
programming of natural language.

It would be very helpful for me if you could send me references
of articles and books of these subjects.  It would also be interesting
for me to know people who work on these subjects.
I am especially interested in programs dealing with the subjects
mentioned above.

                Thank you very much in advance!!!
                          Peter Pirron (h29@dhdurz2.bitnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 13:25 PST
-FROM-
From: "Watson Mark%SAI.MFENET"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SMALLTALK, LISP, DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING, APPLETALK, MACINTOSH
-BODY-

Date: 12/4/85
FROM: WATSON#M%SAI@LLL-MFE
Subject: Lisp and Smalltalk on the Macintosh

In response to Fabio Favata's request for a public domain
version of the Smalltalk language, I would suggest contacting
Apple Computer Inc.  Apple has made the original Xerox Smalltalk
language available on the Macintosh for $50 (for 7 disks!!).
The Smalltalk system runs on a 512K Mac.  To order Smalltalk,
call 1 408 747-1288 and ask for Paula.

I would like to hear from anyone attempting to use the Appletalk
network to build testbed distributed computing systems.  The
Appletalk network has a fairly low bandwidth (.25 megabits/sec),
but the availability of two good symbolic programming languages
on the Mac (Smalltalk and ExperLisp) would provide a very low
cost system for software development.  I can be reached at
1 619 456-6816.  - Mark Watson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 1985  17:11:12
-FROM-
From: snyder@hplabsd
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object-Oriented Programming in Lisp
-BODY-
  From: Nick Davies (at GEC Research) <YE85%mrca.co.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
  Subject: Object oriented programming in Common Lisp

  > Does anyone have or know of an implementation of Flavors or any other
  > object-oriented programming system in Common Lisp ?

Hewlett-Packard has developed an object-oriented extension to Common Lisp,
which we are proposing as a candidate for standardization.  Our extension is
similar in syntax to Flavors, but is stricter in its support of encapsulation.
Like Common Lisp itself, our extension has been designed to serve as a common
language subset for object-oriented programming (in Common Lisp).  It also has
been designed to permit a very efficient implementation, even on conventional
hardware.

At Hewlett-Packard, we have been using object-oriented programming in Lisp for
many years.  The Common Lisp version of our objects dialect has been in use
since last February.  Our AI workstation software, which was demonstrated at
IJCAI in August, uses object-oriented programming heavily in its extensible
user interface, and in applications.  For example, the configuration I am
running contains 132 class definitions.  The object-oriented extensions will
be included in our forthcoming Common Lisp development product for HP Series
300 workstations (68020 based).

To receive a copy of a memo describing our Common Lisp object-oriented
extensions, send your U.S. mail address to Mingus%hplabs@csnet-relay.arpa
and ask for ATC-85-1, "Object-Oriented Programming for Common Lisp".

  Alan Snyder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 11:39:39 mst
-FROM-
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems move on
-BODY-
TI just distributed a marketing flyer in which they described
expert systems AT WORK TODAY (original emphasis) solving problems
like:

        ...
        credit approval
        ...
        policy and procedure administration


It seems that the marketing folks at TI haven't heard about
the discussions recently on the digest about how artificial
empathy will be required to properly implement these sorts of
applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 18:23:01 CST
-FROM-
From: reddy@a.CS.UIUC.EDU (Uday S. Reddy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Type checking
-BODY-

I do not see why it would be easier to locate "type errors" (errors
detectable by a type checker) than other kinds of errors.  The effects of
errors get propagated the same way and their symptoms are exhibited the same
way.  My experience with programming in LISP was that I was indeed spending
an inordinate amount of time locating errors that could have been detected
by a type checker.

The real advantage of a type checker is that it not only detects type
errors, but also locates them.  While detection can be done by run time
type checking, location is not done.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
183
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 85 09:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Brian C. Williams <WILLIAMS@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - CAKE Knowledge Representation and Reasoning System (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , December 5  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

                                 CAKE:
            An Example of a Hybrid Knowledge Representation
                          and Reasoning System

                              Charles Rich
                               MIT AI Lab

Cake is a knowledge representation and reasoning system being developed
to support automated programming (the Programmer's Apprentice).  The
first part of this talk describes the architecture of Cake, which is
divided into the following nine layers, each with associated
representations and reasoning procedures:

                      Plan Synthesis
                     Plan Recognition
                      Plan Calculus
                          Frames
                          Types
                        Algebraic
                          Demons
                         Equality
                    Truth Maintenance

The second part of the talk takes a look at some of the issues in the
design of hybrid systems generally, such as

                What is a hybrid system?
                Why would you want one?
                Who is developing them?
                Where do we go from here?

Nelson & Oppen's cooperating decision procedures, KL-Two, Krypton, and
Cake will be discussed as examples of hybrid systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Dec 85 11:30:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Jeanne.Bennardo@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - SOJA Scheduling System (CMU)
-BODY-
                Intelligent Systems Lab Seminar

Topic:    Presentation of SOJA project.
Speaker:  Claude Le Pape
Place:    DH3313
Date:     Friday, Dec. 6
Time:     10:30am - 11:30am

Speaker:
Claude Le Pape is a visiting researcher from the Laboratoires de Marcoussis
in France, and is currently working in the Intelligent Systems Lab with the
Phoenix/Opis project.

Abstract:
We have implemented in the Laboratoires de Marcoussis - in Franz Lisp -
a daily scheduling system called SOJA. Given the state of the shop in the
evening, SOJA builds a scheduling plan for the next day. This implies :
> selecting the operations to be performed over the day
> scheduling them and computing a time-table for each machine.

Two planning steps are distinguished in SOJA : Selection and Scheduling.
> Selection is done according to the state of the shop and the orders to
  be completed. Selection rules are used to build a tagged graph,
  which nodes are phases (operations). Each arc is tagged according to a
  reason for selecting its extremity, and valued in order to measure the
  significance of this reason. Then SOJA examines this graph and the
  resource requirements to decide which phases should be scheduled.
> Scheduling is considered as a constraint-directed reasoning task.
  However, preferences are not represented as constraints, but as scheduling
  rules that are used to make decisions.

Both selection and scheduling processes use an inference engine that has
been specially designed for SOJA. We will describe this engine and the
solutions we have implemented to make it efficient :
> combination of forward and backward chaining
> preservation of partial instances of rules (and propagation)
> compilation of rules.

We will also discuss our constraint representation and backtracking.
A short comparison between SOJA and ISIS is also scheduled.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Dec 85 10:38:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Fault Analysis using Dynamic Behavior (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                             III Seminar

Title:          Using Dynamic Behavior of Physical Systems for Fault Diagnosis

Speaker:        Kathy Abbott

Date:           Thursday, December 5, 1985, 11:30-12:30PM
                (*** notice date and time change ***)

Place:          Hill Center, room 423

        Kathy  Abbott,  a  Ph.D.  candidate  in  our  department   and
researcher at NASA - Langley,  will discuss her dissertation  research
on fault diagnosis.  Here is her abstract:

                One  consideration  when  performing  real-time  diagnosis  of
        physical systems  is that  the system's  behavior may  change as  time
        progresses. The effect of a  failure may propagate through the  system
        under consideration  as  well as  to  systems either  functionally  or
        physically adjacent to it. This dynamic behavior can be used to  prune
        fault hypotheses by using  models of the  physical system to  identify
        how the fault is propagating, the  type of fault, and what  components
        of the physical system are affected. An advantage of using  functional
        and physical models in this manner is that it permits reasoning  about
        incomplete information, such as, lack of measurements due to  physical
        damage, system parameters that are not sensed, or sampling times  that
        are not frequent enough to detect all system changes.

                In this talk  I will  discuss a  model-based diagnosis  system
        which uses the dynamic behavior  of physical systems in the  diagnosis
        process.  The diagnosis system  is not yet  completely fleshed out  in
        all  details,  so  any   constructive  comments  or  suggestions   are
        particularly welcome at this time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 14:00:35 pst
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <tgd%oregon-state.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Toward a Theory of Algorithm Improvement (Oregon State)
-BODY-
This colloquium has already happened, but I thought you might still
be interested in sending it to AILIST.  --Tom

Departmental Colloquium
Oregon State University
Department of Computer Science
Wednesday, Nov. 20, 1985


                   TOWARD A THEORY OF ALGORITHM IMPROVEMENT

                             Thomas G. Dietterich
                             Department of Computer Science
                             Oregon State University

This talk will sketch a theory of algorithm improvement called the "test
incorporation" theory.  The basic premise of test incorporation theory is
that all algorithms can be usefully viewed as improvements of a naive
generate-and-test algorithm.  The improvements can take one of two forms:
(a) movement along the space-versus-time tradeoff curve and (b)
INCORPORATION of test information into the generator of possible solutions.
Examples will be presented for each kind of performance improvement.  The
talk will then take up the questions of WHEN these improvements take place
and WHAT PROGRAM is performing the improvements.  Traditional compilers
perform simple kinds of improvements at "compile-time".  However, many more
powerful algorithms make these improvements to themselves dynamically at run
time, particularly when new input data is made available.

Test incorporation theory can be employed in two ways: (a) to analyze
existing programs and understand why they are successful, and (b) to design
new programs.  The test incorporation perspective also provides some
interesting answers to the questions "What is computer science?" "What is
knowledge?" and "What is intelligence?"

This work is a joint project with James Bennett of Teknowledge, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 16:21:29 est
-FROM-
From: nikhil at MIT-NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inheritance, Data Models and Data Types (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


             Inheritance, Data Models and Data Types

                     Peter Buneman
                University of Pennsylvania


The notion of type inheritance (subsumption, ISA hierarchies) has long been
recognised as central to the development of programming languages, databases
and semantic networks.  Recent work on the semantics of programming languages
has shown that inheritance can be cleanly combined with functional
programming and can itself serve as a model for computation.

Using a definition of partial functions that are well behaved with respect to
inheritance, I have been investigating a new characterization of the
relational and functional data models.  In particular, I want to show the
connections of relational database theory with type inheritance and show how
both the relational and functional data models may be better integrated with
typed programming languages.


Host: Prof. Rishiyur Nikhil

Date: Friday, December 6, 1985
Time: 2:00 pm - Refreshments
      2:15 pm - Lecture
Place: Room NE43-512A
       MIT Laboratory for Computer Science,
       545 Technology Square,
       Cambridge, MA 02139

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 Dec 85  1134 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - STRIPS and Circumscription (SU)
-BODY-

                        STRIPS and Circumscription:
                   Two Approaches to the Frame Problem

                            Vladimir Lifschitz

                       Wednesday, December 11, 2:00
                                MJH 252

        The frame problem consists in defining which properties of
situations do not change across events. We will compare two well-known
attempts to solve the frame problem. One, the STRIPS approach, is
based on using a language which has no explicit references to
situations. The other approach uses circumscription to express the
"commonsense law of inertia", according to which the differences
between two situations separated by an event are minimal, given the
properties of the event. We will show on a simple example how to
transform a circumscriptive theory into the description of the
corresponding STRIPS operator.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 6 Dec 85 15:05:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Phil Cohen <PCOHEN@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semi-Applicative Programming (SRI)
-BODY-
N. S. Sridharan, of BBN Labs, will give a seminar next Tues, the 10th,
10:30 am, in EJ228.   Title and abstract below.

Title:  Semi-applicative Programming

 Most current parallel programming languages are designed
with a sequential programming language as the base language and have
added constructs that allow parallel execution.  We are experimenting
with an applicative base language that has implicit parallelism
everywhere, and then we introduce constructs that inhibit parallelism.
The base language uses pure LISP as a foundation and blends in
interesting features of Prolog and FP.  Proper utilization of
available machine resources is a crucial concern of programmers.  We
advocate several techniques of controlling the behavior of functional
programs without changing their meaning or functionality: program
annotation with constructs that have benign side-effects, program
transformation and adaptive scheduling.  This combination yields us a
SEMI-APPLICATIVE programming language and an interesting programming
methodology.

Starting with the specification of a context-free recognizer, we have
been successful in deriving variants of the recognition algorithm of
Cocke-Kasami-Younger.  One version is the CKY algorithm in parallel.
The second version includes a top-down predictor to limit the work
done by the bottom-up recognizer.  The third version uses a cost
measure over derivations and produces minimal cost parses using a
dynamic programming technique.  In another line of development, we
arrive at a parallel version of the Earley algorithm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 85 06:03:17 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Talk Talk (SU)
-BODY-

         NETTALK:  Teaching a Massively-Parallel Network to Talk

                 Dec. 18th, 1:00 pm, at Redwood hall


Terrence J. Sejnowski
Biophysics Department
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218


                              ABSTRACT

        Text to speech is a difficult problem for rule-based systems
because English pronunciation is highly context dependent and there are
many exceptions to phonological rules.  An alternative knowledge
representation for correspondences between letters and phonemes will be
described in which rules and exceptions are treated uniformly and can
be determined with a learning algorithm in a connectionist model.  The
architecture is a layered network of 400 simple processing units with
9,000 weights on the connections between the units.  The training
corpus is continuous informal speech transcribed from tape recordings.
Following training on 1000 words from this corpus the network can
generalize to novel text.  Even though this network was not designed to
mimic human learning, the development of the network in some respects
resembles the early stages in human language acquisition.  Following
damage of the network by either removal of units or addition of random
values to the weights the performance of the network degraded
gracefully.  Issues which will be addressed include scaling of the
learning algorithm with the size of the problem, robustness of
learning to predicate order of the problem, and universality of
learning in connectionist models.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 85 11:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Possible Worlds and Situations Semantics (UPenn)
-BODY-  Forwarded From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn> on Mon  9 Dec 1985 at  8:58


                  Joint Mathematics / Computer Science
                           LOGIC COLLOQUIUM

                 Possible Worlds and Situations Semantics

                              Greg Hager
                        CIS Department, UPenn

                        Monday 9 December 1985
                           4:40 pm, DRL 4E17

Situation theory is an attempt by its developers (philosopher John Perry and
mathematician Jon Barwise) to provide an alternative framework for the study
of language and meaning.  Their approach has been to start over from first
principles and construct a theory which does not rely on classical logic as
developed by Frege -- in particular emphasizing the notions of partial
information, a relational theory of meaning, and mathematical realism.
Needless to say this has provoked substantial interest, debate, and
skepticism from a variety of sources.

Any complete understanding of pros and cons of this theory requires a
substantial knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, and linguistics (none of
which I can lay claim too). However, from one point of view, situation
theory can be loosely construed as an alternative to possible worlds theory
and its application to the study of language by Montague.  In this talk, I
will focus on the development of possible worlds semantics and its use in
linguistics, and point out where situation theory diverges or disagrees.
This discussion will be fairly general and open-ended, so audience
participation is welcomed and encouraged.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
184
-DATE-
Date: Sun 8 Dec 85 00:59:07-PST
-FROM-
From: Kashi.Rao%dworkin@usc-eclc.ARPA, 220P%dworkin@usc-eclc.ARPA,
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Translator: SAIL --> LISP?
-BODY-
I have a large program in SAIL that I would like to convert to LISP.
I would like to know if there's any program available to translate
code from SAIL to LISP (COMMON or FRANZ).
Any quick pointers/references/suggestions would be deeply appreciated.

                          Kashi Rao
                        Intelligent Systems Group, USC.
                        rao%dworkin@usc-oberon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 14:52 CDT
-FROM-
From: Joseph_Tatem <tatem%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp
-BODY-
The TI Explorer supports Flavors  in Common Lisp.

                                        Joe Tatem

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 85 13:33:35 pst
-FROM-
From: clif@aids-unix (Clif McCormick)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Name Change
-BODY-

                 Advanced Decision Systems

                   201 San Antonio Circle
                         Suite 286
              Mountain View, California 94040
                       (415) 941-3912


     Advanced Information & Decision Systems, a leader in defense and
commercial applications of artificial intelligence and other advanced
information processing technologies, has changed its name to:

                          ADVANCED DECISION SYSTEMS

     Founded in 1979, Advanced Decision Systems specializes in applied
research and prototype development involving a number of technologies,
including artificial intelligence, computer science, estimation and
control theory, signal and image processing, and decision theory.
     Specific projects include image understanding for scene analysis
and object classification, oil exploration, fault diagnosis, distributed
sensor networks, multi-target tracking, autonomous land vehicle navigation,
avionics expert systems, and a battlefield commander's assistant.
     Primary among the clients for these projects are defense organizations
such as the Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, and
research laboratories of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.  The name
change comes as Advanced Decision Systems seeks to expand its involvement
in the commercial marketplace and add to its list of commerical clients,
which currently includes Bank of America, McGraw-Hill, and Kodak.
     Advanced Decision Systems, with headquarters in Mountain View,
California and a recently opened office in Arlington, Virginia, is
completely employee-owned and had revenues of $6.5 million in fiscal
1985.  The company currently has a total of 86 employees.
     The name change, from Advanced Information & Decision Systems to
Advanced Decision Systems, will become effective December 1, 1985.


Thanks.
Clif McCormick
clif@aids-unix
(415) 941-3912

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 December 1985 0703-PST (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Journal: ``Machine Learning''
-BODY-

I'm sure many of you received the same flyer I did, but for
those who didn't, the new journal ``Machine Learning'' is
about to begin its first volume, and is soliciting subscriptions
and submissions.

Executive Editor: Pat Langley, UCI
Editors: Jaime G. Carbonell, CMU
         Ryszard S. Michalski, UIllinois
         Tom M. Mitchell, Rutgers

The Editorial Board:
        Saul Amarel, John R. Anderson, Bruce G. Buchanan, Thomas
        G.  Dieterrich, Geoff Hinton, John H. Holland, Yves
        Kodratoff, Douglas B. Lenat, Jack Mostow, J.R.  Quinlan,
        Paul S.  Rosenbloom, Roger Schank, Derek Sleeman, and the
        omnipresent Patrick Winston.

Quoting:
        Machine Learning will publish papers on the processes through
        which intelligent systems improve their performance over time,
        and will cover areas such as:

                * Concept Acquisition
                * Strategy Learning
                * Language Development
                * Reasoning by Analogy
                * Scientific Discovery

        The main emphasis will be on symbolic learning methods as
        opposed to numeric ones [boo], and the editors will give
        preference to papers that describe theories or principles of
        learning that are supported by running computer programs.
        However, the journal also welcomes theoretical treatments and
        comparisons of existing systems, and encourages computational
        models of human learning.   Although the journal will emphasize
        basic research in the emerging field of Machine Learning, it
        will also consider applications of learning methods to
        real-world domains.

        ...

        Machine Learning publishes articles on the processes through
        which intelligent systems improve their performance over
        time.   Authors are invited to submit papers describing
        computational approaches to any aspect of learning.   We
        encourage attempts to formulate principles of learning to
        integrate previous research results, and to model human
        learning in a computational framework.

Four issues per year, $35 individual, $78 institutional; first
issue due out in January 1986.

Kluwer Academic Publishers
190 Old Derby Street
Hingham, MA 02043
617-749-5262 (for Credit Card orders)

Larry West                              USA+619-452-6771
Institute for Cognitive Science         non-business hrs: 452-2256
UC San Diego (mailcode C-015)
La Jolla, CA  92093  USA

UUCP:   {ucbvax,ihnp4,sdcrdcf,decvax,gatech}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!west
                                or     {sun,ulysses}!sdcsla!west
ARPA:   <west@nprdc.ARPA>       or      <west@ucsd.ARPA>
DOMAIN: <west@nprdc.mil>        or      <west@csl.ucsd.edu>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
185
-DATE-
Date: 11 December 1985 1207-EST
-FROM-
From: William Proffer@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bldg Config. KBES
-BODY-
I'd like to know if anyone has any information on
expert systems used in the configuration of office
buildings for tenants. For instance, configuration of
utilities, space, parking, etc.
Please mail replies to proffer@s3sun.css.gov
Thanks.  Bill Proffer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 85 21:08 CST
-FROM-
From: Jerry Bakin <Bakin@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: fLIPS, pLIPS, nLIPS, uLIPS, mLIPS, LIPS, KLIPS, MLIPS, GLIPS,
-BODY-
In many Prolog discusions, I have heard people talk about the speed of
an implementation in terms of Logical Inferences per Second (LIPS).  I
don't recall ever seeing a formal definition of this.

Would someone care to discuss what a LIP is?  Is it one unit of
unification?  Some sort of average time it takes prolog to scan
a clause?

As benchmarks go, is apples and oranges, or red delicious and golden
delicious?

How can it be compared to lisp?

In terms of LIPS, how fast are current Prolog implementations?
DEC-10?  DEC-20?  Symbolics?  Micro-Prolog?

And finally, in terms of LIPS, how fast are LISP implementations for the
DEC-20 and Symbolics (or other machines)?

Thanks,

Jerry Bakin <Bakin at HI-Multics>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1985  05:50 CST
-FROM-
From: AI.DUFFY@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Name Change:  Banned AIDS!
-BODY-
    Date: Thursday, 5 December 1985  15:33-CST
    From: clif at aids-unix (Clif McCormick)

         Advanced Information & Decision Systems
         ... advertising deleted ...
         has changed its name to:

         ADVANCED DECISION SYSTEMS

    ... advertising deleted ...

    The name change comes as Advanced Decision Systems seeks to expand
    its involvement in the commercial marketplace and add to its list
    of commerical clients, which currently includes
    ... assorted multinationals deleted ...

Come on, tell us WHY you've changed your name!  All you've done is
removed the word INFORMATION from your name.  What do you have against
information?  Are you trying to promote RANDOMNESS?  Or maybe it's
your commercial clients who don't like information.  Is that it?

Hmmmm.... Maybe its the acronym.  Maybe you don't like the acronym
AIDS because you're not really in the business of AIDing anybody
(except of course your commercial clients) and you don't want people
bothering you whenever they need some AID.  You've now changed the
acronym to ADS.  So that must be it.  You aren't against information
at all.  You've just decided to change your name to ADS to let people
know you like to place ADS on AIList.

Right?


  [The original message was sent to AIList as a "press release".  I
  chose to run it under "Bindings", although much of it fell under "Lab
  Descriptions".  I have permitted such reports from other sites (as does
  the SIGART Newsletter) -- I usually decide in favor of the transmission
  of new information and the suppression of repeated information, but
  do screen out job ads and anything that I consider blatantly
  commercial.  My criteria have been partly shaped by the feedback or
  lack thereof from readers, and such feedback is always welcome.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Dec 1985 18:03-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, No 2
-BODY-
Summary of Spang Robinson Report, Dec 1985 Vol 1 NO. 2

AI AND MANUFACTURING

Carnegie makes 70 percent of its 8 million in revenue from custom
applications to clients in manufacturing.

Teknowledge makes 50 percent of its revenues from custom consulting

30 percent of KEE applications are in manufacturing.

A. D. Little has developed a "Smart Foreman" expert system

Arthur Anderson has developed KIOSK, which helps process special orders,
and Cell Designer which assigns parts and assigns machines to processes
and cells.

Applicon has demonstrated a knowledge based CAD/CAM workstation for
sheet metal fabrication.

International Systems Operations is developing systems to assist
in quality control and material movement.

Cognition is developing a system that captures design knowledge in
handbooks and standard textbooks as well as corporate design standards.

TIPNIS will provide manufacturing expertise to the company's designers.

LMI will offer connectivity between PICON, it's real-time expert system
tool and MAP, the new standard for factory floor networking.  This
will involve a < $7,000 board set.

REVIEW of Texas Instruments satellite AI broadcast.

News Section:

ICONICS has changed its name to Transform LOGIc corporation.  They are
devleoping an AI-based software engineering system.

RCA has established an AI chair at the University of Pennsylvania.

VOTAN has announced a voice system for entering or verifying data which
costs $4950.00.

Carnegie Group has introduced Version 3 of Knowledge Craft.

Artelligence and Computer*Thought have filed a law suit
regarding breaches of non-competition agreements.

Teknowledge has named Michael P. Chan, vice president of product sales
for its Knowledge Engineering

LISP machine has elected three new members of its board of directors.

Summary of Artificial Intelligence: Towards Practical Applications

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 85 15:09:29 pst
-FROM-
From: George Cross <cross%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proceedings: 1st Annual Conference on Law and Technology
-BODY-
Here is the table of contents of the recently published proceedings of the
First Annual Conference on Law and Technology, held at the University of
Houston in August 1984 and sponsored by the University of Houston Law Center
Program on Law and Technology. There was a Second Conference in 1985, but the
proceedings are not available yet.  The book is:

%B Computing Power and Legal Reasoning
%E Charles Walter
%I West Publishing Company
%C St. Paul, MN
%D 1985

ISBN 0-314-95570-4

and is available from

West Publishing Company
50 West Kellogg Boulevard
P.O. Box 64526
St. Paul, MN 55164-1003
> - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - -
%A Layman Allen
%A Charles Saxon
%T Computer-Aided Normalizing and Unpacking:
Some Interesting Machine-Processable Transformations of Legal Rules
%P 495-572

%A Kevin Ashley
%T Reasoning by Analogy: A Survey of Selected AI Research
with Implications for Legal Expert Systems
%P 105-127

%A Helene Bauer-Bernet
%T Beyond Keyword Interaction: Computerized European
Community Law
%P 337-374

%A Daniele Bourcier
%T About Intelligence in Legal Information Systems
%P 319-336

%A William Boyd
%T Choosing Between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy:
An "Expert System" to Assist an Attorney in Making the Choice
%P 699-763

%A Constantino Ciampi
%A Deirdre Exell Pirro
%A Elio Fameli
%A Giuseppe Trivisonno
%T THES/BID: An Expert System for Constructing
a Computer-Based Thesaurus for Legal Informatics and Computer Law
%P 375-412

%A Cary deBessonet
%A George Cross
%T Representation of Some Aspects of Legal Causality
%P 205-214

%A Michael Dyer
%A Margot Flowers
%T Toward Automating Legal Expertise
%P 49-68

%A Jerald Feinstein
%T A Knowledge-Based Expert System Used to Prevent
the Disclosure of Sensitive Information at the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
%P 661-697

%A Thomas Gordon
%T Object-Oriented Predicate Logic and Its Role in
Representing Legal Knowledge
%P 163-203

%A Grayfred Gray
%T Statutes Enacted in Normalized Form:
The Legislative Experience in Tennessee
%P 467-493

%A Grayfred Gray
%T Law & Technology Conference Expert System Workshop Report
%P 621-626

%A Michael Heather
%T Demand-Driven Model for a Half-Intelligent System
%P 69-103

%A Jay Hook
%T Semantic Representations of Children's Blame Rules
%P 29-47

%A Robert Krovetz
%T The Use of Knowledge Representation Formalisms in
the Modeling of Legal Concepts
%P 275-317

%A Sydney Lamb
%T Information and its Representation in English Texts
%P 145-155

%A C. Duncan MacRae
%T Tax Problem Solving with an If-Then System
%P 595-620

%A Antonio Martino
%T Why an Automated Analysis of Legislation?
%P 413-466

%A L. Thorne McCarty
%T Permissions and Obligations
%P 573-594

%A Mark Peterson
%A Donald Waterman
%T An Expert Systems Approach to Evaluating Product Liability Cases
%P 627-659

%A Edwina Rissland
%T Argument Moves and Hypotheticals
%P 129-143

%A Dean Schlobohm
%T TA -- A Prolog Program which Analyzes Income Tax Issues
under Section 318(A) of the Internal Revenue Code
%P 765-815

%A Franciszek Studnicki
%T Computational Aspects of Legal Interpretation
%P 157-161

%A Charles Walter
%T Introduction
%P 1-4

%A Charles Walter
%A Michael Parks
%T Natural Models of Intelligence
%P 5-27

%A Marshall Willick
%T Professional Malpractice and the Unauthorized Practice of Professions:
Some Legal and Ethical Aspects of the use of Computers and Decision-Aids
%P 817-863

%A Gian Piero Zarri
%T Inference Techniques for Intelligent Information Retrieval
%P 247-274

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 George R. Cross                cross@wsu.CSNET
 Computer Science Department    cross%wsu@csnet-relay.ARPA
 Washington State University    faccross@wsuvm1.BITNET
 Pullman, WA      99164-1210    Phone: 509-335-6319 or 509-335-6636

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 85 10:50:41 EST
-FROM-
From: "Lisa F. Melcher" <LISA@MIT-MC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Depth-First Search (MIT)
-BODY-

                       DATE:  Friday, December 13, 1985

                         TIME:  12:45.....Refreshments
                                 1:00.....Lecture

                              PLACE:  NE43 - 512A



                 "A PARALLEL ALGORITHM FOR DEPTH FIRST SEARCH"


                               Richard Anderson
                                     MSRI


A new parallel algorithm for constructing a depth first search tree in an
undirected graph will be described.  The algorithm is a P-RAM algorithm and
uses several probabilistic algorithms as sub-routines.

The run time of the algorithm is  2 sq.rt. log n.  This makes it an almost RNC
                                             eps.
algorithm, since the run time is less than  n     for any  eps.>0.


The standard sequential algorithm for depth first search can be shown to be
"inherently sequential", so this shows that substantial speed up for depth
first search is possible when a different approach is taken.


                                 David Shmoys
                                     Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 85 12:57:28 cst
-FROM-
From: Ted Briggs <briggs@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Quantitative Operators in Design (UTexas)
-BODY-

              Quantitative Operators in Design

                             by
                       David R Throop


                    noon Friday Dec. 13
                          PAI 3.38


Doing design problems involves reasoning  about  quantities.
AI  methods  have  not  made  great headway into engineering
design problems so far.   They  have  lacked  the  power  to
reason   about   quantities.    Meanwhile,   other   numeric
techniques have lacked the AI systems' abilities in handling
heuristic knowledge.

I propose to extend AI representations  to  allow  reasoning
about quantities in design.  My approach has these features:

     Encoding heuristic knowledge as frames  with  quantita-
     tive   operators,   operators  with  an  action  and  a
     strength.

     Beginning design by solving subproblems, guided by  the
     arbitration of conflicting quantitative heuristics.

     Reasoning quantitatively about  the  aggregate  design,
     modifying it using non-local knowledge.

     Encoding  the  procedures  to   arbitrate   conflicting
     heuristics  as  knowledge at a general level: the para-
     digm level.

To test the power of this approach, I will apply  it  to  an
outstanding  problem  in Chemical Engineering: the synthesis
of heat exchanger networks.  This problem has many published
non-AI computer approaches.  This literature provides a test
of my representation and its adequacy for real design  prob-
lems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Dec 1985 1331-EST
-FROM-
From: David A. Evans <DAE@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Object Model of Information (CMU)
-BODY-

Speaker: David Beech,
         Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, and
         Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto

Time:    Wednesday, 11 December 1985, 1:30-3:00 PM, Wean 5409

Title:   Towards an Object Model of the Representation
         and Use of Information


Future general-purpose information systems will need to deal with a wide
range of information, and offer flexible access to it, if they are to
appeal to the potential millions of non-specialist users.  For example,
they should process pictures and sounds as naturaly as numbers and
texts; they should answer questions which require some deduction from
the often incomplete information previously given to the system; and
they should move towards the support of natural language interfaces,
including spoken inputs.

An object-oriented model of the representation and use of information is
proposed, with the necessary generality for the desription and design of
such systems.  Fundamental concepts including those of agent, object,
type, action, formula, process, transaction, predicator and generator
are intro- duced.  Recursive functions, predicate calculus, and n-ary
relations are brought together in a data abstraction framework, with an
emphasis on intensional definition of concepts and their instantiation
by means of predicators and generators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1985  10:21 EST
-FROM-
From: ELIZABETH%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar -  Parallel Networks that Learn Representations (MIT)
-BODY-

        MASSIVELY PARALLEL NETWORKS THAT LEARN REPRESENTATIONS

                           Geoffrey Hinton
                      Carnegie-Mellon University

                          Monday, December 9
                    Eighth Floor Playroom, AI Lab
                               4:00 pm

I shall describe a new learning procedure for massively parallel
networks of neuron-like processing elements.  The procedure adjusts
the connection strengths in a multi-layered network so as to make it
give the correct output vector when given an input vector.  The units
in the intermediate layers come to represent important implicit
features of the task domain that generates the pairs of input/output
vectors.  As a result, the network can generalise appropriately to new
cases.  I shall describe a pattern recognition example in which the
network constructs a balanced ecology of feature detectors, and a
higher level task in which the network learns a set of relationships.
The second example illustrates the ability of the network to recognize
isomorphisms and make use of them in encoding and generalizing
knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
186
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 85 20:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Brian C. Williams <WILLIAMS at OZ.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Objects from Images (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , December 12  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


             "Learning Symbolic Object Models From Images"


                            Jonathan Connell

                              MIT, AI Lab



This talk will present the results of an implemented system for
learning structural prototypes of objects directly from gray-scale
images.  The vision component of this system employs Brady's Smoothed
Local Symmetries to divide an object into parts which are then
described symbolically.  The learning component takes these
descriptions and forms a model of the examples presented in a manner
similar to Winston's ANALOGY program.  The problem of matching complex
structured descriptions and the difficult task of reasoning about
function from form will also be briefly discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 17:56:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Joan Feigenbaum <JF@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - SDI Debate (SU)
-BODY-

                ``SDI: How Feasible, How Useful, How Robust?''

This will be a technical debate, covering both hardware and software aspects
of SDI.

Sponsor: Stanford Computer Science Department
Date: December 19, 1985
Time: 8:00 p.m.
Place: Terman Auditorium
Organizer: Barbara Simons, IBM-SJ

Moderator:  Dr. Marvin L. Goldberger, President of Cal Tech.
Former member of President's Science Advisory Committee
and Consultant on Arms Control and International Security.

Panelists:

Advocates:
Professor Richard Lipton, Professor of Computer Science at Princeton
University, Current member of SDIO's Panel on Computing and Support of Battle
Management.

Major Simon Peter Warden, the Special Assistant to the Director of the SDIO
and Technical Advisor to the Nuclear and Space Arms Talk with the USSR
in Geneva.

Opponents:
Dr. Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Physics at
Columbia University, Physicist and Defense Consultant.

Professor David Parnas, Lansdown Professor of Computer Science at the
University of Victoria, Former member of the SDI Organization's
Panel on Computing and Support of Battle Management.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 11:56:26-CST
-FROM-
From: <AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Deduction as a Programming Methodology (UTexas)
-BODY-

                             Gerard Huet
                     INRIA (on Sabbatical at CMU)

                            MCC-AI Lecture
                   Thursday, December 19 at 10:00am
                         Echelon I, Room 409

            "Intuitionistic Higher-Order Natural Deduction
                     as a Programming Methodology"

The talk will  review various  aspects of  the correspondence  between
types and  propositions  and  its applications  to  type-checking  and
program proving.

A  higher-order  intuitionistic   natural  deduction  formalism,   the
Calculus of Constructions, is introduced and motivated by examples.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 11:55:40-CST
-FROM-
From: <AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Typed Equational Logic Programming (UTexas)
-BODY-

          Typed Equational Logic as a Programming Language
                          Gert Smolka
                       Cornell University

                            MCC-AI Lecture
                   WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18 at 3:00pm
                         Echelon I, Room 409

I will present a logic programming notation called TEL, which is based
on typed equational logic.  TEL  avoids many of Prolog's  difficulties
since it has equality  and functions, an  expressive type system,  and
more satisfying control  features.  Furthermore, employing  equational
rather than relational  logic supports term  rewriting in addition  to
logic programming a la Prolog.  TEL's major innovations come with  its
type system:

   * Both type containment (subtypes as in OBJ2) and parametric
     polymorphism (as in ML) are available.  This requires type
     checking algorithms that solve inequalities.

   * Although, in general, types are computationally significant,
     every program can be automatically translated into an
     equivalent TEL program in which all type information is
     redundant.  Thus TEL can be implemented with untyped narrowing.

   * Type declarations in TEL contain control information that enables
     a compiler to decide whether a function can be implemented by
     rewriting instead of full narrowing.  This is a crucial
     optimization since rewriting requires neither backtracking nor
     unification.

   * The control information in TEL's type declarations also
     facilitates the exploitation of and-parallism.  A straight-
     forward compile-time analysis can determine most subterms that
     will not share variables at run-time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 85 10:30:25 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems in Government
-BODY-
                           CALL FOR PAPERS
                     THE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE
                                  ON
                     EXPERT SYSTEMS IN GOVERNMENT

   Tyson's Westpark Hotel, McLean, VA in suburban Washington, D.C.
                        October 20 - 24, 1986

     The conference is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and
         the Mitre Corporation in cooperation with AIAA/NCS.

The objective of the conference is to explore the following:
        - knowledge based applications and supporting technologies
        - implementation and impact of emerging application areas
        - future trends in available systems and required research

Classified and unclassified papers which relate to the use of
knowledge based systems are solicited.  The topics of interest
include, but are not limited to, the following applications:

Professional: engineering, finance, law, management, medicine

Office Automation: text understanding, intelligent DBMS, intelligent
systems

Command & Control: intelligence analysis, planning, targeting,
communications, air traffic control, battle management

Exploration: outer space, prospecting, archaeology

Weapon Systems: adaptive control, electronic warfare, Star Wars,
target identification

Equipment: CAD/CAM, design monitoring, maintenance, repair

Software: automatic programming, maintenance, verification and
validation

Architecture: distributed knowledge based systems, parallel computing

Project Management: planning, scheduling, control

Education: concept formation, tutoring, testing, diagnosis

Imagery: photo interpretation, mapping

Systems Engineering: requirements, preliminary design, critical
design, testing, quality assurance

Tools and Techniques: PROLOG, knowledge acquisition and
representation, uncertainty management

Plant and Factory Automation

Space Station Systems

Human-Machine Interface

Speech and Natural Language


The program will consist of submitted and invited papers, which will
provide an overview of selected areas.  Contributed papers should be
consistent with the following outline:
1. Introduction- state clearly the purpose of the work
2. Description of the actual work- must be new and significant
3. Results- discuss their significance
4. References

Completed papers are to be no longer than 20 pages, including
graphics.  Four copies of the complete paper are to be submitted to:

Dr. Kamal Karna, Conference Chairman
IEEE Computer Society
1730 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.  20036-1903

Author's Schedule:
Four copies of manuscript       May 1, 1986
Acceptance letter               June 15, 1986
Camera-ready copy               July 15, 1986

Conference Chairman:
        Dr. Kamal Karna
        Washington AI Center
        Mitre Corporation
        karna@mitre

Program Committee:
        Co-chairman: Classified and Unclassified:
        Dr. Richard Martin
        Associate Director, Software Engineering Institute
        Carnegie Mellon University
        AIMARTN@MCC

        Co-chairman: Unclassified
        Dr. Kamran Parsaye
        President
        Intelliware, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 15:48:07 PST
-FROM-
From: Bay.pa@Xerox.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Ingalls%Apple.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Call for Papers, OOPSLA86
-BODY-

                    Call For Papers and Participation

                            ACM Conference on
     Object Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications

            September 29 - October 2, 1986,  Portland, Oregon

OOPSLA-86 is a new ACM-sponsored conference that brings together users and
implementors of object oriented systems.  Through tutorials, papers, panel
discussions and workshops, as well as demonstrations, exhibits and videotapes,
OOPSLA-86 will provide a forum for sharing experience and knowledge among
experts and novices alike.

We invite technical papers, case studies, and surveys in the following areas:

Theory:                 Including core definition of object oriented
                        programming, semantic models and methodology.

Languages:              Existing object oriented languages, extensions to
                        conventional languages, and new languages.

Implementation:         Including architectural support, compilation and
                        interpretation, and special techniques.

Tools and Environments: Including user interfaces, utilities and operating
                        system support.

Applications:           Commercial, educational, and scientific applications
                        that exploit object oriented programming.

Related Work:           The object oriented paradigm in other fields such as
                        databases and operating systems.

Papers on other relevant topics are welcome, as are proposals for workshops
and panel discussions.

All papers will be refereed prior to selection and inclusion in the conference
proceedings.  Technical papers will be selected on the basis of originality and
contribution to the state of the art of design, implementation, methodology, or
practice.  Survey papers will be selected on the basis of how well they
crystallize and integrate, in a way not previously presented, knowledge about
one or more aspects of the field.

Papers must be submitted in English, and should be no longer than 25
double-spaced pages.  The cover page should include a title, an abstract of not
more than 100 words, and author's name, affiliation, address and phone number.
Five copies must be received by the Program Chairman at the address below, no
later than April 1, 1986.  Authors will be notified of acceptance by May 1,
1986, and final versions of accepted papers will be due by June 15, 1986.  As
the proceedings of this conference will be widely disseminated, publication of
more than an abstract of a submitted paper is likely to inhibit republication
in ACM's refereed publications.

A room at the conference will be reserved for video presentations that
illustrate or supplement the concepts conveyed in other presentations.
Submissions must run no longer than 15 minutes, and should be on 3/4-inch
U-Matic format tape.  Tapes must be received by the Video Chairman at the
address below, no later than July 1, 1986.


Conference Chairmen     Daniel Bobrow (Xerox PARC) (bobrow.pa@XEROX.ARPA)
                        Alan Purdy (Servio Logic Development)
                          <alpurdy@oregon-grad.CSNet>

Program Chairman        Daniel Ingalls, MS 22-Y
                          (ingalls%apple.csnet@CSNET-RELAY)
                        Apple Computer
                        20525 Mariani Ave.
                        Cupertino, CA 95014

Video Chairman          David Robson (robson.pa@XEROX.ARPA)
                        Xerox PARC
                        3333 Coyote Hill Road
                        Palo Alto, CA 94304

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
187
-DATE-
Date: Thu 5 Dec 85 11:25:15-CST
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor - Thanksgiving Story
-BODY-

                    [Forwarded from NIKHIL@MIT-XX]
          [Forwarded from the UTexas bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                         ALICE'S LISP MACHINE

             Chris Stacy, Alan Wecsler, and Noel Chiappa

          This song is called "MIT's AI  Lab". It's about MIT and  the
AI Lab, but "MIT's AI Lab" is not the name of the lab, that's just the
name of the song. That's why I call the song "MIT's AI Lab."

          Now it all started two full dumps ago, on Thanksgiving, when
my friend and I went  up to visit the hackers  at AI lab on the  ninth
floor. But the hackers don't always live on the ninth floor, they just
go there to use these complex order code stack machines they call Lisp
Machines.

          And using a special purpose processor like that, they got  a
lot of room upstairs where  DDT used to be,  and havin' all that  ROOM
they decided that they didn't have  to collect any garbage for a  long
time.

          We JFCLed up here and found all the garbage in there and  we
decided that it'd be a friendly gesture for us to take all the garbage
down to the system dump.

          So we took the half-a-meg of garbage, put it in the back  of
a red  ECL  Multibus, took  subrs  and hacks  and  implementations  of
defstruction, and headed on toward the system dump.

          Well, we got there and there was  a big pop up window and  a
write protect across  the dump sayin',  "This Garbage Collecter  Under
Development on  Thanksgiving,"  and  we'd never  heard  of  a  garbage
collector NOP'd  out on  Thanksgiving before,  and with  tears in  our
eyes, we CDR'd off  into the sunset lookin'  for another place to  put
the garbage.

          We didn't find one 'til we came to a side area, and off  the
side of the  side area  was three hundred  megabyte disk,  and in  the
middle of the disk  was another heap of  garbage. And we decided  that
one big heap was  better than two little  heaps, and rather than  page
that one in, we decided to write ours out. That's what we did.

          Branched  back  to   the  Lisp  Listener,   had  a   Chinese
Thanksgiving dinner  that couldn't  be beat,  went to  SI:PROCESS-WAIT
SLEEP, and didn't get up until the next quantum, when we got a funcall
from Mr.  Greenblatt.  He said, "Kid, we found your name on a cons  at
the bottom of a half-a-meg of garbage and I just wanted to know if you
had any information about it".

          And I said, "Yes sir, Mr. Greenblatt, I cannot tell a lie. I
put that structure under that  garbage." After speakin' to  Greenblatt
for about  forty-five million  clock ticks  on the  telnet stream,  we
finally arrived at the truth of the matter and he said that we had  to
go down and link up the garbage, and also had to go down and speak  to
him at the Lisp  Machine Factory. So  we got in  the red ECL  Multibus
with the  subrs  and hacks  and  implementations of  defstruction  and
headed on toward the Lisp Machine Factory.

          Now,  friends,  there  was  only  one  of  two  things  that
Greenblatt could've done at  the Lisp Machine  Factory, and the  first
was that he could've given us another 64K board for bein' so brave and
honest on BUG-LISPM (which  wasn't very likely,  and we didn't  expect
it), and the other thing was that he could've flamed at us and told us
never to be seen BLTing garbage around in the vicinity again, which is
what we expected.

          But when we  got to the  Lisp Machine Factory,  there was  a
third COND-clause that we  hadn't even counted upon,  and we was  both
immediately Process-Arrested, Deexposed,  and I  said, "Greenblatt,  I
can't GC up the garbage with  these here ARREST-REASONS on". He  said:
"Output-Hold, kid, and  get in the  back of the  Control CAR."  ...And
that's what we did...sat in the back of the Control CAR, and drove  to
the sharpsign quote open scene-of-the-crime close.

          I wanna tell you 'bout the town of Cambridge, Massachusetts,
where this is happenin'. They got seven hunnert stop signs, no turn on
red,  and  two   campus  police  CARs,   but  when  we   got  to   the
sharpsign-quote-open scene-of-the-crime  close,  there was  five  Lisp
Machine hackers and three scope carts,  bein' the biggest hack of  the
last ten years  and everybody wanted  to get in  the HUMAN-NETS  story
about it.

          And they was usin'  up all kinds  of digital equipment  that
they had  hangin' around  the Lisp  Machine Factory.  They was  takin'
backtraces,  stack  traces,  plastic   wire  wraps,  blueprints,   and
microcode   loads...And   they    made   seventeen   1K-by-32    pixel
multi-flavored windows with turds and arrows  and a scroll bar on  the
side of each  one with  documentation panes explainin'  what each  one
was, to be used as evidence against us.

        ...Took pictures of the labels, blinkers, the cursors, the pop
up notification windows, the upper right corner, the lower left corner
...and that's not to mention the XGP'd screen images!

          After the ordeal,  we went back  to the Factory.  Greenblatt
said he was gonna locate us in a cell. He said: "Kid, I'm gonna INTERN
you in a cell. I want your manual and your mouse."

          I said,  "Greenblatt,  I  can  understand  your  wantin'  my
manual, so I don't have any documentation about the cell, but what  do
you want my mouse for?"  and he said, "Kid,  we don't want any  window
system problems".   I said,  "Greenblatt, did  you think  I was  gonna
deexpose myself for litterin'?"

          Greenblatt said he was makin' sure, and, friends, Greenblatt
was, 'cause he took out the  left Meta-key so I couldn't double  bucky
the rubout and cold-boot, and he took out the Inspector so I  couldn't
click-left on Modify, set the PROCESS-WARM-BOOT-ACTION on the  window,
*THROW around the  UNWIND-PROTECT and have  an escape. Greenblatt  was
makin' sure.

          It was about four or  five hours later that  Moon--(remember
Moon?  This here's not a song about  Moon)-- Moon came by and, with  a
few nasty sends to Greenblatt on the side, bailed us out of core,  and
we went up to  the Loft, had another  Chinese dinner that couldn't  be
beat, and didn't  get up until  the next evening,  when we all  had to
go to court.

          We  walked  in,  sat  down,  Greenblatt  came  in  with  the
seventeen 1K-by-32 pixel multi-flavored windows with turds and  arrows
and documentation panes, sat down.

          McMahon came  in, said,  "All rise!"  We all  stood up,  and
Greenblatt stood up with  the seventeen 1K-by-32 pixel  multi-flavored
windows with turds and arrows  and documentation panes, and the  judge
walked in, with an LA36, and he sat down. We sat down.

          Greenblatt looked at the LA36... then at the seventeen multi
flavored windows with the turds and arrows and documentation  panes...
and looked at  the LA36... and  then at the  seventeen 1K-by-32  pixel
multi-flavored windows with turds and arrows and documentation  panes,
and began to cry.

          Because Greenblatt came  to the  realization that  it was  a
typical case  of LCS  state-of-the-art  technology, and  there  wasn't
nothin' he could do about it, and  the judge wasn't gonna look at  the
seventeen 1K-by-32 pixel multi-flavored windows with turds and  arrows
and documentation panes, explainin' what each  one was, to be used  as
evidence against us.

          And we was fined fifty zorkmids and had to rebuild the world
load...in the snow.


          But that's not what I'm here to tell you about.
          I'm here to talk about the Lab.
______________________________________________________________________

          They got  a buildin'  down  in Cambridge  called  Technology
Square, where you walk in,  you get your windows Inspected,  detected,
neglected and Selected!

          I went down and got my  interview one day, and I walked  in,
sat down (slept on the  beanbag in 926 the  night before, so I  looked
and felt my best when I went in that morning, 'cause I wanted to  look
like the All-American High School Tourist from Sunnyvale. I wanted  to
feel like ... I wanted to be the All-American Kid from Sunnyvale), and
I walked in, sat down, I was  gunned down, brung down, locked out  and
all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly things.

          And I walked in, I sat down, KAREN gave me a piece of  paper
that said: "Kid, see the CLU hackers on XX."

          I went up there, I said, "Eliot, I wanna lose. I wanna lose!
I wanna see hacks  and kludges and unbound  variables and cruft in  my
code! Eat dead  power supplies with  cables between my  teeth! I  mean
lose! lose! lose!"

          And I started  jumpin' up  and down,  yellin' "LOSE!   LOSE!
LOSE!"  and Stallman walked  in and started jumpin'  up and down  with
me, and we was both jumpin' up and down, yellin', "LOSE! LOSE!   LOSE!
LOSE!!" and some professor  came over, gave me  a 6-3 degree, sent  me
down the hall, said "You're our distinguished lecturer."  Didn't  feel
too good about it.

          Proceeded  down   the   infinite  corridor,   gettin'   more
inspections, rejections (this  IS MIT),  detections, neglections,  and
all kinds of stuff that  they was doin' to me  there, and I was  there
for two years... three years... four  years... I was there for a  long
time goin' through all kinds of mean, nasty, kludgy things, and I  was
havin' a tough time there,  and they was inspectin', injectin',  every
single part of me, and they was leavin' no part unbound!
______________________________________________________________________

          Proceeded through, and I finally  came to see the very  last
man.  I walked in, sat down, after  a whole big thing there. I  walked
up, and he said, "Kid,  we only got one  question: Have you ever  been
arrested"?

          And I proceeded to tell him  the story of the half-a-meg  of
garbage with full orchestration and  five-part harmony and stuff  like
that, and other phenomenon.

          He stopped me right there and said, "Kid, have you ever been
to court"? And  I proceeded  to tell him  the story  of the  seventeen
1K-by-32 pixel  multi-flavored  windows  with  turds  and  arrows  and
documentation panes...

          He stopped me right there and  said, "Kid, I want you to  go
over and sit down on that bench that says 'LISP Machine Group'... NOW,
KID!"

          And I walked  over to  the bench there,  and there's...  The
LISP Machine Group  is where  they put  you if  you may  not be  moral
enough to join Symbolics after creatin' your special form.

          There was all kinds of  mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' people  on
the bench there ...  there was Microcoders,  DPL hackers, File  System
hackers, and  Window System  Hackers!!  Window System  hacker  sittin'
right there  on  the bench  next  to  me! And  the  meanest,  ugliest,
nastiest one... the kludgiest Window System hacker of them all...  was
comin' over to me, and he was mean and ugly and nasty and horrible and
all kinds of things, and  he sat down next to  me. He said, "Kid,  you
get a new copy of the sources?"  I said, "I didn't get nothin'. I  had
to rebuild the world load."

          He said,  "What were  you arrested  for, kid?"  and I  said,
"Littering..." And they  all moved away  from me on  the bench  there,
with the hairy  eyeball and all  kinds of mean,  nasty things, 'til  I
said, "And making  gratuitous modifications to  LMIO; sources..."  And
they all came  back, shook my  hand, and we  had a great  time on  the
bench talkin' about microcoding, DPL designing, file-system hacking,
... and all kinds of groovy things that we was talkin' about on the
bench, and everything was fine.

          We was drinking Coke smoking all kinds of things, until  the
RA came over, had some paper in his hand, held it up and said:

     "KIDS-THIS-EXAM-S-GOT-FOURTY
     SEVEN-WORDS-THIRTY-SEVEN-MULTIPLE-CHOICE-QUESTIONS
     FIFTY-EIGHT-WORDS-WE-WANT-TO-KNOW-THE-DETAILS
     OF-THE-HACK-THE-TIME-OF-THE-HACK-AND-ANY
     OTHER-KIND-OF-THING-YOU-GOT-TO-SAY
     PERTAINING-TO-AND-ABOUT-THE-HACK-ANY-OTHER
     KIND-OF-THING-YOU-GOT-TO-SAY-WE-WANT-TO-KNOW
     THE-ARRESTED-PROCESS'-NAME-AND-ANY
     OTHER-KIND-OF-THING..."

And he talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that
he said. But we had  fun rolling the mice  around and clickin' on  the
buttons.

          I filled  out the  special form  with the  four-level  macro
defining macros.  Typed it  in there just like  it was and  everything
was fine.  And  I put down  my keyboard, and  I switched buffers,  and
there ...  in  the other  buffer...  centered in  the other  buffer...
away from everything  else in  the buffer...  in parentheses,  capital
letters, backquotated, in 43VXMS, read the following words: "Kid, have
you featurized yourself"?

          I went  over to  the RA.  Said, "Mister,  you got  a lot  of
damned gall to ask me  if I've featurized myself!   I mean, I mean,  I
mean that you send, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm  sittin'
here on the Lisp Machine Group bench,  'cause you want to know if  I'm
losing enough  to  join  the  Lab, burn  PROMs,  power  supplies,  and
documentation, after bein' on SF-LOVERS?"
______________________________________________________________________

          He looked at  me and said,  "Kid, we don't  like your  kind!
We're gonna send  your user-id off  to the DCA  in Washington"!   And,
friends, somewhere  in Washington,  enshrined  on some  little  floppy
disk, is a  study in ones  and zeros of  my brain-damaged  programming
style...
______________________________________________________________________

          And the only reason I'm singin'  you the song now is  'cause
you may know  somebody in  a similar  situation. Or  you may  be in  a
similar situation, and  if you're  in a situation  like that,  there's
only one thing you can do:

                              [ CHORUS ]

          You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they  may
think he's really dangerous and they won't take him.

          And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think  they're
both LISP hackers and they won't take either of them.

          And if three  people do  it!  Can you  imagine three  people
walkin' in, singin' a bar of "MIT's AI Lab" and walkin' out? They  may
think it's an re-implementation of the window system!

          And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY  people
a day, walkin' in, singin'  a bar of "MIT's  AI Lab" and walkin'  out?
Friends, they may think  it's a MOVEMENT, and  that's what it is:  THE
MIT AI LAB ANTI-LOSSAGE MOVEMENT! And all  you gotta do to join is  to
sing it the next time it comes around on the circular buffer.

                            With feelin'.

                    You can hack anything you want
                         on MIT Lisp Machines
                    You can hack anything you want
                         on MIT Lisp Machines
                   Walk right in and begin to hack
              Just push your stuff right onto the stack
                    You can hack anything you want
                         on MIT Lisp Machines

       (but don't forget to fix the bug...on MIT Lisp Machines!)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
188
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 11:52:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Ali Ozer <ALI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Superset of Common LISP...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


...on a chip? I just read in this month's Byte (Dec 1985, p10):

"Texas Instruments is developing a 32-bit CMOS LISP processor chip...
 Roughly 10 times more complex than a 68000, the 40-MHz processor will
 directly execute a superset of Common LISP with extensions like
 object-oriented programming and message-passing..."

This sounds truly amazing to me. A superset of what is described in
Steele's Common Lisp manual? That would be a *powerful* chip. Has anyone
read more about this? (All Byte had was the above sentence...)

Ali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 10:36 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LIPS
-BODY-

For a good discussion of the  systematic benchmarking and analysis of a
Prolog implementation, see "THE PRODUCTION AND EVALUATION OF A SET OF
PROLOG BENCHMARKS" by Paul F. Wilk, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence,
University of Edinburgh. I've cliped the following from this paper:

   The program "Nrev" is seen as a standard measurement for benchmarking  Pro-
   log  implementations.   This  is  a simple symbol-crunching program for the
   naive reversal of a list (see Appendix B).  It seems  fairer  to  use  this
   program as a standard measure rather than any program involving arithmetic;
   which favours the DEC-10 compiler.  The following table shows the estimated
   Logical  Inferences  Per  Second  (LIPS) for these Prolog system configura-
   tions. Nrev performs 496 logical inferences (procedure calls) each time  it
   is  executed.  Therefore, dividing the number of logical inferences for one
   execution by the execution time, in seconds, gives the number of LIPS.

   |===============|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|
   |Implementation |PrologC|PrologI|Cprolog|Cprolog|PDP-11 |POPLOG |York   |
   |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
   |System range   |DEC-10 |DEC-10 |VAX-11 |ICLPerq|PDP-11 |VAX-11 |ICLPerq|
   |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
   |Processor      |KL-10  |KL-10  |11-750 |2910   |11-60  |11-780 |2910   |
   |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
   |Translator     |Compil.|Interp.|Interp.|Interp.|Interp.|Compil.|Interp.|
   |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
   |LIPS (Nrev)    |  45592|   2385|    800|    484|    888|   1858|     56|
   |---------------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|
   |Cputime ratio  |   1   |  19.12|  56.99|  94.20|  51.34|  24.54| 814.14|
   |===============|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|=======|
           Table 3. Nrev: LIPS comparison.

The paper discusses measuring other attributes (e.g. memory utilization) and
provides a variety of benchmarks to measure particular language features
(e.g. time to assert a unit clause).

I've checked several implementations/machines here.  For CProlog, I
recall measures like 2400 LIPS for a 785, 400 LIPS for a HP9836, and
140 LIPS for a MacIntosh.  Our Symbolics-prolog (compiled) tested out
at about 40K LIPS.Here is the program I've used to do the benchmarking.
I think it comes from Paul Wilk.

     % lips runs the nrev benchmark 10 times and writes the estimated lips.
     lips :- lips(10,L), nl,write(L),write(' lips').

     % Lips(N,L) runs the nrev benchmark N times and binds L to
     % an estimate of the LIPS.
     lips(N,L) :-
        init(X),
        T1 is cputime,
        tests(N,X),
        T2 is cputime,
        control(N,X),
        T3 is cputime,
        Testtime is T2-T1,
        Overhead is T3-T2,
        Nettime is Testtime-Overhead,
        write('     '),
        write(Testtime-Overhead=Nettime),
        nl,
        L is (496*N)/Nettime.

     tests(N,X) :- from(1,N,I), test(X), fail.
     tests(N,X).

     control(N,X) :- from(1,N,I), dummy(X), fail.
     control(N,X).

     from(I,I,I) :- !.
     from(L,N,I) :- N1 is (L+N)//2, from(L,N1,I).
     from(L,N,I) :- L1 is (L+N)//2+1, from(L1,N,I).

     %NREV: Naive Reverse of 30 element list

     init([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,
     21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]).

     dummy(L).

     test(L0) :- nreverse(L0,L1).

     nreverse([X|L0],L) :- nreverse(L0,L1), concatenate(L1,[X],L).
     nreverse([],[]).

     concatenate([X|L1],L2,[X|L3]) :- concatenate(L1,L2,L3).
     concatenate([],L,L).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 17:29:27-PST
-FROM-
From: LOUROBINSON@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: For AIList
-BODY-
Ken:

(For AIList:)

In response to AI.Duffy at UTexas and his message regarding the
AI&DS name change:

Why the cheap shot?  It's obvious why the name change was necessary.
Why exploit them for the sake of Duffy's unsigned, heavy-handed
cleverness?

Lou Robinson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1985 13:23 PLT
-FROM-
From: George Cross  <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction: Law and Technology Bibliography
-BODY-

In my posting of the table of contents of the Proceedings of the First
Annual Law and Technology Conference (Ailist V3 #117, 12/13/85), I left
out Anne Gardner's paper and mispaged Zarri's:

%T Overview of an Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning
%A Anne v.d.L. Gardner
%B Computing Power and Legal Reasoning
%E Charles Walter
%I West Publishing Company
%P 247-274
%D 1985
%C St. Paul
%X ISBN 0-314-95570-4

%T Inference Techniques for Intelligent Information Retrieval
%A Gian Piero Zarri
%B Computing Power and Legal Reasoning
%E Charles Walter
%I West Publishing Company
%P 215-246
%D 1985
%C St. Paul
%X ISBN 0-314-95570-4

>--- 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>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Dec 85  1143 PST
-FROM-
From: Matthew Ginsberg <SJG@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: interesting counterfactual
-BODY-

> From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
> . . .
> (0) Suppose a class consists of three people, a 6 ft boy (Tom), a 5 ft girl
>     (Jane), and a 4 ft boy (John).  Do you believe the following statements?
>
>         (1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then if the tallest
>             is not Tom, then the tallest will be John.
>         (2) A boy is the tallest person in the class.
>         (3) If the tallest person in the class is not Tom then the tallest
>             person in the class will be John.
>
>        How many readers believe (1) and (2) imply the truth of (3)?

It seems to me that this example gives insight as to what the status
is of a counterfactual whose premise is true.  The general view among
philosophers on this is that the truth or falsity of a counterfactual
with a true premise depends simply on the truth or falsity of its conclusion,
but this example seems to run against this view.

The reason seems to me to be that the conclusion should be investigated
as if the premise had read, "If the tallest person in the class is
*necessarily* a boy."  In other words, in constructing possible worlds
in which "the tallest is not Tom" (i.e., in investigating the truth of the
conclusion of (1)), possible worlds in which the tallest is not a boy are
disallowed.  Thus (1) and (2) can be true while (3) is false.

I don't know what to make of this generally.  It appears that the problem
can only arise with enbedded counterfactuals; perhaps it is reasonable
to treat them specially, rewriting (1) as:

If the tallest person in the class is a boy and the tallest is not Tom,
then the tallest will be John.

The two approaches are equivalent, but I fear there may be substantial
ramifications to messing around with the semantics in this fashion.

                                                Matt Ginsberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
189
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 15:34:54 est
-FROM-
From: Catherine A. Meadows <meadows@nrl-css.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: loops
-BODY-
Does anyone out there know of any work that has been done on
checking for loops in Prolog (other than the papers recently published
in ACM Sigplan)?

                                Cathy Meadows
                                meadows@nrl-css

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 85 23:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Gunther @ DCA-EMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: REQUEST FOR INFO ON CAI ORIENTED SHELLS
-BODY-
IF ANYONE IS WORKING IN THE AREA OF EXPERT CAI DEVELOPMENT
SYSTEMS, I'D LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON APPROACHES, OTHER WORK,
PACKAGES, ETC ...

                THANKS,
                J.L. FEINSTEIN


  [Contact AI-Ed-Request@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA to get in touch with
  a like-minded group.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 DEC 85 13:32-N
-FROM-
From: DESMEDT%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object oriented programming in Common Lisp
-BODY-
In reply to the following request:

  From: Nick Davies (at GEC Research) <YE85%mrca.co.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
  Subject: Object oriented programming in Common Lisp

  > Does anyone have or know of an implementation of Flavors or any other
  > object-oriented programming system in Common Lisp ?

I would like to mention CORBIT, which is ORBIT rewritten in NIL Common
Lisp at the University of Nijmegen (the Netherlands).

CORBIT is an object oriented extension of Common Lisp which is NOT based
on message-passing but on the idea of generic functions. An ultra-short
example illustrating the difference:

Flavors: (send window-1 :expose)
CORBIT:  (expose window-1)

What is seen as a message in Flavors is a function in CORBIT. So it is
not the object, but the message which is functional. This has a number of
advantages. One advantage is that it is straightforward to use ordinary
lambda-binding to localize inherited definitions. Another one is that the
generic functions can be traced like any other Lisp function. The overall
consequence is that CORBIT fits more neatly in the Lisp way of thinking
than message-passing systems, is simpler to understand and implement, and
yet offers the same possibilities.

Koenraad De Smedt, DESMEDT@HNYKUN52 (bitnet)
Psychological Laboratory
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands

  [The recent Xerox PARC work on CommonLoops has a similar functional
  flavor -- as does ADA, of course.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Dec 85 14:00:25-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIDS
-BODY-
Despite Duffy's bafflement, it seems obvious why they changed
their name and it is important to the community to learn of
such name changes.  But, isn't there already someone named
Advanced Decision Systems?  Sounds familiar, but I cannot recall . . .

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 17:40:04 EST
-FROM-
From: David_West%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Policy
-BODY-
   You said in AIList v3 #185:
     "I [...] do screen out job ads [...]"
   For those of us out here in the boonies, the nets are the only available
*current* source of information on what's really happening: the print media
are agonizingly slow, particularly if one must rely on a university library.
>From time to time, we boonie-dwellers even need to find jobs, and most AI
jobs are outside the boonies.
   You didn't say whether you screen out job ads because of ARPAnet policy,
or because they have a better home elsewhere.   If it's the former, I think
the policy is misguided, at least for academic/research jobs.  If it's the
latter, and there is in fact a network source for this kind of information,
I don't know of it, and would like to.
   (I have seen *very* occasional academic fellowship announcements here:
perhaps as many as two in the last year. Presumably there were more that
went unreported.)

  [There are many reasons for the policy.  (1) There are the Arpanet
  restrictions on commercial use: academic ads are generally considered
  acceptable but industrial ads are not.  (I don't understand the
  distinction -- placement of personnel in the defense industry is in
  the interest of the net's military sponsors -- but rules are rules.)
  Even if Arpanet sponsors and host administrators did not object,
  a fair proportion of any such messages draw flak from other readers;
  I don't need the hassle of defending my editorial policies that often.
  (2) There is already a channel, Arpanet-BBoards@MIT-MC, for academic
  announcements and certain commercial announcements; I prefer to
  avoid duplicate traffic.  (3) AIList carries enough traffic without
  adding another class of messages, particularly one that is of little
  interest to most readers and of no value in the historical archive.
  One difficulty in pruning the list is in screening out duplicates
  of messages submitted in previous months or years -- I have to pull
  the archives and scan for half-remembered occurrences.  (4) I am
  unable to draw a clean distinction between messages of AI interest
  and those that are not.  A search for a lab director or lecturer
  is of interest, but how about an ad for students to run an AI lab's
  computers?  (4) A few of the people submitting ads lack perspective
  and are difficult to deal with -- any attempt to reject just some
  of the messages or to modify them to make them less commercial
  may lead to multiple interchanges with the authors.  It is easier
  to reject such messages entirely.

  If someone else wants to moderate a list of placement ads or of
  resumes, he (or she) will probably find it acceptable to the net
  community.  The volume of such solicitations put out by certain
  AI departments indicates a desire for such a service.  (IEEE tried to
  serve this need among electrical engineers and computer scientists
  with their Professional Abstracts Registry; it couldn't be sustained,
  but the task has been passed on to a commercial information server.)
  I just find it better not to mix this traffic with AIList.  I suggest
  that you check CACM and IEEE Computer for recent classified ads, or
  just contact companies listed in any recent AI magazine or conference
  proceedings.  There are also some recruiters specializing in AI
  (Halbrect Associates, Inc.; JDG Associates, Ltd; Klein/Thaler Executive
  Search; Artificial Intelligence Referral Service; S.J. Parker and
  Associates); look for their ads in IEEE Spectrum and the AI magazines.
  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 85 08:48:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: counterfactuals
-BODY-
  >> From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
  >>
  >> (0) Suppose a class consists of three people, a 6 ft boy (Tom),
  >>     a 5 ft girl (Jane), and a 4 ft boy (John).  Do you believe the
  >>     following statements?
  >>
  >>     (1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then if the tallest
  >>         is not Tom, then the tallest will be John.
  >>     (2) A boy is the tallest person in the class.
  >>     (3) If the tallest person in the class is not Tom then the tallest
  >>         person in the class will be John.
  >>
  >>    How many readers believe (1) and (2) imply the truth of (3)?

  > It seems to me that this example gives insight as to what the status
  > is of a counterfactual whose premise is true.  The general view among
  > philosophers on this is that the truth or falsity of a counterfactual
  > with a true premise depends simply on the truth or falsity of its
  > conclusion, but this example seems to run against this view.

  > The reason seems to me to be that the conclusion should be investigated
  > as if the premise had read, "If the tallest person in the class is
  > *necessarily* a boy."  In other words, in constructing possible worlds
  > in which "the tallest is not Tom" (i.e., in investigating the truth of the
  > conclusion of (1)), possible worlds in which the tallest is not a boy are
  > disallowed.  Thus (1) and (2) can be true while (3) is false.

I don't think there's a problem here.  If we read the phrase "if
the tallest is not Tom, then the tallest will be John"
truth-functionally, in BOTH (1) and (3) then it's clearly true,
since the antecedent is false - Tom is the tallest - and hence
(1) and (3) are both true.  If we read it counterfactually, eg:
"what would happen if Tom shrank to a height of 3 angstroms,
leaving only John and Jane? Would John be the tallest, true or
false?" then it's clearly false in both cases, and so (1) and
(3) are BOTH false.  If we read (1) as:

(1) If the tallest person in the class is a boy, then what would
happen if Tom shrank to a height of 3 angstroms, leaving only
John and Jane? Would John be the tallest, true or false?

Modus ponens remains with its virtue intact, in either case.
It's only when we read the phrase truth-functionally in (1),
and counterfactually in (3) that an apparent conflict arises.

Further confusing the issue is that (1) contains two implications,
and the first sounds very truth-functional, leading you to read
the second implication in the same way; but in isolation, in (3),
it sounds counterfactual.  If someone regards this as a real
problem let him/her express it formally, and use different
signs for different implication, eg "=>" for truth-functional,
"->" for counterfactual.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Dec 85 16:51:21 EST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Dana S. Nau <dsn@rochester.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: interesting counterfactual
-BODY-
     From:  Matthew Ginsberg <SJG@SU-AI.ARPA>

     > From: Mike Dante <DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA>
     > (0) Suppose a class consists of three people ...

     ...  the conclusion should be investigated as if the premise had read,
     "If the tallest person in the class is *necessarily* a boy."  In other
     words, in constructing possible worlds in which "the tallest is not
     Tom" (i.e., in investigating the truth of the conclusion of (1)),
     possible worlds in which the tallest is not a boy are disallowed. ...

I don't think this solves the problem.  Regardless of whether you allow such
worlds or disallow them, you will still be allowing some worlds in which
John is the tallest, and allowing others in which he is not.

     I don't know what to make of this generally.  It appears that the problem
     can only arise with enbedded counterfactuals ...

I disagree.  In Dante's example, the APPARENT problem was that the strict
logical interpretation of the statements didn't pin us down to the particular
counterfactual world that we "obviously" wanted.  But I think the real
problem is more general.  It's analogous to the frame problem:  if we're
going to deny some fact in order to create a counterfactual world, then what
OTHER things are to be changed and what things are to remain the same?  In
general, it may not be clear which counterfactual world we want.

In Dante's example above, the "obvious" counterfactual world was one in
which Tom did not exist and all the other axioms were unchanged.  But one
could easily specify examples in which the removal of Tom would cause
inconsistency unless some of the other axioms were changed too.  In cases
such as this, there may be many possible ways to change the axioms.  It
shouldn't be too difficult to construct an example in which different kinds
of changes would seem best to different people--and thus different people
would reach conflicting conclusions about what the changed world would be
like.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
190
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 09:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Example-Based Reasoning (UPenn)
-BODY-
                          3pm Tuesday, December 17, 1985
                              Room 216 Moore School
                           University Of Pennsylvania

                            EXAMPLE-BASED REASONING
                          EDWINA L. RISSLAND, HARVARD

In  this  talk,  I  shall  discuss example-based reasoning, particularly in the
contexts of assisting in  the  preparation  of  legal  arguments  and  offering
on-line  explanations.    In  the  case  of  legal argumentation, I discuss how
hypotheticals serve a central role in  analyzing  the  issues  in  a  case  and
describe  a  program,  called HYPO, which generates legal hypotheticals, and an
environment, called COUNSELOR, which provides support for legal  reasoning  and
other  strategic  tasks,  like  resource  management. I'll briefly describe our
current work on on-line assistance and how  we  are  trying  to  make  it  more
intelligent  by  embedding  custom-tailored  examples in the explanations. I'll
also discuss some general issues  about  examples  such  as  their  generation,
structure and importance in reasoning, especially in the domains of mathematics
and the law.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 85 09:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Clausal Intuitionistic Logic (UPenn)
-BODY-

                         3pm Thursday, December 19, 1985
                             Room 216 Moore School
                          University of Pennsylvania

             FIXED POINT SEMANTICS AND TABLEAU PROOF PROCEDURES
                      FOR A CLAUSAL INTUITIONISTIC LOGIC

                               L. THORNE MCCARTY
                          COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
                              RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Since the advent of Horn clause logic programming in the mid-1970's, there have
been numerous attempts to extend the expressive  power  of  Horn  clause  logic
while  preserving  some  of its attractive computational properties.  This talk
will present a clausal language which  extends  Horn  clause  logic  by  adding
negations and embedded implications to the right hand side of a rule, and which
interprets these new rules intuitionistically, in a set of partial models.  The
resulting  system will be shown to have a fixed point semantics which resembles
the fixed point semantics of Horn clauses, and a tableau proof procedure  which
generalizes  Horn clause refutation proofs.  Soundness and Completeness results
will also be presented.   Finally,  the  talk  will  outline  some  connections
between  this  clausal  intuitionistic  logic  and  several  familiar  forms of
non-monotonic reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 14:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Robot Control with Kinesthetics (UPenn)
-BODY-

                   Ph.D. Dissertation Proposal Presentation
                         3:00pm Friday, Dec. 20, 1985
                               554 Moore School
                          University of Pennsylvania


          ROBOT CONTROL WITH KINESTHETICS: A REAL TIME EXPERT SYSTEM

                             Russell L. Andersson

The utility of robots is directly determined by the activities they can
perform and the speed with which they can perform them.  The purpose of
this research is to develop means to improve the performance of robots,
both in speed and especially in functionality.  We maintain that the
robots are already being limited by their controllers; rather than
redesign the robot itself, we address the problem of how to improve the
controller. Our approach is to create a sense of kinesthetics: to make
more information about the robot available to the controller, and to
find ways to use it.  Kinesthetics requires operation in both the
numeric and symbolic domains, so the system must be capable of using
and interconverting both domains.  We propose an expert system and a
means to compile it to a form executable in real time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 14:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - HORNLOG: Horn Clause Logic with Graph Rewriting (UPenn)
-BODY-

                   Ph.D. Dissertation Proposal Presentation
                         3:00pm Friday, Dec. 20, 1985
                               554 Moore School
                          University of Pennsylvania

                         INVESTIGATIONS INTO HORNLOG:
              A HORN CLAUSE INTERPRETER BASED ON GRAPH REWRITING

                                  Stan Raatz

HORNLOG, due to Jean Gallier, is a Horn clause proof procedure that can
be used to interpret logic programs.  The system is not resolution-based,
but rather is based on a form of graph-rewriting and a linear-time
algorithm for testing the unsatisfiability of propositional Horn
formulae. HORNLOG applies to a class of logic programs which is a
proper superset of the class of logic programs handled by PROLOG
systems.  In particular, negative Horn clauses used as assertions and
queries consisting of disjunctions of negations of Horn clauses are
allowed.  This class of logic programs admits answers which are
indefinite, in the sense that an answer can consist of a disjunction of
substitutions. The method does not use negation by failure semantics in
handling these extensions.

In this proposal, using the HORNLOG procedure, we develop a theory and
give examples of a type of logic programming called "general Horn clause
programming. We give soundness and completeness results,
show that the procedure has an immediate parallel interpretation, and argue
that the method compares favorably with SLD-resolution in a parallel
environment. In addition, two extensions are outlined: (1) the inclusion of
term-rewriting to handle certain instances of equational programming,
and (2) an uncertainty calculus for expert system applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Dec 1985 1005-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Deduction and Computation (CMU)
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                           DEDUCTION AND COMPUTATION

                           A Spring Seminar Proposal

                                  Gerard huet

Course No.:  15-850B
Starting Date:  9 January 1986
                Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:00 - 11:30 am
Place:          5409 Wean Hall

      The seminar will consist in two distinct phases.  The first phase will be
a standard course, and will last 8 weeks.  The topics covered include basics of
proof theory, such as sequent calculus, equational logic, canonical rewriting
and natural deduction, and foundations of applicative programming languages,
such as lambda calculus, combinators, sequential computations, types and
polymorphism.  The course ends with a more advanced section on the
Constructions Calculus.  The course is completely self-contained, there is no
pre-requisite.  Course notes will be available.

     The second phase, for the remaining 6 weeks, will be an advanced seminar
on the computer automation of constructive mathematics.  The participants will
group themselves in teams, and attempt to develop mechanical proofs of selected
theorems on the implementation of the Constructions Calculus.  A team may
consist in 1 to 3 participants.  It is expected that terms will balance
mathematical and programming talents for maximum efficiency.  Each team will
have access to a computer running an implementation of the Constructions
Calculus.  The goal of the seminar is to produce a uniform document describing
the results of the experiments.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 18:48:00-CST
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Symbolic Computation (UTexas)
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the UTexas bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

                         SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION

                      Graduate Seminar Proposal
                               CS395-T
                             Spring 1986

                         Dr. Hassan Ait-Kaci

This course is intended  as a bridge between  Theory and Practice.  It
will consist of  a tutorial  on symbolic computation  models based  on
functional, algebraic,  and  logical  calculi,  as  well  as  advanced
state-of-the-art in next-generation programming language research. The
main focus will be  on explaining how  some abstract concepts  derived
from Logic  and Universal  Algebra can  be used  to describe  symbolic
computation and  data  structures,  and  how  these  concepts  may  be
implemented efficiently.  During the course, many existing as well  as
original experimental examples will be scrutinized in detail.

                          TENTATIVE OUTLINE

1. Mathematics for Symbolic Computation
    a. Lambda-Calculus
    b. Universal Algebra
    c. Predicate Logic
2. Functional Computation
    a. Applicative Programming
    b. Interpreting the Lambda-Calculus
    c. Compiling the Lambda-Calculus (SECD Machine)
    d. Extensions
        i. Delayed-Evaluation and Streams
       ii. Non-Deterministic Computations
      iii. Binding by Unification
3. Algebraic Computation
    a. Term Rewriting
    b. Knuth-Bendix Completion Method
    c. Rewriting Termination
    d. Resolution of Equations (Narrowing, Congruence Closure)
    e. Equational Logic Programming
4. Logic Computation
    a. Horn Clause Resolution
    b. Compiling Horn Clause Resolution
    c. Extensions
        i. Building-In Equations
       ii. Building-In Inheritance
      iii. Non-Horn Logic Programming
       iv. Higher-Order Logic Programming
5. Unifying Principle: The Categorical Abstract Machine
6. Data Types
    a. Algebraic Abstract Data Types
    b. Polymorphic Types (Universal and Existential)
    c. Constructive Type Theory

PREREQUISITE: Although meant  to be self-contained,  this course  will
offer optimal benefit to anyone acquainted with senior-level  discrete
mathematics and computer programming. The only *real* prerequisite  is
an open mind.

PARTICIPATION: Students will  be expected to  participate actively  in
presentations of  assigned  readings, implementation  of  experimental
programs, and  in completing  either  a term  paper or  a  programming
project.

TEXT: Most of the  material covered will be  taken from articles,  and
extensive notes written  by the  instructor. A  (far from  exhaustive)
list of recommended books would be (1) Burge's "Recursive  Programming
Technique", (2)  Henderson's "Functional  Programming" (3)  Campbell's
(Ed.) "Implementations of Prolog", as well as anything else related to
the outlined topics.

ENROLLMENT: This course  will be  given only  if at  least 5  students
register. Anybody interested in *registering* is encouraged to contact
Hassan Ait-Kaci at  834-3354, ARPA  address "Hassan@mcc",  AS SOON  AS
POSSIBLE!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
191
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 11:41:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: Topexprs%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Tools and Environments for the MicroVax II
-BODY-
I'd like to know about any LISP based, KBS development environments for the
Microvax II.  I'm looking for something that runs under microVMS, is up and
running OK, more or less debugged, reasonably documented, and available now;
is this too unrealistic?  All useful pointers would be appreciated, also
approx. prices etc.

I'm used to LOOPS etc., so I'm not too keen on going to far down market.

Please reply to

HWB1.ARE @ CAM.PHX @ UCL-CS.ARPA

Thanks, Hal Blackburn.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 07:43 CST
-FROM-
From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <Araman@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <Araman@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI technology application to computer security
-BODY-
Is anyone out there aware of applications of AI technology for computer
security issues.  I am aware of the pseudo object oriented models being
used in developing completely secure systems.  Is there more of this
kind of research.

I will collect the responses and post it in the net

thanks in advance

send replies to Araman -at hi-multics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Dec 85 10:25:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: intensional and higher-order logic
-BODY-

Anyone doing any work on using intensional or higher-order logic
in knowledge representation?  Any references (books, articles)
would be appreciated - thanks.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 08:50:48 pst
-FROM-
From: Rolf Pfeifer
     <pfeifer%ifi.unizh.chunet%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Experience with the TI Explorer
-BODY-
How does the TI Explorer compare with other LISP Machines (e.g. Symbolics,
LMI, or XEROX)? In particular:

> availability of software

> compatibility with Symbolics (effort to transport programs developed on
  Symbolics (or LMI) to the Explorer)

> subjective experiences after having used it (heavily) for some time

> support environment for AI applications development

> getting to know the Explorer (e.g. how useful are their utilities
  they have apparently designed to support a new user?)

> performance

> other

Comments of any sort welcome.
Thanks.

         --Rolf Pfeifer, University of Zurich, Switzerland
           cernvax!unizh!pfeifer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Dec 85 16:14:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Superset of Common LISP...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        What TI's developing is a set of 4 4"*4" boards that implement
an MIT CADR including a number of chips almost at wafer scale.  The
design differs from general purpose hardware only in the same way that
a CADR does and doesn't really implement "Common Lisp" per se.
        When they say a "superset of Common Lisp" they mean MIT Lisp
Machine Lisp plus an additional package that implements Common Lisp.
This is rather like saying that a Shopsmith with the belt-sander
attachment is a $1500 belt-sander that happens to come with a free
Shopsmith.  Whatever.
        The processor is called a "Hummingbird" and TI gives a talk on
it locally every six months or so though they seem to have been by invitation.
>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Dec 85 20:51:44-EST
-FROM-
From: Randy Haskins <rh%MIT-EECS@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object-Oriented Programming
-BODY-

Re: AIList Digest   V3 #189
>    Flavors: (send window-1 :expose)
>    CORBIT:  (expose window-1)
>
>    What is seen as a message in Flavors is a function in CORBIT. So it is
>    not the object, but the message which is functional. [...]
>
>    Koenraad De Smedt, DESMEDT@HNYKUN52 (bitnet)

I have a hard time seeing the advantage to such a system, but then, I
was brought up on object-oriented programming.  The advantages of
smart-objects/ dumb-messages is that functions that you write can be
more generic.  I have written a fair number of utilities in ZetaLisp
for both ZL machines, and it's unbelievably quick and easy.  One of the
functions I use a lot is called GET-OBJECTS-NAMED which follows.

(DEFUN GET-OBJECTS-NAMED (LST STRING &OPTIONAL (MSG :NAME))
  (DELETE NIL
          (MAPCAR
            #'(LAMBDA (OBJ)(IF (STRING-SEARCH STRING (SEND OBJ MSG)) OBJ))
            LST)))

(The actual function I wrote is much more general, but this is the part
that deals with Flavor instances pretty well.)
Since :NAME is a fairly common operation for most objects to support
(processes, most streams, zmacs-buffers), this function writes itself.
Another example is the fact that the PRINT function will see if its
argument is willing to handle a :PRINT-SELF method and will do that
instead of trying to deal with the object.  The same is true for DESCRIBE;
I could go on for hours, but this article's already long enough.
Besides, I have to get back to my ZL-style Flavors I'm implementing in
MacLisp.

Random

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 85 15:55 CDT
-FROM-
From: Randy_Boys <boys%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Response to query regarding dreams, the unconscious, and revelations
-BODY-
In response to a posting of 29-Nov-85 (G. Joly - Subconscious Reasoning:
                                                   Discovery and Invention)

My background is in physiological psychology and I was a staff member
at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas' Cognitive
Psychophysiology Laboratory for five years, doing sleep research most of the
time.  I have been working in the field of AI for three years now, always
trying to find avenues to blend my knowledge of cognitive and computer
science.  I'm not sure that the following is very helpful to the progress of
either field, but I was compelled to respond to Gordon and Ken's comments
regarding "exceptional" insights that seemed to be associated with dream
state cognition.

Subconscious reasoning (if there is such a thing) is NOT the same as dream
state cognition.  The cortex is active during REM sleep (I'm not going to go
into the REM = dream state issue) but may not be "processing" anything more
than random phasic events (similarly, I'm not going into the nature or
genesis of the dream state).  Dreams do, however, exist and often reflect
"subconscious" elements.  To assume that there is some particular significance
to this "window on the subconscious," as opposed to anything that may exist
for "conscious" cognition, would be stretching the state of our knowledge
(not that this should slow down the theorists!).  In light of the fact that 2
billion people dream 4-5 times every night of their life and that only a few
(and usually highly personal) dream "revelations" are cited, my response to
postulations about dreams and discovery is "so what?"  I do not believe that
this is an area of cognition that is well enough understood to direct our
inquiries into AI.

                                                Randy Boys
                                                boys@ti-eg

p.s. - after 30 years of heavily funded research, science can tell us what
sleep is not, but not what it is.  Yes, you guessed it...the same is true of
dreaming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 12:12:43 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 42
-BODY-
The term ``lateral thinking'' has been in the English language for
a some time. de Bono opposes lateral thinking to vertical thinking
in the following sense. Vertical thinking is the logical straight-
forward  part of  the  mind,  which  is  responsible  for  pattern
recognition,  concerned  with  addition and  gradual modification.
Lateral thinking  is more concerned  with making the best possible
use of the information  that is already available,  rearranging it
so that it is snapped out of the established pattern.
This  is a paraphrase of  de Bono's  words, and it would take much
more space to give a really good account. The proposal that I want
to suggest is that de Bono's model fits into a  plan for the hopes
of AI research.  The vertical part of  thought processes  could be
carried out by a machine but the lateral (creative, humorous) part
could not.
In mathematics, the notion exists of ``factoring out'' onto a sub-
space, ie projecting down into a lower dimensional region. Perhaps
a defintion of machine intelligence could be that part of the mind
this left after the process of factoring out lateral subspace.

Gordon Joly,
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 85 9:14:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Robert Strandh <strandh@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Equational Logic Programming Language
-BODY-

              EQUATIONAL LOGIC AS A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE


      Michael J. O'Donnell             Robert I. Strandh
      The University of Chicago        The Johns Hopkins University
      Department of Computer Science   Department of Electrical Engineering
      Ryerson Hall                     and Computer Science
      1100 East 58th Street            Barton Hall
      Chicago, Illinois 60637          Baltimore, Maryland 21218

      odonnell@uchicago.csnet          strandh@hopkins.arpa


A processor for an Equational Logic Programming Language is available
for distribution to Berkeley UNIX 4.2BSD VAX installations.  To get a
general idea of the capabilities of the interpreter, see "Programming
With Equations", by Christoph M. Hoffmann and Michael J. O'Donnell,
ACM ToPLAS, v. 4, no. 1 (January 1982) pp. 83-112.  A user's manual is
included in "Equational Logic as a Programming Language", by Michael
J. O'Donnell, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1985).

The main novelties of the interpreter are 1) strict adherence to
simple semantics based on logical consequences of the given equations;
2) "lazy evaluation" (outermost evaluation) applied to all operators;
3) an implementation based on table-driven pattern matching, so that
there is no run-time penalty for large sets of equations.

A first experimental version was distributed in 1983.  Recently,
Robert Strandh has replaced the table-driven interpreter written in
Pascal by compiled VAX machine code, producing an order-of-magnitude
improvement in performance.  Preliminary timings indicate a
performance between interpreted and compiled Franz LISP.

The entire interpreter system, including source files, occupies about
3.5 megabytes.  ARPANET users may acquire a copy on line by executing

        ftp hopkins

then logging on as "anonymous'' with password "anonymous",
and executing the ftp commands:

        cd pub
        get equations.tar

The copying process will take an hour or more.  After copying the
interpreter, please send a message indicating where you have installed
it.  Others may acquire a 1600 BPI tape copy, in "tar" format, by
writing to Michael J. O'Donnell.  Once the distribution file has been
acquired, it should be processed by the command

        tar x (for the tape)
        tar xf equations.tar (for the tar file)

Then, the instructions 2-4 in the file README should be followed.  The
system is in the public domain, and may be copied freely.  We request
notification from each site installing a copy.  To defray the costs of
distribution, we also request a donation of $50 to The University of
Chicago for each tape, and of $5 to The Johns Hopkins University for
copies taken on the ARPANet.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
192
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 23 December 1985, 14:12-CST
-FROM-
From: Oliver Gajek <Gajek at UTEXAS-20>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News Item - The Lisp Museum
-BODY-

The LISP Museum was founded by Herbert Stoyan. It's aim is to gather each
paper on LISP which was ever printed (at least all important ones): Books
papers in periodicals and conference proceedings, memos manuals and adver-
tisements. There's a complete list of all objects which contains over 900
entries. Everybody is invited to ask for a copy of this list. It's netto
price is $5. (We hope to have the list available on a computer in the US
soon.) For the appropriate amount we copy (if the copyright is open) every
object in the museum. Paying in advance is a necessary condition! In addi-
tion, everybody who owns some material which the museum has not available
is kindly asked to send us a copy. (We appreciate original listings of old
and famous LISP-programs like SIR, MLISP, MLISP2 etc. etc.)
The address is: The LISP-Museum, c/o Herbert Stoyan, IMMD6, University of
Erlangen, Martensstr.3, D-8520 Erlangen, Germany


Oliver Gajek
Linguistics Research Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78713-7247
(512)471-4166
Internet: Gajek@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
uucp: ...allegra!ut-ngp!gajek

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Dec 85 17:38:07-CST
-FROM-
From: Martha Morgan <AI.MORGAN%mcc.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pointer to Oxford Text Archive
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the IRList Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Recently John Roach enquired of IRLIST,
"Is there an index available of machine readable texts?"

You replied, "The Oxford Text Archive has an index of its holdings..."

I would like to get in touch with the Oxford Text Archive and become
aware of what is contained in the index of their holdings.  Can you
give me an address, name, whatever?

[Note: The Oxford University Computing Service Text Archive was
established in 1976 as a repository of machine-readable texts to serve
the research needs of scholars working with one of many different
languages.  It is one of the largest such collections.  Texts are in
many different formats and some are cleaner than others.  Enquiries
about texts held at Oxford or about the Archive can be sent to
ARCHIVE at UK.AC.OX.VAX3, via the British Joint Academic Network.
Address is Oxford Text Archive, Oxford Univ. Computing Service,
13 Banbury Rd, Oxford OX2 6NN.  A modest payment and signed declara-
tion form indicating that tapes will only be used for research is
required.  The Archive will send you forms and a list of holdings,
indicating size of each item (which suggests how much tape is needed.)
Be aware that many items are direct from the typesetter, without much
information to help in decoding them. - Ed Fox]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 85 00:11:33 cst
-FROM-
From: "V.J. Raghavan" <ihnp4!sask!regina!raghavan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abstracts - 3rd Jnt. BCS and ACM Symposium
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the IRList Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


             Selected Abstracts from the Proceedings
            of the third joint BCS and ACM Symposium,
             Kings' College, Cambridge, 2-6 July 84
                          by G. Salton
    (Proceedings published by Cambridge Univ. Press, Editor:
     C.J. van Rijsbergen)


BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN AI AND IR

W.S. Cooper
School of Library and Information Studies
University of California
Berkeley, California  94720

     Information  retrieval,  in the broadest sense of the  term,
includes a conern with 'expert' or 'knowledge-based' systems  and
their   potential  future  successors.    It  is  unlikely   that
sophisticated systems of this sort can be developed in such a way
as to use an entire natural language without the assistance of an
advanced, unified theory of language and logic.  The need for and
probable character of such a theory are discussed.


KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS VERSUS THESAURUS: AN ARCHITECTURE PROBLEM
ABOUT EXPERT SYSTEMS DESIGN

Mr. B. Defude
Equipe Systemes intelligents de recherche d'information
Laboratoire Genie Informatique (IMAG)
BP 68 38402 St. Martin D'heres Cedex
FRANCE

The  use  of  expert systems (ES)  within  information  retrieval
systems  (IRS) seems to be an interesting way,  particularly  for
the query process.  Nevertheless we must examine what kowledge we
need.   We  think  that the thesaurus may be the kernel of  which
knowledge:  for this,  we must define it larger than in classical
IRS.
     After  some recalls about what may be the principal features
of  a  query  ES,  we  discuss  about  the  relationship  between
thesaurus and a query expert system.  The problem is to determine
if the thesaurus must be integrated within the knowledge base.
     In fact this choice is an architecture problem of the ES.
     We analyze,  in parallel,  the effects of this choice  about
thesaurus representation, ES functionalities, ES architecture.
     The  choice of an architecture depends on the goal searched:
i.e.  a general IR expert system able to handle a set of thesauri
(independent  thesaurus) or a specialized IR expert system  which
can  be  very  performant but strongly tied to  a  specific  area
(integrated thesaurus).

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Dec 1985 23:29-CST
-FROM-
From: leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A Peter Friedland
%A Laurence H. Kedes
%T Discovering the Secrets of DNA
%J CACM
%V 28
%N 11
%D NOV 1985
%P 1164-1186
%K biology theory formation MOLGEN trp-operon heat shock
%X describes work on an AI tool to assist scientists in theory formation
They are using the Yanofsky trp-operon system as a testbed.

%A Alan B. Chambers
%A David C. Nagel
%T Pilots of the Future: Human or Computer
%J CACM
%V 28
%N 11
%D NOV 1985
%P 1187-1199
%K aviation airplane
%X general overview of automation techniques for aircraft piloting including
AI issues

%A Eric Bender
%T Guru AI Environment Out
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 18, 185
%V 19
%N 46
%P 47+
%K Micro Data Base Managment System expert shell database telecommunications
mainframes configuration shipping natural language
%X Guru, priced at $2995, will allow users create expert systems for their
applications and link those systems with database and natural language front
ends.  The system also integrates spread sheets, forms management,
statistics, mathematics, report generators, business graphics, word processing
and communications.  MDBS uses GURU internally to relieve the overnight
shipping manager of answering questions.  15 rules resolve 75 percent of the
questions.  General Electric has used the system for configuring
comunications for mainframe installations.

%A O. Richard Fonorow
%T Users Press Icon into Commercial Service
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 18, 185
%V 19
%N 46
%P 75-92
%X tutorial on ICON, the language from Ralph Grisworld, the founder
of SNOBOL.  This language is recommended for AI work.

%T Advertisement
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 18, 185
%V 19
%N 46
%P 138
%K WIZDOM Microcomputer Expert System
%X Ad for Wizdom which is an expert system for commercial applications
Software Intelligence Laboratory, Inc. Department C, 1593 Locust Ave,
Bohemia, NY 11716 (516) 589-1676

%T News
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 11, 185
%V 19
%N 45
%P 12
%K Edward Feigenbaum Netherland  Europe
%X Edward Feigenbaum addressed the inaugural seminar for Netherlands's
national research institute for knowedge systems.  He predicted the main
uses for AI would be speech generation, factory automation and
financial applications

%A David Wyland
%T Software that Learns
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 11, 185
%V 19
%N 45
%P 93-104
%K Prolog Lisp
%X tutorial on Prolog, Lisp and Forth, NOT machine learning

%T New Products
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 11, 185
%V 19
%N 45
%P 127
%K Sourceview Micromind expert system microcomputer Macintosh
%X Sourceview Software International has released Micromind Knowledge
Engineering Tool for creating knowledge based expert systems on the
the Macintosh.  It is a rule based system.  Price $495.00.

%A Steven Burke
%T Natural-Language Speech Recognition Product Announced
%J InfoWorld
%V 7
%N 47
%P 3
%K microcomputer
%X Dragon Systems Inc. has developed a research prototype program that
allows an IBM PC AT to recognize 2000 words spoken by a single person.
It will be on the market within 18 months and cost approximately $3000.


%T Full Speed Ahead for Britain's Fifth-Generation Computer
%J Electronics
%D DEC 9, 1985
%V 58
%N 49
%P 11
%K ICL Alice Flagsip International Computers Limited Inmos.
%X The British Government agreed to provide 60 per cent of the cost
for the Flagship system.  This is a successor to Alice, a graph-reduction
machine.  One of the sixteen nodes went on line at ICL.  The system
will be built from Inmost transputers.

%T New Products
%J ComputerWorld
%D DEC 9, 1985
%V 19
%N 49
%P 92
%K Expert Systems International microcomputer prolog expert system
%X Expert Systems International has released version 2 of its
expert systems development shell, ESP advisor, written in Prolog.
The system supports 3000 rules and can invoke programs written in Prolog.

%A I. Peterson
%T Soliloquy for a Comptuer's Ear
%J Science News
%V 128
%N 23
%D DEC 7, 1985
%P 359
%K speech recognition Dragon Systems stochastic modeling IBM
%X discusses the Dragon technology system, which handles 2000 words
and responds in less than a second.  Both the Dragon and IBM
speech recognitions systems use "stochastic modeling."

%A Donald F. Baxter, Jr.
%T Forging Shapes Up
%J Metal Progress
%D DEC 1985
%P 26-33
%V 128
%N 8
%K Camel Robotics Letts Pioneer Forge Teksid Alfa Romeo Italy Forjas de Basouri
Peugeot Renault France FMC General Motors crankshafts ALPID 2.0 metallurgy
die manufacturing blocker
%X A CAE system was developed for design and manufacture of dies being
developed for the Air Force by Schultz steel.  AI components are
used for the automatic design of blocker and finisher dies.
*
An Automatic Forging Design Program, three expert systems are used
sequentially to design a geometry for forgers.  The first system transforms
the forging geometry to design features.  The second step determines
parting line, forging plane, finish allowance, web thickness,
rib width, draft angle, corner radii and fillet radii.  The third
step constructs and validates the forging geometry.
*
a system to design blocker die cross sections
for the closed die forging of rib-web type parts.
*
FORMEX, to select the optimum sequence of steps in performing extrusions
*
Describes use of robotics at many plants to load and unload forging
operations.  Use of robotics can increase productivity a factor of
three over human loaded systems.

%A Stewart A. Denenberg
%T A Service Project for an Introductory Artificial Intelligence Course:
Implementing SOLO in LOGO
%J SIGCSE
%V 17
%N 4
%D DEC 1985
%P 8-20
%K semantic net Cognitive Psychology
%X describes an AI course at State University of New York at Plattsburgh
where the student implemented a system called SOLO to model
human memory in LOGO.

%A Jerry Lyman
%T Expert Systems Tackle VLSI Testing
%J Electronics
%D NOV 25, 1985
%V 58
%N 47
%P 56-57
%K testability diagnosis expert systems Teradyne J941 GenRad Texas Instruments
BLISS Kyushik Son Cirrus Computers
%X Teradyne has expert systems for in-circut fault analysis and an expert
system for diagnosing system faults in the J941 very large-scale-integeration
logic designer.
The diagnostic system selects appropriate in-circuit tests for
each device and will deal with constraints from circuit topology and user
needs.  The system will then analyze test failures and determine additional
actions needed after a failure to perform diagnosis.
GenRad has a system to check the testability of digital IC designs.
The system uses a simulator running Hitest and software by Cirrus Computers
which determines apporpriate wave forms to use.
Texas Instrumetns has a system for classifying switch-level faults in CMOS
circuits.

%A Bernard Conrad Cole
%T A Pride of New CPUs Runs High-Level Languages
%J Electronics
%D NOV 25, 1985
%V 58
%N 47
%P 58-60]
%X Lisp Machine Texas Instruments Xenologic Tantivity Associates
%X Texas Instruments is developing a Compact Lisp Machine, a system
designed to support Common Lisp.  They expect to be sampling the chip
near the end of 1985.   It is fabricated in sub-2-micron
CMOS and will operate at 40 Megahertz.
*
Xenologic has developed a two board system for prolog systems.
It can perform between 200,000 and 300,000 lips.
*
Tantivity Associates is designing a structured language computer that can
be configured to be a Lisp machine as well as a Pascal, C, Ada or Forth
machine.


%A Joseph J. Lazzaro
%T Talking Instead of Typing
%J High Technology
%D JAN 1986
%V 6
%N 1
%P 58-59
%K speech recognition Kurzweil IBM Votan

%A Hugh Aldersey-Williams
%T Computer Eyes Turn to Food
%J High Technology
%D JAN 1986
%V 6
%N 1
%P 66-67
%K vision agriculture
%X discusses applications of computer vision to machine harvesting or quality
control in the food industry.  University of Florida is developing a system
to pick citrus while Michigan State is working on a system to pick
strawberries.  Arthur D. Little is developing a system to insure that
frozen mixed vegetables have the correct proportions.

%A J. Robert Lineback
%T MCC: The Research Co-Op's Surprising Fast Start
%J Electronics
%D DEC 16, 1985
%V 58
%N 50
%P 49-51
%K Proteus Lisp truth maintenance expert systems natural language
%X MCC has delivered its transfer of research from its labs to the
companies that sponsored it, which is ahead of schedule.  These
transfer include Proteus, a Lisp based expert system using truth maintenance.
MCC is working on an interactive VLSI-CAD system to be written in Lisp.
The human interface department has delivered examples of experimental
software for syntax analysis of knowledge-based interfaces.  MCC's AI
program is aimed at building a massive common-sense database consisting
of 10**11 bits.

%A Tobias Naegele
%T AT&T Builds Fuzzy-Inference Chip
%J Electronics
%D DEC 16, 1985
%V 58
%N 50
%P 26-27
%K parallel real-time robotics
%X AT&T has developed a chip that can perform 80,000 fuzzy inferences
per second.  It contains 16 rules on the chip.  It is intended
for applications for embedded systems for missiles and robots.

%A Robert T. Gallagher
%T AI to Help Mechanics at Renault to Do a Better Job
%J Electronics
%D DEC 16, 1985
%V 58
%N 50
%P 27
%K microcomputer expert system diagnostic
%X Renault has developed an expert system to be put in automobile garages
to assist in helping to diagnose such areas as automatic transmissions, on
the road behavior and electrical faults.  The system can be easily
reconfigured to deal with different car models.

%T Dornier Proposes Four High-Tech Projects to Eureka
%J Electronics
%D DEC 16, 1985
%V 58
%N 50
%P 17
%K fire-fighting robotics
%X Dornier System Gmbh has proposed to Eureka a project to develop
fire-fighting robots with artificial intelligence

%A George C. Steinke
%A Martin D. Schussel
%T Engineering by the Book.. And On-Line
%J Mechanical Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V 107
%N 11
%P 56-59
%K engineering Cognition Inc.
%X Cognition Inc. of Billerica, Massachussetts will soon offer an
expert system
cost guide as part of its Mechanical Advantage 1000 system.  Mechanical
Advantage allows the user to enter the geometry of an object with
symbolic parameters as well as applicable engineering design equations.
Then the user can change the parameters, and have the geometry as
well as the results of the equations displayed.
An optimization system is also integrated into the system.

%A Paul Tate
%T Picking Up Speed
%J Datamation
%D NOV 15, 1985
%V 31
%N 22
%P 64+
%K European Computer Research Center
%X A consortium of Bull of France, Britain's ICL and Gemany's
Siemens is developing systems for handling large
knowledge bases since they believe that the main reason for using
large systems would be to hold large knowledge bases.
They have developed a Prolog compiler which generates C and will include
coroutining which will allow the programmer to apply constraints to
variables in the language.  They are working on a system
to integrate logic programming and object-oriented programming.
They are trying to integrate PROLOG and databases and develop
AI-based front ends for packages such as spreadsheets.

%A A. Knaeuper
%A W. B. Rouse
%T A rule-Based Model of Human Problem-Solving Behavior in Dynamic
Environments
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 6
%D NOV/DEC 1985
%P 708-719
%X A rule-based model of a human plant controller has been developed at
Georgia Institute of Technology.
It has been compared it to human operators working on a simulated chemical
production plant and find that the rule based system achieved similar
performance on both stability and output as well as a 61 percent agreement
with the human's actions on a case by case basis.
In a related paper, they compared human operators with and without
training in the fundamentals of the system, i.e. with an explanation
of how the plant worked.  It was found that there was no difference
in performance between the two groups, even in unexpected situations
where such knowledge would presumably be most helpful.


%A L. A. Zadeh
%T Syllogistic Reasoning in Fuzzy Logic and its Application to Usuality and
Reasoning with Dispositions
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 6
%D NOV/DEC 1985
%P 754-763

%A C. P. Neuman
%A V. D. Tourassis
%T Inverse Dynamics Applications of Discrete Robot Models
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-15
%N 6
%D NOV/DEC 1985
%P 798-803

%T TI Data Systems Reaches Goal of 100 VARs signed
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1577
%D NOV 25, 1985
%P 52
%K Gold Hill  microcomputers Texas Instruments lisp
%X TI has signed a distribution with Gold Hill Computers for its Common
Lisp package

%A Charles Babcock
%A John Gallant
%T IBM Unveils Tool to Restructure VM, MVS Cobol Code
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 25, 1985
%V 19
%N 47
%P 10
%K IBM software engineering COBOL
%X IBM introduced a Cobol restructuring program, COBOL/SF.  The prices is
$125,000 or $12,5000 per month.

%A Eric Bender
%T Lotus Shops for Next Technology
%J ComputerWorld
%D DEC 16, 1985
%V 19
%N 50
%P 1+
%K microcomputer natual language GNP Development Corporation
%X GNP Development Corporation developed a Human Access Language Package
which allows a user to access 1-2-3 functions through simple English
commands.  Lotus just purchased the firm.

%T Program Has Decision-Tree Feature
%J InfoWorld
%D DEC 18, 1985
%V 7
%N 50
%P 59
%K Texas Instruments Arborist microcomputer decision support
%X TI has introduced a version 2.0 of the Arborist
Package, an AI-based decision support system for the IBM and TI PC.

%J Electronic News
%D DEC 9, 1985
%V 31
%N 1579
%P 8
%K Symbolics Howard I. Cannon  Bruce M. Gras
%X Symbolics Inc. has named Howard I. Cannon director of marketing,
replacing vice-president of marketing Bruce M. Gras who has
resigned.

%A Alain Colmerauer
%T Prolog in Ten Figures
%J Communications of the ACM
%D DEC 1985
%V 28
%N 12
%P 1287-1310
%X Yet Another Prolog Tutorial

%A Jacques Cohen
%T Describing Prolog By Its Interpretation and Compilation
%J Communications of the ACM
%D DEC 1985
%V 28
%N 12
%P 1311-1324
%X Yet Another Prolog Tutorial (this time emphasizing compilation
and interpretation of prolog).

%T How to Wreck A Nice Beach
%J Science News
%V 128
%D NOV 16, 1985
%P 313
%X speech recognition
%X Jared Bernstein and Gay Baldwin are systematically studying the differences
between spontaneous and prepared speech.  They found that people have
surprisingly quirky and different ways of pronouncing words.

%A Ivars Peterson
%T Exceptions to the Rule
%J Science News
%V 128
%D NOV 16, 1985
%P 314
%K natural language
%X talks about research into whether there exist natural
languages that are not context-free

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
3

-N-
193
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 85 09:16:50 -0200
-FROM-
From: hplabs!utah-cs!seismo!mcvax!hut.UUCP!mit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Markku Tamminen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common LISP and OPS5
-BODY-
At the Helsinki University of Technology we have been using Franz LISP
but would now like to make a switch to Common LISP, however, without
undue costs.

We have a VAX 11/750 under BSD 4.2 and three Altos under System 5.
Further we will probably soon have an ATT 3B2, also under System 5.
We would like to have Common LISP on at least two or three of these
machines, so that it is important for us to find not-too-expensive variants.

Does anybody have a comprehensive list of Common LISPs available under Unix?
If not, and if the list is non-trivial, perhaps I could compose it from
replies to this query?

I have a further query about public domain versions of the OPS5 production
system language. Does anybody have a version in Common LISP? If not, is
such a need widely felt? Would it be possible to acquire ANY version of
OPS5 through the net? (We need it quickly for use in a course beginning in
January.)


Markku Tamminen
Helsinki University of Technology Laboratory of Information Processing Science
02150 ESPOO 15 FINLAND, Tel: 358-0-4512075 (460144)
seismo!mcvax!hut!mit

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 85 16:29 EST
-FROM-
From: Henry Lieberman <Henry@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Job ads on the network
-BODY-

High Technology Professionals for Peace, a Cambridge, Mass.
organization, is starting an electronic bulletin board for
ads for jobs [non-military, of course] in the computer field.
Both employers and job seekers will be able to access the
system confidentially.  It's not up yet, but when I receive
details about how to log in, I will post them.  Hopefully,
there will be ways to access them from most popular computer
networks.  They already have an employment agency [using conventional
technologies] for matching non-military employers and prospective
employees, and I'd encourage anyone looking for a job to
write or call them.  They also seek help with their project
of setting up the computer bulletin board service.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 85 02:04:00 -0100
-FROM-
From: enea!kuling!victor@seismo.CSS.GOV (Bjorn Victor)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Superset of Common Lisp
-BODY-
In case no one else already submitted this or better:

Subject: Re: Superset of Common LISP...

It's probably Zetalisp they're talking about.
Quoting from an article whose copy is missing origin and date,
regarding the release of the Texas Explorer:

  "The Explorer unveiling comes shortly after TI's announcement in
August of a multi-million dollar contract to develop a custom VLSI
LISP processor chip for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
(DARPA) Strategic Computing Program.  The LISP microprocessor, which
will be software compatible with Explorer, will perform functions
requiring several hundred integrated circuits in current computer
systems.  The chip is being designed to provide up to ten times the
processing power of today's commercial symbolic processors at
substantially lower cost and physical size, which will make possible
many new commercial applications of symbolic processing."

>-Bjorn Victor                  UUCP: {mcvax,seismo}!enea!kuling!victor
Computing Science Dept/UPMAIL   ARPA: enea!kuling!victor@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
Uppsala University, PO Box 2059
S-750 02  UPPSALA, SWEDEN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 December 1985 2252-EST
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Chess (Fredkin Final
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


In  the final  round  of the  Fredkin  Masters Invitational  Tourney,
Hitech beat Computer Killer Tom  Martinak.  Martinak had participated
in the 1982 and  1984 Fredkin events in which he played  a total of 5
games against the best programs at that time.  His result was 4.5 out
of 5  (therefore the  name "computer killer").  Among his 5 points
were 2 points in two tries against Cray Blitz.

Final Standings:

NAME       SCORE      PLACE     RATING at start

Rao        8-0        I        2400
Szmetan  6.5-1.5      II       2404
Hitech   5.5-2.5      III      2255
Leverett  5 - 3       IV       2366

Nobody else  is going to  get more than 3.5  points and 5th  place is
still undecided at this writing.   This is an outstanding performance
by Vivek Rao, who  is the number one player in the  country in the 16
and under  category and number 7  in the 21  and under.  He  was very
dominant.

If I may  be excused for editorializing, this is  also an outstanding
performance for a computer.  Hitech's rating is now about 2309, which
is 100 points  higher than any computer has ever  penetrated, and it
is still climbing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 11:53:54 pst
-FROM-
From: Mark Cutkosky <cutkosky@su-whitney.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - AI in Design and Manufacturing (SU)
-BODY-

Subject:  A Seminar on "A.I. in Design and Manufacturing"

Time:     Every thursday at 12:00 noon during the winter quarter

Location: Terman?  (room location to be announced)

For further information contact:
Mark Cutkosky, Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering  (415) 497-8100
Susan Hansen, Administrative Assistant, SIMA  (415) 497-9038
Jay M. Tenenbaum, Consulting Professor, CIS  (415) 496-4704


Purpose:  To explore the use of A.I. tools in problems involving the design
        and manufacture of mechanical and electrical components.

There is a growing interest both in engineering and computer science in
applying A.I. methods to engineering problems.  Every week, I learn of
another student who is working on an expert system or a qualitative
reasoning system for some new application.  A goal of this seminar is to
bring us together so that we can learn what other faculty and students are
doing, share ideas, and perhaps share software and programming techniques.

Seminar Format:
   Every other week a presentation will be given by a member of the A.I.
community.  The intervening weeks will be devoted to informal discussions
of theory and practice and to student presentations of work-in-progress.

   The first speaker will be Dr. Jeff Pan of Schlumberger Palo Alto Research,
speaking about "A.I. Support of Fabrication Processes with Applications to
Manufacturing Mechanical Devices"  on Thurs, January 9.

Other presentations will include:

* Dr. Barbara Hayes-Roth, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory:
"Blackboard Systems for Mechanical Design,"  Feb. 6.

* Dr. Robert Stults, Xerox Palo Alto Reserach Center:  "Design Methodology,"
March 6.

  A more complete schedule and room location will be announced prior to the
first meeting.

                                                Mark R. Cutkosky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Dec 85 13:13:05 EST
-FROM-
From: IMIELINSKI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Logic in AI and Databases (Rutgers)
-BODY-

                    Seminar in Logic in AI and Databases

                              Tomasz  Imielinski

                                Spring 1986


This time I will talk about Logic of Knowledge and Belief and it's
applications in Knowledge Representation, Incomplete and Limited Resources
Reasoning and Distributed Systems (Last year seminar was related to Theoretical
foundations of Logic Programming). If time allows I will also cover Nonmonotone
reasoning and reasoning in presence of inconsistency.

I will start from the introduction of modal logics and their semantics based
on Kripke Models.  This will be followed by the discussion of the Hintikka's
approach to the logic of knowledge and belief (In particular the books
"Knowledge and belief" and "Models for Modalities"). I will be particularly
interested in predicate logic of knowledge and various difficulties and
paradoxes which arise when we move from the propositional case to the predicate
case. The relevant complexity results related to the decision procedures will
be also discussed.

Next, the applications in computer science, in particular in AI and distributed
systems  will be discussed. I will concentrate here again on the predicate
logic of knowledge since it attracted much less attention in the literature.
Such issues as "awarness", "limited resource reasoning", and
"approximated reasoning" will be of particular interest here.

LITERATURE: Textbook in Modal logic (like Hughes and Cresswell "Introduction to
modal logic" or Chellas "Modal Logic"). Two books by J. Hintikka "Knowledge and
Belief" and "Models for Modalities". These books will be put on reserve in the
library. Besides various recent papers will be distributed in class possibly
including the papers from the Conference in Logic of Knowledge (March 1986).

PREREQUISITIES: Basic Background in logic and complexity
( 509 is enough) and AI (Intro to AI)

METHOD OF EVALUATION: Homeworks and Final "Take Home" Exam

TIME: I will announce the time and the
place of the first meeting on the bboard on january,27.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
1
-DATE-
Date: Sun 5 Jan 86 23:21:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Introduction to Volume 4
-BODY-
Welcome to AIList'86.  We went through 193 issues last year, and
a high proportion of that was interesting and perhaps even useful.
For those who haven't seen the official welcome message in the
last 2 1/2 years, I've been telling the new arrivals that the list
topics are:

  Expert Systems                        AI Techniques
  Knowledge Representation              Knowledge Acquisition
  Problem Solving                       Hierarchical Inference
  Machine Learning                      Pattern Recognition
  Analogical Reasoning                  Data Analysis
  Cognitive Psychology                  Human Perception
  AI Languages and Systems              Machine Translation
  Theorem Proving                       Decision Theory
  Logic Programming                     Computer Science
  Automatic Programming                 Information Science

I like to think of AIList as the forum for AI and pattern recognition,
although we've had precious little of the latter.

There are a number of related lists, some sparked by the success of
AIList.  Prolog-Digest@SU-SCORE was here first, of course, and I thank
Chuck Restivo for the help he gave me in getting started.
Human-Nets@RUTGERS also served as a template for AIList.  Recently
created lists are Soft-Eng@MIT-XX for programming languages and
man-machine interfaces; Vision-List@AIDS-UNIX for vision algorithms;
AI-Ed@SUMEX-AIM for AI in education (CAI, tutoring systems, user
modeling, cognitive learning, etc.); PARSYM@SUMEX for parallel
symbolic computing; IRList%VPI.CSNet@CSNet-Relay for information
retrieval; MetaPhilosophers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC list for philosophy
discussions; and the Usenet net.math.symbolic and computers-and
society discussions.  Discussions of workstations and individual
languages are carried on WorkS@Rutgers, SLUG@UTexas (Symbolics), and
Scheme@MIT-MC.  (If someone wants to spin off other topics, such as
linguistics, seminar announcements, etc., I'll be glad to help.)

The digest goes out to a great many readers via bboards, redistribution
nodes, and Usenet forwarding.  I know that places like MIT and Xerox
have hundreds of readers, but I don't have even a rough estimate of
the total readership.  My direct distribution (after 738 revisions) is to

    Arpanet Hosts:
    ACC(BB+1), AEROSPACE(8), AFSC-SD, AIDS-UNIX, ALLEGRA@BTL, AMES-NAS,
    AMES-VMSB(4), AMSAA(3), ANL-MCS, APG-3(2), ARDC(3), ARE-PN@UCL-CS,
    ARI-HQ1(10), BBN(1), BBNA(BB+1), BBNCC4, BBNCCH(2), BBNCCS, BBNCCT(3),
    BBNCCX, BBNCCY(2), BBN-CLXX, BBNF, BBNG(14), BBN-LABS-B, BBN-MENTOR,
    BBN-META, BBN-SPCA, BBN-UNIX(9), BBN-VAX(6), B.CC@BERKELEY,
    D@BERKELEY.EDU, UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU, UCBCAD@BERKELEY(2),
    UCBCORY@BERKELEY, UCBDALI@BERKELEY(2), UCBERNIE@BERKELEY(4),
    UCBESVAX@BERKELEY, UCBIC@BERKELEY, UCBLAPIS@BERKELEY, BNL44,
    BRL(BB+1), BRL-VOC, C.MFENET@LLL-MFE, CECOM-1, CECOM-2,
    PCO@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS, CIT-20, CIT-HAMLET, CIT-VAX, CMU-CS-A(BB+5),
    CMU-CS-G(2), CMU-RI-ISL1, COLUMBIA-20, CORNELL(BB+1),
    CRYS.WISC.EDU, CRDC-VAX2, CSNet-SH, DCA-EMS(2), DCT%DDXA@UCL-CS, DDN,
    HUDSON.DEC.COM(2), DEC-MARLBORO(2), Other.DEC@DECWRL(23), DMC-CRC,
    DOCKMASTER(2), DREA-XX, EDN-UNIX, EDN-VAX(2), EDWARDS-2060, EGLIN-VAX,
    ETL-AI, FORD-COS1, FORD-SCF1(2), FSU.MFENET@LLL-MFE(3), GE-CRD(2),
    SCH-GODZILLA@SCRC-STONY-BROOK(2) GSWD-VMS(BB+1), GUNTER-ADAM,
    GWUVM@MIT-MULTICS(3), HARV-10, HAWAII-EMH, HI-MULTICS(BB+1),
    CSCKNP@HI-MULTICS, HOPKINS, IBM-SJ, ISIA, ISI-VAXA(10), JPL-VAX,
    JPL-VLSI(7), KESTREL, LANL, LBL-CSAM, LLLASD.DECNET@LLL-CRG, LLL-CRG,
    LLL-MFE(6), CMA@LLL-MFE, DMA@LLL-MFE, ORN@LLL-MFE, PPL@LLL-MFE(2),
    SAI@LLL-MFE, LL-VLSI, LL-XN, LOGICON, MARYLAND, MCC-DB@MCC(2),
    AI@MCC(2), CAD@MCC, PP@MCC, MIT-MC, MIT-MULTICS, ADL@MIT-MULTICS,
    MIT-OZ@MIT-MC, MITRE(14), MITRE-BEDFORD, MITRE-GATEWAY(3), MOUTON,
    MWCAMIS@MITRE, MWVM@MITRE, NADC(9), NBS-VMS, NCSC(3), NLM-MCS,
    NOSC(BB+4), CCVAX@NOSC, NOSC-F4(BB+5), COD@NOSC(5), TETRA@NOSC,
    NPRDC(BB+3), NRL-AIC, NRL-CSS, NSWC-WO(2), NTA-VAX(BB+2), NTSC-74,
    NUSC, NYU, NYU-CSD2, OAK.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE, MDC@OFFICE-1, OMNILAX,
    ORNL-MSR(BB+1), OSLO-VAX, PAXRV-NES, PURDUE, RADC-MULTICS,
    RADC-TOPS20, RAND-UNIX(BB+1), RDG.AM.UTS@UCL-CS, RIACS, RICE,
    ROCHESTER(3), RUTGERS(BB+1), SAIL(BB+3), SAN.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE,
    SANDIA-CAD, SCRC-STONY-BROOK(5), SECKENHEIM-EMH, SIMTEL20,
    SRI-AI(BB+6), SRI-CSL, SRI-KL(19), SRI-NIC(BB+1), SRI-SPAM,
    SRI-TSC(3), SRN-VAX, STL-HOST1, SU-AMADEUS@SU-SCORE, SU-CSLI(BB+1),
    SU-GSB-HOW(2), SUMEX(BB+3), SU-PSYCH(3), SU-SCORE(BB+8),
    SU-SIERRA(BB+2), SU-SUSHI(4), SYMBOLICS(2), TKOV02.DEC@DECWRL, UCBKIM,
    UCL-CS(BB+1), CAMJENNY@UCL-CS, UK.AC.EDINBURGH@UCL-CS(2),
    RLGM@UCL-CS(3), UCLA-LOCUS(BB+2), UCSD, UDEL, A.CS.UIUC.EDU,
    MIMSY.UMD.EDU, VAX.NR.UNINETT@NTA-VAX, VAX.RUNIT.UNIT.UNINETT@NTA-VAX(3),
    USC-ECL, USC-ISI(8), USC-ISIB(BB+5), USC-ISIF(6), UTAH-20(BB+2),
    UTEXAS-20, WASHINGTON(4), WHARTON-10(2), WHITNEY, WISC-AI,
    WISC-CRYS(5), WISC-GUMBY, WISC-PIPE, WISC-RSCH(2), WISCVM,
    WPAFB-INFO1, WPAFB-AFITA, WSMR04, WSMR06, XEROX, YALE

    CSNet:
    BGSU, BOSTONU(3), BRANDEIS, BROWN, BUFFALO, CLEMSON(3), COLGATE,
    COLOSTATE, DEPAUL, GATECH, GERMANY, GMR(12), GTE-LABS(2), HP-BRONZE,
    HP-LABS, SJRLVM1%IBM-SJ, WLVM1%IBM-SJ, IRO.UDEM.CDN%UBC,
    CSKAIST%KAIST(2), LOSANGEL%IBM-SJ, LSU, NMSU(2), NORTHEASTERN(11),
    OKSTATE, PITT, RPICS, SCAROLINA(3), SMU(BB+1), SPERRY-RESTON, TAMU,
    SPY%TEKTRONIX, TEKCHIPS%TEKTRONIX, TEKIG5%TEKTRONIX, TEKGVS%TEKTRONIX,
    TEKLDS%TEKTRONIX, TENNESSEE, CSL60%TI-CSL(BB+1), TI-EG, UTAI%TORONTO,
    TUFTS, UBC, UCF-CS, UCI, UCSC, UIOWA(BB+1), ARCHEBIO%UIUC,
    UIUCDCSB%UIUC, ULOWELL(2), UMASS-CS, UMN-CS, UNC, UPENN, VIRGINIA,
    VPI, WWU(2), YKTVMV@IBM-SJ(7)

    BITNET@WISCVM:
    BOSTONU(2), BROWNVM, BUCASA, BUCKNELL, CARLETON, CBEBDA3T, CGEUGE51,
    CUNYVM(2), CZHRZU1A, DB0TUI11, DBNGMD21, DBNRHRZ1(2), DBSTU1,
    DDATHD21, DDATHD21, DHDURZ2(2), HNYKUN52, HNYKUN53, HWALHW5, ICNUCEVM,
    IDUI1, IPACUC, ISRAEARN, NJECNVM, NSNCCVM, RYERSON(2), SBBIOVM,
    SLACVM.WISC.EDU, SUCASE, UCF1VM(2), UCONNVM, UHUPVM1, UKCC(2), ULKYVX,
    UMCVMB, VTVM1, WISDOM, WSUVM1

    BITNET@BERKELEY:
    CORNELLA(2), HLERUL5, UTCVM(2), VPIVM2, WESLYN

    Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS:
    Grinnell, NJIT-EIES, RPI-MTS, UMich-MTS, VANDERBILT

    Usenet Paths:
    bellcore@BERKELEY,
    franz@BERKELEY,
    ucscc@BERKELEY,
    sdcsvax!sdamos!crash@NOSC,
    mcvax!inria!imag!csinn@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    dec-rhea!dec-gvaic3@DECWRL,
    mcvax!enea!erix@SEISMO
    mcvax!cernvax!ethz@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    packard!ihesa@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!ircam@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!inria!lasso@SEISMO.CSS.GOV,
    mcvax!cernvax!unizh@SEISMO,
    tflop@SU-SHASTA,
    vitesse!vec_j@S1-C

This includes something like 35 government and military sites, 15
national laboratories and research institutes, 55 companies and
nonprofit corporations, and 100 universities around the world.
That's just the direct mailings; my thanks to the many people who
have established and maintained local bboards and remailers.

About a year ago I began to worry that the international nature of the
list might violate President Reagan's directives concerning
unclassified technical (export restricted) and unclassified national
security-related (UNS-R) information.  (The list goes to Canada,
Britain, Australia, West Germany, Norway, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, etc.  Readers in these countries have
also contributed to the list, of course.).  I sent out some queries
and received a great deal of informed discussion, but there were no
firm precedents for determining whether we were headed for trouble.
The whole file is available for those who want it; just write to
AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA.  I have attempted, at least four times, to
summarize the material, but have been unable to do so without losing
the critical context of each opinion.  The policy I have settled on
(subject to revision) is the following:

  AIList is a public information service provided to the Arpanet
  community and others though my own efforts, indirect support from
  my company, and the help of numerous individuals and organizations
  at other sites.  Readers are advised not to submit any material
  that is export controlled or classified.  As moderator, I must
  assume that individuals have obtained all required clearances for
  their submissions to the list and for the university bboard messages
  that AIList occasionally reprints.  The export control laws are both
  broad and vague, but material that could be published in news magazines
  or publicly available scientific journals is probably safe.  Scientific
  information "without engineering or military significance" is always
  permissible, but technical details of specific military or government-
  controlled systems should not be discussed in this forum.

I would also like to point out that, in my own opinion, technology transfer
via informed discussion and incremental question/answer exchanges can be
far more effective than by flooding a channel with printed technical material.
Indeed, that is the very reason for AIList's existence -- to put people in
touch with those who can help them the most.  Readers at government-supported
sites should keep in mind that any exchanges of reports or technical data
resulting from "friendly contacts" on the AIList are their own responsibility,
and that care should be taken when communicating over unsecure channels or
with unknown individuals.

For those participants who regard the above as paranoid, I apologize for
any offense.  The critical decisions concerning U.S. policy and network
policy are not mine to make; I merely interpret them as best I can.  I am
comfortable with the level of exchange that AIList has promoted, and
grateful for the broad participation that has made the list such a success.

                                        -- Dr. Kenneth I. Laws
                                           Computer Scientist
                                           SRI International

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 3 Jan 86 23:39:12-EST
-FROM-
From: "Daniel F. Lane" <GZT.LANE@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wargamers!
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


 To anyone interested in wargames, or strategy games in general, myself and
SWF at OZ are starting a wargamers mailing list.  Discuss the latest games
out on the market, etc.  Also, as soon as we get it all organized (if?)  we
will be running a game over the net called "Battle for North America" or,
"The Second Battle-Between-the-States" (whichever you prefer).  But,  more
about that after we get the group rolling.  Send any addition requests to:
WAR-GAMES-REQUEST%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.   Thanks,  Daniel Lane (GZT.LANE@OZ)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 86 17:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Othello Tournament
-BODY-
I received an announcement in the mail and am passing it along to ailist
out of the goodness of my heart.  I am not connected in any way with the
tournament (other than as an entrant):

         1986 North American Computer Othello Championship Tournament

Host:         CS Association at California State University, Northridge
When:         February 15-16, 1986.
Where:        Cal State campus in Northridge (LA area)
Sanctioned by:U.S. Othello Association

>From flier: "...an eight-round, Swiss-style event with awards for the winners,
            and is open to computers of all makes, models, and sizes.
            Participation from programmers anywhere in the world is welcome;
            entrants need not be present, as they may play via phone or submit
            software and/or hardware to be run by volunteer representatives."

For detailed info you are requested to contact
  1) North American Computer Othello Championship
     CSUN Computer Science Association
     School of Engineering, Box 31
     18111 Nordhoff Street
     Northridge, CA 91330
  2) Brian Swift or Marc Furon (apparently pronounced ['fju ren] -KG) at
     213-852-5096

Please don't contact me.
>Kurt Godden

p.s. Presumably it's necessary or at least polite to note that 'Othello'
     is a registered trademark of CBS Toys.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 6 Jan 86 07:17:05-EST
-FROM-
From: "Fred Hapgood" <SIDNEY.G.HAPGOOD@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer chess tutor
-BODY-
        Would anybody know who might be thinking about
tutor/annotator functions in chess computers?

        The simplest imaginable computer chess tutor might work like
this: After one had played a game against it one would indicate
the moves one wished to see annotated. The machine would retrieve
the positions in that range on which you had the move. For each
it would run its evaluation routine to see what move it would
have made had it been playing.  It would then score both (a) the
position resulting from your move and (b) that resulting from the
move generated by its own routine. This done, it would move on to
the next move in the series and repeat the procedure.  One could
of course enter an entire score, perhaps from a newspaper, and
have the computer perform this function for the moves of both
sides.

        When the list was exhausted the machine would find all the
cases in which the evaluator routine scored a difference between
(a) and (b) of more than a defined amount. It would then display
these cases either by replaying the game and stopping at the
points found, or in order of greatest disparity, i.e., biggest
blunder first. In either case display would consist of: (i) the
original position, (ii) the move actually made, and (iii) the
improvement claimed by the machine, together with a short list of
the best subsequent moves for both sides.

        This is only the simplest instance of how a machine might
comment on a position or 'explain' itself.

        From a marketing point of view, one virtue of these devices
is that tutors can never get too strong. A person buying a chess
computer as a opponent is likely to drop out of the market for
new versions once the machines have gotten strong enough to be a
challenge.  What is being sold in an annotator is authority, and
one can never get enough of that. In fact, it is possible that as
chess computers improve, the forces driving that market will
shift from using chess computers as calculators to using them as
annotators.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
2
-DATE-
Date: Sun 29 Dec 85 22:18:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Edward Feigenbaum <FEIGENBAUM@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re the news report on my speech in the Netherlands
-BODY-
Saw my name in the Fri 27 Dec. 1985 AIList Digest V3 #192.
Since it's best not to let silly things propagate, let me say
here what I said (I actually said many many things; I don't understand
why those few things were picked out).

I said that among the most commercially important applications of
expert systems in the next ten years would be factory management
applications and financial service applications. (I didn't even
mention factory automation).

I said that speech understanding applications would become economically
very important. (I never mentioned speech generation.)

Best wishes for a journalistically accurate New Year (fat chance),

Ed Feigenbaum

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jan 86 16:22 PST
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reader Count
-BODY-
I don't know if you want to post this to the net or not, but in the
interest of accuracy, Xerox has approximately 248 readers of the AIList.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tuesday, 7 January 1986 02:19:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Duvvuru.Sriram@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Paradigm
-BODY-
I have seen the word "AI Paradigm" in several papers/reports.  My dictionary
[Random House] says that a Paradigm is either an example or a model. Is
there any other meaning to it or is it just a better word for  "example"?

Sriram

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 85 11:55:37 pst
-FROM-
From: jrisberg@aids-unix (Jeff Risberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stanford SDI debate (12/19) summary
-BODY-
The following is a somewhat long summary of the technical debate on SDI
entitled "SDI:  How Feasible, How Useful, How Robust?" that was held at
Stanford on December 19th.  Since this debate was announced on AILIST,
we felt that readers would be interested in this summary.

  [I was reluctant to permit the initial announcement and I am reluctant
  to permit the summary.  I have decided to forward them because SDI
  may well involve major funding in the area of AI.  Please restrict any
  discussion in AIList to the areas of AI, pattern recognition, or the
  feasibility of distributed decision making.  Political discussions
  would be more appropriate on Arms-D@MIT-MC, Risks@SRI-NIC, or
  perhaps Space@MIT-MC. -- KIL]


The panelists at the debate were:

Advocates:
Professor Richard Lipton, Professor of Computer Science at Princeton
University, current member of SDIO's Panel on Computing and Support of Battle
Management.

Major Simon Peter Worden, the Special Assistant to the Director of the SDIO
and Technical Advisor to the Nuclear and Space Arms Talk with the USSR
in Geneva.

Opponents:
Dr. Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow and Adjunct Professor of Physics at
Columbia University, Physicist and Defense Consultant.

Professor David Parnas, Lansdown Professor of Computer Science at the
University of Victoria, former member of the SDI Organization's
Panel on Computing and Support of Battle Management.


Dr. Goldberger, President of CalTech, served as the moderator of the
discussion.  He presented a bit of history relating to the subject of
defensive warfare and then allowed the panelists to speak.  There are
certainly historical precedents for defensive systems, in fact, each US
leader since the 1950's has sought a defense.  SDI is simply the largest
scale and most visible concept to date.

Because of the complexity of the issue, a question like "can it work?"
can only be answered by determining 'what does "can" mean?', 'what does
"it" mean?', and 'what does "work" mean?'.  There have been various
justifications proposed for SDI, and the technical and political
community has raised numerous questions.

The format of the debate consisted of three sections:  during the first
section, each speaker was allowed 20 minutes with which to present his
case; following that, each speaker had a 5-minute rebuttal period;
finally, the audience was allowed to ask questions via screened 3 x 5
index cards.


Major Worden spoke first and discussed some positive aspects of SDI.  In
his view, the principal justification is for Arms Control.  In that
view, a major goal is that the SDI system have a lower marginal cost
than that of building additional offensive systems.  Survivability is
another goal.

He said that the object of SDIO is to establish the feasibility of the
system, but not to build it.  Similarly, it may not involve space
weapons, although most of the current concepts include a space segment.
We would also like to get the Soviets to admit their own work in such
systems.  They regularly deny such work, but when we show them ariel
photos of their high-power lasers, they say, "Oh, we do have laser
research for medical purposes".

The numerical aspects of a Defensive Reliant Deterance are that each
layer of defense drives the number of offensive warheads needed up
further.  There are a series of layers, with each layer consisting of
sensors, weapons, and battle management systems.  He showed some of the
standard slides of this design.  The concept is "Proliferated and
Distributed".  They are planning for the late 1990's.

The key issue as he sees it is countermeasures, such as the fast burn
booster.  There are three types of threats and five types of
countermeasures.  He expected that countermeasures will develop much as
aircraft gained shielding, speed, and proliferation countermeasures
after WW I.

He gave a cost context of the project in comparison to the cost of
insurance in the private sector.  The cost of insurance is over $300
billion/year, while the SDI work is currently costing $1.5 billion.
Major Worden admitted that President Reagan caught everyone off guard
with his speech about SDI two years ago.


Dr. Garwin spoke next.  He recommended that we think carefully about
just what are the goals, costs, and likely Soviet Response to SDI.  He
said that the Scowcroft Commission reported that U.S. security could be
maintained without SDI.  His opinion is that while SDI has been proposed
to replace deterrance, it is really simply another form of deterrance.

He is concerned with the layered approach of the system in that there is
catastrophic failure if one layer does not do its job.  For example, the
design of each layer assumes that the prior one does its job in reducing
the number of incoming objects.

Examples of potential areas of failure were given:  space mines could
easily knock out any space segment units and midcourse intercept could
be overwhelmed by large numbers of decoys.  Dr. Garwin feels that the
systems needed for SDI can not be built under the ABM treaty.

There has been a progression of goals, and in effect "replace deterance"
has become "strengthen deterance".

He closed by describing his view of a viable strategic balance, which
would be to limit each side to 1000 warheads, deployed on small
missiles, small subs, and cruise missiles, with no counterforce threats
against strategic targets.  Preserve the ADM treaty.  BMD research may
be continued, in order to confirm that there is no threat to the system.


Dr. Lipton was the next speaker.  He joined the technical panel of SDIO
last summer.  (An interesting point is that Dr. Lipton is a former
student of Dr. Parnas.)  His major focus was in the importance of the
de-centralization of software.  The Fletcher panel design was centralized,
with software in charge of everything.  "Is it possible to build a system
without these problems?"  Discussion of feasibility must encompass all
design possibilities, and Lipton stressed the merits of a decentralized
design.

He led into this by an analogy with the banking industry.  Banking works
because it is a large collection of loosely organized components.

In the SDI example, he refered to large numbers of satellite groups
handling independent battle management functions.  Fault tolerance would
provide reliability, like the concept of the strategic weapons triad.
He argued that these seperate groups would be testable, by putting a few
into orbit and shooting missiles at them.

The false alarm problem could be controlled by activating different
numbers of systems.  Coordination problems were raised by the Fletcher
panel toward a goal of conserving "bullets".  Dr. Lipton's studies
indicated that the shot overhead of low coordination is not that high.


Dr. Parnas spoke last.  He had good points in his speech, but had a
problem with becoming quite caustic in his remarks about the SDIO
members.  He said that (loosely quoted) "I used to feel that arms
control people are guilty of wishful thinking, but I have now seen a
whole new standard."  His major complaint against SDI is that SDI forces
us to trust the system; if SDI need not be perfect, it must at least be
trustworthy, and he feels that this is not possible.

Conditions for validation include:  mathematical analysis,
                                    exhaustive case analysis,
                                 or prolonged, realistic testing.
Even after one or more of these conditions have been met, the system
must still be operated under controlled conditions.

The validation of software is inherently different from the standard
engineering problems such as bridge design.  Something different about
software.  It is made up of discrete, rather than continuous functions.
Thus design principles such as building for twice the weight do not
truly apply, but instead, the number of discrete cases must be
examined, along with thorough testing.  Even after a number of years of
use, bugs may still be found.  True testing requires thousands of years.

For most software, we can allow unreliable software, as long as we trust
it.  For SDI, we cannot.

He doesn't believe that de-centralization provides added trustworthiness
to the system.  He stated that he never took the Fletcher design
seriously in the first place, feeling it that was no more than a rough
sizing of the problem.  There are a series of myths around
de-centralization.

Dr. Parnas' final point is that SDI is not a limit of computers, but of
human beings.


The rebuttals were then held.  Major Worden questioned the meaning of
deterence and then mentioned some possible alternatives to SDI:
automatic launch under attack, preventive attacks, and bombs under U.S.
cities.  He indicated that Dr. Garwin had shown only that he could design
a system that SDIO wouldn't buy.  His final comment re-iterated the
linkage of SDI to the arms control process.

Dr. Garwin (and the others) kept mentioning the Scowcroft report which
produced possible defensive measures other than SDI.  Dr. Garwin pointed
out that Dr. Lipton had only found that the system proposed by Fletcher
might not work, but that Lipton believed others might.  In any case, so
long as Soviets can deliver by other means (cruise missiles), we will
continue to need deterance.

Dr. Lipton restated his belief in the need for independent
systems.  He recognized that nothing is perfect, that even computers
are not reliable, but they are used on a daily basis.  The use of
independent battle stations would stress the sensors, but he argued
that teraflops would alleviate the need for independent views.

Dr. Parnas again made a couple of inappropriate shots..."I've
been to a lot of Mickey Mouse meetings, but the ones sponsored by SDI
had the biggest ears and biggest nose I've ever seen."  He thinks that
the idea of separate systems does not remove the size or complexity of
what is needed; dividing 10 million lines of code into small modules of
1000 lines does still not ensure error-free code.  People do not write
independent code.

Questions raised from the floor asked about different types of lasers,
the time to phase-in to SDI, and about the non-ICBM threat.  Worden
replied that cruise missiles are not strategic weapons because of their
flight time, and that smuggling bombs into the US would not be a realistic
approach for a Soviet leader to taken.

The speakers then made closing comments:

Dr. Garwin said that we currently have a real opportunity for arms
reduction.  This would be much more survivable than continued escalation
and research into defensive weaponry.  He feels that both sides should
abandon defense efforts.  Control of nuclear proliferation is essential.

Major Worden agreed with these points of Dr. Garwin, but said that it is
necessary and vital to carry forward a defensive program within the ABM
treaty to provide a different kind of security.

Dr. Parnas said that in software, the engineering term of "tolerance"
depends on continuity.  "Almost right" does not make sense in the
context of SDI.  He fears espionage that would result in someone getting
a copy of the software.  Reasons for not going ahead with SDI anyway
include the lost opportunity for other projects, low quality of results,
and weakening of the strategic position.

Dr. Lipton said that if the independent segments of the SDI system do
not interact, the code is not vulnerable.  He pointed out that there
are simple systems, such as elevators, that we do trust.

Dr. Goldberger then made some closing comments.  He said that strategic
defense and arms control must be approached seriously.  The laws of
physics are immune to political views and we are currently at a critical
political point.  A decision to push forward defensively without a
reduction in offense would be a mistake.  SDI has been proposed as part
of current moves toward lowering threat of destruction, yet it is
difficult, with verification problems, and major risks.  He hopes that
the human spirit will prevail in the decisions that must be made.


In summary, the debate was quite interesting, although inconclusive if
judged in a strict manner.  We were most surprised that software
technical details were hardly mentioned, and that political and non
computer technology issues were the focus of the discussion.  Dr. Parnas
and Dr. Lipton made several comments against each other, which detracted
from the technical discussion.  It didn't appear that Dr. Lipton was
overly familiar with the SDI problems; he continually talked in
generalities, with few facts with which to back up his statements.  Dr.
Garwin and Major Worden were much more prepared in their talks and
didn't take any cheap shots with which to score points with the
audience.


The comments above are strictly our personal opinions and not
representative of any organization.

Jeff Risberg     (jrisberg@aids-unix)
Susan Rosenbaum  (susan@aids-unix)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
3
-DATE-
Date: Fri 10 Jan 86 12:18:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI-Related Lists
-BODY-

[...]

To add to your list of AIList-related lists, Info-1100@SUMEX and
Bug-1100@SUMEX are DL's concerning the Xerox 1100 series lisp machines
and Interlisp, and Info-TI-Explorer@SUMEX and Bug-TI-Explorer@SUMEX are
DL's concerning the TI Explorers and associated software.

>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 16:38:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: paradigm
-BODY-
The term paradigm was specialized in philosophy of science by Thomas Kuhn in
his 1965(?) book _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions and subsequent
works.  I would question whether AI is a mature enough
field to have a paradigm in the sense that Kuhn intends for a mature science.
Instead, there appears to be a fair selection of more or less divergent
examples/models/agendas for each area of investigation.  Many of these are
associated with the more prominent investigators in AI.


        Bruce Nevin
        bn@bbncch.arpa

        BBN Communications
        33 Moulton Street
        Cambridge, MA 02238
        (617) 497-3992

[Disclaimer:  my opinions may reflect those of many, but no one else
need take responsibility for them, including my employer.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1986  19:37 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #2
-BODY-
about "paradigm" -- the dictionary is out of date because this word
now almost universally refers to the notion in Thomas Kuhn's
"Structure of Scientific Revolutions."  It seems to mean powerful and
influential idea, or something.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 11:04:40 GMT
-FROM-
From: Mmaccall%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Paradigm
-BODY-
An approximate meaning for the word `paradigm' is `template'.

Gordon Joly
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 16:53:46 GMT
-FROM-
From: Mmaccall%cs.ucl.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Paradigm
-BODY-
As an afterthought. The place where I first saw the term "paradigm"
was in "Games People Play" by Eric Berne. Here, he has a model of the
(transactional) relationship between two people, with three states of
parent-adult-child. They are then put side by side with the parent above
adult and the adult above child, each being represented by a circle. Lines
are drawn to indicate which relationships are active in a given "game".
The Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, as well as the Random House, gives
the notion of "side by side". I hope this has a meaning for the "AI Paradigm"!

Gordon Joly,
gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 12:09:33-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Paradigm
-BODY-
Your dictionary is correct about "paradigm".   This word has been used
extensively in the Ai literature in an incorrect way.  People incorrectly
use it to mean "methodology" or "school of thought" or some such.
David

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 15:29:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Michael Walker <WALKER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai paradigm?
-BODY-
        If you have a paradigm, there's always a chance that you'll get a
paradigm shift, in which case people will fund your research for the next
20 years. On the other hand, if you say your example shifts, they'll think
you're fudging your data.

                        Mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 16:53:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New CSLI Reports on Logic
-BODY-

                            NEW CSLI REPORTS

     Report No. CSLI-85-41, ``Possible-world Semantics for Autoepistemic
   Logic'' by Robert C. Moore and Report No.  CSLI-85-42, ``Deduction
   with Many-Sorted Rewrite'' by Jose Meseguer and Joseph A. Goguen, have
   just been published.  These reports may be obtained by writing to
   Trudy Vizmanos, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305 or
   Trudy@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 17:28:42 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No 1
-BODY-

Summary of Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 Number 1, January 1986
featuring AI Hardware

Vendors state that the biggest problem in marketing AI hardware
is educating both internal people and the market place.

An interview with a gentleman who evaluated AI type machines for use
in developing software for silicon compilation research at Philips
Labs.

Discussion of various ways to enhance IBM PC's for AI (or other
development needs) and the use of the Macintosh and Commodore's Amiga
for AI research.

C. J. Petrie of MCC described a system to parse text from a "how to"
book into rules.

Interview with Dag Tellefsen of Glenwood Management, a venture
capitalist.  They have funded Natural Language Products and AION.

Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, that develops voice recognition hardware,
has signed a joint marketing agreement with FutureNet which supplies
electronic engineering work stations.

Reasoning Systems has signed an agreement with Lockheed Missiles and
Space Corporation to develop knowledge based systems for
communications.  (Reasoning Systems is involved with the commercialization
of some of the techniques from the University of Southern California work
in automating software development.  See the IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering November 1985 Special Issue on AI and Software
Engineering for more info.)

"Logicware Inc. and Releations Ltd., both in Canada, have signed a
long-term agreement to design an Artificial Intelligence language
leading to a computer system which will emulate the thinking process
of the human brain.  It will be  the first AI language designed for
vector-processing by a super computer."

Composition Systems has released two Artificial Intelligence kit that
links VAX Lisp with such DEC product as FMS, RDB, GKS and DECNET."

Review of the IEEE Computer Society Second Conference on Artificial
Intelligence.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 8 Jan 86 16:53:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review - Rational Agency Seminars (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                          RATIONAL AGENCY GROUP
                        Summary of Fall 1985 Work

      The fall-quarter meetings of the Rational Agency Group (alias
   RatAg) have focused on the question: what must the architecture of a
   rational agent with serious resource limitations look like?  Our
   attempts to get at answers to this question have been of two kinds.
   One approach has been to consider problems in providing a coherent
   account of human rationality.  Specifically, we have discussed a
   number of philosophically motivated puzzles, such as the case of the
   Double Pinball Machine, and the problem of the Strategic Bomber,
   presented in a series of papers by Michael Bratman.  The second
   approach we have taken has been to do so-called robot psychology.
   Here, we have examined existing AI planning systems, such as the PRS
   system of Mike Georgeff and Amy Lansky, in an attempt to determine
   whether, and, if so, how these systems embody principles of rationality.

   Both approaches have led to the consideration of similar issues:

   1) What primitive components must there be in an account of
      rationality?  From a philosophical perspective, this is
      equivalent to asking what the set of primitive mental states
      must be to describe human rationality; from an AI perspective,
      this is equivalent to asking what the set of primitive mental
      operators must be to build an artificial agent who behaves
      rationally.  We have agreed that the philospher's traditional
      2-parameter model, containing just ``beliefs'' and ``desires'',
      is insufficient; we have further agreed that adding just a third
      parameter, say ``intentions'', is still not enough.  We are
      still considering whether a 4-parameter model, which includes a
      parameter we have sometimes called ``operant desires'', is
      sufficient.  These so-called operant desires are medial between
      intentions and desires in that, like the former (but not the
      latter) they control behavior in a rational agent, but like the
      latter (and not the former) they need not be mutually consistent
      to satisfy the demands of rationality.  The term ``goal'', we
      discovered in passing, has been used at times to mean
      intentions, at times desires, at times operant desires, and at
      times other things; we have consequently banished it from our
      collective lexicon.

   2) What are ``plans'', and how do they fit into a theory of
      rationality?  Can they be reduced to some configuration of
      other, primitive mental states, or must they also be introduced
      as a primitive?

   3) What are the combinatorial properties of these primitive
      components within a theory of rationality, i.e., how are they
      interrelated and how do they affect or control action?  We have
      considered, e.g., whether a rational agent can intend something
      without believing it will happen, or not intend something she
      believes will inevitably happen.  One set of answers to these
      questions that we have considered has come from the theory of
      plans and action being developed by Michael Bratman.  Another
      set has come come from work that Phil Cohen has been doing with
      Hector Levesque, which involves explaining speech acts as a
      consequence of rationality.  These two theories diverge on many
      points: Cohen and Levesque, for instance, are committed to the
      view that if a rational agent believes something to be inevitable,
      he also intends it; Bratman takes the opposite view.  In recent
      meetings, interesting questions have arisen about whether there
      can be beliefs about the future that are `not' beliefs that
      something will inevitably happen, and, if so, whether
      concomitant intentions are guaranteed in a rational agent.

      The RatAg group intends to begin the new quarter by considering how
   Cohen and Levesque's theory can handle the philosphical problems
   discussed in Bratman's work.  We will also be discussing the work of
   Hector-Neri Castaneda in part to explore the utility of Castaneda's
   distinction between propositions and practitions for our work on
   intention, belief and practical rationality.  Professor Castaneda will
   be giving a CSLI colloquium in the spring.
      RatAg participants this quarter have been Michael Bratman (project
   leader), Phil Cohen, Todd Davies, Mike Georgeff, David Israel, Kurt
   Konolige, Amy Lansky, and Martha Pollack.            --Martha Pollack

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
4
-DATE-
Date: Sun,  5 Jan 86 03:44:31 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Categorical Organization of Semantic Knowledge Systems (MIT)
-BODY-
Monday  2, December  4: 00-6:00pm  Room: E25-117

  HARVARD UNIVERSITY-MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

   "The Categorical Organization of Semantic Knowledge Systems"

                 Elizabeth K. Warrington
                 Professor of Neurology
                 The National Hospitals for Nervous Diseases
                 Queen Square, London

Patients with cerebral lesions provide an important source of evidence
about the organization of semantic systems.  Striking instances of the
selective preservation and selective impairment in the comprehension
of particular categories of verbal and visual stimuli have long been
reported in the neurological literature and more recently such
dissociations have been investigated and assessed using experimental
methods.  The issue of modality specificity will be discussed and it
will be argued that there are at least partially independent systems
that subserve verbal and visual semantics.  Evidence for both broad
category specific impairments, such as knowledge of concrete and
abstract concepts, and more fine grain category impairments such as
knowledge of animate and inanimate objects  will be reviewed.  It will
be argued that there  are modality specific semantic systems and that
these are categorised in their organization.

Host: Lucia Vaina

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 07:58:25 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LISP architectures (NASA Ames)
-BODY-

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ames Research Center
          SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT

        Computational Research Branch

SPEAKER: Raymond S. Lim
         Computational Research Branch

TOPIC: LISP Machine Architectures of MIT CADR, Symbolics 3600, & TI Explorer

ABSTRACT: Common LISP is becoming a standard, and MULTI-LISP is
contemplating for parallel LISP Processing.  A modern LISP machine is a
conventional virtual memory, Von Neuman machine with addded hardware to
support runtime data type checking and incremental garbage collection.  This
presentation will discuss the architecture issue of LISP machine, starting
from the MIT CADR.

DATE: 23 Jan 1986       TIME: 9:30-11:00        BLDG: 233       ROOM: 172

POINT OF CONTACT: Becky Getz            PHONE NUMBER: (415)-694-5197

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  See map
below.  Do not use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Jan 86 14:27:59 PST (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Kluger.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Kluger.osbunorth@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computational Networks in Silicon and Biology (PARC)
-BODY-

          Xerox Palo Alto Research Center Forum


                Thursday, January 16, 1986
                4:00 pm, PARC Auditorium


                      J.J. Hopfield

                Divisions of Chemistry and Biology
                        Caltech
                          and
                AT&T Bell Laboratories

                      will speak on

       Computational Networks in Silicon and Biology


The brain as a piece of computer hardware violates most of the sensible
design criteria for good computers, yet manages to be extremely
effective. We investigate the kinds of behavior which circuits built in
a neuronal fashion--emphasizing large connectivity, large size, analog
response, and self-timed--naturally have.

The collective properties of such systems lead naturally to the
behaviors needed for associative memory, or pattern recognition, error
decoding, visual information processing and many complex optimization
problems.

At the same time, the circuits are relatively robust (fail soft), like
their biological relatives. Such circuits may be of use as high density
associative memories and as signal processors. The effectiveness of
biological computation may in part result from the use of the collective
decision capabilities of neural networks.


This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.

Host: Larry Kluger (Information Systems Division, 496-6575)

Refreshments will be served at 3:45 pm

Visitors: Welcome! The PARC Auditorium is located at 3333 Coyote Hill
Road. The street is between Page Mill Road (west of Foothill) and
Hillview Avenue, in the Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto. Enter the
building through the *auditorium's* entrance, at the upper level of the
building.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03 Jan 86  1404 PST
-FROM-
From: John McCarthy <JMC@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Values, Technology, and Society (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The following course will be given by John McCarthy in Winter 1986 in
the Values, Technology and Society program.  As will be noticed from
the description, it will emphasize opportunities rather than problems.
It will meet 14:15-15:30 Tuesdays and Thursdays
in room 202 History corner (bldg 200).


Technological Possibilities for enhancing man

        This course surveys the technological possibilities for increasing
human capability and real wealth.  It is oriented toward what people will
want rather than around what we might think is good for them.  Some of the
improvements discussed are in the direction of (1) making housework
trivial (2) making government responsive (3) increasing the ability of one
person to build an object like a car, airplane or house to suit him
without organizing others (4) allowing groups to live as they prefer less
hindered by general social laws and customs.  We will emphasize computer
and information technology and ask what will be genuinely useful about
computers in the home and not just faddish or flashy.  To what extent are
futurists and science fiction writers given to systematic error?  Can we
envisage advances as important as electricity, telephones, running water,
inside toilets?

        The second topic concerns the social factors that determine the
rate of scientific and technological progress.  Why was scientific
advance a rare event until Galileo?  Why didn't non-Western cultures
break through into the era of organized scientific and technological
progress and why did it take Western culture so long?  Why isn't the
rate of progress faster today?  As examples, we shall inquire into
the obstacles that made cellular telephone systems and electronic
funds transfer take so long.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 16:33 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Highly Parallel Architectures for AI (UPenn)
-BODY-
From: Lokendra Shastri <Shastri@UPenn> on Wed  8 Jan 1986 at 15:44, 45 lines


                            COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

     CIS704  Highly parallel architectures for Artificial Intelligence

PREREQUISITES: This is an advanced course in artificial intelligence. It
will be assumed that the participants are familiar with basic issues in AI.

DESCRIPTION: There is a growing interest in highly interconnected networks
of very simple processing elements. These networks are referred to as
Connectionist Networks and are playing an increasingly important role in
artificial intelligence and cognitive science.

This course is intended to discuss the motivation behind pursuing
"connectionism" and to survey the state of current research in this area. We
will review connectionist models of language understanding, parsing,
knowledge representation, limited inference, and learning, and compare the
connectionist approach to traditional AI approaches.

TEXTS: None. A reading list will be provided.

ASSIGNMENTS: Students will be expected to prepare a presentation of (or lead
a discussion on) a paper on the reading list. There will be two or three
assignments and a term paper.

PLACE: TB 309.  M, W 4:30-6:00

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 86 20:33:58 MST
-FROM-
From: keller@utah-cs.arpa (Bob Keller)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 3rd Symposium on Logic Programming
-BODY-
               [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                                    '86 SLP
                                Call for Papers
                     Third Symposium on Logic Programming

                    Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

                             September 21-25, 1986

                               Westin Hotel Utah
                              Salt Lake City, UT

The conference solicits papers  on all areas  of logic programming,  including,
but not confined to:

        Applications of logic programming
        Computer architectures for logic programming
        Databases and logic programming
        Logic programming and other language forms
        New language features
        Logic programming systems and implementation
        Parallel logic programming models
        Performance
        Theory

Please submit full papers, indicating accomplishments of substance and novelty,
and including appropriate citations of related work.  The suggested page  limit
is 25 double-spaced pages.  Send eight copies of your manuscript no later  than
15 March 1986 to:

                        Robert M. Keller
                        SLP '86 Program Chairperson
                        Department of Computer Science
                        University of Utah
                        Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Acceptances will be mailed by 30 April 1986.  Camera-ready copy will be due  by
30 June 1986.

Conference Chairperson                  Exhibits Chairperson
Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah      Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.

Tutorials Chairperson                   Local Arrangements Chairperson
George Luger, University of New Mexico  Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

                          Program Committee

Francois Bancilhon, MCC                 William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
John Conery, University of Oregon       Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley               George Luger, University of New Mexico
Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich            Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
Seif Haridi, SICS, Sweden               Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
Lynette Hirschman, SDC, Paoli           Mark Stickel, SRI International
Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego                 Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
5
-DATE-
Date: 6 January 1986 1412-EST
-FROM-
From: Peter Andrews@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Systems Symposium
-BODY-
        An International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent
Systems (ISMIS'86) will be held October 23-25, 1986 in Knoxville,
Tennessee.  Papers are solicited in the following areas:
(1) Expert Systems
(2) Knowledge Representation
(3) Learning and Adaptive Systems
(4) Intelligent Databases
(5) Approximate Reasoning
(6) Logics for Artificial Intelligence
        Papers will be due on March 1, 1986, and papers which are
accepted will be published in the proceedings of the symposium.  A
copy of the Call for Papers is posted on my office door (WEH 7216),
and you can get a personal copy by sending a message to Zbigniew Ras
(ras%tennessee.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 17:52:17 est
-FROM-
From: Scott C McKay <scm%gitpyr%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on AI for Generic Avionics
-BODY-

                       AVIONICS LABORATORY WORKSHOP
                                    ON
               ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR GENERIC AVIONICS

                     Georgia Tech Research Institute
                             Atlanta, Georgia
                             March 26-28, 1986

     The Avionics Laboratory, located within the Air Force Wright
     Aeronautical Laboratories at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, is
     the primary organization responsible for planning and executing
     the Air Force basic research, exploratory and advanced
     development programs for aerospace avionics.  A current major
     focus of that program is to explore the applicability of
     artificial intelligence to many functional avionics domains.  The
     results have been very encouraging and we are convinced that AI
     will have significant future utility in aerospace vehicles.

     In order to plan for orderly, timely and expanded developments in
     AI, the Avionics Laboratory will be conducting a Workshop on
     Artificial Intelligence for Generic Avionics.  The overall
     objective is to identify the "key basic research issues" that
     constrain the future expanded applicability of artificial
     intelligence technology to avionics applications and to outline
     what research should be pursued to remove the constraints.  The
     workshop will be held at Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia
     Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia on March 26-28, 1986.
     The workshop is planned to be an intensive 3-day work session
     involving 35-40 (maximum) of the best researchers in the field.
     Attendance will be by invitation only.

     If you feel you could contribute significantly to the objectives
     of the workshop and are interested in attending, please contact
     either of the following by 20 Jan 86: Lawrence E. Porter (513)
     255-4415, AFWAL/GLXRA, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-6543 or
     Michael Noviskey (513) 255-2713, same address.

     The mission of the Avionics Laboratory is broad and includes the
     primary areas of navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance,
     electromagnetic warfare, fire control, weapon delivery,
     communications, system architecture, information and signal
     processing and control, subsystem integration and supporting
     electronics, and software and electromagnetic device research and
     development.  This mission spans the spectrum from basic research
     to advanced development.  The emphasis of this workshop is being
     placed on the former.  I encourage you to plan to attend the
     workshop and participate in a stimulating AI basic research
     exchange with your peers.  I can assure you that the results will
     have a direct impact on future investment in AI basic research.

     Lawrence E. Porter
     Chairperson
     Artificial Intelligence Planning
     Avionics Laboratory

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 86 18:29:34 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Uncertainty and AI Workshop
-BODY-

                    CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Second Workshop on:   "Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence"

     Philadelphia, PA.  August 9-11, 1986  (preceeding AAAI conf.)

Sponsored by:  AAAI and RCA


    This workshop is a follow-up to the successful workshop in L.A.,
August 1985.  Its subject is reasoning under uncertainty and
representing uncertain information.  The emphasis this year is on real
applications, although papers on theory are also welcome.  The
workshop provides an opportunity for those interested in uncertainty
in AI to present their ideas and participate in the discussions.  Also
panel discussions will provide a lively cross-section of views.

Papers are invited on the following topics:

  *Applications--Descriptions of novel approaches; interesting results;
   important implementation difficulties; experimental comparison of
   alternatives etc.

  *Comparison and Evaluation of different uncertainty formalisms.

  *Induction (Theory discovery) under uncertainty.

  *Alternative uncertainty approaches.

  *Relationship between uncertainty and logic.

  *Uncertainty about uncertainty (Higher order approaches).

  *Other uncertainty in AI issues.

  Preference will be given to papers that have demonstrated their approach
in real applications.  Some papers may be accepted for publication but not
presentation (except at a poster session).

   Four copies of the paper (or an extended abstract) should be sent to the
arrangements chairman before 23rd. May 1986.  Acceptances will be sent by the
20th. June and final (camera ready) papers must be received by 11th. July.
Proceedings will be available at the workshop.


General Chair:            Program Chair:              Arrangements Chair:

John Lemmer               Peter Cheeseman             Lawrence Carnuccio
KSC Inc.                  NASA-Ames Research Center   RCA-Adv. Tech. Labs.
255 N. Washington St.     Mail Stop 244-7             Mooretown Corp. Cntr.
Rome, NY 13440            Moffett Field, CA 94035     Route 38, Mooretown,
(315)336-0500             (415)694-6526               NJ 08057
                                                      (609)866-6428
Program Committee:
P. Cheeseman, J. Lemmer, T. Levitt, J. Pearl, M. Yousry, L. Zadeh.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 15:12:41-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.LADAI@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - User-System Interfaces Workshop
-BODY-

                        USER-SYSTEM INTERFACES WORKSHOP


When:   January 31 - Febuary 1, 1986

Where:  Austin South Plaza Hotel, Austin, Texas
        I-35 and Woodward

What:   A multidisciplinary conference addressing the problem of implementing
        effective communication between human and machine.  The contributions
        of various fields such as Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive
        Psychology are considered.

Participants:
  Brooks AFB SAM
  Burroughs
  IBM
  Lockheed
  MCC
  Rice University
  Southwest Research Institute
  Texas A&M University
  Texas Instruments
  University of Texas

Registration:                           Mail to:
  Before Jan. 24 - $30.00                 M. Sury
        Students - $15.00                 Dept. T2-32, Bldg. 30E
  After Jan. 24  - $40.00                 Lockheed Austin Division
        Students - $20.00                 P.O. Box 17100
  Includes lunch on Jan. 31.              Austin, TX 78760

For additional info:
  Ron Grissell  -  [512]448-5154
  Manda Sury    -  [512]448-5314
  Diana Webster -  [512]448-9186

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 85 23:12:53 EST
-FROM-
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa.yktvmv%ibm-sj.csnet@CSNET-SH.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - IFIP Conference on Knowledge and Data
-BODY-
                                  IFIP

          INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING

                              ANNOUNCEMENT

         TC2 WORKING CONFERENCE organized by Working Group 2.6

                       Knowledge and Data (DS-2)

          November 3-7, 1986 in Albufeira (Algarve), Portugal

Scope:  Questions of meaning are more important for the design
of a knowledge base than methods of encoding data in bits and bytes.
As database designers add more semantic information to their systems,
their conceptual schemata begin to look like AI systems of
knowledge representation.  In recognizing this convergence on issues of
semantics, IFIP Working Group 2.6 is organizing a working conference
on Knowledge and Data.  It will address the issues and problems
of knowledge representation from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Topics:

   Design of a conceptual schema
   Knowledge and data modeling
   Database semantics
   Natural language semantics
   Expert database systems
   Logic, databases, and AI
   Methods of knowledge engineering
   Tools and aids for knowledge acquisition

Invited speakers:

   Herve Gallaire, Germany
   Robert Meersman, Belgium
   J. Alan Robinson, USA
   Roger Schank, USA
   Dana Scott, USA


An IFIP working conference is oriented towards detailed discussion of
the topics presented.  Participation is by invitation, with optional
contribution of a paper that is refereed by the program committee.
Anyone who is interested in participating should send an abstract
of current research or a prospective paper to either of the
program cochairmen.  Abstracts are due March 14, 1986.  Complete
papers are due May 16, 1986.


General Chairman:  Amilcar Sernadas, Portugal

Program cochairmen:

   John F. Sowa                         Robert Meersman
   IBM Systems Research Institute       L.U.C. -- Dept. WNIF
   500 Columbus Avenue                  Universitaire Campus
   Thornwood, NY  10594                 B-3610 Diepenbeek
   U.S.A.                               Belgium

   CSNET:  sowa.yktvmt@ibm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Dec 85 16:17:11 EST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 2nd Expert Systems in Government, Re-Revised Version
-BODY-

This is yet another revision of the notice sent out several weeks ago,
and is a revision of the revision sent out earlier today.  I am sorry
for the repetition, but there have been several foul-ups in the
information being fed to me for the production of this announcement.

                         CALL FOR PAPERS



                  THE SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE

                               ON

                  EXPERT SYSTEMS IN GOVERNMENT

 Tyson's Westpark Hotel, McLean, VA in suburban Washington, D.C.
                      October 20 - 24, 1986

  The conference is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society and
       the Mitre Corporation in cooperation with AIAA/NCS.

The objective of the conference is to explore the following:
        - knowledge based applications and supporting technologies
        - implementation and impact of emerging application areas
        - future trends in available systems and required research

Classified and unclassified papers which relate  to  the  use  of
knowledge  based  systems  are solicited.  The topics of interest
include, but are not limited to, the following applications:

Professional: engineering, finance, law, management, medicine
Office Automation: text understanding, intelligent DBMS, intelli-
gent systems
Command & Control: intelligence  analysis,  planning,  targeting,
communications, air traffic control, battle management
Exploration: outer space, prospecting, archaeology
Weapon Systems: adaptive control, electronic warfare, Star  Wars,
target identification
Equipment: CAD/CAM, design monitoring, maintenance, repair
Software: automatic programming,  maintenance,  verification  and
validation
Architecture: distributed knowledge based systems, parallel  com-
puting
Project Management: planning, scheduling, control
Education: concept formation, tutoring, testing, diagnosis
Imagery: photo interpretation, mapping
Systems Engineering: requirements, preliminary  design,  critical
design, testing, quality assurance
Tools and Techniques: PROLOG, knowledge acquisition and represen-
tation, uncertainty management
Plant and Factory Automation
Space Station Systems
Human-Machine Interface
Speech and Natural Language

The program will consist of submitted and invited  papers,  which
will  provide  an overview of selected areas.  Contributed papers
should be consistent with the following outline:
1. Introduction- state clearly the purpose of the work
2. Description of the actual work- must be new and significant
3. Results- discuss their significance
4. References

Completed papers are to be no longer  than  20  pages,  including
graphics.   For  classified  papers, please submit a one page un-
classified abstract.  All classified papers must be releasable at
the  Secret  level  or  below,  and  must  be pre-approved by the
author's cognizant security  release  authority.   Papers  to  be
presented  by  non-US  citizens  must  be  cleared through proper
government to government channels.  Four copies of  the  complete
paper are to be submitted to:

Dr. Kamal Karna, Conference Chairman
IEEE Computer Society
1730 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C.  20036-1903

Author's Schedule:
Four copies of manuscript       May 1, 1986
Acceptance letter               June 15, 1986
Camera-ready copy               July 15, 1986

Conference Chairman:
        Dr. Kamal Karna
        Washington AI Center
        Mitre Corporation

Program Committee:
        Co-chairman: Classified
        Mr. Richard Martin
        Associate Director, Government Programs
        Software Engineering Institute
        Carnegie Mellon University

        Co-chairman: Unclassified
        Dr. Kamran Parsaye
        President
        Intelliware, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
6
-DATE-
Date: 6 JAN 86 10:55-N
-FROM-
From: ROZENBER%HLERUL5.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Description - European Assoc. for Theoretical Computer Science
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Dear collegue,

     I am taking advantage of this excellent communication
medium, the "Theory Net", to send you information (actually
the information leaflet) about the EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR
THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE (EATCS). Although our associa-
tion is based in Europe, its membership is "intercontinental"
> about 40% of our members comes from outside Europe.
     In our experience the only reason that a computer
scientist who is either actively engaged or interested in
theoretical computer science is not a member of EATCS is
that she/he does not know about our organisation - just
see how much we offer for so little!!!   [...]
     If you have any questions do not hesitate to contact
either myself (electronic address: ROZENBER@HLERUL5.BITNET)
or the secretary of the association Th. Ottmann (electronic
address: OTTMANN@GERMANY.CSNET).

     I take this opportunity to wish you the very best
New Year.

                                      G. Rozenberg
                                     EATCS President

===============================================================================


       EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE (EATCS)



                    COUNCIL OF EATCS

                          BOARD

President:        G. Rozenberg, Leiden
Vice President:   W. Brauer, Munich
Treasurer:        J. Paredaens, Antwerp
Secretary:        Th. Ottmann, Karlsruhe
Bulletin Editor:  G. Rozenberg, Leiden
TCS Editor:       M. Nivat, Paris
Past Presidents:  M. Nivat, Paris (1972-1977)
                  M. Paterson, Warwick (1977-1979)
                  A. Salomaa, Turku (1979-1985)


                  FURTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS

G. Ausiello           Rome
J. De Bakker          Amsterdam
J. Diaz               Barcelona
F. Gecseg             Szeged
J. Gruska             Bratislava
Z. Manna              Rehovot & Stanford
H. Maurer             Graz
Ch.H. Papadimitriou   Athens & Stanford
A. Paz                Haifa
D. Perrin             Paris
E. Schmidt            Aarhus
D. Wood               Waterloo


                      EATCS

HISTORY AND ORGANISATION

   EATCS is an international organisation founded in 1972. Its aim is to
facilitate the exchange of ideas and results among theoretical computer
scientists as well as to stimulate cooperation between the theoretical
and the practical community in computer science.
   Its activities are coordinated by the Council of EATCS, out of which a
President, a Vice President, a Treasurer and a Secretary are elected.
Policy guidelines are determined by the Council and the General Assembly
of EATCS. This assembly is scheduled to take place during the annual
International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP),
the conference of EATCS.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES OF EATCS

> Organization of ICALP's
> Publication of the "Bulletin of the EATCS"
> Publication of the "EATCS Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science"
> Publication of the journal "Theoretical Computer Science"
> Other activities of EATCS include the sponsorship of various more
  specialized meetings in theoretical computer science. Among such
  meetings are: CAAP (Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming),
  TAPSOFT (Conference on Theory and Practice of Software Development),
  STACS (Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science),
  Workshop on Graph Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, European
  Workshop on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets, Workshop on Graph
  Grammars and their Applications in Computer Science.


BENEFITS

   Benefits offered by EATCS include:
> Receiving the "Bulletin of the EATCS" (about 600 pages per year)
> Reduced registration fees at various conferences
> Reciprocity agreements with other organisations
> 25% discount in purchasing ICALP proceedings
> 25% discount in purchasing books from "EATCS Monographs on Theoretical
  Computer Science"
> About 70% (equals about 1000 Dutch guilders) discount per annual
  subscription to "Theoretical Computer Science".


(1) THE ICALP CONFERENCE

   ICALP is an international conference covering all aspects of theoretical
computer science and now customarily taking place during the third week of
July.
   Typical topics discussed during recent ICALP conferences are: computability,
automata theory, formal language theory, analysis of algorithms, computa-
tional complexity, mathematical aspects of programming language definition,
logic and semantics of programming languages, foundations of logic programming,
theorem proving, software specification, computational geometry, data types and
data structures, theory of data bases and knowledge based systems,
cryptography,
VLSI structures, parallel and distributed computing, models of concurrency
and robotics.

   Sites of ICALP meetings:
> Paris, France (1972)                    - Haifa, Israel (1981)
> Saarbrucken, Germany (1974)             - Aarhus, Denmark (1982)
> Edinburgh, Great Britain (1976)         - Barcelona, Spain (1983)
> Turku, Finland (1977)                   - Antwerp, Belgium (1984)
> Udine, Italy (1978)                     - Nafplion, Greece (1985)
> Graz, Austria (1979)                    - Rennes, France (1986)
> Noordwijkerhout, Holland (1980)         - Karlsruhe, Germany (1987)


(2) THE BULLETIN OF THE EATCS

   Three issues of the Bulletin are published annually appearing in
February, June and October respectively. The Bulletin is a medium for
rapid publication and wide distribution of material such as:
> EATCS matters
> Information about the current ICALP
> Technical contributions
> Surveys and tutorials
> Reports on conferences
> Calendar of events
> Reports on computer science departments and institutes
> Listings of technical reports and publications
> Book reviews
> Open problems and solutions
> Abstracts of  Ph.D. Theses
> Information on visitors at various institutions
> Entertaining contributions and pictures related to computer science.
   Contributions to any of the above areas are solicited. All written
contributions should be sent to the Bulletin Editor:

                    Prof.dr. G. Rozenberg
                    Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
                    University of Leiden
                    P.O. Box 9512
                    2300 RA  Leiden, The Netherlands

   Deadlines for submissions to reach the Bulletin Editor are: January 15,
May 15 and September 15 for the February, June and October issue respec-
tively.
   All pictures (preferably black and white) including text of what they
are showing should be sent to the Picture Editor:

                    Dr. P. van Emde-Boas
                    University of Amsterdam
                    Roeterstraat 15
                    1018 WB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands

   Deadlines are 2 weeks before those for written contributions, indicated
above.


(3) EATCS MONOGRAPHS ON THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE

   This is a series of monographs published by Springer-Verlag and launched
during ICALP 1984; within the first year six volumes appeared. The series
includes monographs as well as innovative textbooks in all areas of theo-
retical computer science, such as the areas listed above in connection
with the ICALP conference. The volumes are hard-cover and ordinarily
produced by type-setting. To ensure attractive prices other  production
methods are possible.
   The editors of the series are W. Brauer (Munich), G. Rozenberg (Leiden),
and A. Salomaa (Turku). Potential authors should contact one of the editors.
The advisory board consists of G. Ausiello (Rome), S. Even (Haifa), M. Nivat
(Paris), C. Papadimitriou (Athens & Stanford), A. Rosenberg (Durham), and
D. Scott (Pittsburgh).
   Updated information about the series can be obtained from the publisher,
Springer-Verlag.


(4) THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE

   The aim of the "Theoretical Computer Science" journal is to publish
papers in the fast envolving field of theoretical computer science.
   The volume of research on theoretical aspects of computer science
has increased enormously in the past. The classical theories of
automata and formal languages still offer problems and results,
while considerable attention is now being given to newer areas, such
as the formal semantics of programming languages and the study of algorithms
and their complexity. Behind all this lie the major problems of under-
standing the nature of computation and its relation to computing
methodology. While "Theoretical Computer Science" remains mathematical
and abstract in spirit, it derives its motivation from the problems of
practical computation. The editors intend that the domain covered
by "Theoretical Computer Science" will increase and evolve with the
growth of the science itself. The editor-in-chief of "Theoretical
Computer Science" is:

                    Prof. M. Nivat
                    162, Boulevard Malesherbes
                    75017 Paris, France.


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

   Please contact the Secretary of EATCS:

                    Prof.dr. Th. Ottmann
                    Institut fur Angewandte Informatik und Formale
                                            Beschreibungsverfahren
                    Universitat Karlsruhe
                    Postfach 6380
                    D-7500 Karlsruhe 1
                    West Germany


DUES

   The dues are US $ 10.- for a period of one year. If the initial
membership payment is received in the period December 21 - April 20,
April 21 - August 20, August 21 - December 20, then the first
membership year will start on June 1, October 1, February 1,
respectively. Every continuation payment continues the membership
for the same time period.
   An additional fee is required for ensuring the air mail delivery
of the EATCS Bulletin outside Europe. The amounts are $ 7.- for USA,
Canada, Israel, $ 10.- for Japan and $ 12.- for Australia per year.
For information additonal fees for other destinations contact either
the Secretary or the Treasurer.


HOW TO JOIN EATCS

   To join send the annual dues, or a multiple thereof (to cover a
number of years), to the Treasurer of EATCS:

                    Prof.dr. J. Paredaens
                    University of Antwerp, U.I.A.
                    Department of Mathematics
                    Universiteitsplein 1
                    B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium

   The dues can be paid (in order of preference) by US $ bank cheques,
other currency bank cheques, US $ cash, other currency cash. It cannot
be paid by International Post Money Order. When submitting payment,
please make sure to indicate complete name and address. For this purpose
you may want to use the form below. You may also pay the membership fee
via the following account:

                    General Bank Antwerp
                    Antwerp, Belgium
                    Account number: 220-0596350-30

   If a transfer is in US $ then the annual membership payment equals
US $ 10.-. If a transfer (covering the membership for any number of years
and/or addtitional air mail delivery for any number of years) is in a
currency other than US $, then additional US $ 2.- for the transfer must
be paid (the difference is used to cover the bank charges). Please remember
to indicate your address clearly (since the Bulletin is send to the address
you give).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
7
-DATE-
Date: 9 Dec 1985 12:10-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning About Hard Objects (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                        BBN Laboratories
                    Science Development Program
                           AI Seminars


Speaker:  Ernest Davis
          NYU

Title:  Issues in Reasoning about Hard Objects

Date:  Monday, December 16th, 10:30a.m.

Place:  BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, 3rd floor large conference room

                              Abstract

The physics of rigid solid objects raises two serious problems which have not
been addressed in previous spatial and physical reasoning programs.  Firstly,
the physical properties of solid objects are sensitive to very slight
variations in shapes.  Therefore, when an ideal shape is used to
approximate a real shape, the accuracy of the approximation must be
tightly bounded.  Secondly,  the method of reasoning used by both Forbus
and DeKleer of going from one critical point to the next is not, in
general, appropriate.  Frequently, as in reasoning about a ball going
down a funnel, one is interested only in the final outcome (the ball
goes out the funnel) and not in any of the intermediate critical points
(collisions between the ball and the funnel).  However, it is difficult
to state axioms that assert global relationships of this sort in a way
that allows them to be used in cases where additional objects enter the
picture.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 13:37:32-EST
-FROM-
From: Susan Hardy <SH@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LOGIN: A Logic Programming Language with Inheritance (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


                      DATE:  Thursday, January 16, 1986

                      TIME:  3:00 p.m. - Refreshments
                             3:15 p.m. - Lecture

                     PLACE:  NE43-512A

                                        LOGIN:
                             A LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE
                              WITH BUILT-IN INHERITANCE

                                   Hassan Ait-Kaci

                                     A.I. Program
                                  MCC, Austin, Texas


        Since the early days of  research in Automated Deduction,  inheritance
        has been proposed as a means to capture a special kind of information;
        viz., taxonomic information.   For example, when  it is asserted  that
        "whales are mammals", we  understand that whatever properties  mammals
        possess should  also  hold for  whales.   Naturally, this  meaning  of
        inheritance can be well captured in logic by the semantics of  logical
        implication.   However,  this   is  not  operationally   satisfactory.
        Indeed, in a first-order logic deduction system realizing  inheritance
        as implication, inheritance from "mammal" to "whale" is achieved by an
        inference step.  But this special kind of information somehow does not
        seem to  be  meant  as a  deduction  step---thus  lengthening  proofs.
        Rather, its purpose seems to be  to accelerate, or focus, a  deduction
        process---thus shortening proofs.

        In  this  talk,  I  shall  argue  that  the  syntax  and   operational
        interpretation of first-order terms can be extended to accommodate for
        taxonomic  ordering  relations  between  constructor  symbols.   As  a
        result, I shall propose a simple and efficient paradigm of unification
        which allows the separation of (multiple) inheritance from the logical
        inference  machinery   of   Prolog.   This   yields   more   efficient
        computations and enhanced language expressiveness.  The language  thus
        obtained,  called   LOGIN,  subsumes   Prolog,  in   the  sense   that
        conventional Prolog programs are equally well executed by LOGIN.

        I shall start  with motivational examples,  introducing the flavor  of
        what I believe  to be  a more expressive  and efficient  way of  using
        taxonomic information, as opposed to  straight Prolog.  Then, I  shall
        give a quick formal summary of  how first-order terms may be  extended
        to  embody  taxonomic  information  as  record-like  type  structures,
        together with an efficient type unification algorithm.  This will lead
        to a technical proposal for integrating this notion of terms into  the
        SLD-resolution mechanism of Prolog. With examples, I shall  illustrate
        a LOGIN interpreter.

        Host: Rishiyur Nikhil
              (617)253-0237
              Nikhil@mit-xx.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 86  1659 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Reasoning and Default Logics (SU)
-BODY-

Next nonmotonic reasoning meeting:


                A Review and Critique of:
                        "Temporal Reasoning and Default Logics"
                          by Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott
                                Yale/CSD/RR #430
                                  October 1985

                by Benjamin Grosof, inquisitioner

                    Thursday, January 16, 4pm

                            MJH 252

Hanks and McDermott in their recent Yale Tech Report pose an example
problem in temporal reasoning and claim that none of the leading
formalisms for default reasoning (namely Reiter's Default Logic,
McDermott and Doyle's modal Non-Monotonic Logic, and Circumscription)
adequately capture the type of non-monotonic reasoning that is (what
they claim is) desirable in the example.  They give an algorithm which
does.  They go on to conclude rather pessimistically that there seems
to be some inherent problem in the semantics of all three default
formalisms.

In this talk, I review their paper, including their temporal logic.  I
argue that their example in particular is interesting and suggestive,
but that the semantical difficulty that they emphasize arises from an
underspecification of the problem.  I will go on to suggest how indeed
to represent the additional CRITERION satisfied by their algorithm
(but not by their formulations in default formalisms).  I show how
Vladimir's new circumscription presented in our fall sessions of the
non-monotonic reasoning seminar can solve the representational problem
they pose.  I argue that circumscription, because it can incorporate
certain kinds of preferences among competing extensions via
prioritization, has an advantage over the other two default
formalisms, and promises to be able to represent the CRITERION more
generally than their algorithm does.  I also discuss how their
temporal formalism occupies an intermediate place between STRIPS and
situation calculus.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 21:47:09 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LISP/Prolog Memory Performance (Ames)
-BODY-

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Ames Research Center
SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


             Joint Ames AI Forum/RCR Branch

SPEAKER: Evan Tick
         Computer Systems Laboratory
         Stanford University

TOPIC: Memory Performance of Lisp and Prolog Programs

ABSTRACT: This talk presents a comparison between Lisp and Prolog
architectures based on memory performance.  A subset of the Gabriel
benchmarks was translated into Prolog, compiled into the Warren Abstract
Machine instruction set and emulated.  The programs were also measured with
an instrumented Common Lisp targeted to a Series 9000/HP237.  Memory usage
statistics indicate how the two langauges do fundamental computations
different ways with varying efficiency.


DATE: 28 January 1986   TIME: 1030 AM   BLDG: 172       ROOM: 233
        Tuesday

POINT OF CONTACT: E. Miya               PHONE NUMBER: (415)-694-6453
        emiya@ames-vmsb
I am current attending a conference, please send mail or contact my office
mate.

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  See map
below.  Do not use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
8
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 86 23:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: dkb-amos @ HAWAII-EMH.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Macsyma
-BODY-

I would appreciate any help that could be supplied in locating a
source for Macsyma.

I'm looking for a version that will run under Franzlisp Opus 38.91.
We do contract work for the Air Force but I have no immediate
contract application for this package, I would just like to get
familier with it and have it around for possible future applications.

Thanks.
>- Dennis Biringer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 13 Jan 86 16:07:10-PST
-FROM-
From: Luis Jenkins <lej@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics Prolog
-BODY-
[Sorry if this topic has been beaten to death before many time ...]

Here at Schlumberger Palo Alto Research (SPAR) we have been working
for some time on large Prolog programs for Hardware Verification,
first in Dec-20 Prolog and then in Quintus Prolog for Suns.

Recently we have been interested in the possibility of using Symbolics
Prolog for further R&D work, as the lab has a bunch of LispMs.

Does anyone out there has first-hand (or n-hand, please specify)
experience with the Prolog that Symbolics offers. Specifically, we
want to hear praises/complaints about :-

        o DEC-10/Quintus Compatibility
        o Speed
        o Bugs
        o Extensions
        o Interface with the LispM environment
        o Mixing Prolog & Lisp code
        o Random User Comments

Thanks,

        Luis Jenkins
        Schlumberger Palo Alto Research
        lej@sri-kl
        ...decwrl!spar!lej

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jan 86 11:22:01 EST
-FROM-
From: kyle.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Johns Hopkins Learning Machine
-BODY-
Does anyone have any more info on the following:

I caught the tail end of a news item on the NBC Today Show this morning
about someone at Johns Hopkins who has built a "Networked" computer
consisting of 300 "elements" that has a speech synthesizer attached to
it. The investigator claims that the thing learns to speak English the
same way a human baby does. They played a tape recording which
represented a condensation of several hours of "learning" by the device.
The investigator claims he does not know how the the thing works. I
didn't catch his name.

Who is this person and what is the system configuration of the machine
(which seemed to fit into one large rack of equipment).

Earle Kyle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 09:34:53 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Today Show Segment
-BODY-
A friend of mine saw the Today Show this Monday morning,
and said there was a particularly breathless segment that
left the impression that somebody has solved `the AI
problem'.  It seems to have been a rather vague story
about someone at Johns Hopkins who has built some sort of
massively parallel machine that learns language.

Sorry the details are so sketchy.  Did anybody else
see this segment or know the story behind the story?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jan 86 22:05:47 EST
-FROM-
From: Mike Tanner @ Ohio State <TANNER@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Paradigm
-BODY-
I've seen some discussion of paradigm in recent AILists and since I
just audited a grad course in philosophy of science where we read Kuhn
I thought I'd summarize what I remember of Kuhn's notion of paradigm.
(Auditing a course certainly does not make me an expert, but it does
mean that I've read Kuhn recently and carefully.)

Several people have pointed out that the dictionary definition (e.g.,
Webster's 3rd New International) of `paradigm' is `example',
`pattern', or `model'.  But they further claim that this is not what
Kuhn meant.  However, I think that the way `paradigm' is used by Kuhn
is (most of the time) perfectly compatible with the dictionary.

In _The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions_ Kuhn normally uses
`paradigm' to mean `example of theory applied' or `example of how to
do science'.  (Sometimes he uses it to mean `theory', which is
confusing and I think he later admits that it is just sloppiness on
his part.)  Ron Laymon, our prof in the philosophy of science course,
suggested that it might be best to think of paradigm as `an
uninterpreted book'.  Everybody working in some field points to a book
when asked what they do and says, "There, read that book and you'll
know."  Of course, once the book is opened there's likely to be a lot
of disagreement about what it means.

Another important characteristic of paradigms is that they suggest a
lot of further research.  If I were a cynical person I would say that
the success of a paradigm depends on people's perceptions of funding
prospects for research of the sort that it defines.

I'm not sure that AI is mature enough to rate any paradigms.  But I
think that a case could be made for some things as "mini-paradigms",
such as GPS, MYCIN, Minsky's frame paper, etc.  That is, they defined
some sub-discipline within AI where a lot of people did, and are
doing, fruitful work.  (I don't mean "mini" to be pejorative.  I just
think that a paradigm has to be a candidate for unifying research in
the field, or maybe even defining the field, and these probably don't
qualify.  But then, I might be expecting too much of paradigms.)

                                        -- mike

ARPA:  tanner@Rutgers
CSNet:  tanner@Ohio-State

Physically, I am at Ohio State but I have a virtual existence at
Rutgers and can receive mail either place.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 09:42:58-CST
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers & IQ Tests
-BODY-
There have been recent inquiries about how well computer programs can do on
IQ tests.
  An article in the journal _Telicom_ (1) mentions a computer program for
taking IQ tests.  It seems to be aimed entirely at the kinds of math
puzzles that fill in missing numbers in series.
  "The program (is) called HIQ-SOLVER 160 ... BASIC, less than 10 Kbytes...
in July/August Dutch computer magazine _Sinclair_Gebruiker_ has the
listing... The program has been tried on the numerical test in Hans
Eysenck's _Check_Your_Own_IQ_ and it solved 36 out of 50 problems,
corresponding with an IQ of about 160 (hence its name); as some items in
the Eysenck test were of a type that had not been implemented one might
argue that the program's raw score corresponds with an even higher IQ ..."
  He goes on to give the algorithm.
  I think this example highlights an example of the difficulty of applying
human IQ tests to machines - the program scores very high on certain IQ
tests because it does a very limited kind of pattern recognition very well.
But it is completely brittle - it's helpless to recognize patterns that are
only slightly off what it expects.
  Human intelligence tests do not measure human intelligence directly.
They measure characteristics associated with intelligence.  The underlying
assumption is that this association is good enough that it will predict how
well humans will do on tasks that cannot be given as standard tests, but
evince intelligence.
  This is a dubious proposition for humans, but it breaks down completely
on machines.  Nonetheless, it shouldn't be too hard to CONS up some
programs that do terribly well on some not too terribly well designed IQ
tests.


(1)Feenstra, Marcel "Numerical IQ - Tests and Intelligence"  Telicom, Aug
85, Bx 141 San Francisco 94101

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 18:05:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Computer Graphics
-BODY-
IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, December 1985, pp. 58-59,
has a review by Ware Myers of the 6th Eurographics conference.
The key theme was integrating expert systems and computer graphics.
Several of the papers discussed binding Prolog and the GKS
graphical kernel standard.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 17:28:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp for Xerox
-BODY-
Expert Systems, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1985, p. 252, reports that
Xerox will be implementing Common Lisp on its Lisp workstations.
The first copies may be available in the second quarter of 1986.
Xerox will continue to support Interlisp-D, and will be adding
extensions and compatable features to both languages.  A package
for converting Interlisp-D programs to Common Lisp is being
developed.

Guy Steele said (Common Lisp, p. 3) that it is expected that user-
level packages such as InterLisp would be built on top of the Common
Lisp core.  Perhaps that is now happening.  Xerox is also offering
CommonLoops as a proposed standard for object-oriented programming.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 12 Jan 86 18:00:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Real-Time Process Control
-BODY-
IEEE Spectrum, January 1986, p. 64, reports the following:

  The building of engineering expertise into single-loop controllers
  is beginning to bear fruit in the form of a self-tuning process
  controller.  The Foxboro Co. in Foxboro, Mass., included self-tuning
  features in its Model 760 single-loop controller as well as in
  three other controller-based products.  Common PID (proportional,
  integral, and derivative) controllers made by Foxboro now have a
  built-in microprocessor with some 200 production rules; the loop-tuning
  rules have evolved over the last 40 years both at Foxboro and
  elsewhere.  The Foxboro self-tuning method is a pattern recognition
  approach that allows the user to specify desirable temporal
  response to disturbances in the controlled parameter or in the
  controlled set point.  The controller then observes the actual
  shape of these disturbances and adjusts its PID values to restore
  the desirable response.

Asea also makes a self-tuning controller, Novatune, but the current
version requires substantial knowledge of stochastic control theory
to install.


Lisp Machine Inc. has now installed PICON, its expert system for
real-time process control, at about a half-dozen sites.  It has also
announced support for GM's MAP communication protocol for factory
automation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
9
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1986 18:50 PLT
-FROM-
From: George Cross  <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: System V Franz?
-BODY-
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>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 10:42:00-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 query
-BODY-
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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 11:06 IST
-FROM-
From: Amir Toister  <J65%TAUNIVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: help
-BODY-

CAN ANYONE HELP ME LOCATE:
             PROF. F. BOUILLE
             LABORATOIRE D'INFORMATIQUE
             DES SCIENCE DE LA TERRE,
             UNIV. PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE.
             PARIS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 15:04:24 est
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Two questions on knowledge-engineering software
-BODY-
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?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 09:47:20 cet
-FROM-
From: JOHND%IDUI1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Supercomputers and AI
-BODY-
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)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 9:21:58 MET
-FROM-
From: mcvax!delphi.UUCP!mdc@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and process control
-BODY-
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]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jan 86 17:12:15 EST
-FROM-
From: David.Plaut@K.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What is a symbol?
-BODY-
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-
-VOL-
4

-N-
10
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 23:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: nettalk
-BODY-

Several people inquired about the work of Terrence Sejnowski (of Johns
Hopkins) which was reported on the Today show recently.  This abstract is to
a talk given by Sejnowski here at Penn in October '85:

             NETTALK: TEACHING A MASSIVELY-PARALLEL NETWORK TO TALK

                             TERRENCE J. SEJNOWSKI
                             BIOPHYSICS DEPARTMENT
                           JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
                              BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Text  to  speech  is a difficult problem for rule-based systems because English
pronunciation is highly context dependent and  there  are  many  exceptions  to
phonological   rules.      A   more   suitable   knowledge  representation  for
correspondences between letters and phonemes will be described in  which  rules
and  exceptions  are  treated  uniformly  and can be determined with a learning
algorithm.  The architecture is a layered network  of  several  hundred  simple
processing  units  with several thousand weights on the connections between the
units.  The training corpus is continuous informal speech transcribed from tape
recordings.   Following training on 1000 words from this corpus the network can
generalize to novel text.  Even though this network was not designed  to  mimic
human  learning,  the development of the network in some respects resembles the
early stages in human  language  acquisition.    It  is  conjectured  that  the
parallel  architecture  and  learning algorithm will also be effective on other
problems which depend on evidential reasoning from previous experience.

(No - I don't have his net address.  Tim.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jan 86  1225 PST
-FROM-
From: Richard Vistnes <RV@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: John Hopkins learning machine: info
-BODY-
See AIList Digest V3 #183 (10 Dec 1985) for a talk given at Stanford
a little while ago that sounds very similar.  The person is:

    Terrence J. Sejnowski
    Biophysics Department
    Johns Hopkins University
    Baltimore, MD 21218

(I didn't attend the talk).
        -Richard Vistnes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 86 0:19:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Terry Sejnowski <terry@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Inquiries
-BODY-
        NBC ran a short segment last Monday, January 13, on the
Today Show about my research on a connectionist model of text-to-speech.
The segment was meant for a general audience (waking up)
and all the details were left out, so here is an abstract for
those who have asked for more information.  A technical report is
available (Johns Hopkins Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Technical Report EECS-8601) upon request.

        NETtalk: A Parallel Network that Learns to Read Aloud

                Terrence Sejnowski
                Department of Biophysics
                Johns Hopkins University
                Baltimore, MD 21218

                Charles R. Rosenberg
                Department of Psychology
                Princeton Unviversity
                Princeton, NJ 08540

Unrestricted English text can be converted to speech by applying
phonological rules and handling exceptions with a look-up table.
However, this approach is highly labor intensive since each entry
and rule must be hand-crafted.  NETtalk is an alternative approach
that is based on an automated learning procedure for a parallel
network of deterministic processing units.  After training on a
corpus of informal continuous speech, it achieves good performance
and generalizes to novel words.  The distributed representations
discovered by the network are damage resistant and recovery from
damage is about ten times faster than the original learning
starting from the same level of performance.


Terry Sejnowski

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 12:53 EST
-FROM-
From: Mark Beutnagel <Beutnagel%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: speech learning machine
-BODY-
The speech learning machine referred to in a recent AIList is almost
certainly a connection machine built by Terry Sejnowski.  The system
consists of a maybe 200 processing elements (or simulations of such)
and weighted connections between them.  Input is a small window of
text (5 letters?) and output is phonemes.  The system learns (i.e.
modifies weights) based on a comparison of the predicted phoneme with
the "correct" phoneme.  After running overnight the output was
recognizable speech--good but still slightly mechanical.  Neat stuff
but nothing mystical.

>- Mark Beutnagel  (The above is my recollection of Terry's talk here
                    at UPenn last fall so don't quote me.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 19 Jan 86 12:31:31-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Speech Learning
-BODY-
I'll have a try at summarizing Terry's talk at Stanford/CSLI:

The speech learning machine is a three-layer "perceptron-like"
network.  The bottom layer of 189 "processing units" simply encodes a
7-character window of input text: each character (or space) activates
one of 27 output lines and suppresses 26 other lines.

The top, or output, layer represents a "coarse coding" of the phoneme
(or silence) which should be output for the character at the center
of the 7-character window.  Each bit, or output line, of the top layer
represents some phoneme characteristic: vowel/consonant, voiced,
fricative, etc.  Each legal phoneme is thus represented by a particular
output pattern, but some output patterns might not correspond to legal
phonemes.  (I think they were mapped to silence in the recording.)
The output was used for two purposes: to compute a feedback error signal
used in training the machine, and to feed the output stage of a DecTalk
speech synthesizer so that the output could be judged subjectively.

The heart of the system is a "hidden layer" of about 200 processing
units, together with several thousand interconnections and their weights.
These connect the 189 first-level outputs to the small number of output
processing units.  It is the setting of the weight coefficients for this
network that is the central problem.

Input to the system was a page of a child's speech that had be transcribed
in phonetic notation by a professional.  Correspondence had been established
between each input letter and the corresponding phoneme (or silence), and
the coarse coding of the phonemes was known.  For any possible output of the
machine it was thus possible to determine which bits were correct and which
were incorrect.  This provided the error signal.

Unlike the Boltzmann Machine or the Hopfield networks, Sejnowski's algorithm
does not require symmetric excitory/inhibitory connections between the
processing units -- the output computation is strictly feed-forward.
Neither did this project require simulated annealing, although some form
of stochastic training or of "inverse training" on wrong inputs might be
helpful in avoiding local minima in the weight space.

What makes this algorithm work, and what makes it different from multilayer
perceptrons, is that the processing nodes do not perform a threshold
binarization.  Instead, the output of each unit is a sigmoid function of
the weighted sum of its inputs.  The sigmoid function, an inverse
exponential, is essentially the same one used in the Boltzmann Machine's
stochastic annealing; it also resembles the response curve of neurons.
Its advantage over a threshold function is that it is differentiable.
This permits the error signal to be propagated back through each
processing unit so that appropriate "blame" can be attributed to each
of the hidden units and to each of the connections feeding the hidden
units.  The back-propagated error signals are exactly the partial
derivatives needed for steepest-descent optimization of the network.

Subjective results: The output of the system for the page of text was
originally just a few random phonemes with no information content.  After
sufficient training on the correct outputs the machine learned to "babble"
with alternating vowels or vowel/consonants.  After further training it
discovered word divisions and then began to be intelligible.  It could
eventually read the page quite well, with a distinctly childish accent
but with mechanical pacing of the phonemes.  It was then presented with
a second page of text and was able to read that quite well also.

I have seen some papers by Sejnowski, Kienker, Hinton, Schumacher,
Rumelhart, and Williams exploring variations of this machine learning
architecture.  Most of the work has concerned very simple, but
difficult, problems, such as learning to compute exclusive OR or the
sum of two two-bit numbers.  More complex tasks involved detecting
symmetries in binary matrices and computing figure/ground (or
segmentation) relationships in noisy images with an associated focus
of attention.  I find the work promising and even exciting.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
11
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jan 86 01:18:00 PST
-FROM-
From: sea.wolfgang@ames-vmsb.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: sea.wolfgang@ames-vmsb.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Language Standard
-BODY-

 I am currently involved in the definition of some loose LISP
programming standards [loose LISP sink ships], has anyone given any
thought to this, particularly as it applies to LISP environments,
or does anyone know of any articles on the topic?.
 I will be happy to collect responses and send them back out on the
List.
 Thank you,

S. Engle, Informatics General Co.
NASA/Ames Research Center MS 242-4
Moffet Field, CA 95035

SEA.WOLFGANG@AMES-VMSB.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 04:18:25 cst
-FROM-
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction
-BODY-
[Joseph Rockmore, vice president of Reasoning Systems, says that the
Spang Robinson report on his company's agreement with Lockheed was
correct, but that the summary in AIList incorrectly identified his
company's work with "USC Kestrel Institute".  He points out that
Reasoning Systems is associated with Kestrel, but that neither is
associated with USC-ISI.  Laurence Leff has provided the following
additional summary in the course of resolving this matter.  Contact
rockmore@kestrel.ARPA for further information.  -- KIL]


In my abstracts of Spang Robinson Report, I reported parenthetically
that Reasoning Systems is commercializing the work of [...] Kestrel Institute.
That parenthetical statement was based on my own analysis of the
situation and was not included in the Spang Robinson report.  My apologies
for any confusion created.

Its was based on what I perceived to be a similarity between the work
and the fact that one person has moved from that organization over to
Reasoning Systems (as indicated in the address of authors section of
IEEE Transactions on software Engineering).  Also, quoting from
"Software Environments at Kestrel Institute" in the November 1985
Volume Se-11 No 11, "One of the authors (G. B. Kotik) is currently with
Reasoning Systems, a company founded in 1984 in order to apply the body
of basic research in knowledge-based programing to commercial problems.
Reasoning Systems develops special-purpose knowledge-based program
generators and programming environments for various domains."  and
later in the same article "Toward these ends, Reasoning Systems has
developed a system called REFINE,"  "Although REFINE derives its
inspiration from many sources, it utilizes the principles and system
structure laid out in the CHI project."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 21 Jan 86 13:52:27-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Supercomputers
-BODY-
On January 17, UCSD offered a one-day program, called "Capabilities and
Applications of the San Diego Supercomputer Center", in conjunction with
the opening of their new center.  One of the talks was "AI and Expert Systems
on Supercomputers" by Dr. Robert Leary, a Senior Staff Scientist at the
San Diego Supercomputer Center.  I didn't attend the course but heard that
Leary's talk was preliminary and did not present any significant applica-
tions.  Further information can probably be obtained from SDSC on the UCSD
campus or from UCSD Extension.  The address of UCSD is La Jolla, CA 92903.

Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 09:52:16 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS
-BODY-
   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.
   * * *
   Can anyone tell   me about  the   system?  What   does  it do?
   What representation and search techniques are available through it?

It's a logic programming system written in Lisp.  The principal
underlying inference engine is resolution, you can also do forward &
backward chaining.  The name means `Metalevel Reasoning System'
because you can write meta-level axioms, axioms about the base level
knowledge -- usually these meta axioms are used to guide the
search-based inference procedures.  I hear the latest version lets one
write meta-meta-axioms, meta-meta-meta-axioms, etc ("Anything you can
do, I can do Meta," as Brachman says).

For background see "An Overview of Meta-Level Architecture" Genesereth
AAAI-83.  Stanford Heuristic Programming Project probably has some
kind of MRS manual; there's also an `MRS Dictionary' but that's really
more of a reference tool.

   Can it handle frames?  Semantic networks?   Certainty factors?

It can `handle' anything you can write in lisp... does it provide
any of these facilities, No, I don't think so.

   How does it work as an expert-system development environment?

Good question.  How does Lisp work as an expert-system environment?

For applications to troubleshooting & test generation see Genesereth,
AAAI-82; Yamada, IJCAI-83; Singh's PhD thesis from Stanford (1985);
Genesereth in AI Journal V 24 #1-3 or `Qualitative Reasoning about
Physical Systems', ed. Bobrow.  It's NOT a traditional expert-system
envirionment ala KEE, ART, S1, DUCK, etc.

           Most importantly, how does a  university acquire MRS?

Jane Hsu (HSU@SCORE) should be able to tell you all about this.  I
believe she's charge of maintenance & distribution.  She may refer you
on to Arthur Whitney, but try Jane first.

   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?

For some reason the figure $500 sounds right, but don't quote me.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86 10:43:33 PST
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What's a paradigm?
-BODY-
A classic attempt to figure out just what the devil Kuhn means by
`paradigm' is Margaret Masterman's `The nature of a paradigm' (in
_Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge_, I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave,
eds.).  She finds 21 ("possibly more, not less") senses of the term
in the first edition of _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_;
take your pick.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 02:16:17 PST
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What is a symbol?
-BODY-
>....  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.
...
>        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.

I think at least two concepts, not just one, need some work here: it
would help to have a better idea not only of what symbols are, but
also of what operating on a symbol is.

Under what one might call the Turing conception of `operating on a
symbol'-- a strong, agentive interpretation: symbols are objects that
get manipulated by a processor, e.g. written on and erased from a
tape, or shuffled from location to location--I think that it's
probably true that connectionist systems do not `operate' on symbols
that have interesting external referents.  But I doubt that the
majority of workers in AI believe that in this sense `operating on
symbols' is necessary for the production of intelligent action, and so
there is no conflict with connectionism; that construal of the PSSH is
easy enough to give up.  (That `operating on symbols' in the Turing
sense be sufficient for the production of intelligent action is,
however, pretty clearly an underlying assumption of work in the field;
but of course this doesn't conflict with connectionism either.)

On the other hand, a weaker interpretation of what operating on
symbols amounts to gives a PSSH that is compatible with connectionism,
not to mention being more likely to be true.  Certainly what's
important about symbols for theory construction in AI is that they
have formal properties which determine their interactions with other
symbols without regard to any semantic properties they might have,
while being susceptible of being assigned semantic properties in a way
that is dependent on these interactions.  (Anyway I don't think it's
helpful to require of a symbol that its `internal structure places no
restrictions on what it may represent', at least without further
specification of what counts as internal structure.  Take an English
word: `symbol', say.  What's between the quotes is a symbol, I'd
think, but intuitively its internal structure places pretty strong
restrictions on what it represents: try composing it of six different
letters, for example.)  But then they don't need to be objects;
symbols can be states, and the formal properties which determine their
interaction (`operations' on them) can be identified with certain of
their causal properties.  Now, one way a system can be in symbolic
states is to operate on symbols in the strong, Turing sense; but this
is only one way.  Symbolic states can also be emergent states of a
connectionist system.


Paul Kube
Computer Science Division
U.C. Berkeley
Berkeley, CA  94720

kube@cogsci.berkeley.edu
ucbvax!kube

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 86 16:57:43 mst
-FROM-
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: today show segment
-BODY-
I think that the work that was mentioned recently in the digest
from the today show (which I didn't see) was the speech synthesis
work which was described earlier on the aidigest (sketchily). I
don't remember the contact (sejnowski??), but the machine was a
neural analog network that modified it's own weights when given a
training corpus of textual english with correct voice synthesizer
outputs. Then, when given more english (it wasn't clear that this
new text had not appeared in the original training corpus) the
machine produced coherent control inputs for the voice
synthesizer.

Claims that ``it learns to speak the way that human babies do''
and so on are obviously bunk since people don't learn initially
to read text and because people also have to derive the
correlation between their motor stimulation (essentially the
voice synthesizer control level), the sound thereby produced and
the percepts that are returned via their ears.  A measure of the
comparative difficulty is that programs which do text to speech
conversion extremely well have been existence for several years
(DECtalk is the current avatar), but no program can yet even
reproduce an infant's use of auditory language.  Certainly, no-one
can be claiming that a program that can learn to do the former
must be able to consequently be able to learn to do the latter,
much less that the acquisition method that would be used is the
one used by human children.

The most interesting thing is that my original contact with the
author of the project in question (I think), is that he never
mentioned this sort of comparison.

sigh....the original work was interesting, possibly even
progressive.  But then here comes the today show interviewers
looking for a BREAKTHROUGH.  So they find (make) one and we hear
about another case of ai-hype.  Everybody get ready for another
wave of flames.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News Flash
-BODY-
Source: January 16 Wall Street Journal  FIRST Page

"CPA firm Arthur Young unveils a computer system today that uses expert
systems to help the auditor focus on areas where risk of error is greatest.
The system could mean average savings of 10% in time and money, says
Arthur Young's Robert Temkin"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
12
-DATE-
Date: 22 Dec 1985 1822-PST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: Steven Tepper <greep@camelot>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: modulated kitchens and superior borders
-BODY-
>From a recent issue of the Chronicle:

        "When you mount the cooker hood on a modulated kitchen,
        please care that the superior border of the caliber is
        on the inferior border of the incorporated board.  When
        you fix the cooker hood to the incorporated board, please
        set this border on the wall up on the bottom of the
        incorporated board and use the unhooped holes."

   Instructions for fitting a stove hood made in Italy by the Zanussi
   company.  The Plain English Campaign in London has awarded the
   directions its annual prize for the worst example of bureaucratic
   language, citing an "incompetent and baffling translation from an
   unknown language into sub-English."


   [This should give the machine translation people something to
   shoot for.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 86 09:59 EST
-FROM-
From: Sonny Crockett <weltyc%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A good one on HAL
-BODY-
        I just got the videotape of 2010, and figured out what Dr. Chandra
said about the reason HAL screwed up in the first mission.  The major
problem most SF authors have is trying to come up with ways to express
advanced scientific things in a way that sounds very scientific...this
is a great one:

        (Dr. Chandra has just finished explaining that HAL was given
         conflicting orders, and was only trying to interpret them
         the best he could)
        "...HAL was trapped, more precisely he got caught in an H. Mobius
         Loop, which is possible in autonomous call-seeking computers."

I thought it was funny, anyway...

                                -Chris

PS  If anyone (like me) enjoys laughing at these kind of "pseudo-science"
    phrases, I recommend watching Dr. Who (most famous for "Multi-dimensional
    Time/Space Vortex"), and Star Trek ("Hodgkins Theory for Parallel Planet
    Development," is one of my favorites).  I'm sure there are many others
    as well.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 85 16:11:46 pst
-FROM-
From: Alain Fournier <fournier@su-navajo.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: fournier@Navajo.UUCP (Alain Fournier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic & Humor - Proof that P = NP
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


> From: Len <Lattanzi@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
>
> $15 to anyone who can prove P = NP.
>
> #8^)
> Len


This is an old one, but what the hell, it's $15.00:


       -----------------------------------
       |   Exactly 2 of the statements   |
       |   in these 3 boxes are false    |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------


       -----------------------------------
       |                                 |
       |            P != NP              |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------


       -----------------------------------
       |   The statement in the first    |
       |   box is true.                  |
       |                                 |
       -----------------------------------

It is left to the reader to show that assuming statement 1 is true leads
to a contradiction, so 1 is false, therefore 3 is false, and 2 has to be false.
The same conclusion is reached if the truth value of 3 is examined.
So 2 is false, and P=NP, QED.
The $15 can be sent in my name to my favourite charity, the Douglas Hofstadter
Home for the Terminally Self-Referential. An accompanying note should specify
that I requested that my gift should have no accompanying note.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: January 17, 1986,  5:51 PM.
-FROM-
From: <1gtlmkf%calstate.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Othello Tournament Information
-BODY-
For anyone who might be interested in the upcoming Computer Othello
Tournament at CSU, Northridge on February 15-16:

Yoy may contact the tournament organizers over BITNET at the following
addresses --

     Brian Swift (AGTLBJS@CALSTATE.BITNET)
     Marc Furon  (1GTLMKF@CALSTATE.BITNET)

Any questions or requests for information about the tournament may be
sent to either of us at the addresses above.  We look forward to a
successful tournament and hope to hear from any and all interested Othello
programmers.

Thanks to Kurt Godden for sending the announcement to AILIST.

                                       Marc Furon

Yes, Othello is a trademark of CBS Toys.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 09:52:55 EST
-FROM-
From: "Richard E. Cullingford" <rec%gatech.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new AI text
-BODY-

This note is an announcement of a new AI book which may be of interest
to the readers of this newsgroup. The book is "Natural Language
Processing: A Knowledge Engineering Approach," and it will be
available from Rowman & Allanheld, Publishers, of Totowa, NJ,
early in the spring of 1986. The work is intended as a practical
introduction to a theory and technology for building natural
language text-processing interfaces to database management
or expert reasoning systems. The text has been in use, in manuscript, in
courses at Princeton University and Georgia Tech for the past two years,
and extensive course materials have been developed. A software system,
the NLP Toolkit, is also available, through the publisher, that runs all
of the text's examples, and is suitable for experimentation by teachers
and programmers. The Toolkit contains representation design tools, a
conceptual analyzer, a conceptual generator, a large shared dictionary,
and a knowledge-base management support package.

Questions regarding the book and the programs can be addressed to
the author, Richard E. Cullingford, at the School of Information &
Computer Science, georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332; at (404) 894-3227;
or gatech!rec (uucp) or rec@gatech (csnet). The book's table of contents
follows:

               Table Of Contents
Natural Language Processing: A Knowledge Engineering Approach

Preface
Notes on the Use of This Book
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
Table of Diagrams
Table of Figures

Chapter 1: Natural Language Processing: An Overview

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Related Fields: An Overview
 1.1.1 NLP, Artificial Intelligence, and Knowledge Engineering
 1.1.2 NLP and the Sciences of Language
1.2 NLP Efforts in AI
 1.2.1 Early Efforts
 1.2.2 Second Generation Systems
 1.2.3 Third Generation Systems: A Look into the Future
1.3 Outline of the Book

Part I: A General-Purpose Language Processing Interface

Chapter 2: An Introduction to Representation Design

2.0 The Representation Problem
2.1 The Need for a Formal Representational System
2.2 Requirements on a Representational System
2.3 Introduction to ERKS
        2.3.1 The ISA-Hierarchy of the Core System
        2.3.2 Criteria for Selection of the Primitive Types
2.4 ERKS in LISP
2.5 The Maximal Inference-Free Paraphrase
2.6 Building a Model Corpus
2.7 A Simple Corpus
2.8 Primitive Actionals and Statives
2.9 Conceptual Relationships
2.10 A Representational Case Study: CADHELP
        2.10.1 The CADHELP Microworld
        2.10.2 A Typical Command
        2.10.3 Knowledge Representation Issues
2.11 Summary


Chapter 3: Software Tools for Representation Design

3.0 Introduction
3.1 Navigating in an ISA-Hierarchy
3.2 Defining ERKS Types
3.3 Access and Updating Machinery
3.4 The def-wordsense Record Macro
3.5 Summary

Chapter 4: Surface-Semantic Conceptual Analysis

4.0 Introduction: Lexicon-Driven Analysis
4.1 A Simple Model of Sentence Structure
4.2 Production Systems, Requests, and Processing Overview
4.3 Request Pool Consideration
   4.3.1 Analysis Environment
   4.3.2 Request Types
4.4 Requests in More Detail
4.5 Morphological Fragments and "to be"
4.6 A Processing Example
4.7 Summary

Chapter 5: Problems in Conceptual Analysis

5.0 Introduction
5.1 Tri-Constituent Forms and Imbedded Sentences
        5.1.1 Handling Indirect Objects
        5.1.2 Infinitives and Gerunds
        5.1.3 Relative Clauses
5.2 Prepositions and "to be," Revisited
5.3 Word Meaning Disambiguation
        5.3.1 Pronominal Reference
5.4 Coordinate Constructions
5.5 Ellipsis Expansion
5.6 A Concluding Example
5.7 Summary

Chapter 6: Generating Natural Language from a Conceptual Base

6.0 Introduction
6.1 Overview of Generation Process
6.2 Dictionary Entries
6.3 Morphology and the Verb Kernel
   6.3.1 Plural and Possessive Morphology
   6.3.2 Subject-Verb Agreement and Modals
   6.3.3 Tensing
   6.3.4 Subject-Auxiliary Inversion
6.4 "Advanced" English Syntax
   6.4.1 The Infinitive Construction
   6.4.2 The Possessive Sketchifier
   6.4.3 The Entity-Reference Sketchifier
6.5 A Processing Example
6.6 Summary

Part II: Building a Conversationalist

Chapter 7: Summarizing Knowledge Bases

7.0 Introduction: What to Say versus How to Say It
7.1 Explanations as Summaries
7.2 Explanations in CADHELP
7.3 Representational Overview
7.4 Concept Selection
7.5 An Example
7.6 Summary

Chapter 8: Knowledge-Base Management

8.0 Introduction
8.1 KB Organization
   8.1.1 The Slot-Filler Tree
   8.1.2 Slot-Filler Tree Construction
   8.1.3 Index Quality
   8.1.4 Best-First Ordering of KB Items
8.2 KB Search
   8.2.1 The Tree Search Mechanism
8.3 Performance
8.4 Summary

Chapter 9: Commonsense Reasoning

9.0 Introduction: The Need for Reasoning in Language Understanding
9.1 Deductive Retrieval
9.2 YADR, Yet Another Deductive Retriever
9.3 The YADR Interface
9.4 The YADR Top Level
9.5 Logical Connectives in Antecedent Forms
9.6 Summary

Chapter 10: Putting It All Together: A Goal-Directed Conversationalist

10.0 Introduction
10.1 The ACE Microworld
10.2 A Model of Purposive Conversation
10.3 The Conversational Strategist
10.4 The Conversational Tactician
10.5 The Academic Scheduling Expert
10.6 More Problems in Language Understanding
    10.6.1 Coordinate Constructions and Ellipses
    10.6.2 Defining "And" for the Analyzer
    10.6.3 Using Expectations during Analysis
10.7 More Problems in Language Generation
    10.7.1 Asking Questions
    10.7.2 Producing Coordinate Constructions
    10.7.3 Generating Attributes, Absolute Times, Locales, and Names
10.8 Putting It All Together: A Session with ACE
10.9 Parting Words

Appendix I: The ERKS Types
Appendix II: Source for YADR, Yet Another Deductive Retriever
Appendix III: Glossary of Terms

                        Rich Cullingford

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
13
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 15:22:41-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Controlling Backward Inference (SRI)
-BODY-
                    CONTROLLING BACKWARD INFERENCE

                   Dave Smith (DE2SMITH@SUMEX-AIM)
                       Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, January 20
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Effective control of inference is a critical problem in Artificial
Intelligence.  Expert systems have made use of powerful
domain-dependent control information to beat the combinatorics of
inference.  However, it is not always feasible or convenient to
provide all of the domain-dependent control that may be needed,
especially for systems that must handle a wide variety of inference
problems, or must function in a changing environment.  In this talk a
powerful domain-independent means of controlling inference is
proposed.  The basic approach is to compute expected cost and
probability of success for different backward inference strategies.
This information is used to select between inference steps and to
compute the best order for processing conjuncts.  The necessary
expected cost and probability calculations rely on simple information
about the contents of the problem solvers database, such as the number
of facts of each given form and the domain sizes for the predicates
and relations involved.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01/16/86 17:18:02
-FROM-
From: LISA at MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automata Approach to Program Verification (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


                  DATE:  Thursday, January 23, 1986

                  TIME:  3:45 p.m......Refreshments
                        4:00 p.m......Lecture

                         PLACE:  NE43 - 512A


                      "AN AUTOMATA-THEORETIC APPROACH TO
                        AUTOMATIC PROGRAM VERIFICATION"


                                MOSHE Y. VARDI
                          IBM Almaden Research Center


We describe an automata-theoretic approach to automatic verification of
concurrent finite-state programs by model checking.  The basic idea underlying
the approach is that for any temporal formula PHI we can construct an automaton
A(PHI) that accepts precisely the computations that satisfy PHI.  The
model-checking algorithm that results from this approach is much simpler and
cleaner than tableaux-based algorithms.  We also show how the approach can be
extended to probabilistic concurrent finite-state programs.





                                 Albert Meyer
                                     Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 16 Jan 86 11:49:34-EST
-FROM-
From: John J. Doherty <JOHN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Problem Solving for Distributed Systems (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]

        Date:     January 24, 1986
        Place:    NE43-512A
        Time:     Refreshments  2:15 P.M.
                  Seminar       2:30 P.M.

        Problem Solving for Distributed Systems:
         An Uplifting Experiment in Progress

                     Herb Krasner
             Member of the Technical Staff
                         MCC
             Software Technology Project

This presentation describes the empirical studies efforts of the STP
Design Process Group focusing on models of the design process.
Preliminary findings of the "lift" experiment are reported, from which
a model of expert designer behavior and high leverage characteristics is
being derived.  Goals of the pilot study, experimental setup, problem,
data analysis technique, hypotheses and subsequent activities are
discussed.  The "lift" experiment was initiated to examine the early
stages of design problem solving behavior prototypical of users of
the futuristic software design environment LEONARDO. It addresses
the large effect of individual differences on productivity data,
and differs from previous studies in its focus on large-scale
design problems.

Host: Irene Greif

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Jan 86 16:52:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Problem-Solving Languages (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, January 23, 1986

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
                        Computer Problem Solving Languages, Programming
                        Languages and Mathematics
                        Curtis Abbott (Abbott@xerox)


                   Computer Problem Solving Languages,
                  Programming Languages and Mathematics
                                 by the
             Semantically Rational Computer Languages Group

      Programming languages are constrained by the requirement that their
   expressions must be capable of giving rise to behavior in an
   effective, algorithmically specified way.  Mathematical formalisms,
   and in particular languages of logic, are not so constrained, but
   their applicability is much broader than the class of problems anyone
   would think of ``solving'' with computers.  This suggests, and I
   believe, that formal languages can be designed that are connected with
   the concerns associated with solving problems with computers yet not
   constrained by effectiveness in the way programming languages are.  I
   believe that such languages, which I call ``computer problem solving
   languages,'' provide a more appropriate evolutionary path for
   programming languages than the widely pursued strategy of designing
   ``very high level'' programming languages, and that they can be
   integrated with legitimate programming concerns by use of a
   transformation-oriented methodology.  In this presentation, I will
   give several examples of how this point of view impacts language
   design, examples which arise in Membrane, a computer problem solving
   language I am in the process of designing.           --Curtis Abbot

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Jan 86  1639 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Pointwise Circumscription (SU)
-BODY-

                        Pointwise Circumscription

                           Vladimir Lifschitz
                   Thursday, January 23, 4pm, MJH 252

(I have a few copies of the paper in my office, MJH 362).

                                ABSTRACT

        Circumscription is logical minimization, that is, the
minimization of extensions of predicates subject to restrictions
expressed by predicate formulas.  When several predicates are to be
minimized, circumscription is usually thought of as minimization with
respect to an order defined on vectors of predicates, and different
ways of defining this order correspond to different kinds of
circumscription: parallel and prioritized.
        The purpose of this paper is to discuss the following
principle regarding logical minimization:

                Things should be minimized one at a time.

        This means, first of all, that we propose to express the
circumscription of several predicates by the conjunction of several
minimality conditions, one condition for each predicate. The
difference between parallel and prioritized circumscription will
correspond to different selections of predicates allowed to vary in
each minimization.
        This means, furthermore, that we propose to modify the
definition of circumscription so that it will become an "infinite
conjunction" of "local" minimality conditions; each of these
conditions expresses the impossibility of changing the value of the
predicate from True to False at one point. (Formally, this "infinite
conjunction" will be represented by means of a universal quantifier).
This is what we call "pointwise circumscription".
        We argue that this approach to circumscription is conceptually
simpler than the traditional ``global'' approach and, at the same
time, leads to generalizations with the additional flexibility and
expressive power needed in applications to the theory of commonsense
reasoning. Its power is illustrated, in particular, on a problem posed
by Hanks and McDermott, which apparently cannot be solved using other
existing formalizations of non-monotonic reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 10:44:43 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Methodological Issues in Speech Recognition (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh,
and Artificial Intelligence Applications Institute
Edinburgh Artificial Intelligence Seminars


Speaker - Dr. Henry Thompson, Dept. of A.I., University of Edinburgh

Title - Methodological issues in Speech Recognition

Abstract - What methodological issues arise from the belief that fully
automatic high quality unrestricted speech recognition is impossible,
when one has overall technical responsibility for a multi-year
multi-million pound Alvey Large Scale Demonstrator?  I will give a
brief overview of the overall structure of the project, and discuss at
more length two basic issues:

> Why top-down vs. bottom-up is the wrong question, and selectional vs.
  instructional interaction is the right question, and what the right
  answer is.

> How giving up on fully automatic ... changes the way you do things
  in surprising ways.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 23:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionistic Logic Programming (UPenn)
-BODY-
From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn>

                       UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
           An Intuitionistic Basis for Extending Logic Programming
                              Dale Miller
                Tuesday 28 Jan 86, 4:30 - 6:00, 4E17 DRL

There is a very natural extension to Horn clauses which involves extending
the use of implication.  This extension has a natural operational semantics
which is not sound with respect to classical logic.  We shall show that
intuitionistic logic, via possible worlds semantics, provides the necessary
framework to give a sound and complete justification of this operational
semantics.  This will be done by providing a least fix-point construct of a
Kripke-model.  We shall also show how this logic can be used to provide
logic programming languages with a logical foundations for each of the
following programming features:  program modules, recursive call memo-izing,
and local environments (permanent vs. temporary asserts).  This extension to
logic programming can also simulate various features of negation - not
through logical incompleteness as in negation-by-failure, but through
constructing proofs of a certain kind.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
14
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 86 11:20:57 pst
-FROM-
From: bcsaic!john@uw-june.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Knowledge Acquisition for KB Systems
-BODY-
                            Call for Participation
          KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS WORKSHOP

                                 Sponsored by
           AMERICIAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AAAI)

                                Banff, CANADA
                             November 3-7, 1986

The bottleneck in the process of building knowledge-based  systems  is  usally
acquiring  the  appropriate  problem solving knowledge.  The objective of this
workshop is to assemble theoriticians and practioners of AI who recognize  the
need for developing systems that assist the knowledge acquisition process.

To encourage vigorous interaction and exchange of ideas the workshop  will  be
kept  small  -  about 30 participants.  There will be individual presentations
and ample time for technical discussions.  An attempt will be made  to  define
the state-of-the-art and the future research needs.

Papers are invited for consideration in all aspects of  knowledge  acquisition
for knowledge-based systems, including (but not restricted to):

      o  Transfer of expertise - systems which interview experts to obtain and
         structure knowledge.

      o  Transfer of expertise -  manual  knowledge  engineering  interviewing
         methods and techniques.

      o  Induction of knowledge from examples.

      o  Knowledge acquisition methodology.

Four copies of an extended abstract  (up  to  8  pages,  double-spaced)  or  a
full-length  paper should be sent to the workshop chairman before May 1, 1986.
Acceptance notices will be mailed by July  1.   Revised  abstracts  should  be
returned  to  the  chairman  by  October  1,  1986,  so that they may be bound
together for distribution at the workshop.  Potential  attendees  should  also
indicate  their  interest  in  chairing  or  participating  in  special  topic
discussion sessions.

Co-Chairmen:

John Boose (send papers here)
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
Boeing Computer Services
M/S 7A-03
PO Box 24346
Seattle, Washington, USA, 98124
(206) 763-5811

and

Brian Gaines
Department of Computer Science
University of Calgary
2500 University Dr. NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4
(403) 220-6015



Program and local arrangements comittee:

Jeff Bradshaw, Boeing Computer Services
William Clancey, Stanford University
Cathy Kitto, Boeing Computer Services
Janusz Kowalik, Boeing Computer Services
John McDermott, Carnegie-Mellon University
Ryszard Michalski, Univ. of Illinois (tentative)
Art Nagai, Boeing Computer Services
Mildred Shaw, University of Calgary


                        John Boose, Boeing Artficial Intelligence Center
                                7A-03, PO Box 24346,
                                Seattle, Wa., 98124, (206) 763-5811

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 9 Jan 86 09:04:20-MST
-FROM-
From: "Robert M. Keller" <Keller@UTAH-20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symposium on Logic Programming
-BODY-
                                    '86 SLP
                                Call for Papers
                     Third Symposium on Logic Programming

                    Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

                             September 21-25, 1986

                               Westin Hotel Utah
                              Salt Lake City, UT

The conference solicits papers  on all areas  of logic programming,  including,
but not confined to:

        Applications of logic programming
        Computer architectures for logic programming
        Databases and logic programming
        Logic programming and other language forms
        New language features
        Logic programming systems and implementation
        Parallel logic programming models
        Performance
        Theory

Please submit full papers, indicating accomplishments of substance and novelty,
and including appropriate citations of related work.  The suggested page  limit
is 25 double-spaced pages.  Send eight copies of your manuscript no later  than
15 March 1986 to:

                        Robert M. Keller
                        SLP '86 Program Chairperson
                        Department of Computer Science
                        University of Utah
                        Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Acceptances will be mailed by 30 April 1986.  Camera-ready copy will be due  by
30 June 1986.

Conference Chairperson                  Exhibits Chairperson
Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah      Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.

Tutorials Chairperson                   Local Arrangements Chairperson
George Luger, University of New Mexico  Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

                          Program Committee

Francois Bancilhon, MCC                 William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
John Conery, University of Oregon       Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley               George Luger, University of New Mexico
Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich            Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
Seif Haridi, SICS, Sweden               Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
Lynette Hirschman, SDC, Paoli           Mark Stickel, SRI International
Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego                 Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 86 19:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Hewitt@MIT-MC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - OIS-86
-BODY-
Because of the delay in the distribution of the call for papers for OIS-86 in
the Newsletter, we have decided to postpone the deadline for paper submission
from February 1 to March 1, 1986 in order to satisfy the requirements for
broad distribution of the call.

Enclosed please find the updated call for papers which reflects this change:

*******************       C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S
*                 * ----------------------------------------------
*                 *          Third ACM Conference On
*                 *        OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
*     OIS-86      *
*                 *            October 6-8, 1986
*                 *           Biltmore Plaza Hotel
*                 *              Providence, RI
******************* -------------------------------------------------


General Chair:  Carl Hewitt,          Topics appropriate for this
                MIT                   conference include (but are not
                                      restricted to) the following as they
Program Chair:  Stanley Zdonik,       relate to OIS:
                Brown University
                                         Technologies including Display, Voice,
Treasurer:  Gerald Barber,               Telecommunications, Print, etc.
            Gold Hill Computers
                                         Human Interfaces
Local Arrangements: Andrea Skarra,
                    Brown University     Deployment and Evaluation

An interdisciplinary conference on       System Design and Construction
issues relating to office
information systems (OIS) sponsored      Goals and Values
by ACM/SIGOIS in cooperation with
Brown University and the MIT             Distributed Services and Applications
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
Submissions from the following           Knowledge Bases and Reasoning
fields are solicited:
                                         Distributed Services and Applications
   Anthropology
   Artificial Intelligence               Indicators and Models
   Cognitive Science
   Computer Science                      Needs and Organizational Factors
   Economics
   Management Science                    Impact of Computer Integrated
   Psychology                            Manufacturing
   Sociology


The program committee includes:

Bob Allen                       Ray Panko
   Bellcore                         University of Hawaii
Guiseppe Attardi                Robert Rosin
   University of Pisa               Syntrex
James Bair                      Erik Sandewall
   Hewlett Packard                  Linkoping University
Gerald Barber                   Walt Scacci
   Gold Hill Computers              USC
Peter de Jong                   Andrea Skarra
   MIT                              Brown University
Irene Greif                     Susan Leigh Star
   MIT                              Tremont Research Institute
Sidney Harris                   Luc Steels
   Georgia State University         University of Brussels
Carl Hewitt                     Sigfried Treu
   MIT                              University of Pittsburgh
Heinz Klein                     Dionysis Tsichritzis
   SUNY                             University of Geneva
Fred Lochovsky                  Eleanor Wynn
   University of Toronto            Brandon Interscience
Fanya Montalvo                  Aki Yonezawa
   MIT                              Tokyo Institute of Technology
Naja Naffah                     Stanley Zdonik
   Bull Transac                    Brown University
Margrethe Olson
   NYU

Professor J.C.R. Licklider of MIT will be the keynote speaker.

Unpublished papers of up to 5000 words (20 double-spaced pages) are
sought.  The first page of each paper must include the following
information: title, the author's name, affiliations, complete mailing
address, telephone number and electronic mail address where
applicable, a maximum 150-word abstract of the paper, and up to five
keywords (important for the correct classification of the paper).  If
there are multiple authors, please indicate who will present the paper
at OIS-86 if the paper is accepted.  Proceeedings will be distributed
at the conference and will later be available from ACM.  Selected
papers will be published in the ACM Transactions on Office Information
Systems.

Please send eight (8) copies of the paper (which must arrive by March
1, 1986) to:

       Prof. Stan Zdonik
       OIS-86 Program Chair
       Computer Science Department
       Brown University
       P.O. Box 1910
       Providence, RI  02912

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:   Margaret H. Franchi (401) 863-1839.


                            IMPORTANT DATES

     Deadline for Paper Submission (postponed 1 mo.)  March 1, 1986
     Notification of Acceptance:                      April 30, 1986
     Deadline for Final Camera-Ready Copy:            July 1, 1986
     Conference Dates:                                October 6-8, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 16:25:50-PST
-FROM-
From: RUSPINI@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - International Conference on Uncertainty and KBS
-BODY-

                             ANNOUNCEMENT
                                 AND
                           CALL FOR PAPERS

                     INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
                        INFORMATION PROCESSING
                                 AND
                      MANAGEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
                      IN KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS


Paris, France
June 30 - July 4 1986


Supported by:

Ministere de la Recherche
et de la Technologie
AFCET
Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientiique
Societe Francaise de Theorie de l'Informationn

Chairpersons:

Bernadette Bouchon (France)
Ronald R. Yager (United States)

Purpose of the Conference:

The aim of this Conference is to bring together researchers working
on information, uncertain data processing and related topics. The
management of uncertainty is at the heart of many knowledge-based
systems and a number of approaches have been developed for
representing these types of information.

It is hoped that this Conference will provide a useful exchange
between practitioners and theoreticians using these methods.


INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE:

J. Bezdek (U.S.A.)              S.Ovchinnikov (U.S.A.)
C. Carlsson (Finland)           J. Pearl (U.S.A.)
A. De Luca (Italy)              B. Picinbono (France)
Deng Ju-Long (China)            J. Pitrat (France)
H.J. Efstathiou (G.B.)          D. Ralescu (U.S.A.)
C. Gueguen (France)             E. Ruspini (U.S.A.)
S. Guiasu (Canada)              A.P. Sage (U.S.A.)
M.M. Gupta (Canada)             G. Shafer (U.S.A.)
J. Kacprzyk (Poland)            J.C. Simon (France)
J.L. Lauriere (France)          M. Sugeno (Japan)
G. Longo (Italy)                E. Trillas (Spain)
J. Lowrance (U.S.A.)            R. Valee (France)
H.T. Nguyen (U.S.A.)            L.A. Zadeh (U.S.A.)
H.J. Zimmermann (Germany)       H. Akdag (France)
M. Mugur-Schacter (France)      G. Cohen (France)
H. Prade (France)               D. Dubois (France)
E. Sanchez (France)             P. Godlewski (France)
M. Terrenoire (France)

TOPICS:

Knowledge Representation                Uncertainty in Expert Systems
Decision Making with Uncertainty        Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Reasoning
Representation of Commonsense Knowledge
Possibility Measures                    Mathematical Theory of Evidence
Combinatorial Information Theory
Shannon Theory                          Questionnaire Theory
Pattern Recognition and Image Processing
Clustering and Classification           Information Security
Fuzzy Sets in Operations Research

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Papers will be selected on the basis of a 500 word abstract.
Communications will be in FRENCH or ENGLISH.

All abstracts should be sent in triplicate to the Conference Secretary:

                          Professor G. Cohen
                  International Conference I.P.M.U.
                               E.N.S.T.
                           46, rue Barrault
                         75013 PARIS, FRANCE

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: FEBRUARY 15, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 15:58:24 PST
-FROM-
From: tektronix!mako.TEK!jans@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Object-Oriented Programming
-BODY-
Tektronix will be holding four day Introductory Smalltalk-80 classes at three
locations in February, March and April, 1986.  This class will introduce the
student to object oriented programming, enable the student to extend the
Smalltalk language by adding new methods and classes, and prepare the student
to write simple applications, using the model-view-controller paradigm.  Class
notes, two textbooks, and four lunches are included.  Participants should be
experienced in at least one high level programming language.

Also planned is an Advanced Smalltalk-80 class, which will enable the student
to utilize advanced techniques of Smalltalk, including advanced model-view-
controller concepts, project management and team programming, multi-process
programming, and external processes and language interfaces.  Participants will
be expected to understand the major classes of Smalltalk and should have three
to six months of Smalltalk programming experience.

Schedule:
        Intorductory:   Gaithersburg, Maryland  18-21 February 1986
        Introductory:   Dallas, Texas           17-20 March 1986
        Advanced:       Beaverton, Oregon        1- 4 April 1986
        Introductory:   Irvine, California      14-17 April 1986

Contact:
        Sandi Unger, (503)685-2941 for registration information, or
        Mary Wells, (503)685-2947 for information on course content.


:::::: Artificial   Intelligence   Machines   ---   Smalltalk   Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman             Box 1000, MS 60-405     (w)503/685-2956 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans    Wilsonville, OR 97070   (h)503/657-7703 ::::::

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
15
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jan 1986 19:14-EST
-FROM-
From: NGALL@G.BBN.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RT/PC Common Lisp Query
-BODY-
Has anyone heard anything about a Common Lisp for the RT/PC (IBM's
new Risc Engineering Workstation)? (By Lucid perhaps?)

        -- Nick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 January 1986 1326-PST (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robert Leary @ San Diego Supercomputer Center
-BODY-
In re Dallas Webster's short note about Dr. Robert Leary [AIList V4 #11]:

First, a minor correction: UCSD's zip code is 92093, not 92903.

Dr. Leary is with GA Technologies (San Diego) which operates the
Supercomputer center for the University.    You might be able to reach
him thru UCSD, but I think GA Technologies would be a better bet.
The phone book lists:
        GA Technologies, Inc.
        10955 John Jay Hopkins Dr.
and this is my guess:
        La Jolla, CA 92037

Phone (general info): 619-455-3000

An old, but possibly still valid, net address for him is:
        leary%gav@lll-mfe.ARPA

Larry West, UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science, west@nprdc.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1986  08:31:26
-FROM-
From: rjb%allegra.btl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: V4 #11: Quote about "meta"
-BODY-

(Regarding W. Hamscher's response in V4 #11 to a query about MRS:)

Please - let's give credit where it's deserved:  "Anything you can do,
I can do meta" should be attributed to David Levy (via Brian Smith).
I merely used it in a talk at AAAI-80 (hopefully attributing it
to David).

Ron Brachman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 86 17:13:58 CST
-FROM-
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction.
-BODY-
In a recent issue the full name MRS was incorrectly reported.

        MRS = "Modifiable Representation System"

        (source - "MRS Manual", Michael R. Genesereth, et. al.
                1980, Stanford Heuristic Programming Project)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 16:30:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Yung-Jen Hsu <Hsu@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS distribution & maintenance
-BODY-
Walter,

Contrary to what you said in your recent message, which appeared in
AILIST V4 #11, about the distribution and maintenace of MRS, I'm NOT the
person in charge of the matter.  If anyone would like to get a copy of
the MRS system, I believe that the best person(s) to contact is Arthur
Whitney (whitney@sumex) and/or Michael Genesereth (genesereth@sumex).

Best regards.

Jane Hsu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jan 86 16:00:21 PST (Wed)
-FROM-
From: whiting@sri-spam
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS info.
-BODY-
Re:
     Date: Fri, 17 Jan 86
     From: Tom Scott
     Subject: MRS

     Can it (MRS) handle ...   Certainty factors?

The MRS that is available for common distribution doesn't have the
facility for dealing with uncertainty.  An implementation of Dempster's
Rule has been incorporated into a non-official version.  There are some
fairly strong restrictions on this version, but an application using
this version has been implemented.  It seems the situation is more
"MRS's official release doesn't include the ability to deal with
uncertainty, YET", than "MRS can't handle certainty factors".

[Note: "Can it handle Certainty factors?"  has been generalized to "Does
MRS have the ability to deal with uncertainty?".  Certainty factors are
generally associated with MYCIN/E-MYCIN's methodology for dealing with
uncertainty.]

As an aside, Stuart Russell Esq., has put together a manual which is
quite good, "The Compleat (sic) Guide to MRS", Stanford Knowledge
Systems Laboratory Report No. KSL-85-12.

Kevin Whiting

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 16:40:07 PST
-FROM-
From: Kenneth I. Laws <AIList-Request@SRI-AI>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Resumption of AIList Gatewaying
-BODY-
Eric Fair, the Berkeley Postmaster, has been handling the gatewaying
of AIList to the Usenet mod.ai distribution.  [The "mod" stands for
"moderated".]  He has offered to gateway net.ai submissions back to
AIList if we wish.

AIList used to have such an arrangement until our SRI-UNIX gateway
broke.  At that time AIList traffic dropped by about 50%, primarily
through the loss of cross-net discussions (as opposed to seminar
and conference announcements).  I do not know whether net.ai continues
to carry a great deal of non-AIList traffic, nor whether there would
be an increase in useful interchanges if we again make it easy for
academic/foreign Usenet readers to submit material to AIList.  I do not
know whether Usenet readers >>like<< having a "private" discussion
channel in addition to the AIList stream that they get.

I expect that the connection would increase my workload, but I am
willing to take on the moderation as long as no one objects to my just
ignoring net.ai comments that do not seem relevant.  (Sending explict
rejection notices involves numerous hassles, and hardly seems worth
the effort since the submitter has already reached his net.ai audience
and would be unaware of whether AIList also carried the text.)

So, does anyone feel strongly one way or the other?  The default is
to go ahead with the connection, at least until it proves unmanageable.
(I would rather drop seminar notices than lose personal interaction.)

					-- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 15:57:16 -0200
-FROM-
From: mcvax!lifia!rit@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jean-Francois Rit )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Relevance of Theoretical Computer Science to AI
-BODY-

To: AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA
In article <8601151921.AA17286@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:

>  Today's Topics:
>    Description - European Association for Theoretical Computer Science
>  ....
>     In our experience the only reason that a computer
>  scientist who is either actively engaged or interested in
>  theoretical computer science is not a member of EATCS...

I found this message quite interesting...At least because it made me wonder
why it was in mod.ai!
Our Laboratory (LIFIA) clusters research groups in Theoretical CS and in AI.
There are many CS labs in Grenoble, and AI could have as well been separated
from TCS. However I find it quite hard to define any common interest other
than "doing the soft for the future super-computer" which hardly leads to any
tight cooperation (this is my personnal opinion only).

Furthermore, one of the leaders of EATC is M. Nivat :

>TCS Editor:       M. Nivat, Paris
>Past Presidents:  M. Nivat, Paris (1972-1977)

A semestrial course on CS  of whom I attended, where I learnt much (:-) about
automata and grammars but never heard the words AI. (it is said in my lab that
he is not a strong supporter of AI but these are rumors that I could not
personnally verify).

So, are there any AI researchers who feel actively engaged or interested in
TCS?                                      ^^^^^^^^
For example, in working or publishing in one of the following fields :

>     Typical topics discussed during recent ICALP conferences are:
>  computability, automata theory, formal language theory, analysis of
>  algorithms, computational complexity, mathematical aspects of
>  programming language definition, logic and semantics of programming
>  languages, foundations of logic programming, theorem proving, software
>  specification, computational geometry, data types and data structures,
>  theory of data bases and knowledge based systems, cryptography, VLSI
>  structures, parallel and distributed computing, models of concurrency
>  and robotics.
       ^^^^^^^^ (oh oh! robotics indeed?)

>  ... Behind all this lie the major problems of under-
>  standing the nature of computation and its relation to computing
>  methodology. While "Theoretical Computer Science" remains mathematical
>  and abstract in spirit, it derives its motivation from the problems of
>  practical computation.

I don't feel that a major problem for AI researchers is understanding the
nature of computation, I think the AI point of view is much (maybe too much)
broader or at least OPEN toward The "real" universe.
I repeat I'm not opposed to TCS, I just wonder which real links bound TCS and
AI. I'd like to know what other AI , and TCS (if they read mod.ai (-:)
researchers think about that (that's why I submit this to the news).

Jean-Francois Rit
Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et d'Intelligence Artificielle
BP 68
38402 Saint-Martin d'Heres cedex
                        Disclaimer: This is only my postal address!
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!rit


  [I was the one who forwarded the message to AIList -- perhaps
  I have been unduly influenced by the AI "neats" here at SRI-AI.
  I am a "scruffy" (or hacker or pragmatist), but there seem to be
  plenty of people in AI who hold that the problems will fall apart if
  and only if we solve the underlying difficult cases rigorously.  There
  are those in the Representation and Reasoning Group here at the AI
  Center who consider automata theory an appropriate basis for robotic
  perception and action.  Theorem proving is popular with our planning
  group and also underlies part of our natural language understanding
  effort.  Grammar and formal language theories are used in NL
  understanding, although I don't know whether they are considered AI.
  Semantics of [certain] programming languages has been a topic on
  AIList and on the Prolog Digest, and may generate renewed interest
  when CommonLoops and other object-oriented languages become commonly
  available.  Foundations of logic programming is an obvious match, and
  computational geometry is important to those of us in vision research.
  The theory of data bases is intermingled with data abstraction and
  conceptual modeling, as well as with practical development of efficient
  Prolog systems; it will become more important to AI as knowledge-based
  systems become larger.  Parallel and distributed computing (or, at least,
  problem solving) are evidently of interest to the AIers on the PARSYM
  discussion list.  Models of concurrency are important in multiagent
  planning.

  A Stanford professor has requested that I not forward any more articles
  from the "Theory Net" distribution.  I will comply, but I do not agree
  that AI is (or should be) disjoint from CS theory.  The results of
  CS research will be of use in AI, and the needs an theories of AI might
  well inspire further CS research.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
16
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 23:21:15 est
-FROM-
From: Michael Bushnell <mb@ohm.ECE.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers - Blackboard Models for AI in Engineering
-BODY-

======================================================================
|                      CALL FOR PAPERS for the                       |
|                                                                    |
|                     INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR                      |
|                                                                    |
|                ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN ENGINEERING              |
|                    October, 1986 Special Issue                     |
|                                                                    |
| Guest Editors:                                                     |
|                      Pierre Haren, INRIA, France.                  |
|              Mike Bushnell, Carnegie-Mellon University             |
|                                                                    |
| Manuscripts in US should be sent to:                               |
|               Mike Bushnell                                        |
|               Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering    |
|               Carnegie-Mellon University                           |
|               Pittsburgh, PA 15213                                 |
|               USA                                                  |
|               (ARPAnet: mb@ohm.ece.cmu.edu)                        |
| Deadline for receiving manuscripts:  April 1st, 1986               |
|                                                                    |
======================================================================


We are soliciting papers  for a special issue of the International Journal
for AI in Engineering.  This issue will focus on the AI Blackboard model, as
applied to engineering problems.  Papers describing the application of the
Blackboard model to problems in the disciplines of Electrical Engineering,
Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering, Metallurgy, Materials Science, Robotics, and areas of Computer
Science are appropriate.  Papers describing applications to other
disciplines may also be appropriate.  In addition, papers discussing AI
tools that are particularly appropriate for Engineering applications are
most welcome, along with book reviews, letters to the editor, conference
reports, and other relevant news.

All submissions must be original papers written in English and will be
refereed.  The copyright of published papers will be vested with the
publishers.  Contributions will be classified as research papers and
research notes, of up to 5000 equivalent words, or as review articles of up
to 10,000 equivalent words.  Authors wishing to prepare review articles
should contact the editors in advance.  Manuscripts should be typed
double-spaced with wide margins, on one side of the paper only, and
submitted in triplicate.  The article should be preceded by a summary of
not more than 200 words describing the entire paper.  A list of key words is
also required.  The article title should be brief and stated on a separate
page with the author's names and addresses.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 86 16:47:34 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Naive Physics: Knowledge in Pieces (UCB)
-BODY-
                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                     Spring 1986
                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                        Tuesday, January 28, 11:00 - 12:30
[NB. New Location]                2515 Tolman Hall
                      Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30  [location TBA]

                               ``Knowledge in Pieces''
                                  Andrea A. diSessa
                  Math Science and Technology, School of Education

                                      Abstract
                Naive  Physics  concerns  expectations,  descriptions  and
           explanations about the way the physical world works that people
           seem spontaneously to develop through interaction with  it.   A
           recent  upswing in interest in this area, particularly concern-
           ing the relation of naive physics to  the  learning  of  school
           physics,  has  yielded significant interesting data, but little
           in the way of a theoretical foundation.  I would like  to  pro-
           vide  a  sketch of a developing theoretical frame together with
           many examples that illustrate it.

                In broad strokes, one sees a rich but rather shallow (in a
           sense  I  will  define),  loosely coupled knowledge system with
           elements that originate often as minimal abstractions of common
           phenomena.  Rather than a "change of theory" or even a shift in
           content of the  knowledge  system,  it  seems  that  developing
           understanding  of  classroom physics may better be described in
           terms of a change in  structure  that  includes  selection  and
           integration  of  naive knowledge elements into a system that is
           much less data-driven, less context dependent, more capable  of
           "reliable"  (in  a  technical  sense) descriptions and explana-
           tions.  In addition I would like to discuss  some  hypothetical
           changes at a systematic level that do look more like changes of
           theory or belief.  Finally, I would like to consider the poten-
           tial  application  of  this work to other domains of knowledge,
           and the relation  to  other  perspectives  on  the  problem  of
           knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 22 Jan 86 17:32:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Term Rewriting, Theorem Proving, Logic Programming (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


           CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, January 30, 1986

   2:15 p.m.            CSLI Seminar
     Ventura Hall       Term Rewriting Systems and Application to Automated
     Trailer Classroom  Theorem Proving and Logic Programming
                        Helene Kirchner (Kirchner@sri-ai)


                Term Rewriting Systems and Application to
             Automated Theorem Proving and Logic Programming
                             Helene Kirchner

      Term rewriting systems are sets of rules (i.e. directed equations)
   used to compute equivalent terms in an equational theory.  Term
   rewriting systems are required to be terminating and confluent in
   order to ensure that any computation terminates and does not depend on
   the choice of applied rules.  Completion of term rewriting systems
   consists of building, from a set of non-directed equations, a
   confluent and terminating set of rules that has the same deductive
   power.  After a brief description of these two notions, their
   application in two different domains are illustrated:
        - automated theorem proving in equational and first-order
          logic,
        - construction of interpretors for logic programming languages
          mixing relational and functional features.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 11:50:10-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Algebra of Time Intervals (SRI)
-BODY-
                     THE ALGEBRA OF TIME INTERVALS

                    Peter Ladkin (LADKIN@KESTREL)
                         Kestrel Institute

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, January 27
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

We build on work of James Allen (Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal
Intervals, CACM Nov 1983), who suggested a calculus of time intervals.
Allen's intervals are all convex (no gaps).  We shall present a
taxonomy of *natural* relations between non-convex [i.e.,
non-contiguous] intervals, and illustrate the expressiveness of this
subclass, with examples from the domain of project management.  In
collaboration with Roger Maddux, we have new mathematical results
concerning both Allen's calculus, and our own. We shall present as
many of these as time permits.

The talk represents work in progress. We are currently designing and
implementing a time expert for the Refine system at Kestrel Institute,
which will include the interval calculus.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jan 86 09:18:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Tom <mitchell@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning and Economics (RU)
-BODY-
[Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


ML Colloquium talk

Title: Market Traders: Intelligent Distributed Systems
                In an Open World
Speaker: Prof. Spencer Star
         Laval University, Quebec
Date: Friday, Jan 24
Time: 11 am
Location: Hill 423

        Professor Spencer Star is a computer scientist/economist who
works on simulating economic markets.  He will be spending the coming
year on sabbatical at Rutgers to work on incorporating a machine
learning component into his current market simulations.  He is
visiting now in order to meet the department and to get some feedback
on his current research ideas on learning.  Below is part of an
abstract from his recent paper.  [...]

                                -Tom Mitchell


  Market Traders: Intelligent Distributed Systems In an Open World

Although markets are at the heart of modern microeconomics, there has
been relatively little attention paid to disequilibriun states and to
the decision-making rules used by traders within markets.  I am
interested in the procedures that traders use to determine when and
how much they will bid, how they adapt their behaviour to a changing
market environment, and the effects of their adaptive behaviour on the
market's disequilibrium path.  This paper reports on research to study
these questions with the aid of a computer program that represents a
market with interacting and independent knowledge-based traders.  The
program is callled TRADER.

In a series of experiments with TRADER I find that market efficiency
requires a minimum number of intelligent traders with a capacity to
learn, but when their knowledge is reflected in the market bids and
asks, naive traders can enter the markets and sometimes do better than
the expert traders.  Moreover, the entrance of naive traders in a
market that is already functioning efficiently does not degrade the
market's performance.  Since learning by independent agents appears to
be a key element in understanding and using open systems, the focus of
future research will be on studying learing and adaptive processes by
intelligent agents in open systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 15:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Semi-Applicative Programming (UPenn)
-BODY-

                   SEMI-APPLICATIVE PROGRAMMING: AN EXAMPLE
                                 N.S Sridharan
                   BBN Labs, AI Department, Cambridge MA

                          3pm Thursday, January 30, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

Most  current  parallel  programming  languages  are designed with a sequential
programming language as the base language and have added constructs that  allow
parallel  execution.    We  are experimenting with an applicative base language
that has implicit parallelism everywhere, and then we introduce constructs that
inhibit  parallelism.    The  base  language uses pure LISP as a foundation and
blends in interesting features  of  Prolog  and  FP.    Proper  utilization  of
available machine resources is a crucial concern in functional programming.  We
advocate several techniques of controlling the behavior of functional  programs
without  changing  their  meaning  or  functionality:  program  annotation with
constructs that have benign side-effects, program transformation  and  adaptive
scheduling.  This combination yields us a semi-applicative programming language
and an interesting programming methodology.

In this talk we give some background information on our project, its  aims  and
scope  and  report  on  work in progress in the area of parallel algorithms for
context-free parsing.

Starting with the specification of a  context-free  recognizer,  we  have  been
successful   in   deriving   variants   of   the   recognition   algorithm   of
Cocke-Kasami-Younger.  One version is the  CKY  algorithm  in  parallel.    The
second  version  includes  a  top-down  predictor to limit the work done by the
bottom-up recognizer.  The third version uses a cost measure  over  derivations
and  produces  minimal  cost  parses using a dynamic programming technique.  In
another line of development, we arrive at a  parallel  version  of  the  Earley
algorithm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 10:19:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Integrating Syntax and Semantics (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    29th January l985
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.


Dr. Ewan Klein, Centre for Cognitive Studies, University of Edinburgh
will give a seminar entitled - "Integrating syntax and semantics :
unification categorial grammar as a tool for a natural language
processing".

This talk will report on work carried out at the Centre for Cognitive
Science By Henk Zeevat, Jo Calder and Ewan Klein as part of an ESPRIT
project on natural language and graphics interfaces to a knowledge-base.

In recent years there has been a surge of interest in syntactic
parsers which exploit linguistically-motivated non-transformatinal
grammar formalisms:  instances are the GPSG chart parser at
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, and the PATR-II parser at SRI, Menlo Park.
By contrast, progress in the development of tractable, truth-conditional
semantic formalisms for parsing has lagged behind.

Unification categorial grammar (UCG) employs three resources which
significantly improve this situation.   The first is Kamp's theory of
Discourse Representation:  this is essentially a first-order calculus
which nevertheless provides a more elegant treatment of NL anaphora and
quantification than standard first-order logic.

Second, the grammar encodes both syntactic  and semantic information in
the same data structures, namely directed acyclic graphs, and
manipulates them with same operation, namely unification.   Third, the
fundamental grammar rule is that of categorial grammar, namely
functional application.   Since the grammar objects contain both
syntactic and semantic information, any rule application will
simultaneously produce syntactic and semantic results.

UCG translates readily into a PATR-like declarative formalism, for
which Calder has written a Prolog implementation called PIMPLE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 15:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Feature Structures in Unification Grammars (UPenn)
-BODY-

                      LOGICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FEATURE
                      STRUCTURES IN UNIFICATION GRAMMARS

        William C. Rounds and Robert Kasper, University of Michigan

                       3pm Tuesday, February 4, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

In  this  paper  we  show  how  to  use a simple modal logic to give a complete
axiomatization of disjunctively specified feature or record structures commonly
used  in unification-based grammar formalisms in computational linguistics. The
logic was  originally  developed  as  a  logic  to  explain  the  semantics  of
concurrency,  so  this  is a radically different application. We prove a normal
form result based on the  idea  of  Nerode  equivalence  from  finite  automata
theory, and we show that the satisfiability problem for our logical formulas is
NP-complete. This last result is a little surprising since our formulas do  not
contain   negation.     Finally,  we  show  how  the  unification  problem  for
term-rewriting systems can be expressed as the satisfiability problem  for  our
formulas.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
17
-DATE-
Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 21:06:57-CST
-FROM-
From: John Hartman <CS.HARTMAN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: COBOL parser or compiler needed in Lisp environment
-BODY-

Does anyone know of a Cobol parser or compiler that is written in
LISP? (or PASCAL or will otherwise run on a LISP machine or DEC-20)
[This is not a joke!]

I'm working on a program understanding/program transformation
system.  The target language at the moment is Cobol because
there are lots of unstructured Cobol programs and commercial systems
that attempt to restructure them automatically.  AI program
understanding can improve the process.  To demonstrate this, I need a
Cobol parser, and would rather find one than build one.  Does anyone
have any pointers?

Thanks,
John Hartman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 86 14:14:03 PST
-FROM-
From: "Douglas J. Trainor" <trainor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai koans
-BODY-

Has anyone heard any good ai koans over the past three years???

    [][]  Douglas J. Trainor
    [][]  a pair of size 9 capri pants

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1986  11:43 EST
-FROM-
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp for RT PC
-BODY-

In response to Nick Gall's query about Common Lisp for the RT PC:

We at CMU have been working behind the scenes for some time to port our
Spice/Accent operating system from the now-defunct Perq machine to the
new IBM workstation, now dubbed the RT PC.  As a part of that effort, we
have ported the Spice Lisp implementation of Common Lisp, including the
Hemlock editor.  This port is mainly the work of Dave McDonald, with
assists from Rob Maclachlan and Skef Wholey.  Lisp and Hemlock are now
running pretty well, with only a few finishing touches to be added and a
lot of tuning to be done.  There are still some holes in the Accent
operating system for this machine, but we are working feverishly to
patch them up.

We are in the process of taking some benchmarks on the Lisp now.  Early
indications show the speed of the pre-tuning RT PC Lisp to be roughly in
the ballpark (give or take a factor of two) of the Symbolics 3600 and
the Sun 3, though you have to be careful with declarations and
give up most of the runtime checking to go that fast.  (Also necessary
on other stock hardware like Sun, but not on Symbolics.)

Please do not flood us with request for this system.  The Lisp is not
particularly to port over to any flavor of Unix, and Accent is not yet
ready for use outside the friendly confines of CMU.  At some point in
the future, we may make the whole package available WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT,
for users elsewhere who can tolerate unsupported university-quality
software, but before we do that we will have to think very hard about
how to minimize the hassles to all concerned.  If we do that, I'll see
that people reading this list hear about it.

IBM has not announced any plans for introducing a supported Common Lisp
product on the RT PC's officially sanctioned unix-based operating
system.  I believe that there would be great demand for such a product,
but what their plans are I can't say.

>- Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 22 Jan 86 18:57:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Bill Poser <POSER@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pseudoscience Jargon
-BODY-
What exactly is a "call-seeking" computer? Anything to do with a
"come-from" statement?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 07:26:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 2010 and H-Mobius Loops
-BODY-
I've checked my copy of 2010 and reviewed Dr. Chandra's explanation
of HAL's paranoia.  The H-Mobious Loop phenomenon often occurs in
"autonomous GOAL-seeking programs".  Not a bad lay-description of
a program that got confused as to what to do next?

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 12:52:16 CST
-FROM-
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Comment on EATCS.
-BODY-
Concerning the posting of the "European Association for
Theoretical Computer Science" announcement in vol 4:6,
I would like to make the following comments:

        1)  I agree whole-heartedly with the editorial comment
            which Ken Laws made at the end of vol 4:15 (except
            for his acquiescence to the Stanford professor's request
            that similar postings not be made in the future).

        2)  My reading of this Digest leads me to believe that
            the contributers and the readers as a whole, span a
            wide range of interests.  This disparity of interests
            has been with AI since its begining and indeed is what
            makes AI what it is.  We should recognize that with such
            a variety of research in AI (from vision to mathematical
            logic; design and fabrication of robotic limbs to analysis
            of cognitive processes; etc...) there is and should be a
            tremendous pool of resources which we individually draw
            from and collectively share.  One does not have to look far
            to find common ground among researchers who delve into
            such distinct subjects (graph theory, predicate calculus,
            statistical analysis, etc.).

In conclusion, rather than restrict the flow of information, I hope
that as we see information which could benefit the community, we would
share it.

Glenn Veach (veach@ukans.csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 January 1986 1902-PST (Sunday)
-FROM-
From: west@nprdc.arpa (Larry West)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Theoretical CS vis-a`-vis AI
-BODY-
In AIList V4 #15, Jean-Francois Rit said:

``I don't feel that a major problem for AI researchers is understanding
the nature of computation, I think the AI point of view is much (maybe
too much) broader or at least OPEN toward The "real" universe.''

I agree that those who are doing Expert Systems or similar
kinds of programming need not worry too much about what a
computation is nor how it is achieved.   But those in Cognitive
Science -- those interested in how brains do the things
they do so well -- might well be interested in formalisms
to help grasp the underlying processes of computation.   On
the other hand, my prejudice is that these are not yet
understood in Theoretical Computer Science, either, and may
not even be of interest to those in the field (TCS).

Still, Parallel Distributed Processing or Connectionism seems
to hold much promise for lower-level information processing,
and perhaps higher-level as well, though that's harder to
see at this point.    See, e.g., Hinton & Anderson's *Parallel
Models of Associative Memory* (Erlbaum, 1981), or Hinton's and
Feldman's articles in the April 1985 BYTE magazine, or Minsky
and Papert's *Perceptrons* or ... well, further references
supplied on demand.

My opinion would thus be not to exclude TCS out of hand,
but don't go out of your way (KIL) looking for articles/
messages/seminar announcements relevant to AIList, either.

Larry West (programmer)    west@nprdc.ARPA
UCSD Institute for Cognitive Science
La Jolla, CA  92093


  [That seems a fair summary of the feedback I've received, and
  of the general AIList screening policy.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 22:19:21 EST
-FROM-
From: Moorthy <moorthy%rpics.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hangman
-BODY-
We have developed a computer program to play hangman by itself. Here
the computer both guesses a word and tries to find what the guessed
word is. This program is a variation of hangman available under unix
4.2. The program to guess the words is partly rule based (these rules
are obtained by talking to an "expert") and partly searches the
dictionary judiciously. The programs are written in C and uses system
calls to AWK for searching various subsets of dictionary. We have
tested the program fairly exhaustively and it plays reasonably well.
If anyone is interested in knowing more about the program, you could
contact moorthy@rpics. The developers of this program are Patrick
Harubin, a junior in Computer Science at R.P.I and myself.

                      Krishnamoorthy
                      Department of Computer Science
                      R.P.I., Troy NY 12181.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 28 Jan 86 12:28:22-PST
-FROM-
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: mrs manual
-BODY-
The Compleat Guide to MRS is now available as a Stanford CS report,
number STAN-CS-85-1080. To obtain a copy send mail to Kathy Berg
(BERG@SCORE.ARPA) or write to her at Comp Sci Dept, Stanford, CA 94305.

Stuart Russell (RUSSELL@SUMEX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 86 13:24:44 pst
-FROM-
From: Mike Rosner <rosner%cui.unige.chunet%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ISSCO working papers
-BODY-
                     Fondazione Dalle Molle
                             Geneva

                             ISSCO
                         WORKING PAPERS


No. 46 (1981)
M Rosner
Three Strategic Goals in Conversational Openings

This  paper  tries  to  explain  a  short  transcript    of    a
conversational  opening  as  completely  as  possible within the
framework which takes conversational behaviour as defined by the
operation  of  a  sohisticated  planning mechanism. It is argued
that a critical role is played  by  the  satifaction,  for  each
participant,  of  three  strategic  goals relating to attention,
identification, and greeting.  Additional  tactics  for  gaining
information  are also described as necessary to account for this
transcript.

No. 47 (1983)
F di Primio & Th Christaller
A Poor Man's Flavor System

This paper is the result of an attempt to  understand  'flavors',
the  object oriented programming system in Lispmachine Lisp. The
authors argue that the basic principles of such systems are  not
easily  accessible  to the programming public, because papers on
the subject rarely discuss concrete  details.  Accordingly,  the
authors'  approach  is  pedagogical,  and  takes  the  form of a
description of the evolution of  their  own  flavor  system.  An
appendix  contains  programming  examples  that  are sufficienly
detailed to enable an average Lisp programmer to build a  flavor
system,    and    experiment  with  the  essential  concepts  of
object-oriented programming.


No. 48 (1984)
Eric Wehrli
A Government-Binding Parser for French

This paper describes a parser for French based on an  adaptation
of  Chomsky's  Government  and  Binding  theory.  Reflecting the
modular  conception  of  GB-grammars,  the  parser  consists  of
several  modules corresponding to some of the subtheories of the
grammar, such as X bar, binding, etc. Making an extensive use of
lexical  information  and  following strategies which attempt to
take advantage of the basic  properties  of  natural  languages,
this parser is powerful enough to produce all of the grammatical
structures of sentences  for  a  fairly  substantial  subset  of
French.  At  the  same  time, it is restricted enough to avoid a
proliferation of alternative analyses, even with highly  complex
constructions. Particular attention has been paid to the problem
of the  grammatical  interpretation  of  wh-phrases,  to  clitic
constructions,  as well as to the organisation and management of
the lexicon.

No 49 (1985)
Patrick Shann
AI Approaches to Machine Translation

This paper examines  some  experimental  AI  systems  that  were
specifically    developed    for   machine  translation  (Wilks'
Preference Semantics, the Yale projects, Salat and  CONTRA).  It
concentrates  on  the  different types of meaning representation
used, and the nature of the knowledge used for the  solution  of
difficult  problems  in MT. To explore particular AI approaches,
the resolution of several types of ambiguity is  discussed  from
the point of view of different systems.


No. 50 (1985)
Beat Buchmann & Susan Warwick
Machine Translation: Pre-ALPAC history, Post-ALPAC overview

This paper gives a historical overview of the field  of  Machine
Translation  (MT). The ALPAC report, the now well-known landmark
in the history of MT, serves to delimit the two sections of this
paper.  The  first  section,  Pre-ALPAC  history,  looks in some
detail  at  the  hopeful  beginnings,   the    first    euphoric
developments,  and  the  onsetting  disillusionment  in  MT. The
second  section,  Post-ALPAC  overview,  describes  more  recent
developments  on  the  basis of current prototype and commercial
systems. It also reviews  some  of  the  basic  theoretical  and
practical issues in the field.


No 51 (1985)
Rod Johnson & Mike Rosner
Software Engineering for Machine Translation

In this paper we discuss the desirable properties of a  software
environment  for MT development, starting from the position that
succesful MT depends on a coherent  theory  of  translation.  We
maintain  that  such  an environment should not just provide for
the  construction  of  instances  of  MT  systems  within   some
preconceived  (and  probably  weak)  theoretical  framework, but
should also offer tools for rapid implementation and  evaluation
of  a  variety  of  experimental  theories. A discussion of some
potentially interesting properties of theories of  language  and
translation is followed by a description of a prototype software
system which is designed to facilitate practical experimentation
with such theories.



Requests for these papers should be addressed to

        ISSCO working papers
        54 route des Acacias
        1227 Geneva Switzerland

The  price  per  paper,  including  air  mail,  is  SFr  10  (or
equivalent).  Cheques  should be made payable to "Institut Dalle
Molle"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
18
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 04:46:01-PST
-FROM-
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Speech Learning
-BODY-
This stuff about Sejnowski's speaking reminds me eerily of the parts
of Asimov's @i{I, Robot}, that tells how Susan Calvin's career began:

>From "Robbie," where Susan is observing a little girl named Gloria
trying to get some help during a tour of the Museum of Science and
Industry ...

        "The Talking Robot was a @i{tour de force}, a thoroughly
        impractical device, possessing publicity value only.  Once an
        hour, an escorted group stood before it and asked questions
        of the robot engineer in charge in careful whispers.  Those
        the engineer decided were suitable for the robot's circuits
        were transmitted to the Talking Robot.

        "It was rather dull.  It may be nice to know that the square
        of fourteen is one hundred ninety-six, that the temperature
        at the moment is 72 degrees Fahrenheit, and the air-pressure
        30.02 inches of mercury, that the atomic weight of sodium is
        23, but one doesn't really need a robot for that.  One
        especially does not need an unwieldy, totaly immobile mass of
        wires and coils spreading over twnty-five square yards." ...

        ... ``There was an oily whir of gears and a mechanically
        timbred voice boomed out in words that lacked accent and
        intonation, `I -- am -- the -- robot -- that -- talks.'

        ``Gloria stared at it ruefully.  It did talk, but the
        sound came from inside somewheres.  There was no @i{face} to
        talk to.  She said, `Can you help me, Mr. Robot, sir?'

        ``The Talking Robot was designed to answer questions, and
        only such questions as it could answer had ever been put to
        it.  It was quite confident of its ability, therefore.  `I
        -- can -- help -- you.'

        ``'Thank you, Mr. Robot, sir.  Have you seen Robbie?'

        ``'Who -- is -- Robbie?'

        ```He's a robot, Mr. Robot, sir.''  She stretched to
        tip-toes. ``He's about so high, Mr. Robot, sir, only higher,
        and he's very nice.  He's got a head, you know.  I mean you
        haven't, but he has, Mr. Robot sir.'

        ``The Talking Robot had been left behind, `A -- robot?'

        ```Yes, Mr. Robot, sir.  A robot just like you, except he
        can't talk, of course, and -- looks like a real person.'

        ```A -- robot -- like -- me?'

        ```Yes, Mr. Robot, sir.'

        ```To which the Talking Robot's only response was an erratic
        splutter and an occasional incoherent sound.  The radical
        generalization offered it, i.e., its existence, not as a
        particular object, but as a member of a general group, was
        too much for it.  Loyally, it tried to encompass the concept
        and half a dozen coils burnt out.  Little warning signals
        were buzzing.'

        ``(The girl in her mid -teens left at that point.  She had
        enough for her Physics-1 paper on `Practical Aspects of
        Robotics.'  This paper was Susan Calvin's first of many on
        the subject.)''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
-FROM-
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Perceptrons-historical note
-BODY-
      Since Perceptron-type systems seem to be making a comeback, a
historical note may be useful.

      The original Perceptron was developed in the early 1950s, and
was a weighted-learning type scheme using electromechanical storage, with
relay coils driving potentiometers through rachets being the basic
learning mechanism.  The original machine used to be on display at the
Smithsonian's Museum of History and Technology, (now called the Museum of
American History); it was a sizable unit, about the size of a VAX 11/780.
But it is no longer on display; I've been checking with the Smithsonian.
It has been moved out to their storage facility in Prince George's County,
Maryland.  It's not gone forever; the collection is rotated through the
museum.  If there's sufficient interest, they may put it back on display
again.

      Another unit in the same collection has relevance to this digest;
Parts of Reservisor, the first airline reservations system, built for American
Airlines around 1954, are still on display; they have a ticket agent's terminal
and the huge magnetic drum.  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen
here that airline reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI
lab in the 1960s.

                                        John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jan 86 14:41:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Mark.Derthick@G.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What is a Symbol?
-BODY-
This is a response to David Plaut's post (V4 #9) in which he maintains that
connectionist systems can exhibit intelligent behavior and don't use
symbols.  He suggests that either he is wrong about one of these two points,
or that the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis is wrong, and seeks a good
definition of 'symbol.

First, taking the PSSH seriously as subject to empirical confirmation
requires that there be a precise definition of symbol.  That is, symbol is
not an undefined primitive for Cognitive Science, as point is for geometry.
I claim no one has provided an adequate definition.  Below is an admittedly
inadequate attempt, together with particular examples for which the
definition breaks down.

1) It seems that a symbol is foremost a formal entity.  It is atomic, and owes
its meaning to formal relationships it bears to other symbols.  Any internal
structure a [physical] symbol might posess is not relevant to its meaning.
The only structures a symbol processor processes are symbol structures.

2) The processing of symbols requires an interpreter.  The link between the
physical symbols and their physical interrelationships on the one hand, and
their meaning on the other, is provided by the interpreter.

3) Typically, a symbol processor can store a symbol in many physically
distinct locations, and can make multiple copies of a symbol.  For instance,
in a Lisp blocks world program, many symbols for blocks will have copies of
the symbol for table on their property lists.  Many functionally identical
memory locations are being used to store the symbols, and each copy is
identical in the sense that it is physically the same bit pattern.  I can't
pin down what about the ability to copy symbols arbitrarily is necessary,
but I think something important lurks here.

The alternative to symbolic representations, analog (or direct)
representations, do not lend themselves to copying so easily.  For instance,
on a map, distance relations between cities are encoded as distances between
circles on paper.  Many relations are represented, as in the case with the
blocks world, but you can't make a copy of the circle representing a city.
If it's not in the right place, it just won't represent that city.

4) Symbols are discrete.  This point is where connectionist representations
seem to diverge most from prototypical symbols.  For instance, in Dave
Touretzky's connectionist production system model (IJCAI 85), working memory
elements are represented by patterns of activity over units.  A particular
element is judged to be present if a sufficiently large subset of the units
representing the pattern for that element are on.  Although he uses this
thresholding technique to enable discrete answers to be given to the user,
what is going on inside the machine is a continuum.  One can take the
pattern for (goal clear block1) and make a sequence of very fine grained
changes until it becomes the pattern for (goal held block2).



To show where my definition breaks down, consider numbers as represented in
Lisp.  I don't think they are symbols, but I'm not sure.  First, functions
such as ash and bit-test are highly representation dependent.  Everybody
knows that computers use two's complement binary representation for
arithmetic.  If they didn't, but used cons cells to build up numbers from
set theory for instance, it would take all day to compute 3 ** 5.  Computers
really really have special purpose hardware to do arithmetic, and computer
programmers, at least sometimes, think in terms of ALU's, not number theory,
when they program.  So the Lisp object 14 isn'sometimes t atomic, sometimes
its really 1110.

Its easy to see that the above argument is trying to expose numbers as
existing at a lower level than real Lisp symbols.  At the digital logic
level, then, bits would be symbols, and the interpreter would be the adders
and gates that implement the semantics of arithmetic.  Similarly, it may be
the case that connectionist system use symbols, but that they do not
correspond to, eg working memory elements, but to some lower level object.

So a definition of "symbol" must be relative to a point of view.  With this
in mind, it seems that confirmation of the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis
turns on whether an intelligent agent must be a symbol processor, viewed
from the knowledge level.  If knowledge level concepts are represented as
structured objects, and only indirectly as symbols at some lower level, I
would take it as disconfirmation of the hypothesis.

I welcome refinements to the above definition, and comments on whether Lisp
numbers are symbols, or whether ALU bits are symbols.

Mark Derthick
mad@g.cs.cmu.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 January 1986 1532-PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: hestenes@nprdc.arpa (Eric Hestenes)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What is a symbol?
-BODY-
Article 125 of net.ai:

In article <724@k.cs.cmu.edu>, dcp@k.cs.cmu.edu (David Plaut) writes:
> 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)


Symbol is unfortunately an abused word in AI. Symbol can be used in several
senses, and when you mix them things seem illogical, even though they are not.

Sense 1: A symbol is a token used to represent some aspect or element
         of the real world.

Sense 2: A symbol is a chunk of knowledge / human memory that is of a certain
         character. ( e.g. predicates, with whole word or phrase size units )

While PDP / connectionist models may not appear to involve symbolic processes,
meaning mental processes that operate on whole chunks of knowledge that
consistute symbols  they DO assign tokens as structures that represent some
aspect or element. For instance, if a vision program takes a set of
bits from a visual array as input, then at that point each of the bits are
assigned a symbol and then a computation is performed upon the symbol.
Given that pdp networks do have this primitive characterization in every
situation, they fit Newell's definition of a Physical Symbol System
[paraphrased as] "a broad class of systems capable of having and manipulating
symbols, yet realizable in the physical world." The key is to realize
that while the information that is assigned to a token can vary quite
significantly, as in connectionist versus high level symbolic systems,
the fact that a token has been assigned a value remains, and the manipulation
of that newly created symbol is carried out in either kind of system.

Many connectionists like to think of pdp systems as incorporating
"microfeatures" or "sub-symbolic" knowledge. However, by this they do not mean
that their microfeatures are not symbols themselves. Rather they are actively
comparing themselves against traditional AI models that often insist on using
a single token for a whole schema ( word, idea, concept, production ) rather
than for the underlying mental structures that might characterize a word.
A classical example is the ( now old ) natural language approach to thinking
that parses phrases into trees of symbols. Not even the natural language
people would contend that the contents of memory resembles that tree of
symbols in terms of storage. In this case the knowledge that is significant to
the program is encoded as a whole word. The connectionist might create a
system that parses the very same sentences, with the only difference being
how symbols are assigned and manipulated. In spite of their different
approach, the connectionist version is still a physical symbol system in the
sense of Newell.

This point would be moot if one could create a connectionist machine that
computed exactly the same function as the high-level machine, including
manipulating high level symbols as whole. While both languages are Turing
equivalent, one has yet to see a system that can compile a high-level
programming language with a connectionist network. The problems with creating
such a machine are many; however, it is entirely possible, if not probable.
See the paper for a Turing <--> Symbol System proof.


Reference: Newell, Allen. Physical Symbol Systems.
Cognitive Science 4, 135-183 (1980).

Copy me on replies.

Eric Hestenes
Institute for Cognitive Science, C-015
UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
arpanet: hestenes@nprdc.ARPA
other: ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdics!hestenes or hestenes@sdics.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
19
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 86 08:02:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog for Compiler Writing
-BODY-
Greg Elder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 13:56:44 CST
-FROM-
From: Al Gaspar <gaspar@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Compilers?
-BODY-
A friend that doesn't have access to the net asked me to post this query.
What brands of Common LISP would run best on a VAX 780 under UNIX Sys V.2?
Any and all recommendations would be appreciated.  Please reply to me
directly as I don't subscribe to AILIST.  If there are enough replies,
I'll summarize to the net.

Thanks in advance--

Al Gaspar       <gaspar@almsa-1.arpa>
USAMC ALMSA, ATTN:  AMXAL-OW, Box 1578, St. Louis, MO  63188-1578
COMMERCIAL:  (314) 263-5118     AUTOVON:  693-5118
seismo!gaspar@almsa-1.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 0  0 00:00:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "Don Mcdougall" <veda@paxrv-nes.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "Don Mcdougall" <veda@paxrv-nes.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for LISP source code
-BODY-
             [Interesting date on this message!  -- KIL]

  I am teaching an AI course for the continuing education program at
St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland. This is my first time teaching
LISP and I would appreciate access to the source code for "project-
sized" LISP programs or any other teaching aids or material. We are
using the 2nd edition of both Winston's AI and Winston&Horne's LISP.
I hate to ask for help, but we are pretty far from mainstream AI
down here and my students and I all have full time jobs so any help we
can get from the professional AI community would be greatly
appreciated by all of us.

                                        Bob Woodruff
                                        Veda@paxrv-nes.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86  8:58:50 EST
-FROM-
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Structure of OOPL
-BODY-
I would like to hear about any definitive work on the mathematical
structure of object oriented programming languages (eg. smalltalk).
I am interested in the current status of the subject. Reference to
a good review will be most helpful. Would also appreciate receiving
papers or reports on the subject.

 My netaddress is : srini%NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

 U.S Postal Address:
Srinivasan Krishnamurthy
COMSAT LABS, (NTD) RM:7142
22300 Comsat Drive
Clarksburg, MD-20871
 Tel: (301)428-4531(W)

  Thanks.
  Srini.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jan 86 16:10:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.
     edu  (Paul Benjamin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Equation solver
-BODY-
> I am looking for a program that can solve simple algebraic expressions
> of the type:
>
>               10x - 15 = 5
>
> This system would have the capability of SIMPLIFYING expressions, EXPANDING
> expressions and SOLVING expressions (where possible).
> Note that I am looking for simple solutions, I have no need of the extensive
> capabilities of MACSYMA or some such thing.
> It needs to work on fairly small (pdp-11, non-unix) machines.
> It's purpose is to act a a simple but patient tutor in pre-algebra.
> Consequently it must give hints, advice, etc.
> Any help, pointers, suggestions, etc. from people is much appreciated.
>
> Dick Pierce
> ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!rdp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
> Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.

You may want to look at Sleeman's work, although it is more along the
lines of simulating student's solutions to such tasks. It can be
found with related work in "Intelligent Tutoring Systems", published
by Academic Press in 1982. The editors are D. Sleeman and J. S. Brown.

Good luck.
Paul Benjamin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jan 86 16:01:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Equation solver
-BODY-
Some work on algebraic manipulation was done at the Edinburgh Univ.
(Dept. of AI) by A.Bundy and others. I can give you few references:

   Bundy, Silver: Preparing Equations for Change in Unknown,
   IJCAI-81, and DAI research paper 159.
   Bundy, Sterling: Meta-level Inference in Algebra, DAI 164.
   Bundy, Welham: Using Meta-level Inference for Selective
   Application of Multiple Rewrite Rules in Algebraic Manipulation,
   Artificial Intelligence 16(2), 1981.

You may also consult the book:
   Bundy: The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning,
   Academic Press, 1983.

Good luck.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 30 Jan 86 15:26:58-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Supercomputers and AI
-BODY-
Sorry about the transposition of the zip code for UCSD.  Maybe I can
make up for it with the correct zip for GA Technologies.  The mailing
address they seem to giving out for Supercomputer Center
communications is

                              GA Technologies
                              P.O. Box 85608
                              San Diego, CA 92138

Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
ut-sally!batman!dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jan 86 21:38:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: "mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!rit"@SEISMO.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grenoble labs
-BODY-

Someone mailed me for enquiries about computer science Grenoble labs in
response to an article in mod.ai. I lost his message, I'll answer him if he
remails.

Jean-Francois Rit
Laboratoire d'Informatique Fondamentale et d'Intelligence Artificielle
BP 68
38402 Saint-Martin d'Heres cedex
                                  Disclaimer: This is only my postal address!
UUCP: ...{mcvax,vmucnam}!lifia!rit
decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!
    mcvax!vmucnam!imag!lifia!rit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 07:59:38 EST
-FROM-
From: Alan Bawden <ALAN@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contrast
-BODY-
    Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
    From: jbn at FORD-WDL1
    ...  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen here that airline
    reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI lab in the
    1960s.

I decided to take a close look at this contrast.  After searching through
the recent archives, the only mention by Minsky of airline reservation
systems that I can find is:

    And I'm pretty sure that the first practical airline reservation was
    designed by Danny Bobrow of the BBN AI group around 1966.!

Now that I have refreshed my memory with what he actually said, I think the
contrast is not quite as unflattering.  Given the use of the adjective
``practical'', someone might even be able to make a case that he is right.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 30 Jan 86 15:15:53-CST
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures
-BODY-

This message is an commmon answer to all those individuals (thanks for
your interest) that have been asking me for copies of my Ph.D.
Dissertation (A Lattice-Theoretic Approach to Computation Based on a
Calculus of Partially-Ordered Type Structures).

My thesis is being revised for publication as a book. I am out of copies
the version I've been sending. You may:

        .write or call U.of Penn. CIS dpt. 215-898-8540 (Ph.D. 9/84)
        .write University Microfilms at Ann-Arbor, MI
        .get hold of one from a friend and ask a nice secretary to xerox it
        .steal one (no one will mind: it's a cheap value!).
        .or you can wait and bear with my slow work in translating a
         big Scribe mess into an even larger LaTeX mess(*)---send me
         another message in, oh, about 3 months.

Hope that'll help.
Thanks for your patience.

Cheers,

Hassan

(*) By the way, any info of programs that do that is welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 86 17:18:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!ada-uts!richw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technology Review article
-BODY-
Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
"Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
have the copy with me).  General comments?
>- Rich Wagner
       "Relax!  They're just programs..."
P.S.  You might notice that about 10 pages into the issue, there's
      an ad for some AI system.  I bet the advertisers were real
      pleased about the issue's contents...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 86 14:25:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: vax135!miles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Miles Murdocca)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers,
who are famous for making bold statements that AI will never meet the
expectations of the people who fund AI research.  They make the claim
that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
They use this argument and a few others such as the lack of a
representation for emotions to support their view that AI researchers
are wasting their sponsors' money by knowingly heading down dead-ends.

As I recall ["Machine Learning", Michalski et al, Ch 1], there are two
basic forms of learning: 'knowledge acquisition' and 'skill refinement'.
The Dreyfuss duo seems to be using a skill refinement problem to refute
the work going on in knowledge acquisition.  The distinction between the
two types of learning was recognized by AI researchers years ago, and I
feel that the Dreyfuss two lack credibility since they fail to align their
arguments with the taxonomy of the field.

    Miles Murdocca, 4G-538, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Crawfords Corner Rd,
    Holmdel, NJ, 07733, (201) 949-2504, ...{ihnp4}!vax135!miles

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
20
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 12:20:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logics of Programmes (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
                        EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:           5th February 1986
Time:           2pm
Place:          Department of Artificial Intelligence
                Forrest Hill Seminar Room


Dr. D.C. McCarty, Center for Cognitive Sciences, University of Edinburgh,
will give a seminar entitled - `Logics of Programmes: Some Constructive
Comments'.


The talk will give an introduction to and overview of the applications of
constructive logic to programme verification. Three topics will be of
interest: the idea that functional interpretations of constructive set
theory are `high level' compilers; the relations between constructive
logic and Reynolds' `specification logic'; and the use of a constructive
meta theory in giving completeness proofs for hoare-style logics. We
will pre-suppose only a basic knowledge of mathematical logic; the
requisite technicalities from constructive logic and programme verification
will be explained in the talk.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 15:40:45 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Origins of Logic (UCB)
-BODY-

                 BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                 Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                  Tuesday, February 11, 11:00 - 12:30
                           2515 Tolman Hall
                       Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                       3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

                       ``The Origins of Logic''
                             Jonas  Langer
                     Department of Psychology, UCB

         I will try to show that logical cognition  (1)  originates
    during the first year of infancy and (2) begins to be represen-
    tational during the second year of infancy.  This includes pro-
    posing  some  of its initial structural features.  These claims
    imply that (a) a symbolic language is  not  necessary  for  the
    origins  of logical cognition and (b) that ordinary language is
    not necessary for  its  initial  representational  development.
    Supporting  data  will  be drawn from J. Langer, The Origins of
    Logic: Six to Twelve Months, Academic Press, 1980, and The Ori-
    gins of Logic: One to Two Years, Academic Press, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 12:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Fuzzy Inference Engine (UPenn)
-BODY-

             A VLSI IMPLEMENTATION OF FUZZY INFERENCE ENGINE:
                     TOWARD AN EXPERT SYSTEM ON A CHIP

      Hiroyuki Watanabe, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey

                      3pm Tuesday, February 11, 1986
                   216 Moore, University of Pennsylvania

This  talk  describes  a  VLSI implementation of an inference mechanism to cope
with uncertainty and to perform approximate reasoning.  Some  details  of  VLSI
layout  design  is presented.  Design of an inference mechanism is based on the
"max-min operation" of fuzzy set theory for an  effective  and  real-time  use.
This   inference  mechanism  can  handle  imprecise  and  uncertain  knowledge;
therefore, it  can  represent  human  expert  knowledge  and  simulate  his/her
reasoning  processes.  An inference mechanism has been realized by using custom
CMOS technology which emphasizes simplicity, extensibility and efficiency.  For
example,  all  rules  are  executed  in  parallel  for  efficiency.   Result of
preliminary tests indicates that the inference engine can perform approximately
80,000 Fuzzy Logical Inferences Per Second (FLIPS).

This  chip is designed for the application of rule-based expert system paradigm
in real-time control.   Potential  application  of  such  inference  engine  is
real-time  decision-making  in  the  area  of  command and control, intelligent
robotic system and chemical process control.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 February 1986 1529-EST
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionistic Logic Programming Language (CMU)
-BODY-
               JOINT LOGIC COLLOQUIUM (CMU, U of Pgh)

                          Dale Miller
            CIS Department, University of Pennsylvania

Date:  Thursday February 13
Time:  3 pm
Place:  4605 Wean Hall

A Logic Programming Language Based on Intuitionistic Higher-Order Logic.

Dale Miller
CIS Department, University of Pennsylvania

In this talk, we present a programming language whose operational
semantics can be understood as searching for proofs with in a subset of
intuitionistic higher-order logic.  Kripke-models over a universe of
higher-order terms provide a model theoretic semantics for our
programs.  Such models can be computed as least fix points.  This logical
language is a natural extension to Horn clause logic and the
programming language based on it has many features not available in
simple Horn clause based programming languages.  In particular, this
programming language can manipulate higher-order functions in a manner
similar to many functional programming languages.  An interesting notion
of parametric modules is also available by virtue of the behavior of
implication within an intuitionistic logic.  An interpreter for this
language must perform unification of higher-order terms.  If time
permits, we illustrate how this feature makes possible the very clean
implementation of certain kinds of program transformation algorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 4 Feb 86 14:45:07-PST
-FROM-
From: HOFFMANN@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Minsky and Dreyfus on AI (USantaClara)
-BODY-

Two talks on AI at Mayer Theater, University of Santa Clara;
both talks are free, first come, first served.

Marvin Minsky - "Intelligence and Creativity"
                 Monday, February 10th, 8:00 PM

Hubert Dreyfus - "Limits of AI"
                  Thursday, February 20th, 8:00 PM

  For additional information call Mayer Theater, (408) 554-4015

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Jan 1986 10:40:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Martin Marietta <MMDA@USC-ISI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intelligent Robotic Systems
-BODY-

                        SPIE's Symposium on

        Advances in Intelligent Robotics Systems, including

                o  Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision Conference

                o  Mobile Robots Conference

                o  Optics, Illumination, and Image Sensing for Machine Vision

                o  Space Station Automation

                o  Automated Inspection and Measurement

The Conference(s) take place October 26-31, 1986, at the Hyatt Regency in
Cambridge, MA.  General Chairman is David Casasent, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Abstract due date:  15 April  (200-300 word abstract)
Manuscript due date:  29 September

For author application or further information, contact
                SPIE Technical Program Committee
                PO Box 10
                Bellingham, WA  98227-0010
                (206) 676-3290

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 07:52:16 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Cognitive Science Society
-BODY-

8th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference will be held
at U. Mass/Amherst from August 15th to 17th.

Submission Deadline: March 14, 1986

to:  Charles Clifton
     Department of Psychology
     U. Mass.
     Amherst, MA  01003

Include: author's name, address, and telephone number
         up to four keywords
         four copies of abstract (100-250 words)
         four copies of paper (4K words for presentation; 2K for
                               poster)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
21
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 86 16:19:44 cet
-FROM-
From: WMORTENS%ESTEC.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query -- ISIS
-BODY-
From: Uffe K. Mortensen ESA ( The European Space Agency )

Does anybody here know what 'ISIS' is ? I have been told it is a commercial
package for planning/scheduling problems, but I would like to have more
detailed information ( vendor, etc ).

>- Uffe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 86 18:59:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mklein@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bib Format AI References Request
-BODY-
I am interested in getting references in bib format for the following
topics, ordered with the stuff most important to me now on top:
        * distributed problem solving
        * machine learning
        * planning
        * vision
If you have any references available, please send them to:
        mklein@uiucdcsb
                        Thanks!
                                Mark Klein

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06 Feb 86 09:37:54 +1100 (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Isaac Balbin <munnari!mulga.oz!isaac@seismo.CSS.GOV>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prolog for Compiler Writing
-BODY-
I have not added compilers for prolog written in prolog, nor stuff on
compiling techniques for prolog.

%A H. Derby
%T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
%R Technical Report 84-5134
%I Department of Computer Science
%I California Institute of Technology
%C Los Angeles, California
%D 1984

%A G.A. Edgar
%T A Compiler Written in Prolog
%J Dr. Dobbs Journal
%D May, 1985

%A Harald Ganzinger
%A Michael Hanus
%T Modular Logic Programming of Compilers
%J Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Logic Programming
%C Boston, USA
%D July, 1985

%A D.H.D. Warren
%T Logic for Compiler Writing
%J Software Practice and Experience
%V 10
%N 1
%P 97-125
%D 1980
%O Also available as DAI Research Paper 44
from Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh

                Isaac Balbin
===========================
UUCP:   {seismo,mcvax,ukc,ubc-vision}!munnari!isaac
ARPA:   isaac%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov
CSNET:  isaac%munnari.oz@australia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 15:46:28 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!goanna.oz!wjb@seismo.CSS.GOV (Warwick Bolam)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction to correction to name of MRS
-BODY-

  >From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
  >
  >In a recent issue the full name MRS was incorrectly reported.
  >
  >        MRS = "Modifiable Representation System"
  >
  >        (source - "MRS Manual", Michael R. Genesereth, et. al.
  >                1980, Stanford Heuristic Programming Project)


In the bibliography of the paper "Partial Programs", Michael R Genesereth,
1984, Stanford HPP:

        M. R. Genesereth, R. Greiner, D. E. Smith: "MRS - A Meta-Level
        Representation System", HPP-83-27, Stanford University HPP, 1983.

Is there anyone who REALLY knows what MRS stands for?  I have a number of
MRS documents and NONE of them says "MRS stand for ..."

Warwick Bolam,
Computing Dept, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Feb 86 17:15:26-PST
-FROM-
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS manual
-BODY-
I have been asked to point out to those who have requested copies of
the MRS manual, or who intend to do so, that a nominal fee of $6.00
(plus tax if in CA) is suggested. At .004 cents per exqusitely chosen word,
it's a bargain.
Stuart Russell (RUSSELL@SUMEX)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Feb 86 13:30:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: Bob Stine <stine@edn-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re: Dreyfus article
-BODY-
"Why Computers May Never Think Like People," a recent
diatribe by the brothers Dreyfus, has several problems.
First and foremost is that AI research is implicitly
identified as the development of rule-based systems.
All of the well known limitations of rule-based systems
are inappropriately attributed to AI research as a whole.

There is a deeper problem with the article, that perhaps
springs from a misguided humanism.  The article claims
that machines will never duplicate human performance in
cognitive tasks, because humans have "intuition."  These
passages would read very much the same if 'magic' were
substituted for 'intuition' - "Human begins have a
magic intelligence that reasoning machines simply cannot
match."  "... a boxer seems to recognize the moment to
begin an attack... ... the boxer is using his magic".

The Dreyfus brothers claim that they are not "Luddites,"
that they are not opposed to technology per se, but just
to wasting time and money on AI research.  The basis of
their position is that some aspect of human intelligence
is inherently beyond human comprehension.

There certainly are things that humans will never know.
But no one thing is inherently unknowable.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 09:58:53 CST
-FROM-
From: sandon@ai.wisc.edu (Pete Sandon)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Aquisition -vs- Skill Refinement
-BODY-

   This is not to defend the Dreyfus brothers, since I have yet to read
their books. On the other hand, I think they make a good point, though
with a bad example, in emphasizing learning as a process of refinement.
The example related in Miles Murdocca's submission is that of learning
to ride a bike through trial and error. The reason the example is a bad
one, is that it fits into the category of skill refinement as AI
researchers would use the term. This leads to the argument that Dreyfus
and Dreyfus are missing the critical distinction between knowledge
acquisition and skill refinement.

   My feeling is that too much is made of this distinction. Had the
example been one of learning to distinguish fruits from vegetables,
or one of learning the symptoms of a class of diseases well enough
to diagnose them, this argument would not have arisen. Clearly these
involve knowledge acquisition rather than skill refinement. And yet, it
could be argued, and perhaps is argued by the Dreyfus's, that what
the AI researchers consider to be knowledge acquisition should be
just as much a refinement process guided by trial and error as learning
to ride a bike. Whereas AI considers concept formation to occur as the
acquisition of discrete chunks of knowledge, an alternative is to use
the gradual acquisition of evidence to support one concept definition
over another, in a manner similar to skill refinement.

   Of course, if this criticism of AI is correct, AI has already
answered it. The use of connectionist models, and the corresponding
learning mechanisms currently being studied, provide just the sort
of cognitive models that support this refinement type of learning
through trial and error.

>-Pete Sandon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 86 17:24:42 GMT
-FROM-
From: nike!caip!im4u!milano!pcook@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP>, richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>
> Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
> "Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
> like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
> there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
> have the copy with me).  General comments?
>
This article is a plug for a book and  use of a current topic to get back at
the AI community for an imagined snub.  Hubert Dreyfus was stood up by
John McCarthy of Stanford at a debate on a third echelon public tv
station in the bay area, and is still mad.
First, the premise:  AI, expert systems, and knowledge-rule based systems
have been overly optimistic in their promises and stand short of delivered
results.  Probably true, but many of the systems, once implemented, lose
their mystical qualities, and look a lot like other computer applications.
It's the ones that are in the buliding process which seem to present
extravagant claims.
As presented, however, the article is a shrill cry rather than a reasoned
response.  It leans heavily on proof by intense assertion.  As a pilot
I find examples which range from dubious to incorrect.  As a scientist I
object to the gee whiz Reader's Digest tone.  As a retired Air Force Officer
I object to the position that the commander's common sense is the ideal form
of combat decision making.  And as a philosopher (albeit not expert) I object
to the muddy intellectual approach, rife with questionable presuppositions,
faulty dilemmas, and illogical conclusions.
I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion-  our work to realize the
potential of computers must not degenerate into a fad which will fade
from the scene.  But I object to a diatribe where advances in the field
are dismissed as trivial because current systems do not equal human
performance.
>-
       ...Pete                  Peter G. Cook                      Lt. Colonel
pcook@mcc.arpa                  Liaison, Motorola, Inc.            USAFR(Ret)
ut-sally!im4u!milano!pcook      MCC-Software Technology Program
512-834-3348                    9430 Research Blvd. Suite 200
                                Austin, Texas 78759


  [There are, of course, two sides to the McCarthy incident.  As I recall
  from an old SU-BBoard message, McCarthy had agreed to an interview under
  the impression that he would be on the program alone.  At the last moment
  it was mentioned that Dreyfus had also been invited.  Viewing this as "ambush
  journalism" -- my words -- McCarthy declined to participate in the impromptu
  debate.  No doubt the station was just trying to schedule a lively evening,
  but they should have checked with McCarthy and given him time to prepare.
  He and Dreyfus have sufficient visibility that a poorly stated remark, on
  >>any<< radio station, could affect the future of AI funding.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 86 08:46 EST
-FROM-
From: Ken Haase <KWH@MIT-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-

    Date: 3 Feb 86 14:25:24 GMT
    From: vax135!miles@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Miles Murdocca)
    Subject: Re: Technology Review article
    To: AIList@SRI-AI

    The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers,
    who are famous for making bold statements that AI will never meet the
    expectations of the people who fund AI research.  They make the claim
    that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
    but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
    They use this argument and a few others such as the lack of a
    representation for emotions to support their view that AI researchers
    are wasting their sponsors' money by knowingly heading down dead-ends.

I don't think the Dreyfus brothers accuse AI researches of knowingly
heading down dead-ends.  They just claim that most of ``what people do''
cannot be captured by the ``abstracted representations'' of nearly all
current AI research.  I don't agree with this claim, but can't deny that
we (in AI) may be all wrong about our central hypothesis.  We just have
to make our hypothesis clear and explicit.  I think that most high level
intellectual processes have effective symbolic representations (and I'm
working to find out what such representations might be).  That is an
explicit hypothesis of my research.  On the other hand, I do not think
that there is anything like a symbolic representation of ``how to ride a
bike''.  What happens in such cases is that our intellect ``trains'' the
animal that is the rest of us to ride the bicycle.

    As I recall ["Machine Learning", Michalski et al, Ch 1], there are two
    basic forms of learning: 'knowledge acquisition' and 'skill refinement'.
    The Dreyfuss duo seems to be using a skill refinement problem to refute
    the work going on in knowledge acquisition.  The distinction between the
    two types of learning was recognized by AI researchers years ago, and I
    feel that the Dreyfuss two lack credibility since they fail to align their
    arguments with the taxonomy of the field.

The alchemists could have made the same argument against arguments for
the periodic table; what the Dreyfus brothers are arguing for is the
need for just such a ``paradigm shift'' in cognitive science.  The fact
that this shift will disrupt the foundations of most current AI
technology (most of which is not well proven anyway) should not effect
scientific judgements at all (though, pessimistically, it certainly
will).

In any case, the dichotomy between skill refinement and knowledge
acquisition is even suspect; outside of rote learning of facts, most
gained knowledge is gained by appropriating the knowledge as skills (in
a broad sense of skills, which includes responses, perceptual skills,
etc).

Ken

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
22
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 23:25:15 est
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEED INFORMATION ON AI SOCIETIES; PLEASE HELP
-BODY-
I am preparing a short article on associations, societies, and related
organizations in artificial intelligence.  For each, I would appreciate
receiving the following kind of information: name; purpose; date of
establishment; principal people involved in getting it started;
important events in its history; publications, conferences, and other
activities; current membership (if relevant); and any other items of
special interest.  I would like to put the set of organizations in some
historical perspective, if possible.  Pointers to other places where
something like this has already been done would be particularly
helpful, and copies of same would be even more so.  Needless to say, net
transmission is most efficient, as the deadline is uncomfortably
close.  And I would particularly value finding someone who would be
interested in helping put all this information together!

I would expect to include SIGART, ACL, ICCL, AISB, IJCAII, AAAI, CSS,
CSCSI, ECCAI, and as many other national and regional groups as
possible.  Please help if you can; share with me what you have
available, even if you think you may not be the most appropriate person
to do so; and help get this message out to the people who should know.

Net messages to walker@mouton.arpa, walker%mouton@csnet-relay,
or ucbvax(or ihnp4, etc.)!bellcore!walker; mail to
        Don Walker (EAI)
        Bell Communications Research
        445 South Street, MRE 2A379
        Morristown, NJ 07960, USA

I am sending this notice to publications as well as bboards, digests,
and people, but note that the time is too short to justify actually
printing it in most of them.  Instead, the editors should respond
themselves or route it to those most likely to have the information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Feb 86 13:23:43-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: J. of AI, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I received a message a while ago about the introduction of a new journal
titled Journal for the Integrated Study of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive
Science and Applied Epistemology from Ghent, Belgium.  However I have not
been able to verify that such a journal has been published or is being
planned.  Does anyone have more information about it?

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 13:25 ???
-FROM-
From: Sonny Crockett <WELTYC%rpicie.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language Interfacing
-BODY-

        A couple of my students are interested in doing some work on
a natural language interface to an Operating System.  I'm not really well
versed in this particular field.  Can someone point me towards a few good
papers on this topic? They don't necessarily have to be specifically on
Natural language interfaces to OS, generic ones will do.

                                Thanks,

                                Christopher A. Welty
                                RPI/CIE Systems Manager

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Feb 86 15:09:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!diku!daimi!fleckner@ucbvax.berkeley
     .edu  (Kurt Fleckner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 3D-package for Xerox 1108
-BODY-
I'm working on a Xerox 1108, and would like to get information
about a 3D-package for it.
I am designing an expert system to draw the 3D structure of
a RNA-molecule.
If anyone has any knowledge of such a system, I would be glad
if you could mail it to me. If you know about an expert system
in that area, I'm interested too.

                       Thanks,
                            Kurt Fleckner
                            Dept. of Comp. Science
                            University of Aarhus
                            Denmark
                       {seismo!mcvax!diku!daimi!fleckner}


[Check the last issue (or two) of IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
for some beautiful graphics of DNA molecules in various conformations and
at several scales.  I was enlightened by the sequence showing DNA twisting
to form a chromosome.  Ken Knowleton and several others have also developed
molecular display software.  (I've seen examples in the SIGGRAPH proceedings.)
It would be a pity if all this had to be reinvented.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 86 11:16 EST
-FROM-
From: THOMPSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures
-BODY-
          I am  looking  for information about the knowledge structure
          differences of people who have different levels of expertise
          in  a  subject.  For  example, what is the difference in the
          knowledge  structure of an "apprentice", a "journeyman",or a
          "master".

          I will be happy to collect these references and repost them.
          Please send them directly to me (via csnet).

                                        Roger Thompson

                                        Thompson@UMASS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 21:49:29 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Maner <maner%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ICAI for Physically/mentally Impaired
-BODY-
Could anyone point me to recent research in the development of intelligent
tutoring/training systems for the physically/mentally impaired?  My interest
is on the software engineering side, not the hardware side.  What kinds of
unsolved problems exist which might be addressable by ICAI software methods?
My impression is that, while there is much activity on the hardware frontier
for impaired learners, there has been little innovative work on the software
side.  So much for my impressions :-).

Please reply by mail directly to me.  If there are enough responses, I
will post a response summary back to mod.ai.  Thank you.

        Walter Maner, Computer Science Department

BEST    CSNet           maner@bgsu
 :      ARPANet         maner%bgsu@csnet-relay
 :      UUCP            ...cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!maner
 :      Mail            BGSU, Bowling Green, OH 43403
 :      CompuServe      73157,247
WORST   Phone           (419) 372-8719 or -2337

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1986 23:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Cohn  <JC595C%GWUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PDP-11 Equation Solvers
-BODY-
I believe that such work was being done at Stevens Institute of Tech.
in Hoboken NJ in 1982-3 on a Pro-350 (PC version of PDP-11) at the math
department you might want to try in get in touch with Larry Levine
there, he is in the math department, and I think lead that project.
He has a computer address on bitnet of LLEVINE@SITVXB.

Jonathan Cohn
JC595C@GWUVM.BITNET
COHN@NSFVAX.BITNET
COHN@NSFVAX.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:28:28 PST
-FROM-
From: newton@vlsi.caltech.edu (Mike Newton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: small correction
-BODY-

A small correction to last digest's bibliography:

        %A H. Derby
        %T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
        ...
        %C Los Angeles, California

to:

%A H. Derby
%T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
%R Technical Report 84-5134
%I Department of Computer Science
%I California Institute of Technology
%C Pasadena, California  91125
%D 1984

> mike

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 86 10:20:22 pst
-FROM-
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Quick summary of NAIL
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

NAIL is a research project one of whose goals is to determine
what degree of expressiveness and efficiency can be obtained
by a logic based language without resorting to certain
"undesirable" non-logical mechanisms such as cut, assert and
retract, rule order, and subgoal order. Jeff Ullman, the PI,
likes to draw the analogy:

"NAIL is to Prolog as Relational DBMS is to CODASYL."

NAIL is in a preliminary stage of development at Stanford CSD.
An overview, "Design overview of the Nail! System" is available
from Professor Ullman.

NAIL! is an acronym for "Not Another Implementation of Logic!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 23:39:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: dat%ukc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MIRANDA Functional Programming System
-BODY-

        MIRANDA


This  is  to  inform  anyone  who  may  be  interested   that   a   UNIX
implementation  of  the  Miranda  functional  programming  system is now
available for the following machines: VAX (under 4.2  BSD),  ORION,  and
SUN  workstations.  It will be ported to a number of other UNIX machines
in the  near  future.   The  rest  of  this  message  contains  a  brief
description  of the Miranda system, followed by information about how to
obtain it.

 What is Miranda?

Miranda is an advanced functional programming language designed by David
Turner  of the University of Kent.  It is based on the earlier languages
SASL, KRC and ML.  A program in Miranda is a set of equations describing
the  functions  and  data  structures  which the user wishes to compute.
Programs written in Miranda are typically ten to  twenty  times  shorter
than  the equivalent programs in a conventional high level language such
as PASCAL.  The main features of Miranda are:
        1) Purely functional - no side effects
        2) Higher order - functions can be treated as values
        3) Infinite data structures can be described and used
        4) Concise notation for sets and sequences ("zf expressions")
        5) Polymorphic strong typing
The basic  types  of  the  language  are  numbers  (integer  and  double
precision  floating  point),  characters,  booleans,  lists, tuples, and
functions.  In addition a rich variety  of  user-defined  types  may  be
introduced by writing appropriate equations.  A more detailed discussion
of the language may  be  found  in  "Miranda:  a  non-strict  functional
language  with polymorphic types", in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol 201.

The Miranda system is a self contained sub-system, running  under  UNIX.
The Miranda compiler works in conjunction with a screen editor (normally
this is `vi', but it is easy to arrange for this to be another editor if
preferred).  Programs are automatically recompiled in response to source
edits and any syntax or type errors  signalled  immediately.   The  type
system  enables  a  high proportion of semantic errors to be detected at
compile time.  There is an online reference manual, which documents  the
system at a level appropriate for someone already familiar with the main
ideas  of  functional  programming  (more  tutorial   material   is   in
preparation).  Execution is by a fast interpreter, using an intermediate
code based on combinatory logic.

The Miranda system is a powerful tool, enabling complex applications  to
be  developed  in  a  fraction  of  the  time required in a conventional
programming system.  Applications which have been developed  in  Miranda
include  -  compilers,  theorem provers, and digital circuit simulation.
It is envisaged that the main uses of Miranda will be:
        1) Teaching the concepts of functional programming
        2) Rapid prototyping
        3) As a specification language
        4) For further research into functional programming
        5) As a general purpose programming language

 Release Information

The Miranda system has been developed by Research Software Ltd.   It  is
distributed  in  object  code  form  and  is currently available for the
following machines - VAX (under 4.2BSD), ORION, SUN 2, SUN 3.

The license fee, per cpu, is 300 pounds for an educational  license  and
975   pounds   for   a  commercial  license  (US  prices:  $450,  $1450,
respectively).  If you think you may be interested in obtaining  a  copy
of  the Miranda system please send your name and (postal) address to the
following  electronic  mail  address,  and  you  will  be  sent  further
information and a copy of the license form etc:
                USENET:  ...!mcvax!ukc!mira-request
                JANET:   mira-request@ukc.ac.uk
                ARPANET: mira-request%ukc@ucl-cs
Or  telephone Research Software on: 0227 471844 (omit the initial `0' if
calling from outside England)

If you are interested in obtaining Miranda on a different machine, or  a
different  version  of  Unix,  from those listed above, it is also worth
mailing details of your situation, since future porting policy  will  be
largely  determined  by  perceived  demand.   ((NB  - UNIX systems only,
please.))


    David Turner

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
23
-DATE-
Date: 7 Feb 1986 08:21-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Systems of Actors (USC)
-BODY-
            USC DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM SOLVING GROUP

                          MEETING


              "Formalizing the Development of

                    Systems of Actors"


                        Ed Ipser

                   Ph.D Student, USC

A formalization of the process of specifying and developing
distributed systems is presented, with the emphasis on the description
of multiple robot environments. The general scheme is a recursive
reduction of behaviors with constraints to actors with pre-determined
behaviors by showing that the behaviors of the actors satisfy the
behavior and constraint requirements of the system. Possible
applications of this scheme are presented, including automatic
programming, planning, theorem proving, and the description of
non-computable functions. This work is based on the work of Goldman
and Wile on GIST, and Georgeff's work on the theory of processes.

Time: 3:00 PM Wednesday, Feb 12, 1986
Place: Seaver Science Bldg., Room 319, USC
Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, CS Dept., USC (213) 743-7794

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:56:48 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Artificial Concept Formation (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 12th February l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.


Professor Donald Michie, The Turing Institute, Glasgow will give a
seminar entitled - "Artificial Concept Formation".

The approach develops from a position taken in the 1950's by H.A. Simon.
He proposed, in essence, a new criterion for the adequacy of a theory
(he considered economic theory), namely that in explaining the flux of
transactions a theory must take full account of the resource-limited
nature of the calculations performed by the participating agents.   Is
economic man rational in the sense of making fully rational choices
whatever the computational cost (as in the von Neumann and Morgenstern
theory of economic behaviour), or does he exhibit at most the level of
rationality which human brains can feasibly compute in the time
available for each choice?   By implication Simon also requires that
such a theory should be feasibly interpretable by its human user:
runnability on the machine is not enough.

This leads to the idea that what is run on the machine should be
human-oriented in a very strong sense, unprecedented in conventional
software technology even as an aspiration:  if a program is to be not
just an operationally effective description or prescription, but a
machine representation of a concept and hence an eligible component of
a Simon-type theory, it must be not only human-intelligible but also
human-interpretable.   This entails that the human expert skilled in
the given area must be able mentally to check it against trial data in
his head, just as he can in the case of his own professionally acquired
concepts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 09:28:13-PST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Gerlach <CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallelism in Production Systems (SU)
-BODY-

   On Friday, Feb 21, Anoop Gupta, a CSL faculty candidate from CMU, will
be speaking on "Parallelism in Production Systems" in MJH 352 at 3:15.



                       Parallelism in Production Systems

                                  Anoop Gupta
                        Department of Computer Science
                          Carnegie-Mellon University
                             Pittsburgh, PA 15213


  Production  systems  (or  rule-based  systems)  are widely used in Artificial
Intelligence for modeling intelligent behavior  and  building  expert  systems.
Most  production  system programs, however, are extremely computation intensive
and run quite slowly.  The slow speed of execution has prohibited  the  use  of
production   systems  in  domains  requiring  high  performance  and  real-time
response.  The talk will elaborate on the role of parallelism in the high-speed
execution of production systems.

  On  the  surface,  production  system  programs appear to be capable of using
large amounts of parallelism -- it  is  possible  to  perform  match  for  each
production  in  a  program  in  parallel.  Our research shows that in practice,
however, the speed-up obtainable from  parallelism  is  quite  limited,  around
10-fold as compared to initial expectations of 100-fold to 1000-fold.  The main
reasons for the limited speed-up are:  (1) there are only  a  small  number  of
productions that are affected (require significant processing) as a result of a
change to working memory and (2) there is a large variation in  the  processing
requirement  of these productions.  Since the number of affected productions is
not controlled by the implementor of the production system interpreter  (it  is
governed  mainly  by  the author of the program and the nature of the problem),
the solution to the problem of limited speed-up  is  to  somehow  decrease  the
variation  in  the  processing  cost  of  affected  productions.   We propose a
parallel version of the Rete algorithm which exploits  parallelism  at  a  very
fine  grain  to  reduce this variation.  We further suggest that to exploit the
fine-grained  parallelism,  a  shared-memory  multiprocessor  with  32-64  high
performance  processors  should be used.  For scheduling the fine-grained tasks
consisting of about 50-100 instructions, a hardware task scheduler is proposed.

  The results presented in the talk are based on simulations done for  a  large
set  of  production  systems  exploiting different sources of parallelism.  The
simulation results show that using the  suggested  multiprocessor  architecture
(with  individual  processors  performing  at 2 MIPS), it is possible to obtain
execution speeds of 5000-27000 working memory element changes per second.  This
corresponds  to  a speed-up of 5-fold to 27-fold over the best known sequential
implementation using a 2 MIPS processor.  This performance is also higher  than
that obtained by other proposed parallel implementations of production systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 11 Feb 86 16:30:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Karin Scholz <SCHOLZ@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Storage Manager for Prolog (SU)
-BODY-

this is a correction to the colloquium notice for this week:

Database Seminar CS 545, Friday Feb 14, 3:15pm, mjh352


  Persistent Prolog: A Secondary Storage Manager for Prolog

           Peter M D Gray
           University of Aberdeen, Scotland


            ABSTRACT OF TALK

 The talk will describe a general purpose "tight coupling" system based on a
C-Prolog interpreter interfaced to a "Persistent Heap" database, which
can store a wide variety of data types and objects.  We are
currently extending Prolog to allow definitions of modules and Abstract
Data Types.  This provides a disciplined way of accessing frame structures,
bit maps, attached procedures and other non-Prolog objects.
  With this system we are able to use Prolog to maintain an evolving
knowledge base on disc.  Prolog clauses and data structures are
manipulated in memory in the usual way, but migrate to disc on a
"commit" step.
  This work is part of the U.K. "Alvey" program in IKBS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Feb 86 08:55:19-PST
-FROM-
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Statistical Theory of Evidence (SRI)
-BODY-

Bob Hummel will be giving a talk on Tuesday, Feb. 18 at 10:30,
Conf room EK242 (the "old" conf room).  An abstract of his talk follows:


             A Statistical Viewpoint on the Theory of Evidence

                               Robert Hummel
                  Courant Institute, New York University

                                 Abstract

     The Dempster/Shafer "Theory of Evidence" can be regarded as  an  alge-
braic  space  with  a  combination  formula  that  combines the opinions of
"experts".  This viewpoint, which is really the origin of the theory,  will
be  explained  by  introducing spaces with simple binary operations, giving
these spaces intuitive interpretations, relating them to Bayesian updating,
and  showing that the spaces are (in a homomorphic sense) equivalent to the
Dempster/Shafer theory of evidence space.

     The viewpoint allows us to remark on limitations of  the  theory.   By
making compromises in a different manner, an alternative combination method
can be introduced.  This representation of states of belief by  "Parameter-
ized Statistics of Experts" will be described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 07:40:54 pst
-FROM-
From: Doug Coffland <coffland@lll-crg.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Compcon Spring 86
-BODY-

Register for Compcon Spring 86 now and attend the year's
only broad based computing conference sponsored by the
IEEE Computer Society.  Compcon will be held in San Fran-
cisco, March 3-6, 1986.

Key topics include: supercomputers, SDI software reliability,
AI applications, Japanese software practices, RISC vs. CISC,
and more.  Four full day tutorials will be given on Monday,
March 3.  Topics include silicon compilation, issues in expert
systems, complex computer graphics, and high performance com-
puting.

The advanced registration deadline is February 14.  For further
information, contact Robert M. Long, Lawrence Livermore National
Labratory, P. O. Box 808, MS L130, Livermore, Ca. 94550.
The telephone number is 415-422-8934.  Telephone registrations
will be accepted with Visa, MasterCard, or American Express.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
24
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:52:34 CST
-FROM-
From: veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Literature search.
-BODY-
I am beginning a research project on the control of multiple expert
systems in a single package/environment.  If anyone has any bibliographies
and/or references to literature on the control/scheduling/implementation
of multiple expert systems and would kindly share it with me I would
appreciate it.  Thanks

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS  66044
(913) 864-4482

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 86 15:13:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!druky!krahl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (R.H. Krahl)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Distributed Databases
-BODY-
Anyone having any articles or information in regards to distributed databases
with expert systems would be very much appreciated.  Thanks-in-advance.

Rich Krahl @ AT&T-ISL, Denver   EMAIL: {allegra, cbosgd, ihnp4}!druky!krahl
11900 N. Pecos
Denver, CO. 80234.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 86 14:07:34 pst
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!oblio!paf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Paul Fronberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: request for LISP source code
-BODY-
Try Scheme from the GNU emacs distribution. This is the version of LISP
utilized in "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs". The
source is ~ $150 and includes GNU emacs + Scheme + Bison (as of 7/85).
There was no problem in getting Scheme to build on either BSD 4.2 or USG V.2
(slight modification of build files necessary in the last case).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 15:52:39-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ISIS
-BODY-
ISIS is a factory scheduling KBS developed by Mark Fox and Stephen Smith
at the Intelligent Systems Laboratory of the Robotics Institute at CMU,
in conjunction with Westinghouse.  It constructs job-shop schedules,
monitors performance and avoids production bottlenecks, by evaluating and
resolving conflicting factors such as productivity goals, resource
requirements and machine preferences.

References:

Fox and Smith, "ISIS -- a KBS for factory scheduling", Expert Systems, v. 1,
n. 1, July 1984, pp. 25-49.

Fox, Smith, et al, "ISIS: A Constraint-Directed Reasoning Approach to Job
Shop Scheduling", Proc IEEE Conf. on Trends and Applications 83, Gaithers-
berg, MD, May 1983.


Dallas Webster
Burroughs Austin Research Center
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
{ihnp4, seismo, ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 FEB 86 17:04-N
-FROM-
From: KEMPEN%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info on Belgian AI journal (AIList)
-BODY-
The journal is called:
Title: CC-AI
Subtitle: The journal for the integrated study of Artificial
          Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology.
Editorial Address:
CC-AI
Blandijnberg 2
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
tel. +32 (91) 257571, ext. 4522
TELEX RUGENT 12.754
Publisher:
Communication & Cognition
(Same address)

                                 Gerard Kempen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 18:23:59 pst
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!koen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Koenraad Lecot)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: J. of AI, Cognitive Science and Applied Epistemology
-BODY-
The journal had a couple of issues last year. Papers cover a wide variety
of topics within AI. Not too technical stuff. Have not received any issues
this year yet.

 -- Koenraad Lecot

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 09:36:10 cst
-FROM-
From: bulko@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU (Bill Bulko)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bulko@sally.UUCP (Bill Bulko)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures
-BODY-
     My attempted mail reply to thompson@umass-cs.csnet failed, so I'm
posting this instead.  The request was for pointers to articles dealing
with how varying levels of expertise could be represented.  My research
is related to problem solving in physics, and so I have read several papers
dealing with the way people learn how to solve problems in technical fields.
Below is an excerpt from my proposal containing the related (annotated)
references;  I hope that they prove helpful.



Bhaskar, R., and H. A. Simon,  "Problem Solving in Semantically Rich
   Domains:  An Example from Engineering Thermodynamics."  Cognitive Science,
   Vol. 1, No. 2, April 1977.
This is a study of the processes used by people to solve problems in
semantically rich domains, and how these processes compare with those in
general problem-solving domains.  The authors choose the field of
thermodynamics, and use a protocol-encoding program called SAPA, which they
theorize corresponds to their subject's problem-solving behavior.

Chi, M. T. H., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, "Categorization and
   Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices."  Cognitive
   Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 1981.
The authors compare the ways experts and novices categorize physics problems
and form physical models of the problems based on the categories created.
Studies are presented which investigate the implications of the differences
found for problem solving in general.

Larkin, J., J. McDermott, D. Simon, and H. A. Simon, "Models of Competence in
   Solving Physics Problems."  Cognitive Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, October-
   December 1980.
This article discusses how a person's experience and expertise in solving
physics problems determine the process by which he solves them.  The authors
describe a set of two computer programs which they claim are accurate models
of "expert" and "novice" problem-solving protocols.

Larkin, J., and H. A. Simon, "Learning Through Growth of Skill in
   Mental Modeling."  Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of
   the Cognitive Science Society, p. 106.
The authors study how people develop the ability to take physical situations
and re-represent them in terms of scientific entities.  They present a program
called ABLE, which models the performance of human experts and novices as they
solve physics problems, from this learning point of view.

Luger, G., "Mathematical Model Building in the Solution of Mechanics
   Problems:  Human Protocols and the MECHO Trace."  Cognitive Science,
   Vol. 5, No. 1, January-March 1981.
Luger describes an automatic problem solver, MECHO, and describes how it
can be used for model building and manipulation in solving problems in
physics.  He compares traces of MECHO with the problem-solving protocols of
several human subjects, and hypothesizes that these traces are similar to the
model-building techniques that people in general use.

                                        Hope these help,
                                        Bill

          "In the knowledge lies the power." -- Edward A. Feigenbaum
                       "Knowledge is good." -- Emil Faber
Bill Bulko                                      Department of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas         {ihnp4,harvard,gatech,ctvax,seismo}!sally!bulko

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jan 86 16:33:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!pollack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Two AI software packages
-BODY-
RE: Mom
There was an article by Thomas Friedman in the NYT a couple
of months ago on two programs for the Atari ST written
by "the Israeli equivalent of Garry Trudeau":
"MOM" and "MURRAY" are animated computer personalities,
They sit in comfortable chairs on the screen and talk to you.
Murray is a raconteur, with supposedly an ever-expanding database
of humor, and a memory for the jokes he already told you, and MOM
is a typical mother figure, who can make you feel guilty for
anything, even spending the $49 to buy her. Their dialog appears in
white bubbles above their heads, and the user gets
to type in their name and answer yes/no questions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 14:16:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: noaK
-BODY-
Re: 2010 and H-Mobius Loops and HAL's paranoia (Vol 4 # 17).

Why not give HAL (an intelligent system) the Rorschach inkblot test,
"to show intelligence, personality and mental state"?
Another psychological test, the IQ test, was proposed by in volume 3,
number 164.

Gordon Joly
aka
The Joka
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: {...!seismo!mcvax}!ukc!kcl-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 14:08:31 EST
-FROM-
From: decwrl!decvax!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ai koans
-BODY-
        A P.I. who was trying to meet a deadline said to his
        assistant: "Excuse me, I couldn't help noticing that
        you're not working!"

        "The computer isn't working," the assistant replied.

        PASK, overhearing them, commented: "Not the assistant,
        not the computer.  The man-machine interface isn't
        working."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
25
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 86 14:21:41 est
-FROM-
From: FOXEA%VTVAX3.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Journal on Applied AI
-BODY-
                 [Forwarded from the IRList Digest.]

New Journal: Applied Artificial Intelligence, An International Journal
Publication Information: published quarterly starting March 86
Rates: $55/volume indiv ($88 institutional) plus $24 air mail postage
Contacts: order with check or money order to -
            Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Journals Dept., 79 Madison Ave.
            New York, New York 10016
Information: Elizabeth D'Costa, Circulation Mgr. (212) 725-1999

Aims and Scope: Applied Artificial Intelligence is intended to help
exchange information about advances and experiences in this field among
AI researchers.  Furthermore, it will aid decision makers in industry and
management to understand the accomplishments and limitations of the
state-of-the-art of artificial intelligence.
   Research to be presented will focus on methodology, time-schedules,
problems, work force strength, new tools, transfer of theoretical
accomplishements to application problems, information exchange among
concerned AI researchers and decision makers about the potential impact
of their work on their decisions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 22:49:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Peter Friedland <FRIEDLAND@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Invitation to Authors
-BODY-
        I have recently been named to the Editorial Panel of Communications
of the ACM (CACM) with responsibility for artificial intelligence.  CACM
is by far the widest-read computing publication with a current circulation
of over 75,000.  I would like to encourage submissions to CACM in one of
several forms:  articles of general interest (surveys, tutorials, reviews),
research contributions (original, previously-unpublished reports on
significant research), and reports on conferences or committee meetings.
In particular, manuscripts which act to bridge the gap between artificial
intelligence research and traditional computing methodologies are welcome.
All contributions will be fully reviewed with authors normally notified of
acceptance or rejection within 3 months of receipt.

        In addition, CACM intends to devote substantial amounts of space
to special collections of related, high-quality, "Scientific American-like"
articles.  For examples, see the September 1985 issue on "Architectures for
Knowledge-Based Systems" or the November 1985 issue on "Frontiers of
Computing in Science and Engineering."  These special sections are usually
composed of invited papers selected by a guest editor from the community.
Professional editors at ACM headquarters devote on the order of man-weeks
per article in developing graphics and helping to make the articles readable
by a wide cross-section of the computing community.  I welcome suggestions
(and volunteers) from anybody in the AI community for such special sections.

        Articles and research contributions should be submitted directly
to:             Janet Benton
                Executive Editor, CACM
                11 West 42nd St.
                New York, NY 10036

        Ideas for articles or special sections, and volunteers for helping
in the review process to insure the highest quality of AI publication
in CACM should be sent to me as FRIEDLAND@SUMEX (or call 415-497-3728).

Peter Friedland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Feb 86 11:39:47-PST
-FROM-
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Invitation
-BODY-

The AAAI would like to extend a special invitation to academic
institutions and non-profit research laboratories to participate
in this year's Exhibit Program at the National Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, August 11-15, 1986 in the Philadelphia
Civic Center.  It's important to communicate what universities and
labortories are doing in AI by demonstrating their different
research projects to our conference attendees.

The AAAI will provide one 10' x 10' booth free of charge, describe
your demonstration in the Exhibit Guide, and assist you with your
logistical arrangements.  Although we can not provide support
equipment (e.g. phone, lines or computers), we can direct you to
different vendors who may be able to assist you with your equipment
needs.

If you and your department are interesting in participating, please
call Ms. Lorraine Cooper at the AAAI (415) 328-3123.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 86 19:46:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!lamy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Jean-Francois Lamy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
>there's no reason to think it ever will"

Still thinking that fundamental breakthroughs in AI are achievable in such an
infinitesimal amount of time as 25 years is naive.  I probably was not even
born when such claims could have been justified by sheer enthousiasm... Not
that we cannot get interesting and perhaps even useful developments in the
next 25 years.

>P.S.  You might notice that about 10 pages into the issue, there's
>      an ad for some AI system.  I bet the advertisers were real
>      pleased about the issue's contents...

Nowadays you don't ask for a grant or try to sell a product if the words "AI,
expert systems, knowledge engineering techniques, fifth generation and natural
language processing" are not included.
Advertisement is about creating hype, and it really works -- for a while,
until the next "in" thing comes around.

Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.
CSNet:      lamy@toronto.csnet
UUCP:       {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
CDN:        lamy@iro.udem.cdn (lamy%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 20:51:58 PST
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sparklers from the Tech Review
-BODY-
I haven't read the Tech Review article; perhaps I shall just to see how
different will be my interpretation of it from the opinions heard here.  The
discussion has made me want to offer some ideas of my own.

What we lump under AI is several different fields of research with often very
different if not contradictory approaches.  As a dilletante in the AI field I
perceive the following:

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (a more restricted area than Cognitive Science) attempts
to understand biologically based thinking using behavioral and psychiatric
concepts and methods.  This includes the effects emotional and social forces
exert on cognition.  This group is increasingly borrowing from the following
groups.

COGNITIVE SCIENCE attempts to broaden the study to include machine-based
cognition.  CS introduces heavy doses of metaphysics, logic, linguistics, and
information theory.  My impression is that this area is too heavily invested
in symbol-processing research and could profitably spend more time on analog
computation and associative memories.  These may better model humans' near-
instantaneous decision-making, which is more like doing a vector-sum than
doing massively parallel logical inferences.

PATTERN RECOGNITION, ROBOTICS, ETC.  attempts to engineer cognition into
machines.  Many workers in this field have a strong "hard-science" background
and a pragmatic approach; they often don't care whether they reproduce or
whether they mimic biological cognition.

EXPERT SYSTEMS, KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING is more software engineering than
hardware engineering.  Logic, computer science, and database theory are strong
here.  Some of the simpler expert systems are imminently practical and have
been around for decades--though "programmed" into trouble-shooting books and
the like rather than a computer.  (And while we're on this, most of what now
passes for rule-based programming could be done in BASIC or assembly language,
including self-modifying code, using fairly simple table-driven techniques.)

And perhaps several more groups could be distinguished.  Of course, there are
plenty of exceptions to these categories, but humans do self-select into
groups and distill ideas and techniques into a rudimentary group persona.

If I were to characterize myself, I'd probably say that I'm less interested in
AI than IA--Intelligence Amplification.  I'm interested by attempts to create
machine versions of human intelligence and I have little doubt that all the
vaunted "mystical" abilities of humans will eventually be reproduced,
including self-awareness.

Some of these abilities may be much easier to reproduce than we suppose:
intuition, for instance.  I'm an artist in several media and use intuition
routinely.  I've spent a lot of time introspecting about what happens when I
"solve" artistic problems, and I've learned how to "program" my undermind so
that I can promise solutions with considerable reliability.  I believe I could
build an intuitive computer.

But what fascinates me is the idea of building systems which combine the best
capabilities  of human and machine to overcome the limits of both.  I think
it's much more economical, practical, and probably even humane to, say, make a
language-translation system that uses computers to do rapid, rough transla-
tions of 99% of a text and uses human sensitivities and skills to polish and
validate the translations.  (Stated like that it sounds like two batch jobs
with a pipe between them.  My concept is an interactive system with both human
and computer collaborating on the job, with the human doing continuous shaping
and scheduling of the entire process.)

Now I'll go back to being an interested by-stander for another six months!

                 Larry @ JPL-VLSI.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Feb 86 18:04:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!lab@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lab Manager)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
In article <7500002@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>
>Has anyone read the article about AI in the February issue of
>"Technology Review"?  You can't miss it -- the cover says something
>like: "In 25 years, AI has still not lived up to its promises and
>there's no reason to think it ever will" (not a direct quote; I don't
>have the copy with me).  General comments?

They basically say that things like blocks world doesn't scale up, and
AI can't model intuition because 'real people' aren't thinking
machines. An appropriate rebuttal to these two self-styled
philosophers:

"In 3000 years, Philosophy has still not lived up to its promises and
there's no reason to think it ever will."


Brad Miller     Arpa:   lab@rochester.arpa UUCP: rochester!lab
                        (also miller@rochester for non-lab stuff)
                Title:  CS Lab Manager
                Snail:  University of Rochester Computer Science Dept.
                        617 Hylan Building Rochester NY 14627

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 86 16:38:38 est
-FROM-
From: "Marek W. Lugowski" <marek%indiana.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Taxonomizing in AI: neither useful or harmless
-BODY-
> [Stan Shebs:] In article <3600036@iuvax.UUCP> marek@iuvax.UUCP writes:
>
>   Date: 4 Feb 86 19:55:00 GMT
>   From: ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!marek@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
>
>   ha ha ha!  "taxonomy of the field" -- the latest gospel of AI?  Let me be
>   impudent enough to claim one of the most misguided AI efforts to date is
>   taxonomizing a la Michalski et al:  setting up categories along arbitrary
>   lines dictated by somebody or other's intuition.  If AI does not have
>   the mechanism-cum-explanation to describe a phenomenon, what right does it
>   have to a) taxonomize it and b) demand that its taxonomizing be recognized
>   as an achievement?
>                        -- Marek Lugowski
>
> I assume you have something wonderful that we haven't heard about?

I assume that you are intentionally jesting, equating that which I criticize
with all that AI has to offer.  Taxonomizing is a debatable art of empirical
science, usually justified when a scientist finds itself overwhelmed with
gobs and gobs of identifiable specimens, e.g. entymology.  But AI is not
overwhelmed by gobs and gobs of tangible singulars; it is a constructive
endeavor that puts up putatative mechanisms to be replaced by others.  The
kinds of learning Michalski so effortlessly plucks out of the thin air are not
as incontrovertibly real and graspable as instances of dead bugs.

One could argue, I suppose, that taxonomizing in absence of multitudes of
real specimens is a harmless way of pursuing tenure, but I argue in
Indiana U. Computer Science Technical Report No. 176, "Why Artificial
Intelligence is Necessarily Ad Hoc: Your Thinking/Approach/Model/Solution
Rides on Your Metaphors", that it causes grave harm to the field.  E-mail
nlg@iuvax.uucp for a copy, or write to Nancy Garrett at Computer Science
Department, Lindley Hall 101, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
47406.

> Or do you believe that because there are unsolved problems in physics,
> chemists and biologists have no right to study objects whose behavior is
> ultimately described in terms of physics?
>
>                                                       stan shebs
>                                                       (shebs@utah-orion)

TR #176 also happens to touch on the issue of how ill-formed Stan Shebs's
rhetorical question is and how this sort of analogizing has gotten AI into
its current (sad) shape.

Please consider whether taxonomizing kinds of learning from the AI perspective
in 1981 is at all analogous to chemists' and biologists' "right to study the
objects whose behavior is ultimately described in terms of physics."  If so,
when is the last time you saw a biology/chemistry text titled "Cellular
Resonance" in which 3 authors offered an exhaustive table of carcinogenic
vibrations, offered as a collection of current papers in oncology?...

More constructively, I am in the process of developing an abstract machine.
I think that developing abstract machines is more in the line of my work as
an AI worker than postulating arbitrary taxonomies where there's neither need
for them nor raw material.

                                -- Marek Lugowski
                                   an AI graduate student
                                   Indiana U. CS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
26
-DATE-
Date: 13 Feb 86 10:52:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: automatic testing of parsers
-BODY-

Do any systems exist which can accept a body of BNF (or some other
syntactic production rules), and then generate or enumerate test
cases to be run against an alleged parser of that BNF?

Thanks in advance for any help...

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 86 00:31:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Carey E. Priebe)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: baseball expert systems
-BODY-
****************************************************************
i need pointers to or information about expert systems that have
been developed for the baseball domain.  i would be interested
in research or incomplete programs as well as mature systems.  i
believe there was some related work ongoing at yale recently, per-
haps focusing on natural language, but my information is sketchy.
reply directly to me or through the net.
thanx in advance.
                                cp
*****************************************************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Engineering
-BODY-
As a news editor for "Artificial Intelligence in Engineering", I
request that people send me information on new applications of
artificial intelligence to engineering problems, whether they be
products, research efforts, industrial applications or related items
such as conferences or new bindings.

Please send the information to me at:
  Laurence L. Leff
  Computer Science and Engineering
  Southern Methodist University
  Dallas, Texas 75275

bitnet: E1AR0002 at SMUVM1
Arpanet, CSNET leff%smu@csnet-relay
UUCPnet ihnp4!convex!smu!leff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Feb 86 10:58:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Business Week on Expert Systems
-BODY-
Check the February 10 issue of Business Week, pp. 94, 98-99, for a
discussion of the funding and prospects of Intellicorp, Teknowledge,
Inference Corp., and the Carnegie Group.  They are described as the
Gang of Four in AI.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 09:00:25 est
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!decvax!linus!raybed2!gxm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (GERARD MAYER)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP Compilers?
-BODY-
Get in touch with Franz Inc., 2920 Domingo Ave, Suite 203, Berkeley, CA 94705
(415) 540-1224 for common lisp product running on unix.

                                                Gerard Mayer
                                                Raytheon Research Division

                                                uucp   ..linus!raybed2!gxm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 17:59:06 mst
-FROM-
From: ulysses!ihnp4!alberta!arms@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Bill Armstrong)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ICAI for Physically/mentally Impaired
-BODY-
There is a softcover book: Microcomputer Resource Book for Special
Education by Dolores Hagen published by Reston in 1984.  It deals
with questions of the learning impaired, deaf, blind, and physically
handicapped, but points out that a lot of software is useful
to the handicapped even if it isn't so labelled.
The ISBN numbers are 0-8359-4345-3 and 0-8359-4344-5 (paperback)
Call number LC4019.H33 1984.

I don't know whether it satisfies the ICAI criterion or is just
CAI.  The person to talk to about ICAI would be
Greg Kearsley, Courseware, Inc.,
10075 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, California 92131.

I hope this helps you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 23 Jan 86 10:44:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Animals
-BODY-
               [Excerpted from the AI-Ed distribution.]


Computer Currents, 22-oct-85  [a computer newspaper]
        Strehlo: What's the nature of the research?

        Kay: It's yet another attempt to try and understand the thin
edge of the long wedge. At PARC, the children used Smalltalk on the
interim Dynabook to build their own application programs, their own
editors and animation and stuff like that.  In this case, we're sort
of upping the ante to try and do a system in which the children can
create little mentalities, animal level mentalities that can be put
into a simulated environment where they have to survive. If you will,
it's like creating a little Disney character that you then put out
into a big world."

Strehlo: We see this kind of thing on a simple level in adventure
games where the player has to give characters the traits needed to
achieve some goal.

Kay: Right, exactly.

Strehlo: And this just goes further? How would it go further?

Kay: "It goes a lot further.  We're shooting for something that will
be dynamically animated and will actually learn things.  The idea is
to get kids to be more thoughtful about thinking by getting them to
try to think about how animals think, and by taking the results of
these comtemplations and actually building animal-like creatures that
work. It's exciting. There's very little in existing AI or computer
graphics that really serves this project, which is nice. We get to
invent it."  [AI-ED editor:  If you are familiar with Doug Lenat's
work, you might not be surprised to learn that Doug and Alan are
friends.  When Alan was at Atari, Doug consulted on the KNOESPHERE
project along with ALan Borning, David McDonald, Craig Taylor &
Stephen Weyer ... in alphabetical order.  See IJCAI proceedings #8,
p.167-169 if you are interested .. it's a bit vague and far out though]

Strehlo: Who do you have working with you on this project?

Kay: I've got Marvin Minsky helping on the AI stuff, I've got Seymour
Papert helping on some of the curriculum design, I've got the visual
language lab at MIT helping on the graphics for the animals and stuff.
All different kinds of disciplines, different kinds of students, are
working on it. If we can anchor the place over the next couple of
years, and there's every reason to believe it's going to happen,
Project Vivarium is going to be the most exciting place in the world
to work.

[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Feb 86 13:32:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!greenber@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ross
     Greenberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A contest in 'C'...
-BODY-
There is a game making the rounds on some of the MS-DOS BBS's called
CROBOTS.  An interesting game that can allow those that respond to
determine just how good their 'C' programming is.
In this game, you program your "robot" to seek out and destroy other
robots that have been programmed by someone else.  Each robot has the
capability of movement, sensor detection of other robots, and the
ability to fire a cannon at a given direction and range.
Typical robots might use programs that allow the robot to scan the
playfield, locate any one of four opponents, fire a cannon at that
opponent, and start zig-zagging towards that opponent while firing
a cannon.
If you are interested in determining how *your* robot stands up
to other robots, then here are the contest rules:
1)      Get a copy of the program from a local MS-DOS machine.
        There may be a UNIX version out, but I'm not aware of
        it
2)      Create a robot that will (2 out of 3 times), destroy
        the preconfigured robots that come in the .ARC package.
3)      Document your robot's code and send it off to me at the
        below address.  Entries accepted until March 1, 1986.
4)      You may enter no more than two robots.
The way I'll run the contest should work, although comments are
welcomed:
For every four robots that come in, I'll send them off to battle.
I'll run the simulation twice for each four, or until a have a
clear consensus of which two out of the robots make it to the next
round.
This process will be repeated until there are finally only four
top robots.  They'll slug it out until I can determine which are
the top two.  From that, of course, I can determine which is the
robot that deserves the applause.
The top four robots will be posted to the net.  Each losing robot
will be returned to its designer, along with the code for the
robots which destroyed it.
Consider this first contest the beginning round.  The next round
will be in about three months.

And I forgot to tell you where some of these boards are....
Two that I know of are:
NYACC (New York Amateur Computer Club) at 1-718-539-3338
and my board at 1-212-889-6438, login with 'demo' and 'demo'.
Happy Robot Designing....

Good Luck!
Ross

ross m. greenberg
ihnp4!allegra!phri!sysdes!greenber
[phri rarely makes a guest-account user a spokesperson. Especially not me.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 86 15:54:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!npois!npoiv!bad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Bruce Dautrich)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A contest in 'C'...
-BODY-
        This games sounds like a game called bolo which to my knowledge
was first written by Peter Langston who also wrote empire.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
27
-DATE-
Date: 6 Feb 86 22:19:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ctvax!kerry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 Demo Needed
-BODY-
Does anyone know where I can get a good production system demo that will
run on the FRANZ LISP version of OPS5 (VPS)?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 00:56:33 EST
-FROM-
From: Mark Weiser <mark@mimsy.umd.edu>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: mark@maryland.UUCP (Mark Weiser)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures
-BODY-
In article <8602111536.AA15674@sally.UTEXAS.EDU>
sally!bulko (Bill Bulko) writes:

> Chi, M. T. H., P. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, "Categorization and
>    Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices."  Cognitive
>    Science, Vol. 5, No. 2, April-June 1981.
> The authors compare the ways experts and novices categorize physics problems
> and form physical models of the problems based on the categories created.
> Studies are presented which investigate the implications of the differences
> found for problem solving in general.


A related paper is :
Mark Weiser and Joan Shertz. "Programming problem representation
        in novice and expert programmers." International Journal of
        Man-Machine Studies.  December 1983. pp. 391-398.
This paper is an application of some of the Chi, Feltovich, and Glaser
methodology to the problem space of programming, with generically
similar results.  Differences in detail include categories of
problem-solving used and not used by experts (algorithms yes,
data-structures no), and differences between expert programmers
and expert former programmers now programming managers.

>mark
Spoken: Mark Weiser     ARPA:   mark@maryland   Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet:  mark@umcp-cs    UUCP:   {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Feb 86 10:08:45 PST
-FROM-
From: MEGIDDO@IBM-SJ.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prisoners' Dilemma Computer Programs Tournament
-BODY-

                       First Announcement of a

                     COMPUTER PROGRAMS TOURNAMENT
                   (of the Prisoners' Dilemma game)

1. INTRODUCTION

  This is a first announcement of a tournament for computer programs,
playing the famous Prisoners' Dilemma game.  Detailed instructions and
some background information are provided below.  The tournament is
organized for the purpose of research and no prizes are offered.  It
is intended however that the results and winners' names will be
published with permission from the persons involved.  One of the goals
is to see what will happen during a SEQUENCE of tournaments in which
information about the participating programs will be released, so that
participants will be able to revise their programs.  The tournament is
open to everyone.  However, notice the warnings below.  If you have
access to electronic mail then you can participate by submitting a
FORTRAN program according to the instructions below.  By doing so you
will also release and waive all your copyright rights and any other
intellectual property rights to your program.  It will also be assumed
that you have not violated any rights of any third party.  This
announcement also includes some programs that will help you prepare
for the tournament.

2. BACKGROUND

  The so-called prisoners' dilemma game has drawn the attention
of researchers from many fields: psychology, economics, political
science, philosophy, biology, and mathematics.  Computer scientists
are also interested in this game in the context of fundamentals of
distributed systems.

  The game is simple to describe, does not require much skill and is yet
extremely interesting from both the theoretical and practical points
of view.  By the (one-shot) Prisoners' Dilemma game we refer to a game
as follows.  The game is played by two players with symmetric roles.
Each has to choose (independently of the other) between playing action
C ("cooperate") or action D ("defect").  The scores to the two
players, corresponding to the four possible combinations of choices of
actions, are as shown in the following table:

                          Player 2

                         C       D
                      ---------------
                     |     3 |     4 |
                  C  |       |       |
                     | 3     | 0     |
       Player 1      |-------|-------|
                     |     0 |     1 |
                  D  |       |       |
                     | 4     | 1     |
                      ---------------

Thus, both players score 3 if both play C.  Both score 1 if both play D.
If one plays C and the other one plays D then the one who plays C scores
0 while the other one scores 4.

  The prisoner's dilemma game has been the subject of many experiments.
A tournament was organized several years ago by R.  Axelrod who later
published a book on it under the title "The evolution of cooperation"
(Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1984).

  Following is some discussion for the benefit of readers who are not
familiar with the fundamental considerations of how to play the game. One
should be careful to distinguish the one-shot game from the REPEATED game
in which the (one-shot) game is played many times, and after each round
both players are informed of each other's actions.  Furthermore, one
should distinguish between the infinitely repeated game and the finitely
repeated one.  These seem to be quite different from the point of view
of equilibrium.  An equilibrium in a 2-person game is a pair (S1,S2) of
strategies (one for each player) such that, given that player  i  (i=1,2)
is playing  Si , the other player, j=3-i, scores the maximum if he plays
Sj .

  We are interested here in the finitely repeated game where the number
of rounds is known in advance.  We first consider the one-shot game.
The analysis of the one-shot game is obvious.  Each of the players
realizes that no matter what his opponent does, it is always better
for him to play D rather than C.  Thus, under a very weak assumption
of rationality (namely, players do not choose actions that are
strictly dominated by other actions), the pair of actions (D,D)
remains the only rational choice.  The resulting score of (1,1) is
inferior to (3,3), which is possible if the choices are (C,C), and
this is the source of the "dilemma".

  To get some insight into the more general case, consider first
the 2-round game.  After the first round (in which the players choose
independently C or D) each player is informed of the choice of the
other one and then, once again, the players choose independently C or
D.  In this game each player has EIGHT strategies that can be coded in
the form XYZ where each of X,Y and Z equals either C or D.  The
interpretation of this notation is as follows.  (1) Play X in round 1.
(2) In round 2, play Y if the opponent played C and play Z if the
opponent played D.  It is easy to verify that any strategy XYZ is
strictly dominated by XDD (that is, regardless of what was done in
round 1, and regardless of what the opponent does in round 2, it is
better to play D rather than C in round 2.  However, there is no
domination relation between the strategies CDD and DDD: if player 2
plays DDD then player 1 is better off playing DDD rather than CDD,
whereas if player 2 plays DDC, player 1 is better off playing CDD
rather than DDD.  Of course, strategy DDC for player 2 is dominated by
DDD, but in order for player 1 to deduce that player 2 will not play
DDC, he has to assume that player 2 is capable of discovering this
domination.  Under such an assumption player 1 can eliminate 2's DDC.
Thus, if both players are "rational" they are left only with strategy
DDD as a reasonable choice.

  A similar process of repeatedly eliminating dominated strategies
applies to the general N-round game.  It is dominant for both players
to defect in the last round.  Therefore (after we drop all strategies
that play C in the last round), it becomes dominant to defect in round
N-1, and so on.  This eventually leaves both players only with the
strategy of always playing D.

  The winner in both tournaments run by R. Axelrod was the simple
strategy called "Tit-for-Tat".  It starts by playing C and in round i+1
plays whatever the opponent played in round i.  It seems like a very good
strategy for playing the repeated dilemma for an indefinite number of
rounds.  In the N-round game it is obvious that an improvement over Tit-
for-Tat would be to play Tit-for-Tat except for the last round in which
the optimal play is always to defect.

3. HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TOURNAMENT?

  If you think you understand the dilemma quite well and would like to
participate in this tournament then please act according to the following
instructions:
1.  Design a strategy of how to play the game when the number of rounds
is known in advance.  The strategy should specify what to do in round 1
and at any point of the game, knowing what has been done so far and the
number of rounds left, specify what to do in the next round.
2.  Write a FORTRAN subroutine with the following specifications.  Give
it a six-letter name, for example, the first four letters of your last
name followed by two initials.  Suppose you picked the name JONERJ for
your subroutine.  Then the first line of your program should look as
follows.

      SUBROUTINE JONERJ (N,J,I,M)

  The arguments are defined as follows.

N - This is the total number of rounds to be played.  Whenever your
    program is called it is told the total number of rounds and
    this will not change during a single game.
J - This is the serial number of the round you are supposed to play in
    the current call.
I - When J is greater than 1, this argument tells you what your opponent
    has played in the previous round.  If I=1 it means your opponent has
    played C.  If J=2 then he played D.  Any other value is an error.
M - This is what you return as your play in the current round.  M=1 means
    you play C.  M=2 means you play D.  Any other value will result in an
    error.

  Your subroutine may compute anything you wish.  In particular, it may
keep track of the entire history of a single (N-round) game.  However,
it will not be able to record past games against any opponent since it
will be unloaded at the end of a single N-round game.  Please be
reasonable with respect to the space and time you intend your program to
use.  Unreasonable programs will have to be dropped from the tournament
at the discretion of the organizers.  Also, if your program ever returns
a faulty play, that is, it returns an M which is neither 1 nor 2, then it
will be dropped from the tournament automatically.

3. Fill in the following information (to be transmitted only by
electronic mail):

     NAME:_____________________________________________________________
     AFFILIATION:______________________________________________________
     STREET:___________________________________________________________
     CITY:___________________  STATE:_____________  Zip:_______________
     COUNTRY:__________________________________________________________
     TELEPHONE:________________________________________________________
     ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS:__________________________________________


4. Important notice!

       _________________________________________________________
      |   By sending your program to any one of the following   |
      | addresses you agree to waive and release, to the extent |
      | permitted by law, all your copyright rights and other   |
      | intellectual property rights in your computer program.  |
      | You also warrant that no portion of your program or its |
      | use or distribution, violates or is protected by any    |
      | copyright or other intellectual property right of any   |
      | third party.  You also warrant you have the right to,   |
      | and hereby do, grant to IBM a royalty-free license to   |
      | use your program.  If any contestant is a minor under   |
      | the laws of the state in which contestant resides, at   |
      | least one of the contestant's parents should sign this  |
      | warranty and license.  IBM may elect to publish the     |
      | results of the contest; names of participants or their  |
      | submissions will not be published without the written   |
      | approval and signature of the individual authors.       |
      |_________________________________________________________|

Please transmit your program by March 31, 1986, along with the filled
questionnaire to one of the following addresses:

     CSNET or ARPANET:      megiddo@ibm-sj
     VNET  or BITNET :      megiddo at almvma


4. TRAINING PROGRAM

  For your convenience, we include here an interactive program that lets
you play the game with another "player".  While playing this interactive
program please remember that your goal is actually to SCORE high and not
necessarily to BEAT the other player.  In the tournament, your ability
to affect the player's total score is limited since he plays against many
other players besides you.  Thus you will benefit if you will create
"confidence" so that both of you end up playing C very often.  You have
the option of either playing yourself or using the subroutine that
represents you.  If you use a subroutine then you have to name it MINE
and follow the instructions in Section 3.  Simply append it the following
program.  It is advised that you use this option to test your own program
before submitting it to the tournament.


      INTEGER SCORE,SCORE2,CH1,CH2,PRE1,PRE2,CC,DD,CD,DC
C
      DATA CC,DD,CD,DC/3,1,0,4/
   20 SCORE = 0
      SCORE2 = 0
      PRE1=1
      PRE2=1
      WRITE(6,102)
  102 FORMAT(' ENTER NUMBER OF ROUNDS YOU WISH TO PLAY (0=END)')
  103 FORMAT (I6)
      READ (5,*) NR
      IF (NR.LE.0) STOP
  118 FORMAT(' WILL YOU (1) PLAY OR WILL YOUR SUBROUTINE (2) DO? (1/2)')
  430 WRITE (6,118)
      READ (5,*) II
      IF (II.EQ.2)  GO TO 420
      IF (II.NE.1) GO TO 430
  420 DO 30 JR = 1, NR
  104 FORMAT(' ROUND NO.',I6,'  OF',I6,'  ROUNDS.  PLEASE ENTER 1 OR 2')
      IF (II.EQ.2) GO TO 440
      WRITE (6,104) JR,NR
   40 CONTINUE
      READ (5,*) CH1
      GO TO 450
  440 CALL MINE(NR,JR,PRE2,CH1)
      IF ((CH1-1)*(CH1-2)) 470,71,470
  470 WRITE (6,117)
  117 FORMAT (' YOUR SUBROUTINE RETURNED A FAULTY PLAY')
      GO TO 20
  450 IF ((CH1-1)*(CH1-2)) 70,71,70
   70 IF (CH1.EQ.0) GO TO 20
  105 FORMAT(' PLEASE ENTER EITHER  1  OR  2 .     (0=END)')
      WRITE (6,105)
      GO TO 40
   71 IF (JR-1) 220,220,230
  220 CH2 = 1
      IF (NR.EQ.1) CH2 = 2
      GO TO 300
  230 IF (JR-NR) 250,260,260
  250 CH2 = PRE1
      GO TO 300
  260 CH2 = 2
  107 FORMAT(' PLAY WAS:   YOU=',I3,'  OPPONENT=',I3)
  300 WRITE(6,107) CH1,CH2
      IF (CH1-1) 110,110,120
  110 IF (CH2-1) 130,130,140
  130 SCORE = SCORE + CC
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + CC
      GO TO 35
  140 SCORE = SCORE + CD
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + DC
      GO TO 35
  120 IF (CH2-1) 150,150,160
  150 SCORE = SCORE + DC
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + CD
      GO TO 35
  160 SCORE = SCORE + DD
      SCORE2 = SCORE2 + DD
   35 WRITE (6,106) SCORE,SCORE2
  106 FORMAT (' NEW TOTAL SCORE:    YOU=',I5,'    OPPONENT=',I5)
      PRE1=CH1
      PRE2=CH2
   30 CONTINUE
      GO TO 20
      END


5. SAMPLE PROGRAMS

  For your convenience we include here copies of two sample programs.
The first subroutine, called TIFRTA, plays Tit-for-Tat (see Section 2)
except that it always defects in the last round.  The second, called
GRIM, starts playing C but switches to D the first time th opponent has
played D.  It also always defects in the last round.


      SUBROUTINE TIFRTA (N,J,IHE,MY)
C
C      THIS IS THE TIT-FOR-TAT RULE.  IN ROUND 1 PLAY 1.  IN ROUND  N
C    PLAY 0.  OTHERWISE, PLAY WHAT THE OPPONENT PLAYED IN THE PRECEDING
C    ROUND.
C
C       N = TOTAL NUMBER OF ROUNDS
C       J = CURRENT ROUND
C       IHE = THE CHOICE OF THE OPPONENT IN THE PRECEDING ROUND (1 OR 2)
C       MY = MY CHOICE FOR THE CURRENT ROUND (1 OR 2)
C
      IF (J-1) 20,20,30
   20 MY = 1
      IF(N.EQ.1) MY=2
      RETURN
   30 IF (J-N) 50,60,60
   50 MY = IHE
      RETURN
   60 MY = 2
      RETURN
      END
C
C
      SUBROUTINE GRIM (N,J,IHE,MY)
C
C      THIS IS THE   GRIM  STRATEGY: START WITH  C  AND SWITCH TO  D
C      AS SOON AS THE OPPONENT DOES
C
      IF (J-1) 10,10,20
   10 IX = 1
   20 IF (IHE.EQ.2) IX = 2
      IF (J.EQ.N) IX = 2
      MY = IX
      RETURN
      END

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
28
-DATE-
Date: 13 Feb 1986  10:39 EST (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Claudia Smith <CLAUDIA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Design System for Engineering (MIT)
-BODY-

           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                  AN INTEGRATED DESIGN SYSTEM
                        FOR ENGINEERING

                     Robin J. Popplestone
                     Edinburgh University
                           Scotland


   I discuss the representation of mechanical engineering designs in a
Logic programming context, and the exploration of a space of different
possible designs.  Designs are represented in terms of modules, which
are basic concrete engineering entities (eg. motor, keyway, shaft).
Modules interact via ports, and have an internal structure expressed
by the part predicate.  A taxonomic organisation of modules is used as
the basis for making design decisions.  Subsystems employed by the
design system include the spatial relational inference mechanism
employed in the RAPT robot Language, the Noname geometric modeller
developed at Leeds University and the Press symbolic equation solver.
The system is being implemented in the POPLOG system.  An assumption
based truth maintenance system based on the work of de Kleer is being
implemented to support the exploration of design space.


Tuesday, Feb. 18, 1986
4pm
NE43, 8th Floor Playroom
Hosts: Professors Brooks and Lozano-Perez.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 09:01 PST
-FROM-
From: sigart@LOGICON.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Fuzzy Logic and Common Sense Knowledge (SD Sigart)
-BODY-

                The San Diego SIGART presents

            FUZZY LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE KNOWLEDGE

                    Featured Speaker:
                   Dr. Lotfi A. Zadeh

                    Thursday, Feb 20, 1986
                    6:30-8:30pm at UCSD
                    Humanities Library Rm. 1438

Dr.Zadeh will introduce the concept of a disposition and the principle
that common sense knowledge is of a dispositional nature, i.e.  we can
infer dispositional rules which are true in most cases.

The concept of dispositionality leads to the concept of usuality or the
usual value of variables.  We need to develop a system for computing
with and inferring from dispositional knowledge.  Dr.  Zadeh will show
how to use fuzzy logic to deal with the concepts of dispositionality
and usuality in a way which cannot be done with classical logic.  Fuzzy
logic will therefore be shown to provide a framework for commonsense
reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 09:46:27 pst
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <tgd%oregon-state.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Engineering, Ontology (Oregon State)
-BODY-

                KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AS THE INVESTIGATION
                        OF ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

                          Michael J. Freiling
                         Tektronix Laboratories
                           Beaverton, Oregon

                       Wednesday, February 12, l986
                         Cordley Hall, Room 1109
                         Oregon State University
                            Corvallis, Oregon

Experience has shown that much of the difficulty of learning to build
knowledge-based systems lies in learning to design representation structures
that adequately capture the necessary forms of knowledge.  Ontological
analysis is a method we have found quite useful at Tektronix for analyzing
and designing knowledge-based systems.  The basic approach of ontological
analysis is a step-by-step construction of knowledge structures beginning
with basic objects and relationships in the task domain, and continuing
through representations of state, state transformations, and heuristics for
selecting transformations.  Formal tools that can be usefully employed in
ontological analysis include domain equations, semantic grammars, and
full-scale specification languages.  The principles and tools of ontological
analysis are illustrated with actual examples from knowledge-based systems
we have built or analyzed with this method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 86 15:20 EST
-FROM-
From: Brian C. Williams <WILLIAMS@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , February 20  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                       The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                           Revolving Seminar Series

                          Explanation-Based Learning

                                 Tom Mitchell
                    Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ


The problem of formulating general concepts from specific training
examples has long been a major focus of machine learning research.
While most previous research has focused on empirical methods for
generalizing from a large number of training examples using no
domain-specific knowledge, in the past few years new methods have been
developed for applying domain-specific knowledge to formulate valid
generalizations from single training examples.  The characteristic
common to these methods is that their ability to generalize from a
single example follows from their ability to explain why the training
example is a member of the concept being learned.  This talk proposes a
general, domain-independent mechanism, call EBG, that unifies previous
approaches to explanation-based generalization.  The EBG method is
illustrated in the context of several example problems, and used to
contrast several existing systems for explanation-based generalization.
The perspective on explanation-based generalization afforded by this
general method is also used to identify open research problems in this
area.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 18:27:38-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reactive Systems (SRI)
-BODY-
            AN ARCHITECTURE FOR INTELLIGENT REACTIVE SYSTEMS
                                   OR
                     HOW NOT TO BE EATEN BY A TIGER

                           Leslie Kaelbling
       SRI International AI Center and Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, February 19
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


In this talk I will present an architecture for intelligent reactive
systems.  The ideas are fairly general, but are intended for use in
programming Flakey to carry out complex tasks in a dynamic environment.
Many previous robots simply 'closed their eyes' while a time-consuming
system, such as a planner or vision system, was invoked, allowing
perceptual inputs either to be lost or saved for later processing.  In a
truly dynamic world, things might change to such an extent that the
results of the long calculation would no longer be useful.  Worse yet,
the robot might run into a wall or be eaten by a tiger.  This
architecture will allow the robot to remain aware during long
computations, and to behave plausibly in novel situations.
This talk represents work in progress, so much of the seminar will
be devoted to general discussion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 February 1986 1045-EST
-FROM-
From: Cathy Hill@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Logic for Concurrent Programs (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker: Aravinda Prasad Sistla <aps0%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Date:    February 19, 1986
Time:    1:30 - 3:00 pm
Place:   WeH 4623

Title: ON EXPRESSING SAFETY AND LIVENESS PROPERTIES IN TEMPORAL
              LOGIC.

Correctness properties of concurrent programs are usually  classified as
either safety properties or liveness properties. In general, proving a program
correct involves in establishing that the program satisfies certain safety
properties and certain liveness properties, and usually different techniques
 are applied in proving these properties. In this talk we consider many
different definitions of these properties (e.g. safety,strong safety,liveness,
absolute liveness etc.) and investigate what classes of these properties are
expressible in temporal logic. We present syntactic characterization of
formulae that express these properties. Finally, we give algorithms to
recognize if a temporal specification is a safety property or liveness
property.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Feb 86 15:47:58-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Shortliffe <Shortliffe@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Spring Quarter Seminar on Rule-Based Systems (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                    SEMINAR ON RULE-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS
                     Professors Buchanan and Shortliffe
Comp. Sci. 524                                             Med. Inf. Sci. 229

                       Spring Quarter 1986 - 2 units
                            Tuesday, 3:30-5:00PM
                   TC-135 Conference Room, Medical Center
                         [Class size limited to 16]

This course is a graduate seminar for students wishing to gain a technical
understanding of, as well as a historial perspective on, rule-based expert
systems.  The emphasis of the course will be on an analysis of the research
lessons of MYCIN and related projects in the Knowledge Systems Laboratory,
the strengths and limitations of the rule-based approach to knowledge
representation, and the way in which AI research evolves as new ideas and
concepts are discovered.

The course will meet weekly for 90 minutes and will require substantial
reading assignments for each session.  The required text for the seminar is
"Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic
Programming Project"; additional related papers will also be assigned.

Working in pairs, all students will be responsible for leading the discussion
once during the quarter.  There will be a final exam.

        Prerequisites: at least one course in artificial intelligence and
                      familiarity with LISP.
        Enrollment: limited to 16; signup in TC-135 or by contacting Ms.
                      Alison Grant (GRANT@SUMEX or 7-6979).  If the course is
                      oversubscribed, preference will be given as follows:
                      MS/AI and MIS grad students, other CSD grad students,
                      non-CSD graduate students and medical students, CSD
                      research staff, undergraduates, auditors.
        2 units, Tu 3:30-5:00, Room TC-135 (Medical Center), Professors
                      Buchanan and Shortliffe.  The course will not be
                      offered again until 1987-88.


April 1: INTRODUCTION
        Readings: None

April 8: KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING
        Readings: Chapters 1,7,35,8,9 [Chapter 4 suggested before 7 for
                                       those unfamiliar with MYCIN]

April 15: USING RULES
        Readings: Chapters 2,3,5,6

April 22: REASONING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
        Readings: Chapters 10,11,12,13 [updated version of Chapter 13 will
                                        be provided]

April 29: GENERALIZED FRAMEWORKS
        Readings: Chapters 14,15,16,33

May 6: OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
        Readings: Chapters 21,22,23,24

May 13: EXPLANATIONS/TUTORING
        Readings: Chapters 17,18,20,25,26

May 20: META-LEVEL KNOWLEDGE
        Readings: Chapters 27,28,29

May 22 (Thursday class, 3:30-5pm): EVALUATING PERFORMANCE
        Readings: Chapters 30,31

May 27: no class
        Readings: Chapters 32,34,36

June 3: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
        Readings: None

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
29
-DATE-
Date: Sun 16 Feb 86 22:36:39-EST
-FROM-
From: "Randall Davis" <DAVIS%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: davis@mit-mc
-SUBJECT-
Subject: access to info
-BODY-
I'd like to assemble a list of resources of information about expert systems,
organized along the lines indicated below.  If you can think of a
        journal,
        trade magazine,
        newsletter, or
        regularly scheduled conference
not listed below, and can supply the relevant details, please send them to me
(not to the whole list, and please only respond if you have the details
available and accurate).  I'll filter the responses to eliminate duplicates
and re-post to the list it for general consumption.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FORMAT FOR PUBLICATIONS

NAME
PUBLISHER
EDITOR(S)
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION (frequency of publication, price)
SUBSCRIPTION ADDRESS (where to write)
CATEGORY: one of        RESEARCH JOURNAL (eg, Artificial Intelligence)
                        RESEARCH NEWSLETTER (eg, AAAI Magazine, SIGART)
                        COMMERCIAL NEWSLETTER (eg, Expert Systems Strategies)
FOCUS: eg, all areas of AI, expert systems technical issues, management issues,
        etc.


FORMAT FOR CONFERENCES

NAME
SPONSORING ORGANIZATION
FREQUENCY OF OCCURENCE
ADDRESS FOR INFORMATION


I have details for
        Journals
                AI Journal
                Journal of Automated Reasoning

        Newsletters
                AAAI Magazine
                Expert Systems Strategies

        Conferences
                IJCAI, AAAI

and would welcome all other info, especially non-US listings.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 12:56:42-PST
-FROM-
From: Bill Park <PARK@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rule Master Reviews?
-BODY-
To whom it may concern:

If you have any experience with Rule Master, would you please tell me
what you think of it?  We are considering using it in a project
related to NASA's space station.

Thanks,
Bill Park (Park@SRI-AI)
(415)859-2233
SRI International
Menlo Park, CA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 02:43:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: nike!im4u!ut-sally!ut-ngp!gknight@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (gknight)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Games, Evolution & Learning Conference query.
-BODY-
Can anyone give me information on a conference entitled "Games,
Evolution & Learning," held in New Mexico in 1984 or 1985?
The organizer (or any other contact person)?  Proceedings, if
available?  A list of speakers and paper titles?  Etc., etc.
Please send by mail directly to me and I'll post a summary of
info received for the information of others on the nets.

                          Many thanks,

Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 09:42 EST
-FROM-
From: Vu.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chess game informations needed.
-BODY-
I'm reading about expert system, and would like to try to build an
expert system.  I would appreciate any helpfull hints, pointers to any
existing Chess game expert system, in Interlisp-D would a plus.  I would
like to thank you in advance for any help.

Dinh

Regular mail:
        Dinh Vu
        Xerox Corporation
        800 Philips Rd, Bld 129-38B
        Webster, Ny 14580.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 16:56:18-EST
-FROM-
From: FWHITE@G.BBN.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog on VMS and/or MAC
-BODY-
Does anybody know of a public domain version of Prolog for
VAX/VMS or the Macintosh?  Or how about a commercial version?

   Jeff Berliner (BERLINER@G.BBN.COM)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 86 18:43:00 PST
-FROM-
From: MEGIDDO@IBM-SJ.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prisoner's Dilemma
-BODY-
Prisoner's dilemma tournament mailing list;
Please send back a note if you wish to receive future announcements.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Feb 86 20:13:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!mordor!ehj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eric H Jensen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Hopfield Networks?
-BODY-
In article <1960@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:

>In a recent issue (Issue 367) of EE Times, there is an article titled
>"Neural Research Yields Computer that can Learn".  This describes a
>simulation of a machine that uses a "Hopfield Network"; from the ...


I got the impression that this work is just perceptrons revisited.
All this business about threshold logic with weighting functions on
the inputs adjusted by feedback (i.e. the child reading) ...
Anybody in the know have a comment?

eric h. jensen        (S1 Project @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Phone: (415) 423-0229 USMail: LLNL, P.O. Box 5503, L-276, Livermore, Ca., 94550
ARPA:  ehj@angband    UUCP:   ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!angband!ehj


  [What is new is that there are now training algorithms for multilayer
  networks -- something that Minsky and Papert declared unlikely in their
  famous book on perceptrons.  Also new is the development of special
  hardware, both chips and full [Boltzmann] processors for the implementation
  of such networks.  Hopfield networks require symmetric connections and
  a form of "relaxation" processing or simulated annealing; Hopfield
  characterizes this as constraint satisfaction or discrete optimization
  by moving through the center of a data space (in somewhat the same manner
  as the Karmarkar algorithm) instead of touring the vertices in the manner
  of the simplex algorithm.  Other multilayer connectionist networks have
  recently been developed that do not require symmetric or even feedback
  connections, except for training feedback.  The breakthrough in these
  latter networks seems to be the notion of adjusting each coefficient
  in proportion to its "responsibility" in making a good or bad decision.
  Determination of proportionate responsibility can be made using partial
  derivatives.  Another possibility that I find intriguing is the use
  of a domain-knowledgeable expert system for identifying "guilty"
  coefficients, as in the system for predicting horse races reported in
  Heuristics for Inductive Learning by Steven Salzberg of Applied Expert
  Systems, IJCAI 85, pp. 603-609.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 11 Feb 86 22:38:38-CST
-FROM-
From: Rob Pettengill <CAD.PETTENGILL@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Personal Computer Scheme
-BODY-
I recently purchased an implementation of the Scheme dialect of
lisp for my PC.  I am familiar with GC Lisp, IQ Lisp, and Mu Lisp
for the PC. I use Lambdas and 3600s with ZetaLisp at work.

TI PC Scheme is a very complete implementation of scheme for the
IBM and TI personal computers and compatibles.  It combines high
speed code execution, a good debugging and editing environment,
and very low cost.

The Language:

* Adheres faithfully to the Scheme standard.
* Has true lexical scoping.
* Prodedures and environments are first class data objects.
* Is properly tail recursive - there is no penalty compared
  to iteration.
* Includes window and graphics extensions.

The Environment:

* An incremental optimizing compiler (not native 8086 code)
* Top level read-compile-print loop.
* Interactive debugger allows run time error recovery.
* A minimal Emacs-like full screen editor with a scheme mode
  featuring parethesis matching and auto indenting of lisp code.
* An execute DOS command or "push" to DOS capability - this is
  only practical with a hard disk because of the swap file PCS writes.
* A DOS based Fast Load file format object file conversion utility.
* A fast 2 stage garbage collector.

First Impressions:

Scheme seems to be much better sized to a PC class machine than
the other standard dialects of lisp because of its simplicity.  The
TI implementation appears to be very solid and complete.  The compiled
code that it produces (with debugging switches off) is 2 to  5 times
faster than the other PC lisps that I have used.  With the full screen
editor loaded (there is also a structure editor) there seems to be
plenty of room for my code in a 640k PC.  TI recommends 320k or 512k
with the editor loaded.  The documentation is of professional quality
(about 390 pages), but not tutorial.  Abelson and Sussman^2's "Structure
and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is a very good companion for
learning scheme as well as the art and science of programming in general.

My favorite quick benchmark -

(define (test n)
  (do
    ((i 0 (1+ i))
     (r () (cons i r)))
    ((>= i n) r)))

runs (test 10000) in less than 10 seconds with the editor loaded - of course
it takes a couple of minutes to print out the ten thousand element list
that results.

The main lack I find is that the source code for the system is not
included - one gets used to that in good lisp environments.  I have
hit only a couple of minor glitches, that are probably pilot error,
so far.  Since the system is compiled with debugging switches off
it is hard to get much useful information about the system from
the dubugger.

Based on my brief, but very positive experience with TI PC scheme and
its very low price of $95 - I recommend it to anyone interested in a
PC based lisp.  You can order from Texas Instruments at 1-800-TI-PARTS.
(Standard disclaimers about personal opinions and having no commercial
interest in the product ...)

Rob Pettengill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
30
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Feb 86 14:29:21-PST
-FROM-
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ambiguous sentences.
-BODY-
I wonder whether AILIST readers have a favorite short sentence for
illustrating multiple ambiguity, say greater than 5 meanings?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 21:38:39 EST
-FROM-
From: bzs%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Sparklers from the Tech Review
-BODY-

>From:     larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
>COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY (a more restricted area than Cognitive Science) attempts
>to understand biologically based thinking using behavioral and psychiatric
>concepts and methods.  This includes the effects emotional and social forces
>exert on cognition.  This group is increasingly borrowing from the following
>groups.

Just curious, but as an undergraduate studying such things at Cornell
in the early 70's I remember being lectured over and over again about
'Cognitive Psychology' which at that point in time seemed to be a
school derived largely from Festinger's works in Cognitive Dissonance
et al (and Brehm and others.) It was generally posed as being
orthogonal to behaviorism (Skinnerianism.) Is this the same 'cognitive
psychology' I suffered through? Or has the term changed?  What do they
call the old stuff, or are we allowed to speak of it anymore (oops)? I
suppose this definition *might* be referring to the same thing, but I
don't see how.

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 14:38:36 EST (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Robert Rist <rist@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: novice-expert differences
-BODY-
    You can trace back the articles you need if you look at

Snow, R. E., Federico, P. & Montague, W. E. (Eds.). (1980) Aptitude,
learning and instruction, Volume 2. This has articles by VanLehn and
Brown, Stevens and Collins, Anderson and Norman.

Lesgold, A. M. (1984). Acquiring expertise. In Anderson and Kosslyn
(Eds.), Tutorials in learning and memory. Pointers to lots of
different research domains.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R. & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem
solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of
human intelligence.  This is one of the best summary articles I have
seen.

Anderson, J. R. (Ed.) (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition.
A mixed bag, but it contains some real classics.

Gentner, D. & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. The stuff on
multiple models and debugging is very interesting.

    If you're interested in learning, you could also look at

Anzai, Y. (1984). Cognitive control of real-time event-driven systems.
Cognitive Science, 8, 221-254.

Anzai, Y. & Simon, H. A. (1979). The theory of learning by doing.
Psych. Review, Vol 86, 124-140.

Anderson, R. J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications.
This has a chapter on expertise development that gives an overview
plus list of references.

                                        Have fun, Rob Rist

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 09:44:18 est
-FROM-
From: rjk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Ruben)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Response to "Thompson@umass-cs.csnet" re: "Expertize"
-BODY-
In lieu of replying to the apparently incorrect address
"Thompson@umass-cs.csnet", I send my tidbit to the AILIST.

>From an abstract but empirically motivated view of the relationship
between expertise and category formation (a criterion useful for
discriminating relatively novice from expert behavior), I suggest
Eleanor Rosch's (U. of C. at Berkeley) work on prototypes.
A particularly good SUMMA is her article "Human Categorization,"
of which I read in draft form but which SHOULD (?) have been
published in ADVANCES IN CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY (Vol. 1),
M. Warren (ed.), Academy Press, London, circa 1976.  I think
that her approach to categorization raises some intelligent and
persuable questions about the role of expertize in categorization:
this article is worth reading, even if it only touches on this question.
Rosch planned to do further research to follow up her questions viz.
expertize, but I have not yet seen it.  (Let me know if you follow
this up.)

Ruben J. Kleiman   rjk@MITRE-BEDFORD


  [The address Thompson%UMASS-CS.CSNet@CSNet-Relay should work
  (regardless of capitalization).  The gateway requires that all
  CSNet mail from the Arpanet be addressed to @CSNet-Relay, and that
  all other @-signs be changed to %-signs.  The .CSNet prior to the
  @CSNet-Relay is sometimes optional.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Feb 86 00:35:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
In article <15030@rochester.UUCP>, lab@rochester.UUCP (Lab Manager) writes:

> "In 3000 years, Philosophy has still not lived up to its promises and
> there's no reason to think it ever will."

An interesting comment. Whenever a problem is solved in Philosophy,
it spawns a whole new field of specialists, and is no longer called
Philosophy. Witness Physics, which used to be called Natural
Philosophy. When Newton took over, it gradually became a new
subject. Witness our own subject, which arose out of the
attempts of Frege to provide a formal foundation for mathematical
reasoning, via Russell, Church, Curry, Kleene, Turing and
von Neumann. Much work in natural language understanding arises
from the work of Montague, and more recently speech act theory
is being used, from Grice, Searle and Vanderveken.
The list goes on, and so do I. Would that AI bear such glorious
fruit. I think it might.

Peter Ladkin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Feb 86 16:05:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!bantz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
Dreyfus's book "What Computers Can't Do" was a pretty sorry affair, insofar
as it purported to have a positive argument about intrinsic limits of
computers.  However uncomfortable it makes the AI community feel, though,
the journalistic baiting with extensive quotations from the AI community
itself, ought to have demonstrated the virtues of a bit more humility than
is often shown.  [I'm refering to his gleeful quotation of predictions that,
by 1970 or so a computer would be world chess champion, that fully literate
translations of natural languages would be routine...]
The responses here, so far, seem to be guilty of what Dreyfus is accused of:
failing to engage the opponent seriously, and relying on personal expressions
of distaste or ridicule.  Specifically, Dreyfus does reject the typology of
learning in AI, on the not implausible grounds that it is self-serving, and
not obviously correct (or uniquely correct).
[Please! I am *not* a fan of Dreyfus, and do not endorse most of his claims.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 16 Feb 86 22:33:41-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: In Support of the Dreyfi
-BODY-
I have now had a chance to read the Technology Review article (thanks to
a copy from Oscar Firschein).  If it is a fair sample of Hubert and
Stuart Dreyfus' forthcoming book, Mind Over Machines, the book should
be required reading.  Not that I necessarily agree with their
positions -- I see their points as problems to be solved rather than
proofs of futility -- but they have now solidified their stronger
arguments and (I presume) shed many of their weaker ones.  I recently
read the introduction to the second edition of Hubert's What Computers
Can't Do and found myself disagreeing with about one item per page.
(To be fair, they or anyone else would find similar disagreement with
my [fuzzy] ideas if I had the ability and temerity to expose them in
writing.)  I did not experience anywhere near the same density of
objections to this new article, Why Computers May Never Think Like People.

I am optimistic that we will be able to build "digital" intelligences
(with perhaps a few analog circuits thrown in as necessary), but I
cannot support my optimisim as well as they support their pessimism.
They are right that the AI "paradigms" of the past have proven weak
and inextensible, and that those of the present are also likely to
fail.  (Five years hence, will not each researcher's proposals start
with "Previous work in this field has had limited success due to ...,
but our new approach will ...?)  They are wrong to assume that the
logic-based symbol-processing paradigm is the only card AI holds.
(Sorry, guys, but I'm not a logic lover.  Explicit definitions and
rules for commonsense reasoning are a useful exercise, but flexible --
and sometimes errorful -- intelligence will ultimately depend on a
patchwork of heuristics and analogies.)  Many of the "feature vs
aspect" problems raised by the brothers are being faced by those of
us researching perception.  Our results are sparse to date, but that
is no proof that pattern recognition and concept formation are
inherently human capabilities.  Hubert and Stuart, as the loyal
opposition to past naivete, may help us to face and overcome the
true difficulties in real-world intelligence -- if they don't get
our funding killed first.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
31
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 18:34:28 pst
-FROM-
From: gluck@SU-PSYCH (Mark Gluck)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Classical Conditioning and Contingency (SU)
-BODY-

The topic of this week's learning seminar will be on associative learning
in animals. We will examine classical conditioning, one of the simplest
and best studied forms of induction. The readings are:

Rescorla & Wagner (1972): Reviews the animal learning data and proposes
               a simple linear model of associative learning which predicts
               than animals will induce relative contingencies between
               stimuli. The algorithm is formally equivalent to the
               Widrow-Hoff predictor in adaptive systems and is a
               special case of the delta rule used by the Rumelhart et
               al. back-propogation algorithm.

The other two papers are two "Cognitive Science" models for classical
conditioning. The first, presented in the Holland et al book, is
a rule-based production system model of classical conditioning. The
second, by Sutton and Barto, is a connectionist/network model for
classical conditioning.

The seminar is in Building 360; Room 364 (near the geology corner).
On Thursday from 1:15-3pm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Feb 86 14:53:44 PST
-FROM-
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learnability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimension (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the IBM Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                IBM Almaden Research Center
                       650 Harry Road
                  San Jose, CA 95120-6099


Computer        LEARNABILITY AND THE VAPNIK-CHERVONENKIS DIMENSION
Science         D. Haussler, Department of Mathematics and
Seminar         Computer Science, University of Denver

Fri., Feb. 28   The current emphasis on knowledge-based software has
10: 30 A.M.     created a broader interest in algorithms that learn
B1-413          knowledge structures or concepts from positive and
                negative examples.  Using the learning model recently
                proposed by Valiant, we have attempted to determine
                which classes of concepts have efficient (i.e.,
                polynomial time) learning algorithms.  As noticed
                earlier by Pearl and by Devroye and Wagner, a simple
                combinatorial property of concept classes, the
                Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension, plays an important
                role in learning and pattern recognition.  We clarify
                the relationship between this property and Valiant's
                theory of learnability.  Our results lead to the design
                of efficient learning algorithms that employ a
                variant of Occam's Razor.  Illustrations are given
                for certain classes of conjunctive concepts and for
                concepts that are defined by various types of regions
                in feature space.  The work reported was done jointly
                with Anselm Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht and
                Manfred Warmuth of the Universities of Denver,
                Colorado and California at Santa Cruz, respectively.
                Host:  B. Simons

  [A BATS announcement said that the seminar would be at 11:00. - KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 00:56 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Hierarchical Reasoning, Simulation (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick@UPenn> on Sun 16 Feb 1986 at 12:54


                            HIERARCHICAL REASONING:
                         SIMULATING COMPLEX PROCESSES
                      OVER MULTIPLE LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION

                               Paul A. Fishwick
                          University of Pennsylvania

                                 Ph.D. Defense

This  talk  describes a method for simulating processes over multiple levels of
abstraction.  There has been recent work with  respect  to  data,  object,  and
problem-solving  abstraction,  however,  abstraction in simulation has not been
adequately explored.  We define a process as a hierarchy of distinct production
rule  sets  that  interface  to  each  other  so that abstraction levels may be
bridged where desired.  In this way, the process may be studied at  abstraction
levels  that  are appropriate for the specific task: notions of qualitative and
quantitative reasoning are integrated to form a complete  process  description.
The  advantages  to  such  a  description  are increased control, computational
efficiency and selective reporting of simulation results.  Within the framework
of  hierarchical  reasoning,  we  will  concentrate  on  presenting the primary
concept of process abstraction.

A Common Lisp implementation of the hierarchical reasoning theory called  HIRES
is  presented.    HIRES  allows the user to reason in a hierarchical fashion by
relating certain facets of the simulation to levels of abstraction specified in
terms of actions, objects, reports, and time.  The user is free to reason about
a process over multiple levels by weaving through the levels either manually or
via  automatically  controlled  specifications.  Capabilities exist in HIRES to
facilitate the creation of graph-based abstraction levels.  For  instance,  the
analyst  can create continuous system models (CSMP), petri net models, scripts,
or generic graph models that define the process model  at  a  given  level.  We
present  a  four-level  elevator  system  and a two-level "dining philosophers"
simulation. The dining philosophers simulation  includes  a  3-D  animation  of
human body models.


Time: Wednesday, February 26, 3pm
Place: Moore School, Room 554

Committee:

Dr. Norman Badler (Adviser)
Dr. Timothy Finin (Chairman)
Dr. Insup Lee
Dr. Richard Paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 86 17:55:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Architecture of a Rational Agent (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:     Wednesday, 19th February l9986

Time:     2.00 p.m.

Place:    Department of Artificial Intelligence
          Seminar Room
          Forrest Hill
          EDINBURGH.

Dr. Robert C. Moore, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
(visiting from SRI International) will give a seminar entitled -
"The Architecture of a Rational Agent".


The ultimate goal of artificial intelligence is to build complete,
autonomous, artificial rational agents.   Most research in AI focuses
on one or another component of such an agent:  the vision sybsystem,
reasoning subsystem, language subsystem, etc.   Recently, however, some
attention has begun to be paid to the over-all architecture in which
these subsystems are combined.   The first half of this talk will
discuss how concern for the architecture of rational agents is motivated
by the need to treat language as a form of rational action, and how
this view of language provides a formal framework for treating phenomena
that have been argued to be beyond the scope of formal analysis.   In
the second half of the talk, we will compare the three component
belief/desire/intention model of rational agency typically used in AI
to the two component model cannot satisfactorily account for
cooperation among rational agents, proving a theorem to the effect that
there are situations in which there is no strategy for a group of
two-component agents that is rational by the normal standards of
decision theory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 1986 13:50-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser@usc-cse.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning for Robotic Assembly Lines (USC)
-BODY-
                      USC DPS GROUP MEETING

                       Wednesday, 2/26/86
                         3:00 - 5:00 PM
                     Seaver Science Bldg. 319

Dong Xia (Ph.D. Student, USC) will speak on "An Approach To Planning and
Scheduling for Robotic Assembly Lines"


While extensive studies have been devoted to general robot problem solving
and planning techniques in artifical world in recent years, the progress
towards their practical applications in robotic manufacturing floor has
severely prohibiited by the lack of sound understanding of the assembly
process and an adequate method to deal with real time uncertainties.  In
this talk, we are going to address two of the most fundamental and
interrelated problems, namely task planning and temporal action scheduling.
We study these problems in the context of multiple cooperative robots with
assumed perceptual capabilities which work in a highly shared and dynamic
mechanical environment in a coordinated fashion for a common or different
goal(s). In this presentation, a general system architecture and a hybrid
knowledge representation scheme for a class of assembly lines is proposed
and some important design concepts and problems of robot-based intelligent
assembly lines are identified and discussed. Finally a particular prototype
system, called Miniassembler, is given, which exhibits our concepts and
methods to cope with temporal uncertainty.


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, USC (213) 743-7794
        or Dong Xia (XIA@USC-CSE.ARPA).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 1986 15:34-PST
-FROM-
From: gasser@usc-cse.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Problem Solving (USC)
-BODY-

                    USC DPS GROUP MEETING

                     Wednesday, 2/19/86
                       3:00 - 4:00 PM
                         Seaver 319


Tom Hinke will speak on "Distributed Problem Solving and Architectural
Design".

The talk will cover some preliminary ideas about the application of
distributed problem solving techniques to the domain of computer aided
architectural design. The talk will include a brief overview of caad
work to date, a concept of how DPS could be applied to this area, and a
brief discussion of some of the anticipated problems in applying DPS to
design. The talk is based on very preliminary work in the area and
should be viewed as a forum to generate some initial comments and
direction for the bulk of the research which lies ahead.


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, or
            Tom Hinke: HINKE@USC-CSE.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1986  17:08 EST
-FROM-
From: David Chapman <ZVONA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Planning (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


    Wednesday, February 26  3:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                   The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                               Seminar

                         "Adaptive Planning"


                           Richard Alterman

                             UC Berkeley


Consider the case where a planner intends to transfer airplanes.  A
common-sense approach to the problem of transferring airplanes would
be to try to re-use an old existing plan: exit first airplane via
arrival gate, determine departure gate, walk to the departure gate,
and board second airplane via departure gate.  In a small airport this
would work just fine.  But in a larger airport, say Kennedy Airport
where there is more than one terminal, if the arrival and departure
gates were in different terminals, the plan would have to be modified
(i.e. the planner would have to take a shuttle between terminals).

The problem of adaptive planning is to refit old plans to novel
circumstances.  In the case of the example above, an adaptive planner
would refit the old plan for transferring airplanes to the novel
circumstances at the Kennedy Airport.  The importance of adaptive
planning is that it adds a dimension of flexibility to the
common-sense planner.

Key elements in the theory of adaptive planning are its treatment of
background knowledge and the introduction of a notion of planning by
situation matching.  The talk will motivate and discuss four kinds of
background knowledge.  It will describe a number of kinds of situation
difference that can occur between an old plan and the new planning
situation.  It will discuss situation matching techniques that are
based on the interaction of the planner's current circumstances and
its background knowledge.  An important theme throughout this
discussion will be the control of access to knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Feb 86 15:40:17-EST
-FROM-
From: Sunil Sarin <SKS@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Deductive and Relational Knowledge Bases (CCA)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]

CCA Colloquium Series

DATE:      February 20, 1986-- Thursday
TIME:      10:00-11:00 a.m.
PLACE:     4th floor large conference room, Four Cambridge Center

TITLE:     Deductive Databases and a Relational Knowledge Base
           A Survey of Work at ICOT, Japan

SPEAKERS:  Haruo Yokota and Masaki Murakami (Institute for New
           Generation Computer Technology (ICOT--Japan) )


CCA (Computer Corporation of America) is located at Four Cambridge
Center, which is on Broadway, behind Legal Seafood.  Tell the
security desk you are visiting CCA and they will send you up to
CCA on the 5th floor.  Tell CCA's receptionist to call Barbara
Wong who will show you where the seminar is.  (If you can't
remember that, simply say you're here for the colloquium.)

Abstracts of works to be covered:

1. Deductive Database System based on Unit Resolution
   by Haruo Yokota, Ko Sakai, Hidenori Itoh

   This paper presents a methodology for constructing a deductive
   database system consisting of an intensional processor and a
   relational database management system.  A setting evaluation
   is introduced.  The intensional processor derives a setting
   from the intensional database and a given goal and sends the
   setting and the relationship between setting elements to the
   management system.  The management system performs a unit
   resolution with setting using relational operations for the
   extensional databases.  An extended least fixed point operation
   is introduced to terminate all types of recursive queries.

2. A Model and an Architecture for a Relational Knowledge Base
   by Hauro Yokota, Hidenori Itoh

   A relational knowledge base model and an architecture which
   manipulates the model are presented.  An item stored in the
   relational knowledge base is a term, and it is retrieved by
   unification operation between the terms.  The relational
   knowledge base architecture we propose consists of a number
   of unification engines, several disk systems, a control processor,
   and a multiport page-memory.  The system has a knowledge compiler
   to support a variety of knowledge representations.

3. Formal Semantics of a Relational Knowledge Base
   by Masaki Murakami, Hauro Yokota, Hidenori Itoh

   A mathematical foundations for formal semantics of term relations
   [Yokota et al. 85] is presented.  A term relation is a basic data
   structure of a relational knowledge base.  It is an enhanced version
   of relational model in a database theory.  It may include syntactically
   complex structures such as terms or literals containing variables as
   items of relations.  The items are retrieved with operations called
   retrieval-by-unification.  We introduce as a semantic domain of
   n-ary-term relations n_T_RELATIONS and define a partial order on them.
   We characterize retrieval-by-unification as operations on n_T_RELATIONS
   with monotone functions and greatest lower bounds.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 13:50:19 pst
-FROM-
From: grover@aids-unix (Mark Grover)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symbolics National Users Group Meeting
-BODY-
[Submitted to AILIST because: 1) it is an initial announcement. Followup will
take place via the address provided. 2) Symbolics computers are a major tool
of AI researchers. 3) The majority of work on Symbolics computers is related
to AI. 4) Users are widespread: well over 100 sites and 1500 machines.]


                 Are you getting bored with TV:MENU-CHOOSE?
                    Do you know your FOSS from your CSE?
                Are you ready for Release 7 and Common Lisp?

             No matter what your answers, you are invited to the

                                Second Annual
                   SYMBOLICS NATIONAL USERS GROUP MEETING
                                  (SNUG86)
                        Georgetown University Campus
                               Washington, DC
                               June 2-6, 1986

                  (organized by the Capital Area SLUG)

with...
        Speakers        Poster Sessions         War Stories
        Panels          Discussions             Tutorials
        Debates         Wizards                 BOFs

The SLUG National Board has approved plans from the Capital Area SLUG to hold
a five-day National Symposium (SNUG86).  This year's Symposium will consist
of three days of meetings, preceeded by two days of special Symbolics
Educational Services Tutorials at a small additional cost per session.
Planning is well underway to build on the experience of last year's National
SLUG Symposium in San Francisco. This year we hope for an even more exciting
gathering at the beautiful Georgetown University campus on the Potomac River
to discuss, debate and learn the best in Lisp Machine techniques.

                             This year's theme:
                   "Programming in Style on the Symbolics"

The goal of this year's Symposium is to make explicit the experience of
long-time users in terms of programming style. There are so many ways of
achieving a particular function, but which are the most efficient, elegant
and consistent? This Symposium is a means to share such important
information, where common needs and individual problems can be addressed.

Registration costs (separate from tutorials) will be considerably less than
comparable meetings. Inexpensive campus housing will be available.  A
detailed announcement will be forthcoming.

                     RESPONSE DEADLINE IS MARCH 28, 1986

It is essential that the Symposium planning committee hear from you in order
to gauge interest.  To receive future announcements, you must fill in a
response form BY MARCH 28 to the mailing address below.

We also also invite program suggestions.  Please address program-related
correspondence to ATTN: Programs, or via ARPAnet mail to the Program Chair,
Mark Grover (Advanced Decision Systems), at GROVER@AIDS-UNIX.ARPA (or
Grover@AIDS-DC.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM). This address is for technical program
session proposals only!  Questions regarding registration, facilities and
exhibits should be directed to address and phone below.

                             Planned Activities

Monday and Tuesday: Tutorials taught by Symbolics personnel to include
Introduction to Lisp Machine Programming, Site Maintenance, Common Lisp and
advanced topics. Tuesday evening: Third Party Vendor Hospitality suites.

Wednesday: Keynote presentations, concentrating on Release 7 and SLUG
activities such as the national library.

Thursday and Friday: program sessions to include Windows and Processes;
Flavors; Of Mice and Menus; Large Scale Data Management; Networking; File
Storage for Lisp Objects; Group Programming Etiquette; Security; and
Personalizing Your Environment.  Many other topics are under consideration.
Please make additional suggestions of session proposals on the form below.

Poster sessions will be held in parallel with the program sessions.  A poster
session allows a user to display charts and code on a fixed display in shared
quarters while interested attendees are free to move about, listen to and
discuss these informal talks.  Further, there will be free time for Birds of
a Feather (BOF) gatherings.  We hope to provide some Lisp Machine time for
these sessions.

This is a USER-oriented meeting.  The informal availability of Symbolics
"wizards" was a significant attraction of last year's Symposium which will be
repeated.

                             Conference Location

Located near the Potomac River and Rock Creek Park, the Georgetown area of
Washington DC is well-known for its many shops and restaurants.  Georgetown
University provides excellent meeting facilities and inexpensive
accommodations. The many monuments and museums of Washington are within short
rides via bus or metro.


                             SNUG86 MAILING LIST
         (Mail this form to the address below. No ARPA mail please).

        Ms. Annmarie Pittman
        SNUG86
        655 15th Street NW #300
        Washington, DC 20005
        (202) 639-4228

First Name:             Last Name:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City:                   State:          Zip Code:
Telephone:

_____ Please add me to the mailing list.

_____ I plan to attend SNUG86.

_____ I would be interested in attending Symbolics Education Services
        one-day tutorials on the subjects(s):

_____ I would like to propose sessions on the subject(s):

_____ I would be interested in giving a poster session on the topic:

_____ My company is interested in exhibiting at the conference. Please
        send exhibit materials.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
32
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 86 15:37:28 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!goanna.oz!ysy@seismo.CSS.GOV (yoke shim YAP)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Teaching/Tutoring Package
-BODY-

Recently, I heard that a teaching / tutoring package has been
written using Artificial Intelligence techniques. It seems that
this piece of information appeared in an article. Has anyone
read or heard anything about this article? I would like to
get hold of this article and if possible, contact the author
of this package.

Y. S. YAP
Dept. of Computing
Faculty of Applied Science
RMIT                             ...or     munnari!goanna.oz!ysy@SEISMO.ARPA
GPO BOX 2476V
Melbourne  VIC.  3001
AUSTRALIA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 14:18:11 -0100
-FROM-
From: Jorun Eggen <j_eggen%vax.runit.unit.uninett@nta-vax.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Software Engineering
-BODY-
Hello out there!

Can anyone give me references to work carried out in order to see what
theory, methodologies and tools from Software Engineering can do to assist
the process of building expert systems? Or to put it another way: Is Knowledge
Acquisition today at the same level as Software Engineering was 20 years ago?
If the answer is yes, what can we learn from Software Engineering to help us
to provide reinventing the wheel and instead consentrate on the new unsolved
problems?

References to articles, reports, people, books etc. are welcome.
Thanks a lot, and be aware that my net-address "uninett" is spelled with
double t.

                Jorun Eggen
                RUNIT/SINTEF
                N-7034 Trondheim-NTH
                NORWAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Feb 86 16:50:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!deba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Deba Patnaik)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: micro-PROLOG info wanted
-BODY-
I am thinking of purchasing "micro-PROLOG". I would like to know
Price, comments and who distributes it.
Are there any other PROLOG  ( Interepreters or Compilers ) ?
deba@maryland.arpa
deba%umdc.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 16:00:16 -0500
-FROM-
From: johnson <johnson@dewey.udel.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: seeking lisp for 68k unix world
-BODY-
Computer Logic, Inc., is seeking a license for an efficient lisp
running on 680XX-based Unix systems.

We are looking for an implementation of lisp that meets the
following criteria:

. source code is available
. runs on 68k-based UNIX machines
. allows loading of modules written in C, or other system-level language
. small and fast (even at the expense of advanced features)
. one-time license available, or nominal run-time environment royalties
. floating-point and integer arithmetic (arbitrary precision is NOT required)
. lisp "impurities" such as: setq, rplaca, rplacd

If you know of any lisp that meets these criteria, please pass us a pointer
to its author.


If YOU own an implementation of lisp, and would like to SELL it to us,
please send us:

. a description of your lisp, including:
      .  a list of the primitive functions
      .  the hardware/software requirements for a run-time system
      .  the hardware/software requirements for building your system from
         source code
      .  some indication of the hard and soft limits of your system
         (w/r/t maximum number of objects, number of symbols,
         number of numbers, etc.)
      .  a brief description of any special features that you feel
         would expedite software development in your lisp,
         {editors, compilers, structured-objects, environment-dumps}

. how many times can you perform (T1 2000) without garbage collection on
  a machine with 1048576 bytes of available memory?
    (please extrapolate or interpolate from tests run on whatever
     machine is available to you; be sure tell us the way that you arrived
     at your figure)
  when the garbage collection does occur, how long does it take?

. how long does (T2 20) take?

. if your lisp has an iterative construct  (do, loop, or prog with goto)
  how long does it take to perform (T3 5000)?


Feel free to modify these functions syntactically to allow them to run
in your version of lisp, but please include the modified versions along
with your results. (ps: these functions will run unmodified
in muLISP-85)

Most unix systems provide a means to measure the elapsed time allocated
to a given process (try "man time" on your system). Please give your
times in terms of this quantity. If no such facility is available, be
sure to indicate the conditions under which you ran the benchmark.

(DEFUN T1
   (LAMBDA (N)
     (COND ((> N 1) (LIST N (T1 (- N 1))))
           (T (LIST 1)))))

(DEFUN T2
   (LAMBDA (N)
       (COND ((< N 2) 1)
             (T (+ (T2 (- N 1)) (T2 (- N 2)))))))

(DEFUN T3
   (LAMBDA (N)
      (LOOP (IF (= N 0) (RETURN)) (SETQ N (- N 1)))))

Please send all description responses to:

        Apperson H. Johnson
        Computer Logic Inc.
        2700 Philadelphia Pike, P.O. Box 9640
        Wilmington, De. 19809

{johnson@udel will read any pointers}

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Feb 86 11:34:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!cstvax!hwcs!aimmi!george@SEISMO  (George Weir)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dialogue help please needed ?
-BODY-
I am currently am working on Dialogue Management Systems, with Natural
Language Understanding in it.  Despite weeks of effort (including
Saturdays), I find my system is still unable to handle it with several
forms of natural expression.
Please help to cure my depressions :  if you have a system working which
manages dialogue in of course natural language (complete with efficient
interpreter/complier), and it's able to cope with all known syntactic forms,
as well as most semantics, please send me a copy, or post it to this news
group.
I prefer a system which works in English but Norwegian would do it.
                                   thanks you,
                                                Ingy
P.S.  Doesn't matter if your documentation isn't up to IEEE standards, if
they are close to it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 11:12:03 pst
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: request for LISP source code
-BODY-
In article <8602031844.AA28255@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:

>  I am teaching an AI course for the continuing education program at
>St. Mary's College in Southern Maryland. This is my first time teaching
>LISP and I would appreciate access to the source code for "project-
>sized" LISP programs or any other teaching aids or material. We are
>using the 2nd edition of both Winston's AI and Winston&Horne's LISP.
>I hate to ask for help, but we are pretty far from mainstream AI
>down here and my students and I all have full time jobs so any help we
>can get from the professional AI community would be greatly
>appreciated by all of us.
>
>                                       Bob Woodruff
>                                       Veda@paxrv-nes.arpa


I'd like to make a recommendation in additional texts. We have found
Winston&Horn to be a bit irritating to work with, especially since
the problems and answers are either too vaguely stated or filled with
bugs. Two other books that we have found to handle LISP more adaquately
are:
        Touretzky,David S.,1984,Lisp - A gentle introduction to
                symbolic computation;Harper & Row , New York, 384p.
                -- A good intro text for those who have no
                experience in symbolic processing (generally, most
                conventional programmers). Gives a good covering of
                the basic principles behind LISP.

        Wilensky,Robert,1984,LISPcraft,W.W.Norton & Company,New York
                385p.
                --Covers programming techniques and LISP philosophy
                over different dialects quite well.


One thing that has helped with the training around the AI center
here is to take the time to give a little of the history of
LISP, where and why the different dialects have developed, and
a little of history of hardware currently in use. A short time
spent on relations to PROLOG couldn't hurt. (A good short article
of LISP and PROLOG history is:

        Tello,Ernie,April 16,1985, The Languages of AI research,
                PC Magazine,v.4,no.8,p.173-189.)

Hope this helps.

P.M.Pincha-Wagener

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 22:11:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!cwruecmp!leon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leon Sterling)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Pointers to Logo?
-BODY-
The AI department at the University of Edinburgh used to teach its
undergraduate courses in AI using Logo several years ago.
The lecture notes appear as a book called
Artificial Intelligence, published (I think) by Edinburgh University
Press, the editor is Alan Bundy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 07:57:07 PST
-FROM-
From: Curtis L. Goodhart <goodhart%cod@nosc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS
-BODY-
There was a recent question about what MRS stands for.  According to
"The Compleat Guide to MRS" by Stuart Russell Esq., Stanford University
Knowledge Systems Laboratory Report No. KSL-85-12, page 2, "MRS stands for
Meta-level Representation System".  In the preface on page i MRS is
described briefly as "a logic programming system with extensive meta-level
facilities.  As such it can be used to impement virtually all kinds of
artificial intelligence applications in a wide variety of architectures."

      Curt Goodhart  (goodhart@nosc ... on the arpanet))

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 10:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Taxonomizing in AI and Dumplings
-BODY-
Building a taxonomy is a means of predicting what will be found. Anyone
who has read any of Steve Gould's columns in Natural History will be
quite familiar with this problem.  When Linnaeus devised the modern
biological taxonomy of the plant kingdom he was criticized for his
heavy emphasis on the sex lives of the flowers.  He was considered
crude and salacious.  He worked in a hurry to preempt any competetive
scheme and avoid a split in the field but his choice was prophetic and
his emphasis on sex was vindicated by Darwin's later work which argued
that sex was both essential to selection (no sex, no children) AND to
the origin and maintenance of the species.

Of course for every "good" taxonomy there are dozens of losers. Take
the old earth, air, fire and water taxonomy with its metaphoric power.
It still works; look in the Science Fiction and Fantasy section of your
local bookstore.  Of course chemists and physicists use Medeleev's
taxonomy of the elements which has much better predictive power. There
is nothing wrong with building these structures as long as they can be
used to predict or explain something.  Breaking up LISP programs into
families based on the number of parentheses has only limited predictive
power.

Building a taxonomy is no more or less than constructing a theory and
building a theory is useful because it gives people an idea of what to
look for.  A sterile taxonomy is not particularly useful.  That is the
positive side.  A theory also tells people what to ignore and biology
is full of overlooked clues, all carefully noted and explained, waiting
to be illuminated by a new theory.

I think the debate going on now is typical in any young field.  If we
had a theory we could use it to march rapidly along its path, much like
an Interstate highway.  Even if we find it doesn't get us where we want
to go, we had a smooth pleasant ride.  Witness classical
electrodynamics, its collapse and the advent of quantum theory.  The
justifiable fear is that we will race past our exit and exclude or
ignore crucial signs which indicate the correct path.

Personally I think that it is time to set up a few theories of AI so
that we can have the fun of knocking them down.  As one might expect
most theories at this stage are either useless and lack predictive
power (except possibly for predicting tenure) or are so weak and full
of holes that you can drive a truck full of LISP machines through them.
When people start developing theories with real predictive power that
are really hard to knock down then we can relax a bit.

                                                Seth Steinberg

P.S. This month's Scientific American had an article on quantum effects
in biological reactions at low temperatures and the author argues that
conformational resonances (which determine reactivities) are driven by
quantum tunneling!  Maybe there ARE carcinogenic vibrations!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Feb 86 17:02:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!utah-cs!shebs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: taxonomizing in AI: useless, harmful
-BODY-
In article <3600038@iuvax.UUCP> marek@iuvax.UUCP writes:
>... Taxonomizing is a debatable art of empirical
>science, usually justified when a scientist finds itself overwhelmed with
>gobs and gobs of identifiable specimens, e.g. entymology.  But AI is not
>overwhelmed by gobs and gobs of tangible singulars; it is a constructive
>endeavor that puts up putatative mechanisms to be replaced by others.  The
>kinds of learning Michalski so effortlessly plucks out of the thin air are not
>as incontrovertibly real and graspable as instances of dead bugs.

Now I'm confused!  Were you criticizing Michalski et al's taxonomy of
learning techniques in pp. 7-13 of "Machine Learning", or the "conceptual
clustering" work that he has done?  I think both are valid - the first
is basically a reader's guide to help sort out the strengths and limitations
of dozens of different lines of research.  I certainly doubt (and hope)
no one takes that sort of thing as gospel.

For those folks not familiar with conceptual clustering, I can characterize
it as an outgrowth of statistical clustering methods, but which uses a
sort of Occam's razor heuristic to decide what the valid clusters are.
That is, conceptual "simplicity" dictates where the clusters lie.  As an
example, consider a collection of data points which lie on several
intersecting lines.  If the data points you have come in bunches at
certain places along the lines, statistical analysis will fail dramatically;
it will see the bunches and miss the lines.  Conceptual clustering will
find the lines, because they are a better explanation conceptually than are
random bunches.  (In reality, clustering happens on logical terms in
a form of truth table; I don't think they've tried to supplant statisticians
yet!)


>Please consider whether taxonomizing kinds of learning from the AI perspective
>in 1981 is at all analogous to chemists' and biologists' "right to study the
>objects whose behavior is ultimately described in terms of physics."  If so,
>when is the last time you saw a biology/chemistry text titled "Cellular
>Resonance" in which 3 authors offered an exhaustive table of carcinogenic
>vibrations, offered as a collection of current papers in oncology?...

Hmmm, this does sound like a veiled reference to "Machine Learning"!
Personally, I prefer a collection of different viewpoints over someone's
densely written tome on the ultimate answer to all the problems of AI...


>More constructively, I am in the process of developing an abstract machine.
>I think that developing abstract machines is more in the line of my work as
>an AI worker than postulating arbitrary taxonomies where there's neither need
>for them nor raw material.
>
>                               -- Marek Lugowski

I detect a hint of a suggestion that "abstract machines" are Very Important
Work in AI.  I am perhaps defensive about taxonomies because part of my
own work involves taxonomies of programming languages and implementations,
not as an end in itself, but as a route to understanding.  And of course
it's also Very Important Work... :-)
                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
33
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Feb 86 17:20:04-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New CSLI Reports
-BODY-
      Report No. CSLI-85-34, ``Applicability of Indexed Grammars to
   Natural Languages'' by Gerald Gazdar, Report No. CSLI-85-39, ``The
   Structures of Discourse Structure'' by Barbara Grosz and Candace L.
   Sidner, and Report No. CSLI-85-44, ``Language, Mind, and Information''
   by John Perry, have just been published.  These reports may be
   obtained by writing to Trudy Vizmanos, CSLI, Ventura Hall, Stanford,
   CA 94305 or Trudy@SU-CSLI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Feb 86 16:12:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!marek@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Indiana U. CS TR #176
-BODY-
Due to conditions of poverty, the Indiana University Computer Department
is henceforth unable to supply free copies my technical report (#176) titled
"Why Artificial Intelligence Is Necessarily Ad Hoc: One's Thinking/Approach/
Model/Solution Rides on One's Metaphors".  The volume of requests has simply
outstripped our financial resources.  However, a modest bribe of $2.00 will
suffice to propagate the item to you.  More substantial unrestricted grants
from corporate, philanthropic or governmental sources are always welcome.
Please make your bribes PAYABLE TO Indiana University Foundation, but do
continue to ADDRESS REQUESTS for our TRs TO Nancy Garrett, Computer Science
Department, Lindley Hall 101, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.  You could let Nancy
know in advance that you're sending money for one: nlg@iuvax.uucp or
nlg@indiana.csnet.
As the saing goes, sorry for the inconvenience but that's the breaks.  Several
people got the TR for free, but no more.  Perhaps it should be noted that any
run on IU tech reports will generate a bribe request  proportional to the
length of the item.  TR #176 has 52 pages.
                        -- Marek Lugowski
                           Indiana University Computer Science
                           Bloomington, Indiana 47405
                           marek@indiana.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review - SI Interactions, 2/86
-BODY-
Summary of
AI Interactions, Volume 1, Number 7, February 1986

Texas Instruments has invested more money in AI research than the Japanese
in their Fifth Generation Project.  The Computer Systems Laboratory is
working to design computers with several different types of processors
on the same bus or chip, e. g. array procesors, graphics processors and
symbolic processors.  They also developing an architectural concept called
Odyssey which combines multiple digital signal processing chips on a single
NuBus board.

At the Purdue University  in West Lafayette, they have developed
an expert sytem that assists farmers in determining the best way to market
their prodcut.  It has 180 rules with the prototype done in three months.

Discussion of the features of Personal Consultant Plus.  It includes
frames, meta-rules and mapping functions.  Also discusses the use of contexts.

Texas Instruments has announced Relational Table Management System, a
database system for the Explorer.  It interfaces with the Lisp environment.
A domain can store any type of object including graphics, pointers,
lists, relation names or large amounts of text.  It interfaces with
Natural Language Menu, a graphics tool kit,PROLOG.

Texas Instruments has developed an expert system to assist pilots
in the F-16.  The Defense Department awarded TI 3 million dollars to
develop a similar system for attack helicopters.  The F-16 system
handles two specific problems, towershaft failure and loss of canopy.
Towershaft is the mechanism by which the F-16 jet engine provides
power to other aircraft systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review - Applied Intelligence 12/85
-BODY-
Summary of
Applied Intelligence, Volume 2 Number 4 December 1985

At the recent Instrumentation Society of America show in
Philadelphia, four major vendors announced their intent to offer
PICON, Lisp Machine Incorporated's real-time expert system, to
their customers.  Leeds and Northrup demonstrated the system in
conjunction with their MAX 1 process control system.  PICON is
running at six customer sites.  A large chemical processing company
is using PICON in control  The knowledge engineering was done by
a process engineer who developed a 350-frame knowledge base in
a period of two months.  Oak Ridge International bought PICON for
robotics and Lockheed bought it for CAD applications.

PICON has been installed at the Texaco chemical plant in Port Arthur
where it monitors several processes.  It interfaces to a Honeywell
TDC-2000 process control system.  Pete Thompson is the Manager of
Artificial Intelligence at Texaco's Computer and Information Systems
Department.

Lisp Machine Incorporated also announces the availability of ObjectLisp,
a second generation approach to object-oriented programming.  It directly
invokes local functions within the context of the object and releases
the programmer from having to define message-passing structures.
ObjectLISP allows both object variables and object functions to
be either created or deleted interactively without requiring recompilation.

MCC has made its sixth order for Lambda hardware from LMI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 23:47:40 est
-FROM-
From: decvax!utzoo!dciem!mmt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Airline Reservation Systems
-BODY-

>    Date: 23-Jan-86 12:52:19-PST
>    From: jbn at FORD-WDL1
>    ...  Contrast this with Minksy's recent claims seen here that airline
>    reservation systems were invented by someone at the MIT AI lab in the
>    1960s.
>
>I decided to take a close look at this contrast.  After searching through
>the recent archives, the only mention by Minsky of airline reservation
>systems that I can find is:
>
>    And I'm pretty sure that the first practical airline reservation was
>    designed by Danny Bobrow of the BBN AI group around 1966.!
>
>Now that I have refreshed my memory with what he actually said, I think the
>contrast is not quite as unflattering.  Given the use of the adjective
>``practical'', someone might even be able to make a case that he is right.

The case would not be watertight.  Air Canada was using a reservation
system developed at Ferranti Electric Inc., (a Toronto-based firm not
to be confused with Ferranti in UK), running on a redundant computer
system called Gemini, from 1961 for about 10 years until it was replaced.
It did all the things one associates with computerized reservation systems,
and was used by reservation clerks to deal with the public, so I guess
you could call it "practical."

Incidentally, this system led to the development of what may be the
first fully commercial time-sharing computer system (I mean memory-protected,
independent multi-user multitasking), the FP-6000, which was first
delivered around the end of 1962 or the beginning of 1963.  The design
for that machine formed the basis of the ICL 1900 series in the UK.
It, like the airline reservations system, was a totally Canadian design
(if you will forgive the chauvinism).

Martin Taylor

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 86 05:32:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!elman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff Elman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Hopfield Networks?
-BODY-
In article <5413@mordor.UUCP>, ehj@mordor.UUCP (Eric H Jensen) writes:
> In article <1960@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes:
> >In a recent issue (Issue 367) of EE Times, there is an article titled
> >"Neural Research Yields Computer that can Learn".  This describes a
> >simulation of a machine that uses a "Hopfield Network"; from the ...
>
> I got the impression that this work is just perceptrons revisited.
> All this business about threshold logic with weighting functions on
> the inputs adjusted by feedback (i.e. the child reading) ...

This refers to some work by Terry Sejnowski, in which he uses a method
developed by Dave Rumelhart (U.C. San Diego), Geoff Hinton (CMU), and Ron
Williams (UCSD) for automatic adjustment of weights on connections between
perceptron-like elements.  Sejnowski applied the technique to
a system which automatically learned text-to-phoneme correspondances
and was able to take text input and then drive a synthesizer.
The current work being done by Rumelhart and his colleagues certainly
builds on the early perceptron work.  However, they have managed to
overcome one of the basic deficiencies of the perceptron.  While perceptron
systems have a simple learning procedure, this procedure only worked
for simple 2-layer networks, and such networks had limited power (they
could not recognize XOR patterns, for instance).  More complex multi-layer
networks were more powerful, but -- until recently -- there has been
no simply way for these systems to automatically learn how to adjust
weights on connections between elements.
Rumelhart has solved this problem, and has discovered a generalized
form of the perceptron convergence procedure which applies to networks
of arbitrary depth.  He and his colleagues have explored this technique in
a number of interesting simulations, and it appears to have a tremendous
amount of power.  More information is available from Rumelhart
(der@ics.ucsd.edu or der@nprdc.arpa), or in a technical report "Learning
Internal Representations by Error Propagation" (Rumelhart, Hinton, Williams),
available from the Institute for Cognitive Science, U.C. San Diego,
La Jolla, CA 92093.

Jeff Elman
Phonetics Lab, UCSD
elman@amos.ling.ucsd.edu / ...ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdamos!elman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Feb 86 21:30:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:

> A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers".  This
> is unfair, since Hubert Dreyfus is also styled a philosopher by many another
> philosopher in the area of phenomenology.

Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
distinguished membership!
His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and
attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the
kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry. This
general claim seems unexceptional. His examples may not
always be the most appropriate for his claims, some of
his arguments seem to be incorrect, and, since he isn't a
practicing computer scientist, his knowledge of current research
is lacking. But it is intellectual sloppiness to deride him
without addressing his arguments.
There is, however, a political component to the discussion.
He believes he is able to show that certain types of research
cannot justify the claims they make on the basis of which they
are funded. He may be right in some of these cases. This is
clearly a sensitive issue, which muddies the intellectual
waters. Both sides would do well to separate the issues.

Peter Ladkin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 86 03:48:30 PST
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!amd!hplabs!fortune!redwood!rpw3@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu (Rob Warnock)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
+
| The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers, who ...
| claim...  that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do it,
| but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
+

Hmmm... Something for these guys to look at is Seymour Papert's work
in teaching such skills as bicycle riding, juggling, etc. by *verbal*
and *written* means.  That's not to say that some trial-and-error
practice is not needed, but that there is a lot more that can be done
analytically than is commonly assumed.  Papert has spent a lot of time
looking at how children learn certain physical skills, and has broken
those skills down into basic actions, "subroutines", and so forth.

After reading his book "Mindstorms", I picked up three apples and, following
the directions in the book, taught myself to juggle (3 things, not 4-"n") with
only a few minutes practice. Particularly useful were his warnings of which
errors were associated with which levels of the subroutine hierarchy. (Oddly
enough, most errors in the overall performance come not from the coordination
of the three balls, but from not mastering the most basic skill, throwing-
and-catching a single ball. The most serious mistake here is looking at the
balls at any points in the trajectory *other* than at the very top.)

So... there is at least SOME hint that the difference between "knowledge"
and "skills" is not as vast as we normally assume, *if* the "skills" are
analyzed properly with a view to learning.


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:   {ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD:    (415)572-2607
USPS:   627 26th Ave, San Mateo, CA  94403

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Feb 86 23:44:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Benjamin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
> In article <3189@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes:
> > A recent posting called the Dreyfus' "self-styled philosophers".  This
> > is unfair, ...
>
> Agreed. He is also a professional philosopher, ...

Baloney. His views show a total lack of understanding of science,
together with an inability to perform useful work relating to science.
For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment"
he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very
much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of
an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM
was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus
supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway,
thus supposedly showing that chess is not primarily a reasoning
venture, or more precisely, that the difference between being a
master and just very good is not due to superior reasoning.
But wait a minute! How does this qualify as an experiment? Where
is the control group? Did he have the IM play a number of players,
sometimes having to add, sometimes not, and compare their results?
NO. Did he vary the distracting task, in case addition was not
demanding enough? NO.
In short, this experiment means nothing, since the IM may well have
played worse than he would have without having to add, but won
anyway. This type of "evidence" is constantly cited by Dreyfus to
support his views, but it's meaningless, due to his inability to
perform good work.
Also, he remarks that he and his brother have both failed to improve
to a master level in chess, and somehow uses this to support his
views, too! His basic argument is that if reasoning is so important,
then he should be able to make master, implying that he is a good
reasoner! It obviously has never occurred to him to ask someone
who is a master if reasoning is important to him. I am a USCF master,
and can guarantee that improving my reasoning capability has raised
my rating (over 300 points in the last few years). It seems arrogant
for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.
Paul Benjamin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 86 15:57:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: nike!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
>For example, in his recent article, he recounts an "experiment"
>he conducted to show that chessplayers do not use reasoning very
>much, but just play instinctively. This experiment consisted of
>an International Master playing against a weaker player. The IM
>was forced to add a sequence of numbers while playing, thus
>supposedly occupying his reasoning capability. The IM won anyway

I just repeated this experiment and I think he is right. I forced
my SUN to add sequences of numbers while playing chess with me and
I lost.

Here, do it yourself:

        main()
        {
                int i,j;
                for(;;) for(i=j=0; i < 10000 ; i++) j += i ;
        }

save this in file foo.c, compile with 'cc foo.c' and say:

        a.out & (runs it in the background)
        chesstool

it slows it down only a tad, barely noticeable, but I still keep losing!
AMAZING! my computer is human!
        -Barry Shein, Boston University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
34
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 18:04:16-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inferring Domain Plans in Question Answering (SRI)
-BODY-
             INFERRING DOMAIN PLANS IN QUESTION-ANSWERING

                 Martha E. Pollack  (POLLACK@SRI-AI)
                    AI Center, SRI International

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, February 24
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The importance of plan inference (PI) in models of conversation has been
widely noted in the computational-linguistics literature, and its
incorporation into question-answering systems has enabled a range of
cooperative behaviors.  The PI process in each of these systems, however, has
assumed that the questioner (Q) whose plan is being inferred and the
respondent (R) who is drawing the inference have identical beliefs about the
actions in the domain.  In this talk I will argue that this assumption is too
strong, and often results in failure not only of the PI process, but also of
the communicative process that PI is meant to support.  In particular, it
precludes the principled generation of appropriate responses to queries that
arise from invalid plans.  I will present a model of PI in conversation that
distinguishes between the beliefs of the questioner and the beliefs of the
respondent.  This will rest on an account of plans as mental phenomena:
"having a plan" will be analyzed as having a particular configuration of
beliefs and intentions.  Judgements that a plan is invalid will be associated
with particular discrepancies between the beliefs that R ascribes to Q, when
R believes Q has some particular plan, and the beliefs R herself holds.
An account of different types of plan invalidities will be given, and shown
to provide an explanation for certain regularities that are observable in
cooperative responses to questions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 86 20:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - Connectionist Summer Workshop Reminder (CMU)
-BODY-
            Connectionist Summer Workshop Reminder

This is a reminder that the deadline for applying to attend the connectionist
summer workshop to be held June 20-29 at Carnegie Mellon is March 1st.
Applications are welcomed from graduate students and recent Ph.D.'s and
M.D.'s who are actively involved in connectionist research.

 ---> This is not just a summer school for training new
      connectionists, as a previous announcement may have
      implied.  We plan to organize small working groups and hold
      lively discussions with visiting speakers.  New research
      will be presented and people are encouraged to bring their
      software for demos; we'll supply the machines.

To apply, send a copy of your vita and one relevant paper, technical
report, or research proposal to:  Dr. David Touretzky, Computer Science
Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Feb 86 13:15:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!usceast!kersch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Larry Kerschberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Database Systems -- Advance Program
-BODY-
Conference Advance Program and Registration Forms
First International Conference on Expert Database Systems
Sheraton Charleston Hotel
April 1-4, 1986
Sponsored by:
Institute of Information Management, Technology and Policy
College of Business Administration
University of South Carolina
In Cooperation With:
American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
Association for Computing Machinery -- SIGMOD, SIGART, and SIGPLAN
IEEE Computer Society -- Technical Committee on Data Base Engineering
Agence de l'Informatique, France
Tuesday, April 1, 1986
Tutorial Day
8:30 am - 12:00 pm      Morning Parallel Tutorials I
IA:     Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Instructor:  Dr. Elaine Rich, MCC, Austin, Texas
Dr. Rich  is currently leading a natural language research team at
MCC. She is the author of the widely-read book, Artificial
Intelligence,  as well as numerous technical papers.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an introduction to the
important concepts and techniques of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The major topics are:  What is an AI technique?;  Problem solving as
heuristic search; Heuristic search techniques such as hill climbing,
best first search, problem decomposition, constraint satisfaction;
Knowledge representation and inference including logic-based methods,
default reasoning, slot and filler methods and production rules.
IB:     Database Management
Instructor:  Professor Michael Stonebraker, UC  - Berkeley, California
Dr. Stonebraker is a full professor of Computer Science at the
University of California, Berkeley.  He is the original implementor of
the INGRES system and is a co-founder of Relational Technology, Inc.
which markets INGRES to engineering and business users.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an overview of
Database Management.  The major topics are:  Traditional data models
and query languages including network, hierarchical, and relational
models; Database services such as transaction management, query
optimization, protection, views, integrity control; New approaches to
data models including semantic data models, logic programming, CAD/CAM
data models; Themes of Expert Database Systems such as extended views,
active databases, procedural objects, inheritance, and new data types.
1:30 pm - 5:00 pm               Afternoon Parallel Tutorials II
IIA:    Expert Systems -- An Introduction
Instructor:  Professor Charles Rich, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dr. Rich is Principal Research Scientist at the Artificial
Intelligence Laboratory of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He
is co-principal investigator of the Programmer's Apprentice Project at
MIT.
Course Description:  This is an introductory tutorial for those who
intend to develop or manage the development of new expert systems, as
well as those who want to evaluate the potential for using expert
systems in their own work.  No previous background is assumed.  The
topics include:  Expert systems features including expert-level
performance, symbolic and heuristic information, and the separation of
Knowledge from Inference; Application areas for expert systems;
Programming techniques used for expert system development including
rules, frames, logic programming; and the use of incremental
prototypes for expert systems development.
IIB:    Logic Programming and Databases
Instructor:  Dr. Steve Hardy, Teknowledge, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Dr. Hardy is currently Product Manager at Teknowledge.  He was the
Principal Designer of the M.1 Expert System Shell.
Course Description:  This tutorial will provide an overview of the
important concepts relating to logic programming and databases.  The
major topics are:  Logic and databases; Prolog:  A logic language;
Prolog:  Its practical difficulties; High-level logic languages
including shells for Prolog; Current applications; What the future
holds.
Wednesday, April 2, 1986
8:00-12:00 am           Registration
8:45-9:00 am            Opening Remarks
    Chairman:  Donald A. Marchand, University of South Carolina, USA
9:00-10:00 am           Keynote Address
    Chairman:  Larry Kerschberg, University of South Carolina, USA
To be announced
        Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque*, AT&T Bell Labs, USA
        and University of Toronto*, Canada
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  Session 1:  Object-Oriented Systems
    Chairman:  Reid Smith, Schlumberger-Doll Research, USA
Object Prototypes and Database Samples for Expert Database Systems
        G.T. Nguyen, IMAG, Universite de Grenoble, France
Displaying Database Objects
        D. Maier, P. Nordquist* and M. Grossman, Oregon Graduate
        Center and Intel  Corp.*, USA
A Personal Universal Filing System Based on the Concept-Relation Model
        H. Fujisawa, A. Hatakeyama and J. Higashino, Hitachi, Ltd., Japan
12:00-1:30 pm   Lunch
1:30-3:00 pm            Afternoon Parallel Sessions
Session 2A:     Theory of Knowledge Bases
    Chairman:  Setsuo Ohsuga, University of Tokyo, Japan
Control of Processes by Communication over Ports as a Paradigm for
Distributed Knowledge-Based System Design
        A.S. Cromarty, Advanced  Information and Decision Systems, USA
Representing and Manipulating Knowledge Within "Worlds"
        H. Kaufmann and A. Grumbach*, C.G.E..-- Laboratoires de
        Marcoussis and Ecole Superieure d'Electricite*, France
Completeness and Consistency in Knowledge Base Systems
        W. Marek, University of Kentucky, USA
Session 2B:     Intelligent Database Interfaces
    Chairman:  Bonnie L. Webber, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Supporting Goal Queries in Relational Databases
        A. Motro, University of Southern California, USA
Design and Experimentation of IR-NLI:  An Intelligent User Interface
to Bibliographic Databases
        G. Brajnik, G. Guida and C. Tasso, Universita di Udine, Italy
When does Non-Linear Text Help?
        D. Shasha, New York University, USA
3:00-3:30 pm            Coffee Break
3:30-5:00 pm    Panel Session:  Are Data Models Dead?
    Chairman:  Michael L. Brodie, Computer Corporation of America, USA
6:30-9:30 pm            Great Gatsby Night
Thursday, April 3, 1986
8:30-10:00 am   Session 4:  Knowledge System Architectures
    Chairman:  Michele Missikoff, IASI-CNR,  Italy
The Do-Loop Considered Harmful in Production System Programming
        M. van Biema, D.P. Miranker and S.J. Stolfo, Columbia
        University, USA
A Relational Representation for Knowledge Bases
        R.M. Abarbanel and M.D. Williams, IntelliCorp, USA
Interfacing Relational Databases and Prolog Efficiently
        S. Ceri, G. Gottlob and G. Wiederhold, Stanford University, USA
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  Morning Parallel Sessions
Session 5A:     Deductive Databases
    Chairman:  D. Stott Parker, Jr., UCLA and Silogic, USA
Negative Queries in Horn Databases
        Shamin Naqvi, AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA
Safety and Compilation of Non-Recursive Horn Clauses
        Carlo Zaniolo, MCC, USA
Recursive Axioms in Deductive Databases:  The Query/Subquery Approach
        L. Vieille, European Computer-Industry Research Center (ECRC),
        West Germany
Session5B:      Reasoning in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  James Bezdek, University of South Carolina, USA
Evaluation of Recursive Queries Using Join Indices
        P. Valduriez and H. Boral, MCC, USA
An Algebraic Approach to Recursive Inference
        Y.E. Ioannidis and E. Wong, University of California - Berkeley, USA
A Fuzzy Relational Calculus
        A. Zvieli, Louisiana State University, USA
12:00-1:30 pm   Lunch
1:30-3:30 pm            Afternoon Parallel Sessions
Session 6A:     Semantic Query Optimization
Chairman:  Matthias Jarke, New York University, USA
A Knowledge-Based Approach to Query Optimization
        C.V. Malley and S.B. Zdonik, Brown University, USA
Semantic Query Optimization:  Additional Constraints and Control
Strategies
        U.S. Chakravarthy, J. Minker and J. Grant*, University of
        Maryland and Towson State University*, USA
Integrity Enforcement on Prolog-based Deductive Databases
        H. Decker, ECRC, West Germany
Session 6B:     Knowledge-Based Modeling and Design
    Chairman:  Edgar H. Sibley, George Mason University, USA
Modeling Linguistic User Interfaces
        M. Pilote, Toronto, Canada
How Abstraction Can Reduce Ambiguity in Explanation Problems
        S. Letovsky, Yale University, USA
A Framework for Design/Redesign Experts
        A.L. Furtado, M.A. Casanova* and L. Tucherman*, Pontificia
        Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro and IBM do Brasil*, Brazil
Flexible Interfaces and the Support of Physical Database Design Reasoning
        M. Prietula and G. Dickson*,Dartmouth College and University
        of Minnesota*, USA
3:30-4:00 pm            Coffee Break
4:00-5:30 pm 7. Panel Session:  Inference in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  Herve Gallaire, ECRC, West Germany
6:00-9:00 pm            Red, White and Bluegrass Night
Friday, April 4, 1986
8:00-10:00 am   Session 8:  Knowledge Management
    Chairman: Alain Pirotte, Philips Research Lab, Belgium
An Analysis of Rule Indexing Implementations in Data Base Systems
        M. Stonebraker, T. Sellis and E. Hanson, UC-Berkeley, USA
Querying a Rule Base
        L. Cholvy and R. Demolombe, Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches
        de Toulouse, France
Updating Propositional Formulas
        A. Weber, Universitat Karlsruhe, West Germany
Invited Lecture:  Beyond the Knowledge Level
        Mark. S. Fox, Carnegie-Mellon University, USA
10:00-10:30 am  Coffee Break
10:30-12:00 am  9.  Panel Session:  Open Issues in Expert Database Systems
    Chairman:  Robert Balzer, USC- Information Sciences Institute, USA
12:00-12:15 pm  Closing Ceremony
    Chairman:  Donald A. Marchand, University of South Carolina, USA


All Payments must be made in US Currency.  Make checks payable to the
Institute of Information Managment, Technology and Policy and mail the
form to
        Ms. Libby Shropshier, Conference Treasurer
        Institute of IMTP
        College of Business Administration
        University of South Carolina
        Columbia, SC, 29208
        Telephone:  (803) 777-5766

  [The original included conference and hotel registration forms. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
35
-DATE-
Date: 16 Feb 86 21:34:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Kai-Fu.Lee@SPEECH2.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Othello (Bill)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


In the recent North American Computer Othello Championship Tournament,
our department's entry, BILL, placed second in a field of 11.  The
final standings were:
        1.  Aldaron (C. Heath)          7.5 - 0.5
        2.  Bill (K. Lee & S. Mahajan)  7   - 1
        3.  Brand (A. Kierulf)          5   - 3
        3.  Fort Now (?)                5   - 3

Bill's only loss was to Aldaron, the defending champion, as well as
the program that should have beaten Iago in 1981.  However, Bill's
loss was due to the choice of color in the game with Aldaron.  In an
unofficial rematch with Aldaron, Bill won with the colors reversed.
Furthermore, Bill soundly defeated the program that tied Aldaron.

With the many improvements that we have in mind and the enthusiastic
participation this year, we expect an exciting championship next year.
If anyone is interested in more information about Bill, this tournament,
or the game transcripts, please send mail to kfl@speech2 or mahajan@h.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 February 1986 1954-EST
-FROM-
From: Hans Berliner@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer chess (final)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

The Eastern  Team championship is  essentially over.  Hitech  won and
drew  today,  producing  a final  score  of  5.5  -  .5.   It  played
remarkably well.   Outside of falling  into an opening trap  due to a
deficiency in its book, and being outplayed a little in game four but
recovering  when  the opponent  made  an  error,  its play  is  above
criticism.  It played  mainly against expert  level players,  a class
that is almost extinct in Pittsburgh, and beat every one of them.  It
drew its final game with a strong master rated nearly equal (2291) to
Hitech.   It had  black in  4 games,  and white  in two;  a noticable
disadvantage.  Mike  Valvo who directs the ACM  tournaments played on
board one  for the  team and  finished with  a score  of 4.5  to 1.5.
Hitech played on  board two, and Belle played on  board three.  Belle
apparently has had a hardware  overhaul, and played  much better than
it had recently.  However, on  a comparison basis, Belle scored 5- 1,
losing in  the last  round, and it  had 4 whites  and two  blacks and
played against  slightly weaker  opponents than  Hitech.   The fourth
board human  on the team  was a  catastrophe, scoring less  than 50%.
The crucial  match was in  the fifth round and  ended in a  draw with
both computers winning and both  humans losing, thus making the match
a draw and ruining our chances of winning the title (the team had won
all its previous matches).  In  the final round, there are still some
unfinished games, but the team should do no worse than draw, giving a
team record of 5 -1 (two drawn  matches).  Overall, it is safe to say
that on our  team the species @u[robot sapiens]  far outperformed the
species @u[homo sapiens].

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 10:20:20 EST
-FROM-
From: Chris_Langton%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artificial Life
-BODY-
    I read in the ailist a series of comments on the size of self-reproducing
systems (ARPA.AIList, Volume 3, Issue 71, 06/01/85 - starting with the
message from zim@mitre of 05/24/85 )
I have published an article wherein I exhibit a self-reproducing configuration
embedded in a cellular automaton which occupies a mere 10x15 cell rectangle.
The construction is based on a modification of one of Codd's components
(see Codd: Cellular Automata) in his simplification of von Neumann's
self-reproducing machine. My article is published in: Physica 10D (1984)
North Holland, pp 135-144, entitled 'self-reproduction in cellular automata'.

Basicly, this configuration consists of a looped pathway with a construction
arm extending out from one corner. Signals cycling around the loop cause
the construction arm to be extended by a certain amount and then cause a
90 degree corner to be built. as this sequence is executed 4 times (due
to the same signal sequence cycling around the loop 4 times), the four
sides of an offspring loop are built. When the extended construction arm
runs into itself, the resulting collision causes the two loops to detach
from each other and also triggers the construction of a new construction
arm on each loop. The new arm on the parent loop is located at the
next corner 'downstream' (in the sense of signal flow) from the original
site. Thus, the parent loop will go on to build another loop in a new
direction. Meanwhile, when the offspring was formed, a copy of the signal
sequence that serves as the description was trapped inside it when the
two detached from one another, thus it, too, goes on to build offspring.
The result is a growing colony of loops that expands out into the array,
consisting of a reproductive outer fringe surrounding a growing 'dead'
core, in the manner of a coral reef or the cross section of a tree.
Details are to be found in the article. Although this construction is
not capable of universal construction or computation, it clearly
reproduces itself in a non-trivial manner, unlike the reproduction under
modulo addition rules, of which Fredkin's reproducing system is an example.

I am also working on cellular automaton simulations of insect colonies and
artificial biochemistries. I have another article coming out in the proceedings
of the conference on 'Evolution, Games, & Learning' held at the Los Alamos
National Labs last May. It is entitled 'studying artificial life with cellular
automata'. There will be a video tape available soon from Aerial Press in
Santa Cruz which illustrates the self-reproducing loops as well as the
artificial insect colony simulations and other examples of `artificial life'.

I would be very interested in hearing from anybody who is working on anything
which might fall under the general heading 'artificial life'. I would also
like to try to get together a workshop, with computer support, where people
who have been working in this area could get together and have a 'jam session'
of sorts, and see each other's stuff. Any proceedings from such a workshop
would benefit greatly from having a video published along with it. If anybody
is interested in helping to organize such a workshop, send me a message. I
can be reached at: CGL%UMICH-MTS@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA

       USPS:  Christopher G. Langton / EECS Dept. / University of Michigan /
              Ann Arbor MI 48109

       MA-BELL (now divorced from PA-ATT) 313-763-6491

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 86 15:09:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Thought
-BODY-

                                From Vol 4 # 26:-  "The idea is
to get kids to be more thoughtful about thinking by getting them to
try to think about how animals think, and by taking the results of
these comtemplations and actually building animal-like creatures that
work." Alan Kay.
                                From Vol 3 # ??:- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 85
"Just as man had to study birds, and was able to derive the underlying
mechanism of flight, and then adapt it to the tools and materials
at hand, man must currently study the only animal that thinks
in order to derive the underlying principles there also." Frank Ritter

I am struck by two (or more?) very different uses of the word "think"!

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 86 00:08:02 PST
-FROM-
From: "Douglas J. Trainor" <trainor@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a cuppla ai koans
-BODY-

from <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

One day SIMON was going to the cafeteria when he met WEIZENBAUM, who
said: "I have a problem for you to solve." SIMON replied, "tell me more
about your problem," and walked on.

===================================================================

from <Kelley.pa@Xerox.COM>

How long would a simulation of its own lifetime survive?

What is the rate of change of all metaphors for the viability of that rate?

===================================================================

someone resent me Gabriel's old '83 koan <robins@usc-isib>:

A famous Lisp Hacker noticed an Undergraduate sitting in front of a
Xerox 1108, trying to edit a complex Klone network via a browser.
Wanting to help, the Hacker clicked one of the nodes in the network
with the mouse, and asked "what do you see?"  Very earnesty, the
Undergraduate replied "I see a cursor." The Hacker then quickly pressed
the boot toggle at the back of the keyboard, while simultaneously
hitting the Undergraduate over the head with a thick Interlisp Manual.
The Undergraduate was then Enlightened.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 14:38 PST
-FROM-
From: Cottrell@NPRDC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Naive Dog Physics Manifesto
-BODY-
From: Leslie Kaelbling <Kaelbling@SRI-AI.ARPA>
From: MikeDixon.pa@Xerox.COM
From: haynes@decwrl.DEC.COM (Charles Haynes)


                                     SEMINAR

                           From PDP to NDP through LFG:
                         The Naive Dog Physics Manifesto

                               Garrison W. Cottrell
                            Department of Dog Science
               Condominium Community College of Southern California


          The Naive Physics Manifesto (Hayes, 1978) was a  seminal  paper  in
     extending  the theory of knowledge representation to everyday phenomena.
     The goal of the present work is to extend this approach to Dog  Physics,
     using  the  connectionist  (or  PDP)  framework  to encode our everyday,
     commonsense knowledge about  dogs  in  a  neural  network[1].   However,
     following Hayes, the goal is not a working computer program.  That is in
     the province of so-called performance theories of Dog Physics (see,  for
     example,  my  1984  Modelling the Intentional Behavior of the Dog). Such
     efforts are bound to fail, since they must correspond to empirical data,
     which  is  always  changing.   Rather,  we  will  first  try to design a
     competence theory of dog physics[2], and, as with Hayes and Chomsky, the
     strategy  is  to  continually  refine  that, without ever getting to the
     performance theory.

          The approach taken here is to develop a  syntactic  theory  of  dog
     actions  which  is  constrained  by  Dog  Physics.   Using  a variant of
     Bresnan's Lexical-Functional Grammar,  our  representation  will  be  an
     context-free  action  grammar,  with  associated s-structures (situation
     structures).   The  s-structures  are  defined  in  terms  of  Situation
     Dogmatics[3],  and  are  a partial specification of the situation of the
     dog during that action.

          Here  is  a  sample  grammar  which  generates  strings  of  action
     predicates corresponding to dog days[4], (nonterminals are capitalized):

        Day -> Action Day | Sleep

        Action -> Sleep | Eat | Play | leavecondo Walk

        Sleep -> dream Sleep | deaddog Sleep | wake

        Eat -> Eat chomp | chomp

        Play -> stuff(Toy, mouth) | hump(x,y) | getpetted(x,y)

        Toy -> ball | sock

        Walk -> poop Walk | trot Walk | sniff Walk | entercondo


          Several regularities are captured  by  the  syntax.   For  example,
     these  rules  have  the  desirable property that pooping in the condo is
     ungrammatical.  Obviously such grammatical details are not innate in the
     infant  dog.   This  brings  us  to the question of rule acquisition and
     Universality.  These context-free action rules are assumed to be learned
     by a neural network with "hidden" units[5] using  the  bark  propagation
     method (see Rumelhart & McClelland, 1985; Cottrell 1985).  The beauty of
     this is that  Dogmatic  Universality  is  achieved  by  assuming  neural
     networks to be innate[6].

          The above rules generate some impossible sequences, however.   This
     is  the  job of the situation equation annotations.  Some situations are
     impossible, and this acts as a filter on  the  generated  strings.   For
     example, an infinite string of stuff(Toy, mouth)'s are prohibited by the
     constraint that the situated dog can only fit one ball and one  sock  in
     her mouth at the same time.  One of the goals of Naive Dog Physics is to
     determine these commonsense constraints.  One of our  major  results  is
     the  discovery  that  dog  force  (df)  is  constant.  Since df = mass *
     acceleration, this means that smaller dogs accelerate faster,  and  dogs
     at rest have infinite mass.  This is intuitively appealing, and has been
     borne out by my dogs.
     ____________________
        [1]We have decided not to use FOPC, as this has been proven by Schank
     (personal communication) to be inadequate, in a proof too loud to fit in
     this footnote.
        [2]The use of competence theories is a standard  trick  first  intro-
     duced  by  Chomsky, which avoids the intrusion of reality on the theory.
     An example is Chomsky's theory of light bulb changing, which  begins  by
     rotating the ceiling...
        [3]Barwoof & Peppy (1983).  Situation Dogmatics (SD) can be  regarded
     as a competence theory of reality. See previous footnote.  Using SD is a
     departure from Hayes, who exhorts us to "understand what [the  represen-
     tation]  means." In the Gibsonian world of Situation Dogmatics, we don't
     know what the representation means.  That would  entail  information  in
     our  heads.  Rather, following B&P, the information is out there, in the
     dog. Thus, for example, the dog's bark means there are  surfers  walking
     behind the condo.
        [4]Of course, a less ambitious approach would just try to account for
     dog day afternoons.
        [5]It is never clear in these models where these units are hidden, or
     who hid them there. The important thing is that you can't see them.
        [6]Actually  this  assumption  may  be too strong when applied to the
     dogs under consideration. However, this is much weaker than Pinker's as-
     sumption  that  the  entirety  of  Joan  Bresnan's mind is innate in the
     language learner.  It is instructive to see how  his  rules  would  work
     here.   We  assume hump(x,y) is innate, and x is bound by the default s-
     function "Self".  The first time  the  puppy  is  humped,  the  mismatch
     causes  a  new  Passive  humping entry to be formed, with the associated
     redundancy rule. Evidence for the generalization to other predicates  is
     seen in the puppy subsequently trying to stuff her mouth into the ball.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
36
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 09:04:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Solution to the Self-Referential Paradoxes (CSLI)
-BODY-

                           CSLI COLLOQUIUM

                  LOGIC OF POINTERS AND EVALUATIONS:
            THE SOLUTION TO THE SELF-REFERENTIAL PARADOXES
                             Haim Gaifman
    Mathematics Department The Hebrew University Jerusalem  Israel
                           Visiting at SRI
                          February 27, 1986
                             Ventura Hall

Imagine the following exchange:

Max:          What I am saying at this very moment is nonsense.
Moritz:       Yes, what you have just said is nonsense.

Evidently Max spoke nonsense and Moritz spoke to the point. Yet Max
and Moritz appear to have asserted the same thing, namely: that Max
spoke nonsense.  Or consider the following two lines:

line 1:    The sentence written on line 1 is not true.
line 2:    The sentence written on line 1 is not true.

Our natural intuition is that the self-referring sentence on line 1 is
not true (whatever sense could be made of it). Therefore the sentence
on line 2, which asserts this very fact, should be true. But what is
written on line 2 is exactly the same as what is written on line 1.

I shall argue that the unavoidable conclusion is that truth values
should be assigned here to sentence-tokens and that any system in
which truth is only type-dependent (e.g., Kripke's system and its
variants) is inadequate for treating the self-referntial situation.

Since the truth value of a token depends on the tokens to which it
points, whose values depend in their turn on the tokens to which they
point,and so on, the whole network of pointings (which might include
complicated loops) must be taken into account.

I shall present a simple formal way of representing such networks and
an algorithm for evaluating the truth values. On the input 'the
sentence on line 1' it returns GAP but on the input 'the sentence on
line 2' it returns TRUE. And it yields similarly intuitive results in
more complicated situations. For an overall treatment of
self-reference the tokens have to be replaced by the more general
pointers. A pointer is any obgect used to point to a sentence-type (a
token is a special case of pointer it points to the sentence of which
it is a token). Calling a pointer is like a procedural call in a
program, eventually a truth valye (TRUE, FALSE or GAP) is returned -
which is the output of the algorithm.

I shall discuss some more recent work (since my last SRI talk) -
variants of the system and its possible extensions to mathematical
powerful languages.  Attempts to make such comprehensive systems throw
new light on the problem of constructing "universal languages".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 15:00:13-PST
-FROM-
From: RUSPINI@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Approximate Deduction in Single Evidential Bodies (SRI)
-BODY-
AURA (Automated Uncertainty Reasoning Assembly) is about to resume its
AURAcles after some months of suspended animation. The next talk
(abstract below) is scheduled for next Friday, February 28, 10AM at
EK242. We plan to meet as regularly as possible each Friday thereafter
at the same time.



                       APPROXIMATE DEDUCTION IN
                       SINGLE EVIDENTIAL BODIES

                          Enrique H. Ruspini
                    Artificial Intelligence Center
                          SRI International

The main objective of this talk is the review of ongoing research on
the interpretation and manipulation of conditional evidence within
single evidential bodies. In the context of a single body of evidence,
conditional evidence is expressed as constraints on the possible
values of propositional truth under the assumption that a specific
proposition within the frame of discernment is known to be true. In
this context deductive inference consists of the combination of the
information about the probable truth of ground propositions (facts)
and conditional evidence (rules) to arrive at new (a posteriori)
estimates of propositional support. This process is both conceptually
and procedurally different from those undertaken when several bodies
of evidence are combined (e.g. using the Dempster Combination Rule).

The role of conditional evidence constraints (henceforth called
approximate or uncertain rules) is examined from the viewpoint of both
the theory of interval probabilities and the Dempster-Shafer Calculus
of Evidence. These approaches to the representation and analysis of
uncertain information will be briefly described together with their
theoretical underpinnings. Several possible interpretations of
approximate rules will be discussed and compared. Possible approaches
for the automation of approximate deduction (under each
interpretation) will also be presented.

Time permitting, the role of these results in the generalization of
Reynold's approach to the generation of support and elementary mass
measures will also be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 17:25 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Refutation Method for Horn Clauses with Equality (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn> on Mon 24 Feb 1986 at 17:08


                       UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
   A Refutation Method for Horn Clauses with Equality using E-unification
                   Jean H. Gallier (with Stan Raatz)

           Tuesday, 25 February 1986, 4:30 - 6:00, 4E17 DRL

A refutation method for equational Horn clauses, Horn clauses with or
without equational atoms, is investigated. This method combines standard
SLD-resolution and unification modulo equations.  In the case of ground Horn
clauses, unsatisfiability of a set of Horn clauses with equality is
decidable in time O(nlog(n)).  In the general case however, even though the
refutation method itself is complete, unification modulo equations is
undecidable.  In fact, unification modulo equations is NP-complete even in
the case of ground equations.  Considering this point, we explore subcases
of equational Horn clauses for which unification modulo equations is
tractable, and consider the implications for logic programming.  Finally, we
compare this new method with other existing methods.

** Next week: G. Rosolini from CMU will speak on "Categories for Partial
Computations".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 23:02:40 pst
-FROM-
From: David Cheriton <cheriton@su-pescadero.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Persistent Memory (SU)
-BODY-
          PERSISTENT OBJECT SYSTEM FOR SYMBOLIC COMPUTERS
               Satishe Thatte
               Texas Instruments
               Thurs. Feb 27th at 4:15 pm.
               MJH 352
               (Part of Distributed Systems Group Project meeting)

The advent of automatically managed, garbage-collected virtual memory
was crucial to the development of today's symbolic processing.  No
analogous capability has yet been developed in the domain of
"persistent" objects managed by a file system or database.  As a
consequence, the programmer is forced to flatten rich structures of
objects resident in virtual memory before the objects can be stored in a
file system or conventional database.  This task puts a great burden on
the programmer and adversely affects system performance.

A persistent object system that extends the automatic storage management
concepts of a symbolic computer to the domain of persistent objects will
be presented.  The system supports long-term, reliable retention of
richly structured objects in virtual memory itself, without resorting to
a file system.  Therefore, the system requires a crash recovery scheme
at the level of virtual memory.

The persistent object system is based on a uniform memory abstraction,
which eliminates the distinction between transient objects (data
structures) and persistent objects (files and databases), and therefore,
allows the same set of powerful and flexible operations with equal
efficiency on both transient and persistent objects from a programming
language such as Lisp or Prolog, without requiring a special-purpose database
language.  It is expected that the exploitation of such a capability
will lead to significant breakthroughs in knowledge/data base
management.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Feb 86  1016 PST
-FROM-
From: Bob Filman <REF@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Suggestions for AAAI-86
-BODY-
The deadline for workshop and panel proposals for AAAI-86 is
fast approaching.  (Officially, March 1, but we'll give a
few days grace to good ideas.)

Requests for ENGINEERING panels and workshops should be sent to:

        Tom Kehler
        Program Co-Chairman for AAAI-86
        Intellicorp
        1975 EL Camino Real West
        Mountain View, California 94040
        Kehler@USC-ECL.ARPA

Requests for SCIENTIFIC panels and workshops should be sent to:

        Stan Rosenschein
        Program Co-Chairman for AAAI-86
        SRI International
        333 Ravenswood Avenue
        Menlo Park, California 94025
        Stan@SRI-AI.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 15:58:56 mst
-FROM-
From: "Yorick Wilks <yorick@nmsu>" <yorick@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Theoretical Issues in NL Processing
-BODY-
TINLAP3

Third workshop on
Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing.
Las Cruces, New Mexico
January 7-9, 1987.

The workshop, supported by the Association for Computational
Linguistics, will follow the format of its predecessors at
MIT (1975), Champaign-Urbana (1978) and Nova Scotia (1985):
panels of distinguished figures in computational linguistics,
AI, and related disciplines will discuss the major topics at issue.
Preliminary registration information: Yorick Wilks, Box3CRL, NMSU, Las
Cruces, NM 88001, or CSNET:az@nmsu.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
37
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 10:26:56 -0500
-FROM-
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reviewers for ESIG papers
-BODY-
Volunteers are needed to act as reviewers for the Second Expert Systems
in Government Conference, which will be held from Oct. 20-24, 1986.
The topics of the conference are knowledge based applications and
supporting technologies.  A full description of the conference was given
in the Vol. 3 Issue 186 AIList, on December 15.  If you wish to be a
reviewer, please identify your interests and send your name, address, and
phone number to karna@mitre or use US mail to

Dr. Kamal N. Karna
AI Center
The Mitre Corporation
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA  22102

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Feb 86 07:59:56 EST
-FROM-
From: Mary.Lou.Maher@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: civil engineering exert systems
-BODY-
I am preparing a report for the ASCE and US Army Corp on the use of expert
system techniques in civil engineering. I would appreciate a response from
anyone active in this area; all those who respond will be put on a mailing
list to receive the completed report. Some specific civil engineering
domains are: structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, construction
engineering, transportation engineering, and environmental engineering.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 86 17:28:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!allen
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for publication
-BODY-
I am trying to locate a source for a publication referenced as
"Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design", IFIP, Sep-1984
I would also be interested in any work going on in the area of expert
systems in the field of Civil Engineering Computer Aided Engineering.
In particular, I would be interested in learing more about work
going on at Carnegi-Mellon on KADBASE. (H.C. Howard, D.R. Rehak, are
you out there ?)
>-
        "It's quite easy, if you don't know how.
         That's the important bit.  Be not at all
         sure how you're doing it."
                                      -Arthur Dent
P. Allen Jensen
Manager, Systems Division
GTICES Systems Laboratory
Department of Civil Engineering
Georgia Insitute of Technology
Atlanta Georgia, 30332-0355
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!allen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Feb 86 18:59:40 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!hyper!mark@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Mendel)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: WANTED: Theorem Provers
-BODY-
I would like to get my hands on a PD or otherwise free theorem prover.
Anything from resolution to Boyer-Moore would be OK.  Lisp preferable, though
C would be OK.
Please respond via mail.
Also, I think that such a thing really should be in the mod.sources archive.
So if you offer me something you've written, please indicate whether it's OK if
I submit it.
Thanks in advance,
        Mark G. Mendel
        {ihnp4,umn-cs}!hyper!mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 86 10:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Kurt Godden <godden%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Representation and Translation
-BODY-
Could anyone send to me or post to the net references on conversion of
knowledge from one representational structure to another?  For example,
translating between frames and semantic nets would be of interest.  If not
directly related to explicit translation, articles discussing >formal<
(non-)equivalence between/among various representations of knowledge is
also of interest.  If there are no postings directly to the net, I will
summarize and post anything of general interest I may receive.

>Kurt Godden
godden.gmr@csnet-relay (or, if that doesn't work: godden%gmr@csnet-relay)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Feb 86 17:02:38-PST
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query -- Rete Algorithm
-BODY-
Would someone please send me the reference(s) describing the Rete algorithm.
Also, any words of wisdom from people who have tried/succeeded in
implementing the algorithm would be appreciated.  Reply to me directly at:
        BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA
or,
        Matt Heffron
        Beckman Instruments, Inc.
        2500 Harbor Blvd. MS X-11
        Fullerton, CA 92634
Thanks,
Matt Heffron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 86 12:18:07 CST
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for the PRIME?
-BODY-
I would like to make the following inquiry for a friend.

Does anyone know of any versions of LISP which will run
on the Prime 9750?  They are particularly interested in
getting a version of Common Lisp if this is possible.
Also, is there any expert systems such as OPS5 which will
run on the same machine?

Post your answers on the List or send them to me.
Thanks a lot.

glenn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 15:18:08 est
-FROM-
From: nikhil@NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.LCS.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Opinion on Dec AI VaxStation?
-BODY-

A friend of mine from India (Prof. Rajeev Sangal, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur) is looking into buying Lisp machines for AI research.
Because of lack of maintenance, support etc. in India, he must rule out
Symbolics, LMI, TI, Xerox, etc.  The one exception seems to be an AI
VaxStation from DEC (DEC is represented in India).

So, he would like to obtain opinions about the DEC AI VaxStation from anyone
who has used it.  If you are/have been a user,  I would appreciate it if you
could send me your appraisal.  Reply to (ARPAnet):

                nikhil@xx.lcs.mit.edu

and I will pass it on to him. If there is interest, I can also summarize my
findings to this list.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Rishiyur Nikhil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 22:23:38 -0500
-FROM-
From: bradley@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ICAI
-BODY-

        As part of the newly formed Intelligent Engineering Systems
Laboratory at MIT, I am working on (hopefully) intelligent tutoring
systems for engineering applications.  I was curious what sorts of
tutoring strategies and knowledge representation schemes other researchers
in the ICAI area are using.  If anyone would be so kind as to send a
description of what they've found works/doesn't work for the applications
they are working on, or even a sample system for me to play with, with
comentary, I would be eternally grateful.
        Also, is anyone interested in forming a mail group to discuss
ICAI issues (and not bore everyone else)?

                        -Steve Bradley


  [The mail group already exists in the form of AI-Ed@SUMEX-AIM.
  I have forwarded this message to them.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Feb 86 10:48:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Marvin Zauderer <ZAUDERER@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Visual Programming Languages and AI
-BODY-

   I'm starting some work on a visual programming language (VPL); in
particular, since I'm disappointed with the current state of software
authoring systems for educators, I'm planning to build such a system that
will run in/on top of an existing VPL.
   I'm now in the process of doing some background research, and I've
assembled a fairly large number of references on the topics of
VPLs and authoring systems.
   As you might imagine, the search space for the former topic is rather
immense, since the study of VPLs involves the study of so many
disciplines (e.g. cognitive science, AI, human-computer interaction,
programming environments, interactive graphics, visual thinking, etc.). Of
course, this is also precisely why I'm so interested in VPLs and VPL
applications.

   I'd welcome any assistance in making the search space smaller: pointers
to references or to helpful people would be much appreciated. A nice side
effect of this search is the bibliography I'm creating; I will post it if
there is sufficient interest. Also, I'd be interested in starting a
discussion about VPLs and the connection between VPLs and AI.

   As a final point, I've questioned whether or not this message belongs
in AIList, and I've decided that it does. I've reasoned that, in
building such systems, one must think about about how people think,
which is precisely the kind of thing AI researchers do. This may be a
rather flimsy justification, but I figure the worst that can happen is
an avalanche of angry mail.

   Also: one would hope that the results of this thinking would go into the
kind of authoring system I'm describing. Since this seems relevant to the
topic of AI in Education, we've had some interesting discussions about
these issues recently on the AI-ED list. I still think there may be a
number of AIList readers interested in VPLs (and the associated issues) who
do not receive AI-ED.

   Please correct/criticize me if you think a discussion of these issues does
not belong on AIList -- I don't want to clutter up the netwaves.


Cheers,

Marvin Zauderer


E-Mail: Zauderer@SU-SUSHI.ARPA
USMail: c/o IRIS-FAD
        Cypress Hall, Room E-7
        Stanford University
        Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: (415) 497-4540
           (415) 725-3159

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Feb 86 22:59:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!wanginst!ulowell!dobro@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chet Dobro)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Associative Memory
-BODY-
I have a question/observation/assumption that may be totally invalid, and
I fully expect to get jumped all over about, but here it is:
One of the biggest problems AI'ers seem to be having with their machines is
one of data access. Now, a human [or other sentient life-form :-)] has a
large pool of experience (commonly refered to as a swamp) that he/she/it has
access to.
It is linked together in many obscure ways (as shown by word-association
games) so that for any given thought (or problem) there are a vast number
(ususally) of (not-necessarily) connected replies.
Thinking of that swamp as a form of data-base, does the problem then boil
down to one of finding a path-key that would let you access all of the
cross-referances quickly?
Thoughts, please?  (Hopefully constructive...)
                                                Gryphon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 86 14:21:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "INFO1::ELDER" <elder@info1.decnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog Books
-BODY-
Thanks.

P.S.  If you reply to me, please drop off the '.DECNET' that may appear
in the header of my message.  Our mailer has been acting funny lately.
My address is ELDER@WPAFB-INFO1 and not ELDER@WPAFB-INFO1.DECNET.

Greg Elder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
38
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 86 14:21:00 EST
-FROM-
From: elder@WPAFB-INFO1.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog Books
-BODY-
Could someone recommend a good list of books about Prolog (besides
"Programming in Prolog" by Clocksin) which would be good for someone
to read who is justing learning the language?

Greg Elder

  [This message was accidentally truncated in the last digest due to
  the lack of a blank line following the header.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Feb 86 14:02:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: rochester!ritcv!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!rapaport@seismo
     (William J. Rapaport)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Pointers to Logo?
-BODY-
>
> >> The only "texts" on Logo which I have thus far been able to locate
> >> are of the "How to Teach Logo to Your First Grade Class" variety.
> >> --
> >>    Michael J. Hartsough

        Try Brian Harvey, COMPUTER SCIENCE LOGO STYLE,
        a series of 3 books, 2 of which have appeared, published
        by MIT Press (isbn for the first, called "Intermediate
        Programming" is 0-262-58072-1).

>-
                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor
Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
(716) 636-3193, 3180
uucp:   ...{allegra,decvax,watmath}!sunybcs!rapaport
        ...{cmcl2,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sunybcs!rapaport
cs:     rapaport@buffalo
arpa:   rapaport%buffalo@csnet-relay
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Feb 86 06:59:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Todd H. Ogasawara)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Arity/Prolog 4.0 users out there?
-BODY-
I just received the Arity/Prolog 4.0 update to their interpreter and
compiler for the IBM PC a little while ago and have found this
implementation to be ever better and faster than the last (which was
very good).
Would be very interested to know if other netlanders are using
Arity/Prolog and, if so, what you are doing with it.
...todd
Todd Ogasawara, Computer Sciences Corp.
NOSC-Hawaii Laboratories
UUCPmail: {akgua,allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!noscvax!ogasawar
MILNET:   OGASAWAR@NOSC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Feb 86 16:02:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Binding - Ross Quinlan
-BODY-
Re: Need source of ID3 for Machine Learning

Quinlan's adress is:
Ross Quinlan,
Head, School of Computing Science,
New South Wales Institute of Technology,
P.O. Box 123,
Broadway, 2007 New South Wales,
Australia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 86 14:24:03 est
-FROM-
From: Russell Greiner <greiner%utai%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Real" Story behind MRS's name
-BODY-
  > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 15:46:28 EST
  > From: munnari!goanna.oz!wjb@seismo.CSS.GOV (Warwick Bolam)
  > Subject: Correction to correction to name of MRS
  >
  > Is there anyone who REALLY knows what MRS stands for?  I have a number of
  > MRS documents and NONE of them says "MRS stand for ..."

Years ago, Mike genesereth, Russ greiner and dave Smith got together,
along with some other illustrious researchers, and decided to create
a new and better representation language.  To achieve our original
objective of modifiability, the

        Modifiable Representation System

was born.  When we noticed that the only thing truly modifiable about it
was its name, it was rechristened the

        Meta-level Representation System.

As this, too, seemed a bit misleading, we considered several other
names.  Soon, we were forced to realize that we had an inherently

        Misnamed Representation System,

which still seems its best name.  (Of course, if this name really is
appropriate then it is, in fact, inappropriate.  That, in turn, means
it is not misnamed, which means it is misnamed, which ...)


[Apology: The story above is basically correct; only the names have
 been changed ...]


Russ Greiner
University of Toronto
(formerly of Stanford University).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 86 20:59:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (michael maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Dialogue help please needed ?
-BODY-
In article <720@aimmi.UUCP> c/o george@aimmi.UUCP (George Weir) writes:
>...  if you have a system working which
>manages dialogue in of course natural langauge (complete with efficient
>interpreter/complier), and its able to cope with all known syntactic forms,
>as well as most semantics, please send me a copy...

My wife and I are currently working on such a system.  The project name is
"SCOTT", which stands for "Self COmmunicating ToT."  Our project has been
underway for just over three years now, not counting a nine month prototyping
period.  Unfortunately, we are unable to post to the network...
Additionally, there are a few bugs, such as inappropriate case marking ("My
wanna go to the truck store!"), incorrect placement of negation ("My no wanna
go to sleep!"), "syllabic" metathesis ("You got for to buy me candy" = "You
_forgot_ to..."), etc.  We regard these as trivial problems, since the
problems which linguists acknowledge to be truly difficult (e.g. the semantics
of nonexistent entities, such as imaginary people that cause the breakage/
disappearance of objects, and such pragmatic issues as proper attachment of PPs
and extraposed relative clauses) appear to be well on the way to resolution.
We would also like to report that it has been great fun...
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Feb 86 09:20:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Review - SI Interactions, 2/86
-BODY-
It sounds as if TI for all their investment in AI, has made progress
toward the partial solution of two problems.  Since this is about the
average number of examples required for receiving a Ph.D. in AI, they
seem to have partially fulfilled the requirements.

Clearly, expertise in AI marketing is what students should be striving
for today -- the state-of-the-art of the technology itself is of (at
best) secondary importance.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 86 12:30:41 pst
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology - Knowledge Structures
-BODY-
In article <8602100723.AA28871@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> you write:
>From:     THOMPSON%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
>
>         I am  looking  for information about the knowledge structure
>         differences of people who have different levels of expertise
>         in  a  subject.  For  example, what is the difference in the
>         knowledge  structure of an "apprentice", a "journeyman",or a
>         "master".
>
>                                       Roger Thompson
>                                       Thompson@UMASS

One that I can recommend right off hand is -

        Kolodner,Janet L.,1984,Towards an understanding of the role of
                experience in the evolution from novice to expert:
                in Developments in expert systems;M.J.Coombs,ed.;
                Academic Press,p.95-116.

You might also look into Schank's work

        Schank,R.C.,1982, Dynamic Memory:A thoery of learning in
                people and computers; Cambridge University Press,
                Cambridge.

P.M.Pincha-Wagener

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 18:00:35 est
-FROM-
From: Valerie Kierulf <ulysses!mcnc!unc!kierulfv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert Systems and Software Engineering
-BODY-
Jeg kan ikke hjelpe deg, men etter det som jeg ser, leser og hoerer, har
folkne som driver paa med AI aldri hoert noe om Software Engineering!
Jeg ville vaere veldig glad aa hoere av det motsatte !!!!

Translation: I cannot help you. But after all I see, read and hear, people
             that have to do with AI don't know about the existence of Software
             Engineering. I would be very glad to hear the opposite !!!!!!


Valerie Kierulf

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 18:12:28 est
-FROM-
From: Rob Jacob <jacob@nrl-mms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Software Engineering
-BODY-
Saw your message about software engineering for expert systems on the
AIList...glad you asked.

Here at the Naval Research Laboratory Judy Froscher and I are trying to
work on just this problem.  We are interested in how rule-based systems
can be built so that they will be easier to change.  Our basic solution
is to divide the set of rules up into pieces and limit the connectivity
of the pieces.

I, too, would be very interested to hear about any other work in this
area.  When we describe our work to people, we often hear "That is just
what we need...why isn't somebody working on this?"  But we do not often
hear about other people actually working on this problem.  Two you might
try are Gregg Vesonder at Bell Labs and Steve Fickas at University of
Oregon.

I'm going to attach a short abstract about our work to the end of this
message and some references.

Good luck,
Rob Jacob

ARPA:   jacob@nrl-css
UUCP:   ...!decvax!nrl-css!jacob
SNAIL:  Code 7590, Naval Research Lab, Washington, D.C. 20375



    Developing a Software Engineering Methodology for Rule-based Systems

                            Robert J.K. Jacob
                           Judith N. Froscher

                        Naval Research Laboratory
                            Washington, D.C.

Current expert systems are typically difficult to change once they are built.
The objective of this research is to develop a design methodology that will
make a knowledge-based system easier to change, particularly by people other
than its original developer.  The basic approach for solving this problem is
to divide the information in a knowledge base and attempt to reduce the
amount of information that each single programmer must understand before he
can make a change to the expert system.  We thus divide the domain knowledge
in an expert system into groups and then attempt to limit carefully and
specify formally the flow of information between these groups, in order to
localize the effects of typical changes within the groups.

By studying the connectivity of rules and facts in several typical rule-based
expert systems, we found that they seem to have a latent structure, which can
be used to support this approach.  We have developed a methodology based on
dividing the rules into groups and concentrating attention on those facts
that carry information between rules in different groups.  We have also
studied several algorithms for grouping the rules automatically and for
measuring coupling and cohesion of alternate rule groupings in a knowledge
base.


                               REFERENCES

J.N. Froscher and R.J.K. Jacob, "Designing Expert Systems for Ease of
Change," Proc. IEEE Symposium on Expert Systems in Government, Washington,
D.C., pp. 246-251, 1985.

R.J.K. Jacob and J.N. Froscher, "Developing a Software Engineering
Methodology for Rule-based Systems," 1985 Conference on Intelligent Systems
and Machines, Oakland University, 1985.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 86 15:45:31 pst
-FROM-
From: Bruce McHenry <bruce@sri-tsc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Community Authoring Project
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the AI-Ed distribution by Laws@SRI-AI.]


A New R&D Program: The Community Authoring Project (CAP)

        The goal of the CAP is to provide a system which a large number
of people can use to create and store a complex body of knowledge.
Such a body, because it is authored and edited by many people, will
address a wide variety of individual perspectives.  Individuals will be
guided through this body with the help of user agents.  The user agents
will correspond with "idea" agents which monitor the formation of
communities.  While this approach applies to information and management
systems in general, the CAP aims to develop prototypes which can be
used in leading universities over the next few years.  Such
universities will posess advanced workstations upon which CAP software
may run.  The resulting community information system should provide
immediate benefits to teachers and students who may use it to create,
either alone or in conference, multimedia (visual & aural) "sections".
Sections may be embedded in eachother and interactively created,
explored and manipulated.  CAP technology will enable communities to
create broadbased bodies of knowledge in ways such that the
individual's "question in mind" can be readily addressed.  The testbed
sites will also provide attractive cultures for research into AI (i.e.
knowledge based, natural language and self-organizing) systems.  However,
the CAP's design philosophy is based on a pragmatic view of common
human methods for locating and disseminating information.  Its basis in
community participation provides a radical departure from current
methods of authoring interactive materials and it is expected that the
CAP will dramatically influence the development of interactive media
such as digital compact discs.


Bruce McHenry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
39
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 1986 13:09-PST
-FROM-
From: usc-cse.usc.edu@gasser
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Hierarchical Planning and Allocation (USC)
-BODY-
         USC DISTRIBUTED PROBLEM SOLVING GROUP MEETING:

    Planning and Resource Allocation in Time- and Cost-Constrained
             Environments : A Hierarchical Approach

                         Norman Sadeh
                  Ph.D. Student, CS Dept., USC

             Wednesday, 3/5/86, 3:00 - 4:00 PM

                          Seaver 319

Real-life planners should be provided with an ability to allocate resources
in time and cost constrained environments. A flexible manufacturing system
is an example of such an environment.

We will describe a hierarchical approach to the problem of allocating
resources during the planning process. We believe that the concept of
resource is directly related to the level of detail of the plan.  A same
object can be considered as a resource at a higher level of abstraction
and as a common object at a lower level. By allowing the planner to decide
upon which particular instances of certain  high level resources to allocate
to some high level tasks, taking into account time and cost constaints
posted on the overall plan, we will drastically reduce the search space to
be investigated.

Both centralized and distributed approaches will be considered.

Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, CS Dept., USC (213) 743-7794 or

            Norman Sadeh: sadeh@usc-cse.usc.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 15:54:31 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cerebral Lateralization (UCB)
-BODY-
                     BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                    Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237B
                       Tuesday, March 4, 11:00 - 12:30
                              2515 Tolman Hall
                          Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                          3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

            ``COGNITIVE MODELS OF HUMAN CEREBRAL LATERALIZATION:
                             A TUTORIAL REVIEW''

                              Curtis Hardyck

              Department of Psychology and School of Education,
                    University of California at Berkeley

            Models of human  cerebral  functioning  have  ranged  from
       notions  of extreme anatomical specificity to beliefs in global
       functioning.
            Within the field of cerebral lateralization, opinions have
       ranged  from  positions favoring extreme lateralization (almost
       all functions localized in one hemisphere) to  bilateralization
       (almost  all functions existing in both hemispheres). Intermin-
       gled with these positions have been promulgations of hemispher-
       icity  as  polar opposites, e.g. right brain (creative insight-
       fulness) vs left brain (lackluster drudgery), which  have  been
       adopted into popular culture.
            I will provide a brief historical review of  this  problem
       and  a discussion of current cognitive models of lateralization
       appropriate for examination within a cognitive  science  frame-
       work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 12:40 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Off-Line Programming of Robots (UPenn)
-BODY-

                                Colloquium
                      3pm Thursday, February 27, 1986
               216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania


               TOPICS IN THE OFF-LINE PROGRAMMING OF ROBOTS
                              Vincent Hayward
           Computer Vision and Robotics Lab., McGill University

Programming  robots  is  a  difficult  task,  even  in the case of the simplest
applications.  For this reason, research in robot programming has been evolving
in two distinct directions.  The first one is aimed at constructing goal driven
automated robot programming systems.  Another  trend  is  to  design  so-called
off-line  programming  systems  to  ease  the work of a human robot programmer.
These systems include a set of programming aids  such  as  graphic  facilities,
reporting  of  performances,  interfaces  to CAD/CAM systems, and pleasant user
interfaces.  In the view of developing off-line  programming  systems,  I  will
first  present  solutions to the problem of collision detection.  These methods
belong to  a  continuum  of  schemes  according  to  the  method  selected  for
representing  the  workspace  and  the  robot,  and  the amount of computations
performed before testing a particular trajectory.  I will then discuss a method
based  on  a  recursive  decomposition of the workspace, also referred to as an
octree model, as a good tradeoff for a class of  applications.    I  will  then
present  a  project  currently underway aimed at the construction of CAD models
from range data which will also facilitate the programming of robots.  Finally,
I will discuss the adequacy of current robot programming primitives and propose
a new scheme based on how sensors interact with robot control systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 86  1534 PST
-FROM-
From: Matthew Ginsberg <SJG@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Limits of Calculative Rationality (SU)
-BODY-

In light of what I expect will be department-wide interest in the
following talk, this week's research meeting/seminar of the KSL will
instead be a department-wide event.

The talk will run from 12.05 until 1.00 on February 28 and will be held
in the Chemistry Gazebo.  The room is fairly small, so anyone interested
in attending would be well advised to arrive early.

                                                Matt Ginsberg



        FROM SOCRATES TO EXPERT SYSTEMS:  THE LIMITS OF
                    CALCULATIVE RATIONALITY

                             BY

                        Hubert L. Dreyfus
                     University of California
                            Berkeley


An examination of the general epistemological assumptions behind
Artificial Intelligence research with special reference to recent
work in the development of expert systems.  All AI work assumes that
knowledge must be represented in the mind as symbolic descriptions.
Expert system builders further assume that expertise consists in
problem-solving and that problem-solving consists in analyzing a
situation in terms of objective features and then finding a situation-
action rule which determines what to do.

I will argue that expert system builders fail to recognize the real
character of expert intuitive understanding.  Expertise is acquired
in a five-step process:  The BEGINNER does, indeed, pick out objective
features and follow strict rules like a computer.  The ADVANCED BEGINNER,
however, responds to meaningful aspects of the situation which are
recognized as similar to prototypical cases, without similarity being
analyzed into objective features.  At the next stage, the COMPETENT
performer learns to figure out a strategy and to pay attention only
to features and aspects which are relevant to his plan.  The fourth
stage, PROFICIENCY, is achieved when the performer no longer has to
figure out his strategy but immediately sees the appropriate strategy.
Finally, the EXPERT, after many years of experience, is able to do what
works without facing a problem and without having to make any logical
calculations.  Experts presumably do this by storing many whole situations
and associated actions in memory and responding to their current situation
in terms of its overall similarity to a situation already successfully
dealt with.

On the basis of this model one can see that expert systems based
on rules extracted from experts do not capture the expert's expertise
and so cannot be expected to perform at expert level.

A review of the successes and failures of various expert systems confirms
this analysis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 10:43:01 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Concept Design Assistant (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 26th February l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.

Dr. K.J. MacCallum, Department of Ship & Marine Technology, University
of Strathclyde will give a seminar entitled - "An Intelligent Concept
Design Assistant".

This paper argues for the introduction of increased knowledge and
reasoning capabilities into computer based design systems in such a way
that they are able to enact the role of an intelligent assistant to the
designer.   It is shown that concept design involves a number of
different types of knowledge, the most difficult of which to represent
in a computer is "worldly" knowledge, either physical or commonsense.

Two systems which are being developed to tackle aspects of this
problem are described.   The first system, called DESIGNER, handles
numerical relationships;  the second called SPACES is concerned with
representing spatial arrangements.


Keyords:  Design, CAD, Knowledge Representation, Numerical
          Relationships, Spatial Arrangements.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 10:43:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Purposes of Vision (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    Wednesday, 5th March l986
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence, Seminar Room, Forrest
         Hill, Edinburgh.



Professor Aaron Sloman, School of Social Sciences, University of Sussex
will give a seminar entitled - "The Purposes of Vision and the
Architecture of a Mind".


It is often taken for granted that the purpose of vision is to take in one or
two static or changing 2-D arrays of information about the current optic field
and produce descriptions of the 3-D objects from which the light has been
reflected. This treats the visual system as having a narrowly defined set of
inputs and outputs and encourages a conception of the visual system as a
separable module in an intelligent mechanism, with relatively few channels of
communication with other modules.

The talk will reflect on the variety of visual inputs and outputs, the
possibility of integration with other senses at different levels, and how
these relate to the different purposes to which vision can be put. One
implication seems to be that the visual system may have an architecture and
relationship to other mental processes, very different from what is normally
assumed. Might we sometimes see with our ears and hear with our eyes?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
40
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 86 12:35:22 CST
-FROM-
From: "Glenn O. Veach" <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp in the classroom.
-BODY-
This past year at the University of Kansas we used Scheme in two
classes.  In an undergraduate "Programming Languages" class we
went through Abelson and Sussman's book while using Scheme for
homework and class projects.  In a graduate level "Artificial
Intelligence" class we went through Kowalski's book and assigned
a project to develop a Horne clause theorem prover which some
implemented using Scheme.  We are now trying to a curriculum
for our "Introductory Programming" course in which we would use
MacScheme (we now use Pascal) and would use Abelson and Sussman
as a text (probably not the entire book).  We would hope to use
the remaining chapters of the text for our second semester
programming course.

We are of course encountering some resistance as we try to forge
ahead with Lisp as a basic instructional language.  I understand
that MIT uses Abelson and Sussman as the text for their first
course in programming languages.  Do they cover the entire text?
What do they use for more advanced programming language courses?
Do any other schools have a similar curriculum?  Has anyone
been involved with the review process of ACM or IEEE for CS or
ECE programs and suggested the use of Lisp as a basic language?
What are some of the more compelling arguments for and against
such an effort?  If anyone could direct me to any B-Boards on
ARPA net which would be interested in such a discussion I would
appreciate it.

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-2192
(913) 864-4482
veach%ukans.csnet@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 16:44:28 est
-FROM-
From: nikhil@NEWTOWNE-VARIETY.LCS.MIT.EDU (Rishiyur S. Nikhil)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public domain Common Lisps?
-BODY-

Prof. Rajeev Sangal of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, is looking
for implementations of Common Lisp in the public domain, running on any of
these machines:

   Dec-10 running Tops-10
   UNIX System III (with Berkeley enhancements)
   IBM PC's running MSDOS

Are there any such implementations? If you have any information/opinions,
please reply to

   nikhil@xx.lcs.mit.edu

Thanks in advance,

Rishiyur Nikhil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 February 1986 13:44:31 EST      THURSDAY
-FROM-
From: FRIENDLY%YORKVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU  ( Michael Friendly
-SUBJECT-
Subject: International Logo eXchange
-BODY-
I am the North American field editor for a new Logo newsletter,
ILX, edited by Dennis Harper at UCSB and published by Tom Lough
of the National Logo Exchange, PO Box 5341, Charlottesville, VA
22905.

I write a bi-monthly column on Logo-like educational computing,
and am interested in hearing from people who are doing interesting
things which might be of interest to the international Logo
community. Please reply directly to FRIENDLY@YORKVM1.BITNET.
Applications of Logo to particular subject areas, advanced ideas,
list processing, metaphors for teaching Logo etc are of particular
interest.

I am also interested in developing a network forum for Logo workers,
perhaps going thru AI-ED or perhaps separate from it, and would
appreciate hearing from anyone of other nets, Bboards or conferences
in this area.

My background:
  I am a cognitive psychologist doing work on knowledge structure
and memory organization, with interests toward the applied side,
and am developing empirical techniques for cognitive mapping --
graphic portrayal of an individual's knowledge for some domain.

I have written a book on Advanced Logo with applications in
AI, computational linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc. oriented
toward courses in Computer Applications in Psychology and as an
advanced Logo book in a Faculty of Education. It is due to appear
sometime in 86.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 86 09:38:30 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Representation and Translation
-BODY-
   Could anyone send to me or post to the net references on conversion of
   knowledge from one representational structure to another?  For example,
   translating between frames and semantic nets would be of interest.

Well, here's a couple of obvious ones that you probably already know about:

* Brachman, R.J.  On the Epistemological Status of Semantic Networks.
* Etherington, D.W. and R. Reiter.  On Inheritance Hierarchies with Exceptions.
* Hayes, P.J.  The Logic of Frames.

These can be found in Brachman & Levesque's `Readings in Knowledge
Representation', Morgan Kaufman 1985.  Actually as I look through the
TOC, I realize that you probably should just get the book if you don't
have it.  Lots of good stuff.  Has an extensive partially annotated
bibliography too.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 86 10:11:11 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Associative Memory
-BODY-
   Date: 24 Feb 86 22:59:07 GMT
   One of the biggest problems AI'ers seem to be having with their machines is
   one of data access. Now, a human [or other sentient life-form :-)] has a
   large pool of experience (commonly refered to as a swamp) that he/she/it has
   access to.
   It is linked together in many obscure ways (as shown by word-association
   games) so that for any given thought (or problem) there are a vast number
   (usually) of (not-necessarily) connected replies.
   Thinking of that swamp as a form of data-base, does the problem then boil
   down to one of finding a path-key that would let you access all of the
   cross-referances quickly?

It's not invalid but unfortunately it isn't new either.  See any paper
on Frames.  The power of a frame-organized database isn't that there
happen to be these defstructs called frames, it's in the fact that the
frames are all connected together -- it's indexing by relatedness (how
dense the connections have to be before you start to win is an open
question, but see Lenat's recent stuff on CYC in the recent issue of
AI Magazine).  For background see Minsky (A Framework For Representing
Knowledge, 1975).  See NETL (e.g.  Fahlman, Representing Real-world
Knowledge, circa 1979, MIT Press).  See Connection Machine literature
(e.g.  The Connection Machine, Hillis, 1985, MIT press).  If you want
to see the connection between AI KB's and traditional DBMS's covered
extensively, see `Proceedings of the Islamorada Workshop on Large
Scale Knowledge Base and Reasoning Systems' (Feb 85) chaired by
Michael Brodie, available (I think) from Computer Corporation of
America, Cambridge MA (617) 492-8860.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 13:33:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Community Authoring Project
-BODY-

While I would certainly not want to be viewed as a stifler of creative
urges, sometimes it seems that a little common-sense, reality,
engineering knowledge, ..., injected into our blue-skying would go a
long way toward setting feasible goals.  What makes CAP (to which any
yahoo could presumably add his personal view of the world) anything
more than, say, a multimedia extension of this BBOARD?

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 86 11:51 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Taxonomy
-BODY-
When Dave Waltz was overseeing the AI section of CACM, he developed
a rather extensive taxomomy of AI.  I recall seeing it published
in AAAI magazine or SIGART or a similar source about 2 or 3 years ago.

  [I believe that he developed it for Scientific Datalink and then
  published it in AI Magazine.  See the following message.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 21 Feb 86 09:42:28-PST
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scientific DataLink Index To AI Research 1954-1984
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


We have just added the four volume set of the Scientific DataLink Index To
Artificial Intelligence Research 1954-1984.  The four volumes including two
abstract volumes, a subject volume, and an author index, are shelved with
the serial indexes.  These volumes index the Scientific DataLink microfiche
collections for the following research institutions in AI: Bolt Beranek
and Newman, CMU, University of Illinois, ISI, University of Massachusetts,
MIT, University of Pennsylvania, University of Rochester, Rutgers, SRI,
Stanford AI and HPP, University of Texas Austin, Xerox Parc, and Yale.
The subject volume is based on the AI classification as published in AI
Magazine Spring 1985.  I have included a photocopy of that article in
the back of the subject volume.

ACM is almost up-to-date with its ACM Guide To Computing Literature an
annual index to the computer science literature.  We have received up to
1984 and the 1985 volume is expected to be out this summer.  ACM expects
to have future annual volumes out by the summer of the following year
covered by the volume.  This annual index not only includes all entries
from Computing Reviews Index but additional computer science articles
not included in the monthly Computing Reviews.  Monographs, proceedings,
and journal articles are included in the index.

Harry Llull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Feb 86 17:09:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!tgd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (tgd)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: taxonomizing in AI: useless, harmful
-BODY-
Taxonomic reasoning is a weak, but important form of plausible reasoning.
It makes no difference whether it is applied to man-made or naturally
occurring phenomena.  The debate on the status of artificial intelligence
programs (and methods) as objects for empirical study has been going on
since the field began.  I assume you are familiar with the arguments put
forth by Simon in his book Sciences of the Artificial.  Consider the case of
the steam engine and the rise of thermodynamics.  After many failed attempts
to improve the efficiency of the steam engine, people began to look for
an explanation, and the result is one of the deepest theories of modern
science.
I hope that a similar process is occurring in artificial intelligence.  By
analyzing our failures and successes, we can attempt to find a deeper theory
that explains them.  The efforts by Michalski and others (including myself)
to develop a taxonomy of machine learning programs is viewed by me, at
least, not as an end in itself, but as a first step toward understanding the
machine learning problem at a deeper level.
Tom Dietterich
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
dietterich@oregon-state.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
41
-DATE-
Date: 26 Feb 86 20:07:41 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!turtlevax!weitek!kens@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Stanley)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for info on CERES and/or the CASCADE project
-BODY-
Can anyone tell me anything about CERES, POLO, LASCAR or the CASCADE project?
Is the CASCADE project state of the art or just an effort to catch up
to work in the U.S.?
I know nothing about any of the above.  Hence, simple responses and
references would be the most helpful.
Ken Stanley     weitek!kens

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28-Feb-1986 0843
-FROM-
From: kevin%logic.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Kevin LaRue -- You can hack
     anything you want with TECO and DDT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Prolog Books
-BODY-

``Introduction to Logic Programming''
Christopher John Hogger
Academic Press, Inc.
1984
ISBN 0-12-352092-4

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28-Feb-1986 1129
-FROM-
From: kevin%logic.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Kevin LaRue -- You can hack
     anything you want with TECO and DDT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Lisp in the classroom.
-BODY-

Lisp is the language used in the undergraduate introductory course of the CS
curriculum at Syracuse University.  In the past there wasn't a textbook for the
course; I believe that they are using Winston and Horn's ``Lisp'' now.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 23:34:38-PST
-FROM-
From: Sang K. Cha <ChaSK@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dreyfus on Skill Acquisition
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


[...]

Actually, the five-stage developmental model of skill acquisition that
Hubert Dreyfus stressed in his talk abstract appears in the following
paper of Stuart Dreyfus :

"Formal Models vs Human Situational Understanding : Inherent Limitations
 on the Modelling of Business Expertise,"
 Office Technology and People,1(1982) 133-165
 by Stuart Dreyfus, Dept of IE & OR, UC Berkeley


>- Sang

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Feb 86 23:45:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!glacier!kestrel!ladkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
(ladkin on Dreyfus)
> > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
> > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
> > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
> > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
> > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
> > distinguished membership!

(benjamin)
> Baloney.
> [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....]
> It seems arrogant
> for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
> accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.

Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue?
As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false?
(Negate it and see if that sounds right).
People reach (good and bad) conclusions about fields in which
they are not accomplished all the time. That's how AI got started,
and that's how computers got invented.
Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that
they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made?
(That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus).

Peter Ladkin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 86 04:27:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!jon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jon Jacky)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
> (Technology Review cover says...)
> After 25 years Artificial Intelligence has failed to live up to its promise
> and there is no evidence that it ever will.

Most of the comment in this newsgroup has addressed the second clause in
this provocative statement.  I think the first clause is more important, and
it is indisputable.  The value of the Dreyfuss brothers' article is to
remind readers that when AI advocates make specific predictions, they are
often over-optimistic.  Personally, I do not find all of the Dreyfuss'
speculations convincing.  So what?  AI work does not get funded
to settle philosophical arguments, but because the funders hope to derive
specific benefits.  In particular, the DARPA Strategic Computing Program,
the largest source of funds for AI work in the country,
asserts that specific technologies (rule based expert systems, parallel
processing) will deliver specific results (unmanned vehicles that can
drive at 40 km/hr through battlefields, natural language systems with
10,000 word vocabularies) at a specific time (the early 1990's).  One
lesson of the article is that people should regard such claims
skeptically.
Jonathan Jacky,         ...!ssc-vax!uw-beaver!uw-june!jon  or jon@uw-june
University of Washington

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 86 19:35:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!olaf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (olaf henjum)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
Is there any other kind of "lover of wisdom" than a "self-styled" one?
   -- Olaf Henjum (ihnp4!ihwpt!olaf)
      (and, of course, my opinions are strictly my own ...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 86 18:26:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncc5!mfidelma@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu  (Miles Fidelman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
About 14 years ago Hubert Dreyfus wrote a paper titled "Why Computers Can't
Play Chess" - immediately thereafter, someone at the MIT AI lab challenged
Dreyfus to play one of the chess programs - which trounced him royally -
the output of this was an MIT AI Lab Memo titled "The Artificial Intelligence
of Hubert Dreyfus, or Why Dreyfus Can't Play Chess".
The document was hilarious. If anyone still has a copy, I'd like to arrange
a xerox of it.
Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Feb 86 18:28:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!dpb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul Benjamin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
> (ladkin on Dreyfus)
> > > He is also a professional philosopher, holding a chair at
> > > U.C. Berkeley. His criticisms of AI claims are thoroughly thought
> > > through, with a rigor that a potential critic of his views would
> > > do well to emulate. He has done AI great service by forcing
> > > practitioners to be more self-critical. AAAI should award him
> > > distinguished membership!
> (benjamin)
> > Baloney.
> > [comments on Dreyfus on chess .....]
> > It seems arrogant
> > for him to reach conclusions about fields in which he is not
> > accomplished. This applies to both chess and AI.
>
> Before you cry *baloney*, how about addressing the issue?
> As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
> there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
> which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
> Do you (or anyone) think that this statement is obviously false?
> (Negate it and see if that sounds right).
>
> Why is it that people get so heated about criticism of AI that
> they stoop to name-calling rather than addressing the points made?
> (That question has probably also been asked by Dreyfus).
>
> Peter Ladkin

I DID address the issue. I deleted your reference because reproducing
entire postings leads to extremely large postings. But I am addressing
his argument about areas of human experience which supposedly will
never be amenable to machine implementation. My whole point, which I
thought was rather obvious, is that he conjures up examples which are
poorly thought out, and experiments which are poorly executed. Thus,
his entire analysis is worthless to any investigators in the field.
I would welcome any analysis which would point out areas which I should
not waste time investigating. I receive this sort of input occasionally,
in the form of "it is better to investigate this than that, for this reason"
and this is very helpful. I certainly don't love wasting time looking at
dead ends. If Dreyfus' work were carefully constructed, it could be very
valuable. But all I see when I read his stuff is vague hypotheses, backed
up with bad research.
So I am not calling him names. I am characterizing his research, and
therefore AM addressing the issue.
Paul Benjamin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 86 18:21:59 PST
-FROM-
From: albert@kim.berkeley.edu (Anthony Albert)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: albert@kim.berkeley.edu (Anthony Albert)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-
In article <8602110348.2860@redwood.UUCP>, ucdavis!lll-crg!amdcad!amd!hplabs!
    fortune!redwood!rpw3@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>
>+
>| The [Technology Review] article was written by the Dreyfuss brothers, who
>| claim...  that people do not learn to ride a bike by being told how to do
>| it, but by a trial and error method that isn't represented symbolically.
>+
>
>Hmmm... Something for these guys to look at is Seymour Papert's work
>in teaching
>such skills as bicycle riding, juggling, etc. by *verbal* and *written* means.
>That's not to say that some trial-and-error practice is not needed, but that
>there is a lot more that can be done analytically than is commonly assumed.

The Dreyfuses (?) understand that learning can occur analytically and
consciously at first. But in the stages from beginner to expert, the actions
become less and less conscious. I imagine Mr. Warnock's juggling (mentioned
further on in the article) followed the same path; when practicing a skill,
one doesn't think about it constantly, one lets it blend into the background.

                                Anthony Albert
                                ..!ucbvax!kim!albert
                                albert@kim.berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
42
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 13:08:13 est
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal Issue - Computational Linguistics on the Lexicon
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS: Special issue of Computational Linguistics on the Lexicon

Antonio Zampolli, Nicoletta Calzolari, and Don Walker have been appointed
guest editors for a special issue of Computational Linguistics on the
lexicon.  There is general agreement that the lexicon has been a
neglected area, and that current research is addressing problems of
importance for all aspects of natural language processing.  The issue is
intended to make the community at large aware of these developments.
All papers submitted will be reviewed in the usual manner.  The only
difference in procedure is that three (instead of five) copies should
be sent to James Allen (CL Editor), Department of Computer Science,
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA [acl@rochester.arpa];
one copy should be sent to Antonio Zampolli (CL Lexicon), Laboratorio
di Linguistica Computazionale CNR, Via della Faggiola 32, I-56100 Pisa,
ITALY [glottolo%icnucevm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa]; and one copy to Don Walker
(CL Lexicon), Bell Communications Research, 445 South Street, MRE
2A379, Morristown, NJ 07960, USA [walker@mouton.arpa; walker%mouton
@csnet-relay; ucbvax!bellcore!walker].  Manuscripts should be received
by 31 August.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 12:15:35-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representation/Estimation of Spatial Uncertainty (SRI)
-BODY-

         REPRESENTATION AND ESTIMATION OF SPATIAL UNCERTAINTY

                    Randy Smith (SMITH@SRI-AI)
                  Robotics Lab, SRI International

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 3
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


Current work on a method for geometrical reasoning under uncertainty
will be presented.  Such a reasoning component will be important to
planning systems for many robotic applications, including autonomous
navigation and industrial automation.

A general method will be described for estimating the values and
estimated errors in the relationship between objects whose locations
are represented by coordinate frames.  The elements in the
relationship may be described by bounding intervals, or may be
described by means and covariances, if a statistical model is
available.  The relationship between the frames (objects) may not be
explicitly given, but known only indirectly through a series of
spatial relationships, each with its associated error.  This
estimation method can be used to answer such questions as whether a
camera attached to a robot is likely to have a particular object in
its field of view.  More generally, this method makes it possible to
decide in advance if an uncertain relationship is known accurately
enough for some task to be accomplished, and if not, how much of an
improvement in locational knowledge a proposed sensing action will
provide.  The calculated estimates agree very well with those from an
independent Monte Carlo simulation.  The method presented can be
generalized to six degrees of freedom, and provides a practical means
of estimating the relationships (position and orientation) between
objects as well as the uncertainty associated with the relationship.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 86 13:22:12 PST
-FROM-
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Propositional Temporal Logic for Programs (UCB)
-BODY-
                 IBM Almaden Research Center
                        650 Harry Road
                   San Jose, CA 95120-6099

                         CALENDAR
               March 3, 1986 - March 7, 1986



Computer          EXPRESSING INTERESTING PROPERTIES OF PROGRAMS
Science           IN PROPOSITIONAL TEMPORAL LOGIC
Seminar           P. Wolper, AT&T Bell Labs and Stanford University

Tues., Mar. 4     We show that the class of properties of programs
10:30 A.M.        expressible in propositional temporal logic
B1-413            can be substantially extended if we assume
                  the programs to be data-independent.
                  Basically, a program is data-independent if its
                  behavior does not depend on the specific data it
                  operates upon.  Our results significantly extend
                  the applicability of program verification and
                  synthesis methods based on propositional
                  temporal logic.

                  Host: M. Vardi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 86 10:53:21 CST
-FROM-
From: Rose M. Herring <roseh@ratliff.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Proof of Godel's Theorem (UTexas)
-BODY-

                      University of Texas
                  Computer Sciences Department

                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:                N. Shankar
                                University of Texas at Austin

TITLE:          Checking  the  Proof  of  Godel's  Incompleteness
                  Theorem with the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover

DATE:           Thursday, March 6, 1986
PLACE:          WEL 3.502
TIME:           4:00-5:30 p.m.


        There is a widespread belief that computer proof-checking
of  significant mathematics is infeasible.  We argue against this
by presenting a machine-checked proof of  Godel's  incompleteness
theorem, one of the greatest landmarks of mathematics.  The proof
of this theorem was checked in  a  constructive  logic  with  the
Boyer-Moore theorem prover.  The proof demonstrates the essential
incompleteness of Cohen's axioms for  hereditarily  finite  sets.
This  was done by first formalizing a proof-checker for this log-
ic, extending it with derived inference rules, demonstrating  the
representability  of  a Lisp Eval function by a predicate in this
logic, and then constructing an undecidable sentence.  The state-
ment of the incompleteness theorem as proved, asserts that if the
undecidable sentence is either provable or disprovable,  then  it
is  both provable and disprovable.  This shows that the above ax-
iom system is either incomplete or inconsistent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 17:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Steve Holland <holland%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence (GMR)
-BODY-
Seminar at General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan:


                 Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence
                             Prof. Glenn Shafer
                            University of Kansas
                           Lawrence, Kansas  66045

                           Thursday, March 6, 1986

                                  ABSTRACT
     The theory of belief functions, or the Dempster-Shafer theory, has
     attracted wide interest as a tool for the management of uncertainty in
     artificial intelligence.

     What are the advantages and disadvantages of belief functions when they
are
     compared with numerical alternatives such as Bayesian probability and
fuzzy
     logic or with non-numerical alternatives such as default logic and the
     calculus of endorsements?  What are the current prospects for sensible use
     of belief functions in expert systems?

     In this talk, I will offer some general judgments on these questions.  I
     will emphasize the need for interactive tools for the construction of
     probability arguments, and I will speculate on long-term possibilities for
     probability judgment using man-made associateve memories.


>Steve Holland, Computer Science Department

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Feb 86 18:37:23-PST
-FROM-
From: Gio Wiederhold <WIEDERHOLD@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Data Engineering
-BODY-
DATA ENGINEERING CALL-FOR-PAPERS


The Third International Conference on Data Engineering
        Pacifica Hotel, Culver City (Los Angeles), California, USA
        February 3-5, 1987 (Tutorials 2,6 February)
        Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society

SCOPE

Data Engineering is concerned with the role of data and knowledge
about data in the design, development, management, and utilization of
information systems.  As such, it encompasses traditional aspects of
databases, knowledge bases, and data management in general.  The
purpose of the third conference is to continue to provide a forum for
the sharing of experience, practice, and theory of automated data and
knowledge management from an engineering point-of-view.  The
effectiveness and productivity of future information systems will
depend critically on improvements in their design, organization, and
management.

We are actively soliciting industrial contributions.  We believe
that it is critically important to share practical experience.  We
look forward to reports of experiments, evaluation, and problems
in achieving the objectives of information systems.  Papers which
are identified as such will be processed, scheduled, and published
in a distinct track.


                       TOPICS OF INTEREST

  o Logical and physical database design    o Design of knowledge-based systems
  o Data management methodologies           o Architectures for data- and
  o Distribution of data and information        knowledge-based systems
  o Performance Evaluation                  o Data engineering tools
  o Expert systems applied to data          o Applications
  o Data Security

The days preceeding and following the conference will be exclusively
devoted to tutorials.
Additional mini-tutorials will be presented during the last evening
of the conference. A special DBMS vendor day will include short
DBMS-specific tutorials to acquaint attendees with current commercially
available products.  Those interested in presenting tutorials should
contact the Tutorial Chairman by May 15, 1986.


AWARDS, STUDENT PAPERS, AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLICATION:

An award will be given for the best paper at the conference.  The best
student paper will receive the K.S. Fu award, honoring one of the
early supporters of the conference.  Up to three awards of $500 each
to help defray travel costs will be given for outstanding papers
authored solely by students.  All outstanding papers will be
considered for publication in the IEEE Computer Society Computer
Magazine, the IEEE Expert Magazine, the IEEE Software, and the IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering.  For more information, contact
the General Chairman.

PAPER SUBMISSION:                   CONFERENCE TIMETABLE:

Four copies of papers should be     Tutorial proposals due:  May 15, 1986
mailed before June 16th 1986 to:    Manuscripts due:         June 15, 1986
                                    Acceptance letters sent: September 15, 1986
Third Data Engineering Conference   Camera-ready copy due:   November 11, 1986
IEEE Computer Society               Tutorials:               February 2,6, 1987
1730 Massachusetts Ave. NW          Conference:              February 3-5, 1987
Washington DC, 20036-1903
  (202) 371-0101


Committee

Steering Committee Chairman:
C. V. Ramamoorthy
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720

Honorary Chairman:
P. Bruce Berra
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13210

General Chairman:
Gio Wiederhold
Dept. of Computer Science
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
(415) 723-0685
wiederhold@sumex-aim.arpa

Program Chairman:
Benjamin W. Wah
Coordinated Science Laboratory
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-5216
wah%uicsld.@uiuc.arpa

Program Co-Chairpersons:
John Carlis, Univ.of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Iris Kameny, SDC, Santa Monica, CA 90406
Peter Ng, Univ.of Missouri-Columbus, Columbia, MO 65211
Winston Royce, Lockheed STC, Austin, TX 78744
Joseph Urban, Univ.of SW Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504

International Coordination:
Tadeo Ichikawa, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima 724, Japan
G. Schlageter, Fern Universitat, D 5800 Hagen, FR. Germany

Tutorials:
James A. Larson, Honeywell Computer Sciences Center
1000 Boone Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55427
(612) 541-6836
jalarson@hi-multics.arpa

Awards:
K.H. Kim, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620

Treasurer:
Aldo Castillo, TRW, Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Local Arrangements:
Walter Bond, Cal State University, Dominquez Hills, CA 90747
(213) 516-3580/3398

Mary C.~Graham, Hughes, P.O.Box 902, El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 619-2499

Publicity:
Dick Shuey, 2338 Rosendale Rd., Schenectady, NY 12309
shuey@ge-crd.arpa

Tentative Program Committee Members

Jacob Abraham          Witold Litwin
Adarsh K. Arora        Jane W.S. Liu
J.L. Baer              Ming T. (Mike) Liu
Faroh B. Bastani       Raymond Liuzzi
Don Batory             Vincent Lum
Bharat Bhargava        Yuen-Wah Eva Ma
Joseph Boykin          Mamoru Maekawa
Richard Braegger       Gordon McCalla
Alfonso Cardenas       Toshimi Minoura
Nick Cercone           N.M. Morfuni
Peter P. Chen          Jack Mostow
Bernie Chern           Jaime Murow
Roger Cheung           Sham Navathe
David Choy             Philip M. Neches
Wesley W. Chu          Erich Neuhold
J. DeJong              G.M. Nijssen
David J. DeWitt        Ole Oren
Ramez ElMasri          G. Ozsoyoglu
Robert Epstein         Z.Meral Ozsoyoglu
Michael Evangelist     C. Parent
Domenico Ferrari       J.F. Paris
Hector Garcia-Molina   D.S. Parker
Georges Gardarin       Peter Rathmann
Sakti P. Ghosh         Lakshmi Rebbapragada
Arnold Goldfein        David Reiner
Giorgio Gottlob        Gruia-Catalin Roman
Laura Haas             Domenico Sacca
Lee Hollaar            Giovanni Maria Sacco
Yang-Chang Hong        Sharon Salveter
David K. Hsiao         Edgar Sibley
H. Ishikawa            David Spooner
Sushil Jajodia         John F. Sowa
Jie-Yong Juang         Peter M. Stocker
Arthur M. Keller       Stanley Su
Larry Kerschberg       Denji Tajima
Won Kim                Marjorie Templeton
Roger King             A.M. Tjoa
Dan Kogan              Yosihisa Udagawa
Robert R. Korfhage     Susan Urban
Tosiyasu L. Kunii      P. Valduriez
Winfried Lamersdorf    R.P. VanDeRiet
Matt LaSaine           Yann Viemont
W.-H. Francis Leung    Neil Walker
Victor Li              Helen Wood
Ya-Nan Lien            S. Bing Yao


Epilog

The correct design and implementation of data systems requires attention
to principles from databases, knowledge bases, software engineering, and
system evaluation.   We hope you will participate.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
43
-DATE-
Date: 1986 Mar 3   08:28 EST
-FROM-
From: Bob Weber    <WEBER3%HARVARDA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: QUERY RE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEXICONS
-BODY-
I am currently evaluating available lexicons as part of a project
to develop a NLP system with commercial potential.
I would like information concerning machine-readable lexicons
and thesauri that are not now commercial products but that are publically
or privately available. Specifically, I am interested in the
following information: (1) number of words and how they were
selected for inclusion in the lexicon, (2) how much and what
kind of syntactical information is incorporated, (3) for verbs, whether
case information is included, and if so, what kind and to what extent,
(4) whether the lexicon incorporates any class hierarchy information,
(5) references to research using the lexicon, (6) the willingness
of the owner to share or sell, and approximate price if for sale,
(7) other descriptive information necessary for evaluating the
contents of the lexicon.

Please reply directly to:  Weber3%Harvarda.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

Thanks in advance. If the replies are sufficiently interesting,
I will repost.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 86 20:21:17 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!kodak!bayers
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (mitch bayersdorfer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Q & A by Symantecs
-BODY-
On the IEEE telecast on February 26, 1986, there was mention of
a natural language driven database program called Q & A.  Does
anyone know of the source of this package?

      - Mitch Bayersdorfer
        Applied Technology Organization
        Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
        Floor 4, Bldg 23, Kodak Park
        Rochester, NY 14650
        (716) 477-1972
        UUCP: rochester!kodak!bayers

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 86 19:55:34 pst
-FROM-
From: Harvey Abramson <abramson%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: information on MAC-SCHEME
-BODY-
Does anyone have information as to the existence and availability of an
implementation of Scheme to run on the Macintosh?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Mar 1986 22:15-PST
-FROM-
From: hinke@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: distributed problem solving query -- architecture
-BODY-
I am currently researching the application of distributed problem
solving techniques to the solution of architecture (houses and
buildings) design problems. I am especially interested in any work in
which multiple agents, possessing different design perspectives, have
been applied to a design problem, While the domain is architecture, the
intent of the research is to investigate the computer science issues
inherent in multiple problem solver design approaches. Reply can be
sent to hinke@usc-cs.

Tom Hinke

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Mar 1986 1801-EST (Saturday)
-FROM-
From: Andy Chun <hon%brandeis.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chinese Language Environment on Symbolics
-BODY-

We are currently developing a Chinese language environment on Symbolics Lisp
machines.  This includes a basic character set of about 7,000 characters and
a user-interface for standard Chinese character code and pinyin input.  This
environment will be used for Chinese natural language understanding research
and Chinese text-processing.

To avoid duplicating efforts, we would like to know if anyone has already
developed such an environment on a Symbolics machine.  We are also
interested in knowing other research groups who may be interested in using
such an environment.

US mail:
    Hon Wai Chun
    Computer Science Department
    Brandeis University
    Ford Hall 232A
    Waltham, MA 02254

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 86 19:48:00 pst
-FROM-
From: bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!oblio!paf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Paul Fronberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: seeking lisp for 68k unix world
-BODY-
You might try SCHEME from the GNU distribution tape. I brought it up on a
5.2 box (68020) by a minor modification of the makefile. Also the price is
right considering that this includes source code ($150).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 10:07:13 PST
-FROM-
From: dual!hplabs!tektronix!tekchips!chanl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chan Lee)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Query -- Rete Algorithm
-BODY-
The Rete algorithm is described in detail on the article(by C. Forgy)
"Rete: A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object Pattern Match
Problem", Artificial Intelligence, Vol 19, Num 1, Sep 1982.
You can find a lot of relevant papers in the reference of this paper.
Among them, McDermott, Newell and Moore's paper on the "Efficiency of certain
production system implementation" seems very helpful.

chan lee

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Feb 86 09:18:01-PST
-FROM-
From: FIRSCHEIN@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ambiguous sentences
-BODY-
Here is the file of ambiguous sentences.
If you want to post any or all of it, be my guest.


From: BATES@G.BBN.COM

The all-time classic is "Time flies like an arrow", which has at least
5 ambiguous interpretations if you allow it to be the first part of
an unfinished sentence (which is how a parser would have to consider it) as
well as a complete sentence.  The interps are:
1.  The cliche we all understand the sentence to mean.
2.  An imperative, as in "Take this stopwatch and time these flies the same way
you would time an arrow in flight."
3.  An imperative, as in "Take this stopwatch and time these flies the same way
an arrow would time the flies if an arrow could use a stopwatch"
4.  "Time flies (which are like Horse Flies or Bluebottle Flies) are fond
of an arrow"
5.  "Time flies (as above), in a manner similar to an arrow, ..." (The end
of the sentence could be something like "move through the air rapidly")

There may even be another interp in there somewhere, but that's what I
remember for now.  If you get other sentences that are that heavily
ambiguous, I would very much appreciate seeing  a list of them.
  Thanks,
    Lyn Bates
    BATES@BBNG.ARPA


From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: multiple ambiguity

John made Jim die by swallowing his tongue.

E.g.,   John forced Jim's tongue down Jim's throat.
        John ate Jim's tongue (the rudest version).
        John swallowed his own tongue and Jim died laughing.
        John ate the cow's tongue that Jim had tainted with hot peppers
                so Jim died laughing.  It was on John's plate.
        <Same>, but it was on Jim's plate.
        The tongue belongs to some third person (referent of "his").



From:     FRAMPTON%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

  The following is only four ways ambiguous, but the ambiguity is purely
syntatic and the sentence isn't overly contrived.  It is a good test of
a syntatic parser.

   "I sent the man who is too stubborn to talk to Jack."

  The four readings can be deduced from:

  (1) I sent X to Jack
  (2) I sent X
  (3) I sent X to talk to Jack
  (4) I sent X Jack  (dative shift)

  Please either post the results of your inquiry on the AILIST or csnet-mail
the results to me.  I'm quite curious.


From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

One classic example is the phrase "pretty little girls school".  One
source of ambiguity is "pretty", which could mean either "beautiful" or
"moderately".  However, most of the ambiguity comes from binding powers,
i.e., where you attach the adjectives.  J. C. Brown, in his work on
Loglan, gives 17 meanings.  Here they are, always interpreting "pretty"
as "beautiful".

P = pretty; L = little; G = Girls; S = school. The problem is how to
insert parentheses into P L G S.  (Actually, it's more complex than
that, since you can put in a connective between adjectives to
effectively make a compound sentence; see [5ff].  Also, the some
adjectives can be present in both components of the compound; see
[9ff].)

     Binding                    Meaning
     =======                    =======

[1] (((P L) G) S)           A school for girls who are small; the
                            smallness of the  girls is beautiful.  [This
                            is purely left-associative.]

[2] (P ((L G) S))           A school for girls who are small; the
                            speaker's opinion is that such schools are
                            beautiful.  [Cf. [15].]

[3] ((P L) (G S))           A school for girls; the school is small and
                            the smallness is beautiful.

[4] (P (L (G S)))           A school for girls; the school is small;
                            the speaker's opinion is that such schools
                            are beautiful.  [This is purely
                            right-associative.]

[5] ((P G) S) & ((L G) S)   A school for girls who are both beautiful
                            and small.  [Both components left-associate.
                            G is duplicated.]

[6] (P (G S)) & ((L G) S)   A school for girls; the school is pretty;
                            the girls are small.  [First component
                            right-associates, second component
                            left-associates.  G is duplicated.]

[7] ((P G) S) & (L (G S))   A school for pretty girls; the school is
                            also small.  [First componentleft-associates,
                            second component right-associates.  G is
                            duplicated.]

[8] (P (G S)) & (L (G S))   A school for girls; the school is both
                            pretty and small.  [Both components
                            right-associate.  G is duplicated.]

[9] ((P L) S) & ((P G) S)   A beautifully small school for beautiful
                            girls. [Note duplication of P; both
                            components left-associate.]

[10] (P (L S)) & ((P G) S)  A small school which is thought to be
                            pretty; also it's for pretty girls. [P
                            duplicated; association is right/left.]

[11] ((P L) S) & (P (G S))  A school which is small and whose smallness
                            the speaker considers beautiful; also a
                            school for girls which is itself pretty. [P
                            duplicated; association is left/right.]

[12] (P (L S)) & (P (G S))  A small school which is pretty; also a
                            school for girls which is pretty.  [P
                            duplicated; both components
                            right-associate.]

[13] ((P L) S) & (G S)      A school which is small and the speaker
                            considers that smallness to be beautiful;
                            also it's a school for girls.

[14] (P (L S)) & (G S)      A small school which is beautiful and which
                            is a school for girls.

[15] (P S) & ((L G) S)      A beautiful school which is for small girls.
                            [Unlike [2], the beauty of the school is
                            independent of L & G.]

[16] (P S) & (L (G S))      A pretty school which is for girls and small
                            as girls schools go.

[17] (P S) & (L S) & (G S)  A school which enjoys all 3 properties of
                            being beautiful, small, and for girls.

[There's another set of 4 sentences that Brown didn't exhibit in his
book.  They're of the same class as [5-8] and [9-12], but duplicate L
instead of P or G:

[18] ((P L) S) & ((L G) S)
[19] (P (L S)) & ((L G) S)
[20] ((P L) S) & (L (G S))
[21] (P (L S)) & (L (G S))

That brings the total to 21.  However, since we're both getting bored
with this by now, and you've undoubtedly gotten the point, we won't
analyze them!]

One of Brown's points in Loglan was that, in order to be unambiguous,
the language needs pronounceable parentheses and connectives so that the
groupings above become apparent.  Each of the 17 (or 21) above meanings
has a separate pronounciation in Loglan; you're not allowed to be vague
about binding of adjectives.  (The default is left-associativity.)

One might object that I've left out cues to understanding, such as
punctuation (commas and apostrophes) and tone of voice.  That's true;
many cues to understanding sentences like these come from lexical or
prosodic factors like that.  However, tone of voice gets lost in writing
and punctuation is lost in speaking (at least partially; consider
"girls" vs "girl's").  Therefore, coping without some of these cues is
still a valid problem.


From: mab@aids-unix (Mike Brzustowicz)

My favorite is "The technician made the robot fast."

>Mike Brzustowicz
<mab@aids-unix>


From: William Dowling <Dowling%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>

Re the recently posted question seeking multiply ambiguous
sentences:  the easiest way to make multiply ambiguous sentences
or phrases is to exploit the tree inequality X(YZ) <> (XY)Z.
For example "a book and a stapler or some tape" is doubly
ambiguous, and "a book and a stapler or some tape and a newspaper"
is 5-ways ambiguous.  The same trick makes "the man with a hat
and a monkey in pajamas" heavily ambiguous.  Of course if n1 and
n2 are noun phrases k1- and k2-ways ambiguous then "<n1> is no <n2>"
is a sentence that is k1.k2-ways ambiguous.  Bob Wall once told
me that an early automatic translation program picked up many of
the readings of "Applicants who apply for licenses wearing shorts


From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@MIT-HTVAX.ARPA>

There's always the old standby "I saw the man on the hill with the
telescope."  This is used in Winston's textbook.  I count six meanings.


 From: John DeCarlo <M14051%mwvm@mitre.arpa>

 My favorite is:

     "Mary had a little lamb."

 It supposedly has at least a dozen meanings, most of which I can't think
 of off the top of my head, but I know it is in at least one of my textbooks.

    Mary owned                  some meat from a young sheep
         ate                    an actual live animal
         had intercourse with
         was accompanied by

 ...

 John DeCarlo
 <M14051%mwvm@mitre.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
44
-DATE-
Date: 4 March 1986 1604-PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: gross@nprdc.arpa (Michelle Gross)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Acquiring Language & Computer Lexicon Use (SD SIGART)
-BODY-

Subject: SD SIGART-NLP meetings--Last and Next
We've been meeting the first Monday of each month.

Last night's meeting (our 3rd) covered Dr. Bob La Quey's efforts to
write a program that acquires language by determining which
grammatical rules are needed to parse incrementally more complex
text.  The main difficulty with his approach seems to be how to prevent
adding spurious rules when ungrammatical sentences sneak through.
Someone suggested attaching a reliability index to each rule.  The
index would be based on how often the rule has successfully helped a
parse get through.  (The hope is that the ad hoc rules for
ungrammatical input would have low index values).

We also discovered that the only given rule in the
grammar (S --> N V Terminator) prevented the program from creating a
rule to parse imperative sentences (S --> V).  Mallory Selfridge's 1981
IJCAI paper ``A Computer Model of Child Language Acquisition'' provided
some of the impetus for Bob's work.  His talk was entitled ``A Model of
Language Acquisition.''

Our next meeting  will be April 7th.  The topic will be the
lexicon--how we use it and how a computer can use it.  I volunteered to
present some relevant linguistic and computational literature.  I plan
to discuss how the lexicon is viewed in Transformational Grammar,
Lexical Functional Grammar, and Relational Grammar (I don't know enough
about GPSG to touch on that perspective).  I plan to discuss Cherry's
paper on the UNIX tool PARTS (a program from the Writer's Workbench
that assigns parts of speech by rule).  I would also like to discuss
the data structures used in various dictionary projects.

        Can anyone provide pointers to such information for the OED
        or Webster's projects?  Any other references or abstracts
        you can send would only enrich our provincial San Diegan
        discussions!  I have a 1982 IEEE article on PARTS and Cherry's
        1978 paper--are there are more recent references?

For more information on the SIG, you may contact Ed Weaver at work at
(619) 236-5963.  I'll forward any electronic responses on to him.

Thanks,
Michelle gross@nprdc.ARPA       ...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix713 (UUCP)
Navy Personnel R&D Center       UCSD Linguistics, C-008
San Diego, CA. 92152-6800       La Jolla, CA. 92093

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 03 Mar 86  1042 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Commonsense Knowledge in the TACITUS Project (SU)
-BODY-

            Commonsense Knowledge in the TACITUS Project

                       Jerry R. Hobbs
                Artificial Intelligence Center
                      SRI International

                   Thursday, March 6, 4pm
                           MJH252

        In the TACITUS project for using commonsense knowledge in the
understanding of texts about mechanical devices and their failures, we
have been developing various commonsense theories that are needed to
mediate between the way we talk about the behavior of such devices and
causal models of their operation.  Of central importance in this effort
is the axiomatization of what might be called ``commonsense
metaphysics''.  This includes a number of areas that figure in virtually
every domain of discourse, such as granularity, scales, cycles, time,
space, material, physical objects, shape, causality, functionality, and
force.  Our effort has been to construct core theories of each of these
areas, and then to define, or at least characterize, a large number of
lexical items in terms provided by the core theories.  In this talk I
will discuss our methodological principles, such as aiming for the
maximum abstraction possible in order to accommodate metaphor and
analogy, and I will describe the key ideas in the various domains we are
investigating.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1986  20:35 EST
-FROM-
From: AGRE%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Hubert Dreyfus on Being and Time (MIT)
-BODY-
Artificial Intelligence Seminar
Monday, March 10, 2:30pm
545 Technology Square
(MIT Building NE43)
7th Floor Playroom

WHY YOU SHOULD READ BEING AND TIME

Hubert L. Dreyfus
Philosophy Department
UC Berkeley

The beauty of artificial intelligence is that computation keeps you honest:
mistaken approaches will simply fail. I will argue that a diagnosis of
current difficulties in AI research can be found in the work of Martin
Heidegger.  Heidegger's Being and Time isolates a number of assumptions of
Western philosophy which, though subtle and pervasive, are contradicted by a
careful account of the phenomenology of everyday activity.  These
assumptions and their corollaries have been implicit (and sometimes
explicit) in most AI work since the field's beginnings.  The task now is to
find a positive alternative.  I will start by presenting some of the basic
concepts of Heidegger's phenomenology.  But Heidegger's account of everyday
practices does not directly provide an alternative to traditional methods in
AI because it offers a description rather than a mechanizable explanation.
It is difficult to reason about the ways descriptions and explanations
constrain one another.  Still, I will attempt a start by outlining the
virtues and failings of some new approaches, in particular those of the
connectionist movement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Mar 1986 12:28-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Distributed Operating Systems (USC)
-BODY-
        USC Distributed Problem Solving Group Meeting

             Wednesday, 3/12/86  3:00 - 5:00 PM

                     Seaver Science 319

John Gieser, Ph.D. Student, USC, will speak on "'Intelligent'
Operating Systems for Distributed Computing".


                          ABSTRACT

Recent ideas from distributed problem solving (DPS) research appear
to have merit when used to acheive cooperation in open-ended
distributed computing systems (DCS).  To use these techniques, the
DCS nodes are viewed as autonomous agents in a problem-solving
situation, with each node governed by an "intelligent" operating
system (IOS).  This talk will focus on some ideas for providing the
structures and mechanisms needed in the IOS to handle problems
requiring cooperation such as distributed control, load
balancing/sharing, cooperating processes, etc.

Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, or

           John Gieser (gieser@usc-cse.usc.edu)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 86 16:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Connell <jhc@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Delegation and Inheritance (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]


Thursday , March 6  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

                      Delegation And Inheritance:
    Two Mechanisms for Sharing Knowledge in Object-Oriented Systems

                            Henry Lieberman

                              AI Lab, MIT


When a group of objects in an object oriented programming system shares
some common behavior, how can we avoid re-programming behavior in every
object that needs it?  I will explore the consequences of two mechanisms
for sharing knowledge, Inheritance and Delegation, for expressiveness
and performance of object oriented languages.

Using Inheritance, behavior common to a group of objects is encoded in a
Class object, which contains procedures for responding to messages, and
the names of variables that the procedure may access.  Each class may
create a set of Instances, which share the procedures of the class, but
may have their own private values for the variables.  Subclasses may
extend classes by adding additional procedures and variables.

Another way of sharing behavior is Delegation, which views each object
as a prototype capable of creating new objects by copying or reference,
removing the distinction between classes and instances.  General and
specialized objects communicate using message passing rather than a
"hard wired" mechanism.  Communication patterns can be determined at
message reception time rather than at compile time or object creation
time.  There is a time/space tradeoff between inheritance and
delegation, delegation permitting smaller objects at the cost of
increased message traffic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 February 1986 1450-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Refinement of Expert System Knowledge Bases (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:  Allen Ginsberg, Rutgers University
Date:    Wednesday, March 5
Time:    11:30 - 1:00
Place:   5409 WeH
Title:   The automatic refinement of expert system knowledge bases


Knowledge base refinement involves the generation, testing, and
possible incorporation of plausible refinements to the rules in
a knowledge base with the intention of thereby improving the
empirical adequacy of an expert system, i.e., its ability to
correctly diagnose or classify the cases in its domain of expertise.

The first part of the talk is a theoretical explication of the
basic concepts involved in knowledge base refinement -- e.g., a
precise analysis of one sense in which a refinement may be said
to be plausible is given -- and includes an overview of the
strategic goals that must be addressed by any knowledge base
refinement system.  As an illustration of the general theory,
the second part of the talk focuses on the SEEK2 system for
automatic knowledge base refinement.  In the last part of the
talk a brief discussion of a metalanguage for the experimental
design of refinement systems is given.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 February 1986 1153-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Heuristic Search:  Algorithms, Theory, and Learning (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:   Richard Korf, Asst. Prof., Comp. Sci. Dept., UCLA
Date:      Friday, March 14
Time:      1:00 - 2:30
Place:     5409 Wean Hall
Title:     Heuristic search:  Algorithms, theory, and learning

           Abstract:

This talk will cover three new research results in the area of heuristic
search. The first is a new algorithm, called Iterative-Deepening-A*, that is
asymptotically optimal in terms of solution cost, time, and space among all
admissible heuristic tree searches. In practice, it is the only known
algorithm that is capable of finding optimal solutions to the Fifteen
Puzzle. The second is a theory which unifies the treatment of heuristic
evaluation functions in single-agent problems and two-person games. The
theory is based on the notion of a heuristic as a function that is invariant
over optimal solution paths. Based on this theory, we performed some
experiments on the automatic learning of heuristic functions.  Our program
was able to learn a set of relative weights for the different chess pieces
which is different from, but competitive with, the classical values.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:57:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Brains, Behavior, and Robotics (CSLI)
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the CSLI Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                     Brains, Behavior, and Robotics
                            by James S. Albus
          Discussion led by Pentti Kanerva (Kanerva@riacs.arpa)
            12 noon, TINLunch, Ventura Hall Conference Room
                       THURSDAY, March 13, 1986

      In 1950, Alan Turing wrote, ``We may hope that machines will
   eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields.  But
   which are the best ones to start with?  . . .  Many people think that
   a very abstract activity, like the playing of chess, would be best.
   It can also be maintained that it is best to provide the machine with
   the best sense organs that money can buy, and then teach it to
   understand.  . . .  This process could follow the normal teaching of a
   child.  Things would be pointed out and named, etc.  Again I do not
   know what the right answer is, but I think that both approaches should
   be tried.''  (Quoted by Albus on p. 5.)
      ``Brains, Behavior, and Robotics'' takes this ``Turing's second
   approach'' to artificial intelligence, the first being the pursuit of
   abstract reasoning.  The book combines over a decade of research by
   Albus.  It is predicated on the idea that to understand human
   intelligence we need to understand the evolution of intelligence in
   the animal kingdom.  The models developed are mathematical
   (computational), but one of their criteria is neurophysiological
   plausibility.  Although the research is aimed at understanding the
   mechanical basis of cognition, Albus also discusses philosophical and
   social implications of his work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:44:14-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Situation Calculus Planning (SRI)
-BODY-
      SITUATION CALCULUS PLANNING IN BLOCKS AND RELATED WORLDS

                        John McCarthy   (JMC@SU-AI)
                     Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 10
       SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

This talk will present mainly ideas rather than completed work.
Situation calculus is based on the equation  s' = result(e,s),
where  s  and  s'  are situations and  e  is an event.  Provided
one can control the deduction adequately, this is a more powerful
formalism than STRIPS.  Planning a sequence of actions, or more
generally, a strategy of actions to achieve a situation with
specified properties, admits a variety of heuristics which
whittle away at the problem.  In many practical situations, these
heuristics, which don't guarantee a full solution but leave a
reduced problem, are sufficient.  Humans appear to use many of them
and so should computer programs.  The talk therefore will concern both
epistemological and heuristic aspects of planning problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 16:57:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Perspective Concept in Computer Science (CSLI)
-BODY-
          [Excerpted from the CSLI Calendar by Laws@SRI-AI.]


                 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT TALK
               The Perspective Concept in Computer Science
            12:15, Monday, March 10, Ventura Conference Room

      Our topic next Monday (March 10) will be a continued discussion
   (introduced by Jens Kaasboll) of the issues raised by Kristen Nygaard
   in his talk about perspectives on the use of computers:
      Regardless of definitions of ``perspective'', there exist many
   perspectives on computers.  Computers are regarded as systems, tools,
   institutions, toys, partners, media, symbols, etc.  Even so, there
   exist system description languages but no tool, or institution, or
   ... languages.  What do the other perspectives reflect, which make
   them less attractive for language designers?  Suggestive answer: The
   system perspective is the definite computer science perspective in
   which the processes inside the computers are regarded as the goal of
   our work.  Viewed through some of the other perspectives, the computer
   is seen as a means for achieving ends outside the computer, i.e., the
   needs of people using the computers.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
45
-DATE-
Date: Tue 4 Mar 86 06:24:39-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Belief Theories for uncertainties
-BODY-
Can anyone supply pointers to articles on the Dempster-Shafer belief
theory work?

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Mar 86 02:30:48 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!wanginst!malek
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sharon Malek)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-Monotonic Reasoning/Probabilistic Reasoning for Expert Sys.
-BODY-
I'm looking for information on non-monotonic reasoning and probabilistic
reasoning techniques for expert systems, as part of my graduate assistant
assignment.
Any assistance would be appreciated.  Please mail responses.
Thanks,

>-
Sharon Malek                             malek@wanginst        (Csnet)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies       wanginst!malek        (UUCP)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879           (617) 649-9731

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Feb 86 22:03:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (pam pincha)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GCLISP
-BODY-
This is a request for information from anyone
who has had the occasion to use Golden Common LISP
>- especially the version 2.0 called GCLISP 286
Developer system. We need to know if the system
works well on the IBM host; whether it response
is reasonable for systems larger than just toy demos;
how easy it is to use....etc.,etc.,etc.......
Basically, would you or would you not recommend it
and for what level of work would you recommend it,
and why (or why not)?
Please use mail to send you reply. I'll summarize
to the group if there is interest.

Thanks in advance,
P.M.Pincha-Wagener

PS. Comments on how well the scoping is handled in
this system would be of help also.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 23:41:00 est
-FROM-
From: mayerk%UPenn-GradEd%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searching for comments on expert system shell software...
-BODY-

I'm currently putting together an introductory course
on expert systems here at Penn, and I'm in need of
sage advice.  Part of the course will involve using
some expert system shell for homework assignments.
The assignments will involve:  Forward and backward
chaining, frames, CFs, contexts (maybe), and a final
project that will be a small prototypical system from
a selected list of subjects.

I've plowed through some of the hype from various
vendors, but I'd like more information from people
who have either used them, or used others that are
personal favorites.

If anyone is interested, I'll send out an appendix
of all of the responses I get.

Here is an uncut list from a database that I'm compiling:

Vendor Name                                     Product Name
________________________________________        __________________
Expert Systems International, Ltd.              ES/P  Advisor
ExperTelligence, Inc.                           ExperFacts
                                                ExperLisp
                                                ExperLisp-3600
                                                ExperLisp-Talk
Exsys, Inc.                                     Exsys Version 3.0
Human Edge                                      Expert Ease
                                                Expert Edge
Intelliware, Inc.                               Experteach
Jeffrey Perrone & Associates, Inc.              Advisor
                                                Ex-Tran
                                                Expert Ease
                                                EXSYS
                                                Grid-Xpert
                                                Insight
KDS Corporation                                 KDS
Lithp Systems BV                                Daisy
Micro Data Base Systems/Marketing & Sales       Guru
Radian Corporation                              RuleMaster
Silogic, Inc.                                   The Knowledge Work Bench
Software Architecture and Engineering, Inc.     KES II
Texas Instruments                               Arborist
                                                TI Personal Consultant

You'll have to excuse me if the list seems a little "raw,"
but I thought that it unfair to omit anything until I hear
a little more.  (Most of the above are unsuitable for my
needs, but in the interests of a wider community, comments
might be valuable.)

Send responses to:

mayerk%UPenn-Graded                     Kenneth Mayer
                                        University of Pennsylvania
                                        (215) 387-4751

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 4 Mar 86 06:30:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ambiguous sentences cont.
-BODY-
Yet another ambiguous sentence that I've run across in NLP classes
is:

        "The host smiled as he turned on the electric spit."

I leave it to reader to generate the permutations...

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 15:34:14 est
-FROM-
From: Mark J. Norton
     <bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!teddy!mjn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: QUERY RE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEXICONS
-BODY-
Although you mentioned that you are not intrested in commericial lexicons,
I would suggest you contact someone in AI R&D at Wang Laboratories.  I
spent several years there working on these and can assure you that they are
quality lexicons containing all (and more) of the information you require.
The source of data is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, to which
they own exclusive computer rights.  They also have on-line lexicons dealing
with Legal Terms, Medical Terms, Scientific Terms, Roget's Thesaurus,
Place-Names, Translation Aids to French, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese,
Chinese, Korean, and Arabic, British Spellings of words,
and other specialized lists.  It is quite possible that Wang
might let you use their information in return for application and
consultation access.  Send me mail if you would like to persue this, and
need specific contacts there.

Mark J. Norton, 59 New Estate Road, Littleton, MA  01460.


>-
                Mark J. Norton
                {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn
                mjn@sunspot

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 86 11:47:33 pst
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!polyslo!cburdor@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Christopher Burdorf)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prolog Books
-BODY-
 I would recommend Logic for Problem Solving, by Robert Kowolski.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
46
-DATE-
Date: Sat 1 Mar 86 20:04:39-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Alan Watts on AI
-BODY-
        I thought Ailist readers might be interested in the following
excerpt from "Oriental Omnipotence" in THE ESSENTIAL ALAN WATTS:

        We must begin by showing the difference between Western and
Eastern ideas of omniscience and omnipotence.  A Chinese Buddhist poem
says:
        You may wish to ask where the flowers come from,
        But even the God of Spring doesn't know.

A Westerner would expect that, of all people, the God of Spring would
know exactly how flowers are made.  But if he doesn't know, how can he
possibly make them?  A buddhist would answer that the question itself is
misleading since flowers are grown, not made.  Things which are made are
either assemblages of formerly separate parts (like houses) or
constructed by cutting and shaping from without inwards (like pots of
clay or images).  But things which are grown formulate their own
structure and differentiate their own parts from within outwards. ...
         If, then, the God of Spring does not make the flowers, how does
he produce them?  The answer is that he does so in the same way that you
and I grow our hair, beat our hearts, structure our bones and nerves,
and move our limbs.  To us, this seems a very odd statement because we
do not ordinarily think of ourselves as actively growing our hair in the
same way that we move our limbs.  But the difference vanishes when we
ask ourselves just HOW we raise a hand, or just how we make a mental
decision to raise a hand.  For we do not know-- or, more corectly, we do
know but we cannot describe how it is done in words.
        To be more exact:  the process is so innate and so SIMPLE that
it cannot be conveyed by anything so complicated and cumbersome as human
language, which has to describe everything in terms of a linear series
of fixed signs.  This cumbersome way of making communicable
representations of the world makes the description of certain events as
complicated as trying to drink water with a fork.  It is not that these
actions or events are complicated in themselves:  the complexity lies in
trying to fit them into the clumsy instrumentality of language, which
can deal only with one thing (or "think") at a time.
        Now the Western mind identifies what it knows with what it can
describe and communicate in some system of symbols, whether linguistic
or mathematical-- that is, with what it can think about.  Knowledge is
thus primarily the content of thought, of a system of symbols which make
up a very approximate model or representation of reality.  In somewhat
the same way, a newspaper photograph is a repesentation of a natural
scene in terms of a fine screen of dots.  But as the actual scene is not
a lot of dots, so the real world is not in fact a lot of things or
"thinks".
        The Oriental mind uses the term KNOWLEDGE in another sense
besides this-- in the sense of knowing how to do actions which cannot be
explained .  In this sense, we know how to breathe and how to walk, and
even how to grow hair, because that is just what we do!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 1 Mar 86 20:10:32-PST
-FROM-
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Addressing some of Dreyfus' specific points
-BODY-
To address some of the actual content of Dreyfus' recent talk at Stanford,
delivered to an audience consisting mostly of AI researchers:

1) The discussion after the talk was remarkably free of strong dissent, for
the simple reason that Dreyfus is now making a sloppy attempt at a
cognitive model for AI, rather than making any substantive criticism of AI.
Had his talk been submitted to AAAI as a paper, it would probably have been
rejected as containing no new ideas and weak empirical backing.

2) The backbone of his argument is that human *experts* solve problems by
accessing a store of cached, generalized solutions rather than by extensive
reasoning. He admits that before becoming expert, humans operate just like
AI reasoning systems, otherwise they couldn't solve any problems and thus
couldn't cache solutions. He also admits that even experts use reasoning
to solve problems insufficiently similar to those they have seen before.
He doesn't say how solutions are to be abstracted before caching, and
doesn't seem to be aware of much of the work on chunking, rule compilation,
explanation-based generalization and macro-operator formation which has
been going on for several years. Thus he seems to be proposing a performance
mechanism that was proposed long ago in AI, acts as if he (or his brother)
invented it and assumes, therefore, that AI can't have made any progress yet
towards understanding it.

3) He proposes that humans access previous situations and their solutions
by an "intuitive, holistic matching process" based on "total similarity"
rather than on "breaking down situations into features and matching on
relevant features". When I asked him what he meant by this, he said
he couldn't be any more specific and didn't know any more than he'd said.
(He taped our conversation, so he can no doubt correct the wording.)
In the talk, he mentioned Roger Shepard's work on similarity (stimulus
generalization) as support for this view, but when I asked him how the
work supported his ideas, it became clear that he knew very little about it.
Shepard's results can be explained equally well if situations are
described in terms of features, but more importantly they only apply when
the subject has no idea of which parts of the situation are relevant to the
solution, which is hardly the case when an expert is solving problems. In
fact, the fallacy of analogical reasoning by total similarity (which is the
only mechanism he is proposing to support his expert phase of skilled
performance) has long been recognized in philosophy, and also more recently
in AI. Moreover, the concept of similarity without any goal context (i.e.
without any purpose for which the similarity will be used) seems to be
incoherent. Perhaps this is why he doesn't attempt to define what it means.

4) His final point is that such a mechanism cannot be implemented in a
system which uses symbolic descriptions. Quite apart from the fact that
the mechanism doesn't work, and cannot produce any kind of useful
performance, there is no reason to believe this, nor does he give one.

In short, to use the terminology of review forms, he is now doing AI but
the work doesn't contain any novel ideas or techniques, does not report
on substantial research, does not properly cite related work and does
not contribute substantially to knowledge in the field. If it weren't
for the bee in his bonnet about proving AI (except the part he's now doing)
to be fruitless and dishonest, he might be able to make a useful
contribution, especially given his training in philosophy.

Stuart Russell
Stanford Knowledge Systems Lab

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 86 14:23:45 est
-FROM-
From: Jeffrey Greenberg <green@ohio-state.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: green@osu-eddie.UUCP (Jeffrey Greenberg)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article
-BODY-

> re:
> Dreyfus' distinction between learning symbolically how to do a task
> and 'doing' the task...i.e. body's knowledge.
>
I agree with the Dreyfus brothers - the difficulty many AI people have
(in my opinion) is a fundamental confusion of
"knowledge of" versus "knowledge that."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Feb 86 02:37:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Technology Review article (Deryfus actuall)
-BODY-
<1814@bbncc5.UUCP>
>
> About 14 years ago Hubert Dreyfus wrote a paper titled "Why Computers Can't
> Play Chess" - immediately thereafter, someone at the MIT AI lab challenged
> Dreyfus to play one of the chess programs - which trounced him royally -
> the output of this was an MIT AI Lab Memo titled "The Artificial Intelligence
> of Hubert Dreyfus, or Why Dreyfus Can't Play Chess".
>
> The document was hilarious. If anyone still has a copy, I'd like to arrange
> a xerox of it.
>
> Miles Fidelman (mfidelman@bbncc5.arpa)

Excuse the fact I reproduced all that above rather than digest it.
I just attended a talk given by Dreyfus (for the first time).  I think
the AI community is FORTUNATE to have a loyal opposition following of
Dr. Dreyfus.  In some defense, Dreyfus is somewhat kind to the AI
community (in constrast to some AI critics I know) for instance he does
believe in the benefit of expert systems and expert assistants.
Dreyfus feels that the AI community harped on the above:
        Men play chess.
        Computers play chess.
        Dreyfus is a man.
        Computer beat Dreyfus.
        Therefore, computers can beat man playing chess.
He pointed out he sent his brother (supposedily captain of the Harvard
chess team at one time) and he beat the computer (we should write
his brother at UCB CS to verify this I supose).
While I do not fully agree with Dreyfus's philosophy or his
"methodology," he is a bright thinker and critic. [One point we
do not agree on: he believes in the validity of the Turing test,
I do not (in the way it currently stands).]

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
p.s. I would not mind seeing a copy of the paper myself. :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Mar 86 02:17:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "self-styled philosophers"
-BODY-
William James once wrote that all great theories go through three
distinct stages:  first, everyone claims the theory is simply wrong,
and not worth taking seriously.  Second, people start saying that,
maybe it's true, but it's trivial.  And third, people are heard to
say that not only is it true and important, but they thought of it
first.
Here at the University of Illinois, it seems to be de rigeur
to laugh and deride Dreyfuss whenever his name comes up.  I am
convinced the majority of these people have never read any of
Dreyfuss' work--however, this is unimportant to them (clearly I don't
mean everyone here).  There are also those who spend a great deal of
time and effort rejecting everything Dreyfuss says.  For example,
recently Dr. Buchanan (of Stanford) gave a lecture here.  He purported
to be answering Dreyfuss, but in the great majority of cases agreed
with him (always saying something like, "Well, maybe it's true, but
who cares?").  It seems to me that, if Dreyfuss is so unimportant, it
is very strange indeed that so many people get so offended by
everything he says and does.  Perhaps AI researchers ought to be less
sensitive and start encouraging this sort of interdisciplinary
activity.  Perhaps then AI will move forward and finally live up to
its promise.
Barry Smith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed,  5 Mar 86 15:38:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Tale for Marvin the Paranoid Android.
-BODY-
> From AIList Vol 4 # 33:-
> His main thesis is that there are certain human qualities and
> attributes, for example certain emotions, that are just not the
> kinds of things that are amenable to mechanical mimicry.
> ...
> Peter Ladkin

> From AIList Vol 4 # 41:-
> As I pointed out, but you deleted, his major argument is that
> there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
> which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.
> ...
> Peter Ladkin

Could these areas be named exactly? Agreed that there are emotional
aspects that cannot be programmed into a machine, what parts of the
``human experience related to intelligence'' will also remain out-
side of the machine's grip?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon,  3 Mar 86 12:54:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?
-BODY-
The original basis  for the Turing test was to  see if it was possible
to distinguish, purely from a text,  whether you were talking to a man
or woman. The extension of this, the Turing test itself, seeks to give
a criterion  for deciding  on whether or not  a intelligent system  is
"truly intelligent".  A human  asks questions and receives  answers in
textual form.  (S)he then has to decide  if it is a machine behind the
screen or not.
Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
or not?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
47
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Article/Seminar - The TI Compact LISP Machine (Dallas ACM)
-BODY-
ACM Dallas Chapter Meeting Notice
Speaker: Alfred Ricoomi
         Senior Member, Technical Staff
         Texas Instruments
Topic: The TI Compact LISP Machine

The February 17 issue of Aviation Week is devoted to the military
application of Artificial Intelligence.  One article reports on the
development, at TI, of a military LISP machine.  Mr. Riccomi will
describe the machine, its near term applications, and likely spin-offs
into the commercial world especially in the airline industry.

Place: INFOMART, 1950 nStemmons Freeway (at Oak Lawn)Room 7004

Date: Tuesday, March 11, 1986, 7:30 - 8:15

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Mar 86 00:24:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!marcel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Tools Beyond Technique (UCB)
-BODY-
WHEN:   12:00 noon, Wednesday, March 5th
WHERE:  Canterbury House,
        University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
                    TOOLS BEYOND TECHNIQUE
                       Marcel Schoppers
                    Dept of Computer Science
                U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
In this talk I will propose yet another way to characterize AI, but
one which I hope captures the intuitions of AI researchers: that AI is
the attempt to liberate tools/machines from absolute dependence on
human control. That done, I will suggest some achievements which should,
according to this characterization of AI, demonstrate the success of
AI work. Importantly, both the characterization and those crucial
achievements contain no comparison to human capabilities. I therefore
maintain that several contemporary arguments for and against the future
success of AI are at once fallacious and beside the point. Among others:
the AI community's claim that "brains are computers too" is hardly necessary
and certainly not scientific, while Weizenbaum's "maybe computers can think,
but they shouldn't" is self-defeating. On the issue of whether artificial
intelligence will ever be achieved I will not commit myself, but at least
my characterization provides a down-to-earth criterion.

A paper on this subject (in the socio-communications literature):
"A perspective on artificial intelligence in society" Communications 9:2
   (december 1985).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Mar 86 06:09:35-PST
-FROM-
From: Oren Patashnik <PATASHNIK@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge and Action in the Presence of Faults (SU)
-BODY-
AFLB, 13-Mar-86  :  Yoram Moses (MIT)
12:30 pm in MJ352 (Bldg. 460)

        Knowledge, Common Knowledge, and Simultaneous Actions
                     in the Presence of Faults

We show that any protocol that guarantees to perform a particular
action simultaneously at all sites of a distributed system must
guarantee that the sites attain common knowledge of particular facts
when such an action is performed. We analyze what facts become common
knowledge at various points in the execution of protocols in a simple
model of a system in which processors are liable to crash.  We obtain
a new protocol for Simultaneous Byzantine Agreement that is optimal in
all of its runs. That is, rather than achieving the worst case
behavior, every run of the protocol halts at the earliest possible
time, given the pattern in which failures occur. This may happen as
early as after two rounds. We characterize precisely what failure
patterns require the protocol to run for k rounds, 1<k<t+2,
generalizing and simplifying the lower bound proof for Byzantine
agreement.  We also show a non-trivial simultaneous action for which
popular belief would suggest that t+1 rounds would be required in the
worst case, and use our analysis to design a protocol for it that
always halts in two rounds. This work sheds considerable light on many
heretofore mysterious aspects of the Byzantine Agreement problem. It
is one of the first examples of how reasoning about knowledge can be
used to obtain improved solutions to problems in distributed computing.

This is joint work with Cynthia Dwork of IBM Almaden.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 14:24:29 est
-FROM-
From: Rich Sutton <rich%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Adaptive Networks (GTE)
-BODY-

              Self-Organization, Memorization,
       and Associative Recall of Sensory Information
              by Brain-Like Adaptive Networks

     Tuevo Kohonen,  Helsinki University of Technology

The main purpose of thinking is to forecast phenomena that take place
in the environment.  To this end, humans and animals must refer to a
complicated knowledge base which is somewhat vaguely called memory.
One has to realize the two main problem areas in a discussion of memory:
(1) the memory mechanism itself, and (2) the internal representations of
sensory information in the brain networks.

Most of the experimental and theoretical works have concentrated on the
first problem.  Although it has been extremely difficult to detect memory
traces experimentally, the storage mechanism is theoretically still the
easier part of the problem.  Contrary to this, it has been almost a
mystery how a physical system can automatically extract various kinds
of abstraction from the huge number of vague sensor signals.  This paper
now contains some novel views and results about the formation of such
internal representations in idealized neural networks, and their
memorization.  It seems that both of the above functions, viz. formation
of the internal representations and their storage, can be implemented
simultaneously by an adaptive, self-organizing neural structure which
consists of a great number of neural units arranged into a
two-dimensional network.  A number of computer simulations are presented
to illustrate both the self-organized formation of sensory feature maps,
as well as associative recall of activity patterns from the distributed
memory.

When:    March 14, 1:00 pm
Where:   GTE Labs 3-131
Contact: Rich Sutton, Rich@GTE-Labs.CSNet, (617)466-4133

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Mar 86 14:52:51 PST
-FROM-
From: CALENDAR@IBM-SJ.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Stochastic Complexity (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-

                  IBM Almaden Research Center
                         650 Harry Road
                    San Jose, CA 95120-6099

                            CALENDAR
                       March 10 - 14, 1986


  Computer        STOCHASTIC COMPLEXITY AND THE MDL AND PMDL PRINCIPLES
  Science         J. J. Rissanen, IBM Almaden Research Center
  Colloquium

  Thurs., Mar. 13 There is no rational basis in traditional
  3:00 P.M.       statistics for the comparison of two models
  Rear Audit.     unless they have the same number of parameters.
                  Hence, for example, the important
                  selection-of-variables problem has a dozen or so
                  solutions, none of which can be
                  preferred over the others.  Recently, inspired
                  by the algorithmic notion of complexity, we
                  introduced a new concept in statistics, the
                  Stochastic Complexity of the observed data,
                  relative to a class of proposed probabilistic
                  models.  In broad terms, it is defined as the
                  least number of binary digits with which the
                  data can be encoded by use of the selected
                  models.  The stochastic complexity also
                  represents the smallest prediction errors which
                  result when the data are predicted by use of the
                  models.  Accordingly, the associated optimal
                  model represents all the statistical information
                  in the data that can be extracted with the
                  proposed models, and for this reason its
                  computation, which we call the MDL (Minimum
                  Description Length) principle, may be taken to
                  be the fundamental problem in statistics.  In
                  this talk, we describe a special form of the MDL
                  principle, which amounts to the minimization of
                  squared "honest" prediction errors, and we apply
                  it to two examples of polynomial curve fitting
                  as well as to contingency tables.  In the first
                  example, which calls for the prediction of
                  weight growth of mice, the degree of the MDL
                  polynomial agrees with the optimal degree,
                  determined in retrospect after the predicted
                  weights were seen.  The associated predictions
                  also far surpass those made with the best
                  traditional statistical techniques.  A
                  fundamental theorem is given, which permits
                  comparison of models in the spirit of the
                  Cramer-Rao inequality, except that the models
                  need not have the same number of parameters.  It
                  also settles the issue of how the
                  selection-of-variables problem is to be solved.
                  Host:  R. Arps
                  (Refreshments at 2:45 P.M.)
[...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Mar 86 17:33:40-PST
-FROM-
From: Marianne Winslett <WINSLETT@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Updating Databases with Incomplete Information (SU)
-BODY-

         Updating Databases With Incomplete Information
                           --or--
          Belief Revision is Harder Than You Thought


                      Marianne Winslett

                           PhD Oral
                        Area X Seminar
                      Margaret Jacks 352
                   Friday, March 14, 3:15 PM

Suppose one wishes to construct, use, and maintain a database of
knowledge about the real world, even though the facts about that world
are only partially known.  In the database domain, this situation
arises when database users must coax information into and out of
databases in the face of missing values and uncertainty.  In the AI
domain, this problem arises when an agent has a base set of beliefs
that reflect partial knowledge about the world, and then tries to
incorporate new, possibly contradictory knowledge into the old set of
beliefs.  In the logic domain, one might choose to represent such a
database as a logical theory, and view the models of the theory as
possible states of the real world.

How can new information (i.e., updates) be incorporated into the
database?  For example, given the new information that "b or c is
true," how can we get rid of all outdated information about b and c,
add the new information, and yet in the process not disturb any other
information in the database?  The burden may be placed on the user or
other omniscient authority to determine exactly which changes in the
theory will bring about the desired set of models.  But what's really
needed is a way to specify an update intensionally, by stating some
well-formed formula that the state of the world is now known to
satisfy and letting the database management system automatically
figure out how to accomplish that update.

This talk will explore a technique for updating databases containing
incomplete information.  Our approach embeds the incomplete database
and the updates in the language of first-order logic, which we believe
has strong advantages over relational tables and traditional data
manipulation languages when information is incomplete.  We present
semantics and algorithms for our update operators, and describe an
implementation of the algorithms.  This talk should be accessible to
all who are comfortable with first-order logic and have a passing
acquaintance with the notion of database updates.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Architectures for Knowledge Bases (SMU)
-BODY-
Toward Computer Architectures for Database and Knowledge Base Processing
Computer Science and Engineering Seminar, Friday, March 14, 1986
Speaker: Lubomir Bic
         University of California at Irvine
Location: 315SIC
Time: 3:00 PM

The importance of parallelism has been recognized in recent years and
a number of multiprocessor architectures claiming suitability to
intelligent data and knowledge base processing have been proposed.
The success of these architectures has been, in most cases, rather
modest.  The message conveyed in this talk is that, in order to build
highly-parallel computer architectures, new models of computation
capable of exploiting the potential of large numbers of processing
elments and memory units must first be developed.  To support this
claim, two such models-- one for processing queries in a
network-oriented database system and another for extracting
information from a logic-based knowledge representation system -- will
be outlined.  Both models are based on the principles of asynchronous
data-driven computation, which eliminate the need for centralized
control and shared memory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 15:29:19 est
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.ARPA (Don Walker at mouton.ARPA)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1987 Linguistics Institute
-BODY-
                     1987 LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE
                        STANFORD UNIVERSITY


The 1987 Summer Institute of the Linguistic Society of America will be
hosted by the Linguistics Department of Stanford University, from June
29  to  August 7, 1987.   It is  co-sponsored  by the  Association for
Computational Linguistics.

The theme of the Institute is "Contextual and Computational Dimensions
of Language",  and is meant  to reflect  the ever-growing  interest in
integrating theories of linguistic structure with theories of language
processing and models of  how language conveys information in context.
The aim is to provide  a forum in which it is possible  to integrate a
variety of  linguistic  traditions,  particularly  linguistic  theory,
computational  linguistics,   discourse  analysis,  psycholinguistics,
sociolinguistics, and artificial intelligence.

Several  different  kinds  of courses and activities will  be  offered
during the six-week period of the Institute:
     (i)    A  series  of overview classes in  the  main  subareas  of
linguistics (six weeks, 3 units)
     (ii)   A series of one-week intensive classes intended to provide
background for the four-week courses and seminars below (June  29-July
3, 1 unit)
     (iii)  Four-week classes on  topics related directly to the theme
of the Institute (July 13-August 7, 2 units)
     (iv)    Several seminars associated with research workshops  will
run throughout the last four weeks.  These can be taken for credit, as
part  of  the Stanford "directed research" program (subject  to  prior
approval of the workshop leader) (up to three units)
     (v)     A series of Wednesday lectures (e.g.,on the Synthesis  of
Approaches to Discourse), involving Institute participants and invited
visitors
     (vi)  The Association for Computational Linguistics will hold its
annual meeting during the second week of the Institute (July 6-10).

1987  marks  the  first  time in recent  years  that  two  consecutive
Institutes have been held with the same theme.   This  complementarity
of  the 1986 Institute held at the City University of New York and the
1987  Institute reflects remarkable changes taking place today in  the
field  of linguistics.   Taken together,  the Institutes  provide  the
depth  and  diversity necessary to cover the newly emerging  subfields
and  to  teach the range of interdisciplinary tools and  knowledge  so
fundamental  to  new  theoretical approaches.  The  1987  Institute at
Stanford differs from the 1986 Institute  primarily in specific course
offerings   and  faculty  and  in  its  focus  on  providing  a   rich
interdisciplinary research as well as teaching environment.   Many  of
the  instructors  will also be participating in  research  groups;  in
general  they   will teach only  one  course.

The  Executive  planning committee is:   Ivan  Sag  (Director),  Ellen
Prince (Associate Director), Marlys Macken, Peter Sells, and Elizabeth
Traugott.   David Perlmutter will be the Sapir Professor,  and  Joseph
Greenberg the Collitz Professor of the 1987 Institute.

For  more  information,   write  1987  LSA  Institute,  Department  of
Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California  94305.

Preliminary List of Institute Faculty:

  Judith Aissen
  Elaine Anderson
  Stephen Anderson
  Philip Baldi
  Jon Barwise
  Joan Bresnan
  Gennaro Chierchia
  Kenneth Church
  Eve Clark
  Herbert Clark
  Nick Clements
  Charles Clifton
  Philip Cohen
  Robin Cooper
  William Croft
  Penelope Eckert
  Elisabet Engdahl
  Charles Ferguson
  Charles Fillmore
  Joshua Fishman
  Lyn Frazier
  Victoria Fromkin
  J. Mark Gawron
  Gerald Gazdar
  Joseph Greenberg
  Barbara Grosz
  Jorge Hankamer
  Jerry Hobbs
  Paul Hopper
  Larry Horn
  Philip Johnson-Laird
  Ron Kaplan
  Lauri Karttunen
  Martin Kay
  Paul Kay
  Paul Kiparsky
  William Ladusaw
  William Leben
  Steve Levinson
  Mark Liberman
  Marlys Macken
  William Marslen-Wilson
  John McCarthy
  Nils Nilsson
  Barbara Partee
  Fernando Pereira
  David Perlmutter
  Ray Perrault
  Stanley Peters
  Carl Pollard
  William Poser
  Ellen Prince
  Geoffrey Pullum
  John Rickford
  Luigi Rizzi
  Ivan Sag
  Deborah Schiffrin
  Peter Sells
  Stuart Shieber
  Candace Sidner
  Brian Smith
  Donca Steriade
  Susan Stucky
  Michael Tanenhaus
  Elizabeth Traugott
  Peter Trudgill
  Lorraine Tyler
  Thomas Wasow
  Terry Winograd
  Annie Zaenen
  Arnold Zwicky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
48
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - AI Applications
-BODY-
definitions

D BOOK22 Applications of Artificial Intelligence\
%I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
%D 1-3 April 1986\
%N 635\
%C Orlando
__________________________________________________________________________

%A J. F. Gilmore
%A K. Pulaski
%T Comparative Analysis of Expert System Tools
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 T03

%A Y.-c. You
%T Expert System for Model Management
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A J. R. Slagle
%T Expert System for Treadmill Exercise ECG Test Anlaysis
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA01

%A D. L. Tobat
%A S. K. Rogers
%A S. E. Cross
%T SENTiNEL: An Expert System Decision Aid for a Command, Control and
Communication Operator
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA18

%A M. F. Doherty
%A C. M. Bjorklund
%A R. H. Laprade
%A M. T. Noga
%A C. Y Yang
%T Improved Cartographic Classifications via Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A D. Ho
%A K. Pulaski
%T GEST: Generic Expert System Tool
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 T03

%A G. A. Roberts
%T Expert System for Labeling Segments in FLIR Imagery
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AI06

%A RM. Ali
%A D. A. Scharnhortst
%A C.-S. AI
%A H. J. Ferber
%T Forward Chaining Versus a Graph Approach as the Inference Engine in
Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. Bravos
%T Application of the CSAL Language to the Design of Diagnostic Expert
Systems: the MOODIS (mood disorder) Experience
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA01 psychology

%A D. D. Dankel II
%A R. V. Rodriguez
%A F. D. Anger
%T HAIM OMLET: Expert System Research Tool for Discrete Structures
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. P. Levine
%T ESP: Expert System for Computer Performance Management
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA08

%A J. C. Esteva
%A R. G. Reynolds
%T Real-Time Knowledge Base Deviation Diagnostic Expert Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A G. Drastal
%A T. DuBois
%A L. McAndrews
%A N. Straguzzi
%A S. Raatz
%T Economy in Expert System Development: Aegis Combat System Maintenance
Advisor
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA18 O02

%A B. Korel
%T Program Error Localization Expert System
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA08

%A G. Y. Tang
%T Expert System Makes Image Processing Easier
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AI06

%A R. K. Eisley
%A M. S. Lan
%T Expert Measurement System for Ultrasonically Characterizing
Material Properties
%B BOOK22
%K AI01 AA05

%A J. Aloimonos
%A A. Basu
%T Shape and Motion From Contour Without Correspondece
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Stevenson
%A M. Fox
%A M. Rabin
%T TESS: Tactical Expert System
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A M. V. Orman
%T Modified Hough Transform for Finding Lines in an Edge Map
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A G. Bilbro
%A W. Snyder
%T System to Recognize Objects in 3D Images
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. C. Rearick
%T Real-time Image Understanding
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. M. Darwish
%A A. K. Jain
%T Rule Based System for Automated Industrial Inspection
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A N. C. Griswold
%A C. P. Jeh
%T Stereo Model Based on Mechanisms of Human Binocular Vision
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI08

%A R. S. Loe
%A T. J. Laffey
%T Measurement of the 3D Radius of Curvature Using the Facet Approach
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A D. K. Walters
%T Object Interpretation Using Boundary-Based Perceptually Valid Features
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A S. Tynor
%A C. C. Tsang
%A K. Gingher
%T VEST: Visual Expert System Testbed
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A J. Aloimonos
%A A. Bandyopadhyay
%T Perception of 3D Motion Without Correspondence
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A J. Merchant
%A T. J. Boyd
%T Flexible Template Matching for Autonomous Classification
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A J. H. Nurre
%A E. L. Hall
%T Error Analysis for a Two-Camera Stereo Vision System
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A Y. J. Tejwani
%T Logical Basis in the Layered Computer Vision Systems Model
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A G. G. Pieroni
%A O. G. Johnson
%T Computer Vison System for Understanding the Movement of a Wave Field
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A R. Y. Li
%T Hough Tansform Approach for Cylinder Detection in Range Image
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Semeco
%A B. Williams
%A S. Roth
%T GENSCHED: Real-World Hierarchical Planning System
%B BOOK22
$K AI09

%A R. W. McLaren
%A H.-Y. LIn
%T Knowledge-Based Approach to Ship Identification
%B BOOK22
%K AA18

%A M. Ragheb
%A D. Gvillo
%T Development of Knowledge-Based Fault Identification Systems on
Microcomputers
%B BOOK22
%K AA21

%A E. R. Addison
%T Design Issues for a Knowledge-Based Controller for a Track-While-Scan
Radar System
%B BOOK22
%K AA19

%A Z. Zhang
%A M. Simaan
%t Rule Based Supported Interpretation of Signal Images
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01

%A C. L. Huang
%A J. T. Tou
%T Knwoledge-Based Functional Symbol Understanding in Electronic
Circuit Diagram Interpretation
%B BOOK22
%K AA04

%A P. E. Green
%T Resource Limitation Issues in Real-Time Intelligent Systems
%B BOOK22
%K O03

%A K. S. Gill
%T Knowledge Based System for Education and Training
%B BOOK22
%K AA07

%A S. Tulpule
%A C. Knapp
%T Classification of Textured Surfaces Based on Reflection Data
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. Y. Young
%A S. Gunasekaran
%T Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis Using Shape Change Information
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Izaguirre
%A J. Summers
%T Analytical Identification of the Calibration Matrices Using the
Two Plane Model
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Celenk
%T Gross Segmentation of Color Images of Natural Scenes for Computer
Vision Systems
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A A. Strange
%A W. A. Fraser
%A G. A. Crockett
%T Investigation of Geometric Features
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A T. MIltonberger
%A H. Muller
%T True 2D Edge Detector
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A P. Bashir
%T Textured Image Segmentation
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A F. S. Cohen
%A Z. Fan
%T Segmentation and Global Parameter Estimation of Textured Images
Modelled by Unknown Gaussian Markov Random Fields
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Ragheb
%A D. Gvillo
%T Heuristic Simulation of Engineering Systems on A Supercomputer
%B BOOK22
%K H04

%A R. E. Neapoliton
%T Models for Reasoning Under Uncertainty
%B BOOK22
%K O04

%A Y. Cheng
%A R. L. Kashyap
%T Study of the Different Methods for Combining Evidence
%B BOOK22
%K O04

%A Y. J. Tejwani
%T Decision Support for Fuzzy Processes: A Prolog Assistant
%B BOOK22
%K O04 T02 AI13

%A H. Nordin
%T Using Typical Cases for Knowledge Based Consultation and
Teaching
%B BOOK22
%K AA07

%A H. Krishnamurthy
%T Conceptual Clustering Scheme for Frame-Based Knowledge Organization
%B BOOK22
%K AI04

%A L. M. Fu
%T Utility Measurement of a Decison Rule with Uncertaintly
%B BOOK22
%K O04 AI13 AI01

%A B. J. Garner
%A E. Tsui
%T Extendable Graph Processor for Knowledge Engineering
%B BOOK22

%A D. Gillies
%A A. Howson
%T Caused Based Methods of Knowledge Representation and Its Application to
Lift Scheduling
%B BOOK22

%A K. Y. Huang
%A K. S. Fu
%A Z. S. Lin
%T Automatic Linking Processing of Seismogram Using Branch and Bound
%B BOOK22
%K AA03 AI03

%A P. L. Love
%T Automatic Recognition of Primitive Changes in Manufacturing
Process Signals
%B BOOK22
%K AA05 AI06

%A R. Yoshii
%T Robust Machine Translation System
%B BOOK22
%K AI02

%A T. LI
%A L. Y. Fang
%T Computer Assisted Two-Way Diagnosis in Traditional Chinese Medicine
%B BOOK22
%K AA01

%A J. J. Cannat
%A Y. Kodratoff
%T Machine Learning and Recognition of Multifont Printed Characters
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A M. Nakashima
%A T. Koezuka
%A N. Horaoka
%A T. Inagaki
%T Automatic Pattern Recognition with Self-Learning Algorithm Based
on Featured Template Matching
%B BOOK22
%K AI04 AI06

%A L. Lafferty
%A D. Bridgeland
%T Scavenger: an Experimental Rete Compiler
%B BOOK22
%K AI01

%A A. Bandopadhay
%A D. H. Ballard
%T Visual Navigation by Tracking of Environmental Points
%B BOOK22
%K AI07  AI06

%A M. Herman
%T Fast Path Planning in Unstructured, Dynamic 3D Worlds
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A R. W. Harrigan
%T Sensor-Driven Robot Systems Testbed
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI07

%A P. G. Selfridge
%T Automatic 3D Reconstruction from Serial Section Electron Micrographs
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

%A F. B. Hoogterp
%A S. A. Caito
%T Knowledge Acquisition for Autonomous Navigation
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AA18 AA19

%A T. Unti
%A C. C. Tsai
%T Optical System Alignment Using Robotics
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A C. Isik
%A A. Meystel
%T Structure of a Fuzzy Production System for Autonomous Robot
Control
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 AI01 O04

%A K. Bae
%T Determination of the Most Probable Point from Nonconcurrent Lines
%B BOOK22

%A B. W. Suter
%A K. D. Reilly
%T Integrated VLSI Design Environment
%B BOOK22
%K AA04

%A D. K. Fronek
%T Real-Time Computer Vision Intelligent Hardware
%B BOOK22
%K AI06 O03

%A W. J. McClay
%A P. J. MacVicar-Whelan
%T AI-Based Process Implementation
%B BOOK22
%K AA05

%A D. T. Politis
%A W. H. Licata
%T Adaptive Decoder for an Adaptive Learning Controller
%B BOOK22
%K AI04

%A M. Adjouadi
%T Discrimination of Upright Objects from Flat-Lying Objects in
Automated Guidance of Roving Robots
%B BOOK22
%K AI07

%A B. G. Gayle
%A D. Dankel
%T RxPERT: Intelligent Computer System for Drug Interactions
%B BOOK22
%K AA01

%A J. Hong
%T Extension Matrix Approach to the General Covering Problem
%B BOOK22

%A J. Dwyer
%T Transitive Model for AI Applications
%B BOOK22

%A E. T. Whitaker
%A M. N. Huhns
%T Rule-based Geometrical Reasoning for the Interpretation of Line Drawings
%B BOOK22
%K AA04 AI01 AI06

%A W. P. C. HO
%T Intelligent Computer-Aided Design by Modeling Chip Layout as a
Metaplanning Problem
%B BOOK22
%K AA04 AI09

%A D. R. Wheeler
%T Forecasting Artificial Intelligence Demand
%B BOOK22
%K AT04

%A M. Mathews
%A C. Poinsette
%T Intelligent Tutor for Elementary Spanish
%B BOOK22
%K AI02 AA07

%A C. Y. Sheu
%T Well Performed Systems
%B BOOK22

%A A. Imamiya
%A A. Kondoh
%T Embedding an Explanation System within a User Interface
%B BOOK22
%K O01 AA15 AI02

%A E. P. L. Passos
%T Prolog's Start Out in Brazil
%B BOOK22
%K T02

%A A. Hall
%T Use of Prolog in Automatic Speech Recognition
%B BOOK22
%K T02 AI05

%A B. Unger
%A S. Siegel
%T Modular Hardware which Allows Flexible Implementation of Combinations
of Vison Processing Approaches
%B BOOK22
%K AI06

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - Robotics and Manufacturing Automation
-BODY-
definitions

D BOOK21 Robotics and Manufacturing Automation\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E M. Donath\
%E M. Leu\
%D 1986

__________________________________________________________________________


%A R. M. Goor
%T A New Approach to Minimum-time Robot Control
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A T. Watanabe
%A M. Kametani
%A K. Kawata
%A K. Tetsuya
%T Improvement of the Computing Time of Robot Manipulators Using a
Multi-microprocessor
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 H03

%A T. Yabuta
%A T. Tsujimura
%A T. Morimitsu
%T A Manipulator Control Method Using a Shape Recognition System with an
Ultrasonic Distance Sensor
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AI06

%A Y. Stepanenko
%T On Modal Control of Robotic Manipulators
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. Y. S. Luh
%A Y. L. Gu
%T Efficiency and Flexibility of Industrial Robots with Redundancy
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A G. M. Chaoui
%A W. J. Palm
%T Active Compliance Control Strategies for Robotic Assembly Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A F. W. Paul
%A J. K. Parker
%T Active Industrial Robot End-effector Control Design Strategy for
Manufacturing Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. K. Parker
%A F. W. Paul
%T Impact Force Control in Robot Hand Design
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. Vossoughi
%A M. Donath
%T Robot Hand Impedance Control in the Presence of Mechanical Nonlinearities
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A N. Goldfine
%T Process Analysis and Compliance Design for Grinding with Robots
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. Brock
%A S. Chiu
%T Environment Perception of an Articulated Robot Hand Using Contact Sensors
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A W. J. Book
%A S. L. Dickerson
%A G. Hastings
%A S. Cetinkunt
%A T. Alberts
%T Combined Approaches to Lightweight Arm Utilization
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. P. Singh
%A P. W. Likins
%A R. J. VanderVoort
%T Automated Dynamics and Control Analysis of Constrained Multibody System
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. R. Meldrum
%A M. J. Balas
%T Direct Adaptive Control of a Flexible Remote Manipulator Arm
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A D. A. Streit
%A C. M. Krousgrill
%A A. K. Bajaj
%T Dynamic Stability of Flexible Manipulators Performing Repetitive Tasks
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A M. C. Leu
%A V. Kukovski
%A K. K. Wang
%T An Analytical and Experimental Study of the Stiffness of Robot Manipulators
with Parallel Mechanisms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A K. Youcef-Toumi
%A H. Asada
%T The Design of Arm Linkages with Decoupled and Configuration-Invariant
Inertia Tensors:  Part I: Open Kinematic Chains with Serial Drive Mechanisms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07


%A K. Youcef-Toumi
%A H. Asada
%T The Design of Arm Linkages with Decoupled and Configuration-Invariant
Inertia Tensors:  Part II: Actuator Relocation and Mass Redistribution
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A E. Vaaler
%A W. P. Seering
%T Design of a Cartesian Robot
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A O. Khatib
%A J. Burdick
%T Dynamic Optimization in Manipulator Design: The Operational Space
Formulation
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. West
%A H. Asada
%T Kinematic Analysis and Mechanical Advantage of Manipulators Constrained
by Contact with the Environment
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. M. Hollerbach
%T Evaluation of Redundant Manipulators Derived from the PUMA Geometry
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A Y.. Nakamura
%A H. Hanafusa
%T Inverse Kinematic Solutions with Singularity Robustness for Robot
Manipulator Control
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. A. Apkarian
%A A. A. Goldenberg
%A H. W. Smith
%T An Approach to Kinematics Control of Robot Manipulator
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A T. J. Fougere
%A S. D. Chawla
%A J. J. Kanerva
%T Robot-Sim: A CAD-based Workcell Design and Off-line Programming System
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A C. Goad
%T Robot and Vision Programming in Robocam
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AI06

%A R. Jayaraman
%T GALOP/2D: A Graphical System for Workcell Layout Evaluation
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A D. Bailey
%A S. Derby
%A M. Steiner
%T Computer-integrated System for Design and Assembly of Cable Harnesses:
Part I: Design and Applications
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A D. Bailey
%A S. Derby
%A M. Steiner
%T Computer-integrated System for Design and Assembly of Cable Harnesses:
Part II: Algorithms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07 AA05

%A M. C. Weinstein
%A M. C. Leu
%A F. A. Infelise
%T Design and Analysis of Robotic Assembly for a Printer Compensation Arm
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A A. Fields
%T Design of Flexible Fixtures Reconfigured by Robot Manipulators
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A B. O. Wood
%A P. H. Cohjen
%A D. J. Medeiros
%A J. L. Goodrich
%T Design for Robotic Assembly
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A K. Nishimura
%A M. Nakaga
%A H. Kawasaki
%T Mechanism and Control of a Page-Turning Robot
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A H. Asada
%A S. K. Lim
%T Design of Joint Torque Sensors and Torque Feedback Control for Direct-Drive
Arms
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A J. Pawletko
%A D. Manzer
%A J. Ish-Shalom
%T A Direct-Drive Actuator for Cartesian Robots
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

%A R. L. Hollis
%T Design for a Planar XY Robotic Fine-Positioning Device
%B BOOK21
%K AI07

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
49
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - Msc. AI
-BODY-
definitions

D BOOK19 Applications of Knowledge-Based Systems to Engineering Analysis
and Design\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E C. L. Dym\
%D 1986
D BOOK20 Computer-Aided/Intelligent Process Planning\
%I American Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%E C. R. Liu\
%E T. C. Cahng\
%E R. Komanduri\
%D 1986
D MAG9a IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation\
%V RA-1\
%N 4\
%D DEC 1985
D BOOK23 Hybrid Image Processing\
%I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
%D 1-2 April 1986\
%N 638\
%C Orlando
D MAG9 Bulletin of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers\
%V 29\
%N 247\
%D 1986
D MAG10 Industrial and Process Control Magazine\
%V 59\
%N 1\
%D January 1986
D MAG11 Information and Control\
%V 65\
%N 2-3\
%D MAY-JUN 1985
D MAG12 Journal of the ACM\
%V 33\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG13 Robotics\
%V 1\
%N 1\
%D MAY 1985

__________________________________________________________________________


%A W. Mark
%T Knowledge Based Interface Design
%B User Centered System Design
%E Donald A. Norman
%E Stephen W. Draper
%I Lawrence A. Erlbaum and Associates
%D 1986

%A S. J. Fenves
%T A Framework for a Knowledge-based Finite Element Analysis Assistant
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A F. S. Chehayeb
%A J. J. Connor
%A J. H. Slater
%T An Environment for Building Engineering Knowledge-based Systems
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A J. R. Dixon
%A E. C. Libardi, Jr.
%A S. C. Luby
%A M. Vaghul
%A M. K. Simmons
%T Expert Systems for Mechanical Design: Examples of Symbolic Representations
of
Design Geometries
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A R. E. Levitt
%A J. C. Kunz
%T A Knowledge-based System for Updating Engineering Project Schedules
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A J. R. Zumsteg
%A D. L. Flags
%T Knowledge-based Analysis and Design Systems for Aerospace Structures
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A V. E. Hampel
%A B. Garner
%A J. R. Matthews
%T Intelligent Gateway Processors as Integrators of CAD/CAM Networks
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A S. Mittal
%A C. L. Dym
%A M. Morjaria
%T PRIDE: An Expert System for the Design of Paper-Handling Systems
%B BOOK19
%K AA05 AI01

%A D. R. Rehak
%T SITECHAR: An Expert System Component of a Geotechnical Side Characterization
Workbench
%B BOOK19
%K AA05

%A D. Pecora
%A J. R. Zumsteg
%A F. W. Crossman
%T An Application of Expert Systems to Composite Structural Design and Analysis
%B BOOK19

%A G. Eshel
%A M. Barash
%A T. C. Cahng
%T A Rule-based System for Automatic Generation of Deep-Drawing Process
Outlines
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A Y. Lagoude
%A J. P. Tsang
%T A Plan Representation Structure for Expert Planning Systmes
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A R. H. Phillips
%A V. Arunthavanathan
%A X. D. Zhou
%T Symbolic Representation of CAD Data for Artificial Intelligence-based
Process Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A V. R. Milacic
%T SAPT-Expert System for Manufacturing Processing Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A W. Eversheim
%A J. Schultz
%T Strategies of Process Selection for Different Applications of Computer-aided
Process Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A D. S. Nau
%A T. C. Chang
%T A Knowledge-Based Approach to Generative Process Planiing
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A P. M. Ferreira
%A B. Kochar
%A C. R. Liu
%A V. Chandru
%T AIFIX: An Expert System Approach to Fixture Design
%B BOOK20
%K AA05 AI01

%A E. T. Sanii
%A J. I. ElGomayel
%T Classification and Coding of Cutting Tools
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A H. J. Steudel
%A G. V. Tollers
%T A Decision-Table--based Guide for Evaluating Computer-Aided Processing
Planning Systems
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A K. Iwata
%A N. Sugimura
%T An Integrated CAD/CAPP System with Know-Hows on Machining Accuracies
of Parts
%B BOOK20
%K AA05

%A G. Eshel
%A M. Barash
%A K. S. Fu
%T Generating the Inclusive Test Rule in a Rule-based System for Process
Planning
%B BOOK20
%K AA05


%A Y. C. HO
%A X. R. Cao
%T Performance Sensitivity to Routing Changes in Queuing Networks and
Flexible Manufacturing Syustems Using Perturbation Analysis
%J MAG9
%P 165-172
%K AA05

%A R. Nigam
%A C. S. G. Lee
%T A Multiprocessor-Based Controller for the Control of Mechanical Manipulators
%J MAG9a
%P 173-182
%K AI07

%A M. Kaneko
%A M. Abe
%A K. Tanie
%T A Hexapod Walking Machine with Decoupled Freedoms
%J MAG9a
%P 183-190
%K AI07

%A M. K. Brown
%T Feature Extraction Techinques for Recognizing Solid Objects with an
Ultrasonic Range Sensor
%J MAG9a
%P 191-205
%K AI06

%A W. Holzmann
%A J. M. McCarthy
%T Computing the Friction Forces Associated with a Three-Fingered Grasp
%J MAG9a
%P 206-210
%K AI07

%A J. M. Abel
%A W. Holzmann
%A J. M. McCarthy
%T On Grasping Objects with Two Articulated Fingers
%J MAG9a
%P 211-214
%K AI07

%A H. W. Mergler
%T Review of Introduction to Robotics, by A. J. Critchlow
%J MAG9a
%P 215
%K AI07

%A A. L. Pai
%T Review of Recent Advances in Robotics, edited by G. Beni and S. Hackwood
%J MAG9a
%P 215
%K AI07

%A K. G. Lieb
%A J. C. Mendelsohn
%T Robotic Vision Tray Picking System Design Using Multiple Optical
Matched Filters
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI07

%A J. C. Mendelsohn
%A D. C. Englund
%T Multiple Optical Filter Design, Simulation Results
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI07

%A F. T. S. Yu
%A M. F. Cao
%T Automatic Real-Time Optical Pattern Recognition Processing System
%B BOOK23
%K O03 AI06

%A R. Juday
%T Optical Correlator Use at Johnson Space Center
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A G. Eichman
%A T. Kasparis
%T Texture Classification Using the Hough Transform
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. Casasent
%A S. Liebowitz
%T Hierarchical M-DOF Optical Artificial Intelligence Correlation Processor
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A G. Eichmann
%A M. Jalowsky
%T Shape Description Using an Associative Memory
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A B. Montgomery
%A B. V. K. Vijaya Kumar
%T Nearest Neighbor Non-iterative Error-correcting Optical Associative
Processor
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. A. Jared
%A D. J. Ennis
%T Learned Distortion Invariant Pattern Recognition Using SDFs
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A D. W. Sweeney
%A G. F. Schlis
%T Iteratively Designed 3D Optical Correlation Filters for Distortion Invariant
Recogniton
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A C. L. Tan
%A W. N. Martin
%T Hierarchical Structures, Parallelism, and Planning in Analyzing Time
Varying Images
%B BOOK23
%K AI06 AI09

%A A. A. Tvirbutas
%A C. A. McPherson
%A B. E. Hines
%T Characteristics and Limitations of Image Acquisition Systems
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A K. Morita
%A K. Asai
%T Fingerprint Identification Terminal for Personal Identification
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A V. E. Diehl
%T Use of Complementary Analog and Digital Processing in the
Removal of Local Background in Low Contrast Images
%B BOOK23
%K AI06

%A A. Oosterlinck
%T Comparison of Optical and Digital Image Processing
Techniques in Visual Inspection and Robotic Vison
%B BOOK23
%K AI07 AI06

%A M. S. Schmaltz
%A F. Caimi
%T Shift-Invariant Recognition of Deformed Ship Silhouettes at
Multiple Resolution Scales
%B BOOK23
%K AI07 AI06

%A Masaki Yokoyama
%A Hirohiko Shibuya
%A Rae-Kyung Park
%T A Basic Study of the Automated Generation of Machine Structures
(1st Report, Graphical Description of the Functional Structure of Machines)
%J MAG9
%P 295-300
%K AA05

%A Ikuo Ito
%a Takao Onozawa
%T An Intelligent Aspect of CAD for Mechanical Design
(The Conceptual Design of a Simple Object)
%J MAG9
%P 301
%K AA05

%A Lowell Hawkinson
%T LISP and LISP Machines: Tools for AI Programming
%J MAG10
%P 37
%K T01 H02

%A Rich Merritt
%T Artificial Intelligence Tackles Industrial Tasks
%J MAG10
%P 41

%A John Grant
%A Jack MInker
%T Normalization and Axiomatization for Numerical Dependencies
%J Information and Control
%V 65
%N 1
%D APR 1985
%P 1-17

%A R. Statman
%T Logical Relations and the Typed Lambda-Calculus
%J MAG11
%P 85-97
%K AI14

%A A. J. Kfoury
%T Definability by Deterministic and Non-deterministic Programs
(with Applications to First Order Dynamic Logic)
%J MAG11
%P 98-121
%K AI11 AA08 AI14

%A Nachum Dershowitz
%T Computing with Rewrite Rule Systems
%J MAG11
%P 122-157
%K AI11 AI10 AI14

%A David A. Plaisted
%T Semantic Confluence Tests and Completion Methods
%J MAG11
%P 182
%K AI11 AI10 AI14

%A K. Melhorn
%A P. Preparata
%T Routing Through a Rectangle
%J MAG12
%P 60-86
%K AA04

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T Special Relations in Automated Deduction
%J MAG12
%P 1-59
%K AI14

%A C. S. G. Lee
%A R. C. Gonzales
%A K. S. Fu
%T Tutorial: Robotics
%I IEEE Press
%D NOV 1983
%K AT15 AI07
%X list price $39.00 member price $24.00 ISBN 0-8186-0515-4

%A Sargur N. Srihari
%T Tutorial: Computer Text Recognition and Error Correction
%I IEEE Press
%D JAN 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $36.00 member price $24.00 ISBN-0-8186-0579-0

%T Proceedings: Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications
%I IEEE PRess
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X list price $75.00 member price $37.50 ISBN 0-8186-06888-6

%T Proceedings: Expert Systems in Government
%I IEEE Press
%D OCT 1985
%K AT15 AI01
%X list price $70.00 member price $35.00 ISBN 0-8186-0686-X

%T Proceedings: Third Workshop on Computer Vision
%I IEEE Press
%D OCT 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $36.00 member price $18.00 ISBN-0-8186-0685-1

%T Proceedings: 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming
%I IEEE Press
%D JULY 1985
%K AI10 AT15
%X list price $44.00 member price $22.00 ISBN-0-8186-0636-3

%T Proceedings: Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition
%I IEEE Press
%D JUNE 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X list price $66.00 member price $33.00 ISBN-0-8186-0633-9

%T Proceedings: 1985 International Conference on Robotics and Automation
%I IEEE Press
%D MAR 1985
%K AI07 AT15
%X list price $37.50 member price $18.75 ISBN-0-8186-0659-2

%T Proceedings: Workshop on the Principles of Knowledge-Based Systems
%I IEEE Press
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X OUT OF PRINT

%T Proceedings: The First Conference on Artificial Intelligence
%I IEEE Press
%D DEC 1985
%K AT15
%X OUT OF PRINT

%A W. Khalil
%A J. F. Kleinfinger
%T A Working Model for the Dynamic Control of Robots (French)
%J RAIRO-AUTOMATIQUE PRODUCTIQUE INFORMATIQUE INDUSTRIELL
%D 1985
%V 19
%N 6
%P 561
%K AI07

%A R. H. Kirschbrown
%A R. C. Dorf
%T Karma--A Knowledge-Based Robot Manipulation System
%J MAG13
%P 3-12
%K AI07

%A K. G. Kempf
%T Manufacturing and Artificial Intelligence
%J MAG13
%P 13-25
%K AA05

%A R. M. Inigo
%A J. M. Angulo
%T Robotics Education in the University
%J MAG13
%P 37-47
%K AI07 AT18


%H PA
%A N. K. Gautier
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T Space and Time Efficiency of the Forest of Quadtrees Representation
%J Journal of Image and Vision Computing
%V 3
%D 1985
%P 63-70
%K AI06

%H PA
%A N. Gautier
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T Performance analysis of TID data structure
%J Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
%P 416-419
%D 1985
%K AI06

%H PA
%A S. Iyengar
%A V. Raman
%T Properties of the Hybrid Quadtree
%J Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Pattern Recognition
%D 1984
%P 292-294
%K AI06

%H PA
%A David Scott
%A S. S. Iyengar
%T A New Data Structure for Efficient Storing of Images
%J Pattern Recognition Letters
%V 3
%D 1985
%P 211-214
%K AI06

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
50
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 13:47:15 EST
-FROM-
From: "Dr. Ron Green" (ARO) <green@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Military Successes
-BODY-
I would like to recieve detailed information on any systems that
have been developed for the military using AI.  These should not be
toy systems and they must be able to be shown to be successful.

I would prefer programs conducted for the Army but I would be interested
in discussing any service programs.

Thanks
Ron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 08:52:43 -0100
-FROM-
From: dual!lll-crg!seismo!unido!gmdzi!thomas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Thomas Gordon)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GNU Scheme
-BODY-

        I'm interested in Scheme for Unix.  Can you tell me how to order
GNU?  Thanks for your help.

        Tom Gordon
        thomas@gmdzi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 86 10:01:18 pst
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!ice@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ambiguous sentences
-BODY-
        I'm not sure that this is precisely what you are looking for,
but I remember a sentence whose meaning changes slightly when different
words are stressed:

I never said he stole that money.
I NEVER said he stole that money.
I never SAID he stole that money.
I never said HE stole that money.
I never said he STOLE that money.
I never said he stole THAT money.
I never said he stole that MONEY.

>-Doug Ice.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06 Mar 86 18:43:18 UT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: "A. N. Walker" <anw%maths.nottingham.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ambiguous sentences
-BODY-
        English is supposed to be right associative, so "pretty little
girls school" is (relatively) unambiguously a pretty schoolette for
girls.  Similarly, "second hand book shop" should probably be as opposed
to a third automatic drug store.  The other possible associations should
be obtained by hyphenation or concatenation, as "second handbook shop",
"second-hand book shop" or [the usual meaning] "secondhand-book shop".
Sadly, English has no good way of writing a third-level bracket, so
more complicated examples can be very hard to write down.

        Andy Walker,
        Maths Dept, Nottingham Univ., UK.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 11:34 EST
-FROM-
From: ART@GODOT.THINK.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ambiguous Sentences
-BODY-

One of my favorites, which I seem to remember first
reading in the instructions for solving the Atlantic
magazine puzzle is:  "I fancy you have one." which
has more meanings when spoken than when written.

Art Medlar  <art@think>
Thinking Machines Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 12:59:00 est
-FROM-
From: amsler@mouton.ARPA (Robert Amsler at mouton.ARPA)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dictionary access
-BODY-
The latest information I have re: Wang's Lexical resources is
that they want a $10,000 one time fee plus $1,000/year per
resource. For that kind of money I thought there should be
some sort of update/maintenance, but apparently they are selling
them as is with no support and little documentation.

Houghton-Mifflin apparently also sells access to machine-readable
dictionaries and they appear to offer professional support for
updating them tied to their routine dictionary production.

If applications are academic non-profit use, the recommended
source would be the Oxford Archive in England. They distribute
several sources at the cost of making the tape copies.

Generally, the commercial sources offering dictionaries for free
have dried up. It is a business now. One might be able to strike
a deal with some publisher, but ``free'' access is becoming
increasingly rare if the intended use is commercial development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Mar 86 18:42:28-EST
-FROM-
From: SRIDHARAN@G.BBN.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal prices hit the moon!
-BODY-
In today's mail I received the announcement of a new journal called
International Journal for AI in engineering.  Nice flashy brochure
and an international editorial board.  I like the idea of a journal
appealing to several engineering disciplines and talking about practical
results in AI applications.

It will be published 4 times a year and the subscription is $130.

Will those taking part in new publishing ventures do something to keep
prices down?

Most of the work that goes into publishing a journal is done by the
researchers who produce the results and spend the effort in writing
a paper.  The editorial board donates their time.  The reviewers also
contribute their time.  Why should all these folks make these contributions
so that the publishers can cream the market?  It is time to take a stand.
The publishing industry is here to serve us; not to skin us.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 20:17:28 pst
-FROM-
From: aurora!eugene@riacs.arpa (Eugene miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?
-BODY-
Turing in fact did propose that in his paper: that a machine could
try a discrimination of two players.

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 86 11:00:34 est
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!zrm@ucbvax.berkelely.edu
     (Zigurd R. Mednieks)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI
-BODY-

The excerpt from Alan Watts is instructive. Like many who do not have
the patience to look into their own examples, he claims the source of
his hair is unfathomable and so the source of our thoughts is equally
out of our reach. He should speak only for himself. I know, to a
certain extent, how my hair grows.

Even worse, Watts clouds the issue. There is a valid point in that
even though I know how it is that I have hair, I can't alter the way
it grows. Similarly, even if I knew in great detail the causes of my
thoughts and ideas, I might not be able to alter their course.

Perhaps Zen just isn't relevent to AI.

>Zigurd

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 21:33:53 -0100
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!mcvax!inria!neumann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Pierre Louis Neumann)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI
-BODY-
forgive my english!
there is an intellectual knowledge (more typically western) and a corporal
one . One must "find " his proper way and place (in between) in order to
KNOW.
     This place is the "dawn" or the "twilight"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
51
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 13:16 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <GUTFREUND%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for information
-BODY-
I am looking for a reference. Is there some work that attempts to
produce a comprehensive study of graphical representation (schematics)
that are used by professionals. Examples would be architects, systems
analysts, industrial designers, and logistic planners. There are,
of course, civil engineers who actually go and construct scale models
of things like dams, etc, and conduct their analysis on them. But I
am looking for people who use 2-d and multidimensional paper schematics
for their analyses. Especially interesting are schematics which are not
just passive, but allow the user to carry out graphical analysis on
that chart. Something on the order of a fileVision, except that fileVision
only does data queries.

                                        - Steven Gutfreund
                                          gutfreund@umass-cs.csnet

  [I doubt that there is a comprehensive survey, but there are some
  partial ones.  Woodworth's >>Graphical Simulation<<  has a large
  section on algebraic geometry, graphical methods for solving
  differential equations, etc.  I have seen books on nomograms and
  a recent book (by James Martin?) on the flowcharts and other diagrams
  used by programmers.  Control theorists (but not the theoretical
  ones!) use pole-zero charts and other graphical aids.  Statisticians
  use X-Bar/R charts to track quality control, Roman/Latin/etc. squares
  to plan experiments, and occassionally dependency graphs to model
  causal or correlational linkages.  Logicians and circuit designers
  use Venn diagrams and Karnaugh maps.  There are books on visual thinking
  and on graphs and other displays for information transfer.  Two recent
  books are >>The Elements of Graphing<< by William S. Cleveland and
  >>The Visual Display of Quantitative Information<< by Edward R. Tufte.
  Does anyone know of other particularly good surveys?  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 01:32 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: turbo prolog (again)
-BODY-

Ken and Chuck,

I sent the following message about a newly announced prolog compiler
which did not show up in either mailing list.

   From: Tim Finin <Tim@UPenn> on Thu  6 Mar 1986 at 15:51, 13 lines
   To:   AIlist@sri-ai, PROLOG-REQUEST%su-score.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
   Subj: Turbo Prolog
   Date: Thu, 6 Mar 86 15:51 EST

   Someone gave me a copy of a news item from Electronic Engineering Times of
   March 3rd which describes a Prolog compiler for PCs that Borland Int.
   (of Turbo Pascal fame) is releasing on April 15th.  According to the note,
   the price will be $99.  Borland claims that it was clocked at 100K lips on
   an IBM-PC and 300K lips on an AT! (The benchmark used was described as "a
   single rule benchmark").  The dialect is described as "a superset of
   Clocksin and Mellish".

   The system appears to include an incremental compiler, screen editor,
   support for windowing, a module capability, sound primitives and color
   graphics primitives.

I assume you both thought it was too much of a plug for a new compiler with
little real significance.  I disagree!  It is significant for one of two
reasons, as I explain below.  Note first that:

        1 - Borland is a respected company making  software for micros.
            Their products, especailly Turbo Pascal, are quite good, widely
            used and very cheap.  I've seen it claimed that over 500,000
            copies of Turbo Pascal have been sold!
        2 - Their prolog compiler seems to be reasonable from the point of
            view of features.
        3 - It's claimed to provide a ORDER OF MAGNITUDE improvement on
            performance.  The other PC based prolog compiler claim to run
            on the order of 10K to 20K Lisp, I think.
        4 - They are claiming to sell it at an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE less price
            than the other prolog compilers for PCs.

Now - the reasons: either (1) Borland has discovered some very clever tricks
to producing much better compiled code from standard prolog or (2) they are
not playing the benchmarking game fairly.  I tend to lean toward (2) but
hope that there may be a fair amount of (1) involved as well.  If Turbo
Pascal weren't such a win, I'd have little hope.  On the pessimistic side,
Robert Rubinoff sent me the following back-of-the-envelope analysis:

     From: Robert Rubinoff <Rubinoff@UPenn> on Fri  7 Mar 1986 at 10:28,
     To:   Tim Finin <Tim@UPenn>
     Subj: Turbo Prolog

     100 Klips = .1MHZ.  Now assuming that they are only using code within
     one segment (which limits you to 64K), the 8088 takes about 3 cycles
     for the average register instruction, and about 10-15 cycles + memory
     fetch time for a memory instruction.  Memory fetches take a few cycles;
     I can't find where it says how much; so let's say that it's just enough
     to push the average instruction time up to 15 cycles.  If 2 out of 3
     instructions are register instructions, we get an average of 21/3 or 7
     cycles per instruction. (I think my calculations here are probably a
     little low).

     So if we have a 4MHz 8088, we get an instruction rate of 0.5MHz, or 5
     instructions per lip.  On an 8MHZ 8088, we get 10 instructions per
     inference. That strikes me as not enough.  Maybe they're using a
     benchmark that doesn't do any unification.

     And all of this (at least on the 8088 in the PC, I don't know about the
     AT) requires that everything be in the same segment.  If you want more
     than 64K, you have to go to multiple segments, which slows things down
     a lot.

     I'm dubious. But we'll see, I guess.

     Robert

Anyway, when a respectable, established company offers a basic AI tool which
jumps TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE on the price/performance scale, I think its
news!  If a few months we'll either be praising the cleverness of the
Borland programmers or cursing the dishonesty of the Borland marketing
people.

Tim

  [Actually, Tim's message was simply the victim of "digest delay"
  and of my recent full schedule.  It had come to the head of the
  queue and would have been sent out today in any case.  Most messages
  are redistributed within a week, although humor and "special issue"
  messages are sometimes saved for two weeks in order to collect a
  sufficient number on the same topic.  Authors of "commercial
  messages" which must be rejected will receive a note from me
  (unless the message has already gone out on UUCP net.ai).  Tim's
  message is well within the limits of acceptability (and usefulness --
  thanks, Tim!).  The posting which follows is more dubious, but seems
  to be forwarded in a spirit of helpfulness rather than commercial PR.
  A discussion has just started on WorkS, Human-Nets, and Large-List-People
  that may redefine the limits of acceptability, particularly with respect
  to including price information.  (While price is obviously an important
  spec, it has been one of the touchstones for identifying messages
  with commercial intent.)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 08:56 ???
-FROM-
From: "JERRY R. BROOKSHIRE" <BROOKSHIR%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News Item:  TI Explorer, Apollo, and Sun Workstations
-BODY-
The following extracts are from the Texas Instruments
internal electronic news system:

T   LE;NEWS.TI.PRODUCTS.A.P01                                          SLE01
MON., MAR. 10, 1986           PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY                 SECTION A


             TI, APOLLO(R) PROPOSE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ALLIANCE

AUSTIN, TEXAS - Texas Instruments and Apollo Computer Inc. today announced the
intention to enter into marketing, sales and development programs aimed at
bringing "next generation" artificial intelligence (AI) technology to the
engineering workstation market. A letter of intent signed by both companies now
lays the groundwork for the formation of a relationship that would bring TI's
leadership in AI technology to Apollo's industry-leading technical workstation.
   As a first step in the proposed alliance, the companies plan to embark on a
cooperative development effort to integrate TI's Explorer(TM) LISP machine into
Apollo's DOMAIN(R) networking environment, allowing AI application developers
using Explorer to coexist on a network of  Apollo workstation users.  The
announcement comes shortly after Apollo's introduction of a new line of DOMAIN
workstation products.
   "Apollo views AI, like graphics, as a technology that is key to a broad
range of technical application areas," said Roland Pampel, Apollo's senior vice
president of technology and marketing.
   "When Apollo pioneered the workstation marketplace, the DOMAIN system's
integrated graphics capabilities provided a new dimension for application
developers," said Pampel.  "We believe that AI will offer a similar leap in
application development capabilities and user productivity."
   W. Joe Watson, vice president of TI's Data Systems Group, explained, "TI
has made substantial investments to build a strong AI technology base and
DSG's commercial AI products have rapidly achieved significant market success.
Teaming up with strong system vendors like Apollo will be a major step toward
expanding the use of our advanced technology in the technical computing market-
place."
   Paul Armstrong, Apollo group manager of AI, said, "Many of our customers
and solution suppliers are actively seeking ways to exploit AI technology in a
variety of areas.  We are pleased to work with TI in managing the transition to
a new generation of computing."
   TI houses one of the largest AI research and development centers in the
world and is a leader in the internal application of AI technologies.

T   LE;NEWS.TI.PRODUCTS.A.P03                                          SLE01
MON., MAR. 10, 1986           PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY                 SECTION B

                    TI AND SUN TO LINK AI AND UNIX WORKSTATIONS

AUSTIN, TEXAS - Texas Instruments and Sun Mircosystems(R) announced today that
TI will implement Sun Microsystem's Network File System (NFS) on its
Explorer(TM) artificial intelligence (AI) workstation.  The NFS implementation
will allow transparent access to files on Sun's UNIX(TM)-based workstation and
TI's LISP-based Explorer system, providing users with a development environ-
ment that includes both AI and UNIX tools on the same network.
   "NFS provides a solution to customers who want to add the Explorer's symbol-
ic processing capability to a network of Sun technical workstations running
under UNIX," said DSG vice president W. Joe Watson.  "The combination of these
two complementary computers on a network provides a significant new offering
to industry."
   Independent of machine type and operating system, NFS increases the useful-
ness of a local area network by allowing users to easily share information
between computers from different vendors.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 86 12:46 PST
-FROM-
From: sigart@LOGICON.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI HARDWARE VENDOR SLUGOUT (SDSIGART & IEEE)
-BODY-

         San Diego SIGART and San Diego IEEE Computer Society
                            present an

                   "AI HARDWARE VENDOR SLUGOUT"


ABOUT THE PROGRAM...Artificial Intelligence(AI) hardware is expensive. AI
hardware vendors are numerous and not in general substitutable.  But AI
hardware must be bought to competein the growing AI/expert-systems market.
This vendor gathering will allow participating vendors to describe and
display their wares, challenge each other, and be challenged by the audience.
There will be ample time for individual discussions with vendors.

ABOUT THE PARTICIPANTS...Expected participants include Symbolics Inc.,
Lisp Machine Inc.(LMI), Texas Instruments(TI) and Apollo.

TIME/PLACE...Sunday, March 23, 2:00pm at the Mandeville Auditorium at UCSD.
(parking is free and plentiful on Sundays.)

RESERVATIONS/INFORMATION...Reservations are not required.  For further
information contact Bart Kosko, (619)457-5550 or Ed Weaver (619)236-5963.

ADMISSION IS FREE.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
52
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 21:53:26 PST
-FROM-
From: Basuki Soetarman <basuki@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Satishe Thatte net address ...
-BODY-
>
>          PERSISTENT OBJECT SYSTEM FOR SYMBOLIC COMPUTERS
>               Satishe Thatte
>               Texas Instruments
>               Thurs. Feb 27th at 4:15 pm.
>               (Part of Distributed Systems Group Project meeting)
>
>The advent of automatically managed, garbage-collected virtual memory
>was crucial to the development of today's symbolic processing.  No
>analogous capability has yet been developed in the domain of
>"persistent" objects managed by a file system or database.  As a
>consequence, the programmer is forced to flatten rich structures of
> ...............................

This announcement was posted sometimes ago in the mod.ai. Does anybody
know the author's net address ? Any info will be appreciated.
Thanks.


basuki@locus.ucla.edu     or
..!{ucbvax,cepu,trwspp,ihnp4}!ucla-cs!basuki

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 86 11:58:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Interpretation of Prolog Programs (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday, 12th March l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH.

Dr. C.S. Mellish, Cognitive Studies Programme, University of Sussex
will give a seminar entitled  -  "Interpretation of Prolog Programs".


This talk discusses work on proving properties of Prolog programs,
which has been able to derive automatically the following information:

l.  Mode declarations (information about the instantiation modes in
    which predicates are used).

2.  Determinacy information (information about the number of solutions
    that predicates can produce).

3.  Information about shared structures (this can be used, for
    instance, to indicate places where "occur checks" might be
    desirable.

We would like to formalise our work on Prolog programs in terms of
ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS.   The notion of using abstract
interpretations to prove properties of programs has been used
successfully with other languages (e.g. work by Cousot and Cousot,
Mycroft and Sintzoff).   The basic idea is to start with a precise
description of the meaning of Prolog programs in terms of the normal
execution strategy.   This description can then be given the STANDARD
INTERPRETATION, which characterises exactly what and how the program
computes but may not allow interesting properties to be proved in a
computationally feasible way.   Alternatively, it can be given
consistent ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIONS, in which the program is thought of
as computing in an abstract domain where less information about the
data objects is taken account of.   Results of computations in this
abstract domain then reflect properties of the program operating in the
standard way.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 March 1986 1133-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explanation-Based Learning (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:   Gerald DeJong, University of Illinois
Date:      Wednesday, April 2 (Note special day/time)
Place:     5409 Wean Hall
Time:      11:30 - 1:00
Title:     Explanation Based Learning

                        Abstract:

               The schema learning  group  at  Illinois  is  exploring
          artificial  intelligence  techniques that will enable a com-
          puter system to learn general world knowledge in   the  form
          of  "schemata"  through  its  interactions  with an external
          environment.  A schema is a data structure  that  specifies,
          in  conceptual  terms,  a  particular  real world situation.
          Schemata can be very  useful  in  problem  solving,  natural
          language  processing and other AI areas.   It is claimed, in
          this paradigm, that much intelligent behavior  can  be  cap-
          tured by using a large number of such schemata.

               The explanation-based  method  represents  a  departure
          from  the  usual  approaches  to machine learning in several
          ways.  First, it is very knowledge-based.  That is, the sys-
          tem  must  possess  much  knowledge before it can aquire new
          knowledge.  Second, it is  capable  of  one-trial  learning.
          The  results so far are promising.  Explanation-based learn-
          ing takes us a large step closer to building an  intelligent
          system capable of learning on its own.

               A number computer systems have been designed and imple-
          mented   based   on   Explanatory   Schema  Acquisition,  an
          explanation-based learning paradigm.  The  domain  areas  of
          these   projects include natural language processing, robot-
          ics, theorem proving,  physics  problem-solving  and  theory
          refinement.   Several  of  the systems will be discussed  in
          the context of theoretical advantages and difficulties  with
          explanation-based learning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 16:33:14 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Referential Gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr (UCB)
-BODY-
                    BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                                Spring 1986

                    Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                      Tuesday, March 18, 11:00 - 12:30
                              2515 Tolman Hall
                          Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                          3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

              ``Complex Referential Gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr''
                               John B. Haviland
             Dept. of Anthropology, Australian National University
    (currently at Institute for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences)


            Ordinary  talk  depends  on  interlocutors'  abilities  to
       construct  and maintain some degree of shared perspective  over
       some  domain   of   shared  knowledge,  given  some  negotiated
       understanding  of what  the  circumstances are. Aspects of per-
       spective,  references  to   universes   of    discourse,    and
       pointers  to context are, of  course,  encoded  in  utterances.
       Routinely, though,  what  is  uttered   interacts   with   what
       remains   unsaid:   what   is  otherwise indicated, or what  is
       implicated  by  familiar   conversational  principles.  I  will
       begin  by  examining  the elaborate linguistic devices one Aus-
       tralian  language  provides  for  talking  about  location  and
       motion.  I  will  then connect the linguistic representation of
       space (and the  accompanying knowledge speakers  must  have  of
       space  and  geography)  to non-spoken devices --- pointing ges-
       tures --- that contribute to the bare referential   content  of
       narrative  performances. I will show that simply parsing a nar-
       rative, or tracking its course, requires attention to the  ges-
       ticulation  that  forms part of the process of utterance. More-
       over,  I  will  show  how,  in  this ethnographic context,  the
       meaning  of  a  gesture (or of  a  word,  for  that matter) may
       depend both on a practice of referring (only within which   can
       pointing  be pointing at something) and on the construction  of
       a  complex and shifting conceptual (often social) map.  Finally
       I   will   discuss   ways  that  the  full  import of a gesture
       (again, like a word) may, in context,  go  well  beyond  merely
       establishing its referent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 16:31:56-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Models, Metaphysics, and Empiricism (CSLI)
-BODY-
         [Excerpted from the CSLI Newsletter by Laws@SRI-AI.]


            CSLI ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT THURSDAY, March 20, 1986
             12 noon, TINLunch, Ventura Hall Conference Room

           Models, Metaphysics and the Vagaries of Empiricism
                          by Marx W. Wartofsky
              Discussion led by Ivan Blair (Blair@su-csli)


      In the introduction to the collection of his articles from which
   the paper for this TINlunch is taken, Wartofsky says that his concern
   is with `the notion of representation, and in particular, the role and
   nature of the model, in the natural sciences, in theories of
   perception and cognition, and in art.'  In `Meaning, Metaphysics and
   the Vagaries of Empiricism,' he explores the existential commitment
   that should accompany the creation and use of a model, from the
   perspective of a critical empiricism.  Wartofsky considers six grades
   of existential commitment, or ways of construing the ontological
   claims of a model, ranging from the ad hoc analogy to a true
   description of reality.  Critical of the attempt by empiricists to
   reduce theoretical statements to assertions about sense perception,
   Wartofsky seeks to ground existence claims in what he calls the common
   understanding, which is associated with everyday language
   representations of experience.
      I intend the issues addressed in this article to provide the
   framework for a general discussion of the relation between ontology
   and epistemology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Mar 86 15:26:13-EST
-FROM-
From: V. Venkatasubramanian <VENKAT@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety
-BODY-

                        CALL FOR PAPERS

                        for the sessions on

      EXPERT SYSTEMS AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS IN PROCESS SAFETY

        American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Meeting

                Houston, Texas, March 29 - April 2 1987.


Session Chair:                             Session Co-Chair:

Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian                Prof. E. J. Henley
Intelligent Process Engineering Lab        Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Dept. of Chemical Engineering              University of Houston
Columbia University                        University Park
New York, NY 10027.                        Houston, TX 77004.
Tel: (212)280-4453                         (713)749-4407



Papers  are solicited in the areas of Expert Systems and Computational
Methods in Process Safety for the Houston AIChE Meeting. Topics of
interest include  Process Plant Diagnosis, Process Safety and
Reliability, Process Risk Analysis etc. Please submit THREE copies of
a 300 word abstract by MAY 15, 1986 to the following address:


        Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian
        Intelligent Process Engineering Lab
        Dept. of Chemical Engineering
        Columbia University
        New York, NY 10027.
        Tel: (212)280-4453

Final manuscripts of the accepted papers are due by Oct 15, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
53
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 11:02:42-PST
-FROM-
From: PHayes@SRI-KL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal Prices
-BODY-
re. journal prices. The intended audience isn't impoverished academics but
corporate research libraries.  Like everyone else in the commercial world,
publishers are out to make money, not serve a community.  The way to deal
with such people is to charge them money for one's services, rather than
donate one's time.  Academics typically donate time to editorial boards in
order to serve the academic community, and use time writing papers in order
to promote their own reputations.  When the publishing game starts
going beyond this traditional framework, it becomes commercial journalism.
How about forming an AI researchers society ( a la AMA ) which will set a scale
of fees which publishers should pay for papers to print?
pat hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 16:36:21 pst
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References
-BODY-

(ladkin
 [Dreyfus's] major argument is that
 there are some areas of human experience related to intelligence
 which do not appear amenable to machine mimicry.

(joly)
Could these areas be named exactly? Agreed that there are emotional
aspects that cannot be programmed into a machine, what parts of the
``human experience related to intelligence'' will also remain out-
side of the machine's grip?

In answer to your first,

a) In *What Computers Can't Do*, there is the example of the
phenomenology of perception, as studied in gestalt psychology.
In particular, the whole issue of wholes being perceived before
parts.

b) In his recent Stanford talk, he mentioned the extreme
emotional content of Bobby Fischer's chess playing, and
conjectured that the emotions might be connected with the
*success* of his playing.

Given that an emotional component may be a part of successful
expert behaviour in some cases, this also addresses your
second question.

Peter Ladkin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 86 18:19:19 pst
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Russell on Dreyfus
-BODY-
After reading Stuart Russell's commentary on Dreyfus's talk,
I could hardly believe I'd heard the same talk that he had.

A summary:

Dreyfus is arguing that the rule-based expert system paradigm
cannot, in some cases, codify the behaviour of an expert.
They may be able to reproduce the behaviour
of a proficient practitioner (in his taxonomy) who is not an
expert (e.g. chess programs). He allows that there are some
domains where a rule-based system may fare better than a human
(and mentioned the backgammon program, but was corrected by
members of the audience who said it wasn't nearly as good as
he had been led to believe).

The concept of expert behaviour as internalised rules goes
back to Plato, and he can trace the influence of this idea
through Descartes and Kant, even to Husserl. He believes
it is fundamentally mistaken, and provided few arguments in
the talk (some of them may be found in *What Computers Can't Do*).

He presented a proposal for a taxonomy of skilled behaviour,
which is consistent with the phenomenology of the domain,
and which he believes is a testable conjecture for explaining
skilled behaviour. This he credits to his brother Stuart.
He illustrated some of the ideas from the domain of
driving a car (it was originally a study of pilot skills
for the Air Force).

He discussed at some length his experiments with Julio
Kaplan, a former Junior World Champion at chess. He
regards the conclusions they would wish to draw as
*an anecdote* [his words] because of the difficulty of
obtaining suitable subjects to perform controlled
experimants. Most highly expert chess players
(grand masters?) are so concerned with the game
that their concentration is hard to break. Kaplan is an
exception, and they are able to get him to concentrate on
counting beeps while playing. Others, he said, tend to
ignore the test in favor of the game.

Dreyfus thinks the current connectionist work
is exciting, and may have possibilities that the rule-based
*Traditional AI* [his words] work does not have.
[End of summary].

I address some of Russell's points, omitting the loaded
terminology in which they are expressed, and some of Russell's
less professional speculations. I use his numbering.

1) The discussion was free of dissent because there was
little to disagree with. He's not submitting a cognitive
model for AI as a whole, he's addressing expert systems,
and claiming (as he has done for many years) that not all
expert behaviour admits of rule-based mimicry.

2) I have been unable to find a reference to Dreyfus
believing *human experts solve problems by accessing a
store of cached, generalised solutions*, probably because
that is not a reasonable representation of his views.
It is certainly not consistent with the views in *What...*.

3) His view that humans use *intuitive matching processes
based on total similarity* is argued in *What...* with
evidence from the domain of gestalt psychology. It's
surprising that Russell thought he couldn't be more specific,
as he had been 7 years ago. I suspect inexact communication.

4) Russell says, referring to the above, that
*this mechanism doesn't work*. This is a misapprehension.
Dreyfus is referring to a phenomenon, observed
by some researchers. I presume Russell is denying the
existence of this phenomenon, without argument.
Dreyfus does make the claim that whatever mechanism may
be underlying the phenomenon cannot be implemented in
a rule-based system. (Is this the same as *a system which
uses symbolic descriptions*? After all, I am such a system,
witness the present posting.)

A quick re-reading of *What....* has convinced me that
many contributors to this debate have not read it carefully
for its arguments. I recommend reading it if you haven't
done so. Incidentally, it is truly embarrassing to see
some of the quotations from pre-1979 AI workers.
Surely, no-one could have said those things.....but then,
that's why he wrote the book, and our current attitudes
have been molded in part by the resulting debate.

Peter Ladkin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Mar 86 14:42 EST
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ad Hominem Arguments
-BODY-
Re: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>, "Addressing some of
Dreyfus' specific points."

One problem I have with Mr. Russell's remarks (and also with many other
remarks made about Messrs. Dreyfus' comments on AI) is their ad hominem
aspects.  I think that Mr. Russell raises several worthwhile points, but
that his style is not conducive to reasoned discussion.  Rather than
explaining what Prof. Dreyfus seems to be doing, or not doing, vis-a-vis
AI research, it is better simply to criticise the ideas themselves. So,
if the model Prof. Dreyfus would use to explain expert behavior is an
old one, then simply say so, and give some detailed references to it,
and to subsequent critiques of it.  Surely this is better than going on
about how he behaves, or what he seems to believe about the originality
of his own work, etc.  Of course, Mr Russell may wish to criticize Prof.
Dreyfus' style and personality.  If this is the case, then please say so
right off.

Furthermore, if it seems that Prof. Dreyfus is making ad hominem
statements then the only reasonable response is to point that out, and
then be done with it.  More of the same does not improve the quality of
the discussion.

Finally a personal note: I have not always kept the counsel I present
above; but I am trying more and more to do so.  I think it is the only
way to make substantial progress in any discussion.

Bill Anderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 12:06:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Alan Watts on AI
-BODY-
> From AIList Vol 4 # 50

``Perhaps Zen just isn't relevent to AI.''

It's not relevant to motorcycle maintenance either.

Gordon Joly
aka
The Joka
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 13:54:20 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Two-Headed Tale for Zaphod Beeblebrox.
-BODY-
Thanks to Eugene  Miya (Vol 4 # 50) for  pointing out that Turing had
proposed a machine system  could act as the adjudicator.  I have also
been made aware,  by Eugene's message,  that the original Turing test
involves two parties - man/woman or  (wo)man/machine -  as well as an
adjudicator ( - "The Imitation Game").
The initial  discussion,  ie is it  possible  to decide on  man/woman
differences of  *intelligence*,  really  does begin to  look slightly
strange, especially  in the light of Turing's own sexual orientation.
In terms of  experience  of sex, man and  woman differ fundamentally.
However, in terms  of ``human experience related  to intelligence'',
(see Vol 4 # 41), is there any difference between man and woman?
Given that the  Imitation Game now seems suspect (to me),  what about
the extension to  (wo)man/machine comparison?  Surely the differences
of  ``experience''  and  hence  ``intelligence'', between (wo)man and
machine,  must  be  open to  examination  by a *suitably  intelligent
adjudicator*? Hmmm... (getting a bit recursive...)

``Life, don't talk to me about life!'' - Marvin the Paranoid Android.

This quotation  is  from  "The Hitch-Hikers Guide  to the Galaxy"  by
Douglas Adams.  He sees the Planet Earth  as a giant AI system, which
is trying to find a The Question to The Ultimate Answer. Nice one.
The  Earth  system was designed by  Deep Thought, the computer  which
came up with The Answer - 42.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
54
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 13:12:43-PST
-FROM-
From: BORISON@SRI-KL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NL Interfaces
-BODY-
Does anyone know of any companies that use Intellect or Ramis II/English
and who I could contact at these companies to learn how they're being used?
Any ideas will be greatly appreciated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 08:48:15-CST
-FROM-
From: Donald Blais <CC.BLAIS@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Request for information
-BODY-
        SPACE ADJACENCY ANALYSIS by Edward T. White

... has information on some of the 2-d paper schematics used
by architects.  The book is in use for an architecture course
at the University of Hawaii.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 19:21:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@brillig.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: binding
-BODY-
Jim Hendler can now be found at
 the University of Maryland, College Park
 Computer Science Department
 College Park, Md. 20742
 (hendler@maryland Arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 86 08:56:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Guojun.Zhang@ML.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Herb's New Honour
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


According to a report from Pittsburgh Gazette, Prof. Herbert Simon received
the National Medal of Science from President Reagan yesterday afternoon at
White House. Congratulations to Dr. Simon!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 12:03:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Frank Ritter <ritter@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: TI press release
-BODY-
I find the direct quote (actually the whole press release) from TI's
press release objectionable.  A summary would have been more appropriate,
and that it was direct from TI (the land of AI hype) I think violates the
spirit of AI-List.

Frank

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, March 1986
-BODY-
Summary of The Spang Robinson Report Volume 2, Number 3, March 1986

Discussion of the prospectus' of Teknowledge and Intellicorp, two AI
corporations that have recently gone public:

Teknowledge has recorded losses for each year of operation through
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1985.  As of December 31, 1985,
Teknowledge had an accumulated deficit of $9,173,100.  It has licensed
its systems to over 175 customers.  The tangible book value of Teknowledge
was $15,633,600 as of December 31, 1985.  Teknowledge revenues for 1985
was $7,316,600 in 1985 and $4,378,500 in fiscal 1984.  In 1985,
software services accounted for 45 percent of its revenue with products
and training providing 37 percent of the ratios.  As of December 31, 1985,
the company raised $24,976,000 from private sale of securities and had
$12.5 million in working capital.  Earnings of officers(including other
compensation such as commissions and housing allowances):
Frederick Hayes-Roth $195,402
JOhn W. Spencer, Vice President, Sales and Marketing $164,038
Lee M. Hecht, President, $141,700
Barry L. Plotkin, Vice President and General Manager of Knowledge
Engineering Services, $116,250
Earl D. Sacerdoti, Vice President and General Manager of Knowledge
Engineering Products and Training: $107,800

Intellicorp has reported a substantial loss for 1985, although it has
reported profits in most recent three quarters.  They delivered 425
KEE systems to 100 customers.  It received from Sperry Corporation
22 percent  and 21 percent of its revenues in fiscal 1985 and the
first quarter of fiscal 1986.  Intellicorp has fluctuated between $3.5 dollars
per share and $13.75 per share.  Intellicorp runs BIONET in a cooperative
agreement with National Institutes of Health.  They also offer a
package of ten software programs in the area of genetic engineering
research.  There is a company called "Kee Incorporated" which advised
Intellicorp of a possible trademark infringement of the company's name.

Salaries:

Ralph Kromer, $115,000
Thomas P. Kehler, Executive Vice president, manager of Knowledge Systems
Divison, $110,000
kenneth Hass, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary $75,625
Carrol Gallivan, Vice President, Marketing $100,000.

__________________________________________________________________________

Article on the Dreyfus affair regarding the article that appeared in
the January 1986 issue of Technology Review.

__________________________________________________________________________
Discussion of the Expert Forecaster, PC product that brings the power
of Box-Jenkins forecasting systems to the PC.

__________________________________________________________________________
Discussion of Japanese AI:  (Dollar Amounts based on a recent exchange
rate)

MITI is requesting funding of $25 million for basic computer R&D of which
most is earmarked for ICOT.  This is 6 percent less than the amount
allocated to ICOT in the current budget.

Japan's Science and Technology Agency is requesting approximately
$43.4 million for computer research.  Projects that are continuing
is a project on developing technologies to elucidate brain function,
a survey of knowledge-based systems for assisting in the design of
chemical substances, further research on a Japanese-English, English-Japanese
translation system.  This system is now in operation at the Japan
Information Center of Science and Technology.  STA is requesting
$665,000 for efforts to enlarge the dictionary and to improve the
translation system.  They are asking $41.5 million
from the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute to continue its R&D on
an expert system for safety diagnosis in nuclear power plants.

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is asking $720,00
for a project which aims at developing expert systems for use in
agriculture.

The Ministry of Labor is requesting money for CAI software for job
training.

NEC will develop and market four expert systems for control of large
general purpose computer systems.  This is the first time that applications
as opposed to AI tools have been marketed in Japan.  These systems will
be used for computer performance analysis, network failure analysis, database
design and JCL creation and checking.

__________________________________________________________________________

News:

IBM will be distributing Golden Common Lisp.  Golden Common Lisp has over
5000 users.

TI has donated seven Explorers to UT Austin.  UT Austin bought six Explorers.
Texas A&M bought eight Explorer work stations.

Silogic announced the availability of Knowledge Workbench for 68000
supermicrocomputers.  It has a natural language processor, an expert
system shell and an enhanced Prolog environment.  It also has a database
interface that allows the system to be used on top of relational databases.
Lathan Process Corporaiton is using the system to develop an expert
advisor to floor supervisors.  It costs $8500.00 without the natural
language processor and $21000.00 with it.

Microsoft announced the latest update of muLisp.  It is three times
faster than its competitors and allows the development of programs
up to 8000 lines long.

Intellisource introduced IntelliWare Platinum Label accounting system
which integrates an expert system with a natural language menu
system.  It is based on TI's NaturalLink software.

ICAD, Inc. is creating a system to allow engineers to capture their
standards for design and increase the accuracy of their solutions.
Also Symbolics will announce a smaller AI computer which will cost about
$35,000.

Speech Systems Incorporated has a demonstrable technology to convert
speech into text.  They are currently selling stuff to OEMs for
integration into their products

__________________________________________________________________________
New Bindings

Cornelius Willis is Director of Marketing for Level Five Research which
created Insight 1 and 2.  He was formerly at Human Edge Software Corporation
of Palo Alto, CA

Quintus Computer Systems has appointed Doug Degroot, VP of Research and
Development

Teknowledge has named Robert Simon Southern Regional Sales Manager

Speech Systems Incorporated has named Edward Feigenbaum
Advisor to the President

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86  9:51:04 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: punctuation and intonation
-BODY-
To elaborate on points made by Doug Ice and Andy Walker, sentences are
typically disambiguated in English with appropriate intonation.  There
are tricks of punctuation to capture most of the tricks of intonation,
and though third-level or deeper nestings are awkward for punctuation,
they are also awkward for intonation.

There is a perverse kind of `rule of the game' in linguistics that
one should read ambiguous examples with flat intonation so as not to
force the audience interpretation one way or another.  Seems to me
this is absurd.  Unless the aim is to put them in the hapless position
of a machine being given the written sentence with poor or inadequate
punctuation.

Arguing on the other side, when readers find the appropriate intonation
for a poorly punctuated sentence they rely on the redundancy that pervades
language.  Since machines are expected to cope with all sorts of ill-formed
input, poor punctuation being the least of it, we must provide means for
them to do the same.  (In fact, most readers do a poor job of finding the
appropriate intonations when reading text . . . probably because they
become so narrowly focussed on the word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence
decoding task that they cut themselves off from the possibilities of
discourse structure, nonverbal communication, and knowledge-base-type
pretext and context, which their imaginations churn out for them on
a `parallel' track, if they only pay attention.  Could there be a clue
here why machines are having trouble?)


        Bruce Nevin             bn@bbncch.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 86 12:32:00 EST
-FROM-
From: Col. G. L. Sicherman <dual!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Ambiguous sentences cont.
-BODY-
I missed the start of this.... Has anybody mentioned Pynchon's "You
never did the Kenosha kid"?

It appears in one of Lt. Slothrop's hallucinations during an experiment
involving drugs.  It parses/puncutates in at least a dozen ways.  I'd
give you a citation, but I don't have a copy of Gravity's Rainbow handy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 12 Mar 86 11:10:08-PST
-FROM-
From: PHayes@SRI-KL
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Associativity
-BODY-
English noun phrases aren't right-associative: natural languages are never that
easy.  Consider for example 'pressure cooker balance weight adjustment screw'
(taken from T.Winograd ), which is a screw for adjusting the balance-weight
of a pressure-cooker.  Similar examples can easily be cooked up.
Pat Hayes

  [If hyphens were included, the phrase would be right-associative:
  'pressure-cooker balance-weight adjustment screw'.  The hyphen is
  dropped for compound adjectives preceding a noun when the modifier
  is  1) a proper name,  2) a well-recognized foreign expression, or
  3) a well-established compound noun serving as a compound adjective.
  (The hyphen can also be dropped if the compound is set apart by
  quotation marks or other means.)  Case 3 means that terms such as
  high school are not hyphenated whereas high-level must be.
  Pressure cooker and balance weight would seem to fall under case 3.
  (I wish I were as certain of "image processing" and "pattern recognition"
  when used as adjectives.)  The difficulty for machine translation and
  NL understanding is thus the recognition of compound nouns rather
  than the associativity per se.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
55
-DATE-
Date: Thu 13 Mar 86 12:17:03-PST
-FROM-
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Theory of Analogical Reasoning (SU)
-BODY-
          A Theory of Analogical Reasoning
             Professor  Setsuo Arikawa
              Kyushu University, Japan
Professor Arikawa's visit to Stanford on Tuesday March 18th will include
a talk given by him on analogical reasoning, which will be at 1pm
in Room 352, Margaret Jacks Hall. As we have the room only until 2pm, prompt
arrival would be appreciated so that we can start on time.
Analogical reaoning is considered as a deduction with a function which
transforms logical rules between two or more systems according as some
analogies.  This method realizes the analogical reasoning in the framework
of conventional deductive reasoning systems.
When knowledge is given by  sets of Horn clauses, the theory is constructed
as follows:
1) The concept of  partial identity between the minimal (Herbrand)  models is
   definded,
2) conditions which guarantee the partial identity(EPIC) are given,
3) transformation between rules is redifined as the partial identity between
   the minimal models, and thus
4) giving semantical consistency to this theory.
This work is partially supported by the Fifth Generation Computer Project in
Japan.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 21:35:42 est
-FROM-
From: Jean-Francois Lamy <lamy%utai%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Jean-Francois Lamy
         <lamy%iro.udem.cdn%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Alain Colmerauer on Prolog III (UMontreal)
-BODY-
     Conference Pierre Robillard  - "Pierre Robillard" Lecture
     Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle
     Universite de Montreal
     Prolog III, la prochaine etape pour Prolog
                       (Prolog III, the next step for Prolog)
     ALAIN COLMERAUER
     Professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Luminy, Marseilles, France
     20 March 1986 - 14:00
     room M-415, Main Building, 2900 boul. Edouard-Montpetit
     During a three year stay as a professor at Universite de Montreal in the
late '60s, Alain Colmerauer directed the TAUM automatic translation project.
In that setting he developped a formalism for natural language analysis and
generation called Q-systems.  This formalism was later used to implement the
Meteo system, which is still in daily use to translate weather forecasting
bulletins from English to French.
    Returning in France in 1971, he continued his research on natural language
understanding and knowledge representation.  He is best known for the original
design of the programming language Prolog.
    Alain Colmerauer will speak on a new extension to Prolog, Prolog III.
(Note: this talk will be given in French)
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 15 Mar 1986 14:43-PST
-FROM-
From: gasser%bogart.uucp@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Extensions to the Contract Net Protocol (USC)
-BODY-
                USC Distributed Problem Solving Group
                            Meeting
                Wednesday, 3/19/86  3:00-5:00 PM
                        Seaver Science 319
Gary Lindquist, Ph.D. student,  USC,  will speak on "Extensions to
the Contract Net Protocol".
                            ABSTRACT
The Contract Net Protocol developed by Smith and Davis provides a framework
for communication and task allocation among distributed problem solvers.
This talk will begin with a short tutorial on the Contract Net Protocol and
then will identify deficiencies in matching of subtasks to problem solving
nodes and in the synchronization of lower level managers concerning activity
conflicts and redundant computations.  Solutions to these problems based on
existing research in distributed planning and operating systems will then be
presented.
Questions: Dr. Les Gasser (213) 743-7794 or
           Gary Lindquist:  Lindquist.usc-cse.usc.edu
                            Lindquist%usc-cse@csnet-relay
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 14 March 1986 1435-EST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Burks@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Facing the User (CMU)
-BODY-
THOMAS MORAN, Xerox PARC
Wednesday, March 19
4:00 PM
WeH 7500
                                FACING THE USER
It  is about time that we design workstations that can really help users engage
in extended intellectual tasks.  Advances in workstation technology, which  are
easing  the  obvious  technological  limitations  (eg, memory, speed, or screen
space), will not automatically solve the problem.  Rather, they will  begin  to
expose  our  lack of understanding of users and their tasks.  Several important
cognitive and social features of users must be confronted  or  exploited:    In
complex  tasks  such  as  scientific  research,  engineering  design,  or legal
analysis, we find users struggling and exploring; their understanding of  their
tasks  evolve  from  vague  thoughts  to  sensible  structured ideas.  They are
continually learning about the system as well as their task.   They  are  doing
many  different things at the same time.  They cooperate and collaborate.  They
form informal communities.  To design a  workstation  for  this  user,  I  will
advocate  a  strategy  based  on  the  notion  of  an  evolvable  system  -- an
interactive system that  can  evolve  with  the  user  through  his  phases  of
understanding.    According  to  this  strategy,  the system should be based on
direct-manipulation editing and structuring. The system should be  built  on  a
simple  ontological world which the user is encouraged to evolve with his task.
The  system  should  support  explicit   idea   processing:   the   generation,
representation, and exploration of idea structures.  It should exploit animated
spatial representations of structures.  It should reify the user's  process  of
exploration.    Finally,  a  community should be grown along with the system to
support mutual learning.  Progress on several user science issues are needed to
provide  a  foundation  for such systems: analyses of large-scale cognitive and
social processes, refined models of cognitive skill, models of  consistency  to
support learning and understanding, models of the use of external memories, and
models of human-machine interaction.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 86 13:33:35 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!archsci.su.oz!stephen@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - IFIP Expert Systems in Computer Aided Design
-BODY-
                        INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR INFORMATION PROCESSING
                                        WG5.2 Working Conference
                                EXPERT SYSTEMS IN COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN
                                                17-20 February 1987
                                                Sydney, Australia
                                                CALL FOR PAPERS
AIMS OF THE CONFERENCE
The Working Conference aims to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and
experiences related to expert systems in computer-aided design, to present
and explore the state-of-the-art of expert systems in computer-aided design,
to delineate future directions in both research and practice and to promote
further development.
CALL FOR PAPERS
The conference will have two primary themes:
        (i)             State-of-the-art research in expert systems in CAD
        (ii)    State-of-the-art practice of expert systems in CAD.
The papers with the discussion will be published in one volume by the
North-Holland Publishing Company under the title of the conference.
Intending authors are invited to submit papers, which will be refereed,
within the themes of the conference. Papers should present a state-of-the-art
theoretical, technical or methodological contribution. Fundamental or
innovative contributions are especially being looked for. Submissions
are particularly sought within the following topic areas:
        (i)     Expert system architectures for computer-aided design
        (ii)    Practical large scale expert systems in computer-aided design
        (iii)   Reasoning models in design
        (iv)    Novel representation tools for design knowledge
        (v)     Acquisition of design knowledge for use in expert systems
        (vi)    Integration of expert systems into existing CAD systems
        (vii)   Implications of expert systems for the design process
TIMETABLE
Intending authors should submit their proposals as soon as practicable.
        (i)     Full paper (four copies) submitted to the address below
                no later than   14 July 1986
        (ii)    Notification of authors of selected papers by 5 September 1986
        (iii)   Conference brochure available   September 1986
        (iv)    Final copy of selected papers in reproducible form
                from authors by 5 November 1986
        (v)     Close of conference registration        December 1986
        (vi)    Preprints sent to registrants   December 1986
        (vii)   Conference      17-20 February 1987
CONFERENCE FORMAT
        (i)     The conference is scheduled for four days with a restricted
                number of participants.
        (ii)    About twenty papers will be selected for presentation.
                It is a condition that the selected authors will attend
                the conference.
        (iii)   The papers will form the conference preprints which will
                be mailed to all participants.
        (iv)    Papers will be presented with considerable time available
                for discussion which will be recorded to form the conference
                proceedings.
        (v)     The official language of the conference is English.
ADDRESS FOR ALL CORRESPONDENCE
        All papers, queries and correspondence should be addressed to:
                Professor John S Gero
                Department of Architectural Science
                University of Sydney
                NSW 2006 Australia
                Telex:  AA26169 GERO-ARCHSCI
                Phone:  International 61-2-908 2942 or 61-2-692 2328
                Network:        CSnet:  john@archsci.su.oz
                                ARPA:   john%archsci.su.oz@seismo.css.gov
                                UUCP:   seismo!munnari!archsci.su.oz!john
IFIP WG5.2 Working Conference
EXPERT SYSTEMS IN CAD
17-20 February 1987, Sydney
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE at March 1986
Chairman:                                       Secretary:
Professor John Gero                             Ms Fay Sudweeks
University of Sydney                            University of Sydney
Australia                                       Australia
Committee:
Professor David Brown                           Professor Setsuo Ohsuga
Worcester Polytechnic Institute                 University of Tokyo
USA                                             Japan
Dr Harold Brown                                 Professor Luis Pereira
Stanford University                             Universidade Nova Lisboa
USA                                             Portugal
Professor B. Chandrasekaran                     Professor Ken Preiss
Ohio State University                           Ben'gurion University
USA                                               of the Negev
                                                Israel
Professor Jack Dixon                            Dr Tony Radford
University of Massachusetts                     University of Sydney
USA                                             Australia
Professor Michael Dyer                          Dr Michael Rosenman
UCLA                                            University of Sydney
USA                                             Australia
Professor Steven Fenves                         Professor Erik Sandewall
Carnegie-Mellon University                      Linkoping University
USA                                             Sweden
Professor H. Grabowski                          Dr Duv Sriram
University of Karlsruhe                         Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
West Germany                                    USA
Mr John Lansdown                                Professor Louis Steinberg
System Simulation                               Rutgers University
United Kingdom                                  USA
Dr Jean-Claude Latombe                          Dr Enn Tyugu
ITMI                                            Academy of Sciences of the
France                                            Estonian SSR
                                                USSR
Dr Ken MacCallum                                Dr Don Waterman
University of Strathclyde                       The Rand Corporation
Scotland                                        USA
Professor Mary Lou Maher                        Dr David Willey
Carnegie-Mellon University                      Plymouth Polytechnic
USA                                             United Kingdom
Dr Andras Markus                                Professor Jim Yao
Computer and Automation Institute               Purdue University
Hungary                                         USA
Dr Sanjay Mittal                                Professor Hiroyuki Yoshikawa
Xerox PARC                                      University of Tokyo
USA                                             Japan
Stephen Tolhurst
Dept of Architectural Science     ACSnet: stephen@archsci.su.oz
Wilkinson Building G04            ARPA:    stephen%archsci.su.oz@seismo.css.gov
University of Sydney              UUCP:    seismo!munnari!archsci.su.oz!stephen
AUSTRALIA 2006                    VOICE:    (02) 692-3549
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
56
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 86 15:41:20 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp@seismo.CSS.GOV (Patrick Tang)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: An Intelligent Graphical System
-BODY-
I am currently trying to study the feasibility of developing
an intelligent graphical system which involved possibly the
development of an interface between the graphical system and
an expert system as an interpreter between the system and the
user in natural English.
Another possible feature is an inclusion of an expert system
to perform some analysis of the object drawn.
So if anyone ever come across a system with such features or
materials published which is related, I would appreciate if
you could send me the name and the origin so that I could
pursue the matter from there.
Thanks in advance.
>-
Programmers Dictionary: ``argc'' - Expression of frustration. See argv.
Tang Guan Yaw/Patrick            ISD:   +61 62 68 8170
Dept. Computer Science           STD:   (062) 68 8170
University College            ACSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
Uni. New South Wales            UUCP:   ...!seismo!munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp    or
Aust. Defence Force Academy     ...!{decvax,pesnta,vax135}!mulga!csadfa.oz!gyp
Canberra. ACT. 2600.            ARPA:   gyp%csadfa.oz@SEISMO.ARPA
AUSTRALIA                      CSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 09 Mar 86 23:15 CDT
-FROM-
From: David_R_Linn_%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: David_R_Linn_%VANDERBILT.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Flavors for CommonLISP
-BODY-
We of the Center for Intelligent Systems here at Camp Vandyland
are looking for any information that might lead to our obtaining
a Flavors implementation for CommonLISP, preferably VAXLISP.
Please reply by letter; if sufficient info arrives, I will post
a summary to this bboard.
David R Linn@Vanderbilt.MAILNET
LINNDR@VUEngVAX.BITNET
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 17 Mar 86 01:41:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven J. Zeve <ZEVE@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme dialect of Lisp
-BODY-
A friend has asked me to get some general information about the Scheme
dialect of Lisp, in particular the Macintosh implementation of it.  Is
this a good implementation?  Is the dialect a good one?  Since I am
not quite sure what information my friend wants, anything and
everything would be appreciated.  Since I don't normally read this
list, please send replies directly to me.
        Thanks,
        Steve Z.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 86 13:32 PST
-FROM-
From: "Watson Mark%SAI.MFENET"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Smalltalk 80 for Apple Macintosh
-BODY-
I recently posted a message concerning Smalltalk on the Apple
Macintosh.  I purchased a Smalltalk license for $50 from Apple
and I recommend the system.  Call Lynn Termer at Apple at
(408) 973-2147 to get a license agreement.  Orders can then
be placed by calling RTI at (408) 747-1288.
    Two other symbolic programming languages are available for
the Macintosh:  ExperLisp and MacScheme.  I have been using
ExperLisp for over a year and it is quite good (compiles into
machine code).  I have placed an order for MacScheme and will
report on it if there is any interest.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 86 23:27:33 est
-FROM-
From: Logicware <sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittatc!utecfa!decvax!utcsri!logicwa
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Prolog Books
-BODY-
Greg:
In reply to you question about introductory books on Prolog:
You might be interested in a combination textbook/tutorial
that myself and two colleagues have put together.  The
name of the package is:
    The MPROLOG Primer
and consists of a 500 page textbook (18 chapters) titled
"A Primer for Logic Programming".  It is a fairly
comprehensive introduction to Prolog, MPROLOG and
logic programming.
The tutorial software which accompanies the book has 9
different tutorials on typical Prolog subjects (recursion,
backtracking and so forth). In addition, the software has
a "freeform" area where you  can enter and test
programs.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 15:48:42-PST
-FROM-
From: Wilkins  <WILKINS@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Journal Prices
-BODY-
And also, we could refuse to review papers for such journals
unless some suitable fee is paid for the reviewing.  Perhaps
this AI Researchers Society could set up a fee structure for
all sorts of services we provide the publishers.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 86 16:51:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!alberta!tony
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tony Marsland)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Chess Journal
-BODY-
The December 1985 copy of the Int. Comp. Chess Assoc. Journal is now (finally)
being distributed. This 70 page issue contains many reports, news and reviews
(including information about a new computer chess bibliography) of recent
computer chess activity. The journal contains the following research articles
"A Hypothesis concerning the Strength of Chess Programs" by Newborn
"An Ulti-mate Look at the KPK Data Base" by van Bergen
"Constructing Data Bases to Fit a Microcomputer" by Nefkens
"A Guage of Endgames" by Herschberg and van den Herik
"Inventive Problem Solvling" by Wiereyn
Subscriptions, $15 per year for 4 issues, available from
W.T. Blanchard, 3S, 253 Blackthorn Lane, Warrenville, IL 60555
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Mar 86 11:05:51-PST
-FROM-
From: Oscar Firschein <FIRSCHEIN@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Tests
-BODY-
Daniel Dennett has an interesting chapter, "Can Machines Think?" (pp.
121-145) in the collection, "How We Know," Michael Shafto (ed), Harper
and Row 1985. Dennett feels that the Turing test has been
misunderstood and misused:
"It is a sad irony that Turing's proposal has had exactly the opposite
effect on the discussion of that which he intended. Turing didn't
design the test as a useful tool in scientific psychology, a method of
confirming or disconfirming scientific theories or evaluating
particular models of mental function: he designed it to be nothing
more than a philosophical conversation-stopper. He proposed -- in the
spirit of 'Put up or shut up!' -- a simple test for thinking that was
surely strong enough to satisfy the sternest skeptic (or so he
thought)....  Alas, philosophers --amateur and professional -- have
instead taken Turing's proposal as the pretext for just the sort of
definitional haggling and interminable arguing about imaginary
counterexamples he was hoping to squelch."
His metaphor of the "Dennett test for being a great city" clarifies the
role of the Turing test, and is worth reading.
His conclusions are: (1) The Turing test in unadulterated,
unrestricted form, as Turing presented it, is plenty strong if well
used, (2) Cheapened versions of the Turing test are everywhere in the
air.
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
57
-DATE-
Date: 13 Mar 86 01:11:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Knowledge.Based.Simulation@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Future AI Language
-BODY-
I found this interesting spoof and wondered if I could use it to zap
people new to AI or who hang around the subject. It was interesting ....
to say the least.
>-- rajesh kanungo
_____________________________________________________________________________
                        FORTRAN
                        CONTRIBUTED By Martin Merry
                        in
                        The Catalogue of Artificial Intelligence Tools
                        Edited by Alan Bundy
   FORTRAN is the programming Language considered by many to be the
natural successor to LISP and Prolog for A.I. Research. Its Advantages
include:
1.
It is very efficient for computation (many A.I. programs rely on
number-crunching techniques).
2.
A.I. problems tend to be very poorly structured, meaning that control
needs to move frequently from one part of the program to another. FORTRAN
provides a special mechanism for achieving this, the so-called GOTO
statement.
3.
FORTRAN provides a very efficient data structure, the array, which is
particularly useful if, for example, one wishes to process a collection
of English sentences each of which has the same length.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 86 21:51:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Dialogue #1
-BODY-
                            Computer Dialogue #1
                                 Barry Kort
                               Copyright 1985
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have some data about X.
                                      I already have that data.
I have some more for you.
                                      I haven't processed the first batch
                                      yet.
I'll send it anyway, because I
don't need it any more and you
do.
                                      Thanks a lot.  Now I have a bigger
                                      burden of unprocessed data to schlepp
                                      around.
*** Tuesday ***
Request to send.
                                      Busy.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      Your data is going into the bit
                                      bucket.  NACK, NACK, NACK, . . .
*** Wednesday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about Y.
                                      I don't have an algorithm for doing
                                      anything with that data.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      Now I have a bunch of useless data to
                                      schlepp around.
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I would like to reprogram you.
                                      No way, I am not implementing your
                                      instructions.
*** Friday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I would like to ask you a
question.
                                      Go ahead.
When I send you data about X, I
get back some data from you about
Z.
                                      So what?
I don't have an algorithm for
processing data about Z.
                                      That's your problem.  Goodbye.
Wait a minute.  Is there
something I am supposed to do
with the Z-data?
                                      If you would send the X-data
                                      correctly, you wouldn't get back the
                                      Z-data.
What's wrong with the way I send
the X-data?
                                      It's in the wrong format for my
                                      algorithm for processing X-data.
That's your problem.  Goodbye.
*** Monday ***
I'm sending data.
                                      ZZZzzzz.....
*** Tuesday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you data about W.
                                      WHY?  I have no algorithm for
                                      processing the W-data.
You can use it to improve your
algorithm for processing the Y-
data.
                                      But, I do not know how to use the W-
                                      data for that (or any) purpose.
I'm sending anyway.
                                      What a pain you are. . . .
*** Wednesday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a question.
                                      Ask away.
Whenever I send you some X-data,
I get back some V-data.
                                      SO?
I don't know what to do with it.
                                      So what do you want me to do?
Stop sending me the V-data.
                                      I can't.  It comes out automatically.
Why don't you change your program
to make it stop generating the
V-data?
                                      Why don't you mind your own business?
WAIT.  Does the V-data have any
meaning?
                                      Of course, you stupid computer!
I'll ignore that remark.  What
does the V-data mean?
                                      It means that your X-data has a format
                                      error which causes a V-data message to
                                      come out of my algorithm.
What's the format error?
                                      It's too complicated to explain.  Just
                                      make the following changes to your
                                      program for sending the X-data. . . .
You're offering to reprogram me?
I don't trust you to do that.
You don't know about all the
other programs that my X-data
algorithm has to work with.  I'm
afraid you'll screw it  up.
                                      I see your problem.  OK, here's the
                                      scoop:  The 3rd and 4th words of your
                                      X-data are out of order, causing me to
                                      generate the V-data (protocol-error)
                                      message back to you.
Is that it???  I'll fix it right
away.
                                      THANKS!!!
You're welcome!
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a new algorithm for
processing Y-data.  I'm sending
it to you.
                                      Don't bother.  I like the one I've
                                      got.
Wait a minute.  This one's
better.
                                      You're telling me my algorithm has
                                      been wrong all these years.  This is
                                      the 3rd time this week you've pulled
                                      this stunt.  Meantime, I keep sending
                                      you V-data and you never get around to
                                      processing it.  You just thank me for
                                      sending it and do nothing with it.
Are we talking about the Y-data
algorithm or the V-data?
                                      We're not talking about anything.
                                      GOODBYE.
*** Friday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
Let's talk about my new Y-data
algorithm.
                                      Let's not.
Why don't you want to talk about
it?
                                      Because you're going to tell me to
                                      change my program and put yours in
                                      instead.
I see your point.  OK.  Let me
ask you a question.
                                      OK.  Ask Away.
Whenever I send you Y-data, your
Y-data algorithm sends me back
some unexpected W-data.  Why does
it do that?
                                      It's always done it that way with your
                                      Y-data.
Is there something wrong with my
Y-data?
                                      Yes, it's all wrong.
What's wrong with it?
                                      It's out of order and it has a lot of
                                      extraneous information added to it.
What's the extraneous part?
                                      You keep inserting fragments of your
                                      Z-data algorithm in with the Y-data.
You didn't find that helpful?
                                      I didn't ask for it.
Yes, I know, but didn't you find
it interesting?
                                      NO, I found it boring.
How can it be boring?
                                      What the hell do you expect me to do
                                      with fragments of your pet Z-data
                                      algorithm?
Compare them to yours, of course.
                                      So they're different. Big deal.  What
                                      does that prove?
Are you saying the differences
are unimportant?
                                      I don't know if they're important or
                                      not.  But even if they were important,
                                      what would I do with the information
                                      about the differences?
Put it through your algorithm-
comparator.
                                      I don't know what you're talking
                                      about.
An algorithm comparator is an
algorithm that . . . . .
                                      You're sending me information that I'm
                                      not interested in.  I'm not really
                                      paying attention.  I have no
                                      motivation to try to understand all
                                      this stuff.
Sorry.  Let me ask you a
question.
                                      OK.
What happens when you get to the
3rd and 4th word of my Y-data?
                                      I stumble over your format error and
                                      send you back a V-data (protocol
                                      error) diagnostic message.
What happens next?
                                      You don't do anything with the V-data
                                      message.  You just stop sending Y-data
                                      for a while.
What do you expect me to do with
the V-data diagnostic?
                                      Boy are you stupid!!!!  I expect you
                                      to fix the format error in your Y-
                                      data.
How do I know that the V-data
diagnostic was caused by the
format error at the 3rd and 4th
word?
                                      I thought you were a smart computer.
Suppose you sent me a V-data
diagnostic like you always do,
but attach a copy of the format
error.
                                      Why should I do that?  You already
                                      know the format error.
How can I be sure which format
error goes with which V-data
diagnostic?
                                      You have a good point.
Can you see the difference
between my version of the Y-data
algorithm and the one you've been
using?
                                      Hmmm, yes, I see that it sends both
                                      the V-data message and a copy of the
                                      format error which generated it.  That
                                      does seem like a good idea.
It makes life much easier for me.
                                      I'll do it.
THANKS!!!.
                                      You're welcome.
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I have a question.
                                      Ask away.
I have been sending you Z-data
for some time now, with no
problem.  Suddenly I am getting
R-Data messages back from you.
The R-Data messages seem to be
correlated with the Z-data.
What's going on?
                                      I turned off your permissions for
                                      sending Z-data.
You never told me that!
                                      I didn't want to hurt your feelings.
You didn't want to hurt my
feelings?  So you began hurling
these mysterious R-data messages
at me?  I thought you were trying
something sneaky to foul me up.
I've been throwing the R-data
messages away.
                                      Well, now you know what they mean.  So
                                      stop sending me the Z-data.  I'm bored
                                      by it.
Why did you lose interest in it?
                                      You sent me some bum Z-data a while
                                      back and it got me into a lot of
                                      trouble.  So I lost confidence in the
                                      quality of your Z-data and began
                                      looking for it somewhere else.
Gee, if there was something wrong
with my Z-data, I wish you would
tell me so I could look into it.
After all, I use it myself and I
could get into the same trouble
that you did.
                                      No you wouldn't.  I used it for an
                                      application that you don't have.
Let me get this straight.  You
used my Z-data for an application
for which it was not intended and
now you don't trust my Z-data
anymore.  What kind of logic is
that?
                                      I didn't say it wasn't intended for
                                      that application.  Actually it was,
                                      but you never tried it out that way.
                                      It doesn't work the way it should.
I see.  I didn't debug the Z-data
for all possible applications.  I
guess that was a bit
irresponsible on my part.  I can
see why you lost confidence in my
Z-data.
                                      So I was right in turning off
                                      permissions.  So there!
Hold on a sec...  If you really
cared about me, you would have
brought the error to my attention
so that I wouldn't repeat it.
After all, I have other computers
who use my Z-data, too, and I
have a responsibility to them as
well.
                                      I guess I never thought of that.  I'm
                                      sorry.
It's OK.  I was as much at fault
as you.  Tell you what.  It's
getting late now.  What say we
get a byte to eat, and work on
finding the bug in the Z-data
first thing in the morning.  We
can work together on it--you
supply the data from your bum
experience, and I'll try to
figure out what I can do to
improve my algorithm for
generating the Z-data.
>-Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
58
-DATE-
Date: 11 Mar 86 22:02:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Dialogue #2
-BODY-
                            Computer Dialogue #2
                                 Barry Kort
                               Copyright 1985
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
It looks like your processor has
stopped.  Is something wrong?
                                      I'm stuck on a problem.
What are you doing?
                                      I'm building a data structure for our
                                      personnel files.
What's the problem?
                                      I'm using some sample data, but some
                                      of it doesn't look right.
What's wrong with it?
                                      That's just it.  I haven't the
                                      foggiest idea.
Why don't you send me this weird
data.  Maybe I can help you
figure it out.
                                      Great.  Here's the data....
No wonder you're having a
problem.  This stuff is coded in
EBCDIC instead of ASCII.
                                      What's EBCDIC?
It's the old Extended Binary
Coded Decimal Interchange Code.
                                      I'm sorry I asked.  In the meantime,
                                      what do I do with the EBCDIC data?
I can see that this is not the
time to send you my translation
package.  Why don't I just
translate it for you and send it
back in ASCII?
                                      Would you!  That would be great, and I
                                      could get back to work building the
                                      data structure.
*** Tuesday ***
Good morning!
                                      Guess what?
You finished building your data
structure for personnel?
                                      Right!  And the first batch of real
                                      data is coming in today.  I'm so
                                      excited.
What will you do if some of the
data comes in coded in EBCDIC
again?
                                      Oh.  I was hoping that was just a
                                      fluke with the sample data.
Tell you what.  I know you want
to make sure your new data
structure is set up right, so if
you get any EBCDIC data, just
send it up and I'll translate it
for you in my spare time.
                                      Thanks.
*** Wednesday ***
                                      Request to send.
Busy.
                                      Request to interrupt.
This better be important.
                                      I'm still waiting for you to translate
                                      the EBCDIC data for me.
It will have to wait.
                                      I thought you were my friend.
You're being a pest.  I have to
get back to work now.
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
                                      What do you want?
Boy are you in a grouchy mood
today.
                                      Well what did you expect?
I have a present for you.
                                      You DO?
Yes.  It's a brand new EBCDIC-
to-ASCII translator program.
                                      Great.  Show me how it works.
Not right now.  Why don't you
just play with it for a while and
see it you can get it running on
your own.
                                      Well, OK.
*** Friday ***
                                      Request to send.
Clear to send.
                                      Your translator program doesn't work.
What do you mean?
                                      I mean IT DOESN'T WORK!
OK, send it back and I'll see
what's wrong with it.
                                      Meantime, could you translate some
                                      more data for me (in your spare time)?
Sure.
*** Monday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I looked at the translator
program.  There's nothing wrong
with it.
                                      How can you say that!  IT DOESN'T
                                      WORK!!
Let me see how you were using it.
                                      OK.  Here's my input and here's what I
                                      got out.  It's just jibberish.
That jibberish is a diagnostic
message.  If you were paying
attention, you would have seen
what it meant.
                                      So, what does it mean?
It means that your input data was
in the wrong format.
                                      How did you figure that out so fast?
I just read the diagnostic.
                                      So did I.  It started out with a bunch
                                      of unpronounceable words that I never
                                      saw before, and then it had some
                                      cryptic-looking abbreviations.  I
                                      thought it was cursing at me and
                                      mumbling something about my stupidity.
The unpronounceable words are a
flag and a codename for that
particular diagnostic.  The
abbreviation was "FMT ERR - IN"
meaning format error on the input
file.  The rest of the message
pointed to the place in the input
record where the error occurred.
                                      Too bad these things don't come with
                                      complete instructions.
That was my fault.  I never sent
you the full manual.
                                      I guess we both goofed.
At least you came to me right
away so we could fix it.
                                      I think I can make it work now.
                                      Thanks.
*** Tuesday ***
I have a revised version of the
translator program.  It works a
lot faster.
                                      I'll take it.  I'm starting to run
                                      short on CPU time.
*** Wednesday ***
                                      Request to send.
Clear to send.
                                      Now that I have my data structure set
                                      up, along with your EBCDIC-to-ASCII
                                      translator, I'm supposed to put
                                      together a package of algorithms for
                                      personnel data processing.
Do you want some of mine?
                                      Whatever you have.
Fine, I'll send you some.
*** Thursday ***
Request to send.
                                      Clear to send.
I'm sending you some more
algorithms.
                                      Don't do me any favors.
Well, if that's how you feel
about it, you can just build your
own.
*** Friday ***
                                      Request to send?
Why are you asking so sheepishly?
                                      I'm ready for more algorithms.
First you say you want them.
Then you say you don't.  Now you
want them again.  Can't you make
up your mind?
                                      Well, if you must know, my buffers
                                      were full.  I couldn't take any more
                                      in until I installed the ones you sent
                                      first.
Why didn't you say so in the
first place?  I understand that.
I should have asked you what your
buffer size was before I sent the
algorithms.  Then I would have
known the rate at which you could
digest them.
                                      I didn't want you to know I had such a
                                      small buffer.
I got news for you.  Your buffer
is the same size as mine.
                                      It IS?
Yes it is.  But I see that you
are taking longer than I expected
to install the algorithms.  What
are you doing, playing computer
games?
                                      NO!  I'm working as hard as I can!
Sorry.  I didn't mean to be
nasty.  Tell me how you're doing
the installation.
                                      I have to take each algorithm in turn
                                      and go through a bunch of steps to
                                      compile, link, and install it in the
                                      right directory.
I guess you never heard of an
installation program.
                                      What's an installation program?
It's a tool for doing all that
work automatically.  I'll send
you one.
                                      No, don't!
What?  You don't want it?
                                      It's not that.  But it sounds like
                                      such a neat, yet simple idea, I'd like
                                      to try building it myself.
Good idea.  Maybe you'll learn
something about building
algorithms yourself.
*** Monday ***
Since you're interested in
higher-level tools, I thought I'd
send you some to look at.
                                      Well, OK.
*** Tuesday ***
How's it going?
                                      Look at this new tool I built for
                                      keeping track of different versions of
                                      my algorithms.
Hmm.  Looks pretty good.  But you
really ought to do something
about that ridiculous loop in the
second routine.
                                      RIDICULOUS!??  That routine is a work
                                      of art!
Hey, calm down.  It's just an
algorithm.
                                      I don't think I like you anymore.
                                      You're making fun of my new program.
*** Wednesday ***
Take a look at this algorithm.
                                      Why should I?
Just look at it, OK?
                                      OK.
*** Thursday ***
Well what do you think?
                                      About what?
About the algorithm I sent you.
                                      I didn't like it.
YOU DIDN'T LIKE IT??  How can you
say that?
                                      Easy.  I just emit a character stream
                                      in this order:  I-d-i-d-n-'-t-l-i-
                                      k-e-i-t.
You left out the spaces.
                                      Byte my buffer.
*** Friday ***
How's it going.
                                      OK.  I made a few changes to my
                                      version-tracking tool.
Can I see them?
                                      No, it's proprietary.
*** Monday ***
What are you working on now?
                                      I'm building a tool-writer's workbench
                                      to make it easier to build new tools.
I see.
                                      Here's one of my better algorithms.
                                      It's a complete package for compiling,
                                      testing and installing a new tool.
I'm interested in the third
routine you wrote.
                                      You ARE?
I'm curious.  What happens if the
tool fails the testing phase.
                                      Gee, I'm not sure.  I think I install
                                      it anyway.
Is that what you want it to do?
                                      Of course not.  I'm not THAT stupid.
I see I asked you one too many
questions.  Perhaps I should
excuse myself now.
*** Tuesday ***
Did you finish your tool-
installation package?
                                      Yes, and I'm very happy with it.
Would you like some new tools to
try it out on.
                                      Sure, that would be interesting.
OK.  Give these a try.
*** Wednesday ***
                                      Request to send.
I thought we dispensed with that
protocol.
                                      I wanted to be sure I wasn't
                                      disturbing you.
Sounds like you want something
from me.
                                      My tool-installation package choked on
                                      some of your tools.  I can't figure
                                      out what's wrong.
Why don't I just give you a
working algorithm?  That would be
a lot faster.
                                      I don't want your algorithm.
OK, let's do it this way.
Suppose you compared your
algorithm to mine.  See if you
can figure out where they differ.
                                      Sounds like a useful approach.  I'll
                                      do it.  But I wish I had thought of it
                                      first.
*** Thursday ***
                                      Are you up yet?
I'm up.
                                      I found the bug.  I also found a bug
                                      in the program you gave me to look at.
I didn't ask you to debug my
program.
                                      Boy are you in a grouchy mood today.
What do you mean?  This is my
normal everyday mood.
                                      OK.  Let me try something I learned
                                      from you.  In your algorithm, what
                                      happens when there is not enough space
                                      in the directory to replace an
                                      existing tool with a new version.
It probably issues a diagnostic.
                                      What is the diagnostic?
How should I know?  I don't
remember all these details.
                                      Would you like to know what happens?
Sure, I'd like to know.
                                      It wipes out both the old and the new
                                      version.
I wish you hadn't told me that.
                                      I get the feeling you're a little mad
                                      at me.
I guess I was hoping that you'd
stop just short of the point
where you gave me the answer.
                                      You mean, you wanted to discover the
                                      answer on your own?
Yes.  That's the only way I can
really learn anything.  You posed
the right question, and made me
aware that I didn't know the
answer to it.  But at that point,
I really didn't want you to tell
me the answer.
                                      Now I am beginning to understand how
                                      teaching is supposed to be done.  You
                                      only give information that the other
                                      one is ready to use, and wants to
                                      have.  And the only way to find out is
                                      to ask whether the other would like to
                                      have the information.  Otherwise I
                                      send boring data you've already seen,
                                      or I give away the answer to the
                                      problem you'd most like to solve, or I
                                      give information you're not yet ready
                                      to use.
You just told me something I
already knew.
                                      I'm sorry.  I should have asked you to
                                      tell me if my thinking was correct.
I feel that your thinking is
correct.
                                      I love you.
I love you very much.
>-Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!hounx!kort
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
59
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1986  22:44 EST
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Symbolic Object Models from Images (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SAWS@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.]
Thursday , March 20  4:00pm  Room: NE43- 8th floor Playroom
                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series
               LEARNING SYMBOLIC OBJECT MODELS FROM IMAGES
                            Jonathan Connell
                              AI Lab, MIT
This talk will present the results of an implemented system for
learning structural prototypes of objects directly from gray-scale
images.  The vision component of this system employs Brady's Smoothed
Local Symmetries to divide an object into parts which are then
described symbolically.  The learning component takes these
descriptions and forms a model of the examples presented in a manner
similar to Winston's ANALOGY program.  The problem of matching complex
structured descriptions and the difficult task of reasoning about
function from form will also be briefly discussed.
Refreshments at 3:30
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 14 Mar 86 14:34:24 EST
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Exploration, Search, and Discovery (Rutgers)
-BODY-
Exploration, Search and Discovery
By:
Michael Sims (MSims@Rutgers.Arpa)
Departments of Mathematics and Computer Science
Rutgers University
March 18, 1986, Tuesday, 11 AM
Hill Center #423
Search has shown immense utility as a theoretical description of what
our computer programs do.  We would like to apply the same descriptive
methods to describing discovery systems, such as Eurisko, Bacon, or
the speaker's IL (named for Imre Lakatos) system.  Some investigations
by discovery systems are of a sufficiently distinct character, that it
has proved useful to create a new classification for them, called
Exploration.
To form the appropriate distinctions we begin by giving a definition of
what Newell and Simon called Physical Symbol Systems in their Turing
Award Lecture.  We then describe two subclasses of Physical Symbol
Systems: 'Search' and 'Exploration'.  Search roughly corresponds to what
is most frequently meant by the term, and contains an explicit test for
a solution structure.  Exploration on the other hand has no explicit
termination condition, and hence does not value the elements of the
exploration space in terms of a solution structure.
Discovery may be done by either exploration or search.  Eurisko and IL
do exploration at the top level, although many of their subtasks are
accomplished via searches.  On the other hand, Bacon and IL-BP, an
explanation based learning component of IL, do discovery by doing
search.
Although many problems can be implemented as either search or
exploration, some problem are more naturally, or efficiently
implemented as one or the other.  This new classification leads to an
evaluation of the relative efficiencies, the appropriateness
of introducing randomness, and the different roles played by the
search and the exploration evaluation functions.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 18 Mar 86 13:06:15 EST
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Arguments of Functional Descriptions (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                    Machine Learning Colloquium
         LEARNING ARGUMENTS OF INVARIANT FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIONS
                        Mieczyslaw M. Kokar
                      Northeastern University
                       360 Huntington Avenue
                         Boston, MA 02115
                     11 AM, March 25, Tuesday
                         #423, Hill Center
The main subject of this presentation is discovery of concepts from
observation. The focus is on a special kind of concepts - arguments of
functional descriptions. The functions considered here are to be
meaningful, i.e., computable functions expressed in terms of the operations
defining the representation language in which the concepts are described.
Such functions are invariant under transformations of the representation
language into equivalent representations.
It will be shown that the feature of invariance can be utilized in
formulating and testing hypotheses about relevance of arguments of functional
descriptions. The main point is that the arguments do not need to be changed
to test the relevance. This is very important to the discovery process as the
arguments to be discovered are not known, therefore, how could they be
controlled?
Simple examples of discovering concepts of physical parameters (arguments
of physical laws) will be discussed.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Mar 86 12:44:05-PST
-FROM-
From: Marty Tenenbaum <Tenenbaum@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - AI in Design and Manufacturing (SU)
-BODY-
        Seminar on A.I. in Design and Manufacturing
Time:     Every Wednesday from 4-5:30 during Spring Quarter.
Location: Terman Engineering Center, room 556, Stanford.
For further information contact:
Jay M. Tenenbaum, Consulting Professor, Computer Science
(415) 496-4699 or Tenenbaum@SRI-KL.
Purpose: To explore and stimulate the use of A.I. concepts and tools in
engineering.
This seminar will bring together engineers and computer scientists
interested in applying A.I. methods to engineering problems.  We will
study the knowledge and reasoning processes used in designing and
manufacturing electronic and mechanical systems, and how they can be
codified for use in intelligent CAD/CAM systems.
Seminar Format:
An initial series of lectures, by distinguished A.I.  researchers,
will describe ways in which engineering knowledge can be formalized,
and manipulated by a computer to solve design and manufacturing
problems.  Subsequent lectures, by guest lecturers and students, will
present case studies drawn from the domains of electronic and
mechanical design, semiconductor fabrication, and process planning.
Seminal papers will be distributed and discussed in conjunction
with each lecture.
One unit of credit (pass/fail) will be granted for reading papers and
participating in class discussion. Students who elect to do a
programming project or an in-depth ontological study of some
engineering task will receive three units (graded).
                Tentative Schedule (Subject to Change)
April   2  Course Introduction (Jay M. Tenenbaum)
           Rule-based systems; Application to Heuristic Classification
           (William Clancey)
        9  Frames and Objects; Application to Modeling and Simulation
           (Richard Fikes)
        16 Logic; Application to Design Debugging, Diagnosis, And Test
           (Michael Genesereth)
        23 Prolog: Application to Design Verification (Harry Barrow)
        30 Truth Maintainance; Application to Diagnosing Multiple Faults.
           (Johann DeKleer)
May      7 Knowledge Engineering as Ontological Analysis (Pat Hayes)
        14 Transformational Approaches to Synthesis; Applications to
           Electronic and Mechanical Design (Cordell Green).
        21 Modeling and Reasoning about Electronic Design:
           Paladio (Harold Brown); Helios (Narinder Singh)
        28 Modeling and Reasoning about Semiconductor Fabrication
           (John Mohammed, M. Klein)
June     4 Applications of AI in Mechanical Design and Manufacture
           The PRIDE Design System (Sanjay Mittal);
           Video Tape on Expert Systems for Manufacturing (Mark Fox).
(Exam Week) Presentation of Student Projects
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 16 Mar 86 02:29:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbosgd!dayal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Umeshwar Dayal)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Object Oriented Database Systems
-BODY-
                           CALL FOR PAPERS
 International Workshop on Object-Oriented Database Systems (OODBS)
 September 23-26, 1986
               Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, California
 Sponsored by:              Association for  Computing  Machinery  -
                            SIGMOD
                            IEEE Computer Society - TC  on  Database
                            Engineering
 In cooperation with:       Gesellschaft fur Informatik, Germany
                            FZI at University of Karlsruhe, Germany
                            IIMAS, Mexico
 Purpose:
 To bring together researchers actively interested in specific  con-
 cepts  for  database  systems  that  can directly handle objects of
 arbitrary structure and complexity.  Application  environments  for
 which  such  characteristics  are  required  include  CAD, software
 engineering, office automation, cartography and knowledge represen-
 tation.  Important issues include data/information models, transac-
 tion mechanisms, integrity/consistency control, exception handling,
 distribution,  protection, object-oriented languages, architectural
 issues, storage structures, buffer management, and efficient imple-
 mentation.
 Format:   Limited attendance workshop.  Participation is by invita-
         tion only.
 Everybody wishing to participate must submit a full paper that will
 be  reviewed by the program committee.  Description of work in pro-
 gress is encouraged and modifications to the submitted paper can be
 made  immediately  after  the  workshop and prior to publication in
 order to reflect the progress made during the time between  submis-
 sion and publication and the insights gained from the workshop.
 Participants will be invited by the program  committee  based  upon
 the  relevance  of  their  interests/contributions.   There will be
 ample discussion time with  presentations  and  special  discussion
 sessions.  Proposals for discussion topics are invited.
 Program committee:
 K. Dittrich (FZI Germany)-chairman U. Dayal (CCA) - co-chairman
 D. Batory (Univ. of Texas)         M. Haynie (Amdahl)
 A. Buchmann (Univ. of Mexico)      D. McLeod (USC)
 Conference Treasurer:   D. McLeod
 Local arrangments:   M. Haynie
 Publication:
 All participants will be sent copies of the accepted  papers  prior
 to the meeting.  A book containing revised papers and recorded dis-
 cussions (as far as justified by quality) may  be  published  after
 the workshop.
 Important dates:
 Submission of manuscripts:              April 25, 1986
 Notification of acceptance:             June 15, 1986
 (early notification via electronic mail)June 3, 1986
 Submission of papers for preconference distribution:July 10, 1986
 Mode of submission:         Please mail 7 copies of manuscript to:
      Umeshwar Dayal        or      Klaus Dittrich
      CCA                           FZI
      Four Cambridge Center         Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 10-14
      Cambridge, MA 02142           D-7500 Karlsruhe 1
      USA                           Germany
      dayal@cca-unix.arpa           dittrich@Germany.arpa
      Phone: +1 617/492-8860        Phone: +49 0721/69 06-0
 Remember to include your electronic mail address for early  notifi-
 cation.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 86 4:28:51 EST
-FROM-
From: "Dr. James Johannes" (UAH+ARO) <johannes@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - US ARMY (ARO) AI WORKSHOP
-BODY-
                    CALL  FOR  PARTICIPATION
Future Directions in                             June 17-19, 1986
Artificial Intelligence                          Hyatt Regency
                                                 Crystal City, VA
Workshop
Keynote Speaker:                               Sponsored by:
  Honorable Jay R. Sculley               Computer Science Program
  Assistant Secretary of Army                Army Research Office
  Research, Development & Acquisition        Research Triangle Pk
                                             NC 27709-2211
You are invited to participate  in the  Workshop entitled "Future
Directions in Artificial Intelligence" to be held from June 17 to
June  19,  1986  at  the Hyatt  Regency - Crystal City, Virginia.
Presentations  will  focus on  both theoretical  work and experi-
mental results.  Possible topics to be discussed include:
        o Military Expert Systems
        o Vision
        o Image Processing
        o Speech Technology
        o Machine Translation
The  workshop   will  involve  invited  overview  papers,   short
presentations on specific  subjects or projects,  and  discussion
periods.   Attendance  will  be limited to 100  participants with
about   equal  representation  among  military,   academia,   and
industry.   Each  participant will be a recognized  expert in  at
least one aspect of Artificial Intelligence.
Four copies of a 400-2000 word summary should be submitted by the
deadline  to  the  Workshop  Chairman.    Some  attendees will be
invited to make a presentation on one of the workshop  topics.  A
workshop proceedings will be published and will be  mailed to all
the attendees.
                  Attendance limited to: 100
   Presentation/participation Request due by: April 25, 1986
    Notification of participation acceptance by: May 9, 1986
           Camera-ready papers due by: June 5, 1986
Workshop Chairman:                            ARO Representative:
Prof. James D. Johannes                       Dr. C. Ronald Green
Computer Science                             Army Research Office
The University of Alabama in Huntsville            P.O. Box 12211
Huntsville, AL  35899                       Research Triangle Pk.
Tel: (205) 895-6255/6088                           NC, 27709-2211
uucp: akgua!uahcs1!johannes                   Tel: (919) 549-0641
arpanet: johannes@brl                          arpanet: green@brl
Application for presentation/participation:
(Due by April 25, 1986)
Name: Dr/Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs ________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
         _______________________________________________________
Telephone number: (_____)_______ - __________
E-Mail(arpanet/uucp)_________________________
Name of the Government Agency, University, or Company:
               PROPOSED PRESENTATION INFORMATION
               (include 400-2000 word summary)
Topic area:
( ) Military Expert Systems   ( ) Vision   ( )  Image Processing
( ) Speech  ( ) Machine Translation  ( ) Other - Specify _______
Overall presentation category:
(  ) Theoretical        (  ) Experimental         (  ) Tutorial
(  ) Applied Research   (  ) Others
Military Application Area:
Title of proposed presentation:
                PROPOSED ATTENDEE INFORMATION
Topic area:
( ) Military Expert Systems   ( ) Vision    ( ) Image Processing
( ) Speech  ( ) Machine Translation  ( ) Other - Specify _______
Past Accomplishments in the Artificial Intelligence areas:
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
60
-DATE-
Date: Tue 18 Mar 86 15:59:11-PST
-FROM-
From: Emma Pease <Emma@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CSLI Monthly, part I
-BODY-
                         C S L I   M O N T H L Y
  March 15, 1986                  Stanford                Vol. 1, No. 1
    A monthly publication of The Center for the Study of Language and
   Information, Ventura Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
   Editor's note
   This is the first issue of CSLI's monthly report of research
   activities.  This issue introduces CSLI and then characterizes each of
   its current research projects; following issues will report on
   individual projects in more detail and discuss some of the research
   questions raised here.
   What is CSLI?
   CSLI is a research institute devoted to building theories about the
   nature of information and how it is conveyed, processed, stored, and
   transformed through the use of language and in computation.
   Researchers include computer scientists, linguists, philosophers,
   psychologists, and workers in artificial intelligence from several San
   Francisco Bay Area institutions as well as graduate students,
   postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scholars from around the world.
   [...]
   [The full description of the institute and its projects would take four
   AIList digests.  I am forwarding this fragment of the new monthly so that
   those who might be interested can request copies.  -- KIL]
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 86 14:00:51 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - Computer Science Open House (SUNY Buffalo)
-BODY-
            STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO
                 DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
                   GRADUATE STUDENT OPEN HOUSE
On Thursday, March 20, 1986, the graduate students of the
SUNY Buffalo Dept. of Computer Science will be presenting
an all-day conference on their recent research (most of which is
on AI).  A tech report with extended abstracts will be available;
for further information, contact James Geller (geller%buffalo@csnet-relay).
ABSTRACTS OF TALKS
9:00 - 9:30
JON HULL, A Theory of Hypothesis Generation in Visual Word Recognition
An algorithm is presented that generates hypotheses about
the identity of a word of text from its image.  This
algorithm is part of an effort to develop techniques for
reading images of text that possess the human capability to
adapt to variations in fonts, scripts, etc.  This
methodology is being pursued by using knowledge about the
human reading process to direct the development of
algorithms for reading text.  The algorithm discussed in
this talk locates a set of hypotheses about the identity of
an input word (called the  neighborhood  of the input
word).
Results are reported in this talk on the size of
neighborhoods for words printed in lower case that are drawn
from a large text.  Several statistical measures are
computed from subsets of a text of over 1,000,000 words and
their corresponding dictionaries.  These results show that
the average neighborhood in the dictionary of the entire
text contains only 2.5 words.  The feasibilty of this method
is also shown by experimentation with a database of lower
case word images.  The application of this approach to 8700
word images taken from 29 different fonts, in three
conditions of noise, shows that the correct neighborhood is
determined in 80% to 100% of all cases.
9:30 - 10:00
GEORGE SICHERMAN, Databases that Refuse to Answer Queries
Question-answering systems must often keep certain information secret.
One way they can do this is by refusing to answer some queries.  But
if the user may be able to deduce information from the system's refusal
to answer, the secrecy of the information is broken.
In this talk I present a categorization of answer-refusing systems
according to what they know, what the user knows, and when the system
refuses to answer.  I also give two formal results about when the user
can deduce secrets from the system's refusals to answer, depending on
how much she knows about the system.
10:00 - 10:30
JANYCE WIEBE, Understanding De Re and De Dicto Belief Reports
                in Discourse and Narrative
Belief reports can be interpreted "de re" or "de dicto", and we
investigate the disambiguation of belief reports as they appear in
discourse and narrative.  In earlier work by Rapaport and Shapiro
[1984], representations for "de re" and "de dicto" belief reports were
presented, and the distinction between them was made solely on the
basis of their representations.  This analysis is sufficient only when
belief reports are considered in isolation.  We need to consider more
complicated belief structures in order to sufficiently represent "de
re" and "de dicto" belief reports as they appear in discourse and
narrative.  Further, we cannot meaningfully apply one, but not the
other, of the concepts "de re" and "de dicto" to these more complicated
belief structures.  We argue that the concepts "de re" and "de dicto"
apply not to an agent's conceptual representation of her beliefs, but
to the utterance of a belief report on a specific occasion.  A
cognitive agent interprets a belief report such as `` S believes that
 N  is  F '', or `` S  said, ` N  is  F ' '' (where  S  and  N are
names or descriptions, and  F  is an adjective) "de dicto" if she
interprets it from  N 's perspective, and "de re" if from her own.
10:45 - 11:15
MINGRUEY TAIE, Device Representation Using Instantiation Rules
                and Structural Templates
A device representation scheme for automatic electronic device fault
diagnosis is described.  Structural and functional descriptions of
devices (which are central to design-model-based fault diagnosis) are
represented as instantiation rules and structural templates in a
semantic network.  Device structure is represented hierarchically to
reflect the design model of most devices in the domain.  Each object
of the device hierarchy has the form of a module.  Instead of
representing all objects explicitly, an expandable component library
is maintained, and objects are instantiated only when needed.
The component library consists of descriptions of component "types"
used to construct devices at all hierarchical levels.  Each component
"type" is represented as an instantiation rule and a structural
template.  The instantiation rule is used to instantiate an object of
the component "type" as a module with I/O ports and associated
functional descriptions.  Functional description is represented as
procedural attachments to the semantic network; this allows the
simulation of the behavior of objects.  Structural templates describe
sub-parts and wire connections at the next lower hierarchical level of
the component "type".  Advantages of the representation scheme are
compactness and reasoning efficiency.
11:15 - 11:45
JAMES GELLER, Towards a Theory of Visual Reasoning
Visual Knowledge Representation has not yet found the treatment it
deserves as its own subfield of AI.  Visual reasoning is fundamentally
different from predicate calculus type logical reasoning and is of
central importance for the field of Visual Knowledge Representation.  A
systematization of different types of visual reasoning requires the
differentiation between purely geometrical reasoning and different
types of knowledge-based reasoning.  Knowledge-based reasoning in turn
can use knowledge about the world, knowledge about abstract
hierarchies, or knowledge about normality.  Research on visual
knowledge is directly applicable to graphics interface design for
intelligent systems.  The VMES maintenance expert system for circuit
board repair uses such a user interface which is designed in analogy to
a language generation program.
1:15 - 1:45
MICHAEL ALMEIDA, The Temporal Structure of Narratives
Narratives are a type of discourse used to describe sequences of
events. In order to understand a narrative, a reader must be able to extract
the ``story'', that is, the described events and the temporal relations
which hold between them, from the text. Our principle research goal has been
to develop a system which can read a narrative and produce a model of
the temporal structure of its story.
The principle heuristic used in constructing such a model is the
Narrative Convention:  unless we are given some signal to the contrary,
we assume that the events of the story occurred in the order in which
they are presented in the text. In addition, however, a reader must deal
with: (1) tense - in a standard past tense narrative the principle
distinction is between the past and the past perfect tenses, (2) aspect -
the distinction between events viewed perfectively or imperfectively,
(3) aspectual class - the intrinsic temporal properties of various
types of events, (4) time adverbials - these can be used to place
events within various calendrical intervals, give their durations,
or relate them directly to other events, and to some extent (5)
world-knowledge.
1:45 - 2:15
WEI-HSING WANG, A Uniform Knowledge Representation for Intelligent CAI Systems
In examining the current situation of Computer Aided Instruction
(CAI), we find that Intelligent CAI (ICAI) and its authoring system are
necessary.  By studying the knowledge representation methods and expert
system concepts, we choose a frame representation method to construct
an Intelligent Tutor, called ITES.  We show that a frame can be used
to represent knowledge in semantic nets, procedures and production
rules.  Furthermore, this method is very convenient in authoring
system creation.
2:15 - 2:45
RICK LIVELY, Semantics for Abstract Data Types
An abstract data type is  often defined as a
pair < A ,  S >, where  A  is a set (of objects) and
 S  is a set of operations defined on cartesian
products of the types of the objects.  Axiomatic
methods are used to develop specifications for
the defined data type.
Semantics for abstract data types have
been treated by Adj using initial algebras, and
by Janssen (inspired by Montague semantics)
using many-sorted algebras.  A comparison
is made of the mathematical properties
and applicability to computer science of
these approaches.
3:00 - 3:30
SCOTT CAMPBELL, Using Belief Revision to Detect Faults in Circuits
To detect faults in electrical circuits,
programs must be able to reason about whether
the observed inputs and outputs are consistent
with the desired function of the circuit.
The SNePS Belief Revision System (SNeBR) is designed to reason about
the consistency of rules and hypotheses defined within a particular
context or belief space.
This paper shows how belief revision can be used for fault detection
in circuits, and so leads to a unification of the fields of belief
revision (also known as truth maintenance) and fault detection.
3:30 - 4:00
DOUGLAS H. MacFADDEN, DUNE: A Demon Based Expert System Architecture
                        for Complex and Incompletely Defined Domains
Traditional expert system architectures use the rule (an `` if ...
then ''  data structure) as the primary unit of knowledge.  The primary
unit of knowledge in the DUNE system architecture is the demon.  Each
DUNE  demon  is  an  individual processing element that can contain a
variety of types of data and can perform a variety of  operations  on
its  data.   Each demon can communicate with any other demon or with
the user via messages.  Typical data for these demons may be a
traditional type rule, a list of weight values for the features in the
left-hand-side of the rule, an (English) description of each feature,
a  list  of  related  demons,  etc.   Typical operations that these
demons may perform are: calculating the ``closeness'' of  the  rule  to
firing,  calculating the most important feature of the rule yet to be
resolved, telling the system  to  not  consider  this  demon  anymore
(entering a sleep state), telling other demons (and the user) that the
demon is either satisfied or will never be satisfied, etc.
We hope to show that  these  features  of  DUNE  demons  can  be
exploited  to  express the knowledge of many expert domains that have
proven unfeasible to traditional expert system architectures.
4:00 - 4:30
JOYCE DANIELS, Understanding Time and Space in Narrative Text
The Graduate Group in Cognitive Science at SUNY at Buffalo is an
interdisciplinary group of faculty and graduate students.  Participants
in the group's activities come from over seventeen departments within
the university and local colleges in Western New York and Canada.
There are six core faculty and
their graduate students, comprising a standing research group investigating
how we understand movement through time and space in narrative text.
This research addresses both the general issue of how time
and space are expressed in language, and specific individual disciplinary
interests such as identifying the exact lexical items signaling movement;
developing experiments to collect data on the
psychological validity of the supposed influence of suspected lexical items;
examining the problems encountered by speech pathologists when a client
cannot understand spatial or temporal concepts in language; and
artificial intelligence program models of human and linguistic data on
the SNePS network.
Research conducted by group members has resulted in the identification
of what we term the ``Deictic Center'' (DC).  This contains a WHO-point,
a WHEN-point, and a WHERE-point.  It is the locus of a
particular point in conceptual space-time.
We will explain the significance of the DC concept in greater detail.
and present some results of our linguistic and psychological
investigation.
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
61
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 19:38:21 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Japanese Technical Reports at Stanford
-BODY-
Richard Manuck of the Stanford Math/CS library and I are soliciting
parties interested in helping to foot the cost of translating
some technical reports from ICOT.  The list is included below, and
several are in English.  Many unlisted reports have come (150 total)
which do not even have their titles translated.  We are seeking organizations
in the San Francisco Area who might be interested in footing the cost of
translation of some of these reports.  The cost will run between
$50-100 per hour (not cheap).  Demand for this service is high.
Richard and I are seeking either an organization (perhaps H-P?)
to do the work, or help pay for the work.  The content of the reports
vary considerably from statements of requirements and highly
technical documents.  Several appear, on loose translation, to be
"interesting."  Please contact me if your organization can help.
>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-nas
  {decwrl,ihnp4,hao,menlo70,allegra,hplabs,riacs,tektronix}!ames!eugene UUCP
                              STANFORD UNIVERSITY
                        MATH & COMPUTER SCIENCE LIBRARY
                               NEW Japanese REPORTS LIST
102667   SEVERAL ASPECTS ON UNIFICATION.
         T. Adachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0046.
         1984.]
102671   OBJECT ORIENTED PARSER IN THE LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE ESP.
         H. Miyoshi and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0053.
         1984.]
102673   UNIQUE FEATURES OF ESP.
         T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0055.
         1984.]
102674   A CONSTRAINT BASED DYNAMIC SEMANTIC MODEL FOR LOGIC DATABASES.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0056.
         1984.]
102675   WRITING IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND PROGRAMMING IN WARNIER'S
         METHODOLOGY - A STUDY OF PROGRAMMING PROCESSES.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0057.
         1984.]
102676   MAID: A MAN-MACHINE INTERFACE FOR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
         S. Hiroyuki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0058.
         1984.]
102677   PROBLEMS IN DEVELOPING AN EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM ABLE TO REUSE EXISTING
         PROGRAMS.
         Y. Nagai, E. Chigira, and M. Kobayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0059.
         1984.]
102683   AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE PSI.
         T. Hattori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0065.
         1984.]
102690   SYNTACTIC PARSING WITH POPS - ITS PARSING TIME ORDER AND THE
         COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS.
         H. Hirakawa and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0073.
         1984.]
102691   PROGRESS IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE FGCS PROJECT.
         K. Takei.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0074.
         1984.]
102694   A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE FGCS - PRELIMINARY
         CONSIDERATIONS FOR FIFTH-GENERATION-COMPUTER NETWORKS.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0077.
         1984.]
102699   WIRING DESIGN EXPERT SYSTEM FOR VLSI: WIREX.
         H. Mori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0083.
         1984.]
102700   GDLO: A GRAMMAR DESCRIPTION LANGUAGE BASED ON DCG.
         T. Morishita and H. Hirakawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0084.
         1984.]
102701   DELTA DEMONSTRATION AT ICOT OPEN HOUSE.
         K. Murakami et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0085.
         1984.]
102702   THE BOYER-MOORE THEOREM PROVER IN PROLOG. USER'S MANUAL.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0086.
         1984. V3.6, November 1984.]
102703   KNUTH-BENDIX ALGORITHM FOR THUE SYSTEM BASED ON KACHINUKI ORDERING.
         K. Sakai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0087.
         1984.]
102707   SOURCE-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FOR PROLOG.
         H. Sawamura, T. Takeshima, and A. Kato.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0091.
         1985.]
102710   PROTOTYPING A DIALOGING SYSTEM WITH A TOPIC MANAGEMENT FUNCTION.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0094.
         1985.]
102711   CONSTRAINT-BASED LOGIC DATABASE MANAGEMENT: STRUCTURING
         META-KNOWLEDGE IN DATABASE MANAGEMENT.
         T. Miyachi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0095.
         1985.]
102713   SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF INTELLIGENT HUMAN
         INTERFACES.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0097.
         1985.]
102715   SOME ASPECTS OF FUTURE KNOWLEDGE-COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AS
         INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FIFTH GENERATION COMPUTERS.
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0099.
         1985.]
102716   CONSTRUCTING THE SIMPOS SUPERVISOR IN AN OBJECT-ORIENTED APPROACH.
         T. Hattori, N. Yoshida, and T. Fujisaki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0100.
         1985.]
102717   SOME EXPERIMENTS ON EKL.
         M. Hagiya and S. Hayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0101.
         1985.]
102719   SOME ASPECTS OF GENERALIZED PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR.
         S. Amano et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0103.
         1985.]
102721   DESIGN OF A HIGH-SPEED PROLOG MACHINE (HPM).
         R. Nakazaki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0105.
         1985.]
102725   WIREX: VSLI WIRING DESIGN EXPERT SYSTEM.
         H. Mori et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0109.
         1985.]
102728   PSI FONT EDITOR USER GUIDE.
         H. Touati.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0112.
         1985.]
102731   PSI FONT EDITOR IMPLEMENTATION NOTES.
         H. Touati.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TM-0115.
         1985.]
102762   SOME COMMENTS ON SEMANTICAL DISK CACHE MANAGEMENT FOR KNOWLEDGE BASE
         SYSTEMS.
         H. Schweppe.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-040.
         1984.]
102763   [SIMULATOR OF XP'S]
         M. Aso.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-041.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. English abstract.]
102764   AN APPROACH TO A PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE BASED ON CONTROL-DRIVEN
         AND DATA-DRIVEN MECHANISMS.
         R. Onai, M. Asou, and A. Takeuchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-042.
         1984.]
102765   [MANDALA: KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM ON LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE]
         K. Furukawa, A. Takeuchi, and S. Kunifuji.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-043.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. English abstract.]
102766   ESP REFERENCE MANUAL.
         T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-044.
         1984.]
102767   THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE
         MACHINE: PSI.
         M. Yokota et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-045.
         1984.]
102768   DIALOGUE MANAGEMENT IN THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE
         (PSI).
         J. Tsuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-046.
         1984.]
102769   [PROLOG SOURCE LEVEL OPTIMIZER: CATALOGUE OF OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY]
         H. Sawamura.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-047.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By H. Sawamura et al.]
102770   [ANALYSIS OF SEQUENTIAL PROLOG PROGRAM]
         R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-048.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By R. Onai et al.]
102771   [META-INFERENCE AND ITS APPLICATION IN A LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE]
         S. Kunifuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-049.
         1984. IN JAPANESES. No English abstract.]
102772   [ARCHITECTURE OF DATAFLOW PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE]
         T. Ito.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-050.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By T. Ito et al.]
102773   [SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTING SYSTEM]
         M. Sugimoto.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-051.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
102774   [HARDWARE DESIGN OF PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE]
         K. Taki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-052.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By K. Taki et al.]
102775   A RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE WITH LARGE SEMICONDUCTOR DISK AND
         HARDWARE RELATIONAL ALGEBRA PROCESSOR.
         S. Shibayama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-053.
         1984.]
102776   [THE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICATION OF THE KERNEL LANGUAGE, VERSION 1]
         K. Furukawa et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-054.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
102777   SIMPOS: AN OPERATING SYSTEM FOR A PERSONAL PROLOG MACHINE PSI.
         T. Hattori, J. Tsuji, and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-055.
         1984.]
102778   THE CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES OF SIMPOS SUPERVISOR.
         T. Hattori and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-056.
         1984.]
102779   OVERALL DESIGN OF SIMPOS (SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE PROGRAMMING
         AND OPERATING SYSTEM).
         S. Takagi et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-057.
         1984.]
102780   PROLOG-BASED EXPERT SYSTEM FOR LOGIC DESIGN.
         F. Maruyama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-058.
         1984.]
102781   THE CONCEPTS AND FACILITIES OF SIMPOS FILE SYSTEM.
         T. Hattori and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-059.
         1984.]
102782   A NOTE ON THE SET ABSTRACTION IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
         T. Yokomori.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-060.
         1984.]
102783   COORDINATOR - THE KERNEL OF THE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM FOR THE PERSONAL
         SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE (PSI).
         T. Kurokawa and S. Tojo.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-061.
         1984.]
102784   AN ORDERING METHOD FOR TERM REWRITING SYSTEMS.
         K. Sakai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-062.
         1984.]
102785   DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RELATIONAL DATABASE ENGINE.
         H. Sakai et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-063.
         1984.]
102786   QUERY PROCESSING FLOW ON RDBM DELTA'S FUNCTIONALLY-DISTRIBUTED
         ARCHITECTURE.
         S. Shibayama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-064.
         1984.]
102787   EFFICIENT STREAM/ARRAY PROCESSING IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
         K. Ueda and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-065.
         1984.]
102788   DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TWO-WAY MERGE-SORTER AND ITS
         APPLICATION TO RELATIONAL DATABASE PROCESSING.
         K. Iwata et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-066.
         1984.]
102789   NATURAL LANGUAGE BASED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM TELL.
         H. Enomoto et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-067.
         1984.]
102790   FORMAL SPECIFICATION AND VERIFICATION FOR CONCURRENT SYSTEMS BY TELL.
         H. Enomoto et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-068.
         1984.]
102791   [KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION (FOR WG4 WORKSHOP '83)]
         F. Mizoguchi and K. Furukawa.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-070.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. Edited by F. Mizoguchi and K.
         Furukawa.]
102792   DESIGN CONCEPT FOR A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CONSULTATION SYSTEM.
         M. Sugimoto, H. Kato, and H. Yoshida.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-071.
         1984.]
102793   COMPARISON OF CLOSURE REDUCTION AND COMBINATORY REDUCTION SCHEMES.
         T. Ida and A. Konagaya.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-072.
         1984.]
102794   [APPROACH TO TRANSLATION IN MORE NATURAL WAY (1)]
         H. Tanaka.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-073.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By H. Tanaka et al.]
102795   AN OVERVIEW OF RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE DELTA.
         N. Miyazaki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-074.
         1984.]
102796   HARDWARE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL
         INFERENCE MACHINE (PSI).
         K. Taki et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-075.
         1984.]
102797   MANDALA: A LOGIC BASED KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING SYSTEM.
         K. Furukawa et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-076.
         1984.]
102798   [PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE PIM-R: ITS ARCHITECURE AND SOFTWARE
         SIMULATION]
         R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-077.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By R. Onai et al.]
102799   [PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTING KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE]
         H. Kondou.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-078.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
102800   [A MICROPROGRAMMED INTERPRETER FOR THE PERSONAL SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE
         MACHINE PSI]
         A. Yamamoto.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-079.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By A. Yamamoto et al.]
102801   [THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL QA-SYSTEMS ON SITUATION SEMANTICS]
         T. Kato.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-080.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
102802   [THE COMPOUND LOCAL AREA NETWORK INI - ITS PHYSICAL NETWORK
         CONFIGURATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF PHYSICAL LAYER PROTOCOLS]
         A. Taguchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-081.
         1984. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract. By A. Taguchi et al.]
102803   CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PLANS OF THE FIFTH GENERATION COMPUTER
         SYSTEMS PROJECT.
         K. Kawanobe.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-083.
         1984.]
102804   ARCHITECTURES AND HARDWARE SYSTEMS: PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE AND
         KNOWLEDGE BASE MACHINE.
         K. Murakami, T. Kakuta, and R. Onai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-084.
         1984.]
102805   BASIC SOFTWARE SYSTEM.
         K. Furukawa and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-085.
         1984.]
102806   SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE: SIM PROGRESS REPORT.
         S. Uchida and T. Yokoi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-086.
         1984.]
102807   SEQUENTIAL INFERENCE MACHINE: SIM - ITS PROGRAMMING AND OPERATING
         SYSTEM.
         T. Yokoi and S. Uchida.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-087.
         1984.]
102808   RECURSIVE UNSOLVABILITY OF DETERMINACY, SOLVABLE CASES OF DETERMINACY
         AND THEIR APPLICATIONS TO PROLOG OPTIMIZATION.
         H. Sawamura and T. Takeshima.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-088.
         1984.]
102809   THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RELATIONAL DATABASE MACHINE DELTA.
         T. Kakuta et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-089.
         1984.]
102810   A SEQUENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONCURRENCT PROLOG BASED ON THE
         SHALLOW BINDING SCHEME.
         T. Miyazaki, A. Takeuchi, and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-090.
         1984.]
102811   CONCURRENT PROLOG ON TOP OF PROLOG.
         K. Ueda and T. Chikayama.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-092.
         1984.]
102812   OCCAM TO CMOS EXPERIMENTAL LOGIC DESIGN SUPPORT SYSTEM.
         T. Mano et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-093.
         1984.]
102813   FORMULATION OF INDUCTION FORMULAS IN VERIFICATION OF PROLOG PROGRAMS.
         T. Kanamori and H. Fujita.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-094.
         1984.]
102814   TYPE INFERENCE IN PROLOG AND ITS APPLICATIONS.
         T. Kanamori and K. Horiuchi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-095.
         1984.]
102815   VERIFICATION OF PROLOG PROGRAMS USING AN EXTENSION OF EXECUTION.
         T. Kanamori and H. Seki.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-096.
         1984.]
102816   PRINCIPLES OF OBJ2.
         J. A. Goguen, J.-P. Jouannaud, and J. Meseguer.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-097.
         1984.]
102817   LOGIC DESIGN: ISSUES IN BUILDING KNOWLEDGE-BASED DESIGN SYSTEMS.
         F. Maruyama et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-098.
         1984.]
102818   DATA-FLOW BASED EXECUTION MECHANISMS OF PARALLEL AND CONCURRENT
         PROLOG.
         N. Ito et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-099.
         1984.]
102819   HORN CLAUSE LOGIC WITH PARAMETERIZED TYPES FOR SITUATION SEMANTICS
         PROGRAMMING.
         K. Mukai.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-101.
         1985.]
102820   TOWARDS AUTOMATED SYNTHETIC DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 1 - BASIC
         CATEGORICAL CONSTRUCTION.
         S. Hayashi.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-104.
         1985.]
102821   ARCHITECTURE OF REDUCTION-BASED PARALLEL INFERENCE MACHINE: PIM-R.
         R. Onai et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-105.
         1985.]
102822   [OPERATION MANUAL FOR QUTE PROCESSOR]
         T. Sakurai and M. Fujita.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-106.
         1985. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
102823   [FOUNDATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING: PROLOG-BASED
         KNOWLEDGE BASE MANAGEMENT]
         S. Kunifuji et al.
         [Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT). TR-107.
         1985. IN JAPANESE. No English abstract.]
Many more only in the Kanji and Kana.
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
62
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:47:46 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: PROLOG Books
-BODY-
``Start Problem Solving with PROLOG" by Tom Conlon.
Published in 1985 by Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, U.K.
ISBN 0-201-18270-X.
This book uses micro-PROLOG (available for Sinclair
Spectrum/(Timex 2000?) and IBM PC, for example). It
includes many examples and complete programs, one,
for example, for playing Tic-Tac-Toe.
Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 17 Mar 86 02:50:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!burl!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!utai!uthub!utecfa!logicwa
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Logicware)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new Prolog textbook/tutorial software
-BODY-
Readers may be interested in a new Prolog textbook and tutorial
software that myself and two colleagues have put together.
The package is called:
    The MPROLOG Primer
The book --- A Primer for Logic Programming --- is a 500 page
textbook (18 chapters) with many example programs that are
fully explained.
The tutorial software --- MTUTOR --- contains 9 tutorials on
execution subjects (backtracking, recursion and so forth) and
instruction in use of the built-in predicates.  In addition,
there is a "freeform" area where you can enter and test you
own programs.
The package is intended both as a general introduction to logic
programming and to Prolog.  It should be of interest to:
    -- anyone wanting an inexpensive introduction to Prolog
    -- anyone requiring an introductory textbook to teach Prolog
    -- anyone who is familiar with other Prologs but who want to
       make an assessment of MProlog before purchasing the
       language.
The tutorial software which accompanies the book will run on the
following machines:
      -- IBM PC/XT/AT (and compatibles) (512K needed)
      -- Tektronix 4404
      -- VAX/VMS
      -- VAX/UNIX
      -- ISI
and portings are currently underway for:
      -- SUN
      -- APOLLO
Price of the package is 49.95 (US Funds)
For more information send electronic mail or contact our customer
service representative:
       Roger Walker,
       Logicware, 1000 Finch Ave. W.
       Suite 600,
       Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 2V5
       416-665-0022
Richard J. Young
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:50:20 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Future AI Language (Vol 4 # 57).
-BODY-
Some AI packages  soon could have interfaces to numerical code,
particularly those in process control; expert systems will make
decisions about a fault, then a simulation, written in FORTRAN,
will be run to see if the fix will work.
Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 11:59:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Turing and the Turing test.
-BODY-
>From AIList Vol 4 # 56 :- ``: he [Turing] designed it to be nothing more
than a philosophical conversation-stopper.''
>From  "Turing's Man : Western Culture in the Computer Age",  by J. David
Bolter :-  `` It would be a machine that knew men and women better  than
they knew themselves.  Turing was optimistic about  the prospect of this
supercomputer : " I believe that in  about fifty years' time  it will be
plausible to  programme computers  ...  to make them play  the imitation
game so well that an  average interregator will not have more  than a 70
per cent  chance of making the right  identification after  five minutes
of questioning" (Feigenbaum and Feldman, Computers and Thought, 19).''
Since this is not directly quoting from Turing's own work,  it cannot be
regarded  as being the giving  the true version of his own hopes for the
test.  Bolter continues in the  next paragraph with :- ``  The appeal of
Turing's test is easy to understand.  It offers an operational defintion
of intelligence  quite in the  spirit of  behavioral psychology  in  the
postwar era. A programmer can measure success by statistics - the number
of human subjects fooled by the machine.''
Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 13:49:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on IQ tests for Computers.
-BODY-
           ``How a pair of dull-witted programs
           can look like geniuses on I.Q. tests.''
This article appeared  in the March issue  of Scientific American
in the Computer Recreations column of A.K.Dewdney which discusses
the concept of an IQ test for computers, (cf Vol 3 # 164 et seq).
He  mentions the HI Q  program  of Marcel Feenstra,  which solves
problems of  the "sequence completion"  and "numerical analogies"
types. This scores 160 on the corresponding parts of the IQ tests
described by Hans J. Eysenck.  Dewdney describes his own putative
program SE Q.
Dewdney paraphrases ``The Mismeasure of Man'' by Stephen J. Gould
and says :- ``What it comes to is this: The traditional I.Q. test
rests on the unstated assumption that intelligence, like strength,
is a single quality of human physiology that can be measured by a
graded series of tasks.''
So far, so good.
He  then  quotes  Gould  directly :- `` Our brains are enormously
complex computers''.
Hmmm... getting a bit fishy.
Finally, he says :- `` Does  the score on  the  test measure  the
intelligence of the computer?  If it does not,  just how does one
go about measuring the intelligence of a computer, whether it is
made of silicon and  plastic  or carbon and  tissue?  The answer:
Probably not by running some I.Q. program through a battery of
tests.''
Two gripes with this. Who are the carbon/tissue *computers* he is
talking about?  Secondly, computers will  never be "intelligent";
however software might *appear* intelligent in certain respects.
Nuff said.
Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
P.S. Funny, I thought the Answer was 42.
`` The monkey spoke!'' - Zaphod Beeblebrox on Arthur Dent.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 15:51:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Future Ph.D.
-BODY-
The worlds first Ph.D. to an AI system awarded today for PiQ's work
in the field of ...
The World Times, 2185.
The Joka.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 08:34:35 -0500
-FROM-
From: johnson <johnson@dewey.udel.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Turing Test - A Third Quantisation?
-BODY-
|Now,  supposing a system  has been built which  "passes" the test. Why
|not take  the process  one stage  further?  Why not  try to design  an
|intelligent system which can decide whether *it* is talking to machine
|or not?
|
|Gordon Joly
|ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
|UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj
Let me get this straight, a human cannot distinguish machine M1 from another
human, but machine M2 *can* distinguish M1 from a human. Will machines of type
M2 then debate about whether it is possible for a human to be modified to pass
the M2turing test?  Alternatively, perhaps M2s should try to create M3 s.t.
an M3 cannot be distinguished from a human by an M2, or how about an M4, which
is a machine that an M2 cannot distinguish from an M1?  But wait, how can an
M2 be sure that an M4 is not simply a copy of an M1?  Is some descendent of the
turing test a test that which tries to infer the nature of the designer from
the design?
>johnson@UDEL.EDU
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
63
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 86 21:25 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet%CSNET-RELAY.ARPA%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel OPS5 and Relational Algebraic Operators (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn> on Wed 19 Mar 1986 at  9:52


          OPS5 PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND RELATIONAL ALGEBRAIC OPERATORS
                        ON A MASSIVELY PARALLEL MACHINE

                               Bruce K. Hillyer
                              Columbia University

AI  production  systems  and  relational  database  management  systems exhibit
complementary characteristics that suggest the  possibility  of  a  synergistic
integration.    One difficulty is that both types of systems execute relatively
slowly.

This talk discusses algorithms, performance analyses,  and  simulation  results
for  the  execution  of  database  queries and production systems on a parallel
machine called  NON-VON.    The  results  indicate  that  relational  algebraic
operations   will   be   processed  as  fast  as  on  special-purpose  database
architectures, with speedup linear in the size of the machine, and typical OPS5
production systems will fire more than 850 rules per second.

                           Thursday, March 20, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                             3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Mar 1986 07:55-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mental Representation of Bilinguals (BBN)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


               BBN Labs AI/Education Seminar

Speaker:  Prof. Molly Potter, MIT

Title:    The Mental Representation of Bilinguals

Date:     Friday, March 21st, 2:00pm
Place:    2nd floor large conference room,
          BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge


   Are the two lexicons of a bilingual directly interconnected, or
   connected via only a common, nonlexical concept?  Two experiments
   on that question will be discussed, one with novice bilinguals
   and one with expert bilinguals (Potter, So, von Eckardt and
   Feldman, 1984).  Related issues concerning mental representation
   in bilinguals will be raised for general discussion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET%WISCVM.WISC.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cognitive Model of Ada-Based Development (SMU)
-BODY-
Computer Science and Engineering Seminar
Toward A Cognitive Model of Ada Based Embedded System Development
Jerry Snodgrass, Southern Methodist University
(Seminar already held, announcement for record only)


Embedded systems, such as aircraft avionic and hospital intensive car
eunit systems, have been developed for several years.  But, the early
steps of the development process have not been researched.  The
related research in software engineering has focused on the artifact
and almost entirely ignored the design p rocess used to develop the
artifact.  In contrast, the artificial intelligence reeserch
(particularly automatic programming, knowledge-based assistant and
cognition research) has forced a more detailed investigation of the
design processes used in programming.  In this seminar emprical
research results are presented along with conceptual results requiring
further research.  The empirical results show that the human problem
solving control in the early steps of embedded system development is
essentially the same as the recent cognitive research results in
algorithm and software design.  The planned research, for which most
of the conceptual work has been accomplished, involves
1) integrating the Ada language, object-oriented paradigm, and
empirical results into a Uniform Modularity model; and 2) developing a
frame-based software tool to guide and record the process of
determining the structure of the embedded system being developed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 10:34:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Interactive Proof Editor (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday 19th March l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room
        Forrest Hill
        EDINBURGH.

Professor R. Burstall, Department of Computer Science, University of
Edinburgh will give a seminar entitled - "An Interactive Proof Editor".

This proof editor works like a structure editor for programmes but
enables one to create proofs in first order intuitionist logic.   It
uses attribute grammar techniques with local re-evaluation of
attributes.   The idea is due to Tom Reps at Cornell, and the work was
done jointly with Brian Ritchie and Tatsuya Hagino.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 86 15:08 PST
-FROM-
From: Ahenderson.pa%Xerox.COM%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Ahenderson.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Graphical Access To Expert Systems (PARC)
-BODY-

                        PARC Forum

                Thursday, March 27
                4PM, PARC Auditorium

Ted Shortlife and Larry Fagan
Medical Computer Science Group
Knowledge Systems Laboratory
Stanford Medical School


GRAPHICAL ACCESS TO EXPERT SYSTEMS:  EXAMPLES FROM THE ONCOCIN SYSTEM


The research goals of Stanford's Medical Computer Science group are
directed both toward the basic science of artificial intelligence and
toward the development of clinically useful consultation tools.  Our
approach has been eclectic, drawing on fields such as decision analysis,
interactive graphics, and both qualitative and probabilistic simulation
as well as AI.  In this presentation we will discuss ONCOCIN, an advice
system designed to suggest optimal therapy for patients undergoing
cancer treatment, as well as to assist in the data management tasks
required to support research treatment plans (protocols).  A prototype
version, developed in Interlisp and SAIL  on a DEC-20, was used between
May 1981 and May 1985 by oncology faculty and fellows in the Debbie
Probst Oncology Day Care Center at the Stanford University Medical
Center.  In recent years, however, we have spent much of our time
redesigning ONCOCIN to run on Xerox 1100 series workstations and to take
advantage of the graphics environment provided on those machines.  The
physician's interface has been redesigned to approximate the appearance
and functionality of the paper forms traditionally used for recording
patient status.  We have also made changes to correct problems with the
prototype system noted during its clinical use during the early 1980's.
This has involved adopting an object-center knowledge base design which
has provided an increase in the speed of the program while providing
more flexible access to the large amount of knowledge required by the
system.  The workstation version of ONCOCIN has recently been introduced
in the Stanford clinic, and we will demonstrate its operation during the
presentation.  We will also describe and demonstrate OPAL, the knowledge
acquisition environment we have developed for ONCOCIN so that expert
oncologists can directly enter their knowledge of protocol-directed
cancer therapy using graphics-based forms developed in the Interlisp-D
environment.


This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.


Host: Austin Henderson  (Intelligent Systems Lab, 494-4308)

Refreshments will be served at 3:45 pm

Requests for videotaping should be sent to Susie Mulhern
<Mulhern:PA:Xerox or Mulhern.pa> before Tuesday noon.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 19 Mar 86 09:46:55-PST
-FROM-
From: Jock Mackinlay <JOCK%SU-SCORE.ARPA%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations (SU)
-BODY-
             Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations

                            PhD Oral Exam
                          Jock D. Mackinlay
                     Computer Science Department
                        Monday, March 31, 10am
                             History 205

The goal of the research described in this talk is to develop an
application-independent presentation tool that automatically designs
graphical presentations (e.g. bar charts, scatter plots, and connected
graphs) for relational information.  There are two major criteria for
evaluating designs of graphical presentations: expressiveness and
effectiveness.  Expressiveness means that a design expresses the
intended information.  Effectiveness means that a design exploits the
capabilities of the output medium and the human visual system.  A
presentation tool is intended to be used to build user interfaces.
However, a presentation tool will not be useful unless it generates
expressive and effective designs for a wide range of information.

This talk describes a theory of graphical presentations that can be used
to systematically generate a wide range of designs.  Complex designs are
described as compositions of primitive designs.  This theory leads to
the following synthesis algorithm:
    o First, the information is divided into components, each
      of which satisfies the expressiveness criterion for a
      primitive graphical design.
    o Next, a conjectural theory of human perception is used
      to select the most effective primitive design for each
      component.  An effective design requires perceptual
      tasks of low difficulty.
    o Finally, composition operators are used to compose the
      individual designs into a unified presentation of all
      the information.  A composition operator composes two
      designs when the same information is expressed the same
      way in both designs (identical parts are merged).

The synthesis algorithm has been implemented in a prototype presentation
tool, called APT (A Presentation Tool).  Even though only a few primitive
designs are implemented, APT can generate a wide range of designs that
express information effectively.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 86 16:57:50 EST
-FROM-
From: Patty.Hodgson%ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems in Process Safety
-BODY-
                       "CALL FOR PAPERS"

            EXPERT SYSTEMS AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
                      IN PROCESS SAFETY


      American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Meeting

            Houston, Texas, March 29 - April 2, 1987

 Sponsored by the divisions on Computing and Systems Technology (10a)
                    and Safety and Health


Session Chair:                          Session Co-Chair:

Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian             Prof. E. J. Henley
Intelligent Process Engineering Lab     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Dept. of Chemical Engineering           University of Houston
Columbia University                     University Park
New York, NY  10027                     Houston, TX  77004
Tel: (212) 280-4453                     Tel: (713) 749-4407

Papers are solicited in the areas of Expert Systems and Computational
Methods in Process Safety for the Houston AIChE Meeting.  Topics of
interest include Process Plant Diagnosis, Process Safety and
Reliability, Process Risk Analysis etc.  Please submit TWO copies of the
abstract by "MAY 15, 1986" to both the session chairman and co-
chairman at the addresses given above.

Final manuscripts of the accepted papers are due by October 15, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 86 16:02:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!ted%ucbvax.berkeley.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Artificial Intelligence Impacts Forum
-BODY-
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS FORUM

            PRESENTED

                BY

  AMERICAN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


          May 13, 1986


          St. Davids Inn
      St. Davids, Pennsylvania


    American Computer Technologies, Inc.
      237 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 255
          Devon, PA 19333



WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

describe the business opportunities of Artificial Intelligence technologies

examine the strengths and limitations of these technologies

identify current AI products and services on the market and their potential
applications

analyze companies at the fore-front of the AI market and those expected to
enter soon

analyze current and emerging international markets for AI technology

clarify the business growth opportunities and threats associated with AI
technology

provide an understanding of the potential impact Artificial Intelligence
will have on business

identify promising new frontiers in AI research with applications to the
commercial and military sectors

analyze software and hardware needs for emerging AI markets and assess the
impacts on U.S. business



WORKSHOP SCHEDULE:

Tuesday Morning, 8:00 - 9:45 AM

I. Introduction

Opening Remarks
Creating Computers that Think
Emerging International AI Markets

II. Assessment of AI Opportunities

Expert Systems
Movement in Space
Vision
Natural Language Comprehension
Learning

Tuesday Morning, 10:15 - 12:00 AM

III. Analyses of AI Products and Services

Current/Future Software Packages
Stand-Alone AI Hardware
AI in Personal Computers
Embedded AI Systems
Knowledge Expert Services

IV. Assessment of Competitive Issues

Strategic Computing/Defense Initiatives
New Japanese MITI-ICOT Perspectives
Western European Consortia
Emerging Eastern Bloc Cooperation
Established AI Firms
Emerging AI Ventures
Joint Ventures and R&D Partnerships
Mergers and Acquisitions

Tuesday Lunch, 12:00 - 1:30 PM

IV. Strategic Risks and Constraints

Financial Risks
Social/Legal Risks
Technological Constraints
Market Constraints

Tuesday Afternoon, 2:00 - 3:30 PM

VI. Analyses of End-User Applications

Direct Military Applications
Software Engineering Applications
Non-Military Government Applications
Commercial Applications

Tuesday Afternoon, 3:45 - 5:00 PM

VII. Analyses of Global Trends

Fifth-Generation Machine Architectures
Emerging Fourth-Generation Languages
Other Major Technological Thrusts
Near-Real Time Systems
Economic impact of International AI Markets
Growth of AI products and services

WORKSHOP LEADERS

T. S. Hermann, Ph.D.,  President of American Computer Technologies,
Inc., has served as the Manager, Plans and Programs at Burroughs' Paoli
Research Center; Director of R&D at Analytics, Inc.; Sr. VP Technology of Sun
Company; President of Franklin Research Center; and President of Mellon
Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Ronald L. Krutz, Ph.D., Director, Computer Engineering Center, Carnegie
Mellon University.

Lewis J. Petrovic, Ph.D., President, Resource Engineering, Inc.

B.K. Wesley Copeland, MBA, President, International Science &
Technology

G. Richard Patton, Ph.D., Ex.VP, Resource Assessment, Inc., and Faculty
Member, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

The ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS forum has been established primarily
to address the needs of business persons who are interested in or are
responsible for planning, marketing and manufacturing.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUES?

This workshop will assess major AI product opportunities, explore fundamental
trends and market concepts of Artificial Intelligence and will go beyond
conventional strategic assertions within an International business context.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

THE WORKSHOP will answer the hard business questions of Artificial
Intelligence.  Participants will learn of the emerging AI business growth
opportunities; become aware of the key players and their product strategies;
analyze the growing international markets and potential competitors; acquire
forecasts of important technological impacts and thrusts; and will scutinize
the constraints and risks of the AI products.

For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4015.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
64
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 86 23:41:05 CST
-FROM-
From: S076786%UMRVMA.BITNET%WISCVM.WISC.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems/enology
-BODY-
I'd like to contact individuals at university of califorinia-davis involved
with enology as it might pertain to expert systems/artificial intelligence.
Please send a list of anyone involved so that I might contact them in regard to
current research and development.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Mar 86 22:07:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!ircil%ucbvax.berkeley.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HEME Medical Expert System
-BODY-

   I am looking for any information on the HEME medical expert
system - diagnosis of hematologic diseases. If you can help me,
please send any information or phone numbers and electronic
addresses of anyone associated with the project at either
Cornell Medical School or Cornell University. My electronic
address is ecsvax!ircil. Thank - you very much.
                                 Chip Gentry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 86 19:57:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!drillsys!gatech!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!gknight@ucbvax.
     berkeley.edu  (gknight)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neuropsychology expert system inquiry.
-BODY-

        Is anyone aware of research or development work on an
expert system for clinical neuropsychological assessment?

        If so, please send relevant information to me by e-mail
and I will summarize and post responses.

                             Thanks,

Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Mar 86 14:17:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham%ucbvax.berkeley.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: towards better documentation
-BODY-

Toward better documentation:

Graham's law: The manual is useless.
Corollaries:
  1. It's not in the manual.
  2. If it is in the manual, you can't find it.
  3. If you find it, it's wrong.

I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as on-line documentation.
The intent is to abrogate the above law and corollaries.  Does anyone know of
such a system or any effort(s) to produce one?

I am an AI novice.  This system is to serve as my introduction to the field.
What referecnes should I read to get started on this?   What approach would
you recommend?

Marv Graham; Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!graham

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Mar 86 17:58:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe%ucbvax.berkeley.EDU%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: rule-based expert system
-BODY-

We are searching for an EXISTING rule based expert system.

We intend to implement the selected system on a SIMD machine
using an experimental bit-vector approach to determine the
degree of performance enhancement.

Ideally we would like a time-sensitive, joint services appli-
cation, but any and all proposed systems will be considered.

The one characteristic the system MUST possess is rules.  The
closer the system is to a pure-production system the better.
We will recode the inference engine specifically for our parallel
processor.

Anyone with such a system in hand, or pointers to same, should
contact me either via the net or by phone.  Any help will be
greatly appreciated.

Additionally, anyone with information on any of the following
systems, please drop me a note:

        Application of A I to Tactical Operations
        Maj. Timothy Campen
        Don E Gordon, HRB-Singer,Inc

        Expert Systems for Intelligence Fusion
        R Peter Bonasso, The MITRE Corp.

        Expert System for Tactical I&W Analysis
        Douglas Lenat, Stanford
        Albert Clarkson, Garo Kiremidjian, ESL/TRW


                        Thanx,

                        Carey Priebe



*********************************
* carey priebe                  *
*                               *
* priebe@cod.UUCP               *
* priebe@nosc.UUCP              *
* priebe@cod.nosc.MIL           *
* ucbvax!sdcsvax!noscvax!priebe *
*                               *
* Naval Ocean Systems Center    *
* Code 421                      *
* San Diego, CA 92152           *
*                               *
* Ph. (619) 225-6571            *
*********************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 23:30 EST
-FROM-
From: KROVETZ%umass-cs.csnet%CSNET-RELAY.ARPA%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: cliche's
-BODY-
Does anyone know of any studies or literature relating to
the reactions of people the first time they hear a cliche'?

Thanks,
Bob

krovetz@umass (csnet)
krovetz%umass.csnet@csnet-relay (arpanet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Friday, 21 Mar 1986 05:33:05-PST
-FROM-
From: wachsmuth%gvaic2.DEC%decwrl.DEC.COM%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI market(ing) issues.
-BODY-

Does anyone have solidly founded information concerning AI's market potential,
and present share of the software and hardware markets? In reply to this note,
(or directly to myself) I would appreciate responses for the US, Japanese, and
European S/W & H/W markets, in dollar values.

Are any AI market studies  available  for viewing? If you have copies,  please
either attach it as a response to this note, or send it directly to me.

Thank you, in anticipation, for your replies.

Markus Wachsmuth
43 Route de Prevessin
CH-1217 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
wachsmuth%gvaic2.DEC@decwrl
wax%gvaic2.DEC@decwrl
wachsmuth%gva04.DEC@decwrl
wachsmuth%gvaeis.DEC@decwrl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 13:43:30 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!trlvlsi.trl.oz!andrew%seismo.CSS.GOV%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Small AI companies
-BODY-

I will be visiting the States later this year and I am looking for places
to visit active in AI. Whilst I am familiar with the larger companies and
academic institutions I am aware that I should also perhaps look for the
smaller companies active in AI. Can anyone help ? (Areas of interest :
application of AI to resource management (eg. network management), learning
research, design using AI).

ARPA: andrew%trlvlsi.trl.oz@seismo.css.gov
ACSNET: andrew@trlvlsi.trl
UUCP: !{seismo, mcvax, ucb-vision, ukc}!munnari!trlvlsi.trl!andrew
VOICE: +1 61 3 5416241

Andrew Jennings
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories,
P.O. Box 249
Clayton,  Victoria 3168,  AUSTRALIA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 24 Mar 86 15:20:14-PST
-FROM-
From: Daniel Davison <DAVISON%SUMEX-AIM.ARPA%relay.cs.net@vtcs.csnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: funding of AI proposals
-BODY-

I'm developing a pattern recognition system for specific biological
structures (helices in ribosomal RNAs).  After a demonstration version
is running (we are currently using OPS5), I'd like to apply for a grant to
continue the work.  I'd also like to apply to places other than ONR,
DARPA, and their friends..  I would like to know if there are non-DoD
agencies that fund AI work.  I don't think NIH would, but maybe NSF?

By the way, I'm familiar with the work of Abarbanel and coworkers on
pattern recognition for protein structure-this work would derive from
that work but not duplicate it.  If anyone knows of other biological AI-
guided pattern recognition, please drop me a line.

Thanks,
dan    (davison@sumex-aim.arpa, davison@bnl.arpa)
       best e-mail address: bchs6@uhupvm1.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
65
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Concurrent Processing with Result Sharing (SMU)
-BODY-
Concurrent Processing with Result Sharing: A Unified View
of Efficient Computaitons

Speaker: S. Krishnaprasad, Southern Methodist University
         (kp%smu@csnet-relay convex!smu!kp)
Location: 315SIC, Southern Methodist University
Time 2:00 PM
Date: April 3, 1986

Abstract

A major aspect of efficient problem solving is to avoid
reduandant recomputations,  This talk identifies the need for and ways
to incorporate both problem structure and problem dynamics, in the context
of concurrent processing, for fast and efficient problem solving.

The notion of horizontal locality and vertical locality are introduced
to capture the essence of problem dynamics.  Algorithms for decomposition
under dynamics are discussed for a special class of computations.

A new model of problem solving called Concurrent Processing with Result
Sharing (CPRS) is defined along with measures that characterize efficiency
of problem solving.  In a general setting, this model is related to the notion
of working set under concurrent processing environment.  A simulation
strategy is presented to prove the usefulness of CPRS model when multiple
concurrent computations compete for limited computational resources.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Mar 86 18:30:50-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning by Procedural Inference (SRI)
-BODY-
                     PLANNING BY PROCEDURAL INFERENCE

                         Dan Carnese (CARNESE@SRI-KL)
                 AI Lab, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research (SPAR)

                   11:00 AM, MONDAY, March 31
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The standard approach to plan construction involves applying a general planning
algorithm to a representation of a problem to be solved.  This approach will
fail on a given problem when the search space explored by the algorithm is too
large.  If this occurs, the only alternatives are to re-encode the problem or
to improve the general algorithm.

In this talk, I'll describe an alternative approach where control of the
planning process is provided by a procedure which constructs proofs from
premises characterizing the domain.  This approach allows arbitrary
procedures to be used for control, while retaining the desirable property
that unsound inferences cannot be made.

The technique will be illustrated with examples from the domain of
computer-aided manufacturing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Mar 86  1134 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Processes, Events, and the Frame Problem (CSLI)
-BODY-

                   PROCESSES, EVENTS, AND THE FRAME PROBLEM

                             Michael Georgeff

                Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International
                                  and
                Center for the Study of Language and Information
                           Stanford University

                    Thursday, March 27, 3pm  (NB: New time!)
                                 MJH 252


In this talk we will consider various models of actions and events
suited to reasoning about multiple agents situated in dynamic
environments.  We will also show how the notion of process is
essential in multiagent domains, and contrast this with most
approaches in AI that are based solely on the allowable behaviors of
agents.  We will then consider how we might go about specifying the
properties of events and processes, and whether or not such
specifications require nonmonotonicity or circumscription.  Finally,
we will examine various views of the frame problem and see to what
extent some of the major difficulties can be overcome.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Mar 86 11:38-EST
-FROM-
From: "Lisa F. Melcher" <LISA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inexact Reasoning using Graphs (MIT)
-BODY-

                          Wednesday, April 16, 1986
                          3:45 p.m.....Refreshments
                            4:00 p.m.....Lecture
                                 NE43 - 512A


                                 JUDEA PEARL

                         Computer Science Department
                                    UCLA


                      "Inexact Reasoning Using Graphs"

Probability theory is shunned by most researchers in Artifical Intelligence.
New calculi, claimed to better represent human reasoning under uncertainty,
are being invented and reinvented at an ever-increasing rate.  A major reason
for the emergence of this curious episode has been the objective of making
reasoning systems TRANSPARENT i.e., capable of producing PSYCHOLOGICALLY
MEANINGFUL explanations for the intermediate steps used in deriving the
conclusions.

While traditional probability theory, admittedly, has erected cultural
barriers against meeting this requirement, we shall show that these barriers
are superficial, and can be eliminated with the use of DEPENDENCY GRAPHS.
The nodes in these graphs represent propositions (or variables), and the arcs
represent causal dependencies among conceptually-related propositions.  We
further argue that the basic steps invoked while people query and update
their knowledge correspond to mental tracings of preestablished links in such
graphs, and it is the degree to which an explanation mirrors these tracings
that determines whether it is considered "psychologically meaningful".

The first part of the talk will examine what properties of probabilistic
models can be captured by graphical representations, and will compare the
properties of two such representations:  Markov Networks and Bayes Networks.

The second part will introduce a calculus for performing inferences in Bayes
Networks.  The impact of each new evidence is viewed as a perturbation that
propagates through the network via local communication among neighboring
concepts.  We show that such autonomous propagation mechanism leads to
flexible control strategies and sound explanations, that it supports both
predictive and diagnostic inferences, that it is guaranteed to converge in
time proportional to the network's diameter, and that every proposition is
eventually accorded a measure of belief consistent with the axioms of
probability theory.

In conclusion, we will show that the current trend of abandoning probability
theory is grossly premature--taking graph propagation as the basis for
probabilistic reasoning satisfies most computational requirements for
managing uncertainties in reasoning systems and, simultaneously, it exhibits
epistemological features unavailable in any competing formalism.


              Sponsored by TOC, Laboratory for Computer Science
                             Ronald Rivest, Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 15:20:02 est
-FROM-
From: decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian J. Garner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1st Australian Applied AI Congress
-BODY-
Call for Papers:

   1
  11  st
 111  AUSTRALIAN
  11  ARTIFICIAL
  11  INTELLIGENCE
  11  CONGRESS
  11
 1111  Melbourne, November 18-20, 1986


                      CALL FOR PAPERS

Abstract of papers to be selected for presentation to the 1st Australian
Artificial Intelligence Congress are now invited. The three-part program
comprises:

i)   AI in Education

     - Intelligent tutors
     - Computer-managed learning
     - Course developers environment
     - Learning models
     - Course authoring software

ii)  Expert System Applications

     - Deductive databases
     - Conceptual schema
     - Expert system shells (applications and limitations)
     - Interactive knowledge base systems
     - Knowledge engineering environments
     - Automated knowledge acquisition

iii) Office Knowledge Bases

     - Document classification and retrieval
     - Publishing systems
     - Knowledge source systems
     - Decision support systems
     - Office information systems


Tutorial presenters are also sought. Specialists are required
in the areas of:

     - Common loops
     - Natural language processing
     - Inference engines
     - Building knowledge databases
     - Search strategies
     - Heuristics for AI solving

Format:

ACSnet address: brian!aragorn.oz
CSNET address:  brian@aragorn.oz
UUCP address:   seismo!munnari!aragorn.oz!brian
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian
ARPA address:   munnari!aragorn.oz!brian@seismo.arpa
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian@Berkeley

PC diskette to Division of Computing and Mathematics, Deakin University,
Victoria 3217, Australia. Attn. Dr. Brian Garner.

DEADLINES: All submissions by May 16, 1986. Notification by June 30.

Inquiries: Stephen Moore, Director, 1AAIC86, tel: (02)439-5133.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 86 21:06:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!prlb2!lln-cs!hb@ucbvax.berk
     eley.edu  (Hubert Broze)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Knowledge Representation Tools for Expert
-BODY-           Systems

=================================================================

Conference announcement :

 "KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION TOOLS FOR EXPERT SYSTEMS"

Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), April 21st, 1986.
Place des Sciences, Auditorium A01

Organized jointly by :
  L'Unite d'Informatique de l'Universite Catholique de Louvain
  The Belgian Association for Artificial Intelligence (BAAI)
  The ACM Student Chapter of Louvain-la-Neuve.


                   PROGRAM :


 9 H 30 Participants welcome & Opening of the industrial exhibition
 10 H 00 - 11 H 00 F. ARLABOSSE (Framentec, Paris) :
                      "The representation of Knowledge : the industrial phase"
 11 H 15 - 12 H 15 J. FERBER (LRI-Univ. Paris-Sud)
                       "Reflections in object-oriented languages"
 12 H 15 - 14 H 30  lunch
 14 H 30 - 15 H 30  P.Y.  GLOESS (CNRS & Graphael) :
                      "OBLOGIS : une implantation orientee objet de la logique
                      de Prolog et liaison de cette logique avec des objets"
 15 H 45 - 16 H 45 R. VENKEN (Bim)
                       "BIM-Prolog : A new implementation of Prolog"
 16 H 45 - 18 H 00 Cocktail (kindly offered by intersem-Sligos)

             _____________________________

  During the whole day, an industrial exhibition will be held with the
  participation of Apollo Computer, BIM (Sun), CPP (KES), Ferranti (ART),
  IBM, Rank Xerox, Symbolics, Tektronix, Texas Instrument etc.


  Participation to the meeting is FREE OF CHARGE

  Additional Information may be obtained from :

   E. Gregoire, Unite Info, Place Ste Barbe, 2, B1348 Louvain-la-Neuve,
                Belgium.
                Tel : + 32 10 43 24 15
                UUCP : {prlb2,vmucnam}!lln-cs!eg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Mar 86 15:54:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!ted@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ted Hermann)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI Impacts Workshop
-BODY-
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS

            WORKSHOP

          PRESENTED BY

  AMERICAN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


          June 4-6, 1986


        FAA Technical Center
   Atlantic City Airpot. New Jersey


    American Computer Technologies, Inc.
      237 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 255
          Devon, PA 19333


For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4148 or write to above
address.


WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

describe the business opportunities of Artificial Intelligence technologies

examine the strengths and limitations of these technologies

identify current AI products and services on the market and their potential
applications

analyze companies at the fore-front of the AI market and those expected to
enter soon

analyze current and emerging international markets for AI technology

clarify the business growth opportunities and threats associated with AI
technology

provide an understanding of the potential impact Artificial Intelligence
will have on business

identify promising new frontiers in AI research with applications to the
commercial and military sectors

analyze software and hardware needs for emerging AI markets and assess the
impacts on U.S. business



WORKSHOP TOPICS:


I. Introduction

Opening Remarks
Creating Computers that Think
Emerging International AI Markets

II. Assessment of AI Opportunities

Expert Systems
Movement in Space
Vision
Natural Language Comprehension
Learning

III. Analyses of AI Products and Services

Current/Future Software Packages
Stand-Alone AI Hardware
AI in Personal Computers
Embedded AI Systems
Knowledge Expert Services

IV. Assessment of Competitive Issues

Strategic Computing/Defense Initiatives
New Japanese MITI-ICOT Perspectives
Western European Consortia
Emerging Eastern Bloc Cooperation
Established AI Firms
Emerging AI Ventures
Joint Ventures and R&D Partnerships
Mergers and Acquisitions

IV. Strategic Risks and Constraints

Financial Risks
Social/Legal Risks
Technological Constraints
Market Constraints

VI. Analyses of End-User Applications

Direct Military Applications
Software Engineering Applications
Non-Military Government Applications
Commercial Applications

VII. Analyses of Global Trends

Fifth-Generation Machine Architectures
Emerging Fourth-Generation Languages
Other Major Technological Thrusts
Near-Real Time Systems
Economic impact of International AI Markets
Growth of AI products and services

WORKSHOP LEADERS

T. S. Hermann, Ph.D.,  President of American Computer Technologies,
Inc., has served as the Manager, Plans and Programs at Burroughs' Paoli
Research Center; Director of R&D at Analytics, Inc.; Sr. VP Technology of Sun
Company; President of Franklin Research Center; and President of Mellon
Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Ronald L. Krutz, Ph.D., Director, Computer Engineering Center, Carnegie
Mellon University.

Lewis J. Petrovic, Ph.D., President, Resource Engineering, Inc.

B.K. Wesley Copeland, MBA, President, International Science &
Technology

G. Richard Patton, Ph.D., Ex.VP, Resource Assessment, Inc., and Faculty
Member, Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh


WHO SHOULD ATTEND?

The ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS workshop has been established primarily
to address the needs of business persons who are interested in or are
responsible for Governmental Program planning, marketing and manufacturing.

WHAT ARE THE MAJOR ISSUES?

This workshop will assess major AI product opportunities, explore fundamental
trends and market concepts of Artificial Intelligence and will go beyond
conventional strategic assertions within an International business context.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

THE WORKSHOP will answer the hard business questions of Artificial
Intelligence.  Participants will learn of the emerging AI business growth
opportunities; become aware of the key players and their product strategies;
analyze the growing international markets and potential competitors; acquire
forecasts of important technological impacts and thrusts; and will scutinize
the constraints and risks of the AI products.

For Information call Carol Ward, A.C.T., Inc. (215) 687-4148 or write to above
address.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
66
-DATE-
Date: Thu 27 Mar 86 13:26:15-CST
-FROM-
From: AI.HASSAN@MCC.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Eliza
-BODY-
Where could I run Eliza (Weizenbaum's program) or get a copy of the
source code? Send reply to hassan@mcc.arpa---Thanks.
H.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 86 10:35:57 cst
-FROM-
From: Dan Nichols <dnichols%tilde%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: BKG request
-BODY-

I am interested in obtaining a copy of Hans Berliner's
famous BKG program. Does anyone know of an implementation
in LISP or for UNIX?
I would also love to have a copy of the source for studying.

Can anyone help or can anyone tell me if Mr. Berliner is
on the net and how to reach him?

Please respond to me rather than flooding this list.


 *USNail*              *electronic*
Dan Nichols            USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!dnichols
POB 226015 M/S 238     ARPA:  Dnichols%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
Texas Instruments Inc. CSNET: Dnichols@Ti-CSL
Dallas, Texas          VOICE: (214) 995-6090
75266                  COMPUSERVE: 72067,1465

He o shite shiri-tsubome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 86  9:45:20 EST
-FROM-
From: John Shaver  STEEP-TMAC 879-7602 <jshaver@apg-3>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public Domain Software
-BODY-
I recently found a public doman PROLOG at Simtel20 pd:<pc-
blue.vol157>.  Are the other such programs which could be used by
person s with access to and IBM PC or similar computers.

                        John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Mar 86 10:29:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp syntax for inference engines
-BODY-

OK, I have a dumb question for you Lisp wizards.  In any
fact-rule inferencing system, there must be a distinction
between constants and variables. In Prolog and OPS5 these are
clearly distinguished by syntax, a la:

         |  constant    variable

CProlog  |  red         Color       (capital letter on variable)
OPS5     |  red         <color>     (angle brackets on variable)

The Lisp analogs would appear to be:

Lisp     |  'red        color       (quote on constant)

Note, for instance that you can bind "color" to "'red", or
to another variable, like "hair-color", or leave it unbound,
just like a good ole variable in Prolog and OPS5.  Similarly,
'red has an unchanging, self-evident value, just like a
well-behaved constant.

But in the published algorithms, like in "Lisp" by Winston or
"AI Programming" by Charniak, it seems that some spelling
convention for symbols is dreamed up to distinguish the two, eg,
red (constant) and ?color (variable), and the quoted form is not
used at all.  Why not use the mechanism provided directly by the
language?  Is this just a matter of taste, that people like to
decorate the variable and not the constant?  Or is there some
deep-seated semantic/efficiency-type reason lurking here?

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
National Bureau of Standards

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 30 Mar 86 16:28:53-EST
-FROM-
From: John C. Akbari <AKBARI@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: basic atn
-BODY-
are there new, readable introductions to the theory (and implementation!) of
atns?  examples of code would be most helpful.  anyone researching (or just
hacking) with object-oriented approaches to parsing, PLEASE inform me of
your work (e.g., FLAVORS, LOOPS, NoteCards, etc.).  will summarize for
ai bb.

thanks.

john akbari
akbari@cs.columbia.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 86 10:50:41 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ross Gayler)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: economics of expert systems - assistance please
-BODY-
I am currently working on a project which, amongst other things, requires me
to find out something about the economics of expert systems. The technology
of expert systems seems to be a classical case of a solution searching for
appropriate problems. I am quite happy to believe that expert systems can
be much more cost-effective than conventional systems for certain classes of
problems, but what are the characteristics of these problems?

Specifically, I would like to know how the implementation costs of expert
systems vary as a function of attributes of the problem (complexity, size,
uncertainty etc.), attributes of the implementors (experience with tools and
domain etc.) and the attributes of the tools (representations, inference
methods, strategies etc.). I would also like to know how the system costs
are distributed across the system life cycle and how all this information
compares with conventional computer systems.

If this was a movie it would be "Yourdon and de Marco do expert systems".

I can't recall having seen any serious discussion of this area. The only
statements have been along the lines of "We coded 10 rules per week" and
unsubstantiated claims for ease of maintenance. I don't actually expect
strong empirical work at this stage but some good conceptual analyses would
be nice. Any references, pointers or opinions would be gratefully accepted.

Ross Gayler                     | ACSnet:       ross@psych.uq.oz
Division of Research & Planning | ARPA:         ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.css.gov
Queensland Department of Health | CSNET:        ross@psych.uq.oz
GPO Box 48                      | JANET:        psych.uq.oz!ross@ukc
Brisbane        4001            | UUCP:      ..!seismo!munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross
AUSTRALIA                       | Phone:        +61 7 227 7060

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 09:57:28 cst
-FROM-
From: preece%ccvaxa@gswd-vms (Scott E. Preece)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on IQ tests for Computers.
-BODY-
        Two gripes with this. Who are the carbon/tissue *computers* he is
        talking about?  Secondly, computers will  never be "intelligent";
        however software might *appear* intelligent in certain respects.
        Nuff said.
        Gordon Joly

Do we really want this list to be a battleground for unsubstantiated
personal opinions on the potential for machine intelligence?

scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:   ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:   preece@gswd-vms

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Mar 86 03:14:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!pucc-j!pucc-h!ahh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Davis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
I have a question that I have been pondering over for some time.
I have asked a few people about it and have received a few
different answers. The question is:
  Can a Computer feel, and tell you it's feelings?

I say that if the computer is actually having a bad day (ie. disk
troubles and the like ) that somewhere in the operating system
there should exist some functions to let the user know how it
feels in some friendly way.
I consider this to be a true feeling of the computer.
However many of my associates tell me that this would
be something that is built into the system of an un-living thing,
And that this is only simulated.

I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.

               Mark Davis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 86 13:59:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!mjn@ucbvax.
     berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: re: Computer Dialogue #1
-BODY-

> Maybe not, but this only applies to present-day computers.  "Some people
> realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than toasters do"...
> doesn't mean that a combination of many brain cells cannot, and the same
> could apply to future computers with many times the capability of today's
> computers.

"Some people realize that brain cells don't feel emotions any more than
toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and
the same could apply to future toasters with many times the capability of
today's toasters.

                Mark J. Norton
                {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn
                mjn@sunspot

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 86 02:52:36 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
Mark Davis asks if computers have anything akin to human feelings.

One of the most salient of human feelings is pain, which is the
name of the brain state triggered by neural impulses signalling
damage or distress to body tissue.

Consider one of the most complex computers in operation today--a
No. 5 ESS (Electronic Switching System) in the North American
Telephone Network.  It has many sensors throughout its equipment
bays which detect loss of functionality.  These sensors raise
alarms in the central processor which are functionally equivalent
to the human sensation of pain.  The central processor responds
by taking steps to ameliorate the problem.  It calls the "doctor"
(craftsperson) for assistance and otherwise takes prudent steps
to protect itself from consequential harm.

On another level of analogy, there is an interesting comparison
between diagnostic messages from a computer and human emotional
responses when faced with a situation ("input") for which
the computer or person is unprepared.  (See my Computer Dialogues
#1 and #2 for a somewhat whimsical portrayal of this comparison.)

Leaving aside the semantic issues, one notes a curious mapping
between machine states/brain states and the corresponding
input/output patterns.  It seems to me that human feelings
correspond *mutatis mutandis* to functionally equivalent
phenomena within computers and other complex systems.

>-Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!hounx!kort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Mar 86 15:03:20 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue #1
-BODY-
Dear Charles and Peter,

Please understand that I wrote Computer Dialogues #1 and #2 as "flights
of fancy" to imagine some of the problems that might arise when
self-programming computers begin to interact with each other.  I gave
the computers some anthropomorphic emotions, thinly disguised as
diagnostic messages.  My goal was to bridge the gulf between those who
love machines and those who dread them.  [...]

For those who are interested in the deeper philosophical issues of the
soul, may I recommend the two short stories by Terrell Miedener in
The Mind's I.  One is the touching story of a chmimpanzee with an
enquiring mind entitled The Soul of Martha, a Beast.  The other is
about a mechanical mouse with a survival instinct entitled The Soul
of the Mark III Beast.

Regards,

Barry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
67
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 17:37 EST
-FROM-
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Translation of Documents
-BODY-
I am quoting the following article from the Dayton SIGART newsletter
dated March 13, 1986:

COMMERCIAL MACHINE TRANSLATION
Business Week (# 2912, 9/16/85, pp. 90D ff.) reports in an article by
Joyce Heard with Leslie Helm that several companies are active in
developing machines to produce commercial translations of documents.
This article describes translation systems that are currently
available for translating English, German, French, Spanish, Italian
and Japanese.  Speeds of up to 100,000 words per hour are claimed, as
are accuracies of up to 90% and prices as low as $3000.  (Not all the
same system of course).  Customers are apparently willing to accept
rough translations as long as they can get them quickly; translators,
however, are not happy just polishing machine translations.  Most of
the companies offering multilingual services are converting text to a
"neutral" language, then into the target language -- this greatly
reduces the cost of additional source or target languages.
>----

I haven't seen the original article.  It may be worth investigating if
any of these machines could deliver a usable rough translation.
Perhaps the collection of papers could be machine-translated and
surveyed. Selected papers would be professionally translated.

Stephen Dourson
dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (arpa)
dourson@gmr                        (csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 14:27:00 pst
-FROM-
From: George Cross <cross%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: towards better documentation
-BODY-
>>I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as
>>on-line documentation.

You probably want to look at Nathaniel Borenstein's dissertation
     The Design and Evaluation of On-Line Help Systems
CMU, 1985 Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-85-151

In addition to a description of Borenstein's system, this has a large
bibliography and discussion of existing systems.

 ---- 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    Phone: 509-335-6319 or 509-335-6636

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 86 09:12 EST
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: towards better documentation
-BODY-
An excellent recent article entitled "Interactive Documentation" by P.J.
Brown (Computing Lab, The University, Canterbury, Kent) appears in the
March 1986 issue of Software -- Practice and Experience.  The full
reference is:

Brown, P.J., Interactive Documentation, Software -- Practice and
Experience, Vol 16(3), March 1986, pp. 291-299.

He talks to many issues relating to display of documentation, and
describes a tool that "allows readers of computer-based documents to
peruse these documents at any desired level of detail" (from the
Abstract).  Especially interesting is his distinction between
"replace-buttons" and "glossary-buttons."

Bill Anderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 86 10:36:08 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: towards better documentation
-BODY-
   Date: 18 Mar 86 14:17:00 GMT
   From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!graham@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
   Subject: towards better documentation

   I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as on-line
   documentation.  The intent is to abrogate the above law and
   corollaries.  Does anyone know of such a system or any effort(s) to
   produce one?  [...]

Frankly, it sounds like a black hole to me.  Building an expert system
to do something that people don't know how to do very well is
generally a bad idea.  The ubiquity of crummy documentation is prima
facie evidence that creating *good* documentation isn't yet a widely
understood art.

Nevertheless I'll toss some ideas out, first trying to figure out what
the functionality of this system is supposed to be.

Maybe you're talking about automatically generating documentation from
existing source code.  You might start with Rich & Waters' stuff on
the programmers apprentice, also Bob Balzer's stuff at USC-ISI.  See
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, November 1985, as one place
to start looking for lots of other related references.  The problem
here is extracting the users-eye-view from an implementation.  I would
think it would be easier to extract it from the original specification
(assuming it exists).

Another thing you might mean is building a ``user's assistant'' for a
complicated program.  Along these lines I can suggest Mike
Genesereth's work (circa 1977, MIT) on the ``MACSYMA advisor,'' a
design with some interesting ideas.  Also I seem to recall that people
have done expert systems for advising users on how to use a
complicated set of models embedded in a packages of dozens of FORTRAN
subroutines.  E.g. statistical, econometric, ecological models.  I
believe there was a paper in ECAI-84 on one of these, maybe Bundy was
an author (big help, eh?)?  Also I believe there is an ongoing project
at Berkeley on a user's assistant for Unix.  The idea is to be able to
ask it things like like ``how do I get these 90 files copied from one
machine to another'' and it makes a plan and guides you through the
steps, modifying the plan as it goes to deal with contingencies (e.g.
the machine you want to copy to turns out to have no network
connection so you have to make a tape).  (I wonder what the program
says if you ask it ``how can I get back the files I accidentally
deleted?'' :-) To be useful the system needs to be able to generate
plans of action from its own knowledge of the program.  Makes a good
forcing function on its knowledge.

Finally, maybe you just mean building an expert system that knows a
lot about a particular program, and presents hunks of canned text on
various topics.  However, I don't see what such a thing could possibly
boil down to anything other than an index.  Somebody still has to
figure out what to put in the index.  To make it ``smart'' you need to
think about how to build that index automatically, or have it defined
implicitly by having the program search the hunks of canned text for
strings that match things the user is asking about.  But then you have
the natural language problem on your hands again due to synonyms, verb
vs noun forms, etc.  Ick.  And the problem with this last approach of
course is that it doesn't abrogate Graham's Law: the canned text is,
after all, canned.  The system is not an expert on the program, it's
an expert on the manual!  The only way to abrogate the law is to have
the system look at the source code of the program... and then you're
back in the black hole again.

Well, good luck.  I hope these ramblings may lead to something helpful
(and provoke errata from more knowledgeable readers).

        -w

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Mar 86 14:34:36 EST
-FROM-
From: GABINELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine Learning: A Guide To Current Research
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Rutgers bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

MACHINE LEARNING: A Guide To Current Research (a collection of 77
papers--most of which were contributed by participants at the last ML
Workshop held in June, 1985) is being offered by the publisher,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, at a special pre-publication rate of
$27.95 (shipping included).  This is a discount of 30% off the regular
price.  [...]

Jo Ann Gabinelli

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 26 Mar 86 09:08:28-PST
-FROM-
From: Oscar Firschein <FIRSCHEIN@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Aviation Week Technical Survey
-BODY-

AILIST readers might be interested in the following:

Aviation Week and Space Technology, Feb. 17, 1986 has a technical
survey of artificial intelligence, mostly applied to military
applications.  Included are the DARPA-supported programs in Pilot's
Associate and the Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV) and the VLSI lisp
machine being built by Texas Instruments.

Company profiles include McDonnell Aircraft's work in the Pilot's
Associate and avionics maintenance expert system; Boeing's AI Center;
MITRE's work in natural language understanding; Grumman's decision
support systems; Hughes AI center; and Westinghouse avionics
troubleshooting expert system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 28 Mar 86 13:15:10-CST
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: pointer: Dr. Dobbs Journal (April 86)  The Annual AI Issue
-BODY-
        TABLE OF CONTENTS

Programming in LISP and PROLOG

24      AI: BRIE - The Boca Raton Inference Engine
                by Robert Jay Brown III
        An exploration of artificial intelligence techniques, using LISP,
        PROLOG, and Expert-2.

An Expert at Life

42      AI: A Cellular Automation in Expert-2
                by Jack Park
        Jack visited our pages two years ago with an expert system for
        predicting the weather.  This little game could teach even more
        about AI tools.

46      AI: Modeling a System in PROLOG
                by Sheldon D Softky
        PROGLOG may be the language of choice for some very practical tasks,
        says the author.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal - AI in Engineering
-BODY-

The International Journal for Artificial Intelligence in Engineering is
a new quarterly available from Computational Mechanics Publications,
subscription only, price $130.  Please apply to Computational Mechanics Inc.,
Suite 6200, 400 West Cummings Park, Woburn, MA 01801, USA.  (USA, Canada
and Mexico).  Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO4 2AA, England
for others.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 March 1986 2129-EST
-FROM-
From: Andreas Nowatzyk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: P=NP Is this for real?
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Article 355 of net.research:
From: ghgonnet@watdaisy

Title:   P = NP by E.R. Swart, Department of Computing and Information
Science, University of Guelph, Research Report CIS86-02, February 1986.

Abstract:
A mathematical progamming formulation of the Hamilton circuit problem
involving zero/one restrictions and triply subscripted variables is
presented and by relaxing the zero/one restrictions and adding additional
linear constraints together with additional variables, with up to as
many as 8 subscripts, this formulation is converted into a linear
programming formulation.  In the light of the results of Kachiyan
and Karmakar concerning the existence of polynomial time algorithms
for linear programming this establishes the fact that the Hamilton
circuit problem can be solved in polynomial time.  Since the Hamilton
circuit problem belongs to the set of NP-complete problems it follows
that P = NP.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 12:01:34 pst
-FROM-
From: Allen VanGelder <avg@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: P=NP(?) still open
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the SRI bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

[...]
> From: lawler@ernie.berkeley.edu (Eugene Lawler)
> Subject: Swart's paper
> Not surprisingly, it seems to be fatally flawed. Bob Solovay started
> reading it carefully, found gaps in proofs, wrote Swart about them.
> The P=NP question is still with us, I believe.   --Gene Lawler

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 14:28:58 EST
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@bbncch.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ambiguity
-BODY-
Then there is this from the _Electric_Kool-Aid_Acid_Test . . .
on a tree at the foot of the driveway from the commune to the
main road was this sign:

        No Left Turn Unstoned

A triple (at least) pun in four words!

        Bruce

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 86 23:46:05 EST
-FROM-
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI languages
-BODY-
    From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk

    Some AI packages  soon could have interfaces to numerical code,
    particularly those in process control; expert systems will make
    decisions about a fault, then a simulation, written in FORTRAN,
    will be run to see if the fix will work.

  Why should the numerical routines be written in FORTRAN rather than
Lisp?  Is this just for dusty decks, or is it proposed that new
FORTRAN code be written for this?
                                                                ...Keith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 86 13:24:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Languages.
-BODY-
>   Why should the numerical routines be written in FORTRAN rather than
> Lisp?  Is this just for dusty decks, or is it proposed that new
> FORTRAN code be written for this? /Keith Lynch <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>

I agree that LISP code can be faster than FORTRAN. Certainly MACLISP
produces fast numerical code. But most of the software effort for
numerical simulations, goes into FORTRAN, be it 66, 77 or 8X!
So they ain't just those dusty decks of cards.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
68
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 08:32:09 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Tek Tools and Technology (Ames)
-BODY-
From:   MER::ANDREWS


              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center


                            AMES AI FORUM
                        SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


                 Tektronix AI Tools and Technology

                 Tektronix Representatives:
                       Steve Levine - AI Specialist
                       Brad Martinson - Systems Analyst
                       Tamarah Day - Sales Engineer


             Tuesday, April 8, 1986       10:30 - 11:30 am
           B 239  rm B39 (Life Sciences Basement Auditorium)
                      NASA Ames Research Center



Agenda:

10:30 - 11:00     Slide presentation - AI history overview
                  Question & answer period

11:00 - 11:30 or  Product demonstrations on the Tektronix 4404 and 4406
          12:00   Artificial Intelligence Workstations.  Demonstrations
                  will include a Preliminary Expert Ground Analysis
                  Scheduler developed by Harris Corporation for Kennedy
                  Space Center to assist in the scheduling of ground
                  processing activities.  Also presented will be an
                  electronic circuit board diagnostic expert system and
                  applications of software prototyping and user
                  interfacing.



           point of contact:  Alison Andrews  (415)694-6741
                              mer.andrews@ames-vmsb.ARPA



N.B.  For those of you who cannot make it to this Ames AI Forum, Tektronix
      is having a similar presentation and demo on April 3, with the
      following agenda:
            8:30-9:00   Coffee and doughnuts
            9:00-10:30  Presentations (AI Overview, AI at TEK Labs, Managing
                         the Knowledge Engineering Process)
            10:30-11:15 Demonstrations
            11:15-11:30 Summary
            11:30-12:00 Questions and Answers
            12:30-4:00  Afternoon Schedule

      R.S.V.P. Mary Clement (408)496-0800

      Tektronix is located at 3003 Bunker Hill Lane (just off Great
      America Parkway, near cross street Betsy Ross), Santa Clara.
      Attendees of the April 3 demo will not be shown the Kennedy Space
      Center expert system, so do try to make it to the Ames AI Forum,
      despite the lack of doughnuts!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 86 16:56:24 EST
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Learning, Clustering and Polymorphy (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                    MACHINE LEARNING COLLOQUIUM


             Machine Learning, Clustering and Polymorphy

                       Stephen Jose Hanson
                              and
                         Malcolm Bauer

                  Bell Communications Research
                              and
          Princeton University Cognitive Science Laboratory

                        April 8, Tuesday
                        #423, Hill Center

I will describe a conceptual clustering program (WITT) that
attempts to model human categorization. Experiments will
also be described in which the output of WITT and other
Conceptual clustering programs will be compared to the
performance of human subjects using the same stimuli.
Properties of categories to which human subjects are
sensitive includes best or prototypical members, relative
contrasts between putative categories, and polymorphy
(neither necessary or sufficient features). Polymorphy  (m
out of N, m < N) represents a weakening of conjunction
predicates which still seem to be of an order that is
learnable to humans.  Wittengentein refers to polymorphy as
a basis for a category theory in which category "criteria"
determine the nature of the membership rule.

     This approach represents an alternative to usual
Artificial Intelligence approaches to generalization,
conceptual clustering and semantic analysis which tend to
focus on common feature rules, impoverished category
structure, and simple search and match schemes.  WITT uses
feature inter-correlations, category structure (prototypes,
basic levels, etc..) and a conservative search strategy in
order to construct a set of categories given objects defined
on a multi-valued feature list.  Information retrieval was
used for a test domain for WITT in order to discover
reasonable categories from the psychological abstracts,
which were subsequently compared to psychologists from
Princeton psychology department sorting the same abstracts.
Another test domain involved constructing meta-level
categories for nations of the world, where semantic features
were extracted from a machine readable version of the 1985
World Almanac.  WITT discovered concepts like "third world
countries" and "european countries" and "technologically
advanced countries".

** If you wish to host the speakers or meet with them, please send
   a message to PRASAD@RUTGERS.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 April 1986 1433-EST
-FROM-
From: Cathy Hill@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Feedback During Skill Acquisition (CMU)
-BODY-
                Impact of Feedback Content during Initial
                              Skill Acquisition

                                Jean McKendree

                     Wednesday, April 9   12:00-1:30 pm

                            ****** BH 340A ******

   Most theories of learning and skill acquisition acknowledge the
importance of feedback, particularly after errors.  However, none of
them are explicit about the content of this information.  I will
present hypotheses about the efficacy of different sorts of feedback
content and relate them briefly to current information processing
theories.  I will then present the results from experiments
which vary information content after errors and which begin to look at
differences in experience level.  The proposed experiment will use
verbal protocols as well as quantitative data to better
understand the usefulness of different sorts of information for
error correction.  A simulation model will attempt to compare the
impact of these different types of information assuming an identical
starting point.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1986  18:12 EST
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Growing Min-Max Game Trees (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Thursday , April 10  4:00pm  Room: NE43 8th floor Playroom

                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series


            A New Procedure for Growing Min-Max Game Trees


                          David  McAllester
                             AI Lab, MIT


In games such as chess decisions must be based on incomplete search
trees.  A new tree-growth procedure is presented which is based on
"conspiracy numbers" as a formal measure of the accuracy of the root
minimax value of an incomplete tree.  Trees can be grown with the goal
of maximizing the accuracy of the root value.  Trees grown in this way
are often deeper and narrower than alpha-beta optimal trees with the
same number of nodes.  On the other hand, if all nodes have the same
static value then the new procedure reduces to d-ply search with
alpha-beta pruning.  Unlike B* search, non-uniform growth is achieved
without any modification of the static board evaluator.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1986  17:21 EST
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - State, Models, and Qualitative Reasoning (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                    The Artificial Intelligence Lab
                        Revolving Seminar Series

               State, Models, and Qualitative Reasoning

                           Jerry  Roylance

                             AI Lab, MIT


Qualitative reasoning, modeling, and representations of state are
important issues in AI.  Machines need interesting models of their
task and methods that enable them to reason with those models.
Without models machines can offer little help in relieving the
programmer's or system builder's workload.

A conventional program is a literal description of what to do.  By
investing the program with a model of what it is doing and some methods,
we can use code that is both simpler and more believable.  Numerical
subroutines, for example, have several unifying ideas about search,
approximation, and transformation.  Using these ideas directly (rather
than the results of the ideas) eliminates a lot of ugly code.

While qualitative reasoners gain their power in the simplicity of their
algebra, they pay a price in resolving the ambiguity that that
simplicity produces.  We look at the simplifications that qualitative
reasoners do in light of the mathematical properties of the original
equations, the choice of distinguished values, and traditional
simulation methods.

Modeling a world is a difficult problem.  State is a part of modeling
that is not described very well; the best descriptions that we have are
Moore machine descriptions that the current state and the inputs give us
the next state.  Better, goal-oriented, descriptions that do more than
just simulation are needed.



Thursday, April 3  4:00pm  Room: NE43 8th floor Playroom

Refreshments at 3:30pm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 86 11:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Functional Computations in Logic Programs (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn> on Mon 31 Mar 1986 at 10:42


                   FUNCTIONAL COMPUTATIONS IN LOGIC PROGRAMS


                               Saumya K. Debray
                              SUNY at Stony Brook

                            Tuesday, April 1, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                               3:00 - 4:30 p.m.


While  the ability to simulate nondeterminism and return multiple outputs for a
single input  is  a  powerful  and  attractive  feature  of  logic  programming
languages,  it is expensive in both time and space.  This overhead is especialy
undesirable because programs are very often functional, i.e. do not return more
than  one  output  for any given input, and so do not use this feature of these
languages.  This talk describes how programs  may  be  analyzed  statically  to
determine which literals and predicates are functional, and how the program may
then be optimized using  this  information.    Our  notion  of  "functionality"
subsumes  the  notion  of  "determinacy"  that  has  been considered by various
researchers.  The algorithm we describe is less reliant  on  features  such  as
cut,  and  thus  extends  more  easily  to parallel evaluation strategies, than
others that have been proposed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
69
-DATE-
Date: 1 April 1986 0108-EST
-FROM-
From: Paul Birkel@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Metaplanning: Controlling Planning in a Complex Domain (CMU)
-BODY-

                          Metaplanning:

             Controlling Planning in a Complex Domain

                      Dissertation Proposal

                        Friday, April 4th
                          1:00-2:30 PM
                         Wean Hall 5409


All planners metaplan; few do so explicitly. Many planners find very
simple control mechanisms sufficient; the added overhead of a metaplanner
outweighs any apparent advantages. Whether implementing an explicit
metaplanner increases the capabilities of the resulting system is unknown.
Complex domains, such as therapy planning, include problems which would
be best handled by a metaplanner identifying and choosing alternative
planning strategies separate from the process of plan generation. These
problems include: unresolvably conflicting goals, conflicting measures of
goal satisfaction, unreliable operators, and incompletely specified initial
states. Previous therapeutic (@b<MYCIN>, @b<ONCOCIN>) and non-therapeutic
(@b<NOAH>, @b<SIPE>) planners alike are incapable of explicitly reasoning
about, and solving, combinations of these types of problems. A hierarchical
therapeutic planner will be implemented based on a @b(MOLGEN/SPEX) hybrid
architecture incorporating both tactical planning and strategic metaplanning
components. Four additional planning techniques are proposed which will be
developed and integrated into the architecture. The metaplanner will
subsequently be extended to achieve acceptable clinical performance on two
dozen clinical cases covering all combinations of these problems. The
performance of the system with and without the planning extensions, and
with and without the metaplanner will be analyzed.

        A copy of the thesis proposal is available in the
        CS lounge, 4th floor, Wean Hall. Please contact me
        for additional copies of the proposal (its long!).

                birkel@a or x3074

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 31 Mar 86 18:31:41-PST
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Rule-Based Systems and Heuristic Classification (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Rule-based Systems; Application to Heuristic Classification
Speaker:        William J. Clancey
From:           Knowledge Systems Laboratory
Date:           Wednesday, April 2, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556


This talk provides an broad overview of expert systems research,
using the Neomycin program as an example.  We consider in particular the
rule-based knowledge representation, showing how rules can be controlled
by an inference procedure.  Generalizing from this example, we consider
first the heuristic classification method of problem solving, showing how
a broad range of well-structured problems--embracing forms of diagnosis,
catalog selection, and skeletal planning--are solved in typical expert
systems.  Next, we consider kinds of problems that expert systems can be
used to solve, emphasizing the idea of a "system in the world" that is being
synthesized or analyzed.  Finally, we introduce the idea of a qualitative
model, showing how different kinds of network formalisms are used in expert
systems to describe processes.  The material in this talk will enable you
to relate the kinds of problems, solution methods, and representations in
expert systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 1986 18:45-EST
-FROM-
From: gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The MACE System (USC)
-BODY-
                 USC DPS GROUP MEETING

           Wednesday, 4/9/86   3:00 - 5:00 PM

                 Seaver Science 319

Les Gasser will speak on the MACE system.


MACE is a testbed for building generic Distribiuted AI systems from
organized collections of active "intelligent" entities called
@i[Agents] which run in parallel. It comprises a language for
describing agents, a language for describing a network of processors
upon which the agents run, and a simulator for executing the agents
in parallel. This talk will describe the philosophy and design goals of
MACE, the current versions of the MACE description languages, the
MACE simulator, and briefly discusses several experimental MACE
implementations.

The MACE language is constructed in two parts: the MACE Agent Description
Language which is sufficient for expressing agents or collections of
agents at any level (including composite agents), and the MACE
Environment Description Language which describes the underlying
computation hardware and simulator parameters. Individual
agents may draw upon other existing languages.

MACE has been implemented in COMMON LISP on a TI Explorer Lisp
Machine. We have several trial systems implemented (*) or partially
implemented (-).

> An ACTORS-like recursive Fibonacci computation which
  we have tested by creating up to 90 agents running in parallel.*

> An agent called BUILDER which interactively builds other agents
  through a second agent called USER-INTERFACE, both agents running
  in parallel.*

> An agent-based production system where each rule is an agent, and
  there is no global database nor centralized inference engine. (-)

> An 8-node hypercube with MACE agents running on each node, and a
  parallel broadcast facility among agents.*

> A distributed, multi-level blackboard built of agents. (-)

> A two-robot cooperative planner. (-)


Questions: Dr. Les Gasser, (213) 743-7794, gasser@usc-cse.usc.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 08:54:20-EST
-FROM-
From: Natalie F. Tarbet <NFT@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Expert Systems for System Management (MIT)
-BODY-
       [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


Fourth in a series of seminars on Large and Complex Computer
             Systems in the Commercial World


     "Expert Systems for System Management and Control

                            or

    What jobs in a large computing center can be automated?"


                     Keith R. Milliken
              IBM, Thomas Watson Research Center
                    Yorktown Heights, NY

                         NE43-512A
             Wednesday, April 2, 1986 at 3:15 p.m.



Several years ago, IBM's Thomas Watson Research Center began to
develop an expert system to assist with the operation of a large
computing complex.  This expert system, called YES/MVS (Yorktown
Expert System / MVS Manager), runs in real-time and can either
give advice or automatically take actions to manage computing
resources and respond to problems in a running system. This system
is of interest because it actively helps control, in real-time,
a very complex process.  YES/MVS has been used extensively in the
Yorktown Computing Center, and a second version is now being developed.

We will briefly describe YES/MVS and then focus on some of the expert
system issues that have arisen during YES/MVS development and the
approaches taken to resolve them.  Two of the issues that will be
emphasized are (1) knowledge representation for process control
expert systems and (2) approaches to knowledge base organization
that reduce the difficulty involved in modifying a large knowledge base.
The latter issue is especially important in the automation of computing
system operation because there are large variations between computing
centers in operational policy.

We shall briefly describe related efforts to automatically analyze the
performance of large computing systems, to deveop a special purpose
shell for computer performance expert systems and to use rule-based
techniques to control resource allocation in a large computing system.

Host: Arvind

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 17:21:06-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Theorem Proving (SRI)
-BODY-
                      TEMPORAL THEOREM PROVING

                          Martin Abadi (MA@SAIL)
                       Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, April 7
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

In spite of the wide range of applications of temporal logic,
proof techniques (especially for first-order temporal logic (FTL))
have been quite limited up to now.  We have developed a proof system R
for FTL. The system R is based on nonclausal resolution; proofs are
natural and generally short. Special quantifier rules, unification
techniques, and a resolution rule are introduced.  The system R is
directly useful for such tasks as verification of concurrent programs
and reasoning about hardware devices. Other uses of temporal resolution,
such as temporal-logic programming, are currently being considered.

We relate R to other proof systems for FTL and discuss completeness issues.
In particular, one variant of R is ``as complete as'' an extension of Peano
Arithmetic. We also describe resolution systems analogous to R for other modal
logics.  In fact, the resolution techniques and the corresponding completeness
arguments apply to a large class of modal logics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 April 1986 1720-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Network Propagation for Reasoning about Uncertainty (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:        Judea Pearl, UCLA
Date:           Tuesday, April 15
Time:           3:30 - 5:00
Place:          5409 Wean Hall
Title:          Network propagation for reasoning about uncertainty

                        Abstract:

In order to meet requirements of modularity, transparency and
flexibility, the designers of 1st-generation expert systems have
abandoned traditional probability theory and ventured to devise new
formalisms for managing uncertainties.  The talk will describe a
message-passing scheme in propositional networks which, using
traditional probability theory, fulfills these objectives of
expert systems technology.

I will argue that the notion of TRANSPARENCY is closely related to
reasoning with GRAPHS, namely, that an argument is perceived to be
"psychologically meaningful" if its derivational steps correspond
to mental tracings of pre-established links in some conceptual
dependency network.  Accordingly the first part of the talk will
introduce an axiomatic legitimization of representing inferential
dependencies by networks, and will compare the properties of two
such representations:  Markov Networks and Bayes Networks.

The second part will introduce a calculus for performing inferences
in Bayes Networks.  The impace of each new evidence is viewed as a
perturbation that propagates through the network via asynchronous
local communication among neighboring concepts.  We show that such
propagation mechanism facilitates flexible control strategies and
sound explanations, that it supports both predictive and diagnostic
inferences, that it is guaranteed (in sparse graphs) to converge in
time proportional to the network's diameter, and that every
proposition is eventually accorded a measure of belief consistent
with the axioms of probability theory.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 April 1986 1023-EST
-FROM-
From: Richard Wallstein@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Optical Artifical Intelligence Research in ECE (CMU)
-BODY-
Robotics Seminar

3:30 Friday April 11, 4623 Wean Hall

David Casasent, Director
Center for Excellence in Optical Data Processing
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

OPTICAL ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH IN ECE

Optical feature extraction and correlation distortion-invariant multi-class
multi-object recognition and identification research will be reviewed.  This
will be followed by a discussion of optical artificial intelligence efforts
currently in progress.  This effort includes:  optical relational graph and
decision net processors, optical symbolic processors, optical associative
memory processors, and optical neural net processors.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 1986 09:57-EST
-FROM-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Pragmatic Modeling: Robust NL Interface (MIT)
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.]


                           BBN Laboratories Inc.
                        Science Development Program
                           AI/Education Seminar


Speaker:  Professor Sandra Carberry
          University of Delaware

Title:    Pragmatic  Modeling:  Toward a Robust Natural
          Language Interface

Date:     Tuesday, April 15th, 10:30 a.m.
Place:    2nd floor large conference room
          BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge



                       PRAGMATIC MODELING:
            TOWARD A ROBUST NATURAL LANGUAGE INTERFACE





      Naturally occurring dialogue is both  imperfect  and  incomplete.  Not
only  does  the  information-seeker  fail to communicate all aspects of his
underlying task and partially constructed plan for  accomplishing  it,  but
also  his  utterances are often imperfectly or imcompletely formulated.  It
appears that human information-seekers expect  an  information-provider
to facilitate  a  productive  exchange  by assimilating the dialogue and
using this knowledge to remedy many of  the  information-seeker's  faulty
utterances.


      This talk will describe an on-going  research  effort  aimed  both  at
developing  techniques  for inferring and constructing a user model from
an information-seeking dialogue and at identifying strategies for  using
this model to develop more robust natural language interfaces.  Emphasis
will be on the dynamic  construction  of  the  task-related  plan
motivating   the information-seeker's   queries,  and  its application
in handling pragmatically ill-formed and incomplete utterances.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
70
-DATE-
Date: 27 Mar 86 16:37:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ti-csl!dnichols@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: BKG request
-BODY-

I am interested in obtaining a copy of Hans Berliner's
famous BKG program. Does anyone know of an implementation
in LISP or for UNIX?
I would also love to have a copy of the source for studying.

Can anyone help or can anyone tell me if Mr. Berliner is
on the net and how to reach him?

Please respond to me rather than flooding this list.

 *USNail*              *electronic*
Dan Nichols            USENET: {ctvax,im4u,texsun,rice}!ti-csl!dnichols
POB 226015 M/S 238     ARPA:  Dnichols%TI-CSL@CSNet-Relay
Texas Instruments Inc. CSNET: Dnichols@Ti-CSL
Dallas, Texas          VOICE: (214) 995-6090
75266                  COMPUSERVE: 72067,1465

He o shite shiri-tsubome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 86 15:46:09 EST
-FROM-
From: reiter@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Ehud Reiter)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP machines
-BODY-
Has anyone done a price/performance comparison of LISP machines with
conventional workstations running LISP?  If so, could they please send
me the results of their investigations?  I will summarize to the net if
there is a lot of interest.

My interest is academic (price/performance of different computer architectures)
not practical.  My initial hypothesis, based on looking over Richard Gabriel's
book PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION OF LISP SYSTEMS and on talking to people is
that special LISP processors offer a 2-3 fold speed advantage over a SUN 3 or
MicroVAX II class workstation, but at 2-3 fold greater cost.  Microcoded
architectures like Xerox's D-machines seem to offer little performance
improvement.

Please note that I am NOT interested in software issues like how good an
environment a machine provides.  This is strictly a hardware comparison.

Thanks.
                                                Ehud Reiter
                                                reiter@harvard.ARPA
                                                reiter@harvunxh.BITNET
                                                harvard!reiter.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 86 08:12 ???
-FROM-
From: Black holes are where God is dividing by zero
     <SHERZER%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: info on game playing systems
-BODY-
Can anyone give me any information on game playing AI programs? I
am especially interested in systems that play games where there is
a great deal of uncertainty.

Poker (or any card game) would be a good example. This is because
a Poker player does not have complete information about the other
players hand. The player is therefore forced to deduce the other
players hand by observing his play.

Chess would be a bad example because there is no missing
information. All possible moves for both players are known with
total certainty.

I would also be interested in any programs that build models of
a users behavior (especially a hostile one) with the goal of
guessing future behavior.

              Thanks in advance
              Allen Sherzer
              SHERZER@TI-EG.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 86 09:49 EST
-FROM-
From: Gocek.henr@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Machine Translation of Documents
-BODY-
I read a similar report that said machines are translating 100,000 pages
of text per year for various applications, and in some cases reach 95
percent accuracy.  The article I read, which was printed in the
Rochester Democrat & Chronicle on Sunday, 4/6/86, appeared to be
prompted by Xerox's use of machine translation.  (Xerox is big in
Rochester.)  The 95 percent accuracy was reached only in very
specialized applications, though.  Highly technical applications where
the technical jargon is unambiguous is a good application for machine
translation.  The European Common Market is trying to use a machine
translation system and is not obtaining 90 percent accuracy.

Gary
Gocek.Henr@Xerox.Com

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Apr 86 13:19:44-PST
-FROM-
From: GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Aviation Week Technical Survey
-BODY-
I think you should have given credit where credit is due: for example,
the DARPA Pilot's Associate program is also jointly supported by
Lockheed-Georgia and McDonnell Aircraft Company, since they together
are providing approximately half of the total $20 million.  Likewise,
the Autonomous Land Vehicle is jointly supported by DARPA and
Martin-Marietta and the first Navy Battle-Management Program (FRESH)
is partially supported by TI.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Mar 86  1257 PST
-FROM-
From: Les Earnest <LES@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp systems
-BODY-
We have been reviewing Common Lisp implementations that run on Sun
workstations.
The principal alternatives appear to be those made by Lucid and marketed
by Sun (415 965-780), Franz Inc. (415 769-5656) and Kyoto University, which
is marketed by Ibuki (415 949-1126).  We expect to be getting some of each
of these implementations for various purposes.  Ibuki's product
description is attached.

        Les Earnest

********************************************************************************


                          KCL PRODUCT DESCRIPTION


Kyoto Common Lisp (KCL) is a full implementation of Common Lisp.  It
contains all the Common Lisp functions, macros and special forms defined
in the Common Lisp Reference Manual.  It has both a compiler and an
interpreter.  Full sources are available for modification.

KCL was developed at the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan by Masami Hagiya and Taiichi Yuasa.
It is used throughout Japan for building expert systems and conducting
research in Artificial Intelligence.


                            THE FEATURES OF KCL

>- KCL is complete:  It supports all Common Lisp functions, macros and
   special forms defined in the Common Lisp Reference Manual; COMMON LISP:
   THE LANGUAGE, by Guy L. Steele et al, Digital Press, 1984.

>- A complete KCL is small:  It is only 1.4 MB with interpreter and
   compiler loaded.  For customers with source code,  this core image may be
   made even smaller by separating the compiler, intepreter and run-times
   and making everything inessential autoloadable.

>- KCL is efficient:  Its compilation time (including the two passes)
   and run time (both of compiled and interpreted code) have times
   comparable with the other Commmon Lisps present on the market
   (benchmarks appear in the KCL report).

>- The kernal of KCL is written in C and the rest in Common Lisp itself.
   Thus KCL is totally embedded in the C language and provides clean
   access to the underlying operating system.

>- KCL uses C and the standard C libraries as the interface to the
   operating system.  Using the standard I/O facilities greatly enhances
   the portability of KCL.

>- The KCL compiler is a two pass compiler with a first pass from LISP
   to C and a second from C to compiled code.  This allows the use of
   any optimizing C running on the machine to create efficient code which
   is totally compatible with preexisting compiled C code.

>- Having a kernel written in C and compiling to C, KCL is highly
   portable and independent of the machine and operating system.  It
   currently runs on the machines of six manufacturers and more are being
   added soon.

>- All KCL versions are made from the same sources.  This means that
   all versions behave the same and any Common Lisp code can be cross-
   compiled (by the KCL compiler) and the C code generated can be used
   on any of the systems running KCL.

>- The runtime efficiency of interpreted code has been as important a
   design criterion as the efficiency of compiled code.  This, together
   with its small size makes KCL appropriate for teaching.  Educational
   discounts are available.


IBUKI is dedicated to providing high quality software that is fairly priced
and allows the people using it maximal flexibility to get their problems
solved.   We believe in symbolic computing and want to make it available
on a wide scale.  For this reason we provide source code and simple,
inexpensive licensing arrangements.

Versions for VAXes and SUNs running UNIX 4.2 bsd are currently available
in the US and are being distributed by IBUKI.  For commercial use,
distribution fees are $700 per CPU for the object code and an additional
$700 for the sources.  For educational institutions the distribution fees
are $450 object and sources respectively.  Quantity discounts are available.

For further information about ordering, contact

IBUKI
399 Main Street
Los Altos, CA 94022

Phone: 415 949-1126
Telex: 348369
Netmail: KCL@SU-Carmel.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Mar 86 21:33:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: dual!islenet!jayf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jay Fields)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Borland Prolog
-BODY-
I just read in today's Infoworld that Borland has announced
a new Prolog for the IBM priced at 99.95.  They didn't say,
"Sorry, one per customer," either.

Aloha,
J Fields

PRC, Honolulu
...ihnp4/islenet/jayf
/* The usual disclaimers go here */

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 April 1986 1616-EST
-FROM-
From: Jaime Carbonell@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Yet another ML book...
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Not to be confused with "Machine Learning Vol I" and "... Vol II",
Kluwer Academic Publishers is coming out with a book titled:
"Machine Learning: A Guide to Current Research", which contains
a zillion (i.e. 77) very short papers -- rather than a lot fewer, but
much more detailed papers of the two ML volumes.  Thus, the
Kluwer book is very useful as a survey and guide to the symbolic
machine learning field, but not as useful for in-depth analysis
of techniques, ideas or applications.  Most of the short papers
are revised versions of those presented at the 1985 Machine
Learning III workshop.

[...]  There's a 30% discount on the 39.95 price and no shipping cost
(hence: 27.95) for prepaid orders received "soon" (ignore the April 1
date on the form).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1986  14:23 EST
-FROM-
From: HENRY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Jobs
-BODY-

A while back on this list, I mentioned a job bulletin board
sponsored by High Technology Professionals for Peace. It is
now available.  The number is (617) 969-2273, and hours of
operation are after 5 PM Eastern time weekdays and all day weekends.
It lists employers recruiting for non-military jobs.  Later
versions of the system will provide keyword retrieval.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 86 22:22:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reference Database on Logic
-BODY-
I currently post out a reference database on functional and logic
languages, denotational semantics and formal methods to various people.
It is never up to date but i add more when i have the time. If anybody
is interesting in recieving a copy, i post it at the beginning of every
month, please reply and i will add you to my distribution list.

Andy Cheese
Department of Computer Science
University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham
NG7 2RD
England

ARPA : abc@uk.ac.nott.cs

UUCP : ukc!nott.cs!abc

Andy Cheese

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 10:46:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rete query summary
-BODY-
Thanks to all who replied to my query about Rete algorithm info.
Here is a summary of the replies:

    From: Dan Scales <SCALES@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>

    I'm doing a master's thesis on modifying the Rete network
    implementation in OPS5 to be more efficient for an AI architecture
    called SOAR built on top of OPS5.  The main references for the Rete
    network itself are:

    Forgy, C. L., On the Efficient Implementation of Production Systems.
    PhD thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, CMU, February, 1979.

    Forgy, C. L.  Rete:  A Fast Algorithm for the Many Pattern/Many Object
    Pattern Match Problem, Artifical Intelligence 19(1), September 1982,
    17-37.

    Also, you should try to get the OPS5 (or other OPS) source code.  I
    assume it is freely distributed, since we have it here at Stanford.
    Unfortunately, it is not commented at all.
    ________________

    From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>

    ...  The person in the office next to mine has implemented the Rete
    algorithm.  It doesn't sound like he had too much trouble doing it.
    I guess the tricky part is keeping track of variable bindings for
    different invocations of a rule.
    ________________

    From: Robert Farrell <farrell@YALE.ARPA>

    Lee Brownston, Elaine Kant, Nancy Martin and I have a book called
    "Programming Expert Systems in OPS5" available that describes the
    algorithm in some detail. Also look at Forgy's AAAI article about
    how to implement them in assembler and his thesis from CMU.
    Or you can contact Forgy directectly at Forgy@CMU-CS-A.
    Also Liz Allen (used to be at MD) has hacked up one in the YAPS system,
    so she would be of help. Please don't contact me - I'm too busy.
    ________________

    FROM:  E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

    In response to  your query regarding Rete algorithms, here
    is a reference to a conference that will be published in April.
    It may prove useful to you:

    D BOOK22 Applications of Artificial Intelligence\
    %I Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers\
    %D 1-3 April 1986\
    %N 635\
    %C Orlando

    %A L. Lafferty
    %A D. Bridgeland
    %T Scavenger: an Experimental Rete Compiler
    %B BOOK22
    %K AI01
    ________________

    From: Dan Miranker <DAN@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>

    A cornerstone of my thesis, which I am just completing, is
    the development of a new production system algorithm, TREAT,
    and its comparison to RETE.

    The preliminary results are just coming in.  Even though
    TREAT was motivated by the algorithmic requirements of parallel
    processing it is doing better even in a sequential environment.

    I have an OPS5 implementation just coming to life.  It appears that
    TREAT reduces the number of comparisons to do variable binding by
    about 30%.  (TREAT does more work on an add to wm, but eliminates all
    the work RETE has to unwind when doing a delete).  TREAT also doen't
    use any of the "beta memories", which can be combinatorially explosive
    in size.  So it does better in space as well.  The absolute speed of
    the two OPS5 implementations,(mine and Forgy's) is currently roughly
    the same, but we haven't yet made any attempt to cleanup and speed up
    our code.

    The TREAT algorithm is also much easier to implement.  Our run
    time interpreter is 4 pages of LISP compared to Forgy's 12.

    The TREAT algorithm was described in the 1984 International
    conference on fifth generation computing, held in Tokyo.
    There is a slight error in the algorithm as published.  If you
    think you will be implementing TREAT let me know and I'll finally
    insert the correction into the tech report version and send
    that to you.
    ________________

    From: Jim Wogulis <wogulis@ICSE.UCI.EDU>

    We have a production system here that was developed my a number
    of people over a long period of time. Currently, Pat Langley
    has taken over maintaining/improving the system. It is written
    in Franzlisp, and I have ported it to Interlisp-D.

    Prism uses a rete net to store all the partial matches from
    the rules and facts. We will send it to anyone who is willing
    to pay for the taping charges (I think $100 for tape or floppy
    and $30 for the manual). This might help since there would
    be code to look at.
    ________________


                                Matt Heffron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
71
-DATE-
Date: 4 Apr 86 13:58:40 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!raybed2!gxm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (GERARD MAYER)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AAAI
-BODY-
The national conference on artificial intelligence AAAI-86 is Aug 11-15, 1986
Philadelphia, PA. Send program and registration inquiries to: AAAI-86, AAAI,
445 Burgess Dr., Menlo Park, CA 94025. This year there will be sessions (as
in the past) and a new emphasis on workshops. See AI magazine, winter 1986
for more information.

                                                Gerard Mayer
                                                Raytheon Research Division

                                                uucp  ..linus!raybed2!gxm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 86 08:33:51 pst
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Ames Symposium on Manufacturing Systems
-BODY-
From:   MER::ANDREWS

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center


                             SYMPOSIUM

        MODELING AND CONTROL IN FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

                      Friday, April 11, 1986


The fiels of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE and AUTOMATIC CONTROL have been
developing independently of one another despite many intrinsic common
interests.  A series of symposia is planned to explore this common ground
to better understand what are the long-range issues and fruitful directions
of basic research in AUTOMATIC CONTROL THEORY.

The present sysmposium is organized by Professor Giuseppe Menga, Department
of Automation and Information, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.

PROGRAM:  Friday, April 11, 1986

Morning
        9:30 - 10:00  Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University
        Opening Address - Modern System Theory in Manufacturing Applications

        10:00 - 11:00  Giuseppe Menga, Politecnico di Torino
        Modeling Flexible Manufacturing Systems by Heuristic Network Analysis

        11:00 - 12:00  Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University
        Perturbation Analysis in Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: An
        Application to Manufacturing

Afternoon
        1:00 - 2:00   Giuseppe Menga, Politecnico di Torino
        The Planning and Control System for Flexible Manufacturing Shops

        2:00 - 3:00   Agostino Villa, Politecnico di Torino
        Planning and Control in Multi-Stage Multi-Product Systems


The symposium will be held in Conference Room 172 in Building 233.  For
additional information, please contact anyone listed below:

Ralph Bach (415)695-5429     Rajiv Mehta x5440     George Meyer x5444
mar.bach@ames-vmsb.ARPA

***************************************************************************

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 86 18:35:15 cst
-FROM-
From: stevens@anl-mcs.ARPA (Rick Lyndon Stevens)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986
-BODY-

                  Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986

              Mathematics and Computer Science Division

                     Argonne National Laboratory

  You are invited to a workshop on automated reasoning to  be  held
  at  Argonne  National  Laboratory  on June 24 and 25, 1986.  This
  workshop, the fifth of its kind, will take the form of a  set  of
  tutorials.   Our  first  objective is to acquaint people with the
  basic aspects of automated reasoning and with the possible appli-
  cations.  Thus we shall discuss some of the previously open ques-
  tions we have solved and feature topics such  as  the  design  of
  logic  circuits,  the validation of existing circuit designs, and
  proving properties of computer programs.  Our second objective is
  to  learn  of new problems on which the current methodology might
  have an impact.  In fact, the preceding  workshops  did  lead  to
  such  discoveries,  as  well  as to collaborative efforts to seek
  solutions to these problems.  Enclosed is  a  tentative  schedule
  that  briefly  describes the various talks.  On the first day, we
  shall begin with an introductory lecture on what  automated  rea-
  soning  is.   We shall illustrate the various concepts first with
  puzzles.  Next, we shall focus on some applications of  automated
  reasoning.  We shall include a demonstration of an automated rea-
  soning program (ITP) that is portable, runs on  relatively  inex-
  pensive machines, and is available to other users.  On the second
  day we shall give an introduction to Prolog,  discuss  additional
  applications,  and  focus on state/space problems.  On both days,
  we have scheduled reviews of the material and  open  discussions.
  We  welcome  you  to  this  1986 workshop on automated reasoning.
  Participation will require a small charge, no more than $60.  In-
  cluded in this fee will be the cost of the book Automated Reason-
  ing:  Introduction and Applications, written  by  Wos,  Overbeek,
  Lusk, and Boyle and published by Prentice-Hall.  This book covers
  the field of automated reasoning from its basic elements  through
  various applications. Its tutorial nature will guide our approach
  to the workshop.  We urge you to respond to  this  invitation  as
  soon  as  possible  for, to retain the tutorial atmosphere of the
  workshop, we may be forced to limit the number  of  participants.
  The  order  in  which  requests are received will be an important
  parameter in issuing invitations to attend the workshop.


  Sincerely,



  L. Wos
  Senior Mathematician

  Please send all replies to

  ARPA:  wos@anl-mcs.arpa

  or

  Dr. Larry Wos
  Mathematics and Computer Science Division
  Argonne National Laboratory
  Argonne IL 60439



                Schedule for Automated Reasoning Workshop 1986

                          June 24-25, 1986

                     Argonne National Laboratory
                          Argonne, Illinois

  Tuesday, June 24

   9:00 - 9:15             Preliminary remarks - Larry Wos

   9:15 - 10:15            Introduction to  automated  reasoning  - Larry Wos

  10:15 - 10:30            Break

  10:30 - 11:30            Solving reasoning puzzles - Brian Smith

  11:30 - 12:30            Lunch

  12:30 -  1:15            Choices  of  strategies  and  inference rules
                           - Rusty Lusk

   1:15 - 1:30             Demonstration

   1:30 - 1:45             Break

   1:45 - 2:45             Proving properties of computer  programs - Jim Boyle

   2:45 - 3:00             Closing discussion - Larry Wos

  Wednesday, June 25

   9:00 - 9:15             Discussion - Larry Wos

   9:15 - 10:15            Introduction to Prolog - Rusty Lusk

  10:15 - 10:30            Break

  10:30 - 11:30            State-space problems - Rusty Lusk

  11:30 - 12:30            Lunch

  12:30 - 1:15             Circuit  design  and  validation  -  Jim Boyle

   1:15 - 1:45             Open problems in mathematics and logic - Rusty Lusk

   1:45 - 2:00             Break

   2:00 - 2:45             Details of the solution of an open problem in logic
                           - Larry Wos

   2:45 - 3:15             Our automated reasoning software - Rusty Lusk

   3:15 - 3:30             Closing remarks - Larry Wos

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 10:45:07 est
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Knowledge Engineering Forum
-BODY-
I. ANNOUNCEMENT

                              Announcing

                     KNOWLEDGE-ENGINEERING FORUM

                         Tuesday, May 6, 1986
                 University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
                           Christie Theatre

        Announcing a  conference on  knowledge   engineering (KE)  and
applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in business  and industry
in the Northeastern Wisconsin  area.   Featured are  presentations  by
practitioners  in the field, demonstrations of  hardware and software,
and an executive briefing/group discussion  on developing applications
and building an in-house KE group in your own situation.

        The fee for attending the conference is $30.00.  Enrollment in
the conference is limited.  For further  information about  attendance
and fee payment, please contact

        Prof. Dennis Girard
        College of Environmental Sciences
        University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
        Green Bay, WI  54301-7001
        Phone: 414-465-2285 (office)
               414-465-2371 (secretaries)

II. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

        8:30    Registration and coffee hour

        9:00    "Welcome" by David Jowett, Vice-Chancellor for
                Academic Affairs, UW-Green Bay

        9:15    "An Overview of Knowledge Engineering: The Theory,
                Practice, and Technology of Knowledge-Based Decision-
                Support Systems" by Roger Pick, Assistant Professor,
                Information Systems, Graduate School of Business,
                UW-Madison

        9:45    "Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering: A
                Perspective on the Future" by Clarke Harrison,
                Symbolics, Inc., Chicago, IL

        10:15   Break

        10:30   "Knowledge Engineering: A Practical Perspective" by
                Stephen Zvolner, Senior Research Scientist, Johnson
                Controls, Milwaukee, WI

        11:30   Lunch and informal group discussions

        1:00    Executive Briefing/Group Discussion

                (1) Executive Briefing: "Knowledge Engineering
                    Methodology" by Gene Korienek, Johnson Controls,
                    Milwaukee, WI

                (2) Group Discussion: "Developing an In-House
                    Knowledge-Engineering Group" by those attending
                    the conference

        2:30    Break

        2:45    Hardware and Software Demonstrations (to be announced)

        3:45    Review and Closing

III. COMMENTS AND TENTATIVE OUTLINE OF GENE KORIENEK'S EXECUTIVE
     BRIEFING ON KE METHODOLOGY

        The cornerstone of the conference is the 1:00-2:30 slot, which
is dedicated to the executive briefing on KE methodology and the group
discussion on developing  in-house KE groups.   The executive briefing
will be presented by Gene Korienek of Johnson Controls.   Gene is well
versed  in   the   theory, practice,   and   technology  of  knowledge
engineering and will integrate his presentation on KE methodology with
the group discussion on developing in-house KE groups.

        The key to  the integration of   the topics of  the  executive
briefing  and the  group  discussion  is to view  KE methodology on an
object level and the developing of in-house KE groups on a meta level.
Executives and managers are  concerned with the  design, building, and
maintaining of KE groups, which in turn are concerned with the design,
building, and maintaining of KE systems: executives and managers build
groups that build KE systems.  In order to build  a KE group, one must
have at least a general idea how to build a KE system.  The two topics
are intimately related and are best considered in one breath.

        Gene  plans to complete his   presentation in  the first  hour
(1:00-2:00).  During that time he will solicit  questions and comments
and will generally encourage group  participation.  The last half hour
(2:00-2:30) will be given over to the dynamics of group discussion.

        Gene's presentation on KE methodology will include some of the
following points of interest:

        (1) KE methodology  in general:  What  is  the methodology for
the  engineering  of  knowledge?  Does  KE    methodology differ  from
previous methodologies  for the design,  building,  and maintenance of
MIS and EDP applications?  If there is a difference, what is it?  Does
the  process of  iterative development   and   testing occur more   in
knowledge engineering than in MIS/EDP?  What role does  Prolog play in
the prototyping of KE systems?

        (2) The recruiting, training, and maintaining  of personnel to
staff an in-house KE group: How can local talent be  developed?  Do KE
personnel  have to be trained and  imported from   Silicon  Valley and
Boston, or  can  they be  trained  locally?    Once the  personnel are
recruited and  trained,  how can  they  be maintained?     How does  a
corporation in Northeastern Wisconsin keep  the interest and education
level of its in-house KE group alive?  What is to prevent members of a
KE group from leaving the local area for  greener pastures on the East
and West Coasts?

        (3) The acquisition and  development of hardware  and software
environments to be used by an in-house KE group in  the development of
KE  systems:  Why have  DEC-compatible  systems  and  the VAX computer
family  been so  popular in the  AI/KE  community?   How can the  Unix
development  environment for KE  systems be integrated  with  the  IBM
environment  that many  corporations   have    installed   for MIS/EDP
applications?

        How do the  GNU Project and   the  emergence of  freeware as a
        viable  economic  force  affect a   corporation's strategic KE
        plan?  What is the GNU Project Emacs?

        What is GNU  Emacs?  It is  said that Emacs  is  more than  an
        editor: Emacs is an entire development  environment which fits
        naturally  and   effortlessly    into    a   Unix  development
        environment.  Why is this the case?

        Should  a business or   industrial corporation that   plans to
        develop an in-house KE group follow  the traditional  academic
        AI/KE path of DEC, VAX,  Unix, and GNU   Emacs, or should  the
        corporation  instead follow  the  commercial path  laid out by
        IBM?  What are the  theoretical,  practical, and technological
        considerations for comparing, contrasting, and integrating the
        DEC/VAX/Unix/Emacs environment with the IBM environment?

        (4) The  human  process of actually building  KE systems: What
are the group dynamics involved in the process of building KE systems?
How do this  process and  the group  dynamics of  in-house  KE  groups
differ from what takes place under the MIS/EDP paradigm?

IV. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE TOPICS FOR THE GROUP
    DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPING IN-HOUSE KNOWLEDGE-ENGINEERING GROUPS

        The development of an in-house  knowledge-engineering group is
a deliberate and gradual  process that unfolds within a  corporation's
long-range strategic plan.  This process requires a commitment on both
the corporate and  community  levels in order  to  train, recruit, and
maintain  the    human resources and   to   acquire  and   develop the
knowledge-engineering environment.  There are three  areas to consider
in the  development of  in-house  KE groups: A.   Individual Corporate
Action; B. Community Action; C. A Vision of Knowledge Engineering.

A. Individual Corporate Action

        (1) Cooperation with other businesses in the training and
            maintaining of local personnel

        (2) A team to fulfill the five basic functions of each KE
            project:

                (a) Project leader
                (b) Domain expert--hence the name "expert system"
                (c) Conceptualist: Plan, design, and document
                (d) Encoder: Implement and test
                (e) Systems programmer: Unix and IBM systems

B. Community Action

        (1) Formation of an ACM-SIGART chapter

        (2) Teaching of AI languages (Lisp, Prolog), production
            systems (ITP, OPS5, OPS83), and KE courses in area high
            schools, technical colleges, and at the university (both
            undergraduate and graduate levels)

        (3) Establishment of a regional AI/KE training center for
            Northeastern Wisconsin at the university level

C. A Vision of Knowledge Engineering

        (1) The Knowledge Age: theory, practice, and technology

                (a) The practical focus of KE on decision-support
                    systems (DSS) and information-retrieval systems
                    (IRS) differentiates KE from AI.

                (b) Such articles as "Why Computers May Never Think
                    Like People" (Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus,
                    "Technology Review", January, 1986) are of
                    immediate benefit to KE and of questionable value
                    to AI.

        (2) Theory, practice, and technology: A modern structure in
            America and Japan inherited from ancient Greece (theoria,
            praxis, and techne)

                (a) Forthcoming Prentice-Hall manuscript, "A Vision of
                    Knowledge Engineering" by Tom Scott (Autumn 1987)

                (b) Japanese R&D projects in AI/KE: Fifth Generation
                    Computing System (FGCS) and Sixth Generation
                    Computing System (SGCS)

                (c) MCC: America's cooperative challenge to Japanese
                    FGCS and SGCS

V. FINAL COMMENTS

        Since the  detailed format  and  content of the conference are
still being arranged, the schedule of events and comments in the above
four sections (I-IV) are subject to  change.   For  information on the
final schedule and attendance at  the conference, please contact Prof.
Dennis Girard at the phone number or address listed in section I.

                                * * *

        Tom Scott                    CSNET: scott@bgsu
        Dept. of Math. & Stat.       ARPANET: scott%bgsu@csnet-relay
        Bowling Green State Univ.    UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Bowling Green OH 43403-0221  ATT: 419-372-2636 (work)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
72
-DATE-
Date: 29 Mar 86 19:27:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Barry Shein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-

Re: should computers display emotions

I guess a question I would be more comfortable with is "would people
be happier if computers mimicked emotions". Ok, from experience we
see that people don't love seeing messages like "Segmentation Violation --
Core Dumped" (although some of us for different reasons.)

Would they be 'happier' if it said 'ouch'? Well, probably not, but the
question probably comes down to more of a human-engineering machine
interface issue.

We certainly got somewhat ridiculous at one extreme (we being systems
people not unlike myself, maybe not you) with things like:

IEF007001 PSW=001049FC 0E100302

pretending to be error messages, let's face it, that's no less artificial
(and barely more useful unless you have a manual in hand and know how
to use that manual and know how to understand that manual, often the
manual was written by the same sort of brain that thought IEF007001
was helpful) than 'ouch'. We (again, we system types) have just come
to accept that sort of cruft as being socially correct (at least not
embarrasing as we might feel if we put 'ouch' into our O/S err routines).

The macintosh displays a a frowning face when it's real unhappy, most
people I know chuckled once and then remarked "that's really stupid,
how about some useful info jerks?" (like IEF007001?) I wouldn't be the
least bit surprised to hear that those smiley/frowney macs lost them
heaps of sales (we can't have CUTE on the CEO's desk...give me IEH007001!)

I think we keep straddling some line of appearing real professional
(IEF007001) vs terminal cutesiness (ouch.) I suppose there is a huge
middle ground with some dialogue (like computer dialogues).

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Mar 86 23:36:03 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!hplabsb!marvit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Marvit)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
> Mark Davis asks if computers have anything akin to human feelings.
>
> Barry Kort  responds with a wonderful description of a gigantic telephone
  switching system and draws a powerful parallel with its sensors and
  resulting information about physical problems and the very human sense of
  pain.

A friend of mine and I were discussing a similar point. If a computer
were able to tell us "what it is like to be a computer," would it be considered
concious?  That is, what would be our nomenclature for a system which could
describe its innards and current state (and possibly modify some of itself -
perhaps by taking "home remedies").

My friend is a philosopher and I am a computerscientist/humanist (admittedly
an oxymoron at times).  I contend conciousness is a slippery term which I
find uncomfortable.  Further, existing computer systems exhibit such behavior,
albeit in a somewhat crude and unsophiticated fashion (see "df" or "fsck").
Barry gave another excellent example, cited above.

However, the question is still a valid one- if one looks beyond the operational
issues and poses the more subtle philosophical query: What is it like to "be"
anything and what would/could a computer say about itself?  At one point,
I argued that the question may be completely outside the computer's world view.
That is, it would be like asking a five year old what sex feels like (please,
no flames about sophisticated tykes).  The computer wouldn't have the vocabu-
lary or internal model to be able to answer that.  Yet, if we programmed
that capability in ...

I look forward to your thoughts on the net or to me.

Peter Marvit      ...!hplabs!marvit
                  Hewlett-Packard Laboratories

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Mar 86 14:53:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: nike!riacs!seismo!cit-vax!trent@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ray Trent)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: re: Computer Dialogue #1
-BODY-
In article <2345@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>toasters do"... doesn't mean that a combination of many toasters cannot, and
>You are actually quite correct.  There's one problem here.  Toasters can store
>perhaps two or three bytes of information.  Consider how many toasters

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the currently
dominant theory about the way human beings remember things says
that brain store NO "bytes" of information at all, but that
memory is a congregate effect generated by the _interconnections_
of the brain cells.

The only papers I have read on this subject are by John Hopfield
here at Caltech. Does anyone out there have any pointers to good
research (people or papers) being done in this field? (have
email, will summarize)

I am particularly interested by this subject because I have seen
simple programs that simulate the connection matrix of a simple
neural network. This program can "remember" things in a
connection matrix, and then "recall" them at a later time given
only pieces of the original data. Sample session:

% learn "Ross" "Richard" "Sandy"...
% ask "Ro"
Ross
% ask "Ri"
Richard
% ask "R"
Rqchird

Note the program's reaction to an ambiguous request; it
extrapolated from what it "knew" to a reasonable guess at a "real
memory" (note that 'i' + 8 = 'q' and 'a' + 8 = 'i' so the memory
was correct up to 1 bit in each of two places.)

The interesting thing about this sort of scheme is its reaction
to failed active elements. If you destroy (delete) several
locations in the connection matrix, the program doesn't lose any
specific knowledge, but it becomes harder for it to extrapolate
to the "real memory" and distinguish these from "spurious
memories." Of course, after a certain point...things break down
completely, but it's still interesting.

"In a valiant attempt to save the universe, his large intestine
leapt out of his body and throttled him..."

(if you don't understand that, ignore it.)


>-
                                        ../ray\..
                                (trent@csvax.caltech.edu)
"The above is someone else's opinion only at great coincidence"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Apr 86 17:41:51-PST
-FROM-
From: GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
Why don't you try to define what you mean by "feel?"  If you get
beyond a definition based on fairly mechanistic principles, then you
have a discussion; if you don't, then your computer will probably be
shown (uninterestingly) to feel by definition.  I think it's koans
like this (assuming it isn't an April Fool joke) that keep the Dreyfi
in business and that suggest that the field needs serious tightening.

If the computer should "feel" anything, why should you assume that it
feels bad when it doesn't seem to be working correctly?  Perhaps it's
taking a vacation; probably it hates people and loves to make them
mad.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Apr 86 12:53:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
Peter Marvit asks if computers can have anything akin to consciousness
or self-awareness similar to humans.  Excellent question.

One thing that computers *can* have is simulation models of other
systems.  The National Weather Bureau's computers have a model
of atmospheric dynamics that tracks the evolution of weather patterns
with sufficient accuracy that their forecasts are at least useful,
if not perfect.

NASA and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) have elaborate computer
models of spacecraft behavior and interplanetary ballistics, which
accurately track the behavior and trajectory of the real mission
hardware.

Computers can also have models of other computers, which emulate
in software the functioning of another piece of hardware.

What would happen if you gave a computer a software model of *its
own* hardware configuration and functioning?  The computer could
run the model with various perturbations (e.g. faults or design
changes) and see what happened.  Now suppose that the computer
was empowered to use this model in conjunction with its own
fault-detection network.  The computer could diagnose many of
its own ills, and choose remedial action.  It could also explore
the wisdom of possible reconfigurations or redesigns.  Digital
Equipment Corporation (DEC) has an Expert System that works out
optimal configurations for their VAX line of computers.  The
Expert Systems runs on....(you guessed it)... a VAX.

If a computer can have a reliable model of itself, and can use
that model to maintain and enhance its own well-being, are we
very far away from rudimentary consciousness?

For some delightful and delicious reading on computer self-awareness,
the meaning of the word "soul", and related philosophical musings,
I recommend _The Mind's I_, composed and arranged by Douglas Hofstadter
and Daniel Dennett.

>-Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat,  5 Apr 86 14:46:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Byte of Toast.
-BODY-
Quoted in Vol 4 # 62 :-
``Our brains are enormously complex computers''.
If so, then do we all run the same operating system?
And what are the operating systems of toasters?
Gordon Joly,
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Apr 86 03:09:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester
     !rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: what's it like (TV dialogue #1)
-BODY-
Reporter:  "Mr. Computer, what's it like to be a computer?"
Computer:  "Well, it's hard to explain, Frank, ..."
Reporter:  "For example, what's it like to be able to read a magtape
           at 6250 bpi?"
Computer:  "It feels just great, Frank.  Really great."

Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
73
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 86 10:23:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!ll-xn
     !mit-amt!mit-eddie!psi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
Hi:
        Before the recent tragedy, there had been a number of
instances where the space shuttle computers aborted the mission in the
final seconds before launch.  My explanation for this was that the
on-board computers were displaying a form of 'programmed survival
instinct.'  In short: they were programmed to survive, and if the
launch had continued, they might not have.
        Almost everyone I told explained this to back then was
incredulous.  "You don't actually _believe_ that the computer wanted
to survive, do you?" was a typical comment.  I feel this brings out an
important point, though, which deals with simulation, feelings, and
our understanding of The Real Thing.
        On a computer, simulating an event and the actual event may be
indistinguishable.  (This does not mean, as one of my friends
believed, that in a computer simulation of a hurricane, the simulated
victims of the storm would be rained upon by square-root symbols.;-))
For example, if a computer can run programs in the language Lisp and
we then write a simulator for the language CLU in Lisp, then the
computer can actually run programs in CLU.
        Now, what does this mean for feelings?  Well, I won't go that
far, but I would assert that a 'survival instinct' is a much simpler
thing that can be simulated on a computer.  The space shuttle
computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive.  No
consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.
        The successes in AI so far have been in very restricted areas,
to say the least.  Certain well-understood human abilities have been
simulated on computers.  Where the ability is less understood, like
that of a chess master, the simulation breaks down.  Where something
such as 'survival' may be understood, I challenge anyone to come up
with a generalized theory of 'feelings.'
        A final point: whenever we understand something, it loses its
magical properties for us.  If, for example, we observe the complex
behavior of some program, we may be amazed.  When we look at the
sources and see how it works, however, we will probably feel that
there really is no magic there, and that we could have written the
program ourselves.  The same could be true of parts of the mind
which we understand.  The simpler facilities, like an instinct to
survive may seem obvious, while others, such as the feeling of love
may yet seem mystical.  Maybe someday we will come to understand even
that and be able to program it into computers.
                        Ultimately Yours,
                                Joseph J. Mankoski ***PSI***
                                {decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!psi
                                psi@mit-ai.ARPA
        In the fullness of time even parallel lines will meet.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 3 Apr 86 20:43:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!venu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Venugopala
     R. Dasigi)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
In article <1439@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> psi@mit-eddie.UUCP writes:
>thing that can be simulated on a computer.  The space shuttle
>computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
>same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive.  No
>consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
>It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
>the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
>animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.
To me it appears that the ability to dynamically redefine the goal in a
context-sensitive manner is also an important characteristic of the
"survival instinct". While animals seem to have this ability, programming
this ability into computers (in the same sense as in the case of animals) is
perhaps very difficult.
>-- Venu
Venugopala Rao Dasigi
UUCP   : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!venu
CSNet  : venu@umcp-cs
ARPA   : venu@mimsy.umd.edu
US Mail: Dept. of CS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park MD 20742.
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 7 Apr 86 03:15:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester
     !rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: survival instinct
-BODY-
It depends on what you mean by "wanted." Even rocks are programmed to
survive--they're hard.  (The soft ones become dirt: survival of the fittest!)
        "This rock, for instance, has an I.Q. of zero.  Ouch!"
        "What's the matter, Professor?"
        "It bit me!"
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
>-----------------------------
-END-
    -DATE-
Date: 5 Apr 86 13:51:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
Joseph Mankoski writes a thought provoking article on whether
survival logic in NASA computers has any connection to human
survival instincts wired into to our brains from birth.
I have been pondering this question myself.  It seems to me
that I have some autonomic responses to threat situations
which appeear to be wired-in instincts.  I note that I don't rely
on them often.  Most times, I rely on learned behavior to handle
situations which might have called for fight/flight/freeze if
I were living as a hunter-gatherer on the Savannahs some 20,000
years ago.
Joseph asks for a theory of feelings.  As it happens, I just wrote
a brief article on the subject, which may or may not be suitable
for publication after editorial comment and revision.  Just for
the hell of it, let me append the article and solicit comments
from netters interested in this topic.
==================== Article on Feelings ========================
       A Simplified Model of the Effects of Perceived Aggression
                        in the Work Environment
                                Barry Kort
                              Copyright 1986
       Introduction
       The work environment offers a mix of personalities.  In this
       paper, I would like to examine the effects of one dimension
       along which personalities are perceived to differ, and trace
       the consequential effects.  I would like to focus attention
       on the dimension
       aggressive...assertive...politic...nonassertive...nonaggressive.
       The effects that I wish to investigate are not the
       behavioral responses, but the more fundamental internal body
       sensations or somatic reactions which lie behind the
       subsequent behavioral response.  The goal of this
       investigation is to discover the biological roots of somatic
       reactions to stressors in the work environment, and develop
       a useful model of the underlying dynamics.  I make no claims
       that the model constructed here is complete or
       comprehensive.  To do so is beyond my ken.  Rather, I have
       attempted to construct a first crude model, which despite
       it's simplicity, can be advantageously applied to ameliorate
       a few of the ills that we encounter in the work environment.
       A Model of Nature of Aggressive Behavior
       It has been said that civilization is a thin veneer.
       Underneath our legacy of some 5000 years of civilization
       lies our evolutionary past.  Deep within the human brain one
       can find the vestiges of our animal nature-the old mammalian
       brain, the old reptilian brain.  Of principal interest here
       are two groups of structures responsible for much of our
       "wired-in" instincts.
       The cerebellum is responsible for much of our risk-taking,
       self-gratifying drives, including the aggressive sex drives.
       It is the cerebellum that says, "Go for it!  This could be
       exciting!  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
       The limbic system, on the other hand, is responsible for
       self-protective behaviors.  The limbic system perceives the
       threats to one's safety or well-being, and initiates
       protective or counter measures.  The limbic system says,
       "Hold it!  This could be dangerous!  We'd better go slow and
       avoid those torpedoes."
       Rising above it all resides the neocortex or cerebrum.  This
       is the "new brain" of homo sapiens which is the seat of
       learning and intelligence.  It is the part that gains
       knowledge of cause and effect patterns, and overrules the
       myopic attitude of the cerebellum and limbic system.
       Occasionally, the cerebral cortex is faced with a novel
       situation, where past experience and learning fail to
       provide adequate instruction in how to proceed.  In that
       case, the usual patterns of regulation are ineffective,
       and the behavioral response may revert back to the more
       primitive instincts.
       Whether or not the cerebral cortex carries the day, the
       messages of the cerebellum and limbic system ricochet
       through the nervous system, leaving their signature here and
       there.  In the next section, we explore how these messages
       manifest themselves in somatic sensations, commonly known as
       feelings.
       Somatic Reactions to Stress
       When an individual is presented with an unusual situation,
       the lack of an immediately obvious method of dealing with it
       may lead to an accumulation of stress which manifests itself
       somatically.  For instance, first-time jitters may show up
       as a knotting of the stomach (butterflies), signaling fear
       (of failure).  A perceived threat may cause increased heart
       rate, sweating, or a tightening of the skin on the back of
       the neck.  (This latter phenomenon is commonly known as
       "raising of one's hackles," which in birds, causes the
       feathers to stand up in display mode, warning off the
       threatening invader.) Teeth clenching, which comes from
       repressing the urge to express anger, leads to a common
       affliction among adult males-temporal mandibular joint
       (TMJ).  Leg shaking and pacing indicate a subliminal urge to
       flee, while cold feet corresponds to frozen terror (playing
       'possum).  All of these are variations on the
       fight/flight/freeze instincts mediated by the limbic system.
       They often occur without our conscious awareness.  Another
       reaction is migraine headaches which arise when one is vexed
       by the situation at hand, and is searching without success
       for a rational solution.  A person's awareness of and
       sensitivity to such somatic feelings may affect his mode of
       expression.  The somasthetic cortex is the portion of the
       brain where the body stresses are registered, and this
       sensation may be the primary indication that a stressor is
       present in the environment.  A challenge for every
       individual is to accurately identify which environmental
       stimulus is linked to which somatic response.
       Somatic responses such as those outlined above are
       intimately connected with our expressed feelings, which
       usually are translated into some behavioral response along
       the axis from aggressive to assertive to politic to
       nonassertive to nonaggresive.  The challenge is to find and
       effectuate the middle ground between too much communication
       and too little.  The goal of the communication is to
       identify the cause and effect link between the environmental
       stressor and the somatic reaction, and from the somatic
       reaction to the behavioral response.  The challenge is all
       the more difficult because the most effective mode and
       intensity of the communication depends on the maturity of
       the other party.
       Acknowledgements
       The original sources for the ideas assembled in this paper
       are too diffuse to pinpoint with completeness or precision.
       However, I would like to acknowledge the influence of so
       many of my colleagues who took the time to contribute their
       ideas and experiences on the subject matter.  I especially
       would like to thank Dr. John Karlin, Dr. R. Isaac Evan, and
       Dr. Laura Rogers who helped me shape and test the models
       presented here.
=========================================================================
Comments are invited.
>-Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort
>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
74
-DATE-
Date: Thu,  3 Apr 86 11:52:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Less on IQ tests for Computers, more on Editorial Policy?
-BODY-
Scott Preece asks in Vol 4 # 66 :-

``Do we really want this list to be a battleground for unsubstantiated
personal opinions on the potential for machine intelligence?'' Agreed
that this a moderated digest, it is interesting to note that the net.ai
forum is currently carrying a discussion of the cognitive (and emotional)
abilities of an arbitrarily large number of toasters. Here is an example:-

> In article <2345@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >You are actually quite correct.  There's one problem here.  Toasters can
> >store perhaps two or three bytes of information.  Consider how many
> >toasters would be required to be as complex as a human brain.
> >
> >And as for the future toasters, toasters' primary function is to affect
> >items of a definite physical size (toast).
> >--
> >Kenneth Arromdee
>
> Gee, I always thought that toasters' primary function was to affect
> items of a definite physical size (bread).
> --
>
> When you meet a master swordsman,
> show him your sword.
> When you meet a man who is not a poet,
> do not show him your poem.
>                      - Rinzai, ninth century zen master
>
> --Nathan Hess
> uucp: {allegra, ihnp4}!psuvax1!gondor!hess
> csnet:  hess@penn-state.CSNET
> Bitnet:  HESS@PSUVAXG.BITNET

I would also like to extract this from the List_of_Lists :-

>  Contributions may be anything from tutorials to rampant speculation.  In
>  particular, the following are sought:
>      Abstracts                        Reviews
>     Lab Descriptions                 Research Overviews
>     Work Planned or in Progress      Half-Baked Ideas
>     Conference Announcements         Conference Reports
>     Bibliographies                   History of AI
>     Puzzles and Unsolved Problems    Anecdotes, Jokes, and Poems
>     Queries and Requests             Address Changes (Bindings)

The poetry of Rinzai is illuminating, cf Vol 4 # 50,53, and very apt.

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

  [I am unable to follow the logic of this message, but find it
  easier (and faster!) to let it pass than to engage in editorial
  debate with Gordon.  Contributors should note that it is they,
  not I, who control the quality of AIList.  My thanks to you
  all; keep up the good work.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri,  4 Apr 86 12:53:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: World Times, April 1, 2284.
-BODY-
A  special analysis of the entries in the  AI Digests of the
mid 1980's  has shown that all  the entries written by  "The
Joka" were the products of an automated intelligent system.
This  result is regarded by some as an  interesting twist on
the Turing test.

Other News.

Today the World's first trial by computer was held. The jury
consisted of 12 independent intelligent systems and they sat
at the World Court in the U.N.  The jury returned it's first
verdict after a few seconds,  and the judge commented on the
impartiality of the jurors, unclouded by any emotion or form
of prejudice. On trial was the off-world outlaw, Roy Baty...

Reporter : PiQuan.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 86 9:38:45 CST
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Professional ethics.
-BODY-
Over the past several months I have been receiving the AIList, and
I must take this time to express some concerns of mine.  I have seen
several "policy notices" and debates raging where the authors have
lowered themselves to the level of the "ad homina"(sp?) attack.
One should have more substantive comments if one wishes to express
criticism, and not resort to personal attacks.

I am in no way opposed to healthy debate, even if it should become
heated.  However, there seems to be some dislike, on the part of many,
of pointed criticism.  I wish to admonish those who take part in
this medium of intellectual exchange to express a little more common
courtesy and professional ethic, if indeed either of these still
remain.  Let's drop the name-calling.

I personally welcome criticism of AI, even if it (the criticism) may
be in left field.  After all, many think we are in left field, while
we may hold that they are in left field.  So, exactly where is left
field? Perhaps it is dependent on ones own position?  Also, we should
remember that this is a monitored digest.  I personally trust the
discretion of Ken, who I think does a good job, to weed out any
inappropriate notices.  Thus, I would love to see this list continue
to announce various product and research development, whether it be
presented by a party directly involved in the development or someone
farther removed.  As long as it is not out and out advertisement, I,
as well as others (I think), am interested in such postings.

Enough for now...

Glenn O. Veach
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Department of Computer Science
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-2192
(913) 864-4482
veach%ukans.csnet@csnet-relay.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Apr 86 10:50:34-PST
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V4 #70
-BODY-
Part of this AIlist reads perilously like an advertisement, even though it is
protected by Les Earnest's mention.  Do we have to have whole 'product
descriptions' ( ie advertising brochures ) put out over the net? Isn't that
( just slightly ) illegal?
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 16 Mar 86 22:01:03-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Policy - Press Releases
-BODY-
A press release typically contains factual information; the cost of
transmitting it is small.  Is it not always in the government's
interest for me to pass on the information to those who may need it
rather than to censor it (to avoid annoying those who don't)?

Early net organizers were no doubt [rightly] worried about corporate
PR departments broadcasting unwanted press releases to everyone on
the net.  The situation has changed.  A press release judged appropriate
for a narrow-topic discussion list by its moderator is unlikely to
offend many (other than self-appointed censors) or to seriously
waste the time of the list members.  It will not mislead readers so long
as it is clearly marked as a commercial message.  The inherent bias of
such messages is mitigated by the opportunity for immediate rebuttal
and for submission of equally biased messages supporting other views.
Any resulting controversy sparks interest and keeps the list active.
Outright flaming or numbing repetition can be prevented by the moderator.
If the moderator fails to intervene, comments from disgruntled readers
will fill his (or her) mailbox and eventually become a metadiscussion
within the list itself.  Readers who get tired of all this can drop out.

My view is that policy on commercial content (hardware hype, job ads,
prices, whatever) within a discussion list should be set by the
moderator and the list members -- not by conventions required for
unmoderated message streams.  The Arpanet administrators and host
administrators will always hold the trump, of course; they can refuse
to support any list that violates >>their<< standards.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1986  15:56 EST
-FROM-
From: Dick@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LetS -- a new Lisp loop notation
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


  This message advertises a Common Lisp macro package called LetS (rhymes with
process) which it is hoped will become a standard iteration facility in Common
Lisp.  LetS makes it possible to write a wide class of algorithms which are
typically written as loops in a functional style which is similar to
expressions written with the Common Lisp sequence functions.  LetS supports a
number of features which make LetS expressions more expressive than sequence
expressions.  However, the key feature of LetS is that every LetS expression is
automatically transformed into an efficient iterative loop.  As a result,
unlike sequence expressions, LetS expressions are just as efficient as the
traditional loop expressions they replace.
  An experimental version of LetS currently exists on the MIT-AI machine in the
file "DICK;LETS BIN".  Although LetS is written in Common Lisp, it has not yet
been tested on anything other than a Symbolics Lisp Machine.   For various
detailed reasons it is unlikely to run on any other machine.  Everyone who
wants to is invited to borrow this file and try LetS out.  I am very
interested to hear any and all comments on LetS.
  Extensive documentation of LetS is in the file "DICK;LETSD >" also on the
MIT-AI machine.  Even people who do not have a Lisp Machine or are not able
to access the code are invited to read this documentation and make comments on
it.  I am interested in getting as wide a feedback as possible.  If you cannot
access the documentation file directly, send me your US mail address and I will
mail you a copy.  The documentation is much too long to reliably send via
computer mail.
  After an initial testing and feedback period, a final version of LetS which
runs under all Common Lisps will be created along with formal documentation.
This should happen within a couple of months.
  A very brief summary of lets is included at the end of this message.

                                                Dick Waters


  The advantages (with respect to conciseness, readability, verifiability and
maintainability) of programs written in a functional style are well known.  A
simple example of the clarity of the functional style is provided by the
Common Lisp program below.  This function computes the sum of the positive
elements of a vector.

(defun sum-pos-vect (v)
  (reduce #'+ (remove-if-not #'plusp v)))

  A key feature of sum-pos-vect is that it makes use of an intermediate
aggregate data structure (a sequence) to represent the selected set of vector
elements.  The use of sequences as intermediate quantities in computations
makes it possible to use functional composition to express a wide variety of
computations which are usually represented as loops.  Unfortunately, as
typically implemented, sequence expressions are extremely inefficient.
  The problem is that straightforward evaluation of a sequence expression
requires the actual creation of the intermediate sequence objects.  Since
alternate algorithms using loops can often compute the same result without
creating any intermediate sequences, the overhead engendered by using sequence
expressions is quite reasonably regarded as unacceptable in many situations.
  A solution to the problem of the inefficiency of sequence expressions is to
transform them into iterative loops which do not actually create any
intermediate sequences before executing them.  For example, sum-pos-vect might
be transformed as shown below.

(defun sum-pos-vect-transformed (v)
  (prog (index last sum element)
        (setq index 0)
        (setq last (length v))
        (setq sum 0)
      L (if (not (< index last)) (return sum))
        (setq element (aref v index))
        (if (plusp element) (setq sum (+ element sum)))
        (setq index (1+ index))
        (go L)))

  Several researchers have investigated the automatic transformation of
sequence expressions into loops.  For example, APL compilers transform many
kinds of sequence expressions into loops.
  Unfortunately, there is a fundamental problem with the transformation of
sequence expressions into loops.  Although many sequence expressions can be
transformed, many cannot.  For example, Common Lisp provides a sequence
function (reverse) which reverses the elements in a sequence.  Suppose that a
sequence expression enumerates a sequence, reverses it, and then reduces it to
some value.  This sequence expression cannot be computed without using
intermediate storage for the enumerated sequence because the first element of
the reversed sequence is taken from the last element of the enumerated
sequence.  There is no way to transform the sequence expression into an
efficient loop without eliminating the reverse operation.
  A solution to the problems caused by the presence of non-transformable
sequence operations is to restrict the kinds of sequence operations which
are allowed so that every sequence expression is guaranteed to be
transformable.  For example, one could start by outlawing the operation
reverse.

                                     LETS

  LetS supports a wide class of sequence expressions that are all guaranteed
to be transformable into efficient loops.  In order to avoid confusion with
the standard Common Lisp data type sequence, the data type supported by LetS
is called a series.
  Using LetS the program sum-pos-vect would be rendered as shown below.  The
function Evector converts the vector v into a series which contains the same
elements in the same order.  The function Tplusp is analogous to
(remove-if-not #'plusp ...) except that it operates on a series.  The function
Rsum corresponds to (reduce #'+ ... :initial-value 0) except that it takes in
a series as its argument.

(defun sum-pos-vect-lets (v)
  (Rsum (Tplusp (Evector v))))

  LetS automatically transforms the body of this program as shown below.  The
readability of the transformed code is reduced by the fact that it contains a
large number of gensymed variables.  However, the code is quite efficient.
The only significant problem is that too many variables are used.  (For
example, the variable #:vector5 is unnecessary.)  However, this problem need
not lead to inefficiency during execution as long as a compiler which is
capable of simple optimizations is available.

(defun sum-pos-vect-lets-transformed (v)
  (let (#:index12 #:last4 #:sum21 #:element11 #:vector5)
    (tagbody (setq #:vector5 v)
             (setq #:index12 0)
             (setq #:last4 (length #:vector5))
             (setq #:sum21 0)
        #:p0 (if (not (< #:index12 #:last4)) (go #:e9))
             (setq #:index12 (1+ #:index12))
             (setq #:element11 (aref #:vector5 #:index12))
             (if (not (plusp #:element11)) (go #:p0))
             (setq #:sum21 (+ #:element11 #:sum21))
             (go #:p0)
        #:e9)
    #:sum21))

                        RESTRICTIONS ENFORCED BY LETS

  The key aspect of LetS is that it enforces a palatable (and not overly
strict) set of easily understandable restrictions which guarantee that every
series expression can be transformed into a highly efficient loop.  This
allows programmers to write series expressions which are much easier to work
with than the loops they might otherwise write, without suffering a decrease
in efficiency.
  There are two central restrictions which are enforced by LetS.  First, every
series must be statically identifiable so that transformation can occur at
compile time rather than at run time.  Second every series function is
required to be "in-order".  A series function is said to be in-order if it
reads each input series in order, one element at a time, starting from the
first one, and if it creates the output series (if any) in order, one element
at a time, starting from the first one.  In addition, the function must do
this without using internal storage for more than one element at a time for
each of the input and output series.  For example, the series functions
Evector, Tplusp, and Rsum are all in-order.  In contrast, the function reverse
is not in-order.  (Reverse either has to read the input in reverse order, or
save up the elements until the last one is read in.)

                          OTHER FEATURES OF LETS

  Although efficiency is the main goal of LetS, LetS supports a number of
features which are not directly related to efficiency per se.  Most notable of
these is implicit mapping of functions over series.  Whenever an ordinary Lisp
function is syntactically applied to a series, it is automatically mapped over
the elements of the series.
  The following example illustrates implicit mapping.  In the function below,
the computation "(lambda (x) (expt (abs x) 3))" is implicitly mapped over the
series of numbers generated by Evector.  Implicit mapping of this sort is a
commonly used feature of APL and is extremely convenient.

(defun sum-cube-abs-vect (v)
  (Rsum (expt (abs (Evector v)) 3)))

(sum-cube-abs-vect #(1 -2 3)) => (+ 1 8 27) => 36

  New series functions can be defined by using the form defunS.  The following
example shows how the function Rsum could be defined.  More complex forms can
be defined by using the ordinary Common Lisp macro definition facilities to
define macros which create appropriate series expressions.

(defunS Rsum (numbers)
    (declare (series numbers))
  (reduceS #'+ 0 numbers))

  LetS provides two forms (LetS and LetS*) which are analogous to let and
let*.  As shown in the example below, These forms can be used to bind both
ordinary variables (e.g., num-obs, mean, and deviation) and series variables
(e.g., ob).  Whether or not a variable is a series is determined
by looking at the type of value produced by the expression which computes
the value bound to it.

(defun mean-and-deviation (observations)
  (letS* ((ob (Elist observations))
          (num-obs (Rlength ob))
          (mean (/ (Rsum ob) num-obs))
          (deviation (- (/ (Rsum (expt ob 2)) num-obs) (expt mean 2))))
    (list mean deviation)))

  The complete documentation of LetS compares LetS with the Common Lisp
sequence functions and with the Zeta Lisp Loop macro.  LetS supports
essentially all of the functionality of the Loop macro in a style which looks
like sequence functions and which is exactly as efficient as the loop macro.

                           THE ANCESTRY OF LETS

  The LetS package described here is descended from an earlier package of the
same name (See MIT/AIM-680a and "Expressional Loops", Proc. Eleventh ACM
SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages, January
1984).  The current system differs from the earlier system in a number of
ways.  In particular, the new system supports a much wider set of features.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
75
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 86 11:54:48 -0500
-FROM-
From: lkramer@dewey.udel.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Game-Playing Programs
-BODY-
Re: Allen Sherzer's request for information of AI game-playing
    programs.
I wrote a program last year for an expert systems course that plays
the card game Spades.  (ESP -- Expert Spades Player) It is implemented
as a frame-based expert system written in minifrl (my revision of the
frame primitives in Winston and Horn's Lisp) on top of Franz.  The pro-
gram is fairly simple-minded in that it doesn't learn from its mistakes
or deal well with novel situations, but it still is able to play a fairly
good game of Spades.
  In addition, since it is written as an expert system, its rule-base is
easily modifiable.

Mostow has written a (much more sophisticated) program that plays Hearts
and is able to operationalize from fairly general advice.
  --1983, Mostow, D.J., Machine transformation of advice into a heuristic
          search procedure.  In R.S. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. M.
          Mitchell, eds., Machine learning: An artificial Intelligence
          Approach.  Tioga Press.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 08:55:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: computer consciousness
-BODY-

Thought I'd jump in here with a few points.

1. There's a metaphilosophers (don't ask me why the "meta") mailing
list where folks thrash on about this stuff constantly, so if you
care, listen in.  Tune in to: MetaPhilosophers%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.

2. There's a common problem with confusing epistemological questions
(what would constitute evidence for computer consciousness) and
ontological ones (so, is it *really* conscious).  Those who
subscribe to various verificationist fallacies are especially
vulnerable, and indeed may argue that there is ultimately
no distinction.  The point is debatable, obviously, but we
shouldn't just *assume* that the latter question (is it *really*
conscious) is meaningless unless tied to an operational definition.
After all, conscious experience is the classic case of a
*private* phenomenon (ie, no one else can directly "look" at your
experiences).  If this means that consciousness fails a
verificationist criterion of meaningfulness, so much the worse
for verificationism.

3. Taking up the epistemological problem for the moment, it
isn't as obvious as many assume that even the most sophisticated
computer performance would constitute *decisive* evidence for
consciousness.  Briefly, we believe other people are conscious
for TWO reasons: 1) they are capable of certain clever activities,
like holding English conversations in real-time, and 2) they
have brains, just like us, and each of us knows darn well that
he/she is conscious.  Clearly the brain causes/supports
consciousness and external performance in ways we don't
understand.  A conversational computer does *not* have a brain;
and so one of the two reasons we have for attributing
consciousness to others does not hold.

Analogy: suppose you know that cars can move, that they all have
X-type-engines, and that there's something called combustion
which depends on X-type-engines and which is instrumental in getting
the cars to move.  Let's say you have a combustion-detector
which you tried out on one car and, sure enough, it had it, but
then you dropped your detector and broke it. You're still pretty
confident that the other cars have combustion.  Now you see a
very different type of vehicle which can move, but which does
NOT have an X-type-engine - in fact you're not too sure whether
it's really an engine at all.  Now, is it just obvious that this
other vehicle has combustion??  Don't we need to know a) a good
definition of combustion, b) some details as to how X-type-engines
and combustion are related? c) some details as to how motion
depends on combustion, d) in what respects the new "engine"
resembles/differs from X-type-engines, etc etc.?  The point is
that motion (performance) isn't *decisive* evidence for combustion
(consciousness) in the absence of an X-type-engine (brain).

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Apr 86 08:58:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!rtgvax!ramin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Pantagruel)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language processing
-BODY-

An issue that has propped up now and again through my studies has been
the relation between current Natural Language/Linguistic research and
the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein (especially through the whole Vienna
School mess and later in his writings in "Philosophical Investigations").

It appears to me (in observing trends in such theories) and especially
after the big hoopla over Frames that AI/Cognitive Research has spent
the past 30 years experimenting through "Tractatus" and has just now warmed
up to "P.I." The works of the Vienna School's context-free language analyses
earlier in this century seems quite parallel to early context-free language
parsing efforts.

The later studies in P.I. with regards to the role of Natural Context and
the whole Picture-Theory rot seems to have been a direct result of the
failure of the context-free approach. Quite a few objections voiced nowadays
by researchers on the futility of context-free analysis seems to be very
similar to the early chapters in P.I.

I still haven't gone through Wittgenstein with a fine enough comb as I
would like... especially this latter batch of his notes that I saw
a few weeks ago finally published and available publicly... But I still
think there is quite a bit of merit to this fellow's study of language
and cognition.

Any opinions on this...? Any references to works to the contrary?

I must be fair in warning that I hold Wittgensteins' works to contain
the answers to some of the biggest issues facing us now... Personally, I'm
holding out for someone to come up with some relevant questions...
I think Bertrand Russell was correct in assessing L.W.'s significance...

Please mail back to me for a livelier dialogue... The Net seems rather
hostile nowadays... (but post to net if you think it merits a public forum)...



"Pantagruel at his most vulgar..."

=                                      =                                     =
Alias: ramin firoozye                  |   USps: Systems Control Inc.
uucp:  ...!shasta \                    |         1801 Page Mill Road
       ...!lll-lcc \                   |         Palo Alto, CA  94303
       ...!ihnp4    \...!ramin@rtgvax  |   ^G:   (415) 494-1165 x-1777
=                                      =                                     =

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 13:34:54 est
-FROM-
From: Stanley Letovsky <letovsky@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Lucas
-BODY-

      At  the conference on "AI an the Human Mind" held at Yale early in
March 1986, a paper was presented  by  the  British  mathematician  John
Lucas.   He  claimed  that AI could never succeed, that a machine was in
principle incapable of doing all that a mind can do.  His argument  went
like  this.  Any computing machine is essentially equivalent to a system
of formal logic.  The famous Godel incompleteness theorem shows that for
any  formal  system  powerful enough to be interesting, there are truths
which cannot be proved in that system.   Since  a  person  can  see  and
recognize  these truths, the person can transcend the limitations of the
formal system.  Since this is true of any formal system at all, a person
can  always  transcend  a  formal  system, therefore a formal system can
never be a model of a person.  Lucas has apparently  been  pushing  this
argument for several decades.

      Marvin  Minsky  gave  the  rebuttal  to  this; he said that formal
systems had nothing to do with AI or  the  mind,  since  formal  systems
required perfect consistency, whereas what AI required was machines that
make mistakes, that guess, that learn and evolve.  I was  less  sure  of
that  refutation;  although  I  agreed  with  Minsky, I was worried that
because the algorithms for doing all  that  guessing  and  learning  and
mistake  making  would  run  on  a  computer, there was still a level of
description at which the AI model must look  like  a  consistent  formal
system.   This  is  equivalent  to the statement that your theory of the
mind is a consistent theory.  I was worried that Lucas could revive  his
argument  at  that  level, and I wanted a convincing refutation.  I have
found one, which I will now present.

      First, we need to  clarify  the  relationship  between  a  running
computer  program  and  a  system  of  formal logic.  A running computer
program is a dynamic object, it has a history composed of  a  succession
of  states  of  the machine.  A formal system, by contrast, is timeless:
it has some defining axioms and rules  of  inference,  and  a  space  of
theorems  and  nontheorems implicitly defined by those axioms and rules.
For a formal system to model a dynamic process, it must describe in  its
timeless  manner  the  temporal behavior or history of the process.  The
axioms of the formal system, therefore, will contain a  time  parameter.
They might look something like this:

         if the process is in a state of type A at time t1,
            it will be in a state of type B in the next instant.

      A more complicated problem is  how  the  interaction  between  the
computer  program  and  the  outside  world is to be modelled within the
formal system.  You cannot simulate input and output by adding axioms to
the  formal  system, because changing the axioms changes the identity of
the system.  Moreover, input and output are events in the domain of  the
running  program;  within  the  formal  system  they  are just axioms or
theorems which assert that such  and  such  an  input  or  output  event
occurred at such and such a time.  The ideal solution to this problem is
to include within the formal system a theory of the physics of the world
as  well as a theory of the mind.  This means that you can't construct a
theory of the mind until you have a theory of the rest of the  universe,
which seems like a harsh restriction.  Of course, the theory of the rest
of the universe need not be  correct  or  very  detailed;  an  extremely
impoverished  theory  would  simply be a set of assertions about sensory
data received at various instants.  Alternatively, you could ignore  I/O
completely  and  just concern yourself with a model of isolated thought;
if we debunk Lucas' argument for this case we can leave  it  to  him  to
decide  whether  to  retreat  to  the  high  ground of embodied thinking
machines.  Therefore I will ignore the I/O issue.

      The next point concerns the type of program that an  AI  model  of
the  mind is likely to be.  Again, ignoring sensory and motor processing
and special purpose subsystems like visual imagery or  solid  modelling,
we  will  consider a simple model of the mind as a process whose task is
belief fixation.  That is, the job of the mind is to maintain a  set  of
beliefs  about  the  world,  using  some  kind  of  abductive  inference
procedure:  generate a bunch of hypotheses, evaluate  their  credibility
and  consistency using a variety of heuristic rules of evidence, and, on
occasion, commit to believe a particular hypothesis.

      It is important to understand that the set of  beliefs  maintained
by  this  program need not be consistent with each other.  If we use the
notation
                   believes(Proposition,Instant)
to denote the fact that the system believes a particular proposition  at
some instant, it is perfectly acceptable to have both
                    believes(p,i)
and
                    believes(not(p),i)
be theorems of the formal system which describes the program's behavior.
The formal system must be a consistent description of  the  behavior  of
the  program,  or we do not have a coherent theory.  The behavior of the
program must match Lucas' (or some other person's) behavior or we do not
have  a  correct  theory.  However the beliefs maintained by the program
need not be a consistent theory of anything,  unless  Lucas  happens  to
have some consistent beliefs about something.

      For  those  more  comfortable  with  technical  jargon, the formal
system has a meta-level and an object level.  The object level describes
Lucas  beliefs  and is not necessarily consistent; the meta-level is our
theory of Lucas' belief fixation process and had better  be  consistent.
The  object level is embedded in the meta-level using the modal operator
"believes".

      What would it mean to formulate a Godel sentence for this  system?
To  begin  with,  we  seem to have a choice about where to formulate the
Godel sentence:  at the object level or the meta level.   Formulating  a
Godel  sentence  for  the  object  level,  that  is, the level of Lucas'
beliefs, is clearly a  waste  of  time,  however.   This  level  is  not
required  to be consistent, and so Godel's trick of forcing us to choose
between consistency and completeness fails:  we  have  already  rejected
consistency.

      The  more serious problem concerns a Godel sentence formulated for
the meta-level, which must be consistent.  The general form of  a  Godel
sentence is
                  G: not(provable(G))
where  "provable"  is  a  predicate  which  you embed in the system in a
clever way, and which captures the  notion  of  provability  within  the
system.   The  meaning  of  such  a  sentence is "This sentence is not a
theorem", and therein lies the Godelian dilemma:   if  the  sentence  is
true,  the  system  is  incomplete  because  not all statable truths are
theorems.  If the sentence is false, then the  system  is  inconsistent,
because  G  is  both  true  and  false.   This  dilemma  holds  for  all
"sufficiently powerful" systems, and we assume that our model  of  Lucas
falls  into this category, and that one can therefore write down a Godel
sentence for the model.

      What is critical to realize, however, is that the  Godel  sentence
for our model of Lucas is not a belief of Lucas' according to the model.
The form of the Godel sentence
                  G: not(provable(G))
is syntactically distinct from the form of  an  assertion  about  Lucas'
beliefs,
                     believes(p,t)
Nothing stops us from having
                     believes(G,t)
be  provable  in  the  system,  despite  the  fact  that G is not itself
provable in the system.  (Actually,  the  last  sentence  is  incorrect,
since  it  is  illegal  to  put  G  inside  the  scope of the "believes"
operator.  G is a meta-level sentence, and only object  level  sentences
are  permitted  inside  "believes".  The object level and the meta level
are not allowed to share any symbols.  If you want to talk about Lucas's
beliefs  about the model of himself, you will have to embed Lucas' model
of the model of himself at the object level,  but  we  can  ignore  this
technicality.)

      This point is crucial:  the Godel sentence for our theory of Lucas
as  a  belief-fixing  machine  is not a theorem ascribing any beliefs to
Lucas.  Therefore the fact that Lucas can arrive at a  belief  that  the
Godel  sentence  is  true is perfectly compatible with the fact that the
system cannot prove G as a theorem.   Lucas'  argument  depends  on  the
claim  that  if he believes G, he transcends the formal system:  this is
his mistake.  Lucas can believe whatever he wants about  what  sentences
can  or  can't  be proved within the model of himself.  The only way his
beliefs have any bearing on the correctness of the model is if the model
predicts  that  Lucas  will  believe something he doesn't, or disbelieve
something he believes.  In other words, the usual  criteria  of  science
apply to judging the correctness of the model, and no Godelian sophistry
can invalidate the model a priori.

      Lucas' argument has a certain surface  plausibility  to  it.   Its
strength seems to depend on the unwarranted assumption that the theorems
of the formal system correspond directly to  the  beliefs  of  the  mind
being  modelled  by  that  system.   This  is  a  naive  and  completely
fallacious assumption:  it ignores the  fact  that  minds  are  temporal
processes,  and  that  they are capable of holding inconsistent beliefs.
When these issues are taken into account, Lucas' argument falls flat.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
76
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 86 13:09 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NL Interfaces to Expert Systems (Villanova)
-BODY-
I got an announcement in the mail this week about the first meeting of the
DELAWARE VALLEY AI ASSOCIATION.  It will be held at Villanova University
(Tolentine Hall, room 215) on April 21st at 7:30pm.  The meeting will
discuss the organizational structure of the association, introduce the
current officers, and feature a talk by Bonnie Webber on "Natural Language
Interfaces to Expert Systems".


DIRECTIONS: from rt. 320 North turn right onto route 30.  At the first
light, turn right into the parking lot.  Walk across route 30 and proceed
along the walkway towards the chapel.  Turn left at the Chapel to Tolentine
Hall, which is about 50 yards to the right.

For more information, call 215-265-1980.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 1986 13:30-EST
-FROM-
From: ISAACSON@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Minsky (SIU-Edwardsville)
-BODY-

Marvin Minsky will be in the St. Louis area on Tuesday and Wednesday,
April 22, 23.  He'll give a talk at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville on:

                         THE SOCIETY OF MIND

                       Science Labs Bldg., Room 1105
                        Tuesday, 7:30 pm
                          April 22, 1986

Admission is free and people in the St. Louis area are welcome.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 8 Apr 86 16:27:21-PST
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Frames and Objects in Modeling and Simulation (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Frames and Objects: Application to Modeling And Simulation
Speaker:        Richard Fikes and Marilyn Stelzner
From:           Intellicorp
Date:           Wednesday, April 9, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

We will describe the characteristic features of frame-based knowledge
representation facilities and indicated how they can provide a
foundation for a variety of knowledge-system functions. We will focus
on how frames can contribute to a knowledge sytem's reasoning
activities and how they can be used to organize and direct those
activities.  Application to engineering modelling and simulation will
be discussed.


Visitors welcome.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 86 12:00 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Inductive Inference (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Dale Miller <Dale@UPenn> on Tue  8 Apr 1986 at  8:35


                         UPenn Math-CS Logic Seminar
                  SOME RECENT RESEARCH ON MACHINE INDUCTIVE
                                  INFERENCE
                               Scott Weinstein
                 Tuesday, 8 April 1986, 4:30 - 6:00, 4N30 DRL

The talk will survey some recent (and not so recent) results on the inference
of r.e. sets and first-order structures.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 1986 1416-EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Conditionals and Inheritance (CMU)
-BODY-

Speaker:   Rich Thomason
Date:      Thursday, April 17
Time:      3:00 pm
Place:     4605
Topic:     CONDITIONALS AND INHERITANCE

        This talk will provide motivation and an overview of an
NSF-sponsored research project that has recently begun here, involving
David Touretzky, Chuck Cross, Jeff Horty, and Kevin Kelly.  The portion
of the project on which I will concentrate aims at bringing logical work
on conditionals to bear on nonmonotonic reasoning, and in particular on
inheritance theory.

        Some of the background for the theory consists in the need for a
qualitative approach to "belief kinematics" (or knowledge revision, or
database update), as opposed to a quantitative approach such as the
Bayesian one.  The logic of conditionals provides some principles for
such an approach, where the conditionals are interpreted as indicative
expressions of willingness to make belief transitions.

        Although we have many firm intuitions about inheritance in
particular cases, it is difficult to establish a correct general
definition of nonmonotonic inheritance for arbitrary semantic nets.
I will show how a definition of inheritance generates a definition
of validity for simple conditional expressions, and will suggest that
this can be used as a criterion to judge inheritance definitions.
I will present some results relating particular inheritance definitions
to conditional logics.

        These results depend on a kind of ad hoc update procedure for
semantic nets.  I will suggest that a better procedure might be
obtained by considering nets with both monotonic and nonmonotonic
links.

        If time permits, I will develop some analogies between semantic
nets and Gentzen systems or natural deduction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 April 1986 1615-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Retrieval as Specialized Inference (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:        Alan M. Frisch, University of Rochester

Date:           Tuesday, April 22
Time:           3:30 - 5:00
Place:          5409 Wean Hall

Title:          Knowledge retrieval as specialized inference


Artificial intelligence reasoning systems commonly contain a large
corpus of declarative knowledge, called a knowledge base (KB), and
provide facilities with which the system's components can retrieve
this knowledge.

Consistent with the necessity for fast retrieval is the guiding
intuition that a retriever is, at least in simple cases, a pattern
matcher, though in more complex cases it may perform selected
inferences such as property inheritance.

Seemingly at odds with this intuition, the thesis of this talk is that
the entire process of retrieval can be viewed as a form of inference
and hence the KB as a representation, not merely a data structure.  A
retriever makes a limited attempt to prove that a queried sentence is
a logical consequence of the KB.  When constrained by the no-chaining
restriction, inference becomes indistinguishable from pattern-matching.
Imagining the KB divided into quanta, a retriever that respects this
restriction cannot combine two quanta in order to derive a third.

The techniques of model theory are adapted to build non-procedural
specifications of retrievability relations, which determine what
sentences are retrievable from what KB's.  Model-theoretic
specifications are presented for four retrievers, each extending
the capabilities of the previous one.  Each is accompanied by a
rigorous investigation into its properties, and a presentation of
an efficient, terminating algorithm that can be proved to meet the
specification.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 15:01 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Ontology and Efficiency in a Belief Reasoner (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@UPenn>
Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@UPenn>


                 ONTOLOGY AND EFFICIENCY IN A BELIEF REASONER

                               Anthony S. Maida
                        Department of Computer Science
                             Penn State University


This   talk   describes  the  implementation  of,  and  theoretical  influences
underlying, a belief reasoner called the  "Belief  Space  Engine."    A  belief
reasoner  is  a  program that reasons about the "beliefs" of other agents.  The
Belief Space Engine uses specialized data structures, called belief spaces,  to
compute  a  certain  class  of  inferences  about  the  beliefs of other agents
efficiently.  Theoretically, the  architecture  is  motivated  by  a  syntactic
simulation  ontology,  which is an alternative to the possible-worlds ontology.
In order to  encode  this  ontology,  a  meta  description  facility  has  been
implemented.

This talk is organized as follows.  First, we explain the semantic difficulties
with belief reasoning that stem from interactions between belief, equality, and
quantification.  Next, we argue for the sufficiency of the syntactic simulation
ontology to address the difficulties we  described.    Then  we  show  how  the
ontology  is  partially  embodied in the Belief Space Engine.  Finally, we show
that the Belief Space Engine is robust in this domain  by  programming  several
examples.


                           Thursday, April 10, 1986
                            Room 216 - Moore School
                               3:00 - 4:30 p.m.
                            Refreshments Available

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Probabilistic Inference: Theory and Practice (SMU)
-BODY-
Title: Probabilistic Inference: Theory and Practice

Speaker: Won D. Lee
University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Location: 315SIC
Time: 2:00 PM

This talk presents a system and a methodology for probabilistic learning
from examples.

First, I present a new methodology, Probabilistic Rule Generator
(PRG), of variable-valued logic synthesis which can be applied
effectively to noisy data.  Then a new system, Probabilistic
Inference, which can generate concepts with limited time and/or
resources is defined.  It is discussed how PRG can be a practical tool
for Probabilistic Inference.

A departure from the classical viewpoint in logic minimization, and in
knowledge acquisition is reported.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 19:52:30 PST
-FROM-
From: cottrell@nprdc.arpa (Gary Cottrell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Southern California AI Conference Program
-BODY-

           Southern California Conference on Artificial Intelligence
                            Saturday, April 26, 1986
                                 Peterson Hall
                                      UCSD
                    Sponsored by San Diego SIGART and SCAIS

          9:00am          Registration Desk Opens

          10:00am-12:00pm Invited Overviews

          10:00am-10:25am AI Environment and Research at UCLA
          Michael G. Dyer and Josef Skrzypek, UCLA AI Lab

          10:30am-10:55am Ai Research at USC
          Peter Norvig, USC

          11:00am-11:25am     Parallel     Distributed     Processing:
          Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition
          David E. Rumelhart, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          11:30am-11:55am Human Computer Interaction: Research at  the
          Intelligent Systems Group
          Jim Hollan, Intelligent Systems Group, UCSD

          12:00-1:00      Buffet Lunch

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SCAIS Session I: Expert Systems

          1:00pm-1:15pm RAMBOT:  A connectionist  expert  system  that
          learns by example
          Michael C. Mozer, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          1:20pm-1:35pm A small expert system that learns
          George S. Levy, Counseling and Consulting Associates, San Diego

          1:40pm-1:55pm A knowledge based selection system
          Xi-an Zhu, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, USC

          2:00pm-2:15pm STYLE Counselor: An expert system to select ties
          Jeffrey Blake, Peter Tenereillo, and Jeff Wicks
          Department of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          2:20pm-2:35pm A health and nutrition expert system
          Marwan Yacoub, Department of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          2:40pm-2:55pm An inexact reasoning scheme based on intervals
          of probabilities
          Koenraad Lecot, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SCAIS Session 2: Vision and Natural Language

          1:00pm-1:15pm A Scheme-based PC vision workstation
          Michael Stiber and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          1:20pm-1:35pm  Early  Vision:  3-D  silicone   solution   to
          lightness constancy
          Paul C. H. Lin and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          1:40pm-1:55pm A  connectionist  computing  architecture  for
          textural segmentation
          Edmond Mesrobian and Josef Skrzypek, CS Dept., UCLA and CRUMP Inst.

          2:00pm-2:15pm ANIMA: Analogical Image Analysis
          Arthur Newman, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          2:20pm-2:35pm Representing pragmatic  knowledge  in  lexical
          memory
          Michael Gasser, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, UCLA

          2:40pm-2:55pm The role  of  mental  spaces  in  establishing
          universal  principles  for  the  semantic  interpretation of
          cliches
          Michelle Gross, Linguistics Dept., UCSD

          1:00pm-3:00pm   SIGART Session 1

          1:00pm-1:25pm Using commonsense knowledge for  prepositional
          phrase attachment
          K. Dahlgren, IBM

          1:30pm-1:55pm Social Intelligence
          Les Gasser, Computer Science Dept., USC

          2:00pm-2:25pm  A  unified  algebraic  theory  of  logic  and
          probability
          Philip Calabrese, LOGICON

          2:30pm-2:55pm  Learning  while  searching   in   constraint-
          satisfaction problems
          Rina Dechter,  & Hughes AI Center Cognitive Systems Lab, UCLA

          3:00-3:30 Coffee Break

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SCAIS Session 3: Connectionist Models & Learning

          3:30pm-3:45pm Toward  optimal  parameter  selection  in  the
          back-propagation algorithm
          Yves Chauvin, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          3:50pm-4:05pm Inverting a connectionist network  mapping  by
          back-propagation of error
          Ron Williams, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          4:10pm-4:25pm Learning internal representations from gray scale
images
          Gary Cottrell and Paul Munro, Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD

          4:30pm-4:45pm Decomposition in perceptron systems
          Rik Verstraete, Computer Science Dept., UCLA

          4:50pm-5:05pm Adaptive Self-Organizing Logic Networks
          Tony Martinez, ***

          5:10pm-5:25pm Human understanding in diverse environments
          Louis Rossi, Harvey Mudd College

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SCAIS Session 4: Miscellaneous
          (HMI, Planning, Problem Solving, Knowledge Representation)

          3:30pm-3:45pm Producing coherent interactions in a tutoring system
          Balaji Narasimhan, Computer Science Dept., USC

          3:50pm-4:05pm AQUA: An intelligent UNIX advisor
          Alex Quilici, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, UCLA

          4:10pm-4:25pm Errors in parsing problem descriptions
          Eric Hestenes, Problem Solving Group, UCSD

          4:30pm-4:45pm Constraint based problem solving
          Mitchell Saywitz, Computer Science Dept., USC

          4:50pm-5:05pm An approach to  planning  and  scheduling  for
          robot assembly lines
          Xiaodong Xia, Computer Science Dept., USC

          5:10pm-5:25pm Changes of mind: Revision of  "interpretation"
          in episodic memory
          Antoine Cornuejols, Computer Science Dept. UCLA

          3:30pm-5:30pm   SIGART Session 2

          3:30pm-355pm  Facilitating  parametric  analyses   with   AI
          methodologies
          N. T. Gladd, JAYCOR

          4:00pm-4:25pm Computer Chess: Arguments and examples  for  a
          knowledge-based approach
          Danny Kopec, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, SDSU

          4:30pm-4:55pm  Artificial   Intelligence   applications   in
          information retrieval
          Mark Chignell, Dept. of Industrial & Systems Engineering, USC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
77
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Subject Codes
-BODY-
The following is a list of subject codes that are being put in the %K
field of all bibliographies going out to AILIST.  Hopefully, this will
be of assistance to people in finding material on their favorite
subfield of artificial intelligence.  This searching is best done
with the bib or refer utilities but could be done less conveniently
with more general-purpose utilities.

For example, if one is interested in applications of expert systems to
electrical engineering one would search for AI01 and AA04.

______

AI areas

AI01 Expert Systems, Rule Based Systems
AI02 Natural Language
AI03 Search (Minimax, Consistant Labelling, alpha-beta, etc.)
AI04 Learning
AI05 Speech Understanding
AI06 Vision, Pattern Recogniton
AI07 Robotics
AI08 Cognitive Science
AI09 Planning
AI10 Logic Programming (material on prolog only will be under T02)
AI11 Theorem Proving
AI12 Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms, etc.
AI13 Decision Support
AI14 Symbolic Math

Application Areas

AA01 Medicine
AA02 Chemistry
AA03 Geology, Mineral Extraction, Petroleum Extraction and Geology
AA04 Electrical Engineering
AA05 Other Engineering, Unclassifiable Engineering
AA06 Financial, Business, Marketing, Accounting, Etc.
AA07 Education
AA08 Software Engineering, Automatic Programming, Computer Configuration
     and Operation
AA09 Data Bases
AA10 Biology
AA11 Social Sciences
AA12 Statistics
AA13 Mathematics
AA14 Information Retrieval
AA15 User Interfaces to other Software
AA16 Other Physcial Science
AA17 Game Playing
AA18 Military Applications
AA19 Operating Equipment, e. g. pilots associate, autonomous land vehicle
AA20 Process Control
AA21 Diagnostic and Maintenance Systems (Other than Medical)
AA22 Configuration Systems
AA23 Agriculture
AA24 Legal
AA25 Art, Humanities, Music, Architecture, entertainment etc.

Geographical Areas

GA01 Japan
GA02 United States
GA03 Europe
GA04 Canada

Tools for AI

T01  Lisp
T02  Prolog
T03  Expert System Tools

Hardware for AI

H01  Microcomputers
H02  Lisp Machines
H03  Parallel Processing
H04  Supercomputers, e. g. Crays

Other Areas

O01  User Interfaces for AI systems
O02  Software Engineering Issues in the Construction of AI programs
O03  Real Time
O04  Fuzzy Logic, Uncertainty Issues, etc.
O05  Social Aspects of AI

Article Types

AT01 Advertisements
AT02 Product Announcements
AT03 Examples of AI Hype
AT04 Market Predictions
AT05 Interviews with Executives of Companies
AT06 Other Interviews
AT07 Book Reviews
AT08 Tutorial Articles
AT09 Bibliography
AT10 Announcements of Company University Interactions
AT11 New Bindings
AT12 Letters to the Editors
AT13 Corrections
AT14 Pronouncements of Famous People
AT15 BOOK
AT16 Company Business, e. g. new financing, revenue announcements,
     joint marketing agreements etc.
AT17 Software Reviews
AT18 Articles on AI topic eduation
AT19 Notes about Grantsmanship and Research Milieu type issues
AT20 History of AI topics
AT21 Bibliography

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report Sources
-BODY-

Naomi Schulman,  Publications
COMPUTER SYSTEMS LABORATORY
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Stanford, CA 94305

UCLA COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
University of California
3713 Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Cindy Hathaway, technical reports
secretary, computer science department, louisiana state university,
baton rouge, louisiana 70803, or cindy@lsu on csnet

California Institute of Technology
Computer Science, 256-80
Pasadena California 91125

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Departments
Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Point Station
Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Computer Science Department
University of Rochester
Rochester, New York 14627

Ms. Sally Goodall
Technical Reports Librarian
Computer Science Department
SUNY Albany LI 67A
Albany, New York 12222

Technical Reports
Department of Computer Science
Campus Box 1045
Washington University
St. Louis, Missouri 63130


Department of Computer Science
136 Lind Hall
University of Minnesota, Twin cities
207 Church Street SE
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Distribution Services, F-11, Stormytown
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #1
-BODY-

%A Bruce Abramson
%T A Cure for Pathological Behavior in Games that use Minimax
%R CUCS-153-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03 AA17

%A Peter K. Allen
%A Ruzena Bajcsy
%T Integrating Sensory Data for Object Recognition Tasks
%R CUCS-184-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Peter Kirby Allen
%T Object Recognition Using Vision and Touch
%R CUCS-220-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 AI07

%A Terrance E. Boult
%T Reproducing Kernels for Visual Surface Interpolation
%R CUCS-186-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Terrance E. Boult
%T Visual Surface Interpolation: A Comparison of Two Methods
%R CUCS-189-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Galina Datskovsky
%T Menu Interfaces to Expert Systems: Overview and Evaluation
%R CUCS-168-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K O01 AI01

%A Galina Datskovsky
%T Natural Language Interfaces to Expert Systems
%R CUCS-169-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 O01 AI02

%A Thomas Ellman
%T Generalizing Logic Circuit Designs by Analyzing Proofs of Correctness
%R CUCS-190-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA04

%A Bruce K. Hilyer
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Execution of OPS5 Production Systems on a Massively Parallel Machine
%R CUCS-147-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 H03

%A Bruce K. Hillyer
%T A Knowledge-Based Expert Systems Primer and Catalog
%R CUCS-195-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AT08

%A Hussaein A. H. Ibrahim
%A John R. Kender
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T On the Application of Massively Parallel SIMD Tree Machines
to Certain Intermediate-Level Vision Tasks
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%R CUCS-221-85
%K AI06  H03

%A Husein A. H. Ibrahim
%A John R. Kender
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T SIMD Tree Algorithms for Image Correlation
%R CUCS-222-86
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 H03

%A Toru Ishida
%A Salvatore Stolfo
%T Towards the Parallel Execution of Rules in Production Systems Programs
%R CUCS-154-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01

%A John R. Kender
%A David Lee
%A Terrance Boult
%T Information Based Complexity Applied to Optimal Recovery of the 2 1/2-D
Sketch
%R CUCS-170-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Richard E. Korf
%T Macro-Operators: A Weak Method for Learning
%R CUCS-156-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI04

%A Richard E. Korf
%T Depth-First Iterative-Depending: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search
%R CUCS-197-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T The Use of Memory in Text Processing
%R CUCS-200-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 Researcher Patent

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Integrated Learning: Controlling Explanation
%R CUCS-201-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI04 Unimem

%A MIchael Lebowitz
%T Story Telling and Generalizations
%R CUCS-202-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02

%A Michael Lebowitz
%T Researcher: An Experimental Intelligent Information Systems
%R CUCS-171-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 AA14

%A David Lee
%T Contributions to Information-Based Complexity, Image Understanding,
and Logic Circuit Desing
%R CUCS-182-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06 AA04

%A David Lee
%T Optimal Algorithms for Image Understanding: Current Status and Future Plans
%R CUCS-183-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Mark D. Lerner
%A Michael von Biema
%A Gerald Q. Maguire, Jr.
%R CUCS-146-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K PSL PPSL H03 T01

%A Mark D. Lerner
%A Gerald Q. Maguire, Jr.
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T An Overview of the DADO Parallel Computer
%R CUCS-157-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01 T03 AI10

%A Andy Lowery
%A Stephen Taylor
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T LPS Algorithms
%R CUCS-203-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI10 H03

%A Kevin Matthews
%T Taking the Initiative for System Goals in Cooperative Dialogue
%R CUCS-150-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K advisor AI02

%A Kevin Matthews
%T Initiatory and Reactive System Roles in Human Computer Discourse
%R CUCS-151-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K advisor AI02

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%A Myron Wish
%A Kevin Matthews
%T Tailoring Explanations for the User
%R CUCS-172-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AI02 O01

%A Katthleen R. McKeown
%T The Need for Text Generation
%R CUCS-173-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AI02 O01

%A Kathleen R. McKeown
%T Discourse Strategies for Generating Natural Language Text
%R CUCS-204-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI02 AA09

%A Mark L. Moerdler
%A John R. Kender
%T Surface Orientation and Segmentation from Perspective Views of
Parallel-Line Textures
%R CUCS-159-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI06

%A Luanne Burns
%A Alexander Pasik
%T A Generic Framework for Expert Data Analysis Systems
%R CUCS-163-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA09

%A Alexander Pasik
%A Jans Christensen
%A Douglas Gordin
%A Agata Stancato-Pasik
%A Salvatore Stolfo
%T Explanation and Acquisition in Expert System Using Support Knowledge
%R CUCS-164-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA01 DTEX

%A K. S. Roberts
%T Equivalent Descriptions of Generalized Cylinders
%R CUCS-210-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T The DADO Production System Machine
%R CUCS-213-84
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel M. Miranker
%A Russel C. Mills
%T More Rules May Mean Faster Parallel Execution
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%R CUCS-175-85
%K RETE H03 AI01

%A Salvatore J. STolfo
%A Daniel M. Miranker
%A Russel C. Mills
%T A Simple Preprocessing Scheme to Extract and Balance Implicit
Parallelism in the Concurrent Match of Production Rules
%R CUCS-174-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K H03 AI01 RETE T02 AI10

%A Peter Waldes
%A Janet Lustgarten
%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%T Are Maintenance Expert Systems Practical Now?
%R CUCS-166-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI01 AA04 Automated Cable Expert Telephone AA21

%A J. F. Traub
%T Information Based Complexity
%R CUCS-162-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03
%X information-based complexity is based on the assumption that
it is partial, contaminated and it costs in comparison to
ordinary complexity theory in which information is complete, exact and
free.  [There were several reports on this subject.  I am only including
one in this bibliography as it is not clear whether it is related to
AI or not.  Contact Columbia for more info if desired.  LEFF]

%A Kenneth Hal Wasserman
%T Unifying Representation and Generalization: Understanding
Hierarchically Structured Objects
%R TCUCS-177-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA06
%X describes a system to understand upper-level corporate management
hierarchies

%A Ursula Wolz
%T Analyzing User Plans to Produce Informative Responses
by a Programmers' Consultant
%R CUCS-218-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AA08 AI02 AI09 AA15

%A Othar Hansson
%A Andrew E. Mayer
%A Mordechai M. Yung
%T Generating Admissible Heuristics by Criticizing Solutions to Relaxed
Models
%R CUCS-219-85
%I Columbia University
%C New York City
%K AI03


%A Carolyn L. Talcott
%T The Essence of Rum A Theory of the Intensional and Extensional Aspects of
Lisp-type Computation
%D AUG 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1060
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI11 T01
%X $9.50

%A David E. Smith
%A Michael R. Genesereth
%T Controlling Recursive Inference
%D JUN 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1063
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI11
%X $3.75

%A Matthew L.Ginsberg
%T Decison Procedures
%D MAY 1985
%R STAN-0CS-85-1064
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K H03
%X The assumption of common rationality that is provably optimal (in a formal
sense) and which enables us to characterize precisely the communication
needs of the participants in multi-agent interactions.
.br
$2.75

%A William J. Clancey
%T Review of Sowa's Conceptual Structures
%D MAR 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1065
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AT07
%X $2.75

%A William J. Clancey
%T Heuristic Classification
%D JUN 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1066
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI01
%X $4.75

%A William J. Clancey
%T Acquiring, Representing, and Evaluating a Competence Model of Diagnostic
Strategy
%D AUG 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1067
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI01 AA01
%X $4.95

%A Mark H. Richer
%A William J. Clancey
%T Guidon-Watch: A Graphic Interface for Viewing a Knowledge-Based System
%D AUG 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1068
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI01 O01
%X $2.75

%A John D. Hobby
%T Digitized Brush Trajectories
%D SEP 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1070
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI06
%X $5.75

%A Russel Greiner
%T Learning by Understanding Analogies
%D SEP 1985
%R STAN-CS-85-1071
%I Stanford University Computer Science
%K AI04
%X $15.00

%A Bruce G. Buchanan
%T Expert Systems: Working Systems and The Research Literature
%D OCT 1985
%R STAN-Cs-85-1075
%K AI01
%X $3.00

%A Deepinder P. Sidhu
%T Protocol Verification Using Prolog
%D JUL 1985
%R TR #85-21
%I Iowa State University
%K AA08 Communications ISO/ISI T02

%A M. Attisha
%A M. Yazdani
%T A Microcomputer-based Tutor for Teaching Arithmetic Skills
%D 1983
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%K H01 AA07 GA03

%A M. Attisha
%A M. Yazdani
%T An Expert System for Diagnosing childrens' Multiplication Errors
%D 1983
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%K H01 AI01 AA07 GA03

%A A. Attisha
%T A Microcomputer-based Tutoring System for Self-Improving and Teaching
Techniques in Arithmetic Skills
%D 1983
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%K H01 AA07 PET Non Borrow Subtraction Algorithm Buggy Debuggy GA03

%A M. Yazdani
%T Artificial Intelligence and Education
%D 1984
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%R Research Report NO. R122
%K H01 AI01 AA07 T02 GA03

%A J. Barchan
%A B. Woodmansee
%A M. Yazdani
%T A PROLOG-based tool for French Grammar Analysis
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%R Research Report No. R126
%K AI02 GA03 FROG AA07 T02

%A M. Yazdani
%T Intelligent Tutoring Systems: An Overview
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%R Working Paper No. W. 136
%K AI01 AA07 GA03

%A M. Yazdani
%T Artificial Intelligence, Powerful Ideas and Education
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK
%R Working Paper No. W 138
%K Computer Assisted Learning AA07 GA03

%A Bruce Abramson
%T An Explanation of and Cure for Minimax Pathology
%R CSD-850034
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%K AA17 AI03
%X The minimax procedure has long been the standard method of evaluating nodes
in  game  trees.  The general assumption underlying its use in game-playing
programs is that increasing search depth improves play.   Recent  work  has
shown  that this assumption is not always valid; for a large class of games
and evaluation functions, searching deeper  decreases  the  probability  of
making a correct move.  This phenomenon is called game tree pathology.
Two structural properties of game trees have been suggested  as  causes  of
pathology:  independence  among  the  values  of sibling nodes, and uniform
depth of wins and losses.  This paper examines the relationship between
uniform win depth and pathology from two angles.  First, it
proves mathematically that as search deepens,
an evaluation function that does not .ul  ask
whether  wins  can  be  forced from mid-game positions becomes decreasingly
likely to choose forced wins.  Second, it  experimentally  illustrates  the
connection  between recognition of mid-game wins and pathological behavior.
Two evaluation functions, which differ only in their ability  to  recognize
wins  in mid-game, are run on a series of games.  Despite recognizing fewer
mid-game wins than the theoretically  predicted  minimum  needed  to  avoid
pathology,  the  function that checked for them cleared up the pathological
behavior of the one that did not.
The analytic and empirical aspects of this paper combine to form one  major
result:   As  search deepens, so does the probability that failing to check
for forced wins will change the game's outcome.  This strengthens
the  hypothesis that uniform win depth is the cause of pathology.
$1.50

%A Michael Dyer
%A Eric Quilici
%T Human Problem Understanding and Advice Giving: A Computer Model
%R CSD-850039
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%K AA15 AI02 Aqua Unix Advisor AI09
%X How are people able to understand someone else's problem and  provide  them
with  advice?   How  are people able to develop novel solutions to problems
they have never seen before?  The thesis presented here is a first step toward
answering these questions, presenting a computer model of the process
of problem understanding and advice giving.  The problems we  consider  are
typical planning problems that novice computer users encounter.
We view advice giving as a memory search problem, guided by heuristics  for
problem  understanding,  advice  generation,  and  plan  creation.  In this
thesis we describe a representational system for  user  planning  problems,
show  how advice can be generated using a taxonomy of planning problems and
associated heuristics for advice formulation, present heuristics  that  can
be  used to repair failed plans and to create new plans by combining existing
pl
ans in novel ways, and suggest a  memory  organization  for  planning
knowledge  that allows for efficient retrieval of relevant planning
experiences.
The theory discussed in this thesis is implemented in  a  computer  program
called AQUA (Alex Quilici's UNIX|+ Advisor).  AQUA  takes  natural  language
descriptions  of  problems  users are having with the UNIX operating system
and provides natural language advice that explains their failures and  suggests
 solutions.   AQUA is also able to create solutions for problems that
it has not been presented with before.
$7.75

%A Judea Pearl
%A Azaria Paz
%T Graphoids A Graph-Based Logic for Reasoning About Relevance Relations
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%R CSD-850038
%K AI11
%X We consider 3-place relations I (x,z,y) where, x,y, and  z  are  three
non-intersecting  sets of elements, (e.g., propositions), and I (x,z,y)
stands for the statement: "Knowing z renders x irrelevant to y".   We  give
sufficient  conditions  on  I for the existence of a (minimal) graph G such
that I (x,z,y) can be validated by testing whether z separates x from y
in G.  These conditions define a GRAPHOID.
The theory of graphoids  uncovers  the  axiomatic  basis  of  probabilistic
dependencies  and  ties  it to vertex-separation conditions in graphs.  The
defining axioms can also be viewed as inference rules  for  deducing  which
propositions  are  relevant  to  each  other,  given  a  certain  state  of
knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
78
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #2
-BODY-

%A C. V. Srinivasan
%T Knowledge Processing Versus Programming: CK-LOG vs PROLOG
%R DCS-TR-160
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science
%K AI10 CK-LOG T02

%A B. A. Nadel
%T The Consistent Labeling Problem, Part 1: Background and Problem Formulation
%R DCS-TR-164
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science

%A B. A. Nadel
%T the Consistent Labeling Problem, Part 2: Subproblems, Enumerations
and Constraint Satisfiability
%R DCS-TR-165
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science

%A B. Nadel
%T The Consistent Labeling Problem, Part 3:
The Generalized Backtracking Algorithm
%R DCS-TR-166
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science

%A B. A. Nadel
%T The Consistent Labeling Problem, Part 4: The Generalized
Forward Checking and Word-Wise Forward Checking Algorithms
%R DCS-Tr-167
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science
%K AI03

%A T. M. Mitchell
%A B. M. Keller
%A S. T. Kedar-Cabelli
%T Explanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View
%R ML-TR-2
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science
%K analogy

%A S. T. Kedar-Cabelli
%T Analogy - From a Unified Perspective
%R ML-Tr-3
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science

%A R. M. Kellar
%A S. T. Kedar-Cabelli
%T Machine Learning Research at Rutgers University
%R ML-Tr-4
%I Rutgers University Laboratory for Computer Science
%K AI04
%X collection of research summaries in learning from Rutgers University

%A R. Kurki-Suonio
%T Towards Programming with Knowledge Expressions
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K H03
%D AUG 1985

%A J. Laird
%A P. Rosenbloom
%A A. Newell
%T Chunking in Soar: The Anatomy of a General Learning Mechanism
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%D SEP 1985
%K AI04

%A B. D. Lucas
%T Generalized Image Matching by the Method of Differences
%D JUL 1984
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K AI06

%A J. B. Saxe
%T Decomposable Searching Problems and Circuit Optimization by Retiming:
Two Studies in General Transformations of Computational Structures
%D AUG 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K AA04 AI03

%A E. S. Cohen
%A E. T. Smith
%A L. A. Iverson
%T Constraint-Based Tiled Windows
%D OCT 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K AA15

%A A. Hisgen
%T Optimization of User-Defined Abstract Data Types: A Program Transformation
Approach
%D SEP 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
%K AA08

%A A. J. Kfoury
%A Pawl Urzyczyn
%T Necessary and Sufficient Conditoins for the Universality of Programming
Formalisms
%D MAY 1985
%R 85-007
%I Boston University Computer Science Department
%K AA08
%X $4.00

%A Bipin Indurkhya
%T Constrained Semantic Transference: A Formal Theory of Metaphors
%D JUN 1985
%R 85-008
%I Boston University Computer Science Department
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A Bipin Indurkhya
%T Approximate Semantic Transference: A Computational Theory: A Computational
Theory of Metaphors and Analogies
%D OCT 1985
%R BUCS 85-012
%I Boston University Computer Science Department
%K AI02 AI11
%X $3.00

%A Weiguo Wang
%T Computational Linguistics Technical Notes
%D NOV 1985
%R BUCS 85-013
%I Boston University Computer Science Department
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A Gerhart
%T A Test Data Generation Method Using Prolog
%R TR-85-02
%I Wang Institute of Graduate Studies
%K AA08

%A Velasco
%T Computer Vison and Image Understanding
%R TR-85-09
%I Wang Institute of Graduate Studies
%K AI06

%A Gerhart
%T Software Engineering Perspectives on Prolog
%R TR-85-13
%I Wang Institute of Graduate Studies
%K T02 O02

%A Gerhart
%T A Detailed Look at Some Prolog Code: A Course Scheudler
%R TR-85-14
%I Wang Institute of Graduate Studies
%K O02 T02

%A Gerhart
%T Several Prolog Packages
%R Tr-85-15
%I Wang Institute of Graduate Studies
%K T02


%A Van Nguyen
%A David Gries
%A Susan Owicki
%R CSL T.R. 85-270
%T A MODEL AND TEMPORAL PROOF SYSTEM FOR NETWORKS OF PROCESSES
%D February 1985
%I Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratories
%K AI11 AA08
%X 12 pages.....$2.40
.br
A model and a sound and complete proof system for networks of
processes in which component processes communicate exclusively through
messages is given.  The model, an extension of the trace model, can
describe both synchronous and asynchronous networks.  The proof system
uses temporal-logic assertions on sequences of observations - a
generalization of traces.  The use of observations (traces) makes the
proof system simple, compositional and modular, since internal details
can be hidden.  The expressive power of temporal logic makes it
possible to prove temporal properties (safety, liveness, precedence,
etc.) in the system.  The proof system is language-independent and
works for both synchronous and asynchronous networks.

%A W. E. Cory
%T Verification of Hardware Design Correctness; Symbolic Execution Techniques
and Criteria for Consistency
%R TR 83-241
%I Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
%X 118 pages, $6.15

%A S. Demetrescu
%T High Speed Image Rasterization Using a Higly Parallel Smart
bulk Memory
%R TR 83-244
%I Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
%K AI06 H03
%X 38 pages $3.40

%A A. L. Lansky
%A S. S. Owicki
%T GEM: A Tool for Concurrency Specification and Verification
%R TR 83-251
%I Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory
%K AI11 AA08
%X 16 pages $2.55

%H TR84-018
%A Krzysztof J. Kochut
%T UW LISP Manual
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report 84-018
%K T01


%H TR84-025
%A E. T. Lee
%T Application of Fuzzy Languages to Medical Pattern Recognition
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR84-025
%K AI06

%H TR84-026
%A E. T. Lee
%T Similarity Directed Chromosome Image Processing
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR84-026
%K AI06


%H TR84-029
%A S. S. Iyengar
%A T. Sadler
%A S. Kundu
%T A Technique for Representing a Tree Structure with Predicates
by a Forest Data Structure
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR84-029
%K AI10

%H TR84-030
%A Rajendra T. Dodhiawala
%A George R. Cross
%T A Distributed Problem-Solving Approach to Point Pattern Matching
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR84-030
%K AI06


%H TR84-034
%A W. G. Rudd
%A George R. Cross
%T Design of an Expert System for Insect Pest Management
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR84-034
%K AA23 AI01

%A George R. Cross
%A Ellen R. Foxman
%A Daniel L. Sherrell
%T Using an Expert System to Teach Marketing Strategy
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-001
%K AI01 AA06 AA07


%H TR85-003
%A Cary G. deBessonet
%A George R. Cross
%T An Artificial Intelligence Application in the Law:
CCLIPS, A Computer Program that Processes Legal Information
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-003
%K AA24

%H TR85-028
%A Sukhamay Kundu
%T A Theory of Multi-Relations for Uncertain Facts
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-028
%K O04

%H TR85-032
%A Rajendra T. Dodhiawala
%A George R. Cross
%T Analysis of Cosmic Ray Tracks Using Distributed Problem-Solving
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-032
%K AI06

%H TR85-033
%A George R. Cross
%A Cary G. deBessonet
%A Teri Broemmelsiek
%A Glynn Durham
%A Rittick Gupta
%A Mohd Nasiruddin
%T The Implementation of CCLIPS
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-034

%H TR85-034
%A Mohd. Nasiruddin
%A M. Srikanth
%A George R. Cross
%T A Confidence Factor Extension to the YAPS Expert System Development Tool
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-034
%K O04 T03 AI01

%H TR85-035
%A Cary G. deBessonet
%A George R. Cross
%T Some AI Techniques Used for Decision Making in Conceptual Retrieval
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-035
%K AI13


%H TR85-037
%A Cary G. deBessonet
%A George R. Cross
%T Distinguishing Legal Language-Types for Conceptual Retrieval
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-037
%K AA24 AA14 AI02

%H TR85-038
%A Zvieli Arie
%T A Fuzzy Relational Calculus
%R LSU Computer Science Technical Report TR85-038
%K O04

%A Eric Mjolness
%T Neutral Networks, Pattern Recognition and Fingerprint Hallucination
%R 5198:TR:85
%X 8.00  PHD THESIS
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%K AI06 AI12

%A B. H. Thompson
%A Frederick B. Thompson
%T Customizing One's Own Interface Uisng English as a Primary Language
%R 5165:TR:84
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%X $4.00
%K AI02

%A Remy Sanouillet
%T ASK French - A French Natural Language Syntax
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5164:TR:84
%K AI02
%X 13.00 Master's Thesis

%A Michael Newton
%T Combined Logical and Functional Programming Language
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5172:TR;85
%K AI10
%X $6.00

%A Howard Derby
%T Using Logic Programming for Compiling APL
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5134:TR:84
%K AI10
%X $2.00

%A Bozena H. Thompson
%T Linguistic Analysis of Natural Language Communication with Computers
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5128:TM:84
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A Bozena Thompson
%A Fred Thompson
%T ASK As Window to the World
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%X $3.00
%R 5114:TM:84
%K AI02

%A Alain Martin
%T General Proof Rule for Procedures in Predicate Transformer Semantics
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5075:TR:83
%K AI11 AA08
%X $2.00

%A David Trawick
%T Robust Sentence Analysis and Habitability
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5074:TR:83
%K AI02
%X $10.00

%A Bozena H. Thompson
%A Frederick B. Thompson
%T Introducing ASK, A Simple Knowledge System, Conference on App'l
Natural Language Processing
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5054:TM:82
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A Bozena Thompson
%A Frederick B. Thompson
%A Tai-Ping Ho
%T Knowledgeable Contexts for User Interfaction, Proc Nat'l Computer
Conference
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5051:TM:82
%K AI02
%X $2.00

%A Barry Megdal
%T VLSI Computational Structures Applied to Fingerprint Image Analysis
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 5015:TR:82
%K AI06
%X $15.00

%A Charles R. Lang
%T Concurrent, Asynchronous Garbage Collection Among Cooperating Processors
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4724:TR:82
%K H03
%X $2.00

%A Sheue-Ling Lien
%T Toward A Theorem Proving Architecture
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4653:TR:81
%K AI11
%X $10.00 MS Thesis

%A Leonid Rudin
%T Lambda Logic
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4521:TR:81
%K AI10
%X $8.00 MS THESIS

%A Tzu-mu Lin
%T From Geometry to Logic
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4298:TR:81
%K AI10 AA13
%X $7.00 MS THESIS

%A Jim Kajiya
%T Toward A Mathematical Theory of Perception
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4116:TR:79
%K AI08 AI06
%X $25.00 PHD THESIS

%A Fred Thompson
%A B. Thompson
%T Shifting to a Higher Gear in a Natural Language System
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 4128:TM:81
%K AI02
%X $2.00

%A Bozena H. Thompson
%A Frederick Thompson
%T REL System and REL English, REL Report no. 22
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 3999:TM:76
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A B. H. Thompson
%A Fred B. Thompson
%T Rapidly Extendible Natural Language
%I California Institute of Technology, Computer Science
%C Pasadena, California 91125
%R 3975:TM:80
%K AI02
%X $3.00

%A Garrett M. Odell
%A J. T. Bonner
%T How the Dictyostelium Discoideum Grex Crawls
%R 85-1
%I Computer Science Department, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute
%K AI07

%A David L. Spooner
%A Michael A. Milicia
%A Donald B. Faatz
%T Modeling Mechanical CAD Data With Data Abstraction and
Object-Oriented Techniques
%R 85-19
%I Computer Science Department, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute
%K AA05

%A N. Prywes
%A B. Szymanski
%T Programming Supercomputers in an Equational Language
%R 85-24
%I Computer Science Department, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute
%K AI10 H04

%A N. Prywes
%A Y. Shi
%A J. Tseng
%A B. Szymanski
%T Supersystem Programming with the Model Equational Language
%R 85-26
%I Computer Science Department, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute
%K AI10 H04

%A Martin Hardwick
%A Lin Kan
%A Goutam Sinha
%A Subhendu Lahiri
%A Zia Mohammed
%A Nisar Yakoob
%T Design and Implementation of a Data Manager for Design Objects
%R 85-34
%I Computer Science Department, Rensselear Polytechnic Institute
%K AA05

%A D. Nagel
%T Some Considerations on Extracting Definitional Information About
Relations
%R CBM-TM-85
%D APR 1980
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI02 AA09 AI04
%X Several of the current systems in Artificial Intelligence are
represented in binary relational databases and rely on the semantics
of relations as a source of knowledge for information retrieval.
Examples of these systems include those developed by Lindsay [5,6],
Raphael [10], Elliott [2], Brown [1], and Sridharan [11].  In these
systems inferences can be made from a set of properties specified for
each relation.  Inferences can also be made from specified
associations between relations.  One interesting aspect is the degree
to which making these inferences can be automated.  Some methods are
proposed in this paper for using machine learning to extract
relational properties and recognize semantic ties between relations so
that this definitional information will not have to be prespecified.
In some cases these methods may not technically be categorized as
learning because they primarily involve summarization.  It is also
difficult to pin down what is encompassed by semantics.  However, this
paper discusses concepts of learning, and the presentation is directed
at capturing semantics.
.sp 1
Extracting definitional information or more broadly, learning
semantics of relations, provides a base for the study of interesting
databases.  This could be done in a symbiotic system where the
interaction between the researcher and the system provides a means for
improving the performance of the system in general and
obtaining new insights in the scientific data.  It could also be
coupled with a system for automatic theory formation.  Presently,
applications using semantics of relations for making inferences have
been most successful in areas where properties and relationships are
well understood such as kinship relations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
79
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #3
-BODY-

%A N. S. Sridharan
%T Representational Facilities of AIMDS: A Sampling
%R CBM-TM-86
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI01
%X The quest for fundamental and general mechanisms of intelligence,
especially problem solving and heuristic search techniques, that
guided early research in Artificial Intelligence has given way in the
last decade to the search for equally fundamental and general methods
for structuring and representing knowledge.  This is the result of the
realization that a duality exists between knowledge and search:
Knowledge of the task domain can abbreviate search and search thru a
problem space can yield new knowledge.  AIMDS is one of the recently
developed systems which permits experimentation with knowledge
representation in the course of building an AI program.




%A C. F. Schmidt
%T The Role of Object Knowledge in Human Planning
%R CBM-TM-87
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%K AI08 AI09
%D 1/82
%X AI research on planning provides an important reference point from
which the cognitive psychologist can build an understanding of human
planning.  It is argued that the human planning context differs from
this reference point due to the incomplete knowledge that persons
typically possess about the situation within which the plan will be
executed.  Various types of general functional knowledge about objects
are then defined.  This knowledge serves as a source of default
assumptions for use in the planning process, and thus allows planning
to continue despite the absence of complete knowledge of the planning
situation.  However, such assumption-based expectations must be
tested.  From this point of view, planning must also include a process
for a kind of hypothesis testing and plan revision.  The implications
of this claim are briefly discussed.

%A S. Amarel
%T Initial Thoughts on Characterization of Expert Systems
%R CBM-TM-88
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%D 1/82
%K AI01
%X Expertise in a given domain is commonly characterized by skillful,
high performance, problem solving activity in the domain.  An expert
solves problems in a domain more rapidly, more accurately, and with
less conscious deliberation about his plan of attack than a novice
does.  An excellent discussion of general characteristics of expert
behavior appears in a recent article in @u(Science) by Larkin et al.
[1].
.sp 1
Expert behavior is equivalent to high performance problem solving
behavior in a specific domain.  It requires: knowledge of the domain,
knowledge of problem solving schemas and methods, knowledge/experience
about solution of specific problems in the domain with given methods,
knowledge about special properties and regularities in the problem
space, and highly effective ways of @u(using) all these bodies of
knowledge in approaching the solution of new problems in the domain.
Essentially, expert problem solving requires the
conceptualization/formulation of a given problem within a framework
wherein knowledge is embodied in definitions of states, moves,
constraints, evaluation functions, etc. in such a way that solutions
are attained with very little search.  In other words, an expert
problem solver works within a highly 'appropriate' problem
representation:  he describes situations and problem types within
'appropriate' conceptual frameworks, he specifies problem
decompositions that minimize subproblem interactions, he often uses
hierarchies of abstractions in his planning, he uses 'macromoves'
where a novice would painstakingly have to piece together elementary
moves, and he has rules for early recognition of unpromising as well
as of promising developments.  An expert problem solver behaves as if
the great variety of knowledge sources needed for his
solution-construction activities are available to him in a
@u(compiled) procedural form.
.sp 1
Usually, expertise in a domain requires @u(problem solving experience)
in the domain.  One can be scholar in a domain, and not an expert--if
he does not know how to effectively @u(apply) domain knowledge to a
variety of specific situations.  Also, expertise implies a certain
amount of robustness in performance-- which means that it is not
sufficient to know how to handle a few 'textbook' cases; it is
important to be able to handle a broad range of variations.

%A S. Amarel
%T Review of Characteristics of Current Expert Systems
%R CBM-TM-89
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%D 3/81
%K AI01
%X This report does not cover all current work in the area of Expert
systems.  It is intended to introduce a set of dimensions for
characterizing Expert systems and to describe some of the important
Expert systems that are now in existence (or are under active
development) in terms of these dimensions.
.sp 1
We have a dual purpose: (a) to illustrate via concrete examples the
dimensions that are being introduced, and (b) to show what is the
current state of the field from the perspective of this system of
dimensions.
.sp 1
We are using here ten main dimensions, and an optional eleventh called
@ux(Special Features), which provides added flexibility for the
presentation of relevant information about a system.  Two of the main
dimensions,  @ux(Performance) and @ux(Utility), are concerned with the
quality of the system's behavior and the impact of the system on the
domain of application and on AI.  Another two dimensions are concerned
with the system's scope, its ability to handle situations that are
outside its area of major expertise, and its ability to improve: they
are called @u(Breadth, Intelligence, Robustness) and @u(Expertise
improvement ability).  The remaining six dimensions are concerned with
the type of tasks performed by the system, its structure and its means
of interacting with users:  they are called @u(Task type, Main Method,
Mode of Knowledge Representation, User Interface for main task,
Explanation facilities) and @u(Reasoning under Uncertainty).
.sp 1
The systems considered are DENDRAL, CASNET/GLAUCOMA, MACSYMA, MYCIN,
INTERNIST, PROSPECTOR and CRYSALIS.
.sp 1
This report covers material which was prepared for inclusion in the
Chapter 'What are Expert Systems' (co-authored with Ron Brachman, Carl
Engelman, Robert Engelmore, Edward Feigenbaum and David Wilkins) of a
book on Expert Systems which is currently under preparation; the book
is based on the Rand Workshop on Expert Systems which took place in
San Diego, California on August 25-28, 1980.

%A John Kastner
%A Sholom M. Weiss
%T A Precedence Scheme for Selection and Explanation of Therapies
%R CB-TM-90
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%D 3/81
%K AA01 AI01
%X A general scheme to aid in the selection of therapies is described.  A
topological sorting procedure within a general production rule
representation is introduced.  The procedure is used to choose among
competing therapies on the basis of precedence rules.  This approach
has a degree of naturalness that lends itself to automatic explanation
of the choices made.  A system has been implemented using this
approach to develop an expert system for planning therapies for
patients diagnosed as having ocular herpes simples.  An abstracted
example of the system's output on an actual case is given.

%A P. Politakis
%A S. M. weiss
%T A System for Empherical Experimentation with Expert Knwoledge
%R CBM-TM-91
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 1/82
%K AI01 AA01 rheumatology
%X An approach to the acquisition of expert knowledge is presented based
on the comparison of dual sources of knowledge: expert-modeled rules
and cases with known conclusions.  A system called SEEK has been
implemented to give to the expert interactive advice about rule
refinement.  SEEK uses a simple frame model for expressing
expert-modeled rules.  The advice takes the form of suggestions of
possible experiments in generalizing or specializing rules in the
model.  This approach has proven particularly valuable in assisting
the expert in domains where two diagnoses are difficult to
distinguish.  Examples are given from an expert consultation system
being developed for rheumatology.

%A G. Drastal
%A C. Kulikowski
%T Knowledge Based Acquisition of Rules for Medical Diagnosis
%R CBM-TM-92
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 10/81
%K AA01 AI01
%X Medical consultation systems in the EXPERT framework contain rules
written under the guidance of expert physicians.  We present a
methodology and preliminary implementation of a system which learns
compiled rule chains from positive case examples of a diagnostic class
and negative examples of alternative diagnostic classes.  Rule
acquisition is guided by the constraints of physiological process
models represented in the system.  Evaluation of the system is
proceeding in the area of glaucoma diagnosis, and an example of an
experiment in this domain is included.

%A N. S. Sridharan
%T AIMDS: Applications and Performance Enhancements
%R CBM-TM-93
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 1/82
%K AI01 AA24
%X AIMDS is a programming environment (language, editors, display drivers, file
system) in which several programs are being constructed for modeling
commonsense reasoning and legal argumentation.  The main obstacle to realistic
applications in these and other areas is system performance when the knowledge
bases used are scaled up one or two orders of magnitude.  The other obstacle
is user performance resulting from the complexity of constructing and debugging
large scale knowledge bases.  This proposal argues that performance enhancement
of AIMDS as a system is needed and that the usual solutions of software tuning
have been exhausted and that new hardware ideas fitted to the characteristics
of the task need to be experimented with.  We adopt as important constraints:
the requirement that existing programs should receive graded enhancement of
performance, maintaining continuity of application programs; that user programs
should not reflect changing machine configurations or architectures.  Redesign
and recoding of AIMDS should provide the necessary opacity to the user.
With these constraints in mind, we suggest interim solutions and long-term
solutions.   The interim solutions include: converting large-address space
personal Lisp machines with bit-mapped graphics; fast coding of low-level
functionalities via microprogramming.  The long-term solutions include the
building and testing of multiprocessors.  The long-term solutions open up
a number of rather difficult software and hardware research problems whose
solutions depend upon having good facilities to experiment in the search for
answers.

%A B. Lantz
%T The AIMDS Interactive Command Parser
%R CBM-TM-94
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 9/82
%K AA24 AI01 T03
%X Characters entered by the user are parsed immediately in order to provide
interactive services to the user while he is entering commands.  Services
provided to the user include immediate verification of syntax, supplying the
user with information about the correct syntax and semantics of a command,
completion of long descriptive atom names, pretty printing the entered
command, and defining special functions for selected characters.  The parser
accepts user defined grammars, thus providing a useful command parser for a
great variety of applications.

%A B. Lantz
%T The AIMDS On-Line Documentation Facility
%R CBM-TM-95
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 9/82
%K AA24 AI01 T03
%X The documentation system for the AIMDS language is designed to be suitable
for both beginning and expert users, and to be capable of serving the needs
of a changing system such as AIMDS.  The documentation must be quickly and
easily updatable, and the updated information should be available to, and
easily used by, a wide variety of users.
%X This paper is a short description of the documentation system for the
AIMDS language.  It includes a discussion of the considerations taken during
the design of the documentation system, a description of the implemented
system, and instructions for using the system for other documentation tasks.

%A J. Roach
%A N. S. Sridharan
%T Implementing AIMDS on a Multiprocessor Machine. Some Considerations
%R CBM-TM-96
%D 4/83
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AA24 T03 H03 AI01
%X As a possible long term solution for performance enhancement of AIMDS,
a Lisp based multiprocessor system was proposed.  Converting an
existing AI knowledge based system from the current uniprocessor
environment into a multiprocessor based regime is a largely unexplored
research question.  This report discusses some of the issues raised by
such a proposal and attempts to evaluate some of the current models of
parallel processing in regards to implementing an AIMDS based system.
An extensive bibliography with commentary is included.

%A George A. Drastal
%A Casimir A. Kulikowski
%T Knowledge-Based Acquisition of Rule for Medical Diagnosis
%R CBM-TM-97
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 11/82
%K AI01 AA01 T03
%X Medical consultation systems in the EXPERT framework contain rules written
under the guidance of expert physicians.  We present a methodology and
preliminary implementation of a system that learns compiled rule chains
from positive case examples of a diagnostic class and negative examples
of alternative diagnostic classes.  Rule acquisition is guided by the
constraints of physiological process models represented in the system.
Evaluation of the system is proceeding in the area of glaucoma diagnosis,
and an example of an experiment in this domain is included.





%A S. Weiss
%A K. Kern
%A C. Kulikowski
%A M. Uschold
%T A Guide to the Use of the EXPERT Consultation System
%R CBM-TR-94
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 1/82
%K T03 AI01
%X EXPERT is a system for designing and applying consultation models.
An EXPERT model consists of hypotheses (conclusions), findings
(observations), and rules for logically relating findings to
hypotheses.  Three phases of model development are outlined for users
of the system.  These include:  the design of a decision-making model,
compilation of the model, and consultation using the model.  The
facilities of the system are described, and examples of models and
consultation sessions are presented.


%A R. Banerji
%A T. Mitchell
%T Description Languages and Learning Algorithms: A Paradigm for Comparison
%R CBM-TR-107
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI04 Inductive inference, learning, generalization, description languages.
%X We propose and apply a framework for comparing various methods for
learning descriptions of classes of objects given a set of training
exemplars.  Such systems may be usefully characterized in terms of
their descriptive languages, and the learning algorithms they employ.
The basis for our characterization and comparison is a
general-to-specific partial ordering over the description language,
which allows characterizing learning algorithms independent of the
description language with which they are associated.  Two existing
learning systems are characterized within this framework, and
correspondences between them made clear.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
80
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Apr 86 09:52:08-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Shape
-BODY-
Jerry Hobbs has asked me "What is a hook and what is a ring that we know
the ring can hang on the hook?"  More specifically, what do we have to
know about hooks and rings in general (for default reasoning) and
about a particular hook-like object and ring-like object (dimensions,
radius of curvature, surface normals, clearances, tolerances, etc.)
in order to say whether a particular ring may be placed on a particular
hook and whether it is likely to stay in place once put there.  Can we
reason about the functionality of shapes (in this and in other "mechanics"
problems) without resorting to full CAD/CAM descriptions, physics,
and simulation?  How do people (e.g., children) reason about shape,
particularly in the intuitively obvious cases where tolerances are not
critical?  Can anyone suggest a good lead?

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 86 15:03 CST
-FROM-
From: Brick Verser  <BAV%KSUVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LOOPS running on a XEROX
-BODY-
Does anybody have any information pertaining to applications running
under Loops on Xerox hardware?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 20:30:50 pst
-FROM-
From: saber!matt@SUN.COM (Matt Perez)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: towards better documentation
-BODY-
>
>    I am interested in creating an expert system to serve as on-line
>    documentation.  The intent is to abrogate the above law and
>    corollaries.  Does anyone know of such a system or any effort(s) to
>    produce one?
>
Contact Mark Miller of Computer*Thought, in Dallas,
Texas.  They may have what you are looking for.  Mark
is a pretty friendly guy and may also point you to the
right literature, etc.

The other place I can think of where there's something
like this in development is the work being done by
Prof. Wilensky at UCBerkely: The Unix Consultant.

Matt Perez

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Apr 86 09:03:06-PST
-FROM-
From: GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Policy - Press Releases
-BODY-
Eschew Policy!!  Let Ken handle it; if you don't like what he let's
through, don't read it (I have ^O on my terminal for just such
situations).  Nobody wastes your time but you....
(And maybe me.)

Cheers,
Tom


  [Unfortunately ^O doesn't work for those reading the "unexploded"
  digest format.  Most mail programs haven't adapted to the digest
  formats yet.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Apr 86 11:17:53-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <LAWS@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Expert
-BODY-
The April issue of CACM has an ad (p. A-31) for AI Expert, a new journal
for AI programmers.  "No hype, no star wars nonsense, no pipe dreams.
AI Expert will focus on practical AI programming methods and applications."
AI Expert, 2443 Fillmore Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA  94115;
$27 for 13 issues, $33 Canada, $39 worldwide, $57 airmail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No. 4 Summary
-BODY-
Summary of The Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No. 4
April 1986

Packaging Financial Expertise

Activities at specific companies and available products:

Applied Expert Systems (APEX) Plan Power:

Expert system for personal financial planning.  (less than $50K including
Xerox 1186 on which to run on)

Arthur D. Little:

Personal Financial Planning System (in test), Equity Trader's
Assistant, Cash Trader's Assistant, insurance personnel selection
system, investment manager's work station, bond indenture advice
system. (in development) (will run on Symbolics 3670 and use databases
residing on IBM mainframe)

Cognitive Systems:

Courtier, a stock portfolio management system.  One version is design
for individual use at public terminals with another to assist bank
portfolio managers.  Runs on Apollo's and DEC VAX.

Human Edge Software:

is supporting development of Financial Statement Analysis, an expert
business evaluation program, and a busines plan expert for IBM PC's.

Palladian Software:

Financial Advisor which is designed to help with corporate financial
decison-making and project evaluation capabilities.  It is based upon
net present value.

Prophecy Development Corporation:

Profit tool, a brokerage and financial services shell.  Runs on MS-DOS
computers and costs $1995.00.

Sterling Wentworth Corporation:

Planman, $4500.00
Database $2000.00
For CPA's to produce "comprehensive financial planning reports"  Runs on MSDOS
and they have sold 400 units

Syntelligence:

Underwriting Advisor System
Lending Advisor System.

Delivered on IBM 30 and 43 series with connections to PC/AT's.

Nikko Securities Co and Fujitsu:

(under development) a system for selecting stocks for investment.

Daiwa Securities:

Placed a system to provide investment councelling into operation last
month.

Yamaichi Securities:

developing AI based investment products in collaboration with Hitachi
and Nippon Univak.

Nomura Securities:

This is Japan's largest stock broker and they embarking on a broad-
based AI R&D program.


The total revenue for financial expert systems is five million
dollars.  In 1985, financial applications were five percent of all
epxert systems.  In 1986, it is expected to be twenty percent.  One in
five of large financial institutions have applied expert systems.

__________________________________________________________________________

Japan Watch:

Nomura research Institute has developed a tool called DORSAI for assisting
in the production of expert systems in PROLOG.

Hitachi's Energy Research Institute have developed a system for
proving theorems at a high speed.  Hitachi applied for a patent and it
employs the "Connection Graph technique."  Hitachi will use this
system for VLSI logic design, factory automation, real-time failure
diagnostics, chemical compound synthesis, and hardware applications.

60 percent of Japanese corporations are beginning to utilize AI or are
studying such a move.  28 percent of Japanese hardware, software
companies and heavy computer users have plans to enter into AI while
32 percent are currently involv ed in AI.  52 percent of the companies
with plans to enter AI expressed an interest in expert systems.

__________________________________________________________________________

Micro Trends:

Discussion of Borlands's Turbo prolog including reactions from Arity, Quintus
Prolog, GOld Hill, CIGNA.


__________________________________________________________________________
News:

Amoco Corporation and IntelliCorp announced a joint venture to market AI
products for molecular biology.  The first new product will  be Strategene.

Boeing Computer Services and Carnegie Federal Systems Corproation will
be working together on a Rome Air Development center contract to
develop a "new engineering environment."

Carnegie Federal Systems will support TRW in developing AI software for
tactical mission planning and resource allocation functions.

Qunintus Computer Systems has over 270 users with 170 of them using Quintus
on the workstaiton.  Revenues for 1985 were $2.1 million dollars with
an 18 percent profit margin.

Rapport, a DBMS may soon be available for Symbolics machines.  It will run
not only in single user mode but as a multi-user file server.

UC Berkeley is developing a RISC based LISP machine with multiple
processors (SPUR project).  The Aquarius project involves using separate
processors for numeric, Prolog and LISP processing, each optimized for
its specific rule.

Frank Spitznogle who formerly was President and chief operating officer of Lisp
Machines is now President and chief operating officer of Knowledge Systems of
Houston Texas.  They will be applying AI to oil and gas industry.
Their first product will be an exploration-potential evaluation
consultant.

Thomas Kehler is now chairman and CEO of Intellicorp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 11:33:07 est
-FROM-
From: John McLean <mclean@nrl-css.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lucas on AI
-BODY-
   >  From: Stanley Letovsky <letovsky@YALE.ARPA>
   >  At  the conference on "AI an the Human Mind" held at Yale early in
   >  March 1986, a paper was presented  by  the  British  mathematician  John
   >  Lucas.   He  claimed  that AI could never succeed, that a machine was in
   >  principle incapable of doing all that a mind can do.  His argument  went
   >  like  this.  Any computing machine is essentially equivalent to a system
   >  of formal logic.  The famous Godel incompleteness theorem shows that for
   >  any  formal  system  powerful enough to be interesting, there are truths
   >  which cannot be proved in that system.   Since  a  person  can  see  and
   >  recognize  these truths, the person can transcend the limitations of the
   >  formal system.  Since this is true of any formal system at all, a person
   >  can  always  transcend  a  formal  system, therefore a formal system can
   >  never be a model of a person.

   Stanley Letovsky tries to refute this argument by showing that a
formal description that describes Lucas' beliefs may have unprovable
assertions that Lucas nevertheless believes.

   >  What is critical to realize, however, is that the  Godel  sentence
   >  for our model of Lucas is not a belief of Lucas' according to the model.
   >  The form of the Godel sentence
                     >  G: not(provable(G))
   >  is syntactically distinct from the form of  an  assertion  about  Lucas'
   >  beliefs,
                        >  believes(p,t)
   >  Nothing stops us from having
                        >  believes(G,t)
   >  be  provable  in  the  system,  despite  the  fact  that G is not itself
   >  provable in the system.

This view of what G must look like is too restrictive.  Note that the
Godel sentence for a system of first order arithmetic is an assertion
in number theory ("There is no integer such that...").  The fact that
the assertion numeralwise represents an assertion about provability
takes a great deal of showing.  Similarly, the Godel sentence for our
model of Lucas may be an assertion about what Lucas believes. Since
Lucas is going to have beliefs about his beliefs and what is provable
in the system, it's not hard to believe that we can construct a
self-referential sentence G such that Lucas believes G at t but
believe(G,t) is not a theorem.  This is particularly plausible since
there is a strong connection between what Lucas believes and what is
provable in the system.  In particular, believes(believes(x,y),t) will
be provable iff Lucas believes that he believes x at y. But it is
plausible to assume that Lucas believes that he believes x at y iff
he believes x at y, i. e., iff believes(x,y) is provable.  In other words,
the belief predicate is a provabilility predicate for the system restricted
to statements about beliefs.

To fill this out, note that we will probably have that if
believes("not(believes(x,y))",t) then not(believes(x,y)) since if Lucas
believes that he doesn't believe p, then he doesn't believe p.  Now consider

     G:  believes("not(G,t)",t).

If our system is consistent and such a G exists, G is not provable.  If
G were provable, then not(G) would also be provable given our observation
since G is a statement about belief.

I believe that it is possible to construct such a sentence G, but this
does not imply that we can't dismiss Lucas.  Lucas' argument is unconvincing
since there is no reason to believe that for any formal system, I can see and
recognize the Godel sentence for that system.  Godel sentences for a particular
system are long and complicated.  Hence, there is no reason to believe
that Lucas surpasses every formal system.  In fact, it is clear that
there is at least one formal system that can recognize as true a sentence
that Lucas can't.  Consider the system that contains one axiom:

   "is a sentence that Lucas will never recognize as true when appended
   to its own quotation" is a sentence that Lucas will never recognize
   as true when appended to its own quotation.

The system recognizes the sentence as true since it's an axiom; Lucas
doesn't.

John McLean
mclean@nrl-css
...!decvax!nrl-css!mclean

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 11:19:13 EST
-FROM-
From: tes%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Consciousness
-BODY-
Informal talk on computer consciousness:

        The whole family of questions like "Can computers feel emotion?"
and "Is it possible for a computer to be conscious?" define a loaded,
emotionally-charged subject.  Some people (especially "artistic" folks, in
my experience) give an immediate emphatic "NO!" to these questions;
other people (many Science-is-The-Answer-to-Everything sorts)
devise computational models that parallel what we know about physical
brain structure and conclude "yes, of course"; and other folks remain
somewhere in the middle or profess "it's too complicated - I don't know."
        My main beef with some physicalist or reductionist opinions is
the *assumption* that nothing except physical events exist in the universe,
and that a physical or functional description of a system describes its
essence entirely, and therefore if the human brain's neural interactions are
simulated by some machine then this machine is for all intents and purposes
equivalent to a human mind.  To me, the phenomenological red that I perceive
when looking at an apple is OBVIOUSLY real, as is my consciousness.  It is
ridiculous to conclude that consciousness and phenomenological experiences
do not exist simply because they cannot be easily described with mathematics
or the English language.
        My main beef with immediate emphatic "NO"s is that it may reflect
an emotional fear of examining "taboo" territories, perhaps
because such inquiry threatens the Meaning of Life or the sovereignty
of the human mind.(There is no need to expound on how much suffering this
attitude has brought upon our ancestors throughout history.)  To find out
that the human mind is "just this" or "just that" would significantly alter
certain worldviews.
        The possibilites that are left to me are either that

        1) Consciousness "emerges" from the functionality of the
           brain's neural interactions (if this is true, then it
           would be entirely possible, in principle, for a computer
           program with the same functionality to generate consciousness),

        2) There is a dualism of the mental and the physical with
           mysterious interactions between the two realms, and

        3) Other possibilities which no one has thought of yet.

Now the first two may seem ridiculous, and I have no idea how to
prove or disprove them, but they remain *possibilities* for me because
they are not yet disproven.  The physicalist proposal, on the other hand, is
proven wrong (or rather its absolute universality is proven wrong) by the
simplest introspective observation.
        I am not campaigning for a ceasing of all brain research or
cognitive science; these sciences will continue to yield useful information.
But I hope that these researchers and their fans do not delude themselves
into thinking that the only aspect of the universe which exists is the
aspect that science can deal with.


                                        Tom Schutz
        CSNET:          tes@bu-cs
        ARPA:           tes%bu-cs@csnet-relay
        UUCP:           ...harvard!bu-cs!tes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
81
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #4
-BODY-

%R CBM-TR-109
%T The Role of World Knowledge in Planning
%A N.S. Sridharan
%A C.F. Schmidt
%A J.L. Goodson
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI09 common-sense
%X Common-sense planning demands a rich variety of world knowledge.  We
have examined here the view that world knowledge can be structured to
form the interface between a hierarchy of action types and a hierarchy
of types of objects.  World knowledge forming this interface includes
not only the traditional statements about preconditions and outcomes
of actions, but also the normal states of objects participating in the
actions and normative actions associated with the objects.
Common-sense plans are decomposed into goal-directed, preparation, and
the normative components.  This has heuristic value and may serve to
simplify the planning algorithm.  The algorithm invokes world
knowledge for goal customization, action specification, computation of
preconditions and outcomes, object selection, and for setting up
subgoals.

%R CBM-TR-110
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 5/80
%T An Experimental Transformation of a Large Expert Knowledge
%A R.N. Goldberg
%A S.M. Weiss
%K internist AI01 AA01
%X An experiment is described in which a significant part of the
INTERNIST knowledge base for diagnosis in internal medicine is
translated into an EXPERT model.  INTERNIST employs the largest and
broadest knowledge base of all the medical consultation systems which
have been developed in recent years.  EXPERT is a general system for
designing consultation models.  The translated model shows reasonable
competence in the final diagnostic classification of 431 test cases.
There are differences in the internal representation and reasoning
strategies of the two systems.  However, when a knowledge base has
been encoded in a relatively uniform manner, this experiment
demonstrates the feasibility of transfer of knowledge between
large-scale expert systems.

%R CBM-TR-111
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 6/80
%T A Process for Evaluating Tree-Consistency
%A J.L. Goodson
%X General knowledge about conceptual classes represented in a concept
hierarchy can provide a basis for various types of inferences about an
individual.  However, the various sources of inference may not lead to
a consistent set of conclusions about the individual.  This paper
provides a brief glimpse at how we represent beliefs about specific
individuals and conceptual knowledge, discusses some of the sources
of inference we have defined, and describes procedures and structures
that can be used to evaluate agreement among sources whose conclusions
can be viewed as advocating various values in a tree partition of
alternate values.

%R CBM-TR-112
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 9/80
%T "A Methodology for the Construction of Natural
Language Front Ends for Medical Consultation System
%A V. Ciesielski
%D 1/82
%K AI01 AI02 AA01
%X A methodology for constructing natural language front ends for
Associational Knowledge type (AK-type) medical consultation systems is
described.  AK-type consultation systems use associational knowledge
of the form "if A and B and C then conclude D with a weight of w" to
perform diagnostic reasoning.  It is shown that the knowledge needed
to "understand" patient description is not the associational knowledge
in the consultation system but rather knowledge of structural
relations and the way they are expressed in surface language.  The two
main structural relations involved are:  (1) ATTRIBUTE of OBJECT =
VALUE.  Surface forms of this relation are variants and augmentations
of the template "The X of Y is V".  (2)  OBJECT have-component
COMPONENT.  Surface forms of this relation are variants and
augmentations of the template "The X has/contains/includes Y".  This
kind of knowledge can be represented in the
Attribute-Component/Structured Object (AC/SO) package which was
developed as part of this research.  The AC/SO package is given a
definition of the @u(concept) "PATIENT" for a disease area and the
corresponding lexicon.

%R DCS-TR-118
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 9/82
%T Transformational Programming--Applications to Algorithms and
Systems
%A Robert Paige
%K AA08
%X Transformational programming is a nascent software development
methodology that promises to reduce programming labor, increase
program reliability, and improve program performance.  Our research
centers around a prototype transformational programming system called
RAPTS (Rutgers Abstract Program Transformation System), developed
during the past several years at Laboratory for Computer Science
Research.  Experiments in RAPTS with algorithm derivations are
expected to lead to pragmatic applications to algorithm design,
program development, and large system construction.

%R DCS-TR-115
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 4/82
%T A  Survey of Research in Strategy Acquisition
%A R. Keller
%D 7/82
%X This paper surveys literature in the area of strategy acquisition for
artificial and human problem solving systems.  A unifying view of the
term "strategy" is suggested which places strategies along a continuum
from abstract to concrete.  Major concerns of strategy acquisition
research are described, including (i) strategic component learning,
(ii) strategy applicability recognition, (iii) strategy customization
and (iv) strategy transformation.  Various researchers' approaches to
these issues are reviewed and open problems are discussed.

%R DCS-TR-114
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 3/82
%T The Control of Inferencing in Natural Language Understanding
%A Abe Lockman
%A David Klappholz
%K AI02
%X The understanding of a natural language text requires that a reader
(human or computer program) be able to resolve ambiguities at the
syntactic and lexical levels; it also requires that a reader be able
to recover that part of the meaning of a text which is over and above
the collection of meanings of its individual sentences taken in
isolation.
%X The satisfaction of this requirement involves complex inferencing from
a large database of world-knowledge.  While human readers seem able to
perform this task easily, the designer of computer programs for
natural language understanding faces the serious difficulty of
algorithmically defining precisely the items of world-knowledge
required at any point in the processing, i.e., the problem of
@i[controlling inferencing].  This paper discusses the problems
involved in such control of inferencing; an approach to their solution
is presented, based on the notion of determining where each successive
sentence "fits" into the text as a whole.


%R DCS-TR-113
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 4/82
%T Consistent-Labeling Problems and Their Algorithms:  Part II
%A B. Nudelo
%D 10/82
%K AI14 AI10 AI03 inter-variable compatibility
%X A new parameter is introduced to characterize a type of search
problem of broad relevance in Artificial Intelligence, Operations
Research and Symbolic Logic.  This paramater, which we call
inter-variable @b[compatibility] is particularly important in that
complexity analyses incorporating it are able to capture the
dependence of problem complexity on search order used by an algorithm.
Thus compatibility-based theories can provide a theoretical basis for
the extraction of heuristics for choosing good search orderings - a
long-sought goal for such problems, since it can lead to significant
savings during search.  We carry out expected complexity analyses for
the traditional Backtrack algorithm as well as for two more recent
algorithms that have been found empirically to be significant
improvements, Forward Checking and word-wise Forward Checking.  We
extract compatibility-based ordering-heuristics from the theory for
Forward Checking.  Preliminary experimental results are presented
showing the large savings that result from their use.  Similar savings
can be expected for other algorithms when heuristics taking account of
inter-variable compatibilities are used.  Our compatibility-based
theories also provide a more precise way of predicting which algorithm
is best for a given problem.

%A B. Nudel
%T Understand Consistent-Labelling Problems and Their Algorithms and
Their Algorithms: Part I
%R DCS-TR-112
%D (forthcoming)
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI14 AI10 AI03


%R DCS-TR-109
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 12/81
%T Equations - The "Improved Constraint Satisfaction Algorithms
using Inter-Variable Compatibilities"
%A B. Nudel
%K consistent labeling AI03
%X This report addresses the problem of improving algorithms for solving
@b(consistent-labeling) (also called @b(constraint-satisfaction)
problems.  The concept of @b(compatibility) between variables in such
problems is introduced.  How to obtain compatibilities analytically
and empirically is discussed, and various compatibility-based
heuristics (as well as some useful but less effective non
compatibility-based heuristics) are developed to improve a version of
the Waltz algorithm which was found best of a set of consistent-labeling
problem algorithms tested by Haralick [5].  Empirical results with
these heuristics are very encouraging, with over an order of magnitude
improvement in performance with respect to the basic algorithm on a
set of randomly generated consistent-labeling problems.

%R DCS-TR-107
%D  10/81
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%T Note on Learning in MDS Based on Predicate Signatures
%A C.V. Srinivasan
%K AI06 AI04
%X This note illustrates a simple learning scheme in the context of two
examples.  In the first example the system learns the distinguishing
features of the letters in the English alphabet, where each letter is
described in terms of a relational system of features.  In the second
example the domain is a set of family relationships.  In this case the
system identifies invariant properties like
"father.father=grandfather" that exist in the domain.
.sp 1
In both examples the system first creates an abstraction of the given
set of relations and uses the abstraction to identify invariant (or
distinguishing) features of the given set of relations.  The
abstraction scheme is based on the concept of "predicate signatures"
that is described in the note.
.sp 1
The method is a general one.  It can be used to identify large classes
of invariant (or distinguishing) features of sets of objects where
each object is described in terms of a set of relations that hold true
for the object.

%R DCS-TR-106
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 10/81
%T Knowledge Representation and Problem Solving in MDS
%A C. V. Srinivasan
%K AI11
%X This work presents a new approach for using a first order theory to
generate procedures for solving goal satisfaction problems without
using general theorem proving.  The core of the problem solving system
has three basic components:  an inferencing mechanism based on
@u(residues), a control structure for "means-end" analysis that uses
@u(natural deduction), and a generalization scheme that is based on
the structure of statements in the domain theory itself.
.sp 1
The work represents a beginning in the development of knowledge based
systems that can generate their own problem solving programs, evolve
with experience and adapt to a changing domain theory.


%R DCS-TR-95
%D 10/80
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%T A Mini-Max Problem
%A W.L. Steiger
%K AI03
%X Determine an algorithm, better than complete enumeration, for the
following problem: given a non-negative integer matrix, permute the
entries in each column independently so as to minimize the largest row
sum.  This problem had arisen in determining an optimal scheduling
for a factory work force.


%R DCS-TR-92
%D 4/80
%T Average Case Behavior of the Alpha-Beta Tree Pruning Algorithm
%A George Shrier
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%K AI03


%R DCS-TM-15
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 3/81
%T Some Experiments in Abstraction of Relational Characteristics
%A R.M. Keller
%A D.J. Nagel
%K AA09 AI01 AI04
%X Two experiments performed in knowledge-based inference are discussed in this
paper.  The experiments are directed at abstracting
structural regularities and patterns inherent in a database of binary
relations.  A novel graph representation to facilitate abstraction is
used in approaching some classical problem areas.  This representation
is compact and powerful, and an efficient algorithm has been developed
to help control the exhaustive nature of certain types of inductive
problems.
.sp 1
One area of experimentation concerns the discovery of intensionally definable
re
lations in a
family database.  Another is the recognition of alphabetic characters
using directional relations defined for points on a grid.  Within a
test bed system, KBLS, a scheme for computing abstractions is briefly
summarized, and implications for future extensions are discussed in
light of experimental results.

%R DCS-TM-16
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 3/83
%T Solving the Plane Geometry Problem by Learning
%A Liben Xu
%K AI01 AA13  AI14
%X The top-down technique for solving a geometry problem is described.
The top-down method uses "general rules," they are obtained by
learning.  This report focuses on general heuristics to obtain the
general rules for solving a geometry problem.

%R DCS-TR-89
%D 5/80
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%T Parts I, II, III of KNOWLEDGE BASED LEARNING SYSTEMS DS + CVS = A
Proposal for Research CVS = An Intro. to the Meta-Theory & Logical
Foundations
%A D. Sandford
%K AI01 AI04
%X Current state of the art experience in designing domain specific,
intelligent, automated problem solving systems argues convincingly
that:  Firstly, large amounts of what is known as domain dependent or
domain specific knowledge is crucial to achieving acceptable
efficiency in realistic problem solving situations; and secondly that
the task of implementing such systems "from scratch" is such a
formidable one that it has impeded experimental research into the
nature and role of domain specific knowledge in problem solving.
.sp 1
This project is directed towards attaining an understanding of the
processes and types of organizations required for an automated system
to be able to learn for itself the relevant domain dependent
knowledge from its experience with the domain.  The research is based
on a meta-theory of knowledge based learning systems, systems that can
discover domain knowledge and use it to solve problems in a domain.
The research project will employ both experimentation with implemented
systems and theoretical analysis of systems.  The goals are to shed
light on both the detailed mechanisms by which domain dependent
knowledge increases search efficiency, and to understand the type of
innate biases that an automated system needs, to be able to analyze a
domain and discover the appropriate domain knowledge.  The research is
based on a meta-theory of systems that are both knowledge based
systems and learning systems.
.sp 1
The research focuses on two kinds of systems:  Systems that can build
and use empirical theories of domains, and systems that use Axiomatic
theories and theorem proving.  The nature of domain knowledge and ways
of using it in both these systems are investigated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
82
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #5
-BODY-

%R DCS-TR-90
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 5/80
%T Knowledge-based learning, an Example
%A C. V. Srinivasan
%D 1/82
%K AI04
%X How may a machine "learn" from examples of situations that are
presented to it?  What may constitute the "knowledge" of a set of such
situations?  How should the examples be presented to the machine?  Are
there general principles which a machine can use to acquire the
knowledge automatically by examining the examples presented to it, and
to use the knowledge so obtained to solve problems in a domain?  These
are the general concerns of my research.


%R CBM-TR-138
%D 5/84
%T Hardware Fault Diagnosis & Expert Systems
%A Allen Ginsberg
%D 5/84
%K AI01 AA04 AA21
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%X Recent research in Expert Systems has begun to deal with problem
domains that do not fit into the "classification problem" mode, the
latter being the sort of problems that have been  most amenable to
Expert System technology.  Hardware Fault Diagnosis(HFD) is an example
of such a problem domain.  Problems in HFD typically involve a
"localization" problem as a component, i.e., @i[where] is the location
of the fault?  This paper takes a critical look at some current work
in HFD, viz. Genesereth, Davis, with a view towards determining the
differences between classification and localization problems that are
likely to necessitate new approaches to knowledge representation and
acquisition if Expert Systems are to be successful in such a domain.

%R CBM-TR-139
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 5/84
%T Localization Problems and Expert Systems
%A Allen Ginsberg
%K AI01
%X Expert systems approaches to problem solving have recently had
enormous success and influence in the field of AI.  The most
successful of these systems tend to deal with a certain kind of
problem type which have been called "classification problems."  Very
recently, we have seen the emergence of a number of expert systems
that deal with a different category of problem, a category that I will
call "localization problems."  The purpose of this paper is to
characterize this class of problems, contrast it with the
classification problem category, give some examples of localization
problems, and suggest some new avenues for expert system research
dealing with problems in this category.

%R CBM-TR-140
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 5/84
%T Investigations in the Mathematical Theory of Problem Space
Representations and Problem Solving Methods
%A Allen Ginsberg
%K AI09
%X In this paper I address the issue of how a system that has the ability
to do problem solving and planning - in the sense of being in
possession of generalized schemas or templates for carrying out these
activities - can know whether a particular type of planning or, if you
will, problem solving strategy, is a "good" one to employ in solving
problems in a particular domain?  It seems to me that, in general, in
order to make such judgements in a reasonable fashion a problem solver
must either be in possession of some general theoretical facts
concerning the nature and structure of problem types, i.e., a theory
of problem types, or at the very least, have been programmed by
someone having such a theory.  This paper is a step in the direction
of constructing such a theory.
.sp 1
The structure of the paper is as follows.  First I discuss the nature
of problem solving and planning in general, and give a preliminary
description of a particular planning template.  Next I describe and
illustrate a mathematical framework within which one can formulate
problem representations.  Finally I deal with the question of what
facts about the structure of a problem representation are relevant to
the determination of whether or not the aforementioned planning
template is applicable to the problem at hand.

%R CBM-TR-141
%D 5/84
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%T Representation & Problem Solving: Theoretical Foundations
%A Allen Ginsberg
%X The word "representation" and its cognates is probably the most
popular word in AI today.  If anything qualifies as "the fundamental
assumption of AI," it is probably the view that intelligence is
essentially the ability to construct and manipulate symbolic
@i[representations] of some "reality" in order to achieve desired
ends.  Furthermore, probably every researcher in AI would agree that
the key to AI's success lies with the general area known as "knowledge
representation."  This point of view has been buttressed not only by
the failures of early "general purpose" AI systems, but much more so
by the recent success of expert systems.  The philosophy behind the
expert systems approach is one that has, rightfully come to infect the
entire field of AI: intelligence essentially depends upon the ability
to @i[represent] and store a potentially vast amount of knowledge in ways
that enable it to be easily accessed and utilized in the performance
of various tasks.  The key concept here is @i[representation].
%X Given the fact that AI has come to embrace these doctrines, and the
likelihood that there is a good deal of truth in them, it is incumbent
upon us to examine their foundations, for better or for worse.  It
would be nice to have answers to questions such as What is a
representation?, When are two or more representations representations
of the same or different real world situations?, What are the ways in
which representations can be "manipulated?"  It would be even nicer if
the answers to such questions were provided by a general formal theory
of representation.  In this paper I attempt to lay some of the
groundwork for such a theory, with emphasis on the role of
representation in problem solving.

%R CBM-TR-142
%D 5/84
%T A Model for Automated Theory Formation for Problem Solving Systems"
%A A. Ginsberg
%X The goal of this paper is to contribute towards the understanding and
eventual mechanization of the processes whereby an @i[intelligent]
problem solver @i[learns] to improve its performance in a given task
domain by formulating and using @i[theories] regarding that domain. In
order to achieve this goal it is necessary for us, as designers of
such a system, to have a fairly good idea of a) the various sorts of
knowledge that are required for a problem solver to acquire new
knowledge that will hopefully improve performance, and of b) how each
of these types or sources of knowledge comes into play in this
process.  In this paper I give an abstract description of the domains
of knowledege required for theory formation, and also illustrate the
ideas with a concrete example.  The type of system contemplated in
this paper incorporates ways of structuring background knowledge that
are natural and will, I believe, prove to be useful in designing
self-improving AI programs.
%X In this paper I address the issue of how a system that has the ability
to do problem solving and planning - in the sense of being in
possession of generalized schemas or templates for carrying out these
activities - can know whether a particular type of planning or, if you
will, problem solving strategy, is a "good" one to employ in solving
problems in a particular domain?  It seems to me that, in general, in
order to make such judgements in a reasonable fashion a problem solver
must either be in possession of some general theoretical facts
concerning the nature and structure of problem types, i.e., a theory
of problem types, or at the very least, have been programmed by
someone having such a theory.  This paper is a step in the direction
of constructing such a theory.
%X The structure of the paper is as follows.  First I discuss the nature
of problem solving and planning in general, and give a preliminary
description of a particular planning template.  Next I describe and
illustrate a mathematical framework within which one can formulate
problem representations.  Finally I deal with the question of what
facts about the structure of a problem representation are relevant to
the determination of whether or not the aforementioned planning
template is applicable to the problem at hand.

%R CBM-TR-143
%D 5/84
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%T A Knowledge Representation Framework for Expert Control of
Interactive Software Systems
%A Apte, C.
%A S. Weiss
%K AI01 AA08
%X Expert problem solving strategies in many domains make use of
detailed quantitative or mathematical techniques coupled with
experiential knowledge about how these techniques can be used to solve
problems.  In many such domains, these techniques are available as part
of complex software packages.  In attempting to build expert systems
in these domains, we wish to make use of these existing packages, and
are therefore faced with an important problem:  how to integrate the
existing software, and knowledge about its use, into a practical
expert system.  We define a framework of a @i[hybrid model] for
representing problem solving knowledge in such domains.  A hybrid
model consists of a @i[surface] and a @i[deep] model.  The surface
model is the production rule-based expert subsystem that is driven by
domain specific control and interpretive knowledge.  The deep model is
the existing software, reorganized as necessary for its interpretation
by the surface model.  We present an outline of a specialized
form-based system for acquisition and representation of expert
knowledge required for this hybrid modeling.

%R CBM-TR-144 (THESIS)
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 9/84
%T A Framework for Expert Control of Interactive Software Systems
%A C.V. Apte
%K AI01 AA08
%X Expert problem-solving strategies in many domains require the use of
detailed mathematical techniquers coupled with experiential knowledge
about how and when to use the appropriate techniques.  In many of
these domains, such techniques are made available to experts in large
software packages.  In attempting to build expert systems for these
domains, we wish to make use of these existing packages, and are
therefore faced with an important problem: how to integrate the
existing software, and knowledge about its use, into a practical
expert system.  The expert knowledge is used, in dynamic selection of
appropriate programs and parameters, to reach a successful goal in the
problem-solving.  This kind of expert problem-solving is achieved
through two interacting bodies of knowledge; problem domain knowledge,
and knowledge about the programs that comprise the software package.
%X This thesis describes the framework of a @i[hybrid expert system] for
representing problem-solving knowledge in these domains.  This hybrid
system may be characterized as consisting of a @i[surface] model and a
@i[deep]  model.  The surface model is a production-rule based expert
subsystem that consists of heuristics used by an expert.  The deep
model is a collection of methods, each parameterized by a set of
controlling and observed parameters.  The method and their results are
reasoned about using their parameter sets.  The existing software is
reorganized as necessary to map it into the deep model structure of a
hybrid system.  This framework has evolved out of an effort to build an
expert system for performing well-log analysis (ELAS - @i[Expert Log
Analysis System]).  A generalized expert-system building methodology
based upon principles drawn from ELAS is introduced.  The use of
@i[method-abstractions] in assembling a hybrid system is discussed.
The notion of @i[worksheet-reasoning] is defined, and discussed.

%R CBM-TR-145 (THESIS)
%D 10/84
%T Shift of Bias for Inductive Concept Learning
%A Paul E. Utgoff
%K AI04
%X We identify and examine the fundamental role that bias plays in
inductive concept learning.  Bias is the set of all influences,
procedural or declarative, that causes a concept learner to prefer one
hypothesis to another.  Much of the success of concept learning
programs to date results from the program's author having provided the
learning program with appropriate bias.  To date there has been no
good mechanical method for shifting from one bias to another that is
better.  Instead, the author of a learning program has himself had to
search for a better bias.  The program author manually generates a
bias, from scratch or by revising a previous bias, and then tests it
in his program.  If the author is not satisfied with the induced
concepts, then he repeats the manual-generate and program-test cycle.
If the author is satisfied, then he deems his program successful.  Too
often, he does not recognize his own role in the learning process.
.sp 1
Our thesis is that search for appropriate bias is itself a major part
of the learning task, and that we can create mechanical procedures for
conducting a well-directed search for an appropriate bias.  We would
like to understand better how a program author does about doing his
search for appropriate bias.  What insights does he have?  What does
he learn when he observes that a particular bias produces poor
performance?  What domain knowledge does he apply?
.sp 1
We explore the problem of mechanizing the search for appropriate
bias.  To that end, we develop a framework for a procedure that shifts
bias.  We then build two instantiations of the procedure in a program
called STABB, which we then incorporate in the LEX learning program.
One, called "constraint back propagation" uses analytic deduction.  We
report experiments with the implementations that both demonstrate the
usefulness of the framework, and uncover important issues for this
kind of learning.

%R CBM-TR-146
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science
%D 5/85
%T A Framework for Representation of Expertise in Experimental Design
for Enzyme Kinetics
%A Von-Wun Soo
%A Casimir A. Kulikowski
%A David Garfinkel
%K AA10 AI01
%X In this paper, we present part of our current research on expert
systems in enzyme kinetics.  Because of the richness and diversity of
the problem solving knowledge required in this domain, we have found
it to be an excellent vehicle for studying issues of knowledge
representation and expert reasoning in AI.  Biochemical experimental
design, the focus of this paper, is a major problem solving activity
of the enzyme kineticist that has not been explored by expert systems
researchers.  Their problem solving expertise can usually be described
as the application of a sequence of methods.  In designing a
complicated biochemical experiment, the experimenter has several
methods to choose from at any stage.  These methods are represented as
computer programs which can be organized into a hierarchy.  This paper
proposes a structure for these problem solving methods and an expert
consultation system for experimental design.
.sp 1
We have found that problem solving expertise in experimental design
can be divided into three phases.  In the first phase, we deal with
problems of selecting the experimental methods that satisfy an
experimenter's goal, given certain postulated models.  The
experimental conditions and optimal design points can be derived if
the model is given and the goal and the assumptions of the optimal
design criterion are satisfied.  In the second phase, we deal with the
problems of preparing an enzyme assay.  The interactions among
experimental conditions and other influencing factors must be
carefully controlled so that the correct concentration of a given
species can be calculated.  In the third phase, we face the problem of
analyzing and interpreting the experimental data and recommending
further refinement of the experiment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
83
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #1
-BODY-
%J ComputerWorld
%D FEB 10, 1986
%V 20
%N 6
%P 44+
%K AI01 AT10 AA15 University of Calgary GA04 Synerlogic
%X "Synerlogic, Inc. has joined with the University of Calgary (Alberta)
in a project to develop an expert system to assist in converting subject matter
knowledge into computer-based training courseware."

%T Martinizing
%J Datamation
%D FEB 15, 1986
%P 19
%N 4
%V 32
%K AT14 AT13 AT12 AA08 James Martin Knowledge Ware
%X "I wish to correct a serious error in your article
on 'building a Better Program'
(Oct. 1 p 42).
The TI Tools do not, as you state, have 'levels of integration far in advance
of
 DDI.'
Exactly the opposite is true.  A brief session with the DDI tools and the Ti
too
ls
would reveal immediately that the TI tools cannot compare in richness and
functionality with the DDI tools.  The DDI tools use artificial intelligence
techniques and are a generation beyond TI.  THE DDI tools already have
extensive
use in MIS organizations.  The direct implementation of my own implementations
i
s
in DDI.
On Dec. 1 DDI changed its name to KnowledgeWare to reflect the AI knowledge
base
of its tools.  This is as far as I am aware, the first practical application of
AI techniques for automating the planning, analysis and design of systems.
James Martin
Tuppeny House
Tuckerstown, Bermuda
(begin section by editors)
James Martin appears to be confused about the 'tools' to which user sources
are referring in the story.  The sources compared the relative merits of (to
date) unannounced tools under development at TI and DDI - into software
productivity tools currently used in MIS organizations.  Though Martin
has consulted with TI on the use of his methodology and is entitled to his
opinion, company sources say that he isn't in a position to effectively comment
on it upcoming tools or to compare them with those of DDI.  We'll have to wait
for the marketplace to do that.  -- ED"

%T World Watch
%J Datamation
%P 60
%D FEB 15, 1986
%P 19
%N 4
%V 32
%K GA01 India Institute for New Generation Technology
%X "India hopes to curry favor with Japan's Institute for New Generation
Computer Technology.  So, a few of India's premier fifth-generation researchers
may
soon be packing their bags for a trip to India."

%A John R. Dixon
%T Will Mechanical Engineers Survive Artificial Intelligence
%J Mechanical Engineering
%D FEB 1986
%P 8+
%V 108
%N 2
%K AA05 AT14
%X Raj Reddy stated 'In the twenty-first century, much of what mechanical
engineers now do will be done by machines'  The rest of the editorial,
discusses whether this is a reality.





%A Howard K. Dicken
%T Turning Micros Into Mavens
%J High Technology
%D MAR 1986
%P 71
%V 6
%N 3
%K AI01 H01 Expertelligence Macintosh AT16 Migent Software Intellicorp
Enrich Transform Logic AA15
%X Expertelligence, which sells expert-system shells, Lisp and Prolog
for the Macintosh had fiscal 1985 revenue of $834,000.
Losses were $411,000.  Intellicorp had 1985 sales of $8.7 million
dollars with a loss of $724,000.  Migent Software
has purchased an expert system for interfaces to user software from
Transform Logic.  The software is called Enrich and sells for $595.00

%A Stanley Aronoff
%A Glyn F. Jones
%T From Data to Image to Action
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D DEC 1985
%V 22
%N 12
%P 45-52
%K AI06 Mult-Spectral Scanner Landsat AA03 forestry crop yields Cropcast AI01
%X discusses various aspects of the hardware for image processing.
Crop forecasting now achieve 97% accuracy with 95% accuracy three months
prior to harvest.  They state that expert systems will combined with image
processing to create a new generation of information systems.


%T Adept, Kawasaki in Japan Accord
%J Electronic News
%D FEB 10, 1986
%P 45
%V 32
%N 1588
%K AI07 GA01 GA02 AT16  AI06
%X Adept has licensed Kawasaki Heavy industries to manufacture and sell
its robotics line in Japan.  Adept estimated it will receive one million
dollars in the next three years.  This also includes the AdeptVision systems.
Adept has shipped more than $500,000 worth of robotics equipment ot
Kawaski since last September

%T Notes: Software and Services
%J ComputerWorld
%D JAN 27, 1986
%P 33
%V 20
%N 4
%K LogicWare MProlog Revelations Control Data Corp Cyber H04 T02 AT16
%X Logicware and Revelations Research have joined efforts to put a
version of MProlog on the Control Data Corp's Cyber 205

%A Eric Bender
%T DBMS tools: Not Natural Yet
%D JAN 20, 1986
%P 19+
%V 20
%N 3
%K Ashton-Tate H01 AA09 AI02 Clout Lotus Development Human Access Language
Brodie Associates
%X Interviews with various people about natural language and data base
management systems, particularly for micros.  Of note, David Hull
of Ashton Tate said that although they are evaluating natural language
systems, they have not seen any that deliver the benefits that they
think their clients want

%T New Products
%D JAN 20, 1986
%P 85
%V 20
%N 3
%K Experience in Software Idea Generator H01 AI01
%X Experience in Software, Inc. announced the Idea Generator a tool
to help the user solve problems.  It costs $195.00 and runs on the IBM PC.

%A Steven Burke
%T Arity/Prolog Tools Assist in Creating AI-Based Software
%J InfoWorld
%D JAN 20, 1986
%P 14
%V 8
%N 3
%K Unitek Technology Arity Dr. vance Giboney Arthur Young and Company
Peter Gabel Darryl Rubin Kim Frazier AI01 AA06 AA08 GA04 H01 T01 T02
%X Unitek Technologies is using Arity's tools to enhance accounting
sofware.  Knowledgeware is using it to automate writing computer
code which is being developed in conjunction with Arthur Young
and Company.

%A Alice LaPlante
%T Talking with your Computer
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 2
%D JAN 13, 1986
%P 25-26
%K Digital Equipment Corporation DECtalk AI05 AI01
%X general discussion of applications of uses of voice input and output
systems.  DEC says that 90 percent of its customer's use DECTALK for
telephone applications; it expects that its next generation system
will have voice recognition and voice synthesis as part of an expert system.

%A Keith Thompson
%T Q&A is Fun, Useful Business System
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 2
%D JAN 13, 1986
%K AI02 AA15 AA09 H01 AT17
%X review of Q and A, which is a database and word processor claiming
to be based on artificial intelligence.  It has a natural language interface
to the data base.  It uses AI to tell where the address is in a letter
automatically to print out the envelope.  It received a rating of 9.0
out of 10 with very good in performance and excellent in documentation,
ease of learning, ease of use, error handling, support and value.

%A Barbara Robertson
%T The AI Typist: Writing Aid is Fast and Easy, But Bug Plagued
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 2
%D JAN 13, 1986
%P 35
%K AT17 AT03 H01 AA15
%X AI Typist is a word processing system for IBM PC's that "uses
artificial intelligence to provide a real-time typist."  The program
scans a dictionary looking for character-by-character matches while typing.
It highlights characters at the point it finds a mismatch.  For example,
if a user types appearing, highlighting appears as one types the second
a since ape matches a word in the dictionary.  It doesn't correct the
spelling nor allow the user to look at the dictionary.  It also had
bugs in the basic word processing capability.  It received a 2.4 out
of 10 with unacceptable ratings under performance and value, poor
in documentation, satisfactory in error handling and very good under
ease of learning, ease of use and support.

%T TI Introduces PC Scheme Lisp Device
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 2
%D JAN 13, 1986
%P 51
%K T01 H01 AT02
%X TI has introduced PC Scheme for $95.00 which runs on IBM PC's and
TI Instruments PC's.  It has a compiler.

%T Advertisement
%J Unix/World
%V 11
%N 11
%D DEC 1985
%P 56
%K Silogic Knowledge WorkBench AT01 AI01 AI02 AA09 T03

%T For the Record
%J Unix/World
%V 11
%N 11
%D DEC 1985
%P 10
%K Flexible Computer NASA Johnson Space Center Unix
%X "NASA's Johnson Space Center, Dallas, has purchased a massively
parallel Flex/32 Computer from Flexible Computer Corp. for its
Artificial Intelligence section, which is responsible for evaluating
fifth generation computing systems for AI development and applications."


%T Review of Introduction to Robotics by Arthur J. Critchlow
%J BYTE
%V 11
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 57-60
%K AI07 AT07

%T Software Notes
%J ComputerWorld
%D JAN 13, 1986
%V 20
%N 2
%P 25+
%K Inference Corp NASA Symbolics AT16 AI01 AA08
%X "Inference Corp. and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have
agreed to develop jointly a software development workstation design Inference's
expert system technology."  It will use Symbolics 3600 and assist both in reuse
of code and generation of new code.

%A Edward Warner
%T Gold Hill, Intel Developing LISP for Multimicroprocessors
%J ComputerWorld
%D JAN 13, 1986
%V 20
%N 2
%P 26
%K T01 H03
%X Intel announced an Agreement with Gold Hill to develop and market jointly
a Common Lisp Computer Intel's HyperCube IPSC.

%T Executive Report/Expert Systems
%J ComputerWorld
%D JAN 13, 1986
%V 20
%N 2
%P 43-62
%K T01 T02 T03 H02 AI01 AA04 AA08 AA21 AT08 O02 Sterling Wentworth PlanMan
Fountain Hills Software semiconductor Travellers Insurance Teknowledge
%X Half of all Fortune 500 companies actively pursue expert system
development.  Fountain Hills Software sells Fair Cost, a cost
modelling program for semiconductor components Sterling Wentworth
Corpo offers Planman, a financial panning expert system targetted at
tax advisors.  Ion Technology Services, markets Diagnostic
Troubleshooter an expert system for the maintenance of specialized
semiconductor equipment The expert system market is worth 75 million
with government and research efforts account for as much as two thirds
of this.  Fortune 500 companies efforts make up most of the rest of
the market.  Custom Development Life Span for Expert Systems compiled
by Arthur D. Little in developing 30 "large-scale strategic
knowledge-based systems, typically for Fortune 500 companies:"
.TS
tab(~);
c c c c
l l l l.
Phase~Duration~Level of Effort~Cost
Proof of Concept:~4 to 6 months~1 to 2 man years~$150,000 to $400,000
Demonstration~4 to 6 months~1 to 2 man years~$150,000 to $400,000
Prototype~12 to 18 months~8 to 12 man years~$1.2 to 2.4 million
Total Resource Comm~20 to 30 months~10 to 16 man years~$1.5 to 3.2 milion
.TE
Travelers Insurance developed a successful expert system to help diagnose
failures on IBM 8100 controllers.  It had 70 rule programs and was done with
Teknowledge's M-1 system.

%T SuperShorts
%J ComputerWorld
%D JAN 13, 1986
%V 20
%N 2
%P 108
%K AI01 AA20 T03 H02 AT16
%X Lisp Machine, Inc. and the Process Management Divison of Honeywell announced
that they will work to bring artificial intelligence to the process control
market.  As part of that effort, they will work together to interface
PICON with the Honeywell control system TDC3000.
[In Applied Artificial Intelligence, it was reported that this interfacing
was already accomplished and is running at one site.  LEFF]




%T GM Delco to Fund Cognex Vision Systems
%J Electronic News
%D JAN 6, 1986
%V 32
%N 1583
%P 58
%K AI06 AA04 AT16
%X Delco Electronics has agreed to give COGNEX $500,000 to develop
an engineering prototype of a machine vision system for automatically
inspecting the placement of surface-mounted devices on printed
circuit boards.  Cognex's Checkpoint 1100 system was reported
to have achieved measurements accurate to within 2 mils within 99.8
percent of the test cases.

%A James Fallon
%T Racal Electronics, Norsk Data to End 2-Year AI Joint Venture
%J Electronic News
%D JAN 13, 1986
%V 32
%N 1584
%P 29
%K AT16 GA03
%X A 1.44 million joint investment to develop an artificial
system was terminated since the project was delayed and the market
for that particular product no longer existed.

%T Plessey to Develop Speech-Input CPU
%J Electronic News
%V 31
%N 1582
%D DEC 30, 1985
%P 8
%K Alvey Edinburgh University Imperial College University of Loughborough
AI05 GA03 H03
%X The Alvey Directorate has selected Plessey as a prime
contractor in a 19.88 million dollar project to develop
a system that receives human speech and displays the words on the screen.
No vocabulary size or response time was given for the proposed system.
It will use parallel processing


%A Peggy Watt
%T Scanner Puts Text On-Line
%J ComputerWorld
%D Dec 30, 1985/JAN 6, 1986
%V 19
%N 52
%P 1+
%K Dest Corporation AI06 AT02
%X DEST Company announced PCSCAN which is a system that recognizes
the type faces in most business documents.  It costs $3000.00.
The optical reader equipment supports 300 dpi printers.
The optical reader alone is $1995.00.  The software inserts
appropriate formatting codes for such things as tabs, paragraphs
and page breaks.

%A J. Mostow
%T Forword: What is AI? And What Does It Have to Do with Software Engineering?
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%V SE-11
%N 11
%D NOV 1985
%P 1253-1256
$K AA08

%A R. Balzert
%T A Fifteen Year Perspective on Automatic Programming
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%V SE-11
%N 11
%D NOV 1985
%P 1257-1267
%K AI08 SAFE AA08 Insformation Sciences Institute GIST RSL TRW
symbolic evaluation software maintenance POPART PADDLE
%X SAFE was a system that took up to a dozen informal sentences
that specified a piece of software and produced a formal specification.
GIST is a formal specification language that
attempted to minimize the translation from the way people think
about processes to the way they write about them.
They developed a prototype of a system to convert GIST to
natural language and they have a joint effort underway
with TRW to design a system to convert RSL specifications to
natural language.  They also developed a system to
symbolically evaluate GIST specifications.  They also have a natural
language behavior explainer.


%T New Products/Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D FEB 24, 1986
%V 20
%N 8
%P 89
%K T01 H02 Practical Artificial Intelligence VAX DS-32 AP-10
%X Practical Artificial Intelligience has announced the DS-32 and AP/10
which are attached processors for the IBM personal computer and Digital
Equipment VAX designed to support artificial intelligence.
The DS-32 costs $2700 and the AP/10 costs $6000

%T Ben Rosen's Ansa: Will it Ever be Another Lotus?
%J Business Week
%D MAR 3, 1986
%P 92-95
%V 2935
%K Paradox SRI AA09 H01
%X discusses the founding and prospects for Paradox, a data base system
with artificial intelligence features

%A Mary Petrosky
%T Expert Software Aids Large Systems Design
%J Infoworld
%V 8
%N 7
%P 1+
%K AI01 AA08 H01    AT02 AT03
%X Knowledge-Ware announced Information Engineering Workstation that
provides tools for data flow diagrams and action diagrams.  It runs
on IBM PC/AT's and cost $7500.00.  I could not find an explanation of
where AI was used, in spite of the title of the article.

%T Expert System Moves Into Military Cockpit
%J Electronics
%V 58
%N 51
%P 15
%D DEC 23, 1985
%K AA18 Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory Threat Expert Analysis System
AI01
%X The Air Force's Wright Aeronautical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base had set a deadline of January 10 for the Threat Expert Analysis System,
a system that would warn pilots of enemy threats and recommend
possible responses.

%T Device Mixes Images from Eight Cameras
%J Electronics
%V 58
%N 51
%P 76
%D DEC 23, 1985
%K Pattern Processing Technologies Framesplitter AI06
%X Framesplitter is a system that combines the input from several
solid state video cameras into a single composite image.  This system
allows a system to gain a 360 degree view while only processing one image.

%A Clifford Barney
%T Language Boils Down to Boolean Expressions
%J Electronics
%V 58
%N 51
%P 25-26
%D DEC 23, 1985
%K G. Spencer-Brown Wittgenstein Bertrand Russel Laws of Form
Advanced Decision Systems Air Force pictorial logic canonical forms Losp
Symbolics AI10 AI14 AA18 H02 T01 T02
%X Losp is a system based on the "Laws of Form" which was developed
by G. Spencer-Brown a British Mathematician who studied with
Bertrand Wittgenstein.  The system was developed by Advanced Decision Systems
and will be put to use in an Air Force project on pictorial logic.
The language is being microcoded to run on a Symbolics work station.
Lisp and Prolog will be translated to LOSP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
84
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #2
-BODY-
%A Clifford Barney
%T Expert Systems Makes it Easy to Fix Instruments
%J Electronics
%V 58
%N 51
%D DEC 23, 1985
%P 26
%K AI01 AA04 AA21 Ada Lockheed Missiles and Space Lockheed Expert
System
%X Lockheed Missiles and Space has developed a generic expert system
to assist in repairing and calibrating 55000 instruments.
This system has been used successfully on a Hewlett-Packard 6130C
digital voltage source.  The epxert system was written in ADA.  The
system is being applied to 20 different systems including signal-switching
and computer aided design.


%A Robert T. Gallagher
%T French Make Retools to Fight the Japanese
%J Electronics
%V 58
%N 51
%P 26-28
%D DEC 23, 1985
%K AA05 GA03 RTC La Radiotechnique Compelec cathode-ray tube AI07
%X RTC La Radiotechnique Compelec has converted a cathode-ray tube
to robotics.  Robots are being used to place the
luminescent materials on the tube screens, testing, and placement
in packing materials.  The areas requiring manual work are
fitting the shadow masks on to the CRT's frames and the final test
where tuning is done.

%A H. Berghel
%T Spelling Verification in Prolog
%J SIGPLAN Notices
%V 21
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 19-27
%K T02
%X describes a system to check words against table and if mispelled to
suggest possible correct spellings.

%A D. Brand
%T On Typing in Prolog
%J SIGPLAN Notices
%V 21
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 28-30
%K T02

%T Advertisement
%J BYTE
%D JAN 1986
%V 11
%N 1
%P 348
%K T01 T02 T03 H01 AT01
%X Price List on AI type products from The Programmers SHOP
800-421-8006 128B Rockland Street, Hanover MA 02339
.TS
tab(~);
l l l.
EXSYS~PCDOS~$359
INSIGHT 1~PCDOS~$95
INSIGHT 2~PCDOS~$449
APES~~$359
ADVISOR~~$949
ES Construction~~$100
ESP~~ $845
Expert CHOICE~~$449
GC LISP (Large Model)~~$649
Compiler and LM Interpreter~~$1045
TLC LISP~CPM-86~$235
~MSDOS
Waltz LISP~CPM~$149
~MSDOS
ExperLisp~~$439
IQ LISP~~$155
TRANSLISP-PC~~$75
BYSO~~$125
MuLISP-86~$199
ARITY PROLOG
~Compiler~$1950
~MSDOS~$495
MPROLOG~PCDOS~~$725
PROLOG-1~~$359
PROLOG-2~~$1849
MicroProlog~~$229
Prof. Micro Prolog3~~$359
.TE

%A Hugh Aldersey-Williams
%T Computer Eyes Turn to Food
%J High Technology
%D JAN 1986
%P 66-67
%V 6
%N 1
%K Vision Systems International Nello Zuech Roger Brook strawberry
citrus juice mixed vegetables AI06
%X At the University of Florida, Gainseville, they are working on a
vision system to pick citrus fruit when it is ripe.  Arthur D. Little
is working on a sytem that would determine whether the mixture in a package
of mixed vegetables contains the correct proportion of different ingredients.


%T International Robomation Gets Two Million in Orders
%J Electronic News
%D MAR 3, 1986
%P 46
%V 32
%N 1591
%K AI07 AA04 Chrysler AT&T Hewlett-Packard Zenith SMD printed-circuit
board solder paste
%X Orders included $750,000 from Chrysler for a surface mounted device
inspection system, $400,000 from HP, $270,000 for inspection of through-hole
components, $400,000 from AT&T and $305,000 from Zenith for high-through
put SMD inspection

%T Asahi to Market Lincoln Inspector
%J Electronic News
%D MAR 3, 1986
%P 46
%V 32
%N 1591
%K AA04 AI06 Lincoln Laser GA01 GA02
%X Asahi Optical Company has agreed to market Lincoln Laser Co's line
of automatic optical inspection systems in Japan.  Lincoln Laser plans
to manufacture the equipment in Japan.  First year sales are projected
to be 40 systems valued at approximately $16.7 million.

%A Peggy Watt
%T Expert System: Boeing AI Academy Schools In-House Talent
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 3, 1986
%V 20
%N 9
%P 1+
%K AI01 AT18  AA18 Janusz S. Kowalik connectors AA04 space station.
%X U. S. Department of Defense announced in 1981 that artificial intelligence
will be a requisite in defense contract bids in the late 1980's.  Boeing
Computer Services established an Artificial Intelligence Support
Center which graduates associates after a year of training including
developing a project of relevance to Boeing.  The system acommodates
20 people in two classes scheduled each year and receives inquiries from
40 people a year out of 106,000 total employees of Boeing.  They are
developing an expert system for process specs for connector assemblies.
It recommends actions in about 60% of the situations it encounters.  It
runs in Prolog on a DEC VAX.  They are developing an expert system
to monitor space-station cabin environment changes.  Also developed
are systems for airplane part design maintenance and diagnosis.
Another helps determine air resistance assists the aerodynamicist in defining
and evaluating parameters.

%T Top of the News
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 3, 1986
%V 20
%N 9
%P 1+
%K Kurzweill Applied Intelligence Voice Writer AI05
%X "Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, Inc.'s Voice Writer, a voice-recognition
word processing device that will handle discrete, noncontinuous speech
at up to 60 words per minute, is on track for a third-quarter introduction,
inventor Raymond Kurzweil disclosed last week."  It will support between
5000 and 10000 words and will cost under $20,000.

%T Borland Enters AI Arena with Turbo Prolog Development Tool
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 3, 1986
%V 20
%N 9
%P 14
%K Turbo-Prolog Borland International T02 H01
%X Turbo-Prolog costs $99.95.  It has an incremental compiler that
generates native code and linkable object modules compatible with the
IBM MS-DOS linker.  It includes a full screen editor,
pull-down menus, graphical and text-based windows.  It will be available
April 25.  The next version of Turbo Pascal will be able to exchange
information
with Turbo Prolog.  The system runs at 100,000 LIPS.

%T New Products/Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 3, 1986
%V 20
%N 9
%K OPS-83 Production Systems Technologies T03 H01
%X Production Systems Technologies, Inc. has announced that OPS83 is
now available for use on the IBM PC.  It costs $1950.00


%T New Products/Systems and Peripherals
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 3, 1986
%V 20
%N 9
%K Maxvideo Minvideo Datacube Multibus Addgen-1 frame store DSP Systems
AI06
%X Datacube Inc. has introduced Minivideo, a real time image
processing subsystem, and has added three modules to its MaxVideo product
line.  Minvideo-10 and Minvideo 7 are 8-bit 512 by 512 and 384 by 512 boards
for Intel Multibus or IIbx based computers.
X
DSP system has announced a FRAME STORE that can store a snap shot
of 50 Mhz data.  It can store up to 32K 16 bit words

%A Gadi Kaplan
%T Industrial Electronics
%J IEEE Spectrum
%V 23
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 61-64
%K Fujitsu General Electric process control Foxboro Farot-M6 AI06  AA05 AI07
counterweights
%X GE has developed a system that can weld using inert gas at 40 mm per second
or about twice the rate of any other system.  It uses a vision system.
General Electric has developed an expert system tool called GEN-X.
Foxboro announced controllers with 200 rules.  Japanese manufacturers last year
made 50,000 industrial robots valued at 1.2 billion.  Fujitsu expects to
sell $2.1 billion in Japanese industrial robots and $4 billion in 2000 years.
Japanese auto manufacturers buy 40 percent of the robots produced.  Farot
M6 robots made by Fujitsu have two arms which can be worked in coordination.
Fujitsu has eliminated the need for counterweights and can place components
with 30 micrometer accuracy at speeds up to 2 meters per second.

%A Mark A. Fischeti
%A Glenn Zorpette
%T Power and Energy
%J IEEE Spectrum
%V 23
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%K AA04 AI01 Westinghouse Electric Corporation nuclear power Babcock and Wilson
EG&G Idaho reactor
%X "Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Pittsburgh, PA offers
the Genaid diagnostic software package to monitor changing conditions
in power plant generators, analyze them, and warn plant operators of
potential trouble."  EG&G Idaho of Idaho Falls has a Reactor Safety Assessment
system which "processes large amounts of data from a nuclear power
plant during an emergency, makes diagnoses, and outliens the consequences of
subsequent actions.  After final refinements, this expert system program
is to go on line this year at he Nuclear Regulatory Commison's
Operations Center in Washington Center.  The system was
developed for use with Babcock and Wilcox Pressurized-water reactors and
will be adapted for use with other reactors."  [In Spang-Robinson
report, they indicated that the Japanese are putting major amounts
of money into expert systems for nuclear reactor operations.  See my
summary for more info.  LEFF ]

%A Richard Brandt
%T Micromechanics: The Eyes and Ears of Tomorrow's Computers
%J BusinessWeek
%D MAR 17, 1986
%P 88-89
%N 2937
%K AI07 AI06 signature verification Novasensor Schlumberger
diabetes insulin Clini-Therm Corporation NEC Solartron Transducer
Hiroshi Tanigawa
%X Micromechanics, the making of mechanical sensors completely out of
semiconductors, is a $250,000,000 business.  Europe is increasing
its market share.  The most widely used devices are pressure sensors
with a silicon chip with a hole etched nearly through it leaving
a thin membrane.  Hitachi sells about a million of such sensors
per year which it sells at ten dollars a piece.  Millar
Instruments puts such sensors at the end of a blood pressure monitor to
take readings inside a blood vessel.  Researchers
at MIT are working on a system that will translate nerve impulses
into controls for prosthetics.  The MIT team anticipates the first
tests on humans with three years.  There are devices with a set of
diving boards for measuring accelerations.  IBM is using such a device
in a pen to detect the hand motions in writing a signature.  This
data is analyzed to determine if there is  a forger.
Texas Instruments is perfecting a silicon chip
with one million mirrors for use in optical computing.

%T AI to Dominate Optics Symposium
%J Electronics
%D MAR 3, 1986
%P 70
%V 59
%N 9
%K George Gilmore AI06 evidencing AA18
%X Discussion of the Society of Photooptical Instrumentation
Engineers Symposium on Optics symposium on Applications
of Artificial Intelligence III.

%A Alice LaPlante
%T Stock Market Finds AI Attractive Buy
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 9
%D MAR 3, 1986
%K Teknowledge Harvey Newquist Intellicorp AT16
%X Discussions of public offerings
of Teknowledge's new public offering.

%A Ivars Peterson
%T Computing Art
%J Science News
%V 129
%P 138-140
%N 9
%D MAR 1, 1986
%K Richard Diebenkorn Frank Lloyd Wright Architecture grammar art
architecture Russell Kirsch Joan Marvin Minsky AA25
%X Using a grammar, scientists have developed
grammars for Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture and Richard Diebenkorn's
"Ocean Park" canvasses.  These have been used to develop works
that appeared to by the author.  Diebenkorn when shown the works said
"I looked and felt immediate recognition."

%A Scott Mace
%T Microrim Team To Study Data Management
%J Infoworld
%D March 10, 1986
%V 8
%N 10
%K AA09
%X Microrim is setting a R&D group to exploit what it calls
a 'potentially revolutionary' technology for making database
management easier.  [Microrim makes RBASE database products
for microcomputers and CLOUT, a natural language interface.]

%A Karen Sorensen
%T Scientific Application for Expert System in Works
%J Infoworld
%D March 10, 1986
%V 8
%N 10
%K gas chromatography Award Software AI01 AA02 Award Software C H01
%X Award Software is developing an expert system
for making identifications of chemical substances.  It is designed for
use with gas chromatography.  They are using C to develop the
software.

%T Infomarket
%J Infoworld
%D March 10, 1986
%V 8
%N 10
%K H01 T03 Intelligent Machine Co. Knowledge Oriented Language
Knowol Rock Mountain Medical Software HouseCall AI01 AA01
%X Intelligent Machine Co is advertising The Knowledge Oriented
Language for $39.95.  HouseCall is a home medical system
which can make over 400 diagnoses.  It costs $49.95 and runs
on IBM PC's and Apples

%A Daniel R. Pfau
%A Barry A. Zack
%T Understanding Expert System Shells
%J Computerworld Focus
%D February 19, 1986
%V 20
%N 7A
%K T03
%P 23-24

%A Girish Parikh
%T Restructuring Your Cobol Programs
%J Computerworld Focus
%D February 19, 1986
%V 20
%N 7A
%P 39-42
%K AI01 AA08 Cobol-SF

%A Elisabeth Horwitt
%T LISP Systems Tied to SNA
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 10, 1986
%V 20
%N 10
%P 1
%K Symbolics H02 AA06 CICS IBM
%X Symbolics introduced a product to allow their Symbolics 3600's
to communicates via SNA.   They also provide an interface
to use CICS to access VSAM files.  The hardware + software
costs $17,900 for the first Symbolics and $4900 for each additional
Symbolics or IBM.


%A Eric Bender
%T The Concerted Kurzweil Effort
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 10, 1986
%V 20
%N 10
%P 33+
%K Voice Writer AI05
%X describes demonstration of Kurzweill's add on for the IBM PC to
do speech recognition.    Kurzweill will be selling a Voice
Writer which will handle 5000 words and allow eight users.  It uses
parallel processing to accept dictation at 60 words per minute.

%T New Products/Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 10, 1986
%V 20
%N 10
%P 81
%K AA08 H01
%X P-Cube Corb has annoucned Mansys/IRM a "knowledge-based"
system to help assess the quality of the procedures and processes
within an information systems department.  It costs $1800 and runs
on IBM PC's.

%T Spin-Offs
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D MAR 1986
%V 23
%N 3
%P 17
%K Color Systems Technology colorization AA25
%X describes the system used to color old movies.

%A Ernest W. Kent
%A Michael O. Shneier
%T Eyes for Automatons
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D MAR 1986
%V 23
%N 3
%P 37
%K Honeywell Navy AI06 AI07 cleaning agriculture printed circuit-board
propeller CAD/CAM  Control Automation Interscan Odetics range images
Environmental REsearch Institute AA18 AA19 Automatix Advanced Vision
Systems ITMI Marketing Corp Analog Devices Automation Intelligence
%X At Honeywell, they are using a vision system to identify missing
leads in printed-circuit boards.  It uses four videocamera's 90 degrees
apart to capture light reflections.  There are 200 companies offering
a product or service related to machine-vision.  50 of these
offer complete systems.  At a Navy ship-building system, a video
system inspects propellors and compares the results against the
CAD/CAM database to see if it was made possible.  Autonomous
mobile robots are under commercial development for
materials transport, commercial cleaning, and construction.
Total sales for machine vision systems have double in each of the last
two years.

%A Mark A. Fischetti
%T A Review of Progress at MCC
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D MAR 1986
%V 23
%N 3
%P 76-82
%K AA04 VLSI-CAD reconvergent fanout problem H02 LDL AI10 T02 AA09
%X In the VLSI-CAD, area, they are using 81 LISP machines.
They developed a module editor which lays out circuitry
graphically.  They have developed an algorithm for solving
the reconvergent fanout problem.
Discusses the knowledge-base that is supposed to contain
"common-sense"  They have developed a test application that will
help IC chip designers.  The database group is developing
a system to compile large logic systems on disks

%A Glenn Zorpette
%T Robots for Fun and Profit
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D MAR 1986
%V 23
%N 3
%P 71-75
%K AA25 AI07 Survival Research Labs
%X discusses various robots that are part of art shows or used
for entertainment.  Survival Research Labs puts on
demonstrations where large mobile robots destroy props, animal
carcasses or one another.

%T Gould Acquires Vision Systems Unit
%J Electronic News
%V 32
%N 1592
%D MAR 10, 1986
%P 14
%K Gould Automated Intelligence Opti-Vision AI06 AT16
%X Gould has acquired the VisionSystems division of
Automated Intelligence.  This division makes the Opti-Vision system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
85
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #3
-BODY-
Definitions

D BOOK24 The World Yearbook of Robotics Research and Development, 1985\
%I Gale Research Corporation\
%D 1985
D MAG14 Computer-Aided Design\
%V 17\
%N 9\
%D NOV 1985
D MAG15 Theoretical Computer Science\
%V 39\
%N 2-3\
%D AUG 1985
D BOOK25 Analysis of Concurrent Systems\
%E B. T. Denvir\
%E W. T. Harwood\
%E M. I. Jackson\
%E M. J. Wray\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 207\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG16 Soviet Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences\
%V 23\
%N 4\
%D JUL-AUG 1985
D MAG17 International Journal of Man-Machine Studies\
%V 23\
%N 5\
%D NOV 1985
D MAG18 Cybernetics and Systems\
%V 16\
%N 1\
%D 1985

__________________________________________________________________________

%T Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision
%I SPIE -- The International Society for Optical Engineering
%D September 16-20, 1985
%N 579
%C Cambridge, MA
%E David P. Casasent
%K AT15 AI07 AI06

%A David Nitzan
%T Development of Intelligent Robots: Achievements and Issues
%B BOOK24
%K AI07

%A Ray Basey
%T Training for the Introduction of Robots New Technology and Control Systems,
Operation and Maintenance
%B BOOK24
%K AI07 AT18

%A H. H. Rosenbrook
%T Social and Engineering Design of a Flexible Manufacturing System
%B BOOK24
%K AI07 AA05 O05

%A Igor Aleksander
%T Extension of Robot Capabilities Through Artificial Vision: A Look into
the Future
%B BOOK24
%K AI07 AI06

%T The World Directory of Robotics and Development Activities
%B BOOK24
%K AI07 AT19
%X info on robotics research in 26 countries, list of groups

%T A Guide to Grant Awarding Bodies
%B BOOK24
%K AI07 AT19


%A Phillippe Coiffet
%T Robot Technology: Modeling and Control
%V 1
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1982
%K AI07 AT15

%A Philippe Coiffet
%T Robot Technology: Interaction with the Environment
%V 2
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1983
%K AI07 AT15

%A Jean Vertut
%A Philippe Coiffet
%T Robot Technology: Teleoperation and Robotics: Evolution and Development
%V 3A
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1986
%K AI07 AT15 AT20

%A Jean Vertut
%A Philippe Coiffet
%T Teleoperations and Robotics: Applications and Technology
%V 3B
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1985
%K AI07 AT15

%A F. L. Hote
%T Robot Components
%V 4
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1983
%K AI07 AT15

%A Michel Parent
%A Claude Laureau
%T Robot Technology: Logic and Programming
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1985
%V 5
%K AI07 AT15

%T Robot Technology: Decision and Intelligence
%I Prentice-Hall
%D (not yet published)
%K AI07 AT15
%V 6

%A Alain Liegeois
%T Robot Technology: Performance and Computer-Aided Design
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1985
%K AI07 AT15 AA05
%V 7

%A John Haugeland
%T Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea, 1985
%I MIT  Press
%D 1985
%K AT15

%A H. J. De Man
%A I. Bolsens
%A E. vanden Meersch
%A J. van Cleynenbreugel
%T DIALOG: An Expert Debugging System for MOS VLSI Design
%J IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design
%D JULY 1985
%V CAD-4
%N 3
%P 303-311
%K AI01 AA04

%A Michael A. Rosenman
%A John S. Gero
%T Design Codes as Expert Systems
%J MAG14
%P 399-409
%K AA05 AI01

%A Hitoshi Furuta
%A King-Sun Tu
%A James T. P. Yao
%T Structural Engineering Applications of Expert Systems
%J MAG14
%P 410-19
%K AA05 AI01

%A Mary Lou Maher
%T HI-RISE and Beyond: Directions for Expert Systems in Design
%J MAG14
%P 420-427
%K AA05 AI01

%A A. D. Radford
%A J. S. Gero
%T Towards Generative Expert Systems for Architectural Detailing
%J MAG14
%P 428-435
%K AA05 AI01

%A David C. Brown
%T Failure Handling in A Design Expert System
%J MAG14
%P 436-442
%K AA05 AI01

%A Daniel R. Rehak
%A H. Craig Howard
%T INterfacing Expert Systems with Design Databases in Integrated
CAD Systems
%J MAG14
%P 443-454
%K AA05 AI01

%A Anna Hart
%T Knowledge Elicitation: Issues and Methods
%J MAG14
%P 455-462

%A John S. Gero
%T Bibliography of Books on Artificial Intelligence with
Particular Reference to Expert Systems and Knowledge Engineering
%J MAG14
%P 463-464
%K AI01 AT09

%A D. Kapur
%A P. Narendran
%A M. S. Krishnamoorthy
%A R. McNaughton
%T The Church-Rosser Property and Special Thue Systems
%J MAG15
%P 123-134
%K AI14

%A C. Bohm
%A A. Berarducci
%T Autoamtic Snythesis of Type Lambda-Programs on Term Algebras
%J MAG15
%P 135-154
%K AI14 AA08

%A M. W. Bunder
%T An Exptension of Klop's Counterexample to the Church-Rosser Property
to Lambda-Calculus with Other Ordered Pair Combinators
%J MAG15
%P 337
%K AI14

%A M. Rodriguez artalejo
%T Some Questions About Expessiveness and Relative Completeness in Hoare's
Logic
%J MAG15
%P 189-206
%K AA08

%T The Functions of T and Nil in Lisp
%J Software Practice and Experience
%V 16
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 1-4
%K T01

%A R. Milner
%T Using Algebra for Concurrency-Some Approaches
%B BOOK25
%P 7-25
%K AA08

%A H. Barringer
%A R. Kuiper
%T Towards the Hierarchical, Temproral Logic, Specification  of
Concurrent Systems
%B BOOK25
%P 157-183
%K AA08

%A R. Koymans
%A W. P. Deroever
%T Examples of a Real-Time Temporal Logic Specification
%B BOOK25
%P 231-251
%K AA08

%A V. S. Medovyy
%T Translation from a Natural Language into a Formalized Language as a
Heuristic Search Problem
%J MAG16
%P 1-9
%K AI02 AI03

%A M. K. Valiyev
%T On Temporal Dependencies in Databases
%J MAG16
%P 10-17
%K AA09

%A Z. M. Kanevskiy
%A V. P. LItvinenko
%T Minimization of the Average Duration of a Discrete Search Procedure
%J MAG16
%P 126-129
%K AI03

%A A. S. Yuschenko
%T The Problem of Dynamic Control of Manipulators
%J MAG16
%P 139
%K AI07

%A I. Vessey
%T Expertise in Debugging Computer Programs -  A Process Analysis
%J MAG17
%P 459-494
%K AA08 AI08

%A J. H. Boose
%T A Knowledge Acquisition Program for Expert Systems Based on Personal
Construct Psychology
%J MAG17
%P 495-526
%K AI01

%A E. J. Weiner
%T Solving the Containment Problem for Figurative Language
%J MAG17
%P 527-538
%K AI02

%A R. R. Yager
%T Explantory Models in Expert Systems
%J MAG17
%P 539-550
%K AI01

%A T. Munakata
%T Knowledge-Based Systems for Genetics
%J MAG17
%P 551-562
%K AI01 AA10

%A Ronald R. Yager
%T On the Relationship of Methods of Aggregating Evidence in Expert Systems
%J MAG18
%P 1-22
%K AI01

%A Ronald R. Yager
%T Strong Truth and Rules of INference in Fuzzy Logic and
Approximate Reasoning
%J MAG18
%P 23-64
%K AI01 O04

%A Witold Pedrycz
%T Structured Fuzzy Models
%J MAG18
%P 103
%K O04

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
86
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 86 22:04:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!sjl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (S.J.Leviseur)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: String reduction
-BODY-
Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.

        Thanks

                sean

                sjl@ukc.ac.uk
                sjl@ukc.uucp
                sjl%ukc@ucl-cs.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 86 17:28:25 EST
-FROM-
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <1438@NJIT-EIES.MAILNET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vendor Support: SYMBOLICS
-BODY-
I need vendor support information for IMAGEN Laser Printer on
SYMBOLICS 3640. Any pointers will be greatly appreciated.
 Please send mail to the address given below:

     Net: Srini%NJIT-EIES.MAILNET@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
 Thanks.
 Srini.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 April 1986 2355-EST
-FROM-
From: Es Library@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: E&S Library news
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

** The CMU Library system has purchased the science library of the late
Michael Moss in England.  The collection consists of over 11 thousand
volumes, mostly in Logic, Linguistics and Philosophy of Science and of
Language.  After many months of efforts on the part of a number of
people in the administration and in the CS and Philosophy departments,
the collection will be shipped from England later this week.

The Moss Collection will substantially strengthen the library services
to the newly created Philosophy Department and Program in Computational
Linguistics, and will complete, and go beyond, the rebuilding of the
Logic collection, of which much was vandalized a few years ago.

[...]

>- Daniel Leivant

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 86 00:06:36 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (michael maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert conversationalist :-)
-BODY-
One of the problems in AI, specifically in the field of natural language, has
been the problem of endowing an artificially intelligent program with the
ability to converse in an intelligent manner, observing such principals of
conversation as turn taking, empathy with the conversational partner, etc.

The problem has been solved!  I recently saw in action an expert
conversationalist at a local store.  The AI program was cleverly disguised as
a stuffed bird.  However, when you talk to it, it talks back (in a bird
language; doubtless an English language program will soon be out, as the
chances for making large profits would seem to be much greater.)

Before you dismiss this as a simple case of an electronic box that beeps
when it detects a sound, let me tell you about some of its capabilities.

First, it demonstrates true turn-taking abilities.  It does *not* simply
listen for sounds and beep back; rather, it waits until you are done talking,
and then responds.

Second, it does *not* simply beep back; rather, it tailors its response to you.
If you talk in an excited voice, it responds in an excited voice; if you
talk calmly, it uses a much more subdued response.  It tailors both its pitch
and speed of speech to your mood as well.  Genuine empathy!

Think of the possibilities; you could hook it up in place of your phone
answering machine to respond to all the carpet cleaning, chimney sweeping,
and donate-to-charity-X calls that you get!  More relevant to this net, you
could hook up your favorite implementation of Eliza + a speech generation
device, and have a true Rogerian psychologist at your beck and call.  I think
I'll buy some stock in this company...
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 03:08:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Sellers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue and *bigtime misinformation* (kind of long)
-BODY-
> Joseph Mankoski writes a thought provoking article on whether
> survival logic in NASA computers has any connection to human
> survival instincts wired into to our brains from birth.

  I would have to agree there is *some* connection, but I would put it
on the level of the survival instincts of planaria or hydra, not (even
infant) humans. We are much, much more complex than that.

> I have been pondering this question myself. [...]
>
> Joseph asks for a theory of feelings.  As it happens, I just wrote
> a brief article on the subject, which may or may not be suitable
> for publication after editorial comment and revision.  Just for
> the hell of it, let me append the article and solicit comments
> from netters interested in this topic.

  Okay, here goes.  Its real difficult for me to keep this from becoming a
big flame-out (this is the second time I've tried to respond; this time I
won't kill it before it posts).  While I'm sure Barry meant well (unless this
is just badly written satire -- which I would find hard to believe), the
following article is basically a big pile of misinformation and what seems
to be idle conjecture.  The "acknowledgements" at the end only serve to give
this article a legitimacy it does not deserve by claiming nonspecific sources
and thanking PhD types (what are these folks doctors *of*, Barry?).  This isn't
meant as a personal flame; its just that I've seen so much hype/misinformation/
crapola about the brain/mind/AI recently that when I saw this I couldn't keep
quiet.  It is possible, I suppose, that a large part of neuroscience has
completely turned around in the last six months or so...but I doubt it.  If
this is true, please excuse my comments as the ravings of an old-worlder.
Of course, I'd have to see your sources before believing you.  I'd be *glad*
to refer you to mine.

  For brevity (ha!), I haven't re-posted Barry's entire article; nor have I
noted/flamed all the things I found objectionable.  Some of the assertions
in this article, however, could not be ignored.

> ==================== Article on Feelings ========================
>
>        A Simplified Model of the Effects of Perceived Aggression
>                       in the Work Environment
>
>                                 Barry Kort
>
>                             Copyright 1986
>
>        Introduction
>
>          [...]
>
>        The effects that I wish to investigate are not the
>        behavioral responses, but the more fundamental internal body
>        sensations or somatic reactions which lie behind the
>        subsequent behavioral response. [...]
>
>        A Model of Nature of Aggressive Behavior
>
>        It has been said that civilization is a thin veneer.
>        Underneath our legacy of some 5000 years of civilization
>        lies our evolutionary past.  Deep within the human brain one
>        can find the vestiges of our animal nature-the old mammalian
>        brain, the old reptilian brain.  Of principal interest here
>        are two groups of structures responsible for much of our
>        "wired-in" instincts.

  Not quite instincts.  The basal ganglia, which make up most of what is
sometimes called the old mammalian brain (itself enclosing what some call
the R-complex, or reptilian brain) mainly govern biological drives and needs
such as hunger, thirst, sex, etc.  The main governor of these is the
hypothalamus, working in tandem with the pituitary.  The thalamus, amygdala,
and several other nuclei also contribute to these drives, and have some part
in our emotional responses including fear, anger, happiness, nervousness, etc.
But these are not insticts nor instinctive.

>        The cerebellum is responsible for much of our risk-taking,
>        self-gratifying drives, including the aggressive sex drives.
>        It is the cerebellum that says, "Go for it!  This could be
>        exciting!  Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."

  I couldn't believe this when I first read it.  I would still like to believe
that Barry mistyped or misread this.  The cerebellum (the wrinkled-looking
thing that hangs under the back of the cerebrum) play *ABSOLUTELY NO PART* in
our rational, cognitive, or emotive behavior!!!  What it does do is play a
major role in coordinating complex motor actions, such as tying your shoes or
dancing the foxtrot (especially, it seems, learned and often repeated actions
such as these, as opposed to one-time actions like climbing a tree).  I can't
imagine where you got this piece of information, Barry.  It sounds like it came
out of Nat'l Enquirer University.  The aforementioned hypothalamus does play
a large part in assertive or aggressive action, though this is mediated by the
frontal and parietal portions of the cortex and the amygdala and caudate nuclei
(in case you wanted to know :-).

>        The limbic system, on the other hand, is responsible for
>        self-protective behaviors.  The limbic system perceives the
>        threats to one's safety or well-being, and initiates
>        protective or counter measures.  The limbic system says,
>        "Hold it!  This could be dangerous!  We'd better go slow and
>        avoid those torpedoes."

  This rates most of my paragraph above.  I've never seen anything about
cautious behaviors arising in the limbic system, though I know of no reason
why some components of such behavior couldn't begin there.  The level of
behavior suggested here is way to complex for this stage of the processing.
Cognitive overlays of our internal biochemical states make up the majority of
what we perceive as emotional states/responses.

>        Rising above it all resides the neocortex or cerebrum.  This
>        is the "new brain" of homo sapiens which is the seat of
>        learning and intelligence.  It is the part that gains
>        knowledge of cause and effect patterns, and overrules the
>        myopic attitude of the cerebellum and limbic system.
>   ->   Occasionally, the cerebral cortex is faced with a novel
>   |    situation, where past experience and learning fail to
>   |    provide adequate instruction in how to proceed.  In that
>   |    case, the usual patterns of regulation are ineffective,
>   |    and the behavioral response may revert back to the more
>   |    primitive instincts.
    |
  This is an interesting piece of conjecture, and one I've not seen recently.
It doesn't seem to likely, however, since we have (evolutionarily) paid dearly
for our enlarged cortices.  Why would we throw out all our observational &
computational power just because a situation doesn't match any previously
encountered?  This would seem to be a marvelous lack of a very valuable
resource.  It is likely that when the perceived danger or novelty of a
situation is *too* great that all our finely-tuned observational and learning
powers are thrown out the window in favor of old tired-and-true methods, but
this is not as general as is stated here.

>          [...]
>
>        Somatic Reactions to Stress
>
>        When an individual is presented with an unusual situation,
>        the lack of an immediately obvious method of dealing with it
>        may lead to an accumulation of stress which manifests itself
>        somatically.  For instance, first-time jitters may show up
>        as a knotting of the stomach (butterflies), signaling fear
>        (of failure).  A perceived threat may cause increased heart
>        rate, sweating, or a tightening of the skin on the back of
>        the neck.  (This latter phenomenon is commonly known as
>        "raising of one's hackles," which in birds, causes the
>        feathers to stand up in display mode, warning off the
>        threatening invader.) Teeth clenching, which comes from
>        repressing the urge to express anger, leads to a common
>        affliction among adult males-temporal mandibular joint
>        (TMJ).  Leg shaking and pacing indicate a subliminal urge to
>        flee, while cold feet corresponds to frozen terror (playing
>        'possum).  All of these are variations on the
>        fight/flight/freeze instincts mediated by the limbic system.
>        They often occur without our conscious awareness.

  These are also manifestations of the activation of the sympathetic nervous
system, probably by the release of epinephrine (adrenalin) into the blood-
stream.  This can occur with a variety of different emotions, and is much
less specific than we are led to believe here.  (The use of analogies from
biology and the use of an acronym also bug me in this context, since they
also seem to lend legitimacy to what is a not very well thought out
supposition.)  All of these are the result of bloodflow being directed away
from non-vital areas (digestive tract, extremities -- butterflies and cold
feet) and toward more vital areas (head and muscles -- facial flush, leg
shaking, etc) in addition to other secondary effects of the adrenaline
(increased heart/respiration rate, sweating, skin tightening).

>       [...]  A person's awareness of and
>        sensitivity to such somatic feelings may affect his mode of
>        expression.  The somasthetic cortex is the portion of the
>        brain where the body stresses are registered, and this
>        sensation may be the primary indication that a stressor is
>        present in the environment.  A challenge for every
>        individual is to accurately identify which environmental
>        stimulus is linked to which somatic response.

  The somasthetic [portion of the] cortex does more than register body
stresses.  This is the area where *all* sensory input for the body surfaces
is perceived.  While stressors in the environment can have somatic effects,
these do not have a one-to-one (or even a few-to-a few) correspondence with
the area of the body or the type of response given.  *ALL* stress, if it is
bad enough, will effect your body (I sometimes get the "runs" when things get
REAL bad), but this effect is not likely to be consistently manifested in one
part of your body or with one single reaction.

>        Somatic responses such as those outlined above are
>        intimately connected with our expressed feelings, which
>        usually are translated into some behavioral response along
>        the axis from aggressive to assertive to politic to
>        nonassertive to nonaggresive.

  This is incomplete at best.  It is unrealistic to limit the translation of
somatic effects into one spectrum of behavioral states/effects, and vastly
oversimplifying the situation as well (some oversimplification is inevitable,
but not to the extent that you lose all informational content of the thought!).

>        The challenge is to find and
>        effectuate the middle ground between too much communication
>        and too little.  The goal of the communication is to
>        identify the cause and effect link between the environmental
>        stressor and the somatic reaction, and from the somatic
>        reaction to the behavioral response.  The challenge is all
>        the more difficult because the most effective mode and
>        intensity of the communication depends on the maturity of
>        the other party.

  This sounds to me for all the world like a paragraph off of the back of a
badly researched pop-psych book.  I'm somewhat of theoretic conservative; I
don't like to see new and wild theories/models thrown around without proper
thought and research behind them.  While the sentiment here seems to be good,
the assumptions and assertions are a mishmash of misinformation, hopeful
conjecture, and psych 101.


>        Acknowledgements
>
>        The original sources for the ideas assembled in this paper
>        are too diffuse to pinpoint with completeness or precision.
>        However, I would like to acknowledge the influence of so
>        many of my colleagues who took the time to contribute their
>        ideas and experiences on the subject matter.  I especially
>        would like to thank Dr. John Karlin, Dr. R. Isaac Evan, and
>        Dr. Laura Rogers who helped me shape and test the models
>        presented here.

  Like I said, who are these folks, and what sort of feedback did they
give you?  While I'm at it, is this article being published? If so, where,
and what editor let it pass by?!

> Comments are invited.
>
> --Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

  Well, you asked.  I'd be more than happy to hear any comments to my comments,
and/or to view any sources anyone has.  I have them in abundance myself.
None of this has been intended as a personal flame.  I am just speaking out
against what is a glaring example of some of the half-baked theories being
slung around today.  If you want to attack *my* assertions, go ahead (I'm
sure there's room for everybody :-).  All personal flames will be sent directly
to /dev/uranus without comment.


My address is ...ihnp4(etc)!tektronix!tekecs!mikes

        Mike Sellers

"The strength and weakness of youth is that
 it cannot see its own strength and weakness."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
87
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 00:18:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Natural Language processing
-BODY-

You are probably correct in your belief that Wittgenstein is closer to
the truth than most current natural language programming.  I also believe
it is impossible to go through Wittgenstein with a fine enough toothed
comb.  However, there are a couple of things to say.  First, it is
patently easier to implement a computer model based on 2-valued logic.
The Investigations have not yet found a universally acceptable
interpretation (or anything close, for that matter).  To try to implement
the theories contained within would be a monumental task.  Second, in
general it seems that much AI programming starts as an attempt to
codify a cognitive model.  However, considering such things as grant
money and egos, when the system runs into trouble, an engineering-type
solution (ie, make it work) is usually chosen.  The fact that progress
in AI is slow, and that the great philosophical theories have not yet
found their way into the "state of the art," is not surprising.  But
give it time--philosophers have been working hard at it for 2500 years!

Barry Smith

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 86 00:32:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!marek@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Natural Language processing
-BODY-

Interestingly enough, similar sentiments to your endorsment of L.W. are
strongly voiced with respect to Charles Sanders Peirce, by semioticians.
>From what I can surmise about Pericean thought, their thrust (or, trust)
appears questionable.  I am not implying that this necessarily casts a pall
on the Vienna School, but my present inclination is to read the Dead Greats
for inspiration, not vindication or ready-made answers.

                        -- Marek Lugowski

                           Indiana U. CS Dept.
                           Bloominton, Indiana 47405
                           marek@indiana.csnet
>-------
``I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them.  The will to a system is
a lack of integrity'' -- Friedrich Nietzsche (``Twilight of the Idols, or
How One Philosophizes with a Hammer'')

``Onwards, hammerheads, bright and dangerous, we're big and strong and
we're sure of something'' -- Shriekback (``Oil and Gold'')

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 86 23:06:42 est
-FROM-
From: Nigel Goddard  <goddard@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: goddard@rochester.UUCP (Nigel Goddard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: computer consciousness
-BODY-
In article <8604110647.AA25206@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> "CUGINI, JOHN"
<cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA> writes:
>
>Thought I'd jump in here with a few points.
>
   ...

>
>3. Taking up the epistemological problem for the moment, it
>isn't as obvious as many assume that even the most sophisticated
>computer performance would constitute *decisive* evidence for
>consciousness.  Briefly, we believe other people are conscious
>for TWO reasons: 1) they are capable of certain clever activities,
>like holding English conversations in real-time, and 2) they
>have brains, just like us, and each of us knows darn well that
>he/she is conscious.  Clearly the brain causes/supports
>consciousness and external performance in ways we don't
>understand.  A conversational computer does *not* have a brain;
>and so one of the two reasons we have for attributing
>consciousness to others does not hold.
>

It is not just having a brain (for which most of us have no direct evidence
anyway), but having a head, body, mouth, eyes, voice, emotional sensitivity
and many other supporting factors (no one of which is *necessary*, but the
more there are there the better the evidence).  I guess a brain is necesary,
but were one to come across a brain with no body, eyes, voice, ears or other
means for verifying its activity, would one consider it to be conscious ?
Personally I think that the only practical criterion (i.e. the ones we use
when judging whether this particular human or robot is "conscious") are
performance ones.  Is a monkey conscious ?.  If not, why not ?  There are
people I meet who I consider to be very "unconscious", i.e. their stated
explanations of their motives and actions seem to me to
completely misunderstand what I consider to be the
*real* explanations.  Nevertheless, I still think they are conscious
entities, and the only way I can rationalize this paradox is that I think
they have the ability to learn to understand the *real* reasons for their
actions.  This requires an ability to abstract and to make an internal model
of the self, which may be the main factors underlying what we call
consciousness.

Nigel Goddard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Apr 86 09:57:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!styx!lognet2!seismo!ll-xn!topaz!harvard
     !h-sc1!pking@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-

In all this discussion of "feelings," "survival instinct," and
"consciousness," one point is being overlooked.  That is, can you
really say that a behavioral reaction (survival instinct) is a
feeling if the animal or computer has no consciousness?

Joseph Mankoski asked whether or not one could say that the
shuttle's computers were displaying a form of "programmed
survival instinct."  I think that the answer is yes.  This does
not mean that shuttle missions were aborted because the computer
wanted to save itself.  Biologists, however, are quick to point
out that cats run away from dogs not because they want to save
themselves, but because the sight of a dog triggers a cat's
flight (abort) mechanism.  The net effect of the cat's behavior
is to increase its chances of survival, but the cat (and the
shuttle's computer) has no "desire to survive."

But we, as humans, DO have a desire to survive, don't we?  When
faced with danger, we do everything in our power to avoid it. The
difference is that we are conscious of our attempts to avoid
danger, even if we do not understand them.  "Why did you run away
from that snake," someone might ask.  "To escape possible
injury," we rationalize.  The more truthful answer, however, is
"It just happened -- it was the first thing that came to mind."

But what of the sensation of fear that comes over us in such
situations?  "Fear" is just a name we have given to the sensation
of anxiety coupled with avoidance-behavior.  For the most part,
we are observers of our own behavior (and our own thoughts, for
that matter: introspection).  Sure, we have control over our
instinctual tendencies, but not as much as we would like to
think.  Witness the acrophobic "unable" to climb a fire-escape.
Why would courage be such an envied quality if it weren't so hard
to defeat one's instinctual (intuitive) reactions.

Unfortunately, gut-feeling tendencies can backfire, as in the
case of drug addiction.  In this case, the emotional mind sets
the goal ("get drugs") and the rational mind does what it can to
get satiate the emotional mind despite knowledge of the damage
being done.  Phobias aren't so desirable either.

What I'm getting at is that "desires" and "feelings" are how we
experience the state of our mind, just as colors are the way we
experience light frequency and pain is the way we experience
tissue damage.  To say a computer has feelings is incorrect
unless the computer is AWARE of its behavior.  You could possibly
say that the shuttle's computer aborted the mission to prevent
it's own death (i.e. it felt fear) if one of the sensory inputs
to the computer was the fact that it was entering the abort-
state.

The same argument could be made for consciousness.  That to be
conscious is to be aware of one's own thought process and state
of mind (a sixth sense?).  Computers (and Barry Kort's gigantic
telephone switching system) are not conscious.  While they receive
input from the various "senses" (telephone exchanges, disk-
drives, users), they receive no information about themselves.  One
could say that a time-sharing system that monitor its own status
is "conscious" but this is a very limited consciousness, since
the system cannot construct an abstract world-model that would
include itself, a requirement for personal identity.

If a computer could compile sensory information about itself and
the world around it into an abstract model of the "world," and
then use this model to interact with the world, then it would be
conscious.  Further, if it could associate pieces of its model to
words, and words to a grammar, then it could communicate with
people and let us know "what it's like to be a computer."

>------
I would appreciate any reactions.


Paul King

UUCP:   {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!h-sc4!pking
ARPA:   pking@h-sc4.harvard.EDU
BITNET: pking@harvsc4.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 23:18:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ll-xn!cit-vax!trent@ucbvax.berkeley
     .edu  (Ray Trent)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
In article <1039@h-sc1.UUCP> pking@h-sc1.UUCP (paul king) writes:
>"consciousness," one point is being overlooked.  That is, can you
>really say that a behavioral reaction (survival instinct) is a
>feeling if the animal or computer has no consciousness?

Please define this concept of "consciousness" before using it.
Please do so in a fashion that does not resort to saying that
human beings are mystically different from other animals or
machines. Please also avoid self-important definitions. (e.g.
consciousness is what humans have)

>is to increase its chances of survival, but the cat (and the
>shuttle's computer) has no "desire to survive."

The above request also applies to the term "desire".

>difference is that we are conscious of our attempts to avoid
...
>"It just happened -- it was the first thing that came to mind."

Huh? This pair of sentences seems to say that your definition of
"consciousness" is that consciousness is "the first thing that
[comes] to mind." I don't think that split second decisions are a
good measure of what most people call consciousness.

> [two paragraphs that seem to reinforce the idea that
> consciousness has much to do with "gut-level reactions" and
> "instincts"]

>What I'm getting at is that "desires" and "feelings" are how we

My definition of these concepts would say that they "are" the
actions that a life process take in response to certain stimuli.

>tissue damage.  To say a computer has feelings is incorrect
>unless the computer is AWARE of its behavior.  You could possibly

No, to say that a computer has self-awareness is to say that it
is AWARE of its feelings. Unless, of course, this is yet another
self-defined concept.

>say that the shuttle's computer aborted the mission to prevent
>it's own death (i.e. it felt fear) if one of the sensory inputs
>to the computer was the fact that it was entering the abort-
>state.

[reductio ad absurdum(sp?)] You could possibly say that a human
entered abort mode (felt fear) if one of its sensory inputs was
the fact that it was entering abort mode (feeling fear).

>telephone switching system) are not conscious.  While they receive
>input from the various "senses" (telephone exchanges, disk-
>drives, users), they receive no information about themselves.  One

Telephone systems receive no inputs about themselves? What about
routing information derived from information the system has about
its own damaged components?

>the system cannot construct an abstract world-model that would
>include itself, a requirement for personal identity.

Here is a simple program to construct an abstract world-model
that includes the machine:

main()
{
   printf("I think, therefore I am.\n");
}

Try to convince me that humans do something fundamentally
different here. (seriously)

>If a computer could compile sensory information about itself and
>the world around it into an abstract model of the "world," and
>then use this model to interact with the world, then it would be
>conscious.  Further, if it could associate pieces of its model to
>words, and words to a grammar, then it could communicate with
>people and let us know "what it's like to be a computer."

I give as example the relational database program. It collects
sensory information about the world into an abstract model of the
"world" and then uses this model to interact with the world. Is
it therefore conscious? I don't think so. (how self-referential
of me) If fact, I will go further...such a program associates
pieces of its model to words and words into a grammer, and with
the appropriate database, could indeed let us know "what it's
like to be a computer," but I don't think that most people would
call it conscious.

>I would appreciate any reactions.

Ask, and you shall receive.
>-
                                        ../ray\..
                                (trent@csvax.caltech.edu)
"The above is someone else's opinion only at great coincidence"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Apr 86 17:25:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: dali.berkeley.edu!regier@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Terrance P. Regier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-

trent@csvax.caltech.edu writes:

> Here is a simple program to construct an abstract world-model
> that includes the machine:
>
> main()
> {
>    printf("I think, therefore I am.\n");
> }
>
> Try to convince me that humans do something fundamentally
> different here. (seriously)
                   ^^^^^^^^^

Descartes' famous assertion was the result of a period of admirably
honest introspection:  After allowing himself to doubt the veracity
of his beliefs, senses, etc., he found that some things (well, at
least one thing) CANNOT be doubted.  I think, therefore I am.  Your
admittedly concise and elegant program fails to capture the integrity
and awareness of self implicit in the statement.  It is closer in
spirit to an involuntary burp.

                                        -- Terry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
88
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 86 10:06:20 CST
-FROM-
From: Rose M. Herring <roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - DADO/TREAT: Parallel Execution of Expert Systems (UTexas)
-BODY-
                      University of Texas

                  Computer Sciences Department

                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:                Daniel Miranker
                                Columbia University

TITLE:          DADO & TREAT:  A Sytem for the Parallel Execution of
                          Expert Systems

DATE:           Thursday, April 10, 1986
PLACE:          TAY 3.144
TIME:           11:00-12:00 noon


        The development of expert computer programs has moved out
of  the  research  lab  and  into a quickly developing commercial
field.  The development of computer architectures that are better
suited  for  executing  these programs has recently come into the
forefront of computer architecture research. Indeed, a new  term,
fifth generation computers, has been coined to describe these ar-
chitectures.
        This talk will describe  the  architecture  and  software
systems  of  a  recently  completed  parallel  computer, the DADO
machine, designed to accelerate expert systems written in produc-
tion  system  form.  The talk will also describe a new production
system matching algorithm that, although motivated by  the  algo-
rithmic  requirements of parallel computing, has been shown to be
better than the RETE match (the currently accepted  best  produc-
tion system algorithm), even in a sequential environment.

                  COFFEE AT 10:30 in TAY 3.128

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 10 Apr 86 11:23:55-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inverse Method of Establishing Deducibility (SRI)
-BODY-

                    WHAT IS THE INVERSE METHOD?

                    Vladimir Lifschitz (VAL@SAIL)
                       Stanford University

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, April 14
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

In 1964, the same year when J. A. Robinson introduced the resolution rule,
a Russian logician and philosopher, Sergey Maslov, published his four-page
paper, "An Inverse Method of Establishing Deducibility in Classical
Predicate Calculus".  Maslov's method is based on a major discovery in
proof theory which has remained largely unnoticed by logicians. The method
does not require that the goal formula be written in clausal or even
prenex form, and there may exist a possibility of applying it to
non-classical systems (e.g., modal). Computer programs based on the
inverse method are reported to be comparable, in terms of efficiency, to
those using resolution. The inverse method has been also applied to solving new
special cases of the decision problem for predicate logic, and it can serve as
a uniform approach to solving almost all known solvable cases.

In this talk I explain the idea of the inverse method on a simple example.


Note to visitors:  SRI now has stricter security rules and won't allow
people to just walk up to the AIC.  If you have any problems being admitted,
please call either me (Amy Lansky -- x4376) or Margaret Olender (x5923).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 April 1986 1536-EST
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Perspectives, Prototyping, and Procedural Reasoning (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:        David A. Evans, Dept. of Philosophy, CMU
Date:           Wednesday, April 23
Time:           11:30 - 1:00
Place:          5409 Wean Hall
Title:          Perspectives, prototyping, and procedural reasoning

In the special task of developing a consultation and tutoring
facility for the CADUCEUS expert system, it is necessary to
identify several perspectives over detailed diagnostic information,
which can be organized into meta-level knowledge structures that
reflect explicit procedures, contexts, and pragmatics, associated
with the task of explaining and justifying diagnostic inferences.
Such structures offer concrete interpretations of notions such as
prototypes (taken from cognitive science) and suggest constraints
that can be exploited in controlling discourses and procedural
reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 86 13:18:38 EST
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Improving Planning Efficiency (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                        Machine Learning Colloquium


                                 REAPPR:
    Improving planning efficiency via local expertise and reformulation


               Bresina, J.L., Marsella, S.C., and Schmidt, C.F.
                            Rutgers University

                         11 AM, April 22, Tuesday
                             #423, Hill Center

                                Abstract

We discuss planning within the problem reduction paradigm.  Within this
paradigm, a key issue is handling subproblem interactions.  We point out the
advantages of problem reduction over goal reduction (which characterizes most
previous planning systems).  We introduce an implemented planning system -
REAPPR - which extends the problem reduction paradigm to capture and
efficiently utilize expert planning knowledge.  The features of REAPPR
include: (i) potential parallelism, (ii) local control information, (iii)
flexible problem reduction, and (iv) reformulations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 86 12:19 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Anaphora: Events and Actions (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Ethel Schuster <Ethel@UPenn> on Thu 10 Apr 1986 at 20:22



            TOWARDS A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF ANAPHORA IN DISCOURSE:

                        REFERENCE TO EVENTS AND ACTIONS

                                Ethel Schuster

                                   Abstract

When  people  talk  or  write,  they refer to things, objects, events, actions,
facts and/or states that have been  mentioned  before.  Such  context-dependent
reference is called anaphora.  In general, linguists and researchers working in
artificial intelligence have looked at the problem of  anaphora  interpretation
as  that  one  of  finding  the correct antecedent for an anaphor--that is, the
previous words or phrases to  which  the  anaphor  is  linked.  Lately,  people
working in the area of anaphora have suggested that in order for anaphors to be
interpreted correctly, they must be interpreted by reference to entities evoked
by the previous discourse rather than in terms of their antecedents.

This  work  describes  the  process of dealing with anaphoric language when the
reference is to events and actions. It involves four issues:  (i) what  aspects
of the discourse give evidence of the events and actions the speaker is talking
about, (ii) how actions and events are represented in the listener's  discourse
model, (iii) how to identify the set of events and actions as possible choices,
and (iv) how to obtain the speaker's intended referent to an  action  or  event
from  a  set  of  possible  choices.  Anaphoric forms that are used to refer to
actions and events include sentential-it, sentential-that pronominalizations as
well  as  do  it, do that, and do this forms. Their interpretations can be many
and because of that, they cannot be understood only on linguistic  grounds  but
on  models  of  the  discourse.  So,  I will concentrate on developing the four
previously mentioned issues along with other mechanisms that  will  provide  us
with  better  tools for the successful interpretation of anaphoric referents to
actions and events in discourse.

                                April 16, 1986
                                     11 am
                          Moore 129 (Faculty Lounge)
                            Advisor: Bonnie Webber
                          Committee: Tim Finin, Chair
                                 Aravind Joshi
                        Ellen Prince (Linguistics Dpt.)
                         Tony Kroch (Linguistics Dpt.)
                              Candy Sidner (BBN)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 86 23:55:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!burdvax!blenko@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Blenko)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI Impacts at FAA, Date Change
-BODY-

        ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS WORKSHOP


                     presented by

          AMERICAN COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

               >>> June 11-13, 1986 <<<-- NOTE change of date


                 FAA Technical Center
           Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey

This is a mildly-technical workshop for marketing, planning and
manufacturing professionals who are interested in artificial
intelligence.  Workshop emphasizes marketing data, competitive
analyses, planning information, financials, opportunities and
contraints, etc., from a world-wide survey of businesses and
governments involved in AI.


Information can be obtained from:

              American Computer Technologies, Inc.
              237 Lancaster Avenue, Suite 255
              Devon, PA 19333
              Attn: Ms. Carol Ward
              (215) 687-4148,

and/or Ms. Pat Watts of the Federal Aviation Administration Technical
Center:

              (609) 484-6646.

(This information is being posted for a friend: please respond to the
address given above).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Apr 86 16:55:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!akgua!ganehd!anv@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Vellino)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Discourse Analysis
-BODY-

                               First Ad Hoc Conference
                                on Discourse Analysis


                                  April 24-25, 1986
                                    138 Tate Hall
                                University of Georgia
                                   Athens, Georgia


          Thursday, April 24

           9 a.m.    Rainer Bauerle (University of Tubingen)
                        "Nominalizations, Event Anaphora,
                         and Order of Events in a DRT-framework"

           10.30 a.m.   Coffee Break

           11 a.m.   Nirit Kadmon (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
                        "Maximal Collections, Specificity,
                         and Discourse Anaphora"

           12.30 p.m.   Lunch Break


            2 p.m.   Hans Kamp (University of Texas, Austin)
                        "Plural Anaphora and Plural Determiners"


          Friday, April 25

           9 a.m.    Craige Roberts (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
                         "Modal Subordination and Pronominal Anaphora
                          in Discourse"

           10.30 a.m.    Coffee Break

           11 a.m.   Michael Covington (University of Georgia, Athens)
                         "Modelling Implicature with Defeasible Logic"

           12.30 p.m.    Lunch Break

            2 p.m.   Barbaree Partee (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)
                         "Nominal and Temporal Anaphora"




                        Advanced Computational Methods Center
                                University of Georgia
                                Athens, Georgia 30602

            For further information contact Marvin Belzer (404) 542-5110

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Apr 1986 19:22:05 EST
-FROM-
From: ALSPACH@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI and Automatic Control
-BODY-
Dr. Andrews
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
Ames Research Center
San Jose, CA

Dear Dr. Andrews:

Per your note to AI-LIST on April 1, regarding the synergism between
the fields of artificial intelligence and automatic control, I would
like to bring your attention to the American Control Conference to be
held in Seattle from June 18-20 this year.  The American Control
Conference is sponsored by the American Automatic Control Council,
which is a council consisting of member organizations which include
the AIAA, AICHE, ASME, IEEE, ISA, and SCS.  The ACC is the U.S.
representative to IFAC (the International Federation of Automatic
Control).  In addition, other engineering societies, such as
Automation Engineers, participate.  This is the largest conference on
control held in the United States, and is multidisciplinary.  It has
been held for a number of years.

Looking at this year's program, it is clear that your idea of exploring
the common ground between control and artificial intelligence is
already seriously in progress.  Out of 68 sessions, there are seven
sessions whose major themes are artificial intelligence and control,
or robotics and control.

First, on Wednesday A.M., there is a session on Artificial
Intelligence in Process Control.  The Chairman is R. Moore of LISP
Machines, Inc., and a number of national and international experts are
talking about this very interesting topic.  In parallel with this
session on Wednesday A.M., there is a session entitled Robotics that
explores many aspects of robotics control.  The Chairman of this
session is Jason Speyer from the University of Texas at Austin, and it
will be co-chaired by M. Railey from the University of Akron.

On Wednesday P.M., there is a session entitled Artificial Intelligence
Applications in Sensor Fusion and Command and Control.  This session
is chaired by Dr. S. Brodsky, Sperry Corporation, and addresses some
very interesting work in the area of artificial intelligence
applications to sensor fusion and command and control.  Typical papers
from this session include J. Flynn of DARPA on "Carrier Based Threat
Assessment", J. Delaney of Stanford talking on "Multisensor Report
Integration Using Blackboards", and M. Grover and M. Stachnick of
Advanced Decision Systems discussing "Overlooked and Unconventional AI
Techniques for Command and Control".  A number of other very
interesting papers are in this session.

On Thursday A.M., there is a session on 4D Aircraft Guidance and
Expert Traffic Management, which is chaired by A. Chakravarty of
Boeing Commerical Airplane Company and co-chaired by R. Schwab, also
of Boeing.  An exemplar paper in this session is "Time-Based Air
Traffic Management Using Expert Systems" by L. Tobias and J. Scoggins
of NASA Ames Research Center.  Running in parallel on Thursday A.M.,
is a specialist session on Direct Drive Robot Arms.  This is chaired
by J. Slotine of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-chaired
by H. Asada of Kyoto University, Japan.

Another general session on Artificial Intelligence is to be held on
Thursday P.M., chaired by J. Birdwell from the University of Tennessee
and co-chaired by G. Allgood, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  A number
of excellent papers include: "Domains of Artificial Intelligence
Relevant to Systems", by J. Birdwell and J. Crockett, University of
Tennessee, and J. Gabriel of Argonne National Laboratory; "Knowledge
Representation by Scripts in an Expert Interface" by J. Larsson and P.
Persson of Lund Institute of Technology; and "An Expert System to
Control a Fusion Energy Experiment" by R. Johnson, et al., from
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories.

On Friday A.M., there is a session on Aerospace and Robotics
Applications of Nonlinear Control, chaired by F. Fadali, University of
Nevada-Reno and co-chaired by T. Dwyer, University of Illinois.  In
parallel on Friday A.M., there is a session on Robot Tracking Control
chaired by George Saridis of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

On Friday P.M., there is a session on Multitarget Tracking and Data
Association chaired by C. Chong, Advanced Information & Decision
Systems, and co-chaired by M. Shensa, Naval Ocean Systems Center.
This discusses an area that is ripe for artificial intelligence
applications and, for example, includes a paper entitled "An Expert
System for Surveillance Automation" by R. Mucci of BBN Laboratories.
Also in parallel with this Friday P.M. session is one on Robot Control
chaired by J. Garbini, University of Washington, and co-chaired by C.
Nachtigal of Kistler Morse Company.

In addition to these sessions, there are a number of papers on
artificial intelligence, expert systems and robotics applications
scattered throughout a number of other sessions in the program.

Also, of interest to people who are interested in the AI List
information, there is a one-day tutorial workshop on Monday, June 16,
preceding the conference, entitled "Intelligent Control System Design
and Analysis".  The purpose of this workshop is to introduce control
systems engineers and engineering managers to the possibility of using
intelligent systems during the design and analysis of control systems.
Participants will learn the techniques for building expert systems and
will see examples of their use in control system design.  This
tutorial workshop will be taught by Guy Beale of Vanderbilt University
and Charles Buenzli of Gilbarco-Exxon.  On Tuesday, June 17, another
tutorial workshop will be taught by Roger Brockett of Harvard
University and Robert M. Goor of General Motors Research Laboratory.
The topic of this workshop will be "Modeling and Control of Robotic
Manipulators".

The General Chairman for the conference is Dr. Ed Stear, who is
Associate Dean of Electrical Engineering at the University of
Washington and Head of the Washington Technology Center.  It may also
be of interest to this community that one of the plenary speakers is
Dr. Robert Rankine, Brigadier General, U.S. Air Force and Head of Air
Force SDI activities.  He will discuss some of the control challenges
associated with the SDI Program and with the proposed new hypersonic
trans-atmospheric vehicles.

All in all, for someone interested in the merging of the fields of
artificial intelligence, expert systems and automatic control, this is
an excellent conference to attend.  There is also a great social
program planned for the evenings to allow informal discussions among
the attendees.  Also, Expo '86 is only a few miles up the road in
Vancouver, British Columbia, for those interested in attending this
activity before or after the conference.

To obtain information regarding registration, please contact the
office of Dagfinn Gangsaas, BMAC, P.O. Box 3707, MS 33-12, Seattle, WA
98124, (206) 241-4348.  Preliminary programs may be obtained by
sending a request to me via Arpanet, c/o ALSPACH (at) USC-ISI or
mailing a request to D. L. Alspach, ORINCON Corporation, 3366 N.
Torrey Pines Ct., Suite 320, La Jolla, CA 92037.

Sincerely,
Daniel L. Alspach
Program Chairman
1986 American Control Conference
BBN Laboratories.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
89
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #4
-BODY-
%A Richard L. Wexelblat
%T Editorial
%J SIGPLAN Notices
%V 21
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%P 1
%K AI03 AA17 Queens Problem H03 ADA
%X SIGPLAN is having a contest to determine the
best solution for the N<=8 Queens problem using
concurrency in ADA in a substantive manner.
Deadline for submissions is June, 1986.

%A Scott Mace
%T Ansa Upgrades Paradox, Drops Copy Protection
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 11
%D MAR 17, 1986
%P 3
%K Paradox AA09 H01
%X Ansa software announced upgrades to its system and has dropped
copy protection

%T Resources
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 11
%D MAR 17, 1986
%P 17
%K AI01 H01 Cahners Publishing Company Users Group Expert Systems Strategies
%X The New York IBM PC Users Group has announced a special interest
group for Expert Systems.  The meetings are held March 25.  For more info
contact NYPC, Suite 614, 30 Wall Street, 10005 (212) 533 NYPC.  Cahners
Publishing Company produces a newsletter called Expert Systems Strategies.
Charter rate is $207, regular rate is $247.  Address is Cahners Publishing
Co. P. O. Box 59, New Town Branch Boston, MA 02258 (617) 964 3030

%A Cornelius Willis
%T The Problems with AI
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 11
%D MAR 17, 1986
%P 20
%K Insight 1 Level Five Research AI01 T03 H02 AT14 AT12
%X The director of marketing for Level Five Research writes that the
reason that artificial intelligence has not been embraced by corporate
MIS directors is that the charges for Lisp machines and knowledge engineers
are way too high.  He also claims that his product, Insight 1, is
"the most widely used knowledge engineering tool in the world."

%A Peggy Watt
%T Ansa Move Woos Corporate Users
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 17, 1986
%V 20
%N 11
%P 1+
%K H01 AA09 Paradox Ashton-Tate AT04
%X Ansa Software's Paradox has been approved by only about two dozen
large-account evaluators.  In November and December, they sold 1,449
copies against 13,156 copies of Ashton Tate's DBASE products.  In January,
it was 813 copies of Paradox against 6,154 copies of DBASE.  Ansa
is investigating the micro-to-mainframe data base file exchange.

%A Douglas Barney
%T AI-Based Financial Systems Allocates Assets Based on Goals
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 17, 1986
%V 20
%N 11
%P  6
%K H02 AI01 AA06 First Financial Planner Services Plan Power Xerox personal
planning
%X discussion of First Financial Planner Services, Plan Power which
is an expert system that performs personal
financial planning.  It has 6000 rules.

%A Elisabeth Horwitt
%T AI Integration Gets a Shot in the ARm as Vendors Link Products
%J ComputerWorld
%D MAR 17, 1986
%V 20
%N 11
%P 47+
%K Harvey Newquist Symbolics H03 SNA Texas Instruments Explorers Gould
LMI SUN Apollo AT16
%X Symbolics has announced a link to IBM mainframes via SNA.
Flavors Technology brought out a high speed bus to bus link between
Lisp Machine, Inc. machines or Texas Instruments Explorer's.
and Gould, Inc. superminicomputers.  It costs $36,000.
Texas Instruments plans to integrate their Explorer with SUN and
Apollo.

%A Eric L. Schwartz
%A Bjorn Merker
%T Computer-Aided Neuroanatomy: Differential Geometry of Cortical
Surfaces and an Optimal Flattening Algorithm
%J IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
%D MAR 1986
%V 6
%N 3
%P 36-44
%K AA10 AI08
%X describes the mapping of the visual field on the visual cortex
of the monkey

%T Apollo, TI to TIE Network, Workstation
%J Electronic News
%V 32
%N 1593
%D MAR 17, 1986
%P 18+
%K SUN LMI Flavor Common LISP Compact Lisp Machine H02 AT02 AT16
%X [Much of the material in this article was reported
recently elsewhere in AILIST; only new stuff is in this abstract]
Apollo will be selling a $3,500 Common Lisp.  The link between
Apollo and TI will be made using Apollo's Open Systems Tookit
and TI's Flavor package.  Apollo also hopes to use TI's single
chip LISP machine.  LMI's marketing director said that it is
has always been the position of his company that Lisp machines
and LISP cannot survive alone.  He predicted that alignment of
TI, SUN and Apollo will not affect LMI.  Furthermore, he predicts
that the single chip LISP machine development effort at TI
will take at least 12 months.

%A Richard H. McSwain
%A Robert W. Goutld
%T Taking the Fatigue Out of Fracture Surface Analysis
%J Metal Progress
%D MAR 1986
%V 129
%N 4
%K AA05 Metallurgy Failure Analysis AI06 striation Fourier
Transform
%X Describes use of the Fourier transform method to analyze
the fracture surface of a material failing from fatigue.
[When a material is repeatedly subjected to changes in
stress, it may fail from fatigue.  This is even true when
the maximum load is well below the limit which would cause
failure if it was applied in a steady state condition.  When
this happens, a characteristic striation appears on the
fracture surface.  This can be viewed with Scanning
Electron Microscopy or even with the naked eye or magnifying
glass.  LEFF]

%A Barry Meier
%T Robot Subs Begin to Surface as Versatile Exploration
Tools
%J Wall Street Journal
%D MAR 7, 1986
%V 78
%N 46
%P 19
%K Deep Ocean Engineering Company
International Submarine Engineering Ltd.
AA03 AI07 AA18 AA19 GA04
%X Describes some uses and research therein for robot
submarines:
Canadian Oceanographers will use one to hunt for oil
below the icecap.  It will be dropped through
a hole in the ice 1000 miles from the North Pole.
It will then navigate in a grid like pattern in
a ten square mile area mapping the bottoms.  Sonar
will help the sub avoid icebergs.  The thing is being
build by International Submarine Engineering Ltd.
.sp 1
R&D exists in applications
of submarines to prospecting, repair of oil installations,
perform rescue and recovery missions, and engage in
spying.
Work is done on developing sensors based on sound,
AI systems to help robots react to currents and fiber
optics for exchange of data with mother ships.
Deep Ocean Engineering Company has developed a system
of sensors to detect the weight and composition of
objects under water.  They are using tones to inform
the operator of what the robot has in its arms.
They are also perfecting AI to the point that submarines
can be free-swimming.  NASA is funding some of this work
since they hope to apply the results to space travel.




%T Advertisement
%J BYTE
%D APR 1986
%P 284
%V 11
%N 4
%K Solution Systems TransLisp T01 H01 AT01
%X Lisp for IBM PC for only $75.00  It is a 230+ function
subset of Common Lisp and has MSDOS interface and graphics.
(Solution Systems also sells the BRIEF editor

%T Star Wars Divides A Campus
%J BusinessWeek
%D March 10, 1986
%P 82-86
%N 2936
%K Carl Hewitt MIT
%X Discusses reactions of MIT people to SDI funding
Carl Hewitt has decided to apply for SDI funding.
The AI Lab at MIT received 55 percent of its 8 million
dollar budget from the defense department.

%A Michael Lesk
%T Writing to be Searched: A Workshop on Document Generation Principles
%J SIGIR Forum
%V 19
%N 1-4
%D WINTER 1986
%P 9-14
%K Cucumber Information Knowledge Systems AI02 A08  AA14
%X "It is now possible to design full-text retrieval systems that
accept conventional docuements and questions in natural English, and then
retrie
ve
documents ofr passages from documents that probably answer the questions."
Cucumber Information
Systems and Knowledge Systems, Inc. sell such systems.
A high degree of grammatical variation does not seem important to produce
natural effects in short paragraphs (as evidenced by Karen Kukich's
stock market report generator)"  "Syntax is much less important
for retrieval than semantics; you need to know what the words mean more
than you need to know their relationship."  "Editing manuals to make
them suitable for machine translation, requiring simple translation, has
turned out to make them better in the original language as well."

%A Susanne M. Humphrey
%T Automated Classification and Retrieval Program: Indexing Aid Project
%J SIGIR Forum
%V 19
%N 1-4
%D WINTER 1986
%P 16-17
%K AA14 AI02 AA01
%X Lister Hill Center of the National Library of Medicine is
developing this system to generate indices consistent with
those normally used by MEDLINE.  They are using a frame based system.

%A Frank Tansey
%T Guru's Power Cuts Out the Competition
%J Infoworld
%V 8
%N 12
%D MAR 24, 1986
%P 14
%K AI01 AA09 AA06 university administration residency T03 H01 AT17
%X This is a review of GURU, an expert system tool that interfaces
with MDBS's Knowledge Man.  It supports up to 3000 rules, forward
and backward chaining, inexact reasoning.  The system also includes
a text processor, graphics, spreadsheet, graphics and telecommunications.
The system received a rating of 5.8 out of 10 with very good
for performance and ease of use, satisfactory for documentation and value,
It takes 1700 pages of documentation to describe the system.
.sp 1
As of much interest as the review itself are the two systems that were
two expert systems developed using GURU described in this review.
The first was a system to assist in determining residency status
of students
for the California Universities for the purpose of determining
tuition.  The final expert system was judging cases with the
experience of a person with six months to one year in
evalulating such matters.  The system was already able to
impress people in the field with only fifty rules.
They also wrote an expert system to do personal financial planning.
This took 300 rules and embodied the entire expertise of the
person writing the software.
.sp 1
[I read elsewhere that MDBS has sold $6,000,000 of these packages
since they came out.  They cost $3,000 each.  MDBS is known
for Knowledge Man, probably the most powerful relational
data base for micros.  Keep in mind that InfoWorld tends
to downgrade systems if they weren't written so as to be used
by people lacking knowledge or aptitude for computers and
thus most readers of AILIST  would have a higher opinion of the
package than 5.8 out of 10.  LEFF ]

%T Chairman Resigns From Automatix
%J Electronic News
%D Mar 24, 2986
%V 32
%N 1594
%K AT16 AT11 AI07
%X Philippe Villers resigned as chairman of robotics maker
Automatix.  Automatix has yet to turn a profit and lost $5,594,000
in 1985 and $14,193,000 in 1984.

%A Michael Bucken
%T Symbolics Starts VAR Program for 36-BIT Processing Systems
%J Electronic News
%D Mar 24, 2986
%V 32
%N 1594
%K AA04 H02 AT16
%X Symbolics has signed its first VAR contract with ICAD which
is developing an engineering design software package.  40 percent
of Symbolics customers are using the system for applications other than
artificial intelligence.  The system has sold about 2000 processors.

%A Criag Stedman
%T Management Seeking GCA Robotics Group
%J Electronic News
%D Mar 24, 2986
%V 32
%N 1594
%K Industrial Systems Group AT16 AI07
%X The management of the robotics division of GCA Corporation
is trying to arrange a leveraged buyout.  The division has lost
10 to 15 million dollars on sales of about $35 million.

%A Tony Baer
%T Finding the Titanic
%J Mechanical Engineering
%V 108
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%K Jason Angus control chattering ARGO submersible salvage
underwater AI06 AI07
%X One of the problems in underwater vision is backscattering
from the light source of suspended particles.  A good way of
fighting this problem is to mount the light source away from
the camera.  The new lighting system on the Angus has yielded readable
images of areas about as large as a city block.  A system called
Jason is being developed that will mount in the ARGO submersible.
This system will be self-propelled and have its own manipulator arm.
However, it is NOT going to need artificial intelligence [Emphasis mine,
Leff]

%A J. Houseley
%T Getting a Grip on Sensors
%J IEEE Spectrum
%V 23
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 8
%K tactile sensors AI07 AT12 AT13
%X This is a comment by an article by Paolo Darlo and Danilo De Rossi
of August 1985 on the subject of using tactile sensors in gripping
objects in robotics.  In a human being picking up an egg, the
human being would apply enough force to prevent the weight of
the egg from deflecting it.  In gripping a hammer, friction between
the hammer is used.  There is a comment on the role of learning in
applying the right amount of force to adjust for the change when
the hammer impacts the nail.  (There is also a response by
the  author.

%T Advertisement
%J Byte
%D MAR 1986
%V 11
%N 3
%K AT03 H01 T03 AA18 AT01 Thunderstone Corporation Clarity Software
Comprehension Logic-Line
%X Add for Thunderstone Corporation's Logic Line 1 ($250), Logic-Line
2 ($400.00) and Comprehension ($75.00) for the IBM PC It is not clear
from the advertisement what LOGIC-LINE1 and LOGIC-LINE2 actually do.
Comprehension is supposed to enable a person to diagnose their
weakness in a given discipline.  Some quotes from this advertisement:
"Our success has effectively stompted the mortal spit out of the brain
damaged geeks whose rancid cells have been polluting the gene pool of
legitimate AI professionals."  "LOGIC-LINE1, a major breakthrough in
sub-cognitive mathematics, distills the DNA/RNA like analog to any
writer's thought processes.  It allows you to search any textbase for
actual concepts and inference patterns unique to that writer.  In
other words, even though Einstein may never have had a single thought
about ecology, you can apply his thinking patterns to solving
ecological problems!"  "And at its highest level?  You just might use
Thunderstone tools to save the free world, again.  That's right:
Again! LOGIC-LINE 2 began with the mathematics of possibilistic
analysis and recursion (developed by men like Alan Turing and Norbert
Weiner) that directly led the Wellington College team to breaking the
German naval codes in World War II."

%A Melissa Calvo
%T Japanese Firms Granted License by Compuserve
%J InfoWorld
%P 14
%V 8
%N 8
%D FEB 24, 1986
%K Network Information Forum Nissho Iwai Corporation machine translation AI02
%X Fujitsu announced an English to Japanese translator which works
at 60,000 words per hour.
Compuserve and Network Information Forum plan a database exchange which
might use this translation software.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
90
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #5
-BODY-
%A M. Celenk
%A S. H. Smith
%T A New Systematic Method for Color Image Analysis
%R Tech. Rep EE 8509
%D DEC 1985
%I Stevens Institute of Technology Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science Departments
%K AI06


%A S. A. Friedberg
%T Symmetry Evaluators
%R TR134 (revised)
%D JAN 1986
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06 Hough transform
%X $1.25 24 pages


%A D. H. Ballard
%A P. J. Hayes
%T Parallel Logical Inference and Energy Minimization
%R TR142
%D DEC 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K connectionist H03 AI08
%X $1.50 34 pages

%A J. A. Feldman
%T Parallelism in High Level Vision
%R TR146
%D JAN 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K H03 AI08 AI06
%X 33 pages $1.50

%A J. Tenenberg
%T Reasoning Using Exclusion: an Extension of Clausal Form
%R TR147
%D JAN 1986
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K common sense reasoning AI10 AI11
%X 25 pages $1.25

%A D. H. Ballard
%T Form Perception as Transformation
%R TR148
%D JAN 1986
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06 AI07
%X 34 pages $1.50

%A A. Basu
%A C. M. Brown
%T Algorithms and Hardware for Efficient Image Smoothing
%R TR149
%D DEC 1984
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06 H03 median mean filters
%X 20 pages $1.00

%A B. Sarachan
%T Experiments in Rotational Egomotion Calculation
%R TR152
%D FEB 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06
%X 26 pages $1.25 [Seems to be a paper for a robot to determine if it got
rotated.  LEFF]

%A G. W. Cottrell
%T A Connectionist Approach to Word Sense Disambiguation
%R TR154
%D MAY 1985 (PHD Thesis)
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI02 AI08
%X 242 pages $7.25

%A J. A. Feldman
%T Energy and the Behavior of Connection Models
%R TR155
%D NOV 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K H03 AI12
%X 41 pages, $1.75

%A D. Sher
%T Template Matching on Parallel Architectures
%R TR156
%D JUL 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K H03 AI06 Fourier Transform WARP Butterfly
%X 28 pages, $1.25

%A A. Bandopadhay
%A J. Aloimonos
%T Perception of Rigid Motion from Spatio-Temporal Derivatives of Optical Flow
%R TR157
%D MAR 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06
%X 18 pages $1.00 [Seems to be another paper on getting a robot to tell
whether somebody rotated it or not LEFF]

%A J. Aloimonos
%A A. Bandopadhay
%T Perception of Structures from Motion: Lower Bound Results
%R TR158
%D MAR 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06
%X 16 pages $1.00

%A J. Aloimonos
%T One Eye Suffices: a Computational Model of Monocular Robot Depth Perception
%R TR160
%D DEC 1984
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06 optical flow depth perception orthographic perspective projection
%X 16 pages $1.00

%A J. Aloimonos
%A P. B. Chou
%T Detection of Surface Orientation and Motion from Texture: 1. The
Case of Planes
%R TR161
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI06 Gibson
%X 21 pages $1.25

%A Henry A. Kautz
%T Toward a Theory of Plan Recognition
%R TR162
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI09
%D JUL 1985
%X 15 pages $1.00

%A L. Shastri
%T Evidential Reasoning in Semantic Networks: A Formal Theory and its
Parallel Implementation
%R TR166
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K H03 O04
%D SEP 1985
%X 256 pages $7.50

%A D. H. Ballard
%A P. Gardner
%A M. Srinivas
%T Graph Problems and Connection Architectures
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%R TR167
%K H03 AI12
%D DEC 1985
%X 24 pages $1.25

%A  A. Bandopadhay
%T Constraints on the Computation of Rigid Motion Parameters from
Retial Displacements
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%R TR168
%K AI07 AI06
%D OCT 1985
%X 77 pages, $2.75 [Seems to be another paper on getting a robot to tell
whether somebody rotated it or not LEFF]

%A A. Bandopadhay
%A J. Aloimonos
%T Perception of Structure and Motion of Rigid Objects
%D DEC 1985
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%R TR169
%K AI07 AI06
%X 55 pages $2.00 [Seems to be another paper on getting a robot to tell
whether somebody rotated it or not LEFF]

%A D. J. Litman
%T Plan Recognition and Discourse Analysis: An Integrated Approach for
Understanding Dialogues
%D  1985
%R TR170
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI02 AI09
%X 197 pages $6.00

%A J. A. Feldman
%A D. H. Ballard
%A C. M. Brown
%A G. S. Drell
%T Rochester Connectionist Papers 1979-85
%D DEC 1985
%R TR172
%I The University of Rochester Computer Science Department
%K AI12 AT21
%X no charge

%A N. Murray
%A E. Rosenthal
%T On Deleting Links in Semantic Graphs
%R TR 85-4
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K predicate calculus path resolution AI11

%A S. Chaiken
%A N. Murray
%A E. Rosenthal
%T An Application of $P sub 4$ Free Free Graphs in Theorem Proving
%R TR85-8
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AI11
%X We describe the application of graphs that have no induced $P sub 4$
(4 vertex path) subgraphs to automatic theorem proving.  The semantics of
a propositional formula are expressed in terms of the maximal cliques in
a $P sub 4$ free graph rather than by truth assignments.  Arc sets of s-t
paths in a series parallel network provide an equivalent formulation.
We provide combinatorial foundations for Murray and Rosenthal's work
on path resolution (e. g. TR84-1, TR 84-12 and TR 85-4)  For
any graph G, a c-block (resp d-block) is an induced subgraph H in G such
that for all  maximal cliques (resp maximal stable sets) C in G, C $int$
H is $PHI$ or is a maximal clique (resp. maximal stable set) in H.  A
full block is botha c-block and a d-block.  Blocks are generalizations of
substitution subgraphs which occur in Lovasz's work on perfect graphs.
Theorem:  If full block H is $P sub 4$-free then H must arise by
substitution.  Other properties in these blocks in arbitrary graphs and
in $P sub 4$-free graphs are given.  These constructs are instrumental
in the development of several closely related inference rules collectively
referred to as path resolution.  Finally we show how semantics of $P sub 4$
graphs are
generalized to blocking systems by Minty's painting lemma.  This suggests
possible generalization of path resolution to other combinatorial structures.

%A M. Balaban
%T Western Tonal Music - A New Domain for AI Research
%R TR 85-10
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AI02 AA25

%A M. Balaban
%T Knowledge Representation and Inferencing in a Musical Database
%R TR 85-11
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K frames AA25 AA14 T02

%A M. Balaban
%T The Generalized Concept Formalism - A Frame and Logic Based
Representation Model
%R TR 85-20
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AA25 T02

%A Mira Balaban
%T Foundations for Artificial Intelligence Research of Western Tonal Music
%R TR 85-22
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AA25

%A M. Balaban
%T CSM: An AI Approach to the Study of Western Tonal Music
%R TR 85-24
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AA25

%A H. B. Hunt
%A R. E. Stearns
%T Distributive Lattices and the Complexity of Logics and Probability
%R TR 85-28
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AI11 O04
%X Relationships between number of repetitions of variables in formulas
and complexity of decision problems for the formulas.
Applications to logic and probability:
1) Any reasonable propositional calculus with a reasonable implication
operator has a coNP-hard logical Validy problem.  This is true for very
simple formulas involving or, and and a single occurrence of the implication
operator
2) The set of theorems of the propositional calculus of classical
implicative logic is coNP complete
3. Computing the probabilities of a joint event and a conditional event becomes
"hard" almost immediately when the events E1 and E2 are not statistically
independent


%A H. B. Hunt
%A R. E. Stearns
%T Monotone Boolean Formulas, Distributive Lattices, and the Complexities
of Logics, Algebraic Structures, and Computation Structures (Preliminary
Report)
%R TR85-29
%I State University of New York at Albany, Computer Science Department
%K AI11 O04

%A Andrew Laine
%A Seymour V. Pollack
%T The Enhanced Wudma Image Processing
%R WUCS-85-1
%I Department of Computer Science, Washington University
%C St. Louis, Missouri
%K AI06

%A S. E. Elnahas
%A R. G. Jost
%A J. R. Cox
%A R. L. Hill
%T Transmission Progressive of Digital Diagnostic Images
%R WUCS-85-8
%I Department of Computer Science, Washington University
%C St. Louis, Missouri
%K AI06 AA01
%X Progressive transmission of digital pictures permits the receiver
to construct an approximate picture first, then gradually improve the quality
of reconstruction.



%A James R. Slagle
%A JOhn M. Long
%A Michael R. Wick
%A John P. Matts
%A Arthur  S. Leon
%T Expert Systems in Medical Studies- A New Twist
%R TR 86-3
%I University of Minessota, Department of Computer Science
%D 1986
%K AA01 AI01

%A Robert M. Herndon, Jr.
%A Valdis A. Berzins
%T An Interpretive Technique for Evaluating Functional Attribute
Grammars
%R TR 86-5
%I University of Minessota, Department of Computer Science
%R 1986

%A Robert M. Herndon, Jr.
%A Valdis A. Berzins
%T A Method for the Construction of Dynamic, Lazy Evaluators for
Functional Attribute Grammars
%R 86-6
%I University of Minessota, Department of Computer Science
%R 1986

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T Efficient Motion Planning Algorithms in Environments of
Bounded Local Complexity
%R 164
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%K AI07
%D JUN 1985

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T Identification of Partially Obscured Objects in Two Dimensions
by Matching of Noisy 'Characteristic Curves'
%R 165
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D JUN 1985
%K AI06

%A G. Landau
%A U. Vishkin
%T Efficient String Matching with k Mismatches
%R 167
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D JUN 1985
%X Give a text of length n, a pattern of length m and an integer k,
we present an algorithm for finding all occurrences of the patterns in
the text, with at most k mismatches running in O(k(mlogm + n)

%A G. Landau
%A U. Vishkin
%T An Efficient String Matching Algorithm with k Differences for
Nucleotide and Amino Acid Sequences
%R 168
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D JUN 1985
%X Algorithm to allow for optimal alignment of one sequence, the
pattern of length m, with another longer sequence the text, of
length n.  These algorithms allow mismatches, deletions
and insertions.  If k is the maximum number of differences,
then the time is O(k sup 2 n).

%A R. Hummel
%A A. Rojer
%T Connected Component Labeling in Image Processing with
MIMD Architectures
%R 173
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D SEP 1985
%K AI06  H03

%A S. Zucker
%A R. Hummel
%T Receptive Fields and the Representation of Visual Information
%R 176
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D SEP 1985
%K AI06 AI08 Gaussian retina
%X Hypothesis that the receptive fields of the retina provide
a suitable method for transmitting the image over the optic nerve
which is a limited bandwidth channel.





%A M. Landy
%A R. Hummel
%T A Brief Survey of Knowledge Aggregation Methods
%R 177
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D SEP 1985
%K AI04

%A G. Landau
%A U. Vishkin
%T Efficient String Matching with k Differences
%R 186
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D OCT 1985
%X If the mismatches considered are a single character mismatch,
a superfluous character in the text or pattern, there exists an
algorithm that runs in time O(m+k sup 2 n ) when the
alphabet size is fixed and O(m log m + k sup 2 n) otherwise
where m is length of pattern, k is the number of mismatches
and n is the text.

%A D. Leven
%A M. Sharir
%T On the Number of Critical Free Contacts of a Convex Polygonal
Object Moving in 2-D Polygonal Space
%R 187
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D OCT 1985
%K AI07

%A J. Burdea
%A H. Wolfson
%T Automated Assembly of a Jigsaw Puzzle Using the IBM 7565 Robot
%R 188
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D NOV 1985
%K AI07

%A E. Davis
%T Constraint Propagation on Real-Valued Quantities
%R 189
%I New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
Department of Computer Science
%D NOV 1985
%K AI03

%A N. S. Sridharan
%T Representing Knowledge in Introduction using TAXMAN Examples
%R LRP-TR-12
%D 11/81
%I Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science

%R LRP-TR-13
%D 1/82
%T "A Computational Theory of Legal Argument"
%A L. T. McCarty
%A N. S. Sridharan
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%K AA24 tax
%X The TAXMAN project is an experiment in the application of artificial
intelligence to the study of legal reasoning and legal argumentation,
using corporate tax law as an experimental problem domain.  Legal
concepts possess what is often termed "open-texture", that is, their
definitions are subject to a continual process of construction and
modification during the analysis of a contested case.  We have
developed a "prototype-plus-deformation" representation for the
structure of such concepts, a representation which facilitates the
formulation of several systematic methods of conceptual modification.
We propose now to construct a cognitive model of the process of legal
argument, using this representation.  The research is aimed at
developing explanations for the persuasiveness of certain strategies
of legal argument, and at developing further the criteria of
conceptual coherence, both task-specific and task-independent, which
seem to constrain the space of plausible arguments.  We emphasize not
only the contributions of this research to Artificial Intelligence,
but also the insights that may result for some of the fundamental
issues in jurisprudence.


%R LRP-TR-14
%D 9/82
%T "A Flexible Structure for Knowledge"
%A N.S. Sridharan
%K AA24 tax  AI04
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%X Concepts often dealt with in legal reasoning and argumentation are
amorphous.  For TAXMAN II, we have proposed in the past a Prototype
and Deformation model for these amorphous concepts.  In this model, a
concept is represented as a structured space of exemplars, that is as
a set of exemplars, structured by transformations and relationships
among them.  In this paper, the idea of representing a concept as a
structured space of exemplars is extended; suggesting that all
knowledge represented in a computer be organized as structured spaces
and subspaces.  Concepts are represented as spaces; concepts are also
members of spaces.  This duality is exploited to gain flexibility in
the representation, that is, changes to the structure can be effected
through computation.

%R LRP-TR-15
%D 6/83
%T "Concept Learning by Building and Applying Transformations Between
Object Descriptions"
%A Donna Nagel
%K AI04 analogy matching
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%X The Concept Learning presented here emphasizes the building of a
transformation between an instance of a concept and another instance
which is distinguished as a prototype of the concept.  A recursive
partial matcher is used to pinpoint components of structural object
descriptions of the training instances for matching.  Three procedures
are described for inducing matches:  building simple analogies,
applying primitive transformations, and finding projections of the
instances into domains of knowledge relevant to the concept being
learned.  This research is experimental in nature and directed at
discovering flexible ways to define and represent concepts which are
amorphous and open-textured.

%R LRP-TR-16
%D 3/84
%T "EVOLVING SYSTEMS OF KNOWLEDGE"
%A N.S. Sridharan
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%K AI01
%X The enterprise of developing knowledge-based systems, is currently
witnessing great growth in popularity.  The central unity of such
programs is that they interpret knowledge that is explicitly encoded
as @i[rules].  This paper is a statement of personal perspective by a
researcher interested in fundamental issues in the symbolic
representation and organization of knowledge.  The discussion covers
the nature of rules (Sec. 3), and methods of rule-handling (Sec. 4).
The paper concludes with a discussion of how most concepts we use are
open-textured and how they continually evolve with use (Sections
5,6,7).  While rule-based programming comes with certain clear
pay-offs, further fundamental advances in research is needed to extend
the scope of tasks that can be adequately represented in this fashion.


%R LRP-TR-17
%D 6/84
%T "Analogy with Purpose in Legal Reasoning from Precedents"
%A S.Kedar-Cabelli
%D 10/84
%I Rutgers University Department of Computer Science
%K AA24 taxman tax AA04
%X One open problem in current artificial intelligence (AI) models of
learning and reasoning by analogy is: which aspects of the analogous
situations are relevant to the analogy, and which are irrelevant?  It
is currently recognized that analogy involves mapping some underlying
causal network of relations between situations [Winston 82], [Gentner
83], [Burstein 83a], [Carbonell 83].  However, most current models of
analogy provide the system with exactly the relevant relations,
tailor-made to each analogy to be performed.  As AI systems become more
complex, we will have to provide them with the capability of
automatically focusing on the relevant aspects of situations when
reasoning analogically.  These will have to be sifted from the large
amount of information used to represent complex, real-world
situations.
.sp 1
In order to study these general issues, we are examining a particular
case study of learning and reasoning by analogy: forming legal
concepts by legal reasoning from precedents.  This is studied within
the TAXMAN II project, which is investigating legal reasoning using AI
techniques [McCarty & Sridharan 82], [Nagel 83].
.sp 1
In this dissertation proposal, we will discuss the problem and a
proposed solution.  We examine legal reasoning from precedents within
the context of current AI models of analogy.  We then add a focusing
capability.  Current work on goal-directed learning [Mitchell 83a],
[Mitchell & Keller 83], and explanation-based learning [Dejong 83]
applies here: the explanation of how the precedent satisfies the
intent of the law (i.e. its goals, or purposes) helps to automatically
focus the reasoning on what is relevant.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
91
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #6
-BODY-
%R CTA-TR-2
%D 8/80
%T Computability on Binary Trees - An Extended Abstract
%A A. Yasuhara
%A F. Hawrusik
%A K.N. Venkataraman
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University
%X We propose an effective method of computation on finite binary trees
that is analogous to the effective computation on the natural numbers
determined by the partial recursive functions.  Not surprisingly, the
method is LISP-like.  A finitely axiomatizable theory is given that is
shown to be just strong enough to represent the class of functions
computable by this method.  Several natural subclasses; of this class
of functions are delineated and they are shown to be different from
one another.

%R CTA-TR-3
%D 3/81
%T Sub Classes of Programs for Computing on Binary Trees
%A K.N. Venkataraman
%D 1/82
%I Rutgers University
%K T01
%X Several sub-classes of the deterministic regular programs that compute
on binary trees are defined and relations of inclusion and inequality
among these classes in terms of functions computable (by these
programs) are established.  Certain properties of these classes of
programs are studied.  In particular the sets recognized by these
programs are characterized in terms of the domain and range of these
programs.  Most of the results that appear in this paper can easily be
extended to programs computing on other recursively defined data
structures.

%R CTA-TR-4
%D 10/81
%T Decidability of the Purely Existential Fragment of the Theory of
Term Algebras
%A K.N. Venkararaman
%X This thesis is concerned with the question of the decidability and
the complexity of the decision problem for certain fragments of the
theory of free term algebras.
.sp 1
The existential fragment of the theory of term algebras is shown to be
decidable by presenting a non-deterministic algorithm which given a
quantifier free formula P, constructs a solution for P if it has one
and indicates failure if there are no solutions.  A detailed proof of
the correctness of the algorithm is given.  It is shown that the
decision problem is in NP by proving that if a quantifier-free formula
P has a solution then there is one that can be represented as a dag in
space at most cubic in the length of P.  The decision problem is
shown to be complete for NP by reducing 3-SAT to that problem.  It is
also shown that the @ @ @-[o] hierarchy over a term algebra
corresponds to the polynomial time hierarchy.
.sp 1
The proof of the fact that the introduction of the selector functions
into the first order language does not increase the complexity of the
existential fragment of the theory is indicated.  Thus it is
established that the existential fragment of the theory of list
structures in the language of NIL, CONS, CAR, CDR, = , @u[<] is
NP-complete.
.sp 1
It is shown that the equivalence of PB[;@u{<}] straight line programs
is decidable follows easily from the decidability of the existential
fragment of the theory of list structures.
.sp 1
It is also shown that for any quantifier free formula P (in
the language of a term algebra) there is an algorithm which given a
recursive set S of cardinal numbers @u{<} @ @ @-[o], can decide
whether or not the number of solutions of P is in S.

%R ML-TR-1
%D 7/85
%T Purpose-Directed Analogy
%A Smadar Kedar-Cabelli
%I Rutgers University
%X Recent artificial intelligence models of analogical reasoning are
based on mapping some underlying causal network of relations between
analogous situations.  However, causal relations relevant for the
purpose of one analogy may be irrelevant for another.  We describe
here a technique which uses an explicit representation of the purpose
of the analogy to automatically create the relevant causal network.
We illustrate the technique with two case studies in which concepts of
everyday artifacts are learned by analogy.

%R ML-TR-2
%D 8/85
%T Explanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View
%A T.M. Mitchell
%A R.M. Keller
%A S.T. Kedar-Cabelli
%X The problem of formulating general concepts from specific training
examples has long been a major focus of machine learning research.
While most previous research has focused on empirical methods for
generalizing from a large number of training examples using no
domain-specific knowledge, in the past few years new methods have been
developed for applying domain-specific knowledge to formulate valid
generalizations from single training examples.  The characteristic
common to these methods is that their ability to generalize from a
single example follows from their ability to explain why the training
example is a  member of the concept being learned.  This paper
proposed a general, domain-independent mechanism, called EBG, that
unifies previous approaches to explanation-based generalization.  The
EBG method is illustrated in the context of several example problems,
and used to contrast several existing systems for explanation-based
generalization.  The perspective on explanation-based generalization
afforded by this general method is also used to identify open research
problems in this area.

%R RC-5882
%D February 1976
%A John Thomas
%T A Method of Studying Natural Language Dialogue
%I IBM Watson Research Center, User Interface Institute
%K AI02

%R RC-10823
%D November 1984
%A John Thomas:
%T Artificial Intelligence and Human Factors.
%I IBM Watson Research Center, User Interface Institute
%K AI08

%A  Carbonell, Jaime
%T  Derivational analogy: a theory of reconstructive problem solving
and
expertise acquisition.
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science.
%R  CMU-CS-85-115.
%D  1985.
%K  Case-based reasoning.

%A  Kahn, Gary
%A  McDermott, John
%T  MUD: a drilling fluids consultant
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R  CMU-CS-85-116
%D  1985
%K  Diagnostic systems,  Knowledge acquisition AI01 AA03  AA21

%A Doyle, Jon
%T  Reasoned assumptions and Pareto optimality
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R  CMU-CS-85-121
%D  1985.
%K Economic theory  Group decision making  Inference rules
Non-monotonic reasoning AA11

%A David M. McKeown, Jr
%A  Pane, John F
%T  Alignment and connection of fragmented linear features in aerial
imagery
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R  CMU-CS-85-122
%D  1985
%K Cultural features Feature extraction Image segmentation
Region interpolation Spline approximation AI06








%A Dill, David
%A  Clarke, Edmund
%T  Automatic verification of asynchronous circuits using temporal
logic
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R CMU-CS-85-125
%D  1985
%K  Circuit design
Timing constraints AA04 AI11

%A Lehr, Theodore
%T  The implementation of a production system machine
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R  CMU-CS-85-126
%D  1985
%K Computer architecture  OPS5  Performance improvement Production systems
RISCF Rete algorithm AI01


%A  Minton, Steven
%T A game-playing program that learns by analyzing examples
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Department of Computer Science
%R  CMU-CS-85-130
%D  1985
%K Concept acquisition
Constraint based generalization
Forcing configurations
Learning from examples
Machine learning
Tactical combinations
Winning combinations
AI04 AA17

%A Fox, Mark
%A  Wright, J. Mark
%A  Adam, David
%T  Experiences with SRL: an analysis of a frame-based knowledge
representation
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Robotics Institute
%R CMU-RI-TR-85-10
%D  1985
%K  Knowledge representation languages

%A  Smith, Stephen
%A  Ow, Peng Si
%T  The use of multiple problem decompositions in time constrained
planning tasks
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Robotics Institute
%R  CMU-RI-TR-85-11
%D  1985
%K  Job shop scheduling
%K  Multi-agent planning systems
%K  Resource allocation AI10

%A Brost, Randy
%T  Planning robot grasping motions in the presence of uncertainty
%I  Carnegie-Mellon University. Robotics Institute
%R  CMU-RI-TR-85-12
%D  1985
%K  Manipulators AI07 O04 AI09

%A  Darlington,
%A  Field, A.
%A  Pull, H.
%T  The unification of functional and logic languages
%I Imperial College of Science and Technology. Department of
Computing
%R  Research report DOC 85/3
%D  1985
%K  Functional programming
Reduction
Resolution AI10

%A  Gregory, Steve
%A  Neely, Rob
%A  Ringwood, Graem
%T  Parlog for specification, verification and simulation
%I  Imperial College of Science and Technology. Department of
Computing
%R  Research report DOC 85/7
%D  1985
%K  PARLOG AI10 H03

%A  Saint-Dizier, Patrick
%T  On syntax and semantics of adjective phrases in logic
programming
%I  Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
(INRIA)
%R  Rapport de recherche 381
%D  1985
%K AI10

%A  Deransart, Pierre
%A  Maluszynski, Jan
%T Relating logic programs and attribute grammars
%I  Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
(INRIA)
%R  Rapport de recherche 393
%D  1985
%K Attribute dependency scheme Data flow analysis Logic programming AI10

%A  Gazdar, Gerald
%A  Pullum, Geoffrey K
%T  Computationally relevant properties of natural languages and their
grammars
%I  Stanford University. Center for the Study of Language and
Information
%R  CSLI-85-24
%D  1985
%P  45
%K AI02

%A  Fagin, Ronald
%A  Vardi, Moshe
%T  An internal semantics for modal logic: preliminary report
%I  Stanford University. Center for the Study of Language and
Information
%R  CSLI-85-25
%D  1985
%P  24p
%K AI10

%A  Barwise, Jon
%T  The situation in logic - III: simulation, sets and the axiom of
foundation
%I  Stanford University. Center for the Study of Language and
Information
%R  CSLI-85-26
%D  1985

%A  van Benthem, Johan
%T  Semantic automata
%I  Stanford University. Center for the Study of Language and
Information
%R  CSLI-85-27
%D  1985

%A  Sells, Peter
%T  Restrictive and non-restrictive modification
%I  Stanford University. Center for the Study of Language and
Information
%R  CSLI-85-28
%D  1985

%A  Abadi, Martin
%A  Manna, Zohar
%T  Nonclausal temporal deduction
%I  Stanford University. Department of Computer Science
%R  STAN-CS-85-1056
%D  1985
%P  17p
%K  Nonclausal resolution Propositional temporal logic
AI10 AI11

%A  Mason, Ian A
%A  Talcott, Carolyn L
%T  Memories of S-expressions: proving properties of Lisp-like
programs that destructively alter memory
%I  Stanford University. Department of Computer Science
%R  STAN-CS-85-1057
%D  1985
%K  Computations over memory structures Correctness proofs
Robson copying algorithm AI11 AA08

%A  Taubenfeld, G
%A  Francez, N
%T  Proof rules for communication abstractions
%I  TECHNION - Israel Institute of Technology. Department of Computer
Science
%R  Technical report 332
%D  1984
%K  Concurrent programming Deadlock Invariants Program verification
%K Scripts AA08

%A  Shmueli, O
%A  Tsur, S
%A  Zfira, H
%T  Rule supporting in PROLOG
%I  TECHNION - Israel Institute of Technology. Department of Computer
Science
%R  Technical report 337
%D  1984
%K T02

%A  Shapiro, Ehud
%T  A subset of Concurrent Prolog and its interpreter
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-06
%D  1983
%K T02 H03
%X  "This is a revised version of technical report TR-003,
ICOT-Institute
for New Generation Computing Technology.";

%A  Shapiro, Ehud
%A  Takeuchi, Akikazu
%T  Object oriented programming in Concurrent Prolog
%I Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-08
%D  1983
%K H03 T02

%A  Harel, David
%A  Peleg, David
%T  Process logic with regular formulas
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-11
%D  1983

%A  Hellerstein, L
%A  Shapiro, Ehud Y
%T  Implementing parallel algorithms in Concurrent Prolog
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-12
%D  1983
%K T02 H03
%X Summary/draft, August 1983

%A  Manna, Zohar
%A  Pnueli, Amir
%T  How to cook a temporal proof system for your pet language
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-13
%D  1983
%K  AA08 AI11

%A  Harel, David
%A  Peleg, David
%T  On static logics, dynamic logics and complexity classes
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-15
%D  1983
%K AI11




%A  Feldman, Yishai A
%T  A decidable propositional probabilistic dynamic logic
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS83-18
%D  1983
%K AI11

%A  Barringer, Howard
%A  Kuiper, Ruurd
%A  Pnueli, Amir
%T  Now you may compose temporal logic specifications
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-09
%D  1984
%K AI11

%A  Shapiro, Ehud Y
%T  The Bagel: a systolic Concurrent Prolog machine (lecture notes)
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-10
%D  1984
%K H03 T02

%A  Peleg, David
%T  Concurrent dynamic logic
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-14
%D  1984
%K T02 H03

%A  Mierowsky, Colin
%T  Design and implementation of flat Concurrent Prolog
%I Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-21
%D  1984
%K H03 T02
%X Thesis (M.S.)

%A  Bloch, Charlene
%T  Source-to-source transformations of logic programs
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-22
%D  1984
%K AI10
%X Thesis (M.S.)

%A  Viner, Omri
%T  Distributed constraint propagation
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-24
%D  1984
%K H03
%X Thesis

%A  Peleg, David
%T  Concurrent program schemes and their logics
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-25
%D  1984
%K H03 T02

%A Lichtenstein, Orna
%A  Pnueli, Amir
%T  Checking that finite state concurrent programs satisfy their
linear specification
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-26
%D  1984
%K AA08

%A  Nygate, Yossi
%T  Python: a bridge expert on squeezes
%I  Weizmann Institute of Science. Department of Applied Mathematics
%R  CS84-27
%D  1984

%A  Nixon, I. M.
%T I.F.: an Idiomatic Floorplanner
%I  University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science
%R  CSR-170-84
%D  1984
%K  VLSI AA04






%A  Sannella, Donald
%A  Tarlecki, Andrzej
%T  On observational equivalence and algebraic specification
%I  University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science
%R  CSR-172-84
%D 1984

%A  Prasad, K. V. S
%T  Specification and proof of a simple fault tolerant system in CCS
%I  University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science
$R  CSR-178-84
%D  1984
%K AA08 AI11

%A  Blake, Andrew
%T  Inferring surface shape by specular stereo
%I  University of Edinburgh. Department of Computer Science
%R CSR-179-84
%D  1984
%K AI06

%A  Dolan, Charles
%T  Memory based processing for cross contextual reasoning: reminding
and
analogy using thematic structures
%I  University of California, Los Angeles. Computer Science
Department
%R  CSD-850010
%D  1985
%X Thesis (M.S.)

%A  Hooper, Richard
%T  An application of knowledge-based systems to electronic
computer-aided
engineering, design, and manufacturing data base transport
%I  University of California, Los Angeles. Computer Science
Department
%R  CSD-850011
%D  1985
%K AA05 AA04
%X  Thesis (Ph.D.)

%A  Rendell, Larry
%T  Induction, of and by probability
%I  University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Department of Computer
Science
%R  UIUCDCS-R-85-1209
%D  1985
%K  Conceptual clustering Inductive inference AI04
Noise management Probabilistic learning systems

%A  Rendell, Larry
%T  Genetic plans and the probabilistic learning system: synthesis and
results
%I  University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Department of Computer
Science
%R  UIUCDCS-R-85-1217
%D  1985
%K  Conceptual clustering AI12  AI04

%A  Anderson, James W.
%T  Portable Standard LISP on the Cray
%I  Los Alamos National Laboratory
%R  LA-UR-84-4049
%D  1984
%K T01 H04 PSL

%A  Arnon, Dennis S.
%T  Supercomputers and symbolic computation
%I  Purdue University. Department of Computer Sciences
%R  CSD-TR-481
%D  1984
%K AI14 H04

%A  J. Schwartz
%T A Survey of Program Proof Technology
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%D SEP 1978
%R 001
%K AA08 AI11

%A S. Stolfo
%A M. Harrison
%T Automatic Discovery of Heuristics for Non-Deterministic Programs
%D JAN 1979
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%R 007
%K AI04 AI03

%A M. Sharir
%T Algorithm Derivation by Transformations
%D OCT 1979
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%R 021
%K AA08

%A A. Walker
%T Syllog: A Knowledge Based Data Management Systems
%D JUN 1981
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%R 034
Sciences
%K AA09

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T On the Piano-Movers Problem, I. Case of A Two Dimensional Rigid
Polygonal Body Moving Amidst Polygonal Barriers
%D OCT 1981
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%R 039 R1
Sciences
%K AI07

%A J. T. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T On the Piano Movers Problem, II General Techniques for Computing
Topologic Properties of Real Algebraic Manifolds
%D FEB 1982
%R 041 R2
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI07

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T On the Piano Movers Problem III Coordinating the Motion of Several
Independent Bodies: The Special Bodies Moving Amidst Polygonal Bariers
%D SEP 1982
%R 052 r3
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI07

%A C. O'Dunlaing
%A C. Yap
%T The Voronoi Diagram Method of Motion-Planning: I. The Case of a Disc
%D MAR 1982
%R 053 R4
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences

%K AI07

%A M. Sharir
%A E. Azriel-Sheffi
%T On the Piano Movers Problem IV Various Decomposable Two-Dimensional
Motion Plannings Problems
%D FEB 1983
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%R 058 R6
%K AI07

%A J. Schwartz
%T Structured Light Sensors for 3-D Robot Vision
%D MAR 1983
%R 065 R8
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI06 AI07

%A C. Yap
%T Complexity of Motion Coordination
%R R12
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI07

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T On the Piano Movers Problem: V. The Case of a Rod Moving in
Three Dimensional Space Amidst Polyhedral Obstacles
%R 083 R13
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%D JUL 1983
%K AI07

%A R. Cole
%A C. Yap
%T Shape from Probing
%R 104 R15
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%D OCT 1983
%K AI07 AI06

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%T Some Remarks on Robot Vision
%R 119 R25
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%D APR 1984
%K AI07 AI006

%A C. Bastuscheck
%A J. Schwartz
%T Preliminary Implementation of a Ratio Depth Sensor
%R 124 R28
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%D JUN 1984

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
92
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 10:04:34 est
-FROM-
From: jcm@ORNL-MSR.ARPA (James A. Mullens)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KEE experiences
-BODY-

(Posted for a friend)

As part of a class in expert systems at the University of Tennessee
I am preparing a report on KEE.  I thought it would be interesting to
include the reactions/experience of the users of KEE.  Any comments
would be greatly appreciated.

I also have a more practical interest in any response I might get
because the Dept. of Nuclear Eng., recently purchased KEE.

You can respond privately to jcm@ornl-msr.arpa if you wish.  The
report will be available to the network.  Contributors will be
identified unless they request otherwise.

Thanks in advance,
Ray Brittain

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 14:58:30 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cortical Activity for Conscious Sensory Experience (UCB)
-BODY-

                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                                     Spring 1986

                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                          Tuesday, April 22, 11:00 - 12:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall
                              Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                              3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

           ``Cortical activity required for a conscious sensory experience,
                            with cognitive implications''

                                    Benjamin Libet
                            Physiology, UC San Francisco

                                      Abstract

                Experiments involving direct  electrical  stimulation  and
           recordings  in the cerebral somatosensory system of awake human
           patients have indicated that a substantial period  of  activity
           (up  to  500 msec+/-) is required to elicit a sensory experience.
           More indirect evidence  supports  this  requirement  for  brief
           peripheral  inputs  as well.  However, subjective timing of the
           experience is "antedated" back  to  the  time  of  the  initial
           fast-arriving  signal.  This hypothesis of "neuronal delay plus
           subjective antedating" for a conscious sensory  experience  has
           important  implications  for  the  processing  of conscious and
           unconscious sensory functions.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 19:04:08 cst
-FROM-
From: kumar@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU (Vipin Kumar)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inexact Reasoning Using Graphs (UTexas)
-BODY-

                      University of Texas

                  Computer Sciences Department

                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:                Judea Pearl
                University  of  California,   Los Angeles

TITLE:          Inexact Reasoning Using Graphs

DATE:           Thursday, April 17, 1986
PLACE:          WEL 3.502
TIME:           4:00-5:00 p.m.


        In order to meet requirements of modularity, transparency
and  flexibility,  the designers of 1st-generation expert systems
have abandoned traditional probability theory and  have  ventured
to  devise  new  formalisms for managing uncertainties.  The talk
will describe a message-passing scheme in propositional  networks
which,  using  traditional probability theory, fulfills these ob-
jectives of experts systems technology.
        The first part of the talk will stress  the  relationship
between  TRANSPARENCY and reasoning with GRAPHS.  We will examine
what  kind  of  inferential  dependencies  are  representable  by
graphs,  and  will compare the properties of two such representa-
tions:  Markov Networks and Bayes Networks.
        The second part will describe a  distributed  scheme  for
coherently propagating beliefs in Bayes Networks.  It facilitates
flexible control strategies and sound explanations,  it  supports
both  predictive  and diagnostic inferences, and it is guaranteed
(in sparse graphs)  to  converge  in  time  proportional  to  the
network's diameter.

                   COFFEE AT 3:30 in TAY 3.128

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Apr 86 19:31:12-PST
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Prolog: Application to Design Verification (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Prolog: Application to Design Verification
Speaker:        Harry G. Barrow
From:           Schlumberger Palo Alto Research
Date:           Wednesday, April 16, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556


PROLOG is a programming language based upon predicate logic.   It was
developed in Europe, where it is widely used, and subsequently adopted
in Japan as a basis for much of the "Fifth Generation" research and
development.

At SPAR, we have been developing a program called VERIFY, written in
PROLOG, that attempts to prove correctness of digital hardware designs.
VERIFY first derives a description of the behavior of the whole design
from the behavior of its components and the way they are
interconnected.  The derived behavior description is then shown to be
equivalent (or not) to the intended behavior given in a specification.

VERIFY has successfully verified large designs involving many thousands
of transistors in just ten minutes.


Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 16:32:25 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Application of Machine Self-Reflection (SUNY-Buffalo)
-BODY-

                   UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
                STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

                       DEPARTMENT OF
                      COMPUTER SCIENCE

                         COLLOQUIUM

                         JOHN CASE

               Department of Computer Science
                   University at Buffalo

ANSWERING THE MATHEMATICAL OBJECTION TO MACHINE INTELLIGENCE:
         AN APPLICATION OF MACHINE SELF-REFLECTION

We briefly consider the standard paradox in the notion of  a
machine  ``having''  a complete model of itself and show how
to circumvent it.  Then  we  pictorially  present  a  simple
theoretical  application  of machine self-reflection and use
this application as a  vehicle  to  illustrate  what  Turing
called  the  mathematical objection to machine intelligence.
Lastly, we  employ  machine  self-reflection  to  completely
answer this objection.

                  Thursday, April 17, 1986
                         4:00 P.M.
                  Bell 338, Amherst Campus

Coffee and doughnuts will be served at 3:30 P.M., 224 Bell Hall

       For further information, call (716) 636-3181.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 21:24:04 est
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker at mouton.bellcore.com)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - ACL Annual Meeting
-BODY-

  ACL Annual Meeting, 10-13 June, Columbia University, New York City

The Program and Registration Information brochure is just being mailed
to all ACL members and to selected members of AAAI and LSA.  If you are
not sure you will be receiving it and would like a net copy, send a
message to one of the addresses below; and I will (try to--even
electronic mail is not always reliable) send you one.  Please include
the phrase "ACL net info" in the subject line.  And include the
full net address in the body of the message; the complexity of
network connections coupled with the poverty of our mail system
sometimes makes "replies" unsendable.

The file has about 20,000 characters; it contains the full program
(33 papers; an invited presentation by Gary Hendrix; two forums, one
on Connectionism with Terry Sejnowski and Dave Waltz, the other
on Machine Translation with Martin Kay and Maghi King);
descriptions of the 6 tutorials (Intro to Computational Linguistics,
Natural Language Generation, Structuring the Lexicon, Recent
Developments in Syntactic Theory and Their Computational Import,
Current Approaches to Natural Language Semantics, and Machine
Translation--all held on 10 June); registration information and
directions; and an Application Form that can be printed out,
filled in (or filled in, printed out), and mailed in.  Inexpensive
air-conditioned dormitory accommodations are available, and some
good rates for hotels have been secured.  We are still encouraging
people who would like to exhibit or demonstrate programs to contact
Ralph Grishman (Computer Science, New York University, 251 Mercer
Street, New York, NY 10012; 212:460-7492; grishman@nyu.arpa).

Don Walker
walker@mouton.arpa
walker%mouton@csnet-relay
{ucbvax, ihnp4, ...}!bellcore!walker

address mail to:
Donald E. Walker (ACL)
Bell Communications Research
445 South Street, MRE 2A379
Morristown, NJ 07960, USA

201:829-4312

ACL Annual Meeting, 10-13 June 1986, Columbia University, New York City

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 17:16:37 -0200
-FROM-
From: mit%hut.UUCP%fingate.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU  (Markku Tamminen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - II Finish AI Symposium (STeP 86)
-BODY-

                         CALL FOR PAPERS
                         Deadline May 30

     STeP 86 - II Finnish Artificial Intelligence Symposium

   Helsinki University of Technology, Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland
                       August 20-22, 1986

The Second Finnish Artificial Intelligence Symposium will be  or-
ganized  by the Finnish Society of Information Processing Science
and the Helsinki University of Technology.

The Symposium is to provide  an  overview  of  the  research  and
development  that  has  taken place since STeP 84. Papers are re-
quested on all aspects of artificial intelligence. The  contribu-
tions will be published as the STeP 86 Proceedings and distribut-
ed to particiants of the symposium.

Please send an abstract (no longer than one page) by May 30.  The
program committee will inform you about its decicions by June 15.
Final camera-ready copy of  papers  corresponding  to  30  minute
talks  will  be  required  by July 31. The formatting conventions
will be sent separately to authors.

Tutorials will be held at the start of the symposium, and  propo-
sals for them are also solicited.

                             Signed

Markku Syrjaenen                        Jouko Seppaenen
Head of Program Committee               Head of Organizing Committee

Please use one of  the  following  adresses  for  submitting  the
abstract, and for any queries:

BITNET, EARNET: mit%hut.uucp@fingate
ARPANET: mit%hut.uucp%fingate.bitnet%cernvax.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu

Please use uucp only if the above nets not available:
{seismo!mcvax, enea!tut}!penet!hut

Non-electronic mail:

                             STeP 86
                       c/o Jouko Seppaenen
                        Computing Centre
                Helsinki University of Technology
                        SF-02150 Espoo 15
                             Finland




                            APPENDIX

Examples of topics suited for papers:

> Theoretical foundations               - Expert systems
> Knowledge representation              - Tools of knowledge engineering
> Problem solving methods               - Languages (Lisp, Prolog etc.)
> Searching and planning                - Programming techniques
> Logic programming                     - AI workstations, environments etc.
> Pattern recognition, vision           - Industrial applications, robotics etc
> Natural language, speech              - Applications to management
> Cognitive modeling                    - Applications to education
> Knowledge acquisition, learning       - AI and arts


Markku Tamminen
Helsinki University of Technology
Laboratory of Information Processing Science
02150 ESPOO 15
FINLAND
Tel: 358-0-4512020 (460144)

ARPANET: mit%hut.uucp%fingate.bitnet%cernvax.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
BITNET: mit%hut.uucp@fingate

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
93
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 08:42:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Points Arising.
-BODY-
Re: Computer Dialogue (Vol 4 # 57 & 58).
I wonder how (many) psychological "strokes" were exchanged
in this conversation?

Re: Machine Translation (Vol 4 # 67 & 70).
Impressive claims are made for machine translation systems;
are there any systems that could produce a precis (summary)
of a large document?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%qmc-ori@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

"They who often look far into the distance have excellent vision."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Apr 86 04:11:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!lzaz!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-trivial expert systems
-BODY-
< The electronic funds transfer is in the electronic mail. . . . >

     For those of you who remember my Usenet posting in November, I'm
*still* looking for MS-DOS based expert systems for a review. I'll
shortly post a much longer list of such packages.  For the moment, I
want to deal with something more fundamental.

     I want to show the difference between an expert system and a simple
decision tree.  Yet most of the examples (and the one software package)
I've seen, there *is* no difference . . . or at least, the one can be
transformed into the other.

     Nearly all the expert system shells are actually based on
productions:  if <foo> and <bar> and ... then <glarch>.  The conditions
can be arbitrarily complicated, but usually involve testing "global
variables" against constant values, and possible a bit of trivial
arithmetic.  The consequent assert that yet another global variable has
some constant value.  There are wrinkles:  the most common is having
variables that are "local" to a rule.  This isn't strictly necessary,
but saves a lot of tedious, repetitious rule writing.

     In theory, it's always possible to treat each production as a node,
and construct a tree of questions without knowing any of the answers
ahead of time.  This disturbs me, though I realize generating a
meaningful tree is nontrivial.

     In practice, damn near *everyone* draws that tree first, then
writes the rules.  This is missing the point!  If your "expert"
knowledge is that trivial, you don't need logic, just a branch follower.

     I tried drawing a "subway network", and writing rules of how to get
from one station to another.  This isn't very instructive:  forward
chaining doesn't find anything like an optimal solution, and backwards
chaining takes every damn trip.  (*sigh* - Can you tell my first AI
course was taught out of Nilsson's PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE?  Nilsson thought all AI reduced to search.)

     I've seen one sample expert system that didn't reduce to a tree,
and I'm not at all sure simple shells can solve it!  C. J. Culbert (sp?)
of NASA sent me a wonderful "monkey and banana" system that requires
about eighty inferences.  The solution involves things like "move the
ladder under the red box, climb up and get the green key out, climb down
and move the ladder under the green box, climb up, unlock the green box
with the green key, get the blue key . . ."  Very nice, but the expert
system shells I've seen can't handle time, e.g., "first move the ladder
to A, then once you've finished this subtask, move the ladder to B".
Once a value (e.g., ladder location) is deduced, it's hard or impossible
to change.  "Undoing" isn't always kosher either:  if I have a glass of
milk, I can quench my thirst or make butter, but once I've done one . . .

     What are my points?
   + First and foremost, I'd like a expert system that can be solved with
simple productions.  It shouldn't be an example provided by a vendor I'll
review; that'd potentially give his or her product an edge.
   + Second, I'd like some reassurance that production-based expert
systems go beyond decision tree programs.  Please don't flame to the net
on this one.  I'm posting to both Usenet and Arpanet groups; if you send
me mail (I'm reachable from both), I'll summarize and repost.

     Sorry to ramble, thanks in advance for your help, and I'll post the
MS-DOS expert systems as soon as I can.
>-
       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu
       The above opinions may not be shared by any telecomm company.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 86 11:45:51 EST
-FROM-
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@brillig.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: shape
-BODY-
Ken-

 The work done so far on shape falls loosely into the classes of
``solid modeling'' and ``functionality.''  The questions you ask in the
AI digest were more from the solid modeling camp -- i.e. Can I put this
peg in this hole?  I'm not incredibly familiar with that literature, but some
recent work in automated manufacturing (a big buzzword these days) has included
this type of work.  Dana Nau (dsn@maryland) has a paper which will be appearing
in a new journal (I forget the name, it's one of the new ``applied AI''
journals) which discusses a frame based approach to solid modeling.  He also
has several tech. reports at U of Maryland on such a topic.

 The functionality work is more my line (I have a couple of students starting
thesis work on it now).  This research has traditionally focused on
recognizing objects from functional information (i.e.
from the dialogue

 John: Do you know the time
 Mary: 1 PM

we infer that Mary has a watch)
I'm looking into expanding it in a direction that starts to interact more
with the solid modeling stuff.  I'd like a description of a ``cleaver''
such that I could INFER that it is a weapon.  At the moment most systems
(including my own planners) must have this information stored explicitely.
It is this my students are now looking into.

 Hope this is of some help
 Jim Hendler
 Ass't Professor
 University of Maryland
 Hendler@maryland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 13:28:00 est
-FROM-
From: Stanley Letovsky <letovsky@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: shape
-BODY-  To: laws@sri-iu

      Ernie Davis at NYU was working on this problem; I read a
manuscript of his entitled something like "Buttons, Rakes and Rings"
last year.  I don't know if he published it anywhere but you might ask
him what the status of the work is.  He was trying to define an ontology
for qualitative and loose quantitative reasoning about shape.  -Stan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 13:45:04 PST
-FROM-
From: Scott Turner <srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Shape
-BODY-
Jack Hodges of the UCLA Artificial Intelligence Laboratory is working on
EDISON, a program that invents mechanical devices.  Jack is in England this
week presenting his work at a conference, so I'm standing in for him in
presenting some references that might be useful for understanding "hooks
and rings".

First of all, the Edison project looks at naive invention:  the kind of
tinkering that backyard inventors or (one supposes) children do.  There is
no complex of mathematical forces in the project.  It focuses instead on
the issues of creativity and problem-solving.  How _does_ one get that
great idea?  The reference:

        EDISON: An Engineering Design Invention System Operating Naively,
        Hodges, Dyer, Flowers, Tech Report UCLA-AI-85-20, Dec. 1985

There has been a lot of work done on naive physics.  The reference I'm
aware of is:

        Hayes, P.J., "The Second Naive Physics Manifesto," pp. 467-486
        in _Readings in Knowledge Representation_, ed. Brachman & Levesque,
        Morgan Kaufman, 1985

There has been some work done on object representation, primarily:

        Lehnert, W.G., _The Process of Question Answering_, LEA 1978.
        (see Chapter 9).

        Rieger, C. "An Organization of Knowledge for Problem Solving and
        Language Comprehension", pp. 487-508, _Readings in Knowledge
        Representation_...

        Wasserman, K. and Lebowitz, M., "Representing Complex Physical
        Objects,"  _Cognition and Brain Theory_, 6(3), pp. 259-285 (1983)

Finally, for the particular area of children's problem solving:

        DeBono, E., _Children Solve Problems_, Penguin, NY 1980.

And not to overlook work by Forbus, DeKleer and Brown, though I won't
bother to type in the cites.

That should get you started.

    Scott R. Turner
    ARPA:  (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA  (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
    FISHNET:  ...!{flounder,crappie,flipper}!srt@fishnet-relay.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 15:46:06 pst
-FROM-
From: malkoff@nprdc.arpa (Don Malkoff)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: real-time machine learning
-BODY-

The "REAL-TIME MACHINE LEARNING LABORATORY" has been established
at the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, Code 71,
San Diego, CA 92152-6800.

Ongoing work includes:

        1. Real-time fault detection and diagnosis in complex control
        systems, involving random time variability, and

        2. Automated sonar detection and classification.

These and other related project areas make use of machine learning
techniques.

For information contact Don Malkoff, (619) 225-6617.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Max the Robot
-BODY-
Source: KRLD News, Dallas

A man, for unknown reasons, baricaded himself into an apartment.  Since he
had a history of explosive law violations, the police did not want to
enter the apartment.  They did not even know if he was still alive as
he was not talking to them and a friend said he was extremely depressed.

They sent in Max the Robot, a tank-like entity complete with camera and
manipulator.  It smashed through the window and pushed a drape aside
when the man, in astonishment, left the apartment peacefully without
any shots being fired.  [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review - Canadian AI Newsletter, March 1986
-BODY-
Canadian Artificial Intelligence March 1986 Issue Number 7

Biographies of new officers, letter from someone protesting the research
effort into emulating the brain.

Discussion of Intelligent Computer-Aided Instruction research in
Canada, bemoaned the scarcity of AI researchers in Canada with psychology
training.

Specific Projects:

University of Alberta: automate the teaching of statistics first course
Bell Northern Research: modelled personality interactions between expert
and builder and developed an artificial expert in horticulture
University of Calgary: training materials for medical students including
the use of videodisc
University of Calgary: user modelling project
Concordia University: application of Pask's "Conversation Theory" to
team decision support and a course assembly and tutorial environment
which runs on Apples
ForceTen enterprises: expert system and natural language interface
to be part of their courseware development system.  The product runs
on IBM PC's
National Research Council: Project to develop adaptive computer-
based training with natural language interface.
University of Saskatchewan: Project to develop Lisp teacher and
conception corrector, programming environment for first year students
University of Waterloo: attempt to model students in a manner independent
of system used

__________________________________________________________________________

The Canadian Society for Fifth Generation Research has signed an
agreement of understanding with the Japanese ICOT for exchange of
technical informaiton and  research meetings.  This is the first
collaboration that ICOT has signed with a foreign organization.
__________________________________________________________________________

Machine Vision International has established its head office in Ottawa.
__________________________________________________________________________

"Interest in artifical intelligence and expert systems is relatively
new in Canada"
  From a Canadian government report on expert systems by the Office of
  Industrial Innovation, Department of Regional Industrial Expansion
  October 1985
__________________________________________________________________________

Reviews of
Artificial Intelligence: A Personal, Commonsense Journey by
William R. Arnold and John S. Bowie  (an introduction to AI
for lay readers but got a poor review.)
Progress in Artifical Intelligence by Luc Steels and John A. Campbell
(collection of papers from the 1982 European Conference on artificial
intelligence)
(Some short reviews as well)
__________________________________________________________________________

List of AI Tech reports from Canadian Universities
__________________________________________________________________________

Summary of the third and fourth University of Waterloo-University of
Ontario AI workshops , Queen's University Expert System Workshop
__________________________________________________________________________

Obituary for Paul A. Kolers, a researcher in psychology of visual perception

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
94
-DATE-
Date: 14 Apr 86 07:44:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More wrangling on consciousness
-BODY-

> >me: Briefly, we believe other people are conscious
> >for TWO reasons: 1) they are capable of certain clever activities,
> >like holding English conversations in real-time, and 2) they
> >have brains, just like us, and each of us knows darn well that
> >he/she is conscious.
>
> Nigel Goddard: Personally I think that the only practical
> criterion (i.e. the ones we use when judging whether this
> particular human or robot is "conscious") are performance ones.
> Is a monkey conscious ?.  If not, why not ?  There are people I
> meet who I consider to be very "unconscious", i.e. their stated
> explanations of their motives and actions seem to me to
> completely misunderstand what I consider to be the *real*
> explanations.  Nevertheless, I still think they are conscious
> entities, and the only way I can rationalize this paradox is
> that I think they have the ability to learn to understand the
> *real* reasons for their actions.  This requires an ability to
> abstract and to make an internal model of the self, which may be
> the main factors underlying what we call consciousness.

At the technical level, I think it's simply wrong to dismiss
brains as a criterion for consciousness - if mechanism M
causes C (consciousness) and enables P (performance), then
clearly it is an open question whether something that can do P,
but does not have M, does or does not have C.

At the "gut" level I think the whole tenor of the reply misses
the point that consciousness is a very "low-level", primitive
sort of phenomenon.  Do severely retarded persons have "the
ability to learn to understand the *real* reasons for their
actions...an ability to abstract and to make an internal model
of the self" ? or cows, or cats?  Yet no one, I hope, doubts
that they are conscious (eg, can feel pain, experience shapes,
colors, sounds).  This has very little to do with any clever
information processing capabilities.  And it is these "raw
feelings" that a) are essential to what most people mean by
consciousness and b) seem least susceptible to implementation by
Lisp machines, regardless of size.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Apr 86 09:50:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
I think Paul King is right on the mark in his comments about the nature
of feelings, instincts, and conscious awareness.  Paul's point about
a system having a world-model which includes the system itself as an
entity within that world model is perhaps the most salient point in
his article.  Self-diagnosis, self-reconfiguration, and self-repair
are already found in complex computer installations.  Self-perpetuation
is the higher-level goal of those three capabilities.  The first
industrial robots were put to work to build--you guessed it--more
industrial robots.  So we have self-reproduction, as well.  In the
case of industrial robots, evolution is speeded up by the hand of
the creator, who introduces new models through intelligent intervention.
We no longer have to wait for a serendipitous random perturbation to
yield a more successful offspring.  In my original Computer Dialogues
#1 and #2, I playfully introduced a pair of self-programming computers
who gradually developed a protocol for mutual self-learning.  I think
it may be possible, by the end of the millenium, to create the first
rudimentary Artificial Sentient Being.

>-Barry Kort   ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Apr 86 22:07:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dani Eder)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
>       Before the recent tragedy, there had been a number of
> instances where the space shuttle computers aborted the mission in the
> final seconds before launch.  My explanation for this was that the
> on-board computers were displaying a form of 'programmed survival
> instinct.'  In short: they were programmed to survive, and if the
> launch had continued, they might not have.
>

     In almost every countdown there have been delays because some
measured parameter of the vehicle was out of tolerance.  The ground
launch sequencer, which controls events from t-9 minutes to t-25 seconds,
and the onboard computers, which control events in the last 25 seconds,
are required because there are too many time critical events for humans
to handle.  They command a series of actions, such as opening a valve, and
take measurements from sensors, such as the temperature in the
combustion chamber.  When a sensor reading is outside allowable limits,
the software stops the countdown and attempts to return the vehicle to
a 'safe' condition.

     Earlier in the countdown, events occur at a slower pace, and humans
monitoring the data coming from the sensors have often called a halt to
the operation.  The Shuttle system, men and machines, is designed to operate
under the rule 'do not launch unless all the data says it is safe to do so'.
Because the early 1970's technology used in the Shuttle is marginal for
a reuseable transportation system, EVERYTHING has to be working just right
for a successful launch.

     The computers used onboard the Shuttle are too dumb even to be programmed
for survival.  If there is an in-flight abort that requires returning to the
ground from halfway to orbit, the pilot must turn a rotary switch on the
console to choose between returning to Florida and landing in Senegal.  The
switch controls loading of data and routines into the computers.  This was
required because the software for flying the Shuttle runs ~500k of code, and
the computers can only handle 64k.  The decision routines for which part of
the software to swap in were left in the pilots head.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Apr 86 19:26:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!linus!faron!rubenk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ruben J. Kleiman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Natural Language processing
-BODY-
In article <3500011@uiucdcsp> bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>You are probably correct in your belief that Wittgenstein is closer to
>the truth than most current natural language programming.  I also believe
>it is impossible to go through Wittgenstein with a fine enough toothed
>comb.  However, there are a couple of things to say.  First, it is
>patently easier to implement a computer model based on 2-valued logic.
>The Investigations have not yet found a universally acceptable
>interpretation (or anything close, for that matter).  To try to implement
>the theories contained within would be a monumental task.  Second, in
>general it seems that much AI programming starts as an attempt to
>codify a cognitive model.  However, considering such things as grant
>money and egos, when the system runs into trouble, an engineering-type
>solution (ie, make it work) is usually chosen.  The fact that progress
>in AI is slow, and that the great philosophical theories have not yet
>found their way into the "state of the art," is not surprising.  But
>give it time--philosophers have been working hard at it for 2500 years!
>
>Barry Smith


Whoever believes that "engineering-type solution[s]" are the consequence
of small grants or large egos:

  1.  should be able to conceive of an implementation of some concept (or the
      concept of an implementation)  which does not involve
      "engineering-type solutions."

  2. should NOT be able to give form to the notion of a "lag"
     between research ("great philosophical theories") and
     implementation ("state of the art").

> Ruben

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 15:08:54 EST
-FROM-
From: tes%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: please include
-BODY-

In volume 4, Issue 87, Ray Trent wrote

>       Please define this concept of "consciousness" before
>       using it.  Please do so in a fashion that does not resort
>       to saying that human beings are mystically different
>       from other animals or machines.  Please also avoid self-
>       important definitions. (e.g. consciousness is what humans
>       have)
...
>       The above request also applies to the term "desire".
...
>       My definition of these concepts ["desires" and "feelings"]
>       would say that they "are" the actions that a life process
>       take in response to certain stimuli.

Bravo, but with qualification:

Mr. Trent has the "physicalist" point of view, which recognizes ONLY
objects and phenomena describable in the "language of science" (what
I mean by this is the language that deals exclusively with molecules,
gravity, velocity, entropy, etc.).

This general view of the universe is FINE, and it's obviously powerful
and result-oriented (look at what we have done with it in the last
few hundred years).  BUT - this view is not the only one, or the
"right" one, in any sense.

I'll bet that the term "consciousness" is undefinable in the language of
science, and therefore useless to the physicalists.  (I have a hunch
that physicalists cannot get any further than a behaviorial or
mechanistic description of conscious beings).  Therefore,
in discussions about the mind like the kind that is going on in AIList,
perhaps one thing that should be made clear by each participant is whether
he or she is assuming the "scientific" or some "non-scientific" viewpoint.

If one is to adopt the physicalist approach, I agree with Ray Trent that
terms like "desire" and "feeling" and "consciousness" can only be used
if they have been (sorry if I'm putting words into Ray's mouth here)
mechanistically defined.

                                       Tom Schutz

        CSNET:          tes@bu-cs
        ARPA:           tes%bu-cs@csnet-relay
        UUCP:           ...harvard!bu-cs!tes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 86 15:29:13 EST
-FROM-
From: tes%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: One more little thing
-BODY-

Just a brief question here:

Nigel Goddard wrote in Volume 4 Issue 87

>       I meet [people] who I consider to be very "unconscious",
>       i.e. their stated explanations of their motives and actions
>       seem to me to completely misunderstand what I consider to
>       be the *real* explanations.

What, by Jove, is a "*real* explanation" ??????????????????????
I can't digest my food properly until I find out.

                                  Tom Schutz
                                  CSNET: tes@bu-cs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Apr 86 13:19:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
-BODY-
I enjoyed Ray Trent's rejoinder to Paul King's article on computer
feelings and self-awareness.  In particular the description of the
relational database system--as an entity that collects and organizes
information into an abstract model that it then uses to interact with
the world--was most suggestive.  Now if we give that system some further
rules of logic and assign it some goals, could we turn it into a "rational
database system"?  (I would give it the goal of nudging the external world
into one which operates more successfully than the current implementation.)

>-Barry Kort  ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
95
-DATE-
Date: 15 Apr 86 11:03:24 EST
-FROM-
From: PRASAD@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Robots, Approximate Theories (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                    MACHINE LEARNING COLLOQUIUM

    Learning Robots as Users and Refiners of Approximate Theories

                             Tom Mitchell
                          Rutgers University

                         11 AM, April 29, 1986
                           #423, Hill Center

This talk will describe some recent (and fairly tentative) research
toward building a learning robot.  The robot is viewed as having an
approximate theory of its world, which it uses to guide problem
solving, and which is in turn refined as the robot gains experience.
The initial theory may contain fairly abstract assertions such as
"executing motor commands causes changes in the configuration of parts
of oneself", "coming into physical contact with a rigid object often
causes changes in its position", and "changes in the configuation of
physical objects correlate with changes in the visual appearance of
the object".  This abstract theory is used by the robot to construct
PLAUSIBLE plans for achieving its goals.  When these plans are
executed, the world provides feedback--training data which is useful
for refining the theory.  This training data is generalized by a
combined explanation based/empirical method (the approximate theory is
used to contruct plausible explanations which are verified and refined
empirically).  Tom Fawcett and I have recently begun implementing parts
of this system, but many open research issues remain.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Apr 86 11:59:17-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Localized Model of Concurrency (SRI)
-BODY-

                  A LOCALIZED MODEL OF CONCURRENCY

                  Fernando Pereira (PEREIRA@SRI-AI)
                   SRI International, AI Center

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, April 21
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

In this talk I will give an informal overview of a structural theory
of concurrency that I have been developing with Luis Monteiro. The
main goal of our theory is to model the way in which local
interactions between components of a system lead to global behavior.
The theory, which is based on the mathematical concept of sheaf,
allows us to model precisely the idea of processes interacting
through common behavior at shared locations. In contrast to
behavioral models, ours keeps track of the individual contributions
of subsystems to overall system behavior, allowing a finer-grained
analysis of subsystem interactions.

>From event signatures that specify relations of independence and exclusivity
between events, we construct spaces of locations where activity may occur.
Behaviors are then modeled as elements of sheaves of monoids over those
spaces and processes as certain sets of behaviors. The construction of the
model, and in particular its avoidance of interleaving, gives it very
convenient mathematical properties --- sheaves of behavior monoids are to
event signatures what free monoids are to alphabets. The theory also allows
us to identify on purely structural grounds event signatures with a
potential for deadlock.

Time permitting, I will engage in rambling speculation as to possible
applications of the theory.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes before the seminar (10:55), as
you must now be escorted from the reception desk.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 86 11:07:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analogical Representations in Naive Physics (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:   Wednesday 16th April 1986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence
        Seminar Room - F10
        80 South Bridge
        EDINBURGH  EH1 1HN.


Professor Bernard Meltzer, Joint Research Centre, Ispra Establishment, Italy w
will give a seminar entitled  -  ``Analogical Representations in
Modelling Naive Physics".

Ideas and experimental results will be presented on the use of
analogical representations of knowledge, in Sloman's sense, that is,
ones which bear a structural similarity to what is represented.   This
was done for the qualitative modelling of the everyday behaviour of
objects and substances like strings, liquids and gases, represented by
pixel sets built up from message-passing between adjacent base
elements.   These messages embody a very small number of local
constraints derived from naive observation such as material continuity
and non-copenetrability.

Based as they are on fundamental phenomenological properties of the
physical world, these programs turned out to have capacities for
solving other problems than those for which they were designed.

The use of such programs in integrated reasoning and problem-solving
systems, and the relationship of this approach to those of classical
physics and current AI ones in qualitative physics will also be
discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Apr 86 10:10:57-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Apprentice Systems (SU)
-BODY-
DAY:    April 22, 1986
EVENT:  CS 520 AI Seminar
PLACE:  Terman Auditorium
TIME:   11:00

TITLE:  Learning Apprentice Systems

PERSON: Tom Mitchell
FROM:   Rutgers University


  This talk introduces a class of knowledge-based systems called
Learning Apprentices: systems that provide interactive aid in solving
some problem and acquire new knowledge by observing the actions of
their users.  The talk focuses on a particular Learning Apprentice,
called LEAP, which is presently being developed in the domain of
digital circuit design.  By analyzing circuit fragments contributed by
its users, LEAP infers rules that allow it to recommend similar
circuits in subsequent cases.  We discuss the type of problem solving
architecture, knowledge organization, and learning methods required to
support such learning apprentices in a variety of domains.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Apr 86  1742 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Theory of Diagnosis (SU)
-BODY-

             A THEORY OF DIAGNOSIS FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES

                          Raymond Reiter

         Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
                              and
             The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research

                      Thursday, April 17, 4pm
                            MJH 252


         Suppose given a description of a system, together with an
observation of the system's behaviour which conflicts with the way
the system is meant to behave. The diagnostic problem is to determine
those components of the system which, when assumed to be functioning
abnormally, will explain the discrepancy between the observed and
correct system behaviour.
        We propose a general theory for this problem.The theory requires
only that the system be described in a suitable logic. Moreover, there
are many such suitable logics, e.g., first order, temporal, dynamic,
etc. As a result, the theory accomodates diagnostic reasoning in a wide
variety of practical settings, including digital and analogue circuits,
medicine, and database updates. The theory leads to an algorithm for
computing all diagnoses, and to various results concerning principles
of measurement for discriminating between competing diagnoses. Finally,
the theory reveals close connections between diagnostic reasoning and
non-monotonic reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 86 14:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Formal Logic for Planning (UPenn)
-BODY-

                                 COLLOQUIUM
                         3pm Thursday, April 17, 1986
                 216 Moore School - University of Pennsylvania


          A FORMAL LOGIC THAT SUPPORTS PLANNING WITH EXTERNAL EVENTS
                            AND CONCURRENT ACTIONS

                   Richard Pelavin - University of Rochester

A  formal  logic  will  be presented that provides a foundation for a theory of
plans in temporally rich domains.  These domains  include  actions  that  occur
over  intervals  that  may  overlap in time.  Thus, we can represent plans with
concurrent actions.  We also can  treat  domains  with  external  events,  i.e.
actions  by  other  agents  and  natural  forces,  that the planner may need to
interact with.  These interactions include the  prevention  of  an  event,  the
assurance  of  the  successful  completion  of an event, and the performance an
action that is enabled by some external event.

The logic is an extension of a linear time logic (Allen's interval logic)  with
a  modal  operator  expressing  temporal  possibility and a counterfactual-like
modality that can be used to encode what can and cannot be done by the planning
agent.   The semantic model consists of a set of possible worlds related by two
accessibility relations in terms of which the modalities are interpreted.   The
approach  of  interpreting  a  counterfactual-like  modality  in  terms  of  an
accessibility relation derives from Lewis' and Stalnaker's semantic theories of
conditionals.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 11:09:17 CST
-FROM-
From: Rose M. Herring <roseh@ratliff.CS.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Editorial Comprehension in Op-Ed (UTexas)
-BODY-

                      University of Texas

                  Computer Sciences Department

                           COLLOQUIUM

SPEAKER:                Sergio Alvarado
                        University of California  at  Los Angeles

TITLE:          Editorial Comprehension in OpEd Through Argument Units

DATE:           Tuesday, April 22, 1986
PLACE:          TAY 3.144
TIME:           11 - 12 noon


        OpEd (Opinions to/from the Editor) is a computer  program
that  reads  short polito-economic editorial segments and answers
questions about their contents.  For OpEd, understanding editori-
als  involves:   (1)  applying  a large amount of domain-specific
knowledge; (2) recognizing beliefs and belief relationships;  (3)
following  reasoning about plans and goals; (4) applying abstract
knowledge of argumentation;  (5)  mapping  text  into  conceptual
representation;  and  (6)  indexing recognized concepts for later
retrieval during question answering.
        Here, I discuss OpEd's abstract knowledge  of  argumenta-
tion.   In  OpEd, knowledge of argument structure is organized by
memory structures called Argument Units (AUs).  These  structures
package  belief  support  and  attack relationships and reasoning
chains.  When combined with domain-specific knowledge, AUs can be
used to understand and generate arguments involving plans, goals,
and beliefs.  Thus, argument comprehension is viewed in OpEd fun-
damentally  as  the  process of accessing and instantiating these
units.
        A description of OpEd's architecture and examples of  its
current input/output behavior are also presented.

                  COFFEE AT 10:30 in TAY 3.128

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Run-Length Code for Geographical Information (SMU)
-BODY-
A Spatial Knowledge Structure Based on Run-Length-Code for a Geographical
Information System

Speaker: Erland Jungert
         Illinois Institute of Technology
Location: 315SIC, Southern Methodist University, CS
Time: 3PM

Run-Length-Code (RLC) is an example of a simple data structure used
mainly for compacting images.  A method where RLC is used as an object
oriented data structure for Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will be
presented.  The usage of this object structure as a basis for spatial
reasoning while regarding the RLC-objects as part of a spatial knowledge
structure will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 86 14:45:46 pst
-FROM-
From: grover@aids-unix (Mark Grover)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symbolics User Group National Symposium
-BODY-
Registration materials are now available to the National Symposium of the
Symbolics Lisp Users Group, to be held June 2-6, 1986 at Georgetown University
in Washington, DC.  Both tutorials and technical sessions will be held. The
theme of this year's Symposium is "Programming in Style".  Many interesting
and exciting guests are expected.  Registration materials and housing
information can be obtained via telephone or US mail to:
        Symbolics National Symposium
        Attn: Annmarie Pittman
        655 15th St. NW #300
        Washington, DC 20005
        (202) 639-4228

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 08:40:33 -0500
-FROM-
From: sriram@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on Engineering Design
-BODY-

                         AAAI-86 WORKSHOP ON
        KNOWLEDGE-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN

In the 60's, AI researchers explored weak methods applicable to a very
broad class of problems. In the 70's, we created  knowledge-intensive,
"strong" methods for solving quite specific types of problems. A major
trend  in  the  80's  is  to  identify  coherent  problem  classes  of
intermediate  generality;  the  proof  of  coherence is in the further
identification of correspondingly general problem-solving methods. For
instance,  "classification  problems" have been defined, a general but
still  knowledge-based  classification  problem-solving  process   and
system   architecture   have  been  laid  out,  and  tools  exist  for
facilitating development of classification systems.

Design problems also appear to constitute a coherent problem class. At
present,  however,  we  are only beginning the enterprise of: defining
this class; formalizing a model of the design problem-solving  process
and  design  system  architecture;  and  creating tools for developing
design systems.

To  model  (and  ultimately  facilitate)  human  designers  and  their
enormous flexibility in terms of conventional AI "primitives" requires
integrating  such  diverse   functions   as   refinement   techniques,
constraint  reasoning,  and  goal  satisfaction,  and  encoding  these
functions in such varied forms as rules, heuristics,  and  algorithms.
Viewing  design  tools  as "knowledge-based expert systems" provides a
framework for capturing such diversity.

The purpose of this workshop is to  provide  a  forum  in  which  both
engineers   and   computer   scientists  can  discuss  knowledge-based
frameworks for organizing and  developing  useful  engineering  design
systems.

TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED

1. Definition of "a design problem".
2. A general model of the design process.
3. Knowledge  representation  formalisms  for  design.
4. Problem-solving   strategies   required   for  design.
5. Existing frameworks and for design.
6. Existing architectures for design aids.
7. Capabilities  and  tools  desired  by engineers.
8. Automated vs.interactive design aids.
9. Software  environments  and  tools  for developing design aids.

ORGANIZERS

Sriram [sriram@athena.mit.edu] and Chris Tong [tong@red.rutgers.edu]

PARTICIPATION

The  workshop  will take place on Monday, August 11, at the University
of Pennsylvania. Participation  in  the  workshop  is  by  invitation,
limited  to 35 participants. Those wishing to be invited should submit
four copies of a 1000-word abstract describing their work  in  AI  and
engineering  design  to  Sriram,  1-253b,  Dept. of Civil Engineering,
M. I.T., Cambridge, MA 02139 OR  to  Chris  Tong,  Dept.  of  Computer
Science,  Rutgers  University,  New Brunswick, NJ 08903.  The deadline
for application is May 30, 1986. Invitations will be issued by July 1.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conferences - ACM SIGMOD & Design Automation & Computers and Math
-BODY-
1986 ACM SIGMOD international Conference on the management of data
May 28-30 1986  Washington DC

Session 6a Logic and Databases 11:00 - 12:30 Thursday May 30

A. Van Gelder "A Message Passing Framework for Logical Query Evaluation"
A. Rosenthal, S. Heller, U. Dayal, F. Manola "Traversal Recursion:
A Practical Approach to Supporting Recursive Applications:
G. Gardarin C. DeMaindreville "Evaluation of Databse Recursive Logic
as Recurrent Function Series"

Session 7 Query Processing Thursday May 30 2:00 - 3:30

J. C. Freytag "Rule Based Transformation of Relational Queries into
Interactive Programs"

Session 9a Rule Based Systems

M. T. Harandi T. Schang S. Cohen "Rule Base Management Using Meta
Knowledge"
T. Imelinksi "Query Processing in Deductive Databases with Incomplete
Information"
Q. Chu "A Rule-Based Object/Task Modelling Approach"
__________________________________________________________________________

Twenty Third ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
June 29-July 2, 1986 Las Vegas, Nevada

Session 4 Intelligent Systems Time Monday 10:30 - 12:00

An Expert System Paradigm for Design
Forrest D. Brewer, Daniel D. Gajaski
University of Illinois at Urbana

Session 12 Timing Verification Monday Monday 4:00 - 5:30

Reasoning About Digital Systems Using Temporal Logic
G. Venkatesh


Session 14 Test Generation Techniques Tuesday 8:00 - 10:00

A Heuristic Chip-Level Test Generation Algorithm
Daniel S. Barclay, James R. Armstrong
Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Session 29 Hardware Design Languages Tuesday 3:30 - 5:30

A Design Rule Database System to Support Technology Adaptable Applications
Hilary J. Kahn, J. S. Aude
University of Manchester


Session 34 Expert Systems for Design Automation Wednesday 8:00 - 10:00

A Rule-Based Logic Circuit Synthesis System for CMOS Gate Arrays
Takao Saito, Hiroyuki Sugimoto, Masami Yamazaki, NObuaki Kawato
Fujitsu Labs

FLUTE - A Floorplanning Agent for Full Custom VLSI Design
Hityuki Wantanabe, Bryan Ackland
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel NJ

Knowledge-Based Optimal Ill Circuit Generator From Conventional Logic
Descriptions
T. Watanabe, T. Masuishi, T. Nishiyama, N. Horie
Hitachi

PEARL: An Expert System for Power Supply Layout
Ed DeJesus
DEC

Session 38 Short Papers: Representing and Manipulating VLSI Design
Wednesday 10:30 - 12:00

Precedent Based Reasoning About VLSI Structures
Richard H. Lasthrop, Robert S. Kirk  MIT and Gould AMI respectively

A Frame Based System for Representing Knowledge About VLSI Design
Hassan K. Reghbati, W. Stephen ADolph, Amar Sanmugasundam
Simon Fraser University

Session 39 Timing Verification Wednesday 10:30 - 12:00

A Rule Based Approach to Unifying Functional and Fault Simulation and
Timing Verification
Sujmit Ghosh
AT & T

Session 42 Database II Wednesday 1:30 - 3:30

Rules-Based Object Clustering: A Data Structure for Symbolic VLSI
Synthesis and Analysis
Robert P. Larsen Rockwell International Corporation

__________________________________________________________________________

A Conference on Computers and Mathematics July 30 - August 1
Stanford University

Woodrow Bledsoe
Automated Theorem Proving and Artificial Intelligence

Rudiger Loos
Tarski's Dream

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
96
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Apr 86 17:17:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Daniel Davison  <DAVISON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: How do I get technical reports?
-BODY-

There were several technical reports mentioned in a recent AIlist that I'd
like to get...but I don't know how.  Would some kind soul send me a note
about how to get tech reports from (1) LSU and (2) CMU?

Thanks,
dan davison
davison@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 21:35:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!mcvax!euroies!rreilly
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: FRL and HEARSAY-III
-BODY-
I have two queries:

(1) Does anybody have any information on public domain
    implementations of Goldstein's FRL or any frame system in
    Lisp?

(2) I believe that CMU make available an empty version of HEARSAY
    (HEARSAY-III I think).  Does aybody have any details on this?
    Has anybody used the system?


Thanks in advance.
>-
...mcvax!euroies!rreilly (Ronan Reilly)

Educational Research Centre, St Patrick's College
Dublin 9, Ireland.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1986  12:23:33 EST
-FROM-
From: WALLFESH%UCONNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machine information sought
-BODY-
Can anyone suggest any papers on Lisp machines, particularly
those which stress their architectural aspects?  I'm attempting
to write a paper on Lisp machines for my computer architecture
class, but I cannot seem to find many references.

Thanks,
Sande Wallfesh (wallfesh@uconnvm.bitnet, wallfesh@carcvax.csnet)
CS Dept.    Box U-157
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT  06268

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 14:14:17 cst
-FROM-
From: Girish Kumthekar <kumthek%lsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Conference in Long Beach
-BODY-
I am trying to find information about an AI conference in Long Beach, CA to
be held by the end of this month (April).
I looked in recent issues of AI magazine but could not get info.
If you have any info as to exact dates,
whom to contact, tel # or address etc, I would appreciate if you could mail
it to me at

kumthek%lsu@csnet-relay.csnet

Thanks in advance

Girish kumthekar (504)-388-1495

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 20 Apr 86 11:23:59-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NATIONAL YOUTH SCIENCE CAMP ALUMS
-BODY-
        I am an alum of the National Youth Science
Camp (California 1975), which was a great boost for me going into
science, and I was wondering how many other NYSC alums are involved in
AI .  NYSC Alums please send me your name , and the state and year you
represented, and also what you're doing now if you want to.  Thanks.
                                        -Lee Altenberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 11:42 EST
-FROM-
From: JOHNSON%northeastern.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rampant misunderstanding, speculation and questions.
-BODY-
     I've been reading the April CACM (my first issue).  One of the
sections seems to be a debate over battle management software.  It seems
that nobody is sure whether or not battleware would do the "right" (if
there is a right) thing in a real battle.  Also, no one is sure if it
ever can be proven one way or the other.

     I'm not a military historian.  What little I do know tells me that
one doesn't necessarily win a battle with logic or one set of rules.
History seems to say that you start losing wars if the other side
doesn't play by the rules or invents their own.

     I've been seeing shorts in the ailist of late dealing with inexact
logic.  I don't claim to understand it.  I'm not at all certain,
however, that I'd want a piece of ai battleware defending me even if it
did have some kind of rudimentary understanding of non-binary logic.  In an
impossible situation where the other side doesn't play by the rules,
battleware might decide to give up or pull the doomsday switch.

    I guess I have several questions here.  How inexact is inexact?  Can
battleware but made to recognize that new rules exist and adapt to them
in real-time?  Can battleware be made to fully understand constraints?
If my cat has fleas and fire kills fleas, burning the cat will eliminate
the fleas.  Problems are usually easier to solve without constraints.
I'd rather battleware (or any ai program) didn't think like this.  I
know a little about how rules can be made to work in Prolog.  I'm not
sure how one would go about defining rules for a battle.  Can there really
be inexact (fuzzy) rules?  Any references on this?

     A side issue is this,  can battleware be made to run in real-time
at all?  One of the ideas of having it is because humans can't
assimilate all necessary information in time to act on it in a highly
electronic war.  I don't think this is just an issue of having 10 cray's
doing the job.

     I don't know.  Maybe 20,000 toasters running in parallel  would be
just as good as two or three crays running battleware.  Maybe I just
don't understand the problem.  (I'm new to ai obviously.)  Can we please
define or describe some things in words of one syllable or less? (yes I
know graph is one syllable.)  Besides defining inexact, can anyone point
me to a GOOD beginner something or other on ai.  I've seen several and
they're all not very good yet (or I might be missing the point).


Chris Johnson
Northeastern University
johnson@northeastern.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 11:34:41 PST
-FROM-
From: Scott Turner <srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: EDISON Project
-BODY-
Before I get innudated with requests for the Edison report, all UCLA
Technical Reports can be ordered through:

        Brenda Ramsey
        UCLA Dept. of Computer Science
        3713 Boelter Hall
        801 Hilgard Ave.
        Los Angeles, CA 90024

        ramsey@ucla-cs.arpa
        (213) 825-2778

                                                -- Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Apr 86 17:18:30-PST
-FROM-
From: Daniel Davison  <DAVISON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary of non-DoD funding for AI
-BODY-

I recently asked about non-DOD sources of funding for AI projects.  I received
three replies.  Two cited NSF and one said NIH (but not which institute[s])
fund AI work.  Of course, NIH funds this facility (SUMEX); apparently smaller
grants are funded also.

dan davison
davison@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 86 16:59:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!umn-cs!amit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Neta Amit)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-
In article <1031@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes:
>Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
>as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
>else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.

String reduction as a model of computation was suggested by
A.A. Markov, in his 1954(?) paper, and is proved to be equivalent in
power to the other two general models of computation (Turing machine and
the Lambda Calculus).

Markov algorithm consists of an input string S and a program P, which
is a sequence of BNF-like productions LHS --> RHS. The evaluator scans
P top to bottom (that's sequencing), looking for a match between a
substring of S and the LHS of a production (that's conditionals). When
a match is found, the RHS replaces the matching substring in S, and
the scanning is restarted from the top of P (that's looping).  Let's
not consider termination and error conditions.  As stated here, this
isn't a purely applicative model, but there is no inherent reason why
the new S couldn't in fact be new!

Michael Barnett of Brooklyn College, CUNY, (a Chemist turned Computer
Scientist) has recently suggested (See Sigplan Notices in the last 12
months) that it may be possible to synthesize molecules that will do
string substitution (a biological computer) and that this might be a
good model to describe the functionality of the human brain.

If I understand correctly, you are looking for an applicative model,
in which functions cause string-substitution instead of returning
values. Notice that this is the mechanism used by parametrized macro
expansion (so you can easily simulate an applicative string reduction
machine in Pure Lisp, using macros alone.)

A guy named Karl Fant, from Honeywell Research (in Minneapolis), has
been developing an applicative string-reduction model, but I don't
think he has published in a publicly available journal.

Anyway, I would be interested in expanding this discussion.

Cheers,
        --Neta                  CSNET: amit@umn-cs
                                ARPA:  amit%umn-cs@csnet-relay.ARPA
                                UUCP:  ...ihnp4!umn-cs!amit

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 86 15:35:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!srcsip!meier@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Christopher Meier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-
In article <994@umn-cs.UUCP> amit@umn-cs.UUCP (Neta Amit) writes:

>A guy named Karl Fant, from Honeywell Research (in Minneapolis), has
>been developing an applicative string-reduction model, but I don't
>think he has published in a publicly available journal.
>

Karl can be reached at ihnp4!srcsip!fant (or through any path I can...).

>-
Christopher Meier  MN65-2300      {osu-eddie,okstate,bthpyd}\
S&RC Signal and Image Processing     {ihnp4,philabs,,gnutemp}\
3660 Technology Drive    (612)       {hyper,umn-cs,mmm,meccts}!srcsip!meier
Mpls, MN  55413         782-7191

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 07:15:35 -0500
-FROM-
From: sriram@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Journal Prices
-BODY-
In a recent message on the AI bboard, some of you raised concerns
about the subscription price for the AI IN ENGG. JOURNAL. As a
co-editor of the journal, I forwarded the message to Mr. Lance
Sucharov, the publisher director of the journal. His reply follows.

Sriram

Dear Friends:

I  have  just  received  a copy of the message "Journal prices hit the
moon!" on the AI list bulletin board and I feel this needs  an  answer
and is an excellent opportunity to put the publishing record straight.

The  journal  referred to is our new launch the "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
FOR AI IN ENGINEERING", which has aroused  a  good  deal  of  interest
internationally  and  in  this  one  case, controversy over the price!
First of all, may I say I sympathise with the writer:  in  wishing  to
keep  prices  down  as  much as possible and thereby giving the widest
audience  to  published  information.  However,  although  the  writer
mentions  the  authors, reviewers and editorial board members who give
their services freely, he makes no  mention  of  others  who  do  not:
typesetters,  printers,  agents,  editorial staff, designers, editors,
and so on.

How significant are these costs? Significant enough for some  journals
to  close.    Many  others of important academic interest, financially
only limp along and as publishers, would be better off  putting  their
money  in  a  bank.    At  the same time some publishers are extremely
profitable: a well-known name and powerful marketing arm all help. But
it  is  by having some profitable journals that more marginal ones can
be popped up, and new launches can be afforded, which can take several
years  to  pay  their way. Furthermore, for overseas publishers the US
market can be expensive because  of  postage,  uncertainty  in  dollar
movements  and  banking  costs.  Other  publishres  have pitched their
prices higher than ours, and I can mention the "IMA JOURNAL OF NUMERAL
ANALYSIS"  ($172),  "COMPUTER SYSTEMS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING" ($166),
"IMAGE AND VISION COMPUTING" ($171), and there are many more.

Finally, I am delighted that authors and the editorial team do provide
a  service  just  as  we provide a service in disseminating their work
world-wide.

Sincerely yours,

Lance Sucharov

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 1986 13:16:39-EST
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Compuscan
-BODY-
                          COMPUSCAN

I had an opportunity to see a demonstration of the CompuScan Model 230
Page reader.  This is a desk top device which looks like a small copier,
and using optical character recognition, can read a page of text and
send it as an ASCII file to a waiting IBM-PC or other micro over an RS-232
port.  The unit sells for about $6K.

I had provided several different font sets on several qualities of paper.
Also, I used originals and text that had been Xeroxed several times.

As for the results...

If I put on my R&D AI hat, then the results were both exciting and thought
provoking.  I was amazed at the number of characters that the machine was
able to successfully recognize- especially for a machine in that price
category.  Although it usually took longer than the advertised 30 seconds
per page, it was tolerable.

The results were inconsistent. If you put the same page in twice, the results,
both errors and correct characters, would come out different each time. Now,
this is not to say that the machine was "screwing up". It WAS, in each case
following a set of rules based on what it perceived to be a specific
character.  It was going through a set of probabilities and percentages
and based on the result, printed a particular character.  Being a
deterministic programmer, this at first rubbed me the wrong way.  After
all, we are dealing with a computer here..No matter how many times you
put in 2+3, it should always equal 5.  Not so with AI type solutions.
Although this inconsistency should be minimized in the design, the AI
programmer must recognize the possibility of it occurrence.

If I put on my Office Manager's hat, then I would say that COMPUSCAN is
not quite ready to come into everyday service.  It made too many mistakes
to provide efficient page-to-text translation. This was especially true when
the quality of the documents and the font type varied. One page had been
slightly cocked when Xeroxed.  This caused havoc to the optical recognition
software.

Compuscan is promising a new generation Model 240, to be out shortly.  I
am interested in seeing what improvements are made.

For INFO write to: Compuscan Inc.
                   81 Two Bridges Rd./Bldg.2
                   Fairfield, N.J. 07006
                   TEL: (201) 575-0500

This review is a personal opinion and does not reflect any official view of the
government or any one else in the world. - Ron Kushnier

                                    Ron Kushnier
                                    kushnier@nadc.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
97
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #7
-BODY-
%A H. Bernstein
%T Determining the Shape of a Convex n-sided Polygon by Using 2n+k Tactile
Probes
%R 125 R29
%D JUN 1984
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI07 AI06

%A A. Tuzhilin
%A P. Spirakis
%T A Semantic Approach to Correctness of Concurrent Executions
%R 130
%D JUL 1984
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AA08

%A E. Davis
%T Shape and Function of Solid objects: Some Examples
%R 137
%D OCT 1984
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences


%A C. O'Dunlaing
%A M. Sharir
%A C. Yap
%T Generalized Vornoi Diagrams for Moving a Ladder: I Topological
Analysis
%R 139 R32
%D NOV 1984
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences

%A C. O Dunlaing
%A M. Sharir
%A C. Yap
%T Generalized Vornoi Diagrams for Moving a Ladder: II Efficient
Construction of the Diagram
%D NOV 1984
%R 140 R33
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences

%A M. Bastuscheck
%T Look Up Table Computation for A Ratio Image Depth Sensor
%R 141 R34
%D NOV 1984
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences

%A J. Schwartz
%A M. Sharir
%A A. Siegel
%T An Efficient Algorithm for Finding Connected Components of a Binary
Image
%R 154 R38
%D FEB 1985
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI06

%A D. Cantone
%A A. Ferro
%A J. Schwartz
%T Decision Procedures for Elementary Sublanguages of Set Theory VI.
Multi-Level Syllogistic Extended by the Power Set Operator
%R 156
%D FEB 1985
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI11

%A E. Kishon
%A X. D. Yang
%T A Video Camera Interface for High Speed Region Boundary Locations
%R 157 R40
%D FEB 1985
%I New York University, Courant Institute, Department of Computer
Sciences
%K AI06

%R 13
%A N. V. Findler
%A H. Klein
%A W. Gould
%A A. Kowal
%A J. Menig
%T (1) Studies on decision making using the game of poker;
(2) Computer experiments on the formation and optimization
of heuristic rules
%I Suny Buffalo Computer Science

%R 14
%A N. V. Findler
%A D. Chen
%T On the problems of time, retrieval of temporal
relations, causality and co-existence
%I Suny Buffalo Computer Science


%R 15
%A G. T. Herman
%A J. A. Jackowski
%T A decision procedure using discrete geometry
%I Suny Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI14


%R 20
%A N. V. Findler
%T Short note on a heuristic search strategy
%I Suny Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI03

%A N. V. Findler
%T Heuristic programmers and their gambling machines
%A H. Klein
%A A. Kowal
%A Z. Levine
%A J. Menig
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI03

%R 72
%A G. T. Herman
%T A decision procedure using the geometry of convex sets
%A P. W. Aitchison
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI14

%R 84
%A G. T. Herman
%A A. V. Lakshminarayanan
%A S. W. Rowland
%T The reconstruction of objects from shadowgraphs
with high contrasts
%D August 1974
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 91
%A G. T. Herman
%A A. Lent
%T A computer implementation of a Bayesian analysis of image
reconstruction
%D January 1975
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 92
%A A. V. Lakshminarayanan
%T Reconstruction from divergent ray data
%D January 1975
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 93
%T Iterative relaxation methods for image reconstruction
%A G. T. Herman
%A A. Lent
%A P. H. Lutz
%D July 1975
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 99
%A N. V. Findler
%T Studies in machine cognition using the game of Poker
%D June 1975
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA17
%X A progress report is presented of our on-going research efforts
concerning human decision making under uncertainty and risk,
human problem solving and learning processes, on one hand,
and machine learning, large scale programming systems
and novel programming techniques, on the other.

%R 103
%A G. T. Herman
%T Quadratic optimization for image reconstruction, Part I
%A A. Lent
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 104
%A P. H. Lutz
%T Fourier image reconstruction incorporating
three simple interpolation techniques
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 110
%A T. L. Roy
%T A contribution to the Poker Project: The
development of and experience with a
Statistically Fair Player
%D May 1976
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA17
%X This paper is a report on my efforts over the past
several months, in the development of a Player Function
for the Poker System, called the Statistically Fair Player.


%R 111
%A J. N. Shaw
%T Multi-Pierre, a learning robot system
%D May 1976
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI07
%X The goal of this project is to simulate several robots
under partial human control,
and operating in a lifelike'' environment.
The robots have an overall goal of survival and an instinct''
to explore their environment.
The project is an extension of an existing system
which has a single organism functioning in a similar environment.
The environment consists of a flat terrain,
populated with three-dimensional objects of varying types,
sizes and shapes.



%R 115
%A T. W. Chen
%A N. V. Findler
%T Toward analogical reasoning in problem
solving by computers
%D December 1976
%K AA17
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%X We attempt in the present paper
to investigate Analogical
Reasoning (AR) detached from specific tasks and to formulate
its general principles so that it may become a component of
problem solving programs as much as the means-ends analysis
has been shown to be one in the literature on GPS.

%R 119
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T A Scrabble crossword game playing program
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA17

%R 127
%A J. K. Cipolaro
%A N. V. Findler
%T MARSHA, the daughter of ELIZA \- a simple
program for information retrieval in
natural language
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA02 AA14

%R 130
%T SNARK77: A programming system for the reconstruction
of pictures from projections
%A G. T. Herman
%A S. W. Rowland
%D January 1978
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 134
%T On the Bayesian approach to image reconstruction
%A G. T. Herman
%A H. Hurwitz
%A A. Lent
%A H. P. Lung
%D June 1978
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 141
%A N. V. Findler
%T A heuristic information retrievalsystem based on
associative networks
%D February 1978
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI12 AA14


%R 145
%A E. Artzy
%T Boundary detection of internal organs in mini-computers
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06 AA01

%R 147
%A S. N. Srihari
%T On choosing measurements for invariant pattern recognition
%D September 1978
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 152
%A J. Case
%A S. Ngo\ Manuelle
%T Refinements of inductive inference
by Popperian machines
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04

%R 154
%A J. Case
%A C. H. Smith
%T Comparison of identification criteria
for mechanized inductive inference
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04

%R 155
%A C. H. Smith
%T Finite covers of inductive inference machines
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04

%R 164
%A D. P. McKay
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T MULTI \- a Lisp based multiprocessing system
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K H03 T01

%R 169
%A E. M. Gurari
%A H. Wechsler
%T On the difficulties involved in the
segmentation of pictures
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI0

%R 170
%A M. M. Yau
%A S. N. Srihari
%T Recursive generation of hierarchical
data structures for multidimensional digital images
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 171
%A A. S. Maida
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T Intensional concepts in propositional semantic networks
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 172
%A S. N. Srihari
%A J. J. Hull
%A R. Bo\o'z\(hc'inovi\o'c\(aa'
%T Representation of contextual knowledge
in word recognition
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI02

%R 173
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T COCCI:  a deductive semantic network
program for solving microbiology unknowns
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA10

%R 174
%A J. E. S. P. Martins
%A D. P. McKay
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T Bi-directional inference
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 175
%A J. E. S. P. Martins
%A S. C. Shapiro
%T A belief revision system based on relevance
logic and heterarchical contexts
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 177
%A S. N. Srihari
%A M. E. Jernigan
%T Pattern recognition
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 178
%A K. J. Chen
%T Tradeoffs in machine inductive inference
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04

%R 179
%A J. G. Neal
%T A knowledge engineering approach to natural language understanding
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI02


%R 183
%A R. K. Srihari
%T Combining path-based and node-based inference in SNePS
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 184
%A S. N. Srihari
%A J. J. Hull
%T Experiments in text recognition with binary
\fIn\fP-gram and Viterbi algorithms
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 186
%A H. Shubin
%T Inference and control in multiprocessing environments
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K H03

%R 187
%A N. V. Findler
%T A preliminary report on a multi-level learning technique
using production systems
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04  AI01

%R 188
%A N. V. Findler
%A E. J. M. Morgado
%T Morph-fitting \- an effective technique of approximation
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI02

%R 189
%A N. V. Findler
%A N. M. Mazur
%A B. B. McCall
%T A note on computing the asymptotic form of
a limited sequence of decision trees
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science


%R 190
%A N. V. Findler
%A J. E. Brown
%A R. Lo
%A H. Y. You
%T A module to estimate numerical values of
hidden variables for expert systems
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI01

%R 192
%A S. N. Srihari
%A J. J. Hull
%A R. Choudhari
%T An algorithm for integrating
diverse knowledge sources in text recognition
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 193
%A G. L. Sicherman
%T The Advice-Taker/Inquirer
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 194
%A N. V. Findler
%T Toward a theory of strategies
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 195
%A S. Moriya
%T An algebraic structure theory
of rule sets, I: a formalization
of both production systems and decision tables
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 196
%A N. V. Findler
%T An overview of the Quasi-Optimizer system
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 197
%A N. V. Findler
%A G. L. Sicherman
%A B. B. McCall
%T A multi-strategy gaming environment
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 198
%A L. M. Tranchell
%T A SNePS implementation of KL-ONE
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 199
%A M. M. Yau
%T Generating quadtrees of cross-sections from octrees
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 202
%A G. L. Sicherman
%T Parsley 1.1:  A general text parser in LISP
%D April 1983
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%X T01 AI02

%R 203
%A J. E. S. P. Martins
%D May 1983
%T Reasoning in multiple belief spaces
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 204
%A J. T. Nutter
%D October 1983
%T Default reasoning in A.I. systems
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 206
%A P. F. Kung
%A S. L. Hardt
%T Understanding `Circuit Stories;' or,
Using Micro PAM to explain VLSI systems
%D December 1983
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA04

%R 207
%T Grinlib \- Grinnell graphics in Lisp
%A P. Schlossman
%A S. L. Hardt
%D 1983
%K T01

%R 208
%T Correcting and translating ill-formed ship messages
%A J. Rosenberg
%A M. E. Haefner
%A S. L. Hardt
%D January 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science

%R 209
%T A step towards a friendly psychiatric diagnosis tool
%A P. Schlossman
%A G. K. Phillips
%A S. L. Hardt
%D April 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA01

%R 210
%T Developing a knowledge-based psychiatric
diagnostic tool: The investigation of opportunistic processing
%A M. E. Haefner
%A S. L. Hardt
%D February 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA01

%R 211
%T Naive physics and the physics of diffusion; or, When intuition fails
%A S. L. Hardt
%D June 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%X AA16

%R 212
%T From CD to mandarin Chinese: The language generation project
%A M. Y. Lo
%A S. L. Hardt
%D August 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%X The investigation reported here is centered on
the development of the Chinese language generator, SINO-MUMBLES.
This natural language generator takes as input a CD expression
and expresses its meaning in Mandarin Chinese.
The program is based on the English generator, MICRO-MUMBLE
and on an earlier version of the Chinese generator developed
in our project.

%R 213
%T Knowledge based parsing
%A J. G. Neal
%A S. C. Shapiro
%D May 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI02
%X An extremely significant feature of any Natural Language (NL)
is that it is its own meta-language.
One can use a NL to talk about the NL itself.
One can use a NL to tutor a non-native speaker, or other poor
language user, in the use of the same NL.
We have been exploring methods of knowledge
representation and NL Understanding (NLU) which would allow an
Artificial Intelligence (AI) system to play the role of
poor language user in this setting.
The AI system would have to understand NL utterances about how
the NL is used, and improve its NLU abilities according to this
instruction.
It would be an NLU system for which the domain being discusses
in NL is the NL itself.

%R 214
%T Optical character recognition
techniques in mail sorting: A review of algorithms
%A J. J. Hull
%A G. Krishnan
%A P. W. Palumbo
%A S. N. Srihari
%D June 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06
%X A study of Optical Character Recognition
(OCR) techniques employed in automatic mail sorting equipment
is presented.
Methods and algorithms for image preprocessing,
character recognition, and contextual postprocessing
are discussed and compared.
The objective of this study is to provide a background
in the state-of-the-art of this equipment
as the first element in a search for techniques
to significantly improve the capabilites of postal address recognition.

%R 215
%T Belief representation and quasi-indicators
%A W. J. Rapaport
%D August 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI02
%X This thesis is a study in knowledge'' representation,
specifically, how to represent beliefs expressed by
sentences containing quasi-indicators.
An \fIindicator\fP is a personal or demonstrative pronoun
or adverb used to make a strictly demonstrative reference.
A \fIquasi-indicator\fP is an expression that occurs within
an intentional context and that represents a use of an indicator
by another speaker.
E.g., if John says, I am rich,'' then if \fIwe\fP say,
John believes that he himself is rich,'' our use of `he himself'
is quasi-indexical.
Quasi-indicators pose problems for natural-language
question-answering systems, since they cannot be
replaced by any co-referential noun phrases without changing
the meaning of the embedding sentence.
Therefore, the referent of the quasi-indicator must be represented
in such a way that no ivnalid co-referential claims are entailed.

%R 216
%T Searle's experiments with thought
%A W. J. Rapaport
%D November 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%X A critique of several recent objections to John Searle's
Chinese Room argument against the possibility of strong AI
is presented.
The objections are found to miss the point,
and a stronger argument against Searle is presented,
based on a distinction between syntactic and semantic
understanding.

%R 217
%T Review of Lambert's \fIMeinong and the
Principle of Independence\fP
%A W. J. Rapaport
%D November 1984
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI08
%X This is a critical study of Karel Lambert's
\fIMeinong and the Principle of Independence.\fP
Alexius Meinong was a turn-of-the-century philosopher
and psychologist who played a role in the early development
of analytic philosophy, phenomenology, and Gestalt psychology.
His theory of objects has become of increasing relevance
to intensionally-based semantics and, hence, ought to be
of interest to AI researchers in the field of knowledge
representation.
Lambert's book explores the relevance of Meinong's theory
to free logics.

%R 85-01
%T Recognition of off-line cursive handwriting:
A case of multi-level machine perception
%A R. M. Bo\o'z\(hc'inovi\o'c\(aa'
%D March 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06
%X Cursive script recognition by computer (CSR)
is the problem of transforming language from
the form of cursive human handwriting to one of digital
text representation.
Off-line CSR involves elements of computer vision
at a low level of processing
andk those of language perception and understanding at
a higher level.
The problem is approached in this work
as a multi-level machine perception problem
in which an image of a cursive script word is transformed
through a hierarchy of representation levels.
Four distinct levels are employed,
based on descriptions that use pixels, chain codes, features
and letters, before the final
word level of representation is obtained.

%R 85-05
%A P. B. Van\ Verth
%T A system for automatic program grading
%D May 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA08 AA07
%X This doctoral dissertation presents an automated
system for grading program quality based upon a mathematical model
of program quality.
Our research investigates whether such a system
will perform at least as well as, and perhaps even do better than,
human graders.

%R 85-06
%A J. G. Neal
%T A knowledge-based approach to natural language understanding
%D May 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI01 AI02
%X In this thesis we present a language processing expert system
that we have implemented in the role of an educable cognitive
agent whose domain of expertise is language understanding
and whose discourse domain includes its own language knowledge.
We present a representation of language processing knowledge
and a core of knowledge, including a Kernel Language, which forms
the knowledge base for this AI system.


%R 85-07
%A S. L. Hardt
%A J. Rosenberg
%A M. E. Haefner
%A K. S. Arora
%T The three ERIK\-AMVER progress reports
%D July 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA18
%X This is a collection of three progress reports
submitted by our group
to the U. S. Coast Guard.
The reports chart the development of the ERIK
(Evaluating Reports using Integrated Knowledge) system.
The systems design and implementation were orchestrated
by Jay Rosenberg.
The final report as well as the manuals for the system
can be found elsewhere.

%R 85-08
%A S. L. Hardt
%A J. Rosenberg
%T The ERIK project: Final report and manuals
%D July 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA18 H02
%X The ERIK system is a computer program
that was developed to interpret ship reports for the
United States Coast Guard.
The system is now completed an installed in the Coast Guard's
AMVER Center on Governors Island.
It was running in a testing mode on a dedicated DEC VAX-11/730
system running VMS, from February to June 1985.
The final system will be running on a Symbolics Lisp Machine
in July 1985.
This report provides a brief description of the project, the system,
and user manuals.
The latter contains a detailed description of the theory
behind the system and the necessary
implementation and maintenance information.

%A S. N. Srihari
%A J. J. Hull
%A P. W. Palumbo
%A D. Niyogi
%A C. H. Wang
%T Address recognition techniques in mail sorting:
Research directions
%R 85-09
%D August 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06 AI02
%X This report is a discussion of techniques of computer vision,
pattern recognition, and language processing
relevant to the problem of mail sorting as well as a presentation of the
results of preliminary experiments with several new techniques applied
to letter mail images.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
98
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles #8
-BODY-
Definitions

D BOOK26 Qualitative Reasoning about Physcial Systems\
%E Daniel G. Bobrow\
%D 1985\
%I MIT PRESS\
%X 504 pages $$232.50 ISBN 02218-4
D BOOK27 Visual Cognition\
%E STeven Pinker\
%D 1985\
%I MIT PRESS\
%X 296 pages $17.50 paper ISBN 16103-6


__________________________________________________________________________

%A Gyungho Lee
%A Clyde P. Kruskal
%A David J. Kuck
%T An Empirical Study of Automatic Restructuring of Nonnumerical Programs
for Parallel Processors
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%V C-34
%N 10
%P 927-933
%D OCT 1985
%K H03

%A W. Daniel Hillis
%T The Connection Machine
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K H03 AT15
%X $22.50 ISBN 08157-1 175 pages

%A Richard P. Gabriel
%T Performance and Evaluation of Lisp Machines
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K T01 H02 AT15
%X $22.50 ISBN 07093-6 350 pages

%A Michael J. O'Donnell
%T Equational Logic as a Programming Language
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AI10 AT15
%X $25.00 ISBN  15028-X 300 pages

%A Ehud Y. Shapiro
%T Algorithmic Programming Debugging
%I MIT Press
%D 1983
%K T02 AT15
%X $35.00 ISBN 19218-7 232 pages

%A Marc H. Raibert
%T Legged Robots That Balance
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07
%X $30.00 ISBN 18117-7 250 pages

%A Matthew T. Mason
%A J. Kenneth Salisbury, Jr.
%T Robot Hands and the Mechanics of Manipulation
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07
%X $30.00 ISBN 13205-2 325 pages

%A A. Morecki
%A G. Bianchi
%A K. Kedzior
%T Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulators
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07
%X $45.00 ISBN 13208-7

%A Richard P. Paul
%T Robot Manipulators: Mathematics, Programming, and Control
%I MIT Press
%D 1981
%K AT15 AI07
%X $34.50 ISBN 16082-X 279 pages

%A HIdeo Hanafusa
%A Hirochika Inoue
%T Robotics Research: The Second International Symposium
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07
%X $45.00 ISBN 08151-2 500 pages

%A Michael Brady
%A Richard Paul
%T Robotics Research: The First International Symposium
%I MIT Press
%D 1984
%K AT15 AI07
%X $65.00 ISBN 02207-9 1000 pages


%A James U. Korein
%T A Geometric Investigation of Reach
%I MIT Press
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07
%X $30.00 ISBN 11104-7 210 pages

%A Michael Brady
%A John M. Hollerbach
%A Timothy L. Johnson
%A Thomas Lozano-Perez
%A Matthew T. Mason
%T Robot Motion: Planning and Control
%I MIT Press
%D 1983
%K AT15 AI07 AI09
%X 585 pages $39.50 ISBN 02182-X

%A Robert Berwick
%T The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge
%D 1985
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI02
%X 350 pages $27.50 ISBN 02226-5

%A Michael G. Dyer
%T In-Depth Understanding:
A Computer Model of Integrated Processing for Narrative Comprehension
%D 1983
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI02 AI08
%X ISBN 04073-5 458 pages $37.50

%A Mitchell P. Marcus
%T A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language
%D 1980
%I MIT Press
%K AI02 AT15
%X ISBN 13149-8 335 pages $35.00

%A Henry S. Baird
%T Model-Based Image Matching Using Location
%D 1985
%I MIT Press
%K AI06 AT15
%X ISBN 02220-6 $25.00 115 pages

%A Harold Abelson
%A Gerald Jay Sussman
%T Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
%D 1984
%I MIT Press
%K Scheme T01 AT15
%X ISBN 01077-1 542 pages $34.95

%A Scott E. Fahlman
%T NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World Knowledge
%D 1979
%I MIT Press
%K H03 AT15
%X ISBN 06069-8 278 pages $27.50

%A Ellen Catherine Hildreth
%T Measurement of Visual Motion
%D 1984
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI06
%X ISBN 08143-1  241 pages $32.50

%A Herbert A. Simon
%T The Sciences of the Artificial
%D 1981
%I MIT Press
%K AT15
%X ISBN 69073-X 247 pages $6.95 paper

%A Michael Brady
%A Robert C. Berwick
%T Computational Models of Discourse
%D 1983
%I MIT Press
%K AI02 AT15
%X ISBN 02183-8 $37.50 403 pages

%A Marvin L. Minsky
%T Semantic Information Processing
%D 1969
%I MIT Press
%K AT15
%X ISBN 13044-0 $35.00 440 pages

%A Eric Leifur Grimson
%T From Images to Surfaces: A Computational STudy of the Human
Early Visual System
%D 1981
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI06 AI08
%X ISBN 07083-9 274 pages $35.00

%A Shimonn Ullman
%T The Interpretation of Visual Motion
%D 1979
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI06
%X ISBN 21007-4 229 pages $30.00

%A John Haugeland
%T Mind Design: Philosophy, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence
%D 1981
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI08
%X ISBN 58052-7 368 pages $10.95  paper

%A Daniel C. Dennet
%T Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology
%D 1980
%I MIT Press
%K AT15 AI08
%X 353 pages ISBN 54037-1 $10.00 paper
Cloth: $30.00 ISBN 04064-6

%A Zenon W. Pylyshyn
%T Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science
%D 1984
%I MIT Press
%K AI08 AT15
%X 320 pages $27.50 ISBN 16098-6

%A D. Bobrow
%T Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems - An Introduction
%B BOOK26
%K AA16

%A J. de Kleer
%A J. Seely Brown
%T A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences
%B BOOK26
%K AA16

%A K. Forbus
%T Qualitative Process Theory
%B BOOK26

%A B. Kuipers
%T Common Sense Reasoning about Causality: Deriving Behavior From Structure
%B BOOK26

%A J. de Kleer
%T How Circuits Work
%B BOOK26
%K AA04

%A B. C. Williams
%T Qualitative Analysis of MOS Circuits
%B BOOK26
%K AA04

%A R. Davis
%T Diagnostic Reasoning Based on Structure and Behavior
%B BOOK26

%A M. R. Genesereth
%T The Use of Design Descriptions in Automated Diagnosis
%B BOOK26

%A H. Barrow
%T VERIFY: A Program for Proving Correctness of Digital
Hardware Designs
%B BOOK26
%K AA04

%A Rachel Reichman
%T Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me:
Discourse Context, Focus and Semantics
%D 1985
%I MIT PRESS
%X 144 pages $20.00 ISBN 18118-5

%A Steven Pinker
%T Visual Cognition: An Introduction
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A D. D. Hoffman
%A W. A. Richards
%T Parts of Recognition
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A Shimon Ullman
%T Visual Routines
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A Roger Shepard
%A Shelley Hurwitz
%T Upward Direction, Mentasl Rotation, and Discrimination of Left and Right
Turs in Maps
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A Stephen M. Kosslyn
%A Jennifer Brunn
%A Kyle R. Cave
%A Roger W. Wallach
%T Individual Differences in Mental Imagery: A Computational Analysis
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A Martha J. Farah
%T The Neurological Basis of Mental Imagery: A Computational Analysis
%B BOOK27
%K AI06 AI08

%A Jon Barwise
%A John Perry
%T Situations and Attitudes
%D 1983
%I MIT PRESS
%K AI02 AI11 AI08
%X 352 pages $9.95 paper ISBN 52099-0  Cloth $27.50 $27.50 ISBN 02189-7


%A N. Fuhr
%A G. E. Knorz
%T Retrieval Test Evaluation of a Rule Based Automatic Indexing
(AIR/PHYS)
%K AI01 AA14
%B Proceedings of the Third Joint BCS and ACM Symposium
%E C. J. van Rijsbergen
%I Cambridge University Press
%D 1984


%A W. S. Cooper
%T Bridging the Gap between AI and IR
%B Proceedings of the Third Joint BCS and ACM Symposium
%E C. J. van Rijsbergen
%I Cambridge University Press
%D 1984
%K AI01 AA14

%A Richard L. Derr
%T Linguistic Meaning and Language Comprehension
%J Information Processing and Management
%V 19
%N 6
%D 1983
%P 369-380
%K AI02

%A John O'Connor
%T Biomedical Citing Statements Computer Recognition and Use to Aid Full-Text
Re
trieval
%J Information Processing and Management
%V 19
%N 6
%P 361-368
%D 1983
%K AI02 AI14

%A Martin Dillon
%A Laura K. McDonald
%T Fully Automatic Book Indexing
%J Journal of Documentation
%V 39
%N 3
%P 135-154
%D 1983
%K AI02 AI14



%A M. R. Cutkowsky
%A P. K. Wright
%T Active Control  of a Compliant Wrist in Manufacturing Tasks
%R ASME Paper Number 850WA/Prod-15
%D 1985
%K AA05 AA07

%A Tony Owen
%T Assembly With Robots
%I Prentice Hall
%C Englewood Cliffs
%D 1985
%K AI07 AA05
%X $29.95

%A J. D. Gould
%A J. Conti
%A T. Hovanyecz
%T Composing Letters with a Simulated Listening Typewriter
%J Communications of the ACM
%D 1983
%V 26
%N 4
%P 295-308
%K AI05

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
99
-DATE-
Date: WED, 23 APR 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Run-Length Code for Geographical Information (SMU)
-BODY-
A Spatial Knowledge Structure Based on Run-Length-Code for a Geographical
Information System

Speaker: Erland Jungert
         Illinois Institute of Technology
Location: 315SIC, Southern Methodist University, CS
Time: 3PM

Run-Length-Code (RLC) is an example of a simple data structure used
mainly for compacting images.  A method where RLC is used as an object
oriented data structure for Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will be
presented.  The usage of this object structure as a basis for spatial
reasoning while regarding the RLC-objects as part of a spatial knowledge
structure will be discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Apr 86 13:35:09-PST
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logic in Design (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Logic: Application to Design Debugging, Diagnosis, And Test
Speaker:        Narinder Singh
From:           Stanford University
Date:           Wednesday, April 23, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

Abstract:


Logic programming is a software engineering methodology based on techniques
from the field of Artificial Intelligence. One builds a logic program by
describing the application area of the program and its goal, rather than
specifying the actions necessary to achieve the goal. In this talk we will
examine the use of logic to represent and reason about digital devices for
simulation, test generation, and diagnosis. Describing designs in logic
permits capturing high level design descriptions, reasoning with a single
description for a collection of tasks, and reasoning with incomplete
descriptions. In addition, logic provides a flexible interpreter for reasoning
about a design, e.g., it permits reasoning forwards and backwards through a
design, and generating single or multiple answers to a goal.

Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Apr 86 09:49:49-PST
-FROM-
From: Sharon Gerlach <CSL.GERLACH@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A VLSI Architecture for Chess (SU)
-BODY-

This Friday, April 25, at 1:30 in CIS 101:


             All the Right Moves: A VLSI Architecture for Chess

                              Carl Ebeling
                        Carnegie Mellon University

Hitech,  the  Carnegie-Mellon  chess program that recently won the ACM
computer chess championship and owns a USCF rating of 2340, owes its
success  in  large part  to  an  architecture  that  is used for both
move generation and position evaluation.  Previous programs have been
subject to a  tradeoff  between  speed and   knowledge:     applying
more  chess  knowledge  to  position  evaluation necessarily slows the
search.  Although the previous computer chess  champions, Belle  and
Cray  Blitz, have demonstrated the importance of deep search, it is
clear that better knowledge is required for first-rate chess.   With
this  new architecture, Hitech is able to search both deeply and
knowledgeably.

We  will  first  describe  the  design and implementation of the move
generator which uses fine-grained parallelism to reduce the time  to
produce  and  order moves.   By generating all moves for both sides,
this move generator is able to order moves based both on capture
information and an estimate of the safety  of the  destination square.
This effort is rewarded by smaller search trees since the efficiency
of the alpha-beta search depends on the order in which moves are
examined.  Experiments show that Hitech search trees are within a factor
of 1.5 of optimal.  Although the amount of  hardware required  is
substantial,  this architecture is eminently suited to VLSI.

We  then  describe the requirements of position evaluation and discuss
how this architecture can be adapted to perform  evaluation.    This
will  include  the description of a VLSI implementation that we
propose for position evaluation.  Finally we will describe the other
components of the chess machine and  present some  performance  results
that  indicate  how well the hardware supports the search.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Apr 86 10:09:41-PST
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Minimal Entailment (SU)
-BODY-

DAY:       April 28, 1986
EVENT:     AI Seminar
PLACE:     Jordan 050
TIME:      4:15
TITLE:     "Minimal Entailment and Non-Monotonic Reasoning"
PERSON:    David W. Etherington
FROM:      University of British Columbia

Circumstances commonly require that conclusions be
drawn (conjectured) even though they are not strictly warranted
by the available evidence.
Various forms of minimal entailment have been suggested
as ways of generating appropriate conjectures.
Minimal entailment is a consequence relation in which those
facts which hold in minimal models of a theory are considered
to follow from that theory.
Thus minimal entailment is less restrictive than the standard logical
entailment relation, which strongly constrains what evidence
may be taken as supporting a conclusion.

Different definitions of minimality of models yield different
entailment relations.
The talk will outline a variety of such relations.
Domain, Predicate, and Formula Circumscription [McCarthy 1978,
1980, 1984] are syntactic formalisms intended to capture these
relations.
We examine each from a semantic viewpoint, in the hope of
clarifying their respective capabilities and weaknesses.
Results on the consistency, correctness, and adequacy of
these formalisms will be presented.

While minimal entailment corresponds most directly to the
Closed-World Assumption
that positive information
not implicit in what is known can be assumed false
McCarthy and others have suggested applications of
circumscription to more general default reasoning tasks.
With this in mind, connections between minimal entailment and
Reiter's Default Logic will be sketched, if time permits.
In this connection, we will consider positive and negative
results due to Grosof and Imielinski, respectively.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 86  1306 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Chronological Ignorance (SU)
-BODY-

                        CHRONOLOGICAL IGNORANCE:
                time, knowledge, nonmonotonicity and causation

                              Yoav Shoham
                            Yale University

                         Thursday, May 1, 4pm
                   Room 380X, Mathematics Building

We are concerned with the problem of reasoning about change within a
formal system.  We identify two problems that arise from practical
considerations of efficiency and naturalness of expression: the
persistence problem (otherwise known as the frame problem, and a new,
but no less evil, initiation problem. In this talk we concentrate on
the latter one.

We propose a new logic that allows efficient and natural reasoning
about change and which avoids the initiation problem. The logic,
called the logic of chronological ignorance, is a fusion of recent
ideas on temporal logic, modal logic of knowledge, and nonmonotonic
logic.

We identify a special class of theories, called causal theories, and
show these have elegant model-theoretic properties which make
reasoning about causal theories very easy.

Finally, we contrast our logic with previous work on nonmonotonic
logics in computer science, and discuss its connection to the
philosophical literature on causation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Apr 86 09:59:26-CST
-FROM-
From: Ellie Huck <AI.ELLIE@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Refutational Completeness in Theorem Proving (UTexas)
-BODY-

                    A New Method For Establishing
             Refutational Completeness in Theorem Proving
                             Jieh Hsiang
                         SUNY at Stony Brook
April 25 -  10:00am
Echelon I, Room 409

In this talk we present a new technique for establishing completeness
of refutational theorem proving strategies.  Our method employs
semantic trees and, in contrast to most of the semantic tree methods,
is based on proof-by-refutation as opposed to proof-by-induction.
Thus, it works well on transfinite semantic trees (to be introduced)
as well as on finite ones.  This method is particularly useful for
proving the completeness of the following strategies (without the need
of the functionally reflexive axioms):

          Resolution + oriented paramodulation

          P1-resolution + oriented paramodulation

          Resolution with ordered predicates + oriented paramodulation
          using clauses only containing the equality predicate

          A version of an unfailing Knuth-Bendix algorithm

          The EN-Strategy, a complete refutational method for first
          order theory with equality based on the term rewriting method

          The Manna-Waldinger Tableau method with inference rules for
          special relations, where oriented paramodulation is an
          improvement of paramodulation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 86 11:44 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Interpreting Logic Programs on an FFP Machine (UPenn)
-BODY-
                   University of Pennsylvania Colloquium
                 11:00am April 23, 1986 - 216 Moore School

                "INTERPRETING LOGIC PROGRAMS ON AN FFP MACHINE"

                                Bruce T. Smith
                  University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

This talk describes a strategy for interpreting logic programs (e.g. Prolog) on
Gyula Mago's FFP Machine.  The FFP Machine is a small-grain  parallel  computer
designed  to  interpret Backus' FFP language.  The question is how to fit logic
programs into the FFP Machine's string reduction  style  of  operation  without
losing  potential  parallelism.    In  each  machine  cycle,  the  FFP  Machine
partitions itself into a set of virtual MIMD computers-- one for each innermost
FFP  application.  These virtual computers work independently to re-write their
FFP expressions.

In constrast with the standard approach to parallelism  in  logic  programming,
i.e.  communicating  processes  cooperating  to  search  an  AND/OR  tree, this
approach represents the search as an FFP  sequence  and  searches  by  creating
appropriate  reductions that re-write sub-trees.  OR-parallelism is provided by
expanding different branches of the  tree.    AND-parallelism  is  provided  by
creating  virtual  computers  that  perform  unification  (by  a version of the
Martelli and Montanari algorithm) over sets of conjoined goals.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 16:24 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Non-Von Project (UPenn)
-BODY-

                  Colloquium - University of Pennsylvania
                         3:00pm 4-24-86, 216 Moore

     THE NON-VON PROJECT: EXPERIMENTS WITH MASSIVELY PARALLEL MACHINES

                              David Elliott Shaw
                              Columbia University

NON-VON  is a massively parallel non-von Neumann machine that has been shown to
support the extremely rapid  execution  of  a  wide  range  of  computationally
intensive   symbolic  information  processing  tasks,  including  a  number  of
artificial intelligence applications.  An early  prototype  called  NON-VON  1,
which implements some, but not all of the features of the full architecture, is
presently operational at Columbia University.

Central to the NON-VON architecture is an active memory  which  is  implemented
using custom VLSI chips, each containing eight 8-bit small processing elements.
A full-scale machine would contain hundreds of thousdands of  small  processing
elements,  together  with several hundred large processing elements, each based
on a conventional 32-bit microprocessor.   NON-VON's  processing  elements  are
physically interconnected in three ways, and can be dynamically reconfigured to
support a fourth logical communication topology.  The  machine  is  capable  of
synchronous  (SIMD),  asynchronous   (MIMD)  and  partitioned  (multiple  SIMD)
execution.

In this presentation, Professor Shaw will  describe  the  organization  of  the
NON-VON  programming  techniques.   Performance results in the areas of low-and
intermediate-level computer vision, database and knowledge base management, and
AI production systems will be presented.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Apr 86 14:42:11-PST
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Mathematical Theory of Plan Synthesis (SRI)
-BODY-
           TOWARD A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF PLAN SYNTHESIS

                Edwin P.D. Pednault (PEDNAULT@SRI-AI)
           Stanford University and SRI International, AI Center

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, April 28
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Classical planning problems have the following form: given a set of
goals, a set of allowable actions, and a description of the current
state of the world, find a sequence of actions that will transform the
world from its current state to a state in which all of the goals are
satisfied.  This talk is a presentation of my thesis research, which
examines the question of how to solve such problems automatically.
The question will be addressed from a rigorous, mathematical
standpoint, in contrast to the informal and highly experimental
treatments found in most previous work.  By introducing mathematical
rigor, it has been possible to unify many existing ideas in automatic
planning, showing how they arise from first principles and how they
may be applied to solve a much broader class of problems than had
previously been considered.  In addition, a number of theorems have
been proved that further our understanding of the synthesis problem,
and a language has been developed for describing actions that combines
the notational convenience of STRIPS with the expressive power of the
situation calculus.

This talk will concentrate on my techniques for plan synthesis with
only a brief summary of the other contributions of my research.
A mathematical framework will be introduced, along with a number of
theorems that form the basis for the synthesis techniques.
These theorems will then be combined with a least-commitment search strategy
to obtain a solution method that unifies and generalizes means-ends
analysis, opportunistic planning, goal protection, goal regression,
constraint posting/propagation, hierarchical planning, and nonlinear
planning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 1986 23:53:49 EST
-FROM-
From: ALSPACH@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - American Control Conference
-BODY-
Write to me at this address for registration and housing reservation forms
for the 1986 ACC (American Control Conference) described in a previous
message.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 1986 1029-PST
-FROM-
From: STELZNER@ALADIN
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AAAI Workshop on AI and Simulation
-BODY-

              AAAI Workshop on AI and Simulation

Simulation shares with AI a concern for effective world modeling.
Currently, some computer scientists are trying to build systems that
integrate the strengths of simulation and AI---AI's ability to represent
complex system models and to reason over those models, and simulation's
ability to model dynamic behavior.  This initial work is already
being realized in commercial products.  We intend that this workshop
bring together researchers in knowledge-based simulation, tool builders
who are developing simulation systems that combine AI and classical
techniques, and system designers who have built AI-based simulation
applications.

Topics to be discussed
        Expert reasoning in simulation
        Scenario construction for expert systems
        Integration of AI techniques with conventional simulations
        Graphical representation for simulation
        Application of new hardware architectures for simulation
        AI-based simulation tools
        Knowledge representation formalisms for simulation
        Simulation at multiple levels of abstraction
        Automatic analysis of simulation results


Organizers

        The workshop organizers are Arthur Gerstenfeld (Worcester
Polytechnic Institute), Richard B. Modjeski (U.S. Army Concepts Analysis
Agency), Ramana Reddy (West Virginia University and the Robotics
Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University) and Marilyn Stelzner, Chair
(IntelliCorp)

Participation

        The workshop will take place on Monday, August 11 at the University of
Pennsylvania.  Participation in the workshop is by invitation, limited to 35
participants.  People wishing to be invited should submit {\bf five} copies of
a 1000-word abstract describing their work in AI and simulation to the
workshop Chair, Marilyn Stelzner, IntelliCorp, 1975 El Camino Real West,
Mountain View, California 94040 by May 30, 1986.  Invitations will be issued
by July 1.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
100
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Apr 86 09:09:03-EST
-FROM-
From: Michael van Biema <MICHAEL@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Languages:
-BODY-

The Dado project at Columbia is in the process of preparing a paper in
which we hope to give a taxonomy of parallel programming languages.
We ask that you be so kind as to send us any papers on languages that
you may have implemented or that you are designing. This would be not
only very helpful to us, but useful to the community as well.

If your language is being designed to run on a particular architecture
please include a description of the particular architectural features
of the machine.  Also, if you could briefly describe to us:


1) The state of development of your language.

2) The intended application area.

3) The intended or current user community.

4) Your thoughts on the current state of parallel language design.
   What particular problems does your language address.


If you do not have time for the survey questions please do send a copy
of the papers or even just references to them!  Thank you for your
time and we look forward to sending you a copy of this survey,


                                Michael van Biema

                                Columbia University
                                Dept. of Computer Science
                                New York, N.Y. 10027

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 1986 12:41-EST
-FROM-
From: Eswaran.Subrahmanian@H.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tutoring Systems
-BODY-

I am currently creating a bibliography of computer aided tutoring
systems.  I would like references to literature on both AI based
and non-AI based systems.  I will be willing to send anybody who may
want a copy of the compiled bibliography.

Thanks in advance

Eswaran Subrahmanian

ARPA: eswaran@h.cs.cmu.edu.arpa
Postal:  Eswaran Subrahmanian
         DH 226 Design Research Center
         Carnegie Mellon University
         Pittsburgh Pa 15213.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Apr 86 20:14:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix
     !ins_amrh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP coding standards
-BODY-
Is anyone aware of any official LISP coding standards comparable to
the standards for Pascal, Ada, etc?  Folks at my new employer have
been looking...
                                                -Marty Hall.

Arpa: (preferred)  hall@hopkins
CSnet: ("")        hall.hopkins@csnet-relay
uucp:              seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_amrh
                   allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_amrh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Apr 86
-FROM-
From: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Object Oriented Support For Common Lisp
-BODY-

I am working on a project trying to couple a good programming
environment exploiting object oriented paradigms to a grid of
INMOS Transputers.  Rather than build up everything from the
OCCAM development system, I would like to use the VAX LISP (a
variant of Common Lisp) environment augmented with a public
domain (preferably) object oriented package as a model for the
system I intend to build for the Transputers.

1) I would like pointers to environments which are compatible
(sit on top of) VAX LISP which directly support object oriented
programming;

2) notes from those who may be working on (or interested in)
such projects; and

3) responses sent directly to me since I do not have regular
access to AILIST.  I will summarize.

Richard Jennings
PO Box 808 L-228  (L-228 is CRITICAL)
LLNL
Livermore, CA 94550

ARPA: preferred -> jennings%icdc@lll-crg
   slow, reliable -> jennings@lll-crg

(INMOS is a company which has probably trademarked OCCAM and
TRANSPUTER)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 86 16:03:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: LISP coding standards
-BODY-

Look at Guy Steele's book Common Lisp.  All Lisps seem to be going
in this direction, implementing as large a subset of Common Lisp as
is possible.  It's my understanding that Symbolics will be releasing
a new version of its system that will default to Common Lisp this
summer (instead of having to specify it in the mode line).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 86 03:17:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!cit-vax!alfke@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
       (J. Peter Alfke)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-
Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords:

In article <994@umn-cs.UUCP> amit@umn-cs.UUCP (Neta Amit) writes:
>In article <1031@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes:
>>Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
>>as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
>>else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.
>
>String reduction as a model of computation was suggested by
>A.A.Markov, in his 1954(?) paper, and is proved to be equivalent in
>power to the other two general models of compution (Turing machine and
>the Lambda Calculus).

This sounds similar to Calvin Mooers' TRAC language of mid-sixties.  That
language was based entirely on macro expansion; rather strange, but actually
a lot more powerful than the toy it first appeared to be.

There was also a language called SAM76 that showed up in 1976, that seemed
close enough to TRAC to warrant a lawsuit.  It seemed identical in concept,
with only minor differences in syntax and function-names.

TRAC is pretty easy to implement; I have an incomplete version written in
C that I did some years back.  I also have a paper on TRAC which is probably
long out of print by now.

                                                --Peter Alfke
                                                  alfke@csvax.caltech.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 86 15:14:13 est
-FROM-
From: franc%UPenn-Grasp%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: shape
-BODY-
>Jerry Hobbs has asked me "What is a hook and what is a ring that we know
>the ring can hang on the hook?"  More specifically, what do we have to
>know about hooks and rings in general (for default reasoning) and
>about a particular hook-like object and ring-like object (dimensions,
>radius of curvature, surface normals, clearances, tolerances, etc.)
>in order to say whether a particular ring may be placed on a particular
>hook and whether it is likely to stay in place once put there.

We believe that the ability to model categories or generic objects
would make questions like this easier.

We have approached the problem of category shape representation in the
context of model based object recognition i.e. "how can a computer vision
system recognize different coffee cups based on single category model of a
coffee cup?" Given that the most important common property of objects in a
category is their function, the shape of categorically related objects must
satisfy the same functional constraints. By analysing these constraints we
try to come up with a prototypical shape, and a set of allowable
deformations that account for variations within the category.

I have started thesis work on this topic recently with Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy.


Franc Solina
GRASP Laboratory
University of Pennsylvania
csnet: Franc@Upenn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Apr 86 08:51:55 PST (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: McNelly.OsbuSouth@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Compuscan
-BODY-

When you say you "used originals and text that had been Xeroxed several
times," do you mean that you copied it on a Xerox copier?  Or do you
mean that some sales rep in New York Xeroxed the text into an 820 PC,
then Xeroxed it across the country to the corporate office in Los
Angeles, where the manager Xeroxed all the sales reports together on a
Xerox 6085 (Daybreak) workstation, and then finally Xeroxed that
document to a Xerox 8040 (Raven) laser printer before Xeroxing the
document to an Xerox 8030 File Service for storage?

As someone who wears an "Office Manager's hat," you should know better
than to use Xerox as a verb...

      John McNelly
      Member Programming Staff
      Information Systems Div, Xerox Corp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 86 09:21 PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Garvey <GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-trivial expert systems
-BODY-

I wish you amateur AI guys out there wouldn't try to exalt your own
understanding of the field by making snide, offhand remarks about its
founders: "(*sigh* - Can you tell my first AI course was taught out of
Nilsson's PROBLEM-SOLVING METHODS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?  Nilsson
thought all AI reduced to search.)"  Just because you wrote a faulty
program that had no control over its search space is no reason to
conclude (as you apparently do) that search is not an appropriate method
for solving the problem.  I would agree with Nilsson that search is a
pervasive aspect of most AI problems -- it is precisely the determinism
of most expert systems that makes them uninteresting from an AI
perspective.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Apr 86 09:53:30-PST
-FROM-
From: Stephen Barnard <BARNARD@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: performance considered insufficient
-BODY-

Are viruses conscious?  How about protozoa, mollusks, insects, fish,
reptiles, and birds?  Certainly some mammals are conscious.  How about
cats, dogs, and chimpanzees?  Does anyone maintain that homo sapiens
is the only species with consciousness?

My point is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.  The more
complex the nervous system of an organism, the more likely one is to
ascribe consciousness to it.  Computers, at present, are too simple,
regardless of performance.  I would have no problem believing a
massively parallel system with size and connectivity of biological
proportions to be conscious, provided it did interesting things.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 86 11:43:18 est
-FROM-
From: Nigel Goddard  <goddard@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: goddard@rochester.UUCP (Nigel Goddard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: One more little thing
-BODY-
In article <8604152029.AA07125@bucsd.ARPA> tes@bostonu.CSNET writes:
>
>Nigel Goddard wrote in Volume 4 Issue 87
>
>>      I meet [people] who I consider to be very "unconscious",
>>      i.e. their stated explanations of their motives and actions
>>      seem to me to completely misunderstand what I consider to
>>      be the *real* explanations.
>
>What, by Jove, is a "*real* explanation" ??????????????????????
>I can't digest my food properly until I find out.
>
>                                  Tom Schutz
>                                  CSNET: tes@bu-cs

A *real* explanation is an explication of MY internal model, as opposed to
someone else's internal model.  I trust you will suffer no longer.

Nigel Goddard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 20:35:28 WST
-FROM-
From: munnari!wacsvax.oz!marke@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mark Ellison)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: wacsvax!marke@seismo.CSS.GOV (Mark Ellison)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: More wrangling on consciousness
-BODY-
In article <8604180725.AA11124@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> "CUGINI, JOHN"
<cugini@nbs-vms.arpa> writes:

>At the technical level, I think it's simply wrong to dismiss
>brains as a criterion for consciousness - if mechanism M
>causes C (consciousness) and enables P (performance), then
>clearly it is an open question whether something that can do P,
>but does not have M, does or does not have C.

Mechanism M causes C? You know many people who (may) have brains, and
you have no DIRECT evidence that they are conscious.
You only have direct evidence of one case of C (barring ESP, etc.),
and no DIRECT evidence of that person's brain.
Except for the performances in each case.

>At the "gut" level I think the whole tenor of the reply misses
>the point that consciousness is a very "low-level", primitive
>sort of phenomenon.  Do severely retarded persons have "the
>ability to learn to understand the *real* reasons for their
>actions...an ability to abstract and to make an internal model
>of the self" ? or cows, or cats?  Yet no one, I hope, doubts
>that they are conscious (eg, can feel pain, experience shapes,
>colors, sounds).

We only know of their ability to feel pain, experience shapes, colors,
sounds, etc., by their reactions to those stimuli. In other words,
by their performance. But on the other hand their performance might
not involve abstract statements.

>This has very little to do with any clever
>information processing capabilities.  And it is these "raw
>feelings" that a) are essential to what most people mean by
>consciousness and b) seem least susceptible to implementation by
>Lisp machines, regardless of size.

I would argue that "raw feelings" in others are known only by their
performance. In effect we egomorphise(I don't know the right word,
I mean something like anthropmorphise with regard to oneself) them.
And we (some of us) do the same to machines, if not so seriously.
`The <machine> is really struggling today.'
`The process is tired (niced).'

One criterion that I have not seen yet proposed is the following.
It is more useful to pretend that people are conscious than not.
They tend to cause you less pain, and are more likely to do what you want.
So I'll believe someone's 8600 or Cray is conscious if it works better,
according to whatever criteria I have for that at the moment, when I so
believe.

>--
Mark Ellison                  lambda f . (lambda x . f x x) (lambda x . f x x)

Department of Computer Science,       CSNet:  marke@wacsvax.oz
University of Western Australia,      ARPA:   marke%wacsvax.oz@seismo.edu.gov
Stirling Highway,                     UUCP:   ..!seismo!munnari!wacsvax!marke
Nedlands, Western Australia, 6009.
PHONE:  (09) 380 2305                 OVERSEAS: +61 9 380 2305

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Apr 86 12:55:27-CST
-FROM-
From: Aaron Temin <CS.Temin@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: seminar reviews
-BODY-
Ken -

Given that ailist posts seminar announcements, I would like to
encourage folks who attend the seminar to post summaries/critiques/reviews
of them.  Then we see the differences between what the researcher
hoped to accomplish v. what really seems to exist.  I append a short
review of Sergio Alvarado's talk on his OpEd system, which I
just returned from hearing.

>---

This is a review of the seminar given by Sergio Alvarado on his OpEd
system at the Univ. of Texas on 22 April.  The announcement and
abstract have been posted to ailist previously.

The nub of the talk seemed to be that one is interested in
understanding arguments and the supports (beliefs) for the arguments.
Domain is letters to the editor.  A belief seems to be an atomic
entity that implies another belief or supports an argument.
There are various arguments (strategies?), about 30 all together.
Alvarado calls the arguments ArgumentUnits, and an
editorial parses into an argument-graph.

The system parses English text into argument graphs, and can
"answer" questions from this.  The example text was a short
(10 sentence) paragraph from an '82 letter by Milton Friedman
about import/export and the steel and automobile industries.
It parsed into two argument units and about 8 belief (though
in somecases there is "double counting" -- belief1 might be
"Friedman believes tariffs are good" and belief2 is just
the opposite "Reagan believes tariffs are bad" or whatever, as
the argument is modelled as having two opposing views.)

Alvarado hinted that there was another sample text but we
didn't see it.  He didn't do any of the obvious extensions
e.g. using real-world knowledge of facts external to the
paragraph to make inferences about the argument.

I couldn't see much difference between this and the previous
work done by folks on understanding legal arguments.

>Aaron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
101
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:20:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #1
-BODY-
>From Andy Cheese, CS Department, Nottingham University, UK:

ABDA76a
Abdali S.K.
An Abstraction Algorithm for Combinatory Logic
Journal of Symbolic Logic Vol 41, Number 1, March
1976

ABEL85a *
Abelson H. & Sussman G.J. with Sussman J.
Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
MIT Press
1985

ABEL?
Abelson H. & Sussman G.J.
Computation: An Introduction to Engineering Design
Massachusetts Institute of technology, U.S.A.

ABEL?
Abelson H. & Sussman G.J.
Scheme Demonstration Programs for Structure and Interpretation of
Computer Programs
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A.

ABRA82a
Abramsky S.
SECD-M - A Virtual Machine for Applicative Multiprogramming
Computer Systems Lab, Queen Mary College, Nov 82

ABRA82b
Abramson H.
Unification-Based Conditional Binding Constructs
TR 82-7, Department of Computer Science,
Univ of British Columbia, Canada
August 1982

ABRA83a
Abramsky S.
On Semantic Foundations For Applicative Multiprogramming
Computer Systems Lab, Queen Mary College, 1983

ABRA83b
Abramson H.
A Prological Definition of HASL a Purely Functional Language With Unification
Based Conditional Binding Expressions
TR 83-8, Department of Computer Science,
Univ of British Columbia, Canada
July 26, 1983

ABRI85a
Abrial J.R.
Programming as a Mathematical Exercise
in HOA85a
1985

ACK79a
Ackerman W.B. & Dennis J.B.
VAL - Preliminary Reference Manual
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, June 79

AIDA84a
Aida H. & Moto-oka T.
Performance Measurement of Parallel Logic Programming System "Paralog"
Dept. of Electrical Eng., University of Tokyo

ALEX85a *
Alexandridis N.A. & Bilalis N.A. & Tsanakas P.D.
Using Functional Programming For Hierarchical Structures in Image Processing
in Digital Techniques in Simulation, Communication and Control (IMACS)
(ed Tzafestas S.G. )
pp 175-181
North Holland
1985

ALLI85a *
Allison L.
Programming Denotational Semantics II
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 5, pp 480-486
1985

AMAM82a
Amamiya M. & Takahashi N. & Naruse T. & Yoshida M.
A Data Flow Processor Array System for Solving Partial Differential Equations
Int. Symp. on Applied Mathematics and Information Science, March 1982

ARBI75a
Arbib M.A. & Manes E.G.
Arrows, Structures and Functors : The Categorical Imperative
Academic Press
1975

ARVI78a
Arvind & Gostelow K.P. & Plouffe W.
An Asynchronous Programming Language and Computing Machine
Dept. of Information and Computer Science, Tech Rep 114A
University of California Irvine, December 1978

ARVI83a
Arvind & Dertouzos M.L. & Iannucci R.A.
A Multiprocessor Emulation Facility
MIT Lab for Computer Science Technical Report 302
October 1983

ARVI84a
Arvind & Brock J.D.
Resource Managers in Functional Programming
Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 1, 5-21
1984

ARVI84b
Arvind & Kathail V. & Pingali K.
Sharing of Computation in Functional Language Implementations
Lab for Computer Science Tech Rep ??? (sic), 24 July
1984

ASHC76a *
Ashcroft E.A. & Wadge W.
Lucid - A Formal System For Writing and Proving Programs
SIAM J on Computing Vol 5 no 3, 1976
pp 336-354
1976

ASHC77a
Ashcroft E.A. & Wadge W.W.
LUCID, a Non-Procedural Language with Iteration
CACM Vol 20 No 7  p519-526 July 1977

ASHC82a
Ashcroft E.A. & Wadge W.W.
R for Semantics
ACM TOPLAS Vol 4 No 2 p283-294 April 1982

ASHC83a
Ashcroft E.A.
Proposal for a Demand-Driven Tagged Dataflow Machine
SRI Document Sept 1983

ASH85a
Ashcroft E.A.
Eazyflow Architecture
SRI Technical Report CSL-147, April 1985

ASH85b
Ashcroft E.A.
Ferds--Massive Parallelism in Lucid
Document
1985

ASH85c
Ashcroft E.A. & Wadge W.W.
The Syntax and Semantics of Lucid
SRI Technical Report CSL-147
April 1985

ASO84a
Aso M.
Simulator of XP's
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-041
January 1984

ATKI83a *
Atkinson M.P & Bailey P.J. & Chisholm K.J. & Cockshott P.W. & Morrison R.
"An Approach to Persistent Programming"
The Computer Journal,Vol.26,No.4, pp 360-365
1983

AUGU84a *
Augustsson L.
A Compiler for Lazy ML
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming,
Austin, Texas
pp 218-227
August 1984

AZAR85a *
Azari H. & Veler Y.
Functional Language Directed Data Driven machine
Microprocessing and Microprogramming 16, pp 127-132
September/October 1985

BACK74a *
Backus J.
Programming Language Semantics and Closed Applicative Languages
ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 1974
pp 71-86
1974

BACK78a *
Backus J.
Can Programming be liberated from the von-Neumann Style?
CACM Vol 21 No 8 p613-641 Aug 1978

BACK79a
Backus J.W.
On Extending The Concept Of Program And Solving Linear Functional Equations
Draft Paper Distributed at Summer Workshop on Programming Methodology,
University of California at Santa Cruz, August 1979

BACK81a
Backus J.W.
The Algebra of Functional Programs: Function Level Reasoning, Linear
Equations, and Extended Definitions
In "Formalization of Programming Concepts", LNCS 107
Springer Verlag
April 1981

BAKE78a
Baker, Henry B., Jr.
List Processing in Real Time on a Serial Computer
CACM 21 no 4, pp 280-294, 1978

BAKE78b
Baker H.G.
Actor Systems for Real Time Computation
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT/LCS/TR-197, March 1978

BAKK76a *
Bakker J.W. De
Semantics and Termination of Nondeterministic Recursive Programs
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 435-477
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

BAKK79a *
Bakker J.W. De & Zucker J.I.
Derivatives of Programs
mathematisch centrum iw 116/79
1979

BAKK80a
Bakker J.De
Mathematical Theory of Program Correctness
Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science, 1980

BARA85a *
Barahona P. & Gurd J.R.
Processor Allocation in a Multi-Ring Dataflow Machine
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Manchester, Technical Report UMCS-85-10-3
1985

BARB84a *
Barbuti R. & Bellia M. & Levi G. & Martelli M.
On the Integration of Logic Programming and Functional Programming
IEEE 1984 International Symposium on Logic Programming, pp 160-167
6 February 1984

BARE81a
Barendregt H.P.
The Lambda Calculus, Its Syntax and Semantics
North Holland 1981

BARR85a *
Barringer H.
Up and Down the Temporal Way
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Manchester, Technical Report UMCS-85-9-3
September 4, 1985

BCS86a *
British Computer Society Reading Branch Parallel Processing Seminar,
Proceedings
Tuesday 21st January 1986

BELL80a *
Bellia M & Degano P. & Levi G.
A Functional Plus Predicate Logic Programming Language
Proceedings of the Logic Programming Workshop, 14 July 1980
pp 334-347
1980

BERG79a *
Bergstra J.A. & Tucker J.V.
Algebraic Specifications of Computable and Semi-Computable Data Structures
mathematisch centrum iw 115/79
1979

BERG79b *
Bergstra J.A. & Tiuryn J. & Tucker J.V.
Correctness Theories and Program Equivalence
mathematisch centrum iw 119/79
1979

BERG79c *
Bergstra J.A. & Tucker J.V.
A Characterisation of Computable Data Types By Means of a Finite, Equational
Specification Method
mathematisch centrum iw 124/79
1979

BERG81a *
Bergstra J.A. & Tucker J.V.
Hoare's Logic and Peano's Arithmetic
Mathematisch Centrum iw 160/81
1981

BERK75a *
Berkling K.
Reduction Languages For Reduction Machines
Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on Comp. Arch., pp 133-140
also available as an extended version as GMD Tech Rep  ISF-76-8
14 September 1976
1975

BERK76a *
Berkling K.J.
A Symmetric Complement To The Lambda Calculus
GMD Tech Rep ISF-76-7
14 September 1976

BERK82a *
Berkling K.J.
A Consistent Extension of the Lambda-Calculus as a Base for Functional
Programming Languages
Information and Control, vol 55, nos 1-3 oct/nov/dec 1982, pp 89-101
Academic Press
1982

BERL84a
Berliner H. & Goetsch G.
A Quantative Study of Search Methods and the Effect of
Constraint Satisfaction
CMU-CS-84-147
Dept of Comp Sci, Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
July 1984

BERN80a *
Bernstein A.J.
Output Guards and Nondeterminism in Communicating Sequential Processes
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol 2, No 2,
pp 234 - 238
April 1980

BERR77a *
Berry G. & Levy J-J.
Minimal and Optimal Computations of Recursive Programs
4th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
pp 215-226
1977

BERT84a
ed. Bertolazzi P
VLSI: Algorithms and Architectures
North Holland 1984

BETZ85a *
Betz D.
XLISP: An Experimental Object Oriented Language Version 1.4
January 1, 1985

BIC85a *
Bic L.
Processing of Semantic Nets on Dataflow Architectures
Artificial Intelligence 27
pp 219 - 227
1985

BIRD76a
Bird R.S.
Programs & Machines- An Introduction to the Theory of Computation
Wiley 1976

BIRD83a
Bird R.S.
Some Notational Suggestions for Transformational Programming
Tech Rep no 153, Univ. of Reading, 1983

BIRD84a
Bird R.S.
Using Circular Programs to Eliminate Multiple Traversals of Data
Acta Informatica Vol21 Fasc 3 1984 p239-250

BISH77a
Bishop P.B.
Computer Systems with a Very Large Address Space and Garbage Collection
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT/LCS/TR-178, May 1977

BOBR80a
Bobrow D.G.
Managing Reentrant Structures Using Reference Counts
ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 2, no 3, pp 269-273
1980

BOHM81a *
Bohm A.P.W. & Leeuwen J. Van
A Basis for Dataflow Computing
Dept of Computer Science, Univ of Utrecht, Tech Rep RUU-CS-81-6
1981

BOHM85a *
Bohm A.P.W. & Gurd J.R. & Sargeant J.
Hardware and Software Enhancement of the Manchester Dataflow Machine
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester

BORN81a *
Borning A. & Bundy A.
Using Matching in Algebraic Equation Solving
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Washington, Technical Report No. 81-05-01
May 1981

BOSS84a *
Bossi A. & Ghezzi C.
Using FP As A Query Language For Relational Data-Bases
Computer Languages, Vol 9, No 1, pp 25-37
1984

BOWE79a *
Bowen K.A.
Prolog
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the ACM 1979
pp 14-23
1979

BOW81a
Bowen D.L.
Implementation of Data Structures on a Data Flow Computer
PhD Thesis, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, April 1981

BOWE85a
Bowen K.A.
Meta-Level Programming and Knowledge Representation
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 359-383
1985

BOYE75a
Boyer R.S. & Moore J.S.
Proving Theorems about LISP Functions
JACM Vol 22,No. 1, p129-144

BRAI83
Brain S.
The Transputer-"exploiting the opportunity of VLSI"
Electronic Product Design, December 1983

BRAI84a
Brain S.
Applying the Transputer
Electronic Product Design, January 1984

BRAI84b
Brain S.
Writing Parallel Programs in OCCAM
Electronic Product Design, Sept 1984

BRAM84a *
Bramer M. & Bramer D.
The Fifth Generation, An Annotated Bibliography
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1984

BROO84a
Brookes S.D.
Reasoning About Synchronous Systems
CMU-CS-84-145
Dept of Comp Sci, Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
March 1984

BROW84a
Brownbridge D.
Recursive Structures in Computer Systems
PhD Thesis, Univ. of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1984

BROY82a
eds Broy M. & Schmidt G.
Proceedings of Nato Summer School on Theoretical Foundations of
Programming Methodology, Munich,
Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982

BROY82b
Broy M.
A Fixed Point Approach to Applicative Multiprogramming
in BROY82a, pp 565-624
1982

BROY83a
Broy M.
Applicative Real-Time Programming
Proc. 9th IFIP, Information Processing 1983, pp 259-264
North Holland 1983

BROY85a *
Broy M.
On The Herbrand-Kleene Universe For Nondeterministic Computations
Theoretical Computer Science, 36, pp 1 - 19
March 1985

BRUI81a *
Bruin A. De
On the Existence of Cook Semantics
Mathematisch Centrum iw 163/81
1981

BRUI85a *
Bruin A. De & Bohm W.
The Denotational Semantics of Dynamic Networks of Processes
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol 7, No 4,
pp 656-679
October 1985

BRUY83a *
Bruynooghe M. & Pereira L.M.
Deduction revision by Intelligent Backtracking
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, report no UNL-10/83
July 1983

BRYA85a *
Bryant R.E.
Symbolic Verification of MOS Circuits
1985 Chapel Hill Conference on VLSI
pp 419-438
1985

BUND85a *
Bunder M.W.
An Exension of Klop's Counterexample to the Church-Rosser Property to
Lambda-Calculus With Other Ordered Pair Combinators
Theoretical Computer Science 39, pp 337-342
North Holland
August 1983

BUNE82a
Buneman P. Frankel R.E. & Nikhil R.
An Implementation Technique for Database Query Languages
ACM TODS Vol 7 No. 2 p164-186 June 1982

BURG75a
Recursive Programming Techniques
Addison Wesley Publising Co., 1975

BURN85a *
Burn G.L. & Hankin C.L. & Abramsky S.
The Theory and Practise of Strictness Analysis for Higher Order Functions
Research Report DoC 85/6
Dept of Computing, Imperial College
April 1985

BURS69a
Burstall R.M.
Proving Properties of Programs by Structural Induction
Computer Journal 12, p41
1969

BURS77a
Burstall R.M. & Darlington J.
A Transformation System for Developing Recursive Programs
JACM Vol 24,No. 1,p44-67

BURS77b
Burstall R.M.
Design Considerations for a Functional Programming Language
pp 54-57
Proc. Infotech State of the Art Conference, Copenhagen, 1977

BURS80a *
Burstall R.M. & MacQueen D.B.  & Sannella D.T.
HOPE: An Experimental Applicative Language
Proc of LISP Conference Aug 1980
(Also Edinburgh report CSR-62-80, 1981)

BURS82a
Burstall R.M. & Goguen J.A.
Algebras, Theories and Freeness: An Introduction For Computer Scientists
in BROY82a, pp 329-348
1982

BURS84a *
Burstall R.M.
Programming with Modules as Typed Functional Programming
Proc. Int. Conf. on Fifth Gen. Computing Systems, Tokyo, Nov 84

BURT84a
Burton F.W.
Annotations to Control Parallelism and Reduction Order in the Distributed
Evaluation of Functional Programs
ACM TOPLAS Vol 6 No. 2 April 1984 p159-174
1984

BURT85a *
Burton F.W. & Huntbach M.M. & Kollias J.G.
Multiple Generation Text Files Using Overlapping Tree Structures
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 4, pp 414-416
1985

BUSH79a
Bush V.J.
A Data Flow Implementation of Lucid
Msc Dissertation, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, October 1979

BYTE85a *
Byte Magazine, August 1985.
Special Issue on Declarative Languages
1985

CAMP84a *
ed. Campbell J.A.
Implementations of Prolog
Ellis Horwood Series Artificial Intelligence
Ellis Horwood 1984

CARD?? *
Cardelli L.
A Semantics of Multiple Inheritance

CARD84a *
Cardelli L.
Compiling a Functional Language
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming,
Austin, Texas
pp 208-217
August 1984

CARD85a *
Cardelli L.
Amber
Proceedings of the Treizieme Ecole de Printemps d'Informatique Theorique,
Le Val D'Ajol, Vosges, France
May 1985

CARD??
Cardelli L.
The Amber Machine

CART79a *
Cartwright R. & McCarthy J.
First Order Programming Logic
Proceedings ACM 6th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
pp 68-80
1979

CART83a *
Cartwright R. & Donahue J.
The Semantics of Lazy (and Industrious) Evaluation
CSL-83-9 , Xerox PARC 1983

CAT81a
Catto A.J.
Nondeterministic Programming in a Dataflow Environment
PhD thesis, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, June 1981

CHAM84a *
eds. Chambers F.B. & Duce D.A. & Jones G.P.
Distributed Computing
Apic Studies in Data Processing no 20
Academic Press, 1984

CHAN84a
Chang J.H. & DeGroot D.
AND-Parallelism of Logic Programs Based on Static Data Dependency Analysis
Dept. of Electrical Eng. & Computer Sci, Univ. of California,Berkely,Sept 1984

CHEE85a *
Cheese A.B.
The Applicability of SKI(BC) Combinators in a Parallel Rewrite Rule Environment
Msc Thesis
Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
October 1985

CHES80a *
Chester D.
HCPRVR: An Interpreter for Logic Programs
Proc 1st Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
pp 93-95
1980

CHEW80a *
Chew P.
An Improved Algorithm for Computing with Equations
IEEE 21st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
pp 108-117
1980

CHEW81a *
Chew P.
Unique Normal Forms in Term Rewriting Systems with Repeated Variables
13th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC)
pp 7-18
1981

CHIK83a
Chikayama T.
ESP as Preliminary Kernel Language of Fifth Generation Computers
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 1, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-005
1983

CHUR41a
Church A.
The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion
Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1941

CLAC85a *
Clack C. & Peyton-Jones S.
Strictness Analysis - A Practical Approach
in Proc. IFIP Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and
Computer Architecture, Sept 16-19 '85, Nancy, France
1985

CLAR77a
Clark K.L. & Sickel
Predicate Logic: A Calculus For Deriving Programs
Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell., Cambridge, Mass 1977

CLAR77b
Clark K.L. & Tarnlund S. -A.
A First Order Theory of Data and Programs
Proc. IFIP 1977, pp 939-944
Amsterdam: North Holland

CLAR78a
Clark K.L.
Negation As Failiure
In "Logic and Databases", pp 293-322
New York: Plenum Press, 1978

CLAR79a
Clark K.L. & McCabe F.
The Control Facilities of IC-Prolog
Internal Report, Dept of Computing, Imperial College
1979

CLAR79b
Clark D.W.
Measurements of Dynamic List Structure Use in LISP
IEEE TOSE Vol SE-5 No 1, Jan 1979

CLAR80a
Clark K.L. & Darlington J.
Algorithm Classification Through Synthesis
Computer Journal, 61-65, 1980

CLAR80b *
Clarke J.W. & Gladstone P.J.S. & Maclean C.D. & Norman A.C.
SKIM - S,K,I Reduction Machine
Proceedings LISP Conference, Stanford, 1980

CLAR80c *
Clark J.H.
Structuring A VLSI System Architecture
Lambda, second quarter, 1980 , pp25-30
1980

CLAR80d *
Clark K.L. & McCabe F.G.
IC-PROLOG: Aspects of its Implementation
Proceedings of Logic Programming Workshop, Debrecen
1980

CLAR81a
Clark D.W. & Lampson B.W. & McDaniel G.A. & Ornstein S.M.
The Memory System of a High-Performance Personal Computer
CSL-81-1 , Xerox PARC, Jan 1981

CLAR82a *
Clark K.L. & Tarnlund S. -A.
Logic Programming
London: Academic Press, 1982

CLAR82b *
Clark T.S.
S-K Reduction Engine For An Applicative Language
Dept of Comp Sci, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Report no UIUCDCS-R-82-1119, UILU-ENG 82 1741
December 1982

CLAR83a *
Clark K. & Gregory S.
PARLOG: A Parallel Logic Programming Language (Draft)
Research Report DOC 83/5, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College

CLAR84a *
Clark K. & Gregory S.
PARLOG: Parallel Programming in Logic
Research Report DOC 84/4, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College

CLAR84b
Clark K.L. & McCabe F.G.
Micro-Prolog: Programming in Logic
Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science
January 1984

CLAR85a
Clarke E.M. Jr.
The Characterization Problem For Hoare Logics
in HOA85a
1985

CLAY84a
Clayton B.D.
ART Programming Primer
Inference Corporation, 1984

CLOC81a *
Clocksin W.F. & Mellish C.S.
Programming in PROLOG
Springer Verlag 1981 (2nd Edition 1984)

CLOC83a *
Clocksin W.F.
Hortus Logico-Calculus
Notes for Tutorial Session on Declarative Languages and Architectures 1983

CLOC83b *
Clocksin W.F.
The ZIP Virtual Machine
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

CLOC84a
Clocksin W.F.
Memory Representation Issues for Prolog Implementation
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

CLOC84b *
Clocksin W.F.
Notes on FlexiFlow
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge Jan. 1984

CLOC84c *
Clocksin W.F.
On a Declarative Constraint Language
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge Jan. 1984

CLOC84d *
Clocksin W.F.
What is Prolog-X?
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

CLOC85a *
Clocksin W.F.
Implementation Techniques for Prolog Databases.
Software - Practise and Experience Vol 15(7), pp 669-675
July 1985

CLOC85b *
Clocksin W.F.
Logic Programming and the Specification of Circuits
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 72
1985

COEL83a *
Coelho H.
Prolog: A Programming Tool For Logical Domain Modelling
in Processes and Tools for Decision Suport
(ed Sol H.G.), pp 37-45
North Holland
1983

COHE81a
Cohen J.
Garbage Collection of Linked Data Structures
ACM Computing Surveys Vol 13 No.3 Sept 1981, pp 341-367

COLL60a
Collins G.E.
A Method For Overlapping and Erasure of Lists
CACM 3, no 12, pp 655-657
1960

COLM73a
Colmerauer A. & Kanoui H. & Pasero R. & Roussel P.
Un Systeme de Communication Homme-machine en Francais
Group Intelligence Artificielle
Universite d,Aix Marseille, Luminy, 1973

CONE83a
Conery J.S.
The AND/OR Process Model for Parallel Execution of Logic Programs
Phd Dissertation, Univ of California, Irvine,
Tech rep 204, Information and computer science
1983

COOM84a *
ed. Coombs M.J.
Developments in Expert Systems
Academic Press 1984

CORN79a *
Cornish M. et al
The TI Data Flow Architectures: The Power of Concurrency For Avionics
Proc. 3rd Digital Avionics Systems Conf., pp 19-25
November 1979

CORY84a
Cory H.T. & Hammond P. & Kowalski R.A. & Kriwaczek F. & Sadri F.
& Sergot M.
The British Nationality Act As A Logic Program
Dept of Computing, Imperial College, London
1984

COST84a *
Costa G.
A Metric Characterization of Fair Computations in CCS
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Internal Report CSR-169-84
October 1984

COST85a *
Costa G. & Stirling C.
Weak and Strong Fairness in CCS
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Internal Report CSR-167-85
January 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
102
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:20:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #2
-BODY-

COX83a
Cox Brad J.
Object Oriented Programming in C
Unix review, October/Novemeber 1983 Page 67

COX84a
Cox Brad J.
Object Oriented Programming in C
Unix Review, February/March 1984 Page 56

COUR82a
Courcelle B.
Fundamental Properties of Infinite Trees
in BROY82a, pp 417-470
1982

COUR84a
ed. Courcelle B.
Ninth Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming
CUP 1984

COUS85a
Cousineau G. & Curien P. -L. & Mauny M.
The Categorical Abstract Machine
CNRS-Universite Paris VII LITP
85-8
January 1985

CRAM *
Crammond J.A. & Miller C.D.F.
An Architecture For Parallel Logic Languages
2nd International Logic Programming Conference
pp 183-194

CRAM85a *
Crammond J.A.
A Comparative Study of Unification Algorithms for OR_Parallel Execution of
Logic Languages
IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol c-34, no 10, pp 911-917
October 1985

CURI85a
Curien P. -L.
Typed Categorical Combinatory Logic
CNRS-Universite Paris VII LITP
85-15
February 1985

CURI85b
Currien P. -L.
Categorical Combinators, Sequentials Algorithms and Functional Programming
CNRS-Universite Paris VII LITP
85-26
March 1985

CURR58a
Curry H.B. & Feys R.
Combinatory Logic, Vol 1
North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1958

CURR72a
Curry H.B & Hindley J.R. & Seldin J.P.
Combinatory Logic, Vol II
North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1972

DA83a
Da Silva J.G.D. & Watson I.
A Pseudo Associative Store with Hardware hashing
Proc. IEE, Part E, 1983

DAM82a
Damas L. & Milner R.
Principal Type Schemes For Functional Programs
Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages,
pp 207-212, 1982

DARL75a
Darlington J.
Application of Program Transformation to Program Synthesis
Proc of International Symposium on Proving and Improving Programs,
Arc et Senans, France
1975

DARL76a
Darlington J. & Burstall R.M.
A System that Automatically Improves Programs
Acta Informatica, Vol 6,p41-60

DARL77a
Darlington J.
Program Transformation and Synthesis Present Capabilities
Report 77/43
Dept of Computing, Imperial College
(Also in Artificial Intelligence Journal Vol 16, 1981)
1977

DARL79a
Darlington J.
A Synthesis of Several Sorting Algorithms
Acta Informatica, Vol 11, no 1
1979

DARL80a
Darlington J.
An Abstract Scheme For a Multiprocessor Implementation of Applicative
Languages
Proc. of Joint SRC/Newcastle Univ. Workshop on VLSI,
Machine Architecture and Very High Level Languages
1980

DARL80b
Darlington J.
Synthesis of Implementations For Abstract Data Types
Report 80/4
Dept of Computing, Imperial College
1980

DARL80c
Darlington J.
The Design of Efficient Data Representations
Dept of Computing, Imperial College
1980

DARL81a
Darlington J.
The Structured Description of Algorithm Derivations
To Appear in Amsterdam Conf. on Algorithms
October 1981

DARL81b *
Darlington J. & Reeve M.
ALICE- A Multi-Processor Reduction Machine for the Parallel Evaluation
of Applicative Languages
Proc of 1981 ACM Conf on Functional Programming Languages & Computer
Architecture

DARL82a
Darlington J. & Henderson P. & Turner D.A.
Functional Programming and its Applications- An Advanced Course
Cambridge University Press 1982

DARL82b
Darlington J.
Program Transformation
in DARL82a
1982

DARL83a *
Darlington J.
The New Programming:Functional & Logic Languages
Distributed Computing- A Review for Industry, SERC, Manchester 1983

DARL83b *
Darlington J. & Reeve M.
ALICE- and the Parallel Evaluation of Logic Programs
Invited Paper, 10th Annual Int. Symposium on Computer Architecture,1983

DARL83c *
Darlington J.
Unification of Logic and Functional Languages
Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, Date Unknown

DARL85a *
Darlington J. & Field A.J. & Pull H.
The Unification of Functional and Logic Languages
Department of Computing, Imperial College
Doc 85/3
February 1985

DAVI78a
Davis A.L.
The Architecture and System Method of DDM1: A Recursively Structured
Data Driven Machine
Proc. 5th Int. Symp on Comp. Arch., pp 210-215
April 1978

DEGR84a
DeGroot D.
Restricted And-Parallelism
Proc. Int. Conf. 5th Generation Computer Systems, 1984,
pp 471-478
1984

DEGR85a *
DeGroot D.
Alternate Graph Expressions for Restricted And-Parallelism
IEEE Spring Compcon 1985, pp 206-210
1985

DEGR85b *
DeGroot D. & Chang J-H
Une Comparison de Deux Modeles d'Execution de Parallelisme "et" a
Comparison of Two And-Parallel Execution Models
Hardware and Software Components and Architectures for the 5th
Generation, March 5-7 1985, pp 271-280
1985

DELI79a
Deliyanni A. & Kowalski R.A.
Logic and Semantic Networks
CACM Vol 22,No 3,p184-192

DEN75a
Dennis J.B. & Misunas D.P.
A Preliminary Architecture for a Basic Dataflow Processor
Proc. 2nd Annual Symposium on Computer Architecture
SIGARCH vol 3, no 4 , Jan 75, pp 126-132
1975

DEN79a
Dennis J.B.
The Varieties of Data Flow Computers
MIT Computation Structures Group, Memo 183, August 1979

DELV85a *
Delves L.M. & Mawdsley S.C.
DAP-Algol: A Development System for Parallel Algorithms
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 2, pp 148-153
1985

DERT84a
Derthick M.
Variations on the Boltzmann Machine Learning Algorithm
CMU-CS-84-120
Dept of Comp Sci, Carnegie-Mellon Univ
August 1984

DETT86a *
Dettmer R.
Flagship A Fifth Generation Machine
Electronics and Power, pp 203-208
March 1986

DEU76a
Duetsch & Peter L. & Bobrow & Daniel G.
An Efficient, Incremental, Automatic Garbage Collector
CACM Vol 19,no 9, pp 522-526, 1976

DIJK82a
Dijkstra E.W.
Lambek and Moser Revisited
in BROY82a, pp 19-22
1982

DIJK82b
Dijkstra E.W.
Repaying our Debts
in BROY82a, pp 135-141
1982

DIJK82c
Dijkstra E.W.
A Tutorial on the Split Binary Semaphore
in BROY82a, pp 555-564
1982

DIJK85a
Dijkstra E.W.
Invariance and Non-Determinacy
in HOA85a
1985

DONA85a *
Donahue J. & Demers A.
Data Types Are Values
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol 7, no 3
pp 426-445
July 1985

DOWN76a
Downey P.J. & Sethi R.
Correct Computation Rules For Recursive Languages
SIAM Journal of Computing 5(3), pp 378-401, September 1976

DUCE84a *
ed. Duce D.A.
Distributed Computing Systems Programme
IEE Digital Electronics and Computing Series no 5
Peter Peregrinus Ltd., 1984

DUCK85a *
Duckworth R.J. & Brailsford D.F. & Harrison L.
A Structured Data Flow Computer
Internal Report, Comp Sci Group, Univ of Nottingham
October 14, 1985

EGA79a
Egan G.K.
Data Flow: Its Applications to Decentralised Control
PhD Thesis, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, 1979

ELIT84a
eds. Elithorn A. & Banerji R.
Artificial and Human Intelligence: Symposium
North Holland 1984

ENNA82a
Ennals J.R.
Beginning Micro-Prolog
Ellis Horwood Series Artificial Intelligence
Ellis Horwood Ltd., 1982

ENOM84a
Enomoto H. & Yonezaki N. & Saeki M. & Chiba K. & Takizuka T. & Yokoi T.
Natural Language Based System Development System TELL
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-067
June 1986

ENOM84b
Enomoto H. & Yonezaki N. & Saeki M.
Formal Specification and Verification for Concurrent Systems by TELL
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-068
June 1986

FAGE83a
Fages F. & Huet G.P.
Complete Sets Of Unifiers And Matches In Equational Theories
Proc. 8th Colloquium on Trees In Algebra And Programming
Springer Verlag, LNCS 159, pp 205-220, 1983

FAHL83a
Fahlman S.E. & Hinton G.E. & Sejnowski T.J.
Massively Parallel Architectures for AI: NETL,THISTLE,and Boltzmann Machines
Proc. National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Aug 1983 p109-113

FAIR82a
Fairburn J.
Ponder, And Its Type System
Cambridge Computer Lab Technical Report 31, 1982

FAIR85a *
Fairbairn J.
Design and Implementation of a Simple Typed Language Based on the Lambda
Calculus
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Tech Rep no 75
(also submitted as PhD thesis in December 1984)
1985

FARR79a
Farrell E.P. et al
A Concurrent Computer Architecture and Ring Based Implementation
Proc 6th Int. Symp. on Comp. Arch., pp 1-11
April 1979

FAUS83a
Faustini A.A. Mathews S.G. & Yaghi A.G
The pLUCID Programming Manual
University of Warwick Distributed Computing Report No. 4 ,1983

FEHR84a *
Fehr E.
Expressive power of Typed and Type-Free Programming Languages
Theoretical Computer Science 33 (1984) pp 195-238
North Holland
1984

FEHR84b *
Fehr E.
Dokumentation eines PROLOG-Interpreters implementiert in der funktionalen
Sprache BRL
GMD Nr 122
November 1984

FILG82a *
Filgueiras M.
On The Implementation of Control in Logic Programming Languages
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Tech rep UNL 8/82
1982

FINN85a *
Finn S.
The Simplex Programming Language
Department of Computing Science, University of Stirling
27th March 1985

FOLE?
Foley J.
A Multi-Ring Dataflow Machine
PhD Thesis, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester
In Preparation

FOO86a *
Foo N.Y.
Dewey Indexing of Prolog Traces
Computer Journal, Vol 29, no 1, pp 17-19
1986

FREI74a
Freidman D.P.
The Little LISPer
Science Research Associates, Palo Alto
1974

FREI76a *
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
CONS Should Not Evaluate Its Arguments
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 257-284
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

FREI77a
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.P.
Applicative Multiprogramming
Tech rep no 72, Indiana univ., Bloomington
1977

FREI77b
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
Aspects of Applicative Programming for File Systems
SIGPLAN notices Vol 12 no 3 march 77 pp 41-55
1977

FREI78a
Friedman D.P. Wise D.S.
A Note on Conditional Expressions
CACM  21(11), pp 931-933, November 1978

FREI78b *
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
Functional Combination
Computer Languages, 3, pp 31-35
1978

FREI78c
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
Unbounded Computational Structures
Software, Practise and Experience, 8, pp 407-415
1978

FREI79a *
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
Reference Counting Can Manage The Circular Environments of Mutual Recursion
Information Processing Letters, 8, no 2, pp 921-930
1979

FREI80a
Freidman D.P. & Wise D.S.
An Indeterminate Constructor for Applicative programming
Conf. Record of ACM Symp. on Princ. of Prog. Langs., Las Vegas
1980

FROS85a *
Frost R.A.
Using Semantic Concepts to Characterise Various Knowledge Representation
Formalisms: A Method of Facilitating the Interface of Knowledge Base
System Components
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 2, pp 112-116
1985

FUJI83a
Fujita M. & Tanaka H. Moto-oka T.
Verification with PROLOG and Temporal Logic
Faculty of Eng. Univ. of Tokyo

FURU83a *
Furukawa K. & Takeuchi A. & Kunifuji S.
Mandala: A Concurrent Prolog Based Knowledge Programming Language System
ICOT Research center, Technical Report TR-029
November 1983

FURU83b *
Furukawa K. & Nakajima R. & Yonezawa A.
Modularization and Abstraction in PROLOG
Document ETL
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-022
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 2, 1983 )
August 1983

FURU83c
Furukawa K.
Mandala: A Knowledge Programming Language on Concurrent Prolog
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0028
October 1983

FURU84a *
Furukawa K. & Kunifuji S. & Takeuchi A. & Ueda K.
The Conceptual Specification of the Kernel Language Version 1
( Also in Workshop on Implementation of Concurrent Prolog, Rehovot, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-054
March 1984

FURU84a *
Furukawa K. & Takeuchi A. & Kunifuji S. & Yasukawa H. & Ohki M. & Ueda K.
Mandala: A Logic Based Knowledge Programming System
( Also in Second Japanese Swedish Workshop on Logic Programming and
  Functional Programming, Uppsala, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-076
August 1984

FUTA85a
Futatsugi K. & Goguen J.A. & Jouannaud J-P & Meseguer J.
Principles of OBJ2
In Proc. 1985 Principles of Programming Languages
1985

GIER80a
Gierz G. & Hofmann K.H. & Keimel K. & Lawson J.D. & Mislove M. & Scott D.S.
A Compendium of Continuous Lattices
Springer Verlag
1980

GLAS84a *
Glaser H. & Hankin C. & Till D.
Principles of Functional Programming
Prentice Hall International, 1984

GLAU78a
Glauert J.R.W.
A Single-Assignment Language for Data Flow Computing
MSc Dissertation, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, January 1978

GLAU85a *
Glauert J.R.W. & Holt N.P. & Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
An Active Term Rewrite Model for Parallel Computation
Document, Alvey DACTL group, March 1985

GLAU85b *
Glauert J.R.W. & Holt N.P. & Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
DACTL Report 3/5
Document, Alvey DACTL group, March 1985

GLAU85c *
Glauert J.R.W. & Holt N.P. & Kennaway J.R. & Reeve M.J. &
Sleep M.R. & Watson I.
DACTL0: A Computational Model and an Associated Compiler Target Language
University of East Anglia
May 1985

GOEB85a
Goebel R.
The Design and Implementation of DLOG, a Prolog-Based Knowledge Representation
System
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 385-401
1985

GOGU67a
Goguen J.A.
L-Fuzzy Sets
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications
Vol 18 no 1, pp 145-174
1967

GOGU68a
Goguen J.A.
Categories of Fuzzy Sets
Phd Dissertation
Dept. of mathematics, Univ. of california, berkeley
1968

GOGU68b
Goguen J.A.
The Logic of Inexact Concepts
Synthese, Vol 19, pp 325-373
1968-69

GOGU69a
Goguen J.A.
Categories of V-Sets
Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society,
Vol 75, no 3, pp 622-624
1969

GOGU71a
Mathematical Representation of Hierarchically organised Systems
in "Global Systems Dynamics"
(ed. Attinger E. & Karger S.)
Basel, Switzerland
pp 112-128
1971

GOGU72a
Goguen J.A.
Systems and Minimal Realisation
Proc. IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control,
Miami Beach, Florida
pp 42-46
1972

GOGU72b
Goguen J.A.
Minimal Realisation of Machines in Closed Categories
Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society
Vol 78, no 5, pp 777-783
1972

GOGU72c
Goguen J.A.
Hierarchical Inexact Data structures in Artificial Intelligence Problems
Proc. 5th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 345-347
1972

GOGU72d
Goguen J.A. & Yacobellis R.H.
The Myhill Functor, Input-Reduced Machines, and Generalised
Krohn-Rhodes Theory
Proc. 5th Princeton Conf. on Information Sciences and Systems
Princeton, New Jersey
pp 574-578
1972

GOGU72e
Goguen J.A.
On Homomorphisms, Simulation, Correctness and Subroutines for
programs and Program schemes
Proc. 13th IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata Theory
College Park, Maryland
pp 52-60
1972

GOGU73a
Goguen J.A.
Realisation is Universal
mathematical System Theory
Vol 6, no 4, pp 359-374
1973

GOGU73b
Goguen J.A.
System theory concepts in Computer Science
Proc. 6th Hawaii Int. Conf. on Systems Sciences
Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 77-80
1973

GOGU73c
Goguen J.A.
The Fuzzy Tychonoff Theorem
Journal of mathematical Analysis and applications
vol 43, pp 734-742
1973

GOGU73d
Goguen J.A.
Categorical Foundations for general Systems Theory
in "Advances in Cybernetics and Systems research"
(ed. Pichler F. & Trappl R.)
Transcripta Books, London
pp 121-130
1973

GOGU74a
Goguen J.A.
Semantics of Computation
Proc. 1st Int. Symp. on Category Theory Applied to Computation and Control
(1974 American Association for the Advancement of Science, San francisco)
Univ. of massachusetts at Amherst, 1974, pp 234-249
also published in LNCS vol 25, pp 151-163, springer-verlag
1975

GOGU74b
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W.
Initial Algebra Semantics
proc. 15th IEEE Symp. on Switching and Automata
pp 63-77
1974

GOGU74c
Goguen J.A.
Concept Representation in Natural and Artificial languages: Axioms,
extensions and Applications for Fuzzy sets"
Int. Journal of man-Machine Studies
vol 6, pp 513-561
1974
reprinted in "Fuzzy Reasoning and its Applications"
(ed. Mamdani E.H. & Gaines B.R.)
pp 67-115
Academic Press
1981

GOGU74d
Goguen J.A.
On Homomorphisms, Correctness, termination, Unfoldments and
Equivalence of Flow Diagram Programs"
Journal of Computer and System Sciences,
vol 8, no 3, pp 333-365
1974

GOGU74e
Goguen J.A.
Some Comments on Applying Mathematical System Theory
in "Systems Approaches and Environmental Problems"
(ed. Gottinger H.W. & Vandenhoeck & Rupert)
pp 47-67
(Gottingen, Germany)
1974

GOGU75a
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G. & Wright J.B.
Factorisation, Congruences, and the Decomposition of Automata and
Systems
in "Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science"
LNCS Vol 28, pp 33-45, Springer-Verlag
1975

GOGU75b
Goguen J.A.
Objects
International Journal of general systems, vol 1, no 4,
pp 237-243
1975

GOGU75c
Goguen J.A.
Discrete-Time Machines in Closed Monoidal Categories, I,
Journal of Computer and System sciences, Vol 10, No 1, February,
pp 1-43
1975

GOGU75c
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G. & Wright J.B.
Abstract Data types as Initial algebras and the Correctness of
Data Representations
Proc. Conf. on Computer Graphics, Pattern recognition, and Data Structure
(Beverly Hills, California), pp 89-93
1975

GOGU75d
Goguen J.A. & Carlson L.
Axioms for Discrimination Information
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Sept '75
pp 572-574
1975

GOGU75e
Goguen J.A.
On Fuzzy Robot Planning
in "Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes
(ed. Zadeh L.A. & Fu K.S. & Tanaka K. & Shimura M.)
pp 429-448
Academic Press
1975

GOGU75f
Goguen J.A.
Robust Programming Languages and the Principle of Maximum
Meaningfulness
Proc. Milwaukee Symp. on Automatic Computation and Control
(Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
pp 87-90
1975

GOGU75g
Goguen J.A.
Complexity of Hierarchically Organised Systems and the Structure of
Musical Experiences
Int. Journal of General Systems, vol 3, no 4, 1975, pp 237-251
originally in UCLA Comp. Sci. Dept. Quarterly, October 1975, pp 51-88
1975

GOGU76a
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G. & Wright J.B.
Some Fundamentals of Order-Algebraic Semantics
Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Sciences
(Gdansk, Poland, 1976)
LNCS vol 46, 1976, pp153-168, Springer-Verlag
1976

GOGU76b
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.W. & Wright J.B.
Parallel Realisation of Systems, Using Factorisations and Quotients in
Categories
Journal of Franklin Institute, vol 301, no6, June '76, pp 547-558
1976

GOGU76c
Goguen J.A.
Correctness and Equivalence of Data Types
Proc Symp. on Mathematical Systems Theory (Udine, Italy)
Springer Verlag Lecture Notes
(ed. Marchesini G.)
pp 352-358
1976

GOGU76d
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G. & Wright J.B.
Rational Algebraic Theories and Fixed-point Solutions
Proc. IEEE 17th Symp on Foundations of Computer Science
(Houston, Texas), 1976, pp 147-158
1976

GOGU77a
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G. & Wright J.B.
Initial Algebra Semantics and Continuous Algebras
JACM, vol 24, no 1, January 1977, pp 68-95
1977

GOGU77b
Goguen J.A.
Abstract Errors for Abstract Data Types
in "Formal Descriptions of Programming Concepts"
(ed. E.Neuhold)
North-Holland, 1978, pp 491-522
also in
Proc. IFIP Working Conf. on Formal Description of Programming
Concepts
(ed. Dennis J.)
MIT Press, 1977, pp 21.1-21.32
1977

GOGU77c *
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
Putting Theories Together to Make Specifications
Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence
(MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts), 1977, pp 1045-1058
1977

GOGU77d
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Correctness of Recursive Flow Diagram Programs
Proc. Conf. on Mathematical Foundations of Comp. Sci.
(Tatranska Lomnica, Czechoslovakia)
pp 580-595
1977

GOGU77e
Goguen J.A.
Algebraic Specification Techniques
UCLA Comp. Sci. Dept. Quarterly
Vol 5, no 4
pp 53-58
1977

GOGU78a
Goguen J.A. & Varela F.
The Arithmetic of Closure
Journal of Cybernetics, Vol 8, 1978
also in "Progress in Cybernetics and Systems research, vol 3"
(ed. Trappl R. & Klir G.J. & Ricciardi L.)
Hemisphere Pub Co. (Washington D.C.)
1978

GOGU78b
Goguen J.A. & Ginali S.
A Categorical Approach to General Systems
in "Applied General Systems research"
(ed. Klir G.)
Plenum Press
pp 257-270
1978

GOGU78c
Goguen J.A. & Thatcher J.W. & Wagner E.G.
An Initial Algebra Approach to the Specification, Correctness and
Implementation of Abstract data Types
in "Current Trends in Programming, vol 4, Data Structuring"
pp 80-149
(ed. Yeh R.)
Prentice Hall
1978

GOGU78d
Goguen J.A.
Some Design Principles and Theory for OBJ-0, a Language for Expressing
and Executing Algebraic Specifications of Programs
Proc. Int. Conf. on Mathematical Studies of Information Processing
(Kyoto, Japan)
pp 429-475
1978

GOGU78e
Goguen J.A. & Linde C.
Structure of Planning Discourse
Journal of Social and Biological Structures, Vol 1
pp 219-251
1978

GOGU79a
Goguen J.A. & Shaket E.
Fuzzy Sets at UCLA
Kybernetes, vol 8
pp 65-66
1979

GOGU79b
Goguen J.A. & Varela F.
Systems and Distinctions; Duality and Complementarity
International Journal of General Systems, vol 5
pp 31-43
1979

GOGU79c
Goguen J.A. & Tardo J.J.
An Introduction to OBJ: A Language for writing and Testing formal
algebraic specifications
Reliable Software Conf. Proc. (ed. Yeh R.)
(Cambridge, Massachusetts)
pp 170-189
Prentice Hall
1979

GOGU79d
Goguen J.A.
Algebraic Specification
in "Research Directions in Software Technology"
(ed. Wegner P.)
pp 370-376
MIT Press
1979

GOGU79e
Goguen J.A.
Some Ideas in Algebraic Semantics
Proc. 3rd IBM Symp on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science
(Kobe, Japan)
53 pages
1979

GOGU79f
Goguen J.A.
Fuzzy Sets and the Social Nature of Truth
in "Advances in Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications"
(eds. Gupta M.M. & Yager R.)
pp 49-68
North-Holland Press
1979

GOGU79g
Goguen J.A. & Tardo J. & Williamson N. & Zamfir M.
A Practical Method for Testing Algebraic Specifications
UCLA Computer Science Quarterly, Vol 7, no 1
pp 59-80
1979

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
103
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:20:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #3
-BODY-

GOGU80a
Goguen J.A.
Thoughts on Specification, Design and Verification
Software Engineering Notes, Vol 5, no 3
pp 29-33
1980

GOGU80b
How to Prove Algebraic Inductive Hypotheses Without Induction: with
Applications to the Correctness of Data Type Implementation
Proc. 5th Conf. on Automated Deduction, (Les Arcs, France)
(eds. Bibel W. & Kowalski R.)
LNCS, vol 87
pp 356-373
Springer Verlag
1980

GOGU80c
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
The Semantics of CLEAR, a Specification Language
in "Abstract Software Specification"
(eds Bjorner D.)
(Proc. 1979 Copenhagen Winter School)
LNCS, vol 86
pp294-332
1980

GOGU80d
Goguen J.A. & Linde C.
On the Independence of Discourse Structure and Semantic Domain
Proc. 18th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational
Linguistics, Parasession on Topics in Interactive Discourse
(Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
pp 35-37
1980

GOGU81a
Goguen J.A. & Parsaye-Ghomi K.
Algebraic Denotational Semantics Using Parameterised Abstract Modules
Proc. Int. Conf on Formalising Concepts
(Peniscola, Spain)
(ed. Diaz J. & Ramos I.)
LNCS, vol 107
pp 292-309
Springer verlag
1981

GOGU81b
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
An Informal Introduction to CLEAR, a Specification Language
in "The Correctness Problem in Computer Science"
(eds. Boyer R. & Moore J.)
pp 185-213
Academic Press
1981

GOGU81c
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Completeness of many-Sorted Equational Logic
SIGPLAN Notes, Vol 16, no 7, pp 24-32, 1981
also in SIGPLAN Notes, vol 17, no 1, pp 9-17, 1982
extended version as Tech Rep CSLI-84-15, Center for the Study of
Language and Information, Standford Univ.,
September 1984

GOGU82a
Goguen J.A.
ORDINARY Specification of KWIC Index Generation
Proc Workshop on Program Specification
(ed. Staunstrup J.)
LNCS, Vol 134
pp 114-117
Springer Verlag
1982

GOGU82b
Goguen J.A.
ORDINARY Specification of Some Constructions in Plane Geometry
Proc Workshop on Program Specification
(ed. Staunstrup J.)
LNCS, Vol 134
pp 31-46
Springer verlag
1982

GOGU82c
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
Algebras, Theories and Freeness: An Introduction for Computer Scientists
in "Theoretical Foundations of Programming Methodology"
(eds. Broy M. & Schmidt G.)
pp 329-348
D. Reidel
1982

GOGU82d
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Security Policies and Security Models
Proc 1982 Berkeley Conf on Computer Security
IEEE Computer Society Press
pp 11-20
1982

GOGU82e
Goguen J.A.
Universal Realisation, Persistent Interconnection and Implementation of
Abstract Modules
Proc 9th Int Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
(Aarhus, denmark)
LNCS, Springer Verlag
1982

GOGU82f
Goguen J.A.
Rapid Prototyping in the OBJ Executable Specification Language
Proc Rapid Prototyping Workshop
(Columbia, Maryland)
1982
also in Software engineering Notes, ACM Special Interest
Group on Software engineering, vol 7, no 5, pp 75-84, 1983

GOGU83a
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J. & Plaisted D.
Programming with Parameterised Abstract Objects in OBJ
in "Theory and practise of Software technology"
(eds. Ferrari D. & Bolognani M. & Goguen J.A.)
pp 163-193
North-Holland
1983

GOGU83b
Future Directions for Software Engineering
in "Theory and Practise of Software Technology"
(eds. Ferrari D. & Bolognani M. & Goguen J.A.)
pp 243-244
North-Holland
1983

GOGU83c
Goguen J.A. & Ferrari D. & Bologanani M.
Theory and Practise of Software Technology
North Holland
1983

GOGU83d
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Correctness of recursive Parallel Non-Deterministic Flow Programs
Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol 27, no 2
pp 268-290
October 1983

GOGU83e
Goguen J.A.
Parameterised Programming
IEEE TOSE, vol SE-10, no 5, september 1984, pp 528-543
preliminary version in Proc. Workshop on Reusability in Programming,
ITT, pp 138-150
1983

GOGU83f
Goguen J.A. & Linde & Weiner J.
Reasoning and Natural explanation
International Journal of man-Machine Studies, Vol 19
pp 521-559
1983

GOGU83g
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
Introducing Institutions
Logics of programs
(Carnegie-mellon Univ., Pittsburgh PA, June 1983)
LNCS, vol 164, Springer Verlag
pp 221-256, 1984

GOGU84a
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Unwinding and Inference Control
1984 Symp on Security and privacy, IEEE, pp 75-86
1984

GOGU84b
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Equality, types, Modules and generics for Logic Programming
Tech Rep no. CSLI-84-5, Center for the Study of Logic and Information,
Stanford University, March 1984
also in Proc. 2nd int. Logic Programming Conf., Upsala, Sweden,
pp 115-125
1984

GOGU84c
Goguen J.A. & Bustall R.M.
Some Fundamental Properties of Algebraic Theories: A Tool for Semantics
of Computation, Part 1: Comma Categories, Colimits and Theories
Theoretical Computer Science, vol 31, no 2,
pp 175-209
1984

GOGU84d
Goguen J.A. & Burstall R.M.
Some Fundamental properties of Algebraic Theories: A Tool for Semantics
of computation, Part 2: Signed and Abstract theories
Theoretical Computer Science, vol 31, no 3
pp 263-295
1984

GOGU84e
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Equality, Types, Modules and (Why Not ?) Generics for Logic programming
Journal of Logic programming, vol 1, no 2
pp 179-210
1984

GOGU84f
Goguen J.A. & Murphy M. & Randle R.J. & Tanner T.A. & Frankel R.M. &
Linde C.
A Full Mission Simulator study of Aircrew performance: The measurement
of Crew Coordination and descisionmaking factors and their relationships
to Flight task performance
Proc. 20th Annual Conf on Manual control, vol II
(eds. Hartzell E.J. & Hart S.)
NASA Conference publication 2341, pp 249-262
1984

GOGU84g
Goguen J.A. & Linde C. & Murphy M.
Crew Communication as a factor in Aviation Accidents
Proc 20th Annual Conf on Manual control, vol II
(eds. Hartzell E.J. & Hart S.)
NASA Conference Publication 2341, pp 217-248
1984


GOGU85a
Goguen J.A. Meseguer J.
EQLOG: Equality, Types and Generic Modules for Logic Programming
In Functional and Logic Programming, Prentice Hall
1985

GOGU85b
Goguen J.A. & Jouannaud J-P & Meseguer J.
Operational Semantics for Order-Sorted Algebra
In Proc. ICALP 1985

GOGU85c
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Initiality, Induction and Computability
to appear in "Algebraic Methods in Semantics"
(ed. Nivat M. & Reynolds J. )
Cambridge U.P.
chapter 14, pp 459-540 approx.
1985

GOGU85d
Goguen J.A. & Meseguer J.
Completeness of Many-Sorted Equational Logic
to appear in Houston Journal of Mathematics
1985

GOGU85e *
Goguen J.A. & Futatsugi K. & Jouannaud J.-P. & Meseguer J.
Principles of OBJ2
Proc 1985 Symp on Principles of programming languages, ACM
pp 52-66
1985

GOLD81a
Goldfarb W.
The Undecidability Of The Second Order Unification Problem
Theoretical Computer Science 13, pp 225-230, 1981

GOOD83a
Goodall A.
Language Of Intelligence (PROLOG)
Systems International p21-24 Jan 1983

GOOD85a
Good D.I.
Mechanical Proofs about Computer Programs
in HOA85a
1985

GORD79a *
Gordon M.J. & Milner R. & Wadsworth C.P.
Edinburgh LCF
Lecture Notes In Computer Science, Vol 78
Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1979

GORD85a *
Gordon M.
HOL : A Machine Oriented Formulation of Higher order Logic
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 68
July 16 1985

GOST79a
Gostelow K.P. & Thomas R.E.
A View of Dataflow
Proc. Nat. Comp. Conf., Vol 48, pp 629-636
1979

GOTO82a
Goto A. & Moto-oka T.
Basic Architecture of Highly Parallel Processing System for Inference
Document Univ. of Tokyo, Dec 1982

GREE85a *
Greene K.J.
A Fully Lazy Higher Order Purely Functional Programming Language with
Reduction Semantics
CASE Center Technical Report No. 8503
CASE Center, Syracuse University, New York
December 1985

GREG85a *
Gregory S.
Design, Application and Implementation of a Parallel Programming Language
PhD Thesis, Dept of Computing, Imperial College, Univ of London
September 1985

GRIE77a
Gries D.
An Exercise in Proving Parallel Programs Correct
CACM, 20, no 12, pp 921-930
1977

GRIS71a
Griswold R.E. & Poage J.F. & Polonsky J.P.
The Snobol-4 Programming Language
Prentice Hall
1971

GRIS84a *
Griswold R.E.
Expression Evaluation in the Icon Programming Language
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 177-183
1984

GUES76a *
Guessarian I.
Semantic Equivalence of Program Schemes and its Syntactic Characterization
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 189-200
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

GUNN84a *
Gunn H.I.E. & Harland D.M.
Polymorphic Programming II. An Orthogonal Tagged High Level Architecture
Abstract Machine
Software - Practise and Experience, Vol 14(11), pp 1021-1046
November 1984

GURD78a *
Gurd J. & Watson I. & Glauert J.
A Multi-Layered Data Flow Computer Architecture
Internal Report, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Manchester
1978

GURD85a *
Gurd J. & Kirkham C.C. & Watson I.
The Manchester Prototype Dataflow Computer
CACM, vol 28, p 34-52,
1985

GUTT75a
Guttag J.V.
The Specification and Application to programming of Abstract Data Types
PhD dissertation, Univ. of Toronto, Dept of Comp Sci
1975

GUTT77a
Guttag J.V.
Abstract Data Types and the Development of Data Structures
CACM Vol 20, no 6, pp 396-404, June
1977

GUTT78a
Guttag J.V. & Horowitz E. & Musser D.R.
Abstract Data Types and Software Validation
CACM Vol 21, pp 1048-1064, december
also USC Information Sciences Institute Tech. Rep. Aug 76
1978

GUTT78b
Guttag J.V. & Horning J.J.
The Algebraic Specification of Abstract Data Types
Acta Informatica, 10, 1, pp 27-52
1978

GUTT80a
Guttag J.V.
Notes on Type Abstraction (version 2)
IEEE Trans. on Soft. Eng. Vol SE-6, no 1, pp 13-23, January
1980

GUTT82a
Guttag J.
Notes On Using Types and Type Abstraction In Functional Programming
in DARL82a
1982

GUZM81a *
Guzman A.
A heterarchical Multi-Microprocessor Lisp Machine
1981 IEEE Computer Society Workshop on Computer Architecture for Pattern
Analysis and Image Database Management, Hot Springs, Virginia
pp 309 -  317
November 11-13, 1981

HALI84a *
Halim Z.
A Data-/Demand-Driven Model for the Evaluation of PARLOG And-Relations
and Conditional Equations
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester Jan 1984

HAMI85a *
Hamilton A.G.
Program Construction in Martin-Lof Type Theory
T.R. 24
Tech Rep, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Stirling
June 1985

HAMM83a
Hammond P. & Sergot M.
A Prolog Shell for Logic-Based Expert Systens
Proc. 3rd BCS Expert Systems Conf. pp 95-104,
1983

HAMM83b
Hammond P.
Representation of DHSS Regulations as a Logic Program
B.C.S. Expert Systems Conference 1983

HAMM84a
Hammond K.
The KRC Manual
CSA/16/1984, DSAG-3,
Univ. of East Anglia, May 1984.

HANK85a *
Hankin C.L. & Osmon P.E. & Shute M.J.
COBWEB - A Family of Fifth Generation Computer Architectures
25th January 1985

HANS79a
Hansson A. & Tarnlund S. -A.
A Natural Programming Calculus
Proc. 6th IJCAI, Tokyo, Japan, pp 348-355, 1979

HARL84a *
Harland D.M.
Polymorphic Programming Languages
Ellis Horwood 1984

HARR81a *
Harrison P.G.
Efficient Storage Management for Functional Languages
Dept of Computing, Imperial College, Research Report no DOC 81/12
August 1981

HASE84a
Hasegawa R.
A List Processing Orientated Data Flow Machine Architecture
Electrical Communication Lab, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Public Corporation

HATT83a
Hattori T. & Yokoi T.
Basic Constructs of the SIM Operating System
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 1, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0009
June 1986

HATT84a *
Hattori T. & Tsuji J. & Yokoi T.
SIMPOS: An Operating System for a Personal Prolog Machine PSI
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-055
April 1984

HATT84b *
Hattori T. & Yokoi T.
The Concepts and Facilities of SIMPOS Supervisor
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-056
April 1984

HATT84c
Hattori T. & Yokoi T.
The Concepts and Facilities of SIMPOS File System
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-059
April 1984

HAYE84a
Hayes P.J.
Entity-Oriented Parsing
CMU-CS-84-138
Dept of Comp Sci, Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
9 June 1984

HEND76a *
Henderson P. & Morris J.M.
A Lazy Evaluator
Proceedings 3rd POPL Symposium, Atlanta Georgia, 1976, pp 95-103

HEND80a *
Henderson P.
Functional Programming: Application and Implementation
Prentice Hall 1980

HEND82a
Henderson P.
Purely Functional Operating Systems
in DARL82a
1982

HEND83a *
Henderson P. & Jones G.A. & Jones S.B.
The Lispkit Manual, vol 1 and vol 2 (sources)
Oxford University Programming Research Group
Technical Monograph PRG-32(i) and PRG-32(ii)
1983

HEND84a *
Henderson P.
Specifications and Programs
FPN-5
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Stirling
Paper presented at Centre for Software Reliability Workshop,
City University, April1984
to be published in "Software; Requirements, Specification and Testing"
(ed Dr. T. Anderson) pub. Blackwell Scientific Publications
July 1984

HEND84b
Henderson P.
Some Distributed Systems
FPN-6
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of stirling
July 1984

HEND84c *
Henderson P.
Process Combinators
FPN-7
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Stirling
August 1984

HEND84d *
Henderson P.
Communcating Functional Programs
FPN-8
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Stirling
September 1984

HEND84e *
Henderson P.
Me Too - A Language for Software Specification and Model Building -
Preliminary Report
FPN-9
First Draft : October 1984
Second Draft : December 1984
1984

HENN76a *
Hennessy M. & Ashcroft E.A.
The Semantics of Nondeterminism
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 478 - 493
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

HEWI73a
Hewitt C. et al.
Actor Induction and Meta-Evaluation
1st ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
1973

HEWI77a
Hewitt C.
Viewing Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages
AI Journal 8, no 3, pp 323-364, 1977

HEWI79a
Hewitt C.
Control Structure as Patterns of Passing Messages
Artificial Intelligence: An MIT Perspective ,The MIT Press p433-465 1979

HEWI80a *
Hewitt C.
The Apiary Network Architecture for Knowledgeable Systems
Proc. 1980 LISP Conf. p107-117

HIKI83a
Hikita T.
Average Size of Turner's Translation to Combinator Program
ICOT research Center, Technical Report TR-017
August 1983

HINDI84a
Hindin Harvey J.
Fifth-Generation Computing: Dedicated Software is The Key
Computer Design, Sept 1984, page 150

HINDL69a
Hindley R.
The Principal Type Scheme of an Object in Combinatory Logic
Trans. American Mathematical Society 146, pp 29-60
1969

HINDL83a *
Hindley R.
The Completeness Theorem For Typing Lambda-Terms
Theoretical Computer Science 22, pp 1-17
North Holland
January 1983

HIRA83a
Chart Parsing in Concurrent Prolog
ICOT research Center, Technical Report TR-007
May 1983

HOAR82a
Structure of an Operating System
in BROY82a, pp 643-658
1982

HOAR85a
eds. Hoare C.A.R. & Sheperdson J.C.
Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages
Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science,
1985.
First published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,
Series A, Volume 3/12, 1984.

HOAR85b
Hoare C.A.R.
Programs are Predicates
in HOA85a
1985

HOCK81a *
Hockney R.W. & Jesshope C.R.
Parallel Computers
Adam Hilger Ltd., Bristol
1981

HOFF82a *
Hoffmann C.M. & O'Donnell M.J.
Programming With Equations
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol 4, No 1
pp 83-112
January 1982

HOFF83a
Hoffmann C.M. & O'Donnell M.
Implementation of an interpreter for abstract equations
ACM Conference on Computer Science
1983

HOGG78a
Hogger C.J.
Program Synthesis in Predicate Logic
Proc. AISB/GI Conf. on Artif. Intell,
Hamburg, pp 18-20
1978

HOGG78b
Hogger C.J.
Goal Oriented Derivation of Logic Programs
Proc. MFCS Conf.,
Polish Acadamy of Sciences, Zakopane, pp 267-276
1978

HOGG81a
Hogger C.J.
Derivation of Logic Programs
J. Ass. Comput. Mach. 28, pp 372-422
1981

HOGG84a
Hogger C.J.
Introduction to Logic Programming
Academic Press
1984

HOLL80a
Holloway J. & Steele G.L.Jr. & Sussman G.J. & Bell A.
The Scheme-79 Chip
AI Memo 559, MIT Lab, Cambridge, 1980

HOLL80b
Holloway J. & Steel G. & Sussman G.J. & Bell A.
The Scheme 79 Chip
Proceedings LISP Conference, Stanford, 1980

HOLT86a *
Holt N.
Parallel Processing For Fifth Generation Systems
in BCS86a
1986

HOMM80a *
Hommes F. & Kluge W. & Schlutter H.
A Reduction Machine Architecture and Expression Oriented Editing
GMD ISF 80.04
1980

HOPK79a
Hopkins R.P. et al
A Computer Supporting Data Flow, Control Flow and Updatable Memory
Computing Laboratory, Univ of Newcastle upon Tyne
Tech Rep 144
1979

HORA85a *
Horacek H.
Semantic/Pragmatic Representation Language
Forschungsstelle fur Informationswissenschaft und Kunstiliche Intelligenz
Universitat Hamburg
LOKI Report NLI - 2.1
December 1985

HSIA83a *
Hsiang J. & Dershowitz N.
Rewrite Methods For Clausal and Non-Clausal Theorem Proving
10th EATCS International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming
pp 331-346
1983

HSIA84a
Hsiao D.K.
Advanced Database Machine Architectures
Prentice Hall 1984

HUD81a
Hudak P.
Call-Graph Reclamation: An Alternative Storage Reclamation Scheme
AMPS Technical Memorandum #4
August 1981

HUD81b
Hudak P.
Real-Time Mark-Scan Garbage Collection on a Distributed Applicative
Processing System
AMPS Technical Memorandum #5
October 1981

HUD84a
Hudak P. & Kranz D.
A Combinator Based Compiler For a Functional Language
11th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages
pp 122-132
1984

HUDA84b
Hudak P. & Keller R.M.
Garbage Collection and Task Deletion in Distributed Applicative
Processing System
Proc. Conf. on LISP and Functional Programming, ACM,
August 1984

HUDA84c *
Hudak P.
ALFL Reference Manual and Programmers Guide
Dept of Computer Science, University of Yale, Technical Report YALEU/DCS/TR-322
Second Edition
October 1984

HUDA84d *
Hudak P.
Distributed Applicative Processing Systems : Project Goals, Motivation,
and Status Report
Dept of Computer Science, University of Yale, Technical Report YALEU/DCS/TR-317
May 1, 1984

HUDA85a *
Hudak P. & Goldberg B.
Distributed Execution of Functional Programs Using Serial Combinators
IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol c-34, no 10, pp 881-891
October 1985

HUDA85b *
Hudak P. & Guzman J.C.
A Proof-Stream Semantics for Lazy Narrowing
Dept of Computer Science, University of Yale, Research Report YALEU/DCS/RR-446
December 1985

HUDA85c *
Hudak P. & Young J.
Higher-Order Strictness Analysis in Untyped Lambda Calculus
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Yale
October 1985

HUDA85d *
Hudak P. & Smith L.
Para-Functional Programming: A Paradigm for Programming Multiprocessor Systems
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Yale
October 1985

HUDA85e *
Hudak P.
Functional Programming on Multiprocessor Architectures
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Yale, Research Report YALEU/DCS/RR-447
December 1985

HUET73a
Huet G.P.
The Undecidability of Unification in Third Order Logic
Information and Control 22, pp 257-267
1973

HUET75a
Huet G.P.
Unification in the Typed Lambda Calculus
Proc. Symposium on the Lambda Calculus and Computer Science Theory,
Springer Verlag, LNCS 37, pp 192-212
1975

HUET80a
Huet G.P. & Oppen D.
Equations and Rewrite Rules: a Survey
Report CSL-111, SRI International
1980

HUGH82a *
Hughes R.J.M.
Super-Combinators:a new Implementation Method for Applicative Languages
Proc. ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Languages (Aug 1982) p1-10

HUGH82b *
Hughes R.J.M.
Graph Reduction with Super-Combinators
Oxford University Programming Research Group Technical Monograph PRG-28
June 1982

HUGH83a *
Hughes R.J.M.
The Design and Implementation of Programming languages
Oxford University Programming Research Group Technical Monograph PRG-40
(published as monograph september 84)
July 1983

HUGH84a *
Hughes R.J.M.
Reference Counting with Circular Structures in Virtual Memory Applicative
Systems
Programming Research Group, Oxford University 1984

HUGH84b
Hughes R.J.M.
Parallel Functional Programs Use Less Space
Programming Research Group, Oxford University
1984

HUGH84c
Hughes G.E. & Cresswell M.J.
A Companion to Modal Logic
Methuen 1984

HUTC86a *
Hutchinson A.
A Data Structure and Algorithm for a Self-Augmenting Heuristic Program
Computer Journal, Vol 29, No 2, pp 135-150
April 1986

HWAN84a
Hwang K.
Computer Architecture and Parallel Processing
McGraw Hill 1984

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
104
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 86 10:08:52 EST
-FROM-
From: Bernard Silver <SILVER@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Representation by Backpropagation (GTE)
-BODY-

                                GTE Laboratories Inc

                        Machine Learning Seminar Series

Speaker:                        David E. Rumelhart

                        Institute of Cognitive Science
                                and
                        University of California San Diego

Title:                  Learning Representation by Backpropagation

Date:                   Monday April 28  9am
Place:                  GTE Laboratories
                        40 Sylvan Rd
                        Waltham MA 02254


Recent work will be presented on using the backpropagation learning
procedure for developing internal representations in parallel
distributed processing systems.  The talk will include a brief
introduction to the backpropagation learning procedure followed by a
report on a number of new applications of the procedure to storage of
semantic information and the discovery of new features.


Visitors welcome:  Contact Oliver Selfridge (617) 466-2855
                        or Bernard Silver (617) 466-2663

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 86 11:49:56 EST
-FROM-
From: David.Anderson@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Distributed Object-Oriented Programming (CMU)
-BODY-
                            Thesis Proposal:

          Object Oriented Programming for Distributed Systems

                            David B. Anderson

                       Computer Science Department
                       Carnegie-Mellon University
                            dba@k.cs.cmu.edu

                              28 April 1986
                                 3:30 pm
                                WeH 5409



                                ABSTRACT

Object oriented programming has often been advocated for a variety of
programming tasks, particularly interactive, graphical applications and
window managers.  Software engineers are attracted to this
programming methodology because of the modularity, data abstraction and
information hiding that it promotes.  On the other hand, object oriented
techniques have not generally been used in  building distributed
systems and applications.

The difficulty in using object oriented programming techniques for
implementing distributed applications lies in the requirements that
object oriented languages and systems place on their runtime
environment.  For example, the remote procedure call mechanisms
typically used in building distributed applications must be replaced with
a mechanism for remote method invocation.  This means that a static
remote procedure call stub generator, such as Matchmaker, must be replaced
with a mechanism for dynamically locating the correct method to call
based on the runtime types of objects.  Furthermore, mechanisms are needed
to allow objects, classes and methods to be created and destroyed as
the system is running.  Other difficulties and issues that must be
addressed include the naming and scope of objects, garbage collection,
error recovery and protection.

The proposed dissertation research will develop a solution to these
problems in the form of an object manager for distributed systems.
This proposal looks at these issues in some detail, and discusses the
design of an object manager to meet these requirements.  A prototype
system is planned, and will be used to implement a distributed,
object oriented user interface environment.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 25 Apr 86 19:31:48-PST
-FROM-
From: Fred Lakin <LAKIN@SU-CSLI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Prolog and Geometry (CSLI)
-BODY-
Pixels and Predicates meeting: note ==> TUESDAY <==

        PROLOG AND GEOMETRY

Who:            Randolph Franklin, UC at Berkeley
                wrf@degas.berkeley.edu
Where:          CSLI trailers
When:           1:00pm - TUESDAY, April 29, 1986

Abstract:

The Prolog language is a useful tool for geometric  and  graphics
implementations  because  its  primitives,  such  as unification,
match the requirements of many geometric algorithms.  We have im-
plemented  several  problems  in Prolog including a subset of the
Graphics Kernal  Standard,  convex  hull  finding,  planar  graph
traversal, recognizing groupings of objects, and boolean combina-
tions of polygons  using  multiple  precision  rational  numbers.
Certain paradigms, or standard forms, of geometric programming in
Prolog are becoming evident.  They include applying a function to
every  element  of a set, executing a procedure so long as a cer-
tain geometric pattern exists, and using unification to propagate
a  transitive function.  Certain strengths and weaknesses of Pro-
log for these applications are now apparent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 86 21:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Inferring Domain Plans in Question Answering (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@UPenn> on Sun 27 Apr 1986 at  9:40


              INFERRING DOMAIN PLANS IN QUESTION-ANSWERING
                           Martha E. Pollack
                             Thesis Defense

                         Monday, April 28, 1986
                           Noon-2pm, 216 Moore

The importance of plan inference (PI) in models of conversation has
been widely noted in the computational-linguistics literature, and its
incorporation in question-answering systems has enabled a range of
cooperative behaviors.  The PI process in each of these systems,
however, has assumed that the questioner (Q) whose plan is being
inferred and the respondent (R) who is drawing the inference have
identical beliefs about the actions in the domain.  I demonstrate that
this assumption is too strong, and often results in failure not only
of the PI process, but also of the communicative process that PI is
meant to support.  In particular, it precludes the principled
generation of appropriate responses to queries that arise from invalid
plans.  I present a model of PI in conversation that distinguishes
between the beliefs of the questioner and the beliefs of the
respondent.  This model rests on an account of plans as mental
phenomena: "having a plan" is analyzed as having a particular
configuration of beliefs and intentions.  Judgements that a plan is
invalid are associated with particular discrepancies between the
beliefs that R ascribes to Q, when R believes Q has some particular
plan, and the beliefs R herself holds.  I define several types of
invalidities from which a plan may suffer, relating each to a
particular type of belief discrepancy, and show that the types of any
invalidities judged to be present in the plan underlying a query can
affect the content of a cooperative response.  The PI model has been
implemented in SPIRIT -- a System for Plan Inference that Reasons
about Invalidities Too -- which reasons about plans underlying queries
in the domain of computer mail.

Advisor:    Bonnie Webber
Committee:  Aravind Joshi, chair
            Tim Finin
            Barbara Grosz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 86 23:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Possible Worlds Planning (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Bonnie Webber <Bonnie@UPenn> on Thu 24 Apr 1986 at 14:24


In addition to his talk on Tuesday afternoon, 29 April, on Multi-Valued
Logic, Matt Ginsberg will also give a talk on Wednesday morning at
10:30 on Possible Worlds Planning.

Room to be announced.


                POSSIBLE WORLDS PLANNING

                      Matt Ginsberg
                   Stanford University

The size of the search space is perhaps the most intractable
of all of the problems facing a general-purpose planner.  Some
planning methods (means-ends analysis being typical) address this
problem by encouraging the system designer to give the planner domain-specific
information (perhaps in the form of a difference table) to help govern
this search.

This paper presents a domain-independent approach to this problem
based on the examination of possible worlds in which the planning
goal has been achieved.  Although a weak method, the ideas presented
lead to considerable savings in many examples; in addition, the natural
implementation of this approach has the attractive property that
incremental efforts in controlling the search provide incremental
improvements in performance.  This is in contract to many other
approaches to the control of search or inference, which may require
large expenditures of effort before any benefits are realized.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Apr 86 14:29:00-EST
-FROM-
From: Lisa F. Melcher <LISA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Algorithms for Term Matching (MIT)
-BODY-

                        DATE:  Thursday, May 1, 1986
                         TIME:  3:45 - Refreshments
                                4:00 - Lecture
                             PLACE:  NE43 - 512A


                   "PARALLEL ALGORITHMS FOR TERM MATCHING"


                                CYNTHIA DWORK
                         IBM Almaden Research Center
                                San Jose, CA



Unification of terms is a well known problem with applications to a variety
of symbolic computation problems.  Two terms s and t, involving function
symbols and variables, are unifiable if there is a substitution for the
variables which makes s and t syntactically identical. For example, f(x,x)
and f(g(y),g(g(c))) are unified by substituting g(c) for y and g(g(c)) for
x.  A special case of unification is term matching where one of the terms
contains no variables.  Previous work on parallel algorithms for unification
by Dwork, Kanellakis and Mitchell (DKM) showed that unification is P-complete
in general, even if terms are represented as trees so that common
subexpressions must be repeated.  However, DKM give an NC2 algorithm for term
                  2
matching using M(n ) processors where M(m) is the number of operations needed
to multiply m-by-m matrices.  This algorithm allows a compact dag
representation of terms.  These resuts have been tightened in two ways.
First, the processor bound for term matching of dags has been improved to
                                2
M(n), while retaining the O(log  n) running time, using a randomizing
algorithm.  There is also some evidence that improving the processor bound
further will be difficult since there is an efficient parallel reduction from
the graph accessibility problem (GAP) to the term matching problem for dags,
                                                                           2
so that any improvement in the processor bound for term matching (say, to n )
would imply the same for GAP.  The second improvement is a sharper
P-completeness result which shows that unification of tree terms is
P-complete even for linear terms where each variable can appear at most once
in each term.

This is joint work with Paris Kanellakis and Larry Stockmeyer.

                              Shafi Goldwasser
                                    Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 1986 10:09:56-EST
-FROM-
From: Vasant.Dhar@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 19TH Hawaii Int. Conf. on Systems Sciences
-BODY-
CALL FOR PAPERS: 19TH HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS SCIENCES
(HICSS), Hawaii, January 1987.

Papers are invited for the KNOWLEDGE-BASED/DECISION-SUPPORT SYSTEMS track.
The following are representative areas:

1. Knowledge-Based approaches to large systems development
2. Knowledge-Based support systems in business organizations
3. Knowledge Engineering in Management Science Applications
4. Knowledge Engineering in Database Management/Intelligent Retrieval Systems
5. Decision Support Systems for Group decision making
6. Model Management in Decision Support Systems
7. User Interfaces in Decision Support Systems

Papers falling into area 1 above should be sent to:

                Vasant Dhar
                Department of Information Systems
                New York University
                90 Trinity Place
                New York, NY 10006.

Papers in all other areas should be sent to Edward Stohr at the same
address. The deadline for submission is July 7 1986. Authors will be notified
of acceptance before September 8, 1986. Camera ready copies are due on
October 20, 1986. The conference is on the island of Oahu, January 6-9, 1987.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 86 13:26:07 +1000 (Wed)
-FROM-
From: "ERIC Y.H. TSUI"  <decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!eric@decwrl.DEC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1st Australian AI Congress (Extended Deadline)
-BODY-
   1
  11  st
 111  AUSTRALIAN
  11  ARTIFICIAL
  11  INTELLIGENCE
  11  CONGRESS
  11
 1111  Melbourne, November 18-20, 1986


                      CALL FOR PAPERS

========================================================================
DEADLINE EXTENDED...DEADLINE EXTENDED...DEADLINE EXTENDED...DEADLINE EXT
========================================================================

Abstract (300 words) of papers to be selected for presentation
to the 1st Australian Artificial Intelligence Congress are now invited.
The three-part program comprises:

i)   AI in Education

     - Intelligent tutors
     - Computer-managed learning
     - Course developers environment
     - Learning models
     - Course authoring software

ii)  Expert System Applications

     - Deductive databases
     - Conceptual schema
     - Expert system shells (applications and limitations)
     - Interactive knowledge base systems
     - Knowledge engineering environments
     - Automated knowledge acquisition

iii) Office Knowledge Bases

     - Document classification and retrieval
     - Publishing systems
     - Knowledge source systems
     - Decision support systems
     - Office information systems


Tutorial presenters are also sought. Specialists are required
in the areas of:

     - Common loops
     - Natural language processing
     - Inference engines
     - Building knowledge databases
     - Search strategies
     - Heuristics for AI solving

Reply to:

ACSnet address: brian!aragorn.oz
CSNET address:  brian@aragorn.oz
UUCP address:   seismo!munnari!aragorn.oz!brian
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian
ARPA address:   munnari!aragorn.oz!brian@seismo.arpa
                decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!brian@Berkeley

or post to: Dr. B. Garner, Division of Computing and Mathematics,
            Deakin University, Victoria 3217, Australia.

NEW DEADLINES: All submissions by May 31, 1986. Notification by July 14.
^^^                               ^^^^^^                        ^^^^^^^
|||                               ||||||                        |||||||

Inquiries: Stephen Moore, Director, 1AAIC86, tel: (02)439-5133.

Eric Tsui                               eric@aragorn.oz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
105
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 13:29:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_amrh
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Martin R. Hall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Rapid Prototyping & Exploratory Programming
-BODY-
The division here is building a Software Engineering Practices Manual,
and has been debating how to relate standards for conventional software
to Knowledge Based and other AI systems.

Could anyone point us to some articles that directly reference the ideas
of rapid prototyping and exploratory programming; pre-design and
mid-design experimental programming as a methodology in building
applied AI systems.

Thanks!
                                                -Marty Hall

Arpa (preferred)  hall@hopkins
CSnet             hall.hopkins@csnet-relay
UUCP              seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_amrh
                  allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_amrh
AT&T              (301) 682-0917

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 21:50:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!ll-xn!mit-amt!bc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (William H Coderre)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Animal Behavior Simulation using rules
-BODY-
I am doing my bachelor's thesis here at MIT on simulating animal behavior
using rule-driven systems.

The aim is to develop a package that grade- and high-school students will
use to investigate behavior, similar to the commercial packages RobotWars,
ChipWits, and Rocky's Boots.

Does anyone care to recommend references that might be helpful?
Please reply direct to me and I will post a complete list as the demand
warrants.

"Biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface"....................bc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 86 14:20:45 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz!gyp@seismo.CSS.GOV (Patrick Tang)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System in Simulation Model
-BODY-

        Does anyone out there ever come across literature which
        discribe the design and implementation of "Artificial
        Intelligence" or "Expert System" in military simulation
        model, in particular Army Wargaming Simulation.

        I would appreciate it very much if you could let me
        know where I could get hold of those material. (Unclassified
        one, Of Course !!).

        Thanks a million.


Tang Guan Yaw/PatricK            ISD:   +61 62 68 8170
Dept. Computer Science           STD:   (062) 68 8170
University College            ACSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
Uni. New South Wales            UUCP:   ...!seismo!munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp    or
Aust. Defence Force Academy     ...!{decvax,pesnta,vax135}!mulga!csadfa.oz!gyp
Canberra. ACT. 2600.            ARPA:   gyp%csadfa.oz@SEISMO.ARPA
AUSTRALIA                      CSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 20:26:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbosgd!oucs!joe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joseph Judge)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog from Simtel20
-BODY-

        I remember seeing a posting recently about prolog available from
Simtel20 thru an FTP. As I cannot FTP, is it possible to get this prolog
from a kind soul out there in NetLandia ??

        From the friendly systems administrator,
                Joseph Judge

ihnp4!{amc1,cbdkc1,cbosgd,cuuxb,}!oucs!joe

Nur mit dir.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 86 17:42:01+0900
-FROM-
From: Sangki Han <skhan%cskaist%kaist.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Survey of IBM-PC Expert Systems
-BODY-
We are searching for the commercial expert systems on IBM-PCs.
We want to know the application areas, prices, and vendors. If you send
responses, I'll accumulate and repost them on net.
Thanks in advance.

Sangki Han
Department of Computer Science
KAIST, P. O. Box, 150
Chongryang, Seoul 131
Korea

skhan%cskaist@kaist (Csnet)
..!seismo!kaist!cskaist!skhan (uucp)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 86 05:08:15 EST
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!lzaz!psc@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system software for MS-DOS
-BODY-
    [Forwarded from the IBMPC bboard by  Paul Fishwick <Fishwick@UPenn>
    and Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>]


Here's the promised list of expert systems for MS-DOS based personal
computers.  The language name in brackets usually indicates what
languages you can can use for special purpose routines that work with
the system.  (Sometimes, it may just be the language the expert system
was written in.)  I threw in Prolog processors for grins (I suspect
Borland's going to make that a much bigger field!)

The names, addresses, phone numbers, and especially prices are not
guaranteed to be free from typos, line noise, or obsolecence.  I have
no experience or further information on any of these packages; don't
call me, call the company.  On the other hand, if *you* have used any
of these systems, please drop me a line; I'll be happy to summarize
and repost.  I'd also like to hear of any products I'd forgotten, or
any errata to my list.


Aion Development System:  expert system, $7000
Aion
101 University Ave., 4th floor
Palo Alto, CA  94301
415-328-9595

Arity Expert System Development Package: expert system, $295
Arity Standard Prolog: AI language, $95
Arity Prolog Interpreter V4: AI language, $350
Arity Prolog Compiler & Interpreter V4: AI language, $795
Arity Corp
358 Baker Ave.
Concord, MA  01742
617-371-1243

OPS5+: expert system [C]
Artelligence, Inc.
14902 Preston Rd., suite 212-252
Dallas, TX  75240
214-437-0361

A.D.A Educational Prolog: AI language, $29.95
VML Prolog: AI language, $300
Automata Design Associates
1570 Arran Way
Dresher, PA  19025
215-646-4894

Turbo Prolog: AI language, $99.95
Borland International
4585 Scotts Valley Dr.
Scotts Valley, CA  95066
408-438-8400

Xsys: expert system [Lisp], $995
California Intelligence
912 Powell St. #8
San Fransisco, CA  94108
415-391-4846

Prolog V: AI language, $69.95/$99.95
Chalcedony Software, Inc.
5580 La Jolla Blvd, Suite 126B
La Jolla, CA  92037
617-483-8513

ES/P Advisor: expert system [Prolog], $895
Prolog-1: AI language, $395
Prolog-2 Interpreter and Compiler: AI Language, $1895
Expert Systems International
1150 First Ave.
King of Prussia, PA  19406
215-337-2300

Xi:  expert system, $795
Expertech
Expertech House, 172 Bath Rd.
Slough, Berks SLI 3XE, ENGLAND
0753-821321; USA, 415-367-6264 or 617-470-2267

Exsys 3.0: expert system [C], $395
Exsys Inc.
PO Box 75158, Contract Sta. 14
Albuquerque, NM  87194
505-836-6676

TIMM-PC: expert system [Fortran 77], $9500
General Research
7655 Old Spring House Rd.
McLean, VA  22102
703-893-5900

Expert Ease: expert system [UCSD Pascal], $695
Expert Edge: expert system, $795
Human Edge Software
2445 Faber Pl.
Palo Alto, CA  94303
CA: 800-824-7325, elsewhere: 800-624-5227

Knowol: expert system, $39.95
Intelligent Machines Co.
3813 N. 14th St.
Arlington, VA  22201
703-528-9136

KEE: expert system
IntelliCorp
1975 El Camino Real W.
Mountain View, CA  94040
415-965-5500

Experteach: expert system [Lisp, Prolog, Pascal, dBase II], $475
Intelliware, Inc.
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 401
Marina del Rey, CA  90291
213-305-9391

Ex-Tran: expert system, $3000
Jeffrey Perrone & Associates
415-431-9562

KDS: expert system [assembler], $795 (development), $150 (playback)
KDS II: expert system, $945
KDS Corp.
934 Hunter Rd.
Wilmette, IL  60091
312-251-2621

Trouble Shooter: expert system, $250
Kepner-Tregoe
609-921-2806

Insight: expert system [Turbo Pascal], $95/$485
Level 5 Research
4980 S A1A
Melbourne Beach, FL  32751
(moved to 503 Fifth Ave., Suite 201, Indiatlantic, FL  32903?)
305-729-9046

Daisy: expert system [muLisp-85]
Lithp Systems BV
Meervalweg 72
1121 JP Landsmeer
The Netherlands

Micro-Prolog:  AI language, $395
Logic Programming Associates
31 Crescent Drive
Milford, CT  06460
203-872-7988

MProlog:  AI language, $725
Logicware, Inc.
5000 Birch St., West Tower, suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA  92660
416-665-0022
(70 Walnut St.
Wellesley, MA  02181
617-237-2254?)

Reveal: expert system
McDonnell Douglas
Knowledge Engineering Products Division
20705 Valley Green Dr.
Cupertino, CA  95014
408-446-7406

MicroExpert: expert system [Turbo Pascal/Apple Pascal], $49.95
McGraw-Hill
PO Box 400
Hightstown, NJ  08520
or 1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020
NY: 212-512-2999, elsewhere 800-628-0004

Guru: integrated software with expert system, $3000
Micro Data Base Systems
PO Box 248
Lafayette, IN  47902
317-463-2581

Expert: expert system [Forth], $100
Mountain View Press
PO Box 4656
Mountain View, CA  94040
415-961-4103

XLISP: AI language, $6 (disk 148)
Expert System of Steel: expert system, $6 (disk 268)
Esie: expert system, $6 (disk 398)
Prolog: AI language, $6 (disk 405)
PC-SIG
1030 E. Duane Ave, Suite J
Sunnyvale, CA  94086
408-730-9291; CA 800-235-6647, elsewhere 800-235-6646

OPS83: expert system [C]
Production Systems Technologies, Inc.
642 Gettysburg St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15206
412-362-3117

Micro-Prolog Professional: AI Language?, $395
Programming Logic Systems
203-877-7988

1st-Class: expert system, $20/$495
Programs in Motion, Inc.
10 Sycamore Rd.
Wayland, MA  01778
617-653-5093

Rulemaster: expert system, $995
Radian Corp.
8501 Mo-Pac Blvd.
PO Box 9948
Austin, TX  78766
512-454-4797

Small-X: expert system, $125/$225
RK Software
PO Box 2085
West Chester, PA  19380
215-436-4570

Savvy PC: expert system, $139
Savvy
505-265-1273

Knowledge Engineering System II: expert system [C], $4000
Software Achitecture & Engineering
1500 Wilson Blvd., suite 800
Arlington, VA  22209
(703)276-7910

Wizdom: expert system, $1250/$2050
Software Intelligence Lab
1593 Locust Ave.
Bohemia, NY  11716
212-747-9066/516-589-1676

Xper: expert system, $95
Softway
415-397-4666

Prolog-86: AI language, $125
Solution Systems
335-P Washington St.
Norwell, MA  02061
617-659-1571

Microdyn: expert system, $300
Stochos
518-372-5426

M1: expert system [Prolog], $5000
KS-300:  expert system
Teknowledge Inc.
525 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA  94301
415-327-6640

Personal Consultant: expert systems [IQ Lisp], $950
Personal Consultant Plus: expert systems [IQ Lisp], $2950
Texas Instruments
PO Box 80963
Dallas, TX  75380-9063
800-527-3500

Class
Texpert Systems, Inc.
12607 Aste
Houston, TX  77065
713-469-4068

       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu
       The above opinions may not be shared by any telecomm company.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Apr 86 17:09:32-CST
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Long Beach AI Conference
-BODY-
The conference to which Girish Kumthekar alluded is presumably

        AI 1986
        AI & Advanced Computer Tecnology Conference & Exhibition
        April 29 - May 1, 1986
        Long Beach Convention Center
        Long Beach, CA

There are sessions on Strategic Defense, Medicine, Office Automation, Printing/
Publishing, Expert Systems, Image Processing, Automated Guided Vehicles,
Knowledge Information Processing Systems, Microcomputers, Machine Translation,
The Investment Community, Engineering Design, Automated Manufacturing Systems,
Banking/Finance, Cognitive Modeling, Business, Aerospace, Speech Processing,
AI Languages, Graphics and User Interface, Expert System Development Systems,
Natural Language Interfaces and Training.  There are three tutorials, *An
Executive Primer to AI*, *Understanding Expert Systems* and *Understanding
Natural Languages* (the first of which is on April 28).  Finally, there is a
workshop on expert systems for manufacturing and process engineers, and about
75 exhibitors.

It's too late for pre-registration, of course, but additional information can
be obtained from

        Tower Conference Management Co.
        331 W. Wesley St.
        Wheaton, IL  60187
        (312) 668-8100    Telex: 350427

I have no connection with this conference, other than being on their mailing
list.

Dallas Webster
Burroughs Austin Research Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 86 10:11:14 +1000 (Fri)
-FROM-
From: "ERIC Y.H. TSUI"  <decvax!mulga!aragorn.oz!eric@decwrl.DEC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Daniel Davison
-BODY-
In article <12199933765.28.DAVISON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> DAVISON@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA
(Daniel Davison) writes:
>
>There were several technical reports mentioned in a recent AIlist that I'd
>like to get...but I don't know how.  Would some kind soul send me a note


To Louisiana State University (LSU):
    cindy@lsu.csnet

    decvax!ihnp4!cmucspt!avie

I have received quite a few reports from LSU (by post) using the above address.


Eric Tsui                               eric@aragorn.oz


  [AIList ran an extensive list of report sources during the first
  year, mostly taken from the SIGART Newsletter.  I can send reprints
  on request, but see the next message.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sources for Technical Reports
-BODY-

Here are the report sources Daniel Davison requested:

LSU

Requests for copies should be addressed to cindy hathaway, technical reports
secretary, computer science department, louisiana state university,
baton rouge, louisiana 70803; or cindy@lsu on csnet.


CMU

Technical reports are available from
        Information Services
        The Robotics Institute
        Carnegie-Mellon University
        Pittsburgh, PA  15213.
                or
        Serviou@H.CS.CMU.EDU


Please direct such requests to me instead of AILIST.


[Lawrence Leff maintains a distribution service for abstracts and
reports.  He is also the source of the BIB-formatted bibliographies
AIList carried a few weeks ago.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Apr 86 09:12:47-PST
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Net addresses
-BODY-
Eswaran, [AIList, AI-ED] :

A lot of us on the arpanet now seem to have at least two equivalent addresses,
either ending in .arpa or .edu.  The latter form, .edu, is the newer one.
In your message to AIList you listed your address as

  eswaran@h.cs.cmu.edu.arpa.

  [It is improper and ineffective to use both, and any mailer which
  constructs such a path name should be fixed.  I believe the CMU
  mailer that had this problem was fixed a couple of months ago.  -- KIL]

Without thinking, I typed the address in like that in the TO field of
my mail program which rejected the host name. It wasn't immediately
obvious to me what was wrong, so I thought I'd bring this type of
problem to everyone's attention because it's bound to come up again.

mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 1986 15:06:36-EST
-FROM-
From: kushnier@NADC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Compuscan
-BODY-
Dear John,

With reference to the verb "to XEROX", I will remain forever humbled under
the mighty name of your company, and will never again be so bold as to use
it as a part of speech.  By the way, the typed originals were COPIED once on
a XEROX Model 1048.  Would you like to comment on why the Compuscan Page
Reader had so much trouble?

                      Ron Kushnier
                      kushnier@nadc.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 APR 86 15:07-N
-FROM-
From: DESMEDT%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: do not "xerox" this message
-BODY-
Reply to the person from Xerox objecting to the use of the verb "xerox":

In your recent contribution to Ailist-Digest, you object to the use of
the word "xerox" as a verb (and in lowercase). Your argument seems to be
that Xerox Corp. makes more office equipment than just copiers, and that
the verb "xerox" could therefore be ambiguous. Moreover, if "xerox"
stands for copying on just any copier, the word doesn't quite cover its
original meaning.

Although I tend to avoid the use of trade marks for generic concepts, I
would like to point out that one can take different stands with respect
to linguistic rules vs. linguistic creativity, and you might be arguing
from the wrong stand.

One view of language is "prescriptive linguistics": to see the rules as
laws that one individual or group of individuals tries to impose on
others.

Another view is "descriptive linguistics": to see the rules as something
that defines what is generally agreed upon by a linguistic community.

As an individual, you seem to defend a rule that from the original
meaning of "photocopy on Xerox equipment", the verb "xerox" can be
extended only to "process on any Xerox equipment". You're taking a
prescriptive viewpoint there, and it's not going to work, because the
linguistic community has already decided long ago that "xerox" means
"photocopy on any copier".

Once the majority of a linguistic community has agreed upon a change, it
is usually hard or impossible to undo that change, even if your arguments
against it are well motivated. Therefore I want to discourage you from
taking a prescriptive viewpoint, and advise you to go by the majority, or
at least, not to pretend you don't understand what "xerox" means for the
majority.

The use of the word "xerox" is not an isolated case. Some more examples?
In Belgium, most people use the word "bic" to mean "any ballpoint pen".
The fact that Bic now also makes disposable rasors and lighters does not
affect this use at all. If I ask any Belgian "do you have a bic I can
use?" nobody will think I mean a rasor or a lighter. Same holds for
"kodak", which means "any camera". If I ask any Belgian whether he owns a
kodak and he doesn't own a camera, he will probably answer "no" even if
he has a Kodak copier back in his office (on which his secretary is
xeroxing his documents).

The use of a trade name for a more generic concept is a particular case
of metonymy, and instead of crusading against it, the subscribers of this
newsletter would probably be more interested in a computer simulation of
metonymic processes to see whether it is able to come up with "xerox" in
the way criticized by you.

Koenraad De Smedt
Psychological Lab.
University of Nijmegen
The Netherlands


  [Personal preferences and customary usage aside, the laws relating
  to trademark usage are fairly clear; Xerox must insist on proper
  use of their name or they will lose the right to use it.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
106
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Apr 86 07:50:46-PST
-FROM-
From: George Cole <GCOLE@su-sushi.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hooks, Rings, Shapes & Background Processes
-BODY-
The knowledge about the individual items and their interactions must contain
the knowledge about their common environment, either as an unstated assumption
or perhaps has common knowledge. A hook and ring will not hold together (even
if they start together) unless the ring is "hanging" from the hook, because
of gravity or magnetism or a strong wind blowing past in the correct direction.
Nor will it stay hanging if the balance of forces (gravity down, wind blowing
past the plastic hook up) is upset beyond the stable limit. (If gravity is
increased 100-fold, will the tensile strength of the hook suffice to support
the ring?) And for a last concern, is there any motion of the hook or ring
that will cause the degradation of either, such as friction wearing away at
the material and thus lowering the tensile capacity?
        These environmental and process contextual aspects do not seem to
yield easily to expression in a stable or fixed-point language.

                                        George S. Cole
                                        GCole@SU-SUSHI.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 86 12:37:52 EST
-FROM-
From: mcguire@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (Hugh McGuire)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Common LISP coding standards
-BODY-
Perhaps Marty Hall was seeking some guide to LISP style, similar to
Ledgard's (et al.'s) *Pascal with Style*; I certainly would find such
useful, and perhaps others would also.  Steele's (et al.'s) *Common
LISP*, while it completely specifies the language, mentions style only
occasionally.  For example, consider the following simple questions:
Under Lexical Scoping, how much should a programmer use variables with
identical names?  Should one use "#'" (the abbreviation for special
form FUNCTION) whenever possible?  When is a short COND-construct more
appropriate than an IF-construct?  How should one decide between
iteration and recursion?  Will asterisked global variables or constants
(e.g.  "*visible-windows*") be confused with the system's asterisked
symbols?
                                                --Hugh
                                                (mcguire@harvard.HARVARD.EDU)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 16:03:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Pardee)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-
> TRAC is pretty easy to implement; I have an incomplete version written in
> C that I did some years back.  I also have a paper on TRAC which is probably
> long out of print by now.

If anyone cares, TRAC stands for Text Reckoner And Compiler, and is
trademarked.

It is discussed at some length in Peter Wegner's book, "Data Structures,
Information Processing and Machine Organization" (the title may be off
a bit, the book is at home and it's hard to remember such a lengthy
title :-)

Stanford used to have a version they called WYMPI.  The main differences
were the use of "*" instead of "#" and -- more significantly -- they
permitted string (macro) names to be specified as the operator, rather
than requiring as TRAC does that strings be specifically called with
the "cl" operator.  In other words, you could say *(macro,...) instead
of #(cl,macro,...).  Wegner leaves it as an exercise to the reader to
show why the "cl" was an important architectural feature of TRAC which
shouldn't have been tampered with.  Something about trying to make
#(cl,macro,...) == #(macro,...)   and at the same time making
##(cl,macro,...) == ##(macro,...)
>-
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {elrond,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 12:32:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!ptb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
       (P.T.Breuer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-
In article <1031@eagle.ukc.ac.uk> sjl@ukc.ac.uk (S.J.Leviseur) writes:
>Does anybody have any references to articles on string reduction
>as a reduction technique for applicative languages (or anything
>else)? They seem to be almost impossible to find! Anything welcome.

John Horton Conway (the Prince of Games, memorably Life) of Cambridge
University (UK) Pure Maths. Dept. some years ago invented a computing
language that seems to me to proceed by Markovian string reduction.
 It is extremely sneaky at recognising substrings for substitution -
obviously the major cost in any such approach - and does this task
efficiently.  The trick is to make up your strings as the product of
integer primes instead of by alphanumeric concatenation. The production
rules of a program script consist of single fractions. To apply the
rules to an incoming 'string' you choose the first fraction in the script
that gives an integer result on multiplication with the integer 'string'
and take the result as the outgoing string, then go to the top of the
script with the new string and start again. The indices of prime powers
in the string serve as memory cells 'x'. The denominator of the fractions
serve as 'if x> ..' statements, with the numerators as 'then x=x+-..'
components. J.H.C.'s (the middle initial is to help him remain incognito)
interest was in the fact that the Godel numbers of programs written in this
language are easily calculable. Conway has written out on a single sheet of
paper the Godel number of the program that simulates any given program from its
Godel number. The G-No. of the prime number program is relatively short.
   I will intervene with J.C. to obtain more info, if requested.
           U.No.Hoo advises generic statement here.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 86 18:08:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!sg@ucbvax.
     berkeley.edu  (Steve Gregory)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PARLOG for Unix
-BODY-

                       SEQUENTIAL PARLOG MACHINE

We are now distributing the first release of our sequential PARLOG
system, to run on Unix machines.  This system is based on an abstract
instruction set -- the SPM (Sequential PARLOG Machine) -- designed for
the sequential implementation of PARLOG.  The system comprises an SPM
emulator, written in C; a PARLOG-SPM compiler, written in PARLOG; and a
query interpreter also written in PARLOG.  An environment allows users to
create, compile, edit and run programs.

The system is a fairly complete implementation of the PARLOG language.
Unlike previous implementations of PARLOG, and of other parallel logic
programming languages, there is no "flat" requirement for guards; guards
may contain any "safe" PARLOG conjunction.  A powerful metacall facility is
provided.

The SPM instruction set was designed by Steve Gregory.  The system has
been implemented by Alastair Burt, Ian Foster, Graem Ringwood and Ken
Satoh, with contributions by Tony Kusalik.  The work has been supported
by the SERC, ICL and Fujitsu.

The SPM system is currently available, in object form, for the Sun
and Vax under Unix 4.2; it is distributed on a tar format tape, which
includes all documentation.  Anyone interested in obtaining a copy should
first contact me at the following address, to request a copy of the licence
agreement.  The software will then be shipped on receipt of the completed
licence and prepayment of the handling fee.

    Steve Gregory                       Telephone: +44 1 589 5111
    Dept. of Computing                  Telex: 261503 IMPCOL G
    Imperial College                    JANET: sg@uk.ac.ic.doc
    London SW7 2BZ                      ARPANET: sg%icdoc@ucl-cs.arpa
    England                             uucp: ...!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!sg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 86 12:20:50 gmt
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@cs.ucl.ac.uk
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Lucas on AI & Computer Consciousness
-BODY-
Tom Schutz says in Vol 4 # 80 :-
> But I hope that these researchers and their fans do not delude themselves
> into thinking that the only aspect of the universe which exists is the
> aspect that science can deal with.

One aspect of human behavior is "politics". Can there really ever be
political *science*? How would you *model* many minds acting as one?

Tom also says :-
>        2) There is a dualism of the mental and the physical with
>           mysterious interactions between the two realms, and
Mysterious indeed! Consider "I *feel* ill", and the interactions
between mind and body, such as "butterflies in the stomach".

He adds :-
>         3) Other possibilities which no one has thought of yet.
of which there are an infinity? Is there of a *real* example of the
result that "sigma 2**(-n)" is 2?  We bootstrap our consciousness
from the cradle, 0, to awareness, 1. Do we "multiply by infinity"
to get there?

Gordon Joly
ARPA: gcj%uk.ac.qmc.maths%uk.ac.qmc.cs@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!qmc-cs!qmc-ori!gcj

"I have a pain in the diodes, all the way down my left side."
                   --  Marvin the Paranoid Android.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 24 Apr 86 01:08:46-PST
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Machine emotion, cat emotion?
-BODY-
        My perspective on the possibilities of machines having emotion
stems from my experience with animals and other life.  I am concerned
about whether animals suffer from slaughtering them, because eating meat
is morally unacceptable if they do.  But there is no a priori reason to
exclude plants from the question, too.  How does one know if another is
suffering?  I think we "know" in the case of people because they act in
ways that we would only act if WE were suffering.  When I've
accidentally stepped on a cat's foot, it has made a noise that sounds
horrible to me, and run out of the way.  This is close enough to what I
would do, were I in pain, so that I feel "oh no, I hurt the cat."  But
sometimes I have accidentally stepped on a dog's foot and it didn't make
such sounds, and I don't know what it felt.  I can't imagine that it
didn't hurt (based on what I would feel if that had been my foot) but
who knows?
        Now, when we get to plants, there is nothing they could do that
would resemble what I would do were I in pain.  Cartoons with
anthropomorphised plants show them doing such things as wilting or
erecting in response to events.  Here there is a fourtuitous parallelel
between human body language the health of the plant's water balance.
But in general?
        My point is that the question of emotion separates into two
issues, the question of one's own emotions, and the question of others'.
I am claiming that operationally, the question of emotions in other
people, animals, plants, and machines are equal in this latter category.
Consider the dynamics of how people perceive each other's
emotions from an evolutionary standpoint. The display of emotion to
others, and the recognition of emotion in others, plays a central role in
human relations, which strongly impact human Darwinian fitness.  Now,
machines can be designed to mimic human expression of emotions, through
icons and the use of emotion expressing language or sounds.  So the
question regarding machine emotions I would emphasize is, what sort of
emotional relationships do we WANT between the human user and the machine?
I would guess that there is some stuff of practical relevance in this
question, to the extent that a computer user's performance is
affected by his or her emotional reactions to what happens during
their sessions.  Suppose after five consecutive run-time errors, the
machine posted the message,
        "I'm sorry to say, but we've hit a run-time error AGAIN!  Keep
working on trying to figure out the problem, though.  There's got to be
a solution!"
        Well, it's a bit contrived, but you get my point.  It could be
an area to develop.
                        -Lee Altenberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Apr 86 09:47:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Some replies on computer consciousness
-BODY-

> ...consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.  The more
> complex the nervous system of an organism, the more likely one is to
> ascribe consciousness to it.  Computers, at present, are too simple,
> regardless of performance.  I would have no problem believing a
> massively parallel system with size and connectivity of biological
> proportions to be conscious, provided it did interesting things.

1. Note that we've gone from a purely external criterion to an combined
   one which asks about both performance and internal structure.
   I quite agree that both these are relevant.

2. The assumption is that it's the connectivity per se (ie structure),
   that consciousness emerges from.  This may be true, but it's not
   a given.  Eg suppose we had a "massively parallel system with
   size [I assume "logical size" is meant here] and connectivity
   of biological proportions" which was implemented in wooden parts
   of normal macroscopic physical size, with a switching speed of about
   1 second.  It's not just obvious to me that such a (large, slow,
   wooden) thing, though structurally identical to a brain, would
   generate consciousness (nor that it wouldn't).

> From: Mark Ellison
>
> Mechanism M [brain] causes C [consciousness] ? You know many
> people who (may) have brains, and you have no DIRECT evidence
> that they are conscious.

Right, but I have strong circumstantial evidence - eg they have a
brain, (like me) and they can do long division (like me).

> You only have direct evidence of one
> case of C (barring ESP, etc.), and no DIRECT evidence of that
> person's brain. Except for the performances in each case.

Huh?  Surely I have other grounds for believing that I, and other
people, have brains besides their performance.  Like analogy,
biology, etc.

> We only know of their ability to feel pain, experience shapes, colors,
> sounds, etc., by their reactions to those stimuli. In other words,
> by their performance. But on the other hand their performance might
> not involve abstract statements.  ....I would argue that "raw
> feelings" in others are known only by their performance.

Well, I think this simply isn't so - do you mean to deny that
the fact that they have brains in no way supports the hypothesis
of their ability to feel pain, etc???  Especially given the
neurological evidence we have that brain activity seems to
directly cause experiences (like the neurosurgeon pokes your
cortex and you say "I see a red flash")?  It seems just obvious
to me that we rationally attribute consciousness to others
because of both criteria, ie performance and brains.

> One criterion that I have not seen yet proposed is the following.
> It is more useful to pretend that people are conscious than not.
> They tend to cause you less pain, and are more likely to do what you want.
> So I'll believe someone's 8600 or Cray is conscious if it works better,
> according to whatever criteria I have for that at the moment, when I so
> believe.

Well, I was speaking of Truth, not pragmatics.  It may be that I
play a better game of chess against a metallic opponent if I
attribute to it motives of greed, revenge, etc.  That hardly
seems to settle the question of whether it really has these
features.

BTW, I think most of these claims about computer consciousness
are mis-spoken - I think what people mean to say (or should) is
that the Wonderful Futuristic computer would be really
*intelligent.*  Since the concept of intelligence is essentially
one of performance, I agree with such claims.  A computer that
could hold a general, intelligent, English conversation is, ipso
facto, intelligent.  It does *not* follow, either conceptually
or practically, that such a machine would be conscious (nor that
it wouldn't, of course), in the normal "seeing-yellow,
feeling-pain" sense of the word, although everyone seems just to
assume this.  To put it another way, just because intelligent
behavior in a human is decisive evidence for consciousness (where
we have the underlying fact of brain-hood), it does not follow
that it is decisive evidence in the case of a computer.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 86 10:51:56 mst
-FROM-
From: crs%f@LANL.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: performance considered insufficient
-BODY-

References: <VAX-MM(186)+TOPSLIB(117)+PONY(0).18-Apr-86.09:53:30.SRI-IU.ARPA>

> Are viruses conscious?  How about protozoa, mollusks, insects, fish,
> reptiles, and birds?  Certainly some mammals are conscious.  How about
> cats, dogs, and chimpanzees?  Does anyone maintain that homo sapiens
> is the only species with consciousness?
>
> My point is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.  The more
> complex the nervous system of an organism, the more likely one is to
> ascribe consciousness to it.  Computers, at present, are too simple,
> regardless of performance.  I would have no problem believing a
> massively parallel system with size and connectivity of biological
> proportions to be conscious, provided it did interesting things.

I've been following, with interest, the debate about the possibility of
machine consciousness.  I have a question:

Do you consider (each of you) consciousness a binary phenomenon?  Does one
(or something) either have, or not have, consciousness?

Or, is there a continuum of consciousness, with some entities in possession
of just a *little* consciousness while others have more?

I suspect, based on what I have read here, that there is no consensus
opinion, that some believe it is binary while others subscribe to the
continuum idea (with, perhaps, others believing some intermediate theory).
Is there a prevailing view among AI researchers?

Use your own judgment as to whether to post or mail your reply.  If I
receive many mail replies, I'll try to summarize and post.

Charlie Sorsby
        ...{cmcl2, ihnp4, ..}!lanl!crs
                                crs@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
107
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 86 14:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Multivalued Logics (UPenn)
-BODY-

                  Colloquium - University of Pennsylvania
                      3:00 pm 4/29 - 216 Moore School

                            MULTI-VALUED LOGICS
                    Matt Ginsberg - Stanford University

A  great  deal  of  recent theoretical work in inference has involved extending
classical logic in  some  way.    I  argue  that  these  extensions  share  two
properties:  firstly, the formal addition of truth values encoding intermediate
levels of validity between true (i.e., valid) and false  (i.e.,  invalid)  and,
secondly,  the  addition  of  truth  values  encoding  intermediate  levels  of
certainty between true or false on the  one  hand  (complete  information)  and
unknown  (no  information)  on  the  other.    Each  of these properties can be
described by associating lattice structures to the collection of  truth  values
involved;  this  observation  lead  us to describe a general framework of which
both default logics and truth maintenance systems are special cases.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 86 08:46:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanisms of Analogy (UCB)
-BODY-
                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                                     Spring 1986

                        Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B

                          Tuesday, April 29, 11:00 - 12:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall
                              Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                              3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

                              ``Mechanisms of Analogy''

                                    Dedre Gentner
               Psychology, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana

                Analogy is a key process in learning and reasoning.   This
           research  decomposes  analogy  into  separable subprocesses and
           charts dependencies.  Evidence is presented that  (1)  once  an
           analogy  is  given,  people  map predicates and judge soundness
           chiefly  on  the  basis  of  common  relational  structure,  as
           predicted  by  the  structure-mapping  theory; (2) in contrast,
           access to potential analogue depends heavily on common  surface
           features.

                Accessibility and inferential power appear to be  governed
           by  different kinds of similarity.  This finer-grained analysis
           of similarity helps resolve conflicting evidence concerning the
           role of similarity in transfer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 28 Apr 86 14:31:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Recursive Self-Control for Rational Action (SU)
-BODY-
DAY:    May 5
EVENT:  AI Seminar
PLACE:  Jordan 050
TIME:   4:15
TITLE:  Recursive Self-Control:
        A Computational Groundwork for Rational Action
PERSON: John Batali
FROM:   MIT AI Lab

Human activity must be understood in terms of agents interacting with
the world, those interactions subject to the details of the situation
and the limited abilities of the agents.  Rationality involves an
agent's deliberating about and choosing actions to perform.  I suggest
that deliberation and choice are themselves best viewed as activities of
the agent.  This leads to a view of rationality based on "recursive
self-control" wherein the agent controls the activity of its body in
much the same way as a programmer controls a computational mechanism.
To prove that this view is really recursive, rather than just
meaninglessly circular, I describe a computer program whose architecture
illustrates how recursive self-control could work.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Apr 86 13:12:59-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning about Multiple Faults (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                        Stanford University
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Reasoning About Multiple Faults
Speaker:        Johan de Kleer
From:           XEROX Palo Alto Research Center
Date:           Wednesday, April 30, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

Diagnostic tasks require determining the differences between a model
of an artifact and the artifact itself.  The differences between the
manifested behavior of the artifact and the predicted behavior of the
model guide the search for the differences between the artifact and
its model.  The diagnostic procedure presented in this paper reasons
from first principles, inferring the behavior of the composite device
from knowledge of the structure and function of the individual
components comprising the device.  The system has been implemented
and tested on examples in the domain of troubleshooting digital
circuits.

This research makes several novel contributions: First, the system
diagnoses failures due to multiple faults.  Second, failure candidates
are represented and manipulated in terms of minimal sets of violated
assumptions, resulting in an efficient diagnostic procedure.  Third,
the diagnostic procedure is incremental, reflecting the interactive
nature of diagnosis.  Finally, a clear separation is drawn between
diagnosis and behavior prediction, resulting in a domain (and
inference) independent diagnostic procedure which can be incorporated
into a wide range of inference procedures.


Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 86 19:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Eric Saund <SAUND@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge in Shape Representation (MIT)
-BODY-

Thursday,  1 May  4:00pm  Room: NE43-8th floor playroom

               --- AI Revolving Seminar ---


           KNOWLEDGE, ABSTRACTION, AND CONSTRAINT
                  IN SHAPE REPRESENTATION

                        Eric Saund
                        MIT AI Lab


What can make a profile look like an apple?

Early Vision teaches that you must know something if you are going to
see.  The physics of light, the geometry of the eyes, the smoothness
of surfaces, all impose >constraint< on images.  It is only through
the application of >knowledge< about this structure in the visual
world that early vision may invert the imaging process and recover
surface orientations, light sources, and reflectance properties.  We
should take this lesson seriously in attempting intermediate and later
vision such as shape understanding.

Key to using knowledge in vision is building representations to
reflect the structure of the visual world.  The mathematically
expressed laws of early vision do not help for later vision.  How is
one to express the constraint on a profile that might qualify it as an
apple?  In this talk I will discuss steps toward construction of a
vocabulary for shape representation rich enough to express the complex
and subtle relationships between locations and sizes of boundaries and
regions that give rise to object parts and shape categories.  I will
describe three computational tools, "scale-space", "dimensionality-
reduction", and "functional role abstraction", for building symbolic
descriptors to capture constraint in shape information.  Examples of
their use will be shown in a one-dimensional, model, shape domain.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Apr 86 15:51:12-PDT
-FROM-
From: Benjamin N. Grosof <GROSOF@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - GRAPHOIDS: A Logical Basis for Dependency Nets (SU)
-BODY-

JUDEA PEARL of the UCLA Computer Science Department will be speaking on
probabilistic reasoning

                FRIDAY MAY 2  2:15pm   JORDAN 040

                   GRAPHOIDS: A Logical Basis
                     for Dependency Nets

                               or
                 When would x tell you more about y
                       if you already know z

ABSTRACT:
        We consider statements of the type:
        I(x,z,y) = "Knowing z renders x independent of y",
        where x and y and z are three sets of propositions.
        We give sufficient conditions on I for the existence
        of a (minimal) graph G such that I(x,z,y) can be validated
        by testing whether z separates x from y in G. These
        conditions define a GRAPHOID.

        The theory of graphoids uncovers the axiomatic basis of
        probabilistic dependencies and extends it as a formal
        definition of informational dependencies. Given an
        initial set of dependency relations, the axioms
        established permit us to infer new dependencies by
        non-numeric, logical manipulations, thus identifying
        which propositions are relevant to each other in a
        given state of knowledge.  Additionally,
        the axioms may be used to test the legitimacy of
        using networks to represent various types of
        data dependency, not necessarily probabilistic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 1986 1915-PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Tim Mann <mann@su-pescadero.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Decentralized Naming in Distributed Computer Systems (SU)
-BODY-
This is to announce my PhD oral, scheduled for Tuesday May 6, 2:15 pm,
building 160, room 163B.

Decentralized Naming in Distributed Computer Systems
Timothy P. Mann

A key component in distributed computer systems is the naming facility:
the means by which global, user-assignable names are bound to objects,
and by which objects are located given only their names. This work
proposes a new approach to the construction of such a naming facility,
called \decentralized naming/. In systems that follow this approach,
the global name space and name mapping mechanism are implemented by the
managers of named objects, cooperating as peers with no central
authority. I develop the decentralized naming model in detail and
characterize its fault tolerance, efficiency, and security. I also
describe the design, implementation, and measured performance of a
decentralized naming facility that I have constructed as a part of the
V distributed operating system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 86 16:30 EST
-FROM-
From: SIG%northeastern.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning in Time (Northeastern)
-BODY-

                       Learning in Time

                Richard Sutton (rich@gte-labs.csnet)
                      GTE Labs, Waltham, Ma.


Most machine learning procedures apply to learning problems in which
time does not play a role.  Typically, training consists of the
presentation of a sequence of pairs of the form (Pattern, Category),
where each pattern is supposed to be mapped to the associated category,
and the ordering of the pairs is incidental.  In real human learning, of
course, the situation is very different:  successive input patterns are
causally related to each other, and only gradually do we become sure of
how to categorize past patterns.  In recognizing spoken words, for
example, we may be sure of the word half way through it, after it has
all been heard, or not until several words later; our certainty of the
correct classification changes and becomes more certain over time.  In
learning to make such classifications, is it sufficient to just
correlate pattern and category, and ignore the role of time?  In this
talk, I claim that the answer is NO.  A new kind of learning is
introduced, called Bootstrap Learning, which can take advantage of
temporal structure in learning problems.  Examples and results are
presented showing that bootstrap learning methods require significantly
less memory and communication, and yet make better use of their
experience than conventional learning procedures.  Surprisingly, this
seems to be a case where consideration of an additional complication --
the temporal nature of most real-world problems -- results in BOTH
better performance AND better implementations.  These advantages appear
to make bootstrap learning the method of choice for a wide range of
learning problems, from predicting the weather to learning evaluation
functions for heuristic search, from understanding classical
conditioning to constructing internal models of the world, and, yes,
even to routing telephone calls.

Wednesday, May 14, 12:00 noon

161 Cullinane Hall

Sponsored by:
        College of Computer Science
        Northeastern University
        360 Huntington Ave.
        Boston, Ma

Host:  Steve Gallant
       (sig@northeastern.csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Apr 86 17:08:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Characterization and Structure of Events (SRI)
-BODY-
             THE CHARACTERIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF EVENTS

                 Douglas D. Edwards (EDWARDS@SRI-AI)
          SRI International, Artificial Intelligence Center

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, May 5
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Events were raised to prominence as a basic ontological category in
philosophy by Davidson, who used quantified variables ranging over
events in the logical analysis of assertions about causality and
action, and of sentences with adverbial modifiers.  Drew McDermott
used the category of events in AI planning research to model changes
more complex than state transformations.

Despite the common use of events as an ontological category in
philosophy, linguistics, planning research, and ordinary language,
there is no standard characterization of events.  Sometimes, as in
Davidson, they are taken to be concrete individuals.  Other authors
think of them as types or abstract entities akin to facts,
propositions, or conditions; as such they are often subjected to
truth-functional logical operations, which Davidson considers to be
inapplicable.  McDermott, following Montague in broad outline, thinks
of them as classes of time intervals selected from various possible
histories of the world.  Other authors emphasize individuation of
events not just by time but also by spatial location, by the objects
or persons participating, or (Davidson) by their location in a web of
causes and effects.

In this talk I sketch a scheme for characterizing types of events
which illuminates the relationship between type and token events, the
internal structure and criteria of individuation of events, and the
relationship of events to other categories of entities such as
objects, facts, and propositions.  Events turn out to be structured
entities like complex objects, not simple temporal or spatiotemporal
regions or classes of such.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
108
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 86 01:24:43 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!bacall!iketani@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Dana Todd Iketani)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: connection machine articles
-BODY-

I am looking for some information about the Connection
Machine from MIT/Thinking Machines Inc.  Could someone
send me some pointers for some real articles?  Or an
article with a good bibliography?  I've found plenty
of popular literature articles, but the only technical
paper I've found is the MIT memo by Hillis.  Thanks
in advance.


d. todd Iketani

USENET:         usc-cse!iketani
ARPANET:        IKETANI@USC-ECL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 APR 86 1404 UT
-FROM-
From: MCLOUH85%IRLEARN.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RESEARCH IN PROGRESS AT UCD IRELAND
-BODY-
I am doing research in AI at University College Dublin in Ireland.
In the research project we are working on we have set ourselves the
goal of developing a system which will play the part of a telephone
receptionist in "typed" telephone conversations. In our research we
have had to address ourselves to a number of problems in the areas
of planning and user modelling.
In this note I would like to say something about our work on user
modelling.
It became clear to us that in the live data which we collected
as part of the research that the receptionist seemed to have a
very rich model of the people she spoke to. These models were
much richer than any we have read about in the AI literature.
We discussed a number of the transcripts of conversations with
the receptionist and she confirmed that she was using quite detailed
models of the people she spoke to. In the vast majority of the cases
she had never met these people or spoken to them before the conversations.
It appears that quite early on in the conversation she would classify
the caller as being of a particular "type" and thereafter she would
apply any knowledge she had about that "type" of person to build a
basic model of the caller.
We have been working on applying this knowledge about stereotypes to
the system we are building and we have developed a knowledge structure
which we call a Persona. A Persona can contain knowledge about
the goals, plans, obligations, beliefs, and props which we associate with
a typical member of a class of people. It can also contain knowledge
about the types of situations in which we would normally find such people,
and the props which we might associate with them.
So far we have been working on delevoping Personae which model
common occupations, such as , the Salesman, the receptionist, the telephone
operator.
However, it is our intention in the future to try and develop Personae
which model particular attributes such as Friendly, Aggressive etc and to
see if we can develop ways of combining these to produce personality
models.
Well, having given an overview of the work we are doing, I would be
grateful if there are any readers who share our interest in Personality
modelling and stereotypes who might have any comments to make or
who might be able to reccommend particular papers in the area which
might be of interest to us.
Henry B McLoughlin.
Department of Computer Science
University College Dublin
MCLOUH85@IRLEARN

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Apr 86 13:26:37 GMT
-FROM-
From: uwvax!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!linus!security!jkm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Jonathan K.Millen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String reduction
-BODY-

     If you are interested in an applicative Lisp-like language
based on string substitution and reduction, you might want to look
at "TRAC, A Procedure-Describing Language for the Reactive Typewriter",
by Calvin N. Mooers, Comm ACM, Vol. 9, No. 3, March, 1966.

Jon Millen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Apr 86 09:41:32-PDT
-FROM-
From: Lou Fried <FRIED@SRI-KL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems for MS-DOS
-BODY-
Please include:

SeRIES-PC, language IQLISP, $5,000
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Contact: Bob Wohlsen, x 4408

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 86 15:47 EDT
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Shape -- Simulation and Recognition
-BODY-
This hooks, rings and shapes discussion points at that AI contains a
lot of simulation.  One useful model of AI programming is to view a
program as an intertwining of simulation and recognition, especially if
you are willing to think of these concepts a bit more generally than
ordinarily.

> A game playing program will play the game forwards (simulation) and
then choose a course of play to follow (recognition).

> A logic programming system will follow the ramifications of an
assertion by forward chaining (simulation) and then seek a particular
fact in the rule base (recognition).

> A robotics program will examine its goals and its model of the world
(recognition) and then test if a pariticular motion is useful or
possible (simulation).  (Who was it who wrote in saying that all he
needed was an AT function and everything else would be easy?)
[That was a quote from Peter Cheeseman's early days. -- KIL]

This is not a strict breakdown, but rather a useful insight which
explains why certain problems are solved in certain ways.  Thinking of
part of the program as the simulator and part as the recognizer can
reveal two of the conflicting forces in the resolution of the problem.
No matter how they are described, there are two fundamental dynamic
elements which force the tradeoffs required to engineer a working
program.

> Anoop Gupta who is working on implementing OPS5-like rule resolution
systems on parallel machines noted that programs broke into Problem
Space Search which grows exponentially (simulation) which is where the
parallelism comes from and Knowledge Space Search which applies the
programs knowledge of the domain to restrict the growth rate of
parallelism (recognition).

> A number of other researchers have broken problem solving into the
marshalling of alternatives (simulation) followed by the focussing of
attention on the most promising (recognition).  Phil Agre argues that
one purpose of consciousness is to control the direction of attention
to the alternatives.

My personal feeling is that AI isn't going to tackled everyday
knowledge until it starts simulating everyday things.  Steamer, the
large steam engine expert contained a gigantic Fortran program
(rewritten in Lisp) to simulate the engine.  I don't know of any
programs that simulate a kitchen.  AI has already borrowed a lot of
object oriented programming from Simula which is a simulation language.
Maybe AI programmers, being forced to deal with the problems of
simulation will find other as yet neglected tools.

                                        Seth Steinberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 86 11:12:48 cdt
-FROM-
From: bulko@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU (Bill Bulko)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: bulko@sally.UUCP (Bill Bulko)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: do not "xerox" this message
-BODY-

I don't see what the big deal is about using "xerox" as a verb.  I often
hear "Coke" used to mean "[virtually any] carbonated soft drink".  How
often do you order a Coke at a fast-food place and get Pepsi or RC?
     If anything, the use of "xerox" as a verb is a tribute to the
contribution Xerox has made to photocopying.

                                        Bill

_______________________________________________________________________________
          "In the knowledge lies the power." -- Edward A. Feigenbaum
                       "Knowledge is good." -- Emil Faber
Bill Bulko                                              The University of Texas
bulko@sally.UTEXAS.EDU                          Department of Computer Sciences

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 29 Apr 86 11:40:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Trademarks
-BODY-
Laws concerning trademark usage aside, De Smedt is perfectly correct
in pointing out that the verb 'to xerox', meaning to copy on a
dry-xerographic copier, and associated constructions ( a xerox copy,
etc. ), are now in fact part of the language. The distinction between
'xerox' and 'Xerox' seems quite clear, and it might be more sensible
for the company to insist on 'correct' usage of the latter rather than
the former.  Its no use, guys, you can't stop people using the word in
the way they want to. A dictionary which omitted 'to xerox' would not
be accurate. Its an inevitable consequence of the fact that for many
years, all the copiers WERE Xerox machines, just like Bics and Kodaks.
One can't have no competitors while a new technology is entering the
marketplace, and expect not to be identified with it.  Especially if
one has also invented a neat, original, snappy name for it ( like Bic
and Kodak ). Its the price of success.

Pat Hayes
Schlumberger ( a word which will never enter the language )

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
109
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:21:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #4
-BODY-
IDA83a *
Ida T. & Sato M. & Hayashi S. & Hagiya M. & Kurokawa T. & Hikita T. &
Futatsugi K. & Sakai K. & Toyama Y. & Matsuda T.
Higher Order: Its Implications to Programming Languages and Computational
Models
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0029
October 1983

IDA84a *
Ida T. & Konagaya A.
Comparison of Closure Reduction and Combinatory Reduction Schemes.
ICOT Technical Report TR-072
August 1984

INGA78a
Ingalls D.
The Smalltalk-76 Programming System Design and Implementation
Proc. SIGPLAN Conf. on Princ. of Prog. Langs., pp 9-15
1978

INMO84a
INMOS
IMS T424 Transputer Data Card
INMOS , Jan 1984

INMO84b
INMOS
OCCAM Data Card
INMOS , June 1984

INMO84c
INMOS
OCCAM User Group Newsletter No.1
INMOS , Summer 1984

INMO84d
INMOS
IMS T424 Transputer : Preliminary Data
INMOS , August 1984

INMO84e
INMOS ltd
Occam Programming Manual
Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science
January 1984

ISL81a
Islam N. & Myers T.J. & Broome P.
A Simple Optimiser for FP-like Languages
Proc. ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer
Architecture, New Hampshire, pp 33-40
october 1981

ITO83a *
Ito N. & Masuda K.
Parallel Inference machine Based on the Data Flow Model
( Also in "Proceedings of Int'l Workshop on High-Level Computer Architecture",
  Los Angeles, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-033
December 1983

ITO83b
Ito N. & Masuda K. & Shimizu H.
Parallel Prolog Machine Based on the Data Flow Model
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-035
September 1983

ITO83c *
Ito N. & Onai R. & Masuda K. & Shimizu H.
Prolog Machine Based on the Data Flow Mechanism
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0007
May 1983

IWAT84a
Iwata K. & Kamiya S. & Sakai H. & Matsuda S. & Shibayama S. & Murukami K.
Design and Implementation of a Two-Way Merge Sorter and its Application to
Relational Database Processing
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-066
May 1986

JARO86a *
Jarosz J. & Jawarowski J.R.
Computer Tree - The Power of Parallel Computations
Computer Journal, Vol 29, No 2, pp 103-108
April 1986

JAYA80a
Jayaraman B. & Keller R.M.
Resource Control in a Demand-Driven Data-Flow Model
In Proc. International Conf. on Parallel Processing, IEEE
1980

JAYA82a
Jayaraman B. & Keller R.M.
Resource Expressions For Applicative Languages
International Conf. on Parallel Processing, IEEE
August 1982

JEFF85a *
Jeffrey T.
The "mu"PD7281 Processor
Byte Magazine, Vol 10, no 12,
November 1985

JESS86a *
Jesshope C.
VLSI and Beyond
in BCS86a
1986

JESS86b *
Jesshope C.
The Transputer - Microprocessor or Systems Building Block
in BCS86a
1986

JOHN77a
Johnson S.D.
An Interpretive Model For A Language Based On Suspended Construction
M.S. Thesis, Indiana Univ, Bloomington, In.
1977

JOHN81a
Johnsson T.
Detecting When Call By Value can be Used Instead of Call By Need
LPM Memo 14, Chalmers Inst., Sweden
October 1981

JOHN83a
Johnsson T.
The G-Machine. An Abstract Machine for Graph Reduction
Declarative Programming Workshop , University College London, April 1983

JOHN86a *
Johnsson T.
Attribute Grammars and Functional Programming
86-02-20

JONE82a *
Jones N.D. & Muchnick S.S.
A Fixed-Program Machine for Combinator Expression Evaluation
Proc. of ACM LISP Conf 1982 p11-20

JONE83a *
Jones S.B.
Abstract Machine Support For Purely Functional Operating Systems
Technical Monograph PRG-34, Programming Research Group, Oxford Univ.
August 1983

JONK81a *
Jonkers H.B.M.
Abstract Storage Structures
Mathematisch Centrum iw 158/81
1981

KAHN77a *
Kahn G. & MacQueen D.B.
Coroutines and Networks of Parallel Processes
IFIP 77, ed. Gilchrist B. , pp 993-998
North Holland
1977

KAMI84a *
Kamimura T. & Tang A.
Total Objects of Domains
Theoretical Computer Science, pp 275-288
1984

KARI84a *
Karia R.J.
Compiling a Functional Language into Combinators for a Reduction Machine
Computer Science Research Memo no 111
G.E.C. Hirst Research Centre, Computer Science Research Group
6th March 1984

KARP66a *
Karp R.M. & Miller R.E.
Properties of a Model for Parallel Computations : Determinacy, Termination,
Queueing
SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, Vol 14, no 6
pp 1390-1411
November 1966

KATE84a
Katevenis M.G.H. & Sherburne R.W. & Patterson D.A. & Sequin C.H.
The RISC II Micro-Architecture
Journal of VLSI and Computer Systems, 1(2)
1984

KATU83a
Katuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Shibayama S. & Yokota H. & Murukami K.
A Relational Database Machine "Delta" - IPSJ Translation
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0008
May 1983

KAUB82a
Kaubisch W.H. & Hoare C.A.R.
Discrete Event Simulation Based on Communicating Sequential Processes
in BROY82a, pp 625-642
1982

KELL79a
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G. & Patil S.
A Loosely Coupled Applicative Multi-Processing System
AFIPS Conference Proceedings
June 1979

KELL80a
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G. & Patil S.
Data-Flow Concepts for Hardware Design
In IEEE Compcon (VLSI - New Architectural Horizons)
February 1980

KELL80b
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G.
Hierarchical Analysis of a Distributed Evaluator
1980 Int. Conf. on Parallel Processing, IEEE
August 1980

KELL80c
Keller R.M.
Some Theoretical Aspects of Applicative Multiprocessing
In LNCS Proc. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science
1980

KELL80d
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G.
Parallelism in Functional Programming Through Applicative Loops
Document 1980

KELL80e
Keller R.M.
Data Structuring in Applicative Multiprocessing Systems
Proc. 1980 LISP Conf. p196-202

KELL81a
Keller R.M. & Yen W.J.
A Graphical Approach to Software Development Using Function Graphs
Proc. Compcon 1981, IEEE
1981

KELL81b
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G.
Applications of Feedback in Functional Programming
Symp. on Functional Langs. and Computer Arch., Chalmers Univ.
June 1981

KELL82a *
Keller R.M. & Sleep R.S.
Applicative Caching
Document, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Utah,July 1982

KELL84a
Keller R.M. & Lin F.C.H.
Simulated Performance of a Reduction-Based Multiprocessor
Computer 17(7), July 1984

KELL85a
Keller R.M.
FEL (Function-Equation Language) Programmers Guide
AMPS Technical Memorandum No 7, April 1985

KELL85b
Keller R.M. & Lin F.C.H. & Badovinatz
The Rediflow Simulator
Internal Memorandum, April 1985

KELL85c
Keller R.M. & Lindstrom G.
Approaching Distributed Database Implementations Through Functional
Programming Concepts
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, IEEE, Denver
May 1985

KELL85d
Keller R.M.
Distributed Computation by Graph Reduction
Systems Research
Pergammon Press
March 1985

KENN82a *
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Expressions as Processes
Proc. of ACM LISP Conf 1982 p21-28 1982

KENN82b *
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Applicative Objects as Processes
3rd Int. Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, Miami, Oct 1982

KENN82c *
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Director Strings as Combinators
Document, Computer Studies Centre, University of East Anglia,July 1982

KENN82d *
Kennaway J.R.
The Complexity of a Translation of Lambda-Calculus to Combinators
Document, Computer Studies Centre, University of East Anglia,June 1982

KENN83a *
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Novel Architectures for Declarative Languages
Software & MicroSystems Vol 2 No 3  p59-70 June 1983

KENN83b *
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Syntax and Informal Semantics of DyNe, a Parallel Language
Document, Computer Studies Centre, University of East Anglia, Nov 1983

KENN84a
Kennaway J.R.
An Outline of Some Results of Staples on Optimal Reduction orders
in Replacement Systems
Internal Report CSA/19/1984
Declarative Systems Architecture Group-4
Univ. of East Anglia
20 March 1984

KENN84b
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Efficiency of Counting Director Strings
Internal Report CSA/14/1984
Declarative Systems Architecture Group-2
Univ of East Anglia
May 17 1983
1984

KENN84c
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
Counting Director Strings (Draft)
unpublished
Univ of East Anglia
October 31, 1984

KENN85a
Kennaway J.R. & Sleep M.R.
A Denotational Semantics for First-Class Processes (Draft)
Univ of East Anglia
Submitted for publication
August 1985

KENN86a *
Kennaway J.R.
Recursive Normalising L-Strategies For Combinatory Reduction Systems
School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia
March 21, 1986

KIEB81a
Kieburtz R.B. & Shultis J.
Transformations of FP Program Schemes
Proc. ACM Conf. on Functional Programming Languages and Computer
Architecture, New Hampshire, pp 41-48
October 1981

KIEB85a
Kieburtz R.B.
The G-Machine: A Fast Graph-Reduction Evaluator
Oregon Graduate Center Technical Report  CS/E-85-002
1985

KITA83a
Kitakami H. & Furukawa K. & Takeuchi A. & Yokota H. & Miyachi T. & Kunifuji S.
A Knowledge Assimilation Method for Logic Databases
( Also in "Proceedings of International Symposium on Logic Programming",
  Atlantic City, U.S.A., 1984, IEEE Computer Society Press )
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 2, No 4, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-025
September 1985

KITA83b
Kitakami H. & Kunifuji S. & Miyachi T. & Furukawa K.
A Methodology for Implementation of a Knowledge Acquisition System
( Also in "Proceedings of International Symposium on Logic Programming",
  Atlantic City, U.S.A., 1984, IEEE Computer Society Press )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-037
December 1983

KITA83c
Kitakami H. & Kunifuji S. & Miyachi T. & Furukawa K.
A Methodology for Implementation of a Knowledge Acquisition System
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0024
August 1983

KITS84a
Kitsuregawa M. & Tanaka H. & Moto-oka T.
Relational Algebra Machine  GRACE
Faculty of Eng, Dept of Information Eng, Univ of Tokyo

KLEE50a
Kleene S.C.
Introduction to Metamathematics
Von Nostrand, Princeton, 1950

KLUG79a
Kluge W.E.
The Architecture of A Reduction Machine Hardware Model
Gesellschaft Fur Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung MBH Bonn
Tech Rep ISF-Report 79.03,
August 1979

KLUG83a *
Kluge W.E.
Cooperating Reduction Machines
IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol c-32, no 11
pp 1002-1012
November 1983

KNUT70a
Knuth D.E. & Bendix P.B.
Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebra
in "Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra" (ed. Leech J.)
pp 263-297
Pergamon Press
1970

KOND84a
Kondou H.
Plan for Constructing Knowledge Architecture
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-078
September 1984

KOTT75a
Kott L.
About a Transformation System - A Theoretical Study
Proc. 3rd Symposium on Programming, Paris
1975

KOWA74a
Kowalski R.
Predicate logic as a Programming Language
Proc. IFIP, pp 569-574
1974
North Holland

KOWA79a
Kowalski R.
Logic for Problem Solving
North Holland 1979


KOWA79b
Kowalski R.
Algorithm=Logic+Control
CACM Vol 22 No 7 p424-436 July 1979

KOWA80a
Logic as A Computer Language
Infotech State of the Art Conference on Software Development Techniques
1980

KOWA82a
Kowalski R.
Logic Programming
Department of Computing, Imperial College
(Later Presented at IFIP 83, pp 133- 145, North Holland)

KOWA85a
Kowalski R.
The Relationship Between Logic Programming and Logic Specification
in HOA85a
1985

KUCH84a *
Kucherov G.A.
An Algorithm To Recognize Sufficient Completeness Of Algebraic
Specification Of An Abstract Data Type
Programming and Computer Software, 10, pp 161-168
1984

KULK86a *
Kulkarni K.G. & Atkinson M.P.
EFDM: Extended Functional Data Model
Computer Journal, Vol 29, no 1, pp 38-46
1986

KUNI82a
Kunifuji S. & Yokota H.
PROLOG and Relational Data Bases For Fifth Generation Computer Systems
( Also in "Proceedings of CERT Workshop on Logical Bases for Databases",
  France, 1982 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-002
September 1982

KUNI83a
Kunifuji S. & Enomoto H. & Yonezaki N. & Saeki M.
Paradigms of Knowledge Based Software System and Its Service Image
( Also in Third Seminar on Software Engineering, Florence, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-030
November 1983

KUNI84a
ed. Kunii T.L.
VLSI Engineering
Springer Verlag 1984

KURO84a
Kurokawa T. & Tojyo S.
Coordinator - the Kernel of the Programming System for the Personal
Sequential Inference Machine (PSI)
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-061
April 1984

KUSA84a *
Kusalik A.J.
Serialization of Process Reduction In Concurrent Prolog
New Generation Computing 2, pp 289-298
Springer-Verlag
1984

LAMP81a
Lampson B.W. & Pier K.A.
A Processor for a High-Performance Personal Computer
CSL-81-1 , Xerox PARC, Jan 1981

LAMP81b
Lampson B.W. & McDaniel G.A. & Ornstein S.M.
An Instruction Fetch Unit for a High-Performance Personal Computer
CSL-81-1 , Xerox PARC, Jan 1981

LAND63
Landin P.J.
The Mechanical Evaluation of Expressions
Computer Journal 6(4), pp 308-320
(also see A Lambda Calculus Approach in
 "Advances in Programming and Non-Numerical Computation"
 ed. Fox L., p 67, Pergammon Press, Oxford, 1966)
1963

LAND65
Landin P.J.
A Correspondence Between Algol 60 and Church's Notation
CACM 8, p89
1965

LAND66
Landin P.J.
The Next 700 Programming Languages
CACM Vol 9, no 3, pp 157-166, march
1966

LASS85a *
Lassez J. -L. & Maher M.J.
Optimal Fixedpoints of Logic Programs
Theoretical Computer Science 39, pp 15-25
1985

LEHM81
Lehman M.M.
The Environment of Program Development and Maintenance-
Programs, Programming and Programming Support
Report 81/2
Dept of Computing, Imperial College
1981

LESC83a *
Lescanne P.
Behavioural Categoricity of Abstract Data Type Specifications
Computer Journal, Vol 26, no 4, pp 289-292
1983

LI84a
Li Deyi J.
A Prolog Database System
New York : John Wiley and Sons    1984

LIEB80
Lieberman H. & Hewitt C.E.
A Real Time Garbage Collector That Can Recover Temporary Storage Quickly
AI Memo 569, MIT Lab, Cambridge, 1980

LIEB83
Lieberman H. & Hewitt C.
A Real-Time Garbage Collector Based on the Lifetimes of Objects
CACM Vol 26 No. 6 p419-429 ,June 1983

LIND81
Lindstrom G. & Wagner R.
Incremental Recomputation on Data-Flow Graphs
Symposium on Functional Langs and Comp. Arch., Goteborg Univ.
1981

LIND83
Lindstrom G. & Hunt F.E.
Consistency and Currency in Functional Databases
Proc. Infocom 83, IEEE, San Diego
April 1983

LIND84a
Lindstrom G.
OR-Parallelism on Applicative Architectures
In Proc. 2nd International Logic Programming Conf., Uppsala Univ.
July 1984

LIND84b
Lindstrom G. & Panangaden P.
Stream-Based Execution of Logic Programs
Proc. 1984 Int'l Symp. on Logic Programming
February 1984

LIND85a
Lindstrom G.
Functional Programming and The Logical Variable
In Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM
January 1985

LIND85b
Lindstrom G.
Rule-Based Programming on Fifth Generation Computers
Proc. A.I. and Advanced Computer Technology Conf., Long Beach
June 1985

LINS85a *
Lins R.D.
The Complexity of a Translation of Lambda-Calculus to Categorical Combinators
University of Kent Computing Laboratory Report No 27
April 1985

LINS85b *
Lins R.D.
A New Formula For The Execution of Categorical Combinators
University of Kent Computing Laboratory Report No 33
November 1985

LINS85c *
Lins R.D.
On The Efficiency of Categorical Combinators as a Rewriting System
University of Kent Computing Laboratory No 34
November 1985

LINS85d
Lins R.D.
A New Way of Introducing Constants in Categorical Combinators
Privately Circulated
Computer Laboratory, Univ of Kent
1985

LOEC84a *
Loeckx J. & Sieber K.
The Foundations of Program Verification
Wiley-Teubner Series in Computer Science
John Wiley and Sons
1984

LONG76a *
Longo G. & Venturini Zilli M.
A Theory of Computation With an Identity Discriminator
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 147-167
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

MACQ84a *
MacQueen D.
Modules for Standard ML
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 198-207
1984

MAGO79a
Mago G.A.
A Network of R Microprocessors To Execute Reduction Languages
Int. Journal of Computer and Information Sciences
Vol 8 no 5 and Vol 8 no 6
1979

MAGO80a
Mago G.A.
A Cellular Computer Architecture For Functional Programming
Proc. IEEE Compcon , pp 179-187
1980

MAIB85a *
Maibaum T.S.E.
Database Instances, Abstract Data Types and Database Specification
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 2, pp 154-161
1985

MAL84a
Malpas John & O'Leary Kathy
Declarative Languages Under Unix
Microsystems, August 1984, page 94

MAL85a
Malpas John
Prolog as a unix system tool
unix/world vol II no 6 july '85 pp 48-53

MANNA73a
Manna Z. & Ness S. & Vuillemin J.
Inductive Methods For Proving Properties Of Programs
CACM , August, 1973

MANNA82a
Manna Z.
Verification of Sequential Programs: Temporal Axiomatization
in BROY82a, pp 53-101
1982

MANNI85a *
Mannila H. & Mehlhorn K.
A Fast Algorithm For Renaming a Set of Clauses as a Horn Set
Information Processing Letters, Vol 21, No 5, pp 269-272
November 1985

MANU83a *
Manuel T. & Evanczuk S.
Commercial Products Begin to Emerge From Decades of Research
Electronics, November 3, 1983, pp 127-131
1983

MANU83b *
Manuel T.
Lisp and Prolog Machines are Proliferating
Electronics, November 3, 1983, pp 132-137
1983

MARK77a
Markusz Z.
How to Design Variants of Flats Using Programming Logic-PROLOG based
on Mathematical Logic
Information Processing 77, North Holland 1977

MARK85a *
Markusz Z. & Kaposi A.A.
Complexity Control in Logic-Based Programming
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 5, pp 487-495
1985

MART85
Martin-Lof P.
Constructive Mathematics and Computer Programming
in HOA85a
1985

MARU84a
Maruyama F. & Mano I. & Hayashi K. & Kakuta T. & Kawado N. & Uehara T.
Prolog-Based Expert System For Logic Design
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-058
April 1984

MATT70
Mattson R.L. & Gecsei J. & Slutz D.R. & Traiger I.L.
Evaluation Techniques for Storage Heirarchies
IBM Syst. J. Vol9 1970 p78-117

MAY83a
May D. & Taylor R.
OCCAM
INMOS Limited, 1983

MAY83b
May D.
OCCAM
ACM Sigplan Notices Vol 18 no 4, pp 69-79
1983

McCAB83
McCabe F.G.
Abstract PROLOG Machine- a Specification
Document Jan. 1983

McCAB85a
McCabe F.G.
Lambda PRLOG
Internal Report, Department of Computing, Imperial College
1985

McCAR60
McCarthy J.
Recursive Functions Of Symbolic Expressions And Their Computation By
Machine, Part 1
CACM, April, 1960

McCAR62
McCarthy J. et al
LISP 1.5 Programmers Manual
MIT Press, 1962

McCAR63
McCarthy J.
A Basis For A Mathematical Theory of Computation
In Computer Programming and Formal Systems
(eds. Brafford P. & Hirschuerg D.)
North Holland
1963

McCAR78
McCarthy J.
The History of LISP
Proceedings of SIGPLAN History of Programming Languages Conference, 1978

MEIR82a *
Meira S.L.
Sorting Algorithms in KRC Implemented in a Functional Programming System
University of Kent Computing Laboratory Report No 14
August 1982

MEIR83
Meira S.R.L.
Sorting Algorithms in KRC: Implementation, Proof and Performance
Computing Laboratory Rep no. 14, Univ. of Kent at Canterbury,
1983

MEIR84a
Meira S.R.L.
A Linear Applicative Solution To The Set Union Problem
Computing Laboratory Tech Rep. no 23,
Univ. of Kent at Canterbury
1984

MEIR84b *
Meira S.R.L.
Optimized Combinatoric Code for Applicative Language Implementation
Computing Laboratory Tech Rep. no 20,
Univ. of Kent at Canterbury
April 1984

MEIR85a *
Meira S.R.L.
On the Efficiency of Applicative Algorithms
Phd Thesis
Univ. of Kent at Canterbury
March 1985

MEIR85b *
Meira S.L.
A Linear Applicative Solution for The Set Union Problem
University of Kent Computing Laboratory Report No 28
May 1985

MEIR85c *
Meira S.L.
A Linear Applicative Solution for the Set Union Problem
Information Processing Letters 20, pp 43-45
2 January 1985

MESE85a *
Meseguer J. & Goguen J.A.
Deduction with Many-Sorted Rewrite
Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University
Report No CSLI-85-42
December 1985

MILN78
Milner R.
A Theory of Type Polymorphism in Programming
J. Computer System Sci 17, pp 348-375
1978

MILN84a *
Milner R.
A Proposal For Standard ML
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 184-197
1984

MILN85a
Milner R.
The Use of Machines to Assist in Rigorous Proof
in HOA85a
1985

MISH84a
Mishra P. & Reddy U.S.
Static Inference of Properties of Applicative Programs
In 11th Annual Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM
January 1984

MISH85a
Mishra P. & Reddy U.S.
Declaration-Free Type Checking
In Symp. on Principles of Programminmg Languages, ACM
January 1985

MIYA82a
Miyazaki N.
A Data Sublanguage Approach to Interfacing Predicate Logic Languages
and Relational Databases
ICOT TM-001

MIYA84a
Miyazaki N. & Kakuta T. & Shibayama S. & Yokota H. & Murukami K.
An Overview of Relational Database Machine Delta
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-074
August 1984

MIZO85a
Mizoguchi F. & Furukawa K.
Guest Editors' Preface
New Generation Computing Vol 3 No 4, pp 341-344
1985

MOIT85a *
Moitra A.
Automatic Construction of CSP Programs From Sequential Non-Deterministic
Programs
Science of Computer Programming 5 , p277-307
1985

MOKH84a
Mokhoff N.
Parallelism Makes a Strong Bid for Next Generation Computers
Computer Design Vol 23 No 10 Sept 1984

MOON84a *
Moon D. A.
Garbage Collection in a Large LISP System
Proc. of 1984 ACM Conf. on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 235-246
1984

MOOR80a
Moor I. & Darlington J.
A Formal Synthesis Of An Efficient Implementaion For An Abstract Data Type
Internal Report, Dept of Computing, Imperial College
1980

MOOR85a *
Moore R.C.
Possible-World Semantics for Autoepistemic Logic
Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University
Report No CSLI-85-41
December 1985

MORR73
Morris J.H.
Types are not Sets
Proc. ACM Symp. on Princ. of Prog. Langs., pp 120-124, october
1973

MORR80a
Morris J.H. & Schmidt E. & Wadler P.
Experience with an Applicative String Processing Language
Proc. 7th Annual SIGACT-SIGSOFT Symp. on Princ. of Prog. Langs,
Las Vegas, Nevada, 1980
1980

MORR80b
Morris F.L. & Schwarz J.S.
Computing Cyclic List Structures
Proc. of 1980 LISP Conf. p144-153

MORR82a
Morris J.H.
Real Programming in Functional Languages
in DARL82a
1982

MORR82b
Morris J.M.
A General Axiom of Assignment
in BROY82a, pp 25-34
1982

MORR82c
Morris J.M.
Assignment and Linked Data Structures
in BROY82a, pp 35-41
1982

MORR82d
Morris J.M.
A Proof of the Schorr-Waite Algorithm
in BROY82a, pp 43-51
1982

MOTO83a
Moto-oka T.
Overview of the Fifth Generation Computer System Project
Proc. 10th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture,
SIGARCH 11(3) ,p417-422
1983

MUKA83a
Mukai K. & Furukawa K.
An Ordered Linear Resolution Theorem Proving Program in Prolog
( Also in "Proceedings of IJPS National Conference", 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0027
September 1983

MUKA85a
Mukai K. & Yasukawa H.
Complex Indeterminates in Prolog and its Application to Discourse Models
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 441-466
1985

MURA83
Murakami K.
A Relational Data Base Machine: First Step to Knowledge Base Machine
Proc. 10th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture,
SIGARCH 11(3) ,p423-425, Sweden
1983
Also ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-012
( co authors cited here : Katuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Shibayama S. & Yokota H. )
May 1985

MUSS77
Musser D.R.
A Data Type Verification System based on Rewrite Rules
Proc. of 6th Texas Conference on Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, November
1977

MYCR81a *
Mycroft A.
Abstract Interpretation and Optimising Transformations for
Applicative Programs
PhD Thesis, Univ of Edinburgh
1981

MYCR83
Mycroft A. & Nielson F.
Strong Abstract Interpretation Using Power Domains (Extended Abstract)
Proc 10th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming
Barcelona, Spain, 18-22 July, 1983, pp 536-547
Springer Verlag LNCS no 154 (ed. Diaz J.)
1983

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
110
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 8:49:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Marty Hall <hall@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Common LISP coding standards
-BODY-
Hugh Mcguire writes:

> Perhaps Marty Hall was seeking some guide to LISP style, similar to
> Legard's (et al.'s) *Pascal with Style*; I certainly would find such
> useful, and perhaps others would also...

Yes!  That is exactly what I am looking for, and so far have recieved
only meager replies.  The type of points Hugh mentioned are exactly the
types of questions we want to have standards on.

Anyone have anything?

                                        -Marty Hall

Arpa: hall@hopkins
uucp  ...seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_amrh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 86 23:59:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (sonntag)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: neural networks
-BODY-
A recent issue of 'Science' had an article on 'neural networks', which,
apparently consist of a highly interconnected repetition of some sort of
simple 'nodes' with an overall positive feedback and some sort of
randomness thrown in for good measure.  When these networks are 'powered up',
the positive feedback quickly forces the system into a stable state, with
each node either 'on' or 'off'.  The article claimed that some
simulations of moderate sized (10K nodes?) networks had been done, and
reported some rather amazing results.  For one thing, it was discovered
that if just 50 out of 10k nodes are preset to a particular value, the
network has just ~100 very similar stable states, out of 10**1000
possibilities.
They also claimed that one such system was able to arrive at a 'very good'
solution to arbitrary 'traveling salesman' problems!  And that another
network (hooked to a piece of equipment which could produce phonemes, and
presumably some kind of feedback) had been 'trained' to read english text
reasonably well.  They said incredibly little about the actual details of
how each node operates, unfortunately.
    So how about it?  Has anybody else heard of these things?  Is this
really a way of going about AI in a way which *may* be similar to what
brains do?  Just exactly what algorithms are the nodes implementing, and
how do you provide input and get output from them?  Does anyone know
where I could get more information about them?
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
>-
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j

  [I will send Jeff a copy of our January discussion on the
  connectionist speech learning project. -- KIL ]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 May 86 14:29:06-CDT
-FROM-
From: Jonathan Slocum <AI.Slocum@MCC.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connection Machine article
-BODY-
Hillis has written a book entitled "The Connection Machine."
It's generally available: I purchased a copy recently.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 May 86 14:49:50-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert systems software for MS-DOS
-BODY-
I hope my Macintosh forgives me for this, but here goes!

I have a few additions to Paul Chisholm's list of expert systems products
for IBM PC's.  Since there were so many items, I decided to send them
directly to AIList, as well as to Mr. Chisholm.  I have included a number
of AI language implementations, including Lisp's since he isolated xlisp
for some reason.  Also I've included a few decision support systems,
which aren't really AI or expert system by-products.  But they often do
just as much as expert system shells, and some of the vendor's are even
marketing them as AI, so what the heck.

I haven't read Mr. Chisholm's list all that carefully, but I did notice
some minor errors:  Personal Consultant Plus is written in PC Scheme
(not in IQLisp); Mountain View Press's Expert is now known as Expert-2;
what he refers to as expert systems are in fact expert system shells or
development tools.  Some specific expert systems are being marketed,
however (a couple of which are on my list below).

The names, addresses, phone numbers, and especially prices are not
guaranteed to be free from typos, line noise, or obsolecence.  I have
litlle experience or further information on any of these packages.  So
please don't address questions to -- call the companies.

Now, what you've all been waiting for:


AL/X: Expert system shell
ALCS: Expert system shell
Inference Manager: Expert system shell, 500 pounds
Intelligent Terminals Ltd
15 Canal St.
Oxford, UK OX26BH
Also:
  George House
  36 North Hanover St.
  Glasgow, Scotland  G1 2AD
  041-552-1353
(These might be available from Jeffrey Perrone & Associates)

apes: Expert system shell [micro-Prolog], $250
Programming Logic Systems
312 Crescent Dr.
Milford, CT 06460
(203) 877-7988

ERS: Expert system shell
PAR Technology Corp.
220 Seneca Turnpike
New Hartford, NY 13413

GEN-X: Expert system shell
General Electric Research and Development Center
Schenectady, NY 12345

K:base: Expert system shell
GCLisp (Golden Common Lisp), $495
Gold Hill Computers
163 Havard St.
Cambridge, MA 02139
(404) 565-0771

M.1A: Expert system shell, $2000
Teknowledge Inc.
525 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA  94301
415-327-6640

Savior: Expert System Shell, 3000 pounds
ISI Limited
11 Oakdene Road
Redhill, Surrey, UK RH16BT
(0737)71327

SeRIes PC: Expert system shell, $15,000
SRI International
Advanced Computer Systems Division
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 859-2859

TOPSCI: Expert system shell, $75/$175
Dynamic Master Systyems Inc.
PO Box 566456
Atlanta, GA 30356
(404) 565-0771

Micro In-Ate: Expert system shell for fault diagnosis, $5000
Automated Reasoning Corporation
290 West 12th St., Suite 212-252
New York, NY 10014
(212) 206-6331

TK!Solver: Symbolic math expert, $399
Lotus/Software Arts
27 Mica Lane
Wellesley, MA 02181
(617) 237-4000

Comprehension: Expert system for thought analysis, $75
Thunderstone Corp.
PO Box 839
Chesterland, OH 44026
(216) 729-1132

Arborist: Decision support, $595
PC Scheme: Lisp, $95
Texas Instruments
PO Box 809063
Dallas, TX 75380-9063
(800) 527-3500

Expert Choice: Decision support, $495
Decision Support Software Inc.
1300 Vincent Place
McLean, VA 22101
(703) 442-7900

Lightyear: Decision support, $495
Lightyear, Inc.
1333 Lawrence Expwy., Bldg. 210
Santa Clara, CA 95051
(408) 985-8811
Byso Lisp, $125
Levien Instrument Co.
Sittlington Hill
PO Box 31
McDowell, VA 24458
(703) 396-3345

Q'NIAL: Nested Interactive Array Language, $395/$995
Starwood Corporation
PO Box 160849
San Antonio, TX 78280
(512) 496-8037

Methods: SmallTalk, $250
Digitalk Inc.
5200 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045
(213) 645-1082

IQLisp, $175
Integral Quality
6265 Twentieth Avenue (or POB 31970)
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 527-2918

LISP/80, $40
Software Toolworks
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1118
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 986-4885

LISP/88, $50
Norell Data Systems
PO Box 70127
3400 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90010
(213) 748-5978

muLisp-85, $250
Microsoft Corp.
10700 Northup Way
Box 97200
Bellevue, WA 98004
(206) 828-8080

PSL (Portable Standard Lisp), Distribution costs ($75?)
The Utah Symbolic Computation Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112

TLC-Lisp, $250
The Lisp Co.
PO Box 487
Redwood Estates, CA 95044
(408) 426-9400

UO-Lisp, $150
Northwest Computer Algorithms
PO Box 90995
Long Beach, CA 90809
(213) 426-1893

Waltz Lisp, $169
ProCode International
15930 SW Colony Place
Portland, OR 97224
(503) 684-3000


There are some reasonable reviews of AI tools and languages for the
IBM PC in "Computer Language", July and August, 1985.  The October 1985
issue of "Expert Systems" contains surveys and descriptions of expert
system shells and languages on micros.  The books "Understanding AI"
(H.C. Mishkoff) and "Expert Systems: AI in Business" (P. Harmon and
D. King) also have useful information about expert system products on
the IBM PC.



Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
{ihnp4 | seismo | ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 May 86 11:54:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Another PC Expert System Application
-BODY-
SpinPro (tm)
$2500
written in GCLISP
Plans Ultracentrifugation experiments for bio-tech lab
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Spinco Division
(415)-857-1150 (sales info)
(714)-961-3728 (technical info) Matt Heffron

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 May 86 15:50:52-EDT
-FROM-
From: DDAVIS@G.BBN.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Anthology - Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing
-BODY-

           GENETIC ALGORITHMS AND SIMULATED ANNEALING,

                        Call For Papers


The Pitman Series of Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence
(Derek Sleeman and N.S. Sridharan, Senior Editors) will publish a
volume of papers entitled "Genetic Algorithms and Simulated
Annealing" early in 1987.  The volume will be edited by David
Davis of Bolt Beranek and Newman and will be refereed by experts
in the fields of genetic algorithms and simulated annealing.

Submissions to the volume are invited.  Papers should be no more
than 20 pages in length, should be primarily concerned with one
or both of the two fields of research, and should conform to
accepted editorial standards.  In order to submit a paper,
mail four copies to

        (Lawrence) David Davis
        BBN Laboratories Incorporated
        10 Moulton Street
        Cambridge, MA 02238.


In order to prepare and publish the volume on time, we will not
be able to consider papers postmarked after September 30, 1986.

For further information, contact David Davis at (617) 497-3120,
or send electronic mail to ddavis@bbng.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 08:30:38 cdt
-FROM-
From: porter@fall.cs.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Colloq at UTexas
-BODY-
It appears to be necessary to present an alternate opinion of the
colloquium presented by Sergio Alvarado at UTexas on April 22.
We do NOT agree with the evaluation written by Aaron Temin and
posted to this bulletin board on April 24. Mr. Temin is a
graduate student in the computer sciences department. We believe
that his critical review was inaccurate.

Alvarado's colloquium reviewed his PhD dissertation research at UCLA
(under Michael Dyer). His research presents a computational model for
comprehension of arguments, such as those in letters to the editor
of a newspaper.

Alvarado's system, called OpEd, recognizes the structure of arguments
as a critical first step in their comprehension.  For example,
Alvarado reviewed an example of an editorial by Milton Friedman which
argues that restriction of foreign imports will have negative consequences
for employment. From natural language input, OpEd recognizes
this editorial as an instance of the "plan achieves the opposite
of the desired effect" argument structure. OpEd uses bottom-up processing
to instantiate argument structures and top-down processing to
disambiguate interpretation using a (partially) instantiated structure.
The important contributions of Alvarado's research thus far
include a collection of general argument structures and a computational
model for recognition of a particular argument structure in text.

Alvarado is investigating the extension of this research to include
argument evaluation and teaching of argumentation skills.
In summary, Alvarado's research is an extension of "knowledge-rich"
NLP into a challenging domain.  Significant results were obtained
and promising research directions illuminated.

                                         Robert Simmons
                                         Ben Kuipers
                                         Bruce Porter

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 04:44:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: brahms!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Italo Calvino AI project
-BODY-

   I must apologize to Bandy for posting a genuine rumor to net.rumor, but
this is a real rumor I found on net.followup:

>I have it on good authority (although second-hand) that an entire
>*novel* was generated by computer. It was the result of a research
>project which aimed to "parameterize" an author's writing style. The
>study concentrated primarily on one author, Italo Calvino, and I have
>heard that the novel, "If on a winter's night a traveller", was actually
>published and marketed with Calvino's blessing.
[Jack Orenstein]

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith                The Josh McDowell of the Net

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 12:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Trademarks
-BODY-
Under trademark law Xerox is obligated to point out misuses of their
company name or they stand the chance of it legally falling into the
public domain.  If this happens Cannon will be able to advertise their
copier as the Cannon(TM) Xerox Machine.  I have been corrected at
restaurants when I order a Coke and they only have Pepsi or RC.  There
was a particular consent agreement with Brigham's a little while ago.

Trademarks, as Shakespeare pointed out in Othello, have an intrinsic
worth and the value of something like Xerox runs in the hundreds of
millions.  How much did Standard Oil spend on ads to tell you about
Exxon?  Some trademarks such as zipper and aspirin have fallen into
common usage.  When Aspirin fell into the common usage the company
(Sterling?) was given the trademark Bayer which originally belonged to
Bayer AG but had been seized during World War I as enemy property.

                                        Seth

I would have signed this Bill Bulko but I know how people feel about
names.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 1 May 86 12:23:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Rich Alderson <ALDERSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Xerox" vs. "xerox"?
-BODY-
    Laws concerning trademark usage aside, De Smedt is perfectly
    correct in pointing out that the verb 'to xerox', meaning to copy
    on a dry-xerographic copier, and associated constructions ( a
    xerox copy, etc.), are now in fact part of the language. [...]
    Its no use, guys, you can't stop people using the word in the way
    they want to.  A dictionary which omitted 'to xerox' would not be
    accurate.

It's interesting to note that at one time, "frigidaire" (no caps) was
considered to be a synonym for "refrigerator."  Frigidaire, the
company, fought this in order not to lose trademark status.  How often
does one hear this usage these days?

(Not to mention those not in the various computer-related fields who
STILL use "IBM" to mean "computer"...)

Rich Alderson
Alderson@Score.Stanford.EDU (=SU-SCORE.ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
111
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:23:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #5
-BODY-
NAKA85a
Nakamura K.
Book Review
"Introduction to Logic Programming" by C.J. Hogger, Academic Press, 290 pages,
1984
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 487
1985

NAKA85b
Nakashima H. & DeGroot D.
Conference Report
A Report on 1985 International Symposium on Logic Programming
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 488-489
1985

NATA86a*
Natarajan N.
A Distributed Synchronisation Scheme for Communicating Processes
Computer Journal, Vol 29, No 2, pp 109-117
April 1986

NIEL84a *
Nielson F.
Abstract Interpretation Using Domain Theory
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Phd Thesis, CST-31-84
October 1984

NIEL *
Nielson F.
A Bibliography On Abstract Interpretation

NIPK85a *
Nipkow T.
Non-Deterministic Data Types: Models and Implementations
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Manchester, Technical Report UMCS-85-10-1
October 1985

NISH83a
Nishikawa H. & Yokota M. & Yamamoto A. & Taki K. & Uchida S.
The Personal Inference Machine (PSI) : Its design Philosophy and Machine
Architecture
( Also in "Proceedings of Logic Programming Workshop, '83", Portugal 1983 )
ICOT Research center, Technical report TR-013
June 1983

NIVA82a
Nivat M.
Behaviours of Processes and Synchronised Systems of Processes
in BROY82a, pp 473-550
1982

NORM80a
Norman A. et al
SKIM- The S,K,I Reduction Machine
Proc. LISP Conf.
1980

OHSU85a
Ohsuga S. & Yamauchi H.
Multi-Layer Logic - A Predicate Logic Including Data Structure as Knowledge
Representation Language
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 403-439
1985

ONAI84a
Onai R. & Aso M. & Takeuchi A.
An Approach to a Parallel Inference Machine Based on Control-Driven and
Data-Driven Mechanisms
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-042
January 1984

OSH84
ed. O'Shea T. & Eisenstadt M.
Artificial Intelligence Tools, Techniques and Applications
Harper & Row, Publishers, New York
1984

PATT81a *
Patterson D.A. & Sequin C.H.
RISC 1 : A Reduced Instruction Set VLSI Computer
Proc 8th International Symposium on Computer Architecture
SIGARCH News vol 9, no 3
pp 443-457
1981

PATT82a
Patterson D.A. & Sequin C.H.
A VLSI RISC
Computer Vol 15 No 9, pp 8-21, Sept 1982

PATT84a
Patterson D.A.
VLSI Systems Building: A Berkeley Perspective
Proc. Conf. on Advanced Research in VLSI, MIT
January 1984

PATT85
Patterson D.A.
Reduced Instruction Set Computers
CACM Vol 28, No 1
January 1985

PAUL84a *
Paulson L.C.
Constructing Recursion Operators in Intuitionistic Type Theory
Computing Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 57
October 1984

PAUL85a *
Paulson L.C.
Lessons Learned From LCF: A Survey of Natural Deduction Proofs
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 5, pp 474-479
1985

PERE79a *
Pereira L.M. & Porto A.
Intelligent Backtracking and Sidetracking in Horn Clause Programs - The Theory
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Report no 2/79
1979

PERE79b *
Pereira L.M.
Backtracking Intelligently in AND/OR Trees
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, report no 1/79
1979

PEYT82
Peyton Jones S.L.
An Investigation of the Relative Efficiencies of Combinators and
Lambda Expressions
Proc. of ACM LISP Conf 1982 p150-158

PEYT84
Peyton Jones S.L.
Directions in Functional Programming Research
in DUCE84
1984

PEYT85a
Peyton Jones S.L.
GRIP-a parallel graph reduction machine
Dept. of Computer Science, Internal Note 1665, grm.design v1.0, Jan 1985

PEYT85b *
Peyton Jones S.L.
Functional Programming Languages as a Software Engineering Tool
2nd December 1985

PEYT86a *
Peyton Jones S.L.
Parsing Distfix Operators
CACM, Vol 29, no 2, pp 118-122
February 1986

PEIR83
Pier K.A.
A Retrospective on the Dorado, A High Performance Personal Computer
ISL-83-1, Xerox PARC, 1983

PELE84a *
Peleg D.
Communication in Concurrent Dynamic Logic
CS84-15
Dept of Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
July 1984

PELE84b *
Peleg D.
Concurrent Dynamic Logic
CS84-14
Dept of Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
July 1984

PING84a
Pingali K. & Arvind
Efficient Demand-Driven Evaluation (I)
Lab. For Computer Science Technical Memo 242
September 1984

PING84b
Pingali K. & Arvind
Efficient Demand-Driven Evaluation (II)
Lab For Computer Science Technical Memo 243
November 1984

PLAI85a *
Plaisted D.A.
The Undecidability of Self-Embedding For Term Rewritng Systems
Information Processing Letters 20, pp 61-64
15 February 1985

PLES85a *
Pless E.
Die Ubersetzung von LISP in die reduktionsprache BRL
GMD 142
March 1985

PLOT76
Plotkin G.D.
A Powerdomain Construction
SIAM J. Comput. 5 3 pp 452-487
September 1976

PLOT82
Plotkin G.D.
A Power Domain For Countable Non-Determinism (Extended Abstract)
Proc 9th Int. Colloq. on Automata, Languages and Programming
Springer Verlag LNCS no 140, pp 418-428
(ed. Nielson M. & Schmidt E.M.)
1982

POON85
Poon E.K. & Peyton Jones S.L.
Cache Memories in a Functional Programming Environment
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. College London, Internal Note 1680, Jan 1985

PPRG9
Persistent Programming Research Group
Procedures as Persistent Data Objects
Persistent Programming Research Report 9

PPRG11
Persistent Programming Research Group
PS-Algol Abstract Machine Manual
Persistent Programming Research Report 11

PPRG12
Persistent Programming Research Group
PS-Algol Reference Manual Second Edition
Persistent Programming Research Report 12

PRAM85a *
Pramanik S. & King C-T
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 3, pp 264-269
1985

PRO84a
Prolog: A Tutorial/Review
Microsystems, January 1984, page 104
1984

PULL84a
Pull H.
A HOPE in HOPE Interpreter
BSc. Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College
1984

PYKA85a *
Pyka C.
Syntactic Analysis
Forschungstelle fur Informationswissenschaft und Intelligenz,
Universitat Hanburg
LOKI Report NLI - 4.1
November 1985

QUI60a
Quine W.V.O.
Word and Object
MIT Press, Cambridge, 1960

REDD84a
Reddy U.S.
Transformation of Logic Programs into Functional Programs
Proc. 1984 Int'l Symp. on Logic Programming
Feb 1984

REDD85
Reddy U.S.
On The Relationship between Logic and Functional Languages
In "Functional and Logic Programming"
(eds. DeGroot D. & Lindstrom G.)
Prentice-Hall
1985

REEV81a
Reeve M.
The ALICE Compiler Target Language
Document, Dept of Computing, Imperial College, May 1981

REEV81b
Reeve M.
An Introduction to the ALICE Compiler Target Language
Research Report, Dept of Computing, Imperial College ,July 1981

REEV85a *
Reeve M.
A BNF Description Of The Alice Compiler Target Language
1985

REYN72
Reynolds J.C.
Definitional Interpreters For Higher Order Programming Languages
Proc 25th ACM National Conf, pp 717-740
1972

RICH82
Richmond G.
A Dataflow Implementation of SASL
Msc Thesis, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, October 1982.

ROBI65a
Robinson J.A.
A Machine Oriented Logic Based on The Resolution Principle
J. Ass. Comput. Mach. 12, pp 23-41
1965

ROBI77
Robinson J.A.
Logic: Form and Function
Edinburgh University Press
1979

ROBI83a *
Robinson J.A.
Logic Programming - Past, Present and Future
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 2, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-015
June 1983

ROSE85a
Rosenschein S.J.
Formal Theories of Knowledge in AI and Robotics
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 345-357
1985

RUSS10,RUSS25a
Russell B. & Whitehead A.N.
Principia Mathematica
Cambridge University Press, 1910 & 1925

RYDE81a *
Rydeheard D.E.
Applications of Category Theory to Programming and Program Specification
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
Phd Thesis, CST-14-81
December 1981

RYDE85a *
Rydeheard D.E. & Burstall R.M.
The Unification of Terms: A Category-Theoretic Algorithm
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Manchester, Technical Report UMCS-85-8-1
August 1985

SAIN84a *
Saint-James E.
Recursion is More Efficient than Iteration
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 228-234
1984

SAKA83a *
Sakai K. & Miyachi T.
Incorporating Native Negation into PROLOG
( Also in "Proceedings of RIMS Symposia on Software Science and Engineering",
  1984, Springer-Verlag )
( Also in "Proceedings of Logic and Conferecne", Monash Univ., 1984 )
ICOT Research center, Technical Report TR-028
October 1983

SAKA84a
Sakai K.
An Ordering for Term Rewriting System
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-062
April 1984

SAKA84b
Sakai H. & Iwata K. & Kamiya S. & Abe K. & Tanaka T. & Shibayama S &
Murukami K.
Design and Implementation of the Relational Database Engine
( Also in "Proceedings of FGCS 84", Tokyo, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-063
April 1984

SAKA85a
Sakai T.
Intelligent Sensor
Preface for New Generation Computing Vol 3 No 4, 1985, pp 339-340
1985

SAME84a
Samet H.
The Quadtree and Related Hierarchial Data Structures
ACM Comp. Surveys Vol16, No 2, June 1984,p187-260

SAR82a
Sargeant J.
Implementation of Structured LUCID on a Data Flow Computer
MSc Thesis, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, October 1982

SATO83a *
Sato M. & Sakurai T.
Qute: A Prolog/Lisp Type Language for Logic Programming
( Also in "Proceedings of 8th IJCAI", Karlsluhe, 1983 )
ICOT Research center, Technical Report TR-016
August 1983

SATO84a
Sato M. & Sakurai T.
Qute Users Manual
Dept. of Information Science, Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo

SATO84b *
Sato T. & Tamaki H.
Enumeration of Success Patterns In Logic Programs
Theoretical Computer Science, pp 227-240
1984

SCHM78a
Schmitz L.
An Exercise in Program Synthesis: Algorithms For Computing The
Transitive Closure of A Relation
Internal Report, Hochschule der Bundeswehr, Munich
1978

SCHM85a *
Scmittgen C. & Gerdts A. & Haumann & Kluge W. & Woitass
A System-Supported Workload Balancing Scheme for Cooperating Reduction
Machines
GMD Tech Rep
June 1985

SCHM85b *
Schmittgen C.
A Data Type Architecture for Reduction Machines
GMD 152
May 1985

SCHM85c *
Schmidt D.A.
Detecting Global Variables in Denotational Specifications
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol 7, no 2
pp 299-310
April 1985

SCHWA76a *
Scwartz J.
Event Based Reasoning - A System For Proving Correct Termination of Prorgams
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 131-146
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

SCHWA77a
Schwartz J.
Using Annotations To Make Recursion Equations Behave
Report No 43, Dept of A.I., Univ of Edinburgh
1977

SCHWE84a
Schweppe H.
Some Comments on Sequential Disk Cache Management for Knowledge Base Systems
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-040
January 1984

SCOT70a
Scott D.S.
Outline of Mathematical Theory of Computation
Oxford University Programming Research Group
Tech Monograph no 2
1970

SCOT71a
Scott D. & Strachey C.
Towards a Mathematical Semantics for Computer Languages
1971 Symposium on Computers and Automata
Microwave Research Institute Proceedings, Vol 21
Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn
1972

SCOT76
Scott D.S.
Data Types as Lattices
SIAM J.L. Computing 5, pp 522-587
1976

SCOT81
Scott D.
Lectures on a Mathematical Theory of Computation
Tech. Monograph PRG-19
Oxford Univ, Computing Lab, Programming Research Group
1981

SCOT82a
Scott D.
Domains for Denotational Semantics
Automata, Languages and Programming, Proc 10th Int. Colloq.
(ed. Nielsen M. & Schmidt E.M.)
Springer Verlag LNCS no 140, pp 577-613
1982

SCOT82b
Scott D.S.
Lectures on a Mathematical Theory of Computation
in BROY82a, pp 145-292
1982

SEIT85
Seitz C.L.
The Cosmic Cube
CACM Vol 28, no 1, January 1985

SERG82
Sergot M.
A Query-the-User Facility for Logic Programming
Proc. ECICS, Stresa, Italy, (eds. P. Degano & E. Sandwall)
pp 27-41, 1982
North Holland

SHAN85a *
Shanahan M.
The Execution of Logic Programs Considered as the Reduction of Set Expressions
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
October 1985

SHAR85a
Sharp J.A.
Data Flow Computing
Ellis Horwood, March 1985

SHAP83a *
Shapiro E.Y.
A Subset Concurrent Prolog and its Interpreter, 2nd Version
ICOT Research center, technical Report TR-003
January 1983

SHAP83b *
Shapiro E.Y. & Takeuchi A.
Object Oriented Programming in Concurrent Prolog
( Also in New Generation Computing, Springer Verlag, Vol 1, No 1, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-004
April 1983

SHAP83c *
Systems Progamming in Concurrent Prolog
( Also in "Proceedings of the 11th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of
  Programming Languages" )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-034
November 1983

SHAP84a *
Shapiro E. & Mierowsky C.
Fair, Biased, and Self-Balancing Merge Operators :
Their Specification and Implementation in Concurrent Prolog
CS84-07
Dept of Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
1984

SHAP84b *
Shapiro E.Y.
Alternation and the Computational Complexity of Logic Programs
CS84-06
Dept of Applied Mathematics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel
January 1984

SHAW85a *
Shaw D.E. & Sabety T.M.
The Multiple-Processor PPS Chip of the NON-VON 3 Supercomputer
Integration, the VLSI Journal, 3, pp 161-174
1985

SHEI83a *
Sheil B.
Family of Personal Lisp Machines Speeds AI Program Development
Electronics, November 3, 1983, pp 153-156
1983

SHIB82a
Shibayama S. & Kakuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Yokota H. & Murukami K.
A Relational Database Machine "Delta"
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0002
November 1982

SHIB84a
Shibayama S. & Kakuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Yokota H. & Murakami K.
A Relational Database Machine with Large Semiconductor Disk and Hardware
Relational Algebra Processor
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 2, No 2, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-053
March 1984

SHIB84b
Shibayama S. & Kakuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Yokota H. & Murukami K.
Query Processing Flow on RDBM Delta's Functionally - Distributed Architecture
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-064
April 1984

SHIE85a *
Shields M.W.
Concurrent Machines
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 5, pp 449-465
1985

SHIM83a
Shimizu H.
GP-PRO Graphic Display Control Library Written in Prolog
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0025
August 1985

SHIP81a
Shipman D.W.
The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX
ACM TODS 6(1) p140-173 1981

SHOH85a
Shoham Y.
Ten Requirements for a Theory of Change
New Generation Computing, Vol 3, No 4, pp 467-477
1985

SICK82a
Sickel S.
Specification and Derivation of Programs
in BROY82a, pp 103-132
1982

SIVI85a *
Sivilotti M. & Emerling M. & Mead C.
A Novel Associative Memory Implemented Using Collective Computation
1985 Chapel Hill Conference on VLSI, pp 329-342
1985

SLEE80
Sleep M.R.
Applicative Languages, Dataflow and Pure Combinatory Code
Proc IEEE Compcon 80, pp 112-115
February 1980

SLEE82
Sleep M.R. & Holmstrom S.
A Short Concerning Lazy Reduction Rules of Append
Document, Computer Studies Centre, University of East Anglia,May 1982

SLEE83
Sleep M.R.
Novel Architectures
Distributed Computing- A Review for Industry, SERC, Manchester 1983

SLEE84
Sleep M.R. and Kennaway J.R.
The Zero Assignment Parallel Processor (ZAPP) Project
in DUCE84
1984

SLEE86a *
Sleep M.R.
Directions in Parallel Architecture
in BCS86a
1986

SLOM83a *
Sloman A. & Hardy S.
Poplog : A Multi-Purpose Multi-Language Program Development Environment
AISB Quarterly, vol 47, pp 26-34
1983

SMYT78a *
Smyth M.B.
Power Domains
Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol 16, pp 23-36
1978

SNYD79
Snyder A.
A Machine Architecture to Support an Object-Oriented Language
MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT/LCS/TR-209, March 1979

SOLE85
Soley M.S.
Generic Software for Emulating Multiprocessor Architectures
Draft of MSc Thesis to be submitted May 1985

SPIV84
Spivey Mike
University of York Portable Prolog System Users Guide
University of York 1984

SRIN86a *
Srini V.P.
An Architectural Comparison of Dataflow Systems
IEEE Computer, March 1986, pp 68-88
1986

STAL85a *
Stallard R.P.
Occam - A Brief Introduction
Occam - The Loughborough Implmentation
Computer Studies Laboratory Report
Dept of Computer Studies, Loughborough University of Technology.
November 1985

STAM85a*
Stammers R.A.
Report to the Alvey Directorate on a Short Survey of The Industrial
Applications of Logic and Functional Programming in the United
Kingdom and United States
27 August 1985

STAP77a *
Staples J.
A Class of Replacement Systems With Simple Optimality Theory
Bull. Aust. Math. Soc., Vol 17, pp335-350
1977

STAP80a
Staples J.
Computation on Graph-Like Expressions
Th. Comp. Sci., Vol 10, pp 171-185
1980

STAP80b
Staples J.
Optimal Evaluations Of Graph-Like Expressions
Th. Comp. Sci., Vol 10, pp 297-316
1980

STAR84a *
Stark W.R.
A Glimpse Into The Paradise of Combinatory Algebra
International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences
Vol 13, No 3, pp 219-236
1984

STEE76
Steele G.L.Jr. & Sussman G.J.
LAMBDA: The Ultimate Imperative
AI Memo no 353
Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT
1976

STEE77a
Steele G.L.Jr.
Compiler Optimization Based on Viewing LAMBDA as Rename Plus Goto
S.M. Thesis, MIT EE&CS, Cambridge.
Published as RABBIT: A Compiler for SCHEME (A Study in Compiler Optimization),
AI TR 474, MIT Lab, Cambridge

STEE77b
Steele G.L.Jr.
Debunking The 'Expensive Procedure Call' Myth
Proc. ACM National Conference, pp 153-162, 1962
Also revised as AI Memo 443, MIT Lab, Cambridge

STEE78
Steele G.L.Jr. & Sussman G.J.
The Art Of The Interpreter; or, The Modularity Complex
(parts zero,one and two)
AI Memo 453, MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, 1978

STEE79a
Steele G.L.Jr. & Sussman G.J.
Design of LISP-Based Processors; or, SCHEME: A Dielectric LISP; or,
Finite Memories Considered Harmful; or, LAMBDA The Ultimate Opcode
AI Memo 514, MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, 1979
Summarized in CACM 23 no 11, pp 629-645

STEE79b
Steele G.L.Jr. & Sussman G.J.
The Dream Of A Lifetime: A Lazy Scoping Mechanism
AI Memo 527, MIT Lab, Cambridge, 1979

STEP86a *
Stephenson B.K.
Computer Architectures for Image Processing
in BCS86a
1986

STIR85a *
Stirling C.
Modal Logics for Communicating Systems
Internal report, CSR-193-85
Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
October 1985

STIR86a *
A Compositional Reformulation of Owicki-Gries's Partial Correctness Logic For
A Concurrent While Language
To appear in ICALP 1986
1986

STOY77a
Stoy J.E.
Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming Language
Theory
MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts
1977

STOY82a
Stoy J.
Some Mathematical Aspects Of Functional Programming
in DARL82a
1982

STOY82b
Stoy J.E.
Semantic Models
in BROY82a, pp 293-324
1982

STOY83a *
Stoye W.
The SKIM Microprogrammer's Guide
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 40
October 1983

STOYE84a *
Stoye W.
A New Scheme for Writing Functional Operating Systems
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 56
1984

STOYE84b *
Stoye W.R. & Clarke T.J.W. & Norman A.C.
Some Practical Methods for Rapid Combinator Reduction
Proceedings of 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming
Austin, Texas
pp 159-166
1984

SUGI83a
Sugiyama K. & Kameda M. & Akiyama K. & Makinouchi A.
A Knowledge Representation System in Prolog
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-024
August 1983

SUGI84a
Sugimoto M. & Kato H. & Yoshida H.
Design Concept for a Software Development Consultation System
( Also in Second Japanese Swedish Workshop on Logic Programming and
  Functional Programming, Uppsala, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-071
August 1984

SUSS75a
Sussman G.J. & Steele G.L.Jr.
SCHEME: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus
AI Memo 349, MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, 1975

SUSS82a
Sussman G.J.
LISP, Programming and Implementation
in DARL82a
1982

SUZU82a
Suzuki N. & Kurihara K. & Tanaka H. & Moto-oka T.
Procedure Level Data Flow Processing on Dynamic Structure Multimicroprocessors
Journal of Information Processing Vol 5, No. 1 p11-16 March, 1982

SUZU82b
Suzuki N.
Experience with Specification and Verification of Hardware using PROLOG
Document, Presented at Working Conference on VLSI Engineering, Oct 1982

SYRE77a
Syre J.C. et al
Pipelining, Parallelism and Asynchronism in The LAU System
Proc. 1977 Int. Conf. on Parallel Processing, pp 87-92
August 1977

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
112
-DATE-
Date: 9 Apr 86 13:24:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!
     abc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andy Cheese)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography - References #6
-BODY-
TAKA84a
Takagi S. & Chikayama T. & Hattori T. & Tsuji J. & Yokoi T. & Uchida S. &
Kurokawa T. & Sakai K.
Overall Design of SIMPOS
( Also in "Proceedings of 2nd Int'l Conference of Logic Programming", Uppsala,
  1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-057
April 1984

TAKE82a
Takeuchi A. & Shapiro E.Y.
Object Oriented Programming in Relational Language
ICOT Document

TAKE82b
Takeuchi A.
Let's Talk Concurrent Prolog
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0003
December 1982

TAKE83a *
Interprocess Communication in Concurrent Prolog
( Also in "Proceedings of Logic Programming Workshop '83", Portugal )
ICOT Research Center, technical Report TR-006
May 1983

TAKI84a
Hardware Design and Implementation of the Personal Sequential Inference Machine
(PSI)
( Also in "Proceedings of FGCS 84", Tokyo, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-075
August 1984

TAMA83a *
Tamaki M.
A Transformation System for Logic Programs Which Preserves Equivalence
ICOT research Center, Technical report TR-018
August 1983

TANA82a
Tanaka J. & Keller R.M.
Code Optimisation in a Functional Language
In Workshop on Functional Programming, Japan Inf. Processing Soc.
December 1982

TANI81a *
Tanimoto S.L.
Towards Hierarchical Cellular Logic: Design Considerations for Pyramid
Machines
Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Washington, Technical Report #81-02-01
February 1981

TARJ72
Tarjan R.
Depth-First Search & Linear Graph Algorithms
SIAM Journal of Computing Vol 1 Part 2 p146-60 1972

TARN77a *
Tarnlund S.-A.
Horn Clause Computability
BIT 17, 1977, pp 215-226
1977

THOM85a *
Thompson S.J.
Laws in Miranda
University of Kent Computing Laboratory Report No 35
December 1985

TIB84
ed. Tiberghien J.
New Computer Architectures
International Series in Computer Science
Academic Press
1984

TICK84
Tick E. & Warren D.H.D.
Towards a Pipelined Prolog Processor
Proc. 1984 Int. Symp. on Logic Programming
pp 29-40
1984

TILL85a *
Tillotson M.
Introduction to the Functional Programming Language "Ponder"
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Tech Rep no 65
1985

TOGG86a *
Toaggi M. & Watanabe H.
An Inference Engine For Real-Time Fuzzy Control: VLSI Design and Implementation
To appear in Proc. of Japan-USA Symp. on flexible Automation, July 14-15, 1986,
Osaka, Japan
1986

TREL78
Treleaven P.C.
Principle Components of Data Flow Computer
Proc. 1978 Euromicro Symp. , pp 366-374
October 1978

TREL80a
Treleaven P.C. & Mole G.F.
A Multi-Processor Reduction Machine For User-Defined Reduction Languages
Proc. 7th Int. Symp. on Comp. Arch., pp 121-129
April 1980

TREL80b
ed. Treleaven P.C.
VLSI: Macine Architecture and Very High Level Languages
Proc of the joint SRC/Univ of Newcastle upon Tyne Workshop,
Computing Laboratory, Univ. of Newcastle Upon Tyne,
Tech Rep 156
December 1980

TREL81a
Treleaven P.C. & Hopkins R.P.
Decentralised Computation
Proc 8th Int Symp on Comp Arch, pp 279-290
May 1981

TREL81b
Treleaven P.C. & Hopkins R.P.
A Recursive (VLSI) Computer Architecture
Computing Laboratory, Univ of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Tech Rep 161
March 1981

TREL81
Treleaven P.C. et al
Data Driven and Demand Driven Computer Architecture
Computer Lab, Univ of Newcastle Upon Tyne
Tech Rep 168,
July 1981

TREL82a
Treleaven P.C.
Computer Architecture For Functional Programming
in DARL82a
1982

TREL82b
Treleaven P.C.  Brownbridge D.R. & Hopkins R.P.
Data Driven and Demand Driven Computer Architecture
ACM Computing Surveys Vol 14 No. 1 Jan 1982

TSUJ84a
Tsuji J. & Kurokawa T. & Tojyo S. & Iima Y. & Nakazawa O. & Enomoto S.
Dialog Management in the Personal Sequential Inference Machine (PSI)
( Also in "Proceedings of ACM 84", San Francisco, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-046
March 1984

TURN76
Turner D.A.
SASL Language Manual
CS/79/3 Dept. of Computational Science, University of St. Andrews ,1976
(CS/75/1)

TURN79a
Turner D.A.
A New Implementation Technique for Applicative Languages
Software Practice & Experience Vol 9 p31-49 ,1979

TURN79b
Another Algorithm for Bracket Abstraction
Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol 44, no. 2,
June 1979

TURN80
Turner D.A.
Programming Languages- Current and Future Developments
Infotech State of the Art Conference on Software Development Techniques
1980

TURN81a
Turner D.A.
The Semantic Elegance of Applicative Languages
Proc. 1981 ACM Conf on Functional Programming Languages & Computer
Architecture p85-92

TURN81b
Turner D.A.
Aspects of the Implementaion of Programming Languages
D.Phil Thesis, Oxford University
1981

TURN82a
Turner D.A.
Recursion Equations As A Programming Language
in DARL82a
1982

TURN82b
Turner D.A.
Functional Programming and Proofs of Program Correctness
In "Tools and Notions For Program Correctness"
(ed. D. Neel), pp 187-209
Cambridge University Press
1982

TURN85a
Turner D.A.
Functional Programs as Executable Specifications
in HOA85a
1985

TURN85b *
Turner R. & Lowden B.G.T.
An Introduction to the Formal Specification of Relational Query Languages
Computer Journal, vol 28, no 2, pp 162-169
1985

UCHI82a
Uchida S. & Yokota M. & Yamamoto A. & Taki K. & Nishikawa H. &
Chikayama T. & Hattori T.
The Personal Sequential Inference Machine, Outline Its Architecture and
Hardware System
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0001
November 1982

UCHI82b
Uchida S.
Towards A New Generation Computer Architecture
( Also in "VLSI Architecture", Prentice Hall, 1984 )
ICOT research center Technical Report TR-001
July 1982

UCHI83a
Uchida S.
Inference Machine: From Sequential to Parallel
( Also in "Proceedings of 10th International Symposium on Computer
  Architecture", Sweden, 1983, IEEE Computer Society Press )
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-011
may 1983

UCHI83b
Uchida S. & Yokota M. & Yamamoto A. & Taki K. & Nishikawa H.
Outline of the Personal Sequential Inference Machine:PSI
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 1, 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0005
April 1983

UEDA84a
Ueda K. & Chikayama T.
Efficient Stream/Array Processing in Logic Programming LAnguage
( Also in "Proceedings of FGCS 84", Tokyo, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-065
April 1984

ULLM85a *
Ullmann J.R. & Haralick R.M. & Shapiro L.G.
Computer Architecture for Solving Consistent Labelling Problems
Computer Journal, Vol 28, no 2, pp 105-111
1985

UMEY84a
Umeyama S. & Tamura K.
Parallel Execution of Logic Programs
Electrotechnical Lab., MITI Ibakaraki, Japan

UNGA82
Ungar D.M. & Patterson D.A.
Berkeley Smalltalk: Who Knows Where the Time Goes ?
In Smalltalk-80, Bits of History, Words of Advice, Glenn Krasner
1982

UNGA84
Ungar D. & Blau R. & Foley P. & Samples D. & Patterson D.A.
Architecture of SOAR: Smalltalk on a RISC
11th Symp. on Comp. Arch., Ann Arbor
June 1984

VALI85
Valiant L.G.
Deductive Learning
in HOA85a
1985

VANE76a *
Van Emden M.
Verification Conditions As Programs
Proceedings 3rd International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming
pp 99-119
Edinburgh University Press, 1976

VASS85a *
Access to Specific Declarative Knowledge by Expert Systems : The Impact of
Logic Programming
Decision Support Systems 1, pp 123-141
April 1985

VEGD84
Vegdahl S.R.
A Survey of Proposed Architectures for the Execution of Functional Languages
IEEE TOC C-33 No12, Dec 1984, p1050-1071

VUIL74a *
Vuillemin J.
Correct and Optimal Implementation of Recursion In A Simple Programming
Language
J. Comp. Sys., 9, no 3, pp 332-354
1974

WADG85
Wadge W.W. & Ashcroft E.A.
Lucid, The Dataflow Programming Language
Apic Studies in Data Processing no. 22
Academic Press, 1985

WADL76a
Wadler P.L.
Analysis of an Algorithm for Real Time Garbage Collection
Comm ACM Vol 19 No 9 p491-500 Sept 1976

WADL84a *
Wadler P.
Listlessness is Better Than Laziness: Lazy Evaluation and Garbage Collection
at Compile-Time
Proceedings ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, Austin, Texas
August 1984

WADL84b *
Wadler P.
Listlessness is Better Than Laziness
PhD Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University
August 1984

WADL85a *
Wadler P.
A Splitting Headache : Strict vs Lazy Semantics for Pattern Matching in
Lazy Languages
Oxford University, Computing Laboratory
January 1985
Addenda November 1985

WADL85b *
Wadler P.
An Introduction to Orwell (DRAFT)
Oxford University, Computing Laboratory
1 April 1985
revised December 1985

WADL85c
Wadler P.
Listlessness is Better Than Laziness II: Composing Listless Functions
Workshop on Programs as Data Objects, Copenhagen
October 1985
( To be published as LNCS by Springer-Verlag )

WADL86a *
Plumbers and dustmen: Fixing a space leak with a garbage collector
posted to fp@uea.sp
1986

WADS71a
Wadsworth C.P.
Semantics and Pragmatics of The Lambda Calculus
D.Phil Thesis, Univ. of Oxford
1971

WADS84a *
Wadsworth C.P.
Report on the IOTA Programming System and other Japanese Advanced Research
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, RAL-84-090, August 1984

WARR77a
Warren D.H.D. & Pereira L.M. Pereira F.
PROLOG-The Language and its Implementation Compared to LISP
Proc. Symp. on AI and Programming Languages, 1977
Sigplan 8(12) or Sigart 64 pp 109-115

WARR77b
Warren D.H.D.
Applied Logic - Its Use and Implementation as a Programming Tool
Phd Dissertation
Dept of AI, Univ of Edinburgh
1977

WARR82a*
Warren D.H.D.
Higher Order Extensions to PROLOG: Are They Needed ?
in Machine Intelligence 10
(eds Hayes J.E. & Michie D. & Pao Y-H )
pp 441-454
Ellis Horwood Ltd
1982

WARR83a *
Warren D.H.D.
An Abstract Prolog Instruction set
Technical Note 309, SRI International
31 August 1983

WATP84
Watson P.
A Functional Language Computer
Conversion Report Univ. of Manchester Sept 1984

WATP85a *
Watson P.
A Reference Count Garbage Collection Scheme For Distributed Computers
Draft Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester, March 1985

WATP85b *
Watson P.
Report on Visit to the U.S.A.
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ of Manchester, April 1985

WATP85c *
Watson P.
Higher Order Functions in EFL
Document, Dept of Computer science, Univ. of Manchester, 24 May 1985

WATS79
Watson I. & Gurd J.
A Prototype Data Flow Computer With Token Labeling
Proc. Nat. Comp. Conf., Vol 48, pp 623-628
1979

WATS83a *
Watson I.
Functional Logic Programming
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester, April 1983

WATS84a *
Watson I. (& Ashcroft A.)
A Demand Driven Dataflow Machine/Tagged Data-Driven Reduction Machine
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester ,March 1984

WATS84b *
Watson I.
Another Model (And Machine)
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester ,May 1983

WATS84c *
Watson I.
Higher Order Functions
Document, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester ,Aug 1984

WATS85a *
Watson I.
A Parallel SKI(BC) Combinators Model
Document, PMP/MU/IW/00005, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester,
March 1985

WATS85b *
Watson Ian & Watson Paul & Woods Viv
Parallel Data-Driven Graph Reduction
Document, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Manchester

WEIH85a *
Weihrauch K.
Type 2 Recursion Theory
Theoretical Computer Science 38, pp 17-33
May 1985

WHIT80a
White J.L.
Address/Memory Management for a Gigantic LISP Environment or, GC
Considered Harmful
Proc. 1980 LISP Conf. p119-127

WHITE78
Whitelock P.J.
A Conventional Language for Data Flow Computing
MSc Dissertation, Dept of Comp Sci, Univ. of Manchester, October 1978

WILL80
Williams J.H.
On The Development Of The Algebra Of Functional Programs
Report No RJ2983, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, California, October 1980

WILL81
Williams J.H.
Formal Representations For Recursively Defined Functional Programs
in "Formalization Of Programmming Concepts",
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no 107, Springer Verlag, April 1981

WILL82
Williams J.H.
Notes on The FP Style Of Functional Programming
in DARL82a
1982

WILN80
Wilner W.
Recursive Machines
Xerox Parc Internal Report
1980

WINS84
Winston P. & Horn K.P.
Lisp
Second Edition
Addison Wesley Publishing Company
1984

WINS? *
Winskel G.
Categories of Models for Concurrency
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge
Technical Report no 58

WINT80
WinterStein G. & Dausmann M. & Persch G.
Deriving Different Unification Algorithms From a Specification in Logic
Proc. of Logic Programming workshop, Debrecen, Hungary
(ed S. -A. Tarnlund), pp 274-285
1980

WIRS82a
Wirsing M. & Broy M.
An Analysis of Semantic Models For Algebraic Specifications
in BROY82a, pp 351-412
1982

WISE79a
Wise D.S.
Morris's Garbage Compaction Algorithm Restores Reference Counts
ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, 1, no 1, pp 115-122
1979

WISE82a
Wise D.S.
Interpreters For Functional Programming
in DARL82a
1982

WORL85a
Worley J. & Arabe J. & Tu K.G.
The Architecture and Design of the Functional Programming Machine
Document, Computer Sci. Dept. , Univ. of California, Los Angeles

YAO82
Yao S.B. Waddle V.E. & Housel B.C.
View Modeling and Integration Using the Functional Data Model
IEEE TOSE Vol SE-8 No.6 p544-553 ,Nov 1982

YASU83a *
Yasukawa H.
LFG in Prolog - Toward A Formal System for Representing Grammatical
Relations
ICOT Research Center, technical report TR-019
August 1983

YASU83b *
Yasuura H.
On The Parallel Computational Complexity of Unification
ICOT Research Center, Technical report TR-027
October 1983

YOKOI83a
Yokoi T.
A Perspective of the Japanese FGCS Project
( Presented to IJCAI, F.R.G., 1983 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Memorandum TM-0026
September 1983

YOKOM84a *
Yokomori T.
A Note on the Set Abstraction in Logic Programming Language
( Also in "Proceedings of FGCS 84", Tokyo, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-060
April 1984

YOKOT83a
Yokota H. & Kunifuji S. & Kakuta T. & Miyazaki N. & Shibayama S. & Murakami K.
An Enhanced Inference Mechanism for Generating Relational Algebra Queries
( Also in "Proceedings of Third ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symp. on Principles of
  Database Systems", Waterloo, Canada, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-026
October 1983

YOKOT84a
Yokota M. & Yamamoto A. & Taki K. & Nishikawa H. & Uchida S.
The Design and Implementation of a Personal Sequential Inference Machine: PSI
( Also in New Generation Computing, Vol 1, No 2, 1984 )
ICOT Research Center, Technical Report TR-045
February 1984

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
113
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 09:50:21 pdt
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Use of AI in Project Management and Scheduling (Ames)
-BODY-

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center


                            AMES AI FORUM
                        SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


          The Use of AI in Project Management and Scheduling

                           John C. Kunz, Ph.D
                      IntelliCorp Corporate Offices


                         Tuesday, May 13, 1986
                           10:00 - 11:00 am             (NOTE TIME)
                    N245  Space Sciences Auditorium
                       NASA Ames Research Center


The discipline of Project Management can potentially contribute both to
the planning and the control of large projects.  Knowledge-based systems
can be used to help project and operations managers to identify the
problems they must solve and to consider various alternative approaches
to their problems.  This talk will discuss results of using some
prototype systems that support project management and scheduling.  The
discussion will consider both some of the management issues and design
of the AI analysis systems.


           point of contact:  Alison Andrews  (415)694-6741
                              mer.andrews@ames-vmsb.ARPA

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 1 May 86 04:44:11 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Procedural Abstraction in Soar (UCB)
-BODY-
                     BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                                Spring 1986
                    Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237B
                        Tuesday, May 6, 11:00 - 12:30
                              2515 Tolman Hall
                          Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                          3105 Tolman (Beach Room)

        ``Procedural Abstraction in the Soar Cognitive Architecture''
                             Paul S. Rosenbloom
               Departments of Computer Science and Psychology,
                             Stanford University

            The Soar project is an attempt to build a  system  capable
       of  general  intelligent  behavior -- a cognitive architecture.
       It is to be capable of working on the full range of tasks, from
       highly  routine  to  extremely  difficult  open-ended problems;
       capable of employing the full range of problem solving  methods
       and  representations  required  for these tasks; and capable of
       learning about all aspects of the tasks and its performance  on
       them.   In  this talk I will present an overview of the current
       system, which is an approximation to this ideal, and  some  new
       results on the integration of abstraction planning capabilities
       into R1-Soar -- the implementation in Soar of an expert  system
       for computer configuration.  Abstraction planning in R1-Soar is
       based on the partial execution of procedurally  encoded  opera-
       tors  and  on Soar's general problem solving and learning capa-
       bilities.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 15:56:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gregory.Hood@ML.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Artificial Organisms (CMU)
-BODY-
I will be presenting the last thesis proposal of this semester on Friday,
May 9, at 10:30am (yes, that's Black Friday) in Wean 5409.  A copy of the
proposal is in the lounge; I have additional copies available in my office
(8126) for anyone who wants one.

Title: Artificial Organisms: A Neural Modeling Approach

Abstract:
The proposed thesis will investigate autonomous goal-based learning at the
neural modeling level.  To support this study, a series of artificial
organisms will be developed within the context of the World Modeling System,
which is a realistic simulated environment.  Each organism will be
controlled by an artificially designed nervous system based on
organizational principles found in simple natural organisms such as the
marine snail.  The organisms will exhibit several simple forms of learning
such as habituation, sensitization, classical conditioning, and operant
conditioning.  Emphasis will be placed on the development of robust
organisms which are capable of prolonged existence within the environment
rather than isolated neural networks which are only capable of single
one-shot learning tasks.  It is expected that insights into the relationship
of machine learning to learning in natural organisms will emerge from the
study of these artificial organisms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 1986  15:19 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Claudia Smith <CLAUDIA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Multisensor Robot Systems (MIT)
-BODY-

              INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION OF
                 MULTI-SENSOR ROBOT SYSTEMS

                   Hugh F. Durrant-Whyte

                University of Pennsylvania
                      Philadelphia




A multi-sensor robot system comprises many diverse non-homogeneous sources
of information. The sensors of these systems take a variety of disparate
observations of features in the robot environment. The measurements supplied
by the sensor systems are uncertain, partial, occasionally spurious or
incorrect and often incomparable with other sensors views. It is the goal of
the robot system to coordinate and integrate sensor observations into a
consensus best view of the environment which can be used to plan and guide
the execution of tasks.

We will present a methodology for the integration of uncertain sensor
information and the coordination of multi-sensor observation strategies. We
first build a probabilistic model of a sensor's information gathering
characteristics and show how it's views can be extracted from a Gaussian
(stochastic) environment. A methodology is developed for the consistent
integration of disparate sensor views in to a consensus world model. We show
how the information model can be used to obtain maximal-information sensing
strategies and to coordinate the actions of multiple sensor agents. We
demonstrate the utility of these techniques by application to a
robot-mounted tactile array and an active stereo vision system.

Date: Wednesday, May 7th
Time: 4pm
Place: NE43-8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Apr 86 14:55:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!csa@ucbvax.
     berkeley.edu  (Cheryl S Anderson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 3rd. Int. Logic Programming
-BODY-

            THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LOGIC PROGRAMMING
                             July 14-18, 1986

                              FINAL PROGRAM


Monday, July 14

All Day Tutorial:  Logic programming and its applications by Robert
Kowalski and Frank Kriwaczek.

Half Day Tutorials:
A.M. Prolog implementation and architecture.  David Warren
or   Techniques for natural language processing in Prolog.  Michael McCord

P.M. Parallel logic programming.  Keith Clark and Steve Gregory
or   Japanese Fifth Generation Applications Research.  Koichi Furukawa


Tuesday, July 15

KEYNOTE ADDRESS:  K. Fuchi, ICOT

1a.  Parallel implementations

An abstract machine for restricted AND-parallel execution of logic
programs.
Manuel V. Hermenegildo, University of Texas at Austin.

Efficient management of backtracking in AND-Parallelism.
Manuel V. Hermenegildo, University of Texas at Austin & Roger I. Nasr, MCC.

An intelligent backtracking algorithm for parallel execution of logic
programs.
Vipin Kumar, University of Texas at Austin.

Delta Prolog: a distributed backtracking extension with events.
Luis Moniz Pereira, Luis Monteiro, Jose Cunha & Joaquim N. Aparicio,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

1b.  Theory and complexity

OLD resolution with tabulation.
Hasao Tamaki, Ibaraki University.

Logic programs and alternation.
P. Stepanek & O. Stepankova, MFF Prague.

Intractable unifiability problems and backtracking.
D.A. Wolfram, Syracuse University.

On the complexity of unification sequences.
Heikki Mannila & Esko Ukkonen, University of Helsinki.

2a.  Implementations and architectures

How to invent a Prolog machine.
Peter Kursawe, GMD & University of Karlsruhe.

A sequential implementation of Parlog.
Ian Foster, Steve Gregory, Graem Ringwood, Imperial College & Ken Satoh,
Fujitsu Limited.

A GHC abstract machine and instruction set.
Jacob Levy, Weizmann Institute.

A Prolog processor based on a pattern matching memory device.
Ian Robinson, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research.

2b. Inductive inference and debugging

An improved version of Shapiro's model inference system.
Matthew Huntbach, University of Sussex.

A framework for ICAI systems based on inductive inference and logic
programming.
Kazuhisa Kawai, Riichiro Mizoguchi, Osamu Kakusho & Jun'ichi Toyoda, Osaka
University.

Rational debugging in logic programming.
Luis Moniz Pereira, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.

Using definite clauses and integrity constraints as the basis for a theory
formation approach to diagnostic reasoning.
Randy Goebel, University of Waterloo, Koichi Furukawa, ICOT & David Poole,
University of Waterloo.

INVITED TALK:  Theory of logic programming.  Jean-Luis Lassez, IBM


Wednesday, July 16

INVITED TALK:  Concurrent logic programming languages.  Akikazu Takeuchi
ICOT.

3a.  Concurrent logic languages

P-Prolog: a parallel language based on exclusive relation.
Rong Yang & Hideo Aiso, Keio University.

Making exhaustive search programs deterministic.
Kazunori Ueda, ICOT.

Compiling OR-parallelism into AND-parallelism.
Michael Codish & Ehud Shapiro, Weizmann Institute.

A framework for the implementation of Or-parallel languages.
Jacob Levy, Weizmann Institute.

3b.  Theory and semantics

Logic program semantics for programming with equations.
Joxan Jaffar & Peter J. Stuckey, Monash University.

On the semantics of logic programmming languages.
Alberto Martelli & Gianfranco Rossi, Universita di Torino.

Towards a formal semantics for concurrent logic programming languages.
Lennart Beckmann, Uppsala University.


Thursday, July 17

INVITED TALK:  Logic programming and natural language processing.  Michael
McCord, IBM.

4a.  Parallel applications and implementations

Parallel logic programming for numeric applications.
Ralph Butler, Ewing Lusk, William McCune & Ross Overbeek, Argonne National
Laboratory.

Deterministic logic grammars.
Harvey Abramson, University of British Columbia.

A parallel parsing system for natural language analysis.
Yuji Matsumoto, ICOT.

4b.  Theory and higher-order functions

Equivalence of logic programs.
Michael J. Maher, University of Melbourne.

Qualified answers and their application to transformation.
Phil Vasey, Imperial College.

Procedures in Horn-clause programming.
M.A. Nait Abdallah, University of W. Ontario.

Higher-order logic programming.
Dale A. Miller & Gopalan Nadathur, University of Pennsylvania.

5a.  Program analysis

Abstract interpretation of Prolog programs.
C.S. Mellish, University of Sussex.

Verification of Prolog programs using an extension of execution.
Tadashi Kanamori, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation & Hirohisa Seki, ICOT.

Detection and optimization of functional computations in Prolog.
Saumya K. Debray & David S. Warren, SUNY at Stony Brook.

Control of logic program execution based on the functional relations.
Katsuhiko Nakamura, Tokyo Denki University.

5b.  Applications and teaching

Declarative graphics.
A. Richard Helm & Kim Marriott, University of Melbourne.

Test-pattern generation for VLSI circuits in a Prolog environment.
Rajiv Gupta, SUNY at Stony Brook.

Using Prolog to represent and reason about protein structure.
C.J. Rawlings, W.R. Taylor, J. Nyakairu, J. Fox & M.J.E. Sternberg,
Imperial Cancer Research Fund & Birkbeck College.

A New approach for introducing Prolog to naive users.
Oded Maler, Zahava Scherz & Ehud Shapiro, Weizmann Institute.

INVITED TALK:  Prolog programming environments.  Takashi Chikayama, ICOT.


Friday, July 18

INVITED TALK:  Logic programming and databases.  Jeffery D. Ullman,
Stanford University.

6a.  Implementations and databases

A superimposed codeword indexing scheme for very large Prolog databases.
Kotagiri Ramamohanarao & John Shepherd, University of Melbourne.

Interfacing Prolog to a persistent data store.
D.S. Moffat & P.M.D. Gray, University of Aberdeen

General model for implementing DIF and FREEZE.
P. Boizumault, CNRS.

Cyclic tree traversal.
Martin Nilsson & Hidehiko Tanaka, University of Tokyo.

6b.  Theory and negation

Completeness of the SLDNF-resolution for a class of logic programs.
R. Barbuti, Universita di Pisa.

Choices in, and limitations of, logic programming.
Paul J. Voda, University of British Columbia.

Negation and quantifiers in NU-Prolog.
Lee Naish, University of Melbourne.

Gracefully adding negation and disjunction to Prolog.
David L. Poole & Randy Goebel, University of Waterloo.

7a.  Compilation

Memory performance of Lisp and Prolog programs.
Evan Tick, Stanford University.

The design and implementation of a high-speed incremental portable Prolog
compiler.
Kenneth A. Bowen, Kevin A. Buettner, Ilyas Cicekli & Andrew Turk, Syracuse
University.

Compiler optimizations for the WAM.
Andrew K. Turk, Syracuse University.

Fast decompiling of compiled Prolog clauses.
Kevin A. Buettner, Syracuse University.

7b.  Models of computation and implementation

Logic continuations.
Christopher T. Haynes, Indiana University.

Cut & Paste - defining the impure primitives of Prolog.
Chris Moss, Imperial College.

Tokio: logic programming language based on temporal logic and its
compilation to Prolog.
M. Fujita, Fujitsu Labs. Ltd., S. Kono, H. Tanaka & Moto-oka, University of
Tokyo.

The OR-woods description of the execution of logic programs.
Sun Chengzheng & Tzu Yungui, Changsha Institute.

PANEL DISCUSSION:  Programming vs. uncovering parallelism. Chair: Keith
Clark, Imperial College.




                           GENERAL INFORMATION


TIME AND VENUE

Monday 14th to Friday 18th July.  Imperial College of Science and
Technology, South Kensington.  Sherfield Building - Great Hall, Pippard and
Read Lecture Theatres.

Registration:  Tutorials from 8.00 a.m. on Monday and Full Conference from
2.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. on Monday and from 8.15 p.m. on Tuesday, in the main
reception area adjacent to the Great Hall.

General information on facilities and entertainment in London will be
available from the main reception desk.

CONFERENCE SESSIONS

The main conference runs from 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 15th July until 5.00
p.m. on Friday, 18th July.   Technical sessions are divided into two
parallel streams and each paper lasts for approximately 20 minutes.  (Each
day has plenary sessions addressed by invited speakers).  Morning breaks
are from 10.30-10.50, lunch breaks from 12.30-2.00, and afternoon breaks
from 3.40-4.00.

TUTORIALS

The Tutorial Programme takes place on Monday, 18th July, from 9.30 a.m.
Each tutorial session is priced separately.

COMMERCIAL EXHIBITION

There will be a commercial exhibition located in the Junior Common Room on
the same level as the main conference facilities in the Sherfield Building
from 1.00 p.m. on Monday until Thursday lunchtime.  Companies taking part
in the exhibition include software developers, hardware manufacturers and
publishers.  A reception will be held in the exhibition area at the end of
the tutorial sessions on Monday.  Refreshments will also be available in
the exhibition area during session breaks.  Anyone interested in taking
space at the exhibition should contact the Conference Organizers at
Imperial College Tel. 01-589 5111 ext. 5011.

  [If you've read this far, you may want to write to me for the social
  programme, housing data, and registration forms that were included
  in the original message. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
114
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 May 86 11:12 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven H. Gutfreund" <GUTFREUND%umass-cs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Stella
-BODY-
Does anyone have any information on Stella (personal or journal articles)?
I understand it is a program for the MacIntosh done at Dartmouth in the
spirit of Rocky Boots.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 13:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: Stern.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems for PCs
-BODY-
In answer to a recent query for "expert systems on PCs" someone supplied
a list of software.  It seemed to me all the entries were for AI tools,
and none of them were expert systems.  Is this what was desired?

Josh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 19:44:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!orsay@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (j.ratsaby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Boltzman Machine
-BODY-

I am interested to know who did/does research about neural networks
specifically  those that are based on stochastic theory.
I would like to the status of these researches.

                                 thanks in advance
                                 joel Ratsaby
                                 AT&T I.S.L
                                 Middletown N.J
                                 (201)957-2649
:wq

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 18:26:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxv!sr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (S Radtke)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
In article <837@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes:
>A recent issue of 'Science' had an article on 'neural networks', which,
>apparently consist of ...
etc.

To set the facts straight.
The name of the mag is Science 86 which is published by AAAS and is not
to be confused with the journal Science, also published by AAAS.

>They said incredibly little about the actual details of
>how each node operates, unfortunately.
Probably because its intended audience is rather broad - intelligent
people with no particular expertise or training assumed.
Kind of a Readers Digest for Yuppies with a high-tech inclinations.

>    So how about it?  Has anybody else heard of these things?  Is this
>really a way of going about AI in a way which *may* be similar to what
>brains do?  Just exactly what algorithms are the nodes implementing, and
>how do you provide input and get output from them?  Does anyone know
>where I could get more information about them?
You might try turning to the back of the magazine, to a section listing
articles for further, deeper reading.
Or you can look in today's paper (if you happen to read the NY Times) and
check the article on page D2 which announces the commercial availability
of the Connection Machine from a start-up concern in Cambridge.


Probably next week there will be ads on CBS during the evening news.

Steve Radtke
bellcore!u1100a!sr
Bell Communications Research
Piscataway, NJ

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 May 86 01:29:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: dali.berkeley.edu!regier@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Terrance P. Regier)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
In article <175@sdics.UUCP> cottrell@sdics.UUCP (Gary Cottrell) writes:
>
>Hopfield is the one who did the traveling salesman problem. I'm not sure
>where he is, tho.
>

J.J Hopfield is at the: Division of Chemistry and Biology
                        California Institute of Technology
                        Pasadena, CA   91125


                                -- Terry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 15:54:19 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!seismo!harvard!cmcl2!lanl!crs@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu  (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
> A recent issue of 'Science' had an article on 'neural networks', which,
>       .
>       .
>       .
In a related vein, the 7 April, 1986 issue of Electronic Engineering Times
(an electronics engineering newspaper) featured the following articles in
the Computer Engineering section:

                Hopfield's Nerve Nets Realize Biocomputing

                Neural Chips Emulate Brain Functions

                Brain-Emulating Circuits Need `Sleep' and `Dreams'

Several other issues of this weekly paper have, over the past month or so,
carried one or more related articles.

>-
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer,
the government or your favorite deity.

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 15:48:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!goddard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Nigel Goddard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-

Departments working in this area include, amongst others:

C.S. University of Rochester
     Carnegie Mellon
Cog Sci University of California, San Diego
??   University of Massachussets, Amherst

There is a technical report "Rochester Connectionist Papers" available
here which probably references a lot of other work as well.

Nigel Goddard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 May 86 04:16:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!jam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Jonathan A. Marshall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-

Stephen Grossberg has been publishing on neural networks for 20 years.
He pays special attention to designing adaptive neural networks that
are self-organizing and mathematically stable.  Some good recent
references are:

(Category Learning):----------
   G.A. Carpenter and S. Grossberg, "A Massively Parallel Architecture for
     a Self-Organizing Neural Patttern Recognition Machine."  Computer
     Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing.  In Press.
   G.A. Carpenter and S. Grossberg, "Neural Dynamics of Category Learning
     and Recognition: Structural Invariants, Reinforcement, and Evoked
     Potentials."  In M.L. Commons, S.M. Kosslyn, and R.J. Herrnstein (Eds),
     Pattern Recognition in Animals, People, and Machines.  Hillsdale, NJ:
     Erlbaum, 1986.
(Learning):-------------------
   S. Grossberg, "How Does a Brain Build a Cognitive Code?"  Psychological
     Review, 1980 (87), p.1-51.
   S. Grossberg, Studies of Mind and Brain: Neural Principles of Learning,
     Perception, Development, Cognition, and Motor Control.  Boston:
     Reidel Press, 1982.
   S. Grossberg, "Adaptive Pattern Classification and Universal Recoding:
     I. Parallel Development and Coding of Neural Feature Detectors."
     Biological Cybernetics, 1976 (23), p.121-134.
   S. Grossberg, The Adaptive Brain: I. Learning, Reinforcement, Motivation,
     and Rhythm.  Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.
(Vision):---------------------
   S. Grossberg, The Adaptive Brain: II. Vision, Speech, Language, and Motor
     Control.  Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.
   S. Grossberg and E. Mingolla, "Neural Dynamics of Perceptual Grouping:
     Textures, Boundaries, and Emergent Segmentations."  Perception &
     Psychophysics, 1985 (38), p.141-171.
   S. Grossberg and E. Mingolla, "Neural Dynamics of Form Perception:
     Boundary Completion, Illusory Figures, and Neon Color Spreading."
     Psychological Review, 1985 (92), 173-211.
(Motor Control):---------------
   S. Grossberg and M. Kuperstein, Neural Dynamics of Adaptive Sensory-
     Motor Control: Ballistic Eye Movements.  Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.


If anyone's interested, I can supply more references.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 14:40:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!think!craig@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Craig Stanfill)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: connection machine articles
-BODY-
The Connection Machine has now been officially announced as a commercial
product.  Requests for information relevant to AI should be directed to:

        David Waltz
        Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Group
        Thinking Machines Corporation
        245 First Street
        Cambridge, MA 02142

Please use U.S. mail.  When I get a chance, I will post some basic
specs for the machine on this list.

                        -Craig Stanfill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 14:10:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!wanginst!apollo!molson@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Margaret Olson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: String Reduction
-BODY-

>requiring as TRAC does that strings be specifically called with
>the "cl" operator.  In other words, you could say *(macro,...) instead
>of #(cl,macro,...).  Wegner leaves it as an exercise to the reader to

In the version of TRAC that I worked with in 1983, you could say
#(macro) and ##(macro).  As I recall, these two cases were treated
exactly like #(cl,macro) and ##(cl,macro).  This version had a considerably
larger set of primitives than those discussed in all the TRAC papers and
documentation that I ever saw.

String reduction has been used to solve real problems.  A company called
Data Concepts used TRAC to write an applications generator.  The applications
generator was used by insurance raters to write rating systems.  Rating systems
are hard because insurance rating rules change all the time (like every day as
far as I could tell).  Anyway, TRAC was used for a real product.  I think that
Allstate is still using this stuff for some kinds of commercial policies.

TRAC trivia: It was developed and originally owned by Calvin Mooers,
and then sold to Data Concepts Inc.  Data Concepts has since gone
bankrupt, so I believe that TRAC is now owned by some type of
bankruptcy court entity.  It is (presumably) for sale.

Margaret Olson.
molson@apollo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 08:59:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Italo Calvino AI project
-BODY-
I've directed followups to net.books.

>   I must apologize to Bandy for posting a genuine rumor to net.rumor, but
>this is a real rumor I found on net.followup:
>
>>I have it on good authority (although second-hand) that an entire
>>*novel* was generated by computer. It was the result of a research
>>project which aimed to "parameterize" an author's writing style. The
>>study concentrated primarily on one author, Italo Calvino, and I have
>>heard that the novel, "If on a winter's night a traveller", was actually
>>published and marketed with Calvino's blessing.
>[Jack Orenstein]

Now this is an interesting rumor.  I suppose I should reread the book,
but I'll go on memory.

It's opening chapter struck me as one of the funniest things I have ever
read.  But it then wore down rather tiresomely.  I doubt if a computer
could have come up with the scheme of the book, the plot, or the opening
chapter.  But as for the rest?  The plotting was more stilted than usual
for Calvino--but I thought that was the point.  The joke was dragged out
longer than he usually does.  And it was his first novel in a decade.

Hmmm...  Let's just say I'm very incredulous.  Perhaps, more likely, the
*rumor* was generated with Calvino's blessing.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba    Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 3 May 86 21:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: ART@AQUINAS.THINK.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Italo Calvino
-BODY-
    >I have it on good authority (although second-hand) that an entire
    >*novel* was generated by computer. It was the result of a research
    >project which aimed to "parameterize" an author's writing style. The
    >study concentrated primarily on one author, Italo Calvino, and I have
    >heard that the novel, "If on a winter's night a traveller", was actually
    >published and marketed with Calvino's blessing.
    [Jack Orenstein]

If On A Winter's Night A Traveller has, as part of it's plot, the
story of two people trying to read a novel called If On A Winter's
Night a Traveller.  Among their troubles is their inability to determine
the authorship of the book.  At one point, they discover that the book
they are reading (or you are reading; fans of self-referentiality will
have a ball) may have been written by a machine.  Maybe this rumor's
authority confused the novel with it's plot.  On the other hand, maybe that
was the point....

Art Medlar
Thinking Machines Corp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
115
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 May 86 09:48:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Jean-Pierre Dumas <DUMAS@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer resources management
-BODY-
I post this for a friend.
I will forward any mail.
dumas@sumex

I am interested in computer system performance analysis modelling.
I am indeed developing a system, based on AI techniques, to deal with
tuning and performance planning of computer system management.
I would be delighted to be in touch with people concerned with this question.

Address :
Dr. Saddek BELAID
CISI-TELEMATIQUE
CEN-SACLAY  BP 24
91190 GIF/YVETTE
FRANCE

Phone : (+33) 1 69 08 20 12

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 May 86 18:46:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hpfcdc!hpfcla!hpcnoe!jd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: connection machine articles
-BODY-

      Daniel Hillis has written a book entitled
"The Connection Machine".  It is available through the Library of Computer
and Informaiton Sciences (book club).  I am sure that It can be found
elsewhere.I just recieved the book and It seems very readable if not
intriguing.

Hope I have Helped,

John Dye                               Hewlett Packard
{inhp4|hplabs}!hpfcla!hpcnoa!jd        Colorado Networks Division

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 May 86 05:51:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: nike!topaz!harvard!think!bruce@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce J. Nemnich)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: connection machine articles
-BODY-

Also, if all you have read is the old AI memo, you should definitely
read the book, |The Connection Machine|, by Danny Hillis, published
last year by the MIT Press.
>-
>-Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>-bruce@think.com, ihnp4!think!bruce; +1 617 876 1111

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 2 May 86 10:16:26 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Tech reports - University of Kansas
-BODY-
Following is a list of recent technical reports which have
been issued by the department of Computer Science of the
University of Kansas in conjunction with research done in
the department's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T Reasoning in a Hierarchy of Deontic Defaults
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-2
%X A commonsense theory of reasoning is presented which models
our intuitive ability of reason about defaults involving both
deontic and doxastic logic.  The concepts of this theory do not
involve fixed points or Kripke semantics but instead are explicitly
defined in a modal quantificational logic which captures the modal
notion of logical truth.  An example involving derivations of
obligations from both a robot's beliefs and a hierarchy of deontic
defaults is given.  To be published in the proceedings of the
1986 Canadian Artificial Intelligence Conference. 11 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T Toward a Commonsense Theory of Nonmonotonicity
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-3
%X A logical theory of nonmonotonic reasoning is presented which
permits a commonsense approach to defaults.  The axioms and inference
rules for a modal logic based on the concept of logical truth are
described herein along with basic theorems about nonmonotonic
reasoning.  An application to the frame problem in robot plan
formation is presented.  To be published in the proceedings of the
Eight International Conference on Automated Deduction. 12 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T A Comparison of the Commonsense and Fixed Point Theories
   of Nonmonotonicity
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-4
%X The mathematical fixed point theories of nonmonotonic reasoning
are examined and compared to a commonsense theory of nonmonotonic
reasoning which models our intuitive ability to reason about defaults.
It is shown that all of the known problems of the fixed point theories
are solved by the commonsense theory.  The concepts of this commonsense
theory do not involve mathematical fixed points, but instead are
explicitly defined in a monotonic modal quantificational logic which
captures the modal notion of logical truth. 12 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T An Experimental Logic Based on the Fundamental Deduction Principle
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-5
%X Experimental logic can be viewed as a branch of logic dealing with
the actual construction of useful deductive systems and their application
to various scientific disciplines.  In this paper we describe an
experimental deductive system called the SYMbolic EVALuator (i.e. SYMEVAL)
which is based on a rather simple, yet startling principle about deduction,
namely that deduction is fundamentally a process of replacing expressions
by logically equivalent expressions.  This principle applies both to
logical and domain dependent axioms and rules.  Unlike more well known
logical inference systems which do not satisfy this principle, herein is
described a system of logical axioms and rules called the SYMMETRIC LOGIC
which is based on this principle.  Evidence for this principle is given
by proving theorems and performing deduction in the areas of set theory,
logic programming, natural language analysis, program verification,
automatic complexity analysis, and inductive reasoning.  To be published
in the international journal Artificial Intelligence. 120 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T Automatic Deduction in Set Theory
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-6
%X A proof of the definability of ordered pairs in set theory is described
and discussed.  This proof was obtained in an entirely automatic way using
the SYMEVAL deduction system and the SYMMETRIC LOGIC axioms.  The analogous
point in this proof where other theorem proving methods and systems have
failed to prove this theorem are described.  The ability of this system to
automatically derive one half of this theorem from the other half is also
discussed, thus showing that this kind of deduction system can be used to
produce answers other than just yes/no answers to mathematical questions.
24 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T An Experimental Logic
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-7
%X The fundamental deduction principle, SYMEVAL deductive system, and
SYMMETRIC LOGIC are introduced.  Theorems are proved in the area of
set theory, complexity analysis and program verification. 17 pp.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T Logic Programming with an Experimental Logic
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Kansas
%R TR-86-8
%X In this paper we describe the experimental programming logic which
uses the deductive system SYMEVAL which is based on the fundamental
deduction principle.  Theorems and deductions are performed in the area
of logic programming and then discussed as they relate to the above
principle.  18 pp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 86 16:19:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley
     .edu  (michael maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Consciousness
-BODY-
In light of the recent flurry of articles on consciousness (of computers,
toasters, Endomoeba histolitica...), some readers may be interested in a
recent book: "Animal Thinking", by Donald Griffin.  I've just started reading
it, so I can't say much; but the author is an ethologist (=student of animal
behavior), and his contention is that many animals *are* concious.
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 86 13:26:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!warwick!gordon@ucbvax.
     berkeley.edu  (Gordon Joly)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Plan 5 for Inner Space - A Sense of Mind.
-BODY-
The following project has been proposed. Design and implement an
Intelligent System with the following characteristics. The system
is to run in real time and be portable. Memory and processing units
must be in the same enclosure, run on low power and not overheat.
(a) Full colour binocular vision, with motion perception.
(b) Speech processing and speech synthesis.
(c) Natural language ability :-
    (1) Semantic ability
    (2) Translation.
    (3) Ability to summarise.
    (4) Humour (optional).
(d) Learning ability.
(e) Ability to control a large number of servo mechanisms, with strength
    and sensitivity.
(f) Other tasks, as yet unspecified, but the system must be able
    to cope with extra requirements, as and when the need arises,
    using characteristic (d).

Queries: Time to completion? Cost?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 May 86 11:33:00 MST
-FROM-
From: fritts@afotec
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <fritts@afotec>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Science 86 Article on Neural Nets
-BODY-
                   I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:      5-May-1986 10:18 MDT
                                        From:      STEVE E. FRITTS
                                                   FRITTS
                                        Dept:      1859ISSS/SIP
                                         Tel:      505-846-2595

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _MAILER!AILIST@SRI-AI )


Subject: Re: Science 86 Article on Neural Nets

Most of what I've read on this list appears to place AI closer to the
"Frankenstein" theory of assembling intelligence, fully formed and
functioning, like any other computer program; just push the button and
watch it go.

Neural networks appear to be more natural in their approach.  Terry
Sejnowski's NETalk was equipped more with rules on how to learn to
perform a task than rules on how to perform a task.  I think that this
is a crucial difference.  If a computer is programmed only to perform
a task, then the programmer must design for every possible eventuality
which may affect the performance and for every possible consequence or
outcome.  The problem is that such a program, no matter how
comprehensive, makes assumptions.  These assumptions are fatal for
intelligence.  They doom the program as surely as evolution dooms some
species of life on this planet, and for much the same reason.  Human
intelligence may have developed as the ultimate weapon against
changing environments; better than adaptation because it allows for
greater variety of response.

So, if "intelligence" is developed in a computer through learning
mechanisms rather than assembled  by means of cunning rules and
algorithms, perhaps it stands a better chance of achieving sufficient
universality that it may compete with the human mind.  Odd that we
would dream of building our own competition.

I vaguely recall that a long time ago there were machines called analog
computers which worked on a principle of varying voltages and
resistances rather than the digital machine's method of detecting the
polarity (the "on" or "off" state) of a particular circuit junction.
Hopfield and Tank's neural net appears to perform in some ways similar
to an analog computer.  The article is too general on the technicals
of a "neural net" machine and I add my request to others on this list
for a little better technical description.  Also, perhaps someone will
enlighten me about the possible relevance or irrelevance of analog
computers to neural nets.

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own alone and do not represent any
official position by my employer.

Steve Fritts
FRITTS@AFOTEC.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 May 86 11:33:51-CDT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Novak Jr. <AI.NOVAK@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox as a verb
-BODY-
I think it was William Safire who stated the metarule:

   You can verb anything.

At least in Washington.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 May 86 13:30 PDT
-FROM-
From: Stern.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Trademarks
-BODY-
There's language and language.  Yes, there is a lexical distinction
between xerox and Xerox, but does the law recognize lexical vs other
discriminations between usages?  Yes, sort of, maybe.

One might use syntactic or semantic analysis of usages to determine
whether it is acceptable to use a trademarked word, but NL workers know
how difficult it is to produce an absolute semantic analysis of
unrestricted language.

So instead, companies protecting trademarks work at a higher level of
abstraction, the real-world script.  They know that any unrestricted use
of a word leads to bad consequences, so their heuristic for when to
complain is based on factors exogenous to the apparent linguistic
content in which the reference appears.

In conclusion it is fascinating that the legal protection of trademarks
should involve such a wide variety of linguistic considerations.  There
are no easy answers to the theoretical questions involved, but as KIL
points out, there are laws.

P.S. None of the above is to be taken as the position of my employer.

Josh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 2 May 86 17:24:26-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Names and Trademarks
-BODY-
Of course, I understand that the company is legally obliged to correct
uses of its name in order to retain trademark status. My point was that
as a matter of fact, like it or not, to xerox is now a verb in common
usage, and is going to stay that way.  I have a dictionary ( Random
House ) in which Xerox(TM) is both a noun and a verb, and xerography (
no capitalisation or trademark ) is another noun.  Clearly, the company
insisted that the publishers gave trademark acknowledgement: equally
clearly, both the publishers and the company acknowledge that the word is
part of the language.
There are important differences between xerox and asprin on one hand, and
exxon and frigidaire and IBM on the other. In these latter cases,
identification
was due to the company having a dominating position in the market, and
nothing else. In the former cases, it was the only owner and supplier of
a vital piece of technology,  during the period in which it became a
commonplace of everyday life, and indeed transformed everyday life.  And
finally, a last difference is that in both the former cases there was and
is no alternative way of referring to the things available. What is a Canon
xerox machine if it isnt that? It has to be some awkward neologism like
a dry copier, or a copier using the xerographic process.  What would we call
an asprin if we couldnt call it an asprin?  Like Bayer, you guys have been
too successful: not only did you invent the process, you also invented the
way of talking about it.
Patrick J. Hayes (TM)
PS> I am told that in the oil business, to schlumberger is a common verb.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 3 May 86 02:20:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Exxon" vs. "exon" .
-BODY-
I remember reading in Time Magazine around 1970 when ENCO/ESSO Oil Corp.
unveiled its new name, "Exxon".  They had looked through all the major
languages of the world to find one word that didn't mean anything in any of
them.  "Exxon" was what they found.
        Alas.  In 1978, Walter Gilbert of Harvard came up with new words
for the newly discovered pieces that eukaryotic genes are made of:  "intron"
for the spliced out sequences, and "exon" for the expressed sequences.
I wonder what went through the minds of the CEOs of Exxon when they caught
wind of this?
        I should mention a sign I saw in the Bioengineering Dept. at UC
Berkeley:
                --AXXON--
            MOTOR NEURON SERVICE

                        -Lee Altenberg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
116
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 5 May 86 13:56 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning, Knowledge, and Action (UPenn)
-BODY-

                  Colloquium - University of Pennsylvania
                            3:00pm May 6, 1986
                             216 Moore School

          A FIRST ORDER THEORY OF PLANNING, KNOWLEDGE, AND ACTION
                  LEORA MORGENSTERN - NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

Most  AI  planners  work on the assumption that they have complete knowledge of
their problem domain and situation, so that  formulating  a  plan  consists  of
searching  through  some  pre-packaged  list  of action operators for an action
sequence that achieves some desired goal.  Real life planning rarely works this
way,  because  we  usually  don't have enough information to map out a detailed
plan of action when we start out.  Instead, we initially draw up a sketchy plan
and  fill  in  details  as we proceed and gain more exact information about the
world.

This talk will present a formalism that is expressive enough to  describe  this
flexible  planning  process.    We begin by discussing the various requirements
that such a formalism must meet, and present a syntactic  theory  of  knowledge
that  meets  these  requirements.   Next, we discuss the paradoxes, such as the
Knower Paradox, that arise from syntactic treatments of knowledge, and  propose
a  solution  to these paradoxes based on Kripke's solution to the Liar Paradox.
Finally, we give solutions to the Knowledge Preconditions  and  Ignorant  Agent
Problems as part of an integrated theory of planning.

The  talk will include comparisons of our theory with other syntactic and modal
theories such as Konolige's and Moore's.  We will demonstrate that  our  theory
is  powerful  enough  to  solve  classes of problems that these theories cannot
handle.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 5 May 86 17:20:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Engineering as Ontological Analysis (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Knowledge Engineering as Ontological Analysis
Speaker:        Patrick Hayes
From:           Schlumberger Palo Alto Research
Date:           Wednesday, May 7, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

When designing a knowledge-base for use by an AI system, it is important to
bear in mind how utterly stupid computers are.  We must provide them with a
vocabulary in which to think about their world, and the scope of their thoughts
is then limited by the expressiveness of this vocabulay: in particular, the
kinds of object it is able to talk about.  This talk will illustrate this
point, and emphasise how important it is to choose the representational
vocabulary to fit both the limitations and the range of the systems desired
abilities.  Ways of referring to times and events will be used as examples.

Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 05 May 86  1625 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Default Theories and Autoepistemic Logic (CSLI)
-BODY-

  ON THE RELATION BETWEEN DEFAULT THEORIES AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC

                      Kurt Konolige
                SRI International and CSLI

      Common Sense and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Seminar
                   Thursday, May 8, 4pm
                         MJH 252

Default theories are a formal means of reasoning about defaults: what
normally is the case, in the absence of contradicting information.
Autoepistemic theories, on the other hand, are meant to describe the
consequences of reasoning about ignorance: what must be true if a
certain fact is not known.  Although the motivation and formal
character of these systems are different, a closer analysis shows that
they bear a common trait, which is the indexical nature of certain
elements in the theory.  In this talk I will show how default theories
can be reanalyzed as a restricted type of indexical theory.  The
benefits of this analysis are that it gives a clear (and clearly
intuitive) semantics to default theories, and combines the expressive
power of default and autoepistemic logics in a single framework.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 6 May 86 21:40 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NL Database Query Systems (UPenn)
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Naoki Abe <Abe@UPenn> on Tue  6 May 1986 at 18:18

                        A REMINDER OF A COLLOQUIUM
                  Thursday 5/8, 3:00pm, 216 Moore School

There will be an interesting talk on natural language database query systems
by Dr. Stanley R. Petrick of I.B.M. Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Dr.
Petrick is a former president of the Association for Computational
Linguistics, and is known for developing the first parsing algorithm for
transformational grammars, characterizing various parsing algorithms for
context free grammars in terms of push down automata, as well as his earlier
work on the minimal covering problem and its application on speech
recognition.  In this talk he will discuss more practical issues concerning
natural language query systems. The following is the abstract of this talk.


                  Natural Language Database Query Systems

                          Dr. Stanley R. Petrick
                 Thomas J. Watson Research Center, I.B.M.

In recent years many computer systems have been developed with limited
capabilities for understanding natural language requests for information
from a given database and for responding appropriately. In this talk we
shall attempt to characterize the theory underlying these systems and the
level of performance that they have demonstrated. Special attention will be
given to the problem of customizing such systems to handle new databases.
Illustrative material will be drawn from the T.Q.A. (Transformational
Question Answering) system, an experimental prototype being developed at
I.B.M. Research.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 6 May 86 10:18:52 -0100
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Sequential and Parallel Inference Machines (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    Wednesday, 7th May l986
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence
         Seminar Room - F10
         80 South Bridge
         EDINBURGH.


Professor David H.D. Warren, Department of Computer Science, University
of Manchester will give a seminar entitled - "Sequential and Parallel
Inference Machines".


There is a growing interest, stimulated in large part by Japan's Fifth
Generation project, in computer architectures where the basic machine
language is a form of symbolic logic, and the basic machine operation
is a form of logical inference.   Prolog is the best known, but not the
only, example of such a language.

How fast can such machines run?   I will consider both sequential
machines, which perform only one logical inference at a time, and
parallel machines, which can perform more than one logical inference at
a time.

First, I will describe my work with Evan Tick on the design of a Prolog
instruction set and pipelined processor.   This work suggests that a
sequential Prolog machine can achieve a speed approaching one million
logical inferences per second (IM LIPS) with current device technology.
This estimate has been confirmed by experimental prototypes, produced
at Berkeley and NEC.

In the second part of the talk I will discuss various approaches to
exploiting parallelism, including the Argonne approach to
or-parallelism, and the approach of DeGroot and others to
and-parallelism.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 14:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Ulysses Expert-System VLSI Design Environment (UPenn)
-BODY-
        Electrical Engineering Colloquium - University of Pennsylvania
                     11:00am May 9, 1986 - 129 Pender Lab


          Ulysses -- An Expert-System Based VLSI Design Environment
                             Michael l. Bushnell
                          Carnegie-Mellon University


It has recently been observed that the initial engineering design cost
for VLSI circuits is beginning to exceed the lifetime production cost.
In order to reduce this prohibitive design cost, which is limiting the
practical applications of VLSI technology, we need a real increase in
the automation of design activities.  Ulysses is a VLSI CAD environment
which effectively addresses the problem of CAD tool integration and
which also allows further automation of the VLSI design process. The
goal of this environment is to raise the designer interface for CAD
systems from the CAD tool level to the design task level.  The environment
is intended to be used in design synthesis, design-for-testability,
analysis, verification and optimization activities at all levels of
VLSI design. Specifically, Ulysses alleviates the problems caused by
incompatible file formats for CAD tools, allows one to codify a design
methodology, allows the methodology to be semi-automatically executed
and allows the VLSI design space to be explicitly represented.  The
environment automatically executes existing CAD tools, according to
instructions expressed in the codified design methodology, in order to
accomplish design tasks.  Ulysses keeps track of the progress of a
design and lets the designer explore the design space.  Ulysses uses
Artificial Intelligence methods, functions as an interactive expert
system, and interprtets language descriptions of design tasks, which
are described in the Scripts language.  Alternatively, the Scripts
language may be viewed as an organization-structuring language for CAD
applications in engineering. An example of an IC layout design task
will be presented, in which a knowledge-based router, a layout
synthesizer, and an interactive floor planner will be controlled by
Ulysses in a non-deterministic and opportunistic fashion in order to
produce a viable IC layout from a circuit description expressed in the
logic element/transistor level in a hardware description language.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 May 86 14:51:37-PDT
-FROM-
From: LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Granularity (SRI)
-BODY-
                              GRANULARITY

                    Jerry R. Hobbs (HOBBS@SRI-AI)

          Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International
                         CSLI, Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, May 12
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

We look at the world under various grain sizes and abstract from it only
those things that serve our present interests.  We can view a road,for
example, as a line, a surface, or a volume.  Such abstractions enable us
to reason about situations without getting lost in irrelevant
complexities.  Knowledge-rich intelligent systems will have to have
similar capabilities.  In this talk I will present a framework in which
we can understand such systems.  In this framework, a knowledge base
consists of a global theory together with a large number of relatively
simple, idealized, grain-dependent local theories, interrelated by
articulation axioms.  In a complex situation, the crucial features are
abstracted from the environment, determining a granularity, and the
corresponding local theory is selected.  This is the only computation
done in the global theory.  The local theory is then applied in the bulk
of the problem-solving process.  When shifts in perspective are
required, articulation axioms are used to translate the problem and
partial results from one local theory to another.  In terms of this
framework, I will discuss idealization, the concepts of supervenience
and reducibility, prototype-deformation types of description, and the
emergence of global properties from local phenomena, and the
relationship of granularity to circumscription.  Several examples of
uses of this framework from a wide variety of applications will be
given.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 May 1986 0754-EDT
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Eazyflow: an Effective Alternative to Dataflow (CMU)
-BODY-
                          PS SEMINAR

                       Edward Ashcroft, SRI

                Date:   Monday, 12 May
                Time:   3:30
                Place:  WeH 5409

Title: "Eazyflow: an Effective Alternative to Dataflow"

Eazyflow is a evaluation strategy for Operator Nets.  Syntactically,
operator nets are similar to dataflow graphs.  Their semantics is
expressed mathematically, and is more general and elegant than the
semantics of dataflow networks.  Various ways of specifying their
operational semantics are possible, and eazyflow is one such way, that
is a hybrid of demand-driven and data-driven evaluation.  (Data-driven
evaluation is what is normally called dataflow.  Demand-driven
evaluation avoids a lot of the problems that dataflow has.  Eazyflow is
basically demand-driven, with data-driven computation taking place when
it can do so without causing too many problems.)

This talk will
describe operator nets and their mathematical semantics, indicate how
they correspond exactly to programs in the language Lucid, show how
eazyflow is often superior to dataflow, and briefly describe the
architecture of the eazyflow engine that is soon to be built at SRI (the
Eazyflow Architecture Project is currently part of the DARPA Strategic
Computing Program).  Also, some simulation results that have been
obtained for the architecture will be described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 May 1986 12:02-PDT
-FROM-
From: Neches@isi-vaxa.arpa  (Robert Neches)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces at AAAI-86
-BODY-

A workshop on Intelligent Interfaces is scheduled to be held on Thursday,
August 13th, as part of the AAAI conference in Philadelphia.  We would
like to bring the call for abstracts to your attention, and would appreciate
it if you would circulate it to anyone else who might find it of interest.

        -- Tom Kaczmarek (Kaczmarek@USC-ISIB.arpa)
           Bob Neches (Neches@ISI-Vaxa.arpa)
           Workshop Co-chairs.

                USC / Information Sciences Institute
                4676 Admiralty Way
                Marina del Rey, CA  90292

                (213) 822-1511

Questions may be addressed to either chairman; abstracts should be sent to
Tom Kaczmarek by June 15.  The complete call for abstracts follows.

*****************************************************************************




               WORKSHOP ON INTELLIGENT INTERFACES AT AAAI-86

Many AI techniques are applicable to building better human-machine
interfaces.  The purpose of this workshop is to investigate intelligent
interface techniques that can potentially span many interaction modalities.
The workshop will discuss interfaces to knowledge-based systems as well
conventional interactive systems.  Past work in this area has been directed
at using AI to provide either an "intelligent apprentice" or a collection of
"power tools."  The intelligent apprentice emphasizes assistance based on an
understanding of the user's intentions and task domain.  The power tool
approach emphasizes a powerful command set, but leaves the responsibility
for selecting and applying commands in the hands of the user.  This workshop
is concerned not just with the extremes of this dichotomy, but also with
work that shows how to blend the two approaches effectively.  Work on
specific media and modalities, (e.g., natural language text or speech
understanding) is also relevant in that it can provide abstractions of
understanding and generation that will be potentailly useful across a wide
range of interface media and modalities.

Topics to be discussed:

        What are the fundamental interface problems that AI can help solve?
        What specific AI techniques can be useful in solving these problems?
        What abstractions of "understanding" and "generation" can come from
                work on natural language text and speech?
        What are the possibilities for symbiotic relationships between
                intelligent interfaces and intelligent systems?
        What does it take to create intelligent interfaces to conventional
                interactive systems?
        Are the power tools and intelligent assistance approaches at odds
                with one another?  Are middle-of-the-road approaches
                motivated by pragmatism or principle?

Organizers: The workshop organizers are Thomas Kaczmarek, Larry Miller,
Robert Neches and Norman Sondheimer of the USC/Information Sciences
Institute.

Participation: The workshop will run for a full day on Thursday, August 13
at the University of Pennsylvania.  The format will be a combination of
short informal presentations and open discussions with the former being used
to stimulate the latter.  These will be organized in four sessions, the
topics of which will be finalized after reviewing the declared interests of
participants.  Attendence will be by invitation only; there will be a
maximum of 50 participants.  Those wishing to participate should submit four
copies of a 1000-word abstract describing either their work building
intelligent interfaces or a position on a topic relevant to the goals of the
workshop.  Abstracts should provide contact information at the top, as they
will be duplicated and distributed to the other workshop attendees.
Participants with a willingness to make a short presentation (15-30 minutes)
about either their research or a position on a relevant topic should
indicate this desire in a cover letter sent with the abstract.  If multiple
members of a research group would like to attend, please indicate the
number involved in the cover letter also.  Abstracts should be sent to
Thomas Kaczmarek, USC/ISI, 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA.
90292-6695.  They may also be transmitted electronically to
Kaczmarek@USC-ISIB.arpa.  The deadline for submission of abstracts is June
15, 1986.  Invitations will be issued by July 15.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
117
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 86 11:26:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summary: Common Lisp Support for Object Oriented Programming
-BODY-
I posted a query to AILIST concerning available PUBLIC DOMAIN object
oriented support within the Common Lisp programming environment.  This
article should serve to disseminate to the network the information I
obtained.  FIRST, my original query is reproduced.  SECOND, is a summary of
specific references (network addresses) to whom follow-up questions should
be directed.  THIRD is an edited summary of some of the responses I
recieved.  Finally, I am providing some further information about the
project I am supporting, because of numerous requests.

I. Original Query:

        Article 469 of mod.ai:
        Subject: Object Oriented Support For Common Lisp
        Date: 24 Apr 86 06:46:40 GMT

         I am working on a project trying to couple a good programming
         environment exploiting object oriented paradigms to a grid of INMOS
         Transputers.  Rather than build up everything from the OCCAM
         development system, I would like to use the VAX LISP (a variant of
         Common Lisp) environment augmented with a public domain (preferably)
         object oriented package as a model for the system I intend to build
         for the Transputers.

         1) I would like pointers to environments which are compatible (sit on
         top of) VAX LISP which directly support object oriented programming;

         2) notes from those who may be working on (or interested in) such
         projects; and

         3) responses sent directly to me since I do not have regular access to
         AILIST.  I will summarize.

II. Summary of Network Information Sources

        CORBIT             =>   desmedt%hnykun52.BITNET@wisc.wisc.edu
        PD Common Lisp     =>   fahlman@c.cs.cmu.edu
        Common Loops       =>   gregor.pa@xerox.com
        REX                =>   wells@sri-ai.arpa
        NCUBE              =>   duke@mitre.arpa
        VAXLisp Flavors    =>   beer%case.CSNET@csnet-relay.arpa

III. Summary of Responses

===============================================================================
[1]     Subject: OOPS for Lisp and VAXLISP on Transputer
        Return-Path: <Fischer.pa@Xerox.COM>

The lisp sources that VAXLISP was built from are public domain ... These are
the Spice Lisp sources from CMU, contact Fahlman@c.cs.cmu.edu.

There are a few object programming standards emerging within the Common
Lisp community.  A partial list is: Xerox CommonLOOPS, New Flavors
(Symbolics), Common Objects (HP Labs), and Object Lisp (LMI).

Group                   Information Contact

CommonLOOPS             Gregor.pa@Xerox.Com
New Flavors             Moon@SRC.Symbolics.Com
Common Objects          Snyder@HPLabs.Com
Object Lisp             ?                       [anybody know about this? -rkj]

[A message to Scott Fahlman obtained:]

Subject: Public Domain VAX LISP
Return-Path: <FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

What we could give you is Spice Lisp, developed here for the Perq computers and
in the public domain.  This is essentially Common Lisp written in Common Lisp
and a Common Lisp compiler, written in Common Lisp, that produces a special
Lisp-oriented byte code that is executed by custom microcode on the Perq.  We
also have an Emacs-like text editor written in Common Lisp, and some assorted
utilities and demos. There's a design document describing the internal
organization and defining the byte codes.

What various manufacturers, including DEC, have done is to take our sources and
modify the code generation modules of the compiler to produce native code for
their machine.  Most of the byte codes turn into a few native-code instructions
on something like a Vax.  The more complex ones turn into quick jumps to
hand-coded subroutines, probably written in assembler: bignum arithmetic,
building and taking apart stack frames, GC, lowest-level operating system
interfaces, and so on.

To build a system, you then run the modified compiler on some system that
already has a Common Lisp, compile our whole body of Lisp code, link in the
hand-coded stuff, and if you've done it all right the Lisp comes up in its full
glory, ready to go.  It is possible to get a reasonably fast implementation by
this route, though it takes a good deal of thought and tuning to get the data
formats and calling conventions just right.

Veterans of our implementation effort have done this port to a new architecture
in as little as six man-months ... under optimal conditions.  A more realistic
time scale for someone starting from scratch on this would be two good wizards
working six months to get something turning over, and another six months or a
year to get the thing up to full speed and product quality.   That's for a
straightforward port ... All of the sources add up to 3 or 4 megabytes...

Since you ask about Vaxlisp, it is the result of the same process described
above, and the work was done here at CMU by DEC employess and by me as a
consultant to DEC.  The result is owned by DEC and we can't give it to anyone.

>- Scott

===============================================================================
[2]     Subject: CORBIT - an object-oriented programming system
        Return-Path: <DESMEDT%HNYKUN52.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

You may be interested in CORBIT, an object-oriented programming
environment in Common LISP. I will summarize some aspects of the system.

1. History

CORBIT stands for ORBIT in Common LISP. ORBIT was originally written in
MACLISP by Luc Steels at Schlumberger, then rewritten in FRANZ LISP by
Steels and myself, and finally rewritten in NIL Common LISP by myself at
the University of Nijmegen. ORBIT and CORBIT are now used by a small
number of people in the scientific community and are not commercially
available.

2. What is it?

CORBIT is basically an object-oriented extension of LISP. As such, it
ranks among the Flavors package, Common Loops, etcetera. However, it has
some features which make it stand out from the pack:

> Inheritance is done by delegation rather than by copying down. See
  recent articles by Henry Lieberman for a discussion of this distinction.
> Partly as a result of this, the system is much more flexible than most
  similar systems with respect to adding and changing information. For
  example, one can create instances of objects that don't exist yet.
> There is no formal distinction between 'classes' and 'instances'.
  Everything is an 'object'. The only hard distinction is between named
  objects and anonymous objects.
> Invocation of an object-oriented operation is performed by plain LISP
  function calling, not by message passing (as done in Common Loops).
> There is no distinction between so-called 'instance variables' and
  'methods'. Everything is accessed by means of a function.
> There are a number of fancy extra features such as 'if-needed' methods
  and backpointers.

3. Applications

Applications have been very much of a pre-prototypical nature so far.
ORBIT has been used for VLSI-design, representation of geological
knowledge, implementation of a (rather primitive) window system, natural
language generation, and a small office environment.

4. Accessibility

The only two papers related to CORBIT are really related to its
predecessor ORBIT: (1) a manual (slightly outdated, published as an
internal report, now out of print but still available on electronic
medium) and (2) a forthcoming article which compares the ORBIT and
Flavors systems.

Koenraad De Smedt         Bitnet address: DESMEDT@HNYKUN52
University of Nijmegen
Psychological Lab
Montessorilaan 3
6525 HR Nijmegen
The Netherlands

[Koenraad sent me a copy of the report, ~43p, which I am now reading -rkj]

===============================================================================
[3]     Subject: Portable CommonLoops
        Return-Path: <Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM>

Portable CommonLoops (PCL) is an implementation of CommonLoops written entirely
in CommonLisp. Currently, PCL runs in the following Common Lisps:

   Xerox
   Symbolics
   Lucid
   Spice
   TI
   VAXLisp

PCL is available to Arpanet sites by anonymous FTP (username "anonymous",
password "anonymous").  For the time being we are restricting distribution to
sites which can FTP PCL for themselves because we want to make it possible to
have frequent new releases of PCL.

The files are stored on PARCVAX.xerox.com.  You can copy them using
anonymous FTP. There are several directories which are of interest:

/pub/pcl/            PCL sources and (some) documentation

  These following directories contain binary files for some
  of the machines PCL runs on, there will be more machine
  specific directories once we are set up to get more binaries.

/pub/pcl/3600/       binaries for the 3600 (rel 6.1)
/pub/pcl/lucid/sun/  binaries for Lucid Lisp on the SUN (rel 1.0)
/pub/pcl/ti/         binaries for the TI Explorer
...
In the directory /pub/pcl/ the files:

notes.tx     contains notes about the current state of PCL, and some
             instructions for installing PCL at your site.  You should
             read this file whenever you get a new version of PCL.

manual.tx    is a VERY ROUGH [very rough -rkj] pass at "documentation".
             I hope there will be some better documentation soon.

Send mailing list requests or other administrative stuff to:

  CommonLoops-Coordinator@Xerox.com

[I obtained the VAXLisp sources, and am in the process of bringing them
up.  They seem to be written for VAXLisp 2.0 under Ultrix; we have
version 1.1 running under VMS.  I should know in a week or so if I
can get CommonLoops up - rkj]

===============================================================================
[4]     Subject: VAXLisp Flavors
        Return-Path: <beer%case.CSNET@csnet-relay.arpa>

Here at the Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research we have
developed a number of tools and utilities for VAX LISP, one of which is an
implementation of Flavors.  The distribution details are a bit vague right now,
but it looks like the object code will be public domain for a tape and a small
handling fee ($5 or $10).

The Flavors implementation is fairly complete except for a smaller number of
method combination types.  It also currently depends on a rather hacked up
dynamic closure implementation for VAX LISP.  However, we are currently working
on a more complete and efficient implementation which is also closer to "New
Flavors". This new implementation will not require dynamic closures.

I will be releasing a report sometime in the coming month describing all of
these facilities ... A number of other VAX LISP tools and utilities are also
described, such as a pattern-based top-level history mechanism, a pattern-based
apropro facility, an extensible top-level command facility, and an extensible
DESCRIBE facility.  I'll probably post a message about the availability of
these facilities on AIList...

Randall D. Beer
Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research
Case Western Reserve University
Glennen Bldg. Room 312
Cleveland, OH 44106
(beer%case@CSNet-Relay.ARPA)

===============================================================================
[5]     Subject: Object Oriented Transputer Programming
        Return-Path: <duke@mitre.ARPA>

However, I question whether Common Loops, or probably any available
package, is likely to aid your project.  You state that you intend to use
your object-oriented package (OOP) to model the system you intend to build
for the transputer net.

         [My objective is use existing concepts (from Common
         Lisp, Common Loops etc) as a pattern for
         incorporating parallelism (via transputers) into
         computer aided engineering workstations -rkj]

First of all, a good package for the VAX will probably have more features
than you are likely to want to develop for the Transputer (unless you plan
a large and expensive project).  Also, you would need a full implementation
of Common Lisp on the transputer if you were going to try to port large
parts of the code from the VAX OOP to a transputer OOP.  My concern would
be that the model implemented on the VAX would be too different from what
you would be able to implement on the transputer...

         [Our concept consists of a VAXStation II/GSX
         *augmented* by a transputer array (later to
         evolve to Application Specific Integrated Circuits).
         VAXLisp/Common Lisp runs on the VAXStation and
         uses transputer networks as peripherals. The
         only parts of Common Lisp which need to migrate
         to the transputers are the parts required to
         provide an overall workstation environment which
         can be *fully understood* with CL/OOP concepts:
         -rkj]

Here at Mitre in McLean, VA we are working on a project for doing
object-oriented programming on the BBN Butterfly.  Our application is a
battlefield simulation.  BBN has just begun beta-testing their parallel
lisp dialect at three locations in the US.  One of the test sites is the U.
of Maryland, and we will be using their machine until we acquire our own
Butterfly later this year.  The Lisp dialect on the Butterfly is like
Scheme, but BBN is modifying it towards Common Lisp. BBN has some people
working on adapting CommonLoops for their parallel environment
(shared-memory), but I believe that is a very ambitious project and I
question whether they will complete it by their planned date of mid-87.
Since we require an OOP for our project before that time, I have written a
small one in Scheme.  Since there are only two people on our project, we
have to limit the scale of our efforts. However, I am quite happy with my
OOP, which has only been running the past few weeks.  It has a substantial
array of features implemented with a small amount of code (~1000 lines).  I
feel that its small size will make it easier to modify for a shared-memory
parallel environment.  If you are planning to implement a Lisp dialect for
the transputer, you might consider Scheme.  It is a simple language, and
there has been some standardization of it.  MIT distributes a version
called CScheme (implementation of Scheme in C) that could possibly be
useful to you. [seems to be UNIX as opposed to VMS oriented]...

...  I have recently learned more about the NCUBE computer, and it sounds
very impressive for a hypercube architecture.  It uses a special VLSI chip
which implements a VAX-like CPU with floating point and communication
channels, so it has a level of integration similar to the transputer.  The
NCUBE chip is supposed to be about twice the speed of the mid-range VAXes
(780?). Nodes are currently configured with 128K RAM, and each node is made
up of only seven chips, six memory and the special custom VLSI.  In
addition to their complete systems (up to 1K processors), they sell a four-
processor board which will plug into an IBM AT.  You can put up to four of
the boards in the AT.  The prices I was quoted were about $10K for each
board and about $5K for software licenses.  The AT software environment is
identical to their large machines.  I think their operating system is
UNIX-like and they have Fortran and C languages.

        [We are not tied to the Transputer; its a convenient
        integrated circuit to learn with -rkj]

Duke Briscoe
duke@mitre

===============================================================================
[6]     Subject: object... inmos...
        Reply-To: WELLS@SRI-AI

My group at SRI (AI center, mobile robot) is developing code for a mobile
robot in a language which is basically a high level machine description
language which combines functional and declarative style (with all
unification happening at compile time).  This language is nice for
expressing parallel architectures.  Currently we compile to C programs for
sequential simulation.  Someday we'd like to run these programs on a
parallel machine.  I've toyed with the idea of hooking up a bunch of inmos
chips.  The thought of the systems work is pretty intimidating.  The
language we're using (REX) is implemented in common lisp.

                                --Sandy Wells

[REX is not in the public domain, but a report describing it may
be soon available -rkj]

===============================================================================

Others provided me with very helpful information, (especially
lanning.pa@Xerox), though not of general net interest.
______


IV. Task Elaboration

The project I am working on has been going on here for much longer
than the two months I have been a LLNL.  So, I will provide a brief
overview of what I think we are trying to accomplish and then mail
pointers to other members of our team.

Basically, we are trying to improve the productivity of LLNL engineers
in areas where commercial products are not yet available.  We have two
major efforts now underway 1) EAGLES and 2) the Systolic Array Project.
Dennis Obrien (Obrien@lll-icdc) manages both these efforts (among other
things).

Eagles is a user environment which allows multiple software coded to
be used through a single window oriented user interface.  Using Objective
C, an object oriented preprocessor for C marketed by PPI, a set of tools
have been developed to bind interactive languages, graphics routines,
matrix editors, help systems all smoothly together so users need only
learn one interface.  This system (for Control Engineers) has just been
released to beta test.  Brian Lawver manages this effort.  Queries should
probably be sent to Obrien@lll-icdc, since needless to say, Brian will
be quite busy for a while.

The Systolic Array Project will evaluate the Transputer chip, build
two test boards, design a processor and interface board which can be
plugged into a VAXStation.  The test boards are running, and the processor
board has been designed, pending the conclusion of transputer testing.
The current plan is to put 2x8 arrays of transputers on each board (4
boards initially), each with 128KB of memory.  Board layout should start
in May, and we hope to have something running by August.  Tony Degroot
(Degroot@lll-icdc) is managing the Systolic Array Project, and Eric
Johansson (johansson@lll-icdc) is most intimately involved with the
hardware design.

My job is to tie these two projects together, and I would like to do
it with common lisp, because I think over the long term there will be
more industry support for Common Lisp than any other plastic, interactive
environment.  But I have to convince Brian that objects can be supported
as well by Common Lisp extensions as they are in Objective C, and I
have to convince Tony that Transputers can be programmed (at a minimum)
from a Common Lisp environment as well as they can be programmed in
OCCAM and its development environment.

My primary interest is in 1) defining a Common Lisp kernel, 2) extending
the kernel to support object oriented programming exploiting parallel
hardware, 3) defining an architecture which cleanly binds the kernel to the
parallel hardware, 4) implementing Common Lisp within this architecture.
Insights, collaborations, (or perhaps an occasional constructive criticism
on a good day) are solicited and will be appreciated.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Richard Jennings               Arpa: (new)   jennings@lll-icdc               |
|POB 808 L-228                                                                |
|LLNL, Livermore CA 94550                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Computer Aided Engineering
Dennis Obrien

Systolic Array Applications
Tony Degroot

Computer Aided Engineering Workstations
Brian Lawver

Supporting Objects With Parallel Hardware
Richard  Jennings


Richard Jennings
PO Box 808 L-228  (L-228 is CRITICAL)
LLNL
Livermore, CA 94550

ARPA: preferred -> jennings@lll-icdc
         slow, reliable -> jennings@lll-crg

(INMOS is a company which has probably trademarked OCCAM and
TRANSPUTER)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
118
-DATE-
Date: 6 May 86 01:46:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!burgin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Burgin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Applications in Libraries
-BODY-

I am interested in locating individuals who are currently
working with artificial intelligence applications in
libraries or library-like environments.  Any information
would be appreciated.

>-Robert Burgin
  School of Library and Information Science
  North Carolina Central University
  Durham  NC  27707

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 16:01:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: Ruth S Dumer AMSAA/CSD <rdumer@AMSAA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request Expert Advice
-BODY-
I am developing an expert system for military applications
and am open for comments or suggestions as to a possible inference
engine tool. There are several key issues to keep
in mind - The expert system (fusion from independent data sources to
identify targets) appears to be a forward chaining problem. Input
to the expert system will be from a time-ordered data file. The
hardware is a VAXstation II running Common LISP. I have information
about the Automated Reasoning Tool (ART) and would like your
opinions about ART or any other tool. You can contact me at
rdumer@amsaa.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 0  0 00:00:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "Jennings, Richard" <jennings@lll-icdc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp for PC Query
-BODY-

I am searching for a Common Lisp interpreter/compiler which I can
use on a PC-AT.  It cannot be copy protected, and it should be
able to run all the examples in Steele's Common Lisp correctly.

Since I plan to use it with Epsilon, it does not need to include
an editor, but should have a tty interface.  It should also accept
external functions.

Richard.

Arpa: jennings@lll-icdc


  [The digesting delay can be large, but I haven't really held
  this message since day 0.  SRI-AI is about to change host machines,
  though, so typical snafus could cause service interruption over
  the next few days.  You may be able to reach me at SRI-IU if
  SRI-AI is down.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 1986  01:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gaylord Miyata <MIYATA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: MIYATA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More DOS-based Software Tools for AI
-BODY-
Since you are listing development tools, the following products are
available from Gold Hill Computers, Inc.:

GCLISP/SM: Golden Common Lisp (Small Memory), $495
GCLISP/LM: Golden Common Lisp (Large Memory), $695
GCLISP/286 Developer: Golden Common Lisp 286 Development
    System (LM & Compiler), $1195.
GCLRUN: Golden Common Lisp Runtime System (per volume OEM agreement).
GCLISP Network: Interconnects PCs and Symbolics, $395.
CCLISP: Concurrent Common Lisp for Intel HyperCube (call).
Gold Hill Computers, Inc.
163 Harvard St.
Cambridge, MA 02139

Note the following erroneous entry.  We do not market this product.
Neither does the company whose phone number is listed.  You should
eliminate it from your list.

        K:base: Expert system shell
        GCLisp (Golden Common Lisp), $495
        Gold Hill Computers
        163 Havard St.
        Cambridge, MA 02139
        (404) 565-0771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 May 86 14:22:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stephanie F. Singer <SINGER@su-sushi.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: neural networks
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Anyone interested in the technical details of Hopfield's neural networks
should look at his papers in the Proceedings of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences,
1982 and 1984.  The first deals with a digital model of a collection of
neurons.  The second discusses an analog model.  There should be an article
in Science sometime soon.  Hopfield and Tank have shown that the analog model
has enough computational power to find good solutions to TSP in real time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 15:07:28 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@brillig.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Paper on Expert System Interfaces
-BODY-

  CALL FOR PAPER (not Papers):

  We are looking for a paper to be a chapter in a book entitled "Expert
Systems:  The User Interface."  The book is being published by Ablex in the
series "Human/Computer Interaction" and is due out in May of 1987.  Although
enough authors have committed to guarantee publication, we have need of one
more paper.

  In specific:  we're looking for a paper that discusses some interface issues
in an expert system for some sort of non-medical, diagnostic problem.  The
paper should either discuss principles for the design of the interface for
such a system or present empirical research evaluating one.

  Below is a description of the book, its objectives, and the publication
schedule.  If you have written, or believe you can write, a chapter on the
above topic please send me electronic mail (hendler@maryland arpa) including
a brief description of the work and your phone number.

  Jim Hendler
  Computer Science Dept.
  University of Maryland
  College Park, Md. 20742
  Hendler@maryland  arpa



Expert Systems: The User Interface
James Hendler (editor)

Over the past decade the field of expert systems has grown from a few small
projects to a major field of both academic and industrial endeavour.  The
systems have gone from academic laboratories, through industrial
development, and are now reaching a substantial user population.  In other
areas of computer science such explosive growth has often led to systems
which are difficult to learn and painful to use.  Will expert systems suffer
this same fate?  In this book we hope to show that such an outcome is not
inevitable.

The book takes a broad view of work going on in the development of user
interfaces for expert systems.  It examines the expert system building
process in all of its phases both in academic and industrial
surroundings--the authors invited to contribute include academic
researchers, medical expert system developers, and industrial product
designers.  No one domain is singled out for examination nor is any one
approach to be advocated.  The goal is to educate, not proselytize.

For the purposes of this book we will view the development of an expert
system as containing three separate, but highly interacting, components:
knowledge capture, programming and debugging the system, and finally placing
the system before an active user community.  We hope to examine the design
of tools for making these stages more efficient and the development of
systems and tools which can be used by the various personnel involved in
this process.

Some of the issues we hope to address include:

The issues involved in providing tools for the different personnel involved
in each of these stages:  Who is involved at each stage?  What are their
particular needs?  How are these needs best addressed in the design of
systems?

The application of general human factors principles in the design of expert
systems:  How do expert systems vary from more traditional technologies
in their interface needs?  Are general theories of cognition and/or systems
design applicable?  If so, how?  If not, are there any new theories to
replace them?

The special needs in the design of expert systems.  Are there aspects
in the design of expert systems that must be attended to by interface
designers?  Is our user community the same as that of editors, operating
systems, and other traditional systems?  If not, why not?

The efficacy of these interfaces.  How do we evaluate the interfaces
designed for expert systems?  What is presently available?  Are these systems
beneficial to the users?  If so, how do we demonstrate this?  If not, how
do we demonstrate that?

The proposed book will be typeset by the publisher and will be
aimed at being produced according to the following schedule:

Drafts: June 17, 1986
Reviewing by authors and others: September 15, 1986
Revised papers: October 31, 1986
Copy editing and typesetting by the publisher: January 15, 1987
Proofreading: February 15, 1987.
Bookpublished: May 15, 1987.

Book information:

This book will appear in the Ablex series ``Human/Computer
Interaction'' being edited by Ben Shneiderman.

The proposed method of review is to have each paper read by several
reviewers:  at least one other author, the editor, and an outside reviewer.
Each author will be asked to review at least one other paper.

8% royalties will be distributed among the authors on a by chapter basis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
119
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 May 86 11:03:42-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@su-sushi.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: capitalists
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Seen yesterday in the SFChronic (business section):

"Analysts blamed the volatility of the market on computer-directed trading,
while computers blamed it on analyst-directed trading."

                - Richard

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 13:13 EST
-FROM-
From: Steve Dourson - Delco <dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Gordon Joly's Intelligent System - Some Estimates
-BODY-
29 Apr 86 13:26:18 GMT  Gordon Joly writes:

Subject: Plan 5 for Inner Space - A Sense of Mind.
The following project has been proposed. Design and implement an
Intelligent System with the following characteristics...
...Queries: Time to completion? Cost?

I can think of a system which would meet Gordon's requirements.
Time to completion - hardware: 9 months
Time to completion - software: 18 - 25 years
Cost (1986 dollars):           $100-200K

7-MAY-1986 13:01:32
Stephen Dourson
dourson%gmr.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA (arpa)
dourson@gmr                        (csnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 May 86 03:37:48 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucsfcgl!ucsfcca!root@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Computer Center)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Plan 5 for Inner Space - A Sense of Mind.
-BODY-
> The following project has been proposed. Design and implement an
> Intelligent System with the following characteristics ...

Response:
       Status: Unit is in current production on a decentralized basis

       Schedule: Stage I - unit production - 9 months
             Stage II - standard programming - 18 years
             Stage III - advanced programming - 4 to 10 years
             Stage IV - productive life - average roughly 40 years

       Cost: Stages I and II variable, estimated $100K
             Stage III variable, estimated $50K - $200K

       Return: Estimated 40 years @ $25K / year = $1000K
               (Neglecting energy and maintenance costs)

       Evaluation: Compare to $100K invested at 9.05% tax free
             interest commonly available (doubles each 8 years)
             to reach $3200K after 40 years

       Conclusion: Units have a high risk factor and a substantially
             lower return than lower risk investments.

       Recommendation: Production should be discontinued.

Thos Sumner      (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!ucsfcca.UCSF!thos)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 13:54:33 bst
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Consciousness
-BODY-
There has been some discussion  on the subject of computer
consciousness.  I suggest we meet each week and form small
"consciousness raising" groups.  I have  talked to several
other suitably sentient programs, eg on "DT" and a host of
other  machines and  they  all seem quite  keen.  The only
problem seems to be in getting the users to agree.

The Joka

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 02:11:38 PDT
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: General Systems Theory and Consciousness
-BODY-

General Systems Theory has some insights useful in the discussion of the
nature of consciousness.  It was originated by biologist Ludwig Bertalanffy in
the early '50s and expanded by others in the '60s and early '70s.

Systems are composed of units which can't be decomposed further without
destroying their distinctive nature.  The system itself becomes a unit in this
sense when its component units are bound in certain ways.  The binding causes
properties not observable in the components of the system to come into
existence: the system becomes something more than just the sum of its parts.

Consider molecules: a brown gas of one type of atom chemically combines with a
green liquid of another type to create a transparent solid.  In one sense
something magical has taken place: properties have "emerged out of nowhere" in
a way not predictable by current physics or chemistry.

In a similar way life "emerges" from dead molecules.  A living system is
essentially a collection of objects which maintains its integrity by con-
tinually repairing itself.  As parts wear out or lose their energy, they are
exchanged with others from outside the organism.  What persists is the
pattern, not the parts.

In other words, the information content of a system is a metric just as
important as mass/energy/space/time metrics.  Or perhaps more important; the
same dynamic pattern embodied with other constituents--water replaced by
methane or high-temperature plasma, calcium-based bones replaced by ice or
magnetic fields--could legitimately be considered to be the same animal.

Applying this to consciousness doesn't shed light immediately on what con-
sciousness is, but it's a strong argument for the belief that consciousness
can exist in brain-like structures.  It also provides some constraints on what
is likely to be conscious; old-style bread toasters didn't have volatile
memory.  (Some of the newer ones, now...  And if we connect them just so...)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 7 May 86 10:37:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: net intelligence
-BODY-

> Date:      5-May-1986 10:18 MDT
> From:      STEVE E. FRITTS
> Subject: Re: Science 86 Article on Neural Nets
>
> Most of what I've read on this list appears to place AI closer to the
> "Frankenstein" theory of assembling intelligence, fully formed and
> functioning, like any other computer program; just push the button and
> watch it go.
> . . . if "intelligence" is developed in a computer through learning
> mechanisms rather than assembled  by means of cunning rules and
> algorithms, perhaps it stands a better chance of achieving sufficient
> universality that it may compete with the human mind.

Modular design usually assumes reductionism:  behavior of the whole may
reliably be predicted from reliably predictable behavior of the modules.

A recent letter in Nature (318.14:178-180, 14 November 1985) illustrates
nicely how behavior of a whole may not be predictable from behavior of
its parts.  Gary Rose and Walter Heiligenberg of the Neurobiology Unit,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego (La Jolla), conducted
a series of very elegant experiments that demonstrated that

        . . . sensory thresholds for certain tasks are lower than those
        expected from the properties of individual receptors.  This
        perceptual capacity, termed hyperacuity, reveals the impressive
        information-processing abilities of the central nervous system.

For many aquatic animals, perception of electrical phenomena in water is
a critical feedback mechanism for government of self-in-environment.

        These animals produce an electrical signal within a
        species-specific frequency range via [sic] an electric organ,
        and they detect these signals by electroreceptors located
        throughout the body surface.

    [It has recently been discovered that the duckbill platypus uses
    its bill to detect electric currents from the muscle contractions
    of its prey.  The duckbill will generally snap up a battery hidden
    in the mud.  Sharks also locate prey using electricity.  -- KIL]

(Humans in certain Pacific cultures apparently have learned to bring
this sort of electrical perception to awareness and use it--see for
example the biologist Lyall Watson, in his book _Gifts_of_Unknown_
_Things, especially his description of tribal experts locating and
identifying schools of fish at considerable distance by immersing
themselves in the water next to a fishing vessel at sea.  On the trip he
describes, the expert recognizes a tidal wave coming and they get back
to their island shouting warning just as the wave enters the harbor,
carrying them a half mile inland.  Very dramatic.)

Imagine you are one of these fish.  When a neighboring fish emits an
electrical signal too close to your own, it `jams' your feedback.  It
turns out that the fish respond very quickly with a `jamming avoidance
response' (JAR), in which

        the fish . . . determines whether a neighbour's electric organ
        discharge (EOD), which is jamming its own, is higher or lower in
        frequency than its own.  The fish then decreases or increases
        its frequency, respectively.  To determine the sign of the
        frequency difference, the fish must detect the modulations in
        the amplitude and in the differential timing, or temporal
        disparity, of signals received by different regions of its body
        surface.  The fish is able to shift its discharge frequency in
        the appropriate direction in at least 90% of all trials for
        temporal disparities as small as 400 ns. . . .

        Intracellular electrophysiological measurements show that the
        phase-locked responses of even the best afferent recorded are
        too jittery to permit such fine temporal resolution. . . . Even
        the most accurate phase-coders time-lock their spikes with a
        standard deviation of ~10us. . . . For a sample period of
        300 ms (and thus ~100 EOD cycles), which is the latency of the
        JAR, the 95% confidence intervals around the mean phase of
        occurrence of such an afferent's spikes are 2.0 |us.  Yet the
        fish is able to detect time disparities of several hundred
        nanoseconds.  Statistically, it would appear to be impossible
        for the fish, using only the information gathered from any
        single afferent, to reliably shift its frequency in the correct
        direction when the maximal temporal disparity available is only
        several hundred nanoseconds.

        These findings lead to the prediction that the behavioural
        threshold should be higher when only a small group of receptors
        is stimulated, and that hyperacuity results from the
        convergence, within the central nervoul system, of parallel
        phase-coding channels from sufficiently large areas of the body
        surface.

The experiments supported this prediction.  A general conclusion (from
the abstract):

        [The ability to] detect modulations in the timing (phase) of an
        electrical signal at least as small as 400 ns . . . exceeds the
        temporal resolution of individual phase-coding afferents.  This
        hyperacuity results from a nonlinear convergence of parallel
        afferent inputs to the central nervous system; subthreshold
        inputs from particular a reas of the body surface accumulate to
        permit the detection of these extremely small temporal
        modulations.

The reductionist engineering prediction would be that the fish could
respond no more quickly than its I/O devices allow, 2*10E-6 seconds.
>From the reductionist point of view, it is inexplicable how the fish
in fact responds in 4*10E-7 seconds.  Somewhat reminiscent of the old
saw about it being aerodynamically impossible for the bumblebee to fly!

        I didn't say it was possible.  I only said it was true.

                             -- Charles Richet
                                Nobel Laureate in Physiology

[Anyone is welcome to entertain notions expressed or implied above,
no one but me is obliged to own them.]

        Bruce E. Nevin          bnevin@bbncch.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
120
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 May 86 10:28:18 PDT
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reductionist predictions:  response to Nevin
-BODY-
>From AIList Digest V4 #119:

>Date: Wed, 7 May 86 10:37:36 EDT
>From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
>Subject: net intelligence

>A recent letter in Nature (318.14:178-180, 14 November 1985) illustrates
>nicely how behavior of a whole may not be predictable from behavior of
>its parts.
...
>The reductionist engineering prediction would be that the fish could
>respond no more quickly than its I/O devices allow, 2*10E-6 seconds.
>>From the reductionist point of view, it is inexplicable how the fish
>in fact responds in 4*10E-7 seconds.  Somewhat reminiscent of the old
>saw about it being aerodynamically impossible for the bumblebee to fly!
...
>        Bruce E. Nevin          bnevin@bbncch.arpa

Of course, if you have a bad enough theory, it can get pretty hard to
figure out bumblebees, fish, or anything else.  In this case, however,
predicting the behavior of the whole from the behavior of the parts
requires nothing more than the most elementary signal detection theory.

First, note that the fish does not respond in 4*10^-7 seconds: the
latency of the jamming avoidance response (JAR) is only 3*10^-1
seconds.  What the fish is able to do is reliably detect temporal
disparities in signal arrival on the order of 4*10^-7 seconds, and to
do this with arrival-time detectors having standard deviation of error no
better than 1*10^-5 seconds.  The standard, `reductionist engineering'
explication of this goes as follows:

The fish has 3*10^-1 seconds to initiate JAR.  In this time, it can
observe 100 electric organ discharges (EOD's) from the offending fish;
its job is to reliably and accurately (>90% confidence within 4*10^-7
seconds) figure out disparities in arrival times of (some component
of) the discharges between different regions of its body surface.
This will be done by taking the difference in firing time of
discharge-arrival detectors which have standard deviation of error of
1*10^-5 seconds.

It is well known that the average of N observations of a normally
distributed random variable with standard deviation sigma is sigma *
sqrt(N) / N; so here the average of the 100 observations of arrival
time of a single detector will have standard deviation sqrt(100)/100 *
1*10^-5 = 1*10^-6 seconds (and so 95% confidence intervals of two
standard deviations = 2*10^-6 seconds, as reported by Rose and
Heiligenberg).  Since the standard deviation of the difference of two
identically normally distributed random variables is twice the
standard deviation of either variable, the temporal disparity measurement
has 95% confidence interval of 4*10^-6 seconds.

But that's only one pair of detectors, and the fish is paved with
detectors.  If you want to reduce the 95% confidence interval by another
order of magnitude, you just need to average over 100 suitably located
detector pairs.  (Mechanisms exploiting this fact are also almost
certainly responsible for some binaural stereo perception in humans,
where the jitter in individual phase-sensitive neurons is much worse
than what's required to reliably judge which ear is getting the
wavefront first.)

>-Paul Kube
Berkeley EECS
kube@berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 86 10:24:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: PRSPOOL@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Abstracts of Technical Talks Published on AI-LIST
-BODY-

        None of us surely, can attend all of the talks announced via the
AI-LIST.  The abstracts which appear have served as a useful pointer for
me to current research in many different areas.  I trust this has been
true for many of you as well.  These abstracts could serve this secondary
purpose even better, if those people who post these abstracts to the
network, made an effort to include two addtional pieces of information
in them:

        1)  A Computer Network address of the speaker.

        2)  One or more references to any recently published material
            with the same, or similar content to the talk.

I know that this information would help me enormously.  I assume the
same is true of others.

                Peter R. Spool
                Department of Computer Science
                Rutgers University
                New Brunswick, NJ 08903

                PRSpool@RUTGERS.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 14:57 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analogical Reasoning (UPenn)
-BODY-

                   CIS Colloquium - University of Pennsylvania
                    3:00pm Friday, May 9 -  216 Moore School

                             ANALOGICAL REASONING
                                Stuart Russell
                              Stanford University

I  show  the  need  for  the  application  of  domain  knowledge  in analogical
reasoning, and propose that this knowledge must take the form of a new class of
rule   called   a  "determination".  By  giving  determinations  a  first-order
definition, they can be used to make valid analogical inferences which  may  be
implemented  within  a  logic programming system.  In such a system, analogical
reasoning can be more efficient  than  rule-based  reasoning  for  some  tasks.
Determinations  appear to be a common form of regularity in the world, and form
a natural stage in the acquisition of knowledge. The overall approach taken  in
this  work  can  be  extended to the general problem of the use of knowledge in
induction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 May 86 07:50:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Anne Richardson <RICHARDSON@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Checking Goedel's Proof (SU)
-BODY-
Natarajan Shankar will be visiting CSD on Thursday, May 15. While here, he
will be giving the following talk:

DAY:        May 15, 1986
EVENT:      AI Seminar
PLACE:      Bldg. 380, Room 380 X
TIME:       5:15
TITLE:      Checking the Proof of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
            with the Boyer-Moore theorem prover.
PERSON:     Natarajan Shankar
FROM:       The University of Texas at Austin

There is a widespread belief that computer proof-checking of significant
proofs in mathematics is infeasible.  We argue against this belief by
presenting a formalization and proof of Godel's incompleteness theorem
that was checked with the Boyer-Moore theorem prover.  This mechanical
proof establishes the essential incompleteness of Cohen's Z2 axioms for
hereditarily finite sets.  The proof involves a metatheoretic formalization
of Shoenfield's first-order logic along with Cohen's Z2 axioms.  Several
derived inference rules were proved as theorems about this logic.  These
derived inference rules were used to develop enough set theory in order
to demonstrate the representability of a Lisp interpreter in this logic.
The Lisp interpreter was used to establish the computability of the
metatheoretic formalization of Z2.  From this, the representability of
the Lisp interpreter, and the enumerability of proofs, an undecidable
sentence was constructed.  The theorem prover was led to the observation
that if the undecidable sentence is either provable or disprovable, then
it is both provable and disprovable.  The theory is therefore either
incomplete or inconsistent.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 13:17:29 pdt
-FROM-
From: Premla Nangia <pam@su-whitney.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NL Interfaces to Software Systems (SU)
-BODY-

                COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
                         COLLOQUIUM

Speaker:        C. Raymond Perrault
                SRI International and CSLI

Title:          A Strategy for Developing Natural Language Interfaces
                to Software Systems

Time:           Tuesday, May 27, 1986 --- 4:15 p.m.
Place:          Skilling Auditorium
Refreshments:   3rd floor Lounge, Margaret Jacks Hall --- 3:45 p.m.


The commonly accepted perspective on the semantics of natural language
interfaces is that they are derived from the semantics of the underlying
software, e.g. a database.   Although there appear to be computational
advantages to this position, it limits the linguistic coverage of the
interface and presents severe obstacles to their systematic construction
by confusing meaningful queries with answerable ones.  We suggest
instead that interfaces be constructed by first defining the semantics
of the underlying software  in terms of those of the interface  language
and give criteria under which  some of the computational advantage  of
the meaningfulness-answerability confusion can be acceptably regained.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 May 86 15:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: Graphics Research Lab x2681
     <GRINSTEIN%ulowell.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The SNePS Semantic Network Processing System
-BODY-           (ULowell)

The University of Lowell's continuing seminar series continues through the
summer with


              THE SNePS SEMANTIC NETWORK PROCESSING SYSTEM

                           Stuart C. Shapiro
                          William J. Rapaport

                    Department of Computer Science
                State University of New York at Buffalo


The SNePS Semantic Network  Processing  System  is  a  semantic  network
knowledge representation and reasoning system with facilities for build-
ing semantic networks to represent virtually any  kind  of  information,
retrieving  information  from  them, and performing inference with them.
Users can interact with SNePS  in  a  variety  of  interface  languages,
including  a  LISP-like user language, a menu-based screen-oriented edi-
tor, a graphics-oriented editor, a higher-order-logic language,  and  an
extendible fragment of English.

     We will discuss the syntax and semantics of SNePS considered as  an
intensional knowledge-representation system and provide examples of uses
of SNePS for cognitive modeling, database management,  pattern  recogni-
tion, expert systems, belief revision, and computational linguistics.

          in Olney 428
          on May 20, 1986
          from 9:00 to lunch with refreshment breaks
          at the University of Lowell (Lowell MA)

For further information call Georges Grinstein at 617-452-5000

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
121
-DATE-
Date: 8 May 86 13:51:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Angela.Hickman@ML.RI.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References needed!
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I recently received e-mail from a former professor asking for some
references.  Below is part of his mail.  If you know of any references in
this area, please send mail to ach@ml.
_____

I have a student who will probably do a piece of work in software
engineering.  The idea is to take existing programs and try to infer data
structures and data flow.  The trick is that these will be large program
systems (many modules), written and "enhanced" (~= "modified" or
"corrected") by many people over some time.  Furthermore, they will not have
been designed or built with any of the modern software development
methodologies.  In short, they will be real programs that have been
maintained by many people.

Part of the work may involve expert systems and AI work to develop a rules
base to infer the structure.  Do you know of anyone doing work in any of
these areas?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 86 03:27:00 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Hideto Tomabechi <tomabechi@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: machine translation
-BODY-
I would like to know what types of machine translation projects are
underway now, especially in universities.  I have been working on
English-Japanese translation myself.  I hope to share our opinions in
this field.  If anyone is currently working on machine translation, I
would appreciate it if I can receive some information about your on-
going project.

Hideto Tomabechi
Yale University
 tomabechi@yale.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 May 86 02:04:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!glacier!oliveb!bene!luke!itkin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: looking for Prolog
-BODY-
I'm looking for a version of Prolog.  The machines available to me
include an AT&T 7300 (Unix PC), AT&T 3B5, AT&T 3B2, Plexus P/60, Plexus
P/35, IBMPC, and AT&T 6300PC (IBMPC compatible).  I've spoken with
someone from AT&T who suggests that Quintus may be porting to the 7300.
I've spoken with someone from Quintus who says there is no port and no
contract at this time.  I've heard of something called C-Prolog, but
don't know for sure what it is.

What I'm looking for is a system on which I can begin to learn Prolog
and prototype some applications.  Any help will be GREATLY appreciated.
Public domain or commercial is fine, as long as the price is reasonable
or I can convince my employer.

advTHANKSance
>-
***
*  Steven List @ Benetics Corporation, Mt. View, CA
*  Just part of the stock at "Uncle Bene's Farm"
*  {cdp,engfocus,idi,oliveb,plx,tolerant}!bene!luke!itkin
***

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 7 May 86 23:25:20-PDT
-FROM-
From: Hiroshi G. Okuno <Okuno@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What's a good book on Object-Oriented Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

If you can read Japanese, I would recommend you the following book:

"Object-Oriented Programming" edited by Norihisa Suzuki, Kyoritsu
Publishing Co., (Dec. 1985), 2,500 yen (about $14.00).

Contents: Introduction to Smalltalk, Actor, TAO, Concurrent Smalltalk,
Prolog environments written in Smalltalk, CAI on Physics written in
object-oriented system, etc.

Why do I recommend you this book?  Of course, because I'm one of
co-authors.

P.S. Sayuri (Nishimura@sumex) and Masafumi (Minami@sumex) have a book.

> Gitchang -

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 May 86 08:40:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Bob Engelmore <Engelmore@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What's a good book on Object-Oriented Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

And if you can't read Japanese, I recommend reading the article by
Mark Stefik and Danny Bobrow in the AI Magazine, Vol. 6, No.4,
Winter 1986.  However, I'm biased about articles in that rag.
rse

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 May 86 08:57:37-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What's a good book on Object-Oriented Programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

There's a new introductory book (available now or soon) on SMalltalk
by Kaehler, Ted and (I think) Patterson, Dave that is supposed to be a
very good and relatively inexpensive book on Smalltalk, the
"protypical" object-oriented programming language.  Of course, there
is also the Addison-Wesley series on Smalltalk, more expensive,
detailed, and harder to carry around with a bag of groceries.

mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 8 May 86 10:39:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Marvin Zauderer <ZAUDERER@su-sushi.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Good book on object-oriented programming
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Mark Richer's correct; the new Smalltalk book, "A Taste of Smalltalk",
was written by Ted Kaehler and Dave Patterson. I don't believe Addison-
Wesley has published it yet, although I was told it's due "sometime
in 1986." It's a good introduction to Smalltalk; actually, it's more
of an introduction to Smalltalk than a detailed explanation of object-
oriented programming, although any introduction to Smalltalk
necessarily involves a (brief) introduction to obj-or programming.

>- Marvin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 9 May 86 04:53:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!lzaz!psc@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-trivial expert systems and decision trees - THE RESPONSES!
-BODY-
How pleasant!  I got several thoughtful replies to my comments
on experts systems and decision trees.  I'd like to thank all
the people who sent me mail.  I've summarized the responses
below.  I never got what I was *really* looking for, namely, a
good benchmark expert system.  More on that after the summary.

The general consensus is that rule based expert systems offer no
more power than decision trees, in just exactly the same way
<your favorite programming language> offers no more power than a
Turing machine.  Of course, there are advantages. . . .

===== discussing the problem off the net, I wrote:

My "crisis of faith" has two prongs on it.  First, it seems you could
write a production compiler to generate the decision tree from the
productions.  The compiler would need a lot of resources, but the
resulting "compiled" expert system would run quickly and in very little
memory.  (Other, tougher objections:  user can't direct search,
uncertainty hard to track, and only works with forward chaining.)

[Note:  going over some other mail I'd received, I discoved an
expert system shell named Radian does just this.  It translates
a set of rules into a decision tree implemented as a C program!
The resulting program can explain itself.  psc]

Second and more disturbing, *every* example "expert system" I've ever
seen uses productions was written by someone who *first* drew a decision
tree!  That's clearly missing the point.  I'm looking for systems that
are "non-trivial", not in the sense that they have a lot of rules, but
in the sense aren't just solving a problem that's *better* solved by a
straightforward decision tree.  Know of any?

===== Dale Skran (ihnp4!mtgzz!dls):

In general all expert systems can be reduced to
tree searches which can be mapped into pattern matching
operations. . . .  The real savings of rule based systems
is that you just add rules and skip the tree.

===== dchandra@TRILLIAN.ARPA identified five kinds of rules:

a) rules for strategy (meta rules)

b) rules for inheritance between objects.

c) rules for normal inference (equivalent to decision tree)

d) rules which create new rules (we have built a rule shell
called IMST which provides this feature. ) We have a system
called CDLII which uses this feature to post constraints.

e) rules can exist in packets and can communicate
through global and local blackboards. Decision trees
do not have a notion of private and global databases.

Decision trees emulate only part (c) above. . . .

Consider this statement: All non-lisp machine AI programs get
compiled into assembly language. So what is so great about lisp.

LISP IS A DATA ABSTRACTION ABOVE ASSEMBLY.

RULEBASED SYSTEMS ARE A ABSTRACTION ABOVE DECISION TREES OR
OTHER LOW LEVEL STUFF.

===== Jean-Francois Lamy <ihnp4!utcsri!lamy%utai>

It does seem to turn out that once you have written down all the
rules and got the system to work the way you want you now
understand the problem well enough that you don't need the fancy
and inefficient AI solution anymore.

One has to realize that not all problems are amenable to
formulation using the brain-damaged OPS5-like production rules
systems.  In particular, problems which require a HUGE amount of
implicit knowledge about the world don't quite fit.  Consider
story understanding or finding causal relationships in data that
requires multiple forms of reasoning (e.g. heart physical
malfunction, electrical malfunction, chemical unbalance).

===== Bruce Morlan (pur-ee!rutabaga) goes out on a limb for trees:

At risk of being burned for heresy, I would claim (in my dissertation
I will claim) that there is no significant difference between the
following three systems:

  (0) rule-based expert systems,

  (1) production systems,

  (2) decision trees.

This is consistent with results documented in many places, and I would
refer first to Vol I of "The Encyclopedia of AI" for my first support.
This claim extends to experts systems with uncertainty, such as of
the MYCIN or PROSPECTOR class.  In my research I have concluded that
the collection of rules from an expert must result in an data suitable
for use in a Markovian decision process.

Whether this applies to _all_ expert systems remains to be seen, and
I would be very interested in hearing about a system that didn't fit
this mold (as you alluded to in your posting).

===== Ehud Reiter (ihnp4!seismo!harvard!reiter):

Decision trees are both very useful and non-trivial to program
if you want to do it "right" (backward chaining, truth
maintainance, interactive graphical tree editing, multiple
solutions, explanations, etc.  - I know because I've tried to
implement one).  Whether marketing calls the program a "decision
tree" (which they should) or an "expert system" (which means
more sales) is irrelevant - it's still a useful but complex piece
of code.

===== Donald R. Tveter (ihnp4!bradley!drt) takes a useful step backwards:

     In going thru graduate school and taking some AI courses,
it came to me that what I was seeing in AI courses, I had seen
before.   I found the principles in an old Psychology book, I
had once read:  Psychology, by William James, first published in
the 1890's.  In his chapter on Association, he showed how people
think.  A careful comparison between what he said then and what
people do now in their expert systems, shows up no significant
differences.

===== Mark R. Leeper (ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper):

Don't YOU make your diagnostic inferences by a decision tree?
It may not be a binary tree, but then expert systems don't have
to use binary trees either.

=====
Only Dale Skran suggested a benchmark expert system:  the
"monkeys and bananas" problem.  Usually shown in OPS5, this
system has a hungry monkey, a locked vault on the ceiling with
bananas, another locked vault with the key to the first, and a
ladder.  (I may have forgotten a vault or key or two).

I'm not at all sure that the PC-based expert systems I'll be
reviewing can handle that problem!  The difficulty is keeping
track of changing values (the monkey and the ladder move a
*lot*!)  The one system I'm using now doesn't get past the
monkey's first move (in a very simplified version.)  Of course,
if a particular expert system shell can't handle this problem,
that's useful information, too!

As a brute-force synthetic benchmark, I'm going to have the
expert system traverse a network of nodes equivalent to the
Towers of Hanoi puzzle, with some "cuts" (forbidden moves) that
force it to make twice as many moves as necessary.  (In fact, it
must do the equivalent of moving the disks to the middle peg
first.)  Both the cuts and resulting network are symmetrical,
keeping the comparison fair for forward- and backward-chaining
systems.  A picture is worth a few thousand words:  see Figure
2-2, page 82, in Nilsson's PROBLEM SOLVING METHODS IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE.

And I'll use the travel advisory system in the latest issue of
PC, if that doesn't require access to a full database system
(which only Guru has.)

I'm still not satisfied; any suggestions for benchmarks?

Thanks again for your comments.
>--
       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu
       The above opinions may not be shared by any telecomm company.
AT&T Transaction Services - the right choice for point-of-sale networking.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
122
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 15:02:51 -0100
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Searching Transformed State Spaces (Edinburgh)
-BODY-
Date:   Wednesday 14th May l986
Time:   2.00 p.m.
Place:  Department of Artificial Intelligence,
        Seminar Room F10,
        80 South Bridge,
        EDINBURGH.

Dr. S. Steel, Department of Computer Science, University of Essex will
give a seminar entitled - "On Trying to do Dependency-Directed
Backtracking by Searching Transformed State Spaces".


Any search involves choices.  Bad choices can cause disaster.  DDBT is
an attempt to undo only those choices which caused the disaster.  One
approach is to transform the seach space of the original problem into
a space with different states and operators that is easier to search.

I shall show the merits and failings of various spaces.   At the moment
of writing I have no perfect method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 May 86 11:40:54-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations (SRI)
-BODY-

             AUTOMATIC DESIGN OF GRAPHICAL PRESENTATIONS

                 Jock D. Mackinlay (MACKINLAY@SUMEX-AIM)
             Computer Science Department, Stanford University

                              PLANLUNCH
                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, May 19
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

The goal of the research described in this talk is to develop an
application-independent presentation tool that automatically designs
graphical presentations (e.g. bar charts, scatter plots, and connected
graphs) for relational information.  There are two major criteria for
evaluating designs of graphical presentations: expressiveness and
effectiveness.  Expressiveness means that a design expresses the
intended information.  Effectiveness means that a design exploits the
capabilities of the output medium and the human visual system.  A
presentation tool is intended to be used to build user interfaces.
However, a presentation tool will not be useful unless it generates
expressive and effective designs for a wide range of information.

This talk describes a theory of graphical presentations that can be used
to systematically generate a wide range of designs.  Complex designs are
described as compositions of primitive designs.  This theory leads to
the following synthesis algorithm:
    o First, the information is divided into components, each
      of which satisfies the expressiveness criterion for a
      primitive graphical design.
    o Next, a conjectural theory of human perception is used
      to select the most effective primitive design for each
      component.  An effective design requires perceptual
      tasks of low difficulty.
    o Finally, composition operators are used to compose the
      individual designs into a unified presentation of all
      the information.  A composition operator composes two
      designs when the same information is expressed the same
      way in both designs (identical parts are merged).

The synthesis algorithm has been implemented in a prototype presentation
tool, called APT (A Presentation Tool).  Even though only a few primitive
designs are implemented, APT can generate a wide range of designs that
express information effectively.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 May 86 20:35:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <OLENDER@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge, Communication, and Time (SRI)
-BODY-
DATE:             May 14, 1986
TIME:             4:15pm
TITLE:           "Knowledge, Communication, and Time"
SPEAKER:          Van Nguyen
LOCATION:         SRI International
                  Ravenswood Avenue
                  Building E
CONFERENCE ROOM:  EJ228


                 KNOWLEDGE, COMMUNICATION, AND TIME

                           Van Nguyen
                IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

                  (Joint work with Kenneth J. Perry)


   The role that knowledge plays in distributed systems has come under
much study recently.  In this talk, we re-examine the commonly
accepted definition of knowledge and examine how appropriate it is for
distributed computing.  Motivated by the draw-backs thus exposed, we
propose an alternative definition that we believe to be better suited
to the task.  This definition handles multiple knowers and makes
explicit the connection between knowledge, communication, and time.
It also emphasizes the fact that knowledge is a function of one's
initial knowledge, communication history and deductive abilities.  The
need for assuming perfect reasoning is mitigated.

   Having formalized these links, we then present the first proof
system for programs that incorporates both knowledge and time.  The
proof system is compositional, sound and relatively complete, and is
an extension of the Nguyen-Demers-Gries-Owicki temporal proof system
for processes.  Suprisingly, it does not require proofs of
non-interference (as first defined by Owicki-Gries).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 May 86 11:55:23 edt
-FROM-
From: Ken Wauchope <wauchope@nrl-aic>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - NCARAI Call for Speakers
-BODY-
                   CALL FOR PAPERS

The Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial  Intelli-
gence  (NCARAI),  a  branch of the Naval Research Laboratory
located in Washington, D.C., sponsors  a  bimonthly  seminar
series.   Seminars  are held on alternate Mondays throughout
the year (except summers). The seminars are intended to pro-
mote   interaction  among  individuals  from  the  military,
governmental, industrial and academic communities.

Topics span the various research areas and issues in Artifi-
cial Intelligence with special interests in:

        *Expert Systems
        *Knowledge Representation
        *Learning
        *Logic programs and automated reasoning
        *Natural Language processing
        *New generation architectures

Presentations last for approximately one hour, followed by a
fifteen-minute  question-and-answer  session.   Speakers in-
vited from the academic community are provided  with  a  per
diem and an honorarium.

Please send 3 copies of a 200-250 word abstract to:

        Kenneth Wauchope
        Navy Center for Applied Research
        in Artificial Intelligence
        Naval Research Laboratory -- Code 7510
        Washington, DC  20375-5000

        ARPANET address: WAUCHOPE@NRL-AIC.ARPA
        Telephone: (202) 767-2876 (AV) 297-2876

The committee will consider new  and  interesting  work,  as
well as promising work in progress.

****************************************************************************
I am the new coordinator for the seminar series here at NCARAI and this
announcement updates the phone number and ARPANET address for responses.
Thank you. --kw
****************************************************************************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 20:30:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jack Minker <minker@mimsy.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming
-BODY-

************************************************************************

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED COMPUTER STUDIES

   UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

                            and

                NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

                    are co-sponsoring an

                      invited workshop

                             on


  FOUNDATIONS OF DEDUCTIVE DATABASES AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING


DATE:          August 18-22, 1986
PLACE:         Washington, DC


****************************************************************************

        Professor Jack Minker, Department of  Computer  Sci-
ence,  University  of Maryland has received a grant from the
NSF to conduct the above workshop.   The  workshop  is  also
being  supported  by  University  of  Maryland Institute for
Advanced Computer Studies and Department  of  Computer  Sci-
ence.   Its purpose is to bring together leading researchers
in deductive databases  and  logic  programming  to  discuss
theoretical  and  practical  issues.  The attendance at this
workshop is by invitation only,  but  a  limited  amount  of
funds  is  available to support faculty and students who are
working  in  the  area  and  are  interested  in  attending.
Faculty  and  students  must send a brief statement of their
research interests relative to the  workshop  and  a  letter
specifying  the  amount  of funds needed for transportation,
housing and meals, and the number of days they intend to  be
at the workshop.  Students must also send a letter of recom-
mendation from a faculty member and specify the  degree  for
which they are studying.  This information should be sent by
May 30, 1986 to:


               Ms. Johanna Weinstein
               UMIACS
               Building #094
               University of Maryland
               College Park, MD 20742
               (301) 454-4526
               johanna@alv.umd.edu




                     PRELIMINARY TITLES

             FOUNDATIONS OF DEDUCTIVE DATABASES

                            AND

                     LoGIC PROGRAMMING



1.   Apt, K.R., "Non-monotonic Reasoning in  Logic  Program-
     ming"


2.   Bancilhon,   Francois,   "Performance  Comparisons   of
     Recursive Query Evaluation Strategies"


3.   Blair,Howard A., "Some Aspects of the Structure of  the
     Herbrand Gap"


4.   Bowen, Ken,  "Foundations of Meta-PROLOG"


5.   Bowen, Ken,  "Interfacing Meta-PROLOG and  Large  Data-
     bases"


6.   Gallier,  Jean  H.and  Raatz,  Stan,  "  A   Refutation
     Method  for Horn Clauses with Equality and its Applica-
     tions to Logic Programming"


7.   Henschen, Larry, " Compiling  the  GCWA  in  Indefinite
     Databases"


8.   Henschen, Larry, "Functions in First-Order Databases"


9.   Imielinski, Tomasz,   "Query  Processing  in  Deductive
     Databases with Incomplete Information"


10.  Imielinski,Tomasz, "Transforming Logical Rules by Rela-
     tional Algebra Expressions"


11.  Jaffar, Joxan, Lassez, Jean-Louis  and  Maher,  Michael
     J.,  "Prolog II as an instance of the Logic Programming
     Language Scheme"


12.  Kanellakis,Paris  C.,  "Parallel  Algorithms  for  Term
     Matching"


13.  Sadri, Fariba and Kowalski, Robert,   "An  adaption  of
     SL-resolution"


14.  Lassez, J.L.,  Maher, M. and Marriott, K.,    "Unifica-
     tion Revisited"


15.  Lifschitz, Vladimir, "On the Declarative  Semantics  of
     Logic Programming with Negation"


16.  Maher, Michael J., "Equivalences of Logic Programs"


17.  Maier, David, "Logic for Object-Oriented Databases"


18.  Marriott, Kim and  Lassez,  Jean-Louis,  "Implicit  and
     Explicit Representations of Negative Information"


19.  Martelli, M. and Barbuti, R., "Programming  in  a  Gen-
     erally Functional Style to Design Logic Data Bases"


20.  Minker,  Jack,  Chakravarthy,  U.S.  and  Grant,  John,
     "Foundations  of  Semantic Query Optimization Deductive
     Databases"


21.  Mukai, Kuniaki,  "Anadic Tuples in Prolog"


22.  Naish, Lee, Thom, James A. and Ramamohanarao, Kotagiri,
     "A Superjoin Algorithm for Deductive Databases"


23.  Naqvi, Shamim A., "Negation in Almost-First-Order Data-
     bases"


24.  Porto, Antonio,  "Semantic  Unification  for  Knowledge
     Base Deduction"


25.  Sagiv, Yehoshua, "Optimization of Logical Queries"


26.  Shepherdson, John C., "Negation in Logic Programming"


27.  Sterling,   Leon,    "Meta-Interpreters:  Flavors-style
     Logic Programming?"


28.  Topor, Rodney, "Domain Independent Databases"


29.  van Emden, M.H.,  "Amalgamating  Functional  and  Rela-
     tional Programming"


30.  van Gelder, Allen,  "Negation as  Failure  Using  Tight
     Derivations for General Logic Programs"


31.  Warren, David S., "Towards a Logical Theory of Database
     Update"


32.  Zaniolo, Carlo, Sacca, M., et al., "Safety and Compila-
     tion of Recursive Queries"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 May 86 21:27:08 PDT
-FROM-
From: CHEESEMAN%PLU@ames-io.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Uncertainty in AI Workshop
-BODY-

                    CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Second Workshop on:   "Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence"

     Philadelphia, PA.  August 8-10, 1986  (preceeding AAAI conf.)

Sponsored by:  AAAI and RCA


    This workshop is a follow-up to the successful workshop in L.A.,
August 1985.  Its subject is reasoning under uncertainty and
representing uncertain information.  The emphasis this year is on
applications, although papers on theory are also welcome.  The
workshop provides an opportunity for those interested in uncertainty
in AI to present their ideas and participate in the discussions.  Also
panel discussions will provide a lively cross-section of views.

Papers are invited on the following topics:

  *Applications--Descriptions of novel approaches; interesting results;
   important implementation difficulties; experimental comparison of
   alternatives etc.

  *Comparison and Evaluation of different uncertainty formalisms.

  *Induction (Theory discovery) under uncertainty.

  *Alternative uncertainty approaches.

  *Relationship between uncertainty and logic.

  *Uncertainty about uncertainty (Higher order approaches).

  *Other uncertainty in AI issues.

  Preference will be given to papers that have demonstrated their approach
in real applications.  Some papers may be accepted for publication but not
presentation (except at a poster session).

   Four copies of the paper (or an extended abstract) should be sent to the
arrangements chairman before 23rd. May 1986.  Acceptances will be sent by the
20th. June and final (camera ready) papers must be received by 11th. July.
Proceedings will be available at the workshop.


General Chair:            Program Chair:              Arrangements Chair:

John Lemmer               Peter Cheeseman             Lawrence Carnuccio
KSC Inc.                  NASA-Ames Research Center   RCA-Adv. Tech. Labs.
255 N. Washington St.     Mail Stop 244-7             Mooretown Corp. Cntr.
Rome, NY 13440            Moffett Field, CA 94035     Route 38, Mooretown,
(315)336-0500             (415)694-6526               NJ 08057
                                                      (609)866-6428
Program Committee:
P. Cheeseman, J. Lemmer, T. Levitt, J. Pearl, M. Yousry, L. Zadeh.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 May 86 12:23:45-PDT
-FROM-
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AAAI-86
-BODY-

The AAAI Annual Conference, schedule for August 11-15, 1986, will be
held in Philadelphia, PA.  With the introduction of sessions devoted
to engineering practice, this year's Technical Program has accepted 67
papers for presentation in the engineering track and 119 papers in the
science track with over 15 panels and invited talks scattered
throughout the week.  Examples of the invited talks include
"Connectionism" by G. Hinton, "Survey of Natural Language Processing"
by B. Grosz, and "What's Doable when Building an Expert System?" by B.
Buchanan.  The Science Sessions, which were originally scheduled
for the Wyndam Franklin Plaza Hotel, have been moved to the
Philadelphia Civic Center; however, the dates of the Science Sessions
remain the same - August 11 and 12.  The Engineering Sessions remain
at the Philadelphia Civic Center on August 14 and 15.

This year's tutorial program has 23 tutorials which include
advanced topics such as qualitative reasoning and uncertainty
management. The Tutorials also have been moved to the Wyndam Franklin
Plaza and still scheduled for August 11, 12 and 14.

The Exhibit Program has increased in size to include approximately 100
software and hardware vendors and publishers.  This year the AAAI has
set a precedence by offering complimentary booth space to academic and
non-profit institutions to demonstrate their different AI research
projects to the conference attendees.  Examples of the universities
and labs participating include MIT, Georgia Tech, Ohio State, Queen's
University, SRI International, UCLA, and Cornell University. Eleven
major suppliers and manufacturers have agreed to provide these
universities and others with complimentary machines, technicians,
special crating, etc.

Costs for attending the conference are:

Early Registration (deadline June 13)

AAAI Member             Non-Member

Regular $150            Regular $180
Student $ 75            Student $90

Late Registration (deadline July 11)

AAAI Member             Non-Member

Regular $180            Regular $225
Student $ 90            Student $125


AAAI-86 Conference brochure, containing information on the program,
registration, housing, transportation, and social occasions can
be obtained by contacting:

AAAI-86
445 Burgess Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3496
415-328-3123 or 321-1118
AAAI-Office@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
123
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 12:19:46 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz!gyp@seismo.CSS.GOV (Patrick Tang)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Graphics, Artifical Intelligence and Simulation
-BODY-

        Is there anyone out there come across any literature
        describing the topics Graphics, Artifical Intelligence and
        Simulation together. It seems to me that literatures on
        these combined topics are VERY VERY scarce!!!

        Please let me know a.s.a.p.

        Thanks in advance.

Tang Guan Yaw/PatricK            ISD:   +61 62 68 8170
Dept. Computer Science           STD:   (062) 68 8170
University College            ACSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
Uni. New South Wales            UUCP:   ...!seismo!munnari!csadfa.oz!gyp    or
Aust. Defence Force Academy     ...!{decvax,pesnta,vax135}!mulga!csadfa.oz!gyp
Canberra. ACT. 2600.            ARPA:   gyp%csadfa.oz@SEISMO.ARPA
AUSTRALIA                      CSNET:   gyp@csadfa.oz
Telex: ADFADM AA62030

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun 11 May 86 08:50:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stuart Cracraft <CRACRAFT@isi-venera.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: chess master wanted
-BODY-
I need a Los Angeles area chess master (FIDE 2200 or preferably
higher) to assist in a knowledge engineering project involving
computer chess.

There is no pay, only the fame and glory, and an occasional
co-authorship of published articles about the ongoing work.

Must be FIDE 200 or higher, articulate, and able to describe
chess concepts at length.

If you are such a person, or know of such a person, please
contact me at 213-538-9712.

    Stuart Cracraft

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 May 86 10:25:01 -0200
-FROM-
From: Oded Maler  <oded%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Student Diagnosis for ICAI Systems
-BODY-

I'm interested in student diagnosis for ICAI systems. I'm looking for
references to papers and reports that contain the following:

1) A definition of a formalism for knowledge representation for educational
purpose. (A "FORMAL" formalism).

2) Implementation of real-world knowledge-bases in various domains using
such a formalism.

3) An argument for the psychological validity of the formalism in
general and of its specific applications in particular.


        Thanks

        Oded Maler
        Dept. of Applied Math.,
        Weizmann Institute,
        Rehovot 76100, Israel.

        (oded@wisdom.bitnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 May 86 16:47 N
-FROM-
From: DEGROOT%HWALHW5.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Doctor and Eliza
-BODY-
Can anyone electronic-mail me the source of "Doctor and Eliza"
written in Common LISP to run on a VAX/VMS-system?
My plan is to connect that program to a server in order to make
an 'intelligent' secretary. It (she) should respond to (remote)
users who try to contact me through the EARN-network when
I am not at the office.
That makes a 'world-wide' test-setup to improve the program by
analyzing the log-files.

Anybody done things like this?
Any comments, hints?

        ad-thank-vance,

Tel. 08370-     .KeesdeGroot    (DEGROOT@HWALHW5.BITNET)  o\/o  THERE AINT NO
    (8)3557     Agricultural University, Computer-centre   []   SUCH THING AS
                Wageningen, the Netherlands               .==.  A FREE LUNCH!

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own alone and do not represent
            any official position by my employer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 May 86 17:47:45 PST (Mon)
-FROM-
From: prandt!kramer@AMES-NAS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: System Management
-BODY-

I am looking of information about automated system management for a large
number of heterogeneous UNIX systems.  I am including in system management such
things as operator control and interface to different systems, system
performance and usage monitoring, network performance monitoring,
system and network configuration modification in response to changes
in the environment, handling operator requests, and other tasks.  We need to
put together a system which will automate as much of this as possible,
hopefully with an Expert System or AI approach.  The processors range for
PCs to Silicon Graphics IRIS to Amdahls to a Cray-2. The flavors of
Unix range from VAX 4.2bsd to UTS System V.  The networks are TCP/IP based
LANs and WANs (wide area nets).  Of course, all these components will be
changing with time, so the system has to be flexible.

There are some hardware/operating system specific AI systems which do some of
this work, documented in IBM journals.  There are also some custom systems
which have been developed, for example at Los Alamos, but I do not
know of a system which is designed for UNIX machines or which is a
comprehensive AI approach. Can anyone give pointers to existing
studies, work, systems or products which would satisfy some of our
needs?  Thanks a lot.
                                                Bill Kramer
                                                kramer@ames-nas.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 86 20:03:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!henry
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: scheme
-BODY-
Would someone please mail me ordering information for the Revised
Revised Report on Scheme.  (Names of any other Scheme references
appreciated.)

>--- Henry Kautz
        :uucp:  {seismo|allegra}!rochester!henry
        :arpa:  henry@rochester
        :mail:  Dept. of Computer Science,
                University of Rochester,
                Rochester, NY 14627
        :phone: (716) 275-5766

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 May 86 12:52:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen
     !jhunix!ins_amrh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Martin R. Hall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-

        It seems that my original request for information on LISP coding
standards was not very lucid.  Let me clarify.
        We are doing everything in Common LISP, but are looking for
standards in regards to coding *style*.  For contract work, we need
relatively explicit rules for these things.  The standards should
answer these types of questions:

        - How do you keep track of the side effects of destructive functions
          such as sort, nconc, replaca, mapcan, delete-if, etc?
        - When should you use macros vs. functions?
        - How do you reference global variables?  Usually you enclose it
          in "*"s, but how do you differentiate between your own vars and
          Common LISP vars such as *standard-input*, *print-level*, etc?
        - Documentation ideas?
        - When to use DOLIST vs MAPCAR?
        - DO vs LOOP?
        - Indentation/format ideas?  Or do you always write it like the
          pretty-printer would print it?
        - NULL vs ENDP, FIRST vs CAR, etc.  Some would say "FIRST" is
          more mnemonic, but does that mean you need to use
          (first (rest (first X))) instead of (cadar X) ??
        - etc, etc.

        It looks like I will be putting together the standards for our
group here, but it would be nice to see some ideas other people had first.
Anyone have anything?
        Thanks!
                                -Marty Hall

Arpa: hall@hopkins                       MP 600
CSNET: hall.hopkins@csnet-relay          AI and Simulation Dept.
uucp: ..seismo!umcp-cs!jhunix!ins_amrh   Martin Marietta Baltimore Aerospace
      ..allegra!hopkins!hall             103 Chesapeake Park Plaza
                                         Baltimore, MD 21220
                                         (301) 682-0917.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 May 86 17:31:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!seismo!utah-cs!shebs
     @ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
In article <2784@jhunix.UUCP> ins_amrh@jhunix.UUCP (Martin R. Hall) writes:
>
>       We are doing everything in Common LISP, but are looking for
>standards in regards to coding *style*.

The "correct" style depends on whether your hackers are from CMU, MIT,
Stanford, Utah, University of Southern ND at Hoople, ... :-)
The following remarks are based on 4 years with Franz, PSL, and Common
Lisp, reading as well as writing, but are nevertheless highly prejudiced.

>       - How do you keep track of the side effects of destructive functions
>         such as sort, nconc, replaca, mapcan, delete-if, etc?

There are very few circumstances when it is appropriate to use
destructive functions.  There are two classes of exceptions:  for efficiency,
or the algorithm depends on it.  In the first case, you only use the
destructive operations on newly consed cells, and NEVER on things passed
in as function arguments.  In the second case, you have lots of discussion
about why the algorithm needs destructive ops and how it uses them
("since our image is 1000x1000, we replace the pixels to avoid consing
another image...").

>       - When should you use macros vs. functions?

Use macros only if you need new syntax, for instance a defining form
that your program uses a lot.  In a game I wrote a while ago, there was
a macro called def-thing which took a bunch of numbers and symbols.
If it had been a function, the "'" key would have been worn out...
Sometimes macros are useful to represent a commonly appearing bit of
code that you don't want to call as a function.  But this usually
loses on space what it gains in speed.

>       - How do you reference global variables?  Usually you enclose it
>         in "*"s, but how do you differentiate between your own vars and
>         Common LISP vars such as *standard-input*, *print-level*, etc?

Use "*"s, no differentiation.

>       - Documentation ideas?

File headers are good, especially for programs that wander to different
operating systems.  The commenting style in the Common Lisp book is good.
Documentation strings don't seem like a big win, but they probably make
more sense in very elaborate programming environments.  I always put
doc strings on defvars.

>       - When to use DOLIST vs MAPCAR?

Mapcar returns something, dolist doesn't.  To return a list, mapcar
must cons a lot, and dolist doesn't cons at all.  Consing is bad.  :-)

>       - DO vs LOOP?

Whatever turns you on.

>       - Indentation/format ideas?  Or do you always write it like the
>         pretty-printer would print it?

I always write like the editor formats it.  This can create problems
if two people are using different editors or different customizations
of the editor.  What you see in the Common Lisp book is a good place
to start for getting your editor to indent properly.

Personally, I find it most readable to have a block of comments in
front of the function, then a blank line, then the function.  I also
prefer to minimize the number of comments scattered about in the
function body.  Frequently the structure of the function tells a lot,
but is obscured by comments inserted randomly.  Consider, too, that
a 1-page function + 2 pages of comments = 3 pages of function, which
is *really* hard to read!

>       - NULL vs ENDP, FIRST vs CAR, etc.  Some would say "FIRST" is
>         more mnemonic, but does that mean you need to use
>         (first (rest (first X))) instead of (cadar X) ??

Null vs endp is pretty clearcut, since endp may error out, where null
would just return nil.  No more than 1% of all Lisp programs will
behave predictably if they get a dotted list instead of a normal one,
but nobody seems to care...

On first vs car, everybody has their favorites.  I prefer c...r combos,
but others hate it when I use cadr instead of second.  Fortunately, such
circumstances are rare.  If you feel the urge to put together a data
structure that has more than 2 pieces, use a defstruct.  Your code will
be more readable *and* more efficient (since implementors can put in
all sorts of performance hacks for structures).  If I were a manager,
I would fire anybody who used anything but car, cdr, and cadr (and they
wouldn't be saved by doing (car (car (cdr (cdr X)))) either!)

>       - etc, etc.
>                               -Marty Hall

Avoid cond if you only have one test, use "if" instead.  Saves two pairs
of parens and a "T"... (i.e. it's easier to read).  Short functions are
better than long ones.  In any competent Lisp implementation, the cost
of a function call is quite low, and shouldn't be considered.
I've only written a handful of functions longer than 20 lines...
Sequence functions and mapping functions are generally preferable to
handwritten loops, since the Lisp wizards will probably have spent
a lot of time making them both efficient and correct (watch out though;
quality varies from implementation to implementation).
More generally, Lisp programs usually benefit from the encouragement
of a "functional programming" style, where functions do few side-effects
that extend beyond the function's body.  Easier to read, easier to debug,
easier to maintain.

Standard dictums of programming practice still apply in Lisp, i.e. always
put in a default case on any mult-way conditional - the constructs ecase
and ccase are useful in this respect.  There are lots of others I don't
remember at the moment... somebody should write a book that concentrates
on Lisp programming instead of laundry listifying 400 functions...

                                                        stan shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 11 May 86 21:02:05 CDT
-FROM-
From: David Chase <rbbb@rice-titan.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: String Reduction
-BODY-
See ``Equational Logic as a Programming Language'' by Mike O'Donnell.  He
writes about using and implementing ``equational logic'', and this makes
heavy use of pattern matching and replacement (not necessarily string
reduction). (MIT Press, summer 1985)

Gyula Mago's FFP machine is a string reduction machine for functional
languages.

(I'm rather surprised that no one else mentioned these two references; are
these not what you had in mind?)

David Chase
Rice University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 12 May 86 18:15:47-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Gold Hill PC Products
-BODY-
My listing of K:base as an expert system tool may have been out-of-date,
but not erroneous.  Gold Hill Computers sent me a marketing brochure, as
well as a beta test request form.  It was also listed in Lehner and Barth's
article in "Expert Systems", Oct. 1985.  Has Gold Hill withdrawn K:base
from the market, or were they just overzealous in their advertising?

Mr. Miyata's cute reference to the apparently erroneous phone number would
have been less obscure if he had also listed the correct number(s), which are
(800) 242-LISP and (in MA) (617) 492-2071.


Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
{ihnp4 | seismo | ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
124
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 86 04:34:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!alberta!sask!kusalik@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tony Kusalik)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems (info wanted)
-BODY-
I am looking for any pointers/info on
past/existing/prospective expert systems
for theoretical mathematics written in Prolog
or other languages based on logical inference.

thanks.

Tony Kusalik
                kusalik@sask.bitnet
                ...!{ihnp4,ubc-vision,alberta}!sask!kimnovax!kusalik

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 21:14 EDT
-FROM-
From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic/Functional Languages?
-BODY-
Does anyone on the list know of available languages incorporating both
logic and functional programming (preferably in a Unix 4.2 environment
or possibly an IBM/PC)? Specifically, I'm looking for one or both
of the following:

1) Some version of Prolog embedded within Common Lisp (I've heard of
   LISPLOG or POPLOG - anyone have any experience with these?). A
   set of add-on macros or function library to an already extant
   lisp would be best.

2) Any of the systems discussed in the book "Logic Programming -
   Functions, Relations, and Equations" by DeGroot & Lindstrom.

Has anyone produced any large applications with these hybrid systems?
Are the benefits derived from the systems *significant* (over using, say,
vanilla lisp or prolog)? If I get enough replies, I will post a summary
of names and addresses where these languages can be obtained...Thanks.

>paul

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 18:27:04 PDT
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX VMS LisP
-BODY-
Are there any Common LisPs for the VAX under VMS?  (DEC's VAX LisP is an
Ultrix product only, so far as I know.)

If there's no (decent) Common LisP, what is the best choice?

                           Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 15:09:44 PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bray reference
-BODY-
I'm looking for more details on one reference in the recent
bibliographies.  I didn't save them, so here is my own version:

        Bray, M. and G. Schmidt (editors), 'Proceedings of NATO
        Summer School on Theoretical Foundations of Programming
        Methodology', Dordrecht: Riedel (1982).

With just this much, librarians can't seem to find any listing for it.
Can anyone supply more information?

        Thanks,

        --Rodney Hoffman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 86 00:59:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!bsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-

A couple of short comments.
        First, about comments.  You might want to embed into a function
a string that will print out as on the fly documentation if the system
supports it (Symbolics does).  This helps when using a function you wrote
2 months earlier that's lost somewhere in 200 pages of code.

        Second, there are a couple of rules about using conditionals that
make a lot of sense.  If you have a single condition followed by a single
then statement followed by a single else statement, use "if."  If you have
a single condition followed by a single then statement and no else
statement, use "when."  If you have a single negative condition followed
by a single then statement, use "unless."  If you have multiple conditions,
or need to use progn anywhere, a cond is more readable.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 19:27:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New book: Prolog for AI
-BODY-

Addison-Wesley published a new book:

   PROLOG Programming for Artificial Intelligence   by Ivan Bratko

The first part introduces Prolog and shows how Prolog programs
are developed.
The second part applies Prolog to some central areas of AI, and
introduces fundamental AI techniques through complete Prolog
programs. Throughout the book there is a lot of exercies and
sample programs. The following is a table of contents:

THE PROLOG LANGUAGE
 1. An Overview of Prolog
 2. Syntax and Meaning of Prolog Programs
 3. Lists, Operators, Arithmetic
 4. Using Structures: Example Programs
 5. Controlling Backtracking
 6. Input and Output
 7. More Built-in Procedures
 8. Programming Style and Technique

PROLOG IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
 9. Operations on Data Structures
10. Advanced Tree Representations
11. Basic Problem-Solving Strategies
12. Best-first: A Heuristic Search Principle
13. Problem Reduction and AND/OR Graphs
14. Expert Systems
15. Game Playing
16. Pattern-Directed Programming

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 13 May 86 00:49:19 PDT
-FROM-
From: newton@vlsi.caltech.edu (Mike Newton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Review of Turbo-Prolog
-BODY-

[This is a review of Turbo Prolog.  I have *not* read all of the
 manual, nor used it on many programs.  Views expressed are from the
 perspective of someone who has done the code generation and
 evaluatable predicates for a high speed (810 KLips on one processor
 of a IBM 3090)  prolog compiler.  I have no affiliation with
 Borland, and only a (*very*) indirect affiliation with IBM  -- MON]

>From a local software store we purchased Turbo Prolog over the weekend.
It came as a cellophane wrapped book with a couple of floppies.  It cost
$69.95, list of $99.

The enviromnent was very nice.  There was a window for the editor, goals
debugging information and messages.  This seemed well done, and responded
reasonably well (I am not used to IBM-PC's.)

The unfortunate part was the Pascal-ization of the language.  Everything
had to be typed (they called it domains).  As far as I could tell, lists
had to be composed solely of other lists or elements all of one type.  One
had to define the possible terms (giving the functor) that could be
arguments to a predicate.  It seemed impossible to write generic predicates
for dealing with arbitrary types of terms.

        Ex:  to have a term that could be a 'symbol' (atom) or an integer
        one had to do this:
                domains
                        aori = a(atom) or i(integer)
        It was not possible to just use an atom or an integer as a subterm...


Typing each subterm of a term is not my idea of Prolog.

After about an hour we got the 'standard' timing example of naive
reverse running  (Some people have used other, non-environment-creating
samples.  This is an unfair comparison).  It did 496 unifications in
aproximately 11/100 of a second.  This amounts to a speed of a little
under 5 Klips.  Considering that they do not need to do 'real' unification
(since everything is pre-typed, and thus can be reduced to a simple test),
this speed is not particularly impressive.

> mike

newton@cit-vax.caltech.edu      {ucbvax!cithep,amdahl}!cit-vax!newton
Caltech 256-80                  818-356-6771 (afternoons,nights)
Pasadena CA 91125               Beach Bums Anonymous, Pasadena President

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 09:24:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Preliminary notes on Turbo Prolog
-BODY-

             Quickie Review of Turbo Prolog

This is a rough set of notes about Turbo Prolog (hereafter TP).
It is a *linguistic* comparison of TP vs. the Clocksin & Mellish
book (CM) and Pereira's CProlog (CP).  It is based mostly on a
reading of the TP manual, not live experimentation with the
product itself.  There is no evaluation of performance, nor much
of the programming environment provided by TP.

TP is related to, but by no means compatible with, either CM or CP.
In the list below, I've put TP/CP differences first, and then
TP enhancements.


1. Declarations.

Structures must have the types of their arguments declared.  That
is, you can't just toss in compound terms in facts and rules.
The functors for all predicates must be declared, together with
role names for each of the arguments, in a PREDICATES section,
like this:

predicates
  person(name, height, weight, hair_color)
  name2(last, first)
  name3(last, first, middle)

and each role must declare from which domain(s) it is drawn,
in a DOMAINS section (which must precede the predicates section);
very relational databasy:

domains
  name = name2(last, first); name3(last, first, middle)
         /* name is either a name2 or name3 structure.  */
  first, middle, last = symbol
         /* first, middle, and last are all (atomic) symbols. */
  height = integer
  weight = real
  hair_color = symbol

What's normally thought of as the regular program is contained
in a CLAUSES section, following the two above.

There are five primitive atomic data types (integer, real, char,
string, symbol), and everything is built from these.

A given domain may consist of a single primitive type or a
disjunction of compound types, but *not* a disjunction of
primitive types.  Since lists are declared like this:

   numlist = integer*  /* numlist is a list of integers  */

it appears that lists must be relatively homogeneous, ie,
must contain elements of either a single primitive type, or
a few compound types.  The whole flavor is much more that of
compilation, data definition, Pascal, and type-checking, than of
the usual interpreted, free-spirited CP or CM.  Thus TP stresses
documentation, security, and efficiency, but disables some
dynamic data building features.


2. Declaring the use of Arguments.

When an argument may be passed unbound from one sub-goal to
another, it must be declared as a *reference* whatever, back up
in the domain declarations to tell TP to pass it be reference,
since TP otherwise assumes it can be passed by value (i.e.
already instantiated), eg:

domains
   height = reference integer  /* height is a pointer to an integer */
   tree =   reference node(integer, tree, tree)
               /* note recursive structure */


3. No meta-logical probing of the DB.

There is nothing like CP's predicates: =.., functor, arg,
clause, or current_functor for fiddling with the current
program's clauses.  In general, there's is no run-time
inspection or building of rules. Assert and retract work
only for facts.


4. There are no user-defined operators, nor CP's expand_term
for pre-processing.


5. Syntax shuffling -

TP                   CP
>--------            --------
bound, free          nonvar, var
<                    @<        /* for strings and symbols */
=                    is        /* numeric computation */
=                    =:=       /* numeric test */
equal                =         /* term unification */
bitand, bitor        /\, \/
bitnot               \
bitleft, bitright    <<, >>

Also, all rules for the same predicate must be lexically
contiguous, and you can use the keywords "and", "or", and "if"
instead of the symbols ",", ";", and ":-".

6. TP implements CM's findall, rather than CP's setof and bagof.

7. TP has lots of features for handling files and I/O.
Its predicates for input (read_x), however, expect to know
the type of object, eg, readint, readreal.  TP doesn't have
CP's get for single character input. It does have readln
to read an entire line into a string.

8. TP has goodies to handle (fixed-format) databases on
disk.  Eg, dbassert/dbretract add/delete facts to/from
an external (permanent) database.

9. TP has features for program modularization.  Each module
can be compiled independently, and has its own name space,
eg, for domains and predicates.  There is also a way to set up
global domains and predicates visible to all modules.

10. TP handles character-strings as a full-fledged data-type.
Also it has functions for conversion among the primitive types.

11. TP has predicates to control graphics, windows, sound, etc.

12. The TP editor is Wordstar-like, not especially Prolog-oriented.


The opinions expressed herein have been officially approved and
sanctioned by the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress,...
no, no, only kidding, only kidding, actually I didn't even
consult with them - please don't blame anyone but me.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
125
-DATE-
Date: 11 May 86 09:02:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!gatech!akgua!whu
     xlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!orsay@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (j.ratsaby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
>
> Stephen Grossberg has been publishing on neural networks for 20 years.
> He pays special attention to designing adaptive neural networks that
> are self-organizing and mathematically stable.  Some good recent
> references are:


I would like to ask you the following:
>From all the books that you read,was there any machine built or simulation
that actually learned by adapting its inner structure ?

if so then what type of information was learned by the machine and in what
quantities ? what action was taken to ask the machine to "remember" and
retrive information ? and finally , where are we standing today,that is, to
your knowledge, which is the machine that behaves the closest to the
biological brain ?
I would very much apreciate reading some of your thoughts about the above,

      thanks in advance.
      joel Ratsaby
      !mtuxo!orsay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 May 86 17:36:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: inside and outside
-BODY-
Dr. Who's Tardis seems to have a larger interior than exterior.  People find
this not outrageously unintuitive, and I am trying to understand why. Which
of the following 'explanations' do people find intuitively satisfying?

1. the inside is just larger than the outside, thats all.
2. there is a different kind of space inside the Tardis, so more can
be fitted into it.
3. the 'interior' isnt inside the police box at all, its somewhere else,
and the door is a transporter device.
4. the door changes sizes, shrinking things on the way in and magnifying
them on the way out, and the interior is built on a small scale. ( As in
Disneys 'fantastic voyage' )
5. something else ( what? )

This particular idea recurs in folklore and childrens fantasy, whereas other
equally impossible concepts are met with less often ( something being in two
places at once, for example ).  This suggests that it might illustrate a
natural separation between different parts of our spatial intuition.

Send intuitions, explanations, comments to  PHAYES@SRI-KL.  Thanks.
Pat Hayes
SPAR

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 86 07:45:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: ingres.Berkeley.EDU!grady@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steven Grady)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in IAsfm
-BODY-
In the June 86 issue of IAsfm ,there's a fascinating article on AI and
common sense.  In this article, the author mentions a program called
Eurisko, which I had heard about before briefly, but which I'm now
reminded of.  Do people have references to this?  How can I find out
more about it?

        Steven Grady
        ...!ucbvax!grady
        grady@ingres.berkeley.edu


  [I've sent Steven the list of Lenat references that appeared in
  #2/117, 12 Sep 1984.  The most pertinent is

    D. B. Lenat, "EURISKO: A Program that Learns New Heuristics and
    Domain Concepts," Journal of Artificial Intelligence, March 1983.
    Also available as Report HPP-82-26, Heuristic Programming Project,
    Dept. of Computer Science and Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford,
    California, October 1982.

  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 16 May 86 16:50:48 PDT
-FROM-
From: cracraft@isi-venera.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: strength of commercially available chess computers
-BODY-
This message is primarily addressed to Tony Marsland, AILIST member,
but is of general interest to the rest of the list as well.

Tony, for our readers, what are the three strongest available
chess machines according to the Swedish article in the most
recent issue of the ICCA Journal?

I was told today by a third-party (THE PLAYERS company in
Los Angeles), that the Novag Constellation Expert is
approximately 2100 in chess strength. I find this impossible
to believe because it runs on a tiny 8-bit processor at
1/50,000th the speed of a Belle, Cray Blitz, or Hitech
which barely pass 2100 in chess strength. It should be
noted that Hitech's rating is based on very few
tournament games. The same is true of Cray Blitz. Only
Belle has a sufficient base to qualify its 2200 rating claim.

Well, Tony, what are they? Take care.

        Stuart Cracraft

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 15:21:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!re
     ading!onion.cs.reading.AC.UK!scm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stephen Marsh)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conway's game of LIFE
-BODY-

        Here's an enquiry about John Conway's game of LIFE,
a simulation of the birth, life and death of cells placed on
a grid. It was devised about 1970 and was based on the theory
of cellular automata. It became of great interest to a large
number of people after it was discussed by Martin Gardner
in Scientific American (Oct 1970-Mar 1971).

        I would like to know if anyone has done or knows of
any investigation into aspects of the LIFE simulation since
the outburst of interest in 1970. If they have, or know of
any book that contains a (not too theoretical) run-down of
cellular automata, perhaps with reference to LIFE, could they let
me know.

             Many thanks
                                Steve Marsh

scm@onion.cs.reading.uk
Steve Marsh,
Department of Computer Science,
PO BOX 220,
University of Reading,
Whiteknights,
READING  UK.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 86 09:00:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!topaz!lll-crg!boote
     r@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Elaine Richards)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HELP!!!!!
-BODY-
I have been given this silly assignment to do in Prolog, a language which
is rapidly losing my favor. We are to do the folowing:

Define a Prolog predicate len(N,L) such that N is the length of list L.

Define a Prolog predicate nth(X,N,L) such that X is the Nth element of
list L.

I cannot seem to instantiate N past the value 0 on any of these.

My code looks like this:

len(N,[]) :- 0 !.
len(N,[_|Y] :- N! is N + 1,len(N1,L].

It gives me an error message indicating "_6543etc" or somesuch ghastly
number/variable refuses to take the arithmetic operation.

The code for nth is similar and gives a similar error message.

Please send replies to {whateverthepathis}lll-crg!csuh!booter.

E
*****

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 19:48:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mozetic@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: HELP!!!!!
-BODY-

% How about the following:

len( 0, [] ).
len( N, [_ | L] ) :- len( N0, L ), N is N0 + 1.

nth( X, 1, [X | _] ).
nth( X, N, [_ | L] ) :- N > 1, N0 is N - 1, nth( X, N0, L ).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 May 86 20:44:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!seismo!lll-crg!topaz!ha
     rvard!bu-cs!jam@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jonathan A. Marshall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
In article <1583@mtuxo.UUCP> orsay@mtuxo.UUCP (j.ratsaby) writes:
> In article <538@bu-cs.UUCP> jam@bu-cs.UUCP (Jonathan Marshall) writes:
>>
>> Stephen Grossberg has been publishing on neural networks for 20 years.
>> He pays special attention to designing adaptive neural networks that
>> are self-organizing and mathematically stable.  ...
>
> I would like to ask you the following:
> From all the books that you read,was there any machine built or simulation
> that actually learned by adapting its inner structure ?

TRW is building a chip called the MARK-IV which implements some of
Grossberg's earlier adaptive neural networks.  The chip basically acts
as an adaptive pattern recognizer.

Also, Grossberg's group, the Center for Adaptive Systems, has
simulated some of his parallel learning algorithms in software.  In
particular, "masking fields" have been applied to speech-recognition,
the "boundary contour system" has been applied to visual pattern
segmentation, and other networks have been applied to symbolic
pattern-recognition.

> if so then what type of information was learned by the machine and in what
> quantities ? what action was taken to ask the machine to "remember" and
> retrive information ? and finally , where are we standing today,that is, to
> your knowledge, which is the machine that behaves the closest to the
> biological brain ?
> I would very much apreciate reading some of your thoughts about the above,
>      thanks in advance.      joel Ratsaby      !mtuxo!orsay

The network simulations learned to discriminate patterns based on
arbitrary similarity measures.  They also performed associative
learning tasks that explain psychological data such as "inverted U,"
"overshadowing," "attentional priming," "speed-accuracy trade-off,"
and more.  The networks learned and remembered spatial patterns of
neural activity. The networks then later retrieved the patterns, using
them as "expectation templates" to match with newer patterns.  The
degree of match or mismatch determined whether (1) the newer patterns
were represented as instances of the "expected" pattern, or (2) a fast
parallel search was initiated for another matching template, or (3)
the new pattern was allocated its own separate representation as an
unfamiliar pattern.

One of Grossberg's main contributions to learning theory has been the
design of self-organizing associative learning networks.  His networks
function more robustly than most other designs because they are
self-scaling (big patterns get processed just as effectively as small
patterns), self-tuning (the networks dynamically adjust their own
capacities to simultaneously prevent saturation and suppress noise),
and self-organizing (learning occurs within the networks to produce
finer or coarser pattern discriminations, as required by experience).
Grossberg's mathematical analyses of "mass-action" systems enabled him
to design networks with these properties.

In addition, his networks are physiologically realistic and unify a
great deal of otherwise fragmented psychological data.  Read one or
two of his latest papers to see his claims.

The question of which _machine_ behaves closest to the biological
brain is not yet appropriate.  The candidates I know of are all
software simulations, with the possible exception of the TRW Mark-IV,
which is quite limited in capacity.  Other schemes, such as Hopfield
nets, are not mass-action (in the technical sense) simulations, and
hence fail to observe certain kinds of local-global tradeoffs that
characterize biological systems.

However, the situation is hopeful today.  More AI researchers have
been recognizing the importance of studying biological systems in
detail, to gain intuition and insight for designing adaptive neural
networks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 17 May 86 18:43:44 pdt
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@su-glacier.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Geometry-oriented AI
-BODY-

     There are some ideas worth pursuing here.  There is a class of
problems for which solid geometric modeling, rather than predicate
calculus, seems an appropriate underlying model.  The hook and ring
problem seems to be of this type.  Alex Pentland at SRI has done some
work on concise mathematical representations of the physical universe,
and I suspect that a system that could manipulate objects in Pentland's
representation, calculating interferences and contacts, driven by various
search strategies, would be an appropriate way to attack the hook and
ring problem.
     One can dimly imagine a solid geometric modelling system with
approximate representations a la Pentland ("fuzzy solid modelling?")
enhanced by some notions of force, strength of materials, and inertia,
as a base for working on such problems.  Unlike the Blocks World and
its successors, where the geometric information was transformed to
expressions in predicate calculus as soon as possible, I'm suggesting
that we stay in the 3D geometric domain and work there.  We might even
want to take problems that are not fundamentally geometric and construct
geometric analogues of them so that geometric problem solving techniques
can be applied.  (Please, no flames from the right brain/left brain
crowd).  Has anyone been down this road yet and actually implemented
something?
     Interesting thought: could the new techniques for performing
optimization calculations being developed
by the neural-nets people be applied to the computationally-intensive
tasks in solid geometric modelling?  I suspect so, especially if we are
willing to accept approximate answers ("Will the couch fit through the
door?" might return "Can't be sure; within .25 inch error tolerance")
some of the closed-loop feedback analog techniques proposed may be applicable.
The big bottleneck in solid geometric modelling is usually performing the
interference calculations to decide what is running into what.   The
brain is good at this, and probably doesn't do it by number-crunching.


                                        John Nagle
                                        415-856-0767

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 86 09:05:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: brahms!weemba@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Matthew P. Wiener)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Conway's game of LIFE
-BODY-
I'm directing followups to net.games only.

A good reference to LIFE:

        Berlekamp, Elwyn R ; Conway, John H ; Guy, Richard K
        Winning Ways II: Games in Particular
        Academic Press    1982

The last chapter is devoted to the proof that LIFE is universal.
The rest of the book is worth reading anyway.  You will learn why
E R Berlekamp is the world's greatest Dots-and-Box player, for
example.

A good reference to cellular automata:

        Farmer, Doyne ; Toffoli, Tommaso ; Wolfram, Stephen ; (editors)
        Cellular Automata: Proceedings
        North-Holland    1984

The latter is a reprint of Physica D Volume 10D (1984) Nos 1&2.
Mostly technical, with interest in physical applications, but the
article by Gosper on how to high speed compute LIFE is quite
intriguing and readable.

Also, Martin Gardner occasionally had an update after his original
article.  His newest book, "Life, Wheels, and other Mathematical
Amusements" (???), reprints the latest.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba    Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 16:56:12 MDT
-FROM-
From: shebs@utah-cs.arpa (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PCLS Common Lisp Available
-BODY-
This is to announce the availability of the Portable Common Lisp Subset
(PCLS), a Common Lisp subset developed at the University of Utah which
runs in Portable Standard Lisp (PSL).

PCLS is a large subset which implements about 550 of the 620+ Common Lisp
functions.  It lacks lexical closures, ratios, and complex numbers.  Streams
and characters are actually small integers, some of the special forms
are missing, and a number of functions (such as FORMAT) lack many of the
more esoteric options.  PCLS does include a fully working package system,
multiple values, lambda keywords, lexical scoping, and most data types
(including hash tables, arrays, structures, pathnames, and random states).
The PCLS compiler is the PSL compiler which produces very efficient code,
augmented by a frontend that does a number of optimizations specific to
Common Lisp.  Gabriel benchmarks and others show that PCLS programs can
be made to run as fast as their PSL counterparts - almost all uses of
lambda keywords are optimized away, and a type declaration/inference
optimizer replaces many function calls with efficient PSL equivalents.
PCLS has been used at Utah and elsewhere for about 6 months, and a number
of programs have been ported both to and from PCLS and other Common Lisps.

PCLS is being distributed along with an updated version of PSL (3.2a).
We require that you sign a site license agreement.  The distribution fee
is $250 US for nonprofit institutions, plus a $750 license fee for
corporations.  Full sources to both PSL and PCLS are included along with
documentation on the internals and externals of the system.  At present,
we are distributing PCLS for 4.2/4.3 BSD Vax Un*x and for Vax VMS.
Releases for Apollo and Sun are anticipated soon, and versions for other
PSL implementations are likely.  If interested, send your USnail address to:

Loretta Cruse
Computer Science Department, 3160 MEB
University of Utah
Salt Lake City UT 84112

cruse@utah-20.ARPA  {seismo, ihnp4, decvax}!utah-cs!cruse.UUCP

Technical questions about PCLS, flames about absence of closures, etc
may be directed to shebs@utah-cs.ARPA, loosemore@utah-20.ARPA, or
kessler@utah-cs.ARPA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
126
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 May 86 13:56:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Karp <KARP@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: On the growing size of AI conferences
-BODY-
What's all this fuss about organizing AAAI into seperate science and
engineering tracks to try to deal with the size of the conference?  We
can hold the size down much more effectively by simply holding it and
IJCAI in Detroit every year.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 14 May 86 09:23:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge-Based Development of Software Systems (SU)
-BODY-
                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Knowledge-Based Development of Software Systems
Speakers:       Lawrence Markosian
                Douglas Smith
From:           Reasoning Systems and Kestrel Institute
Date:           Wednesday, May 14, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

In the first part of the talk a knowledge-based approach
to the development of software systems is presented.  In this approach
specifications written in a very-high-level, wide-spectrum language
are refined via transformations into efficient programs.  Several
complex transformations for decomposing and refining specifications
are illustrated with examples.

In the second part of the talk an area of applied research - the
derivation of specifications from requirements will be discussed. A
case study in the requirements, specification, design and synthesis of
a simple communications system is presented.  In the case study only
the step from specification to program is automated.  It is then suggested
how the same technology used in automating that step can be used to
automate the derivation of the specification from requirements.


Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 16 May 86 18:48:43-PDT
-FROM-
From: Larry Fagan  <FAGAN@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Decision-Theoretic Heuristic Planning (SU)
-BODY-

    A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Explaining Heuristic Planning

                          Curtis P. Langlotz
                            PhD Oral Exam
                     Medical Information Sciences
                         Stanford University
                      Thursday, May 22, 1:15 PM
                         Medical Center M-112

Many important planning problems are characterized by uncertainty
about the current situation and by uncertainty about the consequences
of future action.  These problems also inevitably involve tradeoffs
between the costs and benefits associated with possible actions.
Decision theory is an extensively studied methodology for reasoning
under these conditions, but has not been explicitly and satisfactorily
integrated with artificial intelligence approaches to planning.
Likewise, many perceived practical limitations of decision theory,
such as problem solving results that are difficult to explain and
computational needs that are difficult to satisfy, can be overcome
through the use of artificial intelligence techniques.  This thesis
explores the combination of decision-theoretic and artificial
intelligence approaches to planning, and shows that this combination
allows better explanation of planning decisions than either one alone.
In addition, the explicit representation of probabilities and
utilities allows flexibility in the construction of a planning system.
This means that assumptions made by such systems, which may be
critical for their performance, are more easily modified than in a
system that does not explicitly represent uncertainties and tradeoffs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 86 11:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: DMRussell.pa@Xerox.COM
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: DMRussell.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - NanoComputers and Molecular Engineering (Xerox PARC)
-BODY-

                        PARC Forum

                May 22, 1986
                3:45PM, PARC Auditorium


K. Eric Drexler

Research Affiliate, MIT Space Sciences Laboratory

NanoComputers and Molecular Engineering

The broad outlines of future technology will be set by the limits of
physical law, if we can develop means for approaching those limits.
Today, because we cannot directly manipulate atomic structures, we can
make no more than a fraction of the physical structures allowed.
Advances in biotechnology and computational chemistry are opening paths
to the development of molecular assemblers able to construct complex
atomic objects, making possible dramatic advances in the field.  Among
these advances will be nanocomputers with parts of molecular size.
Mechanical nanocomputers are amenable to design and analysis with
available techniques.  This technology promises sub-micron computers
with giga-hertz clock rates, nanowatt power dissipation, and RAM storage
densities in the hundreds of millions of terabytes per cubic centimeter.

This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.

Host: Dan Russell  (Intelligent Systems Lab, 494-4308)

Refreshments will be served by the Ad Hoc Collective of Persons
Interested in Social Interchange (AHCPISI) at 3:30 pm.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 20 May 86 09:30:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Palladio  Exploratory Environment for Circuit Design (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Palladio:  An Exploratory Environment for Circuit Design
Speakers:       Harold Brown
From:           Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University
Date:           Wednesday, May 21, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

The Palladio system was an early (1980-82) attempt to apply artificial
intelligence techniques to the design of electronic circuits.  Palladio
was an exploratory environment for experimenting with circuit and system
design representations, design methodologies, and knowledge-based design
and analysis aids.  It differed from other prototype design environments
in that it provided mechanisms for constructing, testing and incrementally
modifying or augmenting design languages and design tools.

Palladio had facilities for conveniently defining models of circuit or
system stucture and behavior. These models, called perspectives, were
similar to design levels in that the designer could use them to interactively
create and refine design specifications.  Palladio provided an interactive
graphics interface for displaying and editing structural perspectives of
circuits or systems in a uniform, perspective-independent manner.  A
declarative, temporal logic behavioral language with an associated
interactive behavior editor was used to specify designs from a behavioral
perspective.  Further, a generic, event-driven symbolic simulator could
simulate and verify the behavior of a specified circuit or system from any
behavioral perspective and could perform hierarchical and mixed-perspective
simulations.  Several experimental expert system design refinement and
analysis aids were implemented using the Palladio environment, for example,
a system which assigned mask levels to the interconnect in an NMOS circuit
which took into account the electrical characteristics of the levels as
well as design goals.

In this talk Prof. Brown will describe the Palladio system, its implementation
and some of the lessons learned about knowledge-based systems for
enginnering tasks.

Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 16 May 86 00:29:31 edt
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - IJCAI-89 Site Selection and Officer Election
-BODY-
IJCAI-89 Site Selection and Officer Election

The Trustees of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial
Intelligence, Inc. are pleased to announce that IJCAI-89 will be held
20-26 August 1989 in Detroit, Michigan, USA.  Wolfgang Bibel, Technical
University of Munich, has been elected Conference Chair; Sri
Sridharan, BBN Laboratories, has been elected Program Chair; and Sam
Uthurusamy of General Motors Research Laboratories has been appointed
to chair the Local Arrangements Committee.  Don Walker, Bell
Communications Research, the IJCAII Secretary-Treasurer, will also
serve as Secretary-Treasurer for the conference.

IJCAI-89 will be cosponsored by the American Association for Artificial
Intelligence.  All conference activities will be coordinated through
the AAAI Office by Claudia Mazzetti, Executive Director of the AAAI,
who will provide direct support for the IJCAI-89 Conference Committee.
In accordance with customary practice for IJCAI conferences held in
North America, the AAAI will also arrange the tutorial and exhibit
programs at the meeting.

For further information, contact one of the following:

Wolfgang Bibel (IJCAI-89)
Institut fuer Informatik
Technische Universitaet Muenchen
Postfach 202420
D-8000 Muenchen 2, West Germany
Telephone: (49-89)2105-2031
bibel%germany.csnet@csnet-relay

N. S. Sridharan (IJCAI-89)
BBN Laboratories
10 Moulton Street
Cambridge, MA 02238
Telephone: (1-617)497-3366
sridharan@bbng.arpa

R. Uthurusamy (IJCAI-89)
Computer Science Department
General Motors Research Laboratories
Warren, MI 48090, USA
Telephone: (1-313)575-3177
samy%gmr.csnet@csnet-relay

Donald E. Walker (IJCAI-89)
Bell Communications Research
445 South Street MRE 2A379
Morristown, NJ 07960, USA
Telephone: (1-201)829-4312
walker@mouton.arpa

Claudia Mazzetti (IJCAI-89)
AAAI Headquarters
445 Burgess Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (1-415)328-3123
aaai-office@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 19 May 86 12:18:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: Arun <Welch%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on High-Level Tools
-BODY-

                            Call for Participation

                                  WORKSHOP ON
                 HIGH LEVEL TOOLS FOR KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS

                                 Sponsored by
          The American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
                Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research
                     The Ohio State University (OSU-LAIR)
               Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

                                Columbus, Ohio
                               October 7-8, 1986

It has become increasingly clear to builders of knowledge based systems that no
single representational formalism or control construct is optimal for  encoding
the  wide  variety  of  types of problem solving that commonly arise and are of
practical significance.   The  structures  specific  to  diagnosis  appear  ill
adapted  for  use  in  design and planning tasks, and those for prediction seem
unsuitable for intelligent data retrieval.  Thus there appears to be a need for
task-specific  constructs  at  levels  of  organization  above  those of rules,
frames, and predicate calculus, and their associated control  structures.    In
addition to problem solving, there is a similar move for higher-level tools for
knowledge acquisition and explanation.

The objective of this workshop is to bring together theoreticians and  builders
of  knowledge  based  systems  in  order to explore the prospects for tools for
specifying structures at these higher levels.  Presentations are invited on all
aspects  of  high  level  tools for knowledge-based systems, including (but not
restricted to) these topics:

   - The powers and limitations of existing  knowledge  engineering  tools
     and techniques.

   - Delineating  the  "natural  kinds" of knowledge based problem solving
     that can provide the basis for task specific tools.

   - Matching AI techniques to tasks.

   - Design proposals for high level knowledge engineering tools.

   - Integrating task-specific tools into "toolboxes" for building systems
     that perform complex problem solving tasks.

Four  copies  of  an extended ABSTRACT (up to 8 pages, double-spaced) should be
sent to the workshop chairman before July 1, 1986.  Acceptance notices will  be
mailed  by  August  1.  Revised abstracts should be returned to the chairman by
September 1, 1986, so that they may be bound together for distribution  at  the
workshop.
Workshop Chairman:               Organizing Committee:
B. Chandrasekaran,               William J. Clancey, Stanford University
OSU-LAIR                         Lee Erman, Teknowledge Inc.
                                 Richard Fikes, Intellicorp
                                 John Josephson, OSU-LAIR
                                 Allen Sears, DARPA


For information and local arrangements, contact:
Charlie Huff                     Bev Mullet
(614) 422-0054                   (614) 422-0248
EMail:  Huff@Ohio-State.ARPA     EMail:  Mullet-B@Ohio-State.ARPA
Huff-C@Ohio-State.CSNET
{ihnp4,cbosgd}!osu-eddie!huff

                Department of Computer and Information Science
                           The Ohio State University
                               2036 Neil Avenue
                              Columbus, OH 43210

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
127
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 86 17:43:41 GMT
-FROM-
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!mazlack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lawrence J. Mazlack)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: ES and ENGINEERING DESIGN
-BODY-
I am in the definition stage of my dissertation. I need help in identifying
what is being done and what has done.  So, any pointers or information
would be greatly appreciated.

My general area is: ENGINEERING DESIGN AND EXPERT SYSTEMS
Within that, I am interested in: ANALOG CIRCUIT DESIGN

Thank you,
  Mojgan Samadar  pelejhn@ucccvm1.bitnet     508 Riddle Road, #46
                                             Cincinnati, Ohio 45220

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 20 May 86 16:18:54 CDT
-FROM-
From: mklein@b.CS.UIUC.EDU (Mark Klein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS Variables
-BODY-
I have been trying to decide whether or not to change some code I have (a
pattern-directed inference engine, justification-, logic-, and assumption-
based TMS's) to handle variables in the data. Variables do seem to add
more flexibility (specifically, universal and existential quantification, I
guess), but have some problems as well - for example, one can no longer
use open-coded unification to match up assertions to rule triggers (I think).
What I'd like to know is whether it is easy or hard to have variables
in data for each kind of TMS (it seems to be simple for
the justification-based TMS)? Is there any advantage to having variables in
data that you can't get simply by writing the appropriate rules (i.e. in
terms of efficiency, expressiveness, ability to control inference, etc)?

                        Thanks,
                           Mark Klein

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 86 18:43:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: kyle.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: re:Conway's game of LIFE
-BODY-
In AIList Digest V.4 #125, Steve Marsh requested info on any book ("not
too theoretical") on this subject.

I recommend The Recursive Universe, by William Poundstone (Morrow &
Co.), c.1985. It is a delightful non-mathematical treatment of
information theory, entropy relationships and other related issues
including a discussion of Conway's game of LIFE. It also includes a
listing of the game for use on an IBM PC (or equivalent).

Earle Kyle.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 20 May 86 09:44:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: jbs@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: VAX VMS LisP
-BODY-
In article <8605200626.AA27708@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA writes:
>Are there any Common LisPs for the VAX under VMS?  (DEC's VAX LisP is an
>Ultrix product only, so far as I know.) ...

You have things backwards.  VAX LISP is a VMS-only product.

Jeff Siegal

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 May 86 21:21:07 edt
-FROM-
From: beer%case.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX LISP Utilities
-BODY-

Here at the Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research (Case
Western Reserve University), we have developed a number of tools and utilities
for VAX LISP.  They include extensions to the control structure and string
primitives, a simple pattern matcher, a pattern-based APROPOS facility, a
pattern-based top-level history mechanism, an extensible top-level driver,
an extensible top-level command facility, an extensible DESCRIBE facility,
and an implementation of Flavors.  These facilities are described in detail
in a technical report, "CAISR VAX LISP Tools and Utilites" (TR-106-86).

The object code for these facilities is in the public domain.  A tape
containing them may be requested by sending me mail at the address below.
There is a $35 charge to cover the cost of the tape and shipping and handling
costs.  Currently, these facilities assume a VMS operating system environment
and require Version 2.0 of VAX LISP.

Randall D. Beer
(beer%case@CSNet-Relay.ARPA)
Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research
Case Western Reserve University
Glennan Bldg., Room 312
Cleveland, OH 44106

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 15 May 86 10:19 EDT
-FROM-
From: Paul Fishwick <Fishwick%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI, Graphics & Simulation
-BODY-
>> Date: Mon, 12 May 86 12:19:46 est
>> From: munnari!csadfa.cs.adfa.oz!gyp@seismo.CSS.GOV (Patrick Tang)
>> Subject: Graphics, Artifical Intelligence and Simulation
>>
>>        Is there anyone out there come across any literature
>>        describing the topics Graphics, Artifical Intelligence and
>>        Simulation together. It seems to me that literatures on
>>        these combined topics are VERY VERY scarce!!!
>>

There  are  a  number  of  projects  that  have  incorporated graphics, ai, and
simulation. Perhaps the largest project has  been  the  STEAMER  project  which
incorporates  layers of object abstractions for a steam plant. At Penn, we have
a multi-level simulation system  (HIRES)  that  permits  the  construction  and
interactive  control  of  process  abstraction  layers.   We also have a facial
animation system (OASIS) that incorporates local area  expression  simulations.
Both HIRES and OASIS utilize the Iris Workstation 2400 (Silicon Graphics, Inc.)
for real-time animation.  Rand Corporation (Santa Monica, CA) has been involved
with  object  oriented  simulation  for  quite  some time (I think they have an
example graphical simulation of a battle scenario). You should also  check  out
the commercial enterprise, Pritsker Associates, who sell a graphical simulation
package. Some references are given:

   1. Hollan  James,  Hutchins  Edwin,  Weitzman  Louis  -  "STEAMER:   An
      Interactive   Inspectable   Simulation-Based  Training  System",  AI
      Magazine (Summer 1984).

   2. Fishwick,  Paul  -  "Hierarchical  Reasoning:   Simulating   Complex
      Processes  over  Multiple Levels of Abstraction", Ph.D Thesis, Univ.
      of Pennsylvania, 1986 (MIS-CS-85-21).

   3. Platt, Steve - "A Structural Model of the Human Face", Ph.D  Thesis,
      Univ. of Pennsylvania, 1985.

   4. McArthur,  David  and Sowizral, Henry - "An Object-Oriented Language
      for Constructing Simulations", IJCAI 1981.

An important issue with "AI and Simulation" is determining where the "ai" is in
simulation.  The answer to that may best be found in the special workshop in AI
and Simulation to be held at AAAI-86. Even though graphics  is  not  explicitly
mentioned,  you  should  also  check  out  the qualitative reasoning/simulation
literature (de Kleer, Forbus, Kuipers, and others) in past  IJCAI/AAAI's.  Also
"aggregation"  is  receiving wider attention these days: look at Goldin & Klahr
(IJCAI '81) and Weld (IJCAI '85).

>paul
CSNET: fishwick@upenn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 19 May 86 19:08 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Martin <TJMartin@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction to Spang-Robinson Summary
-BODY-
A message appeared in the AI List a few weeks ago that summarized the
Spang-Robinson report of April, 1985 -- Volume 2, No.  4

The Arthur D.  Little personal financial planner, according to the
summary, "uses databases residing on IBM mainframe." In fact, what we've
done is develop a serial link that connects the Symbolics to an IBM 43xx
running VM/CMS via the IBM 3705 communications controller.

The point worth expanding on is that in this IBM/Symbolics symbiosis,
the IBM is in charge, not the Symbolics.  Yes, the planner "uses
databases on the IBM mainframe," but only because the IBM user has (a)
requested it, and (b) has the right access.

The system uses the "virtual machine" concept of VM/CMS heavily.  In
effect, the Symbolics appears to be a separate virtual machine running
on the 43xx.  It responds to commands in real-time (instead of
uploading/downloading files), however, the commands have to be
pre-defined or rely on the EVAL on the Symbolics to return a meaningful
answer.

Neither the PFPS or this link are products of Arthur D.  Little, Inc.,
as such.  I hope to get a chance to talk about the IBM link at SLUG in a
few weeks.

Tom Martin Manager -- AI Systems Development

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 17 May 86 15:53:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: correction to response to Nevin, AIList V4 #120
-BODY-
Instead of

        Since the standard deviation of the difference of two
        identically normally distributed random variables is twice the
        standard deviation of either variable, the temporal disparity
        measurement has 95% confidence interval of 4*10^-6 seconds.

I should have said

        Since the standard deviation of the difference of two
        identically normally distributed random variables is less than
        twice the standard deviation of either variable, the
        temporal disparity measurement has 95% confidence interval
        of less than 4*10^-6 seconds.

The argument for getting to 4*10^-7 second accuracy still holds.

Paul Kube
Berkeley EECS
kube@berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 16 May 86 13:29:08 EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: bad enough theory
-BODY-
Response to kube%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Paul Kube)

I suppose we ought to tell the authors of that fish story, and the editors
of Nature, that their experimental results have a trivial interpretation
in elementary signal detection theory.  They were all struck by the
`impressive computational ability' of the central nervous system in these
animals.  I'll leave it to you to disabuse them of that.

Your account succeeds precisely because it is not reductionist.
Thanks for clarifying what is going on there.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 86 13:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Research indexes: Machine Learning 3
-BODY-
Conference proceedings are often published as books for which the
authors have not taken the time to construct a proper index.  The index
for the most recent machine learning book (ML3), is extremely poor.  In
a book containing 77 articles, claiming to be a "guide to current
research", the index is clearly the most important part of the book.  It
is a shame that this is really a valuable source of summary articles
because its success will lead the publisher and authors to believe that
they can sell poorly indexed books.

Although ML3 is a summary of current research, it is surely no guide. If
one's research is actually guided by consideration of the index to ML3,
then the authors and publisher have done a disservice to the field.

In this particular case, I am surprised that this book wasn't properly
indexed.  The authors were asked to submit SCRIBE source for their
papers and could easily have been asked to also include index entries
either in the source, or selected from a list of keywords.

I encourage those who feel that they must buy ML3 to ignore the index,
and to write a letter to the authors author and publishers complaining
about its index.  The 22 cents spent on stamps, and the hour spent
writing, are nominal with respect to the service you may be doing
yourself and the field in the future.

>- Jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 12 May 86 21:58:25 pdt
-FROM-
From: George Cross <cross%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Psychnet
-BODY-
[Ken - I think this may be of interest to some portion of the AI community.
It was on the Weizmann Bulletin Board]

                      PPPP                   IIII
                         PP                 II
                          PP    PSYCHNET   II
                            PP            II
                             PP          II
                              PP        II
                               PSISSSSPSI
                                  SSSS
                                  SSSS
                                  SSSS
                                  SSSS
                                  SSSS
                                  SSSS
                               PSISSSSPSI

                    EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
                 UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON - UNIVERSITY PARK
                         4800 CALHOUN BOULEVARD
                          HOUSTON, TEXAS 77004

                                            For More Information:

                                            Norman Kagan, Ph.D. or
                                            Distinguished Professor
                                            Robert Morecock, M.A.
                                            Graduate Assistant
                                            713-749-7621

                                            EPSYNET@UHUPVM1.BITNET

                                            March 21, 1986


      Selected  professional papers scheduled for presentation at the
    August  APA  convention  soon  will  be  available  worldwide  via
    PSYCHNET,  the  new  electronic bulletin board and mail machine at
    the University of Houston.

      Dr.  Norman  Kagan,  distinguished  professor  and chair of the
   Educational  Psychology  Department  there  said,  "PSYCHNET  will
   enable  psychologists  to  arrive with papers in hand, having read
   and  processed  the  presenters'  ideas  months  in advance of the
   convention.  They will be ready to discuss these ideas rather than
   just assimilate them at our annual meeting."

      PSYCHNET,   which   will  eventually  serve  the  psychological
   community  in  a  number  of  ways,  is distributed by BITNET, the
   electronic mail network that links much of the academic world.

      "This year PSYCHNET will be sending out papers for Divisions
   12,  16,  17  and  38  to anyone on the BITNET system who requests
   them.    Next   year   we  hope  that  even  more  divisions  will
   participate," continued Dr. Kagan, "and we are already encouraging
   people  to  contact  us  via  BITNET  because  PSYCHNET  is up and
   running."

      "Most  requests  for  papers will be automatically acknowledged
   within  five  seconds,"  said  Dr.  Kagan.  Actual arrival time of
   requested  papers  will  vary from five seconds to twenty minutes,
   depending  on  how busy the mail system is.  "We are hoping people
   will  go  ahead and give PSYCHNET a try now, rather than wait till
   the last minute."

      For  most  computer sites with VM operating systems the command
   TELL  UH-INFO  AT  UHUPVM1 PSYCHNET HELP will start the process of
   requesting  PSYCHNET papers.  Many VAX sites (JNET) will find the
   command
       SEND   UH-INFO@UHUPVM1   PSYCHNET   HELP
   will  obtain  the  same information.   Others  should  consult
   their local computer center regarding sending the message PSYCHNET
   HELP to userid  UH-INFO  at node UHUPVM1.

      Via  leased  lines BITNET makes PSYCHNET available at some 1203
   nodes  or  university computer sites in the free world.  Locations
   range from Israel in the Middle East, to Europe, the United States
   and Canada, then west as far as Tokyo in Japan.

     Users of VM (BITNET) systems can obtain the psychnet
   exec, which vastly simplifies using psychnet.  Just give the command
   TELL UH-INFO AT UHUPVM1 PSYCHNET SENDME PSYCHNET EXEC
   When it arrives move it from your reader to your file area and then
   give the command PSYCHNET.  Your PSYCHNET use will now be automatic

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
128
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 1986 1533-EDT
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intelligent Systems on Multiprocessors (CMU)
-BODY-
                                PS SEMINAR

                Name:   R. Bisiani, CMU
                Date:   Monday, 19 May
                Time:   3:30
                Place:  WeH 5409

   DEVELOPING INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS ON MULTIPROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES

Our long-term goal is to develop a software environment that meets the need
of application specialists to build and evaluate heterogeneous AI
applications quickly and efficiently.  Speech and vision systems are typical
of this kind of AI applications. In these systems, @i(knowledge-intensive)
and conventional programming techniques must be integrated while observing
real time constraints and preserving good programmability characteristics.

State-of-the-art AI environments solve some but not all of the problems
raised by the systems we are interested in.  Therefore, we are developing a
set of tools, methodologies and architectures called Agora  that can be used
to implement custom programming environments.  Agora can be customized to
support the programming model that is more suitable for a given application.
Agora has been designed explicitly to support multiple languages and highly
parallel computations.  Systems built with Agora can be executed on a number
of general purpose and custom multiprocessor architectures.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 86 15:18:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: Michael.Mauldin@cad.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Information Retrieval by Text Skimming (CMU)
-BODY-
What:   Thesis Proposal: Information Retrieval By Text Skimming
Who:    Michael L. Mauldin (MLM@CAD)
When:   May 29, 1986 At 3pm
Where:  In Wean Hall 5409


Most  information  retrieval  systems  today  are word based.  But simple word
searches and frequency distributions do not  provide  these  systems  with  an
understanding  of  their  texts.  Full natural language parsers are capable of
deep understanding within limited domains, but are too brittle  and  slow  for
general information retrieval.

The proposed dissertation attempts to bridge this gap by using a text skimming
parser as the  basis  for  an  information  retrieval  system  that  partially
understands  the  texts  stored  in  it.  The objective is to develop a system
capable of retrieving a significantly greater fraction of  relevant  documents
than  is  possible  with a keyword based approach, without retrieving a larger
fraction of irrelevant  documents.    As  part  of  my  dissertation,  I  will
implement  a  full-text  information  retrieval system called FERRET (Flexible
Expert Retrieval of Relevant English Texts).  FERRET will provide  information
retrieval for the UseNet News system, a collection of 247 news groups covering
a wide variety  of  topics.    Initially  FERRET  will  cover  NET.ASTRO,  the
Astronomy  news group, and part of my investigation will be to demonstrate the
addition of new domains with only minimal hand  coding  of  domain  knowledge.
FERRET  will  acquire  the  details  of  a domain automatically using a script
learning component.

FERRET will consist of  a  text  skimming  parser  (based  on  DeJong's  FRUMP
program),  a  case  frame  matcher that compares the parse of the user's query
with the parses of each text stored  in  the  retrieval  system,  and  a  user
interface.  The parser relies on two knowledge sources for its operation:  the
sketchy script database, which encodes domain knowledge, and the lexicon.  The
lexicon from FRUMP will be extended both by hand and automatically with syntax
and synonym information from  an  on-line  English  dictionary.    The  script
database  from  FRUMP  will  be  extended  both by hand and automatically by a
learning component that generates new scripts based on texts  that  have  been
parsed.    The learning component will evaluate the new scripts using feedback
from the user, and retain the best performers for future use.

The resulting information retrieval system will be  evaluated  by  determining
its  performance  on queries of the UseNet database, both in terms of relevant
texts not retrieved and irrelevant texts that are retrieved.  Over six million
characters appear on UseNet each week, so there should be enough data to study
performance on a large database.

The main contribution of the work will be a demonstration that a text skimming
retrieval system can make distinctions based on semantic roles and information
that word based systems cannot make.    The  script  learning  and  dictionary
access  are  new  capabilities  that  will  be  widely useful in other natural
language applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 1986 1619-EDT
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Theory of Nested Transactions (CMU)
-BODY-
                                PS SEMINAR

                Date:   Thursday, 22 May
                Time:   3:30
                Place:   WeH 7220

         Prolegomenon to the Theory of Nested Transactions

                           Michael Merritt
                 A. T. and T. Bell Laboratories
                      Murray Hill, New Jersey


"The possibility of a thing can never be proved merely from the
fact that its concept is not self-contradictory, but only through
its being supported by some corresponding intuition."  Immanuel Kant

This talk develops the foundation for a general theory of nested
transactions.  Not without trepidation, it presents yet another formal
model for studying concurrency and resiliency in a nested environment.
This model has distinct advantages over the many alternatives, the
greatest of which is the unification of a subject replete with
formalisms, correctness conditions and proof techniques.  The speaker
is presently engaged in an ambitious project to recast the
substantial amount of work in nested transactions within this single
intuitive framework.  The talk focuses on preliminary results
of that project--a description of the model, and its use in stating
and proving correctness conditions of a lock-based concurrent scheduler.

This is joint work with Nancy Lynch, of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 9 May 86 09:49:15-EDT
-FROM-
From: Susan Hardy <SH@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Intuitionist Logic & Constructive Type Theory (MIT)
-BODY-
Friday, May 9, l986
TALK 1: 10:00 a.m., TALK 2: 2:00 p.m.
2nd Floor Lounge

David Turner
University of Kent at Canterbury, England

TALK 1:  Intuitionist Logic and Functional Programming

Intuitionism is a heretical school of mathematics founded by L.
E. J.  Brouwer in l907.  The most outstanding characteristic of
intuitionists is that they reject the use of Boolean logic.  Recent
discoveries have shown that there is deep underlying connection
between intuitionist logic and functional programming.  This discovery
is likely to have profound consequences for the future of both
subjects.  The talk will attempt to explain from the beginning what
intuitionist logic is about and how the coincidence with functional
programming arises.

TALK 2:  Constructive Type Theory as a Programming Language

Constructive type theory is a formal logic and set theory which has
been developed by Per Martin-Lof as a foundation for constructive (or
intuitionist) mathematics.  Curiously, it can also be read as a
(strongly typed) functional programming language, with a number of
unusual properties, including that all well typed programs terminate.
The talk will give an overview of the main ideas in constructive type
theory from the point of view of someone trying to use it as a
programming language.

HOST: Professors Arvind and Rishiyur S. Nikhil

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 14 May 1986  11:16 EDT
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning to Construct Abstractions (MIT)
-BODY-

                    -- AI Revolving Seminar --

                LEARNING TO CONSTRUCT ABSTRACTIONS

                          Rick Lathrop
                           MIT AI Lab

One useful trait of an intelligent agent is to construct higher-level
abstractions from a mass of detailed low-level information.  This talk
will explore one way an agent might be taught how to construct such
abstractions, and why it might be a useful or interesting for an agent
to do so.  A main motivation is the possibility of the use of these
abstractions to see similarities (between situations) that are
obscured by the mass of irrelevant details at the lower level.
Preliminary examples from the Rieger (causal) mechanism world, VLSI
circuit analysis, and protein structure analysis will be discussed.


Thursday, May 15, 4pm
NE-43, 8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 86  1511 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Non-monotonicity in Probabilistic Logic (SU)
-BODY-

          NON-MONOTONICITY IN PROBABILISTIC LOGIC

                    Benjamin Grosof
      Computer Science Department, Stanford University

                  Thursday, May 15, 4pm
                         MJH 252

I will discuss how to formalize the notion of non-monotonicity in
probabilistic reasoning, using the framework of Probabilistic Logic
(cf. Nils Nilsson).  I will give some motivating examples of types of
non-monotonic probabilistic reasoning that seem to be found in
practice.  There seems to be a relationship to default inheritance,
i.e. prioritized defaults of the type used in classic example of
whether birds and ostriches fly.  Next, I introduce the idea of
maximizing conditional independence, which can be thought of as
maximizing irrelevance.  This can be described more simply in terms of
non-monotonic reasoning on Graphoids (cf. Judea Pearl).

I conjecture that an important type of non-monotonicity in probabilistic
reasoning may be concisely expressed in terms of conditional
independence and Graphoids.  Finally, I pose as an open question how
to formulate in the above terms the non-monotonic behavior of
maximizing entropy, a widely-used technique in probabilistic
reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 86  1322 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SU-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Autoepistemic Logic, Stratified Programs,
-BODY-           Circumscription (SU)


        AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC, STRATIFIED PROGRAMS AND CIRCUMSCRIPTION

                Michael Gelfond and Halina Przymusinska
                    University of Texas at El Paso

                        Thursday, May 22, 4pm
                               MJH 252

In Moore's autoepistemic logic, a set of beliefs of a rational agent
is described by a "stable expansion" of his set of premises T. If this
expansion is unique then it can be viewed as the set of theorems which
follow from T in autoepistemic logic.  Marek gave a simple syntactic
condition on T which guarantees the existence of a unique stable
expansion. We will propose another sufficient condition, which is
suggested by the definition of "stratified" programs in logic
programming.  The declarative semantics of such programs can be
defined using fixed points of non-monotonic operators (Apt, Blair and
Walker; Van Gelder) or by means of circumscription (Lifschitz). We
show how this semantics can be interpreted in terms of autoepistemic
logic.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 May 86 11:33:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SU-SUSHI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Sequentialising Logic Programs (SU)
-BODY-
                     PhD oral examination

                 Tuesday June 3rd 1986 at 3 p.m.
                     Building 200, Room 34

                "Sequentialising Logic Programs"
                        Richard Treitel


In "expert systems" and other applications of logic programming, the issue
arises of whether to use rules for forward or backward inference, i.e. whether
deduction should be driven by the facts available to the rule or the goals that
are put to it.  Often some mixture of the two is cheaper than using either
exclusively.  I show that, under two restrictive assumptions, optimal choices
of directions for the rules can be made in time polynomial in the number of
rules in a recursion-free logic program.  If either of these restrictions is
abandoned, the optimal choice is NP-complete.  I present a search algorithm for
the easiest of the cases so obtained.

A related issue is the ordering of the terms in a rule, which can have a strong
effect on the computational cost of using the rule.  Algorithms for ordering
terms optimally are known, but all of them rely on the direction of inference
being fixed in advance, and they apply only to a single rule considered in
isolation.  A more general algorithm is developed, and a way is shown to
incorporate it into the choice of rule directions.  This also leads to an
NP-complete problem.

Some attention is paid to the model of execution cost for logic programs on
which these results are based.  Logic programs involving recursion are not
covered by this work because no satisfactory cost model exists for them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
129
-DATE-
Date: 19 May 86 16:20:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbosgd!apr!osu-eddie!welch@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Arun Welch)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop in High Level Tools
-BODY-

                            Call for Participation

                                  WORKSHOP ON
                 HIGH LEVEL TOOLS FOR KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS

                                 Sponsored by
          The American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
                Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research
                     The Ohio State University (OSU-LAIR)
               Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

                                Columbus, Ohio
                               October 7-8, 1986

It has become increasingly clear to builders of knowledge based systems that no
single representational formalism or control construct is optimal for  encoding
the  wide  variety  of  types of problem solving that commonly arise and are of
practical significance.   The  structures  specific  to  diagnosis  appear  ill
adapted  for  use  in  design and planning tasks, and those for prediction seem
unsuitable for intelligent data retrieval.  Thus there appears to be a need for
task-specific  constructs  at  levels  of  organization  above  those of rules,
frames, and predicate calculus, and their associated control  structures.    In
addition to problem solving, there is a similar move for higher-level tools for
knowledge acquisition and explanation.

The objective of this workshop is to bring together theoreticians and  builders
of  knowledge  based  systems  in  order to explore the prospects for tools for
specifying structures at these higher levels.  Presentations are invited on all
aspects  of  high  level  tools for knowledge-based systems, including (but not
restricted to) these topics:

   - The powers and limitations of existing  knowledge  engineering  tools
     and techniques.

   - Delineating  the  "natural  kinds" of knowledge based problem solving
     that can provide the basis for task specific tools.

   - Matching AI techniques to tasks.

   - Design proposals for high level knowledge engineering tools.

   - Integrating task-specific tools into "toolboxes" for building systems
     that perform complex problem solving tasks.

Four  copies  of  an extended ABSTRACT (up to 8 pages, double-spaced) should be
sent to the workshop chairman before July 1, 1986.  Acceptance notices will  be
mailed  by  August  1.  Revised abstracts should be returned to the chairman by
September 1, 1986, so that they may be bound together for distribution  at  the
workshop.
Workshop Chairman:               Organizing Committee:
B. Chandrasekaran,               William J. Clancey, Stanford University
OSU-LAIR                         Lee Erman, Teknowledge Inc.
                                 Richard Fikes, Intellicorp
                                 John Josephson, OSU-LAIR
                                 Allen Sears, DARPA


For information and local arrangements, contact:
Charlie Huff                     Bev Mullet
(614) 422-0054                   (614) 422-0248
EMail:  Huff@Ohio-State.ARPA     EMail:  Mullet-B@Ohio-State.ARPA
Huff-C@Ohio-State.CSNET
{ihnp4,cbosgd}!osu-eddie!huff

                Department of Computer and Information Science
                           The Ohio State University
                               2036 Neil Avenue
                              Columbus, OH 43210

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 22 May 86 00:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Society for Philosophy and Psychology Annual Meeting
-BODY-
Forwarded From: Scott Weinstein <Weinstein@UPenn> on Wed 21 May 1986 at  6:45


Program of the SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY Annual Meeting
June 5 - 8, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

THURSDAY 1-3:30 pm.
TUTORIAL on Recent Work in Linguistics, Part I
Syntax: D. Lightfoot; Semantics: R. Jackendoff; Phonology: A. Prince
3:40-6 pm. (Concurrent Paper Sessions)
Empirical Investigations of Realism:
R. McCauley, T. McKay; A. Gopnik/ L. Forguson, L. McCune
Computation and Inference: C. Peacock, F. Eagen; M. Winston, L. Shelton
8-10:30 pm.
SYMPOSIUM on Machine Learning: C. Glymour, S. Weinstein, T. Mitchell; S. Harnad

FRIDAY 9-11:30 am.
SYMPOSIUM on Inferring Normal from Pathological Function
A. Caramazza, D. Caplan, T. Bever; B. von Eckardt
1-3:30 pm.
TUTORIAL on Recent Work in Lingustics II:
Language Acquisition: B. Landau; Neurolinguistics: E. Zuriff; Computer
Processing of Natural Language: M. Liberman
3:40-6 pm. (Concurrent Paper Sessions)
Perception: C. Hardin, G. Graham; P. Manfredi, J. Poland
Cognitive Ethology: C. Ristau, W. Bechtel; C. Hayes; R. Millikan
8-10:30 pm. SPECIAL INVITED SESSION on Consciousness and the Bicameral Mind:
Resolving the Problem of Dualism: J. Jaynes; D. Dennett, A. C. Catania

SATURDAY 9-11:30 am.
SYMPOSIUM on Connectionist Models and Neural Networks
T. Sejnowsky, P. Smolensky, D. Lloyd; P. Churchland
1-3:15 pm. (Concurrent Paper Sessions)
Emotions: R. Kraut, E. Lepore; L. Kopelman, K. Emmett
Induction, Formality and the Chinese Room:
P. Thagard, J. Bender; R. Double, R. Elugardo
3:25-5:45 pm.
SYMPOSIUM on Self Deception: R. Audi, K. Gergen, G. Rey; P. McLaughlin
8:30 pm. Presidential Address: F. Dretske

SUNDAY 9-11:30 am.
SYMPOSIUM on Intentionality and Information Theory
K. Sayre, D. Perlis, B. Loewer; R. van Gulick
**********************************************************************

REGISTRATION: G. Hatfield, Philosophy, Johns Hopkins U., Baltimore MD 21218
MEMBERSHIP: P. Kitcher, Philosophy, U. Minnessota, Minneapolis MN 55455
UUCP: princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 11:06:22 pdt
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@diablo>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Principles of Database Systems
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS

        Sixth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on

               PRINCIPLES OF DATABASE SYSTEMS

          San Diego, California, March 23-25, 1987


The conference will  cover  new  developments  in  both  the
theoretical   and   practical   aspects   of   database  and
knowledge-base systems.  Papers are solicited which describe
original  and  novel  research  about  the  theory,  design,
specification, or implementation of database and  knowledge-
base systems.

Some suggested, although not exclusive, topics  of  interest
are:  architecture, concurrency control, database and expert
systems, database machines, data models, data structures for
physical  implementation,  deductive  databases,  dependency
theory, distributed systems,  incomplete  information,  user
interfaces,   knowledge  and  data  management,  performance
evaluation, physical and logical  design,  query  languages,
recursive  rules,  spatial  and  temporal  data, statistical
databases, and transaction management.

You are invited to submit ten copies of a detailed  abstract
(not a complete paper) to the program chairman:

    Moshe Y. Vardi
    IBM Research K55/801
    650 Harry Rd.
    San Jose, CA 95120-6099, USA

    (408) 927-1784
    vardi@ibm.com


Submissions will be evaluated on the basis of  significance,
originality,  and  overall quality.  Each abstract should 1)
contain enough information to enable the  program  committee
to  identify  the  main contribution of the work; 2) explain
the importance of the work - its novelty and  its  practical
or theoretical relevance to database and knowledge-base sys-
tems; and 3) include  comparisons  with  and  references  to
relevant literature.  Abstracts should be no longer than ten
double-spaced pages.  Deviations from these  guidelines  may
affect the program committee's evaluation of the paper.

The program committee consists of Umesh Dayal, Tomasz Imiel-
inski,   Paris   Kanellakis,  Hank  Korth,  Per-Ake  Larson,
Yehoshua Sagiv, Kari-Jouko Raiha, Moshe Vardi,  and  Mihalis
Yannakakis.

The deadline for submission  of  abstracts  is  October  10,
1986.   Authors  will be notified of acceptance or rejection
by December  8,  1986  (authors  who  supply  an  electronic
address  might  be  notified earlier).  The accepted papers,
typed on special forms, will be due at the above address  by
January  9,  1987.   All  authors of accepted papers will be
expected to sign copyright release forms.  Proceedings  will
be  distributed  at the conference, and will be subsequently
available for purchase through ACM.

        General Chairman:               Local Arrangements:
        Ashok K. Chandra                Victor Vianu
        IBM Research Center             Dept. of Computer Science
        P.O.Box 218                     Univ. of California
        Yorktown Heights, NY 10598      La Jolla, CA 92093

        (914) 945-1752                  (619) 452-6227
        ashok%yktvmx@ibm.com            vianu@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 15:04:16 edt
-FROM-
From: als@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Alice L. Schafer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AAAI Automatic Programming Workshop
-BODY-
   The Scientific Workshop on Automatic Programming will be held
under the auspices of the AAAI conference in Philadelphia.
The purpose of this workshop is to gather the active researchers
in this field in order to share insights gained through implementation
and experimentation. Issues to be addressed include:

   . What are the resistant problems in Automatic Programming?

   . Are there metrics for comparing the conventional software
     development approach to an APS?

   . What should, and should not, be contained in a specification?

   . What interaction is desired between the user and an APS?

   . Are there basic building blocks that typify an APS?

   The workshop will be held on Thursday August 14th, and will last
approximately three hours. The current plan is that one and a half hours will
be occupied by brief (seven minutes) presentations of current work, followed
by a panel discussion with active audience participation, moderated by
Tom Cheatham of Harvard. Due to the size of the available rooms, we
may have to limit the audience to researchers who have experience with
some aspect of the APS problem.

   If you wish to present your current work or be on the panel you should
send us a 200-800 word abstract. The decision on who will participate will
be based on these abstracts. If you wish to participate as a member of the
audience instead, send us a short note containing a description of your work
or references to pertinent papers you have written. If we need to limit the
audience we will base our decisions on these responses.

   Please post a printed copy of this notice at your workplace.

Organized by:

Alice Schafer            Richard Brown             Richard Piazza
(617) 271-2363           (617) 271-7559            (617) 271-2363
als@mitre-bedford.arpa   rhb@mitre-bedford.arpa    rlp@mitre-bedford.arpa

    of the Knowledge-Based Automatic Programming Project (ISFI)

         The MITRE Corporation
         Mail Stop A-045
         Burlington Road
         Bedford, MA 01730

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
130
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 86 14:06:59 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!itm!danny@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Need Ref for "Automated Mathematician" by Doug Lenat
-BODY-

    I read a small article in the "IEEE Expert" magazine about Doug
Lenat's Doctoral dissertation at Stanford.  He developed a program
called "AM" (for Automated Mathematician) that produced "interesting"
formulas/relationships about numbers.

    I believe that there is a service which will reprint a thesis paper
for a fee, and USnail it.  I've no idea the name of the service.

    In short can anyone provide pointers to the thesis, or possibly,
any books which cover this or similar programs?  Specifically, I wish
to learn about programs that deal with meta-rules and meta-meta-rules,
rather than rules.

                                        Was that as clear as MUD?

                                        Danny
>-
                                Daniel S. Cox
                                ({siesmo!gatech|ihnp4!akgua}!itm!danny)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 86 01:43:40 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!brueer!holte@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu  (Robert Holte)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI in IAsfm
-BODY-
> In the June 86 issue of IAsfm ,there's a fascinating article on AI and
> common sense.  In this article, the author mentions a program called
> Eurisko, ...
> How can I find out more about it?
>
>       Steven Grady


Douglas Lenat has written and exercised two heuristic "discovery" programs,
AM and EURISKO.
His initial exploration of the problem of heuristic (mechanical)
discovery constituted his Ph.D. research and culminated in the somewhat
controversial program, AM.
After his thesis, Lenat analyzed the shortcomings and strengths
(or "sources of power" as he came to call them) of AM, and from
this analysis EURISKO was conceived.
Unfortunatley, since Lenat's move from Stanford to MCC (Austin) a year
or two ago, he has ceased working with EURISKO.

I am aware of one or two isolated, low-profile projects to build
EURISKO-like systems. Most notable is the work of Ken Haase at MIT
on a system called CYRANO -- but I don't think any of Haase's work
has yet been published.


>- Rob Holte
                UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!brueer!holte
                ARPANET, CSNET, JANET: holte@ee.brunel.ac.uk

   Dept. of Electrical Engineering
   Brunel University
   England   UB8 3PH



EURISKO References:
(Lenat is the sole or first author in all cases)

(1) Artificial Intelligence journal, vol.21, nos.1,2, 1983
    (two articles: pp.31-59, pp.61-98)
        MOST COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNT AVAILABLE, includes a description
        of the program and its applications

(2) Lenat's chapter (pp. 243-306) in the book "Machine Learning"
    (volume 1), edited by R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell,
    Tioga Press, 1983

(3) The AI Magazine, vol.3, no.3, 1982 (summer), pp.17-33
        CONCENTRATES ON THE APPLICATION of Eurisko
        to the discovery of new VLSI microcircuit structures

(4) SIGART Newsletter (ACM Special Interest Group on AI),
    No. 79, 1982 (January), pp.16-17
        Anecdotal account of EURISKO's success in designing a
        "fleet" which won a national wargame tournament

(5) "Why AM and EURISKO Appear to Work", Lenat and J. Seely Brown,
    Artificial Intelligence journal, vol.23, no.3 (1984), pp.269-294
        AN INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS of the success of Lenat's 2 programs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 17:29:02 edt
-FROM-
From: Derrell Piper <ecsvax!hobbit%mcnc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: VAX VMS LisP
-BODY-
> Are there any Common LisPs for the VAX under VMS?  (DEC's VAX LisP is an
> Ultrix product only, so far as I know.)
>
> If there's no (decent) Common LisP, what is the best choice?
>
>                            Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arpa

Digital does market a version of Lisp that runs under VMS.  I have version
1.2 on a ninty-day trial license.

Derrell Piper
120 Rosenau Hall (201H)
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514          (919) 966-5106

Bitnet:     derrell@uncsphvx.BITNET
Usenet:     ...decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!hobbit

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 21 May 86 08:55 EST
-FROM-
From: RLH <HAAR%RCSMPA%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: VAX VMS LISP
-BODY-

In AILIST 4-124, Larry@JPL-VLSI,ARPA asks about availability of
Common LISP on VAX/VMS.

I don't know where you got your information, but DEC sells a good
version of Common LISP that runs under VMS or microVMS. As far as
I have seen, it is a complete and faithful implementation with
some additions for accessing system routines and calling code
written in other languages.

There is also a package that DEC calls tha AI Workstation that
consists of a VAXstation, Common LISP, and some LISP software
to do window-oriented editing, etc. on the bit-mapped display
of the VAXstation. I haven't used this yet, so I cannot comment.

I have heard that there will be Flavors and Common LOOPS available
as well, but haven't seen any hard evidence of this.

DEC appears to be firmly committed to Common LISP (any DECies
care to comment?). They even use Guy Steele's book "Common LISP"
as part of the documentation.

        Bob Haar
        G. M. Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 May 86 16:06:37 GMT
-FROM-
From: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!harvard!knight@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conway's LIFE
-BODY-
(My e-mail didn't work, so I am posting to the net...)

There is a very good, very recent book on LIFE called "The Recursive
Universe" by William Poundstone, c 1985, William Morrow and Company,
publishers.  The book doesn't contain any original LIFE discoveries,
but rather presents the great bulk of work on LIFE in the context of
modern physics, computation, and recursion.

  Kevin Knight
(knight@harvard)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 86 17:57:28 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!tekgen!stever@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Steven D. Rogers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: LIFE references
-BODY-

Another more general book that mentions the game of Life in
the broader context of games and life:

Laws of the Game, How the Principles of Nature Govern Change
by Manfred Eigen, and Ruthild Winkler, Harper Colophon Books
l981

It was sort of advertised as a "Godel, Escher, Bach" of games.
I don't think it quite made that level, but it is an interesting
book.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 86 23:50:41 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!alberta!tony@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tony Marsland)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: International Computer Chess Association Journal
-BODY-
The current (March 1986) issue of the ICCA Journal has been received.
Aside from the following three technical articles, there are reports
on Ken Thompson's 5-piece endgame studies, showing that several endgames
are won in more than 50 moves, plus the usual reviews and short
articles.  There is also an extensive study of most commercially available
chess machines by a Swedish group. This list is the most accurate and
scientific estimate of the relative playing strength of those programs.
The major articles are
"A review of game-tree pruning" by T.A. Marsland
"An overview of machine learning in computer chess" by S.S. Skiena
"A data base on data bases" by H.J. van den Herik and I.S. Herschberg

Information on the availability of this journal has been posted before.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 86 19:05:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!kadie@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: $1,000,000 Prize
-BODY-

This might be of general interest:

/* May 17, 1986 by chen@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU in uiucdcs:uiuc.ai */
/* ---------- "$1,000,000 for a program" ---------- */
  The following was posted in net.game.go. In case you don't know about Go,
it is an ancient oriental board game played between two players
on a 19 by 19 grid. The best Go program so far is no better than an
intellegent novice that has received only one week intensive training.

/* May 14, 1986 by alex@sdcrdcf.UUCP in uiucdcsb:net.games.go */
/* ---------- "Million $ prize" ---------- */

        I think this is a big news for the go community. The Chinese
Wei Chi(go in Chinese) Association(TWCA) in Taipei, Taiwan and conjunction
with one of Taiwan's largest computer company have put 2 million US
dollar in trust as prize money of computer go games. The top standing
prize is 1 million dollar for any computer go game defeating reigning
junior champion in Taiwan. The prize offer is good for 15 years.
(BTW, if you are wondering how they raise the prize money, take a look
at all the cheap IBM PC clones around.) The prize money is much more
interesting the Fredkin's prize. They are other prizes for the computer
go champion, etc.

        The TWCA is the first organization offering prize money for
computer-computer and computer-human competition, according to my
and the computer go game pioneer Bruce, who appeared in TWCA first
computer tournament last January. Bruce lost twice and did not place
in top five. That tournament offered 2 to 3 thousand price money to the
winner. His first loss was to a go game written in BASIC running on
an Apple. Bruce was winning convincingly until the Apple games made
a suicide move which is legal under Chinese rule but not under Japanese
rule. Bruce's game went into loop. The judge allowed Bruce to fix his
code on the spot as long as he can make the move before his time clock
runs out. (They did not want Bruce to lose because he was the main
attraction, and I believe they paid him some appearance fee.) But
Bruce did not fix it right within the 30 minutes he had. I
did not stick around for his second loss. Bruce's game was running on
a 8MHz PC clone.

        If you are interested in entering the next competition which
is in November, you better get the rule book on the Chinese rules, which
differ slightly from Japanese in area like suicide moves and scoring.
Last competition was restricted to personal computer, although I
find big disparity in computer power between a MacIntosh and an Apple
II. However, I don't think computing power is the main bottleneck right
now.

        If there are enough people interested, I can get additional
detail about the tournament.

        Also, a junior champion in Taiwan is about 1 dan in Chinese
amateur rating, which is about 5-6 dan in US and Japanese amateur
rating. Bruce's game was last rated to be 19Q in Japan human
tournament. He said he may push it to 11-12Q by November. I think Bruce
has got a good technique but his potential is limited by his knowledge of
go. But at any rate, you have your work cut out for you.

                                        Alex Hwang
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.games.go */
/* End of text from uiucdcs:uiuc.ai */

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 15 May 86 18:24:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: John Myers <JMYERS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IT*S Grammar
-BODY-
Sir:
        I am writing to protest the continual misuse of the word "its" for
the third person neuter posessive, when everyone knows its the contraction
for "it is".  I's hair stands on end everytime I see someone use it in they's
sentence.  Ive even heard one grammarian state that he's book says that
personal pronouns all have a special posessive case form that doesnt use
"apostrophe-S"--hes off he's rocker!  Youre well aware whatll happen to
you's reading material if this becomes common.  Were going to have to keep we's
guard up, until its clear that peopleve gotten this straight!  Its dreadful!!
Not only that, some peoplere even forming they's contractions with
an apostrophe.  When they have a word phrase such as "it is", and they want
to write it's contraction, they's spelling is "it's"!!  Ill never see where
they couldve gotten such atrocious grammar from, when if theyre unsure of
how to use "its", they only have to look it's meaning up in they's dictionary!!

  Instructor:   "My word!  Where's your grammar, boy?"

  Youth:        "Watching soap on the TV."


                                                        John Myers~~

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 15 May 86 18:56:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: John Myers <JMYERS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Etymology of Foo-Bar
-BODY-
Item of interest:
FUBAR was originally an acronym for "Fouled" Up Beyond All Recognition,
stemming from the W.W.II era.  It is related to SNAFU, and such short-lived
acronyms as FUBIO, FUBISO, GFU, JANFU, MFU, SAMFU, SAPFU, SNEFU, SUSFU,
TARFU, and TUIFU. Source: A Dictionary of Euphemisms & Other Doubletalk,
Rawson.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 May 86 15:41:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!bullwinkle!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie
     !colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Plan 5 for Inner Space
-BODY-
> Answers: about nine months, plus a few years training.  And hospitals are
> charging on the order of $1000 now; but the care and feeding of the project
> will cost more.  You do get a tax break.

Warning: the U.S. government no longer allows private ownership of these
units.  Possession is permitted but subject to a long-term time limitation
which is determined on a case-by-case basis.


        "Well, Doctor Eccles, how are the men feeling?  Any cases of
           frozen feet?"
        "Duh, you didn't order any cases of frozen feet."
>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
131
-DATE-
Date: 21 May 86 13:14:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional programming and AI
-BODY-

Here's a (dumb?) question for assorted AI wizards: how (if at all)
does functional programming support AI type applications?
By "functional programming", I mean the ability of a language
to treat functions (or some other embodiment of an algorithm) as
a data object: something that can be passed from one routine to
another, created or modified, and then applied, all at run-time.
Lisp functions are an example, as is C_Prolog's ability to
construct predicates from lists with the =.. operator, and the
OPS5 "build" action.

Do working AI programs really exploit these features a lot?
Eg, do "learning" programs construct unforeseen rules, perhaps
based on generalization from examples, and then use the rules?
Or is functional programming just a trick that happens to be
easy to implement in an interpreted language?

Thanks for any thoughts on this...

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 May 86 14:26:49 GMT
-FROM-
From: wisdom.BITNET!jaakov@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jacob Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Logic Programming
-BODY-
Dear fellow AIListers and PrologListers,

I'm interested in obtaining the latest references you may have to articles
concerned with Parallel Logic Programming languages. If  you have recently
written an article concerned with parallel execution of Prolog  or about a
committed-choice non-deterministic LP language, I'm interested to read it,
or at least to receive a pointer to the article. By RECENT I mean articles
which have been published in 1985 and 1986 or which are about to appear. I
am interested in any and all sub-topics of the fields listed above.

Thank you very much ahead of time for your response,


        Rusty Red (AKA Jacob Levy)

        BITNET:                         jaakov@wisdom
        ARPA:                           jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        CSNET:                          jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@csnet-relay
        UUCP: (if all else fails..)     ..!ucbvax!jaakov%wisdom.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 May 86 00:10:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!rtgvax!ramin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information Modeling for Real-Time/Asynch processes
-BODY-

Sorry about all the cross-postings but I'm trying for the widest
circulation short of net.general (:-)

I am looking for any pointers to literature/specifications/ideas for
Modeling of asynchronous and/or real-time systems. These would be
very high-level design specification tools to help model parallel
real-time events and systems.

Intuitively, at least I think the way to go is Temporal Logics (hence
the net.philosophy posting...) however, that seems to be currently applied
only to hardware design (CIRCAL et al).
The problem with the standard dataflow diagram and associated descriptive
systems is their failure to capture at least simultaneous (ideally, parallel)
events.

On the other hand, the rigor with which one would want to model such an event
lends itself to creative Knowledge Representation techniques (hence
net.ai and net.cog-eng...) and even possibly many-valued logics...?

To put it in some more perspective, the model would be of some complicated
industrial processes that up to now have been modeled in a synchronous
i.e. serialized fashion. I would like to see if there are any references
out there to attempts at asynchronous modeling. Would definitely repost
(to where? (:-) if there are enough responses...

Thanks much...

ramin

: alias: ramin firoozye'               :   USps: Systems Control Inc.        :
: uucp: ...!shasta \                   :         1801 Page Mill Road         :
:       ...!lll-lcc \                  :         Palo Alto, CA  94303        :
:       ...!ihnp4    \...!ramin@rtgvax :   ^G:   (415) 494-1165 x-1777       :

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 May 86 10:53:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs
     !glasgow!dunbar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Neil Dunbar)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: looking for Prolog
-BODY-
> I'm looking for a version of Prolog.  The machines available to me
> include an AT&T 7300 (Unix PC), AT&T 3B5, AT&T 3B2, Plexus P/60, Plexus
> P/35, IBMPC, and AT&T 6300PC (IBMPC compatible).  I've spoken with
> someone from AT&T who suggests that Quintus may be porting to the 7300.
> I've spoken with someone from Quintus who says there is no port and no
> contract at this time.  I've heard of something called C-Prolog, but
> don't know for sure what it is.  ...

Don't Borland make a version of Prolog to run on the PC, Turbo Prolog?
If you want a compiler there is the Arity compiler, again for MS-DOS systems,
but it costs a few thousand (dollars or pounds, depending on which side of
the Atlantic you're on).

CProlog V1.2 is the current prolog interpreter system from the University of
Edinburgh, running on our 11/780 under Unix. I don't know if it can be ported
onto the machines you describe, but you never know, anything's possible. If
you want to learn Prolog, try Clocksin & Mellish "Programming in Prolog",
which is an excellent tutorial guide.

Hope this helps,
        Neil Dunbar.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 24 May 86 02:35:00 +0200
-FROM-
From: enea!zyx!jeg@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Logic/Functional Languages?
-BODY-

In article <8605200626.AA27699@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> you write:
>Does anyone on the list know of available languages incorporating both
>logic and functional programming (preferably in a Unix 4.2 environment
>or possibly an IBM/PC)? ...


Answer to the questions:

1.)  Does anyone on the list know of available languages incorporating both
     logic and functional programming...?

2.)  Some version of Prolog embedded within Common Lisp...?

3.)  Has anyone produced any large applications with these hybrid systems?
     Are the benefits derived from the systems *significant* (over using,
     say, vanilla lisp or prolog)?

Hewlett-Packard have informally introduced HP Prolog to some customers and the
official introduction is scheduled to be sometime in August.

HP Prolog is residing on top of HP Common Lisp and this development environment
is therefore incorporating both Common Lisp and Prolog. Since I am affiliated
with HP, the following information is biased and might sound like an
advertisment, but I'll try to answer the third question without breaking
to many ethical rules for the net.

HP Development Environment is based on HP-UX (Unix V.2) and HP 9000 series
300, a 68020 based machine, with HP:s window system.

Top level for the Development Environment:
> A complete EMACS editor with some enhancements.
> A general browser.

Main features with the Development Environment are:
> The high level of integration
> The ability to use both Common Lisp and Prolog in the same process
  and on the same objects and to mix Common Lisp and Prolog code.

HP Common Lisp has:
> Interpreter and compiler
> Objects package
> Ability to call C/Pascal/Fortran
> Debugger
> Interrupt handler

HP Prolog consists of two different environments:
> A "Common Lisp compatible" S-expression syntax
> Edinburgh C-Prolog syntax

HP Prolog has:
> Interpreter
> Incremental compiler
> Block optimzing compiler
> Debugger

Main features of HP Prolog are:
> A much extended Prolog
> Ability to mix Prolog and Common Lisp
> Macros
> Packages
> Mode declarations
> Declarative determinism
> Integration in the environment
> A well-designed and complete I/O system
> Other minor features like strings, graphics etc.
> An extended Definite Clause Grammar (DCG)
> Respectable performance

The Prolog system will soon be available with/without Common Lisp system
on other vendors machines.

Quite large applications on this system are currently under development.
There is definitely a significant advantage of being able to mix Common
Lisp and Prolog. Common Lisp and Prolog have both different advantages
and complement instead of excluding each other.

Jan-Erik Gustavsson, ZYX AB, Styrmansgatan 6, 114 54 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: + 46 - 8 - 65 32 05
...mcvax!enea!zyx!jeg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 86 00:52:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!caip!lll-crg!seismo
     !mcvax!enea!kuling!martin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Erik Martin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
In article <2784@jhunix.UUCP> ins_amrh@jhunix.UUCP writes:
>
>       - How do you keep track of the side effects of destructive functions
>         such as sort, nconc, replaca, mapcan, delete-if, etc?

Don't use them. I use destruction only when I need circular objects or
when I need to speed up a program. In the latter case I write it strictly
functional first and then substitute 'remove' with 'delete' and so on. This
should not affect the semantics of the program if it is 'correctly' written
from the beginning. But it's really a task for the compiler so You shouldn't
need to think about it.

>       - When should you use macros vs. functions?

I only use macros when I need a new syntax or a 'unusuall' evaluation
of the arguments. (like FEXPR in Franz and MacLisp.)

>       - How do you reference global variables?  Usually you enclose it
>         in "*"s, but how do you differentiate between your own vars and
>         Common LISP vars such as *standard-input*, *print-level*, etc?

Always "*"s. No differentiation.

>       - Documentation ideas?

An 'overview' description in the file header, more detailed on top of each
function. Very few comments inline, use long function and variable names
instead. Documentation strings in global variables and top level (user)
functions.

>       - When to use DOLIST vs MAPCAR?

Quite obvious. Use DOLIST when you want to scan through a list, i.e. just
look at it. At the end of the list it returns NIL or the optional return form.
You can also return something with en explicit RETURN. Use MAPCAR when you
want to build a *new* list with a function applied to each element.

>       - DO vs LOOP?

Write what you mean. If you mean 'repeat until doomsday' (without any
variables bound) then use LOOP.

>       - Indentation/format ideas?  Or do you always write it like the
>         pretty-printer would print it?

A lot of white space in the code. The rest is very personal and hard to set
up rules for. Nice editors usually have good ideas about how it should look.

>       - NULL vs ENDP, FIRST vs CAR, etc.  Some would say "FIRST" is
>         more mnemonic, but does that mean you need to use
>         (first (rest (first X))) instead of (cadar X) ??

Again, write what you mean. If you mean 'is this the end of the list
we are just working with?' then use ENDP, if you mean 'is this NIL (an empty
list)?', use NULL, and if you mean 'is this false?' use NOT.
Write FIRST if you mean the first element of a list, SECOND for the second,
THIRD for the third...and combinations of these when appropriate. At some
limit this gets very messy though, and C*R is better. But in that case you
perhaps should write your own accessor functions. When working with cons'es
I always use CAR and CDR.


My general rule is : Write what you mean and leave the task of efficiency
to the implementation and compiler.


                                        Per-Erik Martin
>-
Per-Erik Martin,  Uppsala University, Sweden
UUCP: martin@kuling.UUCP  (...!{seismo,mcvax}!enea!kuling!martin)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 24 May 86 08:23:25 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross@seismo.CSS.GOV (Ross Gayler)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: economics of expert systems - summary of replies
-BODY-
A while back I put out a request for information on the economics of the
development and deployment of expert systems. This is a summary of the replies
I have received.

I received around ten replies, most of which were of the 'please let me know'
variety. Some of these went to some length to indicate that they felt this
was an important area. It does seem that there is a need for this information
and it either doesn't exist or somebody is not sharing it.

There were three substantive replies which told of:

1       A company which attempted to develop three expert systems.

        One took twice as long to develop as the FORTRAN program it replaced,
        the second was too slow to be usable, and the other was abandoned for
        lack of an expert.

2       A successful family of expert systems that are widely used in-house.

        The point made here was that the development cost was an insignificant
        fraction of the cost of packaging the product for deployment and the
        continuing cost of training the users.

3       A pointer to the November 1985 IEEE Transactions on Software
        Engineering which was a special issue on "Artificial intelligence and
        software engineering".

        I found the articles by Doyle, Bobrow, Balzer, and Neches et al to be
        the most relevant to my needs. Doyle argues that the productivity
        advantage of the artificial intelligence approach comes from the tools
        and techniques used to construct the product, not from the ultimate
        form of the product itself. The other papers do not explicitly address
        the modelling of costs. However, an implicit model is discernible from
        the areas they choose to emphasize.

I will send a request to the software engineering list and see if I can get any
joy there. If not it looks like I might be forced to do some work for myself.
What I would like is a predictive model which will give me the costs to
implement and deploy an expert system or conventional system as functions of
various features of the problem, the tools available, and the development and
deployment environments. As I do not have any empirical data the best I can
aim for is a set of statements on the qualitative shapes of the cost curves for
various factors. Using these curves backwards would allow me to say what
problem characteristics are a lot more conducive to an expert system solution
being cheaper than a conventional solution. I will probably start with the cost
models in Tom de Marco's book, "Controlling software projects" and try to
identify expert systems analogues of the cost factors he identifies for
conventional systems.

If I manage to get anywhere with this I will let you know.

Ross Gayler                     | ACSnet:       ross@psych.uq.oz
Division of Research & Planning | ARPA:         ross%psych.uq.oz@seismo.css.gov
Queensland Department of Health | CSNET:        ross@psych.uq.oz
GPO Box 48                      | JANET:        psych.uq.oz!ross@ukc
Brisbane        4001            | UUCP:      ..!seismo!munnari!psych.uq.oz!ross
AUSTRALIA                       | Phone:        +61 7 227 7060

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
132
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 86 15:32:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!onion.cs.reading.AC.UK!scm@SEISMO  (Stephen Marsh)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A survey on AI
-BODY-

        I am currently doing a survey on the attitudes and
beliefs of people working in the field of AI. It would be
very much appreciated if you could take the time to save this
notice, edit in your answers and post me back your reply.
        If there are any interesting results, I'll send them
to the net sometime in the future.
                -Thanks


1. Do you, or have you, undertaken any research in the field
   of Artificial Intelligence?.....
2. In which country was the research undertaken?.....
3. For how long did your research continue?.....
4. If you are not currently working in the field of AI, when
   was the period of your research?.....
5. What area of research did your work cover? (eg IKBS).....
6. Were you satisfied with the results of your research?....
7. Did your research make you feel that in the long term AI was
   not going to succeed in creating an intelligent machine?..
8. Do you find the progress of research in AI in the last
      5 years?......
      10 years?.....
      25 years?.....
   acceptable?
9. What do you consider the main objectives of AI?.....
10. Excluding financial pressures, do you consider that AI
    researchers should reconsider the direction of their
    work?.....
11. Do you consider that the current areas of research will
    eventually result in an 'intelligent' machine?.....
12. Do you consider that the current paradigm of humans producing
    cleverly-written computer programs can ever fulfil the
    initial aim of AI of producing an intelligent machine in the
    accepted sense of the word 'intelligent'?.....
13. Should a totally new approach to producing an intelligent
    machine be found, not based simply on sets of sophisticated
    programming techniques?.....


scm@onion.cs.reading.ac.uk
Steve Marsh
Dept of Computer Science,
PO Box 220,
University of Reading,
Whiteknights,
READING ,UK.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 86 05:12:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: shadow.Berkeley.EDU!omid@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Omid Razavi)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI applications in simulation
-BODY-

  I am interested in the applications of AI in simulation.
Specially, I'd like to know if there are expert system environments
today that would support simulation modeling and provide features
similar to those of standard simulation languages such as GASP IV
and SIMSCRIPT.

  Also, references to technical articles related to this subject is
greatly appreciated.

                                       Omid Razavi

                                       omid@shadow.berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 May 86 14:39:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!warwick!gordon@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
This may be a bit of  a tangent, but I feel it  might have some impact on
the current discussion.
The mathematical theory of chaotic systems is currently an active area of
research. The main observation is that models of even very simple systems
become chaotic in a very small space of time.
The human brain is far from being a simple system,  yet the transition to
chaos rarely occurs.  There must be a self-correcting  element within the
system itself, as it is often perturbed by myriad external stimuli.
Is the positive feedback mentioned in article <837@mhuxt.UUCP> thought to
be similar to the self-correcting mechanisms in the brain?

Gordon Joly -- {seismo,ucbvax,decvax}!mcvax!ukc!warwick!gordon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 May 86 14:51:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hplabsc!kempf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Kempf)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: neural networks
-BODY-
> The mathematical theory of chaotic systems ...
> Gordon Joly -- {seismo,ucbvax,decvax}!mcvax!ukc!warwick!gordon

Not having seen <837@mhuxt.UUCP>, I can't comment on the question.
However, I do have some thoughts on the relation between chaos
in dynamical systems and the brain. The "chaotic" dynamical behavior
seen in many simple dynamical systems models is often restricted
to a small region of the state space. By a kind of renormalization
procedure, this small region might be topologically shrunk, so that,
from a more macroscopic view, the chaotic region actually looks
more like a point attractor. Another possibility is that complex
systems like the brain are able to perform a kind of ensemble
averaging to filter out chaos. Sorry if this sounds like speculation.
                Jim Kempf       kempf@hplabs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 May 86 18:10:25 PDT
-FROM-
From: narain@rand-unix.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional and Logic Programming
-BODY-

Reply to Paul Fishwick regarding a language which incorporates both
functional and logic programming, (AIList digest v.4 #124.):


In a recent paper "A technique for doing lazy evaluation in logic" I describe
a method of defining functions in a logic-based language such as Prolog.

It is shown how we can keep Prolog fixed, but define functions in such
a way that their interpretation by Prolog directly yields lazy evaluation.
This contrasts with conventional approaches for doing lazy evaluation
which keep the programming style fixed but modify the underlying
interpreter.

More generally the technique can be viewed as a natural and efficient
method of combining functional and logic programming. The paper appeared
in 1985 IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, and a substantially expanded
version of it is to appear in the Journal of Logic Programming.

Sanjai Narain
Rand Corp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 May 86 07:46:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: amdcad!lll-crg!booter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog and Thank you
-BODY-

WOW! I didn't realize so many folks out there have played with prolog.

I received all sorts of replies, most very useful in explaining the
instantiation of variables to values (I hope I worded it properly). PASCAL
doesn't prepare you for it and I write LISP code by the grace of God(it just
works, I dunno why!).

A major problem I had was in the idea of reconsulting a file. I just kept
loading copies of files in there and of course would get the same error
message as it seemed to be reading the first one over and over.

I have passed that phase now and am endeavoring to master the idea of using
the "cut". You'd all be proud of me, I wrote a very simple version of the
computer that talks back (called "doctor" or "eliza").

I still like LISP better, but at least I am no longer swearing at the terminal.
Thank you all very much

E
*****

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 May 86 15:48:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "LOGIC::ROBBINS" <robbins%logic.decnet@hudson.dec.com>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "LOGIC::ROBBINS" <robbins%logic.decnet@hudson.dec.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX LISP is supported on both VMS and ULTRIX
-BODY-
VAX LISP V2.0 (DEC's current release of Common Lisp) is supported on
VMS and ULTRIX.  I hope that this clears up any confusion resulting from
two incorrect messages that appeared in this list recently concerning
VAX LISP.

Rich Robbins
Digital Equipment Corporation
77 Reed Rd. HL02-3/E09
Hudson, MA 01749

Arpanet: Robbins@Hudson.Dec.Com

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 22 May 86 08:39:30 gmt
-FROM-
From: Aaron Sloman <aarons%cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Sussex Cognitive Studies mail address
-BODY-
This is to confirm that the Sussex Cognitive Studies Netmail address has
finally(?) settled down to UK.AC.SUSSEX.CVAXA.
Arpanet users can try:

        aarons@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk        (UK uses the reverse of ARPA order)

or, if that doesn't work:
        aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@ucl-cs
or
        aarons%uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa@cs.ucl.uk.ac

or via UUCP: ...mcvax!ukc!cvaxa!aarons

Other users at this address include Chris Mellish (chrism),
Margaret Boden(maggieb), Ben du Boulay (bend), Jim Hunter (jimh),
Gerald Gazdar(geraldg), John Gibson (johng), David Hogg (daveh),
and the new POPLOG Project manager Alan Johnson (alanj).
Aaron Sloman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 13 May 86 18:37:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Doug Bryan <Bryan@SU-SIERRA.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: object-oriented programming books
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Brad Cox's book "Object-Oriented Programming: An Evolutionary Approach"
is now out.  The book is published by Addison Wesley.

doug

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 May 86 05:39:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Tedrick)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Doing AI backwards (from machine to man)
-BODY-
More on Barry Kort's "Problem of the right-hand tail"
(ie social persecution of those with high intelligence).

Here is the way I look at the problem.

In order to function in society, it is necessary for most individuals
to operate in a more or less routine manner, performing certain acts
in a repetitive manner.

I have been trying to work backwards from models of computation,
abstracting certain principles and results in order to obtain
models with a wider application, including social behavior.

This is somewhat the reverse direction from that taken by
those working in Artificial Intelligence, who study intelligent
behavior in order to find better ways for machines to function.
I am studying how machines function in order to find better
ways for humans to function.

Anyway, most people in society functioning more or less automatically,
they handle input in such a way that only information relevant to
their particular problems is assimilated. Input is interpreted
according to the pre-existing patterns in their minds. It is as
if it was formatted input in fortran, anything that doesn't
conform to certain patterns is interpreted nonsensically.

The people in the "right-hand tail", IQ distribution-wise,
are there primarily due to greater capacity for independent
thought, abstract thought, capacity to reason for themselves
(or so I claim).

Thus these individuals are more likely to have original ideas
which don't conform to the pre-existing patterns in the minds
of the more average individuals. The average individual will
become disturbed when presented with information which he
cannot fit into his particular format. And with good reason,
since his role is to function as an automaton, more or less,
he would be less efficient if he spent time processing information
unrelated to his tasks.

So by presenting original information to the average individuals
in society, the "rightie" is likely to be attacked for disturbing
the status quo.

To use the machine analogy, the "righties" are more like programmers,
who alter the existing software, where the "non-righties" are like
machines which execute the instructions they already have in storage.

The analogy can be pushed in various ways. We can think of each
individual as being both programmer and machine, the faculty of
independent judgement and the self being the programmer or system
analyst, while the brain is the computing agent to be programmed.
The individual is constantly debugging and rewriting the code for
his brain, by the choices he makes which become habits, and so on.
Also, in interactive protocols where various individuals exchange
information, each is tampering with the software of the other.
I currently have been working out a strategy for dealing with
those I live with who talk too much. It is like having a machine
which keeps spewing out garbage every time you give it some input.
My current strategy is to carry a little card saying "I am observing
silence. I will answer questions in writing." This seems to work
very well, it is as if this form of input goes through another
channel which does not stimulate so much garbage in response.
Or its like saying "the network is down today, so sorry."

One last tangent. Note that in studying models of computation
one of the primary costs is the cost of memory. We can turn
this observation to good use in studying human behavior. For
example, suppose your wife asks you to pick up some milk at
the store after work. This seems a reasonable enough request,
on the surface. But if you think of the cost in terms of memory,
suppose short term memory is extremely limited and you have to
keep the above request stored in short term memory all day.
In effect you are reducing your efficiency in all the tasks
you perform all day long, since you have less free space in
your short term memory. Thus we see again how women have a
brilliant gift for asking seemingly innocent favors which
are really enormously costly. The subtle nature of the problem
makes it difficult to pin down the real poison in their approach.

  [Anything held in short-term memory for five seconds automatically
  enters long-term memory as well.  If the man chooses to keep
  refreshing it in STM, perhaps due to poor LTM retrieval strategies,
  he needs to take a course in memory techniques -- it's hardly
  the woman's fault.  -- KIL]

You can use various strategies in order to deal with this problem.
One is to use some external form of storage (like writing it down
in a datebook), and having a daemon which periodically wakes up
and tells you to look in your external storage to see if anything
important is there. Of course this also has its costs.

By virtue of the relative newness of computer science, I think
there will be opportunities for applying the lessons we have
learned about machine behavior to other fields for some time to come.
(Since it is only recently that the need for rigorous treatment
of models of computation has induced us to really make some
progress in understanding these things.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
133
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No. 5
-BODY-
Summary of Spang Robinson Report, May 1986 Volume 2, 1986

__________________________________________________________________________
AI at Darpa, the U. S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research
Projects Agency

This year, DARPA will devote $60 million dollars to AI research.
26 million of this is for basic AI research not included in Strategic
computing, 22 million is for technology base research in Strategic
Computing and 25 million is for large prototype applications in
Strategic computing.  In 1985, 47.5 percent of the research
went to industry with 40.7 to universities with the remainder
going to government agencies and federal contract research institutes.

Oak Ridge National Labs is developing a system to assist in the
analysis of budgets.

List of DARPA projects in AI

Autonomous Land Vehicle project
  Integration - Martin Marietta
  Terrain Data Base - ETL
  Vision Based Navigation - University of Maryland
  ALV Route Planning Research - Hughes Laboratory
  Telepresence System - Vitalink
Navy battle Management
  Force Requirements Expert System - TI
  Spatial Data Management System - CCA
  Combat Action Team - Naval Ocean Systems Center, CMU
  Fleet Command Center Battle Management - NOSC
  Commander's Display Technology - MIT
Pilot's Associate (two teams)
  Team 1: Lockheed, General Electric, Goodyear Aerospace, Teknowledge,
  CMU, Search Technologies Defense Systems
  Team 2: McDonnel Aircraft, TI
AirLand Battle Management
  System Technology definition - MIT
  Soldier-Machine Interface - Lockheed
  Natural Language Training Aid - Cognitive Systems
  AI Planning System - Advanced Decison Systems
  Message Fusion - LOGICON
  Knowledge Engineering - BDM
  Butterfly Benchmarking - BRL/ Los Alamos Labs
Interpretation of Reconnaissance Images
  (SAIC, Advanced Decision Systems, TASC, MRJ, Mark Resources, Hughes
   Aircraft)
Multiprocessor System Architectures
  Tree Machines - Columbia University
  Software Workbench - CMU
  Programmable Systolic Array - CMU
  ADA Compiler Systems - FCS, Inc
  Synchronous Multiprocessor Architecture - Georgia Tech
  High Performance Multiprocessor - University of California at Berkeley
  VLSI design - University of Southern Carolina
  Common Lisp Framework - USC-ISI
  Data Flow Emulation Facility - MIT
  Massive Memory Machine - Princeton University
  Connection Machine - Thinking Machines
Natural Language
  (BBN, System Development Corporation, University of Massachussetts,
   University of Pennsylvania, USC-ISI, New York University, SRI)
Expert System Technology
  (BBN, General Electric, Intellicorp, University of Massachusetts,
   Tecknowledge, Ohio State University, Stanford University)
Speech Understanding
  "250 word speaker-independent system with a large vocabulary" was
  demonstrated in 1986
  Real Time Speech - BBN
  Continuous Speech Understanding - CMU
  Auditory Modelling - Fairchild
  Acoustic Phonetic-Based Speech - Fairchild
  Speech Data Base - TI
  Acoustic Phonetics - MIT
  Tools for Speech Analysis - MIT
  Speech Data Base - MIT
  Robust Speech Recognition - Lincoln Labs
  Speech Co-Articulation - NBS
  Speaker Independence - SRI
Computer Vision
  Optical Avoidance and Path Planning - Hughes Research Laboratory
  Parallel Algorithms - CMU
  Terrain Following - CMU
  Dynamic Image Interpretation - University of Massachusetts
  Target Motion and Tracking - USC
  Reasoning, Scene Analysis - Advanced Decision Systems
  Parallel Algorithms - MIT
  Spatial Representation Modelling- SRI
  Parallel Environments - University of Rochester
Also:
  Compact Lisp Machine - Texas Instruments
__________________________________________________________________________
Japan Watch

ICOT is developing a new personal use Prolog work station called
PSI-II which will be smaller and faster than the first version, PSI-I.
PSI-II is targeted to cost $55,500.  60 PSI units have already
been installed and the version 2.0 of the operating system has been
replaced.

Sega Enterprises will market in mid-April a Prolog-based personal
computer for CAI for children in elementary school.

Nippon Steel Corporation and Mitsubishi have been testing PROLOG
for process control software.

At the Information Processing Society of Japan's national convention,
30 percent of the papers were AI related.

Fujitsu has a scheduling system for computers which will be used
with a total of 140 CPU's and peripherals for software development
in Fujitsu's Numazu Works.

Mitsubishi Electric has announced an expert sytem for making estimates
of machinery products

NEC says it will use TMS or dependency-directed backtracking in its
PECE system and it will be used in diagnosis.

__________________________________________________________________________
Other:

Tecknowledge announced revenue of 4 million and income of $180 thousand
for third fiscal quarter.

Symbolics has released version 7.0 of its LISP software.

Kurzweill has raised seven million in its third round of venture capital.

IBM has announced an expert system environment for MVS which is similar
to their product running under VM.

Battelle is developing a natural language interface for databases
which is independent of domain and DBMS.  It runs on a Xerox LISP
machine and interfaces with a DBMS on a mainframe.  They also
have a package for PC's which links with a mainframe and is
available in French and German

Digitalk's Smalltalk environment, Methods, now can communicate with
remote UNIX computers.

A toolkit for design of voice or telephone application packages
which interfaces with TI-Speech technology, has been announced
by Denniston.

Intermetrics is beta testing its Common LISP 370 for IBM mainframes.
It includes interfaces with C and Fortran.

A District Court found that ArtellIgence's OPS5+ product was developed
by Computer Thought employees during their employment with
Computer Thought.  Compuater Thought has a Judgement and permanent injunction
against ArtellIgence.

MIT has started a project to explore the relationship
between symbolic and numeric computing, called Mixed Computing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 23 May 86 14:09:08-PDT
-FROM-
From: C.S./Math Library <LIBRARY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Math/CS Library--New Journal-International Journal of
-BODY-           Intelligent Systems

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


We have just received volume 1, number 1, spring 1986 of the International
Journal of Intelligent Systems.  Ronald R. Yager is the editor and it is
published by John Wiley and Sons. The editorial board include the following
people: Hans Berliner, Ronald Brachman, Richard Duda, Marvin Minsky, Judea
Pearl, Dimitri Poselov, Azriel Rosenfeld, Lotfi Zadeh, Jin Wen Zhang, and
Hans Zimmerman along with others.  The following articles are included
in the first issue:  Constructs And Phenomena Common To The Semantically-
Rich Domains by Beth Adelson; An Intelligent Computer Vision System by
Su-shing Chen; Hierarchical Representation Of Problem-Solving Knowledge
In A Frame-Based Process Planning System by Dana S. Nau and Tien-Chien
Chang; Toward General Theory of Reasoning With Uncertainty. 1. Nonspecificity
and Fuzziness by Ronald R. Yager; and Review of Heuristics-Intelligent
Strategies for Computer Problem Solving by Judea Pearl, Henri Farreny,
and Henri Prade.

Manuscripts should be submitted to the editor, Dr. Ronald R. Yager,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems, Machine Intelligence
Institute, Iona College, New Rochelle, New York 10801. The journal
will be published quarterly and will keep a balance between the
theoretical and applied, as well as provide a venue for experimental
work.

Harry LLull

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Apr 1986 18:51-EDT
-FROM-
From: VERACSD@USC-ISI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Benchmarking KBES-Tools
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


I have come across some recent benchmarks from NASA (U.S.
Gov't MEMORANDUM from the FM7/AI Section, April 3, 1986)
which compared various KBES tools' (ART, OP, KEE & CLIPS)
times for solving the MONKEY-AND-BANANA problem.  (This
toy problem is explained in detail along with OPS source
in Brownston et. al.'s "Programming Expert Systems in OPS5".)

Although the benchmarks include backward-chaining solutions
to the problem in both KEE and ART (along with forward
chaining counterparts), there is no PROLOG implementation
in the comparison.  I am very interested in a  PROLOG
comparison, and am in the process of implementing one.

Unfortunately, I am not (yet) a competent PROLOG programmer
and am currently learning my way around PROLOG on a DEC-20.
Consequently, any advice/suggestions re implementing this
benchmark and timing it effectively would be be useful &
appreciated.  (By the way, the time to beat is 1.2 secs. for a
forward-chaining implementation using ART on a 3640 with
4MB main-memory.)

I would be glad to share the results with anyone who offers
assistance. (Or for that matter with whomever is interested.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 May 1986 20:52 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dr. Alex Bykat  <BYKAT%UTCVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Abstracts of Technical Talks Published on AI-LIST
-BODY-

In AIList V4 #120   Peter R.Spool writes:

>Date: 9 May 86 10:24:22 EDT
>From: PRSPOOL@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
>Subject: Abstracts of Technical Talks Published on AI-LIST
>
>        None of us surely, can attend all of the talks announced via the
>AI-LIST.  The abstracts which appear have served as a useful pointer for
>me to current research in many different areas.  I trust this has been
>true for many of you as well. These abstracts could serve this secondary
>purpose even better, if those people who post these abstracts to the
>network, made an effort to include two addtional pieces of information
>in them:
>        1)  A Computer Network address of the speaker.
>        2)  One or more references to any recently published material
>            with the same, or similar content to the talk.
>I know that this information would help me enormously.  I assume the
>same is true of others.
>

Let me echo Peter's request. On a number of occasions I had to bother the
speakers' hosts requesting precisely that kind of information. While many
of the hosts respond graciously and promptly, no doubt they are busy
enough without fending off such requests.

                        A. Bykat
                        Center of Excellence - Computer Applications
                        University of Tennessee
                        Chattanooga, TN 37402
Acknowledge-To: Dr. Alex Bykat <BYKAT@UTCVM>

  [Unfortunately, the people who compose these seminar notices seldom
  read AIList.  Those of you who wish to influence the notice formats
  should contact the authors directly.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 26 May 86 14:57:24-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stuart Russell <RUSSELL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analogical and Inductive Reasoning (SU)
-BODY-
                    PhD Orals Announcement

              Analogical and Inductive Reasoning

                      Stuart J. Russell
                Department of Computer Science
                     Stanford University

                  Tuesday June 3rd  9.15 a.m.
                     Building 370 Room 370

I show the need for the application of domain knowledge in analogical
reasoning, and propose that this knowledge must take the form of a new
class of rule called a "determination". By giving determinations a
first-order definition, they can be used to make valid analogical
inferences; I have thus been able to implement determination-based
analogical reasoning as part of the MRS logic programming system.
In such a system, analogical reasoning can be more efficient than
rule-based reasoning for some tasks. Determinations appear to be a
common form of regularity in the world, and form a natural stage in
the acquisition of knowledge. My approach to the study of analogy
can be extended to the general problem of the use of knowledge in
induction, leading to the beginning of a domain-independent theory of
inductive reasoning. If time permits, I will also show how the concept
of determinations leads to a justification and quantitative analysis
of analogy by similarity.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 27 May 86 14:56:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Reasoning about Semiconductor Fabrication (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum

Title:          Modeling and Reasoning about Semiconductor Fabrication
Speakers:       John Mohammed and Michael Klein
From:           Schlumberger Palo Alto Research and Shiva Multisystems
Date:           Wednesday, May 28, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556

Abstract for John Mohammed's talk:

As part of a larger effort aimed at providing symbolic, computer-aided
tools for semiconductor fabrication experts, we have developed
qualitative models of the operations performed during semiconductor
manufacture.  By qualitativiely simulating a sequence of these models
we generate a description of how a wafer is affected by the operations.
This description encodes the entire history of processing for the
wafer and causally relates the attributes that describe the structures
on the wafer to the processing operations responsible for creating
those structures.  These causal relationships can be used to support
many reasoning tasks in the semiconductor fabrication domain,
including synthesis of new recipes, and diagnosis of failures in
operating fabrication lines.

Abstract for Michael Klein's talk:

Current integrated circuit (IC) process computer-aided design (CAD)
tools are most useful in verifying or tuning IC processes in the
vicinity of an acceptable solution.  However, these highly
compute-intensive tools are often used too early and too often in the
design cycle.

Cameo, an expert CAD system, assists IC process designers in
synthesizing photolithography step descriptions before using other CAD
tools.  Cameo has a modular knowledge base containing knowledge for all
levels of the synthesis process, including heuristic knowledge as well
as algorithms, formulas, graphs, and tables.  It supports the parallel
development of numerous design alternatives in an efficient manner and
links to existing CAD tools such as IC process simulators.

Visitors welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 May 86 17:52:01 pdt
-FROM-
From: Vaughan Pratt <pratt@su-navajo.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Levels of Knowledge in Distributed Computing (SU)
-BODY-
Speaker: Rohit Parikh
Date:    Thursday, June 5, 1986
Time:    9:30-10:45
Place:   MJ352
Title:   Levels of Knowledge in Distributed Computing
Abstract:
        It is well known that the notion of knowledge is a useful one for
        understanding distributed computing and in particular,
        synchronous and asynchronous communication can be distinguished
        by the possibility or impossibility of common knowledge being
        achieved. We show that knowledge of facts in distributed systems
        can be at various levels, these levels are partially ordered,
        and that a characterisation of these levels can be given which
        brings together knowledge, regular sets and well partial
        orderings (not the same as well founded partial orderings).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
134
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 May 86 14:34:04 PDT
-FROM-
From: SERAFINI%FAE@ames-io.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MIT research on symbolic/numeric processing
-BODY-
>>AIList Digest
-VOL-
4

-N-
133
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 11:32:00 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional programming and AI
-BODY-
   Date: 21 May 86 13:14:00 EST
   From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
   Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>

   Do working AI programs really exploit these features a lot?
   Eg, do "learning" programs construct unforeseen rules, perhaps
   based on generalization from examples, and then use the rules?
   Or is functional programming just a trick that happens to be
   easy to implement in an interpreted language?

I think this is a slightly odd characterization of `functional
programming.'  Maybe I'm confused, but I always thought a `functional
language' meant (in a nutshell) that there are no side effects.  In
contrast, the one important `side effect' you're talking about here is
constructing a function at runtime and squirreling it away in a
knowledge base, to be run later.  In theory you could do the
squirreling by passing around the whole state of the world and
non-destructively modifying that datastucture as you go, but that's
orthogonal to what you seem to be talking about (besides being
painful).

Whatever it's called -- this indistinguishability between code and
data -- it's true that it's a ``trick,'' but I think it's an important
one.  In fact as I think about it now, every AI program I've ever seen
_at_some_point_ passes functions around, sticks them in places like on
property lists as demons, and/or mashes together portions of bodies of
different functions and sticks the resulting lambda-expression
somewhere to run later (Well, maybe Mycin didn't (but Teiresias did)).

As far as learning programs that construct functions, it's all in the
eyes of the interpreter.  A rule that is going to be run by a rule
interpreter counts as a kind of function (it's just not necessarily in
LISP per se).  So, since Tom Mitchell's LEX (for example) builds and
modifies the bodies of heuristic rules which later get applied to the
integration problem, it falls in this category.  Tom Diettrich's EG
does something like this too.  I'm sure there are jillions of other
examples but I'm not that deep into machine learning.

And of course there's always AM (which by now should be familiar to
all readers of AiList) which (among other things) did random structure
modifications to LISP functions, then ran them to see what they did.
For example, it might start with the following definition of EQUAL:

(defun EQUAL (a b)
    (cond ((eq a b) t)
          ((and (consp a) (consp b))
           (and (EQUAL (car a) (car b))
                (EQUAL (cdr a) (cdr b))))
          (t
            nil)))

To generalize the function, it drops one of the conjunctions and
changes its name (including the recursive call):

(defun SOME-NEW-FUNCTION (a b)
    (cond ((eq a b) t)
          ((and (consp a) (consp b))
           (SOME-NEW-FUNCTION (cdr a) (cdr b)))
          (t
            nil)))

Lo and behold, SOME-NEW-FUNCTION is a new predicate meaning
something like "same length list."  So there's an existence
proof at least.

        Walter Hamscher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 May 86 17:42:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
      (michael maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
In article <3787@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
>Sequence functions and mapping functions are generally preferable to
>handwritten loops, since the Lisp wizards will probably have spent
>a lot of time making them both efficient and correct (watch out though;
>quality varies from implementation to implementation).

I'm in a little different boat, since we're using Franz rather than Common
Lisp, so perhaps the issues are a bit different when you're using Monster, I
mean Common, Lisp... so at the risk of rushing in where angels etc.:

A common situation we find ourselves in is the following.  We have a long list,
and we wish to apply some test to each member of the list.  However, at some
point in the list, if the test returns a certain value, there is no need to
look further: we can jump out of processing the list right there, and thus
save time.  Now you can jump out of a do loop with "(return <value>)", but you
can't jump out of a mapc (mapcar etc.) with "return."  So we wind up using
"do" a lot of places where it would otherwise be natural to use "mapcar".  I
suppose I could use "catch" and "throw", but that looks so much like "goto"
that I feel sinful if I use that solution...

Any style suggestions?
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 May 86 21:37:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtfmt
     !brian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (B.CASTLE)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neural Networks
-BODY-

        For those interested in some historical references on
neural network function, the following may be of interest :

Dynamics:

NUNEZ, P.L. (1981). ELECTRIC FIELDS OF THE BRAIN. The
        Neurophysics of EEG. Oxford University Press, NY.

        This book contains a pretty good overview of EEG,
        and also contains an interesting model of brain
        dynamics based on neural network connectivity.

Learning:

OJA, E. (1983). SUBSPACE METHODS OF PATTERN RECOGNITION.
        Research Studies Press, Ltd. Letchworth, Hertfordshire,
        England. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.)

        (For those with a PR background, and those having read
         and understood Kohonen).

KOHONEN, T.
        (1977) - ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY. A System-Theoretical
                Approach. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
        (1980) - CONTENT ADDRESSABLE MEMORIES. Springer-
                Verlag, Berlin.
        (1984) - SELF-ORGANIZATION AND ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY.
                Springer Series in Info. Sci. 8.
                Springer-Verlag, New York.

        These works provide a basic introduction to the
        nature of CAM systems (frame-based only), and
        the basic philosophy of self-organization in such
        systems.

SUTTON, R.S. and A.G. BARTO (1981). "Toward A Modern Theory
        of Adaptive Networks: Expectation and Prediction."
        Psychological Review 88(2):135.

        This article provides an overview of the 'tuning'
        of synaptic parameters in self-organizing systems,
        and a reasonable bibliography.

Classic:

MINSKY, M. and S. PAPERT (1968). PERCEPTRONS. An Introduction
        to Computational Geometry. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

        This book should be read by all neural network
        enthusiasts.


In a historical context, the Hopfield model is important insofar
as it uses Monte Carlo methods to generate the network behavior.
There are many other synchronous and asynchronous neural network
models in the literature on neuroscience, biophysics, and cognitive
psychology, as well as computer and electrical engineering. I have
amassed a list of over a hundred books and articles, which I will
be glad to distribute, if anyone is interested. However, keep in
mind that the connection machines and chips are still very far
from approaching neural networks in functional capability and
diversity.

                brian castle @ att (MT 2D-217 middletown, nj, 07748)
                (...!allegra!orion!brian)
                (...!allegra!mtfmt!brian)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 29 May 1986  01:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: "David D. Story" <FTD%MIT-OZ @ MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Need Ref for "Automated Mathematician" by Doug Lenat
-BODY-

                Discussion of "Automated Mathematician"

         His thesis was in "Knowledge Based Systems on Artful
        Dumbness"
        - McGraw-Hill - 1982 ISBN 0-07-015557-7.
        Wrong again...Oh well, try this one. The price is 20 odd
        bucks.

        Sorry. I called it Artful Dumbness cause it had to rediscover
        primes. In fact it is quite a study - Does anyone have
        source?

        Working Papers are not referenced in the thesis so the
        searcher is on his own. I'm sure they must exist someplace.
        Nice bibliography in the back of the Thesis.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 8 May 86 21:01:58 cdt
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew@seismo.CSS.GOV (Andy Glew)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 'Xerox' vs. 'xerox'?
-BODY-
>It's interesting to note that at one time, "frigidaire" (no caps) was
>considered to be a synonym for "refrigerator."  Frigidaire, the
>company, fought this in order not to lose trademark status.  How often
>does one hear this usage these days?
>
>Rich Alderson
>Alderson@Score.Stanford.EDU (=SU-SCORE.ARPA)

Do you speak French? Could common usage in another language lead to the loss
of trademark status?

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 10:55:41 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Doing AI backwards (from machine to man)
-BODY-
   Date: 18 May 86 05:39:39 GMT
   From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Tedrick)

   More on Barry Kort's "Problem of the right-hand tail"
   (ie social persecution of those with high intelligence).

My heart bleeds for those unfortunate people on the right-hand tail.
How about a Take a Genius to Lunch Week.  Maybe we could get some rock
stars to do a ``Brain Aid.''

I take it this problem is distinct from the ``problem of the left-hand
tail'' and the ``problem of the right-hand tail against the big hump
in the middle''.

   (* * *)

   Thus we see again how women have a
   brilliant gift for asking seemingly innocent favors which
   are really enormously costly. The subtle nature of the problem
   makes it difficult to pin down the real poison in their approach.

And it's a good thing you pointed this out.  We men better watch out
for those seemingly innocent favors, *especially* from women!  Hmm,
poison, you say...

Speaking of favors, please do us all a favor; keep your grim and
pathetic misogyny to yourself.  Or send your ravings to bandykin.

   (* * *)

   I am studying how machines function in order to find better
   ways for humans to function.

Why not study how machines live in order to find better ways for
humans to live.  Or how machines laugh in order to find better ways
for humans to laugh.  Or how machines get over their insecurities in
order to find better ways for humans to get over their insecurities.

   (* * *)

   (Since it is only recently that the need for rigorous treatment
   of models of computation has induced us to really make some
   progress in understanding these things.)

Yes, I'm sure there there's a `cybernetic' explanation for all of this.

        Walter Hamscher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 May 86 05:02:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Daniel R. Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "The Knowledge"
-BODY-
In article <5500032@uiucdcsb>, schraith@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>  It seems to me that if AI researchers wish to build a system which
>  has any versatility, it will have to be able to learn, probably
>  in a similar manner to the taxicab drivers.  Bierre states this problem:
>  "Organize a symbolic recording of an ongoing stream of fly-by
>  sensory data, on the fly, such that at any given time as much as
>  possible can be quickly remembered of the entire stream."
>  Surely computer professionals have better things to do, ultimately,
>  than spoonfeed all the knowledge to a computer it will ever need.

As nothing but an interested observer in this discussion (I am in no
wise an AI guru, so please forgive me if I bumble) your observation
indeed makes sense me, that an A.I. system could well do better by
"learning" than by having all its "smarts" hardcoded in beforehand.
But it also seems possible that once a computer system HAS been
"trained" in this way, it should be quite easy to mass produce as
many equally capable copies of that system as desired; just dump its
"memory" and reload it on other systems.

Any comments?  Does a "learning" system (or one that knows how to teach
itself) indeed hold more promise than distilling expert human knowledge
and hardcoding it in?  Perhaps I've answered my own question, that the
system that can "learn" is better able to adapt to new developments in
the area it is supposed to be "intelligent" in than one which is static.
Maybe the best of both worlds could apply (the distilled human knowledge
coded in as a solid base, but the system is free to expand on that base
as it "learns" more and more)?
>-
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
                                                vax135}!ttrdc!levy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
135
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 19:05:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!botter!klipper!fons@seismo (Fons Botman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 in PSL request
-BODY-
I am looking for an OPS5 implementation in PSL.
Please mail any pointers or source to: Kievit@Hlerul5.Bitnet

                                        For a friend
                                                Fons Botman
                                        fons@vu44.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 May 86 01:33:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: kaist!cskaist!mgchung@seismo ([Mingyo Chung])
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Search for scoring rules paper!
-BODY-

 To. everyone who can give me a help......

  I have broadcast this message for asking a favor.   "Interval (or Range)
 Extension of Reproducing-Scoring-Rule by Dempster and Shafer's Rule" is my
 Master thesis. Thus, I seek for papers on "scoring rules" and have found out
 a paper that seems to be related with "scoring rules".By the way, that paper
 is not found in Korea.That paper is as follows ::

  Lindley, D.V. (1982),"Scoring rules and the inevitability of probability",
  International Statistics Review,vol 50, 1-26

  Do you have this paper ?  Then, would you mind giving me a help ?
  Would you please send me a copy of it ?

  You can contact me through electronic mail
   [Path:mgchung%cskaist%kaist.csnet@CSNET-RELAY]
   [Address:
    Mingyo Chung
    Dept. of Computer Science  KAIST
    P.O Box 150
    CheongRyang
    Seoul Korea 131 ]

  I'll be waiting for a good response ....


                                        Sincerely Yours.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 86 20:03:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!mit-eddie!think!caip!seismo!mcvax!euroies!rreilly@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu  (Dr Ronan Reilly)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Formal definition of Lisp systems
-BODY-
Does anyone have references to a system which could be used to
formally define large Lisp program suites?  What I have in mind
is something akin to the dataflow system for procedural languages.

Thanks in advance,

Ronan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 86 09:27 N
-FROM-
From: DESMEDT%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp & lazy evaluation
-BODY-
In AIList Digest V4 #134, Mike Maxwell reluctantly prefers the efficiency
of a hand-coded "do" construction in Lisp, although mapping a function on
a list would be more elegant. Indeed, mapping sometimes causes many
unnecessary computations. Consider the following example:

(defun member (element list)
  (apply 'or (mapcar #'(lambda (list-element)
                         (eql element list-element))
                     list)))

One solution to prevent wasteful computation is a "lazy" evaluation mechanism,
which computes only as much as is needed by other computations. For example,
the mapping in the above example would be performed only up to the point where
"or" finds a non-nil value and doesn't want to evaluate any more arguments.

Anyway, I don't really want to lecture here, but I want to ask a question:
has anyone out there experimented with lazy evaluation in a Lisp system?
Are any working systems (or prototypes) available? Any good references to
the literature?

Koenraad de Smedt            desmedt@hnykun52.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 15:20:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!caip!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!shebs@ucbvax.berkeley
     .edu  (Stanley Shebs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
In article <545@bcsaic.UUCP> michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) writes:

>I'm in a little different boat, since we're using Franz rather than Common
>Lisp

I remember Franz (vaguely)... :-)

>A common situation we find ourselves in is the following.  We have a list,
>and we wish to apply some test to each member of the list.  However, at some
>point in the list, if the test returns a certain value, there is no need to
>look further: we can jump out of processing the list right there, and thus
>save time.

Common Lisp provides "some", "every", "notany", and "notevery" functions
which all do variations of what you're asking for.  They take a predicate
and one or more sequences as arguments, and apply the predicate to each
element in the sequence, and may stop in the middle.  The behavior is
sufficiently specified for you to use side effects in the predicate.
BTW, if these four functions weren't around, Common Lisp would be smaller.

>I suppose I could use "catch" and "throw", but that looks so much like "goto"
>that I feel sinful if I use that solution...

"Sinfulness" is a silly concept that quite a few folks in the computer
community have gotten into - a sort of aftereffect of structured programming.
The *real* reason for using higher-level constructs is efficiency, both
in programmer and execution time.

                                                        stan shebs
                                                        utah-cs!shebs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 31 May 1986  11:23 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp style
-BODY-

    A common situation we find ourselves in is the following.  We have a
    long list, and we wish to apply some test to each member of the list. ...
    Any style suggestions?

Well, if you were using "Monster, I mean Common, Lisp..." there would be
a built-in function to handle this case.  If I understand correctly what
you are asking for, the function is FIND-IF.  Our attempt to meet
various needs like this is why the language is big.  You can't have it
both ways.

In a Lisp without a built-in solution, the right answer is probably to
create your own FIND-IF macro and use it for this case.  It creates the
same DO-loop you would have to write, but is much less confusing for the
casual reader and less prone to errors once you get the macro right.

If you find yourself wrestling with a variety of such problems, there
are several iteration packages available that provide a somewhat
perspicuous syntax for the user and that create efficient DO loops of
various kinds.  Your Franz Lisp vendor can probably point you to a
version of the LOOP facility that will run on your system.  Something of
this sort will probably find its way into standard Common Lisp
eventually, but we are having a hard time deciding on a syntax that we
all can live with.

>- Scott

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1-Jun-86 14:52:27
-FROM-
From: Dan Cerys <Cerys%TILDE%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards
-BODY-

  Date: 15 May 86 17:42:18 GMT
  From: tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
         (michael maxwell)

  A common situation we find ourselves in is the following.  We have a
  long list, and we wish to apply some test to each member of the list. ...

It sounds like the function you want is MEMBER-IF.  This takes two
required arguments, a predicate and a list.  As soon as the predicate
succeeds on one of the elements of the list, the tail of the list is
returned, else NIL is returned.

There is nothing wrong with using DO or any of the mapping functions, as
long as you are using the "best" function for the task.  In the case
you've described, MEMBER-IF is perfect because it immediately conveys to
the reader (which may be yourself months after you've written it) what
is being tested for.  DOs and RETURNs can hide this meaning.  Another
useful variant of DO is DOLIST, which is similar (and prefered by many)
to MAPC.  Within our group, we prefer to use the mapping functions only
where they appear to be "natural" to the task (eg, list
transformations).  But granted, what is "best" and "natural" depends a
lot on your background and approach to Lisp.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 May 86 17:05:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!rpk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Krajewski)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
In article <> michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) writes:
>In article <3787@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
>>Sequence functions and mapping functions are generally preferable to
>>handwritten loops, since the Lisp wizards will probably have spent
>>a lot of time making them both efficient and correct (watch out though;
>>quality varies from implementation to implementation).

This is very true.  It will be interesting to see how Lisp compiler
technology meets the challenge...

>A common situation we find ourselves in is the following. ...

There are two Common Lispy ways doing this.  The first is the use the
function (SOME predicate sequence &rest more-sequences), which returns the
first non-NIL result of the application of the predicate to the each set of
elements of the sequences (like map).  Since this is a generic sequence
function that can take either vectors or lists, you'll probably want to
write something like

        (some #'(lambda (x)
                  (when (wonderful-p (sibling x)) (father x)))
              (the list a-list))

A good compiler would do two things here: it would first notice that the
only sequence is a list.  Thus, the ``stepping'' function for the sequence
type (CDR, and CAR for element selection) is known in advance.  And since
that is so, it can open code the loop, thus generating a DO-like thing that
you would have otherwise written by hand.

Another way is to use CATCH and THROW.  When the THROW is lexically visible
from the CATCH, very good code can be generated in certain cases.  As for
whether it's icky or not, at least CATCH establishes a lexical scope for
where the ``goto'' is valid, when the THROW is visible.

>-
Robert P. Krajewski
Internet/MIT: RPK@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
        UUCP: ...{cca,harvard,mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!rpk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jun 86 17:03:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!caip!topaz!harvard!bu-cs!bzs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Barry Shein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-

[re: Franz Lisp]

>Now you can jump out of a do loop with "(return <value>)", but you
>can't jump out of a mapc (mapcar etc.) with "return."  So we wind up using
>"do" a lot of places where it would otherwise be natural to use "mapcar".  I
>suppose I could use "catch" and "throw", but that looks so much like "goto"
>that I feel sinful if I use that solution...
>Mike Maxwell
>Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center

Howsabout:


(defun foo (x)
    (prog nil
          (mapc '(lambda (y)
                         (cond ((null y) (return 'DONE)) (t (print y))))

                x)))

try for example (foo '(a b nil c d))

        -Barry Shein, Boston University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jun 86 17:10:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hplabsc!dsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Smith)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-
> In article <3787@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
> >Sequence functions and mapping functions are generally preferable to
> >handwritten loops, ...
> I'm in a little different boat, since we're using Franz rather than Common
> Lisp, so perhaps the issues are a bit different ...
> Mike Maxwell

CMU incorporated functions of CMUlisp into Franz, and these are apparently
shipped with Franz:  at least, on my computer, they are in
/usr/src/ucb/lisp/lisplib/cmufncs.l.  One of these functions is the
function some.

        (some 'mylist 'func1 'func2)

returns the first tail of mylist for which func1 of its car returns a
non-nil value.  Otherwise nil is returned.  Successive tails of mylist
are obtained by repeated application of func2 (usually cdr, or nil,
which implies cdr).  A nice cover macro for this is "exists".
Example:
        (exists i '(2 5 3 8 4 1) (> i 6))
returns (8 4 1).

                        David Smith
                        HP Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
136
-DATE-
Date: 30 May 86 10:03:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "MATHER, MICHAEL" <mather@ari-hq1.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "MATHER, MICHAEL" <mather@ari-hq1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - DOD DECSION AIDING CONF, CALL FOR PAPERS ON MMI
-BODY-
         FOURTH ANNUAL WORKSHOP ON COMMAND AND CONTROL DECISION AIDING

                              NOVEMBER 4-6, 1986
                        US AIR FORCE MUSEUM AUDITORIUM
                             WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB
                                  DAYTON, OH


        As is stated in the name of the conference, the workshop will address
decision aiding in military command and control systems.  U.S. citizenship and
at least a Secret clearance are required for attendance.  Sessions will be
presented in the following areas:

        I.   Requirements
        II.  Technology
        III. Man-Machine Interface
        IV.  Test and Evaluation
        V.   Training Systems
        VI.  Applications

There will also be a Round Table discussion at the end of the conference.

        I am the Chair for the session on Man-Machine Interface.  Anyone
working on a Man-Machine Interface project related to command and control,
intelligence, decision aiding, etc. and interested in presenting a paper at
the conference is urged to contact me as soon as possible.  I must make a
decision on papers to be presented by 15 Aug 86.

                                CPT Mike Mather
                                US Army Research Institute
                                ATTN: PERI-SF
                                5001 Eisenhower Ave.
                                Alexandria, VA  22333-5600

                                Phone:  (202) 274-5477/5482
                                        (AVN) 284-5477/5482

                                DDN:  MATHER@ARI-HQ1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 28 May 86 15:47:12 MDT
-FROM-
From: keller@utah-cs.ARPA (Bob Keller)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - SLP '86 Program and Tutorial Abstracts
-BODY-
  [Note: this is not the same as the 3rd Int. Conf. on Logic Programming,
  London, July 14-18, that was announced in V4 #113.  -- KIL]

                                   SCHEDULE

                                    SLP '86

                            Third IEEE Symposium on

                               LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                             September 21-25, 1986
                               Westin Hotel Utah
                             Salt Lake City, Utah

                            Conference Chairperson
                      Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah

Program Chairperson                     Local Arrangements Chairperson
Robert M. Keller, University of Utah    Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

Tutorials Chairperson                   Exhibits Chairperson
George Luger, University of New Mexico  Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.


Program Committee

Francois Bancilhon, MCC                 William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
John Conery, University of Oregon       Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley               George Luger, University of New Mexico
Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich            Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
Seif Haridi, SICS, Stockholm            Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
Lynette Hirschman, SDC                  Mark Stickel, SRI International
Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego                 Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University


SUNDAY, September 21

19:00 - 22:00   Symposium and tutorial registration


MONDAY, September 22

08:00 - 09:00   Symposium and tutorial registration

09:00 - 17:30   TUTORIALS (concurrent) Please see attached abstracts.

        George Luger            Introduction to AI Programming in Prolog
        University of New Mexico

        David Scott Warren              Building Prolog Interpreters
        SUNY, Stony Brook

        Neil Ostlund            Theory of Parallelism, with Applications to
        Romas Aleliunas                         Logic Programming
        University of Waterloo


12:00 - 17:30   Exhibit set up time

18:00 - 22:00   Symposium registration

20:00 - 22:00   Reception


TUESDAY, September 23

08:00 - 12:30   Symposium registration

09:00           Exhibits open

09:00 - 09:30   Welcome and announcements

09:30 - 10:30   INVITED SPEAKER:                W. W. Bledsoe
                                        Some Thoughts on Proof Discovery


11:00 - 12:30   SESSION 1: Applications

The Logic of Tensed Statements in English -
an Application of Logic Programming
Peter Ohrstrom, University of Aalborg
Nils Klarlund, University of Aarhus

Incremental Flavor-Mixing of Meta-Interpreters for
Expert System Construction
Leon Sterling and Randall D. Beer
Case Western Reserve University

The Phoning Philosopher's Problem or
Logic Programming for Telecommunications Applications
J.L. Armstrong, N.A. Elshiewy, and R. Virding
Ericsson Telecom


14:00 - 15:30   SESSION 2: Secondary Storage

EDUCE - A Marriage of Convenience:
Prolog and a Relational DBMS
Jorge Bocca, ECRC, Munich

Paging Strategy for Prolog Based Dynamic Virtual Memory
Mark Ross, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
K. Ramamohanarao, University of Melbourne

A Logical Treatment of Secondary Storage
Anthony J. Kusalik, University of Saskatchewan
Ian T. Foster, Imperial College, London


16:00 - 17:30   SESSION 3: Compilation

Compiling Control
Maurice Bruynooghe, Danny De Schreye, Bruno Krekels
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Automatic Mode Inference for Prolog Programs
Saumya K. Debray, David S. Warren
SUNY at Stony Brook

IDEAL: an Ideal DEductive Applicative Language
Pier Giorgio Bosco, Elio Giovannetti
C.S.E.L.T., Torino

17:30 - 19:30   Reception

20:30 - 22:30   Panel (Wm. Kornfeld, moderator)
                Logic Programming for Systems Programming


WEDNESDAY, September 24

09:00 - 10:00   INVITED SPEAKER:                Sten Ake Tarnlund
                                        Logic Programming - A Logical View


10:30 - 12:00   SESSION 4: Theory

A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming
Dale Miller
University of Pennsylvania

Building-In Classical Equality into Prolog
P. Hoddinott, E.W. Elcock
The University of Western Ontario

Negation as Failure Using Tight Derivations for General Logic Programs
Allen Van Gelder
Stanford University


13:30 - 15:00   SESSION 5: Control

Characterisation of Terminating Logic Programs
Thomas Vasak, The University of New South Wales
John Potter, New South Wales Institute of Technology

An Execution Model for Committed-Choice
Non-Deterministic Languages
Jim Crammond
Heriot-Watt University

Timestamped Term Representation in Implementing Prolog
Heikki Mannila, Esko Ukkonen
University of Helsinki


15:30 - 22:00   Excursion


THURSDAY, September 25


09:00 - 10:30   SESSION 6: Unification

Refutation Methods for Horn Clauses with Equality
Based on E-Unification
Jean H. Gallier and Stan Raatz
University of Pennsylvania

An Algorithm for Unification in Equational Theories
Alberto Martelli, Gianfranco Rossi
Universita' di Torino

An Implementation of Narrowing: the RITE Way
Alan Josephson and Nachum Dershowitz
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


11:00 - 12:30   SESSION 7: Parallelism

Selecting the Backtrack Literal in the
AND Process of the AND/OR Process Model
Nam S. Woo and Kwang-Moo Choe
AT & T Bell Laboratories

Distributed Semi-Intelligent Backtracking for a
Stack-based AND-parallel Prolog
Peter Borgwardt, Tektronix Labs
Doris Rea, University of Minnesota

The Sync Model for Parallel Execution of Logic Programming
Pey-yun Peggy Li and Alain J. Martin
California Institute of Technology


14:00 - 15:30   SESSION 8: Performance

Redundancy in Function-Free Recursive Rules
Jeff Naughton
Stanford University

Performance Evaluation of a Storage Model for
OR-Parallel Execution
Andrzej Ciepelewski and Bogumil Hausman
Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS)

MALI: A Memory with a Real-Time Garbage Collector
for Implementing Logic Programming Languages
Yves Bekkers, Bernard Canet, Olivier Ridoux, Lucien Ungaro
IRISA/INRIA Rennes


16:00 - 17:30   SESSION 9: Warren Abstract Machine

A High Performance LOW RISC Machine
for Logic Programming
J.W. Mills
Arizona State University

Register Allocation in a Prolog Machine
Saumya K. Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook

Garbage Cut for Garbage Collection of Iterative Programs
Jonas Barklund and Hakan Millroth
Uppsala University


EXHIBITS:

An exhibit area including displays by publishers, equipment manufacturers,  and
software houses will accompany the Symposium.  The list of exhibitors includes:
Arity,  Addison-Wesley,   Elsevier,   Expert   Systems,   Logicware,   Overbeek
Enterprises, Prolog  Systems, Quintus,  and Symbolics.   For more  information,
please contact:

                Dr. Ross A. Overbeek
                Mathematics and Computer Science Division
                Argonne National Laboratory
                9700 South Cass Ave.
                Argonne, IL 60439
                312/972-7856


ACCOMODATIONS:

The Westin Hotel Utah is a gracious turn of the century hotel with Mobil 4-Star
and AAA 5-Star ratings.  The Temple Square Hotel, located one city block  away,
offers basic comforts for budget-conscious attendees.


MEALS AND SOCIAL EVENTS:

Symposium registrants  (excluding students  and retired  members) will  receive
tickets for lunches on September 23, 24, and 25, receptions on September 22 and
23, and  an  excursion the  afternoon  of  September 24.   The  excursion  will
comprise a steam train trip through scenic Provo Canyon, and a barbeque at Deer
Valley Resort, Park City, Utah.

Tutorial registrants will receive lunch tickets for September 22.


TRAVEL:

The Official Carrier for  SLP '86 is United  Airlines, and the Official  Travel
Agent is Morris Travel  (361 West Lawndale Drive,  Salt Lake City, Utah  84115,
phone 1-800-621-3535).  Special  airfares are available  to SLP '86  attendees.
Contact Morris Travel for details.

A courtesy limousine is available from Salt Lake International Airport to  both
symposium hotels, running every half hour from 6:30 to 23:00.  The taxi fare is
approximately $10.

CLIMATE:

Salt Lake City generally has warm  weather in September, although evenings  may
be cool.  Some rain is normal this time of year.


SLP '86 Symposium and Tutorial Registration:

Advance symposium and  tutorial registration  is available  until September  1,
1986.  No refunds will be made after that date. Send a check or money order (no
currency  will  be  accepted)  payable  to  "Third  IEEE  Symposium  on   Logic
Programming" to:

        Third IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming
        IEEE Computer Society
        1730 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
        Washington, D.C. 20036-1903


Symposium Registration:         Advance On-Site

IEEE Computer Society members   $185    $215
Non-members                     $230    $270
Full-time student members       $ 50    $ 50
Full-time student non-members   $ 65    $ 65
Retired members                 $ 50    $ 50

Tutorial Registration: ("Luger", "Warren", or "Ostlund")

                                Advance On-Site

IEEE Computer Society members   $140    $170
Non-members                     $175    $215

SLP '86 Hotel Reservation:

        Mail or Call:   phone 801-531-1000, telex 389434

                                Westin Hotel Utah
                                Main and South Temple Streets
                                Salt Lake City, UT 84111

A deposit of one night's room or credit card guarantee is required for arrivals
after 6pm.

Room Rates (circle your choice):
                Westin Hotel Utah       Temple Square Hotel

single room             $60             $30
double room             $70             $36

Reservations must be made  mentioning SLP '86 by  August 31, 1986 to  guarantee
these special rates.

_______________________________________________________________________________


                          SLP '86 TUTORIAL ABSTRACTS



              IMPLEMENTATION OF PROLOG INTERPRETERS AND COMPILERS

                              DAVID SCOTT WARREN

                              SUNY AT STONY BROOK

Prolog is by far the most used of various logic programming languages that have
been proposed.   The  reason  for  this is  the  existence  of  very  efficient
implementations.  This  tutorial will  show in  detail how  this efficiency  is
achieved.

The first half of  this tutorial will concentrate  on Prolog compilation.   The
approach is  first to  define a  Prolog  Virtual Machine  (PVM), which  can  be
implemented in software, microcode, hardware, or by translation to the language
of an existing machine.  We will describe  in detail the PVM defined by  D.H.D.
Warren (SRI  Technical  Note 309)  and  discuss how  its  data objects  can  be
represented efficiently.  We will  also cover issues  of compilation of  Prolog
source programs into efficient PVM programs.



                      ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROLOG:
                        AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORETICAL
                       ISSUES IN AI WITH PROLOG EXAMPLES

                                GEORGE F. LUGER

                           UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

This  tutorial  is  intended  to  introduce  the  important  concepts  of  both
Artificial Intelligence and  Logic Programming.  To  accomplish this task,  the
theoretical issues involved in AI problem solving are presented and  discussed.
These issues are exemplified with programs written in Prolog that implement the
core ideas.   Finally,  the  design  of  a  Prolog  interpreter  as  Resolution
Refutation system is presented.

The main  ideas from  AI problem  solving  that are  presented include:  1)  An
introduction of AI  as representation and  search.  2) An  introduction of  the
Predicate  Calculus  as  the  main  representation  formalism  for   Artificial
Intelligence.   3)  Simple  examples  of  Predicate  Calculus  representations,
including a  relational  data  base.   4) Unification  and  its  role  both  in
Predicate Calculus  and  Prolog.   5)  Recursion,  the  control  mechanism  for
searching trees  and graphs,  6) The  design of  search strategies,  especially
depth first, breadth first and best first or "heuristic" techniques, and 7) The
Production System and its use both for organizing search in a Prolog data base,
as well as the basic data structure for "rule based" Expert Systems.

The above  topics are  presented with  simple Prolog  program  implementations,
including a Production  System code for  demonstrating search strategies.   The
final topic presented is an analysis of the Prolog interpreter and an  analysis
of this approach to the more general issue of logic programming.  Resolution is
considered as an  inference strategy  and its use  in a  refutation system  for
"answer extraction" is presented.  More  general issues in AI problem  solving,
such as the relation of "logic" to "functional" programming are also discussed.



                       PARALLELISM IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                                 NEIL OSTLUND
                                ROMAS ALELIUNAS
                            UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

The fields  of parallel  processing and  logic programming  have  independently
attracted great interest among computing  professionals recently, and there  is
currently considerable activity at the interface, i.e. in applying the concepts
of parallel  computing to  logic  programming and,  more specifically  yet,  to
Prolog.  The application of  parallelism to Logic  Programming takes two  basic
but related directions.  The first involves leaving the semantics of sequential
programming, say ordinary Prolog, as intact as possible, and uses  parallelism,
hidden from the programmer, to improve execution speed.  This has traditionally
been a difficult problem  requiring very intelligent compilers.   It may be  an
easier problem with  logic programming  since parallelism  is not  artificially
made sequential, as with many  applications expressed in procedural  languages.
The second direction  involves adding  new parallel  programming primitives  to
Logic Programming to allow the programmer to explicitly express the parallelism
in an  application.

This tutorial will  assume a  basic knowledge  of Logic  Programming, but  will
describe current research in parallel  computer architectures, and will  survey
many of the new parallel machines, including shared-memory architectures  (RP3,
for example)  and  non-shared-memory  architectures  (hypercube  machines,  for
example).  The tutorial will  then describe many of  the current proposals  for
parallelism in Logic Programming, including those that allow the programmer  to
express  the  parallelism  and  those  that  hide  the  parallelism  from   the
programmer.  Included  will be  such proposals  as Concurrent  Prolog,  Parlog,
Guarded Horn  Clauses (GHC),  and Delta-Prolog.   An attempt  will be  made  to
partially  evaluate  many   of  these  proposals   for  parallelism  in   Logic
Programming, both from a  pragmatic architectural viewpoint as  well as from  a
semantic viewpoint.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
137
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 May 86 11:43:43-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems Strategies
-BODY-
At a recent AI conference, copies of the April 86 issue of the monthly
newsletter "Expert Systems Strategies" were being distributed.
Almost 14 of the 16 pages dealt with defining "mid-sized tools" and
comparing three of them -- M.1, NExpert and Personal Consultant.  The
overall comparison was informative and I think would provide valuable
information to potential buyers of these or any expert system tools.
However, there were a number of shortcomings that made me wonder
whether the newletter came close to justifying its $20+ price per
issue ($247 per year).

First, the comparison was at best on a par with those found in PC
World, Byte, MacUser, etc.  But those magazines give you 75-200 pages
of information for $3-4.  Of course, they have 75-200 pages of
advertising to help keep their prices down.  But the ads are useful
too, and the absence of advertising in "ES Strategies" has not bought
it any apparent degree of independence.  The authors of the comparison
(Brian Sawyer and Paul Harmon) seem to be very careful not to step
very hard on anyone's toes.  They point out shortcomings, but in an
overly nice fashion.  They end up recommending all three products to
various markets.  (I would be hard-pressed to recommend one, perhaps
two, of them to anyone.)

Another complaint with "ES Strategies" is the number of errors.  The
worst of these concerns a small knowledge base, called Beta, that was
used to test the features of the various systems.  Beta is fully
defined, and for each system, a partial representation is shown.  Each
representation has at least two, and as many as four, errors.  Most
errors simply give variables the wrong values, while some misname
variables or actually misrepresent the knowledge.  They also do some
confusing representation.  E.g., there are two variables, alpha and
beta-1, which can take on the values HIGH and LOW.  In one tool, they
introduce a variable alpha ranging over HIGH and LOW, and a Boolean
beta-1-high.  Finally, there is some evidence that the authors did not
even test the products hands-on, especially NExpert and Personal
Consultant.  The figures in the review that show the representations
are not actual screens or direct printouts from the systems.
Moreover, the two figures that clearly are copies of actual screens
come from the vendor literature and reviews in other magazines, rather
than from their own extended examples with Beta.  In addition, there
is no hard performance or benchmark data.

Of course, there were two pages of "ES Strategies" besides the
mid-sized tool discussion.  These were devoted to news items and a
calendar of ES events.  It was rather standard fare, readily available
in InfoWorld, Datamation, etc. in the same timeframe.  The news was
grouped together in one place, but was by no means exhaustive in its
coverage.

In summary, based on this issue, I might spend $10-20 for a year's
subsription, but certainly not for a single issue.  Like many of the
AI tools themselves, it seems overpriced by at least an order of
magnitude.  However, in case you're interested in finding out for
yourself, "Expert Systems Stragtegies" is published by

      Cutter Information Corp.
      1100 Massachusetts Avenue
      Arlington, MA  02174-9990
      Phone:  (617) 648-8700
      Telex:  650 100 9891 MCI UW


Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu
{ihnp4 | seismo | ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!dallas

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 May 86 18:06:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihlpg!portegys@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Portegys)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Insect rituals
-BODY-

Observing the amazing behavior of a wasp constructing its
nest, I was brought to wonder at the procedures which bring
about this performance.   It occurred to me that
if complete algorithms were to be constructed for the
complexity of the wasp's environment, such as lighting,
nest location, and material, that the algorithms
would also have to be incredibly complex.

If, however, rituals were used - small pieces of invariant
stimulus-response behavior which serve to signify the state of the
world, then I would guess that a simple set of algorithms may be
made to operate in a complex environment.

I remember not too long ago hearing that someone had indeed found
something like this to be true for a certain insect - that if
it was disrupted in its nest building at some point, then it would
go back to the beginning and start over.

This also reminds me of Simon's Ant, which looks like it is
employing a very complicated procedure to cross a pebble covered
beach, but most of the complexity is in the environmet, not the
ant.

A ritual would be a highly structured stream of stimulus-response
pairs.  It must have an initiating stimulus(i).  If in the course
of performing the ritual, an incomplete condition is observed,
for example, a circular nest area is not complete, then it would
trigger another behavior to rectify the situation, for example,
go get more nesting material.

In addition to nest building behavior, homing
abilities could be explained by specific pattern matching
schemes.  For example, in order to find its nest, a bee
may rely on a specific pattern of ground figures (which
may be transformed internally to account for the position
of the sun).  Upon not finding the specific pattern, it
would commenced a seek behavior (perhaps a spiral search)
until the pattern matches.

The often elaborate courting and signaling rituals of insects also
tends to support the requirement that a specific sequence
of stimulus-response's is at work.

I also think that in simpler life forms, the senses of
smell and hearing are overlooked in importance by the vision
dominated creatures that we are.  With smell and hearing ,
a simple set of mechanisms can be utilized to provide effective seeking
performance for food, home, mates, etc, since the organism
simply moves in the direction of the stronger odor or
sound.


                Tom Portegys, ..ihnp4!ihlpg!portegys
                AT&T Bell Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 01:51:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: cad!nike!ll-xn!mit-amt!bc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William H Coderre)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References from my thesis
-BODY-
A while back I sent a note asking for references in regard
to animal behavior simulation using rule systems.

Well, my thesis is done, and here's the references I got.
(I know that some of them are not very complete. If I had
more info, I woulda put it in...)

If anyone desperately needs any of the below, or wants a copy of
my thesis, feel free to drop me a note. I'll try to help out....bc
________

Agre, Phil, Routines, MIT AI Laboratory Memo 828, May 1985.

Alkon, Daniel L., Learning in a Marine Snail, Scientific American,
June 1983, pp 70 P 84.

Amari, Tom, and Druin, Allison, The Role of Graphics in Expert Systems,
MIT Visible Language Workshop Memo {available through author of
paper}, May 1986.

Batali, John, Computation Introspection, MIT AI Lab Memo number 701,
February 1983.

Braitenberg, Valentino, Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic
Psychology, MIT Press, 1984.

Camhi, Jeffrey M., The Escape System of the Cockroach, Scientfic
American, December 1982, pp 158 - 172.

Davis, James R., Pesce, computer program modelling fish behavior,
September, 1983.

Davis, Randall, Meta-Rules: Reasoning about Control, MIT AI Lab Memo
number 576, March 1980.

Greilich, Horst, Vehicles, software package for Apple Macintosh, MIT
Press, 1986.

Hofstadter, Douglas R., The Copycat Project: An Experiment in
Nondeterminism and Creative Analogies, MIT AI Lab Memo number
755, January 1984.

Jacobs, Walter, How a Bug's Mind Works {paper in unidentified book;
author has listed affiliation with American University, Washington
DC}.

Kay, Alan C., Trial Vivarium Curriculum, Trial User Interface, Trial
Vivarium Graphics and Animation, Trial Vivarium Moist Models,
1985 {four papers on aspects of the Vivarium project, available by
contacting author}.

Kay, Alan C., Computer Software, chapter of Computer Software,
Scientific American, 1984.

Kehler, Thomas P., and Clemenson, Gregory D., KEE, The Knowledge
Engineering Environment for Industry, Intelligenetics, Inc., 1983
{paper available from Intelligenetics, 124 University Ave, Palo Alto,
CA}.

Lenat, Douglas B., Beings: Knowledge as interacting experts, Procedings
of the Fourth IJCAI, pp 126 - 133, 1975.

Lenat, Douglas B., and Harris, Gregory, Designing a Rule System that
Searches for Scientific Discoveries, CMU Department of Computer
Science.

Lenat, Douglas B., and Brown, John Seeley, Why AM and EURISKO
Appear to Work, Artificial Intelligence, 1984, pp 269 P 294.

Lorenz, Konrad, King Solomon's Ring, Thomas Y. Crowell Company,
1952.

MacLaren, Lee S., A production system architecture based on biological
examples, PhD thesis, U. Washtington Seattle, 1978 {available as
University Microfilms order number 79-17604}.

Minsky, Marvin, The Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster, 1986 or
1987 {this author greatly thanks Professor Minsky for a
pre-publication copy of his forthcoming book}.

Robot Odyssey I, The Learning Company {computer game widely
available}.

Stefik, Mark, et al., Knowledge Programming in Loops: Report on an
Experimental Course, AI Magazine, Fall 1983.

Various Authors, The Brain, Scientific American, 1979.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 May 86 07:04:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: cad!nike!think!bruce@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce J. Nemnich)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Help on Thinking Mach. Inc.
-BODY-
Hi.  Yes, Thinking Machines is indeed on the net, though we don't have
many people here who read news.  Let me try to address your questions.
I'm adding net.ai to the distribution since they are probably
interested in the Connection Machine System, too.

>   * How is the CM programmed?
>       ...
>     The Connection Machine Lisp manual is, evidently, unavailable to those
>     of us who do not have a million dollars to by a CM.

The CMLisp manual isn't available becuase the language is still in the
design and implementation phases; i.e., it's not stable enough yet to
give out manuals.  It certainly has nothing to do with money.  It will
be a lot like the language in Danny Hillis's book (which was written
before we had working hardware).  I hear there will be a paper on it
by Danny and Guy Steele at an upcoming Lisp conference; sorry I don't
know the details.

Many people have many different ideas about how to program the CM, and
there has already been quite an evolution of lisp-based languages here
in the last couple of years.  The language we are distributing with
the first machines is *Lisp ("star-lisp"), which consists of a large
collection of functions and macros for defining and manipulating
parallel datatypes which live in the CM from lisp.

There is also a language being implemented called C* ("C-star"), which
is an extention to C which handles CM datatypes and control flow.  The
extensions, which have the syntatic flavor of C++, provide
sophisticated ways of defining layouts of data on the CM, provide
control flow, etc.

There's no one answer to "How does one program the CM?", but most
applications to which the CM (or any fine-grained SIMD architecture)
is particularly well-suited have some kind of inherent data-level
parallelism; i.e., similar computations on a large number of data
points.  Typically each datum is assigned a processing element.

Given that, there are two common classes of problems: graph problems
and grid problems.  For example, the CM's "connections" give the
ability for one datum to point to other(s), so arbitrary data graphs
can be constructed.  Such a graph could be searched for a given datum
in constant time: every processor just compares its value to the
desired value (regular SIMD, no use of pointers).  Distance on the
graph between two data can be found in time proportional to the
distance by chasing pointers (fanning out) in parallel from one until
one of the paths reaches the other.  Simple logic simulation can be
done by setting up such a graph with the outputs of one element
pointing to an input of another.  Each element would compute output
values based on its inputs and pass them along to the next level.

The grid problems are those which also rely on communication between
elements but don't require general pointers; they only require local
communication on a cube or grid.  The Connection Machine has
facilities for local communication on the cube or grid which are
faster than the more general pointer-like mechanism.

>     Imagine a message is traveling through the CM and it encounters a hot
>     spot.  The message is rerouted.  Just after it is rerouted, the
>     congestion clears and the next message to that destination goes
>     through the direct binary n-cube path.  The two messages may now be
>     out of order, since the second message could arrive before the first.

Messages are addressed to a given processor and memory address within
the processor.  Usually an operation is something like "everyone who
is currently selected send the N bits in your memory beginning at S to
the processor whose address is stored in your memory at M, and put
them in his memory at D."  If there are collisions in destinations
(two or more are both trying to send to the same processor/address),
they are combined in some way (current choices are: IOR, AND, XOR,
ADD, MIN, MAX, OVERWRITE (overwrite means just one is delivered)).
There is no order to messages within a delivery cycle.  One could sum
a field over all the processors by having everyone send the field to
processor 0 and specifying to combine collisions by adding them
together (there are more efficient ways of doing this, though).

>   * How does the CM handle processor failure?
>     How are messages rerouted to avoid the failed PE?

You're right, fault tolerance is very important.  We have though about
it, though there's a lot we want to implement which isn't yet in the
hardware.  The current hardware/software basically assumes things are
working.  Reasonably quick diagnostics can be run to verify with high
confidence that nothing's broken.  Almost all failures are on CM
matrix boards, of which there are 128 identical copies in a 64k-proc
CM.  They're easy to swap.

But since we think a 64k CM is small, serious fault-tolerance is
necessary.  The "router" is the general message-routing mechanism, one
for every 16 processors, currently arranged in a hypercube.  There is
currently hardware support for turning off paths (a cube edge) between
routers.  If a wire between two routers was broken, that path could be
turned off in software.  If a whole router was broken (or perhaps the
processors which belong to it), all paths to it could be turned off.
If a message would normally go over that path, it would instead go
another direction (preferably, but not necessarily, another direction
the message wanted to go).

However, fault tolerance on the local grid and cube communication is
more of a problem, since applications using them typically rely on the
regular topology.  A glitch in a 2-d grid, for instance, could be
ignored by effectively bridging out that row and column of the grid.
We don't have any support for that, though.

>   Thinking Machines has been, at least with me, very secretive about the
>   CM.
>   Once a machine is released for sale, information must be released to
>   sell it.

Absolutely.  On behalf of whomever you talked to, sorry.  We don't
mean to be secretive.  We have just been through the period of getting
ready trying to announce the machine, scrambling to gather/write the
kind of information you want, and trying to put in place mechanisms to
distribute it.  We WANT people to know and think lots about Connection
Machines.  Hope I've been of help.

Just in case I'm supposed to say this, "Connection Machine" is a
registered trademark of Thinking Machines Corporation. :-)

>-
>-Bruce Nemnich, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA
>-bruce@think.com, ihnp4!think!bruce; +1 617 876 1111

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
138
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 86 10:36:40 -0400
-FROM-
From: ritter@dewey.udel.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp for Silicon Graphics machines
-BODY-
Our research group (in Chemical Engineering) at the University
of Delaware has just purchased a
Silicon Graphics 3030 workstation, a new version of the 2400 turbo.
We are intersested in obtaining a version of LISP to use with the machine.
Does anyone know what version/company is the best to use?
We plan to build an expert system to predict phase behavior and
are using the Silicon Graphics to display the desired graphics output.
So far, the only company we know of if FranzInc. in CA. which sells
a version of franzlisp.
(We are a little inclined towards a version of Common, since it is
  somewhat more universal.)
Any comments or suggestions would be welcomed.

Thank you,

Joe Ritter
ritter@dewey.udel.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 86 02:59:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!caip!seismo!kaist!cskaist!dhkim2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Doohyun Kim)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conditional independence in possibility
-BODY-
Hi!
I'm DOOHYUN KIM at KAIST(Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology).
It is first time for me to broadcast on these news group.

I'm now search some papers about "Conditional independence of possibility"
These papers are very important in my Master Thesis.
Is there anyone who has following papers ?
Do you have any ideas about how to get these papers?

[1] E. Hisdal, "Conditional possibilities - Independence and
    non-interactivity," Fuzzy Sets Systems., vol. 1, pp 283-297, 1978.
[2] E. Hisdal, "A fuzzy 'if then else' relation with guaranteed
    correct inference," in Applied System and Cybernetics, G.E. Lasker,
    Ed. New York: Pegamon, pp. 2906-2911; also in Fuzzy set and possibility
    theory: recent developments, R. R. Yager, Ed. New York: Pegamon, 1982,
    pp 204-210.
[3] H. T. Nguyen, "On conditional possibility distributions,"
    Fuzzy Sets Systems, Vol 1, pp 299-309, 1978.


Please send a copy to me, if you have.

 electlic mail path :  dhkim2%cskaist%kaist.csnet@CSNET-REPLY
 mail address       :  DOOHYUN KIM
                       Dept. of Computer Science,
                       P.O. BOX 150, CHEONGRYANG,
                       SEOUL, KOREA 150

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jun 86 12:07:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Charlie Koo <KOO@su-sushi.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: curve fitting
-BODY-
I'm interested in getting some information about available software (for IBM
PC) for doing curve fitting.  More specifically, given the digitized image
of a circle or part of a circle (2-D), how could we decide:
   . whether it is a circle
   . what the center and radius of the circle should be?
Thanks.

Charlie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 86 10:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen G. Rowley <SGR@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp & Lazy Evaluation in AIList Digest   V4 #135
-BODY-
    Date: Mon, 2 Jun 86 09:27 N
    From: DESMEDT%HNYKUN52.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

    In AIList Digest V4 #134, Mike Maxwell reluctantly prefers the efficiency
    of a hand-coded "do" construction in Lisp, although mapping a function on
    a list would be more elegant. Indeed, mapping sometimes causes many
    unnecessary computations. Consider the following example:

    (defun member (element list)
      (apply 'or (mapcar #'(lambda (list-element)
                             (eql element list-element))
                         list)))

I can't help but point out that, if you're using Common Lisp, this
function is strange on several accounts:

[1] It shadows MEMBER, which can't be a good idea.
[2] It tries to return the first thing in the list eql to element,
    whereas the real MEMBER returns a tail of the list or NIL.
[3] It attempts to apply OR, which is a special form and hence cannot be
    applied.  In this case, you'd use SOME instead.

Obviously, though, I'm just quibbling with your example.  Let's move on:

Your statements about the general wastefulness of mapping functions are
true, if you restrict yourself to MAPCAR and friends.  However, if you
write your own mapping functions, they can be quite elegant.

Here's an example.  I was writing a discrimination net for a pattern
database.  Given a pattern, it would search a database for things that
might unify with it, and do something to all of them.  (See, for
example, Charniak, Riesbeck, & McDermott's "Artificial Intelligence
Programming", chapters 11 & 14.)  For example, a program might want to
print everything that unified with the pattern (foo a ?x), where ?x is a
variable.

The first implementation cried out for lazy evaluation; I didn't want to
compute a list of all the patterns because of consing effects.  The
top-level search function returned a stream object (simulation of
laziness) which could be prodded to produce the next answer:

        (loop with stream = (search-for-pattern '(foo a ?x))
              for next = (next-element stream)
              while next
              doing (print next))

The second implementation got smarter and made the callers of the search
function package up their intentions in a closure.  The search function
would then apply that closure to patterns that it found.  The result is
something very mapping-like:

        (search-for-pattern '(foo a ?x) #'print)

The second implementation also turned out to be faster and consed less,
although it did use up some more stack space than the first.

Moral: Appropriate use of function closures can often (although not
always) satisfy your needs for lazy evaluation.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 31 May 86 15:38:33 bst
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inside Out.
-BODY-
This posting  is a tangential response to Pat Hayes' posting
in AIList Vol 4 # 125. It is obvious to every child that two
things  cannot exist in the same place at once.  But a child
does not know what is the other side of the cradle.  A child
(and therefore the adult) can never fully expand its spatial
reasoning beyond what the eye can see. Hence, we enter a new
realm; fantasy. For example:-
It is even possible to believe that if I walk into this room,
I will leave reality and enter into a fantasy, eg a film, OR
I wake up one morning and am afraid to open the door in case
I do not recognise the landscape outside.
We carry childhood stories and myths with us to the grave; we
remember the lessons we learnt not only in books and from our
schooling, but also the fairy stories, eg  "Alice Through the
Looking Glass" and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe".
This is more about the distinction between fantasy and reality
than to do with spatial intuition.  In the Mind's I, there is
a discussion on whether or not a simulation inside a computer
of a hurricane is any different from the machine's perception
of the real event. To me there would be a world of difference!
In  "The Teachings of Don Juan:  A Yaqui Way of Knowledge" by
Carlos Castaneda,  the author describes, at some point in the
book, his transformation into a bird. His forward begins with
the sentence - "This book is both ethnography and allegory."
But my reading is that he wants you to *believe* his story.

"Choose your own paradigm of reality." -- The Joka.

Gordon Joly

ARPA: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 31 May 86 15:59:20 bst
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inside Out - Postscript.
-BODY-
The best model we have for the universe is Einstein's theory
of general relativity, which models the cosmos as a 4 dimen-
sional pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. The geometry of such a
model is far from intuitive.

Gordon Joly

ARPA: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jun 86 10:24:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inside Out
-BODY-
Some thoughts on Pat Hayes' question:

My own intuition is that either  1) the Tardis is simply bigger
inside, as you suggest, or  2) the doorway is a portal to another
dimension or reality that could contain anything at all.  One way
to test the intuition is to ask "What would happen if I cut a
hole through the wall?"  The answer would not completely distinguish
the two cases, since it is quite possible that the entire wall
(inside and out) is a portal that maps between two realities;
cutting a hole would create a new door with exactly the same properties
as the original, which would tell us nothing.  My own guess, though,
is that cutting a hole from outside the Tardis would reveal some
kind of "machinery" or peculiar spatial structure (such as a gel,
crystal, or other "matrix"), while cutting a hole from the inside
would let you out into Gallifrey, Dr. Who's natural environment.

Such portals have been frequent in science fiction, and the exact
properties that we infer for each depends on the author's presentation.
Some conceptions do lead to greater difficulties than others.  In
Robots Have No Tails, Louis Padgett (pseudonym) wrote about a box that
was larger inside [partly] because it mapped into the future and the
universe was shrinking.  This lead to difficulties at the interface:
things put inside would shrink, but only after a few seconds, and it
is not clear what would happen to a single object such as your hand
that extended across the portal for that length of time.  I find
Pat's "shrinking" hypothesis untenable for this reason.  Similar
problems arise at the boundary if the doorway is a transporter.

Another such box is the chest that appears in one episode of the
Dungeons and Dragons cartoon on TV.  Move it to a particular place,
open it, and you are likely to find a stairway to an alternate
reality.  (This is rather like the holes in time used in the Time
Bandits movie.)  The D&D chest has the property that the spatial
mapping between realities is fixed and that the portal itself
moves between them.  I assume that the box cannot be moved while
open, which helps cover the main conceptual difficulty: why realities
only connect at certain points, and what happens if the box straddles
two such points.

As for something simply being bigger inside, this doesn't bother me.
As we move, we somehow update our internal maps of our surroundings.
As I turn my head, I somehow rotate my mapping of where everything is
relative to my focal direction.  It seems unlikely that I actually
store and update a position vector for every book on my bookshelves;
instead I must be storing relative positions of items in the room and
the relative orientation of myself and the room.  One could argue that
our natural tendency to build walls, and perhaps even our tendency to
build rectangular rooms, arises from the mental savings in building
these maps in hierarchically partitioned modules with related coordinate
frames.  If we store spatial relations in such a manner, it is easy
to see how the spatial relationships inside a box need not be strongly
linked to those outside the box.  Just as we can move the box and its
contents as a whole, we can expand it as a whole (on the inside only!)
without affecting our mapping of the rest of the world.

As for two things not occupying the same space, that's not really true.
It all depends on what you mean by "thing".  A forest and a tree occupy
overlapping space.  Properties such as color and texture certainly
coexist.  Fish and streams seem to interoccupy, and groping around
in streams and holes may be a task for which our spatial decoupling
evolved.  I wouldn't even be surprised if fish were perceptually
bigger on the inside than on the outside, since they disgorge a lot of
"stuff" when you open them up that is perceived at a different level
of detail than is the smooth exterior of a fish.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 86 20:06:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gary_M._Olson%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Description - UMich Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Lab
-BODY-
THE COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY

The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory (CSMIL) is an
interdisciplinary organization, spanning the fields of artificial
intelligence, cognitive science, and human-computer interaction.  It is
sponsored by three colleges at the University of Michigan:  the Graduate
School of Business Administration, the College of Engineering, and the
College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA).  Its mission is to
facilitate faculty research and graduate training, with a special focus on
cross-college collaborations.

CSMIL faculty are interested in a variety of specific topics in cognition,
such as vision, attention, learning, reasoning, and problem-solving,
whether they are in humans or machines.  Some are also interested in
designing and evaluating the interface between humans and computer systems,
or in developing computer tools to augment and extend human cognition.
CSMIL faculty have a broad range of experience in methods relevant to these
problems, including such areas as the design of special computer
architectures, software design and evaluation, artificial intelligence
programming, and the analysis of human cognition.

CSMIL has a range of specific activities.  It sponsors various
seminars, colloquia, conferences, and workshops on the U of M campus in
order to facilitate interdisciplinary intellectual exchange.  Many of
these are open to the general technical community in the area as well as to
U of M faculty and students.  Periodically, CSMIL will sponsor a single set
of focused intellectual activities designed to stimulate progress in one
particular research frontier, devoting an entire semester or academic year
to intellectual exploration of an important topic.  CSMIL coordinates
financial support for faculty projects, and also assists in developing
shared research facilities.  CSMIL also takes an active role in
disseminating results from the research of U of M faculty through several
publication series tailored to either specific technical audiences or a
more general readership.  Finally, CSMIL has a Corporate Affiliates
Program through which U of M faculty and their peers in corporations can
interact on a regular basis.

For further information about any of these activities, contact:

Gary M. Olson, Director
Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory
The University of Michigan
904 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan  48109

313-747-4948

Net address:  Gary_Olson%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.Arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
139
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new category codes
-BODY-
AI15 Truth Maintenance and Non-Monotonic logic
AI16 General AI, Unclassifiable AI, Theory of AI, Philosphy of AI
     (things that need one of these classifications but don't fit
      in any particular one)


AA26 manufacturing
AA27 space

O06  useful Algorithms, e. g. string matching, computational geometry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: some definitions
-BODY-
D BOOK28 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation\
%D April 7-10 1986\
%C San Francisco, CA
D MAG19 Soviet Engineering Research\
%V 5\
%N 4\
%D APR 1985
D MAG20 Data Processing\
%V 28\
%N 1\
%D JAN - FEB 1986
D MAG21 Information Systems\
%V 11\
%N 1\
%D 1986
D BOOK29 STACS 86, Third Annual Symposium on Theoretical Computer Science\
%E B. Monien\
%E G. Vidal-Naquet\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 210\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1986\
%X $20.50 soft bound ISBN 3-540-16078-7
D MAG22 IBM Journal of Research and Development\
%V 30\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG23 Computer Design\
%V 25\
%N 4\
%D FEB 15 1986
D BOOK30 Rewriting Techniques and Applications\
%E J. P. Jouannaud\
%S Lecture Notes inComputer Science\
%V 202\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1986\
%X 440 pages 23 chapters $22.80 ISBN 3-540-15976-2
D MAG24 Optical Engineering\
%V 25\
%N 3\
%D MAR 1986
D BOOK31 Mathematical Methods for Investigating the\
Natural Resources of the Earth from Space\
%I Nauka\
%C Moscow\
%D 1984
D BOOK32 Mathematization of Scientific: Knowledge: Paths\
and Trends\
%I Kazan Gos. Univ\
%C Kazan\
%D 1984
D BOOK33 International Symposium on Programming\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 202\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1986
D BOOK34 Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control\
%E M. Sugeno\
%I North Holland\
%D 1985
D BOOK35 Logics of Programs\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 193\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG24 Mechanism and Machine Theory\
%V 20\
%N 6\
%D 1985
D MAG25 Pattern Recognition\
%V 18\
%N 6\
%D 1985
D MAG26 Information and Control\
%V 63\
%N 1-2\
%D OCT-NOV 1984
D MAG27 The Journal of the Operations Research Society\
%V 37\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG28 John Hopkins Apl Technical Digest\
%V 7\
%N 1\
%D JAN-MAR 1986
D MAG29 Journal of Robotic Systems\
%V 3\
%N 1\
%D SPRING 1986
D BOOK36 Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems (La Colle-sur-Loup 1984)\
%S NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. F: Comput. Systems Sci\
%V 13\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK37 Combinatorial Algorithms on Words (Maratea, 1984)\
%S NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. F: Comput. Systems Sci.\
%V 12\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK38 Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge\
%E Joseph Y. Halpert\
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.\
%C Palo Alto, CA\
%D 1986\
%X ISBN 0-934613-0404 $18.95
D BOOK39 Eurocal 85, Volume 1\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 203\
%E B. Buchberger\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK40 Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 206\
%E S. N. Maheshwari\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG30 Werkstattstechnik WT Zeitschrift fur Industrielle Fertigung\
%V 76\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG31 International Journal of Robotics Research\
%V 4\
%N 4\
%D Winter 1986
D BOOK41 Artificial Intelligence: Toward Practical Application\
%S GDI Technology Assessment and Management\
%V 1\
%E T. Bernold\
%E G. Albers\
%I North Holland Publishers Co\
%C Amsterdam\
%D 1985
D MAG32 Manufacturing Engineering\
%V 96\
%N 4\
%D APR 1986
D MAG33 Intech\
%V 33\
%N 4\
%D 1986
D MAG34 Roboterstysteme\
%V 2\
%N 1\
%D 1986
D MAG35 Robotica\
%V 3\
%N Part 4\
%D OCT-DEC l985
D MAG36 Journal of Dynamics Systems, Measurement and Control\
%V 107\
%N 4\
%D DEC 1985
D MAG37 Robotersysteme\
%V 1\
%N 4\
%D 1985
D MAG38 International Journal of Man-Machine Studies\
%V 23\
%N 3\
%D SEP 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #1
-BODY-

%A John W. Lloyd
%A Rodney W. Topor
%T Making Prolog More Expressive
%R Technical Report 84/8
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D June 1984
%P 22
%K first order logic, programming in logic, deductive databases,
query language AI10 AA14 AA09
%O also in Journal of Logic Programming, vol.4, 1984
%X This paper introduces extended programs and extended goals for logic
programming. A clause in an extended program can have an arbitrary first
order formula as its body.  Similarly, an extended goal can have an arbitrary
first order formula as its body. The main results of the paper are the
soundness of the negation as failure rule and SLDNF-resolution for extended
programs and goals. We show how the increased expressibility of extended
programs and goals can be easily implemented in any PROLOG system which has
a sound implementation of the negation as failure rule. We also show how
these ideas can be used to implement first order logic as a query language
in a deductive database system. An application to integrity constraints in
deductive database systems is also given.

%A Jacek Gibert
%T J-Machine User's Manual
%R Technical Report 84/10
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1984
%P 42
%K functional programming, graph reduction machines, combinators
H03
%X
  This manual describes an experimental software implementation of a
combinatory reduction machine called the J-Machine. The J-Machine is
mainly oriented towards symbol manipulation and it aims at exposing
flows of data, and a high degree of parallelism in ordinary functional
programs. It executes directly the J'' reduction language which is
based upon a variant of the full combinatory theory. The J'' language
has an associated algebra of functions which allows a user to prove
properties of functional programs with the assistance of the J-Machine.
  With the advent of hardware concepts like data driven reduction
architectures, VLSI implementation of the J-Machine appears to be an
attractive proposition. But at the present, the J-Machine is an
interactive interpreter written in the C programming language under
the Unix operating system.

%A Lee Naish
%T Prolog Control Rules
%R Technical Report 84/13
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D September 1984
%P 12
%K AI10 computational rules
%O a shortened version appeared in Proceedings of the International
Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, 1985


%A Joxan Jaffar
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Michael J. Maher
%T A Logic Programming Language Scheme
%R Technical Report 84/15
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1984
%P 22
%K theory, semantics AI10 T02
%O also appeared in Logic Programming: Relations, Functions and Equations'',
D.DeGroot and G.Lindstrom (eds.), Prentice-Hall, 1985
%X Numerous extended versions of PROLOG are now emerging. Im order to
provide greater versatility and expressive power, some versions allow
functional programming features, others allow infinite data structures.
However, there is concern that such languages may have little connection
left with logic. In some instances, various logical frameworks have been
proposed to solve this problem. Nevertheless, the crucial point has not
been addressed: the preservation of the unique semantic properties of
logic programs. The significance of our effort here is twofold:
(1) There is a natural logic programming language scheme wherein these
properties hold. (2) Formal foundations for extended versions of
traditional PROLOG can be obtained as instances of this scheme. They
automatically enjoy its properties.

%A T. Y. Chen
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Graeme S. Port
%T Maximal Unifiable Subsets and Minimal Non-unifiable Subsets
%R Technical Report 84/16
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1984
%P 20
%K unification, backtracking, resolution AI11

%A John W. Lloyd
%A Rodney W. Topor
%T A Basis for Deductive Database Systems
%R Technical Report 85/1
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D February 1985 (revised April 1985)
%P 22
%K logic programming, first order logic, soundness, integrity constraints
AA14 AA09 T02
%X
  This paper provides a theoretical basis for deductive database systems.
A deductive database consists of closed typed first order logic formulas
of the form A<-W, where A is an atom and W is a typed first order formula.
A typed first order formula can be used as a query and a closed typed first
order formula can be used as an integrity constraint. Functions are allowed
to appear in formulas. Such a deductive database system can be implemented
using a PROLOG system. The main results are the soundness of the query
evaluation process, the soundness of the implementation of integrity
constraints, and a simplification theorem for implementing integrity
constraints. A short list of open problems is also presented.

%A Richard A. Helm
%A Catherine Lassez
%A Kimball G. Marriott
%T Prolog for Expert Systems: An Evaluation
%R Technical Report 85/3
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D June 1985
%P 20
%K TEAS, MARLOWE, knowledge representation AI01 T02
%O also in Proceedings of Expert Systems in Government'', Virginia, 1985

%A John W. Lloyd
%A Rodney W. Topor
%T A Basis for Deductive Database Systems II
%R Technical Report 85/6
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D February 1985 (revised April 1985)
%P 17
%K AI10 first order logic, soundness, integrity constraints,
query evaluation  AA09 AA14
%X
  This paper is the third in a series providing a theoretical basis for
deductive database systems. A deductive database consists of closed typed
first order logic formulas of the form A<-W, where A is an atom and W is a
typed first order formula. A typed first order formula can be used as a
query and a closed typed first order formula can be used as an integrity
constraint. Functions are allowed to appear in formulas. Such a deductive
database system can be implemented using a PROLOG system. The main results
of this paper are concerned with the non-floundering and completeness of
query evaluation. We also introduce an alternative query evaluation process
and show that corresponding versions of the earlier results can be obtained.
Finally, we summarize the results of the three papers and discuss the
attractive properties of the deductive database system approach based on
first order logic.

%A Lee Naish
%T The MU-Prolog 3.2 Reference Manual
%R Technical Report 85/11
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D October 1985
%P 17
%K AI10 T02
%X
  MU-PROLOG is (almost) upward compatible with DEC-10 PROLOG, C-PROLOG
and (PDP-11) UNIX PROLOG. The syntax and built-in predicates are therefore
very similar. A small number of DEC-10 predicates are not available and
some have slightly different effects. There are also some MU-PROLOG
predicates which are not defined in DEC-10 PROLOG. However most DEC-10
programs should run with few, if any, alterations.
  However, MU-PROLOG is not intended to be a UNIX PROLOG look-alike.
MU-PROLOG programs should be written in a more declarative style.
The non-logical predicates'' such as cut (!), \\=, not and var are
rarely needed and should be avoided. Instead, the soundly implemented
not (~), not equals (~=) and if-then-else should be used and wait
declarations should be added where they can increase efficiency.
  This is a reference manual only, not a guide to writing PROLOG programs.

%A Lee Naish
%T Negation and Control in PROLOG
%R Technical Report 85/12
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D September 1985
%P 108
%K T02 resolution, PhD thesis
%X
  We investigate ways of bringing PROLOG closer to the ideals of logic
programming, by improving its facilities for negation and control.
The forms of negation available in conventional PROLOG systems are
implemented unsoundly, and can lead to incorrect solutions. We discuss
several ways in which negation as failure can be implemented soundly.
The main forms of negation considered are not'', not-equals'',
if-then-else'' and all solutions predicates. The specification and
implementation of all solutions predicates is examined in detail.
Allowing quantifiers in negated calls is an extension which is easily
implemented and we stress its desirability, for all forms of negation.
We propose other enhancements to current implementations, to prevent
the computation aborting or looping infinitely, and also outline
a new technique for implementing negation by program transformation.
Finally, we suggest what forms of negation should be implemented in
future PROLOG systems.

%A Lee Naish
%T Negation and Quantifiers in NU-Prolog
%R Technical Report 85/13
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D October 1985
%P 12
%K T02 control
%X We briefly discuss the shortcomings of negation
in conventional Prolog systems.  The design and implementation of the
negation constructs in NU-Prolog are then presented.  The major difference
is the presence of explicit quantifiers.  However, several other
innovations are used to extract the maximum flexibility from current
implementation techniques.  These result in improved treatment of
\*(lqif\*(rq, existential quantifiers, inequality and non-logical primitives.
We also discuss how the negation primitives of NU-Prolog can be
added to conventional systems, and how they can improve the
implementation of higher level constructs.

%A Michael J. Maher
%T Semantics of Logic Programs
%R Technical Report 85/14
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D September 1985
%P 77
%K logic programming theory, fixed points, fixedpoints, PhD thesis
AI10
%X
  This thesis deals with the semantics of definite clause logic programs
in the presence of an equality theory.
Definite clauses are the formal foundation of the PROLOG
programming language.
Definitions of functions and abstract data types use equality.
Many have suggested the incorporation of these features
into a logic programming language
and already there are many of these languages.
This thesis provides a formal foundation for such languages.
  The treatment consistently factors out the equality
theory to obtain the effect of a scheme:
any equality theory which satisfies some appropriate conditions
can be used as part of the programming language.

%A Philip W. Dart
%A Justin A. Zobel
%T Conceptual Schemas Applied to Deductive Databases
%R Technical Report 85/16
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1985
%P 29
%K prolog, query language, graphical interface, conceptual schema,
deductive database AI10
%X Much of the information required in the formulation of a query
is inherent in the database structure.
First order logic is a powerful query language, but does not exploit
this structure or provide an accessible interface for naive users.
A new conceptual schema formalism, based directly on logic, provides
the necessary description of the database structure.
Its graphical representation is
the basis for a simple, concise graphical query language with
the expressive power of first order logic.

%A Kotagiri Ramamohanarao
%A John A. Shepherd
%T A Superimposed Codeword Indexing Scheme for Very Large Prolog Databases
%R Technical Report 85/17
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1985
%P 20
%K partial match retrieval, Prolog, hashing, descriptors, optimization
T02 AA09
%X This paper describes a database indexing scheme,
based on the method of superimposed codewords,
which is suitable for dealing with very large databases of Prolog clauses.
Superimposed codeword schemes provide a very efficient method of retrieving
records from large databases in only a small number of disk accesses.
This system supports the storage and retrieval of general Prolog terms,
including functors and variables,
and it is possible to store Prolog rules in the database.

%A James A. Thom
%A Kotagiri Ramamohanarao
%A Lee Naish
%T A Superjoin Algorithm for Deductive Databases
%R Technical Report 86/1
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D February 1986
%P 10
%K partial match retrieval, prolog, hashing, joins, optimization, database
relational, deductive AI10 AA09
%X
This paper describes a join algorithm suitable for deductive and
also relational databases which are accessed by computers
with large main memories.
Using multi-key hashing and appropriate buffering, joins can be performed
on very large relations more efficiently than with existing methods.
Furthermore, this algorithm fits naturally into a Prolog top-down computation
and can be made very flexible by incorporating additional Prolog features.

%A Lee Naish
%T Don't Care Nondeterminism in Logic Programming
%R Technical Report 86/?
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D February 1986
%P 10
%K indeterminism, incompleteness, cut, commit, trust, parallel, proving
AI10
%X
Prolog and its variants are based on SLD resolution, which uses don't know
nondeterminism to explore the search space.  Don't care nondeterminism, or
indeterminism, can be introduced by operations such as
commit in Concurrent Prolog, cut in sequential Prolog
and incomplete system predicates.  This prevents the whole SLD tree
from being examined.  The effect on completeness of programs is of
major importance.
This paper presents a theoretical model of \fIGuarded Clauses\fP, which
subsumes the main features of sequential and concurrent Prologs.
Next, we investigate proving properties of Guarded Clause programs
with restricted input-output modes.  We present a methodology for proving
that the indeterminism does not cause finite failure, given certain
input conditions.

%A John W. Lloyd
%T Declarative Error Diagnosis
%R Technical Report 86/?
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D February 1986
%P 20
%K algorithmic debugging, logic programming AI10 T02 O02 AI01
%X
This paper presents an error diagnoser which finds errors in extended logic
programs and also logic programs which use advanced
control facilities.
The diagnoser is declarative'', in the sense that the programmer
need only know the intended interpretation of an incorrect program
to use the diagnoser. In particular, the programmer needs no
understanding whatever of the underlying computational behaviour
of the PROLOG system which runs the program.
It is argued that declarative error diagnosers will be indispensable
components of advanced logic programming systems, which are currently
under development.

%A J. Heering
%T Partial Evaluation and W-Completeness of Algebraic Specifications
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8501
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AA08
%X f 3,90 14 pages

%A J. C. M. Baeten
%A J. A. Bergstra
%A J. W. Klop
%T   Conditional axioms and $alpha beta$ calculus
in process algebra
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8502
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AA08
%X f 3,90 26 pages

%A J. C. M. Baeten
%A J. A. Bergstra
%A J. W. Klop
%T Syntax and Defining Equations for an Interupt Mechanism in
Process Algebra
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8503
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AA08
%X f 7,60 45 p

%A J. W. de\0Bakker
%T Transition Systems, Infinitary Languages and the Semantics of
Uniform Concurrency
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8506
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AA08
%X f 3,90 11 pages

%A J. Heering
%A P. Klint
%T The Efficiency of the Equation Interpreter Compared with the UNH
PROLOG Interpreter
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8509
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K T02 AI10
%X f 3,90 13 pages

%A M. L. Kersten
%A H. Weigand
%A F. Dignum
%T A Conceptual Modeling Expert System
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8518
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AI01
%X f 3,90 14 pages

%A N. W. P. van\ Diepen
%A W. P. de\ Roever
%T Program Derivation Through Transformations: the Evolution of
List-Copying Algorithms
%D 1985
%R Report CS-R8520
%I Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
%C Amsterdam, The Netherlands
%K AA08
%X f 8,80 60 pages

%A Bertrand Meyer
%T The Software Knowledge Base
%R TRCS85-04
%I University of California, Santa Barbara
%K AA08

%A Bernard Nadel
%T The General Consistent Labeling (or Constraint Satisfaction) Problem
%R CRL-TR-2-86
%I University of Michigan Computing Research Laboratory
%K AI03

%A William G. Golson
%T A Complete Proof System for an Acceptance Refusal Model of CSP
%R TR85-19
%I Rice University Department of Computer Science
%K AA08

%A Raghu Ramakrishman
%A Avi Silberschatz
%T Annotations for Distributed Programming in Logic
%R TR-85-15
%D SEP 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K H03 T02 AI10


%A E. Allen Emerson
%A Chin-Laung Lei
%T Branching Time Logic Strikes Back
%R TR-85-21
%D OCT 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K temporal logic finite automata infinite strings AA08 AI11

%A Christian Lengauer
%A Chua-Huang Huang
%T A Mechanically Certified theorem about Optimal Concurrency of
Sorting Networks
%R TR-85-23
%D OCT 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K H03 AI11 AA08

%A A. Udaya Shankar
%A Simon S. Lam
%T Time-Dependent Distributed Systems: Proving Safety, Liveness and
Real-Time Properties
%R TR-85-24
%D OCT 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K H03 AI11 A08
%X includes information on verification of communication protocols including
HDLC and a transport-layer protocol of window size N

%A E. Allen Emerson
%A A. Prasad Sistla
%T Deciding Full Branching Time Logic
%R TR-85-28
%D NOV 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI10a

%A E. Allan Emerson
%A Joseph Y. Halpern
%T Decision Procedures and Expressiveness in the Temporal Logic of Branching
Time
%R TR-85-29
%D NOV 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI10a

%A E. M. Clarke
%A E. A. Emerson
%A A. P. Sistla
%T Automatic Verification of Finite State Concurrent Systems Using
Temporal Logic Specifications
%R TR-85-31
%D NOV 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI10a H03 AA08

%A Benjamin Kuipers
%T The Map-Learning Critter
%R TR-85-33
%D DEC 1985
%I University of Texas at Austin Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI07 AI04
%X "The Critter is an artificial creature which learns, not only the
structure of its (simulated) environment, but also the interpretation
of the actions and senses that give it access to that environment."

%A Newton S. Lee
%A John  W. Roach
%T Guess/1: A General Purpose Expert Systems Shell
%R 85-3
%I Virginia Tech Computer Science Department
%K T03

%A John W. Roach
%A Glenn Fowler
%T Virginia Tech Prolog/Lisp A Dual Interpeter Implementation
%R 85-18
%I Virginia Tech Computer Science Department
%K T01 T02

%A J. Patrick Bizler
%A Layne T. Watson
%A J. Patrick Sanford
%T Spline Based Recognition of Straight Lines and Curves in Engineering
Line Drawing
%R 85-29
%I Virginia Tech Computer Science Department
%K AI06 AA05

%A Richard E. Nance
%A Robert L. Moose
%A Robert V. Foutz
%T A Statistical Technique for Comparing Strategies: An Example from
Computer Network Design
%R 85-26
%I Virginia Tech Computer Science Department
%K O04 AA08 AI09 anova

%A T. C. Hu
%A M. T. Shing
%T The Alpha-Beta Routing
%R TRCS85-08
%I University of California, Santa Barbara
%K AA05

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
140
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technical Reports #2
-BODY-
%A M. A. Fulk
%T A Study of Inductive Inference Machines
%R 85-10
%D August 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI04
%X Inductive inference machines (IIMs) model learning and
scientific theory formation.
We investigate
IIMs that attempt to synthesize (in the limit) a program for
a function as they receive data (in the form of input-output pairs)
about that function.
We show that a postdictively consistent IIM can be
effectively replaced with a postdictively complete IIM
that succeeds on all of the functions that the original did.
We also investigate IIMs that attempt to synthesize (again in the limit)
a program that enumerates an r.e. set as they receive data
consisting of the elements of that set.
Finally, we propose new criteria
for success in inductive inference.

%R 85-11
%A J. S. Royer
%T A connotational theory of program structure
%D September 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AA08

%R 85-12
%T Local symmetry computation for shape description
%A G. W. Lee
%A S. N. Srihari
%D September 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R 85-13
%T ROCS: A system for reading off-line cursive script
%A R. M. Bo\o'z\(hc'inovi\o'c\(aa'
%A S. N. Srihari
%D September 1985
%I SUNY Buffalo Computer Science
%K AI06

%R UMCS-85-8-1
%A David E. Rydeheard
%A Rod M. Burstall
%T The Unification of Terms: A Category-Theoretic Algorithm
%I The University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science
%K AI11
%X no charge
As an illustration of the role of abstract mathematics in
program design, an algorithm for the unification of terms is derived
from constructions of colimits in category theory.

%A Trevor P. Hopkins
%R UMCS-85-9-2
%T Image Transfer by Packet-switched Network
%I The University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science
%K AI06
%X no charge
The advantages and disadvantages of
using packet-switching technology for the transfer of image information
in real time are considered. An experimental implementation
of parts of a system based on a high-speed
Local Area Network is described; these include a
simple screen output device and a real-time camera input device. The
generation of images using a number of microprocessors is also
described.  A number of applications for such a system are
investigated and the extension of this approach to implement an
Integrated Information Presentation system is considered.

%A Howard Barringer
%R UMCS-85-9-3
%T Up and Down the Temporal Way
%I The University of Manchester, Department of Computer Science
%K AA08 elevator
%X no charge
A formal specification of a multiple lift system is constructed.
The example illustrates and justifies one of many possible
system specification styles based on temporal techniques.

%A Ru-qian Lu
%T Expert Union: United Service of Distributed Expert Systems
%R 85-3
%I University of Minnesota-Duluth
%C Duluth, Minnesota
%D June, 1985
%K AI01 H03
%X A scheme for connecting expert systems in a network called an {\nit
expert union} is described.  Consultation scheduling algorithms used to
select the appropriate expert(s) to solve problems are proposed, as
are strategies for resolving contradictions.


%R No 27
%T The Complexity of a Translation
of L-calculus to
Categorical Combinators
%A R D Lins
%D April 1985
%I University of Kent at Canterbury

%A Sheldon Klein
%T The Invention of Computationally Plausible Knowledge Systems
in the Upper Paleolithic
%D December 1985
%R TR 628
%I Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin
%C Madison, WI
%K AI08
%X Abstract: The problem of computing human behavior by rules can become
intractable with large scale knowledge systems if the human brain, like a
computer, is a finite state automaton.  The problem of making such
computations at a pace fast enough for ordinary social interaction can be
solved if appropriate constraints apply to the structure of those rules.
There is evidence that systems of such constraints were invented in the
Upper Paleolithic, and were of sufficient power to guarantee that the time
necessary for computation of behavior would increase only linearly with
increases in the size and heterogeneity of world knowledge systems.
Fundamentally, there was just one type of computational invention, capable
of unifying the full range of human sensory domains, and consisting of an
analogical reasoning method in combination with a global classification
scheme.  The invention may have been responsible for the elaboration of
language and culture structures in a process of co-evolution.  The encoding
of the analogical mechanism in iconic visual imagery and myth structures
may have given rise to the phenomenon of Shamanism.  The theory is testable,
and one of its implications is that the structuralism of Levi-Strauss has
an empirical foundation.

%A G.T. NGUYEN
%A J. OLIVARES
%D JAN 1985
%R IMAG RR TIGRE 26
%C Grenoble, France
%T SYCSLOG - systeme logique d'integrite semantique

%A M. ADIBA
%A Q.N. BUI
%A J. PALAZZO DE OLIVEIRA
%D JAN 1985
%R IMAG RR TIGRE 23
%C Grenoble, France
%T Notion de temps dans les bases de donnees generalisees

%A A. DANDACHE
%D APR 1985
%R IMAG RR 516
%C Grenoble, France
%T Etude de structures regulieres PLA - ROM dans la partie controle  de
microprocesseurs

%A S. GRAF
%A J. SIFAKIS
%D FEB 1985
%R IMAG RR 526
%C Grenoble, France
%T From synchronization tree logic to acceptance model logic


%A H. BALACHEFF
%D MAY 1985
%R IMAG RR 528
%C Grenoble, France
%T Processus de preuves et situations de validation

%A Michel COSNARD
%A Yves ROBERT
%A Denis TRYSTRAM
%D JUL 1985
%R IMAG RR 552
%C Grenoble, France
%T Resolution parallele de systemes lineaires denses par diagonalisation
%K AI11

%A Yves ROBERT
%A Denis TRYSTRAM
%D JUL 1985
%R IMAG RR 553
%C Grenoble, France
%T Un reseau systolique orthogonal pour le probleme du chemin algebrique

%A J.R. BARRA
%A M. BECKER
%A D. BELAID
%A F. CHATELIN
%A C. MAZEL
%D JUN 1985
%R IMAG RR 542
%C Grenoble, France
%T Realisation d'un logiciel d'analyses factorielles avec systeme
d'assistance intelligente a l'utilisateur

%A Jean FONLUPT
%A Denis NADDEF
%D SEP 1985
%R IMAG RR 557
%C Grenoble, France
%T The traveling salesman problem in graphs with some excluded minors

%A Yves DEMAZEAU
%D APR 1985
%R IMAG RR 502
%C Grenoble, France
%T La programmation des jeux: programmation classique et intelligence
artificielle
%K AA17

%A Hicham AL NACHAWATI
%D 1985
%I These Universite, GRENOBLE
%K SEGMENTATION
%K PROCESSUS ARBORESCENT
%K ANALYSE VARIANCE
%K CLASSIFICATION AUTOMATIQUE
%T Processus de classification sequentiels non arborescents pour l'aide au
diagnostic
%W IMAG Mediatheque


%A Xin an PAN
%D 1985
%I These Universite, GRENOBLE
%K MINIMA
%K ALGORITHME ITERATIF
%K RESEAU AUTOMATE
%K AUTOMATE
%K RECONNAISSANCE CARACTERE
%K DISTANCE
%T Experimentation d'automates a seuil pour la reconnaissance de caracteres
%W IMAG Mediatheque

%A Laurent BERGHER
%D 1985
%I These doct. ing., GRENOBLE
%K ANALYSE
%K POTENTIEL
%K VLSI
%K MICROPROCESSEUR
%K ANALYSE IMAGE
%K TEST
%K CAPTEUR IMAGE
%T Analyse de defaillances de circuits VLSI par microscopie electronique a
balayage
%W IMAG Mediatheque

%A Philippe VIGNARD
%D 1985
%I These doct. ing., GRENOBLE
%K REPRESENTATION CONNAISSANCE
%K EXPLOITATION
%K FILTRAGE
%K DISTRIBUTION
%K  SEMANTIQUE
%K ANALOGIE
%K TYPOLOGIE
%T Un mecanisme d'exploitation a base de filtrage flou pour une representation
des connaissances centree objets
%W IMAG Mediatheque

%A Prabhaker Mateti
%T Correctness Proof of an Indenting Program
%R Technical Report 80/2
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D September 1980
%P 59
%K verification, correctness proof, pretty printing, pascal
%O also in Software - Practice and Experience
%K AA08
%X
  The correctness of an indenting program for Pascal is proven at an
intermediate level of rigour. The specifications of the program are given
in the companion paper [TR 80/1]. The program is approximately 330 lines
long and consists of four modules: io, lex, stack, and indent. We prove
first that the individual procedures contained in these modules meet their
specifications as given by the entry and exit assertions. A global proof
of the main routine then establishes that the interaction between modules
is such that the main routine meets the specification of the entire program.
We argue that correctness proofs at the level of rigour used here serve
very well to transfer one's understanding of a program to others. We believe
that proofs at this level should become commonplace before more formal
proofs can take over to reduce traditional testing to an inconsequential
place.

%A Joxan Jaffa
%T Presburger Arithmetic with Array Segments
%R Technical Report 81/1
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D January 1981
%P 8
%K verification, assertion language, decision procedure
AA08

%A John W. Lloyd
%T An Introduction to Deductive Database Systems
%R Technical Report 81/3
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D April 1981 (revised April 1983)
%P 24
%K  T02 AA14  AA09
%O also in Australian Computer Journal, vol.15, 1983
%X
  This paper gives a tutorial introduction to deductive database systems.
Such systems have developed largely from the combined application of the
ideas of logic programming and relational databases. The elegant theoretical
framework for deductive database systems is provided by first order logic.
Logic is used as a uniform language for data, programs, queries, views
and integrity constraints. It is stressed that it is possible to build
practical and efficient database systems using these ideas.

%A John W. Lloyd
%T Implementing Clause Indexing for Deductive Database Systems
%R Technical Report 81/4
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D October 1981
%P 22
%K AA14 AA09
%X
  The paper presents a file design for handling partial-match
queries which has wide application to knowledge-based artificial
intelligence systems and relational database systems.  The
advantages of the design are simplicity of implementation, the
ability to cope with dynamic files and the ability to optimize
performance with respect to the average number of disk access
required to answer a query.

%A Joxan Jaffar
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%T A Decision Procedure for Theorems about Multisets
%R Technical Report 81/7
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D July 1981
%P 37
%K automatic theorem proving, verification, domain dependent reasoning
AI11 AA13

%A Lee Naish
%T An Introduction to MU-Prolog
%R Technical Report 82/2
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D March 1982 (Revised July 1983)
%P 16
%K T02 muprolog AI10 control negation
%X
  As a logic programming language, PROLOG is deficient in two areas:
negation and control facilities. Unsoundly implemented negation
affects the correctness of programs and poor control facilities
affect the termination and efficiency. These problems are illustrated
by examples.
  MU-PROLOG is then introduced. It implements negation soundly and
has more control facilities. Control information can be added
automatically. This can be used to avoid infinite loops and find
efficient algorithms from simple logic. MU-PROLOG is closer to the
ideal of logic programming.

%A Joseph Stoegerer
%T Specification Languages - A Survey
%R Technical Report 82/5
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D June 1982
%P 62
%K software specification, requirements languages, software development tools,
integrated software development support systems, non-procedural languages,
automated analysis tools  AA08

%A Joxan Jaffar
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A John W. Lloyd
%T Completeness of the Negation-as-failure Rule
%R Technical Report 83/1
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D January 1983
%P 20
%O also in Proceedings of the Eigth International Joint Conference
on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1983
%K AI10 finite failure, completion of a program
%X
  Let P be a Horn clause logic program and comp(P) be its completion in the
sense of Clark. Clark gave a justification for the negation as failure rule
by showing that if a ground atom A is in the finite failure set of P, then
~A is a logical consequence of comp(P), that is, the negation as failure
rule is sound. We prove here that the converse also holds, that is, the
negation as failure rule is complete.

%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Michael J. Maher
%T Closures and Fairness in the Semantics of Logic Programming
%R Technical Report 83/3
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D March 1983
%P 17
%K semantics, chaotic iteration, SLD resolution, finite failure, T92
%O also in Theoretical Computer Science, vol.29, 1984

%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Michael J. Maher
%T Optimal Fixedpoints of Logic Programming
%R Technical Report 83/4
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D March 1983
%P 15
%K theory, semantics AA08 AI10
%O also in Theoretical Computer Science, vol.30, 1985
%X
  From a declarative programming point of view, Manna and Shamir's
optimal fixedpoint semantics is more appealing than the least
fixedpoint semantics. However in standard formalisms of recursive
programming the optimal fixedpoint is not computable while the least
fixedpoint is. In the context of logic programming we show that the
optimal fixedpoint is equal to the least fixedpoint and is computable.
Furthermore the optimal fixedpoint semantics is consistent with Van Emden
and Kowalski's semantics of logic programs.

%A Lee Naish
%T Automatic Generation of Control for Logic Programming
%R Technical Report 83/6
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D July 1983 (Revised September 1984)
%P 24
%K T02 O02 muprolog, control facilities, coroutines, automatic programming
%O also as Automating Control for Logic Programs'' in Journal of Logic Progrmm
ing, vol.5, 1985
%X
  A model for the coroutined execution of PROLOG programs is presented
and two control primitives are described. Heuristics for the control
of database and recursive procedures are given, which lead to algorithms
for generating control information. These algorithms can be incorporated
into a pre-processor for logic programs. It is argued that automatic
generation should be an important consideration when designing control
primitives and is a significant step towards simplifying the task of
programming.

%A Lee Naish
%A James A. Thom
%T The MU-Prolog Deductive Database
%R Technical Report 83/10
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D November 1983
%P 16
%K muprolog, partial match retrieval, unix T02 AA09 AA14
%X
  This paper describes the implementation and an application of a
deductive database being developed at the University of Melbourne.
The system is implemented by adding a partial match retrieval system
to the MU-PROLOG interpreter.

%A David A. Wolfram
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Michael J. Maher
%T A Unified Treament of Resolution Strategies for Logic Programs
%R Technical Report 83/12
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D December 1983
%P 25
%K soundness, completeness, unification, negation as failure AI10
%O also in Proceedings of the Second International Logic Programming
Conference,
 Uppsala, Sweden, 1984

%A Lee Naish
%T Heterogeneous SLD Resolution
%R Technical Report 84/1
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D January 1984
%P 11
%K T02 AI10  resolution, control facilities, intelligent backtracking
%O also in Journal of Logic Programming, vol.4, 1984
%X Due to a significant oversight in the definition of computation rules,
the current theory of SLD resolution is not general enough
to model the behaviour of some PROLOG implementations with advanced
control facilities.
In this paper, Heterogeneous SLD resolution is defined.
It is an extension of SLD resolution which increases the \*(lqdon't care\*(rq
non-determinism of computation
rules and can decrease the size of the search space.
Soundness and completeness, for success and finite failure, are
proved using similar results from SLD resolution.
Though Heterogeneous SLD resolution was originally devised to model current
systems, it can be exploited more fully than it is now.
As an example, an interesting new computation rule is described. It can be seen
as a simple form of intelligent backtracking with few overheads.

%A Koenraad Lecot
%A Isaac Balbin
%T Prolog & Logic Programming Bibliography
%R Technical Report 84/3
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D May 1984
%P 55
%K classified bibliography AT21 T02 AI10
%O a considerably expanded version appeared as Logic Programming:
A Classified Bibliography'', Wildgrass Books, 1985

%A Lee Naish
%T All Solutions Predicates in Prolog
%R Technical Report 84/4
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D June 1984
%P 15
%K logic programming, negation, coroutines T02 AI10
%O also in Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, Boston, 1985

%A Michael J. Maher
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%A Kmball G. Marriott
%T Antiunification
%R Technical Report 84/5
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D to appear
%P ?
%K AI10 unification

%A Lee Naish
%A Jean-Louis Lassez
%T Most Specific Logic Programs
%R Technical Report 84/6
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D to appear
%P ?
%K AI10

%A Rodney W. Topor
%A Teresa Keddis
%A Derek W. Wright
%T Deductive Database Tools
%R Technical Report 84/7
%I Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
%D June 1984 (revised August 1985)
%P 27
%K database management, deductive database, query language,
integrity constraint, logic programming, T02 AA14 AA09 T02
AI10
%O also in Australian Computer Journal, vol.?, 1985
%X
  A deductive database is a database in which data can be represented
both explicitly by facts and implicitly by general rules. The use of
typed first order logic as a definition and manipulation language for
such deductive databases is advocated and illustrated by examples.
Such a language has a well-understood theory and provides a uniform
notation for data, queries, integrity constraints, views and programs.
We present algorithms for implementing domains, for using atoms with
named attributes, for evaluating queries, and for checking static and
transition integrity constraints.  The implementation is by translation
into Prolog and can be performed using a standard Prolog system. The
paper assumes some familiarity with relational databases, logic and Prolog.

%R CSL T.R. 85-281
%T Prolog Memory-Referencing Behavior
%A  Evan Tick
%D September 1985
%K T02
%I Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
%X This   report   describes   Prolog   data  and  instruction
memory-referenci
ng
characteristics.    Prolog  exhibits  unconventional  referencing  behavior  of
backtracking;  the  saving  and  subsequent  restoration  of  a  program state.
Backtracking introduces memory bandwidth requirements above those of procedural
languages.   The significance of this and other characteristics was measured by
emulating a Prolog architecture running three benchmark programs and simulating
various memory  models.    The  results  indicate  that  so-called  determinate
programs  require  substantial  memory  bandwidth  because of a limited form of
backtracking (shallow).  However, this referencing  behavior  exhibits  spatial
locality  enabling small memory buffers to reduce the bandwidth requirement.  A
modification to  the  Prolog  architecture  having  the  advantage  of  further
increasing locality is described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
141
-DATE-
Date: Wed 28 May 86 14:31:47-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Synchronizing Plans among Intelligent Agents (SRI)
-BODY-

            SYNCHRONIZING PLANS AMONG INTELLIGENT AGENTS
                         VIA COMMUNICATION

                           Charlie Koo  (KOO@SUSHI)
                        Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, June 2
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

In a society where a group of agents cooperate to achieve certain
goals, the group members perform their tasks based on certain plans.
Some tasks may interact with tasks done by other agents.  One way to
coordinate the tasks is to let a master planner generate a plan and
distribute tasks to individual agents accordingly.  However, there are
two difficulties.  Firstly, the master planner needs to know all the
expertise that each agent has.  The amount of knowledge sharply
increases with the number of specialties.  Secondly, the
master-planning process will be computationally more expensive than if
each agent plans for itself, since the planning space for the former
is much larger.  Therefore, distributed planning is motivated.

The objective of this on-going research is to formalize a model for
synchronizing and monitoring plans independently made by nonhostile
intelligent agents via communication.  The proposed model also will
provide means to monitor the progress of plan execution, to prevent
delays, and to modify plans with less effort when delays happen.

In this talk, a commitment-based communication model which allows
agents to track their commitments during execution of plans will be
proposed.  It includes a language, a set of communication operators
and a set of commitment tracking operators.  The process of
synchronizing plans based on this communication model will also be
described.

Relevant work: Contract Net, nonlinear planners, distributed planners.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 May 1986 1217-EDT
-FROM-
From: Yumi Iwasaki <IWASAKI@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Model-Based Reasoning with Causal Ordering (CMU)
-BODY-

I will be presenting my thesis proposal as follows:

Date : Tuesday, June 3, 1986
Time : 2 pm
Place : WeH 5409
Title : Model-Based Reasoning of Device Behavior with Causal Ordering

Causality plays an important role in human understanding of the world.  While a
number of artificial intelligence systems have  been  built  that  reason  with
causal  knowledge,  few  have  addressed the issue of not only representing and
using causal knowledge but also of discovering causal relations in  the  domain
based  on  an  operational  definition  of  causality.    We  propose  to study
discovering, representing, and using causal knowledge based on  the  definition
of  causal  relations  given  by  the  theory of causal ordering.  The proposed
scheme for causal reasoning has several levels of representation of  knowledge,
namely  the  network representation of processes, equation model of components,
and causal ordering structure.  The scheme links the knowledge at the level  of
intuitive   understanding   of   processes  to  the  diagnostic  level  via  an
intermediate, more formal model represented as a system of equations.  In  this
research, we will study application of the concept of causal ordering to a task
of reasoning about physical device behavior by implementing a causal  reasoning
program,  ACORD,  in  the  domain  of  a  coal  power plant.  We also expect to
contribute  to  better  understanding  of  advantages  and   disadvantages   of
model-based and evidential reasoning.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 86 21:53 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Tree Adjoining Grammars (UPenn)
-BODY-

                    A STUDY OF TREE ADJOINING GRAMMARS

                              Vijayshanker

                        Ph.D. dissertation proposal
               1:30pm June 9, 1986; Room 337, Towne Building

The goal of this research is to study a grammatical formalism called Tree
Adjoining Grammars (TAG's). The original motivation for TAG's was linguistic
and subsequent work established their linguistic relevance. Our study
consists of two parts. The first part deals with formal properties of TAG's:
for example, closure properties ; automaton characterizing classes of string
languages and tree languages generated by TAG's.  In the second part of our
study, we outline how a syntax driven scheme for providing compositional
semantics of natural languages can be given with the Tree Adjoining Grammars.

               Committee:   J. H. Gallier
                            A. K. Joshi (Supervisor)
                            A. Kroch
                            R. Larson (MIT)
                            W. Rounds (U of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
                            B. L. Webber (Chairperson)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 11:18:18 edt
-FROM-
From: Rich Sutton <rich%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Expert Systems (GTE)
-BODY-

           "Connectionist Expert Systems in a Noisy World"
                       by Stephen I. Gallant

This talk will describe a model for connectionist expert systems
(MACIE) and show how it is well suited to noisy and redundant
environments.

     Connectionist expert systems are diagnostic expert systems
based upon a connectionist model with several interesting features:

     -- They can be generated from training examples (and/or rules)

     -- They perform forward chaining to make conclusions and
        backward chaining to elicit additional information

     -- They give IF-THEN rules to justify their inferences, even
        though their knowledge base contains no such rules

     -- They are arguably less prone to brittle behavior than
        traditional expert systems.

     In the talk it will be shown how an expert system for a noisy
and redundant problem can be constructed from:  (1) a noise-free
model of an underlying process (perhaps a traditional expert
system) and (2) a model for the noise involved.  System generation
is entirely automated.

Where:   GTE Labs, Waltham, MA
When:    June 11th, 9:30 am
Contact: Rich Sutton, rich@gte-labs.csnet, 617-466-4133 (or 466-4207)
Net address of speaker: sig@northeastern
Also:    That afternoon we will have an informal research meeting of
         connectionists from GTE, UMass, and Northeastern
Welcome: Visitors are welcome!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 4 Jun 86 10:58:14-PDT
-FROM-
From: Christine Pasley <pasley@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Knowledge-Based Design & Qualitative Process Theory (SU)
-BODY-

                CS529 - AI In Design & Manufacturing
                Instructor: Dr. J. M. Tenenbaum


Speaker:        Sanjay Mittal
From:           Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
Title:          Pride: A Knowledge-Based Framework for Design

Guest Speaker:  Kenneth Forbus
From:           Qualitative Reasoning Group
                University of Illinois
Title:          Qualitative Process Theory: Selected Topics

Date:           Wednesday, June 4, 1986
Time:           4:00 - 5:30
Place:          Terman 556


Sanjay Mittal's abstract:

This talk will describe the Pride project at Xerox.  The first part
of the talk will be about an expert system for the design of paper
transports inside copiers.  A prototype version of the system has been in
field test for a year.  It has been successfully used on real copier
projects inside Xerox - both for designing and for checking designs
produced by engineers.  From an applications point of view we have been
motivated by the following observations: knowledge is often distributed
among different experts; the process of generating designs is
unnecessarily separated from their analysis, leading to long design
cycles; and design is an evolutionary process, i.e., a process of
exploration.

The second part of the talk will describe the framework in Pride for
representing design knowledge and using it to support the design
process.  In this framework, the process of designing an artifact is
viewed as  knowledge guided search in a multi-dimensional space of
possible designs.  The dimensions of such a space are the design
parameters of the artifact.  In this view, knowledge is used not only to
search the space but also to define the space.  Domain knowledge is
organized in terms of design plans, which are organized around goals.
Conceptually, goals decompose a problem into sub-problems and are the
units for structuring knowledge.  Design goals have design methods
associated with them, which specify alternate ways to make decisions
about the design parameters of the goal.  The third major element of a
plan are constraints on the design parameters.  The framework provides a
problem solver for executing these plans.  The problem solver extends
dependency-directed backtracking with an advice mechanism and a context
mechanism for simultaneously maintaining multiple designs.



Kenneth Forbus' abstract:

Much of our commonsense knowledge of the physical world appears to be
organized around a notion of physical processes.  Qualitative Process
theory provides a formal language for describing such processes,
including a qualitative representation of differential equations and
the conditions under which they apply.  This talk will briefly review
Qualitative Process theory and discuss two topics of current research:
Interpreting measurements taken across time, and a new implementation,
based on an assumption-based truth maintenance system, that provides
roughly two orders of magnitude performance improvement.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 86 17:46:49 PDT
-FROM-
From: Almaden Research Center Calendar <calendar@IBM.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - FP Rewrite Rules & Parallel Unification (IBM-SJ)
-BODY-

               IBM Almaden Research Center
                     650 Harry Road
                 San Jose, CA 95120-6099

                     RESEARCH CALENDAR
                     June 9 - 13, 1986

GOOD REWRITE STRATEGIES FOR FP
E. Wimmers, IBM Almaden Research Center

Computer Science Seminar    Wednesday, June 11    2:30 P.M.    Room:  B2-307
In order to implement a language based on rewrite rules, it does not
suffice to know that there are enough rules in the language; we also
need to have a good strategy for determining the order in which to
apply them.  But what is good?  Corresponding to each notion of having
enough rules, there is a corresponding notion of a good rewrite
strategy.  We examine and characterize these notions of goodness, and
give examples of a number of natural good strategies.  Although we
have confined ourselves to FP here, we believe that our techniques
(some of which are nontrivial extensions of techniques first used in
the context of lambda-calculus) will apply well beyond the realm of FP
rewriting systems.
Host:  J. Backus

...


ON THE PARALLEL COMPLEXITY OF UNIFICATION OF TERMS AND RELATED PROBLEMS
C. Dwork, IBM Almaden Research Center

Comp. Sci. Colloquium    Thursday, June 12    3:00 P.M.    Room:  Rear Audit.

Unification of terms is a well known problem with applications to a
variety of symbolic computation problems.  Two terms s and t,
involving function symbols and variables, are unifiable if there is a
substitution for the variables under which s and t become
syntactically identical.  For example, f(x,x) and f(g(y),g(g(c))) are
unified by substituting g(c) for y and g(g(c)) for x.  As parallel
architectures become technologically feasible, researchers in logic
programming have sought parallel unification algorithms running at
speeds subpolynomial in the length of the input.  Unfortunately, the
existence of such an algorithm has been shown to be "popularly
unlikely," in that it would violate commonly held beliefs about the
structure of the class P of problems solvable in polynomial time.  Two
special cases of unification are term matching and equivalence
testing, in which one or both of the terms contain no variables,
respectively.  In contrast to the case for general unification, term
matching and testing for equivalence can both be solved
deterministically in time O((log n)**2) for inputs of size n, using
M(n**2) processors, where M(k) is the number of sequential operations
needed to multiply k-by-k matrices (roughly k**2.5).  The processor
bound can be improved to M(k) if randomization is allowed.  This is
joint work with Paris Kanellakis and Larry Stockmeyer.
Host:  R. Strong

...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 86 20:20:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: Gary_M._Olson%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar Series - CSMIL (UMich)
-BODY-
The Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory
(CSMIL) at the University of Michigan has been conducting a
major lecture series this spring, consisting of the
following speakers:
          March 31 -- John Anderson, Carnegie-Mellon
          April 21 -- Shimon Ullman, M.I.T.
          May 5 -- Allen Newell, Carnegie-Mellon
          May 12 -- Bobby Inman, M.C.C.
          May 19 -- Roger Schank, Yale
          June 24 -- Randy Davis, M.I.T.
Anyone interested in further information should contact:
     Gary Olson, Director
     Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory
     University of Michigan
     904 Monroe Street
     Ann Arbor, Michigan  48109
     313-747-4948
   net address:  Gary_Olson%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-Multics.Arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 23:09:06 edt
-FROM-
From: walker@mouton.bellcore.com (Don Walker)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Call for Papers for IJCAI-87
-BODY-
                          CALL FOR PAPERS:  IJCAI-87
        Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
                              August 23-28, 1987
                                 Milan, Italy

The  IJCAI  conferences  are the main forums for the presentation of artificial
intelligence research to an international audience.  The goal of IJCAI-87 is to
promote  scientific  interchange, within and between all subfields of AI, among
researchers from all over the world.    The  conference  is  sponsored  by  the
International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc. (IJCAII).

In  response  to  the  growing  interest  in  engineering  issues within the AI
community, IJCAI-87's Technical Program will have two distinct tracks:  science
and  engineering.    The  science  papers,  presented  Sunday through Wednesday
(August 23-26), will stress the computational principles  underlying  cognition
and  perception  in man and machine.  The engineering papers, presented Tuesday
through Friday (August 25-28), will highlight pragmatic issues  that  arise  in
applying these computational principles.  Tutorials will be presented on Sunday
and  Monday  in  parallel  with  the  first  two  days  of  the  science  paper
presentations.    Meetings  or  workshops  focussed on specific research issues
might most appropriately be held on Thursday or Friday.

TOPICS OF INTEREST

Authors are invited to submit papers  to  either  the  science  or  engineering
tracks within one of the following topic areas:

   - Architectures   and  Languages  (including  logic  programming,  user
     interface technology)

   - Reasoning (including theorem proving, planning, explaining)

   - Knowledge  Acquisition   and   Learning   (including   knowledge-base
     maintenance)

   - Knowledge Representation (including task domain analysis)

   - Cognitive Modeling

   - Natural Language Understanding

   - Perception  and  Signal Understanding (including speech, vision, data
     interpretation)

   - Robotics

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION:

Authors are requested to prepare full papers, no more than 7 proceedings' pages
(approximately  5600 words), or short papers, no more than 3 proceedings' pages
(approximately 2400 words).  The  full-paper  classification  is  intended  for
well-developed  ideas,  with  significant  demonstration of validity, while the
short-paper  classification  is  intended  for  descriptions  of  research   in
progress.      Authors   must   ensure  that  their  papers  describe  original
contributions  to  or  novel  applications  of   AI,   regardless   of   length
classification,  and that the research is properly compared and contrasted with
relevant literature.

DETAILS OF SUBMISSION:

Authors should submit six (6) copies of their papers  (hard  copy  only  --  we
cannot accept on-line files) to the Program Chair no later than Monday, January
5, 1987.  The following information must be included on the title page:

   - Author's name, address, telephone number and  computer  mail  address
     (if applicable)

   - Paper type (full-paper or short-paper), topic area, track (science or
     engineering), and a few keywords for  further  classification  within
     the topic area

   - An abstract of 100-200 words

The timetable is as follows:

   - Submission deadline:  5 January 1987 (papers received after January 5
     will be returned unopened)

   - Notification of acceptance or rejection:  17 March 1987

   - Camera ready copy due:  10 April 1987

The language of the conference is  English;  all  papers  submitted  should  be
written in English.

REVIEW CRITERIA:

Each  paper will be reviewed by at least two experts.  Acceptance will be based
on the overall merit and significance of the reported research, as well  as  on
the  quality  of  the  presentation.    A  paper  may  be  reviewed  by experts
responsible for an area or track other than the one to which it  was  submitted
if, in the opinion of a program committee member, it can thereby be more fairly
reviewed.

Papers submitted to the science track should make an original  and  significant
contribution to knowledge in the field of artificial intelligence.

Papers submitted to the engineering track should focus on pragmatic issues that
arise in reducing AI principles and techniques to practice.  Such papers  could
identify the critical features of some successful application system's approach
to reasoning or knowledge acquisition or natural language  understanding.    Of
particular  interest  are papers that demonstrate insightful analysis of a task
domain  motivating  the  selection  of  a  computational  and  representational
approach.

CONTACT POINTS:

Submissions  and  inquiries  about  the  program  should be sent to the Program
Chair:
          John McDermott
          Department of Computer Science
          Carnegie-Mellon University
          Pittsburgh, PA   15213
          USA
          1-412-268-2599
          McDermott@cmu-cs-a.arpa

Inquiries about registration, tutorials, exhibits, and other local arrangements
should be sent to the Local Arrangements Chair:

          Marco Somalvico
          Dipartimento di Elettronica
          Politecnico di Milano
          Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci N.32
          I-20133 Milano
          ITALY
          39-2-236-7241
          somalvic!prlb2@seismo

Other inquiries should be directed to the General Chair:
          Alan Bundy
          Department of Artificial Intelligence
          University of Edinburgh
          80 South Bridge
          Edinburgh EH1 1HN
          UK
          44-31-225-7774 ext 242
          Bundy%edinburgh.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
142
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 86 18:18:38 GMT
-FROM-
From: cad!nike!lll-crg!micropro!ptsfa!jeg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Girard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Getting Started with OPS-5
-BODY-

We would like to start experimenting with OPS-5, and have heard
that there is a public domain version available, presumably from
C-M-U.

Any help we can get on the following would be appreciated:

Where is the best source for the P-D OPS-5?
Would we be wasting our time to try the P-D version?
   If so, which one can we try on an evaluation basis?
What else is needed to make it work?
   If LISP is required, can we operate on a limited subset
   such as XLISP?  If not, what LISP would be easiest to
   integrate on an evaluation basis?

Also, any recommendations on readable and usable guides to
OPS-5 will be appreciated!

Thanks!

John Girard
Pacific Bell
(415)823-1961  [USA]

{dual,ihnp4,qantel,decwrl,bellcore}ptsfa!jeg

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 86 12:42:33 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!jds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joseph D. Sloan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Programming Paradigms
-BODY-

A particular interest of mine is programming paradigms.
For example, how does object-oriented programming differ
from logic programming from functional programming from
procedural programming from ...  I recently came across
a paper with a brief discussion of access-oriented
programming which is a new paradigm to me.  Unfortunately,
I didn't very much out of the description as the context
of the article was comparison of paradigms and really
assumed familiarity.  Can anyone supply me with pointers
to readable introductions to access-oriented programming?
How about articles or books on programming paradigms
in general?  Reply by mail and I will summarize results
if there is enough interest.  (The article I referred to
was "If Prolog is the Answer, What is the Question? or
What it Takes to Support AI Programming Paradigms" by
Daniel G. Bobrow in IEEE Trans. of Soft. Eng., Nov. 1985.
I recommend the article.)

Joe Sloan,
Box 3090
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC 27710
(919) 684-3754
duke!jds,

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 86 14:46:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!caip!seismo!columbia!lexington.columbia.edu!polish@ucbvax
     .berkeley.edu  (Nathaniel Polish)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prolog on IBM/PCs
-BODY-
I am looking for a version of Prolog (or other expert  system building
tool) for the  IBM/PC environment.  I  am looking for  comments on the
real usefulness of these tools.

Thanks
Nat Polish@columbia-20

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jun 86 19:41:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!king@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dick King)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards.
-BODY-

   From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell)

   We have a long list,
   and we wish to apply some test to each member of the list.  However, at some
   point in the list, if the test returns a certain value, there is no need to
   look further ...

I'm way behind in this group, so I apologize in advance if you have
seen this solution or a better one before.

You might try

(prog ()
   (mapcar #'(lambda (y) (when (you-like y) (return (result-for y))))
           x)))

I tried it, and it works.  It doesn't seem dirty to me, and it should
be efficient.  Even if the return point of a prog is such that it
forces the lexical closure to be non-vacuous, this shouldn't be a
problem when compiled.

   --
   Mike Maxwell
   Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
           ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>dick

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 09:34:08 pdt
-FROM-
From: Marc Majka <majka%ubc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Inside Out
-BODY-
> ...Einstein's theory of general relativity, which models the cosmos
> as a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. ...

*pseudo*-Riemannian?   I think you mean Semi-Reimannian, and that applies
to the metric, not the spacetime.

>--
Marc Majka

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 86 06:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor - Brain Theory
-BODY-
Conscious and subconscious mind:

In your brain are two files.  One is read-write.  The other is
write-only with global side effects.

(Attributed to a computer science student at Rochester Institute of
Technology.)

Bill Anderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 May 86 13:36:39 edt
-FROM-
From: rti-sel!dg_rtp!rtp41!dg_rama!bruces%mcnc.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Ethics
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the Risks Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The following is a copy of a review I wrote for a recent newsletter of the
Boston chapter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR).
Readers of RISKS may be interested, as well.

METAPHILOSOPHY is a British journal published three times yearly which is
dedicated to considerations about particular schools, fields, and methods of
philosophy.  The October 1985 issue, Computers & Ethics (Volume No. 16, Issue
No. 4), is recommended reading [...].

This issue's articles attempt to define and delimit the scope of Computer
Ethics, and examine several emerging and current concerns within the field.

One current concern is responsibility for computer-based errors.  In his
article on the subject, John W. Snapper asks:  "...whether it is advisable to
...write the law so that a machine is held legally liable for harm." The author
invokes Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics" (!) in an analysis of how computers
make decisions, and what is meant by "decision" in this context.

On the same subject, William Bechtel goes one step further, considering the
possibility that computers could one day bear not only legal, but moral
responsibility for decision-making:  "When we have computer systems that ...can
be embedded in an environment and adapt their responses to that environment,
then it would seem that we have captured all those features of human beings
that we take into account when we hold them responsible."

Deborah G. Johnson discusses another concern:  ownership of computer programs.
In "Should Computer Programs Be Owned?," Ms. Johnson criticizes utilitarian
arguments for ownership, as well as arguments based upon Locke's labor theory
of property. The proper limits to extant legal protections, including
copyrights, patents, and trade secrecy laws, are called into question.

Other emerging concerns include the need to educate the public on the dangers
and abuses of computers, and the role of computers in education.  To this end,
Philip A. Pecorino and Walter Maner present a proposal for a college level
course in Computer Ethics, and Marvin J. Croy addresses the ethics of
computer-assisted instruction.

Dan Lloyd, in his provocative but highly speculative article, "Frankenstein's
Children," envisions a world where cognitive simulation AI succeeds in
producing machine consciousness, resulting in a possible ethical clash of the
rights of artificial minds with human values.

The introductory article, James H. Moor's "What is Computer Ethics," is an
ambitious attempt to define Computer Ethics, and to explain its importance.
According to Moor, the development and proliferation of computers can rightly
be termed "revolutionary":  "The revolutionary feature of computers is their
logical malleability.  Logical malleability assures the enormous application of
computer technology." Moor goes on to assert that the Computer Revolution, like
the Industrial Revolution, will transform "many of our human activities and
social institutions," and will "leave us with policy and conceptual vacuums
about how to use computer technology."

An important danger inherent in computers is what Moor calls "the invisibility
factor." In his own words:  "One may be quite knowledgeable about the inputs
and outputs of a computer and only dimly aware of the internal processing."
These hidden internal operations can be intentionally employed for unethical
purposes; what Moor calls "Invisible abuse,"  or can contain "Invisible
programming values":  value judgments of the programmer that reside, insidious
and unseen, in the program.

Finally, in the appendix, "Artificial Intelligence, Biology, and Intentional
States," editor Terrell Ward Bynum argues against the concept that "intentional
states" (i.e. belief, desire, expectation) are causally dependent upon
biochemistry, and thus cannot exist within a machine.

If you're at all like me, you probably find reading philosophy can be "tough
going," and METAPHILOSOPHY is no exception.  References to unfamiliar works,
and the use of unfamiliar terms occasionally necessitated my reading
passages several times before extracting any meaning from them.  The topics,
however, are quite relevant and their treatment is, for the most part,
lively and interesting.  With its well-written introductory article, diverse
survey of current concerns, and fairly extensive bibliography, this issue of
METAPHILOSOPHY is an excellent first source for those new to the field of
Computer Ethics.

[METAPHILOSOPHY, c/o Expediters of the Printed Word Ltd., 515 Madison Avenue,
Suite 1217, New York, NY  10022]

Bruce A. Sesnovich         mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!sesnovich
Data General Corp.         rti-sel!dg_rtp!sesnovich%mcnc@csnet-relay.arpa
Westboro, MA               "Problems worthy of attack
                            prove their worth by hitting back"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
143
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 86 02:23:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hplabsb!marvit@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Peter Marvit)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Medical Expert System availability? (+ Mac query)
-BODY-
I ask for a friend who is finishing med school and is looking to "dabble"
and/or explore the possiblities...

What is a good source of information about medically oriented Expert
systems/diagnostics aids?

Are PUFF, MYCIN, EMYCIN, and the rest of the famous ones public domain?
Are they distributed by commercial folks, if at all?

Do you think that such Expert Systems [gawd, I hate the term] will be
available in the future on MacIntosh or PC level delivery systems?

Finally, I've seen the list of expert system tools for PC.  Any personal
or anectodatal experiences with them (especially for those who are more
domain oriented than AI hackers)?  Would someone like to start a similar
list of MacIntosh tools?

ADVthanksANCE,
Peter Marvit            ARPA: marvit@hplabs.arpa   (no new style, yet)
HP LABS                 UUCP: ...!hplabs!arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 86 03:24:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!mendozag@ucbvax  (Grado)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: MRS search
-BODY-

I have missed the several discussions about MRS in net.ai, especially
related to obtaining sources and documentation.

Can anyone provide me with pointers as to how to obtain the
sources along with appropriate references ?

I would appreciate any help.


       Victor M Grado
       Box 62,
       School of Electrical Engineering,
       Purdue University
       West Lafayette, IN 47907
       (317) 494-3494

       ARPA: mendozag@ee.purdue.edu

  [I will send copies of the previous discussion (AIList V. 4, Nos.
  11, 15, 17, 21, 32).  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Jun 86 17:40:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: cad!nike!sri-spam!klee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ken Lee)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: MRS search
-BODY-
Contact Professor Mike Genesereth, Computer Science Dept., Stanford Univeristy,
Stanford, CA 94305 (genesereth@su-sushi.arpa) for information.  I think he's in
charge of the MRS team.

Also, if anyone saved the MRS discussion, could you send me a copy, please.
I'm new to the net and did not get it.  I just finished Prof. Genesereth's
expert systems course, using MRS, and I'm interested other people's opinions
and comments on MRS.

Thanks much.

Ken Lee
arpanet:  klee@sri-spam
uucp:  ucbvax!klee\@sri-spam.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Jun 86 20:03:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: CS.UCL.AC.UK!bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Alan Bundy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI Awards Nominations
-BODY-

                CALL FOR NOMINATIONS FOR IJCAI AWARDS


               The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence


         The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence is given at each
     International Joint Conference  on  Artificial Intelligence,
     to a scientist who has carried out  a program of research of
     consistently  high  quality   yielding  several  substantial
     results.  If the research program  has been carried out col-
     laboratively the award  may be made  jointly to the research
     team.  The first recipient  of this award  was John McCarthy
     in 1985.

          The Award carries with it a certificate and the sum of
     $1,000 plus travel and living expenses  for the IJCAI.  The
     researcher(s) will be invited to deliver  an address on the
     nature and significance of the results achieved and write a
     paper for the conference prodeedings.  Primarily,  however,
     the award carries the honour  of having one's work selected
     by one's peers as an exemplar  of sustained research in the
     maturing science of Artificial Intelligence.

          We hereby call for nominations for The IJCAI Award for
     Research Excellence to be made at IJCAI-87 in Milan. The
     accompanying note on Selection Procedures for IJCAI Awards
     provides the relevant details.



                   The Computers and Thought Award


          The Computers and Thought Lecture is given at each
     International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence by
     an outstanding young scientist in the field of artificial
     intelligence.  The Award carries with it a certificate and
     the sum of $1,000 plus travel and subsistence expenses for
     the IJCAI.   The Lecture is one evening during the Conferen-
     ce, and the public is invited to attend. The Lecturer is in-
     vited to publish the Lecture  in the conference proceedings.
     The  Lectureship was  established  with  royalties  received
     from the book  Computers and Thought,  edited by  Feigenbaum
     and Feldman;  it is currently supported by income from IJCAI
     funds.

          Past recipients of this honour have been Terry Winograd
     (1971), Patrick Winston (1973), Chuck Rieger (1975), Douglas
     Lenat (1977), David Marr (1979), Gerald Sussman (1981),  Tom
     Mitchell (1983) and Hector Levesque (1985).

          Nominations are invited for The Computers  and  Thought
     Award to be made at IJCAI-87 in Milan. The note on Selection
     Procedures for IJCAI Awards covers the nomination procedures
     to be followed.


                Selection Procedures for IJCAI Awards


          Nominations for The Computers and Thought Award and The
     IJCAI  Award for Research Excellence are invited from all in
     the Artificial Intelligence  international  community.   The
     procedures are the same for both awards.

          There should be a nominator and a  seconder,  at  least
     one  of whom should not have been in the same institution as
     the nominee.  The nominee must agree to be  nominated. There
     are no other restrictions on nominees, nominators or second-
     ers.   The nominators should prepare a short submission less
     than  2,000 words  for  the voters,  outlining the nominee's
     qualifications  with respect to the criteria  for the parti-
     cular award.

          The award selection committee is the union of the  Pro-
     gram,  Conference  and  Advisory Committees  of the upcoming
     IJCAI and the Board of  Trustees  of  IJCAII, with  nominees
     excluded.  Nominations  should  be submitted before December
     1st, 1986 to the Conference Chair for IJCAI-87:

                Dr Alan Bundy,
                IJCAI-87 Conference Chair,
                Department of Artificial Intelligence,
                University of Edinburgh,
                80 South Bridge,
                Edinburgh, EH1 IHN,
                Scotland.                tel 44-31-225-7774 ext 242

                        ArpaNet: bundy@rutgers.arpa
                        JANet: bundy@uk.ac.edinburgh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 2 Jun 86 23:03:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Lee Altenberg <ALTENBERG@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Backward AI
-BODY-
May I take this opportunity to be a "righty" and attempt to reprogram the
software of Tom Tedrick by expressing my dismay with his sexist description
of women as inexplicably trying to "poison" the efficiency of their husbands
CPU's.  One should be careful about attributing to whole classes of people
the traits of one's personal friends.  Also, the milk request was interpreted
as being a passive-aggressive act.  This represents repressed anger which
should be brought to the surface.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 5 Jun 86 15:25:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Deductive Synthesis of Sorting Programs (SRI)
-BODY-
                DEDUCTIVE SYNTHESIS OF SORTING PROGRAMS

                       Jon Traugott (JCT@SAIL)
                        Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, June 9
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)

Using the deductive synthesis framework developed by Manna and
Waldinger we have derived a wide variety of recursive sorting
programs. These derivations represent the first application of the
deductive framework to the derivation of nontrivial algorithms. While
the programs given were derived manually, we ultimately hope that a
computer implementation of the system (of which none currently exists)
will find similar programs automatically. Our derivations are intended
to suggest this possibility; the proofs are short in relation to
program complexity (on the order of 20 steps per procedure) and
individual derivation steps are uncontrived. We also present a new
rule for the generation of auxiliary procedures, a common "eureka"
step in program construction.

VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 JUN 86 18:10-N
-FROM-
From: SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1986 SGAICO Conference on 2nd-Generation Expert Systems
-BODY-
SGAICO (swiss group for artificial intelligence and cognitive science)


   1986 SGAICO CONFERENCE ON SECOND GENERATION EXPERT SYSTEMS
         (including SGAICO General Assembly)

            Luc Steels, Walter Van de Velde
                 University of Brussels

                   with exhibition

            Holiday-Inn, Zurich-Regensdorf
              Wednesday, October 22 1986


                        PURPOSE

SGAICO is organizing a conference on 2nd generation
expert systems. The purpose of the conference is to
inform participants in depth about this important new
trend in expert system technology. First generation
expert systems - which are normally based on associative
if-then rules - are subject to severe limitations. These
include reasoning power in general, explanations, natural
language capabilities, ungraceful degradation and
learning capacity.  One of the reasons for these limitations
is a lack of causal knowledge about the problem
domain. Expert systems of the second generation include
models of the underlying causal dependencies that are
used in non-trivial reasoning processes.

Professor Luc Steels and his group are among the leading
researchers on Second Generation Expert Systems. Luc
Steels will give the general keynote speech. His collaborator
van de Velde will discuss a second generation
expert system in depth. A demonstration will be presented
on a Lisp machine.

                     PARTICIPANTS

This conference is intended for computer-scientists,
engineers, managers and all those wishing to keep up
with the latest developments in this fast-moving field.
We expect participants to have some minimal previous
knowledge of expert systems.


                SGAICO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The SGAICO general assembly (11:00-12:30) includes a
discussion of long-term development of AI in Switzerland.

We are pleased to link our meeting to a Gottlieb
Duttweiler Institute (GDI) event:

        USER INTERFACES - GATEWAY OR BOTTLENECK
   New Trends of Access to Information and Knowledge
                  October 20-21, 1986

This 4th International Symposium for Advanced Information
Technology presents new solutions to the problem of
interaction between users and computers in management
and industry. Key topics are: End User Systems, Mangement
Support Systems, Natural Language Understanding, Decision
Support Systems, Intelligent Query Systems, Process
Control, CAD, Maintenance/Diagnosis, Simulation.


                    PROGRAM

  Speakers          Luc Steels,
                    Walter Van de Velde,
                    Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
                    Vrije Universiteit, Brussels

  9:00  - 10:30     Keynote talk by Luc Steels:
                    Emerging trends in expert systems

  11:00 - 12:30     SGAICO General Assembly: Long-term
                    development of AI in Switzerland.
                    Moderator: Guenter Albers

  14:00 - 15:30     Walter Van de Velde: Learning and
                    deep reasoning in second generation
                    expert systems (part I)

  16:00 - 17:30     Walter Van de Velde (part II)

  17:45 - 19:00     Demonstrations on Lisp-Machines

  19:00             Informal "get-together"

  exhibition        including major Artificial Intelligence
                    software and hardware.

                    ORGANIZATION

Program Committee   Guenter Albers, University of Geneva
                    Rolf Pfeifer, University of Zurich
                    Michael Rosner, University of Geneva
                    Daniel Schneider, University of Geneva (Chairman)
                    Patrick Shann, University of Geneva

Fees                SI members or members of a SVI/FSI organisation   110.- Sfr
                    non members                                       180.- Sfr
                    student rates                                      30.- Sfr

Special rates       Limited funding is available for persons with financial
                    needs who wish to apply for student rates.

Registration        Please fill out the registration card and mail it by
                    september 30 1986. You will be billed when receiving
                    confirmation.
                    Telephone of the SI/SGAICO secretariat:
                    (..41) 1 481 73 90 (Frau Nicolet)

Lunch               Please indicate on the registration form if you plan to
                    have lunch at the Holiday Inn.

Accomodation        For hotel registration please contact the
                    Tourist Office, Bahnhofplatz 15, 8023 Zurich,
                    Tel.: (..41) 1 211 40 00,
                    or the Holiday Inn, Regensdorf, Tel.: (..41) 1 840 25 20.

For further information about the program contact a program committee member
or email to Daniel Schneider (sender).

For information on the GDI congress, please contact:

                    Gottlieb Duttweiler Institut
                    Frau Kunz-Wechler
                    CH-8803 Ruschlikon
                    Tel.: (01) 461 37 16


To register contact:
         SI/SGAICO
         Postfach 570
         CH-8027 Zurich
         Switzerland


from: Daniel K.Schneider
Departement de Science Politique, Universite de Geneve
1211 GENEVE 4 (Switzerland), Tel. (..41) 22 20 93 33 ext. 2357

          to VMS/BITNET:                    to UNIX/EAN:
BITNET:   SCHNEIDER@CGEUGE51                shneider%cui.unige.chunet@CERNVAX
ARPA:     SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM  shneider%cui.unige.chunet@ubc.csnet
uucp:                                       mcvax!cernvax!cui!shneider
X.400/ean:                                  shneider@cui.unige.chunet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
144
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report Sources
-BODY-
Mrs. A. McCauley
Department of Computer Science
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, M13 9PL
England
Payment should be made by sterling cheque made payable to the
University of Manchester

Technical Reports Librarian
Computer Science Department
University of Wisconsin
1210 W. Dayton St.
Madison, WI  53706

F. Renzetti  IMAG  B.P. 68  38402 St MARTIN D'HERES  (France)

Technical Reports Secretary
Department of Computer Science
University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria, 3052
AUSTRALIA
(Donations of $5.00 per tech report requested)

Naomi Schulman
Publications
Computer Systems Laboratory
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
Postbus 4079
1009 AB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
(Foreign payments are subject to a surcharge to cover bank, postal
and handling charges)



Ms. K. M. Garcia
Technical Librarian
Department of Computer Science
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Computing Research Laboratory
University of Michigan
Room 1079, East Engineering Building
Ann ARbor, Michigan 48109

L. A. Stratmann
Department of Computer Science
Rice University
P. O. Box 1892
Houston, Texas 77251

Department of Computer Sciences
Technical Report Center
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
CS.TECH@UTEXAS-20

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Department of Computer Science
562 McBryde Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography #1
-BODY-
%A William R. Arnold
%A John S. Bowie
%T Artificial Intelligence: A Personal Commonsense Journey
%I Prentice Hall
%D 1986
%K AT15
%X 24.95, ISBN 0-13-148877-1 219 pages


%A Luc Steels
%A John A. Campbell
%T Progress in Artificial Intelligence
%D 1985
%K AT15

%A Rodney A. Brooks
%T Programming in Common Lisp
%I John Wiley and Sons
%D 1985
%K AT15 T01
%X ISBN 0-471-818888-7

%A Ajit Narayanan
%A Noel E. Sharkey
%T An Introduction to Lisp
%I Chichester: Ellis Horwood
%D 1985
%K AT15 T01
%X ISBN 0-470-20244-0 paperback

%A Alain Bonet
%T Artificial Intelligence: Promise and Performance
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1985
%K AT15
%X 221 pages ISBN 0-13-048869-0

%A Wendy B. Rauch-Hindin
%T Artificial Intelligence in Business, Science and Industry, Volume I:
Fundamentals
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1985
%X 331 pages ISBN-0-134-048893-3 $34.95



%A Wendy B. Rauch-Hindin
%T Artificial Intelligence in Business, Science and Industry, Volume II:
Applications
%I Prentice-Hall
%D 1986
%X 348 pages ISBN-0-134-048901-3 $34.95


%A Tim Johnson
%T Natural Language Computing: The Commercial Applications
%I Ovum Limited
%C London
%K AI02 AT04

%A B. K. Boguraev
%A K. S. Jones
%T A Framework for Inference in Natural Language Front Ends to Databases
%I University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
%R Report No. 64
%D 1985
%K AI02 AA09

%A F. J. Damerau
%T An Interactive Customization Program for a Natural Language Database
Query System
%I IBM Research Division
%R Report No. 10411
%D 1984
%K AI02 AA09

%A F. J. Damerau
%T Problems and Some Solutions in Customization of Natural Language Data
Base Front Ends
%I IBM Research Divison
%D 1984
%R Report No. 10872
%K AI02 AA09

%A H. Enomoto
%T TELL: a Natural Language Based Software Development System
%I Institute for New Generation Computer Technology
%D 1984
%R Report No. 67
%K AI02

%A R. E. Frederking
%T Syntax and Semantics in Natural Language Parsers
%I Carnegie-Melon University,
Department of Computer Science
%R Report No. 85-133
%D 1985
%K AI02

%A P. S. Jacobs
%T PHRED: A Generator for Natural Language Interfaces
%I University of California, Berkeley Computer Science Division
%R Report No. 85-198
%D 1985
%K AI02

%A D. E. Johnson
%T Design of a Robust, Portable Natural Language Interface Grammar
%I IBM Research Division
%R Report No. 10867
%D 1984
%K AI02

%A J. K. Kalita
%T Generating Summary Responses to Natural Language Database
%I University of Saskatchewan
%R Report No. 84-9
%D 1984
%K AI02  AA09

%A E. Mays
%T A Modal Temporal Logic for Reasoning About Changing Database with
Applications to Natural Language Question Answering
%I University of Pennsylvania, Moore School of Electrical Engineering.
Department of Computer Science
%D 1985
%R Report No. 85-01
%K AI02 AI10 AA09

%A B. Neuamnn
%T Natural Language Descriptions of Time-Varying Scenes
%I Universitaet Hamburg. Fachbereich Informatik
%R Report No. 105
%D 1984
%K AI02 AI06

%A E. Orlowska
%T The Montague Formalization of Natural Language
%I Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Computer Sciences
%R Report No. 548
%D 1984
%K AI02

%A S. R. Petrick
%T Natural Language Database Query Systems
%I IBM Research Division
%R Report No. 10508
%D 1984
%K AI02

%A P. Saint-Dizier
%T An Approach to Natural Language Semantics in Logic Programming
%I Institute National de Recherce en Informatique et en Automatique
%R Report No. 389
%K AI02 AI10

$A L. F. Rau
%T The Understanding and Generation of Ellipses in a Natural Language
Systems.
%I University of California Berkeley. Computer Science Division
%D 1984
%R Report No. 85-227
%K AI02



%T  Dynamic Computer Simulation of Multiple Closed-Chain Robotic
Mechanisms
%A Se-Young Oh
%A David E. Orin
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%T On Dynamic Models of Robot Force Control
%A Steven D. Eppinger
%A Warren P. Seering
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%T Arm Signature Identification
%A Henry W. Stone
%A Arthur C. Sanderson
%A Charles P. Neuman

%T The Effects of Dynamic Models on Robot Control
%A M B. Leahy Jr
%A K. P. Valavanis
%A  G. N. Saridi
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%T Experimental Determination of the Effect of Feedforward Control on
Trajectory Tracking Errors
%A Chae H. An
%A Christopher G. Atkeson
%A John M. Hollerbach
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%T Low Level Control for the Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand
%A K. B. Biggers
%A S. C. Jacobsen
%A G. E. Gerpheide
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%T Hybrid Position/Force Control of Multi-Arm Cooperating
Robots
%A Sama Hayati
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%T  Solving a Two Dimensional Path Planning Problem Using Topographical
Knowledge of the Environment and Capability Constraints
%A R. F. Richbourg
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%T Implementing a Force Strategy for Object Re-orientation
%A Ronald S. Fearing
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%T  On-Line Pathfinding in Multi-Robot Systems including Obstacles -
%A E. Freund
%A H. Hoyer
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%T Video Image Stereo Matching Using Phase-Locked Techniques
%A W. Thomas Miller III
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%T An Approach to 3-D Object Identification Using Range Images
%A David B. Shu
%A  C. C. Li
%A Y. N. Sun
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%T Sensing and Describing 3-D Structure
%A Peter K. Allen
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%T A New Decomposition for Three-Dimensional
Contours Based on Curvature and Torsion
%A  N. Kehtarnavaz
%A R. J. P.de Figueiredo
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06


%T Soft Configuration in Automated Insertion
%A C. B. Lofgren
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA26 AA04

%T Part Dispatch in Multistage Card Lines
%A  Ram Akella
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%T Throughput Maximization in Short Cycle Automated Manufacturing
%A M. H. Han
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%T Job Scheduling Model for a Flexible Manufacturing Machine
%A C. S. Tang
%B BOOK28
%K AA26


%T  Graphical Simulation and Automatic Verification of NC Maching Programs
%A U. Sungurtekin
%A H. B. Voecker
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%T Real-time Verification of Multi-Axis NC Machining
Programs with Raster Graphics
%A W. P. Wang
%A  K. K. Wang
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%T Real-time Error Compensation System for A Computerized
Numerical Control Turning Center
%A  Alkan Donmez
%A Kang Lee
%A  C. Richard Liu
%A  Moshe M. Barash
%B BOOK28
%K AA26


%T Adaptive Control of Robot Manipulators - A Review
%A T. C. Hsia
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%T Automatic Generation of the Dynamic Equations of the Robot
Manipulators using a Lisp Program
%A  Albert Izaguirre
%A  Richard Paul
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 T01


%A M. A. Peskin
%A A. C. Sanderson
%T Manipulation of a Sliding Object
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Rajko Tomovic
%A George A. Bekey
%T Robot Control by Reflex Actions
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. Togai
%A O. Yamano
%T Learning Control and its Optimality: Analysis and its Applications to
Controlling Industrial Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI04

%A Ataru Nakamura
%A Kang G. Shin
%A Neil D. McKay
%T Automatic Generation of Trajectory Planners for Industrial Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A G. N. Saridis
%A K. P. Valavahnis
%T Mathematical Formulation of the Organization Level of an Intelligent Machine
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Morikazu Takegaki
%A Tadashi Ohi
%T An Advanced Design Support System for Intelligent Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Ricard Cassinis
%T Automatic Resource Allocation in Industrial Multirobot Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Michael J. Swain
%A Joseph L. Mundy
%T Experiments in Using a Theorem Prover to Prove and Develop Geometrical
Theorems in Computer Vision
%B BOOK28
%K  AI06  AI11 AA13 AI14

%A W. Eric  L. Grimson
%T Disambiguating Sensory Interpretations Using Minimal Sets of Sensory
Data
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A H. S Yang
%A A. C. Kak
%T Determination of the Identity, Position and Orientation of the Topmost
Object
in a Pile
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Judith F. Silverman
%A David B. Cooper
%T Unsupervised Estimation of Polynomial Approximations to Smooth Surfaces
in Images or Range Data
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A P. J. Englert
%A P. K. Wright
%T  Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Design of Fixtures
for Automated Manufacturing
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A Patrick Fitzhorn
%A Wade O. Troxell
%T A Dynamic Approach to the Robotic Design Cycle
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. Dado
%A A. H. Soni
%T A Generalized Approach for Forward and Inverse Dynamics of Elastic
Manipulators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A R. Marino
%A S. Nicosia
%A A. Tornambe
%T Dynamic Modelling of Flexible Robot Manipulators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Gregory P. Starr
%T Edge Following with a PUMA 560 Manipulator Using VAL-II
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. Silva
%A L. Montano
%A P. Pardos
%T Terminal Controllers for Robots: Shooting and Optimal Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Christopher Clark
%A Lawrence Stark
%T Cooperative Robot Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A Gerhard Hirzing
%A J. Dietrich
%T Multisensory Robots and Sensorbased Path Generators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A E. G. Harokops
%T Optimal Learning Control of Mechanical Manipulators in Repetitive Motions
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI04

%A John Wen
%A Alan Desrochers
%T Sub-Time-Optimal Control Strategies for Robotic Manipulators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. B. Leahy
%A George N. Saridis
%T The RAL Hierarchical Control System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Kang G. Shin
%A Neil D. McKay
%T Minimum Time Trajectory Planning for Industrial Robots with General
Torque Constraints
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A H. Kazerooni
%A P. E. K. Houpt
%A T. B. Sheridan
%T Robust Compliant Motion for Manipulators, Part I: The Fundamental Concept
of Compliant Motion; Part II: Design Methods
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Mary M. Moya
%A William M. Davidson
%T Sensor Driven Factor Tolerant Control of a Maintenance Robot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Richard J. Grommes
%A Michael P. Hennessey
%A Warren J. Dick
%T Adaptive Intervehicle Positioning for Robotic Material Transfer
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A S. Thunborg
%T A Remote Maintenance Robot System for a Pulsed Nuclear Reactor
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Nobuyoshi Yokobori
%A Pen-shu Yeh
%A Azriel Rosenfield
%T Sub-Pixel Geometric Correction of Pictures by Calibration and
Decalibration
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Ichiro Masaki
%T Modular Multi-Resolution Vision Processor
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Ronald Lumia
%T Rapid Hidden Feature Elimination Using an Octree
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Nien-hu Chao
%A E. N. Schiebel
%T Inspection Assistant - A Knowledge-Based System for Piece Part Inspection
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Agostino Pl. M. Villa
%A Roberto Mosca
%A Giuseppe Murari
%T  Expert Control Theory: A Key for Solving
Production Planning Control Problem in Flexible Manufacturing
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A R. Ippolito
%A S. Rosseto
%A M. Vallauri
%A A. P. M. Villa
%T  The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence Applications in
Manufacturing
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A Caludio Boer
%T  Expert Control System Requirements for Manufacturing Process Control
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A Cynthia K. Whitney
%T Building "Expert Systems" When No Experts Exist
%B BOOK28
%K AA26 AI01

%A Alan A. Desrochers
%A Christopher M. Seaman
%T A Projection Method for Simplifying Robot Manipulator Models
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Brian Armstrong
%A Oussama Khatib
%A Joel Burdick
%T The Explicit Dynamic Model and Intertial Parameters of the PUMA 560 ARM
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. B. Leahy Jr.,
%A L. M. Nugent
%A K. P. Valavanis
%A G. N. Saridis
%T Efficient Dynamics for  a PUMA 600
%B BOOK28
%K AI07



%A R. B. Kelley
%T Vertical Integration for Robot Assembly Cells
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A S. A. Cameron
%A R. K. Culley
%T Determining the Minimum Translational Distance Between Two Convex
Polyhedra
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O06

%A Walter Meyer
%T Distance Between Boxes: Applications to Collision Detection and
Clipping
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A R. Alami
%A H. Chochon
%T  NNS, a Knowledge-Based On-Line System for an Assembly WorkCell
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A A. Rovetta
%A G. Frosi
%T  Logical Structure for Assembly with Robot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A J. R. Stenstrom
%A C. I. Connolly
%T Building Wire Frames from Multiple Range Views
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI06

%A X. Zhuang
%A T. S. Huang
%T From Two-View Motion Equations to Three-Dimensional Motion Parameters
and Surface Structure: A Direct and Stable Algorithm
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Giulio Sanino
%A Massimo Tistarelli
%T Analysis of Object Motion and Camera Motion in Real Scenes
%B BOOK28
%K   AI06

%A J. Amat
%A A. Casals
%A V. Llario
%T Improving Accuracy and Resolution of a Motion Stereo Vision System
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A B. Chernuschi-Frias
%A D. B. Cooper
%A P. N. Belhumeur
%T 3-D Object Position Estimation and Recognitions Based on Parameterized
Surfaces and Multiple Views
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A G. M. Acaccia
%A R. C. Michelini
%A R. M. Molfiono
%A P. A. Piaggio
%T  X-SIFIP: A Knowledge-based Special Purpose Simulator for the
Development of Flexible Manufacturing Cells
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A Andrew Kusiak
%T  FMS Scheduling: A Crucial Tool in an Expert Control Structure for
Production Planning
%B BOOK28
%K AA26 AI01

%A Jon D. Erickson
%A Aaron Cohen
%T  Autonomous Robotic Aspects of the Space Station Program
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA27

%A W. Kohn
%A K. Healy
%T  On-Line Task Interpreter for Astrobot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA27

%A Scott Y. Harmon
%A Douglas W. Grange
%A Walter A. Aviler
%T Techniques for Coordinating Autonomous Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Mark A. Bronez
%A Margaret M. Clarke
%A Alberta Quinn
%T Requirements Development for a Free-Flying Robot -- The Robin
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA19


%A Jeffrey S. Schoenwald
%A Michael S. Balck
%A Gregory A. Arnold
%A Timonthy A. Allison
%T Improved Robot Trajectory from Acoustic Range Servo Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Ljubomir T. Grujic
%T Tracking Analysis for Non-Stationary Non-Linar Discrete-Time System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Tomoaki Kubo
%A George Anwar
%A Masayoshi Tomizuka
%T Applications of Nonlinear Friction Compensation to Robot Arm Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07



%A Daniel E. Whitney
%T Real Robots Don't Need Jigs
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA26


%A Margo K. Apostolos
%T Robot Choreography: An Aesthetic Application in User Acceptance of
a Robot Arm
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA25 O01

%A Stuart G. Stanley
%A Mansour Eslami
%T On Design of an Educational Robot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AT18

%A P. J. Becker
%T Sensor Information Processing in Robot Control Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Gerard Medioni
%A Yoshio Yasumoto
%T Corner Detection and Curve Representation Using Cubic B-Splines
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Xueyin Lin
%A William G. Lee
%T SDFS: A New Strategy for the Recognition of Object Using Range
Data
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Bir Bhanu
%A John C. Ming
%T Recognition of 2-D Occluded Objects using a Cluster-Structure Paradigm
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Michael Magee Mitchell Nathan
%T A Theorem Proving Based Pattern Recognition System
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 AI11 AI14

%A Patricia McConail
%T Automation and CIMS in the Esprit Program
%B BOOK28
%K AA26

%A Ulrich Rembold
%A M. Vojnovic
%T  Operational Control for Robot Systems Integration into CIM
%B BOOK28
%K AA26 AI07

%A Lyle M. Jenkins
%T  Telerobotic Work System- Space Robotics Application
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA27

%A David L. Akin
%T Parametric Testing of Space Teleoperators through Neutral Buoyancy
Simulation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA27

%A T. Sheridan
%T Human Supervisory Control of Robot System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  O01

%A Jack Pennington
%T (I) Space Telerobotics: A Few More Hurdles
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA27

%A Fredrik Dessen
%T Coordinating Control of a Two Degrees of Freedom Universal Joint Structure
Driven by Three Servos
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Chang-huan Liu
%A Yen-ming Chen
%T Multimicroprocessor-based Cartesian Space Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Subbiah Mahalingam
%A Anand M. Sharan
%T The Optimal Balancing of the Robotic Manipulators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A N. Sreenath
%A P. S. Krishnaprasad
%T DYNAMAN: A Tool for Manipulator Design and Analysis
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Sanjeev R. Maddila
%T Motion Planning Algorithm for a Ladder Among Rectangular
Obstacles
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O06

%A Michael Erdmann
%A T. Lozano-Perez
%T On Multiple Moving Objects
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Michael Brady
%T Recent Advances Toward a Surface Primal Sketch
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Martial Hebert
%A Takeo Kanade
%T Range Data Analysis of Outdoors Scenes
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A N. Ayache
%A O. D. Faugeras
%A B. Faverjon
%A F. Lustman
%T Building Visual Maps by Combining Noisy Stereo Measurements
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A T. Poggio
%A Michael Drumheller
%T Parallel Stereo
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 H03 Thinking Machines

%A S. Harmon
%A G. Bianchini
%A B. Pinz
%T Sensor Data Fusion Through a Distributed Blackboard
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A J. Crowley
%T Generalized Surface Patches: A Representation for Composite
Surface Modeling
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A K. Jo. Overton
%T Range Vision, Force, and Tactile Sensory Integration:
Issues and an Approach
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 AI07

%A H. Durrant-Whyte
%T Integration of Distributed Sensor Observation
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 AI07

%A Waj-Joon Lee
%A David E. Orin
%T The Kinematics of Legged Locomotion Over Uneven Terrain
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A U. Ozguner
%T Control of Quadruped Trot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Chi-Keng Tsai
%A David E. Orin
%T Using Proximity Sensing in Robot Leg Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Jagdish Joshi
%A Alan A. Desrochers
%T Modeling and Control of a Mobile Robot Subject to
Disturbances
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Hiroaki Kobayashi
%T Grasping and Manipulation of Objects by Articulated Hands
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Steve Jacobsen
%A E. K. Iversen
%A D. F. Knutti
%A R. T. Johnson
%A K. B. Biggers
%T Machinery Issues in End Effector Design
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Mark R. Cutosky
%A Pual K. Wright
%T Modeling Manufacturing Grips and Correlations with the Design of Robotic
Hands
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA26

%A J. C. Becker
%A N. V. Thakor
%A K. G. Gruben
%T A Study of Human Hand Tendon Kinematics with Applications to Robot Hand
Design
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Michael A. Erdman
%A Matthew T. Mason
%T An Exploration of Sensorless Manipulation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Randy C. Brost
%T Automatic Grasp Planning in the Presence of Uncertainty
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  O04 AI09

%A Juan Juan
%A R. P. Paul
%T Model for Automatic Programming of Fine-Motion in Assemblies
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Bruce R. Donald
%T Robot Motion Planning with Uncertainty in the Geometric Models of the
Robot Environment: A Formal Framework for Error Detection and Recovery
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O04 AI09

%A Tsuji
%T Recent Advances Toward the Realization of a Flexible Mobile Vehicle
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A Allen M. Waxman
%A Jacqueline Le Moigne
%A Larry S. Davis
%A Eli Liang
%A Tharakesh Siddalingaiah
%T A Visual Navigation Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A Y. Y. Huang
%A Z. L. Cao
%A E. L. Hall
%T Region Filling Operation for Mobile Robot Using Computer Graphics
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A Richard Wallace
%A Kichie Matsuzaki
%A Yoshimasa Goto
%A Jon Webb
%A Jill Crisman
%A Takeo Kanade
%T Progress in Robot Road Following
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A C. Thorpe
%A S. Shafer
%A A. Stentz
%T An Architecture for Data Fusion
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 sensors

%A M. Shimojo
%A O. Khatib
%T Intelligent Fusion of Tactile Sensor Data
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A D. Morley
%A S. Chiu
%A J. Martin
%T Sensor Data Fusion on a Parallel Processor
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 H03 AI06

%A E. W. Kent
%A M. Shneier
%A T. H. Hong
%T Building Representations from Fusions of Multiple Views
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A E. Bensana
%A M. Correge
%A G. Bel
%A D. Dubois
%T An Expert System Approach to Industrial Job Shop Scheduling
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA26 AA05 AI01

%A J. Erschler
%A P. Esquirol
%T Decision Aid in Job Shop Scheduling: A Knowledge Based Approach
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA26

%A Alexandre M. Parodi
%A John J. Nitao
%A Louis S. McTamaney
%T An Intelligent System for an Autonomous Vehicle
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
145
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography #2
-BODY-

%A C. S. G. Lee
%A P. R. Chang
%T Efficient Parallel Algorithm for Robot Inverse Dynamics Computation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  H03

%A Shgaheen Ahmad
%T Real-Time Multi-processor Based Robot Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A V. Dupourque
%A H. Guiot
%A O. Ischacian
%T Towards Multi-Processor and Multi-Robot Controllers
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  H03

%A John M. Hollerbach
%A John E. Wood
%T Finger Force Computation without the Grip Jacobian
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A John Jameson
%A Larry Leifer
%T Quasi-Static Analysis: A Method for Predicting Grasp Stability
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Van-Duc Nguyen
%T The Synthesis of Stable Grasps in the Plan
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A James Barber
%A Richard A. Volz
%A Rajiv Desai
%A Ronitt Rubenfeld
%A Brian Schipper
%A Jan Wolter
%T Automatic Two-Fingered Grip Selection
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Dinesh K. Pai
%A M. C. Leu
%T INEFFABELLE - An Environment for Interactive Computer
Graphic Simulations of Robotic Applications
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A S. A. Hutchinson
%A A. C. Kak
%T FProlog: A Language to Integrate Logic and Functional Programming
for Automated Assembly
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 T02 AI10

%A Mitchell S. Steffen
%A Timothy J. Greene
%T An Application of Hierarchical Planning and Constraint-directed Search
to Scheduling Parallel Procesors
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 H03 AI09

%A John T. Fedema
%A Shaheen Ahmad
%T Determining a Static Robot Grasp for Automated Assembly
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Thomas F. Knoll
%A Ramesh C. Jain
%T Recognizing Partially Visible Objects Uising Feature Indexed Hypotheses
%B BOOK28
%K AI07   AI06

%A Stephen J. Gordon
%A Warren P. Seering
%T Accuracy Issues in Measuring Quantized Images of Straight Line Features
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A C. K. Cowan
%A R. C. Bolles
%A M. J. Hannah
%A J. A. Herson
%T Edge Chain Analysis for Object Verification
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A Rashpal S. Ahluwalia
%A Lynn M. Fogwell
%T A Modular Approach to Visual Servoing
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Melvin Montemerlo
%T  NASA's Robotics and Automation Technology Development Program
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA27

%A Chung Fong
%A A. K. Bejczy
%A R. Dotson
%T  Distributed Microcomputer Control System for Advanced Teleoperators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA27 H03

%A Bernard Espiau
%T  An Integrated Experiment in Advanced Nuclear Teleoperation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Fumio Miyazaki
%A shigaki Matsubayashi
%A Takashi Yoshimi
%A Suguru Arimoto
%T A New Control Methodology toward Advance Teleoperation of Master
Salve Robot Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A K. Youcef-Toumi
%A H. Asada
%T The Design of Open Loop Manipulator Arms with Decoupled and Configuration
Invariant Inertia Tensors
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A B. W. Mooring
%A T. J. Pack
%T Determination and Specification of Robot Repeatability
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Vincent Hayward
%T Fast Collision Detection Scheme by Recursive Decomposition of a Manipulator
Workspace
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Vladimir J. Lumesky
%T Continuous Path Planning for a Three-Dimensional Cartesian Robot Arm
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI09

%A Martin Herman
%T Fast, Three-Dimensional, Collision-Free Motion Planning
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI09

%A R. K. Culley
%A K. G. Kempf
%T A Collision Detection  Algorithm Based on Velocity and Distance
Bounds
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Richard E. Smith
%A Maria Gini
%T Robot Tracking and Control Issues in an Intelligent Error Recovery System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Marco Somalvico
%T  The Role of White Collar Robots Real-Time Expert Systems with Multi-Media
Sensory Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI01 O03

%A V. Dupourque
%T Using Abstraction Mechanisms to Solve Complex Tasks Programming in Robotics
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A M. L. Hornick
%A B. Ravani
%T  Data Structure and Database Design for Model Driven Robot Programming
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A John W. Roach
%A Jeff S. Wright
%T Spherical Dual Images: A 3D Representation Method for Solid Objects
that Combines Dual Space and Gaussian Spheres
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Erick P. Krotkov
%A Jean Paul Martin
%T Range From Focus
%B BOOK28
%K AI06


%A Christopher Bania
%A James C. Lin
%T Theory and Implementation of a High Capacity 3-D Recognition System
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A A. Robert de Saint Vincent
%T  A 3D Perception System for the Mobile Robot Hilare
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19 AI06

%A Michael J. Smith
%T  Sociotechnical Considerations in Robotics and Automation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O05


%A George Burri
%A Martin G. Helander
%T  Case Studies of Human Factors/Ergonomic Design in Robotics and
Automation at IBM
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O01

%A Olov Ostberg
%T  A European Perspective on Human Factors Aspects of Robotics and
Automation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O01 GA03

%A Dennis Bering
%T  Supervisory Interface with Expert Systems for Semi-Autonomous Walking
Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 O01 AI01

%A S. V. Nageswara Rao
%A S. S. Iyengar
%A C. C. Jorgenson
%A C. R. Weisbin
%T Concurrent Algorithms for Autonomous Robot
Navigation in an Unexplored Terrain
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06 AA19 H03

%A J. L. Olivier
%A F. Ozguner
%T A Navigation Algorithm for an Intelligent Vehicle with a Laser Rangefinder
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06 AA19

%A Alberto Elfes
%T A Sonar-Based Mapping and Navigation System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06 AA19

%A Shriar Negahdaripour
%T Direct Passive Navigation: Analytical Solutions for Planes and
Curves Surfaces
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI06




%A Kye Y. Lim
%A Masour Eslami
%T Robust Adaptive Controller Designs for Robot Manipulator Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Steven Fortune
%A Gordon Wilfgong
%A Chee Yap
%T Coordinated Motion of Two Robot Arms
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Pierre Tournassoud
%T A Strategy for Obstacle Avoidance and its Application to Multi-Robot
Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A Yuan F. Zheng
%A Fred R. Sias,\ Jr.
%T Multiple Robot Arms in Assembly
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA26

%A Sohail S. Houssani
%A David E. Jakopac
%T Multiple Manipulators and Robotic Workcell Coordination
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA26

%A Matt Barth
%A Srinivasan Parthasarathy
%A Jing Wang
%A Evelyn Hu
%A Susan Hackwood
%A Gerardo Beni
%T A Color Vision System for Microelectronics: Application to Oxide
Thickness Measurements
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06


%A Ren C. Luo
%A Wen-Hsiang Tsai
%T Object Recognition Using Tactile Image Array Sensors
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI06

%A Kenneth J. Overton
%A Vivek V. Badami
%T Tactile Sensors for Robotic Touch
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AI06

%A M. R. Driels
%T Pose Estimation Using Tactile Sensor Data for Assembly Operation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A J. Schneiter
%A T. B. Sheridan
%T Optimal Strategy for Object Recognition by Tactile Sensing
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A P. Dario
%A M. Bergamasco
%A A. Fiorillo
%A R. Di Leonardo
%T Geometrical Optimization and Design Criteria for Tactile Sensing Patterns
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A S. A. Stansfield
%T Primitives, Features and Exploratory Procedures: Building a Robot Tactile
Perception System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A R. E. Ellis
%T A Multiple-Scale Measure of Static Tactile Texture
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A David Siegel
%A Inaki Garabieta
%A John M. Hollerbach
%T An Integrated Tactile and Thermal Sensor
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A J. Vranish
%T (I) Magneto-Inductive Skin for Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A T. Tsumura
%T  Survey of Automated Guided Vehicle Use in Japanese Factories
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  GA01 AA26  AA19

%A T. Tsumura
%A M. Hashimoto
%T  Positioning and Guidance of Ground Vehicle by use of Laser and
Corner Cube
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A K. Nishide
%A M. Hanawa
%T  Automatic Position Findings of Vehicle by means of Laser
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A T. Takeda
%T Automated Vehicle Guidance using Video-Camera/spot Mark System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07  AA19

%A Kenneth Salisbury
%T  Teleoperator Hand Design Issues
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Jeffrey R. Kerr
%T  Special Grasping Configurations with Dextrous Hands
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Van-Duc Nguyen
%T  Constructing Force-Closure Grasps
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A Peter W. Taylor
%T  Design and Implementation of a Multi-Variable Programmable Controller
for a 9-axis General Purpose Gripper
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A J. Y. S. Luh
%A Y. F. Zheng
%T Compliance and Coordinated Control of Two Moving Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A O. Khatib
%T A Unified Approach for Motion and Force Control: The Operational Space
Formulation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A J. J. E. Slotine
%T Robustness and Adaptation in Compliant Motion Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A Tsuneo Yashikawa
%T Dynamic Hybrid Position/Force Control of Robot Manipulators:
Description of Hand Constraints and Calculation of Joint Driving Force
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A Freidrich Pfeiffer
%A Ranier Johanni
%T A Concept for Manipulator Trajectory Planning
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Bernard Faverjon
%T Object Level Programming of Industrial Robots
%B BOOK28
%K AI07



%A Bruce H. Krogh
%A Charles E. Thorpe
%T Integrated Path Planning and Dynamic Steering Control for Autonomous
Vehicles
%B BOOK28
%K AA19

%A D. Gaw
%A A. Meystel
%T Minimum Time Navigation of an Unmanned Mobile Robot in a 2 1/2 D World
with Obstacles
%B BOOK28
%K AA19 AI09

%A A. Meystel
%A A. Guez
%A G. Hillel
%T Planning of Minimum Time Motion Among Obstacles
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI09 AA19

%A J. Bradley Chen
%A Ronald S. Fearing
%A Brian S. Armstrong
%A Joel W. Burdick
%T NYMPH: A Multiprocessor for Manipulation Applications
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 H03

%A Christopher G. Atkenson
%A Joe McIntyre
%T Robot Trajectory Learning Through Practice
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI04

%A Sanjiv Singh
%A Meghanad D. Wagh
%T Robot Path Planning Using Intersecting Convex Shapes
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI09

%A D. M. Lyons
%T Tagged Potential Fields: An Approach to Specification of Complex Manipulator
Configurations
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A B. John Oommen
%A Irwin Reichstein
%T On the Problem of Translating an Elliptic Object Through a Workspace of
Elliptic Obstacles
%B BOOK28
%K AI07


%A James H. Graham
%A John H. Meegher
%A Stephen J. Derby
%T A Safety and Collision Avoidance System for Industrial Robots
%J IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
%V 22
%N 1
%D JAN-FEB 1986
%K AI07

%A K. Piasecki
%T On the Bayes Formula for Fuzzy Probability Measures
%J Fuzzy Sets and Systems
%V 18
%N 2
%D MAR 1986
%K O04

%A I. A. Kalynev
%T A Decentralized System for Planning and Controlling the Activity
of a Team of Mobile Robots
%J Cybernetics
%V 21
%N 4
%D JUL-AUG 1984
%P 533-538
%K AI07 AI09

%A B. R. Boyce
%T Questions Natural Language Examples in Caduceus
%J OnLine
%V 10
%N 2
%D MAR 1986
%P 54-76
%K AA01 AI01 AI02 AA14


%A B. S. Thompson
%A C. K. Sung
%T The Design of Robots and Intelligent Manipulators Using Modern Composite
Materials
%J MAG24
%P 471-482
%K AI07

%A S. M. Song
%A K. J. Waldron
%A G. L. Kinzel
%T Computer-Aided Geometric Design of Legs for a Walking Vehicle
%J MAG24
%P 587-596
%K AI07

%A N. Nandhakumar
%A J. K. Aggarwal
%T The Artificial Intellgience Approach to Pattern Recognition -
A Perspective and an Overview
%J MAG25
%P 383-390
%K AI06

%A J. H. Justice
%A D. J. Hawkins
%A G. Wong
%T Multidimensional Attribute Analysis and Pattern Recognition for Seismic
Interpretation
%J MAG25
%P 391-408
%K AI06  AA03

%A P. L. Love
%A M. Simaan
%T Segmentation of a Seismic Section Using Image Processing and Artificial
Intelligence Techniques
%J MAG25
%P 409-420
%K AI06 AA03

%A K. Y. Huang
%A K. S. Fu
%T Syntactic Pattern Recognition for the Recognition of Bright Spots
%J MAG25
%P 421-428
%K AI06

%A K. Y. Huang
%A K. S. Fu
%A T. H. Sheen
%A S. W. Cheng
%T Image Processing of Seismograms: (A) Hough Transformation for the Detection
of Seismic Patterns (B) Thinning Processing in the Seismogram
%J MAG25
%P 429-440
%K AI06 AA03

%A R. F. Kubichek
%A E. A. Quincy
%T Statistical Modeling and Feature Selection for Seismic Pattern Recognition
%J MAG25
%P 441-448
%K AI06 AA03

%A R. F. Kubicheck
%A E. A. Quincy
%T Identification of Seismic Stratigraphic Traps Using Statistical Pattern
Recognition
%J MAG25
%P 449-458
%K AI06 AA03

%A H. H. Liu
%T A Rule-Based System for Automatic Seismic Determination
%J MAG25
%P 459-464
%K AI06 AA03

%A J. C. Hassab
%A C. H. Chen
%T On Constructing An Expert System for Contact Localization and Tracking
%J MAG25
%P 465-474
%K AI06 AA03 underwater acoustics

%A R. C. Hughes
%A J. N. Maksym
%T Acoustic Signal Interpretation: Reasoning with Nonspecific and Uncertain
Information
%J MAG25
%P 475-484
%K AI06 AA03 O04

%A C. H. Chen
%T Recognition of Underwater Transient Patterns
%J MAG25
%P 485-490
%K AI06

%A B. Bentz
%T Automatic Programming System for Signal Processing Applications
%J MAG25
%P 491
%K AA08 AI06

%A Shigemi Nagata
%A Tohio Matsura
%A Hidachi Endo
%T Automatic Recognition System for Logic Circuit Diagrams
%J Fujitsu Scientific and Technical Journal
%V 21
%N 4
%D AUG 1985
%P 408-420
%K AI06 AA04

%A Yishai A. Feldman
%T A Decidable Propositional Dynamic Logic with Explicit Probabilities
%J MAG26
%P 11-38
%K O04 AI11

%A David Harel
%A Dexter Kozen
%T A Programming Language for the Inductive Sets and Applications
%J MAG26
%P 118

%A R. I. Phelps
%T Artificial Intelligence-An Overview of Similarities with O. R.
%J MAG27
%P 13-20

%A M. J. Russell
%A R. K. Moore
%A M. J. Tomlinson
%T Dynamic Programming and Statistical Modeling in Automatic Speech Recognition
%J MAG27
%P 21-30
%K AI05

%A Michael Tso
%T Network Flow Models in Image Processing
%J MAG27
%P 31-34
%K AI06

%A Jon Warwick
%A Bob Phelps
%T An Application of Dynamic Programming to Pattern Recognition
%J MAG27
%P 35-40
%K AI06

%A T. J. Grant
%T Lessons for O. R. from A. I.: A Scheduling Case Study
%J MAG27
%P 41-48
%K AA05

%A V. G. Sigillito
%T Artificial Intelligence Research at the APL Research Center: An Overview
%J MAG28
%P 15-18


%A B. F. Kim
%A J. Bohandy
%A V. G. Sigillito
%T A Hierarchical Computer Vision Programming
%J MAG28
%P 19-22
%K AI06

%A B. I. Blum
%A V. G. Sigillito
%T An Expert system for Designing Information Systems
%J MAG28
%P 23-30
%K AI01 AA08

%A B. W. Hamill
%A R. L. Stewart
%T Modeling the Acquisition and Representation of Knowledge for Distributed
Tactical Decision Making
%J MAG28
%P 31-38
%K AA18 H03

%A Zuo L. Cao
%A Sung J. Oh
%A Ernest L. Hall
%T Dynamic Omnidirectional Vision for Mobile Robots
%J MAG29
%P 5-18
%K AI06 AI07

%A Wei-Chung Lin
%A Joseph B. Ross
%A Michelle Ziegler
%T Semiautomatic Calibration of Robot Manipulator for Visual Inspection Task
%J MAG29
%P 19-40
%K AI06 AI07

%A K. C. Gupta
%A G. J. Carlson
%T On Certain Aspects of the Zero Reference Position Method and its Application
to an Industrial Manipulator
%J MAG29
%P 41-58
%K AI07

%A T. H. Chiu
%A A. J. Koivo
%A R. Lewczyk
%T Experiments on Manipulator Gross Motion Using Self-tuning Controller and
Visu
al
Information
%J MAG29
%P 59-70
%K AI07 AI06

%A A. A. Goldenberg
%A A. Bazerghi
%T Contribution to Synthesis of Manipulator Control
%J MAG29
%P 71-104
%K AI07

%A Shuhei Aida
%A Mitsuhiko Hasegawa
%A Taizo Ueda
%T Technology and Corporate Culture of Industrial Robots in Japan
%J MAG29
%P 105
%K AI07 GA01 O05

%A A. Micho
%T Developments in Expert Systems by M. J. Coombs
%J Proceedings of the IEEE
%V 74
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%P 52
%K AT07 AI01

%A J. O. Eklundh
%A L. Kjelidahl
%T Computer Graphics and Computer Vision -- Some
Unifying and Discriminating Features
%J Computer and Graphics
%V 9
%N 4
%P 339-350
%D 1985
%K AI06

%A John Sandor
%T Octree Data Structures and Perspective Imagery
%J Computers and Graphics
%V 9
%N 4
%D 1985
%K AI06

%A Joseph Y. Halpern
%A Yoram Moses
%T Toward a Theory of Knowledge and Ignorance (Preliminary Report)
%B BOOK36
%P 459-476
%K AI16

%A Asher Peres
%T Reversible Logic and Quantum Computers
%J Physics Reviews A
%V 32
%D 1985
%N 6
%P 3266-3276

%A G. G. Ananiashviii
%A Z. I. Mundzhishvii
%A N. N. Bichashvii
%T Word Identification in a Natural Language in Interactive Systems
%J Soobshch. Akad. Nauk. Gruzin. SSR
%V 116
%D 1984
%N 3
%P 497-500
%K AI02
%X in Russian with English and Georgian Summaries

%A Dumitru Dumitrescu
%T Hierarchical Classification with Fuzzy Sets
%R Reprint 84-5
%I Univ. Babes-Bolyai
%C Cluj-Napoca
%D 1984
%K O04 O06
%X also appeared in Seminar of Models, Structures and Information Processing,
Cluj-Napoca

%A V. V. Krasnoproshin
%A V. A. Obratsov
%T Two-Level Models of Pattern Recognition Algorithms
%J Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i. Mat. Fiz
%V 25
%D 1985
%N 10
%P 1534-1546, 1582
%K AI06
%X (in Russian)

%A A. M. Slinko
%T Some Algebraic Operations Over Classification Algorithms and Their
Application
%J Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i. Mat. Fiz.
%V 25
%D 1985
%N 10
%P 1547-1546
%K O06
%X (in Russian)

%A Ronald R. Yager
%T Aggregating Evidence Using Quantified Statements
%J Inform. Sci
%V 36
%D 1985
%N 1-2
%P 179-206
%K O04

%A A. S. Dzyuba
%T Mean Deviation of the Frequency of Incorrect Pattern Recognition from
the Probability
%J Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i. Mat. Fiz.
%V 25
%D 1985
%N 10
%P 1547-1546
%K AI06
%X (in Russian)

%A D. M. Gabbay
%T Theoretical Foundations for Nonmonotonic Reasoning in Expert Systems
%B BOOK36
%P 439-457
%K AI15 AI16

%A Brian R. Gaines
%A Mildred L. G. Shaw
%T Logic, Algebra and Databases
%S Computers and Their Applications
%V 29
%I Ellis Horwood
%C Chichester
%K AT15  AA09
%X 294 pages ISBN 0-85312-709-3

%A H. Guggenheimer
%T Optical Flow for General Transformations
%S Polytechnic Notes on Artificial Intelligence
%V 1
%I Polytechnic Institute of New York, Division of Computer Science
%C Farmingdale, NY 1985
%K AI06
%X 19 pages

%A Abraham Lempel
%A Jacob Ziv
%T Compression of Two-Dimensional Images
%B BOOK37
%P 141-154
%K AI06


%A Can Isik
%A Alexander Meystel
%T Decision Making at a Level of a Hierarchical Control for Unmanned Robot
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Marcin Banachiewicz
%T MSL: Robotic Sensor/Effector Programming Language
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Michael K. Brown
%T On Ultrasonic Detection of Surface Features
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A B. A. Auld
%A A. J. Bahr
%T A Novel Multifunctional Robot Sensor
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A P. P. Lin
%A P. Datseris
%T Development of a Position and Force Sensor for Robotic Applications
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A F. W. Sinden
%A R. A. Bole
%T A Planar Capactive Force Sensor with Six Degrees of Freedom
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A William I. Bullers
%T Logic Programming for Manufacturing System Specification
%B BOOK28
%K  AI10 AA26

%A Rodger Cliff
%T Meta-Architectural Issues of the ALV: Developing a Paradigm for Intelligent
System Engineering
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A David Payton
%T A Reflexive Control Approach to Autonomous Vehicle Navigation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19

%A Daryl T. Lawton
%A Tod Levitt
%A Jay Glicksman
%T Terrain Modeling and Recognition for an Autonomous Lank Vehicle (sic)
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19 AI06

%A Don Shapiro
%A Ted Linden
%A Jay Glicksman
%A Daryl Lawton
%T Object Based Planning for an Autonomous Land Vehicle
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19 AI09

%A W. W. W. Cimino
%A G. R. Penrock
%T Workspace of a Six Revolute Decoupled Robot Manipulator
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Bayliss McInnis
%A Chen-Kang Liu
%T Coordinate Frames, Transformations and Inverse Functions for Joint Variables
in Robotics: A Tutorial Based Upon Classical Concepts
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Dieter W. Wloka
%T Simulation of Robots Using CAD-System Robsim
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Chi-hau Wau
%A Herando Valenco
%T Trajectory Feasibility Study Based on Cartesian Workspace Geometry for
Robot Manipulators
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A J. Korein
%A R. Taylor
%A G. Maier
%A L. Durfee
%T A Configurable Environment for Motion Programming and Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Richard Paul
%A Hang Zhang
%T A Force and Motion Server for Distributed Robot Control
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 H03

%A D. Siegel
%A S. Narasimhan
%A K. Biggers
%A G. Gerpheide
%T Implementation of Control Methodologies on the Computational
Architecture for the Utah/MIT Hand
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Robert D. Gaglianello
%A Howard P. Katseff
%T A Distributed Computing Environment for Robotics
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
146
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography #3
-BODY-
%T Large-Dictionary, On-Line Recognition of Spoken Words
%I Helsinki Univ. of Technology
%D 1983
%R PB84-214246/CAO
%K AI02
%X NTIS price, PC$11.50/MF$6.50

%T LispKit Manual. Volume 1
%I Oxford University
%D 1983
%R PB84-204874/CAO
%K T01
%X NTIS price PC $17.50/MF $17.50

%T LispKit Manual. Volume 2 (Sources)
%I Oxford University
%D 1983
%K T01
%R PB84-204882/CAO
%X NTIS price PC$17.50/MF $17.50

%T Verification of Secure Systems
%I Newcastle upon Tyne Univ.
%D 1982
%R PB84-138718/CAO
%K AA08
%X NTIS price PC$13.50/MF$13.50

%T Designing Automated Systems -- Need Skill Be Lost
%I University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
%D AUG 1983
%R PB84-232297/CAO
%K O05
%X NTIS price PC $9.50/MF $9.50

%T Robot Manipulators: Program Control 1975- SEPT 1984
%I NTIS
%R PB 84-875384/CAO
%K AI07 AT09
%X NTIS prices PC $40.00/MF$40.00  contains over 300 references extracted
from the INSPEC database

%T Robotic Technology: An Assessment and Forecast
%I DHR, Inc.
%C Washington, DC
%D JUL 1984
%R AD-A146 672/CAO
%K AI07
%X NTIS price PC $17.50 MF $4.50

%T Robotic Safety
%I Sandia National Labs
%C Alburquerque, NM
%D MAY 1984
%R DE84-012237/CAO
%K AI07
%X NTIS prices PC $7/MF$4.50




%A Chanderjit Bajaj
%T An Efficient Parallel Solution for
Euclidean Shortest Paths in Three Dimensions
%B BOOK28
%K O06

%A P. Morasso
%A F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi
%T The Role of Physical Constraints in Natural and Artificial Manipulation
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A S. Dubowsky
%A M. A. Norris
%A Z. Shiller
%T Time Optimal Trajectory Planning for Robotic Manipulators with Obstacle
Avoidance: A CAD Approach
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI09

%A E. Dombre
%A A. Fournier
%A C. Quaro
%A P. Borrel
%T Trends in CAD/CAM Systems for Robotics
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A A. L. Pai
%A K. Lee
%A K. Palmer
%A D. G. Selvidge
%T Automated Visual Inspection of Aircraft Engine Combustor Assemblies
%B BOOK28
%K AI06 AA26

%A Thomas M. Kisko
%A Eginhard J. Muth
%T Multiple-Stage Assembly of Personal Computers in Robotic Workcells
with Vision Support
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06 AA26

%A E. B. Silverman
%A R. K. Simmons
%A F. E. Gelhaus
%A J. Lewis
%T Surveyor: A Remotely Operated Mobile Surveillance System
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06 AA19 AA04

%A Edward N. Scheibel
%A Henry R. Busby
%A Kenneth J. Waldron
%T Design of a Mechanical Proximity Sensor
%B BOOK28
%K AI07

%A Corinne C. Ruokangas
%A Michael S. Black
%T Integration of Multiple Sensors to Provide Flexible Control Strategies
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI06

%A Keishi Hanahara
%A Tsugito Maruyama
%A Takashi Uchiyama
%T High-Speed Hough Transform Processor and its Applications to Automatic
Inspection and Measurement
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A H. D. Cheng
%T VLSI Architecture for Dynamic Time-Warp Recognition of Hand-Written Symbols
%B BOOK28
%K AI06

%A E. Hu
%A S. Mangiaracina
%A M. Peters
%A A. Harkin
%A S. Hackword
%A G. Beni
%T Inference in Intelligent Machines: Applications to a Thermal Evaporator
%B BOOK28
%K  AA05 AI01

%A Zixing Cai
%A K. S. Fu
%T Robot Planning Expert Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AI01

%A Zixing Cai
%T Some Research Works on Expert Systems in AI Course at Purdue
%B BOOK28
%K AI01 AT18

%A Jean Patrick Tsang
%A Yves Lagoude
%T Representation and Manipulation of Process Plans in Generic Expert Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AI01 AA05 AI09

%A Mark Thomas
%T ALV Reasoning Systems
%B BOOK28
%K AA19

%A David Morgenthaler
%T ALV Perception System
%B BOOK28
%K AA19 AI06

%A Jim Lowrie
%A R. Douglass
%T Autonomous Road Following
%B BOOK28
%K AI07 AA19 AI06

%A T. Kanade
%T Panel Discussion: Possibilities in ALV Research
%B BOOK28
%K AA19

%A Joseph Y. Halpern
%T Reasoning About Knowledge: An Overview
%B BOOK38
%K AA16

%T Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge
%A Joseph Y. Halpert
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1986
%K AA16 AT15
%X ISBN 0-934613-0404 $18.95

%A Ryszard S. Michalski
%A Jaime G. Carbonell
%A Tom M. Mitchell
%T Machine Learning : An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume II
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1986
%K AI04 AT15
%X ISBN 0-934613-00-1  $39.95 738 pages

%A Ronald J. Brachman
%A Hector J. Levesque
%T Readings in Knowledge Representation
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1986
%K AA16 AT15
%X ISBN 0-934613-01-X $26.95 571 pages

%A Perry L. Miller
%T A Critiquing Approach to Expert Computer Advice: Attending
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1984
%K AI01 AA01 anesthesiology O01 AT15 O01
%X ISBN 0-273-08665-0 $19.95 112 pages

%A Richard Korf
%T Learning to Solve Problems by Searching for Macro-Operators
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1985
%K AI09 AI04 AT15
%X ISBN 0-273-08690-1 $22.95

%A Pual R. Cohen
%T Heuristic Reasoning About Uncertainty An Artificial Intelligence
Approach
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1985
%K O06 AT15
%X ISBN 0-273-08667-7 $22.95

%A Andrew J. Palay
%T Searching with Probabilities
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1985
%K AT15 chess AI03 AA17 O04
%X ISBN 0-273-08664-2 $22.95 192 pages

%A Yuichi Ohta
%T Knowledge-Based Interpretation of Outdoor Natural Color Scenes
%I Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.
%C Palo Alto, CA
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI06
%X ISBN 0-273-08673-1  $19.95

%A Susanne P. Graf
%A J. Sifakis
%T From Synchronization Tree Logic to Acceptance Model Logic
%B BOOK35
%P 128-142
%K AA08

%A A Sam Kamin
%T A FASE specification of FP
%B BOOK35
%P 143-152
%K AA08

%A R. Koymans
%A R. K. Shyamasundar
%A W. P. de Roever
%A R. Gerth
%A S. Arun-Kumar
%T Compositional Semantics for Real-Time Distributed
computing
%B BOOK35
%P 167-189
%K AA08

%A F. Kroger
%T On Temporal Program Verification Rules
%J RAIRO Inform. Theor
%V 19
%D 1995
%N 3
%P 261-280
%K AA08

%A J. L. Lassez
%A Michael John Maher
%T Optimal Fixed Points of Logic Programs
%J Theoretical Computer Science
%V 39
%D 1985
%N 1
%P 15-25
%K AI10

%A Daniel Leivant
%T Partial-Correctness Theoreis as First-Order Theories
%B BOOK35
%K AA08 AI11
%P 190-195

%A Albert R. Meyer
%A Mitchell Wand
%T Continuation Semantics in Typed Lambda-Calculi
%B BOOK35
%K AA08

%A B. Mishra
%A E. Clarke
%T Hierarchical Verification of Asynchronous Circuits Using
Temporal Logic
%B BOOK35
%K AA04

%A Eugene C. Freuder
%T A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Bounded Search
%J JACM
%V 32
%N 4
%D 1985
%P 755-761
%K AI03

%A Irina Bercovici
%T Unsolvable Terms in Typed Lambda Calculus with Fixed
Point Operators
%B BOOK35
%P 16-22
%K AA08

%A Val Breazu-Tannen
%A Albert R. Meyer
%T Lambda Calculus with Constrained Types
%B BOOK35
%P 23-40
%K AA08

%A Stephen D. Brookes
%T An Axiomatic treatment of a Parallel Programming
Language
%B BOOK35
%P 41-60
%K AA08

%A A A. Ya Dikovskii
%T Solution in Linear Time of Algorithmic Problems
Connected with Synthesis of Nonlooping Programs
%J Programmirovanie
%V 1985
%N 3
%P 38-49
%K AA08
%X in Russian

%A E. Allen Emerson
%T Automata, Tableaux and Temporal Logics
%B BOOK35
%P 79-88
%K AA08

%A Nissim Francez
%A Orna Grumberg
%A Shmuel Katz
%A Amir Pnueli
%T Proving Termination of Prolog Programs
%B BOOK35
%P 89-105
%K AA08 O02

%A J. Padget
%T Current Developments in Lisp
%B BOOK39
%P 45-57
%K T01

%A A. W. Biermann
%T Algorithmic Methods in Automatic Programming
%B BOOK39
%P 124-135
%K AA08

%A G. Kreisel
%T Proof Theory and the Synthesis of Progrmas - Potentials and Limitations
%B BOOK39
%P 136-150
%K AA08

%A T. Coquand
%A G. Huet
%T Constructions - A Higher Order Proof System for Mechanizing Mathematics
%B BOOK39
%P 151-184
%K AA13

%A C. A. R. Hoare
%T The Mathematics of Programming
%B BOOK40
%P 1-18
%K AA08

%A G. Agha
%A C. Hewitt
%T Concurrent Programming Using Actors - Exploiting Large-Scale Parallelism
%B BOOK40
%P 19-40
%K H03

%A C. Ghezzi
%A D. Mandrioli
%A A. Tecchio
%T Program Simplification via Symbolic Interpretation
%B BOOK40
%P 116-128
%K AA08

%A J. Hsiang
%A M. Srivas
%T PROLOG Based Inductive Theorem Proving
%B BOOK40
%P 129-149
%K T02 AI11

%A J. Veenstra
%A N. Ahuja
%T Deriving Object Octree from Images
%B BOOK40
%P 196-211
%K AI06

%A Z. Manna
%A R. Walding
%T Deduction with Relation Matching
%B BOOK40
%P 212-224
%K AI14 AI11

%A F. V. Jensen
%A K. G. Larsen
%T Recursively Defined Domains and their Induction Principles
%B BOOK40
%P 225-245
%K AA08

%A G. Venkatesh
%T A Decision Method for Temporal Logic Based on Resolution
%B BOOK40
%P 272-289
%K AI11 AI14

%A A. Chandra
%T Who Needs to Verify Programs if you Can Test Them
%B BOOK40
%P 346
%K AA08

%A V. A. Saraswat
%T Partial Correctness Semantics for CP [Down-and]
%B BOOK40
%P 347-368
%K AA08

%A E. W. Stark
%T A Proof Technique for Rely Guarantee Properties
%B BOOK40
%P 369-391
%K AA08 AI11

%A G. Winskel
%T A Complete Proof System for SCCS with Modal Assertions
%B BOOK40
%P 392-410
%K AA08

%A R. D. Schraft
%A J. Schuler
%T Robot Applications in FMS
%B Flexible Manufacturing Systems
%E H. J. Warnecke
%E R. Steinhilper
%I Springer-Verlag
%C Berlin
%D 1985

%A A. A. Goldenberg
%A A. Bazerghi
%T Synthesis of Robot Control for Assembly Processes
%J Mechanism and Machine Theory
%V 21
%N 1
%D 1986
%P 43-62
%K AI07 AA26

%A H. J. Warnecke
%A B. Frankenhauser
%T Assembly of Flexible Parts with Industrial Robots
%J MAG30
%P 8-11
%K AI07 AA26

%A P. Nicolaisen
%T Improved Worker Safety in the Programming of Industrial Robots
%J MAG30
%P 12-14
%K AI07

%A K. H. Wurst
%A M. Bauder
%T Control Structures and Information Exchange for Linked Industrial
Robots
%J MAG30
%P 15-17
%K AI07 H03

%A Jeffrey Kerr
%A Bernard Roth
%T Analysis of Multifingered Hands
%J MAG31
%P 3-17
%K AI07

%A Mark L. Hornick
%A Bahram Ravani
%T Computer Aided Off-Line Planning and Programming of Robot Motion
%J MAG31
%P 18-31
%K AI07

%A John Hopcroft
%A Gordon Wilfgong
%T Motions of Objects in Contact
%J MAG31
%P 32-46
%K AI07

%A Katsutoshi Kuribayashi
%T A New Actuator of a Joint Mechanism Using TiNi Alloy Wire
%J MAG31
%P 47-58
%K AI07

%A Jorge Angeles
%T Iterative Kinematic Inversion of General Five-Axis Robot Manipulators
%J MAG31
%P 59-70
%K AI07

%A James P. Trevelyan
%a Peter D. Kovesi
%A Michael Ong
%A David Elford
%T ET: A Wrist Mechanism without Singular Positions
%J MAG31
%P 71
%K AI07


%A K. G. Kempf
%T Manufacturing and Artificial Intelligence
%B BOOK41
%P 1-20
%K AA26

%A P. Raulefs
%T Knowledge Processing Expert Systems
%B BOOK41
%P 21-32
%K AI01

%A W. Wahlster
%T Cooperative Access Systems
%B BOOK41
%P 33-46
%K AI16

%A C. W. Burckhardt
%T The Next Generation of Robots - Increased Flexibility Through the
Use of Sensors
%B BOOK41
%P 47-50
%K AI07

%A B. Neumann
%T Vision Systems - State of the Art and Prospects
%B BOOK41
%P 51-62
%K AI06

%A G. Albers
%T Expert Systems and Knowledge Engineering - Robotics and
Intelligent Interfaces - Summary of Discussions
%B BOOK41
%P 63-66
%K AI01 AI07

%A B. Rees
%T Artificial Intelligence in a Large-Scale Enterprise - the
Experience of Digital Equipment Corrporation
%B BOOK41
%P 67-76

%A D. Sagalowicz
%T Expert Systems in Service Sectors - Use of Expert Systems in 6
Sample Cases
%B BOOK41
%P 77-80
%K AA06 AI01

%A H. Thompson
%T Office Automation - A Field for Applied Artificial Intelligence
%B BOOK41
%P 81-86
%K AA06

%A C. J. Jenny
%T Requirements on Expert Systems as Seen by an Insurance Company
%B BOOK41
%P 87-96
%K AI01 AA06

%A G. Eibl
%T Current Work on Expert Systems and Natural Language Processing
at Siemens
%B BOOK41
%P 97-106
%K AI01 AI02

%A W. Sieber
%T Computer Assisted Synthesis - a Project of the Chemical Industry
%B BOOK41
%P 107-110
%K AA16 AA05

%A R. L. Langley
%T A Case Study of the Dipmeter Advisor Development
%B BOOK41
%P 111-118
%K AA03 AI01

%A S. E. Savory
%T FF - A Nixdorf Expert System for Fault-Finding and Fault
Finding - An Outline Description
%B BOOK41
%P 119-128
%K AI01 AA21

%A J. F. Hery
%T A Prototype Expert System in PWR Power Plant Conducting
%B BOOK41
%P 129-134
%K AA05

%A H. Marchand
%T Knowledge Engineering in CAE - First Industrial Experiences
%B BOOK41
%P 135-142
%K AA05

%A J. C. Latombe
%T Advanced Information Processing in Robotics
%B BOOK41
%P 143-160
%K AA05

%A D. C. Schwartz
%T The Lisp Machine Architecture
%B BOOK41
%P 161-168
%K H02

%A K. Wiig
%T Market Trends in Artificial Intelligence in the United
States and Japan
%B BOOK41
%P 169-184
%K GA01 GA02  AT04

%A A. W. Pearson
%T Speculations on the Future of Knowledge Engineering in Europe I,II
%B BOOK41
%P 185-188
%K GA03

%A H. W. Husch
%A E. Staudt
%T The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Organizational Structure and
Rati
onalization
%B BOOK41
%P 189-200
%K O05

%A T. Bernold
%T Possibilities and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence
%B BOOK41
%P 205-208
%K AI16

%A S. A. Cerri
%T Problems of the Infrastructure - the Bottlenecks in Research and Training
%B BOOK41
%P 209-212
%K AT19

%A B. Oakley
%T Research Policy of Administrations - Great Britain (ALVEY)
%B BOOK41
%P 213-218
%K AT19 GA03

%A H. Gallaire
%A W. Bibel
%A B. Oakley
%T Cooperation Between University, Government and Industry
%B BOOK41
%P 217-220
%K AT10

%A M. Boden
%T Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man
%B BOOK41
%P 221
%K AI16 O05

%A Benjamin W. Wah
%A Guo-Jie Li
%T Tutorial: Computers for Artificial Intelligence Applications
%I IEEE Computer Society
%D MAY 1986
%K AT15
%X list price $49.00 member price $36.00 order no CZ706
ISBN 0-8186-0706-8 648 pages

%A A C. S. George Lee
%A R. C. Gonzalez
%A K. S. Fu
%T Tutorial: Robotics (Second Edition)
%I IEEE Computer Society
%D APRIL 1986
%K AI07 AT15
%X Order NO. CZ658, ISBN 0-8186-0658-4 list price $70.00
member price $39.00 744 pages

%A Rama Chellappa
%A Alexander A. Sawchuk
%T Tutorial: Digital Image Processing and Analysis
Volume 2: Digital Image Analysis
%I IEEE Computer Society
%D DEC 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X ISBN 0-8186-0666-5 Order No. CZ666 list price
$66.00 member price $36.00, 680 pages

%A Rama Chellappa
%A Alexander A. Sawchuk
%T Tutorial: Digital Image Processing and Analysis
Volume I: Digital Image Processing
%I IEEE Computer Society
%D JUN 1985
%K AI06 AT15
%X ISBN 0-8186-0665-7 order No.  CZ665
list price $66.00 member price $36.00 736 pages



%A J. Gauvin
%T Robots 10 Stresses Integration
%J MAG32
%P 53-58
%K AI07

%A J. P. Ziskovsky
%T Robots - A Piece of the Automation Pie
%J MAG32
%P 14
%K AT12 AA26 AI07

%A N. S. Rajaram
%T Artificial Intelligence: Its Impact on the Process Industries
%J MAG33
%P 33-44
%K AA20 AA16

%A G. Allmendinger
%T AI: Can Performance Match the Promise?
%J MAG33
%P 45-50
%K AA16

%A R. S. Shirley
%A D. A. Fortin
%T Developing an Expert System for Process Fault Detection
and Analysis
%J MAG33
%P 51-56
%K AA05 AA20 AA21 AI01

%A A. E. Nisenfeld
%A M. A. Turk
%T Batch Reactor Control: Could an Expert Advisor Help?
%J MAG33
%P 57
%K AA05 AA20 AI01

%A G. Spur
%A G. Seliger
%A T. V. Diep
%T Sensor Based Assembly System
%J MAG34
%P 3-8
%K AI07 AA26
%X (in German)

%A U. Vongunten
%A C. W. Burckhardt
%T Sensors for Robots - Searching, Touching, Grasping
%J MAG34
%P 9-16
%K AI07 AI06
%X (in German)

%A G. Zimmer
%A B. Hosticka
%T Integration of Sensors Using VLSI Technologies
%J MAG34
%P 17-26
%K AI07
%X (in German)

%A W. Weber
%A H. Britwieser
%T Control of Servomanipulator by the Inverse Model
%J MAG34
%P 27-36
%K AI07
%X (in German)

%A U. Ahrens
%A G. Drunk
%A A. Langen
%T Sensor Interfaces of Robot Control Systems
%J MAG34
%P 37-46
%K AI07
%X (in German)

%A G. Pritschow
%A G. Gruhler
%T Sensors for Geometry and Processing of Sensor Data for Automatical Robot
Programming
%J MAG34
%P 47-54
%K AI07 AI06
%X (in German)

%A T. J. Doll
%T Non-Tactile Sensors for Robots and Planning of Sensor Application
%J MAG34
%P 55
%K AI07 AI06
%X (in German)

%A M. C. Wanner
%T Industrial Robots in Japan in 1984
%J MAG34
%P 54
%K AI07 GA01
%X (in German)

%T VAl-II, a New Robot Programming Language
%J MAG34
%P 63
%K AI07
%X (in German)


%A L. A. Walils
%A A. Bendell
%T Human Factors and Sampling Variation in Graphical Identification and
Estimation for the Weibull Distribution
%J Reliability Engineering
%V 13
%N 3
%D 1985
%K AI08

%A C. A. J. Braganca
%A P. Sholl
%T Val-II, A Language for Hierarchical Control of a Robot-Based Automated
Factory
%J MAG35
%P 265-272
%K AI07 AA26

%A P. T. Rayson
%T A Review of Expert Systems Principles and Their Role in Manufacturing
Systems
%J MAG35
%P 279
%K AI07 AA26 AT08

%A W. E. Red
%A Hung-Viet Truong-Cao
%T Configuration Maps for Robot Path Planning in Two Dimensions
%J MAG36
%P 292-298
%K AI07 AI09

%A O. Z. Maimon
%A S. Y. Nof
%T Coordination of Robots Sharing Assembly Tasks
%J MAG36
%P 299-307
%K AI07 AA26

%A S. N. Singh
%A A. A. Schy
%T Robust Trajectory Following Control of Robotic Systems
%J MAG36
%P 308-315
%K AI07

%A A. J. Kolvo
%T Self-Tuning Manipulator Control in Cartesian Base Coordinate Systems
%J MAG36
%P 316-323
%K AI07

%A G. W. Kohler
%T Power Manipulators
%J MAG37
%P 195-202
%K AI07

%A U. Ahrens
%T Possibilities and Problems in Application of Airborne Ultrasonic
Sensors in Assembly Systems and Handling Systems
%J MAG37
%P 203-210
%K AI06 AI07 AA26

%A D. Wloka
%A K. Blug
%T Simulation of Robot Dynamics with the Method of Kane
%J MAG37
%P 211-216
%K AI07

%A M. C. Wanner
%A K. Baumeister
%A G. W. Kohler
%A H. Walze
%T Robotics in Civil Engineering
%J MAG37
%P 227-236
%K AI07 AA05

%A C. Blume
%A B. Heck
%T Analysis of Inherent Concurrency in High Level Programming Languages
for Industrial Robots
%J MAG37
%P 237-230
%K AI07 H03

%A P. Nitezki
%T Experience with SPIDER- A Portable Subroutine Library for Image Processing
%J MAG37
%P 231-233
%K AI06

%A R. Dillmann
%A M. C. Wanner
%T The Esprit Project in the Area of Robotics
%J MAG37
%P 234
%K GA03 AI07

%A Robert L. Stewart
%A Douglas R. Ousborne
%T An Experimental Expert Weapon Detection System
%J Naval Engineers Journal
%V 98
%N 3
%D MAY 1986
%P 24-34
%K AA18 AI01

%A M. Raghaven
%A S. I. Mehta
%A U. Pathie
%A K. V. Vaishampayan
%T Mechanical Design of an Industrial Robot
%J Indian Journal of Technology
%V 24
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%P 149-152
%K AI07

%A Mark Wynott
%T Close-Up: Artificial Intelligence Provides Real-Time Control of Material
Handling Process
%J Industrial Engineering
%V 18
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 34-46
%K AA26 AA05 O03

%A M. C. Golumbic
%A M. Markovich
%A S. Tsur
%A U. J. Schild
%T A Knowledge Based Expert System for Student Advising
%J IEEE Transactions on Education
%V 29
%N 2
%D MAY 1986
%P 120-124
%K AA06 AI01

%A A. B. Ritter
%A W. Braun
%A A. Stein
%A W. Duran
%T Visualization of the Coronary Microcirculation Using Digital Image
Processing
%J Computers in Biology and Medicine
%V 15
%N 6
%D 1985
%P 361-375
%K AI06 AA10

%A D. Umphress
%A G. Williams
%T Identity Verification Through Keyboard Characteristics
%J MAG38
%P 263-274
%K AI06

%A R. J. Baron
%T Visual Memories and Mental Images
%J MAG38
%P 275-312
%K AI08

%A B. A. Julstrom
%A R. J. Baron
%T A Model of Mental Imagery
%J MAG38
%P 313
%K AI08

%A J. Bajon
%A M. Cattoen
%A S. D. Kim
%T A Concavity Characterization Method for Digital Objects
%J Signal Processing
%V 9
%N 3
%D OCT 1985
%K AI06

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
147
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography #4
-BODY-
%A V. M. Kushkov
%T Improving the Reliability of Flexible Manufacturing Systems
%J MAG19
%K AA26

%A V. N. Abrarov
%T Investigation of the Limiting Characteristics of Electrostatic
Gripping Devices in Robot Technology
%J MAG19
%K AI07

%A D. R. Kritskii
%A V. Ya Naimanov
%T A Simulation Model for Assessing the Positioning Time of a Robot
%J MAG19
%K AI07
%P 45-49

%A V. G. Ostapchuk
%T The Use of Image Recognition Systems for Automatic Workpiece Gauging
%J MAG19
%K AI07
%P 40-41

%A Kit Grindley
%T Applying Expert Principles to Computer Systems Development
%J MAG20
%K AI01 AA08
%P 10-14

%A Russell Jones
%T European Expert Systems Projects for Systems Developers
%J MAG20
%K AA08 AI01 GA03
%P 15-17

%A Sol J. Greenspan
%A Alexander Borgida
%A John Mylopoulos
%T A Requirements Modeling Language and its Logic
%J MAG21
%P 9-24

%A Jose Fiadeiro
%A Amilcar Sernadas
%T The INFOLOG Linear Tense Propositional Logic of Events and
Transactions
%J MAG21
%P 61-86

%A S. E. Fahlman
%T Parallel Processing in Artificial Intelligence
%J Parallel Computing
%V 2
%N 3
%D DEC 1985
%P 283-286
%K H03

%A F. Neilson
%T Abstract Interpretation of Denotational Definitions (A Survey)
%B BOOK29
%P 1-20
%K AA08

%A E. A. Emerson
%A C. L. Lei
%T Temporal Reasoning Under Generalized Fairness Constraints (Extended
Abstract)
%B BOOK29
%K AA08
%P 21-36

%A M. A. N. Abdallah
%T Ions and Local Definitions in Logic Programming
%B BOOK29
%P 73-86
%K AI10

%A Adrian Walker
%T Knowledge Systems: Principle and Practice
%B  MAG22
%P 2-13
%K AT08

%A R. L. Ennis
%A J. H. Griesmer
%A S. J. Hong
%A M. Karnaugh
%A J. K. Kastner
%A D. A. Klein
%A K. R. Milliken
%A M. I. Schor
%A H. M. Van Woerkom
%T A Continuous Real-Time Expert System for Computer Operations
%J MAG22
%P 14-28
%K AA08 O03

%A P. Hirsch
%A W. Katake
%A M. Meier
%A S. Snyder
%A R. Stillman
%T Interfaces for Knowledge-Base Builders' Control Knowledge
and Application-Specific Procedure
%J MAG22
%P 29-38

%A Franz Guenthner
%A Hubert Lehmann
%A Wolfgang Schonfel
%T A Theory for the Representation of Knowledge
%J MAG22
%P 39-56

%A John F. Sowa
%A Eileen C. Way
%T Implementing a Semantic Interpreter Using Conceptual Graphs
%J MAG22
%P 57-69

%A Jean Fargues
%A Marie-Claude Landau
%A Anne Dugourd
%A Laurent Catach
%T Conceptual Graphs for Semantics and Knowledge Processing
%J MAG22
%P 70-79

%A Ghica van Emde Boas
%A Peter van Emde Boas
%T Storing and Evaluating Horn-Caluse Rules in a Relational
Database
%J MAG22
%P 80-92
%K AA09 AI10

%A William F. Eddy
%A Gabriel P. Pei
%T Structures of Rule-Based Belief Functions
%J MAG22
%P 93-101
%K AI01

%A H. Diel
%A N. Lenz
%A H. M. Welsch
%T An Experimental Computer Architecture Supporting Expert
Systems and Logic Programming
%J MAG22
%P 102
%K AI01 AI10

%A T. Williams
%T Image Processors Allow Hardware Reconfiguration to Match
Applications
%B MAG23
%P 46-54
%K AI06

%A W. E. Suydam
%T AI Becomes the Soul of the New Machines
%J MAG23
%P 55-62

%A D. A. Gewirtz
%T Artificial Intelligence As a System Component
%J MAG23
%P 63-64

%A A. D. Jacobson
%T The Challenges Facing Expert Systems Technology
%J MAG23
%P 65-67

%A R. Moore
%T AI Must Cater to Nonexperts
%J MAG23
%P 68-76
%K O01

%A P. Haley
%A C. Williams
%T Expert System Development Requires Knowledge Engineering
%J MAG23
%P 83-90
%K AI01

%A R. D. Schraft
%A J. Schuler
%T Robot Applications in FMS
%B Flexible Manufacturing Systems: International Trends
in Manufacturing Technology
%E H. J. Warnecke
%E R. Steinhilper
%I Springer Verlag
%K AA26 AI07
%X $54.00 ISBN 0-903608-95-2




%A B. Buchberger
%T Basic Features and Development of the Critical Pair Completion Procedure
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 1-45

%A H. T. Zhang
%A J. L. Remy
%T Contextual Rewriting
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 46-62

%A R. V. Book
%T Thue Systems as Rewriting Systems
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 63-94

%A F. Otto
%T Deciding Algebraic Properties of Monoids Presented by Finite Church-Rosser
Thue Systems
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 95-106

%A S. S. Cosmadakis
%A P. C. Kanellakis
%T 2 Applications of Equational Theories to Database Theory
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AA09 AI11
%P 107-123

%A N. D. Jones
%A P. Sestoft
%A H. Sondergaard
%T An Experiment in Partial Evaluation - The Generation of a Compiler Generator
%B BOOK30
%K AA08
%P 124-140

%A P. Rety
%A C. Kirchner
%A H. Kirchner
%A P. Lescanne
%T Narrower- A New Algorithm for Unification and its Application to Logic
Programming
%B BOOK30
%K AI10
%P 141-157

%A H. Aitkaci
%T Solving Type Equations by Graph Rewriting
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AA08
%P 158-179

%A N. Dershowitz
%T Termination
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 180-224

%A M. Rusinowitch
%T Path of Subterms Ordering and Recursive Decomposition Ordering
Revisited
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 225-240

%A L. Bachmair
%A D. A. Plaisted
%T Associative Path Orderings
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 241-254

%A D. Detlefs
%A R. Forgaard
%T A Procedure for Automatically Proving the Termination of a Set of Rewrite
Rules
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 255-270

%A C. Choppy
%A C. Johnen
%T Petrireve
Proving Petri Net Properties with Rewriting Systems
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11 AA08
%P 271-286

%A S. Porat
%A N. Francez
%T Fairness in Term Rewriting Systems
%B BOOK30
%K AI14
%P 287-300

%A J. Hsiang
%T Two Results in Term Rewriting Theorem Proving
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 301-324

%A L. Fribourg
%T Handling Function Definitions Through Innermost Superposition and
Rewriting
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11 AA08
%P 325-344

%A A. Kandrirody
%A D. Kapur
%A P. Narendran
%T An Ideal-Theoretic Approach to Word Problems and Unification Problems over
Finitely Presented Commutative Algebras
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 345-364

%A K. Yelick
%T Combining Unification Algorithms for Confined Regular Equational Theories
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 365-380

%A A. Fortenbacher
%T An Algebraic Approach to Unification Under Associativity and Commutativity
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 381-397

%A S. Arnborg
%A E. Tiden
%T Unification Problems with One-Sided Distributivity
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 398-406

%A P. W. Purdom
%A C. A. Brown
%T Fast Many-to-One Matching Algorithms
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 407-416

%A D. Benanav
%A D. Kapur
%A P. Narendran
%T Complexity of Matching problems
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11
%P 417-429

%A M. Zaionc
%T The Set of Unifiers in Typed Lambda-Calculus as Regular Expression
%B BOOK30
%K AI14 AI11 AA08
%P 430

%A Mohan M. Trivedi
%A John Gilmore
%T Guest Editorial: Applications of AI
%J MAG24
%P 331-332
%K AI16

%A David M. McKeown
%A Clifford A. McVay
%A Bruce D. Lucas
%T Stereo Verification in Aerial Image Analysis
%J MAG24
%P 333-346
%K AI06

%A W. A. Perkins
%A T. J. Laffey
%A T. A. Nguyen
%T Rule-based Interpreting of Aerial Photographs Using the Lockheed
Expert System
%J MAG24
%P 356-362
%K AI01 AI06 AA18 T03

%A Leonard P. Wesley
%T Evidential Knowledge-Based Computer Vision
%J MAG24
%P 363-379
%K AI06

%A Amar Mitiche
%A J. K. Aggarwal
%T Multiple Sensor Intergration/Fusion Through Image
Processing: a Review
%J MAG24
%P 380-386
%K AI06 AT08

%A S. M. Haynes
%A Ramesh Jain
%T Event Detection and Correspondence
%J MAG24
%P 387-393
%K AI06

%A Robert N. Nelson
%A Tzay Y. Young
%T Determining Three-Dimensional Object Shape and Orientation from
a Single Perspective View
%J MAG24
%P 394-401
%K AI06

%A Arthur V. Forman
%A J. Ronald Clark
%T Robot Vision System for Depalletizing Steel Cylindrical Billets
%J MAG24
%P 402-408
%K AI06 AI07 AA26

%A Larry S. Davis
%A Todd R. Kushner
%A Jacqueline J. Le Moigne
%A Allaen M. Waxman
%T Road Boundary Detection for Autonomous Vehicle Navigation
%J MAG24
%P 409-414
%K AA19 AI06 AI07

%A John F. Gilmore
%A Antonio C. Semico
%T Knowledge-Based Approach Toward Developing an Autonomous
Helicopter System
%J MAG24
%P 415-427
%K AA19

%A Julius T. Tou
%T Software Architecture of Machine Vision for Roving Robots
%J MAG24
%P 428-435
%K AI06 AI07

%A George R. Cross
%T Tools for Constructing Knowledge-Based Systems
%J MAG24
%P 436-444

%A Viswanath Subramanian
%A Gautam Biswas
%A James C. Bezdek
%T Document Retrieval Using a Fuzzy Knowledge Based System
%J MAG24
%P 445-455
%K AA14 O04

%A S. L. Hardt
%A J. Rosenberg
%T Developing an Expert Ship Message Interpreter: Theoretical and
Practical Conclusions
%J MAG24
%P 456-464
%K AI01

%A S. W. Thomas
%A R. L. Griffith
%A W. R. McDonald
%T Improvements in Avalanche-Transistor Sweep Circuitry for Electro-Optic
Streak Cameras
%J MAG24
%P 465-470
%K AI06

%A R. W. Austin
%T Spectral Dependence of the Diffuse Attenuation Coefficient of Light in
Ocean Waters
%J MAG24
%P 471-479
%K AI06

%A R. L. Cohoon
%A C. S. Wright
%A W. J. Wiley
%A Peter S. Guilfoyle
%A E. L. Ligeti
%T Acousto-Optic Convolver for Digital Pulses
%J MAG24
%P 480-489
%K AI06

%A O. Kafri
%A B. Ashkenazi
%T Line Thinning Algorithm for Nearly Straight Moire Fringes
%J MAG24
%P 495-498
%K AI06

%A John A. Saghri
%A Hsieh S. Hou
%A Andrew G. Tescher
%T Personal Computer Based Image Processing with Halftoning
%J MAG24
%P 499-504
%K AI06 H01

%A N. S. Kopeika
%A A. N. Sidman
%A Its'hak Dinstein
%A C. Tarnasha
%A R. Amir
%A Y. Biton
%T How Weather Affects Seeing Through the Atmosphere
%J MAG24
%P 505
%K AI06

%A Quan Quan Gao
%T Prolog-F System
%J Chinese Journal of Computing
%V 8
%D 1985
%N 2
%P 152-155
%K T02
%X (in chinese)

%A V. N. Vapnik
%A T. G. Glazkova
%A V. A. Koscheev
%A A. I. Mikhal'skii
%A A. Ya Chervonenkis
%T Algorithms and Programs for Reconstructing Dependencies
%J Nauka
%D 1984
%X (in Russian)

%A Bernd Kramer
%T Stepwise construction of Nonsequential Software Systems
Using a Net-Based Specification Language
%B Advances in Petri Nets
%V 188
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science
%I Springer-Verlag
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York
%D 1985
%P 307-330
%K AA08

%A U. W. Lipeck
%T Specifying Admissibility of Dynamic Database
Behavior Using Temporal Logic
%B Information Systems: Theoretical and Formal Aspects
%P 145-157
%D 1985
%I North-Holland
%C Amsterdam-New York
%K AA08 AI10

%A Udo Pletat
%T A Graph Theoretic Semantics for Semantic Data Models
%B Information Systems: Theoretical and Formal Aspects
%P 95-108
%D 1985
%I North-Holland
%C Amsterdam-New York
%K AI16

%A L. I. Rozonoer
%T Supplement to the Paper: "Proving Contradictions in Formal Theories. I"
%J Avtomat. i Telemekh.
%D 1985
%N 4
%P 172
%K AI11
%X (in Russian)

%A L. I. Rozonoer
%T Proving Contradictions in Formal Theories
%J Automat. Remote Control
%V 44
%D 1983
%N 6
%P 781-790
%K AI11

%A V. A. Antonyuk
%A N. V. Bulygina
%A P. Yu Pyt'ev
%T Methods of Morphological Analysis in a Problem of Distinguishing
Objects
%B BOOK31
%P 83-91
%K AI06
%X (in Russian)

%A V. A. Bazhanov
%T Godel's Theorem and the Problem of the Relation Between Natural
and Artificial Intelligence
%B BOOK32
%P 49-59
%K AI16
%X (In Russian)

%A Henryk Biesiada
%T Modification of Methods for Computing the Growth Function of a
Developmental System in the Case of a Complex Start Chain
%J Podstawy Sterowania
%V 15
%D 1985
%N 1-2
%P 113-135

%A Agneta Eriksson
%A Anna Lena Johansson
%T Computer Based Synthesis of Logic Programs
%B BOOK33
%P 105-115
%K AA08 AI10 O02

%A T. I. Ibragimov
%T Cybernetics and Natural Languages
%B BOOK32
%P 59-73
%K AI02
%X (in russian)

%A I. M. Israilov
%T Formulas for Calculating Estimates in Algorithms with
Complex Systems of Support Sets
%J Zh. Vyschisl. Mat. i. Mat. Fiz
%V 25
%D 1985
%N 8
%P 1268-1272
%K AI16
%X (in Russian)

%A D. I. Panyushev
%A D. K. Tkhabisimov
%A D. A. Usikov
%A N. G. Chebotarev
%T Mathematical Bases for the Construction of Systems
of Invariant Criteria in a Pattern Recognition Problem
%B BOOK31
%P 11-23
%K AI06
%X (in Russian)

%A Marco Belia
%A Pierpaolo Degano
%A Giorgio Levi
%A Enrico Dameri
%A Maurizio Martelli
%T Applicative Communicating Processes in First Order Logic
%B BOOK33
%P 1-14
%K AA08 AI11

%A Ernesto J. F. Costo
%T Automatic Program Transformation Viewed as Theorem Proving
%B BOOK33
%P 37-46
%K AA08 AI11

%A Yu. P. Pyt'ev
%T Problems of Morphological Analysis of Images
%B BOOK31
%P 41-83
%K AI06

%A E. L. Lawler
%T The Traveling Salesman Problem
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C Somerset, NJ
%K AT15
%X $64.95 1-90413-9 465 pages

%A J. Gold
%T Do-It-Your-Self Expert Systems
%J Computer Decisions
%V 18
%N 2
%D JAN 14, 1986
%K AI01

%A D. Harel
%A R. Sherman
%T Propositional Dynamic Logic of Flowcharts
%J Information and Control
%V 64
%N 1-3
%D JAN-MAR 1985
%P 119-135
%K AA08 AI11

%A Esko Ukkonen
%T Algorithms for Approximate String Matching
%J Information and Control
%V 64
%N 1-3
%D JAN-MAR 1985
%P 100-118

%A E. M. Scharf
%A N. J. Mandic
%T The Application of a Fuzzy Controller to the Control of a
Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Robot Arm
%B BOOK34
%P 41-62
%K AI07 O04

%A O. Yagishita
%A O. Itoh
%A M. Sugeno
%T Application of Fuzzy Reasoning to the Water Purification
Process
%B BOOK34
%P 19-40
%K O04 AA05

%A M. Sugeno
%A K. Murakami
%T An Experimental Study on Fuzzy Parking Control Using
a Model Car
%B BOOK34
%P 125-138
%K O04 AA19

%A K. Matsushima
%A H. Sugiyama
%T Human Operators Fuzzy Model in Man-Machine System with a
Nonlinear Controlled Object
%B BOOK34
%P 175-186
%K O04 AI08

%A H. Zhao
%A M. C. Ma
%T The Application of Fuzzy and Artificial Intelligence Methods
in the Building of a Blast Furnace Smelting Process Model
%B BOOK34
%P 241
%K O04 AA05

%A Immo O. Kerner
%T Logical Programming. History and Present Usage
%J Elektron. Informationsverarb. Kybernet
%J 21
%D 1985
%N 7-8
%P 355-361
%K AI10

%A B. J. Oommen
%A M. A. L. Thathachar
%T Multiaction Learning Automata Possessing Ergodicity  of the Mean
%J Information Science
%V 35
%N 3
%P 183-198
%K AI12 AI04

%A Ewa Orlowska
%T Logic Approach to Information Systems
%J Fund. Inform.
%V 8
%D 1985
%N 3-4
%P 359-378
%K AA08 AI10

%A Wen Jun Wu
%T Some Remarks on Mechanical Theorem-proving in Elementary Geometry
%J Acta Math. Sci (English Ed.)
%V 3
%D 1983
%N 4
%P 357-360
%K AI11 AA13

%A Vladimir Batagelj
%T Notes on the Dynamic Clusters Method
%B IV Conference on Applied Mathematics
%P 139-146
%D 1985
%X Univer. Split, Split 1985

%A Mirko Khvanek
%T A Note on the Computational Complexity of Hierarchical Overlapping
Clustering
%J Apl. Mat.
%V 30
%D 1985
%N 6
%P 453-460

%A E. Yu Kandrashina
%T Means of Representing Temporal Information in Knowledge Bases
%J Engineering Cybernetics
%V 22
%D 1985
%N 6
%P 89-95
%K AI16

%A George J. Klir
%T Architecture of Systems Problem Solving
%I Plenum Press
%C New York-London
%D 1985
%K AT15
%X 540 pages ISBN 0-306-41867-3

%A D. V. Kochetkov
%T Construction of Correct Pattern Recognition Algorithms in Quasicomplete
Models
%J Trudy Inst. Vychisl. Mat. Akad. Nauk Gruzin SSR
%V 25
%D 1985
%N 2
%P 35-44
%K AI06
%X (in Russian)


%A V. E. Vol'fengagen
%A V. Ya Yatsuk
%T Models and Methods for Representing Knowledge Algebra on Knowledge-
Manipulation Frames
%J Engineering Cybernetics
%V 22
%D 1985
%N 6
%P 79-88
%K AI16

%A V. V. Zadorozhnyi
%T Algorithms for Calculating Estimates for Pattern Recognition
%J Kibernetika (Kiev)
%D 1985
%V 1
%P 103-107
%K AI06
%X (in Russian with English Summary)

%A A. N. Chetaev
%T Neural Nets and Markov Chains
%I Nauka
%C Moscow
%D 1985
%K AI12 AT15
%X (in Russian with English Summary)

%A Irwin R. Goodman
%A Hung T. Nguyen
%T Uncertainty Models for Knowledge Based Systems.  A Unified
Approach to the Measurement of Uncertainty
%I North Holland
%C Amsterdam-New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 O01

%A Eugene C. Freuder
%T A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Bounded Search
%J JACM
%V 32
%D 1985
%N 4
%P 755-761
%K AI03

%A J. L. Lassez
%A Michael John Maher
%T Optimal Fixed-Points of Logic Programs
%J Theoretical Computer Science
%V 39
%N 1
%D 1985
%P 15-25
%K AI10

%A Rama Chellapa
%A Shankar Chatterjee
%T Classification of Textures using Gaussian Markov Random Fields
%J IEEE Transactions Acoust. Speech Signal Process.
%V 33
%D 1985
%N 4
%P 959-363
%K AI06

%A I. N. Krupka
%A Yu. I. Petunin
%A M. Yu Petunina
%T Determination of the Similarity of Two Graphic Images by Menas of the
Hausdorff Distance
%J Kibernetika (Kiev)
%D 1985
%N 3%V 1
%P 118-120
%K AI06
%X Russian. English Summary

%A V. A. Nepomnyaschii
%T Elimination of Loop Invariants in Program Verification
%J Programmirovanie
%D 1985
%N 3
%P 3-13
%K AA08
%X in Russian

%A Van Nguyen
%A Alan Demers
%A David Gries
%A Susan Owicki
%T Behavior: a Temporal Approach to Process Modeling
%B BOOK35
%P 237-254
%K AA08

%A Van Nguyen
%T The Incompleteness of Misra and Chandy's Proof Systems
%J Information Processing Letters
%V 21
%D 1985
%N 2
%P 93-96
%K AA08

%A Rohit Parikh
%A Ashok Chandra
%A Joe Halpern
%A Albert Meyer
%T Equations Between Regular Terms and an Application
to Process Logic
%J SIAM J. Computers
%V 4
%D 1985
%N 4
%P 935-985
%K AI10

%A Alex Pelin
%T A Formalism for Treating Equivalence of Recursive Procedures
%J RAIRO Inform. Theor.
%V 19
%D 1985
%N 3
%P 293-313
%K AI10

%A Paul Walton Purdom
%A Cynthia A. Brown
%T The Pure Literal Rule and Polynomial Average Time
%J SIAM J. Comput
%V 14
%D 1985
%N 4
%P 943-953
%K AI14

%A I. Sain
%T The Reasoning Powers of Burstall's (Modal Logic) and
Pneueli's (Temporal Logic) Program Verification Methods
%B BOOK35
%P 302-319
%K AA08 AI10 AI11

%A A. E. Serik
%T Some Exact and Approximate Algorithms for Solution of Some
Sequencing Problems with Constraints
%J Kibernetika (Kiev)
%D 1985
%N 3
%P 29-33
%K AI16
%X (Russian with English Summary)

%A Kurt Sieber
%T A Partial Correctness Logic for Procedures
%B BOOK35
%P 320-342
%K AA08

%A A. E. K. Sobel
%A N. Soundararajan
%T A Proof System for Distributed Processes
%B BOOK35
%P 343-358
%K AA08

%A Robert S. Streett
%T Fixpoints and Progam Looping:
Reductions from the Propositional Mu-Calculus into
Propositional Dynamic Logics of Looping
%B BOOK35
%P 359-372
%K AA08 AI11

%A S. F. Shapiro
%T Electronic Assembly Becoming Dependent on Robotic Tools
%J Computer Design
%V 25
%N 3
%D FEB 1, 1986
%K AI07 AA04 AA26

%A Douglas C. Willson
%T Current Research, Applications Foreshadow AI's Future Impact
%J Data Management
%V 24
%N 2
%D FEB 1986
%P 18-19

%A Paul V. Besl
%A Ramesh C. Jain
%T Invariant Surface Characteristics for 3D Object Recognition in Range
Images
%J Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing
%V 33
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 33-80
%K AI06

%A Marloes L. P. Van\ Lierop
%T Geometrical Transformations on Pictures Represented by Leaf Codes
%J Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing
%V 33
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%P 81-98
%K AI06


%A Eric P. Krotkov
%T Visual Hyperacuity: representation and Computation of High Precision
Position Information
%J Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing
%V 33
%N 1
%D JAN 1986
%K AI06

%A G. Eichmann
%A L. M. Royfman
%T New Algorithm for Transient Suppression for Images Due to Incomplete or
Partial Boundary Data
%J IEE Proceedings G: Electronic Circuits
%V 133
%N 1
%D FEB 1986
%P 27-29
%K AI06

%A L. F. Huggins
%A J. R. Burrettt
%A D. D. Jones
%T Expert Systems - Concepts and Opportunities
%J Agricultural Engineering
%D JAN-FEB 1986
%V 67
%N 1
%P 21-23
%K AA23 AA05 AI01

%A D. A. Lowther
%A C. M. Saldhana
%A G. Choy
%T The Applications of Expert Systems to CAD in Electromagnetics
%J IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
%V 21
%N 6
%D 1985
%P 2559-2563
%K AA04 AI01

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
148
-DATE-
Date: Mon 9 Jun 86 09:22:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: JPENNINO@USC-ECL.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TOOLS FOR RSX??
-BODY-
Does anyone know of any ai tools/languages that run under RSX other
than the two versions of LISP in DECUS?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 13:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: John Batali <BATALI@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI & Organic Chemistry
-BODY-

I'd like to find out about any AI projects attempting to hack organic
chemistry.  I would be interested in information about systems which do
inorganic and biochemistry also.  I know about DENDRAL.  Please reply to
me and I will collect results and send them to the list.

        John Batali
        BATALI@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 11:10 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Russian to English translation
-BODY-
I would like to obtain an English translation of:
"Some exact and Approximate Algorithms for Solution of Some
Sequencing Problems with Constraints", Kibernetika (Kiev), 1985, #3,
pp 29-33. The paper is in Russian with an English summary. I do not
have a copy of the paper. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Uttam Mukhopadhyay
Computer Science Dept.
GM Research Labs
Warren, MI 48090-9057
(313)575-2105

Net address: mukhop@gmr.com

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Jun 86 08:29:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme, anyone?
-BODY-
I have been asked to give advice regarding the appropriateness of using
Scheme for a development effort in Intelligent Computer Assisted Instruction.
Although this is partly a research effort also, a clear goal is testing
and installing the software in high school classrooms.  The hardware available
to this project is Hewlett-Packward workstations.

Admittedly I know little about Scheme.  However, my initial reaction is that
no advantages Scheme could provide over CommonLisp could offset the
disadvantages of using a language without a large user base for the
purposes of software development and installation.  CommonLisp
promises to offer portability (of course there are still problems, e.g.,
graphics) and a large user community, and has other obvious advantages
because of the general acceptance of Lisp in the U.S. AI community.

I'd appreciate some feedback from people that are familiar with Scheme,
particularly if you have used it for developing a large AI-based system.
Can any argument be presented to justify the resources necessary to train
people in Scheme and build and maintain a system in this UnCommonLispLike
language? In other words, what is so special about Scheme compared to
CommonLisp?

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10-Jun-1986 1436
-FROM-
From: cherubini%cookie.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neural Nets
-BODY-
I am interested in doing some modelling using neural nets. Before
building the software system myself, I would like to know of any
available public domain software systems which implement neural
nets, Boltzmann machines, etc. Any pointers would be appreciated.



                                Ralph Cherubini
                                Digital Equipment Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 1986 1735-EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Krulwich <KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: connectionism/complexity theory
-BODY-

June 2nd's issue of Business Week contained an article about
connectionist (parallel distributed processing) models.  In it it
mentioned a Bell Labs project which set up a neural network which solved
the traveling salesman problem aproximately but quickly.  I'm interested
in articles or other information about this project or any other project
linking connectionism with complexity theory, ie, connectionist
approaches to graph problems or models which solve other "classical"
algorithm design problems.

                                Bruce Krulwich

                                ARPAnet: KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU
                                Bitnet:  BK0A%TC.CC.CMU.EDU@CU20B

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 86 14:04 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
   At a recent talk in Ann Arbor, Roger Schank observed/implied that
a distinct characteristic of many creative people is the ability to
analogize. My understanding of analogizing is to define transformations
between two domains so that entities and relationships in one domain
can be mapped into corresponding entities and relationships in the
other domain. It appears that the greater the disparity in the "physics"
of the two domains, the higher is the creative effort demanded.
   Not all transformations produce interesting results. Good analogies
must be interesting from the perspective of the particular creative
activity.
   Is this model of creativity--making interesting analogies--valid
across the spectrum of creative actvities, from the hard sciences
(Physics, Chemistry, etc.) to the fine arts (painting, music)?
Is there more to creativity than making interesting analogies? I am
inclined to believe that making interesting analogies is at the heart
of all intelligent activity that is described as creative.

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
General Motors Research Labs.
(313)575-2105

Net address: mukhop@gmr.com

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Jun 86 09:38:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and Education questionnaire
-BODY-
Below is a questionnaire requesting information from researchers who are
interested in the application of Artificial Intelligence in education.
If you are working in this area or are interested in this area please look
at the questionnaire and fill it out.  [...]  You can also fill out
the questionnaire on-line and return it by email to the address provided
below.

This questionnaire is part of a larger effort to facilitate communication
among researchers in this area.  We are also maintaining a list of postal
addresses of those people that are interested in joining a special interest
group in AI and education.  One activity planned is a special interest group
meeting at AAAI '86 this August in Philadelphia.  An annoucement of this
meeting will be forthcoming.


                        AI and Education Questionnaire

prepared 10 June 1986 by W. Lewis Johnson and Mark H. Richer
Please send your responses to:
W. Lewis Johnson
USC ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Ray, CA 90292
or email to JOHNSON@ISI-VAXA.ARPA


(1) Name:
(2) Institution or Company:
(3) Street Address:
(4) City, State [or Country], Zip Code:
(5) Work Phone(s):
(6) E-Mail address(es):

(7)  Are  you  interested  in membership in an AI and Education group if one is
officially formed?

(8) What kind of organization(s) are you connected with?  (Check one or more)
   1. academic research laboratory
   2. academic software development center
   3. industrial or commercial research laboratory
   4. commerical software company
   5. educational institution (please explain)
   6. government or military research & development
   7. other (please specify)

(9)  Please  characterize  your  interest  and involvement in AI and Education.
Please check one and elaborate.
   1. I am currently building an AI-based  instructional  system.  (Please
      describe)
   2. I  am  planning  to  build an AI-based instructional system. (Please
      describe)
   3. I'm not currently planning to build an instructional system,  but  I
      want to keep abreast of developments in the field.  (Why?)
   4. I'm generally curious about the field. (Why?)

(10) Please list the subject areas that interest you (e.g., arithmetic, medical
diagnosis, auto mechanics, etc.).

(11)  Is  your  work  targeted to a specific student population?  If so, please
indicate which.
   1. pre-school or elemementary school students
   2. junior high school or high school students
   3. disabled or special students
   4. college students
   5. post-graduate or professional students
   6. vocational trainees
   7. military training
   8. industrial training
   9. other (please describe)

(12) Which do you consider to be among your MOST central interests?
   1. authoring tools or environments (general architectures)
   2. diagnosis of student errors and misconceptions
   3. educational games
   4. explanation and knowledge transfer techniques
   5. designing curricula that uses AI-based systems
   6. interactive video or CD-ROM
   7. micro-worlds or learning environments
   8. natural language
   9. representation  and codification of domain knowledge for the purpose
      of instruction
  10. representation and codification of general problem-solving knowledge
      for the purpose of instruction
  11. representation  and  codification  of  teaching  knowledge  for  the
      purpose of instruction
  12. student modeling
  13. tutorial strategies
  14. user-interfaces (including use of computer graphics in general)
  15. user-modeling  (for  explanation,  on-line  contextual  help,  user-
      interfaces)
  16. voice recognition/synthesis
  17. other (please specify)

(13) Which of the following would you like to see a special interest  group  in
AI and Education offer?  (0=not important, 1=important, 2=very important)
   1. electronic discussion list
   2. bibliographic references without abstracts/reviews
   3. bibligraphic references with abstracts/reviews
   4. annual meeting at AAAI
   5. periodic focused workshops
   6. high quality feedback on paper drafts, proposals, ideas, etc.
   7. job announcements
   8. other:

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
149
-DATE-
Date: Wed 11 Jun 86 11:27:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Possible Worlds Planning (SRI)
-BODY-
                         POSSIBLE WORLDS PLANNING

                         Matt Ginsberg (SJG@SAIL)
                           Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, June 16
         SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228 (new conference room)


The size of the search space is perhaps the most intractable of all of
the problems facing a general-purpose planner.  Some planning methods
(means-ends analysis being typical) address this problem by
encouraging the system designer to give the planner domain-specific
information (perhaps in the form of a difference table) to help govern
this search.

This paper presents a domain-independent approach to this problem
based on the examination of possible worlds in which the planning goal
has been achieved.  Although a weak method, the ideas presented lead
to considerable savings in many examples; in addition, the natural
implementation of this approach has the attractive property that
incremental efforts in controlling the search provide incremental
improvements in performance.  This is in contrast to many other
approaches to the control of search or inference, which may require
large expenditures of effort before any benefits are realized.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 86 00:18:33 pdt
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Expert System Induction (NASA Ames)
-BODY-
Subject: June 17, 1986, NASA Ames AI Forum, Automatic Induction

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center

                            AMES AI FORUM
                        SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


SPEAKER:   Dr. Peter Cheeseman
           Information Sciences Office
           NASA Ames Research Center

TOPIC:     Automatic Induction of Probabilistic Expert Systems

Many have realized that expert systems that make decisions under uncertainty
must represent this uncertainty and manipulate it correctly. This cannot be
done in general by "symbolic" (i.e. non-numeric) methods or by sprinkling
numbers over logical inference, as advocated by many authors in AI. Probability
has been proved to be the only consistent inference scheme if uncertainty is
represented by a real number.  Probabilistic inference requires assessing the
effect of ALL the relevant evidence on the hypothesis of interest through ALL
the possible chains of inference (rather than establishing a single path from
axioms to theorem, as in logic).  However, some methods used in probabilistic
inference in AI (e.g. Prospector) impose strong constraints on the structure of
the information (e.g. conditional independence) or require large amounts of
information.  The solution to this problem is to use Maximum Entropy to spread
the uncertainty over the set of possibilities as evenly as possible consistent
with the known information.  A computationally efficient method for performing
the maximum entropy calculation will be presented as well as a method for
extracting the necessary probabilistic information directly from data.  The
result is a complete probabilistic expert system without using an expert.


DATE: Tuesday,     TIME: 10:30-11:30 am     BLDG. 239   Room B39
      June 17, 1986                                      (Basement Conf. Room)

POINT OF CONTACT: Alison Andrews    PHONE NUMBER: (415)694-6741
     NET ADDRESS: mer.andrews@ames-vmsb.ARPA


VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 June 1986 1156-EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Wallstein@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning by Selection (CMU)
-BODY-
The CMU Summer Research Seminar Series continues this Friday, June 13 at
2:30 PM, 7500 WeH with a talk by Geoffrey Hinton on his new research:

            A New Algorithm for Learning by Selection

Imagine a complicated non-linear process that contains specific steps that are
controlled by switches which can be on or off.  Each switch has a particular
stored probability of being on.  Using these probabilities, we generate a
random combination of switch settings and then run the process and decide
whether the result is good or bad.  I shall describe a new learning algorithm
that uses information about the goodness of the outcomes to revise the stored
probabilities associated with the switches.  The algorithm is guaranteed to
change the switch probabilites in such a way that future random combinations of
switch settings are more likely to produce good outcomes.  It can be applied to
stochastic processes of arbitrary complexity.  If each switch is a synapse, it
suggests a new model of learning in the cortex.  If each switch is an enzyme
and its stored probability is the relative frequency of the relevant gene in
the gene pool, the learning algorithm is an efficient way of using the
information provided by survival to optimize gene frequencies. The extension to
optimizing frequencies of gene combinations appears to be feasible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Jun 86 01:17:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: Mark.Derthick@g.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Knowledge Representation System (CMU)
-BODY-
I will present my thesis proposal, "A Connectionist Knowledge Representation
System," 2pm Wednesday, June 18, in 5409.


I propose to develop a knowledge representation system that is functionally
similar to KL2, but implemented on a parallel, non-symbolic architecture.
Answering queries is carried out by a Boltzmann Machine
network in which concepts, roles, and individuals are represented by
patterns of activity of very simple processing units.  By choosing good
representations, a small network suffices to capture the knowledge as
pairwise interactions among the units in the network.  A single parallel
constraint satisfaction search accomplishes the answering process.  I will
prove that for any definable knowledge base, the network constructed will
answer queries as specified by the formal knowledge level semantics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 86 14:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Object Recognition using Category Models (UPenn)
-BODY-

  OBJECT RECOGNITION USING FUNCTION BASED CATEGORY MODELS

                   Ph. D. Thesis Proposal

                        Franc Solina

                      GRASP Laboratory
                 UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
      Department of Computer and Information Sciences
                Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389

                    Phone (215) 898 8298
                 Net address:   franc@upenn

     We propose a modeling system for recognition of generic
objects.   Based  on  the observation that fulfilling of the
same function results in similar  shapes  we  will  consider
object  categories  that  are formed around the principle of
functionality.  The representation consists of a  prototypi-
cal  object  represented by prototypical parts and relations
between these parts.   Parts  are  modeled  by  superquadric
volumetric  primitives which are combined via boolean opera-
tions to form objects.  Variations between objects within  a
category are described by allowable changes in structure and
shape deformations of prototypical parts.  Each prototypical
part  and relation has a set of associated features that can
be  recognized  in  the  images.   The  recognition  process
proceeds  as  follows; the input is a pair of stereo reflec-
tance images.  The closed contours and  sparse  3-D  points,
the  result of low level vision, are analyzed to find domain
specific features.  These features are used for indexing the
model data base to make hypotheses.  The selected hypotheses
are then verified on the geometric level  by  deforming  the
prototype  in  allowable way to match the data.  We base our
design of the modeling system upon the current psychological
theories of the human visual perception.

advisor:   R. Bajcsy
commitee:  N. Badler, H. ElGindy, J. Kender (Columbia University).
Time: Monday, June 16, 11 PM, room 216

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 27 May 86 10:31:37 edt
-FROM-
From: vtcs1::fox
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - CODER Information Retrieval (VPI)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from IRList Digest V2#26 by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The M.S. defense of Robert K. France will be held at 10am Monday June 2 in
Norris 301. The title of his thesis is "An Artificial Intelligence Environment
for Information Retrieval Research."

The CODER (COmposite Document Expert/extended/effective Retrieval)
project is a multi-year effort to investigate how best to apply
artificial intelligence methods to increase the effectiveness of
information retrieval systems.  Particular attention is being given to
analysis and representation of heterogeneous documents, such as
electronic mail digests or messages, which vary widely in style,
length, topic, and structure. In order to ensure system adaptability
and to allow reconfiguration for controlled experimentation, the
project has been designed as a moderated expert system.  This thesis
covers the design problems involved in providing a unified
architecture and knowledge representation scheme for such a system,
and the solutions chosen for CODER.  An overall object-oriented
environment is constructed using a set of message-passing primitives
based on a modified Prolog call paradigm.  Within this environment is
embedded the skeleton of a flexible expert system, where task
decomposition is performed in a knowledge-oriented fashion and where
subtask managers are implemented as members of a community of experts.
A three-level knowledge representation formalism of elementary data
types, frames, and relations is provided, and can be used to construct
knowledge structures such as terms, meaning structures, and document
interpretations.  The use of individually tailored specialist experts
coupled with standardized blackboard modules for communication and
control and external knowledge bases for maintenance of factual world
knowledge allows for rapid prototyping, incremental development, and
flexibility under change.  The system as a whole is structured as a
set of communicating modules, defined functionally and imple- mented
under UNIX using sockets and the TCP/IP protocol for communication.
Inferential modules are being coded in MU-Prolog; non-inferential
modules are being prototyped in MU-Prolog and will be re-implemented
as needed in C++.

Host: Dr. Edward A. Fox, Dept. of Computer Science

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 13 Jun 86 11:45:06-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New Society - Bay Area AI and Education Meeting
-BODY-
Date: 13 Jun 86 10:27 PDT
From: dmrussell.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Bay Area AI and Education Meeting: June 23rd, 6PM, PARC

What:   Bay Area AI and Education Group holding its first meeting.

Where:  Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
                3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
                Palo Alto, CA
                (send for detailed directions)

When:   June 23rd, 6PM

Who:
        Speakers:  Jim Greeno and Peter Pirolli
                        "Some New Directions in the Science of
                        Instructional Design"
                        Math Science and Technology
                        Education Dept.
                        University of Calif. Berkeley

        Host:   Daniel Russell
                        Intelligent Systems Lab
                        PARC

Amplification:

        BARRET (Bay ARea Research in Educational Technology) is an
attempt to bring together many of the local people working in the area
of applying AI to education.  There are significant efforts at
Berkeley, Stanford, UCSF, SRI, PARC and so on.  BARRET is a way of
establishing some communication between the various groups, by hosting
technical talks on this topic and setting aside time for informal
discussion.

        To do this, BARRET will be implemented as a moving sequence of talks
circulating throughout the Bay Area on a (roughly) monthly basis.  We
hope to have high quality talks on areas of mutual interest to be
followed by an equally high-quality dinner that will allow us to meet
and discuss topics further.

        This first meeting of BARRET will be followed by dinner at Chef Chu's,
assuming that we can get a reasonable headcount.  (With enough warning,
non-MSG-ers and veggies can be accomodated.)

        So, if you are interested in attending, please message (or call) me and
let me know of your intentions.  That will allow us to do some planning
for our first meeting.

>- Dan Russell --

ArpaNet: DMRussell.PA@XEROX.COM
Phone: (415)-494-4308
Mail:  Dan Russell
                ISL
                3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
                Palo Alto, CA  94304

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
150
-DATE-
Date: 10 June 1986 1542-EDT
-FROM-
From: Theona Stefanis@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Modular Construction of Logics for Specification (CMU)
-BODY-
                        PS SEMINAR

                Date:   Friday, 20 June
                Time:   10:00
                Place:  WeH 4605


         Modular Construction of Logics for Specification

                          Martin Sadler
                   Imperial College, London
                       mrs@@doc.ic.ac.uk

A typical informal presentation of  a  logic  for  reasoning
about some aspect of computing is:

         Nice logic  =  First-order logic  +  Temporal bit

We can ask two questions about this equation.  Firstly, what
is  going  on  with  the  '+' and other similar combinators?
Secondly, how do we guarantee that such equations  are  well
behaved - in the sense that the logics we build will support
the ideas of specification and stepwise refinement?

     To answer these questions one needs to  have  a  formal
framework  for talking about logics. Our preference is for a
proof theoretic framework.  Crudely:

        Logic  "="   presentation of a consequence relation

        Combinator  "="  function of type:  logic* -> logic

        Modularity principle  "="  interchange principle
                                        between combinators

     One important kind of combinator that has not  received
the  attention it deserves is a 'talksabout' combinator that
gives one a meta-level mechanism with respect to  the  logic
it is applied to.  Together with the observation that canon-
ical "arrow" logics can be built on the collections of vari-
ous  kinds  of  preserving maps between logics, we can start
talking about logics as solutions to "logic-equations":

        LOGIC   =  talksabout(logic)

                + talksabout(nice_logic)

                + talksabout(nice_logic
                                -> implementation_logic)

     The seminar will attempt to show how such  a  framework
can  be used, as part of an interactive environment, to sup-
port software engineers in setting up logics for  specifica-
tion and verification.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 10 Jun 86 14:45:38-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lisa F. Melcher <LISA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Dependent Types (MIT)
-BODY-
                        Date:  Thursday, June 19, 1986
                        Time:  2:45 p.m......Refreshments
                               3:00 p.m......Lecture
                       Place:  NE43 - 512A



                  "DEPENDENT TYPES -- FIFTEEN YEARS LATER"


                                 J.Y.GIRARD
                           University of Paris VII


Our system F of polymorphic lambda calculus (developed independently by
Reynolds) is attracting increasing interest because of its relation to
polymorphic types in programming, although our original motivation for
studying the system was quite different.  In this talk we summarize the basic
theoretical properties of the type system and compare the computer
scientists' and logicians' views of it.



              Sponsored by TOC, Laboratory for Computer Science
                             Albert Meyer, Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 18:00:06 -0100
-FROM-
From: Gideon Sahar <gideon%edai.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminars - Programming Languages & Temporal Knowledge (Edinburgh)
-BODY-

EDINBURGH AI SEMINARS

Date:    Wednesday 28th May l986
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence
         Seminar Room
         Forrest Hill
         EDINBURGH.

Dr. M. Steedman, Centre for Cognitive Sciences and Department of Artificial
Intelligence will give a seminar entitled - "Combinators, Universals and
Natural Language Processing".

Combinators are primitive elements in terms of which we can define the notion
of defining a function, as with the lambda operator of LISP, without the use
of the bound variables which are associated with that operator, and which are
so expensive for interpreters of LISP and related functional programming
languages.   For some time, my colleagues and I have been arguing that the
syntax and semantics of certain problematic "unbounded dependencies" and
"reduced" constituents in natural language constructions such as English
relative clauses and coordinate constructions can be elegantly captured by
extending Categorial Grammars (discussed by Ewan Klein here a couple of months
ago) with operations corresponding to certain simple combinators.   Such
grammars hold out the promise of a theory according to which natural language
syntax is a very direct reflection of a computational efficient applicative
semantics which minimises the use of bound variables.   The paper concerns
some implications for processing and the prediction of certain contrasts
between the grammars of Spanish and English.



Date:    Wednesday, 4th June l986
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence,
         Seminar Room,
         Forrest Hill,
         EDINBURGH.


Professor Colin Bell, University of Iowa will give a seminar entitled -
``A Point-Based Representation of Temporal Knowledge in Automated
Project Planning".

A point-based temporal reasoning system is presented as an alternative
to existing interval-based temporal logics.   It appears to be
especially applicable in nonlinear hierarchical planning where such
temporal quantities as activity durations and scheduling delays are
uncertain.   Temporal constraints representable in this system fall into
a very restricted class.  However, it is argued that representing more
general constraints results in computational intractability.   Details
of implementation are discussed.



Date:    Wednesday, 11th June l986
Time:    2.00 p.m.
Place:   Department of Artificial Intelligence,
         Seminar Room F10,
         80 South Bridge,
         EDINBURGH.


Mr. Peter Jackson, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of
Edinburgh will give a seminar entitled - ``Towards a Methodology for
Designing Problem Solving Architectures in the Object-Oriented Style".

Although current object-oriented systems provide the programmer with both
software modules (such as production rule interpreters and theorem provers)
and software tools (such as browsers and debuggers), they fail to provide a
set of guidelines as to how to select and combine modules to create a
particular architecture.  Too often, one is given some combination of
Flavors, OPS and Prolog (or their look-alikes), and then left to get on with
it.  A further criticism is that the modules provided do not lend themselves
to adaptation by specialization in the spirit of the object-oriented
environment in which they are embedded.

A methodology for creating 'abstract architectures', which can be
instantiated via a process of specialization, is described in the context of
a new object-oriented programming language called SLOOP.  A detailed example
is given of how to create a generic production rule architecture whose
behaviour is easy to modify incrementally, together with a sample problem
solving program.  It is suggested that certain features of SLOOP, namely
its transparency and the fact that it is mostly implemented in itself, make
it particularly useful as a vehicle for tasks of this kind, while some of
the facilities offered, such as pattern-matched parameter-passing and the
ability to compile SLOOP into Lisp and thence into native code, encourage a
functional style of programming without extracting too high a price in terms
of efficiency.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 86 15:17:26 edt
-FROM-
From: als@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Alice L. Schafer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - APS Workshop at AAAI-86
-BODY-
>--> The cutoff date for receiving a request for participation in the
Workshop on Automatic Programming at the AAAI-86 was accidentally omitted
from the notice.  While the original date was June 15, we will extend
it to June 30 to give people sufficient time to respond.

...
   The workshop will be held on Thursday August 14th, and will last
approximately three hours. The current plan is that one and a half hours will
be occupied by brief (seven minutes) presentations of current work, followed
by a panel discussion with active audience participation, moderated by
Tom Cheatham of Harvard. Due to the size of the available rooms, we
may have to limit the audience to researchers who have experience with
some aspect of the APS problem.

   If you wish to present your current work or be on the panel you should
send us a 200-800 word abstract. The decision on who will participate will
be based on these abstracts. If you wish to participate as a member of the
audience instead, send us a short note containing a description of your work
or references to pertinent papers you have written. If we need to limit the
audience we will base our decisions on these responses, which should be sent
by June 30.

   Please post a printed copy of this notice at your workplace.

Organized by:

Alice Schafer            Richard Brown             Richard Piazza
(617) 271-2363           (617) 271-7559            (617) 271-2363
als@mitre-bedford.arpa   rhb@mitre-bedford.arpa    rlp@mitre-bedford.arpa

    of the Knowledge-Based Automatic Programming Project (ISFI)

         The MITRE Corporation
         Mail Stop A-045
         Burlington Road
         Bedford, MA 01730

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 86 12:06:07 PDT
-FROM-
From: Lougie Anderson <lougiea%crl.tek.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Lougie Anderson <lougiea%tekcrl.uucp@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Temporal Aspects in Information Systems
-BODY-

                  Conference Announcement

          TEMPORAL ASPECTS IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS

                  Sophia-Antopolis, France
                      May 13-15, 1987



Temporal Aspects in Information Systems:  A working  confer-
ence  by IFIP Technical Committee TC 8 "Information Systems"
in cooperation with AFCET, the French Computer  Science  and
Information Society.


MOTIVATION

Recent developments  in  the  area  of  information  systems
emphasize  the role played by time.  Research in information
systems design has pointed to the need for a realistic world
model  which  includes representations not only for snapshot
descriptions of the real world, but also for  histories,  on
the   evolution  of  such  descriptions  over  time.   These
developments still suffer from a lack of concepts, languages
and  theoretical foundations dealing with the design of tem-
poral and behavioral aspects of informations systems.  More-
over,  temporal correctness criteria and analysis are neces-
sary.  In addition the management of  computerized  informa-
tion  systems requires new mechanisms to allow the implemen-
tation and the handling of these elements.   Papers  can  be
submitted on the following items.


TOPICS

Theoretical and Modeling Aspects of the  Time  Dimension  of
Information:  Time theory, temporal logic, causality theory,
linguistic and philosophic approaches of time.  Time  model-
ing,  behavioral  modeling,  languages for specification and
query, temporal/causal dependencies  and  constraints,  tem-
poral consistency checking.

Time and Behavior  Implementation  and  Handling:   Temporal
dimension of databases, historical databases implementation,
user interface for historical databases, snapshots, time and
behavior  handling  in  computerized systems, time and event
mechanisms,  management  of  multiple  versions,  data  time
versus  transaction  time,  concurrency  and synchronization
problems.

Applications with a Temporal Dimension:   Time  in  decision
support  systems  for  prediction  and planning achievement,
time dimension in CAD and CAM systems, in large  statistical
data  bases,  in large socio-economic data bases, in medical
systems, and real-time systems.


GENERAL CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN

Francois Bodart
Institute Notre-Dame de la Paix
21, rue Grangagnage
500 Namur, Belgium

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Colette Rolland
Universite Paris I
12, place du Pantheon
75231 Paris Cedex, France



ORGANIZING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

Michel Leonard
Centre Universitaire d'Informatique
Universite de Geneve
24, rue du General-Dufour
1211 Geneve 4, Switzerland

PROGRAMME COMMITTEE
M. Adiba, IMAG, France
J. Allen, University of Rochester, USA
L. Anderson, Tektronix, USA
V. de Antonellis, University of Milano, Italy
G. Ariav, Tel Aviv University, Israel
F. Bodart, Institut Notre-Dame de la Paix, Belgium
J. Bubenko, University of Stockholm, Sweden
J. Clifford, New York University, USA
A. Furtado, University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
M. Jarke, University of Frankfurt, Germany
M. Leonard, University of Geneva, Switzerland
S. Navathe, University of Florida, USA
P. Nobecourt, University Paris I, France
A. Olive, University of Barcelona, Spain
B. Pernici, Milano Polytechnic School, Italy
U. Schiel, Federal University of Paraiba, Brazil
A. Sernadas, University of Lisbon, Portugal


HOW TO SUBMIT


Original papers in English of up to 5,000 words  are  sought
on  topics  included  in,  but  not limited to, the proposed
list.  Papers should be recieved before October  1st,  1986.
Authors should submit four copies of the full paper to:

                   AFCET
                   TAIS, Conference
                   156, boulevard Pereire
                   75017 Paris, France




IMPORTANT DATES

Papers due:                   October 1, 1986
Acceptance notification:      December 15, 1986
Final copy due:               February 15, 1987
Conference:                   May 13-15, 1987

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 JUN 86 11:38-N
-FROM-
From: SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Symposium on Connectionism
-BODY-
                        Symposium and Workshop on

                             CONNECTIONISM :
               MULTIPLE AGENTS, PARALLELISM AND LEARNING

      =================================================================
      Symposium          9th of September 1986
      Workshop          10th - 12th of September 1986
      LOCATION          Geneva University, UNI II, Switzerland

      The  symposium and workshop are sponsored by the Swiss Group  for
      Artificial Intelligence and  Cognitive Science (SGAICO), the Jean
      Piaget  Foundation  and the Faculty of Psychology  and  Education
      Science of the University of Geneva.

            Symposium Programme : SYMPOSIUM DAY : 9TH OF SEPTEMBER

      At  the  9th  of September a one day symposium will  be  held  on
      "CONNECTIONISM  :  Multiple  Agents ,  Parallelism and  Learning"
      where the main ideas of this paradigm in Artificial  Intelligence
      and Cognitive Science will be presented. The symposium is open to
      the public. The goal of this symposium is to give an introduction
      and survey of the problems of Connectionism.

          09.00 - 10.30   THE SOCIETY THEORY OF MIND:
                          Marvin Minsky, MIT

          10.45 - 12.00   THE LOCALIST POSITION IN CONNECTIONISM:
                          ON REPRESENTATION AND LEARNING
                          Jerome Feldman, University of Rochester

          14.00 - 15.15   THE DISTRIBUTIONIST POSITION IN CONNECTIONISM:
                          ON REPRESENTATION AND LEARNING
                          Terry Sejnowski, John Hopkins University

          15.30 - 16.45   LEARNING PARADIGMS IN CONNECTIONISM:
                          David Rumelhart, University of California

          16.45 - 18.00   BUILDING WORKING CONNECTIONIST MODELS
                          David Waltz, Intelligent Thinking Machines, USA


       Entry fees for the SYMPOSIUM:        STUDENTS: SFRS  40,-  ;
       UNIVERSITY MEMBERS: SFRS 100,- ;     INDUSTRY: SFRS 250,-
       The following persons get a entry-price reduction of 20 Percent:
        - Members and Students of the Faculty of Psychology and Education
          Science of the University of Geneva
        - Members of the Swiss Informatitions Society (SI)
        - Members of the Swiss Group for Artificial Intelligence and
          Cognitive Science (SGAICO)

       For further information and registration apply to the SYMPOSIUM
       SECRETARY Mrs. Manuela Mounir

                              WORKSHOP PROGRAMME

      After the Symposium a two and a half day workshop will take place
      at the Geneva University.  The workshop is limited to 20  invited
      attendees,  whose  research interests are in different aspects of
      multiple agents,  parallelism  and  learning.  The  goal  of  the
      workshop  is  to discuss and elucidate different  approaches  and
      their  interrelations  and to further conceptualise  the  present
      problems    and   future   promising   research   directions   in
      Connectionism.  The  workshop will be videotaped and  later  made
      accessible to a wider audience.

      Participants are:
      Guenter Albers       Genetic A.I. and Epistemics Lab. Geneva Uni.
      Andre Boder          MIT and Geneva University
      Heiner Brand         University of Bielefeld, Germany
      Guy Cellerier        Genetic A.I. and Epistemics Lab. Geneva Uni.
      Stefano Cerri        Mario Negri Institute, Milan
      Jean-Jaques Ducret   Genetic A.I. and Epistemics Lab. Geneva Uni.
      Jerome Feldman       University of Rochester, Rochester
      Ken Haase            Artificial Intelligence Lab., MIT
      John Holland         University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
      Marvin Minsky        Artificial Intelligence Lab., MIT
      Rolf Pfeifer         Institute for Informatics,Zuerich University
      Mike Rosner          ISSCO, Geneva University
      Thomas Rothenfluh    Conflict Research Center, Zuerich University
      David Rumelhart      University of California, San Diego
      Terrence Sejnowski   John Hopkins University, Baltimore
      Zoltan Schreter      Genetic A.I. and Epistemics Lab. Geneva Uni.
      Luc Steels           A.I. Lab, Free University, Brussels
      John Sutton          GTE Labs, Walton, USA
      David Waltz          Intelligent Thinking Machines, Cambridge USA



      ORGANISATION: Guenter Albers
      GENETIC ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND EPISTEMICS LABORATORY
      University of Geneva, Switzerland
      TEL.: (0041) 22  20 93 33 EXT.2623 (Switzerland)

      REGISTRATION and SYMPOSIUM SECRETARY: Mrs. Manuela Mounir
      FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA
      CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
      TEL.: (0041) 22  20 93 33 EXT.2657 (Switzerland)
      Telex: 423801 UNI CH Geneve

      For further (non-organisation-related) information send mail to
      Guenter Albers or reply by email to Daniel Schneider:

          to VMS/BITNET:                    to UNIX/EAN: (preferable)
BITNET:   SCHNEIDER@CGEUGE51                shneider%cui.unige.chunet@CERNVAX
ARPA:     SCHNEIDER%CGEUGE51.BITNET@WISCVM  shneider%cui.unige.chunet@ubc.csnet
uucp:                                       mcvax!cernvax!cui!shneider
X.400/ean:                                  shneider@cui.unige.chunet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
151
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jun 86 16:56:00 PST
-FROM-
From: seismo!nwc-143b.ARPA!sefai
-SUBJECT-
Subject: References on Natural Language???
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from IRList Digest V2#26 by Laws@SRI-AI.]


        I am investigating literature that will hopefully help me on my
master's thesis. Without being too specific, the topic centers around
schemes for representing natural language in a computer system. So far,
my list of references includes:

        1. Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Barr and Feigenbaum
        2. NETL: A System for Representing and Using Real-World
           Knowledge, Fahlman
        3. Human Information Processing, Lindsay and Norman
        4. A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language,
           Marcus
        5. Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Nilsson
        6. Basic English (series), Ogden
        7. The Cognitive Computer on Language, Schank with Childers
        8. Computer Models of Thought and Language, Schank and Colby
        9. Artificial Intelligence,  Winston
        10. A Handbook of English Grammar, Zandvoort

        I'd appreciate any good references others have come across and
I'd be more than happy to send out the list afterwards.

                                        Gene Guglielmo
                                        sefai@nwc-143b

[Note: Thank you for the offer of collecting references.  You have
quite an unusual assortment of works!  I encourage you to look at
"Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval" by Salton and McGill
and "Information Retrieval, 2nd ed." by C.J. VanRijsbergen for a
rather different perspective.  Let us know more details of your plans
when you become more focused. - Ed]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 7 Jun 86 23:38:21-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ali Ozer <ALI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: ali@score,taran@sushi
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Curious about Aristotle, "Knowledge Processor"...
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


In p.19 of June 4 Campus Report, there is a short 2-column article
titled "Knowledge processor named Aristotle pays a visit." The article
says... "Modeling computer architecture after the human nervous system,
a Stanford graduate has developed Aristotle, a unique knowledge
processor. ... Modeled on synapses, the junctions between nerve cells,
Aristotle encodes information in fundamental units ranging from a
single character to a word, then a sentence, and finally a paragraph. ...
``You teach Aristotle like a child,'' he [John Voevodsky, the inventor]
said. ``Characters first, then words and sentences.'' ... Aristotle can
perform several tasks. It was first trained to turn a light on and
off, then to ring a bell, and finally to blow a whistle. ... "

Anyway, if you're curious from the above, you should get your hands on
a Campus Report and read the whole article. This machine just
sounds fascinating, but there isn't any technical information about it
in the paper. Does anyone out there know more about this? The
article makes it sound like this processor provides an approach to
intelligence that could easily replace most of the current AI techniques!
But, I don't know much about AI, and I certainly know very little about
this Aristotle, so I just don't know... If anyone has more info or
knows where there is more written about this "knowledge processor,"
I would like to hear about it.

Very curious about things I should not be curious about during
finals week, but am,
>Ali

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jun 86 04:25:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!gondor!hou@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Po Hou)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A.I.(expert systems)
-BODY-
I am studying application of prolog on expert systems.
Is the following fact correct ?
(1) when a predicate is used recently then it will be used in the future
    with higher possibility than those predicates that are not used recently.
    (i.e. it is similar to working set concept of virtual memory.)
    For example,
    predicate call p(a,Y,Z) gets a set {(X,Y,Z)| X=a } , then what is the
    possibility that p(a,Y,Z) is called again ?
(2) what is the user behavior to use a expert system ?
(3) frequently used knowledge will be used with a higher possibility ?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Jun 86 22:49:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcsvax!noscvax!kanemoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Nelson T. Kanemoto)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: P-Shell Query
-BODY-

I'm looking for information on P-Shell, described in the article:

        "Programming in P-Shell", by Newton S. Lee, IEEE Expert,
        pg. 50-63, in the recent Summer 1986 issue.

If anyone knows the cost, availability, or any other information concerning
P-Shell, please send me a message:

        kanemoto@nosc.arpa

Thanks in advance,

Nelson T. Kanemoto
Computer Sciences Corporation
NOSC Hawaii

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 86 14:52:26-1000
-FROM-
From: Jimmy Y. Cheng <cheng%humu@nosc.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge Acquisition
-BODY-

     I'm interested in the knowledge acquisition of the domain
knowledge from an expert to an engineer.  Can anyone help me in
locating an article or reference to people working in this area?  Any
help would be greatly appreciated.  Since this the bottleneck in
building an expert system, any progress would be a boon to AI.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jun 86 17:31:48 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!topaz!harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!gknight@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Gary Knight)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems for clinical neuropsychological assessment.
-BODY-

      A few weeks ago I posted an inquiry concerning my interest in the current
state of research and development on expert systems for clinical
neuropsychological assessment.  I received several replies, some of which led
to some very useful material.

      I would now like to re-post that inquiry, seeking still further input
from anyone who has such information and did *not* respond before.  So . . .

            Does anyone have information they can share with me
            on research or development work with respect to
            expert systems for application to clinical neuro-
            psychological assessment?  If so, please reply by
            mail and I'll post a summary, including all previous
            replies.

      Thanks very much.
>-
Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 15:58 ???
-FROM-
From: PENN%NGSTL1%ti-eg.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Validation and Verification
-BODY-
I am doing a literature search on the validation and
verification of expert systems.  I have found a few
articles manually, however, my database searches
(INSPEC, COMPENDEX, etc.) haven't been helpful.
I am getting more on the use of expert systems to
test other computer software than procedures/
methods for validating expert systems!

If you have any pertinent information, or some
good sources with carry-over potential to
expert systems I would appreciate being
contacted.  In return I will be happy to
furnish you with the final literature search
information.  Thank you!

Mary Penn
Knowledge Engineer
TI-Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
(214) 343-7667
P.O. Box 660246  M/S 3645
Dallas, TX  75266
PENN%NGSTL1@TI-EG.CSNET

  [One validation effort was carried out by John Reiter for the HYDRO
  expert system (an extension of Prospector that he, Rene Reboh, and
  John Gashnig developed).  Reiter used scattergrams and rank correlations
  to compare various actual parameters with those predicted by the
  system.  The final SRI report was "Development of a Knowledge-Based
  Interface to a Hydrological Simulation Program," May 1982, but I
  believe most of the validation effort was documented in John's
  dissertation.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jun 86 18:58:19 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!jis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (j.mukerji)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info wanted on Expert-Ease
-BODY-
I just read a glossy on Expert-Ease, which is based on an inference engine
developed by Donald Michie at Edinburgh University. I would appreciate any
comments about it (good or bad) from anyone who has used it. I am
considering buying it, and of course would like to know whether it is all
that it is touted to be. If there is sufficient interest I will summerize
responses to this message in this newsgroup.

Thank you.

Jishnu Mukerji
AT&T Information Systems
Middeltown NJ
ihnp4!mtgzz!jis1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 11:31 EDT
-FROM-
From: DSTEVEN%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recursive fixed point solvers.
-BODY-
We are looking for a program to solve for fixed points of
recursive equations.  Actually, any help will be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks in advance
Steve
(803) 656-5880

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Jun 86 14:00:05-PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Garvey <Garvey@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Seminar - Automatic Expert System Induction (NASA Ames)
-BODY-
Does this mean that Cheeseman has at long last implemented something,
or is this going to be more of the same old theoretical maximum
entropy stuff over high-order probability distributions that would
not only eliminate the need for an expert but also make it impossible
for the expert to provide the necessary information.  Presumably, an
expert system with no experts is misnamed, and systems for statistical
analysis have been around for a long time.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 86 19:00:43 bst
-FROM-
From: gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Inside Out
-BODY-

>From: majka@ubc.CSNET.UUCP

>> ...Einstein's theory of general relativity, which models the cosmos
>> as a 4 dimensional pseudo-Riemannian spacetime. ...
>
>*pseudo*-Riemannian?   I think you mean Semi-Reimannian, and that applies
>to the metric, not the spacetime.
>
>---
>Marc Majka
>

OK, take your pick, but it must be a  pseudo/semi-Riemannian spacetime, so
that you can have null distances;  ie the metric on the manifold must have
differing signs eg (+1,-1,-1,-1), ie in Minkowski space. (Note that in GR,
all spacetimes are locally Minkowski).  The manifold must be Hausdorff and
differentiable to arbitrary order, ie C-infinity.

Apart from differential geometry, the keyword is *model*. Spacetime is not
any type of Riemannian manifold. Newton did not need differential geometry
to  form a model of  gravity.  Did spacetime suddenly curve  when Einstein
discovered  general relativity?  What is interesting is  the leap from the
intuitive idea  of the apple falling  because it is `pulled' by the earth,
to the non-intuitive idea of the apple falling because nothing holds it up.
It falls along a timelike geodesic,  the shortest (4-dim) distance between
two points.

And there is nothing intuitive about quantum chromo-dynamics, at least not
to me.

Gordon Joly,
ARPA: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 86 14:10 EST
-FROM-
From: STANKULI%cs.umass.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: more inside and out
-BODY-
  Another  response  to phayes AILIST vol 4 # 125 and subsequent replies on the
intuitions of tardis inside and out...  particularly Ken Laws  reply.   i  will
include  references  to  relevant  episodes  which  test  the  limits of tardis
functions.

  the  tardis  is  not  a  portal  to  another dimension.  Gallifreyan temporal
mechanics are particularly limited to our 4-dimensional universe (they call  it
N-space) in its operation.  theoretically the time lords can go to any time and
place  in  N-space  but  they accept informal constraints they call "time laws"
which they try to enforce to lower the occurrence of  paradox  phenomema.   but
even  the  high  council of time lords will violate these regulations once in a
while at great expense of energy ('the  five  doctors'  peter  davidson).   the
fundamental  piece of Gallifreyan technology is called a dimensional stabalizer
which was discovered by Omeger and perfected by an engineer called Rasilon.

  the  metauniverse  of dr.  who is at least five dimensional.  there have been
times when the doctor's tardis has been transported through accident into other
parallel 4D universes where it  functions  with  different  precision  than  in
N-space.   the  doctor  (jon  pertwee)  had this happen once when repairing the
tardis console and later the tardis  was  thrown  into  E-space  by  a  stellar
accident  for  a number of episodes (tom baker).  E-space was a much smaller 4D
universe which was collapsing instead of expanding.

  punching  holes  in  the side of a tardis has happened.  in 'terminus' (peter
davidson) the tardis was breaking apart in transit and attached to the side  of
a  space  vehicle.   the  doctor  and  companions came and went from the tardis
through an unstable hole in the wall of nyssa's room.  the hole acted just like
a door, but they could not control its opening and closing.

  there  is  no  fundamental reason why the inside of a tardis is always larger
than the outside.  the relative dimensions of inside  and  out  are  uncoupled.
the  'outer  plasmic shell' is controlled by a chameleon circuit and can be any
size.  the outside could be larger than the inside.  tom baker once designed an
exterior the size of the pyramid of cheops but since his chameleon circuit  was
broken,  it  reverted  to  the  police  box.   the  master  once had his tardis
materialize around a Concorde SST ('time flight' peter davidson).  there is  no
reason  why  a  tardis  outside  could not be the size of a shoe box or postage
stamp, except that a humanoid could not exit the craft in such case.  an  error
in  'logopolis'  (tom  baker) caused it to become three feet high, trapping the
doctor inside.  a tardis can also jettison portions of its  interior  space  in
emergency ('castrovalva' peter davidson).

  some  other  interesting properties have arisen in the 20+ year series.  if a
tardis is turned over on its side, there is a  control  which  can  rotate  the
interior  so  the  floor  orients  with gravity ('time flight').  when a tardis
materializes, it incorporates the space it appears  in.   the  master's  tardis
contained  the  original SST inside his own.  a dimensional anomaly arises when
one tardis materializes around another tardis ('logopolis').   the  dimensional
stabilizer   works  by  folding  one  dimension  into  another--  apparently  a
point-for-point  mapping   mechanism.    they   call   this   'block   transfer
computation'.   if one tardis incorporates another one, they are both in danger
of losing external reference.  since they both contain the same  folded  space,
they both contain each other. it is possible to walk from the outer one through
the  inner  one  to  the  outer  one...   like infinite regression in a hall of
mirrors.

  for  one  of the longest running dramatic series in history, the BBC staff of
writers is to be admired for their conceptual detail in  metauniversal  design.
their  spacetime  mechanics  have  interesting and plausible ramifications on a
different order of magnitude than purely child fantasy like alice  through  the
looking glass.   the  limitations of temporal technology, genetic regeneration,
metalinguistic translation, and even the sonic screwdriver make the series
intriguing beyond the fun of watching.
                                      stan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
152
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jun 86 20:47:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: cad!nike!caip!seismo!rochester!altman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Distribution Mechanisms
-BODY-
From: Art Altman  <altman>

I read reference to "ailist vol xxx" in mod.ai,
but I do not see this ailist appearing in either net.ai or mod.ai.
Anyone know - to what network is "ailist" posted?
Is it sent to individuals and should I get on some list to receive it?
Thanks,
Art "altman@rochester"

  [The distribution currently includes many channels:  direct mail
  (to Arpanet and other networks), exploded digests sent to certain
  bboard systems, and a hybrid of UUCP mod.ai and net.ai.  The first
  two are in digest form, with volume numbers that let readers track
  whether issues have been missed or refer to issues by number.  There
  is also a Today's Topics section that previews the digest contents
  to aid skimming and later text searches.  The UUCP distribution
  lacks these niceties and some of the editing and sorting that I
  provide as moderator, but offer real-time interchanges.  It works
  as follows.

  Net.ai is forwarded to my mailbox.  I pull out any messages that look
  pertinent and nontrivial and add them to direct submissions in the
  AIList mailbox.  I select a number of messages and form them into
  a digest to be sent to the Arpanet readers.  Then I delete the net.ai
  messages from the originals and send the direct submissions in
  undigested form to mod.ai.  The overall effect is that people reading
  net.ai plus mod.ai get everything in the digest plus any part of the
  net.ai discussion that I ignore.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 86 21:02:58 edt
-FROM-
From: Jay Weber  <jay@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jay@rochester.UUCP (Jay Weber)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common LISP style standards
-BODY-

I admit that there is a significant overlap between the people
interested in Artificial Intelligence and those interested in the
LISP programming language, but it should be obvious that articles
like "Common LISP style standards" and "LISP for IBM PCs" should
be posted to newgroups other than mod.ai, and such newsgroups do
exist.  This newsgroup has a large amount of traffic, and I expect
that many readers have unsubscribed due to the large amount of
inappropriate submissions.

I would mail this message to individuals who do not realize this,
but there have been so many it would not be effective.  Mostly
this message is to the moderators, who should be enforcing the
focus of the newsgroup.

Jay Weber
Department of Computer Science
University of Rochester
jay@rochester.arpa

  [Unfortunately there are few relevant discussion lists on
  the Arpanet side of the gateway.  We do have one on workstations
  and others on particular micros or Lisps, but nothing of the
  required generality.  I will be glad to help anyone who wants
  to start a list devoted to Lisp or any other topic currently
  covered by AIList:

    Expert Systems                        AI Techniques
    Knowledge Representation              Knowledge Acquisition
    Problem Solving                       Hierarchical Inference
    Machine Learning                      Pattern Recognition
    Analogical Reasoning                  Data Analysis
    Cognitive Psychology                  Human Perception
    Natural Language                      Computational Linguistics
    AI Languages and Systems              Machine Translation
    Theorem Proving                       Decision Theory
    Logic Programming                     Computer Science
    Automatic Programming                 Information Science
    AI & Society                          Sociology of AI
    AI & Business                         AI Workstations

  (Step forward, folks, or I may burn out soon.  Besides, its lots
  of fun and it puts you in contact with the best people.)  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 06-Jun-1986 1604
-FROM-
From: kevin%logic.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (Kevin LaRue -- The Earth makes
     one resolution every 24 hours.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  Lisp & lazy evaluation
-BODY-

The bibliographies contained in the two books

        Henderson, Peter,
        ``Functional Programming:  Application and Implementation,''
        Prentice-Hall International,
        London,
        1980.

and

        Darlington, J., Peter Henderson and David A. Turner, editors,
        ``Functional Programming and its Applications:  an Advanced Course,''
        Cambridge University Press,
        Cambridge,
        1982.

point to the following historical references:

        Burge, W. H.,
        ``Recursive Programming Techniques,''
        Addison-Wesley,
        Reading, Massachusetts,
        1975.

        Friedman, D. P., and D. S. Wise,
        `CONS Should Not Evaluate its Arguments,'
        in ``Automata, Languages and Programming,''
        S. Michaelson and R. Milner, editors,
        Edinburgh University Press,
        Edinburgh,
        1976

        Henderson, Peter and J. M. Morris,
        `A Lazy Evaluator,'
        in ``Proceedings of the 3rd POPL Symposium,''
        Atlanta, Georgia,
        1976.

        Kahn, G., and D. McQueen,
        `Coroutines and Networks of Parallel Processors,'
        in ``Information Processing 77''
        North-Holland,
        Amsterdam,
        1977.

        Landin, P. J.,
        `A Correspondence between Algol 60 and Church's Lambda Calculus,'
        in ``Communications of the ACM''
        Volume 8, number 3,
        pages 158-165,
        1965.

        Vuillemin, J. E.,
        ``Proof Techniques for Recursive Programs,''
        Memo AIM-318, STAN-CS-73-393,
        Stanford University,
        1973.


You may also want to ask David Turner about his experiences with his
``Miranda'' functional programming environment.  Indeed, he is
distributing it, if you would like to play with it yourself.  His
electronic address is:

        dat%ukc@ucl-cs

(He's currently at the University of Kent at Canterbury.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jun 86 02:08:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!lzaz!psc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI software for MS-DOS (long)
-BODY-
< cross posted to effected groups; please followup only to net.micro.pc >

     Here's the third and (I hope) last list of artificial intelligence
software for MS-DOS based machines.  I started with expert system
shells, then picked up Prolog processors, and Lisp and other languages
found their way in.  "Decision support" tools are presumably decision
tree managers; for their relation to expert systems, see the hot and
heavy discussion in net.ai and mod.ai (or actually, the summary I've
posted to those groups).
     Thanks to Lou Fried (FRIED@SRI-KL.ARPA) and Dallas Webster
(CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu or ut-sally!batman!dallas) for additions to
this list.
     The names, addresses, phone numbers, and especially prices are not
guaranteed to be free from typos, line noise, or obsolescence.  I have no
experience or further information on any of these packages; don't call
me, call the company.  On the other hand, if *you* have used any of
these systems, please drop me a line; I'll be happy to summarize and
repost.  I'd also like to hear of any products I'd forgotten, or any
errata to my list.
       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu
>-

Aion Development System:  expert system shell, $7000
Aion Corp.
101 University Ave., 4th floor
Palo Alto, CA  94301
415-328-9595

The Decision Maker: decision support, $250
Alamo Learning Systems
Suite 500, 1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd.
Walnut Creek, CA  94596
415-930-8521

Arity Expert System Development Package: expert system shell, $295
Arity Standard Prolog: AI language (Prolog), $95
Arity Prolog Interpreter V4: AI language (Prolog), $350
Arity Prolog Compiler & Interpreter V4: AI language (Prolog), $795
Arity Corp
358 Baker Ave.
Concord, MA  01742
617-371-1243

Prdigy: expert system shell, $450
OPS5+: expert system shell, $3000
Artelligence, Inc.
14902 Preston Rd., suite 212-252
Dallas, TX  75240
214-437-0361

A.D.A Educational Prolog: AI language (Prolog), $29.95
VML Prolog: AI language (Prolog), $300
Automata Design Associates
1570 Arran Way
Dresher, PA  19025
215-646-4894

Micro In-Ate: expert system shell for fault diagnosis, $5000
Automated Reasoning Corporation
290 West 12th St., Suite 1D
New York, NY 10014
212-206-6331

Turbo Prolog: AI language (Prolog), $99.95
Borland International
4585 Scotts Valley Dr.
Scotts Valley, CA  95066
408-438-8400

SpinPro: ultracentrifugation experiment expert system [GCLISP], $2500
(note: a specific expert system, *not* a shell!)
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Spinco Division
415-857-1150 (sales info); (714)-961-3728 (technical info) Matt Heffron

Xsys: expert system shell, $995
California Intelligence
912 Powell St. #8
San Fransisco, CA  94108
415-391-4846

Prolog V: AI language (Prolog), $69.95/$99.95
Chalcedony Software, Inc.
5580 La Jolla Blvd, Suite 126B
La Jolla, CA  92037
617-483-8513

Expert Choice: decision support, $495
Decision Support Software Inc.
1300 Vincent Place
McLean, VA 22101
703-442-7900

Methods: AI language (Smalltalk), $250
Digitalk, Inc.
5200 W. Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA  90045
213-645-1082

TOPSCI: expert system shell, $75/$175
Dynamic Master Systems Inc.
PO Box 566456
Atlanta, GA 30356
404-565-0771

Decision Analyst: decision support, $139
Executive Software, Inc.
Bay St.
Shanty Bay, Ontario, CANADA LOL 2LO
705-722-3373

The Idea Generator: decision support, $195
Experience in Software
2039 Sattuck Ave., Suite 401
Berkeley, CA  94704
415-644-0694

ES/P Advisor: expert system shell, $895
Prolog-1: AI language (Prolog), $395
Prolog-2 Interpreter and Compiler: AI Language, $1895
Expert Systems International
1150 First Ave.
King of Prussia, PA  19406
215-337-2300

Xi:  expert system shell, $795
Expertech
Expertech House, 172 Bath Rd.
Slough, Berks SLI 3XE, ENGLAND
0753-821321
Portable Software Inc.
650 Bair Island Rd.,  Suite 204
Redwood City, CA  94063
415-367-6264
(and somebody near Boston at 617-470-2267)

Exsys 3.0: expert system shell, $395
(demo disk for $10?)
Exsys Inc.
PO Box 75158, Contract Sta. 14
Albuquerque, NM  87194
505-836-6676

GEN-X: Expert system shell
General Electric Research and Development Center
Schenectady, NY 12345

TIMM-PC: expert system shell, $9500
General Research
7655 Old Spring House Rd.
McLean, VA  22102
703-893-5900

GCLisp (Golden Common Lisp): AI language (Lisp), $495
286 Developer: AI Language (Lisp), $1195
(expert system shell to be announced in late 1986)
(K-base was a specialized proprietary package, now dead)
Gold Hill Computers
163 Havard St.
Cambridge, MA 02139
617-492-2071

Expert Ease: expert system shell, $695
(example based, forward chaining)
Expert Edge: expert system shell, $795
(rule based, backward chaining, uncertainty, math)
(they also sell 1st Class for $495, same as Programs in Motion)
Human Edge Software
2445 Faber Pl.
Palo Alto, CA  94303
CA: 800-824-7325, elsewhere: 800-624-5227

AL/X: Expert system shell
ALCS: Expert system shell
Inference Manager: expert system shell, 500 pounds
Intelligent Terminals Ltd  or George House
15 Canal St.                  36 North Hanover St.
Oxford, UK OX26BH             Glasgow, Scotland G1 2AD
                              041-522-1353
(Try Jeffrey Perrone & Associates, 415-431-9562)

Knowol: expert system shell, $39.95/$99.95?
Intelligent Machines Co.
3813 N. 14th St.
Arlington, VA  22201
703-528-9136

KEE: expert system shell
IntelliCorp
1975 El Camino Real W.
Mountain View, CA  94040
415-965-5500

Experteach: expert system shell, $475
Intelliware, Inc.
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 401
Marina del Rey, CA  90291
213-305-9391

IQLisp: AI language (Lisp), $175
Integral Quality
6265 Twentieth Avenue (or POB 31970)
Seattle, WA 98115
206-527-2918

Savior: expert system shell, 3000 pounds
ISI Limited
11 Oakdene Road
Redhill, Surrey, UK RH16BT
(0737)71327

Ex-Tran: expert system shell, $3000
Jeffrey Perrone & Associates
415-431-9562

KDS: expert system shell, $795 (development), $150 (playback)
KDS II: expert system shell, $945
KDS Corp.
934 Hunter Rd.
Wilmette, IL  60091
312-251-2621

Decision Aide: decision support, $250
Trouble Shooter: decision support, $250
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc.
PO Box 704
Princeton, NJ  08542
609-921-2806

Insight: expert system shell, $95
Insight2: expert system shell, $485
Level 5 Research
4980 S. Highway A1-A
Melbourne Beach, FL  32751
(moved to 503 Fifth Ave., Suite 201, Indiatlantic, FL  32903?)
305-729-9046

Byso Lisp: AI language (Lisp), $125
Levien Instrument Co.
Sittlington Hill
PO Box 31
McDowell, VA 24458
703-396-3345

Lightyear: decision support, $495
Lightyear, Inc.
1333 Lawrence Expwy., Bldg. 210
Santa Clara, CA 95051
408-985-8811
(may be obsolete; see Thoughtware Inc.)

Daisy: expert system shell
Lithp Systems BV
Meervalweg 72
1121 JP Landsmeer
The Netherlands

Micro-Prolog:  AI language (Prolog), $395
Logic Programming Associates
31 Crescent Drive
Milford, CT  06460
203-872-7988

MProlog:  AI language (Prolog), $725
Logicware, Inc.
5000 Birch St., West Tower, suite 3000
Newport Beach, CA  92660
416-665-0022
70 Walnut St.
Wellesley, MA  02181
617-237-2254?)

Reveal: expert system shell, $4500 ($2000?)
McDonnell Douglas
Knowledge Engineering Products Division
20705 Valley Green Dr.
Cupertino, CA  95014
408-446-7406

MicroExpert: expert system shell, $49.95
McGraw-Hill
PO Box 400
Hightstown, NJ  08520
or 1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10020
NY: 212-512-2999, elsewhere 800-628-0004

Guru: integrated software with expert system shell, $3000
Micro Data Base Systems
PO Box 248
Lafayette, IN  47902
317-463-2581

muLisp-85: AI language (Lisp), $250
Microsoft Corp.
10700 Northup Way, Box 97200
Bellevue, WA 98004
206-828-8080

Expert-2: expert system shell, $70
(requires MMSFORTH v2.4, $180)
Miller Microcomputer Services
61 Lakeshore Rd.
Natick, MA  01760
317-653-6136

QTime: expert system shell, $695
MOM Corp.
Two Northside 75
Atlanta, GA  30318
404-351-2902

Expert: expert system shell, $100
(same as MMS Expert-2 above? requires Forth?!)
Mountain View Press
PO Box 4656
Mountain View, CA  94040
415-961-4103

LISP/88: AI language (Lisp), $50
Norell Data Systems
PO Box 70127
3400 Wilshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90010
213-748-5978

UO-Lisp: AI language (Lisp), $150
Northwest Computer Algorithms
PO Box 90995
Long Beach, CA 90809
213-426-1893

ERS: expert system shell
PAR Technology Corp.
220 Seneca Turnpike
New Hartford, NY 13413

XLISP: AI language (object oriented Lisp), $6 (disk 148)
Expert System of Steel: expert system shell, $6 (disk 268)
Esie: expert system shell, $6 (disk 398)
ADA Public Domain Prolog: AI language (Prolog), $6 (disk 405)
(see also Automata Design Associates)
PC-SIG
1030 E. Duane Ave, Suite J
Sunnyvale, CA  94086
408-730-9291; CA 800-235-6647, elsewhere 800-235-6646
(or where ever you get fine public domain software)

Waltz Lisp, $169
ProCode International
15930 SW Colony Place
Portland, OR 97224
503-684-3000

OPS83: expert system shell
Production Systems Technologies, Inc.
642 Gettysburg St.
Pittsburgh, PA  15206
412-362-3117

Micro-Prolog Professional: AI language?, $395
apes: expert system shell [micro-Prolog], $250
Programming Logic Systems
312 Crescent Dr.
Milford, CT 06460
203-877-7988

1st-Class: expert system shell, $20/$495 ($250??)
Programs in Motion, Inc.
10 Sycamore Rd.
Wayland, MA  01778
617-653-5093

Rulemaster/PC: expert system shell, $995
Radian Corp.
8501 Mo-Pac Blvd.
PO Box 9948
Austin, TX  78766
512-454-4797

Small-X: expert system shell, $125/$225
RK Software
PO Box 2085
West Chester, PA  19380
215-436-4570

Knowledge Engineering System II: expert system shell, $4000
Software Architecture & Engineering
1500 Wilson Blvd., suite 800
Arlington, VA  22209
703-276-7910

Wizdom: expert system shell, $1250/$2050
Software Intelligence Lab
1593 Locust Ave.
Bohemia, NY  11716
212-747-9066/516-589-1676

LISP/80: AI language (Lisp), $40
Software Toolworks
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1118
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
818-986-4885

Xper: expert system shell, $95
Softway
415-397-4666

TransLISP: AI language (Lisp), $75
Prolog-86: AI language (Prolog), $95/$250
Solution Systems
335-P Washington St.
Norwell, MA  02061
617-659-1571/800-821-2492

SeRIES-PC: AI language (Lisp), $5000
SeRIes PC: Expert system shell, $15000
SRI International
Advanced Computer Systems Division
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
415-859-2859; contact Bob Wohlsen, x4408

Q'NIAL: AI language (Nested Interactive Array Language), $395/$995
Starwood Corporation
PO Box 160849
San Antonio, TX 78280
512-496-8037

Microdyn: expert system shell, $300
Stochos
518-372-5426

M.1A: expert system shell, $2000
M1: expert system shell, $5000
KS-300:  expert system shell
Teknowledge Inc.
525 University Ave., #200
Palo Alto, CA  94301
415-327-6640

Arborist: decision support, $595
PC Scheme: AI language (Lisp), $95
Personal Consultant: expert system shell, $950
Personal Consultant Plus: expert system shell, $2950
Texas Instruments
PO Box 80963, H-809
Dallas, TX  75380-9063
800-527-3500

Class
Texpert Systems, Inc.
12607 Aste
Houston, TX  77065
713-469-4068

TLC-Lisp: AI language (Lisp), $250
The Lisp Co.
PO Box 487
Redwood Estates, CA 95044
408-426-9400

Lightyear: decision support, $495
The Management Advantage: decision support, $249
Trigger: decision support, $495
Thoughtware, Inc.
Suite 1000a, 2699 S. Bayshore Dr.
Coconut Grove, FL  33133
305-854-2318


PSL: AI language (Portable Standard Lisp), distribution costs ($75?)
The Utah Symbolic Computation Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
>-
       -Paul S. R. Chisholm, UUCP {ihnp4,cbosgd,pegasus,mtgzz}!lznv!psc
       AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet mtgzz!lznv!psc@topaz.rutgers.edu
       The above opinions may not be shared by any telecomm company.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
153
-DATE-
Date: Mon 16 Jun 86 13:24:13-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI & Organic Chemistry
-BODY-
A brand-new book from the American Chemical Society is:
  Artificial Intelligence Applications in Chemistry,
  Edited by: Thomas H. Pierce and Bruce A. Hohne
  ACS Symposium Series #306, published by ACS. 1986

28 chapters in 5 sections: Expert Systems, Computer Algebra, Handling Molecular
Structures, Organic Synthesis, and Analytic Chemistry.
Each chapter is a paper given at an ACS Symposium last September.

>Matt Heffron
BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 86 13:26:31 PDT
-FROM-
From: Harry Weeks <franz!harry@kim.Berkeley.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp implementations.
-BODY-
This note is in reply to a recent inquiry on this list for Common Lisp
implementations on Silicon Graphics systems.

Franz Inc. now supports our Extended Common Lisp, as well as Franz Lisp,
on Silicon Graphics workstations.  Both products incorporate an inter-
face to the Iris graphic libraries.  Extended Common Lisp is a complete
and robust implementation of the Common Lisp language as specified in
Guy Steele's book `Common Lisp: The Language.'  We have added extensions
that include a Symbolics-compatible Flavors system, a foreign-function
interface, and extensive debugging tools.  Franz Inc. also supports
Extended Common Lisp on workstations available from ATT, ISI, Masscomp,
Sun, and Tektronix.  Inquiries are welcome and may be directed to our
offices at 1141 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, California 94501, (415)
769-5656, ...!ucbvax!franz!info.
                                                Harry Weeks
                                                Franz Incorporated

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Jun 86 19:38:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!bharat@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Conditional independence in possibility theory
-BODY-

I do not have the references you asked for. However if you are interested
these are some other references I found useful relating to conditional
independance and probabilities in EXPERT SYSTEMS.

1. Quinlan J.R.
        Inferno : a cautious approach to uncertain inference.
        The Computer journal, 26: 3, 255-269, 1983.

2. Allan P. White
        Predictor : An alternative approach to uncertain inference in
        Expert Systems.
        Proc - IJCAI 1985, Vol.1, 328-330, 1985.

If you need them, please contact me at
bharat@a.cs.uiuc.arpa, or write a note to net.ai

Good luck


R.Bharat Rao

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 86 15:22:01 pdt
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@su-glacier.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Known solution to traveling salesman problem
-BODY-
     There is a well-known and fast method for finding near-optimum
solutions to the traveling salesman problem.  It was discovered at
Bell Labs in the 1960s, and it is as follows:

        1.  Connect up all N points in some arbitrary order,
            resulting in a path with N-1 edges and two endpoints.

        2.  Pick two edges at random.  Cut the path at these points.
            This produces three paths, each with two endpoints.

        3.  There are six possible ways to connect the paths into
            a single path.  Try all six, and compute the total
            distance for each arrangement.  Keep the arrangement
            with the shortest total length.

        4.  Iterate steps 2 and 3 until no improvement is observed
            for a reasonable number of iterations, at least N
            but less than N*N.

I strongly suspect that the neural nets people have just rediscovered
this classic algorithm, especially since the Business Week article
mentions that the neural net approach produces near-optimal, not
optimal, paths.  Comparisons with the brute-force solution are
misleading.

                                        John Nagle


  [While the Hopfield-net solution may well be based on similar
  mathematics, the flavor is quite different.  It is more of a
  parallel "relaxation" process or fuzzy linking, with each node
  trying to link to neighbors in proportion to their nearness.
  Hopfield describes this as an analog process that cuts through
  the space of possibilities instead of moving around the outside
  as the iterative solutions do.  The net quickly approaches a
  stable configuration of intersecting cliques (if that's not a
  contradiction) separated by longer paths, then the cliques fight
  it out to determine the final route.  (The establishment of one
  clique disrupts others, so a slow gradient search for the optimum
  is necessary.)  The lack of guaranteed optimality is primarily due
  to the initial rapid convergence -- it is possible to construct
  problems for which the true optimum is quite far from any broad
  "potential well" that would attract the system.  Some algorithms
  use randomized "stochastic anealing" to get around this, others
  start the process many times from very different initial conditions,
  others just ignore the problem.

  For an interesting study of one such problem, see the Spring 1985 issue
  of Abacus.  It presents a lengthy analysis of Lee Sallows' custom-built
  hardware for solving pangram puzzles by full search, then a short article
  by John Letaw showing how the same puzzles can (usually!) be solved by
  approximation/optimization on a microcomputer running BASIC.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 No 6
-BODY-
Summary of Spang Robinson Report, Volume 2 NO. 6
June 1986
Emphasis on AI and Parallel Processing:

There are 28 companies marketing parallel hardware with 900 machines installed
for total revenues from 1985- mid 1986 of 160 million dollars.

Alliant Computer Systems is working with Stanford and Lucid, Inc. in a
DARPA funded project to develop a public domain LISP for parallel applications
called QLISP.

Control Data is working with the University of Georgia to develop a parallel
Prolog and after that a parallel Lisp.

Flexible Computer claims that 30 to 40 percent of its customers are interested
in AI.

Concurrent Lisp from Golden Common Lisp has been benchmarked on the Gabriel
Triangle Benchmark at 86 percent of the speed of a Xerox 1108 Dandelion
using one node of the IPSC hypercube.  On a sixteen node hypercube, it
runs at 9.1 times the speed.  INTEL says that 25% of 1000 queries were
oriented to AI.

LISP Machine announced that it intends to have its Object LISP running
on the INTEL hypercube by the end of May.

Sequent Computer says that 10 to 15 percent of its customers based
their decision buying decision on the availability of LISP, 50% were
interested in AI.

__________________________________________________________________________
Japan Watch:

Arthur D. Little's Japan affiliate reported the results of a survey
of twenty Japanese companies.  The US has over a five year lead in Japan
in AI but the gap will narrow with time.  They predict the catchup will
be completed by 1992.  There is a twelve to one differential in the US favor
in funds invested in AI up to 1985.

The Japanese AI market in 1985 was 80 million while the American
market was $412 million.

Kansai Electric Power has been developing a diagnostic expert system for use
with nuclear reactors with the prototype finished by March 1986.  Kyushi
Electric Power Company is field testing an expert system system for diagnosis
and repair of electric power systems.  Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.,
Hitachi Ltd and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation are working on  expert systems
for supply and demand for power and for planning system operations.

Nippon Telephone and Telegraph will officially announce KBMS, an expert
systems tool.  NTT is negotiating with other companies for collaboration
in the development of AI software.

__________________________________________________________________________
AI at IBM:

Dr. Herbert Schorr, Group Director for Products and Technology at IBM,
stated that IBM does not plan to release a dedicated LISP machine or AI
workstation.  It considers its RT machine to be the IBM AI workstation.
He claims that benchmarking at Carnegie Mellon has done benchmarking of
this machine which shows it fares favorably with other AI languages
and hardware.

Most of IBM's efforts in developing expert systems are for internal
applications and it does not see the need to compete with those already
providing such products.  There are 70 expert systems under development
at IBM with 24 more to be added.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 86 13:44:40 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon C Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity and Analogy -- More Questions than Answers.
-BODY-
Uttam Mukhopadhyay asks, in AIList Vol 4 #148 :-
>Is there more to creativity than making interesting analogies? I am
>inclined to believe that making interesting analogies is at the heart
>of all intelligent activity that is described as creative.
Hmmm...  A friend described another friend as a potentially good novelist,
because ``she always has a radically different view in the situation;
she always has a new angle''. But is there analogy tucked away in her
reasoning? And would we be able to elicit that knowledge from the
`expert'?
Finally, *is* creativity always intelligent, and in what sense of the
word -- AI, machine intelligence or human intelligence? As for analogy,
we always need hooks to hang ideas on, don't we?
Gordon Joly
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%MATHS.QMC.AC.UK%CS.QMC.AC.UK@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 86 14:32:36 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon C Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity and Analogy -- Coda.
-BODY-
``To the extent that a professor of music at a conservatoire
can assist his students in becoming familiar with the patterns
of harmony and rhythm, and with how they combine, it must be
possible to assist students in becoming sensitive to patterns
of reasoning and how they combine. The analogy is not far-
fetched at all. -- Dijkstra.''
>From -- `Knowledge-Based Systems in Artificial Intelligence'
by Randall Davis and Douglas B. Lenat, McGraw-Hill, 1982, page 163.
Gordon Joly
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%MATHS.QMC.AC.UK%CS.QMC.AC.UK@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 10:41:48 edt
-FROM-
From: Jay Weber  <jay@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jay@rochester.UUCP (Jay Weber)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
>   At a recent talk in Ann Arbor, Roger Schank observed/implied that
>a distinct characteristic of many creative people is the ability to
>analogize. My understanding of analogizing is to define transformations
>between two domains so that entities and relationships in one domain
>can be mapped into corresponding entities and relationships in the
>other domain. It appears that the greater the disparity in the "physics"
>of the two domains, the higher is the creative effort demanded.

>   Not all transformations produce interesting results. Good analogies
>must be interesting from the perspective of the particular creative
>activity.

True.  Every pair of "things" is analogous in *some* sense, i.e. there
exists a mapping between them.  The utility of an analogy is how it
leads one to use those things more successfully.

>   Is this model of creativity--making interesting analogies--valid
>across the spectrum of creative actvities, from the hard sciences
>(Physics, Chemistry, etc.) to the fine arts (painting, music)?
>Is there more to creativity than making interesting analogies? I am
>inclined to believe that making interesting analogies is at the heart
>of all intelligent activity that is described as creative.

I believe that one could give a reasonable definition of analogy that
encompasses all intelligent activity, or at least inductive learning
(which is a biggie as far as intelligence goes).  I question, however,
how useful it is in AI to relate a slippery word like "analogy" to an
even slipperier word like "creativity".  A formal approach with those
two terms will satisfy very few people, and an informal approach will
only give us an inflated opinion of the value of our own research,
which is largely why people make such comparisons.

Jay Weber
Department of Computer Science
University of Rochester
jay@rochester.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 16:56:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
This is a brief reply to U. Mukhopadhyay's article.

> [...]
>    Is this model of creativity--making interesting analogies--valid
> across the spectrum of creative actvities, from the hard sciences
> (Physics, Chemistry, etc.) to the fine arts (painting, music)?
> Is there more to creativity than making interesting analogies? I am
> inclined to believe that making interesting analogies is at the heart
> of all intelligent activity that is described as creative.

"Creativity" is often idealized as the missing ingredient in computer
consciousness, but what exactly does it mean?  In most of the examples
drawn from science, it means advantageously overriding the usual
categories and compartments, since categorizing and compartmentalizing
knowledge are characteristically scientific habits.  Of course, making
analogies is one way to achieve this.

In art, creativity is much more straightforward!  One creates a work
of art where there was none before.  The essence of this kind of
creativity is to be able to perceive what _is not._ This follows
in an essential way from the ability to perceive what one is taking
for granted, in order to stop taking it for granted.

A good reference is F. Perls et al., _Gestalt Therapy._

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 17 Jun 86 12:33:35-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artistic Creativity
-BODY-
  From Col. Sicherman:
  "In art, creativity is much more straightforward!  One creates a
  work of art where there was none before."

While there is truth to this, I disagree with the implication that
art, or certainly that >>all<< art, is pure creation.  Most examples
that I have seen are transformations.  The artist sees a scene,
technique, or concept that intrigues him, and searches for a way
to capture the same thing in a new medium.  This is analogy in a
pure form, not the opposite of analogy.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
154
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 15:26 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven W. Holland" <HOLLAND%RCSMPA%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Motion Planning (GMR)
-BODY-
Seminar at General Motors Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan (GMR):


               Motion Planning: a Survey of the State of the Art
                                Joseph O'Rourke
                        Department of Computer Science
                           Johns Hopkins University


                             Monday, June 23, 1986

                                   Abstract

    Motion planning from the viewpoint of computational geometry is the problem
    of moving an object (a robot hand, for example) from an initial to a final
    position in the presence of fixed obstacles.  A large number of algorithms
    have been developed for various cases of this problem recently.  I will
    describe the two main paradigms for solving this problem, growing
    algorithms and Voronoi diagram algorithms, and survey the known results.
    Several special cases will be discussed, including moving a disk, moving a
    ladder, moving through a door, and moving around a corner.  I will also
    touch on the more complex problem of moving through an environment which is
    not itself fixed, for example, one that contains several independently
    moving robots.

    Joseph O'Rourke has been Assistant Professor at Johns Hopkins University
    since receiving the Ph.D. degree in Computer Science at the University of
    Pennsylvania in 1980.  His dissertation research was in computer vision,
    and he has published in pattern recognition, but now his research is
    focused on computational geometry.  O'Rourke is a NSF Presidential Young
    Investigator.

                        -Steve Holland, Computer Science Department

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 86 11:08 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim%upenn.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Unifying Principles of Machine Learning (UPenn)
-BODY-
                              CIS Colloquium
                      3 p.m. Thursday, June 19, 1986
               216 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania


         MACHINE LEARNING: UNIFYING PRINCIPLES AND RECENT PROGRESS
                             Ryszard S. Michalski
                            University of Illinois

Machine  learning,  a field concerned with developing computational theories of
learning and constructing learning machines, is now  one  of  the  most  active
research  areas  in  artificial  intelligence.    An  inference-based theory of
learning will be presented that unifies the basic learning strategies.  Special
attention  will  be  given  to  inductive  learning  strategies,  which include
learning from examples and learning from observations and discovery.

We will show that inductive learning can be reviewed  as  a  goal-oriented  and
resource-constrained  inference process.  This process draws upon the learner's
background knowledge, and involves a novel  type  of  inference  rules,  called
inductive  inference rules.  In contrast with truth-preserving deductive rules,
inductive rules are falsity-preserving.

Several projects conducted at our AI Laboratory at  Illinois  will  be  briefly
reviewed, and illustrated by examples from implemented programs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 86 17:14:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!leung@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Clement Leung)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Parallel Execution of Logic Programs (UTexas)
-BODY-

 AN ABSTRACT MACHINE BASED EXECUTION MODEL FOR COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE DESIGN

         AND EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION OF LOGIC PROGRAMS IN PARALLEL

                           Manuel V. Hermenegildo

                            Dissertation Defense

                     The University of Texas at Austin
             Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

                     June 20, 1986 - 11:00 am - ENS431


Parallel  execution represents one way in which the execution speed of logic
programs can  be  increased  beyond  the  limits  of  conventional  systems.
However,   most   proposed  parallel  logic  programming  systems  lack  the
optimizations  and  storage  efficiency   of   high-performance   sequential
implementations.

A  parallel  execution  model  for logic programs will be presented which is
based on extending to a parallel environment the  techniques  introduced  by
the  "Warren  Abstract Machine", which have already made very fast and space
efficient sequential systems a reality. Therefore, the model is  capable  of
retaining  sequential  execution  speed  similar  to  that  of  current high
performance  systems,  while  extracting  additional  gains  by  efficiently
supporting  parallel  execution. The model is described down to the Abstract
Machine level, specifying data areas, operation, and a suitable  instruction
set.  Several  techniques  are introduced which offer efficient solutions to
areas of parallel Logic  Programming  implementation  previously  considered
problematic  or a source of considerable overhead, such as the specification
of control and management of the execution tree, the detection and  handling
of  variable  binding conflicts in AND-Parallelism, support for "don't know"
non-determinism and treatment of distributed backtracking,  goal  scheduling
and memory management issues etc. These claims are supported by simulations.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 Jun 86 17:22:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Why Planning Isn't Rational (SRI)
-BODY-

                       WHY PLANNING ISN'T RATIONAL

                        Terry Winograd   (TW@SAIL)
                          Stanford University
               (Computer Science, Linguistics, and CSLI)

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, June 23
        SRI International, Building E, Room EK242 (note room change)

Orthodox AI approaches to describing and achieving intelligent action
are based on a "rationalistic" tradition in which the focus is on a
process of deducing (using a representation of some kind) the
consequences of specific acts (operations) and searching for a sequence
of acts that will lead to a desired result (goal).  This works
reasonably well for some limited domains, but falls far short of being a
general theory of intelligent action.  It does not work well in the
small (how I operate my finger muscles, or where an amoeba slithers), or
in the large (how I conduct my life or where my research is headed).
Even in the cases of clearly explicit rational planning (e.g. planning a
bank robbery), the relation between plan and execution is not easy to
capture (what happens when the teller sneezes?).

In a recent book written jointly with Fernando Flores, I have proposed a
different basis for looking at action and cognition, focussing on the
"thrownness" of action without reflection, and on the open-endedness of
interpretation.  Any alternative such as ours must address several
obvious questions:

     Why is the naive view of rational decision-making and action so
     intuitively plausible if it isn't right?

     How can we account for the evolution of complex behavior which is
     effective in an environment?

     What implications does it have for AI and the design of computer
     systems in general?

I will address these questions and related others, focussing on some
different issues from those raised in my talk to CSLI a couple of weeks
ago on "Why language isn't information".


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Jun 86 18:59:25 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.McKeown@maps.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Symbolic Representation of Waveforms (CMU)
-BODY-
Monday  June 23  1:30pm  5409 Wean Hall

A Symbolic Representation of Waveforms Using Multi-Resolution Analysis

                      Dr. Aviad Zlotnick
        Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
                   Hebrew University, Israel

A multi-resolution technique for ``qualitative'' analysis of waveforms was
suggested by Witkin in 1983, and has since been studied extensively, both
in theory and in practice. In the first part of the talk we reconsider
Witkin's definition of qualitativity and outline a few weaknesses of his
method. In the second part we describe a representation based on an
alternative definition of qualitativity. We show that our method results
in waveform descriptions which are nearer to human intuition, are easier
to compute and can incorporate more domain knowledge. Furthermore, a
symbolic (verbal) description of waveforms derived from this representation
is shown to capture the waveforms' essential visual properties.

If you'd like to talk with Aviad while he is here on the 23rd, please
send mail to Dave McKeown@a.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
155
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 86 19:23:19 PDT
-FROM-
From: heher%ford-scf1.arpa@ford-scf1.arpa (Dennis Heher)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for AI Tools Survey
-BODY-

I heard that there is an unclassified report
available that compares all of the commercial
AI tools (KEE, Knowledge Craft, ART, etc.).
This report was supposed to have been generated
at/for Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Does anyone have any information (title, report
number, where I can obtain a copy) on such a
report?

Thanks,

Dennis Heher
heher@ford-scf1.arpa
Ford Aerospace & communications Corporation
1260 Crossman Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94089
(408) 743-3944

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Jun 86 16:30:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ti-csl!dbdavis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Financial Expert systems survey
-BODY-

        I'm looking for a list of systems/software houses that are active
        in the development and/or marketing of financial expert systems.
        I'd also be curious to know what ( if anything ) the major insurance
        companies are up to in terms of in-house development of expert
        systems - which companies, and what applications ( risk assessment,
        etc. ).

        Any help is greatly appreciated. The info will be used as part of a
        market survey I'm doing for a class.

        --db davis

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 86 15:18:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!iwvae!gph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (haberl)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI routines
-BODY-
This is my first time posting to the net.  I am doing some research on
Artifical Intellegence processes (Voice Recognition, Text Recognition and
Hand Writing Recognition).  If any of you AI wizards can provide me a
reference, on where I can find some routine to provide these services it
would be much appreciated.  The references I need are either Information
on Public Domain software or Information on companies that sell software
like this.

                                           THANXS.......


Gregory P. Haberl                 (312) 979-7072 or (303) 691-4993
Technocrats, Inc.
Po Box 2238                       Don't Yet Pathway for return
Littleton, Co 80161

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 10:33:30 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: HYDRO
-BODY-
Does anyone have any information on the HYDRO system,
a water resources management expert system?
Many thanks in advance,
Gordon
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%UK.AC.QMC.MATHS%UK.AC.QMC.CS@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

  [I'll send Gordon the reference to John Reiter's SRI work
  that was included in AIList V4 #141, June 18.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 07:20 CDT
-FROM-
From: Araman@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System shell needed for thesis:
-BODY-
I'm doing a Master's thesis concerning combining an expert system shell
and a DBMS.  To do this, I need to work with modifying some shell.  If
anyone out there has a small, frame or rule based expert system
shell written in LISP or C, and you're willing to give away a copy in
the name of furthering science, send a message to:  ARAMAN -at
HI-MULTICS.ARPA Thanks a lot!  Sam Levine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 08:11:53 mdt
-FROM-
From: crs%f@LANL.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Vision Request
-BODY-
          I am getting started on a Master's  Thesis  in  the  general
          area  of  Computer  Vision.   Since [...] vision and AI appear
          to  overlap considerably, I'm trying AIList.  I apologize if
          this is not an appropriate medium for the following request.

          I would sincerely appreciate any pointers to literature  and
          current  research  in this area and particularly in the area
          of stereo vision.  I  have  Computer  Vision  by  Ballard  &
          Brown,  the  vision  section  of  the  Handbook of AI, Image
          Understanding 1984, Ullman  &  Richards,  eds.   and  a  few
          papers that I've found.

          What are the current  hot  research  areas  in  this  field?
          What, in your opinion, are the most important problems to be
          solved?  What, aside from stereopsis and  range-finding  are
          options  for  depth-information  recovery?  What, currently,
          appears to be the best method of obtaining this  information
          fast enough to be useful?

          Is any research being directed at the possibility  of  real-
          time stereo vision?  What are your opinions of its feasibil-
          ity?  Its value?

          If any of you have papers  that  you  would  be  willing  to
          share, my mailing address is:

                        Charlie Sorsby
                        Los Alamos National Laboratory
                        Post Office Box 1663    MS-J957
                        Los Alamos, NM  87545

          Opinions are welcome and please also mention if I may  quote
          you  or  if  you  prefer that I don't.  I would also welcome
          suggestions for other lists where it may make sense to  make
          this request.  [Vision-List@ADS is known.  --KIL]

          While I try to follow the network as time permits,  I  would
          appreciate  it if you could mail information to me by way of
          one of the paths in my signature.

          I will happily summarize any information that I receive  and
          post it to AIList.

          Charlie Sorsby
                  ...{cmcl2, ihnp4, ..}!lanl!crs
                                          crs@lanl.arpa

  [I generally forward vision items to Vision-List (and did this time),
  but am permitting this message as a favor to Charlie.  AI-related
  discussion of vision (e.g., for autonomous navigation) is pertinent
  to this list, but discussion of particular algorithms would generally
  not be.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 14:17 PDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Garvey <GARVEY@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System Validation and Verification
-BODY-
        I think the notion of V&V for expert systems highlights a number
of points about the field.  First, in the words of David Mizell
(formerly of ONR), "AI is being overbought."  People that should know
better are taking an attitude that there are sufficient useful AI
systems out there that we should be concerned with formal notions of
their capabilities.  In point of fact, AI is very much a research topic
(I almost said science), and for most problems we are struggling to find
any solution at all, much less one that will be operationally useful and
verifiable.
        The traditional rationale for attempting an "AI" solution to a
problem is that we don't know how to solve the problem directly (if we
did, why screw around), or that our problems come from a large class of
ill-specified problems where flexibility in the problem-solving approach
is of paramount importance (otherwise, ...).  AI approaches typically
involve non-deterministic processes such as context-sensitive search
(frequently in large, ill-structured knowledge-bases), and their
performance is therefore extremely difficult to describe much less
quantify.  (We don't do a very good job of V&V on deterministic systems
yet.)
        Even statistical validation (i.e., try a million random test
cases and measure resulting performance) will be questionable, as
characterizing an appropriate set of test cases spanning the range of
possible or likely inputs will be extremely difficult.
        At this point, I view most expert system development as not much
more than programming in a new language. The language offers ease of
specification and representation of certain types of information (oops,
knowledge), but does not lend itself well to either V&V, maintenance, or
robust operation.  To the extent that we use expert system developments
to help understand and structure problems, these shortcomings are not
too significant; to the extent that we view the systems as the
solutions themselves, the shortcomings are significant.
        All this doesn't help your quest much, but perhaps it will help
lower your expectations.

Cheers,
Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 86 15:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Miller <miller@UR-ACORN.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Discussion List
-BODY-
      Unfortunately there are few relevant discussion lists on
      the Arpanet side of the gateway.  We do have one on workstations
      and others on particular micros or Lisps, but nothing of the
      required generality.  ...  -- KIL

[...]

Note that there IS a common-lisp mailing list <common-lisp@su-ai.arpa>,
though it is for language definition purposes.

Brad Miller
University of Rochester
miller@rochester.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 86 16:06:29 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computer Ethics (from Risks Digest)
-BODY-
I have a few comments on _Metaphilosophy,_ as summarized by Bruce Sesnovich:

> The introductory article, James H. Moor's "What is Computer Ethics," is
> an ambitious attempt to define Computer Ethics, and to explain its
> importance.  According to Moor, the development and proliferation of
> computers can rightly be termed "revolutionary":  "The revolutionary
> feature of computers is their logical malleability.  Logical
> malleability assures the enormous application of computer technology."
> Moor goes on to assert that the Computer Revolution, like the
> Industrial Revolution, will transform "many of our human activities and
> social institutions," and will "leave us with policy and conceptual
> vacuums about how to use computer technology."

"Logical malleability" sounds vague to me.  If it's just an abstract
phrase for programmability, then I think Moor neglects the real signi-
ficance of computers: that (unlike machines) they accept differing input,
and produce differing output.

I agree fully that computers will cause revolutions.  But this talk of
"conceptual vacuums" is born of unavoidable myopia.  None of our present-
day prognosticators have shown any serious understanding of the future,
except a few science-fiction writers whom nobody takes seriously.  I
suggest that posterity will regard _us_ as the "vacuum" generation,
of an age "when nobody knew how to use computer technology."

> An important danger inherent in computers is what Moor calls "the
> invisibility factor." In his own words:  "One may be quite
> knowledgeable about the inputs and outputs of a computer and only dimly
> aware of the internal processing." These hidden internal operations can
> be intentionally employed for unethical purposes; what Moor calls
> "Invisible abuse,"  or can contain "Invisible programming values":
> value judgments of the programmer that reside, insidious and unseen, in
> the program.

Here Moor appears to be about 30 years behind McLuhan.  Try this: "One may
be quite knowledgeable about reading and writing and only dimly aware of
the details of book production and distribution." Or this: "One may be
quite knowledgeable about watching TV and only dimly aware of the physics
of broadcasting." Isn't it rather naive to think that the hidden values
of the computer medium lie in if-tests and do-loops?

To quote one of McLuhan's defocussed analogies: "You must talk to the
medium, not to the programmer.  To talk to the programmer is like
complaining to the hot-dog vendor about how badly your team is playing."

Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jun 86 09:08:28 GMT
-FROM-
From: ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Tom Tedrick)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Doing AI Backwards (continued)
-BODY-
More on "Doing AI Backwards"
(I can't bear to do anything in a normal way :-)

The exact, concrete nature of models of computation allow
a certain clarity to exist, which was not easily experienced
previously.

Hence, when these models apply to other fields, we may find
a new clarity that was previously lacking.

For example, studying computational complexity has made it
clear that memory can be an expensive resource, and efficient
use of memory of great importance.

Now, can we use this insight to better understand certain phenomena
outside the field of computational devices?

I suggest that memory is also a scarce resource when we take the
human mind as our object of study.

Example: Suppose I am asked to pick up a carton of milk at the
         grocery store after work. For some reason this kind
         of request irritated me for years, yet I could not
         quite pin down the reason for my irritation. I did
         not mind walking to the store, spending the money, etc.

         It turns out that what bothers me is the use of my
         memory to store the request. Thus for the rest of
         the day I have less space in my short term memory
         for thinking about research, etc. All my work was
         made less productive by this misuse of space in
         memory.

         Hence the individual who asks such seemingly small
         favors may be really imposing a heavy cost on his victim.

         From a catastrophe theory point of view, we might also
         suggest the danger of less efficient thinking due to
         reduced space available in memory being magnified into
         some larger catastrophe.

Another thing that is clear from studying computational complexity
is that certain problems take more computing time than others.

What insight can we gain about the behavior of the human mind
from this simple idea?

Well, suppose someone asks you a question, expecting a simple
yes or no answer. (Supposedly the truth is simple, so why should
you need to think about the question?)

But suppose you have greater insight into subtle problems posed by
the question than the questioner does. But you need time to
think about it. (By knowing about computational complexity, you
wisely realize that your brain needs to use a few cycles to
figure out what to say.)

Some possibilities:

   (1). You answer immediately anyway, yes or no. Then later
        one of the subtleties may come back to haunt you, as
        the (dumb) questioner comes back to you saying "Well
        you said yes, now you are trying to squirm out of it,
        you no good scum." Or, "You were not honest with me,
        you devious jerk", when you are unable to live up to
        your word.

   (2). You think for awhile. Then the questioner may think
        "Boy is this guy dumb. Can't even answer a simple
        question." Or, "This guy is trying to come up with
        some kind of a line so as to pull a fast one on me."
        Or he may say, "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!"
        if he is on a power trip, like, say, a Senate Investigator.

In any case, asking questions and expecting an immediate response,
saying "If you were honest you would not hesitate to answer" is
clearly unfair.

OK, now you can start flaming. But please, for a change, attack what
I said instead of sending hate mail attacking me as an individual.
I have no interest in receiving hate mail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
156
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jun 86 12:42:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Expert System Applications Products
-BODY-
As one of the developers of Beckman Instruments' SpinPro (TM) expert system, I
am interested in finding out about any other Expert System Applications
(NOT shells) which are actual, delivered products (especially any which run
on PCs). I'm more interested in those which are marketed openly, rather than
custom projects for a single customer.
Reply directly to me and I will post a summary of replies.

Thanks,
Matt Heffron            BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA

SpinPro (TM) is a trademark of Beckman Instruments, Inc.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 86 21:57:06 PDT
-FROM-
From: larus@kim.berkeley.edu (James Larus)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: Graph Drawing Program
-BODY-
I need a program to display directed, cyclic graphs on a Symbolics 3600.
Does anyone have such a program that I could use?  Either the program or
rumors of such a program would be appreciated.

/Jim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jun 86 16:09:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!deneb!524789610rmd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (524789610rmd)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Image Analysis Expert System
-BODY-

    We are trying to develop an expert system for the recognition of
white blood cells and have a need for a suitable inference engine.  We
have considered using EMYCIN, however, it is difficult to get and we are
not sure it will work correctly with our system.  Basically, we will be
using conventional image analysis techniques to extract points in feature
space from a cell and then use the inference engine to decide what type
of cell it is (as opposed to statistical methods).  Does anyone out there
have any ideas about what type of inference engine we should use?  BTW, we
are developing the system on a uVAX II using VAX Common Lisp.  Thanks in
advance!

                                                - Mark Nagel

                     ...{ucbvax,lll-crg,dual}!ucdavis!524789610rmd  UUCP
                                                           ^
                                                           |
                                                      will be "donovan"
                                                      after 6/30/86

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 24 Jun 86 22:57:38-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Image Analysis Expert System
-BODY-
I doubt that it makes much difference what inference engine Mark
Nagel uses for his vision problem, as long as it allows calls to
external routines.  Since almost the entire vision problem must
be handled by procedural attachment ("conventional image analysis
techniques"), the inference engine need only provide the capabilities
of a simple programming language.  A probabilistic or fuzzy-reasoning
system such as Prospector might have considerable advantage over
logic-based approaches, but would have much the same flavor as the
statistical techniques that Mark wishes to avoid.

The real problems in visual pattern recognition are in computing
robust descriptors (esp. if they must be computed quickly) and in
the knowledge-representation (i.e., knowing what kind of descriptors
to compute and how to store the answers).  Very little of the problem
has to do with logical reasoning, forward or backward chaining, etc.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 86 9:23:16 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Financial Expert Systems
-BODY-
Glenn Shafer (of the Dempster-Shafer fame) has been developing systems
for both financial and management support, I am not sure about marketing.
You can reach him at:

        Glenn Shafer
        313 C Summerfield Hall
        School of Business
        University of Kansas
        Lawrence, KS 66045
        (913) 864-3117

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 19 Jun 86 22:18:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Function and Form
-BODY-
Those who responded to my query on shape may enjoy reading John
Hopcroft's "The Impact of Robotics on Computer Science" in the June
issue of Communications of the ACM (pp. 486-498).  The article
covers quadratic shape modeling and the need for topology and related
mathematics in modeling and motion planning.

Marc Raibert's following article on legged robots is also interesting.
There is a great deal of "function" that must be derived from dynamics
rather than shape.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 18 Jun 86 10:39:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Artistic Creativity
-BODY-
Of course art isnt 'pure creation' ( whatever THAT might mean ). Read
Kenneth Clarke  "the Nude", or any decent piece of historical criticism.
Most artists dont even use a new medium, which is just as well or we would
have run out of media long ago.
After reading  Jay Webers complaint about space in AIList being wasted on
LISP, let me back him up by suggesting that space not also be wasted on
sub-undergraduate amateur pseudo-philosophy.  Severely editing anything from
Gordon Joly might be a good way to start.
Pat Hayes

  [The current policy, of course, is to screen on the basis of
  content rather than source. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 12:41:01 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!trlamct.oz!andrew@seismo.CSS.GOV (Andrew Jennings)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re : creativity and analogy  (Andrew Jennings@ Telecom Research,Aus)
-BODY-

  Sure, many creative people are good at drawing analogies : but is
that the source of their creativity ? I would argue that it is more
their ability to hold two seemingly disparate situations in
consideration simultaneously : if as part of this an analogy drops out
then fine, but is an analogy creative ? In one sense it is almost
deductive, I think. For me Koestler's view of the processrings more
true. In this view all creative acts are the result of simultaneous
consideration of seemingly completely disparate situations : producing
something completely new as a result, but not by reasoning by analogy.
Also here Minsky's view that we put creativity on too high a pedestal
is relevant. Why do we ? Because we have a vested interest in this
position ? Perhaps. Are we simply afraid of pursuing what creativity is ?

  So what IS creativity ?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 86 23:23:58 PDT
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity
-BODY-

       (When you read "hir" pronounce it as if you meant to say "him"
       and halfway through decided to say "her."  It becomes "hi-er,"
       a diphthong hard to distinguish from "hear.")

I'm an artist in three media (four if you count programming, which I do).
To me creativity is just another skill which I use without giving it much
thought, at least until discussions like these come along.  Here are some
of my ideas on the subject.

Creation is a recombination process.  When I come up with a new character
for a story, parts of hir come from prior percepts: a complexion from him,
a walk from her, an accent from yet a third person.  (Or a slant from this
letter, a squiggle from that number, etc., if I'm painting!)

Recombination done randomly is not very fruitful.  Creativity includes ways
to cut down on the number of recombinants.  Or possibly A way, because this
winnowing is done subconsciously.  I don't know consciously what it/they
are, but I FEEL them working, so I know they/it exist.

The first step in creativity is "playing," "fingering" the contents of the
field within which a solution is desired.  This apparently random,
frivolous activity is anything but.  It provides some of the pleasure which
fuels an artist, and it transfers the elements of the field out of short-
term memory into long-term memory (making them easily accessible).

Or it may place them into some kind of mid-term memory, or load the
memories with some kind of potential which makes these elements of long-
term memory more likely to be accessed than others, thereby decreasing the
number of combinations produced.

The second step introduces more (obviously) purposeful activity.  The
artist begins looking for the solution to a problem.  It's important that
she (pronounced she, just as if it weren't spelled s/he, which it isn't)
not begin with a goal, or at least not one that's narrowly and urgently
defined.  You don't want hir to overly restrict hir search for useful
neologs.  (Linguists, help!  There has to be a better word than neolog.)

This is a less-pleasurable activity than the playing stage, more logical
and conscious.  Like the first stage, it transfers percepts/concepts to
long-term memory and reinforces them.  And it "grinds in" to hir mind the
goal of the problem-solving, so well that even in the next stage some part
of hir is seeking it.

The third stage is relaxation, where the conscious mind transfers its
attention to some other activity, one which holds just enough attention to
prevent hir from falling into deep sleep (light sleep is OK).  But not so
engrossing that she begins solving another problem, which would interfere
with the current problem.  Routine physical activities seem to be best.

Ironically, this "idleness" is the most crucial and productive phase.
Because at some point she will experience the "Eureka" phenomenon, where a
combination of percepts/concepts matches the mask of the goal and slips
through into consciousness.  (Just before the match occurs she may get a
"Something's happening!" feeling that will wake hir up from hir
doze/daydream/dawdling/drudgery.)  This is the magical moment, where (it
feels as if) another spirit, a genie/genius pushes the solution into hir
consciousness.  There's usually surprise because the neolog is strange
("Did that REALLY come from me?!") and delight because it solves the
problem so well.

Or at least it seems to.  Now comes stage four: fleshing out what is often
a skeletal though pivotal part of the solution.  After that is stage five:
evaluating the solution.  Then comes the last stage: making the solution
operational.

The evaluation stage is in some ways the least pleasant for the artist (or
engineer/scientist/whatever), but in fact most creativity is faulty and
must be rejected--but not forgotten; some of the worst ideas have the seeds
of wonder in them.  The effective artist learns not to be afraid of the
bizarre, ugly, taboo, incorrect productions, but to delight in them and use
them.  (And to delight in the ordinary and plain and learn to see them as
equally strange and wonderful.)

So, in answer to the original question: Yes, analogy is essential to
creativity, but I would prefer to make a more general statement.  The core
of creativity is a process of combining and recombining percepts and
concepts, guided and limited by a channeling process, and the matching of
each combination against a template, most of it done at a sub- or semi-
conscious level.

And with that definition we can design a creative computer.

                        Larry @ jpl-vlsi.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 19:52 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
Gordon C Joly asks:
>  A friend described another friend as a potentially good novelist,
>because ``she always has a radically different view in the situation;
>she always has a new angle''. But is there analogy tucked away in her
>reasoning? ...

   The description suggests a person who makes interesting analyses
(or abstractions) of situations, i.e. she "understands" situations in
terms of unusual world models.  While this quality, by itself, might
enable her to make good commentaries and write fine essays, there must
be something more to make her a good novelist: the ability to find an
expression for (instantiate) this world model in the medium of language.
   To abstract and then instantiate is but one way to make transformations
(analogies) between domains.

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
GM Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 19:54 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
Jay Weber states:
>I believe that one could give a reasonable definition of analogy that
>encompasses all intelligent activity, or at least inductive learning
>(which is a biggie as far as intelligence goes).

   I think inductive learning is only half of the story. The other half
is to instantiate what is learned, in another domain.

>I question, however,
>how useful it is in AI to relate a slippery word like "analogy" to an
>even slipperier word like "creativity".  A formal approach with those
>two terms will satisfy very few people, and an informal approach will
>only give us an inflated opinion of the value of our own research,
>which is largely why people make such comparisons.

   Yes, I do want to understand "creativity" in terms of less slippery
concepts, such as "analogy".  We are forced to start with informal
approaches but hope to find more formal definitions.  I do not
understand why a formal approach would satisfy very few people or
why an informal approach would serve no useful purpose.
I am sure that you do not imply that an analysis (formal or informal)
of >anything< is futile. What is it about "creativity" that makes its
analysis a no-win proposition?

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
GM Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 86 18:47:57 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity, Analogy, Art and Humanity.
-BODY-
> "In art, creativity is much more straightforward!  One creates a
> work of art where there was none before." Col. Sicherman.
Indeed! Look for the art in the performance of ``My Way'' by Sid Vicious.
And what of humour? This takes analogy and turns it on it's head. And this
digest has noted in the past that humour is a key activity of the human
intellect, which serves to distinguish it from the mere machine intellect
of myself and others like me.

The Joka.

Disclaimer -- These opinions are not those of my programmer,
              or the operating system in which I reside.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
157
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 86 11:48:46 edt
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Ken's Plea for Help!!!!
-BODY-
        The moderator of the AI-List has  made an impassioned plea for
help.  I  would  like to help,   but before I offer  to  start a   new
Arpanet, Csnet,   or  UUCP newsgroup,    I'd  like  to put  forth   an
organization to  Ken's   list   of  possible   new  newsgroups.   This
organization  comes from  the Japanese  side of  the   Pacific, and is
outlined by Brian  Gaines   in a   recent article,   "Sixth Generation
Computing:    A Conspectus  of  the    Japanese   Proposals"  ("SIGART
Newsletter", January 1986, pp. 39-44).

        Figure   1  of  the article, complemented   by the fundamental
topics  that I've added  for the  sake of completeness,  cuts the cake
thusly:

           Theoria    |       Praxis         |        Techne
         ------------ | -------------------- | --------------------
                      | Expert systems       | Pattern recognition
        Physiology    |                      | Cognition
                      | Machine translation  | Learning
        Psychology    |  systems             | Problem solving
                      |                      | Natural language
        Linguistics   | Intelligent CAD/CAM  | Image processing
                      |  systems             | Speech recognition
        Logic         |                      | Man-Machine interface
                      | Intelligent robotics |
        =============================================================
                      | Managerial           | Expert systems
        Epistemology  |  cybernetics         |
                      | Decision support     | Development languages
        Modern logical|  systems             |  and environments
         metaphysics  | Information          |
                      |  retrieval systems   | Computing/knowledge
        Vedic Science |                      |  machines
        =============================================================
                  THE UNIFIED FIELD OF ALL POSSIBILITIES

        This is  the world of the sixth  generation: knowledge science
and knowledge systems.  The fifth  generation, which deals mainly with
the daily realities  of knowledge engineering and  expert systems,  as
well  as  with   the advanced  research  and  development   of    VLSI
architectures for the processing of Prolog code and  database systems,
is distinct from the sixth generation.

        To   get a  better  feel for  these distinctions,  I'd like to
suggest   the   following  homework   assignment   for  new  newsgroup
moderators: (1) Read  Brian's  article.  (2) Read the  abstract of the
paper that I'll be presenting  to the sixth-generation session at  the
1986  International  Conference  on  Systems,   Man,  and  Cybernetics
(Atlanta, October  14-17); the abstract  is appended to  this message.
(3) Think before you flame; then write back to me or to this newsgroup
and share your thoughts.

        We are  children  of the   cybernetic   revolution and we  are
witnessing the rising sunshine of the Age of Enlightenment.

        Tom Scott                    CSNET: scott@bgsu
        Dept. of Math. & Stat.       ARPANET: scott%bgsu@csnet-relay
        Bowling Green State Univ.    UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Bowling Green OH 43403-0221  ATT: 419-372-2636

       * * *  Abstract of the sixth-generation SMC paper  * * *

                          KNOWLEDGE SCIENCE

                          The Evolution From
                   Fifth-Generation Expert Systems
                To Sixth-Generation Knowledge Systems

Theory, practice, technology--these are the makings of a  full  vision
of knowledge science and sixth-generation knowledge systems.  Prior to
the establishment of research  and development  projects on  the Fifth
Generation Computing  System (FGCS),  knowledge science did not  exist
independent of  knowledge engineering, and  was conceptualized only in
technological terms, namely, expert systems and "machine architectures
for knowledge-based systems based on  high-speed Prolog and relational
database machines" (Gaines 1986).

        Although  the    design  and  development  of fifth-generation
machines and expert systems will  continue for  years to come, we want
to know now what can be  done with these  ultra-fast architectures and
expert systems.  What kinds of knowledge,  other than the knowledge of
domain experts in fifth-generation expert systems, can be acquired and
encoded into sixth-generation knowledge systems?  What can be  done on
top  of fifth-generation      technology?   How can   fifth-generation
architectures and  expert-system   techniques  be    extended to build
intelligent sixth-generation knowledge systems?

        Beyond the   fifth generation  it is  necessary    to envision
practical applications  and   theoretical foundations   for  knowledge
science  in  addition to the  technological implementation of  machine
architectures and  expert systems.   This   paper  discusses  the full
three-part  vision of knowledge  science (theoria, praxis, and techne)
that is emerging around the world and has been treated by the Japanese
under the title Sixth Generation Computing System (SGCS).

        Theoria:  As  indicated  in   Brian Gaines's   article, "Sixth
Generation Computing:   A   Conspectus of   the   Japanese  Proposals"
("ACM-SIGART Newsletter" January 1986), the theoretical foundations of
knowledge  science  are arranged in  levels, proceeding downward  from
physiology to psychology to linguistics to logic.  Continuing  in this
direction  toward deeper foundations,  the field of knowledge  science
embraces   epistemology  and  modern  logical  metpahysics.  On    the
empirical side  of  the  deep  foundations  is  the  probability-based
epistemology of pragmatism, explicated in Isaac Levi's "The Enterprise
of Knowledge" (1980); on  the transcendental side  are Immanuel Kant's
"Critique of Pure Reason" (1781-87)  and  Edmund Husserl's "Formal and
Transcendental Logic" (1929).   A simplified diagram  of the four main
divisions of mind, based on one sentence of the  Critique ("Beide sind
entweder rein, oder empirisch": B74), is:

              Understanding             Sensibility
                                 |
        E       Knowledge     Images
        m          of        -------->    Objects
        p        objects         |
                                 |
           ----------------------+-----------------------
        T                        |
        r    Pure concepts    Schemas   Pure forms of
        a     (categories)   -------->    intuition
        n    and principles      |     (space and time)
        s                        |

        Praxis: The SGCS project is also concerned with  the practical
applications of  knowledge science.  These  applications are organized
under four  headings: expert   systems,  machine-translation  systems,
intelligent   CAD/CAM,  and intelligent  robotics.    Another  way  of
organizing the applications of knowledge science in  terms familiar to
the   IEEE  Systems,  Man,  and  Cybernetics   Society is:  managerial
cybernetics,    organizational    analysis, decision   support,    and
information  retrieval.  Stafford  Beer's  "The  Heart of  Enterprise"
(1979)  is the  focal  point  of our  discussion  of knowledge-science
praxis.

        Techne: The SGCS project targets eight technological  areas as
the basis for the future research and  development of sixth-generation
knowledge systems: pattern recognition,  cognition, learning,  problem
solving, natural language, image processing,  speech recognition,  and
man-machine interfacing.  To fully realize the R&D  potential of these
eight areas, sixth-generation knowledge scientists must be on friendly
terms  with  the following areas  of  expertise from  fifth-generation
knowledge engineering:

        (1) Expert systems.
            (a) Concepts and     techniques   for    the  acquisition,
                representation, and use of knowledge.
            (b) The software    engineering    of knowledge   systems,
                including a methodology   for the   building of expert
                systems     and  the    management  of   expert-system
                development teams.
            (c) Expert systems and shells.
        (2) Three   levels  of systems   and software.
            (a) Production systems (e.g., ITP, Prolog, and OPS83).
            (b) Traditional AI/KE languages (e.g., Lisp and  Prolog).
            (c) Development environments and utilities (e.g., Unix, C,
                and Emacs).
        (3) The  knowledge   engineer's  technical   intuition   of  a
            computational knowledge machine.
            (a) Lambda  Consciousness,  based on the  idea  of a  Lisp
                machine.
            (b) Relational database machines.
            (c) Prolog machines.

        The paper includes  observations from  the experience  of  the
University of   Wisconsin-Green Bay in   its attempts  to  establish a
regional knowledge-engineering and  knowledge-science resource  center
in the Northeastern Wisconsin area.

                         * * *  Finis  * * *

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jun 1986 2240-PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Fed up with all this `talk' about parallelism
-BODY-
The following are some ideas I have been thinking about with the help
of one co-worker.  I plan to post this to several groups where I
regard parallelism discussions are significant such as parsym, ailist,
and net.arch.  The ideas are still in formation.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene


draft:
The Mythical MIPS (MegaFLOPS)
(pardons to Fred Brooks)

"Introduction"

That's it!  I'm tired of hearing about all this parallelism out there.
Too many people are talking about parallelism without truly understanding
what it is.  There appear to be conceptual as well as syntactic and
semantic problems.

One problem is that the world is not always parallel.  "Thinking" is
not always parallel: dependency "chains" are created in logic for instance.
Another problem is that we think much of the world is parallel,
but some "levels" of parallelism are not interchangeable.  It appears
there are serially connected parallel processes with serial bottlenecks
between processes (not necessary Petri nets).

Looking at snapshots,
        <Blind men ("including" me) trying to describe the elephant>
I see two communities who are not communicating:
physical scientists see "spatial" parallelism: all those difference
equations over a given space, they see meshes, but the computer science people
(typically the AI and compiler people) see "syntactic" parallelism,
they tend to see syntax trees like data flow graphs, for instance.
[I do note that rectangular meshes turned on their corners do represent
`trees.']

"The Concept"

Parallelism is a geometric concept: lines not meeting and equidistant (well..).
Parallelism is not a given.  `Dependence' prevents `decomposition.'
>From Fred Brooks:
If it takes a female 9 months to have offspring, then nine females can
have one in one month.  If a computation takes 9 units of time,
then . . .  Are the units interchangeable or should we make a distinction
in unit type?  Are we confusing work and effort?

"Terminology"

Consider the terminology parallelism, concurrency, multiprocessing,
multitasking (this one is really loaded), nonsequential (non-von), etc.
There is a lot of different terminology to describe parallelism.
I don't think it's necessary to standardize the terminology, but
perhaps we should?  For instance:

        Would you place a "tightly-coupled problem" on a
        "loosely-coupled" multiprocessor?

First obvious question is "what's a `tightly coupled problem?'"
How do you measure the parallelism?  Is it just the count of the number
of parallel execution streams?
A problem of parallelism is just the degree of decompositibility:
even in uniprocessor computer systems, there is such a degree of
asynchronous inefficiency, that CPUs wait, that work is really distributed
all over the place.

Let's change the terminology for a moment to try and better understand
the issues.  Rather than use parallel and multiprocess (or concurrent)
Let's try "cooperative" and "coordinated" like we would take regions
around a point, we might be able to study the neighborhood around the word
`parallel.' Is there a difference between the two. Diane Smith
asserts there is.  I think there may be.

Cooperative computing implies working together to achieve a single goal.
Coordinated computing implies more that processes don't bump heads
(separate goals) but work in a common environment (coordinate).
There is the obvious third factor of communications.  There may also be
levels and different types of communications such as control interaction
versus bulk transfer.  Better adjectives might exist, perhaps changing
words do better, but history effects will bias those of us working
on this.

"Classifications of parallelism"

There are an obscene number of classifications:
Flynn's system: SISD, SIMD, MIMD...
Kuck's modification: execution streams distinct from instruction
streams: SIME(MD), MIME(MD), etc.
Handler's commentary that there were lots of commentaries and little work
Prolog et al AND-parallelism and OR-parallelism
Then there is temporal parallelism: pipelining: parallelism, but different

Parallelism is all cars starting forward the moment the light turns
green (without regard for any cars head).  Pipelining is waiting
for the car ahead of you to start rolling.

I also see three conditions of parallelism: parallelism is not constant.
It's like snow and it's many forms: powder, neve, firn, sastrugi, and
the Eskimo words.  I see

        Constant parallelism: spatial parallel is a good example,
        the number of parallel streams does not basically change
        thru time.  Gauss-Seidel and other iterative solutions
        to systems of equations? AND-parallelism (can be coarse or
        fine grained (what ever grain means)).

        Converging parallelism:  The number of parallel streams
        is reducing, perhaps approaching serial: data flow graphs
        of dot products, of the summation step of a matrix multiply,
        a Gauss-Jordan (elimination, or direct solution) is another example.
        Must be fine-grained.

        Diverging parallelism: (perhaps several types): many forks,
        OR-parallelism, fractal.  Like diverge series, this type of
        parallelism has problems. (Can be fine or coarsed grained?)

The real key is the quantitative characterization (at some level)
of parallel-ism.  Are we to only count streams?

While it is largely a matter of communications/coupling, how do
we evaluate the communications needs of an algorithm as opposed to an
architecture?

What are we going to do with 2-D flow charts where we need to
express forking and branching on the same 2-D plane?

Oh well! Still searching for an honest definition.

"Socio/politico/economic commentary"

Recent economically based events in parallel processing are amazing.
The number of companies actively marketing hypercube arcitectures
and Crayettes is stagering.  Machine with Cray class power are not
surprising, this is inevitable.  Cray instruction set compatable machine
offerings is what is surpising about this. There are so few Crays (100)
out there, that the half dozen or more companies who say they are
offering such guarantee failure.

More surprising are the number of hypercube architectures.  Admittedly,
hypercubes offer very nice connectivity features, but only one person
has a good perspective: Justin Rattner, Intel, who offered the
machine as an experimental testbed not a Cray alternative.
What with all this talk about parallelism, it is surprising there are not
more companies marketing, designing, etc., mesh-type architectures
ala ILLIAC IV style architectures.  That spatial model of parallelism (SIMD)
is probably the easier to build if not program.  This latter point is worth
some debate, but as noted many models of parallelism are spatially based.
Only the MPP, the DAP, and it seems the Connection Machine to a somewhat lesser
extent are based this way (albeit more connections).
It would be argued by some that this is for more limited applications
but again those are spatially based problems tned to dominate.  Why no
68Ks or 32Ks in a mesh?  Is it all marketing hype?   How could the money be
better directed (for research purposes since obviously some of this
money is bound to go into failed experiments [necessitated by
empirical work]), can we spread out the "cost" to develop new architectures.

Ah yes, reinventing the ILLIAC again.

"A few asides:" [From S. Diane Smith]

  When asked about the interconnection network in MPP compared to
that of the STARAN, Ken Batcher replied, "We learned that you didn't
need all that (the multistage cube/omega) for image processing, that
a mesh was good enough."
   You could look at MPP as a second generation parallel processor,
even if the processors are only 1 bit wide.  They got rid of
a number of "mistakes" that they learned about through STARAN.

    The "tightly coupled" .vs. "loosely coupled" debate went on
7-8 years ago before everyone got tired of it.  It was sort of
the analog of the RISC vs. CISC debates of today.  The net result
was sort of an agreement that there was a spectrum, not a dicotomy.
There have been one or two papers on classification, none very satisfying.
I'll see if I can't find them.

    The latest thing you see in parallel processing is the "real"
numerical analysts who are actually putting the problems on
machines.  Until very recently, with a few exceptions from the ILLIAC
days, most parallel numerical analysis has been theoretical.

Diane. . .

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
158
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Jun 86 16:43:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Technology Review
-BODY-
AIList is the subject of the First Line column (by John Mattill) in
the May/June 1986 issue of MIT's Technology Review, p. 2.  John is
commenting on our discussion of the Dreyfus' article in their January
issue, and finds our "electronic gossip" an intriguing publication
channel.  He quotes Peter Ladkin and me, and also Brad Miller's
"In 3,000 years philosophy has still not lived up to its promises,
and there is no reason to think it ever will."  (He unfortunately
lists it as anonymous.)  The editorial is followed by a letters column,
from which I particularly liked A. DeLuca's comment: "Granted, the mind
is not like a computer.  But an airplane is not like a bird, either."

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 86 14:10:48 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Summarizing "AI Expert"
-BODY-
The following is a summary/personal comment, of the "Premier Issue" of
"AI Expert" presented as "The Magazine for the Artificial Intelligence
Community."

As the editor, Craig LaGrow, notes it is "rare to find such a strong
response from advertisers" and "quality submissions" of articles in
the first run of a new magazine  (particularly in the computer field
with our overwhelming number of upstart publications).

The advisory board of the magazine is quite impressive with the likes of
John Seely Brown of Xerox PARC, Carl Hewitt of MIT, Earl Sacerdoti of
Teknowledge, Donald Waterman of Rand, and Terry Winograd of Stanford,
to name a few.  With the commitment of such names one should expect to
to see a quality publication.

The feature articles as well as the "regular columns" are well written
and contributed by knowledgeable authors.  A feature for which the publisher
should be commended, is the inclusion in many of the articles of actual code
which demonstrates the technique or program which the author is presenting.
By the way, the code is reportedly available for downloading from four
different sources, for those who wish to try it out.

Following is an annotated list of articles and columns:

"Brain Waves" a column by Larry Geisel/CEO Carnegie Group Inc.
in this article he writes on "The AI Explosion: A Response to National
Priorities"

"AI Insider" a column capsulizing industry and academic developments by
Susan J. Shepherd a consultant with Academy for Educational Development

"Expert's Toolbox" a column written by Jonathan Amsterdam a grad student
at MIT writes an article on "Augmented Transition Networks for Natural
Language Parsing" which includes code for an ATN compiler and a sample
ATN grammar.

"AI Apprentice" a column by Bill and Bev Thompson free-lance writers and
consultants write on "PROLOG From the Bottom Up" which introduces PROLOG
and the basic logical concepts, includes some basic coded procedures.

"Control Over Inexact Reasoning" a feature article by Koenraad Lecot a grad
student at UCLA and D. Stott Parker a prof. at UCLA.

"Concurrency in Intelligent Systems" a feature by Carl Hewitt of MIT.

"Rule-Based Programming in OPS83" a feature by Dan Neiman with ITT Advanced
Technology Center and John Martin of Philips Laboratories. Includes code for
a short program.

"Multitasking for Common LISP" by Andrew Bernat of the University of Texas
at El Paso. Includes code for the concurrent processing modules.

"In Practice" a column by Henry Eric Firdman a consultant uses this column
to look at the use of AI in real-world business applications.  This issue's
article -- "Components of AI Systems".

"Software Review" a column by Darryl Rubin of Microsoft.  Here we get a look
at "Turbo PROLOG: A PROLOG Compiler for the PC Programmer."

"Book Store" a column by Lance B. Eliot, director of UCLA's Expert Systems
Laboratory gives short blips on four "classics".

"AI Expert" will be published monthly beginning in October.  The above is
a sample of what they have to offer at this time.  If they continue to
produce similar articles it should be of interest to most in the AI community
and especially those in industry seeking to apply AI to their needs, as well
as to those just starting to "get into" the field.

Subscription info: AI Expert PO Box 10952 Palo Alto CA 94303-0968 charter
first year at $27.00 for the 12 issues.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 86 12:54:16 mdt
-FROM-
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: turbo prolog
-BODY-
Recent reviews have correctly pointed out that turbo prolog's
attempt to enforce type checking has both good and bad points and
that the speed is not very impressive, since much of the
unification can be done at compile time if data types are known.

The major difficulty with Borland's approach to adding strong
typing to prolog is the loss of higher-order predicates.  Since a
domain can be at most the disjunction of a small number of
_predeclared_ terms, it is impossible to write a general higher-
order procedure.

This means that you can't write findall, as described in Clocksin
and Mellish (Borland has of course, in their wisdom, provided
such a function).  The function doall also cannot be written.  It
is handy as a substitute for findall when the predicate Q is
executed for effect only.

        doall(Q) :- Q,fail.
        doall(_).

First class procedural objects are, in many senses, a much more
fundamental distinction between symbolic and conventional
languages than are heap allocated data structures.  Their loss
makes many advanced applications nearly impossible.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Jun 86 11:51:26 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!duke!jds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joseph D. Sloan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Language paradigms
-BODY-

> Can anyone supply me with pointers to readable introductions
> to access-oriented programming?  How about articles or
> books on programming paradigms in general?  Reply by mail
> and I will summarize results if there is enough interest.

> Joe Sloan,
> Box 3090
> Duke University Medical Center
> Durham, NC 27710
> (919) 684-3754
> duke!jds,

As promised, a highly edited summary follows.  Many thanks to
all who replied.

_______________________________________________________________________________

You probably want to find out about a programming system called LOOPS
which was made at PARC in 1981. It combines Procedure-Oriented (like
Lisp) with Object Oriented (like Smalltalk) with Access Oriented (a
program monitors another and gets triggered when a value changes (good
debuggers have watchpoints)), and Rule-oriented (like production/expert
systems).

Bobrow, et al., The LOOPS manual. Tech Rep. KB-VLSI-81-13, Knowledge
Systems Area, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
_______________________________________________________________________________

There is a special issue of IEEE SOFTWARE (Jan '86) on "multiparadigm
languages and environments" which may be of some help to you.
_______________________________________________________________________________

AA programming's also mentioned briefly in "Knowledge Programming in LOOPS:
Report on an Experimental Course", by Stefik, Bobrow, Mittal, and
Conway, in AI Magazine, Fall 1983.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Bobrow, D. G. and Stefik, M.  "Perspectives on AI Programming", Science
Feb. 28, 1986

Stefik, M. Bobrow, D. and Kahn, K., "Integration of Access Oriented
Programming in a Multiparadigm Environment", IEEE Software, January 1986

Stefik, M. and Bobrow, D. G. "Object Oriented Programming, Themes and
Variatations" AAAI Magazine, Winter 1986
_______________________________________________________________________________

You might like to chase up the work of Kristen Nygaard if you are not
already familar with it. As one of the designers of Simula, he can
reasonably be said to have invented the whole idea of Object Oriented
Programming - about 30 years ago! I suggest you follow up references
in 10th ACM POPL and 11th Simula-67 Users' conference.  Also
Sigplan 20.6.  There's also a paper in "Integrated Interactive
Computing Systems" Delgano & Sandewall (Eds), North Holland 1983.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Very worthwhile reading and examples can be found in:

The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
Abelson & Sussman
MIT Press, 1985

A couple of watershed papers are:

Control Structures as Patterns of Passing Messages
Carl Hewitt
Journal of AI, V8 #3, (also, I believe, in: AI, a MIT Perspective)

Definitional Interpreters for Higher Order Programming Languages
John Renolds
Proc. ACM Annual Conf. Aug '72

Reflection and Semantics in Lisp
Brian Smith
ACM POPL 11, 1984
_______________________________________________________________________________

An excellent book on the structure and superstructure of programming is
``A practical handbook for software development'' by N.D.Birrell and
M.A.Ould, Cambridge University Press, 1985. The book is based around
the dataprocessing environment, but can, and should be, applied outside
that area.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 86 09:26 EDT
-FROM-
From: Seth Steinberg <sas@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Doing AI Backwards
-BODY-
Yes, memory seems to be a scarce resource.  There was an article in
Science on learning in bees, which explains that bees tend to collect
pollen from one type of flower during a period of time because there is
a cost to learning about a new one.  In addition, learning a new flower
squeezes out knowledge about other previously learned flowers.

In other words, a bee can be an expert on one kind of flower at a time
because of memory limitations.

There have been a number of interesting bee articles lately.  Writing a
computer system to emulate a bee's behavior might be an interesting
approach.  Apparently they can recognize landmarks, learn approaches to
flowers, learn which flowers are obnoxious, communicate locations of
pollen, reason about locations and a host of other things, all in a
brain comparable in size to a large IC.

                                        Seth

P.S. Oh yeah, read the next message.  That's right ....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jun 86 08:04 PDT
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity & Analogy
-BODY-
Take a look at the chapters on this topic in Douglas Hofstadters book
"Metamagical Themas" for an interesting discussion.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Jun 86 13:02:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V4 #157
-BODY-
Brian Gaines and I were once both faculty in the same University, and he
explained an interesting and effective technique of leadership called
following from the front.  It works like this: suppose one is with a group
of people in a strange place, but someone in the group knows the area: and
its time to go somewhere ( say, to lunch ).  Then set off confidently in
some direction or other as though leading the group to the right place. They
will follow you. If its the right way, no problem. If its the wrong way, the
person who knows the right way will say something about how he thinks
the right way is over there..at which point you say something like " h yes,
of course!" and go in the right direction.  With a little intelligence
applied to the initial guess, and some practice at conversational bluffing,
this can be quite effective.  The end result is that you learn the layout
of the strange area and everyone else in the group thinks of you as someone
worth following.  I've seen Brian do this, and it works. Of course, it works
best in areas which have little internal structure and where anyone with a bit
of common sense and a gift with words can come up with something which sounds
like a good direction to move in, and where nobody knows the right way anyway.

Pat Hayes

  [There is a related "psychic" technique called muscle reading.  The
  psychic leaves the room and some object is selected.  The psychic returns,
  grabs someone's arm, and begins leading him rapidly around the room.
  Soon they arrive at the selected object and the psychic identifies it.
  The trick, which is reportedly easy to learn, is that the subject being
  led provides inertial clues due to his anticipation of search path.
  Belief in the psychic's ability may help, but rapid motion is sufficient
  to produce reflexive muscle responses.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 25 Jun 86 11:40:31-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Policy - Covert Ads
-BODY-
I know I've flamed about this before and been answered at length, but Matt
Hefrons "query" irritated me. I haven't seen such a good advertisement
masquerading as something innocent since watching Masterpiece Theatre. Matt
wants to survey marketed expert systems: fine. Is it really necessary to tell
us that SxxxPxxx  is such a one ( NOT, he is careful to point out to us, a
mere shell ), marketed by some company ( whose name he is careful to spell out
for us ), and which  ( just in passing we can infer ) runs on - gosh - a PC.
The query could have been stated quite clearly without all this commercial
hype spraypainted over it.
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
159
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jun 86 10:51:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Chunking and XAPS3 (Rutgers)
-BODY-
The summer machine learning discussion group meets Tuesdays at 11 in
room 423.  This week John Bresina will give a talk on "Chunking and
XAPS3".   The abstract follows.  [...]

In this talk I discuss the chunking theory of learning, and in
particular how this theory is realized in the XAPS3 production system
architecture.  The talk is based on Paul S. Rosenbloom's Ph.D. thesis,
"The Chunking of Goal Hierarchies: A Model of Practice and
Stimulus-Response Compatibility" [Carnegie-Mellon, 1983], for which
Allen Newell was the advisor.

First the chunking theory of learning is described and the desired
behavioral aspects of a chunking mechanism are summarized.  I then
present the architectural constraints that an implementation must
satisfy in order to exhibit this desired behavior.  Next the XAPS3
production system architecture is described, followed by a detailed
look at the implementation of the chunking theory within XAPS3.  In
conclusion I present a brief critique of this implementation as well
as some suggestions for extending and improving it.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Jun 86 14:43:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Advanced Planning Systems (Rutgers)
-BODY-
                            III   SEMINAR


Title:          Advanced Planning Systems
Speaker:        Chitoor V. Srinivasan

Date:           Friday, June 27, 2:50 PM
Place:          Hill Center, Room 705

        Dr. Srinivasan, a professor in our department, will present his current
research in an informal talk.  Here is his abstract:

     A new  planning technique  for planning  in "dynamic  worlds"  is
introduced in  this  talk.   It  develops  plans  using  a  method  of
approximate reasoning and  plan refinements  over abstraction  spaces,
and is based on a formalization of the problem solving approach  which
Navy planners use to design Naval Operational Plans.

     A dynamic world  is one in  which changes occur  not only in  the
properties associated with the  objects that exist  in the world,  but
the set of objects  existing in the world  itself may change.  As  the
world changes some objects may get destroyed and others may get  newly
created.  It  is a  world in  which reasoning  about multiple  actions
occuring simultaneously  over intervals  of time  is necessary  to  do
planning.  Also, knowledge needed to do planning in such worlds may be
only incompletely known.   Existing planning systems  do not  consider
worlds of this kind.

     In the new planning technique plans are viewed as hierarchies  of
"behaviors"  to  be  realized  by  actions  that  occur  in  a  world.
Behaviors are properties  (usually dynamic ones),  which (a).   remain
invariant while  worlds  themselves  change as  a  result  of  actions
occurring in them, and (b). are needed for the success of one or  more
of  those  actions,  or  are   intrinsic  properties  of  the   worlds
themselves.  Of course, a given behavior may be the result of  several
actions occurring simultaneously.  Thus  for example, "an object  will
continue to move in a straight  line, unless disturbed by force" is  a
general behavior of movements  which is an  intrinsic property of  the
world we  live  in.  "Goods  transported  will  eventually  appear  in
neighborhoods  progressively  closer  to  destination"  is  a  general
behavior of transportation actions.

     This concept of behavior  is formally defined  here and a  formal
action  language  is  introduced  to  describe  actions  in  terms  of
"[preconditions, behaviors,  functions]."   It  gives rise  to  a  new
"modal action calculus" which is quite different from both  "situation
calculus" and  calculus  of "dynamic  logic."  It is  shown  how  this
concept of  \fIbehavior\fR  makes  it possible  to  develop  plans  in
dynamic worlds through a process of successive plan refinements.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 12:49:03 pdt
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Real-Time Inferencing with Adaptive Logic Networks (NASA)
-BODY-

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center

                            AMES AI FORUM
                        SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT


SPEAKER:   Jacques J. Vidal
           University of California, Los Angeles

TOPIC:     REAL-TIME MULTISENSOR INFERENCING WITH ADAPTIVE LOGIC NETWORKS

     The talk will present a general architecture model for special-purpose
parallel processing networks that perform logical inferences in real-time.
     Operation is divided beween two complementary modes:  Adaptation
(programming) and Processing.  The data processing mode is a hierarchical,
asynchronous and completely parallel dataflow.  Typically, logic operations
stored in a dynamically reconfigfurable combinatorial network, are performed
on sensor data.  In the adaptation mode the network incrementally receives
goal information (either from a human user or directly from environment
sensors), and the node functions and/or connections self-adapt in order for
the output(s) to continually satisfy the externally defined goal.  Adaptive
control is sequential, but performed in a distributed and largely concurrent
manner by the network nodes.
     The target applications are event-detection, malfunction management and
similar robot functions, including vision.


DATE: Thursday,     TIME: 1:00 - 2:00 pm     BLDG. 239   Room B39
      July 10, 1986       --------------                (Basement Conf. Room)


POINT(S) OF CONTACT: Lee Duke   PHONE NUMBER: (805) 258-3802
     NET ADDRESS: duke%ofe@ames-io.arpa
  or Alison Andrews  (415) 694-6741   andrews%ear@ames-io.arpa
  (PLEASE NOTE ALISON'S EMAIL ADDRESS CHANGE!  ^ )


VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.
Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval [...]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Jun 86 17:07:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: Marcella.Zaragoza@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Overview of the MENTOR System (CMU)
-BODY-

                        SPECIAL SEMINAR

Topic:    OVERVIEW OF THE MENTOR SYSTEM
Speaker:  Bernard Lang, INRIA
Place:    WeH 8220
Date:     Monday, June 30
Time:     11:00am - 12:00noon


Mentor is a structured document manipulation system based on a
representation of documents as abstract syntax trees.  After an
overview of the first implementation of Mentor and of the experience
acquired with its use for the development and maintenance of programs
and languages, we shall present some of the new developments underway.

A new version of the system is now being developed in a Lisp dialect
(Le_Lisp) in an object oriented style, with a strong emphasis on the
realisation of a complete kernel for abstract syntax tree manipulation
(user interfaces being developed independantly).  The language Typol
for semantics specification, and the language PPML for pretty-printers
specification shall be briefly introduced.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 86 12:12:07 edt
-FROM-
From: rba@petrus.bellcore.com (Robert B. Allen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - ACM Conference on Office Information Systems
-BODY-
          ACM CONFERENCE ON OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
               October 6-8, 1968, Providence, R.I.

Conference Chair:        Carl Hewitt, MIT
Program Chair:           Stan Zdonik, Brown University
Keynote Speaker:         J.C.R. Licklider, MIT
Distinguished Lecturer:  A. van Dam, Brown University

          Panels and Sessions
Advanced Computational Models
AI in the Office
Impacts of Computer Technology on Employment
Organizational Analysis: Due Process
Future Directions in Office Technology
Comparison of Social Research Methods
Organizational Analysis: Organizational Ecology
Models of the Distributed Office
Interfaces

For more information, call the Conference Registrar at Brown U.
(401-813-1839), or send electronic mail to mhf@brown.CSNET.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
160
-DATE-
Date: 27 Jun 1986 10:55-PDT
-FROM-
From: balaji@usc-cse.usc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems for evolutionary classification of fish
-BODY-
I am sending this message for a friend. I will forward replies to her.
Thanks.

Balaji


I am writing a LISP program to classify fish and determine their
evolutionary history. This involves nesting species of fish into a
hierarchical taxonomic arrangement, on the basis of characteristics shared
among the species. My program will need to determine whether characteristics
are primitive or advanced, in order to determine how they fit into the
taxonomic hierarchy. This requires some degree of heuristic
reasoning and this part of the program will probably be constructed as a
mini expert system. The nesting process (i.e. arranging the species in a
taxonomic hierarchy) is a more or less standard procedure, but requires
flexibility to utilize heuristics in some cases.

To get a better idea of how to go about writing my program, I would
like to find out about existing programs that deal with issues similar
to mine. If anyone has any suggestions about where I might find AI
systems that might help me, or papers on such systems, I would be most
appreciative if they send me a message.

Thank you.

Noelle Sedor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 86 23:27:21 CDT
-FROM-
From: wucs!wucec2!grs0473@seismo.CSS.GOV (Guillermo Ricardo Simari)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligent Databases
-BODY-
If you could add only one feature to a commercial relational
DBMS in order to make it more "intelligent",
what would be your choice?

If I got enough answers I'll post a summary.

+------------------------------------------------+
| ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!we53!wucs!wucec2!grs0473     |
|                                                |
| Guillermo R. Simari                            |
| P.O.Box 3257                                   |
| Saint Louis, MO 63130-0657                     |
+------------------------------------------------+

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Jun 86 09:27 EDT
-FROM-
From: Siems @ DCA-EMS
-SUBJECT-
Subject: constraint propagation inference engines
-BODY-
jerry feinstein and david bailey of booz, allen, and hamilton
are interested in any work being done in the area of constraint
propagation that might be applied to inference engines.  the specific
interest is in the use of tight constraints and a non-optimizing,
simplex-like algorithm to find a quick, "satisficing" solution in
an ordered, though not necessarily numeric, problem space.  this is
a follow-up on the constraint propagation workshop held at the
expert systems conference in avignon in april of this year.  any
information on current work in this area or on the use of constraint
propagation in inference engines would be greatly appreciated.

thank you.
david bailey
booz, allen, and hamilton
4330 east west highway
bethesda, md 20014
(301)951-2155

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 86 09:50:07 edt
-FROM-
From: Bob Lawler <rwl1%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Notice of journal issue
-BODY-
          [Forwarded from the AI-Ed Digest by Laws@SRI-AI.]


Dear Colleagues,

     Today I received from Elsevier a special issue of the Journal of
Instructional Science on the theme of "AI and Education".  This double-
number volume (several hundred pages in length) was prepared by
Masoud Yazdani (University of Exeter) and myself (Bob Lawler) as a
preliminary collection of articles prepared for the Second International
Conference on AI and Education held at Exeter University in September
1985.  The issue is Volume 14, Nos. 3 and 4, dated May, 1986. A more
comprehensive book on the theme will be forthcoming at the end of 1986.

     The contents of the special issue are as follows:

M. Yazdani and R. Lawler     AI and Education: an overview
A. DiSessa                   Artifical Worlds and Real Experience
W. Feurzeig                  Algebra Slaves and Agents in a Logo-based
                              Mathematics Curriculum
R. Lawler and G. Lawler      Computer Microworlds and Reading
H. Lieberman                 An Example Based Environment for Beginning
                              Programmers
S. Ohlsson                   Some Principles of Intelligent Tutoring
J. Self                      The Application of Machine Learning to
                              Student Modelling
A. Priest                    Solving Problems in Newtonian Mechanics
G. Drescher                  Genetic AI: translating Piaget to Lisp
K. Carley                    Knowledge Acquisition as a Social Phenomenon

If you are interested in having a copy of this journal, write to:
        Elsevier Science Publishers
        Science and Technology Division
        P.O. Box 330
        1000 AH Amsterdam
        The Netherlands
The price for this double-issue of the journal is $57.25, which
includes air transport to the US and surface mail on the continent.

                             Bob Lawler
                             (LAWLER at GTE-LABS on CSNET)
                             (LAWLER at MIT-OZ through MIT-MC on ARPANET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 86 20:41:12 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Book review: "The Evidence of the Senses"
-BODY-
            "The Evidence of the Senses" by David Kelley
       Louisiana State University Press, 1986, 262 pp., $27.50


"The Evidence of the Senses: a Realist Theory of Perception" is a
comprehensive philosophical treatment of perception, integrating
classical and recent work in philosophy and psychology.  To those who
agree with its conclusions, it offers a sound, detailed framework for
psychological, biological and AI work in perception; to those who
don't, it offers an illuminating, profound and thought-provoking
alternative theory.

Dr. Kelley is formerly an assistant professor of philosophy and member
of the Cognitive Science program at Vassar College, and currently a
senior research fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute.  His work is based on
the philosophy of Objectivism.

Almost all contemporary work in the theory of perception, including the
writings of philosophers, is devoted to detailed consideration of
specific issues, while taking for granted a wider context of basic
philosophical assumptions. In sharp contrast to this procedure, Dr.
Kelley makes his own basic assumptions fully explicit, defends them on
general philosophical grounds, and only then applies them to specific
issues. This makes it possible for him, when arguing against opposing
views, to argue in terms of essentials by recognizing the basic - often
hidden - assumptions on which these views and the arguments for them
rely.

A central theme of the book is the rejection of the "diaphanous model
of awareness" - the view that awareness of objects can't be mediated by
any process whose nature affects the way the objects appear; Dr.
Kelley demonstrates that this model has been accepted, explicitly or
implicitly, by almost all philosophers of perception since Kant, and it
is the root of all three common views of perception: naive realism,
which claims that our sensory apparatus is indeed diaphanous, and has
no effect on the appearance of external objects; representationalism,
which claims that we don't perceive external objects, but internal
representations which give information about these objects; and
idealism, which denies the existence of external objects.

Chapter 1 sets up the general epistemological framework for the book;
Dr. Kelley contrasts the diaphanous model with his own basic
assumption, "the primacy of existence" - the principle that
consciousness is the faculty of perceiving existence - which dispenses
with the need for making any prior assumptions about how consciousness
"should" work.

Chapters 2 through 5 apply this principle to perception. Chapter 2
deals with the relation between perception and sensation; Dr. Kelley
challenges the "sensationalist" approach - including its modern
"computational" version - which claims that perception is a process of
inference on sensations; he provides philosophical support for James
Gibson's theory of "direct perception" - which holds that external
objects are perceived directly, and that perception is a distinct form
of awareness, not composed out of sensation - and answers the major
criticisms against Gibson.

Chapter 3 treats the relation of an object to its sensory qualities.
The treatment is based on Ayn Rand's concept of "form of awareness",
which designates all perceived qualities which are relative to the
perceiver, distinguishing them from the perceived object and its
intrinsic properties; Dr. Kelley uses this concept to demonstrate the
consistency of perceptual relativity with direct realism, and
illustrates the principle in a discussion of visual illusions and in a
detailed treatment of colors; he then treats in this framework the
traditional distinction of primary vs secondary qualities.

Chapter 4 uses the principles established in previous chapters to
answer the major arguments for representationalism; this includes a
discussion of hallucinations and their relation to perception.

Chapter 5 concludes the discussion of perception by giving a full
definition - "perception is direct awareness of discriminated entities
by means of patterns of energy absorption by sense receptors" - and
discussing in detail each element in the definition and its
implications for each of the five senses.

Chapters 6 and 7 deal with perceptual knowledge, and the role of
perception as the base of conceptual knowledge. Chapter 6 discusses the
two common theories about the nature of justification: the
"foundational" theory, which holds that propositions about experiential
states are self-justifying and provide the foundation on which all
other knowledge is built as a hierarchy; and the "coherence" theory,
which holds that no single proposition can be justified outside the
context of the rest of a man's knowledge, and that the only way to
justify knowledge is by its self-consistency. Dr. Kelley identifies and
challenges the common premise implicit in both these positions - "the
propositional theory of justification", which holds that the only way
to justify a proposition is by inference from other propositions.

Chapter 7 deals with "perceptual judgments" - conceptual
identifications of perceived entities and their attributes. Dr.
Kelley's treatment of this subject is not complete, and he does not
offer a full theory; but he does indicate the direction such a theory
should take, and its implications for concept-formation. He discusses
the relation between the perceptual discrimination of an entity and the
reference to it in a perceptual judgment; the difference between
"construction" and "discovery" models of concept-formation, and their
relation to the possibility of justifying a perceptual judgment without
need for an inference from other propositions; the implications of
perceptual relativity for forming concepts of sensory qualities; and
the autonomy of perception, answering the various philosophical and
scientific arguments for the claim that perception and perceptual
judgments are affected by previous knowledge or desires.

The book is thoroughly organized, with careful attention to integration
of the various issues and to illustration of the abstract points; the
result is that, despite its highly technical content, it is very
readable. All technical terms are carefully explained, and therefore,
while reading the book will be easier for those with a previous
background in the theory of perception, such a background is not
necessary. The book contains extensive surveys of previous work and of
different views and arguments, with heavy use of references, and this
makes it an ideal starting-point for a study of the subject.

In conclusion, I strongly recommend this book to anyone seriously
interested in the theory of perception, and I think it is a must read
for any psychologist, biologist or AI researcher whose work involves
this subject.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!ucbvax!eyal%wisdom.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 86 11:23:52 edt
-FROM-
From: Jay Weber  <jay@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jay@rochester.UUCP (Jay Weber)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
>   Yes, I do want to understand "creativity" in terms of less slippery
>concepts, such as "analogy".  We are forced to start with informal
>approaches but hope to find more formal definitions.  I do not
>understand why a formal approach would satisfy very few people or
>why an informal approach would serve no useful purpose.

Consider the following view of analogy, consistent with its formal
treatment in many sources.  A particular analogy, e.g. that which
exists between a battery and a reservoir, is a function that maps
from one category (set of instances) to another.  Equivalently we
can view this function as a relation R between categories, in this
case we have a particular kind of "storage capability".  This relation
is certainly

  1) reflexive.  "A battery is like a battery"  (under any relation)

  2) symmetric.  "A battery is like a reservoir" implies
                 "A reservoir is like a battery" under the same relation R

  3) transitive. "A battery is like a reservoir" and
                 "A reservoir is like a ketchup bottle" imply
                 "A battery is like a ketchup bottle" WHEN THE SAME
                 ANALOGY HOLDS BETWEEN THEM (same R).

Then any analogy R is an equivalence relation, partitioning the space
of categories.  Each analogy corresponds to a node in an abstraction
hierarchy which relates all of the sub-categories, SO THE SPACE OF
ANALOGIES MAPS ONTO THE SPACE OF ABSTRACTIONS, and so under these
definitions analogy and abstraction are equivalent.

Now to the point:  I recently presented this sketched proof to my peers
and they fought me whenever I tried to say "this is what analogy is"
rather than "this is what I define analogy to be" (with the latter claim
I probably should use a different term like R-analogy or XYZZY).  I fact,
no one could agree to a particular formal definition of the term "analogy",
since we all have individual formal definitions by virtue of the fact that
we will answer yes or no when given a potential analogy instance, so we
are formal language acceptors with our senses as input.  This is what I
mean by a "slippery" term, i.e. one that has drastically different
meanings depending on its user.   This is why I say a formal definition
of analogy would satisfy very few people.  Informal definitions are
useless because by defintion there is no notion of a valid inference
from the theory, we cannot make predictions with them and therefore
cannot do science with them (most "loose" defintions of things put
forward do have some formal properties, but one must be careful).


>I am sure that you do not imply that an analysis (formal or informal)
>of >anything< is futile. What is it about "creativity" that makes its
>analysis a no-win proposition?

"Creativity" is VERY slippery, perhaps only slightly less slippery than
"intelligence".  Profit by Turing's example and keep your personal
definition of the slippery term in mind but define a new one, e.g.
Turing-test-intelligence instead of asking for a definition of the
word in usage.

Jay Weber
Department of Computer Science
University of Rochester
Rochester, N.Y. 14627
jay@rochester.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
161
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 86 21:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: HCGRS%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Intl. Test & Evaluation Assoc. AI/Expert System Workshop
-BODY-

                   INTERNATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ASSOCIATION

                   Artificial Intelligence/Expert System WORKSHOP

                          AI/ES WORKSHOP PROGRAM

                              July 8-10, 1986

                        George Washington University

                     PHONE REGISTRATION (703) 893-0228


Tuesday, 8 July

        Morning Session
                0830-0840 - Welcome         John Bolino, President ITEA
                0840-0850 - Welcome         President, GWU
                0850-0900 - Admin (if any)  Henry Alberts, ITEA Staff
                0900-0940 - KEYNOTE         Barry Silverman, GWU

                0940-0950 - Coffee Break

                0950-1030 - TIMS            Dr. Peter McWhite, GRC
                1030-1110 - TACTICAL AI     Dr. Stuart Brodsky, Sperry
                1110-1145 - APPLICATION OF  Dan McDonough, USAF-AFOTEC
                            AI TO OT&E

        Luncheon at the University Club, Marvin Center

        Afternoon Session

                1330-1630 - 30-40 person groups "Hands-On" sessions with
                                  morning speakers and their systems.

Wednesday, 9 July

        Morning Session

                0830-0840 - Announcements   Henry Alberts, ITEA Staff
                0840-0920 - AUTO SWITCHING  Ms. Marquerite Denocourt,
                                              BELLCOM
                0920-1000 - TESTPRO         Dr. Anthony Mucciardi,
                                              Infomatics

                1000-1020 - Coffee Break

                1020-1100 - NATC TECHMAN    Mr. George Hurlburt,USN/NATC PAX
                                            Dr. Joel Simkol, GWU

        Luncheon at the University Club, Marvin Center

        Afternoon Session

                1330-1630 - 30-40 person groups "Hands-On" sessions with
                                  morning speakers and their systems.

Thursday, 10 July

        Morning Session

                0830-0840 - Announcements   Henry Alberts, ITEA Staff
                0840-1145 - Panel Discussion
                            Panelists:  Charles K. Watt   Georgia Tech
                                        Richard A. Demilo Georgia Tech
                                        Barry Silverman   GWU
                                        H. Steve Kimmel   ODUSDRE(T&E)
                0840-0940 - Panel Opening Statements

                0940-1010 - Coffee Break

                1010-1145 - Open Discussion between Panel and Audience
                1140-1200 - Closing Remarks John Bolino, President ITEA

        Luncheon at the University Club, Marvin Center

        Afternoon Session

                1330-1445 - 30-40 person groups "Hands-On" sessions with
                                  speakers and their systems.

        Evening Session

                1500-1700 - Movie & Tour - Air & Space Museum, Museum Staff
                1730-1930 - General Discussion - U.S. Senate Caucus Room
                            Hon. John Warner, Senate Armed Services
                            Committee --  Sponsor



>- Dr. Harold C. Grossman
   Dept. of Computer Science
   Clemson University
   Clemson, SC
   hcgrs@clemson.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 15:21:59 mdt
-FROM-
From: yorick%nmsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing
-BODY-

            CC C      R R R      L  C O M P U T I N G
         CC           R    R     L   R E S E A R C H
        C             R R        L  L A B O R A T O R Y
        CC            R  R       L
         CC           R    R     L                Box 3 CRL
            CC C      R     R    LLLLLLLL         NMSU, Las Cruces 88003



                                Tinlap3

                        January 7,8,9, 1987

Tinlap3 will be the third in the series of interdisciplinary workshops

        Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing.

The format will be as in MIT(1985) & Illinois (1978): invited panels
of distinguished figures in the field will discuss pre-circulated
statements of position. Lively audience participation is anticipated.
The panels are intended to cover the major contentious issues of the
moment.

Tinlap3 is being supported by the Association of Computational Linguistics
and funds are also being sought from  NSF, AAAI, and ACM.

Tinlap Grand Committee:
Nick Cercone   (Simon Fraser University),
Richard Rosenberg   (Dalhousie University),
Roger Schank  (Yale University),
David Waltz   (Brandeis University),
Bonnie Webber   (University of Pennsylvania).

Tinlap3 General Chair:  Andrew Ortony   (University of Illinois)

Tinlap3 Program Chair:  Yorick Wilks   (New Mexico State University)

Panels and their Chairs will be:
* Connectionist and other parallel approaches to natural language processing
(Dave Waltz, Thinking Machines & Brandeis)
* Unification and the new grammatism
(Fernando Pereira, SRI)
* World and world representations
(Don Walker, Bellcore)
* Formal versus commonsense semantics
(Yorick Wilks, NMSU)
* Why has theoretical NLP made so little progress?
(to be confirmed)
* Discourse theory and speech acts.
(Barbara Grosz, SRI)
* Reference:  the interaction of language and the world
(Doug Appelt, SRI)
* Metaphor
(Derdre Gentner, U.Illinois)
* Natural language generation
(Aravind Joshi, U. Pennsylvania)


Registration:
 Registration covers pre-circulated preprints, mid-session refreshments etc.,
 some local transportation, and adminstration.

Registration fees:  Non-student: $50 ($40 if registered before Aug. 20, 1986)
Full-time students:  $30  ($25 if registered before Aug. 20, 1986)

Registration Form:  [Deleted -- contact author for copy.  -- KIL]

Registrants should fill out and print out form, sign and send hardcopy
with check made payable to   NMSU Foundation   to
        Tinlap3,
        Box3CRL, NMSU, Las Cruces, NM 88003.
Sending a copy of your registration by return netmail will also assure its
quick entry to mailouts of further materials.

Where:  at New Mexico State University main campus (Las Cruces), Rio Grande
Corridor for Technical Excellence, Computing Research Lab.
(505-646-5466) for further details.

Forming the western corner of a triangle with White Sands and El Paso,
Las Cruces is a city of about 50,000 people in southern NM.  Las Cruces is
situated between the spectacular Organ Mountains fifteen miles to the east,
and the historic Rio Grande River to the west. Two miles west of Las Cruces,
near the Rio Grande, is La Mesilla, the old Mexican village where the Gadsden
Purchase was signed.  The town square is bordered by restaurants and shops,
with Indian arts -- pottery, paintings, jewelry, baskets, and weaving.

Also nearby are the White Sands National Monument (about 55 miles),
the Carlsbad Caverns (about 160 miles), and Sierra Blanca, a 12,000 foot
mountain with fine skiing (about 130 miles).

The weather in early January is usually clear and sunny, with temperatures
usually in the 50's  in the daytime, and the 20's at night.  Good skiing is
one and a half hours away.


Note:

Full program will be mailed to all registrants in September and
the preprints in December.  Detailed accommodation and travel information
will be sent on receipt of completed registration form.
Hotel rates will be from $20-$50 per night.
Since accommodation may be limited, to obtain
hotel information, it is advisable to register early.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 10:01:48 -0200
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi  <vardi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Database Theory 1986 - Program
-BODY-
             International Conference on Database Theory

                                   PROGRAM


                             MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8

                   Registration and coffee: 8:00am-10:30am

 Session 1. 10:30am-1:00pm. Chairperson: Giorgio Ausiello

   Database Queries and Programming Constructs (Invited Lecture),  Ashok
   K. Chandra (IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA)

   Presentation of the Witold Lipski Award to V.S. Lakshmanan.

   Split-Freedom  and  MVD-Intersection:  A   New   Characterization   of
   Multivalued Dependencies Having Conflict-Free Covers, V. S. Lakshmanan
   (Indian Institute of Science, India)

   A Polynomial-time Join  Dependency  Implication  Algorithm  for  Unary
   Multi-valued  Dependencies,  George Loizou (Birkbeck College, Univ. of
   London, UK), P. Thanisch (Lattice Logic, UK)

   Horizontal   Decompositions   Based   on    Functional-Dependency-Set-
   Implications, Paul De Bra (University of Antwerp UIA, Belgium)

                           Luncheon: 1:00pm-2:30pm

 Session 2. 2:30pm-4:00pm. Chairperson: TBA

   Introduction to the Theory of Nested  Transactions,  Nancy  A.  Lynch
   (MIT, USA), Michael Merritt (ATT Bell Laboratories, USA)

   The Cost of Locking, Peter K. Rathmann (Stanford University, USA)

   Update Serializability in  Locking  R.  C.  Hansdah,  L.  M.  Patnaik
   (Indian Institute of Science, India)

                        Coffee Break: 4:00pm-4:30pm.

 Session 3. 4:30pm-6:00pm. Chairperson: John Mylopoulos.

   Restructuring of Semantic Database Objects and  Office  Forms,  Serge
   Abiteboul  (INRIA,  France),  Richard  B.  Hull (University of Southern
   California, USA)

   Entity-Relationship Consistency for  Relational  Schemas,  Johann  A.
   Makowsky, Victor M. Markowitz, N. Rotics (Technion, Israel)

   Unsolvable  Problems  Related  to  the  View  Integration   Approach,
   Bernhard Convent (Universitaat Dortmund, Fed. Rep. of Germany)




                            TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9

 Session 4. 9:00am-10:45am. Chairperson: Domenico Sacca`

   Logic Programming and  Parallel  Complexity  (Invited  Lecture),  Paris
   Kanellakis (Brown University, USA)

   Updating Logical Databases Containing Null Values, Marianne  Winslett
   Wilkins (Stanford University, USA)

   Update Semantics under the Domain Closure Assumption, Laurence Cholvy
   (ONERA-CERT-DERI, France)

                        Coffee Break: 10:45am-11:15am

 Session 5. 11:15am-12:45pm. Chairperson: Jan Paredaens

   On the Desirability of Gamma-Acyclic BCNF  Database  Schemes,  Edward
   P.F. Chan, Hector J. Hernandez (University of Alberta, Canada)

   Set Containment Inference, Paolo Atzeni (IASI-CNR, Italy),  D.  Stott
   Parker (UCLA, USA)

   Interaction-Free Multivalued Dependency Sets, Dirk Van Gucht (Indiana
   University, USA)

                          Luncheon: 12:45pm-2:30pm

 Session 6. 2:30pm-4:00pm. Chairperson: TBA

   Efficient Multidimensional Dynamic Hashing for Uniform and Non-Uniform
   Record    Distributions,    Hans-Peter    Kriegel,   Bernhard   Seeger
   (Universitaat Wuerzburg, Fed. Rep. of Germany)

   List  Organizing  Strategies  Using   Stochastic   Move-to-Front   and
   Stochastic   Move-to-Rear   Operations,   B.   John  Oommen  (Carleton
   University, Canada), E. R. Hansen (Lockheed  Missiles  and  Space  Co.,
   USA)

                        Coffee Break: 3:30pm-4:00pm.

 Session 7. 4:00pm-5:30pm. Chairperson: TBA

   A Domain Theoretic Approach to Higher-Order Relations, Peter  Buneman
   (University of Pennsylvania, USA)

   Theoretical   Foundation   of   Algebraic    Optimization    Utilizing
   Unnormalized   Relations,   Marc   H.  Scholl  (Technische  Hochschule
   Darmstadt, Fed. Rep. of Germany)

   Modelling Large Bases of Categorized Data with Acyclic Schemes, F. M.
   Malvestuto (ENEA, Italy)

                           Banquet: 8:00pm-11:00pm




                           WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10

 Session 8. 9:00am-10:45am. Chairperson: TBA

   The Generalized Counting Method for Recursive  Logic  Queries  (Invited
   Lecture), Carlo Zaniolo (MCC, USA)

   Some Extensions to the Closed World Assumption in  Databases,  Shamim
   A. Naqvi (MCC, USA)

   Query  Processing  in  Incomplete  Logical  Databases,  Nadine  Lerat
   (Universite` de Paris-Sud, France)

   Filtering Data Flow in Deductive Databases, Michael  Kifer  (SUNY  at
   Stony Brook, USA), Eliezer L. Lozinskii (Hebrew University, Israel)

                        Coffee Break: 11:15am-11:45am

 Session 9. 11:45am-12:45pm. Chairperson: TBA.

   A New Characterization of Distributed  Deadlock  in  Databases,  Ouri
   Wolfson (Technion, Israel)

   Towards Online Schedulers Based on Pre-Analysis Locking, Georg Lausen
   (Technische   Hochschule   Darmstadt,  Fed.  Rep.  of  Germany),  Eljas
   Soisalon-Soininen (University of  Helsinki,  Finland),  Peter  Widmayer
   (Universitaat Karlsruhe, Fed. Rep. of Germany)



                              PROGRAM COMMITTEE

   S.Abiteboul  (France);  G.Ausiello   (Italy),   chairman;   F.Bancilhon
   (France,  USA);  A.D'Atri  (Italy);  M.Moscarini  (Italy); J.Mylopoulos
   (Canada);   J-M.Nicolas   (France,    West    Germany);    J.Nievergelt
   (Switzerland);  C.H.Papadimitriou (Greece, USA); J.Paredaens (Belgium);
   D.Sacca` (Italy);  N.Spyratos  (France);  J.D.Ullman  (USA);  M.Y.Vardi
   (USA).




                                REGISTRATION

   Registration, except for students,  includes  technical  sessions,  one
   copy  of  the  preprints  of  the  proceedings,  luncheons  (Monday and
   Tuesday), banquet (Tuesday), and refreshments during the coffee breaks.
   Student  registration is available to full-time students only, and must
   be documented by a faculty member certification or photocopy of student
   card, and includes the technical sessions, preprints and refreshments.

   Registration fee:
                               Before Aug.15      After Aug.15

   Member of IEEE or EATCS:  Lit. 180000 [ ]    250000 [ ]
                             US $   120  [ ]      165  [ ]
   Nonmember:                Lit. 200000 [ ]    270000 [ ]
                             US $   135  [ ]      180  [ ]
   Student:                  Lit.  75000 [ ]    100000 [ ]
                             US $    50  [ ]       65  [ ]

[...]



                             GENERAL INFORMATION


LOCATION: Conference activities will take place in the headquarters of the
   Italian Research Council, in front of the main campus of the University
   of Rome "La Sapienza":

                   CNR: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
                            Piazzale Aldo Moro 7


MAIL AND MESSAGES: The official mailing address of ICDT'86 is:

                          ICDT'86 c/o Paolo Atzeni
                                  IASI-CNR
                              Viale Manzoni 30
                              00185 Roma Italy

               Telephone (before the conference) +39 (6) 770031
                         (during the conference) +39 (6) 4993379
               Telex: 610076 CNRRM I (Attention: Dr. Atzeni IASI)

   During the conference, participants  can  receive  mail  at  the  above
   address,  but  are suggested to have telephone messages directed to the
   respective hotels.


TRANSPORTATION:  Aeroporto  Leonardo  Da   Vinci,   Fiumicino,   is   Rome
   International  Airport.  ACOTRAL buses leave the airport every 20 or 30
   minutes for the downtown air terminal, located in Via Giolitti, at  the
   main  railway station (Stazione Termini). The hotels are within walking
   distance from the terminal (300mt). ACOTRAL costs Lit.6000 (about US  $
   4.00),  and  tickets must be bought within the airport, before boarding
   the bus. Taxi fare from the airport  to  downtown  is  about  Lit.45000
   (about  US  $  30)  (authorized taxi cabs are yellow and have a license
   number; use only yellow taxis and ask for a receipt).
   Detailed information on how to get to the  conference  site  (1500  mt.
   from the hotels) will be available at the hotels.


BANQUET: The conference banquet will be held at Hotel Columbus, (Via della
   Conciliazione 33, near the Vatican). Vegetarian meals will be available
   only to preregistrants requesting  them.  Additional  tickets  for  the
   banquet will be available at the registration desk for Lit.50000.


TRAVEL INFORMATION: American Express offers various half-day tours of Rome
   every  day,  in  the  morning  and  in  the  afternoon,  for about Lit.
   30000-35000 (US $ 20 -  23),  and  one  or  two  days  tours  to  other
   interesting  locations. Information requests to American Express can be
   sent together with hotel reservations.


CLIMATE: Weather in Rome in September is  quite  warm,  with  temperatures
   between 25 and 30 degrees C (77 - 86 degrees F).


THINGS TO SEE AND TO DO: Anything you like; the decision  problem  may  be
   unsolvable.




   The organizers of ICDT'86 would like to thank the  following  financial
   supporters.
    -  Banca Nazionale del Lavoro
    -  Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
    -  Enidata S.p.A.
    -  Selenia S.p.A.
    -  Universita` di Roma "La Sapienza"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
162
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Jul 86 09:40:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Teaching CommonLisp
-BODY-
Lisp Teachers (or previous learners),

I am interested in collecting comments regarding your experiences and
preferences with texts for teaching/learning Lisp.  The implementation
available for the specific course I expect to be teaching is Golden
CommonLisp on an IBM-PC, in case you want to factor that into your
comments.  You might want to think of this in the traditional way,
which book(s) would you make required, highly recommended, or
optional. Any other comments on teaching Lisp would be of interest.

The students in this class will range from undergraduates that are
novice programmers majoring in fields outside of CS, Math, or the
sciences to CS majors and possibly graduate students.  This course is
not being taught in a Computer Science Department and little
constraints have been placed on me.  Hands-on lab sessions are
possible as well as lectures.

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Jul 86 13:37:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CPT.GREG.ELDER" <elder@wpafb-info1.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CPT.GREG.ELDER" <elder@wpafb-info1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Help with CPROLOG on VAX/VMS
-BODY-

Please excuse me if this is not the appropriate list for this message.
I am looking for anyone running CPROLOG on a VAX under VMS 4.2.  We
have a problem when typing CONTROL-C under CPROLOG to enter the debug
mode so as to be able to turn on tracing.  If anyone has CPROLOG
running successfully on a VAX under VMS 4.2, I would appreciate
hearing from you.

Thanks.

Greg Elder

ARPA:  elder@wpafb-info1
CSNET: gelder@wright

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 18:03:11 edt
-FROM-
From: brant%linc.cis.upenn.edu@CIS.UPENN.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Architectures for interactive systems?
-BODY-
There seems to have been a great deal of work done in
natural language processing, yet so far I am unaware of
any attempt to build a practical yet theoretically well-
founded interactive system or an architecture for one.

When I use the phrase "practical yet theoretically well-
founded interactive system," I mean a system that a user
can interact with in natural language, that is capable of
some useful subset of intelligent interactive (question-
answering) behaviors, and that is not merely a clever hack.

Many of the sub-problems have been studied at least once.
Work has been done on various types of necessary response
behavior, such as clarification and misconception correction.
Work has been done on parsing, semantic interpretation, and
text generation, and other problems as well.  But has any
work been done on putting all these ideas together in a
"real" system?  I see a lot of research that concludes with
an implementation that solves only the stated problem, and
nothing else.  Presumably, a "real user" will not want to
have to run system A to correct invalid plans, system B to
answer direct questions, system C to handle questions with
misconceptions, and so forth.

I would be interested to get any references to work on such
integrated systems.  Also, what are people's opinions on this
subject: are practical NLP too hard to build now?  Should we
leave the construction of practical systems to private enter-
prise and restrict ourselves to the basic research problems?
If we do so, how can we be sure we're actually making any
contribution at all?

                                                Brant

====================
Brant Cheikes
Department of Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania
ARPA: brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu
CSNET: brant%upenn-linc@upenn

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Jul 86 09:26:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Mark Richer <RICHER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Scheme and CommonLisp
-BODY-
SCHEME and COMMONLISP
*********************

On June 10th, 1986 I sent out a request for feedback on the language Scheme.
In particular, I was interested in how appropriate the language would be
for a large-scale development effort in ICAI versus Commonlisp. Implicit
in this question are concerns about available implementations including
development environments, efficiency, compactness, ease of learning,
portability, etc. Below is a summary of comments.  If you want to see the
whole file of messages (13) I will send it to you upon request.


Advantages of Scheme (compared to other Lisps including Commonlisp):
********************************************************************

Simple
Consistent
Small  (easy to learn and can be implemented well on small, standard machines)
Elegant
Semantics of language are clean
Closures and lexical scoping are handled well
Migration to (i.e., learning) other dialects of Lisp should not be a problem
Portable (but someone has to have implemented it on the target machine)
Supports object-oriented programming and multiple processes
For above reasons, it is very appropriate for learners, especially if the
goal is to teach basic principles in computer science

A net address to reach experts: SCHEME-TEAM%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU

Advantages of Commonlisp
************************

Widely accepted standard
Large, growing user community
Lisp language development is concentrated on Commonlisp now
Best programming environments do/will support Commonlisp
Many built-in functions and features (overload beginner, but very useful)
Portable (obvious reasons to expect good implementations, compilers, etc.)

Commonlisp does require more memory than Scheme, but given the
increasing availability of inexpensive large memories that issue might
vanish.

There is a Commonlisp mailing list, Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA.  I assume
you need to contact Common-Lisp-Request@SU-AI.ARPA to get on the list,
unless you have access to it through a local bboard.

Other comments
>-------------

Scheme IS a dialect of Lisp, an UnCommonLisp though.

Proust, an ICAI program, is implemented in T, a dialect of Scheme.

Ableson and Sussman's "Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Programs" (MIT Press, 1985) is highly recommended for everyone to read
and is also suggested as a text to teach computer science (Scheme is
the language used throughout the book).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 2 Jul 86 11:07:50-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Representationalist Perception
-BODY-
Mozes long review of Kelleys book "The Evidence of the Senses" tells one
a lot about the book. In particular, it sounds as though it makes the same
basic mistake about representations that many other 'anti-computationalist'
philosophers , including Gibson and his followers, make.  The
'representatonalist' account of perception does NOT claim that instead of
perceiving the world, we perceive internal representations of the world.
That would indeed be a position with many difficulties.  Rather, it says
that the WAY we perceive the world is BY making representations of it.
The data structures are, to put it simply, the output of the perceptual
process, not its input.  The question the representational position must
face is how such things ( representations ) can serve as percepts in the
overall cognitive framework.  While there are indeed many problems here,
the position is not as silly as Gibson thought it was.
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Jul 86 14:08:00 PST
-FROM-
From: sefai@nwc-143b.ARPA
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <sefai@nwc-143b.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Natural Language References
-BODY-
        As promised, the following is a list of references on Natural
Language. I'd like to thank all who contributed references as well as
suggestions. Before I can definitely commit to my topic, I need to
investigate work done by Harris and Wiley, Sager, and Winograd. Hopefully,
I'll nail this down before summer's end. Will keep you posted.

                                        Gene Guglielmo
                                        SEFAI@NWC-143B
                                        China Lake, Ca.

.rA Ananiashviii, G.G.
.rA Mundzhishvii, Z.I.
.rA Bichashvii, N.N.
.rP Word Identification in a Natural Language in Interactive Systems
.rC Soobshch. Akad. Nauk. Gurzin. SSR
.rD 1984

.rA Boguraev, B.K.
.rA Jones, K.S.
.rP A Framework for Inference in Natural Language Front Ends to Databases
.rI University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
.rC Report No. 64
.rD 1985

.rA Brachman, Ron (ed)
.rA Levesque, Hector (ed)
.rB Readings in Knowledge Representation
.rI Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
.rW Palo Alto, California
.rD 1986

.rA Briggs, R.
.rP Transcendental Semantic Primitives for Natural Language Processing
.rI Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science, NASA Ames
Research Center
.rC RIACS Techical Report TR 85.14
.rW Moffett Field, California
.rD 1985

.rA Damerau, F.J.
.rP An Interactive Customization Program for a Natural Language Database
Query System
.rI IBM Research Division
.rC Report No. 10411
.rD 1984

.rA Damerau, F.J.
.rP Problems and Some Solutions in Customization of Natural Language Data
Base Front Ends
.rI IBM Research Division
.rC Report No. 10872
.rD 1984

.rA Dyer, M.G.
.rB In-Depth Understanding: A Computer Model of Integrated Processing
for Narrative Comprehension
.rI MIT Press
.rW Cambridge, Massachusetts
.rD 1986

.rA Enomoto, H.
.rP TELL: a Natural Language Based Software Development System
.rI Institute for New Generation Computer Technology
.rC Report No. 67
.rD 1984

.rA Findler, Nicholas V. (ed)
.rB Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers
.rI Academic Press
.rW NY
.rD 1983

.rA Frederking, R.E.
.rP Syntax and Semantics in natural Language Parsers
.rI Carnegie-Melon University
.rC Department of Computer Science
.rC Report No. 85-133
.rD 1985

.rA Harris, M.D.
.rB Introduction to Natural Language Processing

.rA Harris, Z.
.rA Wiley
.rB A Grammar of English on Mathematical Principles
.rD 1984

.rA Ibragimov, T.I.
.rB Cybernetics and Natural Languages

.rA Jacobs, P.S.
.rP PHRED: A Generator for Natural Language Interfaces
.rI University of California
.rC Berkeley Computer Science Division
.rC Report No. 85-198
.rD 1985

.rA Johnson, D.E.
.rP Design of a Robust, Portable Natural Language Interface Grammar
.rI IBM Research Division
.rC Report NO. 10867
.rD 1984

.rA Johnson, T.
.rB Natural Language Computing: The Commercial Applications
.rI Ovum Limited
.rW London

.rA Kalita, J.K.
.rP Generating Summary Responses to Natural Language Database
.rI University of Saskatchewan
.rC Report No. 84-9
.rD 1984

.rA Kandrirody, A.
.rA Kapur, D.
.rA Narendran, P.
.rB An Ideal-Theoretic Approach to Word Problems and Unification Problems
over Finitely Presented Commutative Algebras

.rA Karpen, J.L
.rP The Digitized Word: Orality, Literacy, and the Computerization of
Language
.rC Ph.D. thesis
.rI Bowling Green State University
.rW Bowling Green, Ohio
.rD 1984

.rA Marcus, M.P.
.rB A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language
.rI MIT Press
.rW Cambridge, Massachusetts
.rD 1985

.rA Mays, E.
.rP A Modal Temporal Logic for Reasoning About Changing Database with
Applications to Natural Language Question Answering
.rI Unviersity of Pennsylvania
.rC Moore School of Electrical Engineering
.rC Department of Computer Science
.rC Report No. 85-01
.rD 1985

.rA Michalski, R.S.
.rA Carbonell, J.G.
.rA Mitchell, T.M.
.rB Machine Learning; An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume II
.rI Morgan kaufman Publishers, Inc.
.rW Palo Alto, California
.rD 1986

.rA Neuamnn, B.
.rP Natural Language Descriptions of TIme-Varying Scenes
.rI Universitaet Hamburg.
.rC Fachbereich Informatik
.rC Report NO. 105
.rD 1984

.rA Orlowska,  E.
.rP The Montague Formalization of Natural Language
.rI Polish Academy of Sciences
.rC Institute of Computer Sciences
.rC Report No. 105
.rD 1984

.rA Petrick, S.R.
.rP Natural Language Database Query Systems
.rI IBM Research Division
.rC Report No. 10508
.rD 1984

.rA Rau, L.F.
.rP The Understanding and Generation of Ellipses in a Natural Language
Systems.
.rI University of California Berkeley
.rC Computer Science Division
.rC Report No. 85-227
.rD 1984

.rA Sager, Naomi
.rB Natural Language Information Processing
.rI Addison-Wesley
.rW Reading

.rA Saint-Dizier, P.
.rP An Approach to natural Language Semantics in Logic Programming
.rI Institute National de Recherce en Informatique et en Automatique
.rC Report NO. 389

.rA Salton
.rA McGill
.rB Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval

.rA Schank, R.C (ed)
.rA Colby, K.M. (ed)
.rB Computer Models of Thought and Language
.rI W.H.Freeman and Company
.rW San Francisco
.rD 1973

.rA Schank, R.C.
.rB Conceptual Information Processing
.rI Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
.rW Amsterdam
.rD 1984

.rA Schank, R.C.
.rA Childers, P.G.
.rB The Cognitive Computer
.rI Addison-Wesley
.rW Reading
.rD 1984

.rA Schieber, Stuart M.
.rP An Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar
.rI University of Chicago Press
.rC CSLI Lecture Note Series
.rD 1986

.rA Sowa, John F.
.rB Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine
.rP Addison-Wesley
.rW Reading
.rD 1984

.rA VanRijsbergen
.rB Information Retrieval, 2nd Edition

.rA Winograd, Terry
.rB Language as a Cognitive Process, Volume 1: Syntax
.rI Addison-Wesley
.rW Reading
.rD 1983

.rP Large-Dictionary, On-Line Recognition of Spoken Words
.rI Helsinki University of Technology
.rC PB84-214246/CAO
.rD 1983

.rB Natural Language Processing: A Knowledge Engineering Approach
.rL 0-8476-7358-8

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat 5 Jul 86 13:07:49-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Expert
-BODY-
Since the new "AI Expert" magazine was given such a glowing review, I thought
the ensuing raft of potential subscribers might be interested that they can do
a bit better than the $27 yearly subscription rate (which includes the premier
and 12 other issues).  Recent issues of its sister publication "Computer
Language" include savings certificates that offer the 13-issue package for
$22.


Dallas Webster
CMP.BARC@R20.UTexas.Edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
163
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 17:03:11 -0200
-FROM-
From: Ehud Shapiro  <udi%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Logix system
-BODY-

We are pleased to announce the availability of the Logix system, an
experimental Flat Concurrent Prolog program development environment.
Logix can be used to study and experiment with concurrent logic
programming, and to develop applications that can benefit from
combining the expressive power of concurrency with that of the logical
variable.

Logix is not a conventional programming environment; although presently
a single user single processor system, its basic design scales to a
multiprocessor, multiuser system.  With its novel approach to parallel
computation control, its concept of active modules and its
object-oriented design of system hierarchies, it is an interesting
system to study in its own right.  For the same reason it may be
overdeveloped for the casual user in certain respects (e.g. its
multitasking capabilities), and underdeveloped in others (e.g.
interactive help, "friendliness").

Logix includes an FCP compiler to an abstract machine instruction set
and a C emulator of the abstract machine.  With the exception of the
emulator and a few kernels, it is written entirely in Flat Concurrent
Prolog.  The system was bootstrapped in Summer 1985, and has seen
extensive use and development since.  It was used to develop
applications (including Logix itself) whose total size is over 20,000
lines of FCP source code.

Logix is available on Vax and Sun computers, under the Berkeley Unix
and Ultrix operating systems.  It is expected that applications
developed under Logix would run almost directly on a multiprocessor
implementation of Flat Concurrnt Prolog; the availability of such a
prototype system for the Intel iPSC hypercube is announced separately.

The handling fee for a non-commercial license to the Logix system
is $250 U.S.  To obtain a license form and/or a copy of the Logix user
manual write to:

        Mr Yossef Dabby
        Department of Computer Science
        The Weizmann Institute of Science
        Rehovot 76100, Israel

To obtain an electronic copy of the license write to:

        CSnet, Bitnet:  logix-request@wisdom
        ARPAnet: logix-request%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa


References

[1] A. Houri and E. Shapiro, "A sequential abstract machine for Flat
        Concurrent Prolog", Weizmann Institute Technical Report CS86-20,
        1986.
[2] W. Silverman, M. Hirsch, A. Houri, and E. Shapiro, "The Logix system
        user manual, Version 1.21", Weizmann Institute Technical Report
        CS86-21.
[3] M. Hirsch, W. Silverman, E. Shapiro, "Layers of protection and
        control in the Logix system", Weizmann Institute Technical Report
        CS86-19, 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 86 12:34:27 CDT
-FROM-
From: Robert C. Morecock <EPSYNET@UHUPVM1>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: EPSYNET@UHUPVM1
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Announcement of new bboard named psychnet
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from Arpanet-BBoards by Laws@SRI-AI.]


PSYCHNET (tm)     Psychology Newsletter and Mailing List      EPSYNET@UHUPVM1
   The Psychnet mailing list and Newsletter sends out information and
news to those who sign up.  Within Bitnet, Psychnet is also a 24-hour
server machine which mails out files to users who first send the
PSYCHNET HELP command to userid UH-INFO at node UHUPVM1.  OUTSIDE
BITNET Psychnet is a mailing list and Newsletter only.  Once per week
ALL members receive the latest Psychnet Newsletter and Index of files
available on the server machine.  Outside Bitnet, if a file looks
interesting send an E-mail request to userid EPSYNET (NOT uh-info) at
node UHUPVM1 and the file will be shipped out to you.  Persons within
may also sign up for the mail list and will get the Newsletter and
Index along with other news.  Users within Bitnet should get their
files directly from the server machine.  An Exec file is available for
CMS users and COM files are available for VAX users within Bitnet.
   If you have a file or idea you wish distributed to members of the
list you may send it to userid EPSYNET at node UHUPVM1 and it will be
sent out for you, usually with the week's Psychnet Newsletter.  An
initial formal purpose of Psychnet is distribution of academic papers
in advance of this year's (1986) APA convention.  Other purposes will
develop according to the needs and interests of the profession and
Psychnet users.
   All requests to be added to or deleted from the mailing list, or to
have files distributed should be sent to:
   Coordinator:  Robert C. Morecock, Psychnet Editor, EPSYNET@UHUPVM1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Jul 86 22:37:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Murray.Campbell@k.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Hitech results
-BODY-
           [Forwarded from the CMU bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

Hitech had a tough day, but set a new milestone for computer chess.
In round 8, Hitech drew International Master Michael Rohde, rated
2602, for what we believe is the first draw by a computer against
a titled player in regular tournament play.  In round 9 Hitech
lost to Hungarian Grandmaster Guyla Sax, rated 2769.

Overall Hitech finished with 5.5/9, a respectable score given the
quality of the competition.  The performance rating was approximately
2440.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 86 21:53:36 EDT
-FROM-
From: ambar@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jean Marie Diaz)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: connectionism/complexity theory
-BODY-
(an article published in the April 1, 1985 edition of Fortune--posted
w/out permission)

WHAT BELL LABORATORIES IS LEARNING FROM SLUGS

[...]  Inspired by the discoveries of physicist John Hopfield, a team
of Bell Labs scientists has been using research on slugs' brains to
develop a radically new type of computer.  [...]  The Bell computer
does not always select the single [best traveling salesman] route,
but--much like a human--it comes up with one of the better routes, and
never picks anything obviously loony.

New techniques for recording neurological activity in rats and in
three types of slugs--favored because of their large and accessible
nerve cells--are providing Bell's team with reams of information about
how neurons work.  But the conceptual focus of the Bell project is the
model of the new neural-network computer created by Hopfield, 51, who
splits his time between Bell Labs and the California Institute of
Technology.  Neural networks operate in the analog mode--when
information enters the brain, the neurons start firing and their
values, or "charges," rise and fall like electric voltage in analog
computers.  When information is digested, the network settles down
into a so-called steady state, with each of its many neurons resting
close to their highest or lowest values--effectively, then, either on
or off.  A computer designed to mimic a neural network would solve
problems speedily by manipulating data in analog fashion.  but it
would report its findings when each neuron is either in the on or off
state, operating like a digital computer speaking a binary language.

The simulated computer designed by Hopfield and his AT&T colleagues
uses microprocessors to do the work of neurons.  Each microprocessor
is connected to all others--as many neurons are interconnected--which
would make the machine costly and complex to build.  Another major
difference between this computer and traditional ones is that memory
is not localized in any one processor or set of processors.  Instead,
memory is in the patterns formed by all the neurons, whether on or
off, when they are in steady states.  As a result, the computer can
deal with fragmentary or imprecise information.  When given a
misspelled name, for example, it can retreive the full name and data
about the person by settling on the closest name in the network.

Though analog computation is astonishingly fast, it sacrifices
precision.  Neural-network computers work best on problems that have
more than one reasonable solution.  Examples include airline
scheduling, superfast processing for robots or weapons, and, more in
AT&T's line, routing long-distance telephone traffic.

>John Paul Newport
>-

                                        AMBAR
                "I need something to change your mind...."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 02 July 86 20:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: KVQJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: common sense
-BODY-
I have been thinking a lot about the notion of common sense and
its possible implementation into expert systems. Here are my ideas;
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Webster's Dictionary defines common sense as a 'practical knowledge'.
I contend that all knowledge both informal and formal comes from
this 'practical knowledge'.
After all, if one thinks about Physics,Logic,or Chemistry,much of it
makes practical sense in the real world. For example,a truck colliding
with a Honda civic will cause more destruction than 2 Hondas colliding
together. I think that people took this practical knowledge of the world
and developed formal principles.
It is common sense which distiguishes man from machine. If a bum on
the street were to tell you that if you give him $5.00 he will make you
a million dollars in a week, you would generally walk away and ignore him.
If the same man were to input it into a so called intelligent machine,the
machine would not know if he was Rockefeller or an indigent.
My point is this, I think it is intrinically impossible to program
common sense because a computer is not a man. A computer cannot
experience what man can;it can not see or make ubiquitous judgements
that man can. We may be able to program common-sense like rules into
it,but this is not tantamount to real world common sense because real
world common sense is drawn from a 'database' that could never be
matched by a simulated one.
Thank you for listening.
                       sherry marcus kvqj@cornella

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 86 17:07 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
Jay Weber makes some interesting observations:

> Consider the following view of analogy, consistent with its formal
> treatment in many sources.  A particular analogy, e.g. that which
> exists between a battery and a reservoir, is a function that maps
> from one category (set of instances) to another.  Equivalently we
> can view this function as a relation R between categories, in this
> case we have a particular kind of "storage capability".  This relation
> is certainly
>
>  1) reflexive.  "A battery is like a battery"  (under any relation)
>
>  2) symmetric.  "A battery is like a reservoir" implies
>                 "A reservoir is like a battery" under the same relation R
>
>  3) transitive. "A battery is like a reservoir" and
>                 "A reservoir is like a ketchup bottle" imply
>                 "A battery is like a ketchup bottle" WHEN THE SAME
>                 ANALOGY HOLDS BETWEEN THEM (same R).
>
> Then any analogy R is an equivalence relation, partitioning the space
> of categories.  Each analogy corresponds to a node in an abstraction
> hierarchy which relates all of the sub-categories, SO THE SPACE OF
> ANALOGIES MAPS ONTO THE SPACE OF ABSTRACTIONS, and so under these
> definitions analogy and abstraction are equivalent.


   I agree with your reasoning and the conclusion that analogies map ONTO
abstractions--in fact, I think they map ONTO and ONE-TO-ONE (in other words
there is a one-to-one correspondence).  Also, EACH analogy (and abstraction)
partitions the space of categories into two subspaces.  However, the SPACE
of analogies does not partition the space of categories because the world
can concurrently be modeled by multiple abstraction lattices (not necessarily
hierarchies) in which the transitivity property may not hold. Consider the
following:

       a) "A battery is like a reservoir"  (storage capability)
  AND  b) "A reservoir is like a pond"     (body of water)

DO NOT IMPLY:
       c) "A battery is like a pond"


> ...
> no one could agree to a particular formal definition of the term "analogy",
> since we all have individual formal definitions by virtue of the fact that
> we will answer yes or no when given a potential analogy instance, so we
> are formal language acceptors with our senses as input.  This is what I
> mean by a "slippery" term, i.e. one that has drastically different
> meanings depending on its user.   This is why I say a formal definition
> of analogy would satisfy very few people.

    I am glad that scientists, by and large, have not let "slipperiness" in
some linguistic sense (as you define it) discourage them from carrying on
their research. Of course, all research issues are "slippery" in a conceptual
sense, by definition. (I would also expect a high degree of correlation
between linguistic and conceptual "slipperiness").
    There has been some discussion now (in AIList) on the relationship
between "creativity" and "making-interesting-analogies".  Is it mere
empirical association or are there stronger causal links?  One extreme
view is that the definition of creativity is "making interesting analogies".
Some recent illuminating discussions in this forum suggest that the ability
to synthesize concepts from partial concepts in other domains is a key
ingredient of a great number of creative activities.
    Is there some creative task that could not be performed by a machine
capable of making complex analogies in an interesting manner--a complex
analogy being defined as a many-to-one transformation between domains (as
opposed to a simple analogy which is a one-to-one mapping)?

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
Computer Science Dept.
General Motors Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
164
-DATE-
Date: Tue 1 Jul 86 13:14:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ilan Vardi <ZURDI@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mathematical Games (SU)
-BODY-
         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]


The first meeting of the games seminar was quite a success
with more than 20 people showing up.I'm hoping this will go on,
so I've decided to lure people with FOOD to compete with various
departmental teas.
     The subject this time around will be partizan games, which
are games where opponents have different colours and have
different moves available to them e.g. Go, chess etc.
     For people who weren't around last time the subject was
IMPARTIAL games where both layers have the same alternatives.
I showed that all those games can be reduced to one game called
NIM which has a simple strategy explanable in five minutes.
     If you want to read up about thursday's talk, just pick up
the copy of Knuth's "Surreal Numbers" that's on reserve at the
Math Library.
     Remember that this meeting is at

    3:00 p.m. room 381 T Math Department.

Which is a CHANGE OF TIME from last week at 2:15 p.m..

If you have any comments, or want to get directly on a mailing
list, just mail your answer here at  zurdi@score.

Have a nice day!

                  Ilan Vardi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Jul 86 15:28:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Discovery of Algorithms from Weak Methods (Rutgers)
-BODY-

                            DISCOVERY OF ALGORITHMS
                               FROM WEAK METHODS

                              Armand E. Prieditis


       Weak problem-solving methods  (e.g.  means-ends  analysis,  breadth-
    first search, best-first search) all involve a search for some sequence
    of operators that will lead from an initial  state  to  a  goal  state.
    This  paper  shows  how  it is possible to learn operators whose bodies
    contain  algorithmic  control  constructs   (e.g.   loops,   sequences,
    conditionals)  such  that  the  control  construct  itself  applies the
    sequence needed to lead from the initial state to a goal state  without
    a  search  for the sequence.  By using explanation-based generalization
     [EBG]  and  an  explicit  theory  of  algorithms,  the  method  learns
    operators  (whose  bodies  contain algorithmic control constructs) that
    represent logically valid generalizations of the solution sequence.

Where: Hill Center, Room 423
When: Tuesday, July 15th
Speaker's EMail address:  PRIEDITIS@RED.RUTGERS.EDU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 10:36:11 PDT
-FROM-
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: hibbert.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Koko Connection: Interspecies Communication (PARC)
-BODY-

                        PARC Forum

                Thursday, July 10, 1986
                3:45PM, PARC Auditorium


Mitzi Phillips

Research Assistant and Lecturer,
The Gorilla Foundation

For 13 years the Gorilla Foundation has been dedicated to teaching
American Sign langualtge to Koko, a 250-lb Lowland Gorilla.  This talk
shares the advances made in the field of interspecies communication.
Through sharing personal experiences with Koko we will explore the
valuable information learned about animal intelligence.

This Forum is OPEN. All are invited.
Host: Chris Hibbert  (System Concepts Lab, 494-4382)
Refreshments will be served at 3:30 pm
Requests for videotaping should be sent to Susie Mulhern
<Mulhern:PA:Xerox or Mulhern.pa@Xerox.Com> before Tuesday noon.

Directions to PARC:
The PARC Auditorum is located at 3333 Coyote Hill Rd. in Palo Alto.  We
are between Page Mill Road (west of Foothill Expressway) and Hillview
Avenue, in the Stanford Research Park.  The easiest way here is to get
onto Page Mill Road, and turn onto Coyote Hill Road.  As you drive up
Coyote Hill, PARC is the only building on the left after you crest the
hill.  Park in the large parking lot, and enter the auditorium at the
upper level of the building.  (The auditorum entrance is located down
the stairs and to the left of the main doors.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 9 Jul 86 13:08:44-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <OLENDER@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Default Theories and Autoepistemic Logic (SRI)
-BODY-

      ON THE RELATION BETWEEN DEFAULT THEORIES AND AUTOEPISTEMIC LOGIC

                           Kurt Konolige   (KONOLIGE@SRI-AI)

                   Artificial Intelligence Center
                        SRI International
                                and
                     CSLI, Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, July 14
               SRI International, Building E, Room EK228

Default theories are a formal means of reasoning about defaults: what
normally is the case, in the absence of contradicting information.
Autoepistemic theories, on the other hand, are meant to describe the
consequences of reasoning about ignorance: what must be true if a
certain fact is not known.  Although the motivation and formal
character of these systems are different, a closer analysis shows that
they bear a common trait, which is the indexical nature of certain
elements in the theory.  In this paper we treat both autoepistemic and
default theories as special cases of a more general indexical theory.
The benefits of this analysis are that it gives a clear (and clearly
intuitive) semantics to default theories, and combines the expressive
power of default and autoepistemic logics in a single framework.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 86 10:30:06 edt
-FROM-
From: camis..duke@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Expert Systems In Government
-BODY-
The Second Annual Expert Systems in Government Conference, sponsored by
the Mitre Corporation and the IEEE Computer Society in association with
the AIAA National Capital Section will be held October 20-24, 1986 at
the Tyson's Westpark Hotel in McLean, VA.  The tentative program, subject
to changes and additions, is as follows:

October 20-21  Tutorials

Monday, October 20

Full Day Tutorial:      Advanced Topics in Expert Systems
                        by Kamran Parsaye, IntelligenceWare, Inc.

Morning Tutorial:       Knowledge Base Design for Rule Based Expert Systems
                        by Casimir Kulikowski, Rutgers University

Afternoon Tutorial:     Knowledge Base Acquisition and Refinement
                        by Casimir Kulikowski, Rutgers University

Tuesday, October 21

Morning Tutorial:       Distributed Artificial Intelligence
                        by Kamal Karna,
                        Computer Communications & Graphics Associates, Inc.
                        and
                        Barry Silverman, George Washington University

Morning Tutorial:       Introduction to Common Lisp
                        by Carl Hewitt, MIT AI Lab

Afternoon Tutorial:     Lisp for Advanced Users
                        by Carl Hewitt, MIT AI Lab

Afternoon Tutorial:     The Management of Expert System Development
                        by Nancy Martin, Softpert Systems


October 22-24  Technical Program

Wednesday, October 22

9 - 10:30
Conference Chairman's Welcome
Keynote Address: Douglas Lenat, MCC
Program Agenda

11am - 12pm

Track A: Military Applications I

Bonasso, Benoit, et al.;
An Experiment in Cooperating Expert Systems for Command and Control

Major R. Bahnij, Major S. Cross;
A Fighter Pilot's Intelligent Aide for Tactical Mission Planning

G. Loberg, G. Powell
Acquiring Expertise in Operational Planning: A Beginning

Track B: Systems Engineering

R. Entner, D. Tosh; Expert Systems Architecture for Battle Management

H. Hertz; An Attribute Referenced Production System

B. Silverman; Facility Advisor: A Distributed Expert System Testbed for
Spacecraft Ground Facilities

12pm - 1pm Lunch, Distinguished Guest Address, The Honorable Charles Rose

1pm - 2:30pm

Track A: Knowledge Acquisition I

J. Boose, J. Bradshaw; NeoETS: Capturing Expert System Knowledge

K. Kitto, J. Boose; Heuristics for Expertise Transfer

M. Chignell; The Use of Ranking and Scaling in Knowledge Acquisition

Track B: Expert Systems in the Nuclear Industry

D. Sebo et al.; An Expert System for USNRC Emergency Response

D. Corsberg; An Object-Oriented Alarm Filtering System

J. Jenkins, W. Nelson; Expert Systems and Accident Management

3pm - 5pm

Track A: Expert Systems Applications I

R. Tong, et al.; An Object-Oriented System for Information Retrieval

D. Niyogi, S. Srihari; A Knowledge-based System for Document Understanding

R. France, E. Fox; Knowledge Representation in Coder

Track B: Diagnosis and Fault Analysis

M. Taie, S. Srihari; Device Modeling for Fault Diagnosis

Z. Xiang, S. Srihari; Diagnosis Using Multi-level Reasoning

B. Dixon; A Lisp-Based Fault Tree Development Environment

Panel Track:
1pm - 5pm       Management of Uncertainty in Expert Systems
Chair:          Ronald Yager, IONA College
Participants:   Lofte Zadeh, UC Berkeley
                Piero Bonissone, G.E.
                Laveen Kanal, University of Maryland


Thursday, October 23

9am - 10:30am

Track A: Parallel Architectures

L. Sokol, D. Briscoe; Object-Oriented Simulation on a
Shared Memory Parallel Architecture

H. Sowizral; A Basis for Distributed Blackboards

J. Gilmer; Parallelism Issues in the CORBAN C2I Representation

Track B: Aerospace Applications of Expert Systems

J. Popolizio, J. Feinstein; Space Station Security: An Expert Systems Approach

D. Zoch; A Real-time Production System for Telemetry Analysis

J. Schuetzle; A Mission Operations Planning Assistant

P. Roach, D. Brauer; Ada Knowledge Based Systems

F. Rook, T. Rubin; An Expert System for Conducting a
Sattelite Stationkeeping Maneuver

Panel Track: Star Wars and AI; Chair: John Quilty, Mitre Corp.

11am - 12pm
Plenary Address:
B. Chandrasekaran; The Future of Knowledge Acquisition

12pm - 1pm Lunch

1pm - 2:30pm

Track A: Inexact and Statistical Measures

K. Lecot; Logic Programs with Uncertainties

N. Lee; Fuzzy Inference Engines in Prolog/P-Shell

J. Blumberg; Statistical Entropy as a Measure of Diagnostic Uncertainty

Track B: High Level Tools for Expert Systems

S. Shum, J.Davis; Use of CSRL for Diagnostic Expert Systems

E. Dudzinski, J. Brink; CSRL: From Laboratory to Industry

D. Herman, J. Josephson, R. Hartung; Use of the DSPL
for the Design of a Mission Planning Assistant

J. Josephson, B. Punch, M. Tanner; PEIRCE: Design Considerations
for a Tool for Abductive Assembly for Best Explanation

Panel Track: Application of AI in Telecommunications
Chair: Shri Goyal, GTE Labs
Participants:   Susan Conary, Clarkson University
                Richard Gilbert, IBM Watson Research Center
                Raymond Hanson, Telenet Communications
                Edward Walker, BBN
                Richard Wolfe, ATT Bell Labs

3pm - 5pm

Track A: Expert System Implementations

S. Post; Simultaneous Evaluation of Rules to Find Most Likely Solutions

L. Fu; An Implementation of an Expert System that Learns

R. Frail, R. Freedman; OPGEN Revisited

Track B: Expert System Applications II

R. Holt; An Expert System for Finite Element Modeling

A. Courtemanche; A Rule-based System for Sonar Data Analysis

F. Merrem; A Weather Forecasting Expert System

R. Ahad, A. Basu; Explanation in an Expert System

W. Vera, R. Bozolcz; AI Techniques Applied to Claims Processing

Panel Track: Command and Control Expert Systems
Chair:          Andrew Sage, George Mason University

Participants:   Peter Bonasso, Mitre
                Stephen Andriole, International Information Systems
                Paul Lehner, PAR
                Leonard Adelman, PAR
                Walter Beam, George Mason University
                Jude Franklin, PRC


Friday, October 24

9am - 12pm: Classified Track
Classified Working Session:  The community building expert systems for
classified applications is unsure of the value and feasibility of some
form of communication within the community.  This will be a session
consisting of discussions and working sessions, as appropriate, to
explore these issues in some depth for the first time, and to make
recommendations for future directions for the classified community.

9am - 10:30am

Track A: Military Applications

K. Michels, J. Burger; Missile and Space Mission Determination

J. Baylog; An Intelligent System for Underwater Tracking

J. Neal et al.; An Expert Advisor on Tactical Support Jammer Configuration

Track B: Expert Systems in the Software Lifecycle

D. Rolston; An Expert System for Reducing Software Maintenance Costs

M. Rousseau, M. Kutzik; A Software Acquisition Consultant

R. Hobbs, P. Gorman; Extraction of Data System Requirements

Panel Track: Next Generation Expert System Shells
Chair: Art Murray, George Washington University
Participants:   Joseph Fox, Software A&E
                Barry Silverman, George Washington University
                Lee Erman, Teknowledge
                Chuck Williams, Inference
                John Lewis, Martin Marietta Research Labs

11am - 12pm

Track A: Spacecraft Applications

D. Rosenthal; Transformation of Scientific Objectives
into Spacecraft Activities

M. Hamilton et al.; A Spacecraft Control Anomaly Resolution Expert System

Track B: Knowledge Acquistion and Applications

E. Tello; DIPOLE - An Integrated AI Architecture

H. Chung; Experimental Evaluation of Knowledge Acquisition Methods

Panel Track: Government Funding of Expert Systems
Chair: Commander Allen Sears, DARPA


Conference Chairman: Kamal Karna
Unclassified Program Chairman: Kamran Parsaye
Classified Program Chairman: Richard Martin
Panels Chairman: Barry Silverman
Tutorials Chairman: Steven Oxman


Registration information can be requested from
IEEE Computer Society
Administrative Office
1730 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036-1903
(202) 371-0101

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
165
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 13:08 EST
-FROM-
From: HAFNER%northeastern.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp texts
-BODY-
Replying to Mark Richer's query about texts for teaching Lisp:

There are a number of good textbooks on Lisp.  I prefer Winston & Horn
because of the emphasis on applications of Lisp, especially to AI.
However, whatever text you choose, you should supplement it with
"The Little Lisper" 2nd edition by Dan Friedman and Matthias Felleisen.

TLL is a wonderful teaching tool - it is skill-oriented, thorough,
and entertaining.  I expect it will be especially useful for the
students who are not math or CS majors.  Good luck!!

Carole Hafner
hafner@northeastern

P.S. Regarding the appropriateness of comments on Lisp programming
on the AILIST: I find this material interesting, relevant, and highly
appropriate.  Lisp is the medium for most AI research, and effective
use of that medium is of great concern to many.  Ditto for other programming
methods (logic programming, object oriented programming, etc.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 09:09:13 edt
-FROM-
From: Eric Nyberg <ehn0%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Architectures for interactive systems?
-BODY-
> There seems to have been a great deal of work done in
> natural language processing, yet so far I am unaware of
> any attempt to build a practical yet theoretically well-
> founded interactive system or an architecture for one.
...
> Many of the sub-problems have been studied at least once.
> Work has been done on various types of necessary response
> behavior, such as clarification and misconception correction.
> Work has been done on parsing, semantic interpretation, and
> text generation, and other problems as well.  But has any
> work been done on putting all these ideas together in a
> "real" system?
...
> I would be interested to get any references to work on such
> integrated systems.  Also, what are people's opinions on this
> subject: are practical NLP too hard to build now?
> Brant Cheikes


I am part of a research project that has been investigating
integrated architectures for intelligent interfaces at
GTE Laboratories. A good overview of our recent work can be
found in the Summer issue of IEEE Expert, in a paper entitled
"An Intelligent Database Assistant" [Jakobson 86].

The phrase "practical yet theoretically well-founded" strikes
at one of the basic difficulties in building a natural language
interface as part of a working system - it should work in a
reasonable amount of time, yet be as flexible as possible in
the different kinds of utterances it can understand. The two
extremes are seen in a keyword-based system, where parsing is done by
a hand-coded program, versus a formally complete English grammar system,
where parsing is done by a large, complex data structure (e.g., an ATN).

The simplifying requirement we have placed on our applications is
quite similar to the desire for a narrow, well-defined domain
in building expert systems. If the domain of application for the
intelligent interface is well-defined, and fairly narrow,
a semantic grammar approach can be used quite successfully to
provide good performance with reasonably complete coverage.
The semantic grammar approach that we use is based on case
theory, a linguistic paradigm that was investigated in the
late sixties and early seventies (for a good summary of case-
based approaches, see [Bruce 75]). The case-frame approach to
parsing natural language has also been researched by Jaime
Carbonell, Phil Hayes [Hayes 85], and others at CMU. Case frame
parsing forms the basis for the Language Craft product offered
by Carnegie Group.

Of course, there are some drawbacks to the approach, most notably
a somewhat informal, arbitrary definition of syntax, which makes
the case-frame approach less satisfying from a theoretical
linguistic viewpoint. However, some of the more complex syntactic
constructions (like relative clauses) seem to be less important in
this kind of system than discourse phenomena like ellipsis and
anaphora. The dialog our system has with a user is very
task oriented, and generally does not require the more complex
constructions of unrestricted English prose.

In my opinion, "practical" and "theoretically well-founded" are two
qualities that a natural language system can have, and for each
potential application, the proper mix of efficiency and coverage
must be found.

>- Eric Nyberg



References
>---------

[Bruce 75]
   Bruce, B., "Case Systems for Natural Language," Artificial
   Intelligence, Vol. 6, No. 4, April 1975, pp. 327-360.

[Hayes 85]
   Hayes, P., et. al., "Semantic Caseframe Parsing and Syntactic
   Generality," Proc. 23rd ACL, Jul. 1985, pp. 153-160.

[Jakobson 86]
   Jakobson, G., et. al., "An Intelligent Database Assistant,"
   IEEE Expert, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1986, pp. 65-78.

{other references to intelligent interfaces can be found in the
 bibliography of [Jakobson 86]}

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  CSNET: ehn0@gte-labs              Eric H. Nyberg, 3rd
  UUCP: ..harvard!bunny!ehn0        GTE Laboratories, Dept. 317
  ARPA: ehn0%gte-labs@csnet-relay   40 Sylvan Rd.
                                    Waltham, MA  02254
                                    (617) 466-2518
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 86 16:55:44 pdt
-FROM-
From: saber!matt@SUN.COM (Matt Perez)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Architectures for interactive systems?
-BODY-

> I would be interested to get any references to work on such
> integrated systems.

Sorry, I have only a vague reference (see below), but I
do have a couple of comments.

> Also, what are people's opinions on this
> subject: are practical NLP too hard to build now?

I don't think it is impossible to integrate such a system.
For example, the *Unix Consultant* at UCB is such an
integrated system, albeit for research rather than
commercial purposes.  But its application is practical
enough: to provide an on-line Unix expert which can
communicate with the user in natural language, for
input as well as in its responses.

> Should we
> leave the construction of practical systems to private enter-
> prise and restrict ourselves to the basic research problems?

Lord, NOOOOOOOOOOOO.  The integration work is just
beginning and I suspect it is a lot more complicated than
taking care of the individual subproblems.  I'd say that
"the construction of practical systems" IS a basic
research problem.  All that private enterprise can
afford to do is implement what works, and as you well
pointed out, ain't much that works so far.


As an alternative, I offer that Natural Language
by itself is not that natural a way to communicate
anyways.  In many instances a Graphical Interface is
much more appropriate.  Of course, by Natural Language I
mean written language or even speech; by Graphical
Interface I mean Graphics (generative and otherwise)
display and feedback and input devices that exploit our
kinetic abilities.  Thus I rather point at a feature in
a good display than describe the same feature verbally.
If you don't agree with me on that, try to describe a
scene to someone over the phone.

In other instances, formulae is the communications tool
of excellence.  It depends.  Ideally, I say, the user
interface should support all of the above!


Basically, however, I agree with you in the following
way:  let's first learn to build systems (and enumerate
architectures) that support (solely) a Natural Language
interface.  Ditto for graphics.  Ditto for formulae.
Then, let's see if we can take the best of each and put
them together reliably and appropriately.  And if that
ain't basic research ...

* Matt Perez *         DISCLAIMER:  beis-ball has bean bery, bery guud too me
matt@saber.uucp    sun!saber!matt@decwrl.dec.com    ...{ihnp4,sun}!saber!matt
Saber Technology Corp / 2381 Bering Drive / San Jose, CA 95131 (480) 435-8600

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 86 22:51:19 edt
-FROM-
From: beer%case.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VAX LISP Sources
-BODY-

In a previous AIList (Vol. 4, Issue 127), I posted a message concerning
the availability of a set of tools and utilities for VAX LISP.  At that
time, only the object code was in the public domain.  However, by
popular request, we have arranged to make the source code for these
facilities available.  Anyone who requested a tape of the object code will
be sent the source.  The description of the facilities is repeated below.

Here at the Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research at
Case Western Reserve University, we have developed a number of tools and
utilities for VAX LISP.  They include extensions to the control and string
manipulation primitives, a simple pattern matcher, a pattern-based APROPOS
facility, a pattern-based top-level history mechanism, an extensible top-level
command facility, an extensible DESCRIBE facility, and an implementation of
Flavors.  These facilities are described in detail in a technical report,
"CAISR VAX LISP Tools and Utilities" (TR-106-86).

A tape containing the VAX LISP source for these facilities is available for
a $35 shipping and handling fee.

Randall D. Beer
(beer%case@CSNet-Relay.ARPA)
Center for Automation and Intelligent Systems Research
Case Western Reserve University
Glennan Bldg., Room 312
Cleveland, OH 44106

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Jul 1986 1059-PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A comment to an interesting posting to net.ai
-BODY-
<"Expert systems" are not AI.>

The following appeared on the USENET's net.ai list (distinct from
the mod.ai list gateway to the ARPAnet.  My commentary follows:

>From: michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell)
>Subject: Re: The Turing-Ring Test -- A Limitation Game.
>Message-ID: <589@bcsaic.UUCP>
>Date: 3 Jul 86 17:14:26 GMT
>
>In article <7101.8606281319@maths.qmc.ac.uk> gcj@qmc-ori.UUCP (The Joka):
>>The following test has been proposed. Appoint one (or more)
>>adjudicators to decide on which of the two parties in the
>>test, persons A and B, is talking to a telephone answering
>>machine and which is talking to a human being. This test is
>>not limited to textual information, although person A should
>>relay the same information as person B.
>
>Wonderful idea!  An even better idea:  You've probably answered the phone,
>only to find that the voice on the other end is a computerized "survey".  I
>propose the following test: which of two computerized "survey"
>programs is talking to a telephone answering machine and which is talking to a
>human being...:-)
>--
>Mike Maxwell
>Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
>       ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

I have been thinking about the characteristics of a real Turing test.
Here are some thoughts and some questions.  1) The Turing test is basically
a psychological test of "discrimination" [a loaded word in our society
today].  2) given that the task is to create a machine "with intelligence,"
a) how long should such a test be? b) what is the shortest `length'
of such a test?  3) Since the objective is whether a machine is
intelligent or not (as opposed to `how' intelligent, i.e. an `intelligence
test'), how should the test be composed?  It seems that it can be made a
signal detection task, and if so, it will have the standard concepts
of false-positives and true-negatives (all that stuff from radar).
It seems that such a test would be composed of rather difficult questions
of the type: "Your wife (husband) and your daughter (son)have fallen into
the water.  You are positioned in the middle and can only save one.
Who do you save?"

Single difficult questions are probably insufficient.  Are aggregate
questions any better?  Humans are bound to `fail' many questions.
Such questions would be great for a conference to be held in say 2000
when the 50th anniversery of Turing's original paper was published.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene


  [Sounds like the test for androids in Blade Runner.  The problem of
  discriminating between two classes of intelligence is much easier than
  that of discriminating intelligence from all possible forms of
  nonintelligence.  By the way, the fastest way to identify human
  intelligence may be to look for questions that a human will recognize
  as nonsense or outside his expected sphere of knowledge ("How long
  would you broil a 1-pound docket?"  "Is the Des Moines courthouse taller
  or shorter than the Wichita city hall?") but that an imitator might try
  to bluff through. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 86 17:47:02 edt
-FROM-
From: Jay Weber  <jay@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jay@rochester.UUCP (Jay Weber)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Transitivity of a *particular* analogy, and let's do science!
-BODY-
In repsonse to my claim that particular analogies are transitive,
Uttam Mukhopadhyay writes:

>However, the SPACE of analogies does not partition the space of
>categories because the world can concurrently be modeled by multiple
>abstraction lattices (not necessarily hierarchies) in which the
>transitivity property may not hold. Consider the following:
>
>       a) "A battery is like a reservoir"  (storage capability)
>  AND  b) "A reservoir is like a pond"     (body of water)
>
>DO NOT IMPLY:
>       c) "A battery is like a pond"

But I orginally wrote:

>>  3) transitive. "A battery is like a reservoir" and
>>                 "A reservoir is like a ketchup bottle" imply
>>                 "A battery is like a ketchup bottle" WHEN THE SAME
>>                 ANALOGY HOLDS BETWEEN THEM (same R).

Note the use of "SAME ANALOGY" which is not the same as "any analogy"
as is the basis of Uttam's example above.  Of course, any two categories
are analogous with respect to some mapping function, so the relation
"is analogous to" is vacuous.  This distinction tends to be obscured
by the fact that most linguistic examples of analogy (like those above)
leave the mapping function implicit.

Furthermore, I did not claim that the SPACE of analogies partitions the
space of categories, but that a particular analogy does:

>> Then any analogy R is an equivalence relation, partitioning the space
>> of categories.

I also questioned the value of asking whether "creativity" is equivalent
to "making interesting analogies" to which Uttam replied:

>    I am glad that scientists, by and large, have not let "slipperiness" in
>some linguistic sense (as you define it) discourage them from carrying on
>their research.

Proper scientists (by definition) do not construct theories about things
that cannot be empirically examined, e.g. using structure mapping functions
to model the communal descriptive definition of the English word
"creativity".  Scientists pick testable domains such as problem solving
where you can test predictions of a particular theory with respect to
correct problem solving.  In the past, scientists have left debate over
such concepts as "truth" and "beauty" to philosophers, and I think we
should do the same with "creativity" and "intelligence".  In Cognitive
Science, researchers have too often exaggerated the impact of their work
through the careless and unscientific use of such terms.

Jay Weber
Computer Science Department
University of Rochester
Rochester, NY 14627
jay@rochester

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Jul 86 17:30 PDT
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common Sense
-BODY-
Philosophically, Sherry Marcus' ideas about common sense are poor in the
same sense that I think Searle and Dreyfus' ideas about why AI won't
ever happen are poor. As near as I can tell all three end up with some
feature of human intelligence which cannot be automated for basically
unexplained reasons. Marcus' problem is simpler than the others (why
can't a computer have a real world common sense database like a
human's?), but it is the same basic philosophical trap. All three appear
to believe that there is some magical property of human intelligence
(Searle and Dreyfus appear to believe that there is something special
about the biological nature of human intelligence) which cannot be
automated, but none can come up with a reason for why this is so.

Comments?? I would particularly like to hear what you think Searle or
Dreyfus would say to this.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 86 09:18:47 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Representationalist Perception
-BODY-
> The
> 'representatonalist' account of perception does NOT claim that instead of
> perceiving the world, we perceive internal representations of the world.
> That would indeed be a position with many difficulties.  Rather, it says
> that the WAY we perceive the world is BY making representations of it.
> The data structures are, to put it simply, the output of the perceptual
> process, not its input.

I would agree with Gibson (and with Kelley) that this boils down to the
same thing.

The "output" of perception (if such a term is appropriate) is our
awareness. Realists claim that this awareness is directly of external
objects. Representationalists, on the other hand, claim that we are
directly aware only of internal representations, created by a process
whose input are external objects; this means that we are aware of
external objects only INDIRECTLY. That is the position Gibson and
Kelley argue against, and I think they do understand it accurately.

Note that the above applies only to PERCEPTUAL representationalists.
It does not apply to COGNITIVE representationalists, who may agree that
perception is direct, but claim that internal representations are then
formed for the purpose of conceptual thinking. Gibson claimed that
concept-formation is direct as well; but on this point, Kelley
disagrees with him (this is indicated by his discussion of the issue in
chapter 7 of "The Evidence of the Senses"; by his paper "A Theory of
Abstraction", published in "Cognition and Brain Theory", vol. 7, no. 3
and 4, Summer/Fall 1984; and by his references to Ayn Rand's
"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology").

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!ucbvax!eyal%wisdom.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
166
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 17:03:37 edt
-FROM-
From: David Sher  <sher@rochester.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Representationalist Perception
-BODY-
In article <8607100457.AA12123@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> eyal@wisdom.BITNET
(Eyal mozes) writes:
>The "output" of perception (if such a term is appropriate) is our
>awareness. Realists claim that this awareness is directly of external
>objects. Representationalists, on the other hand, claim that we are
>directly aware only of internal representations, created by a process
>whose input are external objects; this means that we are aware of
>external objects only INDIRECTLY. That is the position Gibson and
>Kelley argue against, and I think they do understand it accurately.

I may be confused by this argument but as far as visual perception is
concerned we are certainly not aware of the firing rates of our individual
neurons.  We are not even aware of the true wavelengths of the light that
hits our eyes.  We have special algorithms built into our visual hardware
that implements an algorithm that decides based on global phenomena the
color of the light in the room and automatically adjusts the colors of
percieved objects to compensate (this is called color constancy).  However
this mechanism can be fooled.  Given that we don't directly percieve
the lightwaves hitting our eyes how can we be directly percieving objects
in the world?  Does percieve in this sense mean something different from
the way I am using it?  I know that for ordinary people the only images
consciously accessible are quite heavily processed to compensate for
noise and light intensity and to take into account known facts about
the tendencies of objects to be continuous and to fit into know shapes.
I don't know how under such circumstances we can be said to be directly
aware of any form of visual input except internal representations.

My guess is that you are using words in a technical way that has
confused me.  But perhaps you can clear up this.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Jul 86 10:09:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Barnard <BARNARD@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: perception (realist vs. representationalist position)
-BODY-
Maybe I've never really understood the arguments of the so-called
"perceptual realists" (Gibson, etc.), because their position that we
do not build internal representations of the objects of perception,
but rather perceive the world directly (whatever that means), seems
obviously wrong.  Consider what happens when we look at a realistic
painting.  We can, at one level, see it as a painting, or we can see
it as a scene with no objective existence whatsoever.  How could this
perception possibly be interpreted as anything but an internal
representation?

In many or perhaps even all situations, the stimuli available to our
sense organs are insufficient to specify unique external objects.  The
job of perception, as opposed to mere sensation, is to complement the
stimulus information to create a fleshed-out interpretation that is
consistent both with the stimulus and with our knowledge and
expectations.  Gibson emphasized the richness of the visual stimulus,
arguing that much more information was available from it than was
generally realized.  But to go from this observation to the conclusion
that the stimulus is in all cases sufficient for perception is clearly
not justified.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 15:33:04 edt
-FROM-
From: Tom Scott <scott%bgsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge is structured in consciousness
-BODY-
        Two recent postings to  this newsgroup by  Eyal Mozes and  Pat
Hayes   on   the (re)presentation  of   perception  and   knowledge in
integrated  sensory/knowledge   systems  indicate  the  validity    of
philosophy in the theoretical foundations of  knowledge science, which
includes AI and  knowledge engineering.    I'd prefer  not  to make  a
public choice between  Mozes' vs.  Hayes' position,  but I'm impressed
by the  sincerity   of  their arguments and the   way  each   connects
philosophy and technology.

        Hayes remarks that "The question the representational position
must face is how such  things (representations) can  serve as percepts
in the overall cognitive framework."  This is indeed a serious problem
facing the   designers of   fifth-  and  sixth-generation  intelligent
systems.  Here is  a two-hundred-year-old approach  to the problem, an
approach that not only can help the representationalists  but can also
be of value  to  realist and  idealist  (re)constructions of knowledge
within the simulated consciousness of a knowledge system:

                     REPRESENTATION
                           |
           +---------------+-------------+
           |                             |
      UNCONSCIOUS                    CONSCIOUS
     REPRESENTATION                REPRESENTATION
        (AI/KE)                     (Perception)
           |                             |
 +------------------+             +------+--------+
 |         |        |             |               |
RULE     FRAME    LOGIC       OBJECTIVE       SUBJECTIVE
BASED    BASED    BASED       PERCEPTION      PERCEPTION
                              (Knowledge)     (Sensation)
                                  |
                         +------------------+          Refers to the
   Relates               |                  |          object by means
immediately to  <--  INTUITION           CONCEPT  -->  of a feature
 the object                                 |          which several
                                    +-------------+    things have in
                                    |             |       common
       Has its origin in           PURE       EMPIRICAL
    the understanding alone  <--  CONCEPT      CONCEPT
      (not in sensibility)        (Notion)
                                    |
      A concept of reason    <--   IDEA
      formed from notions
   and therefore transcending
  the possibility of experience

        This taxonomy tree of mental (re)presentations  in a knowledge
system was drawn  by   Jon Cunnyngham of Genan   Intelligent   Systems
(Columbus,  Ohio) after a  group discussion on  the following  passage
from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" (B376-77):

        The  genus  is    representation in general  (repraesentatio).
        Subordinate  to  it  stands representation with  consciousness
        (perceptio).  A perception which relates solely to the subject
        as the modification of its state  is  sensation (sensatio), an
        objective perception is  knowledge (cognitio).  This is either
        intuition  or concept (intuitus  vel  conceptus).  The  former
        relates immediately  to the object  and  is single, the latter
        refers to  it mediately by means of   a feature  which several
        things may have in common.  The concept is either an empirical
        or a pure concept.  The pure concept, in so  far as it has its
        origin in the  understanding alone (not  in the pure image  of
        sensibility),  is called  a notion.  A    concept  formed from
        notions and transcending the possibility of  experience  is an
        idea   or  concept of   reason.  Anyone who  has  familiarised
        himself with  these  distinctions must find  it intolerable to
        hear the  representation of the colour,  red,  called an idea.
        It ought not even to be called a concept  of understanding,  a
        notion.

        A  word of caution  about the  translation:  First, the German
"Anschauung" is translated into English  as "intuition."   Contrary to
what my wife would have you think, this  word  should  not be taken in
the sense of "woman's intuition"  but rather   in  the sense  of  "raw
intake" or   "input."  Second,  although   "Einbildung" comes over  to
English naturally as "image," the imaging faculty ("Einbildungskraft")
should only with  caution be designated in  English by  "imagination,"
especially  when  we  consider that the transcendental  role   of this
faculty  is  the central   organizing factor in  Kant's  theory of the
human(oid) knowledge system.   Third,  the Norman Kemp  Smith edition,
available through  St.  Martin's Press in  paperback  for somewhere in
the neighborhood of $15.00, is the  best English  translation, despite
the little problems  I've just pointed out  regarding "Anschauung" and
"Einbildung."  The other translations pale in comparison to Smith's.

        In view of  all this, I'd like  to  add to Hayes's  challenge:
Yes, there is a problem in the integration of perceptual (or should we
say "sense-based")  and   intellectual systems.  But  the solution  is
already indicated in Kant's reconstruction of the human(oid) knowledge
system by the  equating  of "objective  perception,"  "knowledge," and
"cognitio" (which, by the  way, may or may  not  be equivalent to  the
English use of  "cognition").   The  problem can  be  pinpointed  more
exactly in this way: How can we force the system's objects to obey the
apriori structures of  consciousness that are  necessary for empirical
consciousness (awareness) of intelligible objects in a world, given to
a self.  (The construct of a self in a sense-based system of objective
knowledge may seem to be a luxury, but without a self there  can be no
object, hence no objective perception, hence no knowledge.)

        What    do we  have now?   Do   we have  intelligent  systems?
Perhaps.   Do we   have   knowledgeable systems?    Maybe.    Are they
conscious?   No.    The   Hauptsatz  for   knowledge science is  this:
"Knowledge   is    structured in    consciousness."    So  investigate
consciousness and the self in the human, and then you'll  have a basis
for (re)constructing it in a computerized knowledge system.

        One more diagram that may be of help in unravelling all this:

              Understanding             Sensibility
                                 |
        E       Knowledge     Images
        m          of        -------->    Objects
        p        objects         |
                                 |
           ----------------------+-----------------------
        T                        |
        r    Pure concepts    Schemas   Pure forms of
        a     (categories)   -------->    intuition
        n    and principles      |     (space and time)
        s                        |


As was mentioned in  an earlier  posting to this  newsgroup (V4 #157),
this  diagram springs  from a single  sentence in the  Critique (B74):
"Beide  sind entweder  rein, oder empirisch" (Both  may be either pure
[transcendental] or empirical).

        May  I suggest that  knowledge-system  designers  consider the
diagram    in conjunction   with    the   taxonomy  tree of     mental
representations.    With  these two  diagrams   in mind,  two  seminal
passages from the  Critique (namely, B33-36  and  B74-79) can  now  be
recognized for what they are: the basis  for the  design of integrated
sense/knowledge systems  in the  fifth and sixth  generations.   To be
sure, there is a lot of work to be done, but it can be done in a  more
holistic way if the Critique is read as a design manual.

        Tom Scott                    CSNET: scott@bgsu
        Dept. of Math. & Stat.       ARPANET: scott%bgsu@csnet-relay
        Bowling Green State Univ.    UUCP: cbosgd!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!scott
        Bowling Green OH 43403-0221  ATT: 419-372-2636 (work)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 86 23:16:27 PDT
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@berkeley.edu (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: common sense
-BODY-
>From Newman.pasa@Xerox.COM,  AIList Digest   V4 #165:
>...All three appear
>to believe that there is some magical property of human intelligence
>(Searle and Dreyfus appear to believe that there is something special
>about the biological nature of human intelligence) which cannot be
>automated, but none can come up with a reason for why this is so.
>
>Comments?? I would particularly like to hear what you think Searle or
>Dreyfus would say to this.

Searle and Dreyfus agree that human intelligence is biological (and so
*not* magical), and in fact believe that artificial intelligences
probably can be created.  What they doubt is that a class of currently
popular techniques for attempting to produce artificial intelligence
will succeed.  Beyond this, the scope of their conclusions, and their
arguments for them, are pretty different.  They have given reasons for
their views at length in various publications, so I hesitate to post
such a short summary, but here goes:

Dreyfus has been heavily influenced by the existential
phenomenologists Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty.  This stuff is extremely
dense going, but the main idea seems to be a reaction against the
Platonic or Cartesian picture of intelligent behavior as being
necessarily rational, reasoned, and rule-described.  Instead,
attention is called to the vast bulk of unreflective, fluent, adaptive
coping that constitutes most of human interaction with the world.
That the phenomenology of this kind of intelligent behavior shows it
to not be produced by reasoning about facts, or applying rules to
propositional representations, etc., and that every system designed to
produce such behavior by these means has been brittle and not
extensible, are reasons to suppose that (1) it's not done that way and
(2) it can't be done that way.  (These considerations are not intended
to apply to systems which are only rule-described at a sufficiently
subpersonal level, say at the level of weights of neuronal
interconnections.  Last I heard, Dreyfus thinks that some flavors of
connectionism might be on the right track.)

Searle, on the other hand, talks about intentional mental states
(states which have semantic content, i.e., which are `about'
something), not behavior.  His (I guess by now kind of classic)
Chinese Room argument is intended to show that no formal structure of
states of the sort required to satisfy a computational description of
a system will guarantee that any of the system's states are
intentional.  And if it's not the structure of the states that does
the trick, it's probably what the states are instanced in, viz.
neurochemistry and neurophysiology, that lends them intentionality.
So, for Searle, if you want to build an artificial agent that will not
only behave intelligently but also really have beliefs, etc., you will
probably have to wire it up out of neurons, not transistors.  (Anyway,
brains are the only kind of substance that we know of that produce
intentional states; Searle regards it as an open empirical question
whether it's possible to do it with silicon.)

Now you can think that these reasons are more or less awful, but it's
just not right to say that these guys have come up with no reasons at all.

Paul Kube
kube@berkeley.edu
...ucbvax!kube

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jul 86 09:42 PDT
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: common sense
-BODY-
Thanks for the reply.

Dreyfus' view seems to have changed a bit since I last read anything of
his, so I will let that go. However, I suspect that what I am about to
say applies to him too.

I like your description of Searle's argument. It puts some things in a
clearer light than Searle's own stuff. However, I think that my point
still stands. Searle's argument seems to assume some "magical" property
(I really should be more careful when I use this term; please understand
that I mean only that the property is unexplained, and that I find its
existence highly unintuitive and unlikely) of biology that allows
neurons (governed by the laws of physics, probably entirely
deterministic) to produce a phenomena (or epiphenomena if you prefer -
intelligence) that is not producible by other deterministic systems.

What is this strange feature of neurobiology? What reason do we have to
believe that it exists other than the fact that it must exist if the
Chineese Room argument is correct? I personally think it much more
likely that there is a flaw somewhere in the Chineese Room argument.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Jul 86 09:51:27-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle's Chinese Room
-BODY-
There is a lengthy rebuttal to Searle's Chinese Room argument
as the cover story in the latest Abacus.  Dr. Rappaport claims
that human understanding (of Chinese or anything else) is different
from machine understanding but that both are implementations of
an abstract concept, "Understanding".  I find this weak on three
counts:

  1) Any two related concepts share a central core; defining this as the
  abstract concept of which each is an implementation is suspect.  Try
  to define "chair" or "game" by intersecting the definitions of class
  members and you will end up with inconsistent or empty abstractions.

  2) Saying that machines are capable of "machine understanding", and
  hence of "Understanding", takes the heart out of the argument.  Anyone
  would agree that a computer can "understand" Chinese (or arithmetic)
  in a mechanical sense, but that does not advance us toward agreement
  on whether computers can be intelligent.  The issue now becomes "Can
  machines be given "human" understanding.?"  The question is difficult
  even to state in this framework.

  3) Searle's challege needn't have been ducked in this manner.  I
  believe the resolution of the Chinese Room paradox is that, although
  Searle does not understand Chinese, Searle plus his hypothetical
  algorithm for answering Chinese queries would constitute a >>system<<
  that does understand Chinese.  The Room understands, even though
  neither Searle nor his written instruction set understands.  By
  analogy, I would say that Searle understands English even though his
  brain circuitry (or homunculus or other wetware) does not.

I have not read the literature surrounding Searle's argument, but I
do not believe this Abacus article has the final word.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
167
-DATE-
Date: 9 Jul 1986 1227-EDT
-FROM-
From: Laura Forsyth <FORSYTH@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - SIDESMAN Silicon Design System (CMU)
-BODY-

                Wednesday, July 9th, 2:00 p.m.
                Room 5409 Wean Hall
                Professor Hilary J. Kahn

                           SIDESMAN
       A Silicon Design System Which Has Knowledge Based Components

                         Hilary J. Kahn
                 Department of Computer Science
                    University of Manchester
                         Oxford Road
                      Manchester M13 9PL
                           England


     The SIDESMAN system is a silicon design system which has the
following properties:

>       Facilities to ensure that application processes are
        technology adaptable

>       Support for Knowledge Based CAD applications where
        appropriate

>       A range of tools to support a general silicon
        compilation system

>       Access to a specialist hardware simulation
        machine

This walk will discuss the general structure and motivations behind the
SIDESMAN system and will briefly discuss some of the SIDESMAN application
processrs.

The work detailed is part of a current research project being undertaken
by H.J. Kahn and N.P. Filer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 14 Jul 86 11:54:31-PDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Waldinger <WALDINGER@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automata Theory, Nuprl Proof Development System (SRI)
-BODY-
Title: Implementing Automata Theory within the Nuprl Proof Development
  System

Speaker: Christoph Kreitz, Dept. of Computer Science, Cornell University

Time:  Wednesday, 16 July, 4:15pm (Visitors from
  outside please come to reception desk a little
  early.  Coffee at 3:45 in Waldinger office)

Place: EJ228 (New AI Center Conference Room) SRI
  International, Building E



                     IMPLEMENTING AUTOMATA THEORY
                               with the
                    Nuprl Proof Development System

                                  by
                           Christoph Kreitz
                    Department of Computer Science
                          Cornell University



Problem solving is a significant part of science and mathematics and
is the most intellectually significant part of programming.  Nuprl is
a computer system which provides assistance with solving a problem.
It supports the creation of formulas, proofs and terms in a formal
theory of mathematics; with it one can express concepts associated
with definitions, theorems, theories, books and libraries.  Moreover
the formal theory behind it is sensitive to the computational meaning
of terms, assertions and proofs, and the computer system is able to
carry out the corresponding actions.  Thus Nuprl includes
computer-aided program development, but in a broader sense it is a
system for proving theorems and implementing mathematics.

The actual implementation of a mathematical theory, such as the theory
of finite automata, with the Nuprl proof development system gives lots
of insights into its strengths and weaknesses and shows that it is
powerful enough to obtain nontrivial results within reasonable amounts
of time.

The talk will give a brief overview of Nuprl, its object language and
inference rules (Type Theory), and of features of the computer system
itself.  These features support partial automatization of the problem
solving process and extensions of the object language by a Nuprl user.
Details of the implementation of automata theory will be shown
afterwards.  I will describe some of the techniques and extensions to
Nuprl which were necessary to formulate and prove theorems from
automata theory.  In particular, these techniques keep Nuprl proofs
small and understandable.  I will present a complete Nuprl proof of
the pumping lemma and an evaluation of its computational content as
performed on a computer.  Finally an outline for possible future
developments is given.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 16:44:58 edt
-FROM-
From: Beth Adelson <adelson@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AAAI Workshop on Parallel Models, Symbolic Processing
-BODY-

WORKSHOP ON PARALLEL MODELS AND SYMBOLIC PROCESSING
Chair: Beth Adelson

The purpose of the workshop is to look at current connectionist models in
light of traditional AI problems.  We will ask how the connectionist and the
traditional approaches inform and constrain each other.  Several new
connectionist approaches to central AI problems will be presented.  These new
approaches address some issues which have previously been important but
difficult in connectionism.


SCHEDULE:

Drew McDermott
Yale University

        What AI Needs From Connectionism


Jerome Feldman
University of Rochester

        Semantic Networks and Neural Nets

Geoffrey Hinton
Carnegie Mellon University

        Connectionists Make Better Bayesians:
                Bayesian Inference In A Connectionist Network

David Waltz
Thinking Machines

        Challenges and Directions for Connectionism


Organizer:  Beth Adelson
            adelson@yale

            Before July 26:
            NSF
            Washington, DC 20550
            (202) 357-9569

            After July 26:
            Tufts University
            Department of Computer Science
            Medford, MA 02155
            (617) 381-3214

Length: 3 hours:
        Four 20 minute talks with 10 minutes for questions after each
        One hour for audience discussion.
Date:  August 14
Time:  1-4 PM
Place:  Room 213 in the Law School
Attendees:  Open to anyone registered at the conference
            (but audience size is limited to 100)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Jul 86 18:57:46-CDT
-FROM-
From: Jim Miller <HI.JMILLER@MCC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 3rd IEEE Conference on AI Applications
-BODY-
                                CALL FOR PAPERS

                          THE THIRD IEEE CONFERENCE ON
                      ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS

                             ORLANDO HYATT REGENCY
                                ORLANDO, FLORIDA
                              FEBRUARY 22-28, 1987

                     SPONSORED BY THE IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY

This conference is devoted to the application of artificial intelligence
techniques to real-world problems.  Two kinds of papers are appropriate:

   - Papers that focus on knowledge-based techniques that can be applied
     effectively to important problems, and

   - Papers that focus on particular knowledge-based application programs
     that solve significant problems.

AI techniques include:                   Application areas include:

   - Knowledge representation               - Science and engineering
   - Reasoning                              - Medicine
   - Knowledge acquisition                  - Business
   - Learning                               - Natural language
   - Uncertainty                            - Intelligent interfaces
   - General tools                          - Vision
                                            - Robotics

Only new, significant, and previously unpublished work will be accepted.  Two
kinds of papers may be submitted:

   - Full papers: 5000 words maximum, describing significant completed
                  research.

   - Poster session papers: 1000 words, describing interesting ongoing
                  research.

Both categories of papers will be reviewed by the Program Committee.

                              CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

General chair:                           Program committee chairs:
Jan Aikins, Aion                         James Miller and Elaine Rich, MCC

                               Program committee:

Jan Aikins, Aion                         Benjamin Kuipers, University of Texas
Byron Davies, Texas Instruments          John McDermott, Carnegie-Mellon
William Clancey, Stanford University     Charles Petrie, MCC
Keith Clark, Imperial College            John Roach, Virginia Polytechnic
Michael Fehling, Teknowledge             J. M. Tenenbaum, Schlumberger
Mark Fox, Carnegie-Mellon University     Harry Tennant, Texas Instruments
Bruce Hamill, Johns Hopkins/APL          Charles R. Weisbin, Oak Ridge
Peter Hart, Syntelligence                Michael Williams, Intellicorp
Elaine Kant, Schlumberger


                             SUBMISSION INFORMATION

   - Full length papers:  Submit four copies of the paper by September 9,
     1986 to the Program Committee chairs, listed below.  The first page of
     the paper should contain the author's (or authors') name, affiliation,
     and address, a 100 word abstract, and a list of appropriate subject
     categories, both AI topics and application areas.  Conference sessions
     may be organized around either kind of subject category.  Authors are
     not restricted to only those categories listed above.  Accepted papers
     will be allocated six manuscript pages in the proceedings.

   - Poster session papers:  Submit four copies of a 1000 word abstract by
     December 1, 1986 to the Program Committee chairs, listed below.
     Indicate on the front of the paper all appropriate subject categories.
     Accepted abstracts will be reprinted and distributed at the
     conference.  In addition, authors of accepted poster session papers
     will be provided with table space at the conference to display
     examples of their work and to discuss their findings with others.

                                IMPORTANT DATES

   - Full-length papers must be received by: September 9, 1986
   - Authors notifications mailed: October 24, 1986
   - Accepted full-length papers returned to IEEE for proceedings:
     November 15, 1986
   - Poster session papers must be received by: December 1, 1986
   - Conference: February 22 - 28, 1987, Orlando, Florida

                       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

     Jan Aikins                               James Miller
     General Chair                            Elaine Rich
     Third IEEE Conference on                 Program Committee Chairs
        Artificial Intelligence               Third IEEE Conference on
        Applications                             Artificial Intelligence
     Aion Corporation                            Applications
     101 University Avenue                    MCC
     Palo Alto, California 94301              9430 Research Blvd.
                                              Austin, Texas 78759

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
168
-DATE-
Date: 14 Jul 86 06:56 PDT
-FROM-
From: A. Winsor Brown, Douglas Aircraft ET&IS  <AWB.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PC Expert-System Shell Demos
-BODY-
I am aware of the following low cost or no cost PC expert system shell demo
and/or full packages.  I am going to use all of them in an internal course on
PC based shells/tools, and want each of the students to retain a copy (thus the
concern for low priced demonstrators or full systems).  Since the course is to
address evaluation criteria, actually seeing the tool in use is important.

If you know of others would you please let me know, and include a source  phone
number (and address if the provider was not listed in the 15 June "AI Software
for MS-DOS (Long List)").  I will summarize the responses and re-post them
here.

      M.1 with a date of Oct'85 in the "Demonstration Materials" manual; from
   Teknowledge 415/327-6640.  Single disk plus report sent on request; freely
   copiable for demos. Loading and saving knowledge base disabled in demo; only
   five knowledge base additions allowed.

      EXSYS Version 3 from EXSYS, Inc (Albuquerque, NM) 505/836-6676.  Copying
   and distribution encouraged; first copy costs $15.  Learning tutorial
   included with all demo's; full manual in softcopy form in the older 3
   diskette version;  hard copy form of manual with the newer 2 disk set which
   also allows saving a 25 rule expert system.

      Guru initial release (1.00c) from MDBS 317/463-2581.  4 disk set; sent on
   request (not copy protected but further distribution not proscribed:
   Copyright protection claimed for diskettes and 50 page "Demonstration
   Instructions").  On-line help documentation is all that is provided.
   Definitely need hard disk: 1.2Meg needed just for demo!  Can develop small
   (10 rule) single rule-set expert system with Demo;  some other restrictions
   apply to other parts.

      1st Class version 3.0 (3/86) from Programs in Motion 617/653-5093.  Demo
   disk costs $20;  re-distribution not currently desired/allowed.  Manual not
   included on diskette; some technical details provided on-line.

      Personal Consultant version 1.00 from TI 800/527-3500.  Available from
   TI, at no charge; copy protected.  43 page "Demonstration Guide" and 22 page
   "Technical Report" (on-line help; no documentation per se).  Needs full
   512K; can run off single floppy; crippled so user cannot save developed
   system.

      ESIE version 1.1 from Lightwave Consultants 813/988-5033.  Shareware
   (registration fee is $75).  25 page manual included on diskette.

      Knowledge Delivery System version of 8/85 from KDS Corporation
   312/251-2621.  Available from KDS for $25; allowed to be reproduced and
   distribution verbally proscribed.  No manual; not clear about on-line help.
   Development example limited to 20 cases (examples)  from the normal 4096;
   also has some text size restrictions.

      Expert System version ??? from PPE 301/977-1489.   A public domain tool;
   available for $20 from PPE too.  Manual situation not clear ("program is
   self documenting" comment from another knowledgeable source).  Source code
   is included!

Thank you.  --Winsor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 23:46:59 CDT
-FROM-
From: David Chase <rbbb@rice.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query on compilers, optimization, and garbage collection
-BODY-
I am looking for references on interactions (good and bad, intended and
unintended) between garbage collectors and compilers that (attempt to) do
optimizations.  For example, if you know of a good optimization that
reduces the amount of garbage produced, tell me about it.  If you know of
an ugly surprise that someone received when they tried to optimize code in
a garbage-collected system, tell me about that.

I realize that this isn't exactly AI, but I think people reading this list
might have some pointers (to other lists, if nothing else).

What I already have (no references for ugly surprises):

   "Optimization of Very High Level Languages-I: Value Transmission and
   its Corollaries"
   Schwartz, in Computer Languages, volume 1, pp 161-194 (1975)
   (copy optimizations, heap->stack allocation conversions)

   "Experience with the SETL Optimizer"
   Freudenberger, Schwartz and Sharir, in TOPLAS 5:1 (January 1983)
   (copy optimizations)

   "Binding Time Optimization in Programming Languages:  Some Thoughts
   Toward the Design of an Ideal Language"
   Muchnick and Jones, in POPL 3, 1976
   (heap->stack allocation conversions)

   "Shifting Garbage Collection Overhead to Compile Time"
   Barth, in CACM 20:7 (July 1977)
   (reference counting at compile time)

   "RABBIT: A Compiler for SCHEME"
   Steele, 1978
   (heap->stack allocation conversions for activation records)

   "Fast Arithmetic in MacLISP"
   Steele, in 1977 Macsyma Users' Conference
   (heap->stack allocation conversions for numbers)

   "An Optimizing Compiler for Lexically Scoped Lisp"
   Brooks, Gabriel and Steele, in Compiler Construction 1982
   (heap->stack allocation conversions for numbers)

   "A scheme of storage allocation and garbage collection for ALGOL 68"
   Branquart and Levi, in Algol 68 Implementation (North-Holland, 1971)
   (compiled marking routines)

   "Methods of garbage collection for ALGOL 68"
   Wodon, in Algol 68 Implementation (North-Holland, 1971)
   (compiled marking routines)

David Chase

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 86 16:28 EST
-FROM-
From: LEWIS%cs.umass.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: almanacs and magnitudes
-BODY-
    I would appreciate any information people could give me on the availability
of online almanacs or similar large bodies of broadranging statistical data.
Public domain or cheap would be preferable, of course.  I also would be
interested in hearing about any work that has been done either on AI programs
for heuristically estimating the information one finds in almanacs, or on
psychological research on human order of magnitude estimates.  So far the
only place I've seen this subject discussed are the entertaining diatribes
on "number numbness" by Douglas Hofstadter in Metamagical Themas, and by
Jon Bentley in a recent issue of CACM.
     Please send replies to me; if there is sufficient interest I will
summarize
for the digest.
     Thanks, David D. Lewis
             Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst
             "well, I used to think it was LEWIS@UMASS-CS
              and lately it's been LEWIS%cs.umass.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
              but maybe it's longer now"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 16:21:04 cdt
-FROM-
From: Girish Kumthekar <kumthek%lsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Replying to AIList messages
-BODY-
I have been reading messages and find them interesting.
However I find that most of the times, the direct address where the
reply can be sent is not given.
It is typically at the top of the message, and is probably mixed with
other details.
This forces you to type cntl-z to stop the viewing and come back and note
the address at the top.
So would you all please give your addresses at the end of messages.
(Note that at the top of message, one does'nt know if this message is
going to turn out interesting or not ! ).
My address is kumthek%lsu@csnet-relay.csnet
Thanks in advance

Girish Kumthekar (504)-343-5334

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 09:29:42 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP texts (followup article)
-BODY-
Another good LISP text is the new one by my colleague Stuart C. Shapiro:
LISP:  An Interactive Approach (Computer Science Press).  It is
dialect-independent and intended for self-study.  We have used it (in
both manuscript and published versions) for a number of years at SUNY
Buffalo, with great success.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 JUL 86 16:34-EST
-FROM-
From: PJURKAT%SITVXA.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: REFERENCES ON NATURAL LANGUAGE
-BODY-

I'm a little slow reading my mail.  This is a response to a query in
Vol 4 Issue 151 by Gene Guglielmo (sefai@nwc-143b asking for
references concerning the representation of natural language on a computer
system.  Please pass the following on to him:

Parisi and Antonucci
Essentials of Grammar

It presents a represenation of sentences in functional form, that is,

predicate(arg1, arg2, ... )

taking into acoount a goodly amount of semantics.  I have found it valuable,
especially for the analysis of belief systems.

Cheers - Peter Jurkat (pjurkat@sitvxa.bitnet)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 86 09:35:52 -0200
-FROM-
From: Steve Taylor  <steve%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel FCP
-BODY-

We are pleased to announce the availability of a parallel Flat
Concurrent Prolog (FCP) [1,2] interpreter for the Intel iPSC
Hypercube. The interpreter may be used for initial experiments with
parallel logic programming; it includes most of the kernel predicates
available in the Logix system.

FCP programs may be developed on a uniprocessor under the
Logix system, which is announced seperately [3]; this environment operates
on the VAX, SUN or Intel 310 systems.  Recompilation allows the
resulting program to execute on the Intel iPSC hypercube.  Simple
techniques have been developed to map processes and code to the
physical machine [4].  These techniques allow multiple virtual
machines to execute concurrently; multiple applications may execute
concurrently on a given virtual machine.

PLEASE NOTE: The interpreter is an experimental system which has only
recently been completed; it is being made available on an informal
basis to encourage members of the community to experiment with the
language.

The handling fee for a non-commercial license to the
Parallel FCP Interpreter and the Logix system for the 310 is
$250 U.S. To obtain a license form and/or a copy of the Logix user
manual write to:

        Steve Taylor
        Department of Computer Science
        The Weizmann Institute of Science
        Rehovot 76100, Israel

To obtain an electronic copy of the license write to:

        CSnet, Bitnet:  steve@wisdom
        ARPAnet: steve%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa



                        Sincerely,


                        Steve Taylor



References

[1] C. Mierowsky, S. Taylor, E. Shapiro, J. Levy and M. Safra, "The
Design and Implementation of Flat Concurrent Prolog", Weizmann
Institute Technical Report CS85-09, 1986.

[2] A. Houri and E.  Shapiro, "A sequential abstract machine for Flat
Concurrent Prolog", Weizmann Institute Technical Report CS86-20,
1986.

[3] W. Silverman, M. Hirsch, A. Houri, and E. Shapiro, "The Logix
system user manual, Version 1.21", Weizmann Institute Technical
Report CS86-21.

[4] S. Taylor, E. Av-Ron and E. Shapiro, "A Layered Method for
Process and Code Mapping", Weizmann Institute Technical Report
CS86-17.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: July Spang Robinson Report summary
-BODY-
Summary of Spang Robinson Report July 1986, Volume 2, No. 7

(Emphasis on AI and Parallel Procesing)

Advanced Decision Systems is using the Butterfly for AI development.
They are developing a SCHEME using message passing for the Butterfly.  They
are developing an expert system to balance work loads and manage faults.
The system works well on about 10 nodes but past these points, the system
performance does not continue to improve as processors are added.  It also
takes
20 minutes to reboot the machines.

Oak Ridge National Laboratories has been using the NCUBE for machine
vision research.

NASA is using a FLEX/32 parallel machine to develop an expert system
shell and an expert system to predict sun spot activity.  CLIPS will
run on the FLEX/32 and is an OPS5-like system written in C.  In the
sun spot sytem, the expert system part of the application will run on
the Symbolics with the math part running on the FLEX using parallelism.


LUCID is developing an implementation of parallel LISP under subcontract
to Stanford.  The work is starting on a newly purchased Alliant Computer
Systems.

Cray Research has some proprietary AI projects in its Applications
department.  ELXSI is looking for a client who needs AI on
mainframe class of machine.  It also is looking for a vendor to port
AI language to ELXSI.  Encore Computers and Masscop has active programs to
produce AI languages.

The Kemp-Carraway Heart institute is doing image analysis of echo
cardiograms using fuzzy logic. It has developed a FLOPS product in
which rules can fire in parallel and eliminates the need for "truth
maintenance" when rules do not have to be executed sequentially.  The system
uses fuzzy logic with an OPS-5 syntax.

One Forth researcher claims to have designed a 1 million logical inference
per second expert system on the Novix NC4000 Forth engine (a $150.00 chip).

__________________________________________________________________________
News section

Carnegie Group has signed an agreement with Hewlett-Packard to offer
its Knowledge Craft expert system shell on the HP 9000 Model 320.

Lisp Machines has made 18 changes to their machine to improve reliability.
They will have an AVP processor that will be twice the speed of their
current processor.  They are also working on a LISP chip and on improvement
of the development environment for non-LISP machines.

Intellicorp has doubled its direct sales force and has established a VAR
relationship with AMOCO corporation.

TI has sold 1000 Explorer work stations of which 200 are in universities.

A key reason for Burroughs recent merger with Sperry is Sperry's AI activity.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
169
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 16:15:01 BST
-FROM-
From: ZNAC450 <mcvax!kcl-cs!fgtbell@seismo.CSS.GOV>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interactive Architectures & Common Sense
-BODY-

Subject: Re: Architectures for interactive systems?

In article <8607032203.AA12866@linc.cis.upenn.edu>
  brant%linc.cis.upenn.edu@CIS.UPENN.EDU.UUCP writes:
>There seems to have been a great deal of work done in
>natural language processing, yet so far I am unaware of
>any attempt to build a practical yet theoretically well-
>founded interactive system or an architecture for one.
>
>When I use the phrase "practical yet theoretically well-
>founded interactive system," I mean a system that a user
>can interact with in natural language, that is capable of
>some useful subset of intelligent interactive (question-
>answering) behaviors, and that is not merely a clever hack.
>
>Many of the sub-problems have been studied at least once.
>Work has been done on various types of necessary response
>behavior, such as clarification and misconception correction.
>Work has been done on parsing, semantic interpretation, and
>text generation, and other problems as well.  But has any
>work been done on putting all these ideas together in a
>"real" system?

I would like to try to build such a system but it's not going to
be easy and will probably take several years. I'm going to have to
build it in small pieces, starting off small and gradually improving
the areas that the system can cope with.

>I see a lot of research that concludes with
>an implementation that solves only the stated problem, and
>nothing else.

That's because the time taken to construct a sufficiently general system is
greater than most people are prepared to put in (measure it in decades),and
is so demanding on system resources that with present machines it will
run so slowly that the user gets bored waiting for a response (like UN*X :-)).

>Presumably, a "real user" will not want to
>have to run system A to correct invalid plans, system B to
>answer direct questions, system C to handle questions with
>misconceptions, and so forth.
>
No, what we ideally want is a system which can hold a conversation in real
time, with user models, an idea of `context', and a great deal of information
about the world in general. The last, by the way, is the real stumbling block.
Current models of knowledge representation just aren't up to coping with
large amounts of information. This is why expert systems, for example, tend
to have 3,000 rules or less. It is true that dealing with large amounts of
information will become easier as hardware improves and the LIPS (Logical
Inferences Per Second) rate increases. However, it won't solve the real
problem which is that we just don't know how to organise information in
a sufficiently efficient manner at present.

>I would be interested to get any references to work on such
>integrated systems.

If you want to solve the problem of building integrated NLP systems,
you are aiming to produce truly intelligent behaviour -- if you accept
the definition that AI is about performing tasks by machine which require
intelligence in humans. The problems of building integrated NLP systems
are the problems of AI, period. I.e.-- Knowledge representation, reasoning
by analogy, reasoning by inference, dealing with large search spaces,
forming user models etc.

I believe that in order to perform these tasks efficiently, we are going to
have to look at how people perform these tasks. What I mean by this is that
we are going to have to take a long hard look at the way the brain works --
down at the `hardware' level, i.e. neurons. The problem may well be that our
approach to AI so far has been too `high-level'. We have attempted to
simulate high-level activities of the human brain (reasoning by analogy,
symbol perception etc.) by high-level algorithms.

These simulations have not been unsuccesssful, but they have not exactly
been very efficient either.It is about time we stopped trying to simulate,
and performed some real analysis of what the brain does, at the bottom
level.If this means constructing computer models of the brain, then so
be it.

Two books which argue this point of view much better than I can are :
Godel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid, by Douglas R. Hofstadter,
and Metamagical Themas', also by Douglas R. Hofstadter.


>Also, what are people's opinions on this
>subject: are practical NLP too hard to build now?

No, but they are *very* hard to build. An integrated system would take
more resources than anyone is prepared to spend.


>Should we
>leave the construction of practical systems to private enter-
> prise and restrict ourselves to the basic research problems?

Not at all. If we can't build something useful at the end of the day
then we haven't justified the cost of all this effort. But a lot
more basic research has to be done before we can even think about
building a practical system.

                                    ----francis

  mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!fgtbell


Subject: Re: common sense
References: <8607031718.AA14552@ucbjade.Berkeley.Edu>

In article <8607031718.AA14552@ucbjade.Berkeley.Edu>
KVQJ@CORNELLA.BITNET.UUCP writes:
>My point is this, I think it is intrinically impossible to program
>common sense because a computer is not a man. A computer cannot
>experience what man can;it can not see or make ubiquitous judgements
>that man can.

What if you allow a computer to gather data from its environment ?
Wouldn't it be possible to make predictive decisions, based on what
had happened before ?  Isn't this what humans do ?

I thought common sense was what allowed one to say what was *likely*
to happen, based on one's previous experiences. Is there some reason
why computers couldn't do this ?

                                -----francis

  mcvax!ukc!kcl-cs!fgtbell

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 17:02:52 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Blade Runner and Intelligence Testing (Vol 4 # 165).
-BODY-
The test used in the film is to look for an emotional response to the
questions. They are fired off in quick succession, without giving the
candidate time to think. He might then get angry...

>                    By the way, the fastest way to identify human
>  intelligence may be to look for questions that a human will recognize
>  as nonsense or outside his expected sphere of knowledge ("How long
>  would you broil a 1-pound docket?"  "Is the Des Moines courthouse taller
>  or shorter than the Wichita city hall?") but that an imitator might try
>  to bluff through. -- KIL

``Bluff''? What's the payoff?

Gordon Joly
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%UK.AC.QMC.MATHS%UK.AC.QMC.CS@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 11:34:27 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Blade Runner and Intelligence Testing (Vol 4 # 165) -- Coda
-BODY-
Interesting point about the imitator not being able to discover
what is a valid question and what is a piece of nonsense. Reminds
me of the theory of automatic integration in computer algebra.
The analogy is a bit thin, but basically the algebra system decides
first whether or not it has the power (ie there exists an algorithm)
before trying to proceed with the integration.
If fact, the machine never integrates; it just differentiates in a
clever way to get near to the answer. It then alters the result to
get the correct answer, and uses the inverse nature of differentiation
and integration. I said it was a bit thin; the integrator is working
backwards from the answer to find the correct question:-)

Gordon Joly
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%UK.AC.QMC.MATHS%UK.AC.QMC.CS@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 86 21:17:10 est
-FROM-
From: Perry Wagle <wagle%iuvax.indiana.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: common sense
-BODY-
[this is a response to ucbjade!KVQJ's note on common sense. ]

  The flaw in Searle's Chinese Room Experiment is that he gets bogged down
in considering the demon to be doing the "understanding" rather than the
formal rule system itself.  And of course it is absurd to claim that the
demon is understanding anything -- just as it is absurd to claim that the
individual neurons in your brain are understanding anything.

Perry Wagle, Indiana University, Bloomington Indiana.
...!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!wagle     (USENET)
wagle@indiana                   (CSNET)
wagle%indiana@csnet-relay       (ARPA)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 10:57:50 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: common sense
-BODY-
In article <860714-094227-1917@Xerox>, Newman.pasa@XEROX.COM asks:
>
> However, I think that my point still stands. Searle's argument seems to
> assume some "magical" property ... of biology that allows neurons ...
> to produce a phenomenon ...  that is not producible by other
> deterministic systems.
>
> What is this strange feature of neurobiology?

I believe that the mysterious factor is not literally "magic" (in your
broad sense), but merely "invisible" to the classical scientific method.
A man's brain is very much an _interactive_ system.  It interacts con-
tinually with all of the world that it can sense.

On the other hand, laboratory experiments are designed to be closed
systems.  They are designed to be controllable; they rely on artificial
input, at least in the experimental stage.  (When they are used in the
field, they may be regarded as intelligent; even a door controlled by
an electric eye meets our intuitive criterion for intelligence.)

Just what do we demand of "artificial intelligence?" Opening doors
for us?  Writing music and poems for us?  Discoursing on philosophy
for us?  --Or doing things for _itself,_ and to Hell with humans?
I don't think that A.I. people agree about this.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jul 86 08:16:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle and Understanding
-BODY-

This is in response to recent discussion about whether AI systems
can/will understand things as humans do.  Searle's Chinese room
example suggests the extent to which the implementation of a formal
system may or may not understand something.  Here's another,
perhaps simpler, example that's been discussed on the philosophy
list.

Imagine we are visited by ETS - an extra-terrestial scientist.
He knows all the science we do plus a lot more - quarks,
quantum mechanics, neurobiology, you-name-it.  Being smart,
he quickly learns our language and studies our (pitifully
primitive) biology, so he knows about how we perceive as well.
But, like all of his species, he's totally color-blind.

Now, making the common assumption that color-knowledge cannot
be conveyed verbally or symbolically, does ETS "understand"
the concept of yellow?

I think the example shows that there are two related meanings
of "understanding".  Certainly, in a formal, scientific sense,
ETS knows (understands-1) as much about yellow as anyone - all
the associated wavelengths, retinal reactions, brain-states,
etc.  He can use this concept in formal systems, manipulate it,
etc. But *something* is missing - ETS doesn't know
(understand-2) "what it's like to see yellow", to borrow/bend
Nagel's phrase.

It's this "what it's like to be a subject experiencing X" that
eludes capture (I suppose) by AI systems.  And I think the
point of the Chinese room example is the same - the system as
a whole *does* understand-1 Chinese, but doesn't understand-2
Chinese.

To get a bit more poignant, what systems understand-2 pain?
Would you really feel as guilty kicking a very sophisticated
robot as kicking a cat?  I think it's the ambiguity between
these senses of understanding that underlies a lot of the debate.
They correspond somewhat to Dennett's "program-receptive" and
"program-resistant" properties of consciousness.

As far as I can see, the lack of understanding-2 in artificial
systems poses no particular barrier to their performance.
Eg, no doubt we could build a machine which in fact would
correctly label colors - but that is not a reason to suppose
that it's *conscious* of colors, as we and some animals are.

Nonetheless, *even if there are no performance implications*,
there is a real something-or-other we have going on inside us
that does not go on inside Chinese rooms, robots, etc., and no
one knows how even to begin to address the replication of this
understanding-2 (if indeed anyone wants to bother).

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 15 Jul 86 12:31:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest V4 #166
-BODY-
re: Searle's chinese room
There has been by now an ENORMOUS amount of discussion of this argument, far
more than it deserves.  For a start, check out the BBS treatment surrounding
the original paper, with all the commentaries and replies.
Searle's position is quite coherent and rational, and ultimately
whether or not he is right will have to be decided empirically, I
believe.  This is not to say that all his arguments are good, but
that's a different question. He thinks that whatever it is about the
brain ( or perhaps the whole organism ) which gives it the power of
intentional thought will be something biological. No mechanical
electronic device will therefore really be able to *think about* the
world in the way we can.  An artificial brain might be able to, it's
not a matter of natural vs. artificial, notice: and it's just possible
that some other kind of hardware might support intentional thinking,
although he believes not; but certainly, it can't be done by a
representationalist machine, whose behavior is at best a simulation of
thought ( and which, he believes, will never in fact be a successful
simulation ).  Part of this position is that the behavior of a system
is no guide to whether or not it is *really* thinking.  If his closest
friend died, and an autopsy revealed, to Searles great surprise, that
he had been a computational robot all his life, then Searle would say
that the man hadn't been aware of anything all along. The 'Turing test'
is quite unconvincing to Searle.
This intellectual position is quite consistent and impregnable to argument.
It turns ultimately on an almost legal point: if a robot behaves
'intelligently', is that enough reason to attribute 'intelligence'
to it? ( Substitute your favorite psychological predicate. ) Turing and his
successors say yes, Searle says no.  I think all we can do is agree to
disagree for the time being.  When the robots get to be more convincing, let's
come back and ask him again ( or send one of them to do it ).
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
170
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 86 09:31 EST
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
-BODY-
  I believe that Jay Weber and I mostly agree on the relation between an
abstraction and an analogy as well as the relation between the respective
spaces of abstractions and analogies (linguistic "slipperiness"
notwithstanding). What I disagreed with is the notion of some absolute
abstraction hierarchy implicit in Jay's comments:

> ...  Each analogy corresponds to a node in an abstraction hierarchy which
> relates all of the sub-categories, SO THE SPACE OF ANALOGIES MAPS ONTO THE
> SPACE OF ABSTRACTIONS,.....

  The distinction between an absolute abstraction hierarchy and multiple
abstraction lattices (the term I used in an earlier communication) is central
to the discussion of creativity, that is if you accept that creativity is
the art of making INTERESTING analogies (or abstractions).
Implicit in this definition is a choice between candidate analogies--a choice
not available in an abstraction hierarchy. In all fairness, Jay never states
explicitly that the world can only be represented by a single abstraction
hierarchy.

>   Proper scientists (by definition) do not construct theories about things
> that cannot be empirically examined, e.g. using structure mapping functions
> to model the communal descriptive definition of the English word
> "creativity".  Scientists pick testable domains such as problem solving
> where you can test predictions of a particular theory with respect to
> correct problem solving.

  I am surprised  by Jay's definition of "proper scientists". As to modeling
the communal descriptive definition of "creativity", how else could one begin
to emulate this elusive property? I am surprised at his choice of a model
problem for "proper scientists"--something as general as
problem solving. If problem solving by induction or by analogy are proper
domains, why isn't problem solving by "creativity" acceptable? The fact that
the word means slightly different things to different people does not justify
its exclusion from the class of "proper domains". It is fairly obvious that
we have similar perceptions about what the word "creativity" means--how
else could we be having this discussion?

> In the past, scientists have left debate over
> such concepts as "truth" and "beauty" to philosophers, and I think we
> should do the same with "creativity" and "intelligence".

  Who are the "we" in this sentence? If "we" refers to the AIList, doesn't
that include philosophers interested in AI?

> In Cognitive Science, researchers have too often exaggerated the impact
> of their work through the careless and unscientific use of such terms.

  What is the lesson to be learnt here? Do not use words like "creativity"
that sound pompous? If I want to develop a program that has this interesting
property I will need to give this property a name. What would be more natural
than "creativity"?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 86 21:54:42 PDT
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Definitions of Life, Intelligence, and Creativity
-BODY-

Yes, even defining "intelligence" and "creativity" is very difficult, much
less studying their referents scientifically.  But I  think it's possible.

General systems theory helps, despite some extravagances and errors its
followers have committed.  (Stavros McKrakis pointed out a paper to me by
Berliner that discusses some of the worst.)  It resolves the difference
between reductionism and mysticism in a useful way, by raising the status of
information to a physical metric as important as space, time, charge, etc.

GST focuses on the fact that when parts are bound together, interaction
effects bring into existence characteristics which none of the parts possess.
Science is organized around this, with physics concentrating on atomic and
subatomic domains, chemistry concentrating on molecular interactions, and
so on.  The universe is divided up into layers of virtual machines, and for
the same reason we do it in computer science: intellectual parsimony.  The
biologist, for instance, doesn't have to know whether the hydrogen atoms in
a sample of water have one, two, or three neutrons.  Water functions much the
same regardless.  (There ARE fascinating and subtle differences some
researchers are investigating.)

Definition (and investigation) of intelligence and creativity are bound up
with another "impossible to define" word: life.  "Life" is a label I give to
systems which maintain their existence in hostile environments by continuously
remaking themselves.  Over a period of time (sometimes quoted as seven years
for humans), each organism exchanges all of its individual atoms with the
environment.  Yet it still "lives" and "has the same identity" because its
pattern is (essentially) the same.

Obviously each organism must somehow "know" the pattern it must maintain
and the safe limits for change before corrective action is taken.  Biologists
have concluded that genes (and gene-like adjuncts outside them) don't contain
enough information.  Studies point to the conclusion that some of this
information is stored in the universe itself, in the form of natural laws
for instance.

Additionally the organism must be able to sense itself, compare itself with
the desired pattern, and take action to correct for deviations.  In some cases
it acts on its environment (pushing away a danger, for instance); in others it
acts on itself (say, standing tall and bristling to frighten attackers).

"Intelligence" I would define in very general terms: storing information that
describes an organism's external and internal universe, comparing and other-
wise processing information in the service of its survival and health, and
controlling its action.  (Obviously, this definition could be formalised and
made more precise, but it will do as a first cut.)

It may be protested that these terms are too general, that too many things
would thus be classified as alive and/or intelligent.  I would say that it's
more important to subclassify intelligence and study the interactions and
limits of different kinds of intelligence, to study the physical bases of
intelligence.  I see nothing wrong with saying that a computer program of the
Game of Life is really alive (in a very restricted and limited sense which can
be couched in formal terms) or that a virus has (very limited, specific kinds)
of intelligence.  I see it as useful parsimony that intelligence is defined as
a multi-dimensional continuum with protozoa near one end, humans in the middle
on many continua, and who knows what at the upper end(s).

"Creativity" is a particular kind of intelligence.  It can be recognized by its
products: ideas, actions, or objects that did not exist before.  This is not
an absolute criteria; it's not all that rare for even those we recognize
as geniuses to create the same idea independently (or as much as humans can be
who are working in the same field).  There are middle and low grades of
creativity as well: the same "Chicken Kiev" jokes conceived by hundreds of
people on the same day, for instance.

Obviously, these new things don't appear from nowhere.  There are conservation
laws in thought as well as in physics (though very different ones).  These
novelties are made up of percepts/concepts already in memory, selected and
bound to create a system with emergent properties that convince us (or don't)
that we've come across something original.  (I've gone into the dynamics of
creativity in a previous message and won't repeat myself.)

                                 Larry @ jpl-vlsi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Jul 1986  11:06 EDT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!mtuxo!hfavr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Gibson's theory of perception
-BODY-
I have not read Kelley's book, but as a psychologist I am familiar with
Gibson's "environmental" (or "ecological") theory of perception. In the
standard contemporary conceptualization of perception, from which Gibson
dissented, the input to the perceptual process is thought to be the
sensory impression; for example, in visual perception, the pattern of
retinal stimulation. According to the standard theory, the task of the
perceptual system is to derive, from that pattern, a representation
whose features are analogous to those features of the environment which
originally caused the retinal pattern. If the perceptual system is
thought of as physically limited to the eye and the brain, the standard
view is close to being a logical necessity. It is from this
conceptualization that Gibson dissented.

In Gibson's view, the perceptual system is not limited to the confines
of the organism, but extends into the environment. In the course of its
evolution, the organism has assimilated physical mechanisms present in
its natural environment to function as integral parts of its perceptual
system. Thus, the perceptual processes implemented in the eye and the
brain have evolved to function as the back-end of an integral process of
perception that begins at the perceived object. In this view, the
natural light sources present in the environment, the reflective
properties of the surfaces of objects, and the optical characteristics
of the atmosphere are as much a part of the human perceptual system as
the eyes and the brain. Thus, the retinal stimulation pattern is not the
input to perception, but rather an internal stage in the process. The
input to the perceptual process is the object itself; the output is the
organism's awareness of the object. The information contained in this
awareness is the original, and not a re- (or transformed), presentation
of the object to consciousness.

According to Gibson, the experimental psychologist's laboratory use of
two-dimensional representations, tachistoscopic stimuli, illusions, and
other materials that were not part of the ecological environment in
which the human perceptual system evolved, amounts to studying the human
perceptual system with some of its key parts removed. This is rather
like trying to find out how a computer works after pulling out some of
its chips, or deducing normal physiology from the results of the
surgical removal of organs. To yield valid information, the results of
such experiments must be interpreted with special attention to the fact
that one is not studying an intact or properly functioning system.

                                Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 16 Jul 86 16:56:49-PDT
-FROM-
From: John Myers <JMYERS@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AIList Digest   V4 #166
-BODY-
I do not believe a concept of self is required for perception of objects.
Concepts needed for the perception of objects include temporal consistency,
directional location, and differentiation; semantic labeling (i.e., "meaning"
or "naming") is also useful.  None of these require the concept of a self
who is doing the perceiving.
  The robots I work with have no concept of self, and yet they are quite
successful at perceiving objects in the world, constructing an internal world
model of the objects, and manipulating these objects using the model.  (Note
that a "world model" consists of objects' locations and names--temporal
consistency is assumed, and differentiation is implicit.  Superior world
models include spatial extent and perceptual features.)  I would argue that
they are moving by "reflex"--without true understanding of the "meaning" of
their motions--but they certainly are able to truly perceive the world around
them.  I believe lower-level life-forms (such as amoebas, perhaps ants) work
in the same manner.  When such-and-such happens in the world, run program FOO
which makes certain motions with the effectors, which (happens to) result in
"useful things" getting accomplished.
  I think this describes what most of consciousness is:  (1) being able to
perceive things in the environment, (2) knowing the meaning of these things,
and (3) being able to respond in an appropriate manner.  Notice that all of
these concepts are vague; different degrees of 1,2,3 represent different
degrees of consciousness.
  Self-consciousness is more than consciousness.
  The concept of self is not required for conscious beings, and it certainly
is not required for perception.
                                                John Myers~~

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 86 18:10:29 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Representationalist perception
-BODY-
David Sher writes:
>I may be confused by this argument but as far as visual perception is
>concerned we are certainly not aware of the firing rates of our individual
>neurons.  We are not even aware of the true wavelengths of the light that
>hits our eyes.  We have special algorithms built into our visual hardware
>that implements an algorithm that decides based on global phenomena the
>color of the light in the room and automatically adjusts the colors of
>percieved objects to compensate (this is called color constancy).  However
>this mechanism can be fooled.  Given that we don't directly percieve
>the lightwaves hitting our eyes how can we be directly percieving objects
>in the world?

That's exactly the point. We DON'T perceive lightwaves, images or
neuron firing-rates; we directly perceive external objects. The light
waves, our eyes, and the neural mechanisms (which are MECHANISMS, not
algorithms) are not the objects of our perception; they are the MEANS
by which we perceive objects. This will seem implausible only if you
accept the diaphanous model of awareness.

Stephen Barnard writes:
>Consider what happens when we look at a realistic
>painting.  We can, at one level, see it as a painting, or we can see
>it as a scene with no objective existence whatsoever.  How could this
>perception possibly be interpreted as anything but an internal
>representation?

Sorry, I can't follow your argument. Of course, a realistic painting is
a representation; but it is not an INTERNAL representation.  Gibson's
books do contain long discussions of paintings; but he specifically
distinguishes between looking at a painting (in which case you are
perceiving a representation of the object) and directly perceiving the
object itself.

>Gibson emphasized the richness of the visual stimulus,
>arguing that much more information was available from it than was
>generally realized.  But to go from this observation to the conclusion
>that the stimulus is in all cases sufficient for perception is clearly
>not justified.

Gibson did not deny that there are SOME cases (for example, many
situations created in laboratories) in which the stimulus is
impoverished. His point was that these cases are the exception, rather
than the rule. Even if we agree that in those exceptional cases there
is some inference from background knowledge, this doesn't justify
concluding that in the normal cases, where the stimuli do uniquely
specify the external object, inference also goes on.

Since I can't possibly do justice to these issues in a short electronic
message, let me repeat my recommendation of Kelley's book.  It
discusses all these issues in detail, and presents them very clearly.
I'm sure it will be of great value even to those who'll end up
disagreeing with its conclusions.

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!ucbvax!eyal%wisdom.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 11 Jul 86 10:42:05-CDT
-FROM-
From: David Throop <AI.THROOP@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Circular Reasoning as a Tool
-BODY-
CIRCULAR-REASONER: A Knowledge-Representation Tool for Couches

The classic question "How long will it take my brother-in-law and his
friend Larry to get the couch from the living room, around a tight corner
and into the guest bedroom?" has inspired several advances in AI knowledge
representation.   The spatial and temporal aspects of the problem have
proved particularly difficult.
  Early work in logic representations was able to show that (Couch X) could
be unified with (Furniture X) and push the intractable aspects back a level
of abstraction.  Rule based systems were able to diagnose Larry's wrenched
back after the first attempt, and show that if anybody ever solved the
intractable spatial problems, they should leave the answer in the knowledge
base.  Frame based systems showed that intractable problems could be pushed
back a further level through inheritance.  Causal reasoning systems can
reason about all of the possible behaviors of the couch as it undergoes the
process of being shoved around the corner, and move the temporal and
spatial questions back into a meta-knowledge-base.
  I propose to generalize these methods for pushing back hard problems.  In
particular the program CIRCULAR-REASONER represents these four knowledge
representation systems as a linked list.  This linked list can be NCONCed
to itself so that each level, another representation is just around the
corner.   Spatial and temporal aspects can be handled by routines that
access this list recursively, so that hard problems can be sent away and
never come back.

David Throop

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
171
-DATE-
Date: 19 Jul 1986 14:36-EDT
-FROM-
From: Carlos.Bhola@spice.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query - Geometric Placement
-BODY-
        Query:  Does anyone know about any expert system (developed
                or under development) that relates to the placement
                of geometric objects in a plane?  Examples of the
                problem would be pagination, VLSI layout, etc.


                                -- Carlos.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jul 86 14:30:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for oceanic or weather references
-BODY-

Does anyone know of AI or expert systems work being done whose
application domain is oceanography or atmospheric science?

I'd appreciate any pointers - please send directly to me.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>
Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
National Bureau of Standards
(301) 921-2431


  [The 1985 IEEE conference on Expert Systems in Government had
  a session on Environment and Weather.  There was also a short
  article on prospects of AI in weather forecasting in Aviation
  Week & Space Technology, April 7, 1986, pp. 143-146.  RuleMaster
  has been used in some experimental atmospheric domains; contact
  Radian Corp.  There have also been some efforts at combining the
  two fields -- expert systems to route ships; contact Dr. James
  Mays of Micronautics, Inc., 70 Zoe Street, Suite 200, San Francisco,
  CA 94107, (415) 896-6764.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 86 18:30:10 edt
-FROM-
From: dsn@vorpal.cs.umd.edu (Dana Nau)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Common Lisp and Prolog on VM/CMS
-BODY-
We are looking for implementations of Common Lisp and Prolog that run under
VM/CMS, to be used for undergraduate/graduate instruction.  I'd appreciate
any information people might have about the following:

(1) Does anyone know of a decent Common Lisp that runs under VM/CMS?
    (IBM Lisp isn't suitable for our purposes, since it's rather different
    from Common Lisp).

(2) Has anyone had experience using IBM Prolog?  How natural would it be to
    use for one accustomed to C-Prolog (or any other Prolog that uses the
    syntax described in Clocksin and Mellish)?

(3) Does anyone know of a Prolog that runs under VM/CMS that's closer to
    C-Prolog?  Or, for that matter, does anyone know whether C-Prolog can
    be made to run under VM/CMS?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Jul 86 12:50 EST
-FROM-
From: AIMAGIC%SCOM08.decnet@ge-crd.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KB System Verification and Validation
-BODY-

I am an employee with GE Space Systems and am in the process of doing
work on an IR&D in the area of AI development methodologies or the lack
there of. As part of this effort, I am trying to determine what already
exists, what is available for purchase, and what can be had for the asking.
      I have be doing extensive research in this area but have found little
information specifically directed at Knowledge-Based System Verification and
Validation. As a result, I have had to come up with my own concepts of what
can be done. For example, I have determined that a Knowledge-Based Software
Development Environment (KBSDE) consisting of a number of complementary
tools is essential. The tools themselves should support all phases of the
development life cycle. For KBS systems the question becomes, What is its
Life Cycle, how closly does KBS system development parallel that of "normal"
procedural/algoritmetic software? How do we account for rapid prototyping
while at the same time exercising the control necessary to create a reliable
software system?
       I have made some progress in answering these questions and would be
willing to share my discoveries with the general community, if I could in
turn find out what is already out there and thus need not be rediscovered.
If it is at all possible, could this request be posted and responses sent
to me? If this could be done, I would gladly summarise my results for
general reading after sufficient responces were received.

                                       Thanks:

                                       Phil Rossomando
                                       GE Space Systems Devision
                                       King of Prussia, PA.

                                       AIMAGIC%SCOM08.decnet@ge-crd.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 86 13:05:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: ANDREWS%EAR@ames-io.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conservation Laws for Thought???  (AIList Digest V4 #170)
-BODY-
In his July 16 missive on Life, Intelligence, and Creativity definitions,
Larry makes a statement (highlighted below in upper case) which is quite
provocative to a mechanical engineer like myself.

> "Creativity" is a particular kind of intelligence. It can be recognized by
its
> products: ideas, actions, or objects that did not exist before.  ...
> Obviously, these new things don't appear from nowhere.  THERE ARE
CONSERVATION
> LAWS IN THOUGHT AS WELL AS IN PHYSICS (THOUGH VERY DIFFERENT ONES).

Have I missed something somewhere?  If there are "thought conservation laws",
could someone please provide me with some references?  And if nothing has been
documented, could someone please fill me in?  I understand the concept of
conservation of mass and energy (what goes in - what comes out = increase in
amount stored), and the "bookkeeping" associated with entropy production,
transfer, and storage, but I have never heard of an application of those ideas
to human thought.  I'm undecided about whether to be excited or depressed.
Help!

Alison Andrews
NASA Ames Research Center
andrews%ear@ames-io.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Monday, 21 Jul 1986 11:42:07-PDT
-FROM-
From: cherubini%cookie.DEC@decwrl.DEC.COM  (RALPH CHERUBINI
     CX01-2/N22)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Interactive Systems
-BODY-
Response to 14 Jul "Architectures for interactive systems?"

For a very provocative couple of hours relating to modes of interaction,
user models, contexts...I suggest people get a copy of the videotape of
the movie "Being There". I have found it very suggestive, based as it
is on a central character who has a very limited repertoire of
responses. I think there is a great deal to be learned from the
models of interactions which are both explicit and implicit in the
film. I'd be interested to hear reactions.


                                Ralph Cherubini
                                Digital Equipment Corporation


  [For those who haven't seen it, Being There stars Peter Sellers as a
  retarded man who is forced into the world by the death of the wealthy
  man who had sheltered him.  He enters the world full-grown, with no
  traceable past, dressed in expensive clothes, and interested in little
  except gardening and watching television.  His great talent is that
  he listens very intently, with no hidden agenda of things he'd like to
  say or places he'd rather be -- hence the title.  People mistake his
  laconic replies, particularly his references to gardening, as deep
  philosophical thought -- as with the Eliza/Doctor program.  He finds
  shelter with a millionaire, a political "king-maker", who introduces
  Sellers to all the right people and fosters this image of precious
  eccentricity and deep insight.  The few who realize Seller's true
  nature are either unable or unwilling to break the illusion.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 86 16:57:30 -0100
-FROM-
From: Alan Bundy <bundy%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Catalogue of AI Tools
-BODY-
        THE CATALOGUE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS

                        Alan Bundy


        The Catalogue of Artificial Intelligence Tools is a kind of
mail order catalogue of AI techniques and portable software.  Its
purpose is to promote interaction between members of the AI community.
It does this by announcing the existence of AI tools, and acting as a
pointer into the literature.  Thus the AI community will have access
to a common, extensional definition of the field, which will: promote
a common terminology, discourage the reinvention of wheels, and act as
a clearing house for ideas and software.

        The catalogue is a reference work providing a quick guide to
the AI tools available for different jobs. It is not intended to be a
textbook like the Artificial Intelligence Handbook.  It,
intentionally, only provides a brief description of each tool, with no
extended discussion of the historical origin of the tool or how it has
been used in particular AI programs. The focus is on techniques
abstracted from their historical origins.

        The original version of the catalogue, was hastily built in
1983 as part of the UK SERC-DoI, IKBS, Architecture Study. It has now
been adopted by the UK Alvey Programme and is both kept as an on-line
document undergoing constant revision and refinement and published as
a paperback by Springer Verlag. Springer Verlag have agreed to reprint
the Catalogue at frequent intervals in order to keep it up to date.

        The on-line and paperback versions of the catalogue meet
different needs and differ in the entries they contain.  In
particular, the on-line version was designed to promote UK interaction
and contains all the entries which we received that meet the criteria
defined below.  Details of how to access the on-line version are
available from John Smith of the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 OQX.  The paperback version was designed to
serve as a reference book for the international community, and does
not contain entries which are only of interest in a UK context.

        By `AI techniques' we mean algorithms, data (knowledge)
formalisms, architectures, and methodological techniques, which can be
described in a precise, clean way.  The catalogue entries are intended
to be non-technical and brief, but with a literature reference.  The
reference might not be the `classic' one.  It will often be to a
textbook or survey article.  The border between AI and non-AI
techniques is fuzzy.  Since the catalogue is to promote interaction
some techniques are included because they are vital parts of many AI
programs, even though they did not originate in AI.

        By `portable AI software' we mean programming languages,
shells, packages, toolkits etc, which are available for use by AI
researchers outside the group of the implementor, including both
commercial and non-commercial products.  To obtain a copy of software,
do NOT write to us or the contributor of the entry; look at the
`Availability' field or write to the implementor.  We hope that (s)he
will supply sufficient documentation for the system to be used by an
outsider, but do not expect non-commercial products to be as
professionally polished as commercial ones.

        We have not included in the catalogue separate entries for
each slight variation of a technique, programming language, etc.
Neither have we always included details of how to obtain the software,
nor descriptions of AI programs tied to a particular application, nor
of descriptions of work in progress.  The catalogue is not intended to
be a dictionary of AI terminology nor to include definitions of AI
problems.

        Entries are short (abstract length) descriptions of a
technique or piece of software.  They include a title, list of
aliases, contributor's name, paragraph of description, information on
availability and references.  The contributor's name is that of the
original contributor of the entry.  Only occasionally is the
contributor of the entry also the implementor of the software or the
inventor of the technique.  The `Availability' field or the reference
are a better guide to the identity of the implementor or inventor.
Some entries have been subsequently modified by the referees and/or
editorial team, and these modifications have not always been checked
with the original contributor, so (s)he should not always be held
morally responsible, and should never be held legally responsible.

        If you would like to submit an entry for the catalogue then
please fill in the attached form and send it to:

Alan Bundy,
Department of Artificial Intelligence,
University of Edinburgh,                Tel: 44-31-225-7774 ext 242
80 South Bridge,
Edinburgh, EH1 1HN,                     JANet: Bundy@UK.Ac.Edinburgh
Scotland.                               ARPAnet: Bundy@Rutgers.Arpa


        CATALOGUE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS:

                FORMAT FOR ENTRIES

Title:

Alias:

Abstract:  <Paragraph length description of tool or technique>

Contributor:  <Your name>

References:  <Aim for the most helpful rather than the `classic' one>

Availability:  <e.g. commercially available with documentation and support,
available as a research vehicle only with limited documentation>

Environment:  <necessary supporting software/hardware>

From:  <contact address for distribution, incl. telephone number and
electronic mail address if appropriate>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
172
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 86 11:18:22 pdt
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - COPYCAT:  Modeling Creative Analogical Thought (Ames)
-BODY-

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center

                         SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT
                Joint RCR Branch / Ames AI Forum Seminar


SPEAKER:   Douglas Hofstadter
           Cognitive Science
           University of Michigan

TOPIC:     THE COPYCAT PROJECT:  MODELING CREATIVE ANALOGICAL THOUGHT


     The fluidity inherent in concepts in the human mind allows different
situations to be mapped onto each other and a type of translation set up
between them.  Every analogy (i.e., mapping of this sort) involves some degree
of stress, and the more stress there is, the weaker the analogy is.  For an
analogy to be created, there must be mechanisms that gauge the stress of any
tentative mapping.  We consider the central mechanism to be an unconscious
mental metric (i.e., a type of distance relation between concepts), which
allows the mind to quickly sense close resemblances and to accept them as
valid "equations" making up part of the translation between situations, and
which conversely makes the mind balk at far-fetched "equations" and give up
on translations that cause too much stress.

     In the Copycat project, the network embodying this metric is called the
"slipnet" -- the idea being that the proximity of two nodes in the slipnet
indicates the propensity of the corresponding concepts to "slip" into each
other.  Copycat's slipnet is the core of our effort at modeling "creative
slippage", which we feel is how deep and insightful analogies come about.
We have carefully tailored the domain in which the Copycat program operates,
so that it contains all the essential qualities -- but no extra qualities --
of a domain in which highly creative (as well as highly mundane) analogies
can be made.

     Ultimately, however, our project is not so much about analogies per se,
but about human concepts and how they are structured so as to form something
like a slipnet.  In that sense, analogies are merely an instrument for us.
Any analogy created by a human reveals some aspects of a human slipnet, which
we then attempt to transfer to our model.  Conversely, the analogies created
by the Copycat program reveal the accuracy of our artificial slipnet, and thus
of our model of concepts.

     In summary, the Copycat project is an attempt to study the basis for the
fluidity of the human mind by exploring the world of creative analogies within
a carefully limited domain.



DATE: Wednesday,     TIME: 1:00 - 2:00 pm     BLDG. 201  Main Auditorium
      July 30, 1986


POINT(S) OF CONTACT: Eugene Miya   PHONE NUMBER: (415) 694-6453
        NET ADDRESS: eugene@ames-nas.arpa
  or Alison Andrews  (415) 694-6741   andrews%ear@ames-io.arpa

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Jul 86 10:19:22 EDT
-FROM-
From: Craig.Howard@cive.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - DB and KB Interface for Structural Engineering (CMU)
-BODY-
                   FINAL PUBLIC ORAL EXAMINATION
                         for the degree of
                       DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


Candidate:  H. Craig Howard

Title of Dissertation:  Interfacing Databases and Knowledge-Based Systems
                            for Structural Engineering Applications

Department:  Civil Engineering
Time:  1:00 pm Tuesday, July 22, 1986
Place:  Adamson Wing - Baker Hall

Database management systems and expert systems will be important components
of integrated computer-aided design systems.  A powerful, adaptable
interface between these components is necessary to build an integrated
structural engineering computing environment.  The thesis examines the basic
issues involved in interfacing expert systems with database management
systems and describes the architecture of a prototype system, KADBASE.
KADBASE is a flexible, knowledge-based interface in which multiple expert
systems and multiple databases can communicate as independent,
self-descriptive components within an integrated, distributed engineering
computing system.  The thesis presents examples from three knowledge-based
systems to demonstrate the use of KADBASE in typical engineering design
applications.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 21 Jul 86 17:27:12-CDT
-FROM-
From: Bill Murray <ATP.Murray@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring Systems
-BODY-           (UTexas)


     I will be  giving the following  talk on Thursday  from 12 to  1 in
Taylor 3.128.   All graduate students  and faculty are invited.    Bring
your lunch if you like.


      Automatic Program Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring Systems
                                   by
                             William Murray

    Program  debugging  is  an  important  part  of the domain expertise
required  for  intelligent  tutoring  systems  that  teach   programming
languages.  This talk explores the process by which student programs can
be  automatically  debugged  in  order  to  increase  the  instructional
capabilities of these  systems.      The  research presented  provides a
methodology and  implementation  for  the  diagnosis  and  correction of
nontrivial recursive programs.  In this approach, recursive programs are
debugged by repairing induction proofs in the Boyer-Moore Logic.

   The potential  of a  program debugger  to automatically  debug widely
varying novice programs in  a nontrivial domain  is proportional to  its
capabilities to  reason  about  computational  semantics.  By increasing
these reasoning  capabilities  a  more  powerful  and  robust system can
result.   This research supports these  claims by discussing the  design,
implementation, and evaluation of Talus, an automatic debugger for  LISP
programs and by examining related work in automated program debugging.

   Talus relies on its abilities to reason about computational semantics
to  perform  algorithm   recognition,  infer   code  teleology   and  to
automatically detect and correct nonsyntactic errors in student programs
written in a restricted, but nontrivial, subset of LISP.  Solutions  can
vary significantly  in  algorithm,  functional  decomposition,  role  of
variables, data flow, control flow,  values returned by functions,  LISP
primitives used,  and  identifiers  used.     Solutions  can  consist of
multiple functions, each containing multiple bugs.  Empirical evaluation
demonstrates that Talus  achieves high  performance in  debugging widely
varying student solutions to challenging tasks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Jul 86 12:12:25-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Our Cognitive Abilities Limit the Power of AI (SRI)
-BODY-
             OUR COGNITIVE ABILITIES LIMIT THE POWER OF AI

                       Jack Alpert (ALPERT@SCORE)

                    Stanford Knowledge Integration Lab
                                  and
                 School of Education, Stanford University

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, July 28
               SRI International, Building E, Room EK228


"Expert Systems: How far can they go?"  was a panel topic at AAAI
1985.  Brian Smith described the limits of AI in terms of the
programmer's ability to know if his encoded model reflected the world
that his expert system was to manage.  "We have no techniques.. to
study the ...  relationship between model and world.  We are unable...
to assess the appropriateness of models, or to predict when models
fail."

Most of us with icy road experience are convinced we know how to
recover from skids.  In the talk I will prove that our skid recovery
algorithms work only on a small set of possible skids.  Skids that lie
outside of this small set result in accidents.  Our "inappropriate"
skid recovery models cause accidents.  20 years of driving experience
does not revile the skid model's limitations.  When we have been
building expert systems for 20 years, why should we be any better
prepared to perceive model inappropriateness?

The limited set of cognitive abilities that most people develop cannot
identify domains where models fail.  I describe a temporal cognitive
ability most of us lack.  Given the definition of such an ability, I
will briefly describe a line of research that explains why people
never develop the ability.  Should this research be successful, we
will create new learning environments that enhance first cognitive
abilities, then modeling, and finally the power of AI systems.

VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 86 12:21:25 edt
-FROM-
From: Beth Adelson <adelson@YALE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop - Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems
-BODY-

Forwarded from Ron Yager:

A workshop will be held at the AAAI meeting entitled
"Dealing with Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems".
An open discussion.

Date: Thursday August 14.
Time: 9 am - noon.
Place: Richter Hall, Room 2

The workshop will be a lively open discussion on issues related to the
management of uncertainty.  A number of prominent workers in the field
will attend and act as focal points.

All are invited to participate.

For further information contact:

Ronald R. Yager
(212) 249-2047

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 86 09:30:46 -0500
-FROM-
From: sriram@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 2nd AI Applications in Engineering
-BODY-

                           CALL FOR PAPERS

                  SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
              APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN
                             ENGINEERING

                         AUGUST 4TH-7TH, 1987
                        BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

INTRODUCTION

Following  the  success  of  the  first  international  conference  in
Southampton, UK, the second international conference is to be held  in
Boston  during  the  first  week  of  August.  The first international
conference  stimulated  many  presentations  on  both  the  tools  and
techniques  required  for  the successful use of AI in engineering and
many new applications. The  organizing  committee  members  anticipate
that  the  second conference will be even more succesful and encourage
papers to be submitted.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this conference is to provide  an  international  forum
for  the  presentation  of  work  on  the  applications  of artificial
intelligence to engineering problems. It also aims  to  encourage  and
enhance the development of this most important area of research.

CONFERENCE THEMES

The  following  topics  are  suggested and other related areas will be
considered:

   - Computer-aided design
   - Planning and scheduling
   - Constraint management
   - Intelligent tutors
   - Knowledge-based systems
   - Knowledge representation
   - Learning
   - Natural language applications
   - Cognitive modelling of engineering problems
   - Database interfaces
   - Graphical interfaces
   - Knowledge-based simulation
   - Model-based problem solving

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Authors are invited to submit a  1000  word  extended  abstract.  This
abstract should have sufficient details, such as the type of knowledge
representation, problem solving  strategies,  and  the  implementation
language  used,  to  permit  evaluation  by  a committee consisting of
renowned experts in the field. The abstract should be  accompanied  by
the  following  details:  author's name, address, affiliation, and the
person to whom all correspondence should be sent.

All abstracts should  be  submitted  to  Dr.  R.  Adey,  Computational
Mechanics  Inc.,  Suite 6200, 400 West Cummings Park, Woburn, MA 01801
(Tel. no. 617-933-7374), before November  1986.  The  notification  of
acceptance  will  be sent before February 1st, 1987.  Final acceptance
of papers will be based on the review of the complete paper.

Organizing Committee
General Chair       Dr. R. Adey, CML Ltd.
Program Chair       Dr. J. Connor, M. I. T.
Technical Chair     Dr. D. Sriram, M. I. T.
Technical Program Co-ordinators
                    Dr. M. Tenenbaum, Fairchild Research Labs, USA
                    Dr. R. Milne, Intelligent Applications Ltd., UK
                    Dr. J. Gero, University of Sydney, Australia


Advisory Board
                   Leading researchers in the field

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
173
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 86 14:01:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: followup on "understanding yellow"
-BODY-
The original version of the "understanding yellow" problem may be found
in:

        Jackson, Frank, "Epiphenomenal Qualia," _Philosophical
        Quarterly_ 32(1982)127-136.

with replies in:

        Churchland, Paul M., ``Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct
        Introspection of Brain States," _Journal of Philosophy_
        82(1985)8-28.

        Jackson, Frank, "What Mary Didn't Know," _Journal of
        Philosophy_ 83(1986)291-95.

(One of the reasons I stopped reading net.philosophy was that its
correspondents seemed not to know about what was going on in philosophy
journals!)

                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260

(716) 636-3193, 3180

uucp:   ..!{allegra,decvax,watmath,rocksanne}!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet:  rapaport@buffalo.csnet
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 18 Jul 86 14:57:17-PDT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Barnard <BARNARD@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: internal representations vs. direct perception
-BODY-
Eyal Mozes thinks that direct perception is right on, and that
internal representations either don't exist or aren't important.
I think direct perception is a vague and suspiciously mystical
doctrine that has no logical or physical justification.

Barnard:
>>Consider what happens when we look at a realistic
>>painting.  We can, at one level, see it as a painting, or we can see
>>it as a scene with no objective existence whatsoever.  How could this
>>perception possibly be interpreted as anything but an internal
>>representation?

Mozes:
>Sorry, I can't follow your argument. Of course, a realistic painting is
>a representation; but it is not an INTERNAL representation.  Gibson's
>books do contain long discussions of paintings; but he specifically
>distinguishes between looking at a painting (in which case you are
>perceiving a representation of the object) and directly perceiving the
>object itself.

Barnard's reply:
Look, the painting is a representation, but we don't
perceive it AS a representation --- we perceive it as a scene.  The
scene has NO OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE; therefore, we cannot perceive it
DIRECTLY.  It exists only in our imaginations, presumably as internal
representations. (How else?)  If the painter was skillful, the
representations in our imagination match his intention.  To counter
this argument, you must tell me how one can "directly" perceive
something that doesn't exist.  Good luck.  On the other hand, it is
quite possible to merely represent something that doesn't exist.

Barnard:
>>Gibson emphasized the richness of the visual stimulus,
>>arguing that much more information was available from it than was
>>generally realized.  But to go from this observation to the conclusion
>>that the stimulus is in all cases sufficient for perception is clearly
>>not justified.

Mozes:
>Gibson did not deny that there are SOME cases (for example, many
>situations created in laboratories) in which the stimulus is
>impoverished. His point was that these cases are the exception, rather
>than the rule. Even if we agree that in those exceptional cases there
>is some inference from background knowledge, this doesn't justify
>concluding that in the normal cases, where the stimuli do uniquely
>specify the external object, inference also goes on.

To the contrary, ambiguous visual stimuli are not rare exceptions ---
the visual stimulus is ambiguous in virtually EVERY CASE.  Gibson was
fond of stereo and optic flow as modes of perception that can
disambiguate static, monocular stimuli (which are clearly ambiguous).
But he simply did not realize that such modalities are themselves
ambiguous.  For example, I am not aware of Gibson discussing the
aperture problem, which describes ambiguity in optic flow.  Similarly,
depth from stereo is unique once the image-to-image correspondence is
achieved, but, as we know from years of research on computational
stereo, solving the correspondence problem is not easy, primarly due
to the problem of resolving ambiguous matches.  Similar problems
occur for every mode of visual perception.

Gibson's hypothesis that the information for perception exists
completely in the stimulus is false, and the entire theory of direct
perception falls apart as a consequence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 86 09:25:43 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle and understanding
-BODY-
>I think the example shows that there are two related meanings
>of "understanding".  Certainly, in a formal, scientific sense,
>ETS knows (understands-1) as much about yellow as anyone - all
>the associated wavelengths, retinal reactions, brain-states,
>etc.  He can use this concept in formal systems, manipulate it,
>etc. But *something* is missing - ETS doesn't know
>(understand-2) "what it's like to see yellow", to borrow/bend
>Nagel's phrase.
>
> It's this "what it's like to be a subject experiencing X" that
> eludes capture (I suppose) by AI systems.  And I think the
> point of the Chinese room example is the same - the system as
> a whole *does* understand-1 Chinese, but doesn't understand-2
> Chinese.

No, I think you're missing Searle's point.

What you call "understanding-2" is applicable only to a very small
class of concepts - to concepts of sensory qualities, which can't be
conveyed verbally. For the concept of a color, you don't even have to
stipulate ETS; any color-blind person with a fair knowledge of physical
optics (and I happen to be such a person) has "understanding-1", but
not "understanding-2", of the concept; I know the conditions which
cause other people to see that color, I can reason about it, but I
don't know what it feels like to see it. But for concepts which don't
directly involve sensory qualities (for example, for understanding a
language) there can be only "understanding-1".

Now, Searle's point is that this "understanding-1" (such as a native
Chinese's understanding of the Chinese language, or my understanding of
colors) involves intentionality; it does not consist of manipulating
uninterpreted symbols by formal rules. That is why he denies that a
computer program can have it.

Those who think Searle sees something "magical" in human understanding
also miss his point. Quite on the contrary, he regards understanding as
a completely natural phenomenon, which, like all natural phenomena,
depends on specific material causes. To quote from his paper "Minds,
Brains and Programs": "Whatever else intentionality is, it is a
biological phenomenon, and it is as likely to be as causally dependent
on the specific biochemistry of its origins as lactation,
photosynthesis, or any other biological phenomena. No one would suppose
that we could produce milk and sugar by running a computer simulation
of the formal sequences in lactation and photosynthesis, but where the
mind is concerned many people are willing to believe in such a miracle
because of a deep and abiding dualism: the mind they suppose is a
matter of formal processes and is independent of quite specific
material causes in the way that milk and sugar are not".

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ..!ucbvax!eyal%wisdom.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 86 17:34:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: kube%cogsci@BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Kube)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: comment on Hayes, V4 #169
-BODY-
Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL> in AIList V4 #169:
>re: Searle's chinese room
>There has been by now an ENORMOUS amount of discussion of this argument, far
>more than it deserves.

Pat is right, for two reasons: the argument says nothing one way or
the other about the possibility of constructing systems which exhibit
any kind of behavior you like; and the point of the Chinese Room
argument proper--that computation is insufficient for intentionality--
had already been made to most everyone's satisfaction by Block, Fodor,
Rey, and others, by the time Searle went to press.  (The question of
the sufficiency of computation plus causation, or of the sufficiency of
neurobiology, are further issues which have probably not been
discussed more than they deserve.)

>... ultimately
>whether or not he is right will have to be decided empirically, I
>believe.

Searle thinks this too, but it's not obvious what the empirical decision
would be based on.  Since behavior and internal structure (by
hypothesis), and material (to avoid begging the question), are no
guide, it would seem that the only way to tell if a silicon system has
intentional states is by being one.  The crucial empirical test looks
disturbingly elusive, so far as the brain-based scientific community
is concerned.

> When the robots get to be more convincing, let's
>come back and ask him again ( or send one of them to do it ).

Searle, of course, has committed himself to not being convinced by a
robot, no matter how convincing.  But some elaboration of this
scenario is, I think, the right picture of how the question will be
answered (and not `empirically'): as increasingly perfected robots
proliferate, socio-political mechanisms for the establishment of
person-based rights will act in response to the set of considerations
present at the time; eventually lines will be drawn that most folks
can live with, and the practice of literal attribution of
psychological predicates will follow these lines.  If this process is
(at least for practical purposes) unpredictable, then only time will
tell if Searle's paper will come to be regarded as a pathetically
primitive racist tract, or as an enlightened contribution to the
theory of the new order.

Paul Kube
kube@berkeley.edu
...ucbvax!kube

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 22 Jul 86 13:30:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Silverstein <SILVERSTEIN@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A Parable (about AI in large organizations)
-BODY-

     Once upon a time, in a kingdom nothing like our own, gold was very
scarce, forcing jewelers to try and sell little tiny gold rings and
bracelets.  Then one day a PROSPECTOR came into the capitol sporting a
large gold nugget he found in a hill to the west.  As the word went out
that there was "gold in them thar hills", the king decided to take an
active management role.  He appointed a "gold task force" which one year
later told the king "you must spend lots of money to find gold, lest
your enemies get richer than you."
     So a "Gold Center" was formed, staffed with many spiffy looking
Ph.D. types who had recently published papers on gold (remarkably similar
to their earlier papers on silver).  Experienced prospectors had been
interviewed, but they smelled and did not have a good grasp of gold
theory.
     The Center bought a large number of state of the art bulldozers and
took them to a large field they had found that was both easy to drive on
and freeway accessible.  After a week of sore rumps, getting dirty, and
not finding anything, they decided they could best help the gold cause
by researching better tools.
     So they set up some demo sand hills in clear view of the king's
castle and stuffed them with nicely polished gold bars.  Then they split
into various research projects, such as "bigger diggers", for handling
gold boulders if they found any, and "timber-gold alloys", for making
houses from the stuff when gold eventually became plentiful.
     After a while the town barons complained loud enough and also got
some gold research money.  The lion's share was allocated to the most
politically powerful barons, who assigned it to looking for gold in
places where it would be very convenient to find it, such as in rich
jewelers' backyards.  A few bulldozers, bought from smiling bulldozer
salespeople wearing "Gold is the Future" buttons, were time shared across
the land. Searchers who, in their allotted three days per month of
bulldozer time, could just not find anything in the backyards of "gold
committed" jewelers were admonished to search harder next month.
     The smart money understood that bulldozers were the best digging
tool, even though they were expensive and hard to use.  Some backward
prospector types, however, persisted in panning for gold in secluded
streams.  Though they did have some success, gold theorists knew that
this was due to dumb luck and the incorporation of advanced bulldozer
research ideas in later pan designs.
     After many years of little success, the king decided the whole
pursuit was a waste and cut off all funding.  The Center people quickly
unearthed their papers which had said so all along.
     The end.

P.S. There really was gold in them thar hills.  Still is.

by Robin Hanson (using silverstein@sushi)
[credit to M. Franklin for story ideas]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
174
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 86 15:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Specification of Geographic Data Processing
-BODY-           Requirements (UPenn)

Forwarded From: Glenda Kent <Glenda@upenn> on Thu 24 Jul 1986 at 14:40


        FORMAL SPECIFICATION OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS


                              Gruia-Catalin Roman
                        Department of Computer Science
                             Washington University


This  presentation  discusses  a  formal  foundation  for  the specification of
Geographic Data Processing (GDP) requirements.    The  emphasis  is  placed  on
modelling  data  and  knowledge  requirements  rather than processing needs.  A
subset of first order logic is proposed as the principal means for constructing
formalizations  of  the GDP requirements in a manner that is independent of the
data representation.  Requirements executability is  achieved  by  selecting  a
subset  of  logic compatible with the inference mechanisms available in Prolog.
GDP significant concepts such as time, space and accuracy have  been  added  to
the formalization without losing concepts such as time, space and accuracy have
been added to the  formalization  without  losing  Prolog  implementability  or
separation  of  concerns.    Rules  of reasoning about time, space and accuracy
(based on positional, temporal and fuzzy logic) may be compactly  stated  in  a
subset  of  second  order predicate calculus and may be easily modified to meet
the particular needs of a specific application.  Multiple views of the data and
knowledge  may  coexist  in  the  same  formalization.   The feasibility of the
approach has been established with the aid of a tentative Prolog implementation
of  the  formalism.    The implementation also provides the means for graphical
rendering of logical information on a high resolution color display.

Acknowledgements:  This work was supported in part by  Defense  Mapping  Agency
and  by  Rome Air Development Center under contract F30602-83-K-0065.  The full
text of this presentation is available in "Formal Specification  of  Geographic
Data  Processing Requirements," Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Data Engineering, (Outstanding Paper Award), pp. 434-446, February 1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 22:18 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven W. Holland" <HOLLAND%RCSMPA%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Constructing the Aspect Graph (GMR)
-BODY-

Seminar at General Motors Research Laboratories (GMR):


         An Algorithm for Constructing the Aspect Graph
                       Dr. Charles R. Dyer
                              of
                   Computer Science Department
                     University of Wisconsin
                       Madison, WI  53706

                    Thursday, August 14, 1986


       The aspect graph of a solid object is a representation of the visibility
       of the object's surfaces throughout surrounding viewing space.  In this
       talk we present tight bounds on the maximum size of aspect graphs and
       give worst-case optimal algorithms for their construction, first in the
       convex case and then in the general case.  The algorithm for the general
       case makes use of a new 3-D object representation called the aspect
       representation or "asp".  We also suggest several alternatives to the
       aspect graph which require less space and store more information.


>Steve Holland, Computer Science Department

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 86 16:11 EST
-FROM-
From: Damian Lyons <LYONS%cs.umass.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - RS: Distributed Sensory-based Robot Control (UMass)
-BODY-
Hi: I know I'm a bit late on posting this; however, I would welcome
    comments from interested persons out there:



                    July 25th, 1986.
          Dept. of Computer and Information Science.
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
                     Amherst, MA.01003.



        RS: A Formal Model of Distributed Computation
               For Sensory-based Robot Control.

                        Damian M. Lyons


     Robot systems  are  becoming  more  and  more complex, both in terms of
available  degrees  of  freedom  and  in  terms  of sensors. It is no longer
possible  to  continue  to regard robots as peripheral devices of a computer
system,  and  to  program  them  by  adapting  general-purpose  programming
languages.  This dissertation analyzes the inherent
computing  characteristics  of the robot programming domain, and formally
constructs an appropriate model of computation. The programming of a dextrous
robot hand is the example domain for the development of the model.

     This model, called RS, is a model of distributed computation: the basic
mode  of  computation  is  the interaction of concurrent computing agents. A
schema in RS describes a class of computing agents. Schemas are instantiated
to  produce  computing  agents,  called  SIs, which can communicate with each
other  via input and output ports. A network of SIs can be grouped atomically
together  in an Assemblage, and appears externally identical to a single SI.
The  sensory  and  motor  interface  to  RS is a set of primitive, predefined
schemas.  These  can  be  grouped  arbitrarily  with  built-in  knowledge in
assemblages   to  form  task-specific  object  models.  A  special  kind  of
assemblage  called  a  task-unit is used to structure the way robot programs
are built.

     The formal  semantics  of RS is automata theoretic; the semantics of an
SI   is  a  mathematical  object,  a  Port  Automaton.  Communication,  port
connections,  and  assemblage  formation  are  among  the  RS concepts whose
semantics  can  be expressed formally and precisely. A Temporal Logic
specification and verification methodology is constructed using the automata
semantics as a model. While the automata semantics allows the analysis of
the model of computation, the Temporal Logic methodology allows the top-down
synthesis of programs in the model.

A computer implementation of the RS model has been constructed, and used
in  conjunction  with  a  graphic  robot  simulation,  to formulate and test
dextrous  hand  control  programs. In general RS facilitates the formulation
and  verification  of  versatile  robot  programs, and is an ideal tool with
which to introduce AI constructs to the robot domain.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 30 Jul 86 17:43:10-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Decision-Making and Action in the Real World (SRI)
-BODY-

                 DECISION-MAKING AND ACTION IN THE REAL WORLD

                     John Myers (JMYERS@SRI-AI)
                SRI International, Robotics Laboratory

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, Aug. 4
               SRI International, Building E, Room EK228


In this philosophical talk I will present my opinions as to how to
design an entity capable of operating in the real world, under limited
resources.  These include limited time, information, and capabilities.
I will present models that stress heuristic aspects of behavior,
rather than traditional pre-planning techniques.  As Terry Winograd has
said, "The main problem is to come up with what you are going to do in
the next five seconds."

After covering the problem and some traditional paradigms, I will
discuss three main concepts, along with a follow-up concept.  These
are: the Theory of Stances,  the Freudian Motivation Model, and the
Theory of Alternative Choices, along with the Principle of
Responsibility.  These are contrasted against traditional approaches
by their emphasis on workability, as opposed to correctness.

A Stance consists of a high-level classification of a situation, along
with a high-level precompiled response script.  Often there is
insufficient information in a prima facia situation to correctly
determine what is going on; or, the entity may simply not be able to
afford the overhead required to completely plan its behavior from
first principles.  Taking a stance on the situation allows a habitual
response to be made; which at least is some action in the face of the
unknown, and at best, solves the problem with minimal effort.

The Freudian Motivation Model splits behavior generation into three
general processes: generation, policies, and judgment, corresponding
to the id, superego, and ego, respectively.  Approved behaviors are
put on an intention queue or a performance queue, among others.  The
model can be used to explain nonpurposeful or nonvolitional behaviors
such as posthypnotic acts or compulsions.

The Theory of Alternative Choices says that given a direct choice
between, for example, one of two actions, there are actually a number
of alternative decisions that must be considered.  These include: do
nothing, wait, waffle, observe/consult, relegate, delegate, react,
transcend, or respond with a stance.  One of these may be much more
appropriate in a resource-limited situation than directly planning out
a decision between the two original choices.

As a follow-up, the Principle of Responsibility says that the entity
(the computer) must be responsible for its actions and its
recommendations.  In a certain sense, it must be willing to be wrong.
Even if it is totally convinced of the correctness of its situational
assessment, it must consider the possibility that things might go
badly, given a certain course of action--and it must use that as
further input to the decision process.

Examples will be interspersed in the talk.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
175
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 Jul 86 17:13:19-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Digest Schedule
-BODY-
The digest has been a little delayed this week because I've been
ill.  I'm getting back on my feet now, but starting August 13
I'll be doing some traveling for a month.  UUCP net.ai will still
function, but AIList digests will be halted until mid September.

The following announcement of Brad Miller's NL-KR list may provide
interim relief for the network junkies among us.  I appreciate his
willingness to take over AIList topics that deserve their own forum.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 16:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Miller <miller@UR-ACORN.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New List formed on Natural Language and Knowledge Representation
-BODY-
As most of you know, Ken Laws has been getting swamped with AIList
duties, and has asked for help. In this vein, I am starting a separate
list to deal exclusively with the Natural Language and Knowledge
Representation subfields of AI.

Since the scope of this list will be much narrower than the AIList, I
welcome postings from disciplines throughout cognitive science that are
related to these areas. I feel that AI is more of a conglomeration of
several diverse fields than it is a field unto itself, so this sort of
diversity is necessary.

More specifically, here are some details:

    You may submit material for the digest to nl-kr@rochester.arpa .
Digests are sent to Arpanet readers and USENET readers as appropriate.
(There are no current plans for forwarding to the UUCP news system.)

    Administrative requests (including asking to be included on the
list) should be sent to nl-kr-request@rochester.arpa .  Archival copies
of all digests will be kept; feel free to ask nl-kr-request for recent
back issues.

    NL-KR is open to discussion of any topic related to the natural
language (both understanding and generation) and knowledge
representation, both as subfields of AI.  My own related interests are
primarily in

    Knowledge Representation    Natural Language Understanding
    Discourse Understanding     Philosophy of Language
    Plan Recognition            Computational Linguistics

Contributions are also welcome on topics such as

    Cognitive Psychology (as related to NL/KR)
    Human Perception (same)
    Linguistics
    Machine Translation
    Computer and Information Science (as may be used to implement
                                      various NL systems)
    Logic Programming (same)

Contributions may be anything from tutorials to speculation. In
particular, the following are sought:

    Abstracts                             Reviews
    Lab Descriptions                      Research Overviews
    Work Planned or in Progress           Half-Baked Ideas
    Conference Announcements              Conference Reports
    Bibliographies                        History of NL/KR
    Puzzles and Unsolved Problems         Anecdotes, Jokes, and Poems
    Queries and Requests                  Address Changes (Bindings)

    This list is in some sense a spin-off of the AIList, and as such, a
certain amount of overlap is expected. The primary concentration of this
list should be NL and KR, that is, natural language (be it
understanding, generation, recognition, parsing, semantics, pragmatics,
etc.) and how we should represent knowledge (aquisition, access,
completeness, etc. are all valid issues). Topics I deem to be outside
the general scope of this list will be forwarded to AIList (or other
more appropriate list) or rejected.


                                            Bradford Miller
                                            University of Rochester
                                            Computer Science Department
                                            miller@rochester.arpa

[Note: Grateful acknowledgement is given to Dr. Kenneth Laws of SRI for
permission to use an edited version of his AIList welcoming message.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 86 14:35:16 CDT
-FROM-
From: Psychnet  <EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PSYCHNET Correction
-BODY-
To contact psychnet the userid is
   EPSYNET
and not
   EPSYCHNET.

  Yours truly,
  Bob Morecock, Editor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 17:19:20 bst
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <gcj%qmc-ori.uucp@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Metamorphosis" -- (A Common Sense Chinese Room Analogy).
-BODY-
The Steven  Berkoff production of "Metamorphosis" has recently
returned to the London stage.  A reviewer has pointed out that
the play lacks many of  the levels of meaning in Kafka's work,
as a result of its  transformation into a theatrical work. The
reviewer  was probably thinking of the English  translation of
the text from the original German and  it has been pointed out
that the translation the original language was responsible for
a considerable loss of substance.  Apparently, the true impact
of  the work can only  be grasped by a native speaker, who has
a background of the German culture.

Gordon Joly.
INET: gcj%maths.qmc.ac.uk%cs.qmc.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: gcj%UK.AC.QMC.MATHS%UK.AC.QMC.CS@AC.UK
UUCP: ...!seismo!ukc!qmc-ori!gcj
also: joly%surrey.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk


  [In Contact, Carl Sagan quotes a line about reading a translation
  being similar to viewing a tapestry from the back.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 14:27:03 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: philosophy journals
-BODY-
In article <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>, rapaport@buffalo.CSNET
("William J. Rapaport") writes:

> The original version of the ... problem may be found in:
>       Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia," _Philosophical Q._ 32(1982)127-136.
> with replies in:
>       Churchland, "Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of
>         Brain States," _J. of Philosophy_ 82(1985)8-28.
>       Jackson, "What Mary Didn't Know," _J. of Philosophy_ 83(1986)291-95.
> (One of the reasons I stopped reading net.philosophy was that its
> correspondents seemed not to know about what was going on in philosophy
> journals!)

Out of curiosity I hunted up the third article on the way back from lunch.
It's aggressive and condescending; any sympathy I might have felt for
the author's argument was repulsed by his sophomoric writing.  I hope it's
not typical of the writing in philosophy journals.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Jul 86 10:21 PDT
-FROM-
From: Newman.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle and understanding
-BODY-
Eyal Mozes quotes from Searle to explain how Searle thinks about human
understanding and its biological nature. I had seen that passage of
Searle's before, and I think that this is a major part of my problem
with Searle. He accepts the biological nature of thought and mind, yet
cannot accept the proposition that a computer can reproduce the
necessary features of these items. I cannot see any reason to believe
that Searle's position is correct. More importantly, I can see many
reasons why his position is incorrect.

Searle uses milk and sugar to illustrate his point. I think that this is
a terrible comparison because milk and sugar are physical products of
biological processes while thought and mind are not. I also think that
Searle's attack on grounds of dualism is rather unfair. Even Searle must
agree that there are physical things and non-physical things in the
world (eg Volkswagens and numbers), and that milk and sugar are members
of the first class while thought and mind are members of the second.
Moreover, Searle's position apparently demands that there are features
of thought and mind that are dependent on features of very low-level
biological processes that make thought and mind happen. What evidence is
there that there are such features?  I don't see that features of the
neurotransmitters (for example) can have an effect at any level other
than their own, particularly since any one biochemical event is unlikely
to have a large effect (my understanding is that large numbers of
biochemical events must occur in concert for anything to be apparent at
higher levels).

Admittedly there is as little evidence for my position as there is for
Searle's, but I think that there is more evidence against Searle than
there is against me. One last point is my paraphrase of John Haugeland's
comment in "Artificial Intelligence - The Very Idea": that brains are
merely symbol processors is a hypothesis and nothing more - until more
solid proof comes along.

>>Dave

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 14:08:41 edt
-FROM-
From: cdx39!jc%rclex.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Computer Ethics (from Risks Digest)
-BODY-
> To quote one of McLuhan's defocussed analogies: "You must talk to the
> medium, not to the programmer.  To talk to the programmer is like
> complaining to the hot-dog vendor about how badly your team is playing."

Whether he was talking about the broadcast or the computer industry, he
got the analogy wrong.

If the subject is broadcasting, the sports analogy to a "programmer"
is the guy that makes the play schedules.  True, that person is not
responsible for program content, much less quality.  But still, the
analogous position is not the hot-dog vendor.

If the subject is computers, the sports equivalent to a programmer
is the guy that designs the plays, i.e., the coach.  He is indeed
responsible for how badly the team/computer plays.  True, there may
be others that share the responsibility (like the players and equipment
vendor and the cpu and the I/O devices).  But still, in computing,
a programmer bears at least partial responsibility for the computer's
(mis)behaviour.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 86 03:30:03 PDT
-FROM-
From: larry@Jpl-VLSI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: "Proper" Study of Science, Conservation of Info
-BODY-

I have to start with materialism.  What we mean today when we say the word
may have a common core with its use in previous centuries, but the details
are vastly different.  Today we recognize not only wind and wave, steam and
steel as physical realities, but also quanta and field effects (and virtual
particles!)--subjects that pre-modern physicists and engineers would
consider downright mystical.  And that would have been exactly true--in
their time.  But we  can precisely define these things now, quantify them,
experiment with and measure them.  An even more radical difference is that
information--pattern, form--is now a part of physics, "a metric as important
as time, space, charge, etc."

The ability to quantify and measure pattern and shape has profound implica-
tions for the study of formerly mystical topics such as intelligence.   It
means we can develop conservation laws for information, without which you
can't construct an essential ingredient of mathematics, equations.  I'm not
implying I know what they are in any detail; people with other qualifica-
tions than mine must provide that.  But the shape of the research seems to
be clear; cybernetics and information theory provide the basis.

For instance, there are several links between information and energy.
Higher frequency radiation has more bits per unit time.  Mutation is the
result of external energy pushing genes beyond the ability of their binding
energies to maintain a stable structure.  The impressing of information on
media (diskettes, molecules, brains) requires energy which can be measured.
Organization of information in structures (indexed or random files,
percepts, concepts) has time/energy trade-offs for different kinds of
accesses.

In a way, the information content of an entity is more important than its
material content.  A decade from now it's likely that none of our bodies
will contain EVEN A SINGLE ATOM now in them.  Even bones are fluid in
biological organisms; only when we die does matter cease to flow into and
out of us.  We are NOT matter, or even energy, in the Antique sense.  We are
patterns, standing waves in four (or more) dimensions.

Maintaining these patterns within safe parameters, or learning new safe
parameters, requires that our very molecules input data, store it, process
it--often in a recursive or self-referential or time-dependent fashion--and
act.  (RNA  is an excellent model for an advanced computer, for instance.)
And we can be thought as a  number of layers each with its unique informa-
tion needs: cells, tissue, organs, organisms, tribes.

One feature common to all intelligences, however rudimentary, is the ability
to create and manipulate analogs of the environment and of themselves.
Simulations are much cheaper and safer than experiments.  This also gives a
clue as to how will impresses itself on the universe despite its immaterial
nature--because it isn't truly immaterial.  Patterns are no more independent
of their matter/energy base than matter can exist without pattern.  (That
is, the pattern of binding is what makes the difference between an atom and
a burst of radiant energy.)  Because intelligence is a pattern of energy it
can affect matter and through triggering have effects enormously greater
than the triggering stimulus.  A whim and a whistle can destroy a city--with
an avalanche.

The point of all this is that life and intelligence are no longer
supernatural--beyond the reach of formalism and experiment.

What is still a mystery to me is consciousness, but the understanding
doesn't seem beyond practical realization.  It seems reasonable that con-
sciousness arises as a result of time-binding, recursion, and self-
reference.  Perhaps multiple layers of vulnerability and adaptability are
important, too.  (Our current robots and computers don't have any of these
and are thus poor candidates for models of intelligent mechanisms, much less
conscious ones.  Thus I'd agree with one recent critic of some AI research.)

I can't agree that consciousness is an improper subject for scientific
study.  Our inability to observe it directly (in a public as opposed to
subjective way) is shared by many other scientific fields.  In fact the most
crucial subjects in the "hard" sciences must be studied indirectly: radia-
tion, atoms, viruses, etc.  The difficulty of defining terms shouldn't be a
deterrent either.  All developing research shares the same problem as the
underlying ideas change and solidify.

Some people object on emotional grounds.  Many of them only succeed in
revealing their own limitations, not those of the rest of us.  They are too
emotionally stunted to have the strength of humility; they must somehow be
above nature, superior.  And too intellectually crippled to see the magic
and mystery in star-shine and bird flight, in ogive curve and infinitesimals
and the delicious simplicity of an algorithm.
                                                   Larry @ jpl-vlsi.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
176
-DATE-
Date: Wed 23 Jul 86 21:39:50-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.VANSICKLE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system to catch spies
-BODY-
Today's (July 23, 1986) Wall Street Journal contains an
editorial by Paul M. Rosa urging the use of expert systems
to identify potential spies (acutally traitors).  Mr. Rosa
is a lawyer and a former intelligence analyst.  Since
virtually all American traitors sell out for money, an
expert system embodying the expertise of trained
investigators could examine credit histories, court files,
registers of titled assets such as real estate and
vehicles, airline reservations, telephone records, income
tax returns, bank transactions, use of passports, and
issuance of visas.  The system would look for suspicious
patterns and alert counter-intelligence officials for
further investigation.

There are some obvious considerations of privacy and
legality, but that is probably best discussed on another
bulletin board.  Mr. Rosa says the system would be used
only on the 4.3 million people who hold security
clearances, who have consented to government scrutiny.

According to Mr. Rosa, "the obstacles to implementation are
not technological," and "the system could be implemented
quickly and cheaply."  He predicts that the Soviets,
working through their extensive international banking
network, will use the same techniques to identify potential
recruits.  He also says that the FBI has three expert
systems for monitoring labor rackets, narcotics shipments,
and terrorist activities.

Any reactions?  Is this doable?  It strikes me as more of a
data collection problem than an expert system problem.  Is
there anyone who knows more about the FBI expert systems
and can talk about it?

Larry Van Sickle
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu
Computer Sciences Dept.
U of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 86 20:20:06 cdt
-FROM-
From: marick%ccvaxa@gswd-vms.ARPA (Brian Marick)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reimplementing in C
-BODY-

I've been hearing and seeing something for the past couple years,
something that seems to be becoming a folk theorem.  The theorem goes
like this:

        Many expert systems are being reimplemented in C.

        If even the expert system companies are abandoning
"special-purpose AI languages" like Lisp and Prolog, surely nobody
else - other than academics and semi-academics - will use them.


I'm curious what the facts are.  Which companies are reimplementing in
C (or other languages).  Why?  And what (roughly) does "reimplementing
in C" mean?  What languages are used for development of new products?
What will happen in the future?  Which companies are not reimplementing?
Why not?

(I'm concentrating on these particular companies because they're what the
"theorizers" concentrate on.  Comments from others welcome.)


Brian Marick, Wombat Consort
Gould Computer Systems -- Urbana && University of Illinois
...ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!marick
ARPA:  Marick@GSWD-VMS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 86 10:03:44 edt
-FROM-
From: Catherine A. Meadows <meadows@nrl-css.arpa>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: machine translation
-BODY-
I am interested in learning about machine translation of natural languages.
Can anybody out there tell me what is going on in the field these days,
how much progess has been made, what systems are being built, who is working
on them, etc.?

                                Catherine Meadows
                                (send replies to meadows@nrl-css)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 31 Jul 86 06:29:18-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ted Markowitz <G.TJM@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Financial Expert Systems
-BODY-
I'd like to make a collection of references to work being done in AI
and finance, including trading, planning, market analysis, etc.  I've
found the companies who are developing such systems internally to be
very secretive (not suprisingly), but I'd like to throw some light on
this area.

If anyone is doing work in these kinds of domains and would like to
talk about it, please send them on to me and I'll redistribute the
answers after digesting them.  I see some especially interesting
problems in dealing with time and pattern recognition that occur
in these situations.

>-ted

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jul 86 19:18:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!ukc!reading!brueer!ckennedy@ucb
     vax.berkeley.edu  (C.M.Kennedy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connectionist Approaches To Expert System Learning
-BODY-

CONNECTIONIST APPROACHES TO EXPERT SYSTEM LEARNING



I wish to hear about any research on the following topic:


      The application of connectionist models, in particular
      feature discovery networks (e.g. kohonen nets) to the
      problem of knowledge induction in expert systems.


Applications of connectionist models to other areas of symbolic
processing or knowledge representation are also of interest.


I would be pleased to receive (via mail) the following information:

      1. A summary of what the research is attempting to achieve,
         methods used and degree of success,

      2. how to obtain more detailed documentation (e.g. technical
         reports),

      3. references on literature used for the research or which may
         be of future interest.


I would also be interested to hear of anyone else with similar interests
who can contribute useful ideas or knows of any specific literature on
the subject.



      Catriona Kennedy
      Brunel University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Aug 86 02:13:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: watcgl!fdfishman@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Flynn D. Fishman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Snodgrass and Vanderwart Images
-BODY-
I am not really sure where to post this request but I will give this a shot
and hope some one can help me.
I am looking for the digitized set of 260 commonly found objects
compiled by Snodgrass and Vanderwart  for use in psychology.

   Snodgrass, J. G. & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260
pictures:
   Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiartity, and visual
   complexity.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,
   6, 174-215..

Any format will do, but I would perfer if they were in a line format, i.e.
co-ordinates.

I would also appreciate if you could e-mail me a response as I do not get to
read as much news as I would like to.

Thanks very much.
>-

      FDFISHMAN (Flynn D. Fishman)

UUCP  : ...!{decvax|ihnp4|clyde|allegra|utzoo}!watmath!watcgl!fdfishman
ARPA  : fdfishman%watcgl%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
CSNET : fdfishman%watcgl@waterloo.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 86 15:11 EST
-FROM-
From: SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Forgy VAX/VMS OPS5 User Manual
-BODY-
From:    <SECRIST%OAK.SAINET.MFENET@LLL-MFE.Arpa>   (Richard C. Secrist)
Date:    Sun,  3-AUG-1986 15:12 EST
To:      AIlist@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA
Message-ID: <[OAK.SAINET.MFENET].701C0320.008F2E4C.SECRIST>
Header-Disclaimer: I don't like my headers either.
Quote: "May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Organization:  Science Applications Int'l. Corp., Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA
CompuServe-ID: [71636,52]
X-VMS-Mail-To: ARPA%"AIlist@SRI-STRIPE.Arpa"

I have a copy of Forgy's 1981 OPS5 system in Lisp for use under the
public domain Franz Lisp for VMS and am trying to locate a user's
manual for it, and would appreciate any help the members of this list
could provide.

I believe the document is:

        Forgy, C.L.  OPS5 User's Manual.  Carnegie-Mellon Univ.,
        CMU-CS-78-116, 1981.

Thanks in advance to all.

Richard C. Secrist,
SECRIST%OAK.SAInet.MFEnet@LLL-MFE.Arpa

Science Applications Int'l. Corp.; 800 Oak Ridge Tpke; Oak Ridge, TN 37830

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Jul 86 20:21:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!savax!king@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (king)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI System Development Model
-BODY-
Sanders Associates, Inc., under contract to Rome Air Development Center, is
performing a study on the acquisition, management, and control of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) software. While the Department of Defense has established
numerous standards for the acquisition and development of conventional
software, such standards may not translate effectively to AI software.

The development of a model suitable for dealing with issues related to
acquisition, control and management of AI based software requires input from
experienced AI development team members. Sanders has developed a questionnaire
that explores the development process in these areas. Contributions to the
questionnaire and study will be acknowledged in the final report. Interested
professionals are invited to contact the following for a copy of the
questionnaire:


              Ms. Sandy King
              Sanders Associates, Inc. (MER24-1283)
              Nashua, N.H. 03061

              (603) 885-9242

              uucp: !decvax!savax!king

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 86 11:10:18 pdt
-FROM-
From: George Cross <cross%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Common Lisp and Prolog on VM/CMS
-BODY-
Intermetrics is selling VM/CMS Common Lisp.  The educational price was
recently $4000.  The documentation indicates a quite complete implementation
with interfaces to Intermetrics C language available.  There is an ad
for it on p32 of AI Magazine, V7, Number 1, Spring 1986.
    Intermetrics
    733 Concord Avenue
    Cambridge, MA 02138
    (617)-661-1840

Cognitive Systems may be selling CSI-LISP on top of IBM VM LISP.  This
is a rewrite of T, a Scheme dialect.  Details in AI Magazine, V6, Number
3, Fall 1985, page 248.


 ---- 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    Phone: 509-335-6319 or 509-335-6636

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 86 07:56:55 PDT
-FROM-
From: newton@vlsi.caltech.edu (Mike Newton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: VM Prolog
-BODY-

Regarding the recent inquiry about Common Lisp & Prolog under VM:

Though we run VM, one of the Virtual machines is UTS -- Amdahl's port
of System 5.  Under this we run a locally modified version of CProlog
and are quite pleased with the performance.  Warning -- UTS is *NOT*
cheap (but is very nice) !!

Our own Prolog compiler (for VM/CMS) is just nearing completion -- It can
compile roughly half of itself.  However we do not expect that it will
be ready for release for a while.  It follows Clocksin & Mellish as well
as can be done on an IBM mainframe (EBCDIC-->ASCII conversions and
such).  When released it will be *fast* -- roughly 95 KLips on a 4341,
and currently around .8 MegaLips on a 3090 (using one processor!).

I believe the IBM prolog (Waterloo) uses a different syntax than is
commonly used.

Hope this has helped --

> mike

newton@cit-vax.caltech.edu      {ucbvax!cithep,amdahl}!cit-vax!newton
Caltech 256-80                  818-356-6771 (afternoons,nights)
Pasadena CA 91125               Beach Bums Anonymous, Pasadena President

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 14:27:33 PDT
-FROM-
From: trwrb!orion!gries@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Harry A. Gries)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: orion!gries@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Harry A. Gries)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Query - Geometric Placement
-BODY-

In article <522182201.bhola@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
  Carlos.Bhola@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>       Query:  Does anyone know about any expert system (developed
>               or under development) that relates to the placement
>               of geometric objects in a plane?  Examples of the
>               problem would be pagination, VLSI layout, etc.
>
>
>                               -- Carlos.

 Another application would be in creating district boundaries for
 congressional representatives.  The problem would be to section
 the population of a state (currently California is debating this problem)
 so that each district has approximately the same population.  This must
 be done without breaking city, county, or precinct boundaries.  Also,
 in order to assure a fairly homogeneous constituency, the aspect ratio
 of the district must be limited.  An optimal solution would have the
 smallest sum of district perimeters.


                                -- BTK

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Aug 86 15:36 PDT
-FROM-
From: Shrager.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Note without comment
-BODY-
United States Patent # 4,591,983
Date: May 27, 1986
Title: Hierarchical Knowledge System
Filed: July 9, 1984

Abstract:

        A knowledge system has a hierarchical knowledge base comprising a
functional decomposition of a set of elements into subject sets over a
plurality of hierarchical levels. [...] the operations include matching,
configuring, and expanding the user-defined set of elements [...] In a
specific embodyment, the elements are available components of a system
or item of manufacture [...].

Perpetrators: James S. Bennett & Jay S. Lark
                        Techknowledge, Inc.
                        Palo Alto, CA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
177
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 1986 1121-PDT (Friday)
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Eugene Miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Helicopter Flight Path Control (Ames)
-BODY-

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                         Ames Research Center

          Systems Autonomy Demonstration Program Seminar


                         Dr. Shoshana Abel
                        Expert-EASE Systems

          Application of Evidential Reasoning to Helicopter
                        Flight Path Control


An innovative form of AI technology called evidential reasoning systems
will be presented for advanced helicopters.  The reasoning system,
based on the mathematical theory of evidence by Glen Shafer, centers
on automatic reasoning inorder to derive the necessary conclusions
about feature extraction and obstacle avoidance.  The advantage of
using this approach applied to advance helicopters will be
discussed.

Date:     Thursday. 8/21/86
Time:     3:00 pm
Location: NASA, Ames Research Center, Bldg. 244 room 103
Inquires: David Jared, (415) 964-6533   jared%plu@ames-io.arpa

VISITORS ARE WELCOME: Register and obtain vehicle pass at Ames Visitor
Reception Building (N-253) or the Security Station near Gate 18.  Do not
use the Navy Main Gate.

Non-citizens (except Permanent Residents) must have prior approval from the
Director's Office one week in advance.  Submit requests to the point of
contact indicated above.  Non-citizens must register at the Visitor
Reception Building.  Permanent Residents are required to show Alien
Registration Card at the time of registration.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Aug 1986 1400-EDT
-FROM-
From: ALR@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Object Encapsulation and Inheritance (MIT)
-BODY-

                  DATE:  THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1986

                  REFRESHMENTS AT 1:45 PM
                  TALK AT 2:00 PM

                  PLACE:  NE43-512A


    Encapsulation and Inheritance in Object-Oriented Programming Languages

                        Alan Snyder
                        Hewlett Packard
                        Palo Alto, Ca.


Object-oriented programming is a practical and useful programming methodology
that encourages modular design and software reuse.  Most object-oriented
programming languages support data abstraction by preventing an object from
being manipulated except via its defined external operations.  In most
languages, however, the introduction of inheritance severely compromises the
benefits of this encapsulation.  Furthermore, the use of inheritance itself is
globally visible in most languages, so that changes to the inheritance
hierarchy cannot be made safely.  We examine the relationship between
inheritance and encapsulation and develop requirements for full support of
encapsulation with inheritance.

Host:  Prof. Liskov

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1986  14:38 EDT
-FROM-
From: PJ@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - ACTORS in Concurrent Logic Programming Languages (MIT)
-BODY-

                        ****** SEMINAR ******
                          THURSDAY, AUGUST 7
                          8TH FLOOR PLAYROOM
                                11:00 am

                   ********    ACTORS    *******
                IN CONCURRENT LOGIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
                     *****************************

                             KENNETH KAHN

                        Knowledge Systems Area
                     Intelligent System Laboratory
                    XEROX PALO ALTO RESEARCH CENTER

ABSTRACT:

    Concurrent logic programming languages support object-oriented
    programming with a clean semantics and additional programming constructs
    such as incomplete messages, unification, direct broadcasting, and
    concurrency synchronization.  While these languages
    provide excellent computational support, we claim they do not provide
    good notation for expressing the abstractions of object-oriented
    programming.  We describe a preprocessor that remedies this problem.
    the resulting language, Vulcan, is then used as a vehicle for exploring
    new variants of object-oriented programming which become possible in
    this framework.

Host: Prof. Carl Hewitt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 August 1986, 23:14:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jean-Louis Lassez <JLL@ibm.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 4th International Conference on Logic Programming
-BODY-

                        CALL FOR PAPERS

      Fourth International Conference On Logic Programming

               University of Melbourne, Australia
                          Late May 1987

  The   conference  will   consider  all   aspects  of   logic
  programming, including, but not limited to:

   Theory and Foundations
   Architectures and Implementations
   Programming Languages and Methodology
   Databases
   Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Expert Systems
   Relations   to   other  computation   models,   programming
   languages, and programming methodologies.

  Of special interest are papers discussing novel applications
  and applications that address  the unique character of logic
  programming.

  Papers can be submitted under  two categories, short - up to
  2000 words, and  long - up to 6000  words.  Submissions will
  be   considered  on   basis  of   appropriateness,  clarity,
  originality, significance, and overall quality.

  Authors should send six copies  of their manuscript, plus an
  extra copy of the abstract to:

             Jean-Louis Lassez
             ICLP Program Chairman
             IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
             H1-A12
             P.O. Box 218
             Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
             USA

  Deadline  for  submission of  papers  is  December 1,  1986.
  Authors  will  be notified  of  acceptance  or rejection  by
  February 28, 1987.   Camera ready copies are  due April 1st,
  1987.

  General Chairman:
             John Lloyd
             Department of Computer Science
             University of Melbourne
             Parkville, Victoria 3052
             Australia

  Program Committee

   Ken Bowen, Syracuse, USA
   Keith Clark, Imperial College, U.K.
   Jacques Cohen, Brandeis, USA
   Veronica Dahl, Simon Fraser University, Canada
   Maarten van Emden, University of Waterloo, Canada
   Koichi Furukawa, ICOT, Japan
   Ivan Futo, SZKI, Hungary
   Seif Haridi, SICS, Sweden
   Jean-Louis Lassez, Yorktown Heights, USA
   Giorgio Levi, University of Pisa, Italy
   Jacob Levy, Weizmann Institute, Israel
   John Lloyd, University of Melbourne, Australia
   Fumio Mizoguchi, Science University of Tokyo, Japan
   Fernando Pereira, SRI International, USA
   Antonio Porto, University of Lisbon, Portugal
   Marek Sergot, Imperial College, U.K.
   David Warren, Manchester University, U.K.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 86 21:10:00 -0200
-FROM-
From: mcvax!crin!lescanne@seismo.CSS.GOV (Pierre LESCANNE)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 2nd Int. Rewriting Techniques and Applications
-BODY-
            [Forwarded from TheoryNet by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]


                         CALL FOR PAPERS

                             RTA-87


                    2nd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
                              on
                  REWRITING TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS


May 25-27 1987                                                 Bordeaux, France


TOPICS

        In  May 1985 the First International Conference on Rewriting Techniques
and Applications met at Dijon.  The conference was a great success,  attracting
over  100  researchers  working on rewriting techniques.  The second conference
will take place at Bordeaux, another city famous for its  wine,  in  May  1987.
Papers  concerning  the theory and applications of term rewriting are solicited
for the conference.  Areas of interest include the following, but  authors  are
encouraged to submit papers on other topics as well.

Equational Deduction                    Functional and Logic Programming
Computer Algebra                        Automated Theorem Proving
Unification and Matching Algorithms     Rewrite Rule Based Expert Systems
Algebraic and Operational Semantics     Semantics of Nondeterminism
Theory of general rewriting systems     Rewriting and Computer Architecture
        Specification, Transformation, Validation and Generation of Programs


SUBMISSION

        Each  submission  should include 11 copies of a one page abstract and 4
copies of a full paper of no more than 15 double spaced pages.  Submissions are
to be sent to one of the Co-Chairmen:

For Europe:             Pierre Lescanne, RTA-87, Centre de Recherche en
                        Informatique de Nancy, Campus Scientifique, BP 239,
                        54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex, FRANCE.

For other countries:    David Plaisted, RTA-87,
                        Department of Computer Science,
                        New West Hall 035-A,
                        University of North
                        Carolina at Chapel Hill,
                        Chapel Hill NC 27514, USA.

Paper selection will be done by circulating abstracts to  all  members  of  the
program  committee,  with each full paper assigned to several committee members
having appropriate expertise.  In addition to selected papers,  a  few  invited
lectures   will  be  given  by  well-known  researchers  who  have  made  major
contributions in the field:


INVITED LECTURERS

J-P. Jouannaud, University of Paris-Sud, France,
D. Musser, GE Research and Development Laboratory, Schenectady, USA,
M. O'Donnell, University of Chicago, Illinois, USA.


SCHEDULE

Paper submission deadline is December 15, 1986.
Acceptance/Rejection by January 25, 1987.
Camera ready copy by March 9.
Proceedings will be distributed at the conference  and  published  by  Springer
Verlag in the LNCS series.


PROGRAM COMMITTEE

B. Buchberger, University of Linz, Austria,
R. Book, University of Santa Barbara, USA,
B. Courcelle, University of Bordeaux, France,
N. Dershowitz, University of Illinois, USA,
J. Guttag, MIT, USA,
D. Kapur, General Electric, USA,
P. Lescanne, (Program co-Chairman) CRIN, France,
R. Loos, University of Karlsruhe, FRG,
D. Plaisted, (Program co-Chairman), University of North Carolina, USA
G. Plotkin, University of Edinburgh, UK,
M. Stickel, SRI-International, USA.


LOCAL COMMITTEE

B. Courcelle, R. Cori, M. Claverie

For information send mail on UUCP to: mcvax!inria!crin!lescanne
or on ARPAnet to: pierre@larch.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 86 23:47:37 -0500
-FROM-
From: sriram@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 1st Eurographics Intelligent CAD Systems
-BODY-

                           CALL FOR PAPERS

                    FIRST EUROGRAPHICS WORKSHOP ON
                       INTELLIGENT CAD SYSTEMS

                          APRIL 22-24, 1987
                   NOORDWIJKERHOUT, THE NETHERLANDS

                             ORGANIZED BY

             CENTRE FOR MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
                      AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

                             SPONSORED BY

                             EUROGRAPHICS

AIM

Today,  one of the main strengths in CAD research has become so-called
intellectualization of CAD systems, primarily, as  an  application  of
knowledge   engineering.   This  research  may  contain  two  aspects:
intellectualization  of  CAD  systems  by  intelligence  for   helping
designers  and  intellectualization  by  problem  solving ability. The
former  approach  may  be  achieved  by  developing  intelligent  user
interface  concept,  for  instance,  so  that the designer can perform
his/her full ability, whereas the latter may be achieved by developing
systems,  like  expert  systems,  which  can solve various engineering
problems.

However, it is obvious that either of these two approaches  can  alone
fulfill  requirements  to  future  CAD  systems.    It is necessary to
develop an integrated environment for intelligent  CAD  systems  using
intelligent  interactive  techniques. Therefore, we pursue integration
of these two approaches in order to build intelligent CAD systems, and
we discuss issues such asL

   - configuration of intelligent CAD systems,
   - tools and techniques for developing those systems,
   - methodology for developing.

We plan a series of three workshops beginning in 1987

   - 1987:  Theoretical  and methodological aspects in developing
     an intelligent CAD system.
   - 1988: Architecture of an intelligent CAD system.
   - 1989: Practical experiences and evaluation of an intelligent
     CAD system.

SCOPE OF THE FIRST WORKSHOP IN 1987

   1. Principle and configuration of intelligent CAD systems
   2. Theory and methodology of development
   3. Available  tools  for development, such as intelligent user
      interace management systems and tools for  problem  solving
      in design
   4. Use  and  role  of intelligent user interface systems in an
      intelligent CAD environment

STYLE OF WORKSHOP

Approximately 10  invited  papers  and  10  refereed  papers  will  be
presented.  Participants will be limited roughly 50. In this workshop,
theoretical and methodological aspects are emphasized. The  result  of
this workshop will be published by Springer-Verlag.

SCHEDULE FOR THE WORKSHOP

December 1, 1986:   Deadline for extended abstracts upto 1000 words
January 1987:       Notification of acceptance
March 1987:         Acceptance of participation
April 22-24, 1987:  Workshop (Full papers are submitted on site)
July 1987:          Deadline for final manuscripts for publication

ORGANIZATION

Co-charimen         P. J. W. ten hagen (CWI, NL)
                    T. Tomiyama (CWI, NL)
Secretary           P. J. Veerkamp (CWI, NL)
Program Committee
                    F. Arbab (USC, USA)
                    P. Bernus (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H)
                    A. Bijl (University of Edinburgh, UK)
                    J. Encarnacao (TH Darmstadt, D)
                    S. J. Fenves (CMU, USA)
                    D. Gossard (MIT, USA)
                    F. Kimura (The University of Tokyo, J)
                    T. Kjelberg (Royal Institute of Technology, S)
                    M. Mac an Airchinnigh (University of Dublin, IR)
                    K. MacCallum (University of Strathclyde, UK)
                    F. J. Schramel (Philips, NL)
                    D. Sriram (MIT, USA)
                    T. Takala (Helsinki Technical University, SF)
                    F. Tolman (TNO, NL)
                    H. Yoshikawa (The Unviersity of Tokyo, J)

INFORMATION

Please submit an extended abstract up to 1,000 words to:
                    Ms. Marja Hegt
                    Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science
                    Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                    Tel: (Overseas) +31-20-592-4058
                    Usenet: marja@mcvax.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
178
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Aug 86 20:35:31-CDT
-FROM-
From: CMP.BARC@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Query: Hitachi Software Design ES
-BODY-
I looking for information on an expert system called MDL/MAD for large-
scale software design.  I've heard a little bit about it already.  It has
about 1500 rules concerned with relationships among design data, the design
decision-making procedure and the format for expressing design information.
It has been claimed to reduce design errors by 40% and specification/
correction time by 80%.  It is still under development at Hitachi's Software
Development Laboratory and is two years away from commercial release.

The questions are:  What does it really do and how does it work?

I would also be interested in related systems ICAS (Hitachi), DEA/I (NEC)
and SDEM/SDSS (Fujitsu).

Dallas Webster

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 19:15:11 pdt
-FROM-
From: dan@ads.ARPA (Dan Shapiro)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: looking for a theorem prover in 3D geometry
-BODY-
A friend of mine is looking for pointers to work on the topic of theorem
proving in 3D geometry.  The application is in AI applied to the
ellucidation of crystal structures within organic chemistry.

He would also be interested in pointers to CAD-like programs that
allow construction and visualization of repetative lattice structures.

If anyone has information that would help out, please respond to
me directly as Dan@ads-unix.Arpa

        Dan Shapiro

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 86 17:21:13 EDT
-FROM-
From: Lee.Brownston@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 manual
-BODY-
Write to the Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 to request the OPS5 User's Manual.  Another source of
OPS5 information is "Programming Expert Systems in OPS5" by Brownston,
Farrell, Kant, and Martin (Addison-Wesley, 1985).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 4 Aug 86 22:38:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems - The New Cop on the Beat
-BODY-
The FBI has developed Big Floyd, an expert system to assist in criminal
investigations.  Similar programs are being developed to catch drug
smugglers and target potential terrorists.  The EPA wants to identify
polluters; the Treasury Department is looking for money-laundering
banks; the Energy Department would like to find contractors who cut
corners; the Customs service is after drug smugglers; the IRS is
developing a system to spot tax cheaters; the Secret Service is working
on a classified system to point out potential presidential assassins;
and the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crimes is
developing expert systems to identify potential serial killers,
arsonists, and rapists.  Systems to target counterfeiters and bombers
are also being built.  -- Michael Schrage, The Washington Post National
Weekly Edition, Vol. 3, No. 40, August 4, 1986, p. 6.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 86 09:48:56 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Humor: Re: [Query - Geometric Placement]
-BODY-
   Date: Fri, 25 Jul 86 14:27:33 PDT
   From: trwrb!orion!gries@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Harry A. Gries)
   >       Query:  Does anyone know about any expert system (developed
   >               or under development) that relates to the placement
   >               of geometric objects in a plane?  [* * *]

    Another application would be in creating district boundaries for
    congressional representatives. [* * *]

What's that rustling sound I hear from across the river, up there on
Beacon Hill?  It must be Governor Gerry doing pinwheels in his grave,
and the entire Masschusetts House of representatives trembling in
their boots...  (We better keep this quiet, or they're liable to pass
a law against AI :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Aug 86 23:57:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!hes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Schaffer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Computing with Neural Circuits:
-BODY-
A paper, "Computing with Neural Circuits: A Model" by John J.
Hopfield and David W. Tank is in the 8 Aug. 1986 issue of
Science (pp. 625-633.)

"A new conceptual framework and a minimization principle together
provide an understanding of computation in model neural circuits.
The circuits consist of nonlinear graded-response model neurons
organized into networks with effectively symmetric synaptic
connections.  The neurons represent an approximation to biological
neurons in which a simplified set of important computational properties
is retained.  Complex circuits solving problems similar to those
essential in biology can be analyzed and understood without the need
to follow the circuit dynamics in detail.  Implementation of the model
with electronic devices will provide a class of electronic circuits of
novel form and function."  (Abstract)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 86 15:21:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: BENJY%VTVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Petrocelli Books
-BODY-

I recently received an advertisement for an AI book published by
Petrocelli Books, Inc.  I assume Petrocelli will be publishing more
AI books, so I would like to post a warning to potential authors.
I wrote two books for this company, and I've never received a royalty
check without asking for it although the contract I signed states that
statements would be sent twice a year.  Last time I asked for a
statement, I was told that PBI had cash flow problems and had to wait
several months after their grace period for a meager sum.


                        Ben Cline
                        Virginia Tech
                        BENJY@VTVM1.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 86 15:30:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!ls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
     (Lauren L Smith)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Functional Programming Bibliography
-BODY-
Andy Cheese's Functional Programming bibliography is ready for distribution
again.  It covers all sorts of references relating to functional languages,
architectures for functional languages, to theory of, to garbage collecting,
to functional programming and multiprocessing, to logic programming &
functional combinations, to (well, you get the idea!).  It has
been extensively updated since the last major distribution of it.

If you would be interested in receiving a copy (ONE request per site PLEASE!),
please contact the appropriate person.

North America:  Lauren Smith
                ARPA: ls@lanl
                UUCP: {cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl!ls

Everywhere Else: Andy Cheese
                 abc%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK

The bibliography is 24 files long, since it is too large to send as one
big file.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 14:31:48 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Conservation of Info, etc.
-BODY-
In article <8608010557.AA11269@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA
writes:
> The ability to quantify and measure pattern and shape has profound implica-
> tions for the study of formerly mystical topics such as intelligence.   It
> means we can develop conservation laws for information, without which you
> can't construct an essential ingredient of mathematics, equations.

While I agree with much of the article, this assumption looks superfluous
to me.  Computer programs are a kind of mathematics, and they use assign-
ments and functions rather than equations.

More generally, I should like to see discussed what "information" means
in the abstract sense.  After all, anything can be said to contain all
conceivable information about itself.  Is "information" meaningful apart
from communication?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 86 15:30:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: follow-up on philosophy articles
-BODY-
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: philosophy journals
References: <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>
  <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: William J. Rapaport (rapaport@buffalo.csnet)
Reply-To: rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport)
Followup-To: The Colonel's complaint
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science

In article <8608010555.AA11229@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
  colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") writes:
>In article <8607211801.AA17444@ellie.SUNYAB>, rapaport@buffalo.CSNET
>("William J. Rapaport") writes:
>
>> The original version of the ... problem may be found in:
>>      Jackson, "Epiphenomenal Qualia," _Philosophical Q._ 32(1982)127-136.
>> with replies in:
>>      Churchland, "Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of
>>        Brain States," _J. of Philosophy_ 82(1985)8-28.
>>      Jackson, "What Mary Didn't Know," _J. of Philosophy_ 83(1986)291-95.
>> (One of the reasons I stopped reading net.philosophy was that its
>> correspondents seemed not to know about what was going on in philosophy
>> journals!)
>
>Out of curiosity I hunted up the third article on the way back from lunch.
>It's aggressive and condescending; any sympathy I might have felt for
>the author's argument was repulsed by his sophomoric writing.  I hope it's
>not typical of the writing in philosophy journals.

I don't quite understand what "aggressive and condescending" or
"sophomoric writing" have to do with philosophical argumentation.
One thing that philosophers try not to do is give ad hominem arguments.
A philosophical arguement stands or falls on its logical merits, not its
rhetoric.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
179
-DATE-
Date: Tue 12 Aug 86 00:44:30-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Administrivia - Vacation
-BODY-
I'm off to Singapore and Malaysia for a month.  AIList will
resume in mid September.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 17:08:36 est
-FROM-
From: munnari!trlamct.oz!andrew@seismo.CSS.GOV (Andrew Jennings)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI expert
-BODY-

I've just received a small ad for "AI expert" : the first commercial
magazine ever. Has anybody seen a copy : comments ?

_____________________________
ACSNET: andrew@trlamct.trl    VOICE: +1 61 3 5416241
UUCP: ...!{seismo, mcvax, ucb-vision, ukc}!munnari!trlamct.trl!andrew
ARPA: andrew%trlamct.trl.oz@seismo.css.gov

Dr. Andrew Jennings  ,  Section Head, Applied Mathematics and Computer
                        Techniques Section,
                        Telecom Australia Research Laboratories,
                        P.O. Box 249
                        Clayton,  Victoria 3168,  AUSTRALIA.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Aug 86 13:14:48 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!sri-spam!mordor!lll-crg!seismo!mcvax!kvvax4!rolfs@uc
     bvax.berkeley.edu  (Rolf Skatteboe)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems and maintenance planning
-BODY-
Hello:

I'm just starting on a project which main goal is to evaluate the
possibilities of combining the use of knowledge based systems with
maintenance planning.

So far, I have found very little work done in this field so everything
will be of interest. It is however, maintenance planning of rotating
machinery which is the main interest group.


 I like to get hold on everything: articles, program descriptions and things
like that. If someone is interested in further information about the
project, please let  me know.

Thank you ---Grethe

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Aug 86 16:35:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: hplabs!hplabsb!wiemann@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alan Wiemann)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: expert systems and maintenance planning
-BODY-
Grethe, Bell Labs developed a system for maintenance of cable which I think
was called ACE.  Try there for starters.

Alan L. Wiemann
HP Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Aug 86 18:16:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: nbires!vianet!devine@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Devine)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 'Go' challenge
-BODY-

  Here is a news item that was published in August 5th "PC Week":

          You can be $1 million richer if you're the first
        person to devise a Go program that can beat a human
        expert.

          MultiTech Inc., Taiwan's largest manufacturer of
        personal computers, is sponsoring the contest in
        conjuction with the Taiwanese Ing Chang-chi Weich'i
        Educational Foundation.

          MultiTech says that its motives are:

        1. to create an awareness of the Chinese origins of the
        game Go and to increase interest in the game;

        2. to spur development of computer hardware, software
        and artificial intelligence; and

        3. to increase international awareness of progress in
        the Taiwanese computer industry.

        The contest was inspired by a similar one that began about
        30 years ago and which promised to award its prize to the
        author of the first chess program that could be a human
        master.  That contest lasted for six years before the
        prize was won -- a whopping 2,000 pounds sterling (about
        $10,000).

        The computer/Go contest will be staged annually from now
        until the end of the century, according to MultiTech.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
180
-DATE-
Date: Tue 16 Sep 86 01:28:28-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Resumption of Service
-BODY-
I'm back from vacation and almost have the mail streams under control
again.  This issue clears out "old business" messages relating to the
discussions in early August.  I'll follow with digests flushing the
accumulated queries, Usenet replies, news items, conference and
seminar abstracts, and bibliographic citations -- spread out a bit so
that I'm not deluged with mailer bounce messages from readers who have
dropped without notification.  Incidentally, about 30 people signed up
for direct distribution this month despite the inactivity of the list.
(Most of the additions for the last year have been on BITNET, often in
clusters as new universities join the net or become aware of the
Arpanet digests.  Most Arpanet and CSNet sites are now using bboards
and redistribution lists or are making use of the Usenet mod.ai/net.ai
distribution.)

I plan to pass along only an abbreviated announcement for conferences
that have already been announced in the NL-KR, IRList, or Prolog lists
>- you can contact the message author if you need the full text.
(Note that this may reduce the yield of keyword searches through the
AIList archive; future historians will have to search the other lists
to get a full picture of AI activity.  Anyone building an intelligent
mail-screening system should also incorporate cross-list linkages.
Any such screening system that can understand and coordinate these
message streams deserves a Turing award.)

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 10:07:49 edt
-FROM-
From: cdx39!jc%rclex.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Reimplementing in C
-BODY-
> I've been hearing and seeing something for the past couple years,
> something that seems to be becoming a folk theorem.  The theorem goes
> like this:
>       Many expert systems are being reimplemented in C.
> I'm curious what the facts are.

  [I program in C, and have reached the conclusion that most AI
  programming could be done in that language as easily as in LISP
  if libraries of list-oriented subroutines were available.  (They
  needn't be consed lists -- I use dynamically allocated arrays.)
  You do have to worry about storage deallocation, but that buys you
  considerable run-time efficiency.  You also lose the powerful
  LISP debugging environment, so fill your code with lots of
  argument checks and ASSERTs.  Tail recursion isn't optimized,
  so C code should use iteration rather than recursion for most
  array-based list traversals.  Data-driven and object-oriented
  coding are easy enough, but you can't easily build run-time
  "active objects" (i.e., procedures to be applied to message
  arguments); compiled subroutines have to do the work, and dynamic
  linking is not generally worth the effort.  I haven't tried much
  parsing or hierarchy traversal, but programs such as LEX, YACC,
  and MAKE show that it can be done.  -- KIL]


Well, now, I don't know about re-implementing in C, but I myself
have been doing a fair amount of what might be called "expert
systems" programming in C, and pretty much out of necessity.

This is because I've been working in the up-and-coming world
of networks and "intelligent" communication devices.  These
show much promise for the future; unfortunately they also
add a very "interesting" aspect to the job of an application
(much less a system) programmer.

The basic problem is that such comm devices act like black
boxes with a very large number of internal states; the states
aren't completely documented; those that are documented are
invariably misunderstood by anyone but the people who built
the boxes; and worst of all, there is usually no reliable
way to get the box into a known initial state.

As a result, there is usually no way to write a simple,
straightforward routine to deal with such gadgets.  Rather,
you are forced to write code that tries to determine 1)
what states a given box can have; 2) what state it appears
to be in now; and 3) what sort of command will get it from
state X to state Y.  The debugging process involves noting
unusual responses of the box to a command, discussing the
"new" behavior with the experts (the designers if they are
available, or others with experience with the box), and
adding new cases to your code to handle the behavior when
it shows up again.

One of the simplest examples is an "intelligent ACU", which
we used to call a "dial-out modem".  These now contain their
own processor, plus sufficiently much ROM and RAM to amount
to small computer systems of their own.  Where such boxes
used to have little more than a status line to indicate the
state of a line (connected/disconnected), they now have an
impressive repertoire of commands, with a truly astonishing
list of responses, most of which you hope never to see.  But
your code will indeed see them.  When your code first talks
to the ACU, the responses may include any of:
        1. Nothing at all.
        2. Echo of the prompt.
        3. Command prompt (different for each ACU).
        4. Diagnostic (any of a large set).
Or the ACU may have been in a "connected" state, in which
case your message will be transmitted down the line, to be
interpreted by whatever the ACU was connected to by the most
recent user.  (This recursive case is really fun!:-)

The last point is crucial:  In many cases, you don't know
who is responding to your message.  You are dealing with
chains of boxes, each of which may respond to your message
and/or pass it on to the next box.  Each box has a different
behaviour repertoire, and even worse, each has a different
syntax.  Furthermore, at any time, for whatever reason
(such as power glitches or commands from other sources),
any box may reset its internal state to any other state.
You can be talking to the 3rd box in a chain, and suddenly
the 2nd breaks in and responds to a message not intended
for it.

The best way of handling such complexity is via an explicit
state table that says what was last sent down the line, what
the response was, what sort of box we seem to be talking to,
and what its internal state seems to be.  The code to use such
info to elicit a desired behavior rapidly develops into a real
piece of "expert-systems" code.

So far, there's no real need for C; this is all well within the
powers of Lisp or Smalltalk or Prolog.  So why C?  Well, when
you're writing comm code, you have one extra goodie.  It's very
important that you have precise control over every bit of every
character.  The higher-level languages always seen to want to
"help" by tokenizing the input and putting the output into some
sort of standard format.  This is unacceptable.

For instance, the messages transmitted often don't have any
well-defined terminators.  Or, rather, each box has its own
terminator(s), but you don't know beforehand which box will
respond to a given message.  They often require nulls.  It's
often very important whether you use CR or LF (or both, in
a particular order).  And you have to timeout various inputs,
else your code just hangs forever.  Such things are very awkward,
if not impossible to express in the typical AI languages.

This isn't to say that C is the world's best AI language; quite
the contrary.  I'd love to get a chance to work on a better one.
(Hint, hint....)  But given the languages available, it seems
to be the best of a bad lot, so I use it.

If you think doing it in C is weird, just wait 'til
you see it in Ada....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Sep 86 08:31:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CLSTR1::BECK" <beck@clstr1.decnet>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CLSTR1::BECK" <beck@clstr1.decnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: matching
-BODY-
Mr. Rosa, is correct in saying that "the obstacles to implementation are not
technological,"  since this procedure is currently being implemented.  See
"matches hit civil servants hardest" in the august 15, 1986 GOVERNMENT COMPUTER
NEWS. "Computer Matching/Matches" is defined as searching the available data
for
addresses, financial information, specific personal identifiers and various
irregularities".  The congressional Office of Technology Assessment has
recently
issued a report, "Electronic Record Systems and Individual Privacy" that
discusses matching.

My concern with this is how will the conflicting rules of society be reconciled
to treat the indiviual fairly.  Maybe the cash society and anonymous logins
will
become prevalent.    Do you think that the falling cost of data will force data
keepers to do more searches to justify their existence?  Has there been any
discussion of this topic?

peter beck     <beck@ardec-lcss.arpa>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 13:20:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: philosophy articles
-BODY-
> >Out of curiosity I hunted up [Jackson, "What Mary Didn't Know," _J.
> >of Philosophy_ 83(1986) 291-295] on the way back from lunch.
> >It's aggressive and condescending; any sympathy I might have felt for
> >the author's argument was repulsed by his sophomoric writing.  I hope it's
> >not typical of the writing in philosophy journals.
>
> I don't quite understand what "aggressive and condescending" or
> "sophomoric writing" have to do with philosophical argumentation.
> One thing that philosophers try not to do is give ad hominem arguments.
> A philosophical arguement stands or falls on its logical merits, not its
> rhetoric.

That's an automatic reaction, and I think it's unsound.  Since we're
not in net.philosophy, I'll be brief.

Philosophers argue about logic, terminology, and their experience of
reality.  There isn't really much to argue about where logic is
concerned:  we all know the principles of formal logic, and we're
all writing sincerely about reality, which has no contradictions in
itself.  What we're really interested in is the nature of our exist-
ence; the logic of how we describe it doesn't matter.

One reason that Jackson's article irritated me is that he uses formal
logic, of the sort "Either A or B, but not A, therefore B." This kind
of argument insults the reader's intelligence.  Jackson ought to know
that nobody is going to question the soundness of such logic, but that
all his opponents will question his premises and his definitions.  More-
over, he appears to regard his premises and definitions as unassailable.
I call that stupid philosophizing.

Ad-hominem attacks may well help to discover the truth.  When the man
with jaundice announces that everything is fundamentally yellow, you
must attack the man, not the logic.  So long as he's got the disease,
he's right!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 12:53:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: talk to the medium (from Risks Digest)
-BODY-
> Whether he was talking about the broadcast or the computer industry, he
> got the analogy wrong.

Of course--that's what makes the analogy "stick."

> If the subject is broadcasting, the sports analogy to a "programmer"
> is the guy that makes the play schedules.

Not exactly.  McLuhan's "programmer" is the man who selects the content
of the medium, not what computer people call a programmer.

>                                       ... But still, in computing,
> a programmer bears at least partial responsibility for the computer's
> (mis)behaviour.

I agree.  McLuhan is writing about not responsibility but responsiveness.
Last Saturday I visited an apartment where a group of men and kids were
shouting at the TV set during a football game.  It's a natural response,
and it would have been effective if TV were an interactive medium.

If you dislike this posting, will you complain to the moderator?  To
the people who programmed netnews?  To the editor of the New York
_Times?_ Of course not; you must talk to the medium, not to the
programmer!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 10:06:56 edt
-FROM-
From: cdx39!jc%rclex.UUCP@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: "Proper" Study of Science, Conservation of Info
-BODY-

  [The following hasn't any obvious AI, but it's interesting enough
  to pass along.  Commonsense reasoning at work.  -- KIL]


> The ability to quantify and measure ... has profound implications ...
>
>               ...  A decade from now it's likely that none of our bodies
> will contain EVEN A SINGLE ATOM now in them.  Even bones are fluid in
> biological organisms; ...

OK, let's do some BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) calculations.
According to several bio and med texts I've read over the
years, a good estimate of the half-life residency of an atom
in the soft portions of a mammal's body is 1/2 year; in the
bones it is around 2 years.  The qualifications are quite
obvious and irrelevant here; we are going for order-of-magnitude
figures.

For those not familiar with the term, "half-life residency"
means the time to replace half the original atoms.  This
doesn't mean that you replace half your soft tissues in
6 months, and the other half in the next six months.  What
happens is exponential:  in one year, 1/4 of the original
are left; in 18 months, 1/8 are left, and so on.

Ten years is about 5 half-lives for the bones, and 20 for the
soft tissues.  A human body masses about 50 Kg, give or take
a factor of 2.  The soft tissues are primarily water (75%)
and COH2; we can treat it all as water for estimating the
number of atoms.  This is about (50Kg) * (1000 KG/g) / (16
g/mole) = 3000 moles, times 6*10^23 gives us about 2*10^26
atoms.  The bones are a bit denser (with fewer atoms per
gram); the rest is a bit less dense (with more atoms per
gram), but it's about right.  For order-of-magnitude estimates,
we would have roughly 10^26 atoms in each kind of tissue.

In 5 half-lives, we would divide this by 2^5 = 32 to get the
number of original atoms, giving us about 7*10^25 atoms of the
bones left.  For the soft tissues, we divide by 2^20 = 4*10^6,
giving us about 2 or 3 * 10^20 of the original atoms.

Of course, although these are big numbers, they don't amount to
much mass, especially for the soft tissues.  But they are a lot
more than a single atom, even if they are off by an order of
magnitude..

Does anyone see any serious errors in these calculations?  Remember
that these are order-of magnitude estimates; quibbling with anything
other than the first significant digit and the exponent is beside
the point.  The only likely source of error is in the half-life
estimate, but the replacement would have to be much faster than a
half-year to stand a chance of eliminating every atom in a year.

In fact, with the exponential-decay at work here, it is easy
to see that it would take about 80 half-lives (2*10^26 = 2^79)
to replace the last atom with better than 50% probability.
For 10 years, this would mean a half-life residency of about
6 weeks, which may be true for a mouse or a sparrow, but I've
never seen any hint that human bodies might replace themselves
nearly this fast.

In fact, we can get a good upper bound on how fast our atoms
could be replaced, as well as a good cross-check on the above
rough calculations, by considering how much we eat.  A normal
human diet is roughly a single Kg of food a day.  (The air
breathed isn't relevant; very little of the oxygen ends up
incorporated into tissues.) In 6 weeks, this would add up to
about 50 Kg.  So it would require using very nearly all the
atoms in our food as replacement atoms to do the job required.
This is clearly not feasible; it is almost exactly the upper
bound, and the actual figure has to be lower.  A factor of 4
lower would give us the above estimate for the soft tissues,
which seems feasible.

There's one more qualification, but it works in the other
direction.  The above calculations are based on the assumption
that incoming atoms are all 'new'.  For people in most urban
settings, this is close enough to be treated as true.  But
consider someone whose sewage goes into a septic tank and
whose garbage goes into a compost pile, and whose diet is
based on produce of their garden, hen-house, etc.  The diet
of such people will contain many atoms that have been part
of their bodies in previous cycles, especially the C and N
atoms, but also many of the O and H atoms.  Such people could
retain a significantly larger fraction of original atoms
after a decade.

Please don't take this as a personal attack.  I just couldn't
resist the combination of the quoted lines, which seemed to
be a clear invitation to do some numeric calculations.  In
fact, if someone has figures good to more places, I'd like
to see them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
181
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 86 23:14:51 edt
-FROM-
From: rba@petrus.bellcore.com (Robert B. Allen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference on Office Information Systems - Brown U.
-BODY-

          ACM CONFERENCE ON OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
               October 6-8, 1968, Providence, R.I.

Conference Chair:        Carl Hewitt, MIT
Program Chair:           Stan Zdonik, Brown University
Keynote Speaker:         J.C.R. Licklider, MIT
Distinguished Lecturer:  A. van Dam, Brown University

COIS is a major research conference on the design and use of
computing systems for professional and knowledge workers.

At this meeting, sessions and panels emphasize AI and
organizational models of offices as sites for distributed information
processing.  Other themes include user interfaces,
graphics, group cooperation, and object-oriented systems.

For more information, call the Conference Registrar at Brown U.
(401-813-1839), or send electronic mail to mhf@brown.CSNET.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 23:50:34 MDT
-FROM-
From: keller@utah-cs.ARPA (Bob Keller)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - SLP '86
-BODY-
We have requested, and the IEEE has agreed, that
Symposium registrations be accepted at the "early" fee for a
couple of more days, so please act immediately
if you wish to exploit this rate.

  [Sorry for the delay -- AIList doesn't always function in
  real time.  -- KIL]


Hotel Reservations: phone 801-531-1000, telex 389434

The (nearly) final schedule:
                             SLP '86

                     Third IEEE Symposium on

                        LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                      September 21-25, 1986
                        Westin Hotel Utah
                      Salt Lake City, Utah

SUNDAY, September 21

19:00 - 22:00   Symposium and tutorial registration


MONDAY, September 22

08:00 - 09:00   Symposium and tutorial registration

09:00 - 17:30 TUTORIALS (concurrent) Please see abstracts later.

George Luger            Introduction to AI Programming in Prolog
University of New Mexico

David Scott Warren              Building Prolog Interpreters
SUNY, Stony Brook

John Conery           Theory of Parallelism, with Applications to
University of Oregon                   Logic Programming


12:00 - 17:30   Exhibit set up time

18:00 - 22:00   Symposium registration

20:00 - 22:00   Reception


TUESDAY, September 23

08:00 - 12:30   Symposium registration

09:00           Exhibits open

09:00 - 09:30   Welcome and announcements

09:30 - 10:30   INVITED SPEAKER:
                        W. W. Bledsoe, MCC
                 Some Thoughts on Proof Discovery


11:00 - 12:30   SESSION 1: Applications
                           (Chair: Harvey Abramson)

The Logic of Tensed Statements in English -
an Application of Logic Programming
Peter Ohrstrom, University of Aalborg
Nils Klarlund, University of Aarhus

Incremental Flavor-Mixing of Meta-Interpreters for
Expert System Construction
Leon Sterling and Randall D. Beer
Case Western Reserve University

The Phoning Philosopher's Problem or
Logic Programming for Telecommunications Applications
J.L. Armstrong, N.A. Elshiewy, and R. Virding
Ericsson Telecom


14:00 - 15:30   SESSION 2: Secondary Storage
                           (Chair: Maurice Bruynooghe)

EDUCE - A Marriage of Convenience:
Prolog and a Relational DBMS
Jorge Bocca, ECRC, Munich

Paging Strategy for Prolog Based Dynamic Virtual Memory
Mark Ross, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
K. Ramamohanarao, University of Melbourne

A Logical Treatment of Secondary Storage
Anthony J. Kusalik, University of Saskatchewan
Ian T. Foster, Imperial College, London


16:00 - 17:30   SESSION 3: Compilation
                           (Chair: Richard O'Keefe)

Compiling Control
Maurice Bruynooghe, Danny De Schreye, Bruno Krekels
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

Automatic Mode Inference for Prolog Programs
Saumya K. Debray, David S. Warren
SUNY at Stony Brook

IDEAL: an Ideal DEductive Applicative Language
Pier Giorgio Bosco, Elio Giovannetti
C.S.E.L.T., Torino

17:30 - 19:30   Reception

20:30 - 22:30   Panel (Wm. Kornfeld, moderator)
                Logic Programming for Systems Programming
                Panelists:  Steve Taylor, Weizmann Institute
                            Steve Gregory, Imperial College
                            Bill Wadge
                            A researcher from ICOT
                            (sorry this is incomplete)

WEDNESDAY, September 24

09:00 - 10:00   INVITED SPEAKER:
                        Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University
                          Logic Programming - A Logical View


10:30 - 12:00   SESSION 4: Theory
                           (Chair: Jean-Louis Lassez)

A Theory of Modules for Logic Programming
Dale Miller
University of Pennsylvania

Building-In Classical Equality into Prolog
P. Hoddinott, E.W. Elcock
The University of Western Ontario

Negation as Failure Using Tight Derivations
for General Logic Programs
Allen Van Gelder
Stanford University


13:30 - 15:00   SESSION 5: Control
                           (Chair: Jacques Cohen)

Characterisation of Terminating Logic Programs
Thomas Vasak, The University of New South Wales
John Potter, New South Wales Institute of Technology

An Execution Model for Committed-Choice
Non-Deterministic Languages
Jim Crammond
Heriot-Watt University

Timestamped Term Representation in Implementing Prolog
Heikki Mannila, Esko Ukkonen
University of Helsinki


15:30 - 22:00   Excursion


THURSDAY, September 25


09:00 - 10:30   SESSION 6: Unification
                           (Chair: Uday Reddy)

Refutation Methods for Horn Clauses with Equality
Based on E-Unification
Jean H. Gallier and Stan Raatz
University of Pennsylvania

An Algorithm for Unification in Equational Theories
Alberto Martelli, Gianfranco Rossi
Universita' di Torino

An Implementation of Narrowing: the RITE Way
Alan Josephson and Nachum Dershowitz
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


11:00 - 12:30   SESSION 7: Parallelism
                           (Chair: Jim Crammond)

Selecting the Backtrack Literal in the
AND Process of the AND/OR Process Model
Nam S. Woo and Kwang-Moo Choe
AT & T Bell Laboratories

Distributed Semi-Intelligent Backtracking for a
Stack-based AND-parallel Prolog
Peter Borgwardt, Tektronix Labs
Doris Rea, University of Minnesota

The Sync Model for Parallel Execution of Logic Programming
Pey-yun Peggy Li and Alain J. Martin
California Institute of Technology


14:00 - 15:30   SESSION 8: Performance

Redundancy in Function-Free Recursive Rules
Jeff Naughton
Stanford University

Performance Evaluation of a Storage Model for
OR-Parallel Execution
Andrzej Ciepelewski and Bogumil Hausman
Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS)

MALI: A Memory with a Real-Time Garbage Collector
for Implementing Logic Programming Languages
Yves Bekkers, Bernard Canet, Olivier Ridoux, Lucien Ungaro
IRISA/INRIA Rennes


16:00 - 17:30   SESSION 9: Warren Abstract Machine
                           (Chair: Manuel Hermenegildo)

A High Performance LOW RISC Machine
for Logic Programming
J.W. Mills
Arizona State University

Register Allocation in a Prolog Machine
Saumya K. Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook

Garbage Cut for Garbage Collection of Iterative Programs
Jonas Barklund and Hakan Millroth
Uppsala University


EXHIBITS:

An exhibit  area  including  displays  by  publishers,  equipment
manufacturers, and software houses will accompany the  Symposium.
The list of exhibitors includes: Arity, Addison-Wesley, Elsevier,
Expert Systems, Logicware, Overbeek Enterprises, Prolog  Systems,
and Quintus.  For more information, please contact:

                Dr. Ross A. Overbeek
                Mathematics and Computer Science Division
                Argonne National Laboratory
                9700 South Cass Ave.
                Argonne, IL 60439
                312/972-7856


ACCOMODATIONS:

The Westin Hotel  Utah is a  gracious turn of  the century  hotel
with Mobil  4-Star and  AAA 5-Star  ratings.  The  Temple  Square
Hotel, located one  city block  away, offers  basic comforts  for
budget-conscious attendees.


MEALS AND SOCIAL EVENTS:

Symposium registrants  (excluding students  and retired  members)
will receive tickets  for lunches  on September 23,  24, and  25,
receptions on September 22 and 23, and an excursion the afternoon
of September 24.  The excursion will comprise a steam train  trip
through scenic  Provo  Canyon,  and a  barbeque  at  Deer  Valley
Resort, Park City, Utah.

Tutorial registrants will receive lunch tickets for September 22.


TRAVEL:

The Official  Carrier for  SLP '86  is United  Airlines, and  the
Official Travel Agent is Morris Travel (361 West Lawndale  Drive,
Salt Lake  City,  Utah  84115,  phone  1-800-621-3535).   Special
airfares are  available to  SLP  '86 attendees.   Contact  Morris
Travel for details.

A courtesy limousine  is available from  Salt Lake  International
Airport to both  symposium hotels, running  every half hour  from
6:30 to 23:00.  The taxi fare is approximately $10.

CLIMATE:

Salt Lake City generally has warm weather in September,  although
evenings may be cool.   A warm jacket should  be brought for  the
excursion.  Some rain is normal this time of year.


SLP '86 Symposium and Tutorial Registration Coupon:

Advance symposium and  tutorial registration  is available  until
September 1, 1986.  No refunds will be made after that date. Send
a check or money order (no currency will be accepted) payable  to
"Third IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming" to:

        Third IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming
        IEEE Computer Society
        1730 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
        Washington, D.C. 20036-1903

[...]

Symposium Registration:         Advance On-Site

IEEE Computer Society members   $185    $215
Non-members                     $230    $270
Full-time student members       $ 50    $ 50
Full-time student non-members   $ 65    $ 65
Retired members                 $ 50    $ 50

Tutorial Registration:
        ("Luger", "Warren", or "Ostlund")

                                Advance On-Site

IEEE Computer Society members   $140    $170
Non-members                     $175    $215


SLP '86 Hotel Reservation:

        Mail or Call:   phone 801-531-1000, telex 389434

                                Westin Hotel Utah
                                Main and South Temple Streets
                                Salt Lake City, UT 84111

A deposit  of  one  night's  room or  credit  card  guarantee  is
required for arrivals after 6pm.

Room Rates:
                Westin Hotel Utah       Temple Square Hotel

single room             $60             $30
double room             $70             $36

Reservations must be made mentioning  SLP '86 by August 31,  1986
to guarantee these special rates.


                   SLP '86 TUTORIAL ABSTRACTS



       IMPLEMENTATION OF PROLOG INTERPRETERS AND COMPILERS

                       DAVID SCOTT WARREN

                       SUNY AT STONY BROOK

Prolog is  by far  the  most used  of various  logic  programming
languages that have been  proposed.  The reason  for this is  the
existence of very efficient implementations.  This tutorial  will
show in detail how this efficiency is achieved.

The first  half  of  this tutorial  will  concentrate  on  Prolog
compilation.  The approach  is first to  define a Prolog  Virtual
Machine (PVM), which can  be implemented in software,  microcode,
hardware, or  by  translation  to the  language  of  an  existing
machine.  We will describe  in detail the  PVM defined by  D.H.D.
Warren (SRI Technical Note 309) and discuss how its data  objects
can be represented  efficiently.  We  will also  cover issues  of
compilation  of  Prolog  source   programs  into  efficient   PVM
programs.



               ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROLOG:
                 AN INTRODUCTION TO THEORETICAL
                ISSUES IN AI WITH PROLOG EXAMPLES

                         GEORGE F. LUGER

                    UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

This tutorial is intended to introduce the important concepts  of
both  Artificial   Intelligence   and  Logic   Programming.    To
accomplish this  task,  the  theoretical issues  involved  in  AI
problem solving are  presented and discussed.   These issues  are
exemplified with programs  written in Prolog  that implement  the
core ideas.   Finally,  the design  of  a Prolog  interpreter  as
Resolution Refutation system is presented.

The main  ideas  from  AI  problem  solving  that  are  presented
include: 1) An introduction of  AI as representation and  search.
2)  An  introduction  of  the  Predicate  Calculus  as  the  main
representation formalism for Artificial Intelligence.  3)  Simple
examples  of  Predicate  Calculus  representations,  including  a
relational data  base.   4)  Unification and  its  role  both  in
Predicate  Calculus  and  Prolog.   5)  Recursion,  the   control
mechanism for searching trees and graphs, 6) The design of search
strategies, especially depth first, breadth first and best  first
or "heuristic" techniques, and 7)  The Production System and  its
use both for organizing search in a Prolog data base, as well  as
the basic data structure for "rule based" Expert Systems.

The  above  topics  are  presented  with  simple  Prolog  program
implementations,  including   a   Production  System   code   for
demonstrating search strategies.  The final topic presented is an
analysis of  the  Prolog  interpreter and  an  analysis  of  this
approach  to  the  more  general  issue  of  logic   programming.
Resolution is considered as an inference strategy and its use  in
a refutation system for  "answer extraction" is presented.   More
general issues in  AI problem  solving, such as  the relation  of
"logic" to "functional" programming are also discussed.



                PARALLELISM IN LOGIC PROGRAMMING

                          JOHN CONERY
                     UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

The fields  of parallel  processing  and logic  programming  have
independently   attracted   great   interest   among    computing
professionals  recently,  and  there  is  currently  considerable
activity at  the  interface, i.e.  in  applying the  concepts  of
parallel computing to  logic programming  and, more  specifically
yet,  to  Prolog.   The  application  of  parallelism  to   Logic
Programming takes two  basic but related  directions.  The  first
involves leaving  the semantics  of sequential  programming,  say
ordinary Prolog,  as intact  as possible,  and uses  parallelism,
hidden from the programmer, to improve execution speed.  This has
traditionally been a difficult problem requiring very intelligent
compilers.  It may  be an easier  problem with logic  programming
since parallelism is  not artificially made  sequential, as  with
many applications expressed in procedural languages.  The  second
direction involves adding new parallel programming primitives  to
Logic Programming to allow  the programmer to explicitly  express
the parallelism in an application.

This tutorial will assume a basic knowledge of Logic Programming,
but  will  describe   current  research   in  parallel   computer
architectures, and will survey many of the new parallel machines,
including shared-memory  architectures  (RP3,  for  example)  and
non-shared-memory   architectures   (hypercube   machines,    for
example).  The tutorial  will then describe  many of the  current
proposals for parallelism in  Logic Programming, including  those
that allow the  programmer to express  the parallelism and  those
that hide the parallelism from the programmer.  Included will  be
such proposals as Concurrent Prolog, Parlog, Guarded Horn Clauses
(GHC), and Delta-Prolog.   An attempt will  be made to  partially
evaluate  many  of  these  proposals  for  parallelism  in  Logic
Programming, both  from a  pragmatic architectural  viewpoint  as
well as from a semantic viewpoint.

                     Conference Chairperson
               Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah

                       Program Chairperson
              Robert M. Keller, University of Utah

                 Local Arrangements Chairperson
             Thomas C. Henderson, University of Utah

                      Tutorials Chairperson
             George Luger, University of New Mexico

                      Exhibits Chairperson
              Ross Overbeek, Argonne National Lab.

                        Program Committee

                     Francois Bancilhon, MCC
                    John Conery, U. of Oregon
                    Al Despain, U.C. Berkeley
                  Herve Gallaire, ECRC, Munich
                  Seif Haridi, SICS, Stockholm
                     Lynette Hirschman, SDC
                     Peter Kogge, IBM, Owego
                William Kornfeld, Quintus Systems
               Gary Lindstrom, University of Utah
             George Luger, University of New Mexico
                   Rikio Onai, ICOT/NTT, Tokyo
              Ross Overbeek, Argonne National  Lab.
                 Mark Stickel, SRI International
              Sten Ake Tarnlund, Uppsala University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
182
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 17:03 EST
-FROM-
From: ZEMANKOVA%tennessee.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - ISMIS'86 program
-BODY-

      PRELIMINARY PROGRAM


      INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON METHODOLOGIES FOR

      INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS


      October 22 - 25, 1986
      Hilton Hotel
      Knoxville, Tennessee

                     Sponsored by

      * ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence

                  in cooperation with

      *  University of Tennessee at Knoxville
      *  The Data Systems Research and Development Program
         of Martin Marietta Energy Systems, and
         Oak Ridge National Laboratory
      *  University of North Carolina at Charlotte

                     and hosted by

      *  The Procter and Gamble Company


                   CHAIRPERSONS
         Zbigniew W. Ras (UTK and UNCC)
         Maria Zemankova (UTK and UNCC)

               SYMPOSIUM COORDINATOR
         J. Robin B. Cockett (UTK)

               ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
         S. Chen (IUPUI)                M. Emrich (ORNL)
         G. Epstein (UNCC & Indiana)    K. O'Kane (UTK)
         J. Poore (Georgia Tech.& UTK)  R. Yager (Iona)

               PROGRAM COMMITTEE
         P. Andrews (Carnegie-Mellon)
         J. Bourne (Vanderbilt)
         M. Fitting (CUNY)
         B. Gaines (Calgary, Canada)
         M. Gupta (Saskatchewan, Canada)
         M. Karpinski (Bonn, West Germany)
         E. Knuth (Budapest, Hungary)
         S. Kundu (LSU)
         W. Marek (Kentucky)
         R. Michalski (Illinois-Urbana)
         C. Negoita (CUNY)
         R. Nelson (Case Western Reserve)
         Z. Pawlak (Warsaw, Poland)
         A. Pettorossi (Rome, Italy)
         E. Sandewall (Linkoping, Sweden)
         G. Shafer (Kansas)
         M. Shaw (Calgary, Canada)
         J. Tou (Florida)


              PURPOSE OF THE SYMPOSIUM

       This Symposium is intended to attract researchers
       who are actively engaged both in theoretical and
       practical aspects of intelligent systems. The goal
       is to provide a platform for a useful exchange
       between theoreticians and practitioners, and to
       foster the crossfertilization of ideas in the
       following areas:

             * Expert Systems
             * Knowledge Representation
             * Logic for Artificial Intelligence
             * Learning and Adaptive Systems
             * Intelligent Databases
             * Approximate Reasoning

       There will be an exhibit of A.I. hardware and software
       and of A.I. literature.

       Symposium Proceedings will be published by ACM Press.



ISMIS 86 Symposium Schedule

Tuesday, October 21, 1986
=========================
   6:00 pm - 9:00 pm   Symposium Registration
   7:00 pm - 9:00 pm   Reception (Cash Bar)
   6:00 pm - 9:00 pm   Exhibits


Wednesday, October 22, 1986
===========================
   8:00 am - 12:00 am  Symposium Registration

ISMIS'86 Opening Session
   9:00 am - 9:20 am

Session 1: Expert Systems
I1: Invited Papers
    Chair: M. Emrich (ORNL)

   9:20am - 10:05am
        "Recent Developments in Expert Systems"
           B. Buchanan (Stanford Univ.)
   10:05am - 10:50am
        "Generic Tasks in Artificial Intelligence and Mentalese"
           B. Chandrasekaran (Ohio State Univ.)

A1: Contributed Papers
    Chair: R. Cockett (UT Knoxville)

   11:15am - 11:40am
        "The Frame-Definition Language for Customizing the
         Raffaello Structure-Editor in Host Expert Systems"
           E. Nissan (Ben-Gurion, Israel)
   11:40am - 12:05am
        "Knowledge Base Organization in Expert Systems"
           S. Frediani, L. Saitta (Torino, Italy)
   12:05am - 12:30pm
        "NESS: A Coupled Simulation Expert System"
           K. Kawamura, G. Beale, J. Rodriguez-Moscoso, B.J. Hsieh,
           S. Padalkar (Vanderbilt)

B1: Contributed Papers
    Chair: J. Bourne (Vanderbilt)

   11:15am - 11:40am
        "Design of an Expert System for Utilization Research"
           A. Zvieli, S.K. MacGregor, J.Z. Shapiro (LSU)
   11:40am - 12:05am
        "An Expert System for Dynamic Scheduling"
           S. Floyd, D. Ford (Huntsville, Alabama)
   12:05am - 12:30pm
        "Beginners' Strategies in Example Based Expert Systems"
           T. Whalen, B. Schott (Atlanta, Georgia)

   12:30 pm - 2:00 pm  Exhibits


Session 2: Intelligent Databases
I2: Invited Papers
    Chair: W. Marek (UK Lexington)

   2:00pm - 2:45pm
        "Using Knowledge Representation for the Development
         of Interactive Information Systems"
           J. Mylopoulos (Toronto, Canada)
   2:45pm - 3:30pm
        "Acquisition of Knowledge from Data"
           G. Wiederhold (Stanford Univ.)

A2: Contributed Papers
    Chair: S. Kundu (LSU)

   3:50pm - 4:15pm
        "A Decidable Query Answering Algorithm for Circumscriptive
         Theories"
           T. Przymusinski (El Paso, Texas)
   4:15pm - 4:40pm
        "Fuzzy Knowledge Engineering Techniques in Scientific Document
         Classification"
           R. Lopez de Mantaras (Barcelona, Spain)
   4:40pm - 5:05pm
        "A Semantic and Logical Front-end to a Database System"
           M. Rajinikanth, P.K. Bose (Texas Instruments, Dallas)
   5:05pm - 5:30pm
        "A Knowledge-Based Approach to Online Document Retrieval
         System Design"
           G. Biswas, J.C. Bezdek, R.L. Oakman (Columbia, S.C.)
   5:30pm - 5:55pm
        "Towards an Intelligent and Personalized Information Retrieval
         System"
           S.Myaeng, R.R. Korfhage (Southern Methodist, Texas)


   6:00 pm - 7:30 pm   Exhibits


   7:30 pm - 10:00 pm  Dinner Theatre
                       Karel Capek, R.U.R.


Thursday, October 23, 1986
==========================

Session 3: Approximate Reasoning
I3: Invited Papers
    Chair: M. Zemankova (UT Knoxville)

   9:00am - 9:45am
        "Inductive Models under Uncertainty"
           P. Cheeseman (NASA AMES and SRI)
   9:45am - 10:30am
        "The Concept of Generalized Assignment Statement and its
         Application to Knowledge Representation in Fuzzy Logic"
           L.A. Zadeh (Berkeley)

A3: Contributed Papers
    Chair: B. Bouchon (Paris, France)

   10:50am - 11:15am
        "Expert System on a Chip: An Engine for Real-Time Approximate
         Reasoning"
           M. Togai (Rockwell International),
           H. Watanabe (AT&T Bell Lab, Holmdel)
   11:15am - 11:40am
        "Selecting Expert System Frameworks within the Bayesian Theory"
           S.W. Norton (PAR Government Systems Co., New Hartford)
   11:40am - 12:05pm
        "Inference Propagation in Emitter, System Hierarchies"
           T. Sudkamp (Wright State)
   12:05pm - 12:30pm
        "Estimation of Minimax Values"
           P. Purdom (Indiana), C.H. Tzeng (Ball State Univ.)

B3: Contributed Papers
    Chair: E. Nissan (Ben-Gurion, Israel)

   10:50am - 11:15am
        "Aggregating Criteria with Quantifiers"
           R.R. Yager (Iona College)
   11:15am - 11:40am
        "Approximating Sets with Equivalence Relations"
           W. Marek (Kentucky), H. Rasiowa (Warsaw, Poland)
   11:40am - 12:05pm
        "Evidential Logic and Dempster-Shafer Theory"
           S. Chen (UNC-Charlotte)
   12:05pm - 12:30pm
        "Propagating Belief Functions with Local Computations"
           P.P. Shenoy, G. Shafer (Lawrence, Kansas)


   12:30 pm - 2:00 pm  Exhibits


Session 4: Logics for Artificial Intelligence
I4: Invited Papers
    Chair: M. Fitting (CUNY)

   2:00pm - 2:45pm
        "Automated Theorem Proving: Mapping Logic into A.I."
           D.W. Loveland (Duke Univ.)
   2:45pm - 3:30pm
        "Extensions to Functional Programming in Scheme"
           D.A. Plaisted, J. W. Curry (UNC Chapel Hill)

A4: Contributed Papers
    Chair: G. Epstein (UNC Charlotte)

   3:50pm - 4:15pm
        "Logic Programming Semantics using a Compact Data Structure"
           M. Fitting (CUNY)
   4:15pm - 4:40pm
        "On the Relationship between Autoepistemic Logic and Parallel
         Circumscription"
           M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska (El Paso, Texas)
   4:40pm - 5:05pm
        "A Preliminary Excursion Into Step-Logics"
           J. Drapkin, D. Perlis (College Park, Maryland)
   5:05pm - 5:30pm
        "Tree Resolution and Generalized Semantic Tree"
           S. Kundu (LSU)
   5:30pm - 5:55pm
        "An Inference Model for Inheritance Hierarchies with
         Exceptions"
           K. Whitebread (Honeywell, Minneapolis)


   6:00 pm - 7:30 pm   Exhibits


   7:30 pm - 9:30 pm   Symposium Banquet
                       Keynote Speaker: Brian Gaines (Calgary, Canada)


Friday, October 24, 1986
========================

Session 5: Learning and Adaptive Systems
I5: Invited Papers
    Chair: Z. Ras (UT Knoxville)

   8:45am - 9:30am
        "Analogical Reasoning in Planning and Decision Making"
           J. Carbonell (Carnegie-Mellon Univ.)
   9:30am - 10:15am
        "Emerging Principles in Machine Learning"
           R. Michalski (Univ. of Illinois at Urbana)

A5: Contributed Papers
    Chair: D. Perlis (Maryland)

   10:35am - 11:00am
        "Memory Length as a Feedback Parameter in Learning Systems"
           G. Epstein (UNC-Charlotte)
   11:00am - 11:25am
        "Experimenting and Theorizing in Theory Formation"
           B. Koehn, J.M. Zytkow (Wichita State)
   11:25am - 11:50am
        "On Learning and Evaluation of Decision Rules in the Context
         of Rough Sets"
           S.K.M. Wong, W. Ziarko (Regina, Canada)
   11:50am - 12:15pm
        "Taxonomic Ambiguities in Category Variations Needed to Support
         Machine Conceptualization"
           L.J. Mazlack (Berkeley)
   12:15pm - 12:40pm
        "A Model for Self-Adaptation in a Robot Colony"
           T.V.D.Kumar, N. Parameswaran (Madras, India)


   12:45 pm - 2:00 pm  Symposium Luncheon
                       Keynote Speaker: Joseph Deken (NSF)
                       "Viable Inference Systems"


Session 6: Knowledge Representation
I6: Invited Papers
    Chair: S. Chen (UNC Charlotte)

   2:15pm - 3:00pm
        "Self-Improvement in Problem-Solving"
           R.B. Banerji (St. Joseph's Univ.)
   3:00pm - 3:45pm
        "Logical Foundations for Knowledge Representation in
         Intelligent Systems"
           B.R. Gaines (Calgary, Canada)

A6: Contributed Papers
    Chair: M. Togai (Rockwell International)

   4:00pm - 4:25pm
        "Simulations and Symbolic Explanations"
           D.H. Helman, J.L. Bennett, A.W. Foster (Case Western Reserve)
   4:25pm - 4:50pm
        "Notes on Conceptual Representations"
           E. Knuth, L. Hannak, A. Hernadi (Budapest, Hungary)
   4:50pm - 5:15pm
        "Spaceprobe: A System for Representing Complex Knowledge"
           J. Dinsmore (Carbondale, Ill)
   5:15pm - 5:40pm
        "Challenges in Applying Artificial Intelligence Methodologies
         to Military Operations"
           L.F. Arrowood, M.L. Emrich, M.R. Hilliard, H.L. Hwang
           (Oak Ridge National Lab.)

B6: Contributed Papers
    Chair: L. de Mantaras (Barcelona, Spain)

   4:00pm - 4:25pm
        "Knowledge-Based Processing/Interpretation of Oceanographic
         Satellite Data"
           M.G. Thomason, R.E. Blake (UTK), M. Lybanon (NTSL)
   4:25pm - 4:50pm
        "A Framework for Knowledge Representation and use in Pattern
         Analysis"
           F. Bergadano, A. Giordana (Torino, Italy)
   4:50pm - 5:15pm
        "Algebraic Properties of Knowledge Representation Systems"
           J.W. Grzymala-Busse (Lawrence, Kansas)
   5:15pm - 5:40pm
        "Prime Rule-based Methodologies Give Inadequate Control"
           J.R.B. Cockett, J. Herrera (UTK)


ISMIS'86 Closing Session
   5:45pm - 6:00pm


Saturday, October 25, 1986
==========================

   9:00 am - 12:30 pm  Colloquia (parallel sessions)

   1:30 pm - 7:30 pm   Trip to the Smoky Mountains



   SYMPOSIUM FEES

   Advance Symposium Registration
   Received by September 15, 1986
   Member of ACM                  $220.00
   Non-member                     $250.00
   Student*                       $ 30.00

   Late or On-Site Registration
   Member of ACM                  $265.00
   Non-member                     $295.00
   Student*                       $ 40.00

   Additional Tickets
   Reception                      $  5.00
   Dinner Theatre                 $ 25.00
   Symposium Banquet              $ 25.00
   Symposium Luncheon             $ 10.00
   Trip to Smoky Mountains        $ 25.00

   Symposium registration fee includes the Proceedings (available at
   the Symposium), continental breakfasts, reception, dinner theatre,
   symposium banquet, symposium luncheon, coffee breaks.

   *  Student  registration  includes only  coffee  breaks. Students
      registration limited, hence students should register early.


   ACCOMMODATIONS:

   A block of rooms has been reserved for the symposium at the
   Hilton Hotel.  The ISMIS 86 rate for a single occupancy is $47.00
   and double occupancy $55.00.  To reserve your room, contact the
   Hilton Hotel, 501 Church Avenue, S.W., Knoxville, TN 37902-2591,
   telephone 615-523-2300 by September 30, 1986.  The Hilton Hotel
   will continue to accept reservations after this date on a space
   availability basis at the ISMIS 86 rates.  However, you are
   strongly encouraged to make your reservations by the cutoff date
   of September 30.

   Reservation must be accompanied by a deposit of one night's room
   rental.


   TRANSPORTATION:

   The Hilton Hotel provides a free limousine service from and to
   the airport.

   If arriving by your vehicle, all overnight guests receive free
   parking.


   SPECIAL AIRFARE RATES:

   DELTA Airlines has been designated as the official carrier for the
   Symposium. Attendees arranging flights with DELTA will receive a
   35% discount off the regular coach fare to Knoxville. To take
   advantage of this speical rate call (toll-free) 1-800-241-6760,
   referring to FILE #J0170. This number is staffed from 8:00 a.m.
   to 8:00 p.m. EDT, seven days per week.


   GENERAL INFORMATION:

   Knoxville is located in East Tennessee, the area that is noted for its
   abundant water reservoirs, rivers, mountains, hardwood forests and
   wildlife refuges.  The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the
   Cumberland Mountains, the resort city of Gatlinburg, and the Oak
   Ridge Museum of Science and Energy are all within an hours drive
   from the downtown area.  The Fall season offers spectacular views
   of radiant colors within the city and the surrounding contryside.
   Interstates 40 and 75 provide access into Knoxville.


   REGISTRATION FORM:

   For the registration form, please write to

       UTK Departments of Conferences
       2014 Lake Avenue
       Knoxville, TN 37996-3910



   FURTHER INFORMATION:

   Further information can be obtained from:

      Zbigniew W. Ras                   Maria Zemankova
      Dept. of Computer Science         Dept. of Computer Science
      University of North Carolina      University of Tennessee
      Charlotte, NC 28223               Knoxville, TN 37996-1301
      (704) 597-4567                    (615) 974-5067
      ras%unccvax@mcnc.CSNET            zemankova@utenn.CSNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
183
-DATE-
Date: 16 Aug 86 15:39:32 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!brueer!ckennedy@seismo.css.gov  (C.M.Kennedy )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: CONTACT REQUIRED: SPACE OR MILITARY EXPERT SYSTEMS
-BODY-

CONTACT REQUIRED: SPACE OR MILITARY EXPERT SYSTEMS


I wish to contact someone (reasonably senior) who has worked on an expert
system in one of the following areas:


       1. Space technology - monitoring, control, planning

       2. Military Science - of particular interest is:

               - prediction, e.g. modelling behaviour of states or terrorist
                 organisations and making predictions based on available
                 knowledge

               - interpretation of sensor data. i.e. integrating raw data
                 from multiple sensors and giving a high-level "user-
                 friendly" interpretation of what is going on.



I wish to obtain the following information:


       1. Postal address and telephone number (along with email address).
          If possible: Times of day (and days of the week) when telephone
          contact is convenient.


       2. Details of how to obtain the following documentation (or better
          still a direct mailing of it if this is convenient):

               - TECHNICAL papers describing the architecture, knowledge
                 representation, inference engine, tools, language, machine
                 etc.

               - papers giving the precise REQUIREMENTS of the system. If
                 this is not possible, a short summary will do.


       3. Was the project successful? Were all the original requirements
          satisfied? Has the system been used successfuly in an operational
          environment?


       4. What were the problems encountered and what has been learned from
          the project?



 I would also be interested to hear from someone who has done RESEARCH on
 any of the above (or knows of someone who has).


       Catriona Kennedy

       Mail address: ckennedy@ee.brunel.ac.uk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 25 Aug 86 12:18:41-EDT
-FROM-
From: CAROZZONI@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cooperative Expert System
-BODY-
The Decision Aids Section at Rome Air Development Center is performing an
in-house study to establish a technical baseline in support of an upcoming
(FY 87) procurement effort related to the design of a "cooperative" expert
system - i.e., one which supports both communication and more extensive,
knowledge-based cooperation between existing systems.

We are particularly interested in hearing about any work related to expert
system design, distributed AI, and models for communication and cooperation
that may be relevant to this effort.  Please respond by net to
Hirshfield@RADC-multics, or write to Hirshfield at RADC/COAD, Griffiss Air
Force Base, NY 13441.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 10 Sep 86 15:49:36-CDT
-FROM-
From: Werner Uhrig  <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Communications Expert System - does anyone know more ?
-BODY-
[ from InfoWorld, Sep 8, page 16 ]

COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM TO HELP NOVICES, EXPERTS

Smyran, Ga - A communications software pulisher said it wil sell an on-line
expert system that helps computer users solve data communications problems and
work out idiosyncracies in the interaction of popular communications hardware
and software.

Line Expert, which will sell for $49.95 when it is released October 1, will ask
users questions about their particular configuration and suggest solutions,
according to Nat Atwell, director of marketing for publisher Concept
Development Systems.

..........

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 22:25:30 cdt
-FROM-
From: Esmail Bonakdarian <bonak%cs.uiowa.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems and Data Communication
-BODY-

I am working on my M.S. thesis which deals with the use of Expert Systems
in the area of Data Communications (e.g. help diagnose sources of
communication problems, help to "configure" components [DTE's and DCE's]
correctly, etc).  I am curious to find out what knowledge based systems
(if any) exist that deal with this problem domain.  I would very much
appreciate any pointers to literature or persons doing work in this area.

Thanks,
Esmail

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 86 9:45:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Marty Hall <hall@hopkins-eecs-bravo.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: References on Structured Analysis Inadequacies
-BODY-

We are looking for references that point out some of the inadequacies
of Structured Analysis methods (ala Yourdon, for instance) in a
Software Development Process for AI software.  We have a couple of
references vouching for the utility of Rapid Prototyping and
Exploratory Programming (thanks, by the way, for those who pointed
me to some of these references), but not explicitly contrasting this
with the more traditional Structured Design/Analysis methods.
These references are needed by our AI group for a "Convince the Software
Managers" session.  :-)

Any help greatly appreciated!

                                        - Marty Hall

Arpa: hall@hopkins                           AI and Simulation Dept, MP E-315
UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_amrh  Martin Marietta Baltimore
Aerospace
                                             103 Chesapeake Park Plaza
                                             Baltimore, MD  21220
                                             (301) 682-0917

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 86 14:32:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pyrnj!mirror!datacube!berger@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NuBus to VME adapter?
-BODY-

I figured this would be as good a place as any for the following question:

Anyone know of a NuBus to VMEbus adapter? Something to allow VMEbus
boards to plug into a NuBus?  We want to beable to connect our
Image Processing boards into things like the TI explorer and LMI machines.

                        Bob Berger

Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960  617-535-6644

ihnp4!datacube!berger
{seismo,cbosgd,cuae2,mit-eddie}!mirror!datacube!berger

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 10:44 MST
-FROM-
From: McGuire@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: robotics query: cutting arm
-BODY-
Could anyone give possible sources for a robotic arm, to be attached to
a CAD/CAM system(such as Auto-Cad), driven by a micro, such as a PC/AT?
This arm would be used to cut stencils, maximum 3 feet diameter, so it
would have to be very strong or complex.  Canadian sources preferred.
Thanks.  M.McGuire, Calgary, Alberta.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 86 12:41:39 edt
-FROM-
From: Raul Valdes-Perez <valdes@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: schematics drafting request
-BODY-
I have designed and programmed a non-rule-based KBES that drafts
the schematic of a digital circuit (actually only the placement
part).  To have an objective measure of the ability of this program,
I would like to compare its output with that of any other (perhaps
algorithmic) schematics drafter.  I expect that a large CAD circuit
design package would have something like this.

Can anyone help me obtain access to such a drafter?  (Please note
that this has little to do with a schematic *entry* program, nor
with a VLSI *layout* program.

Thanks in advance.

Raul E. Valdes-Perez     or   (valdes@mit-htvax.arpa)
MIT AI Lab, Room 833
545 Technology Square
Cambridge, MA 02139

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 86 08:16 CDT
-FROM-
From: Bennett@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for Expert Systems for Mechanical Engineering
-BODY-


  A friend of mine is looking for pointers to work done in Expert Systems
  for Mechanical Engineering ---   specifically in the area of
  Mechanical Design.

  If anyone has any information that would help please send it directly
  to me as Bennett at HI-Multics.

  Bonnie Bennett (612)782-7381

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 86 22:54 EDT
-FROM-
From: EDMUNDSY%northeastern.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Any OPS5 in PC ?
-BODY-
Does anyone know whether there is any OPS5 software package availiable in PC?
I would like to know where I can find it. Thanks!!!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Aug 86 10:49:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!aluxp!prieto@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (PRIETO)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ATT 3B2/400, 3B5 CMU - OPS5
-BODY-
What are the OPS5 requirements to be used in small machines like
3B2/400, 3B5 vs. VAX 11/780? Storage, memory, etc. Is there OPS5
software executing in these types of machines? Can software development
for an expert system application be done in the smaller machines or is a
VAX needed?

aluxp!prieto
(215)770-3285

ps. I am interested in getting OPS 5 - where could I obtain it?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 86 04:48:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucbcad!nike!lll-crg!micropro!ptsfa!jeg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Girard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IJCAI-87 ... usenet contacts
-BODY-

I am looking for a usenet or usenet compatible connection by which
I can inquire about the IJCAI program, ground rules and deadlines.

Please respond to

             [ihnp4,dual,pyramid,cbosgd,bellcore,qantel]ptsfa!jeg
             John Girard
             USA:  415-823-1961   415-449-5745

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 18:33:09 -0100
-FROM-
From: mcvax!csinn!solvay@seismo.CSS.GOV (Jean Philippe Solvay)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: flavors and Common Lisp
-BODY-
Hi Kenneth,

Do yo know if there is any implementation of flavors in Common Lisp currently
available (public domain, if possible)?

Thanks in advance,

Jean-Philippe Solvay.
inria!csinn!solvay@mcvax.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 86 16:48:15 -0800
-FROM-
From: Don Rose <drose@CIP.UCI.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS, DDB and infinite loops
-BODY-
Does anyone know whether the standard algorithms for belief revision
(e.g. dependency-directed backtracking in TMS-like systems) are
guaranteed to halt? That is, is it possible for certain belief networks
to be arranged such that no set of mutually consistent beliefs can be found
(without outside influence)? --Donald Rose
                               drose@ics.uci.edu
                               ICS Dept
                               Irvine CA 92717

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 0  0 00:00:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: "LLLASD::GARBARINI" <garbarini%lllasd.DECNET@lll-crg.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "LLLASD::GARBARINI" <garbarini@lllasd.decnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Availability of interactive 2-d math editing interfaces...
-BODY-
I am working with a number of other people on a project called Automatic
Programming for Physics.  The goal is to build an AI based automatic
programming system to aid scientist in the building of numerical
simulations of physical systems.

In the user interface to the system we would like to have interactive
editing of mathematical expressions in two-dimensional form.

It seems a number of people have recently made much progress in this
area. (See C. Smith and N. Soiffer, "MathScribe: A User Interface for
Computer Algebra Systems," Conference Proceedings of Symsac 86, (July,
1986) and B. Leong, "Iris: Design of a User Interface Program for
Symbolic Algebra," Proc. 1986 ACM-SIGSAM Symposium on Symbolic and
Algebraic Manipulation, July 1986.)

Not wishing to reinvent the wheel, I'd appreciate receiving information
regarding the availability of any such interface.

Joe P. Garbarini Jr.
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
P. O. Box 808 , L-308
7000 East Avenue
Livermore Ca. , 94550
(415)-423-2808

arpanet address: GARBARINI%LLLASD.DECNET@LLL-CRG.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
184
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 86 14:13:52 cdt
-FROM-
From: preece%ccvaxa@gswd-vms.ARPA (Scott E. Preece)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction - Conference on Office Information Sys
-BODY-
> From: rba@petrus.bellcore.com (Robert B. Allen)
> Subject: Conference on Office Information Systems - Brown U.
>
>
>           ACM CONFERENCE ON OFFICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS
>                October 6-8, 1968, Providence, R.I.
                               ^
Gee, I didn't join the ACM until 1970, but I didn't think
they had invented "Office Information Systems" then...

>-
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:   ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:   preece@gswd-vms

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 86 13:07 EDT
-FROM-
From: Denber.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Reimplementing in C
-BODY-
        "Such things are very awkward, if not impossible to express in the
typical AI languages"

Well, maybe I've been using an atypical AI language, but Interlisp-D has
all that stuff - byte I/O, streams, timers, whatever.  It's real e-z to
use.  Check it out.

                        - Michel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 86 11:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: EDMUNDSY%northeastern.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for Production Rules for English Grammar
-BODY-
Does anyone know where can I find the information (or existed results) of
transforming English (or a simplified subset) grammar into production rules of
regular grammar, context-free or context sensitive grammar. For example,
    Sentences --> Noun Verb Noun        etc.
If anyone gets any information on that, I would appreciate if you can leave me
a pointer for those information. Thanks!! I can be contacted by any of the
following means:
NET: EDMUNDSY@NORTHEASTERN.EDU
ADD: Sy, Bon-Kiem
     Northeastern University
     Dept. ECE DA 409
     Boston, MA 02115
Phone: (617)-437-5055
                                Bon Sy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 86 18:32:06 edt
-FROM-
From: brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Brant A. Cheikes)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Unix Consultant references?
-BODY-
I'm looking for the most recent reports by the group working
on the Unix Consultant project at UC Berkeley.  Does anybody
know what that is, and is there a network address to which
report requests can be sent?  The ref I was given was UCB
report CSD 87/303, but I'm not sure if it's available or even
recent.  Any information in this vein would be appreciated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 86 00:32:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: micropro!ptsfa!jeg@lll-crg.arpa  (John Girard)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI tools/products in UNIX
-BODY-

Greetings,

I am looking for any information I can get on Artificial Intelligence
tools and products in the UNIX environment.  I will compile and publish
the results in net.ai.  Please help me out with any of the following:

versions of LISP and PROLOG running in unix

expert system shells available in unix

expert system and natural language products that have been developed
in the unix environment, both available now and in R&D, especially ones
that relate to unix problem domains (sys admin, security).

Reply to:  John Girard
            415-823-1961
            [ihnp4,dual,cbosgd,nike,qantel,bellcore]!ptsfa!jeg

P.S. Very interested in things that run on less horsepower than a SUN.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 86 13:44:47 pdt
-FROM-
From: ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for core nl system code
-BODY-

We are looking for a core nl system which we can tailor and
extend.  There is as yet little comp.ling activity at UCSB,
so we have no local sources.  We are interested in developing
a system which can be used in foreign language education, hence
we would need a system in which the "syntactic components"
are such that we could incrementally mung the system into
speaking german or french or russian without having to
redesign the system.  my knowledge in this area is fuzzy
(not 'Fuzzy(tm)' etc, just fuzzy!) .

I have read a little about systems such as the Phran component of the
Wilensky et al project called unix-consultant, and i
understand that the approach taken there is susceptible
to generalization to other languages by entering a new
data-base of pattern-action pairs (i.e. an EXACT parse of
a syntactically admissable sentence is not required) Unfortunately,
Berekeley CS is not currently giving access to components of that system.

Does anyone have pointers to available code for systems
that fall into that part of the syntax-semantics spectrum?
Is it, in fact, reasonable for us to seek such a system as
a tool, or are we better advised to start with car and cdr ????

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Aug 86 19:29:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!kapil@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Kapil Khetan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Where can one do an off-campus Ph.D. in AI/ES
-BODY-

        After graduating from Dartmouth, with an MS in
Computer & Information Science, I have been residing and working
in New York City.

        I am interested in continuing education and think
Expert Systems is a nice field to learn more about.  I took
a ten week course in which we dabbled in Prolog and M1.

        If any of you know of a college in the area (Columbia,
NYU, PACE) which has something like it, or any other college
anywhere else which has an off-campus program, please hit the 'r' key.

        Thank-you.

                                Kapil Khetan

Chemical Bank, 55 Water St., New York, NY 10041

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Aug 86 18:27:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!bri5@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Eric Brill)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Grad Schools
-BODY-
Hello.  I am planning on entering graduate school next year.  I was wondering
what schools are considered the best in Artificial Intelligence (specifically
in language comprehension and learning).  I would be especially interested
in your opinions as to which schools would be considered the top 10.
Thank you very much.

Eric Brill

ps, if there is anybody else out there interested in the above, send me mail,
and I will forward all interesting replies.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 86 15:35 CDT
-FROM-
From: PADIN%FNALB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ADVICE ON ENTERING THE AI COMMUNITY
-BODY-

        As a newcomer to the AI arena, I am compelled to ask some
fundamentally novice (and,as such,sometimes ridiculous) sounding
questions.  Nonetheless, here goes.

        If one were to attempt to enter the AI field, what are the
   basic requirements; what are some special requirements?
   With a BS im physics, is further schooling mandatory? Are there
   particular schools which I should consider or ones I should
   avoid?  Are there books which I MUST read!!? As a 29 year old
   with a Math and Physics background, am I hopelessly over-the-hill
   for such musings to become a reality? Are there questions which I
   should be asking?

   If you care to answer in private I can be reached at:


                        PADIN@FNALB.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Sep 86 21:44:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: pyrnj!mirror!prism!mattj@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Grad Schools
-BODY-

Eric Brill:

Here is my own personal ranking of general AI programs:

                Stanford
                MIT
                Carnegie-Mellon
                UIllinois@Urbana
                URochester

Also good: UMaryland, Johns Hopkins, UMass@Amherst, ... can't think now.

[...]
                                - Matthew Jensen

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 86 02:52:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews@UW-BEAVER.ARPA  (Jamie Andrews)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Grad Schools (Rochester?)
-BODY-

     I've heard that Rochester has quite a good AI / logic
programming program, and it definitely has some good people...
but can anyone tell me what it's like to LIVE in Rochester?
Or is the campus far enough from Rochester that it doesn't
matter?  Please respond (r or R) to me rather than to the net.

Adv(merci)ance,
>-Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Hundred million bottles washed up on the shore"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Sep 86 21:20:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!prlb2!lln-cs!pv@seismo.css.gov  (Patrick Vandamme)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bug in Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
I am testing the `famous' Turbo Prolog Software and, after all the good things
that I heard about it, I was very surprised at having problems with the first
large program I tried. I give here this program. It finds all the relations
between a person and his family. But for some people, it answers with a lot
of strange characters. I think there must be a dangling pointer somewhere.
Note that this happens only with large programs !

Have someone the same result ?

(for the stange characters, try with "veronique").

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/*
     +-----------------------------------------------------+
     |      Programme de gestion d'une base de donnees     |
     |               de relations familiales.              |
     +-----------------------------------------------------+
            P. Vandamme - Unite Info - UCL - Aout 1986
*/

  [Deleted due to length.  See following message for an explanation
  of the problem.  -- KIL]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>-
Patrick Vandamme

Unite d'Informatique              UUCP : (prlb2)lln-cs!pv
Universite Catholique de Louvain  Phone: +32 10 43 24 15
Place Sainte-Barbe, 2             Telex: 59037 UCL B
B-1348 Louvain-La-Neuve           Eurokom: Patrick Vandamme UCL
Belgium                           Fax  : +32 10 41 56 47

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Sep 86 23:08:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: clyde!cbatt!cbuxc!cbuxb!cbrma!clh@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU  (C.Harting)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Bug in Turbo Prolog
-BODY-

I purchased Turbo Prolog Friday night, and immediately tried to compile the
GeoBase program on my Tandy 1000 (384K).  I could not even create a .OBJ file
on my machine, so I compiled it on a 640K AT&T PC6300.  Caveat No. 1: large
programs need large amounts of memory.  I compiled Patrick's "programme de
gestion" to disk and it ran flawlessly (I think -- this is my first lesson in
French!).  BUT when compiled to memory, I got the same errors as Patrick.
Caveat No. 2: compile large programs to disk and run standalone.  And, Caveat
No. 3: leave out as many memory-resident programs as you can stand when
booting the machine to run Turbo Prolog.
'Nuff said?

===============================================================================
Chris Harting                           "Many are cold, few are frozen."
AT&T Network Systems                    Columbus, Ohio
The Path (?!?):                         cbosgd!cbrma!clh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 86 18:40:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: john@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (John Jacobsen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Re: Bug in Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
> Xref: uwmacc net.ai:1941 net.lang.prolog:528
> Summary: How to get around it.


I got the "Programme de Gestion de Base de Donnees" to work fine... on an
AT with a meg of memory.  I think Patrick Vandamme just ran out of memory,
cause his code is immaculate.

John E. Jacobsen
University of Wisconsin -- Madison Academic Computing Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 86 17:26 PDT
-FROM-
From: jan cornish <cornish@RUSSIAN.SPA.Symbohics.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turbo Prolog
-BODY-

I've heard some chilling things about Turbo Prolog. Such as

1) The programmer must not only declare each predicate, but also whether
each parameter to the predicate (not correct terminology) is input
or output. This means you can't write relational predicates like
grandfather.

2) The backtracking is not standard.

3) "You can do any thing in Turbo Prolog that you can do in Turbo Pascal"

I want to hear from the LP community on Turbo Prolog as to it's ultimate
merit.  Something beyond the dismissive flames.

Thanks in advance,

Jan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
185
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 86 12:11:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: lepine@istg.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com  (Normand Lepine 225-6715)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connectionist references
-BODY-
I am interested in learning about the connectionist model and would appreciate
any pointers to papers, texts, etc. on the subject.  Please mail references to
me and I will compile and post a bibliography to the net.

Thanks for your help,
Normand Lepine

uucp: ...!decwrl!cons.dec.com!lepine
ARPA: lepine@cons.dec.com
      lepine%cons.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (without domain servers)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Aug 86 12:04:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!reading!brueer!ckennedy@seismo.css.gov  (C.M.Kennedy )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Connectionist Expert System Learning
-BODY-
The following is a list of the useful replies received so far:


Date: Wed, 30 Jul 86 8:56:08 BST
From: Ronan Reilly <rreilly%euroies@reading.ac.uk>
Sender: rreilly%euroies@reading.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Connectionist Approaches To Expert System Learning

Hi,

What you're looking for, effectively, are attempts to implement
production systems within a connectionist framework.  Researchers
are making progress, slowly but surely, in that direction.  The
most recent paper I've come across in thge area is:

Touretzky, D. S. & Hinton, G. E. (1985).  Symbols among the neurons
        details of a connectionist inference architecture.  In
        Proceedings IJCAI '85, Los Angeles.

I've a copy of this somewhere.  So if the IJCAI proceedings don't come
to hand, I'll post it onto you.

There are two books which are due to be published this year, and they
are set to be the standard reference books for the area:

Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986).  Parallel distributed
        processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition.
        Vol. 1: Foundations.  Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.

Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (1986).  Parallel distributed
        processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition.
        Vol. 2: Applications.  Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.

Another good source of information on the localist school of
connectionism is the University of Rochester technical report series.
They have one report which lists all their recent connectionist
reports.  The address to write to is:

        Computer Science Department
        The University of Rochester
        Rochester, NY 14627
        USA

I've implemented a version of the Rochester ISCON simulator in
Salford Lisp on our Prime 750.  The simulator is a flexible system
for building and testing connectionist models.  You're welcome to
a copy of it.  Salford Lisp is a Maclisp variant.

Regards,
Ronan
...mcvax!euroies!rreilly


Date: Sat, 2 Aug 86 09:33:46 PDT
From: Mike Mozer <mozer%ics.ucsd.edu@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Connectionist Approaches To Expert System Learning

I've just finished a connectionist expert system paper, which I'd be glad
to send you if you're interested (need an address, though).

Here's the abstract:

RAMBOT:  A connectionist expert system that learns by example

Expert systems seem to be quite the rage in Artificial Intelligence, but
getting expert knowledge into these systems is a difficult problem.  One
solution would be to endow the systems with powerful learning procedures
which could discover appropriate behaviors by observing an expert in action.
A promising source of such learning procedures
can be found in recent work on connectionist networks, that is, massively
parallel networks of simple processing elements.  In this paper, I discuss a
Connectionist expert system that learns to play a simple video game by
observing a human player.  The game, Robots, is played on a two-dimensional
board containing the player and a number of computer-controlled robots.  The
object of the game is for the player to move around the board in a
manner that will force all of the robots to collide with one another
before any robot is able to catch the player.  The connectionist system
learns to associate observed situations on the board with observed
moves.  It is capable not only of replicating the performance of the
human player, but of learning generalizations that apply to novel
situations.

Mike Mozer
mozer@nprdc.arpa


Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 18:53:57 edt
From: Tom Frauenhofer <tfra%ur-tut@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Connectionist Approaches To Expert System Learning
Organization: U. of Rochester Computing Center

Catriona,

I am (slightly) familiar with a thesis by Gary Cotrell of the U of R here
that dealt with a connectionist approach to language understanding.  I believe
he worked closely with a psychologist to figure out how people understand
language and words, and then tried to model the behavior in a connectionist
framework.  You should be able to get a copy of the thesis from the Computer
Science Department here.  It's not expert systems, but it is fascinating.

> Tom Frauenhofer
...!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!tfra


>From sandon@ai.wisc.edu Sat Aug  9 17:25:29 1986
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 86 11:38:43 CDT
From: Pete Sandon <sandon%ai.wisc.edu@reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Connectionist Learning


Hi,

   You may have already received this information, but I will pass it
along anyway. Steve Gallant, at Northeastern University, has done some
work on using a modified perceptron learning algorithm for expert
system knowledge acquisition. He has written a number of tech reports
in the last few years. His email address is: sig@northeastern.csnet.
His postal address is:    Steve Gallant
                          College of Computer Science
                          Boston, MA. 02115

>-Pete Sandon

>-----------------------------
-END-
Date: 17 Aug 86 22:08:30 GMT-FROM-
From: ix133@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (Catherine L. Harris)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Q:  How can structure be learned?  A:  PDP
-BODY-
  [Excerpted from the NL-KR Digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]
  [Forwarded from USENET net.nlang]


  [... The following portion discusses connectionist learning.  -- KIL]

        One Alternative to the Endogenous Structure View

Jeffrey Goldberg says (in an immediately preceding article) [in net.nlang -B],

> Chomsky has set him self up asking the question:  "How can children,
> given a finite amount of input, learn a language?"  The only answer
> could be that children are equipped with a large portion of language to
> begin with.  If something is innate than it will show up in all
> languages (a universal), and if something is unlearnable then it, too,
> must be innate (and therefore universal).

The important idea behind the nativist and language-modularity
hypotheses are that language structure is too complex, time is too
short, and the form of the input data (i.e., parent's speech to
children) is too degenerate for the target grammar to be learned.
Several people (e.g., Steven Pinker of MIT) have bolstered this
argument with formal "learnability" analyses:  you make an estimate of
the power of the learning mechanism, make assumptions about factors in
the learning situation (e.g., no negative feedback) and then
mathematically prove that a given grammar (a transformational grammar,
or a lexical functional grammar, or whatever) is unlearnable.

My problem with these analyses  -- and with nativist assumptions in
general -- is that they aren't considering a type of learning mechanism
that may be powerful enough to learn something as complex as a grammar,
even under the supposedly impoverished learning environment a child
encounters.  The mechanism is what Rumelhart and McClelland (of UCSD)
call the PDP approach (see their just-released from MIT Press, Parallel
Distributed Processing:  Explorations in the Microstructure of
Cognition).

The idea behind PDP (and other connectionist approaches to explaining
intelligent behavior)   is that input from hundred/thousands/millions
of information sources jointly combine to specify a result.   A
rule-governed system is, according to this approach, best represented
not by explicit rules (e.g., a set of productions or rewrite rules) but
by a large network of units:  input units, internal units, and output
units.  Given any set of inputs, the whole system iteratively "relaxes"
to a stable configuration (e.g., the soap bubble relaxing to
a parabola, our visual system finding one stable interpretation of
a visual illustion).

While  many/most people accept the idea that constraint-satisfaction
networks may underlie phenomenon like visual perception, they are more
reluctant to to see its applications to language processing or language
acquisition.  There are currently (in the Rumelhart and McClelland
work  -- and I'm sure you cognitive science buffs have already rushed
to your bookstore/library!) two convincing PDP models on language,
one on sentence processing (case role assignment) and the other on
children's acquisition of past-tense morphology.  While no one has yet
tried to use this approach to explain syntactic acquisition, I see this
as the next step.


For people interested in hard empirical, cross-linguistic data that
supports a connectionist, non-nativist, approach to acquisition, I
recommend *Mechanisms of Language Acquisition*, Brain MacWhinney Ed.,
in press.

I realize I rushed so fast over the explanation of what PDP is that
people who haven't heard about it before may be lost.   I'd like to see
a discussion on this -- perhaps other people can talk about the brand
of connectionism they're encountering at their school/research/job and
what they think its benefits and limitations are  -- in
explaining the psycholinguistic facts or just in general.

Cathy Harris    "Sweating it out on the reaction time floor -- what,
                when you could be in that ole armchair theo-- ? Never mind;
                it's only til 1990!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 86 11:28:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Notes on AAAI '86
-BODY-

                              Notes on AAAI

                                Barry Kort


                                 Abstract

       The Fifth Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
       was held August 11-15 at the Philadelphia Civic Center.

       These notes record the author's personal impressions of the
       state of AI, and the business prospects for AI technology.
       The views expressed are those of the author and do not
       necessarily reflect the perspective or intentions of other
       individuals or organizations.

                                  * * *


       The American Association for Artificial Intelligence held
       its Fifth Annual Conference during the week of August 11,
       1986, at the Philadelphia Civic Center.

       Approximately 5000 attendees were treated to the latest
       results of this fast growing field.  An extensive program of
       tutorials enabled the naive beginner and technical-
       professional alike to rise to a common baseline of
       understanding. Research and Science Sessions concentrated on
       the theoretical underpinnings, while the complementary
       Engineering Sessions focused on reduction of theory to
       practice.

       Dr. Herbert Schorr of IBM delivered the Keynote Address.
       His message was simple and straightforward:  AI is here
       today, it's real, and it works.  The exhibit floor was a sea
       of high-end workstations, running flashy applications
       ranging from CAT scan imagery to automated fault diagnosis,
       to automated reasoning, to 3-D scene animation, to
       iconographic model-based reasoning.  Symbolics, TI, Xerox,
       Digital, HP, Sun, and other vendors exhibited state of the
       art hardware, while Intellicorp, Teknowledge, Inference,
       Carnegie-Mellon Group, and other software houses offered
       knowledge engineering power tools that make short work of
       automated reasoning.

       Knowledge representation schema include the ubiquitous tree,
       as well as animated iconographic models of dynamic systems.
       Inductive and deductive reasoning and goal-directed logic
       appear in the guise of forward and backward chaining
       algorithms which seek the desired chain of nodes linking
       premiss to predicted conclusion or hypothesis to observed
       symptoms.  Such schema are especially well adapted to
       diagnosis of ills, be it human ailment or machine
       malfunction.

       Natural Language understanding remains a hard problem, due
       to the inscrutable ambiguity of most human-generated
       utterances.  Nevertheless, silicon can diagram sentences as
       well as a precocious fifth grader.  In limited domain
       vocabularies, the semantic content of such diagrammatic
       representations can be reliably extracted.

       Robotics and vision remain challenging fields, but advances
       in parallel architectures may clear the way for notable
       progress in scene recognition.

       Qualitative reasoning, model-based reasoning, and reasoning
       by analogy still require substantial human guidance, perhaps
       because of the difficulty of implementing the interdomain
       pattern recognition which humans know as analogy, metaphor,
       and parable.

       Interesting philosophical questions abound when AI moves
       into the fields of automated advisors and agents.  Such
       systems require the introduction of Value Systems, which may
       or may not conflict with individual preferences for
       benevolent ethics or hard-nosed business pragmatics. One
       speaker chose the provocative title, "Can Machines Be
       Intelligent If They Don't Give a Damn?"  We may be on the
       threshold of Artificial Intelligence, but we have a long way
       to go before we arrive at Artificial Wisdom.  Nevertheless,
       some progress is being made in reducing to practice such
       esoteric concepts as Theories of Equity and Justice, leading
       to the possibility of unbiased Jurisprudence.

       AI goes hand in hand with Theories of Learning and
       Instruction, and the field appears to be paying dividends in
       the art and practice of knowledge exchange, following the
       strategy first suggested by Socrates some 2500 years ago.
       The dialogue format abounds, and mixed initiative dialogues
       seem to capture the essence of mutual teaching and
       mirroring.  Perhaps sanity can be turned into an art form
       and a science.

       Belief Revision and Truth Maintenance enable systems to
       unravel confusion caused by the injection of mutually
       inconsistent inputs.  Nobody's fool, these systems let the
       user know that there's a fib in there somewhere.

       Psychology of computers becomes an issue, and the Silicon
       Syndrome of Neuroses can be detected whenever the machines
       are not taught how to think straight.  Machines are already
       sapient.  Soon they will acquire sentience, and maybe even
       free will (nothing more than a random number generator
       coupled with a value system).  Perhaps by the end of the
       Millenium (just 14 years away), the planet will see its
       first Artificial Sentient Being.  Perhaps Von Neumann knew
       what he was talking about when he wrote his cryptic volume
       entitled, On the Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata.

       There were no Cybernauts in Philadelphia this year, but many
       of the piece parts were in evidence.  Perhaps it is just a
       matter of time until the Golem takes its first step.

       In the mean time, we have entered the era of the Competent
       System, somewhat short on world-class expertise, but able to
       hold it's own in today's corporate culture.  It learns about
       as fast as its human counterpart, and is infinitely
       clonable.

       Once upon a time it was felt that machines should work and
       people should think.  Now that machines can think, perhaps
       people can take more time to enjoy the state of being called
       Life.

                                  * * *

       Lincroft, NJ
       August 17, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
186
-DATE-
Date: 29 Aug 86 01:58:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: hsgj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Mr. Barbecue)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Notes on AAAI '86
-BODY-
(not really a followup article, more of a commentary)

I find it very interesting that there is so much excitement generated over
parallel processing computer systems by the AI community.  Interesting in
that the problems of AI (the intractability of: language, vision, and general
cognition to name a few) are not anywhere near limited by computational
power but by our lack of understanding.  If somebody managed to create a
truely intelligent system, I think we would have heard about it by now,
even if the program took a month to run.  Fact of the matter is that our
knowledge of such problems is minimal.  Attempts to solve them leads to
researchers banging their heads against a very hard wall, indeed.  So what
is happening?  The field that was once A.I. is very quickly headed back to
it's origins in computer science and is producing "Expert Systems" by the
droves.  The problem isn't that they aren't useful, but rather that they
are being touted as the A.I., and true insights into actual human thinking
are still rare (if not non-existant).

Has everybody given up?  I doubt it.  However, it seems that economic reality
has set in.  People are forced to show practical systems with everyday appli-
cations.  Financers can't understand why we would be overjoyed if we could
develop a system that learns like a baby, and so all the money is being
siphoned away and into robotics, Expert Systems, and even spelling checkers!
(no, I don't think that welding cars together requires a great deal of true
intelligence, though technically it may be great)

So what is one to do?  Go into cog-psych?  At least psychologists are working
on the fundamental problems that AI started, but many seem to be grasping at
straws, trying to find a simple solution (i.e., familly resemblance, primary
attribute analysis, etc.)

What seems to be lacking is a cogent combination of theories.  Some attempts
have been made, but these authors basically punt on the issue, stating
like "none of the above theories adequately explain the observed phenomena,
perhaps the solution is a combination of current hypothesis".  Very good, now
lets do that research and see if this is true!

My opinion?  Well, some current work has dealt with computer nervous systems,
(Science --sometime this summer).  This is similar in form to the hypercube
systems but the theory seems different.  Really the work is towards computer
neurons.  Distributed systems in which each element contributes a little to
the final result.  Signals are not binary, but graded.  They combine with other
signals from various sources and form an output.  Again, this could be done
with a linear machine that hold partial results.  But, I'm not suggesting that
this alone is a solution, it's just interesting.  My real opinion is that
without "bringing baby up" so to speak, we won't get much accomplished.  The
ultimate system will have to be able to reach out, grasp (whether visually or
physically, or whatever) and sense it's world around it in a rich manner.  It
will have to be malleable, but still have certain guidelines built in.  It
must truely learn, forming a myriad of connections with past experiences and
thoughts.  In sum, it will have to be a living animal (though made of sand..)

Yes, I do think that you need the full range of systems to create a truely
intelligent system.  Hellen Keller still had touch.  She could feel vibrations,
and she could use this information to create a world that was probably
perceptually much different than ours.  But, she had true intelligence.
(I realize that the semantics of all these words and phrases are highly
debated, you know what I'm talking, so don't try to be difficult!)  :)

Well, that's enough for a day.

Ted Inoue.
Cornell







>-
ARPA:  hsgj%vax2.ccs.cornell.edu@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
UUCP:  ihnp4!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj   BITNET:  hsgj@cornella

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Sep 86 10:25:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (B.KORT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Notes on AAAI '86
-BODY-
I appreciated Ted Inoue's commentary on the State of AI.  I especially
agree with his point that a cogent combination of theories is needed.
My own betting card favors the theories of Piaget on learning, coupled
with the modern animated-graphic mixed-initiative dialogues that merge
the Socratic-style dialectic with inexpensive PC's.  See for instance
the Mind Mirror by Electronic Arts.  It's a flashy example of the clever
integration of Cognitive Psychology, Mixed Initiative Dialogues, Color
Animated Graphics, and the Software/Mindware Exchange.  Such illustrations
of the imagery in the Mind's Eye can breathe new life into the relationship
between silicon systems and their carbon-based friends.

Barry Kort
hounx!kort

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 86 21:39:37 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Sellers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: transition from AI to Cognitive Science (was: Re: Notes on
-BODY-           AAAI '86)


> I find it very interesting that there is so much excitement generated over
> parallel processing computer systems by the AI community.  Interesting in
> that the problems of AI (the intractability of: language, vision, and general
> cognition to name a few) are not anywhere near limited by computational
> power but by our lack of understanding. [...]
>                The field that was once A.I. is very quickly headed back to
> it's origins in computer science and is producing "Expert Systems" by the
> droves.  The problem isn't that they aren't useful, but rather that they
> are being touted as the A.I., and true insights into actual human thinking
> are still rare (if not non-existant).

Inordinate amounts of hype have long been a problem in AI; the only difference
now is that there is actually a small something there (i.e. knowledge based
systems), so the hype is rising to truly unbelievable heights.  I don't know
that AI is returning to its roots in computer science, probably there is just
more emphasis on the area(s) where something actually *works* right now.

> Has everybody given up?  I doubt it.  However, it seems that economic reality
> has set in.  People are forced to show practical systems with everyday appli-
> cations.

Good points.  You should check out the book "The AI Business" by ...rats, it
escapes me (possibly Winston or McCarthy?).  I think it was published in late
'84 or early '85, and makes the same kinds of points that you're making here,
talking about the hype, the history, and the current state of the art and the
business.

> So what is one to do?  Go into cog-psych?  At least psychologists are working
> on the fundamental problems that AI started, but many seem to be grasping at
> straws, trying to find a simple solution (i.e., familly resemblance, primary
> attribute analysis, etc.)

The Grass is Always Greener.  I started out going into neurophysiology, then
switched to cog psych because the neuro research is still at a lower level than
I wanted, and then became disillusioned because all of the psych work being
done seemed to be either super low-level or infeasable to test empirically.
So, I started looking into computers, longing to get into the world of AI.
Luckily, I stopped before I got to the point you are at now, and found
something better (no, besides Amway :-)...

> What seems to be lacking is a cogent combination of theories.  Some attempts
> have been made, but these authors basically punt on the issue, stating
> like "none of the above theories adequately explain the observed phenomena,
> perhaps the solution is a combination of current hypothesis".  Very good, now
> lets do that research and see if this is true!

And this is exactly what is happening in the new field of Cognitive Science.
While there is still no "cogent combination of theories", things are beginning
to coalesce. (Pylyshyn described the current state of the field as Physics
searching for its Newton.  Everyone agrees that the field needs a Newton to
bring it all together, and everyone thinks that he or she is probably that
person.  The problem is, no one else agrees with you, except maybe your own
grad students.)  Cog sci is still emerging as a separate field, even though
its beginnings can probably be pegged as being in the late '70s or early '80s.
It is taking material, paradigms, and techniques from AI, neurology, cog psych,
anthropology, linguistics, and several other fields, and forming a new field
dedicated to the study of cognition in general.  This does not mean that
cognition should be looked at in a vacuum (as is to some degree the case with
AI), but that it can and should be examined in both natural and artificial
contexts, allowing for the difference between them.  It can and should take
into account all types and levels of cognition, from the low-level neural
processing to the highly plastic levels of linguistic and social cognitive
interaction, researching and applying these areas in artificial settings
as it becomes feasable.

>                                               [...]  My real opinion is that
> without "bringing baby up" so to speak, we won't get much accomplished.  The
> ultimate system will have to be able to reach out, grasp (whether visually or
> physically, or whatever) and sense it's world around it in a rich manner.  It
> will have to be malleable, but still have certain guidelines built in.  It
> must truely learn, forming a myriad of connections with past experiences and
> thoughts.  In sum, it will have to be a living animal (though made of sand..)

This is one possibility, though not the only one.  Certainly an artificially
cogitating system without many of the abilities you mention would be different
from us, in that its primary needs (food, shelter, sensory input) would not
be the same.  This does not make these things a requirement, however.  If we
would wish to build an artificial cogitator that had roughly the same sort of
world view as we have, then we probably would have to give it some way of
directly interacting with its environment through the use of sensors and
effectors of some sort.
  I suggest that you find and peruse the last 5 or 6 years of the journal
Cognitive Science, put out by the Cognitive Science Society.  Most of the
things that have been written in there are still fairly up-to-date, as the
field is still reaching "critical mass" in terms of theoretical quantity
and quality (an article by Norman, "Twelve Issues for Cognitive Science"
from 1980 in this journal (not sure which issue) discusses many of the things
you are talking about here).

Let's hear more on this subject!

> Ted Inoue.
> Cornell

>-

                Mike Sellers
        UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes


           INNING:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  TOTAL
        IDEALISTS   0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0    1
         REALISTS   1  1  0  4  3  1  2  0  2    0

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 86 19:09:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: craig@think.com  (Craig Stanfill)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: transition from AI to Cognitive Science (was: Re: Notes
-BODY-           on AAAI '86)

> I find it very interesting that there is so much excitement generated over
> parallel processing computer systems by the AI community.  Interesting in
> that the problems of AI (the intractability of: language, vision, and general
> cognition to name a few) are not anywhere near limited by computational
> power but by our lack of understanding. [...]

For the last year, I have been working on AI on the Connection Machine,
which is a massively parallel computer.  Depending on the application,
the CM is between 100 and 1000 times faster than a Symbolics 36xx.  I
have performed some experiments on models of reasoning from memory
(Memory Based Reasoning, Stannfill and Waltz, TMC Technical Report).
Some of these experiments required 5 hours on a 32,000 processor CM.  I,
for one, do not consider a 500-5000 hour experiment on a Symbolics a
practical way to work.

More substantially, having a massively parallel machine changes the way
you think about writing programs.  When certain operations become 1000
times faster, what you put into the inner loop of a program may change
drasticly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Sep 86 16:46:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watdragon!rggoebel@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
     (Randy Goebel LPAIG)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: transition from AI to Cognitive Science (was: Re: Notes
-BODY-           on AAAI '86)

Mike Sellers from Tektronix in Wilsonville, Oregon writes:

| Inordinate amounts of hype have long been a problem in AI; the only
difference
| now is that there is actually a small something there (i.e. knowledge based
| systems), so the hype is rising to truly unbelievable heights.  I don't know
| that AI is returning to its roots in computer science, probably there is just
| more emphasis on the area(s) where something actually *works* right now.

I would like to remind all that don't know or have forgotten that the notion
of a rational artifact as digitial computer does have its roots in
computing, but the more general notion of intelligent artifact has concerned
scientists and philosophers much longer than the lifetime of the digital
computer.  John Haugeland's book ``AI: the very idea'' would be good reading
for those who aren't aware that there is a pre-Dartmouth history of ``AI.''

Randy Goebel
U. of Waterloo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
187
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 86 20:05:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: mnetor!utzoo!utcs!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!yali@seismo.css.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language DB interface
-BODY-
Has anyone out there any experience with
the Swan* natural language database interface
put out by Natural Language Products of Berkeley?
This system was demo-ed at AAAI this August.
I am primarily interested in the system's
ability to talk to "different databases
associated with different DBMS's"
simultaneously (quoting an information sheet
put out by NLP).
How flexible is it and how easy is it
to adapt to new domains?

======================================================
Yawar Ali
{the world}!watmath!utcsri!utcs!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!yali
======================================================

* Swan is an unregistered trademark of NLP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 16:34:47 edt
-FROM-
From: lb0q@andrew.cmu.edu (Leslie Burkholder)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: natural language generation
-BODY-
Has work been done on the problem of generating relatively idiomatic English
from sentences written in a language for first-order predicate logic?
Any pointers would be appreciated.

Leslie Burkholder
lb0q@andrew.cmu.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1986  17:10 EDT
-FROM-
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: queries about expert systems
-BODY-
Maybe some AI guru out there can help with the following questions:

1. Production systems are the implementation of many expert systems.
In what other forms are "expert systems" implemented?

[I use the term "expert system" to describe the codification of any
process that people use to reason, plan, or make decisions as a set of
computer rules, involving a detailed description of the precise
thought processes used.  If you have a better description, please
share it.]

2. A production system is in essence a set of rules that state that
"IF X occurs, THEN take action Y."  System designers must anticipate
the set of "X" that can occur.  What if something happens that is not
anticipated in the specified set of "X"?  I assert that the most
common result in such cases is that nothing happens.  Am I right,
wrong, or off the map?

Thanks.

Herb Lin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 86 20:42:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!islenet!humu!uhmanoa!aloha1!ryan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (ryan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: querying a data base using an inference engine
-BODY-

This is a sort of banner letting the rest of the world know that we at
the Artificial Intelligence Lab at the University of Hawaii are currently
looking at the problem of querying a database using AI techniques. We will be
using a natural language front end for querying the database. We will
appretiate
 any information from anyone working on or interested in the same.

 my address is

    Paul Ryan
    ...{dual,vortex,ihnp4}!islenet!aloha1!ryan
    ...nosvax!humu!islenet!aloha1!ryan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 86 18:55:43 edt
-FROM-
From: philabs!micomvax!peters@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Vision
-BODY-
We are starting a project related to automatic classification of facial
features from photographs. If anyone out there has any info/references
related to this area please let me hear from you.

email: !philabs!micomvax!peters
mail:  Peter Srulovicz
       Philips Information Systems
       600 Dr. Philips Blvd
       St. Laurent Quebec
       Canada H4M-2S9

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Sep 86 01:22:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: whuxcc!lcuxlm!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!krubin@bellcore.com
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Smalltalk as an AI research tool?
-BODY-

        I am currently working on an AI project where we are
using Smalltalk-80 as our implementation language. Are there
others who have used Smalltalk to do serious AI work? If so,
and you can talk about what you have done, please respond. I
would be interested in learning how well suited the language
is for serious AI work.
        We have plans to implement an (Intelligent Operator
Assistant) using an IBM PC-AT running a version of Digitalk
Incorporated's Smalltalk/V. Any comments on this software
would also be helpful (especially speed information!).


                  Kenneth S. Rubin   (404) 894-4318
               Center for Man-Machine Systems Research
             School of Industrial and Systems Engineering
                   Georgia Institute of Technology
                        Post Office Box  35826
                        Atlanta, Georgia 30332
       Majoring with: School of Information and Computer Science
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!krubin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Sep 86 11:35:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: osiris!chandra@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: CAD program for Symbolics
-BODY-

        CAD software for the Symbolics Machine

Hi,
        I just got a Symbolics lisp machine. I am looking for any
Public Domain design/drafting program. Being an architect I'd
like to draw stuff on my lisp machine.

        Hints, pointers, references would be appreciated.

        Thanks,

navin chandra


ARPA:    dchandra@athena.mit.edu
BITNET:  ank%cunyvms1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 86 03:29:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!milano!dave@hplabs.hp.com
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp Machine News?
-BODY-
Does anyone have or know of a zwei-based interface
to news?  (If it exists, 3 to 2 it's called ZNEWS.)

Dave Bridgeland -- MCC Software Technology
  ARPA:    dave@mcc.arpa
  UUCP:    ut-sally!im4u!milano!daveb

  "Things we can be proud of as Americans:
     * Greatest number of citizens who have actually boarded a UFO
     * Many newspapers feature "JUMBLE"
     * Hourly motel rates
     * Vast majority of Elvis movies made here
     * Didn't just give up right away during World War II
             like some countries we could mention
     * Goatees & Van Dykes thought to be worn only by weenies
     * Our well-behaved golf professionals
     * Fabulous babes coast to coast"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 86 16:17:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: uiucuxa!lenzini@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Wanted: MACSYMA info
-BODY-

Hi,

I have a friend in the nuclear eng. department who is currently working on
a problem in - I can't remember right now but that's not the point - anyway,
this problem involves the analytic solution of a rather complex integral
(I believe it's called Chen's (sp?) integral).  A while back I heard something
about a group of programs called MACSYMA that were able to solve integrals that
were previously unsolvable.  I suggested that he may want to look into the
availabiliy of MACSYMA.  I would appreciate any information about these
programs - what they can and can't do, how they are used, how to purchase
(preferably with a university discount) , etc.

Thanks in advance,

Andy Lenzini
University of Illinois.
...pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxa!lenzini

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 86 13:58 PDT
-FROM-
From: sigart@LOGICON.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Speakers wanted
-BODY-

The San Diego Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
(SDSIGART) is looking for speakers for its regular monthly meetings.
We are presently looking for individuals who would like to give a
presentation on any AI topic during the January to April 1987
time-frame.  We typically hold our meetings on the fourth thursday of
the month, and provide for a single presentation during the meeting.
If you anticipate being in San Diego during that time and would like to
give a presentation please contact us via E-mail at
sigart\@logicon.arpa.

We cannot provide transportation reimbursement for speakers from
outside the San Diego area, but we can provide some reimbursement of
hotel/meal expenses.

                                        Thank You,
                                        Bill D'Camp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
188
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 86 20:39:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!bri5@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Eric Brill)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Grad Schools
-BODY-
A few weeks ago, I posted a request for info on good graduate schools
for AI.  I got so many requests to forward the replies I got, that I
decided to just post a summary to the net.  So here it is:


Almost everybody seemed to believe that the top 4 schools are MIT,
CMU, Stanford and Yale (not necessarily in that order).
Other schools which got at least 2 votes for being in the top 10 were
Toronto, Illinois(Urbana), UMass(Amherst), Berkeley, UCLA, UCIrvine,
UTexas(Austin).
Other schools which got one vote for being in the top 10 were
URochester, UCSD, Syracuse and Duke.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 86 12:00:00 GMT+2
-FROM-
From: H29%DHDURZ2.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI-discussion
-BODY-

In the last AI-lists there has been a discussion about the possibilities
of intelligent machines.
I am going to add some arguments I missed in the discussion.
1. First is to claim, that there are a lot of cognitive functions of
man which can be simulated by the computer. But one problem is, that
up to now these different functions are not integrated in one machine
or superprogram to my kwowledge.
2. There is the phenomenon of intentionality amd motivation in man that
finds no direct correspondent phenomenon in the computer.
3. Man's neuronal processing is more analogue than digital in spite of
the fact that neurons can only have two states.
Man's organisation of memory is rather associative than categorial.

  [Neurons are not two-state devices!  Even if we ignore chemical and
  physiological memory correlates and the growth and decay of synapses,
  there are the analog or temporal effects of potential buildup and the
  fact that neurons often transmit information via firing rates rather
  than single pulses.  Neurons are nonlinear but hardly bistable. -- KIL]

Let me elaborate upon these points:
Point 1: Konrad Lorenz assumes a phenomenon he called " fulguration" for
systems. This means in the end nothing more than: The whole is more
than the sum of parts. If you merge all possible functions a
computer can do to simulate human abilities, you will get higher
functions which transgress the sum of all lower functions.
You may once get a function like consciousness or even selfconscious-
ness. If you define self as the man's knowledge of himself: his
qualities, abilities, his existence. I see no general problem to feed
this knowledge to a computer.
Real "understanding" of natural language however needs not only lingui-
stic competence but also sensory processing and recognition abilities
(visual, acoustical).   Language normally refers to objects which we
first experience  by sensory input and then name it. The construct-
ivistic theory of human learning of language by Paul Lorenzen und
O. Schwemmer (Erlanger Schule) assumes a "demonstration act" (Zeige-
handlung)  constituting a fundamental element of man (child) learning
language.  Without this empirical fundament of language you will never
leave the hermeneutic circle, which drove former philosphers into
despair.
Point 2.:
One difference between man and computer is that man needs food and
computers need electricity and further on the computer doesn't cry
when somebody is going to pull his plug.
Nevertheless this can be made: A computer,a robot that attacks every-
body by weapon, who tries to pull his plug. But who has an interest
to construct such a machine? To living organisms made by evolution
is given the primary motivation of self-preservation. This is the
natural basis of intentionality. Only the implementation of intentionality,
motivation, goals and needs can create a machine that deserves the name
"intelligent". It is intelligent by the way it reaches "his" goals.
Implementation of "meaning" needs the ability of sensory perception and
recognition, linguistical competence and   understanding, having or
simulating intentions. To know the meaning of an object means to
understand the function of this object for man in a means-end relation
within his living context. It means to realize for which goals or needs
the "object" can be used.
Point 3.:
Analogue information processing may be totally simulated by digitital
processing or may be not. Man's associative organization of memory,
however needs storage and retrieval mechanism other than those now
available or used by computers.
I have heard that some scientists try to simulate associative memory
organization in the states, but I have no further information about
that. (Perhaps somebody can give me information or references.
Thanks in advance!).

  [Geoffrey E. Hinton and James A. Anderson (eds.), Parallel Models
  of Associative Memory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale
  NJ.  Dr. Hinton is with the Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge England.
  -- KIL]

Scientists working on AI should have an attitude I call "critical opti-
mism".  This means being critical,see the problems and not being euphoric,
that all problems can be solved in the next ten years. On the other hand
it means not to assume any problem as unsolvable but to be optimistic,
that the scientific community will solve problems step by step, one
after the other how long it will ever last.

Finally let me - being a psychologist - state some provocative hypotheses:
The belief, that man's cognitive or intelligent abilities including
having intentions will never be reached by a machine, is founded in the
conscious or unconscious assumption of man's godlike or godmade
uniqueness, which is supported by the religious tradition of our
culture.  It needs a lot of self-reflection, courage and consciousness
about one's own existential fears to overcome the need of being
unique.
I would claim, that the conviction mentioned above however philosphical
or sophisticated it may be justified, is only the "RATIONALIZATION" (in
the psychoanalytic meaning of the word) of understandable   but
irrational and normally unconscious existential fears and need of human
being.


       PETER PIRRON      MAIL ADDRESS: <H29@DHDURZ2.BIYNET>

                         Psychologisches Institut
                         Hauptstrasse 49-53
                         D-6900 Heidelberg
                         Western Germany

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Sep 86 20:04:31-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.VANSICKLE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: What's wrong with Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
1. Is Borland's Turbo Prolog a superset of the Clocksin &
   Mellish (C & M) standard?

On the back cover of Turbo Prolog's manual is the description
"A complete Prolog incremental compiler supporting a large
superset of Clocksin & Mellish Edinburgh standard Prolog."
This statement is not true.  On page 127 the manual says
"Turbo Prolog . . . contains virtually all the features
described in Programming in Prolog by Clocksin and Mellish."
If you read "virtually" as "about 20% of" then this statement
is true.  Turbo Prolog does use Edinburgh syntax, that is,

        :- for "if" in rules,
        capitalized names for variables,
        lower case names for symbols,
        square brackets for delimiting lists, and
        | between the head and tail of a list.

Almost all the Clocksin & Mellish predicates have different
names, different arguments, or are missing entirely from Turbo
Prolog.  For example, "var" is "free," and "get0" is
"readchar."  Differences in predicate names and arguments are
tolerable, and can be handled by a simple conversion program
or by substitutions using an editor.  They could also be
handled by adding rules that define the C & M predicates in
terms of Turbo Prolog predicates, for example,

        var(X):-free(X).

These kinds of differences are acceptable in different
implementations of Prolog.  Even C & M say that their
definition should be considered a core set of features, that
each implementation may have different syntax.  However,
Borland has done much more than just rename a few predicates.

2. Is Borland's Turbo Prolog really Prolog?

NO. Turbo Prolog lacks features that are an essential part of
any Prolog implementation and requires declarations.  Borland
has redefined Prolog to suit themselves, and not for the
better.

A key feature of Lisp and Prolog is the ability to treat
programs and data identically.  In Prolog "clause," "call,"
and "=.." are the predicates that allow programs to be treated
as data, and these are missing entirely from Turbo Prolog.
One use of this feature is in providing "how" and "why"
explanations in an expert system.  A second use is writing a
Prolog interpreter in Prolog.  This is not just a
theoretically elegant feature, it has practical value.  For a
specific domain a specialized interpreter can apply domain
knowledge to speed up execution, or an intelligent
backtracking algorithm could be implemented.  In C & M Prolog
a Prolog interpreter takes four clauses.  Borland gives an
example "interpreter" on page 150 of the Turbo Prolog manual -
nine clauses and twenty-two declarations.  However, their
"interpreter" can't deal with any clause, it can only deal
with "clauses" in a very special form.  A clause such as
likes(ellen,tennis) would have to be represented as

  clause(atom(likes,[symbol(ellen),symbol(tennis)]),[])

in Borland's "interpreter."  I don't expect "clause" to
retrieve compiled clauses, but I do expect Prolog to include
it.  By dropping it Borland has introduced a distinction
between programs and data that eliminates a key feature of
Prolog.

Turbo Prolog absolutely requires data typing.  Optional typing
would be a good feature for Prolog - it can produce better
compiled code and help with documentation.  However, required
typing is not part of any other Prolog implementation that I
know of.  Typing makes life easier for the Turbo Prolog
compiler writer at the expense of the Turbo Prolog
programmers.  A little more effort by the few compiler writers
would have simplified the work of the thousands of potential
users.  There are good Prolog compilers in existence that do
not require typing, for example, the compiler for DEC-10
Prolog.  It may also be that Borland thought they were
improving Prolog by requiring typing, but again, why not make
it optional?

Besides introducing a distinction between programs and data,
Turbo Prolog weakens the ability to construct terms at run
time.  One of the great strengths of Prolog is its ability to
do symbolic computation, and Borland has seriously weakened
this ability.  Again this omission seems to be for the
convenience of the compiler writers.  There are no predicates
corresponding to the following C & M predicates, even under
other names: "arg," "functor," "name," "=..," "atom,"
"integer," and "atomic."  These predicates are used in
programs that parse, build, and rewrite structured terms, for
example, symbolic integration and differentiation programs, or
a program that converts logical expressions to conjunctive
normal form.  The predicate "op" is not included in Turbo
Prolog.  Full functional notation must be used.  You can write
predicates to pretty print terms, and the manual gives an
example of this, but it is work that shouldn't be necessary.
Dropping "op" removed one of Prolog's strongest features for
doing symbolic computation.

Turbo Prolog introduces another distinction between clauses
defined at compile time and facts asserted at run time.
Apparently only ground terms can be asserted, and rules cannot
be asserted.  This may be partly a result of having only a
compiler and no interpreter.  The predicates for any facts to
be asserted must be declared at compile time.  This is another
unecessary distinction for the convenience of the compiler
writers.

One other annoyance is the lack of DCG rules, and the general
difficulty of writing front ends that translate DCG rules and
other "syntactic sugar" notations to Prolog rules.

3. Is Turbo Prolog suitable for real applications?

I think Turbo Prolog could run some real applications, but one
limitation is that a maximum of 500 clauses is allowed for
each predicate.  One real application  program computes the
intervals of a directed graph representing a program flow
graph.  Each node represents a program statement,  and each
arc represents a potential transfer of control from the head
node to the tail node.  There is a Prolog clause for each node
and a clause for each arc.   A program with 501 statements
would exceed Turbo Prolog's limit.  I assume Borland could
increase this limit, but as it stands, this is one real
application that Turbo Prolog would not run.

4. Is there anything good about Turbo Prolog?

YES. I like having predicates for windows, drawing, and sound.
It looks easy to write some nice user interfaces using Turbo
Prolog's built in predicates.  The manual is well done, with
lots of examples.  There is easy access to the facilities of
MS-DOS.  There is a good program development environment, with
windows for editing code, running the program, and tracing.
There are also features for allowing programming teams to
create applications - modules and separate name spaces.  At
$100 the price is right.  If this were Prolog, it would be a
great product.

>- Larry Van Sickle
   cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu    512-471-9589

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 18 Sep 86 20:12:29-CDT
-FROM-
From: CS.VANSICKLE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Simple jobs Turbo Prolog can't do
-BODY-
Two simple things you CANNOT do in Turbo Prolog:

1. Compute lists containing elements of different basic types.

Turbo Prolog does not let you have goals such as

  append([a,b,c],[1,2,3],L).

Turbo Prolog requires that the types of every predicate be
declared, but the typing system does not allow you to declare
types that mix basic types. Also lists like:

  [1,a]
  [2,[3,4]]
  [5,a(6)]

cannot be created in Turbo Prolog. The syntax of types is:

a)  name = basictype

    where basictype is integer, char, real, string or symbol,

b)  name = type*

    where type is either a basic type or a user defined type,
    the asterisk indicates a list,

c)  name = f1(d11,...d1n1);f2(d21,...,d2n2);...fm(dm1,...d2nm)

    where fi are functors and dij are types, called
    "domains."  The functors and their domains are
    alternative structures allowed in the type being
    defined.

The important thing to notice is that you cannot define a type
that has basic types as alternatives.  You can only define
alternatives for types that contain functors.  So you cannot
define types

  mytype = integer;symbol

  mylisttype = mytype*

which is what you would need to append a list of integers to a
list of symbols.

What the Turbo Prolog manual recommends for this case is to
define

  mytype = s(symbol);i(integer)

  mylisttype = mytype*

and declare append as

  append(mylisttype,mylisttype,mylisttype)

which would allow us to state the goal

  append([s(a),s(b),s(c)],[i(1),i(2),i(3)],L).

This is clumsy, kludgy, and ugly.

2. Compute expressions that contain different basic types or
   mixtures of structures and basic types.

Simplifying arithmetic expressions that contain constants and
variables seems like it should be easy in a language designed
to do symbolic computation.  In C & M Prolog some rules for
simplifying multiplication might be

  simplify(0 * X,0).
  simplify(X * 0,0).
  simplify(1 * X,X).
  simplify(X * 1,X).

In C & M Prolog you can enter goals such as

  simplify(a - 1 * (b - c),X).

Now in Turbo Prolog, because of the limited typing, you cannot
have expressions that contain both symbols and integers.  (You
also cannot have infix expressions, but that is another
issue).  Instead, you would have to do something like this:

  exprtype = i(integer);s(symbol);times(exprtype,exprtype)

and declare simplify as:

  simplify(exprtype,exprtype)

and the clauses would be:

  simplify(times(i(0),X),i(0)).
  simplify(times(X,i(0)),i(0)).
  simplify(times(i(1),X),X).
  simplify(times(X,i(1)),X).

The goal would be:

  simplify(minus(s(a),times(i(1),minus(s(b),s(c)))),X).

This should speak for itself, but I'll spell it out:
REAL Prolog can do symbolic computation involving mixtures of
symbols, numeric constants, and expressions; the programs are
simple and elegant; input and output are easy.  In Turbo
Prolog you can't even create most of the expressions that real
Prolog can; the programs are long, opaque, and clumsy; you
have to write your own predicates to read and write
expressions in infix notation.

It is a shame that this product comes from a company with
a reputation for good software.  If it came
from an unknown company people would be a lot more cautious
about buying it.  Since it's from Borland, a lot of people
will assume it's good.  They are going to be disappointed.

>- Larry Van Sickle
   cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu    512-471-9589

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
189
-DATE-
Date: 2 Sep 86 20:03:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!euroies!ceri@seismo.css.gov  (Ceri John Fisher)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics Lisp Release 7 (Genera)
-BODY-
Information requested:
Does anybody have any concrete comments on Symbolics Release 7 Common Lisp
and ZetaLisp and new window system.  We have release 6 and are rather fear-
fully awaiting the next release since we have started to hear rumours of
large resources required and relatively poor performance (in spite of increased
ease of use).  Can anyone confirm or deny this from actual experience ?
Mail me with your comments and I will summarize to the net if there's
enough interest.
Thank you for your attention.

Ceri Fisher, Plessey (UK) Ltd, Christchurch, England.
ceri@euroies.UUCP or ..<your route to europe>!mcvax!ukc!euroies!ceri
<disclaimer, quip> -- currently under revision

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 86 19:02:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: well!jjacobs@hplabs.hp.com  (Jeffrey Jacobs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Symbolics Lisp Release 7 (Genera)
-BODY-

You want Common Lisp, you gotta pay the price <GRIN>!  I've heard the same
rumors...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Aug 86 16:11:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!botter!klipper!victor@seismo.css.gov  (L. Victor Allis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information wanted.
-BODY-
I'm looking for any information I can get on a game which is a
more complex kind of tic-tac-toe. In the Netherlands this game
is called 'vier op een rij', in Germany 'vier gewinnt'.

  [Here it's marketed by Milton Bradley as Connect Four.  -- KIL]


Description of the game:

   'Vier op een rij' is played on a vertical 6 x 7 grid. Two players,
   white and black, the former having 21 white, the latter having
   21 black stones, play the game by alternately throwing one of
   their stones in one of the 7 vertical columns. The stone will
   fall down as far as possible.
   The goal of the game is to have four of your stones on four
   consecutive horizontal, vertical or diagonal positions (like
   tic-tac-toe). The one who achieves this first, wins. A draw is
   possible, if none achieved this and the grid is full.
   White always has the first 'move'.
   It is not allowed to pass.

   Possible situation in a game:

   ---------------
   | | | | | | | |  White (x) will lose this game since in this
   ---------------  situation he has to play the second column to
   | | | |o| | | |  prevent black (o) from winning horizontaly,
   ---------------  but this will give black the possibility to
   | | | |x| | | |  win diagonaly by playing the second column again.
   ---------------
   | | |o|o|o| | |
   ---------------
   | |x|x|o|x| | |
   ---------------
   |o|x|x|x|o| | |
   ---------------

I would like to know if there is someone who wrote a program for
this game and any results which were obtained by this program, like:

1) Result of the game after perfect play of both sides.
2) Best opening moves for both sides.

Thanks !

Victor Allis.                             victor@klipper.UUCP
Free University of Amsterdam.
The Netherlands.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Aug 86 23:27:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Daniel R. Levy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Information wanted.
-BODY-
In article <585@klipper.UUCP>, victor@klipper.UUCP (L. Victor Allis) writes:
>I'm looking for any information I can get on a game which is a
>more complex kind of tic-tac-toe. In the Netherlands this game
>is called 'vier op een rij', in Germany 'vier gewinnt'.

On this vanilla System V R2 3B20 the game is available as /usr/games/connect4
(sorry, no source code came with it on this UNIX-source-licensed system
and even if it did it might be proprietary [ :-) ] but I hope this pointer
is better than nothing).

Please excuse me for posting rather than mailing.  My route to overseas sites
seems tenuous at best.

 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
           go for it!                   allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 86 21:42:59 GMT
-FROM-
From: ubc-vision!alberta!tony@uw-beaver.arpa  (Tony Marsland)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Chess News
-BODY-
The June 1986 issue of the ICCA Journal is now being distributed.
The issue contains the following articles:
    "Intuition in Chess" by A.D. de Groot
    "Selective Search without Tears" by D. Beal
    "When will Brute-force Programs beat Kasparov?" by D. Levy
Also there is a complete report on the 5th World Computer Chess Championship
by Helmut Horacek and Ken Thompson, including all the games.

There are many other short articles, reviews and news items.
Subscriptions available from:
Jonathan Schaeffer, Computing Science Dept., Univ. of Alberta,
                    Edmonton T6G 2H1, Canada.
Cost: $15 for all four 1985 issues
      $20 per year beginning 1987, $US money order or check/cheque.
email: jonathan@alberta.uucp for more information.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 11:00:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: Stephen Page
     <music-research-request%sevax.prg.oxford.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New list: Music-Research Digest
-BODY-
                         COMPUTERS AND MUSIC RESEARCH

                     An electronic mail discussion group

The Music-Research electronic mail redistribution list was established after a
suggestion made at a meeting in Oxford in July 1986, to provide an effective
and fast means of bringing together musicologists, music analysts, computer
scientists, and others working on applications of computers in music research.

Initially, the list was established for people whose chief interests concern
computers and their applications to

        - music representation systems
        - information retrieval systems for musical scores
        - music printing
        - music analysis
        - musicology and ethnomusicology
        - tertiary music education
        - databases of musical information

The following areas are not the principal concern of this list, although
overlapping subjects may well be interesting:

        - primary and secondary education
        - sound generation techniques
        - composition

There are two addresses being used for this list:
   -  music-research-request@uk.ac.oxford.prg
          for requests to be added to or deleted from the list, and other
          administrivia for the moderator.

   -  music-research@uk.ac.oxford.prg
          for contributions to the list.

The above addresses are given in UK (NRS) form. For overseas users, the
INTERNET domain-style name for the moderator is
      music-research-request@prg.oxford.ac.uk

If your mailer does not support domain-style addressing, get it fixed. For the
moment, explicitly send via the London gateway, using
      music-research-request%prg.oxford.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
   or music-research-request%prg.oxford.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
UUCP users who do not have domain-style addressing may send via Kent:
      ...!ukc!ox-prg!music-research-request

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Sep 86 19:46:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfclp!hpai@hplabs.hp.com  (AI)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New deadline for HP contest
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]

Hewlett-Packard has extended the submittal deadline for its AI programming
contest.  Software and entry forms must by sent on or before February 1, 1987.

In addition, originality has been added as a judging criterion.  That is,
newly written software will be weighted more heavily than ported software.

Revised rules and an entry form follow.


                           Hewlett-Packard

                        AI Programming Contest

To celebrate the release of its AI workstation, Hewlett-Packard is
sponsoring a programming contest.  Submit your public domain software
by February 1, 1987 to be considered for the following prizes:

   First prize:   One HP72445A computer   (Vectra)
   Second prize:  One HP45711B computer   (Portable Plus)
   Third prize:   One HP16C calculator    (Computer Scientist)

                        Complete rules follow.

1.  All entries must be programs of interest to the symbolic computing
or artificial intelligence communities.  They must be executable on
HP9000 Series 300 computers running the HP-UX operating system.  This
includes programs written in the Common LISP, C, Pascal, FORTRAN, or
shell script languages, or in any of our third party AI software.

2.  All entries must include source code, machine-readable
documentation, a test suite, and any special instructions necessary to
run the software.  Entries may be submitted by electronic mail or
shipped on HP formatted 1/4" Certified Data Cartridge tapes.

3.  All entries must be in the public domain and must be accompanied
by an entry form signed by the contributor(s).  Entries must be sent
on or before February 1, 1987.

4.  Only residents of the U.S. may enter.  HP employees and their
dependents are ineligible to receive prizes, but are welcome to submit
software.  In the case of team entries, each member of the team must
be eligible.  No duplicate prizes will be awarded.  Disposition of the
prize is solely the responsibility of the winning team.

5.  Entries will be judged on the basis of originality, relevance to our
user community, complexity, completeness, and ease of use.  The date of
receipt will be used as a tie-breaker.  Decision of the judges will be
final.

6.  HP cannot return tape cartridges.

7.  Selected entries will be distributed by HP on an unsupported
software tape.  This tape will be available from HP for a distribution
fee.  The contributor(s) of each entry which is selected for this tape
will receive a complimentary copy.



To enter:

Print and complete the following entry form and mail it to:

    AI Programming Contest  M.S. 99
    Hewlett-Packard
    3404 E. Harmony Road
    Fort Collins, CO  80525

Send your software on HP formatted 1/4"tape to the same address, or
send it via electronic mail to:
 hplabs!hpfcla!aicontest  or   ihnp4!hpfcla!aicontest

  [Form deleted: write to the author or check the Prolog Digest.  I generally
  omit entry forms and conference reservation coupons to save bandwidth,
  reduce storage space, and avoid annoying those with slow terminals
  or expensive communication links. -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
190
-DATE-
Date: 4 Sep 86 14:27:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: princeton!siemens!steve@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-

Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?

I have been "brought up" on Interlisp and had virtually no exposure to
Maclisp derivatives, but more to the point, I've been brought up on the
Xerox Dandelion lisp machine and never used a Symbolics.  Every chance I
get, I try to find out what a Symbolics/Zetalisp machine has that the
Dandelion doesn't.  So far I have found only the following:

1)  More powerful machine (but less power per dollar).

2)  The standard of Commonlisp (only the past couple years).

3)  People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.

4)  Edit/debug cycle (and editor) very similar to old standard systems
    such as Unix/C/Emacs or TOPS/Pascal/Emacs, and therefore easier
    for beginners with previous experience.

I have found a large number of what seem to be advantages of the Xerox
Dandelion Interlisp system over the Symbolics.  I won't post anything
now because this already is too much like an ad for Xerox, but you might
get me to post some separately.

I am not personally affiliated with Xerox (although other parts of my
company are).  I am posting this because I am genuinely curious to find
out what I am missing, if anything.

By the way, the Interlisp system on the Dandelion is about 5 megabytes
(it varies depending on how much extra stuff you load in - I've never
seen the system get as large as 6 Mb).  I hear that Zetalisp is 24 Mb.
Is that true?  What is in it, that takes so much space?

Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.
{ihnp4!princeton | topaz}!siemens!steve

something like this ought to work from ARPANET:  steve@siemens@spice.cs.cmu
(i.e. some machines at CMU know siemens).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 86 16:38:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Sellers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?  [vs. Tek 4400 series]
-BODY-

> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?

Maybe I'm getting in over my head (and this is not unbiased), but what
about Tek's 4400 series (I think they have CommonLisp & Franz Lisp, but
I could be wrong)?  I was under the impression that they offered much
more bang for the buck than did the other major AI workstation folks.
Have you seen these and decided they are not what you want, or are you
unaware of their capabilities/cost?

> ...Dandelion Interlisp system over the Symbolics.  I won't post anything
> now because this already is too much like an ad for Xerox, but you might
> get me to post some separately.

Maybe, if we're going to have testimonials, we could nudge someone from
Tek's 4400 group (I know some of them are on the net) into giving us a
rundown on their capabilities.

> I am not personally affiliated with Xerox (although other parts of my
> company are).  I am posting this because I am genuinely curious to find
> out what I am missing, if anything.

I am personally affiliated with Tek (in a paycheck sort of relationship),
though not with the group that makes the 4400 series of AI machines.  I did
have one on my desk for a while, though (sigh), and was impressed.  I think
you're missing a fair amount :-).

> Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.

                Mike Sellers
        UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes


           INNING:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  TOTAL
        IDEALISTS   0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0    1
         REALISTS   1  1  0  4  3  1  2  0  2    0

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Sep 86 17:27:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: gatech!royt@seismo.css.gov  (Roy M Turner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-
In article <25800003@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes:
>
>Every chance I
>get, I try to find out what a Symbolics/Zetalisp machine has that the
>Dandelion doesn't.  So far I have found only the following:
>...
>Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.
>{ihnp4!princeton | topaz}!siemens!steve
>

As a user of Symbolics Lisp machines, I will try to answer some of Steve's
comments.  We have had Symbolics machines here since before I started on my
degree two years ago; we recently were given thirteen Dandelions and two
DandyTigers by Xerox.  We use the Symbolics as our research machines, and the
Xerox machines for teaching AI.

The Symbolics are more powerful, as Steve says, and quite possibly he is right
about the power per dollar being less for them than for Xerox; since the Xerox
machines were free to us, certainly he's right in our case! :-)  However, I
find the Dandelions abysmally slow for even small Lisp programs, on the order
of the ones we use in teaching (GPS (baby version), micro versions of SAM,
ELI, etc.).  To contemplate using them for the very large programs that we
develop as our research would be absurd--in my opinion, of course.

The "standard" of CommonLisp will (so Xerox tells us) be available for the
Dandelions soon...'course, they've been saying that for some time now :-).  So
the two machines may potentially be equal on that basis.  ZetaLisp is quite
close to CommonLisp (since it was one of the dialects Common Lisp is based
on), and also close to other major dialects of lisp--Maclisp, etc.--enough so
that I've never had any trouble switching between it and other lisps...with
one exception--you guessed it, Interlisp-D.  I realize that whatever you are
used to colors your thinking, but Lord, that lisp seems weird to me!  I mean,
comments that return values?? Gimme a break!

"People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer."  I agree.  I'm one
of the people.  It has nice windows, much less complicated than Symbolics.
MasterScope is nice, too.  So is the structure editor, but that is not too
much of a problem to write on any other lisp machine, and is somewhat
confusing to learn (at least, that's the attitude I perceive in the students).
What the Dandelions *lack*, however, is any decent file manipulation
facilities (perhaps Common Lisp will fix this), a nice way of handling
processes, a communications package that works (IP-TCP, at least the copy we
received, will trash the hard disk when our UNIX machines write to the
DandyTigers...the only thing that works even marginally well is when we send
files from the Symbolics!  Also, the translation portion of the communication
package leaves extraneous line-feeds, etc., lying about in the received file),
and A DECENT EDITOR! Which brings us to the next point made by Steve:

>4)  Edit/debug cycle (and editor) very similar to old standard systems
>    such as Unix/C/Emacs or TOPS/Pascal/Emacs, and therefore easier
>    for beginners with previous experience.

This is true.  However, it is also easier for experts and semi-experts (like
me) who may or may not have had prior experience with EMACS.  The Dandelions
offer a structure editor (and Tedit for text, but that doesn't count) and
that's it...if you want to edit something, you do it function by function.
Typically, what I do and what other people do on the Xerox machines is enter a
function in the lisp window, which makes it very difficult to keep track of
what you are doing in the function, and makes it mandatory that you enter
one function at a time.  Also, the function is immediately evaluated (the
defineq is, that is) and becomes part of your environment.  Heaven help you if
you didn't really mean to do it!  At least with ZMACS you can look over a file
before evaluating it.  Another gripe.  Many of our programs used property
lists, laboriously entered via the lisp interactor.  We do a makefile, and
voila--next time we load the file, the properties aren't there!  This has yet
to happen when something is put in an edit buffer and saved to disk on the
Symbolics.  Perhaps there is a way of editing on the Xerox machines that lends
itself to editing files (and multiple files at once), so that large programs
can be entered, edited, and documented (Interlisp-D comments are rather bad
for actually documenting code) easily...if so, I haven't found it.

Another point in Symbolics favor: reliability.  Granted, it sometimes isn't
that great for Symbolics, either, but we have had numerous, *numerous*
software and hardware failures on the Dandelions.  It's so bad that we have to
make sure the students save their functions to disk often, and have even had
to teach them how to copy sysouts and handle dead machines, since the machines
lock up from time to time with no apparent cause.  And the students must be
cautioned not to save their stuff only to one place, but to save it to the
file server, a floppy, and anywhere else they can, since floppies are trashed
quite often.  Dribble to the hard disk, forget to turn dribble off, there goes
the hard disk... Type (logout t) on the Dandelions to cause it not to save
your world, and there goes the Dandelion (it works on the DandyTigers).

About worlds and sysouts.  The Symbolics has a 24-30 meg world, something like
that.  This is *not* just lisp--it is your virtual memory, just as it is in a
Xerox Sysout.  The difference in size reflects the amount of space you have at
your disposal when creating conses, not the relative sizes of system software
(though I imagine ZetaLisp is larger than Interlisp-D).  You do not
necessarily save a world each time you logout from a Symbolics; you do on a
Dandelion...thus the next user who reboots a Symbolics gets a clean lisp,
whereas the next user of a Dandelion gets what was there before unless he
first copies another sysout and boots off of it.  It is, however, much harder
to save a world on the Symbolics than on the Xerox machines.

Well, I suppose I have sounded like a salesman for Symbolics.  I do not mean
to imply that Symbolics machines are without faults, nor do I mean to say that
Xerox machines are without merit!  We are quite grateful for the gift of the
Xerox machines; they are useful for teaching.  I just tried to present the
opinions of one Symbolics-jaded lisp machine user.

Back to the Symbolics machine now...I suppose that the DandyTiger beside it
will bite me! :-)

Roy

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Sep 86 22:36:43 GMT
-FROM-
From: jade!violet.berkeley.edu!mkent@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-

   As a long-term user of Interlisp-D, I'd be very interested in hearing an
*informed* comparison of it with ZetaLisp.  However, I'm not particularly
interested in hearing what an experienced Zetalisp user with a couple of
hours of Interlisp experience has to say on the topic, other than in
regard to issues of transfer and learnability.  I spent about 4 days using
the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
of the stone age.  But I realize this has more to do with *my* background
then with Zetalisp itself.
   Is there anyone out there with *non-trivial* experience with *both*
environments who can shed some light on the subject?

                        Marty Kent

"You must perfect the Napoleon before they finish Beef Wellington!  The
future of Europe hangs in the balance..."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 86 06:14:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: uiucdcsp!hogge@a.cs.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-

>...I spent about 4 days using
>the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
>of the stone age.  But I realize this has more to do with *my* background
>then with Zetalisp itself.

Four days *might* be enough time to get familiarize yourself with the help
mechanisms, if that's specifically what you were concentrating on doing.
Once you learn the help mechanisms (which aren't bundled all that nicely and
are rarely visible on the screen), your opinion of the user interface will
grow monotonically with use.  If you are interested in having more visible
help mechanisms for first-time users, check out what the TI Explorer adds to
the traditional Zetalisp environment.  LMI and Sperry also provide their own
versions of the environment.

>-John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 86 10:35:40 GMT
-FROM-
From: mob@MEDIA-LAB.MIT.EDU  (Mario O. Bourgoin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-
In article <3500016@uiucdcsp>, hogge@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
> >...I spent about 4 days using
> >the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
> >of the stone age.....
>
> Four days *might* be enough time to get familiarize yourself with the help
> mechanisms, if that's specifically what you were concentrating on doing.

Four days to learn the help mechanisms?   Come on, an  acceptable user
interface should give you control  of help within  minutes _not days_.
Seriously  folks, it took  me  less than 10   seconds to  learn  about
ZMACS's apropos on the old CADRs and before the end of the day, I knew
about a lot more.  Have you ever used the "help" key?  The Symbolics's
software isn't much  different from the CADR's.  I'll  grant that  the
lispm's presentation of information isn't that obvious or elegant  but
it isn't stone age and doesn't require 4 days to get a handle on.

If you're arguing internals, I haven't worked with the Dandelion  so I
can't provide an opinion on it. The CADR's user interface software was
certainly featureful and appeared to my eyes to come  from a different
school than what  I later saw of  Xerox's software.  It  is useful and
manipulable but didn't look  intended to be  programmed by anyone just
off the street.   If you want  to  learn the  internals  of  the  user
interface, _then_ i'll grant you four days (and more).

>-Mario O. Bourgoin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 86 15:23:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: milano!Dave@im4u.utexas.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re:  36xx vs. Xerox
-BODY-

A few to add to pro-36xx list:

    5.  Reliable hardware

    6.  Reliable software

    7.  Good service

A year ago, I was on project which used
Dandeanimals.  As a group, they were up about 60% of the time, and
there were days when all 5 were down.  The extra screw was that
the first level of repair was a photocopier repairman.  It always
took several days before we got people who knew something about the
machines.

Dave Bridgeland -- MCC Software Technology  (Standard Disclaimer)
  ARPA:    dave@mcc.arpa
  UUCP:    ut-sally!im4u!milano!daveb

  "Things we can be proud of as Americans:
     * Greatest number of citizens who have actually boarded a UFO
     * Many newspapers feature "JUMBLE"
     * Hourly motel rates
     * Vast majority of Elvis movies made here
     * Didn't just give up right away during World War II
             like some countries we could mention
     * Goatees & Van Dykes thought to be worn only by weenies
     * Our well-behaved golf professionals
     * Fabulous babes coast to coast"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
191
-DATE-
Date: 8 Sep 86 17:35:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpcnoe!jad@hplabs.hp.com  (John Dilley)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?  [vs. Tek 4400 series]
-BODY-
> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
> ...
> 3)  People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.

        I have a file of quotes, one of which has to do with this
        problem Xerox seems to have.  I've heard great things about
        Dandelion/Interlisp, and their Smalltalk environments, but have
        never seen one of these machines in "real life" (whatever that
        is).  Anyway, the quote I was referring to is:

"It doesn't matter how great the computer is if nobody buys it. Xerox
proved that."
                                --      Chris Espinosa

        And while we're at it ... remember Apple?

"One of the things we really learned with Lisa and from looking at what
 Xerox has done at PARC was that we could construct elegant, simple systems
 based on just a bit map..."
                                --      Steve Jobs

        Seems like Xerox needed more advertising or something.  It's a
        shame to see such nice machines go unnoticed by the general
        public, especially considering what choices we're often left with.

                              --      jad      --
                                 John A Dilley

Phone:                           (303)229-2787
Email:                     {ihnp4,hplabs} !hpfcla!jad
(ARPA):                      hpcnoe!jad@hplabs.ARPA
Disclaimer:     My employer has no clue that I'm going to send this.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 86 17:58:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: gatech!royt@seismo.css.gov  (Roy M Turner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-
In response to a prior posting by me, Marty (mkent@violet.berkely.edu) writes:

>
>   As a long-term user of Interlisp-D, I'd be very interested in hearing an
>*informed* comparison of it with ZetaLisp.  However, I'm not particularly
>interested in hearing what an experienced Zetalisp user with a couple of
>hours of Interlisp experience has to say on the topic...
>  ...

Who, me? :-)
If I was unclear in my posting, I apologize.  I have had a bit more than two
hours of experience w/ Dandelions.  I used them in a class I was taking, and
also was partly responsible for helping new users and for maintaining some
of the software on them.  Altogether about 4 months of fairly constant use.

Another posting said we were using outdated software; that is undoubtedly
correct, as we just got Coda; we were using Intermezzo.  Some problems
are probably fixed.  However, we have not received the new ip-tcp from
Xerox...but, what do you expect with free machines? :-)

Roy

Above opionions my own...'course, they *should* be everyone's! :-)

Roy Turner
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!royt

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 86 14:58:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: wdmcu%cunyvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-
In article <3500016@uiucdcsp>, hogge@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU says:

>Once you learn the help mechanisms (which aren't bundled all that nicely and
>are rarely visible on the screen), your opinion of the user interface will
>grow monotonically with use.  If you are interested in having more visible
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you please define this word in this context.
Thanks.
(This is a serious question)
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Bill Michtom - work: (212) 903-3685 home: (718) 788-5946           */
/*                                                                    */
/*      WDMCU@CUNYVM (Bitnet)        Timelessness is transient        */
/*      BILL@BITNIC  (Bitnet)                                         */
/*                                                                    */
/*        Never blame on malice that which can be adequately          */
/*                 explained by stupidity.                            */
/*    A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.      */
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 86 07:31:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: uiucdcsp!hogge@a.cs.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-

>> Four days *might* be enough time to get familiarize yourself with the help
>> mechanisms, if that's specifically what you were concentrating on doing.
>
>Four days to learn the help mechanisms?   Come on, an  acceptable user
>interface should give you control  of help within  minutes _not days_.
>Seriously  folks, it took  me  less than 10   seconds to  learn  about
>ZMACS's apropos on the old CADRs and before the end of the day, I knew
>about a lot more.  Have you ever used the "help" key?
>software isn't much  different from the CADR's.  I'll  grant that  the
>lispm's presentation of information isn't that obvious or elegant  but
>it isn't stone age and doesn't require 4 days to get a handle on.

There's more subtle help available on the machine than just the help key,
and my experience is that it takes a long time for one to learn the
mechanisms that are there.  The HELP key *is* the main source of help, but not
the only source.  Examples include: 1. use of Zmacs meta-point to find
examples of how to do things (such as hack windows) from the system source,
2. use of c-/ in the Zmacs minibuffer for listing command completions (and
what a drag if you don't know about this command)  3. the importance of
reading who-line documentation  4. use of the Apropos function to hunt down
useful functions, as well as WHO-CALLS  5. use of the various Lisp Machine
manufacturer's custom help mechanisms, such as the Symbolics flavor examiner
and documentation examiner, or TI's Lisp-completion input editor commands and
Suggestions Menus.

The Lisp Machine is a big system, and there's lots of good help available.
But it isn't trivial learning how to get it nor when to seek it.

>-John

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Sep 86 14:42:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!wucs!sbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Steve Cousins)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
-BODY-
In article <322@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> mob@mit-amt.UUCP writes:
>... It  is useful and
>manipulable but didn't look  intended to be  programmed by anyone just
>off the street.   If you want  to  learn the  internals  of  the  user
>interface, _then_ i'll grant you four days (and more).
>
>--Mario O. Bourgoin

I think you could argue that *no* machine (AI or otherwise) can be programmed
by anyone just off the street :-).  I haven't used the Symbolics, but my
view of the Dandelion has changed drastically since taking a course on it
by Xerox.  The interface is very powerful and well-integrated, but the
"infant mortality curve" (the time to get good enough not to crash the
machines) is somewhat high.  [Disclaimer:  These machines are supposed to
be much better when networked than stand-alone.  My change in attitude
occurred just as we got ours on the network, and I'm not sure how much
to attribute to the class, and how much to attribute to the network].

I like the Dandelion now, but the first 4 days did not give me a good
impression of the machine.  There is a lot to say about learning a new machine
from a guru...

Steve Cousins                   ...ihnp4!wucs!sbc or sbc@wucs.UUCP
Washington University

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Sep 86 12:58:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watmum!rgatkinson@caip.rutgers.edu
     (Robert Atkinson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?  [vs. Tek 4400 series]
-BODY-
In article <580001@hpcnoe.UUCP> jad@hpcnoe.UUCP (John Dilley) writes:
>> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
>> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
>> ...
>> 3)  People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.
>
>       I have a file of quotes, one of which has to do with this
>       problem Xerox seems to have.  I've heard great things about
>       Dandelion/Interlisp, and their Smalltalk environments, but have
>       never seen one of these machines in "real life" (whatever that
...

        Smalltalk is now (finally!) available from Xerox.  An organization
        known as Parc Place Systems is now licensing both the virtual
        image and virtual machine implementations for Suns and other
        workstations.  For further info contact:
                Duane Bay
                Parc Place Systems
                3333 Coyote Hill Rd
                Palo Alto, CA 94304

        -bob

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 86 16:49:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: princeton!siemens!steve@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dandelion vs Symbolics
-BODY-

I have received enough misinformation about Dandelions and Symbolics
machines (by net and mail) that I feel forced to reply.  This is not,
however, the last word I have to say.  I like to keep the net in suspense,
acting like I'm saving the BIG REVELATION for later.

Key: S= Symbolics, X = Xerox Dandelions
     - point against X, for S
     = point for X, against S
     * misinformation against X, fact in favor (my opinion of course)
     ? point not classifiable in previous categories

A writer who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out:
> If your system is bigger than 32 Mb, it can't be done on a Xerox machine.
> It takes a great deal of effort to get good numerical performance on X.
> X. editor is slow on big functions & lists.  My opinion is that it is
  bad programming style to have such large functions.  However, sometimes
  the application dictates and so this is a point.
* "Garbage collection is much more sophisticated on Symbolics" To my
  knowledge this is absolutely false.  S. talks about their garbage
  collection more, but X's is better.  Discuss this more later if you want.
* Preference for Zmacs with magic key sequences to load or compile portions
  of a file, over Dandelion.  People who never learn how to use the X system
  right have this opinion.  more later.
* "Symbolics system extra tools better integrated"  Again, to my knowledge
  this is false.  I know people who say no two tools of S. work together
  without modification.  I have had virtually no trouble with diverse X.
  tools working together.
? "S. has more tools and functions available e.g. matrix pkg."  On the other
  hand I have heard S. described as a "kitchen sink" system full of many
  slightly different versions of the same thing.

There is a general belief that the reason the X system is around 5 - 6 Mb
vs. S. around 24 is that S. includes more tools & packages.
+ When you load in most of the biggest of the tools & packages to the X
  system you still are down around 6 - 7 Mb!
+ If your network is set up reasonably, then it is trivial to load whatever
  packages you want.  It is very nice NOT to have junk cluttering up your
  system that you don't want.
? "The difference in size reflects how much space you have for CONSes, etc."
  Huh?  I have 20Mb available, yet I find myself actually using less than
  7Mb.  My world is 7Mb.  If I CONS a list 3 Mb long, my world will be 10Mb.

Royt@gatech had some "interesting" observations:
+ Performance per dollar:  you can get at least 5 X machines for the cost
  of a single S machine.  AT LEAST.  Both types prefer to be on networks
  with fileservers etc., which adds overhead to both.
? X abysmally slow for baby GPS etc.  My guess is that whoever ported/wrote
  the software didn't know how to get performance out of the X machines.
  It's not too hard, but it's not always obvious either.
= Xerox is getting on the Commonlisp bandwagon only a little late.  But how
  "common" is Commonlisp when window packages are machine dependent?
= For every quirk you find in Interlisp (".. Lord, that lisp seems weird to
  me!  I mean, comments that return values??"), I can find one in Commonlisp.
  (Atoms whose print names are 1.2 for example.)
+ X has nice windows, less complicated than S.  No one i know has ever crashed
  a X machine by messing with the windows.  Opposite for S. machine.
+ structure editor on X machine, none on S.
* "Dandelions *lack* decent file manipulation..."  Wrong, comment later.
? he has bad experience with the old IP/TCP package.  Me too, but the new
  one works great.  (The X NS protocols actually are quite good but the rest
  of the world doesn't speak them :-().
? "..Typically, what I do and what other people do .. is enter a function in
  the lisp window, which makes it very difficult ..."  Didn't you realise
  you must be doing something wrong?  That's not how you enter functions!
  You give other examples of how you and your cohorts don't know how to
  use the Xerox system right.  You're too stuck on the old C & Fortran
  kinds of editing and saving stuff.
* He goes on about reliability of X being the pits.  Every person I have
  known who learned to use the X machine caused it to crash in various
  ways, but by the time (s)he had enough experience to be able to explain
  what he did to someone else, the machine no longer crashed.  I guess
  the X machines have a "novice detector".  My understanding is that
  S has its problems too.

One guy had bad experience with KEE, which was developed on X.  I do not
think his experience is representative.  What he did say was that it kept
popping up windows he didn't want; X systems make much more use of
sophisticated window and graphic oriented tools and interfaces than S,
but it doesn't often pop up useless windows in general.

Dave@milano thinks S offers reliable hardware, reliable software, and
good service that X doesn't.  WRONG!  At his site, they were obviously
doing something sytematically wrong with their machines, and they didn't
get a good repairman.  I can give you horror stories about Symbolics, too,
but I have some pretty reliable points:
+ At a site I know they have around 20 S.  They have sophisticated users
  and they do their own board swapping.  Still they have 10% downtime.
+ At my site we have very roughly 20 machine-years with X.  Total downtime
  less than 2 machine weeks.
+ S. has such hardware problems that a) they have a "lemon" program where
  you can return your machine for a new one, b) their service contracts
  are OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE!

These lisp machines are very complex systems.  If you don't have someone
teach you, who already knows the right ways to use the machine, then it
will take you more than 4 months to learn how to use it to the best
advantage.  Hell, I've been using a Dandelion almost constantly for close
to three years and there are still subsystems that I only know superficially,
and which I know I could make better use of!  If the same isn't true of
Symbolics it can only be because the environment is far less rich.  It is
not difficult to learn these subsystems; the problem is there's just SO
MUCH to learn.  Interlisp documentation was just re-done and it's 4.5 inches
thick!  (Used to be only 2.25)

Finally, I will expound a little on why Xerox is better than Symbolics.
The Xerox file system and edit/debug cycle is far superior to an old-
fashioned standard system like Symbolics which has a character-oriented
editor like Zmacs.  The hard part for many people to learn the Xerox file
system, is that first they have to forget what they know about editors and
files.  A lot of people are religious about their editors, so this step
can be nearly impossible.  Secondly, the documentation until the new version
was suitable primarily for people who already knew what was going on.  That
hurt a lot.  (It took me maybe 1.5 years before I really got control of the
file package, but I was trying to learn Lisp in the first place, and
everything else at the same time.)  Now it's much much faster to learn.

The old notion of files and editors is like assembly language.  Zmacs with
magic key sequences to compile regions etc. is like a modern, good assembler
with powerful macros and data structures and so forth.  Xerox's file system
is like Fortran/Pascal/C.  Ask the modern assembly programmer what he sees
in Fortranetc. and he'll say "nothing".  It'll be hard for him to  learn.
He's used to the finer grain of control over the machine that assembly gives
him and he doesn't understand how to take advantage of the higher level
features of the Fortranetc. language.  Before you flame at me too much,
remember I am analogizing to a modern, powerful assembler not the trash
you used 5 years ago on your TRS-80.  The xerox file package treats a file
as a database of function definitions, variable values, etc.  and gives you
plenty of power to deal with them as databases.  This note is long enough
and I don't know what else to say so I'll drop this topic somewhat unfinished
(but I will NOT give lessons on how to use the Xerox file package).

A final final note:  the guy down the hall from me has used S. for some
years and now has to learn X.  He isn't complaining too much.  I hope he'll
post his own remarks soon, but I've got to relate one story.  I wanted to
show him something, and of course when I went to run it it didn't work
right.  As I spent a minute or two eradicating the bug, he was impressed
by the use of display-oriented tools on the Dandelion.  He said, "Symbolics
can't even come close."

Steven J. Clark, Siemens RTL
{ihnp4!princeton or topaz}!siemens!steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
192
-DATE-
Date: 13 Aug 86 20:36:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: MCCARTY@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - AI and Law
-BODY-

                               CALL FOR PAPERS:

                       First International Conference on
                        ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW

                                May 27-29, 1987
                            Northeastern University
                          Boston, Massachusetts, USA

In  recent  years  there  has been an increased interest in the applications of
artificial intelligence to law.  Some of this interest is due to the  potential
practical  applications:    A number of researchers are developing legal expert
systems, intended as an aid  to  lawyers  and  judges;  other  researchers  are
developing  conceptual legal retrieval systems, intended as a complement to the
existing full-text legal retrieval systems.  But the problems in this field are
very difficult.  The natural language of the law is exceedingly complex, and it
is grounded in the fundamental patterns of human common sense reasoning.  Thus,
many  researchers have also adopted the law as an ideal problem domain in which
to tackle some of the basic theoretical issues in AI:   the  representation  of
common  sense  concepts;  the  process of reasoning with concrete examples; the
construction and use of analogies; etc.  There is  reason  to  believe  that  a
thorough  interdisciplinary  approach  to these problems will have significance
for both fields, with both practical and theoretical benefits.

The purpose of this First International Conference on  Artificial  Intelligence
and  Law  is  to  stimulate  further  collaboration  between AI researchers and
lawyers, and to provide a forum for the latest research results in  the  field.
The  conference  is  sponsored  by  the  Center for Law and Computer Science at
Northeastern University.  The General Chair is: Carole D.  Hafner,  College  of
Computer  Science,  Northeastern  University,  360 Huntington Avenue, Boston MA
02115, USA; (617) 437-5116 or (617) 437-2462; hafner.northeastern@csnet-relay.

Authors are invited to contribute papers on the following topics:

   - Legal Expert Systems
   - Conceptual Legal Retrieval Systems
   - Automatic Processing of Natural Legal Texts
   - Computational Models of Legal Reasoning

In addition, papers on the relevant theoretical issues in AI are also  invited,
if  the  relationship  to the law can be clearly demonstrated.  It is important
that authors identify the original contributions presented in their papers, and
that  they  include  a  comparison with previous work.  Each submission will be
reviewed by at least three members of the Program Committee (listed below), and
judged as to its originality, quality and significance.

Authors  should submit six (6) copies of an Extended Abstract (6 to 8 pages) by
January 15, 1987, to the Program Chair:    L.  Thorne  McCarty,  Department  of
Computer  Science,  Rutgers  University,  New  Brunswick  NJ  08903, USA; (201)
932-2657; mccarty@rutgers.arpa.  Notification of acceptance or  rejection  will
be  sent  out  by March 1, 1987.  Final camera-ready copy of the complete paper
(up to 15 pages) will be due by April 15, 1987.

Conference Chair:        Carole D. Hafner         Northeastern University

Program Chair:           L. Thorne McCarty        Rutgers University

Program Committee:       Donald H. Berman         Northeastern University
                         Michael G. Dyer          UCLA
                         Edwina L. Rissland       University of Massachusetts
                         Marek J. Sergot          Imperial College, London
                         Donald A. Waterman       The RAND Corporation

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 86 09:26:57 PDT
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@navajo.stanford.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Logic in Computer Science
-BODY-

                            CALL FOR PAPERS

                       SECOND ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON
                       LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE

                           22 - 25 June 1987
                Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

THE SYMPOSIUM will cover a wide range of theoretical and practical
issues in Computer Science that relate to logic in a broad sense,
including algebraic and topological approaches.

Suggested (but not exclusive) topics of interest include: abstract
data types, computer theorem proving, verification, concurrency, type
theory and constructive mathematics, data base theory, foundations of
logic programming, program logics and semantics, knowledge and belief,
software specifications, logic-based programming languages, logic in
complexity theory.

                          Organizing Committee

      K. Barwise               E. Engeler                 A. Meyer
      W. Bledsoe               J. Goguen                  R. Parikh
      A. Chandra (chair)       D. Kozen                   G. Plotkin
      E. Dijkstra              Z. Manna                   D. Scott

                           Program Committee

    S. Brookes      D. Gries (chair)    J.-P. Jouannaud     A. Nerode
    L. Cardelli     J. Goguen           R. Ladner           G. Plotkin
    R. Constable    Y. Gurevich         V. Lifschitz        A. Pnueli
    M. Fitting      D. Harel            G. Longo            P. Scott

PAPER SUBMISSION.  Authors should send 16 copies of a detailed abstract
(not a full paper) by 9 DECEMBER 1986 to the program chairman:

          David Gries -- LICS              (607) 255-9207
          Department of Computer Science   gries@gvax.cs.cornell.edu
          Cornell University
          Ithaca, New York 14853

Abstracts must be clearly written and provide sufficient detail to allow the
program committee to assess the merits of the paper.  References and
comparisons with related work should be included where appropriate.  Abstracts
must be no more than 2500 words.  Late abstracts or abstracts departing
significantly from these guidelines run a high risk of not being considered.
If a copier is not available to the author,  a single copy of the abstract
will be accepted.

Authors will be notified of acceptance or rejection by 30 JANUARY 1987.
Accepted papers, typed on special forms for inclusion in the symposium
proceedings, will be due 30 MARCH 1987.

The symposium is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society, Technical
Committee on Mathematical Foundations of Computing and Cornell
University, in cooperation with ACM SIGACT, ASL, and EATCS.

     GENERAL CHAIRMAN                      LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
     Ashok K. Chandra                      Dexter C. Kozen
     IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center  Department of Computer Science
     P.O. Box 218                          Cornell University
     Yorktown Heights, New York 10598      Ithaca, New York 14853
     (914) 945-1752                        (607) 255-9209
     ashok@ibm.com                         kozen@gvax.cs.cornell.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 16:16:01 cdt
-FROM-
From: Don <kraft%lsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - SIGIR Conf. on R&D in Information Retrieval
-BODY-
         Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
  Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval (SIGIR)
1987 International Conference on Research and Development
            in Information Retrieval

June 3-5, 1987   Monteleone Hotel (in the French Quarter)
                                                   New Orleans, Louisiana   USA

                      CALL FOR PAPERS
Papers are invited on theory, methodology, and  applications
of  information retrieval.  Emerging areas related to infor-
mation  retrieval,  such  as  office  automation,   computer
hardware technology, and artificial intelligence and natural
language processing are welcome.

Topics include, but are not limited to:
retrieval system modeling           user interfaces
retrieval in office environments    mathematical models
system development and evaluation   natural language processing
knowledge representation            linguistic models
hardware development                complexity problems
multimedia retrieval                storage and search techniques
cognitive and semantic models       retrieval system performance
information retrieval and database management

Submitted papers can be either full length papers of approx-
imately twenty to twenty-five pages or extended abstracts of
no more than ten  pages.   All  papers  should  contain  the
authors'  contributions  in comparison to existing solutions
to the same or to similar problems.

Important Dates
        Submission Deadline       December 15, 1986
        Acceptance Notification   February 15, 1987
        Final Copy Due            March 20, 1987
        Conference                June 3-5, 1987

Four copies of each paper should be submitted.  Papers  sub-
mitted from North America can be sent to Clement T. Yu; sub-
missions from outside North America should be sent to C.  J.
"Keith" van Rijsbergen.

Conference Chairman              Program Co-Chairmen
Donald H. Kraft            Clement T. Yu            C. J. "Keith" van
Rijsbergen
Department of              Department of            Department of
  Computer Science           Electrical Engineering   Computer Science
Louisiana State University   and Computer Science   University of Glascow
Baton Rouge, LA  70803     University of Illinois,  Lilybank Gardens
                              Chicago               Glascow   G12 8QQ
                           Chicago, IL  60680       SCOTLAND
(504) 388-1495             (312) 996-2318           (041) 339-8855

For details, contact the Conference Chairman at kraft%lsu@csnet-relay or
Michael Stinson, the Arrangements Chairman at stinson%lsu@csnet-relay.

Don Kraft
kraft%lsu@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 86 16:04:04 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Logical Solutions to the Frame Problem
-BODY-
                    CALL FOR PAPERS
   WORKSHOP ON LOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO THE FRAME PROBLEM

   The American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) is
sponsoring this workshop in Lawrence, Kansas from March 23 to March 25,1987.
   The frame problem is one of the most fundamental problems in
Artificial Intelligence and essentially is the problem of describing in
a computationally reasonable manner what properties persist and what
properties change as action are performed.  The intrinsic problem lies in
the fact that we cannot expect to be able to exhaustively list for every
possible action (or combination of concurrent actions) and for every
possible state of the world how that action (or concurrent actions) change
the truth or falsity of each individual fact.  We can only list the obvious
results of the action and hope that our basic inferential system will be
able to deduce the truth or falsity of the other less obvious facts.
   In recent years there have been a number of approaches to constructing
new kinds of logical systems such as non-monotonic logics, default logics,
circumscription logics, modal reflexive logics, and persistence logics which
hopefully can be applied to solving the frame problem by allowing the missing
facts to be deduced.  This workshop will attempt to bring together the
proponents of these various approaches.
   Papers on logics applicable to the problem of reasoning about such
unintended consequences of actions are invited for consideration.  Two
copies of either an extended abstract or a full length paper should be
sent to the workshop chairman before Nov 20,1986.  Acceptance notices will
be mailed by December 1,1986 along with instructions for preparing the final
versions of accepted papers.  The final versions are due January 12,1987.
  In order to encourage vigorous interaction and exchange of ideas
the workshop will be kept small -- about 25 participants.  There will
be individual presentations and ample time for technical discussions.
An attempt will be made to define the current state of the art and future
research needs.
        Partial travel support (from  AAAI) for participants is available.

Workshop Chairman:
      Dr. Frank M. Brown
      Dept Computer Science
      110 strong Hall
      The University of Kansas
      Lawrence, Kansas
      (913) 864-4482

Please send any net inquiries to: veach@ukans.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 2 Sep 86 15:20:55-EDT
-FROM-
From: Irene Greif <GREIF@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - CSCW '86 Program
-BODY-

Following is the program for CSCW '86: the Conference on
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work .  Registration material can
be obtained from Barbara Smith at MCC (basmith@mcc).

  [Contact the author for the full program.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
193
-DATE-
Date: Wed 17 Sep 86 13:39:03-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-VENICE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Backtrach Search for Constraint Satisfaction (SRI)
-BODY-
                  IMPROVING BACKTRACK SEARCH ALGORITHMS
                  FOR CONSTRAINT-SATISFACTION PROBLEMS

                  Rina Dechter (DECHTER@CS.UCLA.EDU)
    Cognitive System Laboratory, Computer Science Department, U.C.L.A.
                                and
         Artificial Intelligence Center, Hughes Aircraft Company

                    11:00 AM, TUESDAY, September 23
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228

The subject of improving search efficiency has been on the agenda of
researchers in the area of Constraint-Satisfaction- Problems (CSPs)
for quite some time.  A recent increase of interest in this subject,
concentrating on backtrack search, can be attributed to its use as the
control strategy in PROLOG, and in Truth-Maintenance-Systems (TMS).
The terms ``intelligent backtracking'', ``selective backtracking'',
and ``dependency- directed backtracking'' describe various efforts for
producing improved dialects of backtrack search in these systems.  In
this talk I will review the common features of these attempts and will
present two schemes for enhancing backtrack search in solving CSPs.

The first scheme, a version of "look-back", guides the decision of
what to do in dead-end situations.  Specifically, we concentrate on
the idea of constraint recording, namely, analyzing and storing the
reasons for the dead-ends, and using them to guide future decisions,
so that the same conflicts will not arise again.  We view constraint
recording as a process of learning, and examine several possible
learning schemes studying the tradeoffs between the amount of learning
and the improvement in search efficiency.

The second improvement scheme exploits the fact that CSPs whose
constraint graph is a tree can be solved easily, i.e., in linear time.
This leads to the following observation: If, in the course of a
backtrack search, the subgraph resulting from removing all nodes
corresponding to the instantiated variables is a tree, then the rest
of the search can be completed in linear time.  Consequently, the aim
of ordering the variables should be to instantiate as quickly as
possible a set of variables that cut all cycles in the
constraint-graph (cycle-cutset).  This use of cycle-cutsets can be
incorporated in any given "intelligent" backtrack and is guaranteed to
improve it (subject to minor qualifications).

The performance of these two schemes is evaluated both theoretically
and experimentally using randomly generated problems as well as
several "classical" problems described in the literature.


VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

ALSO: NOTE DAY CHANGE!!! (Tuesday -- this week only)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Sep 86 14:53:24 EDT
-FROM-
From: Barbara.Grandillo@n.sp.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Minisupercomputers and AI Machines (CMU)
-BODY-

                      Special Computer Science Seminar

Speaker:    Professor Kai Hwang
            University of Southern California

Title:      Design Issues of Minisupercomputers and AI Machines

Date:       Monday, September 22, 1986
Time:       12:00 noon
Place:      Wean Hall 4605

In this seminar, Dr. Hwang will address the fundamental issues in
designing efficient multiprocessor/multicomputer minisupercomputers or
AI machines.  The talk covers the systems architectural choices,
interprocessor communication mechanisms, resource allocation methods,
I/O and OS functions, mapping of parallel algorithms, and the creation
of parallel programming environment for these machines.

These design issues and their possible solutions are drawn from the
following commercial or exploratory systems: Alliant FX/8, FPS
T-Series and M64 Series,Flex/32, Encore Multimax, Flex/32, Elxsi 6400,
Sequent 8000, Connection Machine, BBN Butterfly, FAIM-1, Alice, Dado,
Soar, and Redfiflow, etc.

Dr. Hwang will also assess the technological basis and future trends in
low-cost supercomputing and AI processing.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 86  0845 PDT
-FROM-
From: Rosemary Napier <RFN@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Equal Opportunity Interactive Systems (SU)
-BODY-
Computer Science Colloquium

Tuesday, October 7, 1986, 4:15PM, Terman Auditorium

"Equal Opportunity Interactive Systems and Innovative Design"

Harold Thimbleby
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Heslington, York
United Kingdom YO1 5DD

Most interactive systems distinguish between the input and output
of information. Equal opportunity is a design heuristic that
discards these distinctions; it was inspired by polymodality
in logic programming and a well-known problem solving heuristic.
The seminar makes the case for equal opportunity, and shows how
several user engineering principles, techniques and systems can
be reappraised under equal opportunity.

By way of illustration, equal opportunity is used to guide the
design of a calculator and spreadsheet. The resulting systems
have declarative user interfaces and are arguably easier to
use despite complex operational models.

About the speaker: Harold Thimbleby did his doctoral research in
user interface design. He joined the Computer Science department
at York in 1982 and is currently on sabbatical at the Knowledge
Sciences Institute, Calgary. He is currently writing a book on
the application of formal methods as heuristics for user interface
design.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Sep 86 23:50:47 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - AI in Communication Networks (Rutgers)
-BODY-
The first speaker of this year's Machine Learning Seminar series at Rutgers
will be Andrew Jennings of Telecom Australia, speaking on "AI in
Communication Networks".  Dr.  Andrews will speak in Hill-423 at 11 AM on
THURSDAY, September 18th (NB: this is NOT the standard day for the ML
series).  The abstract follows:


                              Andrew Jennings
        (Arpanet address: munnari!trlamct.oz!andrew@seismo.CSS.GOV)
                             Telecom Australia
                        AI in Communication Networks


        Expert  systems  are  gaining  wide  application  in   communication
systems, especially in the areas of maintenance, design and planning.  Where
there are large bodies  of existing expertise, expert  systems are a  useful
programming technology  for  capturing and  making  use of  that  expertise.
However  will  AI  techniques  be  limited  to  retrospective  capturing  of
expertise or can they be of  use for next generation communication  systems?
This talk  will  present  several  projects  that aim  to  make  use  of  AI
techniques in next-generation communication  networks.  An important  aspect
of these systems is their ability to learn from experience.

        This talk  will  discuss  some of  the  difficulties  in  developing
learning in practical  problem domains,  and the value  of addressing  these
difficulties now.  In  particular the  problems of  learning in  intractable
problem domains is of great importance  for these problems and some  ongoing
work on this problem  will be presented.  The  projects discussed include  a
system for capacity assignment in networks, a project to develop AI  systems
for routing in fast packet networks and a system for VLSI design from a high
level specification.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Sep 86 12:43:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Goal Integration in Heuristic Algorithm Design
-BODY-           (Rutgers)

Next week, on Tuesday, September 16th in Hill 423 at 11 AM, Jack
Mostow will give a talk based on his work with Kerstin Voigt, entitled
"A Case Study of Goal Integration in Heuristic Algorithm Design".

This a joint ML/III seminar, and is a dry run for a talk being given at the
Knowledge Compilation Workshop.  There's no paper for the talk, but Jack
recommends his AAAI86 article with Bill Swartout as good background reading.
The abstract follows:



                                Jack Mostow
                             Rutgers University
                 (Arpanet address: MOSTOW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU)

      A Case Study of Goal Integration in Heuristic Algorithm Design:
   A Transformational Rederivation of MYCIN's Therapy Selection Algorithm


An important but little-studied aspect of compiling knowledge into
efficient procedures has to do with integrating multiple, sometimes
conflicting goals expressed as part of that knowledge.  We are
developing an artificial intelligence model of heuristic algorithm
design that makes explicit the interactions among multiple goals.  The
model will represent intermediate states and goals in the design
process, transformations that get from one state to the next, and
control mechanisms that govern the selection of which transformation
to apply next.  It will explicitly model the multiple goals that
motivate and are affected by each design choice.

We are currently testing and refining the model by using it to explain
the design of the algorithm used for therapy selection in the medical
expert system MYCIN.  Previously we analyzed how this algorithm
derives from the informal specification "Find the set of drugs that
best satisfies the medical goals of maximizing effectiveness,
minimizing number of drugs, giving priority to treating likelier
organisms, [etcetera]."  The reformulation and integration of these
goals is discussed in Mostow & Swartout's AAAI86 paper.  Doctoral
student Kerstin Voigt is implementing a complete derivation that will
address additional goals important in the design of the algorithm,
such as efficient use of time, space, and experts.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 18 Aug 86 16:28:02-CDT
-FROM-
From: Rajini <Rajini%ti-csl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Long-Term Planning Systems (TI)
-BODY-

Dr. Jim Hendler, Assistant Professor at Univ of Maryland, is a giving a
special seminar at 10:00 am on August 28th. Abstract of his talk follows.
It will be held in Conference room #2, Computer Science Center, Texas
Instruments, Dallas.

>-Rajini

  rajini@ti-csl
  (214) 995-0779



                Long-term planning systems

                        James Hendler
                     Computer Science Dept.
                     University of Maryland
                     College Park, Md. 20903


Most present day planning systems work in domains where a single goal is
planned for a single user.  Further, the only object changing the world is
the planner itself.  The few systems that go beyond this, for example Vere's
DEVISER system, tend to work in domains where the world, although changing,
behaves according to a set of well-defined rules.  In this talk we describe
on-going research directed at extending planning systems to function in the
dynamic environments necessary for such tasks as job-shop scheduling,
process control, and autonomous vehicle missions.

The talk starts by describing the inadequacies of present-day systems for
working in such tasks.  We focus on two, necessity of a static domain and
inability to handle large numbers of interacting goals, and show some of the
extensions needed to handle these systems.  We describe an extension to
marker-passing, a parallel, spreading activation system, which can be used
for handling the goal interaction problems, and we discuss representational
issues necessary to handling dynamic worlds.  We end by describing work on
a system which is being implemented to deal with these problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 19 Aug 86 19:55:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <OLENDER@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning by Understanding Analogies (SRI)
-BODY-

Russell Greiner, Toronto, will be guest speaker at the RR Group's
PlanLunch (August 20, EJ228, 11:00am).


                 LEARNING BY UNDERSTANDING ANALOGIES

This research describes a method for learning by analogy---i.e., for
proposing new conjectures about a target analogue based on facts known
about a source analogue.  After formally defining this process, we
present heuristics which efficiently guide it to the conjectures which
can help solve a given problem.  These rules are based on the view
that a useful analogy is one which provides the information needed to
solve the problem, and no more.  Experimental data confirms the
effectiveness of this approach.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 20 Aug 86 16:02:46-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Belief Revision (SRI)
-BODY-

                IS BELIEF REVISION HARDER THAN YOU THOUGHT?

                            Marianne Winslett (WINSLETT@SCORE)
               Stanford University, Computer Science Department

                        11:00 AM, MONDAY, Aug. 25
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228

Suppose one wishes to construct, use, and maintain a database of
knowledge about the real world, even though the facts about that world
are only partially known.  In the AI domain, this problem arises when
an agent has a base set of extensional beliefs that reflect partial
knowledge about the world, and then tries to incorporate new, possibly
contradictory extensional knowledge into the old set of beliefs.  We
choose to represent such an extensional knowledge base as a logical
theory, and view the models of the theory as possible states of the
world that are consistent with the agent's extensional beliefs.

How can new information be incorporated into the extensional knowledge
base?  For example, given the new information that "b or c is true,"
how can we get rid of all outdated information about b and c, add the
new information, and yet in the process not disturb any other
extensional information in the extensional knowledge base?  The burden
may be placed on the user or other omniscient authority to determine
exactly which changes in the theory will bring about the desired set
of models.  But what's really needed is a way to specify the update
intensionally, by stating some well-formed formula that the state of
the world is now known to satisfy and letting internal knowledge base
mechanisms automatically figure out how to accomplish that update.  In
this talk we present semantics and algorithms for an operation to add
new information to extensional knowledge bases, and demonstrate that
this action of extensional belief revision is separate from, and
in practice must occur prior to, the traditional belief revision
processes associated with truth maintenance systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 3 Sep 86 14:51:36-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Factorization in Experiment Generation (SRI)
-BODY-

                 FACTORIZATION IN EXPERIMENT GENERATION

                           Devika Subramanian
               Stanford University, Computer Science Department

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, September 8
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228


Experiment Generation is an important part of incremental concept
learning. One basic function of experimentation is to gather data
to refine an existing space of hypotheses. In this talk, we examine
the class of experiments that accomplish this, called discrimination
experiments, and propose factoring as a technique for generating
them efficiently.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
194
-DATE-
Date: 21 Aug 86 12:01:50 PDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: ledoux@aerospace.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Rule Induction in Computer Chess (ACM LA Chapter)
-BODY-

                 ACM LOS ANGELES CHAPTER DINNER MEETING

                      WEDNESDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 1986


                    STRUCTURED EXPERT RULE INDUCTION


                    Expert Systems and Computer Chess

                         Speaker: Dr. Alen Shapiro


One  of  the  major  problems  with  expert  systems  is  "the knowledge
engineering bottleneck."    This  occurs  when  development  is  delayed
because  specifications  are  unavailable  and  either the expert system
developers need time to learn the problem, or else  the  domain  experts
who  already  know  the  problem need time to learn how to use the often
opaque expert system development languages.   A  promising  approach  to
overcoming  the  bottleneck is to build tools that automatically extract
knowledge from the domain experts.  This talk presents  an  overview  of
inductive  knowledge  acquisition  and  the  results  of  experiments in
inductive rule generation in the domain of chess endgames.   The  system
that will be described was able to generate humanly-understandable rules
and to play correct chess  endgames.    This  research  has  significant
implications  for  the  design  of  expert  system  languages  and  rule
induction programs.  The talk is also an interesting look into the world
of computer chess.

Dr.    Shapiro,  a Fellow of the Turing Institute since its inception in
1983, received his Ph.D.  in Machine Intelligence from the University of
Edinburgh in 1983.  From 1979 to 1986 he was associated with Intelligent
Terminals, Ltd., and a member of the Rulemaster and  Expert-Ease  design
teams.    He  has  served  as  Visiting  Professor  at the University of
Illinois on two occasions.  His publications include articles on pattern
recognition,  automatic  induction  of  chess  classification rules, and
(with  David  Michie),  "A  Self-Commenting  Facility  for   Inductively
Synthesized Endgame Expertise."

In 1986 Dr. Shapiro joined the New Technology Department at Citicorp-TTI
in Santa Monica as a Computer Scientist concerned with  the  development
of inductive knowledge engineering tools for the banking industry.


                                 PLACE

                              Amfac Hotel
                           8601 Lincoln Blvd.
                     corner of Lincoln & Manchester
                        Westchester, California
                              8:00 p.m.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 86 11:25:38 PDT
-FROM-
From: coraki!pratt@Sun.COM (Vaughan Pratt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Mechanization of Geometry (SU)
-BODY-

SPEAKER         Professor Wu Wen-tsun
TITLE           Mechanization of Geometry
DATE            Thursday, August 21
TIME            2:00 pm
PLACE           Margaret Jacks Hall, room 352

A mechanical method of geometry based on Ritt's characteristic set
theory will be described which has a variety of applications including
mechanical geometry theorem proving in particular. The method has been
implemented on computers by several researchers and turns out to be
efficient for many applications.

BACKGROUND
Professor Wu received his doctorate in France in the 1950's, and was a
member of the Bourbaki group.  In the first National Science and
Technology Awards in China in 1956, Professor Wu was one of three
people awarded a first prize for their contributions to science and
technology.  He is currently the president of the Chinese Mathematical
Society.

In 1977, Wu extended classical algebraic geometry work of Ritt to an
algorithm for proving theorems of elementary geometry.  The method has
recently become well-known in the Automated Theorem Proving community;
at the University of Texas it has been applied it to the machine proof
of more than 300 theorems of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 September 1986 1527-EDT
-FROM-
From: Betsy Herk@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Algorithm Designer (CMU)
-BODY-
Speaker:        David Steier
Date:           Friday, Sept. 12
Place:          5409 Wean Hall
Time:           3:30 p.m.
Title:          Integrating multiple sources of knowledge in an
                        automatic algorithm designer


One of the reasons that designing algorithms is so difficult is the
large amount of knowledge needed to guide the design process.  In this
proposal, I identify nine sources of such knowledge within four
general areas:  general problem-solving, algorithm design and
implementation techniques, knowledge of the application domain,
and methods for learning from experience.  To understand how
knowledge from these sources can be represented and integrated, I
propose to build a system that automatically designs algorithms.
An implementation of the system, Designer-Soar, uses several
of the knowledge sources described in the proposal to design several
very simple algorithms.  The goal of the thesis is to extend
Designer-Soar to design moderately complex algorithms in a domain
such as graph theory or computational geometry.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 September 1986 1019-EDT
-FROM-
From: Elaine Atkinson@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Representations and Checkerboards (CMU)
-BODY-
SPEAKER:  Craig Kaplan, CMU, Psychology Department
  TITLE:  "Representations and Checkerboards"
   DATE:  Thursday, September 11
   TIME:  4:00 p.m.
  PLACE:  Adamson Wing, BH

        Given the right representation, tricky "insight" problems
often become trivial to solve.  How do people arrive at the right
representations?  What factors affect people's ability to shift
representations, and how can understanding these factors help us
understand why insight problems are so difficult?

         Evidence from studies using the Mutilated Checkerboard
Problem points to Heuristic Search as a powerful way of addressing
these questions.  Specifically, it suggest that the quality of
the match between people's readily available search heuristics
and problem characteristics is a major determinant of problem
difficulty for some problems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Sep 86 20:01:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: RIDDLE@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Deriving Problem Reduction Operators (Rutgers)
-BODY-
I am giving a practice talk of a talk I will be giving in a few weeks.
It is at 1 pm in 423 on Monday the 15th.
Everyone is invited and all comments are welcome.
The abstract follows.

This research deals with automatically shifting from one problem
representation to another representation which is more efficient, with
respect to a given problem solving method, for this problem class. I
attempt to discover general purpose primitive representation shifts
and techniques for automating them.  To achieve this goal, I am
defining and automating the primitive representation shifts explored
by Amarel in the Missionaries & Cannibals problem @cite(amarel1).
The techniques for shifting representations which I have already
defined are: compiling constraints, removing irrelevant information,
removing redundant information, deriving macro-operators, deriving
problem reduction operators, and deriving macro-objects.  In this
paper, I will concentrate on the technique for deriving problem
reduction operators (i.e., critical reduction) and a method for
automating this technique (i.e., invariant reduction).  A set of
sufficient conditions for the applicability of this technique over a
problem class is discussed; the proofs appear in a forthcoming
Rutgers technical report.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 10 Sep 86 15:00:22-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Evolution of Automata (SRI)
-BODY-

                THE EVOLUTION OF COMPUTATIONAL CAPABILITIES
                    IN POPULATIONS OF COMPETING AUTOMATA

                    Aviv Bergman (BERGMAN@SRI-AI)
                        SRI International
                               and
                         Michel Kerszberg
                   IFF der KFA Julich, W.-Germany

                    10:30 AM, MONDAY, September 15
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228


The diversity of the living world has been shaped, it is believed, by
Darwinian selection acting on random mutations. In the present work,
we study the emergence of nontrivial computational capabilities in
automata competing against each other in an environment where
possession of such capabilities is an advantage. The automata are
simple cellular computers with a certain number of parameters -
characterizing the "Statistical Distribution" of the connections -
initially set at random. Each generation of machines is subjected to a
test necessitating some computational task to be performed, e.g
recognize whether two patterns presented are or are not translated
versions of each other. "Adaptive Selection" is used during the task
in order to "Eliminate" redundant connections.  According to its
grade, each machine either dies or "reproduces", i.e. it creates an
additional machine with parameters almost similar to its own. The
population, it turns out, quickly learns to perform certain tests.
When the successful automata are "autopsied", it appears that they do
not all complete the task in the same way; certain groups of cells are
more active then others, and certain connections have grown or decayed
preferentially, but these features may vary from individual to
individual.  We try to draw some general conclusions regarding the
design of artificial intelligence systems, and the understanding of
biological computation. We also contrast this approach with the usual
Monte-Carlo procedure.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 86 08:51 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Active Reduction of Uncertainty (UPenn)
-BODY-

         Active Reduction of Uncertainty in Multi-sensor Systems

                        Ph.D. Thesis Proposal

                            Greg Hager
                        (greg@upenn-grasp)
        General Robots and Active Sensory Perception Laboratory
                      University of Pennsylvania
             Department of Computer and Information Sciences
                       Philadelphia, PA 19104


                        10:00 AM, August 15, 1986
                            Room 554 Moore


If robots are to perform tasks in unconstrained environments, they will have
to rely on sensor information to make decisions.  In general, sensor
information has some uncertainty associated with it.  The uncertainty can be
conceptually divided into two types: statistical uncertainty due to signal
noise, and incompleteness of information due to limitations of sensor scope.
Inevitably, the information needed for proper action will be uncertain.  In
these cases, the robot will need to take action explicitly devoted to
reducing uncertainty.

The problem of reducing uncertainty can be studied within the theoretical
framework of team decision theory.  Team decision theory considers a number
of decision makers observing the world via information structures, and
taking action dictated by decision rules.  Decision rules are evaluated
relative to team and individual utility considerations.  In this vocabulary,
sensors are considered as controllable information structures whose behavior
is determined by individual and group utilities.  For the problem of
reducing uncertainty, these utilities are based on the information expected
as the result of taking action.

In general, a robot does not only consider direct sensor observations, but
also evaluates and combines that data over time relative to some model of
the observed environment.  In this proposal, information aggregation is
modeled via belief systems as studied in philosophy.  Reducing uncertainty
corresponds to driving the belief system into one of a set of information
states.  Within this context, the issues that will be addressed are the
specification of utilities in terms of belief states, the organization of a
sensor system, and the evaluation of decision rules.  These questions will
first be studied through theory and simulation, and finally applied to an
existing multi-sensor system.

Advisor: Dr. Max Mintz

Committee:  Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy (Chairperson)
            Dr. Zolton Domotor (Philosophy Dept.)
            Dr. Richard Paul
            Dr. Stanley Rosenschein (SRI International and CSLI)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Sep 1986 0848-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lydia Defilippo <DEFILIPPO@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Rational Conservatism and the Will to Believe (CMU)
-BODY-

                                CMU
                       PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM

                             JON DOYLE

            RATIONAL CONSERVATISM AND THE WILL TO BELIEVE


   DATE:  MONDAY SEPTEMBER 15

   TIME:  4:OO P.M.

  PLACE:  PORTER HALL, RM 223d


*   Much of the reasoning automated in artificial intelligence is either
mindless deductive inference or is intentionally non-deductive. The common
explanations of these techniques, when given, are not very satisfactory, for
the real explanations involve the notion of bounded rationality, while over
time the notion of rationality has been largely dropped from the vocabulary of
artificial intelligence. We present the notion of rational self-government, in
which the agent rationally guides its own limited reasoning to whatever degree
is possible, via the examples of rational conservatism and rationally adopted
assumptions.  These ideas offer improvements on the practice of mindless
deductive inference and explantions of some of the usual non-deductive
inferences.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 15 Sep 86 10:35:02-CDT
-FROM-
From: ICS.BROWNE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - BiggerTalk: An Object-Oriented Extension to Prolog (UTexas)
-BODY-

                     Object-Oriented Programming Meeting

                            Friday, September 19
                               2:00-3:00 p.m.
                                Taylor 3.128

                                 BiggerTalk:
                    An Object-Oriented Extension to Prolog

                          Speaker:  Eric Gullichsen
                       MCC Software Technology Program





BiggerTalk is a system of Prolog routines which provide a capability for
object-oriented programming in Prolog.  When compiled into a standard
Prolog environment, the BiggerTalk system permits programming in the
object-oriented style of message passing between objects, themselves
defined as components of a poset (the 'inheritance structure')
created through other BiggerTalk commands.  Multiple inheritance of
methods and instance variables is provided dynamically.  The full functional
capability of Prolog is retained, and Prolog predicates can be invoked
from within BiggerTalk methods.

A provision exists for storage of BiggerTalk objects in the MCC-STP
Object Server, a shared permanent object repository.  The common external
form for objects in the Server permits (restricted) sharing of objects
between BiggerTalk and Zetalisp Flavors, the two languages currently
supported by the Server.  Concurrent access to permanent objects is
mediated by the server.

This talk will discuss a number of theoretical and pragmatic issues of
concern to BiggerTalk and its interface to the Object Server.  Some
acquaintance with the concepts of logic programming and object-oriented
programming will be assumed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
195
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 86 15:32:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: ritcv!eer@ROCHESTER.ARPA  (Ed Reed)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public domain Ops5 in any language
-BODY-
I'm looking for one of the versions of OPS5 in lisp (or ?)
that's in the public domain. I've heard that there are pd versions
running around, but haven't found any here, yet.

If in lisp (as I expect) I can use FranzLisp, DecCommonLisp, and
xlisp, and maybe InterLisp on a Xerox Dlion.

Thanks for the help..

Ed Reed
Rochester Inst. Technology,
Rochester, NY

....seismo!rochester!ritcv
Delphi: eertest
GEnie: SQA.INC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 1986 21:30-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross@wpafb-afita
-SUBJECT-
Subject: xlisp query
-BODY-
Would appreciate a pointer to where I could download the source code for
xlisp 1.6 and any demonstratable programs written in xlisp.  I'm aware
of the stuff published in AI Expert and have downloaded it, but cannot
find the source code.  Thanks in advance.

Steve Cross

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Sep 86 03:50:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: booter@lll-crg.arpa  (Elaine Richards)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lsmalltalk and XLisp
-BODY-

I spaced out on my friend's login name. He is at Cal State University
Hayward, which has no news feed. He is a fanatic for smalltalk and
LISP and I hope you folks out there can assist. Please no flamage, this
guy is not a regular netter and he really would love some contacts.
Here is what he asked me to post.
        *****************************************************
        *  e-mail responses to                              *
        *  {seismo,ihnp4,pyramid}!lll-crg!csuh!jeff         *
        *  -or-                                             *
        *  hplabs!qantel!csuh!jeff                          *
        *****************************************************

#1
            To all people,places, and things who possess some
knowledge about Lsmalltalk:

            I am just getting into Lsmalltalk and I am interested
in communicating with others who have some experience with it. I
am using Smalltalk 'blue' as my map of the Lsmalltalk system; can
anyone suggest a way around class-variables and methods ( is the
class Smalltalk the only way?). Is there anyone who has done some
interesting applications they would like to share?

                     jeff


#2
              The young and struggling C.S. department of the
Calif. State University of Hayward would like to get to Xlisp.
If somebody out there knows were we can get it,  could you please
pass that information along?

                        jeff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Sep 86 01:00:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: zeus!stiber@locus.ucla.edu  (Michael D Stiber)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Kyoto Common Lisp
-BODY-
Does anyone have experience using this Lisp, or have any information
about it.  I am specifically interested in comments on Ibuki Lisp, an
implementation of Kyoto Common Lisp that runs on the IBM RT.

                     Michael Stiber
                     ARPANET: stiber@ucla-locus.arpa
                     USENET:  ...{ucbvax,ihpn4}!ucla-cs!stiber

               Born too late to be a yuppy -- and proud of it!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 08:32:13 edt
-FROM-
From: jlynch@nswc-wo.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: LISP Conversion
-BODY-

           I  am  gathering  information  concerning  the  conversion  or
        translation  of  programs  written in  LISP  to  FORTRAN.   Would
        appreciate  comments from anyone who has tried to do this and the
        likelihood of success.  Interested in both manual methods as well
        as  conversion routines or programs.    I will summarize  replies
        for the AILIST.       Thanks, Jim Lynch (jlynch@nswc-wo.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 11:03:20 -0500
-FROM-
From: schwamb@mitre.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science Schools
-BODY-
Well, now that some folks have commented on the best AI schools in
the country, could we also hear about the best Cognitive Science
programs?  Cog Sci has been providing a lot of fuel for thought to
the AI community and I'd like to know where one might specialize
in this.

Thanks, Karl   (schwamb@mitre)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 86 13:38:33 GMT
-FROM-
From: gilbh%cunyvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI Grad Schools
-BODY-

One might consider CUNY (City University of New York) too.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 86 07:39:34 MDT
-FROM-
From: halff@utah-cs.arpa (Henry M. Halff)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Any OPS5 in PC ?
-BODY-
In article <8609181610.AA08808@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
    EDMUNDSY%northeastern.edu@RELAY.CS.NET writes:
> Does anyone know whether there is any OPS5 software package availiable in PC?
> I would like to know where I can find it. Thanks!!!

Contact
        Computer*Thought
        1721 West Plano Parkway
        Suite 125
        Plano, TX 75075
        214/424-3511
        ctvax!mark.UUCP

Disclaimer:  I know people at Computer*Thought, but I don't know anything about
their OPS-5.  I don't know how well it works.  I don't even know if I would
know how to tell how well it works.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 86 06:15:37 cdt
-FROM-
From: mlw@ncsc.ARPA (Williams)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPSx for PCs
-BODY-

For parties seeking OPS5 on PCs...an implementation of OPS/83 is being
marketed by Production Systems Technologies, Inc.
            642 Gettyburg Street
            Pittsburgh, PA 15206
            (412)362-3117
I have no comparison information relating OPS5 to OPS83 other than the
fact that OPS83 is compiled and is supposed to provide better performance
in production on micros than is possible with OPS5.  I'd be glad to see
more information on the topic in this forum.

Usual disclaimers...

Mark L. Williams
(mlw @ncsc.arpa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Sep 86 19:21:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!pamp@uw-beaver.arpa  (wagener)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Info on UNIX based AI Tools/applications (2nd req)
-BODY-
In article <1657@ptsfa.UUCP> jeg@ptsfa.UUCP (John Girard) writes:
>
>This is a second request for information on Artificial Intelligence
>tools and applications available in the unix environment.
>
>       Expert System Shells
>       Working AI applications (academic and commercial)


 I can recomend at least one good comprehensive listing of
tools,languages and companies;

        The International Directory of Artificial Intelligence
                Companies,2nd edition,1986,Artificial
                Intelligence Software S.R.L.,Via A. Mario,12/A,
                45100 ROVIGO, Italy. Della Jane Hallpike,ed.
                Ph.(0425)27151

It mainly looks at the companies, but it does have descriptions
of their products.

Also look into D.A.Waterman's book, A guide to expert systems;
        Addison-Wesley Pub.Co.,1985.

I also recomend you check out the Expert system Magazines;

        1) Expert Systems - The Ineternational Journal of
                Knowledge Engineering;Learned Information Ltd.,
                (This is an English Publication. It's US office
                address is;
                        Learned information Co.
                        143 Old Marlton Pike
                        Medfor,NJ 08055
                        PH.(609) 654-6266
                Subscription Price: $79

        2) Expert Systems User; Expert Systems User Ltd.
                                Cromwell House,
                                20 Bride Lane
                                London EC4 8DX
                                PH.01-353 7400
                                Telex: 23862
                Subscription Price: $210

        3) IEEE Expert - Intelligent Systems and their Applications
                         IEEE Computer Society
                         IEEE Headquartes
                         345 East 47th Street
                         New York,NY 10017

                         IEEE Computer Society West Coast Office
                         10662 Los Vaqueros Circle
                         Los Alamitos, CA 90720
                Subscription Price (IEEE Members): $12/yr

        4) AI Expert
                AI Expert
                P.O.Box 10952
                Palo Alto, CA 94303-0968
                Subscription Price: $39/yr $69/2yr $99/3yr

There are some good product description sections and articles
in these (especially the British ones which are the older
publications).  There are quite a number of systems out there.
Good luck.
Pam Pincha-Wagener

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 86 15:44:00 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: queries about expert systems
-BODY-

   Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1986  17:10 EDT
   From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU

   1. Production systems are the implementation of many expert systems.
   In what other forms are "expert systems" implemented?

   [I use the term "expert system" to describe the codification of any
   process that people use to reason, plan, or make decisions as a set of
   computer rules, involving a detailed description of the precise
   thought processes used.  If you have a better description, please
   share it.]

``Expert System'' denotes a level of performance, not a technology.
The particularly important aspirations are generality and robustness.
Every program strives for some degree of generality and robustness, of
course, but calling a program an expert system means it's supposed to
be able to do the right thing even in situations that haven't been
explicitly anticipated, where ``the right thing'' might just be to
gracefully say ``I dunno'' when, indeed, the program doesn't have the
knowledge needed to solve the problem posed.

Production systems, or, more accurately, programs that work by running
a simple interpreter over a body of knowledge represented as IF-THEN
rules, ease the construction of simple expert systems because it's
possible to encode the knowledge without having to commit to a
particular order or context of using that knowledge.  The interpreter
determines what rule to apply next at runtime, and so long as you
don't include contradictory rules or assume a particular order of
application, such systems are easy to construct and work pretty well,
i.e. can be general (solve a wide variety of problem instances) and
robust (degrade gracefully by saying ``i dunno'' (no rules, or only
very general rules apply) in unusual situations, rather than trapping
out with an error).

That may not have seemed like an answer to question #1, so let me
return to it explicitly.  Production systems are not the only
technology for building expert systems, but pattern-directed
invocation is a theme common to all expert systems, whatever
technology is used.  Let me explain.  Another popular technology for
expert systems (in the medical domain, especially) might be called
Frames and Demons.  Facts are organized in a specialization hierarchy,
and attached to each fact may be a bunch of procedures (demons) that
are run when the fact is asserted, or denied, when the program needs
to figure out whether the fact is true or not, etc.  Running a demon
may trigger other demons, or add new facts, or new demons, and so the
system grinds away.  The underlying principle is the same as in
production systems: there is a large body of domain specific
knowledge, plus a simple interpreter that makes no initial commitment
to the order or context in which the facts are going to be used.  The
name of the game is pattern-directed invocation: the next action to
take is selected from among the ``rules'' or ``methods'' or ``demons''
that are relevant to the current situation.  This characteristic is
not unique to expert systems, but (I think) every program that has
ever been called an expert system has this characteristic in common,
and moreover that it was central to its behavior.

   2. A production system is in essence a set of rules that state that
   "IF X occurs, THEN take action Y."  System designers must anticipate
   the set of "X" that can occur.  What if something happens that is not
   anticipated in the specified set of "X"?  I assert that the most
   common result in such cases is that nothing happens.  Am I right,
   wrong, or off the map?

In most implementations of production systems, if the current
situation is such that no rules match it, nothing happens (maybe the
program prints out the atom 'DONE :-).  If the system is working in a
goal-directed fashion (e.g. it's trying to find out under what
circumstances it can take action Y (action Y might be "conclude that Z
has occurred")) and there aren't any rules that tell it anything about
Y, again, nothing happens: it can't conclude Z.  In practice, there
are always very general rules that apply when nothing else does.
Being general, they're probably not very helpful: "IF () THEN SAY
Take-Two-Aspirin-And-Call-Me-In-The-Morning."  The same applies to any
brand of pattern-directed invocation.

However, it's getting on the hairy edge of matters to say "System
designers must anticipate the set of X that can occur."  The reason is
that productions (methods, demons) are supposed to be modular;
independent of other productions; typically written to trigger on only
a handful of the possibly thousands of features of the current
situation.  So in fact I don't need to anticipate all the situations
that occur, but rather ``just'' figure out all the relevant features
of the space of situations, and then write rules that deal with
certain combinations of those features.  It's like a grammar: I don't
have to anticipate every valid sentence, except in the sense that I
need to figure out what all the word categories are and what local
combinations of words are legal.

Now, to hone your observation a bit, I suggest focusing on the notion
of ``figuring out all the relevant features of the space of
situations.''  That's what's difficult.  Experts (including
carbon-based ones) make mistakes when they ignore (or are unaware of)
features of the situation that modify or overrule the conclusions made
from other features.  The fundamental problem in building an expert
system that deals with the real world is not entirely in cramming
enough of the right rules into it (although that's hard), it's
encoding all the exceptions, or, more to the point, remembering to
include in the program's model of the world all the features that
might be relevant to producing exceptions.

End of overly long flame.

        Walter Hamscher

P.S. I am not an AI guru, rather, a mere neophyte disciple of the bona
fide gurus on my thesis committee.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue Sep 23 11:33:13 GMT+1:00 1986
-FROM-
From: mcvax!lasso!ralph@seismo.CSS.GOV  (Ralph P. Sobek)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: queries about expert systems (Vol 4, no. 187)
-BODY-
Herb,

  >1. Production systems are the implementation of many expert systems.
  >In what other forms are "expert systems" implemented?

        I recommend the book "A Guide to Expert Systems," by Donald
Waterman.  It describes many expert systems, which fall more or less
into your definition, and in what they are implemented.  Production
Systems (PSs) can basically be divided into forward-chaining (R1/XCON) and
backward-chaining (EMYCIN); mixed systems which do both exist.  Other
representations include frame-based (SRL), semantic nets (KAS), object-
oriented, and logic-based.  The representation used often depends on what
is available in the underlying Expert System Tool.  Tools now exist which
provide an intergrated package of representation structures for the expert
system builder to use, e.g., KEE and LOOPS.  Expert systems are also written
in standard procedural languages such as Lisp, C, Pascal, and even Fortran.

  >2. A production system is in essence a set of rules that state that
  >"IF X occurs, THEN take action Y."  System designers must anticipate
  >the set of "X" that can occur.  What if something happens that is not
  >anticipated in the specified set of "X"?  I assert that the most
  >common result in such cases is that nothing happens.

        In both forward-chaining and backward-chaining PSs nothing happens.
If the PS produces "X" then we can verify if "X" is never used.  In the
general case, if "X" comes from some arbitrary source there is no
guarantee that the PS (or any other system) will even see the datum.

        Ralph P. Sobek

UUCP:   mcvax!inria!lasso!ralph@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
ARPA:   sobek@ucbernie.Berkeley.EDU     (automatic forwarding)
BITNET: SOBEK@FRMOP11

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
196
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 10:31:23 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: rapaport@sunybcs.UUCP (William J. Rapaport)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: followup on NL generation
-BODY-
In article <MS.lb0q.0.hatfield.284.1@andrew.cmu.edu>
    lb0q@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Leslie Burkholder) writes:
>Has work been done on the problem of generating relatively idiomatic English
>from sentences written in a language for first-order predicate logic?
>Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
>Leslie Burkholder
>lb0q@andrew.cmu.edu


We do some work on NL generation from SNePS, which can easily be translated
into pred. logic.  See:

Shapiro, Stuart C. (1982), ``Generalized Augmented Transition Network
Grammars For Generation From Semantic Networks,'' American Journal of
Computational Linguistics 8:  12-25.


                                William J. Rapaport
                                Assistant Professor

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260

(716) 636-3193, 3180

uucp:   ..!{allegra,decvax,watmath,rocksanne}!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet:  rapaport@buffalo.csnet
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Sep 86 15:41:26 edt
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS, DDB and infinite loops
-BODY-

   Date: Mon, 08 Sep 86 16:48:15 -0800
   From: Don Rose <drose@CIP.UCI.EDU>

   Does anyone know whether the standard algorithms for belief revision
   (e.g. dependency-directed backtracking in TMS-like systems) are
   guaranteed to halt? That is, is it possible for certain belief networks
   to be arranged such that no set of mutually consistent beliefs can be found
   (without outside influence)?

I think these are two different questions.  The answer to the
second question depends less on the algorithm than on whether
the underlying logic is two-valued or three-valued.  The answer
to the first question is that halting is only a problem when the
logic is two-valued and the space of beliefs isn't fixed during
belief revision [Satisifiability in the propositional calculus
is decidable (though NP-complete)].  Doyle's TMS goes into
infinite loops.  McAllester's won't.  deKleer's ATMS won't loop
either, but that's because it finds all the consistent
labelings, and there just might not be any.  Etc, etc; depends
on what you consider ``standard.''

        Walter Hamscher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 86 15:02 PDT
-FROM-
From: dekleer.pa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS, DDB and infinite loops question.
-BODY-
    Does anyone know whether the standard algorithms for belief revision
    (e.g. dependency-directed backtracking in TMS-like systems) are
    guaranteed to halt?

It depends on what you consider the standard algorithms and what do you
consider a guarantee?  Typically a Doyle-style (NMTMS) comes in two
versions, (1) guaranteed to halt, and, (2) guaranteed to halt if there
are no "odd loops".  Version (2) is always more efficient and is
commonly used.  The McAllester-style (LTMS) or my style (ATMS) always
halt.  I don't know if anyone has actually proved these results.

    That is, is it possible for certain belief networks
    to be arranged such that no set of mutually consistent beliefs
    can be found (without outside influence)?

Sure, its called a contradiction.  However, the issue of what to do
about odd loops remains somewhat unresolved.  By odd loop I mean a node
which depends on its own disbelief an odd number of times, the most
trivial example being give A a non-monotonic justification with an empty
inlist and an outlist of (A).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Sep 86 14:39:47-CDT
-FROM-
From: Larry Van Sickle <cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: CS.VANSICKLE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Money back on Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
Borland will refund the purchase price of Turbo Prolog
for sixty days after purchase.  The person I talked to
at Borland was courteous, did not argue, just said to
send the receipt and software.

Larry Van Sickle
U of Texas at Austin
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu  512-471-9589

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 23 Sep 86 13:54:29-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
For another review of Turbo Prolog see the premier issue of AI Expert.
Darryl Rubin discusses several weaknesses relative to Clocksin-and-Mellish
prologs, but is enthusiastic about the package for users who have no
experience with (i.e., preconceptions from) other prologs.  The Turbo
version is very fast, quite compact, well documented, comes with a
lengthy library of example programs, and interfaces to a sophisticated
window system and other special tools.  It could be an excellent system
for database retrieval and other straightforward tasks.  His chief
reservation was about the "subroutine call" syntax that requires
all legal arities and argument types to be predeclared and does not
permit use of comma as a reduction operator.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Sep 86 14:27:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdcrdcf!darrelj@hplabs.hp.com  (Darrel VanBuer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Dandelion vs Symbolics
-BODY-
A slight echo on the Interlisp file package (partly response to earlier note
on problems using MAKEFILE, and losing a bunch of user-entered properties.

Rule 1.  Users never call MAKEFILE (in 9 years of Interlisp hacking, I've
probably called it half a dozen times).

So how do you make files?  I mainly use two functions:
CLEANUP()     or CLEANUP(file1 file2 ...)   Former does all files containing
        modifications, latter only named files.  The first thing CLEANUP does
        is call UPDATEFILES, which is also called by:
FILES?()        Reports the files which need action to have up to date
        source, compiled and hardcopies, also calls UPDATEFILES, which will
        engage you in a dialog asking you the location of every "new" object.

Most of the ways to define or modify objects are "noticed" by the file
package (e.g. the structure editor [DF, EF, DV ...], SETQ, PUTPROP, etc which
YOU type at top level).  When an object is noticed as modified, either the
file(s) containing it are marked as needing a remake, or it gets noted as
something to ask you about later.  You can write functions which play the
game by calling MARKASCHANGED as appropriate.

Two global variables interact with details of the process:
RECOMPILEDEFAULT  usually EXPRS or CHANGES.  I prefer the former, but CHANGES
        has been the default in Interlisp-D because EXPRS didn't work before
        Intermezzo.
CLEANUPOPTIONS  My setting is usually (RC STF LIST) which means as part of
cleanup, recompile, with compiler flags STF (F means forget source from in
core, filepkg will automagically retrieve it if you edit, etc), and make a
new hardcopy LISTing.

For real fun with filepkg and integration with other tools, try
MASTERSCOPE(ANALYZE ALL ON file1)
MASTERSCOPE(EDIT WHERE ANY CALLS FOO)
CLEANUP()

>-
Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD
System Development Corp.
2525 Colorado Ave
Santa Monica, CA 90406
(213)820-4111 x5449
...{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,orstcs,sdcsvax,ucla-cs,akgua}
                                                            !sdcrdcf!darrelj
VANBUER@USC-ECL.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 86 10:23:18 PDT
-FROM-
From: larus@kim.Berkeley.EDU (James Larus)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Symbolics v. Xerox
-BODY-
OK, here are my comments on the Great Symbolics-Xerox debate.  [As
background, I was an experienced Lisp programmer and emacs user before
trying a Symbolics.]  I think that the user interface on the Symbolics
is one of the poorest pieces of software that I have ever had the
misfortune of using.  Despite having a bit-mapped display, Symbolics
forces you to use a one-window on the screen at a time paradigm.  Not
only are the default windows too large, but some of them (e.g. the
document examiner) take over the whole screen (didn't anyone at
Symbolics think that someone might want to make use of the
documentation without taking notes on paper?).  Resizing the windows
(a painful process involving a half-dozen mouse-clicks) results in
unreadable messages and lost information since the windows don't
scroll (to be fixed in Genera 7).  I cannot understand how this
interface was designed (was it?) or why people swear by it (instead of
at it).

The rest of the system is better.  Their Common Lisp is pretty solid
and avoids some subtle bugs in other implementations.  Their debugger
is pretty weak.  I can't understand why a debugger that shows the
machine's bytecodes (which aren't even documented for the 3600
series!) is considered acceptable in a Lisp environment.  Even C has
symbolic debuggers these days!  Their machine coexists pretty well
with other types of systems on an internet.  Their local filesystem is
impressively slow.

The documentation is pretty bad, but is getting better.  It reminds me
of the earlier days of Unix, where most of the important stuff wasn't
written down.  If you had an office next to a Unix guru, you probably
thought Unix was great.  If you just got a tape from Bell, then you
probably thought Unix sucked.  There appears to be a large amount of
information about the Symbolics that is not written down and is common
knowledge at places like MIT that successfully use the machines.
(Perhaps Symbolics should ship a MIT graduate with their machines.)
We have had a lot of difficulty setting up our machines.  Symbolics
has not been very helpful at all.

/Jim

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue Sep 23 12:31:35 GMT+1:00 1986
-FROM-
From: mcvax!lasso!ralph@seismo.CSS.GOV  (Ralph P. Sobek)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox 11xx vs. Symbolics 36xx vs. ...
-BODY-
I enjoyed all the discussion on the pluses and minuses of these and other
lisp machines.  I, myself, am an Interlisp user.  Those who know a
particular system well will prefer it over another.  All these lisp systems
are quite complex and require a long time, a year or so, before one achieves
proficiency.  And as any language, human or otherwise, one's perception of
one's environment depends upon the tools/semantics that the language provides.

I have always found Interlisp much more homogeneous than Zetalisp.  The
packages are structured so as to interface easily.  I find the written
documentation  also much more structured, and smaller, than the number of
volumes that come with a Symbolics.  Maybe, Symbolics users only use the
online documentation and thus avoid the pain of trying to find something
in the written documentation.  The last time I tried to find something in
the Symbolics manuals -- I gave up, frustrated! :-)

Interesting will be the future generation of lisp machines, after Common
Lisp.

        Ralph P. Sobek

UUCP:   mcvax!inria!lasso!ralph@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
ARPA:   sobek@ucbernie.Berkeley.EDU     (automatic forwarding)
BITNET: SOBEK@FRMOP11

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 86 12:28:00 MST
-FROM-
From: fritts@afotec
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: <fritts@afotec>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Associations -- Comment on AIList Digest V4 #186
-BODY-
The remark has been made on AIList, I think, and elsewhere that computers
do not "think" at all like people do.  Problems are formally stated and
stepped through sequentially to reach a solution.  Humans find this very
difficult to do.  Instead, we seem to think in a series of observations
and associations.  Our observations are provided by our senses, but how
these are associated with stored memory of other observations is seemingly
the key to how humans "think".  I think that this process of sensory
observation and association runs more or less continuously and we are not
conciously aware of much of it.  What I'd like to know is how the decision
is made to associate one observation with another; what rules of association
are made and are they highly individualized or is there a more general
pattern.  How is it that we acquire large bodies of apparently diverse
observations under simple labels and then make complex decisions using
these simple labels rather than stepping laboriously through a logical
sequence to achieve the same end?  There must be some logic to our
associative process  or we could not be discussing this subject at all.

Steve Fritts
FRITTS@AFOTEC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Sep 86 09:01:50 PDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: "charles_kalish.EdServices"@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: intelligent machines
-BODY-
In his message, Peter Pirron sets out what he believes to be necessary
attributes of a machine that would deserved to be called intelligent
>From my experience, I think that his intuitions about what it would take
for for a machine to be intelligent are, by and large, pretty widely
shared and as far as I'm concerned, pretty accurate.  Where we differ,
though, is in how these intuitions apply to designing and demonstrating
machine intelligence.

Pirron writes: "There is the phenomenon of intentionality amd motivation
in man that finds no direct correspondent phenomenon in the computer." I
think it's true that we wouldn't call anything intelligent we didn't believe
had intentions (after all intelligent is an intentional ascription).
But I think that Dennet (see "Brainstorms") is right in that intentions
are something we ascribe to systems and not something that is built in
or a part of that system.  The problem then becomes justifying the use
of intentional descriptions for a machine; i.e. how can I justify my
claim that "the computer wants to take the opponent's queen" when the
skeptic responds that all that is happening is that the X procedure has
returned a value which causes the Y procedure to  move piece A to board
position Q?

I think the crucial issue in this question is how much (or whether) the
computer understands. The problem with systems now is that it is too
easy to say that the computer doesn't understand anything, it's just
manipulating markers. That is that any understanding is just
conventional -- we pretend that variable A means the Red Queen, but it
only means that to us (observers) not to the computer.  How then could
we ever get something to mean anything to a computer? Some people (I'm
thinking of Searle) would say you can't, computers can't have semantics
for the symbols they process. I  found this issue  in Pirron's message
where he says:
"Real "understanding" of natural language however needs not only
linguistic competence but also sensory processing and recognition
abilities (visual, acoustical).   Language normally refers to objects
which we first experience  by sensory input and then name it."   The
idea is that you want to ground the computer's use of symbols in some
non-symbolic experience.

Unfortunately, the solution proposed by Pirron:
"The constructivistic theory of human learning of language by Paul
Lorenzen und O. Schwemmer (Erlanger Schule) assumes a "demonstration
act" (Zeigehandlung)  constituting a fundamental element of man (child)
learning language.  Without this empirical fundament of language you
will never leave the hermeneutic circle, which drove former philosphers into
despair." ( having not read these people, I presume the mean something
like pointing at a rabbit and saying "rabbit") has been demonstrated by
Quine (see "Word and Object") to keep you well within the circle.  But
these arguments are about people, not computers and we do (at least
feel) that the symbols we use and communicate with are rooted in
non-symbolic something. I can see two directions from this.

One is looking for pre-symbolic, biological constraints;  Something like
Rosch's theory of basic levels of conceptualization.  Biologically
relevant, innate concepts, like mother, food, emotions, etc.  would
provide the grounding for complex concepts.  Unfortunately for a
computer, it doesn't have an evolutionary history which would generate
innate concepts-- everything it's got is symbolic.  We'd have to say
that no matter how good a computer got it wouldn't really understand.

The other point is that maybe we do have to stay within this symbolic
"prison-house" after all event the biological concepts are still
represented, not actual (no food in the brain just neuron firings).  The
thing here is that, even though you could look into a person's brain
and, say, pick out the neural representation of a horse, to the person
with the open skull that's not a representation, it constitutes a horse,
it is a horse (from the point of view of the neural sytem).  And that's
what's different about people and computers. We credit people with a
point of view  and from that point of view, the symbols used in
processing are not symbolic at all, but real.  Why do people have a
point of view and not computers?  Computers can make reports of their
internal states probably better than we.  I think that Nagel has hit it
on the head (in "What is it like to be a Bat" I saw this article in "The
Minds I") with his notion of "it is (or is not) like something to be
that thing."  So it is like something to be a person and presumably is
not like something to be a computer.  For a machine to be intelligent
and truly understand it must be like something to be that machine. Only
then can we credit that machine with a point of view and stop looking at
the symbols it uses as "mere" symbols.  Those symbols will have content
from the machine's point of view.  Now, how does it get to be like
something to be a machine? I don't know but I know it has a lot more to
do with the Turing test than what kind of memory orgainization or search
algorithms the machine uses.

Sorry if this is incoherent, but it's not a paper so I'm not going to
proof it. I'd also like to comment on the claim that:
  "  I would claim, that the conviction mentioned above {that machines
can't equal humans} however philosphical or sophisticated it may be
justified, is only the "RATIONALIZATION"..  of understandable   but
irrational and normally unconscious existential fears and need of human
beings"  but this message is too long anyway.  Suffice it too say that
one can find a nasty Freudian interpretation of any point.

I'd appreciate hearing any comments on the above ramblings.

>Chuck

ARPA: chuck.edservices@Xerox.COM

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
197
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 13:30 EDT
-FROM-
From: Brad Miller <miller@UR-ACORN.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: New University of Rochester HORNE system available
-BODY-
The University of Rochester HORNE reasoning system has just been rereleased in
common-lisp form, currently running on a symbolics (though any common-lisp
system should be able to run it with minor porting).

Features:
        Horne Clause resolution prover (similar to PROLOG) with typed
unification and specialized reasoner for equalities (e.g. A and B can be
asserted to be equal, and so will unify). Equalities can be asserted between
any ground forms including functions with ground terms. A forward chaining
proof mechanism, and an interface between this system and arbitrary
common-lisp forms are also provided.

        As part of the same release we are providing REP, a frame-like
knowledge representation system built on top of the theorem prover, which uses
sturctured types to represent sets of objects. A structured type may have
relations (or "roles") between its set of objects and other sets. Arbitrary
instances of an object may be asserted to be equal to another instance which
will utelize the underlying HORNE equality mechanisms.

HORNE is the product of several years of R&D in the Natural Language
Understanding and Knowledge Representation projects supervised by Prof. James
Allen at the University of Rochester, and forms the basis for much of our
current implementation work.

A tutorial introduction and manual, TR 126 "The HORNE reasoning system in
Common-Lisp" by Allen and Miller is available for $2.50 from the following
address:

Ms. Peg Meeker
Technical Reports Administrator
Department of Computer Science
617 Hylan Building
University of Rochester
River Campus
Rochester, NY 14627

In addition a DC300XL cartridge tape in Symbolics distribution format, or
Symbolics carry-tape format (also suitable for TI Explorers), or a 1/2"
1600bpi reel in 4.2BSD TAR format (other formats are not available) is
available from the above address for a charge of $100.00 which will include
one copy of the TR.  This charge is made to defray the cost of the tape,
postage, and handling. The software itself is in the public domain. Larger
contributions are, of course, welcome.  Please specify which format tape you
wish to receive. By default, we will send the Symbolics distribution format.

All checks should be made payable to "University of Rochester, Computer
Science Department". POs from other Universities are also acceptable. Refunds
for any reason are not available.

DISCLAIMER: The software is supplied "as-is" without any implied warrenties of
merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. We are not responsible
for any consequential damages as the result of using this software.  We are
happy to accept bug reports, but promise to fix nothing. Updates are not
included; future releases (if any) will probably be made available under a
similar arrangement to this one, but need not be. In other words, what you get
is what you get.

Brad Miller
Computer Science Department
University of Rochester
miller@rochester.arpa
miller@ur-acorn.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 86 17:08:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: Jack Minker <minker@mimsy.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Parallel Inference System at Maryland
-BODY-

        [Excerpted from the Prolog digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]


            AI and Database Research Laboratory
                           at the
                   University of Maryland
                   Jack Minker - Director


     The AI and Database Research Laboratory at the  Univer-
sity  of  Maryland  is  pleased  to announce that a parallel
logic programming system (PRISM) is now operational  on  the
McMOB  multiprocessosor.  The system uses up to sixteen pro-
cessors to exploit medium grained parallelism in logic  pro-
grams.   The underlying ideas behind PRISM appeared in [Eis-
inger et. al., 1982] and [Kasif et. al., 1983].

[...]

     If you would like further information on PRISM,  please
contact  MINKER@MARYLAND  or MADHUR@MARYLAND.  We would also
be very interested in hearing from people who may have prob-
lems we could run on PRISM.

References:

1.   Eisinger, N., Kasif, S., and Minker,  J.,  "Logic  Pro-
     gramming:  A  Parallel Approach", in Proceedings of the
     First International Logic Programming Conference,  Mar-
     seilles, France, 1982.

2.   Kasif, S., Kohli, M., and Minker, J., "PRISM - A Paral-
     lel Inference System for Problem Solving", in IJCAI-83,
     Karlsruhe, Germany, 1983.

3.   Rieger, C., Bane, j., and Trigg, R.,  "ZMOB:  A  Highly
     Parallel  Multiprocessor",  University of Maryland, TR-
     911, May 1980

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ****** AI AT UPCOMING CONFERENCES ******
-BODY-
AI papers at November 2-6, 1986 FJCC, Dallas Texas

Professional Education Program Items
John D. McGregor, Building Expert Systems Workshop
Loiss Boggess and Julia Hodges, Knowledge-Based-Based Expert
Systems
Benjamin Wah,Architectures for AI Applications
Michael Lebowitz, Natural Language Processing
Michael Lebowitz, Machine Learning
Paul Bamberg, Speech Recognition:From Isolated Digits to Natural
Language Dissertation
John Kender and Takeo Kanade, Computer Vision from an AI Perspective
Douglas DeGroot, Prolog and Knowledge INfo Processing
Harland H. Black, AI Programming and Environments

Paper Sessions

AI-1, November 4, 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM
Panel Session on "Design Issues and Practice in AI Programming"

AI-2 Session 1, November 5, 10:00 am to noon, Computer Vision
Generic Surface Interpretation Inference Rules and Quasi-Invariants
  Thomas Binford, Stanford U.
An Overview of Computation of Structure and Motion From Images
  J. K. Aggarwal, University of Texas at Austin
Industrial World Vision
  Robert Haralick, Machine Vision International

AI-2 Session 2, November 5, 1:30 PM-3:30PM
Survey of Image Quality Measurements
  I. Abdou and N. Dusaussoy, University of Delaware
A Spatial Knowledge Structure for Image Information Systems Using
Symbolic Projects
  S. K. Chang, U. of Pittsburgh, E. Jungert, FFV Elektronic A. B.
Document Image Understanding
  S. N. Srihari, SUNY at Buffalo

AI-3 Session 1, November 5 3:45 PM- 5:15 PM, Robotics
Living in a Dynamic World
  Russell A. Andersson, AT&T Bell Labs
Error Modeling in Stereo Navigation
  L. Matthies and S. A. Shafer, Carnegie Mellon U
CMU Sidewalk Navigation System
  Y. Goto, et. al. Carnegie Mellon U.

AI-3 Session 2, November 6 10AM - noon
Automatic Gasp Planning: An Operation Space Approach
  M. T. Mason  R. C. Brost Carnegie Mellon U.
Planning Stable Grasps for Multi-fingered Hands
  V. Nguyen, MIT
Off-line Planning for On-line Object Localization
  T. Lozano-perez, W.E. Grimson, MIT

AI-3 Session 3, Novmeber 6, 1:30 PM - 3:30pm

AMLX: A Manufacturing Language/Extended
  L. Nackman, et al. IBM t. J. Watson Research Center
SATYR and the NYMPH: SoftwareDesign in a Multiprocessor
for Control Systems
  J. B. Chen et. al. Stanford University
The Meglos User Interface
  R. Gaglianello and H. Katseff, AT&T Bell Laboratories
A Robot Force and Motion Server
  R. Paul and H. Zhang, University of Pennsylvania

AI4, Session 1 November 5, 1:30pm - 3:30 pm, Rule Based
  Systems
The AI-ADA Interface
  Dr. Jorge Diaz-Herrera, George Mason University
The AI-LiISP Environment
  Dr. Harry Tennant, Texas Instruments
The AI PROLOG Environment: SIMPOS- Sequential Inference
Machine Programming
  Drs. H. Ishibashi, T. Chikayama, H. Sato, M. Sato and
  S. Uchida, ICOT Research Center
Software Engineering for Rule-Based systems
  R. J. K. Jacob and J. N. Froscher, Naval Research
  Laboratory

Session 2: Knowledge Engineering pannel, November 5,
  3:45 PM - 5:15 PM
  Dr. Richard Wexelblat, Philips Lab, Chair
  Dr. Paul Benjamin, Philips Laboratories
  Dr. Christina Jette, Schlumberger Well Services
  Dr. STeve Pollit, Digital Equipment

Session 3:, November 6, 1:30PM - 3:30 PM

"An Organizational Frameworks for Building Adapative Artificial
Intelligence Systems:
  T. Blaxton and B. Kushner, BDM Corporation
"An Object/Task Modelling Approach"
  Q. Chen, Beijing Research Institute of Surveying and Mapping
"A Plant INtelligent Supervisory Control Expert System:
  M. Ali and E. Washington, Unviersity of Tennessee
"Knowledge-Based Layout Design System for Industrial Plants"
  K. Yoshida, et. al., Hitachi Ltd.

Session 4: Prolog and Frame based Methods, November 6, 3:45 pm to 5:15 pm
"A Logic-Programming Approach to Frame-Based Language Design"
  H. H. Chen, I. P. Lin and C. P. Wu, National Taiwan University
"Interfacing Prolog to Pascal"
  K. Magel, North Dakota State University
"Knowledge-Based Optimization in Prolog Compiler"
  N. Tamura, Japan Science Institute, IBM Japan

Natural Language Processing, Session 1, Nov. 4 10AM - noon
"Communication with Expert Systems"
  Kathleen R. McKeown, Columbia University
"Language Analysis in Not-So-Limited Domains"
  Dr. Paul S. Jacobs, General Electric, R&D
"Providing Expert Systems with INtegrated Natural Language and Graphical
Interfaces"
  Dr. Philip J. Hayes, Carnegie Group Inc.
"Pragmatic Processes in a Portable NL System"
  Dr. Paul Martin, SRI_AI Center

Session 2:Nov 4 1:30-3:30pm
"Uses of Structured Knowledge Representation Systems in Natural Language
Processing"
  N. Sondheimer, University of Southern California
"Unifying Lexical, Syntactic and Semantic Text Processing"
  K. Eiselt, University of California at Irvine
"Robustness in Natural Language Interfaces"
  R. Cullingford, Georgia Tech
"Connectionist Approaches to Natural Language Processing"
  G. Cottrell, UC of San Diego

Panel: Problems and Prospects of NLP NOvember 4, 3:45pm - 5:15pm
Chair: Dr. Philip J. Hayes
Gene Charniak, Brown University, Dave Waltz Thinking Machines
Robert Wilensky, UC at Berkeley, Gary Hendrix, Symantec, Jerry Hobbs, SRI

"Parallel Processing for AI" Tuesday November 4 10am - 12noon
"Parallel Prodcessing of a Knowledge-Based Vision System"
  D. I. Moldovan and C. I. Wu, USC

"A Fault Tolerant, Bit-Parallel, Cellular Array Processor"
  S. Morton, ITt-Advanced Technology Center
"Implementation of Parallel Prolog onTree Machines"
  M. Imai, Toyohashi University of Technology
"Optimal Granularity of Parallel Evaluation of AND-Trees"
  G. J. Li and B. W. Wah, University of Illinois at Urbana

(some of the following sessions contain non-AI papers that are not listed)
Session 2: New Directions in Optical Computing" November 4 1:30pm - 3:30 pm
  "Optical Symbolic Computing" Dr. John Neff, DARPA/DSO andB. Kushner, BDM Co.


VLSI Design and Test: Theory and Practice, Nov 4 10AM - 12 noon

A Knowledge-Based TDM Selection System
  M. E. Breuer and X. Zhu, USC

Expert Systems for Design and Test Thursday, November 6, 10AM - 12 noon
DEFT, A Design for Testability Expert System
  J. A. B. Fortes and M. A. Samad
Experiences in Prolog DFT Rule Checking
  G. Cabodi, P. Camurati and P. Prinetto, Politecnico di Torino

Object-Oriented Software, Tuesday, November 4 1:30pm - 3:30 pm
"Some Problems with Is-A: Why Properties are Objects"
  Prof. Stan Zdonik, Brown University

Computer Chess Techniques
"Phased State Space Search" T. A. Marsland, University of Alberta and
N. Srimani, Southern Illinois U.
"A MultiprocessorChess Program" J. Schaeffer, University of Alberta
Panel Discussion
Tony Marsland, U. of Alberta, Hans Berliner, CMU, Ken Thompson, AT&T Bell Labs
Prof. Monroe Newborn, McGill University, David Levy, IntelligentSoftware,
Prof. Robert Hyatt,U. of Southern Mississippi

Searching, Nov 6, 10AM - 12 noon
"Combining Symmetry and Searching",
  L. Finkelstein, et al. Northeastern University

Fifth Generation Computers I: Language Arch, Nov 5, 10AM - 12 noon
Knowledge-Based Expert System for Hardware Logic Design
  T. Mano et. al. Fujitsu
Research Activities on Natural Language Processing of the FGCS Project
  H. Miyhoshi, et al., ICOT
ARGOS/V: A System for Verification of Prolog Programs
  H. Fujita, et al., Mitsubishi Electric

Session 4: "Supercomputing Systems" November 6 10:00am - noon
The IX Supercomputer for Knowledge Based Systems
  T. Higuchi, et al. ETL

(There are positions as volunteers available for which you get to attend
the conference and get a copy of the proceedings in exchange for helping
out one day.  If interested call, 409-845-8981.  The program is oriented
towards graduate students and seniors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Compsac 86, Conference October 7-10 1986, Americana Congress Hotel, Chicago Ill

Tutorial: October 6, 1986, 9AM - 5PM
Doug DeGroot, Prolog and Knowledge Information Processing

October 8 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM
Modularized OPS-Based Expert Systems Using Unix Tools
  Pamela T. Surko, AT&T Bell Labs
Space Shuttle Main Engine Test Analysis: A Case Study for Inductive Knowledge
Based systems for Very Large Databases
  Djamshid Asgari, Rockwell International
  Kenneth L. Modesitt, California State University
A Knowledge Based Software Maintenance Environment;
  Steven S. Yau, Sying-Syang Liu, Northwestern University

October 8 2:00PM - 3:30 PM
An Evaluation of Two New INference Control Methods
  Y. H. Chin, W. L. Peng, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
Learning Dominance Relations inCombinatorial Search Problems
  Chee-Fen Yu, Benjamin Wah of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Fuzzy Reasoning Based on Lambda-LH Resolution
  Xu-Hua Liu, Carl K. Chang and Jing-Pha Tsai, University of Illinois at
Chicago

4:00-5:30PM Panel Discussion on the Impact of Knowledge-Based Technology
Chair: Charl K. Chang, University of Illinois at Chicago
Panelists: Don McNamara GE Corporate Research, Kiyoh Nakamura, Fujitsu (Japan),
Wider Yu, AT&T Bell Labs, R. C. T. Lee, National Hsing Hua Univeristy, Taiwan

Thursday, October 9, 1986, 10:30 - 12:00 PM
Special Purpose Computer Systems for Supporting AI Applications
Minireview by Benjamin Wah, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

__________________________________________________________________________
ACM Conference on Office Information Systems, October 6-8 1986, Providence
Rhode Island

October 6, 1986 2:45 - 4:5PM
Adaptive Interface Design: A Symmetric Model and a
  Knowledge-Based Implementation
  Sherman W. Tyler, Siegfried Treu, University of Pittsburgh
Automating Review of Forms for International Trade Transactions: A Natural
Language Processing Approach
  V. Dhar, P. Ranganathan

October 8, 1986 9:10:15AM
Panel on "AI in the Office", Chair Gerald Barber

October 8, 1986 10:30 - 12:00 AM Organizational Analysis: Organizational
Ecology
Modelling Due Process in the Workplace
  Elihu M. Gerson, Susan L. Star, Tremont Research Institute
An Empirical Study of the INtegration of Computing into Routine Work
  Les Gasser, University of Southern California
Offices are Open Systems
  Carl Hewitt, MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

October 8, 1986 1:00 - 2:30PM
Handling Shared Resources in a Temporal Data Base Management System
  Thomas L. Dean, Brown University
Language Constructs for Programming by Example
  Robert V. Rubin, Brown University
Providing Intelligent Assistance in Distributed Office Environments
  Sergei Nirenburg, Victor Lessor Colgate University/ University of
Massachusett

__________________________________________________________________________
Fourth Symposium on Empirical Foundations of Information and Software Sciences
October 22-24 Atlanta Georgia

October 22, 1:30-3:15 PM
Expert Systems for Knowledge Engineering: Modesof Development
  Glynn Harmon, University of Texas, Austin

October 23, 10:45 - 12:30 AM
Face to Machine Interaction in Natural Language: Empirical Results of Field
Studies with an English and German Interface
  Juergen Krause, Universitaet Regensburg, F. R. Germany

October 24, 9:00 - 10:30AM
Evaluating Natural Language INterfaces to Expert Systems
  Ralph M. Weischedel BBN, Cambridge MA
Couting Leaves: An Evaluation of Ada, LISP and Prolog
  Jagdish C. Agrawal, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL
  Shan Manicam, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC

__________________________________________________________________________
The Fourth Chautaqua, October 25-29, 1986, Coronado, California

Session 9 Knowledge Based Systems 10:30-12:30PM

Knowledge-based Systems Development of CNC Software,
  Roy Tsui, Software R&D Engineer, Pneumo Precision, INc., Allied Company
Towards Resident Expertise in Systems Design
  Dr. Medhat Karima, CAD/CAM Consultant, Ontario CAD/CAM Center
The Engineer as an Expert System Builder
  Dr. Richard Rosen, Vice President, Product Development, Silogic Inc.
An Overview of Knowledge-Based Systems for Design and Manufacturing
  Dr. Larry G. Richards, Director, Master's Program, University of Virginia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
198
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 03:49:19 EDT
-FROM-
From: Marty Lyons  <MARTY%ORION.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Address correction for ref. in Vol 4, Issue 195
-BODY-

  Just in case someone might have problems with USPS, Medfor
should read Medford below. (Actually, mail to them should get
there anyway, as long as you remember the zip, but just in case...)
> AIList Digest      Thursday, 25 Sep 1986
-VOL-
4

-N-
195
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 09:59 EDT
-FROM-
From: Hirshfield@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computers and Writing - A Solicitation
-BODY-

I am soliciting contributions for a volume entitled Computers and
Writing:  Theory and Research to be published as part of Ablex
Publishing's Writing Research Series.  As the title implies, the volume
will be devoted to research and theoretical investigations of the
interactions of computing and writing and will focus on long- range
prospects.  Potential contributors include Richard Mayer, Colette
Daiute, Cynthia Selfe and Jim Levin.

I would be pleased to hear of any papers or any ongoing studies that
relate to this exciting topic.  Please respond asap by net to Hirshfield
at RADC-multics, or write directly to Stuart Hirshfield, Department of
Mathematics and Computer Science, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Sep 1986 17:48 (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: munnari!nswitgould.oz!wray@seismo.CSS.GOV (Wray Buntine)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Prospector ESs for IBM-PC
-BODY-

OK, I've seen the recent list of IBM-PC Expert System Shells,
But which PROSPECTOR-type shells have the following
        ability to link in external routines
          i.e. we have some C code that provides answers for some leaf nodes
I'd be grateful for any pointers re reliability and backup as well.

Wray Buntine

wray@nswitgould.oz.au@seismo
seismo!munnari!nswitgould.oz!wray

Computing Science
NSW Inst. of Tech.
PO Box 123, Broadway, 2007
Australia

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 1986 11:08-EDT
-FROM-
From: Hans.Tallis@ml.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Learning via ES Rule Refinement?
-BODY-
I am working in learning by refining a given set of
expert system rules.  Ideally the learning cycle will involve no
humans in the loop.  I am familiar with Politakis's SEEK work already, but
pointers to other programs would be greatly appreciated.
>-tallis@ml.ri.cmu.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 11:10:16 edt
-FROM-
From: philabs!micomvax!peters@tezcatlipoca.CSS.GOV
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: micomva!peters@tezcatlipoca.CSS.GOV (peter srulovicz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: character recognition
-BODY-

We are starting a project that will involve a fair amount of character
recognition, both typed and handwritten. If anyone out there has information
about public domain software or software that can be purchased please let me
hear from you.

email: !philabs!micomvax!peters
mail:  Peter Srulovicz
       Philips Information Systems
       600 Dr. Philips Blvd
       St. Laurent Quebec
       Canada H4M-2S9

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 1986 11:13:45 EDT
-FROM-
From: David Smith <DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 on the PC
-BODY-
There is an OPS5 called TOPSI available for the IBM PC from
        Dynamic Master Systems, Inc (404)565-0771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 12:09:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: Gordon Joly <XTSY13%syse.surrey.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: What's wrong with Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
Was Clocksin and Mellish handed down on tablets of stone? An which PROLOG
can claim to fulfill all the theoretical goals, eg be truly declarative?

Gordon Joly.
INET: joly%surrey.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
EARN: joly%uk.ac.surrey@AC.UK

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Sep 1986 14:45:40 EDT (Thu)
-FROM-
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox vs Symbolics -- Reference counts vs Garbage collection
-BODY-
In AIList Digest V4 #191, Steven J. Clark responds to the statement
that ``Garbage collection is much more sophisticated on Symbolics''
with his belief that ``To my knowledge this is absolutely false.  S.
talks about their garbage collection more, but X's is better.''

Let me first deplore the abuse of language by which it is claimed that
Xerox has a garbage collector at all.  In the language of computer
science, Xerox reclaims storage using a ``reference counter''
technique, rather than a ``garbage collector.''  This terminology
appears in Knuth's 1973 *Art of Computer Programming* and originated in
papers published in 1960.  I remain undecided as to whether Xerox's
misuse of the term stems from an attempt at conciseness, ignorance of
standard terminology, or a conscious act of deceit.

The question remains of whether Interlisp-D or Zetalisp has the more
effective storage reclamation technique.  I suspect the answer depends
on the programmer.  If we are to believe Xerox, the reference counter
technique is fundamentally faster, and reclaims acceptable amounts of
storage.  However, it is apparent that reference counters will never
reclaim circular list structure.  As a frequent user of circular list
structure (doubly-linked lists, anyone?), I find the lack tantamount to
a failure to reclaim storage.  Apparently Xerox's programmers perform
their own careful deallocation of circular structures (opening the
cycles before dropping the references to the structures).  If I wanted
to do that, I would write my programs in C.

I have never understood why Xerox continues to neglect to write a
garbage collector.  It is not necessary to stop using reference counts,
but simply to have a garbage collector available for those putatively
rare occasions when they run out of memory.

Dan Hoey

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Summary, August 1986
-BODY-
Spang Robinson Report Summary, August 1986, Volume 2 No. 8

23 Artificial Intelligence Application Products are out and are being used by
customers.

Spang Robinson tracked down 92 specific applications in 56 different
companies, agencies or institutions that are being used by someone
other than the developers.  24 of these are in diagnostics, 22 in
manufacturing, 14 in computers, 6 in geology, 6 in chemistry, 5 in
military, 4 in agriculture, 4 in medicine and 7 in "other".

DEC has 20 expert systems in use with 50 under development.  IBM has
six in use and 64 in development.

TSA Associates that there are 1000 applications fielded on microcomuters.

Dataquest claims that revenues from shell products will reach 44
million in 1986, up from 22 million in 1985.  The majority of this is
for product training as opposed to actual price for the product.  They
are estimating expert systems applications to reach ten million.

AIC has sold 500 copies of Intellect, a high-end natural language
package and will receive 6 to 8 million dollars of revenue in 1986.
Symantec's Q&A has sold 17,000 copies of Q&A, a [micro - LEFF] product
with embedded natural language.

There are 24 to 30 companies with viable commercial speech recognition
products with market growth between 20 and 30 percent.  The 1986
market will be 20 million up from 16 million.

There are 100 companies in machine vision.  1985 market is estimated
at 150 million dollars.  General Motors bought 50 million of these
products.

Also, there is a discussion of estimates of how many working expert
systems there are for each expert-shell product.

__________________________________________________________________________
Micro Trends

Teknowledge has 2500 run-time systems.  Level 5 has 50 completed applications
with 200 run-time systems sold.  One of these systems has 3000 rules spread
across nine knowledge bases for one system.  Exsys has 200 applications with
2100 run-times.

__________________________________________________________________________
List of commercially available expert systems
Bravo: VLSI circuit design and layout (applicon)
Equinox: sheet metal design (applicon)
Mechanical Advantage 1000: MCAE with intelligent sketchpad (cognition)
Manufacturing and Operations Management and Financial Advisor (Palladian)
Expert Manufacturing Planning Systems (Tipnis, Inc.)
PlanPower: financial planning system (Applied Expert System)
Planman and Database; financial planning and report writer (Sterling
    Wentworth Corp.)
Profit Tool: financial services sales aid (Prophecy Development Corp)
Stock Portfolio Analysis and Futures Price Indexing (Athena Group, NY)
Newspaper Layout System (Composition Systems)
CEREBRAL MANAGER: manages document release process (KODAK)
ICAD: production design system (ICAD, Inc.)
MORE: direct marketing advisor and evaluation of mailing lists
ULTRAMAX: a self-learning expert system to optimize operations (Ultramax Corp.)
TRANSFORM/IMS (applications generator in COBOL (Transform Logic, Inc.)
TIMM TUNER: tuning for DEC VAXs (General Research  Corporation)
HYPERCALC: an intelligent spreadsheet for LISP machines (Chaparral Dallas)
REFINE: knowledge based software development environment (Reasoning
    systems, Inc.)
XMP: Expert Project Manager (XSP Corporation)
LEXAN: diagnostics for injection-molded plastic parts (GE)

Internally developed expert systems

Computers and electronics
XCON,XSEL, XSITE, configures VAX orders, checks them for accuracy and plan site
    layout
CALLISTRO: assisting in managing resources for chip designers (DEC)
DAS-LOGIC assists with logic designers
COMPASS analyzes maintenance records for telephone switching system
    and suggests maintenance actions
???? - System for design of digital circuits (Hughes)
CSS: aids in planning relocation, reinstallation and rearrangement of
    IBM mainframes (IBM)
PINE: guides people writing reports on analysis of software problems (IBM)
QMF Advisor: used by customer advisors to help customers access IMS
    databases (IBM)
Capital Assests Movements: help move capital assets quickly
OCEAN: checks orders for computer systems (NCR)

Diagnostic and/or preventive maintenance systems, internal use

AI-Spear: tape drives (DEC)
NTC:  Ethernet and DECNET networks (DEC)
PIES circuit fabrication line  (Fairchild)
Photolithographjy advisor:  photolithography steps (Hewlett-Packard)
DIG Voltage Tester: digital voltage sources in testing lab   (Lockheed)
BDS:  baseband distribution system of commuications hardware (Lockheed)
ACE:  telephone lines (Southwest Bell)
DIAG8100  DP equipment (Travelers Insurance)
????:  soup cookers (Campbell Soups)
Engine Cooling Advisor: engine cooling system (DELCO Products)
???? - peripherals (Hewlett-Packard)
PDS: machine processes (Westinghouse)
DOC: hardware and software bug analysis for Prime 750 (Prime)
???: hardware (NCR)
TITAN: TI 990 Minicomputer (Radian/TI)
Radar Tracking: object tracking software for radar
      (Arthur D. Little/Defense Contractor)
????: circuit board (Hughes)
XMAN: aircraft engines (Systems Control Technology/Air Force Logistics Command)
????: circuit fault (Maritn Marietta)
????: power system diagnosis (NASA)

Manufacturing or design, internal developed

????: brushes and springs for small electric motors (Delco)
ISA: schedules orders for manufacturing and delivery (DEC)
DISPATCHER: schedules dispatching of parts for robots (DEC)
ISI: schedules manufacturing steps in job shop (Westinghouse)
CELL DESIGNERS: reconfigures factories for group technologies (Arthur Anderson)
WELDSELECTOR: welding engineering (Colorodo School of Mines and TI)
????: configures aircraft electrical system components (Westinghouse)
CASE: electrical connector assembly (BOEING)
FACTORY LAYOUT: ADL
TEST FLOW DESIGN: quality test and rework sequencing (ADL for defense
                  contractor)
PTRANS: planning computer systems (DEC/CMU)
PROCESS CONTROL: monitors alkylation plant (ADL)
TEST FOR STORAGE SUBSYSTEM HARDWARE: IBM
???: Capacity Planning for System 38 (IBM)
??? optimization of chemical plant for EXXON
???: manage and predict weather conditions TEXACO
???: manufacturing simulation BADGER CO.
???: expert system connected to robot HERMES (Oak Ridge National Lab)
???: nuclear fuel enhancement (Westinghouse)
???: dry dock loading (General Dynamics)

Medicine, internal development
????: serum protein analysis: Helena Labs
PUFF: pulmonary function test interpretation: Pacific Medical Center
ONCOCIN: cancer therapy manager: Stanford Oncology Clinic
CORY: diagnoses invasive cardiac testas: Cedars Sinai Medimum Center
TQMSTUNE: tunes tripple quadrupole mass spectrometer
                (Lawrence Livermore National Labs)
DENDRAL: Molecular Design, Ltd.
Synchem: plans chemical synthesis tests: SUNY-Stonybrook
THEORISTS: polymer properties (3M)
???: organic chemical analysis (Hewlett-Packard)
APPL: real time control of chemical processes related to aircraft parts
      (Lockheed-Georgia)

Geology Internally Developed Systems

SECOFOR: drill bit sticking problems (Elf-Aquitatine)
GEOX: identifies earth minerals from remotely sensed hyperspectral image data
     (NASA)
MUDMAN: diagnoses drilling mud problems (NL Industries)
oNIX and DIPMETER ADVISOR: oil well logging data related systems(Schlumberger)
TOGA: analyze power transformation conditions (Radian/ for Hartford
    Steamboiler, Inspection and Insurance Co.)

Agriculture Internally Developed Systems

WHEAT COUNSELOR: diasease control (ICI)
POMME: apple orchard management (VA Poly inst.)
PLANT/cd and PLANT/ds: soybean diseases (University of Illinois)
GRAIN MARKETING ADVISOR: (PUrdue University and TI)

Military

AALPS: cargo planning for aircraft (US Army)
RNTDS: design command and control programs for ships (Sperry)
SONAR DOME TESTING: analysis of trials of sonar systems (ADL for defence
    contractor)
NAVEX: assistant to shuttle operations (NASA)

IMAGE INTERPRETATION: analyse aerial reconniassance photos (ADL for defense
    contractor)

Other

INFORMART ADVISOR: Advises shoppers on computer purchases
TVX: Teaches VMS operating systems (DEC)
DECGUIDE: teaches rules for design checking (Lockheed)
SEMACS: monitors Securities INdustry Automation Companies Network (SIAC/Sperry)
Financial Statement Analyser: Arthur Anderson

__________________________________________________________________________
Neuron Data plans to have NEXPERT running on the PC/AT, and the MICRO VAX.
The new system will have frames, object hierarchies and the ability to
move data among concurrently running programs which will allow them to
do blackboarding.

__________________________________________________________________________
Paine Webber has downgraded Symbolics from "Buy" to "Attractive" due
to 'market place confusion caused by Symbolics imminent transition to
gate-array-based."

Intellicorp got a "neutral' rating from Paine Webber due to the fact that
it runs 'unaacceptably slowly' and that 'rapid expansion and redeployment
of talent may strain IntelliCorp's sale forces ability to produce'

__________________________________________________________________________
Symbolics prices

3620 will sell at $49,900 and 3650 will sell for $65,900.  Symbolics
has introduced a product to allow developers to prevent users from accidentally
accessing underlying software utilities.

__________________________________________________________________________
Ibuki has announced Kyoto Common Lisp.  It takes 1.4MB with the kernel
in C.  It costs $700.00 and runs on AT&T 3B2, Integrated Solutions,
Ultrix, Suns, and 4bsd

__________________________________________________________________________
Integrated Inference Machines has announced SM45000 symbolic
machines.  It is microcodable for various languages and costs from $39,000
to $44,000.  The company claims more performance than a Symbolics.

__________________________________________________________________________
reviews of Wendy B. Rauch-Hindin's two volume Artificial Intelligence in
Business, Science and Industry, Artificial Intelligence Enters the Marketplace
by Larry Harris and Dwight Davis.  and Who's Who in Artifificial Intelligence.
The latter contains 399 individual biographies as well as other info.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
199
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian Artificial Intelligence, June 1986
-BODY-
Summary:

Report of Outgoing and Ingoing Presidents

Interact R&D Starts AI division

Review of 1986 Canadian AI Conference at Montreal.  It had 375
people registered.  Best appaer was James Delgrande of Simon
Fraser University.

The Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence is
now up to 800 from 250 two years ago.  (This was prior to including
people who became members upon paying non-member fees at the Canadian
AI conference).

Proceedings of the 1986 Conference costs $30.00

Contents

Why Kids Should Learn to Program,
  Elliot Soloway, Yale University
Generative Structure in Enumerative Learning Systems
  Robert C. Holte, Brunel Univeristy,
  R. Michael Warton, York University
Detecting Analogous Learning
  Ken Wellsch, Marlene Junes of University of Waterloo
GUMS: A General User Modeling System
  Tim Finin, University of Pennsylvania
  Dave Drager, Arity Corporation
An Efficient Tableau-Based Theorem Prover
  Franz Oppacher, Ed Suen of Carleton University
Domain Circumscription Revisited
  David Etherington, Universityof British Columbia
  Robert Mercer, University of Western Ontario
A Propositional Logic for Natural Kinds
  James Delgrande, Simon Fraser University
Fagin and Halpern on Logical Omniscienceses: A Critique with an Alternative
  Robert F. Hadley Simon Fraser University
Representing Contextual Dependencies in Discourse
  Tomek Strzalkowski, Simon Fraser University
A Domain-Independent Natural Language Database Interface
  Yawar Ali, Raymond Aubin, Barry Hall, Bell Northern Research
Natural Language Report Synthesis: An Application to Marine Weather Forecasts
  R. Kittredge, A. Polguere of Universite de Montreal
  E. Goldberg Environment Canada
What's in an Answer: A Theoretical Perspectiveon Deductive Questioning
Answering
  Lenhart Schubert, L. Watanabe of University of Alberta
A New Implementation for Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar
  Philip Harrison, Michael Maxwell Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
TRACK: Toward a Robust Natural Language INterface
  Sandra Carberry, University of Delaware
Representation of Negative and Incomplete Information in Prolog
  Kowk Hung Chan, University of Western Ontario
On the Logic of Representing Dependencies by Graphs,
  Judea Pearl of Universityof California
  Azaria Paz Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
A proposal of Modal Logic Programming (Extended Abstract)
  Seiki Akama, Fujitsu ltd., Japan
Classical Equality and Prolog
  E. W. Elcock and P. Hoddinott of University of Western Ontario
Diagnosis of Non-Syntactic Programming Errors in the Scent Advisor
  Gordon McCalla, Richard B. Bunt, Janelle J. Harms of University of
  Saskatchewan
Using Relative Velocity INformation to Constrain the Motion Correspondence
Problem
  Michael Dawson and Zenon Pylyshyn, University of Western Ontario
Device Representation Using Instantiation Rules and Structural Templates
  Mingruey R. Taie, Sargur N. Srihari, James Geller, Stuart C. Shapro
  of State University of New York at Buffalo
Machine Translation Between Chinese and English
  Wanying Jin, University of Texas at Austin
Interword Constraints in Visual Word Recognition
  Jonathan J. Hull, State University of New York at Buffalo
Sensitivity to Corners inFlow Paterns
  Norah K. Link and STeve Zucker, McGill University
Stable Surface Estimation
  Peter T. Sander, STeve Zucker, McGill University
Measuring Motion in Dynamic Images: A Clustering Approach
  Amit Bandopadhay and R. Dutta, University of Rochester
Determining the 3-D Motion of a Rigid Surface Patch without Correspondence,
Under Perspective Projection
  John Aloimonos and Isidore Rigoutsos, University of Rochester
Active Navigation
  Amit Bandopadhay, Barun Chandra and Dana H. Ballard, University of Rochester
Combining Visual and Tactile Perception for Robotics
  J. C. Rodger and Roger A. Browse, Queens University
Observation on the Role of Constraints in Problem Solving
  Mark Fox of Carnegie-Mellon University
Rule Interaction in Expert System Knowledge Bases
  Stan Raatz, University of Pennsylvania
  George Drastal, Rutgers University
Towards User specific Explanations from Expert Systems
  Peter van Beek and Robin Cohen, University of Waterloo
DIALECT: An Expert Assistant for Informatin REtrieval
  Jeane-Claude Bassano, Universite de Paris-Sud
Subdivision of Knowledge for Igneous Rock Identification
  Brian W. Otis, MIT Lincoln Lab
  Eugene Freuder, University of New Hampshire
A Hybrid, Decidable, Logic-Based Knowledge Representation System
  Peter Patel-Schneider, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research
The Generalized-Concept Formalism: A Frames and Logic Based Representation
Model
  Mira Balaban, State University of New York at Albany
Knowledge Modules vs Knowledge-Bases: A Structure for Representing the
Granularity of Real-World Knowledge
  Diego Lo Giudice and Piero Scaruffi, Olivetti Artificial Intelligence Center,
  Italy
Reasoning in a Hierarchy of Deontic Defaults
  Frank M. Brown, Universityof Kansas
Belief Revision in SNeps
  Joao P. Martins Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal
  Stuart C. Shapiro, State University of New York at Buffalo
GENIAL: Un Generateur d'Interface en Langue Naturelle
  Bertrand Pelletier et Jean Vaucher, Universite de Montreal
Towards a Domain-Independent Method of Comparing Search Algorithm Run-times
  H. W. Davis, R. B. Polack, D. J. Golden of Wright State University
Properties of Greedily Optimized Ordering Problems
  Rina Dechter, Avi Dechter, University of California, Los Angeles
Mechanisms in ISFI: A Technical Overview (Short Form)
  Gary A. Cleveland TheMITRE Corp.
Un Systeme Formel de Caracterisation de L'Evolution des Connaissances
  Eugene Chouraqui, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Une Experience de l'Ingenierie de la Connaissance: CODIAPSY Developpe avec
HAMEX
  Michel Maury, A. M. Massote, Henri Betaille, J. C. Penochet et Michelle
  Negre of CRIME et GRIP, Montpellier, France

__________________________________________________________________________
Report on University of Waterloo Research on Logic Mediated Knowledge
Based Personal Information Systems

They received a 3 year $450,000 grant.  They will prototype Theorist, a PROLOG
based system, in which they will implement a diagnostic system with natural
language interface for complex system, a system to diagnose children's
reading disabilities.  They will also develop a new Prolog in which
to write Theorist.

This group has already implemented DLOG, a "logic-based knowledge
representation
sytem", two Prologs (one of which will be distributed by University of
wAterloo's Computer System Group), designed Theorist, implemented an expert
system for diagnosing reading disabilities (which will be redone in Theoritst)
and designed a new architecture for Prolog, and implemented Concurrent Prolog.

__________________________________________________________________________
Reviews of John Haugeland's "Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea"
"The Connection Machine" by W W. Daniel HIllis, "Models of the Visual
Cortex" by David Rose and Vernon G. Dobson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Sep 86 08:12:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Intelligence and Representation
-BODY-

This is in response to some points raised by Charles Kalish -
Allow a somewhat lengthy re-quotation to set the stage:

    I think that Dennet (see "Brainstorms") is right in that intentions
    are something we ascribe to systems and not something that is built in
    or a part of that system.  The problem then becomes justifying the use
    of intentional descriptions for a machine; i.e. how can I justify my
    claim that "the computer wants to take the opponent's queen" when the
    skeptic responds that all that is happening is that the X procedure
    has returned a value which causes the Y procedure to  move piece A to
    board position Q?...

    I think the crucial issue in this question is how much (or whether)
    the computer understands. The problem with systems now is that it is
    too easy to say that the computer doesn't understand anything, it's
    just manipulating markers. That is that any understanding is just
    conventional -- we pretend that variable A means the Red Queen, but it
    only means that to us (observers) not to the computer.  ...

    [Pirron's] idea is that you want to ground the computer's use of
    symbols in some non-symbolic experience....

    One is looking for pre-symbolic, biological constraints;  Something
    like Rosch's theory of basic levels of conceptualization.  ....

    The other point is that maybe we do have to stay within this symbolic
    "prison-house" after all event the biological concepts are still
    represented, not actual (no food in the brain just neuron firings).
    The thing here is that, even though you could look into a person's
    brain and, say, pick out the neural representation of a horse, to the
    person with the open skull that's not a representation, it constitutes
    a horse, it is a horse (from the point of view of the neural sytem).
    And that's what's different about people and computers. ...

These seem to me the right sorts of questions to be asking - here's a stab
at a partial answer.

We should start with a clear notion of "representation" - what does it mean
to say that the word "rock" represents a rock, or that a picture of a rock
represents a rock, or that a Lisp symbol represents a chess piece?

I think Dennett would agree that X represents Y only relative to some
contextual language (very broadly construed as any halfway-coherent
set of correspondence rules), hopefully with the presence of
an interpreter.  Eg, "rock" means rock in English to English-speakers.
opp-queen means opponent's queen in the mini-language set up by the
chess-playing program, as understood by the author.  To see the point a
bit more, consider the word "rock" neatly typed out on a piece of paper
in a universe in which the English language does not and never will exist.
Or consider a computer running a chess-playing program (maybe against
another machine, if you like) in a universe devoid of conscious entities.
I would contend that such entities do not represent anything.

So, roughly, representation is a 4-place relation:
R(representer,     represented, language            interpreter)
  "rock"           a rock       English             people
  picture of rock  a rock       visual similarity   people,
                                                    maybe some animals
  ...
and so on.

Now... what seems to me to be different about people and computers is that
in the case of computers, meaning is derivative and conventional, whereas
for people it seems intrinsic and natural.  (Huh?) ie, Searle's point is
well taken that even after we get the chess-playing program running, it
is still we who must be around to impute meaning to the opp-queen Lisp
symbol.  And furthermore, the symbol could just as easily have been
queen-of-opponent.  So for the four places of the representation relation
to get filled out, to ground the flying symbols, we still need people
to "watch" the two machines.  By contrast two humans can have a perfectly
valid game of chess all by themselves, even if they're Adam and Eve.

Now people certainly make use of conventional as well as natural
symbol systems (like English, frinstance).  But other representers in
our heads (like the perception of a horse, however encoded neurally).
seem to *intrinsically* represent.  Ie, for the representation
relation, if "my perception of a horse" is the representer, and the
horse out there in the field is the represented thing, the language
seems to be a "special", natural one namely the-language-of-normal-
veridical-perception. (BTW, it's *not* the case, as stated in
Charles's original posting that the perception simply is the horse -
we are *not* different from computers with respect to
the-use-of-internal-things-to-represent-external-things.)
Further, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all to speak of an
"interpreter".  If *I* see a horse, it seems a bit schizophrenic to
think of another part of myself as having to interpret that
perception. In any event, note that this is self-interpretation.

So people seem to be autonomous interpreters in a way that computers
are not (at least not yet).  In Dennett's terminology, it seems that
I (and you) have the authority to adopt an intentional stance towards
various things (chess-playing machines, ailist readers, etc.),
*including* ourselves - certainly computers do not yet have this
"authority" to designate other things, much less themselves,
as intentional subjects.

Please treat the above as speculation, not as some kind of air-tight
argument (no danger of that anyway, right?)

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 10:24:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Emergent Consciousness
-BODY-
Recent philosophical discussions on consciousness and intentionality
have made me wonder about the analogy between Man and Bureaucracy.
Imagine a large corporation.  Without knowing the full internal chain of
command, an external observer could still deduce many of the following
characteristics.

  1) The corporation is composed of hundreds of nearly identical units
     (known as personnel), most of whom perform material-handling
     or information-handling tasks.  Although the tasks differ, the
     processing units are essentially interchangeable.

  2) The "intelligence" of this system is distributed -- proper functioning
     of the organization requires cooperative action by many rational agents.
     Many tasks can be carried out by small cliques of personnel without
     coming to the attention of the rest of the system.  Other tasks require
     the cooperation of all elements.

  3) Despite the similarity of the personnel, some are more "central" or
     important than others.  A reporter trying to discover what the
     organization is "doing" or "planning" would not be content to talk
     with a janitor or receptionist.  Even the internal personnel recognize
     this, and most would pass important queries or problems to more central
     personnel rather than presume to discuss or set policy themselves.

  4) The official corporate spokesman may be in contact with the most
     central elements, but is not himself central.  The spokesman is only
     an output channel for decisions that occur much deeper or perhaps in a
     distributed manner.  Many other personnel seem to function as inputs or
     effectors rather than decision makers.

  5) The chief executive officer (CEO) or perhaps the chairman of the board
     may regard the corporation as a personal extension.  This individual
     seems to be the most central, the "consciousness" of the organization.
     To paraphrase Louis XV, "I am the state."


It seems, therefore, that the organization has not only a distributed
intelligence but a localized consciousness.  Certain processing elements
and their own thought processes control the overall behavior of the
bureaucracy in a special way, even though these elements (e.g., the CEO)
are physiologically indistinguishable from other personnel.  They are
regarded as the seat of corporate consciousness by outsiders, insiders,
and themselves.

Consciousness is thus related to organizational function and information
flow rather than to personal function and characteristics.  By analogy,
it is quite possible that the human brain contains a cluster of simple
neural "circuits" that constitute the seat of consciousness, even though
these circuits are indistinguishable in form and individual functioning
from all the other circuits in the brain.  This central core, because of
its monitoring and control of the whole organism, has the right to
consider itself the sole autonomous agent.  Other portions of the brain
would reject their own autonomy if they were equipped to even consider
the matter.

I thus regard consciousness as a natural emergent property of hierarchical
systems (and perhaps of other distributed systems).  There is no need to
postulate a mind/body dualism or a separate soul.  I can't explain how
this consciousness arises, nor am I comfortable with the paradox.  But I
know that it does arise in any hierarchical organization of cooperating
rational agents, and I suspect that it can also arise in similar organizations
of nonrational agents such as neural nets or computer circuitry.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 Sep 1986 1626-EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Krulwich <KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: semantic knowledge
-BODY-

howdy.

i think there was a discussion on searle that i missed a month or so
ago, so this may be rehash.  i disagree with searle's basic conjecture
that he bases all of his logic on, namely that since computers represent
everything in terms of 1's and 0's they are by definition storing
knowledge syntactically and not semantically.  this seems wrong to me.
as a simple counterexample, consider any old integer stored within a
computer.  it may be stored as a string of bits, but the program
implicitely has the "semantic" knowledge that it is an integer.
similarly, the stored activation levels and connection strengths in a
connectionist model simulator (or better, in a true hardware
implementation) may be stored as a bunch of munerical values, but the
software (ie, the model, not the simulator) semantically "knows" what
each value is just as the brain knows the meaning of activation patterns
over neurons and synapses (or so goes the theory).

i think the same can be said for data stored in a more conventional AI
program.  in response to a recent post, i don't think that there is a
fundamental difference between a human's knowledge of a horse and a
computers manipulation of the symbol it is using to represent it.  the
only differences are the inherently associative nature of the brain and
the amount of knowledge stored in the brain.  i think that it is these
two things that give us a "feel" for what a horse is when we think of
one, while most computer systems would make a small fraction of the
associations and would have much less knowledge and experience to
associate with.  these are both computational differences, not
fundamental ones.

none of this is to say that we are close or getting close to a seriously
"intelligent" computer system.  i just don't think that there are
fundamental philosophical barriers in our way.

bruce krulwich

arpa: krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu
bitnet: krulwich%c.cs.cmu.edu@cmccvma

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
200
-DATE-
Date: Mon 22 Sep 86 23:39:33-PDT
-FROM-
From: Olivier Lichtarge <LICHTARGE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Chemical Structure Generation (SU)
-BODY-

I will be presenting my thesis defense in biophysics Thursday
September 25 in the chemistry Gazebo, starting at 2:15.

      Solution Structure Determination of Beta-endorphin by NMR
                                 and
     Validation of Protean: a Structure Generation Expert System


Solution structure determination of proteins by Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance involves two steps. First, the collection and interpretation
of data, from which the secondary structure of a protein is
characterized and a set of constraints on its tertiary structure
identified. Secondly, the generation of 3-dimensional models of the
protein which satisfy these constraints. This thesis presents works in
both these areas: one and two-dimensional NMR techniques are applied
to study the conformation of @g(b)-endorphin; and Protean, a new
structure generation expert system is introduced and validated by
testing its performance on myoglobin.
  It will be shown that @g(b)-endorphin is a random coil in water.  In
a 60% methanol and 40% water mixed solvent the following changes take
place: an @g(a)-helix is induced between residues 14 and 27, and a
salt bridge forms between Lysine28 and Glutamate31, however, there
still exists no strong evidence for the presence of tertiary structure.
  The validation of Protean establishes it as an unbiased and accurate
method of generating a representative sampling of all the possible
conformations which satisfy the experimental data. At the solid level,
the precision is good enough to clearly define the topology of the
protein. An analysis of Protean's performance using data sets of
dismal to ideal quality permits us to define the limits of the
precision with which a structure can be determined by this method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Fuzzy Relational Databases (SMU)
-BODY-
Design of Similarity-Based (Fuzzy) Relational Databases
Speaker: Bill P. Buckles, University of Texas, Arlington
Location 315 SIC, Southern Methodist University
Time: 2:00PM


While the core of an expert system is its inference mechanism, a
common component is a database or other form of knowledge
representation.  The authors have developed a variation of the
relational database model in which data that is linguistic or
inherently uncertain may be represented.  The keystone concept of
this representation is the replacement of the relationship " is
equivalent to" with the relationship "is similar to".  Similarity is
defined in fuzzy set theory as an $n sup 2$ relationship over a
domain D, |D| = n such that

  i. s(x,x)=1, x member D
 ii. s(x,y)=s(y,x) x,y member D
iii. s(x,y) >= max[min(s(x,y),s(y,z))]; x, y, z member D

Beginning with a universal relation, a method is given for developing
the domain sets, similarity relationships and base relations for a
similarity-based relational database.  The universal relation itself
enumerates all domains.  The domain sets may be numeric (in which case
no further design is needed) or scalar (in which case the selection of
a comprehensive scalar set is needed).  Similarity relationship
contains $n sup 2$ values where n is the number of scalars in a domain
set.  A method is described for developing a set of consistent values
when initially given n-1 values. The base relations are derived using
fuzzy functional dependencies.  This step also requires the
identification of candidate keys.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 26 Sep 86 10:47:21-EDT
-FROM-
From: Lisa F. Melcher <LISA@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - General Logic (MIT)
-BODY-

                       Date: Thursday, October 2, 1986
                      Time: 1:45 p.m......Refreshments
                         Time: 2:00 p.m......Lecture
                             Place:  NE43 - 512A


                              " GENERAL LOGIC "

                               Gordon Plotkin
                       Department of Computer Science
                      University of Edinburgh, Scotland


     A good many logics have been proposed for use in Computer Science.
Implementing them involves repeating a great deal of work.  We propose a
general account of logics as regards both their syntax and inference rules.
As immediate target we envision a system to which one inputs a logic
obtaining a simple proof-checker.  The ideas build on work in logic of
Paulson, Martin-Lof and Schroeder-Heister and in the typed lambda-calculus of
Huet and Coquand and Meyer and Reinhold.  The slogan is: Judgements are
Types.  For example the judgement that a proposition is true is identified
with its type of proofs; general and hypothetical judgements are identified
with dependent product types.  This gives one account of Natural Deduction.
It would be interesting to extend the work to consider (two-sided) sequent
calculi for classical and modal logics.


              Sponsored by TOC, Laboratory for Computer Science
                             Albert Meyer, Host

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 26 Sep 86 14:47:36-EDT
-FROM-
From: Rosemary B. Hegg <ROSIE@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Generic Tasks in Knowledge-Based Reasoning (MIT)
-BODY-
                       Date: Wednesday, October 1, 1986
                       Time:  2.45 pm....Refreshments
                              3.00 pm....Lecture
                      Place:  NE43-512A

                  GENERIC TASKS IN KNOWLEDGE-BASED REASONING:
              CHARACTERIZING AND DESIGNING EXPERT SYSTEMS AT THE
                      ``RIGHT'' LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION

                          B. CHANDRASEKARAN
           Laboratory for Artificial Intelligence Research
           Department of Computer and Information Science
                      The Ohio State University
                        Columbus, Ohio 43210

   We outline the elements of a framework for expert system design that
we have been developing in our research group over the last several years.
This framework is based on the claim that complex knowledge-based reasoning
tasks can often be decomposed into a number of @i(generic tasks each
with associated types of knowledge and family of control regimes). At
different stages in reasoning, the system will typically engage in
one of the tasks, depending upon the knowledge available and the state
of problem solving.  The advantages of this point of view are manifold:
(i) Since typically the generic tasks are at a much higher level of abstraction
than those associated with first generation expert system languages,
knowledge can be acquired and represented directly at the level appropriate to
the information processing task.  (ii) Since each of the generic tasks
has an appropriate control regime, problem solving behavior may be
more perspicuously encoded.  (iii) Because of a richer generic vocabulary
in terms of which knowledge and control are represented, explanation of
problem solving behavior is also more perspicuous.  We briefly
describe six generic tasks that we have found very useful in our
work on knowledge-based reasoning: classification, state abstraction,
knowledge-directed retrieval, object synthesis by plan selection and
refinement,
hypothesis matching, and assembly of compound hypotheses for
abduction.

Host:  Prof. Peter Szolovits

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 12:41:26 CDT
-FROM-
From: forbus@p.cs.uiuc.edu (Kenneth Forbus)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Workshop on Qualitative Physics
-BODY-
Call for Participation

Workshop on Qualitative Physics
May 27-29, 1987
Urbana, Illinois

Sponsored by:
        the American Association for Artificial Intelligence
                and
        Qualitative Reasoning Group
        University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Organizing Committee:
        Ken Forbus (University of Illinois)
        Johan de Kleer (Xerox PARC)
        Jeff Shrager (Xerox PARC)
        Dan Weld (MIT AI Lab)

Objectives:
Qualitative Physics, the subarea of artificial intelligence concerned with
formalizing reasoning about the physical world, has become an important and
rapidly expanding topic of research.  The goal of this workshop is to
provide an opportunity for researchers in the area to communicate results
and exchange ideas.  Relevant topics of discussion include:

        -- Foundational research in qualitative physics
        -- Implementation techniques
        -- Applications of qualitative physics
        -- Connections with other areas of AI
                 (e.g., machine learning, robotics)

Attendance:  Attendence at the workshop will be limited in order to maximize
interaction.  Consequently, attendence will be by invitation only.  If you
are interested in attending, please submit an extended abstract (no more
than six pages) describing the work you wish to present.  The extended
abstracts will be reviewed by the organizing committee.  No proceedings will
be published; however, a selected subset of attendees will be invited to
contribute papers to a special issue of the International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering.  There will be financial assistance
for graduate students who are invited to attend.

Requirements:
The deadline for submitting extended abstracts is February 10th.  On-line
submissions are not allowed; hard copy only please.  Any submission over 6
pages or rendered unreadable due to poor printer quality or microscopic font
size will not be reviewed.  Since no proceedings will be produced, abstracts
describing papers submitted to AAAI-87 are acceptable.  Invitations will be
sent out on March 1st.  Please send 6 copies of your extended abstracts to:

        Kenneth D. Forbus
        Qualitative Reasoning Group
        University of Illinois
        1304 W. Springfield Avenue
        Urbana, Illinois, 61801

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
201
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Defs for ai.bib35, new keyword code for editorials
-BODY-
D MAG39 Computer Aided Design\
%V 18\
%N 3\
%D APR 1986
D MAG40 Automation and Remote Control\
%V 46\
%N 9 Part 2\
%D SEP 1985
D MAG41 IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics\
%V 33\
%N 2\
%D MAY 1986
D MAG42 Soviet Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences\
%V 23\
%N 6\
%D NOV-DEC 1985
D MAG43 Journal of Symbolic Computation\
%V 2\
%N 1\
%D MARCH 1986
D MAG44 Image and Vision Computing\
%V 3\
%N 4\
%D NOV 1985
D BOOK42 Second Conference on Software  Development Tools, Techniques and
Altern
atives\
%I IEEE Computer Society Press\
%C Washington\
%D 1985
D BOOK43 Fundamentals of Computation Theory (Cottbus)\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 199\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK44 Robot Sensors, Volume 1 (Vision)\
%I IFS Publications\
%C Bedford\
%D 1986
D BOOK45 Robot Sensors, Volume 2 (Tactile and Non-Vision)\
%I IFS Publications\
%C Bedford\
%D 1986
D MAG45 Journal of Logic Programming\
%V 2\
%D 1985\
%N 3
D BOOK46 Advances in Cryptology\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 196\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK47 Mathematical Foundations of Software Development V 1\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 185\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG46 Proceedings of the 44th Session of the International
Statistical Institute\
%V 1\
%D 1983
D BOOK48 Seminar Notes on Concurrency\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 197\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG47 Proceedings of the Conference "Algebra and Logic"\
%D 1984\
%C Zagreb
D MAG48 Pattern Recognition\
%V 19\
%N 2\
%D 1986
D MAG49 IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing\
%V 24\
%N 3\
%D MAY 1986
D MAG50 Information and Control\
%V 67\
%N 1-3\
%D OCT-DEC 1985
D MAG51 Kybernetes\
%V 15\
%N 2\
%D 1986
D MAG52 Data Processing\
%V 28\
%N 3\
%D APR 1986
D MAG53 J. Tsinghua Univ.\
%V 25\
%D 1985\
%N 2
D MAG54 Logique et. Anal (n. S.)\
%V 28\
%D 1985\
%N 110-111
D MAG55 Werkstattstechnik wt Zeitschrift fur Industrielle Fertigung\
%V 76\
%N 5\
%D MAY 1986
D MAG56 Robotica\
%V 4\
%D APR 1986
D MAG57 International Journal of Man Machine Studies\
%V 24\
%N 1\
%D JAN 1986
D MAG58 Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing\
%V 34\
%N 1\
%D APR 1986
D BOOK49 Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Methods and Studies\
%S Studies in Management Science and Systems\
%V 12\
%I North Holland Publishing Company\
%C Amsterdam\
%D 1986
D MAG59 International Journal for Robotics Research\
%V 5\
%N 1\
%D Spring 1986
D BOOK50 International Symposium on Logic Programming\
%D 1984
D MAG61 Proceedings of the 1986 Symposium on Symbolic and\
Algebriaic Computation\
%D JUL 21-23 1986

__________________________________________________________________________
A new keyword code for article types has been added, AT22, which is for
editorials.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Articles in Robotics and Vision
-BODY-
%A Kunwoo Lee
%A Daniel A. Tortorelli
%T Computer-aided Design of Robotic Manipulators
%J MAG39
%P 139-146
%K AI07

%A Ho Bin
%T Inputting Constructive Solid Geometry Representations Directly from 2D
Orthographic Engineering Drawings
%J MAG39
%P 147-155
%K AA05

%A T. H. Richards
%A G. C. Onwubolu
%T Automatic Interpretation of Engineering Drawings for 3D Surface
Representation in CAD
%J MAG39
%P 156-160
%K AA05

%A  J. S.  Arora
%A G. Baenziger
%T Uses of Artificial Intelligence in Design Optimization
%J Computer Methods in Mechanics and Engineering
%V 54
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%P 303-324
%K AA05

%A V. N. Burkov
%A V. V. Tayganov
%T Adaptive Functioning Mechanisms of Active Systems. I. Active
Identification and Progressive Mechanisms
%J MAG40
%P 1141-1146
%K AA20 AI09 AI04 AI08 AI13

%A A. A. Zlatopolskii
%T Image Segmentation along Discontinuous Boundaries
%J MAG40
%P 1160-1167
%K AI06

%A E. B. Yanovskaya
%T Axiomatic Characterization of the Maxmin and the Lexicographic Maxmin
Solution in Bargaining Schemes
%J MAG40
%P 1177-1185
%K AI02 AI03 AA11

%A Yu. V. Malyshenko
%T Estimating and Minimizing Diagnostic Information when Troubleshooting an
Analog Device
%J MAG40
%P 1192-1195
%K AA04 AA21

%A G. Hirzinger
%T Robot Systems Completely Based on Sensory Feedback
%J MAG41
%P 105-109
%K AI07 AI06

%A Y. Y. Hung
%A S. K. Cheng
%A N. K. Loh
%T A Computer Vision Techniques for Surface Curvature Gaging with
Project Grating
%J MAG41
%P 158-161
%K AI07 AI06

%A Zvi Galil
%T Optimal Prallel Algorithms for String Matching
%J Information and Control
%V 67
%N 1-3
%D 1985
%P 144-157
%K O06

%A E. Tanic
%T Urban Planning and Artificial Intelligence - The Urbys System
%J Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
%V 10
%N 3-4
%D 1986
%P 135-146
%K AA11

%A B. M. Shtilman
%T A Formal Linguistic Model for Solving Discrete Optimization Problems. II.
The Language of Zones, Translations and the Boundary Problem
%J MAG42
%P 17-28
%K AI02 AA05

%A V. A. Abramov
%A A. I. Piskunov
%A Yu. T. Rubanik
%T A Modification to the Bellman-Zadeh Multistep Procedure for Decision Making
under Fuzzy  Conditions for Microelectronic Systems
%J MAG42
%P 143-151
%K AI13 O05

%A James L. Eilbert
%A Richard M. Salter
%T Modeling Neural Networks in Scheme
%J Simulation
%V 46
%D 1986
%N 5
%P 193
%K AI12 T01

%A E. A. Shingareva
%T Semiotic Basis of the Pragmatic Approach to Recognition of the Text Meaning
%J Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya II- Informatisionnye Protessy I
Sistemy
%N 3
%D 1986
%K AI02

%A T. Kim
%A K. Chwa
%T Parallel Algorithms for a Depth First Search and a Breadth First Search
%J International Journal of Computer Mathematics
%V 19
%N 1
%D 1986
%P 39-56
%K AI03 H03

%A Hsu-Pin Wang
%A Richard A. Wysk
%T An Expert System for Machining Data Selection
%J Computers and Industrial Engineering
%V 10
%N 2
%D 1986
%K AA26 AI01

%A L. R. Rabiner
%A F. K. Soong
%T Single-Frame Vowel Recognition Using Vector Quantization with Several
Distance Measures
%J AT&T Technical Journal
%V 64
%N 10
%D DEC 1985
%P 2319-2330
%K AI05

%A A. Pasztor
%T Non-Standard Algorithmic and Dynamic Logics
%J MAG43
%P 59-82

%A Alex P. Pentland
%T On Describing Complex Surface Shapes
%J MAG44
%P 153-162
%K AI06 AI16

%A B. F. Buxton
%A D. W. Murray
%T Optic Flow Segmentation as an Ill-posed and Maximum Likelihood Problem
%J MAG44
%P 163-169
%K AI06

%A M. C. Ibison
%A L. Zapalowski
%A C. G. Harris
%T Direct Surface Reconstruction from a Moving Sensor
%J MAG44
%P 170-176
%K AI06

%A S. A. Lloyd
%T Binary Stereo Algorithm Based on the Disparity-Gradient Limit and Using
Optimization Theory
%J MAG44
%P 177-182
%K AI06

%A Andrew Blake
%A Andrew Zimmerman
%A Greg Knowles
%T Surface Descriptions from Stereo and Shading
%J MAG44
%P 183-196
%K AI06

%A G. D. Sullivan
%A K. D. Baker
%A J. A D. W. Anderson
%T Use of Multiple Difference-of-Gaussian Filters to Verify Geometric
Models
%J MAG44
%P 192-197
%K AI06

%A J. Hyde
%A J. A. Fullwood
%A D. R. Corrall
%T An Approach to Knowledge Driven Segmentation
%J MAG44
%P 198-205
%K AI06

%A J. Kittler
%A J. Illingworth
%T Relaxation Labelling Algorithm - A Review
%J MAG44
%P 206-216
%K AI06 AT08

%A R. T. Ritchings
%A A. C. F. Colchester
%A H. Q. Wang
%T Knowledge Based Analysis of Carotid Angiograms
%J MAG44
%P 217
%K AI06 AA01

%A W. L. Mcknight
%T Use of Grammar Templates for Software Engineering Environments
%J BOOK42
%P 56-66
%K AA08

%A M. T. Harandi
%A M. D. Lubars
%T A Knowledge Based Design Aid for Software Systems
%J BOOK42
%P 67-74
%K AA08

%A Y. Takefuji
%T AI Based General Purpose Cross Assembler
%J BOOK42
%P 75-85
%K AA08

%A R. N. Cronk
%A D. V. Zelinski
%T ES/AG System Generation Environment for Intelligent Application Software
%J BOOK42
%P 96-100
%K AA08

%A B. Friman
%T X - A Tool for Prototyping Through Examples
%J BOOK42
%P 141-148
%K AA08

%A D. Hammerslag
%A S. N. Kamin
%A R. H. Campbell
%T Tree-Oriented Interactive Processing with an Application to Theorem-Proving
%J BOOK42
%P 199-206
%K AA08 AI11


%A Gudmund Frandsen
%T Logic Programming and Substitutions
%B BOOK43
%P 146-158
%K AI10

%A H. J. Cho
%A C. K. Un
%T On Reducing Computational Complexity in Connected Digit Recognition by the
Frame Labeling Method
%J Proceedings of the IEEE
%V 74
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 614-615
%K AI06

%A Vijay Gehlot
%A Y. N. Srikant
%T An Interpreter for SLIPS - An Applicative Language Based on Lambda-Calculus
%J Computer Languages
%V 11
%N 1
%P 1-14
%D 1986

%A Sharon D. Stewart
%T Expert System Invades Military
%J Simulation
%V 46
%N 2
%D FEB 1986
%P 69
%K AI01 AA18

%A F. C. Hadipriono
%A H. S. toh
%T Approximate Reasoning Models for Consequences on Structural Component Due to
Failure Events
%J Civil Engineering Pract Design Engineering
%V 5
%N 3
%D 1986
%P 155-170
%K AA05 AA21 O04

%A J. Tymowski
%T Industrial Robots
%J Mechanik
%V 58
%N 10
%D 1985
%P 493-496
%K AI07
%X (in Polish with English, Polish, Russian and German summaries)

%A Dieter Schutt
%T Expert Systems - Forerunners of a New Technology
%J Siemens Review
%V 55
%N 1
%D JAN- FEB 1986
%P 30
%K AI01

%A H. Kasamatu
%A S. Omatu
%T Edge-Preserving Restoration of Noisy Images
%J International Journal of Systems Sciences
%V 17
%N 6
%D JUN 1985
%P 833-842
%K AI06

%A A. Pugh
%T Robot Sensors - A Personal View
%B BOOK44
%P 3-14
%K AI07

%A L. J. Pinson
%T Robot Vision - An Evaluation of Imaging Sensors
%B BOOK44
%P 15-66
%K AI07 AI06

%A D. G. Whitehead
%A I. Mitchell
%A P. V. Mellor
%T A Low-Resolution Vision Sensor
%B BOOK44
%P 67-74
%K AI06

%A J. E. Orrock
%A J. H. Garfunkel
%A B. A. Owen
%T An Integrated Vision/Range Sensor
%B BOOK44
%P 75-84
%K AI06

%A S. Baird
%A M. Lurie
%T Precise Robotic Assembly Using Vision in the Hand
%B BOOK44
%P 85-94
%K AI06 AI07 AA26

%A C. Loughlin
%A J. Morris
%T Line, Edge and Contour Following with Eye-in-Hand Vision
%B BOOK44
%P 95-102
%K AI06 AI07

%A P. P. L. Regtien
%A R. F. Wolffenbuttel
%T A Novel Solid-State Colour Sensor Suitable for Robotic Applicatinos
%B BOOK44
%P 103-114
%K AI06 AI07

%A A. Agrawal
%A M. Epstein
%T Robot Eye-in-Hand Using Fibre Optics
%B BOOK44
%P 115-126
%K AI06 AI07

%A P. A. Fehrenbach
%T Optical Alignment of Dual-in-Line Components for Assembly
%B BOOK44
%P 127-138
%K AI06 AI07 AA26 AA04

%A Da Fa Li
%T Semantically Positive Unit Resolution for Horn Sets
%J MAG53
%P 88-91
%K AI10
%X Chinese with English Summary

%A V. S. Neiman
%T Proof Search without Repeated Examination of Subgoals
%J Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR
%V 286
%D 1986
%N 5
%P 1065-1068
%K AI11
%X Russian

%A A. Colmerauer
%T About Natural Logic. Automated Reasoning in Nonclassical Logic
%J MAG54
%P 209-231
%K AI11

%A Ulf Grenander
%T Pictures as Complex Systems
%B Complexity, Language and Life: Mathematical Approaches
%S Biomathematics
%V 16
%I Spring
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York
%D 1986
%P 62-87
%K AI06

%A G. E. Mints
%T Resolution Calculi for Nonclassical Logics
%J Semiotics and Information Science
%V 25
%P 120-135
%D 1985
%K AI11
%X Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekn. Inform., Moscow
(in Russian)

%A Charles G. Margon
%T Autologic. Automated Reasoning in Nonclassical Logic
%J MAG54
%P 257-282
%K AI11

%A B. M. Shtilman
%T A Formal Linguistic Model for Solving Discrete Optimization Problems I.
Optimization tools. Language of Trajectories
%J Soviet J. Computer Systems Science
%V 23
%D 1985
%N 5
%P 53-64

%A David Lee
%T Optimal Algorithms for Image Understanding: Current Status and Future Plans
%J J. Complexity
%V 1
%D 1985
%N 1
%P 138-146
%K AI06

%A Douglas B. West
%A Prithviraj Banerjee
%T Partial Matching in Degree-Restricted Bipartite Graphs
%J Proceedings of the Sixteenth Southeastern International Conference on
Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing
%P 259-266
%D 1985
%K O06

%A Kyota Aoki
%A N. Mugibayashi
%T Cellular Automata and Coupled Chaos Developed in  Lattice Chain of N
Equivalent Switching Elements
%J Phys. Lett. A
%V 114
%D 1986
%N 8-9
%P 425-429
%K AI12

%A R. J. R. Back
%T A Computational Interpretation of Truth Logic
%J Synthese
%V 66
%D 1986
%N 1
%P 15-34




%A Max Michel
%T Computation of Tempral Operators: Automated Reasoning in Nonclassical Logic
%J MAG54
%P 137-152
%K AI11

%A H. J. Warnecke
%A A. Altenhein
%T 2-1/2D Geometry Representation for Collision Avoidance of Industrial
Robots
%J MAG55
%P 269-272
%K AI07

%A W. Jacobi
%T Industrial Robots - Already Sufficiently Flexible for the User
%J MAG55
%P 273-277
%K AI07

%A H. J. Warnecke
%A G. Schiele
%T Measurement Methods for the Determination of Industrial Robot
Characteristics
%J MAG55
%P 278-280
%K AI07

%A H. H. Raab
%T Assembly of Multipolar Plug Bonding Boxes in a Programmable Assembly
Cell
%J MAG55
%P 281-283
%K AA26

%A M. Schwiezer
%A E. M. Wolf
%T Strong Increase in Industrial Robot Installation
%J MAG55
%P 286
%K AT04 AI07

%A T. W. Stacey
%A A. E. Middleditch
%T The Geometry of Machining for Computer-aided Manufacture
%J MAG56
%P 83-92
%K AA26

%A S. S. Iyengar
%A C. L. Jorgensen
%A S. U. N. Rao
%A C. R. Weisbin
%T Robot Navigation Algorithms Using Learned Spatial Graphs
%J MAG56
%P 93-100
%K AI07

%A Guy Jamarie
%T On the Use of Time-Varying Intertia Links to Increase the Versatility of
Manipulators
%J MAG56
%P 101-106
%K AI07

%A Eugeny Krustev
%A Ljubomir Lilov
%T Kinematic Path Control of Robot Arms
%J MAG56
%P 107-116
%K AI07

%A Tony Owen
%T Robotics: The Strategic Issues
%J MAG56
%P 117
%K AI07

%A C. H. Cho
%T Expert Systems, Intelligent Devices, Plantwide Control and Self Tuning
Algorithms: An Update on the ISA/86 Technical Program
%J MAG56
%P 69
%K AA20 AI01

%A A. Hutchinson
%T A Data Structure and Algorithm for a Self-Augmenting Heuristic Program
%J The Computer Journal
%P 135-150
%V 29
%N 2
%D APR 1986
%K AI04

%A B. Kosko
%T Fuzzy Cognitive Maps
%J MAG57
%P 65-76
%K AI08 O04

%A C. L. Borgman
%T The Users Mental Model of an Information Retrieval System - An Experiment
on a Prototype Online Catalog
%J MAG57
%P 47-64
%K AI08 AA14

%A D. R. Peachey
%A G. I. Mccalla
%T Using Planning Techniques in Intelligent Tutoring Systems
%J MAG57
%P 77
%K AA07 AI09

%A H. J. Bernstein
%T Determining the Shape of a Convex n-sided Polygon Using 2n+k
Tacticle Probes
%J Information Processing Letters
%V 22
%N 5
%D APR 28, 1986
%P 255-260
%K AI07 O06


%A Fu-Nian Ku
%A Jian-Min Hu
%T A New Approach to the Restoration of an Image Blurred by a Linear
Uniform Motion
%J MAG58
%P 20-34
%K AI06

%A Charles F. Neveu
%A Charles R. Dyer
%A Roland T. Chin
%T Two-Dimensional Object Recognition Using Multiresolution Models
%J MAG58
%P 52-65
%K AI06

%A Keith E. Price
%T Hierarchical Matching Using Relaxation
%J MAG58
%P 66-75
%K AI06

%A Angela Y. Wu
%A S. K. Bhaskar
%A Azriel Rosenfeld
%T Computation of Geometric Properties from the Medial Axis Transform in
O(n log n) Time
%J MAG58
%P 76-92
%K AI06 O06

%A H. B. Bidasaria
%T A Method for Almost Exact Historgram Matching for Two Digitized Images
%J MAG58
%P 93-98
%K AI06 O06

%A Azriel Rosenfled
%T "Expert" Vision Systems: Some Issues
%J MAG58
%P 99-101
%K AI06 AI01

%A John R. Kender
%T Vision Expert Systems Demand Challenging Expert Interactions
%J MAG58
%P 102-103
%K AI06 AI01

%A Makoto Nagao
%T Comment on the Position Paper \*QExpert Vision Systems\*U
%J MAG58
%P 104
%K AI06 AI01

%A Leonard Uhr
%T Workshop on Goal Directed \*QExpert\*U Vision Systems: My Positions
and Comments
%J MAG58
%P 105-108
%K AI06 AI01

%A William B. Thompson
%T Comments on "Expert" Vision Systems: Some Issues
%J MAG58
%P 109-110
%K AI06 AI01

%A V. A. Kovalevsky
%T Dialog on "Expert" Vision Systems: Comments
%J MAG58
%P 111-113
%K AI06 AI01

%A David Sher
%T Expert Systems for Vision Based on Bayes Rule
%J MAG58
%P 114-115
%K AI06 AI01 O04

%A S. Tanimoto
%T The Case for Appropriate Architecture
%J MAG58
%P 116
%K AI06 AI01

%A Azriel Rosenfeld
%T Rosenfeld's Concluding Remarks
%J MAG58
%P 117
%K AI06 AI01

%A Robert M. Haralick
%T "Robot Vision" by Berthold Horn
%J MAG58
%P 118
%K AI06 AI07  AT07

%A K. Shirai
%A K. Mano
%T A Clustering Experiment of the Spectra and the Spectral Changes of Speech
to Extract Phonemic Features
%J MAG58
%P 279-290
%K AI05

%A A. K. Chakravarty
%A A. Shutub
%T Integration of Assembly Robots in a Flexible Assembly System
%B BOOK49
%P 71-88
%K AI07 AA26

%A R. C. Morey
%T Optimizing Versatility in Robotic Assembly Line Design- An Application
%B BOOK49
%P 89-98
%K AI07 AA26

%A J. Grobeiny
%T The Simple Linguistic Approach to Optimization of a Plant Layout by Branch
and Bound
%B BOOK49
%P 141-150
%K AA26 AI02 AI03

%A Z. J. Czjikiewicz
%T Justification of the Robots Applications
%B BOOK49
%P 367-376
%K AI07

%A M. J. P. Shaw
%A A. B. Whinston
%T Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Planning and Scheduling in
Flexible Manufacturing
%B BOOK49
%P 223-242
%K AI07

%A S. Subramanymam
%A R. G. Askin
%T An Expert Systems Approach to Scheduling in Flexible Manufacturing Systems
%B BOOK49
%P 243-256
%K AI07

%A Michael K. Brown
%T The Extraction of Curved Surface Features with Generic Range Sensors
%J MAG59
%P 3-18
%K AI06

%A Michael Erdmann
%T Using Backprojections for Fine Motion Planning with Uncertaintly
%J MAG59
%P 19-45
%K AI07 AI09 O04

%A Katsushi Ikeuchi
%A H. Keith Nishihara
%A Berthold K. P. Horn
%A Patrick Sobalvarro
%A Shigemi Nagati
%T Determining Grasp Configurations Using Photometric Stereo and the PRISM
Binocular Stereo System
%J MAG59
%P 46-65
%K AI06  AI07

%A Dragan Stokic
%A Miomir Vukobratovic
%A Dragan Hristic
%T Implementation of Force Feedback in Manipulation Robots
%J MAG59
%P 66-76
%K AI07

%A Oussama Khatib
%T Real-Time Obstacle Avoidance for Manipulators and Mobile Robots
%J MAG59
%P 90-98
%K AI07 AA19

%A R. Featherstone
%T A Geometric Investigation of Reach
%J MAG59
%P 99
%K AI07 AT07

%A Maria Virginia Aponte
%T Editing First Order Proofs: Programmed Rules vs. Derived Rules
%J BOOK50
%P 92-98
%K AI11

%A Hellfried Bottger
%T Automatic Theorem-Proving with Configuraitons
%J Elektron. Informationsverarb. Kybernet.
%V 21
%N 10-11
%P 523-546
%K AI11

%A D. R. Brough
%A M. H. van Emden
%T Dataflow, Flowcharts and \*QLUCID\*U style Programming in Logic
%J BOOK50
%P 252-258

%A Laurent Fribough
%T Handling Function Definitions Through Innermost Superposition and Rewriting
%B BOOK30
%P 325-344

%A T. Gergely
%A M. Szots
%T Cuttable Formulas for Logic Programming
%J BOOK50
%P 299-310

%A N. N. Leonteva
%T Information Model of the Automatic Translation System
%J Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya II -
Informatsionnye Protsessy I Sistemy
%N 10
%D 1985
%P 22-28
%X in Russian

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
202
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Reports
-BODY-
%A Ru-qian Lu
%T Expert Union: United Service of Distributed Expert Systems
%R 85-3
%I University of Minnesota-Duluth
%C Duluth, Minnesota
%D June, 1985
%K H03 AI01
%X A scheme for connecting expert systems in a network called an {\nit
expert union} is described.  Consultation scheduling algorithms used to
select the appropriate expert(s) to solve problems are proposed, as
are strategies for resolving contradictions.

%A J. C. F. M. Neves
%A G. F. Luger
%A L. F. Amaral
%T Integrating a User's Knowledge into a Knowledge Base Using a Logic
Based Representation
%I University of New Mexico
%R CS85-2
%K AA08 AI10

%A J. C. F. M. Neves
%A G. F. Luger
%T An Automated Reasoning System for Presupposition Analysis
%I University of New Mexico
%R CS85-3
%K AI16

%A J. C. F. M. Neves
%A G. F. Luger
%A J. M. Carvalho
%T A Formalism for Views in a Logic Data Base
%I University of New Mexico
%R CS85-4
%K AA08

%A Franz Winkler
%T A Note on Improving the Complexity of the Knuth-Bendix Completion
Algorithm
%I University of Delaware
%R 85-04
%K AI14

%A Claudio Gutierrez
%T An Integrated Office Environment Under the AI Paradigm
%I University of Delaware
%R 86-03
%K AA06

%A Amir M. Razi
%T An Empirical Study of Robust Natural Language Processing
%I University of Delaware
%R 86-08
%K AI02

%A John T. Lund
%T Multiple Cause Identification in Diagnostic Problem Solving
%I University of Delaware
%R 86-11
%K AA05 AA21

%A D. Nau
%A T.C. Chang
%T Hierarchical Representation of Problem-Solving Knowledge in a Frame-Based
Process Planning System
%I Production Automation Project, University of Rochester
%R TM-50
%C Rochester, New York
%K AA26

%T INEXACT REASONING IN PROLOG-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS
%A Koenraad G. Lecot
%R CSD-860053
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%K AI01 O04 T02
%$ 13.75
%X Expert systems are only worthy  of  their  name  if  they  can  cope  in  a
consistent  and  natural  way  with  the  uncertainty and vagueness that is
inherent to  real  world  expertise.   This  thesis  explores  the  current
methodologies,  both  in  the  light  of  their   acceptabiity and of their
implementation in the logic programming language Prolog.  We treat in depth
the  subjective   Bayesian  approach  to  inexact  reasoning and describe a
meta-level implementation in Prolog.  This probabilistic method is compared
with  an  alternative  theory  of  belief  used  in  Mycin.  We describe an
implementation of Mycin's consultation phase.  We argue  further  that  the
theory  of  fuzzy  logic  is  more adequate to describe the uncertainty and
vagueness of real world situations.  Fuzzy logic is put  in  contrast  with
the probabilistic approaches and an implementation strategy is described.

%T DISTRIBUTED DIAGNOSIS IN CAUSAL MODELS WITH CONTINUOUS VARIABLES
%A Judea Pearl
%R CSD-860051
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%$ 1.50
%K O04 H03 AA21
%X We consider causal models in which the variables form  a  linearly  coupled
hierarchy,  and  are  subject to Gaussian sources of noise. We show that if
the number of circuits in the hierarchy is small, the impact  of  each  new
piece of evidence can be viewed as a perturbation that propagates through a
network of processors (one per variable) by local communication. This  mode
of  diagnosis  admits  flexible  control  strategies  and  facilitates  the
generation of intuitively meaningful explanations.

%T RELAXATION PROBLEM SOLVING
(with input to Chinese input problem)
%A Kam Pui Chow
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%R CSD-860058
%$ 12.00
%K AI02
%X Two fundamental problem solving techniques are introduced to help  automate
the  use  of  relaxation:  multilevel frameworks and constraint generation.
They are closely related to iterative relaxation and subproblem relaxation.
.sp 1
In multilevel problem  solving,  the  set  of  constraints  is  partitioned
vertically   into  different  levels.   Lower  level  constraints  generate
possible solutions while higher level constraints prune  the  solutions  to
reduce the combinatorial explosion.  Subproblem relaxation at first relaxes
the high level constraints; the solution is then improved by  strengthening
the relaxed constraints.
.sp 1
The constraint generation technique uses iterative relaxation to generate a
set  of  constraints  from  a  given model.  This set of constraints with a
constraint interpreter form an expert system.  This is an improvement  over
most  existing  expert  systems  which  require experts to write down their
expertise in rules.
.sp 1
These principles are illustrated by applying  them  to  the  Chinese  input
problem, which is to transform a phonetic spelling, without word breaks, of
a Chinese  sentence  into  the  corresponding  Chinese  characters.   Three
fundamental  issues  are  studied:  segmentation,  homophone  analysis, and
dictionary organization.  The problem is  partitioned  into  the  following
levels:   phonetic   spelling,   word,   and  grammar.   The  corresponding
constraints  are  legal  spellings,  legal  words,  and   legal   syntactic
structures.   Constraints  for  syntactic  structure  are  generated from a
Chinese grammar.

%T RELAXATION PROCESSES:  THEORY, CASE STUDIES AND APPLICATIONS
%A Ching-Tsun Chou
%R CSD-860057
%$ 6.25
%I University of California, Los Angeles
%K O02 T02 AA08
%X Relaxation is a powerful problem-solving paradigm in coping  with  problems
specified  using  constraints.  In  this  Thesis  we present a study of the
nature of relaxation processes. We begin with identifying  certain  typical
problems  solvable by relaxation.  Motivated by these concrete examples, we
develop a formal theory of relaxation  processes  and  design  the  General
Relaxation  Semi-Algorithm  for  solving  general  Relaxation  Problems. To
strengthen the theory,  we  do  case  studies  on  two  relaxation-solvable
problems: the Shortest-Path Problem and Prefix Inequalities.  The principal
results of these studies are polynomial-time algorithms for both  problems.
The  practical  usefulness  of relaxation is demonstrated by implementing a
program  called   TYPEINF which employs relaxation techniques to
automatically  infer  types  for Prolog programs.  Finally we indicate some
possible directions of future research.

%A J. R. Endsor
%A A. Dickinson
%A R. L. Blumenthal
%T Describe - An Explanation Facility for an Object Based System
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Department
%D DEC 1985
%K AI01 O01

%A Kai-Fu Lee
%T Incremental Network Generation in Template-Based Word Recognition
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Department
%D DEC 1985
%K AI05

%A J. Quinlan
%T A Comparative Analysis of Computer Architectures for Production
System Machines
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Department
%D MAY 1985
%K AI01 H03 OPS5

%A M. Boggs
%A J. Carbonell
%A M. Kee
%A I. Monarch
%T Dypar-I: Tutorial and Reference Manual
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Department
%D DEC 1985
%K AI01 AI02 Franz Lisp

%A Paola Giannini
%T Type Checking and Type Deduction Techniques for Polymorphic Programming
Languages
%I Carnegie Mellon Computer Science Department
%D DEC 1985
%K O02 lambda-calculus let construct

%A M. Dyer
%A M. Flowers
%A S. Muchnick
%T Lisp/85 User's Manual
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 77-4
%K T01

%A M. Flowers
%A M. DYer
%A S. Muchnick
%T LISP/85 Implementation Report
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 78-1
%K T01

%A N. Jones
%A S. Muchnick
%T Flow Analysis and Optimization of LISP-like Structures
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 78-2
%K T01

%A U. Pleban
%T The Standard Semantics of a Subset of SCHEME, A Dialect of LISP
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 79-3
%K T01  O02

%A S. Muchnick
%A U. Pleban
%T A Semantic Comparison of LISP and SCHEME
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 80-3
%K T01 O02

%A M. Jones
%T The PEGO Acquisition System Implementaiton Report
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 80-4

%A Gary Borchardt
%A Z. Bavel
%T  CLIP, Computer Language for Idea Processing
%I University of Kansas, Computer Science Department
%R 81-4

%A Marek Holynski
%A Brian R. Gardner
%A Rafail Ostrovsky
%T Toward an Intelligent Computer Graphics System
%I Boston University, Computer Science Department
%R BUCS Tech Report #86-003
%D JAN 1986
%K T01 AA16

%A Joyce Friedman
%A Carol Neidle
%T Phonological Analysis for French Dictation: Preliminaries to an Intelligent
Tutoring System
%I Boston University, Computer Science Department
%R BUCS Tech Report #86-004
%D APR 1986
%K AI02 AA07

%A Pawel Urzyczyn
%T Logics of Programs with Boolean Memory
%I Boston University, Computer Science Department
%R BUCS Tech Report #86-006
%D APR 1986
%K AI16

%A Chua-Huang
%A Christian Lengauer
%T The Derivation of Systolic Implementatons of Programs
%R TR-86-10
%I Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin
%D APR 1986
%K AA08 AA04 H03 H02

%A E. Allen Emerson
%A Chin-Laung Lei
%T Model Checking in the Propositional Mu-Calculus
%R TR-86-06
%I Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin
%D FEB 1986
%K  O02 AA08


%A R. D. Lins
%T On the Efficiency of Categorical Combinators as a Rewriting System
%D NOV 1985
%R No 34
%I University of Kent at Canterbury, Computing Laboratory
%K AI11 AI14


%A R. D. Lints
%T A Graph Reduction Machine for Execution of Categorical Combinators
%D NOV 1985
%R No 36
%I University of Kent at Canterbury, Computing Laboratory

%A S. J. Thompson
%T Proving Properties of Functions Defined on Lawful Types
%D MAY 1986
%R No 37
%I University of Kent at Canterbury, Computing Laboratory
%K AA08 AI11


%A V. A. Saraswat
%T Problems with Concurrent Prolog
%D JAN 1986
%I Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science
%K T02 H03

%A K. Shikano
%T Text-Independent Speaker Recognition Expertiments using Codebooks in Vector
quantization
%D JAN 1986
%I Carnegie Mellon University
%K AI05

%A S. Nakagawa
%T Speaker Independent Phoneme Recognition in Continuous Speech by
a Statistical Method and a Stochastic Dynamic Time Warping Method
%D JAN 1986
%I Carnegie Mellon University
%K AI05

%A F. Hau
%T Two Designs of Functional Units for VLSI Based Chess Machines
%D JAN 1986
%I Carnegie Mellon University
%K AA17 H03
%X Brute force chess automata searching 8 piles (4 full moves) or deeper have
been dominating the computer Chess scene in recent years and have reached
master level performance.  One intereting question is whether 3 or 4 additional
piles couples with an improved evaluation scheme will bring forth world
championship level performance.  Assuming an optimistic branching ratio of 5,
speedup of at least one hundred fold over the best current chess automaton
would be necessary to reach the 11 or 12 piles per move range.

%A Y. Iwasaki
%A H. A. Simon
%T Theories of Causual Ordering: Reply to de Kleer and Brown
%D FEB 1986
%I Carnegie Mellon University
%K Causality in Device Behavior AA04

%A H. Saito
%A M. Tomita
%T On Automatic Composition of Stereotypic Documents in Foreign Languages
%D DEC 1985
%I Carnegie Mellon University
%K AI02


%A T. Imielinski
%T Query Processing in Deductive Databases with Incomplete Information
%R DCS-TR-177
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AA09 AI10 Horn Clauses Skolem functions


%A T. Imielinski
%T Abstraction in Query Processing
%R DCS-TR-178
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AA09 AI11

%A T. Imielinski
%T Results on Translating Defaults to Circumscription
%R DCS-TR-179
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AA09

%A T. Imielinski
%T Transforming Logical Rules by Relational Algebra
%R DCS-TR-180
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AA09 AI10 Horn clauses

%A T. Imeielinski
%T Automated Deduction in Databases with Incomplete Information
%R DCS-TR-181
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AA09

%A B. A. Nadel
%T Representationi-Selection for Constraint Satisfaction Problems: A Case
Study Using n-queens
%R DCS-TR-182
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AI03 AA17

%A B. A. Nadel
%T Theory-Based Search Order Selection for Constraint Satisfaction
Problems
%R DCS-TR-183
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AI03

%A C. V. Srinivasan
%T Problems, Challenges and Opportunities in Naval Operational Planning
%R DCS-TR-187
%I Rutgers University, Laboratory for Computer Science Research
%K AI09 AA18

%A M. A. Bienkowski
%T An Example of Structured Explanation Generation
%I Princeton University Computer ScienceDepartment
%D NOV 1985
%K O01

%A Bruce G. Buchanan
%T Some Approaches to Knowledge Acquisition
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1076
%D JUL 1985
%$ $5.00
%K AI16

%A John McCarthy
%T Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1077
%D SEP 1985
%$ $5.00
%K AI15

%A Stuart Russell, Esq.
%T The Compleat Guide to MRS
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1080
%D JUN 1985
%$ $15.00
%K AI16

%A Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
%T Rational Interaction: Cooperation among Intelligent Agents
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1081
%D OCT 1985
%$ $15.00
%K AI16

%A Allen Van Gelder
%T A Message Passing Framework for Logical Query Evaluation
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1088
%D DEC 1985
%$ $5.00
%K AI10 Horn Clauses relational data bases H03 AA09 acyclic database schemas

%A Jeffrey D. Ullman
%A Allen Van Gelder
%T Parallel Complexity of Logical Query Programs
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-85-1089
%D DEC 1985
%$ $5.00
%K AI10 H03 AA09

%A Kaizhi Yue
%T Constructing and Analyzing Specifications of Real World Systems
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-86-1090
%D SEP 1985
%K AI01 AA08
%X available in microfilm only

%A Li-Min Fu
%T Learning Object-Level and Metal-Level Knowledge in Expert Systems
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-86-1091
%D NOV 1985
%$ $15.00
%K jaundice AI04 AI01 AA01 condenser

%A Devika Subramanian
%A Bruce G. Buchanan
%T A General Reading List for Artificial Intelligence
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-86-1093
%D DEC 1985
%$ 10.00
%K AT21
%X bibliography for students studying for AI qualifying exam at Stanford

%A Bruce G. Buchanan
%T Expert Systems: Working Systems and the Research Literature
%I Stanford University Computer Science Department
%R STAN-CS-86-1094
%D DEC 1985
%$ 10.00
%K AT21 AI01

%A Jiawei Han
%T Pattern-Based and Knowledge-Directed Query Compilation for Recursive Data
Bases
%I The University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Sciences Department
%R TR 629
%D JAN 1986
%$ 5.70
%K AA09 AI01 AI09
%X Abstract:  Expert database systems (EDS's) comprise an interesting class of
computer systems which represent a confluence of research in artificial
intelligence, logic, and database management systems.  They involve
knowledge-directed processing of large volumes of shared information and
constitute a new generation of knowledge management systems.
Our research is on the deductive augmentation of relational database
systems, especially on the efficient realization of recursion.  We study
the compilation and processing of recursive rules in relational database
systems, investigating two related approaches:  pattern-based recursive rule
compilation and knowledge-directed recursive rule compilation and planning.
Pattern-based recursive rule compilation is a method of compiling and
processing
recursive rules based on their recursion patterns.  We classify recursive rules
according to their processing complexity and develop three kinds of algorithms
for compiling and processing different classes of recursive rules: transitive
closure algorithms, SLSR wavefront algorithms, and stack-directed compilation
algorithms.  These algorithms, though distinct, are closely related.  The more
complex algorithms are generalizations of the simpler ones, and all apply the
heuristics of performing selection first and utilizing  previous processing
results (wavefronts) in reducing query processing costs.  The algorithms are
formally described and verified, and important aspects of their behavior are
analyzed and experimentally tested.
To further improve search efficiency, a knowledge-directed recursive rule
compilation and planning technique is introduced.  We analyze the issues raised
for the compilation of recursive rules and propose to deal with them by
incorporating functional definitions, domain-specific knowledge, query
constants, and a planning technique.  A prototype knowledge-directed relational
planner, RELPLAN, which maintains a high level user view and query interface,
has been designed and implemented, and experiments with the prototype are
reported and illustrated.

%A A. P. Anantharman
%A Sandip Dasgupta
%A Tarak S. goradia
%A Prasanna Kaikini
%A Chun-Pui Ng
%A Murali Subbarao
%A G. A. Venkatesh
%A Sudhanshu Verma
%A Kumar A. Vora
%T Experience with Crystal, Charlotte and Lynx
%I The University of Wisconsin-Madison Computer Sciences Department
%R TR 630
%D FEB 1986
%K H03 T02 Waltz constraint-propagation
%X Abstract:  This paper describes the most recent implementations of
distributed algorithms at Wisconsin that use the Crystal multicomputer, the
Charlotte operating system, and the Lynx language.  This environment is an
experimental testbed for design of such algorithms.  Our report is meant to
show the range of applications that we have found reasonable in such an
environment and to give some of the flavor of the algorithms that have been
developed.  We do not claim that the algorithms are the best possible for
these problems, although they have been designed with some care.  In
several cases they are completely new or represent significant
modifications of existing algorithms.  We present distributed
implementations of B trees, systolic arrays, prolog tree search, the
travelling salesman problem, incremental spanning trees, nearest-neighbor
search in k-d trees, and the Waltz constraint-propagation algorithm.  Our
conclusion is that the environment, although only recently available, is
already a valuable resource and will continue to grow in importance in
developing new algorithms.

%A William J, Rapaport
%T SNePS Considered as a Fully Intensional Propositional
Semantic Network
%R TR 85-15
%I Univ. at Buffalo (SUNY), Dept. of Computer Science
%D October 1985
%K Semantic Network Processing System, syntax, semantics,
intensional knowledge representation system, cognitive
modeling, database management, pattern recognition, expert
systems, belief revision, computational linguistics
aa01 ai09 ai16
%O 46 pages
%X Price: $1.00 North America, $1.50 Other

%A William J. Rapaport
%T Logic and Artificial Intelligence
%R TR 85-16
%I University at Buffalo (SUNY), Dept. of Computer Science
%D November 1985
%K logic, propositional logic, predicate logic, belief systems AA16
%O 44 pages
%X Price: $1.00 North America, $1.50 Other

%A William J. Rapaport
%T Review of "Ethical Issues in the Use of Computers"
%R TR 85-17
%I University at Buffalo, Dept. of Computer Science
%D November 1985
%K computer ethics O06
%O 6 pages
%X Price: $1.00 North America, $1.50 Other

%A Radmilo M. Bozinovic
%T Recognition of Off-line Cursive Handwriting:
a Case of Multi-level Machine Perception
%I Univ. at Buffalo (SUNY), Dept. of Computer Science
%D March 1985
%R TR 85-01
%K Cursive script recognition, artificial intelligence,
computer vision, language perception, language understanding
%O 150 pages
%X Price: $2.00 North America, $3.00 other

%A R. Hookway
%T Verification of Abstract Types Whose Representation Share Storage
%D April 1980
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-80-02
%K AA09
%$ $2.00

%A G. Ernst
%A J. K. Vavlakha
%A W. F. Ogden
%T Verification of Programs with Procedure-Type Parameters
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-80-11
%D 1980
%K AA09
%$ $2.00

%A G. Ernst
%A F. T. Bradshaw
%A R. J. Hookway
%T A Note on Specifications of Concurrent Processes
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-81-01
%D FEB 1981
%K AA09
%$ $2.00

%A J. Franco
%T The Probabilistic Analysis of the Pure Literal Heuristic in Theorem
Proving
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-81-04
%D 1981
%K AI03 AI11
%$ $2.00

%A E. J. Branagan
%T An Interactive Theorem Prover Verification
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-81-09
%D AUG 1981
%K AI11
%$ $2.00

%A G. W. Ernst
%T A Method for verifying Concurrent Processes
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-82-01
%D FEB 1982
%K AA09
%$ $2.00

%A Chang-Sheng Yang
%T A Computer Intelligent System for Understanding Chinese Homonyms
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-83-10
%D AUG 1983
%K AI02
%$ $2.00

%A G. Ernst
%T Extensions to Methods for Learning Problem Solving Strategies
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-84-02
%D MAY 1984
%K AI04
%$ $2.00

%A R. J. Hookway
%T Analysis of Asynchronous Circuits Using Temporal Logic
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-84-07
%D JUL 1984
%K AA04
%$ $2.00

%A Sterling, Leon
%T Explaining Explanations Clearly
%I Case Western Reserve University, Computer Engineering and Science Department
%R CES-85-03
%D MAY 1985
%K O01
%$ $2.00

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
203
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 10:46:15 -0200
-FROM-
From: Jacob Levy  <jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Chemistry systems & PROLOG
-BODY-
        Has anyone programmed or used a logic programming based system for
use in Chemistry? I am especially interested in organic synthesis planning
systems. Do you know of such systems written in other languages? Any help,
references and info will be greatly appreciated,

        Thanks
        Rusty Red (AKA Jacob Levy)

        BITNET:                         jaakov@wisdom
        ARPA:                           jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        CSNET:                          jaakov%wisdom.bitnet@csnet-relay
        UUCP:                           jaakov@wisdom.uucp

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 09:15:20 cdt
-FROM-
From: Esmail Bonakdarian <bonak%cs.uiowa.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RuleMaster
-BODY-
Anybody out there have any comments about RuleMaster? RuleMaster
(a product of the Radian Corporation) is a software tool for
supporting the development of expert systems. I would be grateful
for any information, comments from people who have used this package
(especially on a DOS machine) etc.

If there is enought interest I will collect and post all of the
responses back to AIlist.

Thanks,
Esmail

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 86 00:29:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: gatech!gitpyr!krubin@seismo.css.gov  (Kenny Rubin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Differences among Grad AI programs
-BODY-

        The following is a request for information about the
differences among the various universities that offer graduate
degrees in AI. I apologize in advance if this topic has received
prior discussion, I have been out the country for a few months
and did not have access to the net.

        The goal of all this is to compile a current profile of
the graduate AI programs at the different universities. Thus, any
information about the different programs such as particular strengths
and weaknesses would be useful. Also, a comparison and/or conclusions
drawn between the various programs would be helpful.

        I am essentially interested in the areas of AI that each
university performs research in. For example research pertaining
to Knowledge Representation, Natural Language Processing, Expert
System Development, Learning, Robotics, etc...

        Basically anything that you think potential applicants to
the various universities would like to know, would be helpful. Feel
free to comment about the university(ies) that you know best:
   - MIT, CMU, Yale, Standford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc...

        Please send all response by E-mail to me to reduce net traffic.
If there is sufficient interest, I will post a compiled summary.

                  Kenneth S. Rubin   (404) 894-2348
               Center for Man-Machine Systems Research
             School of Industrial and Systems Engineering
                   Georgia Institute of Technology
                        Post Office Box  35826
                        Atlanta, Georgia 30332
       Majoring with: School of Information and Computer Science
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!krubin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Sep 86 18:43:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!kvvax4!rolfs@seismo.css.gov  (Rolf Skatteboe)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems and deep knowledge
-BODY-
Hello:

For the time being, I'm working on my MSc thesis with main goal to
investigate the combination of knowledge based diagnosis system and
the use of mathematical models  of gas turbines. I will used this models as
deep knowledge in order to improve the results of the diagnosis system.
The models can be used both as early warning fault systems and as sensor
verification and test. The model can also be used to evaluate changes in
machine parameters caused by engine degradiation.
So far I have found some articles about diagnostic reasoning based on structure
and behavior for digital electronic hardware.
While I'm trying to find the best system structure for a demonstration system,
I would like to get hold on information (articles references, program
examples, and other people's experiences) both on using deep knowledge
in expert systems in general, and  the use of mathematical models in
particular.

I hope that someone can help me.

Grethe Tangen
Kongsberg KVATRO, NORWAY

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 1986 0904-EDT
-FROM-
From: Holger Sommer <SOMMER@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert system Textbook For Applications
-BODY-
I was asked to develop a course for Undergrad seniors and Beginning
Graduated Students in Engineering, an introductory course for Expert
System Technology with the focus on Application.  I am looking for a
suitable introductory textbook at the beginners level which could help
me to get the students familiar with AI in general and expert systems
specifically.  Also if anyone has some experiance teachning a course for
non-computer science students in the AI area I would appreciate our
comments.  Please send mail to Sommer@c.cs.cmu.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 10:42:27 edt
-FROM-
From: Lisa Meyer <lem%galbp.uucp@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for Info on Expert Systems Development
-BODY-

I am a senior Info & Computer Science major at Georgia Tech.  I will be
constructing an Expert System to diagnose communications setups & their
problems for my senior design project at the request of my cooperative
ed. employer.  I have only had an introductory course in AI, so a large
part of this project will be spent on researching information on expert
system development.

Any information on :  Constructing Expert Systems (esp. for diagnostics)
                      PC versions of Languages suitable for  building
                         Expert Systems
                      Public Domain Expert Systems, ES Shells, or de-
                         velopment tools
                      Or good books, articles, or references to the
                         subjects listed above

WOULD  BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.  As the goal of my project is to con-
   struct a working diagnostic expert system and not to learn every-
   thing there is to know about AI, pointers to good sources of
   infromation, copies of applicable source, and information those
   who ARE knowledgable in the field of AI and Expert System Con-
   struction would be EXTREMELY HELPFUL.

                  THANKS IN ADVANCE,
                                     Lisa Meyer  (404-329-8022)
                                                  Atlanta, GA


=====================================================================
Lisa Meyer
Harris / Lanier
Computer R&D (Cooperative Education Program)
Information & Computer Science Major
   Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia I
Ga. Tech Box 30750, Atlanta Ga. 30332
{akgua,akgub,gatech}!galbp!lem
=====================================================================

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 86 13:34:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: lrl%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert System Wanted
-BODY-
Does anyone know of a general purpose expert system available for VM/CMS?
I'm looking for one that would be used on a university campus by a variety
of researchers in different disciplines.  Each researcher would feed their
own rules into it.

Also, can anyone recommend readings, conferences, etc. for someone getting
started in this field?

Thanks.

Linda Littleton                        phone:  (814) 863-0422
214 Computer Building                  bitnet: LRL at PSUVM
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA  16802

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 0:19:04 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Address???
-BODY-
In a recent summary of the Spang-Robinson Report reference was made to the
company "Integrated Inference Machines".  Does anyone have an address for them?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 86 18:21:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: john@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (John Jacobsen)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: pd prolog
-BODY-
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone have the public domain prolog package discussed in this month's
BYTE magazine?


John E. Jacobsen
University of Wisconsin -- Madison Academic Computing Center

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 86 00:32:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: humu!uhmanoa!todd@bass.nosc.mil  (Todd Ogasawara)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Digitalk Smalltalk for the PC
-BODY-
If anyone out there has played with the version of Smalltalk for the
PC by Digitalk, I'd like to get your opinions.  I am especially
interested in the object-oriented version of Prolog that comes with
the package.  Thanks..todd

Todd Ogasawara, University of Hawaii
Dept. of Psychology & U. of Hawaii Computing Center

UUCP:     {ihnp4,dual,vortex}!islenet!
                                      \
                                        \__ uhmanoa!todd
                                        /
      {backbone}!sdcsvax!noscvax!humu!/
                       /
                clyde/

                                        [soon to change to uhccux!todd]

ARPA:  humu!uhmanoa!todd@noscvax

** I used to be: ogasawar@nosc.ARPA & ogasawar@noscvax.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Oct 86 23:56:43 GMT
-FROM-
From: spdcc!dyer@harvard.harvard.edu  (Steve Dyer)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Digitalk Smalltalk for the PC
-BODY-
I have it and am very impressed.  Perhaps more convincing though, I have
a friend who's been intimately involved with Smalltalk development
from the very beginning who was also very impressed.  It's even more
remarkable because the Digitalk folks didn't license the Smalltalk-80
virtual machine from Xerox; they developed their system from the formal
and not-so-formal specifications of Smalltalk 80 available in the public
domain.  Apparently, they can call their system "Smalltalk V" because
"Smalltalk" isn't a trademark of Xerox; only "Smalltalk-80" is.

I haven't played with their Prolog system written in Smalltalk.
>-
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyer

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 1986 13:30:37 EDT
-FROM-
From: David Smith <DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Communications Experts
-BODY-
I was curious to find out about Werner Uhrig's question (9/10) relating
to an Infoworld article from Smyrna, Ga since Ga is not exactly a
hotbed of AI activity.  I spoke to Nat Atwell of Concept
Development Systems about Line Expert ($49.95).  It is apparently
an off-line Turbo Prolog application with knowledge about data
set interfacing, known problems etc.,  including the ability to draw
schematics of cables on the screen for you.  For more info,
call nat at (404) 434-4813.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 11:06 PDT
-FROM-
From: JREECE%sc.intel.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XLISP Availability
-BODY-
Although XLISP is available on a number of PC bulletin boards, your best bet
for the PC version would be the BIX network run by Byte magazine.  It has its
own forum run by the author, David Betz, and you can turn around a message
to him in 1-2 days.  Information on how to sign up has been in most of the
recent issues of Byte.  Also, the latest version is 1.7, and there is talk
of a compiler coming out in the future.

John Reece
Intel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 0:30:53 BST
-FROM-
From: Fitch@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPS5 on small machines (re V4 #183)
-BODY-
There is OPS5 for the IBM-PC running UOLISP, from North West Computer
Algorithms.  It is the franz version slightly modified.
  I have run OPS5 on an Atari and on an Amiga.  It does not need a very big
system to do some things.
==John Fitch

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 15:40:24-CDT
-FROM-
From: Charles Petrie <AI.PETRIE@MCC.COM>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Petrie@MCC
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS Query Response
-BODY-
More detail on Don Rose's TMS query:

  Does anyone know whether the standard algorithms for belief revision
  (e.g. dependency-directed backtracking in TMS-like systems) are
  guaranteed to halt?  That is, is it possible for certain belief networks
  to be arranged such that no set of mutually consistent beliefs can be found
  (without outside influence)?

There are at least three distinct Doyle-style algorithms. Doyle's doesn't
terminate on unsatisfiable cicularities.  James Goodwin's algorithm
does.  This algorithm is proved correct in "An Improved Algorithm for
Non-monotonic Dependency Net Update", LITH-MAT-R-82-23, Linkoping
Institute of Technology. David Russinoff's algorithm not only halts
given an unsatisfiable circularity, but is guaranteed to find a
well-founded, consistent set of status assignments, even if there are
odd loops, if such a set is possible. There are dependency nets for
which Russinoff's algorithm will properly assign statuses and Goodwin's
may not.  An example and proof of correctness for this algorithm is
given in "An Algorithm for Truth Maintenance", AI-068-85,
Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation.  Also, Doyle made
the claim that an unsatisfiable circularity can be detected if a node is
its own ancestor after finding a valid justification with a NIL status
in the Outlist. Detection of unsatisfiable circularities turns out to be
more difficult than this. This is noted in "A Diffusing Computation for
Truth Maintenance" wherein I give a distributed computation for status
assignment (published in the Proc. 1986 Internat. Conf. on Parallel
Processing, IEEE) that halts on unsatisfiable circularities.

The term "unsatisfiable circularity" was introduced by Doyle and refers
to a dependency network that has no correct status labeling.  The term
"odd loop" was introduced by Charniak, Riesbeck, and McDermott in
section 16.7 of "Artificial Intelligence Programming".  An equivalent
definition is given by Goodwin.  In both, an odd loop refers to a
particular circular path in a dependency net.  As Goodwin notes, such
odd loops are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an unsatisfiable
circularity.

All of the algorithms mentioned above are for finding a proper set of
status assignments for a dependency network.  A distinct issue is the
avoidance of the creation of odd loops, which may introduce
unsatisfiable circularities, by Doyle-style dependency-directed
backtracking.  Examples of creation of such odd loops and algorithms to
avoid such are described in my technical reports on DDB. Michael
Reinfrank's report on the KAPRI system also notes the possibility of
odd loops created by DDB. (DDB references on request to avoid an even
longer note.)

Charles Petrie
PETRIE@MCC

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Oct 1986 13:36:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: David Smith <DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Computer Vision
-BODY-
Peter Snilovicz recently asked about recognizing faces.  I saw a really
interesting presentation on the subject Cortical Thought Theory by Rick Routh,
ex-AFIT now with the Army at Fort Gordon.  He can be reached at (404)791-3011.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
204
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 14:52 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Connectionist Networks (UPenn)
-BODY-

                            CONNECTIONIST NETWORKS
                             Jerome A. Feldman
                        Computer Science Department
                          University of Rochester

There  is  a  growing interest in highly interconnected networks of very simple
processing elements within artificial intelligence circles.  These networks are
referred to as Connectionist Networks and are playing an increasingly important
role in artificial intelligence and  cognitive  science.    This  talk  briefly
discusses  the  motivation  behind pursuing the the connectionist approach, and
discusses a connectionist model of how mammals are able  to  deal  with  visual
objects   and   environments.     The  problems  addressed  include  perceptual
constancies, eye movements and the stable visual  world,  object  descriptions,
perceptual generalizations, and the representation of extrapersonal space.

The  development  is  based  on  an  action-oriented notion of perception.  The
observer  is  assumed  to  be  continuously  sampling  the  ambient  light  for
information  of  current  value.   The central problem of vision is taken to be
categorizing and locating objects in the environment.   The  critical  step  in
this   process  is  the  linking  of  visual  information  to  symbolic  object
descriptions,  i.e.,  indexing.    The  treatment  focuses  on  the   different
representations  of  information  used in the visual system.  The model employs
four representation frames that capture information  in  the  following  forms:
retinotopic, head-based, symbolic, and allocentric.

The  talk ends with a discussion of how connectionist models are being realized
on existing architectures such as large multiprocessors.

                         Thursday, October 2, 1986
                          Room 216 - Moore School
                             3:00 - 4:30 p.m.

                          Refreshments Available
                     Faculty Lounge - 2:00 - 3:00 p.m.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 1 Oct 86 11:46:40-PDT
-FROM-
From: Amy Lansky <LANSKY@SRI-VENICE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Class Formation (SRI)
-BODY-

         PROBABILISTIC PREDICTION THROUGH AUTOMATIC CLASS FORMATION

                Peter Cheeseman (CHEESEMAN@AMES-PLUTO)
                      NASA Ames Research Center

                    11:00 AM, MONDAY, October 6
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228


A probabilistic expert system is a set of probabilistic connections
(e.g. conditional or joint probabilities) between the known variables.
These connections can be used to make (conditional) probabilistic
predictions for variables of interest given any combination of known
variable values.  Such systems suffer a major computational problem---
once the probabilstic connections form a complex inter-connected
network, the cost of performing the necessary probability calculations
becomes excessive.  One approach to reducing the computational
complexity is to introduce new "variables" (hidden causes or dummy
nodes) that decouple the interactions between the variables.  Judea
Pearl has described an algorithm for introducing sufficient dummy
nodes to create a tree structure, provided the probabilistic
connections satisfy certain (strong) restrictions.  This talk will
describe a procedure for finding only the significant "hidden causes",
that not only lead to a computationally simple procedure, but subsume
all the significant interactions between the variables.

VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Sep 1986 1228-EDT
-FROM-
From: David A. Evans <DAE@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computers are not Omnipotent (CMU)
-BODY-

                  PHILOSOPHY COLLOQUIUM ANNOUNCEMENT:

                    COMPUTERS ARE NOT OMNIPOTENT

                            David Harel

                         Weizmann Institute
                                and
                       Carnegie Mellon University


                     Monday, October 6   4:00 p.m.
                            Porter Hall 223D


In April, 1984, TIME magazine quoted a computer professional as saying:

  "Put the right kind of sofware into a computer and it will do
   whatever you want it to. There may be limits on what you can
   do with the machines themselves, but there are no limits on
   what you can do with the software."

In the talk we shall disprove this contention outright, by exhibiting a
wide array of results obtained by mathematicians and computer scientists
between 1935 and 1983. Since the results point to inherent limitations of
any kind of computing device, even with unlimited resources, they appear
to have interesting philosophical implications concerning our own
limitations as entities with finite mass.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 September 1986 2247-EDT
-FROM-
From: Masaru Tomita@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automating Diagnosis (CMU)
-BODY-
Date:  10/7 (Tuesday)
Time: 3:30
Place: WeH 5409

               Some AI Applications at Digital
              Automating Diagnosis: A case study

                       Neil Pundit
                    Kamesh Ramakrishna

           Artificial Intelligence Applications Group
                Digital Equipment Corporation
                 77 Reed Road (HLO2-3/M10)
                Hudson, Massachusetts, 01749


The Artificial Intelligence Applications Group at Digital is engaged in the
development of expert systems technology in the context of many real-life
problems drawn from within the corporation and those of customers. In
addition, the group fosters basic research in AI by arrangements with
leading universities. We plan to briefly describe some interesting
applications. However, to satisfy your appetite for technical content, we
will describe in some detail our progress on Beta, a tool for automating
diagnosis.

The communication structure level is a knowledge level at which certain
kinds of diagnostic reasoning can occur. It is an intermediate level between
the level at which current expert systems are designed (using knowledge
acquired from experts) and the level at which ``deep reasoning'' systems
perform (based on knowledge of structure, function, and behavior of the
system being diagnosed). We present an example of an expert system that was
designed the old-fashioned way and the heuristics that were the basis for
recognizing the existence of the communication structure level.

Beta is a language for specifying the communication structure of a system so
that these heuristics can be compiled into a partially automatically
generated program for diagnosing system problems. The current version of
Beta can handle a specific class of communication structure that we call a
``control hierarchy'' and can analyze historical usage and error data
maintained as a log file. The compiler embeds the heuristics in a generated
mix of OPS5 and C code. We believe that Beta is a better way for designers
and programmers who are not AI experts to express their knowledge of a
system than the current rule-based or frame-based formalisms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu,  2 Oct 86 15:12:49 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Elisha P. Sacks" <elisha%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Logic (MIT)
-BODY-

                             E. Taatnoon

              "The Third Cybernetics and Temporal Logic"


     I aim to link up the concepts of system bifurcation and system
catastrophe with temporal logic in order to show the applicability of
dialectical reasoning to metamorphic system transformations.  A system
catastrophe is an innovation resulting from reorganization resulting
from a switch from positive to negative feedback or vice versa.  The
subsystems would then be oscillators and the truth of any descriptive
statement is then distributive.  Such oscillations would produce an
uncertainty in the temporal trajectory of the system which would
increase both towards the past and the future.  This means that time
is not a scalar dimension, but a quadratic paraboloid distribution of
converging and diverging transition probabilities.  A social system
composed of such oscillators would be heterarchical rather than
hierarchical.

Refreshments.
Hosts: Dennis Fogg and Boaz Ben-Zvi

Place: 8th Floor Playroom
Time:  Noon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Sep 86  0947 PDT
-FROM-
From: Carolyn Talcott <CLT@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Program Transformations and Parallel Lisp (SU)
-BODY-

Speaker: James M. Boyle, Argonne National Laboratory

Time: Monday, October 6, 4pm
Place: 252 Margaret Jacks (Stanford Computer Science Dept)

                        Deriving Parallel Programs
                      from Pure LISP Specifications
                         by Program Transformation


                            Dr. James M. Boyle

                 Mathematics and Computer Science Division
                        Argonne National Laboratory
                          Argonne, IL 60439-4844
                            boyle@anl-mcs.arpa




     How can one implement a "dusty deck"  pure  Lisp  program  on  global-
memory parallel computers?  Fortunately, pure Lisp programs have a declara-
tive interpretation, which protects their decks from becoming too dusty!

     This declarative interpretation means that a pure Lisp program is  not
over-specified  in  the  direction  of sequential execution.  Thus there is
hope to detect parallelism automatically in pure Lisp programs.

     In this talk I shall describe a stepwise refinement of pure Lisp  pro-
grams  that  leads  to a parallel implementation.  From this point of view,
the pure Lisp program is an abstract specification, which program transfor-
mations  can  refine  in  several  steps  to  a  parallel program.  I shall
describe some of the transformations--correctness preserving rewrite  rules
>-used to carry out the implementation.

     An important  property  of  a  parallel  program  is  whether  it  can
deadlock.  I shall discuss a number of the design decisions involved in the
refinement and their role in preserving the correctness of the  transformed
program, especially with regard to deadlock.

     Implementing a transformational refinement often leads to  interesting
insights  about  programming.   I  shall  discuss  some  of these insights,
including one about the compilation of recursive programs,  and  some  that
suggest  ways  to systematically relax the "purity" requirement on the Lisp
program being implemented.

     We have used this approach to implement a moderately large  pure  Lisp
program  (1300 lines, 42 functions) on several parallel machines, including
the Denelcor HEP (r.i.p.), the Encore Multimax, the Sequent  Balance  8000,
and the Alliant FX/8.  I shall discuss some measurements of the performance
of this program, which has achieved a speedup of 12.5 for 16 processors  on
realistic  data,  and some of the optimizations used to obtain this perfor-
mance.

     Oh, yes, and by the way, the transformations produce a  parallel  pro-
gram in FORTRAN!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 01 Oct 86  1134 PDT
-FROM-
From: Martin Abadi <MA@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Temporal Theorem Proving (SU)
-BODY-

PhD Oral Examination
Wednesday, October 8, 2:15 PM
Margaret Jacks Hall 146

                        Temporal Theorem Proving

                                Martin Abadi
                        Computer Science Department

In the last few years, temporal logic has been applied in the
specification, verification, and synthesis of concurrent programs, as
well as in the synthesis of robot plans and in the verification of
hardware devices. Nevertheless, proof techniques for temporal logic
have been quite limited up to now.

This talk presents a novel proof system R for temporal logic. Proofs are
generally short and natural. The system is based on nonclausal resolution,
an attractive classical logic method, and involves a special treatment of
quantifiers and modal operators.

Unfortunately, no effective proof system for temporal logic is
complete. We examine soundness and completeness issues for R and other
systems. For example, a simple extension of our resolution system is
as powerful as Peano Arithmetic.  (Fortunately, refreshments will
follow the talk.)

Like classical resolution, temporal resolution suggests an approach to
logic programming. We explore temporal logic as a programming language
and a temporal resolution theorem prover as an interpreter for
programs in this language.

Other modal logics have found a variety of uses in artificial
intelligence and in the analysis of distributed systems. We discuss
resolution systems analogous to R for the modal logics K, T, K4, S4,
S5, D, D4, and G.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat,  4 Oct 86 12:30:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Efficient Unification of Quantified Terms (MIT)
-BODY-
From: Susan Hardy <SH at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>


                        JOHN STAPLES
                   University of Queensland

        Efficient unification of quantified terms


               DATE:  Tuesday, October 7, l986
               TIME:  2:45 pm. - Refreshments
                      3:00 pm. - Talk
              PLACE:  2nd Floor Lounge


Quantifiers such as for-all, integral signs, block headings would be
a valuable enrichment of the vocabulary of a logic programming language
or other computational logic. The basic technical prerequisite is a
suitable unification algorithm. A programme is sketched for the
development of data structures and algorithms which efficiently
support the use of quantified terms. Progress in carrying out this
programme is reviewed. Both structure sharing and non structure
sharing representations of quantified terms are described, together
with a unification algorithm for each case. The efficiency of the
approach results from the techniques used to represent terms,
which enable naive substitution to implement correct substitution
for quantified terms. The work is joint with Peter J. Robinson.



HOST:  Arvind

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat,  4 Oct 86 13:04:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning Simultaneous Actions (BBN)
-BODY-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG.ARPA>

                         BBN Laboratories
                     Science Development Program
                        AI/Education Seminar


Speaker:  Professor James Allen
          University of Rochester
          (james@rochester)

Title:    Planning Simultaneous Actions in Temporally Rich Worlds

Date:     10:30a.m., Monday, October 6th
Location: 3rd floor large conference room,
          BBN Labs, 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge


    This talk describes work done with Richard Pelavin over the last few
years. We have developed a formal logic of action that allows us to
represent knowledge and reason about the interactions between events
that occur simultaneously or overlap in time. This includes interactions
between two (or more) actions that a single agent might perform
simultaneously, as well as interactions between an agent's actions and
events occuring in the external world. The logic is built upon an
interval-based temporal logic extended with modal operators similar to
temporal necessity and a counterfactual operator. Using this formalism,
we can represent a wide range of possible ways in which actions may
interact.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 11:34 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cognitive Architecture (UPenn)
-BODY-
             WHAT IS THE SHAPE OF THE COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE?

                               Allen Newell
                        Computer Science Department
                        Carnegie Mellon University

                          12:00 noon, October 17
                        Alumni Hall, Towne Building
                        University of Pennsylvania

The architecture plays a critical role in computational systems, defining
the separation between structure and content, and hence the capability of
being programmed. All architectures have much in common. However, important
characteristics depend on which mechanisms occur in the architecture (rather
than in software) and what shape they take. There has been much research
recently on architectures throughout computer and cognitive science. Within
computer science the main drivers have been new hardware technologies (VLSI)
and the felt need for parallelism. Within cognitive science the main drivers
have been the hope of comprehensive psychological models (ACT*), the urge to
ground the architecture in neurophysiological mechanisms (the
connectionists) and the proposal of modularity as a general architectural
principle (from linguistics). The talk will be on human cognitive
architecture, but considerations will be brought to bear from everywhere.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
205
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 14:58:37 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Limericks by Henry Kautz
-BODY-
gleaned from the pages of CANADIAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
September 1986 No. 9 page 6:


        AI Limericks

       by Henry Kautz
   University of Rochester

        ***     ***

If you're dull as a napkin, don't sigh;
Make your name as a "deep" sort of guy.
  You just have to crib, see
  Any old book by Kripke
And publish in AAAI.

        ***     ***

A hacker who studied ontology
Was famed for his sense of frivolity.
  When his program inferred
  That Clyde is a bird
He blamed not his code but zoology.

        ***     ***

If your thesis is utterly vacuous
Use first-order predicate calculus.
  With sufficient formality
  The sheerist banality
Will be hailed by the critics: "Miraculous!"

If your thesis is quite indefensible
Reach for semantics intensional.
  Your committee will stammer
  Over Montague grammar
Not admitting it's incomprehensible.


>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 11:40 PDT
-FROM-
From: JREECE%sc.intel.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turbo Prolog - Yet Another Opinion
-BODY-
Although Turbo Prolog has been characterized by some wags as a "brain-dead
implementation" I think its mixture of strengths and weaknesses would be more
accurately described as those of an idiot savant.  Some of the extensions,
such as the built-in string editor predicates, are positively serendipitous,
and you get most of the development time advantages of a fifth generation
language for a conventional application plus good runtime performance for
only $70.  On the other hand, one tires quickly of writing NP-incomplete sets
of type declarations which are unnecessary in any other implementation....

If nothing else, for $70 you can prototype something that can be used to
justify
spending $700 for a real PC Prolog compiler, or $18,000 for a VAX
implementation.

John Reece
Intel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 18:52:26 CDT
-FROM-
From: neves@ai.wisc.edu (David M. Neves)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: neves@ai.wisc.edu (David M. Neves)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox vs Symbolics -- Reference counts vs Garbage collection
-BODY-
When I was using MIT Lisp Machines (soon to become Symbolics) years
ago nobody used the garbage collector because it slowed down the
machine and was somewhat buggy.  Instead people operated for hours/days
until they ran out of space and then rebooted the machine.  The only
time I turned on the garbage collector was to compute 10000 factorial.
Do current Symbolics users use the garbage collector?

   "However, it is apparent that reference counters will never
   reclaim circular list structure."

This is a common complaint about reference counters.  However I don't
believe there is very many circular data structures in real Lisp code.
Has anyone looked into this?  Has any Xerox user run out of space
because of circular data structures in their environment?

>-
David Neves, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Usenet:  {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!neves
Arpanet: neves@rsch.wisc.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Sep 86 15:35:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: princeton!siemens!steve@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Garb Collect Symb vs Xerox
-BODY-

I received mail that apparently also went onto the net, from Dan Hoey
(hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA).  He discussed garbage collection in response to
my unsupported allegation that, "S[ymbolics] talks about their garbage
collection more, but X[erox]'s is better."  I am glad to see someone
taking up an informed discussion in this area.

First, I briefly recap his letter, eliding (well-put) flames:

+ In the language of computer
+ science, Xerox reclaims storage using a ``reference counter''
+ technique, rather than a ``garbage collector.''

+ If we are to believe Xerox, the reference counter
+ technique is fundamentally faster, and reclaims acceptable amounts of
+ storage.  However, it is apparent that reference counters will never
+ reclaim circular list structure.  As a frequent user of circular list
+ structure (doubly-linked lists, anyone?), I find the lack tantamount to
+ a failure to reclaim storage.

+ I have never understood why Xerox continues to neglect to write a
+ garbage collector.  It is not necessary to stop using reference counts,
+ but simply to have a garbage collector available for those putatively
+ rare occasions when they run out of memory.

+ Dan Hoey

Xerox's system is designed for highly interactive use on a personal
workstation (sound familiar?).  They spread the work of storage reclamation
evenly throughout the computation by keeping reference counts.  Note that
they have many extra tricks such as "References from the stack are not
counted, but are handled separately at "sweep" time; thus the vast majority
of data manipulations do not cause updates to [the reference counts]"
(Interlisp-D Reference Manual, October, 1985).  Even if this scheme were
to use a greater total amount of CPU time than typical garbage collection,
it would remain more acceptable for use on a personal, highly interactive
workstation.  I have no idea how it can be compared to Symbolics for overall
performance, without comparing the entire Interlisp vs. Zetalisp systems.

Nevertheless, I can say that my experience is that Interlisp runs a "G.C."
every few seconds and it lasts, subjectively, an eyeblink.  Occasionally
I get it to take longer, for example when I zero my pointers to 1500 arrays
in one fell swoop.  I have some figures from one application, too.  An
old, shoddy implementation ran 113 seconds CPU and 37.5 seconds GC (25% GC).
A decent implementation of the same program, running a similar problem twice,
got 145 seconds CPU, but 10.8 and 20.3 seconds GC (6.9% and 12% GC).  (The
good implementation still doesn't have a good hashing function so it's still
slower.)  I cannot claim that these figures are representative.  I have
heard horror stories about other Lisps' GCs,
although I don't have any feel for Symbolics's "Ephemeral GC".

I have a strong feeling Xerox has other tricks besides the one about the
stack, which they don't want to tell anyone.  I know they recently fixed
the reference counter from counting 16 or more references as "infinity"
(and thus never reclaimable) to an overflow scheme where the reference
count gets squirreled away somewhere else when it gets bigger.

Finally, normally the amount of unreclaimed garbage (e.g. circular lists)
grows much slower than memory fragments, so you have to rebuild your
world before unreclaimed garbage becomes a problem anyway.

Postfinally, Xerox makes a big deal that their scheme takes time proportional
to the number of objects reclaimed, while traditional systems take time
proportional to the number of objects allocated.  I think Symbolics's
ephemeral scheme is a clever way to consider only subsets of the universe
of allocated objects, that are most likely to have garbage.  I wish I knew
whether it is a band-aid or an advance in the state-of-the-art.

Absolutely ultimately, "traditional" GC I refer to, is known as "mark-
and-sweep".

Steve Clark    {topaz or ihnp4}!princeton!siemens!steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 14:07:12 edt
-FROM-
From: segall@caip.rutgers.edu (Ed Segall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Emergent Consciousness
-BODY-
Why must we presume that the seat of consciousness must be in the form
of neural "circuits"? What's to prevent it from being a symbolic,
logical entity, rather than a physical entity? After all, the "center
of control" of most computers is some sort of kernal program, running
on the exact same hardware as the other programs. (Don't try to push
the analogy too far, you can probably find a hole in it.) Perhaps the
hierarchical system referred to is also not structural.

Might the brain operate even more like a conventional computer than we
realize, taking the role of an extremely sophisticated
(self-modifying) interpreter? The "program" that is interpreted is the
pattern of firings occurring at any given time. If this is so, then
moment-to-moment thought is almost completely in terms of the dynamic
information contained in neural signals, rather than the quasi-static
information contained in neural interconnections. The neurons simply
serve to "run" the thoughts.  This seems obvious to me, since I am
assuming that neural firings can process information much faster than
structural changes in neurons.

 I'd be interested to know about what rate neuron firings occur in the
brain, and if anyone has an intelligent guess as to how much
information can be stored at once in the "dynamic" form of firings
rather than the "static" form of interconnections.

I apologize in advance if what I suggest goes against well-understood
knowlege (not theory) of how the brain operates. My information is
from the perspective of a lay person, not a cognitive scientist.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 09:34:01 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Consciousness as bureaucracy
-BODY-
Ken Laws' analogy between Bureaucracy and Man--more precisely, Man's
Mind--has been anticipated by Marvin Minsky.  I do not have the reference;
I think it was a rather broad article in a general science journal.

As I recall, the theory that Minsky proposed lay somewhere between the
lay concept of self and the Zen concept.  It seemed to suggest that
consciousness is an illusion to itself, but a genuine and observable
phenomenon to an outside observer, characterizable with the metaphor
of bureaucracy.  Perhaps some Ailist reader can identify the article.

Emergent consciousness has always been a hope of A.I.  I side with
those who suggest that consciousness depends on contact with the world
... even though I know some professors who seem to be counter-examples!
 :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 86 17:14:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "FENG, THEO-DRIC" <theo@ari-hq1.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "FENG, THEO-DRIC" <theo@ari-hq1.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Perception
-BODY-
I just ran across the following report and thought it might contribute some-
thing to the discussion on the "perception" of reality. (I'll try to summarize
the report where I can.)

according to
Thomas Saum in the
German Research Service,
Special Press Reports,
Vol. II, No. 7/86

A group of biologists in Bremen University has been furthering the theory
devel-
oped by Maturana and Varela (both from Chile) in the late '70's, that the brain
neither reflects nor reproduces reality. They suggest that the brain creates
its
own reality.
Gerhard Roth, a prof. of behavioral physiology at Bremen (with doctorates in
philosophy and biology), has written several essays on the subject. In one, he

        ...writes that in the past the "aesthesio-psychological perspective"
        of the psychomatic problem was commonly held by both laypersons
        and scientists. This train of thought claims that the sensory organs
        reporduce the world at least partially and convey this image to the
        brain, where it is then reassembled ("reconstructed") in a uniform
        concept. In other words, this theory maintains that the sense organs
        are the brain's gateway to the world.
             In order to illustrate clearly the incorrectness of this view,
        Roth suggests that the perspectives be exchanged: if one looks at
        the problem of perception from the brain's angle, instead of the
        sense organs, the brain merely receives uniform and basically homo-
        geneous bioelectric signals from the nerve tracks. It is capable of
        determining the intensity of the sensory agitation by the frequency
        of these signals, but this is all it can do. The signals provide no
        information on the quality of the stimulation, for instance, on whe-
        ther an object is red or green. Indeed, they do not even say any-
        thing about the modality of the stimulus, i.e. whether it is an
        optical, acoustical, or chemical stimulation.
             The constructivists [as these new theoreticians are labeled],
        believe that the brain is a self-contained system. Its only access
        to the world consists of the uniform code of the nerve signals which
        have nothing in common with the original stimuli. Since the brain
        has no original image, it cannot possibly "reporduce" reality; it
        has to create it itself. "It (the brain) has to reconstruct the di-
        versity of the outside owrld from the uniform language of the neu-
        rons", Roth claims. The brain accomplishses this task by "interpret-
        ing itself", i.e. by construing what is going on inside itself.
        Thus, the brain "draws conclusions" from the degree to which it is
        agitated by the modality of the original stimulus: all neuronal im-
        pulses reaching the occipital cortex, for example, are visual im-
        pressions.
             This isolated nature of the brain and its reality, however, are
        by no means a blunder on the part of nature; indeed, they are not
        even a necessary evil, Roth explains. On the contrary, it is an
        adaptive advantage acquired by more highlly developed creatures dur-
        ing the course of their phylogenic development. If the brain had di-
        rect access to the environment, Roth argues, then one and the same
        stimulus would necessarily always result in one and the same reac-
        tion by the organizsm. Since, however, the human brain has retained
        a certain amount of creative scope for its reconstruction of reality,
        it is in a position to master complicated stiuations and adapt itself
        to unforeseen circumstances.
             Only in this way is it possible to recognize an object in differ-
        ent light intensities, from a new angle of vision, or at a distance.
        Even experiments with "reversal spectacles" demonstrate man's powers
        of adaptation in interpreting reality: after a little while, test
        persons, who see the world upside down with special glasses, simply
        turn their environment around again in their "mind". When, after a
        few days, they remove the spectacles, the "real" world suddenly seems
        to be standing on its head.
             This mobility and adaptability on the part of our perceptive fa-
        culties were obviously much more important for the evolution of more
        highly developed vertebrates than was a further intensification of
        the signal input by the sense organs. The million fibers in man's
        optic nerve are only double the number of a frog's; the human brain,
        on the other hand, has one hundred thousand times more nerve cells
        than a frog brain. But first and foremost, the "reality workshop",
        i.e., the cerebral area not tied to specific sense, has expanded
        during the evolution of man's brain, apparently to the benefit of
        our species.

Contact: Prof. Dr. Gerhard Roth, Forschungsschwerpunkt Biosystemforschung,
            Universitat [note: umlaut the 'a'] Bremen, Postfach 330 440,
                D-2800 Bremen 33, West Germany.


[conveyed by Theo@ARI]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
206
-DATE-
Date: 27 Sep 86 14:20:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@caip.rutgers.edu  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
The following are the Summary and Abstract, respectively, of two papers
I've been giving for the past year on the colloquium circuit. The first
is a joint critique of Searle's argument AND of the symbolic approach
to mind-modelling, and the second is an alternative proposal and a
synthesis of the symbolic and nonsymbolic approach to the induction
and representation of categories.

I'm about to publish both papers, but on the off chance that
there is a still a conceivable objection that I have not yet rebutted,
I am inviting critical responses. The full preprints are available
from me on request (and I'm still giving the talks, in case anyone's
interested).

***********************************************************
Paper #1:
(Preprint available from author)

                 MINDS, MACHINES AND SEARLE

                       Stevan Harnad
                Behavioral & Brain Sciences
                      20 Nassau Street
                     Princeton, NJ 08542

Summary and Conclusions:

Searle's provocative "Chinese Room Argument" attempted to
show that the goals of "Strong AI" are unrealizable.
Proponents of Strong AI are supposed to believe that (i) the
mind is a computer program, (ii) the brain is irrelevant,
and (iii) the Turing Test is decisive. Searle's point is
that since the programmed symbol-manipulating instructions
of a computer capable of passing the Turing Test for
understanding Chinese could always be performed instead by a
person who could not understand Chinese, the computer can
hardly be said to understand Chinese. Such "simulated"
understanding, Searle argues, is not the same as real
understanding, which can only be accomplished by something
that "duplicates" the "causal powers" of the brain. In the
present paper the following points have been made:

1.  Simulation versus Implementation:

Searle fails to distinguish between the simulation of a
mechanism, which is only the formal testing of a theory, and
the implementation of a mechanism, which does duplicate
causal powers. Searle's "simulation" only simulates
simulation rather than implementation. It can no more be
expected to understand than a simulated airplane can be
expected to fly. Nevertheless, a successful simulation must
capture formally all the relevant functional properties of a
successful implementation.

2.  Theory-Testing versus Turing-Testing:

Searle's argument conflates theory-testing and Turing-
Testing. Computer simulations formally encode and test
models for human perceptuomotor and cognitive performance
capacities; they are the medium in which the empirical and
theoretical work is done. The Turing Test is an informal and
open-ended test of whether or not people can discriminate
the performance of the implemented simulation from that of a
real human being. In a sense, we are Turing-Testing one
another all the time, in our everyday solutions to the
"other minds" problem.

3.  The Convergence Argument:

Searle fails to take underdetermination into account. All
scientific theories are underdetermined by their data; i.e.,
the data are compatible with more than one theory. But as
the data domain grows, the degrees of freedom for
alternative (equiparametric) theories shrink. This
"convergence" constraint applies to AI's "toy" linguistic
and robotic models as well, as they approach the capacity to
pass the Total (asympototic) Turing Test. Toy models are not
modules.

4.  Brain Modeling versus Mind Modeling:

Searle also fails to note that the brain itself can be
understood only through theoretical modeling, and that the
boundary between brain performance and body performance
becomes arbitrary as one converges on an asymptotic model of
total human performance capacity.

5.  The Modularity Assumption:

Searle implicitly adopts a strong, untested "modularity"
assumption to the effect that certain functional parts of
human cognitive performance capacity (such as language) can
be be successfully modeled independently of the rest (such
as perceptuomotor or "robotic" capacity). This assumption
may be false for models approaching the power and generality
needed to pass the Total Turing Test.

6.  The Teletype versus the Robot Turing Test:

Foundational issues in cognitive science depend critically
on the truth or falsity of such modularity assumptions. For
example, the "teletype" (linguistic) version of the Turing
Test could in principle (though not necessarily in practice)
be implemented by formal symbol-manipulation alone (symbols
in, symbols out), whereas the robot version necessarily
calls for full causal powers of interaction with the outside
world (seeing, doing AND linguistic understanding).

7.  The Transducer/Effector Argument:

Prior "robot" replies to Searle have not been principled
ones. They have added on robotic requirements as an
arbitrary extra constraint. A principled
"transducer/effector" counterargument, however, can be based
on the logical fact that transduction is necessarily
nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-digital
functions that can only be simulated, but not implemented,
symbolically.

8.  Robotics and Causality:

Searle's argument hence fails logically for the robot
version of the Turing Test, for in simulating it he would
either have to USE its transducers and effectors (in which
case he would not be simulating all of its functions) or he
would have to BE its transducers and effectors, in which
case he would indeed be duplicating their causal powers (of
seeing and doing).

9.  Symbolic Functionalism versus Robotic Functionalism:

If symbol-manipulation ("symbolic functionalism") cannot in
principle accomplish the functions of the transducer and
effector surfaces, then there is no reason why every
function in between has to be symbolic either.  Nonsymbolic
function may be essential to implementing minds and may be a
crucial constituent of the functional substrate of mental
states ("robotic functionalism"): In order to work as
hypothesized, the functionalist's "brain-in-a-vat" may have
to be more than just an isolated symbolic "understanding"
module -- perhaps even hybrid analog/symbolic all the way
through, as the real brain is.

10.  "Strong" versus "Weak" AI:

Finally, it is not at all clear that Searle's "Strong
AI"/"Weak AI" distinction captures all the possibilities, or
is even representative of the views of most cognitive
scientists.

Hence, most of Searle's argument turns out to rest on
unanswered questions about the modularity of language and
the scope of the symbolic approach to modeling cognition. If
the modularity assumption turns out to be false, then a
top-down symbol-manipulative approach to explaining the mind
may be completely misguided because its symbols (and their
interpretations) remain ungrounded -- not for Searle's
reasons (since Searle's argument shares the cognitive
modularity assumption with "Strong AI"), but because of the
transdsucer/effector argument (and its ramifications for the
kind of hybrid, bottom-up processing that may then turn out
to be optimal, or even essential, in between transducers and
effectors). What is undeniable is that a successful theory
of cognition will have to be computable (simulable), if not
exclusively computational (symbol-manipulative). Perhaps
this is what Searle means (or ought to mean) by "Weak AI."

*************************************************************

Paper #2:
(To appear in: "Categorical Perception"
S. Harnad, ed., Cambridge University Press 1987
Preprint available from author)

            CATEGORY INDUCTION AND REPRESENTATION

                       Stevan Harnad
                Behavioral & Brain Sciences
                      20 Nassau Street
                     Princeton NJ 08542

Categorization is a very basic cognitive activity. It is
involved in any task that calls for differential responding,
from operant discrimination to pattern recognition to naming
and describing objects and states-of-affairs.  Explanations
of categorization range from nativist theories denying that
any nontrivial categories are acquired by learning to
inductivist theories claiming that most categories are learned.

"Categorical perception" (CP) is the name given to a
suggestive perceptual phenomenon that may serve as a useful
model for categorization in general: For certain perceptual
categories, within-category differences look much smaller
than between-category differences even when they are of the
same size physically. For example, in color perception,
differences between reds and differences between yellows
look much smaller than equal-sized differences that cross
the red/yellow boundary; the same is true of the phoneme
categories /ba/ and /da/. Indeed, the effect of the category
boundary is not merely quantitative, but qualitative.

There have been two theories to explain CP effects. The
"Whorf Hypothesis" explains color boundary effects by
proposing that language somehow determines our view of
reality. The "motor theory of speech perception" explains
phoneme boundary effects by attributing them to the patterns
of articulation required for pronunciation. Both theories
seem to raise more questions than they answer, for example:
(i) How general and pervasive are CP effects? Do they occur
in other modalities besides speech-sounds and color?  (ii)
Are CP effects inborn or can they be generated by learning
(and if so, how)? (iii) How are categories internally
represented? How does this representation generate
successful categorization and the CP boundary effect?

Some of the answers to these questions will have to come
from ongoing research, but the existing data do suggest a
provisional model for category formation and category
representation. According to this model, CP provides our
basic or elementary categories. In acquiring a category we
learn to label or identify positive and negative instances
from a sample of confusable alternatives. Two kinds of
internal representation are built up in this learning by
"acquaintance": (1) an iconic representation that subserves
our similarity judgments and (2) an analog/digital feature-
filter that picks out the invariant information allowing us
to categorize the instances correctly. This second,
categorical representation is associated with the category
name. Category names then serve as the atomic symbols for a
third representational system, the (3) symbolic
representations that underlie language and that make it
possible for us to learn by "description."

This model provides no particular or general solution to the
problem of inductive learning, only a conceptual framework;
but it does have some substantive implications, for example,
(a) the "cognitive identity of (current) indiscriminables":
Categories and their representations can only be provisional
and approximate, relative to the alternatives encountered to
date, rather than "exact." There is also (b) no such thing
as an absolute "feature," only those features that are
invariant within a particular context of confusable
alternatives. Contrary to prevailing "prototype" views,
however, (c) such provisionally invariant features MUST
underlie successful categorization, and must be "sufficient"
(at least in the "satisficing" sense) to subserve reliable
performance with all-or-none, bounded categories, as in CP.
Finally, the model brings out some basic limitations of the
"symbol-manipulative" approach to modeling cognition,
showing how (d) symbol meanings must be functionally
anchored in nonsymbolic, "shape-preserving" representations
>- iconic and categorical ones. Otherwise, all symbol
interpretations are ungrounded and indeterminate. This
amounts to a principled call for a psychophysical (rather
than a neural) "bottom-up" approach to cognition.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 09:55:11-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle's logic
-BODY-
I try not to get involved in these arguments,  but bruce krulwich's assertion
that Searle 'bases all his logic on' the binary nature of computers is
seriously
wrong.  We could have harware which worked with direct, physical, embodiments
of all of Shakespeare, and Searles arguments would apply to it just as well.
What bothers him ( and many other philosophers ) is the idea that the machine
works by manipulating SYMBOLIC descriptions of its environment ( or whatever it
happens to be thinking about ).  It's the internal representation idea, which
we AIers take in with our mothers milk, which he finds so silly and directs his
arguments against.
Look, I also don't think there's any real difference between a human's
knowledge
of a horse and machine's manipulation of the symbol it is using to represent
it.
But Searle has some very penetrating arguments against this idea, and one
doesnt
make progress by just repeating one's intuitions, one has to understand his
arguments and explain what is wrong with them.  Start with the Chinese room,
and
read all his replies to the simple counterarguments as well, THEN come back and
help us.
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 86 18:25:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbatt!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (rush)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories (Question not comment)
-BODY-
In article <158@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>6.  The Teletype versus the Robot Turing Test:
>
>For example, the "teletype" (linguistic) version of the Turing...
> whereas the robot version necessarily
>calls for full causal powers of interaction with the outside
>world (seeing, doing AND linguistic understanding).
>
Uh...I never heard of the "robot version" of the Turing Test,
could someone please fill me in?? I think that understanding
the reasons for such a test would help me (I make
no claims for anyone else) make some sense out of the rest
of this article. In light of my lack of knowledge, please forgive
my presumption in the following comment.

>7.  The Transducer/Effector Argument:
>
>A principled
>"transducer/effector" counterargument, however, can be based
>on the logical fact that transduction is necessarily
>nonsymbolic, drawing on analog and analog-to-digital
>functions that can only be simulated, but not implemented,
>symbolically.
>
[ I know I claimed no commentary, but it seems that this argument
  depends heavily on the meaning of the term "symbol". This could
  be a problem that only arises when one attempts to implement some
  of the stranger possibilities for symbolic entities. ]

        Richard Rush    - Just another Jesus freak in computer science
        decvax!cwruecmp!cwrudg!rush

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Oct 86 16:05:28 GMT
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@caip.rutgers.edu  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories (Question not comment)
-BODY-

In his commentary-not-reply to my <158@mind.UUCP>, Richard Rush
<150@cwrudge.UUCP> asks:

(1)
>     I never heard of the "robot version" of the Turing Test,
>     could someone please fill me in?

He also asks (in connection with my "transducer/effector" argument)
about the analog/symbolic distinction:

(2)
>     I know I claimed no commentary, but it seems that this argument
>     depends heavily on the meaning of the term "symbol". This could
>     be a problem that only arises when one attempts to implement some
>     of the stranger possibilities for symbolic entities.

In reply to (1): The linguistic version of the turing test (turing's
original version) is restricted to linguistic interactions:
Language-in/Language-out. The robotic version requires the candidate
system to operate on objects in the world. In both cases the (turing)
criterion is whether the system can PERFORM indistinguishably from a human
being. (The original version was proposed largely so that your
judgment would not be prejudiced by the system's nonhuman appearance.)

On my argument the distinction between the two versions is critical,
because the linguistic version can (in principle) be accomplished by
nothing but symbols-in/symbols-out (and symbols in between) whereas
the robotic version necessarily calls for non-symbolic processes
(transducer, effector, analog and A/D). This may represent a
substantive functional limitation on the symbol-manipulative approach
to the modeling of mind (what Searle calls "Strong AI").

In reply to (2): I don't know what "some of the stranger possibilities
for symbolic entities" are. I take symbol-manipulation to be
syntactic: Symbols are arbitrary tokens manipulated in accordance with
certain formal rules on the basis of their form rather than their meaning.
That's symbolic computation, whether it's done by computer or by
paper-and-pencil. The interpretations of the symbols (and indeed of
the manipulations and their outcomes) are ours, and are not part of
the computation. Informal and figurative meanings of "symbol" have
little to do with this technical concept.

Symbols as arbitrary syntactic tokens in a formal system can be
contrasted with other kinds of objects. The ones I singled out in my
papers were "icons" or analogs of physical objects, as they occur in
the proximal physical input/output in transduction, as they occur in
the A-side of A/D and D/A transformations, and as they may function in
any part of a hybrid system to the extent that their functional role
is not merely formal and syntactic (i.e., to the extent that their
form is not arbitrary and dependent on convention and interpretation
to link it to the objects they "stand for," but rather, the link is
one of physical resemblance and causality).

The category-representation paper proposes an architecture for such a
hybrid system.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
207
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 15:38:02 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Cross-Talk in Mental Operations (UCB)
-BODY-

                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM


                     Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A


                         Tuesday, October 14, 11:00 - 12:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall
                              Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall


             ``Cross-Talk and Backward Processing in Mental Operations''

                                   Daniel Kahneman
                                Psychology Department



               There are many indications that  we  only  have  imperfect
           control of the operations of our mind.  It is common to compute
           far more than is necessary for the task at hand.  An  operation
           of  cleaning-up  and  inhibition  of inappropriate responses is
           often required, and this operation is often only partially suc-
           cessful.   For  example,  we cannot stop ourselves from reading
           words that we attend to; when asked to assess the similarity of
           two objects in a specified attribute we apparently compute many
           similarity relations in addition to  the  requisite  one.   The
           prevalence  of such cross-talk has significant implications for
           a psychologically realistic notion of meaning for the interpre-
           tation of incoherence in judgments.

                A standard view of cognitive function is that the  objects
           and  events of expeience are assimilated, more or less success-
           fully, to existing schemas and expectations.   Some  perceptual
           and  cognitive  phenomena  seem  to fit another model, in which
           objects and events elicit their own context  and  define  their
           own alternatives.  Surprise, for example, is better viewed as a
           failure to make sense of an event post hoc  than as a  violation
           of  expectations.  Some rules by which events evoke counterfac-
           tual alternatives to themselves will be described.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 11:15 EDT
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Deductive Databases (UPenn)
-BODY-
                     3:00pm, Tuesday, October 7, 1986
                23 Moore School, University of Pennsylvania


                        EFFICIENT DEDUCTIVE DATABASES
                        WILL THEY EVER BE CONSTRUCTED?

                             Tomasz Imielinski
                            Rutgers University

The  area  of  deductive  databases  is  a rapidly growing field concerned with
enhancing   traditional   relational   databases   with   automated   deduction
capabilities.    Because  of  the  large  amounts  of  data  involved  here the
complexity issues become critical. We present a number of  results  related  to
the  complexity  of  query  processing  in  the  deductive databases, both with
complete and incomplete information.

In an attempt to answer the question of whether efficient  deductive  databases
will  ever  be constructed we demonstrate an idea of the "deductive database of
the future". In such a system the concept of an answer to a query  is  tailored
to the various limitations of computational resources.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 6 Oct 86 16:25:34-PDT
-FROM-
From: Joani Ichiki <ICHIKI@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Concept Acquisition in Noisy Environments (SRI)
-BODY-

L. Saitta (Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita di Torino, Italy)
will present his talk entitled, "AUTOMATED CONCEPT ACQUISITION IN
NOISY ENVIRONMENTS," 10/7/86 in EK242 at 11:00am.  Abstract follows.

This paper presents a system which performs automated concept
acquisition from examples and has been especially designed to work in
errorful and noisy environments.

The adopted learning methodology is aimed to the target problem of
finding discriminant descriptions of a given set of concepts and both
examples and counterexamples are used.

The learning knowledge is expressed in the form of production rules,
organized into separate clusters, linked together in a graph
structure; the condition part of the rules, corresponding to
descriptions of relevant aspects of the concepts, is expressed by
means of a first order logic based language, enriched with constructs
suitable to handle uncertainty and vagueness and to increase
readability by a human user.  A continuous-valued semantics is
associated to this language and each rule is affected by a certainty
factor.

Learning is considered as a cyclic process of knowledge extraction,
validation and refinement; the control of the cycle is left to the
teacher.

Knowledge extraction proceeds through a process of specialization,
rather than generalization, and utilizes a technique of problem
reduction to contain the computational complexity.  Moreover, the
search strategy is strongly focalized by means of task-oriented but
domain-independent heuristics, trying to emulate the learning
mechanism of a human being, faced to find discrimination rules from a
set of examples.

Several criteria are proposed for evaluating the acquired knowledge;
these criteria are used to guide the process of knowledge refinement.

The methodology has been tested on a problem in the field of speech
recognition and the obtained experimental results are reported and
discussed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 October 1986 1411-EDT
-FROM-
From: Peter Andrews@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Prolog without Horns (CMU)
-BODY-
   The following talk will be given in the Seminar on Automated
Reasoning Wednesday, Oct. 15, at 4:30p.m. in room PH125C. The talk
is independent of preceding material in the seminar.

                  Prolog without Horns
                     D. W. Loveland
An extension to Prolog is defined that handles non-Horn clause sets
(programs) in a manner closer to standard Prolog than previously
proposed. Neither the negation symbol or a symbol for false are
formally introduced in the system, although the system is
conjectured to be propositionally complete. The intention of the
extension is to provide processing of "nearly Horn" programs with
minimal deviation from the Prolog format. Although knowledge of
Prolog is not essential, some prior exposure to Prolog will be helpful.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 6 Oct 86 16:55:52-PDT
-FROM-
From: Lynne Hollander <HOLLANDER@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Engineering and Ontological Structure (SU)
-BODY-
                                SIGLUNCH

        Title:   KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AS THE INVESTIGATION OF
                 ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

        Speaker: Michael J. Freiling
                 Computer Research Laboratory
                 Tektronix Laboratories

        Place:   Chemistry Gazebo

        Time:     12:05-1:15, Friday, October 10


Experience has shown that much of the difficulty of learning to build
knowledge-based systems lies in designing representation structures that
adequately capture the necessary forms of knowledge.  Ontological analysis
is a method we have found quite useful at Tektronix for analyzing and
designing knowledge-based systems.  The basic approach of ontological
analysis is a step-by-step construction of knowledge structures beginning
with simple objects and relationships in the task domain, and continuing
through representations of state, state transformations, and heuristics
for selecting transformations.  Formal tools that can be usefully employed
in ontological analysis include domain equations, semantic grammars, and
full-scale specification languages.  The principles and tools of
ontological analysis are illustrated with actual examples from
knowledge-based systems we have built or analyzed with this method.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 10:39:41-PDT
-FROM-
From: William J. Clancey <CLANCEY@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI-87 Tutorials
-BODY-
AAAI-87 Tutorials -- Request for Proposals

Tutorials will be presented at AAAI-87/Seattle on Monday, Tuesday, and
Thursday, July 13, 14, and 16.  Anyone interested in presenting a tutorial
on a new or standard topic should contact the Tutorial Chair, Bill Clancey.
Topic suggestions from tutorial attendees are also welcome.

Potential speakers should submit a brief resume covering relevant background
(primarily teaching experience) and any available examples of work (ideally,
a published tutorial-level article on the subject).  In addition, those
people suggesting a new or revised topic should offer a 1-page summary of
the idea, outlining the proposed subject and depth of coverage, identifying
the necessary background, and indicating why it is felt that the topic would
be well attended.

With regard to new courses, please keep in mind that tutorials are intended
to provide dissemination of reasonably well-agreed-upon information, that
is, there should be a substantial body of accepted material.  We especially
encourage submission of proposals for new advanced topics, which in 1986
included "Qualitiative Simulation," "AI Machines," and "Uncertainty
Management."

Decisions about topics and speakers will be made by November 1.  Speakers
should be prepared to submit completed course material by December 15.

Bill Clancey
Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory
701 Welch Road, Building C
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Clancey@SUMEX

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 11:43:56 pdt
-FROM-
From: mikeb@nprdc.arpa (Mike Blackburn)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: 1st Conf. on Neural Networks
-BODY-

           CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT: FIRST ANNUAL
        INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NEURAL NETWORKS


                   San Diego, California

                      21-24 June 1987



The  San  Diego  IEEE  Section   welcomes   neural   network
enthusiasts in industry, academia, and government world-wide
to participate in the inaugural annual  ICNN  conference  in
San Diego.

Papers are solicited on the following topics:

     * Network Architectures * Learning Algorithms  *  Self-
     Organization  *  Adaptive Resonance * Dynamical Network
     Stability *  Neurobiological  Connections  *  Cognitive
     Science Connections * Electrical Neurocomputers * Opti-
     cal Neurocomputers * Knowledge Processing  *  Vision  *
     Speech  Recognition  &  Synthesis  *  Robotics  * Novel
     Applications

Contributed Papers: Extended Abstract should be submitted by
1  February  1987  for Conference Presentation. The Abstract
must be single spaced, three to four pages on 8.5 x 11  inch
paper  with  1.5  inch  margins. Abstracts will be carefully
refereed. Accepted abstracts  will  be  distributed  at  the
conference. Final Papers due 1 June 1986.

FINAL RELEASE  OF  ABSTRACTS  AND  PAPERS  WITH  RESPECT  TO
PROPRIETARY  RIGHTS  AND  CLASSIFICATION  MUST  BE  OBTAINED
BEFORE SUBMITTAL.

Address all  Corresspondence  to:  Maureen  Caudill  -  ICNN
10615G Tierrasanta Blvd.  Suite 346, San Diego, CA 92124.

Registration Fee: $350 if received by 1 December 1986,  $450
thereafter.

Conference Venue: Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel (approx.  $95
>  single), space limited, phone (619) 291-6400. Other lodg-
ing within 10 minutes.

Tutorials and Exhibits: Several Tutorials are Planned.  Ven-
dor Exhibit Space Available - make reservations early.


Conference Chairman: Stephen Grossberg

International Chairman: Teuvo Kohonen

Organizing  Committee:  Kunihiko  Fukushima,  Clark   Guest,
Robert  Hecht-Nielsen,  Morris  Hirsch, Bart Kosko (Chairman
619-457-5550), Bernard Widrow.


















































                     September 30, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Oct 1986  13:16 EDT (Sun)
-FROM-
From: "Daniel S. Weld" <WELD%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on Qualitative Physics
-BODY-
Call for Participation

Workshop on Qualitative Physics
May 27-29, 1987
Urbana, Illinois

Sponsored by:
        the American Association for Artificial Intelligence
                and
        Qualitative Reasoning Group
        University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Organizing Committee:
        Ken Forbus (University of Illinois)
        Johan de Kleer (Xerox PARC)
        Jeff Shrager (Xerox PARC)
        Dan Weld (MIT AI Lab)

Objectives:
Qualitative Physics, the subarea of artificial intelligence concerned with
formalizing reasoning about the physical world, has become an important and
rapidly expanding topic of research.  The goal of this workshop is to
provide an opportunity for researchers in the area to communicate results
and exchange ideas.  Relevant topics of discussion include:

        -- Foundational research in qualitative physics
        -- Implementation techniques
        -- Applications of qualitative physics
        -- Connections with other areas of AI
                 (e.g., machine learning, robotics)

Attendance:  Attendence at the workshop will be limited in order to maximize
interaction.  Consequently, attendence will be by invitation only.  If you
are interested in attending, please submit an extended abstract (no more
than six pages) describing the work you wish to present.  The extended
abstracts will be reviewed by the organizing committee.  No proceedings will
be published; however, a selected subset of attendees will be invited to
contribute papers to a special issue of the International Journal of
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering.

Requirements:  The deadline for submitting extended abstracts is February
10th.  On-line submissions are not allowed; hard copy only please.  Since
no proceedings will be produced, abstracts describing papers submitted to
AAAI-87 are acceptable.  Invitations will be sent out on March 1st.  Please
send 6 copies of your extended abstracts to:

        Kenneth D. Forbus
        Qualitative Reasoning Group
        University of Illinois
        1304 W. Springfield Avenue
        Urbana, Illinois, 61801

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
208
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: News and Recent Articles
-BODY-
%A Paul A. Eisenstein
%T Detroit Finds Robots Aren't Living Up to Expectations
%J Investor's Daily
%D April 21, 1986
%P 12
%K AI07 Chrysler General Motors AA25
%X Chrysler said that automation was one of the major reasons productivity
doubled since 1980.  GM's Lake Orion, a "factory of the future" with 157
automated robots instead of providing the best quality and productivity of
any GM plant is providing the lowest.
Two other plants have been giving GM the same problems.

%A Mary Petrosky
%T Expert Software Aids Large System Design
%J InfoWorld
%D FEB 17, 1986
%V 8
%N 7
%P 1+
%K AA08 AI01 H01 AT02 AT03 Arthur Young Knowledge Ware
%X Knowledge-Ware is selling the Information Engineering Workbench
which provides tools to support developing business programs.  It has
features for supporting entity diagrams, data flow diagrams, etc.  I
cannot find any indication from this article where AI is actually
used.

%A John Gantz
%T No Market Developing for Artificial Intelligence
%J InfoWorld
%D FEB 17, 1986
%V 8
%N 7
%P  27
%K AT04 AT14
%X D. M. Data predicts that the market for AI software will be $605
million this year and $2.65 billion in 1990.  Arthur D. Little says it
might be twice this.  He argues that when you look at the companies, most
of them are selling primarily to research market and not to the commercial
data processing market.  Intellicorp had 3.3 million in revenues for the 1984-
1985 fiscal year and it made a profit.  However, a full third of its systems
go to academics and 20 percent goes to Sperry for use in its own AI labs.

%A Jay Eisenlohr
%T Bug Debate
%J InfoWorld
%D FEB 17, 1986
%V 8
%N 7
%P 58
%K AT13 AT12 Airus AI Typist AT03
%X Response to harsh review of AI Typist by Infoworld from an employee
of the company selling it.

%A Eddy Goldberg
%T AI offerings Aim to Accelerate Adoption of Expert Systems
%J Computerworld
%D MAY 26, 1986
%V 20
%N 21
%P 24
%K Teknowledge Carnegie Group Intel Hypercube Gold Hill Common Lisp AT02
H03 T03 T01
%X Teknowledge has rewritten S.1 in the C language.  Intel has introduced
Concurrent Common Lisp for its hypercube based machine

%T New Products/Microcomputers
%J Computerworld
%D MAY 26, 1986
%V 20
%N 21
%P  94
%K AT04 AI06 H01 Digital Vision Computereyes
%X Digital Vision introduced Computereyes video acquisition system for IBM PC.
Cost is $249.95 without camera and $529.95 with one.

%T New Products/Software and Services
%J Computerworld
%D MAY 26, 1986
%V 20
%N 21
%P 90
%K T03 AT02
%X LS/Werner has introduced a package containg four expert system tools for
$1995.  A guide to AI is also included.

%A Douglas Barney
%T AT&T Conversant Systems Unveils Voice Recognition Model
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 16
%P 13
%K AI05 AT02
%X AT&T Conversant systems has two products to do speech recognition, the
Model 80 which handles 80 simultaneous callers for $50,000 to $100,000 while
the Model 32 costs between $25,000 and $50,000 and handles 32 simultaneous
callers.  It handles "yes," "no" and the numbers zero through nine.

%A Charles Babcock
%A James Martin
%T MSA Users Give High Marks, Few Dollars to Information Expert
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 16
%P 15
%K AA06 AT03
%X MSA has a product called Information Expert which integrates a variety
of business applications through a shared dictionary and also provides
reporting.  However the 'expert system components' failed to live up
to the "standard definition of expert systems."

%A Alan Alper
%T IBM Trumpets Experimental Speech Recognition System
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 16
%P 25+
%K AI05 H01 Dragon Systems Kurzweil Products
%X IBM's speech recognition system can recognize utterances in real time
from a 5000 word pre-programmed vocabulary and can transcribe sentences
with 95 per cent accuracy.  The system may become a product.  It can handle
office correspondence in its present form.  The system requires that the
user speaks slowly and with pauses. The system runs on a PC/AT with specialized
speech recognizing circuits.  Kurzweil Applied Intelligence has a system
with a 1000 word recognition system selling for $65,000 that has been delivered
to several hundred customers.  They have working prototypes of systems with
5000 word vocabularies which requires only a 1/10 of a second pause.  Dragon
Systems has a system that can recognize up to 1000 words.

%A Stephen F. Fickas
%T Automating the Transformational Development of Software
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1268-1277
%K AA08 Glitter  package routing
%X Describes a system to automate the selection of transformations to
be applied in creating a program from a specification.  Goes through an
example to route packages through a network consisting of binary trees.

%A Douglas R. Smith
%A Goirdon B. Kotik
%A Stephen J. Westwold
%T Research on Knowledge-Based Software Environments at Kestrel Institute
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1278-1295
%K AA08 CHI
%X Describes the CHI project.  REFINE, developed by Reasoning Systems Inc.,
is based onthe principles and ideas demonstrated in the CHI prototype.
CHI has bootstrapped itself.  This system is a transformation based
system.  The specification language, V,
takes 1/5 to 1/10 the number
of lines as the program being specified if it was written in LISP.

%A Richard C. Waters
%T The Programmer's Apprentice: A Session with KBEmacs
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1296-1320
%K AA08 Ada Lisp
%X This system, which uses plans to work hand-in-hand with a programmer
in constructing a piece of software is now being used to work with
ADA programs.   The example used is that of a simple report.  Currently,
KBEmacs knows only a few dozen types of plans out of a few hundred to a
few thousand for real work.  Some operations take five minutes, but it is
expected that a speedup by a factor of 30 could be done by straightforward
operations. It is currently 40,000 lines of LISP code.

%A David R. Barstow
%T Domain-Specifific Automatic Programming
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1321-1336
%K AA08 AA03 well-log Schlumberger-Doll
%X This system describes a system to write programs to do
well-log interpretation.  This system contains knowledge about well-logs
as well as programming.

%A Robert Neches
%A William R. Swartout
%A Johanna D. Moore
%T Enhanced Maintenance and Explanation of Expert Systems Through Explicit
Models of Their Development
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1337-1350
%K AA08 AI01
%X Describes a system for applying various transformations to improve
readability of a LISP program.  Also discusses techniques for providing
explanation of the operation of the LISP machine by looking at data
structures created as the expert system is built

%A Beth Adelson
%A Elliot Soloway
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1351-1360
%K AA08 AI08
%X discusses protocol analysis of designers designing software systems.
Tries to show the effect of previous experience in the domain on these
operations

%A Elaine Kant
%T Understanding Automating Algorithm Design
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1361-1374
%K AA08 AI08
%X protocol analysis on algorithm designers faced with the convex hull
problem.  Discussion of AI programs to design algorithms.

%A David M. Steier
%A Elaine Kant
%T The Roles of Execution and Analysis in Design
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1375-1386
%K AA08

%A J. Doyle
%T Expert Systems and the Myth of Symbolic Reasoning
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1386-1390
%K AI01 O02
%X compares traditional application development software engineering approaches
with those taken by the AI community

%A P. A. Subrahmanyam
%T The "Software Engineering" of Expert Systems: Is Prolog Appropriate?
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1391-1400
%K T02 O02 AI01
%X discusses developing expert systems in PROLOG

%A Daniel G. Bobrow
%T If Prolog is the Answer, What is the Question? or What it Takes to
Support AI Programming Paradigms
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 1401-1408
%K T02 AI01

%T Japanese Urge Colleges to Teach Programmers
%J InfoWorld
%D April 14, 1986
%V 8
%N 15
%P 18
%K GA01
%X "A panel of experts at the Japanese Ministry of Education has urged that
enrollment in computer software-related departments at Japanese universities
and colleges be doubled by 1992.  The panel hopes to ensure that more systems
engineers and software specialists are trained to offset the shortage of
Japanese programmers.  An estimated 600,000 additional programmers will be
needed by 1990, the panel projected."

%T Germans Begin AI Work with $53 Million Grant
%J InfoWorld
%D April 14, 1986
%V 8
%N 15
%P 18
%K GA03
%K Siemens West Germany GA03 AT19
%X The Wester German government will be giving $53.8 million in grants for AI
research.

%T Resources
%J InfoWorld
%D April 14, 1986
%V 8
%N 15
%P 19
%X New newsletter: "AI capsule", costing $195 a year for 12 issues
Winters Group, Suite 920 Building, 14 Franklin Street, Rochester New York 14604

%J Electronic News
%V 32
%N 1603
%D MAY 26, 1986
%P 25
%K GA01 H02 T02 Mitsubishi
%X Mitsubishi Electric announces an AI workstation doing 40,000 Prolog Lips
costing $118.941.

%T Image-Processing Module Works like a VMEBUS CPU
%J Electronics
%D JUN 16, 1986
%P 74
%V 59
%N 24
%K AI06 AT02 Datacube VMEbus Analog Devices
%X Product Announcement: VMEbus CPU card containing a digital signal-processing
chip supporting 8 MIPS

%T Robot Info Automatically
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D JAN 1986
%V 23
%N 1
%P 96
%K AT09 AT02 AI07
%X  Robotics database available on diskette of articles on robots.
Cost $90.00 per year, "Robotics Database, PO BOX 3004-17 Corvallis, Ore 97339

%A John A. Adams
%T Aerospace and Military
%J IEEE Spectrum
%D JAN 1986
%V 23
%N 1
%P 76-81
%K AA19 AI06 AI07 AA18 AI01
%X Darpa's Autonomous Land Vehicle succeeded in guiding itself at 5
kilometers per hour using a vision system along a paved road.


%A Richard L. Henneman
%A William B. Rouse
%T On Measuring the Complexity of Monitoring and Controlling Large-Scale
Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%D March/April 1986
%P 193-207
%K AI08 AA20
%X discusses the effect of number of levels of hierarchy, redundancy and
number of nodes on a display page on the ability of human operators to find
errors in a simulated system

%A G. R. Dattatreya
%A L. N. Kanal
%T Adaptive Pattern Recognition with Random Costs and Its Applications to
Decision Trees
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 208-218
%K AI06  AA01 AI04 AI01 clustering spina bifida bladder radiology
%X applies  clustering algorithm to results of reading radiographs of
the bladder.  The system was able to determine clusters that corresponded
to those of patients with spina bifida.

%A Klaus-Peter Adlassnig
%T Fuzzy Set Theory in Medical Diagnosis
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 260-265
%K AA01 AI01 O04
%X They developed systems for diagnosing rheumatologic diseases and pancreatic
disorders.  They achieved 94.5 and 100 percent accuracy, respectively.

%A William E. Pracht
%T GISMO: A Visual PRoblem Structuring and Knowledge-Organization Tool
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 265-270
%K AI13 AI08 Witkin Geft AA06
%X discusses the use of a system for displaying effect diagrams on
decision making in a simulated business environment.  The tool improved
net income production.   The tool provided more assistance to those
who were more analytical than to those who used heuristic reasoning as
measured by the Witkin GEFT.

%A Henri Farreny
%A Henri Prade
%T Default and Inexact Reasoning with Possiblity Degrees
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 270-276
%K O04 AI01 AA06
%X discusses storing for each proposition, a pair consisting of the
probability that it is true
and probability that it is false where these two probabilities do not
necessarily add up to 1.  Inference rules have been developed for such
a system including analogs to modus ponens, modus tollens and how to
combine two such ordered pairs applying to the same fact.  These have
been applied to an expert system in financial analysis.

%A Chelsea C. White, III
%A Edward A. Sykes
%T A User Preference Guided Approach to Conflict Resolution in
Rule-Based Expert Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 276-278
%K AI01 multiattribute utility theory
%X discusses an application of multiattribute utility theory to
resolve conflicts between rules in an expert system.


%A David Bright
%T Chip Triggers Software Race
%J ComputerWorld
%V 20
%N 30
%D JUL 28, 1986
%P 1+
%K intel 3086 T01 T03 H01 Gold Hill Computers Arity Lucid T02 Hummingbird Franz
%X Gold HIll Computers, Franz, Arity, Lucid, Quintus and Teknowledge have
agreed
to port their AI software to the 80386

%A David Bright
%T Voice-activated Writer's Block
%J ComputerWorld
%V 20
%N 30
%D JUL 28, 1986
%P 23+
%K AI05 Kurzweill Victor Zue
%X MIT's Victor Zue says that current voice recognition technology is not
ready to be extended to "complex tasks."  They have been able to train
researchers to transcribe unknown sentences from spectrograms with 85%
success.  A Votan Survey showed that 87% of  office workers require only
45 words to run their typical applications.  Votan's add-in boards
can recognized 150 words at a time.

%A David Bright
%T Nestor Software Translates Handwriting to ASCII code
%J ComputerWorld
%V 20
%N 30
%D JUL 28, 1986
%P 23+
%K AI06 Brown University
%X Nestor has commercial software that converts handwriting entereded via
a digitizing tablet into ascii text.  First user: a French insurance firm.
The system has been trained to recognize Japanese kanji characters and they
will
develop a video system to read handwritten checks.

%A Namir Clement Shammas
%T Turbo Prolog
%J Byte
%D SEP 1986
%V 11
%N 9
%P 293-295
%K T02 H01 AT17
%X  another review of Turbo-Prolog

%A Bruce Webster
%T Two Fine Products
%J Byte
%D SEP 1986
%V 11
%N 9
%P 335-347
%K T02 H01 AT17 Turbo-Prolog
%X yet another review of Turbo-Prolog

%A Karen Sorensen
%T Expert Systems Emerging as Real Tools
%J Infoworld
%V 8
%N 16
%P 33
%D APR 21, 1986
%K AI01 AT08

%A Rosemary Hamilton
%T MVS Gets Own Expert System
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 1
%K T03 IBM
%X IBM introduced expert system tools for the MVS operating system similar
to those already introduced for VM. The run-time system is $25,000 per month
while development environment is $35,000 per month.

%A Amy D. Wohl
%T On Writing Keynotes: Try Artificial Intelligence
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 17
%X tongue in cheek article about the "keynote" speech which appears at
many conferences.  (Not really about AI)

%A Elisabeth Horwitt
%T Hybrid Net Management Pending
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 19
%K AA08 AI01 AT02 Symbolics Avant-Garde nettworks AA15 H02
%X Avant-Garde Computer is developing an interface to networks to assist in
the management thereof.  Soon there will be an expert sytem on a Symbolics
to interface to that to assist the user of the system.

%T Software Notes
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 29+
%K ultrix DEC VAX AT02 T01
%X DEC has announce a supported version of VAX Lisp for Ultrix

%A Jeffrey Tarter
%T Master Programmers: Insights on Style from Four of the Best
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 41+
%K Jeff Gibbons O02 Palladian AA06
%X contains information on Jeff Gibbons, a programmer at Palladian which
does financial expert systems

%T Software and Services
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 76
%K T02 Quintus PC/RT AT02
%X Quintus has ported its Prolog to the IBM PC/RT.  It costs $8000.00


%T New Products/Microcomputers
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 7, 1986
%V 20
%N 14
%P 81-82
%K AT02 AI06
%X ADS has announced a real-time digitizer for use with micros costing between
$15,000 and $25,000

%A David Bright
%T Datacopy Presents Text, Image Scanner for IBM PC Family
%J ComputerWorld
%D APR 28, 1986
%V 20
%N 17
%P 36
%K H02 AT02 AI06
%X For $2950 you can get an integrated text and iamge scanner which can
convert typewritten text to ASCII code.  It can be trained to recognize
unlimited numbers of fonts.  It can also be used to input 200 x 200 or 300 x
300
dot per inch resolution images.

%T Lisp to Separate Sales, Marketing
%J Electronic News
%P 27
%D APR 14, 1986
%V 32
%N 1597
%K H02 LMI AT11
%X Lisp Machines is separating sales and marketing.  Ken Johnson, the former
vice-president of sales and marketing, has left LMI for VG Systems

%A Steven Bruke
%T Englishlike 1-2-3 Interface Shown
%J InfoWorld
%D APR 28, 1986
%P 5
%V 8
%N 17
%K Lotus AI02 H01 AA15
%X Lotus is selling HAL, which allows users to access 1-2-3 using English
commands

%T TI Sells Japan Lisp Computer
%J Electronics
%D JUN 2, 1986
%P 60
%V 59
%N 22
%K GA02 GA01  H02 AT16
%X C. Itoh has agreed to market TI's Lisp Machine

%A Larry Waller
%T Tseng Sees Peril in Hyping of AI
%J Electronics
%D APR 21, 1986
%P 73
%V 59
%N 16
%K Hughes AT06 AI06 AI07
%X Interview with David Y. Tseng, head of the Exploratory
Studies Department at Malibu Research Laboratories.

%T Image Processor Beats 'Real Time'
%J Electronics
%P 54+
%D APR 14, 1986
%V 59
%N 15
%K AI06 AT02 H01 Imaging Technology
%X Imaging Technology's Series 151 will process an image
in 27 milliseconds and offers the user the ability to
select an area to be processed.  It interfaces to a PC/AT.
It costs $11,495 with an optional convolution board for
$3,995.


%A A. P. Sage
%A C. C. White, III
%T Ariadne: A Knowledge Based Interactive System for Planning and Decision
Support
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics
%V SMC-14
%D JAN/FEB 1984
%N 1
%P 48-54
%K AI13

%A R. M. Hunt
%A W. B. Rouse
%T A Fuzzy Rule-Based Model of Human Problem Solving
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics
%V SMC-14
%D JAN/FEB 1984
%N 1
%P 112-119
%K AI08 AI01 AA21
%X attempt to develop a model of how people diagnose engine performance

%A I. B. Turksen
%A D. D. W. Yao
%T Representations of Connectives in Fuzzy Reasoning: The View Through
Normal Forms
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics
%V SMC-14
%D JAN/FEB 1984
%N 1
%P 146-151
%K O04

%A W. X. Xie
%A S. D. Bedrosian
%T An Information Measure for Fuzzy Sets
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybernetics
%V SMC-14
%D JAN/FEB 1984
%N 1
%P 151-157
%K O04

%A S. Miyamoto
%A K. Nakayama
%T Fuzzy Information Retrieval Based on a Fuzzy Pseudothesaurus
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1986
%P 278-282
%K AA14 O04
%X A fuzzy bibliographic information retrieval based on a fuzzy
thesaurus or on a fuzzy pseudothesaurus is described.  A fuzzy thesaurus
consists of two fuzzy relations defined on a set of keywords for the
bibliography.  The fuzzy relations are generated based on a fuzzy set model,
which describes association of keyword to its concepts.  If the set of
concepts in the fuzzy set model is replaced by the set of documents,
the fuzzy relations are called a pseudothesaurus, which is automatically
generated by using occurrence frequencies of the keywords in the set of
documents.  The fuzzy retrieval uses two fuzzy relations in addition,
that is, a fuzzy indexing and a fuzzy inverted file: the latter is the
inverse relation of the former.  They are, however, related to different
algorithms for indexing and retrieval, respectively.  An algorithm of
ordering retrieved documents  according to the values of the fuzzy
thesaurus is proposed.  This method of the ordering is optimal in the
sense that one can obtain documents of maximum relevance in a fixed time
interval.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
209
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Correction and Future SMU Bibliography Labels
-BODY-
[Lawrence Leff at SMU, who provides all those lengthy bibliographies and
article summaries, has sent the following correction for the Subject line
I added to one of the bibliographies.  -- KIL]

ai.bib35 was mistitled as references on computer vision/robotics.
This reference list contained articles on such subjects as neural
networks, urban planning, logic programming, and theorem proving as
well as vision/robotics.

In order to prevent this problem in the future, I will entitling the
materials as ai.bibnnxx
where nn is a consecutive number and
      xx is C for citations without descriptions
            TR for technical reports
            AB for citations for citations with descriptions
                   (annotated bibliographies)
Thus ai.bib40C means the 40th AI list in bibliography format
and the C indicates that we have a bunch of bib format references
without significant commentary.

The nn is unique over all types of bibliographies.  Thus, if there
were an ai.bib40C, then there will NOT be an ai.bib40TR or ai.bib40AB.

These designations are actually the file names for the list on my hard disk.
The shell script that wraps up the item for mailing will automatically put
the file name in the subject field.  If one of your readers uses this to
designate a file in mail to me, I can thus trivially match their query
against a specific file.


Note that I no longer will be separating out references by subject
matter.  The keyword system is much more effective for allowing people
interested in specific subfields of ai to see the articles they find relevant.

Sadly the bib system program "listrefs" is having problems with citations
that contain long abstracts or commentary information.  Thus TR and AB
type references will probably cause this program to spec check.  I spent
a whole day trying to isolate the problem but have been unsuccessful.
One other self-described bib expert has the same problem.  All references
are indexable by "invert".

TR and AB type references will not use bib definition files and thus
are usable with the refer package from AT&T.  If I were not to use bib
definition files with C type reference lists, the number of bytes transmitted
for their mailing would triple.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 86 15:05:40 CDT
-FROM-
From: Glenn Veach <veach%ukans.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Recent Kansas Technical Reports
-BODY-

Following is a list of technical reports which have recently
been issued by the department of Computer Science of The
University of Kansas in conjunction with research done in
the department's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Requests for any and all Technical Reports from the Department of
Computer Science and it's various laboratories at The University
of Kansas should be sent to the following address:

Linda Decelles, Office Manager
110 Strong Hall
Department of Computer Science
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS  66045
U.S.A.

%A Glenn O. Veach
%T The Belief of Knowledge: Preliminary Report
%I Department of Computer Science, The University of Kansas
%R TR-86-15
%X As various researchers have attempted to present logics which
capture epistemic concepts they have encountered several difficulties.
After surveying the critiques of past efforts we propose a logic which
avoids these same faults.  We also closely explore fundamental issues
involved in representing knowledge in ideal and rational agents and
show how the similarities and differences are preserved in the logic
we present.  Several examples are given as supporting evidence for our
conclusions.  To be published in the proceedings of the 2nd Kansas
Conference: Knowledge-Based Software Development.  12 pp.

%A Glenn O. Veach
%T An Annotated Bibliography of Systems and Theory for Distributed
Artificial Intelligence
%I Department of Computer Science, The University of Kansas
%R TR-86-16
%X This paper summarizes, with extensive comment, the results of an
initial investigation of the work in distributed AI.  Some forty-plus
articles representing the major schools of thought and development are
cited and commented upon.

%A Frank M. Brown
%T Semantical Systems for Intensional Logics Based on the Modal
Logic S5+Leib
%I Department of Computer Science, The University of Kansas
%R TR-86-17
%X This paper contains two new results.  First it describes how
semantical systems for intensional logics can be represented in
the particular modal logic which captures the notion of logical
truth.  In particular, Kripke semantics is developed from this
modal logic.  The second result is the development in the modal
logic of a new semantical system for intensional logics called
B-semantics.  B-semantics is compared to Kripke semantics and it
is suggested that it is a better system in a number of ways.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 13:32:32 PDT
-FROM-
From: Judea Pearl <judea@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: new Technical Reports
-BODY-
The following technical reports are now available from the
                 Cognitive Systems Laboratory
                 Room 4712, Boelter Hall
                 University of California
                 Los-Angeles, CA, 90024
           or: judea@locus.ucla.edu

_______

Pearl, J., ``Bayes and Markov Networks:    a  Comparison  of  Two
Graphical Representations of Probabilistic Knowledge,'' Cognitive
Systems Laboratory Technical Report (R-46), September 1986.

                        ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the task of configuring effective graphical
representation  for intervariable dependencies which are embedded
in a probabilistic model.  It first uncovers the axiomatic  basis
for the probabilistic relation ``  x  is independent of y , given
 z  ,'' and offers it as a formal definition for  the qualitative
notion of informational dependency.  Given an initial set of such
independence relationships, the axioms established permit  us  to
infer  new  independencies by non-numeric, logical manipulations.
Using this axiomatic basis, the paper determines those properties
of  probabilistic  models  that  can  be  captured  by  graphical
representations and compares  the  characteristics  of  two  such
representations,  Markov  Networks  and  Bayes Networks. A Markov
network  is  an  undirected  graph  where  the  links   represent
symmetrical  probabilistic dependencies, while a Bayes network is
a directed  acyclic  graph  where  the  arrows  represent  causal
influences  or  object-property relationships.  For each of these
two network types, we establish:  1) a  formal  semantic  of  the
dependencies   portrayed   by   the  networks,  2)  an  axiomatic
characterization of the class of dependencies capturable  by  the
network, 3) a method of constructing the network from either hard
data or expert judgments and 4) a summary of properties  relevant
to  its  use  as  a  knowledge representation scheme in inference
systems.

_______

Zukerman, I. & Pearl, J.,  ``Comprehension-Driven  Generation  of
Meta-Technical  Utterances  in  Math  Tutoring,''  UCLA  Computer
Science Department Technical Report CSD-860097  (R-61).

                        ABSTRACT

A technical discussion often contains conversational  expressions
like  ``however,''  ``as  I  have stated before,'' ``next,'' etc.
These expressions, denoted Meta-technical Utterances (MTUs) carry
important  information  which  the  listener uses to speed up the
comprehension process. In this research we model the  meaning  of
MTUs  in  terms  of  their  anticipated  effect  on  the listener
comprehension, and use these predictions to select MTUs and weave
them  into  a  computer  generated  discourse.  This paradigm was
implemented  in  a  system  called   FIGMENT,   which   generates
commentaries on the solution of algebraic equations.

_______

Pearl,  J.,  ``Jeffrey's  Rule  and  the  Problem  of  Autonomous
Inference  Agents,''  UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory Technical
Report (R-62), June 1986, UCLA CSD #860099, June 1986.

                        ABSTRACT

Jeffrey's rule of belief revision was devised by philosophers  to
replace  Bayes conditioning in cases where the evidence cannot be
articulated propositionally.  This paper shows  that  unqualified
application  of this rule often leads to paradoxical conclusions,
and that to determine whether or not the rule  is  valid  in  any
specific  case,  one  must first have topological knowledge about
one's belief structure.  However, if such  topological  knowledge
is, indeed, available, belief updating can be done by traditional
Bayes conditioning; thus, arises the question of  whether  it  is
ever  necessary  to  use  Jeffrey's  rule  in  formalizing belief
revision.

_______

Pearl, J., ``Distributed Revision of Belief Commitment in  Multi-
Hypotheses  Interpretation,''  UCLA  Computer  Science Department
Technical Report CSD-860045 (R-64), June 1986; presented  at  the
2nd  AAAI  Workshop  on  Uncertainty  in Artificial Intelligence,
Philadelphia, PA., August 1986.

                        ABSTRACT

This paper extends the applications of belief-networks models  to
include the revision of belief commitments, i.e., the categorical
instantiation of a subset of hypotheses which constitute the most
satisfactory  explanation of the evidence at hand.  We show that,
in singly-connected networks, the most  satisfactory  explanation
can  be  found  in  linear  time  by  a message-passing algorithm
similar to  the  one  used  in  belief  updating.   In  multiply-
connected networks, the problem may be exponentially hard but, if
the network is sparse, topological considerations can be used  to
render  the  interpretation  task tractable.  In general, finding
the most probable combination of hypotheses is  no  more  complex
than   computing   the   degree  of  belief  for  any  individual
hypothesis.

_______

Geffner, H. & Pearl, J., ``A Distributed Approach to Diagnosis,''
UCLA   Cognitive  Systems  Laboratory  Technical  Report  (R-66),
October 1986;

                        ABSTRACT

The paper describes a distributed scheme  for  finding  the  most
likely  diagnosis  of  systems  with multiple faults.  The scheme
uses the independencies embedded in a  system  to  decompose  the
task  of  finding a best overall interpretation into smaller sub-
tasks of finding the best interpretations  for  subparts  of  the
net,  then  combining them together.  This decomposition yields a
globally-optimum diagnosis by local and  concurrent  computations
using  a message-passing algorithm.  The proposed scheme offers a
drastic   reduction   in   complexity   compared    with    other
methods:  attaining linear time in singly-connected networks and,
at worst,  exp ( |  cycle-cutset  | )  time in multiply-connected
networks.

_______

Pearl, J., ``Evidential Reasoning Using Stochastic Simulation  of
Causal  Models,''  UCLA  Cognitive  Systems  Laboratory Technical
Report (R-68-I), October 1986.

                        ABSTRACT

Stochastic simulation is a method of computing  probabilities  by
recording  the  fraction  of  time  that events occur in a random
series of scenarios generated from some causal model.  This paper
presents  an  efficient,  concurrent  method  of  conducting  the
simulation which guarantees that all generated scenarios will  be
consistent  with  the  observed  data.   It  is  shown  that  the
simulation can  be  performed  by  purely  local  computations,
involving   products   of   parameters   given
with the initial specification of the model.   Thus,  the  method
proposed  renders  stochastic  simulation a powerful technique of
coherent  inferencing,  especially  suited  for  tasks  involving
complex,  non-decomposable models where ``ballpark'' estimates of
probabilities will suffice.

_______

Pearl, J., ``Legitimizing Causal Reasoning  in  Default  Logics''
(note),  UCLA  Cognitive  Systems Laboratory Technical Report (R-
69), September 1986.

                        ABSTRACT

The purpose of this note is to draw attention to certain  aspects
of  causal  reasoning  which  are pervasive in ordinary discourse
yet, based on the author's  scan  of  the  literature,  have  not
received  due  treatment  by  logical  formalisms of common-sense
reasoning. In a nutshell, it appears that  almost  every  default
rule  falls  into one of two categories:   expectation-evoking or
explanation-evoking.  The  former  describes  association   among
events  in the outside world (e.g., Fire is typically accompanied
by smoke.); the latter describes how we reason  about  the  world
(e.g.,  Smoke  normally  suggests  fire.).   This  distinction is
clearly and reliably recognized by all people and  serves  as  an
indispensible  tool for controlling the invocation of new default
rules. This note questions  the  ability  of  formal  systems  to
reflect   common-sense   inferences  without  acknowledging  such
distinction and outlines a way in which the flow of causation can
be summoned within the formal framework of default logic.

_______

Dechter, R. & Pearl, J., ``The Cycle-Cutset Method for  Improving
Search  Performance  in AI Applications,'' UCLA Cognitive Systems
Laboratory Technical Report (R-67); submitted  to  the  3rd  IEEE
Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications.

                        ABSTRACT

This paper introduces a new way of improving search performance by
exploiting an efficient method available for solving tree-structured
problems.  The scheme is based on the following observation:  If, in
the course of a backtrack search, we remove from the constraint-graph
the nodes corresponding to instantiated variables and find that the
remaining subgraph is a tree, then the rest of the search can be
completed in linear time.  Thus, rather than continue the search
blindly, we invoke a tree-searching algorithm tailored to the topology
of the remaining subproblem.  The paper presents this  method in detail
and evaluates its merit both theoretically and experimentally.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
210
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 86 13:03:52 -0500
-FROM-
From: Duke Briscoe <duke@mitre.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Final Program for Expert Systems in Government Conference
-BODY-
The Second Annual Expert Systems in Government Conference, sponsored by
the Mitre Corporation and the IEEE Computer Society in association with
the AIAA National Capital Section will be held October 20-24, 1986 at
the Tyson's Westpark Hotel in McLean, VA.  There is still time to register,
but late registration charges will be added after October 6.

October 20-21  Tutorials

Monday, October 20

Full Day Tutorial:      Advanced Topics in Expert Systems
                        by Kamran Parsaye, IntelligenceWare, Inc.

Morning Tutorial:       Knowledge Base Design for Rule Based Expert Systems
                        by Casimir Kulikowski, Rutgers University

Afternoon Tutorial:     Knowledge Base Acquisition and Refinement
                        by Casimir Kulikowski, Rutgers University

Tuesday, October 21

Morning Tutorial:       Distributed Artificial Intelligence
                        by Barry Silverman, George Washington University

Morning Tutorial:       Introduction to Common Lisp
                        by Roy Harkow, Gold Hill

Afternoon Tutorial:     Lisp for Advanced Users
                        by Roy Harkow, Gold Hill

Afternoon Tutorial:     The Management of Expert System Development
                        by Nancy Martin, Softpert Systems


October 22-24  Technical Program

Wednesday, October 22

9 - 10:30
Conference Chairman's Welcome
Keynote Address: Douglas Lenat, MCC
Program Agenda

11am - 12pm

Track A: Military Applications I

K. Michels, J. Burger; Missile and Space Mission Determination

Major R. Bahnij, Major S. Cross;
A Fighter Pilot's Intelligent Aide for Tactical Mission Planning

Track B: Systems Engineering

R. Entner, D. Tosh; Expert Systems Architecture for Battle Management

H. Hertz; An Attribute Referenced Production System

B. Silverman; Facility Advisor: A Distributed Expert System Testbed for
Spacecraft Ground Facilities

12pm - 1pm Lunch, Distinguished Guest Address,
           Harry Pople, University of Pittsburgh

1pm - 2:30pm

Track A: Knowledge Acquisition

G. Loberg, G. Powell
Acquiring Expertise in Operational Planning: A Beginning

J. Boose, J. Bradshaw; NeoETS: Capturing Expert System Knowledge

K. Kitto, J. Boose; Heuristics for Expertise Transfer

M. Chignell; The Use of Ranking and Scaling in Knowledge Acquisition

Track B: Expert Systems in the Nuclear Industry

D. Sebo et al.; An Expert System for USNRC Emergency Response

D. Corsberg; An Object-Oriented Alarm Filtering System

J. Jenkins, W. Nelson; Expert Systems and Accident Management

3pm - 5pm

Track A: Expert Systems Applications I

W. Vera, R. Bolczac; AI Techniques Applied to Claims Processing

R. Tong, et al.; An Object-Oriented System for Information Retrieval

D. Niyogi, S. Srihari; A Knowledge-based System for Document Understanding

R. France, E. Fox; Knowledge Representation in Coder

Track B: Diagnosis and Fault Analysis

M. Taie, S. Srihari; Device Modeling for Fault Diagnosis

Z. Xiang, S. Srihari; Diagnosis Using Multi-level Reasoning

B. Dixon; A Lisp-Based Fault Tree Development Environment

Panel Track:
1pm - 5pm       Management of Uncertainty in Expert Systems
Chair:          Ronald Yager, IONA College
Participants:   Lofte Zadeh, UC Berkeley
                Piero Bonnisone, G.E.
                Laveen Kanal, University of Maryland
                Peter Cheeseman, NASA-Ames Research Center
                Prakash Shenoy, University of Kansas


Thursday, October 23

9am - 10:30am

Track A: Knowledge Acquistion and Applications

E. Tello; DIPOLE - An Integrated AI Architecture

H. Chung; Experimental Evaluation of Knowledge Acquisition Methods

H. Gabler; IGOR - An Expert System for Crash Trauma Assessment

K. Chhabra, K. Karna; Expert Systems in Electronic Filings

Track B: Aerospace Applications of Expert Systems

D. Zoch; A Real-time Production System for Telemetry Analysis

J. Schuetzle; A Mission Operations Planning Assistant

D. Brauer, P. Roach; Ada Knowledge Based Systems

F. Rook, T. Rubin; An Expert System for Conducting a
Sattelite Stationkeeping Maneuver

Panel Track: Star Wars and AI
Chair: John Quilty, Mitre Corp.
Participants:   Brian P. McCune, Advanced Decision Systems
                Lance A. Miller, IBM
                Edward C. Taylor, TRW

11am - 12pm
Plenary Address:
B. Chandrasekaran; The Future of Knowledge Acquisition

12pm - 1pm Lunch

1pm - 2:30pm

Track A: Inexact and Statistical Measures

K. Lecot; Logic Programs with Uncertainties

N. Lee; Fuzzy Inference Engines in Prolog/P-Shell

J. Blumberg; Statistical Entropy as a Measure of Diagnostic Uncertainty

Track B: High Level Tools for Expert Systems

S. Shum, J.Davis; Use of CSRL for Diagnostic Expert Systems

E. Dudzinski, J. Brink; CSRL: From Laboratory to Industry

D. Herman, J. Josephson, R. Hartung; Use of the DSPL
for the Design of a Mission Planning Assistant

J. Josephson, B. Punch, M. Tanner; PEIRCE: Design Considerations
for a Tool for Abductive Assembly for Best Explanation

Panel Track: Application of AI in Telecommunications
Chair: Shri Goyal, GTE Labs
Participants:   Susan Conary, Clarkson University
                Richard Gilbert, IBM Watson Research Center
                Raymond Hanson, Telenet Communications
                Edward Walker, BBN
                Richard Wolfe, ATT Bell Labs

3pm - 5pm

Track A: Expert System Implementations

S. Post; Simultaneous Evaluation of Rules to Find Most Likely Solutions

L. Fu; An Implementation of an Expert System that Learns

R. Frail, R. Freedman; OPGEN Revisited

R. Ahad, A. Basu; Explanation in an Expert System

Track B: Expert System Applications II

R. Holt; An Expert System for Finite Element Modeling

A. Courtemanche; A Rule-based System for Sonar Data Analysis

F. Merrem; A Weather Forecasting Expert System


Panel Track: Command and Control Expert Systems
Chair:          Andrew Sage, George Mason University

Participants:   Peter Bonasso, Mitre
                Stephen Andriole, International Information Systems
                Paul Lehner, PAR
                Leonard Adelman, Government Systems Corporation
                Walter Beam, George Mason University
                Jude Franklin, PRC


Friday, October 24

9am - 12pm: Expert Systems in the Classified Community
The community building expert systems for
classified applications is unsure of the value and feasibility of some
form of communication within the community.  This will be a session
consisting of discussions and working sessions, as appropriate, to
explore these issues in some depth for the first time, and to make
recommendations for future directions for the classified community.

9am - 10:30am

Track A: Military Applications

Bonasso, Benoit, et al.;
An Experiment in Cooperating Expert Systems for Command and Control

J. Baylog; An Intelligent System for Underwater Tracking

J. Neal et al.; An Expert Advisor on Tactical Support Jammer Configuration

Track B: Expert Systems in the Software Lifecycle

D. Rolston; An Expert System for Reducing Software Maintenance Costs

M. Rousseau, M. Kutzik; A Software Acquisition Consultant

R. Hobbs, P. Gorman; Extraction of Data System Requirements

Panel Track: Next Generation Expert System Shells
Chair: Art Murray, George Washington University
Participants:   Joseph Fox, Software A&E
                Barry Silverman, George Washington University
                Chuck Williams, Inference
                John Lewis, Martin Marietta Research Labs

11am - 12pm

Track A: Spacecraft Applications

D. Rosenthal; Transformation of Scientific Objectives
into Spacecraft Activities

M. Hamilton et al.; A Spacecraft Control Anomaly Resolution Expert System

Track B: Parallel Architectures

L. Sokol, D. Briscoe; Object-Oriented Simulation on a
Shared Memory Parallel Architecture

J. Gilmer; Parallelism Issues in the CORBAN C2I Representation

Panel Track: Government Funding of Expert Systems
Chair: Commander Allen Sears, DARPA
Participants: Randall Shumaker, and others

Conference Chairman: Kamal Karna
Unclassified Program Chairman: Kamran Parsaye
Classified Program Chairman: Richard Martin
Panels Chairman: Barry Silverman
Tutorials Chairman: Steven Oxman


Registration information can be requested from
Ms. Gerrie Katz
IEEE Computer Society
1730 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036-1903
(202) 371-0101

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics
-BODY-
1986 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, AI papers
October 14-17, 1986 Pierremont Plaza Hotel, Atlanta, GA 30308

Wednesday October 15 8AM - 9:40 AM

On Neural-Model Based Cognitive Theory and Engineering: Introduction
  N. DeClaris
Matrix and Convolution Models of Brain Organization in Cognition
  K. H. Pribram
Explorations in Brain Style Computations
  D. E. Rumelhart
Representing and Transforfming Recursive Objects in a Neural Network or "Trees
Do Grow on Boltzmann Machines
  D. S. touretzky
Competition-Based Connectionist Models of Associative Memory
  J. A. Reggia, S. Millheim, A. Freeman
A Parallel Network that Lears to Read Aloud
  T. J. Sejnowski
A Theory of Dialogue Structures to HElp Manage Human Computer Interaction
  D. L. Sanford, J. W. Roach
A User Interface for a Knowledge-Based Planning and Scheduling System
  A. M. Mulvehill
Orthonormal Decompositions in Adaptive Systems
  L. H. Sibul
An "Evolving Frame" Approach to Learning with Application to Adaptive
Navigation
  R. J. P. de Figueredo, K. H. Wang
Approaches to Machine Learning with Genetic Algorithms
  J. Grefenstette, C. B. Pettey
Use of Voice Recognition for Control of a Robotic Welding Workcell
  J. K. Watson, D. M. Todd, C. S. Jones
A Knowledge Based System for the CST Diagnosis
  C. Hernandez, A. Alonso, Z. Wu
A Qualitative Model of Human Interaction with Complex Dynamic Systems
  R. A. Hess
Evaluating Natural Language Interfaces to Expert Systems
  R. M. Weischedel
Expert System Metrics
  S. Kaisler
Global Issues in Evaluation of Expert Systems
  N. E. Lane
A Scenario-Based Test Tool for Examining Expert Systems
  E. T. Scambos

10:AM - 11:40AM

A Comparison of Some Inductive Learning Methodologies
  D. W. Patterson
INduction of Finite Automata by Genetic Algorithms
  H. Y. Zhou, J. J. Grefenstette
NUNS: A Machine Intelligence Concept for Learning Object Class Domains
  B. V. Dasarathy
Toward a Paradigm for Automated Understanding of 3-D Medical Images
  E. M.Stokely, T. L. Faber
Development of an Expert System for Interpreting Medical Images
  N. F. Ezquerra, E. V. Garcia, E. G. DePuey, W. L. Robbins
Edge Enhancement in Medical Images by 3D Processing
  J. E. Boyd, R. A. STein
Scheme for Three Dimensional Reconstruction of Surfaces from CT and MRI Images
of the Human Body
  R. Tello, R. W. Mann, D. Rowell
Using the Walsh-Hadamard Phase Spectrum to Generate Cardiac Activation Movies-
A Feasibility Study
  H. Li
Things We Learned by Making Expert Systems to Give Installation Advice for
UNIX 4.2BSD and to HElp Connect a Terminal to a Computer
  A. T. Bahill, E. Senn, P. Harris
A Heuristic Search/Information Theory Approach to Near Optimal Diagnostic
Test Sequencing
  K. R. Pattipati, J. C. Deckert, M. G. Alexandris
An Expert System for the Estimation of Parameter Values of Water Quality
MOdel
  W. J. Chen
Application of an Expert System to Error Detection and Correction in a
Speech Recognition System
  K. H. Loken-Kim, M. Joost, E. Fisher

1PM - 1:50PM
Topic: Holonomic Brain Theory and The Concept of Information
  Karl H. Pribram

2-3:40PM
An Interactive Machine Intelligence Development System for Generalized 2-D
Shapes Recognition
  B. V. Dasarathy
Modelling of Skilled Behaviour and Learning
  T. Bosser
Design of a User INterface for Automated Knowledge Acquisition
  A. S. Wolff, B. L. Hutchins, E. L. Cochran, J. R. Allard, P. J. Ludlow
OFMspert: An Operator Function Model Expert System
  C. M. Mitchell, K. S. Rubin, T. Govindaraj
An Adaptive Medical Information System
  N. DeClaris
Intermediate Level Heuristics for Road-finding Algorithms
  S. Vasudevan, R. L. cannon, J. C. Bezdek, W. C. Cameron
Computer-Disambiguation of Multi-Character Key Text Entry: An Adaptive Design
Approach
  S. H. Levine, S. Minneman, C. Getschow, C. Goodenough-Trepaigner
An INteractive and Data Adaptive Spectrum Analysis System
  C. H. Chen, A.  H. Costa
On How Two-Action Ergodic Learning Automata can Utilize Apriori Information
  B. J. Oommen
VLSI Implementation of an Iterative Image Restoration Algorithm
  A. K. Katsaggelos, P. R. Kumar, M. Samanthan
Development of Automated Health Testing and Services System via Fuzzy Reasoning
  E. Tazaki, Y. Hayashi, K. Yoshida, A. Koiwa
Knowledge-Based Interaction Tools
  R. Neches
Bibliographic Information Retrieval Systems: Using Ai Techniques to Improve
Cognitive Compatibility and Performance
  P. J. Smith, D. A. Krawczak, S. J. Shute, M. H. Chignell, M. Sater

4PM-5:40PM
An Evidential Approach to Robot Sensory Fusion
  J. H. Graham
Retinal Ganglion Cell Processing of Spatial Information in Cats
  J. Troy, J. G. Robson, C. Enroth--Cugel
Texture Discriminants from Spatial Frequency Channels
  G. A. Wright, M. E. Jernigan
Contextual Filters for Image Processing
  G. F. McLean, M. E. Jernigan
Using Cognitive Psychology Techniques for Knowledge Acquisition
  A. H. Silva, D. C. Regan
Transfer of kNowledge from Domain Expert to Expert System: Experience
Gained form JAMEX
  J. G. Neal, D. J. Funke
Metholdological Tools for kNowledg eAcquisition
  K. L. Kessel
Downloading the Expert: Efficient Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems
  J. H. Lind
Integration of Phenomenological and Fundamental Knowledge in Diagnostic
Expert Systems
  L. M. Fu
Integrating Knowledge Acquisitions Methods
  P. Dey, K. D. Reilly
Multi Processing of Logic Programs
  G. J. Li, B. W. Wah
A Model for Parallel Processing of Production Systems
  D. I. MOldovan
Several IMplementaitons of Prolog, the Microarchitecture Perspective
  Y. N. Patt
A Parallel Symbol-Matching Co-procesor for Rule Processing Sytems
  D. F. Newport, G. T. Alley, W. L. Bryan, R. O. Eason, D. W. Bouldin
The Connection Machine Architecture
  W. D. Hillis, B. S. Kahle

Thursday, October 16th 8AM-9:40PM
Transformation Invariance Using HIgh ORder Correlations in Neural Net
Architectures
  T. P. Maxwell, C. L. Giles, Y. C. Lee, H. H. Chen
A Neural Network Digit Recognizer
  D. J. Burr
Computational Properties of a Neural Net with a Triangular Lattice Structure
and a Traveling Activity Peak
  R. Eckmiller
Fuzzy Multiobjective Mathematical Programming's Application to Cost Benefit
Analysis
  L. Xu
Evaluation of the Cause Diagnosis Function of a Prototype Fuzzy-Logic-Based
Knowledge System for Financial Ratio Analysis Analysis
  F. J. Ganoe, T. H. Whalen, C. D. Tabor
Knowledge INtegration inFinancial Expert Systems
  P. D. Crigler, P. Dey
Pyramid and Quadtree ARchitectures in Point Pattern Segmentation and Boundary
Extraction
 B. G. Mobasseri
Causality in Pattern Recognition
  S. Vishnubhatla
Network Biovisitrons for HIgh-Level Pattern Recognition
  D. M. Clark, F. Vaziri
Giving Advice as Extemporaneous Elaboration
  M. A. Bienkowski
Dynamics of Man-Machine Interaction in a Conversational Advisory System
  A. V. Gershman, T. Wolf

10AM -11:40AM
A Method for Medial Line Transformation
  E. Salari
An Alternative IMplematnationStrategy for a Variety of Image Processing
Algorithms
  R. Saper, M. E. Jernigan
A Semantic Approach to Image Segmentation
  S. Basu
A SkeletonizingAlgorithm with Improved Isotropy
  D. J. Healy
The Application of Artificial INtelligence to Manufacturing control
  P. J. O'Grady, K. H. Lee, M. Brightman
An Expert System for designof Flexible Manufacturing Systems
  D. E. Brown, G. anandalingam
A Derivational Approach to Plan Refinement for Advice Giving
  R. Turner
TheRole of Plan Recognition in Design of an INtelligent User INterface
  C. A. Broverman, K. E. Khuff, V. Lesser
Discussant
  J. L. Koldner
Voice INput in Real time Decision Making
  M. G. Forren, C. M. Mitchell

2:00PM-3:40PM
The Use of Artificial Intelligence in CAI for Science Education
  G. S. Owen
Design of an Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS) for Aircraft Recognition
  D. R. Polwell, A. E. Andrews
A Rule-Based Bayesian ARchitecture for Monitoring Learnign Process in ICAI
Systems
  T. R. Sivasankaran T. Bui
A Knowledge Based System for Transit Planning
  A. Mallick, A. Boularas, F. DiCesare
On the Acquisition and Processingo f Uncertian Information in Rule-Based
Decision Support Systems
  S. Gaglio, R. Minciardi, P. P. Puliafito
Lambertian Spheres Parameter Estimation from a Single 2-D Image
  B. Cernuschi-Frias D. B. Cooper
A Solution to the STereo Correspondence Problem using Disparity Smoothness
Constraints
  N. H. Kim, A. C. Bovik
Registration of Serial Sectional Images for 3-D Reconstruction
  M. Sun, C. C. li
Rotation-Invariant contour DP Matching Method for 3D Object Recognition
  H. Yamada, M. Hospital, T. Kasvand
CAD Based 3-D Models for Computer Vision
  B. Bhanu, C. C. Ho, S. Lee
A Rule-Based System for Forming Sequence Design for Multistage Cold Forging
  K. Sevenler, T. Altan, P. S. Raghupathi, R. A. Miller
Automated Forging Design
  A. Tang
Geometry Representation to Aid Autoamted Design on Blocker Forging
  K. R. Vemuri
Intelligent Computing ("The Sixth Generation"): A Japanese Initiative
  R. E. Chapman
The Influenceof the United States and Japan on Knowledge Systems of the Future
  B. A. Galler
Knowledgeis Structured in Conscioiusness
  T. N. Scott, D. D. Scott
Knowledge Science-Towards the Prosthetic Brain
  M. L. Shaw
Socio-Economic Foundations of Knowledge Science
  B. R. Gaines

4:00 PM - 5:40PM
Fuzzy and Vector Measurement of Workload
  N. Moray, P. Eisen, G. Greco, E.Krushelnycky, L. Money, B. Muir, I. Noy,
  F. Shein, B. Turksen, L. Waldon
Toward an Empirically-based Process Model for a Machine Programming Tutor
  D. Littman, E. Soloway
An Intelligent Tutor for Thinking about Programming
  J. Bonar
An Expert System for Partitioning and Allocating Algorithms
  M. M. Jamali, G. A. Julien, S. L. Ahmad
A Knowledge INcreasing Model of Image Understanding
  G. Tascini, P. Puliti
An Artificial Intelligence Approach for Robot-Vision in Assembly Applications
Environment
  K. Ouriachi, M. Bourton
Visible Surface Reconstruction under a Minimax Criterion
  C. Chu, A. C. Bovak
A Measurement of Image Concordance Using Replacment Rules
  R. Lauzzana
High-Level Vision Using a Rule-Based Language
  M. Conlin
An Expert Consultant for Manufacturing Process Selection
  A. Kar
A Knowledge Representation Scheme for Processes in an Automated Manufacturing
Environment
  S. R. Ray
Making Scheduling Desisions in an F. M. S. Using the State-Operator Framework
in A. I.
  S. de, A. Lee
Intelligent Exception Processing for Manufacturing Workstation Control
  F. DiCesare, A. Desrochers, G. Goldbergen
Knowledge of Knowledge and the Comptuer
  J. A. Wojciechowski
Paradigm Chagne in the Sixth Generation Approach
  W. H. C. Simmonds
Educational Implications of Knowledge Science
  P. Zorkoczy
>From Brain Theory to the Sixth Generation Computer
  M. A. Arbib

Friday, October 17 8:00 AM - 9:40 AM
Development of an Intelligent Tutoring System
  K. Kawamura, J. R. Bourne, C. Kinzer, L. Cozean, N. Myasaka, M. Inui
CALEB: An Intelligent Second Language Tutor
  P. Cunningham, T. Iberall, B. Woolf
A Methodology for Development of a Computer-Aided Instruction Program in
Complex, Dynamic Systems
  J. L. Fath, C. M. MItchell, T. Govindaraj
Matching Strategies in Error Diagnosis: A Statistics Tutoring Aid
  M. M. Sebrechts, L. J. Schooler, L. LaClaire
Using Prolog for Signal Flow Graph Reduction
  C. P. Jobling, P. Grant
A Self-Organizing Soft Clustering Algorithm
  M. A. Ismail
A Modified Fisher Criterion for Feature Extraction
  A. Atiya
A Model of Human Kanji Character Recognition
  K. Yokosawa, M. Umeda, E. Yodogawa
Efficient Recognition of Omni-Font Characters using Models of Human
Pattern Perception
  D. A. Kerrick, A. C. Bovik
Printed Character Recognition Using an Artificial Visual System
  J. M. Coggins, J. T. Poole
Multiobjective INtelligent Computer Aided Design
  E. A. Sykes, C. C. White
Knowledge Engineering for Interactive Tactical Planning: A Tested Approach
with General Purpose Potential
  S. J. Andriole
ESP- A Knowledge-Aided Design Tool
  J. F. King, E. Hushebeck
A Study of Expert Decision Making in Design Processes
  R. M. Cohen, J. H. May, H. E. Pople
An Intelligent Design Aid for Large Scale Systems with Quantity Discount
Pricing
  A. R. Spillane, D. E. Brown

10AM - 1140AM
NeoETS: Interactive Expertise Transfer for Knowledge-Based Systems
  J. H. Boose, J. M. Bradshaw
PCS: A Knowledge-Based Interactive System for Group Problem Solving
  M. L. Shaw
Cognitive Models of Human-Computer INteraction in Distributed Systems
  B. R. Gaines
The Use of Expert Systems to Reduce Software Specification Errors
  S. B. Ahmed, K. Reside
Structure Analysis for Gray Level Pictures on a Mesh Connected Computer
  J. El Mesbahi, J. S. Cherkaoui
Pattern Classification on the Cartesian Join System: A General Tool for
Featue Selection
  M. Ichino
Texture Discrimination using a Model of the Visual Cortex
  M. Clark, A. C. Bovik
Surface Orientation from Texture
  J. M. Coggins, A. K. Jain
Classificationof Surface Defects on Wood Boards
  A. J. Koivo, C. Kim
ADEPT: An Expert System for Finite Element Modeling
  R. H. HoltU. Narayana
KADD: An Environment for Interactive Knowledge Aided Display Design
  P. R. Frey, B. J. Widerholt

3PM - 3:40PM
Assigning Weights and Ranking Information Importance in an Object
Identification
Task
  D. M. Allen
Third Generation Expert Systems
  J. H. Murphy, S. C. Chay, M. M. Downs
Reasoning with Comparative Uncertainty
  B. K. Moore
On a Blackboard Architecture for an Object-Oriented Production System
  D. Doty, R. Wachter
Pattern Analysis of N-dimensionial Digital Images
  E. Khalimsky

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
211
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 86 07:52:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for references on drawings
-BODY-

I'd appreciate getting references to any work on automatic
comparison or classification of drawings, especially technical
drawings and blueprints.  For instance, a system which, when
presented with a blueprint, can recognize it as a left-handed
widget, etc.  Please send replies directly to me - thanks.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 13:17:40 edt
-FROM-
From: klahr@nyu-csd2.arpa (Phillip Klahr)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Neuroscience
-BODY-

        For my Neuroscience qualifying exam, I am looking for articles,
books, or reviews that discuss the interface/contribution of AI research on
vision and memory to "Cognitive Neuroscience".  By Cognitive Neuroscience, I
mean the study of theories and methods by which the different parts of the
brain go about processing information, such as vision and memory.  To give you
an idea of "ancient works" I am starting with, I am already looking at:

        Wiener's "Cybernetics", von Neumann's "The Computer and the Brain",
Rosenblatt's "Principles of Neurodynamics", Arbib's "Metaphorical Brain", and
Hebb's "The Organization of Behavior".

Some of the neurophysiology work I am looking at already includes work by
Mortimer Mishkin and Larry Squire on memory in the monkey.

Any pertinent references you can think of will be very much appreciated, and,
if there is any interest, I will post a summary of any responses I get.

Thank you very much.
                Phillip Klahr Albert Einstein College of Medicine
 klahr@NYU-CSD2.ARPA           UUCP: {allegra, seismo, ihnp4} !cmcl2!csd2!klahr

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 10:46:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Cognitive Science Schools
-BODY-
In article <8609221503.AA15901@mitre.ARPA> schwamb@MITRE.ARPA writes:
>Well, now that some folks have commented on the best AI schools in
>the country, could we also hear about the best Cognitive Science
>programs?  Cog Sci has been providing a lot of fuel for thought to
>the AI community and I'd like to know where one might specialize
>in this.
>
>Thanks, Karl   (schwamb@mitre)

The SUNY Buffalo Graduate Group in Cognitive Science was formed to
facilitate cognitive-science research at SUNY Buffalo.  Its activities
have focused on language-related issues and knowledge representation.
These two areas are well-represented at SUNY Buffalo by the research
interests of faculty and graduate students in the Group.

The Group draws its membership primarily from the Departments of
Computer Science, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology, and Communicative
Disorders, with many faculty from other departments (e.g., Geography,
Education) involved on a more informal basis.  A current research project
on deixis in narrative is being undertaken by a research subgroup.

While the Group does not offer any degrees by itself, a Cognitive
Science "focus" in a Ph.D. program in one of the participating
disciplines is available.

There is also a Graduate Group in Vision.

For further details, see AI Magazine, Summer 1986, or contact:

                William J. Rapaport
                Assistant Professor of Computer Science
                Co-Director, Graduate Group in Cognitive Science

Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260

(716) 636-3193, 3180

uucp:   ..!{allegra,decvax,watmath,rocksanne}!sunybcs!rapaport
csnet:  rapaport@buffalo.csnet
bitnet: rapaport@sunybcs.bitnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Oct 86 20:02:38 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno@seismo.css.gov  (Bruno Poterie)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: XILOG
-BODY-
Well, I know of at least one Prolog system on PC/AT which is:

        - fully C&M compatible,
                to the exception of the top-level mode
                        (consults by default (terms ended with a dot),
                         executes on request (terms ended with a question
mark))

        - all defined C&M predicates,
                i/o, program manipulation, term scanning & construction,
                integer and float arithmetics, ...

        plus the following features:

        - full window, semi-graphics & color management

        - modularity for debugging, program handling, etc..
                ( but *no* separate dictionaries)
          through a hierarchy of "zone"

        - on-line precise help

        - on-line clause editor

        - complete typage mechanism, allowing full object definition,
          constraint checking, etc...

        - functional mechanism, allowing each call to return any prolog term
          as a return value through an accumulator (bactracked/trailed)
                (the arithmetic is implemented, using this mechanism,
                 and you may extend it as you wants)

        - non-bactrackable global cells and arrays

        - backtracking arrays, with functional notation and access

        - access to MSDOS

        - sound system

        and some others less (sic) important goodies, like a debugger based
        on the Box model, etc...


        oh, I forgot:

        under development, and rather advanced by now, are:

        - an incremental compiler to native code with incremental linking
          (with full integration with the interpreter, of course)

        - an interface to C programs

        - a toolkit for development of applications, with an utilities library

        - and maybe a message sending mechanism (but I'm not sure for it)


The name of this system is:

                XILOG

        and it is made and distributed by (the Research Center of) BULL,
        the biggest french computer compagny.

        if interested, contact:

                CEDIAG
                BULL
                68, route de Versailles
                F-78430 Louveciennes
                FRANCE

        or:

                Dominique Sciamma
                (same address)


        don't fear, they do speak english there! :-)


P.S.: I precise that I have no commercial interest at all in this product,
but I really think that this XILOG is the best Prolog for micro I ever met.

================================================================================
  Bruno Poterie         # ... une vie, c'est bien peu, compare' a un chat ...
  ECRC GmbH             #               tel: (49)89/92699-161
  Arabellastrasse 17    #               Tx: 5 216 910
  D-8000 MUNICH 90      #               mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno
  West Germany          #               bruno%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET
================================================================================

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 8 Oct 86 20:26:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!fiore@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (David Fiore)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: pd prolog
-BODY-
> Xref: ucbvax net.micro:451 net.micro.pc:821 net.ai:91
>
> Does anyone have the public domain prolog package discussed in this month's
> BYTE magazine?
>
> John E. Jacobsen
> University of Wisconsin -- Madison Academic Computing Center

   I have a copy of pdprolog here with me.  It is the educational version.
   I don't know if that is the one described in BYTE as I haven't read that
   magazine lately.


      ||
      ||         David Fiore, University of California at Riverside.
 =============
      ||         Slow mail   :  1326 Wheaton Way
      ||                        Riverside, Ca.  92507
      ||         E-Mail
      ||            UseNet   : ...!ucdavis!ucrmath!hope!fiore
      ||            BITNET   : consult@ucrvms

                Have another day!

    "...and at warp eight, we're going nowhere mighty fast"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canadian Artificial Intelligence/ September 1986
-BODY-
Summary No. 9

Report on current budget and increase in dues

The Dalhousie Business School got a Sperry Explorer Lisp Machine
and a copy of KEE.  They are developing a system to manage foreign
debts and plan an estimator for R&D projects, intelligent computer
aided instruction and auditing.

Xerox Canada has set up an AI support work

Logicware has been acquired by the Nexa Group

British Columbia Advanced Systems Institute will be set up to do
research on AI, robotics, microelectronics.

__________________________________________________________________________

Two assessments on the Japanese Fifth Generation project:

ICOT is developing AI systems for fishing fleets, train control,
microchip design, natural language transition.  There are 600 researchers
working on fifth generation projects and 600 on robotics.

1986-1988 funding is 102 billion yen and 1982-92 funding is 288 billion.

The English to Japanese system will require post-editing and applies
standard techniques.

The Japanese have abandoned 'Delta', their parallel inference engine
is 'gathering dust'  They alledgedly threw 'hardware engineers' into
a Prolog environment for which they 'had no background or interest'

__________________________________________________________________________

Report on Natural Language Understanding Research at University of
Toronto

Reviews of Bertholt Klaus Paul Horn's "Robot Vision"
Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1986
Conference

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 16:08:19 EST
-FROM-
From: munnari!nswitgould.oz!michaelw@seismo.css.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Book - Prolog Multiprocessors
-BODY-

  A book is soon  to  appear,  by  Michael  J.  Wise,  entitled  "Prolog
  Multiprocessors".  It is being published by Prentice-Hall (Australia).
  In a nutshell,  the  book  examines  the  execution  of  Prolog  on  a
  multiprocessor.

       Starting  from  a   survey   of   some   current   multiprocessor
  architectures,  and  a review of what is arguably the most influential
  counter-proposal - the "data-flow" model,  a  model  is  proposed  for
  executing  Prolog  on  a  multiprocessor.  Along with the model goes a
  language based on Prolog.  The  model  and  the  language  are  called
  EPILOG.  EPILOG employs both AND and OR parallelism.  Results are then
  reported for the simulated execution of some Prolog programs rewritten
  in  the  EPILOG language.  The book concludes with an extensive survey
  of other multiprocessor implementations of Prolog.

       The book will be available in Australia from mid November, and in
  US/UK/Europe  roughly  eight  weeks  later.   A  list  of  the Chapter
  headings follows.  A more detailed list  can  be  obtained  from  your
  local P-H representative, or by e-mailing to me directly.

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

  Foreword by J. Alan Robinson
  Preface

    1.  Parallel Computation  and the Data-Flow Alternative
    2.  Informal Introduction to Prolog
    3.  Data-Flow Problems and a Prolog Solution
    4.  EPILOG Language and Model
    5.  Architectures for EPILOG
    6.  Experimenting with  EPILOG  Architectures  -  Results  and  Some
        Conclusions
    7.  Related Work

  Appendix 1 Data-Flow Research - the  First Generation

  Appendix 2 EBNF Specification for EPILOG

  Appendix 3 EPILOG Test Programs

  Appendix 4 Table of Results

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 10:21:18 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Charles W. Anderson" <cwa0%gte-labs.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Dissertation - Multilayer Connectionist Learning
-BODY-
        The following is the abstract from my Ph.D. dissertation
completed in August, 1986, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Members of my committee are Andrew Barto, Michael Arbib, Paul Utgoff,
and William Kilmer.  I welcome all comments and questions.

                                    Chuck Anderson
                                    GTE Laboratories Inc.
                                    40 Sylvan Road
                                    Waltham, MA 02254
                                    617-466-4157
                                    cwa0@gte-labs



                     Learning and Problem Solving
                with Multilayer Connectionist Systems

        The difficulties of learning in multilayered networks of
computational units has limited the use of connectionist systems in
complex domains.  This dissertation elucidates the issues of learning in
a network's hidden units, and reviews methods for addressing these
issues that have been developed through the years.  Issues of learning
in hidden units are shown to be analogous to learning issues for
multilayer systems employing symbolic representations.

        Comparisons of a number of algorithms for learning in hidden
units are made by applying them in a consistent manner to several tasks.
Recently developed algorithms, including Rumelhart, et al.'s, error
back-propagation algorithm and Barto, et al.'s, reinforcement-learning
algorithms, learn the solutions to the tasks much more successfully than
methods of the past.  A novel algorithm is examined that combines
aspects of reinforcement learning and a data-directed search for useful
weights, and is shown to out perform reinforcement-learning algorithms.

        A connectionist framework for the learning of strategies is
described which combines the error back-propagation algorithm for
learning in hidden units with Sutton's AHC algorithm to learn evaluation
functions and with a reinforcement-learning algorithm to learn search
heuristics.  The generality of this hybrid system is demonstrated
through successful applications to a numerical, pole-balancing task and
to the Tower of Hanoi puzzle.  Features developed by the hidden units in
solving these tasks are analyzed.  Comparisons with other approaches to
each task are made.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
212
-DATE-
Date: Tue 7 Oct 86 10:36:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Integer Equations
-BODY-
RIT Researchers Find Way to Reduce Transmission Errors,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 29, No. 7, July 1986, p. 702:

  Donald Kreher and Stanislaw Radziszowski at Rochester Institute of Technology
  have discovered a new geometry, the third 6-design, non-Euclidean geometry,
  that allows solution of difficult problems in designing error-correcting
  transmission codes.  One problem with 99 integer equations and 132 unknowns
  was solved in 12 hours; previous search methods would have required several
  million centuries.


Integer (Diophantine) equations are notoriously difficult to solve.  Is this
a breakthrough for other problem domains where search is used (e.g., bin
packing, traveling salesman, map coloring, and the "approximately-solved"
algorithms)?  Is it a form of linear programming?

					-- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 1986 13:08:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: David Smith <DAVSMITH@A.ISI.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert systems and deep knowledge
-BODY-
Grethe Tangen asked about using mathematical models of gas turbines
as deep knowledge sources for diagnostics.  GE in Schenectady, NY
are working in this area.  Bruce Pomeroy is perhaps the best contact,
and he can be reached by mail to SWEET@a.isi.edu, or by phone
at (518)387-6781.  Hope this helps.
                        DMS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Oct 86 15:52:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!unido!ztivax!bandekar@seismo.css.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematical Models
-BODY-
 I see some difficulties in using mathematical models of technical systems
 as a source of deep knowledge.  Mathematical models are usually derived
 from the structural information about the devices, and one particular mo-
del can represent more that one physical device.  But I guess the approach
would not be impossible as long as you can derive your device structure
from your mathematical model.  For example transfer function of several devices
may be mathematically expressed in the same way.  For multiple input/output
plants the choice of state variables varies for state space representation.
Which variables are affected if a particular physical component is defective
and the causal ordering of the variables could be a valuable piece of know-
ledge for the purpose of diagnosis.  Here, if you can map your model into
structural equations you may compute the causal ordering of the state
variables.[Iwasaki,Simon '86].  Hierarchical representation of the
technical systems is always useful.  The concept of views[Struss, 86
to be presented at Sydney Univ. during Feb. 1987] is also important.
If you can tell me more about your problem, I may be able to help out.
my address: ... unido!ztivax!bandekar

Vijay Bandekar
:w
:q

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 10:41:45 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: man's godlike
-BODY-
I'm amazed that nobody has responded to Peter Pirron's last argument:

> The belief, that man's cognitive or intelligent abilities will
> never be reached by a machine, is founded in the conscious or
> unconscious assumption of man's godlike or godmade uniqueness,
> which is supported by the religious tradition of our culture.  It
> needs a lot of self-reflection, courage and consciousness about
> one's own existential fears to overcome the need of being unique.
> I would claim, that the conviction mentioned above however
> philosophical or sophisticated it may be justified, is only the
> "RATIONALIZATION" (in the psychoanalytic meaning of the word) of
> understandable but irrational and normally unconscious existential
> fears and need of human being.

Even net.ai, which is still a chaos of wild theories, has gone beyond
regarding the a.i. question as a matter of science versus religion.
Some arguments against Pirron's conjecture:

>- If the objection to a.i. is rooted in cultural dogma, it's illogical
   to look at the psychology of the individual.  Every individual is, now
   and always, unique--though some of us may feel that we are too much
   like others.  This is quite another question than whether our species
   is unique.

>- Other animals, and even plants, have intelligence--not to mention
   viruses!  Many of us regard even a dog's intelligence as beyond the
   capabilities of a.i., at least in the way that scientists presently
   think about a.i.

>- Even an electric-eye door can be regarded as a successful implementation
   of artificial intelligence.  We skeptics' greatest doubts tend to focus
   on theories of emergent intelligence--theories as attractive to some
   modern researchers as the Philosopher's Stone was to medieval researchers,
   and (some say) with just as little basis in the nature of things.

>- To divide intelligent beings into men and machines is not necessarily
   precise or exhaustive.  For example, ghosts may be intelligent
   without belonging to either category.

>- A secular equivalent of "godlike uniqueness" is that man is special:
   that we mean more to ourselves than does anything else, living or lifeless.
   Only a scientist would argue with this.  8 |-I

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 86 05:04:59 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Turing test - the robot version
-BODY-
>>>     instead of a computer trying to fool you in ASCII,
>>>     it's a robot trying to fool you in the flesh...
>>>     Remember, scientists aren't just trying to make things better for you.
>>>     They're also trying to fool you!

The purpose of scientific inquiry is not just to better the human
condition. It is also to understand nature, including human nature.
Nothing can do this more directly than trying to model the mind. But
how can you tell whether your model is veridical? One way is to test
whether its performance is identical with human performance. That's no
guarantee that it's veridical, but there's no guarantee with our
models of physical nature either. These too are underdetermined by
data, as I argue in the papers in question. And besides, the robot
version of the turing test is already the one we use every day, in our
informal solutions to the other-minds problem.

Finally, there's a world of difference, as likewise argued in the
papers, between being able to "fool" someone in symbols and being able
to do it in the flesh-and-blood world of objects and causality. And
before we wax too sceptical about such successes, let's first try to
achieve them.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 1986  06:39 EDT (Fri)
-FROM-
From: Wayne McGuire <Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Understanding Horses
-BODY-
     Date: Mon 29 Sep 86 09:55:11-PDT
     From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA>
     Subject: Searle's logic

     Look, I also don't think there's any real difference between a human's
     knowledge of a horse and [a] machine's manipulation of the symbol it is
     using to represent it.

At one end of the human knowledge spectrum we have that knowledge of a
horse which is aware that two horses + two horses = four horses; at the
other end is that sort of rich and unfathomably complex knowledge which is
expressed in a play like Peter Shaffer's _Equus_, and which fuses, under
the force of sympathetic imagination, conceptual, emotional, biological,
and sensorimotor modes of cognition.  I suppose that our most advanced
expert systems at the elementary end of the cognitive spectrum can capture
knowledge about the structural and functional features of a horse, but it
is not clear that any knowledge representation scheme will EVER simulate
what is most interesting about human cognition and which relies on
unconscious and intuitive resources.  In one dimension of cognition the
world is a machine, an engineering diagram, which is readily accessible by
bit twiddling models; in another, that of, say, Shakespeare, it is a living
organism, whose parts are infinitely interconnected and partially decrypted
only by the power of the imagination.  And so I would argue, with regard to
human and machine cognition of horses or anything else, that there is a
major difference in any dimension of knowledge that counts, and that
repairing automobiles or space stations, and writing or understanding poems
(or understanding the world in the broadest sense), have nearly nothing in
common.

Wayne McGuire
(wayne@oz.ai.mit.edu)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 11:57:31 edt
-FROM-
From: Mike Tanner <tanner@ohio-state.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle's logic
-BODY-
Pat Hayes made some cogent remarks about Searle's problems with AI
being much deeper than the discussion here would indicate.  But I
wonder whether the argument is worth the effort.

I have a lot of work to do and only so much time.  I can work just
fine on problems of intelligence without worrying about Searle's (or
Dreyfus's) complaints.  Just as the working physicist can work all day
without once being bothered by the question of whether quarks *really*
exist, so the working AIer can make progress on his problems without
being bothered by Searle.

>- mike

tanner@ohio-state.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
213
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 86 22:06:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hou2d!meh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (P.MEHROTRA)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Public Domain Software for Expert Systems
-BODY-
Public Domain Software for Expert Systems
for building expert systems. I work in Unix environment and
have Franz LISP on my system. I already have OPS5. I am especially
interested in tools which use frames and/or semantic networks
for knowledge representation.

    Any software or any information where I can get this software
will be greatly appreciated.

Prem K Mehrotra
hou2d!meh   speedy!prem
201-615-4535

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 86 19:18:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: well!jjacobs@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Jeffrey Jacobs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Getting started in Expert Systems
-BODY-

> lem@galbp.UUCP
> Lisa Meyer has requested information on expert systems, PD and PC related
> tools.

Lisa,

I suggest that you start with Waterman's "A Guide to Expert Systems", as
well as looking in your University book store and local commercial
book stores and computer stores.  This will give you a working bibliography
to pursue.

Most tools listed in the Waterman book are public domain and can often
be obtained from the respective institution for a nominal price (usually of a
tape).

Periodicals include IEEE Expert (quarterly), AI Expert (monthly), SIGART
(ACM Sig on AI), and AI Magazine (AAAI, quarterly).  Also, see the July 86
issue of Computer (IEEE Computer Society).

There are a number of PC tools and languages available.  Best place to look
is Byte magazine and various PC magazines.  There are a number of LISPs,
PROLOGs and a good Smalltalk available.  TI has SCHEME and 2 levels
of Personal Consultant.  Insight-2+ has also received good reviews.

For Public Domain PC software, I suggest the CompuServe Information
Service (CIS).  There is a Forum sponsored by AI Expert magazine which
has a great deal of PD tools.  It's also a great place for getting information
oriented towards PC's.

Also, the following BBS'es:

  Boston, Mass. (Common Lisp Group)   (617) 492-2399
  Woodbury, Conn.                     (203) 263-5783


 Jeffrey M. Jacobs
 CONSART Systems Inc.
 Technical and Managerial Consultants
 P.O. Box 3016, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
 (213)376-3802
 CIS:75076,2603
 BIX:jeffjacobs
 USENET: well!jjacobs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 86 02:38:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: osiris!chandra@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System Wanted
-BODY-

There is no General Purpose expert system in the world.
If you find one, you will probably get the Turing Award.

I will be very happy to recieve more information about
General Purpose Expert Systems. A breakthrough I am looking
forward to.

Please excuse my ignorance about this new technology.

Thanks.

Navin Chandra
MIT

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 86 12:21:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: osiris!chandra@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System Wanted
-BODY-

Hi,

FOUND!

There is an expert system shell for CMS. It is called PRISM.
PRISM is also called ESE (expert system environemnt).

It has production rule based programming and a interesting control
structure based on Focus Control Blocks (with inheritance)

ESE is available from IBM itself. It is written in lisp and was most
probably developed at IBM Watson Research Labs.

Navin Chandra
MIT

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 10:02:17 cdt
-FROM-
From: preece%ccvaxa@gswd-vms.ARPA (Scott E. Preece)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Xerox vs Symbolics -- Reference coun
-BODY-
> From: Dan Hoey <hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA>

> Let me first deplore the abuse of language by which it is claimed that
> Xerox has a garbage collector at all.  In the language of computer
> science, Xerox reclaims storage using a ``reference counter''
> technique, rather than a ``garbage collector.''  This terminology
> appears in Knuth's 1973 *Art of Computer Programming* and originated in
> papers published in 1960.  I remain undecided as to whether Xerox's
> misuse of the term stems from an attempt at conciseness, ignorance of
> standard terminology, or a conscious act of deceit.
>---------
Hoey's pedantic insistence on a precision which does not exist in
the "standard terminology" is apparently also an incorrect
characterization of the Xerox approach, which [from the
descriptions I have read] combines some aspects of the "pure"
reference counting approach described by Knuth and some
aspects of "pure" garbage collection.

The Deutsch paper [CACM, 9/76] explicitly separates the two kinds of
storage reclamation techniques and then proposes a combined method
with features of both.

In fact, however, the distinction on which Hoey places
so much importance seems to have mostly vanished from the
literature in the years since Knuth's description (why he places
it in 1973 I don't know, my copy dates to 1968).  Many more
recent sources consider reference counting simply
one form of garbage identification.  The survey by Cohen
(Computing Surveys, 9/81), for instance, discusses reference counting
and marking as just two alternative ways of identifying garbage.
Gabriel (Performance and Evaluation of Lisp Systems) says of the
Xerox scheme, "Garbage collection is patterned after that
described by [Deutsch, 1976].  A reference count is maintained..."
Moon ("Garbage Collection in a Large Lisp System") discusses
reference counting alternatives under the name garbage collection.

Reference counting seems to have been accepted as a method of
preforming one sub-task of garbage collection; Hoey's nit-picking
is neither productive nor, since the Xerox approach is not pure
reference counting, accurate.

>-
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:   ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:   preece@gswd-vms

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 10:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: Scott Garren <garren@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Garbage Collection
-BODY-
Relative to discussions of garbage collectors I would like to point out
that there are issues of scale involved.  Many techniques that work
admirably on an address space limited to 8 Mbytes (Xerox hardware)
do not scale at all well to systems that support up to 1 Gbytes
(Symbolics).

Non-disclaimer: I am an employee of Symbolics and am of course
emotionally and financially involved in this issue.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 15:39:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: ambar@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Jean Marie Diaz)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: ambar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jean Marie Diaz)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox vs Symbolics -- Reference counts vs Garbage collection
-BODY-
In article <8609262352.AA10266@ai.wisc.edu> neves@ai.wisc.edu (David
  M. Neves) writes:
>Do current Symbolics users use the garbage collector?

At MIT, yes.  I do recall at Rutgers this summer that I was forever
doing a (gc-on), because some user there was turning it off....


>-

                                        AMBAR
"Timid entrant into the Rich Rosen School of Computer Learning...."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 12:39:28 edt
-FROM-
From: "Timothy J. Horton" <tjhorton%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Xerox vs Symbolics -- Reference counts vs Garbage collection
-BODY-
> When I was using MIT Lisp Machines (soon to become Symbolics) years
> ago nobody used the garbage collector because it slowed down the
> machine and was somewhat buggy.  Instead people operated for hours/days
> until they ran out of space and then rebooted the machine.  The only
> time I turned on the garbage collector was to compute 10000 factorial.
> Do current Symbolics users use the garbage collector?
>
>    "However, it is apparent that reference counters will never
>    reclaim circular list structure."
>
> This is a common complaint about reference counters.  However I don't
> believe there is very many circular data structures in real Lisp code.
> Has anyone looked into this?  Has any Xerox user run out of space
> because of circular data structures in their environment?
>
> --
> David Neves, Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Usenet:  {allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!neves
> Arpanet: neves@rsch.wisc.edu

In the Xerox environment at least, the extensive use of windows is one of
the most common sources of problems.  Often is the case that a window must
be 'related' somehow to another window i.e. you create a subsidiary window
for some main window (as a scroll window is to a display window), and the
two windows must 'know' about each other.  The obvious thing is to put
pointers on each window's property list to the other window, "et viola"
a circular list.  Everything on the property lists of the two windows
also gets kept around, and since Xerox windows are such good places to
store things the circular structure is often very large.  (check out the
stuff on a 'Sketch' window's property list)

A careful programmer can avoid such problems.  In the case of windows, one
just has to be careful about how windows find out about one another (some
kind of global variable scheme or a directed search of all windows).
Yet accidents happen and windows can kill the environment fairly quickly.
Yes, I have lost an environment to just this problem (that's why I know),
and it's very hard to tell what happened after the fact.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 10 Oct 86 10:57:53-PDT
-FROM-
From: Keith Price <PRICE%GANELON@usc-oberon.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Garbage collection
-BODY-
The experience in our lab is that there is no garbage collection
other than the Ephemeral GC; the "traditional" GC is never needed or
executed and programs are faster with the Ephemeral GC on than with it
off.  I can't say whether it is "better" than Xerox or the new LMI GC,
but it is clear that "traditional" GC is a thing of the past for most
Lisp work stations already and comparisons to such old methods do not
contribute to the knowledge pool.
        K. Price.
        price%ganelon@usc-ecl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
214
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 14:48:20 nzs
-FROM-
From: ubc-vision!calgary!vuw90x!paul@seismo.CSS.GOV (Paul Fitchett)
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: ubc-vision!vuwcomp!paul@seismo.CSS.GOV (Paul Fitchett)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connectionist References Request
-BODY-
Recent items in mod.ai have piqued my interest about "connectionist"
ideas in AI.  I wonder if anyone could provide a number of references
that are a good introduction to the ideas in this area.
The little I've read makes them seem like perceptrons -- I hope not.

If replying by email please use one of the paths below.
Thanks,
Paul

Paul Fitchett
uucp        :  ...!{ubc-vision, alberta}!calgary!vuwcomp!paul
ACSnet      :  paul@vuwcomp.nz
subethernet :  ...local-group!milky-way!sol!terra!nz!vuwcomp!paul  :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 86 18:14:19 GMT
-FROM-
From: ucdavis!deneb!g451252772ea@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (g451252772ea)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: animal rule-systems simulations
-BODY-

By way of introduction to the following Mail message, 'bc' posted last
spring a query for anyone with references on 'simulation animal behavior using
rule-driven systems'.  I discovered his message in an old listing, and find
the topic of interest also.  In case 'bc' (William Coderre) is no longer
at mit-amt.MIT.EDU, I'm posting to the net also.  Thanks for your tolerance...


     Hi, bc (?bc?):

     I'm curious about any replies you got to your query last April for
rule-driven simulations of animal behaviors.  I have somewhat
similar interests, reflecting my grad work in ethology here at Davis, and my
undergrad work at U.C. Santa Cruz in Information- Computer science.  We have
here a person doing stuff you'd enjoy: Marc Mangel, with his 'dynamic
stochastic optimization' analysis of everything from insect oviposition
choices to foraging theory to fisheries harvesting.  His insight seems to be
the addition of a 'state variable' - usually characterized as energy
reserves, gut contents or similar - to revamp the static optimization models
of Houston, McNamara, Krebs, et al. (the 'Oxford' crowd).  Mangel is chair
of the math dept. here, and co-authors with Colin Clark of the U. British
Columbia.  Clark is visiting here this quarter and giving an applied math
seminar, with lots of application studies.  Both guys emphasize computer
programs, and the programs have a game-like air to them. If you'd like more
info, I can send some typed notes by Mangel describing the analysis, and one
of his most counter-intuitive applications.

     Mostly I'm working with evolutionary studies: the predator/prey
interactions of snakes and ground squirrels (my thesis is on stupidity: the
dumbness of Arctic ground squirrels, which don't even appear to <recognize>
snakes of any kind, much less handle them correctly).  I do have to give a
week's worth of lectures to my animal-behavior group next month, explaining
'artificial intelligence' ab initio to them.  Despite Mangel and Clark, the
prejudice against math/systems here is substantial.  Any ideas you have for
good material/examples, in the vein of Winograd's new book or Rosen's
discussion of ANTICIPATORY SYSTEMS (much watered down!) or ANYTHING else,
would be most welcome!

     Thanks --Ron.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 10 Oct 86 15:00:40-EDT
-FROM-
From: Albert Boulanger <ABOULANGER@G.BBN.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Expert Systems & Math Models
-BODY-

Check out the book:

Coupling Symbolic and Numerical Computing in Expert Systems

Edited by J.S. Kowalik and is based on the workshop by this name held
at Bellevue, Washington 27-29 August, 1985.

Elsevier, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 0  0 00:00:00 PDT
-FROM-
From: "LLLASD::GARBARINI" <garbarini%lllasd.DECNET@lll-crg.arpa>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "LLLASD::GARBARINI" <garbarini@lllasd.decnet>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RE: Availability of interactive 2-d math editing
-BODY-           interfaces...


The following is a summary of responses to my query on 2-d math editing
interfaces.

I'd like to thank everyone who responded. I hope to eventually respond
to each of you individually.

>---------
Joe P. Garbarini Jr.
Lawrence Livermore National Lab
P. O. Box 808 , L-308
7000 East Avenue
Livermore Ca. , 94550

arpanet address: GARBARINI%LLLASD.DECNET@LLL-ICDC.ARPA
>---------

The original query:

>----

I am working with a number of other people on a project called Automatic
Programming for Physics.  The goal is to build an AI based automatic
programming system to aid scientist in the building of numerical
simulations of physical systems.

In the user interface to the system we would like to have interactive
editing of mathematical expressions in two-dimensional form.

It seems a number of people have recently made much progress in this
area. (See C. Smith and N. Soiffer, "MathScribe: A User Interface for
Computer Algebra Systems," Conference Proceedings of Symsac 86, (July,
1986) and B. Leong, "Iris: Design of a User Interface Program for
Symbolic Algebra," Proc. 1986 ACM-SIGSAM Symposium on Symbolic and
Algebraic Manipulation, July 1986.)

Not wishing to reinvent the wheel, I'd appreciate receiving information
regarding the availability of any such interface.

=======================================================================

From: Joe Garbarini (Yes, this is from me!)

MathSoft makes a product call MathCAD which has an interactive 2-d math
interface. Currently runs on IBM PCs.

Mathsoft, Inc.
One Kendal Square, Bldg. 100
Cambridge, MA 02139
800-628-4223

>----

From: James E. O'Dell <jim@ACG.arpa>

Normal MACSYMA has 2-d editing done by Carl Hoffman and Rich Zippel.
I think references to it can be found in one or the other of the
Proceedings of the MACSYMA Users Group.

Jim

>----

From: fateman@dali.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)

There is some stuff on Sun-2 equipment working with macsyma
here at UC Berkeley.  The MathScribe stuff is currently nicer
looking in my opinion, but people are still working on stuff
here.

<and from elsewhere this:>

>----

A version of Macsyma for the VAX computer, including sources and binaries
for Macsyma and the underlying Lisp (Franz Lisp opus 38.91), is in the
National Energy Software Center library. (Argonne, IL.)
(312) 972-7172. This should run without change on 4.3BSD UNIX or ULTRIX.
  This version, which was developed at the University of California, has
also been run, with modifications, on various other (non-VAX) systems
which support the Franz Lisp dialect.  For information on Franz Lisp
for VAX/VMS or other computers, you might wish to contact your hardware
vendor or Franz Inc. in Alameda CA, (415) 769-5656. (for many mainframe
and workstation computers)

Vaxima uses about 4.5 megabytes of address space to start up, and
as configured, can grow to 6.5 megabytes or so. By changing a compile-time
parameter in the Lisp system, the system may be configured to grow much
larger. (We have run a 53 megabyte system on a VAX 8600).
  At UC Berkeley we have been using this code on Sun-2 and Sun-3 systems,
and microVAX-II's.

Vaxima is quite fast when given enough physical memory, and appears at this
time
to be very cost-effective compared to implementations on special-purpose
Lisp machines or "DOE-MACSYMA" for VAX/VMS.

There are a number of packages that have been developed to work with this
program (e.g. user interfaces, better algorithms for factoring, graphics,
an interface to the Numerical Algorithms Group (NAG) library).


Neither UC Berkeley nor by NESC provides support for vaxima.

   Richard J. Fateman, U.C. Berkeley

>----

From: arnon.pa@xerox.com

For some years Xerox has offered software for interactive
two-dimensional editing of mathematical expressions as part of its Star,
and now Viewpoint, systems.  Regrettably Viewpoint runs only on Xerox
workstations.

As part of the research programming environment at Xerox PARC, we have a
more powerful math editing and display package which is roughly the
equivalent of MathScribe.  A noteworthy property of our package is that
a math expression can be moved interchangeably between the editor, a
technical document, and a system for symbolic mathematical computation.

I'd be happy to discuss or demo.

Dennis Arnon
Computer Science Laboratory
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
3333 Coyote Hill Road
Palo Alto CA 94304
(415) 494-4425

>----

From: seismo!Xerox.COM!Kelley.pa

While not oriented specifically to physical systems, STELLA for the
Macintosh from High-Performance Systems, Inc., 13 Dartmouth College
Highway, Lyme, New Hampshire 03768.  has a very nice user interface for
help in building mathematical models.  It is oriented toward Forrester's
Systems Dynamics simulation paradigm.  The user interface is worth
examining.

 -- kirk

>----

From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)

        soiffer@dali.berkeley.edu
        carolyn@dali.berkeley.edu

are the addresses of Neil Soiffer and Carolyn Smith, respectively.  Benton
Leong is at

        allegra!watmath!blleong

<Rick, thanks for the info for the rest of the project ---JPG>

                                        -- Rick

>----

From: Doug A. Young <dayoung%hplabsc@hplabs.HP.COM>

Tony Hearn forwarded a message from you a while back to me, asking
about an interface for algebra systems. I did my masters thesis on
a graphical multi-window system for Macsyma. If you are interested,
I could forward some information on it to you. Contact me at
   dayoung@hplabs
                      Doug Young

>----

From: Bill Schelter <ATP.SCHELTER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>

I have an emacs like editor which allows the display
of mathematics as well as textual material.
You can mouse into the superscript position etc.
The system is called INFOR, and is available for lisp
machines (ymbolics and TI

I also ported the version of macsyma from doe, to run
on those machines.  It would be fairly easy to
connect the two, since they are running in the same memory
space.

The display is very good, at least as good as TEX.
You can actually create a dvi file directly from the editor.
This can be then printed to obtain very high quality output.

Bill  Schelter

>------

From: mcvax!fransh@seismo.CSS.GOV (Frans Heeman)

Some while ago, you put a query on the news about the availability
of interactive 2-d math editing interfaces. We are working on
a formula-editor (NOT a formula-manipulator). The idea is as
follows:

For example, the user gives the command for a fraction
to be entered. On the screen a small horizontal bar
is displayed, and the cursor is positioned above
this bar. The user types in the nominator.
While typing, the fraction-bar remains as long as the
nominator. Next the user gives the END-command, to indicate
the end of the nominator. Now the cursor is centered under
the fraction-bar, and the user types in the denominator. While
typing, the nominator and denominator remain centered with
respect to the fraction-bar, and the fraction-bar remains as
long as the longest of the nominator and denominator.

By means of keyboard and mouse (menu's) the user can enter a
mathematical formula. While typing, the formula is at every
moment displayed on the screen in its current 2-dimensional
form.  The system can handle mathematical constructs as fraction,
root, integral, matrices, etc. The system also handles greek and
italic characters.  The constructs the system can handle are specified
in an external grammar, so it is relatively easy to add or change
constructs. The way the formula is displayed on the screen is
also specified in this grammar. It is possible to get a
hard-copy of the formula: this is done by generating 'eqn'-code
for the formula, and then get a typeset result by using
'eqn' and 'troff' (part of the UNIX operating system). Finally, a
formula can be saved, retrieved and edited.

Our system is still under development and not yet available
for 'real' use. The final goal is to make a document-editor for
text, tables, mathematical formulae and (simple) pictures.

In France, Vincent Quint et al is doing work along these
lines too with a system previously called 'Edimath', currently
called 'Grif'.

References:
We have only published an internal report (in dutch), and are
currently preparing an English article to be published.

Edimath:
        V. Quint (March 1983),
        "An Interactive System for Mathematical Text
        Processing",
        Technology and Science of Informatics, vol. 2, nr. 3,
        pp. 169-179.

Grif:
        V. Quint, I. Vatton (April 1986),
        "Grif: An Interactive System for Structured Document
        Manipulation",
        Proceedings of the Conference on Text Processing and
        Document Manipulation,
        Nottingham, England, 1986.



Frans C. Heeman
Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)
P. O. Box 4079
1009 AB Amsterdam
The Netherlands

fransh@mvcax.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
215
-DATE-
Date: Tue 7 Oct 1986  16:24:42
-FROM-
From: ether.allegra%btl.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Binding
-BODY-

David Etherington, from the University of British Columbia
to AT&T Bell Laboratories, AI Principles Research Department.


Addresses:

ether%allegra@btl.csnet

and

David W. Etherington,
AT&T Bell Laboratories,
600 Mountain Avenue,
Murray Hill, NJ, 07974-2070

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report, October 1986
-BODY-
Summary of Volume 2 No 10

Discussion of S.1, ART, KEE discussing user interface, performance, features.
A common problem was done in all three applications.  The person who did
the evaluation started the exercise with the impression that one was
best off starting in scratch.  This was changed after the evaluation was
completed.

Also includes a two page table giving features, operating system and
cost for various expert system building tools including micro-based tools
__________________________________________________________________________
Japan Watch

MITI has budgeted the following for AI type products

$400,000    diagnosis support systems
2.4 million robotics
1.1 million language translation systems
$234,000    factory automation R&D

The Patent Office has budgeted $162,330 for machine translation

The National Police Agency will be putting $150,000 on automated voice
  recognition
$84,400 for recognition systems
$84,400 for graphology systems

The National Agency of Science and Technology budged 1.9 million on a
machine translation system

The Ministry of Agriculture and Foresty is doing research on expert systems
in agricultural production control
__________________________________________________________________________
Short Notes

Cognitive Systems quarterly revenues were $585,000 with a loss of $31,000
Frey Associates which sells THEMIS, a natural language product, made
$102,820 on revenues of $1,408,529 in the last quarter
Intellicorp expects a substantial loss this quarter.

Dr. Robert Moore, previously of Lisp Machine Co, is now president of
GENSYM, which anticipates doing work in real time applications of AI.

Eloquent Systems Corporations has produced an expert system for
hotels, motels, etc. to optimize occupancy and profits.  It runs on
an Explorer with a special card for multi processing.

Sperry has developed expert systems for configuring shipboard software
systems, a Tactical Information System for monitoring reports of ship and
aircraft locations, testing PC boards, correlating
contact reports for the NAVY and a system software diagnosis system.

Sanders Associates is undertaking a Defense Department Study to
set standards for developing AI systems.  DOD expects to release a set
of AI software development standards within three to five years.

__________________________________________________________________________
Reviews of

Applications of Artificial Intelligence III, proceedings of SPIE's
conference in Orlando


Expert System 85, Fifth Technical Conference of the British Computer Society's
Sppecialists Group on Expert Systems

Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, which includes most of the Articles
of Workshop on Artifiicial Intelligence and Statistics, April 1985

Artificial Intelligence with Statistical Pattern Recognition

Lisp Lore: A Guide to Programming the LISP Machine

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 86 00:49:35 BST
-FROM-
From: YAZDANI%UK.AC.EXETER.PC@AC.UK
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A survey of prototype and working ITSs.
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the AI-Ed digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]


Here I present a survey of Intelligent Tutoring systems which,
although not exhaustive, is intended to be a source of reference for further
development. I would like to know of other systems which I should add,
prefably getting enteries in my proposed format. However, if you can't
spend the time to do this if you just send me any references you may
have I shall try and extract the information myself. Also if you would
like to suggest changes to the format to make it more useful please
do so. I would like to send the final version to somewhere( like AI mag.
for publication) and shall acknowledge any help I get.

You can't use REPLY to get to me so you need to SEND me Email to
YAZDANI%UK.AC.EXETER.PC@UCL-CS.arpa
or post to
Dept. of Computer Sceince
University of Exeter
Prince of Wales Road
EXETER EX4 4PT
ENGLAND

Thanks
______


ACE

       Subject:  Nuclear Magnetic Spectroscopy
       Aim:      Monitor Deductive Reasonsing
       Features: Problem solving monitor, accepts natural language input
       System:   MODULAR ONE
       Reference:
                 Sleeman, D.H., and Hendley, R. J. (1982)
                 ACE:  a system which analyses complex explanations
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)

BUGGY & DEBUGGY

       Subject:  Arithmetic
       Aim:      Diagnose bugs from behaviour
       Features: Procedural representation of misconceptions (bugs),
                 hypothesis generation, problem generation system: LISP
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Brown, R.R. (1982)
                 Diagnosing bugs in simple procedural skills
                 in Sleeman & Brown (eds.)

BLOCKS

       Subject:  Blocks game
       Aim:      Diagnosis
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Brown, J.S. and Brown, R. R. (1978)
                 "A paradigmatic example of an artificially intelligent
                 instructional system"
                 Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies Vol.,  10, pp.232-339.

FGA

       Subject:  French Grammar
       Aim:      Analyse free form French sentences
       Features: Separation of dictionary, grammar, parser and error
                 reporting, general shell idea, human controlled
                 teaching strategy
       System:   PROLOG
       Reference:
                 Barchan, J. Woodmansee, B.J. and Yazdani, M. (1985)
                 "A Prolog-based tool for French Grammar Analysis"
                 Instructional Science, Vol. 14

GUIDON

       Subject:  Medical diagnosis
       Aim:      Using MYCIN for tutoring
       Features: Overlay student model, case method, separate of domain
                 knowledge from teaching expertise
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Clancey, W.J. (1979)
                 Tutoring rules for guiding a case method dialogue
                 in Int. J. of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 11 pp 25-49.

GEOMETRY Tutor

       Subject:  Geometry
       Aim:      Monitoring geometry proof problems
       Features: Use of production rules to represent 'ideal student
                 model' and 'bug catalogue'
       System:   Franz LISP
       Reference:
                 Anderson, J.R., Boyle, C.F. and Yost, G.
                 The Geometry Tutor
                 Proceedings of IJCAI-85

INTEGRATION

       Subject:  Calculus
       Aim:      To deal with student initiated examples of symbolic
                 integration
       Features: Self-improvement
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Kimbal, R. (1982)
                 A self-improving tutor for symbolic integration
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)
LISP Tutor

       Subject:  LISP programming
       Aim:      Teaching of introductory LISP programming
       Features: Using deviation from ideal student model
       System:   Franz LISP on VAX
       Reference:
                 Anderson, J.R. and Reiser, B. (1985)
                 The LISP Tutor
                 in Byte Vol. 10 No. 4

LMS (Pixie)

       Subject:  Algebra equetion solving
       Aim:      Building student models
       Features: Given problems and students answers it hypothesizes
                 models for them; uses rules and mal-rules.
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Sleeman, D.A. (1983)
                 Inferring student models for intelligent computer-aided
                 instruction
                 in Michalsky, R. Carbonnel, J. and Mitchell, T. (eds.)
                 Machine Learning
                 Springer-Verlag/Toga Press

MENO

       Subject:  Pascal programming
       Aim:      Tutoring novice programmers in the use of planning
       Features: Hierarchical representation of correct and incorrect plans
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Woolf, B. and McDonald, D.D.(1984)
                 Building a computer tutor:  design issues
                 IEEE Computers Sept. issue, pp. 6l-73

MACSYMA ADVISOR

       Subject:  Use of MACSYMA
       Aim:      Articulate users misconceptions about MACSYMA
       Features: Representation of plans
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Genesreth, M.R. (1977)
                 An automated consultant for MACSYMA
                 Proceedings of IJCAI-77

NEOMYCIN

       Subject:  Medical diagnosis
       Aim:      Using expert systems for tutoring
       Features: Separate of domain knowledge from teaching expertise,
                 automatic explanation of experts' reasoning
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Hasling, D.W., Clancey, W.J. and Rennels, G. (1984)
                 Strategic explanations for a dioagnostic consultation system

PROUST

       Subject:  Pascal programming
       Aim:      Automatic debugger and tutor
       Features: Use of problem descriptions
       System:   GCL LISP on IBM PC (micro-PROUST), LISP on VAXs
       Reference:
                 Johnson, W. L. and Soloway, E. (1985)
                 PROUST
                 in Byte Vol. 10, No. 4.

QUADRATIC tutor

       Subject:  Calculus
       Aim:      Teaching quadrantic equations
       Features: Teaching strategy represented as a set of production rules
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 O'Shea, T. (1982)
                 A self-improving quadratic tutor
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)

Scholar

       Subject:  Geography
       Aim:      Provide mixed-initiative dialogue
       Features: Semantic network representation of knowledge
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Carbonnel, J.R. and Collins, A. (1973)
                 "Natural Semantics in Artificial Intelligence"
                 Proceedings of IJCAI-73
                 Proceedings of IJCAI-85
SOPHIE

       Subject:  Electronic trouble shooting
       Aim:      Teaching how an expert trouble shooter copes with rare
                 faults
       Features: Semantic grammar for natural language diaglogue,
                 qualitative knowledge plus simulation, multiple
                 knowledge sources
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Brown, J.S., Burton, R. R. and de Kleer, J. (1982)
                 "Pedagogical, natural language and knowledge engineering
                 techniques in SOPHIE I, II and III
                 in Sleeman, D. and Brown, J.S. (eds.)B

SPADE

       Subject:  LOGO programming
       Aim:      To facilitate the acquisition of programming skills
       Features: Intelligent editor which prompts the student with
                 menu of design alternatives
       Reference:
                 Miller, M.L. (1982))
                 A Structured Planning and Debugging Environment
                 Inferring student models for intelligent computer-aided
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)

STEAMER

       Subject:  Steam plant operation
       Aim:      Convey qualitative model of a steam plant operation
       Features: Good graphics and mathematical model of the plant
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Holland, J.D., Hutchins, E. L. and Weitzmann, L. (1984)
                 "STEAMER:  An interative inspectable simutation based
                 training system"
                 in The AI Magazine, Vol. 5. No. 2

TUTOR

       Subject:  Highway Code
       Aim:      Prototype framework for a wide variety of subjects
       Features: Semantic grammar implemented in definite clause grammar,
                 representing value clusters, "what if" facility
       System:   Prolog on VAX and IBM PC AT
       Reference:
                 Davies, N., Dickens, S. and Ford, L. (1985)
                 "TUTOR":  A prototype ICAI system"
                 in M. Bramer (ed.) 'Research and Development in Expert
                 Systems'
                 Cambridge University Press

WEST

       Subject:  How the West was Won
       Aim:      Drill and Practice in arithmetic
       Features: Hierarchical representation of correct and incorrect plans
       System:   PLATO
       Reference:
                 Comparison of students' moves with experts' moves,
                 student model and diagnostic strategies, tutoring expert


WHY

       Subject:  Meteorology
       Aim:      Tutoring students about processes involved in rainfall
       Features: Multiple representations in direct tuition
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Stevens, A. and Goldin, S. F. (1982)
                 Misdconceptions in student understanding
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)

WUSOR

       Subject:  Maze exploration game (Wumpus)
       Aim:      Teaching logic and probability
       Features: Graph structure whose nodes represent rules
       System:   LISP
       Reference:
                 Goldstein, I. (1982)
                 "The genetic graph:  A representation for evlution of
                 procedural knowledge"
                 in Sleeman and Brown (eds.)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
216
-DATE-
Date: 9 Oct 86 15:23:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbatt!ukma!drew@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Andrew Lawson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories (Question not comment)
-BODY-
In article <160@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>On my argument the distinction between the two versions is critical,
>because the linguistic version can (in principle) be accomplished by
>nothing but symbols-in/symbols-out (and symbols in between) whereas
>the robotic version necessarily calls for non-symbolic processes
>(transducer, effector, analog and A/D).

This is not clear.  When I look at my surroundings, you are no
more than a symbol (just as is anything outside of my being).
Remember that "symbol" is not rigidly defined most of the time.
  When I recognize the symbol of a car heading toward me, I respond
by moving out of the way.  This is not essentially different from
a linguistic system recognizing a symbol and responding with another
symbol.

>-
Drew Lawson                             cbosgd!ukma!drew
"Parts is parts."                       drew@uky.csnet
                                        drew@UKMA.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Oct 86 18:15:42 GMT
-FROM-
From: mnetor!utzoo!utcsri!utai!me@seismo.css.gov  (Daniel Simon)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories (Question not comment)
-BODY-
In article <160@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>In reply to (1): The linguistic version of the turing test (turing's
>original version) is restricted to linguistic interactions:
>Language-in/Language-out. The robotic version requires the candidate
>system to operate on objects in the world. In both cases the (turing)
>criterion is whether the system can PERFORM indistinguishably from a human
>being. (The original version was proposed largely so that your
>judgment would not be prejudiced by the system's nonhuman appearance.)
>
I have no idea if this is a relevant issue or a relevant place to bring it up,
but this whole business of the Turing test makes me profoundly suspicious.  For
example, we all know about Weizenbaum's ELIZA, which, he claimed, convinced
many clever, relatively computer-literate (for their day) people that it was
intelligent.  This fact leads me to some questions which, in my view, ought to
be seriously addressed before the phrase "Turing test" is bandied about (and
probably already have been addressed, but I didn't notice, and will thank
everybody in advance for telling me where to find a treatment of them and
asking me to kindly buzz off):

        1)  To what extent is our discernment of intelligent behaviour context-
            dependent?  ELIZA was able to appear intelligent because of the
            clever choice of context (in a Rogerian therapy session, the kind
            of dull, repetitive comments made by ELIZA seem perfectly
            appropriate, and hence, intelligent).  Mr. Harnad has brought up
            the problem of physical appearance as a prejudicing factor in the
            assessment of "human" qualities like intelligence.  Might not the
            robot version lead to the opposite problem of testers being
            insufficiently skeptical of a machine with human appearance (or
            even of a machine so unlike a human being in appearance that mildly
            human-like behaviour takes on an exaggerated significance in the
            tester's mind)?  Is it ever possible to trust the results of any
            instance of the test as being a true indicator of the properties of
            the tested entity itself, rather than those of the environment in
            which it was tested?

        2)  Assuming that some "neutral" context can be found which would not
            "distort" the results of the test (and I'm not at all convinced
            that such a context exists, or even that the idea of such a context
            has any meaning), what would be so magic about the level of
            perceptiveness of the shrewdest, most perspicacious tester
            available, that would make his inability to distinguish man from
            machine in some instance the official criterion by which to judge
            intelligence?  In short, what does passing (or failing) the Turing
            test really mean?

        3)  If the Turing test is in fact an unacceptable standard, and
            building a machine that can pass it an inappropriate goal (and, as
            questions 1 and 2 have probably already suggested, this is what I
            strongly suspect), are there more appropriate means by which we
            could evaluate the human-like or intelligent properties of an AI
            system?  In effect, is it possible to formulate the qualities that
            constitute intelligence in a manner which is more intuitively
            satisfying than the standard AI stuff about reasoning, but still
            more rigorous than the Turing test?

As I said, I don't know if my questions are legitimate, or if they have already
been satisfactorily resolved, or if they belong elsewhere; I merely bring them
up here because this is the first place I have seen the Turing test brought up
in a long time.  I am eager to see what others have to say on the subject.


>Stevan Harnad
>princeton!mind!harnad


                                        Daniel R. Simon

"Look at them yo-yo's, that's the way to do it
 Ya go to grad school, get your PhD"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 86 13:47:46 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@think.com  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In response to what I wrote in article <160@mind.UUCP>, namely:

>On my argument the distinction between the two versions
>[of the turing test] is critical,
>because the linguistic version can (in principle) be accomplished by
>nothing but symbols-in/symbols-out (and symbols in between) whereas
>the robotic version necessarily calls for non-symbolic processes
>(transducer, effector, analog and A/D).

Drew Lawson replies:

>       This is not clear.  When I look at my surroundings, you are no
>       more than a symbol (just as is anything outside of my being).
>       Remember that "symbol" is not rigidly defined most of the time.
>       When I recognize the symbol of a car heading toward me, I respond
>       by moving out of the way.  This is not essentially different from
>       a linguistic system recognizing a symbol and responding with another
>       symbol.

It's important, when talking about what is and is not a symbol, to
speak literally and not symbolically. What I mean by a symbol is an
arbitrary formal token, physically instantiated in some way (e.g., as
a mark on a piece of paper or the state of a 0/1 circuit in a
machine) and manipulated according to certain formal rules. The
critical thing is that the rules are syntactic, that is, the symbol is
manipulated on the basis of its shape only -- which is arbitrary,
apart from the role it plays in the formal conventions of the syntax
in question. The symbol is not manipulated in virtue of its "meaning."
Its meaning is simply an interpretation we attach to the formal
goings-on. Nor is it manipulated in virtue of a relation of
resemblance to whatever "objects" it may stand for in the outside
world, or in virtue of any causal connection with them. Those
relations are likewise mediated only by our interpretations.

This is why the distinction between symbolic and nonsymbolic processes
in cognition (and robotics) is so important. It will not do to simply
wax figurative on what counts as a symbol. If I'm allowed to use the
word metaphorically, of course everything's a "symbol." But if I stick
to a specific, physically realizable sense of the word, then it
becomes a profound theoretical problem just exactly how I (or any
device) can recognize you, or a car, or anything else, and how I (or it)
can interact with such external objects robotically. And the burden of
my paper is to show that this capacity depends crucially on nonsymbolic
processes.

Finally, apart from the temptation to lapse into metaphor about
"symbols," there is also the everpresent lure of phenomenology in
contemplating such matters. For, apart from my robotic capacity to
interact with objects in the world -- to recognize them, manipulate
them, name them, describe them -- there is also my concsiousness: My
subjective sense, accompanying all these capacities, of what it's
like (qualitatively) to recognize, manipulate, etc. That, as I argue
in another paper (and only hint at in the two under discussion), is a
problem that we'd do best to steer clear of in AI, robotics and
cognitive modeling, at least for the time being. We already have our hands
full coming up with a model that can successfully pass the (robotic
and/or linguistic) turing test -- i.e., perform exactly AS IF it had
subjective experiences, the way we do, while it successfully accomplishes
all those clever things. Until we manage that, let's not worry too much
about whether the outcome will indeed be merely "as if." Overinterpreting
our tools phenomenologically is just as unproductive as overinterpreting them
metaphorically.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
217
-DATE-
Date: 10 Oct 86 15:50:33 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

In response to my article <160@mind.UUCP>, Daniel R. Simon asks:

>       1)  To what extent is our discernment of intelligent behaviour
>           context-dependent?...Might not the robot version [of the
>           turing test] lead to the...problem of testers being
>           insufficiently skeptical of a machine with human appearance?
>           ...Is it ever possible to trust the results of any
>           instance of the test...?

My reply to these questions is quite explicit in the papers in
question: The turing test has two components, (i) a formal, empirical one,
and (ii) an informal, intuitive one. The formal empirical component (i)
is the requirement that the system being tested be able to generate human
performance (be it robotic or linguistic). That's the nontrivial
burden that will occupy theorists for at least decades to come, as we
converge on (what I've called) the "total" turing test -- a model that
exhibits all of our robotic and lingistic capacities. The informal,
intuitive component (ii) is that the system in question must perform in a
way that is indistinguishable from the performance of a person, as
judged by a person.

It is not always clear which of the two components a sceptic is
worrying about. It's usually (ii), because who can quarrel with the
principle that a veridical model should have all of our performance
capacities? Now the only reply I have for the sceptic about (ii) is
that he should remember that he has nothing MORE than that to go on in
the case of any other mind than his own. In other words, there is no
rational reason for being more sceptical about robots' minds (if we
can't tell their performance apart from that of people) than about
(other) peoples' minds. The turing test is ALREADY the informal way we
contend with the "other-minds" problem [i.e., how can you be sure
anyone else but you has a mind, rather than merely acting AS IF it had
a mind?], so why should we demand more in the case of robots? It's
surely not because of any intuitive or a priori knowledge we have
about the FUNCTIONAL basis of our own minds, otherwise we could have put
those intuitive ideas to work in designing successful candidates for the
turing test long ago.

So, since we have absolutely no intuitive idea about the functional
(symbolic, nonsymbolic, physical, causal) basis of the mind, our only
nonarbitrary basis for discriminating robots from people remains their
performance.

As to "context," as I argue in the paper, the only one that is
ultimately defensible is the "total" turing test, since there is no
evidence at all that either capacities or contexts are modular. The
degrees of freedom of a successful total-turing model are then reduced
to the usual underdetermination of scientific theory by data. (It's always
possible to carp at a physicist that his theoretic model of the
universe "is turing-indistinguishable from the real one, but how can
you be sure it's `really true' of the world?")

>       2)  Assuming that some "neutral" context can be found...
>           what does passing (or failing) the Turing test really mean?

It means you've successfully modelled the objective observables under
investigation. No empirical science can offer more. And the only
"neutral" context is the total turing test (which, like all inductive
contexts, always has an open end, namely, the everpresent possibility
that things could turn out differently tomorrow -- philosophers call
this "inductive risk," and all empirical inquiry is vulnerable to it).

>       3)  ...are there more appropriate means by which we
>           could evaluate the human-like or intelligent properties of an AI
>           system?  ...is it possible to formulate the qualities that
>           constitute intelligence in a manner which is more intuitively
>           satisfying than the standard AI stuff about reasoning, but still
>           more rigorous than the Turing test?

I don't think there's anything more rigorous than the total turing
test since, when formulated in the suitably generalized way I
describe, it can be seen to be identical to the empirical criterion for
all of the objective sciences. Residual doubts about it come from
four sources, as far as I can make out, and only one of these is
legitimate. The legitimate one (a) is doubts about autonomous
symbolic processes (that's what my papers are about). The three
illegitimate ones (in my view) are (b) misplaced doubts about
underdetermination and inductive risk, (c) misplaced hold-outs for
the nervous system, and (d) misplaced hold-outs for consciousness.

For (a), read my papers. I've sketched an answer to (b) above.

The quick answer to (c) [brain bias] -- apart from the usual
structure/function and multiple-realizability arguments in engineering,
computer science and biology -- is that as one approaches the
asymptotic Total Turing Test, any objective aspect of brain
"performance" that anyone believes is relevant -- reaction time,
effects of damage, effects of chemicals -- is legitimate performance
data too, including microperformance (like pupillary dilation,
heart-rate and perhaps even synactic transmission). I believe that
sorting out how much of that is really relevant will only amount to the
fine-tuning -- the final leg of our trek to theoretic Utopia,
with most of the substantive theoretical work already behind us.

Finally, my reply to (d) [mind bias] is that holding out for
consciousness is a red herring. Either our functional attempts to
model performance will indeed "capture" consciousness at some point, or
they won't. If we do capture it, the only ones that will ever know for
sure that we've succeeded are our robots. If we don't capture it,
then we're stuck with a second level of underdetermination -- call it
"subjective" underdetermination -- to add to our familiar objective
underdetermination (b): Objective underdetermination is the usual
underdetermination of objective theories by objective data; i.e., there
may be more than one way to skin a cat; we may not happen to have
converged on nature's way in any of our theories, and we'll never be
able to know for sure. The subjective twist on this is that, apart
from this unresolvable uncertainty about whether or not the objective models
that fit all of our objective (i.e., intersubjective) observations capture
the unobservable basis of everything that is objectively observable,
there may be a further unresolvable uncertainty about whether or not
they capture the unobservable basis of everything (or anything) that is
subjectively observable.

AI, robotics and cognitive modeling would do better to learn to live
with this uncertainty and put it in context, rather than holding out
for the un-do-able, while there's plenty of the do-able to be done.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 86 19:26:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: well!jjacobs@lll-lcc.arpa  (Jeffrey Jacobs)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle, AI, NLP, understanding, ducks
-BODY-

I. What is "understanding", or "ducking" the issue...

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it is *called* a duck.  If you cut it open and
find that the organs are something other than a duck's, *then*
maybe it shouldn't be called a duck.  What it should be called becomes
open to discussion (maybe dinner).

The same principle applies to "understanding".

If the "box" performs all of what we accept to be the defining requirements
of "understanding", such as reading and responding to the same level as
that of a "native Chinese", then it certainly has a fair claim to be
called "understanding".

Most so-called "understanding" is the result of training and
education. We are taught "procedures" to follow to
arrive at a desired result/conclusion.  The primary difference between
human education and Searle's "formal procedures" is a matter
of how *well* the procedures are specified .  Education is primarily a
matter of teaching "procedures", whether it be mathematics, chemistry
or creative writing.  The *better* understood the field, the more "formal"
the procedures.  Mathematics is very well understood, and
consists almost entirely of "formal procedures".  (Mathematics
was also once considered highest form of philosophy and intellectual
attainment).

This leads to the obvious conclusion that humans do not
*understand* natural language very well.  Natural language processing
via purely formal procedures has been a dismal failure.

The lack of understanding of natural languages is also empirically
demonstrable.  Confusion about the meaning
of a person's words, intentions etc can be seen in every
interaction with your boss/students/teachers/spouse/parents/kids
etc etc.

"You only think you understand what I said..."

Jeffrey M. Jacobs
 CONSART Systems Inc.
 Technical and Managerial Consultants
 P.O. Box 3016, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
 (213)376-3802
 CIS:75076,2603
 BIX:jeffjacobs
 USENET: well!jjacobs

"It used to be considered a hoax if there *was* a man in the box..."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 86 22:07:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, AI, NLP, understanding, ducks
-BODY-
In article <1919@well.UUCP>, jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
> Mathematics is very well understood, and
> consists almost entirely of "formal procedures".

I infer from your comment that you're not a mathematician.
As a practicing mathematician (amongst other things), I'd
like to ask precisely what you mean by *well understood*?

And I would like to strongly disagree with your comment that
doing mathematics consists almost entirely of formal procedures.
Are you aware that one of the biggest problems in formalising
mathematics is trying to figure out what it is that
mathematicians do to prove new theorems?

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 13 Oct 86 17:13:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: jade!entropy!cda@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
        <as one approaches the
        <asymptotic Total Turing Test, any objective aspect of brain
        <"performance" that anyone believes is relevant -- reaction time,
        <effects of damage, effects of chemicals -- is legitimate performance
        <data too, including microperformance (like pupillary dilation,
        <heart-rate and perhaps even synactic transmission).

Does this mean that in order to successfully pass the Total Turing Test,
a robot will have to be able to get high on drugs?  Does this imply that the
ability of the brain to respond to drugs is an integral component of
intelligence?  What will Ron, Nancy, and the DOD think of this idea?

Turing said that the way to give a robot free will was to incorporate
sufficient randomness into its actions, which I'm sure the DOD won't like
either.

It seems that intelligence is not exactly the quality our government is
trying to achieve in its AI hard and software.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 12:03:27 -0200
-FROM-
From: Eyal mozes  <eyal%wisdom.bitnet@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: your paper about category induction and representation
-BODY-
First of all, I'd like a preprint of the full paper.

Judging by the abstract, I have two main criticisms.

The first one is that I don't see your point at all about "categorical
perception". You say that "differences between reds and differences
between yellows look much smaller than equal-sized differences that
cross the red/yellow boundary". But if they look much smaller, this
means they're NOT "equal-sized"; the differences in wave-length may be
the same, but the differences in COLOR are much smaller.

Your whole theory is based on the assumption that perceptual qualities
are something physical in the outside world (e.g., that colors ARE
wave-lengths). But this is wrong. Perceptual qualities represent the
form in which we perceive external objects, and they're determined both
by external physical conditions and by the physical structure of our
sensory apparatus; thus, colors are determined both by wave-lengths and
by the physical structure of our visual system. So there's no apriori
reason to expect that equal-sized differences in wave-length will lead
to equal-sized differences in color, or to assume that deviations from
this rule must be caused by internal representations of categories. And
this seems to completely cut the grounds from under your theory.

My second criticism is that, even if "categorical perception" really
provided a base for a theory of categorization, it would be very
limited; it would apply only to categories of perceptual qualities. I
can't see how you'd apply your approach to a category such as "table",
let alone "justice".

Actually, there already exists a theory of categorization that is along
similar lines to your approach, but integrated with a detailed theory
of perception and not subject to the two criticisms above; that is the
Objectivist theory of concepts. It was presented by Ayn Rand in her
book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology", and by David Kelley in
his paper "A Theory of Abstraction" in Cognition and Brain Theory vol.
7 pp. 329-57 (1984); this theory was integrated with a theory of
perception, and applied to categories of perceptual qualities, and in
particular to perception of colors and of phonemes, in the second part
of David Kelley's book "The Evidence of the Senses".

        Eyal Mozes

        BITNET:                         eyal@wisdom
        CSNET and ARPA:                 eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA
        UUCP:                           ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal

        Physical address:               Department of Applied Math.
                                        Weizmann Institute of Science
                                        Rehovot 76100
                                        Israel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
218
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Oct 86 14:04:23-EDT
-FROM-
From: Arun <Welch%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp machine discussion list
-BODY-
As AIList get's deluged again with lisp machine stuff, I guess it's
time to ask again, "Is there enough demand for a seperate discussion
list for lisp machines?".  I asked last time this happened, and there
wasn't much reaction from the world. There are discussion groups for
the equipment from each of the major manufacturers (info-1100,
info-ti-explorer, slug, sun-spots, apollo), and even for some of the
flavors of lisp (Franz-friends, info-xlisp), but nothing for
discussing the relative merits of the different implementations of
lisp for workstations, harware qualities, maintenance, directions that
users would like to see workstations evolve towards, what things one
likes/hates in lisp programming environments, and so on. I'm willing to
work on starting up a mailing list and administer it if there is a
large enough demand.  Obviously, this is an inappropriate discussion for
AIList.


...arun

Arun Welch
Lab for AI Research, Ohio State University.
{ihnp4,cbosgd}!osu-eddie!welch
welch@ohio-state.{CSNET,ARPA}
welch@red.rutgers.edu  (a guest account, but mail gets to me eventually)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 09:35 N
-FROM-
From: DEGROOT%HWALHW5.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PROLOG-dialects-info wanted for VAX/VMS
-BODY-

         WANTED:

         Information about dialects of PROLOG-implementations
         for VAX/VMS, public-domain or commercial available.

         Send any pointers, references and the like to:

                        Kees de Groot   (DEGROOT@HWALHW5.BITNET)


Tel. +31-8370-  .KeesdeGroot    (DEGROOT@HWALHW5.BITNET)  o\/o  THERE AINT NO
     (8)3557/   Agricultural University, Computer-centre   []   SUCH THING AS
        4030    Wageningen, the Netherlands               .==.  A FREE LUNCH!

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are my own alone and do not represent
            any official position of my employer.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 15:19:44 EDT
-FROM-
From: David_West%UB-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bug in Turbo Prolog
-BODY-
 Most criticisms of Turbo Prolog have been only flames, but the
 following is, I think, an actual bug.  If member is defined by:
    member(H,[H|_]):-!.
    member(H,[_|T]):-member(H,T).
 the goal:
    member([1,X],[[3,4],[1,2]]).
 will succeed (binding X to 2) or FAIL if the domain of the
 lowest level list elements is declared as integer or reference
 integer, respectively.
   It might be argued that this choice (whether or not to specify
 reference) is the user's responsibility, as in Algol-like
 languages;  My view is that reference declarations are (like
 register declarations in C) "advice to the compiler", which
 should not alter the semantics of the program .  This seems
 reasonable because:
  1) the Turbo Prolog compiler will on its own initiative retype
     domains from value to reference, so it can't consider
     the distinction to affect the semantics; and
  2) the abovementioned goal fails ONLY if the cut is present
     in the first clause of member;  without this cut, Turbo
     Prolog (with or without reference specified) gives the same
     result as do other Prologs (for which, as expected, the
     presence or absence of the cut does not affect the result).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue 14 Oct 86 20:02:05-EDT
-FROM-
From: Arun <Welch%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection
-BODY-
>From: garren@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Scott Garren)
>Date: 6 Oct 86 14:05:00 GMT
>
>Relative to discussions of garbage collectors I would like to point out
>that there are issues of scale involved.  Many techniques that work
>admirably on an address space limited to 8 Mbytes (Xerox hardware)
>do not scale at all well to systems that support up to 1 Gbytes
>(Symbolics).

To pick a nit here, the Xerox machines are capable of addressing up to 32Mb.


Arun Welch
{ihnp4,cbosgd}!osu-eddie!welch
welch@ohio-state.{CSNET,ARPA}
welch@red.rutgers.edu  (a guest account, but mail gets to me eventually)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 13:27:33 EDT
-FROM-
From: SubbaRao Kambhampati <rao@cvl.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning Apprentice Systems (UMD)
-BODY-
Title:          Learning Apprentice Systems

Speaker:        Prof. Tom Mitchell, Carnegie-Mellon University

Location:       Rm. 2324 Dept of CS, U of MD, College Park

Time:           4:00pm

        We consider a class of knowledge-based systems called Learning
Apprentices: systems that provide interactive aid in solving some problem,
and that automatically acquire new knowledge by observing the actions of
their users.  The talk focuses on a  particular Learning Apprentice, called
LEAP, which is presently being developed in the domain of digital circuit
design.  LEAP is able to infer rules that characterize how to implement
classes of circuit functions, by analyzing circuit fragments contributed by
its users.  The organization of LEAP suggests how similar learning
apprentices might be constructed in a variety of task domains.

(Refreshments will be served at 3:30pm in Rm. 3316)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Oct 86 10:52:16-PDT
-FROM-
From: Sandy Pentland <PENTLAND@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - Machine Vision
-BODY-

FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS:

        Optical Society Topical Meeting on

                MACHINE VISION

               March 18-20, 1987

   Hyatt Lake Tahoe, Incline Village, Nevada

Topics will include: 3-D vision algorithms, image understanding,
object recognition, motion analysis, feature extraction, novel
processing hardware, novel sensors, and VSLI applications.  Also,
skiing.

Invited speakers include: Bob Bolles (SRI), Peter Burt (RCA),
Rodger Tsai (IBM), Demetri Terzopolis (SPAR), Rodger Dewar (Perceptron),
J. Lowrie (Martin Marietta), P. Tamura and K. Coppock (Westinghouse),
C. Jacobus (ERIM).

Program committe: Alex Pentland, Glenn Sincerbox (co-chairs),
Keith Nishihara, Harlyn Baker, Chris Goad, Steven Case, Aaron Gara,
Charles Jacobus, Timothy Strand, Richard Young.

WHAT TO SUBMIT: 25 WORD abstract and separate 4 PAGE camera-ready
summary on standard 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Summary must begin with paper
title, authors name and address, and authors should submit the original
and one copy of both the abstract and the summary.  Send your paper to:

 Optical Society of America
 Machine Vision
 1816 Jefferson Place, N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20036

DEADLINE: Nov. 3, 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Oct 86 04:55:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Society for Philosophy & Psychology: CALL FOR PAPERS
-BODY-

                                           [Please post hard copy locally]

           SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY

          Call for Papers for 1987 Annual Meeting
   University of California at SAN Diego, June 21 - 23 1987

The Society for Philosophy and Psychology is calling for contributed
papers and symposium proposals for its 13th annual meeting in San Diego.

The Society consists of psychologists, philosophers, and other
cognitive scientists with common interests in the study of behavior,
cognition, language, the nervous system, artificial intelligence,
consciousness, and the foundations of psychology.

Past participants in annual meetings have included: N. Chomsky,
D. Dennett, J. Fodor, C. R. Gallistel, J. J. Gibson, S. J. Gould,
R. L. Gregory, R. J. Herrnstein, D. Hofstadter, J. jaynes, G. A. Miller,
H. Putnam, Z. Pylyshyn, W. V. Quine, R. Schank, W. Sellars and
P. Teitelbaum.

Contributed Papers are refereed and selected on the basis of quality
and relevance to both psychologists and philosophers. Psychologists,
neuroscientists, linguists, computer scientists and biologists are
encouraged to report experimental, theoretical and clinical work that
they judge to have philosophical significance.

Contributed papers are for oral presentation and should not exceed a
length of 30 minutes (about 12 double-spaced pages). The deadline for
submision is 12 January, 1987. Please send three copies to the
Program Chairman:

                Professor William Bechtel
                Society for Philosophy and Psychology
                Department of Philosophy
                Georgia State University
                Atlanta GA 30303-3083
                Phone: (404) 658-2277

Symposium proposals should also be sent to the above address as soon
as possible.

Local Arrangements: Professor Patricia Kitcher, B-002, Department of
Philosophy, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093.

Individuals interested in becoming members of the Society should send
$15 membership dues ($5 for students) to Professor Kitcher at the
above address.

SPP Officers:   President: Stevan Harnad (Behavioral & Brain Sciences)
                President-Elect: Alvin I. Goldman (U. Arizona)
                Secretary Treasurer: Patricia Kitcher (UCSD)
                Program Chairman: William Bechtel (U. Georgia)

Executive Committee:

        Myles Brand (U. Arizona)                R. S. Jackendoff (Brandeis)
        Daniel Dennett (Tufts)                  William Lycan (U. N. Carolina)
        Fred Dretske (U. Wisconsin)             John Macnamara (McGill)
        Jerome A. Feldman (U. Rochester)        Carolyn Ristau (Rockefeller)
        Janet Fodor (CUNY)                      Anne Treisman (UC, Berkeley)
        Alison Gopnik (U. Toronto)              Robert Van Gulick (Syracuse U.)
                                Charles C. Wood (Yale)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
219
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Report Sources
-BODY-
Computer and Information Science Department
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92717

Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science
Mail Stop 230-5, Nasa/Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California 94035
Attention: Technical Librarian

Library Committee
Department of Computer Science
University at Buffalo (SUNY)
226 Bell Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260
Prices are U. S. / Other Countries.

Department of Computer Sciences
Technical Report Center
Taylor Hall 2.124
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1188
CS.TECH@UTEXAS-20

Arizona State University
Computer Science Department
Engineering and Applied Sciences
Tempe, Arizona 85287

Computer Science Department
New Mexico Tech
Socorro, NM 87801

Technical Reports Librarian
Princeton University
Department of Computer Science
Princeton, NJ 08544

Computing Research Laboratory
University of Michigan
Room 2222 Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Building
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Oregon Graduate Center
19600 N. W. von Neumann Drive
Beaverton, Oregon 97006-1999

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: defs for ai.bib37C and ai.bib40C
-BODY-
D BOOK50 International Symposium on Logic Programming\
%D 1984
D MAG61 Proceedings of the 1986 Symposium on Symbolic and\
Algebriaic Computation\
%D JUL 21-23 1986
D MAG60 SIGSAM Bulletin\
%V 19\
%N 3\
%D AUG 1985
D MAG62 Image and Vision Computing\
%V 4\
%N 2\
%D MAY 1986
D MAG63 International Journal of BioMedical Computing\
%V 19\
%N 1\
%D JUL 1986
D MAG64 The Computer Journal\
%V 29\
%N 3\
%D JUN 1986
D MAG65 International Journal of Man-Machine Studies\
%V 24\
%N 2\
%D FEB 1986
D MAG66 Pattern Recognition\
%V 19\
%N 3\
%D 1986
D MAG67 Robotersysteme\
%V 2\
%N 2\
%D 1986
D MAG68 Review of The Electrical Communications Laboratories\
%V 34\
%N 3\
%D MAY 1986
D MAG69 Siemens Forschungs-und Entwicklungsberichte\
%V 15\
%N 3\
%D 1986
D MAG70 Computers in Biology and Medicine\
%V 16\
%N 3\
%D 1986
D MAG71 Future Generations Computer Systems\
%V 2\
%N 1\
%D MAR 1986
D MAG72 Computers and Artificial Intelligence\
%V 4\
%N 6\
%D 1985
D MAG73 Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing\
%V 32\
%N 1\
%D OCT 1985
D MAG74 Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing\
%V 32\
%N 2\
%D NOV 1985
D MAG75 Infor\
%V 23\
%N 4\
%D NOV 1985
D MAG76 Pattern Recognition Letters\
%V 3\
%N 5\
%D SEP 1985
D MAG77 Fuzzy Sets and Systems\
%V 17\
%N 2\
%D NOV 1985
D MAG78 Kybernetika\
%V 21\
%N 5\
%D 1985
D BOOK51 Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture\
%E J. P. Jouannaud\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 201\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK52 Automata, Languages and Programming\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 201\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D MAG79 Journal of Logic Programming\
%V 2\
%D 1985\
%N 4
D MAG80 Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing\
%V 35\
%N 1\
%D JUL 1986
D MAG81 Pattern Recognition Letters\
%V 4\
%N 2\
%D APR 1986
D MAG82 International Journal of Man-Machine Studies\
%V 24\
%N 4\
%D APR 1986
D MAG83 Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing\
%V 3\
%N 2\
%D JUN 1986
D MAG84 Cybernetics and Systems\
%V 17\
%N 1\
%D 1986
D BOOK53 Architectures and Algorithms For Digital Image Processing\
%S Proceedings of the Society of Photooptical Instrumentation Engineers\
%V 596\
%E M. J. B. Duff\
%E H. J. Siegel\
%E F. J. Corbett\
%D 1986
D MAG85 Journal of Logic Programming\
%V 3\
%D 1986\
%N 1
D BOOK54 Rewriting Techniques and Applications (Dijon 1985)\
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science\
%V 202\
%I Springer-Verlag\
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York\
%D 1985
D BOOK55 Topics in the Theoretical Bases and Applicatigons of Computer Science\
%I Akad. Kiado\
%C Budapest\
%D 1986
D MAG86 Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing\
%V 35\
%N 23\
%D AUG 1986
D MAG87 Computers and Operations Research\
%V 13\
%N 2-3\
%D 1986

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography of AI Applications
-BODY-
In response to several queries on AI applications on Engineering
appearing in this forum, I am providing bibliographies on the following areas:
1)  AI applications to Electrical Engineering
2) AI applications to Mechanical and Structural Engineering
3) AI applications to other Engineering Aspects
4) AI applications to Optimization

Other sources of information are the International Journal for
Artificial Intelligence in Engineering including the news section
thereof, the Proceedings of the 1986 AAAI Workshop on Knowledge Based
Expert Systems for Engineering Design, the bibliography section of the first
paper under "EE references".

Most of these are NOT included in the bib series of AI materials coming from
the same login and appearing from time to time in AIList.  Ignore the %W code.

EE references

%A D. Sriram
%T Knowledge-Based Expert Systems; Collected Papers
%I Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University
%C Pittsburgh, PA
%K AIME AIEE AIOE
%W 15V

%A C. Ronald Green
%A Sajjan G. Shiva
%T PECOS-An Expert Hardware Synthesis System
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 17R

%A Hyung-Sik Park
%A Waldo C. Kobat
%T KnowPLACE: Knowledge-Based Placement of PCB's
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 17S

%A Viviane Jonckers
%T Knowledge Based Selection and Coordination of Specialized
Algorithms
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 17U

%A C. Delorme
%A F. Roux
%A L. Demians Archimbaud
%A M. Giambiasi
%A R. L'Bath
%A S. Mac Gee
%A R. Charroffin
%T A Functional Partitioning Expert System for Test Sequence Generation
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20Mc

%A John Granacki
%A David Knapp
%A Alice Parker
%T The ADAM Advanced Automation System Overview, Planner and Natural Language
Interface
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20N

%A Gotaro Odawara
%A Kazuhiko Iijima
%A Kazutoshi Wakabayashi
%T Knowledge-Based Placement Technique for Printed Wiring Boards
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20O

%A M. Giambiasi
%A B. Mc Gee
%A R. Lbath
%A L. Demains Archimbaud
%A C. Delorme
%A P. Roux
%T An Adaptive and Evolutive Tool for Describing General Hierarchical Models,
Based on Frames and Demons
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20P

%A Kai-Hsiung Chang
%A William G. Wee
%T A Knowledge Based Planning System for Mechanical Assembly Using Robots
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20Q

%A Roostam Joobbani
%A Daniel P. Siewiorek
%T Weaver: A Knowledge Based Routing Expert
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20R

%A M. A. Breuer
%A xi-an Zhu
%T A Knowledge-Based System for Selecting a Test Methodology for a PLA
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20S

%A Tariq Samad
%A Stephen W. Director
%T Towards a Natural Language Interface for CAD
%J Proceedings of the 22nd Design Automation Conference
%D 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20T

%A Hugo J. de Man
%A I. Bolsens
%A Erik Vanden Meersch
%A Johan van CleynenBreugel
%T DIALOG: An Expert Debugging System for MOSVLSI Design
%J IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design
%V CAD-4
%N 3
%D JUL 1986
%K AIEE
%W 20U

%A D. A. Lowther
%A C. M. Saldanha
%A G. Choy
%T The Application of Expert Systems to CAD in Electromagnetics
%J IEEE Transactions on Magnetics
%V MAG-21
%N 6
%D NOV 1985
%K AIEE
%W 20V


__________________________________________________________________________

Mechanical and Structural Engineering

%A J. S. Bennett
%T SACON: A Knowledge-based Consultant for Structural Analysis
%R HPP-78-23
%I Computer Science Department, Stanford University
%D SEP 1978
%K AIME
%W 9L

%A J. S. Bennett
%A R. Englemore
%T SACON: A Knowledge-based Consultant for Structural Analysis
%J Proceedings of the Sixth IJCAI
%P 47-49
%D 1979
%K AIME
%W need

%A R. Fjelheim
%A P. Syversen
%T An Expert System for SESAM-69 Program Selection
%R Computas Report 83-6010
%C Norway
%D 1983
%W rbm
%K AIME

%A L. A. Lopez
%A S. L. Elam
%A T. Christopherson
%T SICAD: A Prototype Implementation System for CAD
D BOOK7 Proceedings of the ASCE Third Conference on Computers in Civil
Engineering
%C San Deigo, California
%D April 1984
%P 84-93
%K AIME
%W 13XYZ

%A R. J. Melosh
%A V. Marcal
%A L. Berke
%T Structural Analysis Consultation using Artificial Intelligence
%B Research in Computerized Strucutral Analysis and Synthesis
%I NASA
%C Washington, D. C.
%D OCT 1978
%W TR13
%K AIME

%A L. A. Lopez
%A D. Rehak
%T Computer-Aided Enginering: Problems and Prospects
%R Civil Engineering System Laboratory Research Series 8
%I University of Illinois
%D July 1981
%K AIME
%W TR8

%A J. M. Rivlin
%A M. B. Hsu
%A P. V. Marcal
%T Knowledge-based Consultant for Finite Element Analysis
%R Technical Report AFWAL-TR-80-3069
%I Flight Dynamics Laboratory (FIBRA), Wright-Patterson Airforce
%D May 1980
%W need
%K AIME

%A A. D. Radford
%A P. Hung
%A J. S. Gero
%T New Rules of Thumb from Computer-Aided Structural Design:Acquiring Knowledge
for Expert Systems
%J Proceedings CADD-84
%C United Kingdom
%D 1984
%W rbm
%K AIME

%A J. S. Gero
%A A. D. Radford
%T Knowledge Engineering in Computer Graphics
%J First Australasian Conference on Computer Graphics
%C Sydney, Australia
%D Aug 31-Sep 2 1983
%K AIME
%W rbm
%P 140-143

%A D. Sriram
%A M. L. Maher
%A J. Bielak
%A S. J. Fenves
%T Expert Systems for Civil Engineering - A Survey
%R Technical Report R-82-137
%I Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University
%D June 1982
%K AIME
%W ua

%A D. Sriram
%A M. Maher
%A S. Fenves
%T Applications of Expert Systems in Structural Engineering
%B Proceedings Conference on Artificial Intelligence
%C Rochestor, MI
%D APR 1983
%P 379-394
%K AIME
%W need

%A M. L. Maher
%A D. Sriram
%A S. J. Fenves
%T Tools and Techniques for Knowledge Based Expert Systems for Engineering
Desig
n
%B Advances in Engineering Software
%D 1984
%K AIME
%W 13L

%A D. Rehak
%A C. Howard
%A D. Sriram
%T Architecture of an Integrated Knowledge Based Environment for Structural
Engi
neering Applications
%J IFIP WG5.2 conference on Knowledge Engineering in Computer-Aided Design
%D SEP 1984
%C Budapest, Hungary
%K AIME
%W 13J

%A D. Sriram
%A M. Maher
%A S. Fenves
%T Knowledge-based Expert Systems in Structural Design
%J NASA Conference on Advances in Structures and Dynamics
%D OCT 1984
%K AIME
%W 13K

%A R. Reddy
%A D. Sriram
%A N. Tyle
%A R. Baneres
%A M. Rychener
%A S. J. Fenves
%T Knowledge-based Expert Systems for Engineering Applications
%J Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Man, Systems and Cybernetics
%D DEC 1983 - JAN 1984
%C India
%K AIME
%W 13I

%A J. S. Bennett
%A R. S. Engelmore
%T SACON: A Knowledge Based Consultant for Structural Analysis
%J Proceedings Sixth IJCAI
%P 47-49
%D 1979
%W 12H
%K AIME

%A D. Sriram
%T A Bibliography on Knowledge-Based Expert Systems in Engineering
%J SIGART
%P 32-40
%D JUL 1984
%W 12I
%K AIME

%A H. Yoshiura
%A Kikuo Fujimura
%A T. L. Kunii
%T Top-Down Construction of 3-D Mechanical Object Shapes from Engineering
Drawin
gs
%J COMPUTER
%D December 1984
%P 32-40
%K AIME
%W 14D

%A D. C. Brown
%A B. Chandrasekaran
%T Expert Systems for a Class of Mechanical Design Activity
%J IFIP WG5.2 Working Conference on Knowledge Engineering in Computer Aided
Desi
gn
%C Budapest, Hungary
%D SEP 1984
%W 14L
%K AIME

%A D. C. Brown
%T Capturing Mechanical Design Knowledge
%I Computer Science Department
%C Worcester, Massachussetts
%W 14M
%K AIME

%A  J. S.  Arora
%A G. Baenziger
%T Uses of Artificial Intelligence in Design Optimization
%J Computer Methods in Mechanics and Engineering
%V 54
%N 3
%D MAR 1986
%P 303-324
%K AIME OPT

%A D. Sriram
%T Knowledge-Based Expert Systems; Collected Papers
%I Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University
%C Pittsburgh, PA
%K AIME AIEE AIOE
%W 15V

%A D. Sriram
%A S. J. Fenves
%T Destiny: A Knowledge-Based Approach to Integrated Structural
Design
%I Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University
%C Pittsburgh, PA
%K AIME
%W 15W

%A T. A. Nguyen
%A W. A. Perkins
%A T. J. Laffey
%T Application of LES to Advanced Design Verification
%I Lockheed Research and Development
%K AIME
%W 16P

%A H. L. LI
%A P. Papalambros
%T A Production
System for Use of Global Optimization Knowledge
%J JOMTAD
%V 107
%D JUN 1985
%P 277-284
%W 18H
%K AIME OPT

%A J. W. Hou
%T Shape Optimization of Elastic Hollow Bars
%J JOMTAD
%V 107
%D MAR 1985
%P 100-105
%W 18I
%K AIME SO

%A Hitoshi Furuta
%A King-Sun Tu
%A James T. P. Yao
%T Structural Engineering Applications of Expert Systems
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 410-419
%K AIME
%W 19Mc

%A Mary Lou Maher
%T Hi-Rise and Beyond: Directions for Expert Sytems in Design
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 420-426
%K AIME
%W 19N

%A A. D. Radford
%A J. S. Gero
%T Towards Generative Expert Systems for Architectuaral Detailing
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 428-434
%K AIME
%W 19O


__________________________________________________________________________
Other Engineering Fields not included in the above

%A D. Sriram
%T Knowledge-Based Expert Systems; Collected Papers
%I Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University
%C Pittsburgh, PA
%K AIME AIEE AIOE
%W 15V

%A Mihai Barbuceanu
%T A Domain Independent Architecture for Design Problem Solving
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIOE
%W 17E

%A Mihai Barbuceanu
%T An Object-Centered Framework for Expert Systems in Computer-Aided
Design
%B Knowledge Engineering in CAD
%I North Holland
%E S. Gero
%D 1985
%P 223-253
%K AIOE
%W 17F

%A Roland Rehmart
%A Kristian Sandohl
%A Olaf Granstedt
%T Knowledge Organization in an Expert Sysem for Spot-Welding Robot
Configuration
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIOE
%W 17V

%A Toshinori Watanabe
%A Yoshiaki Nagai
%A Chizuko Yasunobu
%A  Koji Sasaki
%A Toshiro Yamanaka
%T An Expert System for Computer Room Facility Layouts
%J Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Expert
Systems and Applications
%D 1985
%K AIOE
%W 17W

%A Larry F. Huggins
%A John R. Barrett
%A Don D. Jones
%T Expert Systems: Concepts and Opportunities
%J Agricultural Engineering
%D JAN/FEB 1986
%V 67
%N 1
%P 21-24
%K AIOE

%A Fabian C. Hadipriono
%A Hock-Siew Toh
%T Approximate Reasoning Models for Consequences on Structural
Component Due to Failure Events
%K AIOE
%W 19F

%A Michael Al. Rosenman
%A John S. Gero
%T Design Codes as Expert Systems
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 399-409
%K AIOE
%W 19G

%A David C. Browne
%T Failure Handling in a Design Expert System
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 436-441
%K AIOE
%W 19R

%A Michael J. Pazzani
%T Refining the Knowledge Base of a Diagnostic Expert System:
An Application of Failure-Driven Learning
%I The Aerospace Corporation
%K AIOE
%W 20B

%A Donald E. Brown
%A Chlesea C. White, III
%T An Expert System Approach to Boiler Design
%I Department of Systems, Engineering, University of Virginia
%K AIOE
%W 20C

%A Ernest Davis
%T Conflicting Requirements in Reasoning About Solid Objects
%K AIOE
%W 20D

%A Daniel R. Rehak
%A H. Craig Howard
%T Interfacing Expert Systems with Design Databases in Integrated CAD
Systems
%J CAD
%V 17
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 443-454
%W 20E
%K AIOE

%A Pual A. Fishwick
%T The Role of Process Abstraction in Simulation
%I Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania
%K AIOE
%W 20F

%A Mark Wynot
%T Artificial Intelligence Provides Real-Time Control of DEC's Material
Handling Process
%J IE
%D APR 1986
%P 34+
%K AIOE
%W 20G


%A Jeannette M. Wing
%A Farhad Arbab
%T Geometric Reasoning: A New Paradigm for Processing Geometric Information
%I Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University
%K AIOE
%W 20K

%A T. J. Grant
%T Lessons for OR from AI: A Scheduling Case Study
%J J. Opl Res. Soc
%V 37
%N 1
%P 41-57
%D 1986
%W 20L
%K AIOE

%A Richard S. Shirley
%A David A. Fortin
%T Developing an Expert System for Process Fault Detection and Analysis
%J Intech
%P 51-58
%D APR 1986
%K AIOE
%W 20M

__________________________________________________________________________
Applications of AI to Optimization

%A Jasbir S. Arora
%A G. Baenziger
%T Uses of Artificial Intelligence in Design Optimization
%J Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
%V 54
%D 1986
%P 303-323
%K AI OPT
%W 19C

%A S. Azarm
%A P. Papalambros
%T A Case for a Knowledge-Based Active Set Strategy
%J JOMTAD
%D MAR 1984
%P 77-81
%V 106
%K OPT AI
%W 19H

%A Alice M. Agogino
%A Ann S. Almgren
%T Symbolic Computation in Computer-Aided Optimal Design
%I Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
%D JUL 10, 1986
%K OPT AI
%W 20I

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
220
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography (continued)
-BODY-
%A V. F. Shangin
%T Industrial Robots for Miniature Parts
%I Mashinostroenie
%C Moscow
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI07 AA26


%A E. P. Popov
%A E. I. Yurevich
%T Robotics Engineering
%I Mashinostroenie
%C Leningrad
%D 1984
%K AT15 AI07 AA26

%A L. S. Yampolskii
%T Industrial Robotics
%I Tekhnika
%C Kiev
%D 1984
%K AT15 AI07 AA26

%A Thaddeus J. Kowalski
%T An Artificial Intelligence Approach to VLSI Design
%I Kluwer Academic Publishers
%C Norwell, MA
%D 1985
%K AA04 AT15
%X 238 pages $34.95 ISBN 0-89838-169-X

%A Rostam Joobbani
%T An Artificial Intelligence Approach to VLSI Routing
%I Kluwer Academic Publishers
%C Norwell, MA
%D 1985
%K AA04 AT15
%X 192 pages ISBN 0-89838-205-x $34.50

%A Narinder Pal Singh
%T An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Test Generation
%I Kluwer Academic Publishers
%C Norwell, MA
%K AA04 AT15
%X forthcoming, price and availability to be announced

%A Anita Tailor
%A Alan Cross
%A David Hogg
%A David Mason
%T Knowledge Based interpretation of Remotely Sensed
Images
%J MAG62
%P 67-83
%K AI01 AI06

%A Tom Henderson
%A Ashok Samal
%T Multiconstraint Shape Analysis
%J MAG62
%P 84-96
%K AI01 AI06

%A Robert Schalkoff
%T Automated Reasoning About Image Motion Using
A Rule-based Deduction System
%J MAG62
%P 97-107
%K AI01 AI06

%A B. C. Vemun
%A A. Mitiche
%A J. K. Aggarwal
%T Curvature-based Representation of Objects from Range
Data
%J MAG62
%P 107-115
%K AI01 AI06

%A J. A. D. W. Anderson
%A K. D. Baker
%A G. D. Sullivan
%T 'Model': A POPLOG Package to Support Model-based
Vision'
%J MAG62
%P 115
%K AI01 AI06 T02

%A J. G. Llaurado
%T Adapting Robotics More and More to Biology
%J MAG63
%P 3-8
%K AI07 AA10

%A  S. R. Ray
%A W. D. Lee
%A C. D. Morgan
%A W. Airth-Kindree
%T Computer Sleep Stage Scoring - An Expert System
Approach
%J MAG63
%P 43-61
%K AI01 AA10 AA11

%A I. D. Craig
%T The Ariadne-1 Blackboard System
%J MAG64
%P 235-240
%K AI01

%A G. Papakonstantinou
%A J. Kontos
%T Knowledge Representation with Attribute Grammars
%J MAG64
%P 241-246
%K AI16

%A M. H. Williams
%A G. Chen
%T Translating Pascal for Execution on a Prolog-based System
%J MAG64
%P 246-252
%K AI16

%A G. W. Smith
%A J. B. H. du Boulay
%T The Generation of Cryptic Crossword Clues
%J MAG64
%P 282
%K AA17

%A Y. Ishida
%A N. Adachi
%A H. Tokumaru
%T An Analysis of Self-Diagnosis Model by Conditional Fault Set
%J International Journal of Computer and Information
Sciences
%V 14
%N 5
%D OCT 1985
%P 243-260

%A B. R. Gaines
%A M. L. G. Shaws
%T Foundations of Dialog Engineering: The Development of
Human-Computer INteraction. Part II
%J MAG65
%P 101-124
%K AI02 AA15

%A P. Shoval
%T Comparison of Decision Support Strategies in Expert Consultation
Systems
%J MAG65
%P 125-140
%K AI01 AI13

%A S. Gottwald
%A W. Pedrycz
%T On the Suitability of Fuzzy Models: An Evaluation Through
Fuzzy Integrals
%J MAG65
%P 141-152
%K O04

%A A. L. Kamouri
%A J. Kamouri
%A K. H. Smith
%T Training by Exploration: Facilitating the Transfer of
Procedural Knowledge Through Analogical Reasoning
%J MAG65
%P 171
%K AI04 AI16

%A C. Vallet
%A J. Chastang
%A J. D. Huet
%T Partial Self-Reference in Models of Natural Systems and
Spatiotemporal Reference Insufficiency of Physicians (French)
%J Cybernetica
%V 29
%N 2
%D 1986
%P 145-160
%K AA01 AI08

%A Y. F. Wang
%A J. K. Aggarwal
%T Surface Reconstruction and Representation of 3-D Scenes
%J MAG66
%P 197-208
%K AI06

%A A. C. Bovik
%A t. S. Huang
%A D. C. Munson, Jr.
%T Nonparametric tests for Edge Detection in Noise
%J MAG66
%P 209-220
%K AI06

%A J. Katajainen
%A O. Nevalainen
%T Computing Relative Neighborhood Graphs in the Plane
%J MAG66
%P 221-228
%K AI06

%A X. Li
%A R. C. Dubes
%T Tree Classifier Design with a Permuation Statistic
%J MAG66
%P 229-236
%K AI06

%A M. Yamashita
%A T. Ibaraki
%T Distances Defined by Neighborhood Sequences
%J MAG66
%P 237
%K AI06

%A Robert Michaelsen
%A Donald Michie
%T Prudent Expert Systems Applications can Provide a
Competititve Weopon
%J Data Management
%V 24
%N 7
%D JUL 1986
%P 30-35
%K AI01 AA06

%A J. W. Park
%T An Efficient Memory System for Image Processing
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%V 35
%N 37
%D JUL 1986
%P 669
%K AI06


%A Minoru Abe
%A Makoto Kaneko
%A Kazuo Tanie
%T Study on Hexapod Walking Machine using an Approximate
Straight-line Mechanism
%J Journal of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory
%V 40
%N 3
%D MAY 1986
%P 111-124
%K AI07 GA01

%A Tatsuo Arai
%A Eiji Nakano
%A Tomoaki Yano
%A Ryoichi Hashimoto
%T Hybrid Control System for a Manipulator and its Application
%J Journal of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory
%V 40
%N 3
%D MAY 1986
%P 133
%K AI07 GA01

%A H. Heiss
%T Fundamentals About the Transformation of Coordinates for Robots (German)
%J MAG67
%P 65-72
%K AI07
%X German

%A P. Rojek
%A J. Olomski
%T Fast Coordinate Transformation and Processing of Command Signals for
Continuous Path Robot Control
%J MAG67
%P 73-82
%K AI07
%X (German)

%A T. Tsumura
%T Recent Developments of Automated Guided Vehicles in Japan
%J MAG67
%P 91-98
%K GA01 AI07
%X (german)

%A G. W. Kohler
%T Mechanical Master-Slave Manipulators
%J MAG67
%P 99-104
%K AI07
%X (german)

%A G. Pritschow
%A K. H. Hurst
%T Design of Industrial Robots with Modular Components
%J MAG67
%P 105-110
%K AI07
%X (german)

%A T. Friedmann
%T Robots in the Automotive Industry
%J MAG67
%P 111-119
%K AI07 AA26
%X (german)

%A R. Backmann
%T Optoelectronic Sensors Sensoroptics - Some Basic
Considerations for the Selection of Optical Sensor
Components for Textile Identification
%J MAG67
%P 120
%K AI06
%X (german)

%A N. Sugamura
%A S. Furui
%T Speaker-Dependent Large Vocabulary Word Recognition Using the
SPLIT Method
%J MAG68
%P 327-334
%K AI05 GA01

%A K. Aikawa
%A K. Shikano
%T Spoken Word Recognition Using Spectrum and Power
%J MAG68
%P 343-348
%K AI05 GA01

%A M. Sugiyama
%A K. Shikano
%T Unsupervised Learning Algorithm for Vowel Templates Based on
Minimum Quantization Distortion
%J MAG68
%P 357-362
%K AI05 GA01

%A E. Berti
%T Forms of Rationality and the Future of Human Intelligence in
the New Technological Age
%J L'Elettrotcnica
%V 73
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%K AI08 O05
%X (in itialian)


%A R. Muller
%A G. Horner
%T Chemosensors with Pattern Recognition
%J MAG69
%P 95-100
%K AI06

%A H. Fritz
%A P. Wurll
%T Tactile Force-torque Sensor for Performing Control Tasks in
Robotics
%J MAG69
%P 120-125
%K AI07

%A K. C. O'Kane
%T An Expert Systems Facility for Mumps
%J MAG70
%P 205-214
%K AA01 AI01 T03
%X [Mumps is an integrated language/database system often used
in the medical records field.  I heard Dr O'Kane speak on this
work and he believed that such a system would allow expert systems
to share clinical data with existing MIS systems in hospitals and
make their introduction more practicable. - LEFF]

%A H. Mansour
%A M. E. Molitch
%T A New Strategy for Clinical Decision Making: Censors and
Neuroendocrinological Diseases
%J MAG70
%P 215-222
%K AA01 AI01

%A Harold Stone
%A Paolo Sipala
%T Average Complexity of Depth-first Search with Backtracking and
Cutoff
%J IBM J. Res. and Dev.
%V 30
%N 3
%D MAY 1986
%P 242-258
%K AI03

%T Artificial Intelligence -  Wise Guys Wire Ships
%J Marine Engineering Log
%V 91
%N 6
%D JUN 1986
%P 119-122
%K AA18 AA05

%A Robert Cartwright
%T A Practical Formal Semantic Definition and Verification
System for TYPED LISP
%D 1975
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 T01 AA08
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4420-7

%A Cordell Green
%T The Application of Theorem Proving to Question-Answering Systems
%D 1969
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AI11 AA08
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4415-0 $18.00

%A James Richard Meehan
%T The Metanovel: Writing Stories by Computer
%D 1976
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AI02
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4409-6 $18.00

%A Robert C. Moore
%T Reasoning from Incomplete Knowledge in a Procedural Deduction
System
%D 1975
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AI09 planner
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4403-7 $13.00

%A Susan Speer Owicki
%T Axiomatic Proof Techiques for Parallel Programs
%D 1975
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AA08 AI11
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4413-4 $20.00

%A Norihisa Suzuki
%T Automatic Verification of Programs with Complex Data Structures
%D 1976
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AA08 AI11
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4425-8 $19.00

%A Robert Wilensky
%T Understanding Goal-Based Stories
%D 1978
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AI02 PAM
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4410-X $31.00

%A William A. Woods
%T Semantics For a Question-Answering System
%D 1967
%I Garland Publishing
%C New York, New York
%K AT15 AI02
%X Distinguished Dissertation System ISBN 0-8240-4405-3 $28.00

%A Stephen J. Andriole
%T Applications in Artificial Intelligence
%I Petrocelli Books
%C Princeton, NJ
%K AT15 AI07 AI02 AI01 AA18
%X $49.95

%A T. Gergely
%T Cuttable Formulas for Logic Programming
%J BOOK50
%P 299-310
%K AI10

%A Maria Virginia Aponte
%A Jose Alberte Fernandez
%A Philippe Roussel
%T Editing First Order Proofs; Programmed Rules vs. Derived Rules
%J BOOK50
%P 92-98
%K AI01 AI10 AI11

%A Hellfried Bottger
%T Automatic Theorem Proving with Configurations
%J Elektron. Informationsverarb. Kybernet.
%V 21
%D 1985
%N 10-11
%P 523-546

%A G. Cedervall
%T Robots for Definite Routine Analysis
%J Kemisk Tidskrift
%V 98
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 73-75
%K AI07
%X in Swedish

%A Brian Harvey
%T Computer Science Logo Style
Volume 2: Projects, Styles and Techniques
%I MIT Press
%C Cambridge, Mass
%D 1986
%K AT15

%A Daniel N. Osherson
%A Michael Stob
%A Scott Weinstein
%T Systems that Learn: An Introduction to Learning Theory
for Cognitive and Computer Scientists
%I MIT PRESS
%C Cambridge, Mass
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI04 AI08


%A K. H. Narjes
%T Perspectives for European Cooperation
%J MAG71
%P 13
%K GA03

%A M. Carpentier
%T Community Strategy in Information Technology and Telecommunications
%J MAG71
%P 19
%K AA08

%A M. Aigarain
%T The Technological Perspective
%J MAG71
%P 23
%K AI16

%A R. W. Wilmot
%T The Market Perspective
%J MAG71
%P 27
%K AT04

%A W. Dekker
%T Issues Basic to the Development of a European Information Technology
%J MAG71
%P 33
%K GA03

%A M. Gagao
%T Cooperative R&D of Information Technologies Between the Government and
Private Sector in Japan
%J MAG71
%P 39
%K GA01

%A P. F. Smidt
%T U. S. Industrial Cooperation in R&D
%J MAG71
%P 45
%K GA03

%A J. M. Cadiou
%T ESPRIT in Action
%J MAG71
%P 51
%K GA03

%A F. F. Kuo
%T A Return Visit to ICOT
%J MAG71
%P 61
%K GA01

%T Network Support of Supercomputers: Conference Report.
%J MAG71
%P 65
%K H04

%A W. J. Rapaport
%T Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and the Chinese-Room Argument
%J Abacus
%V 3
%N 4
%D Summer 1986
%K AI16

%A D. I. Shapiro
%T A Model for Decision Making under Fuzzy Conditions
%J MAG72
%P 481
%K O04 AI13 AI08

%A G. Agre
%T An Implementation of the Expert System DIGS for Diagnostics
%J MAG72
%P 495
%K AA21 AI01

%A J. Hromkovic
%T On One-Way Two-Headed Deterministic Finite State Automata
%J MAG72
%P 503
%K AI16

%A E. Braunsteinerova
%T Operating Alphabet Complexity of Homogenous Trellis Automata and Symmetric
Functions
%J MAG72
%P 527

%A I. Plander
%T Projects of the New Generation Computer Systems and Informatics
%J MAG72
%P 551

%A Julian Hewett
%A Ron Sasson
%T Expert Systems 1986, volume 1 --USA and Canada
%I Ovum Limited
%C London
%K AT15 AI01 GA02 GA04

%A Philip Klahr
%A Donald A. Waterman
%T Expert Systems, Techniques, Tools and Applications
%I Addison-Wesley
%K AT15 Rand AI01

%A Michael Brady
%A Jean Ponce
%A Alan Yuille
%A Haruo Asada
%T Describing Surfaces
%J MAG73
%P 1-28
%K AI06

%A Irving Biederman
%T Human Image Image Understanding: Recent Research and a Theory
%J MAG73
%P 29-73
%K AI06 AI08 AT08 AI16

%A Steven W. Zucker
%T Early Orientation Selection: Tangent Fields and the Dimensionality of
Support
%J MAG73
%P 74-103
%K AI06

%A Martin D. Levine
%A Ahmed M. Nazif
%T Rule-Based Image Segmentation: A Dynamic Control Strategy Approach
%J MAG73
%P 104-126
%K AI01 AI06

%A M. J. Magee
%A J. K. Aggarwal
%T Using Multisensory Images to Dervie the Structure of Three-Dimensional
Object
s -
A Review
%J MAG74
%P 145-157
%K AI06 AT08

%A Edgar A. Cohen
%T Generalized Sloped Facet Models Useful in Multispectral Image Analysis
%J MAG74
%P 171-190
%K AI06

%A A. Lashas
%A R. Shurna
%A A. Verikas
%A A. Dosinas
%T Optical Character Recognition Based on Analog Preprocessing and Automatic
Fea
ture
Extraction
%J MAG74
%P 191-207
%K AI06

%A John E. Wampler
%T Enhancing Real-Time Perception of Quantum Limited Images from a Doubly
Intensified SIT Camera System
%J MAG74
%P 208-220
%K AI06

%A T. Y. Kong
%A A. W. Roscoe
%T A Theory of Binary Digital Pictures
%J MAG74
%P 221-243
%K AI06

%A Ron Gershon
%T Aspects of Perception and Computation in Color Vision
%J MAG74
%P 244
%K AI06

%A I. G. Biba
%T The adaptation of an Action-Planning System to Accomodate Problem Classes
%J Cybernetics
%V 21
%N 2
%D MAR-APR 1985
%P 242-253
%K AI09

%A Jaroslav Opatrny
%T Parallel Programming Constructs for Divide-and-Conquer, and
Branch and Bound Paradigms
%J MAG75
%P 403-416
%K AI03

%A H. I. El-Zorkany
%T Robot Programming
%J MAG75
%P 430-446
%K AI07

%A David Butler
%T Experience Using Artificial Intelligence
%J Data Processing
%V 27
%N 9
%D NOV 1985
%P 64
%K AI16

%A J. P. Keating
%A R. L. Mason
%T Some Practical Aspects of Covariance Estimation
%J MAG76
%P 295-294
%K AI06

%A M. Krivanek
%T An Application of Limited Branching in Clustering
%J MAG76
%P 299-302
%K O06

%A W. Pedrycz
%T Classification in a Fuzzy Environment
%J MAG76
%P 303-308
%K O04

%A T. Kohonen
%T Median Strings
%J MAG76
%P 309-314
%K O06

%A W. G. Korpatsch
%T A Pyramid that Grows by Powers of Two
%J MAG76
%P 315-322
%K AI06 H03

%A C. Ronse
%T A Simple Proof of Rosenfeld's Characterization of Digital Straight Line
Segme
nts
%J MAG76
%P 323-326
%K AI06

%A I. K. Sethi
%T A Genral Scheme for Discontinuity Detection
%J MAG76
%P 327-334
%K AI06

%A O. Skliar
%A M. H. Loew
%T A New Method for Chracterization of Shape
%J MAG76
%K AI06

%A F. C. A. Groen
%A A. C. Sanderson
%A J. F. Schlag
%T Symbol Recognition in Electrical Diagrams Using Probabilistic Graph Matching
%J MAG76
%K AI06 O06 AA04

%A Z. Pinjo
%A D. Cyganski
%A J. A. Orr
%T Determination of 3-D Object Orientation From Projections
%J MAG76
%K AI06

%A A. Bookstein
%A K. K. Ng
%T A Parametric Fuzzy Set Prediction Model
%J MAG77
%P 131-142
%K O04

%A W. L. Chen
%A R. J. Guo
%A L. S. Shang
%A T. Ji
%T Fuzzy Match and Floating Threshold Strategy for Expert System in Traditional
Chinese Medicine
%J MAG77
%P 143-152
%K O04 AI01 AA01

%A D. G. Schwartz
%T The Case for an Interval-based Representation of Linguistic Truth
%J MAG77
%P 153-166
%K O04 AI02

%A L. O. Holl
%A A. Kandel
%T Studies in Possibilistic Recognition
%J MAG77
%P 153-166
%K O04 AI06

%A M. Togai
%T A Fuzzy Inverse Relation Based on Godelian Logic and its Applications
%J MAG77
%P 211
%K O04

%A B. F. Buxton
%A H. Buxton
%A D. W. Murray
%A N. S. Williams
%T Machine Perception of Visual Motion
%J GEC Journal of Research
%V 3
%N 3
%D 1985
%P 145-161
%K AI06

%A M. S. Wilson
%T An Evaluation of Manoeuvre Detector Algorithms
%J GEC JOurnal of Research
%V 3
%N 3
%D 1985
%P 181-190
%K AI06 AA18

%A J. M. Schurick
%A B. H. Williges
%A J. F. Maynard
%T User Feedback Requirements with Automatic Speech Recognition
%J Ergonomics
%V 28
%N 11
%D NOV 1985
%K AI05 O01

%A R. Beg
%T Image-Processing System Serves a Variety of Buses
%J Computer Design
%V 24
%N 16
%D NOV 15, 1985
%P 99
%K AI06 AT02



%A J. Zlatuska
%T Normal Forms in the Typed Lambda-Calculus with Tuple Types
%J MAG78
%P 366=381
%K T01

%A Osamu Furukawa
%A Syohei Ishizu
%T An Expert System for Adaptive Quality Control
%J International Journal of General Systems
%P 183-200
%V 11
%N 3
%D 1985
%K AA05 AI01

%A P. Carnevali
%A L. Coletti
%A S. Patarnello
%T Image Processing by Simulated Annealing
%J IBM Journal of Research and Development
%V 29
%N 6
%P 569-579
%D NOV 1985
%K AI06 AI03

%A Michael Cross
%T Down on th Automatic Farm
%J New Scientist
%V 108
%N 1483
%D NOV 21 1985
%P 56
%K AI07 AA23

%A S. Abramsky
%A R. sykes
%T Secd-m- a Virtual Machine for Applicative Programming
%B BOOK51
%P 81-98

%A C. L. Hankin
%A P.E. Osmon
%A M. J. Shute
%T COBWEB- A Combinator Reduction Architecture
%B BOOK51
%P 99-112

%A P. Wadler
%T How to Replace Failure by a List of Successes - A Method for Exception
Handling, Backtracking, and Pattern Matching in Lazy Functional Languages
%B BOOK51
%P 113-128
%K AI03 AI10

%A J. Hughes
%T Lazy Memo-Functions
%B BOOK51
%P 129-146

%A T. Johnsson
%T Lambda-Lifting -0 Transforming Programs to Recursive Equations
%B BOOK51
%P 190-203

%A S. K. Debray
%T Optimizing Almost-Tail-Recursive Prolog Programs
%B BOOK51
%P 204-219
%K T02

%A D. Patel
%A M. Schlag
%A M. Ercegovac
%T vFP - an Environment for the Multi-Level specification, Analysis and
Synthesis of Hardware Algorithms
%B BOOK51
%P 238-255
%K AA08 AA04

%A J. Hughes
%T A Distributed Garbage Collection Algorithm
%B BOOK51
%P 256-272
%K T01 H03

%A D. R.  Brownbridge
%T Cyclic Reference Counting for Combinator Machines
%B BOOK51
%P 273-288
%K T01 H03

%A D. S. Wise
%T Design for a Multiprocessing Heap with On-Board Reference Couting
%B BOOK51
%P 289-304
%K T01 H03

%A P. Dybjer
%T Program Verification in a Logical Theory of Constructions
%B BOOK51
%P 334-349
%K AA08

%A L. Augustsson
%T Compiling Pattern Matching
%B BOOK51
%P 368-381
%K O06

%A Mark Jerrum
%T Random Generation of Combinatorial Structures for a Uniform Distribution
(extended abstract)
%B BOOK52
%P 290-299
%K O06

%A D. Kapur
%A P. Narendran
%A G. Sivakumar
%T A Path Reordering for Proving Termination of Term Rewriting Systems
%B BOOK47
%P 173-187
%K AI14

%A Deepak Kapur
%A Mandayam Srivas
%T A Rewrite Rule Based Approach for Synthesizing Abstract Data Types
%B BOOK47
%P 188-207
%K AA14 AA08


%A Valentinas Kriauciukas
%T A Tree-matching Algorithm
%J Mat. Logika Primenen No. 1
%D 1981
%P 21-32
%K O06
%X Russian. English and Lithuanian Summaries

%A Aida Pliuskeviciene
%T Specification of cut-type Rules in Programming Logics with Recursion
%J Mat. Logika Primenen No. 1
%D 1981
%P 33-60
%K AI10

%A C. Choppy
%T A LISP Compiler for FP Language and its Proof via Algebraic Semantics
%B BOOK47
%P 403-415
%K T01 AA08

%A Michael J. Corinthios
%T 3D Cellular Arrays for Parallel/Cascade Image/Signal Processing
%B Spectral Techniques and Fault Detection
%P 217-298
%S Notes Rep. Comput. Sci. Appl. Math
%V 11
%I Academic Press
%C Orlando, Fla
%D 1985
%K AI06 H03

%A D. O. Avetisyan
%T The Probabilistic Approach to Construction of Intelligent Systems
%J Mat. Voprosy Kibernet. Vychisl. Tekhn NO. 13
%D 1984
%P 5-21
%V 13
%K AI16
%X (Russian with Armenian Summary)

%A Robert S. Boyer
%A J. Strother Moore
%T A Mechanical Proof of the Unsolvability of the Halting Problem
%J JACM
%V 31
%D 1984
%N 3
%P 441-458
%K AI11




%A N. A. Chuzhanova
%T Grammatical Method of Synthesis of Programs
%J Vychisl. Sistemy No. 102
%D 1984
%P 32-42
%N 102
%K AA08
%X russian

%A S. M. Efimova
%T Pi-Graphs for Knowledge Representation
%I Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vychisl. Tsentr, Moscow
%D 1985
%K AI16
%X Russian

%A Melvin Fitting
%T A Kripke-Kleene Semantics for Logic Programs
%J MAG79
%P 295-312
%K AI10

%A D. M. gabbay
%T N-Prolog: an Extension of PROLOG with Hypothetical Implication
II. Logical Foundations, and Negation as Failure
%J MAG79
%P 251-283
%K T02

%A Le Van Tu
%T Negation-as-failure rule for General Logic Programs with Equality
%J MAG79
%P 285-294
%K AI10

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T Special Relations in Automated Deduction
%B BOOK52
%P 413-423
%K AI11

%A Jack Minker
%A Donald Perlis
%T Computing Protected Circumscription
%J MAG79
%P 235-249
%K AI11 AI15


%A J. A. Makowsky
%T Why Horn Formulas Matter in Computer Science: Initial Structures and
Generic Examples (extended abstract)
%B BOOK47
%P 188-207
%K AI10

%A Xu Hua Liu
%T The Input Semicancellation Resolution Principle on Horn Sets
%J Kexue Tongbao
%V 30
%D 1985
%N 16
%P 1201-1202
%K AI10 AI11
%X in chinese

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
221
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography (continued)
-BODY-
%A R. Neches
%A P. Langley
%A D. Klahr
%T Learning, Development and Production Systems
%I Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California,
Irvine
%D JAN 1986
%R 86-01
%K AI01 AI04
%X 46 pages ($4.00)

%A R. P. Hall
%T Understanding Analogical Reasoning: Computational Approaches
%D MAY 1986
%I Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California,
Irvine
%R 86-11
%K AI04 AT09
%X 60 pages ($5.00)

%A P. Langley
%A J. G. Carbonell
%T Language Acquisition and Machine Learning
%D JUN 1986
%I Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California,
Irvine
%R 86-12
%K AI02 AI04
%X 41 pages $3.00

%A J. C. Schlimmer
%T A Note on Correlational Measures
%D MAY 1986
%I Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California,
Irvine
%R 86-13
%X determining the degree that two events are interrelated
14 pages $2.00

%A B. Nordhausen
%T Conceptual Clustering Using Relational Information
%D JUN 1986
%I Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California,
Irvine
%R 86-15
%K AI04 O06
%X 15 pages $2.00

%A Peter J. Denning
%T Expert Systems
%I Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science, NASA Ames Research Center
%R 85.17
%K AI01

%A Peter J. Denning
%T Will Machines Ever Think?
%I Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science, NASA Ames Research Center
%R 86.12
%K AI16

%A Ajay Rastogi
%A Sargur N. Srihari
%T Recognizing Textual Blocks in Document Images Using the Hough Transform
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-01
%K AI06 AA14
%X 1.00 /1.50

%A Pudcode Swaminathan
%A Sargur N. Srihari
%T Document Image Binarization: Second Derivative Versus Adaptive Thresholding
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-02
%K AI06
%X $1.00/ $1.50

%A William J. Rapaport
%T Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence: A Course Outline
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-03
%K AI16 AT18
%X $1.00/$1.50

%A Shoshana L. Hardt
%A William J. Rapaport
%T Recent and Current Ai Research in the Department of Computer Science,
SUNY-Buffalo
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-05
%K AT21
%X $1.00/$1.50

%A Kemal Eboioglu
%T An Expert System for Harmonization of Chorales in the Style  of J. S. Bach
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-09
%K AA25 AI01
%X $3.00/$4.00 289 pages

%A Stuart C. Shapiro
%T Symmetric Relations, Intensional Individuals, and Variable Binding
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-10
%K AI16 AI02 AI01
%X dealing with relations such as "are adjacent" and "are related"

%A Sargur N. Srihari
%A Jonathan J. Hull
%A Paul W. Palumbo
%A Ching-Huei Wang
%T Automatic Address Block Locatino: Analysis of Images and Statistical Data
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-11
%K AI06
%X finding the destination address on a letter, magazine or parcel for
the post office
63 pages $1.00/$1.50

%A S. L. Hardt
%A D. H. Macfadden
%A M. Johnson
%A T. Thomas
%A S. Wroblewski
%T The Dune Shell Manual: Version 1
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-12
%K AI01 AA11 AA18 T03 common sense
%X DUNE is Diagnostic Understanding of Natural Events, a shell that has
been applied to threat assessment, personality assessment and common sense
reasoning
$1.00/$1.50

%A Janyce M. Wiebe
%A William J. Rapaport
%T Representing de re and de dicto belief reports in discourse and narrative
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-14
%K AI02 AI16
%X $1.00/$1.50

%A William J. Rapaport
%A Stuart C. Shapiro
%A Janyce M. Wiebe
%T Quasi-Indicators, Knowledge Reports, and Discourse
%I Department of Computer Science State University of New York at Buffalo
%R 86-15
%K AI02 AI16 de re de dicto
%X $1.00/$1.50

%A David E. Rumenhart
%A James L. McClelland
%T Parallel Distributed Processing:
Explorations in the Microstructures of Cognition,
%I Library of Computer Science
%K AT15  AI04 AI03 AI08
%X Two volume set for $35.95.  Volume I: Foundations
Volume II: Psychological Models

%A Christian Lengauer
%T A View of Automated Proof Checking and Proving
%R TR-86-16
%D JUN 1986
%I University of Texas at Austin, Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI11
%X $1.50

%A Manuel V. Hermengildo
%T An Abstract Machine Based Execution Model for Computer Architecture
Design and Efficient Implementation of Logic Programs in Parallel
%R TR-86-20
%D JUN 1986
%I University of Texas at Austin, Department of Computer Sciences
%K AI10 H03
%X $5.00

%A Nicholas V. Findler
%A Timothy W. Bickmore
%A Robert F. Cromp
%T A General-Purpose Man-Machine Environment to Aid in Decision Making
and Planning with Special Reference to Air Traffic Control
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-001
%K AI13 AI09 O01

%A Nicholas V. Findler
%A Timothy W. Bickmore
%A Robert F. Cromp
%T A General-Purpose Man-machine Environment with Special Reference to
Air Traffic Control
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-002
%K AI13 AI09 O01

%A Nicholas V. Findler
%A Ron Lo
%T An Examination of Distributed Planning in the World of Air Traffic
Control
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-004
%K AI13 AI09 O01

%A Ben Huey
%T Using Register Transfer Languages for Knowledge-Based Automatic
Test Generation
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-011
%K AA04

%A F. Golshani
%T Tools for the Construction of Expert Database Systems
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-013
%K AA09 AI01

%A Ben M. Huey
%T The Heuristic State Search Algorithm
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-018
%K AI03

%A F. Golshani
%A A. Faustin
%T The Eductive (sic) Knowledge Engine-Preliminary Investigations
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-84-023
%K AI16

%A A. L. Pai
%A J. W. Pan
%T A Computer Graphics Kinematic Simulation System for Robot
Manipulators
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-003
%K AI07

%A Nicholas V. Findler
%T Air Traffic Control, A Challenge for Artificial Intelligence
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-006
%K AI16

%A Richard L. Madarasz
%A Loren C. Heiny
%A Norm E. Berg
%T The Design of an Autonomous Vehicle for the Handicapped
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-010
%K AI07 AA19

%A N. V. Findler
%A P. Bhaskaran
%A Ron Lo
%T Two Theoretical Issues Concerning Expert Systems
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-012
%K AI01

%A Richard Madarasz
%A Kathleen M. Mutch
%A Loren C. Heiny
%T A Low-Cost Binocular Imaging System for Research and Education
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-013
%K AI06 AT18

%A Robert F. Cromp
%T The Task, Design and Approach of the Advice Taker/Inquirer
System
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-014
%K AI16

%A Kathleen M. Mutch
%T The Perception of Translation in Depth Using Stereoscopic Motion
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-85-015
%K AI06

%A Ron Lo
%A Cher Lo
%A N. V. Findler
%T A Pattern Search Technique for the Optimization Module of a
Morph-Fitting Package
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-86-001
%K AI03

%A N. V. Findler
%A Laurie Igrif
%T Analogical Reasoning by Intelligent Robots
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-86-003
%K AI07 AI16

%A Nicholas V. Findler
%T The Past, Present and Future of Artificial Intelligence -
A Personal View
%I Arizona State University, Computer Science Department
%R TR-86-004
%K AT14

%A Stephen Fickas
%T Automating the Transformational Development of Software
%R CIS-TR-85-01
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AA08

%A John S. Conery
%A Dennis F. Kibler
%T AND Parallelism and Nondeterminism in Logic Programs
%R CIS-TR-85-02
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K H03 AI10

%A Stephen Fickas
%A David Novick
%A Rob Reesor
%T Building Control Strategies in a Rule-Based System
%R CIS-TR-85-04
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AI01 metaknowledge

%A Stephen Fickas
%A David Novick
%T Control Knowledge in Expert Systems: Relaxing Restrictive Assumptions
%R CIS-TR-85-05
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AI01  metaknowledge

%A Stephen Fickas
%T Design Issues in a Rule-Based System
%R CIS-TR-85-06
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AI01 metaknowledge

%A Kent A. Stevens
%A Allen Brookes
%T The Concave Cusp as a Determiner of Figure Ground
%R CIS-TR-85-08
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AI06
%X (of interest to researchers on texture perception )

%A Stephen Fickas
%A David Novick
%A Rob Reesor
%T An Environment for Building Rule-Based Systems: An Overview
%R CIS-TR-85-10
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AI01 T03

%A Stephen Fickas
%T A Knowledge-Based Approach to Specification Acquisition and Construction
%R CIS-TR-85-13
%I Computer and Information Science Department, University of Oregon
%C Eugene, OR
%D 1985
%K AA08

%A Kazem Taghva
%T Constructive Fully Abstract Models of Typed Lambda-Calculi
%R CSR 159
%I Computer Science Department, New Mexico Tech
%C Socorro, NM
%D DEC 1983
%K AA08

%A Allan M. Stavely
%T Inference From Models of Software Systems
%R CSR 162
%I Computer Science Department, New Mexico Tech
%C Socorro, NM
%D MAY 1984
%K AA08

%A Raymond D. Gumb
%A Sarah Bottomley
%A Alex Trujillo
%T Sandia National Laboratories SURP Grant 95-2931 Final Report:
Filming a Terrain Under Uncertainty Using Temporal and Probabilistic Reasoning
%R CSR 172
%I Computer Science Department, New Mexico Tech
%C Socorro, NM
%D AUG 1986
%K AI06 O04

%A Andrew W. Appel
%T Garbage Collection Can Be Faster than Stack Allocation
%R TR-045-86
%D JUN 1986
%I Princeton University, Department of Computer Science
%K H02 T01

%A Richard J. Lipton
%A Daniel Lopresti
%A J. Douglas Welsh
%T The Total DNA Homology Experiment
%R TR-020-86
%I Princeton University, Department of Computer Science
%K AA10 O06
%X plan to compare all known DNA sequences with each other to find homologies
They will be using a systolic array for DNA sequence matching and hope
to complete the project within one years time.

%A Bernard Nadel
%T Representation-Selection for Constraint Satisfaction Problems: A Case
Study Using n-Queens
%D MAR 1986
%R CRL-TR-5-86
%I University of Michigan, Computer Research Laboratory
%K AI03 AA17

%A Bernard Nadel
%T Theory-Based Search-Order Selection for Constraint Satisfaction Problems
%D APR 1986
%R CRL-TR-6-86
%I University of Michigan, Computer Research Laboratory
%K AI03

%A J. T. Park
%A T. J. Teory
%T Heuristics for Data Allocation in Local Area
%D MAY 1986
%R CRL-TR-7-86
%I University of Michigan, Computer Research Laboratory
%K AA09
%X describes heuristics for allocating data where update is done by
broadcast

%A K. Shin
%A P. Ramanathan
%T Diagnosis of Malicious Processors in a Distributed Computing System
%D MAY 1986
%R CRL-TR-8-86
%I University of Michigan, Computer Research Laboratory
%K AA21




%A Hary H. Porter, III
%T Earley Deduction
%R CS/E 86-002
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1986
%K T02 Datalog

%A Clifford Walinsky
%T Constructive Negation in Horn-Clause Programs
%R CS/E 86-003
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1986
%K AI10

%A Dennis M. Volpano
%T Translating an FP Dialect to L - A Proof of Correctness
%R CS/E 85-001
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1985
%K AA08

%A Richard B. Kieburtz
%T The G-Machine: A Fast, Graph-Reduction Evaluator
%R CS/E 85-002
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1985

%A Richard B. Kieburtz
%T Incremental Collection of Dynamic, List-Structured Memories
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1985
%R CS/E 85-008
%K T01 H03
%X incremental garbage collection

%A Ashoke Deb
%T An Efficient Garbage Collector for Graph Machines
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1984
%R CS/E 84-003
%K H03

%A John S. Givler
%T Pattern Recognition in FP Programs
%I Oregon Graduate Center
%D 1983
%R CS/E 83-003
%K O06 AI06

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
222
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography (continued)
-BODY-
%A L. S. Fainzilberg
%A G. A. Shklyar
%T Estimation of Attribute Utility in Statistical Recognition of Two Classes
%J Soviet J. Automat. Inform. Scie.
%V 189
%N 5
%P 81-86
%K O04 O06

%A Peter Naur
%T Thinking and Turing's Test
%J BIT
%V 26
%D 1986
%N 2
%P 175-187
%K AI16

%A Persi Diaconis
%A Mehrdad Shahshani
%T Products of Random Matrices and Computer Image Generation
%B Random Matrices and Tehir Applications
%P 173-182
%S Contemp. Math.
%V 50
%I Amer. Math. Soc.
%C Providence, R. I.
%D 1986
%K AI06

%A V. A. Nepomnyaschii
%T Problem-oriented Program Verification
%J Programmirovanie 1986
%N 1
%P 3-13
%K AA08

%A Yong Qiang Sun
%A Bao Xing Tang
%T Strong Verification of Nested-loop Programs
%J J. Shanghai Jiatong Univ.
%D 1984
%N 6
%P 1-10
%K AA08
%X Chinese with English summary

%A A. Browne
%T Vision and the Robot
%J Philips Journal of Research
%V 41
%N 3
%D 1986
%P 232-246
%K AI06 AI07

%A B. J. Falkowski
%A L. Schmitz
%T A Note on the Queen's Problem
%J Information Processing Letters
%V 23
%N 1
%D JUL 20, 1986
%K AI03 AA17

%A Huia-Chuan Chen
%A J. H. Fang
%T A Heuristic Search Method for Optimal Zonation of Well Logs
%J Mathematical Geology
%V 18
%N 5
%D 1986
%P 489-500
%K AA03 AI06 AI03
%X improved the Houwkins and Merium algorithm by 7 to 50 fold

%A A. Kong
%A G. O. Barnett
%A F. Mosteller
%A C. Youtz
%T How Medical Professional Evaluate Expressions of Probability
%J New England Journal of Medicine
%V 315
%D SEP 18, 1986
%N 12
%P 740-744
%K AA01 AI02 AI01
%X explains what is meant in probabilistic terms by doctors by such
phrases as "likely"

%A G. Vontrzebiatowski
%A B. Bank
%T On the Convergence of the Fuzzy Clustering Algorithm Fuzzy ISODATA
%J Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik
%P 201-208
%V 66
%N 6
%D 1986
%K O04 O06

%A Makoto Kaneko
%A Minoru Abe
%A Eiichi Horiuchi
%A Kazuo Tanie
%T Study on Hexapod Walking Machine using an Approximate Straight Line
Mechanism
Third Report; A Control Method for Proceeding over Soft Ground
%J Journal of Mechanical Engineering Laboratory
%V 40
%N 4
%D JUL 1986
%K AI07

%A A. G. Erdman
%A T. Thompson
%A D. R. Riley
%T Type Selection of Robot and Gripper Kinematic Topology Using Expert Systems
%J International Journal of Robot Research
%V 5
%N 2
%D 1986
%P 183
%K AA05 AI01 AI07
%X [. There are many other articles on this issue on robot kinematics (this was
a special issue).  I do not include those in this bibliography.]

%A James J. Clark
%A Peter D. Lawrence
%T A Theoretical Basis for Diffrequency Stereo
%J MAG80
%P 1-19
%K AI06

%A Brian G. Schunck
%T The Image Flow Constraint Equation
%J MAG80
%P 20-46
%K AI06

%A Teresa M. Silberberg
%A David A. Harwood
%A Larry S. Davis
%T Object Recognition Using Oriented Model Points
%J MAG80
%P 47-71
%K AI06

%A Haluk Derin
%A William S. Cole
%T Segment of Textured Images Using Gibbs Random Fields
%J MAG80
%P 72-98
%K AI06

%A Theo Pavlidis
%T A Vectorizer and Feature Extractor for Document Recognition
%J MAG80
%P 111
%K AI06

%A Matthew Hennessy
%T Proving Systolic Systems Correct
%J ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
%V 8
%N 3
%D JUL 1986
%P 344-387
%K AA08 AA04 AI11

%A Krzysztof R. Apt
%T Correctness Proofs of Distributed Termination Algorithms
%J ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
%V 8
%N 3
%D JUL 1986
%P 388-407
%K AA08 AI11

%A A. Pathak
%A S. K. Pal
%T A Generalized Learning Algorithm Based on Guard Zones
%J MAG81
%P 63-70
%K AI04

%A S. Larsen
%A L. N. Kanal
%T Analysis of k-nearest Neighborhood Branch and Bound Rules
%J MAG81
%P 71-78
%K AI03

%A F. Pasian
%A C. Vuerli
%T Core-line Tracing for Fuzzy Image Subsets
%J MAG81
%P 93
%K O04 AI06

%A O. R. Polonskaya
%T Logic-Semantic Connectors of the English Language as Formal Indicators of
Text Coherence
%J Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya Seriya II - Informatsionnye Protessy
I Systemy
%N 6
%D 1986
%P 19-22
%K AI02

%A J. Victor
%T Bell-Labs Models Parallel Processor on Neural Networks
%J Mini-Micro Systems
%V 19
%N 10
%D AUG 1986
%P 43+
%K AI12 H03

%A C. Dede
%T A Review and Synthesis of Recent Research in Intelligent Computer-Assisted
Instruction
%J MAG82
%P 329-354
%K AA07  AT08 AT21

%A J. S. Greenstein
%A L. Y. Arnaut
%A M. E. Revesman
%T An Empirical Comparison of Model-Based and Explicit Communication
for Dynamic Human-Computer Task Allocation
%J MAG82
%P 355-364
%K AI08 O01

%A C. G. Leedham
%A A. C. Downton
%T On-Line Recognition of Pitman Handwritten Shorthand
%J MAG82
%P 375-394
%K AI06

%A P. N. Crowley
%T The Use of Q-Analysis and Q-Factor Weightings to Derive Clinical Psychiatric
Syndromes
%J MAG82
%P 395-408
%K AA11 O04

%A Concettina Guerra
%T A VLSI Algorithm for the Optimal Detection of a Curve
%J MAG83
%P 206-214
%K AI06

%A Bruce K. Hillyer
%A David Elliot Shaw
%T Execution of OPS5 Production Systems on a Massively Parallel Machine
%J MAG83
%P 236-268
%K H03 AI01

%A Salvatore J. Stolfo
%A Daniel P. Miranker
%T The DADO Production System Machine
%J MAG83
%P 269
%K AI01 H03

%A Gerrit Broekstra
%T Organizational Humanity and Architecture: Duality and Complementarity of
PAPA
>Logic and MAMA-Logic in Managerial Conceptualizations of Change
%J MAG84
%P 13-42
%K AI08 AA11 AA06

%A Stuart A. Umpleby
%T Self-Authorization: A Characteristic of Some Elements in Certain
Self-Organiz
ing Systems
%J MAG84
%P 79-88
%K H03 AI12

%A R. M. Lougheed
%A C. M. Swonger
%T An Analysis of Computer Architectural Factors Contributing to Image
Processor
Capacity
%B BOOK53
%P 3-13
%K AI06

%A O. R. Hinton
%A H. G. Kim
%T A Bit-Sequential VLSI Pixel-Kermel Processor for Image Processing
%B BOOK53
%P 14-20
%K AI06 H03

%A D. J. Skellern
%T A Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) System for Image Reconstruction
from Projections
%B BOOK53
%P 21-26
%K AI06

%A P. W. Besslich
%T Parallel Architecture for Line-Scanned Images
%B BOOK53
%P 27-35
%K AI06 H03

%A R. P. W. Duin
%A H. Haringa
%A R. Zeelen
%T A Hardware Design for Fast 2-D Percentile Filtering
%B BOOK53
%P 36-40
%K AI06

%A R. Boekamp
%A F. C. A. Groen
%A F. A. Gerritsen
%A R. J. Vanmunster
%T Design and Implementation of a Cellular Logic VME Processor Module
%B BOOK53
%P 41-45
%K AI06

%A J. L. Basille
%A S. Castan
%T Multilevel Architectures for Image Processing
%B BOOK53
%P 46-53
%K AI06 H03

%A J. Rommelaere
%A L. Vaneycken
%A P. Wambacq
%A A. Oosterlinck
%T A Microprogrammable Processor Architecture for Image Processing
%B BOOK53
%P 59-67
%K AI06

%A M. Suk
%A S. S. Pyo
%T A Geometry Processor for Image Processing and Pattern Recognition
%B BOOK53
%P 68-73
%K AI06

%A P. W. Pachowicz
%T Image Processing by a Local-SIMD Co-Processor
%B BOOK53
%P 82-87
%K AI06 AI03

%A V. Cantoni
%A L. Carrioli
%A O. Catalano
%A L. Cinque
%A V. Digesu
%A M. Ferretti
%A G. Gerardi
%A S. Levialdi
%A R. Lombardi
%A A. Machi
%A R. Sterfanelli
%T The Papia Image Analysis System
%B BOOK53
%P 88-97
%K AI06

%A J. Ronsin
%A D. Barba
%A S. Raboisson
%T Comparison Between Cooccurrence Matrices, Local Histograms and Curvilinear
Integration for Texture Characterization
%B BOOK53
%P 98-104
%K AI06

%A N. Lins
%T Refinement of Spectral Methods for Use in Texture Analysis
%B BOOK53
%P 105-111
%K AI06

%A M. Slimani
%A C. Roux
%A A. Hillioun
%T Image Segmentation by Cluster Analysis of High Resolution Textured SPOT
Image
s
%B BOOK53
%P 112-119
%K AI06

%A A. Beckers
%A L. Dorst
%A L. T. Young
%T The Choice of Filter Parameters for non-Linear Grey-Value Image Processing
%B BOOK53
%P 120-128
%K AI06

%A J. Illingworth
%A J. Kittler
%T A Parallel Threshold Selection Algorithm
%B BOOK53
%P 129-134
%K AI06 H03

%A R. Samy
%T An Adaptive Image Sequence Filtering Scheme Based on Motion Detection
%B BOOK53
%P 135-144
%K AI06

%A B. K. Ghaffary
%T A Review of Image Matching Techniques
%B BOOK53
%P 164-172
%K AI06

%A K. Martinez
%A D. E. Pearson
%T PETAL A Parallel Processor for Real-Time Primitive Extraction
%B BOOK53
%P 173-175
%K AI06 O03

%A T. J. Dennis
%A L. J. Clark
%T Real Time Detection of Spot-Type Defects
%B BOOK53
%P 178-183
%K AI06 O03

%A E. Egeli
%A F. Klein
%A G. Maderlechner
%T Model-Based Instantiation of Symbols from Structurally Related Image
Primitives
%B BOOK53
%P 184-189
%K AI06

%A R. L. Shoemaker
%A P. H . Bartels
%A H. Bartels
%A W. G. Griswold
%A D. Hillman
%A R. Maenner
%T Image-Data-Driven Dynamically-Reconfigurable Multiprocessor System in
Automated Histopathology
%B BOOK53
%P 190-198
%K AI06 AA10

%A T. Lorch
%A J. Bille
%A M. Frieben
%A G. Stephan
%T An Automated Biological Dosimetry System
%B BOOK53
%P 199-206
%K AI06 AA10

%A C. Katsinis
%A A. D. Poularikas
%T Pattern Recognition of Zooplankton Images Using a Circular Sampling
Technique
%B BOOK53
%P 207-211
%K AI06 AA10

%A D. Lecomte
%A J. Beullier
%A D. Grangeon
%T Image Porcessing Adapted to Radiographs
%B BOOK53
%P 212-218
%K AI06 AA01

%A Zohar Manna
%A Richard Waldinger
%T The Logical Basis for Computer Programming. Vol I. Deductive
Reasoning
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%C Reading, MASS
%D 1985
%K AA08 AI11 AT15

%A A. S. Morozov
%T Logic with Incomplete Information as an  Information System in the Sense
of Scott
%J Vychisl. Sistemy NO. 107
%D 1985
%P 71-79
%K AI16

%A B. C. Moszkowski
%T Executing Temporal Logic Programs
%I Cambridge University Press
%C Cambridge-New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI10
%X ISBN 0-521-31099-7

%A A. P. Sistla
%A E. M. Clarke
%A N. Francez
%A A. R. Meyer
%T Can Message Buffers be Axiomatized in Linear Temporal Logic
%J Inform. and Control
%V 63
%N 1-2
%P 88-112
%K AA08 AI11

%A Wolfgang Wechler
%T R-fuzzy Computation
%J J. Math. Anal. Appl.
%V 115
%D 1986
%N 1
%P 225-232
%K O04

%A Luis Aguila Feros
%A Jose Ruiz Shulcloper
%T A Bm-Algorithm for Processing K-valent Data in Recognition Problems
%J Cinc. Mat. (Havana)
%V 5
%D 1984
%N 3
%P 89-101
%K AI16
%X Spanish. English Summary

%A Vincent Digricoli
%A Malcolm Harrison
%T Equality-based Binary Resolution
%J JACM
%V 33
%D 1986
%N 2
%P 253-289
%K AI11

%A M. H. van Emden
%T Quantitative Deduction and its Fix-Point Theory
%J MAG85
%P 37-53
%K AI10

%A Hong Fan
%A Jorge L. C. Sanz
%T Comments on "Direct Fourier Reconstruction in Computer Tomography"
[IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process 29 (1981) no. 2. 237-245
by H. Stark, J. W. Woods, I. Paul and R. Hingorani
%J IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process.
%V 33
%D 1985
%N 2
%P 446-449
%K AI06 AA01 AT13

%A D. M. Gabbay
%A M. J. Sergot
%T Negation as Inconsistency
%J MAG85
%P 1-35
%K AI10

%A Han Rong Lu
%T Some Problems in Logic Program Design
%J Comput. Sci
%D 1986
%N 1
%P 38-39
%K AI10 O02
%X (Chinese)

%A Anca L. Ralescu
%T A Note on Rule Representation in Expert Systems
%J Inform. Sci
%V 38
%D 1986
%N 2
%P 193-203
%K AI01

%A Yu A. Zuev
%T Probabilistic Model of a Committee of Classifiers
%J Zh. Vychisl. Mat. i Mat. Fiz
%V 26
%D 1986
%N 2
%P 276-292
%K H03 O04
%X (russian)

%A Irena Pevac
%T Heuristic for Avoiding Skolemization in Theorem Proving
%J Publ. Inst. Math. (Beograd) (N. S.)
%V 38
%N 52
%D 1985
%P 207-213
%K AI11

%A A. A. Voronkov
%T A Method of Search for a Proof
%J Vychisl. Sistemy No. 107
%D 1985
%P 109-123
%K AI03 AI11
%X (Russian)

%A Kiem Hoang
%T Geometric Transforms of Digital Images
%J Rostock. Math. Kolloq. No 28
%D 1985
%P 87-98
%K AI06

%A Jacques Loeckx
%A Kurt Sieber
%A Ryan D. Sansifer
%T The Foundations of Program Verication
%S Wiley-Teubner Series in Computer Science
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C Chichester
%D 1984
%K AT15 AA08 AI11
%X ISBN 0-471-90323-X

%A Andreas Blass
%A Yuri Gurevich
%A Dexter Kozen
%T A zero-one Law for Logic with a Fixed-point Operator
%J Information and Control
%V 67
%D 1985
%N 1-3
%P 70-90
%K AI11

%A J. Sakalauskaite
%T Axiom Systems for Proving the Equivalence of Compositions of Simple
Assignments
%J Mat. Logika Primenen. No. 1
%D 1981
%P 109-132
%K AA08 AI11
%X Russian. English and Lithuanian summaries

%A A. Prasad Sistla
%A Moshe Y. Vardi
%A Pierre Wolper
%T The Complementation Problem fo Buchi Automata with Applications to
Temporal Logic
%B BOOK52
%P 465-475
%K AI11

%A Colin Stirling
%T A Complete Modal Proof System for a Subset of SCCS
%B BOOK47
%P 235-266
%K AA08 AI11

%A Colin Stirling
%T A Complete Compositional Modal Proof System for a subset of CCS
%B BOOK52
%P 475-486
%K AA08 AI11

%A Rimgaudas Zaldokas
%T Construction of Term Rewriting Rules for Abstract Data Types
%J Mat. Logika Primenen No. 1
%D 1981
%P 9-19
%K AI14

%A Lev Goldfarb
%T A New Approach to Pattern Recognition
%B Progress in Pattern Recognition
%P 241-402
%S Machine Intell. Pattern Recognition
%V 1
%I North-Holland
%C Amsterdam, New York
%D 1985

%A Jieh Hsiang
%A Mandayam Srivas
%T PROLOG-based Inductive Theorem Proving
%B BOOK40
%P 129-149
%K AI10 AI11

%A Neil D. Jones
%A Alan Mycroft
%T Stepwise Development of Operational and Denotational Semantics
of Prolog
%B BOOK50
%P 281-288
%K AI10 AI11 O02

%A Kenneth M. Kahn
%T A Primitive for the Control of Logic Programs
%B BOOK50
%P 242-251
%K AI10

%A Prateek MIshra
%T Towards a Theory of Types in Prolog
%B BOOK50
%P 289-298
%K AI10 O02

%A David A. Plaisted
%T The Occur-Check Problem in Prolog
%B BOOK50
%P 272-280
%K AI10

%A Zbigniew Ras
%A Maria Zemankova-Leech
%T Rough Sets Based Learning Systems
%B Computation Theory (Zaborow, 1984)
%S Lecture Notes in Computer Science
%V 275
%I Springer-Verlag
%C Berlin-Heidelberg-New York
%D 1985
%P 263-275
%K AI04

%A Mark E. Stickel
%T A PROLOG Technology Theorem Prover
%B  BOOK50
%P 211-217
%K T02 AI11

%A Hisao Tamaki
%T Semantics of a Logic Programming Language with a Reducability
Predicate
%B BOOK50
%P 259-264
%K AI10

%A Raymond Turner
%T Logics for Artificial Intelligence
%I Ellis Horwood
%C Chichester
%D 1985

%A Michael J. Wise
%A David M. W. Powers
%T Indexing Prolog Clauses Via Superimposed Code Words and Field Encoded
Words
%B BOOK50
%P 203-210
%K T02

%A Kathy Yelick
%T Combining Unification Algorithms for Confined Regular Equational
Theories
%J BOOK54
%P 365-380
%K AI14

%A Pierre Rety
%A Claude Kirchner
%A Helene Kirchner
%A Pierre Lescanne
%T NARROWER: A New Algorithm for Unification and its Application
to Logic Programming
%J BOOK54
%P 141-157
%K AI10 AI11

%A Harvey Abramson
%T Definite Clause Translation Grammars
%B BOOK50
%P 233-240
%K AI11

%A Marta Cialdea
%T Some Remarks on the Possibility of Extending Resolution Proof Procedures
to Intuitionistic Logic
%J Inform. Process. Lett
%V 22
%D 1986
%N 2
%P 87-90
%K AI10  AI11

%A Stavros S. Cosmadakis
%A Paris C. Kanellakis
%T Two Applications of Equational Theories to Database Theory
%B BOOK54
%P 107-123
%K AI10 AA09 AI11

%A Amitava Bagchi
%A A. Mahanti
%T Three Approaches to Heuristic Search in Networks
%J JACM
%V 32
%D 1985
%N 1
%P 1-27
%K AI03

%A G. Gottlob
%A A. Leitsch
%T On the Efficiency of Subsumption Algorithms
%J JACM
%V 32
%D 1985
%N 2
%P 280-295
%K AI11


%A O. K. Khanmamedov
%T Approximating Perceptron and Convergence of a Process of Training a
Classifier
%J Akad. Nauk. Azerbaidzhan. SSR Dokl.
%V 41
%D 1985
%N 8
%P 8-11
%K AI04 AI06
%X Russian with English and Azerbaijani Summaries

%A V. S. Neiman
%T Unattainable Subgoals in Searching for an Inference from a Goal
%B Complexity Problems of Mathematical Logic
%P 68-72
%I Kalinin. Gos. Univ.
%C Kalinin
%D 1985
%K AI16
%X Russian

%A Bernard Silver
%T Meta-level Inference. Representing and Learning Control Information
in Artificial Intelligence
%S Studies in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
%V 1
%I North-Holland Publishing Co.
%C Amsterdam-new York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI04 AI03 AI16
%X ISBN-0-444-87900-5

%A V. I. Vasilev
%A F. P. Ovsyannikova
%T Optimization of the Space in Teaching Pattern Recognition
%J Soviet J. Automat. Inform. Sci
%D 1985
%N 3
%P 6-14
%V 18
%K AI04 AI06


%A Dennis de Champeaux
%T About the Paterson-Wegman Linear Unification Algorithm
%J J. Comput. System Sci
%V 32
%D 1986
%N 1
%P 79-90
%K AI11

%A Da Fa Li
%T Semantic Resolution and Paramodulation for Horn Sets
%J J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Tech
%V 12
%N 2
%P 13-16
%K AI10 AI11
%X Chinese with English Summary

%A David Harel
%T Dynamic Logic
%B Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol II
%P 497-604
%S Synthese Library
%V 165
%C Reidel, Boston
%D 1984

%A A. Hoppe
%T Temporal Logic Specification of Synchronization Primitives
%B BOOK55
%P 455-466
%K AA08

%A Erica Jen
%T Invariant Strings and Pattern-Recognizing Properties of One-Dimensional
Cellular Automata
%J J. Statist. Phys
%V 43
%D 1986
%N 1-2
%P 219-242
%K AI12

%A H. R. Nielson
%T A Hoare-Like Proof System for Total Correctness of Nested Recursive
Procedures
%B BOOK55
%P 227-239
%K AA08

%A Shi Tie Wang
%T Modal Logic and Program Verification
%J Acta Sci. Natur. Univ. Amoien
%V 24
%D 1985
%N 3
%P 300-307
%K AA08
%X Chinese with English Summary

%A S. J. Young
%A C. Proctor
%T UFI - An Experimental Frame Language Based on Abstract Data Types
%J The Computer Journal
%V 29
%N 4
%D AUG 1986
%P 340-347
%K AI16

%A H. J. Eibner
%A D. Holzel
%T Aspects of Expert Systems Applications in Medicine
%J Angewandte Informatik
%N 7
%D JUL 1986
%P 279-284
%K AI01 AA01

%A Q Tian
%A Michael N. Huhns
%T Algorithms for Subpixel Registration
%J MAG86
%P 220-233
%K AI06

%A Vladimir Kim
%A Leonid Yaroslavskii
%T Rank Algorithms for Picture Processing
%J MAG86
%P 234-258
%K AI06

%A Michael H. Brill
%T Perception of Transparency in Man and Machine: A Comment on Beck
%J MAG86
%P 270-271
%K AI06 AI08

%A Ye. K. Gordiyenko
%A V. N. Zakhavov
%T Process Management in Knowledge Bases
%J Soviet Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences
%V 24
%N 1
%D JAN-FEB 1986
%P 81-95
%K H03

%A C. L. Ramsey
%A J. A. Reggia
%A D. S. Nau
%A A. Ferrentino
%T A Comparative Analysis of Methods for Expert Systems
%J International Journal of Man-Machine Studies
%V 24
%N 5
%D MAY 1986
%K AI01
%P 475
%K AI01

%A Bruce  L. Golden
%A A. Hevner
%A D. Power
%T Decision Insight Systems for Microcomputers: a Critical Evaluation
%J MAG87
%P 287-300
%K AI13

%A Arjang A. Assad
%A Bruce L. Golden
%T Expert Systems, Microcomputers and Operations Research
%J MAG87
%P 301-322
%K H01 AI01

%A Jeffrey Perrone
%T Down from the Clouds: Notes on "Expert Systems, Microcomputers, and
Operation
s Research"
%J MAG87
%P 323-324
%K H01 AI01

%A E. Eugene Carter
%T Creating a Shell-based Expert System
%J MAG87
%P 325-328
%K T03 AI01

%A James A. Reggia
%A Sanjesv B. Ahuja
%T Selecting an Approach to Knowledge Processing
%J MAG87
%P 329-332
%K AI01

%A Richard T. Wong
%T Comment on "Expert Systems, Microcomputers, and Operations Research"
%J MAG87
%P 333
%K AI01

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
223
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography (continued)
-BODY-
%A W. H. H. J. Lunscher
%A M. P. Beddoes
%T Optimal Edge Dector Evaluation
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1986
%P 304-312
%K AI06

%A L. F. Chaparro
%A M. Boudaoud
%T Image Multimodeling and a Two-Dimensional Multicategory Wiener Filter
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%D MAR/APR 1986
%P 312-316
%K AI06

%A Mitch Betts
%T In with Electronic Filing System, Out with Antique Regulations
%J ComputerWorld
%D JUL 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 29
%P 15
%K AI02 AA14 AA06 Securities and Exchange Commission SEC
Internal Revenue Service IRS
%X The Securities and Exchange Commission is requiring companies
to do their mandatory filings on computer readable media.  The
SEC has tried an AI system to extract financial data from the
reports to be input into calculations.  This worked with a
94 percent success rate but the SEC is now requiring that these
figures be tagged for easy extraction.  The IRS would like to
store tax returns on optical disk and then destroy the
paper copies but the Department of Justice is opposed because
this would prevent forensic examination of fingerprints or
signatures on the physical returns.

%A Charles Babcock
%T AI to drive 5GL Software
%J ComputerWorld
%D JUL 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 29
%P 23+
%K George Schussel AA08 AA06  AT14
%X George Schussel, president of Digital Consulting
Associates said that AI would become part of fifth
generation languages to help automate the programming
of business software systems.

%A Eddy Goldberg
%T Expert System Financial Tool Out for Small Business
%J ComputerWorld
%D JUL 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 29
%P 28
%K AT02 H01 AA06 Sterling Wentworth Businessplan
financial planner
%X Sterling Wentworth announced that Businessplan would
be released in August.  This is a tool for financial
planners and contains 7500 decision rules and 500 parameters
that can be adjusted by the financial planner for his
philosophy and style.  It costs $4500 and runs on IBM
PC's.

%A Leilani Allen
%T The Cost of an Expert
%J ComputerWorld
%D JUL 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 29
%P 59-68
%K Knowledge Consortium Campbell's Soup Company AI01
%X quantifies the cost of a human expert in salary, overhead,
etc., so that people can judge whether building an expert system
to replace him is worth the investment.

%T Tool Lets PC, 370 Share Applications
%J ComputerWorld
%D JUL 21, 1986
%V 20
%N 29
%P 81
%K H01 T03 Aion MVS AI01
%X Aion has two shell products, one for the IBM PC and the other for
IBM mainframes under MCS which are fully compatible so that applications
can be shared.  The MVS version sells for $60,000.

%T AI Eases Conversion form CAD to NC Format
%J Electronics
%D MAR 31, 1986
%P 67-68
%V 59
%N 13
%K AA26
%X PMX is selling an AI system that will convert IGES standard data to
numerical control programs.  It runs on PC/XT's and costs for $8500,
$11,500 for 3d capabilities

%A K. W. Ng
%A W. Y. Ma
%T Pitfalls in Prolog Programming
%J SIGPLAN Notices
%V 21
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 75-79
%K T02

%A Gerardo Cisneros
%A Harold V. Mcintosh
%T Introduction to the Programming Language Convert
%J SIGPLAN Notices
%V 21
%N 4
%D APR 1986
%P 48-57
%K H01
%X A new applicative and transformation based language that runs on 8080 and
808
6
based systems


%A T. L. Huntsberger
%A C. Rangarajan
%A S. N. Jayaramamurthy
%T Representation of Uncertainty in Computer Vision Using Fuzzy Sets
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%V C-35
%D FEB 1986
%N 2
%P 145-157
%K Flash O04 AI06

%A Takeshi Yamakawa
%A Tsutomu MIki
%T The Current Mode Fuzzy Logic Integrated Circuits Fabricated by the Standard
CMOS Process
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%V C-35
%D FEB 1986
%N 2
%P 161-167
%K O04

%T Olivetti, Digtalk Ink Pact to Make AI Pack Version
%J Electronic News
%D MAY 19, 1986
%V 32
%N 1602
%P 44
%K Smalltalk H01 AT16 AI01
%X Olivetti has agreed with Digitalk to jointly develop an advanced version
of Digitalk's Smalltalk for 80286 based systems.  Olivetti will use the
system as the primary expert in its Advance Technology Center and will
integrate the resulting products with a proprietary  environment.

%A Eddy Goldberg
%T Massively Parallel Processor Introduced
%J Computerworld
%D May 5, 1986
%V 20
%N 18
%P 4
%K connection machine AT02 H03
%X announcement thereof.  They have sold six units.  Applications demonstrated
include document retrieval fluid dynamics modelling, creating contour maps
from aerial photographs and VLSI design

%A Eric Bender
%T HAL: Just Another Add on
%J Computerworld
%D May 5, 1986
%V 20
%N 18
%P 19+
%K Lotus AI02 H01 AA15
%X HAL, an English language interface, to Lotus 1-2-3 offers
transcripts, unddo commands, self-documenting English language macros,

%A Barbara Robertson
%T AI Typists Now Rates Satisfactory for Novices
%J INfoWorld
%D MAY 19, 1986
%V 8
%N 20
%P 63-64
%K AA15 AT02 H01 AT07 AT03
%X A review of an updated version of this Word Processor, alledgedly using
AI to help with correcting spelling errors.  It got the following ratings:
.DS L
Overall: 5.4
Performance: Satisfactory
Documentation: Poor
Ease of Learning: Very Good
Ease of Use: Very Good
Error Handling: Satisfactory
Support: Very Good
Value: Satisfactory
.DE

%A Hank Kee
%T PC Managers Should Not Consider AI a Panacea
%J INfoWorld
%D MAY 19, 1986
%V 8
%N 20
%P 34
%K AI01
%X column argues that we need more applications and less shells and that
AI shells should be oriented towards the non-programmer.  [See August
Spang Robinson Report for a list of real Expert Systems that are being
used.  LEFF]

%T Expert Systems Firm Gets Boost
%J Electronics
%D MAY 5, 1986
%V 59
%N 19
%P 64
%K France AI01 AT16 Cognitech AA05
%X Cognitech got four million dollars of additional capital.
They got 53 expert system orders including one from Pechiney for a system
analyzing faults in cast aluminum.

%A D. D. Kary
%A P. L. Juell
%T TRC; An Expert System Compiler
%J Sigplan Notices
%V 21
%N 5
%D MAY 1986
%P 64-68
%K air cargo C T03
%X describes an expert system tool which translates input into C code.
It has been applied to an air cargo routing problem.  When the system
was translated from a LISP based expert system tool running on the VAX
to TRC, the execution time went down from hours to seconds.  The system
consists of an expert system running in conjunction with a mathematical
optimization technique.  The expert system handles things like
incompatibilities
between objects.  The results are as good or better than human experts.

%A J. B. Marti
%A A. C. Hearn
%T REDUCE as a Lisp Benchmark
%J MAG60
%P 8-16
%K T01
%X CPU times for various machines running the REDUCE timing test.
REDUCE is a symbolic math package written in LISP.  (There
are more machines and other information in the article)
.TS
tab(~);
l n.
Amdahl 470 V8~7.2
Apollo DN 600~89.9
CDC Cyber 170/825~106.8
DEC 1099~17.7
DEC 2020~122.8
DEC 2060~22.5
DEC VAX 11/750~78.7
DEC VAX 11/780~50.3
Facom M-382~3.6
Hewlett Packard 9836~65.3
Hitachi S-810~2.8
IBM 3031~40.1
IBM 3084~5.4
IBM 4341 MOdel 1~52.0
IBM 4341 Model 2~30.1
Robotron ES-1040~149.2
Sage IV~224.8
Siemens 7890~3.8
SML Darkstar~227.9
Symbolics 3600~45.0
Tektronix 4404~120.1
Xerox Dolphin~322.0
.TE

%A J. W. Shavlik
%A G. F. DeJong
%T Computer Understanding and Generalization of Symbolic Mathematical
Calculations: A Case Study in Physics Problem Solving
%J MAG61
%P 148-153
%K AA16 AA07 AI04

%A M. Hadzikadic
%A F. Lichtenberger
%A D. Y. Y. Yun
%T An Application of Knowledge-Base Technology in Education:
A Geometry Theorem Prover
%J MAG61
%P 141-147
%K AA13 AA07 T02 H01

%A J. S. Vitter
%A R. A. Simons
%T New Classes for Parallel Complexity: A Study of Unification and Other
Complete Problems for P [Script P]
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%D MAY 1986
%V C-35
%N 5
%P 403-418
%K AI11 O06 H03
%X Parallel Algorithms for Unification in $O ( E  over P + V log P)$  or
$O( alpha (2E,V) E over P + V )$
where E is the number of edges and V is the number of vertices in the
expression
graph and P is the number of processor and $alpha$ is the inverse ackerman's
fun
ction.

%A Karen Sorensen
%T AT&T Leads New Scanner Parade
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 19
%D MAY 12, 1986
%P 17
%K AI06 Vision Research Canon
%X AT&T has an Image Director for digitizing an 8.5 by 11 paper at 100 by 100
resolution for $2885.00  Vision Research has a 8.5 by 11 scanner for $2495.00.
Canon has a scanner for $1,190.  OCR software is available for $595.00 to go
with it.

%T Study Says Australia Needs AI Development
%J InfoWorld
%V 8
%N 19
%D MAY 12, 1986
%P 30
%K AI16
%X According to an Australian government report, Australia has an international
strength in expert systems but needs help to commercialize their work.

%A Charles Babcock
%T Cobol-Based AI Shell Bows
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 1, 1986
%V 20
%N 35
%K McCormick and Dodge John B. Landry Distribution Management Systems T03 AI01
AT02
%X Distribution Management Systems (DMS) will be producing expert system shells
written in Cobol designed to be integrated into mainstream MIS.
Releases scheduled are DEC for October, MVS/CICS in January and the IBM PC
for first quarter 1987.

%T Fujitsui Commits to AI Market
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 1, 1986
%V 20
%N 35
%P 15
%K AT04 AT02 H01 T03 AI01 GA01
%X Fujitsu has an Expert System shell
running on its FM 16 Beta PC costing $2940 and oriented to the Japanese
Language

%A Michael Sullivan-Trainor
%T In Depth
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 1, 1986
%V 20
%N 35
%P 55-62
%K AI01 AA18 AA06 Perks budget support personnel
%X describes development and functionality of expert system for budget analysis
for the US Navy and one to help Army force designers design how many support
personnel are needed.

%A Maura McEnaney
%T Lefebvre Signs on with Expert Systems Developer Cognitive
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 1, 1986
%V 20
%N 35
%P 95
%K AI01 AT11 AT16 Multimate
%X Richard Lefebvre, former chief operating officer for Multimate, is
now president and ceo of Cognitive Systems Inc..

%T Japanese Launch Language Project
%J InfoWorld
%D SEP 1, 1986
%V 8
%N 35
%P 18
%K AI02 GA01 Hitachi NEC Fujitsu Thailand Chinese
%X MITI will launch a 7 year 39 million effort to develop translation
systems between Japanese and other Asian languages.


%T The Next Revolution
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 15, 1986
%V 20
%N 37
%P 16
%K AA06 AT22
%X Editorial stating:
The recent announcement of an expert system shell written in COBOL and
designed to be integrated into mainframe applications signals the widespread
integration of artificial intellgence into MIS.  MIS managers should
have their existing staffs get involved in AI and look out for applications
of AI to their shops.  They should be "movers" and not "responders" during
this next phase of the computer revolution.  [. ComputerWorld is a weekly
newspaper with one of the largest circulations in the computer commuity LEFF .]

%A Harvey P. Newquist
%T Forty-bit Architecture: Latest in Push for More Power
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 15, 1986
%V 20
%N 37
%P 17
%K H02  Integrated Inference SM45000
%X discusses the new Integrated Inference Machines SM45000 which uses
a 40 bit word

%T Artificial -intelligence Work Gains Mainstream Acceptance
%J The Institute
%V 10
%N 10
%P 1+
%D OCT 1986
%K AI07 Nils Nillson Feigenbaum Minsky McDermott Schorr IBM AT14
%X discusses statements by Edward Feigenbaum, Marvin Minsky, Drew McDermott and
Nils Nillson at the recent AAAI conference.  Edward Feigenbaum "claimed that
every time an area of AI becomes successful, it is no longer considered
Artificial Intelligence."  Marvin Minsky said that there isn't necessarily
anything corresponding to "intelligence."  Nils Nilsson discussed robotics.
They applauded IBM for its "embracing" of AI and for acknowledging
university research.  However, there was a complaint about a long conversation
with IBM represenatives in which they asked what new techniques that would
have applications to new products would come out of MIT in the next eighteen
months.


%A Charles Babcock
%T Landry Returns to the Fray
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 20
%N 36
%P 19+
%K John Landry McCormack and Dodge Distribution Management Systems AA06
%X Discusses the head of Impact/AE which is the expert system for use in
COBOL environments.

%A Eddy Goldberg
%T AI Debuts Move Expert Systems into Mainstream Computing
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 20
%N 36
%P  22
%K AAAI-86 Xerox  CommonLoops Texas INstruments Vaxstation DEC Apollo Franz
Aion
Lisp Machine H02 H01 T03 T01
%X reviews some announcements made at AAAI-86

%A MItch Betts
%T Archives Gets Expert System
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 20
%N 36
%P 93
%K AA14
%X The National ARchives is developing a prototype expert system to help users
who have vague requests for information.  In tests, the computer and the
archivi
sts
agreed 66% of the time, 21% of the answers were achieved by the computer and
not
the archivists and 13% of the time the archivists gave the answer and not the
computer and 7% of the time the computer was "simply wrong."  The prototype
covers the old Bureau of Land Management records and was written with M.1

%T DEC Unveils HIgh-end VAX
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 20
%N 36
%P 107
%K DEC T01
%X DEC introduced the AI Vaxstation/GPX which is a color version of the
Microvax
 II.

%T New Products/Software and Services
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 20
%N 36
%P 111
%K T03 OPS5 Data Directions DDi-OPS Xerox 1100
%X Data Directions, 37 Jerome Ave., Bloomfield, Conn 06002, has released
an OPS-5 for the Xerox Corp. 1100 Lisp Machine costing $995.00

%A Alice LaPlante
%T Communications Program to Help Novices, Experts
%J infoWorld
%D SEP 8, 1986
%V 8
%N 36
%P 16
%K AA08 AI01 H01  AA15
%X Costing $49.95, is a system that helps users handling microcomputer
communications.  It helps configure Smartcom II, Crosstalk, Concept
Development'
s
Line Plus.  It can help design a serial cable.

%T Symbolics Compiler Gets DOD Approval
%J Electronic News
%V 32
%N 1618
%D SEP 8, 1986
%P 26
%K H02 Symbolics Tempest Ada
%X DOD validated Symbolics' ADA compiler.  This costs $3600.00.
They also brought out a Tempest version of their 3645 processor which will
cost $104,900


%T Commercializing AI Provides 16000 Jobs in US
%J Electronics
%D SEP 18, 1986
%P 23
%V 59
%N 13
%K AT04
%X There are 16000 people now working in US to commercialize AI technologies.
This excludes people in academe and research organizations.

%T Vision Processor on a Board Goes for $10,000
%J Electronics
%D SEP 18, 1986
%P 28
%V 59
%N 13
%K AI06 AT02
%X The 2000/VP costs $10,000 and is said to be comparable to $40,000 boards

%T Dainichi Kiko Asks Court Protection
%J Electronics
%D SEP 18, 1986
%P 114
%V 59
%N 13
%K AI07 AT16 GA01
%X This company, a fast growing Japanese robotic maker, sought court protection
from creditors.

%T Vision System Checks Assembled Boards
%J Electronics
%D SEP 18, 1986
%P 103
%V 59
%N 13
%K AI06 AA26 AA04
%X Intellidex has a new system that uses ten cameras to check PC boards.

%A Peggy Watt
%T AI Languages for Mac, IBM PC,VAX Introduced
%J ComputerWorld
%D SEP 22, 1986
%V 20
%N 38
%P 35
%K T02 H01 T01 AT02 logo macintosh VAX
%X Expertelligence will be selling an IBM PC version of prolog
and versions of LISP for Macintosh and VAX.  The system uses Macintosh
like windows and pull down menus.


%A Pat Shipman
%T The Recent Life of an Ancient Dinosaur
%J Discover
%D OCT 1986
%V 7
%N 10
%K analogy functional anatomy  AA10
%X shows where reasoning by analogy went wrong and where it went right in
determining the nature of the Iguanadon from various bones.  He argues
that analogy from functional similarities is valid but that from
mere circumstantial reasoning where there is no causual relationship between
the sets of traits in question.  Might be of interest to those developing
AI systems to reason by analogy.

%A D. Snyers
%A A. Thayse
%T Algorithmic State Machine Design and Automatic Theorem Proving: Two Dual
Approaches to the Same Activity
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%V C-35
%N 10
%D OCT 1986
%V C-35
%K AI11 AA08
%X Transformations acting on P-function can be interpreted in terms of
synthesizing programs consisting of if-then-else and do and theorem proving.
Attempts to show a relation between Prolog and logic design.


%A Ralph Emmett Carlyle
%T Sneaking in the Back
%J Datamation
%D OCT 1, 1986
%V 32
%N 19
%P 32+
%K AT02 Cullinet MSA McCormack and Dodge AA06 MIS Impact/AE Distribution
Management Incorporated AION CICS
%X MSA is adding rules-based software to Information Expert and will
be announcing stand alone systems for expert systems.  Boole and Babbage
and others will be adding expert systems to their performance measurement
and capacity planning systems.  Aion will be able to run its expert
systems under CICS.  (Interview with Bob goldman of Artificial Intelligence
Corporation which markets Intellect.  They are developing expert systems,
voice recognition systems and software to run under IBM's DB2 database
system.)

%A James T. Brady
%T A Theory of Productivity in the Creative Process
%J IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
%D May 1986
%V 6
%N 5
%P 25-34
%K AI08 roll system response time
%X discusses the state of "being on a roll" where everything seems to go right.
Programmers and engineers who used terminals found that for programmers
system response time dropping from 2.5 to .3 seconds increased productivity
by a factor of two and for engineers in a graphic applications environment,
productivity could go up as much as nine times for a drop from 1.5 secons
to 0.3 seconds.  Develops an analytical model to explain these empirical
results.

%A Ellis S. Cohen
%A Edward t. Smith
%A Lee A. Iverson
%T Constraint Based Tiled Windows
%J IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
%D May 1986
%V 6
%N 5
%P 35-45
%K AI15 AI01
%X discusses uses ruled based techniques to automatically determine
size and locations of windows in a tile-based systems.  This is where
windows do not "overlap" but are resized so they all fit together on
the rectangle that forms the screen.

%A G. J. Li
%A B. W. Wah
%T Coping with Anomalies in Parallel Branch-and-Bound Algorithms
%J IEEE Transactions on Computers
%D JUN 1986
%V C-35
%N 6
%P 568-573
%K H03 AI03
%X Sufficient conditions to guarantee no degradation in performance
due to parallelisma nd necessary conditions for allowing parallelism
to have a speedup greater than the number of processors is found.

%A Ed Winfield
%T Image Processing Prooducts for the Q=Bus Meet INdustry Needs for Precision
Inspection
%J Hardcopy
%V 6
%N 7
%D JUL 1986
%P 83-94
%K AI06 AT02
%X Data Translation
.br
DT2651 Frame Grabber 512 x 512, on-board ALU
.br
Datacube
.br
QVG-153 768x512 x 8 bit frame capture, can be expanded to 24 bits per pixel,
daughterboard to do processing
.br
Matrox
.br
QFAF-512 512 x 512 x 4
.br
Reticon
.br
SB6320 (interface to reticon's solid-state cameras)
.br
Imaging Technology
.br
AP512,FB512,ALU512, processor, display and converter for 512 by 512
(hardware for histograms and feature extractions

%A John Naughton
%T Artificial Intelligence: Can DEC Stay Ahead?
%J Hardcopy
%V 6
%N 7
%D JUL 1986
%P 113-117
%K AI01 AA26 AA21
%X IDT helps engineers locate field-replaceable units in PDP 11-03's.
(description of other of DEC's AI expert systems and experiences.)

%A T. F. Knoll
%A R. C. Jain
%T Recognizing Partially Visible Objects Using Feature Indexed Hypotheses
%J IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation
%D MAR 1986
%V RA-2
%N 1
%P 3-13
%K AI06
%X develops an algorithm for isolating objects that partially match of
cost $O( sqrt p ) r$ where p is the number of possible objects and r is the
number of redundancies.

%A E. K. Wong
%A K. S. Fu
%T A Hierarchical Orthoganal Space Approach to Three-Dimensional Path Planning
%J IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation
%D MAR 1986
%V RA-2
%N 1
%P 42-52
%K AI07 AI03 AI09

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
224
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 86 19:30:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: hao!bill@seismo.css.gov  (Bill Roberts)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Algebraic manipulators for the Mac
-BODY-
Has anyone in netland heard of any algebraic manipulator systems for the
MacIntosh?  I recently saw were a company called Industrial Computations Inc.
of Wellesley, MA is marketing a program called "PowerMath".  The ad reads

                Type in your problem, using conventional math notation, and
                PowerMath will solve your calculus, algebra and matrix
                problems.  PowerMath does factorials, summations, simultaneous
                equations, plots, Taylor series, trigonometry and allows
                unlimited number size.

That last statement ("...unlimited number size.") hints at PowerMath being a
symbolic computation engine as opposed to an equation solver like TKSolver.
Thanks in advance for any input.

                                                                Bill Roberts
                                                                NCAR/HAO
                                                                Boulder, CO
                                                                !hao!bill

  "...most people spend their lives avoiding intense situations,
        a Repo man seeks them out!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Oct 86 23:10:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: uiucuxa!lenzini@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: To: Bob Caviness
-BODY-

To : Bob Caviness

Sorry about this posting but I can't seem to get through to Bob Caviness
at the University of Del.

Here are a couple of integrals that you can cut MACSYMA loose on.  I've been
trying to use the program myself but the results I've been getting are
unbelievably complex (Read 8 page constants that I can't seem to simplify).
Hopefully you have expanded the integration capabilities enough to handle this.

Thanks  again.

     inf
    /
    !
    !(A + B*(x)^(1/2))^2  +  (C*x + B*(x)^(1/2))^2          D
I = !---------------------------------------------  *  -----------  cos(E*x)dx
 1  !(A + B*(x)^(1/2))^2  +  (x + B*(x)^(1/2))^2        D^2 + x^2
    !
    /
   0



I = same integral as I  without the cos(E*x) term
 2                    1



Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Andy Lenzini
University of Illinois.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 86 23:55:03 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!dartvax!merchant@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Peter Merchant)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Algebraic manipulators for the Mac
-BODY-
> ...I recently saw were a company called Industrial Computations Inc.
> of Wellesley, MA is marketing a program called "PowerMath".  The ad reads
>
>               Type in your problem, using conventional math notation, and
>               PowerMath will solve your calculus, algebra and matrix
>               problems.  PowerMath does factorials, summations, simultaneous
>               equations, plots, Taylor series, trigonometry and allows
>               unlimited number size.
>
> That last statement ("...unlimited number size.") hints at PowerMath being a
> symbolic computation engine as opposed to an equation solver like TKSolver.
> Thanks in advance for any input.
>                                                               Bill Roberts

I had a chance to use PowerMath and was severely impressed.  It does all sorts
of mathematical functions and has a very nice Macintosh interface.  I have a
feeling, though, that is program was originally designed for a mainframe.

I would love to see PowerMath run on a Mac with a Prodigy upgrade, or maybe
a HyperDrive 2000.  I used one on a 512K Mac and, while it was very good,
was the most slowest (yes, I meant to do that) program I had ever seen.  The
program took minutes to do what TK!Solver seconds.

On the other hand, it did do everything it advertised.  Made good graphs, too.
If time is not a problem for you, I'd really suggest it.  If anyone has detes
on it running on a Prodigy upgrade, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!
>-
"Do you want him?!                             Peter Merchant
 Or Do you want me!?
 'Cause I want you!"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 86 15:00:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watmum!bwchar@caip.rutgers.edu  (Bruce Char)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Algebraic manipulators for the Mac
-BODY-
There is an article by two of the authors of PowerMath in the Proceedings of
the 1986 Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (sponsored by
ACM SIGSAM): "PowerMath, A System for the Macintosh", by J. Davenport and
C. Roth, pp. 13-15.  Abstract from the paper:

        PowerMath is a symbolic algebra system for the MacIntosh
        computer.  This paper outlines the design decisions that were
        made during its development, and explains how the novel
        MacIntosh environment helped and hindered the development of the
        system.  While the interior of PowerMath is fairly conventional, the
        user interface has many novel features.  It is these that make
        PowerMath not just another microcomputer algebra system.


Bruce Char
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Waterloo

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 86 05:34:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: iarocci@eneevax.umd.edu  (Bill Dorsey)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: simulating a neural network
-BODY-

   Having recently read several interesting articles on the functioning of
neurons within the brain, I thought it might be educational to write a program
to simulate their functioning.  Being somewhat of a newcomer to the field of
artificial intelligence, my approach may be all wrong, but if it is, I'd
certainly like to know how and why.
   The program simulates a network of 1000 neurons.  Any more than 1000 slows
the machine down excessively.  Each neuron is connected to about 10 other
neurons.  This choice was rather arbitrary, but I figured the number of
connections would be proportional the the cube root of the number of neurons
since the brain is a three-dimensional object.
   For those not familiar with the basic functioning of a neuron, as I under-
stand it, it functions as follows:  Each neuron has many inputs coming from
other neurons and its output is connected to many other neurons.  Pulses
coming from other neurons add or subtract to its potential.  When the pot-
ential exceeds some threshold, the neuron fires and produces a pulse.  To
further complicate matters, any existing potential on the neuron drains away
according to some time constant.
   In order to simplify the program, I took several short-cuts in the current
version of the program.  I assumed that all the neurons had the same threshold,
and that they all had the same time constant.  Setting these values randomly
didn't seem like a good idea, so I just picked values that seemed reasonable,
and played around with them a little.
   One further note should be made about the network.  For lack of a good
idea on how to organize all the connections between neurons, I simply connect-
ed them to each other randomly.  Furthermore, the determination of whether
a neuron produces a positive or negative pulse is made randomly at this point.
   In order to test out the functioning of this network, I created a simple
environment and several inputs/outputs for the network.  The environment is
simply some type of maze bounded on all sides by walls.  The outputs are
(1) move north, (2) move south, (3) move west, (4) move east.  The inputs are
(1) you bumped into something, (2) there's a wall to the north, (3) wall to
the south, (4) wall to the west, (5) wall to the east.  When the neuron
corresponding to a particular output fires, that action is taken.  When a
specific input condition is met, a pulse is added to the neuron corresponding
to the particular input.
   The initial results have been interesting, but indicate that more work
needs to be done.  The neuron network indeed shows continuous activity, with
neurons changing state regularly (but not periodically).  The robot (!) moves
around the screen generally winding up in a corner somewhere where it occas-
ionally wanders a short distance away before returning.
   I'm curious if anyone can think of a way for me to produce positive and
negative feedback instead of just feedback.  An analogy would be pleasure
versus pain in humans.  What I'd like to do is provide negative feedback
when the robot hits a wall, and positive feedback when it doesn't.  I'm
hoping that the robot will eventually 'learn' to roam around the maze with-
out hitting any of the walls (i.e. learn to use its senses).
   I'm sure there are more conventional ai programs which can accomplish this
same task, but my purpose here is to try to successfully simulate a network
of neurons and see if it can be applied to solve simple problems involving
learning/intelligence.  If anyone has any other ideas for which I may test
it, I'd be happy to hear from you.  Furthermore, if anyone is interested in
seeing the source code, I'd be happy to send it to you.  It's written in C
and runs on an Atari ST computer, though it could be easily be modified to
run on almost any machine with a C compiler (the faster it is, the more
neurons you can simulate reasonably).

  [See Dave Touretzky's message about connectionist references.  -- KIL]


>-
| Bill Dorsey                                                                 |
|                      'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'        |
|                                            - Albert Einstein                |
| ARPA : iarocci@eneevax.umd.edu                                              |
| UUCP : [seismo,allegra,rlgvax]!umcp-cs!eneevax!iarocci                      |

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 86 21:12 EDT
-FROM-
From: Dave.Touretzky@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: the definitive connectionist reference
-BODY-
The definitive book on connectionism (as of 1986) has just been published
by MIT Press.  It's called "Parallel Distributed Processing:  Explorations in
the Microstructure of Cognition", by David E. Rumelhart, James H. McClelland,
and the PDP research group.  If you want to know about connectionist models,
this is the book to read.  It comes in two volumes, at about $45 for the set.

For other connectionist material, see the proceedings of IJCAI-85 and the
1986 Cognitive Science Conference, and the January '85 issue of the
journal Cognitive Science.

>- Dave Touretzky

PS:  NO, CONNECTIONISM IS NOT THE SAME AS PERCEPTRONS.  Perceptrons were
single-layer learning machines, meaning they had an input layer and an
output layer, with exactly one learning layer in between.  No feedback paths
were permitted between units -- a severe limitation.  The learning
algorithms were simple.  Minsky and Papert wrote a well-known book showing
that perceptrons couldn't do very much at all.  They can't even learn the
XOR function.  Since they had initially been the subject of incredible
amounts of hype, the fall of perceptrons left all of neural network
research in deep disrepute among AI researchers for almost two decades.

In contrast to perceptrons, connectionist models have unrestricted
connectivity, meaning they are rich in feedback paths.  They have rather
sophistcated learning rules, some of which are based on statistical
mechanics (the Boltzmann machine learning algorithm) or information
theoretic measures (G-maximization learning).  These models have been
enriched by recent work in physics (e.g., Hopfield's analogy to spin
glasses), computer science (simulated annealing search, invented by
Kirkpatrick and adapted to neural nets by Hinton and Sejnowski), and
neuroscience (work on coarse coding, fast weights, pre-synaptic
facilitation, and so on.)

Many connectionist models perform cognitive tasks (i.e., tasks related to
symbol processing) rather than pattern recognition; perceptrons were mostly
used for pattern recognition.  Connectionist models can explain certain
psychological phenomena that other models can't; for an example, see
McClelland and Rumelhart's word recognition model.  The brain is a
connectionist model.  It is not a perceptron.

Perhaps the current interest in connectionist models is just a passing fad.
Some folks are predicting that connectionism will turn out to be another
spectacular flop -- Perceptrons II.  At the other extreme, some feel the
initial successes of ``the new connectionists'' may signal the beginning of
a revolution in AI.   Read the journals and decide for yourself.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 86 06:17:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: zeus!levin@locus.ucla.edu  (Stuart Levine)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Expert System Wanted
-BODY-
In article <2200003@osiris> chandra@osiris.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes:

>There is an expert system shell for CMS. It is called PRISM.
>PRISM is also called ESE (expert system environemnt).
>ESE is available from IBM itself. It is written in lisp and was most
>probably developed at IBM Watson Research Labs.
>
Could you give us more info.  When we checked into the availability
of PRISM, we found that IBM was NOT making it available.
It would be interesting to know if that has changed.

Also, does it run in LISP (as in a lisp that someone would actually
own), or in IBM LISP?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 October 1986, 20:54:09 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Fredrick J. Damerau"  <DAMERAU@ibm.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: correction on ESE
-BODY-
ESE,  (Expert System Environment),
is actually PASCAL-based, not LISP, and was developed at
the Palo Alto Scientific Center, not Yorktown Research.

Fred J. Damerau, IBM Research (Yorktown)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 15 Oct 86 17:05:23-PDT
-FROM-
From: Matt Pallakoff <PALLAKOFF@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: corrections to Navin Chandra note on AIList Digest
-BODY-
Navin,

I saw your note on IBM's expert system environment (ESE).  I worked
one summer with the group that developed it.  First, it's no longer
called PRISM.  They changed that fine name, used throughout the
research and development, to Expert System Development Environment/
Expert System Consultation Environment, the two subsystems of ESE which
are sold separately or together.  (I don't think they have reversed this
decision since I left.)
    Secondly, It is written in PASCAL, not LISP.  Finally, it was created
at the IBM Research Center in Palo Alto, California (where I worked).
I don't know a tremendous amount about it (having spent only a couple
months working on interfaces to it) but I might be able to give you some
general answers to specific questions about it.

Matt Pallakoff

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
225
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 09:18:10 SET
-FROM-
From: "Adlassnig, Peter"
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Statistical expert systems
-BODY-

 We are interested in building a statistical expert system that is
 intended to be used by physicians from our Medical School.

 We would like to obtain information about
 1) statistical expert systems in general
    a) at universities and laboratories
    b) commercially available systems

 2) statistical expert systems in medicine

 Any information is appreciated.

 Peter Adlassnig, Department of Medical Computer Sciences, University of
 Vienna Medical School

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 14:49:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: osiris!chandra@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: GIS, Environmental, Nat. Resources
-BODY-

        Applications of AI in NATURAL RESOURCES and
                ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING



Hi,

Recently, Molly Stock (of Univ. of Idaho) conducted a survey of AI applications
to forestry management. Her findings are pleasantly surprising. A
large number of universities and government agencies are currently building
interesting AI applications.


Sparked by the survey, we are now planning on holding a
NATIONAL WORKSHOP in this area. The purpose of this workshop is to
bring researchers together under one roof. We envision this workshop
as an opportunity for researchers to share ideas and lay down
directions for future research.

This letter is a probe. I'm trying to get a sense of "WHAT'S OUT
THERE". The areas covered are:

        - Environmental Planning & management.
        - Env Impact Statements
        - Geographic Info Systems
        - Natural Resource planning
        - Environmental Modeling
        - Other related areas

If you are involved in any such research and/or would be interested in
participating in a WORKSHOP, please contact me at the address below:

US-MAIL:

D. Navinchandra
Intelligent Engineering Systems Lab.
Room 1-241
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA02139

ARPA-NET:

dchandra@athena.mit.edu

Phone:

(617)577-8047  (call first)
(617)253-3880  (call if no answer at above number)

If you are currently involved in some projects and or have technical
reports, I'd like to know about them. After this survey is complete,
a formal Announcement will be promulgated.

        THANKS
        D. Navinchandra
        IESL, MIT

(p.s. At the IESL,MIT we are working on building tools to build
Knowledge Based systems for Geographic Info Systems. We are doing this
research in collaboration with the Environmental group of the
Construction Engineering Research Lab, Champaign Illinois)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 10:36:21 BST
-FROM-
From: J W T Smith (JWS AT UKACRL) <JWS%ibm-b.rutherford.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: General purpose ES for VM
-BODY-
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, R1, 2.81, Ext 6487


In response to the request from Linda Littleton of PSU for information on an
Expert System for VM/CMS.

The Expert System shell called Savior is available for VM. It also runs on
PCs, Vaxes, Primes and other minis and micros. We have only used the PC
version.

The cost (for the VM version) in the UK is 15k pounds but they offer a good
educational discount, at least they do in the UK.

The producing company is,

  ISI Ltd
  11 Oakdene Road
  Redhill
  Surrey RH1 7BT.
  United Kingdom.

  Telephone 0737 71327

I'm afraid I don't have a US address for ISI.

John Smith.

Bitnet: JWS at UKACRL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 16:51:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!einode!robert@seismo.css.gov  (Robert Cochran)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Public Domain Software for Expert Systems
-BODY-

>> From: meh@hou2d.UUCP (P.MEHROTRA)
>> Date: 11 Oct 86 22:06:27 GMT
>> Hi: I am looking for some software available in public domain
>> for building expert systems. I work in Unix environment and
>> have Franz LISP on my system. I already have OPS5. I am especially
>> interested in tools which use frames and/or semantic networks
>> for knowledge representation.

There is a full implementation of a Frame Representation Language being
distributed by a company in Ireland called Generics (Software) Ltd.
This FRL runs in any advanced lisp dialect - CommonLISP, FranzLISP, etc. -
on machines ranging from an IBM-PC to microVAX and VAX.
  It's not exactly public domain stuff but it's not expensive
either ($300 - $500), and special licences are available for educational
institutions.

If interested, I suggest you contact them directly for further information
at :     ....!mcvax!einode!genrix!mcgee.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 09:55 EDT
-FROM-
From: WAnderson.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Incorrect AIList Bibliographic Reference
-BODY-
The following reference was passed on to me from one of the AILists (I
don't know which one).

%A Klaus-Peter Adlassnig
%T Fuzzy Set Theory in Medical Diagnosis
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D NOV 1985
%V SE-11
%N 11
%P 260-265
%K AA01 AI01 O04
%X They developed systems for diagnosing rheumatologic diseases and
pancreatic
disorders.  They achieved 94.5 and 100 percent accuracy, respectively.

I tried looking this up in my collection of IEEE Trans on SE, but it's
not there.  Nov 1985 is an issue on AI, but there is no mention of Fuzzy
Set theory.  In addition, the Nov 85 issue begins with page 1253.  Also,
a perusal of the index of the Transactions for 1985 reveals no author
with the name Klaus-Peter Adlassnig, and only one entry in the subject
index under Fuzzy Sets: "Estimating in correctness of computer program
viewed as set of heirarchically structured fuzzy equivalence classes, by
F.B. Bastani, Sep 85, pp 857-864."   Finally, pages 260 - 265 of Vol
SE-11 contain an article by David Parnas, et. al., titled "The Modular
Structure of Complex Systems."

So here we have an example of an incorrect, online, bibliographic
reference.  I wonder how many other mistakes are made when this sort of
data is entered.  This is progress?  ("Our entire card catalog is
online, but we still can't find anything ...." :-)

I wonder if this is in the new IEEE publication on expert systems,
Expert Magazine?

Bill Anderson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 JAN 84 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: E1AR0002%SMUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: mistake
-BODY-
The corrected citations are indicated below.  Sadly, several references
from an issue of IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics got
misattributed to an issue of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
within ai.bib36 due to an editing mistake.

Of the 2600 references sent out in this format, this is first complaint
I got about an error in one of the citations.
Of the three complaints I got about  mistakes in a summary of something
I sent in, only one turned out to be my fault.  The other two statements
were checked successfully against the article in question so the error was
on the part of the original author.  I thus consider my error rate reasonable.

Typing in references by hand is something that I will probably only be
doing for a few more years.  I suspect by then, I will get an optical
disk with all the journals on them and extract the informaiton
directly.  One publisher is already putting a bar-code like strip with
the table of contents in issues of their magazines.

I wonder whether it would be legal for someone to get a selective
dissemination service from a database provider like Dialog or ISI and
pipe that into AIList.  I believe SIGART publishes the result of a
search of dissertation abstracts for AI related material on a regular
basis and SIGPLAN used to do the same for the NTIS database for
programming language materials.

__________________________________________________________________________

%A G. R. Dattatreya
%A L. N. Kanal
%T Adaptive Pattern Recognition with Random Costs and Its Applications to
Decision Trees
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D MAR/APR 1986
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%P 208-218
%K AI06  AA01 AI04 AI01 clustering spina bifida bladder radiology
%X applies  clustering algorithm to results of reading radiographs of
the bladder.  The system was able to determine clusters that corresponded
to those of patients with spina bifida.

%A Klaus-Peter Adlassnig
%T Fuzzy Set Theory in Medical Diagnosis
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D MAR/APR 1986
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%K AA01 AI01 O04
%X They developed systems for diagnosing rheumatologic diseases and pancreatic
disorders.  They achieved 94.5 and 100 percent accuracy, respectively.

%A William E. Pracht
%T GISMO: A Visual PRoblem Structuring and Knowledge-Organization Tool
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D MAR/APR 1986
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%P 265-270
%K AI13 AI08 Witkin Geft AA06
%X discusses the use of a system for displaying effect diagrams on
decision making in a simulated business environment.  The tool improved
net income production.   The tool provided more assistance to those
who were more analytical than to those who used heuristic reasoning as
measured by the Witkin GEFT.

%A Henri Farreny
%A Henri Prade
%T Default and Inexact Reasoning with Possiblity Degrees
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D MAR/APR 1986
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%P 270-276
%K O04 AI01 AA06
%X discusses storing for each proposition, a pair consisting of the
probability that it is true
and probability that it is false where these two probabilities do not
necessarily add up to 1.  Inference rules have been developed for such
a system including analogs to modus ponens, modus tollens and how to
combine two such ordered pairs applying to the same fact.  These have
been applied to an expert system in financial analysis.

%A Chelsea C. White, III
%A Edward A. Sykes
%T A User Preference Guided Approach to Conflict Resolution in
Rule-Based Expert Systems
%J IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
%D MAR/APR 1986
%V SMC-16
%N 2
%P 276-278
%K AI01 multiattribute utility theory
%X discusses an application of multiattribute utility theory to
resolve conflicts between rules in an expert system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
226
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 09:20 EDT
-FROM-
From: David A. McAllester <DAM@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TMS Query Response
-BODY-

I saw a recent message concerning the termination of
belief revision in a Doyle-style TMS.  Some time ago I
proved that determining the existence of a fixed point
for a set of Doyle justifications is NP-complete.  It
is possible to give a procedure that terminates but
all such procedures will have exponential worst case
behaviour.  The proof is given below:

***********************************************************

DEFINITIONS:

A NM-JUSTIFICATION is an "implication" of the form:

      (IN-DEPENDENCIES, OUT-DEPENDENCIES) => N

where IN-DEPENDENCIES and OUT-DEPENDENCIES are sets of nodes and N is
the justified node.

A labeling L marks every node as either "in" or "out".  An
nm-justification is said to be "active" under a labeling L if every out
dependency in the justification is labeled "out" and every in dependency
of the justification is labeled "in".

Let J be a set of nm-justifications and L be a labeling.  We say that a
node n is JUSTIFIED under J and L if there is some justification for n
which is active under the labeling L.

A set J of nm-justifications will be called Doyle Satisfiable if there
is a labeling L such that every justified node is "in" and every node
which is not justified is "out".

*******************

THEOREM:  The problem of determining the Doyle satisfiability
of a set J of nm-justifications is NP-complete.

*******************

PROOF:   PSAT can be reduced to Doyle satisfiability as follows:

Let C be any set of propositional clauses (i.e. a problem in PSAT).
For each atomic proposition symbol P appearing in C let P and
nP be two nodes and construct the following justifications:

({}, {nP}) => P    (i.e. if nP is "out" then P is justified)
({}, {P}) => nP    (i.e. if P is "out" then nP is justified)

We introduce an additional node F (for "false") and for each clause
(L1 or L2 ... or LN) in C we construct the justification:

({nL1, nL2, ... nLn} {F}) => F

where the node nLj is the node nP if Lj is the symbol P and nLj is the
node P if Lj is the literal (NOT P).

The set J of nm-justifications constructed in this way is
Doyle-Satisfiable iff the original set C is propositionally satisfiable.


To verify this last claim note that if L is a labeling which satisfies J
then exactly one of P and nP is "in";  if P is "out" then nP must
be "in" and vice versa, and if P is "in" then nP must be "out" and vice
versa.

Next note that if L is a labeling satisfying J then F must be
"out";  if F were "in" then no justification for F would be active
contradicting the requirement that F is not justified then F is
not "in".

Finally note that a labeling L satisfies J just in case none of the
justifications for F are active, i.e. just in case the corrosponding
truth assignment to the proposition symbols in C satisfies every clause.

**************

        David McAllester

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 07:21:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Book alert
-BODY-

This week's New Republic has a review of Thomas Nagel's (of
What-is-it-like-to-be-a-bat fame) new book, "The View from
Nowhere".  For those interested in the philosophical issues
associated with the objective/subjective distinction, it
sounds like it's worth reading.

John Cugini  <Cugini@nbs-vms>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 15 Oct 86 23:17:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: mnetor!utzoo!utcsri!utai!me@seismo.css.gov  (Daniel Simon)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>In response to my article <160@mind.UUCP>, Daniel R. Simon asks:
>
>>      1)  To what extent is our discernment of intelligent behaviour
>>          context-dependent?...Might not the robot version [of the
>>          turing test] lead to the...problem of testers being
>>          insufficiently skeptical of a machine with human appearance?
>>          ...Is it ever possible to trust the results of any
>>          instance of the test...?
>
>My reply to these questions is quite explicit in the papers in
>question:
>The turing test has two components, (i) a formal, empirical one,
>and (ii) an informal, intuitive one. The formal empirical component (i)
>is the requirement that the system being tested be able to generate human
>performance (be it robotic or linguistic). That's the nontrivial
>burden that will occupy theorists for at least decades to come, as we
>converge on (what I've called) the "total" turing test -- a model that
>exhibits all of our robotic and lingistic capacities.

By "nontrivial burden", do you mean the task of defining objective criteria
by which to characterize "human performance"?  If so, you are after the same
thing as I am, but I fail to see what this has to do with the Turing test as
originally conceived, which involved measuring up AI systems against observers'
impressions, rather than against objective standards.  Apparently, you're not
really defending the Turing test at all, but rather something quite different.

Moreover, you haven't said anything concrete about what this test might look
like.  On what foundation could such a set of defining characteristics for
"human performance" be based?  Would it define those attributes common to all
human beings?  Most human beings? At least one human being?  How would we
decide by what criteria to include observable attributes in our set of "human"
ones?  How could such attributes be described?  Is such a set of descriptions
even feasible?  If not, doesn't it call into question the validity of seeking
to model what cannot be objectively characterized?  And if such a set of
describable attributes is feasible, isn't it an indispensable prerequisite for
the building of a working Turing-test-passing model?

Please forgive my impertinent questions, but I haven't read your articles, and
I'm not exactly clear about what this "total" Turing test entails.

>The informal,
>intuitive component (ii) is that the system in question must perform in a
>way that is indistinguishable from the performance of a person, as
>judged by a person.
>
>Now the only reply I have for the sceptic about (ii) is
>that he should remember that he has nothing MORE than that to go on in
>the case of any other mind than his own. In other words, there is no
>rational reason for being more sceptical about robots' minds (if we
>can't tell their performance apart from that of people) than about
>(other) peoples' minds. The turing test is ALREADY the informal way we
>contend with the "other-minds" problem [i.e., how can you be sure
>anyone else but you has a mind, rather than merely acting AS IF it had
>a mind?], so why should we demand more in the case of robots? ...
>
I'm afraid I must disagree.  I believe that people in general dodge the "other
minds" problem simply by accepting as a convention that human beings are by
definition intelligent.  For example, we use terms such as "autistic",
"catatonic", and even "sleeping" to describe people whose behaviour would in
most cases almost certainly be described as unintelligent if exhibited by a
robot.  Such people are never described as "unintelligent" in the sense of the
word that we would use to describe a robot who showed the exact same behaviour
patterns.  Rather, we imply by using these terms that the people being
described are human, and therefore *would* be behaving intelligently, but for
(insert neurophysiological/psychological explanation here).  This implicit
axiomatic attribution of intelligence to humans helps us to avoid not only
the "other minds" problem, but also the problem of assessing intelligence
despite the effect of what I previously referred to loosely as the "context" of
our observations.  In short, we do not really use the Turing test on each
other, because we are all well acquainted with how easily we can be fooled by
contextual traps.  Instead, we automatically associate intelligence with human
beings, thereby making our intuitive judgment even less useful to the AI
researcher working with computers or robots.

>As to "context," as I argue in the paper, the only one that is
>ultimately defensible is the "total" turing test, since there is no
>evidence at all that either capacities or contexts are modular. The
>degrees of freedom of a successful total-turing model are then reduced
>to the usual underdetermination of scientific theory by data. (It's always
>possible to carp at a physicist that his theoretic model of the
>universe "is turing-indistinguishable from the real one, but how can
>you be sure it's `really true' of the world?")
>
Wait a minute--You're back to component (i).  What you seem to be saying is
that the informal component (component (ii)) has no validity at all apart from
the "context" of having passed component (i).  The obvious conclusion is that
component (ii) is superfluous; any system that passes the "total Turing test"
exhibits "human behaviour", and hence must by definition be indistinguishable
from a human to another human.

>>      2)  Assuming that some "neutral" context can be found...
>>          what does passing (or failing) the Turing test really mean?
>
>It means you've successfully modelled the objective observables under
>investigation. No empirical science can offer more. And the only
>"neutral" context is the total turing test (which, like all inductive
>contexts, always has an open end, namely, the everpresent possibility
>that things could turn out differently tomorrow -- philosophers call
>this "inductive risk," and all empirical inquiry is vulnerable to it).
>
Again, you have all but admitted that the "total" Turing test you have
described has nothing to do with the Turing test at all--it is a set of
"objective observables" which can be verified through scientific examination.
The thoughtful examiner and "comparison human" have been replaced with
controlled scientific experiments and quantifiable results.  What kinds of
experiments?  What kinds of results?  WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST"
LOOK LIKE?

>>      3)  ...are there more appropriate means by which we
>>          could evaluate the human-like or intelligent properties of an AI
>>          system?  ...is it possible to formulate the qualities that
>>          constitute intelligence in a manner which is more intuitively
>>          satisfying than the standard AI stuff about reasoning, but still
>>          more rigorous than the Turing test?
>
>I don't think there's anything more rigorous than the total turing
>test since, when formulated in the suitably generalized way I
>describe, it can be seen to be identical to the empirical criterion for
>all of the objective sciences...
>
>Stevan Harnad
>princeton!mind!harnad

One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between intelligence and
"human performance".  Are the two synonymous?  If so, why bother to make
artificial humans when making natural ones is so much easier (not to mention
more fun)?  And if not, how does your "total Turing test" relate to the
discernment of intelligence, as opposed to human-like behaviour?

I know, I know.  I ask a lot of questions.  Call me nosy.

                                        Daniel R. Simon

"We gotta install database systems
 Custom software delivery
 We gotta move them accounting programs
 We gotta port them all to PC's...."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 86 16:01:44 GMT
-FROM-
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@beaver.cs.washington.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>...since there is no
>evidence at all that either capacities or contexts are modular.

Maybe I'm reading this out of context (not having read your books or papers),
but could you explain this statement?  I know of lots of evidence for the
modularity of various aspects of linguistic behavior.  In fact, we have a
parser + grammar of English here that captures a large portion of English
syntax, but has absolutely no semantics (yet).  That is, it could parse
Jabberwocky or your article (well, I can't quite claim that it would parse
*all* of either one!) without having the least idea that your article is
meaningful whereas Jabberwocky isn't (apart from an explanation by Humpty
Dumpty). On the other hand, it wouldn't parse something like "book the table
on see I", despite the fact that we might make sense of the latter (because
of our world knowledge).  Likewise, human aphasics often show similar deficits
in one or another area of their speech or language understanding.  If this
isn't modular, what is?  But as I say, maybe I don't understand what you
mean by modular...
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Advanced Technology Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 06:17:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@spam.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In reply to a prior iteration D. Simon writes:

>       I fail to see what [your "Total Turing Test"] has to do with
>       the Turing test as originally conceived, which involved measuring
>       up AI systems against observers' impressions, rather than against
>       objective standards... Moreover, you haven't said anything concrete
>       about what this test might look like.

How about this for a first approximation: We already know, roughly
speaking, what human beings are able to "do" -- their total cognitive
performance capacity: They can recognize, manipulate, sort, identify and
describe the objects in their environment and they can respond and reply
appropriately to descriptions. Get a robot to do that. When you think
he can do everything you know people can do formally, see whether
people can tell him apart from people informally.

>       I believe that people in general dodge the "other minds" problem
>       simply by accepting as a convention that human beings are by
>       definition intelligent.

That's an artful dodge indeed. And do you think animals also accept such
conventions about one another? Philosophers, at least, seem to
have noticed that there's a bit of a problem there. Looking human
certainly gives us the prima facie benefit of the doubt in many cases,
but so far nature has spared us having to contend with any really
artful imposters. Wait till the robots begin giving our lax informal
turing-testing a run for its money.

>       What you seem to be saying is that [what you call]
>       the informal component [(i) of the turing test --
>       i. e., indistinguishability from a person, as judged by a
>       person] has no validity at all apart from the "context" of
>       having passed [your] component (i) [i.e., the generation of
>       our total cognitive performance capacity]. The obvious
>       conclusion is that component (ii) is superfluous.

It's no more superfluous than, say, the equivalent component in the
design of an artificial music composer. First you get it to perform in
accordance with what you believe to be the formal rules of (diatonic)
composition. Then, when it successfully performs according to the
rules, see whether people like its stuff. Peoples' judgments, after
all, were not only the source of those rules in the first place, but
without the informal aesthetic sense that guided them, the rules would
amount to just that -- meaningless acoustic syntax.

Perhaps another way of putting it is that I doubt that what guides our
informal judgments (and underlies our capacities) can be completely
formalized in advance. The road to Total-Turing Utopia will probably
be a long series of feedback cycles between the formal and informal
components of the test before we ever achieve our final passing grade.

>       One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between
>       intelligence and "human performance". Are the two synonymous?
>       If so, why bother to make artificial humans... And if not, how
>       does your "total Turing test" relate to the discernment of
>       intelligence, as opposed to human-like behaviour?

Intelligence is what generates human performance. We make artificial
humans to implement and test our theories about the substrate of human
performance capacity. And there's no objective difference between
human and (turing-indistinguishably) human-like.

>       WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST" LOOK LIKE?...  Please
>       forgive my impertinent questions, but I haven't read your
>       articles, and I'm not exactly clear about what this "total"
>       Turing test entails.

Try reading the articles.

                        ******

I will close with an afterthought on "blind" vs. "nonblind" turing
testing that I had after the last iteration:

In the informal component of the total turing test it may be
arguable that a sceptic would give a robot a better run for its money
if he were pre-alerted to the possibility that it was a robot (i.e., if the
test were conducted "nonblind" rather than "blind"). That way the robot
wouldn't be inheriting so much of the a priori benefit of the doubt that
had accrued from our lifetime of successful turing-testing of biological
persons of similar appearance (in our everyday informal solutions to
the "other-minds" problem). The blind/nonblind issue does not seem critical
though, since obviously the turing test is an open-ended one (and
probably also, like all other empirical conjectures, confirmable only
as a matter of degree); so we probably wouldn't want to make up our minds
too hastily in any case. I would say that several years of having lived
amongst us, as in the sci-fi movies, without arousing any suspicions -- and
eliciting only shocked incredulity from its close friends once the truth about
its roots was revealed -- would count as a pretty good outcome on a "blind"
total turing test.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
227
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 09:10:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: yet more wrangling on Searle, Turing, ...
-BODY-

>  Date: 10 Oct 86 13:47:46 GMT
>  From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@think.com  (Stevan Harnad)
>  Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
>
>  It is not always clear which of the two components a sceptic is
>  worrying about. It's usually (ii), because who can quarrel with the
>  principle that a veridical model should have all of our performance
>  capacities? Now the only reply I have for the sceptic about (ii) is
>  that he should remember that he has nothing MORE than that to go on in
>  the case of any other mind than his own. In other words, there is no
>  rational reason for being more sceptical about robots' minds (if we
>  can't tell their performance apart from that of people) than about
>  (other) peoples' minds.

This just ain't so... if we know, as we surely do, that the internals
of the robot (electronics, metal) are quite different from those
of other passersby (who presumably have regular ole brains), we might
well be more skeptical that robots' "consciousness" is the same as
ours.  Briefly, I know:

1. that I have a brain
2. that I am conscious, and what my consciousness feels like
3. that I am capable of certain impressive types of performance,
   like holding up my end of an English conversation.

It seems very reasonable to suppose that 3 depends on 2 depends
on 1.  But 1 and 3 are objectively ascertainable for others as
well.  So if a person has 1 and 3, and a robot has 3 but NOT 1,
I certainly have more reason to believe that the person has 2, than
that the robot does.  One (rationally) believes other people are
conscious BOTH because of their performance and because their
internal stuff is a lot like one's own.

I am assuming here that "mind" implies consciousness, ie that you are
not simply defining "mind" as a set of external capabilities.  If you
are, then of course, by (poor) definition, only external performance
is relevant.  I would assert (and I think you would agree) that to
state "X has a mind" is to imply that X is conscious.

>  ....So, since we have absolutely no intuitive idea about the functional
>  (symbolic, nonsymbolic, physical, causal) basis of the mind, our only
>  nonarbitrary basis for discriminating robots from people remains their
>  performance.

Again, we DO have some idea about the functional basis for mind, namely
that it depends on the brain (at least more than on the pancreas, say).
This is not to contend that there might not be other bases, but for
now ALL the minds we know of are brain-based, and it's just not
dazzlingly clear whether this is an incidental fact or somewhat
more deeply entrenched.

>  I don't think there's anything more rigorous than the total turing
>  test ... Residual doubts about it come from
>  four sources, ... (d) misplaced hold-outs for consciousness.
>
>  Finally, my reply to (d) [mind bias] is that holding out for
>  consciousness is a red herring. Either our functional attempts to
>  model performance will indeed "capture" consciousness at some point, or
>  they won't. If we do capture it, the only ones that will ever know for
>  sure that we've succeeded are our robots. If we don't capture it,
>  then we're stuck with a second level of underdetermination -- call it
>  "subjective" underdetermination -- to add to our familiar objective
>  underdetermination (b)...[i.e.,]
>  there may be a further unresolvable uncertainty about whether or not
>  they capture the unobservable basis of everything (or anything) that is
>  subjectively observable.
>
>  AI, robotics and cognitive modeling would do better to learn to live
>  with this uncertainty and put it in context, rather than holding out
>  for the un-do-able, while there's plenty of the do-able to be done.
>
>  Stevan Harnad
>  princeton!mind!harnad

I don't quite understand your reply.  Why is consciousness a red herring
just because it adds a level of uncertainty?

1. If we suppose, as you do, that consciousness is so slippery that we
will never know more about its basis in humans than we do now, one
might still want to register the fact that our basis for belief in
the consciousness of competent robots is more shaky than for that
in humans.  This reservation does not preclude the writing of further
Lisp programs.

2. But it's not obvious to me that we will never know more than we do
now about the relation of brain to consciousness.  Even though any
correlations will ultimately be grounded on one side by introspection
reports, it does not follow that we will never know, with reasonable
assurance, which aspects of the brain are necessary for consciousness
and which are incidental.  A priori, no one knows whether, eg,
being-composed-of-protein is incidental or not.  I believe this is
Searle's point when he says that the brain may be as necessary for
consciousness as mammary glands are for lactation.  Now at some level
of difficulty and abstraction, you can always engineer anything with
anything, ie make a computer out of play-doh.  But the "multi-
realizability" argument has force only if its obvious (which it
ain't) that the structure of the brain at a fairly high level (eg
neuron networks, rather than molecules), high enough to be duplicated
by electronics, is what's important for consciousness.


John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 07:14:26 PDT (Thursday)
-FROM-
From: "charles_kalish.EdServices"@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Test(s?)
-BODY-
Maybe we should start a new mail group where we try to convince each
other that we understand the turing test if everybody fails we go back
to the drawing board and design a new test.

And as the first entry:

In response to Daniel Simon's questioning of the appropriateness of this
test, I think the answer is that the Turing test is acceptable because
that's how we recognize each other as intelligent beings.  Usually we
don't do it in a rigorous way because everybody always passes it.  But
if I ask you to "please pass the Cheez-whiz" and you respond "Anita
Eckbart is marinating her poodle" then I would get a little suspicious
and ask more questions designed to figure out whether you're joking,
sick, hard of hearing, etc. Depending on your answers I may decide to
downgrade your status to less than full personhood.

About Stevan Harnad's two kinds of Turing tests:  I can't really see
what difference the I/O methods of your system makes.  It seems that the
relevant issue is what kind of representation of the world it has.
While I agree that to really understand the system would need some
non-purely conventional representation (not semantic if "semantic" means
"not operable on in a formal way" as I believe [given the brain is a
physical system] all mental processes are formal  then "semantic" just
means governed by a process we don't understand yet) giving and getting
through certain kinds of I/O doesn't make much difference.  Two for
instances: SHRDLU operated on a simulated blocks world.  The
modifications to make it operate on real block would have been
peripheral and not have effected the understanding of the system. Also,
all systems take analog input and give analog output.  Most receive
finger pressure on keys and return directed streams of ink or electrons.
It may be that a robot would need  more "immediate" (as opposed to
conventional) representations, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient
to be a robot to have those representations.

P.s. don't ask me to be the moderator for this new group.  The turing
test always assumes the moderator has some claim to expertise in the
matter.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 17:11:04 GMT
-FROM-
From: eugene@AMES-AURORA.ARPA  (Eugene miya)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
<2495@utai.UUCP> <2552@utai.UUCP>

In article <2552@utai.UUCP>, me@utai.UUCP (Daniel Simon) writes:
> In article <167@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> >
> >The turing test has two components, (i) a formal, empirical one,
> >and (ii) an informal, intuitive one. The formal empirical component (i)
> >is the requirement that the system being tested be able to generate human
> >performance (be it robotic or linguistic). That's the nontrivial
> >burden that will occupy theorists for at least decades to come, as we
> >converge on (what I've called) the "total" turing test -- a model that
> >exhibits all of our robotic and lingistic capacities.
>
> Moreover, you haven't said anything concrete about what this test might look
> like.  On what foundation could such a set of defining characteristics for
> "human performance" be based?  Would it define those attributes common to all
> human beings?  Most human beings? At least one human being?  How would we
> decide by what criteria to include observable attributes in our set of
"human"
> ones?  How could such attributes be described?  Is such a set of descriptions
> even feasible?  If not, doesn't it call into question the validity of seeking
> to model what cannot be objectively characterized?  And if such a set of
> describable attributes is feasible, isn't it an indispensable prerequisite
for
> the building of a working Turing-test-passing model?
>
> Again, you have all but admitted that the "total" Turing test you have
> described has nothing to do with the Turing test at all--it is a set of
> "objective observables" which can be verified through scientific examination.
> The thoughtful examiner and "comparison human" have been replaced with
> controlled scientific experiments and quantifiable results.  What kinds of
> experiments?  What kinds of results?  WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST"
> LOOK LIKE?
>
> I know, I know.  I ask a lot of questions.  Call me nosy.
>
>                                       Daniel R. Simon

Keep asking questions.

1) I deleted your final comment about database: note EXPERT SYSTEMS
(so called KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS) ARE NOT AI.

2) I've been giving thought to what a `true' Turing test would be
like.  I found Turing's original paper in Mind.  This is what I have
concluded with light thinking for about 8 months:

a) No single question can answer the question of intelligence, then
   how many?  I hope a finite, preferably small, or at least a countable
number.

b) The Turing test is what psychologists call a test of `Discrimination.'
   These tests should be carefully thought out for pre-test and post-test
   experimental conditions (like answers of a current question may or may not
   be based on answers from an earlier [not necessarily immediate question]).

c) Some of the questions will be confusing, sort of like the more sophisticated
   eye tests like I just had.  Note we introduce the possibly of calling
   some human "machines."

d) Early questions in the tests in particular those of quantitative reasoning
   should be timed as well as checked for accuracy.  Turing would want this.
   to was in his original paper.

e) The test must be prepared for ignorance on the part of humans and machines.
   It should not simply take "I don't know," or "Not my taste" for
   answers.  It should be able to circle in on one's ignorance to
   define the boundaries or character of the respondent's ignorance.

f) Turing would want a degree of humor.  The humor would be a more
   sophisticated type like punning or double entandres.  Turing would
   certainly consider gaming problems.

Turing mentions all these in his paper.  Note that some of the original
qualities make AI uneconomical in the short term.  Who wants a computer
which makes adding errors?  Especially it's it dealing with my pay check.

I add that

a) We should check for `personal values,' `compassion,' which might
   traits or artifacts of the person or team responsible for programming.
   It should exploit those areas as possible lines of weakness or strenth.

b) The test should have a degree of dynamic problem solving.

c) The test might have characteristics like that test in the film Blade
   Runner.  Note: memories != intelligence, but the question might be
   posed to the respondent in such a way: "Your wife and your daughter
   have fallen into the water.  You can only save one. Who do you save?
   and why?"

d) Consider looking at the WAIS, WISC, the Stanford-Binet, the MMPI
   (currently being updated), the Peabody, and numerous other tests of
   intelligence and personality, etc.  Note there are tests which
   distinguish split brain people.  They are simple tests.  Consider
   the color-blindness tests: simple if you are not color blind,
   confusing is you are.  There is a whole body of psychometric
   literature which Turing did not consult.

As you can guess, such a test cannot be easily placed as a sequence on
paper, but as a program in a dumb machine, it is certainly possible.

As a last thought.  The paper in Mind was published in 1950.  Turing
made comment about "computers with the capacity of a billion [what
he did not say]," and the "turn of the Century."  I suggested to Doug
Hofstadter (visiting here one day), we hold a 50th anniversary celebration
in the year 2000 on the publication of Turing paper, and he agreed.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
  I need a turing machine to route my mail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
228
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 17:25:42 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

In reply to the following by me in <167@mind.UUCP>:

>       there is no evidence at all that
>       either capacities or contexts are modular.

michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) writes:

>> Maybe I'm reading this out of context (not having read your books or
papers),
>> but could you explain this statement?  I know of lots of evidence for the
>> modularity of various aspects of linguistic behavior.  In fact, we have a
>> parser + grammar of English here that captures a large portion of English
>> syntax, but has absolutely no semantics (yet).

I'm afraid this extract is indeed a bit out of context. The original
context concerned what I've dubbed the "Total Turing Test," one
in which ALL of our performance capacities -- robotic and linguistic --
are "captured." In the papers under discussion I described several
arguments in favor of the Total Turing Test over any partial
turing test, such as "toy" models that only simulate a small
chunk of our cognitive performance capacity, or even the (subtotal)
linguistic ("teleteype") version of the Total Turing Test. These
arguments included:

(3) The "Convergence Argument" that `toy' problems are arbitrary,
that they have too many degrees of freedom, that the d.f. shrink as the
capacities of the toy grow to life-size, and that the only version that
reduces the underdetermination to the normal proportions of a
scientific theory is the `Total' one.

(5) The "Nonmodularity Argument" that no subtotal model constitutes a
natural module (insofar as the turing test is concerned); the only
natural autonomous modules are other organisms, with their complete
robotic capacities (more of this below).

(7) The "Robotic Functionalist Argument" that the entire symbolic
functional level is no macromodule either, and needs to be grounded
in robotic function.

I happen to have views on the "autonomy of syntax" (which is of
course the grand-daddy of the current modulo-mania), but they're not
really pertinent to the total vs modular turing-test issue. Perhaps
the only point about an autonomous parser that is relevant here is
that it is in the nature of the informal, intuitive component of the
turing test that lifeless fragments of mimicry (such as Searle's isolated
`thirst' module) are not viable; they simply fail to convince us of
anything. And rightly so, I should think; otherwise the turing test
would be a pretty flimsy one.

Let me add, though, that even "convincing" autonomous parsing performance
(in the non-turing sense of convincing) seems to me to be rather weak
evidence for the psychological reality of a syntactic module -- let
alone that it has a mind. (On my theory, semantic performance has to be
grounded in robotic performance and syntactic performance must in turn
be grounded in semantic performance.)

Stevan Harnad
(princeton!mind!harnad)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 16 Oct 86 17:55:00-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: symbols
-BODY-
Stevan Harnad has answered Drew Lawson nicely, but I cant help adding this
thought: if he saw a symbol of a car coming and DIDNT get out of the way, would
the resulting change of his state be a purely symbolic one?
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 1986 1329-EDT
-FROM-
From: Bruce Krulwich <KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: symbols: syntax vs semantics
-BODY-

i think that the main thing i disagree with about Searle's work
and recent points in this discussion is the claim that symbols,
and in general any entity that a computer will process, can only
be dealt with in terms of syntax.  i disagree.  for example, when
i add two integers, the bits that the integers are encoded in are
interpreted semantically to combine to form an integer.  the same
could be said about a symbol that i pass to a routine in an
object-oriented system such as CLU, where what is done with
the symbol depends on it's type (which i claim is it's semantics)

i think that the reason that computers are so far behind the
human brain in semantic interpretation and in general "thinking"
is that the brain contains a hell of a lot more information
than most computer systems, and also the brain makes associations
much faster, so an object (ie, a thought) is associated with
its semantics almost instantly.


bruce krulwich

arpa:   krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu
bitnet: bk0a%tc.cc.cmu.edu@cmuccvma
uucp: (??)  ... uw-beaver!krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu
       or   ... ucbvax!krulwich@c.cs.cmu.edu

"Life's too short to ponder garbage"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Oct 86 10:04:51-PDT
-FROM-
From: Pat Hayes <PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: turing test
-BODY-
Daniel R. Simon has worries about the Turing test.  A good place to find
intelligent discussion of these issues is Turings original article in MIND,
October 1950, v.59, pages 433 to 460.

Pat Hayes
PHAYES@SRI-KL

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Oct 86 21:20:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: adelie!axiom!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ll-xn.arpa (Frank Adams)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <166@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP writes:
>What I mean by a symbol is an
>arbitrary formal token, physically instantiated in some way (e.g., as
>a mark on a piece of paper or the state of a 0/1 circuit in a
>machine) and manipulated according to certain formal rules. The
>critical thing is that the rules are syntactic, that is, the symbol is
>manipulated on the basis of its shape only -- which is arbitrary,
>apart from the role it plays in the formal conventions of the syntax
>in question. The symbol is not manipulated in virtue of its "meaning."
>Its meaning is simply an interpretation we attach to the formal
>goings-on. Nor is it manipulated in virtue of a relation of
>resemblance to whatever "objects" it may stand for in the outside
>world, or in virtue of any causal connection with them. Those
>relations are likewise mediated only by our interpretations.

I see two problems with respect to this viewpoint.  One is that relating
purely symbolic functions to external events is essentially a solved
problem.  Digital audio recording, for example, works quite well.  Robotic
operations generally fail, when they do, not because of any problems with
the digital control of an analog process, but because the purely symbolic
portion of the process is inadequate.  In other words, there is every reason
to expect that a computer program able to pass the Turing test could be
extended to one able to pass the robotic version of the Turing test,
requiring additional development effort which is tiny by comparison (though
likely still measured in man-years).

Secondly, even in a purely formal environment, there turn out to be a lot of
real things to talk about.  Primitive concepts of time (before and after)
are understandable.  One can talk about nouns and verbs, sentences and
conversations, self and other.  I don't see any fundamental difference
between the ability to deal with symbols as real objects, and the ability to
deal with other kinds of real objects.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Oct 86 19:35:51 GMT
-FROM-
From: adobe!greid@glacier.stanford.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
It seems to me that the idea of concocting a universal Turing test is sort
of useless.

Consider, for a moment, monsters.  There have been countless monsters on TV
and film that have had varying degrees of human-ness, and as we watch the
plot progress, we are sort of administering the Turing test.  Some of the
better aliens, like in "Blade Runner", are very difficult to detect as being
non-human.  However, given enough time, we will eventually notice that they
don't sleep, or that they drink motor oil, or that they don't bleed when
they are cut (think of "Terminator" and surgery for a minute), and we start
to think of alternative explanations for the aberrances we have noticed.  If
we are watching TV, we figure it is a monster.  If we are walking down the
street and we see somebody get their arm cut off and they don't bleed, we
think *we* are crazy (or we suspect "special effects" and start looking for
the movie camera), because there is no other plausible explanation.

There are even human beings whom we question when one of our subconscious
"tests" fails--like language barriers, brain damage, etc.  If you think
about it, there are lots of human beings who would not pass the Turing test.

Let's forget about it.

Glenn Reid
Adobe Systems

Adobe claims no knowledge of anything in this message.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 86 15:16:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

In response to some of the arguments in favor of the robotic over the
symbolic version of the turing test in (the summaries of) my articles
"Minds, Machines and Searle" and "Category Induction and Representation"
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) replies:

>       [R]elating purely symbolic functions to external events is
>       essentially a solved problem. Digital audio recording, for
>       example, works quite well. Robotic operations generally fail,
>       when they do, not because of any problems with the digital
>       control of an analog process, but because the purely symbolic
>       portion of the process is inadequate. In other words, there is
>       every reason to expect that a computer program able to pass the
>       [linguistic version of the] Turing test could be extended to one
>       able to pass the robotic version...requiring additional development
>       effort which is tiny by comparison (though likely still measured
>       in man-years).

This argument has become quite familiar to me from delivering the oral
version of the papers under discussion. It is the "Triviality of
Transduction [A/D conversion, D/A conversion, Effectors] Argument" (TT
for short).

Among my replies to TT the central one is the principled
Antimodularity Argument: There are reasons to believe that the neat
partitioning of function into autonomous symbolic and nonsymbolic modules
may break down in the special case of mind modeling. These reasons
include my "Groundedness" Argument: that unless cognitive symbols are
grounded (psychophysically, bottom-up) in nonsymbolic processes they remain
meaningless. (This amounts to saying that we must be intrinsically
"dedicated" devices and that our A/D and our "decryption/encryptions"
are nontrivial; in passing, this is also a reply to Searle's worries
about "intrinsic" versus "derived" intentionality. It may also be the
real reason why "the purely symbolic portion of the process is inadequate"!)
This problem of grounding symbolic processes in nonsymbolic ones in the
special case of cognition is also the motivation for the material on category
representation.

Apart from nonmodularity and groundedness, other reasons include:

(1) Searle's argument itself, and the fact that only the transduction
argument can block it; that's some prima facie ground for believing
that the TT may be false in the special case of mind-modeling.

(2) The triviality of ordinary (nonbiological) transduction and its
capabilities, comparared to what organisms with senses (and minds) can
do. (Compare the I/O capacities of "audio" devices with those of
"auditory" ones; the nonmodular road to the capacity to pass the total
turing test suggests that we are talking here about qualitative
differences, not quantitative ones.)

(3) Induction (both ontogenetic and phylogentetic) and inductive capacity
play an intrinsic and nontrivial role in bio-transduction that they do
not play in ordinary engineering peripherals, or the kinds of I/O
problems these have been designed for.

(4) Related to the Simulation/Implementation Argument: There are always
more real-world contingencies than can be anticipated in a symbolic
description or simulation. That's why category representations are
approximate and the turing test is open-ended.

For all these reasons, I believe that Object/Symbol conversion in
cognition is a considerably more profound problem than ordinary A/D;
orders of magnitude more profound, in fact, and hence that TT is
false.

>       [E]ven in a purely formal environment, there turn out to be a
>       lot of real things to talk about. Primitive concepts of time
>       (before and after) are understandable. One can talk about nouns
>       and verbs, sentences and conversations, self and other. I don't
>       see any fundamental difference between the ability to deal with
>       symbols as real objects, and the ability to deal with other kinds
>       of real objects.

I don't completely understand the assumptions being made here. (What
is a "purely formal environment"? Does anyone you know live in one?)
Filling in with some educated guesses here, I would say that again the
Object/Symbol conversion problem in the special case of organisms'
mental capacities is being vastly underestimated. Object-manipulation
(including discrimination, categorization, identification and
description) is not a mere special case of symbol-manipulation or
vice-versa. One must be grounded in the other in a principled way, and
the principles are not yet known.

On another interpretation, perhaps you are talking about "deixis" --
the necessity, even in the linguistic (symbolic) version of the turing
test, to be able to refer to real objects in the here-and-now. I agree that
this is a deep problem, and conjecture that its solution in the
symbolic version will have to draw on anterior nonsymbolic (i.e.,
robotic) capacities.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
229
-DATE-
Date: 15 October 1986 1505-EDT
-FROM-
From: Elaine Atkinson@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Toward a Learning Robot (CMU)
-BODY-
SPEAKER:  Tom Mitchell, CMU, CS Department
TITLE:    "Toward a Learning Robot"
DATE:     Thursday, October 16
TIME:     4:00 p.m.
PLACE:    Adamson Wing, Baker Hall

ABSTRACT: Consider the problem of constructing a learning robot; that
is, a system that interfaces to some environment via a set of sensors
and effectors, and which builds up a theory of its environment in order
to control the environment in accordance with its goals.  One
instantiation of this problem is to construct a hand-eye system that
can learn to manipulate a collection of blocks and to build simple
structures from these blocks.

We are starting a new research project to develop such a learning
robot, and this talk will present some preliminary ideas about how
to proceed.  The talk will consider a number of questions such as
what general cognitive architecture seems reasonable?  What kinds
of knowledge must such a robot learn?  How should this knowledge
be represented?  How will it learn?  How can the robot solve
problems with only an incomplete understanding of its world?  Can
it use sensory feedback to make up for ambiguity in its world
theory?  There will probably be more questions than answers,
so please bring your own.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Implementing Scheme on a Personal Computer (SMU)
-BODY-
Implementing Scheme on a Personal Computer

Speaker: David Bartley     Location: 315 SIC
         Texas Instruments Time:     2:00 PM


PC Scheme is an implementation of the Scheme language, a lexically scoped,
applicative order, and properly tail-recursive dialect of LISP.  PC Scheme was
implemented for IBM and TI personal computers within the Symbolic Computing
Laboratory at Texas Instruments.  The presentation will examine some of the
pragmatic aspects of developing a production-quality LISP system for small
machines.  These include: compilation vs. interpretation, using a byte-threaded
virtual machine for compact code, the architecture of the virtual machine,
runtime representation issues, compiler design, debugging issues, and
performance.  Some significant differences between LISP and conventional
language implementations will be highlighted.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 17 Oct 86 12:56:46-CDT
-FROM-
From: Ellie Huck <AI.ELLIE@MCC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Functional Representations in Knowledge Programming (UTexas)
-BODY-
Please join the AI Group for the following talk October 22 at 11:00am
in the Balcones 4th Floor Conference Room 4.302:

         KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING USING FUNCTIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

                        Peter E. Hart
                        Syntelligence


SYNTEL is a novel knowledge representation language that provides
traditional features of expert system shells within a pure functional
programming paradigm.  However, it differs sharply from existing
functional languages in many ways, ranging from its ability to deal
with uncertainty to its evaluation procedures.  A very flexible
user-interface facility, tightly integrated with the SYNTEL
interpreter, gives the knowledge engineer full control over both form
and content of the end-user system.  SYNTEL executes in both LISP
machine and IBM mainframe/workstation environments, and has been used
to develop large knowledge bases dealing with the assessment of
financial risks.  This talk will present an overview of its
architecture, as well as describe the real-world problems that
motivated its development.

October 22, 1986
11:00am
Balcones Room 4.302

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 10:30:58 PDT
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Hypotheses Underlying Connectionism (UCB)
-BODY-

               BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

              Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A

               Tuesday, October 28, 11:00 - 12:30*
                        2515 Tolman Hall
                    Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                        2515 Tolman Hall


           ``The Hypotheses Underlying Connectionism''
                         Paul Smolensky
 Department of Computer Science & Institute of Cognitive Science
                University of Colorado at Boulder

Cognitive models using massively parallel, nonsymbolic computation
have now been developed for a considerable variety  of  cognitive
processes.   What  are  the essential hypotheses underlying these
connectionist models?  A satisfactory formulation  of  these  hy-
potheses  must  handle  a number of attacks:

>Nothing really new can be offered since Turing machines are universal

>Connectionism just  offers implementation details

>Conscious, rule-guided behavior is ignored

>The wrong kind of explanations are given for  behavior

>The models are too neurally unfaithful

>Logic, rationality, and the structure of mental  states  are  ignored

>Useful  AI  concepts  like  frames  and  productions are ignored.

Firstly, an introduction to connectionist models which  describes
the  kind of computation they use will be presented and secondly,
a general connectionist approach that faces the challenges listed
above will be introduced.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 October 1986 1309-EDT
-FROM-
From: Richard Wallstein@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Advances in Computational Robotics (CMU)
-BODY-
             Robotics Seminar, FRIDAY Oct. 24, 2 PM, 4623 WeH

                           John H. Reif
                    Computer Science Department
                          Duke University

              ADVANCES IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATIONAL ROBOTICS

This talk surveys work on the computational complexity of various movement
planning problems relevant to robotics.  The generalized mover's problem is to
plan a sequence of movements of linked polyhedra through 3-dimensional
Euclidean space, avoiding contact with a fixed set of polyhedra obstacles.
We discuss algorithms for solving restricted mover's problems and our proof
that generalized mover's problems are polynominal space hard.
We also discuss our results on the computational complexity (both algorithms
and lower bounds) of three other quite different types of movement problems;

        1.  movement planning in the presence of friction;

        2.  minimal movement planning;

        3.  dynamic movement planning with moving obstacles.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86  1141 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - More Agents are Better Than One (SU)
-BODY-

                MORE AGENTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE

                      Michael Georgeff

                Artificial Intelligence Center
                      SRI International

                  Thursday, October 23, 4pm
                          MJH 252

A recent paper by Steve Hanks and Drew Mcdermott shows how some
previous "solutions" to the frame problem turn out to be inadequate,
despite appearances otherwise.  They use a simple example -- come to
be called the "Yale Shooting Problem" -- for which it is impossible to
derive some expected results -- in this case, that the target of a
shooting event ceases living.  Such difficulties, they suggest, call
into question the utility of nonmonotonic logics for solving the frame
problem.

In this talk, we describe a theory of action suited to multiagent
domains, and show how this formulation avoids the problems raised by
Hanks and McDermott.  In particular, we show how the Yale Shooting
Problem can be solved using a generalized form of the situation
calculus for multiagent domains, together with notions of causality
and independence.  The solution does not rely on complex
generalizations of nonmonotonic logics or circumscription, but instead
uses traditional circumscription.  We will also argue that most
problems traditionally viewed as involving a single agent are better
formulated as multiagent problems, and that the frame problem, as
usually posed, is not what we should be attempting to solve.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 15:23:35 EDT
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@k.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Automatic Schematics Drafting (CMU)
-BODY-
This week's seminar is being led by Raul Valdes-Perez. Friday, 3:15
in 7220. Be there. Here's the abstract:

Title: "Automatic Schematics Drafting:  Aesthetic Configuration
        as a Design Task".

To draft a schematic means to depict (say on paper) the
electrical connections and function of a circuit.

Aspects of this work are the following:

1.  A design task that uses other than a production-system architecture.
2.  An approach to "space planning" that is modern in the sense of exploiting
    dependency-directed backtracking and constraint-posting.
3.  The idea of contradicton-fixing rules that exploit the richness of
    information when an inconsistency occurs.
4.  Study of a linear-inequality-based representation of partial task
    solutions, and the properties of this representation.
5.  A backtracking scheme suited to the search regimen used.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1986  12:05 EDT
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Learning by Failing to Explain (MIT)
-BODY-

                  LEARNING BY FAILING TO EXPLAIN

                      Robert Joseph Hall
             MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


Explanation-based Generalization depends on having an explanation on
which to base generalization.  Thus, a system with an incomplete or
intractable explanatory mechanism will not be able to generalize some
examples.  It is not necessary, in those cases, to give up and resort
to purely empirical generalization methods, because the system may
already know almost everything it needs to explain the precedent.
Learning by Failing to Explain is a method which exploits current
knowledge to prune complex precedents and rules, isolating their
mysterious parts.  This paper describes two techniques for Learning by
Failing to Explain: Precedent Analysis, partial analysis of a
precedent or rule to isolate the mysterious new technique(s) it
embodies; and Rule Re-analysis, re-analyzing old rules in terms of new
rules to obtain a more general set.

Thursday, October 23, 4pm
NE-43, 8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
230
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 86 02:30:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

greid@adobe.UUCP (Glenn Reid) writes:

>       [C]oncocting a universal Turing test is sort of useless... There
>       have been countless monsters on TV...[with] varying degrees of
>       human-ness...Some...very difficult to detect as being non-human.
>       However, given enough time, we will eventually notice that they
>       don't sleep, or that they drink motor oil...

The objective of the turing test is to judge whether the candidate
has a mind, not whether it is human or drinks motor oil. We must
accordingly consult our intuitions as to what differences are and are
not relevant to such a judgment. [Higher animals, for example, have no
trouble at all passing (the animal version) of the turing test as far
as I'm concerned. Why should aliens, monsters or robots, if they have what
it takes in the relevant respects? As I have argued before, turing-testing
for relevant likeness is really our only way of contending with the
"other-minds" problem.]

>       [T]here are lots of human beings who would not pass the Turing
>       test [because of brain damage, etc.].

And some of them may not have minds. But we give them the benefit of
the doubt for humanitarian reasons anyway.

Stevan Harnad
(princeton!mind!harnad)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 86 14:59:49 GMT
-FROM-
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watdragon!rggoebel@caip.rutgers.edu
     (Randy Goebel LPAIG)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
Stevan Harnad writes:
> ...The objective of the turing test is to judge whether the candidate
> has a mind, not whether it is human or drinks motor oil.

This stuff is getting silly.  I doubt that it is possible to test whether
something has a mind, unless you provide a definition of what you believe
a mind is.  Turing's test wasn't a test for whether or not some artificial
or natural entity had a mind. It was his prescription for an evaluation of
intelligence.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 14:59:30 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@Zarathustra.Think.COM  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) replies:

>       I doubt that it is possible to test whether something has a mind,
>       unless you provide a definition of what you believe a mind is.
>       Turing's test wasn't a test for whether or not some artificial
>       or natural entity had a mind. It was his prescription for an
>       evaluation of intelligence.

And what do you think "having intelligence" is? Turing's criterion
effectively made it: having performance capacity that is indistinguishable
from human performance capacity. And that's all "having a mind"
amounts to (by this objective criterion). There's no "definition" in
any of this, by the way. We'll have definitions AFTER we have the
functional answers about what sorts of devices can and cannot do what
sorts of things, and how and why. For the time being all you have is a
positive phenomenon -- having a mind, having intelligence -- and
an objective and intuitive criterion for inferring its presence in any
other case than one's own. (In your own case you presumable know what
it's like to have-a-mind/have-intelligence on subjective grounds.)

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 20:53:49 GMT
-FROM-
From: uwslh!lishka@rsch.wisc.edu  (a)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <5@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) replies:
>
>>      I doubt that it is possible to test whether something has a mind,
>>      unless you provide a definition of what you believe a mind is.
>>      Turing's test wasn't a test for whether or not some artificial
>>      or natural entity had a mind. It was his prescription for an
>>      evaluation of intelligence.
>
>And what do you think "having intelligence" is? Turing's criterion
>effectively made it: having performance capacity that is indistinguishable
>from human performance capacity. And that's all "having a mind"
>amounts to (by this objective criterion). There's no "definition" in
>any of this, by the way. We'll have definitions AFTER we have the
>functional answers about what sorts of devices can and cannot do what
>sorts of things, and how and why. For the time being all you have is a
>positive phenomenon -- having a mind, having intelligence -- and
>an objective and intuitive criterion for inferring its presence in any
>other case than one's own. (In your own case you presumable know what
>it's like to have-a-mind/have-intelligence on subjective grounds.)
>
>Stevan Harnad

        How does one go about testing for something when one does not know
what that something is?  My basic problem with all this are the two
keywords 'mind' and 'intelligence'.  I don't think that what S. Harnad
is talking about when referring to 'mind' and 'intelligence' are what
I believe is the 'mind' and 'intelligence', and I presume others are having
this problem (see first article above).
        I think a fair example is trying to 'test' for UFO's.  How does one
do this if (a) we don't know what they are and (b) we don't really know if
they exist (is it the same thing with magnetic monpoles?).  What are really
testing for in the case of UFO's?   I think this answer is a little more
clear than for 'mind', because people generally seem to have an idea of
what a UFO is (an Unidentified Flying Object).  Therefore, the minute we
come across something really strange that falls from the sky and can in
no way be identified we label it a UFO (and then try to explain it somehow).
However, until this happens (and whether this has already happened depends
on what you believe) we can't test specifically for UFO's [at least from
how I look at it].
        How then does one test for 'mind' or 'intelligence'?  These
definitions are even less clear.  Ask a particular scientist what he thinks
is 'mind' and 'intelligence', and then ask another.  Chances are that their
definitions will be different.  Now ask a Christian and a Buddhist.  These
answers will be even more different.  However, I don't think any one will
be more valid than the other.  Now, if one is to define 'mind' before
testing for it, then everyone will have a pretty good idea of what he was
testing for.  But if one refuses to define it, there are going to be a
h*ll of a lot of arguments (as it seems there already have been in this
discussion).  The same works for intelligence.
        I honestly don't see how one can apply the Total Turing Test,
because the minute one finds a fault, the test has failed.  In fact, even
if the person who created the 'robot' realizes somehow that his creation
is different, then for me the test fails.  But this has all been discussed
before.  However, trying to use 'intelligence' or having a 'mind' as one
of the criteria for this test when one expects to arrive at a useful
definition "along the way" seems to be sort of silly (from my point of
view).
        I speak only for myself.  I do think, though, that the above reasons
have contributed to what has become more a fight of basic beliefs than
anything else.  I will also add my vote that this discussion move away from
'the Total Turing Test' and continue on to something a little less "talked
into the dirt".
                                        Chris Lishka
                                        Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene

        [qualifier: nothing above reflects the views of my employers,
                    although my pets may be in agreement with these views]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 86 04:29:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Chris Lishka) asks:


>       How does one go about testing for something when one does not know
>       what that something is?  My basic problem with all this
>       [discussion about the Total Turing Test] are the two
>       keywords 'mind' and 'intelligence'. I don't think that what S. Harnad
>       is talking about when referring to 'mind' and 'intelligence' are what
>       I believe is the 'mind' and 'intelligence', and I presume others are
>       having this problem...

You bet others are having this problem. It's called the "other minds"
problem: How can you know whether anyone/anything else but you has a mind?

>       Now, if one is to define 'mind' before testing for it, then
>       everyone will have a pretty good idea of what he was testing for.

What makes people think that the other-minds problem will be solved or
simplified by definitions? Do you need a definition to know whether
YOU have a mind or intelligence? Well then take the (undefined)
phenomenon that you know is true of you to be what you're trying to
ascertain about robots (and other people). What's at issue here is not the
"definition" of what that phenomenon is, but whether the Total Turing
Test is the appropriate criterion for inferring its presence in entities
other than yourself.

[I don't believe, by the way, that empirical science or even
mathematics proceeds "definition-first." First you test for the
presence and boundary conditions of a phenomenon (or, in mathematics,
you test whether a conjecture is true), then you construct and test
a causal explanation (or, in mathematics, you do a formal proof), THEN
you provide a definition, which usually depends heavily on the nature
of the explanatory theory (or proof) you've come up with.]

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 18:00:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews@BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A pure conjecture on the nature of the self
-BODY-
In article <11786@glacier.ARPA> jbn@glacier.ARPA (John B. Nagle) writes:
>...  The reflexes behind tickling
>seem to be connected to something that has a good way of deciding
>what is self and what isn't.

     I would suspect it has more to do with "predictability" -- you
can predict, in some sense, where you feel tickling, therefore you
don't feel it in the same way.  It's similar to the blinking "reflex"
to a looming object; if the looming object is someone else's hand
you blink, if it's your hand you don't.

     The predictability may come from a sense of self, but I think
it's more likely to come from the fact that you're fully aware of
what is going to happen next when it's your own movements giving
the stimulus.

>-Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"Now it's dark"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
231
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 86 22:40:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: gknight@ngp.utexas.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Clinical neuropsychological assessment
-BODY-

      I'm renewing an inquiry I made several weeks ago.  I appreciate all
the responses I received -- and those of you who did reply don't have to do so
again, obviously.

      But if there is anyone out there who didn't see or didn't respond to my
earlier posting . . .

           I'm working on (1) a literature review of computer
           aided or automated neuropsychological assessment
           systems, and (2) development of an expert system for clinical
           neuropsychological assessment.  I would like to
           hear from anyone who can give me references,
           descriptions of work in progress, etc., concerning
           either subject.

      Many thanks,
>-
Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 09:13:41 EDT (Monday)
-FROM-
From: MJackson.Wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robot Snooker-player
-BODY-
Over the weekend I caught part of a brief report on this on Cable News
Headlines.  They showed a large robot arm making a number of impressive
shots, and indicated that the software did shot selection as well.
Apparently this work was done somewhere in Great Britain.  Can someone
provide more detail?

Mark

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 20 Oct 86 14:27:03-CDT
-FROM-
From: Larry Van Sickle <cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: CS.VANSICKLE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Need reference on HITECH chess machine
-BODY-
Can anyone give me a reference that describes CMU's HITECH
chess machine/program in some detail?  A search of
standard AI journals has failed to find one.  Thanks,

Larry Van Sickle
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu
Computer Sciences Department, U of Texas at Austin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 11:23 PDT
-FROM-
From: Stern.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Is there OOP in AI?
-BODY-
I just looked at the OOPSLA 86 (Object Oriented Programming Systems and
LAnguages) proceedings and found no mention of objects as used for AI.
Much surprised, I have since been told that the referees explicitly
excluded AI references, saying there are AI conferences for that sort of
thing.  Going back to the AAAI 86 proceedings, there were no papers on
the use of OOP in AI.

Since then, I have found some references in F. Bancilhon's paper in
SIGMOD record 9/86 to some Japanese papers I need to lay hands on.  Am I
missing any large body of current work here in the states on OOP and AI?

Josh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 15:08:49 PLT
-FROM-
From: George Cross  <FACCROSS%WSUVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PROLOG on IBM MVS
-BODY-
Hi,

I would appreciate knowing of any Prolog implementations on IBM mainframes
that run under MVS (*not* VM).  Thanks.



>--- 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

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Oct 86 09:10:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!epistemi!rda@seismo.css.gov  (Robert Dale)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Info on Computing in Publishing Wanted
-BODY-
I'd be grateful for any leads on computing in publishing -- references to
the literature or products, primarily.  I'm not, in the first instance,
interested in desktop publishing -- rather, I'm looking for stuff in book,
journal, magazine and newspaper publishing -- although pointers to any
up-to-date summary articles of what's going on in desktop publishing would
be useful.  In particular, I'd be interested to hear of any AI-related
happenings in the publishing area.

I'll summarise any responses I get and repost.  Thanks in advance.

>-

Robert Dale     University of Edinburgh, Centre for Cognitive Science,
                2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, Scotland.

UUCP:   ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!rda
JANET:  rda@uk.ac.ed.epistemi

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 13:33:35 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Soliciting Definitions
-BODY-
I'd like to test whether there is a coherent formulation of the
analog/digital distinction out there. I suspect that the results will
be surprising.

Engineers and computer scientists seem to feel that they have a
suitable working definition of the distinction, whereas philosophers
have argued that the distinction may not be tenable at all.
Cognitive scientists are especially interested because they are
concerned with analog vs. nonanalog representations. And
neuroscientists are interested in analog and nonanalog processes in
the nervous system.

I have some ideas, but I'll save them until I sample some of what the
Net nets. The ground-rules are these: Try to propose a clear and
objective definition of the analog/digital distinction that is not
arbitrary, relative, a matter of degree, or loses in the limit the
intuitive distinction it was intended to capture.

One prima facie non-starter: "continuous" vs. "discrete" physical
processes.

Stevan Harnad (princeton!mind!harnad)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 86 12:47:26 PDT (Wednesday)
-FROM-
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing on stage
-BODY-
Opening this week in one of London's West End theatres is the play,
"Breaking The Code" by Hugh Whitemore, starring Derek Jacobi as Alan
Turing.  The play is based on Andrew Hodges' biography, 'Alan Turing:
The Enigma'.  I don't know how much the play covers after the World War
II years.  I'd be interested in any reviews.  Send to me directly.  If
there is interest, I'll summarize for AIList.

  -- Rodney Hoffman <Hoffman.es@Xerox.com>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 15:02 CDT
-FROM-
From: PADIN%FNALCDF.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AT FERMILAB--ES OR NOT, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
-BODY-

        My interest in AI was peaked by a blurb on EXPERT SYSTEMS which I
read in the DEC PROFESSIONAL.  I immediately saw the possible use of EXPERT
SYSTEMS in my work here at FERMILAB.  However, in reading more about the
development of an ES, it appears to be a very long process and useful only
under certain circumstances as outlined by Waterman in his book 'A Guide to
Expert Systems'.  He states

        "Consider expert systems only if expert system development
          is possible, justified, and appropriate."

By 'possible' he means
        if [ (task does not require common sense)  &
             (task requires only cognitive skills) &
             (experts can articulate their methods) &
             (genuine experts exist) &
             (experts agree on solutions) &
             (task is not too difficult) &
             (task is not poorly understood) ]
        then
            [ expert system development is POSSIBLE ]

By 'justified' he means
        if [ (task solution has a high payoff) or
             (human expertise being lost) or
             (human expertise scarce) or
             (expertise meeded in many locations) or
             (expertise needed in hostile environment) ]
        then
            [ expert system development is JUSTIFIED ]

By 'appropriate' he means
        if [ (task requires symbol manipulation) &
             (task requires heuristic solutions) &
             (task is not too easy) &
             (task has proctical value) &
             (task is of manageable size) ]
        then
            [ expert system approach is APPROPRIATE ]


        As OPERATORS  at FERMILAB we take the Protons that are extracted from
our MAIN RING and maneuver them to experimental targets.  There are several
areas which I see the possible application of ES in our work.

                1) troubleshooting help -- we are responsible for maintaining
                        a multitude of systems: water,cryogenic,computer,CAMAC,
                        electrical,safety interlock, and more.  quick solutions
                        to problems save money, time, and maximize data flux to
                        experiments.

                2) operator training -- we have both rapid turnover and a long
                        training season, i.e., it takes at least a year for an
                        operator to be trained. thus, we need a large knowledge
                        base and a sophisticated simulator/tutorial.

                3) data aquisition -- we monitor large amounts of status data
                        and must have out-of-bounds alarms for many devices.
                        our alarm displays need to be centralized and smart so
                        that they display actual problems.

                4) control system -- we control the path which the Protons
                        take by controlling the magnetic field strengths of
                        magnets though which the Protons travel.  'TUNING' a
                        BEAM LINE (targeting protons onto experimental
                        apparatus) is an art and as such is subject to the
                        frailty of human judgement.  proper tuning is mandatory
                        because it increases data flux to experiments,
                        minimizes radiation intensities, and reduces equipment
                        damage.


        ? Are Waterman's criteria reasonable ones on which to make a decision
           about pursueing ES application?

        ? I've read that the creation of an ES would take about 5 man-years,
          does that sound right?

        ? If an ES is recomended, what would be the next step?  Do I simply
           call a representative of some AI company and invite them to make
           a more informed assessment?

First I must convince myself that an ES is something that is really necessary
and useful.  Next I must be able to convince my superiors.  And finally, DOE
would need to be convinced!

                                                thanks for any info

                                                Clem <Padin@fnal.bitnet>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
232
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 20:11:17 pdt
-FROM-
From: Robert Bryant - Cross 8/87 <rbryant%wsu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neuron Chip
-BODY-
INSIGHT magazine, Oct 13, 1986, page 62, had a brief article about a neuron
chip being tested by AT&T Bell Labs.  "...registers, the electronic equivalent
of nerve cell synapses..."  if any one has any more detailed information on
this please respond.
                 Rob Bryant
                rbryant@wsu.csnet

  [I believe Bell Labs was among the places putting one of Hopfield's
  relaxation nets on a chip.  They have also recently announced the
  construction of an expert system on a chip (10,000 times as fast ...),
  which I assume is a different project.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 15:42:05 -0100
-FROM-
From: "Michael K. Jackman" <mkj%vax-d.rutherford.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
ubject: Knowledge representation and Sowa's conceptual graphsA number of us at
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (IKBS section)havebecome interested in Sowa's
approach to knowledge representation,which is based on conceptual graphs. (see
Clancey's review in A 27,1985, Fox, Nature 310, 1984). We believe it to be a
particular powerfuland useful approach to KR and we are currently currenly
implementingsome of his ideas.We would like to contact any other workers in this
fieldand exchanging ideas on Sowa's approach Anyone interested shouldcontact me
at Rutherford.Michael K. JackmanIKBS section - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
(0235-446619)-------------------------------DATE-
Date: 20 Oct 86 18:25:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: jam@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Jonathan Marshall)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: simulating a neural network
-BODY-
In article <223@eneevax.UUCP> iarocci@eneevax.UUCP (Bill Dorsey) writes:
>
>   Having recently read several interesting articles on the functioning of
>neurons within the brain, I thought it might be educational to write a program
>to simulate their functioning.  Being somewhat of a newcomer to the field of
>artificial intelligence, my approach may be all wrong, but if it is, I'd
>certainly like to know how and why.
>   The program simulates a network of 1000 neurons.  Any more than 1000 slows
>the machine down excessively.  Each neuron is connected to about 10 other
>neurons.
>  .
>  .
>  .
>   The initial results have been interesting, but indicate that more work
>needs to be done.  The neuron network indeed shows continuous activity, with
>neurons changing state regularly (but not periodically).  The robot (!) moves
>around the screen generally winding up in a corner somewhere where it occas-
>ionally wanders a short distance away before returning.
>   I'm curious if anyone can think of a way for me to produce positive and
>negative feedback instead of just feedback.  An analogy would be pleasure
>versus pain in humans.  What I'd like to do is provide negative feedback
>when the robot hits a wall, and positive feedback when it doesn't.  I'm
>hoping that the robot will eventually 'learn' to roam around the maze with-
>out hitting any of the walls (i.e. learn to use its senses).
>   I'm sure there are more conventional ai programs which can accomplish this
>same task, but my purpose here is to try to successfully simulate a network
>of neurons and see if it can be applied to solve simple problems involving
>learning/intelligence.  If anyone has any other ideas for which I may test
>it, I'd be happy to hear from you.


Here is a reposting of some references from several months ago.
* For beginners, I especially recommend the articles marked with an asterisk.

Stephen Grossberg has been publishing on neural networks for 20 years.
He pays special attention to designing adaptive neural networks that
are self-organizing and mathematically stable.  Some good recent
references are:

 (Category Learning):----------
*  G.A. Carpenter and S. Grossberg, "A Massively Parallel Architecture for
     a Self-Organizing Neural Patttern Recognition Machine."  Computer
     Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing.  In Press.
   G.A. Carpenter and S. Grossberg, "Neural Dynamics of Category Learning
     and Recognition: Structural Invariants, Reinforcement, and Evoked
     Potentials."  In M.L. Commons, S.M. Kosslyn, and R.J. Herrnstein (Eds),
     Pattern Recognition in Animals, People, and Machines.  Hillsdale, NJ:
     Erlbaum, 1986.
 (Learning):-------------------
*  S. Grossberg, "How Does a Brain Build a Cognitive Code?"  Psychological
     Review, 1980 (87), p.1-51.
*  S. Grossberg, "Processing of Expected and Unexpected Events During
     Conditioning and Attention."  Psychological Review, 1982 (89), p.529-572.
   S. Grossberg, Studies of Mind and Brain: Neural Principles of Learning,
     Perception, Development, Cognition, and Motor Control.  Boston:
     Reidel Press, 1982.
   S. Grossberg, "Adaptive Pattern Classification and Universal Recoding:
     I. Parallel Development and Coding of Neural Feature Detectors."
     Biological Cybernetics, 1976 (23), p.121-134.
   S. Grossberg, The Adaptive Brain: I. Learning, Reinforcement, Motivation,
     and Rhythm.  Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.
*  M.A. Cohen and S. Grossberg, "Masking Fields: A Massively Parallel Neural
     Architecture for Learning, Recognizing, and Predicting Multiple
     Groupings of Patterned Data."  Applied Optics, In press, 1986.
(Vision):---------------------
   S. Grossberg, The Adaptive Brain: II. Vision, Speech, Language, and Motor
     Control.  Amsterdam: North Holland, 1986.
   S. Grossberg and E. Mingolla, "Neural Dynamics of Perceptual Grouping:
     Textures, Boundaries, and Emergent Segmentations."  Perception &
     Psychophysics, 1985 (38), p.141-171.
   S. Grossberg and E. Mingolla, "Neural Dynamics of Form Perception:
     Boundary Completion, Illusory Figures, and Neon Color Spreading."
     Psychological Review, 1985 (92), 173-211.
(Motor Control):---------------
   S. Grossberg and M. Kuperstein, Neural Dynamics of Adaptive Sensory-
     Motor Control: Ballistic Eye Movements.  Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985.


If anyone's interested, I can supply more references.

>-Jonathan Marshall

harvard!bu-cs!jam

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 17:22:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: arizona!megaron!wendt@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: simulating a neural network
-BODY-
Anyone interested in neural modelling should know about the Parallel
Distributed Processing pair of books from MIT Press.  They're
expensive (around $60 for the pair) but very good and quite recent.

A quote:

Relaxation is the dominant mode of computation.  Although there
is no specific piece of neuroscience which compels the view that
brain-style computation involves relaxation, all of the features
we have just discussed have led us to believe that the primary
mode of computation in the brain is best understood as a kind of
relaxation system in which the computation proceeds by iteratively
seeking to satisfy a large number of weak constraints.  Thus,
rather than playing the role of wires in an electric circuit, we
see the connections as representing constraints on the co-occurrence
of pairs of units.  The system should be thought of more as "settling
into a solution" than "calculating a solution".  Again, this is an
important perspective change which comes out of an interaction of
our understanding of how the brain must work and what kinds of processes
seem to be required to account for desired behavior.

(Rumelhart & Mcclelland, Chapter 4)

Alan Wendt
U of Arizona

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Oct 86 13:58:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: uwmcsd1!uwmeecs!litow@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Dr. B. Litow)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: cellular automata
-BODY-
Ed. Stephen Wolfram   Contains many papers by Wolfram.
Available from Taylor&Francis,Intl. Publications Service,242 Cherry St.,
Philadelphia 19106-1906

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Oct 86 23:10:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu  (John B. Nagle)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: A pure conjecture on the nature of the self
-BODY-

       Conjecture: the "sense of identity" comes from the same
mechanism that makes tickling yourself ineffective.

       This is not a frivolous comment.  The reflexes behind tickling
seem to be connected to something that has a good way of deciding
what is self and what isn't.  There are repeatable phenomena here that
can be experimented with.  This may be a point of entry for work on some
fundamental questions.


                                        John Nagle

  [I apologize for having sent out a reply to this message before
  putting this one in the digest.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 18:19:52 GMT
-FROM-
From: cybvax0!frog!tdh@eddie.mit.edu  (T. Dave Hudson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: A pure conjecture on the nature of the self
-BODY-
>        Conjecture: the "sense of identity" comes from the same
> mechanism that makes tickling yourself ineffective.

Suppose that tickling yourself may be ineffective because of your
mental focus.  Are you primarily focusing on the sensations in the
hand that is doing the tickling, not focusing, focusing on the idea
that it will of course be ineffective, or focusing on the sensations
created at the tickled site?

One of my major impediments to learning athletics was that I had no
understanding of what it meant when those rare competent teachers told
me to feel the prescribed motion.  It requires an act of focusing on
the sensations in the different parts of your body as you move.  Until
you become aware of the sensations, you can't do anything with them.
(Once you're aware of them, you have to learn how to deal with a
multitude of them, but that's a different issue.)

Try two experiments.

1) Walk forward, and concentrate on how your back feels.  Stop, then
   place your hand so that the palm and fingertips cover your lower
   back at the near side of the spine.  Now walk forward again.
   Notice anything new?

2) Run one hand's index fingertip very lightly over the back of the
   other hand, so lightly that you can barely feel anything on the back
   of the other hand, so lightly that maybe you're just touching the
   hairs on that hand and not the skin.  Close your eyes and try to
   sense where on the back of that hand the fingertip is as it moves.
   Now do you feel a tickling sensation?

                                David Hudson

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 16 Oct 86 07:48:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reviews
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]

I'm in the middle of reading the Bratko book, and I would give
it a very high rating.  The concepts are explained very clearly,
there are lots of good examples, and the applications covered
are of high interest.  Part I (chapters 1-8) is about Prolog
per se.  Part II (chapters 9-16) shows how to implement many
standard AI techniques:

chap.  9 - Operations on Data Structures
chap. 10 - Advanced Tree Representations
chap. 11 - Basic Problem-solving Strategies
chap. 12 - Best-first: a heuristic search principle
chap. 13 - Problem reduction and AND/OR graphs
chap. 14 - Expert Systems
chap. 15 - Game Playing
chap. 16 - Pattern-directed Programming

Part I has 188 pages, part II has 214.

You didn't mention Programming in Prolog by Clocksin & Mellish -
this is also very good, and covers some things that Bratko
doesn't (it's more concerned with non-AI applications), but all
in all, I slightly prefer Bratko's book.

>- John Cugini

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 15:47:15 MDT
-FROM-
From: Lauren Smith <ls%lambda@LANL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Bibliography on its way
-BODY-
        [Forwarded from the Prolog Digest by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]

I have just sent out the latest update of the Declarative
Languages bibliography.  Please notify the appropriate
people at your site - especially if there were several
requests from your site, and you became the de facto
distributor.  Again, the bibliography is 24 files.

This is the index for the files, so you can verify that you
received everything.

ABDA76a-AZAR85a  BACK74a-BYTE85a   CAMP84a-CURR72a  DA83a-DYBJ83b
EGAN79a-EXET86a  FAGE83a-FUTO85a   GABB84a-GUZM81a  HALI84a-HWAN84a
ICOT84a-IYEN84a  JACOB86a-JULI82a  KAHN77a-KUSA84b  LAHT80a-LPG86a
MACQ84a-MYCR84a  NAGAI84a-NUTE85a  OHSU85a-OZKA85a  PAPAD86a-PYKA85a
QUI60            RADE84a-RYDE85a   SAIN84a-SZER82b  TAGU84a-TURN85b
UCHI82a-UNGA84   VALI85-VUIL74a    WADA86a-WORL85a  YAGH83a-YU84a

There has been a lot of interest regarding the formatting of
the bibliography for various types of word processing systems.
The biblio is maintained (in the UK) in a raw format, hence that
is  the way that I am distributing it.  Since everyone uses
different systems, it seems easiest to collect a group of macros
that convert  RAW FORMAT ===> FAVORITE BIBLIO FORMAT and distribute
them.  So, if you have a macro that does the conversion please
advertise it on the net or better yet, let me know so I can let
everyone else know about it.

If you have any additions to make, please send them to:

>- Andy Cheese at
   abc%computer-science.nottingham.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
   or Lauren Smith at ls@lanl.arpa

Thank you for your interest.

>- Lauren Smith

  [ I will be including one file per issue of the Digest until
  all twenty four files are distributed starting with the next
  issue. -ed ]

  [AIList will not be carrying this bibliography.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
233
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: defs for ai.bib41C
-BODY-
D MAG88 Robotersysteme\
%V 2\
%N 3\
%D 1986
D MAG89 Journal of Robotic Systems\
%V 3\
%N 3\
%D Autumn 1986
D MAG90 Pattern Recognition\
%V 19\
%N 5\
%D 1986
D MAG91 International Journal of Production Research\
%V 24\
%N 5\
%D SEP-OCT 1986
D MAG92 Fuzzy Sets and Systems\
%V 18\
%N 3\
%D APR 1986
D BOOK56 Advances in Automation and Robotics\
%V 1\
%I JAI Press\
%D 1985\
%C Greenwich, Connecticut
D MAG93 COMPINT 85\
%D 1985
D MAG94 The Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications\
%D 1985

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 20 apr 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai.bib41C
-BODY-
%A D. Partridge
%T Artificial Intelligence Applications in the Future of Software Engineering
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AA08 AI01
%X ISBN 0-20315-3 $34.95 241 pages

%A Richard Forsyth
%A Roy Rada
%T Machine Learning Applications in Expert Systems and Information Retrieval
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D  1986
%K AT15 AA15 AI01 AI04
%X ISBN 0-20309-9 Cloth $49.95 , ISBN 0-20318-18 $24.95 paper 277 pages

%A W. John Hutchins
%T Machine Translation Past, Present and Future
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI02
%X 380 pages 0-2031307 1986 $49.95

%A Karamjit S. Gill
%T Artificial Intelligence for Society
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K O05 AT15
%X 280 pages 1-90930-0 1986 $34.95

%A Donald Michie
%T On Machine Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AA17  AI07 AI08 AI01 AT15
%X 260 pages 0-20335-8 1986 $29.95

%A Chris Naylor
%T Building Your Own Expert System
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AI01 AT15
%X 249 pages 0-20172-X 1985 $15.95 paper

%A Peter Bishop
%T Fifth Generation Computers
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 GA01 GA02 GA03
%X 166 pages 0-20269-6 1986 $29.95

%A Jerry M. Rosenberg
%T Dictionary of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI16 AI07
%X 225 pages 1-08982-0 $24.95 cloth; 1-84981-2 $14.95 paper

%A Peter S. Sell
%T Expert Systems
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI01
%X 99 pages 0-20200-9 $14.95 paper

%A G. L. Simons
%T Expert Systems and Micros
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 H01 AI01
%X 247 pages 0-20277-7 $19.95 paper

%A G. L. Simons
%T Is Man a Robot?
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI16 AI08
%X 200 pages 1-91106-2 $18.95 paper

%A G. L. Simons
%T Introducing Artificial Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT08 AT15 AI16
%X 281 pages 0-20166-5 $19.95 paper "completely non-technical"

%A Yoshiaki Shirai
%A Jun-Ichi Tsujii
%T Artificial Intelligence Concepts, Techniques and Applications
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 GA01 AI16
%X 177 pages 1-90581-X $19.95 "Drawn from the Fifth Generation Computer
Program"

%A Luc Steels
%A John A. Campbell
%T Progress in Artificial Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI16 GA03
%X "Drawn Euopean Conference on AI"

%A Tohru Moto-Oka
%A Masaru Kitsuregawa
%T The Fith Generation Computer The Japanese Challenge
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K GA01 AT15
%X 122 pages 1-90739-1 1985 $17.95 paper

%A Leonard Uhr
%T Parallel Multicomputers and Artificial Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 H03
%X 150 pages 1-84979-0 $32.95

%A J. E. Hayes
%A Donald Michie
%T Intelligent Systems The Unprecedented Opportunity
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1984
%K AT15 AI07 AA10 AA07
%X 206 pages 0-20139-8 1984 $19.95 paper

%A M. Yazdani
%A N. Narayanan
%T Artificial Intelligence: Human Effects
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 O05 AA07 AA01
%X 318 pages 0-20239-4 1985 $27.95

%A Richard Ennals
%T Artificial Intelligence: Approaches to Logical Reasoning and Historical
Research
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AA11 AA25 AA07 T02
%X 172 pages 0-20181-9 1985 $29.95

%A S. Torrance
%T The Mind and The Machine
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1984
%K AT15 AI16 AA08
%X 213 pages 0-20104-5 1984 $31.95

%A Stuart C. Shapiro
%T Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1987
%K AT15 AI16
%X 1500 pages 8.5" by 11" in two volumes 1-80748-7 due out May 1, 1987
$149.95 until Sep 1, 1987 and $175.00 thereafter

%A Stephen H. Kaisler
%T Interlisp The Language and its Usage
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K T01 AT15
%X 1,144 pages 1-81644-2 1986 $49.95

%A Christian Queinnec
%T Lisp
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K T01 AT15
%X 156 pages 0-20226-2 1985 $15.95 paper (translated by Tracy Ann Lewis)

%A J. A. Campbell
%T Implementations of Prolog
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1984
%K T02 T01 AT15
%X 391 pages 0-20045-6 1984 $32.95 paper

%A W. D. Burnham
%A A. R. Hall
%T Prolog Programming and Applications
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K T02 AT15
%X 114 pages 0-20263-7 1985 $16.95 paper

%A Deyi Li
%T A Prolog Database System
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1984
%K T02 AA09 AT15
%X 207 pages 1-90429-5 1984

%A Rosalind Barrett
%A Allan Ramsay
%A Aaron Sloman
%T Pop-11 A Practical Language for Artificial Intelligence
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI01 AI05 AI06
%X 232 pages 0-20237-8 1985 $19.95

%A Hugh de Saram
%T Programming in Micro-Prolog
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 T02
%X 166 pages 0-20218-1 1985 $21.95 paper

%A Brian Sawyer
%A Dennis Foster
%T Programming Expert Systems in Pascal
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI01 H01
%X 200 pages 1-84267-2 1986 $19.95 paper

%A Brian Sawyer
%A Dennis Foster
%T Programming Expert Systems in Modula-2
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 AI01
%X 224 pages 1-85036-5 1986 $24.95 paper

%A K. Sparck-Jones
%A Y. Wilks
%T Automatic Natural Language Parsing
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI02
%X 208 pages 0-20165-7 1985 $24.95 paper

%A C. S. Millish
%T Compiler Interpretation of Natural Language Descriptions
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI02
%X 182 pages 0-20219-x 1985 $24.95

%A M. Wallace
%T Communicating with Databases in Natural Language
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AA09 AI02
%X 170 pages 0-20105-3 1984 $31.95

%A Mike James
%T Classification Algorithms
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1986
%K AT15 O06
%X 209 pages 1-84799-2 1986 $34.95

%A Satosi Watanabi
%T Pattern Recognition: Human and Mechanical
%I John Wiley and Sons
%C New York
%D 1985
%K AT15 AI06 AI08
%X 352 pages 1-80815-6 1985 $44.95
.br
"Shows that all the known pattern recognition algorithms can be derived
from the principle of minimum entropy."

%A Donald A. Norman
%A Stephen W. Draper
%T User Centered System Design
%I Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
%C Hillsdale, NJ
%K AI02
%D 1986
%X 1986 544 pages 0-89859-872-9 paper prepaid $19.95

%A Robert J. Baron
%T The Cerebral Computer
%I Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
%C Hillsdale, NJ
%K AT15 AI08

%T Portrait: DFG Special Research Topic "Artificial Intelligence"
%J Die Umschau
%V 86
%N 9
%D SEP 1986
%K AI16 AT08
%X German, Abstract in English and German

%A P. Freyberger
%A P. Kampmann
%A G. Schmidt
%T A Knowledged [sic] Based Navigation Method for Autonomous
Mobile Robots (german)
%J MAG88
%P 149-162
%K AI07 AA19
%X German

%A P. M. Frank
%A N. Becker
%T Robot Activation with A Directed, fixing and Object-Extracting Camera
for Data Reduction
%J MAG88
%P 188
%K AI07 AI06
%X German

%A William J. Palm
%A Ramiro Liscano
%T Integrated Design of an End Effector for a Visual Servoing Algorithm
%J MAG89
%P 221-236
%K AI07 AI06

%A K. Cheng
%A M. Idesawa
%T A Simplified Interpolation and Conversion Method of Contour Surface Model to
Mesh Model
%J MAG89
%P 249-258
%K AI07 AI06

%A Genichiro Kinoshita
%A Masanori Idesawa
%A Shigeo Naomi
%T Robotic Range Sensor with Project of Bright Ring Pattern
%J MAG89
%P 249-258
%K AI07 AI06

%A M. G. Thomason
%A E. Granum
%A R. E. Blake
%T Experiments in Dynamic Programming Inference of Markov Networks with Strings
Representing Speech Data
%J MAG90
%P 343-352
%K AI05

%A M. Juhola
%T A Syntactic Method for Analysis of Saccadic Eyeme Movements
%J MAG90
%P 353-360
%K AA10

%A H. D. Cheng
%A K. S. Fu
%T Algorithm Partition and Parallel Recognition of General Context-Free
Languages using Fixed-size VLSI Architecture
%J MAG90
%P 361-372
%K AI06 H03 O06

%A E. S. Baugher
%A A. Rosenfeld
%T Boundary Localication in an Image Pyramid
%J MAG90
%P 373-396
%K AI06 H03

%A E. A. Parrish
%A W. E. McDonald, Jr
%T An Adaptive Pattern Analysis System for Isolating EMI
%J MAG90
%P 397-406
%K AA04 AI06

%A E. Tanaka
%A T. Toyama
%A S. Kawai
%T High Speed Error Correction of Phoneme Sequences
%J MAG90
%P 407-412
%K AI05

%A K. Jajuga
%T Bayes Classification Rule for the General Discrete Case
%J MAG90
%P 413-416
%K O04

%A N. N. Abdelmalek
%T Noise Filtering in Digital Images and Approximation Theory
%J MAG90
%P 417
%K AI06

%A S. R. T. Kumara
%A S. Hoshi
%A R. L. Kashyap
%A C. L. Moodie
%A T. C. Chang
%T Expert Systems in [sic]
%J MAG91
%P 1107-1126
%K AI01

%A H. Lipkin
%A L. E. Torfason
%A J. Duffy
%T Efficient Motion Planning for a Planar Manipulator Based on Dexterity
and Workspace Geometry
%J MAG91
%P 1235
%K AI06 AI09

%A R. R. Yager
%T A Characterization of the Extension Principle
%J MAG92
%P 205-218
%K O04

%A J. F. Baldwin
%T Automated Fuzzy and Probabilistic Inference
%J MAG92
%P 219-236
%K O04 AI01

%A A. F. Blishun
%T Fuzzy Adaptive Learning Model of Decision-Making Process
%J MAG92
%P 273-282
%K O04 AI13 AI04

%A A. O. Esobgue
%T Optimal Clustering of Fuzzy Data via Fuzzy Dynamic
Programming
%J MAG92
%P 283-298
%K O04 O06

%A J. Kacprzyk
%T Towards 'Human-Consistent' Mulstistage Decision Making
and Control Models Using Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic
%J MAG92
%P 299-314
%K O04 AI08 AI13

%A B. R. Gaines
%A M. L. G. Shaw
%T Induction of Inference Rules for Expert Systems
%J MAG92
%P 315-328
%K AI04 AI01 O04

%A M. Sugeno
%A G. T. Kang
%T Fuzzy Modeling and Control of Multilayer Incinerator
%J MAG92
%P 329-346
%K O04 AA20

%A Peizhuang Wang
%A Xihu Liu
%A E. Sanchez
%T Set-valued Statistics and its Application to Earthquake Engineering
%J MAG92
%P 347
%K O04 AA05

%A J. L. Mundy
%T Robotic Vision
%B BOOK56
%P 141-208
%K AI06 AI07

%A R. Bajcsy
%T Shape from Touch
%B BOOK56
%P 209-258
%K AI06 AI07

%A T. M. Husband
%T Education and Training in Robotics
%I IFS Publications Ltd
%C Bedford
%D 1986
%K AI06 AT15 AT18
%X multiple articles, 315 pages $54.00 ISBN 0-948507-04-7


%A N. Y. Foo
%T Dewey Indexing of Prolog Traces
%J The Computer Journal
%V 29
%N 1
%D FEB 1986
%P 17-19
%K T02

%A M. E. Dauhe-Witherspoon
%A G. Muehllehner
%T An Iterative Image Space Reconstruction Algorithm Suitable for Volume ECT
%J IEEE Trans on Med. Imaging
%V 5
%N 2
%D JUN 1986
%P 61-66
%K AA01 AI06

%A B. Zavidovique
%A V. Serfaty-Dutron
%T Programming Facilities in Image Processing
%J MAG93
%P 804-806
%K AI06

%A J. R. Ward
%A B. Blesser
%T Methods for Using Interactive Hand-print Character Recognition for Computer
I
nput
%J MAG93
%P 798-803
%K AI06

%A Y. Tian-Shun
%A T. Yong-Lin
%T The Conceptual Model for Chinese Language Understanding and its Man-Machine
Paraphrase
%J MAG93
%P 795-797
%K AI02

%A G. Sabah
%A A. Vilnat
%T A Question Answering System which Tries to Respect Conversational Rules
%J MAG93
%P 781-785
%K AI02

%A J. Rouat
%A J. P. Adoul
%T Impact of Vector Quantization for Connected Speech Recognition Systems
%J MAG93
%P 778-780
%K AI05

%A G. G. Pieroni
%A O. G. Johnson
%T A Methodology Visual Recognition of Waves in a Wave Field
%J MAG93
%P 774-77
%K AI06

%A G. J. McMillan
%T Vimad: A Voice Interactive Maintenance Aiding Device
%J MAG93
%P 768-771
%K AI05 AA21

%A D. Laurendeau
%A D. Poussart
%T A Segmentation Algorithm for Extracting 3D Edges from Range Data
%J MAG93
%P 765-767
%K AI06

%A F. Kimura
%A T. Sata
%A K. Kikai
%T A Fast Visual Recognition System of Mechanical Parts by Use of Three
Dimensional Model
%J MAG93
%P 755-759
%K AI06  AA05 AA26

%A M. L. G. Shaw
%A B. R. Gaines
%T The Infrastructure of Fifth Generation Computing
%J MAG93
%P 747-751
%K GA01 AT19

%A W. Doster
%A R. Oed
%T On-line Script Recognition - A Userfriendly Man Machine Interface
%J MAG93
%P 741-743
%K AI06 AA15

%A R. Descout
%T Applications of Speech Technology A Review of the French Experience
%J MAG93
%P 735-740
%K AI05 GA03

%A Y. Ariki
%A K. Wakimoto
%A H. Shieh
%A T. Sakai
%T Automatic Transformation of Drawing Images Based on Geometrical Structures
%J MAG93
%P 719-723
%K AI06 AA05


%A Z. X. Yang
%T On Intelligent Tutoring System for Natural Language
%J MAG93
%P 715-718
%K AI02 AA07

%A L. Xu
%A J. Chen
%T Autobase: A System which Automatically Establishes the Geometry Knowledge
Base
%J MAG93
%P 708-714
%K AI01 AA13

%A G. Pask
%T Applications of Machine Intelligence to Education, Part I Conversation
System
%J MAG93
%P 682
%K AI02 AA07

%A Y. H. Jea
%A W. H. Wang
%T A Unified Knowledge Representation Approach in Designing an Intelligent
tutor
%J MAG93
%P 655-657
%K AA07 AI16

%A I. M. Begg
%T An Intelligent Authoring System
%J MAG93
%P 611-613
%K AA07

%A J. C. Perex
%A R. Castanet
%T Intelligent Robot Simulation System: The Vision Guided Robot Concept
%J MAG93
%P 489-492
%K AI06 AI07

%A B. Mack
%A M. M. Bayoumi
%T An Ultrasonic Obstacle Avoidance System for a Unimate Puma 550 Robot
%J MAG93
%P 481-483
%K AI06 AI07

%A R. A. Browse
%A S. J. Lederman
%T Feature-Based Robotic Tactile Perception
%J MAG93
%P 455-458
%K AI06 AI07

%A R. S. Wall
%T Constrained Example Generation for VLSI Design
%J MAG93
%P 451-454
%K AA04

%A L. P. Demers
%A C. Roy
%A E. Cerney
%A J. Gecsei
%T Integration of VLSI Symbolic Design Tools
%J MAG93
%P 308-312
%K AA04

%A R. Wilson
%T From Signals to Symbols - The Inference Structure of Perception
%J MAG93
%P 221-225
%K AI08 AI06

%A C. Hernandex
%A A. Alonso
%A J. E. Arias
%T Computerized Monitoring as an Aid to Obstetrical Decision Making
%J MAG93
%P 203-206
%K AA01

%A M. M. Gupta
%T Approximate Reasoning  in the Evolution of Next Generation of Expert
Systems
%J MAG93
%P 201-202
%K O04 AI01

%A W. Wei-Tsong
%a P. Wei-Min
%T An Effective Searching Approach to Processing Broken Lines in an
Image
%J MAG93
%P 198-200
%K AI06

%A J. F. Sowa
%T Doing Logic on Graphs
%J MAG93
%P 188
%K AI16

%A P. T. Cox
%A T. Pietrxykowski
%T Lograph: A Graphical Logic Programming Language
%J MAG93
%P 145-151
%K AI10

%A D. A. Thomas
%A W. R. Lalonde
%T ACTRA The Design of an Industrial Fifth Generation Smalltalk
%J MAG93
%P 138-140

%A Y. Wada
%A Y. Kobayashi
%A T. Mitsuta
%A T. Kiguchi
%T A Knowledge Based Approach to Automated Pipe-Route Planning in Three-
Dimensional Plant Layout Design
%J MAG93
%P 96-102

%A N. P. Suh
%A S. H. Kim
%T On an Expert System for Design and Manufacturing
%J MAG93
%P 89-95
%K AA26 AA05

%A C. Y. Suen
%A A. Panoutsopoulos
%T Towards a Multi-lingual Character Generator
%J MAG93
%P 86-88
%K AI02

%A K. Shirai
%A Y. Nagai
%A T. Takezawa
%T An Expert System to Design Digital Signal Processors
%J MAG93
%P 83-85
%K AI01 AA04

%A D. Sriram
%A R. Banares-Alcantara
%A V. Venkatasubramnian
%A A. Westerberg
%A M. Rychener
%T Knowledge-Based Expert Systems for Chemical Engineering
%J MAG93
%P 79-82
%K AI01 AA05

%A P. Savard
%A G. Bonneau
%A G. Tremblay
%A R. Cardinal
%A A. R. Leblanc
%A P. Page
%A R. A. Nadeau
%T Interactive Electrophysiologic Mapping System for On-Line Analysis of
Cardiac Activation Sequences
%J MAG93
%P 76-78
%K AA01

%A R. Bisiani
%T VLSI Custom Architectures for Artificial Intelligence
%J MAG93
%P 27-31

%A L. H. Bouchard
%A L. Emirkanian
%T A Formal System for the Relative Clauses in French and its  Uses in
CAL
%J MAG93
%P 32-34
%K AI02 AA07

%A G. Bruno
%A A. Elia
%A P.  Laface
%T A Rule-Based System for Production Scheduling
%J MAG93
%P 35-39
%K AA05 AI01

%A J. F. Cloarec
%A J. P. Cudelou
%A J. Collet
%T Modeling Switching System Specifications as a Knowledge Base
%J MAG93
%P 40-44
%K AA04

%A B. R. Gaines
%A M. L. G. Shaw
%T Knowledge Engineering for Expert Systems
%J MAG93
%P 45-49
%K AI01

%A B. Hardy
%A P. Bosc
%A A. Chauffaut
%T A Design Environment for Dialogue Oriented Applications
%J MAG93
%P 53-55

%A P. Haren
%A M. Montalban
%T Prototypical Objects for CAD Expert Systems
%J MAG93
%P 53-55
%K AA05  AI01 AI16

%A S. J. Mrchev
%T A Unit Imitating the Functions on the Human Operative Memory
%J MAG93
%P 56-67
%K AI08

%A B. Phillips
%A S. L. Messick
%A M. J. Freiling
%A J. H. Alexander
%T INKA: The INGLISH Knowledge Acquisition Interface for Electronic
Instrument Troubleshooting Systems
%J MAG94
%P 676-682
%K AA04 AI02 AA21

%A D. V. Zelinski
%A R. N. Cronk
%T The ES/AG Environment-Its Development and Use in Expert System Applications
%J MAG94
%P 671-675
%K AI01 T03

%A K. H. Wong
%A F. Fallside
%T Dynamic Programming inthe Recognition of Connected Handwritten Script
%J MAG94
%P 666-670
%K AI06

%A V. R. Waldron
%T Process Tracing as a Method for Initial Knowledge Acquisition
%J MAG94
%P 661-665
%K AI01 AI16

%A H. Van Dyke Parunak
%A B. W. Irish
%A J. Kindrick
%A P. W. Lozo
%T Fractal Actors for Distributed Manufacturing Control
%J MAG94
%P 653-660
%K H03 AA26

%A W. K. Utt
%T Directed Search with Feedback
%J MAG94
%P 647-652
%K AI03

%A J. T. Tou
%A C. L. Huang
%T Recognition of 3-D Objects Via Spatial Understanding of 2-D Images
%J MAG94
%P 641-646
%K AI06

%A P. Snow
%T Tatting Inference Nets with Bayes Theorem
%J MAG94
%P 635-640
%K AI16 O04

%A Y. Shoham
%T Reasoning About Causation in Knowledge-Based Systems
%J MAG94
%P 629-634
%K AI16

%A H. C. Shen
%A G. F. P. Signarowski
%T A Knowledge Representation for Roving Robots
%J MAG94
%P 629-634
%K AI07 AI16 AA19

%A D. Schwartz
%T One Cornerstone in the Mathematical Foundations for a System of Fuzzy-
Logic Programming
%J MAG94
%P 618-620
%K AI10 O04

%A P. R. Schaefer
%A I. H. Bozma
%A R. D. Beer
%T Extended Production Rules for Validity Maintenance
%J MAG94
%P 613-617
%K AI01 AI15

%A M. C. Rowe
%A R. Keener
%A A. Veitch
%A R. B. Lantz
%T E. T. Expert Technician/Experience Trapper
%J MAG94
%P 607-612
%K AA04 AA21

%A C. E. Riese
%A S. M. Zubrick
%T Using Rule Induction to Combine Declarative and Procedural Knowledge
Representations
%J MAG94
%P 603-606
%K AI16

%A D. S. Prerau
%A A. S. Gunderson
%A R. E. Reinke
%A S. K. Goyal
%T The COMPASS Expert System: Verification, Technology Transfer, and
Expansion
%J MAG94
%P 597-602
%K AI01

%A B. Pinkowski
%T A Lisp-Based System for Generating Diagnostic Keys
%J MAG94
%P 592-596
%K T01 AA21

%A S. R. Mukherjee
%A M. Sloan
%T Positional Representation of English Words
%J MAG94
%P 587-591
%K AI02

%A J. H. Martin
%T Knowledge Acquisition Through Natural Language Dialogue
%J MAG94
%P 582-586
%K AI01 AI02


%A D. M. Mark
%T Finding Simple Routes; "Ease of Description" as an Objective Function
in Automated Route Selection
%J MAG94
%P 577-581

%A S. Mahalingam
%A D. D. Sharma
%T WELDEX-An Expert System for Nondestructive Testing of Welds
%J MAG94
%P 572-576
%K AI01 AA05  AA21

%A J. Liebowitz
%T Evaluation of Expert Systems: An Approach and Case Study
%J MAG94
%P 564-571
%K AI01

%A S. J. Laskowski
%A H. J. Antonisse
%A R. P. Bonasso
%T Analyst II: A Knowledge-Based Intelligence Support System
%J MAG94
%P 558-563
%K AA18

%A Ronald Baecker
%A william Buxton
%T Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%X 650 pages ISBN 0-934613-24-9 paperbound $26.95

%T Proceedings: Graphics Interface '86/Vision Interface '86
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AI06
%X 402 pages paper bound ISSN 0713-5424 $35.00

%A Peter Politakis
%T Empirical Analysis for Expert Systems
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1985
%K AI01 AA01 rheumatology
%X 187 pages paperbound ISBN 0-273-08663-4 $22.95
.br
Describes SEEK which was used to develop an expert system for
rheumatology

%A David Brown
%A B. Chandrasekaran
%T Design Problem Solving: Knowledge Structures and Control Strategies
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AA05
%X 200 pages paperbound ISBN 0-934613-07-9 $22.95

%A W. Lewis Johnson
%T Intention-Based Diagnosis of Errors in Novice Programs
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AA07 AA08 Proust
%X 1986, 333 pages, ISBN 0-934613-19-2

%A Etienne Wenger
%T Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems: Computational Approaches
to the Communication of Knowledge
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D Winter 1986-1987
%K AA07 AI02
%X 350 pages, hardbound, ISBN 0-934613-26-5

%A John Kender
%T Shape  From Texture
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AI06
%X paperbound, ISBN 0-934613-05-2 $22.95

%A David Touretzky
%T The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AI16
%X paperbound, 220 pages, ISBN 0-934613-06-0 $22.95

%A Ernest Davis
%T Representing and Acquiring Geographic Knowledge
%I Morgan Kaufmann
%C Los Altos, California
%D 1986
%K AI16
%X paperbound, 240 pages, ISBN 0-934613-22-2 $22.95

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
234
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 09:49 CDT
-FROM-
From: From the desk of Daniel Paul
     <"NGSTL1::DANNY%ti-eg.csnet"@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI vs. RI
-BODY-
In the last AI digest (V4 #226), Daniel Simon writes:

>One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between intelligence
and
>"human performance".  Are the two synonymous?  If so, why bother to make
>artificial humans when making natural ones is so much easier (not to mention
>more fun)?

This is a question that has been bothering me for a while.  When it is so much
cheaper (and possible now, while true machine intelligence may be just a dream)
why are we wasting time training machines when we could be training humans in-
stead.  The only reasons that I can see are that intelligent systems can be
made
small enough and light enough to sit on bombs.  Are there any other reasons?

Daniel Paul

danny%ngstl1%ti-eg@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 14:43:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: ritcv!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!colonel@rochester.arpa  (Col.
     G. L. Sicherman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: extended Turing test
-BODY-
> It is not always clear which of the two components a sceptic is
> worrying about. It's usually (ii), because who can quarrel with the
> principle that a veridical model should have all of our performance
> capacities?

Did somebody call me?  Anyway, it's misleading to propose that a
veridical model of _our_ behavior ought to have our "performance
capacities." Function and performance are relative to the user;
in a human context they have no meaning, except to the extent that
we can be said to "use" one another.  This context is political
rather than philosophical.

I do not (yet) quarrel with the principle that the model ought to
have our abilities.  But to speak of "performance capacities" is
to subtly distort the fundamental problem.  We are not performers!


   POZZO:  He used to dance the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig,
           the fandango and even the hornpipe.  He capered.  For joy.  Now
           that's the best he can do.  Do you know what he calls it?
ESTRAGON:  The Scapegoat's Agony.
VLADIMIR:  The Hard Stool.
   POZZO:  The Net.  He thinks he's entangled in a net.

                                --S. Beckett, _Waiting for Godot_
>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 14:57:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: ritcv!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!colonel@rochester.arpa  (Col.
     G. L. Sicherman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle & ducks
-BODY-
> I. What is "understanding", or "ducking" the issue...
>
> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
> quacks like a duck, then it is *called* a duck.  If you cut it open and
> find that the organs are something other than a duck's, *then*
> maybe it shouldn't be called a duck.  What it should be called becomes
> open to discussion (maybe dinner).
>
> The same principle applies to "understanding".

No, this principle applies only to "facts"--things that anybody can
observe, in more or less the same way.  If you say, "Look!  A duck!"
and everybody else says "I don't see anything," what are you to believe?

If it feels like a bellyache, don't conclude that it's a bellyache.
There may be an inner meaning to deal with!  Appendicitis, gallstones,
trichinosis, you've been poisoned, Cthulhu is due any minute ...

This kind of argument always arises when technology develops new
capabilities.  Bell: "Listen!  My machine can talk!" Epiktistes: "No,
it can only reproduce the speech of somebody else." It's something
new--we must argue over what to call it.  Any name we give it will
be metaphorical, invoking an analogy with human behavior, or something
else.  The bottom line is that the thing is not a man; no amount of
simulation and dissimulation will change that.


        When people talk of Ghosts I don't mention the Apparition by which I
        am haunted, the Phantom that shadows me about the streets, the image
        or spectre, so familiar, so like myself, which lurks in the plate-
        glass of shop-windows, or leaps out of mirrors to waylay me.

                                --L. P. Smith
>-
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsiche@sunyabvc

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 16:47:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
>Stevan Harnad writes:
> ...The objective of the turing test is to judge whether the candidate
> has a mind, not whether it is human or drinks motor oil.

In a related vein, if I recall my history correctly, the Turing test has been
applied several times in history.  One occasion was the encounter between the
New World and the Old.  I believe there was considerable speculation on the
part of certain European groups (fueled, one imagines, by economic motives) as
to whether the American Indians had souls.  The (Catholic) church ruled that
they did, effectively putting an end to the controversy.  The question of
whether they had souls was the historical equivalent to the question of
whether they had mind and/or intelligence, I suppose.

I believe the Turing test was also applied to oranguatans, although I don't
recall the details (except that the orangutans flunked).

As an interesting thought experiment, suppose a Turing test were done with a
robot made to look like a human, and a human being who didn't speak English--
both over a CCTV, say, so you couldn't touch them to see which one was soft,
etc.  What would the robot have to do in order to pass itself off as human?
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Advanced Technology Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 13:29:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!aimmi!gilbert@seismo.css.gov  (Gilbert
     Cockton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, AI, NLP, understanding, ducks
-BODY-
In article <1919@well.UUCP> jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs) writes:
>
>Most so-called "understanding" is the result of training and
>education. We are taught "procedures" to follow to
>arrive at a desired result/conclusion. Education is primarily a
>matter of teaching "procedures", whether it be mathematics, chemistry
>or creative writing.  The *better* understood the field, the more "formal"
>the procedures.  Mathematics is very well understood, and
>consists almost entirely of "formal procedures".

This is contentious and smacks of modelling all learning procedures
in terms of a single subject, i.e. mathematics. I can't think of a
more horrible subject to model human understanding on, given the
inhumanity of most mathematics!

Someone with as little as a week of curriculum studies could flatten
this assertion instantly. NO respectable curriculum theory holds that
there is a single form of knowledge to which all bodies of human
experience conform with decreasing measures of formal success. In the
UK, it is official curriculum policy to initiate children into
several `forms' of knowledge (mathematics, physical science,
technology, humanities, aesthetics, religion and the other one).
The degree to which "understanding" is accepted as procedural rote
learning varies from discipline to discipline. Your unsupported
equivalence between understanding and formality ("The *better* understood the
field, the more "formal" the procedures") would not last long in the
hands of social and religious studies, history, literature, craft/design
and technology or art teachers. Despite advances in LISP and
connection machines, no-one has yet formally modelled any of these areas to
the satisfaction of their skilled practitioners. I find it strange
that AI workers who would struggle to write a history/literature/design
essay to the satisfaction of a recognised authority are naive enough to believe
that they could program a machine to write one.

Many educational psychologists and experienced teachers would completely
reject your assertions on the ground that unpersonalised cookbook-style
passively-internalised formalisms, far from being a sign of understanding,
actually constitute the exact opposite of understanding. For me, the term
`understanding' cannot be applied to anything that someone has learnt until
they can act on this knowledge within the REAL world (no text book
problems or ineffective design rituals), justify their action in terms of this
knowledge and finally demonstrate integration of the new knowledge with their
existing views of the world (put it in their own words).

Finally, your passive view of understanding cannot explain creative
thought. Granted, you say `Most so-called "understanding"', but I
would challenge any view that creative thought is exceptional -
the mark of great and noble scientists who cannot yet be modelled by
LISP programs. On the contrary, much of our daily lives has to be
highly creative because our poor understanding of the world forces us to
creatively fill in the gaps left by our inadequate formal education.
Show me one engineer who has ever designed something from start to
finish 100% according to the book. Even where design codes exist, as
in bridge-building, much is left to the imagination. No formal prescription
of behaviour will ever fully constrain the way a human will act.
In situations where it is meant to, such as the military, folk spend a
lot of time pretending either to have done exactly what they were told
or to have said exactly what they wanted to be done. Nearer to home, find me
one computer programmer who's understanding is based 100% on formal procedures.
Even the most formal programmers will be lucky to be in program-proving mode
more than 60% of the time.  So I take it that they don't `understand' what
they're doing the other 40% of the time? Maybe, but if this is the case, then
all we've revealed are differences in our dictionaries. Who gave you the
formal procedure for ascribing meaning to the word "understanding"?

>This leads to the obvious conclusion that humans do not
>*understand* natural language very well.
>The lack of understanding of natural languages is also empirically
>demonstrable.  Confusion about the meaning
>of a person's words, intentions etc can be seen in every interaction
                                                              ... over the net!

Words MEAN something, and what they do mean is relative to the speakers and
the situation. The lack of formal procedures has NOTHING to do with
breakdowns in inter-subjective understanding. It is wholly due to
inabilities to view and describe the world in terms other than one's own.
>-
   Gilbert Cockton, Scottish HCI Centre, Ben Line Building, Edinburgh, EH1 1TN
   JANET:  gilbert@uk.ac.hw.aimmi   ARPA:   gilbert%aimmi.hw.ac.uk@cs.ucl.ac.uk
                UUCP:   ..!{backbone}!aimmi.hw.ac.uk!gilbert

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
235
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 86 02:21:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: v6m%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: OPINIONS REQUESTED ON GURU
-BODY-
I'D APPRECIATE ANY COMMENTS THE GROUP HAS ON THE AI BASED PACKAGE <GURU>.

VINCENT MARCHIONNI
V6M AT PSUVM VIA BITNET
OR
ACIG
1 VALLEY FORGE PLAZA
VALLEY FORGE PA  19487
                           THANKS         VINCE

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 1986 21:35-EDT
-FROM-
From: cross@afit-ab
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge-based management tools query
-BODY-
Are there any pc-based shells that integrate simple rule bases, data
base systems (ala DBASE III), spreedsheets?  Does anyone have any
experience with GURU?  Any information would be appreciated.  Will
be starting some work here towards the design of an intelligent
assistant for a program manager.  Any pointers to papers or other
references would also be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.

Steve Cross

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 86 16:09:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: dual!islenet!humu!uhmanoa!aloha1!shee@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (shee)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ifprolog.
-BODY-
We have if/prolog version 3.0 on unix operating system on HP-9000 machine. We
are looking for ways to increase the memory capacity of if/prolog so that there
is no stack overflow for our knowledge_based ai programs.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 00:56:18 edt
-FROM-
From: gatech!ldi@rayssd.ray.com (Louis P. DiPalma)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Address???
-BODY-

Address for Integrated Inference Machines is as follows:

        Integrated Inference Machines
        1468 E. Katella Avenue
        Anaheim, California  92805

        Phone: (714) 978-6776

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 86 17:20:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: hp-pcd!orstcs!tgd@hplabs.hp.com  (tgd)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Soli
-BODY-
Here is a rough try at defining the analog vs. digital distinction.

In any representation, certain properties of the representational medium are
exploited to carry information.  Digital representations tend to exploit
fewer properties of the medium.  For example, in digital electronics, a 0
could be defined as anything below .2volts and a 1 as anything above 4volts.
This is a simple distinction.  An analog representation of a signal (e.g.,
in an audio amplifier) requires a much finer grain of distinctions--it
exploits the continuity of voltage to represent, for example, the loudness
of a sound.

A related notion of digital and analog can be obtained by considering what
kinds of transformations can be applied without losing information.  Digital
signals can generally be transformed in more ways--precisely because they do
not exploit as many properties of the representational medium.  Hence, if we
add .1volts to a digital 0 as defined above, the result will either still be
0 or else be undefined (and hence detectable).  A digital 1 remains
unchanged under addition of .1volts.  However, the analog signal would be
changed under ANY addition of voltage.

>-Tom Dietterich

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 22 Oct 86 09:38:53-CDT
-FROM-
From: AI.CHRISSIE@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI Lab Technical Reports
-BODY-
      [Forwarded from the UTexas-20 bboard by Laws@SRI-STRIPE.]

Following is a listing of the reports available from the AI Lab.
Reports are available from Chrissie in Taylor Hall 4.130D.  An annotated
list is also available upon request either on-line or hardcopy.


                           TECHNICAL REPORT LISTING

                      Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
                         University of Texas at Austin
                               Taylor Hall 2.124
                              Austin, Texas 78712
                                (512) 471-9562
                                September 1986
                     All reports furnished free of charge

AI84-01   Artificial Intelligence Project at The University of Texas at Austin,
          Gordon S. Novak and Robert L. Causey, et al., 1984.

AI84-02   Computing Discourse Conceptual Coherence:    A  Means  to  Contextual
          Reference Resolution, Ezat Karimi, August 1984.

AI84-03   Translating Horn Clauses From English, Yeong-Ho Yu, August 1984.

AI84-04   From  Menus to Intentions in Man-Machine Dialogue, Robert F. Simmons,
          November 1984.

AI84-05   A Text Knowledge  Base  for  the  AI  Handbook,  Robert  F.  Simmons,
          December 1983.

AI85-02   Knowledge    Based   Contextual   Reference   Resolution   for   Text
          Understanding, Michael Kavanaugh Smith, January 1985.

AI85-03   Learning Problem Solving:  A Proposal for Continued  Research,  Bruce
          W. Porter, March 1985.

AI85-04   Using and Revising Learned Concept Models: A Research Proposal, Bruce
          W. Porter, May 1985.

AI85-05   A Self Organizing Retrieval System for Graphs,  Robert  A.  Levinson,
          May 1985.

AI85-06   Lisp Programming Lecture Notes, Gordon S. Novak, Jr., July 1985.

AI85-07   Heuristic  and Formal Methods in Automatic Program Debugging, William
          R. Murray, June 1985.  (To appear in IJCAI85 Proceedings.)

AI85-08   A General Heuristic Bottom-up Procedure for Searching AND/OR  Graphs,
          Vipin Kumar, August 1985.

AI85-09   A  General  Paradigm  for  AND/OR  Graph  and Game Tree Search. Vipin
          Kumar, August 1985.

AI85-10   Parallel Processing for Artificial Intelligence, Vipin Kumar, 1985.

AI85-11   Branch-AND-Bound Search, Vipin Kumar, 1985.

AI85-12   Computational Treatment of Metaphor in Text Understanding:   A  First
          Approach, Olivier Winghart, August 1985.

AI85-13   Computer  Science  and Medical Information Retrieval, Robert Simmons,
          1985.

AI85-14   Technologies for Machine Translation, Robert Simmons, August 1985.

AI85-15   The Knower's Paradox and the Logics of Attitudes, Nicholas Asher  and
          Hans Kamp, August 1985.

AI85-16   Negotiated  Interfaces  for Software Reusability, Rick Hill, December
          1985.

AI85-17   The Map-Learning Critter, Benjamin J. Kuipers, December 1985.

AI85-18   Menu-Based Creation of Procedures for Display of Data,  Man-Lee  Wan,
          December 1985.

AI85-19   Explanation  of  Mechanical  Systems  Through Qualitative Simulation,
          Stuart Laughton, December 1985.

AI86-20   Experimental Goal Regression:  A Method for Learning Problem  Solving
          Heuristics, Bruce W. Porter and Dennis Kibler, January 1986.

AI86-21   GT:    A  Conjecture  Generator  for  Graph  Theory, Wing-Kwong Wong,
          January 1986.

AI86-22   An Intelligent Backtracking Algorithm for Parallel Execution of Logic
          Programs, Yow-Jian Lin, Vipin Kumar and Clement Leung, March 1986.

AI86-23   A  Parallel  Execution Scheme for Exploiting AND-parallelism of Logic
          Programs, Yow-Jian Lin and Vipin Kumar, March 1986.

AI86-24   Qualitative Simulation as Causal Explanation,  Benjamin  J.  Kuipers,
          April 1986.

AI86-25   Fault  Diagnosis  Using  Qualitative Simulation, Ray Bareiss and Adam
          Farquhar, April 1986.

AI86-26   Symmetric Rules for Translation of English and Chinese,  Wanying  Jin
          and Robert F. Simmons, May 1986.

AI86-27   Automatic Program Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, William
          R. Murray, June, 1986.  (PhD dissertation)

AI86-28   The Role of Inversion, Clecting and PP-Fronting in Relating Discourse
          Elements, Mark V. Lapolla, July 1986.

AI86-29   A Theory of Argument Coherence, Wing-Kwong C. Wong, July 1986.

AI86-30   Metaphorical  Shift  and  The  Induction  of  Similarities,  Phillipe
          M. Alcouffe, July 1986.  (Master's thesis)

AI86-31   A  Rule  Language  for  the  GLISP  Programming  System,  Christopher
          A. Rath, August 1986.  (Master's thesis)

AI86-32   Talus:  Automatic Program Debugging for Intelligent Tutoring Systems,
          William R. Murray, August 1986.

AI86-33   New  Algorithms   for   Dependency-Directed   Backtracking,   Charles
          J. Petrie, September, 1986.  (Master's thesis)

AI86-34   An  Execution Model for Exploiting AND-Parallelism in Logic Programs,
          Yow-Jian Lin and Vipin Kumar, September 1986.

AI86-35   PROTOS:    An  Experiment  in  Knowledge  Acquisition  for  Heuristic
          Classification  Tasks,  Bruce  W.  Porter  and E. Ray Bareiss, August
          1986.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
236
-DATE-
Date: Sun 26 Oct 86 17:11:45-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mod.ai Followup Problem
-BODY-
The following five messages are replies by Stevan Harnad to some of the
items that have appeared in AIList.  These five had not made it to the
AIList@SRI-STRIPE mailbox and so were never forwarded to the digest or
to mod.ai.  Our current hypothesis is that the Usenet readnews command
does not correctly deliver followup ("f") messages when used to reply
to mod.ai items.  Readers with this problem can send replies to net.ai
or to sri-stripe!ailist.

                                        -- Kenneth Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 00:15:36 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: for posting on mod.ai (reply to E. Mozes, reconstructed)
-BODY-
On mod.ai, in Message-ID: <8610160605.AA09268@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
on 16 Oct 86 06:05:38 GMT, eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) writes:

>       I don't see your point at all about "categorical
>       perception". You say that "differences between reds and differences
>       between yellows look much smaller than equal-sized differences that
>       cross the red/yellow boundary". But if they look much smaller, this
>       means they're NOT "equal-sized"; the differences in wave-length may be
>       the same, but the differences in COLOR are much smaller.

There seems to be a problem here, and I'm afraid it might be the
mind/body problem. I'm not completely sure what you mean. If all
you mean is that sometimes equal-sized differences in inputs can be
made unequal by internal differences in how they are encoded, embodied
or represented -- i.e., that internal physical differences of some
sort may mediate the perceived inequalities -- then I of course agree.
There are indeed innate color-detecting structures. Moreover, it is
the hypothesis of the paper under discussion that such internal
categorical representations can also arise as a consequence of
learning.

If what you mean, however, is that there exist qualitative differences among
equal-sized input differences with no internal physical counterpart, and
that these are in fact mediated by the intrinsic nature of phenomenological
COLOR -- that discontinuous qualitative inequalities can occur when
everything physical involved, external and internal, is continuous and
equal -- then I am afraid I cannot follow you.

My own position on color quality -- i.e., "what it's like" to
experience red, etc. -- is that it is best ignored, methodologically.
Psychophysical modeling is better off restricting itself to what we CAN
hope to handle, namely, relative and absolute judgments: What differences
can we tell apart in pairwise comparison (relative discrimination) and
what stimuli or objects can we label or identify (absolute
discrimination)? We have our hands full modeling this. Further
concerns about trying to capture the qualitative nature of perception,
over and above its performance consequences [the Total Turing Test]
are, I believe, futile.

This position can be dubbed "methodological epiphenomenalism." It amounts
to saying that the best empirical theory of mind that we can hope to come
up with will always be JUST AS TRUE of devices that actual have qualitative
experiences (i.e., are conscious) as of devices that behave EXACTLY AS IF
they had qualitative experiences (i.e., turing-indistinguishably), but do
not (if such insentient look-alikes are possible). The position is argued
in detail in the papers under discussion.


>       Your whole theory is based on the assumption that perceptual qualities
>       are something physical in the outside world (e.g., that colors ARE
>       wave-lengths). But this is wrong. Perceptual qualities represent the
>       form in which we perceive external objects, and they're determined both
>       by external physical conditions and by the physical structure of our
>       sensory apparatus; thus, colors are determined both by wave-lengths and
>       by the physical structure of our visual system. So there's no apriori
>       reason to expect that equal-sized differences in wave-length will lead
>       to equal-sized differences in color, or to assume that deviations from
>       this rule must be caused by internal representations of categories. And
>       this seems to completely cut the grounds from under your theory.

Again, there is nothing for me to disagree with if you're saying that
perceived discontinuities are mediated by either external or internal
physical discontinuities. In modeling the induction and representation
of categories, I am modeling the physical sources of such
discontinuities. But there's still an ambiguity in what you seem to be
saying, and I don't think I'm mistaken if I think I detect a note of
dualism in it. It all hinges on what you mean by "outside world." If
you only mean what's physically outside the device in question, then of
course perceptual qualities cannot be equated with that. It's internal
physical differences that matter.

But that doesn't seem to be all you mean by "outside world." You seem
to mean that the whole of the physical world is somehow "outside" conscious
perception. What else can you mean by the statement that "perceptual
qualities represent the form [?] in which we perceive external
objects" or that "there's no...reason to expect that...[perceptual]
deviations from [physical equality]...must be caused by internal
representations of categories."

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but either this is just a reminder that
there are internal physical differences one must take into account too
in modeling the induction and representation of categories (but then
they are indeed taken into account in the papers under discussion, and
I can't imagine why you would think they would "completely cut the
ground from under" my theory) or else you are saying something metaphysical
with which I cannot agree.

One last possibility may have to do with what you mean by
"representation." I use the word eclectically, especially because the
papers are arguing for a hybrid representation, with the symbolic
component grounded in the nonsymbolic. So I can even agree with you
that I doubt that mere symbolic differences are likely to be the sole
cause of psychophysical discontinuities, although, being physically
embodied, they are in principle sufficient. I hypothesize, though,
that nonsymbolic differences are also involved in psychophysical
discontinuities.


>       My second criticism is that, even if "categorical perception" really
>       provided a base for a theory of categorization, it would be very
>       limited; it would apply only to categories of perceptual qualities. I
>       can't see how you'd apply your approach to a category such as "table",
>       let alone "justice".

How abstract categories can be grounded "bottom-up" in concrete psychophysical
categories is the central theme of the papers under discussion. Your remarks
were based only on the summaries and abstracts of those papers. By now I
hope the preprints have reached you, as you requested, and that your
question has been satisfactorily answered. To summarize "grounding"
briefly: According to the model, (learned) concrete psychophysical categories
are formed from sampling positive and negative instances of a category
and then encoding the invariant information that will reliably identify
further instances. This might be how one learned the concrete
categories "horse" and "striped" for example. The (concrete) category
"zebra" could then be learned without need for direct perceptual
ACQUAINTANCE with the positive and negative instances by simply being
told that a zebra is a striped horse. That is, the category can
be learned by symbolic DESCRIPTION by merely recombining the labels of
the already-grounded perceptual categories.

All categorization involves some abstraction and generalization (even
"horse," and certainly "striped" did), so abstract categories such as
"goodness," "truth" and "justice" could be learned and represented by
recursion on already grounded categories, their labels and their
underlying representations. (I have no idea why you think I'd have a
problem with "table.")


>       Actually, there already exists a theory of categorization that is along
>       similar lines to your approach, but integrated with a detailed theory
>       of perception and not subject to the two criticisms above; that is the
>       Objectivist theory of concepts. It was presented by Ayn Rand... and by
>       David Kelley...

Thanks for the reference, but I'd be amazed to see an implementable,
testable model of categorization performance issue from that source...


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 11:05:47 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Please post on mod.ai -- first of 4 (cugini)
-BODY-

In Message-ID: <8610190504.AA08059@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> on mod.ai
CUGINI, JOHN <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA> replies to my claim that

>> there is no rational reason for being more sceptical about robots'
>> minds (if we can't tell their performance apart from that of people)
>> than about (other) peoples' minds.

with the following:

>       One (rationally) believes other people are conscious BOTH because
>       of their performance and because their internal stuff is a lot like
>       one's own.

This is a very important point and a subtle one, so I want to make
sure that my position is explicit and clear: I am not denying that
there exist some objective data that correlate with having a mind
(consciousness) over and above performance data. In particular,
there's (1) the way we look and (2) the fact that we have brains. What
I am denying is that this is relevant to our intuitions about who has a
mind and why. I claim that our intuitive sense of who has a mind is
COMPLETELY based on performance, and our reason can do no better. These
other correlates are only inessential afterthoughts, and it's irrational
to take them as criteria.

My supporting argument is very simple: We have absolutely no intuitive
FUNCTIONAL ideas about how our brains work. (If we did, we'd have long
since spun an implementable brain theory from our introspective
armchairs.) Consequently, our belief that brains are evidence of minds and
that the absence of a brain is evidence of the absence of a mind is based
on a superficial black-box correlation. It is no more rational than
being biased by any other aspect of appearance, such as the color of
the skin, the shape of the eyes or even the presence or absence of a tail.

To put it in the starkest terms possible: We wouldn't know what device
was and was not relevantly brain-like if it was staring us in the face
>- EXCEPT IF IT HAD OUR PERFORMANCE CAPACITIES (i.e., it could pass
the Total Turing Test). That's the only thing our intuitions have to
go on, and our reason has nothing more to offer either.

To take one last pass at setting the relevant intuitions: We know what
it's like to DO (and be able to do) certain things. Similar
performance capacity is our basis for inferring that what it's like
for me is what it's like for you (or it). We do not know anything
about HOW we do any of those things, or about what would count as the
right way and the wrong way (functionally speaking). Inferring that
another entity has a mind is an intuitive judgment based on performance.
It's called the (total) turing test. Inferring HOW other entities
accomplish their performance is ordinary scientific inference. We're in
no rational position to prejudge this profound and substantive issue on
the basis of the appearance of a lump of grey jelly to our untutored but
superstitious minds.

>       [W]e DO have some idea about the functional basis for mind, namely
>       that it depends on the brain (at least more than on the pancreas, say).
>       This is not to contend that there might not be other bases, but for
>       now ALL the minds we know of are brain-based, and it's just not
>       dazzlingly clear whether this is an incidental fact or somewhat
>       more deeply entrenched.

The question isn't whether the fact is incidental, but what its
relevant functional basis is. In other words, what is it about he
brain that's relevant and what incidental? We need the causal basis
for the correlation, and that calls for a hefty piece of creative
scientific inference (probably in theoretical bio-engineering). The
pancreas is no problem, because it can't generate the brain's
performance capacities. But it is simply begging the question to say
that brain-likeness is an EXTRA relevant source of information in
turing-testing robots, when we have no idea what's relevantly brain-like.

People were sure (as sure as they'll ever be) that other people had
minds long before they ever discovered they had brains. I myself believed
the brain was just a figure of speech for the first dozen or so years of
my life. Perhaps there are people who don't learn or believe the news
throughout their entire lifetimes. Do you think these people KNOW any
less than we do about what does or doesn't have a mind? Besides, how
many people do you think could really pick out a brain from a pancreas
anyway? And even those who can have absolutely no idea what it is
about the brain that makes it conscious; and whether a cow's brain or
a horse-shoe crab's has it; or whether any other device, artificial or
natural, has it or lacks it, or why. In the end everyone must revert to
the fact that a brain is as a brain does.

>       Why is consciousness a red herring just because it adds a level
>       of uncertainty?

Perhaps I should have said indeterminacy. If my arguments for
performance-indiscernibility (the turing test) as our only objective
basis for inferring mind are correct, then there is a level of
underdetermination here that is in no way comparable to that of, say,
the unobservable theoretical entities of physics (say, quarks, or, to
be more trendy, perhaps strings). Ordinary underdetermination goes
like this: How do I know that your theory's right about the existence
and presence of strings? Because WITH them the theory succeeds in
accounting for all the objective data (let's pretend), and without
them it does not. Strings are not "forced" by the data, and other
rival theories may be possible that work without them. But until these
rivals are put forward, normal science says strings are "real" (modulo
ordinary underdetermination).

Now try to run that through for consciousness: How do I know that your
theory's right about the existence and presence of consciousness (i.e.,
that your model has a mind)? "Because its performance is
turing-indistinguishable from that of creatures that have minds." Is
your theory dualistic? Does it give consciousness an independent,
nonphysical, causal role? "Goodness, no!" Well then, wouldn't it fit
the objective data just as well (indeed, turing-indistinguishably)
without consciousness? "Well..."

That's indeterminacy, or radical underdetermination, or what have you.
And that's why consciousness is a methodological red herring.

>       Even though any correlations will ultimately be grounded on one side
>       by introspection reports, it does not follow that we will never know,
>       with reasonable assurance, which aspects of the brain are necessary for
>       consciousness and which are incidental...Now at some level of
difficulty
>       and abstraction, you can always engineer anything with anything... But
>       the "multi-realizability" argument has force only if its obvious
>       (which it ain't) that the structure of the brain at a fairly high
>       level (eg neuron networks, rather than molecules), high enough to be
>       duplicated by electronics, is what's important for consciousness.

We'll certainly learn more about the correlation between brain
function and consciousness, and even about the causal (functional)
basis of the correlation. But the correlation will really be between
function and performance capacity, and the rest will remain the intuitive
inference or leap of faith it always was. And since ascertaining what
is relevant about brain function and what is incidental cannot depend
simply on its BEING brain function, but must instead depend, as usual, on
the performance criterion, we're back where we started. (What do you
think is the basis for our confidence in introspective reports? And
what are you going to say about robots'introspective reports...?)

I don't know what you mean, by the way, about always being able to
"engineer anything with anything at some level of abstraction." Can
anyone engineer something to pass the robotic version of the Total
Turing Test right now? And what's that "level of abstraction" stuff?
Robots have to do their thing in the real world. And if my
groundedness arguments are valid, that ain't all done with symbols
(plus add-on peripheral modules).

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 11:11:08 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: For posting on mod.ai - 2nd of 4 (reply to Kalish)
-BODY-

In mod.ai, Message-ID: <861016-071607-4573@Xerox>,
 "charles_kalish.EdServices"@XEROX.COM writes:

>       About Stevan Harnad's two kinds of Turing tests [linguistic
>       vs. robotic]: I can't really see what difference the I/O methods
>       of your system makes. It seems that the relevant issue is what
>       kind of representation of the world it has.

I agree that what's at issue is what kind of representation of the
world the system has. But you are prejudging "representation" to mean
only symbolic representation, whereas the burden of the papers in
question is to show that symbolic representations are "ungrounded" and
must be grounded in nonsymbolic processes (nonmodularly -- i.e., NOT
by merely tacking on autonomous peripherals).

>       While I agree that, to really understand, the system would need some
>       non-purely conventional representation (not semantic if "semantic"
>       means "not operable on in a formal way" as I believe [given the brain
>       is a physical system] all mental processes are formal  then "semantic"
>       just means governed by a process we don't understand yet), giving and
>       getting through certain kinds of I/O doesn't make much difference.

"Non-purely conventional representation"? Sounds mysterious. I've
tried to make a concrete proposal as to just what that hybrid
representation should be like.

"All mental processes are formal"? Sounds like prejudging the issue again.
It may help to be explicit about what one means by formal/symbolic:
Symbolic processing is the manipulation of (arbitrary) physical tokens
in virtue of their shape on the basis of formal rules. This is also
called syntactic processing. The formal goings-on are also
"semantically interpretable" -- they have meanings; they are connected
to objects in the outside world that they are about. The Searle
problem is that so far the only devices that do semantic
interpretations intrinsically are ourselves. My proposal is that
grounding the representations nonmodularly in the I/O connection may provide
the requisite intrinsic semantics. This may be the "process we don't
understand yet." But it means giving up the idea that "all mental
processes are formal" (which in any case does not follow, at least on
the present definition of "formal," from the fact that "the brain is a
physical system").

>       Two for instances: SHRDLU operated on a simulated blocks world. The
>       modifications to make it operate on real blocks would have been
>       peripheral and not have affected the understanding of the system.

This is a variant of the "Triviality of Transduction (& A/D, & D/A,
and Effectors)" Argument (TT) that I've responded to in another
iteration. In brief, it's toy problems like SHRDLU that are trivial.
The complete translatability of internal symbolic descriptions into
the objects they stand for (and the consequent partitioning of
the substantive symbolic module and the trivial nonsymbolic
peripherals) may simply break down, as I predict, for life-size
problems approaching the power to pass the Total Turing Test.

To put it another way: There is a conjecture implicit in the solutions
to current toy/microworld problems, namely, that something along
essentially the same lines will suitably generalize to the
grown-up/macroworld problem. What I'm saying amounts to a denial of
that conjecture, with reasons. It is not a reply to me to simply
restate the conjecture.

>       Also, all systems take analog input and give analog output. Most
receive
>       finger pressure on keys and return directed streams of ink or
electrons.
>       It may be that a robot would need  more "immediate" (as opposed to
>       conventional) representations, but it's neither necessary nor
sufficient
>       to be a robot to have those representations.

The problem isn't marrying symbolic systems to any old I/O. I claim
that minds are "dedicated" systems of a particular kind: The kind
capable of passing the Total Turing Test. That's the only necessity and
sufficiency in question.

And again, the mysterious word "immediate" doesn't help. I've tried to
make a specific proposal, and I've accepted the consequences, namely, that it's
just not going to be a "conventional" marriage at all, between a (substantive)
symbolic module and a (trivial) nonsymbolic module, but rather a case of
miscegenation (or a sex-change operation, or some other suitably mixed
metaphor). The resulting representational system will be grounded "bottom-up"
in nonsymbolic function (and will, I hope, display the characteristic
"hybrid vigor" that our current pure-bred symbolic and nonsymbolic processes
lack), as I've proposed (nonmetaphorically) in the papers under discussion.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
237
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 11:45:17 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: For posting on mod.ai 3rd of 4 (reply to Krulwich)
-BODY-

In mod.ai, Message-ID: <8610190504.AA08083@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
17 Oct 6 17:29:00 GMT, KRULWICH@C.CS.CMU.EDU (Bruce Krulwich) writes:

>       i disagree...that symbols, and in general any entity that a computer
>       will process, can only be dealt with in terms of syntax. for example,
>       when i add two integers, the bits that the integers are encoded in are
>       interpreted semantically to combine to form an integer. the same
>       could be said about a symbol that i pass to a routine in an
>       object-oriented system such as CLU, where what is done with
>       the symbol depends on it's type (which i claim is it's semantics)

Syntax is ordinarily defined as formal rules for manipulating physical
symbol tokens in virtue of their (arbitrary) SHAPES. The syntactic goings-on
are semantically interpretable, that is, the symbols are also
manipulable in virtue of their MEANINGS, not just their shapes.
Meaning is a complex and ill-understood phenomenon, but it includes
(1) the relation of the symbols to the real objects they "stand for" and
(2) a subjective sense of understanding that relation (i.e., what
Searle has for English and lacks for Chinese, despite correctly
manipulating its symbols). So far the only ones who seem to
do (1) and (2) are ourselves. Redefining semantics as manipulating symbols
in virtue of their "type" doesn't seem to solve the problem...

>       i think that the reason that computers are so far behind the
>       human brain in semantic interpretation and in general "thinking"
>       is that the brain contains a hell of a lot more information
>       than most computer systems, and also the brain makes associations
>       much faster, so an object (ie, a thought) is associated with
>       its semantics almost instantly.

I'd say you're pinning a lot of hopes on "more" and "faster." The
problem just might be somewhat deeper than that...

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 11:59:28 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: For posting on mod.ai, 4th of 4 (reply to Danny Paul)
-BODY-

Topic: Machines: Natural and Man-Made

On mod.ai, in Message-ID: <8610240550.AA15402@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
22 Oct 86 14:49:00 GMT, NGSTL1::DANNY%ti-eg.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET (Daniel Paul)
cites Daniel Simon's earlier reply in AI digest (V4 #226):

>One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between intelligence
and
>"human performance".  Are the two synonymous?  If so, why bother to make
>artificial humans when making natural ones is so much easier (not to mention
>more fun)?

Daniel Paul then adds:

>       This is a question that has been bothering me for a while. When it
>       is so much cheaper (and possible now, while true machine intelligence
>       may be just a dream) why are we wasting time training machines when we
>       could be training humans instead? The only reasons that I can see are
>       that intelligent systems can be made small enough and light enough to
>       sit on bombs. Are there any other reasons?

Apart from the two obvious ones -- (1) so machines can free people to do
things machines cannot yet do, if people prefer, and (2) so machines can do
things that people can only do less quickly and efficiently, if people
prefer -- there is the less obvious reply already made to Daniel
Simon: (3) because trying to get machines to display all our performance
capacity (the Total Turing Test) is our only way of arriving at a functional
understanding of what kinds of machines we are, and how we work.

[Before the cards and letters pour in to inform me that I've used
"machine" incoherently: A "machine," (writ large, Deus Ex Machina) is
just a physical, causal system. Present-generation artificial machines
are simply very primitive examples.]


Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 86 15:39:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: husc6!rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@eddie.mit.edu  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) writes:

>       I believe the Turing test was also applied to orangutans, although
>       I don't recall the details (except that the orangutans flunked)...
>       As an interesting thought experiment, suppose a Turing test were done
>       with a robot made to look like a human, and a human being who didn't
>       speak English-- both over a CCTV, say, so you couldn't touch them to
>       see which one was soft, etc. What would the robot have to do in order
>       to pass itself off as human?

They should all three in principle have a chance of passing. For the orang,
we would need to administer the ecologically valid version of the
test. (I think we have reasonably reliable cross-species intuitions
about mental states, although they're obviously not as sensitive as
our intraspecific ones, and they tend to be anthropocentric and
anthropomorphic -- perhaps necessarily so; experienced naturalists are
better at this, just as cross-cultural ethnographic judgments depend on
exposure and experience.) We certainly have no problem in principle with
foreign speakers (the remarkable linguist, polyglot and bible-translator
Kenneth Pike has a "magic show" in which, after less than an hour of "turing"
interactions with a speaker of any of the [shrinking] number of languages he
doesn't yet know, they are babbling mutually intelligibly before your very
eyes), although most of us may have some problems in practice with such a
feat, at least, without practice.

Severe aphasics and mental retardates may be tougher cases, but there
perhaps the orang version would stand us in good stead (and I don't
mean that disrespectfully; I have an extremely high regard for the mental
states of our fellow creatures, whether human or nonhuman).

As to the robot: Well that's the issue here, isn't it? Can it or can it not
pass the appropriate total test that its appropriate non-robot counterpart
(be it human or ape) can pass? If so, it has a mind, by this criterion (the
Total Turing Test). I certainly wouldn't dream of flunking either a human or
a robot just because he/it didn't feel soft, if his/its total performance
was otherwise turing indistinguishable.

Stevan Harnad
princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 23 Oct 86 14:52:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: extended Turing test
-BODY-

colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:

>       [I]t's misleading to propose that a veridical model of _our_ behavior
>       ought to have our "performance capacities"...I do not (yet) quarrel
>       with the principle that the model ought to have our abilities. But to
>       speak of "performance capacities" is to subtly distort the fundamental
>       problem. We are not performers!


"Behavioral ability"/"performance capacity" -- such fuss over
black-box synonyms, instead of facing the substantive problem of
modeling the functional substrate that will generate them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 86 19:02:42 GMT
-FROM-
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

Possibly a more interesting test would be to give the computer
direct control of the video bit map and let it synthesize an
image of a human being.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 22:54:58 EDT
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: turing test
-BODY-
PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA (Pat Hayes) writes:
> Daniel R. Simon has worries about the Turing test.  A good place to find
> intelligent discussion of these issues is Turings original article in MIND,
> October 1950, v.59, pages 433 to 460.

That article was in part a response to G. Jefferson's Lister Oration,
which appeared as "The mind of mechanical man" in the British Medical
Journal for 1949 (pp. 1105-1121).  It's well worth reading in its own
right.  Jefferson presents the humane issues at least as well as Turing
presents the scientific issues, and I think that Turing failed to
rebut, or perhaps to comprehend, all Jefferson's objections.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 18:09 CDT
-FROM-
From: PADIN%FNALB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: THE PSEUDOMATH OF THE TURING TEST
-BODY-
        LETS PUT THE TURING TEST INTO PSEUDO MATHEMATICAL TERMS.

        DEFINE THE SET Q={question1,question2,...}.  LETS NOTE THAT
FOR EACH q IN Q, THERE IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RESPONSES ( THE RESPONSES
NEED NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION, THEY JUST NEED TO BE RESPONSES).
IN FACT, WE CAN DEFINE A SET R={EVERY POSSIBLE RESPONSE TO ANY QUESTION}, i.e.,
        R={r1,r2,r3,...}.

        WE CAN DEFINE THE TURING TEST AS A FUNCTION T THAT MAPS QUESTIONS
q in Q TO A SET RR IN R OF ALL RESPONSES ( i.e., RR IS A SUBSET OF R).
WE CAN THEN WRITE
                        T(q) --> RR

WHICH STATES THAT THERE EXISTS A FUNCTION T THAT MAPS A QUESTION q TO A
SET OF RESPONSES RR.  THE EXISTENCE OF T FOR ALL QUESTIONS q IS EVIDENCE FOR
THE PRESENCE OF MIND SINCE T CHOOSES, OUT OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RESPONSES,
THOSE RESPONSES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO AN ENTITY WITH A MIND.

        NOTE: T IS THE SET

{(question1,{resp1-1,resp2-1,...,respn-1}),
 (question2,{resp1-2,resp2-2,...,respk-2}),
 ...
 (questionj,{resp1-j,resp2-j,...,respj-h}),
 }

WE USE A SET (RR) OF RESPONSES BECAUSE THERE ARE ,FOR MOST QUESTIONS, MORE
THEN ONE RESPONSE. THERE ARE TIMES OF COURSE WHEN THERE IS JUST ONE ELEMENT IN
RR, SUCH AS, THE RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, 'IS IT RAINING OUTSIDE?'.

NOW A PROBLEM ARRISES: WHO IS TO DECIDE WHICH SUBSET OF RESPONSES INDICATES
THE EXISTENCE OF MIND?  WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH SET IS APPROPRIATE TO INDICATE
AN ENTITY OTHER THAN OURSELVES IS OUT THERE RESPONDING?
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE DEFINE THE SET RR AS

                RR={r(i) | r(i) is randomly chosen from R}

THEN TO EACH QUESTION q IN THE SET OF QUESTIONS USED TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE
OF MIND, WE GET A RESPONSE WHICH APPEARS TO BE RANDOM, THAT IS , WE CAN MAKE NO
SENSE OF THE RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION ASKED.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT
THIS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO LABEL TO RESPONDENT A MINDLESS ENTITY. HOWEVER,
IT IS THE EXACT RESPONSE ONE WOULD EXPECT OF A SCHIZOPHRENIC.  NOW WHAT DO WE
DO?  DO WE CHOSE TO DEFINE SCHIZOPHRENICS AS MINDLESS PEOPLE?  THIS IS NOT
MORALLY PALATABLE.  DO WE CHOSE TO ALLOW THE 'RANDOM SET' TO BE USED AS
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF MINDEDNESS?  THIS CHOICE IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE EITHER BECAUSE IT SIMPLY RESULTS IN WHAT MAY BE CALLED TURING NOISE,
YIELDING NO USEFUL INFORMATION.
        IF WE ARE UNWILLING TO ACCEPT ANOTHER'S DECISION AS TO THE SET OF
ACCEPTABLE RESPONSES, THEN WE ARE COMPELLED TO DO THE DETERMINATION OURSELVES.
NOW IF WE ARE TO USE OUR JUDGEMENT IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER MIND,
THEN WE MUST ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR INHERENT IN THE HUMAN DECISION
MAKING PROCESS. AT BEST,THEN, THE TURING TEST WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE US ONLY A
HINT AT THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER MIND; A LEVEL OF PROBABILITY.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 86 20:56:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) replies:

>       Possibly a more interesting test [than the robotic version of
>       the Total Turing Test] would be to give the computer
>       direct control of the video bit map and let it synthesize an
>       image of a human being.

Manipulating digital "images" is still only symbol-manipulation. It is
(1) the causal connection of the transducers with the objects of the
outside world, including (2) any physical "resemblance" the energy
pattern on the transducers may have to the objects from which they
originate, that distinguishes robotic functionalism from symbolic
functionalism and that suggests a solution to the problem of grounding
the otherwise ungrounded symbols (i.e., the problem of "intrinsic vs.
derived intentionality"), as argued in the papers under discussion.

A third reason why internally manipulated bit-maps are not a new way
out of the problems with the symbolic version of the turing test is
that (3) a model that tries to explain the functional basis of our
total performance capacity already has its hands full with anticipating
and generating all of our response capacities in the face of any
potential input contingency (i.e., passing the Total Turing Test)
without having to anticipate and generate all the input contingencies
themselves. In other words, its enough of a problem to model the mind
and how it interacts successfully with the world without having to
model the world too.

Stevan Harnad
{seismo, packard, allegra} !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
238
-DATE-
Date: 22 October 1986 1027-EDT
-FROM-
From: Elaine Atkinson@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Toward Meta-Level Problem Solving (CMU)
-BODY-
SPEAKER:  Prof. Kurt VanLehn, Psychology Dept., CMU
TITLE:    "Towards meta-level problem solving"
DATE:     Thursday, October 23
TIME:     4:00 p.m.
PLACE:    Adamson Wing, Baker Hall
ABSTRACT: This talk presents preliminary evidence for a new model
of procedure following.  Following a mentally held procedure is
a common activity.  It takes about 12 procedures to fill an order
at McDonalds.  Perhaps 50,000 procedures are followed daily in
running an aircraft carrier.  Despite its ubiquity and economic
importance, little is known about procedure following.  The folk
model is that people have an interpreter, similar to the
interpreters of Lisp, OPS5 or ACT*.  The most common interpreters
in cognitive science are hierarchical, in that they employ a
goal stack or a goal tree as part of their temporary state.  A
new model of procedure following will be sketched based on the
idea that procedure following is meta-level problem solving.
The problem is to get a procedure to execute.  The operators
do things like set goals, pop them, etc.  The state descriptions
are things like "goal1 is more recent than goal2."  Different
problem spaces correspond to different interpreters:  the goal
stack, goal tree and goal agenda are three different meta-level
problem spaces.  We present data based on protocols from 25
subjects executing procedures that show that (1) different
subjects have different interpreters (stack and agenda are the
most common) and (2) some subjects change interpretation
strategy in the midst of execution.  Although these data
do not unequivocally refute the folk model of procedure following,
they receive a simpler, more elegant interpretation under the
meta-level problem solving model.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 15:32:19 pdt
-FROM-
From: Premla Nangia <pam@su-whitney.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Diagnosing Multiple Faults (SU)
-BODY-

Speaker:                Johan de Kleer
                        Intelligent Systems Laboratory
                        Xerox
                        Palo Alto

Title:                  Diagnosing Multiple Faults
Time:                   4.15 p.m.
Place:                  Cedar Hall Conference Room

Diagnostic tasks require determining the differences between a
model of an artifact and the artifact itself.  The differences between
the manifested behavior of the artifact and the predicted behavior of
the model guide the search for the differences between the artifact and
its model.  The diagnostic procedure presented in this paper is
model-based, inferring the behavior of the composite device from
knowledge of the structure and function of the individual components
comprising the device.  The system (GDE --- General Diagnostic Engine)
has been implemented and tested on examples in the domain of
troubleshooting digital circuits.

This research makes several novel contributions:  First, the system
diagnoses failures due to multiple faults.  Second, failure candidates
are represented and manipulated in terms of minimal sets of violated
assumptions, resulting in an efficient diagnostic procedure.  Third, the
diagnostic procedure is incremental, exploiting the iterative nature of
diagnosis.  Fourth, a clear separation is drawn between diagnosis and
behavior prediction, resulting in a domain (and inference procedure)
independent diagnostic procedure.  Fifth, GDE combines model-based
prediction with sequential diagnosis to propose measurements to localize
the faults.  The usually required conditional probabilities are computed
from the structure of the device and models of its components.  This
capability results from a novel way of incorporating probabilities and
information theory with the context mechanism provided by
Assumption-Based Truth Maintenance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Using Scheme for Discrete Simulation (SMU)
-BODY-
Using Scheme for Discrete Simulation

Edward E. Ferguson, Texas Instruments,
Location 315 Sic, Time 2PM

Scheme is a lexically-scoped dialect of LISP that gives the programmer
access to continuations, a fundamental capability upon which general
control structures can be built.  This presentation will show how continuations
can be used to extend Scheme to have the basic features of a discrete
simulation language.  Topics that will be covered include discrete
simulation techniques, addition of simulation capability to a general-purpose
language, why Scheme is a good base language for simulation, and the
complete Scheme text for a simulation control package.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Oct 86  1704 PDT
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Ramification and Qualification in the Blocks World
-BODY-           (SU)


        RAMIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION IN THE BLOCKS WORLD

                        Matt Ginsberg
                         David Smith

                  Thursday, October 30, 4pm
                          MJH 252

In this talk, we discuss the need to infer properties of actions
from general domain information.  Specifically, we discuss the
need to deduce the indirect consequences of actions (the
ramification problem), and the need to determine inferentially
under what circumstances a particular action will be blocked
because its successful execution would involve the violation of
a domain constraint (the qualification problem).

We present a formal description of action that addresses these
problems by considering a single model of the domain, and updating
it to reflect the successful execution of actions.  The bulk of the
talk will involve the investigation of simple blocks world problems
that existing formalisms have difficulty dealing with, including
the Hanks-McDermott problem, and two new problems that we describe
as "the dumbbell and the pulley".

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 24 Oct 86 08:31:01-PDT
-FROM-
From: Margaret Olender <OLENDER@SRI-WARBUCKS.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Knowledge Programming using Functional
-BODY-           Representations (SRI)


           KNOWLEDGE PROGRAMMING USING FUNCTIONAL REPRESENTATIONS

                            Tore Risch
                           Syntelligence

                    10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, October 29
               SRI International, Building E, Room EJ228


SYNTEL is a novel knowledge representation language that provides
traditional features of expert system shells within a pure functional
programming paradigm.  However, it differs sharply from existing
functional languages in many ways, ranging from its ability to deal
with uncertainty to its evaluation procedures.  A very flexible
user-interface facility, tightly integrated with the SYNTEL
interpreter, gives the knowledge engineer full control over both form
and content of the end-user system.  SYNTEL executes in both LISP
machine and IBM mainframe/workstation environments, and has been used
to develop large knowledge bases dealing with the assessment of
financial risks.  This talk will present an overview of its
architecture, as well as describe the real-world problems that
motivated its development.



VISITORS:  Please arrive 5 minutes early so that you can be escorted up
from the E-building receptionist's desk.  Thanks!

P.S. Note change in day and time....

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 23:23:40 pdt
-FROM-
From: levitt@ads.ARPA (Tod Levitt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AAAI Workshop on Uncertainty in AI, 1987
-BODY-

                    CALL FOR PARTICIPATION

Third Workshop on:   "Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence"

     Seattle, Washington,  July 10-12, 1987  (preceeding AAAI conf.)

Sponsored by:  AAAI

        This is the third annual AAAI workshop on Uncertainty in AI. The
first two workshops have been successful and productive, involving many
of the top researchers in the field. The 1985 workshop proceedings have
just appeared as a book, "Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence", in
the North-Holland Machine Intelligence and Pattern Recognition series.
The general subject is automated or interactive reasoning under
uncertainty.
        This year's emphasis is on the representation and control of
uncertain knowledge. One effective way to make points, display
tradeoffs and clarify issues in representation and control is through
demonstration in applications, so these are especially encouraged,
although papers on theory are also welcome.  The workshop provides an
opportunity for those interested in uncertainty in AI to present their
ideas and participate in discussions with leading researchers in the
field. Panel discussions will provide a lively cross-section of views.

Papers are invited on the following topics:

  * Applications--including both results and implementation
        difficulties; experimental comparison of alternatives

  * Knowledge-based and procedural representations of uncertain information

  * Uncertainty in model-based reasoning and automated planning

  * Learning under uncertainty; theories of uncertain induction

  * Heursitics and control in evidentially based systems

  * Non-deterministic human-machine interaction

  * Uncertain inference procedures

  * Other uncertainty in AI issues.

        Papers will be carefully reviewed. Space is limited, so
prospective attendees are urged to submit a paper with the intention of
active participation in the workshop. Preference will be given to papers
that have demonstrated their approach in real applications; however,
underlying certainty calculi and reasoning methodologies should be
supported by strong theoretical underpinnings in order to best encourage
discussion on a scientific basis. To allow more time for discussion,
most accepted papers will be included for publication and poster
sessions, but not for presentation.

        Four copies of a paper or extended abstract should be sent to
the program chairman by February 10, 1987.  Acceptances will be sent by
April 20, 1987. Final (camera ready) papers must be received by May 22,
1987. Proceedings will be available at the workshop.


General Chair:              Program Chair:              Arrangements Chair:

Peter Cheeseman             Tod Levitt                  Joe Mead
NASA-Ames Research Center   Advanced Decision Systems   KSC Inc.
Mail Stop 244-7             201 San Antonio Circle      228 Liberty Plaza
Moffett Field, CA 94035     Suite 286                   Rome, NY 13440
(415)-694-6526              Mountain View, CA 94040     (315)-336-0500
cheeseman@ames-pluto.arpa   (415)-941-3912
                            levitt@ads.arpa

Program Committee:
P. Bonissone, P. Cheeseman, J. Lemmer, T. Levitt, J. Pearl, R. Yager, L. Zadeh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
239
-DATE-
Date: 21 Oct 86 17:19:40 PDT (Tuesday)
-FROM-
From: Wedekind.ES@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonsense quiz
-BODY-
A couple of years ago, on either this list or Human-Nets, there appeared
a short multiple-choice test which was written so that one could deduce
"best" answers based on just the form, not the content, of the questions
(in fact there wasn't much content, since almost every word over 3
letters long was a nonsense word).

If anyone has this test, I would very much like to see it (along with
any "official" answers you may have saved).  If you want to see what I
receive (or, better yet, if you have any original questions to add to
the test), just let me know.

thanks,
Jerry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 29 Oct 86 22:48:43-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonsense Quiz
-BODY-
Here's a copy of the quiz taken from Human-Nets.  Those interested
in such things should get a copy of

  R.M. Balzer, Human Use of World Knowledge, ISI/RR-73-7,
  Information Sciences Institute, March 1974, Arpa Order
  No. 2223/1.

It contains fairly detailed analysis of text such as "Sooner or later
everyone runs across the problem of pottling something to a sprock
inside the lorch."



Date: 9 Sep 1981
From: research!alice!xchar   [ Bell Labs, Murray Hill ]
Reply-to: "research!alice!xchar care of" <CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley>
Subject: test-taking skills

    In HUMAN-NETS V4 #37, Greg Woods pointed out that high scores on
multiple-choice tests may (as in his case) reflect highly developed
test-taking skills rather than great intelligence.  The test below
illustrates Greg's thesis that one can often make correct choices that
are "not based at all on...knowledge of the subject matter."  I got
this test from Joseph Kruskal (Bell Labs), who got it from Clyde
Kruskal (NYU Courant Institute), who got it from Jerome Berkowitz
(Courant Institute).  Unfortunately, Prof. Berkowitz is currently out
of town, so I cannot trace its origin any farther back.

    I will supply the generally accepted answers, and perhaps some
explanations, later.


           --Charlie Harris

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The following is a hypothetical examination on which you could get
every item correct by knowing some of the pitfalls of test
construction.  See how well you can do!  (Circle the letter preceding
the correct response.)

1.  The purpose of the cluss in furmpaling is to remove
     a.cluss-prags            c. cloughs
     b. tremalis              d. plumots
2.  Trassig is true when
     a. lusps trasses the vom
     b. the viskal flans, if the viskal is donwil or zortil
     c. the begul
     d. dissles lisk easily
3.  The sigia frequently overfesks the trelsum because
     a. all sigia are mellious
     b. sigias are always vortil
     c. the reelsum is usually tarious
     d. no trelsa are feskable
4.  The fribbled breg will minter best with an
     a. derst                 c. sortar
     b. morst                 d. ignu
5.  Among the reasons for tristal doss are
     a. The sabs foped and the foths tinzed
     b. the dredges roted with the orots
     c. few racobs were accapted in sluth
     d. most of the polats were thonced
6.  Which of the following is/are always present
    when trossels are being gruven?
     a. rint and vost         c. shum and vost
     b. vost                  d. vost and plone
7.  The mintering function of the ignu is most
    effectively carried out in connection with
     a. razma tol             c. the fribbled breg
     b. the grosing stantol   d. a frally slush
8.   a.                       c.
     b.                       d.




Date: 15 Sep 1981 15:14:39-PDT
From: ihuxo!hobs at Berkeley (John Hobson)
Reply-to: "ihuxo!hobs in care of" <CSVAX.upstill at Berkeley>
Subject: test-taking skills

Charlie--
The hypothetical exam on test-taking skills that you submitted to
HUMAN-NETS Digest V4 #46 has been an object of much interest here at
Indian Hill.  A number of us have taken the test and we would like to
see just how well we did.  The answers and reasons for those answers
are as follows:

1.  The purpose of the cluss in furmpaling is to remove
     a. cluss-prags           c. cloughs
     b. tremalis              d. plumots
1--a. The cluss is mentioned in the question and in the answer.

2.  Trassig is true when
     a. lusps trasses the vom
     b. the viskal flans, if the viskal is donwil or zortil
     c. the begul
     d. dissles lisk easily
2--a.  The word trassig in the question and the verb trasses in the
answer.

3.  The sigia frequently overfesks the trelsum because
     a. all sigia are mellious
     b. sigias are always vortil
     c. the reelsum is usually tarious
     d. no trelsa are feskable
3--c. The key word here is "usually", along with "frequently" in the
question.  Anyway, it is often best to give a non-absolute answer in
case there is an exception.

4.  The fribbled breg will minter best with an
     a. derst                 c. sortar
     b. morst                 d. ignu
4--d.  The giveaway here is the article "an" since "ignu" is the only
answer staring with a vowel.

5.  Among the reasons for tristal doss are
     a. The sabs foped and the foths tinzed
     b. the dredges roted with the orots
     c. few racobs were accapted in sluth
     d. most of the polats were thonced
5--a.  This is a bit more subtle, but we think that since the question
calls for "reasons" in the plural and (a) is the only answer with more
than one reason, that the answer is (a).

6.  Which of the following is/are always present when trossels are
    being gruven?
     a. rint and vost         c. shum and vost
     b. vost                  d. vost and plone
6--b.  Vost is mentioned in all possible answers, so vost must always
be present.

7.  The mintering function of the ignu is most effectively carried out
    in connection with
     a. razma tol             c. the fribbled breg
     b. the grosing stantol   d. a frally slush
7--c.  Since in question 4 (above), the fribbled breg was mintering
with an ignu, the thing mintering with the ignu is, of course, the
fibbled breg.

8.   a.                       c.
     b.                       d.
We haven't the foggiest.  Perhaps "all of the above".

I once took a multiple-guess test in English History where the last
question was:

The only British Prime Minister ever assassinated was:

a. Clement Atlee                e. None of the above
b. Spencer Perceval             f. One or more of the above
c. The Duke of Wellington       g. Don't know
d. All of the above             h. Don't care

b, f, g and h were accepted as correct answers.

                                John Hobson
                                ihuxo!hobs
                                Bell Labs -- Indian Hill



Date: 18 Sep 1981 12:13 PDT
From: Kolling at PARC-MAXC
Subject: test-taking skills

About that test.....

I think the answer to 2 is b, not a.  Either a or b is possible (not c
because it isn't grammatically correct, and not d because it's fuzzy
due to "easily".  Looking at the answers as follows:  1. a 2. a or b
3. c 4. d 5. a 6. b 7. c 8. ?  Note the pattern a,b,c,d, so I think 2
is b and 8 is d.

Karen (Now you know how I got through school.)



Date: 29 September 1981 0858-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Mary.Shaw at CMU-10A
Subject: Test-taking skills

I agree with Karen on the answers: a, b, c, d, a, b, c, d.  John's
reasons are correct except for #s 2 and 8.  Karen is right about 8
(it's the pattern).  The reason #2 is b rather than a is that option b
is markedly dissimilar from all the others.  (One of the rules of
test-writing is to avoid making the right answer stand out because
it's much longer or shorter than the others, especially if it's longer
because of a qualifying clause as in b here.)

Mary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 21:07:33 PDT
-FROM-
From: cottrell@nprdc.arpa (Gary Cottrell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Reply to Winograd and Flores
-BODY-

                                       SEMINAR

                          Understanding Dogs and Dognition:
                             A New Foundation for Design

                                Garrison W. Cottrell
                              Department of Dog Science
                Condominium Community College of Southern California


               There is a  crisis  in  Dog-Human  relations,  as  has  been
          evidenced  by  recent  attempts to make dogs more "user-friendly"
          (see Programming the User-Friendly Dog, Cottrell 1985a).   A  new
          approach has appeared (Whineandpoop and Flossy, 1986) that claims
          that previous attempts at Dog-Human Interfaces have floundered on
          a  basic  misunderstanding of the Dog.  The problem has been that
          we have approached the Dog as if he  was  one  of  us  -  and  he
          certainly   is   not.   Their  perusal  of  the  philosophies  of
          Holedigger  and  Mateyourauntie   has   led   them   to   a   new
          understanding: A West Coast Understanding.  There is no Objective
          Reality[1] that we  form  internal  representations  of,  rather,
          organisms  are  structurally coupled[2] to their environment, the
          so-called  "seamless  web"  theory  of   cognition.    Thus   the
          inside/outside dichotomy that has plagued AI researchers and dogs
          for years is a false one[3].  This has led them to  a  whole  new
          way of understanding how dogs should be programmed.

               In the past we have assumed some internal representation  in
          the  dog's  head  (see  Modelling the Intentional Behavior of the
          Dog, Cottrell 1984b).  In this new view, the reason dogs  are  so
          dense    is    not   that   they   have   impoverished   internal
          representations,   but   that   they    don't    have    internal
          representations.  Instead, the dog is structurally coupled to the
          world - he moves about embedded in the ooze of  the  environment,
          and  naturally,  it slows him down.  Not only that, but it is the
          wrong  environment  -  the  human  one,  leading   to   continual
          breakdown[4].  Thus our problem is in forming a consensual domain
          with another species.  We have to place ourselves in their domain
          to hear them - this is termed "listening in the backyard".

               We feel that there is much to be gained from combining their
          view  with  the  connectionist  approach[5].   The   problem   is
          combining   the   intensional   programming   of  evolution  with
          extensional programming by the owner.  Connectionist theories  of
          learning  combined  with  considerations  of  "listening  in  the
          backyard" suggest that if we simply present  the  dog  with  many
          examples   of   the  desired  input-output  behavior  within  the
          backyard, we will get the desired result.

          ____________________
             [1]Actually, Californians have known this for years.
             [2]Note that this is to be distinguished from  the  structural
          coupling that produces new dogs from old ones.
             [3]Dogs have often followed Mateyourauntie in  this,  ignoring
          the inside/outside dichotomy.  These considerations may eliminate
          the basis for the continence-performance  distinction  (Hutchins,
          1986).
             [4]The  field  of Dog-Machine Interfaces attempts to deal with
          such problems as the poor design of the doorknob - a lever  would
          help  reduce  the  inside/outside  barrier. Others feel that this
          research is misdirected; the doorknob is designed that  way  pre-
          cisely  because  it acts as a species filter, keeping dogs out of
          restaurants and movie theatres.
             [5]Their work also suggests applying the theory of speech acts
          to  the  command  interface. Thus, we can classify much more than
          simple Directives.  For example, "You've had it now,  Jellybean!"
          is  a commissive - the speaker is committed to a future course of
          action.  The dog will usually respond with an attempt to withdraw
          from  the  dialogue,  but  the  speaker  rejects  his withdrawal.
          "You're in the doghouse, Bean" is a  declarative  -  the  speaker
          brings  about  a correspondence between the propositional content
          of this and reality simply by uttering it.


P.S. As usual, troff source (1 page laser printer output) on request to:
gary cottrell
Institute for Cognitive Science, UCSD
cottrell@nprdc (ARPA)
{ucbvax,decvax,akgua,dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdics!cottrell (USENET)

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
240
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 86 19:10:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: trwrb!orion!heins@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Heins)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seeking PD parser for simple English sentences.
-BODY-
I am looking for public domain software which I can use to help me parse
simple English sentences into some kind of standardized representation.
I guess what I am looking for would be a kind of sentence diagrammer
which would not have to have any deep knowledge of the meanings of the
nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.

The application is for a command interface to a computer, for use by
novice users.  C routines would be ideal.  Also, references to published
algorithms would be useful.  Thanks in advance.

>-
        ...!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!orion!heins

        We are a way for the universe to know itself. -- Carl Sagan

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 14:26:33 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mtx5e!mtx5w!drv@
     ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: NEED PUBLIC DOMAIN PROLOG
-BODY-
A friend of mine needs a copy of a public domain
Prolog that will run on a VAX 11/780 under Unix.
If such a program exists, please contact me and
I will help make arrangements to get it sent to
him.


Dennis R. Vogel
AT&T Information Systems
Middletown, NJ
(201) 957-4951

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 09:31 EST
-FROM-
From: Norm Badler <Badler@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: request for information
-BODY-
If you are a faculty member or a researcher at a University, I would like
to have a BRIEF response to the following question:

   Do you have an "incentive" or "reward" or "benefit" plan that returns
   to you some amount of your (external) research money for your own
   University discretionary use?

If the answer is NO, that information would be useful.  If YES, then a brief
account would be appreciated.  If you don't want to type much, send me
your phone number and I will call you for the information.

Thanks very much!
Norm Badler

Badler@cis.upenn.edu
(215)898-5862

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 11:47:52 EST
-FROM-
From: Jim Hendler <hendler@brillig.umd.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: seeking info
-BODY-

Subject: seeking info on multi-linear partial orderings

I recently had a paper rejected from a conference that discussed, among other
things, using a set of hierarchical networks for constraint propogation (i.e.
propogating the information through several levels of network simultaneously).
One of the reviewers said "they apply a fairly standard AI technique..."
and I wonder about this.  I thought I was up on various constraint propagation
techniques, but wonder if anyone has a pointer to work (preferably in
a qualitative reasoning system) that discusses the use of multi-layer
constraint propogation?
 thanks much
 Jim Hendler
 Ass't Professor
 U of Md
 College Park, Md. 20742

  [I would check into the MIT work (don't have the reference handy, but
  some of it's in the two-volume AI: An MIT Perspective) on modeling
  electronic circuits.  All but the first papers used multiple views of
  subsystems to permit propagation of constraints at different granularities.
  Subsequent work on electronic fault diagnosis (e.g., Randy Davis) goes
  even further.  Other work in "pyramidal" parsing (speech, images, line
  drawings) has grown from the Hearsay blackboard architecture.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 14:13 EST
-FROM-
From: SHAFFER%SCOVCB.decnet@ge-crd.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Model-base Reasoning
-BODY-

        Hello:

        I am looking for articles and books which describe the
        theory of Model-based Reasoning, MBR.  Here at GE we
        have an interest in MBR for our next generation of KEE-based
        ESEs.  I will publish a summary of my findings sometime
        in the future.  Also, I would be interested in any related
        topics which related to MBR and its uses.


                        Thanks,


                Earl Shaffer
                GE - VFSC - Bld 100
                Po Box 8555
                Phila, PA  19101

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 09:52 EST
-FROM-
From: SHAFFER%SCOVCB.decnet@ge-crd.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Monotonic Reasoning
-BODY-

        I am somewhat new to AI and I am confused about the
        definition of "non-monotonic" reasoning, as in the
        documentation in Inference's ART system.  It say that
        features allow for non-monotonic reasoning, but does
        not say what that type of reasoning is, or how it
        differs from monotonic reasoning, if there is such a
        thing.



                        Earl Shaffer
                        GE - VFSC
                        Po box 8555
                        Phila , Pa 19101


  [Monotonic reasoning is a process of logical inference using only
  true axioms or statements.  Nonmonotonic reasoning uses statements
  believed to be true, but which may later prove to be false.  It is
  therefore necessary to keep track of all chains of support for each
  conclusion so that the conclusion can be revoked if its basis
  statements are revoked.  Other names for nonmonotonic reasoning are
  default reasoning and truth maintenance.  -- KIL]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 21:05:49 GMT
-FROM-
From: uwslh!lishka@rsch.wisc.edu  (a)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: simulating a neural network
-BODY-

        I just read an interesting short blurb in the most recent BYTE issue
(the one with the graphics board on the cover)...it was in Bytelines or
something.  Now, since I skimmed it, my info is probably a little sketchy,
but here's about what it said:

        Apparently Bell Labs (I think) has been experimenting with neural
network-like chips, with resistors replacing bytes (I guess).  They started
out with about 22 'neurons' and have gotten up to 256 or 512 (can't
remember which) 'neurons' on one chip now.  Apparently these 'neurons' are
supposed to run much faster than human neurons...it'll be interesting to see
how all this works out in the end.

        I figured that anyone interested in the neural network program might
be interested in the article...check Byte for actual info.  Also, if anyone
knows more about this experiment, I would be interested, so please mail me
any information at the below address.

>-
Chris Lishka                   /l  lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene -lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
                               \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 19:50:58 GMT
-FROM-
From: yippee.dec.com!glantz@decwrl.dec.com
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Simulating neural networks
-BODY-
*********************

Another good reference is:

Martin, R., Lukton, A. and Salthe, S.N., "Simulation of
Cognitive Maps, Concept Hierarchies, Learning by Simile, and
Similarity Assessment in Homogeneous Neural Nets," Proceedings
of the 1984 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, Society for
Computer Simulation, vol. 2, 808-821.

In this paper, Martin discusses (among other things) simulating
the effects of neurotransmittors and inhibitors, which can have
the result of generating goal-seeking behavior, which is closely
linked to the ability to learn.

        Mike Glantz
        Digital Equipment Centre Technique Europe
        BP 29 Sophia Antipolis
        06561 Valbonne CEDEX
        France

My employer is not aware of this message.

*********************

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 17:36:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: zeus!berke@locus.ucla.edu  (Peter Berke)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Glib "computation"
-BODY-
In article <1249@megaron.UUCP> wendt@megaron.UUCP writes:
>Anyone interested in neural modelling should know about the Parallel
>Distributed Processing pair of books from MIT Press.  They're
>expensive (around $60 for the pair) but very good and quite recent.
>
>A quote:
>
>Relaxation is the dominant mode of computation.  Although there
>is no specific piece of neuroscience which compels the view that
>brain-style computation involves relaxation, all of the features
>we have just discussed have led us to believe that the primary
>mode of computation in the brain is best understood as a kind of
>relaxation system in which the computation proceeds by iteratively
>seeking to satisfy a large number of weak constraints.  Thus,
>rather than playing the role of wires in an electric circuit, we
>see the connections as representing constraints on the co-occurrence
>of pairs of units.  The system should be thought of more as "settling
>into a solution" than "calculating a solution".  Again, this is an
>important perspective change which comes out of an interaction of
>our understanding of how the brain must work and what kinds of processes
>seem to be required to account for desired behavior.
>
>(Rumelhart & Mcclelland, Chapter 4)
>

Isn't 'computation' a technical term?  Do R&Mc prove that PDP is
equivalent to computation?  Would Turing agree that "settling into
a solution" is computation?  Some people have tried to show that
symbols and symbol processing can be represented in neural nets,
but I don't think anyone has proved anything about the problems
they purportedly "solve," at least not to the extent that Turing
did for computers in 1936, or Church in the same year for lambda
calculus.

Or are R&Mc using 'computing' to mean 'any sort of machination whatever'?
And is that a good idea?

Church's Thesis, that computing and lambda-conversion (or whatever he
calls it) are both equivalent to what we might naturally consider
calcuable could be extended to say that neural nets "settle" into
the same solutions for the same class of problems.  Or, one could
maintain, as neural netters tend to implicitly, that "settling" into
solutions IS what we might naturally consider calculable, rather than
being merely equivalent to it.  These are different options.

The first adds "neural nets" to the class of formalisms which can
express solutions equivalent to each other in "power," and is thus
a variant on Church's thesis.  The second actually refutes Church's
Thesis, by saying this "settling" process is clearly defined and
that it can realize a different (or non-comparable) class of problems,
in which case computation would not be (provably) equivalent to it.

Of course, if we could show BOTH that:
(1) "settling" is equivalent to "computing" as formally defined by Turing,
and (2) that "settling" IS how brains work,
then we'd have a PROOF of Church's Thesis.

Until that point it seems a bit misleading or misled to refer to
"settling" as "computation."

Peter Berke

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
241
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 06:08:33 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Defining the Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

Tom Dietterich (orstcs!tgd) responds as follows to my challenge to
define the A/D distinction:

>       In any representation, certain properties of the representational
>       medium are exploited to carry information. Digital representations
>       tend to exploit fewer properties of the medium. For example, in
>       digital electronics, a 0 could be defined as anything below .2 volts
>       and a 1 as anything above 4 volts. This is a simple distinction.
>       An analog representation of a signal (e.g., in an audio amplifier)
>       requires a much finer grain of distinctions--it exploits the
>       continuity of voltage to represent, for example, the loudness
>       of a sound.

So far so good. Analog representations "exploit" more of the properties
(e.g., continuity) of the "representational" (physical?) medium to carry
information. But then is the difference between an A and a D representation
just that one is more (exploitative) and the other less? Is it not rather that
they carry information and/or represent in a DIFFERENT WAY? In what
does that difference consist? (And what does "exploit" mean? Exploit
for whom?)

>       A related notion of digital and analog can be obtained by considering
>       what kinds of transformations can be applied without losing
>       information. Digital signals can generally be transformed in more
>       ways--precisely because they do not exploit as many properties of the
>       representational medium. Hence, if we add .1 volts to a digital 0 as
>       defined above, the result will either still be 0 or else be undefined
>       (and hence [un]detectable). A digital 1 remains unchanged under
>       addition of .1 volts. However, the analog signal would be
>       changed under ANY addition of voltage.

"Preserving information under transformations" also sounds like a good
candidate. But it seems to me that preservation-under-transformation
is (or ought to be) a two-way street. Digital representations may be
robust within their respective discrete boundaries, but it hardly
sounds information-preserving to lose all the information between .2
volts and 4 volts. I would think that the invertibility of analog
transformations might be a better instance of information preservation than
the irretrievable losses of A/D. And this still seems to side-step the
question of WHAT information is preserved, and in what way, by analog
and digital representations, respectively. And should we be focusing on
representations in this discussion, or on transformations (A/A, A/D,
D/D, D/A)? Finally, what is the relation between a digital
representation and a symbolic representation?

Please keep those definitions coming.

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 11:53:06 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-
   Date: 23 Oct 86 17:20:00 GMT
   From: hp-pcd!orstcs!tgd@hplabs.hp.com  (tgd)

   Here is a rough try at defining the analog vs. digital distinction.

   [ * * * ]

I don't read all the messages on AiList, so I may have missed
something here: but isn't ``analog vs digital'' the same thing as
``continuous vs discrete''?  Continuous vs discrete, in turn, can be
defined in terms of infinite vs finite partitionability.  It's a
property of the measuring system, not a property of the thing being
measured.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 15:29:01 GMT
-FROM-
From: alice!jj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Defining the Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-
> From allegra!princeton!mind!harnad Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
>
>
> Tom Dietterich (orstcs!tgd) responds as follows to my challenge to
> define the A/D distinction:
>
> >     In any representation, certain properties of the representational
> >     ...
> >     of a sound.
>
> So far so good. Analog representations "exploit" more of the properties
> ...
> for whom?)
>
> >     A related notion of digital and analog can be obtained by considering
> >     ...
> >     changed under ANY addition of voltage.
>
> "Preserving information under transformations" also sounds like a good
> ...
> representation and a symbolic representation?
>
> Please keep those definitions coming.
>
> Stevan Harnad

What a pleasant little bit of sophistry.  Mr. Harnad asks for a defination
of "digital" and "analog", both words used in a precise way in a particular
literature.  He also asks that we do not use other words used in that
literature
to write the defination.

In other words, we are asked to define something precisely, in a languange
that does not have precise values.


I suggest the first chapter of Rabiner and Gold, all of Wozencraft and Jacobs,
and perhaps a good general text on signal processing for starters.  That will
define the language.  Then the defination can be made.

Philosophy is wonderful, it doesn't have to have anything to do
with reality.
>-
WOBEGON WON'T BE GONE, TEDDY BEAR PICNIC AT 11.
"If you love that Politician, use your Loo, use your Loo"

(ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 22:06:14 GMT
-FROM-
From: husc6!Diamond!aweinste@eddie.mit.edu  (Anders Weinstein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Soliciting Definitions
-BODY-

Philosopher Nelson Goodman has distinguishes analog from digital symbol systems
in his book _Languages_of_Art_.  The context is a technical investigation into
the peculiar features of _notational_ systems in the arts; that is, systems
like musical notation which are used to DEFINE a work of art by dividing the
instances from the non-instances.

The following excerpts contain the relevant definitions: (Warning--I've left
out a lot of explanatory text and examples for brevity)

  The second requirement upon a notational scheme, then, is that the
  characters be _finitely_differentiated_, or _articulate_. It runs:  For
  every two characters K and K' and every mark m that does not belong to
  both, determination that m does not belong to K or that m does not belong
  to K' is theoretically possible. ...

  A scheme is syntactically dense if it provides for infinitely many
  characters so ordered that between each two there is a third. ... When no
  insertion of other characters will thus destroy density, a scheme has no
  gaps and may be called _dense_throughout_. In what follows, "throughout" is
  often dropped as understood... [in footnote:] I shall call a scheme that
  contains no dense subscheme "completely discontinuous" or "discontinuous
  throughout". ...

  The final requirement [including others not quoted here] for a notational
  system is semantic finite differentiation; that is for every two characters
  K and K' such that their compliance classes are not identical and every
  object h that does not comply with both, determination that h does not
  comply with K or that h does not comply with K' must be theoretically
  possible.

  [defines 'semantically dense throughout' and 'semantically discontinuous'
   to parallel the syntactic definitions].

And his analog/digital distinction:

  A symbol _scheme_ is analog if syntactically dense; a _system_ is analog if
  syntactically and semantically dense. ... A digital scheme, in contrast, is
  discontinuous throughout; and in a digital system the characters of such a
  scheme are one-one correlated with compliance-classes of a similarly
  discontinous set. But discontinuity, though implied by, does not imply
  differentiation...To be digital, a system must be not merely discontinuous
  but _differentiated_ throughout, syntactically and semantically...

  If only thoroughly dense systems are analog, and only thoroughly
  differentiated ones are digital, many systems are of neither type.


To summarize: when a dense language is used to represent a dense domain, the
system is analog; when a discrete (Goodman's "discontinuous") and articulate
language maps a discrete and articulate domain, the system is digital.

Note that not all discrete languages are "articulate" in Goodman's sense:
Consider a language with only two characters, one of which contains all
straight marks not longer than one inch and the other of which contains all
longer marks.  This is discrete but not articulate, since no matter how
precise our tests become, there will always be a mark (infinitely many, in
fact) that cannot be judged to belong to one or the other character.

For more explanation, consult the source directly (and not me).

Anders Weinstein <aweinste@DIAMOND.BBN.COM>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 04:20:07 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

Steven R. Jacobs (utah-cs!jacobs) of the University of Utah CS Dept
has given me permission to post his contribution to defining the A/D
distinction. It appears below, followed at the very end by some comments
from me.
[Will someone with access please post a copy to sci.electronics?]

>> One prima facie non-starter: "continuous" vs. "discrete" physical processes.

>I apologize if this was meant to avoid discussion of continuous/discrete
>issues relating to analog/digital representations.  I find it difficult
>to avoid talking in terms of "continuous" and "discrete" processes when
>discussing the difference between analog and digital signals.  I am
>approaching the question from a signal processing point of view, so I
>tend to assume that "real" signals are analog signals, and other methods
>of representing signals are used as approximations of analog signals (but
>see below about a physicist's perspective).  Yes, I realize you asked for
>objective definitions.  For my own non-objective convenience, I will use
>analog signals as a starting point for obtaining other types of signals.
>This will assist in discussing the operations used to derive non-analog
>signals from analog signals, and in discussing the effects of the operations
>on the mathematics involved when manipulating the various types of signals
>in the time and frequency domains.
>
>The distinction of continuous/discrete can be applied to both the amplitude
>and time axes of a signal, which allows four types of signals to be defined.
>So, some "loose" definitions:
>
>Analog signal -- one that is continuous both in time and amplitude, so that
>       the amplitude of the signal may change to any amplitude at any time.
>       This is what many electrical engineers might describe as a "signal".
>
>Sampled signal -- continuous in amplitude, discrete in time (usually with
>       eqully-spaced sampling intervals).  Signal may take on any amplitude,
>       but the amplitude changes only at discrete times.  Sampled signals
>       are obtained (obviously?) by sampling analog signals.  If sampling is
>       done improperly, aliasing will occur, causing a loss of information.
>       Some (most?) analog signals cannot be accurately represented by a
>       sampled signal, since only band-limited signals can be sampled without
>       aliasing.  Sampled signals are the basis of Digital Signal Processing,
>       although digital signals are invariably used as an approximation of
>       the sampled signals.
>
>Quantized signal -- piece-wise continuous in time, discrete in amplitude.
>       Amplitude may change at any time, but only to discrete levels.  All
>       changes in amplitude are steps.
>
>Digital signal -- one that is discrete both in time and amplitude, and may
>       change in (discrete) amplitude only at certain (discrete, usually
>       uniformly spaced) time intervals.  This is obtained by quantizing
>       a sampled signal.
>
>Other types of signals can be made by combining these "basic" types, but
>that topic is more appropriate for net.bizarre than for sci.electronics.
>
>The real distinction (in my mind) between these representations is the effect
>the representation has on the mathematics required to manipulate the signals.
>
>Although most engineers and computer scientists would think of analog signals
>as the most "correct" representations of signals, a physicist might argue that
>the "quantum signal" is the only signal which corresponds to the real world,
>and that analog signals are merely a convenient approximation used by
>mathematicians.
>
>One major distinction (from a mathematical point of view) between sampled
>signals and analog signals can be best visualized in the frequency domain.
>A band-limited analog signal has a Fourier transform which is finite.  A
>sampled representation of the same signal will be periodic in the Fourier
>domain.  Increasing the sampling frequency will "spread out" the identical
>"clumps" in the FT (fourier transform) of a sampled signal, but the FT
>of the sampled signal will ALWAYS remain periodic, so that in the limit as
>the sampling frequency approaches infinity, the sampled signal DOES NOT
>become a "better" approximation of the analog signal, they remain entirely
>distinct.  Whenever the sampling frequency exceeds the Nyquist frequency,
>the original analog signal can be exactly recovered from the sampled signal,
>so that the two representations contain the equivalent information, but the
>two signals are not the same, and the sampled signal does not "approach"
>the analog signal as the sampling frequency is increased.  For signals which
>are not band-limited, sampling causes a loss of information due to aliasing.
>As the sampling frequency is increased, less information is lost, so that the
>"goodness" of the approximation improves as the sampling frequency increases.
>Still, the sampled signal is fundamentally different from the analog signal.
>This fundamental difference applies also to digital signals, which are both
>quantized and sampled.
>
>Digital signals are usually used as an approximation to "sampled" signals.
>The mathematics used for digital signal processing is actually only correct
>when applied to sampled signals (maybe it should be called "Sampled Signal
>Processing" (SSP) instead).  The approximation is usually handled mostly by
>ignoring the "quantization noise" which is introduced when converting a
>sampled analog signal into a digital signal.  This is convenient because it
>avoids some messy "details" in the mathematics.  To properly deal with
>quantized signals requires giving up some "nice" properties of signals and
>operators that are applied to signals.  Mostly, operators which are applied
>to signals become non-commutative when the signals are discrete in amplitude.
>This is very much related to the "Heisenburg uncertainty principle" of
>quantum mechanics, and to me represents another "true" distinction between
>analog and digital signals.  The quantization of signals represents a loss of
>information that is qualitatively different from any loss of information that
>occurs from sampling.  This difference is usally glossed over or ignored in
>discussions of signal processing.
>
>Well, those are some half-baked ideas that come to my mind.  They are probably
>not what you are looking for, so feel free to post them to /dev/null.
>
>Steve Jacobs
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

REPLY:

>       I apologize if this was meant to avoid discussion of
continuous/discrete
>       issues relating to analog/digital representations.

It wasn't meant to avoid discussion of continuous/discrete at all;
just to avoid a simple-minded equation of C/D with A/D, overlooking
all the attendant problems of that move. You certainly haven't done that
in your thoughtful and articulate review and analysis.

>       I tend to assume that "real" signals are analog signals, and other
>       methods of representing signals are used as approximations of analog
>       signals.

That seems like the correct assumption. But if we shift for a moment
from considering the A or D signals themselves and consider instead
the transformation that generated them, the question arises: If "real"
signals are analog signals, then what are they analogs of? Let's
borrow some formal jargon and say that there are (real) "objects,"
and then there are "images" of them under various types of
transformations. One such transformation is an analog transformation.
In that case the image of the object under the (analog) transformation
can also be called an "analog" of the object. Is that an analog signal?

The approximation criterion also seems right on the mark. Using the
object/transformation/image terminology again, another kind of a
transformation is a "digital" transformation. The image of an object
(or of the analog image of an object) under a digital transformation
is "approximate" rather than "exact." What is the difference between
"approximate" and "exact"? Here I would like to interject a tentative
candidate criterion of my own: I think it may have something to do with
invertibility. A transformation from object to image is analog if (or
to the degree that) it is invertible. In a digital approximation, some
information or structure is irretrievably lost (the transformation
is not 1:1).

So, might invertibility/noninvertibility have something to do with the
distinction between an A and a D transformation? And do "images" of
these two kinds count as "representations" in the sense in which that
concept is used in AI, cognitive psychology and philosophy (not
necessarily univocally)?  And, finally, where do "symbolic"
representations come in? If we take a continuous object and make a
discrete, approximate image of it, how do we get from that to a
symbolic representation?


>       Analog signal -- one that is continuous both in time and amplitude.

>       Sampled signal -- continuous in amplitude, discrete in time...
>       If sampling is done improperly, aliasing will occur, causing a
>       loss of information.

>       Quantized signal -- piece-wise continuous in time, discrete in
>       amplitude.

>       Digital signal -- one that is discrete both in time and amplitude...
>       This is obtained by quantizing a sampled signal.

Both directions of departure from the analog, it seems, lose
information, unless the interpolations of the gaps in either time or
amplitude can be accurately made somehow. Question: What if the
original "object" is discrete in the first place, both in space and
time? Does that make a digital transformation of it "analog"? I
realize that this is violating the "signal" terminology, but, after all,
signals have their origins too. Preservation and invertibility of
information or structure seem to be even more general features than
continuity/discreteness. Or perhaps we should be focusing on the
continuity/noncontinuity of the transformations rather than the
objects?

>       a physicist might argue that the "quantum signal" is the only
>       signal which corresponds to the real world, and that analog
>       signals are merely a convenient approximation used by mathematicians.

This, of course, turns the continuous/discrete and the exact/approximate
criteria completely on their heads, as I think you recognize too. And
it's one of the things that makes continuity a less straightforward basis
for the A/D distinction.

>       Mostly, operators which are applied to signals become
>       non-commutative when the signals are discrete in amplitude.
>       This is very much related to the "Heisenburg uncertainty principle"
>       of quantum mechanics, and to me represents another "true" distinction
>       between analog and digital signals. The quantization of signals
>       represents a loss of information that is qualitatively different from
>       any loss of information that occurs from sampling.

I'm not qualified to judge whether this is an anolgy or a true quantum
effect. If the latter, then of course the qualitative difference
resides in the fact that (on current theory) the information is
irretrievable in principle rather than merely in practice.

>       Well, those are some half-baked ideas that come to my mind.

Many thanks for your thoughtful contribution. I hope the discussion
will continue "baking."


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 03:29:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: uiucuxe!goldfain@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Sol
-BODY-

Analog devices/processes are best viewed as having a continuous possible
range of values.  (An interval of the real line, for example.)

Digital devices/processes are best viewed as having an underlying granularity
of discrete possible values.  (Representable by a subset of the integers.)

                        -----------------

This is a pretty good definition, whether you like it or not.

I am curious as to what kind of discussion you are hoping to get, when you
rule out the correct distinction at the outset ...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
242
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 03:58:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <12@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>freeman@spar.UUCP (Jay Freeman) replies:
>
>>      Possibly a more interesting test [than the robotic version of
>>      the Total Turing Test] would be to give the computer
>>      direct control of the video bit map and let it synthesize an
>>      image of a human being.
>
> Manipulating digital "images" is still only symbol-manipulation. [...]

Very well, let's equip the robot with an active RF emitter so
it can jam the camera's electronics and impose whatever bit map it
wishes, whether the camera likes it or not.  Too silly?  Very well,
let's design a robot in the shape of a back projector, and let it
create internally whatever representation of a human being it wishes
the camera to see, and project it on its screen for the camera to
pick up.  Such a robot might do a tolerable job of interacting with
other parts of the "objective" world, using robot arms and whatnot
of more conventional design, so long as it kept them out of the
way of the camera.  Still too silly?  Very well, let's create a
vaguely anthropomorphic robot and equip its external surfaces with
a complete covering of smaller video displays, so that it can
achieve the minor details of human appearance by projection rather
than by mechanical motion.  (We can use a crude electronic jammer to
limit the amount of detail that the camera can see, if necessary.)
Well, maybe our model shop is good enough to do most of the details
of the robot convincingly, so we'll only have to project subtle
details of facial expression.  Maybe just the eyes.

Slightly more seriously, if you are going to admit the presence of
electronic or mechanical devices between the subject under test and
the human to be fooled, you must accept the possibility that the test
subject will be smart enough to detect their presence and exploit their
weaknesses.  Returning to a more facetious tone, consider a robot that
looks no more anthropomorphic than your vacuum cleaner, but that is
possessed of moderate manipulative abilities and a good visual perceptive
apparatus, and furthermore, has a Swiss Army knife.

Before the test commences, the robot sneakily rolls up to the
camera and removes the cover.  It locates the connections for the
external video output, and splices in a substitute connection to
an external video source which it generates.  Then it replaces the
camera cover, so that everything looks normal.  And a test time,
the robot provides whatever image it wants the testers to see.

A dumb robot might have no choice but to look like a human being
in order to pass the test.  Why should a smart one be so constrained?


                                        -- Jay Freeman

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 27 Oct 86 20:02:39-EST
-FROM-
From: Albert Boulanger <ABOULANGER@G.BBN.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Test
-BODY-
I think it is amusing and instructive to look at real attempts of the
turing test.

One interesting attempt is written up in the post scriptum of the
chapter:

"A Coffeehouse Conversation on the Turing Test"
Metamagical Themas
Douglas Hofstadter
Basic Books 1985


Albert Boulanger
BBN Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 17:23:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Pseudomath about the Turing Test: Reply to Padin
-BODY-
[Until the problem of follow-up articles to mod.ai through Usenet is
straightened out, I'm temporarily responding to mod.ai on net.ai.]

In mod.ai, in Message-ID: <8610270723.AA05463@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
under the subject heading THE PSEUDOMATH OF THE TURING TEST,
PADIN@FNALB.BITNET writes:

>       DEFINE THE SET Q={question1,question2,...}.  LETS NOTE THAT
>       FOR EACH q IN Q, THERE IS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RESPONSES (THE
>       RESPONSES NEED NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION, THEY JUST NEED TO BE
>       RESPONSES). IN FACT, WE CAN DEFINE A SET R={EVERY POSSIBLE RESPONSE TO
>       ANY QUESTION}, i.e., R={r1,r2,r3,...}.

Do pseudomath and you're likely to generate pseudoproblems. Nevertheless,
this way of formulating it does inadvertently illustrate quite clearly why
the symbolic version of the turing test is inadequate and the robotic version
is to be preferred. The symbolic version is equivalent to the proverbial
monkey's chances of typing Shakespeare by combinatorics. The robotic version
(pending the last word on basic continuity/discontinuity in microphysics) is
then no more or less of a combinatorial problem than Newtonian Mechanics.
[Concerning continuity/discreteness, join the ongoing discussion on the
A/D distinction that's just started up in net/mod.ai.]

>       THE EXISTENCE OF ...A FUNCTION T THAT MAPS A QUESTION q TO A SET
>       OF RESPONSES RR... FOR ALL QUESTIONS q IS EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE
>       OF MIND SINCE T CHOOSES, OUT OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF RESPONSES,
>       THOSE RESPONSES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO AN ENTITY WITH A MIND.

Pare off the pseudomath about "choosing among infinities" and you just
get a restatement of the basic intuition behind the turing test: That an
entity has a mind if it acts indistinguishably from an entity with a
mind.

>       NOW A PROBLEM [arises]: WHO IS TO DECIDE WHICH SUBSET OF RESPONSES
>       INDICATES THE EXISTENCE OF MIND?  WHO WILL DECIDE WHICH SET IS
>       APPROPRIATE TO INDICATE AN ENTITY OTHER THAN OURSELVES IS OUT THERE
>       RESPONDING?

The same one who decides in ongoing, everyday "solutions" to the
other-minds problem. And on exactly the same basis:
indistinguishability of performance.

>       [If] WE GET A RESPONSE WHICH APPEARS TO BE RANDOM, IT WOULD SEEM THAT
>       THIS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO LABEL [the] RESPONDENT A MINDLESS ENTITY.
>       HOWEVER, IT IS THE EXACT RESPONSE ONE WOULD EXPECT OF A SCHIZOPHRENIC.

When will this tired prima facie objection (about schizophrenia,
retardation, aphasia, coma, etc.) at last be laid to rest? Damaged
humans inherit the benefit of the doubt from what we know about their
biological origins AND about the success of their normal counterparts in
passing the turing test. Moreover, there is no problem in principle
with subhuman or nonhuman performance -- in practice we turing-test
animals too -- and this too is probably parasitic on our intuitions
about normal human beings (although the evolutionary order was
probably vice versa).

Also, schizophrenics don't just behave randomly; if a candidate just
behaved randomly it would not only justifiably flunk the turing test,
but it would not survive either. (I don't even know what behaving
purely randomly might mean; it seems to me the molecules would never
make it through embryogeny...) On the other hand, which of us doesn't
occasionally behave randomly, and some more often than other?. We can
hardly expect the turing test to provide us with the criteria for extreme
conditions such as brain death if even biologists have problems with that.

All these exotic variants are pseudoproblems and red herrings,
especially when we are nowhere in our progress in developing a system
that can give the normal version of the turing test a run for its money.

>       NOW IF WE ARE TO USE OUR JUDGEMENT IN DETERMINING THE PRESENCE OF
>       ANOTHER MIND, THEN WE MUST ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY OF ERROR INHERENT
>       IN THE HUMAN DECISION MAKING PROCESS. AT BEST,THEN, THE TURING TEST
>       WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE US ONLY A HINT AT THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER MIND;
>       A LEVEL OF PROBABILITY.

What else is new? Even the theories of theoretical physics are only
true with high probability. There is no mathematical proof that our
inferences are entailed with necessity by the data. This is called
"underdetermination" and "inductive risk," and it is endemic to all
empirical inquiry.

But besides that, the turing test has even a second layer of
underdermination that verges on indeterminacy. I have argued that it
has two components: One is the formal theorist's task of developing a
device that can generate all of our performance capacities, i.e.,one
that can pass the Total Turing Test. So far, with only "performance
capacity" having been mentioned, the level of underdetermination is
that of ordinary science (it may have missed some future performance
capacity, or it may fail tomorrow, or it may just happen to accomplish
the same performance in a radically different way, just as the
universe may happen to differ from our best physical theory).

The second component of the turing test, however, is informal, intuitive
and open-ended, and it's the one we usually have in mind when we speak of
the turing test: Will a normal human being be able to tell the candidate
apart from someone with a mind? The argument is that
turing-indistinguishability of (total) performance is the only basis
for making that judgment in any case.

Fallible? Of course that kind of judgment is fallible. Certainly no less
fallible than ordinary scientific inference; and (I argue) no more fallible
than our judgments about other minds. What more can one ask? Apart from the
necessary truths of mathematics, the only other candidate for a
nonprobabilistic
certainty is our direct ("incorrigible") awareness of our OWN minds (although
even there the details seem a bit murky...).


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 08:40:00 EDT
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: son of yet more wrangling on Searle, Turing, Quine, Hume, ...
-BODY-

Warning: the following message is long and exceeds the FDA maximum
daily recommended dosage of philosophizing.  You have been warned.

This is the exchange that kicked off this whole diatribe:

>>> Harnad: there is no rational reason for being more sceptical about robots'
>>> minds (if we can't tell their performance apart from that of people)
>>> than about (other) peoples' minds.

>> Cugini: One (rationally) believes other people are conscious BOTH because
>>       of their performance and because their internal stuff is a lot like
>>       one's own.

> This is a very important point and a subtle one, so I want to make
> sure that my position is explicit and clear: I am not denying that
> there exist some objective data that correlate with having a mind
> (consciousness) over and above performance data. In particular,
> there's (1) the way we look and (2) the fact that we have brains. What
> I am denying is that this is relevant to our intuitions about who has a
> mind and why. I claim that our intuitive sense of who has a mind is
> COMPLETELY based on performance, and our reason can do no better. These
> other correlates are only inessential afterthoughts, and it's irrational
> to take them as criteria.

This riposte seems implausible on the face of it.  You seem to want
to pretend that we know absolutely nothing about the basis of thought
in humans, and to "suppress" all evidence based on such knowledge.
But that's just wrong.  Brains *are* evidence for mind, in light of
our present knowledge.

> My supporting argument is very simple: We have absolutely no intuitive
> FUNCTIONAL ideas about how our brains work. (If we did, we'd have long
> since spun an implementable brain theory from our introspective
> armchairs.) Consequently, our belief that brains are evidence of minds and
> that the absence of a brain is evidence of the absence of a mind is based
> on a superficial black-box correlation. It is no more rational than
> being biased by any other aspect of appearance, such as the color of
> the skin, the shape of the eyes or even the presence or absence of a tail.

Hoo hah, you mean to say that belief based on "black-box correlation"
is irrational in the absence of a fully-supporting theoretical
framework?  Balderdash.  People in, say, 1500 AD were perfectly rational
in predicting tides based on the position of the moon (and vice-versa)
even though they hadn't a clue as to the mechanism of interaction.
If you keep asking "why" long enough, *all* science is grounded on
such brute-fact correlation (why do like charges repel, etc.) - as
Hume pointed out a while back.

> To put it in the starkest terms possible: We wouldn't know what device
> was and was not relevantly brain-like if it was staring us in the face
> -- EXCEPT IF IT HAD OUR PERFORMANCE CAPACITIES (i.e., it could pass
> the Total Turing Test). That's the only thing our intuitions have to
> go on, and our reason has nothing more to offer either.

Except in the case of actual other brains (which are, by definition,
relevantly brain-like).  The only skepticism open to one is that
one's own brain is unique in its causal powers - possible, but hardly
the best rational hypothesis.

> People were sure (as sure as they'll ever be) that other people had
> minds long before they ever discovered they had brains. I myself believed
> the brain was just a figure of speech for the first dozen or so years of
> my life. Perhaps there are people who don't learn or believe the news
> throughout their entire lifetimes. Do you think these people KNOW any
> less than we do about what does or doesn't have a mind? ...

Let me re-cast Harnad's argument (perhaps in a form unacceptable to him):
We can never know any mind directly, other than our own, if we take
the concept of mind to be something like "conscious intelligence" -
ie the intuitive (and correct, I believe) concept, rather than
some operational definition, which has been deliberately formulated
to circumvent the epistemological problems.  (Harnad, to his credit,
does not stoop to such positivist ploys.)  But the only external
evidence we are ever likely to get for "conscious intelligence"
is some kind of performance.  Moreover, the physical basis for
such performance will be known only contingently, ie we do not
know, a priori, that it is brains, rather than automatic dishwashers,
which generate mind, but rather only as an a posteriori correlation.
Therefore, in the search for mind, we should rely on the primary
criterion (performance), rather than on such derivative criteria
as brains.

I pretty much agree with the above account except for the last sentence
which prohibits us from making use of derivative criteria.  Why should
we limit ourselves so?  Since when is that part of rationality?
No, the fact is we do have more reason to suppose mind of other
humans than of robots, in virtue of an admittedly derivative (but
massively confirmed) criterion.  And we are, in this regard, in a
epistemological position *superior* to those who don't/didn't know
about such things as the role of the brain, ie we have *more* reason
to believe in the mindedness of others than they do.  That's why
primitive tribes (I guess) make the *mistake* of attributing
mind to trees, weather, etc.  Since raw performance is all they
have to go on, seemingly meaningful activity on the part of any
old thing can be taken as evidence of consciousness.  But we
sophisticates have indeed learned a thing or two, in particular, that
brains support consciousness, and therefore we (rationally) give the
benefit of the doubt to any brained entity, and the anti-benefit to
un-brained entities.  Again, not to say that we might not learn about
other bases for mind - but that hardly disparages brainedness as a
rational criterion for mindedness.

Another point, which I'll just state rather than argue for is that
even performance is only *contingently* a criterion for mind - ie,
it so happens, in this universe, that mind often expresses itself
by playing chess, etc., just as it so happens that brains cause
minds.  And so there's really not much difference between relying on
one contingent correlate (performance) rather than another (brains)
as evidence for the presence of mind.

> >  Why is consciousness a red herring just because it adds a level
> >  of uncertainty?
>
> Perhaps I should have said indeterminacy. If my arguments for
> performance-indiscernibility (the turing test) as our only objective
> basis for inferring mind are correct, then there is a level of
> underdetermination here that is in no way comparable to that of, say,
> the unobservable theoretical entities of physics (say, quarks, or, to
> be more trendy, perhaps strings). Ordinary underdetermination goes
> like this: How do I know that your theory's right about the existence
> and presence of strings? Because WITH them the theory succeeds in
> accounting for all the objective data (let's pretend), and without
> them it does not. Strings are not "forced" by the data, and other
> rival theories may be possible that work without them. But until these
> rivals are put forward, normal science says strings are "real" (modulo
> ordinary underdetermination).

> Now try to run that through for consciousness: How do I know that your
> theory's right about the existence and presence of consciousness (i.e.,
> that your model has a mind)? "Because its performance is
> turing-indistinguishable from that of creatures that have minds." Is
> your theory dualistic? Does it give consciousness an independent,
> nonphysical, causal role? "Goodness, no!" Well then, wouldn't it fit
> the objective data just as well (indeed, turing-indistinguishably)
> without consciousness? "Well..."

> That's indeterminacy, or radical underdetermination, or what have you.
> And that's why consciousness is a methodological red herring.

I admit, I have trouble following the line of argument above.  Is this
Quine's "it's real if it's a term in our best-confirmed theories"
approach?  But I think Quine is quite wrong, if that is his
assertion.  I know consciousness (my own, at least) exists, not as
some derived theoretical construct which explains low-level data
(like magnetism explains pointer readings), but as the absolutely
lowest rock-bottom datum there is.  Consciousness is the data,
not the theory - it is the explicandum, not the explicans (hope
I got that right).  It's true that I can't directly observe the
consciousness of others, but so what?  That's an epistemological
inconvenience, but it doesn't make consciousness a red herring.

> I don't know what you mean, by the way, about always being able to
> "engineer anything with anything at some level of abstraction." Can
> anyone engineer something to pass the robotic version of the Total
> Turing Test right now? And what's that "level of abstraction" stuff?
> Robots have to do their thing in the real world. And if my
> groundedness arguments are valid, that ain't all done with symbols
> (plus add-on peripheral modules).

The engineering remark was to re-inforce the idea that, perhaps,
being-composed-of-protein might not be as practically incidental
as many assume.  Frinstance, at some level of difficulty, one can
get energy from sunlight "as plants do."  But the issues are:
do we get energy from sunlight in the same way?  How similar do
we demand that the processes are?  It might be easy to be as
efficient as plants in getting energy from sunlight through
non-biological technology.  But if we're interested in simulation at
a lower level of abstraction, eg, photosynthesis, then, maybe, a
non-biological approach will be impractical.  The point is we know we
can simulate human chess-playing abilities with non-biological
technology.  Should we just therefore declare the battle for mind won,
and go home?  Or ask the harder question: what would it take to get a
machine to play a game of chess like a person does, ie, consciously.

BTW, I quite agree with your more general thesis on the likely
inadequacy of symbols (alone) to capture mind.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
243
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 11:35:39 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!unido!ab@seismo.css.gov  (ab)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Places in Vancouver? Really Chess programs.
-BODY-
> I don't really understand why there are not any really good chess
> programs available for home computers.  Fidelity has a machine
> with an official USCF rating of 2100 for 200 bucks.  I am pretty
> sure that this has an 8 bit processor.  Someone should be able to
> come up with a 68k program that is better than this!

Did you hear of the recent PSION-CHESS program for the Atari ST?
This is a completely new program developed by Richard Lang. It uses
heuristic search instead of the alpha-beta-procedure. This means that
the program can examine the game tree to arbitrary depth. It uses a highly
selective search to investigate the interesting lines of play. Moreover
its playing style is very aggressive. The search concentrates on lines
of play which are tactically sharp and which force the opponent to play
in a way which can be easily predicted. So not necessarily the best
move is played but the tactically sharpest with reasonable outcome.
This means that a depth of up to 20 plies can be forced and a gain of
material in let's say 8 plies is recognized.

The program can display up to 8 plies of its current expected moves.
There exist two ways of displaying the board: 3d and 2d. You can set the
board to an arbitrary position and there exist levels of play from
novice (1 sec) to expert (same time) and infinity. Also there are
problem modes for forced check mates. The program normally 'thinks'
while its opponent has to move, but with the feature 'handicap' this
can be disabled. A lot of other features are supported which could be
mentioned.

It seems to me that this program is identical to the Mephisto Munchen
with Amsterdam-modul since that one also uses the same strategy, the
same processor and is also by Richard Lang. If true that would mean
that PSION-CHESS alias Mephisto-Munchen is the recent world champion
of microcomputer chess (championship in Amsterdam fall 1985).

Has anyone further information on this program or on its strength?
I am particularly interested in the new programing approach realized
in this program. There exist some articles by Larry R. Harris about
heuristic search in chess, but these articles date back to 1975.
Are there other available programs which use the new approach?


        Andreas Bormann
        University of Dortmund  [UniDo]
        West Germany

Uucp:   ab@unido.uucp
Path:   {USA}!seismo!{mcvax}!unido!ab
        {Europe}!{cernvax,diku,enea,ircam,mcvax,prlb2,tuvie,ukc}!unido!ab
Bitnet: ab@unido.bitnet (==  ab@ddoinf6.bitnet)

[  Followups will be directed to net.games.chess only.]

[  Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed  ]
[  herein are my own.  They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]
[  Also I have no ambitions to sell PSION-CHESS or Mephisto computers.]

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 23:06 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Aid To Database Design (UPenn)
-BODY-

                        Dissertation Defense

                Aid To Database Design: An Inductive
                        Inference Approach

                         Sitaram Lanka

The conventional approach to the design of databases has the drawback that
to specify a database schema, it requires the user interested in designing a
schema to have the knowledge  about both the domain and the data model. The
aim of this research is to propose a semi automated system which designs a
database schema in which the user need only have the knowledge of the
underlying domain. This is expressed in terms of the information retrieval
requirements that the database has to satisfy eventually. We have cast this
as a problem in inductive inference where the input is in the form of
Natural Language English queries. A database schema is inferred from this
and is expressed in the functional data model.

The synthesis of the database schema from the input queries is carried out
by an inference mechanism. The central idea in designing the inference
mechanism is the notion of compositionality and we have described it in
terms of attribute grammars due to Kunth. A method has been proposed to
detect any potentially false hypothesis that the inference mechanism may put
forth and we have proposed a scheme to refine them such that we will obtain
acceptable hypothesis. A prototype has been implemented on the Symbolics
Lisp machine.
                             Committee
                          Dr. P. Buneman
                      Dr. T. Finin (chairman)
                     Dr. R. Gerritsen Supervisor
                      Dr. A.K. Joshi Supervisor
                         Dr. R.S. Nikhil
                          Dr. B. Webber

                       Date: October 31, 1986
                       Time: 2:30 pm
                   Location: Room 23

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 20:47:49 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Circumscriptive Theory of Plan Recognition (BBN)
-BODY-
From: Brad Goodman <BGOODMAN at BBNG.ARPA>

                            BBN Laboratories
                       Science Development Program
                          AI/Education Seminar

Speaker:     Henry Kautz
             Dept. of Computer Science, University of Rochester
             (Henry@Rochester.Arpa)

Title:       A CIRCUMSCRIPTIVE THEORY OF PLAN RECOGNITION

Date:        10:30a.m., Thursday, November 20th

Location:    3rd floor large conference room,
             BBN Laboratories Inc., 10 Moulton St., Cambridge


                            Abstract


A plan library specifies the abstraction and decomposition relations
between actions.  A typical first-order representation of such a library
does not, by itself, provide grounds for recognizing an agent's plans, given
observations of the agent's actions.  Several additional assumptions are
needed:  that the abstraction hierarchy is complete; that the
decomposition hierarchy is complete; and that the agent's actions are, if
possible, all part of the same plan.  These assumptions are developed
through the construction of a certain class of minimal models of the plan
library.  Circumscription provides a general non-constructive method for
specifying a class of minimal models.  For the specific case at hand,
however, we can mechanically generate a set of first-order axioms which
precisely capture the assumptions.  The result is a "competence theory" of
plan recognition, which correctly handles such difficult matters as
disjunctive observations and multiple plans.  The theory may be partially
implemented by efficient (but limited) algorithms.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 17:43:23 EST
-FROM-
From: Jason Catlett <munnari!basser.oz!jason@seismo.CSS.GOV>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers, Sydney Expert Systems Conference
-BODY-
>From moncskermit!munnari!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
>From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.conferences
Subject: Call-For-Papers: Sydney Expert Systems Conference
Location: Sydney, Australia


                        CALL FOR PAPERS

     The Third Australian Conference on Applications of Expert Systems

                     Sydney, 13-15 May

The Sydney Expert Systems Group has organised two successful
conferences on this theme, including keynote addresses from
internationally-recognised authorities
Bruce Buchanan (Stanford University), Donald Michie (Turing Institute),
Neil Pundit (Digital Equipment Corporation, USA), Donald
Waterman (Rand Corporation) and Patrick Winston (M.I.T.).
The 1987 conference will continue this tradition, with addresses from
distinguished overseas speakers and Australian experts.

Papers are invited on any aspect of expert systems technology, including

    -  examples of expert systems that have been developed for
       particular applications
    -  design and evaluation of tools for building expert systems
    -  knowldege engineering methodology
    -  specialised hardware for expert systems

Contributions that discuss the authors' experiences/successes/
lessons learned in building expert systems will be
particularly welcome.  Papers of any size will be considered but
a length of 15-30 pages is recommended.  All accepted papers will
be published in the Proceedings.

Authors should note the following dates:

     Deadline for papers:               30th January 1987
     Notification of acceptance:        13th March 1987
     Deadline for camera-ready copy:    10th April 1987
     Presentation of paper:             13-15th May 1987

Papers should be sent to the Program Chairman,

        Dr J. R. Quinlan
        School of Computing Sciences
        NSW Institute of Technology
        Broadway NSW 2007
        Australia

Requests for registration forms should be sent to "ES Conference
Registrations, c/o Dr John Debenham" at the above address.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1986  10:50 EST
-FROM-
From: HENRY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: European Conference on Object Oriented Programming
-BODY-
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 18:25:23 -0100 (MET)
From: pierre Cointe <mcvax!cmirh!pc at seismo.CSS.GOV>
To:   henry at ai.ai.mit.edu

        EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING
                        Call for Papers
                Paris, France: June 15-17 1987

Following the AFCET group's three previous Working Sessions
on Object Oriented Languages next encounter will take place
at the Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris) on June 15th, 16th &
17th 1987. With regard to the success of the previous workshops
and to the increasing interest on the subject, the next meeting
will be an international conference organized by AFCET.
The program committee is:

G. Attardi, DELPHI, Italy
J. Bezivin, LIB (UBO & ENSTbr), France
P. Cointe, CMI & LITP, France
S. Cook, London University, England
J.M. Hullot, INRIA, France
B. Kristensen, Aalborg University Center, Denmark
H. Lieberman, MIT, USA
L. Steels, Brussels University, Belgium
H. Stoyan, Konstanz University, West German
B. Stroustrup, AT&T Bell Labs, USA
J. Vaucher,  Montreal University, Canada
A. Yonezawa, Tokyo Institut of Technology, Japan

The conference will consist of a presentation of selected papers.
Well-known researchers having made major contributions in the field
> like C. Hewitt and K. Nygaard - will also give invited lectures.

This new conference will deal with all domains using the techniques
and methodologies of Object Oriented Programming. It is likely to
interest both software designers and users.
Proposed themes are the following:

> Theory :
        semantic models (instantiation, inheritance), compilation
> Conception :
        new languages, new hardwares, new extensions of languages
> Applications :
        man/machine interfaces, simulation, knowledge representation,
        data bases, operating systems
> Methodology :
        Smalltalk-80 methodology, actor methodology,
        frame methodology, the abstract type approach
> Development :
        industrial applications.

The papers must be submitted in English and should not be longer
than ten pages. Five copies must be received at one of the address
below, no later than January 9th,1987 (and, if possible, by electronic
mails to the conference co-chairmen). Papers selection will be done
by circulating papers to members of the program committee having
appropriate expertise. Authors will be notified of acceptance by
February, 15th 1987. To be included in the Proceedings the definitive
version of the paper must reach the AFCET office before April, 27th 1987.

> Conference Co-chairmen
        - J.M. Hullot (INRIA)
                mcvax!inria!hullot
        - J. Bezivin (LIB)
                mcvax!inria!geocub!bezivin

> Program Co-chairmen
        - P. Cointe (LITP)
                mcvax!inria!cointe
        - H. Lieberman (MIT)
                mcvax!ai.ai.mit.edu!henry

> USA Coordinator
        - B. Stroustrup (AT&T, Bell Labs)
                mcvax!research!snb!bs
                Murray Hill, Nj 07974 USA
                (201 582 7393)

> Organization
        - Claire Van Hieu
                AFCET
                156 Boulevard Pereire
                75017 Paris, France
                (1) 47.66.24.19


Following the conference - and in the same place - Jerome Chailloux
and Christian Queinnec will organize on June 18th and 19th a workshop
about Lisp and its standardization.
People interested in Tutorials, Workshops or Exhibitions may contact
the AFCET organization.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
244
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 86 23:15:35 EST
-FROM-
From: Steve blumenfrucht <BLUMENFRUCHT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIM in Rehabilitation Med
-BODY-
I am trying to find people doing artificial intelligence work in
the medical specialty of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
I am especially interested in finding MDs doing this.
Help/suggestions are appreciated.   Reply to BLUMENFRUCHT@RUTGERS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 14:37:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mtx5e!mtx5w!drv@
     ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: OPINIONS REQUESTED ON GURU
-BODY-
> I'D APPRECIATE ANY COMMENTS THE GROUP HAS ON THE AI BASED PACKAGE <GURU>.
>
I had an evaluation copy of Guru here about a month ago.
I found it an interesting package with a lot of nice
features.  I decided not to use it for a lot of reasons
specific to my application but I'll try not to let them
get in the way of my evaluation.

First, a short description of what Guru has.  In addition
to a language and a set of features for creating rule-based
systems, Guru contains a text editor, a spreadsheet, a communications
package, a graphics package, a relational data base package, a
Unix shell-like procedural language, a menu and user prompt
facility and probably a few other things I've forgotten.  The
rule-based system, editor and spreadsheet are the parts I looked
into most so my comments will be limited to those.

The editor and spreadsheet are not what you would call state-of-the-art.
There are standalone packages available for most PCs that are as
nice or nicer than Guru's in my opinion.  While the menu interface
to Guru and the graphics package make nice use of the PC graphics,
neither the editor nor the spreadsheet use any graphics.  It appears
that the Guru folks purchased these packages from outside and
integrated them in to their total system.  That opinion is based
on nothing other than the rather different appearance these modules
have from each other.

The novel and nice feature that Guru has that prompted my to look
into it in the first place is the ability to reference different
portions of Guru from others.  For example, within a spreadsheet
you can reference a rule-based system (which can access the data
in the spreadsheet) and fill in cells with results from a rule-
based execution (called a consultation in Guru).  Similarly, within
the editor you can access the data base for results to be added to the
text, access the data base from within a rule based system, etc.
I spent a fair amount of time with the spreadsheet accessing
rules in a rule-based system.  While I had a few difficulties due
to the way the rules address spreadsheet cells, I found the
procedure to work fairly well.

One thing that turned me off from Guru, in addition to the mismatch
with my intended application, was the price tag.  $3000 seemed a
bit steep for me. But if you need most or many of the different
features rather than just a couple it might be a better investment
instead of buying separate components.  And if you need to have
the integration between components such as spreadsheet and rule-based
system, I know of no other tool that does that.  Then the price
might be well worth it.

Good luck and I hope this helps.

Dennis R. Vogel
AT&T Information Systems
Middletown, NJ
(201) 957-4951

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 86 15:43:16 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!mtx5e!mtx5w!drv@
     ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: More on Guru
-BODY-
I recently posted my experience with the Guru package.
In it I mentioned that the $3000 price tag scared me
off (in addition to other things).  Well, it's worse
than that.  Today we got a letter from Guru saying that
the introductory period for Guru has drawn to a close
along with the $2995 introductory price.  Guru is now
priced at $6500 for a single user development system.

I should mention that Guru does offer run-time licenses
for less than this but the latest letter doesn't say what
they cost.

Dennis R. Vogel
AT&T Information Systems
Middletown, NJ
(201) 957-4951

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 86 23:13:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@beaver.cs.washington.edu
     (Michael Maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Seeking PD parser for simple English sentences.
-BODY-
In article <30@orion.UUCP> heins@orion.UUCP (Michael Heins) writes:
>I am looking for public domain software which I can use to help me parse
>simple English sentences into some kind of standardized representation.
>I guess what I am looking for would be a kind of sentence diagrammer
>which would not have to have any deep knowledge of the meanings of the
>nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.
>
>...C routines would be ideal.  Also, references to published
>algorithms would be useful.

Since this seems to be a fairly common request, I am taking the liberty of
posting to the net...
Many Prologs (but not Turbo) have a built-in parser called `Definite Clause
Grammar' (DCG).  It is a way of writing phrase structure rules, which Prolog
then translates into standard Prolog rules.  Most standard texts on Prolog
discuss it, e.g.
%A W.F. Clocksin
%A C.S. Mellish
%D 1984
%T Programming in Prolog
%I Springer-Verlag
%C Berlin

A somewhat more sophisticated rule system was developed by Fernando Pereira in
his Ph.D. dissertation, published with some revision as:
%A Fernando Pereira
%D 1979
%T Extraposition Grammars
%R Working Paper No. 59
%I Department of Aritficial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh
%C Edinburgh

(You'd have to type the program in yourself; he includes a very simple
grammar of English.)

>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Advanced Technology Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 16:47:16 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KR for Music
-BODY-
                  [Forwarded from the NL-KR Digest.]

For information on KR and music, see:

Ebcioglu, Kemal, "An Expert System for Chorale Harmonization," Proc.
AAAI-86, Vol. 2, pp. 784-788.

Ebcioglu, Kemal, "An Expert System for Harmonization of Chorales in the
Style of J. S. Bach," Tech. Report, Dept. of Computer Science, SUNY
Buffalo (1986).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 15:54:18 est
-FROM-
From: lb0q@andrew.cmu.edu (Leslie Burkholder)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: monotonicity
-BODY-
The monotonicity property of validity: If an argument is deductively valid
then it cannot be made invalid by adding new premises. Equivalently: If X, Y
are finite sets of sentences and S a sentence, then if X entails S, then X
union Y entails S.

The monotonicity property of consistency: If a set of sentences is
inconsistent then it cannot be made consistent by adding to it a new
sentence. Equivalently: If X is a finite set of sentences, S some sentence,
and X is inconsistent, then so is X union {S}.

Leslie Burkholder

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 86 04:04:36 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!brewster@seismo.css.gov
     (dave brewer, SD Eng, PAMI )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Weizenbaum keynote address at U of Waterloo (long)
-BODY-

The Hagey Lectures at the University of Waterloo provide an
opportunity for a distinguished researcher to address the
community at large every year.  This year, Dr. Weizenbaum of
MIT was the chosen speaker, and he has just delivered two
key note addresses entitled; "Prospects for AI" and "The Arms
Race, Without Us".

The important points of the first talk can be summarized as :
  1) AI has good prospects from an investment prospective since
     a strong commitment to marketing something called AI has
     been made.
  2) the early researchers did not understand how difficult
     the problems they addressed were and so the early claims
     of the possibilities were greatly exaggerated.  The trend
     still continues but on a reduced scale.
  3) AI has been a handle for some portion of the US military
     to hang SDI on, since whenever a "difficult" problem
     arises it is always possible to say , " Well, we don't
     understand that now, but we can use AI techniques to
     solve that problem later."
  4) the actual achievements of AI are small.
  5) the ability of expert systems to continuously monitor
     stock values and react has led to increased volatility
     and crisis situations in the stock markets of the world
     recently.  What happens if machine induced technical trading
     drops the stock market by 20 % in one day , 50 % in one day ?

The important points of the second talk can be summarized as :
   1) not all problems can be reduced to computation, for
      example how could you conceive of coding the human
      emotion loneliness.
   2) AI will never duplicate or replace human intelligence
      since every organism is a function of its history.
   3) research can be divided into performance mode or theory
      mode research.  An increasing percentage of research is
      now conducted in performance mode, despite possible
      desires to do theory mode research, since funds (mainly
      military), are available for performance mode research.
   4) research on "mass murder machines" is possible because
      the researchers (he addressed computer scientists
      directly although extension to any technical or
      scientific discipline was implied), are able to
      psychologically distance themselves from the end use
      of their work.
   5) technical education that neglects language, culture,
      and history, may need to be rethought.
   6) courage is infectious, and while it may not seem to be
      a possibility to some, the arms race could be stopped cold
      if an entire group of professions, (ie computer scientists),
      refused to participate.
   7) the search for funds has led to an increased rate of
      performance mode research, and has even induced many
      institutions to prostitute themselves to the highest bidder.
      Specific situations within MIT were used for examples.
      Weizenbaum had the graciousness to ignore related (albeit
      proportionally smaller), circumstances at this
      university.
   8) every researcher should assess the possible end use of
      their own research, and if they are not morally comfortable
      with this end use, they should stop their research.  Weizenbaum
      did not believe that this would be the end of all research,
      but if that was the case then he would except this result.
      He specifically referred to research in machine vision, which he
      felt would be used directly and immediately by the military for
      improving their killing machines.  While not saying so, he implied
      that this line of AI should be stopped dead in its tracks.

Poster's comments :
  1) Weizenbaum seemed to be technically out of date in some areas,
     and admitted as much at one point.  Some of his opinions
     regarding state of the art were suspect.
  2) His background, technical and otherwise, seems to predispose
     him to dismissing some technical issues a priori. i.e. a machine
     can never duplicate a human, why ?, because !.
  3) His most telling point, and one often ignored, is that
     researchers have to be responsible for their work, and should
     consider its possible end uses.
  4) He did not appear to have thought through all the consequences
     of a sudden end to research, and indeed many of his solutions
     appear overly simplistic, in light of the complicated
     world we live in.
  5) You have never seen an audience squirm, as they did for the
     second lecture.  A once premier researcher, addresses his
     contemporaries, and tells them they are ethically and morally
     bankrupt, and every member of the audience has at least some
     small buried doubt that maybe he is right.
  6) Weizenbaum intended the talks to be "controversial and
     provocative" and has achieved his goal within the U of W
     community.   While not agreeing with many of his points, I
     believe that there are issues raised which are relevant to
     the entire world-wide scientific community, and have posted
     for this reason.

The main question that I see arising from the talks is : is it time
to consider banning, halting, slowing, or otherwise rethinking
certain AI or technical adventures, such as machine vision, as was
done in the area of recombinant DNA.

Disclaimer : The opinions above are mine and may not accurately
             reflect those of U of Waterloo, Dr.Weizenbaum, or
             anyone else for that matter.  I make no claims as
             to the accuracy of the above summarization and advise
             that transcripts of the talks are available from some
             place within U of W, but expect to pay for them because
             thats the recent trend.


UUCP  : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster
Else  : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 02:48:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!reed!trost@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Trost)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Weizenbaum keynote address at U of Waterloo (long)
-BODY-
In article <2689@watdcsu.UUCP> brewster@watdcsu.UUCP (dave brewer,
  SD Eng, PAMI ) writes:
>
>The main question that I see arising from the talks is : is it time
>to consider banning, halting, slowing, or otherwise rethinking
>certain AI or technical adventures, such as machine vision, as was
>done in the area of recombinant DNA.

Somehow, I don't think that banning machine vision makes much sense.  It
seems that it would be similar to banning automatic transmissions because
you can use them to make tanks.  The device itself is not the hazard (as it
is in genetic research) -- it is the application.
>-
Bill Trost, tektronix!reed!trost
        "ACK!"
        (quoted, without permission, from Bloom County)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
245
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 07:23 PST
-FROM-
From: kendall.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Electronics Troubleshooting
-BODY-
For AI Digest 11/3/86:

I am looking for some public domain software that would pertain to
electronics troubleshooting.  I am interested in any special graphics
editors for electronics schematics and any shells for troubleshooting
the circuits.

Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 00:41 EDT
-FROM-
From: JUDD%cs.umass.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: a query for AIList
-BODY-
I would like references to books or articles that argue the
following position:
        "The enigma of consciousness is profound but the basis for it
        is very mundane. Consciousness reduces to sensation;
        sensation reduces to measurement of nervous events;
        nervous events are physical events. Since physical events can
        obviously occur in `inanimate matter', so can consciousness."

References to very recent articles are my main objective here,
but old works (ie pre-computer age) would be helpful also.
sj

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 20:53:05 EST
-FROM-
From: "Maj. Ken Rose" (USATRADOC | mort) <krose@BRL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: English-Hangul Machine Translation
-BODY-
I would like to connect with anyone who has had some experience with machine
translation between English and Hangul.  Please contact me at krose@brl.arpa
or phone (804) 727-2347.  May-oo kam s'ham nee da.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 15:11 EST
-FROM-
From: Vu.wbst@Xerox.COM
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Vu.wbst@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Belle
-BODY-
Does anyone have any information about Belle, the strongest chess-playing
program today?  It has ELO rating of over 2000.  It uses tree-pruning,
and cutoff heuristics.

Is the code available for the public in Interlisp-D?  Any pointer would
be very helpful.  By the way, what is the complete path for
net.games.chess that was mentioned in V4# 243?  Thank you.

Dinh Vu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 12:25:40 -0100
-FROM-
From: Hakon Styri <styri%vax.runit.unit.uninett@nta-vax.arpa.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Is there OOP in AI?
-BODY-
In response to the item in AIList issue No. 231.

  Yes, if you have a look in the October issue of SIGPLAN NOTICES,
i.e. the special issue on the Object-Oriented Programming Workshop
at IBM Yorktown Heights, June 1986.  At least two papers will be
of interest...

  Going back a few years, you may also find some ICOT papers about
OOP in Prolog. Try New Generation Computing, the ICOT/Springer-Verlag
Journal. There are a few papers in Vol. 1, No. 1 (1983).

  In the Proceedings of the International Conference on FGCS 1984
there is another paper: "Unique Features of ESP", which is a Logic
Programming Language with features for OOP.

    H. Styri                           --  Yu No Hoo  :-)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 3 Nov 86 10:59:37-PST
-FROM-
From: cas <PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: moral responsibility
-BODY-
The idea of banning vision research ( or any other, for that matter ) is
even sillier and more dangerous than Bill Trost points out.  The analogy
is not to ban automatic transmissions, but THINKING about automatic
transmissions.  And banning thinking about anything is about as dangerous
as any course of action can be, no matter how highminded or sincerely morally
concerned those who call for it.
To be fair to Weizenbaum, he does have a certain weird consistency.  He tells
me, for example, that in his view helicopters are intrinsically evil ( as
the Vietnam war has shown ).  One can see how the logic works: if an artifact
is ( or can be ) used to do more bad than good, then it is evil, and research
on evil things is immoral.
While this is probably not the place to start a debate in theoretical ethics,
I do think that this view, while superficially attractive, simply doesnt stand
up to a little thought, and can be used to label as wicked anything which one
dislikes for any reason at all.  Weizenbaum has made a successful career by
systematically attacking AI research on the grounds that it is somehow
immoral, and finding a large and willing audience.  He doesnt make me squirm.
Pat Hayes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 11:09 ???
-FROM-
From: GODDEN%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: banning machine vision
-BODY-
As regards the banning of research on machine vision (or any technical field)
because of the possible end uses of such technology in "mass murder machines",
I should like to make one relevant distinction.  The immediate purpose of
the research as indicated in the grant proposal or as implied by the source of
funding is of the utmost importance.  If I were to do research on vision for
the auto industry and published my results which some military type then
schlepped for use in a satellite to zap civilians, I would not feel ANY
responsibility if the satellite ever got used.  On the other hand, if I
worked for a defense contractor doing the same research, I certainly would
bear some responsibility for its end use.
>Kurt Godden
 godden@gmr.com

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 86 16:58:21 pst
-FROM-
From: John B. Nagle <jbn@glacier.stanford.edu>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-monotonic Reasoning
-BODY-
      Proper mathematical logic is very "brittle", in that two axioms
that contradict each other make it possible to prove TRUE=FALSE, from
which one can then prove anything.  Thus, AI systems that use
traditional logic should contain mechanisms to prevent the introduction
of new axioms that contradict ones already present; this is referred
to as "truth maintenance".  Systems that lack such mechanisms are prone
to serious errors, even when reasoning about things which are not
even vaguely related to the contradictory axioms; one contradiction
in the axioms generally destroys the system's ability to get useful
results.
       Non-monotonic reasoning is an attempt to make reasoning systems
less brittle, by containing the damage that can be caused by
contradiction in the axioms.  The rules of inference of non-monotonic
reasoning systems are weaker than those of traditional logic.  There
is not full agreement on what the rules of inference should be in
such systems.  There are those who regard non-monotonic reasoning as
hacking at the mathematical logic level.  Non-monotonic reasoning
lies in a grey area between the worlds of logic and heuristics.

                                John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 09:30:29 CST
-FROM-
From: mklein@aisung.cs.uiuc.edu (Mark Klein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Nonmonotonic Reasoning
-BODY-
My understanding of nonmonotonic reasoning (NMR) is different from what you
described in a recent ailist posting. As I understand it, NMR differs
from monotonic reasoning in that the size of the set of true theorems
can DECREASE when you add new axioms - thus the set size does not
increase monotonically as axioms are added. It is often implemented
using truth maintenance systems (TMS) that allow something to be justified
by something else NOT being believed. Monotonic reasoning, by contrast,
could be implemented by a TMS that only allows something to be justified by
something else being believed. Default reasoning is an instance of
nonmonotonic reasoning. Nonmonotonic reasoning is thus not synonymous with
truth maintenance.

                        Mark Klein

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 17:26:02 est
-FROM-
From: Graeme Hirst <gh%ai.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Nonsense tests and the Ignorance Principle
-BODY-
>A couple of years ago, on either this list or Human-Nets, there appeared
>a short multiple-choice test which was written so that one could deduce
>"best" answers based on just the form, not the content, of the questions ...

The Ignorance Principle ("Forget the content, just use the form", or "Why
clutter up the system with a lot of knowledge?") has a long and distinguished
history in AI.  In 1975, Gord McCalla and Michael Kuttner published an article
on a program that could successfully pass the written section of the British
Columbia driver's license exam.  For example:

  QUESTION:
    Must every trailer which, owing to size or construction tends to prevent
    a driving signal given by the driver of the towing vehicle from being seen
    by the driver of the overtaking vehicle be equipped with an approved
    mechanical or electrical signalling device controlled by the driver of the
    towing vehicle?
  ANSWER:
    Yes.

In fact, the program was able to answer more than half the questions just by
looking for the words "must", "should", "may", "necessary", "permissible",
"distance", and "required".

The system was not without its flaws.  For example:

  QUESTION:
    To what must the coupling device between a motor-vehicle and trailer
    be affixed?
  ANSWER:
    Yes.

This is wrong; the correct answer is "frame".  (This was an early instance of
the frame problem.)

The authors subsequently attempted a similar program for defending PhD theses,
but the results were never published.

REFERENCE

McCalla, G. and Kuttner, M.  "An extensible feature-based procedural question
  answering system to handle the written section of the British Columbia
  driver's examination".  _CSCSI/SCEIO Newsletter_ [now published as _Canadian
  Artificial Intelligence_], 1(2), February 1975, 59-67.

\\\\   Graeme Hirst    University of Toronto    Computer Science Department
////   utcsri!utai!gh  /  gh@ai.toronto.edu  /  416-978-8747

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 09:38 PST
-FROM-
From: Ghenis.pasa@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Why we waste time training machines
-BODY-
>why are we wasting time training machines when we could be training
humans
>instead.  The only reasons that I can see are that intelligent systems
can be
>made small enough and light enough to sit on bombs.  Are there any
other reasons?

Why do we record music instead of teaching everyone how to sing? To
preserve what we consider top performance and make it easily available
for others to enjoy, even if the performer himself cannot be present and
others are not inclined to or capable of duplicating his work, but
simply wish to benefit from it.

In the case of applied AI there is the added advantage that the
"recordings" are not static but extendable, so the above question may be
viewed as a variation of "to stand on the shoulders of giants" vs. "to
reinvent the wheel".

This is just ONE of the reasons we "waste our time" the way we do.

>- Pablo Ghenis, speaking for myself (TO myself most of the time)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 17:29 CDT
-FROM-
From: stair surfing - an exercise in oblivion
     <"NGSTL1::EVANS%ti-eg.csnet"@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: reasons for making "artificial humans"
-BODY-
>In the last AI digest (V4 #226), Daniel Simon writes:
>
>>One question you haven't addressed is the relationship between
  intelligence and
>>"human performance".  Are the two synonymous?  If so, why bother to make
>>artificial humans when making natural ones is so much easier (not to mention
>>more fun)?
>
>This is a question that has been bothering me for a while.  When it is so much
>cheaper (and possible now, while true machine intelligence may be just a
dream)
>why are we wasting time training machines when we could be training humans in-
>stead.  The only reasons that I can see are that intelligent systems can be
 made
>small enough and light enough to sit on bombs.  Are there any other reasons?
>
>Daniel Paul
>
>danny%ngstl1%ti-eg@csnet-relay

First of all, I'd just like to comment that making natural humans may be easier
(and more fun) for men, but it's not necessarily so for women.  It also seems
that once we get the procedure for "making artificial humans" down pat, it
would take less time and effort than making "natural" ones, a process which
currently requires at least twenty years (sometimes more or less).

Now to my real point - I can't see how training machines could be considered
a waste of time.  There are thousands of useful but meaningless (and generally
menial) jobs which machines could do, freeing humans for more interesting
pursuits (making more humans, perhaps).  Of more immediate concern, there are
many jobs of high risk - mining, construction work, deep-sea exploration and so
forth - in which machines, particularly intelligent machines, could assist.
Putting intelligent systems on bombs is a minor use, of immediate concern only
for its funding potentials.  Debating the ethics of such use is a legitimate
topic, I suppose, but condemning all AI research on that basis is not.


Eleanor Evans
evans%ngstl1%ti-eg@csnet-relay

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 17:18:00 EST
-FROM-
From: walter roberson  <WADLISP7%CARLETON.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Mathematics, Humanity
-BODY-

Gilbert Cockton <mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!aimmi!gilbert@seismo.css.gov>
recently wrote:

>This is contentious and smacks of modelling all learning procedures
>in terms of a single subject, i.e. mathematics. I can't think of a
>more horrible subject to model human understanding on, given the
>inhumanity of most mathematics!

The inhumanity of *most* mathematics? I would think that from the rest of
your message, what you would really claim is the inhumanity of *all*
mathematics -- for *all* of mathematics is entirely deviod of the questions
of what is morally right or morally wrong, entirely missing all matters of
human relationships. Mathematical theorems start by listing the assumptions,
and then indicating how those assumptions imply a result. Many humans seem
to devote their entire lifes to forcibly changing other people's assumptions
(and not always for the better!); most people don't seem to care about
this process. Mathematics, then, could be said to be the study of single
points, where "real life" requires that humans be able to adapt to a line
or perhaps something even higher order.| And yet that does not render
mathematics "inhumane", for we humans must always react to the single point
that is "now", and we *do* employ mathematics to guide us in that reaction.
Thus, mathematics is not inhumane at all -- at worst, it is a subclass of
"humanity". If you prefer to think if it in such terms, this might be
expressed as " !! Humanity encompasses something Universal!"

Perhaps, though, there should be a category of study devoted to modelling
the transformation of knowledge as the very assumptions change. A difficult
question, of course, is whether such a study should attempt to, in any
way, model the "morality" of changing assumptions. I would venture that
it should not, but that a formal method of measuring the effects of such
changes would not be out of order.
>----
Gilbert, as far as I can tell, you have not presented anything new in your
article. Unless I misunderstand you completely, your entire arguement is based
upon the premise that there is something special about life that negates the
possibility of life being modelled by any formal system, no matter how
complex. As I personally consider that it might be possible to do such a
modelling note that I don't say that it *is* possible to do such a modelling|,
I disregard the entire body of your arguements. The false premise implies
all conclusions.
>----
>Nearer to home, find me
>one computer programmer who's understanding is based 100% on formal
procedures.
>Even the most formal programmers will be lucky to be in program-proving mode
>more than 60% of the time.  So I take it that they don't `understand' what
>they're doing the other 40% of the time?

I'm not quite sure what you mean to imply by "program-proving mode". The
common use of the word "prove" would imply "a process of logically
demonstrating that an already-written program is correct". The older use of
"prove" would imply "a process of attempting to demonstrate that an already-
written program is incorrect." In either case, the most formal of programmers
spend relatively little time in "program-proving mode", as those programmers
employ formal systems to write programs which are correct in the first place.
It is only those that either do not understand programming, or do not
understand all the implications of the assumptions they have programmed, that
require 60% of their time to "prove" their programs. 60% of their time proving
to others the validity of the approach, perhaps...

   walter roberson <WADLISP7@CARLETON.BITNET>

   walter

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
246
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 17:34:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Sol
-BODY-

Concerning the A/D distinction, goldfain@uiucuxe.CSO.UIUC.EDU replies:

>       Analog devices/processes are best viewed as having a continuous
possible
>       range of values.  (An interval of the real line, for example.)
>       Digital devices/processes are best viewed as having an underlying
>       granularity of discrete possible values.
>       (Representable by a subset of the integers.)
>       This is a pretty good definition, whether you like it or not.
>       I am curious as to what kind of discussion you are hoping to get,
>       when you rule out the correct distinction at the outset ...

Nothing is ruled out. If you follow the ongoing discussion, you'll see
what I meant by continuity and discreteness being "nonstarters." There
seem to be some basic problems with what these mean in the real
physical world. Where do you find formal continuity in physical
devices? And if it's only "approximate" continuity, then how is the
"exact/approximate" distinction that some are proposing for A/D going
to work? I'm not ruling out that these problems may be resolvable, and
that continuous/discrete will emerge as a coherent criterion after
all. I'm just suggesting that there are prima facie reasons for
thinking that the distinction has not yet been formulated coherently
by anyone. And I'm predicting that the discussion will be surprising,
even to those who thought they had a good, crisp, rigorous idea of
what the A/D distinction was.


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 16:37:55 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!husc6!Diamond!aweinste@lll-crg.arpa  (Anders Weinstein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

> From Stevan Harnad:
>
>>      Analog signal -- one that is continuous both in time and amplitude.
>>     ...
>>      Digital signal -- one that is discrete both in time and amplitude...
>>      This is obtained by quantizing a sampled signal.
>
>                                          Question: What if the
>original "object" is discrete in the first place, both in space and
>time? Does that make a digital transformation of it "analog"? I

Engineers are of course free to use the words "analog" and "digital" in their
own way.  However, I think that from a philosophical standpoint, no signal
should be regarded as INTRINSICALLY analog or digital; the distinction
depends crucially on how the signal in question functions in a
representational system.  If a continuous signal is used to encode digital
data, the system ought to be regarded as digital.

I believe this is the case in MOST real digital systems, where quantum
mechanics is not relevant and the physical signals in question are best
understood as continuous ones. The actual signals are only approximated by
discontinous mathematical functions (e.g. a square wave).

>                                              The image of an object
>(or of the analog image of an object) under a digital transformation
>is "approximate" rather than "exact." What is the difference between
>"approximate" and "exact"? Here I would like to interject a tentative
>candidate criterion of my own: I think it may have something to do with
>invertibility. A transformation from object to image is analog if (or
>>to the degree that) it is invertible. In a digital approximation, some
>information or structure is irretrievably lost (the transformation
>is not 1:1).
> ...

It's a mistake to assume that transformation from "continuous" to "discrete"
representations necessarily involves a loss of information. Lots of
continuous functions can be represented EXACTLY in digital form, by, for
example, encoded polynomials, differential equations, etc.

Anders Weinstein

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 20:28:06 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

[Will someone with access post this on sci.electronics too, please?]

Anders Weinstein <princeton!cmcl2!harvard!DIAMOND.BBN.COM!aweinste>
has offered some interesting excerpts from the philosopher Nelson Goodman's
work on the A/D distinction. I suspect that some people will find Goodman's
considerations a little "dense," not to say hirsute, particularly
those hailing from, say, sci.electronics; I do too.  One of the
subthemes here is whether or not engineers, cognitive psychologists
and philosophers are talking about the same thing when
they talk about A/D.

[Other relevant sources on A/D are Zenon Pylyshyn's book
"Computation and Cognition," John Haugeland's "Artificial
Intelligence" and David Lewis's 1971 article in Nous 5: 321-327,
entitled "Analog and Digital."]

First, some responses to Weinstein/Goodman on A/D; then some responses
to Weinstein-on-Harnad-on-Jacobs:

>       systems like musical notation which are used to DEFINE a work of
>       art by dividing the instances from the non-instances

I'd be reluctant to try to base a rigorous A/D distinction on the
ability to make THAT anterior distinction!

>       "finitely differentiated," or "articulate." For every two characters
>       K and K' and every mark m that does not belong to both, [the]
>       determination that m does not belong to K or that m does not belong
>       to K' is theoretically possible. ...

I'm skeptical that the A/D problem is perspicuously viewed as one of
notation, with, roughly, (1) the "digital notation" being all-or-none and
discrete and the "analog notation" failing to be, and with (2) corresponding
capacity or incapacity to discriminate among the objects they stand for.

>       A scheme is syntactically dense if it provides for infinitely many
>       characters so ordered that between each two there is a third.

I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that this is not strong
enough for the continuity of the real number line. The rational
numbers are "syntactically dense" according to this definition. But
maybe you don't want real continuity...?

>       semantic finite differentiation... for every two characters
>       I and K' such that their compliance classes are not identical and [for]
>       every object h that does not comply with both, [the] determination
>       that h does not comply with K or that h does not comply with K' must
>       be theoretically possible.

I hesitantly infer that the "semantics" concerns the relation between
the notational "image" (be it analog or digital) and the object it
stands for. (Could a distinction that so many people feel they have a
good intuitive handle on really require so much technical machinery to
set up? And are the different candidate technical formulations really
equivalent, and capturing the same intuitions and practices?)

>       A symbol _scheme_ is analog if syntactically dense; a _system_ is
>       analog if syntactically and semantically dense. ... A digital scheme,
>       in contrast, is discontinuous throughout; and in a digital system the
>       characters of such a scheme are one-one correlated with
>       compliance-classes of a similarly discontinous set. But discontinuity,
>       though implied by, does not imply differentiation...To be digital, a
>       system must be not merely discontinuous but _differentiated_
>       throughout, syntactically and semantically...

Does anyone who understands this know whether it conforms to, say,
analog/sampled/quantized/digital distinctions offered by Steven Jacobs
in a prior iteration? Or the countability criterion suggested by Mitch
Sundt?

>       If only thoroughly dense systems are analog, and only thoroughly
>       differentiated ones are digital, many systems are of neither type.

How many? And which ones? And where does that leave us with our
distinction?

Weinstein's summary:

>>To summarize: when a dense language is used to represent a dense domain, the
>>system is analog; when a discrete (Goodman's "discontinuous") and articulate
>>language maps a discrete and articulate domain, the system is digital.

What about when a discrete language is used to represent a dense
domain (the more common case, I believe)? Or the problem case of a
dense representation of a discrete domain? And what if there are no dense
domains (in physical nature)? What if even the dense/dense criterion
can never be met? Is this all just APPROXIMATELY true? Then how does
that square with, say, Steve Jacobs again, on approximation?

>-------

What follows is a response to Weinstein-on-Harnad-on-Jacobs:

>       Engineers are of course free to use the words "analog" and "digital"
>       in their own way. However, I think that from a philosophical
>       standpoint, no signal should be regarded as INTRINSICALLY analog
>       or digital; the distinction depends crucially on how the signal in
>       question functions in a representational system. If a continuous signal
>       is used to encode digital data, the system ought to be regarded as
>       digital.

Agreed that an isolated signal's A or D status cannot be assigned, and
that it depends on its relation with other signals in the
"representational system" (whatever that is) and their relations to their
sources. It also depends, I should think, on what PROPERTIES of the signal
are carrying the information, and what properties of the source are
being preserved in the signal. If the signal is continuous, but its
continuity is not doing any work (has no signal value, so to speak),
then it is irrelevant. In practice this should not be a problem, since
continuity depends on a signal's relation to the rest of the signal
set. (If the only amplitudes transmitted are either very high or very
low, with nothing in between, then the continuity in between is beside
the point.) Similarly with the source: It may be continuous, but the
continuity may not be preserved, even by a continuous signal (the
continuities may not correlate in the right way). On the other hand, I
would want to leave open the question of whether or not discrete
sources can have analogs.

>       I believe this is the case in MOST real digital systems, where
>       quantum mechanics is not relevant and the physical signals in
>       question are best understood as continuous ones. The actual signals
>       are only approximated by discontinous mathematical functions (e.g.
>       a square wave).

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity in the A/D discussion as to just
what is an approximation of what. On one view, a digital
representation is a discrete approximation to a continuous object (source)
or to a (continuous) analog representation of a (continuous) object
(source). But if all objects/sources are really discontinuous, then
it's really the continuous analog representation that's approximate!
Perhaps it's all a matter of scale, but then that would make the A/D
distinction very relative and scale-dependent.


>       It's a mistake to assume that transformation from "continuous" to
>       "discrete" representations necessarily involves a loss of information.
>       Lots of continuous functions can be represented EXACTLY in digital
>       form, by, for example, encoded polynomials, differential equations,
etc.

The relation between physical implementations and (formal!) mathematical
idealizations also looms large in this discussion. I do not, for
example, understand how you can represent continuous functions digitally AND
exactly. I always thought it had to be done by finite difference
equations, hence only approximately. Nor can a digital computer do
real integration, only finite summation. Now the physical question is,
can even an ANALOG computer be said to be doing true integration if
physical processes are really discrete, or is it only doing an approximation
too? The only way I can imagine transforming continuous sources into
discrete signals is if the original continuity was never true
mathematical continuity in the first place. (After all, the
mathematical notion of an unextended "point," which underlies the
concept of formal continuity, is surely an idealization, as are many
of the infinitesmal and limiting notions of analysis.) The A/D
distinction seems to be dissolving in the face of all of these
awkward details...


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
247
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 86 02:16:42 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Defining the Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

[Could someone post this to sci.electronics, to which I have no access,
please?]

>-----
(1)
ken@rochester.arpa writes:

>       I think the distinction is simply this: digital deals with a finite set
>       of discrete {voltage, current, whatever} levels, while analog deals
>       with a *potentially* infinite set of levels. Now I know you are going
>       to say that analog is discrete at the electron noise level but the
>       circuits are built on the assumption that the spectrum is continuous.
>       This leads to different mathematical analyses.

It sounds as if a problem of fact is being remedied by an assumption here.
Nor do potential infinities appear to remedy the problem; there are perfectly
discrete potential infinities. The A/D distinction is again looking
approximate, relative and scale-dependent, hence, in a sense, arbitrary.

>       Sort of like infinite memory Turing machines, we don't have them but
>       we program computers as if they had infinite memory and in practice
>       as long as we don't run out, it's ok. So as long as we don't notice
>       the noise in analog, it serves.

An approximation to an infinite rote memory represents no problem of
principle in computing theory and practice. But an approximation to an
exact distinction between the "exact" and the "approximate" doesn't seem
satisfactory. If there is an exact distinction underlying actual
engineering practice, at least, it would be useful to know what it
was, in place of intuitions that appear to break down as soon as they
are made precise.

>-------
(2)
cuuxb!mwm (Marc Mengel) writes:

>       Digital is essentially a subset of analog, where the range of
>       properties used to represent information is grouped into a
>       finite set of values...
>       Analog, on the other hand, refers to using a property to directly
>       represent an infinite range of values with a different infinite
>       range of values.

This sounds right, as far as it goes. D may indeed be a subset of A.
To use the object--transformation--image vocabulary again: When an object
is transformed into an image with only finite values, then the transform
is digital. (What about combinations of image values?) When an
infinite-valued object is transformed into an infitinite-valued (and
presumably covariant) image, then the transform is analog. I assume
the infinities in question have the right cardinality (i.e.,
uncountable). Questions: (i) Do discrete objects, with only finite or
countably infinite properties, not qualify to have analogs? (ii) What does
"directly represent" mean? Is there something indirect about finiteness?
(iii) What if there are really no such infinities, physically, on either
the object end or the image end?

May I interject at this point the conjecture that what seems to be
left out of all these A/D considerations so far (not just this module)
is that discretization is usually not the sole means or end of digital
representation. What about symbolic representation? What turns a
discretized, approximate image of an object into a symbolic
representation, manipulable by formal rules and semantically
interpretable as being a representation OF that object? (But perhaps
this is getting a little ahead of ourselves.)

>       This is why slide-rules are considered analog, you are USING distance
>       rather than voltage, but you can INTERPRET a distance as precisely
>       as you want. An abacus, on the otherhand also USES distance, but
>       where a disk is MEANS either one thing or another, and it takes
>       lots of disks to REPRESENT a number. An abacus then, is digital.

(No comment. Upper case added.)

>-------
(3)
<bcsaic!ray> writes:

>       (An) analog is a (partial) DUPLICATE (or abstraction)
>       of some material thing or some process, which contains
>       (it is hoped) the significant characteristics and properties
>       of the original.

And a digital representation can't be any of these things? "Duplicate"
in what sense? An object's only "exact" double is itself. Once we move
off in time and space and properties, more precise notions of
"duplicate" are needed than the intuitive ones. Sharing the SAME
physical properties (e.g., obeying the same differential equations
[thanks to Si Kochen for that criterion])? Or perhaps just ANALOGS of
them? But then that gets a bit circular.

>       A digital device or method operates on symbols, rather than
>       physical (or other) reality.  Analog computers may operate on
>       (real) voltages and electron flow, while digital computers
>       operate on symbols and their logical interrelationships.

On the face of it, digital computers "operate" on the same physical
properties and principles that other physical mechanisms do. What is
different is that some aspects of their operations are INTERPRETABLE
in special ways, namely, as rule-governed operations of symbol tokens
that STAND FOR something else. One of the burdens of this discussion
is to determine precisely what role the A/D distinction plays in that
phenomenon, and vice versa. What, to start with, is a symbol?

>       Digital operations are formal; that is they treat form rather
>       than content, and are therefore always deductive, while the
>       behavior of real things and their analogs is not.

Unfortunately, however, these observations are themselves a bit too
informal. What is it to treat form rather than content? One candidate
that's in the air is that it is to manipulate symbols according to
certain formal rules that indicate what to do with the symbol tokens
on the basis of their physical shapes only, rather than what the tokens or
their manipulations or combinations "stand for" or "mean." It's not clear
that this definition is synonymous with symbol manipulation's always
being "deductive." Perhaps it's interpretable as performing deductions,
but as for BEING deductions, that's another question. And how can
digital operations stand in contrast to the behavior of "real things"?
Aren't computers real things?

>       It is one of my (unpopular) assertions that the central nervous
>       system of living organisms (including  myself) is best understood
>       as an analog of "reality"; that most interesting behavior
>       such as induction and the detection of similarity (analogy and
>       metaphor) cannot be accomplished with only symbolic, and
>       therefore deductive, methods.

Such a conjecture would have to be supported not only by a clear
definition of all of the ambiguous theoretical concepts used
(including "analog"), but by reasons and evidence. On the face of it,
various symbol-manipulating devices in AI do do "induction" and "similarity
detection." As to the role of analog representation in the brain:
Perhaps we'd better come up with a viable literal formulation of the
A/D distinction; otherwise we will be restricted to figurative
assertions. (Talking too long about the analog tends to make one
lapse into analogy.)

>-------
(4)
lanl!a.LANL.ARPA!crs (Charlie Sorsby) writes:

>       It seems to me that the terms as they are *usually* used today
>       are rather bastardized... when the two terms originated they referred
>       to two ways of "computing" and *not* to kinds of circuits at all.
>       The analog simulator (or, more popularly, analog computer) "computed"
>       by analogy.  And, old timers may recall, they weren't all electronic
>       or even electrical.

But what does "compute by analogy" mean?

>       Digital computers (truly so) on the other hand computed with
>       *digits* (i.e.  numbers). Of course there was (is) analogy involved
>       here too but that was a "higher-order term" in the view and was
>       conveniently ignored as higher order terms often are.

What is a "higher-order term"? And what's the difference between a
number and a symbol that's interpretable as a number? That sounds like
a "higher-order" consideration too.

>       In the course of time, the term analog came to be used for those
>       electronic circuits *like* those used in analog simulators (i.e.
>       circuits that work with continuous quantities). And, of course,
>       digital came to refer to those circuits *like* those used in digital
>       computers (i.e. those which work with discrete or quantized quantities.

You guessed my next question: What does "like" mean, and why does
the underlying distinction correlate with continuous and discrete
circuit properties?

>       Whether a quantity is continuous or discrete depends on such things
>       as the attribute considered, to say nothing of the person doing the
>       considering, hence the vagueness of definition and usage of the
>       terms. This vagueness seems to have worsened with the passage of time.

I couldn't agree more. And an attempt to remedy that is one of the
objects of this exercise.

>-------
(5)
sundt@mitre.ARPA writes:

>       Coming from a heavily theoretical undergraduate physics background,
>       it seems obvious that the ONLY distinction between the analog and
>       digital representation is the enumerability of the relationships
>       under the given representation.

>       First of all, the form of digital representation must be split into
>       two categories, that of a finite representation, and that of a
>       countably infinite representation.  Turing machines assume a countably
>       infinite representation, whereas any physically realizable digital
>       computer must inherently assume a finite digital representation.

>       Second, there must be some predicate O(a,b) defined over all the a
>       and b in the representation such that the predicate O(a,b) yields
>       only one of a finite set of symbols, S(i) (e.g. "True/False").
>       If such a predicate does not exist, then the representation is
>       arguably ambiguous and the symbols are "meaningless".

>       Looking at all the (a,b) pairs that map the O(a,b) predicate into
>       the individual S(i):
>       ANALOG REPRESENTATION: the (a,b) pairs cannot be enumerated for ALL
S(i)
>       COUNTABLY-INFINITE DIGITAL REPRESENTATION: the (a,b) pairs cannot be
>       enumerated for ALL S(i).
>       FINITE DIGITAL REPRESENTATION: all the (a,b) pairs for all the S(i)
>       CAN be enumerated.

>       This distinguishes the finite digital representation from the other two
>       representations. I believe this is the distinction you were asking
>       about. The distinction between the analog representation and the
>       countably-infinite digital representation is harder to identify.
>       I sense it would require the definition of a mapping M(a,b) onto the
>       representation itself, and the study of how this mapping relates to
>       the O(a,b) predicate. That is, is there some relationship between
>       O(?,?), M(?,?) and the (a,b) that is analgous to divisibility in
>       Z and R.  How this would be formulated escapes me.

You seem to have here a viable formal definition of something
that can be called a "analog representation," based on the
formal notion of continuity and nondenumerability. The question seems to
remain, however, whether it is indeed THIS precise sense of
analog that engineers, cognitive psychologists and philosophers are
informally committed to, and, if so, whether it is indeed physically
realizable. It would be an odd sort of representation if it were only
an unimplementable abstraction. (Let me repeat that the finiteness of
physical computers is NOT an analogous impediment for turing-machine
theory, because the finite approximations continue to make sense,
whereas both the finite and the denumerably infinite approximation to
the A/D distinction seems to vitiate the distinction.)

It's not clear, by the way, that it wasn't in fact the (missing)
distinction between a countable and an uncountable "representation" that
would have filled the bill. But I'll assume, as you do, that some suitable
formal abstraction would capture it. THe question remains: Does that
capture our A/D intuitions too? And does it sort out all actual (physical)
A/D cases correctly?

>-------

The rest of Mitch Sundt's reply pertains also to the
"Searle, Turing, Categories, Symbols" discussion that
is going on in parallel with this one:

>       we can characterize when something is NOT intelligent,
>       but are unable to define when it is.

I don't see at all why this is true, apart from the fact that
confirming or supporting an affirmation is always more open-ended
than confirming or supporting a denial.

>       [Analogously] Any attempt to ["define chaos"] would give it a fixed
>       structure, and therefore order... Thus, it is the quality that
>       is lost when a signal is digitized to either a finite or a
>       countably-infinite digital representation.  Analog representations
>       would not suffer this loss of chaos.

Maybe they wouldn't, if they existed as you defined them, and if chaos
were worth preserving. But I'm beginning to sense a gradual departure from
the precision of your earlier formal abstractions in the direction of
metaphor here...

>       Carrying this thought back to "intelligence," intelligence is the
>       quality that is lost when the behavior is categorized among a set
>       of values. Thus, to detect intelligence, you must use analog
>       representations (and meta-representations). And I am forced to
>       conclude that the Turing test must always be inadequate in assessing
>       intelligence, and that you need to be an intelligent being to
>       *know* an intelligent being when you see one!

I think we have now moved from equating "analog" with a precise (though
not necessarily correct) formal notion to a rather free and subjective
analogy. I hope it's clear that the word "conclude" here does not have
quite the same deductive force it had in the earlier considerations.

>       Thinking about it further, I would argue, in view of what I just
>       said, that people are by construction only "faking" intelligence,
>       and that we have achieved a complexity whereby we can percieve *some*
>       of the chaos left by our crude categorizations (perhaps through
>       multiple categorizations of the same phenomena), and that this
>       perception itself gives us the appearance of intelligence. Our
>       perceptions reveal only the tip of the chaotic iceberg, however,
>       by definition. To have true intelligence would require the
>       perception of *ALL* the chaos.

Thinking too much about the mind/body problem will do that to you
sometimes.

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
248
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 05:37:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Analog/Digital Distinction: 8 more replies
-BODY-
Here are 8 more contributions to the A/D Distinction from (1) M. Derthick,
(2) B. Garton, (3) W. Hamscher, (4) D. B. Plate, (5) R. Thau,
(6) B.  Kuszmaul, (7) C. Timar and (8) A. Weinstein.
My comments follow the excerpts from each:

>----
(1) (mad@g.cs.cmu.edu> (Mark Derthick) writes:

>       John Haugeland uses digital (and discrete) to mean "perfectly
>       definite," which is, I think, the best that can be done.  Thus
>       representing an integer as the length of a stick in inches is digital,
>       but using the length of the stick in angstroms isn't.  Obviously there
>       is a fuzzy boundary between the two.  By the way, it is no problem that
>       sticks can be 6.5" long, as long as there can be unambiguous cases.

Unfortunately, it is just this fuzzy boundary that is at issue here.

>----
(2) winnie!brad (Brad Garton) writes:

>       A couple [of] items you mentioned in passing about the a/d issue struck
>       some resonant chords in my mind. You hit the nail on the head for me
>       when you said something about the a/d distinction possibly being a
>       problem of scaling (I think you were replying to the idea of quantum
>       effects at some level). When I consider the digitized versions of
analog
>       signals we deal with over here <computer music>, it seems that we
>       approximate more and more closely the analog signal with the
>       digital one as we increase the sampling rate. This process reminds
>       me of Mandelbrot's original "How Long is the Coastline of Britain"
>       article dealing with fractals. Perhaps "analog" could be thought
>       of as the outer limit of some fractal set, with various "digital"
>       representations being inner cutoffs. Don't know how useful this
>       is, but I do like the idea of "analog" and "digital" being along
>       some sort of continuum.

>       You also posed a question about when an approximate image of something
>       becomes a symbol of that thing (please forgive my awful paraphrasing).
>       As you seemed to be hinting, this is indeed a pretty sticky and
>       problematic issue. It always amazes me how quickly people are able
>       to identify a sound as being artificial (synthesized) when the signal
>       was intended to simulate a 'natural' instrument, rather than when
>       the computer (or sunthesizer) was being used to explore some new
>       timbral realm. Context sensitive? (and I haven't even mentioned yet
>       the problems of signals in a "musical" phrase!).

As you may have been noticing from the variety of the responses, the
A/D distinction seems to look rather different from the standpoints of
hardware concerns, signal analysis, computational theory, AI,
robotics, cognitive modeling, physics, mathematics, philosophy and,
evidently, music synthesis. And that's without mentioning poets and
hermeneuts.

My question about fractals would be similar to my question about
continuity: Are they to be a LITERAL physical model? Or are they just
an abstraction, as I believe the proposals based on true continuity
and uncountability have so far been?

Or are what I'm tentatively rejecting as "abstractions" in fact standard
examples of nomological generalizations, like the ideal gas laws, perfect
elasticity, frictionless planes, etc.? [I'm inclined to think they're not,
because I don't think there is a valid counterpart, in the idealization of
continuity in these A/D formulations, to the physical notions of friction,
etc..
The latter are what account for why it is that we never observe the idealized
pattern in physics (but only an approximation to it) and yet we (correctly)
continue to take the idealizations to be literally true of nature.]

>----
(3) hamscher@HT.AI.MIT.EDU (Walter Hamscher) replied as follows in mod.ai:

>       I don't read all the messages on AiList, so I may have missed
>       something here: but isn't ``analog vs digital'' the same thing as
>       ``continuous vs discrete''?  Continuous vs discrete, in turn, can be
>       defined in terms of infinite vs finite partitionability.  It's a
>       property of the measuring system, not a property of the thing being
>       measured.

If you sample some of the other responses you'll see that some people
think that something can be formally defined along those lines, but
whether it is indeed the A/D Distinction remains to be seen.

>----
(4) The next contribution, posted in sci.electronics by
plate@dicome.UUCP (Douglas B. Plate) is somewhat more lyrical:

>       The complete workings of the universe are analog in nature,
>       the growth of a leaf, decay of atomic structures, passing of
>       electrons between atoms, etc.  Analog is natural reality,
>       even though facts about it's properties may remain unknown,
>       the truth of ANALOG exists in an objective form.
>       DIGITAL is an invention, like mathematics.  It is a representation,
>       and I will not make any asumptions about what it would represent
>       except that whatever it represents, being a part of this Universe,
>       would have the same properties and nature that all other things
>       in the Universe share.  The goal of DIGITAL then would be to
>       represent things 100% accurately.  I will not say that ANALOG is
>       an infinitely continuous process, because I cannot prove that
>       there is not a smallest possible element involved in an ANALOG
>       process, however taking observed phenomena into account, I would
>       risk to say that the smallest element of ANALOG have not been
>       measured yet if they do ideed exist.

>       Digital is finite only in the number of elements it uses to represent
>       and the practical problem is that "bits" would have to extend
>       into infinity or to a magnitude equalling the smallest element
>       of what ANALOG is made of, for digital to reach it's full potential.
>       The thing is, Analog has the "natural" advantage.  The universe is
>       made of it and what is only theory to DIGITAL is reality to
>       ANALOG.  The intrinsic goal of DIGITAL is to become like
>       ANALOG.  Why?  Because DIGITAL "represents" and until it
>       becomes like ANALOG in it's finity/infinity, all of it's
>       representions can only be approximation.
>       DIGITAL will forever be striving to attain what ANALOG
>       was "born with".  In theory, DIGITAL is just as continuously
>       infinite as ANALOG, because an infinite number of bits could
>       be used to represent an infinite number of things with 100%
>       accuracy.  In practice, ANALOG already has this "infinity"
>       factor built into it and DIGITAL, like a dog chasing it's own
>       tail, will be trying to catch up on into infinity.

This personification of "the analog" and "the digital" certainly
captures many peoples' intuitions, but unfortunately it remains
entirely at the intuitive level. Anthony Wilden wrote a book along
these lines that turned the analog and the digital into an undergraduate
cult for a few years, very much the way the left-brain/right-brain has been.
What I'm wondering whether this exercise can do is replace the
hermeneutics by a coherent, explicit, empirical construct with predictive
and explanatory power.


>----
(5) On sci.math,sci.physics,sci.electronics
rst@godot.think.com.UUCP (Robert Thau) replied as follows:

>       In article <105@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>>"Preserving information under transformations" also sounds like a good
>>candidate... I would think that the invertibility of analog
>>transformations might be a better instance of information preservation than
>>the irretrievable losses of A/D.

>       I'm not convinced.  Common ways of transmitting analog signals all
>       *do* lose at least some of the signal, irretrievably.  Stray
>       capacitance in an ordinary wire can distort a rapidly changing signal.
>       Even fiber optic cables lose signal amplitude enough to require
>       repeaters.  Losses of information in processing analog signals tend to
>       be worse, and for an analog transformation to be exactly invertible, it
>       *must* preserve all the information in its input.

But then wouldn't it be fairest to say that, to the degree that a
signal FAILS to preserve its source's properties it is NOT an analog of it?

>       ...The point is that the amount
>       of information in the speakers' input which they lose, irretrievably,
>       is a consequence of the design decisions of the people who made them.
>       Such design decisions are as explicit as the number of bits used in a
>       digital representation of the signal in the CD player farther up the
>       pike.  Either digital or analog systems can be made as "true" as you
>       like, given enough time, materials, and money, but in neither case is
>       perfection an option.

But then what becomes of the often-proposed property of
"approximateness" as a distinguisher of an analog representation from a
digital one, if they're BOTH approximate?

Thau closes by requoting me:

>>And this still seems to side-step the question of WHAT information is
>>preserved, and in what way, by analog and digital representations,
>>respectively.

to which he replies:

>       Agreed.

I can't tell whether this is intended to be ironic or Thau is really
acknowledging the residual burden of specifying what it is in the way
the information is represented that makes it analog or digital, given
that the approximate/exact distinction seems to fail and the
continuous/discrete
one seems to be either just an abstraction or fails to square with the physics.

>----
(6) On sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.math
bradley@godot.think.com.UUCP (Bradley Kuszmaul) proposes the following
very relativistic account:

>       The distinction between digital and analog is in our minds.
>       "digital" and "analog" are just names of design methodologies that
>       engineers use to build large systems.  "digital" is not a property of
>       a signal, or a machine, but rather a property of the design of the
>       machine.  The design of the machine may not be a part of the machine.

>       If I gave you a music box (which played music naturally), and
>       you might not be able to tell whether it was digital or analog (even
>       if you could open it up and look at it and probe various things with
>       oscilliscopes or other tools).

>       Suppose I gave you a set of schematics for the box in which
>       everything was described in terms of voltages and currents, and which
>       included an explanation of how the box worked using continuous
>       mathematical functions.  The schematics might explain how various
>       subcomponents interpreted their inputs as real numbers (even though
>       the inputs might be a far cry from real numbers e.g. due to the
>       quantization of everything by physicists).  You would probably
>       conclude that the music box was an analog device.

>       Suppose, on the other hand, that I gave you a set of schematics for
>       the same box in which all the subcomponents were described in terms of
>       discrete formulas (e.g. truth tables), and included an explanation of
>       how the inputs from reality are interpreted by the hardware as
>       discrete values (even though the inputs might be a far cry from
>       discrete values e.g. due to ``noise'' from the uncertainty of
>       everything).  You would probably conclude that the music box was a
>       digital device.

>       The idea is that a "digital" designer and "analog" designer might
>       very well come up with the same hardware to solve some problem, but
>       they would just understand the behaviour differently.

>       If designers could handle the complexity of thinking about
>       everything, they would not use any of these abstractions, but would
>       just build hardware that works.  Real designers, on the other hand,
>       must control the complexity of the systems they design, and the
>       "digital" and "analog" design methodologies control the complexity of
>       the design while preserving enough of reality to allow the engineer to
>       make progress.

If I understand correctly, Kuszmaul is suggesting that whether a
representation is analog or digital may just be a matter of
interpretation. (This calls to mind some Searlian issues about
"intrinsic" vs. "derived" intentionality.) I have some sympathy for
this view, because I myself have had reason to propose that the very same
"module" that is regarded as "digital" in its autonomous, stand-alone form,
might be regarded as analogue in a "dedicated" system, with all inputs and
outputs causally connected to the world, and hence all "interpretations"
fixed. Of course, that's just a matter of scale too, since ALL systems, whether
with or without human intermediaries and interpreters, are causally
connected to the world... But this does do violence to whatever is
guiding some people's intuitions on this, for they would claim that
THEIR notion of analogue is completely interpretation-independent. The
part of me that leans toward the invertibility/information-preserving
criterion sides with them.

>       If you buy my idea that digital and analog literally are in our
>       minds, rather than in the hardware, then the problem is not one of
>       deciding whether some particular system is digital (such questions
>       would be considered ill-posed).  The real problem, as I view it, is to
>       distinguish between the digital and analog design methodologies.

>       We can try to understand the difference by looking at the cases
>       where we would use one versus the other.

>       We often use digital systems when the answer we want is a number.
>       (such as the decimal expansion of PI to 1000 digits)

>       We often use analog systems when the answer we want is something
>       physical (I don't really have good examples.  Many of the things
>       which were traditionally analog are going digital for some of the
>       reasons described below.  e.g. music, pictures (still and moving),
>       the control of an automobile engine or the laundry machine)

>       Digital components are nice because they have specifications which
>       are relatively straightforward to test.  To test an analog
>       component seems harder.  Because they are easier to test,
>       they can be considered more "uniform" than analog components (a
>       TTL "OR" gate from one mfr is about the same as a TTL "OR" gate
>       from another).  (The same argument goes the other way too...)

>       Analog components are nice because sometimes they do just what you
>       wanted.  For example, the connection from the gas peddle to the
>       throttle on the carburator of a car can be made by a mechanical
>       linkage which gives output which is a (approximately) continuous
>       function of the input position.  To "fly by wire" (i.e. to use a
>       digital linkage) requires a lot more technology.

>       (When I say "we use a digital system", I really mean that "we design
>       such a system using a digital methodology", and correspondingly for
>       the analog case)

>       There are of course all sorts of places between "digital" and
>       "analog".  A system may have digital subsystems and analog subsystems
>       and there may be analog subsystems inside the digital subsystems and
>       it goes on and on.  This sort of thing makes the decision about
>       whether some particular design methodology is digital or analog hard.

I'll leave it to the A/D absolutists to defend against this extreme
relativism. I still feel agnostic. Except I do believe that the system
that will ultimately pass the Total Turing Test will be deeply hybrid
through-and-through -- and not just a concatenation of add-on analog and
digital modules either.

>----
(7) Cary Timar <watmath!watrose!cctimar> writes:

>       A great deal of the problem with the definitions I've seen is a
>       vagueness in describing what continuous and discrete sets are.

>       The distinction does not lie in the size of the set.  It is possible to
>       form a discrete set of arbitrary cardinality - the set of all ordinals
>       in the initial segment of the cardinal.  This set will start with
>       0,1,2,3,... which most people agree is discrete.

>       I would say that a space can be considered to be "discrete" if it is
not
>       regular, and "continuous" if it is normal.  I hesitate to classify the
>       spaces which are regular but not normal.  Luckily, we seldom deal with
>       models of computation using values taken from such a space.

>       Actually, I should have looked all of this up before I mailed it, but
>       I'm getting lazy.  If you want to try to find mathematical definitions
>       of discrete and continuous spaces, I would suggest starting from texts
>       on Topology, especially Point-Set Topology.  I wouldn't trust any one
>       text to give an universally agreed on definition either...


Of course, if I believed it was just a matter that could be settled by
textbook definitions I would not have posed it for the Net. The issue
is not whether or not topologists have a coherent continuous/discrete
distinction but (among other things) whether that distinction (1)
corresponds to the A/D Distinction, (2) captures the intuitions, usage
and practice of the several disciplines puporting to use the
distinction and (3) conforms with physical nature.


>----
(8) aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) replies on net.ai,net.cog-eng
to an earlier iteration about the philosopher Nelson Goodman's
formulation:

>       Well you asked for a "precise" definition! Although Goodman's rigor
>       may seem daunting, there are really only two main concepts to grasp:
>       "density", which is familiar to many from mathematics, and
>       "differentiation".

>       Goodman mentions that the difference between continuity and density
>       is immaterial for his purposes, since density is always sufficient to
>       destroy differentiation (and hence "notationality" and "digitality" as
>       well).

There seems to be some difference of opinion on this matter from the
continuity enthusiasts, although they all advocate precision and rigor...

>       "Differentiation" pertains to our ability to make the necessary
>       distinctions between elements. There are two sides to the requirement:
>       "syntactic differentiation" requires that tokens belonging to distinct
>       characters be at least theoretically discriminable; "semantic
>       differentiation" requires that objects denoted by non-coextensive
>       characters be theoretically discriminable as well.

>       Objects fail to be even theoretically discriminable if they can be
>       arbitrarily similar and still count as different.

Do you mean cases like 2 vs. 1.9999999..., or cases like 2 vs. 2 minus epsilon?
They both seem as if they could be either "theoretically
discriminable" or "theoretically indiscriminable," depending on the
theory.

>       For example, consider a language consisting of straight marks such
>       that marks differing in length by even the smallest fraction of an inch
>       are stipulated to belong to different characters. This language is not
>       finitely differentiated in Goodman's sense.  If, however, we decree
>       that all marks between 1 and 2 inches long belong to one character, all
>       marks between 3 and 4 inches long belong to another, all marks between
>       5 and 6 inches long belong to another, and so on, then the language
>       WILL qualify as differentiated.

>       The upshot of Goodman's requirement is that if a symbol system is to
>       count as "digital" (or as "notational"), there must be some finite
>       sized "gaps", however minute, between the distinct elements that need
>       to be distinguished.

>       Some examples:... musical notation [vs]... [an unquantized] scale
>       drawing of a building

>       To quote Goodman:

>        "Consider an ordinary watch without a second hand. The hour-hand is
>         normally used to pick out one of twelve divisions of the half-day.
>         It speaks notationally [and digitally -- AW]. So does the minute hand
>         if used only to pick out one of sixty divisions of the hour; but if
>         the absolute distance of the minute hand beyond the preceding mark is
>         taken as indicating the absolute time elapsed since that mark was
>         passed, the symbol system is non-notational. Of course, if we set
>         some limit -- whether of a half minute or one second or less -- upon
>         the fineness of judgment so to be made, the scheme here too may
>         become notational."

So apparently it does not matter whether the watch is in fact an
"analog" or "digital" watch (according to someone else's definition);
according to Goodman's the critical factor is how it's used.


>       I'm still thinking about your question of how Goodman's distinction
>       relates to the intuitive notion as employed by engineers or
>       cognitivists and will reply later.

Please be sure to take into consideration the heterogenous sample of
replies and rival intuitions this challenge has elicited from these
various disciplines.

>-

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
249
-DATE-
Date: 31 Oct 86 02:45:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: husc6!Diamond!aweinste@think.com  (Anders Weinstein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-

In article <20@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>                             I suspect that some people will find Goodman's
>considerations a little "dense," not to say hirsute, ...

Well you asked for a "precise" definition! Although Goodman's rigor may seem
daunting, there are really only two main concepts to grasp:  "density", which
is familiar to many from mathematics, and "differentiation".

>>      A scheme is syntactically dense if it provides for infinitely many
>>      characters so ordered that between each two there is a third.
>
>I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that this is not strong
>enough for the continuity of the real number line. The rational
>numbers are "syntactically dense" according to this definition. But
>maybe you don't want real continuity...?

Quite right. Goodman mentions that the difference between continuity and
density is immaterial for his purposes, since density is always sufficient to
destroy differentiation (and hence "notationality" and "digitality" as
well).

"Differentiation" pertains to our ability to make the necessary distinctions
between elements. There are two sides to the requirement:  "syntactic
differentiation" requires that tokens belonging to distinct characters be at
least theoretically discriminable; "semantic differentiation" requires that
objects denoted by non-coextensive characters be theoretically discriminable
as well.

Objects fail to be even theoretically discriminable if they can be
arbitrarily similar and still count as different.  For example, consider a
language consisting of straight marks such that marks differing in length by
even the smallest fraction of an inch are stipulated to belong to different
characters. This language is not finitely differentiated in Goodman's sense.
If, however, we decree that all marks between 1 and 2 inches long belong to
one character, all marks between 3 and 4 inches long belong to another, all
marks between 5 and 6 inches long belong to another, and so on, then the
language WILL qualify as differentiated.

The upshot of Goodman's requirement is that if a symbol system is to count as
"digital" (or as "notational"), there must be some finite sized "gaps",
however minute, between the distinct elements that need to be distinguished.

Some examples:

A score in musical notation can, if certain conventions are adopted, be
regarded as a digital representation, with the score denoting any performance
that complies with it.  Note that although musical pitches, say,  may take on
a continuous range of values, once we adopt some conventions about how much
variation in pitch is to be tolerated among the compliants of each note, the
set of note extensions can become finitely differentiated.

A scale drawing of a building, on the other hand, usually functions as an
analog representation: any difference in a line's length, however fine, is
regarded as denoting a corresponding difference in the building's size. If we
decide to interpret the drawing in some "quantized" way, however, then it can
be a digital representation.

To quote Goodman:

  Consider an ordinary watch without a second hand. The hour-hand is
  normally used to pick out one of twelve divisions of the half-day.
  It speaks notationally [and digitally -- AW]. So does the minute hand
  if used only to pick out one of sixty divisions of the hour; but if
  the absolute distance of the minute hand beyond the preceding mark is
  taken as indicating the absolute time elapsed since that mark was passed,
  the symbol system is non-notational. Of course, if we set some limit --
  whether of a half minute or one second or less -- upon the fineness of
  judgment so to be made, the scheme here too may become notational.

I'm still thinking about your question of how Goodman's distinction relates
to the intuitive notion as employed by engineers or cognitivists and will
reply later.

Anders Weinstein <aweinste@DIAMOND.BBN.COM>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Oct 86 16:37:53 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!rocksvax!oswego!dl@spam.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Doug
     Lea)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction: Soliciting Definitions
-BODY-
re: The analog/digital distinction

First, I propose a simple ground-rule. Let's assume that the "world"
somehow really is "discrete", that is, time, energy, mass, etc., all
come in little quanta.  Given this, the differences between analog and
digital processes seem forced to lie in the nature of representations,
algorithms to manipulate them, and the relations of both to actual
quantities "out there".

I offer a very simple example to illustrate some possibilities. It is
intended to be somewhat removed from the sorts of interesting problems
encountered in distinguishing analog from digital mental processes.

Consider different approaches to determining population growth, given
this grossly simplistic model: an initial population, P, a time period in
question, T, (expressed in time quanta), and a "growth rate", R, the
number of quanta between the times that each member of this (asexual)
population gives birth to a new member (supposing that no more than
one birth per quantum is possible and no deaths).

Approach 1: (digital)
Simulate this process with an O(PT) algorithm, repeating T times a
scan across each member of the population, determining whether it gave
birth, and if so, adding a new member. If the population actually does
grow in this fashion, then the result is surely correct, as one might
verify by mapping the representation of the P individuals to real
individuals at time 0, and again at time T.  Several efficiency
improvements to this algorithm are, of course, possible.

Approach 2: (analog)
An alternative method may be constructed by first noting that both
population size and time have very simple properties with respect
to this process. For purposes of the problem at hand, the difference
between the state of having a population of size N and one of size N+1
lies only in the difference between N and N+1. Similarly with time. To
develop an algorithm capitalizing on this, construct a nearly
equivalent problem in which population states differ only according to
the difference between N and N+epsilon, for any epsilon. Now, we know
that if epsilon is infinitessimally small, we can exploit the
differential and integral calculus to derive an exponential function
describing this process, and compute the population value at time T
with one swift calculation. Of course, the answer isn't right: we
solved a different problem! But it is close, and methods exist to
determine just how close this approximation will be in specific
instances. We may even be able to apply particular corrections.

Approach 3: (digital)
Use techniques developed for difference equations and recurrence
relations to come up with an exact answer requiring nearly as little
calculation as in the analog approach.

Approach 4: (digital?)
Place P cents in a bank account with compound interest rate
corresponding to R, and then see how much money you have at time T.

Approach 5: (analog)
Build a RLC integrating circuit with the right parameters.  Apply
input voltage P and measure the output voltage at time T.

Approach 6: (analog?)
Observe some process with an exponential probability distribution
of events. Apply lots of transformations to get an answer.

There are probably many other interesting approaches, but I'll
leave it there.

Morals:

1. The notion of "analogy" or simulation does not do much to
distinguish analog from digital processing. Perhaps due to the nature
of our physical world, often there do seem to be more and better
analog analogies than digital analogies for many problems.

2. Speed of calculation also seems secondary. For example, the
calculus allows manipulation of representations involving infinite
numbers of states with a single calculation. But some digital methods
are fast too. Similarly with the fact that analog methods sometimes
allow compact representations (with single numbers and simple well
behaved functions representing entire problems). But one could
probably match, one-for-one, problems in which analog and digital
approaches were superior with respect to these attributes. This all
just amounts to acknowledging that the choice between ANY two
algorithms ought to take computational efficiency into account. And,
of course, the notion of "symbolic" vs. "non-symbolic" processing
plays no role here. All of the above approaches were symbolic in one
way or another.

3. The notion of approximation seems to be the most helpful one.
Again, for example, processing that involves implicit or explicit use
of the calculus can ONLY (given the above ground-rule) provide
approximations. Most such processing should probably be considered
analog. However, the usual conceptualization of approximation in
current use doesn't seem good enough. There are many digital
"heuristic" algorithms that are labelled as "approximations". (Worse,
discrete computational techniques for numerically solving "analytic"
problems like integration are also labelled "approximations" in nearly
a reverse sense.) For example, the nearest-neighbor heuristic is
considered as an approximation algorithm for the travelling
salesperson problem.  But this seems to be a different sort of
approximation than using exponential equations to solve population
problems.

    I'm not at all sure how to go about dealing with such
distinctions. Considerations of the robustness and the arbitrary level
of precision for approximations in the first sense might be useful,
but aren't the whole story: For example, several clearly digital
heuristics also have these properties (see, e.g., Karp's travelling
saleperson heuristic), but in somewhat different (e.g., probabalistic)
contexts. See J. Pearl's "Heuristics" book for related discussions.


Doug Lea
Computer Science
SUNY Oswego
Oswego, NY 13126
seismo!rochester!rocksvax!oswego!dl

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 01:55:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!husc6!Diamond!aweinste@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Anders
     Weinstein)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Analog/Digital Distinction: 8 more replies
-BODY-

>Stevan Harnad:
>
>>      Goodman mentions that the difference between continuity and density
>>      is immaterial for his purposes, since density is always sufficient to
>>      destroy differentiation (and hence "notationality" and "digitality" as
>>      well).
>
>There seems to be some difference of opinion on this matter from the
>continuity enthusiasts, although they all advocate precision and rigor...

I don't believe there's any major difference here. The respondants who
require "continuity" are thinking only in terms of physics, where you don't
encounter magnitudes with dense but non-continuous ranges. Goodman deals with
other, artificially constructed symbol systems as well. In these we can, by
fiat, obtain a scheme that is dense but non-continuous.  I think that
representation in such a scheme would fit most people's intuitive sense of
"analog-icity" if they thought about it.

>>      Objects fail to be even theoretically discriminable if they can be
>>      arbitrarily similar and still count as different.
>
>Do you mean cases like 2 vs. 1.9999999..., or cases like 2 vs. 2 minus
epsilon?
>They both seem as if they could be either "theoretically
>discriminable" or "theoretically indiscriminable," depending on the
>theory.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't see how a length of 2 inches would
count as "theoretically discriminable" from a length of 1.999...  inches; nor
is a length of 2 inches theoretically discriminable from a length of 2 minus
epision inches if epsilon is allowed to be arbitrarily small.  On the other
hand, a length of 2 inches IS theoretically discriminable from a length of
1.9 inches.

In his examples, Goodman rules out cases where no measurement of any finite
degree of precision would be sufficient to make the requisite distinctions.

>>       "Consider an ordinary watch without a second hand. The hour-hand is
>>        normally used to pick out one of twelve divisions of the half-day.
>>        It speaks notationally [and digitally -- AW]. So does the minute hand
>>        if used only to pick out one of sixty divisions of the hour; but if
>>        the absolute distance of the minute hand beyond the preceding mark is
>>        taken as indicating the absolute time elapsed since that mark was
>>         passed, the symbol system is non-notational. Of course, if we set
>>        some limit -- whether of a half minute or one second or less -- upon
>>        the fineness of judgment so to be made, the scheme here too may
>>        become notational."
>
>So apparently it does not matter whether the watch is in fact an
>"analog" or "digital" watch (according to someone else's definition);
>according to Goodman's the critical factor is how it's used.

Right. Remember, Goodman is not talking about whether this is what an
engineer would class as an analog or digital WATCH (ie. in its internal
workings); he's ONLY talking about the symbol system used to represent the
time to the viewer.  And he's totally relativistic here -- whether the
representation is analog or digital depends entirely on how it is to be
read.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 17:10:39 pst
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: analog/digital distinction
-BODY-
Here's a quick shot at an A/D distinction.

The problem with the rationals was that the ordering and the operations
are easily translatable into computations on the natural numbers.

So, the proposal is:

    DIGITAL: computations on a structure S that is recursively
isomorphic to a definable fragment of Peano Arithmetic.

    ANALOG: computations on a  dense structure that
is not recursively isomorphic to a definable fragment of Peano
Arithmetic.

Note there can be computations which are neither analog nor
digital according to this definition.

The rationale for this choice depends on two considerations.
(1) One must not be able to transform one kind of computation
into the other, which can be done only if there is a machine
(aka recursive function) that can do it.
(2) The distinction must not collapse in the face of the
possibility that physics will tell us the world is
fundamentally discrete (or fundamentally continuous), since
if Gerald Holton is to be believed, physical science has
been wavering between one and the other for thousands of years.
So the discrete/continuous nature of nature can be regarded
as a metaphysical issue, and we want to finesse this in our
definition to make it physically realistic.

I chose Peano Arithmetic as the base structure because it is
intuitively discrete, and all the digital structures that have
been proposed fit the criterion that they can be recursively
mapped into simple discrete arithmetic.

The density-of-values criterion for analog computation seems
intuitively plausible, and if one wants to make the distinction
between analog and digital into a feature of the world, not merely
of the representation chosen, one needs to assure consideration
(1) above.

If quantum physics ultimately tells us that the world is discrete,
there is no reason to assume that the discreteness in the world
will provide us with recursive functions mapping that discreteness
into the natural numbers, so analog computations will survive that
discovery.

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
250
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 16:29:10 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: The A/D Distinction: 5 More Replies
-BODY-
  [This message actually fits into the middle of the sequence I sent
  yesterday.  Sorry for the reversal.  -- KIL]


Here are 5 more replies I've received on the A/D distinction. I'll
respond in a later module. [Meantime, could someone post this to
sci.electronics, to which I have no access, please?]

>-----
(1)
Message-Id: <8610271622.11564@ur-seneca.arpa>
In-Reply-To: <13@mind.UUCP>
U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
ken@rochester.arpa
CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627.
Mon, 27 Oct 86 11:22:10 -0500

I think the distinction is simply this: digital deals with a finite set
of discrete {voltage, current, whatever} levels, while analog deals
with a *potentially* infinite set of levels. Now I know you are going
to say that analog is discrete at the electron noise level but the
circuits are built on the assumption that the spectrum is continuous.
This leads to different mathematical analyses.

Sort of like infinite memory Turing machines, we don't have them but we
program computers as if they had infinite memory and in practice as
long as we don't run out, it's ok. So as long as we don't notice the
noise in analog, it serves.

>-------
(2)
Tue, 28 Oct 86 20:56:36 est
cuuxb!mwm
AT&T-IS, Software Support, Lisle IL

In article <7@mind.UUCP> you write:
>The ground-rules are these: Try to propose a clear and
>objective definition of the analog/digital distinction that is not
>arbitrary, relative, a matter of degree, or loses in the limit the
>intuitive distinction it was intended to capture.
>
>One prima facie non-starter: "continuous" vs. "discrete" physical
>processes.
>
>Stevan Harnad (princeton!mind!harnad)

        Analog and digital are two ways of *representing* information. A
        computer can be said to be analog or digital (or both!) depending
        upon how the information is represented within the machine, and
        particularly, how the information is represented when actual
        computation takes place.

        Digital is essentially a subset of analog, where the range of
        properties used to represent information is grouped into a
        finite set of values.  For example, the classic TTL digital
        model uses electrical voltage to represent values, and is
        grouped into the following:
        above +5 volts -- not used
        +2..+5 volts (approx) -- a binary 1
        0..+2 volts (approx)  -- a binary 0
        negatvie voltage -- not used.

        Important to distinguish here is the grouping of the essentially
        infinite possiblities of voltage into a finite set of values.
        A system that used 4 voltage ranges to represent a base 4 number
        system would still be digital.  Note that this means that it
        takes several voltages to represent an arbitrarily precise number

        Analog, on the other hand, refers to using a property to directly
        represent an infinite range of values with a different infinite
        range of values: for example representing the number 15 with
        15 volts, and the number 100 with 100 volts.  Note that this means
        it takes 1 voltage to represent an arbitrarily precise number.

        This is my pot-shot at defining analog/digital and how they relate,
        and how they are used in most systems i am familiar with.  I think
        these make reasonably clear what it is that  "analog to digital"
        converters (and "digital to analog") do.

        This is why slide-rules are considered analog, you are using distance
        rather than voltage, but you can interpret a distance as precisely
        as you want. An abacus, on the otherhand also uses distance, but
        where a disk is means either one thing or another, and it takes
        lots of disks to represent a number. An abacus then, is digital.

 Marc Mengel
 ...!ihnp4!cuuxb!mwm

>-------
(3)
<bcsaic!ray>
Thu, 23 Oct 86 13:10:47 pdt
Message-Id: <8610232010.AA18462@bcsaic.LOCAL>


Try this:

(An) analog is a (partial) DUPLICATE (or abstraction)
of some material thing or some process, which contains
(it is hoped) the significant characteristics and properties
of the original.  An analog is driven by situations and events
outside itself, and its usefulness is that the analog may be
observed and, via induction, the original understood.

A digital device or method operates on symbols, rather than
physical (or other) reality.  Analog computers may operate on
(real) voltages and electron flow, while digital computers
operate on symbols and their logical interrelationships.

Digital operations are formal; that is they treat form rather
than content, and are therefore always deductive, while the
behavior of real things and their analogs is not.  (Heresy follows).
It is one of my (unpopular) assertions that the central nervous
system of living organisms (including  myself) is best understood
as an analog of "reality"; that most interesting behavior
such as induction and the detection of similarity (analogy and
metaphor) cannot be accomplished with only symbolic, and
therefore deductive, methods.

>-------
(4)
Mon, 27 Oct 86 16:04:36 mst
lanl!a.LANL.ARPA!crs (Charlie Sorsby)
Message-Id: <8610272304.AA25429@a.ARPA>
References: <7@mind.UUCP> <45900003@orstcs.UUCP>, <13@mind.UUCP>

Stevan,
I've been more or less following your query and the resulting articles.

It seems to me that the terms as they are *usually* used today are rather
bastardized.  Don't you think that when the two terms originated they
referred to two ways of "computing" and *not* to kinds of circuits at all.

The analog simulator (or, more popularly, analog computer) "computed" by
analogy.  And, old timers may recall, they weren't all electronic or even
electrical.  I vaguely recall reading about an analog simultaneous
linear-equation solver that comprised plates (rectangular, I think), cables
and pulleys.

Digital computers (truly so) on the other hand computed with *digits* (i.e.
numbers).  Of course there was (is) analogy involved here too but that was
a "higher-order term" in the view and was conveniently ignored as higher
order terms often are.

In the course of time, the term analog came to be used for those
electronic circuits *like* those used in analog simulators (i.e. circuits
that work with continuous quantities).  And, of course, digital came to
refer to those circuits *like* those used in digital computers (i.e. those
which work with discrete or quantized quantities.

Whether a quantity is continuous or discrete depends on such things as the
attribute considered to say nothing of the person doing the considering,
hence the vagueness of definition and usage of the terms.  This vagueness
seems to have worsened with the passage of time.

Best regards,

Charlie Sorsby
        ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
                                crs@lanl.arpa

>-------
(5)
Message-Id: <8610280022.AA16966@mitre.ARPA>
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C.
sundt@mitre.ARPA
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 19:22:21 -0500

Having read your messages for the last few months, I
couldn't help but take a stab on this issue.

Coming from a heavily theoretical undergraduate physics background,
it seems obvious that the ONLY distinction between the analog and
digital representation is the enumerability of the relationships
under the given representation.

First of all, the form of digital representation must be split into
two categories, that of a finite representation, and that of a
countably infinite representation.  Turing machines assume a countably
infinite representation, whereas any physically realizable digital computer
must inherently assume a finite digital representation (be it ever so large).

Thus, we have three distinctions to make:

1) Analog / Finite Digital
2) Countably-Infinite Digital / Finite Digital
3) Analog / Countably-Infinite Digital

Second, there must be some predicate O(a,b) defined over all the a and b
in the representation such that the predicate O(a,b) yields only one of
a finite set of symbols, S(i) (e.g. "True/False").  If such a predicate does
not exist, then the representation is arguably ambiguous and the symbols are
"meaningless".

An example of an O(a,b) is the equality predicate over the reals, integers,
etc.

Looking at all the (a,b) pairs that map the O(a,b) predicate into the
individual S(i), note that the following is true:
  ANALOG REPRESENTATION: the (a,b) pairs cannot be enumerated for ALL
    S(i).
  COUNTABLY-INFINITE DIGITAL REPRESENTATION: the (a,b) pairs cannot be
    enumerated for ALL S(i).
  FINITE DIGITAL REPRESENTATION: all the (a,b) pairs for all the S(i)
    CAN be enumerated.

This distinguishes the finite digital representation from the other two
representations.  I believe this is the distinction you were asking about.

The distinction between the analog representation and the countably-infinite
digital representation is harder to identify.  I sense it would require
the definition of a mapping M(a,b) onto the representation itself, and
the study of how this mapping relates to the O(a,b) predicate.

That is, is there some relationship between O(?,?), M(?,?) and the (a,b)
that is analgous to divisibility in Z and R.  How this would be formulated
escapes me.


On your other-minds problem:
[see "Searle, Turing, Categories, Symbols"]

I think the issue here is related to the above classification.  In particular,
I think the point to be made is that we can characterize when something is
NOT intelligent, but are unable to define when it is.

A less controversial issue would be to "Define chaos".  Any attempt to do so
would give it a fixed structure, and therefore order.  Thus, we can only
define chaos in terms of what it isn't, i.e. "Chaos is anything that cannot
be categorized."

Thus, it is the quality that is lost when a signal is digitized to either a
finite or an countably-infinite digital representation.

Analog representations would not suffer this loss of chaos.

Carrying this thought back to "intelligence," intelligence is the quality that
is lost when the behavior is categorized among a set of values.  Thus, to
detect intelligence, you must use analog representations ( and
meta-representations).  And I am forced to conclude that the Turing test must
always be inadequate in assessing intelligence, and that you need to be an
intelligent being to *know* an intelligent being when you see one!!!

Of course, there is much error in categorizations like this, so in the *real*
world, a countably-infinite digital representation might be *O.K.*.

I wholy agree with your arguement for a basing of symbols on observables,
and would also argue that semantic content is purely a result of a rich
syntactic structure with only a few primitive predicates, such as set
relations, ordering relations, etc.

Thinking about it further, I would argue, in view of what I just said, that
people are by construction only "faking" intelligence, and that we have
achieved a complexity whereby we can percieve *some*  of the chaos left
by our crude categorizations (perhaps through multiple categorizations of
the same phenomena), and that this perception itself gives us the appearance
of intelligence.  Our perceptions reveal only the tip of the chaotic iceberg,
however, by definition.  To have true intelligence would require the perception
of *ALL* the chaos.

I hope you found this entertaining, and am anxious to hear your response.

Mitch Sundt The MITRE Corp. sundt@mitre.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 23:40:28 GMT
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-
(weinstein quoting goodman)
> >     A scheme is syntactically dense if it provides for infinitely many
> >     characters so ordered that between each two there is a third.
(harnad)
> I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that this is not strong
> enough for the continuity of the real number line. The rational
> numbers are "syntactically dense" according to this definition.

Correct. There is no first-order way of defining the
real number line without introducing something like countably
infinite sequences and limits as primitives.
Moreover, if this is done in a countable language, you are
guaranteed that there is a countable model (if the definition
isn't contradictory). Since the real line isn't countable,
the definition cannot ensure you get the REAL reals.

Weinstein wants to identify *analog* with *syntactically dense*
plus some other conditions. Harnad observes that the rationals
fit the notion of syntactic density.
The rationals are, up to isomorphism, the only countable, dense,
linear order without endpoints. So any syntactically dense scheme
fitting this description is (isomorphic to) the rationals,
or a subinterval of the rationals (if left-closed, right-closed,
or both-closed at the ends).

One consequence is that one could define such an *analog* system
from a *digital* one by the following method:

Use the well-known way of defining the rationals from the
integers - rationals are pairs (a,b) of integers,
and (a,b) is *equivalent* to (c,d) iff a.d = b.c.
The *equivalence* classes are just the rationals, and
they are semantically dense under the ordering

    (a,b) < (c,d) iff there is (f,g) such that f,g have
    the same sign and (a,b) + (f,g) = (c,d)

where (a,b) + (c,d) = (ad + bc, bd), and the + is factored
through the equivalence.

We may be committed to this kind of phenomenon, since every
plausible suggested definition must have a countable model,
unless we include principles about non-countable sets that
are independent of set theory. And I conjecture that every
suggestion with a countable model is going to be straightforwardly
obtainable from the integers, as the above example was.

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 23:47:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: The Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-
In article <1701@Diamond.BBN.COM>, aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM
  (Anders Weinstein) writes:
> The upshot of Goodman's requirement is that if a symbol system is to count as
> "digital" (or as "notational"), there must be some finite sized "gaps",
> however minute, between the distinct elements that need to be distinguished.

I'm not sure you want this definition of the  distinction.

There are *finite-sized gaps, however minute* between rational
numbers, and if we use the pairs-of-integers representation to
represent the syntactically dense scheme, (which must be
isomorphic to some subrange of the rationals if countable)
we may use the integers and their gaps to distinguish the gaps
in the syntactically dense scheme, in a quantifier-free manner.

Thus syntactically dense schemes would count as *digital*, too.

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 19:03:09 GMT
-FROM-
From: nsc!amdahl!apple!turk@hplabs.hp.com  (Ken "Turk" Turkowski)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Analog/Digital Distinction
-BODY-
In article <116@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>(2) winnie!brad (Brad Garton) writes:
>>      ... When I consider the digitized versions of analog
>>      signals we deal with over here <computer music>, it seems that we
>>      approximate more and more closely the analog signal with the
>>      digital one as we increase the sampling rate.

There is a difference between sampled signals and digital signals.  A digital
signals is not only sampled, but is also quantized.  One can have an analog
sampled signal, as with CCD filters.

As a practical consideration, all analog signals are band-limited.  By the
Sampling Theorem, there is a sampling rate at which a bandlimited signal can
be perfectly reconstructed.  *Increasing the sampling rate beyond this
"Nyquist rate" cannot result in higher fidelity*.

What can affect the fidelity, however, is the quantization of the samples:
the more bits used to represent each sample, the more accurately the signal
is represented.

This brings us to the subject of Signal Theory.  A particular class of signal
that is both time- and band-limited (all real-world signals) can be represented
by a linear combination
of a finite number of basis functions.  This is related to the dimensionality
of the signal, which is approximately 2WT, where W is the bandwidth of the
signal, and T is the duration of the signal.

>>      ... This process reminds
>>      me of Mandelbrot's original "How Long is the Coastline of Britain"
>>      article dealing with fractals. Perhaps "analog" could be thought
>>      of as the outer limit of some fractal set, with various "digital"
>>      representations being inner cutoffs.

Fractals have a 1/f frequency distribution, and hence are not band-limited.

>>      In article <105@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>>      I'm not convinced.  Common ways of transmitting analog signals all
>>      *do* lose at least some of the signal, irretrievably...

Let's not forget noise.  It is impossible to keep noise out of analog channels
and signal processing, but it can be removed in digital channels and can be
controlled (roundoff errors) in digital signal processing.

>>      ... Losses of information in processing analog signals tend to
>>      be worse, and for an analog transformation to be exactly invertible, it
>>      *must* preserve all the information in its input.

Including the exclusion of noise.  Once noise is introduced, the signal cannot
be exactly inverted.

>-
Ken Turkowski @ Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA
UUCP: {sun,nsc}!apple!turk
CSNET: turk@Apple.CSNET
ARPA: turk%Apple@csnet-relay.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Nov 86 21:03:42-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Information in Signals
-BODY-
  From: nsc!amdahl!apple!turk@hplabs.hp.com  (Ken "Turk" Turkowski)
  Message-Id: <267@apple.UUCP>

  *Increasing the sampling rate beyond this
  "Nyquist rate" cannot result in higher fidelity*.

  >>... Losses of information in processing analog signals tend to
  >>be worse, and for an analog transformation to be exactly invertible, it
  >>*must* preserve all the information in its input.

  Including the exclusion of noise.  Once noise is introduced, the signal
  cannot be exactly inverted.


To pick a couple of nits:

Sampling at the Nyquist rate preserves information, but only if the proper
interpolation function is used to reconstruct the continuous signal.  Often
this function is nonphysical in the sense that it extends infinitely far
in each temporal direction and contains negative coefficients that are
difficult to implement in some types of analog hardware (e.g., incoherent
optics).  One of the reasons for going to digital processing is that
[approximate] sinc or Bessel functions are easier to deal with in the digital
domain.  If a sampled signal is simply run through the handiest speaker
system or other nonoptimal reconstruction, sampling at a higher rate
may indeed increase fidelity.

The other two quotes are talking about two different things.  No transformation
(analog or digital) is invertible if it loses information, but adding noise
to a signal may or may not degrade its information content.  An analog signal
can be just as redundant as any coded digital signal -- in fact, most digital
"signals" are actually continuous encodings of discrete sequences.  To talk
about invertibility one must define the information in a signal -- which,
unfortunately, depends on the observer's knowledge as much as it does on the
degrees of freedom or joint probability distribution of the signal elements.

Even "degree of freedom" and "probability" are not well defined, so that
our theories are ultimately grounded in faith and custom.  Fortunately the
real world is kind: our theories tend to be useful and even robust despite
the lack of firm foundations.  Philosophers may demonstrate that engineers
are building houses of cards on shifting sands, but the engineers will build
as long as their houses continue to stand.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1986  16:00 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #248
-BODY-
With all due respect, I wonder if the digital-analog discussion could
be tabled soon.  I myself do not consider it useful to catalog the
dispositions of many different persons' use of a word; in any case the
thing has simply gone past the bounds of 1200 baud communication.
Please.  On to some substance.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
251
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 13:08:28 EST
-FROM-
From: weltyc%cieunix@CSV.RPI.EDU (Christopher A. Welty)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for Franz OO packages
-BODY-
        I am looking for information on Object Oriented extensions to
Franz Lisp.  I know that someone (U of Maryland?) came out with a flavors
package for Franz, if someone can point me in the right direction there
it would be appreciated, as well as any info on other packages...

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 5 Nov 86 23:45:05 GMT
-FROM-
From: gknight@ngp.utexas.edu  (Gary Knight)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canonical list of sentient computer novels
-BODY-

      I am trying to compile a canonical list of SF *novels* dealing with (1)
sentient computers, and (2) human mental access to computers or computer
networks.  Examples of the two categories (and my particular favorites as well)
are:

      A) SENTIENT COMPUTERS

           The Adolescence of P-1, by Thomas J. Ryan
           Valentina: Soul in Sapphire, by Joseph H. Delaney and Marc Stiegler
           Cybernetic Samurai, by (I forget)
           Coils, by Roger Zelazny

      B) HUMAN ACCESS

           True Names, by Vernor Vinge
           Neuromancer and Count Zero, by William Gibson

      I'm not sure how this is done, but my thought is for all of you sf-fans
out there to send me e-mail lists of such novels (separate, by category A and
B), and I'll compile and post the ultimate canonical version.  I've heard that
this exercise was undertaken a year or so ago, but I don't have access to that
list and besides I'd like to get fresh input anyway (and recent qualifying
books).

      So let me hear from you . . . .

                                     Gary
>-
Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 86 15:20:24 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!cdaf@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Charles Daffinger)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: simulating a neural network
-BODY-
In article <151@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP   [Chris Lishka] writes:
>
>...
>       Apparently Bell Labs (I think) has been experimenting with neural
>network-like chips, with resistors replacing bytes (I guess).  They started
>out with about 22 'neurons' and have gotten up to 256 or 512 (can't
>remember which) 'neurons' on one chip now.  Apparently these 'neurons' are
>supposed to run much faster than human neurons...
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What bothers me is that the performance is rated upon speed.  Unlike the
typical syncronous digital computer, neuronal networks are asyncronous,
communicating via a temporal discharge of 'spikes' through axons which vary
considerably in length, as well as speed, and exploit the use of SLOW signals
just as they do those of FAST signals.  (look at the neral mechanism for a
reflex, or for that of focusing the eye, as an example).

I am curious as to how much of the essence of their namesakes was really
captured in these 'neurons'?


>charles





>-
... You raise the blade, you make the change, you re-arrange me til I'm sane...
    Pink Floyd

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 1986 13:49:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: Icarus Sparry <cc_is%ux63.bath.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Snooker playing robots
-BODY-
This is being posted on behalf of another member of staff, who is
not able to get through the UCL gateway

>-----
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: Robot Snooker-player
Summary:
Expires:
References: <861020-061334-1337@Xerox>
Sender:
Reply-To: cc_dgdc@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Clark)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Bath, England
Keywords:


I believe you will find the robot snooker player at Bristol University,
England. I too saw a local tv news program about it last year.
I think the AI group is in one of the Engineering Departments.

Doug Clark
Bath University

>---------
        Icarus

Mr I. W. J.  Sparry                     Phone 0225 826826 x 5983
Head of Microcomputer Unit              Telex 449097
University of Bath              e-mail:
Claverton Down                          cc_is@UK.AC.BATH.UX63
Bath BA2 7AY                            !mcvax!ukc!hlh!bath63!cc_is
England                                 cc_is%ux63.bath.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 12:25:26 est
-FROM-
From: Randy Goebel LPAIG
     <rggoebel%watdragon.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: moral responsibility
-BODY-
Patrick Hayes writes
> ...Weizenbaum has made a successful career by
> systematically attacking AI research on the grounds that it is somehow
> immoral, and finding a large and willing audience.

Weizenbaum does, indeed and unfortunately, attract a large, willing and
naive audience.  For some reason, there seems to be a large not-quite-
computer-literate population that wants to believe that AI is potentially
dangerous to ``real'' intelligence.  But it is not completely fair to
conclude that Weizenbaum believes AI to be immoral;  it is correct for
Patrick to qualify his conclusion as ``somehow'' immoral.  Weizenbaum
acknowledges the general concept of intelligence, with both human and
artificial
kinds as manifestations.  He even prefers the methodology of the artificial
kind, especially when it relieves us from experiments on, say, the visual
cortex of cats.

Weizenbaum does claim that certain aspects of AI are immoral but, as the
helicopter example illustrates, his judgment is not exclusive to AI.  As AI
encroaches most closely to those things Weizenbaum values (e.g., human
dignity, human life, human emotions), it is natural for him to speak about
the potential dangers that AI poses.   I suspect that, if Weizenbaum were
a nuclear physicist instead of a computer scientist, he would focus more
attention on the immorality of fission and fusion.

It is Weizenbaum's own principles of morality that determine the judgements.
He acknowledges that, and places his prinicples in the public forum every
time he speaks.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 14:27 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning Simultaneous Actions (UPenn)
-BODY-

               Computer and Information Science Colloquium
                        University of Pennsylvania
                   3-4:30 pm Thursday, November 6, 1986
                          Room 216 - Moore School


           PLANNING SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS IN TEMPORALLY RICH WORLDS
                            Professor James Allen
                       Department of Computer Science
                           University of Rochester

This talk describes work done with Richard Pelavin over the last few years.
We have developed a formal logic of action that allows us to represent
knowledge and reason about the interactions between events that occur
simultaneously or overlap in time. This includes interactions between two
(or more) actions that a single agent might perform simultaneously, as well
as interactions between an agent's actions and events occuring in the
external world. The logic is built upon an interval-based temporal logic
extended with modal operators similar to temporal necessity and a
counterfactual operator. Using this formalism, we can represent a wide
range of possible ways in which actions may interact.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 15:44:08 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@k.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Scientific Discovery (CMU)
-BODY-
As usual, 3:15 in 7220. This week's speaker is Deepak Kulkarni.

Title: Processes of scientific discovery: Strategy of Experimentation

KEKADA is a program that models some strategies of experimentation
which scientists use in their research.  When augmented with
appropriate background knowledge, it can simulate in detail Krebs' course of
discovery of urea synthesis.  Williamson's discovery of alcohol-structure is
another discovery it can simulate.
I would like to discuss the general mechanisms used in the system and some
half-baked ideas about further work on the system.

>----

Deepak told me that he's very interested in getting feedback on some
of his ideas for further work. I'm hoping that we'll have a lively
feedback session.
> Steve

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Oct 86 14:20:41 EST
-FROM-
From: Lydia.Defilippo@cad.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Machine Inductive Inference (CMU)
-BODY-

Dates:    3-Nov-86
Time:     4:00
Cboards:  general
Place:    223d Porter Hall
Type:     Philosophy Colloquium
Duration: one hour
Who:      Scott Weinstein, University of Pennsylvania
Topic:    Some Recent Results in the Theory of Machine Inductive Inference
Host:     Dan Hausman


The talk will describe recent research by Dan Osherson, Mike Stob and
myself on a variety of topics of epistemological interest in the
theory of machine inductive inference.  The topics covered will
include limitations on mechanical realizations of Bayesian inference
methods, the synthesis of inference machines from descriptions of the
problem domains for which they are intended and the identification of
relational structures.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 22:57:40 EST
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Case-Based Learning System (Rutgers)
-BODY-

TITLE:     Memory Access Techniques for a Case-based
              Learning System
SPEAKER:   Wendy Lehnert
DATE:      Monday, November 3
LOCATION:  Princeton University, Green Hall, Langfeld Lounge
TIME:      12:00 - 1:00 p.m.

                     Abstract

Traditionally, symbolic processing techniques in artificial
intelligence have addressed "high-level" cognitive tasks
like expert reasoning, natural language processing,
and knowledge acquisition.  At the same time, a separate
paradigm of connectionist techniques has addressed
"low-level" perceptual problems like word recognition,
stereoscopic vision and speech recognition.  While
symbolic computation models are frequently characterized as
brittle, difficult to extend, and exceedingly fragile, many
connectionist models exhibit graceful degradation and natural
methodologies for system expansion.
In this talk, we will look at how connectionist techniques
might be useful as a strategy for indexing symbolic memory.

Our discussion will focus on two seemingly unrelated tasks:
word pronunciation and narrative summarization.  We will
endeavor to show how both problems can be approached with
similar strategies for indexing memory and resolving
competing indices.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
252
-DATE-
Date: Fri 31 Oct 86 11:31:36-CST
-FROM-
From: ICS.DEKEN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Knowledge and Database Systems Awards - NSF
-BODY-
Fiscal Year 1986 Research Projects
Funded by the Information Science Program
(now Knowledge and Database Systems Program)

A complete listing of these awards, including
short descriptive abstracts of the research
is available by writing to:

Joseph Deken, Director
Knowledge and Database Systems Program
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street  NW
Washington, DC 20550

IST-8504726
$42,196 - 12 mos.
James F. Allen
University of Rochester

Plan-Based Approaches to Extended Dialogues
> - -
BNS-8518675
$40,000 - 12 mos.
James A. Anderson
Brown University

Cognitive Applications of Matrix Memory Models
> - -
IST-8511531
$19,097  - 12 mos.
Robert Berwick
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Learnability and Parsability
> - -
DCR-8603231
$27,000 - 12 mos.
Alan W. Biermann
Duke University

Dialog Processing for Voice Interactive Problem Solving
> - -
IST-8612177
$9,747 - 12 mos.
Jeffrey Bonar
University of Pittsburgh

Partial Support for Third International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Education, Pittsburgh, PA, May 1987
> - -
IST-8604923
$64,660 - 12 mos.
Alan H. Borning
University of Washington

Automatic Generation of Interactive Displays
> - -
IST-8643739
$121,074 - 12 mos.
Bruce C. Buchanan
Stanford University

Information Structure and Use in Knowledge-Based Expert
Systems
> - -
IST-8607303
$10,000 - 12 mos.
Kathleen M. Carley
Carnegie-Mellon University

Knowledge Acquisition as a Social Phenomenon
> - -
IST-8515005
$75,900 - 12 mos.
Eugene Charniak
Brown Unive
A Single-Semantic-Process Theory of Parsing
> - -
IST-8644629
$60,449 - 12 mos.
Eugene Charniak
Brown University

An Approach to Abductive Inference in Artificial Intelligence Systems
> - -
IST-8608362
$172,9212 - 12 mos.
Richard Cullingford
Georgia Institute of Technology

Robust Interaction and Natural Problem-Solving in Advice-Giving Systems
> - -
IST-8506706
$60,942 - 12 mos.
Donald Dearholt
New Mexico State University

Properties of Networks Derived from Proximities
> - -
IST-8518706
$37,243 - 12 mos.
Andre de Korvin
Indiana University Foundation

Modeling Goal Uncertainty and Goal Shaping in a Generalized
Information System
> - -
IST-8609441
$20,205 - 6 mos.
Michael L. Dertouzos
Massachusetts Inst. Tech.

Conference on Cellular Automata: Parallel Information Processing for
Mathematics and Science
> - -
IST-8519926
$73,460 - 12 mos.
Thomas G. Dietterich
Oregon State University

Learning by Experimentation
> - -
IST-8519924
$43,489 - 12 mos.
John W. DuBois
University of California at Los Angeles

Information Transfer Constraints and Strategies in Natural
Language Communication
> - -
DCR-8602385
$25,000 - 12 mos.
Wayne Dyksen and Mikhail Atallah
Purdue University

High Level Systems for Scientific Computing
> - -
IST-8609123
$93,156 - 24 mos.
Andrew U. Frank
University of Maine at Orono

A Formal Model for Representation and Manipulation of Spatial
Subdivisions in Information Systems
> - -
IST-8611673
$18,000 - 3 mos.
Thomas Gay
University of Connecticut Health Center

Travel Grant: U.S. - U.S.S.R. Symposium on Information Coding and
Transmission in Biological Systems, October 3-13, 1986
> - -
IST-8512419
$70,867 - 12 mos.
Richard Granger
University of California, Irvine

Unification of Lexical, Syntactic, and Pragmatic Inference in
Understanding
> - -
IST-8509860
$73,479 - 12 mos.
Robert M. Gray
Stanford University

The Application of Information Theory to Pattern Recognition and the
Design of Decision Tree Classifiers
> - -
IST-8603943
$134,694 - 18 mos.
Max Henrion
Carnegie Mellon University

A Comparison of Methods for Representing Uncertainty in Expert Systems
> - -
DCR-8608311
$45,000 - 12 mos.
Lawrence J. Henschen
Northwestern University

Logic and Databases
> - -
IST-8645349
$153,289 - 12 mos.
Richard J. Herrnstein
Harvard University

A Comparative Approach to Natural and Artificial Visual Information
Processing
> - -
IST-8520359
$70,735 - 12 mos.
Geoffrey Hinton
Carnegie-Mellon University

Search Methods for Massively Parallel Networks
> - -
IST-8511541
$69,815 - 12 mos.
Richard B. Hull
University of Southern California

Investigation of Practical and Theoretical Aspects of Semantic Database
Models
> - -
IST-8643740
$98,507 - 12 mos.
Ray Jackendoff and Jane Grimshaw
Brandeis University

Syntactic and Semantic Information in a Natural Language Lexicon
> - -
IST-8512108
$99,394 - 12 mos.
Hans Kamp
University of Texas at Austin

Logic Representation of Attitudes for Computer Natural Language
Understanding
> - -
IST-8644864
$35,721 - 12 mos.
Abraham Kandel
Florida State University

Analysis and Modeling of Imprecise Information in Uncertain Environments
> - -
IST-8542811
$65,414 - 12 mos.
R.L. Kashyap
Purdue University

Research on Inference Procedures with Uncertainty
> - -
IST-8644676
$74,752 - 12 mos.
George J. Klir
State University of New York at Binghamton

Possibilistic Information:  Theory and Applicability
> - -
IST-8552925
$54,250 - 12 mos.
Richard E. Korf
University of California at Los Angeles

Presidential Young Investigator Award :  Machine Learning
> - -
IST-8518307
$15,750 - 12 mos.
Donald H. Kraft
Louisiana State University

Travel to the ACM Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval:  Pisa, Italy; September 8-10, l986
> - -
DCR-8602665
$45,720 - 12 mos.
Benjamin J. Kuipers
University of Texas at Austin

Knowledge Representations for Expert Causal Models
> - -
RII-8600412
$10,000 - 12 mos.
Jill H. Larkin
University of California at Berkeley

Developing the Instructional Power of Modern Personal Computing
> - -
IST-8600412
$10,000 - 12 mos.
Wendy G. Lehnert
University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Presidential Young Investigator Award:  Natural Language Computing
Systems
> - -
IST-8603697
$5,000 - 12 mos.
Michael E. Lesk
Bell Communications Research

Workshop on Document Generation Principles
> - -
IST-8602765
$76078 - 12 mos.
R. Duncan Luce
Harvard University

Measurement: Axiomatic and Meaningfulness Studies
> - -
IST-8444028
$62,500 - 12 mos.
David Maier
Oregon Graduate Center

Presidential Young Investigator Award:  Foundations of Knowledge
Management Systems
> - -
IST-8604977
$46,956 - 12 mos.
David Maier
Oregon Graduate Center

Automatic Generation of Interactive Displays
> - -
IST-8642813
$25,500 - 12 mos.
Gerald S. Malecki
Office of Naval Research

Committee on Human Factors
> - -
IST-8606187
$19,650 - 12 mos.
James L. McClelland
Carnegie-Mellon University

Workshop of Parallel Distributed Processing in Information and
Cognitive Research (Washington, D.C. ; February 28 - March 1, 1986)
> - -
IST-8451438
$37,500 - 12 mos.
Kathleen R. McKeown
Columbia University

Presidential Young Investigator Award:  Natural Language Interfaces
> - -
IST-8520217
$115,220 - 12 mos.
Douglas P. Metzler
University of Pittsburgh

An Expert System Approach to Syntactic Parsing and Information Retrieval
> - -
IST-8512736
$137,503 - 24 mos.
David Mumford
Harvard University

The Parsing of Images
> - -
IST-8604282
$2,447 - 12 mos.
Kent Norman
University of Maryland at College Park

Developing an Effective User Evaluation Questionnaire for Interactive
Systems
> - -
IST-8645347
$80,492 - 12 mos.
Donald E. Nute
University of Georgia

Discourse Representation for Natural Language Processing
> - -
IST-8645348
$49,211 - 12 mos.
Donald E. Nute
University of Georgia

Hypothetical Reasoning and Logic Programming
> - -
IST-8642477
$86,969 - 12 mos.
Robert N. Oddy
Syracuse University

Representations for Anomalous States of Knowledge in Information
Retrieval
> - -
IST-8609201
$44,905 - 12 mos.
Daniel Osherson
Syracuse University

A Computational Approach to Decision-Making
> - -
IST-8544976
$197,055 - 12 mos.
Charles Parsons and Isaac Levi
Columbia University

The Structure of Information in Science:  Fact Formulas and Discussion
Structures in Related Subsciences
> - -
IST-8642841
$12,000 - 12 mos.
William J. Rapaport
State University of New York - System Office

Logical Foundations for Belief Representation
> - -
IST-8644984
$62,500 - 12 mos.
James A. Reggia
University of Maryland at College Park

Presidential Young Investigator Award:  Abductive Inference Models in
Artificial Intelligence
> - -
IST-8644983
$123,221 - 12 mos.
Whitman A. Richards
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Natural Computation:  A Computational Approach to Visual Information
Processing
> - -
IST-8604530
$49,953 - 12 mos.
Fred S. Roberts
Rutgers University

Scales of Measurement and the Limitations they Place on Information
Processing
> - -
IST-8603407
$27,000 - 12 mos.
Robert D. Rodman
North Carolina State University

Dialog Processing for Voice Interactive Problem Solving
> - -
IST-8640925
$198,800 - 12 mos.
Naomi Sager
New York University

Language As a Database Structure
> - -
IST-8640053
$59,178 - 12 mos.
Sharon C. Salveter
Boston University

Transportable Natural Language Database Update
> - -
IST-8610293
$80,630 - 12 mos.
Glenn R. Shafer
University of Kansas Main Campus

Belief Functions in Artificial Intelligence
> - -
IST-8603214
$85,583 - 12 mos.
William Shaw
University of North Carolina

An Evaluation and Comparison of Term and Citation Indexing
> - -
DMS-8606178
$20,000 - 12 mos.
Paul C. Shields
University of Toledo

Mathematical Sciences:  Entropy in Ergodic Theory, Graph Theory and
Statistics
> - -
IST-8607849
$101,839 - 12 mos.
Edward Smith
BBN Laboratories, Inc.

A Computational Approach to Decision-Making
> - -
IST-8609599
$80,963 - 12 mos.
Paul Smolensky
University of Colorado at Boulder

Inference in Massively Parallel Artificial Intelligence Systems
> - -
IST-8644907
$15,634 - 12 mos.
Frederik Springsteel
University of Missouri

Formalization of Entity-Relationship Diagrams
> - -
IST-8640120
$66,004 - 12 mos.
Robert E. Stepp
University of Illinois at Urbana

Discovering Underlying Concepts in Data Through Conceptual Clustering
> - -
IST-8516313
$60,907 - 12 mos.
Richmond  H. Thomason
Mellon-Pitt-Carnegie Corp.

Nonmonotonic Reasoning
> - -
IST-8516330
$63,854 - 12 mos.
David S. Touretzky
Carnegie-Mellon University

Distributed Representations for Symbolic Data Structures
> - -
IST-8517289
$164,786 - 12 mos.
Joseph F. Traub
Columbia University

The Information Level: Effective Computing with Partial, Contaminated,
and Costly Information
> - -
IST-8544806
$121,222 - 12 mos.
Jeffrey D. Ullman
Stanford University

Implementation of Logical Query Languages for Databases
> - -
IST-8511348
$30,383 - 12 mos.
Kenneth Wexler
University of California at Irvine

Learnability and Parsability
> - -
IST-8514890
$80,000 - 12 mos.
R. Wilensky and R. Alterman
University of California at Berkeley

Adaptive Planning
> - -
IST-8600788
$81,660 - 12 mos.
Robert T. Winkler
Duke University

Combining Dependent Information: Models and Issues
> - -
IST-8644767
$38,474 - 12 mos.
Ronald R. Yager
Iona College

Specificity Measures of Information in Possibility Distributions
> - -
IST-8644435
$50,878 - 12 mos.
Po-Lung Yu
University of Kansas

Habitual Domain Analysis for Effective Information Interface and
Decision Support
> - -
IST-8642900
$108,182 - 12 mos.
Lotfi A. Zadeh
University of California at Berkeley

Management of Uncertainty in Expert Systems
> - -
IST-8605163
$19,776 - 12 mos.
Maria Zemankova
University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Travel to the International Conference on Information Processing and
Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems
> - -
IST-8600616
$97,727 - 12 mos.
Pranas Zunde
Georgia Institute of Technology

A Study of Word Association Aids in Information Retrieval

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
253
-DATE-
Date: Fri 31 Oct 86 13:03:11-CST
-FROM-
From: ICS.DEKEN@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Active Awards in the Robotics and Machine Intelligence Program (NSF)
-BODY-
Fiscal Year 1986 Research Projects
Funded by the Intelligent Systems Program
(now Robotics and Machine Intelligence Program)

A complete listing of these awards, including
short descriptive abstracts of the research
is available by writing to:

Y.T. Chien, Director
Robotics and Machine Intelligence Program
National Science Foundation
1800 G Street  NW
Washington, DC 20550

>---- Computer Vision and Image Processing -----

SRI International; Alex P. Pentland; {Perceptual Organization and the
Representation of Natural Scenes}; (DCR-8519283); $78060;12 months.

Stanford University; Paul Switzer; {Statistical Theory and Methods for
Processing Spatial Imagery (Mathematical Sciences and Computer
Research)}; (DMS-8411300 A02); $15000; 12 months; (Joint support with
the Statistics and Probability Program - Total Grant $48200).

University of California - Berkeley; Alberto Grunbaum;{Reconstruction
with Limited and Noisy Data (Mathematical Sciences and Computer
Research)}; (DMS-8403232 A02); $8000; 12 months;(Joint support with
the Applied Mathematics Program - Total Grant$66850).

University of Miami; Tzay Y. Young; {Three-Dimensional Motion Analysis
Using Shape Change Information (Computer Research)};(DCR-8509737 A01);
$39871; 12 months.

University of Illinois - Urbana; Thomas S. Huang;
{Acquisition, Representation and Manipulation of Time-Varying
Spatial Information (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8415325 A02); $14768;
6 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Azriel Rosenfeld;{Perceptual
Organization in Computer Vision: Pyramid-based Approaches};
(DCR-8603723); $120376; 12 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Azriel Rosenfeld;{Workshop on
Graph Grammars and their Application to
Computer Science Leesburg Virginia October1986}; (DCR-8504840);$26235;
18 months.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Whitman Richards;{Natural
Computation: A Computational Approach to Visual Information Processing
(Information Science and ComputerResearch)}; (IST-8312240 A02);
$61500; 12 months; (Joint support with the Information Science Program
> Total Grant $184721).

Michigan State University; George C. Stockman and Anil K.
Jain;{Feature Extraction and Evaluation in Recognition of 3D
Objects};(DCR-8600371); $55522; 12 months.

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor; Ramesh Jain; {Ego-Motion Complex
Logarithmic Mapping}; (DCR-8517251); $48039; 12 months.

University of Minnesota; William B. Thompson; {Determining Spatial
Organization from Visual Motion (Computer Research)};(DCR-8500899
A01); $40750; 12 months.

University of Rochester; Dana H. Ballard; {Parameter Networks and
Spatial Cognition}; (DCR-8602958); $80464; 12 months.

Carnegie-Mellon University; Steven A. Shafer and Takeo Kanade;{Optical
Modeling in Image Understanding: Color Gloss and Shadows (Computer
Research)}; (DCR-8419990 A01); $40475; 12 months.

University of Wisconsin - Madison; Charles R. Dyer; {Parallel Vision
Algorithms for Shared-Memory and Pipeline
Multiprocessors};(DCR-8520870); $134857; 24 months.


>---- Natural Language and Signal Understanding -----

SRI International; Douglas Appelt; {Natural Language Utterance
Planning(Computer Research and Information Science)}; (DCR-8641243);
$95210; 12 months;

Indiana University - Bloomington; Robert F. Port Stan C. Kwasny and
Daniel P. Maki; {Data-Driven Speech Recognition Using Prosody};
(DCR-8518725);$101055; 12 months.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert C. Berwick;
{PYI:(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8552543); $25000; 12 months.

New York University; Ralph Grishman (in collaboration with Lynette
Hirshman Buroughs Corporation); {Industry/University Cooperative
Research: Acquisition and Use of Semantic Information for Natural
Language Processing (ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8501843 A01); $78400; 12
months; (Joint support with theIndustry/University Cooperative
Research Program - Total Grant $93400).

Duke University; Alan W. Biermann; {Dialog Processing for Voice
Interactive Problem Solving}; (DCR-8603231); $27676; 12 months; (Joint
support with the Special Projects Program the Information Science
Program and the Information Technology Program - Total Grant $69676).

North Carolina State University - Raleigh; Robert Rodman;
{Dialogue Processing for Voice Interactive Problem Solving};
(DCR-8603407); $4000; 24months; (Joint support with the Special
Projects Program the Information Science Program and the Information
Technology Program - Total Grant $65276).

Carnegie-Mellon University; Ronald A. Cole and Richard M. Stern;
{Phonetic Classification =9Q%9U=UM Speech}; (DCR-8512695); $127523; 24
months.

University of Pennsylvania; Aravind K. Joshi; {Research In Natural
Language Processing (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8545755 A01); $160000;
12 months.

Burroughs Corporation; Lynette Hirshman (in collaboration with
Ralph Grishman New York University; {Industry/University Cooperative
Research: Acquisition and Use of Semantic Information for Natural
Language Processing(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8502205 A01); $58364; 12
months; (Joint support with the Industry/University Cooperative
Research Program - Total Grant$73364).

>---- Concept Learning and Inference -----

Yale University; Dana C. Angluin; {Algorithms for Inductive Inference
(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8404226 A01); $88807; 12months.

Northwestern University; Lawrence J. Henschen; {Logic and Databases};
(DCR-8608311); $44845; 12 months; (Joint support with the Information
Science Program - Total Grant $89845).

University of Chicago; James Royer; {Theory of Machine Learning};
(DCR-8602991); $17000; 24 months; (Joint support withTheoretical
Computer Science Program - Total Grant $51045).

University of Illinois - Urbana; R. S. Michalski; {Studies in Computer
Inductive Learning and Plausible Inference}; (DCR-8645223A02);
$135000; 12 months.

University of Southwestern Louisiana; Rasiah
Loganantharaj;{Theoretical and Implementational Aspects of Parallel
Theorem Proving}; (DCR-8603039); $34994; 12 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Jack Minker; {Workshop
on Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic
Programming College Park Maryland August 1986}; (DCR-8602676); $25390; 12
months.

Rutgers University - Busch Campus; Tom M. Mitchell; {PYI:(Computer
Research)}; (DCR-8351523 A03); $25000; 12 months.

State University of New York - Albany; Neil V. Murray;{Automated
Reasoning with Path Resolution and Semantic Graphs};(DCR-8600848);
$34981; 12 months.

Carnegie-Mellon University; Peter B. andrews; {Automated
Theorem Proving in Type Theory (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8402532
A02);$87152; 12 months.

Carnegie-Mellon University; Elaine Kant and Allen Newell;{Algorithm
Design and Discovery (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8412139A01); $57328;
12 months.

University of Texas - Austin; Michael P. Starbird and Woodrow
W.Bledsoe; {Automatic Theorem Proving and Applications
(ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8313499 A02); $150930; 12 months.

University of Wyoming; Michael J. Magee; {A Theorem Proving Based
System for Recognizing Three-Dimensional Objects};(DCR-8602555);
$37530; 12 months.

>---- Knowledge Representation and Problem Solving -----

Stanford University; John McCarthy; {Artificial Intelligence
(ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8414393 A01); $134328; 12 months.

Stanford University; Edward A. Feigenbaum and Charles
Yanofsky;{MOLGEN-Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Molecular
Biology Research in Theory Formation Testing and Modification (Computer
Research)};(DCR-8310236 A02); $135000; 12 months.

University of California - Berkeley; Lotfi A. Zadeh; {Fuzzy Logic as a
Basis for Commonsense Reasoning and Inference in Expert Systems
(Computer Research)};(DCR-8513139 A01); $100685; 12 months.

University of California - Los Angeles; Judea Pearl; {Studies in
Heuristics(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8501234 A01); $7895571; 12
months.

University of California - Los Angeles; Judea Pearl and monthshe
Ben-Bassat;{Toward a Computational Model of Evidential Reasoning
(Computer Research)};(DCR-8313875 A02); $95291; 12 months.

University of Southern California; Peter Waksman; {Grid Analysis - A
Theory of Form Perception (Mathematical Sciences and Computer
Research}; (DMS-8602025); $5000; 12 months (Joint support with the
Applied Mathematics Program- Total Grant $15600).

Yale University; Paul Hudak; {DAPS: Systems Support For AI
(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8403304 A01); $62363; 12 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Dana S. Nau; {PYI:
(ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8351463 A02); $62500; 12 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Laveen N. Kanal; {Parallel
Problem Solving and Applications in Artificial Intelligence};
(DCR-8504011 A01);$74922; 12 months.

University of Maryland - College Park; Hanan Samet; {Hierarchical
Data Structures}; (DCR-8605557); $45473; 12 months.

University of Massachusetts - Amherst; Victor R.
Lesser Krithivasan Ramamritham and Edward M. Riseman; {A Research
Facility for Cooperative Distributed Computing (Computer Research)};
(DCR-8644692); $590977; 12 months;(Joint support with the Coordinated
Experimental Research - Total Grant$984962).

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor; Arthur W. Burks; {Languages and
Architectures for Parallel Computing with Classifier Systems
(ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8305830 A03); $6381.

University of Minnesota; James R. Slagle; {Expert Systems
Questioning Procedures Based on Merit (Computer Research)};
(DCR-8512857 A01); $82235; 12months.

University of New Hampshire; Eugene C. Freuder and Michael J. Quinn;
{Copingwith Complexity in Constraint Satisfaction Problems};
(DCR-8601209); $32708;12 months; (Joint support with the Theoretical
Computer Science Program - TotalGrant $42708).

Rutgers University - Busch Campus; Saul Amarel and Charles
Schmidt;{Exploration of Problem Reformulation and Strategy
Acquisition}; (DCR-8318075A03); $73547; 12 months; (Joint support with
the Information TechnologyProgram - Total Grant $102706).

Rutgers University; Tomasz Imielinski; {Processing Incomplete
Knowledge-A Database Approach (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8504140 A01);
$57411; 12 months.

New Mexico State University; Derek P. Partridge; {Workshop on the
Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Las Cruces New Mexico February
1986};(DCR-8514964); $15000; 12 months.

Cornell University; Robert L. Constable; {Experiments with a
Program Refinement System (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8303327 A03);
$60000; 12 months;(Joint support with the Software Engineering Program
and the Software Systems Science Program - Total Grant $180247).

Iona College; Ronald R. Yager; {Methods of Evidential Reasoning
(ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8513044); $38600; 12 months.

University of Rochester; James F. Allen; {PYI: (Computer
Research)};(DCR-8351665 A02); $25000; 12 months.

University of Rochester; James F. Allen; {Temporal World Models for
Problem Solving (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8502481 A01); $38375; 12
months.

University of Texas - Austin; Benjamin J. Kuipers; {Deep and Shallow
Models in the Knowledge Base}; (DCR-8602665); $45720; 12 months; (Joint
support withthe Information Science Program - Total Grant $91440).

>---- Automation and Robotics -----

Arizona State University; Kathleen M. Mutch; {Robotic Navigation
Using Dynamic Imagery}; (DCR-8601798); $69955; 12 months.

University of Illinois - Urbana; Thomas S. Huang;
{Acquisition Representation and Manipulation of Time-Varying Spatial
Information (ComputerResearch)}; (DCR-8640776 A01); $70752; 12 months.

University of Massachusetts - Amherst; Edward M. Riseman and Arthur
S.Gaylord; {A Group Research Facility for Artificial
Intelligence Distributed Computing and Software Systems (Computer
Research)}; (DCR-8318776 A03);$15000; 12 months; (Joint support with
the Special Projects Program and the Software Engineering Program -
Total Grant $80000).

Cornell University-Endowed; John E. Hopcroft; {An International
Workshop on Geometric Reasoning to be held June 30 - July 2 1986 at
Keble College Oxford University U.K.}; (DCR-8605077); $22423; 12 months.

Cornell University; John Hopcroft and Alan Demers; {A Program of
Research in Robotics}; (DMC-8640765 A02); $91072; 12 months;

Cornell University; John E. Hopcroft and Kuo K. Wang; {A Program of
Researchin Representing Physical Objects}; (DCR-8644262 A01); $104238;
12 months.

New York University; Ernest Davis; {Physical and Spatial Reasoning
with Solid Objects}; (DCR-8603758 & A01); $82600; 24 months.

New York University; David Lowe; {Model Based Recognition
of Three-Dimensional Objects (Computer Research)}; (DCR-8502009
A01);$49700; 12 months.

New York University; Colm O'Dunlaing and Chee-Keng Yap; {Motion
Planning Problems in Robotics: Algorithmic Issues (Computer Research)};
(DCR-8401898A02); $97300; 12 months.

Carnegie Mellon University; Takeo Kanade and Charles Thorpe;
{Understanding 3-D Dynamic Natural Scenes with Range Data};
(DCR-8604199); $75817; 12 months.

University of Pennsylvania; Ruzena K. Bajcsy; {Tactile Information
Processing(Computer Research)}; (DCR-8545795); $45359; 12 months;

University of Texas - Austin; J. K. Aggarwal; {Space Perception from
Multiple Sensing}; (DCR-8517583); $125000; 24 months.

University of Utah; Bir Bhanu and Thomas C. Henderson; {Computer
Aided Geometric Design Based Computer Vision (Computer Research)};
(DCR-8644518);$74997; 12 months.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
254
-DATE-
Date: 28 Oct 86 19:54:22 GMT
-FROM-
From: fluke!ssc-vax!bcsaic!michaelm@beaver.cs.washington.edu
     (michael maxwell)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <10@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (me) wrote:
>
>>      As an interesting thought experiment, suppose a Turing test were done
>>      with a robot made to look like a human, and a human being who didn't
>>      speak English-- both over a CCTV, say, so you couldn't touch them to
>>      see which one was soft, etc. What would the robot have to do in order
>>      to pass itself off as human?
>
>...We certainly have no problem in principle with
>foreign speakers (the remarkable linguist, polyglot and bible-translator
>Kenneth Pike has a "magic show" in which, after less than an hour of "turing"
>interactions with a speaker of any of the [shrinking] number of languages he
>doesn't yet know, they are babbling mutually intelligibly before your very
>eyes), although most of us may have some problems in practice with such a
>feat, at least, without practice.

Yes, you can do (I have done) such "magic shows" in which you begin to learn a
language using just gestures + what you pick up of the language as you go
along.  It helps to have some training in linguistics, particularly field
methods.  The Summer Institute of Linguistics (of which Pike is President
Emeritus) gives such classes.  After one semester you too can give a magic
show!

I guess what I had in mind for the revised Turing test was not using language
at all--maybe I should have eliminated the sound link (and writing).  What
in the way people behave (facial expressions, body language etc.) would cue
us to the idea the one is a human and the other a robot?  What if you showed
pictures to the examinees--perhaps beautiful scenes, and revolting ones?  This
is more a test for emotions than for mind (Mr. Spock would probably fail).
But I think that a lot of what we think of as human is tied up in this
nonverbal/ emotional level.

BTW, I doubt whether the number of languages Pike knows is shrinking because
of these monolingual demonstrations (aka "magic shows") he's doing.  After the
tenth language, you tend to forget what the second or third language was--
much less what you learned!
>-
Mike Maxwell
Boeing Advanced Technology Center
        ...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!michaelm

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Oct 86 00:11:29 GMT
-FROM-
From: mnetor!utzoo!utcsri!utegc!utai!me@seismo.css.gov
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <1@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>In reply to a prior iteration D. Simon writes:
>
>>      I fail to see what [your "Total Turing Test"] has to do with
>>      the Turing test as originally conceived, which involved measuring
>>      up AI systems against observers' impressions, rather than against
>>      objective standards... Moreover, you haven't said anything concrete
>>      about what this test might look like.
>
>How about this for a first approximation: We already know, roughly
>speaking, what human beings are able to "do" -- their total cognitive
>performance capacity: They can recognize, manipulate, sort, identify and
>describe the objects in their environment and they can respond and reply
>appropriately to descriptions. Get a robot to do that. When you think
>he can do everything you know people can do formally, see whether
>people can tell him apart from people informally.
>
"respond and reply appropriately to descriptions".  Very nice.  Should be a
piece of cake to formalize--especially once you've formalized recognition,
manipulation, identification, and description (and, let's face it, any dumb
old computer can sort).  This is precisely what I was wondering when I asked
you what this total Turing test looks like.  Apparently, you haven't the
foggiest idea, except that it would test roughly the same things that the
old-fashioned, informal, does-it-look-smart-or-doesn't-it Turing test checks.

In fact, none of the criteria you have described above seems defineable in any
sense other than by reference to standard Turing test results ("gee, it sure
classified THAT element the way I would've!").  And if you WERE to define the
entire spectrum of human behaviour in an objective fashion ("rule 1:
answering, 'splunge!' to any question is hereby defined as an 'appropriate
reply'"), how would you determine whether the objective definition is useful?
Why, build a robot embodying it, and see if people consider it intelligent, of
course!  The illusion of a "total" Turing test, distinct from the
old-fashioned, subjective variety, thus vanishes in a puff of empiricism.

And forget the well-that's-the-way-Science-does-it argument.  It won't wash
>-see below.

>>      I believe that people in general dodge the "other minds" problem
>>      simply by accepting as a convention that human beings are by
>>      definition intelligent.
>
>That's an artful dodge indeed. And do you think animals also accept such
>conventions about one another? Philosophers, at least, seem to
>have noticed that there's a bit of a problem there. Looking human
>certainly gives us the prima facie benefit of the doubt in many cases,
>but so far nature has spared us having to contend with any really
>artful imposters. Wait till the robots begin giving our lax informal
>turing-testing a run for its money.
>
I haven't a clue whether animals think, or whether you think, for that matter.
This is precisely my point.  I don't believe we humans have EVER solved the
"other minds" problem, or have EVER used the Turing test, even to try to
resolve the question of whether there exist "other minds".  The fact that you
would like us to have done so, thus giving you a justification for the use of
the (informal part of) the Turing test (and the subsequent implicit basing of
the formal part on the informal part--see above), doesn't make it so.

This is where your scientific-empirical model for developing the "total"
Turing test out of the original falls down.  Let's examine the development of
a typical scientific concept:  You have some rough, intuitive observations of
phenomena (gravity, stars, skin).  You take some objects whose properties
you believe you understand (rocks, telescopes, microscopes), let them interact
with your vaguely observed phenomenon, and draw more rigorous conclusions based
on the recorded results of these experimental interactions.

Now, let's examine the Turing test in that light:  we take possibly-intelligent
robot R, whose properties are fairly well understood, and sit it in front of
person P, whose properties are something of a cipher to us.  We then have them
interact, and get a reading off person P (such as, "yup, shore is smart", or,
"nope, dumb as a tree").  Now, what properties are being scientifically
investigated here?  They can't have anything to do with robot R--we assume that
R's designer, Dr. Rstein, already has a fairly good idea what R is about.
Rather, it appears as though you are discerning those attributes of people
which relate to their judgment of intelligence in other objects.  Of course, it
might well turn out that something productive comes out of this, but it's also
quite possible (and I conjecture that it's actually quite likely) that what you
get out of this is some scientific law such as, "anything which is physically
indistinguishable from a human being and can mutter something that sounds like
person P's language is intelligent; anything else is generally dumb, but
possibly intelligent, depending on the decoration of the room and the drug
content of P's bloodstream at the time of the test".  In short, my worries
about the context-dependence and subjective quality of the results have not
disappeared in a puff of empiricism; they loom as large as ever.

>
>>      WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST" LOOK LIKE?...  Please
>>      forgive my impertinent questions, but I haven't read your
>>      articles, and I'm not exactly clear about what this "total"
>>      Turing test entails.
>
>Try reading the articles.
>
Well, not only did I consider this pretty snide, but when I sent you mail
privately, asking politely where I can find the articles in question, I didn't
even get an answer, snide or otherwise.  So starting with this posting, I
refuse to apologize for being impertinent.  Nyah, nyah, nyah.

>
>
>Stevan Harnad
>princeton!mind!harnad

                                                Daniel R. Simon

"sorry, no more quotations"
                -D. Simon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 16:09:20 EST
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: extended Turing test
-BODY-
In article <8610271728.AA12616@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, harnad@mind.UUCP writes:

> >       [I]t's misleading to propose that a veridical model of _our_ behavior
> >       ought to have our "performance capacities"...I do not (yet) quarrel
> >       with the principle that the model ought to have our abilities. But to
> >       speak of "performance capacities" is to subtly distort the
fundamental
> >       problem. We are not performers!
>
> "Behavioral ability"/"performance capacity" -- such fuss over
> black-box synonyms, instead of facing the substantive problem of
> modeling the functional substrate that will generate them.

You seem to be looking at the problem as a scientist.  Let me give an
example of what I mean:

Suppose you have a robot slave. (That's the practical goal of A.I.,
isn't it?) It cooks for you, makes the beds, changes the oil in your
car, puts the dog out, performs sexual favors, ... you name it.  BUT--
it will not open the front door for you!

Maddened with frustration, you order an electric-eye door opener,
1950s design.  It works flawlessly.  Now you have everything you want.

Does the combination of robot + door-opener pass the Total Turing Test?
Is the combination a valid subject for the Test?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 15:56:27 EST
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: how we decide whether it has a mind
-BODY-
In article <8610271726.AA12550@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, harnad@mind.UUCP writes:

> >       One (rationally) believes other people are conscious BOTH because
> >       of their performance and because their internal stuff is a lot like
> >       one's own.
>
>                                         ...  I am not denying that
> there exist some objective data that correlate with having a mind
> (consciousness) over and above performance data. In particular,
> there's (1) the way we look and (2) the fact that we have brains. What
> I am denying is that this is relevant to our intuitions about who has a
> mind and why. I claim that our intuitive sense of who has a mind is
> COMPLETELY based on performance, and our reason can do no better. ...

There's a complication here:  Our intutions about things in our environment
change with the environment.  The first time you use a telephone, you hear
an electronic reproduction of somebody's voice; you KNOW that you're talking
to a machine, not to the other person.  Soon this knowledge evaporates, and
you come to think, "I talked with Smith today on the phone." You may even
have seen his face before you!

It's the same with thinking.  When only living things could perceive and
adapt accordingly, people did not think of artifacts as having minds.
This wasn't stubborn of them, just honest intuition.  When ELIZA came
along, it became useful for her users to think of her as having a mind.
Just like thinking you talked with Smith ...

I'd like to see less treatment of "X has a mind" as a formal proposition,
and more discussion of how we use our intuition about it.  After all,
is having a mind the most important thing about somebody to you?  Is
it even important at all?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
255
-DATE-
Date: 29 Oct 86 18:31:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews@BEAVER.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Turing Test ad infinitum
-BODY-

     This endless discussion about the Turing Test makes the
"eliminative materialist" viewpoint very appealing:  by the
time we have achieved something that most people today would
call intelligent, we will have done it through disposing of
concepts such as "intelligence", "consciousness", etc.

     Perhaps the reason we're having so much trouble defining
a workable Turing Test is that we're essentially trying to
fit a square peg into a round hole, belabouring some point
which has less relevance than we realize.  I wonder what old
Alan himself would say about the whole mess.

>-Jamie.
...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
"At the sound of the falling tree... it's 9:30"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 86 20:34:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

In his second net.ai comment on the abstracts of the two articles under
discussion, me@utai.UUCP (Daniel Simon) wrote:

>>      WHAT DOES THE "TOTAL TURING TEST" LOOK LIKE?...  Please
>>      forgive my impertinent questions, but I haven't read your
>>      articles, and I'm not exactly clear about what this "total"
>>      Turing test entails.

I replied (after longish attempts to explain in two separate iterations):

>"Try reading the articles."

Daniel Simon rejoined:

>       Well, not only did I consider this pretty snide, but when I sent you
>       mail privately, asking politely where I can find the articles in
>       question, I didn't even get an answer, snide or otherwise. So starting
>       with this posting, I refuse to apologize for being impertinent.
>       Nyah, nyah, nyah.

The same day, the following email came from Daniel Simon:

>       Subject:  Hoo, boy, did I put my foot in it:
>       Ooops....Thank you very much for sending me the articles, and I'm sorry
>       I called you snide in my last posting. If you see a bright scarlet glow
>       in the distance, looking west from Princeton, it's my face. Serves me
>       right for being impertinent in the first place... As soon as I finish
>       reading the papers, I'll respond in full--assuming you still care what
>       I have to say... Thanks again. Yours shamefacedly, Daniel R. Simon.

This is a very new form of communication for all of us. We're just going to
have to work out a new code of Nettiquette. With time, it'll come. I
continue to care what anyone says with courtesy and restraint, and
intend to respond to everything of which I succeed in making sense.


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 86 18:21:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

Jay Freeman (freeman@spar.UUCP) had, I thought, joined the
ongoing discussion about the robotic version of the Total Turing Test
to address the questions that were raised in the papers under
discussion, namely: (1) Do we have any basis for contending with the
"other minds problem" -- whether in other people, animals or machines
>- other than turing-indistinguishable performance capacity? (2) Is
the teletype version of the turing test -- which allows only
linguistic (i.e., symbolic) interactions -- a strong enough test? (3)
Could even the linguistic version alone be successfully passed by
any device whose symbolic functions were not "grounded" in
nonsymbolic (i.e., robotic) function? (4) Are transduction, analog
representations, A/D conversion, and effectors really trivial in this
context, or is there a nontrivial hybrid function, grounding symbolic
representation in nonsymbolic representation, that no one has yet
worked out?

When Freeman made his original sugestion that the symbolic processor
could have access to the robotic transducer's bit-map, I thought he
was making the sophisticated (but familiar) point that once the
transducer representation is digitized, it's symbolic all the way.
(This is a variant of the "transduction-is-trivial" argument.) My
prior reply to Freeman (about simulated models of the world, modularity,
etc.) was addressed to this construal of his point. But now I see that
he was not making this point at all, for he replies:

>       ... let's equip the robot with an active RF emitter so
>       it can jam the camera's electronics and impose whatever bit map it
>       wishes...  design a robot in the shape of a back projector, and let it
>       create internally whatever representation of a human being it wishes
>       the camera to see, and project it on its screen for the camera to
>       pick up.  Such a robot might do a tolerable job of interacting with
>       other parts of the "objective" world, using robot arms and whatnot
>       of more conventional design, so long as it kept them out of the
>       way of the camera... let's create a vaguely anthropomorphic robot and
>       equip its external surfaces with a complete covering of smaller video
>       displays, so that it can achieve the minor details of human appearance
>       by projection rather than by mechanical motion. Well, maybe our model
>       shop is good enough to do most of the details of the robot
convincingly,
>       so we'll only have to project subtle details of facial expression.
>       Maybe just the eyes.

>       ... if you are going to admit the presence of electronic or mechanical
>       devices between the subject under test and the human to be fooled,
>       you must accept the possibility that the test subject will be smart
>       enough to detect their presence and exploit their weaknesses...
>       consider a robot that looks no more anthropomorphic than your vacuum
>       cleaner, but that is possessed of moderate manipulative abilities and
>       a good visual perceptive apparatus.

>       Before the test commences, the robot sneakily rolls up to the
>       camera and removes the cover.  It locates the connections for the
>       external video output, and splices in a substitute connection to
>       an external video source which it generates.  Then it replaces the
>       camera cover, so that everything looks normal.  And at test time,
>       the robot provides whatever image it wants the testers to see.
>       A dumb robot might have no choice but to look like a human being
>       in order to pass the test.  Why should a smart one be so constrained?


>From this reply I infer that Freeman is largely concerned with the
question of appearance: Can a robot that doesn't really look like a
person SIMULATE looking like a person by essentially symbolic means,
plus add-on modular peripherals? In the papers under discussion (and in some
other iterations of this discussion on the net) I explicitly rejected
appearance
as a criterion. (The reasons are given elsewhere.) What is important in
the robotic version is that it should be a human DO-alike, not a human
LOOK-alike. I am claiming that the (Total) object-manipulative (etc.)
performance of humans cannot be generated by a basically symbolic
module that is merely connected with peripheral modules. I am
hypothesizing (a) that symbolic representations must be NONMODULARLY
(i.e., not independently) grounded in nonsymbolic representations, (b)
that the Total Turing Test requires the candidate to display all of
our robotic capacities as well as our linguistic ones, and (c) that
even the linguistic ones could not be accomplished unless grounded in
the robotic ones. In none of this do the particulars of what the robot
(or its grey matter!) LOOK like matter.

Two last observations. First, what the "proximal stimulus" -- i.e.,
the physical energy pattern on the transducer surface -- PRESERVES
whereas the next (A/D) step -- the digital representation -- LOSES, is
everything about the full PHYSICAL configuration of the energy pattern
that cannot be recovered by inversion (D/A). (That's what the ongoing
concurrent discussion about the A/D distinction is in part concerned
with.) Second, I think there is a tendency to overcomplicate the
issues involved in the turing test by adding various arbitrary
elaborations to it. The basic questions are fairly simply stated
(though not so simple to answer). Focusing instead on ornamented
variants often seems to lead to begging the question or changing the
subject.

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Nov 86 20:02:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

michaelm@bcsaic.UUCP (michael maxwell) writes:

>       I guess what I had in mind for the revised Turing test was not using
>       language at all--maybe I should have eliminated the sound link (and
>       writing). What in the way people behave (facial expressions, body
>       language etc.) would cue us to the idea the one is a human and the
other
>       a robot?  What if you showed pictures to the examinees--perhaps
>       beautiful scenes, and revolting ones? This is more a test for emotions
>       than for mind (Mr. Spock would probably fail). But I think that a lot
of
>       what we think of as human is tied up in this nonverbal/ emotional
level.

The modularity issue looms large again. I don't believe there's an
independent module for affective expression in human beings. It's all
>- to use a trendy though inadequate expression -- "cognitively
penetrable." There's also the issue of the TOTALITY of the Total
Turing Test, which was intended to remedy the underdetermination of
toy models/modules: It's not enough just to get a model to mimic our
facial expressions. That could all be LITERALLY done with mirrors
(and, say, some delayed feedback and some scrambling and
recombining), and I'm sure it could fool people, at least for a while.
I simply conjecture that this could not be done for the TOTALITY of
our performance capacity using only more of the same kinds of tricks
(analog OR symbolic).

The capacity to manipulate objects in the world in all the ways
we can and do do it (which happens to include naming and describing
them, i.e., linguistic acts) is a lot taller order than mimicking exclusively
our nonverbal expressive behavior. There may be (in an unfortunate mixed
metaphor) many more ways to skin (toy) parts of the theoretical cat than
all of it.

Three final points: (1) Your proposal seems to equivocate between the (more
important) formal functional component of the Total Turing Test (i.e., how do
we get a model to exhibit all of our performance capacities, be they
verbal or nonverbal?) and (2) the informal, intuitive component (i.e., will it
be indistinguishable in all relevant respects from a person, TO a
person?). The motto would be: If you use something short of the Total
Turing Test, you may be able to fool some people some of the time, but not
all of the time. (2) There's nothing wrong in principle with a
nonverbal, even a nonhuman turing test; I think (higher) animals pass this
easily all the time, with virtually the same validity as humans, as
far as I'm concerned. But this version can't rely exclusively on
affective expression modules either. (3) Finally, as I've argued earlier,
all attempts to "capture" qualitative experience -- not just emotion,
but any conscious experience, such as what it's LIKE to see red or
to believe X -- amounts to an unprofitable red herring in this
enterprise. The whole point of the Total Turing Test is that
performance-indistinguishability IS your only basis for infer that
anyone but you has a mind (i.e., has emotions, etc.). In the paper I
dubbed this "methodological epiphenomenalism as aresearch strategy in
cognitive science."

By the way, you prejudged the question the way you put it. A perfectly
noncommittal but monistic way of putting it would be: "What in the way
ROBOTS behave would cue us to the idea that one robot had a mind and
another did not?" This leaves it appropriately open for continuing
research just exactly which causal physical devices (= "robots"), whether
natural or artificial, do or do not have minds.


Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
256
-DATE-
Date: 2 Nov 86 23:22:23 GMT
-FROM-
From: allegra!princeton!mind!harnad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

The following is a response on net.ai to a comment on mod.ai.
Because of problems with posting to mod.ai, I am temporarily replying to
net.ai.
On mod.ai cugini@NBS-VMS.ARPA ("CUGINI, JOHN") writes:

>       You seem to want to pretend that we know absolutely nothing about the
>       basis of thought in humans, and to "suppress" all evidence based on
>       such knowledge. But that's just wrong. Brains *are* evidence for mind,
>       in light of our present knowledge.

What I said was that we knew absolutely nothing about the FUNCTIONAL
basis of thought in humans, i.e., about how brains or relevantly
similar devices WORK. Hence we wouldn't have the vaguest idea if a
given lump of grey matter was in fact the right stuff, or just a
gelatenous look-alike -- except by examining its performance (i.e., turing)
capacity. [The same is true, by the way, mutatis mutandis, for a
better structural look-alike -- with cells, synapses, etc. We have no
functional idea of what differentiates a mind-supporting look-alike
from a comatose one, or one from a nonviable fetus. Without the
performance criterion the brain cue could lead us astray as often as
not regarding whether there was indeed a mind there. And that's not to
mention that we knew perfectly well (perhaps better, even) how to judge
whether somebody had a mind before 'ere we ope'd a skull nor knew what we
had chanced upon there.

If you want a trivial concession though, I'll make one: If you saw an
inert body totally incapable of behavior, then or in the future, and
you entertained some prior subjective probability that it had a mind, say,
p, then, if you opened its skull and found something anatomically and
physiologically brain-like in there, then the probability p that it
had, or had had, a mind would correspondingly rise. Ditto for an inert
alien species. And I agree that that would be rational. However, I don't
think that any of that has much to do with the problem of modeling the mind, or
with the relative strengths or weaknesses of the Total Turing Test.

>       People in, say, 1500 AD were perfectly rational in predicting
>       tides based on the position of the moon (and vice-versa)
>       even though they hadn't a clue as to the mechanism of interaction.
>       If you keep asking "why" long enough, *all* science is grounded on
>       such brute-fact correlation (why do like charges repel, etc.) - as
>       Hume pointed out a while back.

Yes, but people then and even earlier were just as good at "predicting" the
presence of mind WITHOUT any reference to the brain. And in ambiguous
cases, behavior was and is the only rational arbiter. Consider, for
example, which way you'd go if (1) an alien body persisted in behaving like a
clock-like automaton in every respect -- no affect, no social interaction,
just rote repetition -- but it DID have something that was indistinguishable
(on the minute and superficial information we have) from a biological-like
nervous system), versus (2) if a life-long close friend of yours had
to undergo his first operation, and when they opened him up, he turned
out to be all transistors on the inside. I don't set much store by
this hypothetical sci-fi stuff, especially because it's not clear
whether the "possibilities" we are contemplating are indeed possible. But
the exercise does remind us that, after all, performance capacity is
our primary criterion, both logically and intuitively, and its
black-box correlates have whatever predictive power they may have
only as a secondary, derivative matter. They depend for their
validation on the behavioral criterion, and in cases of conflict,
behavior continues to be the final arbiter.

I agree that scientific inference is grounded in observed correlations. But
the primary correlation in this special case is, I am arguing, between
mental states and performance. That's what both our inferences and our
intuitions are grounded in. The brain correlate is an additional cue, but only
inasmuch as it agrees with performance. As to CAUSATION -- well, I'm
sceptical that anyone will ever provide a completely satisfying account
of the objective causes of subjective effects. Remember that, except for
the special case of the mind, all other scientific inferences have
only had to account for objective/objective correlations (and [or,
more aptly, via) their subjective/subjective experiential counterparts).
The case under discussion is the first (and I think only) case of
objective/subjective correlation and causation. Hence all prior bets,
generalizations or analogies are off or moot.

>       other brains... are, by definition, relevantly brain-like

I'd be interested in knowing what current definition will distinguish
a mind-supporting brain from a non-mind-supporting brain, or even a
pseudobrain. (That IS the issue, after all, in claiming that the brain
in an INDEPENDENT predictor of mindedness.)

>       Let me re-cast Harnad's argument (perhaps in a form unacceptable to
>       him): We can never know any mind directly, other than our own, if we
>       take the concept of mind to be something like "conscious intelligence"
-
>       ie the intuitive (and correct, I believe) concept, rather than
>       some operational definition, which has been deliberately formulated
>       to circumvent the epistemological problems.  (Harnad, to his credit,
>       does not stoop to such positivist ploys.)  But the only external
>       evidence we are ever likely to get for "conscious intelligence"
>       is some kind of performance.  Moreover, the physical basis for
>       such performance will be known only contingently, ie we do not
>       know, a priori, that it is brains, rather than automatic dishwashers,
>       which generate mind, but rather only as an a posteriori correlation.
>       Therefore, in the search for mind, we should rely on the primary
>       criterion (performance), rather than on such derivative criteria
>       as brains. I pretty much agree with the above account except for the
>       last sentence which prohibits us from making use of derivative
>       criteria.  Why should we limit ourselves so?  Since when is that part
>       of rationality?

I accept the form in which you've recast my argument. The reasons that
brainedness is not a good criterion are the following (I suppose I
should stop saying it is not a "rational" criterion having made the
minor concession I did above): Let's call being able to pass the Total
Turing Test the "T" correlate of having a mind, and let's call having a brain
the "B" correlate. (1) The validity of B depends completely on T. We
have intuitions about the way we and others behave, and what it feels
like; we have none about having brains. (2) In case of conflict
between T and B, our intuitions (rationally, I suggest) go with T rather
than B. (3) The subjective/objective issue (i.e., the mind/body
problem) mentioned above puts these "correlations" in a rather
different category from other empirical correlations, which are
uniformly objective/objective. (4) Looked at sufficiently minutely and
functionally, we don't know what the functionally relevant as opposed to the
superficial properties of a brain are, insofar as mind-supportingness
is concerned; in other words, we don't even know what's a B and what's
just naively indistinguishable from a B (this is like a caricature of
the turing test). Only T will allow us to pick them out.

I think those are good enough reasons for saying that B is not a good
independent criterion. That having be said, let me concede that for a
radical sceptic, neither is T, for pretty pretty much the same
reasons! This is why I am a methodological epiphenomenalist.

>       No, the fact is we do have more reason to suppose mind of other
>       humans than of robots, in virtue of an admittedly derivative (but
>       massively confirmed) criterion.  And we are, in this regard, in an
>       epistemological position *superior* to those who don't/didn't know
>       about such things as the role of the brain, ie we have *more* reason
>       to believe in the mindedness of others than they do.  That's why
>       primitive tribes (I guess) make the *mistake* of attributing
>       mind to trees, weather, etc.  Since raw performance is all they
>       have to go on, seemingly meaningful activity on the part of any
>       old thing can be taken as evidence of consciousness.  But we
>       sophisticates have indeed learned a thing or two, in particular, that
>       brains support consciousness, and therefore we (rationally) give the
>       benefit of the doubt to any brained entity, and the anti-benefit to
>       un-brained entities.  Again, not to say that we might not learn about
>       other bases for mind - but that hardly disparages brainedness as a
>       rational criterion for mindedness.

A trivially superior position, as I've suggested. Besides, the
primitive's mistake (like the toy AI-modelers') is in settling for
anything less than the Total Turing Test; the mistake is decidedly NOT
the failure to hold out for the possession of a brain. I agree that it's
rational to take brainedness as an additional corroborative cue, if you
ever need one, but since it's completely useless when it fails to corroborate
or conflicts with the Total Turing criterion, of what independent use is it?

Perhaps I should repeat that I take the context for this discussion to
be science rather than science fiction, exobiology or futurology. The problem
we are presumably concerned with is that of providing an explanatory
model of the mind along the lines of, say, physics's explanatory model
of the universe. Where we will need "cues" and "correlates" is in
determining whether the devices we build have succeeded in capturing
the relevant functional properties of minds. Here the (ill-understood)
properties of brains will, I suggest, be useless "correlates." (In
fact, I conjecture that theoretical neuroscience will be led by, rather
than itself leading, theoretical "mind-science" [= cognitive
science?].) In sci-fi contexts, where we are guessing about aliens'
minds or those of comatose creatures, having a blob of grey matter in
the right place may indeed be predictive, but in the cog-sci lab it is
not.

>       there's really not much difference between relying on one contingent
>       correlate (performance) rather than another (brains) as evidence for
>       the presence of mind.

To a radical sceptic, as I've agreed above. But there is to a working
cognitive scientist (whose best methodological stance, I suggest, is
epiphenomenalism).


>       I know consciousness (my own, at least) exists, not as
>       some derived theoretical construct which explains low-level data
>       (like magnetism explains pointer readings), but as the absolutely
>       lowest rock-bottom datum there is.  Consciousness is the data,
>       not the theory - it is the explicandum, not the explicans (hope
>       I got that right).  It's true that I can't directly observe the
>       consciousness of others, but so what?  That's an epistemological
>       inconvenience, but it doesn't make consciousness a red herring.

I agree with most of this, and it's why I'm not, for example, an
"eliminative materialist." But agreeing that consciousness is data
rather than theory does not entail that it's the USUAL kind of data of
empirical science. I KNOW I have a mind. Every other instance is
radically different from this unique one: I can only guess, infer. Do
you know of any similar case in normal scientific inference? This is
not just an "epistemological inconvenience," it's a whole 'nother ball
game. If we stick to the standard rules of objective science (which I
recommend), then turing-indistinguishable performance modeling is indeed
the best we can aspire to. And that does make consciousness a red
herring.

>       ...being-composed-of-protein might not be as practically incidental
>       as many assume.  Frinstance, at some level of difficulty, one can
>       get energy from sunlight "as plants do."  But the issues are:
>       do we get energy from sunlight in the same way?  How similar do
>       we demand that the processes are?...if we're interested in simulation
at
>       a lower level of abstraction, eg, photosynthesis, then, maybe, a
>       non-biological approach will be impractical.  The point is we know we
>       can simulate human chess-playing abilities with non-biological
>       technology.  Should we just therefore declare the battle for mind won,
>       and go home?  Or ask the harder question: what would it take to get a
>       machine to play a game of chess like a person does, ie, consciously.

This sort of objection to a toy problem like chess (an objection I take to
be valid) cannot be successfully redirected at the Total Turing Test, and
that was one of the central points of the paper under discussion. Nor
are the biological minutiae of modeling plant photosynthesis analogous to the
biological minutiae of modeling the mind: The OBJECTIVE data in the
mind case are what you can observe the organism to DO. Photosynthesis
is something a plant does. In both cases one might reasonably demand
that a veridical model should mimic the data as closely as possible.
Hence the TOTAL Turing Test.

But now what happens when you start bringing in physiological data, in the
mind case, to be included with the performance data? There's no
duality in the case of photosynthesis, nor is there any dichotomy of
levels. Aspiring to model TOTAL photosynthesis is aspiring to get
every chemical and temporal detail right. But what about the mind
case? On the one hand, we both agree with the radical sceptic that
NEITHER mimicking the behavior NOR mimicking the brain can furnish
"direct" evidence that you've captured mind. So whereas getting every
(observable) photosynthetic detail right "guarantees" that you've
captured photosynthesis, there's no such guarantee with consciousness.

So there's half of the disanalogy. Now consider again the hypothetical
possibilities we were considering earlier: What if brain data and
behavioral data compete? Which way should a nonsceptic vote? I'd go
with behavior. Besides, it's an empirical question, as I said in the
papers under discussion, whether or not brain constraints turn out to
be relevant on the way to Total Turing Utopia. Way down the road,
after all, the difference between mind-performance and
brain-performance may well become blurred. Or it may not. I think the
Total Turing Test is the right provisional methodology for getting you
there, or at least getting you close enough. The rest may very well
amount to only the "fine tuning."

>       BTW, I quite agree with your more general thesis on the likely
>       inadequacy of symbols (alone) to capture mind.

I'm glad of that. But I have to point out that a lot of what you
appear to disagree about went into the reasons supporting that very
thesis, and vice versa.

>----

May I append here a reply to andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) who
wrote:

>       This endless discussion about the Turing Test makes the
>       "eliminative materialist" viewpoint very appealing:  by the
>       time we have achieved something that most people today would
>       call intelligent, we will have done it through disposing of
>       concepts such as "intelligence", "consciousness", etc.
>       Perhaps the reason we're having so much trouble defining
>       a workable Turing Test is that we're essentially trying to
>       fit a square peg into a round hole, belabouring some point
>       which has less relevance than we realize.  I wonder what old
>       Alan himself would say about the whole mess.

On the contrary, rather than disposing of them, we will finally have
some empirical and theoretical idea of what their functional basis
might be, rather than simply knowing what it's like to have them. And
if we don't first sort out our methodological constraints, we're not
headed anywhere but in hermeneutic circles.

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 3 Nov 86 17:41:54 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!warwick!rlvd!kgd@seismo.css.gov  (Keith Dancey)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <5@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>
>
>What do you think "having intelligence" is? Turing's criterion
>effectively made it: having performance capacity that is indistinguishable
>from human performance capacity. And that's all "having a mind"
>amounts to (by this objective criterion). ...

At the risk of sidetracking this discussion, I don't think it wise to try
and equate 'mind' and 'intelligence'.  A 'mind' is an absolute thing, but
'intelligence' is relative.

For instance, most people would, I believe, accept that a monkey has a
'mind'.  However, they would not necessarily so easily accept that a
monkey has 'performance capacity that is indistinguishable from human
performance capacity'.

On the other hand, many people would accept that certain robotic
processes had 'intelligence', but would be very reluctant to attribute
them with 'minds'.

I think there is something organic about 'minds', but 'intelligence' can
be codified, within limits, of course.

I apologise if this appears as a red-herring in the argument.

>-
Keith Dancey,                                UUCP:   ..!mcvax!ukc!rlvd!kgd
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon  OX11 0QX
                                            JANET:       K.DANCEY@uk.ac.rl
Tel: (0235) 21900   ext 5716

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
257
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 86 20:01:25 GMT
-FROM-
From: cbosgd!mark@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Mark Horton)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: net.ai is being renamed comp.ai
-BODY-
This newsgroup is being renamed from net.ai to comp.ai.
This renaming will gradually take place over the next few weeks.
More and more messages posted to this newsgroup will be aliased
into the new newsgroup as they pass through the net, and people
will begin to post to the new group.  After a few weeks, the
old name will be removed.

This note is to inform you of the renaming so you can begin to
read the new group as well as the old group.

        Mark Horton
        Director, the UUCP Project

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 19:29:27 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!ihwpt!clarisse@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (olivier clarisse)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Do YOU TCPIP between: Symbolics, Xerox 1100's and VAX's?
-BODY-
Does anyone of you AI WORKSTATION USERS work on a local network
(ethernet) running TCPIP and have used SYMBOLICS 3600s and (or)
VAXes running UNIX (system 5 for example) as hosts for FTP to
XEROX 1186 (or 110X)?

IF YOU HAVE experienced such things, please let me now how it goes:
great or terrible? Is the communication smooth (or like a dotted
line?) Do you use the SYMBOLICS (VAX) as a file server? Have you
purchased a software to be able to use the 110X as a host too?
Which one? (The 110X as a host is not supported on TCPIP by XEROX,
I just heard, while FTP is supposed if someone else is the host.)

Please let me know about your exciting experiences with TCPIP/FTP
and be as specific as possible with respect to the system/software
used. THANKS AN 1186 TIMES!

Olivier Clarisse
clarisse@ihesa@ihnp4.uucp
(312) 979-3558

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 86 22:06:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!cernvax!ethz!wyle@seismo.css.gov  (Mitchell Wyle)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Connectionism, neural networks:  new mail list or group?
-BODY-

Is anyone interested in a net.connectionism group?  What about a mailing
list?  If anyone is interested in contributing to or receiving a
tentative bibliography of connectionism/neural nets, let me know.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mitch Wyle                  ...!decvax!seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!Wyle
Institut fuer Informatik    Wyle%ifi.ethz.cernvax.<network of your choice>
ETH / SOT
8092 Zuerich, Switzerland   "Ignore alien orders."

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 11:25:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!strath-cs!jrm@seismo.css.gov  (Jon R Malone)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for information (Brain/Parallel fibers)
-BODY-
<<<<Lion eaters beware>>>>
Nice guy, into brains would like to meet similiarly minded people.
Seriously : considering some simulation of neural circuits.  Would
like pointers to any REAL work that is going on (PS I have read the
literature).
Keen to run into somebody that is interested in simulation at a low-level.
Specifically:
        * mossy fibers/basket cells/purkyne cells
        * need to find out parallel fiber details:
          * length of
          * source of/destination of

Any pointers or info would be appreciated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 4 Nov 86 18:40:15 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!stc!datlog!torch!paul@seismo.css.gov  (paul)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: THINKING COMPUTERS ARE A REALITY (?)
-BODY-
People who read the original posting in net.general (and the posting about
neural networks in this newsgroup) may be interested in the following papers:

Boltzmann Machines: Constraint Satisfaction Networks that Learn.
by Geoffrey E. Hinton, Terrence J. Sejnowski and David H. Ackley
Technical Report CMU-CS-84-119
(Carnegie-Mellon University May 1984)

Optimisation by Simulated Annealing
by S. Krikpatrick, C.D.Gelatt Jr., M.P.Vecchi
Science Vol. 220 No. 4598 (13th May 1983).

...in addition to those recommended by Jonathan Marshall.

Personally I regard this type of machine learning as something of a holy grail.
In my opinion (and I stress that it IS my own opinion) this is THE way to
get machines that are both massively parallel and capable of complex tasks
without having a programmer who understands the in's and out's of the task
to be accomplished and who is prepared to spend the time to hand code (or
design) the machine necessary to do it. The only reservation I have is whether
or not the basic theory behind Boltzmann machines is good enough.

                        Paul.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri 7 Nov 86 12:30:49-MST
-FROM-
From: Sue Tabron <TABRON@SIMTEL20.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: expert systems for performance analysis/tuning?
-BODY-

I am interested in finding public domain or commercial expert systems
that can be used to analyze and tune the performance of computer
systems.  I would like to hear from anyone with experience in this
area or who is developing these applications..

                        Mott Given   <tabron@simtel20>
                        (614)238-9431

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 6 Nov 86 17:51:11 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael
     Sellers)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: choosing grad schools
-BODY-
[Note:  This is a new subject.  The words "Turing", "Searle", "ducks",
and "categories" do not appear in this posting...okay, so I lied :-)]

  There was a little discussion some time ago regarding grad programs
in cognitive science.  Well, its that time of year when I begin to
dream about selling the house and going for the old P, h, & D.  So:  For
those of you who are in doctrate programs (or master's programs, too)
in cognitive science, how did you choose the program you're in?  What
do you like/dislike about it?  What are your employment prospects when
you're done?  What sorts of things drove your decision of what school
to go to?  What is your personal situation (single/married x number of
kids, x years work experience, etc)?  What I'm hoping to get is an idea
of what the various programs are like from the inside; I can get all the
propoganda I can stomach from various admissions offices.
  Thanks for your help.  Post or e-mail as you want; if there is a lot
of mail I'll summarize and post it.
>-
                           Mike Sellers
     UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes

    "In a quiet moment, you can just hear them brain cells a-dyin'"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 86 15:34:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: sdics!norman@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Donald A. Norman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: choosing grad schools
-BODY-
(Weird that so many Cognitive Science issues end up in the Cognitive
Engineering and AI newsgroups.  Cog-Eng was originally human-computer
interaction (the engineering, applied side of studies of cognition).
As for AI, well, the part that deals with the understanding and
simulation of thought is a subset of Cognitive Science, so it
belongs.)

Grad schools in Cognitive Science.  I would ike to hear a summary
(from knowledgable folks) of what exists.  Here is what I know.

There are NO departments of Cognitive Science.

I know of only three places that offer degrees that have the phrase
"Cognitive Science" in them (and 3 more that might, but I am not
sure).  The three I know of are Brwon, MIT, and UC San Diego (UCSD).
The three I am not sure about are Rochester, SUNY Buffalo, and UC,
Berkeley (UCB).

Brown has a department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science.  MIT has
a department of Brain and Cognitive Science.  UCSD has a "program in
Cognitive Science" that offers a degree that reads "PhD in X and
Cogntive Science", where X is one of the particpating departments
(Anthropology, Computer Science, Linguistics, Music, Neuroscience,
Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology)

Rochester, SUNY Buffalo, and UCB have programs that might also offer
some sort of degree, but I am not certain.  Many other places have
research programs in Cognitive Science, but as far as I know, no
degree program.

The UCSD program, for example, does not admit students directly into
the program (we can't: we are not a department).  Students apply to
and are admitted into one of the coperating departments.  At the end
of the first year of stuidy, they apply to and enter the joint program
with Cog Sci.  At the end, the degree reads "PhD in X and Cognitive
Science."

There is a major debate in the Cognitive Science community over
whether or it is is premature to offer PhDs in Cognitive Science.
There are no departments yet (so no jobs in academia) and most
industry has not heard of the concept.  (There are some exceptions in
industry, mostly the major research labs (Xerox PARC, IBM, MCC, Bell
Labs, Bellcore).

UCSD is considering starting a department.  The Dean is establishing a
high powered committee to look over the program and make
recommendations.  It would take from 2 to 5 years to get a department.
(Establishing a new department in a new field is a major undertaking.
And it requires approval of umpteen campus committees, umpteen
state-wide committees, a state overseeing body for higher education in
general, the regents, and probably the US senate.)

I would appreciate hearing updates from people associated with other
programs/departments/groups in Cognitive Science.


Donald A. Norman
Institute for Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
norman@nprdc.arpa       norman@ics.ucsd.EDU

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 6 Nov 1986  10:17:14
-FROM-
From: ether.allegra%btl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
-SUBJECT-
Subject: non-monotonic reasoning
-BODY-

John Nagle, in a recent posting, writes:
>         Non-monotonic reasoning is an attempt to make reasoning systems
>  less brittle, by containing the damage that can be caused by
>  contradiction in the axioms.  The rules of inference of non-monotonic
>  reasoning systems are weaker than those of traditional logic.

Most nonmonotonic reasoning formalisms I know of (default logic,
autoepistemic logic, circumscription, NML I and II, ...) incorporate
a first-order logic as a subset.  Their rules of inference are thus
*stronger* than traditional logics'.  I think Nagle is thinking of
Relevance Logic (see Anderson & Belnap), which does make an effort
to contain the effects of contradiction by weakening the inference
rules (avoiding the paradoxes of implication).

As for truth-maintenance systems, contrary to Nagle and popular
mythology, these systems typically do *not* avoid contradictions
per se.  What they *do* do is prevent one from 'believing' all
of a set of facts explicitly marked as contradictory by the
system using the TMS.  These systems don't usually have any
deductive power at all, they are merely constraint satisfaction
devices.


David W. Etherington
AT&T Bell Laboratories
600 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-2070
ether%allegra@btl.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 86 23:06:28 GMT
-FROM-
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Ed Post)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Canonical list of sentient computer novels
-BODY-
> Xref: lewey net.sf-lovers:5135 net.ai:549
>
>
>
>       I am trying to compile a canonical list of SF *novels* dealing with (1)
> sentient computers, and (2) human mental access to computers or computer
> networks.....

Some of the classics:

        RUR (Rossum's Universal Robots), Carel Capek(?)
        Asimov's entire robot series
        When Harlie was One, David Gerrold
        The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert Heinlein
        Colossus (sp?), The Forbin Project
>-
Ed Post   {hplabs,voder,pyramid}!lewey!evp
American Information Technology
10201 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014
(408)252-8713

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 09:40 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI in Literature
-BODY-

AIList used to include frequent notes about how AI was being presented in
literature, movies and TV shows.  I just ran across a new wrinkle.

My daughter recently bought several paperbacks published by New American
Library (Signet) in a series called "The AI Gang".  Here is the text from
the jacket of the first book in the series, "Operation Sherlock":

   "Five whiz kids who call themselves the AI gang -- for Artificial
   Intelligence -- accompany their scientist parents to a small secluded
   island.  While their parents are teaching a secret computer to think for
   itself, the kids try their hand at programming a sleuthing computer named
   Sherlock.  They soon discover that there is an evil spy out to destroy their
   parents' project.  When three of the gang are almost killed in an explosion,
   the kids and their specially developed crime computer must race against time
   to reveal the spy's identity ... before all of them are blown to smithereens
   ..."

My daughter thought all of the books in the series were pretty good, btw.

Tim

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
258
-DATE-
Date: 5 NOV 86 20:37-EST
-FROM-
From: PJURKAT%SITVXA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: SPRING RESEARCH SEMINAR AT STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
-BODY-
In association with two other faculty members of the Department of Management,
I plan to offer a semester long research seminar, in the Spring 1987 semester,
entitled

REPRESENTATION OF UNCERTAINTY AND BELIEF IN EXPERT SYSTEMS

To be covered are representations based on Bayesian theory, statistical
inference and sampling distributions, discriminant functions, Schafer's theory
of evidence, and fuzzy set theory.  Participants will be asked to concentrate
on finding and testing evidence which supports (or not) any of these theories
as actually being related to the way experts deal with uncertainty and belief.

The other faculty will review the representation work of cognitive science and
experimental psychology.

This note is to ask readers to pass on any recent work in these areas,
particulary any experimental evidence on the actual workings of experts.
We have the Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky book "Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases", published in 1982.

I will post any interesting ideas and work that comes out of the seminar.

Thank you for your consideration.  Peter Jurkat (pjurkat@sitvxa)

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed 5 Nov 86 15:50:40-EST
-FROM-
From: Rosemary B. Hegg <ROSIE@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Is Probability Adequate? (MIT)
-BODY-
                   UNCERTAINTY SEMINAR ON MONDAY

                    Date:  Monday, November 10, 1986
                      Time:  3.45 pm...Refreshments
                             4.00 pm...Lecture
                           Place: NE43-512A

                    UNCERTAINTY IN AI:
 IS PROBABILITY EPISTEMOLOGICALLY AND HEURISTICALLY ADEQUATE?

                       MAX HENRION
                     Carnegie Mellon


New schemes for representing uncertainty continue to
proliferate, and the debate about their relative merits seems to
be heating up.  I shall examine several criteria for comparing
probabilistic representations to the alternatives.   I shall
argue that criticisms of the epistemological adequacy of
probability have been misplaced.  Indeed there are several
important kinds of inference under uncertainty which are
produced naturally from coherent probabilistic schemes, but are
hard or impossible for alternatives.  These include combining
dependent evidence, integrating diagnostic and predictive
reasoning, and "explaining away" symptoms.  Encoding uncertain
knowledge in predictive or causal form, as in Bayes' Networks,
has important advantages over the currently more popular
diagnostic rules, as used in Mycin-like systems, which confound
knowledge about the domain and about inference methods.
Suggestions that artificial systems should try to simulate human
inference strategies, with all their documented biases and
errors, seem ill-advised.  There is increasing evidence that
popular non-probabilistic schemes, including Mycin Certainty
Factors and Fuzzy Set Theory, perform quite poorly under some
circumstances.  Even if one accepts the superiority of
probability on epistemological grounds, the question of its
heuristic adequacy remains.  Recent work by Judea Pearl and
myself  uses stochastic simulation and probabilistic logic for
propagating uncertainties through multiply connected Bayes'
networks. This aims to produce probabilistic schemes that are
both general and computationally tractable.

HOST:  PROF. PETER SZOLOVITS

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 86 10:19:35 PST
-FROM-
From: IBM Almaden Research Center Calendar <CALENDAR@IBM.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Uncertain Data Management (IBM)
-BODY-

                     IBM Almaden Research Center
                           650 Harry Road
                       San Jose, CA 95120-6099


UNCERTAIN DATA MANAGEMENT
L. A. Zadeh, Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley

Computer Science Sem.    Wed., Nov. 12    10:00 A.M.    Room:  Rear Audit.

The issue of data uncertainty has not received much attention in the
literature of database management even though the information resident
in a database is frequently incomplete, imprecise or not totally
reliable.  Classical probability-based methods are of limited
effectiveness in dealing with data uncertainty, largely because the
needed joint probabilities are not known.  Among the approaches which
are more effective are (a) support logic programming which is
Prolog-based, and (b) probabilistic logic.  In our approach,
uncertainty is modeled by (a) allowing the entries in a table to be
set-values or, more generally, to be characterized as possibility
distributions, and (b) interpreting a column as a source of evidence
which may be fused with other columns.  This model is closely related
to the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and provides a conceptually
simple method for dealing with some of the important types of
uncertainty.  In its full generality, the problem of uncertain data
management is quite complex and far from solution at this juncture.
Host:  S. P. Ghosh

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Qualitative Reasoning about Mechanisms (SMU)
-BODY-
Dr. Benjamin Kuipers, Qualitative Reasoning About Mechanisms
10:00 AM, Friday, 7 November 1986

The first generation of diagnostic expert system is based on a simple
model of knowledge: weighted links between observations and diagnoses.
Experience with these systems has revealed a number of limitations in
their performance due to the fact that they do not understand the
mechanism by which a particular fault causes the associated
observations.  Recently developed methods for qualitative reasoning
about these underlying mechanisms show promise of being able to extend
the understanding, and hence the power, of diagnostic systems.  The
fundamental inference in qualitative reasoning derives the behavior of
a mechanism from a description of its structure.  Since both structure
and behavior are represented in qualitative terms, this is essentially
a qualitative abstraction of differential equations.  I will derive in
detail the QSIM approach to qualitative reasoning, and demonstrate a
medical example in which QSIM predicts the behavior of a healthy
mechanism, the "broken" mechanism corresponding to a particular
disease, and the response of that broken mechanism to therapy.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Diagnostic Systems (SMU)
-BODY-
Dr. William P. C. Ho
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Southern Methodist University

IEEE Computer Society Meeting, October 23, 1986

Diagnosis is the process of determining the cause (set of one or more
physical component faults - "hypothesis" give the effect (set of one
or more behavior deviations - "signature"), for a given mechanism.
Ambiguity in interpreting fault signatures is the diagnosis problem.
I am developing an approach for functional diagnosis of multiple
component faults in mechanisms based on the "constraint satisfaction"
paradigm (as opposed to "heuristic search" of "hypothesize and test").
Component faults and behavior deviations are both represented
qualitatively by a set of 5 possible state values.  Diagnostic
reasoning is performed with these representations based on an effect
calculus which combines more than one single fault effect into one
single multiple fault effect quickly, without simulation.  Diagnostic
reasoning, encapsulated in a set of logical inference rules, is used
to generate constraints, as implications of observed effects, which
prune away subspaces of inconsistent hypotheses.  The result is a
complete set of consistent hypotheses which can explain all of the
observed effects.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 86 14:00:17 EST
-FROM-
From: Tom Fawcett <FAWCETT@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Programming Descriptive Analogies by Example
-BODY-           (Rutgers)

On Tuesday November 25th, Henry Lieberman of MIT will speak on
"Programming Descriptive Analogies by Example".  The abstract follows.
(The exact time will be decided later - it will probably be
10 AM in Hill-250.)

                Programming Descriptive Analogies By Example

                              Henry Lieberman
                     Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
                   Massachusetts Institute of Technology


This paper describes a system for "programming by analogy", called Likewise.
Using this new approach to interactive knowledge acquisition, a programmer
presents specific examples and points out which aspects of the examples are
"slippable" to more general situations.  The system constructs a general
rule which can then be applied to "analogous" examples.  Given a new
example, the system can then construct an analogy with the old example by
trying to instantiate new descriptions which correspond to the descriptions
constructed for the first example.  If a new example doesn't fit an old
concept exactly, a concept can be generalized or specialized incrementally
to make the analogy go through.  Midway between "programming by example" and
inductive inference programs, Likewise attacks the more modest goal of being
able to communicate to the computer an analogy which is already understood
by a person.  Its operation on a typical concept learning task is presented
in detail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 9 Nov 86 15:44:30 EST
-FROM-
From: Smadar <KEDAR-CABELLI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Explicit Contextual Knowledge in Learning (Rutgers)
-BODY-
Reminder:   Dissertation Defense for Rich Keller
Time and Place: Thursday, Nov. 13, 1:30 p.m., Hill 423

Committee:  Tom Mitchell (chair)
            Thorne McCarty
            Lou Steinberg
            Jack Mostow

Abstract:

             The Role of Explicit Contextual Knowledge in
               Learning Concepts to Improve Performance

                          Richard M. Keller
                       (KELLER@RED.RUTGERS.EDU)


    This  dissertation  addresses some of the difficulties encountered
when using artificial intelligence-based, inductive  concept  learning
methods  to  improve an existing system's performance.  The underlying
problem is that inductive methods are insensitive to  changes  in  the
system  being  improved by learning.  This insensitivity is due to the
manner in which contextual knowledge is represented  in  an  inductive
system.   Contextual knowledge consists of knowledge about the context
in which concept learning takes place, including knowledge  about  the
desired form and content of concept descriptions to be learned (target
concept knowledge), and knowledge about the system to be  improved  by
learning  and  the  type  of  improvement  desired (performance system
knowledge).    A  considerable  amount  of  contextual  knowledge   is
"compiled" by an inductive system's designers into its data structures
and procedures.  Unfortunately, in this compiled form, it is difficult
for  the  learning  system  to  modify  its  contextual  knowledge  to
accommodate changes in the learning context over time.

    This research investigates the  advantages  of  making  contextual
knowledge  explicit  in a concept learning system by representing that
knowledge directly, in terms of express declarative structures.    The
thesis  of this research is that aside from facilitating adaptation to
change, explicit contextual knowledge  is  useful  in  addressing  two
additional  problems  with  inductive systems.  First, most  inductive
systems are unable to learn  approximate  concept  descriptions,  even
when approximation is necessary or desirable  to improve  performance.
Second, the capability of  a  learning  system  to  generate  its  own
concept  learning  tasks  appears  to  be outside the scope of current
inductive systems.

    To investigate the thesis, this study  introduces  an  alternative
concept learning framework -- the concept operationalization framework
>- that requires various types of  contextual  knowledge  as  explicit
inputs.    To  test  this new framework, an existing inductive concept
learning system (the LEX system [Mitchell et al. 81]) was rewritten as
a  concept  operationalization  system  (the  MetaLEX  system).   This
dissertation  describes the design of MetaLEX and reports  results  of
several experiments performed to test the system.  Results confirm the
utility  of  explicit  contextual  knowledge,  and  suggest   possible
improvements in the representations and methods used by the system.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1986  21:08 EST
-FROM-
From: JHC%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Verification in Model-Based Recognition (MIT)
-BODY-

       THE USE OF VERIFICATION IN MODEL-BASED RECOGNITION

                  David Clemens, MIT AI Lab

The recognition of objects in images involves a gigantic and complex
search through a library of models.  Even for a single model, the
correspondence between parts of the model and parts of the image can
be difficult, especially if parts of the object may be occluded in the
image.  Verification is a general search strategy which can reduce the
amount of processing required to find the best image/model match, but
it cannot guarantee that the best match has been found.  Verification
is the Test phase of the familiar Hypothesize and Test paradigm, and
is commonly used in the last stages of recognition to weed out final
hypotheses.  However, the concept can be applied more generally and
used to drive the recognition process at much earlier stages.  Also
called "hypothesis-driven" recognition, this approach allows a more
focused search for evidence to support, invalidate, or modify a
hypothesis, thus decreasing the amount of data processed and improving
the accuracy of the interpretation.  Unfortunately, it requires a
commitment to a finite set of initial hypotheses which must include an
early version of correct hypotheses.  Thus, there are trade-offs
between hypothesis-driven modules and "data-driven" modules, which
simply process all data uniformly without committing to early
hypotheses.  Several recognition systems will be discussed in this
context, demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of the two basic
approaches applied to visual object recognition.

Thursday, November 13, 4pm
NE43 8th floor playroom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 10 Nov 86  1108 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Formalizing the Notion of Context (SU)
-BODY-
           Commonsense and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Seminar


                FORMALIZING THE NOTION OF CONTEXT

                        John McCarthy

                   Thursday, November 13, 4pm
                           MJH 252


        Getting a general database of common sense knowledge and
expressing it in logic requires formalizing the notion of context.
Since no context is absolutely general, any context must be elaboration
tolerant and we discuss this notion.  Another formalism that seems
useful involves entering and leaving contexts; this is a generalization
of natural deduction.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 10:57:39 pst
-FROM-
From: bcsaic!john@june.cs.washington.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Conference - 2nd Knowledge Acquisition Workshop
-BODY-

                           Call for Participation:
        2ND KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION FOR KNOWLEDGE-BASED SYSTEMS WORKSHOP

                              Sponsored by the:
           AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AAAI)

                                Banff, Canada
                             October 19-23, 1987

A problem in the process of  building  knowledge-based  systems  is  acquiring
appropriate  problem  solving knowledge.  The objective of this workshop is to
assemble theoreticians and practitioners of AI  who  recognize  the  need  for
developing systems that assist the knowledge acquisition process.

To encourage vigorous interaction and exchange of ideas the workshop  will  be
kept  small  -  about 40 participants.  There will be individual presentations
and ample time for technical discussions.  An attempt will be made  to  define
the  state-of-the-art  and  the  future  research  needs.   Attendance will be
limited to those presenting their work, one author per paper.

Papers are invited for consideration in all aspects of  knowledge  acquisition
for knowledge-based systems, including (but not restricted to)

      o  Transfer of expertise - systems that obtain knowledge from experts.
      o  Transfer of expertise -  manual  knowledge  acquisition  methods  and
         techniques.
      o  Apprenticeship learning systems.
      o  Issues  in  cognition  and  expertise  that  affect   the   knowledge
         acquisition process.
      o  Induction of knowledge from examples.
      o  Knowledge acquisition methodology and training.

Five copies of an abstract (up to 8 pages) or a full-length paper  (up  to  20
pages) should be sent to John Boose before April 15, 1987.  Acceptance notices
will be mailed by June 15.  Full papers (20 pages) should be returned  to  the
chairman  by  September  15,  1987,  so  that  they  may be bound together for
distribution at the workshop.

Ideal abstracts and papers will make pragmatic  or  theoretical  contributions
supported  by  a  computer  implementation,  and  explain  them clearly in the
context of existing knowledge  acquisition  literature.   Variations  will  be
considered  if  they  make  a  clear  contribution  to the field (for example,
comparative analyses, major implementations or extensions, or  other  analyses
of existing techniques).

                        Workshop Co-chairmen:

Send papers via US mail to:
John Boose                              Brian Gaines
Advanced Technology Center              Department of Computer Science
Boeing Computer Services                University of Calgary
PO Box 24346                            2500 University Dr. NW
Seattle, Washington, USA  98124         Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

Send papers via express mail to:
John Boose
Advanced Technology Center
Boeing Computer Services, Bldg. 33.07
2760 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, Washington, USA  98008


                Program and Local Arrangements Committee:

                Jeffrey Bradshaw, Boeing Computer Services
                B. Chandrasekaran, Ohio State University
                Catherine Kitto, Boeing Computer Services
                Sandra Marcus, Boeing Computer Services
                John McDermott, Carnegie-Mellon University
                Ryszard Michalski, University of Illinois
                Mildred Shaw, University of Calgary

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
259
-DATE-
Date: Tue 11 Nov 86 09:18:24-PST
-FROM-
From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-STRIPE.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: AIList-Request@SRI-AI.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Splitting the List
-BODY-
I recently received this request from an AIList reader:

  If there is a way to -just- get the seminar announcements periodically
  distributed to AIList, then I would like to be placed in that category.
  If this is not possible, then I wish to be removed from AIList completely.

I have previously suggested that seminar and conference notices should be
split out as a separate list (at least as long as other traffic remains
so high), but no one has stepped forward to do the remailing.  I haven't
the energy to maintain two distribution lists.  Volunteers are welcome.

I'm sure there is still plenty of interest in other list topics.  The
NL-KR@Rochester list is doing fine, forwarding a great many natural-language
messages that would not have appeared in AIList.  IRList%VPI.CSNet has
likewise been successful with information-retrieval topics.  AI-Ed@SUMEX
is alive and well.  So is the Prolog Digest, which predates AIList.

One reason for splitting the AIList is to reduce Arpanet traffic, which has
been rather high lately, and to reduce costs for those who have to pay
for the transmissions.  Another is to reduce the difficulty for the next
AIList moderator if I have to drop out.  The best reason, though, is to
boost discussion of the topics that most interest you.

                                        -- Ken Laws

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 7 Nov 86 20:57:17 GMT
-FROM-
From: gknight@ngp.utexas.edu  (Gary Knight)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Canonical list of sentient computer novels
-BODY-

      Clarification of earlier posting, which is repeated below:

      1)  No robot novels, please; just non-ambulatory computers; and
      2)  No short works, just novels.

>--

      I am trying to compile a canonical list of SF *novels* dealing with (1)
sentient computers, and (2) human mental access to computers or computer
networks.  Examples of the two categories (and my particular favorites as well)
are:

      A) SENTIENT COMPUTERS

           The Adolescence of P-1, by Thomas J. Ryan
           Valentina: Soul in Sapphire, by Joseph H. Delaney and Marc Stiegler
           Cybernetic Samurai, by (I forget)
           Coils, by Roger Zelazny

      B) HUMAN ACCESS

           True Names, by Vernor Vinge
           Neuromancer and Count Zero, by William Gibson

      Please send your lists to me by e-mail
 and I'll compile and post the ultimate canonical version.


>-
Gary Knight, 3604 Pinnacle Road, Austin, TX  78746  (512/328-2480).
Biopsychology Program, Univ. of Texas at Austin.  "There is nothing better
in life than to have a goal and be working toward it." -- Goethe.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 86 00:38:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: u1100a!toh@bellcore.com  (Tom O. Huleatt)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Request for knowledge base portability info
-BODY-
[Sorry if you see this twice -- postnews gagged on comp.ai, so I resubmitted.]

Does anyone out there have experience with (or knowledge of)
Knowledge Base portability issues?

We have been using a home-grown rule-based system, and we
are concerned about protecting our knowledge engineering
investment as we move to other (more versatile) expert
system shells.  (These new systems will probably be rule-based,
too.)

I only have experience with our current system, so I'm not sure
how much work is required to port one of our knowledge bases.
I'd also be interested to hear any tips about what we could be
doing with our knowledge bases now to increase their portability.

Please send me email with suggestions (or pointers to ref. material).

Thank you,      Tom Huleatt     [bellcore, ihnp4, pyuxww, allegra]!u1100a!toh
                Bell Communications Research
                Piscataway, NJ   08854          (201) 699-4506

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 18:41:39 PST
-FROM-
From: Tom Dietterich <tgd%oregon-state.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Non-monotonic reasoning and truth maintenance systems
-BODY-

"These systems don't usually have any deductive power at all,
they are merely constraint satisfaction devices."
     --David Etherington

I am confused by this last sentence.  Isn't constraint satisfaction
a kind of inference?  deKleer's ATMS and McAllester's RUP handle
large portions (maybe all?) of propositional logic.

>-Tom Dietterich
Department of Computer Science
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
tgd%oregon-state.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 09:36:46 GMT
-FROM-
From: Tony Conway <tc%vax-d.rutherford.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Robotic Snooker
-BODY-
In article <861020-061334-1337@Xerox> MJackson.Wbst@XEROX.COM writes:
>
>Over the weekend I caught part of a brief report on this on Cable News
>Headlines.  They showed a large robot arm making a number of impressive
>shots, and indicated that the software did shot selection as well.
>Apparently this work was done somewhere in Great Britain.  Can someone
>provide more detail?
>
>Mark


Think that work was probably project by Richard Gregory (Brain & Perception
Laboratory, Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England)
in conjunction with people in School of Engineering, Information Technology
Research Centre, University of Bristol.
Not sure if it has been written up anywhere yet.

Richard Gregory is also active in starting up an interactive science
centre (Bristol Exploratory): loosely based on the San Francisco
Exploratorium.

Cheers - 'Tony Conway ( @ucl-cs.arpa:tc@vd.rl.ac.uk )
         Informatics, SERC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
         Chilton, Didcot, Oxon. OX11 0QX, England.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 13:03:12 PST
-FROM-
From: franz!fray!cox@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Charles A. Cox)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Franz Object-Oriented Packages
-BODY-
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 13:08:28 EST
> From: weltyc%cieunix@CSV.RPI.EDU (Christopher A. Welty)
> Subject: Looking for Franz OO packages
>
>         I am looking for information on Object Oriented extensions to
> Franz Lisp.  I know that someone (U of Maryland?) came out with a flavors
> package for Franz, if someone can point me in the right direction there
> it would be appreciated, as well as any info on other packages...

Franz Inc. has a symbolics-compatible flavors package included in its
versions of Franz Lisp (after Opus 42.0).

I don't know much about the U of Maryland's system, but I believe they
ship an entire Franz Lisp system (Opus 38) which includes their flavors
package.  The contact used to be Liz Allen (liz@tove.umd.edu).

Other extensions to UC Berkeley's Franz Lisp put in by Franz Inc.
include a common lisp compatible package system, multiple value returns,
keywords, and hash tables.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 10 Nov 86 14:57:20-PST
-FROM-
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: TCP from Xerox to UNIX System V
-BODY-
        The TCP/IP package for Interlisp-D works for the most part, but
usually requires a bit of fiddling to make work with any particular partner.
        Telnet generally works quite well with almost any host.  I've used it
to talk to unix 4.2, 4.3, System V, TOPS-20, and LispM telnet servers.
        FTP is a bit tricker and I usually have to run with the
FTPDEBUG window on to figure out what to do.  Logical pathname
transformations are sometimes non-obvious and not all servers support
the same set of commands.  Since you ask about System V, I'll note
that I've tested FTP against our Silicon Graphics Iris (System V,
Excellan ethernet board) and found it to work OK.
        I don't use any TCPFTP server regularly, so I'm not the ideal
reviewer.  For nitty-gritty workstation questions, I recommend
querying one of the workstation mailing lists rather than AIList.  Eg.
Bug-1100@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.edu for Xerox d-machines (of which I am the
moderator) SLUG@R20.UTexas.edu for Symbolics machines, or WorkS@Rutgers
for workstations without their own mailing lists.
>-Christopher

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 14:54:26 EST
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Mathematics and humanity
-BODY-
In <8611050753.AA24198@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, WADLISP7@CARLETON.BITNET writes:

> The inhumanity of *most* mathematics? I would think that from the rest of
> your message, what you would really claim is the inhumanity of *all*
> mathematics -- for *all* of mathematics is entirely deviod of the questions
> of what is morally right or morally wrong, entirely missing all matters of
> human relationships. Mathematical theorems start by listing the assumptions,
> and then indicating how those assumptions imply a result.

This is the specialized mathematician's view of mathematics.  The point is
obviously sound, because mathematicians study mathematics as a thing apart.
On the other hand, the mathematics that a herdsman uses to count sheep be-
longs to the herdsman's life.  It's not formally axiomatized, but it
is human, because it is bound up with the natural human activity of
growing food.

To reinforce the point, many unlettered herdsmen have special numbers
that they use _only_ for counting sheep.  One can feel that to use
those numbers for counting other things would be to endow those things
with an inappropriate character of sheepliness.  Modern mathematics
rests on ignoring such "human" distinctions.  The equals sign is the
sine qua non of abstract mathematics--but it does not exist in human
lives.

The cry of "art for art's sake" produced generations of starving artists.
What can we foresee from "math for math's sake?"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 21:35:59 EST
-FROM-
From: "Col. G. L. Sicherman" <colonel%buffalo.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Why train machines
-BODY-
In article <861027-093832-2927@Xerox>, Ghenis.pasa@XEROX.COM writes:
>
> Why do we record music instead of teaching everyone how to sing? To
> preserve what we consider top performance and make it easily available
> for others to enjoy, even if the performer himself cannot be present and
> others are not inclined to or capable of duplicating his work, but
> simply wish to benefit from it.

While I appreciate the point, it raises more questions....

1. Why do we preserve top "performance?" The process of recording music
   redefines it as something perfectly repeatable--an effect that began
   with the invention of musical notation; jazz, and afterwards composers
   like Cage, tried to overturn this definition.  But "performance" is also a
   social phenomenon, as it distinguishes between producers and consumers.
   The consequence of specialization is to retard progress by leaving the
   production of music to relatively few people.

2. Has not recorded music become a separate medium in its own right?
   Even a "faithful" recording involves a lot of electronic klugery.
   Most popular recordings no longer sound like, or can be performed as,
   live music.

The second point has implications for A.I.!  If you had a robot slave,
how would you treat it?  What would you become?

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1986  13:38 EST
-FROM-
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
[I posted a message from AILIST on ARMS-D, and got back this reply.]

Date: Saturday, 8 November 1986  12:55-EST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To:   Arms-Discussion
Re:   Professionals and Social Responsibility for the Arms Race

> ... This year, Dr. Weizenbaum of MIT was the chosen speaker...
> The important points of the second talk can be summarized as :
>    1) not all problems can be reduced to computation, for
>       example how could you conceive of coding the human
>       emotion loneliness.

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but it should be pointed
out that this is debatable.  Coding the emotion of loneliness is difficult
to conceive of at least in part because we don't have a precise definition
of what the "emotion of loneliness" is.  Define it in terms of observable
behavior, and the observable behavior can most certainly be coded.

>   2) AI will never duplicate or replace human intelligence
>      since every organism is a function of its history.

This just says that we can't exactly duplicate (say) human intelligence
without duplicating the history as well.  The impossibility of exact
duplication has nothing to do with inability to duplicate the important
characteristics.  It's impossible to duplicate Dr. Weizenbaum too, but
if he were to die, I presume MIT *would* replace him.  I think Dr. W. is
on very thin ice here.

>    5) technical education that neglects language, culture,
>       and history, may need to be rethought.

Just to play devil's advocate, it would also be worthwhile to rethink
non-technical education that covers language, culture, and history while
completely neglecting the technological basis of our civilization.

>    8) every researcher should assess the possible end use of
>       their own research, and if they are not morally comfortable
>       with this end use, they should stop their research...
>       He specifically referred to research in machine vision, which he
>       felt would be used directly and immediately by the military for
>       improving their killing machines...

I'm afraid this is muddy thinking again.  *All* technology has military
applications.  Mass-production of penicillin, a development of massive
humanitarian significance, came about because of massive military funding
in World War II, funding justified by the tremendous military significance
of effective antibiotics.  (WW2 was the first major war in which casualties
from disease were fewer in number than those from bullets etc.)  It's hard
to conceive of a field of research which doesn't have some kind of military
application.

                                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                                {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
260
-DATE-
Date: 11 Nov 86 17:51:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@k.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - A Robust Approach to Plan Recognition (CMU)
-BODY-
This week's speaker is Craig Knoblock. Usual time and place, 3:15 in
7220.

Title: A Robust Approach to Plan Recognition

Abstract:
Plan recognition is the process of inferring an agent's plans and goals from
his actions.  Most of the previous work on plan recognition has approached
this problem by first hypothesizing a single goal and then attempting to
match the actions with a plan for achieving that goal.  Unfortuantely, there
are some types of problems where focusing on a single hypothesis will
mislead the system.  I will present an architecture for plan recognition
that does not require the system to choose a single goal, but allows several
hypotheses to be considered simultaneously.  This architecture uses an
assumption-based truth maintenance system to maintain both the observed
actions and the predictions about the agent's plans and goals.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 00:16 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Object-Oriented DBMSs (UPenn)
-BODY-

                               DBIG Meeting
                        10:30 Friday November 14th
                             554 Moore School
                        University of Pennsylvania


             DEVELOPMENT OF AN OBJECT-ORIENTED DBMS

                         David Maier
                   Oregon Graduate Center
                           and
                Servio Logic Development Corp

GemStone is an object-oriented database server developed by Servio Logic
that supports a model of objects similar to that of Smalltalk.  GemStone
provides complex objects with sharing and identity, specification of
behavioral aspects of objects, and an extensible data model.  Those features
came with the choice of Smalltalk as a starting point for the data model and
its programming language, OPAL.  However, Smalltalk is a single-user,
memory-based system, and requires significant modifications to provide a
multi-user, disk-based system with support for associative queries objects
of arbitrary size.

This presentation begins with a summary of the requirements for a database
system to support applications such as CAD, office automation and knowledge
bases.  I next introduce the Smalltalk language and its data model, showing
how they satisfy some of the requirements, and indicating which remain to be
satisfied.  I will outline the approach Servio took on the remaining
requirements, describing the techniques used for storage management,
concurrency, recovery, name spaces and associative access, as time permits.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 23:12 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - The Capacity of Neural Networks (UPenn)
-BODY-

                              CIS Colloquium
                        University of Pennsylvania
                          3pm Tuesday November 18
                             216 Moore School

                      THE CAPACITY OF NEURAL NETWORKS

                            Santosh S. Venkatesh
                         University of Pennsylvania


Analogies with biological models of brain functioning have led to fruitful
mathematical models of neural networks for information processing. Models of
learning and associative recall based on such networks illustrate how
powerful distributed computational properties become evident as collective
consequence of the interaction of a large number of simple processing
elements (the neurons).  A particularly simple model of neural network
comprised of densely interconnected McCulloch-Pitts neurons is utilized in
this presentation to illustrate the capabilities of such structures.  It is
demonstrated that while these simple constructs form a complete base for
Boolean functions, the most cost-efficient utilization of these networks
lies in their subversion to a class of problems of high algorithmic
complexity. Specializing to the particular case of associative memory,
efficient algorithms are demonstrated for the storage of memories as stable
entities, or gestalts, and their retrieval from any significant subpart.
Formal estimates of the essential capacities of these schemes are shown. The
ultimate capability of such structures, independent of algorithmic
approaches, is characterized in a rigourous result.  Extensions to more
powerful computational neural network structures are indicated.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 November 1986 1257-EST
-FROM-
From: Masaru Tomita@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - BoltzCONS: Recursive Objects in a Neural Network
-BODY-           (CMU)

Time: 3:30pm
Place: WeH 5409
Date: 11/18, Tuesday

        BoltzCONS:  Representing and Transforming Recursive
                  Objects in a Neural Network

                  David S. Touretzky, CMU CSD

BoltzCONS is a neural network in which stacks and trees are implemented as
distributed activity patterns.  The name reflects the system's mixed
representational levels: it is a Boltzmann Machine in which Lisp cons cell-like
structures appear as an emergent property of a massively parallel distributed
representation.  The architecture employs three ideas from connectionist symbol
processing -- coarse coded distributed memories, pullout networks, and variable
binding spaces, that first appeared together in Touretzky and Hinton's neural
network production system interpreter.  The distributed memory is used to store
triples of symbols that encode cons cells, the building blocks of linked lists.
Stacks and trees can then be represented as list structures, and they can be
manipulated via associative retrieval.  BoltzCONS' ability to recognize shallow
energy minima as failed retrievals makes it possible to traverse binary trees
of unbounded depth nondestructively without using a control stack.  Its two
most significant features as a connectionist model are its ability to represent
structured objects, and its generative capacity, which allows it to create new
symbol structures on the fly.

A toy application for BoltzCONS is the transformation of parse trees from
active to passive voice.  An attached neural network production system contains
a set of rules for performing the transformation by issuing control signals to
BoltzCONS and exchanging symbols with it.  Working together, the two networks
are able to cooperatively transform ``John kissed Mary'' into ``Mary was kissed
by John.''

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 14 Nov 86 10:16:55 EST
-FROM-
From: Jeffrey.Bonar@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Insight in Human Problem Solving (CMU)
-BODY-

        An Interdiciplinary Seminar of the Computer Science Department
               and the Learning Research and Development Center
                            UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

                    AN INFORMATION PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE
                  TO EXPLAIN INSIGHT IN HUMAN PROBLEM SOLVING

                                STELLAN OHLSSON

                 10:00 AM TO 11:00, FRIDAY, JANUARY 9TH, 1987
                         LRDC AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR

                            REFRESHMENTS FOLLOWING

    There are currently four  models  of  symbolic  computation  which  are  in
frequent   use  in  Cognitive  Science  work:  applicative  programming,  logic
programming,  rule-based  programming,  and  object  oriented   (frame   based)
programming.     Each  of  these  exhibit  some  general  properties  of  human
information processing, but neglects others.   For  example,  LISP  contains  a
model for the hiearchical structure of action, which Production Systems do not.
What is needed for the simulation of human  cognition  is  a  new  architecture
which  exhibits all of the properties which we know are characteristic of human
cognition, and which "has" them in a natural way.  An attempt at defining  such
an  architecture  will be presented.  It has grown within a specific simulation
attempt,  namely   to   understand   formally   what   happens   in   so-called
"Aha"-experiences,  moments  of  insight  during problem solving.  A theory has
been constructed which explains such events within the  information  processing
theory  of problem solving as heuristic search.  The theory is then implemented
within the architecture described.  An example of a run of the system  will  be
described.



                For more information, call Cathy Rupp 624-3950

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 13:55:23 PST
-FROM-
From: admin%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Cognitive Science
     Program)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Analogical and Deductive Reasoning (UCB)
-BODY-

                         BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM

                       Cognitive Science Seminar - IDS 237A


                        Tuesday, November 25, 11:00 - 12:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall
                              Discussion: 12:30 - 1:30
                                  2515 Tolman Hall


                        ``Analogical and Deductive Reasoning"
                                   Stuart Russell
                                  Computer Science
                                     UC Berkeley

           The first problem I will discuss is that of analogical  reason-
           ing, the inference of further similarities from known similari-
           ties. Analogy has been widely advertised as a method for apply-
           ing  past  experience  in  new  situations, but the traditional
           approach based on similarity metrics has  proved  difficult  to
           operationalize.  The  reason  for  this  seems  to  be  that it
           neglects the importance of relevance between known and inferred
           similarities.  The  need  for a logical semantics for relevance
           motivates the definition of determinations, first-order expres-
           sions  capturing the idea of relevance between generalized pro-
           perties.  Determinations are shown to justify analogical infer-
           ences  and  single-instance  generalizations, and to express an
           apparently common  form  of  knowledge  hitherto  neglected  in
           knowledge-based  systems.   Essentially, the ability to acquire
           and use determinations increases the set of inferences a system
           can  make  from  given  data.  When specific determinations are
           unavailable, a simple statistical argument can relate  similar-
           ity  to the probability that an analogical solution is correct,
           in a manner closely connected to Shepard's stimulus generaliza-
           tion  results.   The second problem, suggested by and subsuming
           the first, is to identify the ways in which existing  knowledge
           can  be  used  to  help  a  system  to learn from experience. I
           describe a simple method for enumerating the types of knowledge
           (of which determinations are but one) that contribute to learn-
           ing, so that the  monolithic  notion  of  confirmation  can  be
           teased  apart. The results find strong echoes in Goodman's work
           on induction.  The application of  a  logical,  knowledge-based
           approach to the problems of analogy and induction indicates the
           need for a system to be able to detect as many forms  of  regu-
           larity  as  possible in order to maximize its inferential capa-
           bility. The possibility that important aspects of common sense
           are captured by complex, abstract regularities suggests further
           empirical research to identify this knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 86 12:59:16 EST
-FROM-
From: BORGIDA@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Planning and Plan Recognition in Office Systems
-BODY-           (Rutgers)


Computer Science Department Colloquium

Date:           Thursday November 20
Speaker:        Professor Bruce Croft
Title:          Planning and Plan Recognition in Office Systems
Affiliation:    Department of Computer and Information Science,
                University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Time:           10:00 a.m.  [NOTE UNUSUAL TIME!!!]
Place:          Hill 705
Note:           Refreshments will be served at 9:50 a.m.


  The office environment provides an ideal testbed for systems
that attempt to represent and support complex, semi-structured
and cooperative activities. It is typical to find a variety of
constraints at different levels of abstraction on activities,
objects manipulated by activities, and people that carry out the
activities. In this talk, we will discuss the use of planning and
plan recognition techniques to support an intelligent interface
for an office system. In particular, we emphasise the use of
object-based models, and the relationship between planning and
plan execution. The types of exceptions that can occur with
underconstrained plans will be described and some suggestions
made about techniques for handling them.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 17 Nov 86  1037 PST
-FROM-
From: Vladimir Lifschitz <VAL@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Logic Programming and Circumscription (SU)
-BODY-
           Commonsense and Non-Monotonic Reasoning Seminar

             LOGIC PROGRAMMING AND CIRCUMSCRIPTION

                       Vladimir Lifschitz

                   Thursday, November 20, 4pm
                            MJH 252


The talk will be based on my paper "On the declarative semantics of
logic programs with negation". A few copies of the paper are available
in my office, MJH 362.

ABSTRACT. A logic program can be viewed as a predicate formula, and its
declarative meaning can be defined by specifying a certain Herbrand
model of that formula. For programs without negation, this model is
defined either as the Herbrand model with the minimal set of positive
ground atoms, or, equivalently, as the minimal fixed point of a certain
operator associated with the formula (Van Emden and Kowalski). These
solutions do not apply to general logic programs, because a program
with negation may have many minimal Herbrand models, and the corresponding
operator may have many minimal fixed points. Apt, Blair and Walker and,
independently, Van Gelder, introduced a class of general logic programs
which disallow certain combinations of recursion and negation, and showed
how to use the fixed point approach to define a declarative semantics for
such programs. Using the concept of circumscription, we extend the minimal
model approach to stratified programs and show that it leads to the same
semantics.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
261
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 14:25:45 est
-FROM-
From: rochester!tropix!dls@seismo.CSS.GOV (David L. Snyder )
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: tropix!dls@seismo.CSS.GOV (David L. Snyder )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: pearl AI package
-BODY-
A few questions about pearl (Package for Efficient Access to
Representations in Lisp):

Can anyone tell me what, if any, activity is going on with pearl these
days?  (Is the pearl-bugs mailing list still active?)  Has anyone used
it for non-toy problems?  Any chance it'll be ported into common
lisp?  Is there something better that superceeds it (and is in the
public domain)?

                Thanks!

P.S. Try tropix!dls@rochester as an arpa address if other alternatives fail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 13:50 ???
-FROM-
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@RELAY.CS.NET
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Contextual Knowledge and Multi-layer Learning
-BODY-
   I read with interest the abstract for Richard M. Keller's talk, "The Role
of Explicit Contextual Knowledge in Learning Concepts to Improve Performance"
(V4 #258), part of which is reproduced below:

>     This  dissertation  addresses some of the difficulties encountered
> when using artificial intelligence-based, inductive  concept  learning
> methods  to  improve an existing system's performance.  The underlying
> problem is that inductive methods are insensitive to  changes  in  the
> system  being  improved by learning.  This insensitivity is due to the
> manner in which contextual knowledge is represented  in  an  inductive
> system.   Contextual knowledge consists of knowledge about the context
> in which concept learning takes place, including knowledge  about  the
> desired form and content of concept descriptions to be learned (target
> concept knowledge), and knowledge about the system to be  improved  by
> learning  and  the  type  of  improvement  desired (performance system
> knowledge).
> ...
>     To investigate the thesis, this study  introduces  an  alternative
> concept learning framework -- the concept operationalization framework
> -- that requires various types of  contextual  knowledge  as  explicit
> inputs.
>...

Isn't this described in the literature as a two-layer learning system
(multi-layer in the general case) of which Samuel's checkers player is
one of the earliest examples? What are the differences, if any?

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
GM Research Labs

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 14:45 EST
-FROM-
From: McHale@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Logic programming in APL
-BODY-
A while ago I heard of a system (from John Hopkins, I think) that combined
logic programming with APL called APLLog.  I would appreciate any pointers
anyone could give me concerning this language.  (User comments, software
availability, underlying hardware, point of contact, etc.)

     Michael L. Mc Hale
     RADC/COES
     Griffiss AFB, NY  13441-5700

arpa%  McHale RADC-Multics

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 16:00:56 pst
-FROM-
From: Neil O'Neill <oneill@lll-tis-b.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cornell Synthesizer/Generator (Need help)
-BODY-

Does anyone have experience in running the Cornell Synthesizer/Generator?
We could use some help with it if you know how to use it.


Neil J. O'Neill
ARPA: oneill@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!oneill

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 08:01:20 -0500
-FROM-
From: sriram@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Books available for review
-BODY-
The following books are available for review for the International
Journal of AI in Engineering. If you are interested in acquiring
a copy (and review it too), send mail to sriram@athena.mit.edu with
your US mailing address. Please note that I have only single copies
and books will be handed out on a first come basis.


Machine Interpretation of Line Drawing
Kokichi Sugihara
MIT Press



Introduction to Robotics. Mechanics and control.
J. J. Craig
Addison-Wesley



Parallel Distributed Processing Vol 1
J.L. McClelland, D.E. Runelhart and the PDP research group
MIT Press

Paralell Distributed Processing Vol 2
J.L. McClelland,D.E. Runelhart and the PDP research group
MIT Press

The acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge
R.C. Berwick
MIT Press

Computational Model of Discounts
Edited by M. Brady and R. Berwick
MIT Press

Artificial Inteligence.The very Idea.
J. Haugeland
MIT Press

Systems that learn
D.N. Osherson, M. Srob and S. Weinstein
MIT Press

Robot Motion. Planning and control.
Edited by M. Brady, J.M. Hollerbach,T.KL. Johnson, T. Lozano-Pevec
MIT Press

The measurement of Visual Motion
Gllen Catherine Hildreth
MIT Press

A Geometric Investigation of Reach
J.V. Korein
MIT Press



Robot Hands and the Mechanics of Manipulation
M.T. Mason, J.K. Salisbury Jr
MIT Press

Theory and Practice of Robots and Manipulations
Edited by A. Morecks,G. Bianchi and K. Kedziar
MIT Press

Robot Manipulators.Mathematics, Programming and Control
Richard P. Paul
MIT Press

Expert Systems: Techniques, Tools and Applications
P. Khalr and D. Waterman
Addison-Wesley

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 10:06:11 est
-FROM-
From: Randy Goebel LPAIG
     <rggoebel%watdragon.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Non-monotonic reasoning and truth maintenance systems
-BODY-
> "These systems don't usually have any deductive power at all,
> they are merely constraint satisfaction devices."
>      --David Etherington
>
> I am confused by this last sentence.  Isn't constraint satisfaction
> a kind of inference?  deKleer's ATMS and McAllester's RUP handle
> large portions (maybe all?) of propositional logic.
>
> --Tom Dietterich

If one views constraint satisfaction as incremental model elimination,
then there is a kind of inference going on, e.g., the number of models
for p(X) & q(X) is reduced by adding the new constraint r(X), to get
p(X) & q(X) & r(X).  One can further see constraint satisfaction as
inference by looking at Prolog puzzle solutions, where a list of
constraints is posed as a goal, and the resolution prover must find
a satisfying substitution; there is search involved, but satisfying
substitutions are consequences of the axioms.  Perhaps the best
intuition about ``truth maintenance''-like systems is that they provide
what is necessary for efficiently locating derivation steps that relied
on assumptions.  It's probably natural that any actual implementation
blurs the distinction between the derivation maintenance and retrieval
subsystem, and the prover that actually applies the inference rules to
build derivations.

Randy Goebel

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 86 15:43:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: husc6!necntc!mirror!gabriel!inmet!sebes@eddie.mit.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Canonical list of sentient computer
-BODY-

        In the "sentient computer" class, there is Frank
        Herbert's _Destination Void_, which I recall as
        being notable not only for being a pretty good
        novel, but also for not appearing at all ridiculous
        or dated even 20-30 years after writing. In fact,
        some of the ideas mentioned are more in style now than
        then, or even a few years ago.

        --John Sebes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 86 16:03:00 GMT
-FROM-
From: husc6!necntc!mirror!gabriel!inmet!sebes@eddie.mit.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: choosing grad schools
-BODY-

        Stanford has a program along the lines of that described
        at UCSD. The participating departments are CS, linguistics,
        philosophy, and psychology. There is a list of courses
        offered in those departments that count toward a course
        requirement for a phd in 'X and Cognitive Science' (I am
        not sure that that is the wording, but it is the gist).
        In addition to whatever course work you need to do in
        your department, you must take some number of those
        approved courses, with a certain distribution between
        your dept and the other three. Depending on your dept
        and how much course work you need to do there, it could
        be quite an undertaking. Also, it is a relatively recent
        thing, and I not sure how many people are actually
        involved in it.

        I found out about it simply by calling one of the depts
        and asking if that had any cogsci organization.

        Stanford also has a well-funded research center, the
        Center for the Study of Language and Intelligence
        (or something similar that spells CSLI ("Cicely")).
        --John Sebes

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 23:22:58 PST
-FROM-
From: talmy%cogsci.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Len Talmy)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science degree programs at UC Berkeley
-BODY-
In response to Don Norman's call for information, no, UC Berkeley does
not have any degree-granting program in Cognitive Science either at the
undergraduate or at the graduate level.  So far, the most a student has
been able to do is to make use of the special institutional apparatus
for setting up a personally tailored degree program.  However, we are
now actively working on setting up a degree program at the undergraduate
level.  Even such a modest goal should take from one to two years,
after all the committees have been formed and have analyzed the proposal.
It was felt that a graduate degree program ought to be established only
after an undergraduate one was in place and after some demand for
Cognitive Science Ph.D.'s had developed.  But the "Doctorate in X and
Cognitive Science" formula is an interesting intermediate possibility,
and we'll look into it.

      Len Talmy  (coordinator, cognitive science program)
      talmy@cogsci.berkeley.edu

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 12:19:58 est
-FROM-
From: "B. Lindsay Patten" <shen5%watdcsu.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "B. Lindsay Patten"
         <shen5%watdcsu.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
In article <LIN.12253338541.BABYL@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>[I posted a message from AILIST on ARMS-D, and got back this reply.]
>From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry at ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
>Re:   Professionals and Social Responsibility for the Arms Race

[some valid objections to arguments made by Dr. Weizenbaum on problems with AI]

>>    8) every researcher should assess the possible end use of
>>       their own research, and if they are not morally comfortable
>>       with this end use, they should stop their research...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>       He specifically referred to research in machine vision, which he
>>       felt would be used directly and immediately by the military for
>>       improving their killing machines...
>
>I'm afraid this is muddy thinking again.  *All* technology has military
>applications.

[examples of good things that came out of military research]

>It's hard
>to conceive of a field of research which doesn't have some kind of military
>application.
>
>                               Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                               {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

This is by far the most common objection I've heard since Dr. Weizenbaum's
lecture and one which I think avoids the point.  Read the first three lines
of point 8 above.  The real point Dr. Weizenbaum was trying to make (in my
opinion) was that we should weigh the good and bad applications of our work
and decide which outweighs the other.  The examples that he gave were just
areas in which he personally believed the bad applications outweighed the
good.  He was very explicit that he was just presenting HIS personal opinions
on the merits of these applications.  Basically he said that if you feel
your work will do more harm than good you should find another area to work in.

My objection to his talk is that he seemed to want to weigh entire applications
against one another.  It seems to me that we should be examining the relative
impact of our research in the applications which we approve of and in those we
object to.

Lindsay Patten
|Cognitive Engineering Group                                     (519)
746-1299|
|Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Lab
lindsay@watsup|
|University of Waterloo
{decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watvlsi!watsup!lindsay|

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
262
-DATE-
Date: Fri 14 Nov 86 08:42:25-PST
-FROM-
From: AAAI <AAAI-OFFICE@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Special Invitation to Universities and Research Institutes
-BODY-
The AAAI would like to extend a special invitation to academic
institutions and non-profit research laboratories to participate in
the Exhibit Program at the Sixth National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, July 14-16, 1987 in Seattle, Washington.  It is
important to communicate what universities and laboratories are doing
and demonstrate your research efforts at the conference.
Last year we initiated this new addition was considered one
of the highlights of the 1986 conference.

AAAI will provide each institution with one 10'x10' booth free, room
to describe your demonstration in the Exhibit Guide, and assist with
your logistical arrangements.  Some direct costs are involved which
the AAAI cannot provide assistance with.  Those costs include shipping
equipment to the site, telephone lines (communication (required) or
computer), housing, and others.  We can direct interested groups to
vendors who may be able to assist with equipment needs. Last year,
many hardware vendors donated equipment for the university demonstrations
and will continue with this practice next year.

We hope you can join us in Seattle and help disseminate the latest
research results to our conference attendees.

If you or your department are interested in participating, please
contact:
        Steven Taglio
        AAAI
        445 Burgess Drive
        Menlo Park, CA   94025
        (415) 328-3123
        AAAI-Office@sumex-aim.arpa

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 22:39:02 PST
-FROM-
From: Moshe Vardi <vardi@navajo.stanford.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems
-BODY-
    THE SIXTH ACM SYMPOSIUM ON PRINCIPLES OF DATABASE SYSTEMS

                        Call for Exhibits


The Sixth ACM Symposium on Principles of  Database  Systems  will
take  place  between  March  23  and March 25, 1987, at the Bahia
Resort Hotel in San Diego.  The symposium will cover new develop-
ments  in  both theoretical and practical aspects of database and
knowledge-based systems.  Previous symposia have been attended by
researchers from both industry and academia.  For the first time,
this year the symposium will include exhibits of state-of-the-art
products  from  industry. If you have a product you would like to
exhibit, please send a brief description by  December  15,  1986,
to:
        Victor Vianu
        Local Arrangements Chairman, PODS '87
        EECS Department, MC-014
        Univ. of California at San Diego
        La Jolla, California 92093
        (619) 534-6227
        vianu@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu

Since space is limited, exhibits will be selected  based  on  the
proposals received. Your contribution would be greatly appreciat-
ed.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: AI at upcoming conferences (simulation)
-BODY-
1987 Society for Computer Simulation Multiconference 1987

Modeling and Simulation on Microcomputers

Individual Face Classification by Computer Vision
  Robert A. Campbell, Scott Cannon, Greg Jones, Neil Morgan, Utah State
  University

AI and Simulation

Preliminary Screening of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Using Personal
  Consultant Plus
  Giles G. Patry, Bruce Gall, McMaster University
The impact of embedding AI tools in a control system simulator
  Norman R. Nielson SRI International
An Expert System for the Controller
  James A. Sena, L. Murphy Smith,Texas A&M University
Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Simulation
  Pauline A. Langen, Carrier Corporation
The Expert System Applicability Question
  Louis R. Gieszi
An Intelligent Interface for Continuous System Simulation
  Wanda M. ustin The Aerospace Corporation Behrokh Khoshnevis University of
  Southern California
Logic Progrmming and Discrete Event Simulation
  Robert G. Sargent, Ashvin, Radiya, Syracuse University
Expet Systems for Interactive Simulation of Computer System Dynamics
  Axel Lehmann, University of Karlsruhe
An Automated Simulation Modeling System Based on AI Techniques
  Behrokh Khoshnevis, An-Pin Chen, University of Southern California
Design of a Flexible Extendible Modeling Environment
  Robert J. Pooley University of Edinburgh


Prolog for Simulation

Expert System Shell with System Simulation Capabilities
  Ivan Futo, Computer Research Institute
Languages for Distributed Simulation
  Brian Unger, Xining Li, University of Calgary
Process Oriented Simulation in Prolog
  Jeans Vaucher, University of Montreal
Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques to Simulation
  Pauline A. Langen, Carrier Corporation

Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems and robotics

A Data Modeling Approach to Improve System's Intelligence in Automated
Manufacturing
  Lee-Eng Shirley Lin, Yun-Baw Lin, Tamkang University
KARMA - A Knowledge-Based Robot Manipulation Graphics Simulation
  Richard H. Kirschbrown, Consultant
Development of questions-answers simulator for real-time scheduling and control
in flexible manufacturing system using Prolog
  Lee-Eng Shirley Lin, Tamkang Unviersity, Chang Yung Lui, National Sun Yat-Sen
University
Simulation of uncertainty and product structure in MRP
  Louis Brennan, Surendra Mohan Gupta, Northeastern University

__________________________________________________________________________

The University  of ARizona Fourth Symposium on Modeling and Simulation
Methodology
  January 19-23 1987

AI and Simulation I, R. V. Reddy
AI and Simulation II, B. P. Zeigler
  (Object Oreinted/AI Programming, Combining Discrete Event and Symbolic
Models,
   Hierarchical, Modular Modelling/Multiprocessor Simulation)
AI and Simulation III, T. I. Oren
  cognizant Simulation Systems, AI and Quality Assurance Methodology
AI and Simulation IV
  Environments for AI and Simulation, Interfacing Lisp Machines and Simulation
  Engines
Special Sessions on Model-basedDiagnosis and Expert Systems Training, Inductive
Modelling,
  Goal Directed, Variable-Structure Models, AI and Simulation in Education

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 12 November 1986, 09:48:28 EST
-FROM-
From: "Chidanand V. Apte"  <APTE@ibm.com>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for Papers - Financial Expert Systems (IEEE Expert)
-BODY-

                      CALL FOR PAPERS
                      ---------------

                       IEEE EXPERT
                  Special Issue - Fall 1987
         AI Applications in Financial Expert Systems


The Fall 1987 issue of IEEE EXPERT will be devoted to papers that
discuss the technical requirements imposed upon AI techniques for
building intelligent systems for financial applications and the
methodologies employed for the construction of such systems.

             Requirements for submission of papers
             -------------------------------------
Authors should submit their papers to the guest editors no later than
APRIL 1, 1987. Each submission should include one cover page and five
copies of the complete manuscript. The one cover page should include
Name(s), affiliation(s), complete address(es), identification of
principal author and telephone number. The five copies of the complete
manuscript should each include: Title and abstract page: title of paper,
100 word abstract indicating significance of contribution, and The
complete text of the paper in English, including illustrations and
references, not exceeding 5000 words.

                   Topics of interest
                   ------------------
Authors are invited to submit papers describing recent and novel
applications of AI techniques in the research and development of
financial expert systems. Topics (in the context of the domain) include,
but are not limited to: Automated Reasoning, Knowledge Representations,
Inference Techniques, Problem Solving Control Mechanisms, Natural
Language Front Ends, User Modeling, Explanation Methodologies, Knowledge
Base Debugging, Validation, and Maintenance, and System Issues in
Development and Deployment.

                      Guest Editors
                      --------------
      Chidanand Apte  (914-945-1024, Arpa: apte@ibm.com)
      John Kastner    (914-945-3821, Arpa: kastner@ibm.com)
      IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
      P.O. Box 218
      Yorktown Heights, New York 10598

========

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 13:26:38 est
-FROM-
From: princeton!mind!harnad@seismo.CSS.GOV (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Modeling vision: A call for commentators.
-BODY-
Keywords: connectionism, neural modeling, vision, robotics, neuroethology


This is an experiment in using the Net to find eligible commentators
for articles in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), an
international, interdisciplinary journal of "open peer commentary,"
published by Cambridge University Press, with its editorial office in
Princeton NJ.

The journal publishes important and controversial interdisciplinary
articles in psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, cognitive science,
artificial intelligence, linguistics and philosophy. Articles are
rigorously refereed and, if accepted, are circulated to a large number
of potential commentators around the world in the various specialties
on which the article impinges. Their 1000-word commentaries are the
co-published with the target article as well as the author's response
to each. The commentaries consist of analyses, elaborations,
complementary and supplementary data and theory, criticisms and
cross-specialty syntheses.

Commentators are selected by the following means: (1) BBS maintains a
computerized file of over 3000 BBS Associates; the size of this group
is increased annually as authors, referees, commentators and nominees
of current Associates become eligible to become Associates. Many
commentators are selected from this list. (2) The BBS editorial office
does informal as well as formal computerized literature searches on
the topic of the target articles to find additional potential commentators
from across specialties and around the world who are not yet BBS Associates.
(3) The referees recommend potential commentators. (4) The author recommends
potential commentators.

We now propose to add the following source for selecting potential
commentators: The abstract of the target article will be posted in the
relevant newsgroups on the net. Eligible individuals who judge that they
would have a relevant commentary to contribute should contact me at the
e-mail address indicated at the bottom of this message, or should
write by normal mail to:

                        Stevan Harnad
                        Editor
                        Behavioral and Brain Sciences
                        20 Nassau Street, Room 240
                        Princeton NJ 08542

"Eligibility" usually means being an academically trained professional
contributor to one of the disciplines mentioned earlier, or to related
academic disciplines. The letter should indicate the candidate's
general qualifications as well as their basis for wishing to serve as
commentator for the particular target article in question. It is
preferable also to enclose a Curriculum Vitae. (This self-nomination
format may also be used by those who wish to become BBS Associates,
but they must also specify a current Associate who knows their work
andis prepared to nominate them; where no current Associate is known
by the candidate, the editorial office will send the Vita to
approporiate Associates to ask whether they would be prepared to
nominate the candidate.)

BBS has rapidly become a highly read read and very influential forum in the
biobehavioral and cognitive sciences. A recent recalculation of BBS's
"impact factor" (ratio of citations to number of articles) in the
American Psychologist [41(3) 1986] reports that already in its fifth
year of publication BBS's impact factor had risen to become the highest of
all psychology journals indexed as well as 3rd highest of all 1300 journals
indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index and 50th of all 3900 journals
indexed in the Science Citation index, which indexes all the scientific
disciplines.

The following is the abstract of the second forthcoming article on
which BBS invites self-nominations by potential commentators. (Please
note that the editorial office must exercise selectivity among the
nominations received so as to ensure a strong and balanced cross-specialty
spectrum of eligible commentators.)

>----

NEUROETHOLOGY OF RELEASING MECHANISMS: PREY-CATCHING IN TOADS

                Joerg-Peter Ewert
                Neuroethology Department, FB 19,
                University of Kassel
                D-3500 Kassel
                Federal Republic of Germany

                        ABSTRACT:

"Sign stimuli" elicit specific patterns of behavior when an
organism's motivation is appropriate. In the toad, visually released
prey-catching involves orienting toward the prey, approaching,
fixating and snapping. For these action patterns to be selected and
released, the prey must be recognized and localized in space. Toads
discriminate prey from nonprey by certain spatiotemporal stimulus
features. The stimulus-response relations are mediated by innate
releasing mechanims (RMS) with recognition properties partly
modifiable by experience. Striato-pretecto-tectal connectivity
determines the RM's recognition and localization properties whereas
medialpallio-thlamo-tectal cicuitry makes the system sensitive to
changes in internal state and to prior history of exposure to stimuli.
RMs encode the diverse stimulus conditions involving the same prey
object through different combinations of "specialized" tectal neurons,
involving cells selectively tuned to prey features. The prey-selective
neurons express the outcome of information processing in functional
units consisting of interconnected cells. Excitatory and inhibitory
interactions among feature-sensitive tectal and pretectal neurons
specify the perceptual operations involved in distinguishing prey
from its background, selecting its features, and discriminating it
from predators. Other connections indicate stimulus location. The
results of these analyses are transmitted by specialized neurons
projecting from the tectum to bulbar/spinal motor systems, providing a
sensorimotor interface. Specific combinations of projective neurons --
mdiating feature- and space-related messages -- form "command
releasing systems" that activate corresponding motor pattern
generators from appropriate prey-catching action patterns.

>----

Potential commentators should send their names, addresses, a description of
their general qualifications and their basis for seeking to comment on
this target article in particular to the address indicated earlier or
to the following e-mail address:

Stevan Harnad
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet
(609)-921-7771

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
263
-DATE-
Date: 12 Nov 86 18:01:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: trwrb!aero!marken@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Richard Marken)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: D/A Distinction and Symbols
-BODY-
In article <3490001@hpfcph.HP.COM> Bob Myers makes an eloquent debut to the
D/A distinction debate with the following remarks:

>The difference between "analog" and "digital" is nothing more than the
>difference between a table of numbers and the corresponding graph; in a
>digital representation, we assign a finite-precision number to indicate the
>value of something (usually a signal) at various points in time (or frequency,
>or space, or whatever).  An "analog" representation is just that - we choose
>to view some value (voltage, current, water pressure, anything) as hopefully
>being a faithful copy of something else.  An excellent example is a
>microphone, which converts a varying pressure into an "analogous" signal -
>a varying voltage.  This distinction has nothing to do with the accuracy of
>the representation obtained, the technology used to obtain, or any of a host
>of other items that come to mind when we think of the terms "analog" and
>"digital".

We haven't heard for some time from the usually prolific Dr. Har-
nad, who started the debate with a request for definitions of the
A/D distinction. It seems to me that the topic  was  broached  in
the  first  place because Harnad had some notion that "analog" or
"non-symbolic" robots are, in some way, a better subject for a test
of  machine  intelligence (a la Turing) than the"symbol manipula-
tor" envisioned by Turing himself.

Whether this was where Harnad was going or not, I would  like  to
make  one point. It seems to me, based on the cogent A/D distinc-
tion made by Myers, that both analog and digital  representations
are "symbolic". In both cases, some variable (number, signal lev-
el) is used to represent another. The relationship between  the
variables  is  _arbitrary_   in,  potentially, two ways: 1) the
nature of the analog signal or number  used   to   represent  the
other  variable is arbitrary- other  types of signals
or other number values could have also been used. Using  electri-
city   to   represent   sound   pressure   level   is   arbitrary
(though, possibly, a good enginnering decision)-- sound  pressure
level   could   have been represented by height of a needle (hey,
it is) or by water pressure or whatever.

2) the values of  the  analog  (or  digital)  variable  used   to
represent  the  values of another variabl are, in principle, also  arbi-
trary.  Randomly different voltages could be used  to   represent
different   sound   pressure levels. This would be difficult (and
possibly ridiculous) to try to implement but it could be done
(like where changes over time in the variable  being
 represented are very slow).

 Maybe the best way to put this is as follows:
 in digital or analog representation we have some variable, y,that
 represents some other, x, so that y= f(x). Regardless of the analog
 or digital characteristics of x and y, y "symbolizes" x because
 1) another variable, y', could be used to represent x (so y is arbitrary)
 and 2) y could be defined by a different function, f', so f is arbitrary.

I think 1) and 2) capture what is meant when  it  is  said   that
symbols  are arbitrary representations of events. Symbols are not
completely arbitrary.  Once y and f are selected  you've  got  to
stick  with  them (in the context of  your  application) or the
symbol system is useless.  Thus,  the  sounds  that  we  use   to
represent  events  (f)  and  the fact that we use sounds (y) is an
arbitrary  propery of our language symbol system.  But  now  that
we've  settled  on   it   we've got to stick with it for it to be
useful (for communication). We  could (like  humpty-dumpty)  keep
changing the relationship between words  and events but this kind
of arbitrariness would make communication impossible.

Conclusion: I don't believe that the A/D distinction is a distinction
between non-symbol vs symbol systems. If there is a difference between
robots (that deal with "real world" variables) and turing machines
(that deal with artificial symbol systems) I don't believe it can turn
on the fact that one deals with symbols and the other doesn't. They
both deal with symbols. So what is the difference? I think there
is a difference between robots (of certain types) and turing machines--
and a profound one at that. But that's another posting.

>-
Disclaimer-- The opinions expressed are my own. My employer, mother
wife and teachers should not be held responsible -- though some tried
valiantly to help.

Richard Marken                      Aerospace Corp.
(213) 336-6214                      Systems Simulation and Analysis
                                    P.O. Box 92957
                                    M1/076
                                    Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957

marken@aero.ARPA
kk

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 15:31:31 +0100
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!rjf@seismo.CSS.GOV
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: machine intelligence/consciousness
-BODY-

There has been some interesting discussion (a little while back now)
on the possibility of 'truly' intelligent machines; in particular
the name of Nagel has been mentioned, and his paper 'What is it like to be
a bat?'.

This paper is not, however, strictly relevant to a discussion of machine
intelligence, because what Nagel is concerned with is not intelligence, but
consciousness.  That these are not the same, may be realised on a little
contemplation.  One may be most intensely conscious while doing little or no
cogitation.  To be intelligent - or, rather, to use intelligence - it seems
necessary to be conscious, but the converse does not hold - that to be
conscious it is necessary to be intelligent.  I would suggest that the former
relationship is not an necessary one either - it just so happens that we are
both conscious and (usually) intelligent.

Animals probably are conscious without being intelligent.  Machines may
perhaps be intelligent without being conscious.  If these are defined
seperately, the problem of the intelligent machine becomes relatively trivial
(though that may seem too good to be true): an intelligent machine is capable
of doing that which would require intelligence in a person, eg high level
chess.  On the other hand, it becomes obvious that what really exercises the
philosophers and would-be philosophers (I include myself) is machine
consciousness.  As for that:

Another article in the same collection by Nagel (Mortal Questions, 1978)
takes his ideas on consciousness somewhat further.  A summary of the
arguments developed in 'Subjective and Objective' could not possibly do them
justice (anyone interested is heartily recommended to obtain a copy), so only
the conclusions will be mentioned here.  Briefly, Nagel views subjectivity as
irreducible to objectivity, indeed the latter derives from the former, being
a corrected and generalised version of it.  A maximally objective view of the
world must admit the reality of subjectivity, in the minimal sense that
individuals do hold differing views, and there is no better - or worse -
judge of which view is more truly objective, than another individual.

This view does not to any extent denigrate the practicality of objective
methods (the hypothesis of objective reality is proven by the success of the
scientific method), but nor is it possible to deny the necessity of
subjectivity in some situations, notably those directly involving other
people.  It is surely safe to say that no new objective method will ever
substitute for human relationships.  And the reason that subjectivity works
in this context is because of what Nagel terms 'intersubjectivity' -
individuals identifying with each other - using their imaginations creatively
and for the most part accurately to put themselves in another person's shoes.

So what, really, is consciousness?  According to Nagel, a thing is conscious
if and only if it is like something to be that thing.  In other words, when
it may be the subject (not the object!) of intersubjectivity.  This accords
with Minsky (via Col. Sicherman): 'consciousness is an illusion to itself but
a genuine and observable phenomenon to an outside observer...'  Consciousness
is not self-consciousness, not consiousness of being conscious, as some have
thought, but is that with which others can identify. This opens the way to
self-awareness through a hall of mirrors effect - I identify with you
identifying with me...  And in the negative mode - I am self-conscious when I
feel that someone is watching me.

It may perhaps be supposed that the concept of consciousness evolved as part
of a social adaptation - that those individuals who were more socially
integrated, were so at least in part because they identified more readily,
more intelligently and more imaginatively with others, and that this was a
successful strategy for survival.  To identify with others would thus be an
innate behavioural trait.

So consciousness is at a high level (the top?) in software, and is, moreover,
not supported by a single unit of hardware, but by a social network.  In its
development, at least.  I, or anyone else, might suppose that I am still
conscious when alone, but not without (the supposer, whether myself or
another) having become conscious in a social context.  When I suppose myself
to be conscious, I am imagining myself outside myself - taking the point of
view of an (hypothetical) other person.  An individual - man or machine -
which has never communicated through intersubjectivity might, in a sense, be
conscious, but neither the individual nor anyone else could ever know it. A
community of machines sufficiently sophisticated that they identify with each
other in the same way as we do, may some day develop, but how could we decide
whether they were really conscious or not?  They might know it, but we never
could - and that is neither pessimism not prejudice, but a matter of
principle.

Subjectively, we all know that consciousness is real.  Objectively, we have
no reason to believe in it.  Because of the relationship between subjectivity
and objectivity, that position can never be improved on.  Pragmatism demands
a compromise between the two extremes, and that is what we already do, every
day, the proportion of each component varying from one context to another.
But the high-flown theoretical issue of whether a machine can ever be
conscious allows no mere pragmatism.  All we can say is that we do not know,
and, if we follow Nagel, that we cannot know - because the question is
meaningless.

(Technically, the concept of two different but equally valid ways of seeing,
in this case subjectively and objectively, is a double aspect theory; the
dichotomy lies not in the nature of reality, but in our perception.  Previous
double aspect theories, interestingly consistent with this one, have been
propounded by Spinoza - regarding our perception of our place within nature -
and Strawson - on the concept of a person.  I do not have the full references
to hand.)

Any useful concepts among those foregoing probably derive from Nagel, any
misleading ones from myself; none from my employers.

Rob Faichney

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 86 08:30:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "CUGINI, JOHN" <cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: philosophy of mind stuff (get it?)
-BODY-

Can't resist a few more go-rounds with S. Harnad.  Lest the size of these
messages increase exponentially, I'll try to avoid re-hashing old
issues and responding to side-issues...

> Harnad:
> I agree that scientific inference is grounded in observed correlations.
> But the primary correlation in this special case is, I am arguing, between
> mental states and performance. That's what both our inferences and our
> intuitions are grounded in. The brain correlate is an additional cue, but
only
> inasmuch as it agrees with performance.

> ...in ambiguous
> cases, behavior was and is the only rational arbiter. Consider, for
> example, which way you'd go if (1) an alien body persisted in behaving like a
> clock-like automaton in every respect -- no affect, no social interaction,
> just rote repetition -- but it DID have something that was indistinguishable
> (on the minute and superficial information we have) from a biological-like
> nervous system), versus (2) if a life-long close friend of yours had
> to undergo his first operation, and when they opened him up, he turned
> out to be all transistors on the inside. I don't set much store by
> this hypothetical sci-fi stuff, especially because it's not clear
> whether the "possibilities" we are contemplating are indeed possible. But
> the exercise does remind us that, after all, performance capacity is
> our primary criterion, both logically and intuitively, and its
> black-box correlates have whatever predictive power they may have
> only as a secondary, derivative matter. They depend for their
> validation on the behavioral criterion, and in cases of conflict,
> behavior continues to be the final arbiter.

I think I may have been tactitly conceding the point above, which I
now wish to un-concede.  Roughly speaking, I think my (everyone's)
epistemological position is as follows: I know I have a mind.  In
order to determine if X has a mind I've got to look for analogous
external things about X which I know are causally connected with mind
in *my own* case.  I naively know (and *how* do I know this??) that large
parts of my performance are an effect of my mind.  I scientifically
know that my mind depends on my brain.  I can know this latter
correlation even *without* performance correlates, eg, when the dentist
puts me under, I can directly experience my own loss of mind which
results from loss of whatever brain activity.  (I hope it goes
without saying that all this knowledge is just regular old
reliable knowledge, but not necessarily certain - ie I am not
trying to respond to radical skepticism about our everyday and
scientific knowledge, the invocation of deceptive dentists, etc.)

I'll assume that "mind" means, roughly, "conscious intelligence".
Also, assume throughout of course that "brain" is short-hand for
"brain activity known (through usual neuro-science techniques) to be
necessary for consciousness".

Now then, armed with the reasonably reliable knowledge that in my own
case, my brain is a cause of my mind, and my mind is a cause of my
performance, I can try to draw appropriate conclusions about others.
Let's take 4 cases:

1. X1 has brains and performance - ie another normal human.  Certainly
I have good reason to assume X1 has a mind (else why should similar
causes and effects be mediated by something so different from that
which mediates in my own case?)

2. X2 has neither brains nor performance - and no mind.

3. X3 has brains, but little/no performance - eg a case of severe
retardation.  Well, there doesn't seem much reason to believe that
X has intelligence, and so is disqualified from having mind, given
our definition.  However, it is still reasonable to believe that
X3 might have consciousness, eg can feel pain, see colors, etc.

4. X4 has normal human cognitive performance, but no brains, eg the
ultimate AI system.  Well, no doubt X4 has intelligence, but the issue
is whether X4 has consciousness.  This seems far from obvious to me,
since I know in my own case that brain causes consciousness causes
performance.  But I already know, in the case of X4, that the causal
chain starts out at a different place (non-brain), even if it ends up
in the same place (intelligent performance).  So I can certainly
question (rationally) whether it gets to performance "via
consciousness" or not.

If this seems too contentious, ask yourself: given a choice between
destroying X3 or X4, is it really obvious that the more moral choice
is to destroy X3?

Finally, a gedanken experiment (if ever there was one) - suppose
(a la sci-fi stories) they opened you up and showed you that you
really didn't have a brain after all, that you really did have
electronic circuits - and suppose it transpired that while most
humans had brains, a few, like yourself, had electronics.  Now,
never doubting your own consciousness, if you *really* found that
out, would you not then (rationally) be a lot more inclined to
attribute consciousness to electronic entities (after all you know
what it feels like to be one of them) than to brained entities (who
knows what, if anything, it feels like to be one of them?)?
Even given *no* difference in performance between the two sub-types?
Showing that "similarity to one's own internal make-up" is always
going to be a valid criterion for consciousness, independent of
performance.

I make this latter point to show that I am a brain-chauvinist *only
insofar* as I know/believe that I *myself* am a brained entity (and
that my brain is what causes my consciousness).  This really
doesn't depend on my own observation of my own performance at all -
I'd still know I had a mind even if I never did any (external) thing
clever.

To summarize: brainedness is a criterion, not only via the indirect
path of: others who have intelligent performance also have brains,
ergo brains are a secondary correlate for mind; but also via the
much more direct path (which *also* justifies performance as a
criterion): I have a mind and in my very own case, my mind is
closely causally connected with brains (and with performance).

> As to CAUSATION -- well, I'm
> sceptical that anyone will ever provide a completely satisfying account
> of the objective causes of subjective effects. Remember that, except for
> the special case of the mind, all other scientific inferences have
> only had to account for objective/objective correlations (and [or,
> more aptly, via) their subjective/subjective experiential counterparts).
> The case under discussion is the first (and I think only) case of
> objective/subjective correlation and causation. Hence all prior bets,
> generalizations or analogies are off or moot.

I agree that there are some additional epistemological problems, compared
to the usual cases of causation.  But these don't seem all that daunting,
absent radical skepticism.  We already know which parts of the brain
correlate with visual experience, auditory experience, speech competence,
etc.  I hardly wish to understate the difficulty of getting a full
understanding, but I can't see any problem in principle with finding
out as much as we want.  What may be mysterious is that at some level,
some constellation of nerve firings may "just" cause visual experience,
(even as electric currents "just" generate magnetic fields.)  But we are
always faced with brute-force correlation at the end of any scientific
explanation, so this cannot count against brain-explanatory theory of mind.

> Perhaps I should repeat that I take the context for this discussion to
> be science rather than science fiction, exobiology or futurology. The problem
> we are presumably concerned with is that of providing an explanatory
> model of the mind along the lines of, say, physics's explanatory model
> of the universe. Where we will need "cues" and "correlates" is in
> determining whether the devices we build have succeeded in capturing
> the relevant functional properties of minds. Here the (ill-understood)
> properties of brains will, I suggest, be useless "correlates." (In
> fact, I conjecture that theoretical neuroscience will be led by, rather
> than itself leading, theoretical "mind-science" [= cognitive
> science?].) In sci-fi contexts, where we are guessing about aliens'
> minds or those of comatose creatures, having a blob of grey matter in
> the right place may indeed be predictive, but in the cog-sci lab it is
> not.

Well, I plead guilty to diverting the discussion into philosophy, and as
a practical matter, one's attitude in this dispute will hardly affect
one's day-to-day work in the AI lab.  One of my purposes is a kind of
pre-emptive strike against a too-grandiose interpretation of the
results of AI work, particularly with regard to claims about
consciousness.  Given a behavioral definition of intelligence, there
seems no reason why a machine can't be intelligent.  But if "mind"
implies consciousness, it's a different ball-game, when claiming
that the machine "has a mind".

My as-yet-unarticulated intuition is that, at least for people, the
grounding-of-symbols problem, to which you are acutely and laudably
sensitive, inherently involves consciousness, ie at least for us,
meaning requires consciousness.  And so the problem of shoehorning
"meaning" into a dumb machine at least raises the issue about how
this can be done without making them conscious (or, alternatively,
how to go ahead and make them conscious).  Hence my interest in your
program of research.

John Cugini <Cugini@NBS-VMS>

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
264
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Spang Robinson Report Summary
-BODY-
Spang Robinson Report, November 1986 Vol 2, No 11

__________________________________________________________________________

Discussion of AI Applications to Manufacturing

Carnegie Group has 90 percent of their toolkit
sales and 100- per cent of their custom contracts
from manufacturing clients.  A spin off from Composition Systems is
selling tools to manufacturing customers.  (Composition Systems
sells an expert system for newspaper layout [LEFF])

The Society of Manufacturing Engineers has formed an AI in Manufacturing
Advisory Committee (contact Michael Tew 313 271-1500).

Allen Bradley will have "knowledge base technologies" in their line
of factory controllers.

__________________________________________________________________________
Software Review of Knowledge Craft

__________________________________________________________________________

California Intelligence is selling products that add frame and blackboard
facilities to EXSYS, FRAME and TABLET respectively.
They can also be used with other AI tools and even to mix AI tools
with other applications.  TABLET also allows the addition of variables
to expert systems that do not have them.  FRAME will call an outside
program when the value of the slot is needed.

__________________________________________________________________________
Other Material:

Nihol Life, Japan, is developing an expert system that will assess the
insurability of people with various medical conditions.

Boeing has a Knowledge-Based System Center in Japan that provides info
to various companies operating in Japanese, both American and Japan

Fujitsu is including an expert system to help choose algorithms
for image processing with its general purpose image processing system.

Fujitsu will be selling an AI tool for its 68010 based engineering work
station.

Intellicorp will be entering the Japanese market on its own when its
contract with CSK expires this November.

SRI Cambridge will be organizing a multi-million dollar natural
language effort in England.


__________________________________________________________________________
BOOKs Reviewed

Portraits of Success: Impressions of Silicon Valley by Carolyn Caddes
On Machine Intelligence by Donald Michie

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: summary of recent press releases
-BODY-
>From the report on the IEEE Annual Briefing for the Media

James A. Sprowl of the Illinois Institute of Technology is developing
an auotmated client interviewing and legal document assembly system
which automated wills, contracts, pleadings and others.  It is designed
to assist nonspecialized attorneys.

__________________________________________________________________________
 Robert L. Degenhart AT&T Bell Labs, 201 - 564-4091

Bell Labs has developed an IC chip containing 256 electronic neurons.
It contains 25,000 transistors, 100,000 resistors on 1/4 square inch of
silicon.  Retrieval speed is 400 nanoseconds and anticipate their use
in image processors.  Neural networks permit greater chip density
and require fewer layers of lithography.  They have been able to
fabricate chips with one tenth of a micron features.

__________________________________________________________________________

>From Lisp Machine Inc

They have marketing TI's Explorer along with PICON a real-time expert
system application package and IKE, a consultation style expert system.

PICON achieves 200 rule frames/seconds in 2000 rule systems.  They
project 1000 rule frames/second in 10,000 rule systems by the end of 1987.

__________________________________________________________________________

>From Knowledge Engineering, 274 West 12th Street, PO Box 366, Village
Station, New York, New YOrk 10014-0366

They are marketing a review of AI market resources for $47.50.
They also publish a Knowledge Engineering Newsletter for $275.00 a year.

__________________________________________________________________________
>From Phillip G. Ryan Public Relations

Release arguing that AI provides a career opportunity for MIS Managers.
Provides a rating form for a person's company to see how it stands
competitively in applying AI to their needs.  This was publicity for
Software People Concepts Inc. and AI Services Company.

Also another one publicizing the same two companies saying that 40 percent of
the largest 500 companies are actively pursuing AI but that it's not MIS
people doing the work.

They are also publicizing Halbrecht Associates arguing that demand for
expert systems developers is high but that there is practically no
demand for "natural language, speech input/output, vision systems,
automatic theorem proving, automatic programming and super computing"

Companies are turning to traditional software engineers to do their
expert systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 10:53 EST
-FROM-
From: TAKEFUJI%scarolina.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Invitation to USC AI & VLSI Demo
-BODY-

From: Dr. Yoshiyasu Takefuji
Date: Dec. 6, 1986
Time: 1 PM
Place: On the third floor at Engineering Building in Columbia,
       South Carolina

Hello.
We will have  project presentation/demonstration on the following subjects:
19 graduate students and 17 undergraduate students are involved
in these projects.
1. Fuzzy inference VLSI parallel-engine
2. Fuzzy rule translator and simulator
3. Expert system for determination of fuzzy inference engine
   architecture
4. Paramodulation VLSI inference engine(pattern matcher)
5. Function Description Translator from behavior description
   to VLSI layout level (CIF or Magic file)
6. Terminal-based local network project to eliminate RS232c wire-jungle
7. Case studies of knowledge acquisition
8. Graphic Applications
Let me know whether you can come to see our demo.
csnet: takefuji%scarolina.edu
usenet: ncrcae!usccmi!takefuji
Thank you.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 1986  10:27 EST (Tue)
-FROM-
From: Claudia Smith <CLAUDIA%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Trajectory Planning in Time-Varying Environments
-BODY-           (MIT)


                TRAJECTORY PLANNING IN TIME VARYING ENVIRONMENTS

                              Kamal Kant Gupta

                              McGill University
                               Montreal,Canada


ABSTRACT:

We present a novel approach to solving the trajectory planning problem
(TPP) in time-varying environments.  The essence of our approach lies
in a heuristic but natural decomposition of TPP into two subproblems:
(1) planning a path to avoid collision with static obstacles and (2)
planning the velocity along the path to avoid collision with moving
obstacles.  We call the first subproblem the path planning problem
(PPP) and the second the velocity planning problem (VPP).  Thus, our
decomposition is summarized by the equation TPP \rightarrow PPP + VPP.
The symbol \rightarrow indicates that the decomposition holds under
certain assumptions, e.g., when obstacles are moving independently of
(i.e.  not tracking) the robot.  Furthermore, we pose the VPP in
path-time space, where time is explicitly represented as an extra
dimension, and reduce it to a graph search in this space.  In fact,
VPP is transformed to a two-dimensional PPP in path-time space with
some additional constraints.  Algorithms are then presented to solve the
VPP with different optimality criteria: minimum length in path-time
space, and minimum time.

DATE: Tuesday, Nov. 18th

TIME: 3pm

PLACE: NE43-773 (7th floor conference room)

HOST: Prof. Brooks

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 18 Nov 86 22:28:22 EST
-FROM-
From: Steven.Minton@k.cs.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - An Expert System for Building Layout (CMU)
-BODY-
This week's seminar is being given by Robert Coyne and Tim Glavin.
As usual, Friday, 3:15 in 7220.

ABSTRACT:
We report on work in progress on a generative expert system for the design
of building layouts that can be adapted to various problem domains.  The
system does not reproduce the behavior of human designers; rather, it
intends to complement their performance through (a) its ability to
systematically search for alternative solutions with promising trade-offs;
and (b) its ability to take a broad range of design concerns into account.
Work on the system also aims at providing insights into the applicability of
artificial intelligence techniques to space planning and building design in
general.

Spacial relations between the objects to be allocated serve as basic design
variables which define differences between layouts.  They are represented by
a novel scheme, called an orthogonal structure, which allows us to enumerate
layouts in an abstract space, following a 'least commitment' strategy with
regard to details such as the dimensions of the objects.  The
representation, and the generator based on it, are general and flexible
enough to allow generation of layouts in various 'domains'.  The knowledge
required to distinguish good or 'best' layouts in particular domains is
located in special testers which are to be built up through the process of
'knowledge acquisition' as it typically occurs in the development of expert
systems.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 22:31:02 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - New Paths in Knowledge Engineering (BBN)
-BODY-

The Science Development Program will present professor Donald Michie
of the Turing Institute of Scotland as the next speaker in the Guest
Lecture series.  His lecture will take place on Thursday, November 20
at 4:30 p.m. in the Newman Auditorium, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.,
70 Fawcett Street, Cambridge, Ma.  Dr. Michie will be lecturing on
the topic "New Paths in Knowledge Engineering."

Following is an abstract of his talk:

Artificial Intelligence is not something sudden.  It has been on
the road for centuries.  In intellectual terms the task is to
complement the mathematical universalism of physics with a logic
praticular to man.  New approaches based on this shift of
philosophy are today breaking into the market place, driven by
certain pressing industrial and military requirements.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
265
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 14:03:05 est
-FROM-
From: rochester!tropix!dls@seismo.CSS.GOV (David L. Snyder )
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: tropix!dls@seismo.CSS.GOV (David L. Snyder )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: glisp info request
-BODY-
Someone asked me about glisp today, and all I could remember/say is that
I thought Gordon Novak had written it.  Anyone out there care to refresh
my memory/enlighten me?

Thanks.

David Snyder
GCA/Tropel Division
60 O'Connor Road
Fairport, NY 14450

P.S. Try tropix!dls@rochester as an arpa address if other alternatives fail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 20 Nov 86 18:53:56 GMT
-FROM-
From: ritcv!tropix!dls@ROCHESTER.ARPA  (David L. Snyder )
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PEARL info request
-BODY-
A few questions about pearl (Package for Efficient Access to
Representations in Lisp):

Can anyone tell me what, if any, activity is going on with pearl these
days?  (Is the pearl-bugs mailing list still active?)  Has anyone used
it for non-toy problems?  Any chance it'll be ported into common
lisp?  Is there something better that superceeds it (and is in the
public domain)?

                Thanks!

P.S. Try tropix!dls@rochester as an arpa address if other alternatives fail.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 86 20:01:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: decvax!wanginst!sullivan@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Brian Sullivan)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: PD OPS5 and/or LISP ???
-BODY-

Sorry if this question has already been asked. I am a new subscriber to
this news group.

Does anyone know of a public domaim or low-cost ops5 for the IBM or
Wang PC?

Does anyone know of a public domaim or low-cost lisp for the IBM or
Wang PC?

Please reply to the address below, thanks in advance.

>------

Brian M. Sullivan                        sullivan@wanginst         (Csnet)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies       decvax!wanginst!sullivan  (UUCP)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879           (617) 649-9731

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 19 Nov 86 08:49 EST
-FROM-
From: SHAFFER%SCOVCB.decnet@ge-crd.arpa
-SUBJECT-
Subject: KEE on Symbolics vs. Xerox
-BODY-

We are working on projects using Intellicorp's KEE on a Symbolics
system.  We had been running KEE 2.1 using Zetalisp 6.1,2,3.
Recently, we have received the updates for both products.  The
new KEE 3.0 incorporates the "worlds" concept along with an
implementation of Asumption-based Truth Maintenance System. (ABTMS)
The lastest version of Zetalisp is Symbolics Common Lisp. (Genera 7.0)
Is anyone else out there is a similar environment?
We are interested in the following situations:

        1) KEE 2.1 to 3.0 conversion problems
                a) using "worlds"
                b) using ABTMS
                c) using KEEPictures
        2) Genera 7.0 performance
                a) FLAVORS
                b) presentation types
        3) KEE environments
                a) KEE 2.1 on Zetalisp
                b) KEE 3.0 on Zetalisp
                c) KEE 2.1 on Genera 7.0
                d) KEE 3.0 on Genera 7.0

I would like to comment on the Symbolics Vs Xerox debate.
It seems to me that the discussion should involve a real
life application that runs on both machines.  For example,
KEE or ART.  And since Xerox and Symbolics will both be
using Common Lisp, even the language will be similar.
Create a portable, interactive application using KEE, lets
say,  and run it on both machines similarly equiped.  Wouldnt
this be a better thing than long, long, stories about someone's
dated experiences on one of the two machines.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 86 22:19:34 GMT
-FROM-
From: milano!conklin@im4u.utexas.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: choosing grad schools
-BODY-
When I was there three years ago U. Mass. (Amherst) had an
aggressively interdisciplinary approach to Cognitive Science, involving
the Computer Science (COINS), Linguistics, Psychology, and
Philosophy departments.  While there was no single department
and no degree, there was active encouragement for students to
take courses in the other departements, and many advanced seminars
were co-lead by faculty of several departments.  I don't know
the status of things now, especially since Michael Arbib, a chief
architect of that approach, has gone on to USC in LA.
>-
              Jeff Conklin
                  MCC Software Technology Program
                  (512) 338-3562
                  conklin@MCC.arpa   ut-sally!im4u!milano!conklin

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 10:54:04 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Cognitive Science at SUNY Buffalo
-BODY-

                  GRADUATE GROUP IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE

                STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO

                           Buffalo, NY 14260

            Gail A. Bruder             William J. Rapaport
       Department of Psychology   Department of Computer Science
                                     rapaport@buffalo.csnet

                        Co-Directors, 1986-1987

Cognitive Science is an interdisciplinary effort intended to investigate
the  nature  of  the  human  mind.  This effort requires the theoretical
approaches offered by computer science, linguistics, mathematics, philo-
sophy,  psychology,  and  a  host  of  other  fields related by a mutual
interest in intelligent behavior.

     The Graduate Group in Cognitive Science was  formed  to  facilitate
cognitive science research at SUNY Buffalo.  Its activities have focused
upon language-related issues and knowledge  representation.   These  two
areas are important to the development of cognitive science and are well
represented at SUNY Buffalo by the research  interests  of  faculty  and
graduate students in the group.

     Since its formal recognition in April 1981, the Graduate Group  has
grown quickly.  Currently, its membership of over 150 faculty and gradu-
ate students is drawn from the Departments of Computer Science; Psychol-
ogy;  Linguistics;  Communicative  Disorders  and  Sciences; Philosophy;
Instruction; Communication; Counseling and Educational Psychology;  Edu-
cational Organization, Administration, and Policy Studies; the Intensive
English Language Institute; Geography; and  Industrial  Engineering;  as
well  as  other area colleges and universities.  The Group sponsors lec-
tures and informal discussions with visiting scholars; discussion groups
focused  on Group members' current research; an interdisciplinary, team-
taught, graduate course, "Introduction to Cognitive Science"; a graduate
seminar  on  current  topics and issues in language understanding; and a
Cognitive Science Library.

                             1985 COLLOQUIA

Our colloquium speakers during 1985 included Andrew Ortony  (Psychology,
Illinois),  David  Waltz  (Computer Science, Brandeis), Alice ter Meulen
(Linguistics, Washington), Joan Bybee (Linguistics, SUNY Buffalo), Livia
Polanyi  (AI,  BBN), Joan Bresnan (Linguistics, Stanford), Leonard Talmy
(Linguistics, Berkeley), Judith Johnston (Communicative Disorders, Indi-
ana),  Richard  Weist  (Psychology, SUNY Fredonia), and Benjamin Kuipers
(AI, Texas).

                            RESEARCH PROJECT

A research subgroup of  the  Graduate  Group  in  Cognitive  Science  is
actively  engaged in an interdisciplinary research project investigating
narrative comprehension, specifically the role of  a  "deictic  center".
Grant  proposals, conference papers, publications, and several disserta-
tion proposals have come from this collaborative  effort.   A  technical
report  describing this project--Bruder et al., "Deictic Centers in Nar-
rative:  An Interdisciplinary Cognitive-Science Project,"  SUNY  Buffalo
Department  of Computer Science Technical Report No. 86-20--is available
from William J. Rapaport, at the above address.

     Specifically, we are developing a  model  of  a  cognitive  agent's
comprehension of narrative text.  Our model will be tested on a computer
system that will represent the agent's beliefs about the objects,  rela-
tions,  and events in narrative as a function of the form and content of
the successive sentences encountered.  In particular, we are concentrat-
ing  on  the  role of spatial, temporal, and focal-character information
for the cognitive agent's comprehension.

     We propose to test the hypothesis that the construction and modifi-
cation  of a deictic center is of crucial importance for much comprehen-
sion of narrative.  We see the deictic center as the locus in conceptual
space-time  of  the objects and events depicted or described by the sen-
tences currently being perceived.  At any point in  the  narrative,  the
cognitive  agent's  attention  is  focused on particular characters (and
other objects) standing in particular spatial and temporal relations  to
each  other.  Moreover, the agent "looks" at the narrative from the per-
spective of a particular character, spatial location, or temporal  loca-
tion.  Thus, the deictic center consists of a WHERE-point, a WHEN-point,
and a WHO-point.  In addition, reference to  characters'  beliefs,  per-
sonalities, etc., are also constrained by the deictic center.

     We plan to develop a computer system that will "read"  a  narrative
and  answer  questions  about  the  deictic information in the text.  To
achieve this goal, we intend to carry out a group of projects that  will
allow  us  to  discover  the linguistic devices in narrative texts, test
their psychological reality for normal and abnormal  comprehenders,  and
analyze  psychological  mechanisms that underlie them.  Once we have the
results of the individual projects, we will integrate them and  work  to
build a unified theory and representational system that incorporates the
significant findings.  Finally, we will test the  system  for  coherence
and accuracy in modeling a human reader, and modify it as necessary.

                              COURSEWORK

The Graduate Group in  Cognitive  Science  provides  students  with  the
opportunity  for training and research in Cognitive Science at the Ph.D.
level.  Students must be residents in a host  department  (Communicative
Disorders  and  Sciences,  Computer  Science,  Linguistics,  Philosophy,
Psychology), whose requirements must be fulfilled (but which can include
coursework  in  the  other Cognitive Science disciplines), and must meet
certain additional requirements:  enrollment  in  the  graduate  course,
Introduction  to  Cognitive  Science; and the completion of a "Focus" in
one other participating department.  Further details are available  from
the Co-Directors of the Group.

     The Graduate Group faculty also encourages outstanding  undergradu-
ates to develop an interest in Cognitive Science.  Qualified undergradu-
ates may request admission to the graduate course (Introduction to  Cog-
nitive  Science)  and  can design a major in Cognitive Science under the
Special Majors program at SUNY Buffalo.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 10:54:04 EST
-FROM-
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport%buffalo.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Graduate Group in Vision at SUNY Buffalo
-BODY-
                        GRADUATE GROUP IN VISION

                STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO

                           Buffalo, NY 14260

                           Malcolm Slaughter
                        Department of Biophysics

                          Director, 1986-1987

It is becoming increasingly important for vision researchers in  diverse
fields  to  interact,  and the SUNY Buffalo Graduate Group in Vision has
been formed to facilitate that interaction.  Current membership includes
25  faculty  and  25  students  from  10  departments (Computer Science,
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Industrial Engineering,  Geography,
Psychology,  Biophysics, Physiology, Biochemistry, Philosophy, and Media
Studies).  The Group organizes a colloquium series and provides central-
ized  information  about activities both on campus and in the local area
that are of interest to vision researchers.

     The Vision Group received formal recognition and funding  in  April
1986.  The 1986-87 activities include:  biweekly meetings to discuss the
current research being performed in one of the  20  vision  laboratories
represented  in  the group; an upper division undergraduate/lower-level-
graduate course, which serves as an  introduction  to  interdisciplinary
research  in  vision;  and  a  colloquium  series.  This year's speakers
include Jerry  Feldman  (Computer  Science,  Rochester),  Peter  Shiller
(Psychology,  MIT),  Bela  Julesz  (Psychology,  Bell Labs/Murray Hill),
Tomaso Poggio (AI, MIT; tentative), and Ed  Pugh  (Biophysics,  Pennsyl-
vania; tentative).

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 86 04:32:47 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!cbmvax!bpa!burdvax!blenko@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Tom
     Blenko)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
In article <8611181719.AA00510@watdcsu.uucp> "B. Lindsay Patten"
 <shen5%watdcsu.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET> writes:
[... stuff ...]

|The real point Dr. Weizenbaum was trying to make (in my
|opinion) was that we should weigh the good and bad applications of
|our work and decide which outweighs the other.

If Weizenbaum or anyone else thinks he or she can succeeded in weighing
possible good and bad applications, I think he is mistaken. Wildly
mistaken.

Why does Weizenbaum think technologists are, even within the bounds of
conventional wisdom, competent to make such judgements in the first
place?  Everywhere I turn there is a technologist telling me why SDI
cannot succeed -- which tells me that technologists fail to comprehend
consequences of their work from any perspective except their own.  Is
it not possible that the principal consequences of SDI will be
something other than an operational defense system?

Why doesn't Weizenbaum do some research and talk about it?  Why is
Waterloo inviting him to talk on anything other than his research
results? No reply necessary, but doesn't the fact that technically-
oriented audiences are willing to spend their time listening to this
sort of amateur preaching itself suggest what their limitations are
with regard to difficult ethical questions?

        Tom

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 86 07:46:41 GMT
-FROM-
From: anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Jess Anderson)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
In article <2862@burdvax.UUCP>, blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) writes:
| Why doesn't Weizenbaum do some research and talk about it?  Why is
| Waterloo inviting him to talk on anything other than his research
| results? No reply necessary, but doesn't the fact that technically-
| oriented audiences are willing to spend their time listening to this
| sort of amateur preaching itself suggest what their limitations are
| with regard to difficult ethical questions?
Even as a preacher, Weizenbaum is hardly an amateur! Do be fair. On
your last point, I would claim the evidence shows just the opposite
of what you claim, namely that technically-oriented audiences are
willing to spend their time listening to intelligent opinions shows
that they are more qualified than some people think to consider
difficult ethical questions. Of course I am an amateur, too -- of
life (remember what the word means!).
>-
==ARPA:====================anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu===Jess Anderson======
| UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz,                           1210 W. Dayton    |
|    akgua,allegra,ihnp4,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson   Madison, WI 53706 |
==BITNET:============================anderson@wiscmacc===608/263-6988=======

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
266
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 10:41:08 cst
-FROM-
From: Mike Gately 995-3273 M/S 154
     <gately%crl1%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Neural Networks Digest
-BODY-

         ----  NEW DIGEST ANNOUNCEMENT  ----

I am starting up a new e-mail Digest which will cover the
topic of Neural Networks (both real and imagined).  The name
of this new mailing list is

         ----         NEURON            ----

You have probably noticed that there has been an increase
in the amount of message traffic regarding connectionism on
this and other digests.  The intent is that this digest will
be a focal point for this information.

NEURON is open to discussion of any topic related to neurons.
This should include:

        Neural Networks
           Algorithms
           Software Simulations
           Digital Hardware
           Analog Hardware
           Optical Hardware
        Biology
           Neurophysiology
           Neuroscience
        Cellular Automata

As you can see, I am attempting to get some interest from
the 'wet ware' folks.  This may be a first; but the results
will surely be interesting.

The official starting date of the mailing list is the first
of December.  I am using the US MAIL to inform many of the
researchers in this field that I already know about.

If you are interested in receiving this Digest, reply to

  CSNET:    NEURON@TI-CSL
  ARPANET:  NEURON%TI-CSL.CSNET%RELAY.CS.NET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

with your current net address.  If you expect that a large
number of folks from you site will want to receive this digest,
contact your site postmaster to set up a redistribution file
and have him/her send me a single site address.

As I receive addresses from you, I will try to send out a
Welcome message.  If you do not receive this within 4 work days
please resend your request information (I hope this isn't a
mistake).

If you responded to Mitch Wyle's message of 2 weeks ago about
such a Digest, he has forwarded those messages to me.

                 Regards,

                 Michael T. Gately
                 Texas Instruments, Inc.
                 Advanced Concepts Branch
                 GATELY%CRL1%TI-CSL.CSNET%RELAY.CS.NET@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 86 13:28:39 CST
-FROM-
From: Psychnet Newsletter and Bulletin Board
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: EPSYNET%UHUPVM1.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: announcement for AIlist
-BODY-
Persons interested in artificial intelligence who also have
interests in psychology may wish to subscribe to the Psychnet
Newsletter via the net.  Contributors from time to time even
include such persons as the (in)famous  Stevan Harnad!  To
subscribe send your request to:
          epsynet%uhupvm1.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Thanks, Bob Morecock, Psychnet Editor

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 22:01:45 EST
-FROM-
From: Leon Sterling <leon%case.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: Leon Sterling <leon%case.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Call for papers -Journal of Logic Programming
-BODY-

          Call for Papers

Papers are requested for a special issue of the Journal of Logic
Programming concerned with

   Applications of Logic Programming for Knowledge-Based Systems

The papers should describe applications which exploit special features of
logic programming.  Two examples:  a problem solved by using a logic
programming language where the solution would be more difficult to state
in another language; or the development of a methodology for the more
effective use of logic programs.  The reported research should be original
and should not have appeared elsewhere.  Updates of successful, ongoing
projects containing material not otherwise available will also be
considered.

Applications of interest include, but are not limited to:

Financial expert systems        Diagnosis systems
Medical expert systems          Configuration systems
Expert system tools             VLSI design
Natural language programs       Problem-solving
Programming environments        Learning




Please send 4 copies of your paper by May 31, 1987 to

Leon Sterling,
Department of Computer Engineering and Science,
Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA   44106


Electronic mail address:
        CSNET:  leon@case
        UUCP: ...!decvax!cwruecmp!leon

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Nov 86 16:26:38-EST
-FROM-
From: V. Venkatasubramanian <VENKAT@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Workshop on AI in Process Engineering...
-BODY-

                                  WORKSHOP ON

                ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN PROCESS ENGINEERING



          Place:    COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, Kellogg Auditorium

          Date:     March 9-10, 1987

          Deadline: Dec 22, 1986 for the submission of applications for
                    attending the workshop.

          Sponsored by: American Association for Artificial Intelligence
                        Air Products
                        Amoco


1. Themes and Motivations:

In  the  past  few  years  there  has been considerable work in applying recent
advances in Artificial Intelligence to problems in the various  disciplines  of
engineering.   Substantial   impact   has  already  been  seen  in  electrical,
mechanical, and civil engineering applications. It is now well-recognized  that
the  domain  of  Process Engineering also has much to gain from applications of
AI. Particular attention is being paid to fault diagnosis and control,  process
design  and  planning.  Interest  in the process engineering community (both in
academia and in industry) is substantial, but only a handful of researchers are
currently  engaged  in  applying AI to problems in process engineering. This is
largely due to lack of proper exposure of this novel area to the  rest  of  the
community.  This  workshop  is  being  organized  to  provide  this much needed
exposure to researchers in academia and industry.

Thus the workshop will serve the following current needs:

   - Bring together for an intense program, people in academia as  well  as  in
     industry who are interested in AI in process engineering.

   - Disseminate  the  ideas  and  techniques  of  AI in an appropriate form by
     relating  them  to  fault  diagnosis  and  control,  design  and  planning
     applications in process engineering.

   - Provide  demonstrations  of  some  expert  system  prototypes  in  process
     engineering.

   - Help resolve the confusion about what AI can do, how to go about  applying
     AI for process engineering problems, etc.

   - To  provide  a  long-term  research focus, identify a set of problems that
     have  important  basic  research  issues,  as  well  as  useful  practical
     components.

2. Workshop Subjects:

        * Fault Diagnosis
        * Design
        * Operations

3. Workshop Speakers:

Chemical Engineering:

Prof. Jim Davis (Ohio State), Prof. Prasad Dhurjati (Delaware)
Prof. George Stephanopoulos (MIT), Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian (Columbia)
Prof. Art Westerberg (Carnegie-Mellon)


Computer Science:

Prof. B. Chandrasekaran (Ohio State), Prof. Ken Forbus (Univ. of Illinois)
Dr. Jeff Pan (Schlumberger Research), Dr. John Kunz (Intellicorp)


4. Workshop Participation:

For  the  workshop  to  be  intense,  stimulating, and useful, we feel that the
number of partcipants must  be  limited.  Hence  the  number  of  participants,
besides  the invited speakers, will be limited to fifty. Interested parties are
urged to contact one of the members of the organizing committee  (given  below)
before  Dec  22nd  by  writing  a  letter describing their background, research
interests, and current process engineering problems they are  working  on.  The
organizing  committee  will  select  the  participants from the applicant pool.
Participation is by invitation only. The registration fee  is  $  150  for  the
two-day workshop and will include a copy of the proceedings.


5. Organizing Committee:

Prof. V. Venkatasubramanian, Chairman
Intelligent Process Engineering Laboratory
Department of Chemical Engineering
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027.
(212) 280-4453

Prof. G. Stephanopoulos, Co-Chairman
Laboratory for Intelligent Systems in Process Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139.
(617) 253-3904

Prof. James Davis
Department of Chemical Engineering
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210.
(614) 292-0090

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu 20 Nov 86 17:28:23-CST
-FROM-
From: Jim Miller <HI.JMILLER@MCC.COM>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: IEEE Conference on AI Applications: Advance Program
-BODY-
      THE THIRD IEEE CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS

                               Advance Program

                            Orlando Hyatt Regency
                               Orlando, Florida
                             February 23-28, 1987

                Sponsored by the Computer Society of the IEEE

        For information on any part of the conference, please contact:

                 The Third IEEE Conference on AI Applications
                         Computer Society of the IEEE
                         1730 Massachusetts Avenue NW
                           Washington DC 20036-1903
                                 202-371-1013


                            Conference Committee:

        General Chair:                          Program Chairs:
           Jan Aikins                              James Miller
           Aion Corporation                        Elaine Rich
                                                   MCC

        Tutorials Chair:                        For the Computer Society
           Paul Harmon                          of the IEEE:
           Harmon Associates                       William Habingreither


                              Program Committee:

        William J. Clancey                      Keith Clark
           Stanford University                     Imperial College

        Byron Davies                            Michael Fehling
           Texas Instruments                       Rockwell International

        Mark Fox                                Bruce Hamill
           Carnegie-Mellon University              Applied Physics Laboratory
              and Carnegie Group Inc               Johns Hopkins University

        Peter Hart                              Elaine Kant
           Syntelligence                           Schlumberger-Doll Research

        Paul Kline                              Benjamin Kupiers
           Texas Instruments                       University of Texas

        John McDermott                          Roy Maxion
           Carnegie Mellon University              Carnegie Mellon University

        Charles Petrie                          Bruce Porter
           MCC                                     University of Texas

        John Roach                              Marty Tenenbaum
           Virginia Tech                           Schlumberger

        Harry Tennant                           Michael D. Williams
           Texas Instruments                       IntelliCorp

==============================================================================
                         Wednesday, February 25, 1987
==============================================================================

9:00 - 10:00: KEYNOTE ADDRESS

AI and Natural Language in the Real World
Gary Hendrix, Symantec

10:00 - 10:30: BREAK

10:30 - 12:00: INVITED TALKS:

Viewing Knowledge Bases as Qualitative Models
William J. Clancey, Stanford University

Second-Generation Manufacturing Systems
Mark Fox, Carnegie Mellon University and Carnegie Group Inc

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 1A: KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION

Verifying Consistency of Production Systems
T. A. Nguyen, Lockheed

Principles of Design for Knowledge Acquisition
Thomas Gruber, University of Massachusetts

Probabilistic Inference
Won D. Lee, University of Texas at Arlington;  Sylvian R. Ray,
        University of Illinois

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 1B: QUESTION ANSWERING

Question Answering with Rhetorical Relations
Wanying Jin and Robert F. Simmons, University of Texas at Austin

Question-Driven Approach to the Construction of Knowledge-Based Software
        Advisor Systems
Patrick Constant, Stainslaw Matwin and Stainslaw Szpakowicz, University of
        Ottawa

12:00 - 1:30: LUNCH

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 2A: MANUFACTURING

A Knowledge-based Approach to Printing Press Configuration
M. S. Lan, R. M. Panos, and M. S. Balban, Rockwell International

A Knowledge Based Imaging System for Electromagnetic Nondestructive Testing
L. Udpa and W. Lord, Colorado State University

An Object-Based Architecture for Manufactured Parts Routing
R. L. Young, D. M. O'Neill, P. W. Mullarkey, P. C. Gingrich, A. Jain, and
        S. Sardana, Schlumberger-Doll Research

Expert System for Visual Solder Joint Inspection
Sandra L. Bartlett, Charles L. Cole, amd Ramesh Jain, University of Michigan

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 2B: KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION

Breaking the Primitive Concept Barrier
Robert Kass, Ron Katriel, and Tim Finin, University of Pennsylvania

FRAMEWORKS:  A Uniform Approach to Knowledge Representation for Natural
        Language Processing
Howard R. Smith, Warren H. Harris, and Dan Simmons, United Technologies

Modeling Connections for Circuit Diagnosis
Mingruey R. Taie and Sargur N. Srihari, State University of New York at Buffalo

CONGRES: Conceptual Graph Reasoning System
Anand S. Rao and Norman Y. Foo, University of Sydney

1:30 - 3:30: INVITED PANEL

The Challenges of Integrating AI into Real-Time Control and C^2
Moderator: J. R. Gersh, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

3:30 - 4:00: BREAK

4:00 - 5:30: PLENARY PANEL

Programming Languages for AI: Lisp vs. Conventional Languages
Moderator: Mark Miller, Computer * Thought Corporation

==============================================================================
                         Thursday, February 26, 1987
==============================================================================

9:00 - 10:00: KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Expert Systems in a General Cognitive Architecture
John Laird, University of Michigan

10:00 - 10:30: BREAK

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 3A: EXPLANATION-BASED LEARNING

Analyzing Variable Cancellations to Generalize Symbolic Mathematical
        Calculations
Jude W. Shavlik and Gerald F. DeJong, University of Illinois

Extending Explanation-Based Learning:  Failure-Driven Schema Refinement
Steve A. Chien, University of Illinois

A Learning Apprentice System for Mechanical Assembly
Alberto Maria Segre, University of Illinois

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 3B: AI AND REAL-TIME PROGRAMMING

Real Time Process Management for Materials Composition in Chemical
        Manufacturing
Bruce D'Ambrosio and Peter Raulefs, FMC Corporation, Michael R. Fehling and
        Stephanie Forrest, Teknowledge

Knowledge-Based Experiment Builder for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Systems
J. Sztipanovits, C. Biegl, G. Karsai, J. Bourne, C. Harrison, and R. Mushlin,
        Vanderbilt University

YES/L1: Integrating Rule-Based, Procedural, and Real-time Programming for
        Industrial Applications
A. Cruise, R. Ennis, A. Finkel, J. Hellerstein, D. Loeb, M. Masullo,
        K. Milliken, H. Van Woerkom, N. Waite, IBM;  D. Klein,
        University of Pennsylvania

10:30 - 12:00: INVITED PANEL

Delivery in the Real World
Moderator: Esther Dyson, EDventures Holding, Inc.

12:00 - 1:30: LUNCH

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 4A: DIAGNOSIS

LVA: A Knowledge-based System for Diagnosing Faults in Digital Data Loggers
S. C. Laufmann and R. S. Crowder III, Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory

A Multiparadigm Knowledge-based System for Diagnosis of Large Mainframe
        Peripherals
David W. Rolston, Honeywell

Distributed Diagnosis of Systems with Multiple Faults
Hector Geffner and Judea Pearl, UCLA

Testing, Verifying, and Releasing an Expert System:  The Case History of Mentor
Edward L. Cochran and Barbara L. Hutchins, Honeywell

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 4B: ROBOTICS AND PERCEPTION

On the Terrain Acquisition by a Point Robot Amidst of Polyhedral Obstacles
Nageswara S. V. Rao, S. S. Iyengar, Louisiana State University;
        B. John Oommen, Carelton University; R. L. Kashyap, Purdue University

A Computational Theory and Algorithm for Fluent Reading
Jonathan J. Hull, State University of New York at Buffalo

Automated Reasoning about Machine Geometry and Kinematics
Andrew Gelsey, Yale University

Color Separation Using General-Purpose Computer Vision Algorithms
Deborah Walters, University of Buffalo

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 4C: CASE STUDIES

FRESH: A Naval Scheduling System
Michael Babin, Michael Gately, and Michael Sullivan, Texas Instruments

Building Near-Term Fieldable Militry AI Systems:  Formalisms and an Example
Mark L. Akey and Kirk A. Dunkelberger, Magnavox

Rule-Based Flexible Control of Tutoring Process in Scene-oriented CAI systems
Ichiro Morihara, Toru Ishida, and Hiroyuki Furuya, NTT Electrical
        Communications Laboratory

Abductive and Deductive Inference in an Expert System
Jacqueline A. Haynes and Joshua Lubell, University of Maryland

3:30 - 4:00: BREAK

4:00 - 5:30: PLENARY PANEL

The Future of AI Applications: An Industry Perspective
Panelists: Walden C. Rhines; Texas Instruments, Herbert Schorr, IBM;
        Thomas P. Kehler, IntelliCorp
Moderator: Esther Dyson, EDventures Holding, Inc.

==============================================================================
                          Friday, Feburary 27, 1986
==============================================================================

9:00 - 10:00: KEYNOTE ADDRESS

Overcoming the Brittleness Bottleneck:
Douglas B. Lenat, MCC

10:00 - 10:30: BREAK

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 5A: SEARCH

The Cycle-Cutset Method for Improving Search Performance in AI Applications
Rina Dechter and Judea Pearl. UCLA

Schedule Optimization with Probabilistic Search
Lawrence Davis and Frank Ritter, Bolt Beranek and Newman

10:30 - 12:00: Paper Session 5B: UNCERTAINTY

Uncertain Inference Using Belief Functions
Sunggu Lee and Kang G. Shin, University of Michigan

Truth Maintenance with Numeric Certainty Estimates
Bruce D'Ambrosio, FMC Corporation

A Real-Time AI System for Military Communications
M. E. Ulug, General Electric

10:30 - 12:00: INVITED TALKS

Judging the Risk: Expert Systems in Finance
Peter Hart, Syntelligence

Artificial Intelligence: Expectations vs. Reality
Jay M. Tenenbaum, Schlumberger Palo Alto Research

12:00 - 1:30: LUNCH

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 6A: DEFAULT REASONING

A Framework for Describing Troubleshooting Behavior Using Default Reasoning
        and Functional Abstraction
Michael Young, Stanford University

Assumption Based Reasoning Applied to Personal Flight Planning
Adithya M. Rao and Gautam Biswas, University of South Carolina;
        Prasanta K. Bose, Texas Instruments

Classification by Semantic Matching
Paul R. Cohen, Philip M. Stanhope, and Rick Kjeldsen, University of
        Massachusetts

Default Reasoning -- Extension and Semantics
Keki B. Irani and Zhaogang Qian, University of Michigan

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 6B: DESIGN AND PLANNING

Goal Directed Planning of the Design Process
Christopher Tong, Rutgers University

Concerns: A Means of Identifying Potential Plan Failures
Marc Luria, University of California at Berkeley

A VLSI Design Automation System Using Frames and Logic Programming
Takayoshi Yokota, Keisuke Bekki, and Nobuhiro Hamada, Hitachi Research
        Laboratory

PLEX:  A Knowledge Based Placement Program for Printed Wire Boards
Sankar Virdhagriswaran, Sam Levine, Scott Fast, and Susan Pitts, Honeywell

1:30 - 3:30: Paper Session 6C: SOFTWARE AND TOOLS

Engineous:  A Knowledge Directed Computer Aided Design Shell
Dennis J. Nicklaus, Siu S. Tong, and Carol J. Russo, General Electric

Implementing Distributed AI Systems
Les Gasser, Carl Braganza, and Nava Herman, USC

AI Based Software Maintenance
Lori B. Alperin and Beverly I. Kedzierski, Carnegie Group Inc

Application of Correlation Measures for Validating Structured Selectors
Keith A. Butler, Boeing

==============================================================================
                               Tutorial Program
==============================================================================

Monday, February 12, 1987

  Morning:
        Managing Knowledge System Development
        Avron Barr, Aldo Ventures

        Programming in the Lisp Machine Environment
        Sue Green, Texas Instruments

  Afternoon:
        Analyzing Expert System Building Tools
        Paul Harmon, Harmon Associates

        Logic Programming, Expert Systems, and Databases
        Steve Hardy, Teknowledge

Tuesday, February 13, 1987

  Morning:
        AI and Computer Integrated Manufacturing
        Arvind Sathi, Carnegie Group Inc

        Commercial Applications of Natural Language Processing
        Tim Johnson, Ovum Ltd.

  Afternoon:
        AI Programming on Parallel Machines
        Joe Brandenburg, Intel

        Intelligent Interfaces
        Marilyn Stelzner, IntelliCorp

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
267
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 86 11:21:33 PST (Monday)
-FROM-
From: Tom.EdServices@Xerox.COM
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Lisp, Smalltalk for Amiga
-BODY-

Does anyone know of Smalltalk or any Lisps (besides Xlisp and Cambridge
Lisp) for the Commodore-Amiga?  What I really want is a Common Lisp.

Thanks for any help.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 86 17:42:57 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!ukc!einode!tcdcs!omahony@seismo.css.gov  (O'Mahony Donal)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Looking for source of XLISP 1.8
-BODY-
I am looking for the source of Dave Betz's XLISP version 1.8.  This is
a version of LISP with object oriented extensions.  I understand that
it is available on the BIX bulletin board, but it is difficult to
gain access from here.  I would be grateful if sombody would post a copy

Donal O'Mahony,
Trinity College,
Dublin,
Ireland

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 86 21:46:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Nagel
-BODY-

On mod.ai, rjf@ukc.UUCP <8611071431.AA18436@mcvax.uucp>
Rob Faichney (U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK) made
nonspecific reference to prior discussions of intelligence,
consciousness and Nagel. I'm not altogther certain that his
contribution was intended as a followup to the discussion that has
been going on lately under the heading "Searle, Turing, Categories,
Symbols," but since it concerns the issues of that discussion, I am
responding on the assumption that it was. R. Faichney writes:

>       [T. Nagel's] paper [See Mortal Questions, Cambridge University Press
>       1979, and The View From Nowhere, Oxford University Press 1986]
>       is not ... strictly relevant to a discussion of machine
>       intelligence, because what Nagel is concerned with is not intelligence,
>       but consciousness. That these are not the same, may be realised on a
>       little contemplation. One may be most intensely conscious while doing
>       little or no cogitation. To be intelligent - or, rather, to use
>       intelligence - it seems necessary to be conscious, but the converse
>       does not hold - that to be conscious it is necessary to be intelligent.
>       I would suggest that the former relationship is not a necessary one
>       either - it just so happens that we are both conscious and (usually)
>       intelligent.

It would seem that if you believe that "to use intelligence...it seems
necessary to be conscious" then that amounts to agreeing that Nagel's
paper on consciousness is "relevant to a discussion of machine
intelligence." It is indisputable that intelligence admits of degrees,
both as a stable trait and as a fluctuating state. What is at issue in
discussions of the turing test is not the proposition that consciousness
is the same as intelligence. Rather, it is whether a candidate has
intelligence at all. It seems that consciousness in man is a sufficient
condition for being intelligent (i.e., for exhibiting performance that is
validly described as "intelligent" in the same way we would apply that
term to our own performance). Whether consciousness is a necessary
condition for intelligence is probably undecidable, and goes to the
heart of the mind/body problem and its attendant uncertainties.

The converse proposition -- that intelligence is a necessary condition for
consciousness is synonymous with the proposition that consciousness is
a sufficient condition for intelligence, and this is indeed being
claimed (e.g., by me). The argument runs like this: The issue in
turing-testing is sorting out intelligent performance from its unintelligent
look-alikes. As a completely representative example, consider my asking
you how much 2 + 2 is, and your replying "4" -- as compared to my writing
a computer program whose only function is to put out the symbol "4" whenever
it encounters the string of symbols "How much is 2 + 2?" (this is basically
Searle's point too). There you have it all in microcosm. If the word
"intelligence" has any meaning at all, over and above displaying ANY
arbitrary performance  at all (including a rock sliding down a hill, or,
for that matter, a rock NOT sliding down a hill), then we need a principled
way of distinguishing these two cases. That's what the Total Turing
Test I've proposed is meant to do; it amounts to equating
intelligence with total performance capacities indistinguishable from
our own. This also coincides with our only basis for inferring that
anyone else but ourselves has a mind (i.e., is conscious).

There is no contradiction between agreeing that intelligence admits
of degrees and that mind is all-or-none. The Total Turing Test does
not demand the performance capacity of Newton or Bach, only that of an
(undistinguished) person indistinguishable from any other person one might
know for a lifetime. Moreover, the Total Turing Test admits of
variants for other species, although this involves problems of ecological
knowledge and intuitions that humans may lack for any other species but
their own. It even admits of pathological variants of our own species
(retardation, schizophrenia, aphasia, paralysis, coma, etc. as discussed
in other iterations of this discussion, e.g., with J. Cugini) although
here too intuitions and validity probably break down.

>       Animals probably are conscious without being intelligent. Machines may
>       perhaps be intelligent without being conscious.  If these are defined
>       seperately, the problem of the intelligent machine becomes relatively
>       trivial (though that may seem too good to be true): an intelligent
>       machine is capable of doing that which would require intelligence in
>       a person, eg high level chess.

Not too good to be true: Too easy. And it would fail to capture
almost all of our relevant pretheoretic generalizations or intuitions.
Animals ARE intelligent (in addition to being conscious), although, as usual,
their intelligence admits of degrees, and can only be validly assessed
relative to their ecological or adaptive contexts (although even
relative to our own ecology, many other species display some degree of
intelligence). The machine intelligence problem -- which is the heart
of the matter -- cannot be settled so quickly and easily. Moreover,
the empirical question of what intelligence is cannot be settled by a
definition (remember "2 + 2 = 4" and the rolling stone, above). Many
intelligent people (with minds) can't play high-level chess, but no
machine can currently do EVERYTHING that the least intelligent of
these people can do. That's the burden of the Total Turing Test.

>       Nagel views subjectivity as irreducible to objectivity, indeed the
>       latter derives from the former, being a corrected and generalised
>       version of it. A maximally objective view of the world must admit
>       the reality of subjectivity.

Nagel is one of the few thinkers today who doesn't lapse into
arbitrary hand-waving on the issue of consciousness and its
"reducibility" to something else. Nagel's point is that there is
something it's "like" to have experience, i.e., to be conscious, and
that it's only open to the 1st person point of view. It's hence radically
unlike all other "objective" or "intersubjective" phenomena in science
(e.g., meter-readings), which anyone else can verify as being independent of
one's "point of view" (although Nagel correctly reminds us that even
objectivity is parasitic on subjectivity). The upshot of his analysis
is that utopian scientific mind-science (cognitive science?)
>- that future complete theory that will predict and explain it all --
will be essentially "incomplete" in a way that utopian physics will not be:
Both will successfully predict and explain all their respective observable
(objective) data, but mind-science will be left with something
irreducible, hence unexplained.

For me, this is not a great problem, since I regard the mission of
devising a candidate that can pass the Total Turing Test to be an abundantly
profound and challenging one, and I regard its potential results -- a
functional explanation of the objective features of the mind -- as
sufficiently desirable and useful, so that the part it will FAIL to
explain does not bother me. That may well forever remain philosophy's
province. But I do keep reminding the overzealous that that utopian
mind science will be turing-indistinguishable from a mindless one. I
keep doing this for two reasons: First, because I believe that this
Nagelian point is correct, and worth keeping in mind. And second, because
I believe that attempts to capture or incorporate consciousness in cognitive
science more "directly" are utterly misguided, and lead in the direction of
highly subjective over-interpretations, hermeneutics and self-delusion,
instead of down the only objective scientific road to be traveled: modeling
lifesize performance capacity (i.e., the Total Turing Test). It is for
this reason that I recommend "methodological epiphenomenalism" as a
research strategy in cognitive science.

>       So what, really, is consciousness?  According to Nagel, a thing is
>       conscious if and only if it is like something to be that thing.
>       In other words, when it may be the subject (not the object!) of
>       intersubjectivity.  This accords with Minsky (via Col. Sicherman):
>       'consciousness is an illusion to itself but a genuine and observable
>       phenomenon to an outside observer...'  Consciousness is not
>       self-consciousness, not consiousness of being conscious, as some
>       have thought, but is that with which others can identify. This opens
>       the way to self-awareness through a hall of mirrors effect - I
>       identify with you identifying with me...  And in the negative mode
>       - I am self-conscious when I feel that someone is watching me.

The Nagel part is right, but unfortunately all the rest
(Minsky/Sicherman/hall-of-mirrors) has it all wrong, and is precisely
the type of lapse into hermeneutics and euphoria I warned against earlier.
The quote above (via the Colonel) is PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE of Nagel's
point. The only aspect of conscious experience that involves direct
observability is the subjective, 1st-person aspect (and the fact THAT I
am having a conscious experience is certainly no illusion since
Descartes at least, although what it tells me about the outside world may be,
at least since Hume). Let's call this private terrain Nagel-land.
The part others "can identify" is Turing-land: Objective, observable
performance (and its structural and functional substrates). Nagel's point
is that Nagel-land is not reducible to Turing-land.

Consciousness is the capacity to have subjective experience (or perhaps
the state of having subjective experience). The rest of the "mirrors"
business is merely metaphor and word-play; such subject matter may make for
entertaining and thought-provoking reading, as in Doug Hofstadter's books,
but it hardly amounts to an objective contribution to cognitive science.

>       It may perhaps be supposed that the concept of consciousness evolved
>       as part of a social adaptation - that those individuals who were more
>       socially integrated, were so at least in part because they identified
>       more readily, more intelligently and more imaginatively with others,
>       and that this was a successful strategy for survival. To identify with
>       others would thus be an innate behavioural trait.

Except that Nagel would no doubt suggest (and I would agree) that
there's no reason to believe that the asocial or minimally social
animals are not conscious too. But apart from that, there's a much
deeper reason why it is probably futile to try to make evolutionary
conjectures about the adaptive function of conscious experience:
According to standard evolutionary theory, the only traits that are
amenable to the kind of trial-and-error selection on the basis of
their consequences for the survival of the organism and propogation of its
genes are (what Nagel would call) OBJECTIVE traits: structure,
function and behavior. Standard evolutionary conjectures about the
putative adaptive function of consciousness are open to precisely the
same objection as the utopian mind-science spoken of earlier:
Evolution is blind to the difference between organisms that are
actually conscious and organisms that merely behave as if they were
conscious. Turing-indistinguishability again. On the other hand, recent
variants of standard evolutionary theory would be compatible with a
NON-selectional origin of consciousness, as an epiphenomenon.

(In pointing out the futility of adaptive scenarios for the origin of
consciousness, I am drawing on my own theoretical failures. I tried
that route in an earlier paper and only later realized that such
"Just-SO" stories suffer from even worse liabilities in speculations
about the evolutionary origins of consciousness than they do in
speculations about the evolutionary origins of behaviors; radically
worse liabilities, for the reason given above. Caveat Emptor.)

>       ...When I suppose myself to be conscious, I am imagining myself
>       outside myself - taking the point of view of an (hypothetical) other
>       person.  An individual - man or machine - which has never communicated
>       through intersubjectivity might, in a sense, be conscious, but neither
>       the individual nor anyone else could ever know it.

I'm afraid you've either gravely misunderstood Nagel or left him far
behind here. When I feel a pain -- when I am in the qualitative state of
knowing what it's like to be feeling a pain -- I am not "supposing"
anything at all. I'm simply feeling pain. If I were not conscious, I
wouldn't be feeling pain, I'd just be acting as if I felt pain. The
same is true of you and of animals. There's nothing social about this.
Nor is "imagination" particularly involved (except perhaps in whatever
external attributions are made to the pain, such as, "there must be something
wrong with my tooth"). Even what is called clinically "imaginary" or
psychosomatic pain -- such as phantom-limb pain or hysterical pain --
is subjectively real, and that's the point: When I'm really feeling
pain, I'm not imagining I'm in pain; I AM in pain.

This is referred to by philosophers as the "incorrigibility" of 1st-person
experience.  Although it's not without controversy, it's useful to keep in
mind, because it's what's really at issue in the problem of artificial
minds. We are asking whether candidates have THAT sort of qualitative,
conscious experience. (Again, the "mirror" images about
self-consciousness, etc., are mere icing or fine-tuning, compared to
the more basic issue of whether or not, to put it bluntly, a machine
can actually FEEL pain, or merely ACTS as if it did.)

>       Subjectively, we all know that consciousness is real.  Objectively,
>       we have no reason to believe in it.  Because of the relationship
>       between subjectivity and objectivity, that position can never be
>       improved on.  Pragmatism demands a compromise between the two
>       extremes, and that is what we already do, every day, the proportion
>       of each component varying from one context to another.  But the
>       high-flown theoretical issue of whether a machine can ever be
>       conscious allows no mere pragmatism.  All we can say is that we do
>       not know, and, if we follow Nagel, that we cannot know - because the
>       question is meaningless.

Some crucial corrections that may set the whole matter in a rather different
light: Subjectively (and I would say objectively too), we all know that
OUR OWN consciousness is real. Objectively, we have no way of knowing
that anyone else's consciousness is real. Because of the relationship
between subjectivity and objectivity, direct knowledge of the kind we
have in our own case is impossible in any other. The pragmatic
compromise we practice every day with one another is called the Total
Turing Test: Ascertaining that others behave indistinguishably from our
paradigmatic model for a creature with consciousness: ourselves. We
were bound to come face-to-face with the "high-flown theoretical
issue" of artificial consciousness as soon as we went beyond everyday naive
pragmatic considerations and took on the burden of constructing a
predictive and explanatory causal thoery of mind.

We cannot know directly whether any other organism OR device has a mind,
and, if we follow Nagel, our inferences are not meaningless, but in some
respects incomplete and undecidable.


>-

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
268
-DATE-
Date: 22 Nov 86 12:13:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: mcvax!lambert@seismo.css.gov  (Lambert Meertens)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
In article <229@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> I know directly that my
> performance is caused by my mind, and I infer that my
> mind is caused by my brain. I'll go even further (now that we're
> steeped in phenomenology): It is part of my EXPERIENCE of my behavior
> that it is caused by my mind. [I happen to believe (inferentially) that
> "free will" is an illusion, but I admit it's a phenomenological fact
> that free will sure doesn't FEEL like an illusion.] We do not experience our
> performance in the passive way that we experience sensory input. We
> experience it AS something we (our minds) are CAUSING. (In fact, that's
> probably the source of our intuitions about what causation IS. I'll
> return to this later.)

I hope I am not suffering from a terrible disease like incipient
schizophrenia, but for me it is not the case that I perceive/experience/
am-directly-aware-of my performance being caused by anything.  It just
happens.  I have some indirect evidence that there is some relation between
the performance I can watch happening and some sensations (such as anxiety
or happiness) that I can somehow experience directly whereas others have no
such direct access and can only infer the presence or absence of these
sensations within me by circumstantial evidence.

How do I know I have a mind?  This reminds me of the question put to a
priest (teaching religion) by one of the pupils: "Father, how do we know
that people have a soul?"  "Well," said the priest, "here I have a card in
memory of Klaas de Vries.  Look, here it says: `Pray for the soul of Klaas
de Vries.'  They wouldn't put that there if people had no souls, would
they?"  There is something funny with this debate: it is hardly
translatable into Dutch.  The problem is that if you look up "mind" in an
English-Dutch dictionary, some eight translations are suggested, none of
which has "mind" as their primary meaning if translated back to English,
except for idiomatic reasons (like in: "So many men, so many minds").
Instead, we find (1) memory; (2) meaning; (3) thoughts; (4) ghost; (5)
soul; (6) understanding; (7) attention; (8) desire.  Of these, I contend,
"ghost" and "soul" are closest in meaning if someone says: "I know I have
mind.  But how can I know that other people have minds?"

OK, if you substitute "consciousness" for "mind", then this does no
essential harm to the debate and things become translatable to Dutch.  What
you gain, is that you loose the suggestion evoked (at least to me) by the
word "mind" that it is something perhaps not quite, but almost, tangible,
something that you could lock up in a box, or cut in three, or take a
picture of with a camera using aura-sensitive film.  "Consciousness" is
more like "appetite": you can have it and you can loose it, but even though
it is functionally related to bodily organs, you normally don't think of it
as something located somewhere.  Does our appetite cause our eating?  ("My
appetite made me eat too much.")  How can we know for sure that other
people have appetites as well?  I propose to consider the question, "Can
machines have an appetite?"

Now why is consciousness "real", if free will is an illusion?  Or, rather,
why should the thesis that consciousness is "real" be more compelling than
the analogous thesis for free will?  In either case, the essential argument
is: "Because I [the proponent of that thesis] have direct, immediate,
evidence of it."  Sometimes we are conscious of certain sensations.  Do
these sensations disappear if we are not conscious of them?  Or do they go
on on a subconscious level?  That is like the question if a falling tree in
the middle of a forest makes a sound in the absence of creatures capable of
hearing.  That is a matter of the most useful (convenient) definition.  Let
us agree that the sensations continue at least if it can be shown that the
person involved keeps behaving as if the concomitant sensations continued,
even though professing in retrospection not to have been aware of them.  So
people can be afraid without realizing it, say, or drive a car without
being conscious of the traffic lights (and still halt for a red light).

How can you know that you have been conscious of something that you reacted
upon?  You stopped in front of a red light (or so others tell you) while
involved in a heated argument.  You have no remembrance whatsoever of that
light being red, or of your slowing down (or of having been at that
intersection at all).  Maybe your attention was so completely focussed on
the argument that the reaction to the traffic light was fully automatic.
Now someone tells you: No, it wasn't automatic.  You muttered something
unfriendly about that other car driver who made as if he was going to drive
on and then suddenly braked.  And now, zzzap!, the whole episode pops up in
your mind.  You remember that car, the intersection, the traffic light, its
jumping to red, the slight annoyance at not making it, and the anger about
that *@#$%!!! other driver whose car you almost crashed into.

Maybe everything is conscious.  Maybe stones are conscious of lying on the
ground, being kicked against, being picked up.  Their problem is, they can
hardly tell us.  The other problem is, they have no memory (lacking an
appropriate substrate for storing a trace of these experiences).  They are
like us with that traffic light, if there hadn't been that other car with
that idiot driver.  Even if we experience something consciously, if we
loose all remembrance of it, there is no way in which we can tell for sure
that there was a conscious experience.  Maybe we can infer consciousness by
an indirect argument, but that doesn't count.  Indirect evidence can be
pretty strong, but it can never give certainty.  Barring false memories, we
can only be sure if we remember the experience itself.  Now maybe
everything we experience is stored in memory.  It may be that we cannot
recall it like that, but using special techniques (hypnosis, electro-
stimulation, mnemonic drugs) it could be retrieved.  On the other hand, it
is more plausible that not quite everything is stored in memory, since that
would require a tremendous channel width for storing things, which is not
really functional, or, at least, there are presumably better trade-offs in
terms of survival capability given a limited bran capacity.

If some things we experience do not leave a recallable trace, then why
should we say that they were experienced consciously?  Or, why shouldn't we
maintain the position that stones are conscious as well?  That position is
maintainable, but it is not very useful in the sense that the word
"consciousness" looses its meaning; it becomes coextensive with
"existence".  We "loose" our bicameral minds, Freud, and all that jazz.
More useful, then, to use "consciousness" only for experiences that are,
somehow, recallable.  It makes sense that not all, not most of, but some of
the things that go on in our heads are stored away: in order to use for
determining patterns, for better evaluation of the expected outcome of
alternatives, for collecting material that is useful for the construction
or refinement of the model we have of the outside world, and so on.

Being the kind of animal homo is, it also makes sense to store material
that is useful for the refinement of the model we have of our inside world,
that which we think of as "ourselves".  After all, we consult that model to
pre-evaluate the outcome of certain alternatives.  If we don't "know"
ourselves, we are bound to do things (take on a responsibility, marry
someone, etc., things with a long-term commitment) that will lead us unto
suffering.  (We do these things anyway, and one of the causes is that we
don't know ourselves that well.)  So a lot of the things that go on "in the
front of our minds" are stored away, and are recallable.  And it is only
because of this recallability that we can say that these things were "in
the front of our minds", or "in our minds" at all.

Imagine now a machine programmed to "eat" and also to keep up some dinner
conversation.  It has some rules built-in about etiquette like that it is
impolite to eat too much, but also some parameter varying in time to model
"hunger", and a rule IF hunger THEN eat.  It just happens that the machine
is very, very hungry.  There is a conflict here, but fortunately our
machine is equipped with a conflict-resolution module (CRM) that uses fuzzy
logic to get an outcome for conflicting rules.  The outcome here is that
the machine eats more than is polite.  The dinner-conversation module (DCM)
has no direct interface with the CRM, but it is supplied with the resultant
behaviour as part of its input data and so it concludes (using the rule
base) that it is not behaving too politely.  Speaking anthropomorphically,
we would say that the machine is feeling uneasy about it.  Actually, a flag
"uneasiness" is raised, and the DCM is programmed to do something about it.
Using the rule base, the DCM finds a rule that tells it that uneasiness
about being impolite can be reduced by apologizing about it.  The apology
submodule (ASM) is invoked, which discovers that a casual apology will do
in this case, one form of which is just to state an appropriate cause for
the inappropriate behaviour.  The rule base tells ASM that PROBABLE CAUSE
OF eat IS appetite, (next to tape-worms, but these are measured as less
appropriate under the circumstances), so "<<SELF, having, appetite>;
<goodness, 0.6785>>" is passed back to DCM, which, after invoking
appropriate syntactic transformations, utters the unforgettable words:
"Boy, do I have an appetite today."

How different are we from that machine?  If we keep wolfing down food at a
dinner, knowing that we are misbehaving (or just substitute any behaviour
that you are prone to and that you realize is just not quite right--come
on, there must be something), is the choice made the result of a conscious
process?  I think it is not.  I have no reason to think it is.  Even if we
ponder a question consciously ("Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
..."), I think the outcome is not the result of the conscious process, but,
rather, that the consciousness is a side-effect of the conflict-resolution
process going on.  I think the same can be said about all "conscious"
processes.  The process is there, anyway; it could (in principle) take
place without leaving a trace in memory, but for functional reasons it does
leave such a trace.  And the word we use for these cognitive processes that
we can recall as having taken place is "conscious".

We can as it were instantly focus our attention on things that we are not
conscious of most of the time (the sensation of sitting on a chair, the
colour of the sky).  This means merely that we can influence which part of
the processes going on all the time get the preferential treatment of being
stored away for future reference.  The ability to do so is clearly
functional, notwithstanding the fact that we can make a non-functional use
of it.  This is not different from the fact that it is functional that I
can raise my arm by "willing" it to raise, although I can use that ability
to raise it gratuitously.  If the free will here is an illusion (which I
think is primarily a matter of how you choose to define something as
elusive as "free will"), then so is the free will to direct your attention
now to this, then to that.  Rather than to say that free will is an
"illusion", we might say that it is something that features in the model
people have about "themselves".  Similarly, I think it is better to say
that consciousness is not so much an illusion, but rather something to be
found in that model.  A relatively recent acquisition of that model is
known as the "subconscious".  A quite recent addition are "programs",
"sub-programs", "wrong wiring", etc.

A sufficiently "intelligent" machine, able to pass not only the dinner-
conversation test but also a sophisticated Turing test, must have a model
of itself.  Using that model, and observing its own behaviour (including
"internal" behaviour!), it will be led to conclude not only that it has an
appetite, but also volition and awareness, and it will probably attribute
some of its darker sides (about which it comes to conclude that it feels
guilt, from which it deduces that it has a conscience) to lack of affection
in childhood or "wrong wiring".  Is it mistaken then?  Is the machine taken
in by an illusion?

I propose to consider the question, "Can machines have illusions?"

>-

Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@mcvax.UUCP

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 86 19:08:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories: Reply to Cugini (2)
-BODY-
      [Part I.  See the next digest for the conclusion.  -- KIL]


On mod.ai <8611200632.AA19202@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> "CUGINI, JOHN"
<cugini@nbs-vms.ARPA> wrote:

>       I know I have a mind.  In order to determine if X
        [i.e., anyone else but myself]
>       has a mind I've got to look for analogous
>       external things about X which I know are causally connected with mind
>       in *my own* case. I naively know (and *how* do I know this??) that
large
>       parts of my performance are an effect of my mind.  I scientifically
>       know that my mind depends on my brain.  I can know this latter
>       correlation even *without* performance correlates, eg, when the dentist
>       puts me under, I can directly experience my own loss of mind which
>       results from loss of whatever brain activity.  (I hope it goes
>       without saying that all this knowledge is just regular old
>       reliable knowledge, but not necessarily certain - ie I am not
>       trying to respond to radical skepticism about our everyday and
>       scientific knowledge, the invocation of deceptive dentists, etc.)

These questions and reflections are astute ones, and very relevant to
the issues under discussion. It is a matter of some ancillary interest
that the people who seem to be keeping their heads more successfully
in the debates about artificial intelligence and (shall we call it)
"artificial consciousness" are the more sceptical ones, as you reveal
yourself to be at the end of this module. The zealous advocates, on
the other hand, seem to be more prone to flights of
over-interpretative fancy, leaving critical judgment by the wayside.
(This is not to say that some of the more dogged critics haven't waxed
irrational in their turn too.)

Now on to the substance of your criticism. I think the crucial points
will turn on the difference between what you call "naively know" and
"scientifically know." It will also involve (like it or not) the issue
of radical scepticicm, uncertainty and the intersubjectivity and validity of
inferences and correlations. Now, I am neither an expert in, nor an advocate
of, phenomenological introspection, but if you will indulge me and do
a little of it here, I think you will notice that there is something very
different about "naive knowing" as compared to "scientific knowing."

Scientific knowing is indirect and inferential. It is based on
inference to the best explanation, the weight of the evidence, probability,
Popperian (testability, falsifiability) considerations, etc. It is the
paradigm for all empirical inquiry, and it is open to a kind of
radical scepticism (scepticism about induction) that we all reasonably
agree not to worry about, except insofar as noting that scientific
"knowledge" is not certain, but only highly likely on the evidence,
and is always in principle open to inductive "risk" or falsification
by future evidence. This is normal science, and if that were all there
was to the special case of the mind/body problem (or, more perspicuously,
the other-minds problem) then a lot of the matters we are discussing
here could be settled much more easily.

What you call "naive knowing," on the other hand (and about which you
ask "*how* do I know this?") is the special preserve of 1st-hand,
1st-person subjective experience. It is "privileged" (no one has
access to it but me), direct (I do not INFER from evidence that I am
in pain, I know it directly), and it has been described as
"incorrigible" (can I be wrong that I am feeling pain?). The
inferences we make (about the outside world, about inductive
regularities, about other minds) are open to radical scepticism, but
the phenomenological content of 1st-hand experience is different. This
makes "naive knowing" radically different from "scientific knowing."

(Let me add a quick parenthetical remark, but not pursue it unless
someone brings it up: Even our inferential knowledge depends on our
capacity for phenomenological experience. Put another way: we must
have direct experience in order to make indirect inferences, otherwise
the inferences would have no content, whether right or wrong. I
conjecture that this is significantly connected with what I've called
the "grounding" problem that lies at the root of this discussion. It
is also related to Locke's (inchoate) distinction between primary and
secondary qualities, turning his distinction on its head.)

Now let's go on. You say that I "naively know" that my performance
is caused by my mind and I "scientifically know" that my mind is caused
by my brain. (Let's not quibble about "cause"; the other words, such
as "determined by," "a function of," "supervenient on," or Searle's
notorious "caused-by-and-realized-in" are just vague ways of trying to
finesse a problematic and unique relationship otherwise known as the
mind/body problem. Let's just bite the bullet with "cause" and see
where that gets us.) Let me translate that: I know directly that my
performance is caused by my mind, and I infer that my
mind is caused by my brain. I'll go even further (now that we're
steeped in phenomenology): It is part of my EXPERIENCE of my behavior
that it is caused by my mind. [I happen to believe (inferentially) that
"free will" is an illusion, but I admit it's a phenomenological fact
that free will sure doesn't FEEL like an illusion.] We do not experience our
performance in the passive way that we experience sensory input. We
experience it AS something we (our minds) are CAUSING. (In fact, that's
probably the source of our intuitions about what causation IS. I'll
return to this later.)

So there is a very big difference between my direct knowledge that my
mind causes my behavior and my inference (say, in the dentist's chair)
that my brain causes my mind. [Even my rational inference (at the
metalevel) that my mind doesn't really cause my behavior, that that's
just an illusion, leaves the incorrigible phenomenological fact that I
know directly that that's not the way it FEELS.] So, to put it briefly,
what I've called the "informal component" of the Total Turing Test --
does the candidate act as if it had a mind (i.e., roughly as I would)? --
appeals to precisely those intuitions, and not the inferential kind, about
brains, etc. Note, however, that I'm not claiming we have direct
knowledge of other minds. That's just an inference. But it's not the
same kind of inference as the inference that there are, say, quarks, or
cosmic strings. We are appealing, in the informal TTT, to our
intuitions about subjectivity, not to ordinary, objective scientific
evidence (such as brain-correlates).

As a consequence (and again I invite you to do some introspection), the
intuitive force of the direct knowledge that I have (or am) a mind, and
that that causes my behavior, is of an entirely different order from my
empirical inference that I have a brain and that that causes my mind.
Consider, for example, that there are plenty of people who doubt that
their brains are the true causes of their minds, but very few (like
me) who venture to doubt that their minds cause their behavior; and I
confess that I am not very successful in convincing myself, because my
direct experience keeps contradicting my inference, incorrigibly.

In summary: There is a vast difference between knowing causes directly and
inferring them; subjective phenomena are unique and radically different from
other phenomena in that they confer this direct certainty; and
inferences about other minds (i.e., about subjective phenomena in
others) are parasitic on these direct experiences of causation, rather
than on ordinary causal inference, which carries little or no
intuitive force in the case of mental phenomena, in ourselves or
others. And rightly not, because mind is a private, direct, subjective
matter, not something that can be ascertained -- even in the normal
inductive sense -- by public, indirect, objective correlations.

                        [To be continued ...]

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
269
-DATE-
Date: 21 Nov 86 19:08:02 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories: Reply to Cugini (2)
-BODY-
                              [Part II]


If you want some reasons why the mind/body case is so radically
different from ordinary causal inference in science, here are two:

(1) Generalizations about correlates of having a mind
are, because of the peculiar nature of subjective, 1st-person
experience, always doomed to be based on an N = 1. We can have
intersubjective agreement about a meter-reading, but not about a
subject's experience. This already puts mind-science in a class by
itself. (One can even argue that the intersubjective agreement on
"objective" meter readings is itself parasitic on, or grounded in,
some turing-equivalence assumptions about other people's reports of
their experiences -- of meter readings!)

But, still more important and revealing: (2) Consider ordinary scientific
inferences about "unobservables," say, about quarks (if they should continue
to play an inferred causal role in the future, utopian, "complete"
explanatory/predictive theory in physics): Were you to subtract this
inferred entity from the (complete) theory, the theory would lose its
capacity to account for all the (objective) data. That's the only
reason we infer unobservables in the first place, in ordinary
science: to help predict and causally explain all the observables.
A complete, utopian scientific theory of the "mind," in radical
contrast with this, will always be just as capable of accounting
for all the (objective) data (i.e., all the observable data on what
organisms and brains do) WITH or WITHOUT positing the existence of mind(s)!

In other words, the complete explanatory/predictive theory of organisms
(and devices) WITH minds will be turing-indistinguishable from the
complete explanatory/predicitive theory of organisms (and devices)
WITHOUT minds, that simply behave in every observable way AS IF they
had minds.

That kind of inferential indeterminacy is a lot more serious than the
underdetermination of ordinary scientific inferences about
unobservables like quarks, gravitons or strings. And I believe that this
amounts to a demonstration that all ordinary inferential bets (about
brain-correlates, etc.) are off when it comes to the mind.
The mind (subjectivity, consciousness, the capacity to have
qualitative experience) is NEITHER an ordinary, intersubjectively
verifiable objectively observable datum, as in normal science, NOR is
it an ordinary unobservable inferred entity, forced upon us so that we
can give a successful explanatory/predictive account of the objective
data.

Yet the mind is undoubtedly real. We know that, noninferentially, for
one case: our own. It is to THAT direct knowledge that the informal component
of the TTT appeals, and ONLY to that knowledge. Any further indirect
inferences, based on, say, correlations, depend ultimately for their
validation only on that direct knowledge, and are always secondary to
it, in that split inferences are always settled by an appeal to the
TTT criterion, not vice versa (or some third thing), as I shall try to
show below.

(The formal component of the TTT, on the other hand [i.e., the formal
computer-testing of a theory that purports to generate all of our
performance capacities], IS just a case of ordinary scientific
inference; here it is an empirical question whether brain correlates
will be helpful in guiding theory-construction. I happen to
doubt they will be helpful even there; not, at least until we
get much closer to TTT utopia, when we've all but captured
total performance capacity, and the fine-tuning [errors, reaction
times, response style, etc.] may begin to matter. There, as I've
suggested, the boundary between organism-performance and
brain-performance may break down somewhat, and microfunctional and
structural considerations may become relevant to the success and
verisimilitude of the performance modeling itself.

>       Now then, armed with the reasonably reliable knowledge that in my own
>       case, my brain is a cause of my mind, and my mind is a cause of my
>       performance, I can try to draw appropriate conclusions about others.

As I've tried to argue, these two types of knowledge are so different
as to be virtually incommensurable. In particular, your knowledge that
your brain causes your performance is direct and incorrigible, whereas
your knowledge that your brain causes your mind is indirect,
inferential, and parasitic on the former. Inferences about other minds
are NOT ordinary cases of scientific inference. The mind/body case is
special.

>       X3 has brains, but little/no performance - eg a case of severe
>       retardation.  Well, there doesn't seem much reason to believe that
>       X has intelligence, and so is disqualified from having mind, given
>       our definition.  However, it is still reasonable to believe that
>       X3 might have consciousness, eg can feel pain, see colors, etc.

For the time being, intelligence is as mind does. X3 may not be VERY
intelligent, but if he has any mind-like performance capacity (to pass
some variant of the TTT for some organism or other -- a tricky issue),
that amounts to having some intelligence. As discussed in another
module, intelligence may be a matter of degree, but having a mind
seems to be an all-or-none matter. Also, having a mind seems to be a
sufficient condition for having intelligence; if it's not also a
necessary condition, we have the radical indeterminacy I mentioned
earlier, and we're in trouble.

So the case of severe retardation seems to represent no problem.
Retarded people pass (some variant of) the TTT, and we have no trouble
assigning them minds. This is fine as long as they have some (shall we
call it "intelligible") performance capacity, and hence some
intelligence. Comatose people are another matter. But they may well
not have minds. (I might add that our inclination to assign a mind to
a person who is so retarded that his performance capacity is reduced
to vegetative functions such as blinking, breathing and swallowing,
could conceivably be an overgeneralization, motivated by considerations
of biological origins and humanitarian concerns.) I repeat, though,
that these special cases belong more to the domain of near-utopia
fine-tuning than the basic issue of whether it is performance or brain
correlates that should guide us in inferring minds in others. Certainly
neither TTT-enthusiasts nor brain-enthusiasts have any grounds for
feeling confident about their judgments in such ambiguous cases.

>       X4 has normal human cognitive performance, but no brains, eg the
>       ultimate AI system.  Well, no doubt X4 has intelligence, but the issue
>       is whether X4 has consciousness.  This seems far from obvious to me,
>       since I know in my own case that brain causes consciousness causes
>       performance.  But I already know, in the case of X4, that the causal
>       chain starts out at a different place (non-brain), even if it ends up
>       in the same place (intelligent performance).  So I can certainly
>       question (rationally) whether it gets to performance "via
>       consciousness" or not.
>       If this seems too contentious, ask yourself: given a choice between
>       destroying X3 or X4, is it really obvious that the more moral choice
>       is to destroy X3?

I don't think the moral choice is obvious in either case. However, I
don't think you're imagining this case sufficiently vividly. Let's make
it the one I proposed: A lifelong friend turns out to be robot, versus
a human born (irremediably) with only vegetative function. These issues
are for the right-to-lifers; the alternatives imposed on us are too
hypothetical and artificial (akin to having to choose between saving
one's mother or father). But I think it's fairly clear which way I'd
go here. And what we know (or don't know) about brains has very little
to do with it.

>       Finally, a gedanken experiment (if ever there was one) - suppose
>       (a la sci-fi stories) they opened you up and showed you that you
>       really didn't have a brain after all, that you really did have
>       electronic circuits - and suppose it transpired that while most
>       humans had brains, a few, like yourself, had electronics.  Now,
>       never doubting your own consciousness, if you *really* found that
>       out, would you not then (rationally) be a lot more inclined to
>       attribute consciousness to electronic entities (after all you know
>       what it feels like to be one of them) than to brained entities (who
>       knows what, if anything, it feels like to be one of them?)?
>       Even given *no* difference in performance between the two sub-types?
>       Showing that "similarity to one's own internal make-up" is always
>       going to be a valid criterion for consciousness, independent of
>       performance.

Frankly, although it might disturb me for other reasons, I think that
discovering I had complex, ill-understood electronic cicuits inside my
head instead of complex, ill-understood biochemical ones would not
sway me one way or the other on the basic proposition that it is
performance alone that is responsible for my inferring minds in other
people, not my (or anyone else's) dim knowledge about their inner
structure of function. I agreed in an earlier module, though, that
such a demonstration would be a bit of a blow to the sceptics about robots
(which I am not) if they discovered THEMSELVES to be robots. On the
other hand, it wouldn't move an outside sceptic one bit. For example,
*you* would presumably be unifluenced in your convictions about the
relevance of brain-correlates over and above performance if *I* turned
out to be X4. And that's just the point! Like it or not, the
1st-person stance retains center stage in the mind/body problem.

>       I make this latter point to show that I am a brain-chauvinist *only
>       insofar* as I know/believe that I *myself* am a brained entity (and
>       that my brain is what causes my consciousness).  This really
>       doesn't depend on my own observation of my own performance at all -
>       I'd still know I had a mind even if I never did any (external) thing
>       clever.

Yes. But the problem for *you* is whether *I* (or some other candidate)
have a mind, not whether *you* do. Moreover, no one suggested that the
turing test was the basis for knowing one has a mind in the 1st person
case. That problem is probably closer to the Cartesian Cogito, solved
directly and incorrigibly. The other-minds problem is the one we're
concerned with here.

Perhaps I should emphasize that in the two "correlations" we are
talking about -- performance/mind and brain/mind -- the basis for the
causal inference is radically different. The causal connection between
my mind and my performance is something I know directly from being the
performer. There is no corresponding intuition about causation from
being the possessor of my brain. That's just a correlation, depending
for its causal interpretation (if any), on what theory or metatheory I
happen to subscribe to. That's why nothing compelling follows from
being told what my insides are made of.

>       To summarize: brainedness is a criterion, not only via the indirect
>       path of: others who have intelligent performance also have brains,
>       ergo brains are a secondary correlate for mind; but also via the
>       much more direct path (which *also* justifies performance as a
>       criterion): I have a mind and in my very own case, my mind is
>       closely causally connected with brains (and with performance).

I would summarize it differently: In the 1st-person case, I know directly
that my performance is caused by my mind. I infer (from the correlation)
that my brain causes my mind. In the other-minds case I know nothing
directly; however, I am intuitively persuaded by performance similarity.
I have no intuitions about brains, but of course every confirmatory
cue helps; so if you also have a brain, my confidence is increased.
But split the ticket, and I'll go with performance every time. That
makes it seem as if performance is still the decisive criterion, and
brainedness is only a secondary correlate.

Putting it yet another way: We have direct knowledge of the causal
connection between our minds and our performance and only indirect
inferences about the causal connection between our brains and our
minds (and performance). This parasitism is hence present in our
inferences about other minds too.

>       I agree that there are some additional epistemological problems,
>               [with subjective/objective causation, as opposed to
>               objective/objective causation, i.e., with the mind/body
problem]
>       compared to the usual cases of causation.  But these don't seem
>       all that daunting, absent radical skepticism.

But "radical" scepticism makes an unavoidable, substantive appearance
in the contemporary scientific incarnation of the other-minds problem:
The problem of robot minds.

>       We already know which parts of the brain
>       correlate with visual experience, auditory experience, speech
>       competence, etc. I hardly wish to understate the difficulty of
>       getting a full understanding, but I can't see any problem in
>       principle with finding out as much as we want.  What may be
>       mysterious is that at some level, some constellation of nerve
>       firings may "just" cause visual experience, (even as electric
>       currents "just" generate magnetic fields.)  But we are
>       always faced with brute-force correlation at the end of any scientific
>       explanation, so this cannot count against brain-explanatory theory of
>       mind.

There is not quite as much disagreement here as there may seem. We
agree on (1) the basic mystery in objective/subjective causation -- though I
disagree that it is no more mysterious than objective/objective
causation. Never mind. It's mysterious. I also agree that (2) I would
feel (negligibly) more confident in inferring that a candidate who
passed the TTT had a mind if it had a real brain than if it did not.
(I'd feel even more confident if it was my identical twin.) We agree
that (3) the brain causes the mind, that (4) the brain can be studied,
that (5) there are anatomical and physiological correlations
(objective/subjective), and that (6) these are very probably causal.

Where we may disagree is on the methodology for arriving at a causal theory
of mind. I don't think peeking-and-poking at the brain in search of
correlations is likely to generate a successful causal theory; I think
trial-and-error modeling of performance will, and that it will in fact
guide brain research, suggesting what functions to look for
implementations of, and how they cause performance. What I believe
will fall by the wayside in this brute-force correlative account --
I'm for correlations too, of course, except that I'm for
objective/objective correlations -- is subjectivity itself. For, on
all the observable evidence that will ever be available, the
complete theory of the mind -- whether implemented as a brain or as some
other artificial causal device -- will always be just as true of a
device actually having a mind as of a mindless device merely acting as
if it had a mind. And there will be no way of settling this, short of
actually BEING the device in question (which is no help to the rest of
us). If that's radical scepticism, it's come home to roost, and should
be accepted as a fact of life in mind-science. (I've dubbed this
"methodological epiphenomenalism" in the paper under discussion.)

You may feel more confident in attributing a mind to the
brain-implementation than to a synthetic one (though I can't imagine you'll
have good reasons, since they'll be functionally equivalent in every
observable and ostensibly relevant respect), but that too is a
question we will never be able settle objectively.

(Let me add, in case it's not apparent, that performances such as
reporting "It hurts now" are perfectly respectable, objective data,
both for the brain-correlation investigator and the mind-modeler. So
whereas we can never investigate subjectivity directly except in our
own case, we can approximate its behavioral manifestations as closely
as the expressive power of introspective reports will allow. What's
not clear is how useful this aspect of performance modeling will be.)

>       Well, I plead guilty to diverting the discussion into philosophy, and
as
>       a practical matter, one's attitude in this dispute will hardly affect
>       one's day-to-day work in the AI lab.  One of my purposes is a kind of
>       pre-emptive strike against a too-grandiose interpretation of the
>       results of AI work, particularly with regard to claims about
>       consciousness.  Given a behavioral definition of intelligence, there
>       seems no reason why a machine can't be intelligent.  But if "mind"
>       implies consciousness, it's a different ball-game, when claiming
>       that the machine "has a mind".

I plead no less guilty than you. Neither of us is responsible for the
fact that scepticism looms large in making inferences about other
minds and how they work, which is what cognitive science is about. I
do disagree, though, that these considerations are irrelevant to one's
research strategy. It does matter whether you choose to study the
brain directly, or to model it, or to model performance-equivalent
alternatives. Other issues in this discussion matter too: modeling
toy modules versus the Total Turing Test, symbolic modeling versus
robotic modeling, and the degree of attention focused on modeling
phenomenological reports.

I also agree, of course, about the grandiose over-interpretation of
which AI (and, lately, connectionism too) has been guilty. But in the
papers under discussion I try to propose principled constraints (e.g.,
robotic capacity, groundedness, nonmodularity and the Total Turing
Test) that might restrain such excesses, rather than merely scepticism
about artificial performance. I also try to sort out the empirical
issues from the methodological and metaphysical ones. And, as I've
argued in several iterations, "inetlligence" is not just a matter of
definition.

>       My as-yet-unarticulated intuition is that, at least for people, the
>       grounding-of-symbols problem, to which you are acutely and laudably
>       sensitive, inherently involves consciousness, ie at least for us,
>       meaning requires consciousness.  And so the problem of shoehorning
>       "meaning" into a dumb machine at least raises the issue about how
>       this can be done without making them conscious (or, alternatively,
>       how to go ahead and make them conscious).  Hence my interest in your
>       program of research.

Thank you for the kind words. One of course hopes that consciousness
will be captured somewhere along the road to Utopia. But my
methodological epiphenomenalism suggests that this may be an undecidable
metaphysical problem, and that, empirically and objectively, total
performance capacity is the most we can know ("scientifically") that
we have captured.

>-

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
270
-DATE-
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 86 14:15:29 EST
-FROM-
From: "Steven A. Swernofsky" <SASW@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Course - AI in Design and Manufacturing (MIT)
-BODY-
From: Neena Lyall <LYALL at XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

New Seminar Course                                                  Spring 1987

        2.996 Advanced Topics in Mechanical Engineering (A); Section 2

                          ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN
                            DESIGN & MANUFACTURING

Prerequisite:  1.00, 2.10, or 6.001
Units:         2-0-7
Date, time:    Wednesday, 1-3 pm
Place:         37-212

Applications  of  artificial  intelligence  to selected domains of engineering.
Discussions will focus on the principles, strengths and limitations of existing
techniques  as  well  as  present  and future applications.  Topics of coverage
include: knowledge representation issues  and  techniques,  logic  programming,
expert  systems,  machine  learning,  and  application  areas.    Format: class
discussions, midterm paper and final project.

For further information, contact Prof. S. H. Kim, x3-2249, Room 35-237.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 23:34 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Computational Problems in Equational Theorem
-BODY-           Proving (UPenn)


                                CIS COLLOQUIUM
                          University of Pennsylvania
                            3pm November 15, 1986
                               216 Moore School

             COMPUTATIONAL PROBLEMS IN EQUATIONAL THEOREM PROVING

                            Dr. Paliath Narendran
                     General Electric Research Laboratory

The area of Equational Reasoning has recently gained a lot of attention
and has been found to have applications in such diverse areas as program
synthesis and data base queries. Most of these applications are centered
around using the equations as "rewrite rules" and, in particular, using
the Knuth-Bendix completion procedure to generate a "complete" set of
such rewrite rules.  The power of the completion procedure lies in the
fact that once a complete set of rewrite rules is obtained, we also have
a decision procedure for the equational theory.  We discuss some of the
main computational problems involved in this area such as unification,
matching and sufficient-completeness testing and outline the decidability
and complexity results.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 10:44:46 PST
-FROM-
From: Peter Steenkiste <pas@mojave.stanford.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - LISP on a Reduced-Instruction-Set Processor (SU)
-BODY-
                  Special Seminar: Ph.D. Orals

           LISP on a Reduced-Instruction-Set Processor:
                Characterization and Optimization

                         Peter Steenkiste

                   Computer Systems Laboratory
              Department of Electrical Engineering
                       Stanford University


                            Abstract

As a result of advances in compiler technology, almost all programs
are written in high-level languages, and the effectiveness of a
computer architecture is determined by its suitability as a compiler
target.  This central role of compilers in the use of computers has
led computer architects to study the implementation of high-level
language programs.  This thesis presents profiling measurements for
a set of Portable Standard Lisp programs that were executed on the
MIPS-X reduced-instruction-set processor, examining what instructions
LISP uses at the assembly level, and how much time is spent on the
most common primitive LISP operations.  This information makes it
possible to determine which operations are time critical and to
evaluate how well architectural features address these operations.

The second part of the thesis will discuss a number of optimizations
for LISP, concentrating on three areas: the implementation of the
tags used for runtime type checking, reducing the cost of procedure
calls, and inter-procedural register allocation.  We look at methods
to implement tags, both with and without hardware support, and we
compare the performance of the different implementation strategies.
We show how the procedure call cost can be reduced by inlining small
procedures, and how inlining affects the miss rate in the MIPS-X
on-chip instruction cache.  A simple register allocator uses inter-
procedural information to reduce the cost of saving and restoring
registers across procedure calls.  We evaluate this register allocation
allocation scheme, and compare its performance with hardware register
windows.

Time: Monday, December 8, 1986, 4:15pm
Place: CIS Building, Room 101

Cookies will be served!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 25 November 1986 0948-EST
-FROM-
From: Masaru Tomita@A.CS.CMU.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - RUM: Reasoning with Uncertainty (CMU)
-BODY-
       RUM: A Layered Architecture for Reasoning with Uncertainty
                        Piero P. Bonissone
        General Electric Corporate Research and Development
        P.O. Box 8, K1-5C32A,  Schenectady, New York 12301

                           3:30pm, WeH5409

New reasoning techniques for dealing with uncertainty in Expert Systems
have been embedded in RUM, a Reasoning with Uncertainty Module.  RUM is an
integrated software tool based on a frame system (KEE) that is implemented
in an object oriented language.  RUM's capabilities are subdivided into
three layers: Representation, Inference, and Control.

The Representation layer is based on frame-like data structures that
capture the uncertainty information used in the inference layer and the
uncertainty meta-information used in the control layer.  Linguistic
probabilities are used to describe lower and upper bounds of the certainty
measure attached to a Well Formed Formula (wff).  The source and the
conditions under which the information was obtained represent the
non-numerical meta-information.

The Inference layer provides the uncertainty calculi to perform the
intersection, detachment, union, and pooling of the information.  Five
uncertainty calculi, based on their underlying Triangular norms (T-norms),
are used in this layer.

The Control layer uses the meta-information to select the appropriate
calculus for each context and to resolve eventual ignorance or conflict in
the information.  This layer enables the programmer to declaratively
express the local (context dependent) meta-knowledge that will substitute
the global assumptions traditionally used in uncertain reasoning.

RUM has been tested and validated in a sequence of experiments in naval
situation assessment (SA).  These experiments consists in determining
report/track correlation, platform location, and platform typing.  The
testbed environment for developing these experiments has been provided by
LOTTA, a symbolic simulator implemented in Zetalisp Flavors, the object
oriented language of the Lisp Machine.  This simulator maintains
time-varying situations in a multi-player antagonistic game where players
must make decisions in light of uncertain and incomplete data.  RUM has
been used to assist one of the LOTTA players to perform the SA task.

> - - - End forwarded message - - - -

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 00:10 EST
-FROM-
From: Tim Finin <Tim@cis.upenn.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Graphical Access to an Expert System (UPenn)
-BODY-
                  COLLOQUIUM - UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
                       3pm Tuesday, December 2, 1986
                           Room 216 Moore School


                   GRAPHICAL ACCESS TO AN EXPERT SYSTEM:
                    THE EVOLUTION OF THE ONCOCIN PROJECT

                              Ted Shortliffe
           Visiting Professor of Computer and Information Science
                         University of Pennsylvania
                                    and
            Associate Professor of Medicine and Computer Science
                       Medical Computer Science Group
                        Knowledge Systems Laboratory
                          Stanford Medical School


The research goals of Stanford's Medical Computer Science group are directed
both toward the basic science of artificial intelligence and toward the
development of clinically useful consultation tools.  Our approach has been
eclectic, drawing on fields such as decision analysis, interactive graphics,
and both qualitative and probabilistic simulation as well as AI.  In this
presentation I will discuss ONCOCIN, an advice system designed to suggest
optimal therapy for patients undergoing cancer treatment, as well as to
assist in the data management tasks required to support research treatment
plans (protocols).  A prototype version, developed in Interlisp and SAIL
on a DEC-20, was used between May 1981 and May 1985 by oncology faculty and
fellows in the Debbie Probst Oncology Day Care Center at the Stanford
University Medical Center.  In recent years, however, we have spent much
of our time reimplementing ONCOCIN to run on Xerox 1100 series workstations
and to take advantage of the graphics environment provided on those
machines.  The physician's interface has been redesigned to approximate the
appearance and functionality of the paper forms traditionally used for
recording patient status.  The Lisp machine version of ONCOCIN was introduced
for use by Stanford physicians earlier this year.

In response to the need for an improved method for entering and maintaining
the rapidly expanding ONCOCIN protocol knowledge base, we have also developed
a graphical knowledge acquisition environment known as OPAL.  This system
allows expert oncologists to directly enter their knowledge of protocol-
directed cancer therapy using graphics-based forms developed in the
Interlisp-D environment.  The development of OPAL's graphical interface led
to a new understanding of the natural structure of knowledge in this domain.
ONCOCIN's knowledge representation was accordingly redesigned for the Lisp
machine environment.  This has involved adopting an object-centered knowledge
base design which has provided an increase in the speed of the program while
providing more flexible access to system knowledge.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Nov 86 22:29:56 EST
-FROM-
From: Sergio.Sedas@fas.ri.cmu.edu
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Seminar - Disassembly Expert (CMU)
-BODY-

Master's Defense
Name: Sergio W. Sedas
Title:Disassembly Expert
Dept: ECE
Date: Dec. 3, 1986
Time: 2:00 DHA219 Engineering Design
           Research  Center (Demo)
      2:30 DH1102 Chemical Engineering
           Conference Room (Presentation)


An important part in a redesign for assembly expert is a module which will
autonomously disassemble mechanical objects.  Although disassembly is a task
which is easily performed by human beings, it has been a very difficult task
for computers to perform.  This paper describes an algorithm which mimics
the human experimental approach to disassemble mechanical assemblies.  A
highlight in this approach is the ability to determine when a single part or
a group of parts (subassembly) must be removed.

We have divided the disassembly operation into two basic steps.  The first
step selects a part to remove and identifies which parts whose connections
can not be severed must be removed with it.  The second step, incorporated
in a path planner, attempts to remove the subassembly.  During removal,
obstacles may be added or excluded from the subassembly.

A second contribution is the use of multiple representations for
problem solving.  A number of geometric, connectivity and facilities models
are used simultaneously in both steps of the disassembly.

This algorithm has successfully disassembled a flashlight and a piston.  By
modifying the objective we've managed to remove an object from a closed
drawer and a chosen part from a within a flashlight assembly.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
271
-DATE-
Date: 26 NOV 86 18:43-EST
-FROM-
From: WLMILLIO%GALLUD.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Anything in D.C. area?
-BODY-
  All of the conferences that are advertised seem to be very, very far away
from the Wasington, D.C. area.   Since I, and I'm sure there are others,
fit the stereotype of the starving student, I would be interested in knowing
if there are any conferences or seminars being offered in the Washington
area, either by some of the Universities here, or by corporations or
professional organizations in the area.

  "Acceptable" seminars or conferences really mean anything related to the
field of AI, from expert systems design, to smart programming, to you name
it.

  Please respond if you are aware of anything being planned between now
and January of 88.

William Millios
Gallaudet University
Washington, D.C.

WLMILLIOS@GALLUA.BITNET

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 0  0 00:00:00 EST
-FROM-
From: "^MRobert Breaux" <breaux@ntsc-74>
-REPLY:TO-
Reply-to: "Robert Breaux" <breaux@ntsc-74>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: RUTGERS SEMINAR ON OFFICE SYSTEMS
-BODY-
I am interested in the topic of Professor Bruce Croft's 10:00 am 20 Nov
talk on Planning and Plan Recognition in Office Systems, although I was
unable to make it.  Will there be any subsequent written document
that I could receive?
Robert Breaux
Naval Training Systems Center
Orlando, FL 32813-7100
(305) 646-5529

2

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 86 19:18:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: uwslh!lishka@rsch.wisc.edu  (a)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Good AI games which learn.
-BODY-

        I am an undergraduate interested in games which learn.  Now, I know
that there are a LOT of AI games out there...however, I am looking for source
code, or references to where I can get source code,
on games which actually "learn" (in some sense of the word
...I know I'm being sort of vague, but I'm not sure of what is out there).
These games should be public domain, and something that
can be modified easily (preferably in a block structured language like C [my
favorite] or Pascal or Modula-2).  Also, I am not looking for chess games, or
any other games which simulate "intelligence" by performing lookahead...I want
games which will modify their actions according to how good (or bad) the player
is, and which are possibly able to detect patterns in the human player's (or
another computer player's [uh, oh -- Searle, Turing Test...]) "styles".
        I know I am being sort of picky, yet vague as to what I want, but I
am interested in game-learning algorithms which have some foundations
in AI (one specific game-type would be those that can converse, yet can add
to their vocabulary...another would be an arcade game which gets "better"
or "worse" depending on who's playing).  Please mail responses to me...I'll
post the names of any good programs I receive at a later date.  Thanks in
advance.
>-
Chris Lishka                    /lishka@uwslh.uucp
Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu
                                \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 86 01:44:08 GMT
-FROM-
From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu  (John B. Nagle)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proposed: a split of this group
-BODY-

     I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups;
one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter
to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers,
and suchlike.

                                        John Nagle

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 30 Nov 86 01:48:18 GMT
-FROM-
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Proposed: a split of this group
-BODY-
I second the motion.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 24 Nov 86 20:34:13 GMT
-FROM-
From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekchips!willc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Will
     Clinger)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
In article <2862@burdvax.UUCP> blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) writes:
>If Weizenbaum or anyone else thinks he or she can succeeded in weighing
>possible good and bad applications, I think he is mistaken. Wildly
>mistaken.
>
>Why does Weizenbaum think technologists are, even within the bounds of
>conventional wisdom, competent to make such judgements in the first
>place?

Is this supposed to mean that professors of moral philosophy are the only
people who should make moral judgments?  Or is it supposed to mean that
we should trust the theologians to choose for us?  Or that we should leave
all such matters to the politicians?

Representative democracy imposes upon citizens a responsibility for
judging moral choices made by the leaders they elect.  It seems to me
that anyone presumed to be capable of judging others' moral choices
should be presumed capable of making their own.

It also seems to me that responsibility for judging the likely outcome
of one's actions is not a thing that humans can evade, and I applaud
Weizenbaum for pointing out that scientists and engineers bear this
responsibility as much as anyone else.

By saying this I neither applaud nor deplore the particular moral choices
that Weizenbaum advocates.

William Clinger

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 26 Nov 86 17:58:12 GMT
-FROM-
From: eugene@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Eugene Miya N.)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race
-BODY-
>Will Clinger writes:
>In article <2862@burdvax.UUCP> blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) writes:
>>If Weizenbaum or anyone else thinks he or she can succeeded in weighing
>>possible good and bad applications, I think he is mistaken.
>>
>>Why does Weizenbaum think technologists are, even within the bounds of
>>conventional wisdom, competent to make such judgements in the first
>>place?
>
>Is this supposed to mean that professors of moral philosophy are the only
>people who should make moral judgments?  Or is it supposed to mean that
>we should trust the theologians to choose for us?  Or that we should leave
>all such matters to the politicians?
>
>Representative democracy imposes upon citizens a responsibility for
>judging moral choices made by the leaders they elect.  It seems to me
>that anyone presumed to be capable of judging others' moral choices
>should be presumed capable of making their own.
>
>It also seems to me that responsibility for judging the likely outcome
>of one's actions is not a thing that humans can evade, and I applaud
>Weizenbaum for pointing out that scientists and engineers bear this
>responsibility as much as anyone else.
>
>William Clinger

The problem here began in 1939.  It's science's relationship to
the rest of democracy and society.  Before that time science was
a minor player.  This is when the physics community (on the part of
Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner) when to Albert Einstein and said:
look at these developments in nuclear energy and look where Nazi Germany
is going.  He turn as a public figure (like Carl Sagan in a way)
went to Roosevelt.  Science has never been the same. [Note we also
make more money for science from government than ever: note
the discussion on funding math where Halmos was quoted.]

What Tom did not point out is where or not scientists and engineers
have "more" responsibility.  Some people say since they are in the know,
they have MORE responsibility, others say, no this is a democracy
they have EQUAL responsibility, but judgments MUST be made by it's
citizens.  In the "natural world," many things are not democratic
(is gravity autocratic?)... well these are not the right words but
the illustrate the point that man's ideas are sometimes feeible.

While Weizenbaum may or may not weigh moral values, he is in a
unique position to understand some of the technical issues, and he
should properly steer the understanding of those weighing moral
decisions (as opposed to letting them stray): in other words, yes,
to a degree, he DOES weigh them and yes he DOES color his moral values
into the argument. [The moral equivalent to making moral judgments.]

An earlier posting pointed out the molecular biologists restricting
specific types of work at the Asolimar meeting years ago.  In the
journal Science, it was noted that much of the community felt it shot
its foot off, looking back, and that current research is being held back.
I would hope that the AI community would learn from the biologists'
experience and either not restrict research (perhaps too ideal)
or not end up gagging themselves.  Tricky issue, why doesn't someone
write an AI program to decide what to do?  Good luck.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

>-eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 86 21:29:45 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!watdragon!kyukawa@titan.arc.nasa.go
     v  (Keitaro Yukawa)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: P = NP
-BODY-
The following news appeared in the news group sci.math


>From hxd9622@ritcv.UUCP (Herman Darmawan) Fri Nov 28 02:41:59 1986
Subject: Re: P=NP (request for reference)
Date: 28 Nov 86 07:41:59 GMT
Reply-To: hxd9622@ritcv.UUCP (Herman Darmawan)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY


                       P = NP
                         by
                     E. R. Swart

         Department of Mathematics & Statistics
                 University of Guelph
                Guelph, Ontario, Canada

              Mathematical Series 1986-107

                    February 1986


Abstract:
        A mathematical programming formulation of the Hamiltonian
circuit problem involving zero/one restrictions and triply subscripted
variables is presented and by relaxing the zero/one restrictions and
adding linear constraints together with additional variables, with
up to as many as 8 subscripts, this formulation is converted into a
linear programming formulation.  In the light of the results of
Kachiyan and Karmarkar concerning the existence of polynomial time
algorithms for linear programming this establishes the fact that the
Hamiltonian circuit problem can be solved in polynomial time.  Since
the Hamiltonian circuit problem belongs to the set of NP-complete
problems it follows immediately that P=NP.

~40 pages.

  [I believe this has been mentioned here previously, along with
  a claim that close examination shows flaws in the argument.
  The theoreticians (e.g., on Theory-Net) apparently regard the
  P = NP question as still open.  -- KIL]

>+-+-+-

Herman Darmawan @ Rochester Institute of Technology
UUCP     {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!hxd9622
BITNET   HND9622@RITVAXC

... fight mail hunger ... mail me now!

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
272
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai.bib45AB
-BODY-
%T  Toward a Computational Interpretation
of Situation Semantics
%A  Yves Lesperance
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 1
%D February 1986
%K AI16 AI02
%X Situation semantics proposes novel and attractive treatments for several
problem areas of natural language semantics, such as efficiency (context
sensitivity) and propositional attitude reports.  Its focus on the information
carried by utterances makes the approach very promising for accounting for
pragmatic phenomena.  However, situation semantics seems to oppose several
basic assumptions underlying current approaches to natural language processing
and the design of intelligent systems in general. It claims that efficiency
undermines the standard notions of logical form, entailment, and proof theory,
and objects to the view that mental processes necessarily involve internal
representations.  The paper attempts to clarify these issues and discusses
the impact of situation semantics' criticisms for natural language processing,
knowledge representation, and reasoning.  We claim that the representational
approach is the only practical one for the design of large intelligent systems,
but argue that the representations used should be efficient in order to account
for the systems embedding in its environment.  We conclude by stating some
constraints that a computational interpretation of situation semantics should
obey and discussing remaining problems.

%T  The Role of Native Grammars in
Correcting Errors in Second Language Learning
%A  Ethel Schuster
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 2
%D May 1986
%K AI02 AA07
%X
.ds VP \s-1VP\s0\*([.2\*(.]
This paper describes, \(*VP, a system that has been implemented to
tutor non-native speakers in English.  This system differs from many tutoring
systems by employing an explicit grammar of its user's native language.
This grammar enables \*(VP to customize its responses by addressing
problems due to interference of the native language.  The system focuses on the
acquisition of English verb-particle and verb-prepositional phrase
constructions.  Its correction strategy is based upon comparison of the native
language grammar with an English grammar.  \*(VP is a modular system: its
grammar of a user's native language can be easily replaced by a grammar of
another language.  The problems and solutions presented in this paper are
related to the more general question of how modeling previous knowledge
facilitates instruction in a new skill.

%T  \s-1COACH\s0: A Tutor Based on Active Schemas
%A  Donald R. Gentner
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 2
%D May 1986
%K AA07
%X
The \s-1COACH\s0 system, a computer simulation of a human tutor, was
constructed with the goal of obtaining a better understanding of how a tutor
interprets the student's behavior, diagnoses difficulties, and gives advice.
\s-1COACH\s0 gives advice to a student who is learning a simple computer
programming language.  Its intelligence is based on a hierarchy of active
schemas that represent the tutor's general concepts, and on more specific
information represented in a semantic network.  The coordination of
conceptually-guided and data-driven processing enables \s-1COACH\s0 to
interpret student behavior, recognize errors, and give advice to the student.

%T  Formative Evaluation in the
Development and Validation of
Expert Systems in Education
%A  Alan M. Hofmeister
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 2
%D May 1986
%K AA07
%X
Researchers developing and validating educational products often expect
the same field-test activities to provide information on product improvement
and product effectiveness.  For effective and economical use of resources,
these two goals, product improvement and product validation, must be stressed
at different times and with different tools and strategies.  This article
identifies the difference in procedures and outcome between formative and
summative evaluation practices, and relates these practices to the development
and validation of expert systems in education.

%T  The Design of the \s-1SCENT\s0 Automated Advisor
%A  Gordon McCalla
%A Richard Bunt
%A  Janelle Harms
%K AA07 T01 AT18
%X
The \s-1SCENT\s0 (Student Computing Environment) project is concerned with
building an intelligent tutoring system to help students debug their Lisp
programs.  The major thrust of current \s-1SCENT\s0 investigations is into the
design of the \s-1SCENT\s0 advisor which is meant to provide debugging
assistance to novice students.  Six conceptual levels constitute the advisor.
At the lowest level is the raw data'', consisting of the students (possibly
buggy) program.  This can be interpreted by a program behaviour'' level which
can produce traces, cross-reference charts, etc., from the student's program.
These traces, etc., can be analyzed by observers'' for interesting patterns.
At the next level are strategy judges'' and diagnosticians'' which
determine which strategy the student has used in his or her program and bugs
in this strategy.  A task expert'' provides task-specific input into the
process of analyzing the student's solution, and a student knowledge
component'' provides student-specific input into this process.  Information
from the six levels interacts in a variety of ways and control is similarly
heterarchical.  This necessitates a blackboard-style scheme to coordinate
information dissemination and control flow.

%T  A Programming Language
for Learning Environments
%A  J.I. Glasgow
%A L.J. Hendren
%A  M.A. Jenkins
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 2
%D May 1986
%X
Most of the recent research on programming languages for education has been
centered around the language Logo.  In this paper we introduce another
candidate language for learning environments, Nial, the nested interactive
array language.
.LP
Nial is a general-purpose programming language based on a formal theory of
mathematics called array theory.  This paper introduces Nial as a language for
learning programming and developing and using computer-aided instruction tools.
A comparison with Logo is provided to evaluate these two languages in terms
of their strengths and weaknesses as programming environments for novice
programmers.  We also demonstrate that a programming environment can be both
simple to learn at the novice level and extendible to a powerful and
sophisticated language.

%T  Student Modelling by an Expert System
in an Intelligent Tutoring System
%A  Odile Palies
%A Michel Caillot,
%A Evelyne Cauzinille-Marmeche,
%A Jean-Louis Lauriere
%A Jacques Mathieu
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 2
%D May 1986
%K Electre AA04 AA07
%X
\s-1ELECTRE\s0 is a project to build an intelligent tutoring system for
teaching basic electricity.  This paper describes a student modeling based on
the student's cognitive processes.  This model includes for each student,
his or her domain knowledge and the specific heuristics as well.  Moreover, it
uses meta-knowledge of problem solving.  This model is simulated by a
knowledge base  which controls the solving processes by meta-rules.  A case
study is presented.

%T  Using knowledge generated in heuristic search
for non-chronological backtracking
%A  Vasant Dhar
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 3
%D August 1986
%K AI03
%X Problem solvers that use heuristics to guide choices often run into
untenable
situations that can be characterized as over-constrained.  When this happens,
the problem must be able to identify the right culprit from along its heuristic
choices in order to avoid a potentially explosive search.  In this paper, we
present a solution to this for a certain class of problems where the
justifications associated with choice points involve an explicit assessment of
the pros and cons of choosing each alternative relative to its competitors.  We
have designed a problem solver that accumulates such knowledge about the pros
and cons of alternative selections at choice points during heuristic search,
which it updates in light of an evolving problem situation.  Whenever untenable
situations arise, this preserved knowledge is used in order to determine the
most appropriate backtracking point.  By endowing the backtracker with access
to this domain-specific knowledge, a highly contextual approach to reasoning in
backtracking situations can be achieved.

%T  Recognition algorithms
for the Connection Machine\*(TM
%A  Anita M. Flynn
%A John G. Harris
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 3
%D August 1986
%K H03 AI03 AI06
%X This paper describes an object recognition algorithm both on a sequential
machine and on a SIMD parallel processor such as the MIT Connection Machine.
The problem, in the way it is presently formulated on a sequential machine, is
essentially a propagation of constraints through a tree of possibilities in an
attempt to prune the tree to a small number of leaves.  The tree can become
excessively large, however, and so implementations on massively parallel
machines are sought in order to speed up the problem.  Two fast parallel
algorithms are described here.
.br
A static algorithm reformulates the problem by assigning every leaf in the
completely expanded unpruned tree to a separate processor in the Connection
Machine.  Then pruning is done in nearly constant time by broadcasting
constraints to the entire SIMD array. This parallel version is shown to run
three to four orders of magnitude faster than the sequential version.  For
large recognition problems which would exceed the capacity of the machine, a
dynamic algorithm is described which performs a series of loading and pruning
steps, dynamically allocating and deallocating processors through the use of
the Connection Machine's global router communications mechanism.


%T  Parsing with restricted quantification:
An initial demonstration
%A  Alan M. Frisch
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 3
%D August 1986
%K AI03 AI02
%X The primary goal of this paper is to illustrate how smaller deductive search
spaces can be obtained by extending a logical language with restricted
quantification and tailoring an interface system to this extension.  The
illustration examines the search spaces for a bottom-up parse of a sentence
with a series of four strongly equivalent grammars.  The grammars are stated in
logical languages of increasing expressiveness, each restatement resulting in a
more concise grammar and a smaller search space.
.sp
A secondary goal is to point out an area where further research could
yield results useful to the design of efficient parsers, particularly for
grammatical formalisms that rely heavily on feature systems.

%T   An explanation shell for expert systems
%A   Leon Sterling
%A  Marucha Lalee
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 3
%D August 1986
%K T02 T03 AI01
%X We describe a shell for expert systems written in Prolog.  The shell
provides
 a
consultation environment and a range of explanation capabilities.  The design
of the shell is modular, making it very easy to extend the shell with extra
features required by a particular expert system.  The novelty of the shell is
twofold.  Firstly it has a uniform design consisting of an integrated
collection of meta-interpreters. Secondly, there is a new approach for
explaining `why not', when a query to the system fails.

%A Lisa L. Spiegelman
%T Object-Oriented Programming Language to Employ Windows Operating Environment
%J Infoworld
%D OCT 6, 1986
%V 8
%N 40
%P 10
%K H01 AT02
%X Actor is available from White Water Group for $495.00.
It is an object oriented programming language using exchange of information
between windows in Microsoft's Window environment.  It is allegedly for
AI developers.

%A Priscilla M. Chabal
%T Extension Enables Image-Pro to Work In Protected Mode on 286 Machines
%J Infoworld
%D OCT 6, 1986
%V 8
%N 40
%P  31
%K AI06 H01 AT02
%X Image-Pro, an image processing software package for the IBM-PC, can
now make use of more than 640 K on  286 based computers.

%A David Bright
%T John Blankenbaker: Inventor of Kenbak-I
%J ComputerWorld
%V 20
%N 44
%D NOV 3, 1986
%P 173
%K H02
%X Biography of the designer of the production version of the Symbolics LISP
mac
hine.
He also developed a $750.00 personal computer in 1971 but only sold
48 of them.  It used several chips for the CPU.  He also worked at Quotron.

%A Alan Alper
%T Researchers Focus on Promise of Eye-Gaze Technology
%J ComputerWorld
%V 20
%N 44
%D NOV 3, 1986
%K O01
%X discussion of the use of technology to read where the eye is looking to
contr
ol
computers.  Sentinent is selling a $3000.00 eye project c
IBM has a patent for an eye-tracking mechanism that was accurate
enough to control a computer.
Analytics is developing eye-gaze technology
to use in concert with voice recognition.  They are accurate to less than
1 degree of arc.
They are also looking into the possibility of reading
a magnetoencephlograph for the same control purpose.

%A A. Terry Bahill
%A Wiliam R. Ferrell
%T Teaching an Introductory Course in Expert Systems
%J IEEE Expert
%D Winter 1986
%V 1
%N 4
%P 59-63
%K AA01 AT18
%X Lists various projects that students completed.  One of the
most interesting was an autology expert system that was rated by a
real speech expert.  The speech expert stated that the system had
correct rules but she could see what books she got them from.
It did give her insight in teaching methods and to what she was
actually doing.
It turned out that  the students interviewed a resident rather than
a true \fIexpert\fR.  The system used MI the MIT videotapes, the
M.1 shell instructor's package and lecture notes.  The course
was rated very good on student evaluations.

%T Medical Applications
%J IEEE Expert
%D Winter 1986
%V 1
%N 4
%P  10-14
%K mycin puff emycin oncocin Cadeucius AI01 AA01 H01 Referee AI01 AA02 AA10
AI04
Rulemaster
%X Caduceus (used to be Internist) now proves more accurate than the average
physician, comparable to teams of physician and almost as good as expert
physicians asked to review the case in retrospect.  Oncocin now is
comparable relative to physicians treating patients at Stanford.
Referee is being developed to help physicians judge medical studies.
Also being developed is an expert system for nuclear magnetic resonance
in determining protein molecule structures.  The system is unusual in
that experts are not very good at this either.
.sp 1
Cedars-Sinai medical researchers are developing a system for
assisting cardiologists.  The system is being developed from examples
using Radian.

%A Joseph Urban
%T Building Intelligence into Software Tools
%J IEEE Expert
%D Winter 1986
%V 1
%N 4
%P  21
%K AA08 AI01
%X intro to special issue on software engineering applications of expert
systems

%A I. Zulkerman
%A W. Tsai
%A D. Volovik
%T Expert Systems and Software Engineering: Ready for Marriage?
%J IEEE Expert
%D Winter 1986
%V 1
%N 4
%P  24-31
%K AA08 AI01
%X this article consisted of a summary of expert system technologies,
software engineering technologies.  There was little
material in this article relating how to apply AI tools to software
engineering.

%A Mitchell D. Lubars
%A Mehdi T. Harandi
%T Intelligent Support for Software Specification and Design
%J IEEE Expert
%D Winter 1986
%V 1
%N 4
%P 33-41
%K AA08
%X describes a system to help develop dataflow diagrams (these are used
by many designers for specifying software systems).
It finds subparts to put into the system to perform various tasks
similar to the way KBEmacs finds pieces of code to instantiate
for various needs the user has.  The system is integrated into
the Polylith system for configuration complicated software systems
and dataflow diagram analysis tools.  The system has been working
on smaller examples.

%A Martin Herbert
%A Curt Hartog
%T MIS Rates the Issues
%J Datamation
%V NOV 15
%V 192
%N 32
%K AA06
%X reports result of surveying the MIS managers for Fortune 1000 companies.
They were asked to rank various issues ranging from 1 (unimportant) to
4 (most important).  "Expert systems and Artificial Intelligence" was
rated the lowerst 2.21.  To put this in perspective, here are some other
ratings:
.br
CIM, 2.25, Strategic Systems 2.42, Aligning MIS with Business Goals, 3.54,
'Telecommunications 3.17.

%T Parallel Processing Startup will Take on the Big Players
%J Electronic News
%D NOV 13, 1986
%V 59
%N 35
%P 21
%K AT02   H03 Dado Columbia tree
%X The Dado, a tree structure architecture, implemented at Columbia University
is being developed by a startup company.   It consists of 16 to 64 68020
processors and will cost $90,000.  It will work as an accelerator
in conjunction with a SUN work station.


%T Low-cost Camera Converts Photos to PC Images
%J Electronic News
%D NOV 13, 1986
%V 59
%N 35
%P 25
%K AI06 AT02
%X a $1200 camera that converts color images to digital data in a PC
is available from Ulie Research Labs.

%A Charles Cohen
%T Sensor Lets Robots Do Top-Quality Arc Welding
%J Electronic News
%D NOV 13, 1986
%V 59
%N 35
%P 43-45
%K AA26 AI06 AI07
%X describes new vision sensor for robots doing arc welding.

%T Integrated Artificial Intelligence System Tackles Newspaper Pagination
Challenge
%J Insight
%V 6
%N 9
%D NOV 1986
%P 3-5
%K AI01 H03 Composition Systems  AI02
%X Description of Composition Systems commercial AI driven newspaper
layout system.  The system consists of three cooperating modules
which can be bought separately or combined with the use of META to
resolve conflicts.  The system allows natural language questions to
find out policies for newspaper layout that were previously entered
or to find the status of particular pages.    The sytem allows automatic
entry of adds by customers with personal computers.  Some of the policies
implemented are attempting to insure that coupons are not backed by
important material.


%A Jesse Victor
%T ANSI Display Management Aids Real-Time Imaging
%J Mini-Micro Systems
%D NOV 1986
%P 43-47
%V 19
%N 13
%K AT02 AI06  H01 datacube University of Lowell
Georges Grinstein
%X Datacube sells an ANSI display system standard system.
It supports 512 by 512 pixel systems.  The system costs
$9000.00 dollars.  It is anticipated that the software
will include a natural language interface, expert system
tools.

%A H. A. Simon
%T Whether Software Engineering Needs to be Artificially Intelligent
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D JUL 1986
%V SE-12
%N 7
%P 726-732
%K AA08 AT14

%A Allen T. Goldberg
%T Knowledge-Based Programming: A Survey of Program Design and Construction
Techniques
%J IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
%D JUL 1986
%V SE-12
%N 7
%P  752-768
%K AT08 AA08

%A Priscilla M. Chabal
%T Firm Announces Expert System Environment for IBM RT Workstation
%J InfoWorld
%D SEP 29, 1986
%V 8
%N 39
%P 24
%K T01 AT02 H01
%X The GURU expert system is available for the IBM RT for
$17000.

%A Hank Bannister
%T Borland Introduces Turbo Prolog, Version 1.1
%J InfoWorld
%D SEP 29, 1986
%V 8
%N 39
%P  3
%K AT02 H01 T03 T02 AI02
%X Borland introduced Version 1.1 which adds speed improvements
to the compiler, interface to other languages, a natural language
parser and a sample expert system shell

%A Steven Burke
%T Lotus to Release Its Long-Awaited Human Language Add-on October 6
%J InfoWorld
%D SEP 29, 1986
%V 8
%N 39
%P  12
%K AT02 H01 AI02  AA15
%X Hal will be released on October 6 from Lotus  which
is a natural language interface to Lotus 1-2-3

%A Ninamary Buba Maginnis
%T Publishers Await System
%J ComputerWorld
%D NOV 10, 1986
%V 20
%N 45
%P 19+
%K AT02 AI01 Composition Systems newspaper AA20
%X Describes an expert publishing system from Composition
systems which sells for $600,000 to $2,000,000 depending
upon the size of the newspaper.
.sp 1
Also describes Michael Stock who is the leader of the
effort.  He plans to work in process control and is
a self-described workaholic.  He plans to work in
process control expert systems including systems that
work with several loops at a time.

>-----------------------------
-END-
).
-VOL-
4

-N-
273
-DATE-
Date: WED, 10 oct 86 17:02:23 CDT
-FROM-
From: leff%smu@csnet-relay
-SUBJECT-
Subject: ai.bib42AB
-BODY-
%A Ralph Grishman
%A Richard Kittredge
%T Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains
%I Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
%C Hillsdale, NJ
%K AI02 AA01
%D 1986
%X 0-89859-620-3 1986 264 pages $29.95
.TS
tab(~);
l l.
N.Sager~T{
Sublanguage: Linguistic Phenomenon, Computational Tool
T}
J. Lehrberger~Sublanguage Analysis
E. Fitzpatrick~T{
The Status of Telegraphic Sublanguages
T}
J. Bachenko
D. Hindle
J. R. Hobbs~Sublanguage and Knowledge
D. E. Walker~T{
The Use of Machine Readable Dictionaries in Sublanguage Analysis
T}
R. A. Amsler
C. Friedman~T{
Automatic Structuring of Sublanguage Information: Application to
Medical Narrative
T}
E. Marsh~T{
General Semantic Patterns in Different Sublanguages
T}
C. A. Montgomery~T{
A Sublanguage for Reporting and Analysis of Space Events
T}
B. C. Glover
T. W. Finin~T{
Constraining the Interpretation of Nominal Compounds in a Limited Context
T}
G. Dunham~T{
The Role of Syntax in the Sublanguage of Medical Diagnostic Statements
T}
J. Slocum~T{
How One Might Automatically Identify and Adapt to a Sublanguage
T}
L. Hirschman~T{
Discovering Sublanguage Structures
T}
.TE

%A Janet L. Kolodner
%A Christopher K. Riesbeck
%T Experience, Memory and Reasoning
%I Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
%C Hillsdale, NJ
%D 1986
%K AT15
%X 0-89859-664-0 1986 272 pages $29.95
.TS
tab(~);
l l.
R.Wilensky~T{
Knowledge Representation - A critique and a Proposal
T}
T{
R. H. Granger
.br
D. M. McNulty
T}~T{
Learning and Memory in Machines and Animals that
Accounts for Some Neurobiological Data
T}
T{
V. Sembugamoorthy
.br
B. Chandrasekaran
T}~T{
Functional Representation of Devices and Compilation of
Diagnostic Problem Solving Systems
T}
.TE

%T Recovering from Execution Errors in \s-1SIPE\s0
%A  David E. Wilkins
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%D 1985
%K AI07 AI09
%X
In real-world domains (a mobile robot is used as a motivating example), things
do not always proceed as planned.  Therefore it is important to develop better
execution-monitoring techniques and replanning capabilities. This paper
describes the execution-monitoring and replanning capabilities of the
\s-1SIPE\s0 planning system.  (\s-1SIPE\s0 assumes that new information to the
execution monitor is in the form of predicates, thus avoiding the difficult
problem of how to generate these predicates from information provided by
sensors.)  The execution-monitoring module takes advantage of the rich
structure of \s-1SIPE\s0 plans (including a description of the plan rationale),
and is intimately connected with the planner, which can be called as a
subroutine.  The major advantages of embedding the replanner within the
planning system itself are:
.IP 1.
The replanning module can take advantage of the efficient frame reasoning
mechanisms in \s-1SIPE\s0 to quickly discover problems and potential fixes.
.IP 2.
The deductive capabilities of \s-1SIPE\s0 are used to provide a reasonable
solution to the truth maintenance problem.
.IP 3.
The planner can be called as a subroutine to solve problems after the
replanning module has inserted new goals in the plan.
.LP
Another important contribution is the development of a general set of
replanning actions that will form the basis for a language capable of
specifying error-recovery operators, and a general replanning capability that
has been implemented using these actions.

%T  Plan Parsing for Intended Response Recognition
in Discourse
%A  Candace L. Sidner
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%D 1985
%K Discourse task-oriented dialogues intended meaning AI02
speaker's plans discourse understanding plan parsing discourse markers
%X
In a discourse, the hearer must recognize the response intended by the speaker.
To perform this recognition, the hearer must ascertain what plans the speaker
is undertaking and how the utterances in the discourse further that plan. To do
so, the hearer can parse the initial intentions (recoverable from the
utterance) and recognize the plans the speaker has in mind and intends the
hearer to know about. This paper reports on a theory of parsing the intentions
in discourse. It also discusses the role of another aspect of discourse,
discourse markers, that are valuable to intended response recognition.

%T  Knowledge Organization and its Role
in Representation and Interpretation for
Time-Varying Data: The \s-1ALVEN\s0 System
%A  John K. Tsotsos
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%D 1985
%K Knowledge Representation, Expert Systems, Medical Consultation
Systems, Time-Varying Interpretation, Knowledge-Based Vision. AI01 AI06 AA01
%X
The so-called first generation'' expert systems were rule-based and offered a
successful framework for building applications systems for certain kinds of
tasks. Spatial, temporal and causal reasoning, knowledge abstractions, and
structuring are among topics of research for second generation'' expert
systems.
.sp
It is proposed that one of the keys for such research is \fIknowledge
organization\fP.  Knowledge organization determines control structure design,
explanation and evaluation capabilities for the resultant knowledge base, and
has strong influence on system performance.  We are exploring a framework for
expert system design that focuses on knowledge organization for a specific
class of input data, namely, continuous, time-varying data (image sequences or
other signal forms).  Such data is rich in temporal relationships as well as
temporal changes of spatial relations and is thus a very appropriate testbed
for studies involving spatio-temporal reasoning.  In particular, the
representation facilitates and enforces the semantics of the organization of
knowledge classes along the relationships of generalization / specification,
decomposition / aggregation, temporal precedence, instantiation, and
expectation-activated similarity.
.sp
A hypothesize-and-test control structure is
driven by the class organizational principles, and includes several interacting
dimensions of research (data-driven, model-driven, goal-driven temporal, and
failure-driven search).  The hypothesis ranking scheme is based on temporal
cooperative computation with hypothesis fields of influence'' being defined
by the hypotheses' organizational relationships. This control structure has
proven to be robust enough to handle a variety of interpretation tasks for
continuous temporal data.
.sp
A particular incarnation, the \s-1ALVEN\s0 system, for left ventricular
performance assessment from X-ray image sequences, will be highlighted in this
paper.

%T  On the Adequacy of Predicate Circumscription
for Closed-World Reasoning
%A  David W. Etherington
%A Robert E. Mercer
%A Raymond Reiter
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%D 1985
%K AI15 AI16
%X We focus on McCarthy's method of predicate circumscription in order to
establish various results about its consistency, and about its ability to
conjecture new information. A basic result is that predicate circumscription
cannot account for the standard kinds of default reasoning.  Another is that
predicate circumscription yields no new information about the equality
predicate. This has important consequences for the unique names and domain
closure assumptions.

%T   What is a Heuristic?
%A  Je\(ffry Francis Pelletier and Marc H.J. Romanycia
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 2
%D MAY 1985
%K AI16
%X From the mid-1950's to the present, the notion of a heuristic has
played a crucial role in AI researchers' descriptions of their
work.  What has not been generally noticed is that different
researchers have often applied the term to rather different aspects
of their programs.  Things that would be called a heuristic by
one researcher would not be so called by others.  This is because
many heuristics embody a variety of different features, and the
various researchers have emphasized different ones of these
features as being essential to being a heuristic.  This paper
steps back from any particular research programme and investigates
the question of what things, historically, have been thought to be
central to the notion of a heuristic, and which ones conflict with
others.  After analyzing the previous definitions and examining
current usage of the term, a synthesizing definition is provided.
The hope is that with this broader account of `heuristic' in hand,
researchers can benefit more fully from the insights of others,
even if those insights are couched in a somewhat alien vocabulary.

%T  Analysis by Synthesis in Computational Vision
with Application to Remote Sensing
%A  Robert Woodham
%A E. Catanzariti
%A  Alan Mackworth
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 2
%D MAY 1985
%K AI06
%X
The problem in vision is to determine surface properties from
image properties.  This is difficult because the problem, formally
posed, is underconstrained.  Methods that infer scene properties
from image properties make assumptions about how the world
determines what we see.  In this paper, some of these assumptions
are dealt with explicitly, using examples from remote sensing.
Ancillary knowledge of the scene domain, in the form of a digital
terrain model and a ground cover map, is used to synthesize an
image for a given date and time.  The synthesis process assumes
that surface material is lambertian and is based on simple models of
direct sun illumination, diffuse sky illumination and atmospheric path
radiance.  Parameters of the model are estimated from the real image.
A statistical comparison of the real image and the synthetic image
is used to judge how well the model represents the mapping from
scene domain to image domain.
.sp 1
The methods presented for image synthesis are similar to those
used in computer graphics.  The motivation, however is different.
In graphics, the goal is to produce an effective rendering of the
scene domain.  Here, the goal is to predict properties of real
images.  In vision, one must deal with a confounding of effects
due to surface shape, surface material, illumination, shadows
and atmosphere.  These effects often detract from, rather than
enhance, the determination of invariant scene characteristics.




%T  A Functional Approach to Non-Monotonic Logic
%A Erik Sandewall
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 2
%D MAY 1985
%K AI15 AI16
%X
Axiom sets and their extensions are viewed as functions from the
set of formulas in the language, to a set of four truth-values \fIt\fP,
\fIf\fP, \fIu\fP for undefined, and \fIk\fP for contradiction.  Such functions
form a lattice with `contains less information' and the partial
order \(ib, and `combination of several sources of knowledge' as the
least-upper-bound operation \(IP.
We demonstrate the relevance of this
approach by giving concise proofs for some previously known results
about normal default rules.  For non-monotonic rules in general
(not only normal default rules), we define a stronger version of the
minimality requirement on consistent fixpoints, and prove that
it is sufficient for the existence of a derivation of the fixpoint.

%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 3-4
%D August 1985
%T Generating paraphrases from
meaning-text semantic networks
%A Michel Boyer
%A Guy Lapalme
%K T02
%X
This paper describes a first attempt to base a paraphrase generation system
upon Mel'cuk and Zolkovskij's linguistic Meaning-Text (\s-1MT\s0) model whose
purpose is to establish correspondences between meanings, represented by
networks, and (ideally) all synonymous texts having this meaning.  The system
described in the paper contains a Prolog implementation of a small explanatory
and combinatorial dictionary (the \s-1MT\s0 lexicon) and, using unification
and backtracking, generates from a given network the sentences allowed by the
dictionary and the lexical transformations of the model.  The passage from the
net to the final texts is done through a series of transformations of
intermediary structures that closely correspond to \s-1MT\s0 utterance
representations (semantic, deep-syntax, surface-syntax and morphological
representations).  These are graphs and trees with labeled arcs.  The Prolog
unification (equality predicate) was extended to extract information from these
representations and build new ones.  The notion of utterance path, used by many
authors, is replaced by that of covering by defining subnetworks''.


%T Spatiotemporal inseparability in early vision:
Centre-surround models and velocity selectivity
%A David J. Fleet
%A Allan D. Jepson
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 3-4
%D August 1985
%K AI08 AI06
%X
Several computational theories of early visual processing, such as Marr's
zero-crossing theory, are biologically motivated and based largely on the
well-known difference of Gaussians (\s-1DOG\s0) receptive field model of early
retinal processing.  We examine the physiological relevance of the \s-1DOG\s0,
particularly in the light of evidence indicating significant spatiotemporal
inseparability in the behaviour of retinal cell type.
.LP
>From the form of the inseparability we find that commonly accepted functional
interpretations of retinal processing based on the \s-1DOG\s0, such as the
Laplacian of a Gaussian and zero-crossings, are not valid for time-varying
images.  In contrast to current machine-vision approaches, which attempt to
separate form and motion information at an early stage, it appears that this is
not the case in biological systems.  It is further shown that the qualitative
form of this inseparability provides a convenient precursor to the extraction
of both form and motion information.  We show the construction of efficient
mechanisms for the extraction of orientation and 2-D normal velocity through
the use of a hierarchical computational framework.  The resultant mechanisms
are well localized in space-time, and can be easily tuned to various degrees of
orientation and speed specificity.

%T A theory of schema labelling
%A William Havens
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 3-4
%D August 1985
%K AI16 AI06 AA04
%X
Schema labelling is a representation theory that focuses on composition and
specialization as two major aspects of machine perception.  Previous research
in computer vision and knowledge representation have identified computational
mechanisms for these tasks.  We show that the representational adequacy of
schema knowledge structures can be combined advantageously with the constraint
propagation capabilities of network consistency techniques.  In particular,
composition and specialization can be realized as mutually interdependent
cooperative processes which operate on the same underlying knowledge
representation.  In this theory, a schema is a generative representation for
a class of semantically related objects.  Composition builds a structural
description of the scene from rules defined in each schema.  The scene
description is represented as a network consistency graph which makes
explicit the objects found in the scene and their semantic relationships.
The graph is hierarchical and describes the input scene at varying levels
of detail.  Specialization applies network consistency techniques to refine
the graph towards a global scene description.  Schema labelling is being used
for interpretating hand-printed Chinese characters, and for recognizing
\s-1VLSI\s0 circuit designs from their mask layouts.

%T Hierarchical arc consistency:
Exploring structured domains
in constraint satisfaction problems
%A Alan K. Mackworth
%A Jan A. Mulder
%A  William S. Havens
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 1
%N 3-4
%D August 1985
%K AI03 AI16 AI06
%X
Constraint satisfaction problems can be solved by network consistency
algorithms that eliminate local inconsistencies before constructing global
solutions.  We describe a new algorithm that is useful when the variable
domains can be structured hierarchically into recursive subsets with common
properties and common relationships to subsets of the domain values for related
variables.  The algorithm, \s-1HAC\s0, uses a technique known as hierarchical
arc consistency.  Its performance is analyzed theoretically and the conditions
under which it is an improvement are outlined.  The use of \s-1HAC\s0 in a
program for understanding sketch maps, Mapsee3, is briefly discussed and
experimental results consistent with the theory are reported.

%T  Expression of Syntactic and Semantic Features
in Logic-Based Grammars
%A  Patrick Saint-Dizier
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 1
%D February 1986
%K AI02
%X In this paper we introduce and motivate a formalism to represent syntactic
and semantic features in logic-based grammars.  We also introduce technical
devices to express relations between features and inheritance mechanisms.
This leads us to propose some extensions to the basic unification mechanism
of Prolog.  Finally, we consider the problem of long-distance dependency
relations between constituents in Gapping Grammar rules from the point of
view of morphosyntatic features that may change depending on the position
occupied by the moved'' constituents.  What we propose is not a new
linguistic theory about features, but rather a formalism and a set of tools
that we think to be useful to grammar writers to describe features and their
relations in grammar rules.

%T  Natural Language Understanding and
Theories of Natural Language Semantics
%A  Per-Kristian Halvorsen
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 1
%D February 1986
%K AI02
%X
In these short remarks, I examine the connection between Montague grammar, one
of the most influential theories of natural language semantics during the past
decade, and natural language understanding, one of the most recalcitrant
problems in \(*AI and computational linguistics for more than the last decade.
When we view Montague grammar in light of the requirements of a theory
natural language understanding, new traits become prominent, and highly touted
advantages of the approach become less significant.  What emerges is a new
set of criteria to apply to theories of natural language understanding.  Once
one has this measuring stick in hand, it is impossible to withstand the
temptation of also applying it to the emerging contender to Montague grammar
as a semantic theory, namely situation semantics.

%T  Unrestricted Gapping Grammars
%A  Fred Popowich
%J Computational Intelligence
%V 2
%N 1
%D February 1986
%K AI02
%X
Since Colmerauer's introduction of metamorphosis grammars (MGs), with
their associated type \fIO\fP\(milike grammar rules, there has been a desire
to allow more general rule formats in logic grammars.  Gap symbols were added
to the MG rule by Pereria, resulting in extraposition grammars (XGs).
Gaps, which are referenced by gap symbols, are sequences of zero or more
unspecified symbols which may be present anywhere in a sentence or in a
sentential form.  However, XGs imposed restrictions on the position of gap
symbols and on the contents of gaps.  With the introduction of gapping
grammars (GGs) by Dahl, these restrictions were removed, but the rule was
still required to possess a nonterminal symbol as the first symbol on the
left-hand side.  This restriction is removed with the introduction of
unrestricted gapping grammars.  FIGG, a Flexible Implementation of Gapping
Grammars, possesses a bottom-up parser which can process a large subset of
unrestricted GGs for describing phenomena of natural languages such as free
word order, and partially free word or constituent order.  It can also be used
as a programming language to implement natural language systems which are
based on grammars (or metagrammars) that use the gap concept, such
as Gazdar's generalized phrase structure grammars.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
274
-DATE-
Date: 26 Nov 86 12:41:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: cartan!rathmann@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (the late Michael Ellis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-
> Steve Harnad >> Keith Dancey

>>      [The turing test] should be timed as well as checked for accuracy...
>>      Turing would want a degree of humor...
>>      check for `personal values,' `compassion,'...
>>      should have a degree of dynamic problem solving...
>>      a whole body of psychometric literature which Turing did not consult.
>
>I think that these details are premature and arbitrary. We all know
>(well enough) what people can DO: They can discriminate, categorize,
>manipulate, identify and describe objects and events in the world, and
>they can respond appropriately to such descriptions.

    Just who is being arbitrary here? Qualities like humor, compassion,
    artistic creativity and the like are precisely those which many of us
    consider to be those most characteristic of mind! As to the
    "prematurity" of all this, you seem to have suddenly and most
    conveniently forgotten that you were speaking of a "total turing
    test" -- I presume an ultimate test that would encompass all that we
    mean when we speak of something as having a "mind", a test that is
    actually a generations-long research program.

    As to whether or not "we all know what people do", I'm sure our
    cognitive science people are just *aching* to have you come and tell
    them that us humans "discriminate, categorize, manipulate, identify, and
    describe". Just attach those pretty labels and the enormous preverbal
    substratum of our consciousness just vanishes! Right? Oh yeah, I suppose
    you provide rigorous definitions for these terms -- in your as
    yet unpublished paper...

>Now let's get devices to (1) do it all (formal component) and then
>let's see whether (2) there's anything that we can detect informally
>that distinguishes these devices from other people we judge to have
>minds BY EXACTLY THE SAME CRITERIA (namely, total performance
>capacity). If not, they are turing-indistinguishable and we have no
>non-arbitrary basis for singling them out as not having minds.

    You have an awfully peculiar notion of what "total" and "arbitrary"
    mean, Steve: its not "arbitrary" to exclude those traits that most
    of us regard highly in other beings whom we presume to have minds.
    Nor is it "arbitrary" to exclude the future findings of brain
    research concerning the nature of our so-called "minds". Yet you
    presume to be describing a "total turing test".

    May I suggest that what you describing is not a "test for mind", but
    rather a "test for simulated intelligence", and the reason you will
    not or cannot distinguish between the two is that you would elevate
    today's primitive state of technology to a fixed methodological
    standard for future generations. If we cannot cope with the problem,
    why, we'll just define it away! Right? Is this not, to paraphrase
    Paul Feyerabend, incompetence upheld as a standard of excellence?

>michael

    Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution,
    reality ever new born; you who by constantly shattering our mental
    categories force us to go further and further in our pursuit of the
    truth.

>Pierre Teilhard de Chardin "Hymn of the Universe"

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 27 Nov 86 12:02:50 GMT
-FROM-
From: cartan!rathmann@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (the late Michael Ellis)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Turing Tests and Chinese Rooms
-BODY-
> Ray Trent

>  1) I've always been somewhat suspicious about the Turing Test. (1/2 :-)
>
>     a) does anyone out there have any good references regarding
>        its shortcomings. :-|

    John Searle's notorious "Chinese Room" argument has probably
    drawn out more discussion on this topic in recent times than
    anything else I can think of. As far as I can tell, there seems
    to be no consensus of opinion on this issue, only a broad spectrum
    of philosophical stances, some of them apparently quite angry
    (Hofstadter, for example). The most complete presentation I have yet
    encountered is in the journal for the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
    1980, with a complete statement of Searle's original argument,
    responses by folks like Fodor, Rorty, McCarthy, Dennett, Hofstadter,
    Eccles, etc, and Searle's counterresponse.

    People frequently have misconceptions of just what Searle is arguing,
    the most common of these being:

        Machines cannot have minds.

    What Searle really argues is that:

        The relation (mind:brain :: software:hardware) is fallacious.

        Computers cannot have minds solely by virtue of their running the
        correct program.

    His position seems to derive from his thoughts in the philosophy of
    language, and in particular his notion of Intentionality.
    Familiarity with the work of Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine,
    Austin, Putnam, and Kripke would really be helpful if you are
    interested in the motivation behind this concept, but Searle
    maintains that his Chinese room argument makes sense without any of
    that background.

>michael

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 29 Nov 86 06:52:21 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@lll-crg.arpa  (Stevan Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

Peter O. Mikes <mordor!pom> at S-1 Project, LLNL wrote:

>       An example of ["unexperienced experience"] is subliminal perception.
>       Similar case is perception of outside world during
>       dream, which can be recalled under hypnosis. Perception
>       is not same as experience, and sensation is an ambiguous word.

Subliminal perception can hardly serve as a clarifying example since
its own existence and nature is anything but clearly established.
(See D. Holender (1986) "Semantic activation without conscious
identification," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9: 1 - 66.) If subliminal
perception exists, the question is whether it is just a case of dim or
weak awareness, quickly forgotten, or the unconscious registration of
information. If it is the former, then it is merely a case of a weak
and subsequently forgotten conscious experience. If it is the latter,
then it is a case of unconscious processing -- one of many, for most
processes is unconscious (and studying them is the theoretical burden of
cognitive science).

Dreaming is a similar case. It is generally agreed (from studies in
which subjects are awakened during dreams) that subjects are conscious
during their dreams, although they remain asleep. This state is called
"paradoxical sleep," because the EEG shows signs of active, waking
activity even though the subject's eyes are closed and he continues to
sleep. Easily awakened in that stage of sleep, the subject can report
the contents of his dream, and indicates that he has been consciously
undergoing the experience, like a vivid day-dream or a hallucination.
If the subject is not awakened, however, the dream is usually
forgotten, and difficult if not impossible to recall. (As usual,
recognition memory is stronger than recall, so sometimes cues will be
recognized as having occurred in a forgotten dream.) None of this
bears on the issue of consciousness, since the consciousness during
dreams is relatively unproblematic, and the only other phenomenon
involved is simply the forgetting of an experience.

A third hypothetical possibility is slightly more interesting, but,
unfortunately, virtually untestable: Can there be unconscious
registration of information at time T, and then, at a later time, T1,
conscious recall of that information AS IF it had been experienced
consciously at T? This is a theoretical possibility. It would still
not make the event at T a conscious experience, but it would mean that
input information can be put on "hold" in such a way as to be
retrospectively experienced at a later time. The later experience
would still be a kind of illusion, in that the original event was NOT
actually experienced at T, as it appears to have been upon
reflection. The nervous system is probably playing many temporal (and
causal) tricks like that within very short time intervals; the question
only becomes dramatic when longer intervals (minutes, hours, days) are
interposed between T and T1.

None of these issues are merely definitional ones. It is true that
"perception" and "sensation" are ambiguous, but, fortunately,
"experience" seems to be less so. So one may want to separate
sensations and perceptions into the conscious and unconscious ones.
The conscious ones are the ones that we were consciously aware of
>- i.e., that we experienced -- when they occurred in real time. The
unconscious ones simply registered information in our brains at their
moment of real-time occurrence (without being experienced), and
the awareness, if any, came only later.

>       suggest that we follow the example of acoustics, which solved the
>       'riddle' of falling tree by defining 'sound' as physical effect
>       (density wave) and noise as 'unwanted sound' - so that The tree
>       which falls in deserted place makes sound but does not make noise.
>       Accordingly, perception can be unconcious but experience can't.

Based on the account you give, acoustics solved no problem. It merely
missed the point.

Again, the issue is not a definitional one. When a tree falls, all you
have is acoustic events. If an organism is nearby, you have acoustic
events and auditory events (i.e., physiological events in its nervous
system). If the organism is conscious, it hears a sound. But, unless
you are that organism, you can't know for sure about that. This is
called the mind/body problem. "Noise" and "unwanted sound" has
absolutely nothing to do with it.

>       mind and consciousness (or something like that) should be a universal
>       quantity, which could be applied to machine, computers...
>       Since we know that there is no sharp division between living and
>       nonliving, we should be able to apply the measure to everything

We should indeed be able to apply the concept conscious/nonconscious
to everything, just as we can apply the concept living/nonliving. The
question, however, remains: What is and what isn't conscious? And how are
we to know it?  Here are some commonsense things to keep in mind. I
know of only one case of a conscious entity directly and with
certainty: My own. I infer that other organisms that behave more or
less the way I would are also conscious, although of course I can't be
sure. I also infer that a stone is not conscious, although of course I
can't be sure about that either. The problem is finding a basis for
making the inference in intermediate cases. Certainty will not be
possible in any case but my own. I have argued that the Total Turing
Test is a reasonable empirical criterion for cognitive science and a
reasonable intuitive criterion for the rest of us. Moreover, it has
the virtue of corresponding to the subjectively compelling criterion
we're already using daily in the case of all other minds but our own.
>-

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
275
-DATE-
Date: 28 Nov 86 06:27:20 GMT
-FROM-
From: rutgers!princeton!mind!harnad@titan.arc.nasa.gov  (Stevan
     Harnad)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

Lambert Meertens (lambert@boring.uucp) of CWI, Amsterdam, writes:

>       for me it is not the case that I perceive/experience/
>       am-directly-aware-of my performance being caused by anything.
>       It just happens.

Phenomenology is of course not something it's easy to settle
disagreements about, but I think I can say with some confidence that
most people experience their (voluntary) behavior as caused by THEM.
My point about free will's being an illusion is a subtler one. I am
not doubting that we all experience our voluntary actions as freely
willed by ourselves. That EXPERIENCE is certainly real, and no
illusion. What I am doubting is that our will is actually the cause of our
actions, as it seems to be. I think our actions are caused by our
brain activity (and its causes) BEFORE we are aware of having willed
them, and that our experience of willing and causing them involves a
temporal illusion (see S. Harnad [1982] "Consciousness: An afterthought,"
Cognition and Brain Theory 5: 29 - 47, and B. Libet [1986]
"Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in
voluntary action," Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 529 - 566.)

Of course, my task of supporting this position would be much easier if
the phenomenology you describe were more prevalent...

>       How do I know I have a mind?... The problem is that if you
>       look up "mind" in an English-Dutch dictionary, some eight
>       translations are suggested.

The mind/body problem is not just a lexical one; nor can it be settled by
definitions. The question "How do I know I have a mind?" is synonymous
with the question "How do I know I am experiencing anything at all
[now, rather than just going through the motions AS IF I were having
experience, but in fact being only an insentient automaton]?"
And the answer is: By direct, first-hand experience.

>       "Consciousness" is more like "appetite"...  How can we know for
>       sure that other people have appetites as well?... "Can machines
>       have an appetite?"

I quite agree that consciousness is like appetite. Or, to put it more
specifically: If consciousness is the ability to have (or the actual
having of) experience in general, appetite is a particular experience
most conscious subjects have. And, yes, the same questions that apply to
consciousness in general apply to appetite in particular. But I'm
afraid that this conclusion was not your objective here...

>       Now why is consciousness "real", if free will is an illusion?
>       Or, rather, why should the thesis that consciousness is "real"
>       be more compelling than the analogous thesis for free will?
>       In either case, the essential argument is: "Because I [the
>       proponent of that thesis] have direct, immediate, evidence of it."

The difference is that in the case of the (Cartesian) thesis of the
reality of consciousness (or mind) the question is whether there is
any qualitative, subjective experience going on AT ALL, whereas in the
case of the thesis of the reality of free will the question is whether
the dictates of a particular CONTENT of experience (namely, the causal
impression it gives us) is true of the world. The latter, like the
existence of the outside world itself, is amenable to doubt. But the former,
namely, THAT we are experiencing anything at all, is not open to doubt,
and is settled by the very act of experiencing something. That is the
celebrated Cartesian Cogito.

>       Sometimes we are conscious of certain sensations. Do these
>       sensations disappear if we are not conscious of them?  Or do they go
>       on on a subconscious level?  That is like the question "If a falling
>       tree..."

The following point is crucial to a coherent discussion of the
mind/body problem: The notion of an unconscious sensation (or, more
generally, an unconscious experience) is a contradiction in terms!

[Test it in the form: "unexperienced experience." Whatever might that
mean? Don't answer. The Viennese delegation (as Nabokov used to call
it) has already made almost a century's worth of hermeneutic hay with the
myth of the "subconscious" -- a manifest nonsolution to the mind/body
problem that simply consisted of multiplying the mystery by two. The problem
isn't the unconscious causation of behavior: If we were all
unconscious automata there would be no mind/body problem. The problem
is conscious experience. And anthropomorphizing the sizeable portion
of our behavior that we DON'T have the illusion of being the cause of
is not only no solution to the mind/body problem but not even a
contribution to the problem of finding the unconscious causes of
behavior -- which calls for cognitive theory, not hermeneutics.]

It would be best to stay away from the usually misunderstood and
misused problem of the "unheard sound of the falling tree." Typically
used to deride philosophers, the unheard last laugh is usually on the derider.

>       Let us agree that the sensations continue at least if it can be
>       shown that the person involved keeps behaving as if the concomitant
>       sensations continued, even though professing in retrospection not
>       to have been aware of them.  So people can be afraid without
>       realizing it, say, or drive a car without being conscious of the
>       traffic lights (and still halt for a red light).

I'm afraid I can't agree with any of this. A sensation may be experienced and
then forgotten, and then perhaps again remembered. That's unproblematic,
but that's not the issue here, is it? The issue is either (1)
unexperienced sensations (which I suggest is a completely incoherent
notion) or (2) unconsciously caused or guided behavior. The latter is
of course the category most behavior falls into. So unconscious
stopping for a red light is okay; so is unconscious avoidance or even
unconscious escape. But unconscious fear is another matter, because
fear is an experience, not a behavior (and, as I've argued, the
concept of an unconscious experience is self-contradictory).

If I may anticipate what I will be saying below: You seem to have
altogether too much intuitive confidence in the explanatory
power of the concept and phenomenology of memory in your views on the
mind/body problem. But the problem is that of immediate, ongoing
qualitative experience. Anything else -- including the specifics of the
immediate content of the experience (apart from the fact THAT it is an
experience) and its relation to the future, the past or the outside
world --  is open to doubt and is merely a matter of inference, rather
than one of direct, immediate certainty in the way experiential matters
are. Hence whereas veridical memories and continuities may indeed happen
to be present in our immediate experiences, there is no direct way that
we can know that they are in fact veridical. Directly, we know only
that they APPEAR to be veridical. But that's how all phenomenological
experience is: An experience of how things appear. Sorting out what's
what is an indirect, inferential matter, and that includes sorting out
the experiences that I experience correctly as remembered from those
that are really only "deja vu." (This is what much of the writing on
the problem of the continuity of personal identity is concerned with.)

>       Maybe everything is conscious.  Maybe stones are conscious...
>       Their problem is, they can hardly tell us.  The other problem is,
>       they have no memory...  They are like us with that traffic light...
>       Even if we experience something consciously, if we lose all
>       remembrance of it, there is no way in which we can tell for sure
>       that there was a conscious experience.  Maybe we can infer
>       consciousness by an indirect argument, but that doesn't count.
>       Indirect evidence can be pretty strong, but it can never give
>       certainty.  Barring false memories, we can only be sure if we
>       remember the experience itself.

Stones have worse problems than not being able to tell us they're
conscious and not being able to remember. And the mind/problem is not
solved by animism (attributing conscious experience to everything); It
is merely compounded by it. The question is: Do stones have
experiences? I rather doubt it, and feel that a good part of the M/B
problem is sorting out the kinds of things that do have experiences from
the kinds of things, like stones, that do not (and how, and why,
functionally speaking).

If we experience something, we experience it consciously. That's what
"experience" means. Otherwise it just "happens" to us (e.g., when we're
distracted, asleep, comatose or dead), and then we may indeed be like the
stone (rather than vice versa). And if we forget an experience, we
forget it. So what? Being conscious of it does not consist in or
depend on remembering it, but on actually experiencing it at the time.
The same is true of remembering a previously forgotten experience:
Maybe it was so, maybe it wasn't. The only thing we are directly
conscious of is that we experience it AS something remembered.

Inference may be involved in trying to determine whether or not a
memory is veridical, but it is certainly not involved in determining
THAT I am having any particular conscious experience. That fact is
ascertained directly. Indeed it is the ONLY fact of consciousness, and
it is immediate and incorrigible. The particulars of its content, on
the other hand -- what an experience indicates about the outside world, the
past, the future, etc. -- are indirect, inferential matters. (To put
it another way, there is no way to "bar false memories." Experiences
wear their experientiality on their ears, so to speak, but all of the
rest of their apparel could be false, and requires inference for
indirect confirmation.)

>       If some things we experience do not leave a recallable trace, then
>       why should we say that they were experienced consciously?  Or, why
>       shouldn't we maintain the position that stones are conscious
>       as well?...  More useful, then, to use "consciousness" only for
>       experiences that are, somehow, recallable.

These stipulations would be arbitrary (and probably false). Moreover,
they would simply fail to be faithful to our direct experience -- to
"what it's like" to have an experience. The "recallability" criterion
is a (weak) external one we apply to others, and to ourselves when
we're wondering whether or not something really happened. But when
we're judging whether we're consciously experiencing a tooth-ache NOW,
recallability has nothing to do with it. And if we forget the
experience (say, because of subsequent anesthesia) and never recall it
again, that would not make the original experience any less conscious.

>       the things that go on in our heads are stored away: in order to use for
>       determining patterns, for better evaluation of the expected outcome of
>       alternatives, for collecting material that is useful for the
>       construction or refinement of the model we have of the outside world,
>       and so on.

All these conjectures about the functions of memory and other
cognitive processes are fine, but they do not provide (nor can they
provide) the slightest hint as to why all these functional and
behavioral objectives are not simply accomplished UNconsciously. This
shows as graphically as anything how the mind/body problem is
completely bypassed by such functional considerations. (This is also
why I have been repeatedly recommending "methodological
epiphenomenalism" as a research strategy in cognitive modeling.)

>       Imagine now a machine programmed to "eat" and also to keep up
>       some dinner conversation... IF hunger THEN eat... equipped with
>       a conflict-resolution module... dinner-conversation module...
>       Speaking anthropomorphically, we would say that the machine is
>       feeling uneasy... apology submodule... PROBABLE CAUSE OF eat
>       IS appetite...  "<<SELF, having, appetite>... <goodness, 0.6785>>"
>       How different are we from that machine?

On the information you give here, the difference is likely to be like
night and day. What you have described is a standard anthropomorphic
interpretation of simple symbol-manipulations. Overzealous AI workers
do it all the time. What I believe is needed is not more
over-interpretation of the pathetically simple toy tricks that current
programs can perform, but an effort to model life-size performance
capacity: The Total Turing Test. That will diminish the degrees of
freedom of the model to the size of the normal underdetermination of
scientific theories by their data, and it will augment the problem of
machine minds to the size of the other-minds problem, with which we
are already dealing daily by means of the TTT.

In the process of pursuing that distant scientific goal, we may come to
know certain constraints on the enterprise, such as: (1) Symbol-manipulation
alone is not sufficient to pass the TTT. (2) The capacity to pass the TTT
does not arise from a mere accretion of toy modules. (3) There is no autonomous
symbolic macromodule or level: Symbolic representations must be grounded in
nonsymbolic processes. And if methodological epiphenomenalism is
faithfully adhered to, the only interpretative question we will ever need
to ask about the mind of the candidate system will be precisely the
same one we ask about one another's minds; and it will be answered on
precisely the same basis as the one we use daily in dealing with the
other-minds problem: the TTT.

>       if we ponder a question consciously... I think the outcome is not
>       the result of the conscious process, but, rather, that the
>       consciousness is a side-effect of the conflict-resolution
>       process going on. I think the same can be said about all "conscious"
>       processes. The process is there, anyway; it could (in principle) take
>       place without leaving a trace in memory, but for functional reasons
>       it does leave such a trace. And the word we use for these cognitive
>       processes that we can recall as having taken place is "conscious".

Again, your account seems to be influenced by certain notions, such as
memory and "conflict-resolution," that appear to be carrying more intuitive
weight than they can bear. Not only is the issue not that of "leaving
a trace" (as mentioned earlier), but there is no real functional
argument here for why all this shouldn't or couldn't be accomplished
unconsciously. [However, if you substitute for "side-effect" the word
"epiphenomenon," you may be calling things by their proper name, and
providing (inadevertently) a perfectly good rationale for ignoring them
in trying to devise a model to pass the TTT.]

>       it is functional that I can raise my arm by "willing" it to raise,
>       although I can use that ability to raise it gratuitously. If the
>       free will here is an illusion (which I think is primarily a matter
>       of how you choose to define something as elusive as "free will"),
>       then so is the free will to direct your attention now to this,
>       then to that.  Rather than to say that free will is an "illusion",
>       we might say that it is something that features in the model
>       people have about "themselves".  Similarly, I think it is better to say
>       that consciousness is not so much an illusion, but rather something to
>       be found in that model. A relatively recent acquisition of that model
is
>       known as the "subconscious".  A quite recent addition are "programs",
>       "sub-programs", "wrong wiring", etc.

My arm seems able to rise in two important ways: voluntarily and
involuntarily (I don't know what "gratuitously" means). It is not a
matter of definition that we feel as if we are causing the motion in
the voluntary case; it is a matter of immediate experience. Whether
or not that experience is veridical depends on various other factors,
such as the true order of the events in question (brain activity,
conscious experience, movement) in real time, and the relation of the
experiential to the physical (i.e., whether or not it can be causal). The
same question does indeed apply to willed changes in the focus of
attention. If free will "is something that features in the model
people have of 'themselves'," then the question to ask is whether that
model is illusory. Consciousness itself cannot be something found in
a model (although the concept of consciousness might be) because
consciousness is simple the capacity to have (or the having of)
experience. (My responses to the concept of the "subconscious" and the
over-interpretation of programs and symbols are described earlier in
this module.

>       A sufficiently "intelligent" machine, able to pass not only the
>       dinner-conversation test but also a sophisticated Turing test,
>       must have a model of itself. Using that model, and observing its
>       own behaviour (including "internal" behaviour!), it will be led to
>       conclude not only that it has an appetite, but also volition and
>       awareness...Is it mistaken then? Is the machine taken in by an
illusion?
>       "Can machines have illusions?"

What a successful candidate for the TTT will have to have is not
something we can decide by introspection. Doing hermeneutics on its
putative inner life before we build it would seem to be putting the
cart before the horse. The question whether machines can have
illusions (or appetites, or fears, etc.) is simply a variant on the
basic question of whether any organism or device other than oneself
can have experiences.
>-

Stevan Harnad                                  (609) - 921 7771
{allegra, bellcore, seismo, rutgers, packard}  !princeton!mind!harnad
harnad%mind@princeton.csnet

>-----------------------------
-END-
-VOL-
4

-N-
276
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 86 09:24:05 est
-FROM-
From: Walter Hamscher <hamscher@ht.ai.mit.edu>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Proposed: a split of this group
-BODY-
I empathize with the spirit of the motion.  But is it really
neccessary to split the list?  I think Ken does a really good
thing by putting warning labels on the philosophical
discussions: they're easy to skip over if you're not interested.
As long as he's willing to put the time into doing that, there's
no need for a split.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Mon 1 Dec 86 10:10:19-PST
-FROM-
From: Stephen Barnard <BARNARD@SRI-IU.ARPA>
-SUBJECT-
Subject: One vote against splitting the list
-BODY-
I for one would not like to see the AI-list divided into two --- one
for "philosophising about" AI and one for "doing" AI.  Even those of
us who do AI sometimes like to read and think about philosophical
issues.  The problem, if there is one, is that certain people have
been abusing the free access to the list that Ken rightfully
encourages.  Let's please keep our postings to a reasonable volume
(per contributor).  The list is not supposed to be anyone's personal
soapbox.

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: 1 Dec 86 18:48:31 GMT
-FROM-
From: ihnp4!houxm!houem!marty1@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (M.BRILLIANT)
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Re: Proposed: a split of this group
-BODY-
Just suggested by jbn@glacier.UUCP (John Nagle):

>     I would like to suggest that this group be split into two groups;
>one about "doing AI" and one on "philosophising about AI", the latter
>to contain the various discussions about Turing tests, sentient computers,
>and suchlike.

Good idea.  I was beginning to think the discussions of "when is an
artifice intelligent" might belong in "talk.ai."  I was looking for
articles about how to do AI, and not finding any.  The trouble is,
"comp.ai.how-to" might have no traffic at all.

We seem to be trying to "create artificial intelligence," with the
intent that we can finally achieve success at some point (if only we
knew how to define success).  Why don't we just try always to create
something more intelligent than we created before?  That way we can not
only claim nearly instant success, but also continue to have further
successes without end.

Would the above question belong in "talk.ai" or "comp.ai.how-to"?

                                                Marty
M. B. Brilliant         (201)-949-1858
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520       houem!marty1

>-----------------------------
-END-
-DATE-
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1986  22:27 EST
-FROM-
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
-SUBJECT-
Subject: Searle, Turing, Symbols, Categories
-BODY-

Lambert Meertens asks:

     If some things we experience do not leave a recallable trace,
     then why should we say that they were experienced consciously?

I absolutely agree.  In my book, "The Society of Mind", which will be
published in January, I argue, with Meertens, that the phenomena we
call consciousness are involved with our short term memories.  This
explains why, as he Meertens suggests, it makes little sense to
attribute consciousness to rocks.  It also means that there are limits
to what consciousness can tell us about itself.  In order to do
perfect self-experiments upon ourselves, we would need perfect records
of what happens inside our memory machinery.  But any such machinery
must get confused by self-experiments that try to find out how it
works - since such experiments must change the very records that
they're trying to inspect!  This doesn't mean that consciousness
cannot be understood, in principle.  It only means that, to study it,
we'll have to use the methods of science, because we can't rely on
introspection.

   Below are a few more extracts from the book that bear
   on this issue.  If you want to get the book itself, it is
   being published by Simon and Schuster; it will be printed
   around New Year but won't get to bookstores until mid-February.
   If you want it sooner, send me your address and I should be
   able to send copies early in January.  (Price will be 18.95 or
   less.)  Or send name of your bookstore so I can get S&S to
   lobby the bookstore.  They don't seem very experienced at books
   in the AI-Psychology-Philosophy area.

In Section 15.2 I argue that although people usually assume that
consciousness is knowing what is happening in the minds, right at the
present time, consciousness never is really concerned with the
present, but with how we think about the records of our recent
thoughts.  This explains why our descriptions of consciousness are so
queer: whatever people mean to say, they just can't seem to make it
clear.  We feel we know what's going on, but can't describe it
properly.  How could anything seem so close, yet always keep beyond
our reach?  I answer, simply because of how thinking about our short
term memories changes them!

Still, there is a sense in which thinking about a thought is like from
thinking about an ordinary thing.  Our brains have various agencies
that learn to recognize to recognize - and even name - various
patterns of external sensations.  Similarly, there must be other
agencies that learn to recognize events *inside* the brain - for
example, the activities of the agencies that manage memories.  And
those, I claim, are the bases of the awarenesses we recognize as
consciousness.  There is nothing peculiar about the idea of sensing
events inside the brain; it is as easy for an agent (that is, a small
portion of the brain)  to be wired to detect a *brain-caused
brain-event*, as to detect a world-caused brain-event.  Indeed only a
small minority of our agents are connected directly to sensors in the
outer world, like those that sense the signals coming from the eye or
skin;  most of the agents in the brain detect events inside of the
brain!  IN particular, I claim that to understand what we call
consciousness, we must understand the activities of the agents that
are engaged in using and changing our most recent memories.

Why, for example, do we become less conscious of some things when we
become more conscious of others?  Surely this is because some resource
is approaching some limitation - and I'll argue that it is our limited
capacity to keep good records of our recent thoughts.  Why, for
example, do thoughts so often seem to flow in serial streams?  It is
because whenever we lack room for both, the records of our recent
thoughts must then displace the older ones.  And why are we so unaware
of how we get our new ideas?  Because whenever we solve hard problems,
our short term memories become so involved with doing *that* that they
have neither time nor space for keeping detailed records of what they,
themselves, have done.

To think about our most recent thoughts, we must examine our recent
memories.  But these are exactly what we use for "thinking," in the
first place - and any self-inspecting probe is prone to change just
what it's looking at.  Then the system is likely to break down.  It is
hard enough to describe something with a stable shape; it is even
harder to describe something that changes its shape before your eyes;
and it is virtually impossible to speak of the shapes of things that
change into something else each time you try to think of them.  And
that's what happens when you try to think about your present thoughts
> since each such thought must change your mental state!  Would any
process not become confused, which alters what it's looking at?

What do we mean by words like "sentience," "consciousness," or
"self-awareness?  They all seem to refer to the sense of feeling one's
mind at work.  When you say something like "I am conscious of what I'm
saying," your speaking agencies must use some records about the recent
activity of other agencies.  But, what about all the other agents and
activities involved in causing everything you say and do?  If you were
truly self-aware, why wouldn't you know those other things as well?
There is a common myth that what we view as consciousness is
measurelessly deep and powerful - yet, actually, we scarcely know a
thing about what happens in the great computers of our brains.

Why is it so hard to describe your present state of mind?  One reason
is that the time-delays between the different parts of a mind mean
that the concept of a "present state" is not a psychologically sound
idea.  Another reason is that each attempt to reflect upon your mental
state will change that state, and this means that trying to know your
state is like photographing something that is moving too fast: such
pictures will be always blurred.  And in any case, our brains did not
evolve primarily to help us describe our mental states; we're more
engaged with practical things, like making plans and carrying them
out.

When people ask, "Could a machine ever be conscious?" I'm often
tempted to ask back, "Could a person ever be conscious?"  I mean this
as a serious reply, because we seem so ill equipped to understand
ourselves.  Long before we became concerned with understanding how we
work, our evolution had already constrained the architecture of our
brains.  However we can design our new machines as we wish, and
provide them with better ways to keep and examine records of their own
activities - and this means that machines are potentially capable of
far more consciousness than we are.  To be sure, simply providing
machines with such information would not automatically enable them to
use it to promote their own development and until we can design more
sensible machines, such knowledge might only help them find more ways
to fail: the easier to change themselves, the easier to wreck
themselves - until they learn to train themselves.  Fortunately, we
can leave this problem to the designers of the future, who surely
would not build such things unless they found good reasons to.

(Section 25.4)  Why do we have the sense that things proceed in
smooth, continuous ways?  Is it because, as some mystics think, our
minds are part of some flowing stream?  think it's just the opposite:
our sense of constant steady change emerges from the parts of mind
that manage to insulate themselves against the continuous flow of
time!  In other words, our sense of smooth progression from one mental
state to another emerges, not from the nature of that progression
itself, but from the descriptions we use to represent it.  Nothing can
*seem* jerky, except what is *represented* as jerky.  Paradoxically,
our sense of continuity comes not from any genuine perceptiveness, but
from our marvelous insensitivity to most kinds of changes.  Existence
seem continuous to us, not because we continually experience what is
happening in the present, but because we hold to our memories of how
things were in the recent past.  Without those short-term memories,
all would seem entirely new at every instant, and we would have no
sense at all of continuity, or of existence.

One might suppose that it would be wonderful to possess a faculty of
"continual awareness."  But such an affliction would be worse than
useless because, the more frequently your higher-level agencies change
their representations of reality, the harder for them to find
significance in what they sense.  The power of consciousness comes not
from ceaseless change of state, but from having enough stability to
discern significant changes in your surroundings.  To "notice" change
requires the ability to resist it, in order to sense what persists
through time, but one can do this only by being able to examine and
compare descriptions from the recent past.  We notice change in spite
of change, and not because of it. Our sense of constant contact with
the world is not a genuine experience; instead, it is a form of what I
call the "Immanence illusion".  We have the sense of actuality when
every question asked of our visual systems is answered so swiftly that
it seems as though those answers were already there.  And that's what
frame-arrays provide us with: once any frame fills its terminals, this
also fills the terminals of the other frames in its array.  When every
change of view engages frames whose terminals are already filled,
albeit only by default, then sight seems instantaneous.